diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b0be6d83c7b5bdddf81e7a01981b14a3c7f981d --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,251 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ראש השנה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Moed" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "There are two main topics covered in tractate Rosh Hashanah. The first is the sanctification of the new month and the new year. By “sanctification” I refer to the court’s decision which day shall be the first of the new month or new year—this decision gives the day sanctity. The second topic is the shofar and the liturgy on Rosh Hashanah. ", + "Today the Jewish lunar calendar is set—the day on which each month will begin is predetermined as are the lengths of each month. In mishnaic times the length of each month was not set. Rather each month they would determine when the new month would begin based on the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon. If the witnesses came to testify on the thirtieth day of the previous month, then that day would become Rosh Hodesh (the first of the month) of the next month and it would turn out that the old month had only twenty-nine days. If witnesses did not come, or they came but their testimony was not accepted in time, then the previous month would have thirty days and the new month would begin on the thirty-first day. Usually, the calendar would alternate between twenty-nine day months and thirty day months because a lunar month is about 29 ½ days long. ", + "The sanctification of the new month was done by an authorized court and it was done with quite a bit of ceremonial flourish, as we shall see. We will also see some hotly contested disputes within the chapter concerning accepting testimony to sanctify the month. We need to realize that in the Second Temple period the calendar was one of the most divisive issues between sects of Jews. Some Jews used a solar calendar (notably the Dead Sea sect), whereas the Pharisees and subsequently the rabbis used a lunar calendar. This meant that different sect’s holidays fell at different times and it meant that people would have disagreed when holiday sacrifices should be offered at the Temple. ", + "According to the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is the first month of the year and not Tishrei, which is called by the Torah “the seventh month.” The first day of the seventh month is referred to in Leviticus 23:23-25, “Speak to the children of Israel saying: In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts. You shall not work and you shall bring an offering by fire to the Lord.” Numbers 29:1-6 further describes the day’s sacrifices, calling it “a day of blasts.” In the Torah, this day is not called the first of the new year.", + "Only in rabbinic tradition is this day called “Rosh Hashanah”, although as we will see in the first mishnah, there are also other days that are considered the beginnings of a new year. We should also note that the concept that Rosh Hashanah is “the Day of Judgment” appears first in rabbinic literature. This theme was probably derived from the atonement aspect of Yom Kippur. If Yom Kippur is the “Day of Atonement” then there must be a judgment which needs to be avoided. In the Bible itself, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah are unconnected holidays. ", + "According to the Torah Rosh Hashanah is only one day. However, because of the problem of not knowing ahead of time what day Rosh Hashanah falls on, in other words, not knowing whether the previous month (Elul) was twenty-nine days or thirty days, led to Rosh Hashanah always being observed for two days. This is also true for Rosh Hodesh when the previous month was a thirty day month—it too is observed for two days. The difference is that Rosh Hashanah is observed on the first two days of Tishrei, whereas a two-day Rosh Hodesh is observed on the last day of the previous month and the first day of the new month. This is at least partly because Elul now has only 29 days. ", + "A major portion of the last two chapters is dedicated to the laws of the shofar and to the special prayers on Rosh Hashanah. These are still the two aspects of Rosh Hashanah most prominent in our lives. We shall discuss them in far greater depth when we learn those chapters. ", + "Good luck in learning Rosh Hashanah. It is an extremely interesting tractate—I’m sure you will enjoy it. \n" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis famous mishnah gives four new years and explains the halakhic significance of each of each of them.", + "There are four new years:
The first of Nisan is the new year for kings and for festivals. The order of the new years in this mishnah reflects the order of the months in the Torah. In the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is considered to be the first month of the year, so it is listed here first. The first of Nisan is new year for the kings, which means that we count the years in which a king has ruled from the first of Nisan. The reason why this is important is that in those times they would date their documents by the years in which the king had ruled. In order for a document to be valid, therefore, one needed to know if which year of the king’s rule this was. “For festivals” means that Pesah is considered to be the first festival of the year. The reason that this is important is that it impacts someone who makes a vow to bring something to the Temple. Rabbi Shimon holds that he has three festivals to bring the vow-offering, and that the count of those three festivals begins on Pesah. So if he makes a vow after Pesah, he doesn’t begin counting the three festival time-limit until the following Pesah.", + "The first of Elul is the new year for the tithe of beasts. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: the first of Tishri. The first of Elul is the Rosh Hashanah for tithing animals. When tithing animals, one groups them by year. The first of Elul is the beginning of the next year, so any animals born on or after this date count toward the next year’s tithe and not towards those animals that need to be tithed from the previous year. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon disagree concerning tithes. They hold that just as tithes for vegetables are fixed on the first of Tishri (see below), so too are tithes for animals.", + "The first of Tishri is the new year for years, for shmitta and jubilee years, for planting and for [tithe of] vegetables. The first of Tishri, what we today call Rosh Hashanah, is the new year for “years.” This means that when we count what year it is, we count from the first of Tishri. This is how we still count the years today. Many other commentators take this to mean that counts based on the rule of non-Jewish kings are based on Tishri being the start of the new year. The shmitta (Sabbatical) and Jubilee years begin on the first of Tishri meaning from this date all of the prohibitions and regulations concerning the Sabbatical and Jubilee years begin to take effect. This is also the new year for “planting” trees, meaning that we count the number of years a tree has grown starting on the first of Tishri. This is important in order to know when it stops being “orlah” fruit which is prohibited during the trees first three years. Finally, the first of Tishri is the Rosh Hashanah for the tithes of vegetables. Vegetables that were picked before Tishri are not tithed with vegetables picked afterwards.", + "The first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: on the fifteenth of that month. The two houses debate the date of the new year for trees: Bet Shammai holds that it is on the first of Shevat, and Bet Hillel holds that it is on the fifteenth (Tu B’shvat). The importance of this new year is that fruit which has begun to sprout on the tree before this date is not tithed with fruit that spouts afterwards." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists four points of the year in which the world is judged as to the outcome of certain essential aspects of life. As we shall see, three of them are connected to agricultural holidays and events, whereas the fourth, the judgment on Rosh Hashanah, is more of a moral/religious judgment.", + "At four set times the world is judged:
On Pesah in respect to the produce. In the land of Israel, the grain harvest begins around Pesah time. Indeed, this is why the Omer offering, which is brought from the first barley harvested, begins to be offered on the second day of Pesah. The mishnah teaches that on Pesah the world is judged as to how successful the produce harvest will be.", + "On Shavuot in respect to the fruit of the tree. On Shavuot the harvest of the fruits of the tree begins. Specifically, this seems to be when grapes begin to ripen. Hence, according to the rabbis this is when the world is judged as to the harvest of fruits which come from the tree.", + "On Rosh Hashanah all the people of the world pass before Him like a division of soldier [a numerus], as it says, “He who fashions the hearts of them all, who discerns all their doings” (Psalms 33:15). This is the central section in this mishnah, the reason why this mishnah is here in Rosh Hashanah. This is the source where we learn for the first time that on Rosh Hashanah the world is judged. The image that the mishnah creates is that all the people of the world, perhaps even non-Jews, come in front of God one at a time and God inspects them. He is like their general and they are his soldiers, standing at attention and being judged by Him. The word “numerus” was interpreted by Saul Lieberman, the premier Talmudic scholar of the past century, as referring to an army division. The version in the mishnah was understood by later talmudic scholars who did not know Greek, as “kivne meron”, understood to refer to the sheep on the Meron mountain. This led to the well-known image of people passing in front of God like sheep passing in front of a shepherd. The point of the prooftext is that God who is the creator of the human heart, also looks at what a person does and judges each one according to his deeds.", + "And on Sukkot they are judged in respect of rain. In the land of Israel, the rainy season begins on Sukkot. Hence, on Sukkot the people of the world are judged as to how much rain will come. To this day, on Sukkot Jews begin to pray for rain and add into the Amidah an acknowledgement that God causes the wind to blow and the rain to come down. Rain and prayers for rain is a topic to which we will return when we learn tracate Taanit." + ], + [ + "There are six months [at the beginning of which] messengers go out.
On Nisan because of Pesah;
On Av because of the fast.
On Elul because of Rosh Hashanah.
On Tishri because of the setting of the festivals.
On Kislev because of Hanukah.
And on Adar because of Purim.
When the Temple stood, they used also to go out to report Iyar because of Pesah Katan (Pesah.
In order to know what date holidays would fall on, people would need to know on what day the previous month had begun. This would be simple for those living in and near Jerusalem because they could immediately find out whether the court had decreed the thirtieth day of the previous month to be Rosh Hodesh. Our mishnah teaches that they used to send out messengers from Jerusalem so that people who lived further away could also find out when Rosh Hodesh had been decreed. However, they did not send these messengers out every month of the year, only on months which contained holidays.
Most of this mishnah is self-explanatory. Note that messengers do not need to go out for Shavuot because once one knows when Pesah falls, the date of Shavuot is known automatically.
Section two: “The fast” refers to Tisha B’av, the Ninth of Av.
Section three: Messengers would go out on Elul so that people would be able to celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the thirtieth day of Elul, lest that day turns out to be the first of Tishri. They would celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the next day as well, lest Elul has thirty days.
Section four: On Tishri the messengers would go out so that people would know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall.
Section seven: Pesah Sheni was the second chance for people to offer the pesah sacrifice if they did not offer it the first time (see Numbers 9:10-11 and Mishnah Pesahim 9:1). After the destruction of the Temple this holiday lost any practical relevance. We should note that by noting that when the Temple stood messengers went out for Pesah Sheni the mishnah also teaches that for all of the rest of the holidays the messengers still go out. After the destruction of the Temple only Pesah Sheni has lost its relevance." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs we stated in the introduction, in mishnaic times they set the calendar each month based on the testimony of witnesses who would come to the central court and testified that they had seen the new moon. Our mishnah teaches that on two months in order to testify that they had seen the new moon the witnesses may even profane Shabbat. We shall explain what is special about these two months below. What is critical is that the rabbis perceived it to be so critical that these witnesses come on time that they even allowed Shabbat to be profaned. Shabbat might need to be profaned if, for instance, the witnesses had to travel beyond the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) in order to get to Jerusalem to testify.", + "On account of two months they profane Shabbat: on account of Nissan and Tishri, for on those months messengers go forth to Syria and in them the dates of the festivals are fixed. There are two months on which witnesses may come to testify even if they need to profane Shabbat Nissan and Tishri. This is because on those days the dates of the holidays, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Pesah and Shavuot were set. Once we know when the first day of Nissan is we know when Pesah is, and we know when Shavuot will be as well. Similarly, once we know when the first of Tishri falls, we know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall. The messengers would go forth to Syria, meaning to the Diaspora, and let them know when the festivals would fall. Therefore, it was critical that they find out what day Rosh Hodesh was as soon as possible.", + "When the Temple stood they used to profane Shabbat for all the months, in order that the sacrifice might be offered on the right day. In the Temple there was a special sacrifice offered on Rosh Hodesh. Hence, it was essential that the witnesses testify on time every month so that the sacrifice would be offered on the correct day. Hence, they could profane Shabbat in order to get to Jerusalem to testify concerning any of the months. ." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a qualification of yesterday’s mishnah, regarding when the witnesses may profane Shabbat in order to travel to Jerusalem to testifythat they had seen the new moon.", + "Whether [the new moon] was seen clearly or was not seen clearly, they profane Shabbat on account of it. Rabbi Yose says: if it was been seen clearly they do not profane Shabbat on account of it. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, witnesses can profane Shabbat in order to come to Jerusalem and testify regardless of whether the new moon was seen clearly or not. Rabbi Yose holds that if the new moon was seen clearly in a place somewhat far away from Jerusalem, then it was probably seen clearly in Jerusalem as well. In such a case witnesses would have seen it in Jerusalem and since they live close, they would not have to profane Shabbat in order to testify. Therefore those outside of Jerusalem should assume that those closer had testified and that they don’t need to come and profane Shabbat. The other sages disagree, reasoning that if you tell witnesses not to profane Shabbat when the new moon is seen clearly, they might end up not profaning Shabbat when the moon is not seen clearly, i.e. when they should profane Shabbat. Anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah illustrates a concept which we mentioned at the end of yesterday’s mishnah-- anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged.", + "It happened that more than forty pairs of witnesses were on their way [to Jerusalem] and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him saying: if you prevent the multitude [from coming to provide testimony] it will turn out that you cause them to stumble in the future. The mishnah describes Rabbi Akiva in Lod holding back witnesses who were about to make their way to Jerusalem to testify that they had seen the new moon. Rabbi Akiva detains the because he reasons that there is no need for so many witnesses to testify; after all, two would seem to be sufficient. Commentators add that this transpired on Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva did not think it was necessary for forty pairs of witnesses to profane Shabbat, when only two were needed, so he held the unneeded pairs back. Rabban Gamaliel rebuked Rabbi Akiva for his actions. Witnesses who were told not to go to Jerusalem to testify would not go next time they see the new moon, and perhaps that time they would actually be needed. This is what he means when he says, “cause them to stumble.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a father and a son jointly testifying that they had seen the new moon. In normal cases the testimony of relatives may not be joined in order to add up to the required two witnesses. However, some sages, as we shall see below, hold that in the case of testifying regarding the new moon the joint testimony of relatives is acceptable.", + "If a father and a son have seen the new moon, they should both go [to Jerusalem], not that they can join together as witnesses but so that if one of them is disqualified the other may join with another witness. According to the first opinion in this mishnah, a father and son’s testimony is not joined together. However, they should nevertheless travel together to Jerusalem, for should one of them be disqualified, the other one will be able to testify along with another person. In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn what might disqualify a person from testifying.", + "Rabbi Shimon says that a father and son and all relatives are eligible to testify to the appearance of the new moon. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that relatives may indeed testify that they saw the new moon. According to Rabbi Shimon the testimony for the new moon works differently from testimony in other legal matters where relatives’ testimony is not joined together.", + "Rabbi Yose said: it happened once that Tobias the doctor saw the new moon in Jerusalem along with his son and his freed slave. The priests accepted his evidence and that of his son and disqualified his slave. But when they appeared before the court they accepted his evidence and that of his slave and disqualified his son. Through the story in this section we learn that there was a debate between the priests and the “court” of sages concerning two issues regarding testimony as to the new moon: the ability of relatives to jointly testify and the ability of a freed slave. The priests accepted the evidence of the relatives, probably because each of these people is himself fit to testify. The sages, which the mishnah calls here “the court,” accepted that of the freed slave, because they generally hold that freed slaves were allowed to testify. There is some interesting history which we may glean from this mishnah. First of all, the mishnah portrays two courts in Jerusalem, one that was made up of priests and one made up of others who evidently were not priests. The non-priest court is portrayed as being more authoritative. Second, it is noteworthy that the priests reject that of the freed slave while the other court accepts it. This may connect in general with the high value the priests placed on lineage." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is basically taken word for word from Sanhedrin 3:3. It is brought here again because the previous mishnah mentioned the possibility that a person would be disqualified from testifying.", + "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves. There are five categories of people who are disqualified from acting as witnesses or judges: 1) The first is a dice player, in other words a gambler. Such a person cannot testify since he is known to be a liar, especially with regards to monetary matters. Another reason is that he doesn’t participate constructively in building society. 2) A usurer. He is also probably considered to not be trustworthy in monetary matters. 3) A pigeon racer. Racing pigeons was a form of gambling. 4) Those who sell produce grown during the Seventh Year. According to Lev. 25:5-7 produce grown in the fields during the Seventh Year may be eaten by its owners, but it may not be sold. One who therefore sells Seventh Year produce is engaging in forbidden business practices which according to our mishnah make him not trustworthy to testify or act as a judge. 5) A slave referring to a slave who has not been freed.", + "This is the general rule: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified. The rules of acceptance of testimony from slaves are the same as those for a woman. Any case where they did allow the testimony of a woman, such as testimony concerning the death of another woman’s husband (see Mishnah Yevamot 15:4), they also allowed the testimony of a slave" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists several different ways in which a person might come to profane Shabbat on his way to testify that he saw the new moon. The mishnah is adamant a person on his way to Jerusalem may profane the Shabbat in any way that he needs to in order to ensure that he makes it to Jerusalem in order to testify.", + "If one who has seen the new moon and is not able to walk [to Jerusalem] on foot, he may be brought on a donkey or even in a litter [on Shabbat]. Here we learn that a person may transgress two prohibitions in order to make it to Jerusalem to testify: he may ride on a donkey and others may carry him on a litter, which is a violation of carrying.", + "If they [the witnesses] are likely to be attacked, they may take sticks [to defend themselves]. They may also carry sticks in order to defend themselves against bandits or highway robbers.", + "If the distance is great [to Jerusalem], they may take provisions with them, since for as much as a night and a day’s journey they were allowed to profane Shabbat and go out to testify concerning the new moon, as it says: “These are the appointed times of the Lord … which you shall proclaim at their appointed time” (Leviticus 23:4). They can also carry food with them on their way to Jerusalem. The witnesses were allowed to travel for up to an entire night and one day in order to get to Jerusalem, meaning if they saw the new moon in the evening when Shabbat began, and they were far enough away that they would have to walk the entire night and all day and then just get there when Shabbat was over, they were still allowed to go. Of course, if they lived farther away than they couldn’t come because they wouldn’t make it in time anyway. The rabbis’ adamancy that one must go to Jerusalem to testify and that one can break Shabbat in order to do so is justified by a midrash. The Torah says that the appointed times, the festivals, must be proclaimed at their appointed time. This is understood by the rabbis to mean that it is essential that the court declare the new moon on time so that the festivals would fall at the correct time. If doing so requires one to profane Shabbat, so be it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAs I have written on several occasions, the setting of the calendar was a point of great conflict between ancient Jewish sects, namely the Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees and Dead Sea sect (which may overlap with the Essenes or Sadducees, or perhaps even both). This mishnah alludes to this strife when it relates that the minim, a generic rabbinic term for sectarians, tried to disrupt the process by sending false witnesses. It sounds like they wanted to trick the Pharisees into declare the new month on the wrong date. Even though the sectarians in this mishnah probably used a solar calendar, they still wanted to disrupt the Pharisaic/rabbinic calendar. It’s as if they wanted to say even according to your own system, you’re celebrating on the wrong day.", + "If they don’t know him [the one who came to testify], they send another with him to testify concerning [his reliability]. This section expresses the current halakhah (the halakhah that was valid at the time of the mishnah). When someone was sent to testify concerning the new moon, if this person was not known to the central court that accepted the testimony, then they would send with him a person who was known to the court to vouch for the witness’s reliability. Basically, he would tell the court that the witness was a “kosher yid” and not a sectarian.", + "Originally testimony concerning the new moon was accepted from anyone. When the minim disrupted this, it was decreed that testimony should be received only from persons known [to the court]. This explains the background to the need for a second person to testify as to the reliability of the witness. Before the sectarians “ruined” it, everyone was trusted to testify. We should note that this mishnah is probably more “historiographical” than “historical.” That is to say, the mishnah teaches us how to view history, more than it teaches us what actually happened. The mishnah presents a pre-minim history in which everyone could trust one another; it was a moment of unity between all Jews. The minim came and disrupted this unity and now we have to suspect one another. Obviously a person hearing this mishnah will know how undesirable the minim really are." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAbove in 1:3 we learned that the court used to send messengers out to let the people in the Diaspora know that the new month had been decreed. In our mishnah we learn that this custom was the result of another attempt by a non-Pharisaic/rabbinic group of Jews to disrupt the calendar.", + "Originally they used to light torches [to signal that the new month had been decreed]. When the Samaritans disrupted this, they decreed that messengers should go out. In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall learn how they used to light torches, or beacons, in order to let everyone in the Diaspora know that a new month had been decreed. Here we learn that they stopped doing this because the Samaritans disrupted the process by lighting torches on the night of the thirtieth even though the court had not decreed a new month. Again we see that one of the sects attempts to have other Jews, Jews who follow a rabbinic calendar, celebrate their holidays on the wrong day." + ], + [ + "How did they light the torches? They used to bring long poles of cedar and reeds and olive wood and flax fluff and they tied them all together with a string. And someone used to go up to the top of a mountain and light them with fire and wave them back and forth and up and down until he saw the next one doing the same thing on the top of the second mountain; and so on the top of the third mountain.
This mishnah teaches how the torches were made and how the signals were passed from the top of one mountain to another. The mishnah is simple to understand and so no commentary appears below." + ], + [ + "At what places did they light the torches? From the Mount of Olives [in Jerusalem] to Sartaba, and from Sartaba to Gripina, and from Gripina to Havran, and from Havran to Bet Biltin. From Bet Biltin they did not move, but rather waved [the torch] back and forth and up and down until he saw the whole of the diaspora before him lit up like one bonfire.
This mishnah continues to discuss the torches used to let the Jews in the Diaspora know that the new month had been declared in Jerusalem. The mishnah traces a progression from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem all the way to Babylonia. At Bet Biltin the chain of torches would end for there the one waving the torch in Bet Biltin would be able to see all of the Diaspora lighting their torches in response. The Talmud relates that “Diaspora” here refers to Babylonia.
Since the mishnah is self-explanatory, I will again refrain from commenting." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the witnesses who have come to Jerusalem to testify that they saw the new moon.", + "There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called Bet Yazek. There all the witnesses used to assemble and the court would examine them there. They would make large feasts for them there so that they would have an incentive to come. When the witnesses came to Jerusalem they were directed to a courtyard called Bet Yazek. The court would examine them there, as we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah. Interestingly, they would make a big feast for them there in order to encourage people to come to testify. We again see how important the testimony concerning the new moon was for the rabbis.", + "Originally they used not to leave the place the whole day, but Rabban Gamaliel decreed that they could go two thousand cubits from it in any direction. And these were not the only ones [who could go two thousand cubits in any direction], but also a midwife who has come to deliver a child, or one who comes to rescue from a fire or from bandits or from a river in flood or from a building that has fallen in all these are like residents of the town, and may go two thousand cubits [on Shabbat] in any direction. This section deals with the laws of Shabbat border limits, a subject which we learned in greater depth in Eruvin (see especially 4:1-3, for laws which deal with the topic addressed here.) A person is not allowed to go more than 2000 cubits outside of the city in which he began Shabbat. If he does so, he is stuck in his place and can’t walk more than another four cubits. In the case in our mishnah, witnesses came to Jerusalem to testify on Shabbat. This was permitted and indeed encouraged, as we saw in 1:4-5. Our mishnah teaches that originally such a person could not leave the courtyard because a person who leaves his Shabbat border cannot move more than four cubits in any direction. The courtyard which was enclosed was considered to be all within four cubits. However, this would discourage people from coming to Jerusalem to testify because they would know that they would be stuck there the whole day. In order to encourage people to come to testify, Rabban Gamaliel the elder, a sage who lived while the Temple still stood, decreed that they could move about like the rest of the people of the town. This means that they could move around all of Jerusalem and even go outside of the city 2000 cubits in any direction. The mishnah goes on to say that the same ruling applies to anyone who left his Shabbat border for a permitted reason. So a midwife who leaves her Shabbat border limit to go and deliver a child may now go all around the city she came into and may go 2000 cubits in all direction. The same is true for anyone who leaves his Shabbat border limit in order to save property. Since we want to encourage people to do so, they are allowed this concession." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs we mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah, once the witnesses arrived in Jerusalem they were brought to Bet Yazek where the court would examine them. Our mishnah teaches how they were examined.", + "How do they test the witnesses?
The pair which arrives first, they test them first. The first pair to get there would be the first pair that would be examined first come, first serve.", + "They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon in front of the sun or behind the sun? To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined? And how broad was it?” If he says [he saw it] in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected. As is usual in all court cases, they interrogate the witnesses one at a time. The examination would consist of several questions which would ascertain that the witnesses had actually seen the new moon. At the time of the new month (the molad, in Hebrew) the moon is found at sundown in the west near the sun. From that time on it goes further east away from the sun, until at the fifteenth of the month it is in the east opposite the sun. Right before the new moon it is west of the sun and it sets before the sun such that it looks as if it is “in front of the sun.” After the new month (the molad) it sets after the sun and is further from the horizon and it looks as if it is “after the sun.” Therefore, if he says that he saw it “in front of the sun,” he has not seen the new moon and his testimony is rejected. One who stands looking west at sunset, where he might see the new moon at the right time of the month has the north to his right and the south to his left. Therefore, when they ask north and south, what they mean is was the moon to the right or left of the sun.", + "After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted. If the witnesses said the same thing, then there testimony is accepted.", + "And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming [to testify]. Once two witnesses have testified, there is no need for more testimony from other witnesses. Nevertheless, the court didn’t want to just turn the rest of the pairs of witnesses away because if they did so they might not come back in the future reasoning that there was no need for their testimony. Therefore, they asked the witnesses a few questions in order to make them feel that their long trip to Jerusalem had not been in vain." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah describes the ceremonial declaration made by the court when they sanctified the new month. We should note that we have seen several occasions in which ritual was used by the rabbis in order to engage in polemics against a rival Jewish group such as the Sadducees. For example the ritual of the water libation was emphasized, as was the ritual in which they harvested the new barley, the omer, on the day after the first day of Pesah. Our mishnah may also describe a ritual used for at least slightly polemical purposes.", + "The head of the court says, “Sanctified,” and all the people answer after him, “Sanctified, sanctified.” The ritual consists of the head of the court announcing that the new moon had been sanctified and the rest of the people responding, “Sanctified, sanctified.”", + "Whether the new moon is seen at its proper time or not at its proper time they sanctify it. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that if it is not seen as its proper time they do not sanctify it for heaven has already sanctified it. According to the first opinion, this ritual is performed whether or not the court sanctifies the new moon on the thirtieth day of the previous month (the proper time), turning the previous month into a twenty-nine day month, or whether the previous month lasted a full thirty days and the new moon was not declared until the thirty-first day (not its proper time). Remember, a month can have only 29 or 30 days. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that the ceremony was performed only if the month was sanctified at its proper time, meaning on the thirtieth day. If the new moon was not seen on this day, then it is as if heaven had sanctified the month by allowing it to last the full thirty days. Since heaven sanctified it, the court does not perform the ritual declaration. We should note that beneath the surface of this mishnah we again can detect the conflict between the court determining the new month by making a ritual declaration and the calendar being set by the cycles of nature that is heaven sanctifying the new month. As we have seen, this was a major debate among Second Temple Jews, and echoes of the debate seem to still be found in post-Temple rabbinic literature." + ], + [ + "Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?”
It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them.
On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.
This mishnah and the next one contain one of the most famous stories in rabbinic literature. In it Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua clash over accepting what seems to surely be false testimony as to the new moon.
Section one: This section sets up the character of Rabban Gamaliel, who will play the lead role in the story. Rabban Gamaliel was the head of the court in Yavneh and he was the rabbi who would ultimately decide whether the witnesses’ testimony would be accepted and the new month sanctified. In order to facilitate this, he would have pictures of the moon in its different phases hung up in his upper chamber, where he would interrogate them.
Section two: The story now begins. Two witnesses come in front of some rabbi (it’s not clear whom they come in front of) and tell him that they saw the new moon in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west. This is impossible and hence Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas calls them lying witnesses. The witnesses proceed on to Yavneh and come in front of Rabban Gamaliel, who sanctifies the month based on their testimony. We as readers of the mishnah are properly shocked wasn’t Rabban Gamaliel the very rabbi who was especially fervent in checking the witnesses?
The same thing seems to happen a second time. Again witnesses offer impossible testimony, which Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas promptly rejects, this time using a graphic analogy. In Hebrew there is a pun which is lost in translation. The word for pregnant and the word for a thirty day month are the same.
In the final line of the mishnah, a new character is added, Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, setting the stage for his eventual clash with Rabban Gamaliel in tomorrow’s mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is the continuation of yesterday’s story of Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the sanctification of the new moon based on erroneous testimony. At the end of yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas that the witnesses’ testimony was false and therefore Rabban Gamaliel should not have accepted it.", + "Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. The action begins with Rabban Gamaliel’s response to Rabbi Joshua. Rabban Gamaliel sends one of his messengers (henchmen) to him and demands that he come to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he believes to be Yom Kippur, the day after Rabban Gamaliel would have celebrated Yom Kippur. This is a harsh decree, one delivered by the politically potent Rabban Gamaliel, to the wise yet weak Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Joshua would be forced to desecrate the holiest day of the year by carrying his stick and money in the public domain and by going beyond the Shabbat border limit. Indeed, if Rabbi Joshua believes that that day is Yom Kippur, he would have to ignore Rabban Gamaliel’s demands rather than transgress such a serious prohibition.", + "Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. Rabbi Akiva hears about the goings on and comes to Rabbi Joshua to offer him advice. His advice is based on a midrash. The verse seems to imply, at least according to its midrashic reading, that the holidays are holy whether or not the court decrees them to fall at their “proper” time or at the wrong time. In other words, Yom Kippur is when the court determines it to be, and not when it really should fall according to some predetermined “heavenly” time. If the court makes a mistake and sanctifies the new month of Tishri on the wrong day, then ten days later is still Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva is basically telling Rabbi Joshua that even if Rabban Gamaliel is wrong with regard to the new month, the day upon which he declares Yom Kippur to fall is still Yom Kippur.", + "He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. Rabbi Joshua now goes to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, the same sage who said in yesterday’s mishnah that the witnesses were lying. This is a fascinating move. He is basically going to Rabbi Dosa and asking him, “What should I do? I agreed with you, and see what a predicament it has gotten me into.” Rabbi Dosa, like Rabbi Akiva, provides him with a midrash which supports him going to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he thinks is Yom Kippur. Rabbi Dosa’s midrash teaches that the court that stands at every generation is equal in authority to that of Moses and his court. This is the ultimate statement of rabbinic authority. One shouldn’t think that the current rabbinic courts are inherently of a lesser status. Although the sages that live today may not be as close to the source, God and the Torah, as was Moses, their authority is nevertheless not diminished.", + "He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision. Peace is finally made and rabbinic unity is restored. Rabbi Joshua is either convinced by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, or he realizes that he has no choice but to go to Rabban Gamaliel. Rabban Gamaliel greets him with open arms, praising him for both his wisdom and importantly, also for his acceptance of his decree." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAlthough this is the first mishnah of a new chapter, it is really the last mishnah to deal with the sanctification of the new month. It contains a few final rules governing how the court decides that the new month should be declared.", + "If the court and all of Israel saw it, if the witnesses were examined and there was no time left to say “Sanctified” before it grew dark, then the month is impregnated (it has thirty. In this case, it was abundantly clear that the new month had arrived, but the court was not able to convene and sanctify it before it grew dark and the thirtieth day of the previous month was over. The mishnah rules that since the court did not have time to declare the new month sanctified, it is not sanctified and Rosh Hodesh will have to wait for the next day. We should note that again we see here the ideology that the court, that is humans, are what create the reality of the new month, and not the astronomical phenomenon itself.", + "If the court alone saw it, two of them should stand up and testify before them, and then they can say, “Sanctified, sanctified.” If the members of the court themselves were the only ones who saw the new moon, then those who saw the new moon should testify in front of the others (at least three others) that the new moon had been sanctified, and then the court may declare, “Sanctified, sanctified.”", + "If three people saw it, and they [themselves] are the court, two [of them] should stand up and they should seat some of their colleagues with the one [remaining judge], and they [the two] should testify before them and they can then say, “Sanctified, sanctified.” For an individual is not trusted [to sanctify the new month] by himself. Here, only three people see the new moon, and they themselves are the court that is supposed to declare that it is sanctified. Since the same people that function as witnesses cannot function as judges, two of them must find two other people to take their place as judges and then they may testify that they saw the new moon. The mishnah concludes by noting that one person cannot serve as the sole decision maker with regard to the declaration of the new month." + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah opens the second half of tractate Rosh Hashanah, which deals mostly with the laws of the shofar and the shofar blasts, as well as the special mussaf prayers for Rosh Hashanah. In this mishnah rabbis debate what animals’ horns may be used for the shofar", + "All shofars may be used except for that of a cow, because it is a keren. According to the first opinion, all shofars can be used on Rosh Hashanah expect for the horn of a cow, because the horn of a cow is not called a shofar but rather a keren, which is a Hebrew word for horn. The reason that we require a horn called a shofar is that Leviticus 25:9 uses the word shofar in connection with Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year, and the rabbis say that this shofar is the paradigm for the shofar of Rosh Hashanah. The types of shofar that can be used are specifically that of a ram (an ayil in Hebrew), which is usually bent, and that of an ibex (a yael in Hebrew), which is straight.", + "Rabbi Yose said: Are not all shofars called keren as it says, “When they make a long blast with the ram’s keren [horn]?” (Joshua 6:5). Rabbi Yose points out that the horn of a ram is also called a keren, as proven from the quote from Joshua. And if a ram’s horn can be used even though it is called a keren, why can’t the horn of a cow be used? The other rabbis don’t respond to Rabbi Yose in the mishnah. The Talmud, however does provide their reponse. The rabbis respond to Rabbi Yose that all horns of animals are called both keren and shofar, whereas that of a cow is called only keren. This means that in order for a horn to be used it has to be called a shofar but not necessarily exclusively." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah.", + "The shofar used on Rosh Hashanah was that of an ibex, straight, and its mouth was overlaid with gold. According to the mishnah, the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah should be from the horn of an ibex. The Talmud explains that the straightness or simplicity of the shofar is symbolic of the straightness of a person’s prayers. In the Talmud Rabbi Judah disagrees with this mishnah and says that one should use the bent horn of a ram, symbolic of how a person bends down in humility before God. The Rambam points out that the horn of the ram also reminds us on Rosh Hashanah of the sacrifice of Isaac, when Isaac was eventually replaced by a ram. The mouthpiece of the shofar was overlaid with gold. According to the Talmud, this relates to the shofar that was blown in the Temple. Covering the mouthpiece of the shofar is no longer allowed.", + "There were two trumpets, one on each side of it. The shofar gave a long blast and the trumpets a short one, since the commandment of the day was with the shofar. The idea that there were trumpets accompanying the shofar is expressed also in Psalms 98:6, “With trumpets and the sound of a shofar you shall make blasts before God the King.” Again, the Talmud relates that this was done only in the Talmud. Priority was given to the sounds of the shofar over those made by the trumpets." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the shofar and trumpet blasts that are sounded on public fast days. These were fast days that were declared when Israel experienced distress, mostly the distress of not having enough rain. Tractate Taanit, the next tractate which we shall learn, is dedicated to this subject.", + "On [public] fast days they used shofars of rams, curved, the mouths of which were covered with silver, and there were two trumpets in between them. The basic function of this mishnah is to distinguish the Rosh Hashanah ritual, described in yesterday’s mishnah, with the public fast day ritual described here. This distinction was probably created and then emphasized in the Mishnah in order to preserve the integrity of both occasions. On public fast days the shofar was made from a ram’s horn, which was curved and instead of its mouth being covered with gold, it was covered with silver. On Rosh Hashanah the trumpets were on the outside, whereas on public fast days they were in between the shofars.", + "A short blast was made with the shofars and a long one with the trumpets, because the mitzvah of the day is with trumpets. This section again offers a distinction between the Rosh Hashanah practice and the public fast practice. On Rosh Hashanah the mitzvah is with the shofar so its blasts are longer. On the public fast day the mitzvah is with the trumpets, so their blasts are longer. This is derived from Numbers 10:9 according to which the Israelites should blast trumpets when going out to war. From here the rabbis derive that in all cases of public distress, they should sound blasts with trumpets." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nLeviticus 25:8-16 deals with the Jubilee year, the fiftieth year after seven cycles of seven years. Verse 9 states, “Then you shall sound the horn loud; in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month the Day of Atonement you shall have the horn sounded throughout your land.” Our mishnah deals with the rituals of this day which begins the Jubilee year.", + "The Jubilee is the same as Rosh Hashanah when it comes to blowing [the shofar] and blessings. According to the first opinion, the laws of blowing the shofar and the recitation of blessings are the same for the Jubilee year as they are for Rosh Hashanah of every year. The blessings referred to here are the special blessings recited as part of the Mussaf Amidah. We will learn more about these blessings in chapter four.", + "Rabbi Judah says: on Rosh Hashanah they blow with [a shofar of] rams and on Jubilees with [a shofar] of ibex. Rabbi Judah says that different animals’ horns are used for the two shofars. The one for Rosh Hashanah is that of a ram, whereas on the Jubilee they use the horn of an ibex. We should note that Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion in mishnah three above, according to which on Rosh Hashanah we use the horn of an ibex." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the physical wholeness of the shofar. It teaches what flaws in the shofar render it invalid.", + "A shofar which has split and then he stuck it together is not valid. According to the Talmud, this refers to a shofar which has split lengthwise. One cannot use it by gluing it back together. This is either because the shofar won’t sound good, or because air will inevitably escape not only from the end but from the sides as well.", + "If he stuck together fragments of shofars, it is not valid. In this case, someone tries to glue together pieces of a broken shofar to make one whole one. This doesn’t work for the same reasons it doesn’t work to glue together one shofar.", + "If there was a hole in a shofar and he closed it up, if it interferes with the blowing it is not valid, but if it does not it is valid. In this case the shofar was not cracked, as was the shofar in yesterday’s mishnah, but just had a hole in it. If after he patches it up the shofar sounds okay, then it may be used. If not, it may not be used. Others explain that the words “if it interferes with the blowing” refer to before the hole is closed. If the hole prevents the sound before it is patched up, he may not use the shofar even after it has been patched up." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches two halakhot: 1) one must hear the sound of the shofar and not an echo of the sound of the shofar; 2) when hearing the shofar one must have intention to hear it for the sake of the fulfillment of the commandment. The mishnah illustrates cases where one may have heard a shofar blast and nevertheless not fulfilled his obligation", + "One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation. Here someone blows a shofar into an echo-producing chamber, such as a pit, a cistern or a jug. The mishnah rules that in order to fulfill his obligation he must be sure that he heard the sound of the shofar and not the echo of the sound of the shofar. There is a geonic commentary on this mishnah, according to which the mishnah refers to a time of persecution when the Romans outlawed the public observance of commandments. They hid their shofar blasts to avoid the authorities.", + "And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had, then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not. This section teaches that when hearing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, or Megillat Esther on Purim, one must have the intention of hearing them in order to fulfill the commandment. A person might be walking behind a synagogue and hear them blow the shofar and then think to himself, “Great, I’ve just fulfilled my commandment” (and no need to go to shul today!). The mishnah rules that the act of hearing the shofar is not sufficient. One must have the intention to hear in the fulfillment of a commandment. The final section of the mishnah notes how strongly this commandment is connected to intention both the one who walked behind the synagogue and the one who actually went to the synagogue heard the same exact thing, yet one has fulfilled his obligation and one has not. Tomorrow’s mishnah will contain the central rabbinic statement as to the role that intention plays in halakhah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that for one to fulfill one’s obligation of hearing the shofar, one must have the proper intention. The first section of today’s mishnah provides an essential statement with regard to ritual and intention. While ritual plays an extremely important role in Judaism, it is nevertheless considered only an external sign of internal intention and conviction. The Mishnah brings up several cases in the Torah where Moses seems to perform a magical ritual that aids Israel. The rabbis understand the magic to be a means to evoke intention and reflection upon God, and not to be a ritual that works regardless of the inner emotions and thoughts of the people of Israel.\nThe second section of the mishnah teaches that those who cannot legally have intention, meaning the law considers them unable to have such thoughts concerning the fulfillment of commandments, cannot aid others in fulfilling their obligation to hear the shofar.", + "“And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed” etc. (Exodus 17:1. Did the hands of Moses wage war or break [Israel’s ability] to wage war? Rather this teaches that as long as Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven they prevailed, and if not they fell. The stories and the lessons of this mishnah are taught quite straightforwardly. Moses’s raising of his hands does not itself cause Israel to conquer Amalek and when his lowering of his hands does not itself cause the Israelites to lose. Their success and failure in war is a function of their belief in God and their subjecting themselves to God. We might note that Moses’s hands are held up high, causing Israel to look up at them. This is intended to cause Israel to think about God, who dwells in Heaven. It might be no accident that the rabbis choose this example and the next to illustrate their attitude towards ritual and intention.", + "Similarly, “Make for yourself a fiery serpent and mount it on a pole. And if anyone who is bitten shall look at it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Did the serpent kill or did the serpent keep alive? Rather, when Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were healed, and if not their [flesh] would melt away. The copper serpent (in Hebrew “seraph”, a word whose meaning is somewhat uncertain) is not a magical charm healing Israel from the wounds of the serpents sent by God to attack them as a punishment for their constant complaining. Rather the serpent is symbolic again of God it causes Israel to look up and to direct their hearts to God. Only by having the right intention can Israel be healed.", + "A deaf-mute, a lunatic and a minor cannot cause others to fulfill their religious obligation. This is the general principle: one who is not himself obligated in the matter cannot perform it on behalf of others. According to rabbinic law, deaf-mutes, lunatics and minors are not in full control of their mental faculties, and hence cannot have proper “intention.” This causes them to be exempt from the performance of commandments that require intention, such as the hearing of the shofar. Since they themselves are not obligated to blow the shofar, they cannot blow the shofar in order for others to hear and thereby fulfill their obligation. This is true in all cases a person who is not obligated to perform a commandment cannot himself perform that commandment on behalf of others. One must be personally obligated in order to fulfill the more communal role of fulfilling a mitzvah for other people." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with blowing the shofar on Shabbat. It is somewhat unclear why blowing the shofar on Shabbat should be prohibited at all. After all, as we shall see, some places did blow the shofar on Shabbat. It seems to me that there may have been a desire among the sages to prevent the celebration of Rosh Hashanah from overshadowing that of Shabbat. In the Talmud they provide a midrashic reason why one shouldn’t blow the shofar on Shabbat.", + "If Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat, they would blow the shofar in the Temple but not in the country. There are two different explanations for “Temple” and “country.” Some commentators explain “Temple” to refer to all of Jerusalem and “country” to refer to anywhere outside of Jerusalem. According to this interpretation, they allowed the shofar to be blown in Jerusalem because there they would know whether the new moon had been sanctified. In other words, they would know for certain whether it was Rosh Hashanah. Outside of Jerusalem they couldn’t be sure, so they wouldn’t blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Assumedly, at this period there were already two days of Rosh Hashanah so that they could blow the second day. The other explanation is that “Temple” refers to the Temple itself, and “country” refers to all places outside of the Temple. They allowed the shofar to be blown in the Temple because rabbinically prohibited activities are allowed on Shabbat in the Temple. However, this interpretation does not fit particularly well with the mishnah which we shall learn tomorrow.", + "After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed that it should be blown [on Shabbat] in every place where there was a court. This begins a series of decrees made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leaders of the rabbis after the destruction of the Second Temple. The other decrees will appear in the following mishnayot. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the shofar should be blown on Shabbat in all places where a rabbinic court, according to some a Sanhedrin, sat. This in essence bequeathed the authority of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem on all subsequent courts, no matter where they sat.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed for Yavneh only. They said to him: both Yavneh and any place where there is a court. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the broad application of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s decree (takkanah) and limits it only to the court in Yavneh. Rabbi Eliezer may be claiming that it is only Rabban Yohanan’s personal authority that allowed him to make such a decree. Other courts, which will not be able to count Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as one of them, will not have such authority. The other rabbis reject Rabbi Eliezer’s statement. The decree bestowed authority on all subsequent courts and not just on the one in Yavneh. We might say that the authority is vested in the office and not in the individual rabbi, charismatic and learned as he may be." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.", + "There was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, that in every city which could see [Jerusalem] and hear and was near and could get to Jerusalem, they used to blow [on Shabbat], whereas in Yavneh they used to blow in the court only. In Yavneh they blew the shofar on Shabbat only in the place where the court sat. However, in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat not only in Jerusalem but in all of the surrounding areas as well. This distinction between Jerusalem and Yavneh may have been an attempt to preserve the uniqueness of the authority of Jerusalem and its court. While Yavneh may have received some of the authority of Jerusalem, it was still not as great. The beginning of the mishnah implies that there was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, besides that listed in the Mishnah. The Talmud asks what this was, and answers that in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat both in front of the court and not in front of the court. In Yavneh the shofar was blown on Shabbat only in front of the court. This may be a way of saying that while the court in Yavneh was authoritative, the city did not have inherent sacredness, as did Jerusalem." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous mishnah we learned of a decree that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple. The next two mishnayot contain other such decrees.\nIf this mishnah seems familiar it is because we just learned it in Sukkah 3:12. The below commentary is the same as that found there.\nLeviticus 23:40 reads, “On the first day you shall take...and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.” The beginning of the verse states “on the first day” and the end of the verse says, “seven days.” From here the rabbis derived that the mitzvah of taking the lulav is for a different amount of time in different places. They read the second half of the verse as applying to the Temple, “before the Lord your God.” Hence, the lulav was taken up for seven days in the Temple. Outside of the Temple, or according to other commentaries, outside of Jerusalem, the lulav was taken for only one day.", + "In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the Temple still stood the lulav was taken in the Temple (or in Jerusalem) for seven days and outside of the Temple for only one day, as explained in the introduction.", + "When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, However, when the Temple was destroyed, there was a problem. If people only observed the commandment for one day, they would soon forget that originally the commandment was observed for seven days, at least in some places. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leading rabbinic figures after the destruction of the Temple, decreed therefore that the lulav should be taken up for seven days, in memory of the Temple.", + "[He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce]. Having related one of the decrees that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple, the mishnah now relates another, similar decree. We need to note a little bit of background to understand this. On the second day of Pesah, when the Temple still stood, the Omer offering of barley was harvested and brought to the Temple and waved by a priest. After this day, it was permitted to eat from the new grain harvest (see Leviticus 23:9-14). Since people outside of Jerusalem would not know precisely when the Omer had been offered, they would wait at least half of the day before they would eat from the new harvest. When the Temple was destroyed and they could no longer offer the Omer, the rabbis derived from the Torah that the new produce could be eaten as soon as the second day of Pesah began. In other words, without an Omer sacrifice the day itself allowed the new harvest. Again, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived a problem. If people would eat from the new harvest immediately on the 16th of Nissan, when the Temple is rebuilt they would forget that they need to wait until the Omer is offered. Therefore he decreed that the new produce could not be eaten for the entire day. It is interesting to note that the rabbis who lived close to the destruction of the Temple believed that it would speedily be rebuilt. Just as they began working on the rebuilding of the First Temple only 70 years after its destruction, rabbis who lived in the first and early second century probably assumed that their Temple would also be rebuilt in a short time. However, after the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed, it probably began to dawn on many that the realistic chances of the Temple being speedily rebuilt were not good. The hopes of course never died, but this type of legislative activity making decrees lest the Temple be rebuilt quickly, were more characteristic of the pre Bar Kokhba period." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are two more decrees mentioned in this mishnah, both which have to do with the testimony concerning the new month.", + "Originally they used to accept testimony with regard to the new moon during the whole day. Originally, it didn’t matter when during the day the witnesses came to testify that they had seen the new moon there testimony was always accepted.", + "On one occasion the witnesses were late in arriving, and the Levites went wrong in the daily hymn. The problem with accepting witnesses all day is that when witnesses successfully testify they turn the current day into Rosh Hodesh, or in the case of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah. If they come late in the day, it may be difficult to correctly observe the special Rosh Hodesh rituals because time is simply running. The mishnah relates that this happened one time. The witnesses came late in the day and the Levites in the Temple sang the wrong Psalm. The Levites would sing a Psalm while the Tamid (Daily) sacrifice was being offered. There was a different song depending on whether it was a regular day or whether it was Rosh Hodesh. In the morning they sang the regular Psalm for that day, and then because the witnesses hadn’t yet come they sang the same Psalm for the afternoon Tamid. When the witnesses came, it turned out that they never sang the correct Psalm.", + "They therefore decreed that testimony should be accepted only until the afternoon [sacrifice]. They therefore decreed that the testimony of the witnesses would only be accepted until minhah time, which was the time when they would offer the tamid sacrifice (see Pesahim 5:1).", + "If witnesses came after the afternoon sacrifice that day should be kept as holy and also the next day. This section refers to Rosh Hashanah, which is not only Rosh Hodesh but also a sacred holiday. On Rosh Hashanah they would observe the thirtieth day of the previous month as a holiday meaning they wouldn’t work. If witnesses came before minhah, then that day would count as Rosh Hashanah, and the next day would not be Rosh Hashanah. If they came later than minhah, then that day would not have counted as Rosh Hashanah (even though they already refrained from work) and the following day will be observed as Rosh Hashanah. This is the origins of the custom to observe Rosh Hashanah for two days.", + "After the destruction of the temple Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that testimony with regard to the new moon should be received during the whole day. After the destruction of the Temple there was no more need to worry about the Levites singing the wrong song. Therefore, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai restored the rule to its original state, and allowed the acceptance of testimony for the entire day.", + "Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: this further did Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decree, that not matter where the head of the court might be, the witnesses should have to go only to the place of the assembly. According to Rabbi Joshua ben Korcha there was yet another decree made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that when the witnesses came to testify all they had to do was come to the place of assembly, which is where the court sat. They did not have to chase after the head of the court if he was in another place. This decree seems to be another way of saying that the authority of the court is determinative and not the individual authority of its leader." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe Amidah prayer said at Mussaf on Rosh Hashanah is the longest and most unique Amidah of the year. It contains the three blessings which begin every Amidah “patriarchs”, which concludes ‘magen Avraham’; “powers”, which concludes ‘mehayeh hametim’; and “the sanctification of the day”, which concludes ‘hael hakadosh’, or ‘hamelekh hakadosh’ between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.\nThe Amidah ends with the same three prayers with which it always ends, “blessing of the Temple service (begins with R’tzeh) and “thanksgiving” (begins with modim) and the blessing of the priests (sim shalom it is called the blessing of the priests because it begins with the priestly blessing).\nThere are three middle blessings, but the rabbis in our mishnah disagree about what these are. There are actually four topics which are mentioned in these three blessings. The first is the sanctification of the day, a blessing said on every festival. The other three are unique to Rosh Hashanah. They are “kingship (Malkhuyot)”, “Remembrance (Zikhronot)” and “Shofarot.” Each of the sections contains the recitation of relevant biblical verses, along with a liturgical composition and a concluding blessing.\nIn our mishnah the rabbis argue about the composition of these three middle blessings. We should emphasize that they agree concerning the content, and they agree that there are three and not four blessings. They also all agree that we blow the shofar three times during the Amidah. They also agree that “kingship” is not a separate blessing. In the points of agreement are far greater than the points of disagreement. They disagree only concerning which blessing “kingship” is combined with, and when precisely we blow the shofar.\nYou might want to look at a Rosh Hashanah Mahzor while studying this mishnah.", + "The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]:
He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar]. Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri the special kingship verses are combined with the “sanctification of the day” blessing but the shofar is not blown during this blessing. He then recites the sanctification of the day blessing (kedushat hayom) and finally the other two special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot. He blows the shofar during all three of these blessings. He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion.", + "Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them? The kingship-verses are one of the three sections of the Amidah that are unique to Rosh Hashanah. According to Rabbi Akiva, it wouldn’t make sense to recite these verses without blowing the shofar.", + "Rather he says: “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva suggests a different order. First he should recite the normal three blessings which begin each Amidah, without any deviation. Then he includes “kingship” with the sanctification of the day blessing, and blows the shofar as well. Then he recites the other special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot. He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion. Our Rosh Hashanah Mussaf Amidah today follows that of Rabbi Akiva." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs the core of the three special Mussaf Amidah blessings, “malkhuyot (kingships)”, “zikhronot (remembrances)” and “shofarot” we recite verses from the Torah that use the roots of these three verses. Our mishnah contains several debates concerning the quantity and order of these verses.", + "They do not recite less than ten kingship [verses], ten remembrance [verses], and ten shofar [verses]. According to the first opinion, each section must include ten verses. This is the current practice. We recite three verses from the Torah, three from the Prophets and three from the Writings and then we conclude with a final verse from the Torah.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that as long as one has recited three verses, assumedly one from each of the three sections of the Tanakh, he has fulfilled his duty.", + "They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment. The words for “king”, “remember” and “shofar” sometimes appear in connection with punishment. These verses should not be used as part of the liturgy, for what seems like obvious reasons.", + "He begins with [verses] from the Torah and concludes with [verses] from the prophets. According to the first opinion, he begins by reciting verses from the Torah and ends with verses from the Prophets. In between the two, he recites verses from the Writings.", + "Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with [a verse] from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yose seems to say that while he should conclude with a verse from the Prophets, as was stated in the previous opinion, nevertheless if he concludes with a verse from the Torah he has discharged his obligation. However, the Talmud understands Rabbi Yose as saying that it is actually preferable to end with a verse from the Torah. Due to this understanding of his words, the accepted halakhah is that we conclude with a verse from the Torah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOn days upon which Mussaf is recited (festivals and Rosh Hodesh) there are two people who function as the “shaliah tzibbur”, prayer leader the first does Shacharit and the second does Mussaf. Our mishnah determines which of these people blows the shofar and which of them recites the Hallel.", + "The one who passes before the ark on the festival of Rosh Hashanah: the second one blows the shofar. On Rosh Hashanah, the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf is the one who blows the shofar. It is interesting that the mishnah needs to dictate this. It seems that at some early point in the development of Jewish liturgy, the Shacharit Amidah for Rosh Hashanah also included liturgy in which it would have been appropriate to blow the shofar. In our current liturgy, there is no place in the Shacharit Amidah to do so, and hence it is quite obvious that the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf blows the shofar.", + "On days when Hallel is said, the first one recites the Hallel. On days on which Hallel is recited, the Shaliah Tzibbur for Shacharit is the one that recites the Hallel. Today we practice this by having Hallel fall in between Shacharit and Mussaf." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a few more rules concerning the shofar.", + "[For the sake of] the shofar of Rosh Hashanah one is not allowed to go past the [Shabbat] border, nor remove a pile of rocks, nor climb a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor swim on the water. In this section there is a list of activities that are rabbinically (derabanan) prohibited on Shabbat. That is to say, they are prohibitions that are less significant than those prohibited by the Torah. Nevertheless, the mishnah states that one does not transgress these prohibitions in order to be able to blow the shofar. For instance, if one needs to go past the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) to get a shofar or to hear one blown, one should not do so. If the shofar is under a pile of rocks, one may not clear them away in order to get to them. One may not climb a tree if the shofar was in a tree (this is beginning to sound like a famous Dr. Seuss book I would not hear it under rocks, I would not hear it in a tree). Nor may one ride an animal or swim in water to get to the shofar. The important issue here is the principle one does not transgress any commandments in order to hear the shofar.", + "One may not cut it, neither with an instrument forbidden because of shevut, nor with an instrument forbidden by a negative commandment. Should one need to cut the shofar in order to make it usable for blowing, one may not do so, neither with a type of knife prohibited derabanan on account of shevut (mandated resting) nor with a type of knife prohibited deoraita from the Torah. A knife that is typically used to cut something like a shofar would be prohibited from the Torah, while one not typically used for such purposes would be prohibited derabanan, a lesser prohibition.", + "But if he wants to pour wine or water into it he may do so. One may pour wine or water into the shofar in order to improve its sound. This is not considered to be a violation of the Shabbat and Yom Tov prohibition of “making a vessel.”", + "They need not prevent children from blowing the shofar [on Rosh Hashanah]; on the contrary, they may help them until they learn how to blow. Children are not obligated to hear or blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Since they are not obligated, we might have thought that they should not blow the shofar at all because the shofar is a form of work on Rosh Hashanah. The mishnah dispels this notion and states that not only do we not stop children from blowing the shofar, but we encourage them to practice and we teach them until they know how to blow. The Talmud adds that even on Shabbat we can help them practice.", + "One who is just practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, and the one hears [the blast made] by another when practicing has not fulfilled his obligation. Since the previous section discussed practicing, this mishnah concludes by teaching that practicing does not count as blowing the shofar in order to fulfill one’s obligation. A person who on Rosh Hashanah blows the shofar as practice has not fulfilled his obligation because he did not have the proper intention. Similarly, one who hears the shofar from a person practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, because one must hear the shofar being blown by someone who intends to fulfill his and others’ obligation." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Rosh Hashanah deals with the order of the shofar blasts. In the commentary on this mishnah I will note some of the ways in which the halakhah has developed over the centuries.", + "The order of the blasts: three sets of three each. There are nine core blasts of the shofar during the Mussaf Amidah three during each section, malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot. Each set consists of one tekiah, one teruah, followed by another tekiah. A set therefore consists of a teruah, preceded by and followed by a tekiah.", + "The length of a teki’ah is equal to three teru'ahs, and the length of a teru'ah is equal to three yevavot. A tekiah is a longer blast than a teruah and a teruah is a longer blast that a yevavah, which is a short staccato blast. In the Talmud there is a doubt about whether a teruah consists of a few medium length notes or a greater number of staccato notes. Today we call the few medium length notes “shevarim” and we call the shorter notes “teruah.” Since it is unclear which we should do, we do both (Jews love to compromise). We also do one set that is “shevarim-teruah” because a teruah may include both the shevarim and the teruah. This doubt concerning the doubt about how the blasts are to be done is the main way in which the original nine blasts have been expanded. The service also includes sets of shofar blasts that are not done throughout Mussaf.", + "If one prolonged the first teki'ah so that it went directly into the second, it counts only as one. At the end of one set of blasts is a tekiah. There is also a tekiah at the beginning of another set. If the shofar blower starts a tekiah at the end of one set and continues to blow long enough that it could have counted for the tekiah at the beginning of the next set, then it only counts as one tekiah. Each shofar blast must be integral and a doubly long blast counts only as one.", + "One who has blessed [recited the Amidah] and then a shofar is given to him, he sounds a teki'ah teru'ah teki'ah three times. As we stated above, the shofar blasts are integrated into the Amidah. However, the obligation to blow the shofar is independent of the obligation to recite the Mussaf prayer. Therefore, if one does not have a shofar while reciting the Amidah, and then gets one later on, he should blow the shofar even though he has already recited the Amidah.", + "Just as the shaliah tzibbur is obligated, so every single individual is obligated. Rabban Gamaliel says: the shaliah tzibbur (communal prayer causes the whole congregation to fulfill their obligation. The final section contains an extremely important debate concerning the function of the shaliach tzibbur, literally translated as “the agent of the community.” According to the first opinion, every person is individually obligated to recite the entire Amidah. The Talmud comments that according to this opinion, the function of the shaliach tzibbur is to fulfill the obligation for a person who doesn’t know how to recite the Amidah. One who knows how to recite the Amidah cannot have his obligation fulfilled on his behalf by the shaliah tzibbur. According to Rabban Gamaliel the shaliach tzibbur’s recitation of the Amidah fulfills the obligation of the entire community. The question then must be asked why should the other members of the community even bother reciting the Amidah? The answer given is that while the rest of the community recites the Amidah, the shaliah tzibbur has time to prepare to recite the Amidah. Congratulations! We have finished Rosh Hashanah. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Mishnah Rosh Hashanah had two main sections, one about the sanctification of the new month, Rosh Hodesh, and the other about Rosh Hashanah itself. The Jewish calendar and its connection to the moon should remain an important way in which we connect ourselves to the cycles of nature, to the waxing and the waning of the new moon. In modern times, women have reclaimed Rosh Hodesh as a woman’s holiday. I hope that learning this mishnah has aided in these celebrations and as a reminder to everyone that Rosh Hodesh is not just the recitation of Hallel but is a monthly renewal of our calendar. Rosh Hashanah remains one of the central holidays in the Jewish calendar. I hope that by learning the Mishnah we can help return to the holidays roots which are a reminder of God’s kingship and God’s salvation. And again, as always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah. We are getting close to having finished half of the Mishnah. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Taanit." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ראש השנה", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b076fbb73d4f97fa61172c12bdcd0316df7379b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,248 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Rosh_Hashanah", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "There are two main topics covered in tractate Rosh Hashanah. The first is the sanctification of the new month and the new year. By “sanctification” I refer to the court’s decision which day shall be the first of the new month or new year—this decision gives the day sanctity. The second topic is the shofar and the liturgy on Rosh Hashanah. ", + "Today the Jewish lunar calendar is set—the day on which each month will begin is predetermined as are the lengths of each month. In mishnaic times the length of each month was not set. Rather each month they would determine when the new month would begin based on the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon. If the witnesses came to testify on the thirtieth day of the previous month, then that day would become Rosh Hodesh (the first of the month) of the next month and it would turn out that the old month had only twenty-nine days. If witnesses did not come, or they came but their testimony was not accepted in time, then the previous month would have thirty days and the new month would begin on the thirty-first day. Usually, the calendar would alternate between twenty-nine day months and thirty day months because a lunar month is about 29 ½ days long. ", + "The sanctification of the new month was done by an authorized court and it was done with quite a bit of ceremonial flourish, as we shall see. We will also see some hotly contested disputes within the chapter concerning accepting testimony to sanctify the month. We need to realize that in the Second Temple period the calendar was one of the most divisive issues between sects of Jews. Some Jews used a solar calendar (notably the Dead Sea sect), whereas the Pharisees and subsequently the rabbis used a lunar calendar. This meant that different sect’s holidays fell at different times and it meant that people would have disagreed when holiday sacrifices should be offered at the Temple. ", + "According to the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is the first month of the year and not Tishrei, which is called by the Torah “the seventh month.” The first day of the seventh month is referred to in Leviticus 23:23-25, “Speak to the children of Israel saying: In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts. You shall not work and you shall bring an offering by fire to the Lord.” Numbers 29:1-6 further describes the day’s sacrifices, calling it “a day of blasts.” In the Torah, this day is not called the first of the new year.", + "Only in rabbinic tradition is this day called “Rosh Hashanah”, although as we will see in the first mishnah, there are also other days that are considered the beginnings of a new year. We should also note that the concept that Rosh Hashanah is “the Day of Judgment” appears first in rabbinic literature. This theme was probably derived from the atonement aspect of Yom Kippur. If Yom Kippur is the “Day of Atonement” then there must be a judgment which needs to be avoided. In the Bible itself, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah are unconnected holidays. ", + "According to the Torah Rosh Hashanah is only one day. However, because of the problem of not knowing ahead of time what day Rosh Hashanah falls on, in other words, not knowing whether the previous month (Elul) was twenty-nine days or thirty days, led to Rosh Hashanah always being observed for two days. This is also true for Rosh Hodesh when the previous month was a thirty day month—it too is observed for two days. The difference is that Rosh Hashanah is observed on the first two days of Tishrei, whereas a two-day Rosh Hodesh is observed on the last day of the previous month and the first day of the new month. This is at least partly because Elul now has only 29 days. ", + "A major portion of the last two chapters is dedicated to the laws of the shofar and to the special prayers on Rosh Hashanah. These are still the two aspects of Rosh Hashanah most prominent in our lives. We shall discuss them in far greater depth when we learn those chapters. ", + "Good luck in learning Rosh Hashanah. It is an extremely interesting tractate—I’m sure you will enjoy it. \n" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis famous mishnah gives four new years and explains the halakhic significance of each of each of them.", + "There are four new years:
The first of Nisan is the new year for kings and for festivals. The order of the new years in this mishnah reflects the order of the months in the Torah. In the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is considered to be the first month of the year, so it is listed here first. The first of Nisan is new year for the kings, which means that we count the years in which a king has ruled from the first of Nisan. The reason why this is important is that in those times they would date their documents by the years in which the king had ruled. In order for a document to be valid, therefore, one needed to know if which year of the king’s rule this was. “For festivals” means that Pesah is considered to be the first festival of the year. The reason that this is important is that it impacts someone who makes a vow to bring something to the Temple. Rabbi Shimon holds that he has three festivals to bring the vow-offering, and that the count of those three festivals begins on Pesah. So if he makes a vow after Pesah, he doesn’t begin counting the three festival time-limit until the following Pesah.", + "The first of Elul is the new year for the tithe of beasts. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: the first of Tishri. The first of Elul is the Rosh Hashanah for tithing animals. When tithing animals, one groups them by year. The first of Elul is the beginning of the next year, so any animals born on or after this date count toward the next year’s tithe and not towards those animals that need to be tithed from the previous year. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon disagree concerning tithes. They hold that just as tithes for vegetables are fixed on the first of Tishri (see below), so too are tithes for animals.", + "The first of Tishri is the new year for years, for shmitta and jubilee years, for planting and for [tithe of] vegetables. The first of Tishri, what we today call Rosh Hashanah, is the new year for “years.” This means that when we count what year it is, we count from the first of Tishri. This is how we still count the years today. Many other commentators take this to mean that counts based on the rule of non-Jewish kings are based on Tishri being the start of the new year. The shmitta (Sabbatical) and Jubilee years begin on the first of Tishri meaning from this date all of the prohibitions and regulations concerning the Sabbatical and Jubilee years begin to take effect. This is also the new year for “planting” trees, meaning that we count the number of years a tree has grown starting on the first of Tishri. This is important in order to know when it stops being “orlah” fruit which is prohibited during the trees first three years. Finally, the first of Tishri is the Rosh Hashanah for the tithes of vegetables. Vegetables that were picked before Tishri are not tithed with vegetables picked afterwards.", + "The first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: on the fifteenth of that month. The two houses debate the date of the new year for trees: Bet Shammai holds that it is on the first of Shevat, and Bet Hillel holds that it is on the fifteenth (Tu B’shvat). The importance of this new year is that fruit which has begun to sprout on the tree before this date is not tithed with fruit that spouts afterwards." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists four points of the year in which the world is judged as to the outcome of certain essential aspects of life. As we shall see, three of them are connected to agricultural holidays and events, whereas the fourth, the judgment on Rosh Hashanah, is more of a moral/religious judgment.", + "At four set times the world is judged:
On Pesah in respect to the produce. In the land of Israel, the grain harvest begins around Pesah time. Indeed, this is why the Omer offering, which is brought from the first barley harvested, begins to be offered on the second day of Pesah. The mishnah teaches that on Pesah the world is judged as to how successful the produce harvest will be.", + "On Shavuot in respect to the fruit of the tree. On Shavuot the harvest of the fruits of the tree begins. Specifically, this seems to be when grapes begin to ripen. Hence, according to the rabbis this is when the world is judged as to the harvest of fruits which come from the tree.", + "On Rosh Hashanah all the people of the world pass before Him like a division of soldier [a numerus], as it says, “He who fashions the hearts of them all, who discerns all their doings” (Psalms 33:15). This is the central section in this mishnah, the reason why this mishnah is here in Rosh Hashanah. This is the source where we learn for the first time that on Rosh Hashanah the world is judged. The image that the mishnah creates is that all the people of the world, perhaps even non-Jews, come in front of God one at a time and God inspects them. He is like their general and they are his soldiers, standing at attention and being judged by Him. The word “numerus” was interpreted by Saul Lieberman, the premier Talmudic scholar of the past century, as referring to an army division. The version in the mishnah was understood by later talmudic scholars who did not know Greek, as “kivne meron”, understood to refer to the sheep on the Meron mountain. This led to the well-known image of people passing in front of God like sheep passing in front of a shepherd. The point of the prooftext is that God who is the creator of the human heart, also looks at what a person does and judges each one according to his deeds.", + "And on Sukkot they are judged in respect of rain. In the land of Israel, the rainy season begins on Sukkot. Hence, on Sukkot the people of the world are judged as to how much rain will come. To this day, on Sukkot Jews begin to pray for rain and add into the Amidah an acknowledgement that God causes the wind to blow and the rain to come down. Rain and prayers for rain is a topic to which we will return when we learn tracate Taanit." + ], + [ + "There are six months [at the beginning of which] messengers go out.
On Nisan because of Pesah;
On Av because of the fast.
On Elul because of Rosh Hashanah.
On Tishri because of the setting of the festivals.
On Kislev because of Hanukah.
And on Adar because of Purim.
When the Temple stood, they used also to go out to report Iyar because of Pesah Katan (Pesah.
In order to know what date holidays would fall on, people would need to know on what day the previous month had begun. This would be simple for those living in and near Jerusalem because they could immediately find out whether the court had decreed the thirtieth day of the previous month to be Rosh Hodesh. Our mishnah teaches that they used to send out messengers from Jerusalem so that people who lived further away could also find out when Rosh Hodesh had been decreed. However, they did not send these messengers out every month of the year, only on months which contained holidays.
Most of this mishnah is self-explanatory. Note that messengers do not need to go out for Shavuot because once one knows when Pesah falls, the date of Shavuot is known automatically.
Section two: “The fast” refers to Tisha B’av, the Ninth of Av.
Section three: Messengers would go out on Elul so that people would be able to celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the thirtieth day of Elul, lest that day turns out to be the first of Tishri. They would celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the next day as well, lest Elul has thirty days.
Section four: On Tishri the messengers would go out so that people would know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall.
Section seven: Pesah Sheni was the second chance for people to offer the pesah sacrifice if they did not offer it the first time (see Numbers 9:10-11 and Mishnah Pesahim 9:1). After the destruction of the Temple this holiday lost any practical relevance. We should note that by noting that when the Temple stood messengers went out for Pesah Sheni the mishnah also teaches that for all of the rest of the holidays the messengers still go out. After the destruction of the Temple only Pesah Sheni has lost its relevance." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs we stated in the introduction, in mishnaic times they set the calendar each month based on the testimony of witnesses who would come to the central court and testified that they had seen the new moon. Our mishnah teaches that on two months in order to testify that they had seen the new moon the witnesses may even profane Shabbat. We shall explain what is special about these two months below. What is critical is that the rabbis perceived it to be so critical that these witnesses come on time that they even allowed Shabbat to be profaned. Shabbat might need to be profaned if, for instance, the witnesses had to travel beyond the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) in order to get to Jerusalem to testify.", + "On account of two months they profane Shabbat: on account of Nissan and Tishri, for on those months messengers go forth to Syria and in them the dates of the festivals are fixed. There are two months on which witnesses may come to testify even if they need to profane Shabbat Nissan and Tishri. This is because on those days the dates of the holidays, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Pesah and Shavuot were set. Once we know when the first day of Nissan is we know when Pesah is, and we know when Shavuot will be as well. Similarly, once we know when the first of Tishri falls, we know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall. The messengers would go forth to Syria, meaning to the Diaspora, and let them know when the festivals would fall. Therefore, it was critical that they find out what day Rosh Hodesh was as soon as possible.", + "When the Temple stood they used to profane Shabbat for all the months, in order that the sacrifice might be offered on the right day. In the Temple there was a special sacrifice offered on Rosh Hodesh. Hence, it was essential that the witnesses testify on time every month so that the sacrifice would be offered on the correct day. Hence, they could profane Shabbat in order to get to Jerusalem to testify concerning any of the months. ." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a qualification of yesterday’s mishnah, regarding when the witnesses may profane Shabbat in order to travel to Jerusalem to testifythat they had seen the new moon.", + "Whether [the new moon] was seen clearly or was not seen clearly, they profane Shabbat on account of it. Rabbi Yose says: if it was been seen clearly they do not profane Shabbat on account of it. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, witnesses can profane Shabbat in order to come to Jerusalem and testify regardless of whether the new moon was seen clearly or not. Rabbi Yose holds that if the new moon was seen clearly in a place somewhat far away from Jerusalem, then it was probably seen clearly in Jerusalem as well. In such a case witnesses would have seen it in Jerusalem and since they live close, they would not have to profane Shabbat in order to testify. Therefore those outside of Jerusalem should assume that those closer had testified and that they don’t need to come and profane Shabbat. The other sages disagree, reasoning that if you tell witnesses not to profane Shabbat when the new moon is seen clearly, they might end up not profaning Shabbat when the moon is not seen clearly, i.e. when they should profane Shabbat. Anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah illustrates a concept which we mentioned at the end of yesterday’s mishnah-- anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged.", + "It happened that more than forty pairs of witnesses were on their way [to Jerusalem] and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him saying: if you prevent the multitude [from coming to provide testimony] it will turn out that you cause them to stumble in the future. The mishnah describes Rabbi Akiva in Lod holding back witnesses who were about to make their way to Jerusalem to testify that they had seen the new moon. Rabbi Akiva detains the because he reasons that there is no need for so many witnesses to testify; after all, two would seem to be sufficient. Commentators add that this transpired on Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva did not think it was necessary for forty pairs of witnesses to profane Shabbat, when only two were needed, so he held the unneeded pairs back. Rabban Gamaliel rebuked Rabbi Akiva for his actions. Witnesses who were told not to go to Jerusalem to testify would not go next time they see the new moon, and perhaps that time they would actually be needed. This is what he means when he says, “cause them to stumble.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a father and a son jointly testifying that they had seen the new moon. In normal cases the testimony of relatives may not be joined in order to add up to the required two witnesses. However, some sages, as we shall see below, hold that in the case of testifying regarding the new moon the joint testimony of relatives is acceptable.", + "If a father and a son have seen the new moon, they should both go [to Jerusalem], not that they can join together as witnesses but so that if one of them is disqualified the other may join with another witness. According to the first opinion in this mishnah, a father and son’s testimony is not joined together. However, they should nevertheless travel together to Jerusalem, for should one of them be disqualified, the other one will be able to testify along with another person. In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn what might disqualify a person from testifying.", + "Rabbi Shimon says that a father and son and all relatives are eligible to testify to the appearance of the new moon. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that relatives may indeed testify that they saw the new moon. According to Rabbi Shimon the testimony for the new moon works differently from testimony in other legal matters where relatives’ testimony is not joined together.", + "Rabbi Yose said: it happened once that Tobias the doctor saw the new moon in Jerusalem along with his son and his freed slave. The priests accepted his evidence and that of his son and disqualified his slave. But when they appeared before the court they accepted his evidence and that of his slave and disqualified his son. Through the story in this section we learn that there was a debate between the priests and the “court” of sages concerning two issues regarding testimony as to the new moon: the ability of relatives to jointly testify and the ability of a freed slave. The priests accepted the evidence of the relatives, probably because each of these people is himself fit to testify. The sages, which the mishnah calls here “the court,” accepted that of the freed slave, because they generally hold that freed slaves were allowed to testify. There is some interesting history which we may glean from this mishnah. First of all, the mishnah portrays two courts in Jerusalem, one that was made up of priests and one made up of others who evidently were not priests. The non-priest court is portrayed as being more authoritative. Second, it is noteworthy that the priests reject that of the freed slave while the other court accepts it. This may connect in general with the high value the priests placed on lineage." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is basically taken word for word from Sanhedrin 3:3. It is brought here again because the previous mishnah mentioned the possibility that a person would be disqualified from testifying.", + "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves. There are five categories of people who are disqualified from acting as witnesses or judges: 1) The first is a dice player, in other words a gambler. Such a person cannot testify since he is known to be a liar, especially with regards to monetary matters. Another reason is that he doesn’t participate constructively in building society. 2) A usurer. He is also probably considered to not be trustworthy in monetary matters. 3) A pigeon racer. Racing pigeons was a form of gambling. 4) Those who sell produce grown during the Seventh Year. According to Lev. 25:5-7 produce grown in the fields during the Seventh Year may be eaten by its owners, but it may not be sold. One who therefore sells Seventh Year produce is engaging in forbidden business practices which according to our mishnah make him not trustworthy to testify or act as a judge. 5) A slave referring to a slave who has not been freed.", + "This is the general rule: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified. The rules of acceptance of testimony from slaves are the same as those for a woman. Any case where they did allow the testimony of a woman, such as testimony concerning the death of another woman’s husband (see Mishnah Yevamot 15:4), they also allowed the testimony of a slave" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists several different ways in which a person might come to profane Shabbat on his way to testify that he saw the new moon. The mishnah is adamant a person on his way to Jerusalem may profane the Shabbat in any way that he needs to in order to ensure that he makes it to Jerusalem in order to testify.", + "If one who has seen the new moon and is not able to walk [to Jerusalem] on foot, he may be brought on a donkey or even in a litter [on Shabbat]. Here we learn that a person may transgress two prohibitions in order to make it to Jerusalem to testify: he may ride on a donkey and others may carry him on a litter, which is a violation of carrying.", + "If they [the witnesses] are likely to be attacked, they may take sticks [to defend themselves]. They may also carry sticks in order to defend themselves against bandits or highway robbers.", + "If the distance is great [to Jerusalem], they may take provisions with them, since for as much as a night and a day’s journey they were allowed to profane Shabbat and go out to testify concerning the new moon, as it says: “These are the appointed times of the Lord … which you shall proclaim at their appointed time” (Leviticus 23:4). They can also carry food with them on their way to Jerusalem. The witnesses were allowed to travel for up to an entire night and one day in order to get to Jerusalem, meaning if they saw the new moon in the evening when Shabbat began, and they were far enough away that they would have to walk the entire night and all day and then just get there when Shabbat was over, they were still allowed to go. Of course, if they lived farther away than they couldn’t come because they wouldn’t make it in time anyway. The rabbis’ adamancy that one must go to Jerusalem to testify and that one can break Shabbat in order to do so is justified by a midrash. The Torah says that the appointed times, the festivals, must be proclaimed at their appointed time. This is understood by the rabbis to mean that it is essential that the court declare the new moon on time so that the festivals would fall at the correct time. If doing so requires one to profane Shabbat, so be it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAs I have written on several occasions, the setting of the calendar was a point of great conflict between ancient Jewish sects, namely the Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees and Dead Sea sect (which may overlap with the Essenes or Sadducees, or perhaps even both). This mishnah alludes to this strife when it relates that the minim, a generic rabbinic term for sectarians, tried to disrupt the process by sending false witnesses. It sounds like they wanted to trick the Pharisees into declare the new month on the wrong date. Even though the sectarians in this mishnah probably used a solar calendar, they still wanted to disrupt the Pharisaic/rabbinic calendar. It’s as if they wanted to say even according to your own system, you’re celebrating on the wrong day.", + "If they don’t know him [the one who came to testify], they send another with him to testify concerning [his reliability]. This section expresses the current halakhah (the halakhah that was valid at the time of the mishnah). When someone was sent to testify concerning the new moon, if this person was not known to the central court that accepted the testimony, then they would send with him a person who was known to the court to vouch for the witness’s reliability. Basically, he would tell the court that the witness was a “kosher yid” and not a sectarian.", + "Originally testimony concerning the new moon was accepted from anyone. When the minim disrupted this, it was decreed that testimony should be received only from persons known [to the court]. This explains the background to the need for a second person to testify as to the reliability of the witness. Before the sectarians “ruined” it, everyone was trusted to testify. We should note that this mishnah is probably more “historiographical” than “historical.” That is to say, the mishnah teaches us how to view history, more than it teaches us what actually happened. The mishnah presents a pre-minim history in which everyone could trust one another; it was a moment of unity between all Jews. The minim came and disrupted this unity and now we have to suspect one another. Obviously a person hearing this mishnah will know how undesirable the minim really are." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAbove in 1:3 we learned that the court used to send messengers out to let the people in the Diaspora know that the new month had been decreed. In our mishnah we learn that this custom was the result of another attempt by a non-Pharisaic/rabbinic group of Jews to disrupt the calendar.", + "Originally they used to light torches [to signal that the new month had been decreed]. When the Samaritans disrupted this, they decreed that messengers should go out. In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall learn how they used to light torches, or beacons, in order to let everyone in the Diaspora know that a new month had been decreed. Here we learn that they stopped doing this because the Samaritans disrupted the process by lighting torches on the night of the thirtieth even though the court had not decreed a new month. Again we see that one of the sects attempts to have other Jews, Jews who follow a rabbinic calendar, celebrate their holidays on the wrong day." + ], + [ + "How did they light the torches? They used to bring long poles of cedar and reeds and olive wood and flax fluff and they tied them all together with a string. And someone used to go up to the top of a mountain and light them with fire and wave them back and forth and up and down until he saw the next one doing the same thing on the top of the second mountain; and so on the top of the third mountain.
This mishnah teaches how the torches were made and how the signals were passed from the top of one mountain to another. The mishnah is simple to understand and so no commentary appears below." + ], + [ + "At what places did they light the torches? From the Mount of Olives [in Jerusalem] to Sartaba, and from Sartaba to Gripina, and from Gripina to Havran, and from Havran to Bet Biltin. From Bet Biltin they did not move, but rather waved [the torch] back and forth and up and down until he saw the whole of the diaspora before him lit up like one bonfire.
This mishnah continues to discuss the torches used to let the Jews in the Diaspora know that the new month had been declared in Jerusalem. The mishnah traces a progression from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem all the way to Babylonia. At Bet Biltin the chain of torches would end for there the one waving the torch in Bet Biltin would be able to see all of the Diaspora lighting their torches in response. The Talmud relates that “Diaspora” here refers to Babylonia.
Since the mishnah is self-explanatory, I will again refrain from commenting." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the witnesses who have come to Jerusalem to testify that they saw the new moon.", + "There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called Bet Yazek. There all the witnesses used to assemble and the court would examine them there. They would make large feasts for them there so that they would have an incentive to come. When the witnesses came to Jerusalem they were directed to a courtyard called Bet Yazek. The court would examine them there, as we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah. Interestingly, they would make a big feast for them there in order to encourage people to come to testify. We again see how important the testimony concerning the new moon was for the rabbis.", + "Originally they used not to leave the place the whole day, but Rabban Gamaliel decreed that they could go two thousand cubits from it in any direction. And these were not the only ones [who could go two thousand cubits in any direction], but also a midwife who has come to deliver a child, or one who comes to rescue from a fire or from bandits or from a river in flood or from a building that has fallen in all these are like residents of the town, and may go two thousand cubits [on Shabbat] in any direction. This section deals with the laws of Shabbat border limits, a subject which we learned in greater depth in Eruvin (see especially 4:1-3, for laws which deal with the topic addressed here.) A person is not allowed to go more than 2000 cubits outside of the city in which he began Shabbat. If he does so, he is stuck in his place and can’t walk more than another four cubits. In the case in our mishnah, witnesses came to Jerusalem to testify on Shabbat. This was permitted and indeed encouraged, as we saw in 1:4-5. Our mishnah teaches that originally such a person could not leave the courtyard because a person who leaves his Shabbat border cannot move more than four cubits in any direction. The courtyard which was enclosed was considered to be all within four cubits. However, this would discourage people from coming to Jerusalem to testify because they would know that they would be stuck there the whole day. In order to encourage people to come to testify, Rabban Gamaliel the elder, a sage who lived while the Temple still stood, decreed that they could move about like the rest of the people of the town. This means that they could move around all of Jerusalem and even go outside of the city 2000 cubits in any direction. The mishnah goes on to say that the same ruling applies to anyone who left his Shabbat border for a permitted reason. So a midwife who leaves her Shabbat border limit to go and deliver a child may now go all around the city she came into and may go 2000 cubits in all direction. The same is true for anyone who leaves his Shabbat border limit in order to save property. Since we want to encourage people to do so, they are allowed this concession." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs we mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah, once the witnesses arrived in Jerusalem they were brought to Bet Yazek where the court would examine them. Our mishnah teaches how they were examined.", + "How do they test the witnesses?
The pair which arrives first, they test them first. The first pair to get there would be the first pair that would be examined first come, first serve.", + "They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon in front of the sun or behind the sun? To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined? And how broad was it?” If he says [he saw it] in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected. As is usual in all court cases, they interrogate the witnesses one at a time. The examination would consist of several questions which would ascertain that the witnesses had actually seen the new moon. At the time of the new month (the molad, in Hebrew) the moon is found at sundown in the west near the sun. From that time on it goes further east away from the sun, until at the fifteenth of the month it is in the east opposite the sun. Right before the new moon it is west of the sun and it sets before the sun such that it looks as if it is “in front of the sun.” After the new month (the molad) it sets after the sun and is further from the horizon and it looks as if it is “after the sun.” Therefore, if he says that he saw it “in front of the sun,” he has not seen the new moon and his testimony is rejected. One who stands looking west at sunset, where he might see the new moon at the right time of the month has the north to his right and the south to his left. Therefore, when they ask north and south, what they mean is was the moon to the right or left of the sun.", + "After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted. If the witnesses said the same thing, then there testimony is accepted.", + "And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming [to testify]. Once two witnesses have testified, there is no need for more testimony from other witnesses. Nevertheless, the court didn’t want to just turn the rest of the pairs of witnesses away because if they did so they might not come back in the future reasoning that there was no need for their testimony. Therefore, they asked the witnesses a few questions in order to make them feel that their long trip to Jerusalem had not been in vain." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah describes the ceremonial declaration made by the court when they sanctified the new month. We should note that we have seen several occasions in which ritual was used by the rabbis in order to engage in polemics against a rival Jewish group such as the Sadducees. For example the ritual of the water libation was emphasized, as was the ritual in which they harvested the new barley, the omer, on the day after the first day of Pesah. Our mishnah may also describe a ritual used for at least slightly polemical purposes.", + "The head of the court says, “Sanctified,” and all the people answer after him, “Sanctified, sanctified.” The ritual consists of the head of the court announcing that the new moon had been sanctified and the rest of the people responding, “Sanctified, sanctified.”", + "Whether the new moon is seen at its proper time or not at its proper time they sanctify it. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that if it is not seen as its proper time they do not sanctify it for heaven has already sanctified it. According to the first opinion, this ritual is performed whether or not the court sanctifies the new moon on the thirtieth day of the previous month (the proper time), turning the previous month into a twenty-nine day month, or whether the previous month lasted a full thirty days and the new moon was not declared until the thirty-first day (not its proper time). Remember, a month can have only 29 or 30 days. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that the ceremony was performed only if the month was sanctified at its proper time, meaning on the thirtieth day. If the new moon was not seen on this day, then it is as if heaven had sanctified the month by allowing it to last the full thirty days. Since heaven sanctified it, the court does not perform the ritual declaration. We should note that beneath the surface of this mishnah we again can detect the conflict between the court determining the new month by making a ritual declaration and the calendar being set by the cycles of nature that is heaven sanctifying the new month. As we have seen, this was a major debate among Second Temple Jews, and echoes of the debate seem to still be found in post-Temple rabbinic literature." + ], + [ + "Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?”
It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them.
On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.
This mishnah and the next one contain one of the most famous stories in rabbinic literature. In it Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua clash over accepting what seems to surely be false testimony as to the new moon.
Section one: This section sets up the character of Rabban Gamaliel, who will play the lead role in the story. Rabban Gamaliel was the head of the court in Yavneh and he was the rabbi who would ultimately decide whether the witnesses’ testimony would be accepted and the new month sanctified. In order to facilitate this, he would have pictures of the moon in its different phases hung up in his upper chamber, where he would interrogate them.
Section two: The story now begins. Two witnesses come in front of some rabbi (it’s not clear whom they come in front of) and tell him that they saw the new moon in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west. This is impossible and hence Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas calls them lying witnesses. The witnesses proceed on to Yavneh and come in front of Rabban Gamaliel, who sanctifies the month based on their testimony. We as readers of the mishnah are properly shocked wasn’t Rabban Gamaliel the very rabbi who was especially fervent in checking the witnesses?
The same thing seems to happen a second time. Again witnesses offer impossible testimony, which Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas promptly rejects, this time using a graphic analogy. In Hebrew there is a pun which is lost in translation. The word for pregnant and the word for a thirty day month are the same.
In the final line of the mishnah, a new character is added, Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, setting the stage for his eventual clash with Rabban Gamaliel in tomorrow’s mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is the continuation of yesterday’s story of Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the sanctification of the new moon based on erroneous testimony. At the end of yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas that the witnesses’ testimony was false and therefore Rabban Gamaliel should not have accepted it.", + "Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. The action begins with Rabban Gamaliel’s response to Rabbi Joshua. Rabban Gamaliel sends one of his messengers (henchmen) to him and demands that he come to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he believes to be Yom Kippur, the day after Rabban Gamaliel would have celebrated Yom Kippur. This is a harsh decree, one delivered by the politically potent Rabban Gamaliel, to the wise yet weak Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Joshua would be forced to desecrate the holiest day of the year by carrying his stick and money in the public domain and by going beyond the Shabbat border limit. Indeed, if Rabbi Joshua believes that that day is Yom Kippur, he would have to ignore Rabban Gamaliel’s demands rather than transgress such a serious prohibition.", + "Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. Rabbi Akiva hears about the goings on and comes to Rabbi Joshua to offer him advice. His advice is based on a midrash. The verse seems to imply, at least according to its midrashic reading, that the holidays are holy whether or not the court decrees them to fall at their “proper” time or at the wrong time. In other words, Yom Kippur is when the court determines it to be, and not when it really should fall according to some predetermined “heavenly” time. If the court makes a mistake and sanctifies the new month of Tishri on the wrong day, then ten days later is still Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva is basically telling Rabbi Joshua that even if Rabban Gamaliel is wrong with regard to the new month, the day upon which he declares Yom Kippur to fall is still Yom Kippur.", + "He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. Rabbi Joshua now goes to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, the same sage who said in yesterday’s mishnah that the witnesses were lying. This is a fascinating move. He is basically going to Rabbi Dosa and asking him, “What should I do? I agreed with you, and see what a predicament it has gotten me into.” Rabbi Dosa, like Rabbi Akiva, provides him with a midrash which supports him going to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he thinks is Yom Kippur. Rabbi Dosa’s midrash teaches that the court that stands at every generation is equal in authority to that of Moses and his court. This is the ultimate statement of rabbinic authority. One shouldn’t think that the current rabbinic courts are inherently of a lesser status. Although the sages that live today may not be as close to the source, God and the Torah, as was Moses, their authority is nevertheless not diminished.", + "He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision. Peace is finally made and rabbinic unity is restored. Rabbi Joshua is either convinced by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, or he realizes that he has no choice but to go to Rabban Gamaliel. Rabban Gamaliel greets him with open arms, praising him for both his wisdom and importantly, also for his acceptance of his decree." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAlthough this is the first mishnah of a new chapter, it is really the last mishnah to deal with the sanctification of the new month. It contains a few final rules governing how the court decides that the new month should be declared.", + "If the court and all of Israel saw it, if the witnesses were examined and there was no time left to say “Sanctified” before it grew dark, then the month is impregnated (it has thirty. In this case, it was abundantly clear that the new month had arrived, but the court was not able to convene and sanctify it before it grew dark and the thirtieth day of the previous month was over. The mishnah rules that since the court did not have time to declare the new month sanctified, it is not sanctified and Rosh Hodesh will have to wait for the next day. We should note that again we see here the ideology that the court, that is humans, are what create the reality of the new month, and not the astronomical phenomenon itself.", + "If the court alone saw it, two of them should stand up and testify before them, and then they can say, “Sanctified, sanctified.” If the members of the court themselves were the only ones who saw the new moon, then those who saw the new moon should testify in front of the others (at least three others) that the new moon had been sanctified, and then the court may declare, “Sanctified, sanctified.”", + "If three people saw it, and they [themselves] are the court, two [of them] should stand up and they should seat some of their colleagues with the one [remaining judge], and they [the two] should testify before them and they can then say, “Sanctified, sanctified.” For an individual is not trusted [to sanctify the new month] by himself. Here, only three people see the new moon, and they themselves are the court that is supposed to declare that it is sanctified. Since the same people that function as witnesses cannot function as judges, two of them must find two other people to take their place as judges and then they may testify that they saw the new moon. The mishnah concludes by noting that one person cannot serve as the sole decision maker with regard to the declaration of the new month." + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah opens the second half of tractate Rosh Hashanah, which deals mostly with the laws of the shofar and the shofar blasts, as well as the special mussaf prayers for Rosh Hashanah. In this mishnah rabbis debate what animals’ horns may be used for the shofar", + "All shofars may be used except for that of a cow, because it is a keren. According to the first opinion, all shofars can be used on Rosh Hashanah expect for the horn of a cow, because the horn of a cow is not called a shofar but rather a keren, which is a Hebrew word for horn. The reason that we require a horn called a shofar is that Leviticus 25:9 uses the word shofar in connection with Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year, and the rabbis say that this shofar is the paradigm for the shofar of Rosh Hashanah. The types of shofar that can be used are specifically that of a ram (an ayil in Hebrew), which is usually bent, and that of an ibex (a yael in Hebrew), which is straight.", + "Rabbi Yose said: Are not all shofars called keren as it says, “When they make a long blast with the ram’s keren [horn]?” (Joshua 6:5). Rabbi Yose points out that the horn of a ram is also called a keren, as proven from the quote from Joshua. And if a ram’s horn can be used even though it is called a keren, why can’t the horn of a cow be used? The other rabbis don’t respond to Rabbi Yose in the mishnah. The Talmud, however does provide their reponse. The rabbis respond to Rabbi Yose that all horns of animals are called both keren and shofar, whereas that of a cow is called only keren. This means that in order for a horn to be used it has to be called a shofar but not necessarily exclusively." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah.", + "The shofar used on Rosh Hashanah was that of an ibex, straight, and its mouth was overlaid with gold. According to the mishnah, the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah should be from the horn of an ibex. The Talmud explains that the straightness or simplicity of the shofar is symbolic of the straightness of a person’s prayers. In the Talmud Rabbi Judah disagrees with this mishnah and says that one should use the bent horn of a ram, symbolic of how a person bends down in humility before God. The Rambam points out that the horn of the ram also reminds us on Rosh Hashanah of the sacrifice of Isaac, when Isaac was eventually replaced by a ram. The mouthpiece of the shofar was overlaid with gold. According to the Talmud, this relates to the shofar that was blown in the Temple. Covering the mouthpiece of the shofar is no longer allowed.", + "There were two trumpets, one on each side of it. The shofar gave a long blast and the trumpets a short one, since the commandment of the day was with the shofar. The idea that there were trumpets accompanying the shofar is expressed also in Psalms 98:6, “With trumpets and the sound of a shofar you shall make blasts before God the King.” Again, the Talmud relates that this was done only in the Talmud. Priority was given to the sounds of the shofar over those made by the trumpets." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the shofar and trumpet blasts that are sounded on public fast days. These were fast days that were declared when Israel experienced distress, mostly the distress of not having enough rain. Tractate Taanit, the next tractate which we shall learn, is dedicated to this subject.", + "On [public] fast days they used shofars of rams, curved, the mouths of which were covered with silver, and there were two trumpets in between them. The basic function of this mishnah is to distinguish the Rosh Hashanah ritual, described in yesterday’s mishnah, with the public fast day ritual described here. This distinction was probably created and then emphasized in the Mishnah in order to preserve the integrity of both occasions. On public fast days the shofar was made from a ram’s horn, which was curved and instead of its mouth being covered with gold, it was covered with silver. On Rosh Hashanah the trumpets were on the outside, whereas on public fast days they were in between the shofars.", + "A short blast was made with the shofars and a long one with the trumpets, because the mitzvah of the day is with trumpets. This section again offers a distinction between the Rosh Hashanah practice and the public fast practice. On Rosh Hashanah the mitzvah is with the shofar so its blasts are longer. On the public fast day the mitzvah is with the trumpets, so their blasts are longer. This is derived from Numbers 10:9 according to which the Israelites should blast trumpets when going out to war. From here the rabbis derive that in all cases of public distress, they should sound blasts with trumpets." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nLeviticus 25:8-16 deals with the Jubilee year, the fiftieth year after seven cycles of seven years. Verse 9 states, “Then you shall sound the horn loud; in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month the Day of Atonement you shall have the horn sounded throughout your land.” Our mishnah deals with the rituals of this day which begins the Jubilee year.", + "The Jubilee is the same as Rosh Hashanah when it comes to blowing [the shofar] and blessings. According to the first opinion, the laws of blowing the shofar and the recitation of blessings are the same for the Jubilee year as they are for Rosh Hashanah of every year. The blessings referred to here are the special blessings recited as part of the Mussaf Amidah. We will learn more about these blessings in chapter four.", + "Rabbi Judah says: on Rosh Hashanah they blow with [a shofar of] rams and on Jubilees with [a shofar] of ibex. Rabbi Judah says that different animals’ horns are used for the two shofars. The one for Rosh Hashanah is that of a ram, whereas on the Jubilee they use the horn of an ibex. We should note that Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion in mishnah three above, according to which on Rosh Hashanah we use the horn of an ibex." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the physical wholeness of the shofar. It teaches what flaws in the shofar render it invalid.", + "A shofar which has split and then he stuck it together is not valid. According to the Talmud, this refers to a shofar which has split lengthwise. One cannot use it by gluing it back together. This is either because the shofar won’t sound good, or because air will inevitably escape not only from the end but from the sides as well.", + "If he stuck together fragments of shofars, it is not valid. In this case, someone tries to glue together pieces of a broken shofar to make one whole one. This doesn’t work for the same reasons it doesn’t work to glue together one shofar.", + "If there was a hole in a shofar and he closed it up, if it interferes with the blowing it is not valid, but if it does not it is valid. In this case the shofar was not cracked, as was the shofar in yesterday’s mishnah, but just had a hole in it. If after he patches it up the shofar sounds okay, then it may be used. If not, it may not be used. Others explain that the words “if it interferes with the blowing” refer to before the hole is closed. If the hole prevents the sound before it is patched up, he may not use the shofar even after it has been patched up." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches two halakhot: 1) one must hear the sound of the shofar and not an echo of the sound of the shofar; 2) when hearing the shofar one must have intention to hear it for the sake of the fulfillment of the commandment. The mishnah illustrates cases where one may have heard a shofar blast and nevertheless not fulfilled his obligation", + "One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation. Here someone blows a shofar into an echo-producing chamber, such as a pit, a cistern or a jug. The mishnah rules that in order to fulfill his obligation he must be sure that he heard the sound of the shofar and not the echo of the sound of the shofar. There is a geonic commentary on this mishnah, according to which the mishnah refers to a time of persecution when the Romans outlawed the public observance of commandments. They hid their shofar blasts to avoid the authorities.", + "And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had, then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not. This section teaches that when hearing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, or Megillat Esther on Purim, one must have the intention of hearing them in order to fulfill the commandment. A person might be walking behind a synagogue and hear them blow the shofar and then think to himself, “Great, I’ve just fulfilled my commandment” (and no need to go to shul today!). The mishnah rules that the act of hearing the shofar is not sufficient. One must have the intention to hear in the fulfillment of a commandment. The final section of the mishnah notes how strongly this commandment is connected to intention both the one who walked behind the synagogue and the one who actually went to the synagogue heard the same exact thing, yet one has fulfilled his obligation and one has not. Tomorrow’s mishnah will contain the central rabbinic statement as to the role that intention plays in halakhah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that for one to fulfill one’s obligation of hearing the shofar, one must have the proper intention. The first section of today’s mishnah provides an essential statement with regard to ritual and intention. While ritual plays an extremely important role in Judaism, it is nevertheless considered only an external sign of internal intention and conviction. The Mishnah brings up several cases in the Torah where Moses seems to perform a magical ritual that aids Israel. The rabbis understand the magic to be a means to evoke intention and reflection upon God, and not to be a ritual that works regardless of the inner emotions and thoughts of the people of Israel.\nThe second section of the mishnah teaches that those who cannot legally have intention, meaning the law considers them unable to have such thoughts concerning the fulfillment of commandments, cannot aid others in fulfilling their obligation to hear the shofar.", + "“And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed” etc. (Exodus 17:1. Did the hands of Moses wage war or break [Israel’s ability] to wage war? Rather this teaches that as long as Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven they prevailed, and if not they fell. The stories and the lessons of this mishnah are taught quite straightforwardly. Moses’s raising of his hands does not itself cause Israel to conquer Amalek and when his lowering of his hands does not itself cause the Israelites to lose. Their success and failure in war is a function of their belief in God and their subjecting themselves to God. We might note that Moses’s hands are held up high, causing Israel to look up at them. This is intended to cause Israel to think about God, who dwells in Heaven. It might be no accident that the rabbis choose this example and the next to illustrate their attitude towards ritual and intention.", + "Similarly, “Make for yourself a fiery serpent and mount it on a pole. And if anyone who is bitten shall look at it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Did the serpent kill or did the serpent keep alive? Rather, when Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were healed, and if not their [flesh] would melt away. The copper serpent (in Hebrew “seraph”, a word whose meaning is somewhat uncertain) is not a magical charm healing Israel from the wounds of the serpents sent by God to attack them as a punishment for their constant complaining. Rather the serpent is symbolic again of God it causes Israel to look up and to direct their hearts to God. Only by having the right intention can Israel be healed.", + "A deaf-mute, a lunatic and a minor cannot cause others to fulfill their religious obligation. This is the general principle: one who is not himself obligated in the matter cannot perform it on behalf of others. According to rabbinic law, deaf-mutes, lunatics and minors are not in full control of their mental faculties, and hence cannot have proper “intention.” This causes them to be exempt from the performance of commandments that require intention, such as the hearing of the shofar. Since they themselves are not obligated to blow the shofar, they cannot blow the shofar in order for others to hear and thereby fulfill their obligation. This is true in all cases a person who is not obligated to perform a commandment cannot himself perform that commandment on behalf of others. One must be personally obligated in order to fulfill the more communal role of fulfilling a mitzvah for other people." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with blowing the shofar on Shabbat. It is somewhat unclear why blowing the shofar on Shabbat should be prohibited at all. After all, as we shall see, some places did blow the shofar on Shabbat. It seems to me that there may have been a desire among the sages to prevent the celebration of Rosh Hashanah from overshadowing that of Shabbat. In the Talmud they provide a midrashic reason why one shouldn’t blow the shofar on Shabbat.", + "If Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat, they would blow the shofar in the Temple but not in the country. There are two different explanations for “Temple” and “country.” Some commentators explain “Temple” to refer to all of Jerusalem and “country” to refer to anywhere outside of Jerusalem. According to this interpretation, they allowed the shofar to be blown in Jerusalem because there they would know whether the new moon had been sanctified. In other words, they would know for certain whether it was Rosh Hashanah. Outside of Jerusalem they couldn’t be sure, so they wouldn’t blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Assumedly, at this period there were already two days of Rosh Hashanah so that they could blow the second day. The other explanation is that “Temple” refers to the Temple itself, and “country” refers to all places outside of the Temple. They allowed the shofar to be blown in the Temple because rabbinically prohibited activities are allowed on Shabbat in the Temple. However, this interpretation does not fit particularly well with the mishnah which we shall learn tomorrow.", + "After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed that it should be blown [on Shabbat] in every place where there was a court. This begins a series of decrees made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leaders of the rabbis after the destruction of the Second Temple. The other decrees will appear in the following mishnayot. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the shofar should be blown on Shabbat in all places where a rabbinic court, according to some a Sanhedrin, sat. This in essence bequeathed the authority of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem on all subsequent courts, no matter where they sat.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed for Yavneh only. They said to him: both Yavneh and any place where there is a court. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the broad application of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s decree (takkanah) and limits it only to the court in Yavneh. Rabbi Eliezer may be claiming that it is only Rabban Yohanan’s personal authority that allowed him to make such a decree. Other courts, which will not be able to count Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as one of them, will not have such authority. The other rabbis reject Rabbi Eliezer’s statement. The decree bestowed authority on all subsequent courts and not just on the one in Yavneh. We might say that the authority is vested in the office and not in the individual rabbi, charismatic and learned as he may be." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.", + "There was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, that in every city which could see [Jerusalem] and hear and was near and could get to Jerusalem, they used to blow [on Shabbat], whereas in Yavneh they used to blow in the court only. In Yavneh they blew the shofar on Shabbat only in the place where the court sat. However, in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat not only in Jerusalem but in all of the surrounding areas as well. This distinction between Jerusalem and Yavneh may have been an attempt to preserve the uniqueness of the authority of Jerusalem and its court. While Yavneh may have received some of the authority of Jerusalem, it was still not as great. The beginning of the mishnah implies that there was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, besides that listed in the Mishnah. The Talmud asks what this was, and answers that in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat both in front of the court and not in front of the court. In Yavneh the shofar was blown on Shabbat only in front of the court. This may be a way of saying that while the court in Yavneh was authoritative, the city did not have inherent sacredness, as did Jerusalem." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous mishnah we learned of a decree that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple. The next two mishnayot contain other such decrees.\nIf this mishnah seems familiar it is because we just learned it in Sukkah 3:12. The below commentary is the same as that found there.\nLeviticus 23:40 reads, “On the first day you shall take...and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.” The beginning of the verse states “on the first day” and the end of the verse says, “seven days.” From here the rabbis derived that the mitzvah of taking the lulav is for a different amount of time in different places. They read the second half of the verse as applying to the Temple, “before the Lord your God.” Hence, the lulav was taken up for seven days in the Temple. Outside of the Temple, or according to other commentaries, outside of Jerusalem, the lulav was taken for only one day.", + "In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the Temple still stood the lulav was taken in the Temple (or in Jerusalem) for seven days and outside of the Temple for only one day, as explained in the introduction.", + "When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, However, when the Temple was destroyed, there was a problem. If people only observed the commandment for one day, they would soon forget that originally the commandment was observed for seven days, at least in some places. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leading rabbinic figures after the destruction of the Temple, decreed therefore that the lulav should be taken up for seven days, in memory of the Temple.", + "[He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce]. Having related one of the decrees that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple, the mishnah now relates another, similar decree. We need to note a little bit of background to understand this. On the second day of Pesah, when the Temple still stood, the Omer offering of barley was harvested and brought to the Temple and waved by a priest. After this day, it was permitted to eat from the new grain harvest (see Leviticus 23:9-14). Since people outside of Jerusalem would not know precisely when the Omer had been offered, they would wait at least half of the day before they would eat from the new harvest. When the Temple was destroyed and they could no longer offer the Omer, the rabbis derived from the Torah that the new produce could be eaten as soon as the second day of Pesah began. In other words, without an Omer sacrifice the day itself allowed the new harvest. Again, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived a problem. If people would eat from the new harvest immediately on the 16th of Nissan, when the Temple is rebuilt they would forget that they need to wait until the Omer is offered. Therefore he decreed that the new produce could not be eaten for the entire day. It is interesting to note that the rabbis who lived close to the destruction of the Temple believed that it would speedily be rebuilt. Just as they began working on the rebuilding of the First Temple only 70 years after its destruction, rabbis who lived in the first and early second century probably assumed that their Temple would also be rebuilt in a short time. However, after the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed, it probably began to dawn on many that the realistic chances of the Temple being speedily rebuilt were not good. The hopes of course never died, but this type of legislative activity making decrees lest the Temple be rebuilt quickly, were more characteristic of the pre Bar Kokhba period." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are two more decrees mentioned in this mishnah, both which have to do with the testimony concerning the new month.", + "Originally they used to accept testimony with regard to the new moon during the whole day. Originally, it didn’t matter when during the day the witnesses came to testify that they had seen the new moon there testimony was always accepted.", + "On one occasion the witnesses were late in arriving, and the Levites went wrong in the daily hymn. The problem with accepting witnesses all day is that when witnesses successfully testify they turn the current day into Rosh Hodesh, or in the case of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah. If they come late in the day, it may be difficult to correctly observe the special Rosh Hodesh rituals because time is simply running. The mishnah relates that this happened one time. The witnesses came late in the day and the Levites in the Temple sang the wrong Psalm. The Levites would sing a Psalm while the Tamid (Daily) sacrifice was being offered. There was a different song depending on whether it was a regular day or whether it was Rosh Hodesh. In the morning they sang the regular Psalm for that day, and then because the witnesses hadn’t yet come they sang the same Psalm for the afternoon Tamid. When the witnesses came, it turned out that they never sang the correct Psalm.", + "They therefore decreed that testimony should be accepted only until the afternoon [sacrifice]. They therefore decreed that the testimony of the witnesses would only be accepted until minhah time, which was the time when they would offer the tamid sacrifice (see Pesahim 5:1).", + "If witnesses came after the afternoon sacrifice that day should be kept as holy and also the next day. This section refers to Rosh Hashanah, which is not only Rosh Hodesh but also a sacred holiday. On Rosh Hashanah they would observe the thirtieth day of the previous month as a holiday meaning they wouldn’t work. If witnesses came before minhah, then that day would count as Rosh Hashanah, and the next day would not be Rosh Hashanah. If they came later than minhah, then that day would not have counted as Rosh Hashanah (even though they already refrained from work) and the following day will be observed as Rosh Hashanah. This is the origins of the custom to observe Rosh Hashanah for two days.", + "After the destruction of the temple Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that testimony with regard to the new moon should be received during the whole day. After the destruction of the Temple there was no more need to worry about the Levites singing the wrong song. Therefore, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai restored the rule to its original state, and allowed the acceptance of testimony for the entire day.", + "Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: this further did Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decree, that not matter where the head of the court might be, the witnesses should have to go only to the place of the assembly. According to Rabbi Joshua ben Korcha there was yet another decree made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that when the witnesses came to testify all they had to do was come to the place of assembly, which is where the court sat. They did not have to chase after the head of the court if he was in another place. This decree seems to be another way of saying that the authority of the court is determinative and not the individual authority of its leader." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe Amidah prayer said at Mussaf on Rosh Hashanah is the longest and most unique Amidah of the year. It contains the three blessings which begin every Amidah “patriarchs”, which concludes ‘magen Avraham’; “powers”, which concludes ‘mehayeh hametim’; and “the sanctification of the day”, which concludes ‘hael hakadosh’, or ‘hamelekh hakadosh’ between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.\nThe Amidah ends with the same three prayers with which it always ends, “blessing of the Temple service (begins with R’tzeh) and “thanksgiving” (begins with modim) and the blessing of the priests (sim shalom it is called the blessing of the priests because it begins with the priestly blessing).\nThere are three middle blessings, but the rabbis in our mishnah disagree about what these are. There are actually four topics which are mentioned in these three blessings. The first is the sanctification of the day, a blessing said on every festival. The other three are unique to Rosh Hashanah. They are “kingship (Malkhuyot)”, “Remembrance (Zikhronot)” and “Shofarot.” Each of the sections contains the recitation of relevant biblical verses, along with a liturgical composition and a concluding blessing.\nIn our mishnah the rabbis argue about the composition of these three middle blessings. We should emphasize that they agree concerning the content, and they agree that there are three and not four blessings. They also all agree that we blow the shofar three times during the Amidah. They also agree that “kingship” is not a separate blessing. In the points of agreement are far greater than the points of disagreement. They disagree only concerning which blessing “kingship” is combined with, and when precisely we blow the shofar.\nYou might want to look at a Rosh Hashanah Mahzor while studying this mishnah.", + "The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]:
He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar]. Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri the special kingship verses are combined with the “sanctification of the day” blessing but the shofar is not blown during this blessing. He then recites the sanctification of the day blessing (kedushat hayom) and finally the other two special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot. He blows the shofar during all three of these blessings. He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion.", + "Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them? The kingship-verses are one of the three sections of the Amidah that are unique to Rosh Hashanah. According to Rabbi Akiva, it wouldn’t make sense to recite these verses without blowing the shofar.", + "Rather he says: “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva suggests a different order. First he should recite the normal three blessings which begin each Amidah, without any deviation. Then he includes “kingship” with the sanctification of the day blessing, and blows the shofar as well. Then he recites the other special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot. He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion. Our Rosh Hashanah Mussaf Amidah today follows that of Rabbi Akiva." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs the core of the three special Mussaf Amidah blessings, “malkhuyot (kingships)”, “zikhronot (remembrances)” and “shofarot” we recite verses from the Torah that use the roots of these three verses. Our mishnah contains several debates concerning the quantity and order of these verses.", + "They do not recite less than ten kingship [verses], ten remembrance [verses], and ten shofar [verses]. According to the first opinion, each section must include ten verses. This is the current practice. We recite three verses from the Torah, three from the Prophets and three from the Writings and then we conclude with a final verse from the Torah.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that as long as one has recited three verses, assumedly one from each of the three sections of the Tanakh, he has fulfilled his duty.", + "They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment. The words for “king”, “remember” and “shofar” sometimes appear in connection with punishment. These verses should not be used as part of the liturgy, for what seems like obvious reasons.", + "He begins with [verses] from the Torah and concludes with [verses] from the prophets. According to the first opinion, he begins by reciting verses from the Torah and ends with verses from the Prophets. In between the two, he recites verses from the Writings.", + "Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with [a verse] from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yose seems to say that while he should conclude with a verse from the Prophets, as was stated in the previous opinion, nevertheless if he concludes with a verse from the Torah he has discharged his obligation. However, the Talmud understands Rabbi Yose as saying that it is actually preferable to end with a verse from the Torah. Due to this understanding of his words, the accepted halakhah is that we conclude with a verse from the Torah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOn days upon which Mussaf is recited (festivals and Rosh Hodesh) there are two people who function as the “shaliah tzibbur”, prayer leader the first does Shacharit and the second does Mussaf. Our mishnah determines which of these people blows the shofar and which of them recites the Hallel.", + "The one who passes before the ark on the festival of Rosh Hashanah: the second one blows the shofar. On Rosh Hashanah, the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf is the one who blows the shofar. It is interesting that the mishnah needs to dictate this. It seems that at some early point in the development of Jewish liturgy, the Shacharit Amidah for Rosh Hashanah also included liturgy in which it would have been appropriate to blow the shofar. In our current liturgy, there is no place in the Shacharit Amidah to do so, and hence it is quite obvious that the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf blows the shofar.", + "On days when Hallel is said, the first one recites the Hallel. On days on which Hallel is recited, the Shaliah Tzibbur for Shacharit is the one that recites the Hallel. Today we practice this by having Hallel fall in between Shacharit and Mussaf." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a few more rules concerning the shofar.", + "[For the sake of] the shofar of Rosh Hashanah one is not allowed to go past the [Shabbat] border, nor remove a pile of rocks, nor climb a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor swim on the water. In this section there is a list of activities that are rabbinically (derabanan) prohibited on Shabbat. That is to say, they are prohibitions that are less significant than those prohibited by the Torah. Nevertheless, the mishnah states that one does not transgress these prohibitions in order to be able to blow the shofar. For instance, if one needs to go past the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) to get a shofar or to hear one blown, one should not do so. If the shofar is under a pile of rocks, one may not clear them away in order to get to them. One may not climb a tree if the shofar was in a tree (this is beginning to sound like a famous Dr. Seuss book I would not hear it under rocks, I would not hear it in a tree). Nor may one ride an animal or swim in water to get to the shofar. The important issue here is the principle one does not transgress any commandments in order to hear the shofar.", + "One may not cut it, neither with an instrument forbidden because of shevut, nor with an instrument forbidden by a negative commandment. Should one need to cut the shofar in order to make it usable for blowing, one may not do so, neither with a type of knife prohibited derabanan on account of shevut (mandated resting) nor with a type of knife prohibited deoraita from the Torah. A knife that is typically used to cut something like a shofar would be prohibited from the Torah, while one not typically used for such purposes would be prohibited derabanan, a lesser prohibition.", + "But if he wants to pour wine or water into it he may do so. One may pour wine or water into the shofar in order to improve its sound. This is not considered to be a violation of the Shabbat and Yom Tov prohibition of “making a vessel.”", + "They need not prevent children from blowing the shofar [on Rosh Hashanah]; on the contrary, they may help them until they learn how to blow. Children are not obligated to hear or blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Since they are not obligated, we might have thought that they should not blow the shofar at all because the shofar is a form of work on Rosh Hashanah. The mishnah dispels this notion and states that not only do we not stop children from blowing the shofar, but we encourage them to practice and we teach them until they know how to blow. The Talmud adds that even on Shabbat we can help them practice.", + "One who is just practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, and the one hears [the blast made] by another when practicing has not fulfilled his obligation. Since the previous section discussed practicing, this mishnah concludes by teaching that practicing does not count as blowing the shofar in order to fulfill one’s obligation. A person who on Rosh Hashanah blows the shofar as practice has not fulfilled his obligation because he did not have the proper intention. Similarly, one who hears the shofar from a person practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, because one must hear the shofar being blown by someone who intends to fulfill his and others’ obligation." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Rosh Hashanah deals with the order of the shofar blasts. In the commentary on this mishnah I will note some of the ways in which the halakhah has developed over the centuries.", + "The order of the blasts: three sets of three each. There are nine core blasts of the shofar during the Mussaf Amidah three during each section, malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot. Each set consists of one tekiah, one teruah, followed by another tekiah. A set therefore consists of a teruah, preceded by and followed by a tekiah.", + "The length of a teki’ah is equal to three teru'ahs, and the length of a teru'ah is equal to three yevavot. A tekiah is a longer blast than a teruah and a teruah is a longer blast that a yevavah, which is a short staccato blast. In the Talmud there is a doubt about whether a teruah consists of a few medium length notes or a greater number of staccato notes. Today we call the few medium length notes “shevarim” and we call the shorter notes “teruah.” Since it is unclear which we should do, we do both (Jews love to compromise). We also do one set that is “shevarim-teruah” because a teruah may include both the shevarim and the teruah. This doubt concerning the doubt about how the blasts are to be done is the main way in which the original nine blasts have been expanded. The service also includes sets of shofar blasts that are not done throughout Mussaf.", + "If one prolonged the first teki'ah so that it went directly into the second, it counts only as one. At the end of one set of blasts is a tekiah. There is also a tekiah at the beginning of another set. If the shofar blower starts a tekiah at the end of one set and continues to blow long enough that it could have counted for the tekiah at the beginning of the next set, then it only counts as one tekiah. Each shofar blast must be integral and a doubly long blast counts only as one.", + "One who has blessed [recited the Amidah] and then a shofar is given to him, he sounds a teki'ah teru'ah teki'ah three times. As we stated above, the shofar blasts are integrated into the Amidah. However, the obligation to blow the shofar is independent of the obligation to recite the Mussaf prayer. Therefore, if one does not have a shofar while reciting the Amidah, and then gets one later on, he should blow the shofar even though he has already recited the Amidah.", + "Just as the shaliah tzibbur is obligated, so every single individual is obligated. Rabban Gamaliel says: the shaliah tzibbur (communal prayer causes the whole congregation to fulfill their obligation. The final section contains an extremely important debate concerning the function of the shaliach tzibbur, literally translated as “the agent of the community.” According to the first opinion, every person is individually obligated to recite the entire Amidah. The Talmud comments that according to this opinion, the function of the shaliach tzibbur is to fulfill the obligation for a person who doesn’t know how to recite the Amidah. One who knows how to recite the Amidah cannot have his obligation fulfilled on his behalf by the shaliah tzibbur. According to Rabban Gamaliel the shaliach tzibbur’s recitation of the Amidah fulfills the obligation of the entire community. The question then must be asked why should the other members of the community even bother reciting the Amidah? The answer given is that while the rest of the community recites the Amidah, the shaliah tzibbur has time to prepare to recite the Amidah. Congratulations! We have finished Rosh Hashanah. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Mishnah Rosh Hashanah had two main sections, one about the sanctification of the new month, Rosh Hodesh, and the other about Rosh Hashanah itself. The Jewish calendar and its connection to the moon should remain an important way in which we connect ourselves to the cycles of nature, to the waxing and the waning of the new moon. In modern times, women have reclaimed Rosh Hodesh as a woman’s holiday. I hope that learning this mishnah has aided in these celebrations and as a reminder to everyone that Rosh Hodesh is not just the recitation of Hallel but is a monthly renewal of our calendar. Rosh Hashanah remains one of the central holidays in the Jewish calendar. I hope that by learning the Mishnah we can help return to the holidays roots which are a reminder of God’s kingship and God’s salvation. And again, as always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah. We are getting close to having finished half of the Mishnah. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Taanit." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ראש השנה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Moed" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ראש השנה", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Yoma/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Yoma/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4e127d4db496eec3184f6806eda11b02e79757f --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Yoma/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,401 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yoma", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה יומא", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Moed" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Tractate “Yoma”, which is Aramaic for “The Day” (the tractate was also called “Kippurim” or “Yom HaKippurim”), teaches the laws of Yom Kippur. However, seven of the eight chapters of the tractate deal with high priest’s worship in the Temple and only one of the chapters, the last one, deals with the laws of fasting and the issue of atonement. In other words, after the destruction of the Temple only one of these chapters is of immediate halakhic relevance. This is somewhat similar to the previous two tractates we have learned, Pesahim and Shekalim, which also contained large portions pertinent only to a time when the Temple still stood. ", + "The description of the high priest’s worship is found in Leviticus 16:1-34 and we shall make frequent reference to these verses. The Mishnah in large part explicates these verses, although not in a midrashic fashion, following the order of the verses, but rather in “mishnaic” fashion, following the order in which these actions are done. ", + "Interestingly, there are very few debates between different sages in these mishnayot. There are a few but they are mostly concerning the details and some of these concern the sacrificial procedures followed during the remainder of the year and not just on Yom Kippur. Albeck therefore concludes that the core of this tractate is early, and existed when the Temple still stood. It was transmitted by sages in later generation and these sages added in a few of their own comments, but left most of it in the way they received it. ", + "For those of you who pay close attention to the Yom Kippur service, you may remember a section called “Avodah” which is recited towards the end of Mussaf. The description of the high priest’s service described there is based on our Mishnah and on the accompanying Talmud, so when you get to shul (in little more than a month!)—pay attention and note the similarities. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nTractate Yoma begins with preparations made seven days before Yom Kippur falls. This whole chapter deals with the week before Yom Kippur and how the sages instruct the High Priest so that he will be able to correctly perform the Yom Kippur service.", + "Seven days before Yom HaKippurim they remove the high priest from his house to the chamber of the counselors and they set up another priest to take his place lest something should occur to him to disqualify him [from being able to worship]. Seven days before Yom Kippur they isolate the High Priest so that he doesn’t become impure. Part of the purpose of this separation was to keep him away from his wife, lest his wife become a menstruant and he have intercourse with her and thereby be defiled. If he contracted a serious form of impurity he would not be able to perform the service in the Temple. The idea of a seven day period of separation is also learned from the Torah which also speaks of a seven day separation period, albeit not before Yom Kippur. In Leviticus 8:33 Moses instructs Aaron and the other priests not to leave the Tent of Meeting for the seven days before the Tabernacle is initially consecrated. This separation period is seen by the Talmud as a precedent for the separation of the high priest before Yom Kippur.", + "Rabbi Judah said: they even prepare another wife for him in case his wife should die, as it says “And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6): “his house” this refers to his wife. They said to him: if so there would be no end to the matter. The Torah states that the High Priest makes atonement “for his house”, and the word “house” is understood by the rabbis to refer to his wife. This means that in order to be a high priest who can perform the Yom Kippur service, he needs to be married. Hence, Rabbi Judah says that they set up for him an alternative wife, lest his first wife dies right before Yom Kippur thereby preventing him from fulfilling the biblical verse. The rabbis respond that if we start worrying about such far-fetched possibilities, there will be no end to the matter. We will need to worry lest both the first wife and the second wife should die. Since the random death of his wife is unlikely, we don’t need to find him a second wife. However, the possibility that he should become defiled is not so unlikely, and hence he does need to be separated from his home a week before Yom Kippur. I should note that there are some interesting implications from this Mishnah on the rabbinic views of marriage. It is interesting that the rabbis demand that the “holiest” person in Judaism, the person responsible for the holiest service, must be married when he performs that service. This may be a statement somewhat directed against those Jewish groups who advocated celibacy, at least for their religious leaders. However, we should also note that during the week before his service, he is separated from his wife. In other words, there is some ambiguity here. He needs to be married, for the rabbis generally looked favorably upon procreation and upon sexual pleasure. However, they may have seen marital life as partially distracting and hence dictated a separation during this brief but intense period." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that during the seven days before Yom Kippur the high priest performs regularly duties which he may or may not perform during the rest of the year.", + "All seven days he sprinkles the blood and burns the incense and cleans lamps and offers the head and the leg; “Sprinkling the blood” refers to the blood of the daily tamid offerings which are offered in the morning and the evening. The incense is mentioned in Exodus 30:1-8. It is offered daily on the golden altar. “Cleaning the lamps” means cleaning them from the accumulated ashes, waste-oil and putting in them new oil and wicks. This task also includes lighting the new flame. Finally, the “head and the leg” are the partsof the two daily tamid offerings which were put first onto the altar. The point of this mishnah is that parts of the service and other Temple duties that he could take part in during the rest of they year, but did not have to if he did not want to, become obligatory for him during the week before Yom Kippur. This is so that he becomes more accustomed to working in the Temple. In other words, this is a warm up.", + "And on all other days if he wants he offers, for the high priest is first in offering a portion and has first place in taking a portion. During the rest of the year, he need perform these tasks only if he wishes to do so. The mishnah points out that any part of the sacrificial service that the high priest wishes to perform he may do so. His right trumps that of any ordinary priest, even those whose shifts are currently serving in the Temple. He also is the first to choose whichever part of the sacrifice he wishes, even if he wasn’t the one to offer it. As they say, “it’s good to be the high priest!”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah describes how the elders educated the high priest during the week that preceded Yom Kippur. We can easily note that the rabbis anticipate that the high priest will be completely uneducated in Torah and in the proper ways of the Temple service. Indeed, they don’t think that he even knows how to identify common sacrificial animals! According to the traditional understanding of this mishnah, the high priests that served in the Second Temple period were appointed by the kings out of political considerations and not for their expertise in Temple practice or for their personal piety. This is largely corroborated out by other descriptions of the high priests in such writings as Josephus and other historical works. However, the rabbis’ description of the high priest’s utter ignorance may be exacerbated by the Second Temple rivalry between the Pharisees, the rabbis’ spiritual forefathers and the Sadducees, a sect to which many high priests belonged.\nAnother interesting way of understanding this mishnah is to note the tension between the genealogically transmitted priesthood and the Torah which is transmitted from teacher to pupil and not necessarily from father to son. The rabbis generally favored the relationship of teacher to pupil even over that of father to son but also realized that the priesthood was genealogical. In the high priest who must serve in the Temple’s most critical service even though he was an ignoramus these two values distinctly clash.", + "They delivered to him elders from the elders of the court and they read before him [throughout the seven days] from the order of the day. And they say to him, “Sir, high priest, you read it yourself with your own mouth, lest you have forgotten or lest you have never learned.” During the week that precedes Yom Kippur the elders read to the high priest from Leviticus 16 so that he will understand how to perform the service. Even if he professes to know what to do, they tell him to read it himself, or perhaps to repeat what they say to him, lest he might have forgotten it or lest he never read the portion in the first place.", + "On the eve of Yom HaKippurim in the morning they place him at the eastern gate and pass before him oxen, rams and sheep, so that he may recognize and become familiar with the service. On the eve of Yom Kippur they show him various animals so that he will know which ones are which and which ones are offered for which sacrifice." + ], + [ + "All seven days they did not withhold food or drink from him. On the eve of Yom HaKippurim near nightfall they would not let him eat much because food brings about sleep.
This mishnah teaches that they didn’t let the High Priest drink or eat a lot on the eve of Yom Hakippurim because they thought that eating a big meal would make him sleepy and they didn’t want him to sleep that night. The reason that he wasn’t allowed to sleep was lest he have a nocturnal emission which would make him impure and thereby prevent him from serving in the Temple the next day. Since seminal emissions cause one to be impure for only one day, they only needed to prevent him from eating on the eve of Yom Kippur. During the rest of the week he was allowed to eat and drink in a normal fashion." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs I stated in my commentary to mishnah two and in my introduction to the tractate, many of the high priests were Sadducees, or perhaps more accurately, had Sadducean leanings. The Sadducees debated with the Pharisees the proper form of the Yom Kippur ritual, as I explain below. In the mishnah’s eyes, the elders spend a week teaching the high priest how to perform the service in the proper Pharisaic manner. Our mishnah describes the parting words between the elders and the high priest, where they remind him to act like a Pharisee and not a Sadducee.", + "The elders of the court handed him over to the elders of the priesthood and they took him up to the upper chamber of the house of Avtinas. On the eve of Yom Kippur the elders would give him over to the elders of the priesthood. He would go up to the house of Avtinas where the incense was normally made. There he would learn how to make the incense that he was going to make on Yom Kippur within the Holy of Holies.", + "They adjured him and then left. And they said to him [when leaving]: “Sir, high priest, we are messengers of the court and you are our messenger and the messenger of the court. We adjure you by the one that caused His name dwell in this house that you do not change anything of what we said to you.” When the elders of the court depart from him they recite to him the following oath, reminding him that he must do whatever they have taught him to do. The Talmud explains that there was the following debate between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees held that the high priest would put the incense into the incense pan outside of the Holy of Holies and then go inside, whereas the Pharisees held that this was done inside.", + "He turned aside and wept and they turned aside and wept. In the climactic conclusion to the mishnah, both the high priest and the elders end up crying (this would make a good movie). He cries because they suspected him of being a Sadducee and they cry because reality forced them to suspect him. Alternatively, they cry because the situation in their time had deteriorated so badly that they had to force a high priest to take an oath that he would not act like a Sadducee." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah has now reached the night before Yom Kippur is to begin. As we learned in mishnah four, he had to stay up all night. Our mishnah teaches that in order to keep himself awake he would study Torah all night (this never seems to work for me, but I’m not a high priest, not even a priest).", + "If he was a sage he would expound, and if not, the disciples of the sages would expound before him. If the high priest was a sage, then he would expound upon the Torah all night. But if he didn’t know how to interpret the Torah, then disciples of the sages would do this in front of him, thereby helping to keep him awake.", + "If he was familiar with reading [the Scriptures] he would read, if not they would read before him. If he could read the Tanakh, then he himself would read. But again, if he couldn’t even read, then the disciples of the sages would read in front of him. Note again how the mishnah takes into consideration the possibility that the high priest would not even know how to read from the Bible. The Talmud again reminds us that in the Second Temple period high priests were often positions appointed by the king based on political considerations and were not given to the most knowledgeable of the priests.", + "From what would they read before him? From Job, Ezra and Chronicles. Zechariah ben Kv’utal says: I have often read before him from Daniel. The sections that they would read to him from were sections that were considered particularly interesting and that would help keep him awake. Job and Daniel are compelling stories. Daniel and Ezra are partly in Aramaic, which may have made them easier to comprehend for a high priest who didn’t even understand Hebrew. I am not sure what the attraction of Chronicles is. Note that all four books are from “K’tuvim”, the last portion of the Hebrew Bible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah shows how the young priests would keep the high priest awake all night on the eve before Yom Kippur.", + "If he wished to sleep, young priests would snap their middle finger before him and say: “Sir high priest, stand up and drive the sleep away by standing once on this [cold] floor. There were two things that the young priests, those with the strength to stay up all night, would do to keep the high priest awake. First they would snap their fingers at him and then they would tell him to stand on the cold floor. The rabbis believed that standing on a cold floor would wake up a tired person. If you’re not sure, try this yourself.", + "They would keep him busy until the time for the slaughtering [of the daily morning offering] would arrive. Finally, they made sure to keep him busy all night so that he wouldn’t fall asleep." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that on Yom Kippur Temple work which was usually left for the beginning of the day was moved up and done in the night so that the day would be free to do other things.", + "Every day they would remove [the ashes from] the altar at the cock’s crow or close to that time, either before or after. On most days they would remove the old ashes from the altar at the time when the rooster crows, which is at the time when it begins to get light outside, before sunrise. The removal of the ashes is referred to in Leviticus 6:3 and in tractate Tamid, which is in Seder Kodashim (hopefully we will learn this, but not for a few more years). I should note that in the Talmud there is a debate over the meaning of the phrase that I have translated as “the cock’s crow”. Some interpret this to mean an announcement made by a man, who said, “Priests get up for your word.” In Hebrew the word for “cock” and the word for “man” is the same. I will not comment on this.", + "But on Yom HaKippurim from midnight, and on the festivals at the [end of the] first watch; However, on Yom Kippur they began to clean out the old ashes at midnight, hours before it got light outside. The Talmud explains that this was because the high priest himself would clean out the ashes and they wanted to give him some time between this work and the rest of the day’s work. Others explain that they did the cleaning of the ashes early so that they wouldn’t have to delay beginning the real work of the day which would come later. On festivals they cleaned out the ashes even earlier, at the end of the first watch, which means one-third into the night. On festivals there are a lot of sacrifices and therefore there a lot of ashes, so that had to start cleaning out early.", + "And the cock’s crow would not arrive before the Temple court was full of Israelites. Finally, on Yom Kippur and on festivals the Temple’s courtyard would be full of Israelites already by the time the cock crowed, meaning before sunrise. People were so enthusiastic for the day’s service that they would get there even before the sunrise." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAt the end of the first chapter we learned that the high priest removes the ashes from the altar on Yom Kippur. On other days any priest could do this. Our mishnah teaches how it was originally decided who would remove the ashes and tomorrow we will learn the terrible problems that this system caused.", + "Originally anyone who wished to remove [the ashes from] the altar did so. “Originally” in this mishnah refers to the situation which will be contrasted with the decree mentioned in tomorrow’s mishnah. Here we learn that originally any priest that wished to could remove the ashes from the altar and they didn’t draw lots to decide who would have this privilege. The other labors in the Temple were decided by drawing lots. However, because one had to get up so early in the morning to remove the ashes, they feared that if they decided who was to do so by lot, few would want to do so. Therefore, they opened it up to free competition.", + "When they were many, they would run up the ramp [of the altar] and he that came first within four cubits won the privilege. If there was more than one priest who wished to remove the ashes, they would compete by having a race up the ramp of the altar. The first priest who came within four cubits of the altar won the privilege of removing the ashes. In tomorrow’s mishnah we will see what problems this system caused.", + "If two were even, the officer would say to them [all:] raise the finger! And how many did they put out? One or two but one does not put out a thumb in the Temple. If it was a tie getting to the top of the ramp, they would play an ancient form of “eenie, meenie miney mo” (I have no idea if I spelled this right). Every priest would stick out one or two fingers and an officer of the priests would call out a number much larger than the number of priests present. He then would begin counting fingers and the person whose finger was counted last would win. However, thumbs didn’t count because of cheaters who would claim that their thumb was either out or not out so that the count would end with them. To avoid this problem they disallowed sticking out the thumbs and having them counted. As an aside, the mention of the thumb somewhat introduces the concept of cheating in order to perform a religious duty. This is a small form of cheating, one which doesn’t harm others. Nevertheless, it shows how religious zeal to perform a ritual might lead a person to unethical behavior. The unethical behavior which we will see in yesterday’s mishnah is far worse." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today’s mishnah we see that religious zeal can lead to violence. There is no doubt in my mind that the mishnah is a warning against such a phenomenon, and it would seem that this is a lesson that could be more carefully heeded in our time as well.", + "Section one: It once happened that two were even as they ran up the ramp, and one of them pushed his fellow who fell and broke his leg. When the court saw that they incurred danger, they decreed that they would remove the ashes from only by a count. Section two: There were four counts. This is the first count. The event of one priest pushing another priest in order to be the one who would perform an act seemingly as ordinary and trivial as removing the ashes from the altar was such a traumatic experience that the court decreed an end to the races up the ramp. Henceforth, the decision who would remove the ashes would be decided by a count, as was described in yesterday’s mishnah. There is an interesting parallel to this mishnah, one which is far more extreme. The following source can be found on Yoma 23a: Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that two priests were even as they ran up the ramp and when one of them came first within four cubits of the altar, the other took a knife and thrust it into his heart. Rabbi Zadok stood on the steps of the Hall and said: Brothers of the House of Israel, listen! Behold it says: “If a body is found slain in the land... then your elders and judges shall come forth …” (Deuteronomy 21:1): On whose behalf shall we bring the calf whose neck is to be broken, on behalf of the city or on behalf of the Temple Courts? All the people burst out weeping. The father of the young man came and found him still in convulsions. He said: “May he be an atonement for you. My son is still having convulsions and the knife has not become unclean.” This comes to teach you that the cleanness of their vessels was of greater concern to them even than the shedding of blood. In this fascinating and horrific story, instead of causing his rival priest merely to fall down and break his leg, one priest takes out a knife and stabs his fellow priest. Rabbi Zadok ironically asks who brings the calf, whose neck is broken in a case where an unidentified dead body is found (see the quote from Deuteronomy), the city or the Temple courts. Finally, in the ultimate point of religious zeal, the father of the son poignantly remarks to the other priests that at least he has removed the knife before it is defiled by his son’s dead body. The source demonstrates well that the priests of that time had gone so astray that the issue of the purity of their vessels was more important to them then the most heinous sin of shedding blood. This mishnah and the accompanying Talmudic story are strong lessons to us of the dangers of religious zeal which can lead to violence. As important as ritual procedure is, and don’t forget we are in the middle of a tractate which is nearly entirely dedicated to the performance of ritual, we are not to forget that morality and the proper relationship between human beings are supreme values as well. It is not that we must choose between commandments between God and human beings and those between humans and themselves. The two are only in conflict if we let them be, and that we must not.", + "This count is the first of four counts done in choosing who performs certain tasks in the Temple. The following two mishnayot will discuss the other two." + ], + [ + "The second count:
who slaughters [the daily regular offering],
who sprinkles [the blood],
who removes the ashes from the inner altar,
who removes the ashes from the candlestick, 5-10) Who takes the limbs [of the offering up to the ramp],
the head and the [right] hind-leg,
the two forelegs,
the tail and the [left] hind-leg,
the breast and the throat,
the two flanks,
the innards,
the fine flour,
the cakes
and the wine. Altogether thirteen priests merited a task.
Ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiba in the name of Rabbi Joshua: [the daily offering] was offered up in the way it walks.
In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that the priest who won the first count would remove the ashes from the large outer altar. Today we learn about the second count. There were thirteen different tasks assigned through this one count. The first task would be performed by the person whose finger the counted ended on, and the next would be assigned to the person on his right and so on.
All of these tasks are connected to the “tamid”, the daily offering.
Some of these tasks are self-explanatory, so I shall not delay upon them. I will only discuss those which are not.
Section three: “who removes the ashes from the inner altar”: this is the incense altar.
Sections five-ten: “Who takes the limbs [of the offering up to the ramp]”: we learned in Shekalim 8:8 that the priests would take the limbs up to the middle of the ramp and then before they were brought to the altar, the priests would go read the Shema. The mishnah now lists the parts of the animal. The fifth through the tenth priests all take one of these parts up to the ramp.
Section eleven: “The fine flour” is referred to in Exodus 29:9 and Numbers 28:5.
Section twelve: “The cakes”: this refers to the high priest’s minhah offering, which was offered each day, half in the morning and half at night. These cakes were cooked on a griddle with oil (Leviticus 6:13-14).
Section thirteen: “And the wine”: the thirteenth priest would bring the wine libation (Exodus 29:40 and Numbers 28:7).
Section fourteen: Ben Azzai disputes the order in which the parts of the animal were brought up the ramp and put onto the altar. He holds that the parts of the animal are sacrificed from the front of the animal to the back. The Talmud explains that the order is: 1) head and right hind-leg: 2) the breast and throat; 3) the two forelegs; 4) the flanks; 5) the tail and the left hind-leg.
In contrast, the first opinion in the mishnah holds that they are sacrificed in order of their size, with the one exception that the head comes first because of Leviticus 1:12 which lists the head first." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches what the third and fourth counts were for.", + "The third count: “New [priests] come up and submit to the count for the incense.” The chief of priests would make this statement, directed at the new priests who had never before had the chance to offer the incense. Offering the incense was considered by the priests to be the best task in the Temple because of Deuteronomy 33:10-11: “They shall offer You incense to savor…Bless, O Lord his substance and favor his undertakings.” The blessing and the favor went to the one who offered the incense. In other words, offering the incense would bring a person reward. Since this was so desirable, they let only the priests who had not already performed this task participate in this count.", + "The fourth count: “New and old priests, who will take up the limbs from the ramp to the altar.” The final count was open to both new and old priests alike. The count was to determine who would bring the limbs up and sacrifice them on the altar. Some commentators explain that nine priests would bring the nine items up (see the list in yesterday’s mishnah), while other commentators explain that one priest would bring all nine items up himself." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches how many priests were necessary to offer the two tamid offerings, the one offered in the morning and the one in the evening.", + "The tamid was offered up by nine, ten, eleven or twelve [priests], neither by more, nor by less. How so? This section introduces the rest of the mishnah, using a format which will be easily remembered. It is very typical for mishnayot to open with such formulas.", + "[The offering] itself by nine; In mishnah three we learned that it took nine priests to carry the various parts of the tamid offering up the ramp and then afterwards from the ramp to the altar. This referred to the morning tamid offering. As we shall see below in section four, the evening tamid required two more priests.", + "At the festival [of Sukkot] in the hand of one a flask of water, behold there were ten. On Sukkot at the morning tamid they would also offer a water libation. We shall learn more about this water libation when we study Tractate Sukkah.", + "In the evening by eleven: [The offering] itself by nine and in the hands of two men were two logs of wood. The evening tamid, offered at dusk, required eleven priests. Nine to carry the offering itself and two to carry about two logs of wood to add to the altar’s fires. They also added wood in the morning, but in the morning the wood was added by the priest who cleaned out the old ashes (see above mishayot 1-2). This was done before the tamid was offered.", + "On Shabbat by eleven: [The offering] itself by nine, in the hands of two men two handfuls of incense for the showbread. On Shabbat the morning tamid also required eleven priests. Nine to offer the sacrifice itself and two to carry the incense which was offered every Shabbat in honor of the outgoing showbread (see Leviticus 24:6-7).", + "And on Shabbat which fell during the festival of Sukkot one man carried in his hand a flask of water. On Shabbat morning during Sukkot they needed the eleven as is the case in a normal Shabbat and one more to carry the flask of water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches how many priests were necessary to offer a ram, meaning a sheep that is two years old. There are more needed than there are for the tamid which is a sheep in its first year, and therefore lighter.", + "A ram was offered by eleven: the flesh by five, the innards, the fine flour, and the wine by two each. The flesh is offered by five just like the tamid, which is a young sheep (see above mishnah three). However, the innards which were heavier required two priests to carry them up the ramp and then to the altar. There was more flour and wine (see Numbers 15:4-7), therefore two priests carried the flour and two the wine instead of one each, as is the case for the tamid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of this chapter teaches that sacrificial bulls, who were far larger than the rams and young sheep mentioned in the previous mishayot, and whose sacrifice required more flour and wine, were offered by twenty-four priests, instead of the nine for a sheep and eleven for a ram.", + "A bull was offered by twenty-four: The head and [right] hind-leg: the head by one and the [right] hind-leg by two. The tail and [left] hind-leg: the tail by two and the [left] hind-leg by two. The breast and neck: the breast by one and the neck by three. The two fore-legs by two, The two flanks by two. The innards, the fine flour, and the wine by three each. This section delineates how the twenty-four priests divided up the offering of the bull.", + "To what does this refer? To communal offerings. But individual offerings, if a single priest wants to offer [all], he may do so. This section refers to all of the above mishnayot in which priests divide the task of offering various parts of a young sheep, a ram or a bull. The mishnah now teaches that this division refers to public offerings, such as the tamid or the musaf (the additional offering). However, if any of these animals are brought by individuals a single priest may perform all of the tasks himself. Assumedly, although the mishnah does not state this, the individual who brings the sacrifice is the same one who is allowed to decide which or how many priests offer it.", + "But as to the flaying and dismembering [of both communal and individual sacrifices] the same regulations apply. When it comes to the flaying and cutting up (dismembering) of both communal and individual sacrifices, the same rules apply. This refers to the fact that both of these tasks may be performed by non-priests and do not require any priestly count." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins to describe the services performed in the Temple on Yom Kippur. The first thing done was to establish that it was light enough outside to slaughter the morning tamid (daily offering). This procedure was followed every day as well.", + "The officer said to them: “Go out and see whether the time for slaughtering [the morning sacrifice] has arrived.” If it had arrived then he who saw it said: “It is daylight!” After the second count, the first thing done was that the officer of the priests would tell another priest to go out and see if dawn had broken. The priest would stand on a high point in the Temple, look out and see if it had yet gotten light. The tamid offering can be offered as soon as it starts to get light, even before sunrise.", + "Matitya ben Shmuel says: “The whole east is light.” Even unto Hebron? And he answered “Yes.” Matitya ben Shmuel was the officer in charge of the counts done in the Temple (see Shekalim 5:1). He would further interrogate the one who claimed to have seen daybreak. He wanted to know that a substantial portion of the sky had started to become light. The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that he mentions Hebron because that is where the patriarchs and matriarchs are buried. They would begin the day, therefore, by reminding God of the merit accrued to them by virtue of their being descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as Sarah, Rivkah and Leah (Rachel was buried elsewhere)." + ], + [ + "Introduction The first half of this mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah where we learned how cautious the priests were to ensure that dawn had truly broken before they slaughtered the morning tamid sacrifice. The second half of the mishnah proceeds with the descriptions of the Temple service.", + "And why was all that necessary? Because once the light of the moon rose and they thought that the east was lit up and slaughtered the continual offering, [and afterwards] they had to take it out to the place of burning. The reason for all of the strict procedures which we learned in yesterday’s mishnah was that one time it happened that the moonlight was particularly strong and the priests thought that it was dawn. They then sacrificed the morning tamid before they realized their error. Since the tamid was slaughtered at night it was unfit and had to be burned at the “place of burning” where they would burn unfit sacrifices. They would then have been liable to offer another tamid sacrifice.", + "They led the high priest down to the place of immersion. On Yom Kippur before they offered the tamid they would lead the high priest down to immerse himself, a requirement of which we will read more in mishnah three.", + "This was the rule in the Temple: whoever covers his feet required an immersion, and whoever passed water required sanctification [by washing] his hands and feet. “Covers his feet” is a euphemism for defecating (See Judges 3:24). A priest who defecates must fully immerse himself before serving again in the Temple. However, urinating only requires him to sanctify himself by washing his hands and feet and not his whole body." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches a general principle with regard to immersing before service in the Temple.", + "A man may not enter the Temple courtyard or to worship even if he was clean until he immerses himself. There are actually two requirements in this section. The first is that one may not enter into the Temple courtyard unless he first immerses himself in a mikveh. The second is that one who is already in the courtyard may not begin to perform the Temple service until he immerses himself.", + "Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the high priest perform on that day. The high priest will change his clothing from his normal priestly wear to special golden clothes and then back again five times during Yom Kippur. For each change he would need to sanctify his hands and feet by washing them, making a total of ten hand and feet-washings.", + "And all in sanctity in the Bet Haparvah with the exception of this one alone. All of these washings were done in an immersion pool which was on top of a chamber called the “Bet Haparvah”. The “Bet Haparvah” was within the Temple courtyard. The one exception was the first immersion which we learned about yesterday. Since this immersion was done before he began the service it was done outside of the Temple courtyard." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah proceeds to outline the precise order of the day’s worship. We need to remember that on this day the high priest must basically perform all of the work himself. Hence we will feel throughout this description a sense of his being hurried; after all there is a lot to do.", + "They spread out a linen sheet between him and the people. For modesty’s sake, when he got undressed they would spread out a linen sheet between him and the rest of the people. The Talmud explains that the reason for the sheet being of linen is to remind him that when performing services that are done only on Yom Kippur he will need to wear all white clothes from linen. The rest of the year he wears eight garments, four of which are made of gold (as we shall explain below).", + "He stripped off [his clothes], went down and immersed himself, came up and dried himself. Now that the sheet is up, he can remove his clothes and go and immerse himself for the first time during the day. He then dries off and is ready to get dressed.", + "They brought him the golden garments, he put them on and sanctified his hands and feet. The first clothes he wears are the same clothes that he wears all year long, the “golden garments”. The garments are: “a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a fringed tunic, a headdress and a sash (Exodus 28:4) and a “frontlet” (v. 36) and “breeches” (v. 42). In three of them there was some gold, in the breastpiece, the ephod, and the robe (it had golden bells) and the frontlet was made totally of gold. However, before he puts on his clothes he again washes his hands. Note however that when he removed his previous clothing he did not wash his hands because at that time he was just wearing his own clothes. From this point until the day’s worship is completed, he will wash his hands both when putting on new clothes and taking off the old ones.", + "They brought him the tamid. After he has put on the clothes, they bring him the lamb to slaughter as the morning tamid offering.", + "He made the required cut and some one else finished it for him. He received the blood and sprinkled it. The high priest begins the slaughtering process by slicing the animal’s neck in a means that renders it “kosher” fit for consumption. This means he cuts the windpipe and the gullet. Since there is a lot of service to be done, the high priest immediately receives the blood and sprinkles it. Someone else completes the slaughtering process so that the priest can be free to do other things.", + "He went inside to smoke the morning incense and to trim the lamps; Having slaughtered the tamid, the high priest now turns his attention to the incense. He enters into the Temple (the Ulam) where the golden altar is found and turns the incense into smoke (see Exodus 30:7). At the same time he removes the ashes from the menorah (ibid, and see above mishnah 2:3).", + "And to offer up the head and the limbs and the griddle cakes and the wine. He now must bring the head and limbs of the tamid sacrifice up to the altar (above 2:3). He must also offer his own daily minhah offering, which consists of griddle cakes (Leviticus 6:13-14). Finally, he must offer the wine that always accompanies the tamid offering (see above 2:3). The mishnah does not mention offering the tamid minhah (grain offering). Perhaps it is included in the “griddle cakes”, which also come from grain although they are prepared differently." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah now makes a note about the precise timing of the morning and dusk incense.", + "The morning incense was offered up between the blood and the limbs, The morning incense is, as we learned yesterday, offered up after the blood of the tamid has been sprinkled on the altar and before the limbs have been offered.", + "The dusk [incense was offered] between the limbs and the drink-offerings. The incense which is offered at dusk (Exodus 30:8) is offered after the limbs of the dusk tamid have been put onto the altar but before the wine of this tamid is offered.", + "If the high priest was either old or of delicate health warm water they would heat some water for him and pour into the cold [water], to temper its coldness. If the high priest cannot handle the frequent immersions because the water is just too cold, they heat up some water on the day before Yom Kippur and put it into the cold water to temper its coldness. The Talmud explains that they would put some iron rods into the fire on the day before Yom Kippur and then on Yom Kippur put them into the water to heat it up. We should note that doing this outside of the Temple would be prohibited because of “sh’vut” rabbinic Shabbat prohibitions. However, in the Temple such prohibitions are waived." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe tamid offering is now complete and the high priest continues on with the day’s worship.", + "They brought him to the Bet Haparvah, which was on holy ground. They spread a sheet of linen between him and the people. All of the day’s immersions except for the first one were done in a place called “Bet Haparvah” which was in the Temple courtyard (above, mishnah 3). As he prepares to strip in order to enter the mikveh, they again spread a linen sheet between him and the people.", + "He sanctified his hands and his feet and stripped. Rabbi Meir says: he stripped [and then] sanctified his hands and his feet. According to the first opinion, he first sanctifies his hands and feet by washing them and then strips off the gold clothes that he has been wearing. According to this opinion, the sanctification is for the sake of the clothes which he is removing. Rabbi Meir, on the other hand, holds that the sanctification is for the clothes which he is going to put on. Therefore, he first strips off the golden garments and then he sanctifies his hands and feet.", + "He went down and immersed himself, came up and dried himself. Now he goes to the mikveh, comes up dries himself off.", + "Afterwards they brought him white garments. He put them on and sanctified his hands and his feet. Finally, he puts on the special white garments worn on Yom Kippur. They are “a sacral linen tunic, linen breeches, a linen sash and a linen turban” (Leviticus 16:4). After having put them on he sanctifies his feet and hands again by washing them. This sanctification is certainly in honor of the clothes that he is now putting on." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses just how expensive were the special linen garments which the high priest wore on Yom Kippur. Thinking of the high priest wearing very expensive white clothing on Yom Kippur brings to mind the white dress worn by a bride on her wedding day.", + "In the morning he would wear Pelusian linen worth twelve minas (1200 dinar/; at dusk Indian linen worth eight hundred zuz, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir the linen clothes that the high priest wore in the morning came from the city Pelusium in Egypt. This city was in the northern end of the Nile, where the Nile ends and one turns east on route to ancient Palestine or Syria (plug “Pelusium” into Google and you’ll find this info as well!). The Targum (the Aramaic translation of the Tanakh) translates Ramses into Pelusium. The linen that the high priest wore at dusk was from India and it was slightly less expensive.", + "The sages say: in the morning he would wear [garments] worth eighteen minas and at dusk [garments] worth twelve minas, altogether thirty minas. The sages say that the high priest’s garments were even more expensive than that, the morning garments being worth 1800 dinars/zuz and the dusk garments worth 1200. We should note that both agree that the morning clothes were worth more than those worn at dusk.", + "These [costs] were at the charge of the community and if he wanted to add, he adds more out of his own pocket. The mishnah now teaches that if the high priest should wish to buy even more expensive clothing, he may do so but it must come out of his own pocket. His “expense account” which comes from the Temple funds is either 20 mina (2000 zuz), according to Rabbi Meir, or 30 mina (3000 zuz) according to the sages. Should he wish to spend more he must use his own funds." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe priest is now wearing his special Yom Kippur linen and is prepared to offer the first of the Yom Kippur sacrifices, the bull which atones for the high priest and his house. This is mentioned in Leviticus 16:6, and then again in verse 11.", + "He came to his bull and his bull was standing between the Ulam and the altar, its head to the south and its face to the west. The bull was standing on the northern side of the Temple courtyard, between the Ulam, which is the outermost portion of the sanctuary (the Hechal) and the outer altar, which is to the east of the Ulam. The head of the bull was facing south but they would turn its face west towards the sanctuary. In the Talmud they explain that they would put the bull here because some of its blood would need to be sprinkled inside the Holy of Holies and this was as close as they could bring the bull.", + "And the priest stands on the eastside facing the west. The priest would stand on the east side of the bull, with his back to the altar and facing the sanctuary.", + "And he lays both his hands upon it and confesses. The priest would lay his hands on the animal, a practice done for all sin-offerings (see Leviticus 4:29, 33) and then offer up the confession, alluded to in Leviticus 16:6.", + "And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). The language of the confession does not appear in the Torah and indeed it is not clear at all in the Torah whether the “atonement” mentioned in Leviticus 16:6 is an atonement achieved solely through sacrifice or through a verbal confession. In any case, the rabbis explain that a verbal confession was made. During this confession the high priest would explicitly state God’s four letter name (the tetragrammaton) but due to its extreme caution in stating God’s name the mishnah only writes “Hashem” which means “the name.” We should note that the way we pronounce this name now is not the way it was originally pronounced. The original pronunciation has probably been lost. “Yehovah” is certainly not the original pronunciation as it is based on the vowels from the word “Adonay”.", + "And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!” When the people heard the explicit pronunciation of God’s name they would respond by blessing God’s holy name. We shall see this ritual of confession and response repeated several times throughout the remainder of the tractate. Indeed, on Yom Kippur, if you’re still in shul, try to follow along in the “Avodah” service, which comes at the end of Mussaf. You will see many of the elements of these mishnayot incorporated into the service." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe high priest now proceeds to the two goats, one which will eventually be sacrificed and one which will be sent to Azazel.", + "He then went to the east of the Temple court, to the north of the altar, the deputy high priest at his right and the head of the [priestly] family [ministering that week] at his left. The high priest now turns to the east of the courtyard, to the northern side of the outer altar. With him are the deputy high priest and the head of the priestly family whose turn it is to serve in the Temple. The priests were divided up into 24 priestly families, and each served a week in the Temple. Each division was divided into families, and each family would take one day of the week. The mishnah refers to the head of the family whose luck it was to have Yom Kippur fall on their day.", + "There were two goats and an urn was there, and in it were two lots. Waiting for the high priest were two goats, as mentioned in Leviticus 16:5 and onwards. They will figure prominently in the day’s service and are perhaps its most famous element. Next to the two goats was an urn with two lots in it, as mentioned in 16:8. The lots will be used to determine which goat is sacrificed and which goat goes to Azazel.", + "They were of box-wood and Ben Gamala made them of gold and they would mention his name in praise. The lots were originally made of box-wood until Ben Gamala, who was a high priest, made them of gold." + ], + [ + "Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the laver, for there had been before only two. He also made a mechanism for the laver, in order that its water should not become unfit by remaining overnight.
King Monbaz had all the handles of all the vessels used on Yom HaKippurim made of gold.
His mother Helena made a golden candelabrum over the opening of the Hekhal. She also made a golden tablet, on which the portion concerning the suspected adulteress was inscribed.
For Nicanor miracles happened to his doors.
And they were all mentioned for praise.
Since at the end of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that Ben Gamala made the lots out of gold and he was praised for it, today’s mishnah teaches other ornaments that were donated by individuals and for which they were praised. You can think of this mishnah as an ancient dedication plaque!
Section one: Ben Katin, who was also a high priest, made twelve spigots for the Temple’s laver, a fancy word for sink (see Exodus 30:18-21). The Talmud explains that this was so each of the twelve priests who were offering the tamid (see above, mishnayot 2-3) could have their own spigot.
Ben Katin is also credited with another improvement in the Temple, this one also connected to issue of water. He made a wheel that went into the water cistern which would cause the water in the laver to be connected to the water in the cistern. The reason for this is that any water left out overnight in a vessel in the Temple is rendered unfit. Without this wheel, the water left over in the laver would need to be emptied out every morning.
Section two: King Monbaz was king of Adiabene, which is north of Israel, and is now part of Turkey. He, as well as his brother and mother, are mentioned as converts in Josephus. They ruled in the first century C.E., slightly before the destruction of the Temple. According to the mishnah, he paid to make the handles of vessels out of gold, in cases such as a knife, where the vessel itself could not be made of gold.
Section three: Monbaz’s mother, who is also mentioned in Nazir 3:6, made a golden candelabrum to stand at the entrance to the Hekhal.
Helene also made a golden tablet on which to write the chapter of the Sotah (Numbers 5:11 ff.) From here the priest could copy the words when he needed to perform the sotah (suspected adulteress) ritual (see v. 23).
Section four: Finally, the mishnah obliquely mentions Nikanor’s doors and the miracles that happened to them. The Talmud (Yoma 38a) explains: “What miracles happened to his doors? They say that when Nicanor had gone to bring doors from Alexandria of Egypt, on his return a storm arose in the sea to drown him. They took one of his doors and cast it into the sea and yet the sea would not stop its rage. They wanted to cast the other into the sea. He rose and clung to it, saying: ‘Cast me in with it!’ The sea immediately stopped its raging. He was deeply grieved about the other [door]. When he arrived at the harbor of Acco, it broke through and came up from under the sides of the boat. Others say: A monster of the sea swallowed it and spat it out on the dry land.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAlas, along with those who were remembered for praise, there were those who were remembered for shame as well. Interestingly, all of those who were remembered for shame were denounced for the same transgression they refused to teach their secrets to outsiders, thereby preserving for themselves monopolies over how certain things in the Temple were run. It is clear that the rabbis were incensed by the preservation of such secrets; both for practical and I believe ideological reasons as well. Practically, their trade was in constant danger of being lost. Ideologically, it seems to me that the rabbis stood for a certain democratization of knowledge. With the exception of certain esoteric subjects, the rabbis believed that people should know the oral tradition. Those who kept its various aspects to themselves were condemning the tradition to be unjustly monopolized and even worse, forgotten.", + "And these they mentioned to their shame:
Those of the House of Garmu did not want to teach anything about the preparation of the showbread. The trick with the showbread, according to the Talmud, was to take it off the sides of the oven, where bread was cooked (as is pita today) without it breaking apart due to its size. The House of Garmu (probably not related to “gourmet” but who knows!) knew how to do this but did not want to teach others.", + "Those of the House of Avtinas did not teach to anything about the preparation of the incense. The incense was a complicated mixture of spices and some other materials which caused it to turn into thick smoke. The House of Avtinas did not want to teach others how they made the incense.", + "Hugros, a Levite knew a chapter [concerning] the song but did not want to teach it. Hugros knew certain tricks on how to improve one’s voice, but to his discredit, did not wish to teach others.", + "Ben Kamtzar did not want teach anyone his art of writing. According to legend, Ben Kamtzar could take four styluses in one hand and write four letters at the same time.", + "Concerning the former it is said: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” (Proverbs 10:7); concerning the others it is said: “But the name of the wicked shall rot.” Concerning those listed in mishnah ten for praise we say “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” but concerning those in our mishnah we say, “But the name of the wicked shall rot”, meaning let their memory be forgotten." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "He shook the urn and brought up the two lots. On one was inscribed: “For the Name”, and on the other: “For Azazel.”
The deputy high priest was at his right hand, the head of the [ministering] family at his left.
If the lot “For the Name” came up in his right hand, the deputy high priest would say to him: “Sir, high priest, raise your right hand!” And if the lot “For the Name” came up in his left hand, the head of the family would say: “Sir high priest, raise your left hand!”
Then he placed them on the two goats and said: “A sin-offering for the Lord!” Rabbi Ishmael said: he did not need to say, “a sin-offering”, but just “for the Lord.”
And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”
After a brief digression, the mishnah returns to discuss the main subject at hand the Yom Kippur procedure. We left off in mishnah nine with the high priest standing next to the urn in which were placed the two lots for the two goats.
Section one: The high priest would then shake the urn to mix up the two lots. The reason to mix them up was that it was considered good luck for the lot on which was written God’s name to come up in his right hand. On one of the lots was inscribed God’s name, but the mishnah chooses again to use “the Name” instead of God’s four letter name. This goat would be sacrificed. The other lot had written on it “For Azazel” this goat would be sent to the wilderness.
Section two: This was already described above in 3:9.
Section three: Whoever was on the hand of the high priest which had brought up the lot “For the Name” would tell the High Priest to raise that hand so that the people would know which goat was going where.
Section four: Then he would place the lots on the two goats. He would place he lot which came up in his right hand on the goat on the right and the one in his left hand on the goat on the left. When placing the lot upon which was inscribed “For the Name” he would call out “A sin-offering to the Lord”, or according to Rabbi Ishmael just “For the Lord.” Upon hearing God’s holy name the priests and Israelites observing the ceremony would cry out “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever” the same response we saw above in 3:8." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter having drawn the lots to determine which goat would be slaughtered and which sent away, the day’s ceremonies continue.", + "He bound a thread of crimson wool on the head of the goat which was to be sent away, and he placed it at the gate where it was later to be sent away, and on the goat that was to be slaughtered [he placed a thread of crimson wool on its neck] at the place of the slaughtering. After determining the goats, the priest would tie a piece of crimson wool on the sacrificial goat between its horns and then set it near the gate from where it will be later sent into the wilderness. He would also tie a thread around the neck of the goat which will later be slaughtered. We have actually already mentioned this piece of wool in Shabbat 9:3 and Shekalim 4:2 and we shall discuss it and its function again in Yoma 6:6, and 6:8. The Talmud on this mishnah explains that the purpose of these threads was to make sure that these goats didn’t get mixed up with others. They placed the threads in different places so that these two could be distinguished from one another.", + "He came to his bull a second time, pressed his two hands upon it and made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!” He now comes back to the bull (he was already there at mishnah 3:8) and offers up another confession. This time the confession is not only for him and his household but for all of the other priests as well. The words of the confession are the same as those in 3:8 above, except here he adds “and the sons of Aaron Your holy people.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah the bull is slaughtered and the high priest begins to make preparations for the incense offering.", + "He killed it [the bull] and received its blood in a bowl, and he gave it to the one who stirs it up on the fourth terrace within the sanctuary so that it should not congeal. After making the second confession, he slaughters the second bull and receives its blood in a bowl. The blood will later be taken to the altar and sprinkled on it. In order that it shouldn’t congeal until that point, another priest stirs the blood continuously. This priest is standing on the fourth terrace. Between the outer altar and the Ulam, which was the entrance to the Hekhal (Sanctuary) there were twelve steps, divided into four groups of three. The third step of each group was made of specially paved stones and it was called a terrace. The fourth terrace was the uppermost one, and it was adjacent to the Ulam.", + "He took the coal-pan and went up to the top of the altar, and cleared the coals to both sides, and took a panful of the inner glowing cinders, and he came down and placed the coal-pan on the fourth terrace in the Temple Court. The priest would then take a coal-pan in which he would later turn the incense into smoke. He would get the ashes from the outer altar in the courtyard. First he would push the upper layer of ashes aside and take the hot burning cinders. Then he would come down off the altar and bring the coal-pan with the hot burning cinders up to the fourth terrace, the same place where the blood was waiting." + ], + [ + "On other days he would take out [the cinders] with a silver coal-pan, and empty it into one of gold, but this day he took them out with a golden coal-pan and in it he brought them [into the Hekhal].
On other days he would take them up with a coal-pan containing four kabs, and empty it into one containing three kabs, but this day he took them out with one containing three kabs, and in it he brought them in. Rabbi Yose says: on other days he would take them out with a coal-pan containing one se’ah, and empty it into one containing three kabs, this day he took them out with one containing three kabs, and in it he brought them in.
On other days the pan was heavy, today it was light.
On other days its handle was short, today it was long.
On other days it was of yellowish gold, today of reddish gold, the words of Rabbi Menahem.
On other days he would offer half a mina in the morning and half a mina in the afternoon, today he adds also his two hands full.
On other days [the incense] was finely ground, but today it was the most finely ground possible.
Our mishnah teaches seven differences between how the incense was offered on Yom Kippur and how it was offered every other day. Many of these changes were done to make the work on Yom Kippur easier for the high priest. The others were done to highlight the importance of the day.
Section one: On other days he would take the cinders off the altar with a silver coal-pan and then transfer them into a gold coal-pan. This was done in order to preserve the gold coal-pan because putting it directly into the fire would damage it. The Talmud demonstrates from here that the Torah has mercy on Israel’s money and doesn’t require them to consistently make the most expensive expenditures possible (a lesson that I think we would do well to take to heart). However, on Yom Kippur in order to make things less complicated for the high priest, the coals were removed with gold-pan itself and brought into the Hekhal and later into the Holy of Holies in the same gold-pan.
Section two: On other days he would remove the coals with a coal-pan that held four kav (about 8 liters) of coals and then transfer the coals to a slightly smaller pan which held on three kav. The extra kav of coals would spill out and they would sweep them away into the water channel in the Temple courtyard. On Yom Kippur since only one pan was being used he only removed three kav. Rabbi Yose says that on other days he would remove one seah, which is an equivalent of six kav of coals. He agrees that on Yom Kippur he would remove only three kav.
Sections three and four: Both of these changes from the daily routine would make the removal of the coals easier for the high priest.
Section five: Red gold was considered more valuable than greenish gold. Therefore it was used on Yom Kippur but not during the rest of the year.
Section six: Every other day the high priest would make two incense offerings, each of incense weighing half a mina, the weight of fifty dinars in coins. These two incense offerings were done on the incense altar in the Hekhal. On Yom Kippur because there was a third offering inside the Holy of Holies, he would have to add two handfuls.
Section seven: The daily incense was finely ground but the special incense for Yom Kippur, that which will be brought into the Holy of Holies was ground even finer. This is because Leviticus 16:12, the chapter concerning Yom Kippur, emphasizes that the incense must be ground fine, which is understood to mean that it must be ground even finer than the regular incense mentioned in Exodus 30:36 which also must be ground fine." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah continues to outline the differences between certain procedures during the rest of the year and on Yom Kippur. The two in today’s mishnah are both related to special practices done to enhance the honor of the high priest.", + "On other days the priests would go up on the east side of the ramp and come down on the west side, but this day the high priest goes up in the middle and comes down in the middle. Rabbi Judah says: the high priest always goes up in the middle and comes down in the middle. The ramp was on the south side of the altar. The priests would walk up on the east side and walk down on the west side so that they wouldn’t run into each other. On Yom Kippur in order to emphasize his honor, the high priest would walk up the middle of the ramp. Other versions of the mishnah read “they would go up the middle and come down the middle”, in which case it refers to the high priest and those other priests who accompany him. Rabbi Judah says that when the high priest goes up and comes down the ramp, he always does so in the middle. Rabbi Judah here and in the next section seems to be emphasizing that the honor of the high priest is no less during the rest of the year than it is on Yom Kippur. We might even be able to suppose that for Rabbi Judah the high priest’s import is inherent in his position and perhaps even in his very genes. He is the high priest and therefore he is honored with special practices. In contrast, for the first opinion in the mishnah the high priest’s import is related to the unique rituals he performs. Since these are mostly on Yom Kippur, his honorific practices are only on Yom Kippur as well.", + "On other days the high priest sanctified his hands and feet from the laver, but this day from a golden ladle. Rabbi Judah says: the high priest always sanctifies his hands and feet from a golden ladle. Usually the high priest would wash his hands from the laver, but on Yom Kippur he used a special golden ladle, again to emphasize his honor and the significance of the day. Again, Rabbi Judah holds that the high priest does so every day." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of the chapter continues to deal with differences between Yom Kippur and other days.", + "On other days there were four wood-piles there, but on this day five, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: on other days three, but on this day four. Rabbi Judah says: on other days two, but on this day three. The topic of this mishnah is how many piles of burning wood were on the outer altar on normal days and on Yom Kippur as well. Rabbi Meir holds that there were normally four wood-piles. The Talmud explains that each pile had its own function. The first was a large pile on which the tamid and its remnants were offered. The second was the pile from which cinders were taken to burn the daily incense offering. The third was to keep an eternal flame (see Leviticus 6:5). The fourth was to burn the limbs of sacrifices that they had not succeeded in burning during the night. On Yom Kippur they added one more wood-pile from which the high priest would collect the cinders to burn the special incense which he will bring into the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yose holds that there was no special wood-pile for the limbs that had not been burned during the night. Rabbi Judah holds that there wasn’t a special wood-pile to preserve an eternal flame. Evidently, the other wood-piles were sufficient to ensure that there would always be a flame." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah picks up where we left off in 4:3 above. The last thing he did there was take the cinders off the altar and rest the coal-pan on the highest terrace leading up from the courtyard to the Hekhal.", + "They brought out to him the ladle and the pan and he took two hands full [of incense] and put it into the ladle, a large [high priest] according to his size, a small one according to his size and thus was its measure. After putting the coal-pan down on the fourth terrace they would give him a ladle in which to bring the incense into the Holy of Holies and a pan in which there was a preparation of incense, made in the house of Avtinas (see 1:5; 3:11). He would take two handfuls of the incense from the pan and put it into the ladle. It didn’t matter whether he was large and would therefore take large handfuls or small and therefore would take small handfuls. The measure of two handfuls was set by Leviticus 16:12.", + "He took the pan in his right hand and the ladle in his left hand. He walked through the Hechal until he came to the place between the two curtains which separated the Holy from the Holy of Holies; between them was [a space of] one cubit. Rabbi Yose says: there was but one curtain, as it is said: “And the curtain shall serve you as a partition between the Holy and the Holy of Holies” (Exodus 26:33). He would then pick up the coal-pan with the burning embers and begin to walk through the Hekhal until he got to the curtains which separated the Holy (the Hekhal) from the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yose says that there was only one curtain. In any case, the mishnah continues according to the opinion that there were two.", + "The outer curtain was looped on the south side and the inner curtain on the north side. He walked along between them until he reached the north side. When he reached the north side he turned round to the south and went on along the curtain, to his left, until he reached the Ark. The curtains were folded back on opposite sides; the outer curtain was folded back and held with loops so that it was open on the south while the inner curtain was folded back and open on the north side. He would enter on the south side and walk to the north, and enter the Holy of Holies and then walk to the south until he got to the Ark. We should note that there was no Ark in the Second Temple, as we shall see in the next mishnah. Therefore this mishnah and other references to the ark in the Mishnah are understood by the Talmud as referring to the place where the Ark would have been in the First Temple. In other words, the mishnah refers to the ark as if it is still there even though it knows that it was not.", + "When he reached the Ark he put the pan of burning coals between the two poles. He heaped up the incense upon the coals and the whole house became full with smoke. Upon reaching the Ark he would place the coal-pan upon its two poles and then pour out the incense onto the coals until the entire Holy of Holies was filled up with smoke.", + "He came out by the way he entered and in the outer house he uttered a short prayer. He did not make the prayer long so as not to frighten Israel. He would then walk out of the Holy of Holies, never turning his back on it out of reverence for the place. In the Hekhal he would offer a short prayer. The prayer itself is recorded in the Talmud (Taanit 24b) and it is mostly is concerned with rain and sustenance for the coming year. Interestingly, the mishnah notes that he would not recite a long prayer so as not to frighten Israel into thinking that something had happened to him in the Holy of Holies. This was a moment extremely fraught with tension and fear and it seems that the well-being of the high priest was considered a portent for things to come to Israel in the coming year." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches where the high priest would put the coal-pan in the Second Temple period when there was no longer an Ark.\nWith regard to the Ark, we have already learned in Shekalim 6:1-2 that there was a tradition that it was buried somewhere underneath the Temple floor. Other sages hold that the Ark was taken to Babylonian during the first exile in 586 B.C.E.", + "After the Ark had been taken away, there was a stone from the days of the earlier prophets, called “shtiyah”, three fingers above the ground, on which he would place [the pan of burning coals]. When the Ark was removed, there was a stone in the Holy of Holies that was there from the time of the early prophets. According to the Talmud, this stone was there from the time of Samuel and David, before the Temple was even built. “Shtiyah” is usually interpreted as the “foundation stone” for according to Jewish understanding, the world was founded from this point, either physically or spiritually. The stone was only three fingers high off the ground, but this was sufficient in order to put the coal-pan on it and then turn the incense into smoke." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah the high priest takes the blood from the slaughtered bull and sprinkles the blood within the Holy of Holies.", + "He would take the blood from the one who was stirring it, and enter [again] into the place where he had entered, and stand [again] on the place on which he had stood, and sprinkle once upwards and seven times downwards, and he wouldn’t intend to sprinkle either upwards nor downwards but rather like one who cracks a whip. The high priest now took the bull’s blood from the person who was stirring it to keep it from congealing (see above 4:3). He then went back into the Holy of Holies and stood in the same place. Leviticus 16:14 reads: “He shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger over the cover (caporet) on the east side; and in front of the cover he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.” The rabbis did not interpret this verse to mean that he sprinkled the blood directly onto the cover of the ark, the caporet. Rather “over the cover” meant one sprinkle was directed up and the seven that were “in front of the cover” were sprinkled downwards. The blood from all of the sprinkles was supposed to land on the ground. The way in which the high priest did this is described as being “like one who cracks a whip.” This means that the first sprinkling was done by the hand beginning below and cracking upwards and the seven other sprinklings were done with the hand beginning above and moving in a sharp direction below (pretend like you are cracking a whip and you will understand immediately what this means.)", + "And thus would he count: one, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven. The first “one” refers to the upwards sprinkling. When counting the lower seven sprinklings, he would count with each of them the one that he had done above. This was done so that he wouldn’t make a mistake and count the upwards sprinkling with the downwards ones and thereby come up short by one sprinkling.", + "Then he would go out and put it on the golden stand in the sanctuary. When done sprinkling the blood he would leave the Holy of Holies and take the bowl with the blood out and put it on a golden stand made especially for this purpose." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah the high priest slaughters the goat and then sprinkle the blood of the goat inside the Holy of Holies and the blood of both the goat and the bull on the curtain outside the Holy of Holies.", + "They would bring him the goat. He would slay it and receive its blood in a bowl. This is the goat which was determined by lot to be “For Hashem” as we read in 4:2 above. He slaughters it and receives its blood in a bowl.", + "He entered [again] into the place where he had entered, and stood [again] on the place on which he had stood, and sprinkled once upwards and seven times downwards, and he wouldn’t intend to sprinkle either upwards or downwards but rather like one who cracks a whip. And thus would he count: one, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven. Then he would go out and place it on the second [golden] stand in the Hekhal. Rabbi Judah said: there was only one golden stand there. He then brings the blood of the goat into the Holy of Holies and does the same type of sprinkling that he did with the bull’s blood (see 5:3). This is mentioned in Leviticus 16:15. There is a debate in the mishnah between the first opinion and Rabbi Judah concerning how many special stands were prepared to hold bowls with blood.", + "He would take the blood of the bull and put down the blood of the goat, and sprinkle from it upon the curtains facing the Ark outside, once upwards, seven times downward, aiming to sprinkle neither upwards nor downwards, and he wouldn’t intend to sprinkle either upwards or downwards but rather like one who cracks a whip. Thus would he count [as above]. Then he would take the blood of the goat, and put down the blood of the bull, and sprinkle from it upon the curtain facing the ark outside once upwards, seven times downwards [as above]. The beginning of this section goes according to Rabbi Judah who holds that there was only one special stand. He says that first the high priest picks up the bowl with the bull’s blood in it and then puts down the bowl with the goat’s blood. According to the first opinion, the high priest first puts down the goat’s blood on its own stand and then picks up the bull’s blood.", + "He would take the blood of the bull and put down the blood of the goat, and sprinkle from it upon the curtains facing the Ark outside, once upwards, seven times downward, aiming to sprinkle neither upwards nor downwards, and he wouldn’t intend to sprinkle either upwards or downwards but rather like one who cracks a whip. Thus would he count [as above]. Then he would take the blood of the goat, and put down the blood of the bull, and sprinkle from it upon the curtain facing the ark outside once upwards, seven times downwards [as above]. The next task at hand is to sprinkle blood on the curtain, opposite the place where the ark is (or used to be) in the Holy of Holies. He does this while standing in the Hekhal, outside of the Holy of Holies. This is referred to in the second half of Leviticus 16:16. The same order is followed; first he sprinkles the bull’s blood and then he sprinkles the goat’s blood.", + "Then he would pour the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat emptying the full vessel into the empty one. Leviticus 16:18 states, “he shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the goat and apply it to each of the horns of the altar.” The rabbis understand this to mean that he mixes the two bloods together. Therefore he first pours the bull’s blood into the bowl with the goat’s blood and then pours the whole mixture back into the other bowl to ensure that they are mixed well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter having sprinkled the blood of the goat and bull inside the Holy of Holies and onto the curtain separating the Hekhal from the Holy of Holies, the priest now turns his attention to the golden altar that is inside the Hekhal.", + "“And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:18): that is the golden altar. The mishnah identifies the altar mentioned in v. 18 with the golden altar inside the Hekhal, upon which the incense is offered. This is explicit in Exodus 30:10 which in reference to this golden incense altar states, “Once a year Aaron shall perform purification upon its horns with blood of the sin offering of purification; purification shall be performed upon it once a year throughout the ages. It is most holy to the Lord.”", + "He then began to purify [the altar by sprinkling] in downward motion. From where does he begin? From the northeast horn [of the altar], then the northwest, then the southwest, then the southeast. From the place where he begins [sprinkling when offering] a sin-offering on the outer altar, there he completes [sprinkling] on the inner altar. He now begins to purify the altar by sprinkling blood upon its four horns (corners), going counter-clockwise and starting at the northeast corner. The mishnah notes that he completes his sprinkling on the southeast corner, the same corner where he begins to sprinkle blood when offering a sin-offering on the outer altar. This is a sort of mnemonic used by the mishnah to remember which corner is last on Yom Kippur.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: he remained in his place and sprinkled. And on every horn he would sprinkle from below upwards, with the exception of the horn at which he was standing, which he would sprinkle from above downwards. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the notion that he walks around the altar while sprinkling on the four horns. Rather, he remains in his spot. The whole altar was only one cubit by one cubit wide so sprinkling while standing in place would not have been difficult at all. On all of the other corners he would reach over and sprinkle with an upward motion. The exception was the corner where he was standing where for practical considerations he would sprinkle with a downwards motion." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss the sprinkling of the blood on the altar and then teaches what is to be done with the leftover blood.", + "Then he sprinkled the top of the altar seven times. Leviticus 16:19 states, “And the rest of the blood he shall sprinkle on it with his finger seven times.” This means, according to the mishnah, that he sprinkles the blood on the top of the altar.", + "And he would pour out the remainder of the blood at the western base of the outer altar. The remainder of the blood is poured out on the western base of the altar. This is the same place that the blood of the high priest’s bull (not a Yom Kippur sacrifice) is poured out according to Leviticus 4:7.", + "And [the remainder of the blood sprinkled] on the outer altar he poured out at the southern base. There are other sacrifices that are offered on Yom Kippur on the outer altar (see Numbers 28:7-11). The blood of these sacrifices is spilled on the southern base of that altar.", + "Both mingled in the aqueduct and flowed into Nahal Kidron, and they were sold to gardeners as manure and by using them one transgresses the law of trespass (. The extra blood from all of the altars flows into the aqueduct that runs through the Temple and then the blood flows out to Nahal Kidron (Wadi Kidron). The blood, assumedly mixed with some water by this time, would be sold to gardeners to use to fertilize their fields and the proceeds would go to the Temple. The mishnah notes that one who benefits from this blood without paying for it is guilty of trespassing, which means illegal use of Temple property. The blood retains its holiness even after having flowed out of the Temple." + ], + [ + "Concerning every act of Yom Hakippurim mentioned in the prescribed order [in the mishnah]: if he performed one [later] act before an [earlier] one, it is as if it had not been done at all.
If he dealt with the blood of the goat before the blood of the bull, he must start over again, and sprinkle the blood of the goat after the blood of the bull.
If before he had finished the sprinklings within [the Holy of Holies] the blood was poured away, he must bring other blood, and start over again and sprinkle again within [the Holy of Holies]. Similarly, in the Hekhal and the golden altar, since they are each a separate act of atonement.
Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: wherever he stopped, there he may begin again.
This mishnah basically completes the sacrificial aspects of the Yom Kippur service. It teaches that the order in which the acts must be performed is precise one act cannot be moved up in front of another. The mishnah then discusses the consequences if one act is moved up before another.
Section one: The mishnah is adamant that all of the acts that were described in the previous sections be performed in the order in which they were prescribed. The remainder of the mishnah now explains what he must do if the high priest performed one of the acts out of order.
Section two: If he sprinkled the goat’s blood before he sprinkled the bull’s blood he must start over again and sprinkle the bull’s blood and then the goat’s blood. The Talmud explains that this refers to the sprinkling done in the Hekhal. If he sprinkled the goat’s blood inside the Holy of Holies before the bull’s blood, he must sacrifice a new goat because he must sprinkle the bull’s blood inside before he even slaughters the goat.
Section three: If the blood was poured out before he finished sprinkling inside the Holy of Holies, he must go back and slaughter another animal, be it the bull or the goat. This is true even if he already sprinkled six out of the seven times. In other words, all of the sprinklings must be done with the blood of the same animal. However, if he finished sprinkling inside and was sprinkling in the Hekhal when the blood spilled, he need not go back and redo the inside sprinklings. The same holds true with regard to the sprinkling on the golden altar in the Hekhal. Each of these sets of sprinklings is considered independent, such that if one is interrupted the earlier one need not be redone.
Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon go a step further. If the blood is spilled in the middle of a set of sprinklings, he must slaughter a new animal but his earlier sprinklings count. He begins exactly where he left off. For Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon each sprinkling is its own entity and hence a sprinkling that has already been performed correctly need not be redone, even if the subsequent ones are done with the blood of a different animal." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMost of this chapter deals with the goat whose lot was cast “For Azazel” that will be sent out into the wilderness. However, before the mishnah begins to deal specifically with that goat, it introduces the topic with some general laws concerning the acquisition of the two goats and what happens if one of the goats dies during the day.", + "The two goats of Yom Hakkippurim: it is a requirement that they be alike in appearance, in size, in value, and that they be bought at the same time. But if they are not alike they are still valid. If he bought one today and the other tomorrow, they are valid. The mishnah teaches that the goats should be the same in appearance, cost the same and should be purchased the same day. In other words, they should be basically indistinguishable from one another. However, this is only a preference if they are not the same in appearance or they were not purchased on the same day, they are still valid.", + "If one of them died before the lot was cast another one is bought for the second one. The mishnah now discusses various scenarios in which one of the goats dies before it has served its ritual purpose. If one dies before the lots are cast, then the situation is easily remedied by purchasing a new goat.", + "But [if one of them died] after the lot was cast another pair must be bought and he must cast lots for them over again. If the one that ‘For Hashem’ died, he [the high priest] should say: “This one upon which the lot ‘For Hashem’ has fallen stands in its stead.” And if the one that was ‘For Azazel’ died he should say: “This one upon which the lot ‘For Azazel’ has fallen stands in its stead.” The more complicated scenario is where one dies after the lots have been cast. In such a case they cannot just buy another goat, because that goat would automatically take the place of the old goat without it ever going through the lottery process. Rather they buy a new pair of goats and cast lots for them over again. Then the new goat takes the place of the lost goat if the goat “For Hashem” died, then the new goat which drew the lot “For Hashem” takes its place, and the same if the goat “For Azazel” died.", + "The other one is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and it is to be sold and its value goes to the [chest for] voluntary offerings, for the sin-offering of the congregation is not be left to die. Rabbi Judah says: it is left to die. The mishnah now discusses what to do with the second goat of the new pair. This goat has no function because its place is taken by the living goat from the first pair. This goat has the status of a sin-offering (see Leviticus 16:5) that cannot be sacrificed. Usually a sin-offering that cannot be sacrificed is left to die. This situation arises when a person sets aside an animal to be a sin-offering, it is lost, he offers a new one in its place and then the old one is found. Such an animal is left to die. Our mishnah teaches that this is only true with regard to the sin-offering of an individual. The goat in our mishnah is communal and therefore it can go out to pasture until it becomes blemished, at which point it can no longer be sacrificed. Then it is sold and the proceeds go to the Temple. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that just as an individually owned sin-offering that can’t be offered is left to die, so too is a communally owned one.", + "Furthermore Rabbi Judah said: if the blood was poured away, the goat which is to be sent away is left to die. If the goat to be sent away died the blood is poured. The mishnah now points out that Rabbi Judah goes even further. If the blood of the goat “For Hashem” is spilled and therefore can’t be used, and all the more so if the goat dies, the other goat designated “For Azazel” must die as well. Similarly, if the goat to be sent out to the wilderness dies, the blood of the other goat, the one “For Hashem” must be spilled out. If the “For Hashem” goat has not yet been slaughtered, it must be left to die. In other words, Rabbi Judah disagrees with the halakhah in section four which says that if one goat dies then the other may still be used. He holds that if one dies, the other dies as well. You might say that their “lots” are inextricably linked!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah the high priest comes to the scapegoat and makes another confession. This confession, which is referred to in Leviticus 16:21, is for the sins of the entire people of Israel.", + "He then came to the scapegoat and laid his two hands upon it and he made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! They have done wrong, they have transgressed, they have sinned before You, Your people the House of Israel. Please, in the name of Hashem (! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which your people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). The high priest comes to the goat, lays his hands on it and then makes a similar confession to that which he has already made over the goat “For Hashem” and the bull. There is however, one difference here. In the second recitation of “Please…” instead of saying “Please Hashem” and reciting the four letter name of God, he says, “Please in the name of Hashem” using the preposition “in” before God’s name.", + "And the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they would hear God’s name explicated coming out of the high priest’s mouth, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces and say “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!” The response to this confession is described more vividly than in the previous two confessions. However, all commentators say that this same response is also to be done for the other confessions as well. Indeed, in the Yom Kippur liturgy, this response is placed not only after the third (and final) confession, but after the first two as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah now begins to describe what was done with the goat “For Azazel.”", + "They handed it over to him who was to lead it away. All were fit to lead it away, but the priests made a fixed rule not to permit an Israelite to lead it away. Rabbi Yose said: it once happened that Arsela led it away, although he was an Israelite. Whereas the Torah simply states, “And the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:22), the rabbis put forth an elaborate description of the process. The first thing is that the goat is handed over to someone. This person can be anyone, even a non-priest, but the high priests established the practice that only other priests should be honored with this privilege. On the other hand, Rabbi Yose testifies that one time someone named Arsela lead the goat away and he wasn’t a priest." + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah describes the goat leaving the Temple.", + "And they made a ramp for him because of the Babylonians, who would pull its hair, shouting to it: “Take it and go out, take it and go out.” The mishnah describes a ramp on which the goat would leave the Temple courtyard and make his way out of Jerusalem. They had to make this ramp because Babylonians on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem would pull at the hair of the person appointed to lead the goat out of the city in an attempt to hurry him on his way. The ramp kept the priest leading the goat at a safe distance from the rowdy pilgrims.", + "Some of the important people of Jerusalem used to go with him up to the first booth. There were ten booths from Jerusalem to Tzuk [a distance of] ninety ris, seven and a half of which make a mil. The mishnah mentions ten booths that were set up on the way from Jerusalem to Tzuk, the rock where the goat’s journey will end (as we will see below). On the way to Tzuk, which was ninety ris from Jerusalem (equivalent to 90 mil, or in our terms about 12 km) there were ten booths (sukkot). The important people from Jerusalem would accompany the goat to the first sukkah, and from that sukkah others would accompany it to the next sukkah and so on until it reached Tzuk. Between each sukkah was one mil, equivalent to two thousand cubits, the limit which one may walk on Shabbat. Between the last sukkah and Tzuk were two mil." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to describe the process of people accompanying the goat on its way to the wilderness.", + "At every booth they would say to him: here is food and here is water. The task of accompanying the goat to Zuk was considered so important that they allowed the person accompanying the goat to eat or drink on Yom Kippur. It seems that this was likely to have been only a gesture, one meant to emphasize the importance of the task. In reality, the Talmud says that no one ever took them up on their offer. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine that someone entrusted with such a prestigious religious task would risk his reputation by accepting the offer. In any case, even in a theoretical sense, this is an incredible allowance by the rabbis.", + "And they went with him from booth to booth, except the last one, who would not go with him up to Zuk, but rather stand from afar, and see what he was doing. The people from each booth would walk with the person accompanying the goat on his way to the next booth. The one exception was the people from the last booth. Since Zuk was two mils (4000 cubits) from the last booth and one is allowed to walk only 2000 cubits on Shabbat because of the Shabbat border limit, the people from the last booth would accompany the goat only halfway to Zuk. It is interesting to note that in section one the rabbis let the one accompanying the goat eat and drink on Yom Kippur, an obvious infraction of the biblical commandment. In contrast, when it came to those who walked from booth to booth, they seem to have forbade even the rabbinic prohibition (as it is usually understood) of walking beyond 2000 cubits on Shabbat." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah concludes the epic saga of the goat sent out to the wilderness. Alas, it will not end well for the goat (so gentle souls imagining the goat being set free to find its family be warned). However, hopefully the goat’s demise will not be in vain and it will aid in bringing atonement to the children of Israel.", + "What did he do? He divided the thread of crimson wool, and tied one half to the rock, the other half between its horns, and pushed it from behind, and it went rolling down and before it had reached half its way down hill it broken into limbs. When he would reach Zuk, the priest accompanying the goat would divide the crimson wool which was tied to the goat’s horn (see above 4:2) into two sections. One side he would tie to the goat’s horns and the other side he would tie to the rock. Mishnah eight below will explain that there was a tradition that when the goat reached the wilderness the crimson wool would turn white, to symbolize God’s cleansing of Israel of its sins. The Talmud explains that he would tie the thread to the rock so that he could see it turn white. After having tied the thread to the rock, the priest would push the goat off the cliff, where it would die rather quickly.", + "He came back and sat down under the last booth until it grew dark. The priest now finds himself at Zuk with a Shabbat border limit of only 2000 cubits, not enough to reach the last sukkah. Nevertheless, since it was considered dangerous to remain in the wilderness alone, the rabbis allowed him to walk the 4000 cubits back to the last sukkah. However, he can’t go any further than that until Yom Kippur is over.", + "And from when are his clothes unclean? From the moment he has gone outside the walls of Jerusalem. Rabbi Shimon says: from the moment he pushes it into Zuk. Leviticus 16:26 says that the one who sent the goat to Azazel must wash his clothes and bathe his body. This implies that his clothes were rendered impure. Our mishnah asks when is this so and it provides two opinions. The first opinion is that the clothes are impure from the time he leaves the walls of Jerusalem. This might imply that the goat has in a certain sense fulfilled its function at this early stage. Rabbi Shimon holds that the clothes are not impure until the goat has been pushed off of Zuk." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah the high priest returns to the bull and the goat that have already been slaughtered and offers up their sacrificial parts on the altar.", + "He [the high priest] came to the bull and the goat that were to be burnt. He cut them open and took out the sacrificial portions and put them on a tray, and them burned them on the altar. He twisted them around carrying poles and took them out to the place of burning. The priest now finishes the sacrificing of the bull and goat. He cuts them open, takes out the fats that must offered on the altar, and then he takes the rest of the carcasses out to the “place of burning” where they are completely burnt.", + "And from when are his clothes unclean? After they have gone outside the walls of the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: from the moment the fire has taken hold of most of them. Leviticus 16:28 states that he who burned the remnants of the sacrifices must wash his clothes and body because they are impure. As did yesterday’s mishnah, our mishnah again asks when they become impure. Again, the first opinion is that once the carcasses have been taken out of the walls (this time the Temple walls), the clothes of the person who is taking them have become impure. Rabbi Shimon again gives a later time from the time the fire on the altar has taken hold of most of the carcass." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah takes us back to the Temple, where the high priest was waiting to hear if the goat had reached the wilderness and Israel’s sins had been forgiven. The mishnah", + "They said to the high priest: the goat has reached the wilderness. And how did they know that the goat had reached the wilderness?
They used to set up scouts and they would wave scarves, and they would know that the goat had reached the wilderness. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, they knew when the goat reached the wilderness through scouts who would signal back to Jerusalem with scarves that the goat had been pushed off of Zuk by the priests who accompanied him.", + "Rabbi Judah said: but did they not have a great sign? From Jerusalem to Bet Hidudo was three mils. They could walk a mil, return the mil, then wait the time it takes to walk a mil, and thus know that the goat had reached the wilderness. Rabbi Judah says that they didn’t need to rely on scouts; rather they relied on a system of timing how long it would take the goat to get to the wilderness. Bet Hidudo was the beginning of the wilderness and once the goat had reached this point Rabbi Judah considered the mitzvah of sending the goat to the wilderness to have been fulfilled. Since Bet Hidudo was only three mils from Jerusalem, all they needed to do was time how long it would take to walk three mils. What they would do is walk a mil (which is to the end of the Shabbat border limit), then turn around and walk back the mil and then wait the amount of time it would take to walk a mil.", + "Rabbi Ishmael said: but did they not have another sign! A thread of crimson wool was tied to the door of the Temple, and when the goat reached the wilderness the thread turned white, as it is written, “Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). Rabbi Ishmael says that there is a more symbolic, perhaps even magical way of knowing when the goat had reached the wilderness. They would tie a crimson thread (similar to the thread tied to the goat’s horns) to the opening of the Temple and when the goat would reach the wilderness the thread would turn white in a literal (perhaps overly literal) fulfillment of the verse from Isaiah in which God promises the people of Israel that he will turn their sins white as snow. We should note that good manuscripts of the mishnah do not contain Rabbi Ishmael’s words; it is likely that this is an addition to the Mishnah from the Talmud." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAfter having sent the goat away, the Yom Kippur rituals continue with the priest reading various verses from the Torah concerning Yom Kippur and reciting some blessings.", + "The high priest [then] came to read. The next step was for the high priest to read the portions of the Torah concerning Yom Kippur. This is not mentioned in the biblical description of Yom Kippur. It seems to me that the point of this part of the ritual was to emphasize to both the participants and the observers that everything that the high priest had done was according to the prescriptions of the Torah. It may also have been intended to make a statement about the importance of the Yom Kippur ritual vis a vis Torah. It is as if to say that the ritual’s significance is in the fact that it is anchored in Torah.", + "If he wished to read in linen garments, he reads, and if not he reads in his own white cloak. While reading, the high priest can wear either his special linen clothes (see above 3:6) or he may wear a different cloak. Since the reading is not prescribed by the Torah and is not considered an “avodah” part of the day’s service he need not wear the special garments.", + "The synagogue attendant would take a Torah scroll and give it to the head of the synagogue, and the head of the synagogue gives it to deputy high priest, and the deputy high priest gives it to the high priest, and the high priest stands and receives it, and reads, [section] beginning] “After the death …” (Leviticus 16:1-34) and “But on the tenth…” (Leviticus 23:26-32). There is a ceremonial passing of the Torah scroll which occurs before the high priest reads it. The first to take it is the synagogue attendant (chazzan). As an aside, this mishnah is an interesting reference to a synagogue that was actually adjacent to the Temple Mount. In 1913 archaeologists found an inscription (see below) on the southern part of the Temple mount which shows that there was a synagogue there while the Temple still stood. The synagogue attendant passes the Torah on to the head of the synagogue (a position referred to in the inscription). The head of the synagogue passes it to the deputy high priest, the second in command, who finally passes it up to the high priest. This procession is clearly meant to pay homage to the high priest. The high priest then reads from the two portions in Leviticus that deal with Yom Kippur.", + "Then he would roll up the Torah scroll and put it in his bosom and say, “More than what I have read out before you is written here.” And “On the tenth …” (Numbers 29:7-11) which is in the Book of Numbers he recites by heart. The high priest then rolls up the Torah scroll and states to the people that there is more in the Torah about Yom Kippur then that which he has just read. This declaration allows them to know that the passage that he is about to read to them from Numbers is also in the Torah, lest they think he is making it up. He recites the passage from Numbers by heart in order to avoid having to roll from Leviticus until Numbers. Although he did have to roll between the two parts of Leviticus, this was less problematic because the portions are close to one another.", + "And he recites on it eight benedictions: “For the law”, “For the Temple service,” “For thanksgiving,” “For the forgiveness of sins” and “For the Temple” on its own, and “For Israel” on its own and “For Jerusalem” on its own, “For the priests” on their own and “For the rest of the prayer.” Finally, he recites eight blessings. The full version of the blessings is not found here; rather the mishnah makes only short references to these blessings. Some of these are familiar because they are still recited today. “For the Torah” is the blessing recited before reading the Torah today. “For the Temple service” is part of the Amidah (the 17th blessing). “For thanksgiving” is also part of the Amidah (the 18th blessing). “For forgiveness of sins” is similar to that which is also recited in today’s Amidah (6th blessing). The other four blessings are unique to the Yom Kippur ritual. In case you might be interested, the following is a translation of the inscription found at the Temple Mount (I found this on the web): “Theodotus, son of Vettanos, a priest and an archisynagogos, son of an archisynagogos grandson of an archisynagogos, built the synagogue for the reading of Torah and for teaching the commandments; furthermore, the hostel, and the rooms, and the water installation for lodging needy strangers. Its foundation stone was laid by his ancestors, the elders, and Simonides.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah notes that those who were in the Temple courtyard watching the priest reading the verses was too far from the bull and goat which were being burned outside of Jerusalem.", + "He who sees the high priest when he reads does not see the bull and the goat that are being burned, and he that sees the bull and the goat that are being burned does not see the high priest when he reads, not because he was not permitted but because the distance apart was great and both rites were performed at the same time. The mishnah notes that a person is allowed leave the bull and goat and go and listen to the high priest. The only thing that prevents this is that it is not practical they were both occurring in different places but at the same time. We might have thought that it would be forbidden to go from one to the other because a person should generally not abandon performing one mitzvah in order to go perform another. However, in this case this would not be forbidden because those watching the mitzvah being performed are not in the same category as those actually performing it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the sacrifices that have not yet been offered. So far only three sacrifices have been offered: the morning tamid, one bull and one goat. There are still many sacrifices yet left to perform.", + "If he read in the garments of linen, he would then sanctify his hands and feet, strip off his clothes, go down and immerse himself, come up and dry himself. If he read in garments of linen, then he must now wash his hands and feet, undress and go to the mikveh and then put on new clothes. However, if he read the verses in his own cloak (see mishnah one) then he would have already had to wash his hands and feet before removing the linen clothes and putting on the cloak. At this point he would need only take off his cloak and go immerse in the mikveh.", + "They brought him the golden clothes, he put them on, sanctified his hands and feet, went out, offered up his own ram and the ram of the people, and the seven unblemished, one-year-old-lambs, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiba said: these were offered up together with the morning tamid of the morning, He now puts on the golden garments, the clothes that the high priest would wear during the remainder of the year (see above 3:4). After putting on the new clothes he must again wash his hands and feet. The mishnah now makes reference to Leviticus 16:24, “Then he shall come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, making expiation for himself and for the people.” This is the ram referred to in our mishnah. According to Rabbi Eliezer he now offers the seven unblemished lambs mentioned in Numbers 29:8, all of which are additional (musaf) offerings. Rabbi Eliezer holds that these lambs are sacrificed before the bull which is also mentioned in Numbers 29:8, even though in the verse the bull comes first. This verse also mentions a ram. Our mishnah identifies this ram with the ram in Leviticus 16:5, which is the “ram of the people.” In other words, these are not two separate rams, which would bring our total to three, but rather two rams, one which is his (Leviticus 16:3) and one which is the people’s (v. 5). These are the two mentioned in v. 24 as well. Rabbi Akiva holds that the seven lambs were sacrificed with the morning tamid and not later in the day, as Rabbi Eliezer claims.", + "The bull for the whole burnt offering and the goat which is offered up outside were offered up together with the dusk tamid. The bull for a burnt offering (Numbers 29:9) and the goat which is a sin-offering (v. 11) are the next to be sacrificed. This goat is called “done outside” in order to distinguish it from the other sin-offering goat whose blood is spilled inside the Holy of Holies. These sacrifices are offered before the dusk tamid, which is always the final sacrifice of the day." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the final mishnah that discusses the Yom Kippur ritual. As we have already noted many times, every time he takes off his clothes he must wash his hands and and immerse in the mikveh. When he puts on new clothes he has to wash his hands and feet again.", + "He then sanctified his hands and feet, stripped off his clothes, went down and immersed himself, came up and dried himself. They brought him the white clothes, he put them on and sanctified his hands and his feet. Then he went in to bring out the ladle and the fire-pan. He now changes his clothes in order to put on the white clothes, which are the special clothes special for Yom Kippur, because he needs to go back into the Holy of Holies to get the ladle with the incense that he left there in 5:1. It was left there until all of the incense had been burned up.", + "He then sanctified his hands and feet, stripped off his clothes, went down and immersed himself, came up and dry himself. They brought him the golden clothes, he put them on, sanctified his hands and feet, and went in to burn up the dusk incense, and takes care of the lamp. He now puts back on the golden clothes so that he can offer the daily dusk incense offering. This incense offering was mentioned above in 3:5. He also takes care of the lamp, a daily chore which we learned about in 1:2. We should note that some commentators debate whether he offers the dusk tamid sacrifice before or after the dusk incense offering.", + "He sanctified his hands and feet and stripped, went down, immersed himself, came up and dried himself. They brought him his own clothes and he put them on. Finally, the high priest’s exhausting day is over and he may put on his own clothes and go home.", + "And they would accompany him to his house. And he would make a day of festivity for his friends whenever he came out of the Holy [of Holies] in peace. The day doesn’t end with the high priest just walking home alone. The other priests accompany him to his house and there he makes a big party to celebrate his having successfully entered the Holy of Holies, the closest one can get to God’s presence, and having come out alive. As we have mentioned on many occasions, this was an event that was perceived to be very dangerous and hence the high priest must have been relieved to have survived. [Perhaps this was the first break-fast! Did they have lox and bagels back then?]" + ], + [ + "The high priest performs the service in eight pieces of clothing, and the common priest in four: in tunic, breeches, a headdress, and a sash.
The high priest adds the breastpiece, the ephod, the robe and the frontlet.
In these were the Urim and Tummim inquired of. But they were not inquired of except by the king, by the head of the court or by one whom the community needs.
This mishnah completes the first seven chapters of Yoma, all of which dealt with the Temple Yom Kippur ritual.
Sections one and two: The first two sections of the mishnah outline the difference between the clothes that the high priest wore on normal occasions throughout the year (not on Yom Kippur), and the clothes that a normal priest wore. The high priest has eight pieces of clothing (see above 3:4) whereas the normal priest has only four pieces. These are all discussed in Exodus 28
Section three: The Urim and Tummim, the oracular stones used in the First Temple, are only asked questions when the high priest is wearing his eight pieces of clothing. And not anyone can ask a question of the Urim and Tummim. Only the king, the head of the court or other high officials of the community may ask questions. For more information about the Urim and Tummim, how they are understood by modern biblical scholars and how they are understood in the aggadah, I suggest consulting the Encyclopedia Judaica." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe eighth chapter of Yoma is the chapter that is still relevant in halakhah today. It discusses how we understand the biblical command to “afflict oneself” (see Leviticus 16:29-31; 23:26-32) as well as the rules and concepts regarding atonement.\nOur mishnah begins this discussion by teaching the five/six prohibitions that all fit under the category of “afflictions.”", + "[On] Yom HaKippurim it is forbidden to eat, to drink, to wash, to anoint oneself, to put on sandals, or to have intercourse. According to the Babylonian Talmud there are five prohibitions (eating and drinking is considered only one prohibition), which are derived from the fact that the root for “afflict oneself” appears five times in the Torah in connection with Yom Kippur. However, the Yerushalmi understands these as six prohibitions and does not connect them directly with the verses. These are just how the rabbis understood the meaning of “afflict oneself.” “Putting on sandals” refers to wearing leather shoes, whether they are sandals or closed shoes.", + "A king or bride may wash their face, and a woman after childbirth may put on sandals, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages forbid it. In this section we learn that there are some exceptions to the general prohibitions. A king or a bride may wash their face. The king must look good in order to garner the respect of his people so we want him to look clean. The rabbis want the bride to look beautiful for her husband, in order to help solidify the marriage. They considered the first few days of marriage to be critical and to a certain extent were willing to relax some other prohibitions. In our case, they allowed her to wash her face. The woman after childbirth will be bothered by walking on the cold floor and therefore she is allowed to wear sandals. Although the sages dispute these exceptions, the halakhah is like Rabbi Eliezer. We should note that the mishnah does not allow any exceptions for eating/drinking. Some commentators derive from here that the prohibitions of eating/drinking are weightier than the others and hence cannot be waived under any circumstance (with the exception of issues of health)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches the minimum amount of food or liquid that one needs to eat or drink in order to be liable on Yom Kippur. The mishnah is not saying that one is allowed to eat or drink a lesser amount, just that one who does eat a lesser amount is not liable for having transgressed a biblical commandment.", + "If one eats [an amount] the size of a large date, like it and its seed, or if he drank [an amount equivalent to a] mouthful, he is liable. When the Torah prohibits eating and drinking on Yom Kippur it uses the language “afflict” and not the word “eat” or “drink.” According to the rabbis this means that one has violated the biblical commandment only if one eats or drinks an amount of food that satisfies, at least in a minimal way, an average person. The rabbis hold that this amount of food is the size of a date with its seed, or in the case of liquids, a mouthful. We should note that normally one is liable for eating an olive’s amount of food (a smaller amount) or a revi’it of liquid (more than a mouthful). For Yom Kippur the issue is not “what is food” but rather what satisfies.", + "All foods add up to make an amount equivalent to a date, and all the liquids add up to make a mouthful. Food and drink do not add up. If one eats two different kinds of foods or two different kinds of liquids they do add up to a date/mouthful. For instance if I eat half of a date’s worth of a cracker and half of a date’s worth of cream cheese, I am liable. However, food and drink do not add up, so that if I eat half a date’s worth of a cracker and drink half of a mouthful of juice I am not liable" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with how many sin-offerings one would be liable for if he ate or drank on Yom Kippur. The sin-offering is the sacrifice brought for an inadvertent sin. We have seen a similar type of mishnah in the beginning of the seventh chapter of Shabbat. As I might have explained there, this is the way that the rabbis define just how many sins a person has committed.", + "If he ate and drank in one state of unawareness, he is not obligated to bring more than one sin-offering. If a person didn’t know that the day was Yom Kippur or he didn’t know that it was prohibited to eat or drink on Yom Kippur and he ate or drank many times during the day, he is only liable for one sin-offering. This is one sin, since eating and drinking are two aspects of the same prohibitions the commandment to afflict oneself on Yom Kippur.", + "But if he ate and performed labor while in one state of unawareness he is obligated for two sin-offerings. Eating/drinking and performing labor are two different prohibitions. Therefore if someone does both on Yom Kippur, even in one state of unawareness (for instance, not knowing that it is Yom Kippur) he is still liable for two sin-offerings.", + "If he ate foods unfit for eating, or drank liquids unfit for drinking, or drank fish-brine or fish pickling liquid, he is not liable. In order to be liable for eating or drinking, that which one eats must be food that is fit for eating or liquid that is fit for drinking. Otherwise, one is not liable. Note, the mishnah does not say that one is allowed to do so, just that doing so does not incur liability for transgressing a Torah law. It is still prohibited." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches the rules regarding children fasting on Yom Kippur.", + "[With regard to] children: they do not “afflict” them at all on Yom HaKippurim. Children are not to fast on Yom Kippur. Note that the mishnah does not say that they are not obligated, but uses stronger language, saying that it is prohibited to make them fast. In the Tosefta we see that Shammai (the eponymous founder of Bet Shammai) actually wanted his son to fast and the other sages forced him to feed his son. I do not think that Shammai was crueler than the other sages, nor was he endangering his young son’s life. One day without food will be discomforting but is unlikely to cause any physical damage. Rather I think that Shammai had a different concept of the observance of the commandments. For Shammai the Torah commands us to “afflict ourselves” on Yom Kippur and the goal is therefore physical affliction. Such an affliction can be achieved on a small child, even an infant. In contrast, the sages understood the affliction as being more inwardly oriented, and hence applicable only to those who know what is going on. A child can feel hunger, they all do, but a small child won’t know that his hunger is a form of religious observance. He’ll just scream or if he’s a little older, perhaps whine. In order to demonstrate that the point of the day is to affect our inner lives and not our physical hunger, the other sages forced Shammai to feed his son.", + "But they train them a year or two before in order that they become accustomed to the commandments. One or two years before a child becomes mature (today we consider this to be at the age of Bar/Bat Mitzvah) the child starts to fast, at least for a part of the day. At this point the child is beginning to understand the meaning of the day and therefore it is applicable for him to fast." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs important as Yom Kippur may be, the value of life precedes the observance of all mitzvot. Our mishnah teaches that if fasting might cause danger to a person’s life, that person must eat. I should note that the mishnah is not addressed to the person looking to “cheat the system” by feigning illness and eating on Yom Kippur. With God watching one can’t really cheat the system. The mishnah is addressing the religious fanatic who might risk his/her own life in order to observe the fast. The mishnah is not allowing someone to eat it is forbidding them from fasting.", + "If a pregnant woman smelled [food on Yom Kippur], they feed her until she feels restored. Pregnant women are obligated to fast on Yom Kippur, unless they are told by a doctor that they may not. Contrary to what some people seem to think, there is no blanket exemption. However, if a pregnant woman gets a craving to eat something because she smelled a certain food, they must feed her until she is satisfied. Her cravings are seen to be potential matters of life and death.", + "A sick person is fed at the word of experts. And if no experts are there, they feed him upon his own request until he says: enough. A sick person should check with a doctor/expert before he eats or drinks on Yom Kippur. If they say he must drink or eat than he must do so, even if he doesn’t want to. The Talmud notes that if the experts say he does not need to eat or drink but he believes that if he doesn’t his life might be endangered, he must eat. In other words, his own word trumps that of the experts if he wants to eat and they don’t think it is necessary. However, if he doesn’t want to eat and they think he should, he must eat. In this case, their words trump his. If there are no experts around, then we take him at his word and we must feed him or give him water until he says that he has had enough." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter teaching in the previous mishnah that serious health concerns override the observance of Yom Kippur, our mishnah expands this message to include other prohibitions as well if a person’s health is in danger he may do things otherwise prohibited.", + "If one is seized by a ravenous hunger, they feed him even unclean things until his eyes light up [and he returns to health]. Here we learn that if a person is overtaken by a ravenous hunger, one that if not satisfied might put him into physical danger, they may feed him anything, even non-kosher food. As I said in yesterday’s mishnah, this mishnah is addressed to the religious fanatic who would rather endanger his life or the life of another rather than transgress the commandments. The mishnah is saying that this is prohibited because the value of life is greater than that of the commandments.", + "If one was bit by a mad dog, they do not feed him the lobe of its liver. But Rabbi Matia ben Harash permits it. Here the mishnah expresses a limit to the previous principle. Evidently, there was a belief in the time of the Mishnah that if one was bitten by a rabid dog, eating its liver-lobe would serve as a cure. Most rabbis didn’t believe that this “cure” really worked and hence they should not give him the liver-lobe to eat. Saving a life overrides the commandments, but only if that which is done really has a chance of working. However, Rabbi Matia permits even this. There are two different explanations for his opinion. The first is that Rabbi Matia holds that eating the liver of the rabid dog is really an effective cure. [1 Julius Preuss, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, p. 196, writes, “To treat the bite of a mad dog, the heathen physicians of antiquity, in general, as well as many primitive peoples today, gave the patient certain pieces of the liver of the mad dog to eat.” Preuss refers to a number of Greco-Roman authors. If you wish to try this at home, know that most of them recommend the liver be roasted. Chopped liver is not recommended. ] The other, in my opinion more convincing explanation is that since the bit person thinks this cure is effective, the fact that it offers him psychological relief is enough for Rabbi Matia to permit it.", + "Moreover Rabbi Matia ben Harash said: if one has pain in his throat, they may drop medicine into his mouth on Shabbat, because it is a possibility of danger to human life and every potential danger to human life overrides Shabbat. Rabbi Matia goes a step further and says that anyone who feels pain on Shabbat, and who thinks that the pain might be an issue of life and death, others must give him medicine on Shabbat. As we learned frequently when we studied Shabbat, medicine is prohibited on Shabbat. Here we learn that this is true only if it is not a potential threat to a person’s life. If there is danger to one’s life, then it is permitted, and indeed mandated to heal the person on Shabbat." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven continues to teach that Shabbat laws are suspended in order to even potentially save someone’s life.", + "If an avalanche fell on someone, and it is doubtful whether or not he is there, or whether he is alive or dead, or whether he is an Israelite or a non-Jew, they remove the debris from above him [even on Shabbat]. If we knew that the person was truly under the avalanche, and that he was alive, and that he was Jewish, it would obviously be permitted to remove the debris on Shabbat in order to save him. Our mishnah teaches that even if we don’t know that these three things are true, we do remove the debris in an attempt to save his life. This is because, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, even the potential to save a life overrides Shabbat. As you may have noted, according to the mishnah, if we knew that the person was not Jewish, we would not save his life on Shabbat. I will not deny that the mishnah discriminates against non-Jews, but I think that this has to be understood as a reflection of the times. Jews and Gentiles often did not get along, and Jews experienced a lot of persecution. Furthermore, the idea of treating all of humanity as equal was not a common idea. All peoples of the ancient world discriminated against others. We should not expect ancient rabbis to express the same exact liberal values that we (hopefully) espouse today.", + "If they find him alive they remove the debris, but if dead they should leave him there [until Shabbat is over]. If they find that he is alive, they remove all of the debris and do all they can to save his life. However, if they find that he is dead they must stop the removal and let his body stay there until Shabbat is over. The saving of a life overrides Shabbat, but removing a dead body from some debris does not." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses how a person can get atonement. We should note that the Mishnah makes a seamless transition from how atonement was effected when the Temple still stood through sacrifices, to how it is effected after the destruction through atonement and Yom HaKippurim. In Temple times, Yom HaKippurim itself did not effect atonement; rather Yom HaKippurim was the day upon which atoning sacrifices were offered. By including repentance with the sacrifices, the Mishnah makes the strong ideological statement that repentance (teshuvah) is as effective as sacrifice, and would work even when sacrifices were no longer possible. This was certainly a monumental statement for post-Second Temple Jews, one that would have given them great comfort.\nAccordingly, we should note that the Torah doesn’t speak at all about repentance in connection with Yom Kippur. Our modern conception of Yom Kippur as a day of repentance was shaped by the rabbis. Without their brilliant foresight, Yom Kippur, would probably have been lost.", + "The sin-offering and the certain guilt-offering effect atonement. A “certain guilt-offering” is an “asham” sacrifice offered when a person knows that he has committed a certain type of sin, for instance he denied having stolen something and took a false oath over it. An “uncertain guilt-offering” is brought when a person thinks he might have done something which he would be liable for karet if he did it intentionally, but isn’t sure if he really did it. For instance, if he had relations with a woman and he doesn’t know if she was a menstruant or not, he brings an “uncertain guilt offering.” This type of sacrifice doesn’t effect full atonement, because if he finds out that she really was a menstruant, meaning that he really did transgress, he will have to bring another sacrifice. The rabbis understand that the sacrifice causes the person who brings it to regret his sin and to make up his mind not to sin again. In other words, sacrifices are like repentance. Hence they effect atonement.", + "Death and Yom HaKippurim effect atonement together with repentance. Both death and Yom Kippur effect atonement, but only if the person repents either before his death or on Yom Kippur. This is why convicted criminals who are about to be executed are given a chance to repent before their deaths. For the rest of us who don’t usually know when we are going to die, we need to repent consistently.", + "Repentance effects atonement for light transgressions: [the transgression of] positive commandments and negative commandments. And for severer transgressions [repentance] suspends [the divine punishment], until Yom HaKippurim arrives and effects atonement. Repentance alone effects atonement for lighter sins, either positive or negative commandments. For more serious sins, meaning those punishable by karet or by death, repentance alone is not sufficient but rather must be accompanied by Yom Kippur." + ], + [ + "Introduction The last chapter of the tractate continues to deal with the laws of teshuvah.", + "One who says: I shall sin and repent, sin and repent, they do not afford him the opportunity to repent. [If one says]: I shall sin and Yom HaKippurim will atone for me, Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement. Atonement is granted only to those whose repentance is genuine. A person who says that he is going to sin and then repent is not granted atonement because this person is trying to “trick” the system. Similarly, one who says that he is going to sin and then he intends for Yom Kippur to give atone for his sins, does not get atonement.", + "For transgressions between man and God Yom HaKippurim effects atonement, but for transgressions between man and his fellow Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement, until he has pacified his fellow. This was expounded by Rabbi Elazar b. Azariah: “From all your sins before the Lord you shall be clean” (Leviticus 16:30) for transgressions between man and God Yom HaKippurim effects atonement, but for transgressions between man and his fellow Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement, until he has pacified his fellow.. The second lesson in our mishnah is perhaps the most important one in the tractate. Yom Kippur is a ritual through which we repair our relationship with God. It simply does not work the same way when it comes to our relationship with our fellow human beings. With other human beings we must repair our relationship, ask for their forgiveness and appease their anger at our mistakes. Only after we have done this does the divinely granted day of Yom Kippur effect atonement for our sins.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: Happy are you, Israel! Who is it before whom you become pure? And who is it that purifies you? Your Father who is in heaven, as it is said: “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean” (Ezekiel 36:25). And it further says: “O hope ( of Israel, O Lord” (Jeremiah 17:13--just as a mikveh purifies the unclean, so too does he Holy One, blessed be He, purify Israel. As is typical, the tractate concludes with some words of “aggadah.” Rabbi Akiva gives a message of hope to all of Israel, telling us how blessed we are that God cleanses us of our sins. The verses in Ezekiel talk about God’s redemption of the people of Israel, what we usually call the Messianic age. Rabbi Akiva seems to be alluding to this ultimate cleansing of sin, one in which God will give us a “new heart” (v. 26). Rabbi Akiva also makes a pun on the word “mikveh” in Jeremiah the word in its context means hope, but means “ritual bath” in other places. God acts as a purifier for Israel, cleansing us both in the here and now and in the redemptive future for which we long. Congratulations! We have finished Yoma. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. If you’ve been following along with the Mishnah Yomit schedule then you have just completed Yom Kippur and in a couple of days Sukkot will begin. We could not have asked for better timing this year! Yoma contained a long description of how the day’s ritual was carried out in the Temple and it concluded by hinting at a message central to the world of the rabbis. We no longer have a Temple, but through repentance, through prayer, through study, through acts of loving kindness and through the observance of the commandments we can maintain and repair our relationship with God. I can’t think of any message more relevant to this time of year. As always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Sukkah." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה יומא", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yoma", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yoma", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9710d47299584cd70eb74931f78c02de34d3bb05 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,306 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עבודה זרה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "On the three days preceding the festivals of idolaters, it is forbidden to conduct business with them, to lend articles to them or borrow from them, to lend or borrow any money from them, to repay a debt, or receive repayment from them. Rabbi Judah says: we should receive repayment from them, as this can only depress them; But they [the Rabbis] said to him: even though it is depressing at the time, they are glad of it subsequently. Exodus 23:13 states, “Make no mention of the names of other gods; they shall not be heard on your lips.” From the last part of this verse, “they shall not be heard on your lips” the Rabbis created a midrash that a Jew should avoid giving a non-Jew a reason to bring a sacrifice or libation to his foreign god. Therefore, during the three days preceding pagan holidays, Jews should avoid any business transactions with non-Jews, lest the non-Jew thank his god for this transaction. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, this prohibition works in both directions. It is forbidden for Jews to sell, lend or repay non-Jews and likewise it is forbidden to buy, borrow or receive repayment from them. According to this opinion, all of these transactions may potentially cause the non-Jew to celebrate and therefore should be avoided. Rabbi Judah dissents with regards to receiving repayment from non-Jews. Since repaying a debt causes sorrow to a person, it is permitted to receive repayment during this time, since the non-Jew will not thank his god after having done so. The Rabbis respond to Rabbi Judah that repaying a debt can indeed be a cause of celebration, even if the immediate parting with the money is depressing. Therefore it too is prohibited three days preceding a holiday. We should note that although this mishnah seems to be of a restrictive nature, it does indeed allow business transactions at any time that is not three days before their festivals. In other words, by forbidding the conduct of business on certain days the mishnah tacitly permits conducting business with non-Jews on other days. This was of course an economic necessity; even before the modern “global economy” no people could survive without conducting business with other peoples." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah is a continuation of the mishnah we learned yesterday, which stated that it is forbidden to conduct transactions with non-Jews three days before their festivals, lest they offer sacrifices or libations to their gods for their transactions with Jews.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says on the three preceding days and the three following days it is forbidden; But the Sages say: before their festivities it is forbidden, but after their festivities it is permitted. Rabbi Ishmael states that not only is it forbidden to make transactions with non-Jews during the three days before a pagan holiday but it is also forbidden during the three days following the holiday. In the Palestinian Talmud two potential reasons are given for Rabbi Ishmael’s statement. The first is that non-Jews continue to celebrate for three days after their holidays are over and therefore these three days are also forbidden. The second is that if the non-Jew knows that he will not be able to conduct business with the Jew after his holiday, he will be depressed during his holiday and he will engage in less idol worship. The Sages, who are the same Sages who expressed their opinion in the previous mishnah, prohibit only the three days preceding the holiday and not the three days following.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the qualitative difference between the two reasons given for prohibiting the conduct of business during the three days following the pagan holiday?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three delineates which idolatrous holidays are referred to in the previous two mishnayoth.", + "These are the festivities of the idolaters: Kalenda, Saturnalia, Kratesis, the anniversary of accession to the throne and birthdays and anniversaries of deaths, according to Rabbi Meir. Kalenda, from which the English word calendar derives, refers to the first day of the month, and especially to the first day of the year. Saturnalia was a popular Roman holiday on the 17th of December, dedicated to the god, Saturn. Kratesis, which was on the first of August, commemorated the day that Augustus conquered Alexandria in Egypt. Note that I have used the names of these holidays as Albeck states that they should be read. Medieval scribes often did not know what these holidays were or what their names were and different forms of the words can be found in other versions of the mishnah. The anniversary of the accession of the king to the throne is also considered to be a day of celebration full of idolatrous practices. The final two days of idolatrous celebration are personal: one’s birthday and the anniversary of the death of a close relative. On these days non-Jews would make idolatrous celebrations. Interestingly, Jews did not traditionally celebrate birthdays because it was seen to be a non-Jewish custom.", + "But the Sages say: a death at which burning [of articles of the dead] takes place is attended by idolatry, but where there is not such burning there is no idolatry. The opinion in the previous section was that of Rabbi Meir, who held that pagans commemorate the anniversaries of all deaths. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that only deaths where the body and clothes were burned on a funeral pyre are celebrated by idolatrous acts. If the body was not burned on the pyre then the day is not accompanied by idolatry and it is therefore permitted to conduct business with the non-Jew three days before.", + "But the day of shaving ones beard and lock of hair, or the day of landing after a sea voyage, or the day of release from prison, or if an idolater holds a banquet for his son the prohibition only applies to that day and that particular person. As was previously stated it is forbidden to conduct business with non-Jews during the three days before the personal holidays mentioned in section two. In section three the mishnah lists pagan holidays that Jews can conduct business during the three days before and are only forbidden from doing so on the holiday itself. These include the day that the non-Jew shaves his beard and lock of hair, which refers to a lock of hair grown at the back of one’s head and is shaved once a year; the day of return from a long trip by sea; the day that one is released from prison and the day in which one marries off one’s son and makes him a celebratory feast.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the personal holidays mentioned in section two of this mishnah and those mentioned in section three? Why is it forbidden to conduct business for the three days preceding some of them but not others?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah provides some exceptions to the prohibition of conducting business with non-Jews during their festivals.", + "When an idolatrous [festival] takes place within a city it is permitted [to conduct business with non-Jews] outside it. If the idolatrous [festival] takes place outside it, [business] is permitted within it. The prohibition of conducting business with non-Jews during their holidays is limited to the city that is actually celebrating the holiday. Outside of the city it is permitted to conduct business with them. The type of holiday referred to in this mishnah is probably a local holiday and not one that would have been observed throughout the land.", + "Is it permitted to go there? If the road leads solely to that place, it is forbidden; But if one can go by it to any other place, it is permitted. This section begins with a question, a literary form that is not typical for mishnah. The question is: can one go to this city on the day of the celebration? If the answer to this question were to be categorically affirmative, stating that Jews are not allowed to even travel on the road to that city, it would create another fence to prevent Jews from aiding non-Jews in their celebrations. However, the answer is not categorical. Rather, a Jew may travel on the road to this city as long as the road leads to other places as well. If it only leads to this place then it is forbidden. After all, if the Jew was travelling to this place on the holiday and the road only travels to that city, he is obviously going to transgress the prohibition, or perhaps even worse, to actually celebrate with them.", + "A city in which an idolatrous festival is taking place, some of its shops being decorated and some not decorated this was the case with Beth-Shean, and the Sages said: in the decorated stores it is forbidden [to buy] but in the undecorated ones it is permitted. This section is addressed to the Jew who is already located in the non-Jewish city on the day of their celebration. We might have thought that he is not to distinguish at all between non-Jews and that it is forbidden to conduct business with any of them. In this section we learn that the prohibition is limited to those actually demonstrating that they are celebrating the holiday. A storekeeper who does not decorate his store is evidently not celebrating, and therefore it is permitted to conduct business with him. We should note that in this case the Rabbis are lenient even though it is not totally clear that this non-Jew will not celebrate later on. In other words, although there is a chance that later the non-Jew will offer sacrifices to his god for the transaction with the Jew, since this is unlikely it is permitted. It is interesting to note the direction of this mishnah: the first section is directed at those found outside of the city, the second at those outside of the city who are coming into the city and the third at those who are inside the city.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Is a Jew permitted to travel to the city if the road leads to other cities? If so, why?
• This mishnah might remind us of the modern holiday celebrations surrounding Christmas. How does the situation here compare and contrast with the modern situation?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins a somewhat new topic: things which are forbidden to sell to idolaters at all times of the year and not just during their holidays, lest these things be used in idol worship. Again, it is not only forbidden to worship idols, but it is forbidden to aid non-Jews in idolatry.", + "The following things are forbidden to be sold to idolaters: iztroblin, bnoth-shuah with their stems, frankincense, and a white rooster. Iztroblin are the pines of a cedar tree. Bnoth-shuah are types of figs. All of these things listed in this section are used by the idolaters for idol worship. Therefore it is forbidden to sell them to non-Jews since that would be abetting idolatry.", + "Rabbi Judah says: it is permitted to sell a white rooster to an idolater among other roosters; but if it be by itself, one should clip its spur and then sell it to him, because a defective [animal] is not sacrificed to an idol. As for other things, if they are not specified their sale is permitted, but if specified it is forbidden. Rabbi Judah presents some exceptions to the prohibition of selling a white rooster to an idolater. A Jew may sell a white rooster to an idolater if it is sold with other regular roosters. In this case the Jew is merely selling roosters and happens to sell one that is white. The non-Jew may also not be purchasing the rooster for idolatrous purposes since he bought a lot of other roosters. Furthermore, when he sells the white rooster it doesn’t look to others as if he is selling something specifically for idol worship, since the other roosters he is selling will not typically be used in idol worship. Rabbi Judah also creates a way for Jews to sell white roosters alone to idolaters. As long as the Jew cuts off the spur the sale is permitted since the idolater will not sacrifice a blemished animal. With regards to the other forbidden items, it is forbidden to sell them to idolaters only if the sale is specifically for idol worship. If not, it is permitted to sell the item, because it may be used for other, non-idolatrous purposes.", + "Rabbi Meir says: also a “good-palm”, hazab and niklivas are forbidden to be sold to idolaters. Rabbi Meir adds several other things which are forbidden for a Jew to sell to idolaters. All three of these are varieties of date-palms." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the prohibition of a Jew from selling animals to non-Jews, lest the non-Jews use them for work on the Sabbath.", + "In a place where it is the custom to sell small domesticated animals to non-Jews, such sale is permitted; but where the custom is not to sell, such sale is not permitted. In no place however is it permitted to sell large animals, calves or foals, whether whole or maimed. Rabbi Judah permits in the case of a maimed one. And Ben Bateira permits in the case of a horse. The Torah teaches on several occasions that an animal must rest on the Sabbath (see for instance Exodus 20:9). Our mishnah extends this prohibition and prohibits a Jew from selling an animal to a non-Jew, lest the non-Jew use the animal for work on the Sabbath. This is similar yet somewhat different from the issue which the mishnah discussed previously, selling potentially idolatrous objects to the non-Jew. In both cases it is forbidden to sell something to a non-Jew. However, in this case, Jews are not enjoined to prevent non-Jews from working on the Sabbath. Rather Jews are prohibited from putting Sabbath observant animals into the position where they will have to break the Sabbath. In other words this prohibition concerns the animal and not the non-Jew himself. Not all animals are used for work. Small animals, such as sheep and goats are not used for work. Therefore in a place where it is customary to sell them to non-Jews it is permitted to do so. In other places it was customary not to sell even small animals to non-Jews, lest the Jew become confused and sell them large animals, which is prohibited in all places. [We have not encountered many of these types of mishnahs, which permit something in a place where it is customary to do so, and forbid it in places where it is not customary. For other examples which we have learned see Bava Metzia 7:1 or 9:1.] It is forbidden in all places to sell large animals, such as oxen and horses, to non-Jews since they will be used to perform work on the Sabbath. This prohibition includes calves and foals, even though they do not usually perform work. Rabbi Judah allows one to sell injured animals to non-Jews since they are clearly being purchased for their meat and not in order to do work. Ben Bateira allows the sale of a horse since horses are used for riding, which is not considered by the Rabbis to be work. Pulling plows, a work performed by oxen is considered work.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Why is it forbidden in all places to sell calves and foals to non-Jews and yet there are some places that do sell small animals? Since both don’t perform work why is one always prohibited and one sometimes permitted?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that one is forbidden to assist a non-Jew in any way that may injure the public.", + "One should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public. A Jew is not allowed to sell bears or lions to non-Jews, lest the non-Jew not take proper care of the animal and the animal cause damage to the public. This section may also be understood as referring to the gladiator exhibitions which often involved lions and bears. The Rabbis were opposed to these violent exhibitions and to the culture that encouraged the enjoyment of bloodshed. A Jew should certainly not attend such events nor sell animals to non-Jews that might be used in these events.", + "One should not join them in building a basilica, a scaffold, a stadium, or a platform. A Jew may not join non-Jews in building any of the structures listed in this section. The basilica served as a courtroom. The scaffold was used for executions. The platform was used for judges to make speeches. We can see from this mishnah that the Jews had a deep distrust for the non-Jewish law system. This law system is considered damaging to the public and therefore a Jew should not aid in building this system.", + "But one may join them in building public or private bathhouses. When however he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed he must not build. A Jew is allowed to join non-Jews in building bathhouses, since bathhouses are for the public good. Indeed in other Talmudic sources the Romans are praised for building bathhouses, marketplaces, roads and bridges. From other stories in the Talmud and a famous story that will appear in our tractate, it is clear that Jews and non-Jews shared public bathhouses. [Note: the version of the mishnah upon which my interpretation is based is “dimasaot” and not “bimasaot”, as recommended by Albeck.] A Jew may not aid in building the cupola of the bathhouse since that is the place where the idol is placed. As we have learned already in the previous mishnayoth, a Jew may not perform any action which would aid in idolatrous practice." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss things that should not be sold to non-Jews. The first section lists things that shouldn’t be sold lest they be used for idolatrous purposes. The remainder of the mishnah discusses land and things attached to the land. These should not be sold to non-Jews lest they begin to dispossess the Jews of the land of Israel.", + "One should not make jewelry for an idol [such as] necklaces, ear-rings, or finger-rings. Rabbi Eliezer says, for payment it is permitted. One should not make jewelry for idolaters lest they use them to decorate their idols. Rabbi Eliezer says that one may sell jewelry to them but not give it for free. This opinion is perplexing because usually if we are concerned that the actions of the Jew might encourage idolatry, the fact that he profits does not make it more permissible. There are some versions of the mishnah that do not include this line.", + "One should not sell to idolaters a thing which is attached to the soil, but when cut down it may be sold. R. Judah says, one may sell it on condition that it be cut down. The mishnah now begins to discuss selling them land and things attached to the land. One should not sell them things attached to the land, such as trees, since this might give them a stake in the land as well. Once the item has been cut down, it is permitted. Rabbi Judah is more lenient and allows something to be sold while it is attached, as long as it is stipulated that it will be cut down.", + "One should not let houses to them in the land of Israel; and it is not necessary to mention fields. In Syria houses may be let to them, but not fields. Outside of the land of Israel, houses may be sold and fields let to them, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: in the land of Israel, one may let to them houses but not fields; In Syria, we may sell them houses and let fields; Outside of the land of Israel, both may be sold. The first half of this section is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. He holds that one should not even rent houses to non-Jews in the land of Israel, lest he come to sell them as well. This is true of houses and even more true of fields, for with fields there is the added problem of tithes. Once a Jew sells his field to a non-Jew the field’s produce is not liable for tithing. In this way, the sale reduces the holiness of the field. In Syria, which is adjacent to Israel and was conquered by David but is not considered fully a part of Israel, we can be slightly more lenient. Houses may be rented to non-Jews, but fields still may not, because the produce grown in Syria is still subject to tithes. Outside of the land, a Jew may sell houses, but he still may not sell fields, lest by habit he come to sell fields in the land of Israel as well. On all of these cases, Rabbi Yose is slightly more lenient. Inside of Israel he allows the renting of houses, but not fields. In Syria he allows the sale of houses and the renting of fields and outside of the land, both may be sold. Note that he is still consistent in that the rules are more strict with fields than with houses. The major difference is that he does not rule more strictly in cases that should be permitted (such as selling fields outside of the land) but were forbidden by Rabbi Meir lest one come to sell something that really should not be sold." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah, which discussed selling and letting houses to idolaters.", + "Even in such a place where the letting of a house has been permitted, they did not say [that this was permitted if it was] for the purpose of a residence, since the idolater will bring idols into it; for it says, “you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deut. 7:26). Although in the previous mishnah we learned that in certain places it is permitted to let a house to an idolater (in Syria according to Rabbi Meir, and in the land of Israel according to Rabbi Yose), this permission is not granted if the idolater is renting the house as a residence. Since the idolater will bring his idols into the house, this would violate the prohibition of allowing idols into one’s home. The idolater may only rent the house from the Jew to use for storage or other non-residential usage. [The Jerusalem Talmud rules that outside of the land of Israel it is permitted to sell or let houses to idolaters even for the purpose of residence. Although in this case too the idolater will bring idols into the house and seemingly thereby cause the Jew to violate the commandment in Deut. 7:26, the essential meaning of the verse is that it is forbidden for a Jew to bring idols into his own house. The halacha is more strict inside the land of Israel and in bordering areas because it is incumbent upon Jews to cleanse the land of idol worship.]", + "In no place may one let a bath-house to an idolater, as it is called by the name of the owner. In no place, even outside the land of Israel, may one let a bath-house to an idolater. Since the bath-house will continue to be called by the name of the Jewish owner, and the idolater will surely bring idols into the warehouse, this is forbidden.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How is the topic of this mishnah different from the topic of the previous mishnah?
• What is different about a bath-house and why is it more prohibited than other types of rentals or sales?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that non-Jewish idol worshippers are suspected of several heinous sins: bestiality, sexual licentiousness and murder. This mishnah adopts a very harsh attitude towards the idolaters at the time. We should remind ourselves that according to later Jewish law, non-Jews who did not engage in such practices were not subject to these laws.", + "One should not place animals in inns of non-Jews, because they are suspected of bestiality. Non-Jewish idolaters are suspected of bestiality. Therefore Jews should not place animals in their inns. By doing so they would be encouraging the non-Jew to engage in bestiality, which according to Jewish ideology is also forbidden to non-Jews. It is one of the seven “Noahide” commandments which are incumbent upon non-Jews to observe.", + "A woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of licentiousness; Nor should a man be alone with them, because they are suspected of shedding blood. Jewish women should not be alone with non-Jewish idolaters for they are suspected of being rapists. Jewish men should not be alone with non-Jewish idolaters for they are suspected of being murderers.", + "A Jewish woman should not act as midwife to a non-Jewish woman, because she would be delivering a child for idolatry. But a non-Jewish woman may act as midwife to a Jewish woman. A Jewish woman should not act as midwife for a non-Jew for this would abet idol worship. In the Talmud it is explained that this is only prohibited if the Jewish woman works for free. If she is paid for her work it is permitted. A non-Jewish woman may act as a midwife for a Jewish woman.", + "A Jewish woman should not suckle the child of a non-Jewish woman, But a non-Jewish woman may suckle the child of a Jewish woman in her premises. A Jewish woman may not act as a wet-nurse for a non-Jewish child. This is for the same reason that she may not act as a midwife. A non-Jewish woman may be a wet-nurse to a Jewish child, provided she nurse the child on the premises of the Jewish family. The Jewish family may not give over their child to the non-Jewish woman for fear that she will kill the child." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of the discussion which began in the previous mishnah. It continues to discuss prohibitions that are a result of the Jewish suspicion that non-Jews are murderers.", + "We may allow them to heal us when the healing relates to money, but not personal healing; A Jew is permitted to be healed by a non-Jew when the healing relates to money. In the Talmud this clause is explained to mean that a Jew may take his animals to a non-Jewish doctor. This “healing” is considered to be related to money because the animal is the Jew’s property. However, a Jew may not himself be healed by a non-Jewish doctor, lest the non-Jewish doctor purposefully cause him damage. The Talmud adds that if the non-Jewish doctor tells him that a certain drug would be beneficial he may listen to him, since the Jew could check this information with others.", + "Nor should we have our hair cut by them in any place, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages said: in a public place it is permitted, but not when the two persons are alone. According to Rabbi Meir a Jew may never get his hair cut by a non-Jew, lest the non-Jew kill him with the scissors or razor. The Sages say that this is only prohibited in private. In public the non-Jew would not dare to kill the Jew." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists things that belong to non-Jews that may not be used by Jews, for fear that the Jew will be using something that has previously been used in idol worship.", + "The following things belonging to non-Jews are forbidden [for Jews to use] and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them: wine, or a non-Jew’s vinegar that was formerly wine, Hadrianic earthenware, skins pierced at the animal’s heart. (1) Rabban Shimon Gamaliel says: when its tear is round, [the skin] is forbidden, but if oblong it is permitted. Non-Jewish wine may not be used since it may have been used in making a libation to an idol. [This prohibition is still observed by many religious Jews today, even though we can be quite sure that the wine was not used for idol worship.] Similarly, vinegar that was once intended to be wine and then went sour may not be used by a Jew, since it may have been used in idol worship when it was wine. However, if the non-Jew bought the vinegar from a Jew and then gave it back to a Jew the Jew may use it since vinegar itself is not used in idol worship. According to the Talmud Hadrianic earthenware absorbs wine and when subsequently wetted, will release the wine. If a Jew were to use such earthenware he would be using non-Jewish wine, which is prohibited. According to the mishnah, idolaters would make incisions in animals to remove the hearts and use them in idol worship. If one sees a cut in an animal skin at the place of the heart, it is a sign that the animal was used for idol worship and it is forbidden. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel claims that only if the cut is circular is the skin forbidden. Since non-Jews do not make oblong cuts as part of their idol worship, the skin is permitted.", + "Meat which is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted, but that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is like a sacrifice to the dead, this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba. Meat that is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted to a Jew, since it has not yet been used for idol worship. It is of course not permitted to be eaten, since it probably is not kosher. However, one could use it to feed animals. Meat that is coming out of a place of idol worship is forbidden, since it was probably used for idolatry.", + "With non-Jews going on a pilgrimage [to worship idols] it is forbidden to have any business transactions, but with those returning it is permitted. It is forbidden to conduct business with non-Jews who are on their way to worship idols, since they will thank their gods for their business with the Jews. In this way the Jew will indirectly be abetting idol worship. However, it is permitted to engage them in business on their return, since they have already completed their idol worship. [Note this last section is of a different subject than the other sections. It should have been included in chapter one. It probably was included here due to its similarity to the previous clause.]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains three disputes between Rabbi Meir and the Sages with regards to the prohibitions of certain foods once owned by non-Jews. In each case Rabbi Meir is more strict.", + "Skin-bottles or flasks of non-Jews in which wine of a Jew is kept are forbidden and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit. If a Jew stores his wine in skin-bottles or ceramic flasks in which non-Jews previously stored their wine the Jewish wine becomes forbidden. Since the skin-bottles and flasks contained absorbed wine in their walls, that non-Jewish wine would mix with the Jewish wine. According to Rabbi Meir, it is forbidden to even derive any benefit from this wine. According to the Sages it is only forbidden for the Jew to drink the wine. If he wants he could sell the wine to a non-Jew and thereby derive benefit. The Sages rule that the only type of non-Jewish wine from which it is actually prohibited to derive benefit is wine that one can see. Wine that has been absorbed in a vessel is only forbidden to be drunk.", + "Grape seeds and grape-skins of non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, when fresh they are forbidden but when dry they are permitted. According to Rabbi Meir, both dry and moist grape skins and seeds that belonged to non-Jews are forbidden to Jews and the prohibition extends even to deriving any benefit from them. The Sages rule that dry seeds and skins are permitted even to eat and only moist ones are prohibited.", + "Fish brine and Bithynian cheese of the non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit. The concern with regards to fish brine is that there may be small amounts of wine in it. Bithynian cheese is cheese that comes from a place called Bithynia, which is in Asia Minor. According to the Talmud most of the calves raised there were used for idol worship. Since cheese uses rennet, a substance which comes from the stomach lining of a cow and solidifies the milk into cheese, we are concerned that the rennet came from a cow used in idol worship. Due to our concern with both of these foods, Rabbi Meir says it is forbidden for a Jew to derive benefit from either. According the Sages it is only forbidden to eat them; it is permitted to derive benefit from them. The fish brine is permitted since the wine was only used as an antidote for any polluting agent in the brine and not for its own taste. The cheese is permitted since most of the animals in Bithynia were not used for idol worship, only most of the calves which were a minority of the total number of animals." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a discussion between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Joshua concerning the prohibition of non-Jewish cheese.", + "Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Ishmael put this question to Rabbi Joshua as they were walking on the way, “Why have they forbidden the cheese of non-Jews?” He replied, because they curdle it with the rennet of a nevelah (an animal that was not properly slaughtered.” Rabbi Ishmael asks Rabbi Joshua why the Sages forbid cheese made by non-Jews. This prohibition is perplexing to Rabbi Ishmael because even the non-Jews make their cheese from kosher animals such as cows and goats. Since the milk used to make the cheese comes from kosher animals, it should be permitted. Rabbi Joshua responds that non-Jews use rennet to curdle the cheese. This rennet comes from the stomachs of animals that were not properly slaughtered and therefore the cheese is prohibited.", + "He (Rabbi said: “but is not the rennet of a burnt-offering more strictly forbidden than the rennet of a nevelah? [and yet] it was said that a priest who is not fastidious may suck it out raw.” (Though the Sages disagreed with this opinion, and they said that no benefit may be derived from it, although one who consumed it did not trespass [temple. Rabbi Ishmael responds that a priest who sees rennet in the stomach of a whole burnt offering may drink this rennet (I know this sounds a little gross.). Since a whole burnt offering is forbidden to be eaten, this law proves that the rennet is not considered part of the animal. If it were considered to be an integral part of the animal, it would have been prohibited. Since it is not forbidden in this case then by comparison the rennet used to make cheese should not make the cheese forbidden to Jews, even though it comes from an animal that was improperly slaughtered. At this point the mishnah offers an aside. The statement that the rennet of a whole burnt offering may be consumed by a priest was only Rabbi Ishmael’s opinion. The Rabbis did not agree with him. They stated that it is forbidden to derive benefit from this rennet and yet one who does so is not considered to have taken (trespassed) Temple property. [If he had taken from Temple property he would have to bring a sacrifice to atone for the sin, as well as pay back the value of that which he took.] This section is not an integral part of the mishnah and was added in at a later time.", + "Rabbi Joshua responded: “The reason then is because they curdle it with the rennet from calves sacrificed to idols.” Rabbi Joshua now provides another reason why non-Jewish cheese is forbidden. Non-Jews use rennet that comes from calves that were used in idol worship. Since any item that was used in idol worship is forbidden to a Jew, non-Jewish cheese is forbidden to a Jew.", + "He (Rabbi said to him: “if that be so, why do they not extend the prohibition to any benefit derived from it?” Rabbi Ishmael responds that if non-Jewish cheese is forbidden since it may contain rennet that comes from an animal used in idol worship, then it should not only be forbidden to eat, it should also be forbidden to derive any benefit from it. From the example in the previous mishnah concerning Bithynian cheese, we learned that the Sages said it was only forbidden for consumption and it was not forbidden to derive benefit from non-Jewish cheese.", + "He (Rabbi diverted him to another matter, saying: “Ishmael, how do you read for your [masc.] love is more delightful than wine” or “your [fem.] love etc. (Song of Songs 1:2” He replied: “your [fem.] love is better …” He said to him: this is not so, as it is proved by its fellow [-verse]: your ointments [masc.] have a goodly fragrance … [therefore do the maidens love you] (Song of Songs 1:3).” Rabbi Joshua does not seem to have an answer to this response of Rabbi Ishmael’s and therefore he distracts him to a different topic, this dealing with the gender of the speaker in the second verse of Song of Songs. The verse states “for your love is more delightful than wine”. “Your love” can either be masculine or feminine. The only difference in the Hebrew is the vocalization; the consonants are exactly the same. Rabbi Ishmael responds that he vocalizes it to be a masculine pronoun. In other words the speaker is feminine and she is speaking to a male. Rabbi Joshua points out that this is surely wrong for the word “your ointments” is masculine. Although this word too can be vocalized to be feminine, the fact that the end of the verse refers to maidens loving him proves that the one being spoken to is male." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists things that were made by non-Jews which Jews may not eat but from which they may derive benefit.", + "The following articles of non-Jews are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them: 1. milk which a non-Jew milked without an israelite watching him, 2. their bread and oil (Rabbi and his court permitted the oil) 3. stewed and pickled things into which they are accustomed to put wine or vinegar, 4. pickled herring which had been minced, 5. brine in which there is no kalbith-fish floating, 6. helek, 7. pieces of asa foetida 8. and sal-conditum. Behold these are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them. Mishnah three began with a list of things owned by a non-Jew from which it was prohibited to derive benefit. This is a more stringent legal category than food which is merely prohibited to eat, the list which is contained in our mishnah. We will explain each item in this mishnah and why it is forbidden to eat. 1) Milk if the non-Jew milked an animal without a Jew watching, he may have mixed into the milk, milk which comes from an non-kosher animal, such as a camel. 2) Bread and oil this prohibition is not due to a fear of the bread or oil being truly non-kosher. Rather the Sages prohibited a Jew from eating non-Jewish bread or oil in order to prevent Jews from socializing with non-Jews. The Talmud relates that it is permitted to eat bread made by bakers (as opposed to private individuals) since that will not bring Jews and non-Jews together. The mishnah notes, in what is surely a later addition, that Rabbi and his court permitted Jews to consume non-Jewish oil. The “Rabbi” referred to here is Rabbi Judah Nesia, the grandson of Rabbi Judah the Prince who composed the Mishnah. The reason, according to the Talmud, that they permitted the oil is that most people were not observing the prohibition. From here we learn that a “decree” of the Sages that is not accepted by the people does not become law. 3) Stewed and pickled things which might have wine or vinegar in them. These are forbidden because of the wine, which we learned in mishnah three is forbidden. 4) Pickled herring, which had been minced. The concern is that the non-Jew added in non-kosher fish. Since the fish is minced one would not be able to recognize what was in it. 5) Brine in which there is no kalbith-fish floating According to the Talmud brine which has only kosher fish will always have a “kalbith” fish. The absence of this type of fish is a potential sign that it also contains non-kosher fish. 6) Hilek this is a type of fish that does not have fins and scales until it is older. When it is young it may be mistaken for truly non-kosher fish, and therefore it may not be eaten. 7) Pieces of asa-foetida: This is a spicy tasting plant that needs to be cut with a sharp knife. It is prohibited lest the same knife used to cut it had previously been used to cut the meat of non-kosher animals. 8) Sal-conditum: This is a type of spice-salt which had non-kosher oils (from pigs and non-kosher fish) mixed into it.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What are the different types of reasons for the prohibitions listed in this mishnah? What can this tell us about the attitudes of the Sages to the non-Jews?" + ], + [ + "The following are permitted to be eaten [by an israelite]:
milk which a non-Jew milked with a Jew watching him;
honey,
grape-clusters even though these secrete moisture the law which renders food susceptible to defilement by a liquid does not apply to them
preserves into which they are not accustomed to put wine or vinegar,
pickled herring which has not been minced,
brine containing fish,
a leaf of asafoetida,
and rolled olive-cakes. Rabbi Yose says: those olives having pits ready to drop out are prohibited.
Locusts which come out of [a shopkeeper’s] basket are prohibited, but if from storage they are permitted. The same rule applies to terumah.
This mishnah lists food produced by non-Jews which a Jew is allowed to eat.
1) As we explained in the previous mishnah, the concern with milk is that the non-Jew might mix milk which comes from a kosher animal with milk that comes from a non-kosher animal (such as a camel). If the Jew is watching over the non-Jew we have no such concern and the milk is therefore permitted.
2) Mixing foreign substances with honey would spoil the honey. Therefore we can assume that the non-Jew did not put anything into the honey and it is permitted.
3) Even though some grape juice may be dripping from the cluster of grapes, we are not concerned that the non-Jew used this juice in idol worship and it would be forbidden. The mishnah also notes that the liquid that comes out of grapes is not the type of liquid which makes a food susceptible to impurities. As we have learned before (Eduyoth 4:6) food cannot become impure until it is made wet by seven types of liquids. Grape juice is not one of them.
4) Preserved foods into which it is not customary to put wine or vinegar are permitted.
5) If one can see that the fish in the brine is actually herring, it is permitted, unlike the minced fish which was discussed above.
6) In the previous mishnah we learned that it was forbidden to eat pieces of the asa foetida, since the same knife used to cut this plant might have been used to cut non-kosher food. In this mishnah we learn that since they don’t cut the leaves of the as foetida with this type of knife, it is permitted.
7) Olives that have been rolled out into cakes are permitted, since no wine is used in them. According to Rabbi Yose, if the olives have become so soft that the pits fall out, wine might have been put on them to soften them. Therefore, they are forbidden.
8) Some types of locusts are kosher. When a seller sells them, he brings them from his storehouse and puts them in a small basket, onto which he mixes a little wine. Due to the addition of this wine, locusts that come from this basket are forbidden. The locusts that come from the storehouse are permitted since the wine has not yet been put upon them.
The mishnah points out that the same is true with regards to terumah. If a kohen sells locusts from the little basket, we must suspect that he has dripped wine on them, and that the wine might be terumah, which is strictly forbidden to non-priests. If, however, the locusts come from storage, we can be sure that there is no terumah-wine mixed in with them." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to Deuteronomy 7:25-26 it is forbidden for a Jew to derive any benefit from idolatrous images. Our mishnah defines which images made by non-Jews are idolatrous and therefore forbidden and which are made merely as adornments, and are therefore permitted.", + "All images are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir; But the Sages say: [an image] is not prohibited except one that has a staff or bird or orb in its hand. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: any [image] which has anything in its hand [is prohibited]. The Rabbis in this mishnah dispute which images (sculptures) that are made by non-Jews are prohibited, because they may be used for idolatrous purposes. According to Rabbi Meir, all images are prohibited for at least some of them are worshipped once a year. Even though most of the images may have only been made as decorations, and not truly as idols, since there are some that are indeed idols, all are forbidden. Furthermore, even though an idol seems to be made only as a decoration, since it may be worshipped once a year, it is forbidden. The Sages dispute with Rabbi Meir. They hold that only the images that have in their hands a staff, bird or orb are forbidden. An image that holds one of these items, which probably was a symbol of power, was certainly made for idolatry. However, although some other images may have been made for idolatrous purposes, we are not sure if they were. Therefore we are not strict with regards to them, and they are permitted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel basically agrees with the Sages that an image about which there is a doubt if it is idolatrous, is permitted. However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel adds that any image that has something in its hand is idolatrous, and is therefore forbidden.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the nature of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages? In other words what is the concept or concepts underlying their dispute?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the permissibility of broken pieces of potentially idolatrous images.", + "One who finds fragments of images, behold they are permitted. If one found the figure of a hand or the figure of a foot, behold it is prohibited because such an object is worshipped. One who finds a fragment of an image may make use of that fragment. The mishnah teaches that we may assume that the non-Jew intentionally broke the idol and thereby annulled it from its idolatrous use. However, if one finds an entire hand of an image or a foot, it is prohibited, since there are non-Jews who use these parts in and of themselves as idols. The Talmud explains that these are only prohibited if they are found attached to a base, which means that they are not truly broken pieces." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses what one must do with things that he found that are likely to have been used as idols.", + "If one finds utensils upon which is the figure of the sun or moon or a dragon, he casts them into the Dead Sea. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if [one of these figures] is upon precious utensils they are prohibited, but if upon common utensils they are permitted. If one finds a utensil that has on it a picture of the sun, moon or a dragon he must destroy it, since it was certainly used for idolatrous purposes. According to the first section of the mishnah, the best way to totally destroy an idol is to throw it into the Dead Sea. In such a way there is no chance that he, or any other Jew, will ever derive any benefit from it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that not all utensils that have pictures of the sun, moon or dragon are forbidden. Only precious utensils with such pictures on them are forbidden, for they were certainly worshipped. Cheap utensils were, in all likelihood, not worshipped, and are therefore permitted, even though they have on them pictures of the sun, moon or dragon.", + "Rabbi Yose says: he may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him, even so it may then become manure, as it says, “let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)”. Rabbi Yose adds to the opinion in section one which stated that the idols must be thrown into the Dead Sea. He holds that it is even sufficient to grind them up and then throw the dust to the wind. The other Sages respond to him that this is not sufficient. By grinding up the idol, someone might use it as fertilizer. This method of destruction would not, therefore, prevent other Jews from violating the strict prohibition of deriving benefit from idols. The Sages bring a verse from Deuteronomy to prove that it is forbidden to derive even the smallest benefit from idolatrous objects." + ], + [ + "Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite.
He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’; why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?”
He replied to him, “We do not answer [questions relating to torah] in a bathhouse.”
When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine. People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’
Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [In the torah] it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3) what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.
This mishnah contains a famous story of a discussion between Proclos, a Greek philosopher and Rabban Gamaliel, the Jewish patriarch.
In order to understand this mishnah we must remember that Roman and Greek society would have been full of statues. Indeed, anywhere a Jew turned his head, he probably saw a statue, often a statue of a god or goddess. If the Jews were to adopt an overly strict attitude towards these statues, and consider them idols, Jews would effectively be prohibited from taking part in most of Greco-Roman society, including such communal institutions such as the bathhouse, roads, bridges and marketplaces. In this mishnah Rabban Gamaliel shows a remarkable degree of flexibility and accommodation to this situation.
The story begins with Proklos, the son of Plosphos (this may be the word for philosopher) pointing out that the Torah forbids Rabban Gamaliel’s being in Aphrodite’s bathhouse. Rabban Gamaliel responds that it is not appropriate to respond in the bathhouse.
When they leave the bathhouse Rabban Gamaliel answers Proklos’s question. The bathhouse was not made for Aphrodite. Rather it was made for the public use and Aphrodite was merely placed there as adornment. As such, Rabban Gamaliel’s presence in the bathhouse is not a form of worship to Aphrodite, as it would be in her temple. Furthermore, people do not say that the bathhouse was made to adorn Aphrodite. Rather she is ancillary to the bathhouse and it is the central structure.
Rabban Gamaliel further points out that if this sculpture of Aphrodite were truly considered to be a goddess, people would not walk naked in front of her, or have seminal emissions or urinate. Such actions are signs of disrespect, which would not be appropriate in front of a goddess. When the Torah states that a Jew is commanded to destroy idols, the intent is to destroy idols that are treated as gods, and not those that are treated with disrespect." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses hills, mountains and trees which were used in idolatrous worship. The question is asked, are these to be forbidden as were other material items used in idol worship.", + "If idolaters worship mountains and hills these are permitted; but what is upon them is prohibited, as it is says, “you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take them” (Deut. 7:25). Although an idolater may worship a hill or mountain, that mountain is not prohibited to subsequent Jewish use as is a statue worshipped by a non-Jew. Any thing that is either ground or attached to the ground is not considered an idolatrous “object” that would be forbidden to Jews. However, that which is upon these “worshipped” mountains and hills is forbidden. This principle is learned from Deut. 7:25 which uses the word “that is on them”. Although according to the simple sense of the verse, this refers to the gold and silver that are on idols, the midrash in our mishnah understands this to be referring to the idolatrous objects that are on a mountain or hill. They are forbidden but the land itself is not.", + "Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [it says] “their gods on the mountains” (Deut. 12:, not their mountains which are their gods; “their gods on the hills” (ibid.), not their hills which are their gods. Rabbi Yose Hagalili offers an alternative midrash to the one in the previous section. This verse instructs the Israelites to destroy all of the sites where the other nations worship. It says that these sites are on the mountains and hills. From here Rabbi Yose concludes that that which is on the mountains and hills is forbidden, but not the land itself.", + "And why is an asherah prohibited? Because there was manual labour connected with it, and whatever has manual labour connected with it is prohibited. So far we have learned in the previous two sections that in general land and anything attached to land is not treated as an idolatrous object. The mishnah raises a glaring exception to this rule, the asherah, a tree which was worshipped, which according to Deut. 7:5 and 12:3, must be cut down and burned. The answer is that any natural object that was planted by a human being and was gardened by a person is, if worshipped, to be treated as an idol.", + "Rabbi Akiba said: let me expound and decide [the interpretation] before you: wherever you find a high mountain or elevated hill or green tree, know that an idolatrous object is there. Deut. 12:2 instructs Israelites to destroy all the idolatrous sites, “whether on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree.” Rabbi Akiva seems to be answering the question, why does the Torah mention the mountains, hills and tree. It would have been sufficient to merely state that all idolatrous sites must be destroyed and we would know that this includes those found on mountains, hills and under luxuriant trees. Rabbi Akiva answers that the verse was giving a hint to the Jews where they could find idolatry.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the reasoning behind the answer given in section three that any tree that was planted by man is forbidden if used as an idol?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six deals with two subjects: 1) a person who lives adjacent to an idolatrous shrine; 2) the ritual impurity of idolatrous objects.", + "If [a Jew] has a house next to an idolatrous shrine and it collapsed, he is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He withdraws a distance of four cubits into his own ground and build there. If one shared a wall with an idolatrous shrine, meaning his house was next to this shrine, he need not tear down his house and move somewhere else. Since he lived there before the shrine was built he does not need to move. However, if the house should fall down he may not rebuild the wall that will be shared with the shrine. What he may do is withdraw four cubits and build his own wall, one which will not be shared with the shrine.", + "[If the wall] belonged both to him and the shrine, it is judged as being half and half. The wall that is shared by the Jewish homeowner and the idolatrous shrine is considered to be jointly owned. The half that is next to the shrine is forbidden for Jews to use and the half that is next to the Jewish house is permitted.", + "Its stones, timber and rubbish defile like a creeping thing, as it says, “you shall utterly detest it” (Deut. 7:26). ] Rabbi Akiba says: [it defiles] like a menstruous woman, as it says, “[and you will treat as unclean the silver overlay of your images and the golden plating of your idols]. You will cast them away like a menstruous woman. Out, you will call to them” (Isaiah 30:22), just as a menstruous woman impurifies [an object] by carrying it, so also an idolatrous object defiles by its being carried. According to Deut. 7:26 a Jew must abhor idolatrous objects. The word for “abhor” is “sheketz”, which is the same word used for an impure creeping thing in Leviticus 11:31. From here the mishnah learns that just as creeping things transmit impurity, so too do idolatrous objects. The type of impurity that a creeping thing imparts is contact impurity. It does not impart impurity to one who carries it (without touching it). Contact impurity is a lesser type of impurity than carrying impurity. Rabbi Akiva learns the impurity of idolatrous objects from Isaiah 30:22, which explicitly compares idolatrous objects to menstruating women, both being impure and imparting impurity to others. A menstruating woman imparts impurity both through contact and through carrying. So too, according to Rabbi Akiva, do idolatrous objects. In other words Rabbi Akiva holds that the impurity of idolatrous objects is more serious than that of the creeping thing.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the problem with living next to an idolatrous shrine?
• Why doesn’t the opinion in the first part of the last section learn about the impurity of idolatrous objects from the verse in Isaiah, which seemingly explicitly compares idolatrous objects to a menstruating woman?" + ], + [ + "There are three types of shrines: A shrine originally built for idolatrous worship behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [an ordinary house] for idolatry and renovated it, one may remove the renovations. If he had only brought an idol into it and taken it out again, [the house] is permitted.
There are three kinds of [idolatrous] stones: A stone which a man hewed originally to serve as a pedestal [for an idol] behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [a stone] for idolatry, one may remove the plaster and tile, and it is then permitted. If he set an idol upon it and took it off, behold [the stone] is permitted.
There are three kinds of asherah: a tree which has originally been planted for idolatry behold this is prohibited. If he chopped and trimmed [a tree] for idolatry, and its sprouted afresh, he removes the new growth. If he only set [an idol] under it and took it away, behold the tree is permitted.
What is an asherah? Any [tree] beneath which there is an idol. Rabbi Shimon says: any [tree] which is worshipped. It happened at Sidon that there was a tree which was worshipped and they found a heap of stones beneath it. Rabbi Shimon said to them, “examine this heap.” They examined it and discovered an image in it. He said to them, “since it is the image that they worship, we permit the tree for you.”
This mishnah discusses houses, stones and tree which were used in idolatrous ways and divides each of them into three different types.
Sections 1-3: All three of these sections teach the same rule with regards to three different potentially idolatrous items: shrines, stones and trees. If any of these was created from the beginning to be idolatrous, it is totally prohibited from Jewish usage. If one of these things originally existed not for idolatrous purposes, and then was somehow modified to be idolatrous, the Jew needs to remove the renovations before it is permitted to use the object. In other words, the basic object is permitted and only the new parts that were created for idolatry are forbidden. If one of these objects was not changed at all, but had idols put inside it (house) or on top of it (stone) or underneath it (the tree), all that needs to be done is for the idol to be removed and the object is permitted to the Jew. In this case the object itself was never truly idolatrous, but rather it was used to facilitate idol worship. Therefore this is an easy situation to rectify and make the object permissible to Jews.
Section four: This section teaches the definition of the asherah, the idolatrous tree mentioned on several occasions in the Torah. According to the first opinion in the mishnah an asherah has idols underneath it, but it itself is not worshipped. According to Rabbi Shimon the tree itself is an idolatrous object. The mishnah now tells a story that happened in Sidon, where there was a suspicion that idolaters were worshipping a certain tree. Underneath the tree was a heap of stones. Rabbi Shimon instructed the other rabbis to examine the heap of stones and when they did they found an image. From here Rabbi Shimon concluded that the tree itself was not worshipped, but rather the image underneath the tree. Therefore the tree was permitted for Jews to use.
Questions For Further Thought:
 Does section three match Rabbi Shimon’s opinion?
 What is the relationship of the story at the end of the mishnah to Rabbi Shimon’s statement that precedes it?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah talks about using the space underneath the asherah tree. The question asked is: is using this space considered deriving benefit from idolatry and therefore forbidden? Furthermore the mishnah discusses the purity of one who passes underneath the asherah tree.", + "One may not sit in its shadow, but if he sat he is pure. Nor may he pass beneath it, and if he passed he is impure. One is not allowed to sit in the shade of an asherah, for by doing so he would be benefiting from an idolatrous object. However, sitting in its shade alone will not cause him to be made impure, because he did not actually sit underneath the tree. He is not allowed to pass under the asherah, and if he does he is impure. According to the Talmud this is because we assume that underneath the asherah tree is an idolatrous offering, which causes Jews to become impure. When the branches of the tree form a tent over the person and the idolatrous offering the impurity of the idolatrous offering is transferred to the person (this is called tent impurity).", + "If it encroaches upon the public road and he passed beneath he is pure. If the asherah was leaning over onto the public road and a person passed underneath it, he is not impure. The impurity of the asherah is only rabbinically ordained, and in this case the Rabbis did not decree that one who walks underneath the asherah is made impure. The reason for this is that the Rabbis declared idolatrous objects to be transmitters of impurity in order to keep people away from them. Since this person who was walking on the public could not have avoided the tree, he is not impure.", + "They may sow vegetables beneath it in winter but not in summer, and lettuce neither in summer nor winter. Rabbi Jose says: even vegetables [may not be planted] in winter because the foliage falls upon them and becomes manure for them. In the winter one is allowed to sow plants underneath the asherah tree, since the shade provided by the tree will not benefit the plants. In this case he is not benefiting from an idolatrous object. However, he may not plant lettuce underneath the asherah, even in the winter, since shade is always beneficial to lettuce. Rabbi Yose states that even vegetables may not be planted in winter, since the falling leaves will act as manure for the vegetables and therefore the planter would be benefiting from an idolatrous object. In other words, although he will not benefit from the shade since he will benefit in other ways, it is forbidden." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine discusses the prohibition from deriving benefit from the wood of an asherah tree.", + "If one took pieces of wood from it [the asherah tree], they are forbidden to be used. If he heated an oven with them if it was new it must be broken to pieces; if it was old, it must be allowed to cool. It is forbidden to use pieces of wood that come from an asherah tree. This mishnah teaches that the forbidden status of the tree remains in the pieces of the tree that are separated from it. If one used this wood to heat a new oven, the oven must be destroyed. Since the first heating of an oven helps shape and finish the oven, the oven itself was built through the aid of an idolatrous object, and it itself is therefore forbidden. However, if the oven was old, one merely needs to let the oven cool before using it again. In such a case the heat produced by the burning of the asherah wood is forbidden but not the oven itself.", + "If he baked bread [in an oven heated with wood from an asherah], it is forbidden to be used, and if [the loaf] became mixed with other loaves, they are all prohibited. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol. If he baked bread in an oven heated by the wood from an asherah, the bread is forbidden. Furthermore, if that loaf should be mixed in with other loaves, they are all forbidden, since each one may be the loaf which was made in the oven heated by the asherah wood. We should note that in some other cases mixtures of prohibited and permissible goods can be fixed. For instance if one pound of terumah flour should be mixed in with 100 pounds of terumah flour, one may take out one pound of terumah and give it to the kohen, even though that one pound is not the same pound that fell in. Through this process the remainder becomes permitted to anyone to eat. Our mishnah is especially stringent with idolatrous items. Rabbi Eliezer does make an attempt to remedy the situation without causing the loss of the bread. If he baked a loaf using asherah wood to heat his oven, he may throw the value of the wood into the Dead Sea, thereby nullifying any benefit he received from that wood. Afterwards the loaf may be eaten by a Jew. The Sages disagree. According to their opinion there is no way to redeem something that was made by using an idolatrous item.", + "If one took [a piece of wood] from it [to use as] a shuttle, it is forbidden to be used. If he wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to be used. If [the became mixed with others, and these with others, they are all forbidden to be used. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol. This section teaches the same thing that was learned in the previous section, only it uses a different example. Here the wood was used to make a shuttle, a piece of wood used on a loom to weave cloth. Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages have the same dispute on this section of the mishnah as they did in the previous one.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why might the mishnah have taught both sections two and three even though they both teach the same principles?" + ], + [ + "How does one annul [an asherah]? If [a pagan] pruned or trimmed it, removing from it a stick or twig or even a leaf, behold it is annulled.
If he smoothed it out for its own sake, it is prohibited; but if not for its own sake, it is permitted.
Our mishnah asks how does one annul an asherah in order to make it permitted for Jews to use.
As we will learn in the next chapter of mishnah, a pagan can “annul” his idol by stopping to treat it as such. If he does so, what was formerly an idol reverts to being a normal object and a Jew may use it. Our mishnah teaches that removing a piece of an asherah tree is a sign that it is no longer being worshipped. Evidently the asherah was not used by the pagan for anything but idol worship. If the pagan does make even the most minimal use of the tree, such as using its leaf, it loses its status as an asherah. The only exception to this case is if he removes something from the tree for its own sake. In other words, if he smoothed the tree to make it look better, it is still an asherah and it is still forbidden. If he did so in order to get a branch, he has annulled its status as an asherah and it is permitted." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Rabbi Ishmael says: if three stones are lying side by side next to a merculis, they are prohibited; if there are two they are permitted.
The sages say: if [the stones] are seen to be connected with it they are prohibited, but if they do not appear to be connected with it they are permitted.
In Sanhedrin 7:6 we learned that one who throws stones at a statue of merculis (the Roman god, mercury) is guilty of worshipping the idol, for that his how merculis is typically worshipped. Our mishnah deals with the status of stones found next to the merculis statue.
According to Rabbi Ishmael, if three stones were found next to the merculis statue, we can assume that they were used in worshipping the statue, and they are therefore prohibited. If there were only two, then we cannot assume that they were placed there for such a purpose and they are permitted.
According to the Sages the issue is not the number of stones but rather their proximity to the statue. Those found next to the idol are prohibited and those found further away are permitted. Even if three are found further away, we can assume that they were not used in worship." + ], + [ + "If he found on top [of a mercurius] a coins or a garment or utensils behold these are permitted;
[But if he found] grape-clusters, wreaths of grain, [gifts of] wine, oil or fine flour, or anything resembling what is offered upon the altar, such is prohibited.
Mishnah two continues to discuss items that are found in proximity to the mercurius idol, and whether or not these items are assumed to have been used in idolatrous worship and therefore prohibited.
In the previous mishnah we learned that one typical way of worshipping the mercurius idol was to lay stones next to it. In today’s mishnah we see ways in which mercurius was not worshipped. It was not worshipped by having money, clothes or other vessels laid next to it. Since this is not typical mercurius worship, it is permitted for Jews to use these items.
However, if anything that is normally sacrificed is found next to a mercurius, these items are forbidden to Jews. Since these items are generally used in idol worship, and evidently also in the worship of mercurius, they are forbidden if they are found in proximity to the idol." + ], + [ + "If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse, one may use either so long as it is not to the advantage [of the idolaters], But one may not use either if it is to its advantage.
If [the garden or bathhouse] belonged jointly to it and to others, one may use them whether it be to the advantage [of idolatry] or not.
Mishnah three discusses a garden or bathhouse that is in the courtyard of an idolatrous shrine.
If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse in its courtyard, there are certain circumstances in which the garden or bathhouse may nevertheless be used. First of all one may always use them as long as one doesn’t give any advantage to the idolaters. This means that one could use the garden or bathhouse as long as he does not pay the idolatrous priests for such use. Secondly, if the garden or bathhouse was jointly owned by the shrine a private individual, one could always use them, and even pay for their use. Even though some of the money may go to the shrine, the Jew can consider the payment as going to the individual partner.
We should note that Maimonides explains that “to the advantage of” does not mean paying money as we explained above, but rather giving verbal recognition to the owners. If the bathhouse or garden is jointly owned, one may give verbal advantage to the owners, and even to the idolatrous priests, however, according to Maimonides, one may not pay for the use." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first part of mishnah four discusses when an idol becomes prohibited from being used by a Jew. The second half of the mishnah discusses when an idol that was once worshipped becomes “annulled” as an idol and thereby permitted to be used by a Jew. Note that we already discussed the process of “annulling” an idol in the last mishnah of chapter three.", + "The idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately; but if it belonged to a Jew it is not prohibited until it is worshipped. As soon as an idol is made by a non-Jew it is prohibited, even before it is worshipped. The reason is that we can safely assume that the non-Jew will worship the idol, and it was certainly made for idolatrous purposes. However, an idol made by a Jew is only forbidden for Jewish use once it has been worshipped. The reason is that we cannot be sure that the Jew will worship the idol. It potentially could be used for decorative, non-idolatrous purposes.", + "An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater. One who is engaged in idolatry can annul an idol that belongs to him and one that belongs to others. We will learn in the proceeding mishnayoth how one annuls idols. However, a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater.", + "He who annuls an idol annuls the things that pertain to it. If he only annulled the things that pertain to it these are permitted but the idol itself is prohibited. If one annuls an idol, all of the things that go with the idol, for instances the plates used to make offerings to it, are also annulled. Since these things are ancillary to the main idol, they are effected by its change of status. However, if one annuls the things that pertain to the idol, without specifically annulling the idol, the idol is still forbidden." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses how a non-Jew can annul an idol.", + "How does he annul it? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger; or if he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, he has annulled it. In order to annul an idol, the non-Jew must treat the idol with enough disrespect that we can be confident that the idol is no longer considered to be holy by the non-Jew. Note, that the issue is not a physical issue. The mishnah is not asking the question, does this still look like an idol. Rather the issue is psychological. At one point can an outside observer assume that the owner of the idol no longer is relating to it as a god, but rather as merely a physical item devoid of religious meaning. The first way for the owner to annul the idol is to somehow physically damage it. If he cuts off one of its appendages, this is sufficient physical damage for it to be annulled. Furthermore, if he defaces, meaning he distorts the facial features of the idol, it is annulled, even if he has not diminished the material used to make the idol.", + "If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it [in the dust] or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled. Acting in a disgraceful way in front of the idol does not annul it. According to the Talmud, the non-Jew may being do this out of anger at the idol, without annulling its divinity. In other words, merely getting angry at the idol does not mean that the pagan assumes that it is no longer a god. When his anger cools down he will again worship the idol, and therefore the idol was never annulled. Another possible explanation is that sometimes performing a disgraceful act in front of an idol is a means of worship. In mishnah Sanhedrin 7:6 we learned that pagans worshipped ba’al p’eor by throwing feces at it. Therefore we cannot assume that other disgraceful acts to other idols are also not worship.", + "If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it, but the sages say that he has not annulled it. If a non-Jew sells or uses the idol as a pledge, according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince] he has annulled the idol. Since he treated it in a profane matter, and did something that one would not do to a divine idol, he must no longer be considering it to be an idol. The other Sages disagree with Rabbi.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Do you think the list in section one is exhaustive or merely a sample of ways of annulling the idol? What would be the ruling if he removed a leg, or a toe?" + ], + [ + "An idol which its worshippers abandoned in time of peace is permitted,
in time of war it is prohibited.
Pedestals of kings are permitted because they set them up at the time the kings pass by.
Mishnah six discusses idols which have been abandoned by those who previously worshipped them. The question is, can we assume that the worshipper has annulled the idol by abandoning it and it is therefore permitted to the Jew.
Section one: If an idolater abandoned his idol in time of peace the idol is permitted since we can assume that the idolater has no intention of returning to worship the idol. For instance if Maximus the idolater decides to move from Jaffa to Caesarea and he leaves his idols behind, he has shown that he doesn’t intend to worship them anymore. However, if Maximus the idolater flees his home during a war and in distress leaves his idols behind, he may intend to return and worship them when the war is over. Therefore they are not considered to be annulled.
Section two: Pedestals which were set up on the sides of roads to place upon them idols when kings pass by are not forbidden to Jews, since they are only temporarily used by the kings. During other times, when normal people pass them by, they do not worship these pedestals.
The mishnah connects these two issues because the pedestals are like idols that have been abandoned by their owners. When the kings are not there these idols are “abandoned”." + ], + [ + "They asked the elders in Rome, “If [your God] has no desire for idolatry, why does he not abolish it?”
They replied, “If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, he would abolish it; but people worship the sun, moon, stars and planets; should he destroy his universe on account of fools!”
They said [to the elders], “If so, he should destroy what is unnecessary for the world and leave what is necessary for the world!”
They replied, “[If he did that], we should merely be strengthening the hands of the worshippers of these, because they would say, “know that these are deities, for behold they have not been abolished!”
This mishnah contains a fascinating discussion between the Sages of Rome and some idolaters. Note the different style of this mishnah. Although most mishnayoth contain brief halakhic (legal) discussions, occasionally the Mishnah does contain aggadic (philosophic) material.
In the fascinating discussion in this mishnah some pagans in Rome pose a serious theological problem to Jewish sages: if God is all-powerful why doesn’t he destroy any of his competitors. The basic answer given is that God doesn’t destroy things which are necessary for the existence of the world. If He were to destroy the sun, moon and stars our universe would not be able to function. The pagans then ask why God doesn’t destroy the things that are worshipped and that are not necessary, such as idols. The answer is that if he were to do so, this would seemingly demonstrate the power of those things that were not destroyed. By doing so God would actually increase the number of idolaters in the world.
An interesting question with regards to this mishnah is whom are these idolaters supposed to be representing? Are these Greek philosophers? According to the Rambam (Maimonides) Greek philosophy does not believe in the influence that inanimate objects such as stars and planets can have on human lives. The Rambam, who was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, and in his book “The Guide of the Perplexed” applied philosophical principles to Torah, claims that these pagan beliefs are believed by the masses, but not by “true philosophers” who understood the unity of God. He even claims that there are Jewish sages who believe that the stars and planets hold such a power over our lives, but that it is nevertheless forbidden by the Torah to worship them. In this commentary the Rambam explains the astrological roots of idolatry." + ], + [ + "A winepress [containing] trodden [grapes] may be purchased from a non-Jew even though it was he that lifted [the trodden grapes] with his hand and put them among the heap. And [the juice] does not become yen nesek (wine assumed to have been used as a until it descends into the vat.
When it has descended into the vat, what is in the vat is prohibited; But the remainder is permitted.
In chapter two, mishnah three, we learned that Jews may not drink wine touched by non-Jews, lest they had used the wine as a libation. The remainder of tractate Avodah Zarah will deal with the prohibition of non-Jewish wine. Our mishnah defines at what point in the process of wine-pressing do the grapes and grape juice begin to be considered wine.
Section one: A Jew may buy a winepress and all of the grapes that are being trodden in it from a non-Jew, even though the non-Jew has lifted up the trodden grapes and moved them into a different heap. At this point in their processing the grapes are not yet considered wine, and therefore their being handled by a non-Jew does not make them “yen nesek”, which is forbidden to Jews. In other words, while we might suspect that non-Jews offer up libations with wine, they will not do so with grapes that are not yet fully pressed, nor will they do so with grape juice. Only when the juice has descended into the vat where it will ferment into wine is it considered yen nesek.
When the wine does descend from the winepress into the vat, the wine which is in the vat is prohibited. However, that which remains above in the winepress is still permitted, even though it has been handled by a non-Jew." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses what actions a Jew may or may not do to help a non-Jew in the winemaking process. The second and third sections of the mishnah discuss helping ritually impure winemakers and bakers. These sections are only brought into our tractate due to their similarity to the halakhah in section one.", + "A Jew may tread the winepress together with a non-Jew but may not pick grapes with him. A Jew is allowed to tread grapes in a winepress with a non-Jew, since the wine does not become yen nesekh until it goes down into the vat (see previous mishnah). However, a Jew may not pick grapes with the non-Jew for the non-Jew causes the grapes to become impure. When the non-Jew puts the grapes in his impure winepress, the grapes will become impure. If a Jew helps him to do so, the Jew is helping to make produce grown in the land of Israel impure. The reason that treading on the grapes is permitted is that as soon as the non-Jew touches them, they are already impure.", + "If an israelite was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither tread nor pick with him, but one may move [empty] casks with him to the press and carry them [filled] with him from the press. An Israelite who works in a winepress while impure is committing a sin, for he is impurifying the terumah and tithes and thereby rendering them inedible. Since this is forbidden, another Jew may not even tread in the winepress with him, because that would be aiding a transgressor. However, the other Jew may help this Jew before the process begins by bringing jugs to the winepress and he may help him remove the jugs when the pressing is over. In other words, it is only forbidden to help him while the impure pressing is going on. Before and after it is permitted.", + "If a baker was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither knead nor roll dough with him but we may carry loaves with him to the bakery. The same rules that were stated in section two with regards to helping a winemaker who presses his wine while impure, are also true with regards to the impure baker. One may not help him in the baking process, for he causes impurity to the terumah and tithes. However, one may help him after the loaves are already baked.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is it permitted to help the non-Jew tread but not to help the impure Jew, even though both cause the grapes to become impure?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses different types of contact that a non-Jew may have with wine that may or may not make the wine into yen nesekh, which is forbidden to Jews.", + "If a non-Jew was found standing by the side of a vat of wine, if he had loaned money to the Jew, then [the wine] is prohibited; but should he not have loaned money to the Jew, then it is permitted. If a non-Jew is seen standing next to a vat of wine we need to know if the non-Jew touch the wine, for if he did touch the wine he would have made it into yen nesekh. Our mishnah teaches that if the non-Jew had loaned money to the Jew then the wine is prohibited. In such a case, the non-Jew has a lien on the Jews wine and might at some point say to the Jew, give me the wine and I will forgive you the loan. Since he has this financial connection to the Jew, and in some sense he has ownership over the wine as well, he will feel free to take some of the wine for himself. Therefore we must assume that he has come into contact with the wine. If, however, he has not loaned money to the Jew, then we do not assume that he had come into contact with the wine, and it is permitted.", + "If [a non-Jew] fell into a vat and climbed out, or measured it with a reed, or flicked out a hornet with a reed, or tapped on the top of a frothing cask All of these things actually happened, and [the Rabbis] said that the wine may be sold, but Rabbi Shimon permits it [even to be drunk]. This section lists all sorts of circumstances in which a non-Jew might come into contact with wine and yet it is highly unlikely that he used it to make a libation. Since in all of these cases we can be almost one hundred per cent sure that he didn’t do so, there is room to be lenient. The Sages, in front of whom cases such as these came, said that the wine could be sold to a non-Jew. In other words, it is forbidden to drink the wine but it is not forbidden to derive benefit from it. If it had truly been considered yen nesekh, then it could not even be sold. Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient and allows a person to even drink the wine.", + "If [a non-Jew] took a cask, and in his anger threw it into the vat this actually happened and [the Rabbis] declared it fit [for drinking]. If a non-Jew throws an empty cask into a vat of wine the wine in the vat is not forbidden at all. Since in this case the non-Jew certainly did not make a libation with the wine, it is permitted and a Jew may even drink the wine." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah and the one that follows discuss wine owned by a non-Jew but produced by a Jew with the intent that the non-Jew will be able to sell it to the Jews, without it having the status of yen nesekh.", + "If [an Jew] prepares a non-Jew's wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, in a house which is open to the public domain, should it be in a city where non-Jews and Jews reside, it is permitted. But should it be in a city where only non-Jews reside it is prohibited unless [an Jew] sits and guard. There is no need for the guard to sit and watch [the whole time]; even if he keeps going out and coming in it is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: it is all one with the domain of a non-Jew. If a Jew were to prepare wine belonging to a non-Jew and then leave it on the non-Jew’s property we need to know whether or not the non-Jew had contact with the wine and thereby made it into yen nesekh. If the house was open to the public domain and there were both Jews and non-Jews living in the city, the wine is permitted. The reason is that the non-Jew will fear that if he touches the wine a Jew passing by might see him and tell the other Jews, in which case they won’t buy the wine from him. This non-Jew from the outset wanted to sell to non-Jews therefore he won’t perform any act that might cause him to lose his ability to sell the wine. However, if there are only non-Jews in the city, the non-Jew does not fear that they will see him and report him to the Jews. Since in this case he is not afraid to touch the wine, the wine must be guarded to make sure that it doesn’t become yen nesekh. If it is not guarded the law is strict and it is forbidden. This guardian need not sit and guard the wine 24 hours a day. It is sufficient for him to come in and out occasionally. As long as the non-Jew does not know when he will come in and out, the non-Jew will be too afraid to touch the wine for fear that he will be caught. This is similar to the way that Jewish kashruth supervisors work today. They are not present in restaurants at all times. It is enough for the restaurant owner to know that they might show up at any time for him to be afraid to break the rules of kashruth. The words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar are not easy to explain. The Talmud explains that according to the previous opinion in the mishnah, if the Jew were to leave the wine on a different non-Jew’s property he need not place a guard. Since the wine is not his, this non-Jew will not touch it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees. He holds that all of non-Jewish property is the same and therefore it doesn’t matter where the wine was left; it is forbidden unless it was guarded.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would the ruling be if the house was not open to the public domain?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah in chapter four is a continuation of mishnah eleven. It continues to discuss a Jew who makes wine that belongs to a non-Jew, with the intent of the Jew purchasing it.", + "Again, what we constantly need to know in the types of circumstances mentioned in this mishnah and in the previous one is the likelihood that the non-Jew touched the wine. If he did so it is forbidden as yen nesekh.", + "If [a Jew] prepares a non-Jew’s wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, and the [non-Jew] writes for him “I have received the money from you,” then [the wine] is permitted. In this case the non-Jew has already written out a receipt that he has received the money for the wine. Even if he preemptively wrote the receipt before he received the money, in this case the non-Jew will assumedly not touch the wine. If the Jew really has paid the money then it simply belongs to the Jew, and the non-Jew will not touch wine that doesn’t belong to him. If the Jew has not really paid the money, the non-Jew will not touch it for if he does, the Jew will not pay him. However, the Talmud adds that the wine must be kept under lock in order to make these assumptions.", + "If, however, the Jew wished to remove it and [the non-Jew] refuses to let it go until he paid him this actually happened in Beth-Shan and [the Rabbis] prohibited it. However, if the non-Jew demonstrates that he doesn’t consider the wine to really belong to the Jew until he pays the money, then we cannot assume that he has not touched it. Since the non-Jew still considers himself the owner, he may allow himself to take some of the wine, even though the Jew made it in order to subsequently pay for the wine. The mishnah relates that this case actually happened in Beth Shan (see also Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:4, for another case that happened in Beth Shan).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why do you think that the Talmud demands that the wine must be kept under lock? Think of the similarities between this situation and that in the previous mishnah." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a non-Jew who hires a Jew to work with him in the transportation of yen neskekh.", + "If [a non-Jew] hires [a Jewish] workman to assist him in [the transportation of] yen nesekh, his wage is prohibited. If he hired him to assist him in another kind of work, even if he says to him, ג€œremove for me a cask of yen nesekh from this place to that,ג€ his wage is permitted. If he hired [a Jewג€™s] donkey to carry yen nesekh, its wages are prohibited; But if he hired it to sit upon, even though the non-Jew rested his jar [of yen nesekh] upon it, its wages are permitted. A Jew is not allowed to assist a non-Jew in the preparation or even the transportation of yen nesekh, wine which may eventually be used in libations. If he does so, and collects a wage for this specific type of work, the wage is prohibited, meaning that he cannot use the money. Since this person performed a forbidden act for profit, the Rabbis penalize him and forbid him to use his wages. However, if he was hired to do another type of work, for instance bring jugs of olive oil, and while working the non-Jew said to him to also bring a cask of yen nesekh, his wages are permitted. Since the Jew was not hired to work with specifically with the forbidden wine and the wages he receives are for his other work, the wages are permitted. [If the Jew was told from the outset that part of his work involved yen nesekh, the wages would be forbidden.]", + "This section teaches a similar ruling with regard to a donkey driver. If the non-Jew hires a Jewג€™s donkey to bring yen nesekh, the wages which the Jew receives are forbidden. However, if the non-Jew hires the donkey to ride on it the wages are permitted, even if the non-Jew brings his yen nesekh on the donkey. Although in both cases the Jewג€™s donkey is helping carry the forbidden wine, since in the second case he is not receiving wages specifically for carrying the wine, the wages are permitted." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two discusses yen nesekh that falls on other food items. The question is whether or not this causes the food to become prohibited.", + "If yen nesekh fell upon grapes, one may rinse them and they are permitted, but if they were split they are prohibited. If it fell upon figs or upon dates, should there be in them [sufficient wine] to impart a flavor, they are prohibited. If yen nesekh falls upon grapes, the grapes may be washed and then they are permitted. Since the yen nesekh does not have any effect on the taste of the grapes, they are permitted. If, however, the grapes were split open, then the wine could seep into them and effect their taste. In this case it is not possible to wash away the potential taste of the wine and therefore the grapes are forbidden.", + "It happened with Boethus ben Zpnin that he carried dried figs in a ship and a cask of yen nesekh was broken and it fell upon them; and he consulted the Sages who declared them permitted. This is the general rule: whatever derives advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is prohibited, but whatever does not derive advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is permitted, as, for example vinegar which fell upon split beans. If yen nesekh falls on other types of foods, such as dates or figs, the food becomes prohibited only if the wine improves the flavor of the food. The mishnah mentions a story of a person who carried figs and yen nesekh on a ship. When one of the casks of wine broke on the figs he asked the Sages if the figs were still permissible, and they permitted them. Since the wine does not improve the flavor of the figs, the person has not derived benefit from the wine and therefore the figs are permitted. This general rule, that the wine causes the food to be forbidden only if it imparts a good flavor is stated specifically in the next lines of the mishnah. The mishnah concludes with an example of another situation in which the taste is not improved, when vinegar (which comes from wine) falls on split beans." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a Jew who was carrying wine from one place to another with a non-Jew. The question is, are we suspicious that the non-Jew touched the wine, and that it is therefore forbidden.", + "If a non-Jew was transporting jars of wine together with a Jew from place to place, and it was presumed that [the wine] was under guard, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. If, while transporting the wine with the non-Jew the non-Jew assumes that the Jew was always watching the wine, the wine is permitted. As long as the non-Jew suspects that the Jew might catch him opening up the wine and drinking from it, the non-Jew will not do so. The Jew might even leave the wine with the non-Jew for a while, as long as the Jew does not tell him that he is doing so. If the Jew leaves the non-Jew and tells him that he is doing so, then the non-Jew knows that he has a certain period of time in which he might be able to drink the wine without being caught. There are two opinions in the mishnah about how long this period of time must be. According to the first opinion, the non-Jew must have enough time to make a hole in the stopper of the jug (the stopper was made and sealed with clay), and then fill the hole back in, and the new seal to dry, so that the Jew will not be able to tell that it was opened when he returns. If the Jew did not tell the non-Jew that he would be away for this period of time, the wine is permitted. The second opinion is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. He assumes that if the non-Jew merely makes a hole in the stopper and then reseals it, the Jew will see the damage. The only way the non-Jew will avoid getting caught is if he removes the whole stopper, and then closes the jug with a new stopper and then the sealing on this new stopper dries. If the Jew does not stay away for the period of time it takes to do all of this, the wine is permitted." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a direct continuation of the previous mishnah. In it we learn of two more situations in which a Jew leaves casks of wine with a non-Jew and we must decide whether or not the non-Jew is suspected of having opened the cask and removed some of the wine, thereby making it forbidden. Again, there is a dispute over how long the Jew may be absent before we suspect that the non-Jew will attempt to open the cask. Since we explained this dispute yesterday we will not explain it again here.", + "If [a Jew] left his wine in a wagon or on a ship while he went along a short cut, entered a town and bathed, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. In this situation the Jew again leaves the non-Jew with his wine, this time to make a quick excursion into the city. Note that he uses a short cut into the city. The fact that he is going and returning quickly will make the non-Jew fear getting caught should he open the cask. Therefore the wine is permitted. The Talmud teaches that if the mishnah had not included this scenario, we might have thought that since the non-Jew could take the wagon or boat and go to another place and there open the wine, that the wine is forbidden. The mishnah teaches that even in this case we are not concerned. The wine is only forbidden should the Jew tell the non-Jew that he is going and when he will return.", + "If [a Jew] left a non-Jew in his shop, although he kept going in and out, [the wine there] is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. In this scenario the Jew leaves the non-Jew in the store. Although the Jew is constantly going in and out of the store, and frequently leaving the non-Jew alone with the wine, the wine is permitted. Again, as long as he doesn’t tell him that he is leaving and when he is returning, the wine is permitted. The Talmud teaches that if the mishnah had not included this scenario, we might have thought that since the non-Jew could close the door to the store and then do what he wishes, that in this case the wine is forbidden. The mishnah therefore teaches that the wine is nevertheless permitted.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: What do you think the ruling would be if the Jew did not take the short cut into the city? Would the wine nevertheless be permitted?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a Jew who leaves a non-Jew sitting as a guest at his table. The question is what wine can we assume the non-Jew touched, and is therefore prohibited.", + "If [a Jew] was eating with [a non-Jew] at a table and set some flasks upon the table and others upon a side-table and leaving them there went out, what is upon the table is prohibited and what is upon the side-table is permitted. And should he have said to him, “mix [some of the wine with water] and drink,” even what is upon the side-table is prohibited. When the Jew leaves the non-Jew alone at the table with an open flask of wine, it is of course assumed that the non-Jew will drink from the wine, thereby making it forbidden. However, since it is not customary for guests to drink from the “side-table”, the wine there is not forbidden. This side-table is evidently somewhat like the shelf behind the bar in our time. If you leave your guest with a bottle on a table it is acceptable for him to drink from the bottle. It is much less acceptable for him to go behind the bar and take out his own drink. If, however, the Jew told the non-Jew that he could mix some wine with water (this is how wine was always drunk during the time of the mishnah), then of course we must assume that the non-Jew will take also what is on the side-table. Although he did not specifically tell him to take from the wine on the side-table, it is as if he had done so. It is like someone today saying, “help yourself” to his friend sitting at his bar. Therefore all of the wine is forbidden.", + "Opened casks are prohibited, and the closed ones are permitted [except when he was absent a length of time] sufficient for [the non-Jew] to open it, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. If the Jew leaves the non-Jew with open casks of wine in the house, they are forbidden. The closed casks are permitted, as long as the Jew was not absent long enough for the non-Jew to open the cask, make a new stopper and then let the stopper dry.", + "Questions for Further Thought
• Section two: According to whose opinion from the previous mishnah is this section taught? Why might that be so?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the permissibility of wine that was in a city when a band of non-Jewish marauders enter.", + "If a band of non-Jewish marauders entered a city in a time of peace, the open casks are prohibited and the sealed are permitted; ( In a time of war both are permitted because they do not have the leisure to offer libations. If the marauders enter the city in a time of peace, the assumption is that they may make libations from wine in open casks. Nevertheless, wine that is found afterwards in closed casks is permitted. The mishnah is not assuming that the marauders will not open the closed casks. After all, we have seen over and over in the previous mishnayoth that we must suspect that the non-Jews will open the casks and take from the wine. Rather the reason that the wine is permitted is that if the marauders had opened the casks they would not bother to reseal them. Unlike the non-Jews in the previous mishnah who might have attempted to be sneaky and take a drink without getting caught, the marauders have no such concern. However, if the marauders entered the city in a time of war, all of the wine is permitted, since they are too busy making war to make a libation." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first two sections of this mishnah discuss situations in which a Jew is considered as selling yen nesekh, which therefore means that the proceeds from the sale are prohibited.\nThe second two sections deal with situations in which a Jew is selling his wine to a non-Jew.", + "If a non-Jew sent to Jewish craftsmen a cask of yen nesekh as their wages, they are allowed to say to him, “give us its value in money”; ( But after [the wine] has come into their possession [the exchange] is prohibited. If a non-Jew who has hired a Jew to do some work for him, pays him with yen nesekh and actually gives the Jew the wine, the Jew cannot exchange the wine back for money. Once the wine comes into his possession it is actually his, and exchanging it with the non-Jew would in essence be selling yen nesekh, which is forbidden. If the Jew were to send back the shipment of wine before it reaches him then he may accept in its place money. Since in this case the non-Jew has never paid back his debt, it is not considered as if the Jew is selling his own yen nesekh.", + "If [a Jew] sells his wine to a non-Jew, should he have set the price before he measured it out, the purchase-money is permitted; ( But should he have measured it out before he set the price, the purchase-money is prohibited. If a Jew sells his wine to a non-Jew, he must make sure that he is not receiving money for what is now yen nesekh. If he measures out the wine to the non-Jew and then sets a price, he is actually receiving payment for selling yen nesekh, since the wine becomes yen nesekh as soon as it is in the non-Jew’s possession. Therefore, he must set a price before he gives over the wine. Note that once the price is set he need not receive the money, for the debt of the non-Jew is already fixed.", + "If [a Jew] took a funnel and measured [wine] into a non-Jew’s flask and then measured some into a Jew’s flask, should a drop of the [first] wine have remained [in the funnel], then [the wine measured into the second flask] is prohibited. In this section a Jew pours his wine into the container of a non-Jew using a funnel. The liquid that remains in the funnel when the Jew pours the wine into the non-Jew’s flask has the same status as the wine in the non-Jew’s flask itself. The fact that the wine in the flask is yen nesekh, means that the wine in the funnel is as well. This is because the funnel goes into the non-Jew’s container and may “take back” some of the yen nesekh. If even a drop of wine should remain in the funnel and the Jew should then pour more wine into the funnel and give it to a Jew, all of the wine has become contaminated as yen nesekh and it is all forbidden.", + "If he poured from [his own] vessel into [a non-Jew’s] vessel, [the wine in the vessel] from which he poured is permitted and [the wine in the vessel] into which he poured is prohibited. This section teaches a distinguishing principle from the previous section. When one pours from one vessel into another, and the poured liquid never touches both vessels at the same time, there is no contamination from the lower vessel into the higher vessel. While the bottom liquid might become itself contaminated (if it is poured into a non-Jew’s flask), the top liquid remains permitted. We should note, that although these issues sound somewhat trivial, this issue, that of contamination flowing upwards through a poured liquid, was an issue of major content between different groups of Jews during the time of the Second Temple. In a famous document called “The Halakhic Letter” found in Qumran (The Dead Sea Scrolls” the author of the document complains that his opponents (probably the Pharisees) claim that the poured liquid is pure. This complaint is also mentioned as a complaint of the Sadducees against the Pharisees in Mishnah Yadayim 4:7. We see that our mishnah takes the Pharisaic point of view." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the halachic topic of a forbidden substance becoming mixed with a permitted substance. The question is how much of the forbidden substance must be in the mixture for the entire mixture to become forbidden.", + "Yen nesekh is prohibited and renders [other wine] prohibited by the smallest quantity. As we saw demonstrated in the previous mishnah, if even a drop of yen nesekh falls into a large container of permitted wine, the entire container of permitted wine is forbidden.", + "Wine [mixed] with wine and water with water [prohibits] by the smallest quantity. ( Wine [mixed] with water and water with wine [disqualifies when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor. If forbidden wine (yen nesekh) should become mixed with permitted (as we learned in section one) or forbidden water (that was used for idolatrous purposes) should be mixed with permitted water, the entire mixture is forbidden, even if the forbidden substance was only a drop. However, if forbidden wine should become mixed with permitted water, or forbidden water with permitted wine, as long as the forbidden substance does not impart a flavor to the mixture, the entire mixture is permitted. If the forbidden substance imparts flavor, the entire mixture is forbidden", + "This is the general rule: with the same type [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different type [it is disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor. This section teaches a general rule from which the specific rule taught in the previous section may be extrapolated.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the beginning of section two repeat that which was stated in section one?
• Why do you think there is a halachic difference between a type of substance mixed with the same type, versus two different types being mixed together?" + ], + [ + "The following are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity:
[a cask of] yen nesekh;
an idolatrous object;
skins of animals which have holes over the heart;
an ox which has been sentenced to be stoned;
a heifer whose neck was broken;
birds brought as an offering by a leper;
the hair-offering of a nazirite;
the first born of a donkey;
meat cooked in milk;
the scapegoat;
and non-consecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple court. Behold these are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity.
This mishnah contains a list of things that are prohibited and if even the smallest quantity of them is mixed up with a similar looking permitted item, the entire mixture is forbidden. The difference between this mishnah and the previous one is that here we are dealing with entire units, such as a cask of wine or an ox. If one of these which is forbidden such as a cask of wine that contains yen nesekh, becomes mixed in with a thousands casks containing kosher wine, they are all forbidden.
1) If one cask of yen nesekh is mixed up with even one thousand kosher casks, they are all forbidden.
2) If one statue used for idolatrous purposes is mixed up with even one thousand statues that were not used in idolatry, they are all forbidden.
3) In chapter two, mishnah two, we learned that idolaters would make circular holes and take out the animals heart and use it in worship. If a piece of one of these skins is mixed up with a large quantity of regular animal skins, they are all forbidden.
4) An ox that killed a man is to be sentenced to death (Ex. 21:28). If this ox becomes mixed up with other oxen, they are all forbidden. Note that in all of the cases of live animals in this mishnah, the same rule is true if the meat of the animal is mixed up with the meat of other animals.
5) This heifer is the one referred to in Deut. 21:4. It is used to expiate the blood guilty for a murder where the murderer has not been caught. If this heifer, after it has been designated to be part of the ritual and is on its way down to the wadi where its neck will be broken, should become mixed up with other heifers, they are all prohibited.
6) When a leper becomes cleansed of his disease, he must bring two birds as a sacrifice (Lev. 14:4). If they are mixed up with other birds, they are all forbidden.
7) When a nazirite ends his term of naziriteship, he must shave (Num. 6:18). Should his hair, once it is shaved off, become mixed up with other hair, it is all forbidden. In other words, no nazirite hair wigs!
8) The first born of a donkey is usually redeemed by giving a sheep to the priest in place of the donkey (Ex. 13:13). If this newborn donkey should become mixed up with other donkeys before it is redeemed, they are all forbidden.
9) If a piece of meat, cooked in milk should become mixed up with other kosher pieces of meat, they are all forbidden.
10) The scapegoat is the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur (Lev. 16:22). If it should become mixed up with other goats, they are all forbidden.
11) It is forbidden to slaughter non-sanctified animals in the Temple court. If the carcass of an animal slaughtered in this fashion should become mixed up with other carcasses, they are all forbidden." + ], + [ + "If yen nesekh fell into a vat, the whole of it is prohibited for use.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: the whole of it may be sold to non-Jews with the exception of [a quantity corresponding to] the value of the yen nesekh in it.
This mishnah returns to the discussion of yen nesekh that falls into a larger quantity of permitted wine.
This mishnah contains a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the anonymous mishnah with regards to the prohibition of a mixture of yen nesekh and permitted wine. According to the first section in the mishnah it is forbidden to derive any benefit from even a mixture of yen nesekh and other wine. In essence, the wine must be thrown away. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the Jew may remove a quantity of wine from the mixture that corresponds to the quantity of yen nesekh which fell in, and the rest he may sell to a non-Jew. In this way he is not deriving any financial benefit from yen nesekh." + ], + [ + "If a none covered a stone wine press with pitch it may be scoured and is then clean;
But if it was of wood, Rabbi says that it may be scoured and the Sages say that he must peel off the pitch.
If it was of earthenware, even though he peeled off the pitch it is prohibited.
In the time of the mishnah wine presses were sealed with pitch. A little bit of wine was put into the pitch in order to prevent the smell of the pitch from ruining the taste of the wine made in the wine press. Our mishnah discusses a Jew who buys a wine press from a non-Jew. Since the non-Jew used wine, which is yen nesekh, in the pitch in the wine press, the mishnah must teach how to make the wine press “kosher”. In this mishnah and in the next we will learn several rules that are still observed today by those who keep the laws of kashruth.
There are three types of wine presses mentioned by the mishnah: stone, wood and earthenware. Stone is the least absorbent of these materials. Furthermore, stone wine presses do not require much pitch to seal them. Therefore, all the Jew must do is scour the wine press to rid it of any traces of the previous owner’s wine. If the wine press was made of wood, Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] holds that it also may be scoured. However, the Sages hold that he must also peel off all of the pitch. Since wood is more absorbent than stone, and since wood wine presses require more pitch, he must be even more diligent in cleaning before it becomes usable. If the wine press is of earthenware, the Jew may never use it. Since earthenware is very absorbent, there is no way to rid it of the yen nesekh." + ], + [ + "If [a Jew] purchases cooking-utensils from a non-Jew, those which are customarily used with cold liquids, he must immerse;
Those which are customarily used with hot liquids, he must be dip in boiling water;
Those which are customarily made white-hot in the fire, he must make white-hot in the fire.
A spit and grill must be made white-hot, But a knife may be polished and is then ritually clean.
This mishnah discusses how a Jew can make usable cooking utensils that were purchased from a non-Jew. Since the non-Jew surely used these utensils to cook unkosher products, the utensils must be “kashered”.
The general principle in this mishnah is quite simple: the way that a utensil was normally used is the way that it is made usable by the Jew. The Talmud explains that this is learned from a midrashic reading of Numbers 31: “any article that can withstand fire these you shall pass through fire and they shall be clean, except that they must be cleansed with water of lustration; and anything that cannot withstand fire you must pass through water.”
A utensil that was used generally with cold foods may be washed off and it is kosher. Since it was used with cold, it did not absorb the unkosher food and therefore it need only be cleaned with water. If a utensil had been used with hot boiling liquids, such as a soup pot, it absorbed more than the utensil used with cold. Therefore it must be dipped in boiling water to remove the unkosher elements that it has absorbed. Utensils that had been used directly on the fire, such as the spit and the grill, become even more absorbent. The only way to kasher them is to make them white hot.
A knife is a special case: it must be polished so that the outside layer of the knife is actually removed. This is because the knife, which is pressed with force into foods, tends to become more absorbent, even though it is not used directly on the fire. Remember that the knives in those days were not made of the hard stainless steel of which our knives are made.
Congratulations! We have finished Avodah Zarah.
Again this is the point where we thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.
I hope that you found this tractate as interesting as I did. We live in a world where the relationship of Jews to non-Jews is, thank God, much better, especially in North America, and therefore many of the rules in the tractate probably strike us as harsh and not applicable to our lives. However, Jews still face the problem of assimilation that Rabbis faced 2000 years ago and we still have much to learn from them on this topic. This tractate is that we saw the way that the Rabbis dealt with living in a society where they were a minority.
Tomorrow we begin to learn Tractate Avoth, also known as Pirkei Avoth or Ethics of the Fathers." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עבודה זרה", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03d391dc72fe4642cbd284d97d3ea08cac236fa0 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,303 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Avodah_Zarah", + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "On the three days preceding the festivals of idolaters, it is forbidden to conduct business with them, to lend articles to them or borrow from them, to lend or borrow any money from them, to repay a debt, or receive repayment from them. Rabbi Judah says: we should receive repayment from them, as this can only depress them; But they [the Rabbis] said to him: even though it is depressing at the time, they are glad of it subsequently. Exodus 23:13 states, “Make no mention of the names of other gods; they shall not be heard on your lips.” From the last part of this verse, “they shall not be heard on your lips” the Rabbis created a midrash that a Jew should avoid giving a non-Jew a reason to bring a sacrifice or libation to his foreign god. Therefore, during the three days preceding pagan holidays, Jews should avoid any business transactions with non-Jews, lest the non-Jew thank his god for this transaction. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, this prohibition works in both directions. It is forbidden for Jews to sell, lend or repay non-Jews and likewise it is forbidden to buy, borrow or receive repayment from them. According to this opinion, all of these transactions may potentially cause the non-Jew to celebrate and therefore should be avoided. Rabbi Judah dissents with regards to receiving repayment from non-Jews. Since repaying a debt causes sorrow to a person, it is permitted to receive repayment during this time, since the non-Jew will not thank his god after having done so. The Rabbis respond to Rabbi Judah that repaying a debt can indeed be a cause of celebration, even if the immediate parting with the money is depressing. Therefore it too is prohibited three days preceding a holiday. We should note that although this mishnah seems to be of a restrictive nature, it does indeed allow business transactions at any time that is not three days before their festivals. In other words, by forbidding the conduct of business on certain days the mishnah tacitly permits conducting business with non-Jews on other days. This was of course an economic necessity; even before the modern “global economy” no people could survive without conducting business with other peoples." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah is a continuation of the mishnah we learned yesterday, which stated that it is forbidden to conduct transactions with non-Jews three days before their festivals, lest they offer sacrifices or libations to their gods for their transactions with Jews.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says on the three preceding days and the three following days it is forbidden; But the Sages say: before their festivities it is forbidden, but after their festivities it is permitted. Rabbi Ishmael states that not only is it forbidden to make transactions with non-Jews during the three days before a pagan holiday but it is also forbidden during the three days following the holiday. In the Palestinian Talmud two potential reasons are given for Rabbi Ishmael’s statement. The first is that non-Jews continue to celebrate for three days after their holidays are over and therefore these three days are also forbidden. The second is that if the non-Jew knows that he will not be able to conduct business with the Jew after his holiday, he will be depressed during his holiday and he will engage in less idol worship. The Sages, who are the same Sages who expressed their opinion in the previous mishnah, prohibit only the three days preceding the holiday and not the three days following.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the qualitative difference between the two reasons given for prohibiting the conduct of business during the three days following the pagan holiday?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three delineates which idolatrous holidays are referred to in the previous two mishnayoth.", + "These are the festivities of the idolaters: Kalenda, Saturnalia, Kratesis, the anniversary of accession to the throne and birthdays and anniversaries of deaths, according to Rabbi Meir. Kalenda, from which the English word calendar derives, refers to the first day of the month, and especially to the first day of the year. Saturnalia was a popular Roman holiday on the 17th of December, dedicated to the god, Saturn. Kratesis, which was on the first of August, commemorated the day that Augustus conquered Alexandria in Egypt. Note that I have used the names of these holidays as Albeck states that they should be read. Medieval scribes often did not know what these holidays were or what their names were and different forms of the words can be found in other versions of the mishnah. The anniversary of the accession of the king to the throne is also considered to be a day of celebration full of idolatrous practices. The final two days of idolatrous celebration are personal: one’s birthday and the anniversary of the death of a close relative. On these days non-Jews would make idolatrous celebrations. Interestingly, Jews did not traditionally celebrate birthdays because it was seen to be a non-Jewish custom.", + "But the Sages say: a death at which burning [of articles of the dead] takes place is attended by idolatry, but where there is not such burning there is no idolatry. The opinion in the previous section was that of Rabbi Meir, who held that pagans commemorate the anniversaries of all deaths. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that only deaths where the body and clothes were burned on a funeral pyre are celebrated by idolatrous acts. If the body was not burned on the pyre then the day is not accompanied by idolatry and it is therefore permitted to conduct business with the non-Jew three days before.", + "But the day of shaving ones beard and lock of hair, or the day of landing after a sea voyage, or the day of release from prison, or if an idolater holds a banquet for his son the prohibition only applies to that day and that particular person. As was previously stated it is forbidden to conduct business with non-Jews during the three days before the personal holidays mentioned in section two. In section three the mishnah lists pagan holidays that Jews can conduct business during the three days before and are only forbidden from doing so on the holiday itself. These include the day that the non-Jew shaves his beard and lock of hair, which refers to a lock of hair grown at the back of one’s head and is shaved once a year; the day of return from a long trip by sea; the day that one is released from prison and the day in which one marries off one’s son and makes him a celebratory feast.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the personal holidays mentioned in section two of this mishnah and those mentioned in section three? Why is it forbidden to conduct business for the three days preceding some of them but not others?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah provides some exceptions to the prohibition of conducting business with non-Jews during their festivals.", + "When an idolatrous [festival] takes place within a city it is permitted [to conduct business with non-Jews] outside it. If the idolatrous [festival] takes place outside it, [business] is permitted within it. The prohibition of conducting business with non-Jews during their holidays is limited to the city that is actually celebrating the holiday. Outside of the city it is permitted to conduct business with them. The type of holiday referred to in this mishnah is probably a local holiday and not one that would have been observed throughout the land.", + "Is it permitted to go there? If the road leads solely to that place, it is forbidden; But if one can go by it to any other place, it is permitted. This section begins with a question, a literary form that is not typical for mishnah. The question is: can one go to this city on the day of the celebration? If the answer to this question were to be categorically affirmative, stating that Jews are not allowed to even travel on the road to that city, it would create another fence to prevent Jews from aiding non-Jews in their celebrations. However, the answer is not categorical. Rather, a Jew may travel on the road to this city as long as the road leads to other places as well. If it only leads to this place then it is forbidden. After all, if the Jew was travelling to this place on the holiday and the road only travels to that city, he is obviously going to transgress the prohibition, or perhaps even worse, to actually celebrate with them.", + "A city in which an idolatrous festival is taking place, some of its shops being decorated and some not decorated this was the case with Beth-Shean, and the Sages said: in the decorated stores it is forbidden [to buy] but in the undecorated ones it is permitted. This section is addressed to the Jew who is already located in the non-Jewish city on the day of their celebration. We might have thought that he is not to distinguish at all between non-Jews and that it is forbidden to conduct business with any of them. In this section we learn that the prohibition is limited to those actually demonstrating that they are celebrating the holiday. A storekeeper who does not decorate his store is evidently not celebrating, and therefore it is permitted to conduct business with him. We should note that in this case the Rabbis are lenient even though it is not totally clear that this non-Jew will not celebrate later on. In other words, although there is a chance that later the non-Jew will offer sacrifices to his god for the transaction with the Jew, since this is unlikely it is permitted. It is interesting to note the direction of this mishnah: the first section is directed at those found outside of the city, the second at those outside of the city who are coming into the city and the third at those who are inside the city.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Is a Jew permitted to travel to the city if the road leads to other cities? If so, why?
• This mishnah might remind us of the modern holiday celebrations surrounding Christmas. How does the situation here compare and contrast with the modern situation?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins a somewhat new topic: things which are forbidden to sell to idolaters at all times of the year and not just during their holidays, lest these things be used in idol worship. Again, it is not only forbidden to worship idols, but it is forbidden to aid non-Jews in idolatry.", + "The following things are forbidden to be sold to idolaters: iztroblin, bnoth-shuah with their stems, frankincense, and a white rooster. Iztroblin are the pines of a cedar tree. Bnoth-shuah are types of figs. All of these things listed in this section are used by the idolaters for idol worship. Therefore it is forbidden to sell them to non-Jews since that would be abetting idolatry.", + "Rabbi Judah says: it is permitted to sell a white rooster to an idolater among other roosters; but if it be by itself, one should clip its spur and then sell it to him, because a defective [animal] is not sacrificed to an idol. As for other things, if they are not specified their sale is permitted, but if specified it is forbidden. Rabbi Judah presents some exceptions to the prohibition of selling a white rooster to an idolater. A Jew may sell a white rooster to an idolater if it is sold with other regular roosters. In this case the Jew is merely selling roosters and happens to sell one that is white. The non-Jew may also not be purchasing the rooster for idolatrous purposes since he bought a lot of other roosters. Furthermore, when he sells the white rooster it doesn’t look to others as if he is selling something specifically for idol worship, since the other roosters he is selling will not typically be used in idol worship. Rabbi Judah also creates a way for Jews to sell white roosters alone to idolaters. As long as the Jew cuts off the spur the sale is permitted since the idolater will not sacrifice a blemished animal. With regards to the other forbidden items, it is forbidden to sell them to idolaters only if the sale is specifically for idol worship. If not, it is permitted to sell the item, because it may be used for other, non-idolatrous purposes.", + "Rabbi Meir says: also a “good-palm”, hazab and niklivas are forbidden to be sold to idolaters. Rabbi Meir adds several other things which are forbidden for a Jew to sell to idolaters. All three of these are varieties of date-palms." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the prohibition of a Jew from selling animals to non-Jews, lest the non-Jews use them for work on the Sabbath.", + "In a place where it is the custom to sell small domesticated animals to non-Jews, such sale is permitted; but where the custom is not to sell, such sale is not permitted. In no place however is it permitted to sell large animals, calves or foals, whether whole or maimed. Rabbi Judah permits in the case of a maimed one. And Ben Bateira permits in the case of a horse. The Torah teaches on several occasions that an animal must rest on the Sabbath (see for instance Exodus 20:9). Our mishnah extends this prohibition and prohibits a Jew from selling an animal to a non-Jew, lest the non-Jew use the animal for work on the Sabbath. This is similar yet somewhat different from the issue which the mishnah discussed previously, selling potentially idolatrous objects to the non-Jew. In both cases it is forbidden to sell something to a non-Jew. However, in this case, Jews are not enjoined to prevent non-Jews from working on the Sabbath. Rather Jews are prohibited from putting Sabbath observant animals into the position where they will have to break the Sabbath. In other words this prohibition concerns the animal and not the non-Jew himself. Not all animals are used for work. Small animals, such as sheep and goats are not used for work. Therefore in a place where it is customary to sell them to non-Jews it is permitted to do so. In other places it was customary not to sell even small animals to non-Jews, lest the Jew become confused and sell them large animals, which is prohibited in all places. [We have not encountered many of these types of mishnahs, which permit something in a place where it is customary to do so, and forbid it in places where it is not customary. For other examples which we have learned see Bava Metzia 7:1 or 9:1.] It is forbidden in all places to sell large animals, such as oxen and horses, to non-Jews since they will be used to perform work on the Sabbath. This prohibition includes calves and foals, even though they do not usually perform work. Rabbi Judah allows one to sell injured animals to non-Jews since they are clearly being purchased for their meat and not in order to do work. Ben Bateira allows the sale of a horse since horses are used for riding, which is not considered by the Rabbis to be work. Pulling plows, a work performed by oxen is considered work.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Why is it forbidden in all places to sell calves and foals to non-Jews and yet there are some places that do sell small animals? Since both don’t perform work why is one always prohibited and one sometimes permitted?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that one is forbidden to assist a non-Jew in any way that may injure the public.", + "One should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public. A Jew is not allowed to sell bears or lions to non-Jews, lest the non-Jew not take proper care of the animal and the animal cause damage to the public. This section may also be understood as referring to the gladiator exhibitions which often involved lions and bears. The Rabbis were opposed to these violent exhibitions and to the culture that encouraged the enjoyment of bloodshed. A Jew should certainly not attend such events nor sell animals to non-Jews that might be used in these events.", + "One should not join them in building a basilica, a scaffold, a stadium, or a platform. A Jew may not join non-Jews in building any of the structures listed in this section. The basilica served as a courtroom. The scaffold was used for executions. The platform was used for judges to make speeches. We can see from this mishnah that the Jews had a deep distrust for the non-Jewish law system. This law system is considered damaging to the public and therefore a Jew should not aid in building this system.", + "But one may join them in building public or private bathhouses. When however he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed he must not build. A Jew is allowed to join non-Jews in building bathhouses, since bathhouses are for the public good. Indeed in other Talmudic sources the Romans are praised for building bathhouses, marketplaces, roads and bridges. From other stories in the Talmud and a famous story that will appear in our tractate, it is clear that Jews and non-Jews shared public bathhouses. [Note: the version of the mishnah upon which my interpretation is based is “dimasaot” and not “bimasaot”, as recommended by Albeck.] A Jew may not aid in building the cupola of the bathhouse since that is the place where the idol is placed. As we have learned already in the previous mishnayoth, a Jew may not perform any action which would aid in idolatrous practice." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss things that should not be sold to non-Jews. The first section lists things that shouldn’t be sold lest they be used for idolatrous purposes. The remainder of the mishnah discusses land and things attached to the land. These should not be sold to non-Jews lest they begin to dispossess the Jews of the land of Israel.", + "One should not make jewelry for an idol [such as] necklaces, ear-rings, or finger-rings. Rabbi Eliezer says, for payment it is permitted. One should not make jewelry for idolaters lest they use them to decorate their idols. Rabbi Eliezer says that one may sell jewelry to them but not give it for free. This opinion is perplexing because usually if we are concerned that the actions of the Jew might encourage idolatry, the fact that he profits does not make it more permissible. There are some versions of the mishnah that do not include this line.", + "One should not sell to idolaters a thing which is attached to the soil, but when cut down it may be sold. R. Judah says, one may sell it on condition that it be cut down. The mishnah now begins to discuss selling them land and things attached to the land. One should not sell them things attached to the land, such as trees, since this might give them a stake in the land as well. Once the item has been cut down, it is permitted. Rabbi Judah is more lenient and allows something to be sold while it is attached, as long as it is stipulated that it will be cut down.", + "One should not let houses to them in the land of Israel; and it is not necessary to mention fields. In Syria houses may be let to them, but not fields. Outside of the land of Israel, houses may be sold and fields let to them, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: in the land of Israel, one may let to them houses but not fields; In Syria, we may sell them houses and let fields; Outside of the land of Israel, both may be sold. The first half of this section is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. He holds that one should not even rent houses to non-Jews in the land of Israel, lest he come to sell them as well. This is true of houses and even more true of fields, for with fields there is the added problem of tithes. Once a Jew sells his field to a non-Jew the field’s produce is not liable for tithing. In this way, the sale reduces the holiness of the field. In Syria, which is adjacent to Israel and was conquered by David but is not considered fully a part of Israel, we can be slightly more lenient. Houses may be rented to non-Jews, but fields still may not, because the produce grown in Syria is still subject to tithes. Outside of the land, a Jew may sell houses, but he still may not sell fields, lest by habit he come to sell fields in the land of Israel as well. On all of these cases, Rabbi Yose is slightly more lenient. Inside of Israel he allows the renting of houses, but not fields. In Syria he allows the sale of houses and the renting of fields and outside of the land, both may be sold. Note that he is still consistent in that the rules are more strict with fields than with houses. The major difference is that he does not rule more strictly in cases that should be permitted (such as selling fields outside of the land) but were forbidden by Rabbi Meir lest one come to sell something that really should not be sold." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah, which discussed selling and letting houses to idolaters.", + "Even in such a place where the letting of a house has been permitted, they did not say [that this was permitted if it was] for the purpose of a residence, since the idolater will bring idols into it; for it says, “you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deut. 7:26). Although in the previous mishnah we learned that in certain places it is permitted to let a house to an idolater (in Syria according to Rabbi Meir, and in the land of Israel according to Rabbi Yose), this permission is not granted if the idolater is renting the house as a residence. Since the idolater will bring his idols into the house, this would violate the prohibition of allowing idols into one’s home. The idolater may only rent the house from the Jew to use for storage or other non-residential usage. [The Jerusalem Talmud rules that outside of the land of Israel it is permitted to sell or let houses to idolaters even for the purpose of residence. Although in this case too the idolater will bring idols into the house and seemingly thereby cause the Jew to violate the commandment in Deut. 7:26, the essential meaning of the verse is that it is forbidden for a Jew to bring idols into his own house. The halacha is more strict inside the land of Israel and in bordering areas because it is incumbent upon Jews to cleanse the land of idol worship.]", + "In no place may one let a bath-house to an idolater, as it is called by the name of the owner. In no place, even outside the land of Israel, may one let a bath-house to an idolater. Since the bath-house will continue to be called by the name of the Jewish owner, and the idolater will surely bring idols into the warehouse, this is forbidden.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How is the topic of this mishnah different from the topic of the previous mishnah?
• What is different about a bath-house and why is it more prohibited than other types of rentals or sales?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that non-Jewish idol worshippers are suspected of several heinous sins: bestiality, sexual licentiousness and murder. This mishnah adopts a very harsh attitude towards the idolaters at the time. We should remind ourselves that according to later Jewish law, non-Jews who did not engage in such practices were not subject to these laws.", + "One should not place animals in inns of non-Jews, because they are suspected of bestiality. Non-Jewish idolaters are suspected of bestiality. Therefore Jews should not place animals in their inns. By doing so they would be encouraging the non-Jew to engage in bestiality, which according to Jewish ideology is also forbidden to non-Jews. It is one of the seven “Noahide” commandments which are incumbent upon non-Jews to observe.", + "A woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of licentiousness; Nor should a man be alone with them, because they are suspected of shedding blood. Jewish women should not be alone with non-Jewish idolaters for they are suspected of being rapists. Jewish men should not be alone with non-Jewish idolaters for they are suspected of being murderers.", + "A Jewish woman should not act as midwife to a non-Jewish woman, because she would be delivering a child for idolatry. But a non-Jewish woman may act as midwife to a Jewish woman. A Jewish woman should not act as midwife for a non-Jew for this would abet idol worship. In the Talmud it is explained that this is only prohibited if the Jewish woman works for free. If she is paid for her work it is permitted. A non-Jewish woman may act as a midwife for a Jewish woman.", + "A Jewish woman should not suckle the child of a non-Jewish woman, But a non-Jewish woman may suckle the child of a Jewish woman in her premises. A Jewish woman may not act as a wet-nurse for a non-Jewish child. This is for the same reason that she may not act as a midwife. A non-Jewish woman may be a wet-nurse to a Jewish child, provided she nurse the child on the premises of the Jewish family. The Jewish family may not give over their child to the non-Jewish woman for fear that she will kill the child." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of the discussion which began in the previous mishnah. It continues to discuss prohibitions that are a result of the Jewish suspicion that non-Jews are murderers.", + "We may allow them to heal us when the healing relates to money, but not personal healing; A Jew is permitted to be healed by a non-Jew when the healing relates to money. In the Talmud this clause is explained to mean that a Jew may take his animals to a non-Jewish doctor. This “healing” is considered to be related to money because the animal is the Jew’s property. However, a Jew may not himself be healed by a non-Jewish doctor, lest the non-Jewish doctor purposefully cause him damage. The Talmud adds that if the non-Jewish doctor tells him that a certain drug would be beneficial he may listen to him, since the Jew could check this information with others.", + "Nor should we have our hair cut by them in any place, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages said: in a public place it is permitted, but not when the two persons are alone. According to Rabbi Meir a Jew may never get his hair cut by a non-Jew, lest the non-Jew kill him with the scissors or razor. The Sages say that this is only prohibited in private. In public the non-Jew would not dare to kill the Jew." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists things that belong to non-Jews that may not be used by Jews, for fear that the Jew will be using something that has previously been used in idol worship.", + "The following things belonging to non-Jews are forbidden [for Jews to use] and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them: wine, or a non-Jew’s vinegar that was formerly wine, Hadrianic earthenware, skins pierced at the animal’s heart. (1) Rabban Shimon Gamaliel says: when its tear is round, [the skin] is forbidden, but if oblong it is permitted. Non-Jewish wine may not be used since it may have been used in making a libation to an idol. [This prohibition is still observed by many religious Jews today, even though we can be quite sure that the wine was not used for idol worship.] Similarly, vinegar that was once intended to be wine and then went sour may not be used by a Jew, since it may have been used in idol worship when it was wine. However, if the non-Jew bought the vinegar from a Jew and then gave it back to a Jew the Jew may use it since vinegar itself is not used in idol worship. According to the Talmud Hadrianic earthenware absorbs wine and when subsequently wetted, will release the wine. If a Jew were to use such earthenware he would be using non-Jewish wine, which is prohibited. According to the mishnah, idolaters would make incisions in animals to remove the hearts and use them in idol worship. If one sees a cut in an animal skin at the place of the heart, it is a sign that the animal was used for idol worship and it is forbidden. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel claims that only if the cut is circular is the skin forbidden. Since non-Jews do not make oblong cuts as part of their idol worship, the skin is permitted.", + "Meat which is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted, but that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is like a sacrifice to the dead, this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba. Meat that is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted to a Jew, since it has not yet been used for idol worship. It is of course not permitted to be eaten, since it probably is not kosher. However, one could use it to feed animals. Meat that is coming out of a place of idol worship is forbidden, since it was probably used for idolatry.", + "With non-Jews going on a pilgrimage [to worship idols] it is forbidden to have any business transactions, but with those returning it is permitted. It is forbidden to conduct business with non-Jews who are on their way to worship idols, since they will thank their gods for their business with the Jews. In this way the Jew will indirectly be abetting idol worship. However, it is permitted to engage them in business on their return, since they have already completed their idol worship. [Note this last section is of a different subject than the other sections. It should have been included in chapter one. It probably was included here due to its similarity to the previous clause.]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains three disputes between Rabbi Meir and the Sages with regards to the prohibitions of certain foods once owned by non-Jews. In each case Rabbi Meir is more strict.", + "Skin-bottles or flasks of non-Jews in which wine of a Jew is kept are forbidden and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit. If a Jew stores his wine in skin-bottles or ceramic flasks in which non-Jews previously stored their wine the Jewish wine becomes forbidden. Since the skin-bottles and flasks contained absorbed wine in their walls, that non-Jewish wine would mix with the Jewish wine. According to Rabbi Meir, it is forbidden to even derive any benefit from this wine. According to the Sages it is only forbidden for the Jew to drink the wine. If he wants he could sell the wine to a non-Jew and thereby derive benefit. The Sages rule that the only type of non-Jewish wine from which it is actually prohibited to derive benefit is wine that one can see. Wine that has been absorbed in a vessel is only forbidden to be drunk.", + "Grape seeds and grape-skins of non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, when fresh they are forbidden but when dry they are permitted. According to Rabbi Meir, both dry and moist grape skins and seeds that belonged to non-Jews are forbidden to Jews and the prohibition extends even to deriving any benefit from them. The Sages rule that dry seeds and skins are permitted even to eat and only moist ones are prohibited.", + "Fish brine and Bithynian cheese of the non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit. The concern with regards to fish brine is that there may be small amounts of wine in it. Bithynian cheese is cheese that comes from a place called Bithynia, which is in Asia Minor. According to the Talmud most of the calves raised there were used for idol worship. Since cheese uses rennet, a substance which comes from the stomach lining of a cow and solidifies the milk into cheese, we are concerned that the rennet came from a cow used in idol worship. Due to our concern with both of these foods, Rabbi Meir says it is forbidden for a Jew to derive benefit from either. According the Sages it is only forbidden to eat them; it is permitted to derive benefit from them. The fish brine is permitted since the wine was only used as an antidote for any polluting agent in the brine and not for its own taste. The cheese is permitted since most of the animals in Bithynia were not used for idol worship, only most of the calves which were a minority of the total number of animals." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a discussion between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Joshua concerning the prohibition of non-Jewish cheese.", + "Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Ishmael put this question to Rabbi Joshua as they were walking on the way, “Why have they forbidden the cheese of non-Jews?” He replied, because they curdle it with the rennet of a nevelah (an animal that was not properly slaughtered.” Rabbi Ishmael asks Rabbi Joshua why the Sages forbid cheese made by non-Jews. This prohibition is perplexing to Rabbi Ishmael because even the non-Jews make their cheese from kosher animals such as cows and goats. Since the milk used to make the cheese comes from kosher animals, it should be permitted. Rabbi Joshua responds that non-Jews use rennet to curdle the cheese. This rennet comes from the stomachs of animals that were not properly slaughtered and therefore the cheese is prohibited.", + "He (Rabbi said: “but is not the rennet of a burnt-offering more strictly forbidden than the rennet of a nevelah? [and yet] it was said that a priest who is not fastidious may suck it out raw.” (Though the Sages disagreed with this opinion, and they said that no benefit may be derived from it, although one who consumed it did not trespass [temple. Rabbi Ishmael responds that a priest who sees rennet in the stomach of a whole burnt offering may drink this rennet (I know this sounds a little gross.). Since a whole burnt offering is forbidden to be eaten, this law proves that the rennet is not considered part of the animal. If it were considered to be an integral part of the animal, it would have been prohibited. Since it is not forbidden in this case then by comparison the rennet used to make cheese should not make the cheese forbidden to Jews, even though it comes from an animal that was improperly slaughtered. At this point the mishnah offers an aside. The statement that the rennet of a whole burnt offering may be consumed by a priest was only Rabbi Ishmael’s opinion. The Rabbis did not agree with him. They stated that it is forbidden to derive benefit from this rennet and yet one who does so is not considered to have taken (trespassed) Temple property. [If he had taken from Temple property he would have to bring a sacrifice to atone for the sin, as well as pay back the value of that which he took.] This section is not an integral part of the mishnah and was added in at a later time.", + "Rabbi Joshua responded: “The reason then is because they curdle it with the rennet from calves sacrificed to idols.” Rabbi Joshua now provides another reason why non-Jewish cheese is forbidden. Non-Jews use rennet that comes from calves that were used in idol worship. Since any item that was used in idol worship is forbidden to a Jew, non-Jewish cheese is forbidden to a Jew.", + "He (Rabbi said to him: “if that be so, why do they not extend the prohibition to any benefit derived from it?” Rabbi Ishmael responds that if non-Jewish cheese is forbidden since it may contain rennet that comes from an animal used in idol worship, then it should not only be forbidden to eat, it should also be forbidden to derive any benefit from it. From the example in the previous mishnah concerning Bithynian cheese, we learned that the Sages said it was only forbidden for consumption and it was not forbidden to derive benefit from non-Jewish cheese.", + "He (Rabbi diverted him to another matter, saying: “Ishmael, how do you read for your [masc.] love is more delightful than wine” or “your [fem.] love etc. (Song of Songs 1:2” He replied: “your [fem.] love is better …” He said to him: this is not so, as it is proved by its fellow [-verse]: your ointments [masc.] have a goodly fragrance … [therefore do the maidens love you] (Song of Songs 1:3).” Rabbi Joshua does not seem to have an answer to this response of Rabbi Ishmael’s and therefore he distracts him to a different topic, this dealing with the gender of the speaker in the second verse of Song of Songs. The verse states “for your love is more delightful than wine”. “Your love” can either be masculine or feminine. The only difference in the Hebrew is the vocalization; the consonants are exactly the same. Rabbi Ishmael responds that he vocalizes it to be a masculine pronoun. In other words the speaker is feminine and she is speaking to a male. Rabbi Joshua points out that this is surely wrong for the word “your ointments” is masculine. Although this word too can be vocalized to be feminine, the fact that the end of the verse refers to maidens loving him proves that the one being spoken to is male." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists things that were made by non-Jews which Jews may not eat but from which they may derive benefit.", + "The following articles of non-Jews are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them: 1. milk which a non-Jew milked without an israelite watching him, 2. their bread and oil (Rabbi and his court permitted the oil) 3. stewed and pickled things into which they are accustomed to put wine or vinegar, 4. pickled herring which had been minced, 5. brine in which there is no kalbith-fish floating, 6. helek, 7. pieces of asa foetida 8. and sal-conditum. Behold these are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them. Mishnah three began with a list of things owned by a non-Jew from which it was prohibited to derive benefit. This is a more stringent legal category than food which is merely prohibited to eat, the list which is contained in our mishnah. We will explain each item in this mishnah and why it is forbidden to eat. 1) Milk if the non-Jew milked an animal without a Jew watching, he may have mixed into the milk, milk which comes from an non-kosher animal, such as a camel. 2) Bread and oil this prohibition is not due to a fear of the bread or oil being truly non-kosher. Rather the Sages prohibited a Jew from eating non-Jewish bread or oil in order to prevent Jews from socializing with non-Jews. The Talmud relates that it is permitted to eat bread made by bakers (as opposed to private individuals) since that will not bring Jews and non-Jews together. The mishnah notes, in what is surely a later addition, that Rabbi and his court permitted Jews to consume non-Jewish oil. The “Rabbi” referred to here is Rabbi Judah Nesia, the grandson of Rabbi Judah the Prince who composed the Mishnah. The reason, according to the Talmud, that they permitted the oil is that most people were not observing the prohibition. From here we learn that a “decree” of the Sages that is not accepted by the people does not become law. 3) Stewed and pickled things which might have wine or vinegar in them. These are forbidden because of the wine, which we learned in mishnah three is forbidden. 4) Pickled herring, which had been minced. The concern is that the non-Jew added in non-kosher fish. Since the fish is minced one would not be able to recognize what was in it. 5) Brine in which there is no kalbith-fish floating According to the Talmud brine which has only kosher fish will always have a “kalbith” fish. The absence of this type of fish is a potential sign that it also contains non-kosher fish. 6) Hilek this is a type of fish that does not have fins and scales until it is older. When it is young it may be mistaken for truly non-kosher fish, and therefore it may not be eaten. 7) Pieces of asa-foetida: This is a spicy tasting plant that needs to be cut with a sharp knife. It is prohibited lest the same knife used to cut it had previously been used to cut the meat of non-kosher animals. 8) Sal-conditum: This is a type of spice-salt which had non-kosher oils (from pigs and non-kosher fish) mixed into it.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What are the different types of reasons for the prohibitions listed in this mishnah? What can this tell us about the attitudes of the Sages to the non-Jews?" + ], + [ + "The following are permitted to be eaten [by an israelite]:
milk which a non-Jew milked with a Jew watching him;
honey,
grape-clusters even though these secrete moisture the law which renders food susceptible to defilement by a liquid does not apply to them
preserves into which they are not accustomed to put wine or vinegar,
pickled herring which has not been minced,
brine containing fish,
a leaf of asafoetida,
and rolled olive-cakes. Rabbi Yose says: those olives having pits ready to drop out are prohibited.
Locusts which come out of [a shopkeeper’s] basket are prohibited, but if from storage they are permitted. The same rule applies to terumah.
This mishnah lists food produced by non-Jews which a Jew is allowed to eat.
1) As we explained in the previous mishnah, the concern with milk is that the non-Jew might mix milk which comes from a kosher animal with milk that comes from a non-kosher animal (such as a camel). If the Jew is watching over the non-Jew we have no such concern and the milk is therefore permitted.
2) Mixing foreign substances with honey would spoil the honey. Therefore we can assume that the non-Jew did not put anything into the honey and it is permitted.
3) Even though some grape juice may be dripping from the cluster of grapes, we are not concerned that the non-Jew used this juice in idol worship and it would be forbidden. The mishnah also notes that the liquid that comes out of grapes is not the type of liquid which makes a food susceptible to impurities. As we have learned before (Eduyoth 4:6) food cannot become impure until it is made wet by seven types of liquids. Grape juice is not one of them.
4) Preserved foods into which it is not customary to put wine or vinegar are permitted.
5) If one can see that the fish in the brine is actually herring, it is permitted, unlike the minced fish which was discussed above.
6) In the previous mishnah we learned that it was forbidden to eat pieces of the asa foetida, since the same knife used to cut this plant might have been used to cut non-kosher food. In this mishnah we learn that since they don’t cut the leaves of the as foetida with this type of knife, it is permitted.
7) Olives that have been rolled out into cakes are permitted, since no wine is used in them. According to Rabbi Yose, if the olives have become so soft that the pits fall out, wine might have been put on them to soften them. Therefore, they are forbidden.
8) Some types of locusts are kosher. When a seller sells them, he brings them from his storehouse and puts them in a small basket, onto which he mixes a little wine. Due to the addition of this wine, locusts that come from this basket are forbidden. The locusts that come from the storehouse are permitted since the wine has not yet been put upon them.
The mishnah points out that the same is true with regards to terumah. If a kohen sells locusts from the little basket, we must suspect that he has dripped wine on them, and that the wine might be terumah, which is strictly forbidden to non-priests. If, however, the locusts come from storage, we can be sure that there is no terumah-wine mixed in with them." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to Deuteronomy 7:25-26 it is forbidden for a Jew to derive any benefit from idolatrous images. Our mishnah defines which images made by non-Jews are idolatrous and therefore forbidden and which are made merely as adornments, and are therefore permitted.", + "All images are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir; But the Sages say: [an image] is not prohibited except one that has a staff or bird or orb in its hand. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: any [image] which has anything in its hand [is prohibited]. The Rabbis in this mishnah dispute which images (sculptures) that are made by non-Jews are prohibited, because they may be used for idolatrous purposes. According to Rabbi Meir, all images are prohibited for at least some of them are worshipped once a year. Even though most of the images may have only been made as decorations, and not truly as idols, since there are some that are indeed idols, all are forbidden. Furthermore, even though an idol seems to be made only as a decoration, since it may be worshipped once a year, it is forbidden. The Sages dispute with Rabbi Meir. They hold that only the images that have in their hands a staff, bird or orb are forbidden. An image that holds one of these items, which probably was a symbol of power, was certainly made for idolatry. However, although some other images may have been made for idolatrous purposes, we are not sure if they were. Therefore we are not strict with regards to them, and they are permitted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel basically agrees with the Sages that an image about which there is a doubt if it is idolatrous, is permitted. However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel adds that any image that has something in its hand is idolatrous, and is therefore forbidden.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the nature of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages? In other words what is the concept or concepts underlying their dispute?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the permissibility of broken pieces of potentially idolatrous images.", + "One who finds fragments of images, behold they are permitted. If one found the figure of a hand or the figure of a foot, behold it is prohibited because such an object is worshipped. One who finds a fragment of an image may make use of that fragment. The mishnah teaches that we may assume that the non-Jew intentionally broke the idol and thereby annulled it from its idolatrous use. However, if one finds an entire hand of an image or a foot, it is prohibited, since there are non-Jews who use these parts in and of themselves as idols. The Talmud explains that these are only prohibited if they are found attached to a base, which means that they are not truly broken pieces." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses what one must do with things that he found that are likely to have been used as idols.", + "If one finds utensils upon which is the figure of the sun or moon or a dragon, he casts them into the Dead Sea. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if [one of these figures] is upon precious utensils they are prohibited, but if upon common utensils they are permitted. If one finds a utensil that has on it a picture of the sun, moon or a dragon he must destroy it, since it was certainly used for idolatrous purposes. According to the first section of the mishnah, the best way to totally destroy an idol is to throw it into the Dead Sea. In such a way there is no chance that he, or any other Jew, will ever derive any benefit from it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that not all utensils that have pictures of the sun, moon or dragon are forbidden. Only precious utensils with such pictures on them are forbidden, for they were certainly worshipped. Cheap utensils were, in all likelihood, not worshipped, and are therefore permitted, even though they have on them pictures of the sun, moon or dragon.", + "Rabbi Yose says: he may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him, even so it may then become manure, as it says, “let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)”. Rabbi Yose adds to the opinion in section one which stated that the idols must be thrown into the Dead Sea. He holds that it is even sufficient to grind them up and then throw the dust to the wind. The other Sages respond to him that this is not sufficient. By grinding up the idol, someone might use it as fertilizer. This method of destruction would not, therefore, prevent other Jews from violating the strict prohibition of deriving benefit from idols. The Sages bring a verse from Deuteronomy to prove that it is forbidden to derive even the smallest benefit from idolatrous objects." + ], + [ + "Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite.
He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’; why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?”
He replied to him, “We do not answer [questions relating to torah] in a bathhouse.”
When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine. People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’
Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [In the torah] it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3) what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.
This mishnah contains a famous story of a discussion between Proclos, a Greek philosopher and Rabban Gamaliel, the Jewish patriarch.
In order to understand this mishnah we must remember that Roman and Greek society would have been full of statues. Indeed, anywhere a Jew turned his head, he probably saw a statue, often a statue of a god or goddess. If the Jews were to adopt an overly strict attitude towards these statues, and consider them idols, Jews would effectively be prohibited from taking part in most of Greco-Roman society, including such communal institutions such as the bathhouse, roads, bridges and marketplaces. In this mishnah Rabban Gamaliel shows a remarkable degree of flexibility and accommodation to this situation.
The story begins with Proklos, the son of Plosphos (this may be the word for philosopher) pointing out that the Torah forbids Rabban Gamaliel’s being in Aphrodite’s bathhouse. Rabban Gamaliel responds that it is not appropriate to respond in the bathhouse.
When they leave the bathhouse Rabban Gamaliel answers Proklos’s question. The bathhouse was not made for Aphrodite. Rather it was made for the public use and Aphrodite was merely placed there as adornment. As such, Rabban Gamaliel’s presence in the bathhouse is not a form of worship to Aphrodite, as it would be in her temple. Furthermore, people do not say that the bathhouse was made to adorn Aphrodite. Rather she is ancillary to the bathhouse and it is the central structure.
Rabban Gamaliel further points out that if this sculpture of Aphrodite were truly considered to be a goddess, people would not walk naked in front of her, or have seminal emissions or urinate. Such actions are signs of disrespect, which would not be appropriate in front of a goddess. When the Torah states that a Jew is commanded to destroy idols, the intent is to destroy idols that are treated as gods, and not those that are treated with disrespect." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses hills, mountains and trees which were used in idolatrous worship. The question is asked, are these to be forbidden as were other material items used in idol worship.", + "If idolaters worship mountains and hills these are permitted; but what is upon them is prohibited, as it is says, “you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take them” (Deut. 7:25). Although an idolater may worship a hill or mountain, that mountain is not prohibited to subsequent Jewish use as is a statue worshipped by a non-Jew. Any thing that is either ground or attached to the ground is not considered an idolatrous “object” that would be forbidden to Jews. However, that which is upon these “worshipped” mountains and hills is forbidden. This principle is learned from Deut. 7:25 which uses the word “that is on them”. Although according to the simple sense of the verse, this refers to the gold and silver that are on idols, the midrash in our mishnah understands this to be referring to the idolatrous objects that are on a mountain or hill. They are forbidden but the land itself is not.", + "Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [it says] “their gods on the mountains” (Deut. 12:, not their mountains which are their gods; “their gods on the hills” (ibid.), not their hills which are their gods. Rabbi Yose Hagalili offers an alternative midrash to the one in the previous section. This verse instructs the Israelites to destroy all of the sites where the other nations worship. It says that these sites are on the mountains and hills. From here Rabbi Yose concludes that that which is on the mountains and hills is forbidden, but not the land itself.", + "And why is an asherah prohibited? Because there was manual labour connected with it, and whatever has manual labour connected with it is prohibited. So far we have learned in the previous two sections that in general land and anything attached to land is not treated as an idolatrous object. The mishnah raises a glaring exception to this rule, the asherah, a tree which was worshipped, which according to Deut. 7:5 and 12:3, must be cut down and burned. The answer is that any natural object that was planted by a human being and was gardened by a person is, if worshipped, to be treated as an idol.", + "Rabbi Akiba said: let me expound and decide [the interpretation] before you: wherever you find a high mountain or elevated hill or green tree, know that an idolatrous object is there. Deut. 12:2 instructs Israelites to destroy all the idolatrous sites, “whether on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree.” Rabbi Akiva seems to be answering the question, why does the Torah mention the mountains, hills and tree. It would have been sufficient to merely state that all idolatrous sites must be destroyed and we would know that this includes those found on mountains, hills and under luxuriant trees. Rabbi Akiva answers that the verse was giving a hint to the Jews where they could find idolatry.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the reasoning behind the answer given in section three that any tree that was planted by man is forbidden if used as an idol?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six deals with two subjects: 1) a person who lives adjacent to an idolatrous shrine; 2) the ritual impurity of idolatrous objects.", + "If [a Jew] has a house next to an idolatrous shrine and it collapsed, he is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He withdraws a distance of four cubits into his own ground and build there. If one shared a wall with an idolatrous shrine, meaning his house was next to this shrine, he need not tear down his house and move somewhere else. Since he lived there before the shrine was built he does not need to move. However, if the house should fall down he may not rebuild the wall that will be shared with the shrine. What he may do is withdraw four cubits and build his own wall, one which will not be shared with the shrine.", + "[If the wall] belonged both to him and the shrine, it is judged as being half and half. The wall that is shared by the Jewish homeowner and the idolatrous shrine is considered to be jointly owned. The half that is next to the shrine is forbidden for Jews to use and the half that is next to the Jewish house is permitted.", + "Its stones, timber and rubbish defile like a creeping thing, as it says, “you shall utterly detest it” (Deut. 7:26). ] Rabbi Akiba says: [it defiles] like a menstruous woman, as it says, “[and you will treat as unclean the silver overlay of your images and the golden plating of your idols]. You will cast them away like a menstruous woman. Out, you will call to them” (Isaiah 30:22), just as a menstruous woman impurifies [an object] by carrying it, so also an idolatrous object defiles by its being carried. According to Deut. 7:26 a Jew must abhor idolatrous objects. The word for “abhor” is “sheketz”, which is the same word used for an impure creeping thing in Leviticus 11:31. From here the mishnah learns that just as creeping things transmit impurity, so too do idolatrous objects. The type of impurity that a creeping thing imparts is contact impurity. It does not impart impurity to one who carries it (without touching it). Contact impurity is a lesser type of impurity than carrying impurity. Rabbi Akiva learns the impurity of idolatrous objects from Isaiah 30:22, which explicitly compares idolatrous objects to menstruating women, both being impure and imparting impurity to others. A menstruating woman imparts impurity both through contact and through carrying. So too, according to Rabbi Akiva, do idolatrous objects. In other words Rabbi Akiva holds that the impurity of idolatrous objects is more serious than that of the creeping thing.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the problem with living next to an idolatrous shrine?
• Why doesn’t the opinion in the first part of the last section learn about the impurity of idolatrous objects from the verse in Isaiah, which seemingly explicitly compares idolatrous objects to a menstruating woman?" + ], + [ + "There are three types of shrines: A shrine originally built for idolatrous worship behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [an ordinary house] for idolatry and renovated it, one may remove the renovations. If he had only brought an idol into it and taken it out again, [the house] is permitted.
There are three kinds of [idolatrous] stones: A stone which a man hewed originally to serve as a pedestal [for an idol] behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [a stone] for idolatry, one may remove the plaster and tile, and it is then permitted. If he set an idol upon it and took it off, behold [the stone] is permitted.
There are three kinds of asherah: a tree which has originally been planted for idolatry behold this is prohibited. If he chopped and trimmed [a tree] for idolatry, and its sprouted afresh, he removes the new growth. If he only set [an idol] under it and took it away, behold the tree is permitted.
What is an asherah? Any [tree] beneath which there is an idol. Rabbi Shimon says: any [tree] which is worshipped. It happened at Sidon that there was a tree which was worshipped and they found a heap of stones beneath it. Rabbi Shimon said to them, “examine this heap.” They examined it and discovered an image in it. He said to them, “since it is the image that they worship, we permit the tree for you.”
This mishnah discusses houses, stones and tree which were used in idolatrous ways and divides each of them into three different types.
Sections 1-3: All three of these sections teach the same rule with regards to three different potentially idolatrous items: shrines, stones and trees. If any of these was created from the beginning to be idolatrous, it is totally prohibited from Jewish usage. If one of these things originally existed not for idolatrous purposes, and then was somehow modified to be idolatrous, the Jew needs to remove the renovations before it is permitted to use the object. In other words, the basic object is permitted and only the new parts that were created for idolatry are forbidden. If one of these objects was not changed at all, but had idols put inside it (house) or on top of it (stone) or underneath it (the tree), all that needs to be done is for the idol to be removed and the object is permitted to the Jew. In this case the object itself was never truly idolatrous, but rather it was used to facilitate idol worship. Therefore this is an easy situation to rectify and make the object permissible to Jews.
Section four: This section teaches the definition of the asherah, the idolatrous tree mentioned on several occasions in the Torah. According to the first opinion in the mishnah an asherah has idols underneath it, but it itself is not worshipped. According to Rabbi Shimon the tree itself is an idolatrous object. The mishnah now tells a story that happened in Sidon, where there was a suspicion that idolaters were worshipping a certain tree. Underneath the tree was a heap of stones. Rabbi Shimon instructed the other rabbis to examine the heap of stones and when they did they found an image. From here Rabbi Shimon concluded that the tree itself was not worshipped, but rather the image underneath the tree. Therefore the tree was permitted for Jews to use.
Questions For Further Thought:
 Does section three match Rabbi Shimon’s opinion?
 What is the relationship of the story at the end of the mishnah to Rabbi Shimon’s statement that precedes it?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah talks about using the space underneath the asherah tree. The question asked is: is using this space considered deriving benefit from idolatry and therefore forbidden? Furthermore the mishnah discusses the purity of one who passes underneath the asherah tree.", + "One may not sit in its shadow, but if he sat he is pure. Nor may he pass beneath it, and if he passed he is impure. One is not allowed to sit in the shade of an asherah, for by doing so he would be benefiting from an idolatrous object. However, sitting in its shade alone will not cause him to be made impure, because he did not actually sit underneath the tree. He is not allowed to pass under the asherah, and if he does he is impure. According to the Talmud this is because we assume that underneath the asherah tree is an idolatrous offering, which causes Jews to become impure. When the branches of the tree form a tent over the person and the idolatrous offering the impurity of the idolatrous offering is transferred to the person (this is called tent impurity).", + "If it encroaches upon the public road and he passed beneath he is pure. If the asherah was leaning over onto the public road and a person passed underneath it, he is not impure. The impurity of the asherah is only rabbinically ordained, and in this case the Rabbis did not decree that one who walks underneath the asherah is made impure. The reason for this is that the Rabbis declared idolatrous objects to be transmitters of impurity in order to keep people away from them. Since this person who was walking on the public could not have avoided the tree, he is not impure.", + "They may sow vegetables beneath it in winter but not in summer, and lettuce neither in summer nor winter. Rabbi Jose says: even vegetables [may not be planted] in winter because the foliage falls upon them and becomes manure for them. In the winter one is allowed to sow plants underneath the asherah tree, since the shade provided by the tree will not benefit the plants. In this case he is not benefiting from an idolatrous object. However, he may not plant lettuce underneath the asherah, even in the winter, since shade is always beneficial to lettuce. Rabbi Yose states that even vegetables may not be planted in winter, since the falling leaves will act as manure for the vegetables and therefore the planter would be benefiting from an idolatrous object. In other words, although he will not benefit from the shade since he will benefit in other ways, it is forbidden." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine discusses the prohibition from deriving benefit from the wood of an asherah tree.", + "If one took pieces of wood from it [the asherah tree], they are forbidden to be used. If he heated an oven with them if it was new it must be broken to pieces; if it was old, it must be allowed to cool. It is forbidden to use pieces of wood that come from an asherah tree. This mishnah teaches that the forbidden status of the tree remains in the pieces of the tree that are separated from it. If one used this wood to heat a new oven, the oven must be destroyed. Since the first heating of an oven helps shape and finish the oven, the oven itself was built through the aid of an idolatrous object, and it itself is therefore forbidden. However, if the oven was old, one merely needs to let the oven cool before using it again. In such a case the heat produced by the burning of the asherah wood is forbidden but not the oven itself.", + "If he baked bread [in an oven heated with wood from an asherah], it is forbidden to be used, and if [the loaf] became mixed with other loaves, they are all prohibited. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol. If he baked bread in an oven heated by the wood from an asherah, the bread is forbidden. Furthermore, if that loaf should be mixed in with other loaves, they are all forbidden, since each one may be the loaf which was made in the oven heated by the asherah wood. We should note that in some other cases mixtures of prohibited and permissible goods can be fixed. For instance if one pound of terumah flour should be mixed in with 100 pounds of terumah flour, one may take out one pound of terumah and give it to the kohen, even though that one pound is not the same pound that fell in. Through this process the remainder becomes permitted to anyone to eat. Our mishnah is especially stringent with idolatrous items. Rabbi Eliezer does make an attempt to remedy the situation without causing the loss of the bread. If he baked a loaf using asherah wood to heat his oven, he may throw the value of the wood into the Dead Sea, thereby nullifying any benefit he received from that wood. Afterwards the loaf may be eaten by a Jew. The Sages disagree. According to their opinion there is no way to redeem something that was made by using an idolatrous item.", + "If one took [a piece of wood] from it [to use as] a shuttle, it is forbidden to be used. If he wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to be used. If [the became mixed with others, and these with others, they are all forbidden to be used. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol. This section teaches the same thing that was learned in the previous section, only it uses a different example. Here the wood was used to make a shuttle, a piece of wood used on a loom to weave cloth. Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages have the same dispute on this section of the mishnah as they did in the previous one.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why might the mishnah have taught both sections two and three even though they both teach the same principles?" + ], + [ + "How does one annul [an asherah]? If [a pagan] pruned or trimmed it, removing from it a stick or twig or even a leaf, behold it is annulled.
If he smoothed it out for its own sake, it is prohibited; but if not for its own sake, it is permitted.
Our mishnah asks how does one annul an asherah in order to make it permitted for Jews to use.
As we will learn in the next chapter of mishnah, a pagan can “annul” his idol by stopping to treat it as such. If he does so, what was formerly an idol reverts to being a normal object and a Jew may use it. Our mishnah teaches that removing a piece of an asherah tree is a sign that it is no longer being worshipped. Evidently the asherah was not used by the pagan for anything but idol worship. If the pagan does make even the most minimal use of the tree, such as using its leaf, it loses its status as an asherah. The only exception to this case is if he removes something from the tree for its own sake. In other words, if he smoothed the tree to make it look better, it is still an asherah and it is still forbidden. If he did so in order to get a branch, he has annulled its status as an asherah and it is permitted." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Rabbi Ishmael says: if three stones are lying side by side next to a merculis, they are prohibited; if there are two they are permitted.
The sages say: if [the stones] are seen to be connected with it they are prohibited, but if they do not appear to be connected with it they are permitted.
In Sanhedrin 7:6 we learned that one who throws stones at a statue of merculis (the Roman god, mercury) is guilty of worshipping the idol, for that his how merculis is typically worshipped. Our mishnah deals with the status of stones found next to the merculis statue.
According to Rabbi Ishmael, if three stones were found next to the merculis statue, we can assume that they were used in worshipping the statue, and they are therefore prohibited. If there were only two, then we cannot assume that they were placed there for such a purpose and they are permitted.
According to the Sages the issue is not the number of stones but rather their proximity to the statue. Those found next to the idol are prohibited and those found further away are permitted. Even if three are found further away, we can assume that they were not used in worship." + ], + [ + "If he found on top [of a mercurius] a coins or a garment or utensils behold these are permitted;
[But if he found] grape-clusters, wreaths of grain, [gifts of] wine, oil or fine flour, or anything resembling what is offered upon the altar, such is prohibited.
Mishnah two continues to discuss items that are found in proximity to the mercurius idol, and whether or not these items are assumed to have been used in idolatrous worship and therefore prohibited.
In the previous mishnah we learned that one typical way of worshipping the mercurius idol was to lay stones next to it. In today’s mishnah we see ways in which mercurius was not worshipped. It was not worshipped by having money, clothes or other vessels laid next to it. Since this is not typical mercurius worship, it is permitted for Jews to use these items.
However, if anything that is normally sacrificed is found next to a mercurius, these items are forbidden to Jews. Since these items are generally used in idol worship, and evidently also in the worship of mercurius, they are forbidden if they are found in proximity to the idol." + ], + [ + "If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse, one may use either so long as it is not to the advantage [of the idolaters], But one may not use either if it is to its advantage.
If [the garden or bathhouse] belonged jointly to it and to others, one may use them whether it be to the advantage [of idolatry] or not.
Mishnah three discusses a garden or bathhouse that is in the courtyard of an idolatrous shrine.
If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse in its courtyard, there are certain circumstances in which the garden or bathhouse may nevertheless be used. First of all one may always use them as long as one doesn’t give any advantage to the idolaters. This means that one could use the garden or bathhouse as long as he does not pay the idolatrous priests for such use. Secondly, if the garden or bathhouse was jointly owned by the shrine a private individual, one could always use them, and even pay for their use. Even though some of the money may go to the shrine, the Jew can consider the payment as going to the individual partner.
We should note that Maimonides explains that “to the advantage of” does not mean paying money as we explained above, but rather giving verbal recognition to the owners. If the bathhouse or garden is jointly owned, one may give verbal advantage to the owners, and even to the idolatrous priests, however, according to Maimonides, one may not pay for the use." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first part of mishnah four discusses when an idol becomes prohibited from being used by a Jew. The second half of the mishnah discusses when an idol that was once worshipped becomes “annulled” as an idol and thereby permitted to be used by a Jew. Note that we already discussed the process of “annulling” an idol in the last mishnah of chapter three.", + "The idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately; but if it belonged to a Jew it is not prohibited until it is worshipped. As soon as an idol is made by a non-Jew it is prohibited, even before it is worshipped. The reason is that we can safely assume that the non-Jew will worship the idol, and it was certainly made for idolatrous purposes. However, an idol made by a Jew is only forbidden for Jewish use once it has been worshipped. The reason is that we cannot be sure that the Jew will worship the idol. It potentially could be used for decorative, non-idolatrous purposes.", + "An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater. One who is engaged in idolatry can annul an idol that belongs to him and one that belongs to others. We will learn in the proceeding mishnayoth how one annuls idols. However, a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater.", + "He who annuls an idol annuls the things that pertain to it. If he only annulled the things that pertain to it these are permitted but the idol itself is prohibited. If one annuls an idol, all of the things that go with the idol, for instances the plates used to make offerings to it, are also annulled. Since these things are ancillary to the main idol, they are effected by its change of status. However, if one annuls the things that pertain to the idol, without specifically annulling the idol, the idol is still forbidden." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses how a non-Jew can annul an idol.", + "How does he annul it? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger; or if he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, he has annulled it. In order to annul an idol, the non-Jew must treat the idol with enough disrespect that we can be confident that the idol is no longer considered to be holy by the non-Jew. Note, that the issue is not a physical issue. The mishnah is not asking the question, does this still look like an idol. Rather the issue is psychological. At one point can an outside observer assume that the owner of the idol no longer is relating to it as a god, but rather as merely a physical item devoid of religious meaning. The first way for the owner to annul the idol is to somehow physically damage it. If he cuts off one of its appendages, this is sufficient physical damage for it to be annulled. Furthermore, if he defaces, meaning he distorts the facial features of the idol, it is annulled, even if he has not diminished the material used to make the idol.", + "If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it [in the dust] or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled. Acting in a disgraceful way in front of the idol does not annul it. According to the Talmud, the non-Jew may being do this out of anger at the idol, without annulling its divinity. In other words, merely getting angry at the idol does not mean that the pagan assumes that it is no longer a god. When his anger cools down he will again worship the idol, and therefore the idol was never annulled. Another possible explanation is that sometimes performing a disgraceful act in front of an idol is a means of worship. In mishnah Sanhedrin 7:6 we learned that pagans worshipped ba’al p’eor by throwing feces at it. Therefore we cannot assume that other disgraceful acts to other idols are also not worship.", + "If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it, but the sages say that he has not annulled it. If a non-Jew sells or uses the idol as a pledge, according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince] he has annulled the idol. Since he treated it in a profane matter, and did something that one would not do to a divine idol, he must no longer be considering it to be an idol. The other Sages disagree with Rabbi.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Do you think the list in section one is exhaustive or merely a sample of ways of annulling the idol? What would be the ruling if he removed a leg, or a toe?" + ], + [ + "An idol which its worshippers abandoned in time of peace is permitted,
in time of war it is prohibited.
Pedestals of kings are permitted because they set them up at the time the kings pass by.
Mishnah six discusses idols which have been abandoned by those who previously worshipped them. The question is, can we assume that the worshipper has annulled the idol by abandoning it and it is therefore permitted to the Jew.
Section one: If an idolater abandoned his idol in time of peace the idol is permitted since we can assume that the idolater has no intention of returning to worship the idol. For instance if Maximus the idolater decides to move from Jaffa to Caesarea and he leaves his idols behind, he has shown that he doesn’t intend to worship them anymore. However, if Maximus the idolater flees his home during a war and in distress leaves his idols behind, he may intend to return and worship them when the war is over. Therefore they are not considered to be annulled.
Section two: Pedestals which were set up on the sides of roads to place upon them idols when kings pass by are not forbidden to Jews, since they are only temporarily used by the kings. During other times, when normal people pass them by, they do not worship these pedestals.
The mishnah connects these two issues because the pedestals are like idols that have been abandoned by their owners. When the kings are not there these idols are “abandoned”." + ], + [ + "They asked the elders in Rome, “If [your God] has no desire for idolatry, why does he not abolish it?”
They replied, “If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, he would abolish it; but people worship the sun, moon, stars and planets; should he destroy his universe on account of fools!”
They said [to the elders], “If so, he should destroy what is unnecessary for the world and leave what is necessary for the world!”
They replied, “[If he did that], we should merely be strengthening the hands of the worshippers of these, because they would say, “know that these are deities, for behold they have not been abolished!”
This mishnah contains a fascinating discussion between the Sages of Rome and some idolaters. Note the different style of this mishnah. Although most mishnayoth contain brief halakhic (legal) discussions, occasionally the Mishnah does contain aggadic (philosophic) material.
In the fascinating discussion in this mishnah some pagans in Rome pose a serious theological problem to Jewish sages: if God is all-powerful why doesn’t he destroy any of his competitors. The basic answer given is that God doesn’t destroy things which are necessary for the existence of the world. If He were to destroy the sun, moon and stars our universe would not be able to function. The pagans then ask why God doesn’t destroy the things that are worshipped and that are not necessary, such as idols. The answer is that if he were to do so, this would seemingly demonstrate the power of those things that were not destroyed. By doing so God would actually increase the number of idolaters in the world.
An interesting question with regards to this mishnah is whom are these idolaters supposed to be representing? Are these Greek philosophers? According to the Rambam (Maimonides) Greek philosophy does not believe in the influence that inanimate objects such as stars and planets can have on human lives. The Rambam, who was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, and in his book “The Guide of the Perplexed” applied philosophical principles to Torah, claims that these pagan beliefs are believed by the masses, but not by “true philosophers” who understood the unity of God. He even claims that there are Jewish sages who believe that the stars and planets hold such a power over our lives, but that it is nevertheless forbidden by the Torah to worship them. In this commentary the Rambam explains the astrological roots of idolatry." + ], + [ + "A winepress [containing] trodden [grapes] may be purchased from a non-Jew even though it was he that lifted [the trodden grapes] with his hand and put them among the heap. And [the juice] does not become yen nesek (wine assumed to have been used as a until it descends into the vat.
When it has descended into the vat, what is in the vat is prohibited; But the remainder is permitted.
In chapter two, mishnah three, we learned that Jews may not drink wine touched by non-Jews, lest they had used the wine as a libation. The remainder of tractate Avodah Zarah will deal with the prohibition of non-Jewish wine. Our mishnah defines at what point in the process of wine-pressing do the grapes and grape juice begin to be considered wine.
Section one: A Jew may buy a winepress and all of the grapes that are being trodden in it from a non-Jew, even though the non-Jew has lifted up the trodden grapes and moved them into a different heap. At this point in their processing the grapes are not yet considered wine, and therefore their being handled by a non-Jew does not make them “yen nesek”, which is forbidden to Jews. In other words, while we might suspect that non-Jews offer up libations with wine, they will not do so with grapes that are not yet fully pressed, nor will they do so with grape juice. Only when the juice has descended into the vat where it will ferment into wine is it considered yen nesek.
When the wine does descend from the winepress into the vat, the wine which is in the vat is prohibited. However, that which remains above in the winepress is still permitted, even though it has been handled by a non-Jew." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses what actions a Jew may or may not do to help a non-Jew in the winemaking process. The second and third sections of the mishnah discuss helping ritually impure winemakers and bakers. These sections are only brought into our tractate due to their similarity to the halakhah in section one.", + "A Jew may tread the winepress together with a non-Jew but may not pick grapes with him. A Jew is allowed to tread grapes in a winepress with a non-Jew, since the wine does not become yen nesekh until it goes down into the vat (see previous mishnah). However, a Jew may not pick grapes with the non-Jew for the non-Jew causes the grapes to become impure. When the non-Jew puts the grapes in his impure winepress, the grapes will become impure. If a Jew helps him to do so, the Jew is helping to make produce grown in the land of Israel impure. The reason that treading on the grapes is permitted is that as soon as the non-Jew touches them, they are already impure.", + "If an israelite was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither tread nor pick with him, but one may move [empty] casks with him to the press and carry them [filled] with him from the press. An Israelite who works in a winepress while impure is committing a sin, for he is impurifying the terumah and tithes and thereby rendering them inedible. Since this is forbidden, another Jew may not even tread in the winepress with him, because that would be aiding a transgressor. However, the other Jew may help this Jew before the process begins by bringing jugs to the winepress and he may help him remove the jugs when the pressing is over. In other words, it is only forbidden to help him while the impure pressing is going on. Before and after it is permitted.", + "If a baker was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither knead nor roll dough with him but we may carry loaves with him to the bakery. The same rules that were stated in section two with regards to helping a winemaker who presses his wine while impure, are also true with regards to the impure baker. One may not help him in the baking process, for he causes impurity to the terumah and tithes. However, one may help him after the loaves are already baked.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is it permitted to help the non-Jew tread but not to help the impure Jew, even though both cause the grapes to become impure?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses different types of contact that a non-Jew may have with wine that may or may not make the wine into yen nesekh, which is forbidden to Jews.", + "If a non-Jew was found standing by the side of a vat of wine, if he had loaned money to the Jew, then [the wine] is prohibited; but should he not have loaned money to the Jew, then it is permitted. If a non-Jew is seen standing next to a vat of wine we need to know if the non-Jew touch the wine, for if he did touch the wine he would have made it into yen nesekh. Our mishnah teaches that if the non-Jew had loaned money to the Jew then the wine is prohibited. In such a case, the non-Jew has a lien on the Jews wine and might at some point say to the Jew, give me the wine and I will forgive you the loan. Since he has this financial connection to the Jew, and in some sense he has ownership over the wine as well, he will feel free to take some of the wine for himself. Therefore we must assume that he has come into contact with the wine. If, however, he has not loaned money to the Jew, then we do not assume that he had come into contact with the wine, and it is permitted.", + "If [a non-Jew] fell into a vat and climbed out, or measured it with a reed, or flicked out a hornet with a reed, or tapped on the top of a frothing cask All of these things actually happened, and [the Rabbis] said that the wine may be sold, but Rabbi Shimon permits it [even to be drunk]. This section lists all sorts of circumstances in which a non-Jew might come into contact with wine and yet it is highly unlikely that he used it to make a libation. Since in all of these cases we can be almost one hundred per cent sure that he didn’t do so, there is room to be lenient. The Sages, in front of whom cases such as these came, said that the wine could be sold to a non-Jew. In other words, it is forbidden to drink the wine but it is not forbidden to derive benefit from it. If it had truly been considered yen nesekh, then it could not even be sold. Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient and allows a person to even drink the wine.", + "If [a non-Jew] took a cask, and in his anger threw it into the vat this actually happened and [the Rabbis] declared it fit [for drinking]. If a non-Jew throws an empty cask into a vat of wine the wine in the vat is not forbidden at all. Since in this case the non-Jew certainly did not make a libation with the wine, it is permitted and a Jew may even drink the wine." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah and the one that follows discuss wine owned by a non-Jew but produced by a Jew with the intent that the non-Jew will be able to sell it to the Jews, without it having the status of yen nesekh.", + "If [an Jew] prepares a non-Jew's wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, in a house which is open to the public domain, should it be in a city where non-Jews and Jews reside, it is permitted. But should it be in a city where only non-Jews reside it is prohibited unless [an Jew] sits and guard. There is no need for the guard to sit and watch [the whole time]; even if he keeps going out and coming in it is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: it is all one with the domain of a non-Jew. If a Jew were to prepare wine belonging to a non-Jew and then leave it on the non-Jew’s property we need to know whether or not the non-Jew had contact with the wine and thereby made it into yen nesekh. If the house was open to the public domain and there were both Jews and non-Jews living in the city, the wine is permitted. The reason is that the non-Jew will fear that if he touches the wine a Jew passing by might see him and tell the other Jews, in which case they won’t buy the wine from him. This non-Jew from the outset wanted to sell to non-Jews therefore he won’t perform any act that might cause him to lose his ability to sell the wine. However, if there are only non-Jews in the city, the non-Jew does not fear that they will see him and report him to the Jews. Since in this case he is not afraid to touch the wine, the wine must be guarded to make sure that it doesn’t become yen nesekh. If it is not guarded the law is strict and it is forbidden. This guardian need not sit and guard the wine 24 hours a day. It is sufficient for him to come in and out occasionally. As long as the non-Jew does not know when he will come in and out, the non-Jew will be too afraid to touch the wine for fear that he will be caught. This is similar to the way that Jewish kashruth supervisors work today. They are not present in restaurants at all times. It is enough for the restaurant owner to know that they might show up at any time for him to be afraid to break the rules of kashruth. The words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar are not easy to explain. The Talmud explains that according to the previous opinion in the mishnah, if the Jew were to leave the wine on a different non-Jew’s property he need not place a guard. Since the wine is not his, this non-Jew will not touch it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees. He holds that all of non-Jewish property is the same and therefore it doesn’t matter where the wine was left; it is forbidden unless it was guarded.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would the ruling be if the house was not open to the public domain?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah in chapter four is a continuation of mishnah eleven. It continues to discuss a Jew who makes wine that belongs to a non-Jew, with the intent of the Jew purchasing it.", + "Again, what we constantly need to know in the types of circumstances mentioned in this mishnah and in the previous one is the likelihood that the non-Jew touched the wine. If he did so it is forbidden as yen nesekh.", + "If [a Jew] prepares a non-Jew’s wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, and the [non-Jew] writes for him “I have received the money from you,” then [the wine] is permitted. In this case the non-Jew has already written out a receipt that he has received the money for the wine. Even if he preemptively wrote the receipt before he received the money, in this case the non-Jew will assumedly not touch the wine. If the Jew really has paid the money then it simply belongs to the Jew, and the non-Jew will not touch wine that doesn’t belong to him. If the Jew has not really paid the money, the non-Jew will not touch it for if he does, the Jew will not pay him. However, the Talmud adds that the wine must be kept under lock in order to make these assumptions.", + "If, however, the Jew wished to remove it and [the non-Jew] refuses to let it go until he paid him this actually happened in Beth-Shan and [the Rabbis] prohibited it. However, if the non-Jew demonstrates that he doesn’t consider the wine to really belong to the Jew until he pays the money, then we cannot assume that he has not touched it. Since the non-Jew still considers himself the owner, he may allow himself to take some of the wine, even though the Jew made it in order to subsequently pay for the wine. The mishnah relates that this case actually happened in Beth Shan (see also Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:4, for another case that happened in Beth Shan).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why do you think that the Talmud demands that the wine must be kept under lock? Think of the similarities between this situation and that in the previous mishnah." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a non-Jew who hires a Jew to work with him in the transportation of yen neskekh.", + "If [a non-Jew] hires [a Jewish] workman to assist him in [the transportation of] yen nesekh, his wage is prohibited. If he hired him to assist him in another kind of work, even if he says to him, ג€œremove for me a cask of yen nesekh from this place to that,ג€ his wage is permitted. If he hired [a Jewג€™s] donkey to carry yen nesekh, its wages are prohibited; But if he hired it to sit upon, even though the non-Jew rested his jar [of yen nesekh] upon it, its wages are permitted. A Jew is not allowed to assist a non-Jew in the preparation or even the transportation of yen nesekh, wine which may eventually be used in libations. If he does so, and collects a wage for this specific type of work, the wage is prohibited, meaning that he cannot use the money. Since this person performed a forbidden act for profit, the Rabbis penalize him and forbid him to use his wages. However, if he was hired to do another type of work, for instance bring jugs of olive oil, and while working the non-Jew said to him to also bring a cask of yen nesekh, his wages are permitted. Since the Jew was not hired to work with specifically with the forbidden wine and the wages he receives are for his other work, the wages are permitted. [If the Jew was told from the outset that part of his work involved yen nesekh, the wages would be forbidden.]", + "This section teaches a similar ruling with regard to a donkey driver. If the non-Jew hires a Jewג€™s donkey to bring yen nesekh, the wages which the Jew receives are forbidden. However, if the non-Jew hires the donkey to ride on it the wages are permitted, even if the non-Jew brings his yen nesekh on the donkey. Although in both cases the Jewג€™s donkey is helping carry the forbidden wine, since in the second case he is not receiving wages specifically for carrying the wine, the wages are permitted." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two discusses yen nesekh that falls on other food items. The question is whether or not this causes the food to become prohibited.", + "If yen nesekh fell upon grapes, one may rinse them and they are permitted, but if they were split they are prohibited. If it fell upon figs or upon dates, should there be in them [sufficient wine] to impart a flavor, they are prohibited. If yen nesekh falls upon grapes, the grapes may be washed and then they are permitted. Since the yen nesekh does not have any effect on the taste of the grapes, they are permitted. If, however, the grapes were split open, then the wine could seep into them and effect their taste. In this case it is not possible to wash away the potential taste of the wine and therefore the grapes are forbidden.", + "It happened with Boethus ben Zpnin that he carried dried figs in a ship and a cask of yen nesekh was broken and it fell upon them; and he consulted the Sages who declared them permitted. This is the general rule: whatever derives advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is prohibited, but whatever does not derive advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is permitted, as, for example vinegar which fell upon split beans. If yen nesekh falls on other types of foods, such as dates or figs, the food becomes prohibited only if the wine improves the flavor of the food. The mishnah mentions a story of a person who carried figs and yen nesekh on a ship. When one of the casks of wine broke on the figs he asked the Sages if the figs were still permissible, and they permitted them. Since the wine does not improve the flavor of the figs, the person has not derived benefit from the wine and therefore the figs are permitted. This general rule, that the wine causes the food to be forbidden only if it imparts a good flavor is stated specifically in the next lines of the mishnah. The mishnah concludes with an example of another situation in which the taste is not improved, when vinegar (which comes from wine) falls on split beans." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a Jew who was carrying wine from one place to another with a non-Jew. The question is, are we suspicious that the non-Jew touched the wine, and that it is therefore forbidden.", + "If a non-Jew was transporting jars of wine together with a Jew from place to place, and it was presumed that [the wine] was under guard, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. If, while transporting the wine with the non-Jew the non-Jew assumes that the Jew was always watching the wine, the wine is permitted. As long as the non-Jew suspects that the Jew might catch him opening up the wine and drinking from it, the non-Jew will not do so. The Jew might even leave the wine with the non-Jew for a while, as long as the Jew does not tell him that he is doing so. If the Jew leaves the non-Jew and tells him that he is doing so, then the non-Jew knows that he has a certain period of time in which he might be able to drink the wine without being caught. There are two opinions in the mishnah about how long this period of time must be. According to the first opinion, the non-Jew must have enough time to make a hole in the stopper of the jug (the stopper was made and sealed with clay), and then fill the hole back in, and the new seal to dry, so that the Jew will not be able to tell that it was opened when he returns. If the Jew did not tell the non-Jew that he would be away for this period of time, the wine is permitted. The second opinion is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. He assumes that if the non-Jew merely makes a hole in the stopper and then reseals it, the Jew will see the damage. The only way the non-Jew will avoid getting caught is if he removes the whole stopper, and then closes the jug with a new stopper and then the sealing on this new stopper dries. If the Jew does not stay away for the period of time it takes to do all of this, the wine is permitted." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a direct continuation of the previous mishnah. In it we learn of two more situations in which a Jew leaves casks of wine with a non-Jew and we must decide whether or not the non-Jew is suspected of having opened the cask and removed some of the wine, thereby making it forbidden. Again, there is a dispute over how long the Jew may be absent before we suspect that the non-Jew will attempt to open the cask. Since we explained this dispute yesterday we will not explain it again here.", + "If [a Jew] left his wine in a wagon or on a ship while he went along a short cut, entered a town and bathed, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. In this situation the Jew again leaves the non-Jew with his wine, this time to make a quick excursion into the city. Note that he uses a short cut into the city. The fact that he is going and returning quickly will make the non-Jew fear getting caught should he open the cask. Therefore the wine is permitted. The Talmud teaches that if the mishnah had not included this scenario, we might have thought that since the non-Jew could take the wagon or boat and go to another place and there open the wine, that the wine is forbidden. The mishnah teaches that even in this case we are not concerned. The wine is only forbidden should the Jew tell the non-Jew that he is going and when he will return.", + "If [a Jew] left a non-Jew in his shop, although he kept going in and out, [the wine there] is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. In this scenario the Jew leaves the non-Jew in the store. Although the Jew is constantly going in and out of the store, and frequently leaving the non-Jew alone with the wine, the wine is permitted. Again, as long as he doesn’t tell him that he is leaving and when he is returning, the wine is permitted. The Talmud teaches that if the mishnah had not included this scenario, we might have thought that since the non-Jew could close the door to the store and then do what he wishes, that in this case the wine is forbidden. The mishnah therefore teaches that the wine is nevertheless permitted.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: What do you think the ruling would be if the Jew did not take the short cut into the city? Would the wine nevertheless be permitted?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a Jew who leaves a non-Jew sitting as a guest at his table. The question is what wine can we assume the non-Jew touched, and is therefore prohibited.", + "If [a Jew] was eating with [a non-Jew] at a table and set some flasks upon the table and others upon a side-table and leaving them there went out, what is upon the table is prohibited and what is upon the side-table is permitted. And should he have said to him, “mix [some of the wine with water] and drink,” even what is upon the side-table is prohibited. When the Jew leaves the non-Jew alone at the table with an open flask of wine, it is of course assumed that the non-Jew will drink from the wine, thereby making it forbidden. However, since it is not customary for guests to drink from the “side-table”, the wine there is not forbidden. This side-table is evidently somewhat like the shelf behind the bar in our time. If you leave your guest with a bottle on a table it is acceptable for him to drink from the bottle. It is much less acceptable for him to go behind the bar and take out his own drink. If, however, the Jew told the non-Jew that he could mix some wine with water (this is how wine was always drunk during the time of the mishnah), then of course we must assume that the non-Jew will take also what is on the side-table. Although he did not specifically tell him to take from the wine on the side-table, it is as if he had done so. It is like someone today saying, “help yourself” to his friend sitting at his bar. Therefore all of the wine is forbidden.", + "Opened casks are prohibited, and the closed ones are permitted [except when he was absent a length of time] sufficient for [the non-Jew] to open it, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. If the Jew leaves the non-Jew with open casks of wine in the house, they are forbidden. The closed casks are permitted, as long as the Jew was not absent long enough for the non-Jew to open the cask, make a new stopper and then let the stopper dry.", + "Questions for Further Thought
• Section two: According to whose opinion from the previous mishnah is this section taught? Why might that be so?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the permissibility of wine that was in a city when a band of non-Jewish marauders enter.", + "If a band of non-Jewish marauders entered a city in a time of peace, the open casks are prohibited and the sealed are permitted; ( In a time of war both are permitted because they do not have the leisure to offer libations. If the marauders enter the city in a time of peace, the assumption is that they may make libations from wine in open casks. Nevertheless, wine that is found afterwards in closed casks is permitted. The mishnah is not assuming that the marauders will not open the closed casks. After all, we have seen over and over in the previous mishnayoth that we must suspect that the non-Jews will open the casks and take from the wine. Rather the reason that the wine is permitted is that if the marauders had opened the casks they would not bother to reseal them. Unlike the non-Jews in the previous mishnah who might have attempted to be sneaky and take a drink without getting caught, the marauders have no such concern. However, if the marauders entered the city in a time of war, all of the wine is permitted, since they are too busy making war to make a libation." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first two sections of this mishnah discuss situations in which a Jew is considered as selling yen nesekh, which therefore means that the proceeds from the sale are prohibited.\nThe second two sections deal with situations in which a Jew is selling his wine to a non-Jew.", + "If a non-Jew sent to Jewish craftsmen a cask of yen nesekh as their wages, they are allowed to say to him, “give us its value in money”; ( But after [the wine] has come into their possession [the exchange] is prohibited. If a non-Jew who has hired a Jew to do some work for him, pays him with yen nesekh and actually gives the Jew the wine, the Jew cannot exchange the wine back for money. Once the wine comes into his possession it is actually his, and exchanging it with the non-Jew would in essence be selling yen nesekh, which is forbidden. If the Jew were to send back the shipment of wine before it reaches him then he may accept in its place money. Since in this case the non-Jew has never paid back his debt, it is not considered as if the Jew is selling his own yen nesekh.", + "If [a Jew] sells his wine to a non-Jew, should he have set the price before he measured it out, the purchase-money is permitted; ( But should he have measured it out before he set the price, the purchase-money is prohibited. If a Jew sells his wine to a non-Jew, he must make sure that he is not receiving money for what is now yen nesekh. If he measures out the wine to the non-Jew and then sets a price, he is actually receiving payment for selling yen nesekh, since the wine becomes yen nesekh as soon as it is in the non-Jew’s possession. Therefore, he must set a price before he gives over the wine. Note that once the price is set he need not receive the money, for the debt of the non-Jew is already fixed.", + "If [a Jew] took a funnel and measured [wine] into a non-Jew’s flask and then measured some into a Jew’s flask, should a drop of the [first] wine have remained [in the funnel], then [the wine measured into the second flask] is prohibited. In this section a Jew pours his wine into the container of a non-Jew using a funnel. The liquid that remains in the funnel when the Jew pours the wine into the non-Jew’s flask has the same status as the wine in the non-Jew’s flask itself. The fact that the wine in the flask is yen nesekh, means that the wine in the funnel is as well. This is because the funnel goes into the non-Jew’s container and may “take back” some of the yen nesekh. If even a drop of wine should remain in the funnel and the Jew should then pour more wine into the funnel and give it to a Jew, all of the wine has become contaminated as yen nesekh and it is all forbidden.", + "If he poured from [his own] vessel into [a non-Jew’s] vessel, [the wine in the vessel] from which he poured is permitted and [the wine in the vessel] into which he poured is prohibited. This section teaches a distinguishing principle from the previous section. When one pours from one vessel into another, and the poured liquid never touches both vessels at the same time, there is no contamination from the lower vessel into the higher vessel. While the bottom liquid might become itself contaminated (if it is poured into a non-Jew’s flask), the top liquid remains permitted. We should note, that although these issues sound somewhat trivial, this issue, that of contamination flowing upwards through a poured liquid, was an issue of major content between different groups of Jews during the time of the Second Temple. In a famous document called “The Halakhic Letter” found in Qumran (The Dead Sea Scrolls” the author of the document complains that his opponents (probably the Pharisees) claim that the poured liquid is pure. This complaint is also mentioned as a complaint of the Sadducees against the Pharisees in Mishnah Yadayim 4:7. We see that our mishnah takes the Pharisaic point of view." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the halachic topic of a forbidden substance becoming mixed with a permitted substance. The question is how much of the forbidden substance must be in the mixture for the entire mixture to become forbidden.", + "Yen nesekh is prohibited and renders [other wine] prohibited by the smallest quantity. As we saw demonstrated in the previous mishnah, if even a drop of yen nesekh falls into a large container of permitted wine, the entire container of permitted wine is forbidden.", + "Wine [mixed] with wine and water with water [prohibits] by the smallest quantity. ( Wine [mixed] with water and water with wine [disqualifies when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor. If forbidden wine (yen nesekh) should become mixed with permitted (as we learned in section one) or forbidden water (that was used for idolatrous purposes) should be mixed with permitted water, the entire mixture is forbidden, even if the forbidden substance was only a drop. However, if forbidden wine should become mixed with permitted water, or forbidden water with permitted wine, as long as the forbidden substance does not impart a flavor to the mixture, the entire mixture is permitted. If the forbidden substance imparts flavor, the entire mixture is forbidden", + "This is the general rule: with the same type [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different type [it is disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor. This section teaches a general rule from which the specific rule taught in the previous section may be extrapolated.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the beginning of section two repeat that which was stated in section one?
• Why do you think there is a halachic difference between a type of substance mixed with the same type, versus two different types being mixed together?" + ], + [ + "The following are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity:
[a cask of] yen nesekh;
an idolatrous object;
skins of animals which have holes over the heart;
an ox which has been sentenced to be stoned;
a heifer whose neck was broken;
birds brought as an offering by a leper;
the hair-offering of a nazirite;
the first born of a donkey;
meat cooked in milk;
the scapegoat;
and non-consecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple court. Behold these are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity.
This mishnah contains a list of things that are prohibited and if even the smallest quantity of them is mixed up with a similar looking permitted item, the entire mixture is forbidden. The difference between this mishnah and the previous one is that here we are dealing with entire units, such as a cask of wine or an ox. If one of these which is forbidden such as a cask of wine that contains yen nesekh, becomes mixed in with a thousands casks containing kosher wine, they are all forbidden.
1) If one cask of yen nesekh is mixed up with even one thousand kosher casks, they are all forbidden.
2) If one statue used for idolatrous purposes is mixed up with even one thousand statues that were not used in idolatry, they are all forbidden.
3) In chapter two, mishnah two, we learned that idolaters would make circular holes and take out the animals heart and use it in worship. If a piece of one of these skins is mixed up with a large quantity of regular animal skins, they are all forbidden.
4) An ox that killed a man is to be sentenced to death (Ex. 21:28). If this ox becomes mixed up with other oxen, they are all forbidden. Note that in all of the cases of live animals in this mishnah, the same rule is true if the meat of the animal is mixed up with the meat of other animals.
5) This heifer is the one referred to in Deut. 21:4. It is used to expiate the blood guilty for a murder where the murderer has not been caught. If this heifer, after it has been designated to be part of the ritual and is on its way down to the wadi where its neck will be broken, should become mixed up with other heifers, they are all prohibited.
6) When a leper becomes cleansed of his disease, he must bring two birds as a sacrifice (Lev. 14:4). If they are mixed up with other birds, they are all forbidden.
7) When a nazirite ends his term of naziriteship, he must shave (Num. 6:18). Should his hair, once it is shaved off, become mixed up with other hair, it is all forbidden. In other words, no nazirite hair wigs!
8) The first born of a donkey is usually redeemed by giving a sheep to the priest in place of the donkey (Ex. 13:13). If this newborn donkey should become mixed up with other donkeys before it is redeemed, they are all forbidden.
9) If a piece of meat, cooked in milk should become mixed up with other kosher pieces of meat, they are all forbidden.
10) The scapegoat is the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur (Lev. 16:22). If it should become mixed up with other goats, they are all forbidden.
11) It is forbidden to slaughter non-sanctified animals in the Temple court. If the carcass of an animal slaughtered in this fashion should become mixed up with other carcasses, they are all forbidden." + ], + [ + "If yen nesekh fell into a vat, the whole of it is prohibited for use.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: the whole of it may be sold to non-Jews with the exception of [a quantity corresponding to] the value of the yen nesekh in it.
This mishnah returns to the discussion of yen nesekh that falls into a larger quantity of permitted wine.
This mishnah contains a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the anonymous mishnah with regards to the prohibition of a mixture of yen nesekh and permitted wine. According to the first section in the mishnah it is forbidden to derive any benefit from even a mixture of yen nesekh and other wine. In essence, the wine must be thrown away. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the Jew may remove a quantity of wine from the mixture that corresponds to the quantity of yen nesekh which fell in, and the rest he may sell to a non-Jew. In this way he is not deriving any financial benefit from yen nesekh." + ], + [ + "If a none covered a stone wine press with pitch it may be scoured and is then clean;
But if it was of wood, Rabbi says that it may be scoured and the Sages say that he must peel off the pitch.
If it was of earthenware, even though he peeled off the pitch it is prohibited.
In the time of the mishnah wine presses were sealed with pitch. A little bit of wine was put into the pitch in order to prevent the smell of the pitch from ruining the taste of the wine made in the wine press. Our mishnah discusses a Jew who buys a wine press from a non-Jew. Since the non-Jew used wine, which is yen nesekh, in the pitch in the wine press, the mishnah must teach how to make the wine press “kosher”. In this mishnah and in the next we will learn several rules that are still observed today by those who keep the laws of kashruth.
There are three types of wine presses mentioned by the mishnah: stone, wood and earthenware. Stone is the least absorbent of these materials. Furthermore, stone wine presses do not require much pitch to seal them. Therefore, all the Jew must do is scour the wine press to rid it of any traces of the previous owner’s wine. If the wine press was made of wood, Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] holds that it also may be scoured. However, the Sages hold that he must also peel off all of the pitch. Since wood is more absorbent than stone, and since wood wine presses require more pitch, he must be even more diligent in cleaning before it becomes usable. If the wine press is of earthenware, the Jew may never use it. Since earthenware is very absorbent, there is no way to rid it of the yen nesekh." + ], + [ + "If [a Jew] purchases cooking-utensils from a non-Jew, those which are customarily used with cold liquids, he must immerse;
Those which are customarily used with hot liquids, he must be dip in boiling water;
Those which are customarily made white-hot in the fire, he must make white-hot in the fire.
A spit and grill must be made white-hot, But a knife may be polished and is then ritually clean.
This mishnah discusses how a Jew can make usable cooking utensils that were purchased from a non-Jew. Since the non-Jew surely used these utensils to cook unkosher products, the utensils must be “kashered”.
The general principle in this mishnah is quite simple: the way that a utensil was normally used is the way that it is made usable by the Jew. The Talmud explains that this is learned from a midrashic reading of Numbers 31: “any article that can withstand fire these you shall pass through fire and they shall be clean, except that they must be cleansed with water of lustration; and anything that cannot withstand fire you must pass through water.”
A utensil that was used generally with cold foods may be washed off and it is kosher. Since it was used with cold, it did not absorb the unkosher food and therefore it need only be cleaned with water. If a utensil had been used with hot boiling liquids, such as a soup pot, it absorbed more than the utensil used with cold. Therefore it must be dipped in boiling water to remove the unkosher elements that it has absorbed. Utensils that had been used directly on the fire, such as the spit and the grill, become even more absorbent. The only way to kasher them is to make them white hot.
A knife is a special case: it must be polished so that the outside layer of the knife is actually removed. This is because the knife, which is pressed with force into foods, tends to become more absorbent, even though it is not used directly on the fire. Remember that the knives in those days were not made of the hard stainless steel of which our knives are made.
Congratulations! We have finished Avodah Zarah.
Again this is the point where we thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.
I hope that you found this tractate as interesting as I did. We live in a world where the relationship of Jews to non-Jews is, thank God, much better, especially in North America, and therefore many of the rules in the tractate probably strike us as harsh and not applicable to our lives. However, Jews still face the problem of assimilation that Rabbis faced 2000 years ago and we still have much to learn from them on this topic. This tractate is that we saw the way that the Rabbis dealt with living in a society where they were a minority.
Tomorrow we begin to learn Tractate Avoth, also known as Pirkei Avoth or Ethics of the Fathers." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עבודה זרה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עבודה זרה", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dded8acb966acf4752324c89168785d3938c6858 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,479 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא בתרא", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "text": { + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction
The first mishnah of Bava Batra deal with neighbors who share a courtyard. The mishnah is concerned with the building of a wall to separate the neighbors and with the ability of one neighbor to force the other neighbor to share the costs of building the wall.", + "Mishnah One
1)\tIf two partners wish to make a partition in a courtyard they build the wall in the middle.
2)\tIn a place where the custom is to build of unshaped stones, or of hewn stones, or of half-bricks, or of whole bricks, so they should build it—everything is according to local custom.
a)\t[If the wall is made of] unshaped stones this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths.
b)\t[If the wall is made of] hewn stones this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths.
c)\t[If the wall is made of] half-bricks this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths.
d)\t[If the wall is made of] whole bricks this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths.", + "Explanation
In the time of the mishnah most homes did not have openings to the street but rather would open onto a common courtyard. The courtyard was used for all sorts of purposes and was the common property of the owners of the houses surrounding it. Our mishnah states that if the two partners wish to build a wall separating the courtyard they should build the wall in the middle and when they do, they should build the wall with the materials customary used in their place. There are four kinds of building materials mentioned in the mishnah, and the mishnah lists each one.
Clauses 2a through 2d all state how much of a person’s property he should allocate for the thickness of the wall. This space will depend on the thickness of the building materials. Unshaped stones are (on average) 6 handbreadths wide and therefore each partner must allocate three handbreadths of his property for the building of the wall. Hewn stones are only 3 handbreadths wide and therefore each partner allocates one and a half handbreadths. A whole brick is 3 handbreadths wide, and therefore each partner allocates one and a half handbreadths. Half bricks are one and half handbreadths wide. In order to make a wall with them they would use two half-bricks, placing mortar in between the two. The total width of the wall would be four handbreadths, and therefore each partner would allocate two handbreadths.", + "Questions for Further Thought:

•\tMishnah one: If one partner wished to build with half-bricks and one partner with whole bricks, and the custom of the land was to use hewn stone, what type of wall should they build?

•\tWhat laws in modern society are similar to these types of laws? How are they different?
If two partners wish to make a partition in a courtyard they build the wall in the middle.
In a place where the custom is to build of unshaped stones, or of hewn stones, or of half-bricks, or of whole bricks, so they should build it everything is according to local custom. [If the wall is made of] unshaped stones this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] hewn stones this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] half-bricks this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] whole bricks this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths.
The first mishnah of Bava Batra deal with neighbors who share a courtyard. The mishnah is concerned with the building of a wall to separate the neighbors and with the ability of one neighbor to force the other neighbor to share the costs of building the wall.
In the time of the mishnah most homes did not have openings to the street but rather would open onto a common courtyard. The courtyard was used for all sorts of purposes and was the common property of the owners of the houses surrounding it. Our mishnah states that if the two partners wish to build a wall separating the courtyard they should build the wall in the middle and when they do, they should build the wall with the materials customary used in their place. There are four kinds of building materials mentioned in the mishnah, and the mishnah lists each one.
Clauses 2a through 2d all state how much of a person’s property he should allocate for the thickness of the wall. This space will depend on the thickness of the building materials. Unshaped stones are (on average) 6 handbreadths wide and therefore each partner must allocate three handbreadths of his property for the building of the wall. Hewn stones are only 3 handbreadths wide and therefore each partner allocates one and a half handbreadths. A whole brick is 3 handbreadths wide, and therefore each partner allocates one and a half handbreadths. Half bricks are one and half handbreadths wide. In order to make a wall with them they would use two half-bricks, placing mortar in between the two. The total width of the wall would be four handbreadths, and therefore each partner would allocate two handbreadths." + ], + [ + "The same is true with a garden: in a place where the custom is to build a fence, they can obligate him to do so. However, in a valley, where it is not customary to build a fence, they cannot obligate him to do so.
But if he wants to [build a fence] he must gather into his own portion and build, and he puts a finishing on the outside of the wall. Therefore if the wall falls, the place and the stones belong to him.
If they acted with each other’s consent, they should build the wall in the middle and put a finishing on both sides. Therefore if the wall falls, the place and the stones belong to them both.
Mishnah two is a continuation of mishnah one. It continues to discuss the procedures for building a wall to separate property.
Mishnah two begins by comparing a garden to a courtyard. The mishnah states that a garden is similar to a courtyard in that if it is customary to build there a fence, one partner can force the other to share in the costs and allocated space. However, in section 1a we learn that a valley is different. Since it is not customary to build there a fence, neither can force the other to do so. If one partner wishes in any case to make a fence he must do it in his own area and put a finishing on the wall so that it will it will not look unfinished nor ugly in the eyes of the one who did not want a fence, nor will it be rough and potentially damage the other person’s animals. Since he has built the wall on his own property and he alone paid for it, if the wall should fall, both the place and the materials belong to him. If however, the two partners built the wall together and shared in its costs and space, they should finish both sides of the wall. If the wall should fall they will share the space and the materials.
[Please note that I explained the idea of “finishing the wall” according to Albeck’s explanation and not the explanation given in the Talmud.]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three discusses a person who builds a fence partially around another person’s property and wishes that person to share in the costs of the fence.", + "If a man’s land surrounded his fellow’s land on three sides, and he fenced it on the first and the second and the third sides, they do not obligate him [to share in the costs]. Rabbi Yose says: “If he rose a built a fence on the fourth side, they obligate him to share in all of the costs.” In the scenario discussed in this mishnah Reuven owns three fields which surround Shimon’s fields on three of its four sides. If Reuven were to fence in all three of his fields he would have built a fence around three sides of Shimon’s fields. Since this fence does not totally surround Shimon’s field, Reuven cannot claim that Shimon benefited from the field and should therefore share in the costs. Rabbi Yose adds that if Shimon were to fence in four sides, he would thereby show that he wished to have his field fenced in. In that case he is obligated to share in the costs of all of the fences, since he now benefits from them all.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• If Reuven owns fields surrounding all four sides of Shimon’s field and he puts a fence around all of them, will Shimon have to share in the costs?" + ], + [ + "If the wall of a courtyard fell down they obligate each of the partners to help in building it up to a height of four cubits. He is presumed to have paid [his share] unless the other brings proof that he has not paid.
[If the fence was built] four cubits or higher, they do not obligate him [to help in building it.] If [the one who did not contribute] built another wall near it, even if he did not put a roof upon it, they obligate him to share in all of the costs. He is presumed not to have paid [his share] unless he brings proof that he has.
Mishnah four continues to discuss a wall built in a courtyard owned by two partners, a topic that began in the first mishnah of the chapter.
In the times of the mishnah, a standard wall, built in a courtyard was about four cubits high (over two meters, a little less than seven feet). Therefore, if the previous wall fell down, each partner would be obligated to rebuild the wall until it was four cubits high. If Reuven claims that Shimon did not pay his share, Reuven must bring proof. Since this law is commonly known, we assume that Reuven would not have begun to build the wall until Shimon paid his share. If he did build the wall without first collecting, he must bring proof that Shimon still owes him money.
In contrast, if Reuven built the wall over four cubits, he cannot ask Shimon to pay for the costs of the added height. Since walls are not commonly built over four cubits high, Shimon can claim that he did not want such a high wall. If however, Shimon were to use the wall to support another wall, and show that he intended to lay a roof on the two walls, he must pay for the added height. Although he was not initially obligated, since he subsequently used the wall, he is obligated to pay for it. Since this law is not commonly known, we cannot assume that Shimon paid his share. Until he brings a receipt showing that he has paid for the wall, he will still be obligated towards Reuven." + ], + [ + "They compel [a partner in a courtyard to contribute to] the building of a gate-house and a door for the courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Not all courtyards are fit for a gate-house.”
They compel [a resident of the town to contribute to] the building of a wall for the town and double doors and a bolt. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Not every town is fit for a wall.”
How long must a man dwell in a town to count as one of the men of the town? Twelve months. If he has purchased a dwelling place he immediately counts as one of the men of the town.
Mishnah five deals with the obligation of a person who shares a courtyard with another to help in building certain parts of the courtyard. The second half of the mishnah deals with the obligations that residents of a town have to participate in the costs of building the public structures in the town.
Section one teaches that a person who holds joint possession of a courtyard can be compelled to share in the costs of building a gate-house (where a guard would sit and protect the homes attached to the courtyard) and a door. Since these are necessities of a courtyard, one must participate in their cost. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel points out that not all courtyards need a gate-house. Assumedly smaller courtyards can be protected without building a gate-house. Therefore, a person would be obligated to help pay for building a gate-house only as long as the courtyard was fit for one.
Section two discusses similar laws with regards to people who live in a town. Just as in modern society people pay taxes in order to pay for the building and upkeep of town property, so too in the times of the Mishnah people had to jointly pay for the building of a wall, double-doors and a bolt to help protect the town. Again Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel points out that not all towns are fit for walls. If the town was not a one which would usually have a wall, the residents are not obligated to share in its costs.
Finally, section three discusses how long a person must dwell in the town in order to be an official resident and thereby be obligated to pay for building its wall. There are two criteria. First of all, if he dwells in the town for twelve months he is obligated to pay. Second, if he purchases property in the town, he is immediately obligated, even if he doesn’t dwell there." + ], + [ + "They do not divide a courtyard until there is four cubits for this [partner] and four cubits for this [partner].
Nor [do they divide up] a field until it has nine kavs for this [partner] and nine kavs for this [partner]. Rabbi Judah says: “Until it has nine half-kavs for this [partner] and nine half-kavs for this [partner].
Nor [do they divide up] a garden until it has a half-kav for this [partner] and a half-kav for this [partner]. Rabbi Akiva says: “A quarter-kav.”
Nor [do they divide up] an eating hall, a watch-tower, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, or an olive-press until there is sufficient for this [partner] and for this [partner].
This is the general rule: whatever can be divided and still be called by the same name, they divide; otherwise they do not divide.
When is this so? When they do not both wish [to divide the property]. However, if both wish they can divide it even if it is smaller. And with regards to the Sacred Books, they may not be divided even if both are willing.
Mishnah six returns to discuss a subject which began in mishnah one. There we learned the laws of building walls in shared courtyards, gardens and valleys. Mishnah six discusses which jointly-owned properties can be split into two parts.
This mishnah is quite straightforward so we will explain it briefly. Sections four and five basically summarize the laws of splitting jointly held property. One partner can force another partner to split the property only if the remaining property will still be sufficiently large to use it for its intended purpose. For instance if partners jointly own a dovecote (a place for breeding and storing pigeon doves) and one partner wants to split it, there must be enough room in each half for both partners to use it as a dovecote. Furthermore, section five clarifies that each half must be able to be called by its previous name. For example, if partners owned a truck one could not force the other to take half of the truck, since half a truck is worthless. If, however, partners owned an iron mine, one could force the other to take half, as long as each half was large enough to be an iron mine in its own right. The first three sections of our mishnah give concrete sizes with regards to courtyards, fields and gardens, but the principle applied is basically the same as that in sections four and five.
Section six emphasizes that the first five sections are true only as long as one partner does not agree to split the property. If, however, both parties agree to split the property they can split an even smaller piece. The one exception to this rule are scrolls containing the books of the Bible. It would not be respectful to the Sacred Books to cut a scroll in half. If, however, the books are in separate scrolls partners could divide them. [Note, in the time of the Mishnah all books were written in scroll form. The modern codex was not yet invented.]" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One may not dig a cistern near his fellow’s cistern;
Nor may he dig a ditch, cave, water-channel, or laundry pool unless it is three handbreadths away from his fellow’s wall, and he must plaster it with lime.
They distance piles of olive refuse, manure, salt, lime or stones three handbreadths from his fellow’s wall, and he plasters it with lime.
They distance seeds, and a plow and urine three handbreadths from the wall.
And they distance the mill [from the wall]: three [handbreadths] from the lower millstone and four [handbreadths] from the upper millstone.
And [they distance] the oven [from the wall]: three from the belly of the oven and four from the rim of the oven.
Most of the second chapter of Bava Batra deals with the obligations to distance damaging things from another person’s property. Mishnah one deals with distancing things from a person’s wall lest they damage the wall.
Section one states that a person should not dig a cistern close to another person’s cistern since one cistern may cause the other to break. A cistern is where they would store collected rain water, as opposed to a well which collects water from underground.
The remainder of the mishnah deals with distancing things from another person’s wall, lest they cause damage to the wall. The items mentioned in section two may cause the wall to fall, therefore he must distance them three handbreadths and plaster them to prevent water from seeping out.
The items mentioned in section three also may cause damage to another person’s wall and therefore he must distance them and plaster the place in which he places them.
Section four deals with three more items which also must be kept three handbreadths away from another person’s wall: seeds, a plow and urine. The difference between these items and those mentioned previously is that plastering is not applicable in these cases.
Sections five and six mention large items, a mill and an oven which also must be distanced from another’s wall. In both of these cases there are different measurements given for different parts of the item." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two deals with placing an oven or other cooking device in a house in a fashion that will not cause damage to the house.", + "One may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space of four cubits above it. If he sets it up in the upper room, the flooring beneath it must be three handbreadths deep, or for a stove one handbreadth. Section one sets up specifications for placing an oven or a stove inside a house, either on the first floor or on the second floor (the upper room). Note that a stove causes less heat than an oven.", + "And if it causes damage [to the floor] he must pay for the damage caused. Rabbi Shimon says: “They only mentioned these measurements so that if the object caused damage he would be exempt.” Section two contains a dispute between the anonymous opinion and Rabbi Shimon with regards to the ramifications of the distances mentioned in this and the previous mishnah. According to the first opinion, while a person must observe these restrictions, even if he does so he will still be obligated to make restitution if his property damages someone else’s property. According to Rabbi Shimon, if one follows the restrictions, and properly distances his potentially damaging property from another person’s property, he will be exempt if it causes damage.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• According to the anonymous opinion is section 2, even if a person properly distances his damaging things from another’s property he will still be obligated for subsequent damages. Why then does the mishnah mention how far these mentioned things must be distanced?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three discusses types of professions or businesses that a person can or cannot have in his home or near his home lest they disturb his neighbor.", + "One may not open a bakery or a dyer’s shop under his fellow’s storehouse, nor a cattle stall. In truth, they have permitted these things under a winestore but not a cattle stall. A bakery, a dyer’s shop, and cattle stall, if placed underneath a storehouse of produce will damage the produce. The bakery and dyer’s shop will produce heat, which can be damaging to the fruit, and the stench of the cattle stall will, for obvious reasons, also damage the fruit. However, as we learn in section 1a, if the storehouse was for wine, one can place a bakery or dyer’s shop underneath, since the wine will improve due to the heat. However, the stench of the cattle stall will not improve the taste of the wine! (Yuk)", + "A man may protest against [another that opens] a shop within the courtyard and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of them that go in and out.” As we have learned on several occasions, in the time of the mishnah a courtyard was usually shared between several neighbors. If one’s neighbor began to sell his wares in the courtyard the other neighbors could protest against the noise pollution caused by the customers.", + "One who makes utensils, should go outside and sell them in the market. But none may protest and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer” or “because of the noise of the mill-stones” or “because of the noise of children.” Section three is a continuation of the subject began in section two. A utensil maker is allowed to make his utensils in the courtyard, even though the hammer will cause noise pollution. He must, however, sell them in the market, as we also learned in the previous section. Similarly, a person can grind flour in the courtyard but he must sell it in the market. Finally, a teacher may bring students into the courtyard to learn, even though they will make much noise.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah allow one to bring students into a courtyard even though it will cause noise pollution?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses how far a person must distance his wall from his neighbor’s walls.", + "If one’s wall was adjacent to his friend’s wall he may not build another wall adjoining it unless it is at a distance of four cubits. If a person already owns a wall adjacent to his friend’s wall, he may wish to add another wall, thereby creating a three walled structure. If he wishes to do that he must leave four cubits between the new wall and his friend’s wall in order that people will walk near his friend’s wall. It was believed that people walking near a wall would strengthen the foundations of the wall. If he didn’t leave enough room next to his friend’s wall people would not walk there, thereby depriving his friend of that benefit.", + "And [if he builds a wall opposite his friend’s] windows, whether it is higher or lower than them or level with them, it may not be within four cubits. If a person wishes to build a wall opposite another person’s windows he must fulfill three conditions: 1) If the wall is higher than the window it must be more than four cubits higher so that he will not be able to use his wall to look into his friend’s window. 2) If the wall is lower than the window it must be more than four cubits lower so that he will not be able to stand on the wall and look into the window. 3) If it is across, it must be four cubits away so that it will not block the light going into the other window.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is the mishnah so concerned with people looking into other people’s windows? What does this teach us about privacy?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah which we will learn today deals with rules regarding a dovecote. A dovecote is a structure used to house pigeons. In the time of the mishnah pigeons were used for food, sacrifices and as messengers.", + "A person’s ladder must not be kept within four cubits of [his neighbor’s] dovecote, lest a marten (a small animal that eats should jump in. His wall may not be built four cubits from [his neighbor’s] roof-gutter, so that the other can set up his ladder [to clean it out]. In section one we learn that a person may not place a ladder in his property that will be less than four cubits from his neighbor’s dovecote lest an animal use the ladder to jump to the pigeon’s nesting places and eat them. Through this mishnah we learn an important principle: a person is not allowed to do something on his property if it will cause damage on another person’s property. Similarly, in section 1a, we learn that if a person wishes to build a wall on his property he must leave four cubits between the wall and the other person’s wall, if the other person’s wall has a gutter on it. As in modern times, so too in the time of the Mishnah gutters were used to drain water from the roof. In order to fix the gutters, which would often become clogged with debris, one would need to stand a ladder next to the wall. The four cubits between the walls would allow the person to stand a ladder and thereby fix his rain gutter.", + "A dovecote may not be kept within fifty cubits of a town, and none may build a dovecote in his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. Rabbi Judah says: Four kor’s space of ground, which is the length of a pigeon’s flight. But if he had bought it [and it was built already in that place] and there was only a quarter-kab’s space of ground, he has a right to the dovecote. Section two continues to discuss some rules governing dovecotes. According to the anonymous opinion in section two one must not place a dovecote within fifty cubits of the town nor within fifty cubits (25 meters) of his neighbor’s property. The reason to distance the dovecotes from the town is so that the pigeons will not eat the seeds in another person’s garden or the seeds that were drying on people’s roofs. The reason to distance the dovecotes from another person’s property is so that they won’t eat from the other people’s fields. Rabbi Judah disagrees with the distance of fifty mentioned by the anonymous opinion. According to him one must distance the dovecote from another’s property by a field big enough to grow four kor’s of wheat. This amount equals about 274 cubits in each direction, or about 150 meters. Finally we learn in section 2b that if a person bought a dovecote that was not properly distanced from another person’s property, he need not move the dovecote, even if it is only ¼ kav’s space of ground, which is about 10 cubits [five and a half meters] away from the other person’s property.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Is there a contradiction between sections one and two of this mishnah? If so, what is the potential contradiction and how can it be solved?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah continues to deal with dovecotes.", + "If a young pigeon is found within fifty cubits it belongs to the owner of the dovecote; but if it is found beyond fifty cubits it belongs to he finds it. If it is found between two dovecotes: if it is nearer to this one than it belongs him [that owns this dovecote]; and if it is nearer to the other, it belongs to him [that owns the other dovecote]; and if it is at a like distance from either, they share it. This mishnah is a simple mishnah dealing with pigeons that are lost. If one finds a pigeon fifty cubits from a dovecote, one can assume that it belongs to the owner of that dovecote. If it is further than fifty cubits, one need not make that assumption and one may keep the pigeon. If it is found between two dovecotes it is assumed to belong to the owner of the nearest dovecote. If it is equidistant between the two, the two owners will split the value of the pigeon.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• This mishnah deals with a topic that was discussed in the second chapter of Bava Metzia, lost items. Why then is this mishnah in our chapter and not there? What does this tell us about the organizational pattern of the Mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven deals with distancing trees from the city. In modern times we think of trees as beautifying a city. However, in ancient times trees were not commonly found inside the city itself. Furthermore, it was considered aesthetic for there to be empty fields surrounding the city.", + "According to the anonymous opinion in section one, a regular tree must not be grown within a distance of twenty five cubits from the city, nor a carob or sycamore tree within fifty cubits. Since carob and sycamore trees have thick branches, they must be kept further away. Abba Shaul, section 1a, distinguishes between fruit and non-fruit bearing trees. Non-fruit bearing trees must be kept fifty cubits away, and assumedly, fruit bearing trees can be planted closer, as was stated in the previous clause.", + "If the town was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given; if the tree was there first it shall be cut down and compensation given. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given. In section two we learn that if the offending tree was planted before the town was built, the tree will still be cut down, but compensation will be given to its owner. If the city was built first, the tree is cut down and no compensation is given. Since it was planted illegally, the owner does not get compensation when it is uprooted. Finally, if we are unsure which existed first, the town or the tree, no compensation is given, since as we have learned many times, in Jewish law the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In this case the tree owner is the plaintiff suing the city for compensation. If he cannot bring proof that his tree existed before the city, he does not receive compensation.", + "A tree may not be grown within a distance of twenty five cubits from the town, or fifty cubits if it is a carob tree or a sycamore tree. Abba Shaul says: “Any tree that bears no fruit may not be grown within a distance of fifty cubits.” If the town was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given; if the tree was there first it shall be cut down and compensation given. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given.
A permanent threshing floor may not be made within fifty cubits of the town. Sections one and two state that a threshing floor may not be placed less than fifty cubits from another person’s property or from the town. The reason for this prohibition was explained in the introduction.", + "One may not make a permanent threshing floor within his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. And he must distance it from his fellow’s plants and ploughed land so that it will not cause damage. Section 2a also restricts a person from placing a threshing floor close to his neighbor’s plants or ploughed land. Again, the chaff can be damaging to plants and can spoil ploughed land.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Abba Shaul allow fruit bearing trees to be planted closer to the town?" + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah eight deals with distancing a threshing floor from the city. A threshing floor was the place where farmers would bring their harvested wheat in order to separate the kernels of wheat from the chaff. A threshing floor would produce much waste, as the chaff is thrown to the wind. In order to prevent the chaff from polluting the city the mishnah discusses how far away the threshing floor must be kept.", + "A permanent threshing floor may not be made within fifty cubits of the town. One may not make a permanent threshing floor within his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. The Mishnah states that a threshing floor may not be placed less than fifty cubits from another person's property or from the town. The reason for this prohibition was explained in the introduction. ", + "And he must distance it from his fellow's plants and ploughed land so that it will not cause damage. The Mishnah restricts a person from placing a threshing floor close to his neighbor's plants or ploughed land. Again, the chaff can be damaging to plants and can spoil ploughed land." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine deals with distancing foul-smelling things from a town.", + "Animal carcasses, graves and tanneries must be distanced fifty cubits from a town. A tannery may be set up only to the east of a town. Rabbi Akiva says: “It may be set up on any side save the west, and it must be distanced fifty cubits [from the town]. The three things listed in section one, animal carcasses, graves and tanneries will potentially give off foul smells. Therefore one had to make sure these things were kept at least fifty cubits from the town. Furthermore, since a tannery smells so bad, it may only be set up to the east of the town. Since easterly winds were not common in the Land of Israel, the tannery needed to be kept to the east so its smell would not be blown into the town. Rabbi Akiva said that the tannery could also be to the north or south of the town, just not to the west.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the relationship of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion to the anonymous opinion? Upon what does he agree and upon what does he agree?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten deals with distancing foul-smelling things from foods which might be ruined due to the smell.", + "A pool for soaking flax must be distanced from vegetables, and leeks from onions, and mustard plant from bees. Rabbi Yose permits mustard plant. This simple mishnah lists things that will spoil other things if kept near them and therefore must be distanced from them. [Note: part of the processing of flax, a major material for clothing, was soaking it in water].", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does mishnah ten come after mishnah nine?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eleven deals with distancing trees from cisterns lest the roots break the underground walls of the cisterns.", + "A tree may not be grown within twenty five cubits of a cistern, or within fifty cubits if it is a carob or a sycamore, whether it is higher or on the same level. Section one prohibits one from planting a tree either twenty five or fifty cubits, depending on the type of tree, from another’s cistern lest the roots damage the cistern. This is true whether the tree is on higher or equal ground to the cistern.", + "If the cistern was there first the tree shall be cut down and compensation given. If the tree was there first it shall not be cut down. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall not be cut down. Rabbi Yose says: “Even if the cistern was there before the tree it should not be cut down, since this one dug within his own domain and the other planted within his own domain.” Section two deals with the consequences of a tree that was planted closer than twenty five or fifty cubits. If the cistern was there first, the tree must be cut down, but the owner will receive compensation. Even though he was not supposed to plant there, it is still his property and therefore he is paid for the loss of the tree. However, the cistern owner can at least take the initiative and force him to remove his tree. If, however, the tree was there first, the owner of the cistern cannot even force the tree owner to remove the tree. If it is unclear which is there first, the tree is not removed. Rabbi Yose has a different opinion. According to him, so long as each person’s activities are confined to his property, the other cannot force him to remove the potentially offending object, in this case a tree. Rabbi Yose is what we might in our time call a right to privacy advocate.", + "Questions for Further Thought
• In mishnah seven we discussed a similar issue to this mishnah. What are the differences between the two mishnayoth and why do you think they exist?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah twelve deals with distancing trees from the another person’s fields.", + "A person may not plant a tree near another’s field unless it is four cubits away, no matter whether it be a vine or any other kind of tree. If there was a wall between, each may plant up to the wall on either side. If its roots entered within the other’s property, the other may cut them away to a depth of three handbreadths so that they shall not hinder the plough. If he dug a cistern, trench or cave, he may cut them away as far down as he digs, and the wood shall belong to him. A tree planted close to another person’s property will eventually grow onto that property, both above and below ground. Therefore a person was required to distance his trees four cubits from another’s property. The remainder of the mishnah is basically refining this general law which we learn in section one. In 1a we learn that the law is not applicable if there is a fence, which would prevent the leaves of the trees from entering into the neighbor’s property. If there is a fence than one may plant his trees right up to the fence. In 1b we learn that if the roots of your neighbor’s tree enters your property you are allowed to remove the roots that are less than three handbreadths deep, so that the plow will not get caught on them. Finally, we learn at the end of the mishnah that if one was digging something on his property and the roots interfered, he can cut them away even further than the aforementioned three cubits.", + "Questions for Further Thought
• In the last clause of the mishnah it says that the trees (i.e. cut away roots of trees) are his. Why doesn’t he have to return them to the owner of the tree?" + ], + [ + "If a tree stretches into another’s field, he may cut it away as far as is reached by an ox-goad held over the plough, or, if it is a carob or sycamore, [he may cut it away] according to the plumb line’s measure.
All trees that stretch over irrigated fields may be cut away according to the plumb line’s measure.
Abba Shaul says: “All trees that bear no fruit may be cut away according to the plumb line’s measure.”
We learned yesterday in mishnah twelve that if another person’s trees encroach on one’s property one may cut out the roots, up to a certain depth. In mishnah thirteen we learn that if another person’s branches encroach on one’s property they may also be removed.
In this mishnah we encounter two different ways in which a person may cut off the branches of a tree that encroaches on his property. In section one we learn that in general a person can cut them as high as is reached by the “ox-goad held over the plough”. An ox-goad is the whip which a person riding a plough pulled by oxen would use to goad the oxen. If the branches were to interfere with the ox-goad one would have trouble plowing his field. Therefore, up until this height one can always remove the branches. The other measure for cutting down trees is the plumb line, which would go straight up from the end of his property. In other words, any branches hanging over his property may be cut down. One can cut away according to the measure of the plumb line in the following situations: 1) a carob or sycamore’s tree, whose branches are thick and will provide too much shade for the field over which they hang. 2) Any tree that stretches over an irrigated field, which needs a lot of irrigation. A tree from another field blocking its access to rain will cause much damage to this type of field. According to Abba Shaul one may always cut away up until the plumb line." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah fourteen we learn that if the branches of a tree encroach on the public domain, they too may be cut down.", + "If a tree stretches into the public domain enough must be cut away to allow a camel and its rider pass by. Rabbi Judah says: “A camel laden with flax or bundles of branches.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Every tree [must be cut away] according to the plumb line’s measure, because of impurity. There are three opinions in our mishnah with regards to removing branches that overhang onto the public domain from a tree originating in private property. The first opinion is that they must be removed up until a height that will allow a camel and its rider to pass by. Rabbi Judah says that the branches do not need to be removed all the way to the height of the rider for he can duck. They only need to be removed to the height of the camel’s load which obviously cannot duck to avoid the branches. Rabbi Shimon says that all of the branches which overhang into the public domain must be removed because of the laws of impurity. According to the Jewish system of purity and impurity if a pure thing is overshadowed by the same object overshadowing an impure thing, the impure thing will convey impurity to the pure thing. In other words, if a bone which imparts impurity were to be underneath branches and a person were to be there as well, the person would be impure. In order to prevent such a situation, Rabbi Shimon does not allow branches to grow into the public domain." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, dovecotes, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields and slaves and anything which continually produces a yield is three complete years.
The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for a field irrigated by rain water is three years and they need not be completed. Rabbi Yishmael says: “Three months during the first year, and three months during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes eighteen months.” Rabbi Akiva says: “One month during the first year and one month during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes fourteen months.”
Rabbi Yishmael said: “When does this apply? With regards to a sown field, but with tree plantation, if he brought in his produce (, collected the olives and gathered in his fig harvest, this counts as three years.”
In order to understand our mishnah and the remaining mishnayoth of the chapter we will need to explain how one can demonstrate ownership over a piece of land by “possession”. In general in Jewish law there is an assumption of ownership to the one who possesses a certain item. If Reuven possesses an item and Shimon claims that the item is his, and Reuven responds that Shimon sold him the item, Shimon will have to bring proof that the item still belongs to him. Since the item is in Reuven’s possession it is assumed to be his. This is true with regards to movable property. However, with regards to land, a person who is on a piece of land cannot necessarily claim ownership to the land. If Reuven is on a piece of land and Shimon claims it is his and Reuven responds that Shimon sold it to him, Reuven will have to prove his claim. If, however, Reuven has been living on this land, or in another way possessing the land for three years, he has an assumption of possession. In such a case Shimon will need to prove that he still owns the land if he wishes to recover it from Reuven. The idea behind this law is that if a person demonstrated ownership over a piece of land for an extended period of time and no one protested, it is reasonable to assume that the land is his.
The third chapter of Bava Batra deals with the rule of three year possession called “chazakah” in Hebrew. The rule, as we shall see, does not apply in the same way with everything.
If a person demonstrated ownership over the items listed in section one for three years, than they are assumed to be his. For instance, if Reuven used a house for three years and after this time Shimon came and claimed that the house was his, if Reuven were to respond that Shimon sold or gave him the house, Reuven needs to bring witnesses that he has possessed the house for three years, and then it belongs to him. In order to establish a presumption of ownership over these items one must possess them for three full years.
In order to establish a presumption of ownership over a field irrigated by rain water, one need not possess the field for three full years, but rather it is sufficient to posses them for parts of three years. This difference in law is explained by the difference between the irrigated field mentioned in section one and the field irrigated by rain water in section two. A field irrigated by man will yield produce many times in a season and therefore to demonstrate ownership one must actively possess the field for three full years. The field irrigated by rain will only yield one crop per year and therefore it is enough to harvest or work three crops to demonstrate possession. In order to do this one can work the field for three partial years. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regards to the nature of the partial three years.
In section three Rabbi Yishmael states that there is a difference between a field sown with produce and a field with fruit trees. When Rabbi Yishmael stated that one needed eighteen months in order to demonstrate ownership, this related to sown fields. In a sown field there is only one harvest per season, and therefore he would need three harvests in order to demonstrate ownership through possession. With regards to trees, each type of tree has its own harvesting season. Therefore if he were to harvest the grapes in one season, the olives in another and the figs in a third, that would be enough to establish possession, even though they were all done in one year." + ], + [ + "There are three regions with regards to possession: Judea, beyond the Jordan and the Galilee. If the owner was in Judea and another took possession [of his property] in the Galilee; Or if he was in the Galilee and another took possession [of his property] in Judea, such possession does not demonstrate ownership, until he is in the same region.
Rabbi Judah said: “They have specified a period of three years so that if the owner was in Spain and another took possession [of his property] during one year, they could make it known to the owner during the next year and he could return in the third year.”
Our mishnah divides the land of Israel into three distinct parts. As we shall see, this division is important for the rules of chazakah, which we began to learn in mishnah one of this chapter.
If a person took possession of a field and another came within three years and protested that the field was his, the original owner would retain title to the property. Our mishnah deals with a situation where the original owner lived in a different region from his field and therefore he may not have known that another had taken possession of the field, in order to protest within the allotted three years. According to the opinion in section one, in such a case there is no demonstration of ownership through possession for three years. If the owner was in a different region, for instance in the Galilee and the field was in Judea, we cannot assume that the reason he didn’t protest for three years is that he didn’t own the field. Since he may not have heard there can be no ownership through possession. According to Rabbi Judah, the reason that the Rabbis allotted three years in order to establish ownership by possession is to allow messengers to travel up to a year’s distance, there and back, in order to alert the original owner that another had taken his fields. In other words, according to Rabbi Judah, three years time is meant to give the person a chance to protest on another’s possession of his property. If he doesn’t do so, we do not assume that he didn’t hear. Rather, we assume that he sold or gave away his property to the current possessor and therefore does not protest." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous two mishnayoth we began to learn the laws of establishing ownership through possession. In mishnah three we learn what a “possessor” must say to the other person who claims ownership, in order for the “possessor” to establish ownership through possession. We also learn in mishnah three that certain people who possess land cannot claim ownership, even though they possessed for three years.", + "An act of possession without which there is no claim [on the ownership of the property] is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. How is this so? If he said to him: “What are you doing on my property? And the other answered: “No one ever said anything to me”, this is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. [If he said to him]: “You sold it to me”, “You gave it to me as a gift”, “Your father sold it to me”, “Your father gave it to me as a gift”, this is valid possession [to establish ownership]. He who holds possession [for three years] due to inheritance [from the previous owner], does not need to make a claim. Section one In order for a person to claim ownership through possession he must claim that the counter claimant sold it to him. For instance Reuven comes to Shimon and claims that the land that Shimon possesses is Reuven’s. Reuven brings a deed or witnesses to prove that the land is his. We can now be sure that Reuven once owned the land and the question is does he still own the land. If Shimon says that from the time he possessed the land no one said anything to him, the land will go back to Reuven. Since Shimon does not have a logical explanation for how he received the land, he cannot keep it. If, however, Shimon were to claim that Reuven sold him the land or gave it to him as a gift, or that Reuven’s father had done so, than we can assume that the land now belongs to Shimon. Since he occupied the land for three years without Reuven protesting, we assume that Shimon received the land from Reuven or his father and lost his documentation. The one exception to this rule is the one who received his land as part of an inheritance from his father. If he can prove the land was his as inheritance he need not prove how his father received the land.", + "Craftsmen, partners, sharecroppers and guardians cannot establish ownership through possession. A man cannot establish ownership through possession of his wife’s property, nor may a wife establish ownership through possession of her husband’s property, nor a father of his son’s property, nor a son of his father’s property. Section two The people listed in section two by definition will use other people’s property. For instance craftsmen may come and do work on another person’s property. This is not a sign that they own the property and therefore they cannot establish ownership through possession. So too a spouse cannot claim title to his/her spouses property through possession, since husbands and wives regularly make use of each other’s property without protesting. Finally, the same is true of parents and children: they too cannot claim title to the other’s land due through possession.", + "When is this so [that one needs three years to establish ownership]? When the person attempts to acquire the land through possession. But, when the property was given as a gift, or when brothers shared a piece of their inheritance, or when one claimed title by possession to the property of a convert [who died without inheritors], then if the claimant has shut in, walled up or broken down anything, this counts as securing ownership through possession. Section three We learn here that it takes three years to establish ownership, only when the property is in dispute. However, if someone gives property to another person, or brothers split the property left to them in inheritance, or a person comes to take property that has no owners, all he must do is show minimal use on the property and it belongs to him. The example of minimal uses is that he changes a part of the outside wall, by making a lock, by adding onto the fence or even by breaking the fence. In these three ways a person can establish immediate ownership and the three years are not necessary." + ], + [ + "If two testify that he has had the use [of property] during three years and they are found to be false witnesses, they must make full restitution to the owner.
If two [false witnesses] testify of the first year, two of the second, and two of the third, they divide up the costs of restitution between them.
If three brothers testify and another is included with them, they offer three different acts of testimony, but their words count as a single act of testimony when the evidence is proved false.
In mishnah four we learn the consequences of falsely testifying with regards to possession for three years.
According to Deuteronomy 19:19 the punishment for testifying falsely is that punishment which would have been meted out on the defendant. In our mishnah, witnesses falsely testify that a man had three years possession of a field. Had they been telling the truth the field would have changed from belonging to the original owner to belonging to the possessor. In other words, through their testimony they caused a field to transfer from one person to another. In such a case, if they testified falsely, they would have to pay the cost of the field to the original owner. They tried to make him lose a field now they have to pay him the cost of a field.
Section two deals with a scenario where three sets of witnesses testify to possession, each testifying to one year. Together they can establish that he had three years possession and now owns the land. If they were found to be false witnesses they will collectively pay the punishment of paying the original owner the value of the field.
In order to understand section three we must mention that relatives are not allowed to testify together in order to make up the required two or more witnesses. In the case discussed in this section three brothers testified to the possession of the field, each brother to a different year. In addition, one person testified to all three years. In total, two people testified with regards to each year, and no single year was testified to by two brothers. In this case their testimony is accepted as three different testimonies, and therefore we do not have a problem of brothers testifying together. However, if they are lying, it is considered to be one testimony, with regards to making compensation to the original owner. The person who testified to all three years will pay half of the value of the field and the three brothers will together pay half, each brother paying one-sixth." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah which we will learn today continue to deal with establishing ownership by possession (chazakah), the subject of the entire third chapter. Our mishnah teach the types of activities which if done for three consecutive years without the protest of the owner of the land, house or courtyard or courtyard, may continue to be done afterwards, even if the owner were to protest. For instance if Reuven does a certain activity on Shimon’s property for three years and Shimon does not protest, he cannot do so at a later date.", + "What are usages which are effective in establishing title through possession and what are usages which are not effecting in establishing title through possession? If a man put a beast in a courtyard, or an oven or stoves or mill-stones, or reared fowl [in a courtyard] or put his manure in a courtyard, this is not effective in establishing title through possession. But if he built for his beast a partition ten hand-breadths high, so too for an oven, so too for a stove, so too for a mill-stone, [or] he brought fowl inside the house, or prepared for his manure a place three hand-breadths deep or three hand-breadths high, this is effective in establishing title through possession. Our mishnah lists certain type of acts which if done on another person’s property for three consecutive years, acquire automatic subsequent permission to continue to do the activity. In other words, after three years there is an assumption that the owner of the property does not mind the other person doing these activities, and he therefore loses his right to subsequently protest. In section 1a we learn that placing an animal or other object in another’s courtyard will not cause entitlement to do so. For instance if Reuven were to use Shimon’s courtyard for three years as a place for his animal and Shimon were not to protest, Shimon would still retain the right to protest later. In section 1b we learn that if Reuven had built a structure on the property of Shimon, and Shimon had not protested for three years, Shimon now loses the right to protest. We assume that if Reuven used the property for such a long time in such a substantial manner, than it is does not bother Shimon and he cannot later change his mind." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to discuss what types of activities can create chazakah.", + "Our mishnah continues to discuss the same issue as we discussed in the previous mishnah: which acts entail possession in order to establish the right to continue to do the acts after a period of three years. If the act is considered a sign of possession than the owner of the item can tell others that they may not use the object. Since if another person uses the object he will establish the right to continue to do so in the future, it makes sense that the owner can prevent them from usage in the present. If, however, the act is relatively insignificant, and will not lead to the right to continue to do the act in the future, than the owner cannot prevent others from doing so in the present. We will now explain each section separately.", + "A gutter spout cannot cause title through possession [so that the spout may still be moved] but title through possession may be claimed to its place [so that the place must be left for its present purpose]. A gutter spout is a tiny pipe on the edge of a larger gutter pipe which would be on the roof to allow drainage of water. If the spout, which belongs to one person, is draining into another’s courtyard the owner of the courtyard can direct the spout out of his courtyard and this will not establish possession over the spout. He cannot, however, totally remove the spout for the mere existence or non-existence of the spout is a sign of possession. If he were to remove the spout and the owner were not to protest, the owner would not be able to protest after three years.", + "A gutter can give title through possession. A gutter (larger than the spout) is a sign of possession. Therefore the owner of a courtyard cannot even direct another person’s gutter, for if the owner were not to protest after three years he would lose his right to do so.", + "An Egyptian ladder cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian ladder can. An Egyptian ladder is a small ladder used on a temporary basis. Placing one in another person’s courtyard is not a significant act. If Reuven were to place his Egyptian ladder on Shimon’s property for three years, Shimon could still protest after three years. However, the use of a Tyrian ladder, which is large, is a significant act. If a person were to use it in another’s courtyard for three years then the owner of the courtyard could not subsequently protest.", + "An Egyptian window cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian window can. What is an Egyptian window? Any through which a man’s head may not enter. Rabbi Judah says: “If it has a frame, even though a man’s head cannot enter through it, it can give title through possession.” An Egyptian window is a small window. If Reuven were to open an Egyptian window in the wall of his courtyard and it were to exist for three years, Shimon could still subsequently block the window. Even though Shimon did not protest for three years, there are no subsequent rights caused by a small window. However, a Tyrian window which is large, does cause subsequent rights. If Reuven were to open a Tyrian window in the wall of his courtyard and it were to exist for three years, Shimon could not subsequently block the window. If he wished to protest he should have done so during the three years.", + "A projection, if it extends a handbreadth or more can give title through possession, and the other [into whose premises it projects] can protest against it. But if it is less than a handbreadth it cannot give title through possession and the other cannot protest against it. If Reuven were to build a wall that had a projection on it, such as a stray piece of wood or stone, longer than a handbreadth and that projection were to extend onto Shimon’s property, and Shimon did not protest for three years, he could no longer protest. Since this is an intrusive projection, we also allow Shimon to force Reuven to take it down, provided he protest within three years. A smaller projection is different. If it were to extend less than one handbreadth into Shimon’s property, Shimon may not protest. However, even after three years Shimon could take down the projection, or otherwise block it, since there is no assumption of possession." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth seven discusses things a person builds on his property that might damage other people’s property in an indirect manner. Specifically it deals with a person building a window or door which would allow him to see into another’s property. This and the following mishnah are not related to the subject of the chapter. Rather they relate to the subject of the second chapter.", + "In order to understand our mishnah we must remember that in the times of the Mishnah houses were built around a common courtyard. A person would have joint ownership of that courtyard with the other house owners whose homes also opened into the courtyard (see the diagram below).", + "One may not make a window to open into a jointly held courtyard. A person should not open a window in his home which would look into the jointly held courtyard. The mishnah wishes to prevent the situation where other people could see into a person’s home.", + "If he bought a house in another [and adjoining] courtyard he may not open it into a jointly held courtyard. If Reuven owned a house and held joint ownership over courtyard a and then bought a house that opened to courtyard b but was also adjacent to courtyard a, Reuven may not open the new house to courtyard a. The problem is that by opening a new house to the courtyard he will increase the number of people participating in that courtyard. In such a case the neighbors who share courtyard a may protest. Neighbors Courtyard a Reuven’s current house Reuven’s new house Neighbors Courtyard b Neighbors Courtyard a courtyard a potential opening Neighbors Courtyard b courtyard b Neighbors Courtyard a Neighbors Courtyard a Neighbors Courtyard b Neighbors Courtyard b", + "If he built an upper room over his house he may not make it open into the jointly held courtyard; But, if he wishes, he may build another room within his house or build an upper room over his house and make it open into his own house. For similar reasons to those mentioned in section two, a person may not make a second floor in his home and make it open into the courtyard. If he were to rent this second floor to another family he would increase the number of people participating in the courtyard. He may, however, divide his house and add a room or build a second floor and have it open into his own house. Although this too will increase the number of residents, since a person could in theory rent out his house to as many residents as he wishes he can also add more rooms to his house, so long as he doesn’t make a new opening to the courtyard.", + "In a jointly held courtyard a man may not build a door directly opposite another’s door, or a window directly opposite another’s window. If the window was small he may not make it larger; if it was a single window he may not make it into two. Here we learn that a person may not build a door or window opening into a jointly held courtyard, if that window or door will allow people to look from one house into the other through the courtyard. He also may not expand the window by making it larger or by turning one window into two.", + "But in the public domain he may open a door opposite another’s door, or a window opposite another’s window. If the window was small he may make it larger; if it was a single window he may make it into two. A person may however make a window in his home that is opposite a window in a house on the other side of the public domain. Since the other person in any case had to be careful from people in the public domain peeping in, a window from a private home does not create further damage." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight deals with permitted and not permitted damages that an individual might create to the public domain.", + "One may not hollow out a space underneath the public domain [such as] cisterns, trenches or caves. Rabbi Eliezer permits it if it is such that a wagon loaded with stones can [safely] go over it. One may not dig out a space underneath the public domain lest the ground crash in. According to Rabbi Eliezer if the ground is strong enough one may do so.", + "Projections and balconies may not be built into the public domain; but if a man wishes to build a [projection or balcony] he may withdraw [his wall] within his own domain and build out from it. If he bought a courtyard in which were already projections and balconies, his right to maintain them may not be disputed. One may not build projections of any nature into the public domain, but one may pull back his property and build a projection out from there. If he bought property that had such projections we assume that they were not built on public property and we do not make him remove the projections.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why might one have thought that it is forbidden to build a projection or a balcony even within one’s own property?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter four of Bava Batra deals with the laws of sale, and specifically with the question which things are included in the sale of a particular item. Mishnah one begins to discuss the laws of selling a house: when a house is sold what things are sold with and as part of the house?", + "If a man sold a house, he has not sold its side chambers, even though they open into the house, nor the room that is behind [the house], nor the roof, if it has a railing more than ten hand-breadths high. Rabbi Judah says: “If the roof as entrance shaped like a door, even if the railing is not ten hand-breadths high, it is sold.” If someone sells a house without specifying what parts of the house he is selling, there are certain things that are not included in the sale. According to section one, basically the main room is included in the house, but the side room and the room behind the house are not included. The roof is also not included, on the condition that it has a railing more than ten hand-breadths high. According to Rabbi Judah, even if the railing is not ten hand-breadths high, if it has an entrance the shape of a door, it is not sold with the house. In order for the purchaser to acquire these things, he would have to specify so at the time of the sale.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is important for the roof to have a railing more than ten-handbreadths high, in order for it not to be included in the sale?" + ], + [ + "Nor [has he sold] the cistern or the cellar, even though he had written in the deed of sale, “the depth and height”.
And he [the seller] must buy himself a path [from the new owner to reach the cellar or cistern], according to Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: “He need not buy himself a path.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said to him, “Excepting these [the cistern or cellar]” that he need not buy himself a path.
If he sold them [the cellar or cistern] to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He need not buy himself a path.” But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a path.”
Mishnah two continues to deal with the question which the mishnah began to deal with in mishnah one, when a house is sold what things are sold with and as part of the house?
All of the sages of our mishnah agree that when a person sells another person a house, he has not sold the underground chambers, namely a cistern for storing water, or a cellar used to store food and wine. Even if he wrote that he was selling to the depth of the house, his intent may have been the floor of the house, and not the cellar or cistern. The argument between Rabbi Akiva is over whether or not the seller must buy a path in the house that he sold which will allow him to get to his cellar or cistern. According to Rabbi Akiva, since he sold the whole house, the new owner will have the right to refuse entrance. If the old owner wants to get to his cellar he will need to purchase a path. The Sages disagree. When the person sold the house and did not sell the cellar, we can assume that he intended not to sell a path in the house by which he could reach the cellar. Hence, he does not need to buy a path. Rabbi Akiva agrees with the Sages that if the seller specified to the buyer that he was not selling the cellar or cistern, than he intended on retaining the path and he need not, therefore, purchase the path from the buyer of the house.
Section three discusses the opposite situation, where a person sells a cistern or cellar but not the house. According to Rabbi Akiva, the assumption is that when the seller sold the cistern he intended to sell a path as well, and the buyer need not, therefore, purchase a separate path. According to the Sages, the seller may have sold the cistern or cellar without intending to sell a path by which the buyer could reach them. Consequently, if the buyer wishes to get to his new cellar or cistern he must buy a path as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to discuss what parts of the house are sold with a house when the house is sold without specification as to what is being sold. Mishnah four discusses what parts of a courtyard are sold, also when specification is lacking.", + "If a man sold a house he has sold also the door, but not the key. He has sold a permanent mortar but not a movable one. He has sold the convex millstone (the lower, usually fixed but not the concave one. Nor [has he sold] the oven or the stove. But if he had said: “[I am selling to you] the house and all that is in it, these are also sold.” The mishnah lists the things that are permanent parts of the house and therefore are sold as part of the house even though not specified in the sale. The door is a permanent part of the house and therefore it is sold with the house. The key is not a part of the house and hence, is not part of the house. A permanent mortar, used for crushing, is part of the house but a movable one is not. The millstone fixed to the ground is part of the house but the movable, top millstone is not. Nor are ovens and stoves part of the house. Finally the mishnah clarifies that if the seller had specified that he is selling all that is in the house, all of these things are also including." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses what parts of a courtyard are sold when specification is lacking.", + "If a man sold a courtyard, he has also sold its houses, cisterns, trenches and caves, but not the movable property. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it” all of these are also sold. But in neither case has he sold the bath-house, or the olive press that are in it. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If a man sold a courtyard, he has sold only the air (the open of the courtyard. This mishnah explains what parts of a courtyard complex are sold with it even though not specified as part of the sale. The sale of the courtyard includes all of the houses, and underground structures that are attached or part of the courtyard. As in the previous mishnah, only the fixed, permanent pieces of the property are included in the sale. If, on the other hand, the seller specified that he was selling everything in the courtyard, he has sold the movable property as well. However, as we learn in section 1c, the bath-house and olive press are in any case not considered part of the courtyard, and are consequently not sold with it, even if he stipulated that he was selling everything in the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. According to him, when a man sells a courtyard he is only selling the empty yard part, but not the structures that are attached to it.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why are a bath-house and olive press not considered part of the courtyard to be sold with it?
• With which parts of the mishnah does Rabbi Eliezer disagree?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah which we will learn today continues to discuss which things are included in certain sales.", + "If a man sold an olive press he has sold also the vat, the grindstone, and the posts, but he has not sold the pressing-boards, the wheel or the beam. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. Rabbi Eliezer said: “If a man sold an olive press he has sold the beam also.” We learn in this mishnah that when a man sells an olive press without specifying which parts of the olive press he is selling, he has sold only the parts that are fixed in their place. These include the vat used to collect the oil, the grindstone used to crush the olives and the posts used to prop up the beam that would press the olives. The parts of the press that are not fixed in place, namely the pressing-boards, placed on top of the sacks of crushed olives, the wheel, used to lift the beam, and the beam, used to exert pressure on the olives, are all not sold with the olive press. If, however, he had stated that he was selling the press and all that was in it, than he has sold the pressing-boards, the wheel and the beam as well. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the first clause. According to him when one sells an olive press one sells the beam, even though it is not fixed. Since the beam is the most important part of the press, it is assumed that it is sold along with it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses what is sold with an olive press and mishnah six discusses what is sold with a bath house.", + "If a man sold a bath house, he has not sold the planks or the benches or the curtains. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. In neither case has he sold the water containers or the stores of wood. In the first section we learn that when someone sells a bath house, the planks which serve as the floor of the bath house, the benches and the curtains are not included in the sale. Only if he stated that he was selling all that is in the bath house are these items considered part of the sale. In any case the water containers and stores of wood are not considered to be part of the bath house and are therefore not sold with it, even if he stated that he was selling all that is in the bath house." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven discusses what is sold as part of a town, if one should sell the town without specifying what is included in the sale.", + "If a man sold a town, he has also sold the houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, bath houses, dovecotes, olive presses, and irrigated fields, but not the movable property. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, even if cattle and slaves were in it, all of these are sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If a man sold a town he has also sold the town watchman.” As we have learned on several occasions in our chapter, we learn in mishnah seven that when a person sells a piece of property, he sells only the parts of that property that are fixed in their place. In this case, when a person sells a town, included in the sale are all of the fixed institutions of that town, such as the houses and the commercial institutions. If he wishes to sell the movable property as well, such as the animals and the slaves, he must specify that he is selling “it and all that is in it”. In that case, he has sold even the cattle and the slaves. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees slightly with the previous opinion. According to him when a person sells a town he sells the town watchman, presumably a slave, as well.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why might Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel hold that when a person sells a town he sells the town watchman but not other slaves?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight discusses what is sold as part of a field.", + "If a man sold a field he has also sold the stones that are necessary to it, and the canes in a vineyard that are necessary to it, and its unreaped crop, and a partition of reed which covers less than a quarter-kav’s space of ground, and the watchman’s hut if it was fastened down with mortar, and ungrafted carob trees and young sycamores. This mishnah lists the things that are sold with a field. Tomorrow, in mishnah nine we will learn a long list of things that are not sold with a field. The list of things that are sold with a field includes things that are a necessary part of the maintenance of the field such as the stones used for fences and the canes used in a vineyard to grow the vines. It also includes the produce still attached to the ground and similarly the watchman’s hut if it was attached to the ground. [Note: there are other versions of this line concerning the watchman’s hut]. It also includes some small, as of yet insignificant trees as well as an insignificant portion of a reed partition. Since these things are not significant in and of themselves they become included as part of the field." + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah nine continues the discussion began in mishnah eight, what is sold as part of the sale of a field.", + "Since this is an extremely long mishnah we will explain it section by section.", + "But [one who sold a field] has not sold the stones that are not necessary to it or the canes in a vineyard that are not necessary to it or the produce that is already picked from the ground. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it” all of these are sold also. But in neither case has he sold any partition of reeds that covers a quarter-kav’s space of ground, or the watchman’s hut if it was not fastened down with mortar, or grafted carob trees or cropped sycamores, or any cistern or winepress or dovecote, whether they are lying waste or in use. In the previous mishnah we learned what things are sold as part of a field and now in our mishnah we learn the opposite categories, things that are not sold as part of a field. Anything that is not necessary for the maintenance of the field is not sold with it, such as stones not used as part of a fence or canes in a vineyard not used for the vines. Picked produce is not considered part of the field. If the seller had specified that he was selling all that was in the field than he has sold the preceding items but he has still not sold the partition of reeds that is of significant size, nor the watchman’s house which is not attached to the ground. Since these items are separate from the field they are not sold with the field and are not considered to be “in the field”. He also has not sold the grafted carob or the cropped sycamore. These are more important than the ungrafted carob and the young sycamore that are sold with the field, as we learned in mishnah eight. Since they are important, they must be sold on their own. Finally he has not sold any of the major structures which may be in the field, such as a cistern for storing water, a wine press and a dovecote. These are not sold even if they are not in use.", + "And [the seller] must purchase [from the buyer] a way thereto, according to Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: “He need not.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said, “Excepting these”, he need not buy himself a way thereto. If he had sold them (the cistern, winepress or dovecote) to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He [that bought them] need not buy himself a way thereto. But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a way thereto.” In this section we learn of a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the other sages regarding the necessity for a seller to buy a path to reach his cistern, wine press or dovecote which are on the field he just sold. According to Rabbi Akiva the seller must buy a path from the buyer; according to the sages he need not. We also learn of the opposite case, where the seller sold a cistern, wine press or dovecote but did not sell the field. According to Rabbi Akiva in such a case the buyer need not buy a path from the seller; according to the sages he must. This entire section was taught in mishnah two of our chapter and there we explained it in greater depth.", + "When is this so? With regards to he that sells his field. But if he gives it as a gift, he gives everything that is in it. If brothers who divided [an inheritance] came into possession of a field, they come into possession of everything that is in it. If a man secured title by possession of the property of a convert, and secured title by possession of the [convert’s] field, he secures title to everything that is in it. If a man dedicated a field [to the Temple] he has dedicated everything in it. Rabbi Shimon says: “If a man dedicated a field, he has dedicated only the grafted carob trees and cropped sycamores.” This section states that all that we have learned in the previous parts of the mishnah is true only when a person sells a piece of land to another. However, if he were to give the land to another person as a gift, we assume that he is giving not only the land but all of the things in it as well. This is true even though he does not specify that he is giving all that is in it. Furthermore, when brothers inherit land, they also inherit all that is on the land. When a person secures property that belonged to a convert who died without inheritors, he too secures not only the land but all that is in it. [A convert’s non-Jewish family do not inherit him. Therefore if he dies without children his property will not go to any inheritors.] Finally, when one dedicates a piece of land to the Temple, we assume that he is dedicating not just the land, but all that is in it. Over this last detail Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. According to him when a person dedicates a piece of land he is only dedicating the trees which receive their water and nutrients directly from the land. All of the other things are not part of his dedication to the Temple.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section 1b: Why does the mishnah need to emphasize that cisterns, wine presses and dovecotes are not sold with a field no matter if they lie in waste or are in use? What might you have thought had the mishnah not included this line?
• Section 3: Why is there a difference between one who sells a piece of land to another and one who gives it away?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah one deals with what is included in the sale of a boat, a wagon pulled by mules or oxen.", + "If a man sold a ship, he has also sold the mast, the sail, the anchor, and all the means of steering it. But he has not sold the slaves, the packing-bags, or the lading. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. If a man sells a ship without specifying what is included in the sale, all of the fixed parts of the ship are included in the sale. However, the slaves and the bags used for packaging the merchandise on the ship are not included in the sale, unless he were to specify that they were. This law is similar to many of the laws we learned in the previous chapter.", + "If a man sold a wagon, he has not sold the mules, and if he sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. If he sold the yoke, he has not sold the oxen, and if he sold the oxen, he has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Judah says: “The price tells all. How is this so? If one said to him, “Sell me your yoke for 200 zuz, it is known that no yoke costs 200 zuz.” But the sages say: “The price is not proof.” Even though a wagon is pulled by mules, if a man sold a wagon the mules are not automatically included in the sale. Likewise, if he sold the mules, he has not automatically sold the wagon. The same is true with regards to oxen and the yoke used to steer them. If a person sold one, he has not necessarily sold the other. Rabbi Judah disagrees and he thinks that the price should be able to determine what was included in the sale. If a person sold a yoke for an exorbitantly high price, it is patently obvious that the oxen were part of the sale. However, the sages do not believe that the price is proof. If a buyer pays a high amount for a yoke and then wishes to claim that he bought the oxen as well as the yoke he must bring proof." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two deals with what is included in the sale of a donkey.", + "If a man sold a donkey he has not sold its trappings. Nahuma of Madi says: “He has sold its trappings.” Rabbi Judah says: “Sometimes they are sold and sometimes they are not sold. How is this so? If the donkey was before him with its trappings on it and he said, ‘Sell me this donkey of yours’, the trappings are sold (with the. If he said, ‘Sell me that donkey of yours’, the trappings are not sold.” A donkey is usually packed with several bags used to carry the donkeys load. These are the “trappings” referred to in the mishnah. According to the first opinion, if a man sold a donkey, the trappings are not sold. Nahum of Madi dissents and declares that they are sold. Rabbi Judah states that one can determine if the trappings were sold by the circumstances and by the language used in the sale. If the donkey was standing in front of the seller with its trappings on it and the seller specified that he wants to buy this donkey, then he has bought the trappings as well. Since he saw the trappings we can assume that his intention was to buy them with the donkey. However, if he just tells him to sell “that donkey of yours” we cannot be sure that his intention was to buy the donkey standing in front of him. Since we cannot determine what he intended to buy or what the seller intended to sell, the trappings are not included in the sale.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How is Rabbi Judah’s opinion in this mishnah similar to his opinion in mishnah one?" + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah three deals with what is included in the sale of various items such as donkeys, cows, and beehives. Mishnah four deals with the a person who buys trees in another person's field and whether or not the buyer has acquired the land on which the trees grow.", + "If a man sold a donkey he has sold its foal. If a man sold a cow he has not sold its calf. The question in this section is whether or not a person has sold the young child of a mother animal, when he has sold the mother. According to the mishnah when he sells a donkey he has sold the foal but when he sells a cow he has not sold the calf. The Talmud explains that the mishnah is dealing with a case where the seller says that he is selling a nursing donkey or cow. Since people do not use donkeys for milk, it can be assumed that when he said nursing donkey he intended to sell the donkey and its young, who may be nursing from its mother. However, since people do use cows for milk, it may be that he was selling the cow on its own, without the young, and the reason why he called it a nursing cow was to let the buyer know that this cow produces milk.", + "If he sold a dungheap, he has sold the dung on it. If he sold a cistern, he has sold the water in it. If he sold a bee-hive he has sold the bees. If he sold a dovecote he has sold the pigeons. In this section four things are listed, which if the outer container is sold, the contents are sold with it. Since the sole purpose of the container is to hold the contents, we can assume that when the sale was made, the intent of both the buyer and the seller was to include the contents.", + "If a man bought the fruit of a dovecote from his fellow he must let go the first pair that are hatched. [If he bought], the fruit of a beehive he may take three swarms and then [the seller] may make the rest sterile. If a person buys the young pigeons that will be born in a dovecote (where pigeons are raised), then he return to the seller the first pair that are born. This is in order for the parents, who are still owned by the seller, to have a pair of young to take care of, so that the parents won't fly away. If one buys the bees that will be born in a beehive, he may take three swarms. After taking the three swarms, the seller may cause the bees to be sterile so that their energy will be devoted to making honey and not to making young. Alternatively, the last phrase of this section of the mishnah may state that after taking the first three swarms, the buyer takes alternative swarms. The lack of clarity in the mishnah is due to the dual meaning of the Hebrew word.", + "[If he bought] honeycombs he must leave two honeycombs. [If he bought] olive trees to cut down the branches, he must leave two shoots. When a person buys honeycombs from another person’s beehive, he must leave at least two honeycombs behind, in order to feed the bees that are left. Similarly, when a person buys an olive tree with the intent to cut down the branches he must leave two branches so the tree can regenerate." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four deals with the a person who buys trees in another person’s field and whether or not the buyer has acquired the land on which the trees grow.", + "Our mishnah begins with a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages. According to the Sages when a person buys two trees he has not bought the ground they are on, and according to Rabbi Meir he has bought the ground. The remainder of section one goes according to the Sages. Section 1b states that if the trees grow branches the seller, who still owns the land, may not trim them. Although these branches now cover land that he did not sell, and when he sold the tree these branches were not there, by selling the tree he tacitly gives permission to the buyer to let the branches grow. Section 1c states that anything that grows from the tree above ground belongs to the buyer and anything below ground still belongs to the seller/landowner. Finally, if the trees die, the buyer may not plant there new trees. Since he didn’t buy the land, when the trees die he has totally lost his acquisition.", + "If he bought three trees, he has bought the ground [between them]. When they grow he may trim them, And what comes up whether from the stem or from the roots belongs to him (the. And if they die the ground is his. In section two we learn that the laws are different when one acquires three trees. In that case the person has acquired the land. If the trees should grown branches that overhang into the seller’s property he may trim them. Anything that grows from the tree, even below the ground, belongs to the buyer. Furthermore, if the trees die he may plant there new trees.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why may the seller trim the trees if he sold three to the buyer but not if he sold two?" + ], + [ + "He who has sold the head of a large animal, has not sold the feet. If he sold the feet, he has not sold the head. If he sold the lungs he has not sold the liver. If he sold the liver he has not sold the lungs.
But in the case of a small animal: If he sold the head he has sold the feet. If he sold the feet he has not sold the head. If he sold the lungs he has sold the liver. If he sold the liver he has not sold the lungs.
Mishnah five deals with what is included in the sale of large and small animals.
This mishnah draws a distinction between large animals, such as cows, and small animals such as sheep or goats. In section one we learn that each part of a large animal is significant enough to be sold separately. In other words, if one sells one part of a large animal, he has not necessarily sold another part of the animal with it. However, with small animals some parts are sold with others and some parts are sold alone. For instance, if one bought the head, the feet are automatically included. Likewise if one bought the lungs, the liver is automatically included. However, the opposites are not true. If one bought the feet he has not automatically bought the head. If one bought the liver he has not automatically bought the lungs." + ], + [ + "There are four rules with regards to those who sell:
If one has sold good wheat and it turns out to be bad, the buyer can retract.
If he sold bad wheat and it is found to be good, the seller can retract.
[But if one sold] bad wheat and it is found to be bad, or good wheat and it is found to be good, neither may retract.
[If one has sold] dark wheat and it turned out to be white; Or white and it turned out to be dark; Or [if he sold] olive wood and it turned out to be sycamore wood; Or sycamore wood and it turned out to be olive wood; Or [if he sold] wine and it turned out to be vinegar; Or vinegar and it turned out to be wine; Either of them may retract.
Mishnah six begins to discuss certain ethical principles in the laws of selling and buying and their consequences on the validity of the sale. This is a topic which will be discussed through the middle of chapter six.
As stated at the beginning of the mishnah, there are four rules with regards to retracting a sale. These rules are contained in sections 1-4. (1) If a person sold something that was supposed to be good and it turned out to be bad, the buyer can retract. (2) If a person sold something that was supposed to be bad and it turned out to be good, the seller can retract. (3) If a person sold something and it turned out to be what he sold, the sale is final and no one may retract. (4) Finally, if a person sold something and it turned out to be different from what he sold, not necessarily better or necessarily worse, either of them may retract." + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah seven defines the precise moment when a sale occurs and is therefore not retractable.", + "If a man sold produce to his fellow and the buyer drew it towards him but did not measure it, [the buyer] has acquired [the produce]. If [the seller] had measured it but [the buyer] did not draw it towards him, he has not acquired [the produce]. If [the buyer] is clever he will rent the place [in which the produce is located]. According to Jewish law, movable items (as opposed to real estate) are acquired by taking hold of them (either by lifting them or by drawing them near) and not through the transfer of money. In other words, if Reuven gives Shimon money for his television set, the deal is not final until Reuven takes possession of the television set. If the set should break after Reuven has given the money, but still in Shimon’s possession, Shimon will have to return the money. If, on the other hand, Reuven took the television and did not pay the money, and then the set broke, Reuven will still owe Shimon the money. Our mishnah teaches that when a person buys produce, the moment he takes the produce is when the sale is final and not retractable. If the buyer wishes to ensure that the seller does not change his mind, he can rent the place where the produce is located. Thus when the buyer gives the money it is as if the produce is already in his possession and the seller may not retract the sale.", + "If a man bought flax from his fellow he has not acquired it until he has moved it from one place to another. If it was still attached to the ground, and he plucked any small quantity of it, he has acquired possession. With regards to flax, according to the mishnah it is not enough that he draw the flax towards him, he must carry it from place to place. Alternatively, if he purchased flax still attached to the ground, he can acquire the flax by plucking it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight continues to define the precise moment when a sale occurs. The last section of the mishnah teaches the procedure for measuring out sold liquids.", + "If a man sold wine or oil to his fellow, and its value rose or fell, if [the price rose or fell] before the measure was filled up, it belongs to the seller, [and he may refuse to sell except at the higher price]. But if [the price rose or fell] after the measure was filled up, it belongs to the buyer [and he may refuse to buy except at the lower price]. With regards to the selling of wine and oil, the point in which the sale is final is the point at which the measuring container fills up. If the price of the wine or oil should rise before it fills up, the seller can demand the higher rate. If the price fluctuated after it was full, the buyer need only pay the lower rate.", + "If there was a middleman between them, and the jar broke, it is broken to [the loss of] the middleman. If a middleman acted as an agent for the buyer and seller and the measuring cup should break thereby causing the loss of the wine or oil, the middleman is responsible to recompense for the loss.", + "[After emptying the measure] the seller must let three more drops drip [for the buyer]. If he then turned the measure over and drained it off, what flows out belongs to the seller. The shopkeeper is not obligated to let three more drops drip. Rabbi Judah says: “[Only] on the eve of Shabbath as it becomes dark is he exempt.” When the seller pours the oil from the measuring cup into the vessel of the buyer, he must wait until three drops have spilled out. After this point, any oil that is stuck to the sides of the vessel belong to the seller. Since a shopkeeper is busy with many customers, he need not wait after pouring to ensure that three drops come out of the container. According to Rabbi Judah, this law is true only before the Shabbath, which is a time when the shopkeeper would be especially busy. At other times during the week, he too must wait for three drops to drip out of the measuring container.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Must the seller sell at the lower rate if the price went down before the measuring cup was full??
• Section three: Why might one have thought that the middleman would not be responsible if the measuring cup broke? If he was not responsible who would be?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine deals with a father who sends his small child to buy oil from a shopkeeper and on the way home the son drops the flask of oil.", + "If a man sent his child to a shopkeeper with a pondion (a in his hand and he measured him out an issar’s (a coin worth half a worth of oil and gave him an issar in change and the child broke the flask and lost the issar, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah declares him exempt, since the father sent the child for this purpose. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if the flask was in the child’s hand, and the shopkeeper measured the oil into it, the shopkeeper is exempt. In the scenario in our mishnah a father sends his child to a store to buy him some oil. The shopkeeper hands him a flask containing the requested oil and the change from the sale. According to the Sages, if the child should lose the oil or the coin on his return home, the shopkeeper is liable to pay back the father. Since a child is not responsible for his actions, the shopkeeper should have found a safer way of returning the oil and coin to the father. Rabbi Judah disagrees. According to him, since the father sent the child on such a mission, the father agreed to allow his child to deliver the oil and the change. The Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that the shopkeeper is not liable only in the case where the child came to the store with a flask in his hand. In such a case it is clear that the father intended that the child should deliver the oil, and therefore the shopkeeper will be exempt." + ], + [ + "The wholesaler must clean out his measures once every thirty days and the householder once every twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The rule is just the opposite.”
The shopkeeper must clean out his measures twice in the week and polish his weights once a week and clean out his scales after every weighing.
Mishnah ten deals with the proper maintenance of weights and measures to ensure that the purchaser does not receive less than he bought.
The Torah (Leviticus 19:35-36) forbids falsifying weights and commands a person to keep properly weighed and maintained weights and measures. Our mishnah is concerned with the proper maintenance of weights and measures. According to the anonymous opinion in section one, a wholesaler who uses his measures frequently must clean them out once every thirty days. This is to prevent the buildup on the sides of the containers which will reduce the amount purchased. A householder, who uses his measure less frequently, need clean them out only once a year. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that the opposite is true. According to him the more frequently one uses the measures, the less buildup will accumulate. Therefore, a householder must clean them out once every thirty days and a wholesaler only once a year. A shopkeeper, who uses his weights frequently, must clean them out twice a week. In addition he must once a week polish his weights so that they don’t grow heavier and clean out his scales after every use so that they don’t accumulate buildup." + ], + [ + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “When is this so (that one needs to clean out? With regards to liquid measures, but with regards to dry measures it is not necessary.
[And a shopkeeper] must let the scales sink down a handbreadth [to the buyer’s advantage]. If he gave him an exact measure, he must give him his overweight, a tenth for liquid measures and a twentieth for dry measures.
Where the custom is to measure with small measures they should not measure with large measures and where the custom is to measure with large measures they should not measure with small measures.
Where the custom is to smooth down [what is in the measure] they should not heap it up, and [where the custom is] to heap it up, they should not smooth it down.
Mishnah eleven continues to deal with the weighing of produce.
Section one: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel qualifies the statements in the previous mishnah regarding cleaning out measures. These statements applied to measuring liquids, but measures used for dry goods need not be cleaned out with regular frequency, since the dry goods do not stick to the sides.
Section two: The custom was to let the buyer’s side of the scale, which contained the goods, sink one handbreadth lower than the seller’s side. If, however, one did not follow this custom, then the shopkeeper would be obligated to give the buyer either a tenth or a twentieth more than he purchased, depending on the nature of the produce.
Sections three and four: The last two sections teach that one must follow the customs that are typical in one’s place. This is true with regards to the size of the weights as well as the smoothing out or heaping up of the dry goods in the measuring cup. As long as people are consistent in their customs, buyers and sellers will know what they are doing and one will not cheat each other." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah one deals with a person who sells grain to another person and the seeds from that grain do not sprout when planted.", + "If a man sold grain to his fellow [and after it was sown] it did not sprout, even if it was flax-seed he is not liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If it was garden-seeds, which are not used for food, he is liable.” According to the anonymous opinion in section one, when a person sells grain to another person, if he does not specify that the grain is for planting, he is not liable if the grain doesn’t spout after planted. Even if he sold flax seed, which is usually sold for sprouting new flax plants, he is still not liable. Since he didn’t specify that he was selling grain to be planted, he can claim that he intended it to be used as food. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel if he sold him seeds that are always used for planting then he is liable if they do not sprout. Otherwise, he is not liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• If a person sold seeds and they did not sprout is he liable to give the buyer back his money? How can one know the answer to this question from the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two deals with a person who sells something to another person and some of the sold item is found not to be good. In both of these mishnayoth the question asked is can the buyer demand his money back.", + "If a man sold grain to his fellow, the buyer must agree to accept a quarter-kab of refuse with every seah. [If he bought] figs he must agree to accept ten that are eaten by worms for every one hundred. [If he bought] a cellar of wine, he must agree to accept ten jars gone sour in every one hundred. [If he bought] jars in Sharon, he must agree to accept ten which are not fully dry (and therefore are more easily in one hundred. When a person buys a large amount of a certain item he can expect that most of the items will be pure and in good working order, but he cannot expect that they will all be pure or in working order. If he buys grain and he finds that there is a certain amount of refuse in the grain, as long as the refuse is not more than a quarter-kab (about 350 grams) per seah (8.3 liters), he can’t demand his money back. This is about five per cent refuse. Similarly if he buys figs he can expect that some will be rotten; if he buys barrels of wine some will be sour and if he buys jars some will not be made properly. As long as the unacceptable part of the purchase is less than ten per cent, he cannot demand his money back. [Note: Sharon is on the coast of Israel, between Jaffa and Haifa.]" + ], + [ + "If a man sold wine to his fellow and it turned sour he is not responsible. But if it was known [to the seller] that his wine would [soon] turn sour, this is a mistaken purchase.
If he had said to him, “I am selling you spiced wine”, he is responsible for its remaining [good] until Shavuoth.
[If he said] it is old wine, it must be from last year’s. [If he said] it is vintage old wine, it must be from the year before last.
Mishnah three discusses rules concerning the sale of wine.
This mishnah is concerned with the responsibility of a wine seller to ensure the quality and preservation of the wine which he sells. If he sold him wine and it turned sour, the seller is not in general responsible, since wine is known to turn sour. If, however, the seller knew that the wine would soon turn sour and he did not warn the buyer, the seller is responsible to return the buyer’s money.
If he sold him spiced wine, he is responsible that it not turn sour until Shavuoth. Spiced wine was known to last during the winter but turn to vinegar due to the heat of the summer. Therefore the wine need only last until Shavuoth, the holiday celebrated at the beginning of the summer.
Finally the mishnah clarifies two terms used in the selling of wine. “Old wine” must be from last year’s batch and “vintage old wine” must be from the year before last. If the seller promised one of these types of wine and he gave the buyer wine that was not as old, the buyer can demand his money back." + ], + [ + "If a man sold his fellow a place to build him a house, so, too, if a man contracted with his fellow to build him a bridal-house for his son, or a widow’s house for his daughter, he must build it four cubits by six cubits (80 inches x 120, according to Rabbi Akiva.
Rabbi Yishmael says: “This is a cattle-shed”. He who wants to build a cattle-shed, should build it four cubits by six. A small house six by eight (120 x 160). A large house eight by ten (160 x 200). An eating hall ten by ten (200 x 200).
The height should be [the sum] of half its length and half its breadth. Proof of the matter is the sanctuary. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Should all [houses] be according to the building of the Sanctuary?”
Mishnah four discusses rules concerning the building of houses.
According to Rabbi Akiva (section one) a normal sized house is four cubits by six cubits. Hence, if one bought a plot for a house the seller must provide the buyer with a plot large enough to build on it such a sized house. Furthermore, if one contracted another person to build a house for his newly wedded son or widowed daughter who is returning to live with her father after the death of her husband, the builder must build a house four by six cubits.
Rabbi Yishmael says that a house this size is the size of a cattle-herd. Rabbi Yishmael then lists the sizes of houses. If a person, for instance, contracted another to build him a large house, then he must build one eight by ten cubits.
With regards to the height, the mishnah says that it must be the sum of half the width and half the length. A large house would be nine cubits high. The proof is the sanctuary that stood in the Temple in Jerusalem. According to I Kings 6:2, 17, the Sanctuary was 40 cubits long, 20 wide and 30 high. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with using the Sanctuary as a precedent for normal houses. Assumedly Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel would hold that a house should be as high as normal houses are in the area in which the house is built.
Note how small the houses are that are described in the mishnah. In ancient Israel the house was probably only used for sleeping and maybe eating when the weather did not permit eating outside. People owned very few possessions and therefore didn’t have need for much storage. Furthermore, there courtyards served as workplaces to do things such as cook and clean. Therefore there “houses” were the size of small rooms in modern American homes. On your next visit to Israel, if you visit an archaeological site notice the size of the homes and tell your tour guide about this mishnah!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah which we will learn today deals with a person who owns a cistern behind another person’s property and hence requires a passage through the other’s property to get to his cistern or garden. The mishnah provides rules to both the property owner and the cistern owner to ensure that the latter receives access without trespassing on the former.", + "If he had a cistern behind his fellow’s house, he may go in and out only at the time when others are accustomed to go in and out. And he may not bring in his cattle and let them drink from his cistern, rather he must draw water and let them drink outside. He and the owner of the house should each make themselves a lock. This mishnah discusses the case where a person owns a cistern that exists behind another person’s property. In such a case the person is allowed to enter the other’s property in order to reach his cistern, but he must do so at the time when people customarily draw water from their cisterns. He is further restricted from bringing his cattle or other animals onto the other’s property. Rather he must draw the water and carry it outside. Finally, the mishnah demands that each of them make a lock. The cistern owner should make a lock for the cover of the cistern so that the house owner doesn’t steal any water. The house owner should make a lock on his door so that the cistern owner doesn’t enter when he is not allowed to." + ], + [ + "If he had a garden behind his fellow’s garden, he may go in and out only at the time when others are accustomed to go in and out. And he may not bring in merchants, or enter through it into another field. [The owner of] the outer garden may plant seeds on the path.
But, if with the other’s consent, he has been given a path at the side [of the other’s garden] he may go in and out when he wishes. And he may bring in merchants, but he may not enter through it into another field. And neither of them has the right to plant seeds on the path.
The mishnah which we will learn today is similar to yesterday’s mishnah, except it discusses access to a garden instead of a cistern.
This mishnah deals with a person who owns a garden behind another person’s garden. In other words in order to get to his garden he must go through the other person’s garden. The mishnah says that he is allowed to do so, but with certain limitations, similar to those we saw in the previous mishnah. First of all, he must go in and out at the time when people are accustomed to going to their gardens. Second, he may not bring merchants through his fellow’s property in order to buy his produce. Rather he must carry the produce out and the merchants can buy outside. Third, he may not use the path as a shortcut to other fields. Since the path was designated only to reach a certain field he is not allowed to use it to reach others. Finally, the owner of the outer garden is allowed to plant seeds on the path, even though this will make it more difficult for the owner of the inner garden to use the path. Since the path belongs to owner of the outer garden, he can do with it as he pleases.
If, however, the owner of the inner garden was given (possibly by the court) a path on the side of the outer garden, and the owner of the outer garden consented, then he may go there whenever he please. He may also bring in merchants to buy the produce, but he still may not use the path as a shortcut to other fields. Again, since the path was designated for reaching a certain field, he may not use it to reach others. Finally, since the path is intended only for walking, neither of them may plant on the it." + ], + [ + "If a public path passed through a man’s field and he took it and gave them [another path] by the side of the field, what he has given he has given and what he has taken for himself does not become his.
A private path is four cubits. A public path is sixteen cubits. The king’s path has no prescribed measure. The path to a grave has no prescribed measure. The halting places, according to the judges of Tzippori, should be four kab’s space of ground.
Mishnah seven deals with laws concerning the building and the selling of private and public paths.
In the scenario presented in section one a person had a path that passed through the middle of his field and decided that he would take that path and use it as part of his field and he would create a different public path on the side of his field. According to the mishnah the seizure of the public path is invalid and the public may continue to use the path in the middle of the field. In addition, the path given on the side of the field becomes public property, such that the public may also use that path.
The remainder of the mishnah standardizes the sizes of paths for the purposes of selling and buying. A private path is four cubits (about 2 meters) wide and a public path is 16 cubits (8 meters) wide. Therefore if a person were to sell a private path he would be selling a four cubit path, and if he sold a public path he would have sold a 16 cubit path. The mishnah additionally informs us that a king’s procession passing through another person’s field is permitted to take as wide of a path as needed. So too, if a funeral procession passes, the procession may cut as wide of a path as needed. Finally, we learn that halting places, which were places on the path of the funeral procession, where the mourners would stop in the course of a funeral procession in order to eulogize the dead, were generally four kab big (25 meters by 17 meters). If a person sold a “halting place” to another person this is the size of the land sold." + ], + [ + "If a man sold to his fellow a place in which to make a tomb, so, too, if a man was commissioned by his fellow to make a tomb, he must make the inside of the vault four cubits by six, and open within it eight niches, three on this side, three on that side, and two opposite [the doorway]. The niches must be four cubits long, seven handbreadths high, and six handbreadths wide.
Rabbi Shimon says: “He must make the inside of the vault four cubits by eight, and open within it thirteen niches, four on this side, four on that side, three opposite [the doorway] and one to the right of the doorway and one to the left.
He must make a courtyard at the opening of the vault, six cubits by six, space enough for the bier and its bearers. And he may open within it two vaults, one on either side. Rabbi Shimon says: “Four, one on each of its sides.”
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “All depends on the nature of the rock.”
Mishnah eight deals with the building of tombs.
In the times of the mishnah people were buried in tombs, which consisted of caves with niches carved out of the wall. Each tomb could hold a number of bodies, with one body put into each niche. If someone contracted to build a tomb he must build one 4 by 6 cubits (2 by 4 meters) and make eight niches, each of a specified length, width and height. According to Rabbi Shimon, the tomb must be 4 by 8 cubits and contain 13 niches. In addition, he must build a courtyard over the tomb, big enough for the bier, a stretcher which carried the body and the people holding the bier. According to the anonymous opinion in 3a, the courtyard can serve two tombs and according to Rabbi Shimon it can serve four.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, section 4, disagrees with Rabbi Shimon and the anonymous opinion in section 1. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel the size of the tomb is not set in absolute terms, but depends on the nature of the rock. If it is hard rock he is only obligated to make eight niches in a 4 by 6 tomb, but if it is soft rock, he is obligated to make thirteen niches in a 4 by 8 tomb." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a man said to his fellow, “I will sell you a kor’s space of soil”, and it contained crevices ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high, these are not included in the measurement.
But if they were less than this they are included.
If he said to him, “About a kor’s space of soil”, even if it contained crevices deeper than ten handbreadths or rocks higher than ten handbreadths, they are included in the measurement.
The seventh chapter of Bava Batra deals with errors in the measurement of fields discovered after they were sold. The question asked is must the buyer return the error to the seller if the seller gave more than the stated amount and vice versa, may the buyer demand that the seller give more land if the land was less than the stated amount.
According to our mishnah if a person promises to sell exactly a kor’s space of soil (about 20,000 square meters) then any crevices which are lower than ten handbreadths or rocks higher than ten handbreadth’s are not counted as part of the field. Since they cannot be used for planting, they do not contribute to the measure of a kor’s space of soil. However, if he sold him “about a kor’s space of soil” these rocks and crevices are included. Since he didn’t say that he was selling precisely a kor’s space of soil the measurements do not have to be precise." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two continues to deal with error’s made in the measurements of a field and the rules regarding returning the difference in such cases.", + "[If he said, “I will sell you] a kor’s space of soil as measured by a rope”, and he gave him less, the buyer may reduce the price; and if he gave him more, the buyer must give it back. But if he said, “Whether less or more”, even if he gave the buyer a quarter-kab’s space less in every seah’s space, or a quarter kab’s space more in every seah’s space, it becomes his; if [the error] was more than this, a reckoning must be made. If a person sold a piece of land by the measure of a rope, the expectation is that the land must be sold precisely. Hence, if the land was smaller the buyer may reduce the price and if the land was larger the buyer must give it back. As we shall see later in the mishnah, the buyer may under such circumstances, be required to pay more money for the extra land. If, however, the seller said that he was selling more or less a piece of land the size of a kor, than the margin of error is a quarter-kab. This works out to 1/24 of the land sold. If the error was under that margin, then the sale stands as is. If the error was greater then the buyer must return the surplus if the plot was larger or the seller must lower the price if the plot was smaller.", + "What does he (the give him back? Its value in money; but if the seller wants, he gives him back the land. And why did they say that he could give back its value in money? To strengthen the power of the seller, for if, in a field [containing a kor’s space] there would still have remained to him nine kab’s space, or, in a garden, a half-kab’s space, or according to Rabbi Akiva a quarter-kab’s space, the buyer must give back to him land. When the buyer returns the surplus sold to him, under certain circumstances he gives the seller extra money and does not return the land itself. This is considered to be a benefit to the seller. According to the strict letter of the law, if a kor’s space was sold, the buyer should not be forced to buy more land and he should therefore return the extra land itself. However, if the buyer were to return to him a very small piece of land, it would be unusable. Therefore, if the seller should so desire he can ask for money in return for the extra land. If, on the other hand, the land was large enough, as listed in the end of section 2c, then the seller can take back the land.", + "And not only must he give back the quarter-kab’s space, but all of the surplus. If the margin was slightly over the accepted margin of error, the buyer does not only return a small portion to place the error under the margin of error. Rather he returns the entire surplus. In other words if the margin of error is a quarter-kab per seah, and the surplus was a half-kab, the buyer returns the entire half-kab and not just a quarter.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the subject of mishnah one and the subject of mishnah two?
• The mishnah presents a leniency on the seller, namely that he has a choice to receive the surplus in money or in land. Why is the mishnah lenient on the seller, even though it might force the buyer to pay for more land than he intended?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to deal with the measurement of fields for purposes of selling.", + "[If he said], “I will sell you [a piece of land] as measured by the rope, whether it is less or more” the condition “whether it is less or more” makes void the condition “as measured by the rope”. [And if he said], “Be it less or more, as measured by the rope”, the condition “as measured by the rope” makes void the condition “be it less or more”, according to Ben Nanas. In the scenario mentioned in both clauses of section one, the seller uses contradictory language when selling the field. As we learned in mishnah two, when the seller says that he is selling “as measured by the rope”, the intention is that the measurement be precise. On the other hand, if he says, “whether it is less or more” the intention is that the measurement will not necessarily be precise. According to our mishnah if he said both languages within one sentence the last language voids the first language. In other words, we assume that when he said the last language he intended to change his mind from the first language. Therefore the case will be adjudicated only based on the last language.", + "[If he said, I will sell you a piece of land] by its marks and its boundaries”, and the difference was less than a sixth, the sale stands. If it was as much a sixth the buyer may reduce the price. If a person sold a piece of land using its marks and boundaries as indicators to the place of the land, there is an allowance of up to one-sixth error. Beyond that, meaning more than one sixth error, the buyer may reduce the price if the error was to the seller’s favor (i.e. the land was smaller than stated). Alternatively, the buyer will return money or the property to the seller, if the error was to the buyer’s favor (i.e. the land was larger than stated)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four continue to deal with the measurement of fields for purposes of selling.", + "If a man said to his fellow, “I will sell you half of the field”, it must be divided between them into portions of equal value, and the buyer takes half of the field [which the other allots to him]. When a man sells half a field to another, they must divide the field into equal portions of monetary value. In a one hundred square meters field worth one hundred dollar, there may be a thirty square meter portion which is worth 50 dollars and a seventy square meter portion that is worth 50 dollars. In such a case the seller has a choice which piece of the field to keep. If he wishes he may keep the smaller, better field, or he may keep the larger, but of lesser quality field.", + "[If he said, “I will sell you] the southern half”, the field must be divided between them into portions of equal value, and the buyer takes the southern half. If, however, the seller stated which portion of the field he was selling, then they again divide the field into two, but this time the seller must give the specified portion. Since he specified which portion he was selling, he loses the right to decide which portion to give to the buyer.", + "He accepts responsibility for [providing the ground] for the dividing wall and the large and small ditches. How large is the large ditch? Six handbreadths. And the small ditch? Three handbreadths. The buyer is responsible for providing part of his land to make a dividing fence (as we learned in the first mishnah in Bava Batra) as well as part of his land to build ditches. These ditches would have surrounded the fence and would have prevented animals from jumping over the fence. The buyer’s part of land given for fences and ditches should be equal to the part given by the seller.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three: If the mishnah had not stated that the buyer must provide a share of his land on which to build the fence and dishes what might you have thought? In other words, is there grounds to think that the seller must solely provide the ground?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "There are those who inherit and bequeath, there are those who inherit but do not bequeath, there are those who bequeath but do not inherit and there are those who neither bequeath nor inherit.
These inherit and bequeath: a father as to his sons and sons as to their father and brothers from the same father, these inherit and bequeath.
A man as to mother, and a man as to his wife, and the sons of sisters, inherit but do not bequeath.
A woman as to her sons, and a wife as to her husband, and brothers of the mother, bequeath but do not inherit.
And brothers from the same mother [but not father] neither inherit nor bequeath.
The eighth and ninth chapters of Bava Batra deal with the laws of inheritance. It states in Numbers 8-11 (JPS translation): “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter. If he has no daughter, you shall assign his property to his brothers. If he has no brothers, you shall assign his property to his father’s brothers. If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan, and he shall inherit it.”
The first two mishnayoth of our chapter deal with the order of inheritance, who inherits from whom and who bequeaths property to whom.
This mishnah lists in four categories all those who inherit from others and all those who, when they die, bequeath property to others.
Category one: The relationships listed in this category both inherit and bequeath. When a father dies, his sons inherit and if they should die without offspring, the father inherits from them. If a man dies and he has no children and his father is already dead his brother will inherit. So too if his brother dies in a similar situation , he bequeaths his property to his brother.
Category two: The relationships listed in this category are ones in which the person inherits but does not bequeath. A man inherits his mother but if he should die first, the mother does not inherit from him. So too, a man inherits his wife but if he should die his property is not bequeathed to her. If a man dies and his sister had children, they may inherit him if he has no closer relative. However, if they die, he does not inherit their property since it will pass to their father’s side and not their mother’s.
Category three: The relationships listed in this category are ones in which the person bequeaths but does not inherit. A woman bequeaths her property to her sons but she does not inherit from them if they should die first. Likewise, a husband inherits his wife’s property, but he does not bequeath his property to her. Finally, if a man dies and his closest relative is his sister’s children his property is bequeathed to them, but if they should die he cannot inherit from them.
Category four: The relationships listed in this category are ones in which the person neither bequeaths nor inherits. If a man dies and he leaves a brother who shares a mother but not a father he does not bequeath his property to him, nor does he inherit his property should the brother die. The inheritance lines go to each man’s father’s family and not to his relatives on his mother’s side." + ], + [ + "This is the order of inheritance: “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8) the son precedes the daughter, and all the son’s offspring precede the daughter.
The daughter precedes the brothers and the daughters’ offspring precede the brothers.’
Brothers precede the father’s brothers and the brothers’ offspring precede the father’s brothers.
This is the general rule: whosoever has precedence in inheritance, his offspring also has precedence.
The father has precedence over all his offspring.
Mishnah two lists the order of the inheritance, whose inheritance takes precedence over others.
This mishnah deals with the order of inheritance as mentioned in the verse, quoted in section one. A son precedes a daughter in inheritance. In addition, if the son had children they inherit even if the son is no longer alive. In other words grandchildren inherit directly from their grandfather if the father is no longer alive. As stated in the general rule in section five, offspring in essence take the place of the supposed inheritor. So too if the daughter has offspring and she is no longer alive, they will inherit in place of the brothers of the deceased. If the brothers of the deceased have offspring and the brothers are no longer alive, they will inherit in place of the deceased man’s father’s brothers.
Finally, the mishnah teaches us one other piece of information that we might have assumed from the Torah but is not explicit. The Torah lists the father’s brothers as being on the line of inheritance but it does not list the father himself. Our mishnah states that if a person dies without children, his or her father becomes the primary inheritor. Likewise, if a grandchild would die with no offspring and the grandchild’s father is also not alive the grandfather would inherit from his granchild." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn Numbers 27 the story is told of Zelophehad’s daughters. Zelophehad died with no sons and his daughters came to Moses to request that they inherit Zelophehad’s property. Moses brings the request to God who affirms that if there are no sons then the daughters are the next in the line of inheritance. Mishnah three deals with the case of Zelophehad’s daughters.", + "The daughters of Zelophehad took three portions of the inheritance (of the Land of: The portion of their father who was of them that came out of Egypt; And his portion among his brothers from the property of Hepher (Zelophehad’s; And, in that he ( was the first-born, he took a double portion. This mishnah lists how many portions of land the daughters of Zelophehad received. According to the mishnah the Land of Israel was divided according to the adult males who left Egypt (and not according to those who actually arrived to the Land of Israel). Since Zelophehad and his father, Hepher, both left Egypt, they both would have received a piece of land in Israel. In addition, Zelophehad, being the first born, would have taken a double portion in the inheritance he received from Hepher. These three portions, Zelophehad’s own portion and the two portions he inherited from Hepher, all would have passed down to the daughters of Zelophehad when he died.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How does this mishnah connect with the subject of the previous mishnah? In other words why is this mishnah here and not somewhere else in the chapter?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four deals with the difference between the inheritance of the son and the daughter.", + "The son and the daughter are alike concerning inheritance, save that the [firstborn] son takes a double portion of the father’s property but he does not take a double portion of the mother’s property. And the daughters receive maintenance from the father’s property but not from the mother’s property. This mishnah lists the differences between sons and daughters with regards to inheritance. (Note: daughters only inherit when there are no sons). The first difference is that the eldest son inherits the double portion, whereas the eldest daughter would inherit equally with younger sisters. Furthermore, the son inherits a double portion of his father’s inheritance but not of his mother’s inheritance. The law of the double portion are found in Deuteronomy 21:15. If a man should die and leave sons and daughters, the sons inherit the estate but the minor daughters are maintained, i.e. fed, clothed, housed and in general provided for, by the estate of the deceased father. We will learn this principle in chapter nine. Here the mishnah states that the daughters, when receiving maintenance payments, receive them only from the estate of the father and not from the estate of the mother.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one is actually worded in a somewhat difficult manner. What makes it difficult?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with a father’s ability to decide which of his inheritors will inherit.", + "Our mishnah deals with a father who does not want to simply let the inheritance fall in its proper order (as learned in the first two mishnayoth of the chapter) but rather wants to divide his property in another fashion.", + "If a man says, “So and so, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double portion”, or “So and so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers”, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. The Torah demands that the eldest son receive a double portion and each of the other sons divide the money equally. A father’s attempt to lessen the portion of the eldest son or increase the portion of the other sons would be, therefore, a condition that goes against Torah law, and such a condition is invalid.", + "If a man apportioned his property to his sons by word of mouth, and gave much to one and little to another, or made them equal to the firstborn, his words are valid. But if he had said [that it should be so] “by inheritance”, he has said nothing. If he had written down, whether at the beginning or in the middle or at the end [of his will] that it should be as a gift, his words are valid. However, the fact that a man cannot make a change in the inheritance law does not mean that he cannot apportion his money as a present to his children while he is still alive. As long as the document or his verbal contract states that the money is being passed to his children as a present while he is still alive and not as an inheritance after his death, the transaction is valid. The Torah’s laws govern inheritance, the transfer of money after death and not presents given during life.", + "If a man said, “So and so a man shall inherit from me” and he has a daughter; or “My daughter shall inherit from me”, and he has a son, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka says: “If he said [that so and so shall inherit from me] of one that was qualified to inherit from him, his words are valid, but if of one that was not qualified to inherit from him his words do not remain valid.” Similar to the law in section one, here too a person attempts to change the laws of inheritance from the Torah, by saying that a stranger will inherit when he has a daughter or that his daughter will inherit when he has a son. Again, we learn that such a stipulation, contrary to the laws of the Torah, is invalid. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka disagrees. He says that as long as the intended inheritor is a legal inheritor, meaning one of those on the list in mishnah one and two, then a person can bypass the primary inheritor and give to the secondary one. In other words Jacob could state that instead of his sons inheriting his property his daughter Dina could inherit, since she is on the lines of inheritance. He could not however, state that a stranger to the family would inherit in place of his sons.", + "If a man wrote away his property to others and passed over his sons, what he has done is done, but the Sages are not comfortable with it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If has sons did not behave properly, it should be counted to his credit.” Finally, the mishnah states that although a person can give away his property to strangers before he dies, thereby leaving no inheritance for his sons, the Rabbis were not happy with such an action. The laws of inheritance in the Torah are not just guidelines for inheriting should the situation arise, they are the proper way in which property would be transferred from generation to generation. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel lastly notes, that if the sons were engaged in improper behavior, it is meritorious for the father to ensure that they receive no inheritance." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six deals with a father’s ability to declare that a certain person is either his son or his brother in order that he should be his legal inheritor.", + "If a man said, “This is my son”, he is believed. If [he said], “This is my brother”, he is not believed, yet the other may join him in his portion. If he died the property returns to its place. If he inherited property from elsewhere the other’s brothers inherit it together with him. If a man states that a certain person is his son, and therefore should inherit his property along with his other sons, he is believed. Since he could give his property to this person in any case, we allow him to claim that the person is his son so that he may receive a portion of the inheritance. However, he is not to believed to say that a person is his brother and therefore should share in the inheritance from his father. Since, by saying that a person is his brother and deserves part of the inheritance he would be taking away from the shares of the other brothers, he is not believed. Suppose a case in which Reuven and Shimon come to split an inheritance and Shimon claims that Levi is his brother. If they were to split equally, Reuven would receive a third of the inheritance and not the half, which would be his had Shimon been his only brother. Therefore Reuven takes half and Shimon and Levi split the other half. If Levi were to die, the money would revert to Shimon. Since the money was taken out of Shimon’s share in the first place, the money would eventually revert to him and not to Reuven. If Levi were to receive money from somewhere else (i.e. not from his father’s inheritance) and then die, Reuven and Shimon would both inherit. Since Shimon claimed that Levi was his and Reuven’s brother he must share the inheritance from Levi with Reuven.", + "If a man died and a testament was found bound to his thigh, this counts as nothing. But if [he had delivered it and] through it granted title to another, whether of his heirs or of those who are not his heirs, his words are valid. If a man died and a testament (will) was found on him, the will is invalid. Although we may assume that the man wrote the document we do not know if he intended to give it to the intended person. Since he may have written it and changed his mind, the document is not valid. If, however, he gave the document to someone else before he died the document is valid. Since it was given while the person was alive, it is a proper will and it will be carried out." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah seven deals with laws concerning a father who gives money to his son before his death, thereby circumventing the lines of inheritance as prescribed in the Torah. The second half of the mishnah deals with the division of the inheritance amongst the sons.", + "The first two sections of the mishnah deal with a father who wrote over his property to one of his sons before his death in order to avoid the property falling equally to all of his sons at the time of his death. The intent of the father’s action is for the money ti stay in the possession of the father until he dies but to already partly belong to the son to whom the property was written over. In this way the son does not have to split the property with the other sons.", + "If a man writes over his property to his son, he must write, “From today and after my death”, according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, “He need not do so.” In order to accomplish such an action the father must write in the document that it is valid “from today and after my death”. He writes “from today” so that the property will already be transferred before his death, and thereby not subject to the laws of inheritance which take effect only after death. He writes, “after my death” so that he can continue to use the property until he dies. This is Rabbi Judah’s opinion. According to Rabbi Yose he need not write “from today” in the document. Since the document contains the date on which it was written, it is clear that the transfer occurs before his death, and is not subject to the laws of inheritance.", + "If a man writes over his property to his son to be his after his death, the father cannot sell it since it is written over to the son, and the son cannot sell it since it is in the possession of the father. If his father sold the property, it is sold [only] until he dies; if the son sold the property, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests the crops and gives them to whomever he wishes, and what he has left harvested belongs to [all] his heirs. After the document is written the property is neither fully the son’s nor fully the father’s. Neither can sell the property; if the father were to do the sale is only valid until he dies at which point the property will belong to the son. If the son were to sell the sale is valid only after the father dies. Until then the property is in the father’s possession. The father may continue to harvest the produce from his fields and he may even give it to others as he so desires. If he dies and leaves harvested produce, it is subject to the laws of inheritance and not solely to the son to whom the father wrote his property.", + "If he left elder sons and younger sons, the elder sons may not take care of themselves [from the estate] at the expense of the younger sons, nor may the younger sons claim maintenance at the cost of the elder sons, rather they all share alike. If the elder sons married [at the expense of the estate] so too the younger sons may marry [at the expense of the estate]. If the younger sons said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given. In this section the father died without writing his property over to one son. In such a case the inheritance is divided equally. The elder sons cannot take care of themselves at the expense of the younger sons. Even though the elder sons need more clothing than the younger sons they may not use more than their share. So too, the younger sons may not claim more food than their share, even though younger children eat and waste more food. With regards to providing a marriage feast for the son and his bride and providing the young couple with a place to live, the younger sons can claim to receive the same amount from the inheritance that the elder sons receive. If, however, the elder sons married while the father was still alive, the younger sons cannot claim that they should receive as much as the elder sons received. Since the elder sons married while the father was alive the money their father gave them for the wedding was a gift and does not impact on the equal division of the inheritance.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section 2a: Why is produce which is harvested before the father dies subject to the laws of inheritance whereas the rest of the father’s property is transferred to the son to whom the property was written over?" + ], + [ + "If he left elder daughters and younger daughters, the elder daughters may not care for themselves at the cost of the younger daughters, nor may the younger daughters claim maintenance at the cost of the elder daughters, rather they all share alike.
If the elder daughters married [and took each her dowry from the common inheritance] so too the younger daughters may marry [and take each a dowry from the common inheritance].
If the younger daughters said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given.
A greater stringency applies to daughters than to sons, since daughters can claim maintenance at the cost of the sons, but they cannot claim maintenance at the cost of the [other daughters].
Mishnah eight deals with the division of the inheritance when daughters inherit.
The first three sections of this mishnah are identical to the last section of yesterday’s mishnah. The only difference is that while the father customarily pays for the wedding of his son, to his daughter he gives a dowry. Therefore in section two and three the daughters are arguing over dowries and not over the costs of the wedding.
Section four: We will learn in the first mishnah of the next chapter that if a father left sons and daughters and he did not have a large enough inheritance for the daughters to be maintained and the sons to inherit, the daughters’ maintenance (food, clothing and shelter) takes precedence over the sons’ inheritance. However, if he left only daughters, the younger daughters cannot claim maintenance at the expense of the elder daughters. In other words, the law with regards to daughters is more strict [vis a vis the other daughters] than the law with regards to sons." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe ninth chapter of Bava Batra continues to deal with the laws of inheritance, the subject discussed in chapter eight. The first mishnah of the chapter deals with the division of the inheritance between sons and daughters.", + "If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the property was great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance. But if the property was small the daughters receive maintenance and the sons go begging at people’s doors. Admon says: “The son may say, ‘Must I suffer a loss because I am a male’”. Rabban Gamaliel says: “I approve of Admon’s opinion.” As we have learned in several mishnayoth in the previous chapter, when a man dies and he has sons who survive him, the sons are the sole inheritors of his property. However, the surviving daughters have a right to continue to receive maintenance (food, clothing, shelter and a dowry) from his estate until they reach majority age and are married. Our mishnah teaches that if the property was sufficient for both an inheritance and for the maintenance of the daughters, then the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance. If, however, there was not enough property, the daughters maintenance takes precedence over the sons inheritance. In such a case the sons will have to beg at people’s doors. Admon disagrees and says that the son may claim that he should not lose out just because he is male. Rabban Gamaliel agrees with Admon.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the anonymous opinion hold that the daughters receive support from their dead father’s estate while the sons must beg, at least in a case where there is insufficient funds for all? Why not vice versa?" + ], + [ + "If a man left sons and daughters and one that was of doubtful gender, if the property was great the males may push him (the one of doubtful onto the females; if the property was small the females may thrust him onto the males.
If a man said, “If my wife shall bear a male he shall be given 100 zuz”, and she had a male, he receives 100 zuz. [If he said, “If my wife shall bear a] female she shall be given 200 zuz”, and she had a female, she receives 200 zuz. [If he said, “If may wife shall bear a] male he shall be given 100 zuz and if a female 200 zuz” and she had a male and a female, the male receives 100 zuz and the female 200 zuz. If she had one of doubtful gender, he does not take. But if he said, “Whatsoever my wife shall bear shall be given [such an amount], he receives.
If he [the one of doubtful gender] was the only heir, he inherits everything.
Mishnah two deals with the division of the inheritance when one of the children is not discernibly male or female and other laws concerning such a child.
This mishnah discusses the rights of a “tumtum” which is the Hebrew term for a child who does not have sexual signs of being a male or female. If there is a large inheritance, and therefore the sons will take their part, the sons can tell the “tumtum” that he is not a son and therefore he can only receive maintenance with the other daughters. If, however, there is small estate, and it is not sufficient to support all of the children, the daughters can tell him that he must go begging with the other sons. These two laws are based on the principle, common to many Rabbinic laws, that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In order for the “tumtum” to take part of the inheritance he must prove that he is male, which he cannot. In order for him to receive maintenance when the estate is small, he must prove that he is female, which he cannot.
Section two deals with a father who makes a promise to give his child a present when the child is born and bases the size of the present on the gender of the child. Sections 2, 2a and 2b are straightforward and need no explanation. According to section 2c if, in any of the aforementioned cases, the woman were to bear a “tumtum” the child would not be able to claim the present. Since the present was based on the child’s gender and the child cannot prove a gender, the child cannot make a claim on the gift.
If, however, the father had said that he wished to give a gift to anything that the wife had, then he has not based the gift on the child’s gender. In such a case even a tumtum would receive the gift. Finally the mishnah states that if the “tumtum” were the only inheritor, s/he would inherit." + ], + [ + "If a man left elder sons and younger sons, and the elder sons improved the property, they improve it to the common benefit. If they said, “See, what our father has left us, lo, we will work and from that we will eat”, they improve it to their own benefit.
So, too, if a woman (a improved the property, she improves it to the common benefit. If she had said, “See, what my husband left to me, lo, I will work and from that I will eat”, she improves it to her own benefit.
Mishnah three discusses sons who share an inheritance and some of the sons improve the value of the property. The issue discussed is are the sons who improved the value the only ones to profit or is the profit divided equally between all of the inheriting sons. A similar situation is discussed in which a widow improves the value of her dead husband’s property.
In the scenario mentioned in our mishnah Jacob died and left four sons, two who were older, Reuven and Shimon, and two who were younger, Levi and Judah, and Jacob owned a piece of real estate worth 1000 dollars. If Reuven and Shimon were to take this land and improve it, thereby doubling its value, each son’s portion would double. Even though Levi and Judah did not work to improve the value, since it was their inheritance as well, they receive some of the benefit. If, however, Reuven and Shimon said that they were increasing the value of their portions only, than they alone receive the increase in value.
Similarly if a widow were to increase the value of her dead husband’s estate, she would share in the increase with the sons of her husband, or the other heirs. However, if she were to state that she is improving her own lot, than she herself would receive the benefit of her work.
Note: a widow does not inherit from her husband. She is, however, entitled to receive maintenance from her husband’s estate. Maintenance payments will be based on the value of the estate: if there is a large estate she will receive better quality food, clothing and shelter. Therefore, it is in her interest to increase the value of the estate." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses partnerships between brothers sharing their father’s inheritance and the question of the division of the profits and losses to the partnership.", + "If brothers were partners and one of them fell into a public office, it falls to the common benefit. If brothers form a partnership to live off their father’s inheritance and one of the brothers is appointed to a job with the government, his salary is split amongst the brothers. The mishnah assumes that he received his job on account of his father’s prestige and therefore the job is in essence part of the inheritance.", + "If one [of them] got sick and needed healing, his healing is at his own expense. If one of the brother’s got sick, he must pay out of his own share for his healing. Since the sickness is not connected to the inheritance the cost of the healing is not taken out of the inheritance.", + "If certain of the brothers in their father’s lifetime had made a present as groomsmen [at their father’s expense] and [after his death] the present was restored to them, it is restored to the common benefit, for the groomsmen’s gift [counts as a loan] and can be recovered in a court of law. But if [one of the brothers in his father’s lifetime] sent his fellow jars of wine or jars of oil, they cannot be recovered through a court of law, since they count [not as a loan but] as a charitable deed. In the time of the mishnah it was customary for people to send wedding gifts to the bride and groom in order to help them celebrate the seven days of wedding festivities. These wedding gifts were not exactly gifts but rather more like loans, for it was the law that one who received the gift would have to himself send a gift when the original sender got married. If some of the brothers had used their father’s money to send wedding gifts when the father was still alive, when the presents are received in return at the time of the sons marriage, they are split amongst all of the brothers, even those who did not send the gifts and who are not getting married. Since wedding gifts are like a loan, it is as if they never left the possession of the father, and they are therefore subject to the laws of inheritance. In the last clause the mishnah distinguishes between wedding presents and regular presents. If a person gave another person a jar of wine or oil as a present, these cannot be recovered like a loan, for they a form of charity.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: What would be the law if the brother received a public office not due to his father’s prestige but rather due to his own abilities? Would he still have to share the salary with his brothers?
• Section three: If wedding gifts were more like loans why did people give them?" + ], + [ + "If a man sent betrothal gifts to his father-in-law’s house, and he sent there 100 maneh (10,000 and he ate a betrothal meal of but one dinar, [and he afterward divorced his wife] they (the betrothal are not recoverable. But if he did not eat the betrothal meal, they are recoverable.
If he sent many betrothal gifts in order for them to return with her to her his house [when he marries her], they are recoverable. If he sent few betrothal gifts which were to be used in her father’s house, they are not recoverable.
Mishnah four, which we learned yesterday, discussed some laws concerning gifts given by groomsmen to the bride and groom. Mishnah five discusses a related subject, gifts given by a man to his fiancee, after betrothal but before the marriage.
In Jewish law there are two stages to the marriage process, betrothal and marriage. After betrothal the woman continues to live in her father’s house and only moves to her husband’s house at the time of marriage. In our mishnah the husband sends betrothal gifts to the father’s house, a common custom in the time of the mishnah. The mishnah discusses the husband’s ability to recover these gifts should he divorce his fiancee before marrying her (in Jewish law betrothal is binding and therefore requires divorce to sever the tie). According to our mishnah if he ate a celebratory betrothal meal at his father-in-law’s house, he cannot recover the betrothal gifts. The meal is provided by the father-in-law in return for the gifts. Even if the trade is unequal, the deal is sealed and the gifts are unrecoverable.
If he sent many gifts and it was obvious that the husband expected his fiancee to eventually bring the gifts back with her when she came his house at the time of marriage, then the gifts are recoverable if he should divorce her before marriage. Since the husband did not intend to give these gifts as permanent gifts, but rather for them to be “on loan” until they returned to him with her at the time of marriage, he can recover them. If, however, he gave few gifts, then the gifts were intended to be used up in her father’s house. In such a case since he never had an expectation to receive them in return, he cannot recover them should he divorce her before marriage." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six returns to discuss the major topic of the chapter, inheritance law. The specific subject of this mishnah is laws governing a person who gives away his property while on his death bed and then recovers from his illness. The question is can he recover his property.", + "Generally speaking when a person gives another person a piece of property the giver cannot change his mind once the document is written and signed. However, if the giver was a dying man he may change his mind and recover his property should he recover from his illness. Since we assume that he intended to give the gift only if he were to die, if he were not to die the gift is annulled.", + "If a man who lies dying wrote over his property to others [as a gift] and kept back any land whatsoever, his gift remains valid [even should he not die]. If he did not keep back any land whatsoever, his gift does not remain valid [if he should not die]. If, when he wrote the gift document he retained some land for himself, then we can assume that this is not truly the gift of a dying man. A dying man does not retain any land for himself. Therefore, if he should recover from his illness, the gift is not recoverable. If, however, he did not retain any land for himself, then this is the gift of a man who believed himself about to die. In such a circumstance the gift is recoverable should he recover from his illness.", + "If it was not written in the document, “who lies dying”, but he said that [he had written the document] while he lay dying and they (those who received the said that he was healthy [when he wrote the document], he must bring proof that he had been dying, according to Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: “He who makes a claim against his fellow bears the burden of proof.” In the scenario in this section the document did not state that he was a dying man and the man did recover from his illness. At that point he claimed that he had written the document as a dying man and therefore the gift is retracted. The recipients of the gift claim that he gave it as a healthy man and therefore the gift is not retractable. According to Rabbi Meir the gift goes to the recipients. Since the person’s last confirmed status is as a healthy man (his current status), we can assume that he was healthy when he wrote the document, and therefore the gift is not a gift given by a dying man. According to the sages, the burden of proof lies on the pursuant, in this case the recipients who wish to receive their promised gift from the giver. Since they cannot prove that he was healthy when he wrote the document he is not obligated to give them the gift.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the dying man have to divide up his property before he dies? Why can’t he just say that the gift will not be transferred until after he dies, thereby avoiding the problem of recovering from his illness after having given away his property?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the formal and legal way in which a person may transfer property. In the first chapter of Tractate Kiddushin the Mishnah teaches these laws more extensively. Our mishnah deals specifically with how a dying person transfers his property before s/he dies so that the property will not be subject to the laws of inheritance. In Hebrew the formal transfer of property is called “kinyan”. (See Steinsaltz reference guide, page 254).", + "The first two sections of our mishnah discuss a person who tries to transfer his property to another person orally without using a written document or other formal means of kinyan. According to Rabbi Eliezer, whether the man is healthy or dying, he must perform the transaction in the usual manner that transactions are done, i.e. with kinyan. If he wishes to cause acquisition of land he must either receive money from the acquirer, use a document or the acquirer must demonstrate physical possession of the land (see Bava Batra, chapter 3). If he wishes to cause acquisition of movable property, i.e. things, the acquirer must actually take possession of them by drawing them towards him. In other words, according to Rabbi Eliezer, merely saying that one is giving something to another person does not cause the acquisition to take effect. The Sages respond to Rabbi Eliezer with a story that demonstrates through a precedent that a dying person may indeed transfer their possessions orally. In the story the mother of the sons of Rokhel declared that her expensive veil was to go to her daughter (and not to her sons who would inherit her when she dies). The Sages accepted her words and gave the veil to her daughter, even though no formal acquisition (kinyan) had been made. To this Rabbi Eliezer responds that the sons of Rokhel were wicked and therefore the Sages accepted that the veil should belong to her daughter. In other words the story is exceptional and therefore does not serve as a proper precedent.", + "The Sages say: “On a Sabbath his words remain valid, since he cannot write, but not on a weekday.” The sages say that a dying person can divide his property orally on Shabbat, since it is forbidden to write. If, however, he were to do this during the week, when it is permitted to write, the transfer is invalid. Rabbi Joshua disagrees. He says that if they said that he could do this on Shabbat all the more so he may orally divide his property during the week. Rabbi Joshua’s reasoning is that since he could write and transfer property during the week, he is allowed to do so even without a formal document or kinyan.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: “If they have stated this rule on the Sabbath, how much more so on a weekday.” Similarly, others may acquire possession on behalf of a minor, but not on behalf of an adult. Rabbi Joshua says: “If they have stated this rule with regards to a minor, how much more so does the rule apply to an adult. Rabbi Joshua and the Sages have a similar dispute on another issue of halakhah. According to the Sages, one may acquire possession on behalf of a minor but not on behalf of an adult. In other words Reuven can legally accept a gift on behalf of Joseph who is a minor, but not on behalf of Shimon who is an adult. Since Joseph cannot legally take possession of the gift himself Reuven may do it on his behalf. Shimon who can legally take possession of the gift must do so on his own. Rabbi Joshua says that if Reuven can acquire possession for a minor, all the more so may he do so for an adult.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Explain Rabbi Joshua’s opinion in section three in light of his opinion in section two. Why did the editor of the mishnah see that these two disputes between the Sages and Rabbi Joshua were similar and therefore place them in one mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final three mishnayoth of chapter nine deal with cases of doubtful inheritances where both the inheritor and the one from whom he inherits die in one incident. We will explain this scenario in our explanation to each individual mishnah.", + "If the house fell down on a man and his father, or upon a man and any from whom he inherits, and he was liable for his wife’s ketubah or to a creditor: the father’s heirs say, “The son died first and the father died afterward”, and the creditors say, “The father died first and the son died afterward.” The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status [in the hands of those who inherit the father].” In the scenario in our mishnah a man and his father (or someone else from whom he inherits) die in one accident (a house falls on them). We do not know who died first, Jacob, the father or Reuven, the son. The son had creditors to whom he owed money or a wife with a ketubah, a marriage contract, guaranteeing her money upon death or divorce. If Jacob died first, then Reuven would inherit and the wife or the creditors could collect their debts from Jacob’s estate. Since Reuven owned his father’s estate upon his death it is subject to Reuven’s debts. This will be especially important if Reuven died without any money of his own. Only if Jacob died first will Reuven’s creditors or wife be able to claim any money. Since this scenario is best for the creditors and for the wife, they claim that Jacob died first. If, however, Reuven died first, then he never inherited from Jacob. Jacob’s property will go in such a case to his other inheritors and the creditors or wife will not be able to claim anything from Reuven. Since this scenario is best for Jacob’s inheritors, they claim that Reuven died first. The School of Shammai says that in such a scenario the creditors, wife and inheritors of the father split the disputed inheritance of the father. The School of Hillel holds that the money remains with under the assumption of belonging to its previous verifiable owner until proven otherwise. Since the last verifiable owner of the property is the father, his inheritors receive the property until the creditors or wife can prove that the father died first. Question for Further Thought:  Upon what abstract principle is the School of Shammai’s decision based?  Upon what abstract principle is the School of Hillel’s decision based?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine continues to deal with the topic of doubtful inheritances in which it is unclear who died first, the inheritor or the one from whom he inherits.", + "If the house fell down on a man and his wife, the husband’s heirs say, “The wife died first and the husband died afterward” and the wife’s heirs say, “The husband died first and the wife died afterward”. The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status the Ketubah to the husband’s heirs and the property that comes in and goes out with her to her father’s heirs.” In our mishnah Jacob and Rachel both died in the same accident and it is unclear who died first. If Rachel died first then Jacob would inherit all of her property, since a husband inherits from his wife. If Jacob inherited Rachel’s property then when he died his inheritors would inherit her (as well as his) property. Therefore, Jacob’s inheritors claim that Rachel died first. If, on the other hand, Jacob died first, Rachel’s inheritors would inherit her property. (They would not inherit Jacob’s property since a wife does not inherit from her husband). Therefore, Rachel’s inheritors claim that Jacob died first. As in the previous mishnah the School of Shammai says that in such a case the money is to be split. The School of Hillel again states that the money reverts back to its last verifiable owner. The ketubah (marriage contract) money last belonged to the husband (it is his until he pays it to her) and therefore his inheritors receive that money. The woman’s dowry which she brought into the marriage and over which the husband did not take title, belonged to the wife. Therefore her inheritors receive this money.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How is the School of Hillel’s opinion in mishnah nine consistent with their opinion in mishnah eight?" + ], + [ + "If the house fell down on a man and his mother, they (the Schools of Shammai and agree that the they split the property.
Rabbi Akiva said: “I agree here, that the property remains in its former status.” Ben Azzai said to him: “We already are distressed over those things upon which there is disagreement, and you are coming to bring disagreement on the points in which they agree.”
The final mishnah of chapter nine continuse to deal with the topic of doubtful inheritances in which it is unclear who died first, the inheritor or the one from whom he inherits.
In our mishnah a man and his mother (who was a widow) died in the same accident and it is unknown who died first. Furthermore, the man had no sons who would inherit him and the woman had no other sons to inherit from her. If the son died first then the mother’s other inheritors would receive her inheritance. If the mother died first then the son would inherit her and his inheritors would receive her (as well as his) inheritance. In such a case the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel agree that all of the inheritors split the property. Since they are all making claims based on inheritance and none of them had prior possession of the property such that we could say that the property reverts to its previous status (as was the School of Hillel’s opinion in previous mishnayoth), there is nothing left to do but split the property.
Rabbi Akiva believes that even in this case the property reverts to its previous status. According to Rabbi Akiva when this woman was originally widowed she reverted to being part of her father’s family (as opposed to her husband’s family). Therefore, when she died, the property is assumed to belong to the inheritors from her father’s side, regardless of whether they can prove that the son died first.
Ben Azzai responds to Rabbi Akiva that it is distressing enough that the Schools of Shammai and Hillel disagreed on so many issues. In Ben Azzai’s opinion Rabbi Akiva should not create a new dispute where previous scholars were in agreement." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A simple document has the signatures within (at the bottom of the; a sewn document has signatures behind [each fold].
If in a simple document its witnesses signed behind, or if in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, they are invalid. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: “If in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, it is valid, since it can be made into a simple document.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Everything should follow local custom.”
The tenth chapter of Bava Batra deals with laws concerning the proper writing and execution of documents.
An “simple” document is one in which the text is written at the top of the page and the witnesses sign on the bottom, similar to forms used today. A “sewn” document is one in which a few lines of text are written, and then the text is folded over and sewn at the fold and then signed on the back of the document. This process is repeated several times, with each fold being witnessed and sign on the back side of the document. Evidently this was a more difficult type of document to forge. The first opinion in the mishnah states that each type of document must be signed in its customary manner: a simple document on the front and a sewn document on the back.
Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel states that a sewn document with signatures on the front is nevertheless valid, and is in essence treated as if it was a simple document.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that this law is dependent on the customs of the place. If the custom is to allow sewn documents to be signed on the inside as well as the outside then they are valid; if not they are invalid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two mostly discusses discrepancies within a debt document.", + "This mishnah deals with documents which were not done properly or had the amount of the debt partially erased.", + "A simple document requires two witnesses; a sewn document requires three. If a simple document has only one witness, or a sewn document has only two, they are both invalid. A simple document must have two witnesses and a “sewn document” must have three. If they have fewer than the required amount the document is invalid.", + "If it was written in a debt document: “100 zuz which are 20 sela (=80”, he (the can claim only 20 sela; if [it was written] “100 zuz which are 30 sela (=120” he (the can claim only 100 zuz. If in a debt document (an IOU) a number was incorrectly converted into another coin (i.e. dollars into cents), the debtor owes the creditor only the lower amount.", + "[If there was written in a debt document] “Silver zuzim which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two zuzim. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver selas which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two selas. [If there was written in a debt document] “Darics which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two darics. If a document said that the debtor owed a plural of a certain coin, but the number of the coins owed was erased the creditor can collect only two of the coin. Since the coin was written in plural (i.e. dollars), we know that the number was more than one. The minimum that it could have been is two, and this is what the creditor will be able to collect from the debtor.", + "If at the top was written a “maneh (100” and at the bottom “200 zuz”, or “200 zuz” at the top and “maneh” at the bottom, everything goes according to the bottom amount. If so, why is the figure written at the top of the document? So that, if a letter of the lower figure was erased, they can learn from the upper figure. If the number at the bottom of a debt document disagrees with the number at the top, the creditor can collect according to the bottom figure, whether it is higher or lower than the bottom figure. The assumption is that the writer of the document, the debtor (or a scribe on his behalf) changed his mind after writing the first amount, and his true intention was the second amount. The mishnah then asks, why do we customarily write the amount on the top and not just on the bottom? The answer is that the top amount will help if the bottom amount is erased. If, however both amounts are still clearly written, we follow the bottom one.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Sections two and three: What is the principle that explains why in this case the debtor owes the lower amount (section two) or only two of the coin (section three)?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three discusses the consent needed from the involved parties in order to write a document.", + "They may write out a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, or a receipt (stating that the husband has paid the ketubah for the wife even if her husband is not with her, provided that he (the knows them. And the husband pays the (scribe’ fee. A scribe may write a get (a divorce document) for a husband or a receipt for the woman saying that she had received her ketubah payment even if the spouse is not there. The reason that he can write the get without the woman’s presence is that according to Jewish law a woman can be divorced against her will. Since she need not agree to the writing of the document, she need not be present when it is written. The reason that the scribe can write the receipt without the husband’s presence is that it is to the husband’s advantage that a receipt be written. Without the receipt the woman might claim that her husband had not paid her the ketubah money. In other words, in both of these cases there is no potential that the husband will fraud the wife by writing a get nor the woman fraud the husband by writing a document. The only requirement is that the scribe know the people for whom he is writing the document. Since the husband is the one divorcing his wife and in the case of the receipt the husband is the one benefiting, he pays the scribe’s fee.", + "They may write out a document for the debtor even though the creditor is not with him, but they may not write out a document for the creditor unless the debtor is with him. And the debtor pays the (scribe’ fee. A scribe may write a loan document while not in the presence of the creditor but it must be done in the presence of the debtor. Since the debtor is the one who through the document becomes liable to pay back the creditor, the scribe must know that the debtor agreed to the writing of the document. The creation of the document is beneficial to the creditor, for through it he will receive the money in return. Therefore it need not be written in his presence. The debtor pays the scribe’s fee.", + "They may write out a deed of sale for the seller although the buyer is not with him, but they may not write it out for the buyer unless the seller is with him. And the buyer pays the (scribe’ fee. A scribe may write a sale document while not in the presence of the buyer but it must be done in the presence of the seller. Since the document will cause the seller to lose his property, the scribe must know that it is being written with his consent. The buyer, who gains from the sale, need not be present. The buyer pays the scribe’s fee.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Sections two and three: Why do you think the debtor and not the creditor pays the scribe’s fee? Remember that according to Jewish law it is forbidden to lend money to other Jews with interest. Why does the buyer pay the fee?Can you extract general principles from these two mishnayoth for when the document must be written in a person’s presence?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four continues to discuss the consent needed from the involved parties in order to write a document.", + "They may not write documents of betrothal or marriage except with the consent of both parties. And the bridegroom pays the (scribe’ fee. Since it is necessary for both the bridegroom and the groom to consent to the marriage of the other, the scribe may not write the document without both of their consent. Since the bridegroom is gaining a wife, he writes the document.", + "They may not write documents of tenancy and sharecropping except with the consent of both parties. And the tenant pays the (scribe’ fee. Tenancy is a lease in which the tenant agrees to give the owner of the land a fixed portion of the crop. Sharecropping is a lease in which the sharecropper agrees to give a fixed amount regardless of what the crop yields. In both of the these types of agreements between landowners and those who wish to work the land the document must be written in front of them both. Since the landowner is giving over a piece of his land and the tenant is promising to give the landowner something in return the scribe must ensure that the deal is agreed to by both parties. The scribe’s fee is split.", + "They may not write documents of arbitration or any document drawn up before a court except with the consent of both parties. And both parties pay the (scribe’ fee. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Two documents are written for the two parties, one copy for each.” Arbitration documents are those that state who are the judges from whom the litigants agreed to accept binding judgement. In the time of the Mishnah litigants jointly chose judges (see Sanhedrin 3:1), who were not necessarily fixed employees of the state. The other types of court documents referred to in this mishnah would include such documents as those which allowed the creditor to collect the collateral from the debtor in case of default on a loan or a document that states that a creditor collected such collateral (possibly from a third party). These documents must be written in the presence of both parties, and both parties share the scribe’s fee.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Can you extract general principles from this mishnah and the previous one for when the document must be written in a person’s presence?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with laws concerning paying back debts.", + "If a man had paid part of his debt and gave the debt document to a third party, and the debtor said to him, “If I have not paid you back by such and such a day, give him (the back the debt document” and the time came and he had not paid, Rabbi Yose says: “He should give it to him.” Rabbi Judah says: “He should not give it to him.” When a person borrows from another person the creditor keeps possession of the debt document, in order to use it later to collect his debt. If the debtor were to pay back half of the loan, the creditor would not be able to give back the debt document, lest he be unable to collect the second half of the loan. On the other hand, the debtor would not want the creditor to keep the document, lest he use it to collect the entire loan, even though half was already paid back. One solution to such a problem was to give the debt document to a third person and for the debtor to promise to pay back the remainder within a certain time or else the third party was to return it to the creditor. According to Rabbi Yose in such a case if the time elapsed the third party should give the debt document to the creditor. According to Rabbi Judah he should not. Since the debtor did not really intend to allow the creditor to collect more than his debt by using the debt document after it had been partially paid, the third party is not allowed to return it to the creditor." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six discusses a loan document that has been erased and one that has been partially repaid.", + "If a man’s debt document was erased, he must have witnesses testify with regards to the loan, and come before the court to make this attestation: “So and so, the son of so and so, his debt document was erased on such and such a day, and so and so and so and so are his witnesses.” If a creditor’s debt document was damaged, for instance through water, he needs to bring to the court witnesses to testify to the original loan. The court will then draw up a new document which he will subsequently be able to use to recover his loan.", + "If a man had paid part of his debt, Rabbi Judah says: “He should exchange the debt document for a new one.” Rabbi Yose says: “He should write a receipt.” Rabbi Judah said: “It turns out that this one (the will have to guard his receipt from mice.” Rabbi Yose said to him: “That’s good for him, as long as the rights of the other (the have not been damaged. We mentioned in the previous mishnah the problem created when a man pays back part of his loan. In this mishnah two other solutions are offered. Rabbi Judah says that a new loan document should be written. Rabbi Yose says that the creditor should write a receipt. Rabbi Judah tells Rabbi Yose that the problem with writing a receipt is that the debtor will have to guard it from being eaten by mice. If the debtor loses the receipt the creditor will be able to fully collect the debt. (Normally when a person pays back a debt the document would be torn up so that it would not be used again.) Rabbi Yose says that his solution (writing a receipt) is better because writing a new document will damage the rights of the creditor. The rights referred to here are the lien that exists on the creditors property. The lien is effective from the day that is written on the document. In other words any property owned by the debtor on the day mentioned in the debt document has on it a lien and therefore the creditor could collect that property should the debtor default. If between the day on which the original document was written and the day of the rewriting, the debtor has lost property, a later date on the document will damage the creditor’s ability to collect on his loan.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Is there any consistency in the opinions of Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Judah as they appear in this mishnah and in the previous one?
• Why is Rabbi Judah concerned that a debtor will lose his receipt but evidently not concerned that a creditor will lose the debt document?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven deals with various subjects such as brothers who share an inheritance and the recognition of documents in a case where two people in a city have the same. The final section of the mishnah deals with loan guarantors.", + "If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bath house or an olive press, if the father had made them for hire, the profit is split equally. But if he made them for his own use alone, the rich brother may say to the poor brother, “Buy for yourself slaves and they can wash in the bath house” or “Buy for yourself olives and prepare them in the olive press.” A bath house and an olive press could either be owned for personal usage or as a rental. If two sons, one rich and one poor, inherited either a bath house or an olive press, the poor son will want to rent them out to others and collect the money and the rich son, who doesn’t need the money and may be able to make personal use of a bath house and an olive press, may want to use them for personal usage. According to the mishnah, the determining factor is what the father had done with them. If he had used them for rent, then the poor son can force the rich son to continue to use them in such a manner. If they had been used for personal needs the rich son can say to the poor son, use them as much as you like, buy slaves to bathe in the bath house or olives to press, but you may not rent them out to others.", + "If there were two in the same town, and one’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon and other’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon, neither can bring forth a debt document on the other, and another person cannot bring forth a debt document against them. And if some person finds amongst his documents a document that states, “The [debt] document of Joseph ben Shimon is paid”, both of their [debt] documents are paid. What should they do? They should write their names to the third generation. And if the names are the same through the third generation, they should give themselves a sign. And if their signs are the same, they should write “Cohen”. If two people in a city have the same name, it will problematic for them to collect debts from each other and for others to collect debts against them. Neither of them will be able to claim against the other for the other could claim that he is actually the creditor and not the debtor. Nor will others be able to claim from them for each of them may claim that the other Joseph ben Shimon is the debtor. If a third party who had loaned them both money should find amongst his documents a document that says that Joseph ben Shimon paid back his debt, both of their debts are cancelled. The way to remedy this problem is to write a third generation with their names, Joseph the son of Shimon the son of Jacob, or a sign that would designate the person’s profession, i.e. a saw for a carpenter, or a fish for a fisherman, or to write Cohen, Levi, depending on the person’s status.", + "If a man said to his son, “One of my debt documents is paid and I do not know which one”, then all are deemed to be paid. If two documents were found [amongst his documents] written to the same debtor, then the large one is paid and the small one is not paid. If a dying person told his son that one of the debt documents that he held (containing what other people owe him), was paid off but he didn’t know which one, the son will not be able to collect any of the debts. If amongst his documents were two different loans to the same person, we can be sure that only one of them is paid off. In such a case the son may collect on the smaller loan.", + "If a man lent money to his fellow on a guarantor’s security, he may not exact payment from the guarantor. But if he had said, “On the condition that I may exact payment from whom I wish”, then he may exact payment from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If the borrower had property, in neither case can he exact payment from the guarantor.” Moreover, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: “If a man was a guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the husband must vow to derive no further benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of the guarantor and take his wife back again.” If a debtor used a guarantor to secure his loan the creditor may not exact payment from the guarantor, unless, of course, the debtor did not have property with which to pay back the loan. If, however, the creditor had stated at the outset that he was going to exact payment from whomever he wishes, then he may exact payment from the guarantor even if the debtor had property. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that in any case, if the debtor had property, the creditor cannot collect from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds a similar opinion with regards to a woman’s ketubah. If a woman had a guarantor on her ketubah, in other words someone guaranteed to pay her ketubah should her husband not be able to, and then the husband divorced her and the woman collected from the guarantor, the husband must swear to never receive benefit from her again. The fear is that the husband will make a deal with his wife, that he will divorce, she will collect her ketubah from the guarantor and then be remarried to him, and give him the money that she collected from the guarantor.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three: Why can he only collect on the smaller loan? What is the halachic principle governing this law and indeed most of the laws contained in this mishnah?
• Section four: What is similar about Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s two statements in this section?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight, the final mishnah of Bava Batra, deals with a creditor’s ability to recover his debt if the debtor is not able to pay back the loan himself.", + "If a man lent his fellow money by using a document, he may recover the debt from mortgaged property. But if he had lent only before witnesses (and not through a, he may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If a man used a document to lend money he may recover the debt even from mortgaged property. This means that if after the time of the loan the debtor sold some of his property and then was not able to repay the loan the creditor can collect from that sold property. If, however, the loan was only done orally, with witnesses to testify, then he may only recover from unmortgaged property, namely property still in the hands of the debtor.", + "If the [creditor] brought forth [a loan document] upon which appeared his (the debtor’ signature as evidence that he was indebted to him, the creditor may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If the creditor had a debt document written or signed by the debtor himself, but not signed by witnesses, he may collect from unmortgaged property but not from mortgaged property.", + "If a man signed as a guarantor after the signatures of witnesses, the creditor may recover the debt only from [the guarantor’s] unmortgaged property. Such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael and he said, “He may recover only from unmortgaged property”. Ben Nanos said to him: “He may recover the debt neither from mortgaged nor unmortgaged property.” He said to him: “Why?” He answered, “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street and his fellow found him and said ‘Leave him alone (and I will pay’, he is not liable, since not through trust in him did the creditor lend the debtor money.” Rather which type of guarantor is liable? [If a man said], “Lend him money and I will pay thee”, he is liable, for he lent him the money through his trust in the guarantor. According to Rabbi Yishmael if the witnesses signed on a document and the guarantor signed afterwards the creditor may collect only from the guarantor’s unmortgaged property but not from his mortgaged property. Ben Nanos disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael and states that in such a case the creditor cannot collect from any of the guarantor’s property. The reason is that the creditor loaned the money not based on his trust of the guarantor. Ben Nanos makes an analogy to a creditor who attacks a debtor and a third party promises to pay back the debt. In such a case the creditor does not actually believe that the guarantor will pay back the debt and therefore the guarantor is not obligated to repay the loan. According to Ben Nanos only if the guarantor guarantees the loan before it is executed and the creditor makes the loan from the outset knowing who the guarantor is can the creditor collect from the guarantor.", + "And Rabbi Yishmael said, “He who wants to be wise let him occupy himself with cases dealing with monetary matters, for there is no greater branch of Torah than this; for they are like a welling fountain; and he who wishes to occupy himself with laws concerning monetary matters, let him serve [as a pupil] of Shimon ben Nanos. Rabbi Yishmael finishes tractate Bava Batra, which is indeed the last part of a much longer tractate called Nezikin that has been broken into three parts, Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia and Bava Batra, with a message as to the importance of these laws. A person who wishes to sharpen his intelligence, should study monetary laws, for the logic and methods of reasoning that stand behind these laws is the greatest in all of Torah study. And in a final note of concession to Ben Nanos, with whom Rabbi Yishmael has just disagreed, Rabbi Yishmael says that the greatest teacher of the laws concerning money is Shimon ben Nanos himself. Rabbi Yishmael teaches us two important lessons: 1) Learning Torah does not only teach us how to live our lives, but through its study we can become more intelligent people. 2) He teaches us the humility to have the utmost respect even for those with whom we might disagree.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why do you think that a creditor has greater to power to collect when the loan is executed through a document?Congratulations! We have finished Bava Batra.It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves. Indeed we have now finished together three tractates of Mishnah. Of course, we have much more to learn. We will begin Sanhedrin tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא בתרא", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63d5d10abbc71b5ba0040db93a77c12c54bf40a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,476 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Bava_Batra", + "text": { + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction
The first mishnah of Bava Batra deal with neighbors who share a courtyard. The mishnah is concerned with the building of a wall to separate the neighbors and with the ability of one neighbor to force the other neighbor to share the costs of building the wall.", + "Mishnah One
1)\tIf two partners wish to make a partition in a courtyard they build the wall in the middle.
2)\tIn a place where the custom is to build of unshaped stones, or of hewn stones, or of half-bricks, or of whole bricks, so they should build it—everything is according to local custom.
a)\t[If the wall is made of] unshaped stones this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths.
b)\t[If the wall is made of] hewn stones this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths.
c)\t[If the wall is made of] half-bricks this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths.
d)\t[If the wall is made of] whole bricks this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths.", + "Explanation
In the time of the mishnah most homes did not have openings to the street but rather would open onto a common courtyard. The courtyard was used for all sorts of purposes and was the common property of the owners of the houses surrounding it. Our mishnah states that if the two partners wish to build a wall separating the courtyard they should build the wall in the middle and when they do, they should build the wall with the materials customary used in their place. There are four kinds of building materials mentioned in the mishnah, and the mishnah lists each one.
Clauses 2a through 2d all state how much of a person’s property he should allocate for the thickness of the wall. This space will depend on the thickness of the building materials. Unshaped stones are (on average) 6 handbreadths wide and therefore each partner must allocate three handbreadths of his property for the building of the wall. Hewn stones are only 3 handbreadths wide and therefore each partner allocates one and a half handbreadths. A whole brick is 3 handbreadths wide, and therefore each partner allocates one and a half handbreadths. Half bricks are one and half handbreadths wide. In order to make a wall with them they would use two half-bricks, placing mortar in between the two. The total width of the wall would be four handbreadths, and therefore each partner would allocate two handbreadths.", + "Questions for Further Thought:

•\tMishnah one: If one partner wished to build with half-bricks and one partner with whole bricks, and the custom of the land was to use hewn stone, what type of wall should they build?

•\tWhat laws in modern society are similar to these types of laws? How are they different?
If two partners wish to make a partition in a courtyard they build the wall in the middle.
In a place where the custom is to build of unshaped stones, or of hewn stones, or of half-bricks, or of whole bricks, so they should build it everything is according to local custom. [If the wall is made of] unshaped stones this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] hewn stones this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] half-bricks this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] whole bricks this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths.
The first mishnah of Bava Batra deal with neighbors who share a courtyard. The mishnah is concerned with the building of a wall to separate the neighbors and with the ability of one neighbor to force the other neighbor to share the costs of building the wall.
In the time of the mishnah most homes did not have openings to the street but rather would open onto a common courtyard. The courtyard was used for all sorts of purposes and was the common property of the owners of the houses surrounding it. Our mishnah states that if the two partners wish to build a wall separating the courtyard they should build the wall in the middle and when they do, they should build the wall with the materials customary used in their place. There are four kinds of building materials mentioned in the mishnah, and the mishnah lists each one.
Clauses 2a through 2d all state how much of a person’s property he should allocate for the thickness of the wall. This space will depend on the thickness of the building materials. Unshaped stones are (on average) 6 handbreadths wide and therefore each partner must allocate three handbreadths of his property for the building of the wall. Hewn stones are only 3 handbreadths wide and therefore each partner allocates one and a half handbreadths. A whole brick is 3 handbreadths wide, and therefore each partner allocates one and a half handbreadths. Half bricks are one and half handbreadths wide. In order to make a wall with them they would use two half-bricks, placing mortar in between the two. The total width of the wall would be four handbreadths, and therefore each partner would allocate two handbreadths." + ], + [ + "The same is true with a garden: in a place where the custom is to build a fence, they can obligate him to do so. However, in a valley, where it is not customary to build a fence, they cannot obligate him to do so.
But if he wants to [build a fence] he must gather into his own portion and build, and he puts a finishing on the outside of the wall. Therefore if the wall falls, the place and the stones belong to him.
If they acted with each other’s consent, they should build the wall in the middle and put a finishing on both sides. Therefore if the wall falls, the place and the stones belong to them both.
Mishnah two is a continuation of mishnah one. It continues to discuss the procedures for building a wall to separate property.
Mishnah two begins by comparing a garden to a courtyard. The mishnah states that a garden is similar to a courtyard in that if it is customary to build there a fence, one partner can force the other to share in the costs and allocated space. However, in section 1a we learn that a valley is different. Since it is not customary to build there a fence, neither can force the other to do so. If one partner wishes in any case to make a fence he must do it in his own area and put a finishing on the wall so that it will it will not look unfinished nor ugly in the eyes of the one who did not want a fence, nor will it be rough and potentially damage the other person’s animals. Since he has built the wall on his own property and he alone paid for it, if the wall should fall, both the place and the materials belong to him. If however, the two partners built the wall together and shared in its costs and space, they should finish both sides of the wall. If the wall should fall they will share the space and the materials.
[Please note that I explained the idea of “finishing the wall” according to Albeck’s explanation and not the explanation given in the Talmud.]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three discusses a person who builds a fence partially around another person’s property and wishes that person to share in the costs of the fence.", + "If a man’s land surrounded his fellow’s land on three sides, and he fenced it on the first and the second and the third sides, they do not obligate him [to share in the costs]. Rabbi Yose says: “If he rose a built a fence on the fourth side, they obligate him to share in all of the costs.” In the scenario discussed in this mishnah Reuven owns three fields which surround Shimon’s fields on three of its four sides. If Reuven were to fence in all three of his fields he would have built a fence around three sides of Shimon’s fields. Since this fence does not totally surround Shimon’s field, Reuven cannot claim that Shimon benefited from the field and should therefore share in the costs. Rabbi Yose adds that if Shimon were to fence in four sides, he would thereby show that he wished to have his field fenced in. In that case he is obligated to share in the costs of all of the fences, since he now benefits from them all.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• If Reuven owns fields surrounding all four sides of Shimon’s field and he puts a fence around all of them, will Shimon have to share in the costs?" + ], + [ + "If the wall of a courtyard fell down they obligate each of the partners to help in building it up to a height of four cubits. He is presumed to have paid [his share] unless the other brings proof that he has not paid.
[If the fence was built] four cubits or higher, they do not obligate him [to help in building it.] If [the one who did not contribute] built another wall near it, even if he did not put a roof upon it, they obligate him to share in all of the costs. He is presumed not to have paid [his share] unless he brings proof that he has.
Mishnah four continues to discuss a wall built in a courtyard owned by two partners, a topic that began in the first mishnah of the chapter.
In the times of the mishnah, a standard wall, built in a courtyard was about four cubits high (over two meters, a little less than seven feet). Therefore, if the previous wall fell down, each partner would be obligated to rebuild the wall until it was four cubits high. If Reuven claims that Shimon did not pay his share, Reuven must bring proof. Since this law is commonly known, we assume that Reuven would not have begun to build the wall until Shimon paid his share. If he did build the wall without first collecting, he must bring proof that Shimon still owes him money.
In contrast, if Reuven built the wall over four cubits, he cannot ask Shimon to pay for the costs of the added height. Since walls are not commonly built over four cubits high, Shimon can claim that he did not want such a high wall. If however, Shimon were to use the wall to support another wall, and show that he intended to lay a roof on the two walls, he must pay for the added height. Although he was not initially obligated, since he subsequently used the wall, he is obligated to pay for it. Since this law is not commonly known, we cannot assume that Shimon paid his share. Until he brings a receipt showing that he has paid for the wall, he will still be obligated towards Reuven." + ], + [ + "They compel [a partner in a courtyard to contribute to] the building of a gate-house and a door for the courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Not all courtyards are fit for a gate-house.”
They compel [a resident of the town to contribute to] the building of a wall for the town and double doors and a bolt. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Not every town is fit for a wall.”
How long must a man dwell in a town to count as one of the men of the town? Twelve months. If he has purchased a dwelling place he immediately counts as one of the men of the town.
Mishnah five deals with the obligation of a person who shares a courtyard with another to help in building certain parts of the courtyard. The second half of the mishnah deals with the obligations that residents of a town have to participate in the costs of building the public structures in the town.
Section one teaches that a person who holds joint possession of a courtyard can be compelled to share in the costs of building a gate-house (where a guard would sit and protect the homes attached to the courtyard) and a door. Since these are necessities of a courtyard, one must participate in their cost. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel points out that not all courtyards need a gate-house. Assumedly smaller courtyards can be protected without building a gate-house. Therefore, a person would be obligated to help pay for building a gate-house only as long as the courtyard was fit for one.
Section two discusses similar laws with regards to people who live in a town. Just as in modern society people pay taxes in order to pay for the building and upkeep of town property, so too in the times of the Mishnah people had to jointly pay for the building of a wall, double-doors and a bolt to help protect the town. Again Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel points out that not all towns are fit for walls. If the town was not a one which would usually have a wall, the residents are not obligated to share in its costs.
Finally, section three discusses how long a person must dwell in the town in order to be an official resident and thereby be obligated to pay for building its wall. There are two criteria. First of all, if he dwells in the town for twelve months he is obligated to pay. Second, if he purchases property in the town, he is immediately obligated, even if he doesn’t dwell there." + ], + [ + "They do not divide a courtyard until there is four cubits for this [partner] and four cubits for this [partner].
Nor [do they divide up] a field until it has nine kavs for this [partner] and nine kavs for this [partner]. Rabbi Judah says: “Until it has nine half-kavs for this [partner] and nine half-kavs for this [partner].
Nor [do they divide up] a garden until it has a half-kav for this [partner] and a half-kav for this [partner]. Rabbi Akiva says: “A quarter-kav.”
Nor [do they divide up] an eating hall, a watch-tower, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, or an olive-press until there is sufficient for this [partner] and for this [partner].
This is the general rule: whatever can be divided and still be called by the same name, they divide; otherwise they do not divide.
When is this so? When they do not both wish [to divide the property]. However, if both wish they can divide it even if it is smaller. And with regards to the Sacred Books, they may not be divided even if both are willing.
Mishnah six returns to discuss a subject which began in mishnah one. There we learned the laws of building walls in shared courtyards, gardens and valleys. Mishnah six discusses which jointly-owned properties can be split into two parts.
This mishnah is quite straightforward so we will explain it briefly. Sections four and five basically summarize the laws of splitting jointly held property. One partner can force another partner to split the property only if the remaining property will still be sufficiently large to use it for its intended purpose. For instance if partners jointly own a dovecote (a place for breeding and storing pigeon doves) and one partner wants to split it, there must be enough room in each half for both partners to use it as a dovecote. Furthermore, section five clarifies that each half must be able to be called by its previous name. For example, if partners owned a truck one could not force the other to take half of the truck, since half a truck is worthless. If, however, partners owned an iron mine, one could force the other to take half, as long as each half was large enough to be an iron mine in its own right. The first three sections of our mishnah give concrete sizes with regards to courtyards, fields and gardens, but the principle applied is basically the same as that in sections four and five.
Section six emphasizes that the first five sections are true only as long as one partner does not agree to split the property. If, however, both parties agree to split the property they can split an even smaller piece. The one exception to this rule are scrolls containing the books of the Bible. It would not be respectful to the Sacred Books to cut a scroll in half. If, however, the books are in separate scrolls partners could divide them. [Note, in the time of the Mishnah all books were written in scroll form. The modern codex was not yet invented.]" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One may not dig a cistern near his fellow’s cistern;
Nor may he dig a ditch, cave, water-channel, or laundry pool unless it is three handbreadths away from his fellow’s wall, and he must plaster it with lime.
They distance piles of olive refuse, manure, salt, lime or stones three handbreadths from his fellow’s wall, and he plasters it with lime.
They distance seeds, and a plow and urine three handbreadths from the wall.
And they distance the mill [from the wall]: three [handbreadths] from the lower millstone and four [handbreadths] from the upper millstone.
And [they distance] the oven [from the wall]: three from the belly of the oven and four from the rim of the oven.
Most of the second chapter of Bava Batra deals with the obligations to distance damaging things from another person’s property. Mishnah one deals with distancing things from a person’s wall lest they damage the wall.
Section one states that a person should not dig a cistern close to another person’s cistern since one cistern may cause the other to break. A cistern is where they would store collected rain water, as opposed to a well which collects water from underground.
The remainder of the mishnah deals with distancing things from another person’s wall, lest they cause damage to the wall. The items mentioned in section two may cause the wall to fall, therefore he must distance them three handbreadths and plaster them to prevent water from seeping out.
The items mentioned in section three also may cause damage to another person’s wall and therefore he must distance them and plaster the place in which he places them.
Section four deals with three more items which also must be kept three handbreadths away from another person’s wall: seeds, a plow and urine. The difference between these items and those mentioned previously is that plastering is not applicable in these cases.
Sections five and six mention large items, a mill and an oven which also must be distanced from another’s wall. In both of these cases there are different measurements given for different parts of the item." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two deals with placing an oven or other cooking device in a house in a fashion that will not cause damage to the house.", + "One may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space of four cubits above it. If he sets it up in the upper room, the flooring beneath it must be three handbreadths deep, or for a stove one handbreadth. Section one sets up specifications for placing an oven or a stove inside a house, either on the first floor or on the second floor (the upper room). Note that a stove causes less heat than an oven.", + "And if it causes damage [to the floor] he must pay for the damage caused. Rabbi Shimon says: “They only mentioned these measurements so that if the object caused damage he would be exempt.” Section two contains a dispute between the anonymous opinion and Rabbi Shimon with regards to the ramifications of the distances mentioned in this and the previous mishnah. According to the first opinion, while a person must observe these restrictions, even if he does so he will still be obligated to make restitution if his property damages someone else’s property. According to Rabbi Shimon, if one follows the restrictions, and properly distances his potentially damaging property from another person’s property, he will be exempt if it causes damage.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• According to the anonymous opinion is section 2, even if a person properly distances his damaging things from another’s property he will still be obligated for subsequent damages. Why then does the mishnah mention how far these mentioned things must be distanced?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three discusses types of professions or businesses that a person can or cannot have in his home or near his home lest they disturb his neighbor.", + "One may not open a bakery or a dyer’s shop under his fellow’s storehouse, nor a cattle stall. In truth, they have permitted these things under a winestore but not a cattle stall. A bakery, a dyer’s shop, and cattle stall, if placed underneath a storehouse of produce will damage the produce. The bakery and dyer’s shop will produce heat, which can be damaging to the fruit, and the stench of the cattle stall will, for obvious reasons, also damage the fruit. However, as we learn in section 1a, if the storehouse was for wine, one can place a bakery or dyer’s shop underneath, since the wine will improve due to the heat. However, the stench of the cattle stall will not improve the taste of the wine! (Yuk)", + "A man may protest against [another that opens] a shop within the courtyard and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of them that go in and out.” As we have learned on several occasions, in the time of the mishnah a courtyard was usually shared between several neighbors. If one’s neighbor began to sell his wares in the courtyard the other neighbors could protest against the noise pollution caused by the customers.", + "One who makes utensils, should go outside and sell them in the market. But none may protest and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer” or “because of the noise of the mill-stones” or “because of the noise of children.” Section three is a continuation of the subject began in section two. A utensil maker is allowed to make his utensils in the courtyard, even though the hammer will cause noise pollution. He must, however, sell them in the market, as we also learned in the previous section. Similarly, a person can grind flour in the courtyard but he must sell it in the market. Finally, a teacher may bring students into the courtyard to learn, even though they will make much noise.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah allow one to bring students into a courtyard even though it will cause noise pollution?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses how far a person must distance his wall from his neighbor’s walls.", + "If one’s wall was adjacent to his friend’s wall he may not build another wall adjoining it unless it is at a distance of four cubits. If a person already owns a wall adjacent to his friend’s wall, he may wish to add another wall, thereby creating a three walled structure. If he wishes to do that he must leave four cubits between the new wall and his friend’s wall in order that people will walk near his friend’s wall. It was believed that people walking near a wall would strengthen the foundations of the wall. If he didn’t leave enough room next to his friend’s wall people would not walk there, thereby depriving his friend of that benefit.", + "And [if he builds a wall opposite his friend’s] windows, whether it is higher or lower than them or level with them, it may not be within four cubits. If a person wishes to build a wall opposite another person’s windows he must fulfill three conditions: 1) If the wall is higher than the window it must be more than four cubits higher so that he will not be able to use his wall to look into his friend’s window. 2) If the wall is lower than the window it must be more than four cubits lower so that he will not be able to stand on the wall and look into the window. 3) If it is across, it must be four cubits away so that it will not block the light going into the other window.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is the mishnah so concerned with people looking into other people’s windows? What does this teach us about privacy?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah which we will learn today deals with rules regarding a dovecote. A dovecote is a structure used to house pigeons. In the time of the mishnah pigeons were used for food, sacrifices and as messengers.", + "A person’s ladder must not be kept within four cubits of [his neighbor’s] dovecote, lest a marten (a small animal that eats should jump in. His wall may not be built four cubits from [his neighbor’s] roof-gutter, so that the other can set up his ladder [to clean it out]. In section one we learn that a person may not place a ladder in his property that will be less than four cubits from his neighbor’s dovecote lest an animal use the ladder to jump to the pigeon’s nesting places and eat them. Through this mishnah we learn an important principle: a person is not allowed to do something on his property if it will cause damage on another person’s property. Similarly, in section 1a, we learn that if a person wishes to build a wall on his property he must leave four cubits between the wall and the other person’s wall, if the other person’s wall has a gutter on it. As in modern times, so too in the time of the Mishnah gutters were used to drain water from the roof. In order to fix the gutters, which would often become clogged with debris, one would need to stand a ladder next to the wall. The four cubits between the walls would allow the person to stand a ladder and thereby fix his rain gutter.", + "A dovecote may not be kept within fifty cubits of a town, and none may build a dovecote in his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. Rabbi Judah says: Four kor’s space of ground, which is the length of a pigeon’s flight. But if he had bought it [and it was built already in that place] and there was only a quarter-kab’s space of ground, he has a right to the dovecote. Section two continues to discuss some rules governing dovecotes. According to the anonymous opinion in section two one must not place a dovecote within fifty cubits of the town nor within fifty cubits (25 meters) of his neighbor’s property. The reason to distance the dovecotes from the town is so that the pigeons will not eat the seeds in another person’s garden or the seeds that were drying on people’s roofs. The reason to distance the dovecotes from another person’s property is so that they won’t eat from the other people’s fields. Rabbi Judah disagrees with the distance of fifty mentioned by the anonymous opinion. According to him one must distance the dovecote from another’s property by a field big enough to grow four kor’s of wheat. This amount equals about 274 cubits in each direction, or about 150 meters. Finally we learn in section 2b that if a person bought a dovecote that was not properly distanced from another person’s property, he need not move the dovecote, even if it is only ¼ kav’s space of ground, which is about 10 cubits [five and a half meters] away from the other person’s property.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Is there a contradiction between sections one and two of this mishnah? If so, what is the potential contradiction and how can it be solved?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah continues to deal with dovecotes.", + "If a young pigeon is found within fifty cubits it belongs to the owner of the dovecote; but if it is found beyond fifty cubits it belongs to he finds it. If it is found between two dovecotes: if it is nearer to this one than it belongs him [that owns this dovecote]; and if it is nearer to the other, it belongs to him [that owns the other dovecote]; and if it is at a like distance from either, they share it. This mishnah is a simple mishnah dealing with pigeons that are lost. If one finds a pigeon fifty cubits from a dovecote, one can assume that it belongs to the owner of that dovecote. If it is further than fifty cubits, one need not make that assumption and one may keep the pigeon. If it is found between two dovecotes it is assumed to belong to the owner of the nearest dovecote. If it is equidistant between the two, the two owners will split the value of the pigeon.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• This mishnah deals with a topic that was discussed in the second chapter of Bava Metzia, lost items. Why then is this mishnah in our chapter and not there? What does this tell us about the organizational pattern of the Mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven deals with distancing trees from the city. In modern times we think of trees as beautifying a city. However, in ancient times trees were not commonly found inside the city itself. Furthermore, it was considered aesthetic for there to be empty fields surrounding the city.", + "According to the anonymous opinion in section one, a regular tree must not be grown within a distance of twenty five cubits from the city, nor a carob or sycamore tree within fifty cubits. Since carob and sycamore trees have thick branches, they must be kept further away. Abba Shaul, section 1a, distinguishes between fruit and non-fruit bearing trees. Non-fruit bearing trees must be kept fifty cubits away, and assumedly, fruit bearing trees can be planted closer, as was stated in the previous clause.", + "If the town was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given; if the tree was there first it shall be cut down and compensation given. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given. In section two we learn that if the offending tree was planted before the town was built, the tree will still be cut down, but compensation will be given to its owner. If the city was built first, the tree is cut down and no compensation is given. Since it was planted illegally, the owner does not get compensation when it is uprooted. Finally, if we are unsure which existed first, the town or the tree, no compensation is given, since as we have learned many times, in Jewish law the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In this case the tree owner is the plaintiff suing the city for compensation. If he cannot bring proof that his tree existed before the city, he does not receive compensation.", + "A tree may not be grown within a distance of twenty five cubits from the town, or fifty cubits if it is a carob tree or a sycamore tree. Abba Shaul says: “Any tree that bears no fruit may not be grown within a distance of fifty cubits.” If the town was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given; if the tree was there first it shall be cut down and compensation given. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given.
A permanent threshing floor may not be made within fifty cubits of the town. Sections one and two state that a threshing floor may not be placed less than fifty cubits from another person’s property or from the town. The reason for this prohibition was explained in the introduction.", + "One may not make a permanent threshing floor within his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. And he must distance it from his fellow’s plants and ploughed land so that it will not cause damage. Section 2a also restricts a person from placing a threshing floor close to his neighbor’s plants or ploughed land. Again, the chaff can be damaging to plants and can spoil ploughed land.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Abba Shaul allow fruit bearing trees to be planted closer to the town?" + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah eight deals with distancing a threshing floor from the city. A threshing floor was the place where farmers would bring their harvested wheat in order to separate the kernels of wheat from the chaff. A threshing floor would produce much waste, as the chaff is thrown to the wind. In order to prevent the chaff from polluting the city the mishnah discusses how far away the threshing floor must be kept.", + "A permanent threshing floor may not be made within fifty cubits of the town. One may not make a permanent threshing floor within his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. The Mishnah states that a threshing floor may not be placed less than fifty cubits from another person's property or from the town. The reason for this prohibition was explained in the introduction. ", + "And he must distance it from his fellow's plants and ploughed land so that it will not cause damage. The Mishnah restricts a person from placing a threshing floor close to his neighbor's plants or ploughed land. Again, the chaff can be damaging to plants and can spoil ploughed land." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine deals with distancing foul-smelling things from a town.", + "Animal carcasses, graves and tanneries must be distanced fifty cubits from a town. A tannery may be set up only to the east of a town. Rabbi Akiva says: “It may be set up on any side save the west, and it must be distanced fifty cubits [from the town]. The three things listed in section one, animal carcasses, graves and tanneries will potentially give off foul smells. Therefore one had to make sure these things were kept at least fifty cubits from the town. Furthermore, since a tannery smells so bad, it may only be set up to the east of the town. Since easterly winds were not common in the Land of Israel, the tannery needed to be kept to the east so its smell would not be blown into the town. Rabbi Akiva said that the tannery could also be to the north or south of the town, just not to the west.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the relationship of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion to the anonymous opinion? Upon what does he agree and upon what does he agree?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten deals with distancing foul-smelling things from foods which might be ruined due to the smell.", + "A pool for soaking flax must be distanced from vegetables, and leeks from onions, and mustard plant from bees. Rabbi Yose permits mustard plant. This simple mishnah lists things that will spoil other things if kept near them and therefore must be distanced from them. [Note: part of the processing of flax, a major material for clothing, was soaking it in water].", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does mishnah ten come after mishnah nine?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eleven deals with distancing trees from cisterns lest the roots break the underground walls of the cisterns.", + "A tree may not be grown within twenty five cubits of a cistern, or within fifty cubits if it is a carob or a sycamore, whether it is higher or on the same level. Section one prohibits one from planting a tree either twenty five or fifty cubits, depending on the type of tree, from another’s cistern lest the roots damage the cistern. This is true whether the tree is on higher or equal ground to the cistern.", + "If the cistern was there first the tree shall be cut down and compensation given. If the tree was there first it shall not be cut down. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall not be cut down. Rabbi Yose says: “Even if the cistern was there before the tree it should not be cut down, since this one dug within his own domain and the other planted within his own domain.” Section two deals with the consequences of a tree that was planted closer than twenty five or fifty cubits. If the cistern was there first, the tree must be cut down, but the owner will receive compensation. Even though he was not supposed to plant there, it is still his property and therefore he is paid for the loss of the tree. However, the cistern owner can at least take the initiative and force him to remove his tree. If, however, the tree was there first, the owner of the cistern cannot even force the tree owner to remove the tree. If it is unclear which is there first, the tree is not removed. Rabbi Yose has a different opinion. According to him, so long as each person’s activities are confined to his property, the other cannot force him to remove the potentially offending object, in this case a tree. Rabbi Yose is what we might in our time call a right to privacy advocate.", + "Questions for Further Thought
• In mishnah seven we discussed a similar issue to this mishnah. What are the differences between the two mishnayoth and why do you think they exist?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah twelve deals with distancing trees from the another person’s fields.", + "A person may not plant a tree near another’s field unless it is four cubits away, no matter whether it be a vine or any other kind of tree. If there was a wall between, each may plant up to the wall on either side. If its roots entered within the other’s property, the other may cut them away to a depth of three handbreadths so that they shall not hinder the plough. If he dug a cistern, trench or cave, he may cut them away as far down as he digs, and the wood shall belong to him. A tree planted close to another person’s property will eventually grow onto that property, both above and below ground. Therefore a person was required to distance his trees four cubits from another’s property. The remainder of the mishnah is basically refining this general law which we learn in section one. In 1a we learn that the law is not applicable if there is a fence, which would prevent the leaves of the trees from entering into the neighbor’s property. If there is a fence than one may plant his trees right up to the fence. In 1b we learn that if the roots of your neighbor’s tree enters your property you are allowed to remove the roots that are less than three handbreadths deep, so that the plow will not get caught on them. Finally, we learn at the end of the mishnah that if one was digging something on his property and the roots interfered, he can cut them away even further than the aforementioned three cubits.", + "Questions for Further Thought
• In the last clause of the mishnah it says that the trees (i.e. cut away roots of trees) are his. Why doesn’t he have to return them to the owner of the tree?" + ], + [ + "If a tree stretches into another’s field, he may cut it away as far as is reached by an ox-goad held over the plough, or, if it is a carob or sycamore, [he may cut it away] according to the plumb line’s measure.
All trees that stretch over irrigated fields may be cut away according to the plumb line’s measure.
Abba Shaul says: “All trees that bear no fruit may be cut away according to the plumb line’s measure.”
We learned yesterday in mishnah twelve that if another person’s trees encroach on one’s property one may cut out the roots, up to a certain depth. In mishnah thirteen we learn that if another person’s branches encroach on one’s property they may also be removed.
In this mishnah we encounter two different ways in which a person may cut off the branches of a tree that encroaches on his property. In section one we learn that in general a person can cut them as high as is reached by the “ox-goad held over the plough”. An ox-goad is the whip which a person riding a plough pulled by oxen would use to goad the oxen. If the branches were to interfere with the ox-goad one would have trouble plowing his field. Therefore, up until this height one can always remove the branches. The other measure for cutting down trees is the plumb line, which would go straight up from the end of his property. In other words, any branches hanging over his property may be cut down. One can cut away according to the measure of the plumb line in the following situations: 1) a carob or sycamore’s tree, whose branches are thick and will provide too much shade for the field over which they hang. 2) Any tree that stretches over an irrigated field, which needs a lot of irrigation. A tree from another field blocking its access to rain will cause much damage to this type of field. According to Abba Shaul one may always cut away up until the plumb line." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah fourteen we learn that if the branches of a tree encroach on the public domain, they too may be cut down.", + "If a tree stretches into the public domain enough must be cut away to allow a camel and its rider pass by. Rabbi Judah says: “A camel laden with flax or bundles of branches.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Every tree [must be cut away] according to the plumb line’s measure, because of impurity. There are three opinions in our mishnah with regards to removing branches that overhang onto the public domain from a tree originating in private property. The first opinion is that they must be removed up until a height that will allow a camel and its rider to pass by. Rabbi Judah says that the branches do not need to be removed all the way to the height of the rider for he can duck. They only need to be removed to the height of the camel’s load which obviously cannot duck to avoid the branches. Rabbi Shimon says that all of the branches which overhang into the public domain must be removed because of the laws of impurity. According to the Jewish system of purity and impurity if a pure thing is overshadowed by the same object overshadowing an impure thing, the impure thing will convey impurity to the pure thing. In other words, if a bone which imparts impurity were to be underneath branches and a person were to be there as well, the person would be impure. In order to prevent such a situation, Rabbi Shimon does not allow branches to grow into the public domain." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, dovecotes, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields and slaves and anything which continually produces a yield is three complete years.
The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for a field irrigated by rain water is three years and they need not be completed. Rabbi Yishmael says: “Three months during the first year, and three months during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes eighteen months.” Rabbi Akiva says: “One month during the first year and one month during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes fourteen months.”
Rabbi Yishmael said: “When does this apply? With regards to a sown field, but with tree plantation, if he brought in his produce (, collected the olives and gathered in his fig harvest, this counts as three years.”
In order to understand our mishnah and the remaining mishnayoth of the chapter we will need to explain how one can demonstrate ownership over a piece of land by “possession”. In general in Jewish law there is an assumption of ownership to the one who possesses a certain item. If Reuven possesses an item and Shimon claims that the item is his, and Reuven responds that Shimon sold him the item, Shimon will have to bring proof that the item still belongs to him. Since the item is in Reuven’s possession it is assumed to be his. This is true with regards to movable property. However, with regards to land, a person who is on a piece of land cannot necessarily claim ownership to the land. If Reuven is on a piece of land and Shimon claims it is his and Reuven responds that Shimon sold it to him, Reuven will have to prove his claim. If, however, Reuven has been living on this land, or in another way possessing the land for three years, he has an assumption of possession. In such a case Shimon will need to prove that he still owns the land if he wishes to recover it from Reuven. The idea behind this law is that if a person demonstrated ownership over a piece of land for an extended period of time and no one protested, it is reasonable to assume that the land is his.
The third chapter of Bava Batra deals with the rule of three year possession called “chazakah” in Hebrew. The rule, as we shall see, does not apply in the same way with everything.
If a person demonstrated ownership over the items listed in section one for three years, than they are assumed to be his. For instance, if Reuven used a house for three years and after this time Shimon came and claimed that the house was his, if Reuven were to respond that Shimon sold or gave him the house, Reuven needs to bring witnesses that he has possessed the house for three years, and then it belongs to him. In order to establish a presumption of ownership over these items one must possess them for three full years.
In order to establish a presumption of ownership over a field irrigated by rain water, one need not possess the field for three full years, but rather it is sufficient to posses them for parts of three years. This difference in law is explained by the difference between the irrigated field mentioned in section one and the field irrigated by rain water in section two. A field irrigated by man will yield produce many times in a season and therefore to demonstrate ownership one must actively possess the field for three full years. The field irrigated by rain will only yield one crop per year and therefore it is enough to harvest or work three crops to demonstrate possession. In order to do this one can work the field for three partial years. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regards to the nature of the partial three years.
In section three Rabbi Yishmael states that there is a difference between a field sown with produce and a field with fruit trees. When Rabbi Yishmael stated that one needed eighteen months in order to demonstrate ownership, this related to sown fields. In a sown field there is only one harvest per season, and therefore he would need three harvests in order to demonstrate ownership through possession. With regards to trees, each type of tree has its own harvesting season. Therefore if he were to harvest the grapes in one season, the olives in another and the figs in a third, that would be enough to establish possession, even though they were all done in one year." + ], + [ + "There are three regions with regards to possession: Judea, beyond the Jordan and the Galilee. If the owner was in Judea and another took possession [of his property] in the Galilee; Or if he was in the Galilee and another took possession [of his property] in Judea, such possession does not demonstrate ownership, until he is in the same region.
Rabbi Judah said: “They have specified a period of three years so that if the owner was in Spain and another took possession [of his property] during one year, they could make it known to the owner during the next year and he could return in the third year.”
Our mishnah divides the land of Israel into three distinct parts. As we shall see, this division is important for the rules of chazakah, which we began to learn in mishnah one of this chapter.
If a person took possession of a field and another came within three years and protested that the field was his, the original owner would retain title to the property. Our mishnah deals with a situation where the original owner lived in a different region from his field and therefore he may not have known that another had taken possession of the field, in order to protest within the allotted three years. According to the opinion in section one, in such a case there is no demonstration of ownership through possession for three years. If the owner was in a different region, for instance in the Galilee and the field was in Judea, we cannot assume that the reason he didn’t protest for three years is that he didn’t own the field. Since he may not have heard there can be no ownership through possession. According to Rabbi Judah, the reason that the Rabbis allotted three years in order to establish ownership by possession is to allow messengers to travel up to a year’s distance, there and back, in order to alert the original owner that another had taken his fields. In other words, according to Rabbi Judah, three years time is meant to give the person a chance to protest on another’s possession of his property. If he doesn’t do so, we do not assume that he didn’t hear. Rather, we assume that he sold or gave away his property to the current possessor and therefore does not protest." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous two mishnayoth we began to learn the laws of establishing ownership through possession. In mishnah three we learn what a “possessor” must say to the other person who claims ownership, in order for the “possessor” to establish ownership through possession. We also learn in mishnah three that certain people who possess land cannot claim ownership, even though they possessed for three years.", + "An act of possession without which there is no claim [on the ownership of the property] is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. How is this so? If he said to him: “What are you doing on my property? And the other answered: “No one ever said anything to me”, this is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. [If he said to him]: “You sold it to me”, “You gave it to me as a gift”, “Your father sold it to me”, “Your father gave it to me as a gift”, this is valid possession [to establish ownership]. He who holds possession [for three years] due to inheritance [from the previous owner], does not need to make a claim. Section one In order for a person to claim ownership through possession he must claim that the counter claimant sold it to him. For instance Reuven comes to Shimon and claims that the land that Shimon possesses is Reuven’s. Reuven brings a deed or witnesses to prove that the land is his. We can now be sure that Reuven once owned the land and the question is does he still own the land. If Shimon says that from the time he possessed the land no one said anything to him, the land will go back to Reuven. Since Shimon does not have a logical explanation for how he received the land, he cannot keep it. If, however, Shimon were to claim that Reuven sold him the land or gave it to him as a gift, or that Reuven’s father had done so, than we can assume that the land now belongs to Shimon. Since he occupied the land for three years without Reuven protesting, we assume that Shimon received the land from Reuven or his father and lost his documentation. The one exception to this rule is the one who received his land as part of an inheritance from his father. If he can prove the land was his as inheritance he need not prove how his father received the land.", + "Craftsmen, partners, sharecroppers and guardians cannot establish ownership through possession. A man cannot establish ownership through possession of his wife’s property, nor may a wife establish ownership through possession of her husband’s property, nor a father of his son’s property, nor a son of his father’s property. Section two The people listed in section two by definition will use other people’s property. For instance craftsmen may come and do work on another person’s property. This is not a sign that they own the property and therefore they cannot establish ownership through possession. So too a spouse cannot claim title to his/her spouses property through possession, since husbands and wives regularly make use of each other’s property without protesting. Finally, the same is true of parents and children: they too cannot claim title to the other’s land due through possession.", + "When is this so [that one needs three years to establish ownership]? When the person attempts to acquire the land through possession. But, when the property was given as a gift, or when brothers shared a piece of their inheritance, or when one claimed title by possession to the property of a convert [who died without inheritors], then if the claimant has shut in, walled up or broken down anything, this counts as securing ownership through possession. Section three We learn here that it takes three years to establish ownership, only when the property is in dispute. However, if someone gives property to another person, or brothers split the property left to them in inheritance, or a person comes to take property that has no owners, all he must do is show minimal use on the property and it belongs to him. The example of minimal uses is that he changes a part of the outside wall, by making a lock, by adding onto the fence or even by breaking the fence. In these three ways a person can establish immediate ownership and the three years are not necessary." + ], + [ + "If two testify that he has had the use [of property] during three years and they are found to be false witnesses, they must make full restitution to the owner.
If two [false witnesses] testify of the first year, two of the second, and two of the third, they divide up the costs of restitution between them.
If three brothers testify and another is included with them, they offer three different acts of testimony, but their words count as a single act of testimony when the evidence is proved false.
In mishnah four we learn the consequences of falsely testifying with regards to possession for three years.
According to Deuteronomy 19:19 the punishment for testifying falsely is that punishment which would have been meted out on the defendant. In our mishnah, witnesses falsely testify that a man had three years possession of a field. Had they been telling the truth the field would have changed from belonging to the original owner to belonging to the possessor. In other words, through their testimony they caused a field to transfer from one person to another. In such a case, if they testified falsely, they would have to pay the cost of the field to the original owner. They tried to make him lose a field now they have to pay him the cost of a field.
Section two deals with a scenario where three sets of witnesses testify to possession, each testifying to one year. Together they can establish that he had three years possession and now owns the land. If they were found to be false witnesses they will collectively pay the punishment of paying the original owner the value of the field.
In order to understand section three we must mention that relatives are not allowed to testify together in order to make up the required two or more witnesses. In the case discussed in this section three brothers testified to the possession of the field, each brother to a different year. In addition, one person testified to all three years. In total, two people testified with regards to each year, and no single year was testified to by two brothers. In this case their testimony is accepted as three different testimonies, and therefore we do not have a problem of brothers testifying together. However, if they are lying, it is considered to be one testimony, with regards to making compensation to the original owner. The person who testified to all three years will pay half of the value of the field and the three brothers will together pay half, each brother paying one-sixth." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah which we will learn today continue to deal with establishing ownership by possession (chazakah), the subject of the entire third chapter. Our mishnah teach the types of activities which if done for three consecutive years without the protest of the owner of the land, house or courtyard or courtyard, may continue to be done afterwards, even if the owner were to protest. For instance if Reuven does a certain activity on Shimon’s property for three years and Shimon does not protest, he cannot do so at a later date.", + "What are usages which are effective in establishing title through possession and what are usages which are not effecting in establishing title through possession? If a man put a beast in a courtyard, or an oven or stoves or mill-stones, or reared fowl [in a courtyard] or put his manure in a courtyard, this is not effective in establishing title through possession. But if he built for his beast a partition ten hand-breadths high, so too for an oven, so too for a stove, so too for a mill-stone, [or] he brought fowl inside the house, or prepared for his manure a place three hand-breadths deep or three hand-breadths high, this is effective in establishing title through possession. Our mishnah lists certain type of acts which if done on another person’s property for three consecutive years, acquire automatic subsequent permission to continue to do the activity. In other words, after three years there is an assumption that the owner of the property does not mind the other person doing these activities, and he therefore loses his right to subsequently protest. In section 1a we learn that placing an animal or other object in another’s courtyard will not cause entitlement to do so. For instance if Reuven were to use Shimon’s courtyard for three years as a place for his animal and Shimon were not to protest, Shimon would still retain the right to protest later. In section 1b we learn that if Reuven had built a structure on the property of Shimon, and Shimon had not protested for three years, Shimon now loses the right to protest. We assume that if Reuven used the property for such a long time in such a substantial manner, than it is does not bother Shimon and he cannot later change his mind." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to discuss what types of activities can create chazakah.", + "Our mishnah continues to discuss the same issue as we discussed in the previous mishnah: which acts entail possession in order to establish the right to continue to do the acts after a period of three years. If the act is considered a sign of possession than the owner of the item can tell others that they may not use the object. Since if another person uses the object he will establish the right to continue to do so in the future, it makes sense that the owner can prevent them from usage in the present. If, however, the act is relatively insignificant, and will not lead to the right to continue to do the act in the future, than the owner cannot prevent others from doing so in the present. We will now explain each section separately.", + "A gutter spout cannot cause title through possession [so that the spout may still be moved] but title through possession may be claimed to its place [so that the place must be left for its present purpose]. A gutter spout is a tiny pipe on the edge of a larger gutter pipe which would be on the roof to allow drainage of water. If the spout, which belongs to one person, is draining into another’s courtyard the owner of the courtyard can direct the spout out of his courtyard and this will not establish possession over the spout. He cannot, however, totally remove the spout for the mere existence or non-existence of the spout is a sign of possession. If he were to remove the spout and the owner were not to protest, the owner would not be able to protest after three years.", + "A gutter can give title through possession. A gutter (larger than the spout) is a sign of possession. Therefore the owner of a courtyard cannot even direct another person’s gutter, for if the owner were not to protest after three years he would lose his right to do so.", + "An Egyptian ladder cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian ladder can. An Egyptian ladder is a small ladder used on a temporary basis. Placing one in another person’s courtyard is not a significant act. If Reuven were to place his Egyptian ladder on Shimon’s property for three years, Shimon could still protest after three years. However, the use of a Tyrian ladder, which is large, is a significant act. If a person were to use it in another’s courtyard for three years then the owner of the courtyard could not subsequently protest.", + "An Egyptian window cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian window can. What is an Egyptian window? Any through which a man’s head may not enter. Rabbi Judah says: “If it has a frame, even though a man’s head cannot enter through it, it can give title through possession.” An Egyptian window is a small window. If Reuven were to open an Egyptian window in the wall of his courtyard and it were to exist for three years, Shimon could still subsequently block the window. Even though Shimon did not protest for three years, there are no subsequent rights caused by a small window. However, a Tyrian window which is large, does cause subsequent rights. If Reuven were to open a Tyrian window in the wall of his courtyard and it were to exist for three years, Shimon could not subsequently block the window. If he wished to protest he should have done so during the three years.", + "A projection, if it extends a handbreadth or more can give title through possession, and the other [into whose premises it projects] can protest against it. But if it is less than a handbreadth it cannot give title through possession and the other cannot protest against it. If Reuven were to build a wall that had a projection on it, such as a stray piece of wood or stone, longer than a handbreadth and that projection were to extend onto Shimon’s property, and Shimon did not protest for three years, he could no longer protest. Since this is an intrusive projection, we also allow Shimon to force Reuven to take it down, provided he protest within three years. A smaller projection is different. If it were to extend less than one handbreadth into Shimon’s property, Shimon may not protest. However, even after three years Shimon could take down the projection, or otherwise block it, since there is no assumption of possession." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth seven discusses things a person builds on his property that might damage other people’s property in an indirect manner. Specifically it deals with a person building a window or door which would allow him to see into another’s property. This and the following mishnah are not related to the subject of the chapter. Rather they relate to the subject of the second chapter.", + "In order to understand our mishnah we must remember that in the times of the Mishnah houses were built around a common courtyard. A person would have joint ownership of that courtyard with the other house owners whose homes also opened into the courtyard (see the diagram below).", + "One may not make a window to open into a jointly held courtyard. A person should not open a window in his home which would look into the jointly held courtyard. The mishnah wishes to prevent the situation where other people could see into a person’s home.", + "If he bought a house in another [and adjoining] courtyard he may not open it into a jointly held courtyard. If Reuven owned a house and held joint ownership over courtyard a and then bought a house that opened to courtyard b but was also adjacent to courtyard a, Reuven may not open the new house to courtyard a. The problem is that by opening a new house to the courtyard he will increase the number of people participating in that courtyard. In such a case the neighbors who share courtyard a may protest. Neighbors Courtyard a Reuven’s current house Reuven’s new house Neighbors Courtyard b Neighbors Courtyard a courtyard a potential opening Neighbors Courtyard b courtyard b Neighbors Courtyard a Neighbors Courtyard a Neighbors Courtyard b Neighbors Courtyard b", + "If he built an upper room over his house he may not make it open into the jointly held courtyard; But, if he wishes, he may build another room within his house or build an upper room over his house and make it open into his own house. For similar reasons to those mentioned in section two, a person may not make a second floor in his home and make it open into the courtyard. If he were to rent this second floor to another family he would increase the number of people participating in the courtyard. He may, however, divide his house and add a room or build a second floor and have it open into his own house. Although this too will increase the number of residents, since a person could in theory rent out his house to as many residents as he wishes he can also add more rooms to his house, so long as he doesn’t make a new opening to the courtyard.", + "In a jointly held courtyard a man may not build a door directly opposite another’s door, or a window directly opposite another’s window. If the window was small he may not make it larger; if it was a single window he may not make it into two. Here we learn that a person may not build a door or window opening into a jointly held courtyard, if that window or door will allow people to look from one house into the other through the courtyard. He also may not expand the window by making it larger or by turning one window into two.", + "But in the public domain he may open a door opposite another’s door, or a window opposite another’s window. If the window was small he may make it larger; if it was a single window he may make it into two. A person may however make a window in his home that is opposite a window in a house on the other side of the public domain. Since the other person in any case had to be careful from people in the public domain peeping in, a window from a private home does not create further damage." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight deals with permitted and not permitted damages that an individual might create to the public domain.", + "One may not hollow out a space underneath the public domain [such as] cisterns, trenches or caves. Rabbi Eliezer permits it if it is such that a wagon loaded with stones can [safely] go over it. One may not dig out a space underneath the public domain lest the ground crash in. According to Rabbi Eliezer if the ground is strong enough one may do so.", + "Projections and balconies may not be built into the public domain; but if a man wishes to build a [projection or balcony] he may withdraw [his wall] within his own domain and build out from it. If he bought a courtyard in which were already projections and balconies, his right to maintain them may not be disputed. One may not build projections of any nature into the public domain, but one may pull back his property and build a projection out from there. If he bought property that had such projections we assume that they were not built on public property and we do not make him remove the projections.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why might one have thought that it is forbidden to build a projection or a balcony even within one’s own property?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter four of Bava Batra deals with the laws of sale, and specifically with the question which things are included in the sale of a particular item. Mishnah one begins to discuss the laws of selling a house: when a house is sold what things are sold with and as part of the house?", + "If a man sold a house, he has not sold its side chambers, even though they open into the house, nor the room that is behind [the house], nor the roof, if it has a railing more than ten hand-breadths high. Rabbi Judah says: “If the roof as entrance shaped like a door, even if the railing is not ten hand-breadths high, it is sold.” If someone sells a house without specifying what parts of the house he is selling, there are certain things that are not included in the sale. According to section one, basically the main room is included in the house, but the side room and the room behind the house are not included. The roof is also not included, on the condition that it has a railing more than ten hand-breadths high. According to Rabbi Judah, even if the railing is not ten hand-breadths high, if it has an entrance the shape of a door, it is not sold with the house. In order for the purchaser to acquire these things, he would have to specify so at the time of the sale.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is important for the roof to have a railing more than ten-handbreadths high, in order for it not to be included in the sale?" + ], + [ + "Nor [has he sold] the cistern or the cellar, even though he had written in the deed of sale, “the depth and height”.
And he [the seller] must buy himself a path [from the new owner to reach the cellar or cistern], according to Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: “He need not buy himself a path.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said to him, “Excepting these [the cistern or cellar]” that he need not buy himself a path.
If he sold them [the cellar or cistern] to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He need not buy himself a path.” But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a path.”
Mishnah two continues to deal with the question which the mishnah began to deal with in mishnah one, when a house is sold what things are sold with and as part of the house?
All of the sages of our mishnah agree that when a person sells another person a house, he has not sold the underground chambers, namely a cistern for storing water, or a cellar used to store food and wine. Even if he wrote that he was selling to the depth of the house, his intent may have been the floor of the house, and not the cellar or cistern. The argument between Rabbi Akiva is over whether or not the seller must buy a path in the house that he sold which will allow him to get to his cellar or cistern. According to Rabbi Akiva, since he sold the whole house, the new owner will have the right to refuse entrance. If the old owner wants to get to his cellar he will need to purchase a path. The Sages disagree. When the person sold the house and did not sell the cellar, we can assume that he intended not to sell a path in the house by which he could reach the cellar. Hence, he does not need to buy a path. Rabbi Akiva agrees with the Sages that if the seller specified to the buyer that he was not selling the cellar or cistern, than he intended on retaining the path and he need not, therefore, purchase the path from the buyer of the house.
Section three discusses the opposite situation, where a person sells a cistern or cellar but not the house. According to Rabbi Akiva, the assumption is that when the seller sold the cistern he intended to sell a path as well, and the buyer need not, therefore, purchase a separate path. According to the Sages, the seller may have sold the cistern or cellar without intending to sell a path by which the buyer could reach them. Consequently, if the buyer wishes to get to his new cellar or cistern he must buy a path as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to discuss what parts of the house are sold with a house when the house is sold without specification as to what is being sold. Mishnah four discusses what parts of a courtyard are sold, also when specification is lacking.", + "If a man sold a house he has sold also the door, but not the key. He has sold a permanent mortar but not a movable one. He has sold the convex millstone (the lower, usually fixed but not the concave one. Nor [has he sold] the oven or the stove. But if he had said: “[I am selling to you] the house and all that is in it, these are also sold.” The mishnah lists the things that are permanent parts of the house and therefore are sold as part of the house even though not specified in the sale. The door is a permanent part of the house and therefore it is sold with the house. The key is not a part of the house and hence, is not part of the house. A permanent mortar, used for crushing, is part of the house but a movable one is not. The millstone fixed to the ground is part of the house but the movable, top millstone is not. Nor are ovens and stoves part of the house. Finally the mishnah clarifies that if the seller had specified that he is selling all that is in the house, all of these things are also including." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses what parts of a courtyard are sold when specification is lacking.", + "If a man sold a courtyard, he has also sold its houses, cisterns, trenches and caves, but not the movable property. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it” all of these are also sold. But in neither case has he sold the bath-house, or the olive press that are in it. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If a man sold a courtyard, he has sold only the air (the open of the courtyard. This mishnah explains what parts of a courtyard complex are sold with it even though not specified as part of the sale. The sale of the courtyard includes all of the houses, and underground structures that are attached or part of the courtyard. As in the previous mishnah, only the fixed, permanent pieces of the property are included in the sale. If, on the other hand, the seller specified that he was selling everything in the courtyard, he has sold the movable property as well. However, as we learn in section 1c, the bath-house and olive press are in any case not considered part of the courtyard, and are consequently not sold with it, even if he stipulated that he was selling everything in the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. According to him, when a man sells a courtyard he is only selling the empty yard part, but not the structures that are attached to it.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why are a bath-house and olive press not considered part of the courtyard to be sold with it?
• With which parts of the mishnah does Rabbi Eliezer disagree?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah which we will learn today continues to discuss which things are included in certain sales.", + "If a man sold an olive press he has sold also the vat, the grindstone, and the posts, but he has not sold the pressing-boards, the wheel or the beam. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. Rabbi Eliezer said: “If a man sold an olive press he has sold the beam also.” We learn in this mishnah that when a man sells an olive press without specifying which parts of the olive press he is selling, he has sold only the parts that are fixed in their place. These include the vat used to collect the oil, the grindstone used to crush the olives and the posts used to prop up the beam that would press the olives. The parts of the press that are not fixed in place, namely the pressing-boards, placed on top of the sacks of crushed olives, the wheel, used to lift the beam, and the beam, used to exert pressure on the olives, are all not sold with the olive press. If, however, he had stated that he was selling the press and all that was in it, than he has sold the pressing-boards, the wheel and the beam as well. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the first clause. According to him when one sells an olive press one sells the beam, even though it is not fixed. Since the beam is the most important part of the press, it is assumed that it is sold along with it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses what is sold with an olive press and mishnah six discusses what is sold with a bath house.", + "If a man sold a bath house, he has not sold the planks or the benches or the curtains. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. In neither case has he sold the water containers or the stores of wood. In the first section we learn that when someone sells a bath house, the planks which serve as the floor of the bath house, the benches and the curtains are not included in the sale. Only if he stated that he was selling all that is in the bath house are these items considered part of the sale. In any case the water containers and stores of wood are not considered to be part of the bath house and are therefore not sold with it, even if he stated that he was selling all that is in the bath house." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven discusses what is sold as part of a town, if one should sell the town without specifying what is included in the sale.", + "If a man sold a town, he has also sold the houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, bath houses, dovecotes, olive presses, and irrigated fields, but not the movable property. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, even if cattle and slaves were in it, all of these are sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If a man sold a town he has also sold the town watchman.” As we have learned on several occasions in our chapter, we learn in mishnah seven that when a person sells a piece of property, he sells only the parts of that property that are fixed in their place. In this case, when a person sells a town, included in the sale are all of the fixed institutions of that town, such as the houses and the commercial institutions. If he wishes to sell the movable property as well, such as the animals and the slaves, he must specify that he is selling “it and all that is in it”. In that case, he has sold even the cattle and the slaves. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees slightly with the previous opinion. According to him when a person sells a town he sells the town watchman, presumably a slave, as well.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why might Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel hold that when a person sells a town he sells the town watchman but not other slaves?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight discusses what is sold as part of a field.", + "If a man sold a field he has also sold the stones that are necessary to it, and the canes in a vineyard that are necessary to it, and its unreaped crop, and a partition of reed which covers less than a quarter-kav’s space of ground, and the watchman’s hut if it was fastened down with mortar, and ungrafted carob trees and young sycamores. This mishnah lists the things that are sold with a field. Tomorrow, in mishnah nine we will learn a long list of things that are not sold with a field. The list of things that are sold with a field includes things that are a necessary part of the maintenance of the field such as the stones used for fences and the canes used in a vineyard to grow the vines. It also includes the produce still attached to the ground and similarly the watchman’s hut if it was attached to the ground. [Note: there are other versions of this line concerning the watchman’s hut]. It also includes some small, as of yet insignificant trees as well as an insignificant portion of a reed partition. Since these things are not significant in and of themselves they become included as part of the field." + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah nine continues the discussion began in mishnah eight, what is sold as part of the sale of a field.", + "Since this is an extremely long mishnah we will explain it section by section.", + "But [one who sold a field] has not sold the stones that are not necessary to it or the canes in a vineyard that are not necessary to it or the produce that is already picked from the ground. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it” all of these are sold also. But in neither case has he sold any partition of reeds that covers a quarter-kav’s space of ground, or the watchman’s hut if it was not fastened down with mortar, or grafted carob trees or cropped sycamores, or any cistern or winepress or dovecote, whether they are lying waste or in use. In the previous mishnah we learned what things are sold as part of a field and now in our mishnah we learn the opposite categories, things that are not sold as part of a field. Anything that is not necessary for the maintenance of the field is not sold with it, such as stones not used as part of a fence or canes in a vineyard not used for the vines. Picked produce is not considered part of the field. If the seller had specified that he was selling all that was in the field than he has sold the preceding items but he has still not sold the partition of reeds that is of significant size, nor the watchman’s house which is not attached to the ground. Since these items are separate from the field they are not sold with the field and are not considered to be “in the field”. He also has not sold the grafted carob or the cropped sycamore. These are more important than the ungrafted carob and the young sycamore that are sold with the field, as we learned in mishnah eight. Since they are important, they must be sold on their own. Finally he has not sold any of the major structures which may be in the field, such as a cistern for storing water, a wine press and a dovecote. These are not sold even if they are not in use.", + "And [the seller] must purchase [from the buyer] a way thereto, according to Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: “He need not.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said, “Excepting these”, he need not buy himself a way thereto. If he had sold them (the cistern, winepress or dovecote) to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He [that bought them] need not buy himself a way thereto. But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a way thereto.” In this section we learn of a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the other sages regarding the necessity for a seller to buy a path to reach his cistern, wine press or dovecote which are on the field he just sold. According to Rabbi Akiva the seller must buy a path from the buyer; according to the sages he need not. We also learn of the opposite case, where the seller sold a cistern, wine press or dovecote but did not sell the field. According to Rabbi Akiva in such a case the buyer need not buy a path from the seller; according to the sages he must. This entire section was taught in mishnah two of our chapter and there we explained it in greater depth.", + "When is this so? With regards to he that sells his field. But if he gives it as a gift, he gives everything that is in it. If brothers who divided [an inheritance] came into possession of a field, they come into possession of everything that is in it. If a man secured title by possession of the property of a convert, and secured title by possession of the [convert’s] field, he secures title to everything that is in it. If a man dedicated a field [to the Temple] he has dedicated everything in it. Rabbi Shimon says: “If a man dedicated a field, he has dedicated only the grafted carob trees and cropped sycamores.” This section states that all that we have learned in the previous parts of the mishnah is true only when a person sells a piece of land to another. However, if he were to give the land to another person as a gift, we assume that he is giving not only the land but all of the things in it as well. This is true even though he does not specify that he is giving all that is in it. Furthermore, when brothers inherit land, they also inherit all that is on the land. When a person secures property that belonged to a convert who died without inheritors, he too secures not only the land but all that is in it. [A convert’s non-Jewish family do not inherit him. Therefore if he dies without children his property will not go to any inheritors.] Finally, when one dedicates a piece of land to the Temple, we assume that he is dedicating not just the land, but all that is in it. Over this last detail Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. According to him when a person dedicates a piece of land he is only dedicating the trees which receive their water and nutrients directly from the land. All of the other things are not part of his dedication to the Temple.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section 1b: Why does the mishnah need to emphasize that cisterns, wine presses and dovecotes are not sold with a field no matter if they lie in waste or are in use? What might you have thought had the mishnah not included this line?
• Section 3: Why is there a difference between one who sells a piece of land to another and one who gives it away?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah one deals with what is included in the sale of a boat, a wagon pulled by mules or oxen.", + "If a man sold a ship, he has also sold the mast, the sail, the anchor, and all the means of steering it. But he has not sold the slaves, the packing-bags, or the lading. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. If a man sells a ship without specifying what is included in the sale, all of the fixed parts of the ship are included in the sale. However, the slaves and the bags used for packaging the merchandise on the ship are not included in the sale, unless he were to specify that they were. This law is similar to many of the laws we learned in the previous chapter.", + "If a man sold a wagon, he has not sold the mules, and if he sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. If he sold the yoke, he has not sold the oxen, and if he sold the oxen, he has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Judah says: “The price tells all. How is this so? If one said to him, “Sell me your yoke for 200 zuz, it is known that no yoke costs 200 zuz.” But the sages say: “The price is not proof.” Even though a wagon is pulled by mules, if a man sold a wagon the mules are not automatically included in the sale. Likewise, if he sold the mules, he has not automatically sold the wagon. The same is true with regards to oxen and the yoke used to steer them. If a person sold one, he has not necessarily sold the other. Rabbi Judah disagrees and he thinks that the price should be able to determine what was included in the sale. If a person sold a yoke for an exorbitantly high price, it is patently obvious that the oxen were part of the sale. However, the sages do not believe that the price is proof. If a buyer pays a high amount for a yoke and then wishes to claim that he bought the oxen as well as the yoke he must bring proof." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two deals with what is included in the sale of a donkey.", + "If a man sold a donkey he has not sold its trappings. Nahuma of Madi says: “He has sold its trappings.” Rabbi Judah says: “Sometimes they are sold and sometimes they are not sold. How is this so? If the donkey was before him with its trappings on it and he said, ‘Sell me this donkey of yours’, the trappings are sold (with the. If he said, ‘Sell me that donkey of yours’, the trappings are not sold.” A donkey is usually packed with several bags used to carry the donkeys load. These are the “trappings” referred to in the mishnah. According to the first opinion, if a man sold a donkey, the trappings are not sold. Nahum of Madi dissents and declares that they are sold. Rabbi Judah states that one can determine if the trappings were sold by the circumstances and by the language used in the sale. If the donkey was standing in front of the seller with its trappings on it and the seller specified that he wants to buy this donkey, then he has bought the trappings as well. Since he saw the trappings we can assume that his intention was to buy them with the donkey. However, if he just tells him to sell “that donkey of yours” we cannot be sure that his intention was to buy the donkey standing in front of him. Since we cannot determine what he intended to buy or what the seller intended to sell, the trappings are not included in the sale.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How is Rabbi Judah’s opinion in this mishnah similar to his opinion in mishnah one?" + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah three deals with what is included in the sale of various items such as donkeys, cows, and beehives. Mishnah four deals with the a person who buys trees in another person's field and whether or not the buyer has acquired the land on which the trees grow.", + "If a man sold a donkey he has sold its foal. If a man sold a cow he has not sold its calf. The question in this section is whether or not a person has sold the young child of a mother animal, when he has sold the mother. According to the mishnah when he sells a donkey he has sold the foal but when he sells a cow he has not sold the calf. The Talmud explains that the mishnah is dealing with a case where the seller says that he is selling a nursing donkey or cow. Since people do not use donkeys for milk, it can be assumed that when he said nursing donkey he intended to sell the donkey and its young, who may be nursing from its mother. However, since people do use cows for milk, it may be that he was selling the cow on its own, without the young, and the reason why he called it a nursing cow was to let the buyer know that this cow produces milk.", + "If he sold a dungheap, he has sold the dung on it. If he sold a cistern, he has sold the water in it. If he sold a bee-hive he has sold the bees. If he sold a dovecote he has sold the pigeons. In this section four things are listed, which if the outer container is sold, the contents are sold with it. Since the sole purpose of the container is to hold the contents, we can assume that when the sale was made, the intent of both the buyer and the seller was to include the contents.", + "If a man bought the fruit of a dovecote from his fellow he must let go the first pair that are hatched. [If he bought], the fruit of a beehive he may take three swarms and then [the seller] may make the rest sterile. If a person buys the young pigeons that will be born in a dovecote (where pigeons are raised), then he return to the seller the first pair that are born. This is in order for the parents, who are still owned by the seller, to have a pair of young to take care of, so that the parents won't fly away. If one buys the bees that will be born in a beehive, he may take three swarms. After taking the three swarms, the seller may cause the bees to be sterile so that their energy will be devoted to making honey and not to making young. Alternatively, the last phrase of this section of the mishnah may state that after taking the first three swarms, the buyer takes alternative swarms. The lack of clarity in the mishnah is due to the dual meaning of the Hebrew word.", + "[If he bought] honeycombs he must leave two honeycombs. [If he bought] olive trees to cut down the branches, he must leave two shoots. When a person buys honeycombs from another person’s beehive, he must leave at least two honeycombs behind, in order to feed the bees that are left. Similarly, when a person buys an olive tree with the intent to cut down the branches he must leave two branches so the tree can regenerate." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four deals with the a person who buys trees in another person’s field and whether or not the buyer has acquired the land on which the trees grow.", + "Our mishnah begins with a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages. According to the Sages when a person buys two trees he has not bought the ground they are on, and according to Rabbi Meir he has bought the ground. The remainder of section one goes according to the Sages. Section 1b states that if the trees grow branches the seller, who still owns the land, may not trim them. Although these branches now cover land that he did not sell, and when he sold the tree these branches were not there, by selling the tree he tacitly gives permission to the buyer to let the branches grow. Section 1c states that anything that grows from the tree above ground belongs to the buyer and anything below ground still belongs to the seller/landowner. Finally, if the trees die, the buyer may not plant there new trees. Since he didn’t buy the land, when the trees die he has totally lost his acquisition.", + "If he bought three trees, he has bought the ground [between them]. When they grow he may trim them, And what comes up whether from the stem or from the roots belongs to him (the. And if they die the ground is his. In section two we learn that the laws are different when one acquires three trees. In that case the person has acquired the land. If the trees should grown branches that overhang into the seller’s property he may trim them. Anything that grows from the tree, even below the ground, belongs to the buyer. Furthermore, if the trees die he may plant there new trees.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why may the seller trim the trees if he sold three to the buyer but not if he sold two?" + ], + [ + "He who has sold the head of a large animal, has not sold the feet. If he sold the feet, he has not sold the head. If he sold the lungs he has not sold the liver. If he sold the liver he has not sold the lungs.
But in the case of a small animal: If he sold the head he has sold the feet. If he sold the feet he has not sold the head. If he sold the lungs he has sold the liver. If he sold the liver he has not sold the lungs.
Mishnah five deals with what is included in the sale of large and small animals.
This mishnah draws a distinction between large animals, such as cows, and small animals such as sheep or goats. In section one we learn that each part of a large animal is significant enough to be sold separately. In other words, if one sells one part of a large animal, he has not necessarily sold another part of the animal with it. However, with small animals some parts are sold with others and some parts are sold alone. For instance, if one bought the head, the feet are automatically included. Likewise if one bought the lungs, the liver is automatically included. However, the opposites are not true. If one bought the feet he has not automatically bought the head. If one bought the liver he has not automatically bought the lungs." + ], + [ + "There are four rules with regards to those who sell:
If one has sold good wheat and it turns out to be bad, the buyer can retract.
If he sold bad wheat and it is found to be good, the seller can retract.
[But if one sold] bad wheat and it is found to be bad, or good wheat and it is found to be good, neither may retract.
[If one has sold] dark wheat and it turned out to be white; Or white and it turned out to be dark; Or [if he sold] olive wood and it turned out to be sycamore wood; Or sycamore wood and it turned out to be olive wood; Or [if he sold] wine and it turned out to be vinegar; Or vinegar and it turned out to be wine; Either of them may retract.
Mishnah six begins to discuss certain ethical principles in the laws of selling and buying and their consequences on the validity of the sale. This is a topic which will be discussed through the middle of chapter six.
As stated at the beginning of the mishnah, there are four rules with regards to retracting a sale. These rules are contained in sections 1-4. (1) If a person sold something that was supposed to be good and it turned out to be bad, the buyer can retract. (2) If a person sold something that was supposed to be bad and it turned out to be good, the seller can retract. (3) If a person sold something and it turned out to be what he sold, the sale is final and no one may retract. (4) Finally, if a person sold something and it turned out to be different from what he sold, not necessarily better or necessarily worse, either of them may retract." + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah seven defines the precise moment when a sale occurs and is therefore not retractable.", + "If a man sold produce to his fellow and the buyer drew it towards him but did not measure it, [the buyer] has acquired [the produce]. If [the seller] had measured it but [the buyer] did not draw it towards him, he has not acquired [the produce]. If [the buyer] is clever he will rent the place [in which the produce is located]. According to Jewish law, movable items (as opposed to real estate) are acquired by taking hold of them (either by lifting them or by drawing them near) and not through the transfer of money. In other words, if Reuven gives Shimon money for his television set, the deal is not final until Reuven takes possession of the television set. If the set should break after Reuven has given the money, but still in Shimon’s possession, Shimon will have to return the money. If, on the other hand, Reuven took the television and did not pay the money, and then the set broke, Reuven will still owe Shimon the money. Our mishnah teaches that when a person buys produce, the moment he takes the produce is when the sale is final and not retractable. If the buyer wishes to ensure that the seller does not change his mind, he can rent the place where the produce is located. Thus when the buyer gives the money it is as if the produce is already in his possession and the seller may not retract the sale.", + "If a man bought flax from his fellow he has not acquired it until he has moved it from one place to another. If it was still attached to the ground, and he plucked any small quantity of it, he has acquired possession. With regards to flax, according to the mishnah it is not enough that he draw the flax towards him, he must carry it from place to place. Alternatively, if he purchased flax still attached to the ground, he can acquire the flax by plucking it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight continues to define the precise moment when a sale occurs. The last section of the mishnah teaches the procedure for measuring out sold liquids.", + "If a man sold wine or oil to his fellow, and its value rose or fell, if [the price rose or fell] before the measure was filled up, it belongs to the seller, [and he may refuse to sell except at the higher price]. But if [the price rose or fell] after the measure was filled up, it belongs to the buyer [and he may refuse to buy except at the lower price]. With regards to the selling of wine and oil, the point in which the sale is final is the point at which the measuring container fills up. If the price of the wine or oil should rise before it fills up, the seller can demand the higher rate. If the price fluctuated after it was full, the buyer need only pay the lower rate.", + "If there was a middleman between them, and the jar broke, it is broken to [the loss of] the middleman. If a middleman acted as an agent for the buyer and seller and the measuring cup should break thereby causing the loss of the wine or oil, the middleman is responsible to recompense for the loss.", + "[After emptying the measure] the seller must let three more drops drip [for the buyer]. If he then turned the measure over and drained it off, what flows out belongs to the seller. The shopkeeper is not obligated to let three more drops drip. Rabbi Judah says: “[Only] on the eve of Shabbath as it becomes dark is he exempt.” When the seller pours the oil from the measuring cup into the vessel of the buyer, he must wait until three drops have spilled out. After this point, any oil that is stuck to the sides of the vessel belong to the seller. Since a shopkeeper is busy with many customers, he need not wait after pouring to ensure that three drops come out of the container. According to Rabbi Judah, this law is true only before the Shabbath, which is a time when the shopkeeper would be especially busy. At other times during the week, he too must wait for three drops to drip out of the measuring container.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Must the seller sell at the lower rate if the price went down before the measuring cup was full??
• Section three: Why might one have thought that the middleman would not be responsible if the measuring cup broke? If he was not responsible who would be?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine deals with a father who sends his small child to buy oil from a shopkeeper and on the way home the son drops the flask of oil.", + "If a man sent his child to a shopkeeper with a pondion (a in his hand and he measured him out an issar’s (a coin worth half a worth of oil and gave him an issar in change and the child broke the flask and lost the issar, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah declares him exempt, since the father sent the child for this purpose. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if the flask was in the child’s hand, and the shopkeeper measured the oil into it, the shopkeeper is exempt. In the scenario in our mishnah a father sends his child to a store to buy him some oil. The shopkeeper hands him a flask containing the requested oil and the change from the sale. According to the Sages, if the child should lose the oil or the coin on his return home, the shopkeeper is liable to pay back the father. Since a child is not responsible for his actions, the shopkeeper should have found a safer way of returning the oil and coin to the father. Rabbi Judah disagrees. According to him, since the father sent the child on such a mission, the father agreed to allow his child to deliver the oil and the change. The Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that the shopkeeper is not liable only in the case where the child came to the store with a flask in his hand. In such a case it is clear that the father intended that the child should deliver the oil, and therefore the shopkeeper will be exempt." + ], + [ + "The wholesaler must clean out his measures once every thirty days and the householder once every twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The rule is just the opposite.”
The shopkeeper must clean out his measures twice in the week and polish his weights once a week and clean out his scales after every weighing.
Mishnah ten deals with the proper maintenance of weights and measures to ensure that the purchaser does not receive less than he bought.
The Torah (Leviticus 19:35-36) forbids falsifying weights and commands a person to keep properly weighed and maintained weights and measures. Our mishnah is concerned with the proper maintenance of weights and measures. According to the anonymous opinion in section one, a wholesaler who uses his measures frequently must clean them out once every thirty days. This is to prevent the buildup on the sides of the containers which will reduce the amount purchased. A householder, who uses his measure less frequently, need clean them out only once a year. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that the opposite is true. According to him the more frequently one uses the measures, the less buildup will accumulate. Therefore, a householder must clean them out once every thirty days and a wholesaler only once a year. A shopkeeper, who uses his weights frequently, must clean them out twice a week. In addition he must once a week polish his weights so that they don’t grow heavier and clean out his scales after every use so that they don’t accumulate buildup." + ], + [ + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “When is this so (that one needs to clean out? With regards to liquid measures, but with regards to dry measures it is not necessary.
[And a shopkeeper] must let the scales sink down a handbreadth [to the buyer’s advantage]. If he gave him an exact measure, he must give him his overweight, a tenth for liquid measures and a twentieth for dry measures.
Where the custom is to measure with small measures they should not measure with large measures and where the custom is to measure with large measures they should not measure with small measures.
Where the custom is to smooth down [what is in the measure] they should not heap it up, and [where the custom is] to heap it up, they should not smooth it down.
Mishnah eleven continues to deal with the weighing of produce.
Section one: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel qualifies the statements in the previous mishnah regarding cleaning out measures. These statements applied to measuring liquids, but measures used for dry goods need not be cleaned out with regular frequency, since the dry goods do not stick to the sides.
Section two: The custom was to let the buyer’s side of the scale, which contained the goods, sink one handbreadth lower than the seller’s side. If, however, one did not follow this custom, then the shopkeeper would be obligated to give the buyer either a tenth or a twentieth more than he purchased, depending on the nature of the produce.
Sections three and four: The last two sections teach that one must follow the customs that are typical in one’s place. This is true with regards to the size of the weights as well as the smoothing out or heaping up of the dry goods in the measuring cup. As long as people are consistent in their customs, buyers and sellers will know what they are doing and one will not cheat each other." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah one deals with a person who sells grain to another person and the seeds from that grain do not sprout when planted.", + "If a man sold grain to his fellow [and after it was sown] it did not sprout, even if it was flax-seed he is not liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If it was garden-seeds, which are not used for food, he is liable.” According to the anonymous opinion in section one, when a person sells grain to another person, if he does not specify that the grain is for planting, he is not liable if the grain doesn’t spout after planted. Even if he sold flax seed, which is usually sold for sprouting new flax plants, he is still not liable. Since he didn’t specify that he was selling grain to be planted, he can claim that he intended it to be used as food. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel if he sold him seeds that are always used for planting then he is liable if they do not sprout. Otherwise, he is not liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• If a person sold seeds and they did not sprout is he liable to give the buyer back his money? How can one know the answer to this question from the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two deals with a person who sells something to another person and some of the sold item is found not to be good. In both of these mishnayoth the question asked is can the buyer demand his money back.", + "If a man sold grain to his fellow, the buyer must agree to accept a quarter-kab of refuse with every seah. [If he bought] figs he must agree to accept ten that are eaten by worms for every one hundred. [If he bought] a cellar of wine, he must agree to accept ten jars gone sour in every one hundred. [If he bought] jars in Sharon, he must agree to accept ten which are not fully dry (and therefore are more easily in one hundred. When a person buys a large amount of a certain item he can expect that most of the items will be pure and in good working order, but he cannot expect that they will all be pure or in working order. If he buys grain and he finds that there is a certain amount of refuse in the grain, as long as the refuse is not more than a quarter-kab (about 350 grams) per seah (8.3 liters), he can’t demand his money back. This is about five per cent refuse. Similarly if he buys figs he can expect that some will be rotten; if he buys barrels of wine some will be sour and if he buys jars some will not be made properly. As long as the unacceptable part of the purchase is less than ten per cent, he cannot demand his money back. [Note: Sharon is on the coast of Israel, between Jaffa and Haifa.]" + ], + [ + "If a man sold wine to his fellow and it turned sour he is not responsible. But if it was known [to the seller] that his wine would [soon] turn sour, this is a mistaken purchase.
If he had said to him, “I am selling you spiced wine”, he is responsible for its remaining [good] until Shavuoth.
[If he said] it is old wine, it must be from last year’s. [If he said] it is vintage old wine, it must be from the year before last.
Mishnah three discusses rules concerning the sale of wine.
This mishnah is concerned with the responsibility of a wine seller to ensure the quality and preservation of the wine which he sells. If he sold him wine and it turned sour, the seller is not in general responsible, since wine is known to turn sour. If, however, the seller knew that the wine would soon turn sour and he did not warn the buyer, the seller is responsible to return the buyer’s money.
If he sold him spiced wine, he is responsible that it not turn sour until Shavuoth. Spiced wine was known to last during the winter but turn to vinegar due to the heat of the summer. Therefore the wine need only last until Shavuoth, the holiday celebrated at the beginning of the summer.
Finally the mishnah clarifies two terms used in the selling of wine. “Old wine” must be from last year’s batch and “vintage old wine” must be from the year before last. If the seller promised one of these types of wine and he gave the buyer wine that was not as old, the buyer can demand his money back." + ], + [ + "If a man sold his fellow a place to build him a house, so, too, if a man contracted with his fellow to build him a bridal-house for his son, or a widow’s house for his daughter, he must build it four cubits by six cubits (80 inches x 120, according to Rabbi Akiva.
Rabbi Yishmael says: “This is a cattle-shed”. He who wants to build a cattle-shed, should build it four cubits by six. A small house six by eight (120 x 160). A large house eight by ten (160 x 200). An eating hall ten by ten (200 x 200).
The height should be [the sum] of half its length and half its breadth. Proof of the matter is the sanctuary. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Should all [houses] be according to the building of the Sanctuary?”
Mishnah four discusses rules concerning the building of houses.
According to Rabbi Akiva (section one) a normal sized house is four cubits by six cubits. Hence, if one bought a plot for a house the seller must provide the buyer with a plot large enough to build on it such a sized house. Furthermore, if one contracted another person to build a house for his newly wedded son or widowed daughter who is returning to live with her father after the death of her husband, the builder must build a house four by six cubits.
Rabbi Yishmael says that a house this size is the size of a cattle-herd. Rabbi Yishmael then lists the sizes of houses. If a person, for instance, contracted another to build him a large house, then he must build one eight by ten cubits.
With regards to the height, the mishnah says that it must be the sum of half the width and half the length. A large house would be nine cubits high. The proof is the sanctuary that stood in the Temple in Jerusalem. According to I Kings 6:2, 17, the Sanctuary was 40 cubits long, 20 wide and 30 high. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with using the Sanctuary as a precedent for normal houses. Assumedly Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel would hold that a house should be as high as normal houses are in the area in which the house is built.
Note how small the houses are that are described in the mishnah. In ancient Israel the house was probably only used for sleeping and maybe eating when the weather did not permit eating outside. People owned very few possessions and therefore didn’t have need for much storage. Furthermore, there courtyards served as workplaces to do things such as cook and clean. Therefore there “houses” were the size of small rooms in modern American homes. On your next visit to Israel, if you visit an archaeological site notice the size of the homes and tell your tour guide about this mishnah!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah which we will learn today deals with a person who owns a cistern behind another person’s property and hence requires a passage through the other’s property to get to his cistern or garden. The mishnah provides rules to both the property owner and the cistern owner to ensure that the latter receives access without trespassing on the former.", + "If he had a cistern behind his fellow’s house, he may go in and out only at the time when others are accustomed to go in and out. And he may not bring in his cattle and let them drink from his cistern, rather he must draw water and let them drink outside. He and the owner of the house should each make themselves a lock. This mishnah discusses the case where a person owns a cistern that exists behind another person’s property. In such a case the person is allowed to enter the other’s property in order to reach his cistern, but he must do so at the time when people customarily draw water from their cisterns. He is further restricted from bringing his cattle or other animals onto the other’s property. Rather he must draw the water and carry it outside. Finally, the mishnah demands that each of them make a lock. The cistern owner should make a lock for the cover of the cistern so that the house owner doesn’t steal any water. The house owner should make a lock on his door so that the cistern owner doesn’t enter when he is not allowed to." + ], + [ + "If he had a garden behind his fellow’s garden, he may go in and out only at the time when others are accustomed to go in and out. And he may not bring in merchants, or enter through it into another field. [The owner of] the outer garden may plant seeds on the path.
But, if with the other’s consent, he has been given a path at the side [of the other’s garden] he may go in and out when he wishes. And he may bring in merchants, but he may not enter through it into another field. And neither of them has the right to plant seeds on the path.
The mishnah which we will learn today is similar to yesterday’s mishnah, except it discusses access to a garden instead of a cistern.
This mishnah deals with a person who owns a garden behind another person’s garden. In other words in order to get to his garden he must go through the other person’s garden. The mishnah says that he is allowed to do so, but with certain limitations, similar to those we saw in the previous mishnah. First of all, he must go in and out at the time when people are accustomed to going to their gardens. Second, he may not bring merchants through his fellow’s property in order to buy his produce. Rather he must carry the produce out and the merchants can buy outside. Third, he may not use the path as a shortcut to other fields. Since the path was designated only to reach a certain field he is not allowed to use it to reach others. Finally, the owner of the outer garden is allowed to plant seeds on the path, even though this will make it more difficult for the owner of the inner garden to use the path. Since the path belongs to owner of the outer garden, he can do with it as he pleases.
If, however, the owner of the inner garden was given (possibly by the court) a path on the side of the outer garden, and the owner of the outer garden consented, then he may go there whenever he please. He may also bring in merchants to buy the produce, but he still may not use the path as a shortcut to other fields. Again, since the path was designated for reaching a certain field, he may not use it to reach others. Finally, since the path is intended only for walking, neither of them may plant on the it." + ], + [ + "If a public path passed through a man’s field and he took it and gave them [another path] by the side of the field, what he has given he has given and what he has taken for himself does not become his.
A private path is four cubits. A public path is sixteen cubits. The king’s path has no prescribed measure. The path to a grave has no prescribed measure. The halting places, according to the judges of Tzippori, should be four kab’s space of ground.
Mishnah seven deals with laws concerning the building and the selling of private and public paths.
In the scenario presented in section one a person had a path that passed through the middle of his field and decided that he would take that path and use it as part of his field and he would create a different public path on the side of his field. According to the mishnah the seizure of the public path is invalid and the public may continue to use the path in the middle of the field. In addition, the path given on the side of the field becomes public property, such that the public may also use that path.
The remainder of the mishnah standardizes the sizes of paths for the purposes of selling and buying. A private path is four cubits (about 2 meters) wide and a public path is 16 cubits (8 meters) wide. Therefore if a person were to sell a private path he would be selling a four cubit path, and if he sold a public path he would have sold a 16 cubit path. The mishnah additionally informs us that a king’s procession passing through another person’s field is permitted to take as wide of a path as needed. So too, if a funeral procession passes, the procession may cut as wide of a path as needed. Finally, we learn that halting places, which were places on the path of the funeral procession, where the mourners would stop in the course of a funeral procession in order to eulogize the dead, were generally four kab big (25 meters by 17 meters). If a person sold a “halting place” to another person this is the size of the land sold." + ], + [ + "If a man sold to his fellow a place in which to make a tomb, so, too, if a man was commissioned by his fellow to make a tomb, he must make the inside of the vault four cubits by six, and open within it eight niches, three on this side, three on that side, and two opposite [the doorway]. The niches must be four cubits long, seven handbreadths high, and six handbreadths wide.
Rabbi Shimon says: “He must make the inside of the vault four cubits by eight, and open within it thirteen niches, four on this side, four on that side, three opposite [the doorway] and one to the right of the doorway and one to the left.
He must make a courtyard at the opening of the vault, six cubits by six, space enough for the bier and its bearers. And he may open within it two vaults, one on either side. Rabbi Shimon says: “Four, one on each of its sides.”
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “All depends on the nature of the rock.”
Mishnah eight deals with the building of tombs.
In the times of the mishnah people were buried in tombs, which consisted of caves with niches carved out of the wall. Each tomb could hold a number of bodies, with one body put into each niche. If someone contracted to build a tomb he must build one 4 by 6 cubits (2 by 4 meters) and make eight niches, each of a specified length, width and height. According to Rabbi Shimon, the tomb must be 4 by 8 cubits and contain 13 niches. In addition, he must build a courtyard over the tomb, big enough for the bier, a stretcher which carried the body and the people holding the bier. According to the anonymous opinion in 3a, the courtyard can serve two tombs and according to Rabbi Shimon it can serve four.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, section 4, disagrees with Rabbi Shimon and the anonymous opinion in section 1. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel the size of the tomb is not set in absolute terms, but depends on the nature of the rock. If it is hard rock he is only obligated to make eight niches in a 4 by 6 tomb, but if it is soft rock, he is obligated to make thirteen niches in a 4 by 8 tomb." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a man said to his fellow, “I will sell you a kor’s space of soil”, and it contained crevices ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high, these are not included in the measurement.
But if they were less than this they are included.
If he said to him, “About a kor’s space of soil”, even if it contained crevices deeper than ten handbreadths or rocks higher than ten handbreadths, they are included in the measurement.
The seventh chapter of Bava Batra deals with errors in the measurement of fields discovered after they were sold. The question asked is must the buyer return the error to the seller if the seller gave more than the stated amount and vice versa, may the buyer demand that the seller give more land if the land was less than the stated amount.
According to our mishnah if a person promises to sell exactly a kor’s space of soil (about 20,000 square meters) then any crevices which are lower than ten handbreadths or rocks higher than ten handbreadth’s are not counted as part of the field. Since they cannot be used for planting, they do not contribute to the measure of a kor’s space of soil. However, if he sold him “about a kor’s space of soil” these rocks and crevices are included. Since he didn’t say that he was selling precisely a kor’s space of soil the measurements do not have to be precise." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two continues to deal with error’s made in the measurements of a field and the rules regarding returning the difference in such cases.", + "[If he said, “I will sell you] a kor’s space of soil as measured by a rope”, and he gave him less, the buyer may reduce the price; and if he gave him more, the buyer must give it back. But if he said, “Whether less or more”, even if he gave the buyer a quarter-kab’s space less in every seah’s space, or a quarter kab’s space more in every seah’s space, it becomes his; if [the error] was more than this, a reckoning must be made. If a person sold a piece of land by the measure of a rope, the expectation is that the land must be sold precisely. Hence, if the land was smaller the buyer may reduce the price and if the land was larger the buyer must give it back. As we shall see later in the mishnah, the buyer may under such circumstances, be required to pay more money for the extra land. If, however, the seller said that he was selling more or less a piece of land the size of a kor, than the margin of error is a quarter-kab. This works out to 1/24 of the land sold. If the error was under that margin, then the sale stands as is. If the error was greater then the buyer must return the surplus if the plot was larger or the seller must lower the price if the plot was smaller.", + "What does he (the give him back? Its value in money; but if the seller wants, he gives him back the land. And why did they say that he could give back its value in money? To strengthen the power of the seller, for if, in a field [containing a kor’s space] there would still have remained to him nine kab’s space, or, in a garden, a half-kab’s space, or according to Rabbi Akiva a quarter-kab’s space, the buyer must give back to him land. When the buyer returns the surplus sold to him, under certain circumstances he gives the seller extra money and does not return the land itself. This is considered to be a benefit to the seller. According to the strict letter of the law, if a kor’s space was sold, the buyer should not be forced to buy more land and he should therefore return the extra land itself. However, if the buyer were to return to him a very small piece of land, it would be unusable. Therefore, if the seller should so desire he can ask for money in return for the extra land. If, on the other hand, the land was large enough, as listed in the end of section 2c, then the seller can take back the land.", + "And not only must he give back the quarter-kab’s space, but all of the surplus. If the margin was slightly over the accepted margin of error, the buyer does not only return a small portion to place the error under the margin of error. Rather he returns the entire surplus. In other words if the margin of error is a quarter-kab per seah, and the surplus was a half-kab, the buyer returns the entire half-kab and not just a quarter.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the subject of mishnah one and the subject of mishnah two?
• The mishnah presents a leniency on the seller, namely that he has a choice to receive the surplus in money or in land. Why is the mishnah lenient on the seller, even though it might force the buyer to pay for more land than he intended?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to deal with the measurement of fields for purposes of selling.", + "[If he said], “I will sell you [a piece of land] as measured by the rope, whether it is less or more” the condition “whether it is less or more” makes void the condition “as measured by the rope”. [And if he said], “Be it less or more, as measured by the rope”, the condition “as measured by the rope” makes void the condition “be it less or more”, according to Ben Nanas. In the scenario mentioned in both clauses of section one, the seller uses contradictory language when selling the field. As we learned in mishnah two, when the seller says that he is selling “as measured by the rope”, the intention is that the measurement be precise. On the other hand, if he says, “whether it is less or more” the intention is that the measurement will not necessarily be precise. According to our mishnah if he said both languages within one sentence the last language voids the first language. In other words, we assume that when he said the last language he intended to change his mind from the first language. Therefore the case will be adjudicated only based on the last language.", + "[If he said, I will sell you a piece of land] by its marks and its boundaries”, and the difference was less than a sixth, the sale stands. If it was as much a sixth the buyer may reduce the price. If a person sold a piece of land using its marks and boundaries as indicators to the place of the land, there is an allowance of up to one-sixth error. Beyond that, meaning more than one sixth error, the buyer may reduce the price if the error was to the seller’s favor (i.e. the land was smaller than stated). Alternatively, the buyer will return money or the property to the seller, if the error was to the buyer’s favor (i.e. the land was larger than stated)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four continue to deal with the measurement of fields for purposes of selling.", + "If a man said to his fellow, “I will sell you half of the field”, it must be divided between them into portions of equal value, and the buyer takes half of the field [which the other allots to him]. When a man sells half a field to another, they must divide the field into equal portions of monetary value. In a one hundred square meters field worth one hundred dollar, there may be a thirty square meter portion which is worth 50 dollars and a seventy square meter portion that is worth 50 dollars. In such a case the seller has a choice which piece of the field to keep. If he wishes he may keep the smaller, better field, or he may keep the larger, but of lesser quality field.", + "[If he said, “I will sell you] the southern half”, the field must be divided between them into portions of equal value, and the buyer takes the southern half. If, however, the seller stated which portion of the field he was selling, then they again divide the field into two, but this time the seller must give the specified portion. Since he specified which portion he was selling, he loses the right to decide which portion to give to the buyer.", + "He accepts responsibility for [providing the ground] for the dividing wall and the large and small ditches. How large is the large ditch? Six handbreadths. And the small ditch? Three handbreadths. The buyer is responsible for providing part of his land to make a dividing fence (as we learned in the first mishnah in Bava Batra) as well as part of his land to build ditches. These ditches would have surrounded the fence and would have prevented animals from jumping over the fence. The buyer’s part of land given for fences and ditches should be equal to the part given by the seller.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three: If the mishnah had not stated that the buyer must provide a share of his land on which to build the fence and dishes what might you have thought? In other words, is there grounds to think that the seller must solely provide the ground?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "There are those who inherit and bequeath, there are those who inherit but do not bequeath, there are those who bequeath but do not inherit and there are those who neither bequeath nor inherit.
These inherit and bequeath: a father as to his sons and sons as to their father and brothers from the same father, these inherit and bequeath.
A man as to mother, and a man as to his wife, and the sons of sisters, inherit but do not bequeath.
A woman as to her sons, and a wife as to her husband, and brothers of the mother, bequeath but do not inherit.
And brothers from the same mother [but not father] neither inherit nor bequeath.
The eighth and ninth chapters of Bava Batra deal with the laws of inheritance. It states in Numbers 8-11 (JPS translation): “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter. If he has no daughter, you shall assign his property to his brothers. If he has no brothers, you shall assign his property to his father’s brothers. If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan, and he shall inherit it.”
The first two mishnayoth of our chapter deal with the order of inheritance, who inherits from whom and who bequeaths property to whom.
This mishnah lists in four categories all those who inherit from others and all those who, when they die, bequeath property to others.
Category one: The relationships listed in this category both inherit and bequeath. When a father dies, his sons inherit and if they should die without offspring, the father inherits from them. If a man dies and he has no children and his father is already dead his brother will inherit. So too if his brother dies in a similar situation , he bequeaths his property to his brother.
Category two: The relationships listed in this category are ones in which the person inherits but does not bequeath. A man inherits his mother but if he should die first, the mother does not inherit from him. So too, a man inherits his wife but if he should die his property is not bequeathed to her. If a man dies and his sister had children, they may inherit him if he has no closer relative. However, if they die, he does not inherit their property since it will pass to their father’s side and not their mother’s.
Category three: The relationships listed in this category are ones in which the person bequeaths but does not inherit. A woman bequeaths her property to her sons but she does not inherit from them if they should die first. Likewise, a husband inherits his wife’s property, but he does not bequeath his property to her. Finally, if a man dies and his closest relative is his sister’s children his property is bequeathed to them, but if they should die he cannot inherit from them.
Category four: The relationships listed in this category are ones in which the person neither bequeaths nor inherits. If a man dies and he leaves a brother who shares a mother but not a father he does not bequeath his property to him, nor does he inherit his property should the brother die. The inheritance lines go to each man’s father’s family and not to his relatives on his mother’s side." + ], + [ + "This is the order of inheritance: “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8) the son precedes the daughter, and all the son’s offspring precede the daughter.
The daughter precedes the brothers and the daughters’ offspring precede the brothers.’
Brothers precede the father’s brothers and the brothers’ offspring precede the father’s brothers.
This is the general rule: whosoever has precedence in inheritance, his offspring also has precedence.
The father has precedence over all his offspring.
Mishnah two lists the order of the inheritance, whose inheritance takes precedence over others.
This mishnah deals with the order of inheritance as mentioned in the verse, quoted in section one. A son precedes a daughter in inheritance. In addition, if the son had children they inherit even if the son is no longer alive. In other words grandchildren inherit directly from their grandfather if the father is no longer alive. As stated in the general rule in section five, offspring in essence take the place of the supposed inheritor. So too if the daughter has offspring and she is no longer alive, they will inherit in place of the brothers of the deceased. If the brothers of the deceased have offspring and the brothers are no longer alive, they will inherit in place of the deceased man’s father’s brothers.
Finally, the mishnah teaches us one other piece of information that we might have assumed from the Torah but is not explicit. The Torah lists the father’s brothers as being on the line of inheritance but it does not list the father himself. Our mishnah states that if a person dies without children, his or her father becomes the primary inheritor. Likewise, if a grandchild would die with no offspring and the grandchild’s father is also not alive the grandfather would inherit from his granchild." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn Numbers 27 the story is told of Zelophehad’s daughters. Zelophehad died with no sons and his daughters came to Moses to request that they inherit Zelophehad’s property. Moses brings the request to God who affirms that if there are no sons then the daughters are the next in the line of inheritance. Mishnah three deals with the case of Zelophehad’s daughters.", + "The daughters of Zelophehad took three portions of the inheritance (of the Land of: The portion of their father who was of them that came out of Egypt; And his portion among his brothers from the property of Hepher (Zelophehad’s; And, in that he ( was the first-born, he took a double portion. This mishnah lists how many portions of land the daughters of Zelophehad received. According to the mishnah the Land of Israel was divided according to the adult males who left Egypt (and not according to those who actually arrived to the Land of Israel). Since Zelophehad and his father, Hepher, both left Egypt, they both would have received a piece of land in Israel. In addition, Zelophehad, being the first born, would have taken a double portion in the inheritance he received from Hepher. These three portions, Zelophehad’s own portion and the two portions he inherited from Hepher, all would have passed down to the daughters of Zelophehad when he died.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How does this mishnah connect with the subject of the previous mishnah? In other words why is this mishnah here and not somewhere else in the chapter?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four deals with the difference between the inheritance of the son and the daughter.", + "The son and the daughter are alike concerning inheritance, save that the [firstborn] son takes a double portion of the father’s property but he does not take a double portion of the mother’s property. And the daughters receive maintenance from the father’s property but not from the mother’s property. This mishnah lists the differences between sons and daughters with regards to inheritance. (Note: daughters only inherit when there are no sons). The first difference is that the eldest son inherits the double portion, whereas the eldest daughter would inherit equally with younger sisters. Furthermore, the son inherits a double portion of his father’s inheritance but not of his mother’s inheritance. The law of the double portion are found in Deuteronomy 21:15. If a man should die and leave sons and daughters, the sons inherit the estate but the minor daughters are maintained, i.e. fed, clothed, housed and in general provided for, by the estate of the deceased father. We will learn this principle in chapter nine. Here the mishnah states that the daughters, when receiving maintenance payments, receive them only from the estate of the father and not from the estate of the mother.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one is actually worded in a somewhat difficult manner. What makes it difficult?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with a father’s ability to decide which of his inheritors will inherit.", + "Our mishnah deals with a father who does not want to simply let the inheritance fall in its proper order (as learned in the first two mishnayoth of the chapter) but rather wants to divide his property in another fashion.", + "If a man says, “So and so, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double portion”, or “So and so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers”, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. The Torah demands that the eldest son receive a double portion and each of the other sons divide the money equally. A father’s attempt to lessen the portion of the eldest son or increase the portion of the other sons would be, therefore, a condition that goes against Torah law, and such a condition is invalid.", + "If a man apportioned his property to his sons by word of mouth, and gave much to one and little to another, or made them equal to the firstborn, his words are valid. But if he had said [that it should be so] “by inheritance”, he has said nothing. If he had written down, whether at the beginning or in the middle or at the end [of his will] that it should be as a gift, his words are valid. However, the fact that a man cannot make a change in the inheritance law does not mean that he cannot apportion his money as a present to his children while he is still alive. As long as the document or his verbal contract states that the money is being passed to his children as a present while he is still alive and not as an inheritance after his death, the transaction is valid. The Torah’s laws govern inheritance, the transfer of money after death and not presents given during life.", + "If a man said, “So and so a man shall inherit from me” and he has a daughter; or “My daughter shall inherit from me”, and he has a son, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka says: “If he said [that so and so shall inherit from me] of one that was qualified to inherit from him, his words are valid, but if of one that was not qualified to inherit from him his words do not remain valid.” Similar to the law in section one, here too a person attempts to change the laws of inheritance from the Torah, by saying that a stranger will inherit when he has a daughter or that his daughter will inherit when he has a son. Again, we learn that such a stipulation, contrary to the laws of the Torah, is invalid. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka disagrees. He says that as long as the intended inheritor is a legal inheritor, meaning one of those on the list in mishnah one and two, then a person can bypass the primary inheritor and give to the secondary one. In other words Jacob could state that instead of his sons inheriting his property his daughter Dina could inherit, since she is on the lines of inheritance. He could not however, state that a stranger to the family would inherit in place of his sons.", + "If a man wrote away his property to others and passed over his sons, what he has done is done, but the Sages are not comfortable with it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If has sons did not behave properly, it should be counted to his credit.” Finally, the mishnah states that although a person can give away his property to strangers before he dies, thereby leaving no inheritance for his sons, the Rabbis were not happy with such an action. The laws of inheritance in the Torah are not just guidelines for inheriting should the situation arise, they are the proper way in which property would be transferred from generation to generation. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel lastly notes, that if the sons were engaged in improper behavior, it is meritorious for the father to ensure that they receive no inheritance." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six deals with a father’s ability to declare that a certain person is either his son or his brother in order that he should be his legal inheritor.", + "If a man said, “This is my son”, he is believed. If [he said], “This is my brother”, he is not believed, yet the other may join him in his portion. If he died the property returns to its place. If he inherited property from elsewhere the other’s brothers inherit it together with him. If a man states that a certain person is his son, and therefore should inherit his property along with his other sons, he is believed. Since he could give his property to this person in any case, we allow him to claim that the person is his son so that he may receive a portion of the inheritance. However, he is not to believed to say that a person is his brother and therefore should share in the inheritance from his father. Since, by saying that a person is his brother and deserves part of the inheritance he would be taking away from the shares of the other brothers, he is not believed. Suppose a case in which Reuven and Shimon come to split an inheritance and Shimon claims that Levi is his brother. If they were to split equally, Reuven would receive a third of the inheritance and not the half, which would be his had Shimon been his only brother. Therefore Reuven takes half and Shimon and Levi split the other half. If Levi were to die, the money would revert to Shimon. Since the money was taken out of Shimon’s share in the first place, the money would eventually revert to him and not to Reuven. If Levi were to receive money from somewhere else (i.e. not from his father’s inheritance) and then die, Reuven and Shimon would both inherit. Since Shimon claimed that Levi was his and Reuven’s brother he must share the inheritance from Levi with Reuven.", + "If a man died and a testament was found bound to his thigh, this counts as nothing. But if [he had delivered it and] through it granted title to another, whether of his heirs or of those who are not his heirs, his words are valid. If a man died and a testament (will) was found on him, the will is invalid. Although we may assume that the man wrote the document we do not know if he intended to give it to the intended person. Since he may have written it and changed his mind, the document is not valid. If, however, he gave the document to someone else before he died the document is valid. Since it was given while the person was alive, it is a proper will and it will be carried out." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah seven deals with laws concerning a father who gives money to his son before his death, thereby circumventing the lines of inheritance as prescribed in the Torah. The second half of the mishnah deals with the division of the inheritance amongst the sons.", + "The first two sections of the mishnah deal with a father who wrote over his property to one of his sons before his death in order to avoid the property falling equally to all of his sons at the time of his death. The intent of the father’s action is for the money ti stay in the possession of the father until he dies but to already partly belong to the son to whom the property was written over. In this way the son does not have to split the property with the other sons.", + "If a man writes over his property to his son, he must write, “From today and after my death”, according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, “He need not do so.” In order to accomplish such an action the father must write in the document that it is valid “from today and after my death”. He writes “from today” so that the property will already be transferred before his death, and thereby not subject to the laws of inheritance which take effect only after death. He writes, “after my death” so that he can continue to use the property until he dies. This is Rabbi Judah’s opinion. According to Rabbi Yose he need not write “from today” in the document. Since the document contains the date on which it was written, it is clear that the transfer occurs before his death, and is not subject to the laws of inheritance.", + "If a man writes over his property to his son to be his after his death, the father cannot sell it since it is written over to the son, and the son cannot sell it since it is in the possession of the father. If his father sold the property, it is sold [only] until he dies; if the son sold the property, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests the crops and gives them to whomever he wishes, and what he has left harvested belongs to [all] his heirs. After the document is written the property is neither fully the son’s nor fully the father’s. Neither can sell the property; if the father were to do the sale is only valid until he dies at which point the property will belong to the son. If the son were to sell the sale is valid only after the father dies. Until then the property is in the father’s possession. The father may continue to harvest the produce from his fields and he may even give it to others as he so desires. If he dies and leaves harvested produce, it is subject to the laws of inheritance and not solely to the son to whom the father wrote his property.", + "If he left elder sons and younger sons, the elder sons may not take care of themselves [from the estate] at the expense of the younger sons, nor may the younger sons claim maintenance at the cost of the elder sons, rather they all share alike. If the elder sons married [at the expense of the estate] so too the younger sons may marry [at the expense of the estate]. If the younger sons said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given. In this section the father died without writing his property over to one son. In such a case the inheritance is divided equally. The elder sons cannot take care of themselves at the expense of the younger sons. Even though the elder sons need more clothing than the younger sons they may not use more than their share. So too, the younger sons may not claim more food than their share, even though younger children eat and waste more food. With regards to providing a marriage feast for the son and his bride and providing the young couple with a place to live, the younger sons can claim to receive the same amount from the inheritance that the elder sons receive. If, however, the elder sons married while the father was still alive, the younger sons cannot claim that they should receive as much as the elder sons received. Since the elder sons married while the father was alive the money their father gave them for the wedding was a gift and does not impact on the equal division of the inheritance.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section 2a: Why is produce which is harvested before the father dies subject to the laws of inheritance whereas the rest of the father’s property is transferred to the son to whom the property was written over?" + ], + [ + "If he left elder daughters and younger daughters, the elder daughters may not care for themselves at the cost of the younger daughters, nor may the younger daughters claim maintenance at the cost of the elder daughters, rather they all share alike.
If the elder daughters married [and took each her dowry from the common inheritance] so too the younger daughters may marry [and take each a dowry from the common inheritance].
If the younger daughters said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given.
A greater stringency applies to daughters than to sons, since daughters can claim maintenance at the cost of the sons, but they cannot claim maintenance at the cost of the [other daughters].
Mishnah eight deals with the division of the inheritance when daughters inherit.
The first three sections of this mishnah are identical to the last section of yesterday’s mishnah. The only difference is that while the father customarily pays for the wedding of his son, to his daughter he gives a dowry. Therefore in section two and three the daughters are arguing over dowries and not over the costs of the wedding.
Section four: We will learn in the first mishnah of the next chapter that if a father left sons and daughters and he did not have a large enough inheritance for the daughters to be maintained and the sons to inherit, the daughters’ maintenance (food, clothing and shelter) takes precedence over the sons’ inheritance. However, if he left only daughters, the younger daughters cannot claim maintenance at the expense of the elder daughters. In other words, the law with regards to daughters is more strict [vis a vis the other daughters] than the law with regards to sons." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe ninth chapter of Bava Batra continues to deal with the laws of inheritance, the subject discussed in chapter eight. The first mishnah of the chapter deals with the division of the inheritance between sons and daughters.", + "If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the property was great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance. But if the property was small the daughters receive maintenance and the sons go begging at people’s doors. Admon says: “The son may say, ‘Must I suffer a loss because I am a male’”. Rabban Gamaliel says: “I approve of Admon’s opinion.” As we have learned in several mishnayoth in the previous chapter, when a man dies and he has sons who survive him, the sons are the sole inheritors of his property. However, the surviving daughters have a right to continue to receive maintenance (food, clothing, shelter and a dowry) from his estate until they reach majority age and are married. Our mishnah teaches that if the property was sufficient for both an inheritance and for the maintenance of the daughters, then the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance. If, however, there was not enough property, the daughters maintenance takes precedence over the sons inheritance. In such a case the sons will have to beg at people’s doors. Admon disagrees and says that the son may claim that he should not lose out just because he is male. Rabban Gamaliel agrees with Admon.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the anonymous opinion hold that the daughters receive support from their dead father’s estate while the sons must beg, at least in a case where there is insufficient funds for all? Why not vice versa?" + ], + [ + "If a man left sons and daughters and one that was of doubtful gender, if the property was great the males may push him (the one of doubtful onto the females; if the property was small the females may thrust him onto the males.
If a man said, “If my wife shall bear a male he shall be given 100 zuz”, and she had a male, he receives 100 zuz. [If he said, “If my wife shall bear a] female she shall be given 200 zuz”, and she had a female, she receives 200 zuz. [If he said, “If may wife shall bear a] male he shall be given 100 zuz and if a female 200 zuz” and she had a male and a female, the male receives 100 zuz and the female 200 zuz. If she had one of doubtful gender, he does not take. But if he said, “Whatsoever my wife shall bear shall be given [such an amount], he receives.
If he [the one of doubtful gender] was the only heir, he inherits everything.
Mishnah two deals with the division of the inheritance when one of the children is not discernibly male or female and other laws concerning such a child.
This mishnah discusses the rights of a “tumtum” which is the Hebrew term for a child who does not have sexual signs of being a male or female. If there is a large inheritance, and therefore the sons will take their part, the sons can tell the “tumtum” that he is not a son and therefore he can only receive maintenance with the other daughters. If, however, there is small estate, and it is not sufficient to support all of the children, the daughters can tell him that he must go begging with the other sons. These two laws are based on the principle, common to many Rabbinic laws, that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In order for the “tumtum” to take part of the inheritance he must prove that he is male, which he cannot. In order for him to receive maintenance when the estate is small, he must prove that he is female, which he cannot.
Section two deals with a father who makes a promise to give his child a present when the child is born and bases the size of the present on the gender of the child. Sections 2, 2a and 2b are straightforward and need no explanation. According to section 2c if, in any of the aforementioned cases, the woman were to bear a “tumtum” the child would not be able to claim the present. Since the present was based on the child’s gender and the child cannot prove a gender, the child cannot make a claim on the gift.
If, however, the father had said that he wished to give a gift to anything that the wife had, then he has not based the gift on the child’s gender. In such a case even a tumtum would receive the gift. Finally the mishnah states that if the “tumtum” were the only inheritor, s/he would inherit." + ], + [ + "If a man left elder sons and younger sons, and the elder sons improved the property, they improve it to the common benefit. If they said, “See, what our father has left us, lo, we will work and from that we will eat”, they improve it to their own benefit.
So, too, if a woman (a improved the property, she improves it to the common benefit. If she had said, “See, what my husband left to me, lo, I will work and from that I will eat”, she improves it to her own benefit.
Mishnah three discusses sons who share an inheritance and some of the sons improve the value of the property. The issue discussed is are the sons who improved the value the only ones to profit or is the profit divided equally between all of the inheriting sons. A similar situation is discussed in which a widow improves the value of her dead husband’s property.
In the scenario mentioned in our mishnah Jacob died and left four sons, two who were older, Reuven and Shimon, and two who were younger, Levi and Judah, and Jacob owned a piece of real estate worth 1000 dollars. If Reuven and Shimon were to take this land and improve it, thereby doubling its value, each son’s portion would double. Even though Levi and Judah did not work to improve the value, since it was their inheritance as well, they receive some of the benefit. If, however, Reuven and Shimon said that they were increasing the value of their portions only, than they alone receive the increase in value.
Similarly if a widow were to increase the value of her dead husband’s estate, she would share in the increase with the sons of her husband, or the other heirs. However, if she were to state that she is improving her own lot, than she herself would receive the benefit of her work.
Note: a widow does not inherit from her husband. She is, however, entitled to receive maintenance from her husband’s estate. Maintenance payments will be based on the value of the estate: if there is a large estate she will receive better quality food, clothing and shelter. Therefore, it is in her interest to increase the value of the estate." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses partnerships between brothers sharing their father’s inheritance and the question of the division of the profits and losses to the partnership.", + "If brothers were partners and one of them fell into a public office, it falls to the common benefit. If brothers form a partnership to live off their father’s inheritance and one of the brothers is appointed to a job with the government, his salary is split amongst the brothers. The mishnah assumes that he received his job on account of his father’s prestige and therefore the job is in essence part of the inheritance.", + "If one [of them] got sick and needed healing, his healing is at his own expense. If one of the brother’s got sick, he must pay out of his own share for his healing. Since the sickness is not connected to the inheritance the cost of the healing is not taken out of the inheritance.", + "If certain of the brothers in their father’s lifetime had made a present as groomsmen [at their father’s expense] and [after his death] the present was restored to them, it is restored to the common benefit, for the groomsmen’s gift [counts as a loan] and can be recovered in a court of law. But if [one of the brothers in his father’s lifetime] sent his fellow jars of wine or jars of oil, they cannot be recovered through a court of law, since they count [not as a loan but] as a charitable deed. In the time of the mishnah it was customary for people to send wedding gifts to the bride and groom in order to help them celebrate the seven days of wedding festivities. These wedding gifts were not exactly gifts but rather more like loans, for it was the law that one who received the gift would have to himself send a gift when the original sender got married. If some of the brothers had used their father’s money to send wedding gifts when the father was still alive, when the presents are received in return at the time of the sons marriage, they are split amongst all of the brothers, even those who did not send the gifts and who are not getting married. Since wedding gifts are like a loan, it is as if they never left the possession of the father, and they are therefore subject to the laws of inheritance. In the last clause the mishnah distinguishes between wedding presents and regular presents. If a person gave another person a jar of wine or oil as a present, these cannot be recovered like a loan, for they a form of charity.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: What would be the law if the brother received a public office not due to his father’s prestige but rather due to his own abilities? Would he still have to share the salary with his brothers?
• Section three: If wedding gifts were more like loans why did people give them?" + ], + [ + "If a man sent betrothal gifts to his father-in-law’s house, and he sent there 100 maneh (10,000 and he ate a betrothal meal of but one dinar, [and he afterward divorced his wife] they (the betrothal are not recoverable. But if he did not eat the betrothal meal, they are recoverable.
If he sent many betrothal gifts in order for them to return with her to her his house [when he marries her], they are recoverable. If he sent few betrothal gifts which were to be used in her father’s house, they are not recoverable.
Mishnah four, which we learned yesterday, discussed some laws concerning gifts given by groomsmen to the bride and groom. Mishnah five discusses a related subject, gifts given by a man to his fiancee, after betrothal but before the marriage.
In Jewish law there are two stages to the marriage process, betrothal and marriage. After betrothal the woman continues to live in her father’s house and only moves to her husband’s house at the time of marriage. In our mishnah the husband sends betrothal gifts to the father’s house, a common custom in the time of the mishnah. The mishnah discusses the husband’s ability to recover these gifts should he divorce his fiancee before marrying her (in Jewish law betrothal is binding and therefore requires divorce to sever the tie). According to our mishnah if he ate a celebratory betrothal meal at his father-in-law’s house, he cannot recover the betrothal gifts. The meal is provided by the father-in-law in return for the gifts. Even if the trade is unequal, the deal is sealed and the gifts are unrecoverable.
If he sent many gifts and it was obvious that the husband expected his fiancee to eventually bring the gifts back with her when she came his house at the time of marriage, then the gifts are recoverable if he should divorce her before marriage. Since the husband did not intend to give these gifts as permanent gifts, but rather for them to be “on loan” until they returned to him with her at the time of marriage, he can recover them. If, however, he gave few gifts, then the gifts were intended to be used up in her father’s house. In such a case since he never had an expectation to receive them in return, he cannot recover them should he divorce her before marriage." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six returns to discuss the major topic of the chapter, inheritance law. The specific subject of this mishnah is laws governing a person who gives away his property while on his death bed and then recovers from his illness. The question is can he recover his property.", + "Generally speaking when a person gives another person a piece of property the giver cannot change his mind once the document is written and signed. However, if the giver was a dying man he may change his mind and recover his property should he recover from his illness. Since we assume that he intended to give the gift only if he were to die, if he were not to die the gift is annulled.", + "If a man who lies dying wrote over his property to others [as a gift] and kept back any land whatsoever, his gift remains valid [even should he not die]. If he did not keep back any land whatsoever, his gift does not remain valid [if he should not die]. If, when he wrote the gift document he retained some land for himself, then we can assume that this is not truly the gift of a dying man. A dying man does not retain any land for himself. Therefore, if he should recover from his illness, the gift is not recoverable. If, however, he did not retain any land for himself, then this is the gift of a man who believed himself about to die. In such a circumstance the gift is recoverable should he recover from his illness.", + "If it was not written in the document, “who lies dying”, but he said that [he had written the document] while he lay dying and they (those who received the said that he was healthy [when he wrote the document], he must bring proof that he had been dying, according to Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: “He who makes a claim against his fellow bears the burden of proof.” In the scenario in this section the document did not state that he was a dying man and the man did recover from his illness. At that point he claimed that he had written the document as a dying man and therefore the gift is retracted. The recipients of the gift claim that he gave it as a healthy man and therefore the gift is not retractable. According to Rabbi Meir the gift goes to the recipients. Since the person’s last confirmed status is as a healthy man (his current status), we can assume that he was healthy when he wrote the document, and therefore the gift is not a gift given by a dying man. According to the sages, the burden of proof lies on the pursuant, in this case the recipients who wish to receive their promised gift from the giver. Since they cannot prove that he was healthy when he wrote the document he is not obligated to give them the gift.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the dying man have to divide up his property before he dies? Why can’t he just say that the gift will not be transferred until after he dies, thereby avoiding the problem of recovering from his illness after having given away his property?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the formal and legal way in which a person may transfer property. In the first chapter of Tractate Kiddushin the Mishnah teaches these laws more extensively. Our mishnah deals specifically with how a dying person transfers his property before s/he dies so that the property will not be subject to the laws of inheritance. In Hebrew the formal transfer of property is called “kinyan”. (See Steinsaltz reference guide, page 254).", + "The first two sections of our mishnah discuss a person who tries to transfer his property to another person orally without using a written document or other formal means of kinyan. According to Rabbi Eliezer, whether the man is healthy or dying, he must perform the transaction in the usual manner that transactions are done, i.e. with kinyan. If he wishes to cause acquisition of land he must either receive money from the acquirer, use a document or the acquirer must demonstrate physical possession of the land (see Bava Batra, chapter 3). If he wishes to cause acquisition of movable property, i.e. things, the acquirer must actually take possession of them by drawing them towards him. In other words, according to Rabbi Eliezer, merely saying that one is giving something to another person does not cause the acquisition to take effect. The Sages respond to Rabbi Eliezer with a story that demonstrates through a precedent that a dying person may indeed transfer their possessions orally. In the story the mother of the sons of Rokhel declared that her expensive veil was to go to her daughter (and not to her sons who would inherit her when she dies). The Sages accepted her words and gave the veil to her daughter, even though no formal acquisition (kinyan) had been made. To this Rabbi Eliezer responds that the sons of Rokhel were wicked and therefore the Sages accepted that the veil should belong to her daughter. In other words the story is exceptional and therefore does not serve as a proper precedent.", + "The Sages say: “On a Sabbath his words remain valid, since he cannot write, but not on a weekday.” The sages say that a dying person can divide his property orally on Shabbat, since it is forbidden to write. If, however, he were to do this during the week, when it is permitted to write, the transfer is invalid. Rabbi Joshua disagrees. He says that if they said that he could do this on Shabbat all the more so he may orally divide his property during the week. Rabbi Joshua’s reasoning is that since he could write and transfer property during the week, he is allowed to do so even without a formal document or kinyan.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: “If they have stated this rule on the Sabbath, how much more so on a weekday.” Similarly, others may acquire possession on behalf of a minor, but not on behalf of an adult. Rabbi Joshua says: “If they have stated this rule with regards to a minor, how much more so does the rule apply to an adult. Rabbi Joshua and the Sages have a similar dispute on another issue of halakhah. According to the Sages, one may acquire possession on behalf of a minor but not on behalf of an adult. In other words Reuven can legally accept a gift on behalf of Joseph who is a minor, but not on behalf of Shimon who is an adult. Since Joseph cannot legally take possession of the gift himself Reuven may do it on his behalf. Shimon who can legally take possession of the gift must do so on his own. Rabbi Joshua says that if Reuven can acquire possession for a minor, all the more so may he do so for an adult.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Explain Rabbi Joshua’s opinion in section three in light of his opinion in section two. Why did the editor of the mishnah see that these two disputes between the Sages and Rabbi Joshua were similar and therefore place them in one mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final three mishnayoth of chapter nine deal with cases of doubtful inheritances where both the inheritor and the one from whom he inherits die in one incident. We will explain this scenario in our explanation to each individual mishnah.", + "If the house fell down on a man and his father, or upon a man and any from whom he inherits, and he was liable for his wife’s ketubah or to a creditor: the father’s heirs say, “The son died first and the father died afterward”, and the creditors say, “The father died first and the son died afterward.” The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status [in the hands of those who inherit the father].” In the scenario in our mishnah a man and his father (or someone else from whom he inherits) die in one accident (a house falls on them). We do not know who died first, Jacob, the father or Reuven, the son. The son had creditors to whom he owed money or a wife with a ketubah, a marriage contract, guaranteeing her money upon death or divorce. If Jacob died first, then Reuven would inherit and the wife or the creditors could collect their debts from Jacob’s estate. Since Reuven owned his father’s estate upon his death it is subject to Reuven’s debts. This will be especially important if Reuven died without any money of his own. Only if Jacob died first will Reuven’s creditors or wife be able to claim any money. Since this scenario is best for the creditors and for the wife, they claim that Jacob died first. If, however, Reuven died first, then he never inherited from Jacob. Jacob’s property will go in such a case to his other inheritors and the creditors or wife will not be able to claim anything from Reuven. Since this scenario is best for Jacob’s inheritors, they claim that Reuven died first. The School of Shammai says that in such a scenario the creditors, wife and inheritors of the father split the disputed inheritance of the father. The School of Hillel holds that the money remains with under the assumption of belonging to its previous verifiable owner until proven otherwise. Since the last verifiable owner of the property is the father, his inheritors receive the property until the creditors or wife can prove that the father died first. Question for Further Thought:  Upon what abstract principle is the School of Shammai’s decision based?  Upon what abstract principle is the School of Hillel’s decision based?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine continues to deal with the topic of doubtful inheritances in which it is unclear who died first, the inheritor or the one from whom he inherits.", + "If the house fell down on a man and his wife, the husband’s heirs say, “The wife died first and the husband died afterward” and the wife’s heirs say, “The husband died first and the wife died afterward”. The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status the Ketubah to the husband’s heirs and the property that comes in and goes out with her to her father’s heirs.” In our mishnah Jacob and Rachel both died in the same accident and it is unclear who died first. If Rachel died first then Jacob would inherit all of her property, since a husband inherits from his wife. If Jacob inherited Rachel’s property then when he died his inheritors would inherit her (as well as his) property. Therefore, Jacob’s inheritors claim that Rachel died first. If, on the other hand, Jacob died first, Rachel’s inheritors would inherit her property. (They would not inherit Jacob’s property since a wife does not inherit from her husband). Therefore, Rachel’s inheritors claim that Jacob died first. As in the previous mishnah the School of Shammai says that in such a case the money is to be split. The School of Hillel again states that the money reverts back to its last verifiable owner. The ketubah (marriage contract) money last belonged to the husband (it is his until he pays it to her) and therefore his inheritors receive that money. The woman’s dowry which she brought into the marriage and over which the husband did not take title, belonged to the wife. Therefore her inheritors receive this money.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How is the School of Hillel’s opinion in mishnah nine consistent with their opinion in mishnah eight?" + ], + [ + "If the house fell down on a man and his mother, they (the Schools of Shammai and agree that the they split the property.
Rabbi Akiva said: “I agree here, that the property remains in its former status.” Ben Azzai said to him: “We already are distressed over those things upon which there is disagreement, and you are coming to bring disagreement on the points in which they agree.”
The final mishnah of chapter nine continuse to deal with the topic of doubtful inheritances in which it is unclear who died first, the inheritor or the one from whom he inherits.
In our mishnah a man and his mother (who was a widow) died in the same accident and it is unknown who died first. Furthermore, the man had no sons who would inherit him and the woman had no other sons to inherit from her. If the son died first then the mother’s other inheritors would receive her inheritance. If the mother died first then the son would inherit her and his inheritors would receive her (as well as his) inheritance. In such a case the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel agree that all of the inheritors split the property. Since they are all making claims based on inheritance and none of them had prior possession of the property such that we could say that the property reverts to its previous status (as was the School of Hillel’s opinion in previous mishnayoth), there is nothing left to do but split the property.
Rabbi Akiva believes that even in this case the property reverts to its previous status. According to Rabbi Akiva when this woman was originally widowed she reverted to being part of her father’s family (as opposed to her husband’s family). Therefore, when she died, the property is assumed to belong to the inheritors from her father’s side, regardless of whether they can prove that the son died first.
Ben Azzai responds to Rabbi Akiva that it is distressing enough that the Schools of Shammai and Hillel disagreed on so many issues. In Ben Azzai’s opinion Rabbi Akiva should not create a new dispute where previous scholars were in agreement." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A simple document has the signatures within (at the bottom of the; a sewn document has signatures behind [each fold].
If in a simple document its witnesses signed behind, or if in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, they are invalid. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: “If in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, it is valid, since it can be made into a simple document.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Everything should follow local custom.”
The tenth chapter of Bava Batra deals with laws concerning the proper writing and execution of documents.
An “simple” document is one in which the text is written at the top of the page and the witnesses sign on the bottom, similar to forms used today. A “sewn” document is one in which a few lines of text are written, and then the text is folded over and sewn at the fold and then signed on the back of the document. This process is repeated several times, with each fold being witnessed and sign on the back side of the document. Evidently this was a more difficult type of document to forge. The first opinion in the mishnah states that each type of document must be signed in its customary manner: a simple document on the front and a sewn document on the back.
Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel states that a sewn document with signatures on the front is nevertheless valid, and is in essence treated as if it was a simple document.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that this law is dependent on the customs of the place. If the custom is to allow sewn documents to be signed on the inside as well as the outside then they are valid; if not they are invalid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two mostly discusses discrepancies within a debt document.", + "This mishnah deals with documents which were not done properly or had the amount of the debt partially erased.", + "A simple document requires two witnesses; a sewn document requires three. If a simple document has only one witness, or a sewn document has only two, they are both invalid. A simple document must have two witnesses and a “sewn document” must have three. If they have fewer than the required amount the document is invalid.", + "If it was written in a debt document: “100 zuz which are 20 sela (=80”, he (the can claim only 20 sela; if [it was written] “100 zuz which are 30 sela (=120” he (the can claim only 100 zuz. If in a debt document (an IOU) a number was incorrectly converted into another coin (i.e. dollars into cents), the debtor owes the creditor only the lower amount.", + "[If there was written in a debt document] “Silver zuzim which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two zuzim. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver selas which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two selas. [If there was written in a debt document] “Darics which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two darics. If a document said that the debtor owed a plural of a certain coin, but the number of the coins owed was erased the creditor can collect only two of the coin. Since the coin was written in plural (i.e. dollars), we know that the number was more than one. The minimum that it could have been is two, and this is what the creditor will be able to collect from the debtor.", + "If at the top was written a “maneh (100” and at the bottom “200 zuz”, or “200 zuz” at the top and “maneh” at the bottom, everything goes according to the bottom amount. If so, why is the figure written at the top of the document? So that, if a letter of the lower figure was erased, they can learn from the upper figure. If the number at the bottom of a debt document disagrees with the number at the top, the creditor can collect according to the bottom figure, whether it is higher or lower than the bottom figure. The assumption is that the writer of the document, the debtor (or a scribe on his behalf) changed his mind after writing the first amount, and his true intention was the second amount. The mishnah then asks, why do we customarily write the amount on the top and not just on the bottom? The answer is that the top amount will help if the bottom amount is erased. If, however both amounts are still clearly written, we follow the bottom one.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Sections two and three: What is the principle that explains why in this case the debtor owes the lower amount (section two) or only two of the coin (section three)?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three discusses the consent needed from the involved parties in order to write a document.", + "They may write out a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, or a receipt (stating that the husband has paid the ketubah for the wife even if her husband is not with her, provided that he (the knows them. And the husband pays the (scribe’ fee. A scribe may write a get (a divorce document) for a husband or a receipt for the woman saying that she had received her ketubah payment even if the spouse is not there. The reason that he can write the get without the woman’s presence is that according to Jewish law a woman can be divorced against her will. Since she need not agree to the writing of the document, she need not be present when it is written. The reason that the scribe can write the receipt without the husband’s presence is that it is to the husband’s advantage that a receipt be written. Without the receipt the woman might claim that her husband had not paid her the ketubah money. In other words, in both of these cases there is no potential that the husband will fraud the wife by writing a get nor the woman fraud the husband by writing a document. The only requirement is that the scribe know the people for whom he is writing the document. Since the husband is the one divorcing his wife and in the case of the receipt the husband is the one benefiting, he pays the scribe’s fee.", + "They may write out a document for the debtor even though the creditor is not with him, but they may not write out a document for the creditor unless the debtor is with him. And the debtor pays the (scribe’ fee. A scribe may write a loan document while not in the presence of the creditor but it must be done in the presence of the debtor. Since the debtor is the one who through the document becomes liable to pay back the creditor, the scribe must know that the debtor agreed to the writing of the document. The creation of the document is beneficial to the creditor, for through it he will receive the money in return. Therefore it need not be written in his presence. The debtor pays the scribe’s fee.", + "They may write out a deed of sale for the seller although the buyer is not with him, but they may not write it out for the buyer unless the seller is with him. And the buyer pays the (scribe’ fee. A scribe may write a sale document while not in the presence of the buyer but it must be done in the presence of the seller. Since the document will cause the seller to lose his property, the scribe must know that it is being written with his consent. The buyer, who gains from the sale, need not be present. The buyer pays the scribe’s fee.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Sections two and three: Why do you think the debtor and not the creditor pays the scribe’s fee? Remember that according to Jewish law it is forbidden to lend money to other Jews with interest. Why does the buyer pay the fee?Can you extract general principles from these two mishnayoth for when the document must be written in a person’s presence?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four continues to discuss the consent needed from the involved parties in order to write a document.", + "They may not write documents of betrothal or marriage except with the consent of both parties. And the bridegroom pays the (scribe’ fee. Since it is necessary for both the bridegroom and the groom to consent to the marriage of the other, the scribe may not write the document without both of their consent. Since the bridegroom is gaining a wife, he writes the document.", + "They may not write documents of tenancy and sharecropping except with the consent of both parties. And the tenant pays the (scribe’ fee. Tenancy is a lease in which the tenant agrees to give the owner of the land a fixed portion of the crop. Sharecropping is a lease in which the sharecropper agrees to give a fixed amount regardless of what the crop yields. In both of the these types of agreements between landowners and those who wish to work the land the document must be written in front of them both. Since the landowner is giving over a piece of his land and the tenant is promising to give the landowner something in return the scribe must ensure that the deal is agreed to by both parties. The scribe’s fee is split.", + "They may not write documents of arbitration or any document drawn up before a court except with the consent of both parties. And both parties pay the (scribe’ fee. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Two documents are written for the two parties, one copy for each.” Arbitration documents are those that state who are the judges from whom the litigants agreed to accept binding judgement. In the time of the Mishnah litigants jointly chose judges (see Sanhedrin 3:1), who were not necessarily fixed employees of the state. The other types of court documents referred to in this mishnah would include such documents as those which allowed the creditor to collect the collateral from the debtor in case of default on a loan or a document that states that a creditor collected such collateral (possibly from a third party). These documents must be written in the presence of both parties, and both parties share the scribe’s fee.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Can you extract general principles from this mishnah and the previous one for when the document must be written in a person’s presence?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with laws concerning paying back debts.", + "If a man had paid part of his debt and gave the debt document to a third party, and the debtor said to him, “If I have not paid you back by such and such a day, give him (the back the debt document” and the time came and he had not paid, Rabbi Yose says: “He should give it to him.” Rabbi Judah says: “He should not give it to him.” When a person borrows from another person the creditor keeps possession of the debt document, in order to use it later to collect his debt. If the debtor were to pay back half of the loan, the creditor would not be able to give back the debt document, lest he be unable to collect the second half of the loan. On the other hand, the debtor would not want the creditor to keep the document, lest he use it to collect the entire loan, even though half was already paid back. One solution to such a problem was to give the debt document to a third person and for the debtor to promise to pay back the remainder within a certain time or else the third party was to return it to the creditor. According to Rabbi Yose in such a case if the time elapsed the third party should give the debt document to the creditor. According to Rabbi Judah he should not. Since the debtor did not really intend to allow the creditor to collect more than his debt by using the debt document after it had been partially paid, the third party is not allowed to return it to the creditor." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six discusses a loan document that has been erased and one that has been partially repaid.", + "If a man’s debt document was erased, he must have witnesses testify with regards to the loan, and come before the court to make this attestation: “So and so, the son of so and so, his debt document was erased on such and such a day, and so and so and so and so are his witnesses.” If a creditor’s debt document was damaged, for instance through water, he needs to bring to the court witnesses to testify to the original loan. The court will then draw up a new document which he will subsequently be able to use to recover his loan.", + "If a man had paid part of his debt, Rabbi Judah says: “He should exchange the debt document for a new one.” Rabbi Yose says: “He should write a receipt.” Rabbi Judah said: “It turns out that this one (the will have to guard his receipt from mice.” Rabbi Yose said to him: “That’s good for him, as long as the rights of the other (the have not been damaged. We mentioned in the previous mishnah the problem created when a man pays back part of his loan. In this mishnah two other solutions are offered. Rabbi Judah says that a new loan document should be written. Rabbi Yose says that the creditor should write a receipt. Rabbi Judah tells Rabbi Yose that the problem with writing a receipt is that the debtor will have to guard it from being eaten by mice. If the debtor loses the receipt the creditor will be able to fully collect the debt. (Normally when a person pays back a debt the document would be torn up so that it would not be used again.) Rabbi Yose says that his solution (writing a receipt) is better because writing a new document will damage the rights of the creditor. The rights referred to here are the lien that exists on the creditors property. The lien is effective from the day that is written on the document. In other words any property owned by the debtor on the day mentioned in the debt document has on it a lien and therefore the creditor could collect that property should the debtor default. If between the day on which the original document was written and the day of the rewriting, the debtor has lost property, a later date on the document will damage the creditor’s ability to collect on his loan.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Is there any consistency in the opinions of Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Judah as they appear in this mishnah and in the previous one?
• Why is Rabbi Judah concerned that a debtor will lose his receipt but evidently not concerned that a creditor will lose the debt document?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven deals with various subjects such as brothers who share an inheritance and the recognition of documents in a case where two people in a city have the same. The final section of the mishnah deals with loan guarantors.", + "If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bath house or an olive press, if the father had made them for hire, the profit is split equally. But if he made them for his own use alone, the rich brother may say to the poor brother, “Buy for yourself slaves and they can wash in the bath house” or “Buy for yourself olives and prepare them in the olive press.” A bath house and an olive press could either be owned for personal usage or as a rental. If two sons, one rich and one poor, inherited either a bath house or an olive press, the poor son will want to rent them out to others and collect the money and the rich son, who doesn’t need the money and may be able to make personal use of a bath house and an olive press, may want to use them for personal usage. According to the mishnah, the determining factor is what the father had done with them. If he had used them for rent, then the poor son can force the rich son to continue to use them in such a manner. If they had been used for personal needs the rich son can say to the poor son, use them as much as you like, buy slaves to bathe in the bath house or olives to press, but you may not rent them out to others.", + "If there were two in the same town, and one’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon and other’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon, neither can bring forth a debt document on the other, and another person cannot bring forth a debt document against them. And if some person finds amongst his documents a document that states, “The [debt] document of Joseph ben Shimon is paid”, both of their [debt] documents are paid. What should they do? They should write their names to the third generation. And if the names are the same through the third generation, they should give themselves a sign. And if their signs are the same, they should write “Cohen”. If two people in a city have the same name, it will problematic for them to collect debts from each other and for others to collect debts against them. Neither of them will be able to claim against the other for the other could claim that he is actually the creditor and not the debtor. Nor will others be able to claim from them for each of them may claim that the other Joseph ben Shimon is the debtor. If a third party who had loaned them both money should find amongst his documents a document that says that Joseph ben Shimon paid back his debt, both of their debts are cancelled. The way to remedy this problem is to write a third generation with their names, Joseph the son of Shimon the son of Jacob, or a sign that would designate the person’s profession, i.e. a saw for a carpenter, or a fish for a fisherman, or to write Cohen, Levi, depending on the person’s status.", + "If a man said to his son, “One of my debt documents is paid and I do not know which one”, then all are deemed to be paid. If two documents were found [amongst his documents] written to the same debtor, then the large one is paid and the small one is not paid. If a dying person told his son that one of the debt documents that he held (containing what other people owe him), was paid off but he didn’t know which one, the son will not be able to collect any of the debts. If amongst his documents were two different loans to the same person, we can be sure that only one of them is paid off. In such a case the son may collect on the smaller loan.", + "If a man lent money to his fellow on a guarantor’s security, he may not exact payment from the guarantor. But if he had said, “On the condition that I may exact payment from whom I wish”, then he may exact payment from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If the borrower had property, in neither case can he exact payment from the guarantor.” Moreover, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: “If a man was a guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the husband must vow to derive no further benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of the guarantor and take his wife back again.” If a debtor used a guarantor to secure his loan the creditor may not exact payment from the guarantor, unless, of course, the debtor did not have property with which to pay back the loan. If, however, the creditor had stated at the outset that he was going to exact payment from whomever he wishes, then he may exact payment from the guarantor even if the debtor had property. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that in any case, if the debtor had property, the creditor cannot collect from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds a similar opinion with regards to a woman’s ketubah. If a woman had a guarantor on her ketubah, in other words someone guaranteed to pay her ketubah should her husband not be able to, and then the husband divorced her and the woman collected from the guarantor, the husband must swear to never receive benefit from her again. The fear is that the husband will make a deal with his wife, that he will divorce, she will collect her ketubah from the guarantor and then be remarried to him, and give him the money that she collected from the guarantor.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three: Why can he only collect on the smaller loan? What is the halachic principle governing this law and indeed most of the laws contained in this mishnah?
• Section four: What is similar about Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s two statements in this section?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight, the final mishnah of Bava Batra, deals with a creditor’s ability to recover his debt if the debtor is not able to pay back the loan himself.", + "If a man lent his fellow money by using a document, he may recover the debt from mortgaged property. But if he had lent only before witnesses (and not through a, he may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If a man used a document to lend money he may recover the debt even from mortgaged property. This means that if after the time of the loan the debtor sold some of his property and then was not able to repay the loan the creditor can collect from that sold property. If, however, the loan was only done orally, with witnesses to testify, then he may only recover from unmortgaged property, namely property still in the hands of the debtor.", + "If the [creditor] brought forth [a loan document] upon which appeared his (the debtor’ signature as evidence that he was indebted to him, the creditor may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If the creditor had a debt document written or signed by the debtor himself, but not signed by witnesses, he may collect from unmortgaged property but not from mortgaged property.", + "If a man signed as a guarantor after the signatures of witnesses, the creditor may recover the debt only from [the guarantor’s] unmortgaged property. Such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael and he said, “He may recover only from unmortgaged property”. Ben Nanos said to him: “He may recover the debt neither from mortgaged nor unmortgaged property.” He said to him: “Why?” He answered, “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street and his fellow found him and said ‘Leave him alone (and I will pay’, he is not liable, since not through trust in him did the creditor lend the debtor money.” Rather which type of guarantor is liable? [If a man said], “Lend him money and I will pay thee”, he is liable, for he lent him the money through his trust in the guarantor. According to Rabbi Yishmael if the witnesses signed on a document and the guarantor signed afterwards the creditor may collect only from the guarantor’s unmortgaged property but not from his mortgaged property. Ben Nanos disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael and states that in such a case the creditor cannot collect from any of the guarantor’s property. The reason is that the creditor loaned the money not based on his trust of the guarantor. Ben Nanos makes an analogy to a creditor who attacks a debtor and a third party promises to pay back the debt. In such a case the creditor does not actually believe that the guarantor will pay back the debt and therefore the guarantor is not obligated to repay the loan. According to Ben Nanos only if the guarantor guarantees the loan before it is executed and the creditor makes the loan from the outset knowing who the guarantor is can the creditor collect from the guarantor.", + "And Rabbi Yishmael said, “He who wants to be wise let him occupy himself with cases dealing with monetary matters, for there is no greater branch of Torah than this; for they are like a welling fountain; and he who wishes to occupy himself with laws concerning monetary matters, let him serve [as a pupil] of Shimon ben Nanos. Rabbi Yishmael finishes tractate Bava Batra, which is indeed the last part of a much longer tractate called Nezikin that has been broken into three parts, Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia and Bava Batra, with a message as to the importance of these laws. A person who wishes to sharpen his intelligence, should study monetary laws, for the logic and methods of reasoning that stand behind these laws is the greatest in all of Torah study. And in a final note of concession to Ben Nanos, with whom Rabbi Yishmael has just disagreed, Rabbi Yishmael says that the greatest teacher of the laws concerning money is Shimon ben Nanos himself. Rabbi Yishmael teaches us two important lessons: 1) Learning Torah does not only teach us how to live our lives, but through its study we can become more intelligent people. 2) He teaches us the humility to have the utmost respect even for those with whom we might disagree.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why do you think that a creditor has greater to power to collect when the loan is executed through a document?Congratulations! We have finished Bava Batra.It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves. Indeed we have now finished together three tractates of Mishnah. Of course, we have much more to learn. We will begin Sanhedrin tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא בתרא", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא בתרא", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2abbe81f032a36c5bb41c21e388d4f32dea75c58 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,392 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא קמא", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Bava Kamma literally means “first gate”, and it refers to the fact that this tractate is the first third of what was originally a larger tractate called “Nezikin” or damages. The next two tractates which we will learn are called Bava Metziah or “middle gate” and Bava Batra, or “final gate”. Together these three tractates contain the bulk of Jewish civil law, dealing with such issues as damages, penal laws, employment and contracts, bailiff laws, property rights, and many others.", + "The first six chapters of Bava Kamma deal mostly with damage laws, generally answering two questions: when is a person obligated to pay damages that he or his property caused another person or his property; for how much is he obligated. The final four chapters of the tractate deal mostly with thievery and robbery.", + "An important note to remember with regards to most of the Mishnah, but especially in regards to Bava Kamma, is that the Mishnah does not give all possible circumstances. Rather the Mishnah will teach archetypal situations, from which a person or a judge could reasonably adjudicate most matters. ", + "Another important note, again especially in regards to Bava Kamma is that the Mishnah is both independent from and yet explaining the Torah. There are several key passages in the Torah that deal with damage laws, and they are listed at the bottom of this page. However these passages are usually not thorough enough for one to adjudicate all situations. They are in essences chapter headings that the Oral Torah, of which the Mishnah is part, fills in. We will refer back to these verses from time to time as we learn the Mishnah. ", + "List of relevant verses for Bava Kamma: They are listed in the order of their relevance throughout the tractate. Exodus 21:33-34 Exodus 21:35-36 Exodus 22:4-5 Exodus 21:28-32 Exodus 21:37 Exodus 22:3 Exodus 22:6-8 Exodus 21:18-19 Exodus 21:22-25 Leviticus 24:18-20 Deuteronomy 19:21 Leviticus 5:20-25 Numbers 5:5-8" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction The first mishnah in Bava Kamma serves as an introduction to the first six chapters of the tractate. As such, if all of the details are unclear now, they will hopefully become clearer as we continue to learn. The mishnah discusses four primary causes of injury, literary “fathers of injuries”. These are archetypal causes of injury mentioned in the Torah, from which we will learn many other types of injury and subsets of laws in the following chapters.", + "1. There are four primary causes of injury: the ox and the pit and the crop-destroying beast and fire. 2. [The distinctive feature of] the ox is not like [that of] the crop-destroying beast, nor is [the distinctive feature of] either of these, which are alive, like [that of] fire, which is not alive; nor is [the distinctive feature of] any of these, whose way it is to go forth and do injury, like [that of] the pit, whose way it is not to go forth and do injury. 3. What they have in common is that it is their way to do injury and that you are responsible for caring over them; and if one of them did injury whoever [is responsible] for the injury must make restitution [to the damaged party] with the best of his land. The four causes of injury mentioned in the first clause mishnah are all derived from the Torah: the ox (Exodus 21:35-36), the pit (Exodus 21:33-34), the crop-destroying beast (Exodus 22:4) and fire (Exodus 22:5). The mishnah then raises a question generally asked in midrashic texts (texts that explain the Torah): why does the Torah need to mention all four types of injury? In other words, why couldn’t the Torah have mentioned one, two or three primary causes of injury, from which we would have learned the rest? The Rabbis believed that no law in the Torah was superfluous and therefore each must come to teach us something that we could not have learned from the other laws. The mishnah therefore explains that each “cause of injury” has its unique characteristic and therefore we would not have been able to derive the laws of the other causes of damages without all four examples in the Torah. Note how the mishnah is both dependent on, yet independent from the Torah. This is typical of Jewish oral Torah; it explains the Torah yet it can usually be understood on its own. Questions for further thought:  What type of injury does an ox cause? What therefore is the difference between an ox and a crop-destroying beast?  The Mishnah tells you things that you are obligated to watch and that if they are yours and they injure you will have to pay the damaged party. Is there anything you can already imagine for which a person will not be obligated if it causes damage? (We will learn the answers to these questions as we go on, but it is worthwhile to start thinking of them now)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe second mishnah in Bava Kamma continues in the vein of the previous mishnah, providing us with general information about damage law that we will continue to learn about in subsequent chapters of the mishnah. Again, some of the details may not be clear, but they will become clearer as we continue to learn. If you have trouble understanding the mishnah, do not despair: this mishnah baffled even the great sages of the Talmud!", + "1. Anything that I am responsible to guard, I have rendered it possible to do injury [for which I will become obligated]. 2. If I have partially rendered it possible to do injury, I must make restitution for that injury as if I totally rendered it possible to do injury. 3. When one damages [property that fits all of the following categories]: property that does not have “sacrilege” [i.e. sacrificial animals or property that belongs to the Temple in Jerusalem], property that belongs to other members of the covenant [Jews], property that is owned, and the injury is done in any place other than the private domain of the injurer and the common domain of the injured and injurer, in these cases the injurer must make restitution for the injury with the best of his land. This mishnah teaches several laws, albeit in language that is difficult to render into coherent English: 1) In order to be obligated to pay damages, the damage must be caused by an object over which I have an obligation to watch. For instance, I am not responsible for full damages the first time my ox gores another ox, since I had no way of knowing that my ox gores. However, the third time my ox gores, I am obligated because my ox is now known as a “goring ox” which I am obligated to guard carefully. 2) If I partially enable damage to happen I am obligated for full damages. For instance if there was a pit that was already 4 feet deep, and a six foot deep pit will kill an animal which falls into it, and I came along and deepened the pit by two feet, thereby making a four foot pit into a six foot pit, I am obligated as if I dug the whole pit. 3) A person is obligated for damages caused only to certain types of property, namely property that belongs to Jewish individuals when the damages are done either on the injured person’s property or in the public domain. In all other cases the owner of the damaging object is exempt. Questions for further thought:  If a person only created part of the object that caused the damage, why is he obligated? Should the person who dug the first four feet of the pit also be obligated to join in paying the damages?  If a person enters my property and my animal injures his belongings, for instance my animal eats his expensive leather shoes, why am I not obligated? Could there be a way that I might become obligated for this type of damage?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe third mishnah of Bava Kamma continues to give us introductory information to the general laws of damages which will be learned throughout the tractate. The previous mishnahs dealt with the causes of injury (mishnah one) and the type of property for which one would be liable if damaged (mishnah two). Mishnah three basically deals with the judiciary procedure through with the damages will be assessed.", + "1. Assessment [of injury] in money or things worth money must be made before a court of law and by witnesses that are free and Children of the Covenant (Jews). 2. Women may be parties in [suits concerning] injury. 3. The injured and the injurer [in certain cases may share] in the compensation. 1. The first clause of the mishnah deals with assessing both the monetary amount of the damages and the monetary evaluation of the payment that the injurer will give to the injured party. For instance, if my ox gores your ox and your ox dies, we need to go to the court to assess two things: 1) how much your ox was worth, 2) how big of a piece of land must I give you in order to compensate you for your loss. These assessments must be done in front of a court, which according to Jewish law must have three judges. The witnesses who testify in cases involving the laws of damages must be free and Jewish. 2. The second clause of the mishnah states that with regards to damage law, men and women are equal. This means that if a man or his property damages a woman or her property, or a woman or her property damages a man or his property, in all cases we judge according to the same law. Perhaps the reason why the mishnah feels the necessity to state this law is that the Torah uses the word “ish”, man, in many of the verses concerning damage law (Exodus 21:33, 35, 37, Exodus 22:4, 6, 9, 13). One may have explained that according to the Torah only men’s damages are considered to be important. The mishnah states the opposite, that women are also a part of damage law (see also Exodus 21:28). 3. The final clause of the mishnah refers to the case of “half damages”. When an ox that is not known to gore gores another ox, the owner of the goring ox is only obligated for half damages, since his ox was not known to be a “goring ox”. In this case it is as if the injurer pays half for the dead ox and the injured also pays half.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why must property evaluation be done in front of the court? Why can’t people just come to an agreement?
• We have seen now in several mishnahs that damage laws as described in the Torah and in the mishnah apply only to free Jews? Why do you think this is so?" + ], + [ + "Five [agents of damage] rank as harmless and five as an attested danger. Cattle are not an attested danger to butt, push, bite, lie down, or kick. The tooth [of an animal] is an attested danger to eat that which is for it; The leg [of an animal] is an attested danger to break [things] as it walks along; So also is a warned ox [an ox that has gored before]; And an ox that damages in the domain of the damaged party, and human beings.
The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake all rank as attested danger. Rabbi Eliezer says: When they are tame they are not attested danger, but the snake is always an attested danger.
What is the difference between that which is harmless and that which is an attested danger? The harmless pays half-damages from its own body and the attested danger pays full damages from the best property (of its owner and.
This mishnah introduces us to an extremely important concept in Mishnaic damage law, that is the difference between agents of damage which are likely to damage and those that are not likely to damage. The first are called “muad”, warned or attested danger and the second are called “tam”, innocent, or usually harmless. We will continue to talk about these concepts as we proceed to learn Bava Kamma. The major difference between these two types of agents of damage is that a person is obligated for full restitution on the first type and only half restitution for damages done by the second type. The idea lying behind this concept is that a person who owns, for instance, an animal that is likely to cause a certain type of damage should be aware of this and therefore guard the animal more carefully. The Torah already speaks of this concept in Exodus 21:29 with regards to the ox that is known to gore.
The mishnah lists various types of damaging agents and categorizes them all into things which are likely to cause damage and things that are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, the beginning mishnah distinguishes between different activities of a domesticated animal, some of which the animal is likely to do and some that it is unlikely to do. For instance, a normal cow is unlikely to kick and therefore if it causes damage by doing so, the owner is only obligated half damages (section 1a). However, the cow is likely to trample on things over which it walks(section 1c), and therefore if it damages in this manner, the owner is obligated for full restitution. Wild animals are always likely to damage (section 2) and therefore if one owns a wild animal he will be obligated for full restitution for any damage the animal might cause. Human beings (section 1f) who cause damage are always obligated full restitution.
Section 3 explains the two differences between harmless and attested agents of damage. The first I already explained in the introduction. The second difference is that if the owner of a harmless agent of damage becomes obligated to pay damages, he must only make restitution up to the value of the animal that caused the injury. For instance if my cow that is worth 1000 dollars should kick you, thereby breaking your 5000 dollar Rolex diamond and gold watch, I am only obligated to pay 1000 dollars. Even though half damages are 2500 dollars I cannot be obligated more than the total value of the cow that caused the injury. Kicking is not an attested form of damage, at least for a cow. However, if my cow were to do the same action, however this time on your property, I would have to pay the full 5000 dollars (see section 1e).
For further explanation of the concepts of “tam” and “muad” see the Steinsaltz Reference Guide, pages 212 and 272. One can also find entries there for “shen” (tooth), page 268, “shor” (ox), page 264), regel (leg), page 257, and “adam muad laolam” a person is always an attested danger), page 158. The concepts of “hezi nezek” (half damages), page 193 and “nezek shalem” (full damages), page 228, are explained there as well,. Again, we will continue to learn these concepts as we proceed." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "How is the leg [of a beast] an attested danger to break [what it tramples upon] as it walks along? A beast is an attested danger [only] in so far as it goes along in its usual way and breaks [an object]. If it kicked, or if small stones were tossed out from beneath its feet and it thus broke other vessels, one pays half damages. If it trampled upon a vessel and broke it, and this [broken vessel] fell upon another vessel and broke it, for the first one pays full damages and for the other half damages.
Fowls (chickens and are an attested danger in so far as they go along in their usual way and break [objects]. But if the fowl had its feet entangled, or if it was jumping and it thereby broke any vessel one pays half damages.
This mishnah deals with damages done by an animal through trampling. We learned in the mishnah at the end of chapter one that when an animal causes damages in a usual manner, meaning it is an attested danger (muad) for that damage, the owner is obligated to make full restitution. However, if the damages are done in an unusual manner, for which the animal is an unattested danger (tam), the owner is only obligated to make half restitution. This mishnah continues to deal with these concepts with regards to damages done by trampling.
The first section of the mishnah deals with damages done by a beast, meaning a domesticated animal, cow, sheep or goat, by trampling on another object. If the damage is done in an anticipated, usual manner, the owner is obligated for full damages. She should have watched over her animal, and since she did not, she is obligated to make full restitution. Section 1c brings up a strange circumstance whereby with one action the animal damages two vessels. For the first vessel the owner is obligated for full restitution and for the second vessel only half restitution.
The second section of the mishnah basically states that the same is generally true for damages done by fowl. They too are attested dangers to damage while walking in their usual manner. Section 2a brings up special circumstances in which the fowl damaged in an unusual way, and therefore the owner is only obligated for half restitution." + ], + [ + "How is the tooth [of a beast] an attested danger to eat that which it is fit to consume? A beast is an attested danger to eat fruit and vegetables. [If however] it ate clothing or utensils [the owner] pays only half damages.
When does this apply? [This applies] in the domain of the damaged party But if it was within the public domain, the owner is not liable.
If [the beast] benefited, [the owner] pays what it benefited.
How does [the owner] pay what [the animal] benefited? [If it ate] from the middle of the marketplace, [the owner] pays what [the animal] benefited. [If it ate] from the sides of the marketplace, [the owner] pays for the damage [the animal] did. [If it ate] from in front of the store [the owner] pays for what [the animal] benefited. [If it ate] from inside the store [the owner] pays for the damage [the animal] did.
The previous mishnah taught us the laws dealing with damages done by an animal’s “regel” leg through walking (trampling). This mishnah teaches damages done by an animal’s “shen” or tooth. Note that the mishnah does not deal with vicious biting by an animal but with an animal that damages by eating. The laws in this mishnah are related to Exodus 22:4 which speaks of a crop-destroying beast. Our mishnah will deal with several issues: 1) what does an animal eat, thereby causing its owner to become liable; 2) differences in liability based on where the animal eats; 3) two different levels of liability, a greater level in which the owner is obligated to pay the actual cost of damages, and a lesser level in which the owner pays that which the animal actually benefited.
There are really three parts to the mishnah. The first section tells us that an owner is only liable when an animal eats things that an animal normally eats. For instance, if my dog goes into your house and eats your cupcakes, I am liable. However, if he eats your mail, I am liable only for half damages.
The second section deals with where the damages are done. I am liable when my animal goes onto your property to damage. I am not liable if you carelessly leave your things in the public domain and my animal eats them. However, the end of the mishnah returns and refines this clause. If you leave things on the side of the public domain, that is not considered careless and the owner of the damaging animal would be liable.
Finally, in sections three and four we introduce a new type of payment, compensation for that which the animal benefited and not for the damage done. For instance if you leave an expensive cut of steak in the public domain and my animal eats it the damages may be 100 dollars. However, since I would not feed my animal steak, rather I would usually feed her cheap dog food, I am only obligated for the amount of dog food that I will now not have to feed her, since she already ate. Paying for the benefit is usually much less that the actual damages.
You should note the highly formulaic nature of this mishnah. It teaches many laws but uses few words. (This is especially true in the Hebrew. In the English I have added words to make the mishnah read better). The mishnah repeats the same structures and phrases over and over again, as does the previous mishnah. Remember, this is oral law, recited and memorized orally. Having repeated structures and few words makes the mishnah much easier to remember and repeat.
Questions for further thought:
 What is the difference between in front of the store and in the store? From this mishnah, can you imagine how their stores were set up?
 What might the law be if I did regularly feed my dog expensive steak?
 What might the law be if my dog is accustomed to eating shoes, and he goes onto your property and eats your shoes?" + ], + [ + "If a dog or a goat jumped from a roof and broke vessels, [the owner] must pay full damages, since they are attested dangers.
A dog that took a cake [while there was a cinder attached] and went to a stack of grain and ate the cake and burned the stack of grain, For the cake [the owner] pays full damages And for the stack of grain [the owner] pays half damages.
This mishnah deals with damages done by either dogs or goats. The important principle to remember when reading this mishnah is that a person is obligated full damages when the damager is an attested danger (muad) and only half damages when the damager is an unattested danger (tam). One is obligated to guard animals in one’s possession which attested dangers and therefore if one fails to do so, the restitution which must be made is higher. Furthermore, we have learned several times already, that animals can be muad for those actions which they are likely to do and tam for those that they are unlikely to do. For instance in the previous mishnah we learned that an ox is muad to eat grain but tam to eat clothing. Over the first the ox’s owner will pay full damages and over the second half damages.
Evidently dogs and goats were likely to damage by jumping off roofs. Therefore, there owner must prevent them from doing so and if she fails, she is obligated to pay full damages.
In the second section of the mishnah we learn that dogs are likely to eat cake (I know my dog is!), but unlikely to burn down stacks of standing grain. Therefore for the cake one is obligated for full damages and for the stack only half damages.
Questions For Further Thought
 Is there a new principle which we are learning from the second clause of the mishnah? In other words, what might you have thought had not this clause been taught?" + ], + [ + "Which kind of animal is accounted harmless ( and which is an attested danger (? An attested danger is one that people have given testimony about [that it damaged] for three days. A harmless one is one that has refrained from damage for three days. This is according to Rabbi Judah.
Rabbi Meir says, An attested danger is one that people have given testimony about three times. A harmless one is one that children can touch and it will not gore.
We have several times already discussed the two types of danger: a muad which is an attested danger and a tam, which is harmless, meaning something that is not expected to cause damages. However, we have mostly discussed the different consequences of being a muad or being a tam. The owner of a muad that causes damage will pay full damages from the best of his land while the owner of a tam that damages will only pay half damages which cannot exceed the value of the damaging animal (see Mishnah 1:4). This mishnah discusses how an animal can move from the status of a tam to the status of a muad and vice versa, how an animal that is muad can revert to the status of tam.
In this mishnah we see a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah, two of the most prevalent Rabbis in the Mishnah. According to Rabbi Judah in order for a tam animal to become muad people must testify against the animal on three different days. However, according to Rabbi Meir it is enough that people testify against the animal three times on one day for it to become a muad.
Similarly the Rabbis dispute how a muad would revert to being a tam. According to Rabbi Judah all it would need is three days, in which it had the opportunity to gore and yet it didn’t do so. However, according to Rabbi Meir it needs to be harmless enough for children to touch. Otherwise it remains a muad." + ], + [ + "“An ox which causes damage in the private domain of him that is injured” how is this so? If it gored, pushed, bit, lay down, or kicked in the public domain its owner pays only half damages.
But if in the private domain of him that is injured, Rabbi Tarfon says, “He pays full damages.” The Sages says, “Half damages.”
Rabbi Tarfon said to them: “Now, in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot and tooth in the public domain, in which case he is exempt, and stringently in the private domain of him that is injured to pay full damages, then since they have dealt stringently with damage caused by the horn in the public domain, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain of him that was injured, so that full damages be imposed.” They (the said to him: “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred: if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed].
He said to them: “I shall not derive the law in one case of damage caused by the horn from the law in another case of damage caused by the horn. Rather I will derive the law of damage caused by the horn from the law of damage caused by the foot. Now in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot or tooth in the public domain, they have dealt strictly with damage caused by the horn, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain. They (the said to him: “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred: if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed].
This mishnah deals with one of the clauses from mishnah four of chapter one, which stated that the owner of an ox that damages on the property of the damaged party is obligated for full damages. If the same ox had committed this type of damage in the public domain the owner would only be obligated half damages. However, since a person should be extra careful when they bring their animal onto another person’s property the owner is more liable. Being a father of two little children, the following, albeit imperfect analogy, comes to mind. If I bring an expensive toy over to my son’s friend’s house, and one of the children breaks it, I believe I am at fault. However, if someone brings their child over to my house, and breaks something I believe that they should be at fault. There are many more analogies that one could make; this was just an example.
One important note with regards to learning the mishnah. We will see a dispute between the sages and Rabbi Tarfon, and as part of this dispute the sages will state that, “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred.” This principle means that when you learn a law regarding one situation from a law regarding a similar situation, the inferred law does not need to be stricter than the original law from which it was inferred. This principle is learned from Numbers 12:14 where God punishes Miriam for speaking against Moses. God says, “If her father spat in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut out of camp for seven days.” God says that had her father rebuked her, Miriam would have been punished for seven days. One might have thought that God’s rebuke would carry an even more serious consequence. The Torah teaches us the aforementioned principle that the inferred law, the length of Miriam’s punishment when God rebukes her, is not stricter than the law from which it was inferred, the length of Miriam’s punishment had her father rebuked her.
This is a long mishnah and is not a simple one, but we will try in any case to explain briefly. The sages and Rabbi Tarfon argue at length whether an ox that gores or does some other unusual form of damage in the private domain of the one who is injured would be obligated full or half damages. Rabbi Tarfon’s initial argument in section 3 is based on the following chart.
Public Domain
Private domain of him that is injured
Horn
Half damages
Acc. to Rabbi Tarfon full damages.
Foot and tooth
Exempt
Full damages
Rabbi Tarfon claims that since we are lenient on damages caused by the foot and tooth in the public domain and yet strict in the private domain, we should also be strict in the private domain on damages caused by the horn, since after all we were relatively strict in the public domain. The other sages reply that by the means of this type of logical argument one cannot extend the liability for damages caused by the horn, beyond what we already know, that one is liable for half damages.
Rabbi Tarfon’s second argument in section 4 is a different variation on his first argument. He claims that he is not learning liability for damages done by the horn in the private domain from damages done by the horn in the public domain. Rather he emphasizes that he is learning from damages done by the foot and tooth in the private domain, in which case one should not say that one cannot extend the liability, as the sages argued with him. Again the sages reply with the same reply they gave in section 3a. In their opinion, no matter how you phrase it, Rabbi Tarfon’s argument is based on the relative strictness of damages done by the horn in the public domain. Since this is so, the law cannot be extended further by an argument based on logic." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with damages caused by a human being, a topic that was mentioned briefly in chapter one mishnah four. There we learned that a person was always considered to be muad, or an attested danger. This mishnah explains deals with that concept, that a human being is a muad.", + "Human beings are always an attested danger, whether the damage is caused inadvertently or deliberately, whether the person who caused the damage is awake or asleep. If a man blinded his fellow’s eye or broke his utensils he must pay full damages. A person who damages is always considered to be a muad, attested danger, and as such he will always pay full damages. The idea is that a person cannot claim that something was accidental and thereby exempt herself from culpability. For instance if I throw something heavy out my window and it hits someone’s car, I cannot claim that it was an accident and that I didn’t mean to do it. Even if I go to sleep next to something that belongs to someone else, and in my sleep I roll over and break the item, I will always be obligated. Questions for further thought: Why should a human being always be a muad? Why not exempt her when she causes damages inadvertently?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe following two mishnayot (plural of mishnah) deal with damages that a person’s possessions might cause in the public domain. In general if a person leaves something in the public domain and someone else comes along and breaks it the person who broke it is not obligated to pay for the broken item. Furthermore, if the person who breaks the object is also injured while doing so, the owner of the object will be liable for his injuries.", + "In the first section of mishnah one we learn that a person does not have the right to leave his objects in the public domain. Therefore if he should do so and another should come along and break the object, the person who broke it is exempt and if he should be injured the owner is liable.", + "If a man’s jug broke in the public domain, and another slipped on the water, or was hurt by the potsherds, he is liable. Rabbi Judah says: “If he [broke the jug] with intention, he is liable, But if he broke it without intention he is not liable.” In section 2 Rabbi Judah teaches us a new principle, that of intention. If a person accidentally put a damaging object into the public domain he is not liable for subsequent damages. One is only liable if he put the damaging object into the public domain on purpose." + ], + [ + "The second mishnah lists some common ways in which a person might put a damaging object into the public domain.", + "In section 2 we learn that even though he may have tried to keep them out of people’s way, if they are harmful materials he is responsible for subsequent damages. One might want to consider the implications these mishnayot have on modern ecological problems. The sages considered the public domain to belong to everyone and as such no one was allowed to place there potentially dangerous material.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the cases in clause 2 of the first mishnah and clause 1 of the second mishnah?
• Rabbi Judah distinguishes between deliberate and inadvertent breaking of the jug. Evidently the sage(s) who taught the clause preceding Rabbi Judah did not make such a distinction. According to them one would be obligated even if the jug broke accidentally. What is the logic behind this opinion?
• The first clause of mishnah one says that when one stumbles on a jug left in the public domain he is not obligated. What might the law be if he broke it with intent? Would he still be exempt or would he be obligated?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah we deal with today continues to discuss the topic of damages caused by a person’s property in the public domain. We learned in the previous two mishnayoth that if a person brings his belongings out to the public domain and someone damages them, the damager is not liable. Furthermore if someone is injured by these belongings, their owner is liable. This mishnah will add in a third principle: if a person brings an item out to the public domain, an item which is potentially damaging to others, any person who finds that item can take it. In other words, the owner of the item is punished for endangering other people’s safety.\nToday’s second mishnah deals with the liability of a person who trips in the public domain and thereby causes damage to another.", + "In mishnah three a person put out straw and stubble in order to make fertilizer for his field. The mishnah states that this is an illegal action, the consequences of which are liability for damages done to others and loss of property. Note the double punishment: 1) anyone can claim the straw and stubble, meaning they are not really his anymore; 2) nevertheless if someone is injured by them, we make the owner, who is not really the owner anymore, pay for the injuries. Evidently the mishnah sees bringing the straw and stubble out to the public domain as a grave offense.", + "If a man turned over a piece of cattle dung in the public domain and another was injured thereby, he is liable for injury. Section two deals with a situation where a person saw an ownerless piece of dung in the public domain. (Believe it or not, people wanted to own this dung for fertilizing.) By turning it over, he has taken possession of the dung. Therefore if someone else is injured by it, he is obligated. The mishnah teaches that once you technically own something, you now have to make sure it doesn’t injure someone else. Mishnah four teaches us the principle that accidentally stumbling is not an excuse for causing damages. Although the person who tripped certainly did not intend to do so, and probably caused damage to the things he himself was carrying (pots), he is still liable. He should have walked more carefully.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s opinion and the statement that immediately preceded him? Is there even a disagreement in this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Two pot-sellers were walking one behind the other and the first stumbled and fell, and the second fell on the first, the first one is liable for the injury caused to the second. Mishnah four teaches us the principle that accidentally stumbling is not an excuse for causing damages. Although the person who tripped certainly did not intend to do so, and probably caused damage to the things he himself was carrying (pots), he is still liable. He should have walked more carefully.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah four uses the example of pot-sellers. Why use this example? What piece of information might the mishnah be teaching by using this example and not, for instance regular pedestrians?
• What are some modern day situations that are similar to these mentioned in the mishnah? How does modern law differ? How is it the same?To sign up for the Mishnah Yomit project visit www.mishnahyomit.org or www.uscj.org.To receive hard copies of Mishnah Yomit please write to Dr. Morton Siegel, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, 155 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010" + ], + [ + "This one comes carrying his jar and another one comes carrying his beam: this one’s jar is broken by that one’s beam, [The owner of the beam] is exempt, since this one has the right to walk along and this one has the right to walk along.
If the owner of the beam came first and the owner of the jar came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, the owner of the beam is exempt. If the owner of the beam stopped [walking suddenly], he is liable. If [the owner of the beam had said] “Stop” to the owner of the jar, he is exempt.
If the owner of the jar came first and owner of the beam came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, [the owner of the beam] is liable. If the owner of the jar stopped [walking suddenly],he is exempt. If [the owner of the jar had said} “Stop” to the owner of the beam, he is liable.
This mishnah continues to deal with the subject of damages done by a human being in the public domain. The basic topic is damages done by people carrying different objects and bumping into each other. One should note that although this mishnah (and most mishnayoth) deal with specific topics, their relevance is far greater than the immediate material learned. We are learning here about such important issues as individual rights which conflict with the individual rights of others. From the specific examples of the mishnah we can learn many principles about the public rights that people have, rights that may occasionally come into conflict with others’ rights. As one learns these mishnayoth please try to extract from them general principles and think about how they apply in other circumstances, perhaps circumstances relevant to modern societal problems.
This mishnah lists three scenarios regarding people walking in the public domain, one carrying a beam and one carrying a jar. In all of the scenarios the jar is broken by the beam and the mishnah needs to decide if the owner of the beam is liable. In section one the beam-owner and jar-owner are evidently walking together, meaning neither one is walking in front of the other. The owner of the jar has the right to walk in the public domain without being damaged. Therefore if the owner of the beam walks into him he is liable. He should have watched where he was going.
In the second clause the owner of the beam was walking in front of the owner of the jar. If the jar-owner walks into him, it is his own fault and the beam-owner is exempt. If, however, the beam-owner stops suddenly he is obligated. He should have realized that stopping suddenly might cause the other person to walk into him. Therefore if he didn’t stay “stop” he is liable, but if he did say “stop”, thereby warning off the jar-owner he is exempt.
The third section reverses the scenario that we saw in the second section: this time the jar-owner is walking first. Therefore if the beam-owner walks into him he is obligated. If, however, he stopped suddenly without warning the beam-owner the beam-owner will be exempt." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah we will learn today continues to deal with damages caused by people bumping into each other in the public domain.\nThe second mishnah, the seventh of the chapter, deals with a person who is chopping wood and a chip flies off and injures someone else. The new topic here is damages caused by a person’s livelihood to other people. The mishnah teaches us that although a person has a right to work in a profession that he/she may choose, that profession cannot cause damage to other people.", + "[If] two were walking along in the public domain, the one running and the other walking, or both running and they injured one another, neither is liable. Mishnah six teaches again that people have the right to walk in the public domain and if someone bumps into them, they will not be liable for damages, unless they should have seen the person, as we learned yesterday. The new element in this mishnah is running. One might have thought that running in the public domain is by its nature dangerous, and therefore anyone who does so will be liable for any damages he/she causes. The mishnah says no, a person has the right to run in the public domain. Running in and of itself is not a criminally negligent activity and therefore does not carry with it an added degree of liability.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Yesterday I suggested to analogize the mishnah’s descriptions of accidents in the public domain to traffic accidents in our society. What might be a modern equivalent to running? Try to think of something that is inherently more dangerous but still legal and does not carry with it any extra liability. Is there such a thing?" + ], + [ + "[If] a man was splitting wood in the private domain and injured anyone in the public domain, or if he was in the public domain and injured anyone in the private domain, or if he was in a private domain and injured anyone in another private domain, he is liable. Mishnah seven teaches that if a person while chopping wood damages another person, no matter where the chopping is done and no matter where the damages are done, the wood-chopper is liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Based on mishnah seven, would you think a person would be liable if while chopping wood on his own property he damages someone who has entered his property?" + ], + [ + "If two oxen which were accounted harmless hurt one another, the owner pays half-damages for that one which suffered the greater hurt.
If both were attested dangers full damages are payable for that one which suffered the greater hurt.
If one was accounted harmless and the other was an attested danger, that which was an attested danger as against that which was accounted harmless must pay full damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered, while that which was accounted harmless, as against that which was an attested danger, pays only half damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered.
So, too, if two men hurt one another, full damages are payable for that one which suffered the greater hurt.
If a man and an ox which was accounted harmless hurt one another, the man as against the ox accounted harmless must pay full damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered, while the ox accounted harmless, as against the man, pays only half damages for the greater hurt that the other suffered. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even if an ox accounted harmless hurt a man, full damages must be paid for that one which suffered the greater hurt.
This mishnah returns to deal with a subject that we dealt with in the last mishnah of chapter one and in the fourth and fifth mishnayoth of chapter 2 and that is the goring ox. Remember, there are two types of goring oxen, one that is a previously attested danger (muad), who has been testified against. The second type is innocent (tam) meaning he is not a previously attested danger. When a muad damages the owner will pay full damages from the best of his land. When a tam damages the owner will pay half damages from the value of the tam itself. This means that the upper limit of liability will be the value of the damaging animal.
We will continue to deal with the goring ox for the next two and a half chapters. I will not be explaining the concepts of tam and muad every time we encounter them. I will try to reference places where I did explain them. If you are wondering why the mishnah is so fascinated by the goring ox, it is due to the fact that the Torah mentions the ox quite frequently (Exodus 21:28-32, 35-36). It is indeed the paradigm for the damaging animal.
The rendering of this mishnah into sensible English is very difficult since the mishnah speaks in shorthand. However, the explanation should make more sense to you.
The first section deals with two harmless oxen that gore each other. In general the owner of each is obligated to pay half damages to the other. Here we figure out what was the greater damage and the owner of the less injured ox will pay half of that amount. A table will help.
Value of ox before injury
Value after injury
Damages
Amount owed
100 (tam)
30
70
35
50 (tam)
30
20
10
In this case the owner of the ox worth fifty will pay twenty-five to the owner of the ox worth 100.
In the second case both of the animals were muad and will therefore pay full damages. Our table now looks like this:
Value of ox before injury
Value after injury
Damages
Amount owed
100 (muad)
30
70
70
50 (muad)
30
20
20
In this case the owner of the ox worth fifty will pay fifty to the owner of the ox worth 100.
In the third case one ox was muad and one was tam. The muad will owe half damages and the tam full damages. According to our example in this case the animal worth 100 was a muad and therefore will owe full damages for the animal worth 50. The animal worth 50 is a tam and will therefore pay half damages for the animal worth 100. Our table now looks like this:
Value of ox before injury
Value after injury
Damages
Amount owed
100 (muad)
30
70
35
50 (tam)
30
20
30
In this case the owner of the ox worth fifty will pay 5 to the owner of the ox worth 100.
The fourth case of the mishnah deals with human beings who injure one another. Since a human being is always a muad (see chapter one mishnah four), this is similar to case number two.
The fifth and final case deals with a human being (who is always muad) and a harmless ox (tam) who injure one another. This case is similar to case number three. We will nevertheless bring a new table.
Value before injury
Value after injury
Damages
Amount owed
1000-- human (muad)
500
500
250
50--ox (tam)
20
30
30
In this case the owner of the ox will pay the human 220. Rabbi Akiva disagrees. According to him an ox that injures a human being always pays full damages as if it was a muad. Therefore in the previous scenario the owner of the ox will pay 470 to the human." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is concerned with the scenario mentioned in Exodus 21:35 (translation from JPS Tanakh): “When a man’s ox gores his neighbor’s ox and it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal.” This system of payment of damages (applicable only to a “tam” or harmless ox) works well when both animals are worth the same amount. For instance if both the goring ox and the gored ox were worth 200 before the goring, and the carcass of the gored ox is 50, the two owners will sell both animals and split 200 and 50, leaving each with 125, or 75 less than the worth of their original ox. 75 is half of the 150 in damages caused to the gored ox, which matches our principle that when a tam injures, it’s owner pays half damages. However this system does not work well if the two oxen are of differing values. For instance, if the goring ox is worth 500 and the gored ox was worth 50 before the goring and its carcass is worth 30, the two owners will split 500 and 30, leaving each with 265. In this case the owner of the gored ox has benefited 215 since his original ox was worth 50. Likewise the system in the Torah does not work if the gored ox was worth more than the goring ox. If the goring ox was worth 50 and the gored ox 200 before the goring, and its carcass is worth 50, the two owners will split 50 and 50 leaving each with 50. The owner of the gored ox did not receive half damages, which would have been 100. The sages in our mishnah are dealing with the case in which we are able to fulfill the literal meaning of the verse in Exodus and still maintain our principle of half damages.", + "If an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200, and the carcass is not worth anything, [the owner of the gored ox] takes the [live] ox. Section 1 describes a case where an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200. The owner of the goring ox owes 100, which are half damages. Since the carcass is not worth anything, the owner of the dead ox can just take the live ox as payment. This case is significantly different than the case described in Exodus. There the two owners sold both the live ox and the carcass and split the proceeds evenly. In this case there is no need for any selling or splitting of proceeds.", + "If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, Rabbi Meir said, “If thus it was written, ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal’. Section 2, which contains Rabbi Meir’s opinion brings up a case closer to the one described in Exodus. Here the goring ox and the gored ox are both worth 200, but the carcass is not worth anything. The owner of the goring ox owes 100 and therefore the two owners sell the goring ox and split the proceeds.", + "Rabbi Judah said to him: “Such indeed is the halachah (, but you have fulfilled the verse ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price’, and you have not fulfilled the verse ‘they shall also divide the dead animal’. What case is this? If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the corpse is worth 50, this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox, and this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox. In section 3 Rabbi Judah points out that Rabbi Meir’s scenario only fulfills half of the description of the case in Exodus, that is selling the live animal. Rabbi Meir’s scenario does not include the need to sell the carcass, which is mentioned in Exodus. Therefore Rabbi Judah explains that Exodus describes the scenario as we explained in the introduction, where both oxen are worth 200 before the goring and the carcass is worth 50. They sell both the live and dead oxen and split the proceeds, leaving both parties with 125, 75 less than the amount with which they started. Since full damages were 150, 75 is equal to half damages.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• As I pointed out in the introduction, the Torah is only dealing with a circumstance in which both oxen were of equal value. Why do you think the Torah only describes this circumstance?
• Following up the first question, the Torah teaches the principle of half damages. Why do you think that it doesn’t just say that the injuring party pays half damages and instead it describes the process of selling both the live and dead animals? To whose advantage is this system?" + ], + [ + "There is one who is obligated for the act of his ox and exempt from his own act, and one who is exempt from his own act and obligated on the act of his ox.
[If] his ox caused embarrassment [to another person], he is exempt; [If, however] he caused embarrassment [to another person] he is obligated.
[If] his ox put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his [slave’s] tooth, he is exempt [from freeing the slave]; [If, however] he put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is obligated to free the slave.
[If] his ox injured his father or mother he is obligated; [If, however] he injured his father or mother he is exempt.
[If] his ox lit a heap of produce on fire on Shabbat, he is obligated; [If, however] he lit a heap of produce on Shabbat he is exempt, because he is liable for his life.
Our mishnah is concerned with the differences in obligation when a human being and an ox cause the same damage. We will discuss these differences in the explanation.
One interesting note is that our mishnah is composed in highly formulaic language, which makes it easier to memorize. We should always remember that the mishnah is oral Torah, recited and taught orally by the Sages. As such it is important for it to be composed in the type of repetitive and formulaic language that could be memorized. This mishnah is a prime example of this type of composition.
 Section one is an introductory clause explaining the topic of the mishnah. We will be dealing with cases in which the same injury which creates obligation when a human being was the cause, does not create obligation if an ox was the cause and vice versa.
 Section two deals with the case of embarrassment payments. In chapter eight of Bava Kamma we will learn that when a person injures another person one of the payments he makes is for the embarrassment caused to the other person. We learn in our mishnah that since an ox does not know that he might cause embarrassment to another person, if the ox should injure another person, it’s owner is exempt from that payment.
 Section three deals with damages done to a slave. According to Exodus 21:26-27 if a man should put out the eye of his slave or knock out the slave’s tooth he must set the slave free. Our mishnah tells us that this is only so if the owner himself does the act. If the ox were to do the act, the owner is not obligated to free the slave. Nor is he obligated for any financial payment since the slave is his property. As such, anything owned by the slave belongs to the master, and therefore there would be no sense in the owner paying the slave.
 Section four deals with striking one’s parents. According to Exodus 21:15 if a person strikes his/her mother or father s/he is obligated for the death penalty. In our mishnah we learn that if an ox that belonged to a person were to damage the person’s parents, the person is obligated for monetary payment, the same way he would be if the ox injured any person. However, if the person himself struck the parent, he is exempt from monetary payment. At the end of this mishnah we learn a new principle: when a person commits a crime that would potentially carry with it the death penalty and a monetary fine, he receives only the death penalty. In Jewish law one generally can receive only one punishment per crime, namely the greater punishment. If he is liable for death and money, he gets the death penalty only, that being the greater punishment.
 Section five deals with a burning a heap of produce on Shabbat. Lighting a fire on Shabbat is a capital crime (see for instance Exodus 35:2-3), as are all forbidden acts on Shabbat (if the person was warned beforehand, and understood properly the severity of his/her crime). Destroying crops through fire is a crime that will carry with it a monetary penalty. Therefore if an ox should cause the fire, it’s owner is obligated. If however, a person should destroy the crops through fire on Shabbat, he will incur the death penalty. In this case, as in the previous case, when a person is liable for the death penalty he is exempt from monetary payment." + ], + [ + "If an ox was pursuing another ox and [the latter ox] was injured: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury, and this one claims “No, it was injured by a rock.” on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.
If two oxen were pursuing a third ox: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, and this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, they are both exempt. However, if they were both owned by one man, they are both obligated.
If one was big and was small: the [owner] of injured [ox] says that “The large one caused the injury”, and the [owner] of the injuring [ox] says, “The small one caused the injury”, [or] if one was a harmless ox ( and one was an attested danger ( the [owner] of the injured ox says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger caused the injury, and the owner of the injuring ox says, “The [ox which is] harmless caused the injury”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.
If two oxen were injured, one big and one small, and two oxen caused the injury, one big and one small: [the owner] of the injured oxen says, “The big ox injured the big ox and small ox injured the small ox,” and the [owner] of the injuring oxen says, “The small ox injured the big ox and the big ox injured the small ox”; [or] if one was harmless and one was an attested danger: the [owner] of the injured oxen says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger injured the big ox, and the harmless [ox] injured the small ox”, the owner of injuring oxen says, “No rather the harmless [ox] injured the large ox and the [ox which is an] attested danger injured the small ox”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.
The final mishnah of the third chapter is concerned with an extremely important principle in Jewish law, that the burden of proof is on the one who wishes to exact compensation. In terms of modern law this means that the plaintiff must bring positive proof that the defendant owes him money in order for the court to find in his favor. In absence of positive proof, the defendant will be found exempt.
We will explain each clause independently. As you read the mishnah notice how the mishnah begins with simple cases and proceeds to the complicated cases. The mishnah is a didactic text: once you learn the principles you can move onto more complicated problems.
This entire lengthy mishnah is based on one principle, that the burden of proof lies on the pursuant.
 Section one deals with the simple case of one ox causing injury to another ox. The owner of the injured ox must bring proof that his ox was injured by the other ox and not by a rock. Since the burden of proof lies on him, without proof he will not be able to collect damages.
 Section two deals with the case of two oxen chasing after one ox. It is clear that one of the two oxen caused the injury but it is unclear which one. Each of the independent owners of the two pursuing oxen claims that the other ox caused the injury. Since the owner of the injured ox cannot prove which ox caused the injury, he can’t collect damages from either. However, if both of the pursuing oxen were owned by the same person, he is liable.
 Section three continues to deal with the situation of two potentially injuring oxen. This time we learn that one of the two was a large, probably expensive ox, and the other was small. They were both harmless oxen, and therefore we are dealing with payment of half damages. It is in the owner of the injured ox’s best interest that the larger ox caused the damage, since when a harmless ox injures the damages paid can be no greater than the worth of the injuring ox. Take for example the case where a large ox was worth 500 and the small ox 100 and the damages were 250. The owner of the damaged ox would like to collect 125, half damages. If the small ox caused the injury the most he could recover is 100, the value of the small ox. However, if the owner of the large ox caused the injury, he can recover the full 125. In our mishnah there is a dispute over which animal caused the injury, and as usual the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.
 In the second half of section three instead of one of the potentially injuring oxen being large and the other being small, one is a harmless ox, which only pays half damages, and one is an attested danger which pays full damages. Obviously it is in the best interests of the owner of the injured ox that the attested danger caused the damage, thereby allowing him to recover full damages. Again the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.
 Section four further complicates our scenario. This time two oxen caused injury to two oxen. However, the principles are all similar to the cases in section three. The owner of the injured oxen would like to claim that the large ox injured the large ox or that the attested danger ox injured his large ox, and the owner of the injuring oxen claims the opposite. As expected, the mishnah again declares that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "[If] an ox has gored four or five other oxen, this one after this one: the owner shall pay to [the owner of] the last ox injured. If money remains, it will go to the [the owner of] the previously [injured ox]. If money still remains, it will go to the [the owner of the ox injured] previous to the previously [injured ox]. [The owner of] the last [injured ox] benefits, according to Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Shimon says, “[If] an ox worth 200 gores an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, this one gets 100 and this one gets 100. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100 and the owner of the previously injured ox receives 50. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100, the [owner of the] previously injured ox receives 50, and the first two receive 25.
This mishnah deals with the nature of the financial obligation of the owner of a harmless ox that has injured several oxen, without it ever becoming an attested danger. According to one opinion, the owner of the injured ox becomes new owner of the harmless ox, when the latter causes injury. The result of this ownership is that if the harmless ox causes further injury, the owner of the previously injured ox will have financial liability. The second opinion is that the owner the injured ox becomes a partner in the ownership of the injuring ox. In our mishnah we will see the manifestation of these two differing opinions.
First of all let us chart out two tables explaining the differences between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon. In this chart all oxen were worth 200 before the injuries. The numbers are how much each owner of the injured oxen will collect.
Amount left to owner of injuring ox
First ox injured
Second ox
Third ox
Rabbi Meir
0
0
100
100
Rabbi Shimon
25
25
50
100
According to Rabbi Meir, the owners of the previously injured oxen are considered the new owners of the injuring ox and therefore are fully responsible for subsequent damages. Only if money remains from the value of the injuring ox can these owners recover money for their own injured oxen.
According to Rabbi Shimon the owners of the previously injured oxen are considered partners in the ownership of the injuring ox. When an ox damages one other ox, they are now partners and they each get 100. When it injures again, the owner of the currently injured ox is a partner who gets half, meaning 100 and the previous two owners become partners in an ox worth 100, and each gets 50. If the ox should injure a third time, the owner of the currently injured ox is a partner and receives half, meaning 100. The owner of the second injured ox is now a half partner in an ox worth 100 and he gets 50. The fifty that is left in the worth of the original ox is split evenly between the original owner and the owner of the first injured ox, who are partners in that 50." + ], + [ + "An ox which is an attested danger for [injuring] its own kind, and is not an attested danger for [injuring] that which is not its own kind; or an attested danger for [injuring] human beings and not an attested danger for [injuring] beasts; or an attested danger for [injuring] children and not an attested danger for [injuring] adults that for which it is an attested danger [its owner] pays full damages, and that for which it is not an attested danger [its owner] pays half damages.
They said in front of Rabbi Judah: “What if it is an attested danger on the Sabbath, and it is not an attested danger during the week?” He said to them: “For [injuries done on] Sabbaths [its owner] pays full damages and for [injuries done] during the week [its owner] pays half damages.” When will this ox be considered harmless? After it refrains from doing injury for three Sabbath days.
Our mishnah continues to discuss the meaning of the concepts of muad, an ox which is an attested danger, and tam, an ox which is considered harmless. We have already mentioned many times that a muad is an ox that has already injured three times (see chapter 2 mishnah 4). If it should damage again it’s owner will be obligated for full damages, and not half damages as is obligated the owner of a tam. Our current mishnah will clarify that an ox (or any animal) can be considered a muad for some types of injury and a tam for others.
The first section of the mishnah deals with an ox that is known to damage certain types of animals or people but not others. For instance it is known to damage other oxen, but not sheep, or people but not animals, or children but not adults. In each of these cases the ox can be treated as a muad for specific things but a tam for others. The reasoning is that since it is known to injure, for example children, its owner must be extra careful around children. However, around adults, the owner can be less concerned and therefore he will only be liable for half damages.
The second section of the mishnah discusses the idea that an ox might be known to damage on certain days. This is a somewhat more perplexing idea. After all, it seems logical that an ox might become more testy around other oxen and be less bothered by sheep. Section one’s distinctions are therefore logical. However, one might not imagine that an ox is smart enough to know the difference between days of the week. Nevertheless, Rabbi Judah concludes that if we have evidence that an ox is more likely to attack on the Sabbath it could become a muad just for that day. At the end of the mishnah we learn that in order for this ox to revert to tam status, it would have to refrain specifically from its muad behavior. Therefore a muad for the Sabbath would have to refrain from injuring on the Sabbath itself, and not just during the week." + ], + [ + "An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, the owner is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple.
An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt.
And an ox of a gentile that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages.
Our mishnah deals with an ox owned by a Jew that gores either an ox that has been consecrated to the Temple in Jerusalem or an which belongs to a gentile.
The first clause of our mishnah is really a midrash halakhah on a verse from Exodus. Midrash can loosely be defined as exegesis, in this case deriving something from a verse in the Torah. Halakhah, is Jewish law, and therefore midrash halakhah is exegetically deriving a law from a verse, even when that law is not apparent from the simple sense of the verse. Many of the laws in the mishnah are actually derived through midrash from the Torah. However, the midrash, or scriptural derivation of the law, is not usually mentioned explicitly in the Mishnah. The Mishnah is a code organized topically and not organized according to the organization of the Torah, and therefore its connection with the Torah is usually less apparent. However, there are exceptions as we shall see in our mishnah.
Section one is a midrash on the word “his neighbor” in the verse “When a man’s ox injures his neighbor’s ox and it dies” (Exodus 21:35). The Rabbis learned that “his neighbor” comes to exclude an ox that doesn’t belong to his neighbor but belongs to the Temple in Jerusalem. A person can dedicate any of his property to the Temple. If the dedicated property was able to be offered as a sacrifice, i.e. a cow, a sheep, a goat, a dove, the priests in the Temple would do so. If not they would sell the property and use the proceeds for upkeep of the Temple. In our mishnah a person’s privately owned ox injured an ox that had already been dedicated to the Temple or vice versa. Since the Torah states “his neighbor” in these cases no damages are incurred.
Sections two and three deal with oxen of Israelites that injure oxen of gentiles and vice versa. According to the mishnah if an Israelite ox injured the ox of a gentile the Israelite is exempt. However, according to section three if a gentile ox injured an Israelite ox the gentile is obligated full damages, even if the ox was harmless, which usually means only half damages. Section two is probably also based on a midrash, exegetical derivation, of the word “his neighbor” in the aforementioned verse in Exodus. “His neighbor” only includes Jews and not gentiles. As far as section three is concerned according to Maimonides it is meant to encourage the gentiles to protect their oxen from causing damages.
When learning mishnayot that deal with Jewish-gentile relations, one should try not to compare the situation to most of today’s world, where Jews and gentiles get along quite well. In ancient times (and not so ancient times) Jews were persecuted by the non-Jews, their lands were often confiscated, and when they rebelled their Temple was destroyed. In such an atmosphere it is easy to understand why Jews did not consider the gentiles to be their neighbors." + ], + [ + "[If] an ox of a person of sound senses gored the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, [its owner] is obligated.
[If] an ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, [its owner] is exempt.
[If] an ox a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and [their oxen] are testified against in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute became of sound senses, or the insane person recovered his reason, or the minor came of age, [the ox] is thereupon deemed harmless once more, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, “It remains as it was before.”
An ox from the stadium is not liable to be put to death, as it says, “When it will gore” (Exodus 21:28), and not “When others cause it to gore.”
Our mishnah deals with oxen owned by deaf-mutes, insane people or minors that damage oxen owned by adults of sound-mind or are damaged by them. We should note that in the ancient world deaf-mutes were considered to be unintelligent, probably because they had no way of communicating with the outside world. We should remember that in those times the written word was much more scarce and almost all communication and learning was done orally. It is therefore, little surprise, that deaf-mutes were considered to lack intelligence. The three categories of people mentioned are therefore, according to the mishnah, all people who are not capable of fully knowing the consequences of their actions, and therefore cannot be held responsible for them. Thankfully, in the modern world we have developed sign language and other forms of communication (including e-mail and the internet) that have allowed us to learn that people who cannot speak verbally or hear are no less intelligent than those who can.
 Section one deals the ox of a person of sound senses that injures the ox of a deaf-mute, insane person or minor. In this case the owner is obligated the same way that s/he would be obligated if the ox injured any person’s ox.
 Section two deals with the ox of a deaf-mute, insane person or minor that gores another person’s ox. In this case the owner of the injuring ox is not liable. The mishnah considers these people not to be capable of protecting their oxen from injuring others, and therefore they are not liable.
 Section three continues to deal with the problem of oxen that belong to deaf-mutes, insane people or minors from injuring. Although these people are not responsible for their actions, this does not mean that the halakhah does not have the duty to protect the interests of others who are damaged by them. Therefore, the mishnah institutes a process by which the court appoints a guardian over the oxen of the aforementioned people. If the ox should henceforth damage three times, it will become an attested danger (muad) and the guardian will pay full damages from the estate of the deaf-mute, insane person or minor.
 In section three clauses c through e, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose disagree concerning the case where the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor was declared by the court to be an attested danger (muad) and then the status of the owner changed to that of an adult person of sound senses. According to Rabbi Meir, the ox’s slate is cleaned and it returns to being a harmless ox (tam). If it should injure again its owner will only be obligated half damages. According to Rabbi Yose, the ox remains an attested danger and if it should injure again its owner will be obligated full damages.
 Section four deals with a stadium ox, what we might call a fighting bull. As is well known, the Romans entertained themselves by throwing slaves and other human beings into pits to fight animals to the death. (Indeed some still find this entertaining). In Exodus 21:28 we learn that oxen are obligated for death if they kill a person. Our mishnah is a midrash on the words, “When it will gore” that begins this verse. According to the midrash, or legal exposition, the verse deals with an ox that gores of its own will and not an ox that is put into the position where human beings are urging it to kill. In this case, the ox is innocent and I might add one should wonder whether those in the stadium aren’t the ones with innocent blood on their hands." + ], + [ + "If an ox gored a person and he died, if it was an attested danger [its owner] must pay the ransom, if it was accounted harmless he is exempt from paying the ransom. In both cases the ox is obligated for the death penalty.
So too [if it killed] a son or a daughter.
If it gored a male slave or a female slave its owner pays 30 sela, Whether [the slave] was worth a maneh or not even worth a dinar.
Until now tractate Bava Kamma has mostly been concerned with an ox that kills or injures another ox. We learned that in such a case if the injuring ox was accounted harmless (tam) its owner will pay half damages and if it was an attested danger (muad) its owner will pay full damages. The Biblical verses which are concerned with this subject are Exodus 21:35-36.
The mishnah now moves to a related subject, that of an ox that kills a human being. The Biblical verses which are concerned with this subject are Exodus 21:28-32. According to these verses from Exodus if an ox kills a human being several things must happen. If it was a harmless ox, the ox is to be stoned and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from its meat. If the ox was a “goring ox” meaning it was an attested danger and its owners did not prevent it from killing again, on principal its owners deserve the death penalty, in addition to the death penalty to be meted out on the ox. However, the Torah allows for the owners to “ransom” their lives by paying a fine to the family of the person killed by the ox. The Torah emphasizes that the same is true if the ox killed a child. Finally, the Torah sets an established ransom-amount for an ox that kills a slave. Unlike a free person, for whom the Torah does not state the amount of the ransom, the owner of an ox that kills a slave will always pay 30 shekels. Finally the Torah emphasizes that even in this case the ox is still killed. We should note an ox killing a human being is the only instance in which the Torah allows for the paying of a ransom. If a person kills another person, the Torah demands the death penalty and does not allow the person to pay for his life. Money can never equal life and therefore no payment can compensate for its loss.
Mishnah five codifies some of these laws and mishnah six begins to deal with exceptional circumstances in which an ox kills a human being.
Mishnah five basically explains the verses from Exodus 21:28-32 which we discussed in the introduction. It may be somewhat puzzling to note how an ox that has killed can ever become an attested danger. After all, after it has killed once it is obligated for the death penalty and it should not have the opportunity to kill a second and third time, in order to become an attested danger. There should therefore never exist an ox that is an attested danger for killing. There are at least two possible answers to this question. Potentially the ox is an attested danger for goring, but has never killed a human being. It could become an attested danger by goring other animals and then later get the death penalty for killing a human. Second, it is possible that the ox killed other people without its being warned in the court. It cannot officially become an attested danger until witnesses testify against it in court. Therefore, although it may have killed several times, it is still a legally accounted harmless.
The rest of the mishnah is fairly straightforward. With regards to the monetary amounts in section three, it would help to translate them all into one unit of money, namely a dinar. A sela is four dinars, so 30 sela is 120 dinars. A maneh is worth 100 dinars. (In some versions of the mishnah it says 100 maneh, which would be 10,000 dinar.) The mishnah states that no matter how much the slave is worth the owner pays thirty sela. Whenever the Torah states a fixed amount as a fine, one must pay that amount whether or not the damage equaled the amount of the fine." + ], + [ + "If an ox was rubbing itself against a wall and it fell on a person;
or if it intended to kill an animal and it killed a man;
or if it intended to kill a gentile and it killed an Israelite;
or if it intended to kill an untimely birth and it killed a viable infant,
it is exempt [from death by stoning].
Mishnah six deals with several instances in which an ox that kills another Jewish human being but unintentionally. In section one the ox was only scratching its back and certainly had no intention to kill. In section two the ox did have intention to kill but its intention was to kill an animal. In section three the ox did have the intention to kill a human being, but its intention was directed at killing a gentile. According to the mishnah an ox that kills a gentile will not be judged in the same way as an ox that kills a Jew. (With regards to Jewish-gentile relations see the discussion on chapter four mishnah three.) In section four the ox did have intention to kill a Jewish human being, but that Jewish human being would not have been able to live. (According to the Rabbis understanding of medicine a child born after eight months could not survive). In all of these cases since the intention was to kill something for which the ox would not be liable for the death penalty the ox is exempt from the death penalty. In other words we judge the ox by its intention and not by its actions." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur two mishnayot continue to deal with the ox that killed a human being. As we learned previously, according to Exodus 21:28 an ox that has killed a human being is to be put to death and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from its meat. Mishnah seven deals with an ox that is owned by someone other than an adult male, and the consequences its ownership might have on its sentence. Mishnah eight deals with the case where someone tried to either dedicate the ox to the Temple or to ritually slaughter the animal before it was killed for being a goring ox. As we shall see the effect of these actions are dependent on the time at which they were done.", + "The ox of a woman, or the ox of orphans, or the ox of a guardian, or a wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died and has no inheritors, these are all liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Judah says, “A wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died are exempt from death, since they have no owners.” Mishnah seven begins with a list of oxen owned by those other than adult Jewish males. Although for various reasons one might have thought that these oxen are not liable for the death penalty, the mishnah decrees otherwise. In all cases the ox is liable for the death penalty. In section two Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion expressed in section one. According to R. Judah if the ox does not have owners, the Torah does not demand that it be put to death. Rabbi Judah’s opinion is probably based on a midrash on Exodus 21:29, which describes the process of warning the goring ox’s owners, a process which lead to the ox being declared an attested danger. According to Rabbi Judah in order to fulfill the law mentioned in Ex. 21:28, namely killing the goring ox, one must be able to fulfill the law in verse 29, which would require the ox to have owners. In other words since one cannot warn the owners, as verse 29 states, one need not execute the ox, as verse 28 states. A note is required about the laws of inheritance for a proselyte. According to the Rabbis’ a proselyte does not “Biblically” inherit from anyone in his family that did not convert, but his inheritance is only ordained by the Rabbis themselves. Therefore, when a proselyte dies without children or a spouse, his property would have no “Biblical” inheritors. Since the requirement to stone the ox is a Biblical command, with regards to this law the ox is considered ownerless.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think the Rabbis allowed a person to derive benefit from a goring ox if they slaughtered it before the court pronounced the sentence? Why shouldn’t the Rabbis be concerned that people will take advantage of this law and slaughter their goring oxen before the sentence is complete?" + ], + [ + "If an ox goes out to be stoned, and its owners dedicated it to the Temple, it is not considered dedicated. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden.
But if before its sentence was complete its owner dedicated it, it is dedicated. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is permitted.
Mishnah Eight deals with an owner of a goring ox who tried to “cheat the system” by either dedicating the ox to the Temple, and thereby getting credit for a sacrifice, or by ritually slaughtering the ox, and thereby getting food to eat and the leather from the hide. We learned in the aforementioned verses in Exodus that the ox must be executed and its meat is forbidden for use. Our mishnah tells us that this is so only if its sentence has already been pronounced by the court. If it has not, and a person should either dedicate it or slaughter it, the person’s actions are valid and either the Temple or the person himself may derive benefit from the ox." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAlthough we will learn only one mishnah today it really contains two distinct subjects. The first section deals with an ox owner who gives his ox to a guardian. Jewish law recognizes four different types of guardians (we will discuss their laws in detail when we learn tractate Bava Metzia): a borrower, an unpaid guardian, a paid guardian and a hirer. All four of these people receive an object from another person and they have varying degrees of responsibility to guard the object and varying rights to use the object. Our mishnah will teach us that when an owner turns over his ox to any of the four guardians, they now become responsible for any damage the ox will cause while under their protection.\nThe second part of the mishnah deals with the duty an owner himself has to protect his ox from causing damage. Exodus 21:29 states: “If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and its owner, though warned, has failed to guard it...” (JPS translation). The sages in our mishnah will discuss the duty to guard a goring ox and the financial consequences of proper and improper guarding.", + "If one handed it to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, they take the place of the owners; if the beast was an attested danger he pays full damages, and if it was accounted harmless he pays half damages. Section one states quite clearly that any time an owner turns his ox over to another person who has agreed to watch the ox, that person will be responsible for any damages that the ox causes under his guardianship. The real point of this mishnah is that even an unpaid guardian, who neither gets use of the ox nor financial compensation for his guarding, still has liability for damages the ox will cause. In other words, clearly a borrower should be liable in such a case, since he gets the use of the ox and doesn’t even have to pay for it. A hirer also gets the use of the ox, even though he pays for it, so he too should be liable. A paid guardian, while not getting use of the ox, is receiving financial compensation for his guardianship and therefore it is reasonable for him to be liable for damages. However, an unpaid guardian does not receive anything in return and is in essence doing a favor for the owners. The mishnah therefore emphasizes that even so he is liable if the ox should cause damage.", + "If its owner had tied it with a halter, or locked it up properly, but it came out and caused damage, the owner is liable, whether it was an attested danger or accounted harmless, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “If it was accounted harmless he is liable, but if it was an attested danger he is exempt, as it says, “and its owner did not guard it”, but this one has been guarded. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Its only guarding is the knife.” Section two deals with the obligation an owner has to guard his ox. According to Rabbi Meir, tying up an ox or locking it in a pen is evidently not enough protection to exempt one from damages the ox will cause. Therefore, even if the owner performed these acts, he will still be obligated for damages the ox will cause. According to Rabbi Judah, with protection such as tying it up or locking it in, the owner exempts himself from liability for damages caused by an ox that is an attested danger. There is something slightly perplexing with regards to Rabbi Judah’s statement. In the case that he describes an owner may be more obligated for an ox that is a tam, accounted harmless, than for an ox that is a muad, an attested danger. There are two possible answers to this point. First of all, the Torah mentions “guarding” only with regards to the muad, attested danger. Rabbi Judah may be reading the Torah literally. He therefore states that only with regards to the muad is guarding relevant. Guarding a tam will not exempt one from paying for its damages. Secondly, according to the Talmud’s reading of Rabbi Judah’s opinion, if he ties up the ox which is a muad or he locks it in although he will not be obligated for full damages, he will be obligated for half damages. In other words, according to the Talmud, Rabbi Judah does not hold the opinion that one could be more liable for a muad than for a tam. ] Rabbi Eliezer believes that the only way to guarantee that an ox which is an attested danger will not cause damage again is to slaughter the ox. In other words, even though he tied it up or locked it in, he is still obligated for full damages for the muad and half damages for the tam.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why should the unpaid guardian be liable if the ox causes damages?
• According to Rabbi Meir, locking the ox in or tying it up is not sufficient to exempt one from damages the ox might cause. What then must the owner do, according to Rabbi Meir, in order to properly guard the ox?
• What might be some modern equivalents to these laws?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn chapter three mishnah eight we learned an important principle with regards to monetary claims in Jewish law: the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In order to recover money from the defendant the plaintiff must prove that he owes him money. In absence of such proof the defendant owes nothing. This is generally the position of the sages with regards to monetary claims. However, there is another position that occasionally appears in the Mishnah. According to this position in cases where there is doubt to whom the money belongs, the plaintiff and the defendant split the money. Our mishnah goes according to this general rule and not the rule we learned previously that the burden of proof is on the defendant.\nThis mishnah and the mishnah previously learned (3:8) are a good example how the Mishnah is not exactly a law book. A law book should not have contradictions between different laws. The Mishnah occasionally does contain such contradictions. The Mishnah is therefore more properly described as a collection of laws and traditions from which a capable judge could make a decision.", + "If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born young was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before the ox gored, or if after the ox gored the cow gave birth, the owner of the ox pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. Section one deals with an ox that is accounted harmless that gores and kills a cow. When the cow is discovered it also has dead newborn by its side. The owner of the ox certainly owes half damages for the cow, as is the law for damages done by animals that are tam, accounted harmless. However, it is unclear whether he owes half damages for the newborn as well. If the ox gored the cow before it gave birth, than the goring must have caused the cow to miscarry. In this case the owner of the ox will owe half damages for the newborn as well. However, there is a possibility that the cow miscarried before the goring. In this case the owner of the ox will not owe any damages for the newborn. In other words, the owner of the cow claims that the ox caused the miscarriage and that the owner of the ox owes half damages. The owner of the ox claims that the cow miscarried before the goring and that he does not owe for the newborn. In such a case the owner of the ox pays one quarter damages, half of the amount in dispute.", + "And also if a cow gored an ox and its newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored before she gave birth, the owner pays half damages from the value of the cow and one quarter damages from value the newborn. Section two deals with a similar case, except the roles are reversed. This time the cow gores and kills the ox. When the goring is discovered, the cow has a newborn next to it (this time the newborn is alive). Since the cow was accounted harmless (tam) it will pay half damages that cannot exceed the worth of the cow. Let us say that the gored ox was worth 500, half damages being 250. The cow was worth 200 after it gave birth and 250 while it was pregnant. If it gored while pregnant, the owner of the cow owes 250. In this case he will give over both the cow and her newborn. However, if it gored after giving birth the owner owes 200. After giving birth the newborn is already a separate entity not responsible to pay for the goring. The two owners are disputing whether or not the value of the newborn should be considered in paying the damages for the gored ox. According to our mishnah the owner of the gored ox can collect up to half payment from the cow. If he is still owed money, he can collect one quarter payment, or half of the half damages that he is owed, from the newborn. In our example he would collect the full 200 from the cow and 25 from the newborn.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would be the law if this mishnah were to go according to the principle that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff?" + ], + [ + "If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.
If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.
The two mishnayoth which we will learn today are concerned with damages that occur on the property of the damaged party. In mishnah two we will learn about a pottery maker or a produce seller who brings his ware onto another person’s property and it either causes damage or is damaged. In mishnah three we will learn about a person who brings his ox onto another person’s property and again it either causes injury or is injured. In both of these cases we will learn the following general rules:
1. If a person’s belongings are damaged after he brought them onto another person’s property without permission the owner of the property is not liable.
2. In such a case if a person’s belongings cause damage on another person’s property he is liable.
Sections one and two of mishnah two are very similar and can be explained simultaneously. If a person brings his belongings onto another’s household without permission he is obligated for any damage his belongings will cause. In addition he will not receive compensation if his belongings are damaged by the belongings of the owner of the household. After all, the householder can say I never gave you permission to come onto my property. In modern terms this would be called trespassing. However, if he received permission to come onto the property the laws are reversed. The mishnah explicitly states that if the person’s belongings were damaged the owner of the household, whose belongings caused the damage, is liable. It can be assumed, although it is not stated explicitly, that in such a case if the person’s belongings caused damage to the belongings of the household owner he would not be liable." + ], + [ + "If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.
Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.
The first two clauses of mishnah three are similar to what we learned in the previous mishnah. We again learn that if a person brings his belongings onto another person’s property without permission and they are damaged he will not receive compensation and if they cause damages he is liable. In clause b we learn an additional law. If when falling into the cistern the ox kills a person, the owner of the ox is obligated to pay the ransom price mentioned in Exodus 21:30. As we learned in chapter four mishnah 5 when an ox kills a person, the owner of the ox is obligated to pay a ransom price to the family of the deceased. In our mishnah we learn that falling into a cistern is similar enough to goring that the ox’s owner is obligated.
At the end of this mishnah we learn that Rabbi (Rabbi Judah Hanasi) holds an opinion different from that held in the anonymous previous portions of the mishnah. According to Rabbi, allowing a person to enter one’s property is not tantamount to accepting upon oneself the obligation to watch over that person’s belongings. When I allow you to bring your belongings onto my property, I may still assume that you will watch over your things. Therefore, if they cause damage you are still obligated and if they are damaged I am exempt. According to Rabbi, a person does not accept the responsibility for watching the belongings until he states so explicitly. The other opinion in the mishnah held that by allowing a person to enter one’s property on is implicitly accepting upon himself the responsibility for that person’s belongings." + ], + [ + "If an ox intended [to gore] another ox and struck a woman and her offspring came forth [as a miscarriage], its owner is not liable for the value of the offspring. But if a man intended to strike his fellow and struck a woman and her offspring came forth [as a miscarriage], he must pay the value of the offspring.
How does he pay the value of the offspring? They assess the value of the woman before she gave birth and the value after she gave birth.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “If so, once a woman gives birth she is more valuable. Rather, they assess how much the offspring would be worth, and he pays it to the husband, or if she has no husband to his heirs.”
If she was a freed bondwoman or a proselyte no penalty is incurred.
Exodus 21:22 states: “When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment is to be based on reckoning” (JPS translation). According to the Torah, usually a person who accidentally kills another person cannot pay in order to atone for his crime. However, in the case described in this verse the person did not kill an independent human being but rather he caused a miscarriage. Therefore the Torah allows him to make financial compensation for the loss of the fetus/baby. (I am attempting to be very careful about the sensitive issue of Judaism’s stance on the status of a fetus and on abortion. One could potentially argue from this verse that according to the Torah a fetus is not equal to a born human being. However, an exemption from murder charges for one who accidentally causes a miscarriage is not necessarily a blanket approval for abortion.)
Our mishnah deals with two subjects. The first is a definition of the scenario in which this law will apply. The second is an account of the payments required for causing the miscarriage.
Section one limits the application of the verse from Exodus to a case where a person caused a miscarriage. After all the verse states, “When men fight…” and therefore it can be assumed that the law does not apply when an ox causes the miscarriage. In this case the owner of the ox will pay for the damage done to the woman and not for the damage done to the offspring.
Section two begins a discussion of the payments made for the miscarriage. According to the first opinion one evaluates the worth of the woman before the pregnancy and after the pregnancy and the difference is the payment for the offspring. This payment is made to the husband, as we shall learn in section 3a. The payment for the damages to the woman herself is a payment to the woman and the payment for the loss of the offspring is a payment to her husband. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel (section three), a pregnant woman is actually worth less than a non-pregnant woman. In order to understand his words we must remember that in those times death during childbirth was all too common. A pregnant woman was in a dangerous situation and therefore her value is lower. Once she gives birth her value will rise because she is out of the dangerous situation. Therefore, we cannot use this system to evaluate the payments. Rather, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, we estimate how much the offspring themselves would have been worth.
In section 3a we learn that if the woman’s husband died between the time of conception and the time of the miscarriage, the payments are an inheritance to his inheritors. Section 4 is concerned with two women whose husbands are likely not to have inheritors. There are two possibilities to understand this section. First of all, if a woman is a bondwoman and is freed while pregnant, or a woman converts while pregnant, her husband or impregnator is no longer legally responsible or legally considered the father of the children. Therefore, if someone should accidentally cause her to miscarry, there is no father that can collect the payment. Alternatively this last section may deal with a freed bondwoman who marries a freed slave or convert or a convert who marries another convert. The miscarriage occurs after this husband has died and before they have other children. In this case the husband has no inheritors since converts and freed slaves do not have inheritors in their families from before they changed their status." + ], + [ + "If a man dug a pit in a private domain and opened it into the public domain, or if he dug it in the public domain and opened it into a private domain, or if he dug it in a private domain and opened it into another private domain, he is liable [if any is injured by the pit].
If he dug a pit in the public domain and an ox or ass fell into and died, he is liable.
No matter whether he digs a pit, trench, or cavern, or ditches or channels he is liable. If so, why does it say “a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? Just as a pit which is deep enough to cause death is ten handbreadths deep, so anything is deep enough to cause death if it is ten handbreadths deep.
If they were less than ten handbreadths deep and an ox or an ass fell in and died, the owner is not liable; but if it was damaged he is liable.
In the first mishnah of the tractate we learned that there are four archetypal causes of damage. Our mishnah and the two mishnayoth that we will learn tomorrow are concerned with the second cause of damage, namely the pit. Exodus 21:33-34 state: “When a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls into it, the one responsible for the pit must make restitution; he shall pay the price to the owner, but shall keep the dead animal.” Our mishnah deals with several details concerning damages done by a pit.
Sections one and two emphasize that the pit which is described in the Torah is a pit dug almost anywhere. The only exception would be a person who dug a pit on his own property and another person came onto his property without his permission and fell in the pit. In this case the owner would not be liable since the ox entered without his permission.
Section three states that one is obligated not only for damages caused by a pit but damages caused by any hole dug into the ground. There are many types of holes a person might dig for various reasons and they all have different names. The mishnah emphasizes that one is obligated not just for pits but for other holes as well. Section 3a asks a follow-up question. If the Torah meant to say that a person is obligated for any hole he dug in the ground or uncovered why did it specifically mention pit? The answer is that a pit is an example of how deep something has to be for it to be normal for it to cause the death of an animal that fell in. Ten handbreadths (=about one yard) is such a normal depth. Therefore we can conclude that any hole which is ten handbreadths deep is considered to be similar a pit and if an animal falls in and dies, the person who dug or uncovered the hole will be liable.
Section four is a follow-up to section three. If a person dug a hole or uncovered a hole less than ten handbreadths he does not, according to the mishnah, fit into the category mentioned in the Torah. Therefore if an animal does fall in and die he is not liable. However if the animal is injured he is liable since a hole less than ten handbreadths is likely to cause injury." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to deal with damages done by a pit, a subject that we began to learn in mishnah five. The Torah states that a person is obligated for damages caused by a pit which he dug or by a covered pit which he uncovered. The first two sections of mishnah six deals with the duty to properly cover pits. The third section of the mishnah deals with the cause of an animal’s falling into a pit. The fourth section deals with damages done to the load carried by the animal when it falls into the pit. The fifth section deals with irresponsible oxen, children and slaves who fall into the pit.\nAccording to mishnah seven when the Torah states “ox” with regards to a number of laws, the intention is not that the law is limited to an ox. Rather the laws of the Torah mentioned in this mishnah apply to any animal or bird. This mishnah is an appendix to the laws that we have learned in the first five chapters, must of which were dealt with goring oxen and damages by a pit. In both of these laws the Torah uses the example of an ox, and therefore it is essential that our mishnah emphasize that an ox is just an example. These laws are equally applicable to other animals.", + "If a pit belonged to two partners and one went over it and did not cover it, and the other also went over it and did not cover it, the second one is liable. If the first covered it and the second came and found it uncovered and did not cover it, the second one is liable. Section one of mishnah six deals with the duty to cover a pit. We learn here that if the pit was owned by two people, the last one to be at the pit is the one responsible for damages done if he left the pit uncovered. Even though the first person also left the pit uncovered, since the second person was the last to be at the pit, he is the one held accountable.", + "If he covered it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is not liable. If he did not cover it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is liable. Section two states quite simply that if a person covers a pit properly and nevertheless an animal falls in and dies, he is not liable.", + "If it fell forward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, the owner of the pit is liable. But if backward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, he is not liable. Section three deals with animals that are frightened by the sound of the digging and fall. In other words the damage was caused not by the pit itself but by the digging of the pit. According to our mishnah if they fall forward the owner is obligated but if they fall backward the owner is exempt. This distinction is based on a midrash that demands that the ox is killed while walking forward and not while walking backward. [I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck, but there are other explanations].", + "If an ox and all of its trappings fell into it and they broke, or if an ass fell into it with its trappings and they were torn, he is liable for the beast but exempt for the trappings. Section four deals with damages done to the load that the animal was carrying when it fell into the pit. This law is also based on a midrash. Exodus 21:33 states: “and an ox or an ass falls into it”. The Rabbis learned in a midrash “an ox, and not a person; an ass and not trappings.” Compensation for damages done by a pit are therefore limited to damages done to the animal itself.", + "If an ox that was deaf, insane or young fell in, the owner is liable. If a boy or a girl or a slave or a bondwoman fell in, he is not liable. Section five sets an important limit to the liability for the pit-owner. The mishnah states that if a deaf ox, or an insane ox or a minor ox that had not yet learned to walk carefully fell into the pit the owner of the pit is liable. By inference we can learn that if an adult capable ox fell into the pit the owner of the pit is exempt. The second clause of this section states that this rule is not true with human beings. As we learned in the aforementioned midrash, the Torah states that one is obligated when an animal falls into the pit and not when a human does. Our mishnah emphasizes that even if the human was a child who is by nature not careful, the pit-owner is exempt. Furthermore, even if the human was a slave who, like an ox, belongs to someone else, the slave is still not an ox or an ass, and therefore the owner of the pit is exempt." + ], + [ + "An ox and all other beasts are alike under the laws concerning falling into a pit, keeping apart from Mount Sinai, two-fold restitution, the restoring of lost property, unloading, muzzling, diverse kinds, and the Sabbath. So to wild animals and birds. If so, why is it written “an ox or an ass”? But Scripture spoke of prevailing conditions. Mishnah seven lists several laws in which the Torah states “ox” or “beast” but the Rabbis hold that the law is true for all animals, including even wild animals and birds. I will briefly explain these laws with their Biblical references: Falling into the pit this is our topic in Bava Kamma. Keeping apart from Mount Sinai see Exodus 19:13. There God tells Moses to keep everyone, including the animals away from the mountain before the Revelation. Two-fold restitution see Exodus 22:3, 8. If a person steals something and is caught he must pay back double. Restoring lost property see Exodus 23:4, and Deuteronomy 22:1. Unloading see Exodus 23:5. If one sees his enemy’s ox buckling under its load, he must help him unload the animal. Muzzling see Deuteronomy 25:4. One is not allowed to muzzle an ox while it is threshing. Diverse kinds see Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:10. According to Leviticus one is not allowed to mate two different kinds of animals. According to Deuteronomy one is not allowed to yoke an ox and an ass together. The Sabbath see Exodus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 5:14. One must allow his animals to rest on the Sabbath. According to our mishnah the reason why the Torah uses the word ox is that oxen were the most frequently used animals in those times." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a man brought his flock into a pen and shut it in properly and it went out and caused damage, he is exempt. If he had not shut it in properly and it went out and caused damage, he is liable.
If the pen was broken through at night, or bandits broke through it, and the flock came out and caused damage, he is not liable. If the bandits brought out the flock, the bandits are liable.  Section one teaches that if a person were to properly enclose his flock and nevertheless the flock were to escape, the person is exempt. Since he fulfilled his responsibility he is not liable for damages. However, if he didn’t enclose the flock properly he will be liable.  Section two can be explained as an exception to the rule in section one that if he didn’t enclose the flock properly he is liable. Section two teaches that if the flock broke out at night (i.e. they broke the enclosed part of the or bandits broke the fence, the owner is exempt, even though he did not properly lock the fence. The owner is not liable since the animals broke out against his control, even though they could have gone out through the main gate, thereby making him liable. If, on the other hand, they were to have broken the fence during the day, and he didn’t lock it properly, he is liable. (There are other explanations to this. The final clause of the mishnah says that if the bandits physically let out the flock, they are liable if it causes damage.
At the end of chapter five we learned the laws of damages done by a pit, the second archetypal cause of damage listed in the first mishnah of the tractate. The first three mishnayoth of chapter six will deal with the third archetypal cause of damage, the crop-destroying beast." + ], + [ + "Two
If he left the flock in the sun, or he delivered it to the care of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor, and it came out and caused damage, he is liable. If he delivered it to a shepherd, the shepherd takes the place of the owner.
If the flock fell into a garden and derived any benefit, he pays for the benefit. If the flock went down [into the garden] in its usual way and caused damage, he must pay for the damage it caused.
How does he pay for the damage it caused? They assess what a seah’s space of ground in that field was worth before and what it is worth now. Rabbi Shimon says: “If they consumed fully grown produce he must repay with fully grown produce; if they destroyed on seah he must repay one seah, if two seah, two seahs.
 Section one deals mostly with the owner of the flock turning his flock over to another person. If he should turn it over to someone who cannot take proper responsibility for the flock, he will still be liable for damages. However, if he turns it over to a shepherd, the shepherd now becomes liable for any subsequent damages. In the beginning of the mishnah we additionally learn that if he leaves the flock in the hot sun and they break out, he is liable, even if he properly enclosed them. Leaving animals in the sun, where they will overheat, will drive them to go crazy and break out. Since he should have anticipated the consequences, he is liable.
 Section two deals with a flock that entered a garden and ate the produce. If the flock fell into the garden, the owner is not liable for damages because it was an unavoidable accident. (Note, that in Israel crops are often grown on the sides of hills. Falling into a garden is not, therefore, an unlikely circumstance.) In this case he will be liable to pay only for what the animal benefited. (See Bava Kamma 2:2 for a definition of this assessment). If, however, the flock entered the garden in a normal fashion, he is obligated to pay for actual damages, which will be a higher payment. Section three contains a dispute on how to assess payment for crop damages. According to the first opinion one estimates how much an area of the field that could grow a seah was worth before the flock ate the row of crops and how much it was worth after. The difference is the damage payment. Rabbi Shimon holds that we assess damages based on the crops actually eaten. His assessment will certainly be higher than the assessment based on the previous opinion." + ], + [ + "Three
If a man stacked his sheaves in his fellow’s field without his permission, and the owner of the field’s beast ate the sheaves, he is exempt. If [the beast] was injured by them, the owner of the stack is liable. If he made the stack with his permission, the owner of the field is liable. This mishnah contains laws that were all learned previously in chapter five mishnah three. We will just summarize. If someone brings his belongings onto another’s property without permission and his belongings are damaged there, the property owner is not liable. If the belongings damage the other person’s property he will be liable. However, the reverse will be true if he brings the belongings with the other person’s permission." + ], + [ + "If a person sends forth fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor he is not liable by the laws of man, but he is liable by the laws of Heaven. If he sent it forth in the hands of a person of sound senses, the one of sound senses is liable.
If one brought the fire, and then another brought the wood, he that brought the wood is liable. If one brought the wood and then another brought fire, he that brought the fire is liable. If another came and fanned the flames, the one who fanned the flame is liable. If the wind fanned the flame, they are all exempt.
If a man sent forth fire, and it consumed wood or stones or dust, he is liable, for it says: “When a fire breaks out and spreads to thorns so that the stacked corn is consumed, or the standing corn, or the field, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”
If it passed over a fence four cubits high, or over a public way, or over a river, he is exempt.
If a man kindled fire within his own domain, how far may it spread [and he will still be liable]? Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: “It is looked at as if it was in the middle of a kor’s space.” [ Rabbi Eliezer says: “Sixteen cubits [in every direction] like a public highway.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Fifty cubits.” Rabbi Shimon says: “[It is said] ‘He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution’, all is in accordance with the nature of the fire.”
The final three mishnayoth of chapter six deal with the fourth archetypal cause of damage, fire. The mishnah that we will learn today contains several details concerning a person who directly or indirectly causes damage by fire.
 Section one deals with the liability of a person who sent forth fire in another’s hand and that fire caused damage. According to the first clause if he sends it forth in the hands of a person who cannot properly take responsibility over the fire he is exempt in a human court but liable in heavenly court. This is the way the Mishnah will often state that an action is a wrong action but nevertheless not prosecutable. It is wrong because the person should know that it is likely that the fire will cause damage. It is not prosecutable because it was not he who directly allowed the fire to cause damage.
 Section two deals with a case where two or more factors contributed to the fire. According to the first two clauses whoever is the last person to contribute is liable for all of the damage, whether or not this person brought the fire or the wood. According to the third clause, if a third person came and fanned the flames, he is the one liable. However, according to the fourth clause if the wind fanned the flames, they are all exempt.
 Section three emphasizes that one is obligated not just for the damages done to the crops but for the damages done to the field as well. This is learned from the word “or the field” in the Biblical verse.
 Sections four and five set limits on the distance and obstacles a fire will overcome and the owner will still be liable for damages. According to section four if the fire goes over a fence or jumps over a river or a public thoroughfare, the owner is not liable for damages done on the other side of the fence or river or thoroughfare. Since this is an unexpected action for the fire, the kindler is exempt.
 In section five four sages argue about how far a fire may travel and the person who set the fire will still be obligated. The first three set absolute amounts while the fourth sage, Rabbi Shimon says that the distance depends on the nature of the fire. According to Rabbi Shimon if a person sets a large fire he will be responsible for damages caused at further distances." + ], + [ + "If a man set fire to a stack and in it there were utensils and these caught fire: Rabbi Judah says: “He must make restitution for what was therein.” But the Sages say: “He need only pay for a stack of wheat or barley.”
If a kid was fastened to it [to the stack] and a slave stood near by, and they were burnt with it, he is liable. If there was a slave fastened to it [to the stack] and a kid stood near by and they were burnt with it, he is not liable.
The Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if a man set fire to a large building, he must make restitution for everything therein; for such is the custom among men to leave [their goods] in their houses.
The final two mishnayoth of chapter six continue to deal with damages caused by fire. We learned in the previous mishnah that a person who sets a fire is liable not just for the destruction of crops but also for the damage done to the field itself. Mishnah five deals with damages done to various things that may be on a field. Mishnah six deals with fires that may have been set accidentally.
Section one of mishnah five contains a dispute between Rabbi Judah and the sages with regards to fire damage done to utensils that were placed inside a stack of wheat. According to Rabbi Judah one is liable for the damage done to the utensils as well as the wheat (or barley) itself. According to the Sages the kindler’s liability is limited to the wheat. For the damage done to the utensils he is exempt. Section three can help us understand the basis for this dispute. There we learn that the Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if one burns a building he is obligated also for the things left inside, because it is customary for people to leave things in buildings. In comparison, we can see that the Sages think it is not customary for people to leave things in stacks of hay. Therefore a person who burns a stack of hay is exempt if someone left in there an item that is not usually left in a stack of hay. Rabbi Judah probably assumes that it does not make a difference if people normally leave things in the place that was burnt. Since the person caused the damage he is liable in any case.
Section two deals with a case where a kid (small goat) and/or slave were found near or tied to the stack of hay and were burnt and killed in the fire. We will discuss the second clause first. Here the slave is tied to the stack of hay when he was burnt and killed. When the mishnah says that the person is not liable, the meaning is that he is not liable for monetary remuneration. The reason is that he will receive a more severe penalty for killing the slave. In Jewish law there is a principle that one cannot receive two punishments for one crime. In this case the person killed another person and caused damage to property at the same time. For killing, the person is obligated for the death penalty and therefore he cannot also receive a monetary fine. (For a different example see Bava Kamma 3:10). In the first clause the slave was only near the stack but not tied to it. Since the slave could have run away the kindler is not liable for the death penalty and therefore he will be liable for damages." + ], + [ + "If a spark flew out from under the hammer and caused damage, he is liable.
If a camel laden with flax passed by in the public domain and its load of flax entered into a shop and caught fire, the owner of the camel is liable. But if the shopkeeper left his light outside, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah says: “If it was a Hannukah light, he is he is not liable.”
The first section of mishnah six states that if a person, for instance a blacksmith, were to strike metal with a hammer and a spark were to fly out and burn another person’s property he would be liable.
The second section deals with a scenario that is more likely than it may at first sound. In the ancient world roads inside cities served as shopping areas, just as does the modern day “shuk” in middle eastern countries, including Israel. The roads were generally quite narrow and the fronts of the stores were open to the roads. A heavily laden camel walking down the road could easily fill the entire road. According to our mishnah if the camel’s load of flax were to enter into a shop, catch fire and spread the fire to another person’s property the camel owner would be liable. He should not have allowed his property to trespass into the other person’s shop. If, however, the camel owner placed the fire on the outside, he would be liable. The outside of the store is already semi-public property and he should not have put his candle out there. The one exception to this rule is the Hannukah candle, which is supposed to be placed outside of the home. According to Rabbi Judah, if the candle that caused the fire was in celebration of Hannukah, the storekeeper is exempt." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first six chapters of Bava Kamma dealt with damage laws, specifically damage a person’s property causes to another person or to another person’s property. The remaining four chapters of Bava Kamma deal with various types of damages done directly by a person: thievery, injury and robbery. Our mishnah and the rest of the chapter will deal with the laws of thievery. According to Jewish law a thief is one who steals at night or at least without the person from whom he is stealing knowing his identity. A robber on the other hand, steals in broad daylight without concealing his identity.\nThe laws of thievery are learned from Exodus 21:37-22:3. According to these verses if a man steals an ox and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five times the original value to the owner. If he steals a sheep and slaughters it or sells it he must pay back four times the original value to the owner. This is called fourfold or fivefold restitution. If, however, the sheep or ox is still found in the thief’s possession, he must only pay back double. This is called twofold restitution.\nOur mishnah deals with these two different types of restitution.", + "More encompassing in use is the rule of twofold restitution than the rule of fourfold or fivefold restitution; For the rule of twofold restitution applies both to what has life and what does not have life, while the rule of fourfold and fivefold restitution applies only to an ox or a sheep, for it is written, “If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it, or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep” (Ex. 21:37). Section one of our mishnah raises a key distinction between the laws of twofold and fourfold and fivefold restitution. Twofold restitution is applicable to anything that may have been stolen (See Exodus 22:8). No matter what a person steals, he may be obligated for twofold restitution. However, fourfold and fivefold restitution is applicable only to stolen sheep and cattle (oxen). For example, if a person stole and sold an ox, he will be obligated to pay back five times the ox’s value. However, if he stole and sold a television set, he will only be obligated to pay back double the value.", + "One who steals from a thief does not pay twofold restitution; And the one who slaughters or sells what is [already] stolen does not make fourfold or fivefold restitution. Section two deals with a thief who steals an already stolen object from another thief. Someone who steals from an original owner will pay back double the value. However, someone who steals a stolen object from a thief, will only pay back the value of the stolen object. The second clause of this section deals with the same case where someone stole a stolen object from a thief. If the original thief himself had sold the object or slaughtered it, he would have been obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. However, the one who stole the object from the thief is, again, not judged in the same manner as the original thief and he will not be obligated for such payments.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think one must make greater restitution for oxen and sheep than for inanimate objects?
• Why is a thief who steals from another thief not obligated for twofold, fourfold and fivefold restitution?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe two mishnayoth that we will learn today continue to deal with the subject of thievery. Mishnah two is mostly concerned with unusual circumstances in which a thief has stolen an animal and slaughtered it.\nMishnah three deals with false witnesses who have testified against a person that he stole and slaughtered an animal. According to Deuteronomy 19:19 a person who falsely testifies against another person receives the punishment that would have been meted out on the accused had the witness been telling the truth. Our mishnah will deal with the application of that law to the laws of thievery.", + "According to Jewish law testimony must consist of two witnesses who saw the entire crime. Our mishnah teaches us that it is acceptable to have two different sets of witnesses testify to the two different components of the crime. If one set saw him steal and one set saw him sell or slaughter, we assume that it is the same animal in both cases and he is obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution.", + "If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; if he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; if he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. Section two deals with cases where a person stole and sold or slaughtered and yet for various reasons we might have thought that he would not be obligated. The first three cases in this section are based on the principle that one cannot receive two punishments meted out by a court for the same crime (See Bava Kamma 3:10 and 6:5). In the first scenario, the person sold the animal on Shabbat. Selling on Shabbat is not forbidden according to Torah law; it is only forbidden by the Rabbis lest one come to write, which is forbidden according to Torah law. If, however, he had slaughtered the ox he would be obligated for the death penalty since slaughtering is forbidden on the Sabbath and carries with it (at least in principle) the death penalty (see mishnah four of this chapter). In the second scenario he sold the animal for idol worship. Again selling something for idol worship is not a crime which carries with it the death penalty and therefore he will be obligated for remuneration. In the third scenario the person slaughtered on Yom Kippur. Slaughtering on Yom Kippur is a crime for which one receives “careth”, cutting off, which is, according to Jewish tradition, a punishment meted out by God and not by a human court. Our principle that one can receive only one punishment per crime is limited to punishments meted out by human courts. Since, he will not receive any other punishment by a human court, he is liable for restitution. Clause 2a deals with a son who stole from his father and then, when his father died, inherited from him. He is now in essence a thief from his own inheritance. The rule is that he must pay back the restitution to the other inheritors. Clause 2b deals with a case where a person dedicated the stolen, slaughtered animal to the Temple. Such an action does not exempt him from making full payment of fourfold or fivefold restitution.", + "If he stole it and then killed it for use in healing, or for food for dogs; or if he slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered it in the Temple Court [intending to eat it] as common food, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. In these last two cases Rabbi Shimon exempts. Section three of this mishnah deals with several additional scenarios. The first is when a person slaughtered for medicinal purposes or for dog food. Although the slaughtering was not for his own food, it still makes him liable for fourfold and fivefold restitution. In section 3a the person slaughtered but the animal was discovered to be a terefah, an animal that was going to do in any case, and thererefore is not “kosher”. In this case the person will not be able to eat the animal. In clause 3b the thief slaughtered the animal inside the Temple as regular food. This is prohibited and will render the animal forbidden for any benefit. In both cases, according to the first opinion, even though the animal cannot be eaten, the slaughtering still causes the thief to be obligated for fourfold and fivefold restitution. Rabbi Shimon disagrees." + ], + [ + "If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and killed or sold it according to their evidence, and they are found to be false witnesses, they must pay the whole penalty. If he stole it according to the evidence of two witnesses, and killed it or sold it according to the evidence of two others, and both pairs are found to be false witnesses, the first pay twofold restitution and the last pay threefold restitution. If the second [only] were found to be false witnesses, the thief must make twofold restitution and they threefold restitution. If one of the second set of witnesses was found to be a false witness, the evidence of the other is void. If one of the first set of witnesses was found to be a false witness, the entire evidence is void, since if there is no evidence for stealing there is no evidence for slaughtering or selling. This entire mishnah deals with the result of false witnesses who have testified against a thief. As stated in the introduction above, false witnesses are punished by whatever punishment the thief would have received. In the first clause, one set of witnesses stated the whole testimony: that the alleged thief stole and slaughtered or sold. Since if they were telling the truth, by their testimony alone he would have been obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution, that is their punishment. In clause 1a two sets of witnesses testify to the two separate actions: stealing and selling/slaughtering. The first set is punished by the punishment that the alleged thief would have received from their testimony alone, twofold restitution. The second set is punished by the additional punishment the thief would have received from their testimony, a further twofold or threefold restitution. In clause 1b again two sets of witnesses testify to the two separate actions: stealing and selling/slaughtering. This time only the second set is found to be false. The thief therefore pays twofold, since valid witnesses testified to his thievery. The second set of witnesses still pay the threefold restitution. In the final two clauses again two sets of witnesses testify to the two separate actions: stealing and selling/slaughtering. If one of the two (or more) witnesses in the second set was found to be a false witness, the testimony of the first set, that the thief stole, is still valid and he will be obligated for twofold restitution. If, however, one of the two (or more) witnesses of the first set is found to be false the thief is not liable at all. Without testimony that he stole, there is no validity to the subsequent testimony of the second set that he sold or slaughtered." + ], + [ + "If he stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and slaughtered it or sold it according to the evidence of one witness or according to his own evidence, he makes twofold restitution, but not fourfold or fivefold restitution.
If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it, or if he stole it and then dedicated it, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. Rabbi Shimon says: “If they were Holy Things which must be replaced [if damaged or lost] he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution; but if they were Holy Things which need not be replaced, he is exempt.” 1. If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, 2. or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use 3. or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; 4. if he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; 5. if he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple 6. he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. 1. If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, 2. or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, 3. 4. or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it, 5. or if he stole it and then dedicated it, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, 6. he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. In the cases mentioned in mishnah two the person is liable for fourfold and fivefold restitution and in mishnah four he is not. Using the line by line comparison we should be able to see why the law is different in each individual case. In case 1, if the person slaughtered the ox or sheep on the Sabbath he is obligated for the death penalty. Since one can only receive one punishment per crime, he is not fined additionally for having slaughtered the animal. If, however, he had only sold the animal, he would not be obligated for the death penalty and therefore he would owe the fine. The same is true for case 3. Selling an animal for idolatrous use is not a crime for which one would receive the death penalty, and therefore he is obligated for the fine. On the other hand, slaughtering for idolatrous use is a capital crime and therefore he receives a death penaly and not a fine. We learn in case 4 that if he stole his father’s animal and did not slaughter or sell it until after he dies he is not obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. Since at the time of the slaughtering or selling part of the animal was his as an inheritance he is not obligated. (We will see a similar law in the next. If, however, he had sold or slaughtered the animal before the death of his father, he would be obligated. Similarly in case 5 if he sold and slaughtered the animal after having dedicated it, he is selling or slaughtering an animal that is no longer really belongs to him. He is therefore not obligated for the fine. If, however, he slaughtered or sold the animal and then dedicated it, he will be obligated for the fine. Rabbi Shimon makes a clarification on this last law. The “Holy Things” to which he refers are animals dedicated to the Temple. There are two types of such dedications. If the owner says that “this animal is dedicated”, then he must bring this animal. If the animal gets lost or dies the owner is not obligated to bring another animal in its place. In such a case, if a thief should steal and slaughter or sell the animal he is not obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. If, however, the owner dedicated the animal by saying “I dedicate an animal”, then he if the original animal is lost he must bring another. In such a case if the thief should slaughter or sell the animal he will be obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. (This last law is difficult and is explained in other ways as.
The two mishnayoth which we will learn today continue to teach various details in the laws of thievery and twofold, fourfold and fivefold restitution.
Section one of the mishnah deals with a case where two witnesses testify that he stole but his slaughtering or selling is verified only by one witness or by a self-confession. As we have learned, one witness is not sufficient testimony according to Jewish law. Furthermore, a person who admits to a crime which carries with it a fine, is not obligated to pay the fine. Therefore this thief will pay only twofold restitution.
Section two contains several laws that are opposite to the laws we learned in mishnah two. To compare them we will place them in parallel columns:" + ], + [ + "If he sold it all but a hundredth part, or if he had [already] a share in it, or if slaughtered it and it became unfit [to eat] by his own hand, or if he pierced the windpipe or rooted out its gullet, he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. Section one deals with several different scenarios in which a thief will not be obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. First of all, if he sells only part of the animal, and even if he sells is 99% of the animal, he is still exempt. Second, if he steals something that he already owns part of, for instance he steals from his partner, he is exempt. Third, if the slaughtering causes the animal to become unfit to eat, because it was not done properly, he is exempt. Piercing the animals windpipe or tearing out its gullet makes the animal not kosher and therefore the thief is only obligated for twofold restitution.", + "If he stole it in the owner’s domain, but slaughtered it or sold it outside the owner’s domain, or if he stole it outside the owner’s domain and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain; or if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it outside the owner’s domain, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. But if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain, he is exempt. Section two teaches that if both the stealing and the slaughtering or selling were done on the property of the owner, the thief has never acquired the animal in order to make him obligated. In order to become a thief a person must take possession of the object. If he did not do so, he is not considered a thief and he will not be obligated as such. We will learn more details about this law in tomorrow’s mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to define the moment from which a thief is considered to be a thief and will therefore become obligated for twofold restitution. Jewish law has an intricate system of acquisition or kinyan (see Steinsaltz reference guide for a brief discussion). In order for the thief to become obligated he must have acquired the object.\nMishnah seven does not deal with a subject integral to our chapter. It is somewhat puzzling why it is placed here. In any case it deals mostly with animals which are forbidden to raise in certain places and under certain conditions.", + "This mishnah notes two ways of acquiring an animal: by lifting or by dragging it (i.e. pulling it). The first type of acquisition is effective even if the animal is still on the property of its owner. Therefore according to 1a and 2a if a person should lift the animal he is considered a thief, and if the animal dies he will be obligated to make restitution. However, dragging the animal effects acquisition only once the animal is off the property of its original owner. Therefore, if the thief were to do so on the property of the owner and the animal were to die he would not be obligated to make restitution.", + "If he brought it as the firstborn offering for his son, or gave it to his creditor, or to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, and one of them was dragging it away and it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. If [one of them] had lifted it up or taken it outside the owner’s domain, he is liable. Section two emphasizes that even if the thief had given the animal to someone else as payment, either to a priest in order to redeem his first born (see Numbers 18:15-16), or to a creditor or he had given the animal to anyone else who takes possession of the animal, he is still not legally liable as a thief until someone either lifts the animal or takes it off the owner’s property.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• If a thief comes onto someone’s property and is caught while still on the property would the thief be liable for double restitution?" + ], + [ + "It is forbidden to rear small herd animals in the Land of Israel, but it is permitted to rear them in Syria or in the wildernesses of the Land of Israel. Section 1 raising small herd animals in the Land of Israel is forbidden because of the damage that they will do to the crops. Sheep and goats can eat a tremendous amount of crops and they are hard to control. Therefore, if a Jew should wish to raise them he must allow them to graze only in the wilderness or in Syria, which is not in the Land of Israel.", + "It is forbidden to rear fowls in Jerusalem because of the “Holy Things”, nor may priests rear them [anywhere] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws concerning] clean foods. Section 2 Wild fowl have a tendency to pick in the garbage. The mishnah is concerned that they will find dead animals in the garbage which are ritually impure and they will carry them to places which need to be kept in a state of ritual purity. Therefore one should not allow them in Jerusalem, which needs to stay in a higher state of ritual purity due to the Temple. Neither should priests, who need to eat much of their food while they are in a state of ritual purity, raise fowl due to the same concern.", + "It is forbidden to rear pigs anywhere. Section 3 It is forbidden for a Jew to raise pigs. Evidently this is due to the fact that pigs are not kosher and there is no other reason to raise them. In contrast, horses and camels are also not kosher to eat, but one usually raises them not for their meat but for riding purposes. Therefore Jews are allowed to raise them.", + "One should not rear a dog unless it is tied with a chain. Section 4 Dogs can be a menace to society and therefore if one wishes to raise one, he must keep it properly leashed.", + "It is forbidden to set snares for pigeons unless it be thirty ris from an inhabited place. Section 5 Pigeons were a commonly raised in Israel both for food and to offer as sacrifices in the Temple. Setting traps for pigeons could allow a person to steal those belonging to his neighbor. Therefore the mishnah states that one must set the trap thirty ris (about four miles) from the nearest settlement.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What are some rules in our society that may be similar to those in mishnah seven?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter eight of Bava Kamma deals with personal injury law. According to Jewish law when a person injures another person he is obligated for five different payments: 1) compensation for the injury itself; 2) compensation for the pain; 3) payment of medical costs; 4) loss of wages; 5) compensation for indignity caused by the injury. Our mishnah teaches how each of these types of compensation are calculated.", + "He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts: for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. Section one lists the five payments for personal injury, as we explained in the introduction. The remainder of the mishnah explains these payments.", + "‘For injury’: How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. Section two Injury is assessed by evaluating the previous and current worth of the person as a slave. The payment is the difference between the two.", + "‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. Section three Compensation for pain is assessed by evaluating how much a person would accept in exchange for having such an injury.", + "‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing]. If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. Section four The person who inflicted the injury is obligated to pay for whatever the costs of healing may be. If sores or other later complications occur, he will be liable as long as the later complications are a result of the original blow. Finally, the person who inflicted the injury will be liable until the wound completely heals.", + "‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. Section five loss of income is assessed by evaluating the wage of a person doing the lowest paying job possible, a cucumber patch guard. There is some overlap between this payment and the payment for injury. For instance if the person injured was a blacksmith who earned 100 dollars a month and the injury blinded him, thereby preventing him from continuing in his profession. The payment for the injury will compensate him for this loss. Therefore the payment for the loss of income is compensation only for the loss of ability to do any job, no matter how low paying.", + "‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity]. Section six payment for indignity is relative to the person who inflicts the indignity and to the person who incurs it. A person of lower social status will inflict greater indignity and will suffer less indignity. (In Mishnah six of this chapter we will see that Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this idea). For instance, if a poor peasant were to strike the queen, the indignity would be greater, according to the mishnah, than the queen striking a poor peasant. However, the mishnah teaches that indignity payments are applicable even if the person embarrassed is naked (meaning he has brought upon himself indignity) or sleeping (unaware of his indignity) or blind (unable to see his indignity). Finally we learn that a person is obligated to pay for the indignity only if the blow was purposeful. All of the other payments mentioned in the mishnah are obligatory even if the blow was accidental.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three states that “even if the injury is on the fingernail”. What is the meaning of this clause? Furthermore, this section states, “such a man”; what is the meaning and import of these words?
• What is the relationship of clause 6a to clause 6c?
• In our society is indignity suffered still relative to the social status of the two parties?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two compares payments for injuries caused by an ox with payments for injuries caused by a human. Mishnah three deals with several laws related to personal injury.", + "The law is more strict in the case of a man than in the case of an ox: for a man must pay for injury, pain, medical costs, loss of income and indignity, and make restitution for the value of the young; whereas the ox pays only for injury and is not liable for the value of the young. This mishnah lists the differences in liability for an ox that injures versus a human who injures. As we learned in the previous mishnah a human who injures another person must make five different payments. An ox, however, who injures a human being pays only for the injury itself. Furthermore, if a human should injure a woman and cause her to miscarry, he is obligated to pay for the value of the miscarried child/ren. An ox that injures is not liable for this payment. (For the assessment of such a payment see above 5:4)." + ], + [ + "If a man struck his father or his mother and inflicted no wound, or if he wounded his fellow on Yom Kippur, he is liable for all five counts. Section one teaches a few laws, for which we will find the opposite scenario in mishnah five. There we will learn, as we have learned in other places, that a person cannot receive two punishments for the same crime. Inflicting a wound on one’s father or mother is a capital crime (Exodus 21:15) as is inflicting a wound on the Sabbath. Therefore if he were to perform one of these acts he would be obligated for the death penalty and therefore exempt from a monetary fine. However, in our mishnah he did not commit a crime for which he could receive the death penalty, and therefore he is liable for the monetary fine. Striking one’s parents without causing a wound is not a crime for which one would receive the death penalty. Likewise, inflicting a wound on Yom Kippur, as all forbidden acts on Yom Kippur is punishable by “kareth” (cutting off) and not the death penalty.", + "If he wounded a Hebrew slave, he is liable on all five counts, except loss of income if it was his slave. If he wounded a Canaanite slave (non-Jewish he is liable on all five counts. Rabbi Judah says: “Slaves do not receive compensation for indignity.” Section two deals with injuring slaves. There are two kinds of slaves in Jewish law, a Jewish slave and a non-Jewish slave. If one injures a Jewish slave he is obligated for all of the payments unless he injured his own slave. His own slave performs work for him and therefore there would be no sense in paying the slave for loss of work. If one injures a non-Jewish slave he is obligated for all of the payments. Rabbi Judah disagrees. In his opinion slaves do not receive payment for indignity since they are already in a position of constant indignity.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think that when an ox injures a human its owner is only obligated to pay for the injury, whereas when a human injures another human, he must make five different types of payment?
• What do you think Rabbi Judah would say about indignity payments for Jewish slaves?" + ], + [ + "It is losing proposition to meet up with a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor: he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt.
It is a losing proposition to meet up with a slave or [married] woman; he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. However, they pay after some time; if the woman was divorced or the slave freed they are liable for restitution.
Mishnah four deals with two sets of exceptional categories to personal injury law: the first set includes deaf-mutes, idiots and minors; the second set includes married women and slaves. People who fit into these categories receive payment if someone else injures them and yet do not pay if they injure someone else.
Mishnah five teaches opposite scenarios from those we learned in mishnah three. The law mentioned here reiterates the principle that a person cannot be obligated for the death penalty and a financial penalty for the same crime.
According to our mishnah there are several categories of people who receive payment for injuries done to them but do not pay if they injure others. Section one lists people who according to Jewish law are not capable of taking responsibility for their actions. Therefore if they injure others they are not legally obligated. However, the mishnah points out that this is not a reciprocal law. If one injures them he is still obligated for remuneration. These people, while not halachically capable of being responsible for their own actions, are still human beings and deserve both the protection that the law affords through the right to compensation if injured. One who injures them is obligated, therefore, on all five counts mentioned in mishnah one.
The second category of people who receive payment for injuries done to them but do not pay if they injure others are slaves and women. Slaves and women cannot pay others because their money is linked to their master or to their husband. There is, however, significant difference in this matter between slaves and women. Non-Jewish slaves own no property; everything they acquire belongs to their master. They therefore have no money with which to make financial compensation. In contrast, married women can own property. However, a woman’s husband has a lien on her property and he also has the right to the benefits of the property. For instance if she owns a piece of land, she cannot sell it without her husband’s consent and he gets the benefit of what is grown on the land, as long as they are married. Therefore she doesn’t own any property that is totally available for which to make compensation if she should injure someone else. However, the mishnah teaches that once the slave is freed or the woman divorced or widowed, they now have the obligation to compensate the person they injured." + ], + [ + "If a man struck his father or mother and left a wound, or if he wounded his fellow on the Sabbath, he is not liable for any of the [five] counts because he is liable for his life.
If a man wounded his Canaanite (non- slave he is not liable on any of the five counts.
Striking one’s father or mother and causing a wound or wounding another person on the Sabbath are all capital crimes. Since the person is sentenced to death, he is not obligated for the death penalty. (For more on this clause see the explanation to Mishnah three).
A non-Jewish slave is considered the property of his owner and cannot own any money. Therefore one who injures his own non-Jewish slave does not make any payment, since he would pay the money to himself in any case.
Note that this is not a license to injure non-Jewish slaves. According to Exodus 21:26-27 if a man should strike his slave and cause him to lose his eye or tooth the slave must be set free. The Rabbis expanded this law to include losses of other body parts.
" + ], + [ + "If a man boxed the ear of his fellow, he must pay him a sela (four. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: “A maneh (one hundred.”
If he slapped him he must pay 200 zuz.
If with the back of his hand, he must pay him 400 zuz.
If he tore at his ear, plucked out his hair, spat at him and his spit touched him, or pulled his cloak from off him, or loosed a woman’s hair in the street, he must pay 400 zuz.
This is the general rule: all is in accordance with the person’s honor.
Rabbi Akiva said: “Even the poor in Israel are regarded as free people who have lost their possessions, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It once happened that a man unloosed a woman’s hair in the street and she came before Rabbi Akiva and he condemned him to pay her 400 zuz. He said, “Rabbi, give me time”. And he gave him time. He caught her standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug of one issar’s worth of oil in front of her. She unloosed her hair and scooped up the oil in her hand and laid her hand on her head. He had set up witnesses up against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him, “Rabbi, should I give one such as this 400 zuz?” He answered, “You have said nothing.”
If a man injures himself, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But others who injure him are liable.
If a man cuts down his own saplings, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But, if others cut them down, they are liable.
Most of mishnah six deals with injuries inflicted on another person that do not cause lasting damage but cause great embarrassment. The end of the mishnah deals with people who injure themselves or their own property.
Sections one through four contain a list of fines a person must pay for striking another person. These types of blows will probably not cause any damage and therefore the fines are for embarrassment only. Note that these are extremely large fines. They demonstrate that Jewish law takes publicly embarrassing another person very seriously and penalizes such a person with a stiff financial penalty. Indeed according to Jewish tradition one who publicly embarrasses another is akin to a murderer.
Section five tempers the fines imposed in sections one through four. According to section five, these fines are imposed only one those people who are of the highest honor and are therefore greatly embarrassed by being slapped etc. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this statement. According to Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest, if not the greatest Rabbi in the Mishnah, all of Israel is of equal honor, since all of Israel comes from the same roots. A person’s honor is not based on his current financial status, as the opinion in section five intimates. Rather it is based on his noble roots as a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The story in sections 6a through 6f illustrates this point. In this story a man disgraces a woman who, as we learn later in the story, is willing to disgrace herself over a tiny portion of oil. (An issar is probably less than an ounce of oil). Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva makes the man pay 400 zuz, as he would have to pay to a woman of the most honorable status. According to Rabbi Akiva, all Israelites are of equal honor, even those who are poor.
Section seven relates to the story told in section six. Here, and in the next section, we learn that a person is not allowed to injure himself, but there is nevertheless no penalty for doing so. However, if another person should inflict such an injury on him, he is liable, even if the injured person regularly should injure himself. In the example in the story, although the woman undid her own hair, and thus disgraced herself, no other person has the right to do this to her.
Section eight relates a similar law with regards to cutting down saplings. A person should not cut down his own saplings but if he should do so, he is not liable. However, if another should cut down his saplings, he is liable, even though this is something that the person himself has done before.
A final note on unloosing a woman’s hair. This phrase can alternatively be translated “to uncover a woman’s hair.” In Mishnaic times it was customary for men and women to cover their hair in public. It was considered a disgrace for anyone to go out with their hair uncovered." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of our mishnah teaches that a person is not forgiven for embarrassing another person merely by paying whatever fine was imposed upon him. He must ask for forgiveness. When he does the injured person should be gracious and forgive him fully and speedily.\nThe second half of the mishnah teaches several laws concerning a person who asks someone to injure him or injure his property.", + "As we explained in the introduction, section one states that a person is not forgiven for embarrassing another until he asks the injured party for forgiveness. The mishnah learns this from the story of Avimelech and Abraham in Genesis 20. According to the story, when Abraham came to Gerar he told the people there that Sarah was his sister. Avimelech, thinking that Sarah was available, took her, with the intent of having relations with her. In a dream God warned him not to touch Sarah. God told Avimelech to return Sarah to Abraham and to ask him to pray on Avimelech’s behalf so that he would not be punished for taking Sarah. From this story our Mishnah learns that merely rectifying the crime is not enough. Avimelech was not forgiven for his (almost crime) just by returning Sarah. He had to ask Abraham for forgiveness as well. We also learn from this story that the wronged person should forgive easily. Abraham did not delay in praying for Avimelech but immediately answered his request.", + "If a man said, “Blind my eye”, or “Cut off my hand”, or “Break my foot”, he [that does so] is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is still liable. [If he said] “Tear my garment”, or “Break my jug”, he that does so is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is exempt. [If he said], “Do so to so-and-so, on the condition that you will be exempt, he is liable, whether it was [an offense] against his person or his property. Section two deals with a person who asks someone else to injure him or his property. We learn several general principles from the mishnah. First of all, if a person asks another person to injure him or his property, without saying that the injurer will be exempt, the injurer is liable. Second, if he asks the other person to injure his body, even if he says that the injurer will be exempt, the injurer is liable. Third, if he asks the other person to injure a third party, again even if he says that the injurer will be exempt, the injurer is liable. Note the beautiful, carefully crafted structure of the last section of this mishnah. It is a classic example of mishnaic style.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the connection between the first and second halves of the mishnah?
• According to section two, if a person asks another person to injure his body and tells him that he will be exempt if he should do so, he is nonetheless liable. Why? What is the difference between bodily injuries and damages to property?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a man stole wood and made it into utensils, or wood and made it into garments, he makes restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft.
If he stole a pregnant cow and it gave birth, or a sheep ready to be sheared, and he then sheared it, he repays the value of a cow about to bear young, or a sheep ready to be sheared.
If he stole a cow, and while it was with him it was impregnated and bore young, or [if he stole a sheep] and while it was with him it grew wool and he sheared it, he makes restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft.
This is the general rule: all robbers make restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft.
Chapters nine and ten of Bava Kamma deal with a person who steals openly, usually by force. In Hebrew this person is called a “gazlan”. In chapter seven we dealt with a “ganav” or thief who steals surreptitiously. The major halachic difference between the two is that the gazlan pays back only that which he took. Unlike the ganav, he is not liable for twofold, fourfold or fivefold restitution.
Our mishnah deals with a person who stole something and then the stolen object changed while in his possession. Since he cannot return the exact object he stole, as is the usual requirement, the mishnah must deal with his obligation.
In all of the cases in sections one through three the robber stole an item and changed it or it changed on its own while in his possession. The robber would prefer to return the item at its lesser value and the original owner would like the object at its higher value. For instance in the case mentioned in section one, if Reuven stole wood from Shimon and made the wood into a beautiful table, Shimon would clearly claim that the table is his property, made from his wood. Nevertheless, Reuven must only return the value of the raw wood, for that is what he stole.
Sections two and three state the same principle with regards to animals. In section two the thief would like to return just the cow or the sheep and keep the young or wool for himself. The original owner claims the cow and the young or the sheep and the wool. The rule is that the robber pays exactly what he stole, in this case a pregnant cow or a sheep laden with wool. In section three the stolen object actually improved while it was in the robber’s possession. The original owner would like to have both the cow and the young or the sheep and the wool returned to him. He might claim that it was his cow that gave birth or his sheep that gave wool. However, since at the time of the robbery the cow was not pregnant and the sheep was not ready to be sheared, the robber need only return the value of a non-pregnant cow and a sheared sheep." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah one we learned that a “gazlan”, robber, must return the stolen object at the value that it was worth at the time of the robbery. Whether the object increased or decreased in value since the robbery, the robber is obligated to make restitution according to the value at the time of the theft. Our mishnah introduces a few exceptions to this principle. There are some stolen items which can be returned as they currently are at the time of their being returned and not at their value at the time of theft.", + "If he stole a beast and it grew old, or slaves and they grew old, he makes restitution according to [their value at] the moment of the theft. Rabbi Meir says: “As for slaves the thief may say to the owner, ‘Here is what is yours before you.’” In section one the thief stole either animals or slaves and kept them for a while, thereby decreasing their value due to age. According to the first opinion he is obligated to return to the original owner the value of the slaves or animals at the time of the theft. Rabbi Meir disagrees with regards to slaves. According to Rabbi Meir the robber can return the slaves to the owner, disregarding their decrease in value. Stealing thieves is different from stealing animals or other objects. When a person steals most objects he actually takes possession of the object and he is now the “owner” of the object and obligated to return the value of the object to the original owner. However, with regards to slaves and land, taking them does not cause the robber to have legal “possession” over them. Therefore, in essence the slaves and land never left the possession of the original owner and the robber must return the actual slaves or land.", + "If he stole a coin and it cracked, fruit and it rotted, wine and it turned into vinegar, he must make restitution according to [the value] at the moment of the theft. But if he stole a coin and it went out of use, or “Heave offering” ( and it became ritually unclean, or leaven and the time of Passover arrived, or a beast and it was used for a transgression, or became unfit to be offered or it was condemned to be stoned, he may say to the other, “Here is what is yours before you.” In section two the mishnah teaches an important distinction in damage law between recognizable and unrecognizable damage. If a person should steal a coin and it cracks and is therefore no longer usable or food and it should go bad, he cannot just return the object itself. Even though the object still exists he must return the value at the time of the theft. In these cases the damage was recognizable. However, in section 2a, the stolen object was damaged and is no longer worth what it was previously, but the damage is not visible to the eye. Since the object still exists and there are no recognizable differences, the robber may return the object itself. We will explain each example. A coin that went out of use is no longer worth anything but it is still the same coin that existed previously and will not look different. Heave offering “terumah” is a part of one’s produce that must be given to the priest who must eat it while both he and the “terumah” are in a state of ritual purity. “Terumah” that has become impure must be burnt and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it. If someone should steal “terumah” and impurify it the “terumah” becomes worthless, even though it will still physically remain the same. Leaven or “hametz” that was owned by a Jew during Passover cannot be eaten after Passover and must be burned. If the thief kept the stolen “hametz” during Passover it will still physically look the same, but now, since it must be destroyed, is not worth anything. An animal that has had a transgression done with it, such as using it for idol worship, must be killed. Again, it will look the same but is now worthless. If the thief stole an animal that was intended to be a sacrifice and by injuring it he made it unfit to be a sacrifice it will still be in essence the same animal, but it can now no longer fulfill its original function. Finally, an animal that gored and killed a human being must be stoned to death. If this animal killed a human being while it was in the thief’s possession it is no longer worth anything, and yet it has not changed its appearance. In all of these cases the damage done to the stolen object was invisible. Therefore according to the mishnah the person can return the original object, even though it is actually currently worth nothing.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would happen if the animals increased in value while in the possession of the robber? What would happen if the slaves increased in value while in his possession?" + ], + [ + "If he gave [something] to craftsmen to repair, and they ruined it, they must make restitution.
If he gave a carpenter a box, chest or cupboard to repair, and he ruined it, he must make restitution.
If a builder undertook to pull down a wall, and he broke the stones or caused damage, he must make restitution. If he was pulling down at the one end and it fell down on the other, he is exempt; However, if it fell due to the blow, he is liable.
The two mishnayoth which we will learn today deal with craftsmen who receive objects on which to work and somehow ruin the object during the course of their work. In the previous mishnah we discussed the obligation of a robber to return the object to the original owner at its value at the time of theft. The editor of the Mishnah found these laws to be loosely associated with the obligation that a craftsmen has to return an object on which he was working to the original owner. The similarity between the two situations is that both a robber and a craftsmen who was contracted to work on an object belonging to another person must return objects to their original owner. The major difference is of course that the craftsmen received the object at the behest of the owner, unlike the robber who stole the object. In any case, this is a good example of how the Mishnah will associate different subjects and occasionally teach their laws in juxtaposition.
Sections one and two teach that workmen/craftsmen whom receive an object on which to work, are obligated to make restitution for the object, should they ruin it. This may sound a bit obvious, but it is not necessarily so. Indeed many of us have probably had arguments over just this topic with modern day repairmen. The mishnah squarely places responsibility for the object in the hands of the craftsmen.
Section three is slightly more complex. In this scenario a builder was hired to take down a wall. In the times of the mishnah building material was scarce, especially in the Land of Israel (it is still scarce here). When the owner hired the builder to take down the wall the intention was not to ruin the stones but rather to use them to build something else. If the builder took them down and ruined the stones, he has not fulfilled his job as is expected of him, and therefore will be liable for the damage. Similarly if he should cause damage during the process, he is personally liable. If, however, the wall should fall at the opposite end of his work, the assumption is that it fell due to other circumstances, and he will not be held liable. Finally, the mishnah lets us know, that if it fell at the opposite end, but it nevertheless fell due to his breaking down the wall, he is liable." + ], + [ + "If a man gave wool to a dyer and the cauldron burned it, he must repay him the value of the wool.
If he dyed it badly: if the improvement was worth more than the cost of the dying, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dying was worth more than the improvement, he must pay only [the value of the] improvement.
If he told him to dye it red and he dyed it black; black and he dyed it red: Rabbi Meir says: “[The dyer] must pay the cost of the wool.” Rabbi Judah says: “If the improvement was worth more than the cost of the dying, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dying was worth more than the improvement, he must pay only [the value of the] improvement.
In section one, a person gave wool to a dyer to dye. If, while in the process of dying the wool, he should burn the wool, he is certainly obligated to return the value of the wool. This halacha is completely consistent with those mentioned in the previous mishnah.
Sections two and three are more complicated. In these two sections the dyer did not render the wool unusable but rather either dyed it badly (section two) or dyed it the wrong color (section three). If he dyed it badly the original owner will still have to pay for the dying, but only the lesser of two amounts: the cost of the dying or the rise in the value of the wool. Let us say that the wool was originally worth 10 dollars. If it cost 2 dollars to dye the wool badly, and after the dying it was worth 13 dollars, the owner owes the dyer 2 dollars, the lesser of the two amounts. If it cost 2 dollars to dye and now it is worth 11 dollars, the owner owes the dyer 1 dollar, again, the lesser of the two amounts. Note, in a normal circumstance they would have agreed on an amount prior to the dying, an amount certainly higher than the cost of the dying. Since the dyer did not properly perform his duty he does not receive the full expected payment.
If the owner dyed the wool in a proper fashion, but dyed it the wrong color, Rabbi Judah says that the law is the same as in section two. The owner must pay the dyer the lower of the two amounts: the cost of the dying or the increased value of the wool. However, according to Rabbi Meir he must pay back the original value of the wool, 10 dollars in our example above." + ], + [ + "If a man robbed his fellow of the value of a perutah and swore [falsely] to him, he must take it to him even as far as Medea.
He may not give it to his son or to his agent, but he may give it to the agent of the court.
If his fellow had died he must return it to his heirs.
Leviticus 5:20-26 discusses a person who steals from another person (or unlawfully takes his property in another fashion) and afterward swears that he did not do so. In order to atone for his sin he must do three things: 1) Restore that which he stole; 2) He must pay back an additional fifth of the value of the stolen object; 3) He must bring a sacrifice (asham) to the Tabernacle/Temple. The first two obligations are in order to restore the property and pay a fine. The third obligation is in essence to atone for his false oath.
The remaining mishnayoth of our chapter will deal with these obligations, specifically the obligation to return the lost object and to add on a fifth. Note that what the mishnah calls a fifth is what we would call a quarter of the value. For instance if the stolen object was worth 100, the robber must add on another 25, thereby paying back 125. Since 25 is one fifth of 125 the Rabbis called it a fifth. It is also important to note that our mishnayoth will discuss a perutah. This is the smallest coin known to the Rabbis and was certainly not worth anything substantial in their time.
Our mishnah teaches the stringency of the law of swearing falsely on a stolen object. In order for the robber to make atonement for his crime of stealing and swearing falsely, he must bring the object to the original owner even as far as Medea (modern Iran). He cannot give it to a representative of the original owner. Rather he must confront him face to face. Alternatively he may use a representative of the court to return the object to the original owner. Finally, the mishnah tells us that it is obligatory to return it even to the heirs.
The single leniency of the mishnah is that this law does not hold true if he stole less than a perutah. Less than a perutah is not considered to have any value and therefore we cannot legally say that this person has stolen." + ], + [ + "1. If he had repaid the value but had not paid the [added] fifth, or if he had forgiven him the value but not the [added] fifth, or if had forgiven him both except for less than a perutah’s worth of the value, he need not go after him. 2. If he had repaid him the [added] fifth but not the value, or if he had forgiven him the [added] fifth but not the value, or if he had forgiven both except for a perutah’s worth of the value, he must go after him. Our mishnah is taught in a classic style where all of the examples in section one are opposite of those in section two. This can easily be demonstrated by a chart: Section One Section Two a) If he had repaid the value but had not paid the [added] fifth, b) or if he had forgiven him the value but not the [added] fifth, c) or if had forgiven him both except for less than a perutah’s worth of the value, d) he need not go after him. a) If he had repaid him the [added] fifth but not the value, b) or if he had forgiven him the [added] fifth but not the value, c) or if he had forgiven both except for a perutah’s worth of the value, d) he must go after him. Seen in this manner we can easily learn the abstract principle taught by the mishnah’s mentioning of concrete cases. If a person has returned to another person the value of the stolen object but not the added fifth, he need not chase after the person in order to restore the object, as we learned in mishnah four. However, if he paid the fifth and not the value of the object itself, he must still chase after him. The same is true if the person who had the object stolen from him forgave him the value but not the fifth, or vice versa. Finally, in section c we learn that if he (the person from whom the object was stolen) forgave most of the value but didn’t forgive a perutah’s or more worth, than he (the robber) still must chase after him. However, if he remains obligated less than a perutah, he need not chase after him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with a subject that we began discussing in mishnah five: the obligation placed upon the robber to return the value plus one/fifth to the original owner if he swore falsely to him.", + "If he had paid him the value and had sworn [falsely] to him concerning the [added] fifth, he must pay a fifth on the fifth [and so on] until the value [of the added fifth] becomes less than a perutah’s worth. Section one deals with a case where a robber returned the value of the original object to the owner but swore to him that he had already returned the added fifth. If the robber had sworn falsely, the previous fifth now turns into the new contested amount (the value) and in order to atone he must bring another fifth of that value. This process could continue, if he were to continue swearing falsely on having returned the fifth, until the “value” is worth less than a perutah. As we learned in mishnah five, less than a perutah is not considered to be worth anything, and therefore one does not swear on it.", + "So too with a deposit, as it says: “In a matter of deposit or a pledge or through robbery, or by defrauding his fellow, or by finding something lost and lying about it” (Leviticus 5:21-2, such a one must pay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering. Section two brings the related Biblical verse to our halacha in order to emphasize that this process of returning the value, plus the added fifth and bringing a sacrifice is true not just of robbers but of other categories as well. The category immediately dealt with by our mishnah is a person who received an object from another person to hold and watch, for instance a jug of olive oil. When the original owner claimed back his jug of olive oil, the guardian denied receiving it. If the guardian swore falsely and then wished to atone for his transgression, he must return the jug of olive oil, plus an added fifth and bring a sacrifice.", + "[If a man said], “Where is my deposit?” and the other said, “It is lost,” [if the one says,] “I adjure thee”, and the other says, “Amen!”, and witnesses testify against him that he consumed it, he need pay [only] the value. But if he confessed it of himself, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering. Section three begins discussing the details of this law. In the situation described the guardian claimed that the deposit was lost. The original owner had asked the guardian to take an oath that this was true, to which he had. At this point the guardian is evidently not obligated for anything. If witnesses were to later come and testify that the guardian had indeed consumed the deposit, he is only obligated to return the original value. If, however, the guardian were to admit to the crime on his own, he must return the original value, the added fifth and bring the sacrifice. This distinction emphasized by our mishnah is based on an understanding of Numbers 5:6-7. There we learn that if a person commits a wrong against another person and then realizes his guilt, then he shall confess the wrong, pay back the value plus an added fifth and bring a sacrifice. The Rabbis understood that he was obligated for this only if he confessed on his own. If witnesses testified against him, he is not obligated for the fifth or the sacrifice.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the necessity in teaching the halacha in section one?
• Does it make sense that a person who admits to his own crime will be more obligated than a person against whom witnesses testify?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight is a continuation of the second part of mishnah seven. There we learned that if a guardian swore that the deposit which his friend had given him was lost and then witnesses testified that the guardian actually consumed the deposit, he must restore only the value of the deposit to the original owner. If, however, he admitted to his crime on his own, without witnesses testifying against him, he is obligated to restore the original value of the deposit plus an added fifth and to bring a sacrifice. Our mishnah deals with a similar circumstance involving a guardian who steals the deposit (as opposed to consuming it).\nMishnah nine deals with a person who stole from his father, whose money would have eventually become at least partly his through inheritance.", + "[If a man said], “Where is my deposit?” and the other said, “It is stolen,” [if the one says,] “I adjure thee”, and the other says, “Amen!”, and witnesses testify against him that he stole it, he must make twofold restitution. But if he confessed it of himself, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering. In the scenario presented in this mishnah a person received a deposit from another person. When the owner came back to claim his deposit, the guardian claimed that it was stolen, and when asked, he swore to his words. If witnesses were to come and testify that the guardian had actually stolen the object, he will be obligated for twofold restitution, as are all thieves. However, if he confessed of the crime himself, he is not judged as a thief but as a robber who swore falsely and therefore must pay back the principle plus a fifth and bring a sacrifice. This distinction is again based on the Biblical passage of which we learned in mishnah seven. For further clarification see our explanation there.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the law in mishnah eight and the law in mishnah seven? Why?" + ], + [ + "If a man stole from his father and swore [falsely] to him, and the father died, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth to the father’s sons or brothers.
If he will not repay or if has does not have [with which to repay] he must borrow and the creditors come and are repaid.
When a man steals from his own father he is actually stealing from his brothers or from his father’s brothers who are the chief inheritors. (The primary inheritors according to halacha are sons, and next in line are the father’s brothers. If the man were to die with no sons, the brothers inherit.) In this case the robber clearly owes part or even most of the theft to the other inheritors. For instance if he stole 100 and there is one other son, he clearly owes 50 to the other son (his brother). If there were three other sons he would clearly owe each 25. However, our mishnah states more. He must pay not only the other son’s share of the inheritance, but he must pay his share, as well as an added fifth. If there was only one other son he would pay all 100 to him. The key to understanding this is that in order for him to atone for his robbery he must physically remove the stolen property from his possession. If he were to keep his portion, he would be left with some stolen property. He therefore must physically give over the entire theft to the other inheritors.
The mishnah however allows, under certain circumstances, for the robbing son to retain his portion of the inheritance. The robbing son may borrow from another person the value of the object he stole from his father. He then takes the stolen object and returns it to the other inheritors, thereby removing the stolen object from his property. When the creditors come to collect they collect an equal portion from each inheritor. In this way the robber can retain his share of the inheritance and still return the object." + ], + [ + "If a man said to his son, “Qonam, you will not derive any benefit from that which is mine”, and he died, the son may inherit him.
[But if he moreover said], “Both during my life and at my death”, when he dies the son may not inherit from him and he must restore [what he received from his father’s inheritance] to the [father’s] sons or brothers.
If he has nothing, he takes out a loan, and the creditors come and exact payment.
Mishnah ten deals with a scenario similar to the one dealt with in mishnah nine. Mishnah nine was concerned with the laws of inheritance in a case where a son stole from his father and the father subsequently died. The mishnah created a way in which the robbing son could still retain his inheritance. Our mishnah deals with the inheritance of a son whose father took an oath that the son could not benefit from his property.
Mishnah eleven deals with a robber who steals from a convert who subsequently dies. A convert’s non-Jewish relatives do not inherit his money (at least according to Torah law) and therefore a convert who dies before he has children has no legal inheritors. Our mishnah deals with this case, and in extension any case in which the original owner of the property died before the property was returned to him, and did not leave inheritors.
The word “Qonam” is a nickname that people used in Mishnaic times for the word “Qorban” which means “sacrifice”. If a person wanted to make an oath forbidding his things on someone else or someone else’s things on himself, he would say that the things he wishes to forbid should be like a sacrifice. Sacrifices were generally forbidden for public consumption. The person taking the oath is in essence saying that the item mentioned should be forbidden like a sacrifice. In the case mentioned in our mishnah the father says that his property should be “qonam” or forbidden to one of his sons. Section one of the mishnah tells us that this will be true only during the father’s life. In this case the oath does not have effect after death and the son may receive his proper share of the inheritance.
In the scenario in section two the father swears that his property should be forbidden to his son both during his life and after his death. In this case the son cannot take part in the inheritance and he must return anything which he has taken from the inheritance to the other inheritors (generally the father’s sons or brothers).
According to section three there is a way for the son to get around this problem. If the son is poor and dependent on his share of the inheritance he may borrow the sum of his inheritance and then the creditors can collect from the other inheritors. In this way he receives the amount due to him as part of his inheritance without benefiting directly from his father’s estate." + ], + [ + "As stated in the introduction, a convert does not have inheritors from his previous family. Therefore, if he should die without having children, he will have no inheritors. If a person should steal from a convert and then falsely swear that he did not steal, the robber will be obligated to restore the value to the convert, plus an added fifth and to bring a Guilt-offering, just as a robber is obligated to do if he were to steal from a non-convert. If, however, the convert should die before the money is returned the sacrifice is brought, there is a problem. To whom should he return the money? Since there are no inheritors, the robber cannot simply return the money to them. The answer to this question is found by our mishnah in Numbers 5:8, which states the money should go the priests. The Guilt-offering, as usual, must still be brought as an offering at the Temple.", + "If he brought the money and the Guilt-offering and then died, the money shall be given to his sons, and the Guilt-offering shall be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, when it shall be sold, and its value falls to the Temple treasury. Section two brings up an added wrinkle to our case. In the new scenario, after the convert died, the robber died as well, before he had been able to deliver the money to the priests nor the sacrifice to the Temple. In this case the money that would have gone to the priests goes to the children of the robber. Since there are no inheritors of the convert, there is no one who “loses out” by not receiving the restored money and therefore the children of the robber can keep the money as part of their general inheritance. The sacrifice cannot be offered on the altar since sacrificial animals whose owners have died may never be offered on the altar. The animal will go out to pasture until it receives a blemish, thereby disqualifying it from being fit to sacrifice. The animal can then be sold (and subsequently used) and the money will go to the Temple. This is a common procedure that was done to animals that could not be offered as sacrifices on the altar.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• According to mishnah eleven, section two, if the robber and the convert should die before the money was restored, the money can go to the robber’s inheritors? Why shouldn’t the priests receive the money, as they would in the previously mentioned case?" + ], + [ + "If he [who had stolen from the convert] gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot recover it from their [the priests] hands, as it says, “Whatsoever a man gives to a priest shall be his” (Numbers 5:10).
If he gave the money to Yehoyariv, and the Guilt-offering to Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the Guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah: if the Guilt-offering still remains, the sons of Yedayah shall offer it; otherwise, he must bring another Guilt-offering. For if a man brought what he had stolen before he offered his Guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his Guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not yet fulfilled his obligation.
If he gave the value but not the [added] fifth, the [added] fifth does not prevent [him from offering the Guilt-offering].
Mishnah eleven dealt with a person who steals from a convert who has no inheritors, swears falsely to the convert, saying that he did not steal, and then decides to repent. He is obligated, as is always the case, to restore plus a fifth to the convert and bring a Guilt-offering to the Temple. If the convert should die (without inheritors), the robber must restore the money to the priests in the Temple. Our mishnah continues to deal with this situation and various possibilities that may arise.
In the scenario established in section one the robber had brought the money to the priests, as was his obligation in a case where he robbed a convert who died with no inheritors. After giving the money to the priests the robber died. In mishnah eleven we learned that if the robber had died before giving the money to the priests, the inheritors could take the stolen money. Our mishnah states that once the priests have taken the money into their possession the inheritors have lost their claim.
Section two deals with the process of giving the money to the priests and sacrificing the Guilt-offering, the two steps required for atonement. This section requires some background information. The priests were divided into 24 watches, each watch responsible for a week’s duty in the Temple. During that week anything brought to the Temple that would be given to the priests would be claimed by the men on that watch. Each watch had a name. Yehoyariv was the first watch and Yedayah was the second watch (see I Chronicles 24:7). The general rule, established in our mishnah, section 2b-c, is that the stolen property must be restored before the Guilt-offering is sacrificed. If the stolen property were to be restored after the Guilt-offering is sacrificed the robber must bring another sacrifice, for the Guilt-offering will not effect atonement. If, therefore, he were to give the money to Yehoyariv, the first watch, and the sacrifice to Yedayah, the second watch, he would fulfill his obligation. If, on the other hand, he had given the sacrifice to Yehoyariv and they had sacrificed the animal, and then he had brought the money to Yedayah, in order to atone for his transgression he would have to bring another offering. If Yehoyariv had not sacrificed the animal, they could give it to Yedayah, who would subsequently sacrifice it, and the robber’s transgression would be atoned.
The final section of the mishnah teaches that restoring the actual value is the only necessary condition to bringing the sacrifice and causing atonement. If one had restored the value but not the added fifth, his sacrifice would nevertheless effect atonement. He is still obligated to bring the fifth, but its delay does not prevent atonement. If, however, he brought the fifth but not the value, the sacrifice will be ineffective." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins by further discussing the laws of robbery, a topic which was covered throughout the previous chapter. Section two of the mishnah begins to discuss tax-collectors. Since tax-collectors were suspected of stealing money, one had to be careful about accepting money from one, lest the money be stolen.", + "If a man were to steal an object and then leave it for his children as an inheritance or feed it to them, the children do not have an obligation to make restitution, since they were not the robbers. Rather they are only inheritors whose father died with a debt. According to the halacha whenever a father dies with outstanding debts, the children do not have to pay the debts with “movable property” (anything besides land) from their father’s estate. If, however, he were to have stolen real estate, the children must make restitution, since inheritors must pay their father’s debts with any real estate left in the inheritance. Furthermore, according to the Talmud, if the father had stolen something and the thing still existed the children do have an obligation to return the actual item. We should note that in Talmudic times only real estate was considered to be property upon which one could rely on its sustaining value. Also, when a person loaned another person money, he would only rely on real estate as collateral for the loan. Their economy was based on property; “things”, as well as money, were seen to be risky possessions, whose values could radically fluctuate and they were not worthy as collateral. However, in later times, when Jews ceased to be landowners, and worked usually as merchants and bankers, the halacha changed to adopt to the new reality. By the Middle Ages (the time of the Gaonim, 8th-11th centuries) it was decided that the same laws that applied to real estate should apply to “movable property”.", + "One may not make change from the chest of an excise collector or from the wallet of tax collectors, or take any charity from them. But it may be taken from them at their own house or in the market. Section two deals with accepting money from different types of tax collectors. One was not allowed to change money from the various types of boxes used to collect the taxes, and one was even not allowed to accept charity from these boxes. The fear is that the tax collector has taken more than mandated by the authorities and therefore accepting money from him would be considered accepting stolen property. Section 2a limits this prohibition to taking money from the boxes of the tax collectors. One need not fear that the money in the house of the tax collector or money that the tax collector uses at the market is stolen.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is our mishnah’s attitude towards taxes and tax collectors?" + ], + [ + "If excise collectors took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or if bandits robbed a man of his coat and gave him another coat, they are his own, since the original owners gave up hope of recovering them.
If a man saved something from a flood or from marauding troops or from bandits: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the item], it belongs to him.
So too with a swarm of bees: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the swarm], it belongs to him.
Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka said: “A woman or child may be believed if they say, ‘The swarm of bees went away from here.’”
A man may go into his fellow’s field to save his swarm and if he causes damage he must pay for the damage that he has caused; but he may not cut off a branch of the tree [to save his swarm] even on condition that he pay its value. Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka, says: “He may even cut off [the branch] and repay the value.”
Mishnah one discussed the prohibition of taking money from a tax-collector, lest the money was stolen money. Our mishnah deals with cases in which a person is allowed to retain ownership over items that come into his hand even though they may be stolen property or property which may belongs to others.
Sections one through three all give different examples that illustrate the same general principle. If a person receives property that belongs to someone else in a legal fashion and the original owner gave up hope of ever recovering the property, he may retain ownership. The idea is that by giving up hope of ever recovering the object the original owner actually renounces his ownership, thereby allowing the new owner to claim title. In the first example the person was given a donkey by a tax collector or a coat by bandits. Although the item surely belonged to someone else, we can safely assume that the person gave up hope of ever recovering the donkey or coat. Therefore the new owner can claim title to the item.
Section two teaches a more general example of a person who rescues an item from a river, from marauding troops or from bandits. Again, we can safely assume that the original owner gave up hope of ever recovering the object and therefore the finder can claim title. The same is true for the runaway swarm of bees mentioned in section three. One can assume that when a person’s swarm of bees runs away, he will give up hope of recovering it. It will therefore belong to anyone who finds it. We will deal more extensively with establishing ownership over lost items in the beginning of the next tractate, Bava Metzia.
Sections four and five are connected to section three by the issue of finding a swarm of bees. Generally speaking women and children are not qualified to testify. According to Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka they are however qualified to say that a swarm of bees originated from so-and-so’s property. In this case if a person found the swarm he would have to return it to the owner specified by the woman or child.
Section five grants permission to a person to trespass another’s property in order to chase after his swarm. According to the anonymous opinion in section 5 one may enter another’s property but he may not break off a branch in order to lead back the swarm. Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka, whose opinion is found in section 5a, allows a person to even break off a branch to save his bees. Later he will make restitution for the broken branch." + ], + [ + "If a man recognized his utensils or books in another’s hands and a report of theft had gone out in the town, the purchaser swears how much he paid and takes this price [from the owner and restores the goods].
But if [such a report had] not [gone out], he [the original owner] does not have the power, for I might say that he had first sold them to another and this one bought it from him.
Mishnah three deals with the problem of stolen property being sold and acquired in the marketplace and the rights of the original owner to have his property returned to him.
Mishnah four deals with the case where a person saves his fellow’s property, even though by doing so he causes a loss to his own property. The mishnah is concerned with the obligation to compensate the rescuer for his loss of property.
In the case mentioned in this mishnah, Reuven sees that Shimon has something that belonged to him (Reuven) originally. Shimon claims that he bought the item in the marketplace from another person. If it was known in the city that these objects had been stolen from Reuven, for instance if he had complained about them before he saw them in Shimon’s possession, then Shimon must swear how much he had paid for the items and Reuven will pay Shimon and take back his possessions. In other words, even if Shimon does not wish to sell the items, since it is known that they were originally Reuven’s, Shimon must sell them. However, Reuven will in any case be obligated to pay Shimon whatever Shimon had paid for the object.
If, however, there is no report of that the item was stolen from Reuven, we do not allow him to force Shimon to sell him the items. This is true even if it is known that the items once belonged to Reuven, for instance it was a piece of clothing that everyone had seen him wear. Since Reuven cannot prove that he did not sell the items to someone else, and that Shimon then bought them from this person, he cannot force Shimon to sell them back." + ], + [ + "If one came with his jar of wine and the other came with his jug of honey and the jug of honey cracked, and the other poured out his wine and saved the honey [by receiving it] into his jar, he can claim no more than his wages. But if he had said, “I will save what is yours and you will pay me the value of mine,” [the owner of the honey] is liable to pay him back.
If a flood swept away a man’s donkey and his fellow’s donkey, and his own was worth 100 [zuz] and his fellow’s was worth 200 [zuz], and he left his own and saved that of his fellow, he can claim no more than his wages. But if he had said, “I will save what is yours and you will pay me the value of mine,” he is liable to pay him back.
Both sections of our mishnah deal with what is essentially the same scenario. A person who has something of lesser value helps rescue the greater-valued property of another person, thereby losing his own property. The person who helped wants to receive full payment for what he had lost. For instance in section two, the owner of the donkey worth 100, who lost his donkey, wants the owner of the donkey worth 200, whom he had saved, to pay him 100. He might say to him that if he had not helped, he would have lost his donkey, and therefore he saved him 200 and all he wants back is the 100 which he lost. The same is true in the case of the wine and honey: the owner of the wine who rescued the honey wishes to recover the value of his lost wine . Honey is a more expensive item than wine (think about how much harder it is to produce). The wine owner, realizing that his wine was of lesser value, dumped out his wine in order to rescue the other person’s honey. All he asks in return is that the person repay him for the loss of the wine. In both cases the mishnah says that if the rescuer saved the other person’s property without being asked he only receives a minimum wage for his work. If, however, he told the other person before he rescued his property, that he was doing so on the condition that he be fully compensated for his own loss of property, then he does receive full compensation for his loss." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe two mishnayoth which we will learn today continue to deal with a person’s obligations to return his fellow’s property. Mishnah five deals with a robber who stole a piece of land and then someone else came and took the land from the robber. Mishnah six states that when a person returns something to his friend he must not return it to him in the wilderness, but rather should return it to him in an inhabited area.", + "If a man stole a field from his fellow and tyrants came and took it from him, if the whole district suffered, he may say to him, “Here, what is yours is in front of you.” But if it was on account of the robber [that the tyrants took the field], he must provide him with another field. If a flood swept away [the field], he may say to him, “Here, what is yours is in front of you.” In the scenario of our mishnah Reuven stole a field from Shimon and after he sold the field tyrants, probably Romans, came and took the field from him. The mishnah provides two possibilities for adjudicating the case. If the field was taken as part of a general conscription of land in the entire district, then Reuven can say to Shimon that he is giving him back his field, and Shimon can go and claim it from the Romans. Even though Shimon will probably not be able to reclaim his field from the Romans, Reuven is not to blame nor is he obligated to give Shimon a different field. The field would have been taken by the Romans even if Shimon had had possession of it. On the other hand, if the Roman’s had taken the field on account of its being in Reuven’s possession, for instance if Reuven owed them a debt or they had some other problem with Reuven, Reuven must return a different field to Shimon. In this case it is Reuven’s fault that the field was taken. If it had been in Shimon’s possession the Romans would not have taken it. Finally our mishnah teaches that if a river came and washed over the field while it was in Reuven’s possession, thereby making it part of the river and not fit for growing crops, Reuven does not need to give Shimon another field. Since the river would have washed out the field no matter whose possession it was in, Reuven can say to Shimon, “Come take your field.”", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would be the law, according to mishnah five, if the Romans came and took the field from Reuven the robber, but we didn’t know why they took the field? In other words, they did not take from other people in the district, nor did Reuven owe them money?" + ], + [ + "If a man stole something from his friend in an inhabited region or borrowed it or received it as a deposit, he may not return it to him in the wilderness. But if he [had borrowed it or received it] with the understanding that he was going out to the wilderness, he may return it to him in the wilderness. Our mishnah teaches that if a person receives something from another person in an inhabited region, whether he stole it, borrowed it or received it as a deposit, he may not return it to him in the wilderness, by definition an uninhabited region. Receiving something in the wilderness is probably undesirable for the owner, since he will have to shlepp the object all the way home. Furthermore, there is a greater danger of bandits and wild animals in the wilderness, and therefore a person would prefer to have his object returned in an inhabited, protected area. However, if it was known that the person receiving the loan or borrowing the object was going out to the wilderness, than he has a right to return it to the owner in the wilderness." + ], + [ + "If a man said to his fellow, “I robbed you”, [or], “You lent me [something]”, [or] “You deposited [something] with me, but I do not know whether I returned it or not” he is obligated to repay.
But if he said, “I do not know whether I robbed you, [or], “whether you lent me [something]”, or “whether you deposited [something] with me”, he is exempt from repaying.
Mishnah Seven deals with a person who either stole, borrowed or received a deposit from another person and does not know whether he has paid him back.
Mishnah Eight deals with a person who stole from another and returned the object without telling the original owner that it was returned.
In section one of our mishnah the speaker is certain that he at one point had something that belonged to his fellow, either by stealing, borrowing or receiving the object as a deposit, but he is uncertain whether he returned the object. Since the last verifiable status of the object is with the robber, borrower or one who received a deposit, and it is doubtful whether he returned it, he is obligated to repay the value of the object to the original owner. In section two, the speaker is uncertain whether he ever had possession of the object. In this case the last verifiable status of the object is with the original owner. Therefore, the speaker does not have to repay. In other words, in both cases we assume that the object is still where it was last verifiably ascertained to be and we adjudicate accordingly." + ], + [ + "If a man stole a lamb from the flock and restored it, but it died or was stolen again, he is responsible for it. In section one of our mishnah a person stole a lamb from a flock and the owner noticed that it was missing. If he were to return the lamb without telling the owner that he had done so, the thief is still responsible for the lamb. Since he has not told the owner that the lamb has been returned the owner does not know that he has to keep an eye out for the lamb.", + "If the owner knew neither of its theft nor of its return and counted the flock and found it complete, the thief is exempt. In section two, the owner did not even know that the lamb was stolen. When he counted the flock all of the animals were there, and therefore we can assume that he knew that he was responsible for them all. If the previously stolen lamb should subsequently die or be stolen, it will be the owner’s responsibility and not the thief’s.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah Eight: What would be the law if in the scenario mentioned in section two the owner had not counted the flock? Would the thief still be exempt?" + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah nine deals with items one may purchase from certain people without concern that they may have been stolen.", + "Mishnah ten deals with a craftsman's rights to keep the by-products of their work. In the days of the mishnah a craftsman often did the work but did not provide the raw materials. For instance, a person would bring some cloth to a tailor and the tailor would sew it into a dress. Or a person would bring wood to a carpenter, who would use the wood to make a table. Inevitably there will be material that was given to the craftsman that is not part of the finished product. Our mishnah asks the question to whom do these materials belong.", + "One is not to buy wool or milk or kids from herdsmen, not fruit from those that watch over fruit-trees. However, one may buy garments of wool from women in Judea and garments of flax from women in the Galilee or calves in the Sharon. Our mishnah is concerned with the possibility that one may unknowingly purchase stolen goods from another person. Therefore, the mishnah lists those from whom one should not purchase certain items less they be stolen and those from whom one can purchase. Section one states that one should not purchase things from herdsmen that may have been illegally obtained from the herd which belongs to someone else. Likewise one may not buy things from an orchard watcher that he may have illegally obtained from the orchard. Although we cannot be sure that the product was stolen, the mishnah states that society should avoid giving the herdsmen or orchard watcher the temptation to steal and sell. If no one buys from him than he will not be able to peddle his stolen goods. Section 1a is a contrast to section 1. The women mentioned in this mishnah are probably doing work with things that belong to their husbands. For instance women in Judea spin and make cloth from the wool that their husbands gather from sheep. The same is true with regards to flax in the Galilee and calves in the Sharon. In these cases one may purchase the items without fear that the wife is stealing from the husband. Since the husband in general expects that his wife will sell the product which she makes, one need not fear of her doing so without her husband's permission.", + "And in all cases in which [the seller] says to hide them away, it is forbidden [to purchase the item]. One may buy eggs and fowls in any case. Section 1c and 2 state general reservations on the previous two sections. If one states that the purchaser should not let anyone know about the purchase, obviously something is wrong and the purchaser should not buy the item. Section 2 states that one need never fear when purchasing eggs or chickens. Evidently these items are so common that even those who have access to other people’s chickens and eggs will also have their own to sell, and therefore we can assume that when they sell, they are not selling stolen property." + ], + [ + "The central idea in this mishnah is that a craftsman may keep any material which the householder would not expect to get in return or would not care if he did not get. With this principle we can explain all of the sections of the mishnah.", + "Shreds of wool which the laundryman pulls out belong to him, but those which the woolcomber pull out belong to the householder. Section one a laundryman will not generally find a lot of shreds and therefore the owner does not expect to recover what little thread the laundryman does find. Therefore the laundryman may keep them. In contrast a woolcomber finds many shreds and therefore the owner will wish to recover them. In that case the woolcomber is obligated to return them.", + "If the laundryman pulled out three threads, they belong to him, but if more than this they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may take them all and they are his. Section two a householder does not generally care if he loses one, two or three threads while the laundryman cleans his clothes. If, however, the laundryman should find more, he must return them to the owner because the owner would expect to get them back. Black threads found on a white garment are undesirable to the owner of the garment and therefore the laundryman may keep them.", + "If the tailor left over thread sufficient to sew with or a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, these belong to the householder. Section three a tailor who receives cloth and thread from his customer in order to sew a garment will inevitably not use all of the materials. If more than a minimal amount of thread or garment is left he must return it to the owner.", + "What a carpenter takes off with a plane belongs to him; but what [he takes off] with a hatchet belongs to the householder. And if he was working in the householder’s domain, even the sawdust belongs to the householder. Section four a carpenter’s work by nature creates sawdust and splinters and other left over material from the wood. The owner may want this material back in order to light his oven or to do with it some other type of work. Again, if the material is minimal, such as is left by a plane, the carpenter need not return it. Since an owner does not expect to receive this minimal material, the carpenter need not give it back. If, however, the material is more substantial, than he must return it. Finally, all of this was only with regards to someone working at his own home. If he was working at the householder’s home, he must give over everything to him.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah ten, section two: What would the law be if the laundryman found more than three black threads on a white garment?Congratulations! We have finished Bava Kamma.It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal in a short time and you should be proud of yourselves. Of course, this is just the beginning. We will begin Bava Metzia tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא קמא", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a488927afe17ed2798c5bb515d309a4a18a516e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Bava_Kamma", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Bava Kamma literally means “first gate”, and it refers to the fact that this tractate is the first third of what was originally a larger tractate called “Nezikin” or damages. The next two tractates which we will learn are called Bava Metziah or “middle gate” and Bava Batra, or “final gate”. Together these three tractates contain the bulk of Jewish civil law, dealing with such issues as damages, penal laws, employment and contracts, bailiff laws, property rights, and many others.", + "The first six chapters of Bava Kamma deal mostly with damage laws, generally answering two questions: when is a person obligated to pay damages that he or his property caused another person or his property; for how much is he obligated. The final four chapters of the tractate deal mostly with thievery and robbery.", + "An important note to remember with regards to most of the Mishnah, but especially in regards to Bava Kamma, is that the Mishnah does not give all possible circumstances. Rather the Mishnah will teach archetypal situations, from which a person or a judge could reasonably adjudicate most matters. ", + "Another important note, again especially in regards to Bava Kamma is that the Mishnah is both independent from and yet explaining the Torah. There are several key passages in the Torah that deal with damage laws, and they are listed at the bottom of this page. However these passages are usually not thorough enough for one to adjudicate all situations. They are in essences chapter headings that the Oral Torah, of which the Mishnah is part, fills in. We will refer back to these verses from time to time as we learn the Mishnah. ", + "List of relevant verses for Bava Kamma: They are listed in the order of their relevance throughout the tractate. Exodus 21:33-34 Exodus 21:35-36 Exodus 22:4-5 Exodus 21:28-32 Exodus 21:37 Exodus 22:3 Exodus 22:6-8 Exodus 21:18-19 Exodus 21:22-25 Leviticus 24:18-20 Deuteronomy 19:21 Leviticus 5:20-25 Numbers 5:5-8" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction The first mishnah in Bava Kamma serves as an introduction to the first six chapters of the tractate. As such, if all of the details are unclear now, they will hopefully become clearer as we continue to learn. The mishnah discusses four primary causes of injury, literary “fathers of injuries”. These are archetypal causes of injury mentioned in the Torah, from which we will learn many other types of injury and subsets of laws in the following chapters.", + "1. There are four primary causes of injury: the ox and the pit and the crop-destroying beast and fire. 2. [The distinctive feature of] the ox is not like [that of] the crop-destroying beast, nor is [the distinctive feature of] either of these, which are alive, like [that of] fire, which is not alive; nor is [the distinctive feature of] any of these, whose way it is to go forth and do injury, like [that of] the pit, whose way it is not to go forth and do injury. 3. What they have in common is that it is their way to do injury and that you are responsible for caring over them; and if one of them did injury whoever [is responsible] for the injury must make restitution [to the damaged party] with the best of his land. The four causes of injury mentioned in the first clause mishnah are all derived from the Torah: the ox (Exodus 21:35-36), the pit (Exodus 21:33-34), the crop-destroying beast (Exodus 22:4) and fire (Exodus 22:5). The mishnah then raises a question generally asked in midrashic texts (texts that explain the Torah): why does the Torah need to mention all four types of injury? In other words, why couldn’t the Torah have mentioned one, two or three primary causes of injury, from which we would have learned the rest? The Rabbis believed that no law in the Torah was superfluous and therefore each must come to teach us something that we could not have learned from the other laws. The mishnah therefore explains that each “cause of injury” has its unique characteristic and therefore we would not have been able to derive the laws of the other causes of damages without all four examples in the Torah. Note how the mishnah is both dependent on, yet independent from the Torah. This is typical of Jewish oral Torah; it explains the Torah yet it can usually be understood on its own. Questions for further thought:  What type of injury does an ox cause? What therefore is the difference between an ox and a crop-destroying beast?  The Mishnah tells you things that you are obligated to watch and that if they are yours and they injure you will have to pay the damaged party. Is there anything you can already imagine for which a person will not be obligated if it causes damage? (We will learn the answers to these questions as we go on, but it is worthwhile to start thinking of them now)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe second mishnah in Bava Kamma continues in the vein of the previous mishnah, providing us with general information about damage law that we will continue to learn about in subsequent chapters of the mishnah. Again, some of the details may not be clear, but they will become clearer as we continue to learn. If you have trouble understanding the mishnah, do not despair: this mishnah baffled even the great sages of the Talmud!", + "1. Anything that I am responsible to guard, I have rendered it possible to do injury [for which I will become obligated]. 2. If I have partially rendered it possible to do injury, I must make restitution for that injury as if I totally rendered it possible to do injury. 3. When one damages [property that fits all of the following categories]: property that does not have “sacrilege” [i.e. sacrificial animals or property that belongs to the Temple in Jerusalem], property that belongs to other members of the covenant [Jews], property that is owned, and the injury is done in any place other than the private domain of the injurer and the common domain of the injured and injurer, in these cases the injurer must make restitution for the injury with the best of his land. This mishnah teaches several laws, albeit in language that is difficult to render into coherent English: 1) In order to be obligated to pay damages, the damage must be caused by an object over which I have an obligation to watch. For instance, I am not responsible for full damages the first time my ox gores another ox, since I had no way of knowing that my ox gores. However, the third time my ox gores, I am obligated because my ox is now known as a “goring ox” which I am obligated to guard carefully. 2) If I partially enable damage to happen I am obligated for full damages. For instance if there was a pit that was already 4 feet deep, and a six foot deep pit will kill an animal which falls into it, and I came along and deepened the pit by two feet, thereby making a four foot pit into a six foot pit, I am obligated as if I dug the whole pit. 3) A person is obligated for damages caused only to certain types of property, namely property that belongs to Jewish individuals when the damages are done either on the injured person’s property or in the public domain. In all other cases the owner of the damaging object is exempt. Questions for further thought:  If a person only created part of the object that caused the damage, why is he obligated? Should the person who dug the first four feet of the pit also be obligated to join in paying the damages?  If a person enters my property and my animal injures his belongings, for instance my animal eats his expensive leather shoes, why am I not obligated? Could there be a way that I might become obligated for this type of damage?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe third mishnah of Bava Kamma continues to give us introductory information to the general laws of damages which will be learned throughout the tractate. The previous mishnahs dealt with the causes of injury (mishnah one) and the type of property for which one would be liable if damaged (mishnah two). Mishnah three basically deals with the judiciary procedure through with the damages will be assessed.", + "1. Assessment [of injury] in money or things worth money must be made before a court of law and by witnesses that are free and Children of the Covenant (Jews). 2. Women may be parties in [suits concerning] injury. 3. The injured and the injurer [in certain cases may share] in the compensation. 1. The first clause of the mishnah deals with assessing both the monetary amount of the damages and the monetary evaluation of the payment that the injurer will give to the injured party. For instance, if my ox gores your ox and your ox dies, we need to go to the court to assess two things: 1) how much your ox was worth, 2) how big of a piece of land must I give you in order to compensate you for your loss. These assessments must be done in front of a court, which according to Jewish law must have three judges. The witnesses who testify in cases involving the laws of damages must be free and Jewish. 2. The second clause of the mishnah states that with regards to damage law, men and women are equal. This means that if a man or his property damages a woman or her property, or a woman or her property damages a man or his property, in all cases we judge according to the same law. Perhaps the reason why the mishnah feels the necessity to state this law is that the Torah uses the word “ish”, man, in many of the verses concerning damage law (Exodus 21:33, 35, 37, Exodus 22:4, 6, 9, 13). One may have explained that according to the Torah only men’s damages are considered to be important. The mishnah states the opposite, that women are also a part of damage law (see also Exodus 21:28). 3. The final clause of the mishnah refers to the case of “half damages”. When an ox that is not known to gore gores another ox, the owner of the goring ox is only obligated for half damages, since his ox was not known to be a “goring ox”. In this case it is as if the injurer pays half for the dead ox and the injured also pays half.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why must property evaluation be done in front of the court? Why can’t people just come to an agreement?
• We have seen now in several mishnahs that damage laws as described in the Torah and in the mishnah apply only to free Jews? Why do you think this is so?" + ], + [ + "Five [agents of damage] rank as harmless and five as an attested danger. Cattle are not an attested danger to butt, push, bite, lie down, or kick. The tooth [of an animal] is an attested danger to eat that which is for it; The leg [of an animal] is an attested danger to break [things] as it walks along; So also is a warned ox [an ox that has gored before]; And an ox that damages in the domain of the damaged party, and human beings.
The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake all rank as attested danger. Rabbi Eliezer says: When they are tame they are not attested danger, but the snake is always an attested danger.
What is the difference between that which is harmless and that which is an attested danger? The harmless pays half-damages from its own body and the attested danger pays full damages from the best property (of its owner and.
This mishnah introduces us to an extremely important concept in Mishnaic damage law, that is the difference between agents of damage which are likely to damage and those that are not likely to damage. The first are called “muad”, warned or attested danger and the second are called “tam”, innocent, or usually harmless. We will continue to talk about these concepts as we proceed to learn Bava Kamma. The major difference between these two types of agents of damage is that a person is obligated for full restitution on the first type and only half restitution for damages done by the second type. The idea lying behind this concept is that a person who owns, for instance, an animal that is likely to cause a certain type of damage should be aware of this and therefore guard the animal more carefully. The Torah already speaks of this concept in Exodus 21:29 with regards to the ox that is known to gore.
The mishnah lists various types of damaging agents and categorizes them all into things which are likely to cause damage and things that are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, the beginning mishnah distinguishes between different activities of a domesticated animal, some of which the animal is likely to do and some that it is unlikely to do. For instance, a normal cow is unlikely to kick and therefore if it causes damage by doing so, the owner is only obligated half damages (section 1a). However, the cow is likely to trample on things over which it walks(section 1c), and therefore if it damages in this manner, the owner is obligated for full restitution. Wild animals are always likely to damage (section 2) and therefore if one owns a wild animal he will be obligated for full restitution for any damage the animal might cause. Human beings (section 1f) who cause damage are always obligated full restitution.
Section 3 explains the two differences between harmless and attested agents of damage. The first I already explained in the introduction. The second difference is that if the owner of a harmless agent of damage becomes obligated to pay damages, he must only make restitution up to the value of the animal that caused the injury. For instance if my cow that is worth 1000 dollars should kick you, thereby breaking your 5000 dollar Rolex diamond and gold watch, I am only obligated to pay 1000 dollars. Even though half damages are 2500 dollars I cannot be obligated more than the total value of the cow that caused the injury. Kicking is not an attested form of damage, at least for a cow. However, if my cow were to do the same action, however this time on your property, I would have to pay the full 5000 dollars (see section 1e).
For further explanation of the concepts of “tam” and “muad” see the Steinsaltz Reference Guide, pages 212 and 272. One can also find entries there for “shen” (tooth), page 268, “shor” (ox), page 264), regel (leg), page 257, and “adam muad laolam” a person is always an attested danger), page 158. The concepts of “hezi nezek” (half damages), page 193 and “nezek shalem” (full damages), page 228, are explained there as well,. Again, we will continue to learn these concepts as we proceed." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "How is the leg [of a beast] an attested danger to break [what it tramples upon] as it walks along? A beast is an attested danger [only] in so far as it goes along in its usual way and breaks [an object]. If it kicked, or if small stones were tossed out from beneath its feet and it thus broke other vessels, one pays half damages. If it trampled upon a vessel and broke it, and this [broken vessel] fell upon another vessel and broke it, for the first one pays full damages and for the other half damages.
Fowls (chickens and are an attested danger in so far as they go along in their usual way and break [objects]. But if the fowl had its feet entangled, or if it was jumping and it thereby broke any vessel one pays half damages.
This mishnah deals with damages done by an animal through trampling. We learned in the mishnah at the end of chapter one that when an animal causes damages in a usual manner, meaning it is an attested danger (muad) for that damage, the owner is obligated to make full restitution. However, if the damages are done in an unusual manner, for which the animal is an unattested danger (tam), the owner is only obligated to make half restitution. This mishnah continues to deal with these concepts with regards to damages done by trampling.
The first section of the mishnah deals with damages done by a beast, meaning a domesticated animal, cow, sheep or goat, by trampling on another object. If the damage is done in an anticipated, usual manner, the owner is obligated for full damages. She should have watched over her animal, and since she did not, she is obligated to make full restitution. Section 1c brings up a strange circumstance whereby with one action the animal damages two vessels. For the first vessel the owner is obligated for full restitution and for the second vessel only half restitution.
The second section of the mishnah basically states that the same is generally true for damages done by fowl. They too are attested dangers to damage while walking in their usual manner. Section 2a brings up special circumstances in which the fowl damaged in an unusual way, and therefore the owner is only obligated for half restitution." + ], + [ + "How is the tooth [of a beast] an attested danger to eat that which it is fit to consume? A beast is an attested danger to eat fruit and vegetables. [If however] it ate clothing or utensils [the owner] pays only half damages.
When does this apply? [This applies] in the domain of the damaged party But if it was within the public domain, the owner is not liable.
If [the beast] benefited, [the owner] pays what it benefited.
How does [the owner] pay what [the animal] benefited? [If it ate] from the middle of the marketplace, [the owner] pays what [the animal] benefited. [If it ate] from the sides of the marketplace, [the owner] pays for the damage [the animal] did. [If it ate] from in front of the store [the owner] pays for what [the animal] benefited. [If it ate] from inside the store [the owner] pays for the damage [the animal] did.
The previous mishnah taught us the laws dealing with damages done by an animal’s “regel” leg through walking (trampling). This mishnah teaches damages done by an animal’s “shen” or tooth. Note that the mishnah does not deal with vicious biting by an animal but with an animal that damages by eating. The laws in this mishnah are related to Exodus 22:4 which speaks of a crop-destroying beast. Our mishnah will deal with several issues: 1) what does an animal eat, thereby causing its owner to become liable; 2) differences in liability based on where the animal eats; 3) two different levels of liability, a greater level in which the owner is obligated to pay the actual cost of damages, and a lesser level in which the owner pays that which the animal actually benefited.
There are really three parts to the mishnah. The first section tells us that an owner is only liable when an animal eats things that an animal normally eats. For instance, if my dog goes into your house and eats your cupcakes, I am liable. However, if he eats your mail, I am liable only for half damages.
The second section deals with where the damages are done. I am liable when my animal goes onto your property to damage. I am not liable if you carelessly leave your things in the public domain and my animal eats them. However, the end of the mishnah returns and refines this clause. If you leave things on the side of the public domain, that is not considered careless and the owner of the damaging animal would be liable.
Finally, in sections three and four we introduce a new type of payment, compensation for that which the animal benefited and not for the damage done. For instance if you leave an expensive cut of steak in the public domain and my animal eats it the damages may be 100 dollars. However, since I would not feed my animal steak, rather I would usually feed her cheap dog food, I am only obligated for the amount of dog food that I will now not have to feed her, since she already ate. Paying for the benefit is usually much less that the actual damages.
You should note the highly formulaic nature of this mishnah. It teaches many laws but uses few words. (This is especially true in the Hebrew. In the English I have added words to make the mishnah read better). The mishnah repeats the same structures and phrases over and over again, as does the previous mishnah. Remember, this is oral law, recited and memorized orally. Having repeated structures and few words makes the mishnah much easier to remember and repeat.
Questions for further thought:
 What is the difference between in front of the store and in the store? From this mishnah, can you imagine how their stores were set up?
 What might the law be if I did regularly feed my dog expensive steak?
 What might the law be if my dog is accustomed to eating shoes, and he goes onto your property and eats your shoes?" + ], + [ + "If a dog or a goat jumped from a roof and broke vessels, [the owner] must pay full damages, since they are attested dangers.
A dog that took a cake [while there was a cinder attached] and went to a stack of grain and ate the cake and burned the stack of grain, For the cake [the owner] pays full damages And for the stack of grain [the owner] pays half damages.
This mishnah deals with damages done by either dogs or goats. The important principle to remember when reading this mishnah is that a person is obligated full damages when the damager is an attested danger (muad) and only half damages when the damager is an unattested danger (tam). One is obligated to guard animals in one’s possession which attested dangers and therefore if one fails to do so, the restitution which must be made is higher. Furthermore, we have learned several times already, that animals can be muad for those actions which they are likely to do and tam for those that they are unlikely to do. For instance in the previous mishnah we learned that an ox is muad to eat grain but tam to eat clothing. Over the first the ox’s owner will pay full damages and over the second half damages.
Evidently dogs and goats were likely to damage by jumping off roofs. Therefore, there owner must prevent them from doing so and if she fails, she is obligated to pay full damages.
In the second section of the mishnah we learn that dogs are likely to eat cake (I know my dog is!), but unlikely to burn down stacks of standing grain. Therefore for the cake one is obligated for full damages and for the stack only half damages.
Questions For Further Thought
 Is there a new principle which we are learning from the second clause of the mishnah? In other words, what might you have thought had not this clause been taught?" + ], + [ + "Which kind of animal is accounted harmless ( and which is an attested danger (? An attested danger is one that people have given testimony about [that it damaged] for three days. A harmless one is one that has refrained from damage for three days. This is according to Rabbi Judah.
Rabbi Meir says, An attested danger is one that people have given testimony about three times. A harmless one is one that children can touch and it will not gore.
We have several times already discussed the two types of danger: a muad which is an attested danger and a tam, which is harmless, meaning something that is not expected to cause damages. However, we have mostly discussed the different consequences of being a muad or being a tam. The owner of a muad that causes damage will pay full damages from the best of his land while the owner of a tam that damages will only pay half damages which cannot exceed the value of the damaging animal (see Mishnah 1:4). This mishnah discusses how an animal can move from the status of a tam to the status of a muad and vice versa, how an animal that is muad can revert to the status of tam.
In this mishnah we see a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah, two of the most prevalent Rabbis in the Mishnah. According to Rabbi Judah in order for a tam animal to become muad people must testify against the animal on three different days. However, according to Rabbi Meir it is enough that people testify against the animal three times on one day for it to become a muad.
Similarly the Rabbis dispute how a muad would revert to being a tam. According to Rabbi Judah all it would need is three days, in which it had the opportunity to gore and yet it didn’t do so. However, according to Rabbi Meir it needs to be harmless enough for children to touch. Otherwise it remains a muad." + ], + [ + "“An ox which causes damage in the private domain of him that is injured” how is this so? If it gored, pushed, bit, lay down, or kicked in the public domain its owner pays only half damages.
But if in the private domain of him that is injured, Rabbi Tarfon says, “He pays full damages.” The Sages says, “Half damages.”
Rabbi Tarfon said to them: “Now, in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot and tooth in the public domain, in which case he is exempt, and stringently in the private domain of him that is injured to pay full damages, then since they have dealt stringently with damage caused by the horn in the public domain, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain of him that was injured, so that full damages be imposed.” They (the said to him: “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred: if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed].
He said to them: “I shall not derive the law in one case of damage caused by the horn from the law in another case of damage caused by the horn. Rather I will derive the law of damage caused by the horn from the law of damage caused by the foot. Now in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot or tooth in the public domain, they have dealt strictly with damage caused by the horn, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain. They (the said to him: “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred: if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed].
This mishnah deals with one of the clauses from mishnah four of chapter one, which stated that the owner of an ox that damages on the property of the damaged party is obligated for full damages. If the same ox had committed this type of damage in the public domain the owner would only be obligated half damages. However, since a person should be extra careful when they bring their animal onto another person’s property the owner is more liable. Being a father of two little children, the following, albeit imperfect analogy, comes to mind. If I bring an expensive toy over to my son’s friend’s house, and one of the children breaks it, I believe I am at fault. However, if someone brings their child over to my house, and breaks something I believe that they should be at fault. There are many more analogies that one could make; this was just an example.
One important note with regards to learning the mishnah. We will see a dispute between the sages and Rabbi Tarfon, and as part of this dispute the sages will state that, “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred.” This principle means that when you learn a law regarding one situation from a law regarding a similar situation, the inferred law does not need to be stricter than the original law from which it was inferred. This principle is learned from Numbers 12:14 where God punishes Miriam for speaking against Moses. God says, “If her father spat in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut out of camp for seven days.” God says that had her father rebuked her, Miriam would have been punished for seven days. One might have thought that God’s rebuke would carry an even more serious consequence. The Torah teaches us the aforementioned principle that the inferred law, the length of Miriam’s punishment when God rebukes her, is not stricter than the law from which it was inferred, the length of Miriam’s punishment had her father rebuked her.
This is a long mishnah and is not a simple one, but we will try in any case to explain briefly. The sages and Rabbi Tarfon argue at length whether an ox that gores or does some other unusual form of damage in the private domain of the one who is injured would be obligated full or half damages. Rabbi Tarfon’s initial argument in section 3 is based on the following chart.
Public Domain
Private domain of him that is injured
Horn
Half damages
Acc. to Rabbi Tarfon full damages.
Foot and tooth
Exempt
Full damages
Rabbi Tarfon claims that since we are lenient on damages caused by the foot and tooth in the public domain and yet strict in the private domain, we should also be strict in the private domain on damages caused by the horn, since after all we were relatively strict in the public domain. The other sages reply that by the means of this type of logical argument one cannot extend the liability for damages caused by the horn, beyond what we already know, that one is liable for half damages.
Rabbi Tarfon’s second argument in section 4 is a different variation on his first argument. He claims that he is not learning liability for damages done by the horn in the private domain from damages done by the horn in the public domain. Rather he emphasizes that he is learning from damages done by the foot and tooth in the private domain, in which case one should not say that one cannot extend the liability, as the sages argued with him. Again the sages reply with the same reply they gave in section 3a. In their opinion, no matter how you phrase it, Rabbi Tarfon’s argument is based on the relative strictness of damages done by the horn in the public domain. Since this is so, the law cannot be extended further by an argument based on logic." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with damages caused by a human being, a topic that was mentioned briefly in chapter one mishnah four. There we learned that a person was always considered to be muad, or an attested danger. This mishnah explains deals with that concept, that a human being is a muad.", + "Human beings are always an attested danger, whether the damage is caused inadvertently or deliberately, whether the person who caused the damage is awake or asleep. If a man blinded his fellow’s eye or broke his utensils he must pay full damages. A person who damages is always considered to be a muad, attested danger, and as such he will always pay full damages. The idea is that a person cannot claim that something was accidental and thereby exempt herself from culpability. For instance if I throw something heavy out my window and it hits someone’s car, I cannot claim that it was an accident and that I didn’t mean to do it. Even if I go to sleep next to something that belongs to someone else, and in my sleep I roll over and break the item, I will always be obligated. Questions for further thought: Why should a human being always be a muad? Why not exempt her when she causes damages inadvertently?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe following two mishnayot (plural of mishnah) deal with damages that a person’s possessions might cause in the public domain. In general if a person leaves something in the public domain and someone else comes along and breaks it the person who broke it is not obligated to pay for the broken item. Furthermore, if the person who breaks the object is also injured while doing so, the owner of the object will be liable for his injuries.", + "In the first section of mishnah one we learn that a person does not have the right to leave his objects in the public domain. Therefore if he should do so and another should come along and break the object, the person who broke it is exempt and if he should be injured the owner is liable.", + "If a man’s jug broke in the public domain, and another slipped on the water, or was hurt by the potsherds, he is liable. Rabbi Judah says: “If he [broke the jug] with intention, he is liable, But if he broke it without intention he is not liable.” In section 2 Rabbi Judah teaches us a new principle, that of intention. If a person accidentally put a damaging object into the public domain he is not liable for subsequent damages. One is only liable if he put the damaging object into the public domain on purpose." + ], + [ + "The second mishnah lists some common ways in which a person might put a damaging object into the public domain.", + "In section 2 we learn that even though he may have tried to keep them out of people’s way, if they are harmful materials he is responsible for subsequent damages. One might want to consider the implications these mishnayot have on modern ecological problems. The sages considered the public domain to belong to everyone and as such no one was allowed to place there potentially dangerous material.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the cases in clause 2 of the first mishnah and clause 1 of the second mishnah?
• Rabbi Judah distinguishes between deliberate and inadvertent breaking of the jug. Evidently the sage(s) who taught the clause preceding Rabbi Judah did not make such a distinction. According to them one would be obligated even if the jug broke accidentally. What is the logic behind this opinion?
• The first clause of mishnah one says that when one stumbles on a jug left in the public domain he is not obligated. What might the law be if he broke it with intent? Would he still be exempt or would he be obligated?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah we deal with today continues to discuss the topic of damages caused by a person’s property in the public domain. We learned in the previous two mishnayoth that if a person brings his belongings out to the public domain and someone damages them, the damager is not liable. Furthermore if someone is injured by these belongings, their owner is liable. This mishnah will add in a third principle: if a person brings an item out to the public domain, an item which is potentially damaging to others, any person who finds that item can take it. In other words, the owner of the item is punished for endangering other people’s safety.\nToday’s second mishnah deals with the liability of a person who trips in the public domain and thereby causes damage to another.", + "In mishnah three a person put out straw and stubble in order to make fertilizer for his field. The mishnah states that this is an illegal action, the consequences of which are liability for damages done to others and loss of property. Note the double punishment: 1) anyone can claim the straw and stubble, meaning they are not really his anymore; 2) nevertheless if someone is injured by them, we make the owner, who is not really the owner anymore, pay for the injuries. Evidently the mishnah sees bringing the straw and stubble out to the public domain as a grave offense.", + "If a man turned over a piece of cattle dung in the public domain and another was injured thereby, he is liable for injury. Section two deals with a situation where a person saw an ownerless piece of dung in the public domain. (Believe it or not, people wanted to own this dung for fertilizing.) By turning it over, he has taken possession of the dung. Therefore if someone else is injured by it, he is obligated. The mishnah teaches that once you technically own something, you now have to make sure it doesn’t injure someone else. Mishnah four teaches us the principle that accidentally stumbling is not an excuse for causing damages. Although the person who tripped certainly did not intend to do so, and probably caused damage to the things he himself was carrying (pots), he is still liable. He should have walked more carefully.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s opinion and the statement that immediately preceded him? Is there even a disagreement in this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Two pot-sellers were walking one behind the other and the first stumbled and fell, and the second fell on the first, the first one is liable for the injury caused to the second. Mishnah four teaches us the principle that accidentally stumbling is not an excuse for causing damages. Although the person who tripped certainly did not intend to do so, and probably caused damage to the things he himself was carrying (pots), he is still liable. He should have walked more carefully.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah four uses the example of pot-sellers. Why use this example? What piece of information might the mishnah be teaching by using this example and not, for instance regular pedestrians?
• What are some modern day situations that are similar to these mentioned in the mishnah? How does modern law differ? How is it the same?To sign up for the Mishnah Yomit project visit www.mishnahyomit.org or www.uscj.org.To receive hard copies of Mishnah Yomit please write to Dr. Morton Siegel, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, 155 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010" + ], + [ + "This one comes carrying his jar and another one comes carrying his beam: this one’s jar is broken by that one’s beam, [The owner of the beam] is exempt, since this one has the right to walk along and this one has the right to walk along.
If the owner of the beam came first and the owner of the jar came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, the owner of the beam is exempt. If the owner of the beam stopped [walking suddenly], he is liable. If [the owner of the beam had said] “Stop” to the owner of the jar, he is exempt.
If the owner of the jar came first and owner of the beam came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, [the owner of the beam] is liable. If the owner of the jar stopped [walking suddenly],he is exempt. If [the owner of the jar had said} “Stop” to the owner of the beam, he is liable.
This mishnah continues to deal with the subject of damages done by a human being in the public domain. The basic topic is damages done by people carrying different objects and bumping into each other. One should note that although this mishnah (and most mishnayoth) deal with specific topics, their relevance is far greater than the immediate material learned. We are learning here about such important issues as individual rights which conflict with the individual rights of others. From the specific examples of the mishnah we can learn many principles about the public rights that people have, rights that may occasionally come into conflict with others’ rights. As one learns these mishnayoth please try to extract from them general principles and think about how they apply in other circumstances, perhaps circumstances relevant to modern societal problems.
This mishnah lists three scenarios regarding people walking in the public domain, one carrying a beam and one carrying a jar. In all of the scenarios the jar is broken by the beam and the mishnah needs to decide if the owner of the beam is liable. In section one the beam-owner and jar-owner are evidently walking together, meaning neither one is walking in front of the other. The owner of the jar has the right to walk in the public domain without being damaged. Therefore if the owner of the beam walks into him he is liable. He should have watched where he was going.
In the second clause the owner of the beam was walking in front of the owner of the jar. If the jar-owner walks into him, it is his own fault and the beam-owner is exempt. If, however, the beam-owner stops suddenly he is obligated. He should have realized that stopping suddenly might cause the other person to walk into him. Therefore if he didn’t stay “stop” he is liable, but if he did say “stop”, thereby warning off the jar-owner he is exempt.
The third section reverses the scenario that we saw in the second section: this time the jar-owner is walking first. Therefore if the beam-owner walks into him he is obligated. If, however, he stopped suddenly without warning the beam-owner the beam-owner will be exempt." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah we will learn today continues to deal with damages caused by people bumping into each other in the public domain.\nThe second mishnah, the seventh of the chapter, deals with a person who is chopping wood and a chip flies off and injures someone else. The new topic here is damages caused by a person’s livelihood to other people. The mishnah teaches us that although a person has a right to work in a profession that he/she may choose, that profession cannot cause damage to other people.", + "[If] two were walking along in the public domain, the one running and the other walking, or both running and they injured one another, neither is liable. Mishnah six teaches again that people have the right to walk in the public domain and if someone bumps into them, they will not be liable for damages, unless they should have seen the person, as we learned yesterday. The new element in this mishnah is running. One might have thought that running in the public domain is by its nature dangerous, and therefore anyone who does so will be liable for any damages he/she causes. The mishnah says no, a person has the right to run in the public domain. Running in and of itself is not a criminally negligent activity and therefore does not carry with it an added degree of liability.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Yesterday I suggested to analogize the mishnah’s descriptions of accidents in the public domain to traffic accidents in our society. What might be a modern equivalent to running? Try to think of something that is inherently more dangerous but still legal and does not carry with it any extra liability. Is there such a thing?" + ], + [ + "[If] a man was splitting wood in the private domain and injured anyone in the public domain, or if he was in the public domain and injured anyone in the private domain, or if he was in a private domain and injured anyone in another private domain, he is liable. Mishnah seven teaches that if a person while chopping wood damages another person, no matter where the chopping is done and no matter where the damages are done, the wood-chopper is liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Based on mishnah seven, would you think a person would be liable if while chopping wood on his own property he damages someone who has entered his property?" + ], + [ + "If two oxen which were accounted harmless hurt one another, the owner pays half-damages for that one which suffered the greater hurt.
If both were attested dangers full damages are payable for that one which suffered the greater hurt.
If one was accounted harmless and the other was an attested danger, that which was an attested danger as against that which was accounted harmless must pay full damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered, while that which was accounted harmless, as against that which was an attested danger, pays only half damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered.
So, too, if two men hurt one another, full damages are payable for that one which suffered the greater hurt.
If a man and an ox which was accounted harmless hurt one another, the man as against the ox accounted harmless must pay full damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered, while the ox accounted harmless, as against the man, pays only half damages for the greater hurt that the other suffered. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even if an ox accounted harmless hurt a man, full damages must be paid for that one which suffered the greater hurt.
This mishnah returns to deal with a subject that we dealt with in the last mishnah of chapter one and in the fourth and fifth mishnayoth of chapter 2 and that is the goring ox. Remember, there are two types of goring oxen, one that is a previously attested danger (muad), who has been testified against. The second type is innocent (tam) meaning he is not a previously attested danger. When a muad damages the owner will pay full damages from the best of his land. When a tam damages the owner will pay half damages from the value of the tam itself. This means that the upper limit of liability will be the value of the damaging animal.
We will continue to deal with the goring ox for the next two and a half chapters. I will not be explaining the concepts of tam and muad every time we encounter them. I will try to reference places where I did explain them. If you are wondering why the mishnah is so fascinated by the goring ox, it is due to the fact that the Torah mentions the ox quite frequently (Exodus 21:28-32, 35-36). It is indeed the paradigm for the damaging animal.
The rendering of this mishnah into sensible English is very difficult since the mishnah speaks in shorthand. However, the explanation should make more sense to you.
The first section deals with two harmless oxen that gore each other. In general the owner of each is obligated to pay half damages to the other. Here we figure out what was the greater damage and the owner of the less injured ox will pay half of that amount. A table will help.
Value of ox before injury
Value after injury
Damages
Amount owed
100 (tam)
30
70
35
50 (tam)
30
20
10
In this case the owner of the ox worth fifty will pay twenty-five to the owner of the ox worth 100.
In the second case both of the animals were muad and will therefore pay full damages. Our table now looks like this:
Value of ox before injury
Value after injury
Damages
Amount owed
100 (muad)
30
70
70
50 (muad)
30
20
20
In this case the owner of the ox worth fifty will pay fifty to the owner of the ox worth 100.
In the third case one ox was muad and one was tam. The muad will owe half damages and the tam full damages. According to our example in this case the animal worth 100 was a muad and therefore will owe full damages for the animal worth 50. The animal worth 50 is a tam and will therefore pay half damages for the animal worth 100. Our table now looks like this:
Value of ox before injury
Value after injury
Damages
Amount owed
100 (muad)
30
70
35
50 (tam)
30
20
30
In this case the owner of the ox worth fifty will pay 5 to the owner of the ox worth 100.
The fourth case of the mishnah deals with human beings who injure one another. Since a human being is always a muad (see chapter one mishnah four), this is similar to case number two.
The fifth and final case deals with a human being (who is always muad) and a harmless ox (tam) who injure one another. This case is similar to case number three. We will nevertheless bring a new table.
Value before injury
Value after injury
Damages
Amount owed
1000-- human (muad)
500
500
250
50--ox (tam)
20
30
30
In this case the owner of the ox will pay the human 220. Rabbi Akiva disagrees. According to him an ox that injures a human being always pays full damages as if it was a muad. Therefore in the previous scenario the owner of the ox will pay 470 to the human." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is concerned with the scenario mentioned in Exodus 21:35 (translation from JPS Tanakh): “When a man’s ox gores his neighbor’s ox and it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal.” This system of payment of damages (applicable only to a “tam” or harmless ox) works well when both animals are worth the same amount. For instance if both the goring ox and the gored ox were worth 200 before the goring, and the carcass of the gored ox is 50, the two owners will sell both animals and split 200 and 50, leaving each with 125, or 75 less than the worth of their original ox. 75 is half of the 150 in damages caused to the gored ox, which matches our principle that when a tam injures, it’s owner pays half damages. However this system does not work well if the two oxen are of differing values. For instance, if the goring ox is worth 500 and the gored ox was worth 50 before the goring and its carcass is worth 30, the two owners will split 500 and 30, leaving each with 265. In this case the owner of the gored ox has benefited 215 since his original ox was worth 50. Likewise the system in the Torah does not work if the gored ox was worth more than the goring ox. If the goring ox was worth 50 and the gored ox 200 before the goring, and its carcass is worth 50, the two owners will split 50 and 50 leaving each with 50. The owner of the gored ox did not receive half damages, which would have been 100. The sages in our mishnah are dealing with the case in which we are able to fulfill the literal meaning of the verse in Exodus and still maintain our principle of half damages.", + "If an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200, and the carcass is not worth anything, [the owner of the gored ox] takes the [live] ox. Section 1 describes a case where an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200. The owner of the goring ox owes 100, which are half damages. Since the carcass is not worth anything, the owner of the dead ox can just take the live ox as payment. This case is significantly different than the case described in Exodus. There the two owners sold both the live ox and the carcass and split the proceeds evenly. In this case there is no need for any selling or splitting of proceeds.", + "If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, Rabbi Meir said, “If thus it was written, ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal’. Section 2, which contains Rabbi Meir’s opinion brings up a case closer to the one described in Exodus. Here the goring ox and the gored ox are both worth 200, but the carcass is not worth anything. The owner of the goring ox owes 100 and therefore the two owners sell the goring ox and split the proceeds.", + "Rabbi Judah said to him: “Such indeed is the halachah (, but you have fulfilled the verse ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price’, and you have not fulfilled the verse ‘they shall also divide the dead animal’. What case is this? If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the corpse is worth 50, this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox, and this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox. In section 3 Rabbi Judah points out that Rabbi Meir’s scenario only fulfills half of the description of the case in Exodus, that is selling the live animal. Rabbi Meir’s scenario does not include the need to sell the carcass, which is mentioned in Exodus. Therefore Rabbi Judah explains that Exodus describes the scenario as we explained in the introduction, where both oxen are worth 200 before the goring and the carcass is worth 50. They sell both the live and dead oxen and split the proceeds, leaving both parties with 125, 75 less than the amount with which they started. Since full damages were 150, 75 is equal to half damages.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• As I pointed out in the introduction, the Torah is only dealing with a circumstance in which both oxen were of equal value. Why do you think the Torah only describes this circumstance?
• Following up the first question, the Torah teaches the principle of half damages. Why do you think that it doesn’t just say that the injuring party pays half damages and instead it describes the process of selling both the live and dead animals? To whose advantage is this system?" + ], + [ + "There is one who is obligated for the act of his ox and exempt from his own act, and one who is exempt from his own act and obligated on the act of his ox.
[If] his ox caused embarrassment [to another person], he is exempt; [If, however] he caused embarrassment [to another person] he is obligated.
[If] his ox put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his [slave’s] tooth, he is exempt [from freeing the slave]; [If, however] he put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is obligated to free the slave.
[If] his ox injured his father or mother he is obligated; [If, however] he injured his father or mother he is exempt.
[If] his ox lit a heap of produce on fire on Shabbat, he is obligated; [If, however] he lit a heap of produce on Shabbat he is exempt, because he is liable for his life.
Our mishnah is concerned with the differences in obligation when a human being and an ox cause the same damage. We will discuss these differences in the explanation.
One interesting note is that our mishnah is composed in highly formulaic language, which makes it easier to memorize. We should always remember that the mishnah is oral Torah, recited and taught orally by the Sages. As such it is important for it to be composed in the type of repetitive and formulaic language that could be memorized. This mishnah is a prime example of this type of composition.
 Section one is an introductory clause explaining the topic of the mishnah. We will be dealing with cases in which the same injury which creates obligation when a human being was the cause, does not create obligation if an ox was the cause and vice versa.
 Section two deals with the case of embarrassment payments. In chapter eight of Bava Kamma we will learn that when a person injures another person one of the payments he makes is for the embarrassment caused to the other person. We learn in our mishnah that since an ox does not know that he might cause embarrassment to another person, if the ox should injure another person, it’s owner is exempt from that payment.
 Section three deals with damages done to a slave. According to Exodus 21:26-27 if a man should put out the eye of his slave or knock out the slave’s tooth he must set the slave free. Our mishnah tells us that this is only so if the owner himself does the act. If the ox were to do the act, the owner is not obligated to free the slave. Nor is he obligated for any financial payment since the slave is his property. As such, anything owned by the slave belongs to the master, and therefore there would be no sense in the owner paying the slave.
 Section four deals with striking one’s parents. According to Exodus 21:15 if a person strikes his/her mother or father s/he is obligated for the death penalty. In our mishnah we learn that if an ox that belonged to a person were to damage the person’s parents, the person is obligated for monetary payment, the same way he would be if the ox injured any person. However, if the person himself struck the parent, he is exempt from monetary payment. At the end of this mishnah we learn a new principle: when a person commits a crime that would potentially carry with it the death penalty and a monetary fine, he receives only the death penalty. In Jewish law one generally can receive only one punishment per crime, namely the greater punishment. If he is liable for death and money, he gets the death penalty only, that being the greater punishment.
 Section five deals with a burning a heap of produce on Shabbat. Lighting a fire on Shabbat is a capital crime (see for instance Exodus 35:2-3), as are all forbidden acts on Shabbat (if the person was warned beforehand, and understood properly the severity of his/her crime). Destroying crops through fire is a crime that will carry with it a monetary penalty. Therefore if an ox should cause the fire, it’s owner is obligated. If however, a person should destroy the crops through fire on Shabbat, he will incur the death penalty. In this case, as in the previous case, when a person is liable for the death penalty he is exempt from monetary payment." + ], + [ + "If an ox was pursuing another ox and [the latter ox] was injured: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury, and this one claims “No, it was injured by a rock.” on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.
If two oxen were pursuing a third ox: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, and this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, they are both exempt. However, if they were both owned by one man, they are both obligated.
If one was big and was small: the [owner] of injured [ox] says that “The large one caused the injury”, and the [owner] of the injuring [ox] says, “The small one caused the injury”, [or] if one was a harmless ox ( and one was an attested danger ( the [owner] of the injured ox says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger caused the injury, and the owner of the injuring ox says, “The [ox which is] harmless caused the injury”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.
If two oxen were injured, one big and one small, and two oxen caused the injury, one big and one small: [the owner] of the injured oxen says, “The big ox injured the big ox and small ox injured the small ox,” and the [owner] of the injuring oxen says, “The small ox injured the big ox and the big ox injured the small ox”; [or] if one was harmless and one was an attested danger: the [owner] of the injured oxen says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger injured the big ox, and the harmless [ox] injured the small ox”, the owner of injuring oxen says, “No rather the harmless [ox] injured the large ox and the [ox which is an] attested danger injured the small ox”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.
The final mishnah of the third chapter is concerned with an extremely important principle in Jewish law, that the burden of proof is on the one who wishes to exact compensation. In terms of modern law this means that the plaintiff must bring positive proof that the defendant owes him money in order for the court to find in his favor. In absence of positive proof, the defendant will be found exempt.
We will explain each clause independently. As you read the mishnah notice how the mishnah begins with simple cases and proceeds to the complicated cases. The mishnah is a didactic text: once you learn the principles you can move onto more complicated problems.
This entire lengthy mishnah is based on one principle, that the burden of proof lies on the pursuant.
 Section one deals with the simple case of one ox causing injury to another ox. The owner of the injured ox must bring proof that his ox was injured by the other ox and not by a rock. Since the burden of proof lies on him, without proof he will not be able to collect damages.
 Section two deals with the case of two oxen chasing after one ox. It is clear that one of the two oxen caused the injury but it is unclear which one. Each of the independent owners of the two pursuing oxen claims that the other ox caused the injury. Since the owner of the injured ox cannot prove which ox caused the injury, he can’t collect damages from either. However, if both of the pursuing oxen were owned by the same person, he is liable.
 Section three continues to deal with the situation of two potentially injuring oxen. This time we learn that one of the two was a large, probably expensive ox, and the other was small. They were both harmless oxen, and therefore we are dealing with payment of half damages. It is in the owner of the injured ox’s best interest that the larger ox caused the damage, since when a harmless ox injures the damages paid can be no greater than the worth of the injuring ox. Take for example the case where a large ox was worth 500 and the small ox 100 and the damages were 250. The owner of the damaged ox would like to collect 125, half damages. If the small ox caused the injury the most he could recover is 100, the value of the small ox. However, if the owner of the large ox caused the injury, he can recover the full 125. In our mishnah there is a dispute over which animal caused the injury, and as usual the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.
 In the second half of section three instead of one of the potentially injuring oxen being large and the other being small, one is a harmless ox, which only pays half damages, and one is an attested danger which pays full damages. Obviously it is in the best interests of the owner of the injured ox that the attested danger caused the damage, thereby allowing him to recover full damages. Again the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.
 Section four further complicates our scenario. This time two oxen caused injury to two oxen. However, the principles are all similar to the cases in section three. The owner of the injured oxen would like to claim that the large ox injured the large ox or that the attested danger ox injured his large ox, and the owner of the injuring oxen claims the opposite. As expected, the mishnah again declares that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "[If] an ox has gored four or five other oxen, this one after this one: the owner shall pay to [the owner of] the last ox injured. If money remains, it will go to the [the owner of] the previously [injured ox]. If money still remains, it will go to the [the owner of the ox injured] previous to the previously [injured ox]. [The owner of] the last [injured ox] benefits, according to Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Shimon says, “[If] an ox worth 200 gores an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, this one gets 100 and this one gets 100. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100 and the owner of the previously injured ox receives 50. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100, the [owner of the] previously injured ox receives 50, and the first two receive 25.
This mishnah deals with the nature of the financial obligation of the owner of a harmless ox that has injured several oxen, without it ever becoming an attested danger. According to one opinion, the owner of the injured ox becomes new owner of the harmless ox, when the latter causes injury. The result of this ownership is that if the harmless ox causes further injury, the owner of the previously injured ox will have financial liability. The second opinion is that the owner the injured ox becomes a partner in the ownership of the injuring ox. In our mishnah we will see the manifestation of these two differing opinions.
First of all let us chart out two tables explaining the differences between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon. In this chart all oxen were worth 200 before the injuries. The numbers are how much each owner of the injured oxen will collect.
Amount left to owner of injuring ox
First ox injured
Second ox
Third ox
Rabbi Meir
0
0
100
100
Rabbi Shimon
25
25
50
100
According to Rabbi Meir, the owners of the previously injured oxen are considered the new owners of the injuring ox and therefore are fully responsible for subsequent damages. Only if money remains from the value of the injuring ox can these owners recover money for their own injured oxen.
According to Rabbi Shimon the owners of the previously injured oxen are considered partners in the ownership of the injuring ox. When an ox damages one other ox, they are now partners and they each get 100. When it injures again, the owner of the currently injured ox is a partner who gets half, meaning 100 and the previous two owners become partners in an ox worth 100, and each gets 50. If the ox should injure a third time, the owner of the currently injured ox is a partner and receives half, meaning 100. The owner of the second injured ox is now a half partner in an ox worth 100 and he gets 50. The fifty that is left in the worth of the original ox is split evenly between the original owner and the owner of the first injured ox, who are partners in that 50." + ], + [ + "An ox which is an attested danger for [injuring] its own kind, and is not an attested danger for [injuring] that which is not its own kind; or an attested danger for [injuring] human beings and not an attested danger for [injuring] beasts; or an attested danger for [injuring] children and not an attested danger for [injuring] adults that for which it is an attested danger [its owner] pays full damages, and that for which it is not an attested danger [its owner] pays half damages.
They said in front of Rabbi Judah: “What if it is an attested danger on the Sabbath, and it is not an attested danger during the week?” He said to them: “For [injuries done on] Sabbaths [its owner] pays full damages and for [injuries done] during the week [its owner] pays half damages.” When will this ox be considered harmless? After it refrains from doing injury for three Sabbath days.
Our mishnah continues to discuss the meaning of the concepts of muad, an ox which is an attested danger, and tam, an ox which is considered harmless. We have already mentioned many times that a muad is an ox that has already injured three times (see chapter 2 mishnah 4). If it should damage again it’s owner will be obligated for full damages, and not half damages as is obligated the owner of a tam. Our current mishnah will clarify that an ox (or any animal) can be considered a muad for some types of injury and a tam for others.
The first section of the mishnah deals with an ox that is known to damage certain types of animals or people but not others. For instance it is known to damage other oxen, but not sheep, or people but not animals, or children but not adults. In each of these cases the ox can be treated as a muad for specific things but a tam for others. The reasoning is that since it is known to injure, for example children, its owner must be extra careful around children. However, around adults, the owner can be less concerned and therefore he will only be liable for half damages.
The second section of the mishnah discusses the idea that an ox might be known to damage on certain days. This is a somewhat more perplexing idea. After all, it seems logical that an ox might become more testy around other oxen and be less bothered by sheep. Section one’s distinctions are therefore logical. However, one might not imagine that an ox is smart enough to know the difference between days of the week. Nevertheless, Rabbi Judah concludes that if we have evidence that an ox is more likely to attack on the Sabbath it could become a muad just for that day. At the end of the mishnah we learn that in order for this ox to revert to tam status, it would have to refrain specifically from its muad behavior. Therefore a muad for the Sabbath would have to refrain from injuring on the Sabbath itself, and not just during the week." + ], + [ + "An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, the owner is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple.
An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt.
And an ox of a gentile that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages.
Our mishnah deals with an ox owned by a Jew that gores either an ox that has been consecrated to the Temple in Jerusalem or an which belongs to a gentile.
The first clause of our mishnah is really a midrash halakhah on a verse from Exodus. Midrash can loosely be defined as exegesis, in this case deriving something from a verse in the Torah. Halakhah, is Jewish law, and therefore midrash halakhah is exegetically deriving a law from a verse, even when that law is not apparent from the simple sense of the verse. Many of the laws in the mishnah are actually derived through midrash from the Torah. However, the midrash, or scriptural derivation of the law, is not usually mentioned explicitly in the Mishnah. The Mishnah is a code organized topically and not organized according to the organization of the Torah, and therefore its connection with the Torah is usually less apparent. However, there are exceptions as we shall see in our mishnah.
Section one is a midrash on the word “his neighbor” in the verse “When a man’s ox injures his neighbor’s ox and it dies” (Exodus 21:35). The Rabbis learned that “his neighbor” comes to exclude an ox that doesn’t belong to his neighbor but belongs to the Temple in Jerusalem. A person can dedicate any of his property to the Temple. If the dedicated property was able to be offered as a sacrifice, i.e. a cow, a sheep, a goat, a dove, the priests in the Temple would do so. If not they would sell the property and use the proceeds for upkeep of the Temple. In our mishnah a person’s privately owned ox injured an ox that had already been dedicated to the Temple or vice versa. Since the Torah states “his neighbor” in these cases no damages are incurred.
Sections two and three deal with oxen of Israelites that injure oxen of gentiles and vice versa. According to the mishnah if an Israelite ox injured the ox of a gentile the Israelite is exempt. However, according to section three if a gentile ox injured an Israelite ox the gentile is obligated full damages, even if the ox was harmless, which usually means only half damages. Section two is probably also based on a midrash, exegetical derivation, of the word “his neighbor” in the aforementioned verse in Exodus. “His neighbor” only includes Jews and not gentiles. As far as section three is concerned according to Maimonides it is meant to encourage the gentiles to protect their oxen from causing damages.
When learning mishnayot that deal with Jewish-gentile relations, one should try not to compare the situation to most of today’s world, where Jews and gentiles get along quite well. In ancient times (and not so ancient times) Jews were persecuted by the non-Jews, their lands were often confiscated, and when they rebelled their Temple was destroyed. In such an atmosphere it is easy to understand why Jews did not consider the gentiles to be their neighbors." + ], + [ + "[If] an ox of a person of sound senses gored the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, [its owner] is obligated.
[If] an ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, [its owner] is exempt.
[If] an ox a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and [their oxen] are testified against in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute became of sound senses, or the insane person recovered his reason, or the minor came of age, [the ox] is thereupon deemed harmless once more, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, “It remains as it was before.”
An ox from the stadium is not liable to be put to death, as it says, “When it will gore” (Exodus 21:28), and not “When others cause it to gore.”
Our mishnah deals with oxen owned by deaf-mutes, insane people or minors that damage oxen owned by adults of sound-mind or are damaged by them. We should note that in the ancient world deaf-mutes were considered to be unintelligent, probably because they had no way of communicating with the outside world. We should remember that in those times the written word was much more scarce and almost all communication and learning was done orally. It is therefore, little surprise, that deaf-mutes were considered to lack intelligence. The three categories of people mentioned are therefore, according to the mishnah, all people who are not capable of fully knowing the consequences of their actions, and therefore cannot be held responsible for them. Thankfully, in the modern world we have developed sign language and other forms of communication (including e-mail and the internet) that have allowed us to learn that people who cannot speak verbally or hear are no less intelligent than those who can.
 Section one deals the ox of a person of sound senses that injures the ox of a deaf-mute, insane person or minor. In this case the owner is obligated the same way that s/he would be obligated if the ox injured any person’s ox.
 Section two deals with the ox of a deaf-mute, insane person or minor that gores another person’s ox. In this case the owner of the injuring ox is not liable. The mishnah considers these people not to be capable of protecting their oxen from injuring others, and therefore they are not liable.
 Section three continues to deal with the problem of oxen that belong to deaf-mutes, insane people or minors from injuring. Although these people are not responsible for their actions, this does not mean that the halakhah does not have the duty to protect the interests of others who are damaged by them. Therefore, the mishnah institutes a process by which the court appoints a guardian over the oxen of the aforementioned people. If the ox should henceforth damage three times, it will become an attested danger (muad) and the guardian will pay full damages from the estate of the deaf-mute, insane person or minor.
 In section three clauses c through e, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose disagree concerning the case where the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor was declared by the court to be an attested danger (muad) and then the status of the owner changed to that of an adult person of sound senses. According to Rabbi Meir, the ox’s slate is cleaned and it returns to being a harmless ox (tam). If it should injure again its owner will only be obligated half damages. According to Rabbi Yose, the ox remains an attested danger and if it should injure again its owner will be obligated full damages.
 Section four deals with a stadium ox, what we might call a fighting bull. As is well known, the Romans entertained themselves by throwing slaves and other human beings into pits to fight animals to the death. (Indeed some still find this entertaining). In Exodus 21:28 we learn that oxen are obligated for death if they kill a person. Our mishnah is a midrash on the words, “When it will gore” that begins this verse. According to the midrash, or legal exposition, the verse deals with an ox that gores of its own will and not an ox that is put into the position where human beings are urging it to kill. In this case, the ox is innocent and I might add one should wonder whether those in the stadium aren’t the ones with innocent blood on their hands." + ], + [ + "If an ox gored a person and he died, if it was an attested danger [its owner] must pay the ransom, if it was accounted harmless he is exempt from paying the ransom. In both cases the ox is obligated for the death penalty.
So too [if it killed] a son or a daughter.
If it gored a male slave or a female slave its owner pays 30 sela, Whether [the slave] was worth a maneh or not even worth a dinar.
Until now tractate Bava Kamma has mostly been concerned with an ox that kills or injures another ox. We learned that in such a case if the injuring ox was accounted harmless (tam) its owner will pay half damages and if it was an attested danger (muad) its owner will pay full damages. The Biblical verses which are concerned with this subject are Exodus 21:35-36.
The mishnah now moves to a related subject, that of an ox that kills a human being. The Biblical verses which are concerned with this subject are Exodus 21:28-32. According to these verses from Exodus if an ox kills a human being several things must happen. If it was a harmless ox, the ox is to be stoned and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from its meat. If the ox was a “goring ox” meaning it was an attested danger and its owners did not prevent it from killing again, on principal its owners deserve the death penalty, in addition to the death penalty to be meted out on the ox. However, the Torah allows for the owners to “ransom” their lives by paying a fine to the family of the person killed by the ox. The Torah emphasizes that the same is true if the ox killed a child. Finally, the Torah sets an established ransom-amount for an ox that kills a slave. Unlike a free person, for whom the Torah does not state the amount of the ransom, the owner of an ox that kills a slave will always pay 30 shekels. Finally the Torah emphasizes that even in this case the ox is still killed. We should note an ox killing a human being is the only instance in which the Torah allows for the paying of a ransom. If a person kills another person, the Torah demands the death penalty and does not allow the person to pay for his life. Money can never equal life and therefore no payment can compensate for its loss.
Mishnah five codifies some of these laws and mishnah six begins to deal with exceptional circumstances in which an ox kills a human being.
Mishnah five basically explains the verses from Exodus 21:28-32 which we discussed in the introduction. It may be somewhat puzzling to note how an ox that has killed can ever become an attested danger. After all, after it has killed once it is obligated for the death penalty and it should not have the opportunity to kill a second and third time, in order to become an attested danger. There should therefore never exist an ox that is an attested danger for killing. There are at least two possible answers to this question. Potentially the ox is an attested danger for goring, but has never killed a human being. It could become an attested danger by goring other animals and then later get the death penalty for killing a human. Second, it is possible that the ox killed other people without its being warned in the court. It cannot officially become an attested danger until witnesses testify against it in court. Therefore, although it may have killed several times, it is still a legally accounted harmless.
The rest of the mishnah is fairly straightforward. With regards to the monetary amounts in section three, it would help to translate them all into one unit of money, namely a dinar. A sela is four dinars, so 30 sela is 120 dinars. A maneh is worth 100 dinars. (In some versions of the mishnah it says 100 maneh, which would be 10,000 dinar.) The mishnah states that no matter how much the slave is worth the owner pays thirty sela. Whenever the Torah states a fixed amount as a fine, one must pay that amount whether or not the damage equaled the amount of the fine." + ], + [ + "If an ox was rubbing itself against a wall and it fell on a person;
or if it intended to kill an animal and it killed a man;
or if it intended to kill a gentile and it killed an Israelite;
or if it intended to kill an untimely birth and it killed a viable infant,
it is exempt [from death by stoning].
Mishnah six deals with several instances in which an ox that kills another Jewish human being but unintentionally. In section one the ox was only scratching its back and certainly had no intention to kill. In section two the ox did have intention to kill but its intention was to kill an animal. In section three the ox did have the intention to kill a human being, but its intention was directed at killing a gentile. According to the mishnah an ox that kills a gentile will not be judged in the same way as an ox that kills a Jew. (With regards to Jewish-gentile relations see the discussion on chapter four mishnah three.) In section four the ox did have intention to kill a Jewish human being, but that Jewish human being would not have been able to live. (According to the Rabbis understanding of medicine a child born after eight months could not survive). In all of these cases since the intention was to kill something for which the ox would not be liable for the death penalty the ox is exempt from the death penalty. In other words we judge the ox by its intention and not by its actions." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur two mishnayot continue to deal with the ox that killed a human being. As we learned previously, according to Exodus 21:28 an ox that has killed a human being is to be put to death and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from its meat. Mishnah seven deals with an ox that is owned by someone other than an adult male, and the consequences its ownership might have on its sentence. Mishnah eight deals with the case where someone tried to either dedicate the ox to the Temple or to ritually slaughter the animal before it was killed for being a goring ox. As we shall see the effect of these actions are dependent on the time at which they were done.", + "The ox of a woman, or the ox of orphans, or the ox of a guardian, or a wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died and has no inheritors, these are all liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Judah says, “A wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died are exempt from death, since they have no owners.” Mishnah seven begins with a list of oxen owned by those other than adult Jewish males. Although for various reasons one might have thought that these oxen are not liable for the death penalty, the mishnah decrees otherwise. In all cases the ox is liable for the death penalty. In section two Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion expressed in section one. According to R. Judah if the ox does not have owners, the Torah does not demand that it be put to death. Rabbi Judah’s opinion is probably based on a midrash on Exodus 21:29, which describes the process of warning the goring ox’s owners, a process which lead to the ox being declared an attested danger. According to Rabbi Judah in order to fulfill the law mentioned in Ex. 21:28, namely killing the goring ox, one must be able to fulfill the law in verse 29, which would require the ox to have owners. In other words since one cannot warn the owners, as verse 29 states, one need not execute the ox, as verse 28 states. A note is required about the laws of inheritance for a proselyte. According to the Rabbis’ a proselyte does not “Biblically” inherit from anyone in his family that did not convert, but his inheritance is only ordained by the Rabbis themselves. Therefore, when a proselyte dies without children or a spouse, his property would have no “Biblical” inheritors. Since the requirement to stone the ox is a Biblical command, with regards to this law the ox is considered ownerless.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think the Rabbis allowed a person to derive benefit from a goring ox if they slaughtered it before the court pronounced the sentence? Why shouldn’t the Rabbis be concerned that people will take advantage of this law and slaughter their goring oxen before the sentence is complete?" + ], + [ + "If an ox goes out to be stoned, and its owners dedicated it to the Temple, it is not considered dedicated. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is forbidden.
But if before its sentence was complete its owner dedicated it, it is dedicated. If he slaughtered it, its flesh is permitted.
Mishnah Eight deals with an owner of a goring ox who tried to “cheat the system” by either dedicating the ox to the Temple, and thereby getting credit for a sacrifice, or by ritually slaughtering the ox, and thereby getting food to eat and the leather from the hide. We learned in the aforementioned verses in Exodus that the ox must be executed and its meat is forbidden for use. Our mishnah tells us that this is so only if its sentence has already been pronounced by the court. If it has not, and a person should either dedicate it or slaughter it, the person’s actions are valid and either the Temple or the person himself may derive benefit from the ox." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAlthough we will learn only one mishnah today it really contains two distinct subjects. The first section deals with an ox owner who gives his ox to a guardian. Jewish law recognizes four different types of guardians (we will discuss their laws in detail when we learn tractate Bava Metzia): a borrower, an unpaid guardian, a paid guardian and a hirer. All four of these people receive an object from another person and they have varying degrees of responsibility to guard the object and varying rights to use the object. Our mishnah will teach us that when an owner turns over his ox to any of the four guardians, they now become responsible for any damage the ox will cause while under their protection.\nThe second part of the mishnah deals with the duty an owner himself has to protect his ox from causing damage. Exodus 21:29 states: “If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and its owner, though warned, has failed to guard it...” (JPS translation). The sages in our mishnah will discuss the duty to guard a goring ox and the financial consequences of proper and improper guarding.", + "If one handed it to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, they take the place of the owners; if the beast was an attested danger he pays full damages, and if it was accounted harmless he pays half damages. Section one states quite clearly that any time an owner turns his ox over to another person who has agreed to watch the ox, that person will be responsible for any damages that the ox causes under his guardianship. The real point of this mishnah is that even an unpaid guardian, who neither gets use of the ox nor financial compensation for his guarding, still has liability for damages the ox will cause. In other words, clearly a borrower should be liable in such a case, since he gets the use of the ox and doesn’t even have to pay for it. A hirer also gets the use of the ox, even though he pays for it, so he too should be liable. A paid guardian, while not getting use of the ox, is receiving financial compensation for his guardianship and therefore it is reasonable for him to be liable for damages. However, an unpaid guardian does not receive anything in return and is in essence doing a favor for the owners. The mishnah therefore emphasizes that even so he is liable if the ox should cause damage.", + "If its owner had tied it with a halter, or locked it up properly, but it came out and caused damage, the owner is liable, whether it was an attested danger or accounted harmless, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “If it was accounted harmless he is liable, but if it was an attested danger he is exempt, as it says, “and its owner did not guard it”, but this one has been guarded. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Its only guarding is the knife.” Section two deals with the obligation an owner has to guard his ox. According to Rabbi Meir, tying up an ox or locking it in a pen is evidently not enough protection to exempt one from damages the ox will cause. Therefore, even if the owner performed these acts, he will still be obligated for damages the ox will cause. According to Rabbi Judah, with protection such as tying it up or locking it in, the owner exempts himself from liability for damages caused by an ox that is an attested danger. There is something slightly perplexing with regards to Rabbi Judah’s statement. In the case that he describes an owner may be more obligated for an ox that is a tam, accounted harmless, than for an ox that is a muad, an attested danger. There are two possible answers to this point. First of all, the Torah mentions “guarding” only with regards to the muad, attested danger. Rabbi Judah may be reading the Torah literally. He therefore states that only with regards to the muad is guarding relevant. Guarding a tam will not exempt one from paying for its damages. Secondly, according to the Talmud’s reading of Rabbi Judah’s opinion, if he ties up the ox which is a muad or he locks it in although he will not be obligated for full damages, he will be obligated for half damages. In other words, according to the Talmud, Rabbi Judah does not hold the opinion that one could be more liable for a muad than for a tam. ] Rabbi Eliezer believes that the only way to guarantee that an ox which is an attested danger will not cause damage again is to slaughter the ox. In other words, even though he tied it up or locked it in, he is still obligated for full damages for the muad and half damages for the tam.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why should the unpaid guardian be liable if the ox causes damages?
• According to Rabbi Meir, locking the ox in or tying it up is not sufficient to exempt one from damages the ox might cause. What then must the owner do, according to Rabbi Meir, in order to properly guard the ox?
• What might be some modern equivalents to these laws?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn chapter three mishnah eight we learned an important principle with regards to monetary claims in Jewish law: the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In order to recover money from the defendant the plaintiff must prove that he owes him money. In absence of such proof the defendant owes nothing. This is generally the position of the sages with regards to monetary claims. However, there is another position that occasionally appears in the Mishnah. According to this position in cases where there is doubt to whom the money belongs, the plaintiff and the defendant split the money. Our mishnah goes according to this general rule and not the rule we learned previously that the burden of proof is on the defendant.\nThis mishnah and the mishnah previously learned (3:8) are a good example how the Mishnah is not exactly a law book. A law book should not have contradictions between different laws. The Mishnah occasionally does contain such contradictions. The Mishnah is therefore more properly described as a collection of laws and traditions from which a capable judge could make a decision.", + "If an ox gored a cow [and it died] and its newly born young was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before the ox gored, or if after the ox gored the cow gave birth, the owner of the ox pays half damages for the cow and one quarter damages for the newborn. Section one deals with an ox that is accounted harmless that gores and kills a cow. When the cow is discovered it also has dead newborn by its side. The owner of the ox certainly owes half damages for the cow, as is the law for damages done by animals that are tam, accounted harmless. However, it is unclear whether he owes half damages for the newborn as well. If the ox gored the cow before it gave birth, than the goring must have caused the cow to miscarry. In this case the owner of the ox will owe half damages for the newborn as well. However, there is a possibility that the cow miscarried before the goring. In this case the owner of the ox will not owe any damages for the newborn. In other words, the owner of the cow claims that the ox caused the miscarriage and that the owner of the ox owes half damages. The owner of the ox claims that the cow miscarried before the goring and that he does not owe for the newborn. In such a case the owner of the ox pays one quarter damages, half of the amount in dispute.", + "And also if a cow gored an ox and its newly born young was found at its side, and it is not known if the cow gave birth before she gored, or if after she gored before she gave birth, the owner pays half damages from the value of the cow and one quarter damages from value the newborn. Section two deals with a similar case, except the roles are reversed. This time the cow gores and kills the ox. When the goring is discovered, the cow has a newborn next to it (this time the newborn is alive). Since the cow was accounted harmless (tam) it will pay half damages that cannot exceed the worth of the cow. Let us say that the gored ox was worth 500, half damages being 250. The cow was worth 200 after it gave birth and 250 while it was pregnant. If it gored while pregnant, the owner of the cow owes 250. In this case he will give over both the cow and her newborn. However, if it gored after giving birth the owner owes 200. After giving birth the newborn is already a separate entity not responsible to pay for the goring. The two owners are disputing whether or not the value of the newborn should be considered in paying the damages for the gored ox. According to our mishnah the owner of the gored ox can collect up to half payment from the cow. If he is still owed money, he can collect one quarter payment, or half of the half damages that he is owed, from the newborn. In our example he would collect the full 200 from the cow and 25 from the newborn.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would be the law if this mishnah were to go according to the principle that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff?" + ], + [ + "If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.
If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.
The two mishnayoth which we will learn today are concerned with damages that occur on the property of the damaged party. In mishnah two we will learn about a pottery maker or a produce seller who brings his ware onto another person’s property and it either causes damage or is damaged. In mishnah three we will learn about a person who brings his ox onto another person’s property and again it either causes injury or is injured. In both of these cases we will learn the following general rules:
1. If a person’s belongings are damaged after he brought them onto another person’s property without permission the owner of the property is not liable.
2. In such a case if a person’s belongings cause damage on another person’s property he is liable.
Sections one and two of mishnah two are very similar and can be explained simultaneously. If a person brings his belongings onto another’s household without permission he is obligated for any damage his belongings will cause. In addition he will not receive compensation if his belongings are damaged by the belongings of the owner of the household. After all, the householder can say I never gave you permission to come onto my property. In modern terms this would be called trespassing. However, if he received permission to come onto the property the laws are reversed. The mishnah explicitly states that if the person’s belongings were damaged the owner of the household, whose belongings caused the damage, is liable. It can be assumed, although it is not stated explicitly, that in such a case if the person’s belongings caused damage to the belongings of the household owner he would not be liable." + ], + [ + "If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.
Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.
The first two clauses of mishnah three are similar to what we learned in the previous mishnah. We again learn that if a person brings his belongings onto another person’s property without permission and they are damaged he will not receive compensation and if they cause damages he is liable. In clause b we learn an additional law. If when falling into the cistern the ox kills a person, the owner of the ox is obligated to pay the ransom price mentioned in Exodus 21:30. As we learned in chapter four mishnah 5 when an ox kills a person, the owner of the ox is obligated to pay a ransom price to the family of the deceased. In our mishnah we learn that falling into a cistern is similar enough to goring that the ox’s owner is obligated.
At the end of this mishnah we learn that Rabbi (Rabbi Judah Hanasi) holds an opinion different from that held in the anonymous previous portions of the mishnah. According to Rabbi, allowing a person to enter one’s property is not tantamount to accepting upon oneself the obligation to watch over that person’s belongings. When I allow you to bring your belongings onto my property, I may still assume that you will watch over your things. Therefore, if they cause damage you are still obligated and if they are damaged I am exempt. According to Rabbi, a person does not accept the responsibility for watching the belongings until he states so explicitly. The other opinion in the mishnah held that by allowing a person to enter one’s property on is implicitly accepting upon himself the responsibility for that person’s belongings." + ], + [ + "If an ox intended [to gore] another ox and struck a woman and her offspring came forth [as a miscarriage], its owner is not liable for the value of the offspring. But if a man intended to strike his fellow and struck a woman and her offspring came forth [as a miscarriage], he must pay the value of the offspring.
How does he pay the value of the offspring? They assess the value of the woman before she gave birth and the value after she gave birth.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “If so, once a woman gives birth she is more valuable. Rather, they assess how much the offspring would be worth, and he pays it to the husband, or if she has no husband to his heirs.”
If she was a freed bondwoman or a proselyte no penalty is incurred.
Exodus 21:22 states: “When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment is to be based on reckoning” (JPS translation). According to the Torah, usually a person who accidentally kills another person cannot pay in order to atone for his crime. However, in the case described in this verse the person did not kill an independent human being but rather he caused a miscarriage. Therefore the Torah allows him to make financial compensation for the loss of the fetus/baby. (I am attempting to be very careful about the sensitive issue of Judaism’s stance on the status of a fetus and on abortion. One could potentially argue from this verse that according to the Torah a fetus is not equal to a born human being. However, an exemption from murder charges for one who accidentally causes a miscarriage is not necessarily a blanket approval for abortion.)
Our mishnah deals with two subjects. The first is a definition of the scenario in which this law will apply. The second is an account of the payments required for causing the miscarriage.
Section one limits the application of the verse from Exodus to a case where a person caused a miscarriage. After all the verse states, “When men fight…” and therefore it can be assumed that the law does not apply when an ox causes the miscarriage. In this case the owner of the ox will pay for the damage done to the woman and not for the damage done to the offspring.
Section two begins a discussion of the payments made for the miscarriage. According to the first opinion one evaluates the worth of the woman before the pregnancy and after the pregnancy and the difference is the payment for the offspring. This payment is made to the husband, as we shall learn in section 3a. The payment for the damages to the woman herself is a payment to the woman and the payment for the loss of the offspring is a payment to her husband. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel (section three), a pregnant woman is actually worth less than a non-pregnant woman. In order to understand his words we must remember that in those times death during childbirth was all too common. A pregnant woman was in a dangerous situation and therefore her value is lower. Once she gives birth her value will rise because she is out of the dangerous situation. Therefore, we cannot use this system to evaluate the payments. Rather, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, we estimate how much the offspring themselves would have been worth.
In section 3a we learn that if the woman’s husband died between the time of conception and the time of the miscarriage, the payments are an inheritance to his inheritors. Section 4 is concerned with two women whose husbands are likely not to have inheritors. There are two possibilities to understand this section. First of all, if a woman is a bondwoman and is freed while pregnant, or a woman converts while pregnant, her husband or impregnator is no longer legally responsible or legally considered the father of the children. Therefore, if someone should accidentally cause her to miscarry, there is no father that can collect the payment. Alternatively this last section may deal with a freed bondwoman who marries a freed slave or convert or a convert who marries another convert. The miscarriage occurs after this husband has died and before they have other children. In this case the husband has no inheritors since converts and freed slaves do not have inheritors in their families from before they changed their status." + ], + [ + "If a man dug a pit in a private domain and opened it into the public domain, or if he dug it in the public domain and opened it into a private domain, or if he dug it in a private domain and opened it into another private domain, he is liable [if any is injured by the pit].
If he dug a pit in the public domain and an ox or ass fell into and died, he is liable.
No matter whether he digs a pit, trench, or cavern, or ditches or channels he is liable. If so, why does it say “a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? Just as a pit which is deep enough to cause death is ten handbreadths deep, so anything is deep enough to cause death if it is ten handbreadths deep.
If they were less than ten handbreadths deep and an ox or an ass fell in and died, the owner is not liable; but if it was damaged he is liable.
In the first mishnah of the tractate we learned that there are four archetypal causes of damage. Our mishnah and the two mishnayoth that we will learn tomorrow are concerned with the second cause of damage, namely the pit. Exodus 21:33-34 state: “When a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls into it, the one responsible for the pit must make restitution; he shall pay the price to the owner, but shall keep the dead animal.” Our mishnah deals with several details concerning damages done by a pit.
Sections one and two emphasize that the pit which is described in the Torah is a pit dug almost anywhere. The only exception would be a person who dug a pit on his own property and another person came onto his property without his permission and fell in the pit. In this case the owner would not be liable since the ox entered without his permission.
Section three states that one is obligated not only for damages caused by a pit but damages caused by any hole dug into the ground. There are many types of holes a person might dig for various reasons and they all have different names. The mishnah emphasizes that one is obligated not just for pits but for other holes as well. Section 3a asks a follow-up question. If the Torah meant to say that a person is obligated for any hole he dug in the ground or uncovered why did it specifically mention pit? The answer is that a pit is an example of how deep something has to be for it to be normal for it to cause the death of an animal that fell in. Ten handbreadths (=about one yard) is such a normal depth. Therefore we can conclude that any hole which is ten handbreadths deep is considered to be similar a pit and if an animal falls in and dies, the person who dug or uncovered the hole will be liable.
Section four is a follow-up to section three. If a person dug a hole or uncovered a hole less than ten handbreadths he does not, according to the mishnah, fit into the category mentioned in the Torah. Therefore if an animal does fall in and die he is not liable. However if the animal is injured he is liable since a hole less than ten handbreadths is likely to cause injury." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to deal with damages done by a pit, a subject that we began to learn in mishnah five. The Torah states that a person is obligated for damages caused by a pit which he dug or by a covered pit which he uncovered. The first two sections of mishnah six deals with the duty to properly cover pits. The third section of the mishnah deals with the cause of an animal’s falling into a pit. The fourth section deals with damages done to the load carried by the animal when it falls into the pit. The fifth section deals with irresponsible oxen, children and slaves who fall into the pit.\nAccording to mishnah seven when the Torah states “ox” with regards to a number of laws, the intention is not that the law is limited to an ox. Rather the laws of the Torah mentioned in this mishnah apply to any animal or bird. This mishnah is an appendix to the laws that we have learned in the first five chapters, must of which were dealt with goring oxen and damages by a pit. In both of these laws the Torah uses the example of an ox, and therefore it is essential that our mishnah emphasize that an ox is just an example. These laws are equally applicable to other animals.", + "If a pit belonged to two partners and one went over it and did not cover it, and the other also went over it and did not cover it, the second one is liable. If the first covered it and the second came and found it uncovered and did not cover it, the second one is liable. Section one of mishnah six deals with the duty to cover a pit. We learn here that if the pit was owned by two people, the last one to be at the pit is the one responsible for damages done if he left the pit uncovered. Even though the first person also left the pit uncovered, since the second person was the last to be at the pit, he is the one held accountable.", + "If he covered it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is not liable. If he did not cover it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is liable. Section two states quite simply that if a person covers a pit properly and nevertheless an animal falls in and dies, he is not liable.", + "If it fell forward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, the owner of the pit is liable. But if backward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, he is not liable. Section three deals with animals that are frightened by the sound of the digging and fall. In other words the damage was caused not by the pit itself but by the digging of the pit. According to our mishnah if they fall forward the owner is obligated but if they fall backward the owner is exempt. This distinction is based on a midrash that demands that the ox is killed while walking forward and not while walking backward. [I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck, but there are other explanations].", + "If an ox and all of its trappings fell into it and they broke, or if an ass fell into it with its trappings and they were torn, he is liable for the beast but exempt for the trappings. Section four deals with damages done to the load that the animal was carrying when it fell into the pit. This law is also based on a midrash. Exodus 21:33 states: “and an ox or an ass falls into it”. The Rabbis learned in a midrash “an ox, and not a person; an ass and not trappings.” Compensation for damages done by a pit are therefore limited to damages done to the animal itself.", + "If an ox that was deaf, insane or young fell in, the owner is liable. If a boy or a girl or a slave or a bondwoman fell in, he is not liable. Section five sets an important limit to the liability for the pit-owner. The mishnah states that if a deaf ox, or an insane ox or a minor ox that had not yet learned to walk carefully fell into the pit the owner of the pit is liable. By inference we can learn that if an adult capable ox fell into the pit the owner of the pit is exempt. The second clause of this section states that this rule is not true with human beings. As we learned in the aforementioned midrash, the Torah states that one is obligated when an animal falls into the pit and not when a human does. Our mishnah emphasizes that even if the human was a child who is by nature not careful, the pit-owner is exempt. Furthermore, even if the human was a slave who, like an ox, belongs to someone else, the slave is still not an ox or an ass, and therefore the owner of the pit is exempt." + ], + [ + "An ox and all other beasts are alike under the laws concerning falling into a pit, keeping apart from Mount Sinai, two-fold restitution, the restoring of lost property, unloading, muzzling, diverse kinds, and the Sabbath. So to wild animals and birds. If so, why is it written “an ox or an ass”? But Scripture spoke of prevailing conditions. Mishnah seven lists several laws in which the Torah states “ox” or “beast” but the Rabbis hold that the law is true for all animals, including even wild animals and birds. I will briefly explain these laws with their Biblical references: Falling into the pit this is our topic in Bava Kamma. Keeping apart from Mount Sinai see Exodus 19:13. There God tells Moses to keep everyone, including the animals away from the mountain before the Revelation. Two-fold restitution see Exodus 22:3, 8. If a person steals something and is caught he must pay back double. Restoring lost property see Exodus 23:4, and Deuteronomy 22:1. Unloading see Exodus 23:5. If one sees his enemy’s ox buckling under its load, he must help him unload the animal. Muzzling see Deuteronomy 25:4. One is not allowed to muzzle an ox while it is threshing. Diverse kinds see Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:10. According to Leviticus one is not allowed to mate two different kinds of animals. According to Deuteronomy one is not allowed to yoke an ox and an ass together. The Sabbath see Exodus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 5:14. One must allow his animals to rest on the Sabbath. According to our mishnah the reason why the Torah uses the word ox is that oxen were the most frequently used animals in those times." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a man brought his flock into a pen and shut it in properly and it went out and caused damage, he is exempt. If he had not shut it in properly and it went out and caused damage, he is liable.
If the pen was broken through at night, or bandits broke through it, and the flock came out and caused damage, he is not liable. If the bandits brought out the flock, the bandits are liable.  Section one teaches that if a person were to properly enclose his flock and nevertheless the flock were to escape, the person is exempt. Since he fulfilled his responsibility he is not liable for damages. However, if he didn’t enclose the flock properly he will be liable.  Section two can be explained as an exception to the rule in section one that if he didn’t enclose the flock properly he is liable. Section two teaches that if the flock broke out at night (i.e. they broke the enclosed part of the or bandits broke the fence, the owner is exempt, even though he did not properly lock the fence. The owner is not liable since the animals broke out against his control, even though they could have gone out through the main gate, thereby making him liable. If, on the other hand, they were to have broken the fence during the day, and he didn’t lock it properly, he is liable. (There are other explanations to this. The final clause of the mishnah says that if the bandits physically let out the flock, they are liable if it causes damage.
At the end of chapter five we learned the laws of damages done by a pit, the second archetypal cause of damage listed in the first mishnah of the tractate. The first three mishnayoth of chapter six will deal with the third archetypal cause of damage, the crop-destroying beast." + ], + [ + "Two
If he left the flock in the sun, or he delivered it to the care of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor, and it came out and caused damage, he is liable. If he delivered it to a shepherd, the shepherd takes the place of the owner.
If the flock fell into a garden and derived any benefit, he pays for the benefit. If the flock went down [into the garden] in its usual way and caused damage, he must pay for the damage it caused.
How does he pay for the damage it caused? They assess what a seah’s space of ground in that field was worth before and what it is worth now. Rabbi Shimon says: “If they consumed fully grown produce he must repay with fully grown produce; if they destroyed on seah he must repay one seah, if two seah, two seahs.
 Section one deals mostly with the owner of the flock turning his flock over to another person. If he should turn it over to someone who cannot take proper responsibility for the flock, he will still be liable for damages. However, if he turns it over to a shepherd, the shepherd now becomes liable for any subsequent damages. In the beginning of the mishnah we additionally learn that if he leaves the flock in the hot sun and they break out, he is liable, even if he properly enclosed them. Leaving animals in the sun, where they will overheat, will drive them to go crazy and break out. Since he should have anticipated the consequences, he is liable.
 Section two deals with a flock that entered a garden and ate the produce. If the flock fell into the garden, the owner is not liable for damages because it was an unavoidable accident. (Note, that in Israel crops are often grown on the sides of hills. Falling into a garden is not, therefore, an unlikely circumstance.) In this case he will be liable to pay only for what the animal benefited. (See Bava Kamma 2:2 for a definition of this assessment). If, however, the flock entered the garden in a normal fashion, he is obligated to pay for actual damages, which will be a higher payment. Section three contains a dispute on how to assess payment for crop damages. According to the first opinion one estimates how much an area of the field that could grow a seah was worth before the flock ate the row of crops and how much it was worth after. The difference is the damage payment. Rabbi Shimon holds that we assess damages based on the crops actually eaten. His assessment will certainly be higher than the assessment based on the previous opinion." + ], + [ + "Three
If a man stacked his sheaves in his fellow’s field without his permission, and the owner of the field’s beast ate the sheaves, he is exempt. If [the beast] was injured by them, the owner of the stack is liable. If he made the stack with his permission, the owner of the field is liable. This mishnah contains laws that were all learned previously in chapter five mishnah three. We will just summarize. If someone brings his belongings onto another’s property without permission and his belongings are damaged there, the property owner is not liable. If the belongings damage the other person’s property he will be liable. However, the reverse will be true if he brings the belongings with the other person’s permission." + ], + [ + "If a person sends forth fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor he is not liable by the laws of man, but he is liable by the laws of Heaven. If he sent it forth in the hands of a person of sound senses, the one of sound senses is liable.
If one brought the fire, and then another brought the wood, he that brought the wood is liable. If one brought the wood and then another brought fire, he that brought the fire is liable. If another came and fanned the flames, the one who fanned the flame is liable. If the wind fanned the flame, they are all exempt.
If a man sent forth fire, and it consumed wood or stones or dust, he is liable, for it says: “When a fire breaks out and spreads to thorns so that the stacked corn is consumed, or the standing corn, or the field, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”
If it passed over a fence four cubits high, or over a public way, or over a river, he is exempt.
If a man kindled fire within his own domain, how far may it spread [and he will still be liable]? Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: “It is looked at as if it was in the middle of a kor’s space.” [ Rabbi Eliezer says: “Sixteen cubits [in every direction] like a public highway.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Fifty cubits.” Rabbi Shimon says: “[It is said] ‘He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution’, all is in accordance with the nature of the fire.”
The final three mishnayoth of chapter six deal with the fourth archetypal cause of damage, fire. The mishnah that we will learn today contains several details concerning a person who directly or indirectly causes damage by fire.
 Section one deals with the liability of a person who sent forth fire in another’s hand and that fire caused damage. According to the first clause if he sends it forth in the hands of a person who cannot properly take responsibility over the fire he is exempt in a human court but liable in heavenly court. This is the way the Mishnah will often state that an action is a wrong action but nevertheless not prosecutable. It is wrong because the person should know that it is likely that the fire will cause damage. It is not prosecutable because it was not he who directly allowed the fire to cause damage.
 Section two deals with a case where two or more factors contributed to the fire. According to the first two clauses whoever is the last person to contribute is liable for all of the damage, whether or not this person brought the fire or the wood. According to the third clause, if a third person came and fanned the flames, he is the one liable. However, according to the fourth clause if the wind fanned the flames, they are all exempt.
 Section three emphasizes that one is obligated not just for the damages done to the crops but for the damages done to the field as well. This is learned from the word “or the field” in the Biblical verse.
 Sections four and five set limits on the distance and obstacles a fire will overcome and the owner will still be liable for damages. According to section four if the fire goes over a fence or jumps over a river or a public thoroughfare, the owner is not liable for damages done on the other side of the fence or river or thoroughfare. Since this is an unexpected action for the fire, the kindler is exempt.
 In section five four sages argue about how far a fire may travel and the person who set the fire will still be obligated. The first three set absolute amounts while the fourth sage, Rabbi Shimon says that the distance depends on the nature of the fire. According to Rabbi Shimon if a person sets a large fire he will be responsible for damages caused at further distances." + ], + [ + "If a man set fire to a stack and in it there were utensils and these caught fire: Rabbi Judah says: “He must make restitution for what was therein.” But the Sages say: “He need only pay for a stack of wheat or barley.”
If a kid was fastened to it [to the stack] and a slave stood near by, and they were burnt with it, he is liable. If there was a slave fastened to it [to the stack] and a kid stood near by and they were burnt with it, he is not liable.
The Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if a man set fire to a large building, he must make restitution for everything therein; for such is the custom among men to leave [their goods] in their houses.
The final two mishnayoth of chapter six continue to deal with damages caused by fire. We learned in the previous mishnah that a person who sets a fire is liable not just for the destruction of crops but also for the damage done to the field itself. Mishnah five deals with damages done to various things that may be on a field. Mishnah six deals with fires that may have been set accidentally.
Section one of mishnah five contains a dispute between Rabbi Judah and the sages with regards to fire damage done to utensils that were placed inside a stack of wheat. According to Rabbi Judah one is liable for the damage done to the utensils as well as the wheat (or barley) itself. According to the Sages the kindler’s liability is limited to the wheat. For the damage done to the utensils he is exempt. Section three can help us understand the basis for this dispute. There we learn that the Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if one burns a building he is obligated also for the things left inside, because it is customary for people to leave things in buildings. In comparison, we can see that the Sages think it is not customary for people to leave things in stacks of hay. Therefore a person who burns a stack of hay is exempt if someone left in there an item that is not usually left in a stack of hay. Rabbi Judah probably assumes that it does not make a difference if people normally leave things in the place that was burnt. Since the person caused the damage he is liable in any case.
Section two deals with a case where a kid (small goat) and/or slave were found near or tied to the stack of hay and were burnt and killed in the fire. We will discuss the second clause first. Here the slave is tied to the stack of hay when he was burnt and killed. When the mishnah says that the person is not liable, the meaning is that he is not liable for monetary remuneration. The reason is that he will receive a more severe penalty for killing the slave. In Jewish law there is a principle that one cannot receive two punishments for one crime. In this case the person killed another person and caused damage to property at the same time. For killing, the person is obligated for the death penalty and therefore he cannot also receive a monetary fine. (For a different example see Bava Kamma 3:10). In the first clause the slave was only near the stack but not tied to it. Since the slave could have run away the kindler is not liable for the death penalty and therefore he will be liable for damages." + ], + [ + "If a spark flew out from under the hammer and caused damage, he is liable.
If a camel laden with flax passed by in the public domain and its load of flax entered into a shop and caught fire, the owner of the camel is liable. But if the shopkeeper left his light outside, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah says: “If it was a Hannukah light, he is he is not liable.”
The first section of mishnah six states that if a person, for instance a blacksmith, were to strike metal with a hammer and a spark were to fly out and burn another person’s property he would be liable.
The second section deals with a scenario that is more likely than it may at first sound. In the ancient world roads inside cities served as shopping areas, just as does the modern day “shuk” in middle eastern countries, including Israel. The roads were generally quite narrow and the fronts of the stores were open to the roads. A heavily laden camel walking down the road could easily fill the entire road. According to our mishnah if the camel’s load of flax were to enter into a shop, catch fire and spread the fire to another person’s property the camel owner would be liable. He should not have allowed his property to trespass into the other person’s shop. If, however, the camel owner placed the fire on the outside, he would be liable. The outside of the store is already semi-public property and he should not have put his candle out there. The one exception to this rule is the Hannukah candle, which is supposed to be placed outside of the home. According to Rabbi Judah, if the candle that caused the fire was in celebration of Hannukah, the storekeeper is exempt." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first six chapters of Bava Kamma dealt with damage laws, specifically damage a person’s property causes to another person or to another person’s property. The remaining four chapters of Bava Kamma deal with various types of damages done directly by a person: thievery, injury and robbery. Our mishnah and the rest of the chapter will deal with the laws of thievery. According to Jewish law a thief is one who steals at night or at least without the person from whom he is stealing knowing his identity. A robber on the other hand, steals in broad daylight without concealing his identity.\nThe laws of thievery are learned from Exodus 21:37-22:3. According to these verses if a man steals an ox and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five times the original value to the owner. If he steals a sheep and slaughters it or sells it he must pay back four times the original value to the owner. This is called fourfold or fivefold restitution. If, however, the sheep or ox is still found in the thief’s possession, he must only pay back double. This is called twofold restitution.\nOur mishnah deals with these two different types of restitution.", + "More encompassing in use is the rule of twofold restitution than the rule of fourfold or fivefold restitution; For the rule of twofold restitution applies both to what has life and what does not have life, while the rule of fourfold and fivefold restitution applies only to an ox or a sheep, for it is written, “If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it, or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep” (Ex. 21:37). Section one of our mishnah raises a key distinction between the laws of twofold and fourfold and fivefold restitution. Twofold restitution is applicable to anything that may have been stolen (See Exodus 22:8). No matter what a person steals, he may be obligated for twofold restitution. However, fourfold and fivefold restitution is applicable only to stolen sheep and cattle (oxen). For example, if a person stole and sold an ox, he will be obligated to pay back five times the ox’s value. However, if he stole and sold a television set, he will only be obligated to pay back double the value.", + "One who steals from a thief does not pay twofold restitution; And the one who slaughters or sells what is [already] stolen does not make fourfold or fivefold restitution. Section two deals with a thief who steals an already stolen object from another thief. Someone who steals from an original owner will pay back double the value. However, someone who steals a stolen object from a thief, will only pay back the value of the stolen object. The second clause of this section deals with the same case where someone stole a stolen object from a thief. If the original thief himself had sold the object or slaughtered it, he would have been obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. However, the one who stole the object from the thief is, again, not judged in the same manner as the original thief and he will not be obligated for such payments.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think one must make greater restitution for oxen and sheep than for inanimate objects?
• Why is a thief who steals from another thief not obligated for twofold, fourfold and fivefold restitution?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe two mishnayoth that we will learn today continue to deal with the subject of thievery. Mishnah two is mostly concerned with unusual circumstances in which a thief has stolen an animal and slaughtered it.\nMishnah three deals with false witnesses who have testified against a person that he stole and slaughtered an animal. According to Deuteronomy 19:19 a person who falsely testifies against another person receives the punishment that would have been meted out on the accused had the witness been telling the truth. Our mishnah will deal with the application of that law to the laws of thievery.", + "According to Jewish law testimony must consist of two witnesses who saw the entire crime. Our mishnah teaches us that it is acceptable to have two different sets of witnesses testify to the two different components of the crime. If one set saw him steal and one set saw him sell or slaughter, we assume that it is the same animal in both cases and he is obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution.", + "If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; if he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; if he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. Section two deals with cases where a person stole and sold or slaughtered and yet for various reasons we might have thought that he would not be obligated. The first three cases in this section are based on the principle that one cannot receive two punishments meted out by a court for the same crime (See Bava Kamma 3:10 and 6:5). In the first scenario, the person sold the animal on Shabbat. Selling on Shabbat is not forbidden according to Torah law; it is only forbidden by the Rabbis lest one come to write, which is forbidden according to Torah law. If, however, he had slaughtered the ox he would be obligated for the death penalty since slaughtering is forbidden on the Sabbath and carries with it (at least in principle) the death penalty (see mishnah four of this chapter). In the second scenario he sold the animal for idol worship. Again selling something for idol worship is not a crime which carries with it the death penalty and therefore he will be obligated for remuneration. In the third scenario the person slaughtered on Yom Kippur. Slaughtering on Yom Kippur is a crime for which one receives “careth”, cutting off, which is, according to Jewish tradition, a punishment meted out by God and not by a human court. Our principle that one can receive only one punishment per crime is limited to punishments meted out by human courts. Since, he will not receive any other punishment by a human court, he is liable for restitution. Clause 2a deals with a son who stole from his father and then, when his father died, inherited from him. He is now in essence a thief from his own inheritance. The rule is that he must pay back the restitution to the other inheritors. Clause 2b deals with a case where a person dedicated the stolen, slaughtered animal to the Temple. Such an action does not exempt him from making full payment of fourfold or fivefold restitution.", + "If he stole it and then killed it for use in healing, or for food for dogs; or if he slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered it in the Temple Court [intending to eat it] as common food, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. In these last two cases Rabbi Shimon exempts. Section three of this mishnah deals with several additional scenarios. The first is when a person slaughtered for medicinal purposes or for dog food. Although the slaughtering was not for his own food, it still makes him liable for fourfold and fivefold restitution. In section 3a the person slaughtered but the animal was discovered to be a terefah, an animal that was going to do in any case, and thererefore is not “kosher”. In this case the person will not be able to eat the animal. In clause 3b the thief slaughtered the animal inside the Temple as regular food. This is prohibited and will render the animal forbidden for any benefit. In both cases, according to the first opinion, even though the animal cannot be eaten, the slaughtering still causes the thief to be obligated for fourfold and fivefold restitution. Rabbi Shimon disagrees." + ], + [ + "If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and killed or sold it according to their evidence, and they are found to be false witnesses, they must pay the whole penalty. If he stole it according to the evidence of two witnesses, and killed it or sold it according to the evidence of two others, and both pairs are found to be false witnesses, the first pay twofold restitution and the last pay threefold restitution. If the second [only] were found to be false witnesses, the thief must make twofold restitution and they threefold restitution. If one of the second set of witnesses was found to be a false witness, the evidence of the other is void. If one of the first set of witnesses was found to be a false witness, the entire evidence is void, since if there is no evidence for stealing there is no evidence for slaughtering or selling. This entire mishnah deals with the result of false witnesses who have testified against a thief. As stated in the introduction above, false witnesses are punished by whatever punishment the thief would have received. In the first clause, one set of witnesses stated the whole testimony: that the alleged thief stole and slaughtered or sold. Since if they were telling the truth, by their testimony alone he would have been obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution, that is their punishment. In clause 1a two sets of witnesses testify to the two separate actions: stealing and selling/slaughtering. The first set is punished by the punishment that the alleged thief would have received from their testimony alone, twofold restitution. The second set is punished by the additional punishment the thief would have received from their testimony, a further twofold or threefold restitution. In clause 1b again two sets of witnesses testify to the two separate actions: stealing and selling/slaughtering. This time only the second set is found to be false. The thief therefore pays twofold, since valid witnesses testified to his thievery. The second set of witnesses still pay the threefold restitution. In the final two clauses again two sets of witnesses testify to the two separate actions: stealing and selling/slaughtering. If one of the two (or more) witnesses in the second set was found to be a false witness, the testimony of the first set, that the thief stole, is still valid and he will be obligated for twofold restitution. If, however, one of the two (or more) witnesses of the first set is found to be false the thief is not liable at all. Without testimony that he stole, there is no validity to the subsequent testimony of the second set that he sold or slaughtered." + ], + [ + "If he stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and slaughtered it or sold it according to the evidence of one witness or according to his own evidence, he makes twofold restitution, but not fourfold or fivefold restitution.
If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it, or if he stole it and then dedicated it, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. Rabbi Shimon says: “If they were Holy Things which must be replaced [if damaged or lost] he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution; but if they were Holy Things which need not be replaced, he is exempt.” 1. If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, 2. or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use 3. or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; 4. if he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; 5. if he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple 6. he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. 1. If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, 2. or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, 3. 4. or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it, 5. or if he stole it and then dedicated it, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, 6. he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. In the cases mentioned in mishnah two the person is liable for fourfold and fivefold restitution and in mishnah four he is not. Using the line by line comparison we should be able to see why the law is different in each individual case. In case 1, if the person slaughtered the ox or sheep on the Sabbath he is obligated for the death penalty. Since one can only receive one punishment per crime, he is not fined additionally for having slaughtered the animal. If, however, he had only sold the animal, he would not be obligated for the death penalty and therefore he would owe the fine. The same is true for case 3. Selling an animal for idolatrous use is not a crime for which one would receive the death penalty, and therefore he is obligated for the fine. On the other hand, slaughtering for idolatrous use is a capital crime and therefore he receives a death penaly and not a fine. We learn in case 4 that if he stole his father’s animal and did not slaughter or sell it until after he dies he is not obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. Since at the time of the slaughtering or selling part of the animal was his as an inheritance he is not obligated. (We will see a similar law in the next. If, however, he had sold or slaughtered the animal before the death of his father, he would be obligated. Similarly in case 5 if he sold and slaughtered the animal after having dedicated it, he is selling or slaughtering an animal that is no longer really belongs to him. He is therefore not obligated for the fine. If, however, he slaughtered or sold the animal and then dedicated it, he will be obligated for the fine. Rabbi Shimon makes a clarification on this last law. The “Holy Things” to which he refers are animals dedicated to the Temple. There are two types of such dedications. If the owner says that “this animal is dedicated”, then he must bring this animal. If the animal gets lost or dies the owner is not obligated to bring another animal in its place. In such a case, if a thief should steal and slaughter or sell the animal he is not obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. If, however, the owner dedicated the animal by saying “I dedicate an animal”, then he if the original animal is lost he must bring another. In such a case if the thief should slaughter or sell the animal he will be obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. (This last law is difficult and is explained in other ways as.
The two mishnayoth which we will learn today continue to teach various details in the laws of thievery and twofold, fourfold and fivefold restitution.
Section one of the mishnah deals with a case where two witnesses testify that he stole but his slaughtering or selling is verified only by one witness or by a self-confession. As we have learned, one witness is not sufficient testimony according to Jewish law. Furthermore, a person who admits to a crime which carries with it a fine, is not obligated to pay the fine. Therefore this thief will pay only twofold restitution.
Section two contains several laws that are opposite to the laws we learned in mishnah two. To compare them we will place them in parallel columns:" + ], + [ + "If he sold it all but a hundredth part, or if he had [already] a share in it, or if slaughtered it and it became unfit [to eat] by his own hand, or if he pierced the windpipe or rooted out its gullet, he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. Section one deals with several different scenarios in which a thief will not be obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. First of all, if he sells only part of the animal, and even if he sells is 99% of the animal, he is still exempt. Second, if he steals something that he already owns part of, for instance he steals from his partner, he is exempt. Third, if the slaughtering causes the animal to become unfit to eat, because it was not done properly, he is exempt. Piercing the animals windpipe or tearing out its gullet makes the animal not kosher and therefore the thief is only obligated for twofold restitution.", + "If he stole it in the owner’s domain, but slaughtered it or sold it outside the owner’s domain, or if he stole it outside the owner’s domain and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain; or if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it outside the owner’s domain, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. But if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain, he is exempt. Section two teaches that if both the stealing and the slaughtering or selling were done on the property of the owner, the thief has never acquired the animal in order to make him obligated. In order to become a thief a person must take possession of the object. If he did not do so, he is not considered a thief and he will not be obligated as such. We will learn more details about this law in tomorrow’s mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to define the moment from which a thief is considered to be a thief and will therefore become obligated for twofold restitution. Jewish law has an intricate system of acquisition or kinyan (see Steinsaltz reference guide for a brief discussion). In order for the thief to become obligated he must have acquired the object.\nMishnah seven does not deal with a subject integral to our chapter. It is somewhat puzzling why it is placed here. In any case it deals mostly with animals which are forbidden to raise in certain places and under certain conditions.", + "This mishnah notes two ways of acquiring an animal: by lifting or by dragging it (i.e. pulling it). The first type of acquisition is effective even if the animal is still on the property of its owner. Therefore according to 1a and 2a if a person should lift the animal he is considered a thief, and if the animal dies he will be obligated to make restitution. However, dragging the animal effects acquisition only once the animal is off the property of its original owner. Therefore, if the thief were to do so on the property of the owner and the animal were to die he would not be obligated to make restitution.", + "If he brought it as the firstborn offering for his son, or gave it to his creditor, or to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, and one of them was dragging it away and it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. If [one of them] had lifted it up or taken it outside the owner’s domain, he is liable. Section two emphasizes that even if the thief had given the animal to someone else as payment, either to a priest in order to redeem his first born (see Numbers 18:15-16), or to a creditor or he had given the animal to anyone else who takes possession of the animal, he is still not legally liable as a thief until someone either lifts the animal or takes it off the owner’s property.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• If a thief comes onto someone’s property and is caught while still on the property would the thief be liable for double restitution?" + ], + [ + "It is forbidden to rear small herd animals in the Land of Israel, but it is permitted to rear them in Syria or in the wildernesses of the Land of Israel. Section 1 raising small herd animals in the Land of Israel is forbidden because of the damage that they will do to the crops. Sheep and goats can eat a tremendous amount of crops and they are hard to control. Therefore, if a Jew should wish to raise them he must allow them to graze only in the wilderness or in Syria, which is not in the Land of Israel.", + "It is forbidden to rear fowls in Jerusalem because of the “Holy Things”, nor may priests rear them [anywhere] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws concerning] clean foods. Section 2 Wild fowl have a tendency to pick in the garbage. The mishnah is concerned that they will find dead animals in the garbage which are ritually impure and they will carry them to places which need to be kept in a state of ritual purity. Therefore one should not allow them in Jerusalem, which needs to stay in a higher state of ritual purity due to the Temple. Neither should priests, who need to eat much of their food while they are in a state of ritual purity, raise fowl due to the same concern.", + "It is forbidden to rear pigs anywhere. Section 3 It is forbidden for a Jew to raise pigs. Evidently this is due to the fact that pigs are not kosher and there is no other reason to raise them. In contrast, horses and camels are also not kosher to eat, but one usually raises them not for their meat but for riding purposes. Therefore Jews are allowed to raise them.", + "One should not rear a dog unless it is tied with a chain. Section 4 Dogs can be a menace to society and therefore if one wishes to raise one, he must keep it properly leashed.", + "It is forbidden to set snares for pigeons unless it be thirty ris from an inhabited place. Section 5 Pigeons were a commonly raised in Israel both for food and to offer as sacrifices in the Temple. Setting traps for pigeons could allow a person to steal those belonging to his neighbor. Therefore the mishnah states that one must set the trap thirty ris (about four miles) from the nearest settlement.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What are some rules in our society that may be similar to those in mishnah seven?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter eight of Bava Kamma deals with personal injury law. According to Jewish law when a person injures another person he is obligated for five different payments: 1) compensation for the injury itself; 2) compensation for the pain; 3) payment of medical costs; 4) loss of wages; 5) compensation for indignity caused by the injury. Our mishnah teaches how each of these types of compensation are calculated.", + "He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts: for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. Section one lists the five payments for personal injury, as we explained in the introduction. The remainder of the mishnah explains these payments.", + "‘For injury’: How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. Section two Injury is assessed by evaluating the previous and current worth of the person as a slave. The payment is the difference between the two.", + "‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. Section three Compensation for pain is assessed by evaluating how much a person would accept in exchange for having such an injury.", + "‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing]. If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. Section four The person who inflicted the injury is obligated to pay for whatever the costs of healing may be. If sores or other later complications occur, he will be liable as long as the later complications are a result of the original blow. Finally, the person who inflicted the injury will be liable until the wound completely heals.", + "‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. Section five loss of income is assessed by evaluating the wage of a person doing the lowest paying job possible, a cucumber patch guard. There is some overlap between this payment and the payment for injury. For instance if the person injured was a blacksmith who earned 100 dollars a month and the injury blinded him, thereby preventing him from continuing in his profession. The payment for the injury will compensate him for this loss. Therefore the payment for the loss of income is compensation only for the loss of ability to do any job, no matter how low paying.", + "‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity]. Section six payment for indignity is relative to the person who inflicts the indignity and to the person who incurs it. A person of lower social status will inflict greater indignity and will suffer less indignity. (In Mishnah six of this chapter we will see that Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this idea). For instance, if a poor peasant were to strike the queen, the indignity would be greater, according to the mishnah, than the queen striking a poor peasant. However, the mishnah teaches that indignity payments are applicable even if the person embarrassed is naked (meaning he has brought upon himself indignity) or sleeping (unaware of his indignity) or blind (unable to see his indignity). Finally we learn that a person is obligated to pay for the indignity only if the blow was purposeful. All of the other payments mentioned in the mishnah are obligatory even if the blow was accidental.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three states that “even if the injury is on the fingernail”. What is the meaning of this clause? Furthermore, this section states, “such a man”; what is the meaning and import of these words?
• What is the relationship of clause 6a to clause 6c?
• In our society is indignity suffered still relative to the social status of the two parties?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two compares payments for injuries caused by an ox with payments for injuries caused by a human. Mishnah three deals with several laws related to personal injury.", + "The law is more strict in the case of a man than in the case of an ox: for a man must pay for injury, pain, medical costs, loss of income and indignity, and make restitution for the value of the young; whereas the ox pays only for injury and is not liable for the value of the young. This mishnah lists the differences in liability for an ox that injures versus a human who injures. As we learned in the previous mishnah a human who injures another person must make five different payments. An ox, however, who injures a human being pays only for the injury itself. Furthermore, if a human should injure a woman and cause her to miscarry, he is obligated to pay for the value of the miscarried child/ren. An ox that injures is not liable for this payment. (For the assessment of such a payment see above 5:4)." + ], + [ + "If a man struck his father or his mother and inflicted no wound, or if he wounded his fellow on Yom Kippur, he is liable for all five counts. Section one teaches a few laws, for which we will find the opposite scenario in mishnah five. There we will learn, as we have learned in other places, that a person cannot receive two punishments for the same crime. Inflicting a wound on one’s father or mother is a capital crime (Exodus 21:15) as is inflicting a wound on the Sabbath. Therefore if he were to perform one of these acts he would be obligated for the death penalty and therefore exempt from a monetary fine. However, in our mishnah he did not commit a crime for which he could receive the death penalty, and therefore he is liable for the monetary fine. Striking one’s parents without causing a wound is not a crime for which one would receive the death penalty. Likewise, inflicting a wound on Yom Kippur, as all forbidden acts on Yom Kippur is punishable by “kareth” (cutting off) and not the death penalty.", + "If he wounded a Hebrew slave, he is liable on all five counts, except loss of income if it was his slave. If he wounded a Canaanite slave (non-Jewish he is liable on all five counts. Rabbi Judah says: “Slaves do not receive compensation for indignity.” Section two deals with injuring slaves. There are two kinds of slaves in Jewish law, a Jewish slave and a non-Jewish slave. If one injures a Jewish slave he is obligated for all of the payments unless he injured his own slave. His own slave performs work for him and therefore there would be no sense in paying the slave for loss of work. If one injures a non-Jewish slave he is obligated for all of the payments. Rabbi Judah disagrees. In his opinion slaves do not receive payment for indignity since they are already in a position of constant indignity.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think that when an ox injures a human its owner is only obligated to pay for the injury, whereas when a human injures another human, he must make five different types of payment?
• What do you think Rabbi Judah would say about indignity payments for Jewish slaves?" + ], + [ + "It is losing proposition to meet up with a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor: he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt.
It is a losing proposition to meet up with a slave or [married] woman; he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. However, they pay after some time; if the woman was divorced or the slave freed they are liable for restitution.
Mishnah four deals with two sets of exceptional categories to personal injury law: the first set includes deaf-mutes, idiots and minors; the second set includes married women and slaves. People who fit into these categories receive payment if someone else injures them and yet do not pay if they injure someone else.
Mishnah five teaches opposite scenarios from those we learned in mishnah three. The law mentioned here reiterates the principle that a person cannot be obligated for the death penalty and a financial penalty for the same crime.
According to our mishnah there are several categories of people who receive payment for injuries done to them but do not pay if they injure others. Section one lists people who according to Jewish law are not capable of taking responsibility for their actions. Therefore if they injure others they are not legally obligated. However, the mishnah points out that this is not a reciprocal law. If one injures them he is still obligated for remuneration. These people, while not halachically capable of being responsible for their own actions, are still human beings and deserve both the protection that the law affords through the right to compensation if injured. One who injures them is obligated, therefore, on all five counts mentioned in mishnah one.
The second category of people who receive payment for injuries done to them but do not pay if they injure others are slaves and women. Slaves and women cannot pay others because their money is linked to their master or to their husband. There is, however, significant difference in this matter between slaves and women. Non-Jewish slaves own no property; everything they acquire belongs to their master. They therefore have no money with which to make financial compensation. In contrast, married women can own property. However, a woman’s husband has a lien on her property and he also has the right to the benefits of the property. For instance if she owns a piece of land, she cannot sell it without her husband’s consent and he gets the benefit of what is grown on the land, as long as they are married. Therefore she doesn’t own any property that is totally available for which to make compensation if she should injure someone else. However, the mishnah teaches that once the slave is freed or the woman divorced or widowed, they now have the obligation to compensate the person they injured." + ], + [ + "If a man struck his father or mother and left a wound, or if he wounded his fellow on the Sabbath, he is not liable for any of the [five] counts because he is liable for his life.
If a man wounded his Canaanite (non- slave he is not liable on any of the five counts.
Striking one’s father or mother and causing a wound or wounding another person on the Sabbath are all capital crimes. Since the person is sentenced to death, he is not obligated for the death penalty. (For more on this clause see the explanation to Mishnah three).
A non-Jewish slave is considered the property of his owner and cannot own any money. Therefore one who injures his own non-Jewish slave does not make any payment, since he would pay the money to himself in any case.
Note that this is not a license to injure non-Jewish slaves. According to Exodus 21:26-27 if a man should strike his slave and cause him to lose his eye or tooth the slave must be set free. The Rabbis expanded this law to include losses of other body parts.
" + ], + [ + "If a man boxed the ear of his fellow, he must pay him a sela (four. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: “A maneh (one hundred.”
If he slapped him he must pay 200 zuz.
If with the back of his hand, he must pay him 400 zuz.
If he tore at his ear, plucked out his hair, spat at him and his spit touched him, or pulled his cloak from off him, or loosed a woman’s hair in the street, he must pay 400 zuz.
This is the general rule: all is in accordance with the person’s honor.
Rabbi Akiva said: “Even the poor in Israel are regarded as free people who have lost their possessions, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It once happened that a man unloosed a woman’s hair in the street and she came before Rabbi Akiva and he condemned him to pay her 400 zuz. He said, “Rabbi, give me time”. And he gave him time. He caught her standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug of one issar’s worth of oil in front of her. She unloosed her hair and scooped up the oil in her hand and laid her hand on her head. He had set up witnesses up against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him, “Rabbi, should I give one such as this 400 zuz?” He answered, “You have said nothing.”
If a man injures himself, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But others who injure him are liable.
If a man cuts down his own saplings, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But, if others cut them down, they are liable.
Most of mishnah six deals with injuries inflicted on another person that do not cause lasting damage but cause great embarrassment. The end of the mishnah deals with people who injure themselves or their own property.
Sections one through four contain a list of fines a person must pay for striking another person. These types of blows will probably not cause any damage and therefore the fines are for embarrassment only. Note that these are extremely large fines. They demonstrate that Jewish law takes publicly embarrassing another person very seriously and penalizes such a person with a stiff financial penalty. Indeed according to Jewish tradition one who publicly embarrasses another is akin to a murderer.
Section five tempers the fines imposed in sections one through four. According to section five, these fines are imposed only one those people who are of the highest honor and are therefore greatly embarrassed by being slapped etc. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this statement. According to Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest, if not the greatest Rabbi in the Mishnah, all of Israel is of equal honor, since all of Israel comes from the same roots. A person’s honor is not based on his current financial status, as the opinion in section five intimates. Rather it is based on his noble roots as a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The story in sections 6a through 6f illustrates this point. In this story a man disgraces a woman who, as we learn later in the story, is willing to disgrace herself over a tiny portion of oil. (An issar is probably less than an ounce of oil). Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva makes the man pay 400 zuz, as he would have to pay to a woman of the most honorable status. According to Rabbi Akiva, all Israelites are of equal honor, even those who are poor.
Section seven relates to the story told in section six. Here, and in the next section, we learn that a person is not allowed to injure himself, but there is nevertheless no penalty for doing so. However, if another person should inflict such an injury on him, he is liable, even if the injured person regularly should injure himself. In the example in the story, although the woman undid her own hair, and thus disgraced herself, no other person has the right to do this to her.
Section eight relates a similar law with regards to cutting down saplings. A person should not cut down his own saplings but if he should do so, he is not liable. However, if another should cut down his saplings, he is liable, even though this is something that the person himself has done before.
A final note on unloosing a woman’s hair. This phrase can alternatively be translated “to uncover a woman’s hair.” In Mishnaic times it was customary for men and women to cover their hair in public. It was considered a disgrace for anyone to go out with their hair uncovered." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of our mishnah teaches that a person is not forgiven for embarrassing another person merely by paying whatever fine was imposed upon him. He must ask for forgiveness. When he does the injured person should be gracious and forgive him fully and speedily.\nThe second half of the mishnah teaches several laws concerning a person who asks someone to injure him or injure his property.", + "As we explained in the introduction, section one states that a person is not forgiven for embarrassing another until he asks the injured party for forgiveness. The mishnah learns this from the story of Avimelech and Abraham in Genesis 20. According to the story, when Abraham came to Gerar he told the people there that Sarah was his sister. Avimelech, thinking that Sarah was available, took her, with the intent of having relations with her. In a dream God warned him not to touch Sarah. God told Avimelech to return Sarah to Abraham and to ask him to pray on Avimelech’s behalf so that he would not be punished for taking Sarah. From this story our Mishnah learns that merely rectifying the crime is not enough. Avimelech was not forgiven for his (almost crime) just by returning Sarah. He had to ask Abraham for forgiveness as well. We also learn from this story that the wronged person should forgive easily. Abraham did not delay in praying for Avimelech but immediately answered his request.", + "If a man said, “Blind my eye”, or “Cut off my hand”, or “Break my foot”, he [that does so] is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is still liable. [If he said] “Tear my garment”, or “Break my jug”, he that does so is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is exempt. [If he said], “Do so to so-and-so, on the condition that you will be exempt, he is liable, whether it was [an offense] against his person or his property. Section two deals with a person who asks someone else to injure him or his property. We learn several general principles from the mishnah. First of all, if a person asks another person to injure him or his property, without saying that the injurer will be exempt, the injurer is liable. Second, if he asks the other person to injure his body, even if he says that the injurer will be exempt, the injurer is liable. Third, if he asks the other person to injure a third party, again even if he says that the injurer will be exempt, the injurer is liable. Note the beautiful, carefully crafted structure of the last section of this mishnah. It is a classic example of mishnaic style.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the connection between the first and second halves of the mishnah?
• According to section two, if a person asks another person to injure his body and tells him that he will be exempt if he should do so, he is nonetheless liable. Why? What is the difference between bodily injuries and damages to property?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a man stole wood and made it into utensils, or wood and made it into garments, he makes restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft.
If he stole a pregnant cow and it gave birth, or a sheep ready to be sheared, and he then sheared it, he repays the value of a cow about to bear young, or a sheep ready to be sheared.
If he stole a cow, and while it was with him it was impregnated and bore young, or [if he stole a sheep] and while it was with him it grew wool and he sheared it, he makes restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft.
This is the general rule: all robbers make restitution according to [the value of the stolen object] at the moment of theft.
Chapters nine and ten of Bava Kamma deal with a person who steals openly, usually by force. In Hebrew this person is called a “gazlan”. In chapter seven we dealt with a “ganav” or thief who steals surreptitiously. The major halachic difference between the two is that the gazlan pays back only that which he took. Unlike the ganav, he is not liable for twofold, fourfold or fivefold restitution.
Our mishnah deals with a person who stole something and then the stolen object changed while in his possession. Since he cannot return the exact object he stole, as is the usual requirement, the mishnah must deal with his obligation.
In all of the cases in sections one through three the robber stole an item and changed it or it changed on its own while in his possession. The robber would prefer to return the item at its lesser value and the original owner would like the object at its higher value. For instance in the case mentioned in section one, if Reuven stole wood from Shimon and made the wood into a beautiful table, Shimon would clearly claim that the table is his property, made from his wood. Nevertheless, Reuven must only return the value of the raw wood, for that is what he stole.
Sections two and three state the same principle with regards to animals. In section two the thief would like to return just the cow or the sheep and keep the young or wool for himself. The original owner claims the cow and the young or the sheep and the wool. The rule is that the robber pays exactly what he stole, in this case a pregnant cow or a sheep laden with wool. In section three the stolen object actually improved while it was in the robber’s possession. The original owner would like to have both the cow and the young or the sheep and the wool returned to him. He might claim that it was his cow that gave birth or his sheep that gave wool. However, since at the time of the robbery the cow was not pregnant and the sheep was not ready to be sheared, the robber need only return the value of a non-pregnant cow and a sheared sheep." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah one we learned that a “gazlan”, robber, must return the stolen object at the value that it was worth at the time of the robbery. Whether the object increased or decreased in value since the robbery, the robber is obligated to make restitution according to the value at the time of the theft. Our mishnah introduces a few exceptions to this principle. There are some stolen items which can be returned as they currently are at the time of their being returned and not at their value at the time of theft.", + "If he stole a beast and it grew old, or slaves and they grew old, he makes restitution according to [their value at] the moment of the theft. Rabbi Meir says: “As for slaves the thief may say to the owner, ‘Here is what is yours before you.’” In section one the thief stole either animals or slaves and kept them for a while, thereby decreasing their value due to age. According to the first opinion he is obligated to return to the original owner the value of the slaves or animals at the time of the theft. Rabbi Meir disagrees with regards to slaves. According to Rabbi Meir the robber can return the slaves to the owner, disregarding their decrease in value. Stealing thieves is different from stealing animals or other objects. When a person steals most objects he actually takes possession of the object and he is now the “owner” of the object and obligated to return the value of the object to the original owner. However, with regards to slaves and land, taking them does not cause the robber to have legal “possession” over them. Therefore, in essence the slaves and land never left the possession of the original owner and the robber must return the actual slaves or land.", + "If he stole a coin and it cracked, fruit and it rotted, wine and it turned into vinegar, he must make restitution according to [the value] at the moment of the theft. But if he stole a coin and it went out of use, or “Heave offering” ( and it became ritually unclean, or leaven and the time of Passover arrived, or a beast and it was used for a transgression, or became unfit to be offered or it was condemned to be stoned, he may say to the other, “Here is what is yours before you.” In section two the mishnah teaches an important distinction in damage law between recognizable and unrecognizable damage. If a person should steal a coin and it cracks and is therefore no longer usable or food and it should go bad, he cannot just return the object itself. Even though the object still exists he must return the value at the time of the theft. In these cases the damage was recognizable. However, in section 2a, the stolen object was damaged and is no longer worth what it was previously, but the damage is not visible to the eye. Since the object still exists and there are no recognizable differences, the robber may return the object itself. We will explain each example. A coin that went out of use is no longer worth anything but it is still the same coin that existed previously and will not look different. Heave offering “terumah” is a part of one’s produce that must be given to the priest who must eat it while both he and the “terumah” are in a state of ritual purity. “Terumah” that has become impure must be burnt and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it. If someone should steal “terumah” and impurify it the “terumah” becomes worthless, even though it will still physically remain the same. Leaven or “hametz” that was owned by a Jew during Passover cannot be eaten after Passover and must be burned. If the thief kept the stolen “hametz” during Passover it will still physically look the same, but now, since it must be destroyed, is not worth anything. An animal that has had a transgression done with it, such as using it for idol worship, must be killed. Again, it will look the same but is now worthless. If the thief stole an animal that was intended to be a sacrifice and by injuring it he made it unfit to be a sacrifice it will still be in essence the same animal, but it can now no longer fulfill its original function. Finally, an animal that gored and killed a human being must be stoned to death. If this animal killed a human being while it was in the thief’s possession it is no longer worth anything, and yet it has not changed its appearance. In all of these cases the damage done to the stolen object was invisible. Therefore according to the mishnah the person can return the original object, even though it is actually currently worth nothing.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would happen if the animals increased in value while in the possession of the robber? What would happen if the slaves increased in value while in his possession?" + ], + [ + "If he gave [something] to craftsmen to repair, and they ruined it, they must make restitution.
If he gave a carpenter a box, chest or cupboard to repair, and he ruined it, he must make restitution.
If a builder undertook to pull down a wall, and he broke the stones or caused damage, he must make restitution. If he was pulling down at the one end and it fell down on the other, he is exempt; However, if it fell due to the blow, he is liable.
The two mishnayoth which we will learn today deal with craftsmen who receive objects on which to work and somehow ruin the object during the course of their work. In the previous mishnah we discussed the obligation of a robber to return the object to the original owner at its value at the time of theft. The editor of the Mishnah found these laws to be loosely associated with the obligation that a craftsmen has to return an object on which he was working to the original owner. The similarity between the two situations is that both a robber and a craftsmen who was contracted to work on an object belonging to another person must return objects to their original owner. The major difference is of course that the craftsmen received the object at the behest of the owner, unlike the robber who stole the object. In any case, this is a good example of how the Mishnah will associate different subjects and occasionally teach their laws in juxtaposition.
Sections one and two teach that workmen/craftsmen whom receive an object on which to work, are obligated to make restitution for the object, should they ruin it. This may sound a bit obvious, but it is not necessarily so. Indeed many of us have probably had arguments over just this topic with modern day repairmen. The mishnah squarely places responsibility for the object in the hands of the craftsmen.
Section three is slightly more complex. In this scenario a builder was hired to take down a wall. In the times of the mishnah building material was scarce, especially in the Land of Israel (it is still scarce here). When the owner hired the builder to take down the wall the intention was not to ruin the stones but rather to use them to build something else. If the builder took them down and ruined the stones, he has not fulfilled his job as is expected of him, and therefore will be liable for the damage. Similarly if he should cause damage during the process, he is personally liable. If, however, the wall should fall at the opposite end of his work, the assumption is that it fell due to other circumstances, and he will not be held liable. Finally, the mishnah lets us know, that if it fell at the opposite end, but it nevertheless fell due to his breaking down the wall, he is liable." + ], + [ + "If a man gave wool to a dyer and the cauldron burned it, he must repay him the value of the wool.
If he dyed it badly: if the improvement was worth more than the cost of the dying, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dying was worth more than the improvement, he must pay only [the value of the] improvement.
If he told him to dye it red and he dyed it black; black and he dyed it red: Rabbi Meir says: “[The dyer] must pay the cost of the wool.” Rabbi Judah says: “If the improvement was worth more than the cost of the dying, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dying was worth more than the improvement, he must pay only [the value of the] improvement.
In section one, a person gave wool to a dyer to dye. If, while in the process of dying the wool, he should burn the wool, he is certainly obligated to return the value of the wool. This halacha is completely consistent with those mentioned in the previous mishnah.
Sections two and three are more complicated. In these two sections the dyer did not render the wool unusable but rather either dyed it badly (section two) or dyed it the wrong color (section three). If he dyed it badly the original owner will still have to pay for the dying, but only the lesser of two amounts: the cost of the dying or the rise in the value of the wool. Let us say that the wool was originally worth 10 dollars. If it cost 2 dollars to dye the wool badly, and after the dying it was worth 13 dollars, the owner owes the dyer 2 dollars, the lesser of the two amounts. If it cost 2 dollars to dye and now it is worth 11 dollars, the owner owes the dyer 1 dollar, again, the lesser of the two amounts. Note, in a normal circumstance they would have agreed on an amount prior to the dying, an amount certainly higher than the cost of the dying. Since the dyer did not properly perform his duty he does not receive the full expected payment.
If the owner dyed the wool in a proper fashion, but dyed it the wrong color, Rabbi Judah says that the law is the same as in section two. The owner must pay the dyer the lower of the two amounts: the cost of the dying or the increased value of the wool. However, according to Rabbi Meir he must pay back the original value of the wool, 10 dollars in our example above." + ], + [ + "If a man robbed his fellow of the value of a perutah and swore [falsely] to him, he must take it to him even as far as Medea.
He may not give it to his son or to his agent, but he may give it to the agent of the court.
If his fellow had died he must return it to his heirs.
Leviticus 5:20-26 discusses a person who steals from another person (or unlawfully takes his property in another fashion) and afterward swears that he did not do so. In order to atone for his sin he must do three things: 1) Restore that which he stole; 2) He must pay back an additional fifth of the value of the stolen object; 3) He must bring a sacrifice (asham) to the Tabernacle/Temple. The first two obligations are in order to restore the property and pay a fine. The third obligation is in essence to atone for his false oath.
The remaining mishnayoth of our chapter will deal with these obligations, specifically the obligation to return the lost object and to add on a fifth. Note that what the mishnah calls a fifth is what we would call a quarter of the value. For instance if the stolen object was worth 100, the robber must add on another 25, thereby paying back 125. Since 25 is one fifth of 125 the Rabbis called it a fifth. It is also important to note that our mishnayoth will discuss a perutah. This is the smallest coin known to the Rabbis and was certainly not worth anything substantial in their time.
Our mishnah teaches the stringency of the law of swearing falsely on a stolen object. In order for the robber to make atonement for his crime of stealing and swearing falsely, he must bring the object to the original owner even as far as Medea (modern Iran). He cannot give it to a representative of the original owner. Rather he must confront him face to face. Alternatively he may use a representative of the court to return the object to the original owner. Finally, the mishnah tells us that it is obligatory to return it even to the heirs.
The single leniency of the mishnah is that this law does not hold true if he stole less than a perutah. Less than a perutah is not considered to have any value and therefore we cannot legally say that this person has stolen." + ], + [ + "1. If he had repaid the value but had not paid the [added] fifth, or if he had forgiven him the value but not the [added] fifth, or if had forgiven him both except for less than a perutah’s worth of the value, he need not go after him. 2. If he had repaid him the [added] fifth but not the value, or if he had forgiven him the [added] fifth but not the value, or if he had forgiven both except for a perutah’s worth of the value, he must go after him. Our mishnah is taught in a classic style where all of the examples in section one are opposite of those in section two. This can easily be demonstrated by a chart: Section One Section Two a) If he had repaid the value but had not paid the [added] fifth, b) or if he had forgiven him the value but not the [added] fifth, c) or if had forgiven him both except for less than a perutah’s worth of the value, d) he need not go after him. a) If he had repaid him the [added] fifth but not the value, b) or if he had forgiven him the [added] fifth but not the value, c) or if he had forgiven both except for a perutah’s worth of the value, d) he must go after him. Seen in this manner we can easily learn the abstract principle taught by the mishnah’s mentioning of concrete cases. If a person has returned to another person the value of the stolen object but not the added fifth, he need not chase after the person in order to restore the object, as we learned in mishnah four. However, if he paid the fifth and not the value of the object itself, he must still chase after him. The same is true if the person who had the object stolen from him forgave him the value but not the fifth, or vice versa. Finally, in section c we learn that if he (the person from whom the object was stolen) forgave most of the value but didn’t forgive a perutah’s or more worth, than he (the robber) still must chase after him. However, if he remains obligated less than a perutah, he need not chase after him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with a subject that we began discussing in mishnah five: the obligation placed upon the robber to return the value plus one/fifth to the original owner if he swore falsely to him.", + "If he had paid him the value and had sworn [falsely] to him concerning the [added] fifth, he must pay a fifth on the fifth [and so on] until the value [of the added fifth] becomes less than a perutah’s worth. Section one deals with a case where a robber returned the value of the original object to the owner but swore to him that he had already returned the added fifth. If the robber had sworn falsely, the previous fifth now turns into the new contested amount (the value) and in order to atone he must bring another fifth of that value. This process could continue, if he were to continue swearing falsely on having returned the fifth, until the “value” is worth less than a perutah. As we learned in mishnah five, less than a perutah is not considered to be worth anything, and therefore one does not swear on it.", + "So too with a deposit, as it says: “In a matter of deposit or a pledge or through robbery, or by defrauding his fellow, or by finding something lost and lying about it” (Leviticus 5:21-2, such a one must pay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering. Section two brings the related Biblical verse to our halacha in order to emphasize that this process of returning the value, plus the added fifth and bringing a sacrifice is true not just of robbers but of other categories as well. The category immediately dealt with by our mishnah is a person who received an object from another person to hold and watch, for instance a jug of olive oil. When the original owner claimed back his jug of olive oil, the guardian denied receiving it. If the guardian swore falsely and then wished to atone for his transgression, he must return the jug of olive oil, plus an added fifth and bring a sacrifice.", + "[If a man said], “Where is my deposit?” and the other said, “It is lost,” [if the one says,] “I adjure thee”, and the other says, “Amen!”, and witnesses testify against him that he consumed it, he need pay [only] the value. But if he confessed it of himself, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering. Section three begins discussing the details of this law. In the situation described the guardian claimed that the deposit was lost. The original owner had asked the guardian to take an oath that this was true, to which he had. At this point the guardian is evidently not obligated for anything. If witnesses were to later come and testify that the guardian had indeed consumed the deposit, he is only obligated to return the original value. If, however, the guardian were to admit to the crime on his own, he must return the original value, the added fifth and bring the sacrifice. This distinction emphasized by our mishnah is based on an understanding of Numbers 5:6-7. There we learn that if a person commits a wrong against another person and then realizes his guilt, then he shall confess the wrong, pay back the value plus an added fifth and bring a sacrifice. The Rabbis understood that he was obligated for this only if he confessed on his own. If witnesses testified against him, he is not obligated for the fifth or the sacrifice.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the necessity in teaching the halacha in section one?
• Does it make sense that a person who admits to his own crime will be more obligated than a person against whom witnesses testify?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight is a continuation of the second part of mishnah seven. There we learned that if a guardian swore that the deposit which his friend had given him was lost and then witnesses testified that the guardian actually consumed the deposit, he must restore only the value of the deposit to the original owner. If, however, he admitted to his crime on his own, without witnesses testifying against him, he is obligated to restore the original value of the deposit plus an added fifth and to bring a sacrifice. Our mishnah deals with a similar circumstance involving a guardian who steals the deposit (as opposed to consuming it).\nMishnah nine deals with a person who stole from his father, whose money would have eventually become at least partly his through inheritance.", + "[If a man said], “Where is my deposit?” and the other said, “It is stolen,” [if the one says,] “I adjure thee”, and the other says, “Amen!”, and witnesses testify against him that he stole it, he must make twofold restitution. But if he confessed it of himself, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth and bring a Guilt-offering. In the scenario presented in this mishnah a person received a deposit from another person. When the owner came back to claim his deposit, the guardian claimed that it was stolen, and when asked, he swore to his words. If witnesses were to come and testify that the guardian had actually stolen the object, he will be obligated for twofold restitution, as are all thieves. However, if he confessed of the crime himself, he is not judged as a thief but as a robber who swore falsely and therefore must pay back the principle plus a fifth and bring a sacrifice. This distinction is again based on the Biblical passage of which we learned in mishnah seven. For further clarification see our explanation there.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the law in mishnah eight and the law in mishnah seven? Why?" + ], + [ + "If a man stole from his father and swore [falsely] to him, and the father died, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth to the father’s sons or brothers.
If he will not repay or if has does not have [with which to repay] he must borrow and the creditors come and are repaid.
When a man steals from his own father he is actually stealing from his brothers or from his father’s brothers who are the chief inheritors. (The primary inheritors according to halacha are sons, and next in line are the father’s brothers. If the man were to die with no sons, the brothers inherit.) In this case the robber clearly owes part or even most of the theft to the other inheritors. For instance if he stole 100 and there is one other son, he clearly owes 50 to the other son (his brother). If there were three other sons he would clearly owe each 25. However, our mishnah states more. He must pay not only the other son’s share of the inheritance, but he must pay his share, as well as an added fifth. If there was only one other son he would pay all 100 to him. The key to understanding this is that in order for him to atone for his robbery he must physically remove the stolen property from his possession. If he were to keep his portion, he would be left with some stolen property. He therefore must physically give over the entire theft to the other inheritors.
The mishnah however allows, under certain circumstances, for the robbing son to retain his portion of the inheritance. The robbing son may borrow from another person the value of the object he stole from his father. He then takes the stolen object and returns it to the other inheritors, thereby removing the stolen object from his property. When the creditors come to collect they collect an equal portion from each inheritor. In this way the robber can retain his share of the inheritance and still return the object." + ], + [ + "If a man said to his son, “Qonam, you will not derive any benefit from that which is mine”, and he died, the son may inherit him.
[But if he moreover said], “Both during my life and at my death”, when he dies the son may not inherit from him and he must restore [what he received from his father’s inheritance] to the [father’s] sons or brothers.
If he has nothing, he takes out a loan, and the creditors come and exact payment.
Mishnah ten deals with a scenario similar to the one dealt with in mishnah nine. Mishnah nine was concerned with the laws of inheritance in a case where a son stole from his father and the father subsequently died. The mishnah created a way in which the robbing son could still retain his inheritance. Our mishnah deals with the inheritance of a son whose father took an oath that the son could not benefit from his property.
Mishnah eleven deals with a robber who steals from a convert who subsequently dies. A convert’s non-Jewish relatives do not inherit his money (at least according to Torah law) and therefore a convert who dies before he has children has no legal inheritors. Our mishnah deals with this case, and in extension any case in which the original owner of the property died before the property was returned to him, and did not leave inheritors.
The word “Qonam” is a nickname that people used in Mishnaic times for the word “Qorban” which means “sacrifice”. If a person wanted to make an oath forbidding his things on someone else or someone else’s things on himself, he would say that the things he wishes to forbid should be like a sacrifice. Sacrifices were generally forbidden for public consumption. The person taking the oath is in essence saying that the item mentioned should be forbidden like a sacrifice. In the case mentioned in our mishnah the father says that his property should be “qonam” or forbidden to one of his sons. Section one of the mishnah tells us that this will be true only during the father’s life. In this case the oath does not have effect after death and the son may receive his proper share of the inheritance.
In the scenario in section two the father swears that his property should be forbidden to his son both during his life and after his death. In this case the son cannot take part in the inheritance and he must return anything which he has taken from the inheritance to the other inheritors (generally the father’s sons or brothers).
According to section three there is a way for the son to get around this problem. If the son is poor and dependent on his share of the inheritance he may borrow the sum of his inheritance and then the creditors can collect from the other inheritors. In this way he receives the amount due to him as part of his inheritance without benefiting directly from his father’s estate." + ], + [ + "As stated in the introduction, a convert does not have inheritors from his previous family. Therefore, if he should die without having children, he will have no inheritors. If a person should steal from a convert and then falsely swear that he did not steal, the robber will be obligated to restore the value to the convert, plus an added fifth and to bring a Guilt-offering, just as a robber is obligated to do if he were to steal from a non-convert. If, however, the convert should die before the money is returned the sacrifice is brought, there is a problem. To whom should he return the money? Since there are no inheritors, the robber cannot simply return the money to them. The answer to this question is found by our mishnah in Numbers 5:8, which states the money should go the priests. The Guilt-offering, as usual, must still be brought as an offering at the Temple.", + "If he brought the money and the Guilt-offering and then died, the money shall be given to his sons, and the Guilt-offering shall be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, when it shall be sold, and its value falls to the Temple treasury. Section two brings up an added wrinkle to our case. In the new scenario, after the convert died, the robber died as well, before he had been able to deliver the money to the priests nor the sacrifice to the Temple. In this case the money that would have gone to the priests goes to the children of the robber. Since there are no inheritors of the convert, there is no one who “loses out” by not receiving the restored money and therefore the children of the robber can keep the money as part of their general inheritance. The sacrifice cannot be offered on the altar since sacrificial animals whose owners have died may never be offered on the altar. The animal will go out to pasture until it receives a blemish, thereby disqualifying it from being fit to sacrifice. The animal can then be sold (and subsequently used) and the money will go to the Temple. This is a common procedure that was done to animals that could not be offered as sacrifices on the altar.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• According to mishnah eleven, section two, if the robber and the convert should die before the money was restored, the money can go to the robber’s inheritors? Why shouldn’t the priests receive the money, as they would in the previously mentioned case?" + ], + [ + "If he [who had stolen from the convert] gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot recover it from their [the priests] hands, as it says, “Whatsoever a man gives to a priest shall be his” (Numbers 5:10).
If he gave the money to Yehoyariv, and the Guilt-offering to Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the Guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah: if the Guilt-offering still remains, the sons of Yedayah shall offer it; otherwise, he must bring another Guilt-offering. For if a man brought what he had stolen before he offered his Guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his Guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not yet fulfilled his obligation.
If he gave the value but not the [added] fifth, the [added] fifth does not prevent [him from offering the Guilt-offering].
Mishnah eleven dealt with a person who steals from a convert who has no inheritors, swears falsely to the convert, saying that he did not steal, and then decides to repent. He is obligated, as is always the case, to restore plus a fifth to the convert and bring a Guilt-offering to the Temple. If the convert should die (without inheritors), the robber must restore the money to the priests in the Temple. Our mishnah continues to deal with this situation and various possibilities that may arise.
In the scenario established in section one the robber had brought the money to the priests, as was his obligation in a case where he robbed a convert who died with no inheritors. After giving the money to the priests the robber died. In mishnah eleven we learned that if the robber had died before giving the money to the priests, the inheritors could take the stolen money. Our mishnah states that once the priests have taken the money into their possession the inheritors have lost their claim.
Section two deals with the process of giving the money to the priests and sacrificing the Guilt-offering, the two steps required for atonement. This section requires some background information. The priests were divided into 24 watches, each watch responsible for a week’s duty in the Temple. During that week anything brought to the Temple that would be given to the priests would be claimed by the men on that watch. Each watch had a name. Yehoyariv was the first watch and Yedayah was the second watch (see I Chronicles 24:7). The general rule, established in our mishnah, section 2b-c, is that the stolen property must be restored before the Guilt-offering is sacrificed. If the stolen property were to be restored after the Guilt-offering is sacrificed the robber must bring another sacrifice, for the Guilt-offering will not effect atonement. If, therefore, he were to give the money to Yehoyariv, the first watch, and the sacrifice to Yedayah, the second watch, he would fulfill his obligation. If, on the other hand, he had given the sacrifice to Yehoyariv and they had sacrificed the animal, and then he had brought the money to Yedayah, in order to atone for his transgression he would have to bring another offering. If Yehoyariv had not sacrificed the animal, they could give it to Yedayah, who would subsequently sacrifice it, and the robber’s transgression would be atoned.
The final section of the mishnah teaches that restoring the actual value is the only necessary condition to bringing the sacrifice and causing atonement. If one had restored the value but not the added fifth, his sacrifice would nevertheless effect atonement. He is still obligated to bring the fifth, but its delay does not prevent atonement. If, however, he brought the fifth but not the value, the sacrifice will be ineffective." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins by further discussing the laws of robbery, a topic which was covered throughout the previous chapter. Section two of the mishnah begins to discuss tax-collectors. Since tax-collectors were suspected of stealing money, one had to be careful about accepting money from one, lest the money be stolen.", + "If a man were to steal an object and then leave it for his children as an inheritance or feed it to them, the children do not have an obligation to make restitution, since they were not the robbers. Rather they are only inheritors whose father died with a debt. According to the halacha whenever a father dies with outstanding debts, the children do not have to pay the debts with “movable property” (anything besides land) from their father’s estate. If, however, he were to have stolen real estate, the children must make restitution, since inheritors must pay their father’s debts with any real estate left in the inheritance. Furthermore, according to the Talmud, if the father had stolen something and the thing still existed the children do have an obligation to return the actual item. We should note that in Talmudic times only real estate was considered to be property upon which one could rely on its sustaining value. Also, when a person loaned another person money, he would only rely on real estate as collateral for the loan. Their economy was based on property; “things”, as well as money, were seen to be risky possessions, whose values could radically fluctuate and they were not worthy as collateral. However, in later times, when Jews ceased to be landowners, and worked usually as merchants and bankers, the halacha changed to adopt to the new reality. By the Middle Ages (the time of the Gaonim, 8th-11th centuries) it was decided that the same laws that applied to real estate should apply to “movable property”.", + "One may not make change from the chest of an excise collector or from the wallet of tax collectors, or take any charity from them. But it may be taken from them at their own house or in the market. Section two deals with accepting money from different types of tax collectors. One was not allowed to change money from the various types of boxes used to collect the taxes, and one was even not allowed to accept charity from these boxes. The fear is that the tax collector has taken more than mandated by the authorities and therefore accepting money from him would be considered accepting stolen property. Section 2a limits this prohibition to taking money from the boxes of the tax collectors. One need not fear that the money in the house of the tax collector or money that the tax collector uses at the market is stolen.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is our mishnah’s attitude towards taxes and tax collectors?" + ], + [ + "If excise collectors took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or if bandits robbed a man of his coat and gave him another coat, they are his own, since the original owners gave up hope of recovering them.
If a man saved something from a flood or from marauding troops or from bandits: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the item], it belongs to him.
So too with a swarm of bees: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the swarm], it belongs to him.
Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka said: “A woman or child may be believed if they say, ‘The swarm of bees went away from here.’”
A man may go into his fellow’s field to save his swarm and if he causes damage he must pay for the damage that he has caused; but he may not cut off a branch of the tree [to save his swarm] even on condition that he pay its value. Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka, says: “He may even cut off [the branch] and repay the value.”
Mishnah one discussed the prohibition of taking money from a tax-collector, lest the money was stolen money. Our mishnah deals with cases in which a person is allowed to retain ownership over items that come into his hand even though they may be stolen property or property which may belongs to others.
Sections one through three all give different examples that illustrate the same general principle. If a person receives property that belongs to someone else in a legal fashion and the original owner gave up hope of ever recovering the property, he may retain ownership. The idea is that by giving up hope of ever recovering the object the original owner actually renounces his ownership, thereby allowing the new owner to claim title. In the first example the person was given a donkey by a tax collector or a coat by bandits. Although the item surely belonged to someone else, we can safely assume that the person gave up hope of ever recovering the donkey or coat. Therefore the new owner can claim title to the item.
Section two teaches a more general example of a person who rescues an item from a river, from marauding troops or from bandits. Again, we can safely assume that the original owner gave up hope of ever recovering the object and therefore the finder can claim title. The same is true for the runaway swarm of bees mentioned in section three. One can assume that when a person’s swarm of bees runs away, he will give up hope of recovering it. It will therefore belong to anyone who finds it. We will deal more extensively with establishing ownership over lost items in the beginning of the next tractate, Bava Metzia.
Sections four and five are connected to section three by the issue of finding a swarm of bees. Generally speaking women and children are not qualified to testify. According to Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka they are however qualified to say that a swarm of bees originated from so-and-so’s property. In this case if a person found the swarm he would have to return it to the owner specified by the woman or child.
Section five grants permission to a person to trespass another’s property in order to chase after his swarm. According to the anonymous opinion in section 5 one may enter another’s property but he may not break off a branch in order to lead back the swarm. Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka, whose opinion is found in section 5a, allows a person to even break off a branch to save his bees. Later he will make restitution for the broken branch." + ], + [ + "If a man recognized his utensils or books in another’s hands and a report of theft had gone out in the town, the purchaser swears how much he paid and takes this price [from the owner and restores the goods].
But if [such a report had] not [gone out], he [the original owner] does not have the power, for I might say that he had first sold them to another and this one bought it from him.
Mishnah three deals with the problem of stolen property being sold and acquired in the marketplace and the rights of the original owner to have his property returned to him.
Mishnah four deals with the case where a person saves his fellow’s property, even though by doing so he causes a loss to his own property. The mishnah is concerned with the obligation to compensate the rescuer for his loss of property.
In the case mentioned in this mishnah, Reuven sees that Shimon has something that belonged to him (Reuven) originally. Shimon claims that he bought the item in the marketplace from another person. If it was known in the city that these objects had been stolen from Reuven, for instance if he had complained about them before he saw them in Shimon’s possession, then Shimon must swear how much he had paid for the items and Reuven will pay Shimon and take back his possessions. In other words, even if Shimon does not wish to sell the items, since it is known that they were originally Reuven’s, Shimon must sell them. However, Reuven will in any case be obligated to pay Shimon whatever Shimon had paid for the object.
If, however, there is no report of that the item was stolen from Reuven, we do not allow him to force Shimon to sell him the items. This is true even if it is known that the items once belonged to Reuven, for instance it was a piece of clothing that everyone had seen him wear. Since Reuven cannot prove that he did not sell the items to someone else, and that Shimon then bought them from this person, he cannot force Shimon to sell them back." + ], + [ + "If one came with his jar of wine and the other came with his jug of honey and the jug of honey cracked, and the other poured out his wine and saved the honey [by receiving it] into his jar, he can claim no more than his wages. But if he had said, “I will save what is yours and you will pay me the value of mine,” [the owner of the honey] is liable to pay him back.
If a flood swept away a man’s donkey and his fellow’s donkey, and his own was worth 100 [zuz] and his fellow’s was worth 200 [zuz], and he left his own and saved that of his fellow, he can claim no more than his wages. But if he had said, “I will save what is yours and you will pay me the value of mine,” he is liable to pay him back.
Both sections of our mishnah deal with what is essentially the same scenario. A person who has something of lesser value helps rescue the greater-valued property of another person, thereby losing his own property. The person who helped wants to receive full payment for what he had lost. For instance in section two, the owner of the donkey worth 100, who lost his donkey, wants the owner of the donkey worth 200, whom he had saved, to pay him 100. He might say to him that if he had not helped, he would have lost his donkey, and therefore he saved him 200 and all he wants back is the 100 which he lost. The same is true in the case of the wine and honey: the owner of the wine who rescued the honey wishes to recover the value of his lost wine . Honey is a more expensive item than wine (think about how much harder it is to produce). The wine owner, realizing that his wine was of lesser value, dumped out his wine in order to rescue the other person’s honey. All he asks in return is that the person repay him for the loss of the wine. In both cases the mishnah says that if the rescuer saved the other person’s property without being asked he only receives a minimum wage for his work. If, however, he told the other person before he rescued his property, that he was doing so on the condition that he be fully compensated for his own loss of property, then he does receive full compensation for his loss." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe two mishnayoth which we will learn today continue to deal with a person’s obligations to return his fellow’s property. Mishnah five deals with a robber who stole a piece of land and then someone else came and took the land from the robber. Mishnah six states that when a person returns something to his friend he must not return it to him in the wilderness, but rather should return it to him in an inhabited area.", + "If a man stole a field from his fellow and tyrants came and took it from him, if the whole district suffered, he may say to him, “Here, what is yours is in front of you.” But if it was on account of the robber [that the tyrants took the field], he must provide him with another field. If a flood swept away [the field], he may say to him, “Here, what is yours is in front of you.” In the scenario of our mishnah Reuven stole a field from Shimon and after he sold the field tyrants, probably Romans, came and took the field from him. The mishnah provides two possibilities for adjudicating the case. If the field was taken as part of a general conscription of land in the entire district, then Reuven can say to Shimon that he is giving him back his field, and Shimon can go and claim it from the Romans. Even though Shimon will probably not be able to reclaim his field from the Romans, Reuven is not to blame nor is he obligated to give Shimon a different field. The field would have been taken by the Romans even if Shimon had had possession of it. On the other hand, if the Roman’s had taken the field on account of its being in Reuven’s possession, for instance if Reuven owed them a debt or they had some other problem with Reuven, Reuven must return a different field to Shimon. In this case it is Reuven’s fault that the field was taken. If it had been in Shimon’s possession the Romans would not have taken it. Finally our mishnah teaches that if a river came and washed over the field while it was in Reuven’s possession, thereby making it part of the river and not fit for growing crops, Reuven does not need to give Shimon another field. Since the river would have washed out the field no matter whose possession it was in, Reuven can say to Shimon, “Come take your field.”", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would be the law, according to mishnah five, if the Romans came and took the field from Reuven the robber, but we didn’t know why they took the field? In other words, they did not take from other people in the district, nor did Reuven owe them money?" + ], + [ + "If a man stole something from his friend in an inhabited region or borrowed it or received it as a deposit, he may not return it to him in the wilderness. But if he [had borrowed it or received it] with the understanding that he was going out to the wilderness, he may return it to him in the wilderness. Our mishnah teaches that if a person receives something from another person in an inhabited region, whether he stole it, borrowed it or received it as a deposit, he may not return it to him in the wilderness, by definition an uninhabited region. Receiving something in the wilderness is probably undesirable for the owner, since he will have to shlepp the object all the way home. Furthermore, there is a greater danger of bandits and wild animals in the wilderness, and therefore a person would prefer to have his object returned in an inhabited, protected area. However, if it was known that the person receiving the loan or borrowing the object was going out to the wilderness, than he has a right to return it to the owner in the wilderness." + ], + [ + "If a man said to his fellow, “I robbed you”, [or], “You lent me [something]”, [or] “You deposited [something] with me, but I do not know whether I returned it or not” he is obligated to repay.
But if he said, “I do not know whether I robbed you, [or], “whether you lent me [something]”, or “whether you deposited [something] with me”, he is exempt from repaying.
Mishnah Seven deals with a person who either stole, borrowed or received a deposit from another person and does not know whether he has paid him back.
Mishnah Eight deals with a person who stole from another and returned the object without telling the original owner that it was returned.
In section one of our mishnah the speaker is certain that he at one point had something that belonged to his fellow, either by stealing, borrowing or receiving the object as a deposit, but he is uncertain whether he returned the object. Since the last verifiable status of the object is with the robber, borrower or one who received a deposit, and it is doubtful whether he returned it, he is obligated to repay the value of the object to the original owner. In section two, the speaker is uncertain whether he ever had possession of the object. In this case the last verifiable status of the object is with the original owner. Therefore, the speaker does not have to repay. In other words, in both cases we assume that the object is still where it was last verifiably ascertained to be and we adjudicate accordingly." + ], + [ + "If a man stole a lamb from the flock and restored it, but it died or was stolen again, he is responsible for it. In section one of our mishnah a person stole a lamb from a flock and the owner noticed that it was missing. If he were to return the lamb without telling the owner that he had done so, the thief is still responsible for the lamb. Since he has not told the owner that the lamb has been returned the owner does not know that he has to keep an eye out for the lamb.", + "If the owner knew neither of its theft nor of its return and counted the flock and found it complete, the thief is exempt. In section two, the owner did not even know that the lamb was stolen. When he counted the flock all of the animals were there, and therefore we can assume that he knew that he was responsible for them all. If the previously stolen lamb should subsequently die or be stolen, it will be the owner’s responsibility and not the thief’s.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah Eight: What would be the law if in the scenario mentioned in section two the owner had not counted the flock? Would the thief still be exempt?" + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah nine deals with items one may purchase from certain people without concern that they may have been stolen.", + "Mishnah ten deals with a craftsman's rights to keep the by-products of their work. In the days of the mishnah a craftsman often did the work but did not provide the raw materials. For instance, a person would bring some cloth to a tailor and the tailor would sew it into a dress. Or a person would bring wood to a carpenter, who would use the wood to make a table. Inevitably there will be material that was given to the craftsman that is not part of the finished product. Our mishnah asks the question to whom do these materials belong.", + "One is not to buy wool or milk or kids from herdsmen, not fruit from those that watch over fruit-trees. However, one may buy garments of wool from women in Judea and garments of flax from women in the Galilee or calves in the Sharon. Our mishnah is concerned with the possibility that one may unknowingly purchase stolen goods from another person. Therefore, the mishnah lists those from whom one should not purchase certain items less they be stolen and those from whom one can purchase. Section one states that one should not purchase things from herdsmen that may have been illegally obtained from the herd which belongs to someone else. Likewise one may not buy things from an orchard watcher that he may have illegally obtained from the orchard. Although we cannot be sure that the product was stolen, the mishnah states that society should avoid giving the herdsmen or orchard watcher the temptation to steal and sell. If no one buys from him than he will not be able to peddle his stolen goods. Section 1a is a contrast to section 1. The women mentioned in this mishnah are probably doing work with things that belong to their husbands. For instance women in Judea spin and make cloth from the wool that their husbands gather from sheep. The same is true with regards to flax in the Galilee and calves in the Sharon. In these cases one may purchase the items without fear that the wife is stealing from the husband. Since the husband in general expects that his wife will sell the product which she makes, one need not fear of her doing so without her husband's permission.", + "And in all cases in which [the seller] says to hide them away, it is forbidden [to purchase the item]. One may buy eggs and fowls in any case. Section 1c and 2 state general reservations on the previous two sections. If one states that the purchaser should not let anyone know about the purchase, obviously something is wrong and the purchaser should not buy the item. Section 2 states that one need never fear when purchasing eggs or chickens. Evidently these items are so common that even those who have access to other people’s chickens and eggs will also have their own to sell, and therefore we can assume that when they sell, they are not selling stolen property." + ], + [ + "The central idea in this mishnah is that a craftsman may keep any material which the householder would not expect to get in return or would not care if he did not get. With this principle we can explain all of the sections of the mishnah.", + "Shreds of wool which the laundryman pulls out belong to him, but those which the woolcomber pull out belong to the householder. Section one a laundryman will not generally find a lot of shreds and therefore the owner does not expect to recover what little thread the laundryman does find. Therefore the laundryman may keep them. In contrast a woolcomber finds many shreds and therefore the owner will wish to recover them. In that case the woolcomber is obligated to return them.", + "If the laundryman pulled out three threads, they belong to him, but if more than this they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may take them all and they are his. Section two a householder does not generally care if he loses one, two or three threads while the laundryman cleans his clothes. If, however, the laundryman should find more, he must return them to the owner because the owner would expect to get them back. Black threads found on a white garment are undesirable to the owner of the garment and therefore the laundryman may keep them.", + "If the tailor left over thread sufficient to sew with or a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, these belong to the householder. Section three a tailor who receives cloth and thread from his customer in order to sew a garment will inevitably not use all of the materials. If more than a minimal amount of thread or garment is left he must return it to the owner.", + "What a carpenter takes off with a plane belongs to him; but what [he takes off] with a hatchet belongs to the householder. And if he was working in the householder’s domain, even the sawdust belongs to the householder. Section four a carpenter’s work by nature creates sawdust and splinters and other left over material from the wood. The owner may want this material back in order to light his oven or to do with it some other type of work. Again, if the material is minimal, such as is left by a plane, the carpenter need not return it. Since an owner does not expect to receive this minimal material, the carpenter need not give it back. If, however, the material is more substantial, than he must return it. Finally, all of this was only with regards to someone working at his own home. If he was working at the householder’s home, he must give over everything to him.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah ten, section two: What would the law be if the laundryman found more than three black threads on a white garment?Congratulations! We have finished Bava Kamma.It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal in a short time and you should be proud of yourselves. Of course, this is just the beginning. We will begin Bava Metzia tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא קמא", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא קמא", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c89389661829279e70437e469238bfb8ded19b55 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,561 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא מציעא", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "text": { + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction
The first two mishnayoth of Bava Metzia deal with cases where two people both claim ownership over an object which they are jointly holding.", + "Mishnah One
1)\tIf two people are grasping a cloak: One says, “I found it” and the other says, “I found it”, or one says “It’s all mine”, and the other says, “It’s all mine”, they each swear that they don’t own more than half of the cloak and they split the cloak.
2)\t(If) one says, “It’s all mine” and the other says, “It’s half mine”, the one who says, “It’s all mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¾ and the one who says “It’s half mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¼, and the former takes ¾ and the latter takes ¼.", + "Explanation—Mishnah One
This Mishnah describes the common situation in which two people claim ownership of an article and neither can prove that it belongs to him. If they were to bring witnesses the judges would rule according to their testimony. In the absence of witnesses the judges must rule based on other assumptions. The means of ensuring that the person was telling the truth was in many cases, including this one, an oath. One should note that oaths were taken extremely seriously by Jews in ancient times and the assumption is that one would not swear falsely. Therefore taking an oath is a strong deterrent to lying.
Mishnah Two
1)\tIf two men were riding on an animal, or one was riding and the other was leading the animal, and one of them said, “The animal is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine.”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the animal and they split it.
2)\tIf after the case is settled, they both admit to the others claim, or if there are witnesses they can split the animal without an oath.", + "Explanation—Mishnah Two
This mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah and just deals with a different disputed object. In the second clause the mishnah states that if they agree to the other party’s claim or if there are witnesses that the animal is owned by both parties, they split the animal without an oath. The function of the oath is to ensure that the person is telling the truth. When there is no dispute, or when there are witnesses who testify, there is no need for an oath. Since it is preferable to avoid oaths altogether the two may split the animal without an oath.", + "Questions for Further Thought:

•\tMishnah one: When a person claims that the entire cloak is his, why does he swear that he doesn’t own less than half? What would happen if each person swore that it was all his?

•\tMishnah one: Why in the second clause does the person who swore that it was all his receive ¾ whereas in the first clause he receives only ½?
If two people are grasping a cloak: One says, “I found it” and the other says, “I found it”, or one says “It’s all mine”, and the other says, “It’s all mine”, they each swear that they don’t own more than half of the cloak and they split the cloak.
( one says, “It’s all mine” and the other says, “It’s half mine”, the one who says, “It’s all mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¾ and the one who says “It’s half mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¼, and the former takes ¾ and the latter takes ¼.
The first two mishnayoth of Bava Metzia deal with cases where two people both claim ownership over an object which they are jointly holding.
This Mishnah describes the common situation in which two people claim ownership of an article and neither can prove that it belongs to him. If they were to bring witnesses the judges would rule according to their testimony. In the absence of witnesses the judges must rule based on other assumptions. The means of ensuring that the person was telling the truth was in many cases, including this one, an oath. One should note that oaths were taken extremely seriously by Jews in ancient times and the assumption is that one would not swear falsely. Therefore taking an oath is a strong deterrent to lying." + ], + [ + "If two men were riding on an animal, or one was riding and the other was leading the animal, and one of them said, “The animal is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine.”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the animal and they split it.
If after the case is settled, they both admit to the others claim, or if there are witnesses they can split the animal without an oath.
This mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah and just deals with a different disputed object. In the second clause the mishnah states that if they agree to the other party’s claim or if there are witnesses that the animal is owned by both parties, they split the animal without an oath. The function of the oath is to ensure that the person is telling the truth. When there is no dispute, or when there are witnesses who testify, there is no need for an oath. Since it is preferable to avoid oaths altogether the two may split the animal without an oath." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe third and fourth mishnah of our chapter deal with ownership disputes in which two people lay claim to a found object.", + "If a man was riding on a beast and saw lost property and said to his fellow, “Give it to me”, and the other took it and said, “I have acquired it”, he (the has acquired it. But if after he gave it to him he said, “I acquired it first”, he has said nothing. In the first section of the mishnah a person saw an object while riding on an animal and told his friend to pick it up for him. When his friend picked it up he claimed it for himself. According to the mishnah the person who picked it up can claim title to the object. If, however, the person picked it up and then gave it to his fellow, he cannot subsequently claim title. The person’s claim to ownership must come at the same time that he actually has possession of the object and not after he has already given it to someone else. unable to leave the field; 3) the owner of the field makes a claim of acquisition over the animal.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah three: According to the mishnah by merely telling the other person to pick it up for him the person riding on the animal does not acquire the object. Why not?" + ], + [ + "If a man saw lost property and fell upon it and someone else came along and seized it, he that seized it acquired it. If a person saw a lost object and fell upon it in an attempt to take the object, and someone else came along and took it before the other person got to it, the person that took it gets to keep it. In the previous mishnah we learned that merely a person’s saying that he wished to take the object does not cause it to belong to him. In our mishnah we learn that even physically making a move to get it is also insufficient. The lost object is not his until he actually takes possession.", + "If a man saw people running [in his field] after lost property [such as] a deer with a broken leg, or pigeons that couldn’t fly, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has acquired them. But if the deer was running normally or the pigeons flying, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has said nothing. In this section we learn that under certain circumstances a person’s field can acquire something for him. In such a case the animal is acquired not by physical possession by the claimant but by the animal being on his field. If the person sees people running after a lost object in his field and that lost object cannot move off his field he can acquire it by saying that his field acquires it. If, however, the animal can run or fly and therefore is not “stuck” on the person’s field, the field cannot acquire the animal. In other words in order for the field to acquire the animal on behalf of its owner three conditions must be fulfilled: 1) other people have not claimed it (in the mishnah others are running after it but have not reached it; 2) the animal is physically unable to leave the field; 3) the owner of the field makes a claim of acquisition over the animal.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four: If my animal runs onto another person’s field and the other person claims that his field acquires the animal for him, does the animal now belong to him? How can you figure out the answer to this question from the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with the issue of ownership over lost objects found by a man’s children or wife.\nMishnah six (and the remainder of the chapter) deals with returning lost documents to their owners.", + "That which is found by a man’s minor son or daughter, and that which is found by his Canaanite slave or female slave, and that which is found by his wife belongs to him. A father (assumed in the Mishnah to be the head of the household) who is financially supporting his children can claim ownership over any financial benefit they might bring him including, as we learn here, found objects. In other words in return for his financial support, they must give him any of their earnings. A Canaanite (i.e. non-Jewish) slave or female slave is totally owned by their owner. They do not have the ability to own possessions and therefore anything they find belongs to their master. Finally, a married woman who is receiving financial support from her husband, gives him in return any of her earnings, including found objects. Note, that the relationship between a father and his children and a husband and his wife is one in which the latter are guaranteed support, even if they earn nothing. In such a familial structure allowing the child or wife to keep found objects while still receiving financial support from their father/husband may cause him to resent them, ultimately to their detriment.", + "That which is found by his son or daughter that are of age, and that which is found by his Hebrew slave or female slave, and that which is found by his wife whom he has divorced, even though he has not yet paid her ketubah, belongs to them. On the other hand, a father’s financial control over his children does not extend to his adult children who are not supported by him. What they find belongs to them. Also, a Hebrew slave is treated in the Mishnah to be more similar to a hired worker who can own his own possession. Anything the slave finds therefore, belongs to him/her. Finally, a divorced woman does not owe her husband any financial gains she accrues after the divorce. This is true even if he has not paid her ketubah, meaning the divorce settlement. In such a case he is still obligated to provide her with food, clothing and shelter. Nevertheless, since he divorced her, he does not receive any object she might find.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah five: Why doesn’t the mishnah say that as long as the husband has not given his divorcee her ketubah and is therefore supporting her, he would receive any object which she found? What might be a problem caused by such a law?" + ], + [ + "If a man found debt documents he should not return them [to the creditor] if they recorded a lien on the [debtor’s] property, since the court would exact repayment from the property. But if they did not record a lien on the [debtor’s] property he may return them, since the court would not exact payment from the property, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “In either case he should not return them, since [in either case] the court would exact payment from the property.” Generally, when a debtor pays back his debt he would take the document and tear it up, so that the creditor could not collect it again. If one found a debt document, one could therefore assume that it came from the creditor. However, according to our mishnah in most circumstances one should not return it to the creditor. Our mishnah is concerned concerned that the debtor and creditor colluded to defraud a third party. We will explain. If the debtor had written a lien on his property in the document the creditor could take from this property if the debtor defaulted. For example let us say that Reuven loaned Shimon 1000 dollars and Shimon put a lien over all his property. After the loan Shimon sold his property to Levi and then Shimon lost all of his money (probably in high tech stocks!). Reuven can now collect his debt from the property sold to Levi. Our mishnah is concerned that Reuven might make a deal with Shimon for Shimon to pay back, let’s say 500 dollars, and then to deny that he paid back anything and then Reuven would collect Shimon’s sold property from Levi. Lest such collusion had been committed one should not return debt documents that have written in them liens. According to Rabbi Meir, if no lien was written in the document there is nothing to fear and one may return it to the creditor. According to the Sages all loans done through documents imply a lien on the debtor’s property, whether or not this is written specifically in the document. Therefore no debt documents may be returned to the creditor.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah six: According to Rabbi Meir, if one finds a debt document in which there is no lien, he may return it to the creditor. Why is he allowed to do so, and why would you think he should not?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth seven and eight continue to deal with returning lost documents, a topic which was also discussed in the previous mishnah.", + "If a man found bills of divorce, or writs of emancipation or wills, or deeds of gifts, or receipts, he should not return them, for I might say, “they were written out, and the writer might have changed his mind and decided not to give them.” In this short mishnah are listed types of documents where one person gives something to another person, whether it be a divorce given to a wife by her husband, freedom to a slave from his master, inheritance to an inheritor, a present, or a receipt. These documents would normally be kept by the recipient. If one of these was found one might have expected to return it to the recipient, i.e. the wife, slave, etc. However, the mishnah states that they should not be returned. Since it is possible that the writer wrote the document and subsequently changed his mind and did not give the document, we cannot be sure that the recipient lost it.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
If the giver of one of the documents mentioned in this mishnah told the finder that he had indeed given the document to the recipient, would the finder then return it to the recipient? How is this different from the case in the previous mishnah?" + ], + [ + "If a man found letters of evaluation, or letters of sustenance, or documents of halitzah or refusal, or documents of arbitration or any document drawn out by the court he should return them. The documents listed in this section are all executed by a court. In such a case we need not fear that the court wrote the document and then did not fulfill what was stated in it, as we feared with regards to the documents mentioned in the previous mishnah. Therefore they can be returned to those named in the documents. A “letter of evaluation” is an evaluation of a person’s property should it need to be sold to pay off his debts. A “letter of sustenance” is permission given to a wife to sell her husband’s property should he not properly provide her with food (or other financial obligations). “Documents of halitzah” are documents that testify to a man’s having declared that he will not perform the levirate marriage (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10). “Documents of refusal” are documents that testify that a woman whose mother or brother (but not father) arranged her marriage when she was a minor refused the marriage when she became an adult. In such a case the woman does not need a regular divorce document, a get. “Documents of arbitration” are documents that state the litigants choices for judges.", + "If he found documents in a satchel or bag, or a bundle of documents he should return them. How many count as a bundle of documents? Three tied up together. If a person finds documents in an identifiable bag he should return them to the person who can identify the bag. In the upcoming chapter we will learn about identifying lost objects.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [If one found three documents in which] one borrowed from three others, they should be returned to the borrower. But if [one found three documents in which] one loaned to three, they should be returned to the lender. A set of three documents found together and all containing one name, was in all likelihood lost by that named person. Therefore if three documents state that one person borrowed from three others, it is reasonable that they belonged to the borrower. If the three documents all contain the name of the same creditor who loaned to three different debtors, it is reasonable that the documents belonged to the creditor.", + "If a man found a document among his documents and he does not know what is its nature, it must be left until Elijah comes. If a person finds a document amongst his documents that contains the name of a creditor and a debtor, but he doesn’t know who gave him the document, and therefore he doesn’t know if it was paid off, he should hold the document until Elijah comes. In other words he shouldn’t get rid of the document but neither is he permitted to give it to either the creditor or the debtor.", + "If there were postscripts amongst them, he should do what is stated in the postscript. If he finds amongst his documents torn or unreadable documents which have with them postscripts which state what needs to be done with the document, he should do what is in the postscript, even though the document itself is torn or unreadable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eight, section two: Why in this case is the finder supposed to return the lost documents? Why don’t we worry that they were lost by the writer who changed his mind after writing them and before giving them?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe second chapter of Bava Metziah deals exclusively with returning lost objects. According to Exodus 23:4 and Deuteronomy 22:1-4, a person has an obligation to return lost objects to their owner. The mishnah is concerned with which objects are included in this obligation and with the question of the owner claiming his object by identifying it.", + "Since the Torah states that a person must return lost objects, it is necessary to decide which lost objects must be returned. A society could not operate if every lost object had to be returned. Imagine if every time you found a pen, or a coin or some other small not valuable item, you had to spend time trying to find the owners. Furthermore, there are some lost items which could not be identified by their owner as belonging to them, such as money or mass produced merchandise. If a person should lose one of these types of things, meaning either something that cannot be identified as his or something of little value, he does not expect to ever have it returned. Such a situation is called in Hebrew “yeush” despair, and the legal consequence is that the finder may keep the lost object.", + "Which found objects belong to the finder and which ones must be proclaimed [in the lost and found]? These found objects belong to the finder: if a man found scattered fruit, scattered money, small sheaves in the public domain, cakes of figs, bakers’ loaves, strings of fish, pieces of meat, wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, stalks of flax and strips of purple wool, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “Anything which has in it something unusual, must be proclaimed. How is this so? If he found a fig cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it [he must proclaim them].” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “New merchandise need not be proclaimed.” Section one lists objects that are either not identifiable as belonging to a specific person, or of little value. We will learn the opposites of these items, meaning things that are of value and identifiable in the following mishnah. Therefore we will explain them more fully later on. According to Rabbi Judah, if there was a unidentifiable object which had something unusual about it, he must proclaim it. (We will learn the process of proclaiming a lost object later in the chapter.) For instance, a normal loaf of bread could not be identified as belonging to a certain person, and therefore the finder may keep it. If, however, there was money in the bread, the owner could identify it, and therefore the finder must proclaim it. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, mass produced merchandise need not be proclaimed. This would be something akin to tupperware in our day. Certainly before the item has been used its owner would not be able to give any special identification marks. Therefore the finder may keep it." + ], + [ + "And these must be proclaimed: if a man found fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; small sheaves in the private domain; home-made loaves of bread; wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; jugs of wine or jugs of oil, these must be proclaimed. Since this list is the opposite of the list mishnah one, it will help to line them both up in a table. Found objects which need not be proclaimed. Found objects which must be proclaimed. 1) scattered fruit, 2) scattered money, 3) small sheaves in the public domain, 4) cakes of figs, 5) bakers’ loaves, 6) strings of fish, pieces of meat, 7) wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, 8) stalks of flax and strips of purple wool 1) fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; 2) or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; 3) small sheaves in the private domain; 4) 5) home-made loaves of bread; 6) 7) wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; 8) 9) jugs of wine or jugs of oil 1+2) Scattered fruit and money cannot be identified by the owner. However, if the fruit or money is in a container or piled up, the owner may be able to identify the container or the size and place of the pile and therefore the finder must proclaim. 3) Small sheaves in the public domain cannot be identified by where they were found, because people may have moved them. However, in the private domain they can be identified by the place where they were found. 4) Bakers loaves are of standard size and shape and therefore cannot be identified. Home-made loaves will all look different and therefore the owner could identify them. 7) Wool which has not been processed, nor imported will all look the same and therefore could not be identified. However, if it has been processed by a craftsman, it would be identifiable and therefore must be proclaimed.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Try to translate some of the categories of the mishnah into modern day items. For instance, if one found a wallet, must he proclaim it? What about a book? A grocery bag full of groceries? A computer?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnayoth one and two we learned which lost objects a person may keep and which he must declare as lost. In mishnah three we learn a third category: objects that seem to be lost but may not be touched. There are some things that may not have been lost but rather put in their current place by their owner so that the she could return and get them later. One who sees such things should not touch them lest the owners later have difficulty finding the object.\nMishnah four deals with lost items found in different places inside stores.", + "If a man found pigeons tied together behind a fence or a hedge or on footpaths in the fields, he may not touch them. If a person finds pigeons tied together in a place where they may have been left on purpose by their owner, he must leave them there. Perhaps the owner had brought his pigeons with him to the field in order to slaughter them and eat them later for his dinner. (Remember they had no refrigeration, so one would not want to slaughter something in order to eat it later). Rather then carry them around with him in the field he tied them up so that they would not fly away, and he put them behind a fence. If the person were to find them and take them in order to proclaim them as a lost item the owner would have to go looking for them. Therefore the mishnah says they shouldn’t be touched.", + "If he found an object in the dungheap and it was covered up he may not touch it, but if it was exposed he should take it and proclaim. If a person finds an object hidden in a dungheap, he may assume that someone put it there to hide it and will come back for it later. In such a case he should not take it. If, however, it is exposed then thieves might come along and take it. In such a case the finder should take it and proclaim it as a lost item.", + "If he found it in a pile of stones or in an old wall it belongs to him. If he found it in a new wall and it was on the outside [of the wall] it belongs to him. If it was on the inner side it belongs to the householder. But if the house had been hired to others, even if a man found something within the house, it belongs to him. If one finds something in an old wall or under a pile of stones, and it is apparent that it has been there for quite a while, then he may keep it. It can be assumed that the owners forgot about it (yeush, despair) and therefore the item is legally ownerless. If, however, he were to find something in a new wall, he cannot make such a blanket assumption. If the item is on the outer part of the new wall, he may keep it, since anyone from the public domain may have put it there. (We are assuming that the object does not have a sign by which the person who lost it could identify it.) If it was on the inner part of the wall it belongs to the householder. Finally, if the house owner were using his house as an inn and place where many people passed through, then a found item there belongs to the finder. Although the item was in another person’s house, since the house was occupied by many people we cannot make an assumption as to who owned the item.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah three: What do you think he should do if he were to find pigeons tied up but not behind a fence, for instance in a public place? Should he leave them there? Should he pick them up and proclaim them? Or do they belong to the finder?" + ], + [ + "If he found [something] in a shop, it belongs to him. But if he found it between the counter and the shopkeeper it belongs to the shopkeeper. If a person finds something in a shop, for example a cheap pair of sunglasses, and it is not an item sold in the shop, he may keep it. (Again, we can assume that this was an object without an identifying mark and therefore it could not be proclaimed.) Even though the item was found on the shopkeeper’s property, since many people come in and out of the store it could have belonged to any of them. If, however, the object was found behind the counter, the assumption is that the shopkeeper himself lost it. Therefore it belongs to him.", + "If he found it in front of the money-changer it belongs to him. But if between the stool and the money-changer it belongs to the money-changer. The rule here is the same as the rule in the previous section. If the item was found in a place where many people mill about, then it belongs to the finder. If it is found in a place generally occupied only by the money-changer, then it belongs to the money-changer.", + "If a man bought fruit from his fellow or if his fellow sent him fruit and he found coins therein, they belong to him. But if they were tied up he must take them and proclaim them. If a person receives a bundle of fruit and there were a few coins scattered amongst the fruit he may keep the coins. If, however, there was a bag of coins, he must proclaim the bag, as we learned in mishnah two.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four, section three: Why don’t we assume that the scattered coins belong to the person who gave him the fruit? In other words, why is he not obligated to return the coins to the person who gave him the fruit?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five is actually a midrash, an exegetical explanation, of Deuteronomy 22:3. The midrash tells us general rules with regards to which items must be returned to the one who lost them.\nMishnah six discusses how long a lost item must be proclaimed.\nAs we go through the second chapter of Bava Metzia you will notice that the subjects dealt with are in the order in which they occur when someone finds a lost object. First we learn which items must be proclaimed and which items belong to the finder. Then we learn the process of proclamation. Finally, we will learn what a person must do with the object if no one claims it.", + "A garment was also included amongst all these things (which one must proclaim, listed in Deut. 22:3). Why was it mentioned separately? To compare [other things] to it: to teach you just as a garment is distinct in that it has special marks and it has those who claim it, so too everything that has special marks and those who claim it must be proclaimed. Deuteronomy 22:1-2 begin with a general command to return lost items. The specific item mentioned is an ox or a sheep. Verse 3 continues (JPS translation): “You shall do the same with his ass; you shall do the same with his garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find; you must not remain indifferent.” If we read the verse carefully, we will notice that it is superfluous. First the Torah mentions a lost ass and garment and then everything else. The question which our mishnah asks is why should garment be mentioned separately. The answer is that a garment is paradigmatic for which types of items must be proclaimed. First of all a garment has distinctive marks on it by which its owner could identify it. This is still generally true today but would have been especially true in Mishnaic times when everything was sewn by hand. Second of all, a garment has people who would claim it. It is a valuable enough item that someone who lost it will almost always want it back. Any item which does not fit these two categories, distinctive and of a certain, minimal value, need not be returned.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah five: According to the criteria listed in the mishnah what types of items in our society would need to be proclaimed and which would not?" + ], + [ + "For how long must a man proclaim [what he has found]? Until all of his neighbors know of it, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “At the three Pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the lest festival, to allow him three days to go back to his house, three days to return and one day on which to proclaim his loss.” According to Rabbi Meir a person must proclaim the lost objects until all of his neighbors know. Rabbi Judah’s suggestion reflects a law that would have been most applicable when the Temple in Jerusalem stood. When the Temple stood people would come to Jerusalem to proclaim and claim there lost items, no matter where they were lost. It was assumed that a person would come on at least one of the three Pilgrimage Festivals, Sukkot, Pesach and Shavuoth. Therefore the item should be proclaimed for these three festivals. In addition, there were seven days added after the end of the last festival to give the person a chance to go home, check to see if he had lost the object and then to return to Jerusalem to claim the lost item.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah six: How do people proclaim lost items in our society? How does that differ from the way they would do it in Mishnaic times?" + ], + [ + "If he (the named what was lost but could not describe its distinctive marks, he should not give it back to him. And it should not be give to a [known] deceiver, even if he describes its distinctive marks, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “Until your fellow claims it”, [which is to say] until you inquire about your fellow, if he is a deceiver or not.
Whatsoever works and eats, let it work and eat [while in the finder’s care]. But whatsoever does not work and eat should be sold, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “And you shall return it to him”, See how you can return it to him.
What shall be with the money [from the sale]?
Rabbi Tarfon says: “He may use it, therefore if it is lost he is responsible for it.”
Rabbi Akiva says: “He may not use it, therefore if it is lost he is not responsible for it.”
Mishnah seven deals with two subjects: 1) Under what circumstances should the person return the lost object to the claimant? 2) What should the finder do with the object if no one claims it?
Section one: If the person who claims the item is not able to state its distinctive marks, the finder should not return the item to him, lest the item really belong to someone else. If the claimant has a reputation for being a deceiver, then even if he states the distinctive marks, the item shouldn’t be given to him. This is learned through a pun on a word in Deut. 22:2. The verse states that the item should remain with the finder until the person who lost it claims it. The Hebrew word for claim, doresh, can also mean to interrogate. The Mishnah then switches the order of the verse. Instead of the person who lost the item claiming it from the finder, the finder interrogates the person who lost the item, to find out whether he is known to be a deceiver.
Section two: There are two possibilities for dealing with an unclaimed item. If it is something that can be used and the worth of its use will compensate for its upkeep, then it may be used. For instance, a lost cow may be milked to pay for its food. After all, it is unfair to the finder that he should have to pay for the upkeep without receiving compensation. Such a system would indeed discourage people from protecting other people’s lost items.
If the lost item could not work to pay for its feed than it should be sold. The mishnah learns this from the verse which demands that he return the item to the person who lost it. If the item did not earn money and just decreased in value, the finder would not be doing any favors to the loser by holding on to it. For instance if one were to find an expensive cake, that had identifying marks on it. Obviously one couldn’t save the cake for a long period of time or it would eventually be worthless. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the loser for the finder to sell and then return the value.
According to Rabbi Tarfon, the money from this sale may be used by the finder, and therefore if it is lost or stolen he is responsible to restore it. Since he gets the benefit of its use, he has extra responsibility over the item. According to Rabbi Akiva, the money may not be used. Since he doesn’t get the benefit of the use of the money, he is not responsible if it is lost." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight deals with a finder must care for the lost object while it is in his possession.\nMishnah nine deals with the definition of lost objects which the finder must return. The mishnah also deals with the finder’s rights to claim lost wages while taking care of the lost object.", + "This mishnah is concerned with the proper care given to lost objects. The finder has a responsibility to return the object to its owner in as best condition as possible. Therefore our mishnah tells us which things must be done with certain objects for their upkeep. In addition the mishnah lists certain things that shouldn’t be done lest the lost object is damaged.", + "If he found scrolls he must read them once every thirty days, and if he does not know how to read he should unroll them. But he may not learn from them something he has not yet learned, nor may another read with him. Scrolls (made of parchment) must be unrolled once every thirty days in order to air them out and prevent them from becoming brittle. If he wishes to read from it while he unrolls it he may. He may not however learn with another person lest they both pull the scroll and tear it. Nor may he learn something new which would require more intense and longer reading and a greater likelihood of damage to the scroll.", + "If he found clothing he must shake it out once every thirty days, and spread it out for [the clothing’s] own good, but not for his own honor. Clothing must be shaken out once every thirty days. He may spread it out in his house but he should not do so to improve the way his home looks (for his honor) but only to air out the garment.", + "[If he found] silver or copper vessels he must use them for their own good but not so as to wear them out. [If he found] vessels of gold or glass he may not touch them until Elijah comes. Silver and copper vessels should be used occasionally to prevent rust. They may not however be used in a way that would wear them out. Glass and gold vessels, which are the most expensive and fragile, may not be used at all.", + "If he found a sack or a large basket or anything that is not generally carried about, he may not carry it. Finally, containers that are not generally carried need not be carried in order to air them out. The implication is that things that are generally carried about should be aired out.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How does the subject of mishnah eight differ from the subject at the end of mishnah seven?" + ], + [ + "What counts as lost property? If he found an ass or a cow grazing on the path, this does not count as lost property. But if he found an ass with its trappings turned over, or a cow running in the vineyards, this is lost property. An animal that is merely grazing without its owners nearby is not considered a lost animal. However, if its trappings, meaning the load that it was carrying or the saddle on its back, were overturned or somehow misplaced, chances are that it is a lost object. So too, if the cow was running in an inappropriate place, such as the vineyard, it is in all likelihood a lost cow.", + "If he returned it and it escaped again, and he returned it and it escaped again, even four or five times, he is obligated to return it [yet again], since it is stated (Deut. 22:1): “You shall surely return it to your brother”. A person is obligated to return his fellow’s lost object no matter how many times it runs away. This is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy. In the Hebrew verse there is a repetition of the word which means to return. Grammatically this is normal Biblical Hebrew. However, the Rabbis assumed that such repetitions contained additional legal information. In this case they learn that no matter how many times the animal may have been lost and found, one is still obligated to return it.", + "If [the finder] lost time at work that was worth a sela (an amount of, he may not say to the owner, “Give me a sela”. Rather the owner need only pay him the wages of an unemployed laborer. If there was a court of law in the that place the finder may stipulate before them [for damages for time lost]. If there was no court of law, before whom can he stipulate? His comes first. A person who has already found and returned another person’s lost object cannot claim all of the wages which he lost while busying himself with the lost object. Since the owner of the animal may not have wanted someone to return his animal if he would have to pay such a large sum of money, he is not obligated to pay. All that the finder can claim is the minimal wage that an unemployed laborer would accept to have some work to do for the day. However, if before he begins to deal with the lost animal the finder makes a stipulation in front of a court that if he should lose time at work while returning the animal that he would recover the loss, then the owner must pay him. (Ostensibly if the loss of work was greater than the worth of the animal the court would not have agreed to such a condition.) If there is no court in front of which to make such a stipulation, his own work takes precedent over the loss of others.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah nine, section one: Why might one consider an animal grazing on a path to be a lost animal? In other words, why might this law not be obvious?
• Mishnah nine, section four: Why does his own work take precedence over the lost objects of others? Is this law just encouraging selfishness?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten deals with three subjects. 1) Further defining what is a lost object. 2) Potential conflicts between the commandment of returning lost objects and other commandments. 3) The commandment mentioned in Exodus 23:5 to help a person whose ass has fallen under its burden. The verse states: “When you see the ass of your enemy lying under its load and you would refrain from raising it, you must surely raise it with him.” A similar commandment appears in Deuteronomy 22:4.\nMishnah eleven deals with conflicts between helping return his father’s lost object, his teacher’s lost object and his own lost object.", + "If he found an [animal] in a stable, he is not responsible for it [even though the stable door was loose and unguarded. But if he found it in the public domain he is responsible for it. If he finds the animal in an improperly closed and unguarded stable he is not obligated to treat the animal as lost. Only if it was roaming in the public domain is he obligated to help return it to its owner.", + "If it was in a cemetery he need not contract uncleanness because of it. If his father said to him, “Contract uncleanness”, or if he said to him, “Do not return it”, he may not listen to him. This section deals with conflicting commandments. If a Kohen (priest) sees a lost object in the cemetery into which he is forbidden to enter since he would thereby contract ritual uncleanness, he is not obligated to take care of the object. If his father tells him to break a commandment, either the commandment that a Kohen may not enter a cemetery or the commandment that one must return lost objects, he should not listen to his father. Even though there is a commandment to respect one’s parents, respect does not include transgressing another commandment. [Note, this is an extremely important principle with many implications in our lives.]", + "If he unloaded [the ass fallen under its load] and reloaded it and again unloaded it and reloaded it, even four or five times he is still obligated, for it is written, “You must surely raise it with him”. If the owner went and sat down and said, “Since the commandment is upon you, if you wish to unload, unload”, he is not obligated, for it is written “with him”. But if the owner was aged or sick, he is obligated. The Torah states that a person must help raise another person’s fallen ass. Even if he has to do so several times, he is still obligated. This is learned from the Torah’s repetition of the Hebrew word “raise”. From the fact that it was used twice the Rabbis conclude that the commandment applies even if it must repeatedly be performed. (For a similar teaching see mishnah nine). The owner of the animal must help the other person raise the animal and cannot sit idly and watch. This is learned from the word “with him” at the end of the verse. Only a sick or old person who could not help is exempt from doing so.", + "It is a commandment from the Torah to unload but not to reload. Rabbi Shimon says, “To reload as well.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “If the beast was carrying more than its proper load he is not obligated [to help unload it], for it is written, “under its load”, [which is to say] a load which it is able to endure. The Rabbis disagreed with regards to the extent of the help that needs to be given to the person who’s ass has fallen. Some said that he must only raise the animal and some said that he must help reload as well. Rabbi Yose the Galilean adds that he need not help an owner who put too large of a load on the animal. The owner should have been more careful and does not deserve to be helped for his own negligent act.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten, section two: Why shouldn’t a Kohen enter a cemetery and become unclean in order to take care of the lost object? Does this mishnah mean that ritual cleanliness is more important than returning lost objects or is there another explanation?Mishnah ten, section four: What would be the result if the person was obligated to help unload an ass even if too great a load had been placed upon it?" + ], + [ + "If a man found his own lost property and his father’s, his own takes priority. If his own and that of his teacher, his own takes priority.
If he found his father’s and his teacher’s, his teacher’s takes priority for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher who taught him wisdom brings him into the world to come. If his father was a Sage, his father’s takes priority.
If his father and teacher each were carrying a load, he must first relieve his teacher and afterward relieve his father.
If his father and teacher were each taken captive, he must first ransom his teacher and afterward his father. But if his father was a Sage, he must first ransom his father and afterward his teacher.
In the beginning of this mishnah we learn that one’s own financial loss takes priority even over that of a father or a teacher (of Torah). The Torah expects people to help others but it also understands that people have a natural desire to help themselves.
The remainder of the mishnah deals with conflicts between helping his father and helping his teacher. In all of them we learn that his teacher (one who teaches him Torah) takes priority. Through this mishnah we can see how much the Rabbis valued learning and Torah study. His father brings him into this world and for that the Torah commands that he respect and fear his father. However, the teacher brings him into the world to come, and this is a greater responsibility even then being a father. Therefore the teacher receives even more respect than the father. However, if his father is a Sage, meaning learned in Torah, he deserves greater respect from his son than does another teacher/Sage, and he therefore takes priority." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a man left an animal or utensils in his fellow’s keeping and they were stolen or lost, and his fellow made restitution and did not want to take an oath – for they have taught: an unpaid guardian may take an oath and be exempt from liability – if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? He with whom the money was deposited.
If his fellow (the unpaid takes an oath and does not want to make restitution, if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the property deposited.
According to the Mishnah there are four different types of guardians or people who have responsibility to watch over other people’s objects. Each guardian has a different level of liability should the object be lost, damaged or die (if it was an animal). The Torah discusses guardians in Exodus 22:6-14.
1) The borrower. He is responsible to return the object at its original value to the owner no matter what happens to it. For instance should a person borrow a cow and the cow die even a natural death he would be obligated to give the owner the value of the live cow.
2) The renter. If the animal should be damaged or taken captive or die while he was renting it he may take an oath that he was not negligent with the animal and he is then exempt from paying back the value of the animal. If the animal should be stolen or lost he must repay the value of the animal.
3) The paid guardian, i.e. someone who is paid to watch the animal or object. His liability is the same as the renter’s.
4) The unpaid guardian. No matter what happens to the animal or object he may take an oath that he was not negligent in its care and then be exempt from paying.
As you will notice, the greater the benefit the greater the liability. A borrower, who uses the object and does not pay for the use only benefits. Therefore his liability is greatest. An unpaid guardian, who is not allowed to use the object, does not benefit at all. Therefore his liability is minimal. A renter gets to use the object but he pays for it. A paid guardian may not use the object but he gets paid for watching over it. Therefore renters and unpaid guardians have middle level liability.
These laws are a necessary background to many of the rules in our chapter and they will be dealt with at greater length in chapter eight.
Our mishnah deals with an object that is stolen or lost while under the watch of an unpaid guardian.
The scenario in the first half of the mishnah is as follows: a man leaves an animal or utensils with his friend who is an unpaid guardian. The animal or utensils are stolen by a thief. When the owner asks for them in return the unpaid guardian elects to repay the value instead of taking an oath. Assumedly he preferred to pay the value rather than take an oath lest the oath be a false oath. When the thief is found the thief must make twofold restitution if the animal was still alive and in his possession or fourfold or fivefold restitution if he had sold or slaughtered the animal (see chapter seven of Bava Kamma). The question our mishnah asks is who receives the payment. After all someone is going to benefit by receiving up to five times the value of the animal. In this scenario the guardian receives the money and the extra money as well. Since he already repaid the owner, it is as if he acquired the animal and all subsequent benefits that would come from the animal.
The difference in the second half of the mishnah is that the unpaid guardian took an oath and did not repay the owner. In such a case if the thief were to be found he would repay the value plus the penalty to the original owner." + ], + [ + "If a man rented a cow from his fellow and lent it to another, and it died a natural death, the hirer must swear that it died a natural death and the borrower must repay [its value] to the renter.
Rabbi Yose said: “How can this one make business out of his friend’s cow? Rather [the value of the cow] returns to the owner.”
Mishnah two deals with the liability of a person who rents a cow and then subsequently loans the cow to someone else and the cow dies.
Mishnah three deals with a person who admits to having stolen or otherwise received money from one of two people but does not know from which one.
As we learned in the introduction to mishnah one, a renter is not liable to pay back the owner if the rented animal dies a natural death. In such a case he is allowed to take an oath and be exempt. The borrower, on the other hand, is liable to pay back the value of the borrowed animal even if it dies a natural death. In our mishnah a renter loaned the rented cow to a third party and then the cow died. The renter may take an oath that the cow died a natural death and he is exempt. The borrower, however, is liable to pay the value of the cow. Since he borrowed from the renter he must repay the renter.
Rabbi Yose claims that such a law allows the renter to make unfair profit from the cow that belongs to someone else. In his opinion the value of the cow should be paid from the borrower directly to the original owner. In other words, although the renter can exempt himself from paying by taking an oath, he does not thereby earn the rights to future benefits accrued from the animal." + ], + [ + "If a man said to two others, “I have robbed one of you 100 zuz and I do not know which of you it is”, or “The father of one of you left me 100 zuz and I do not know whose father it was”, he must give each of them 100 zuz, since he himself admitted liability. In this mishnah the person speaking knows that he owes one of two people 100 zuz (a coin), either because he robbed one of them or because one of their father’s deposited 100 zuz with him. According to the mishnah he must give each of them 100 zuz, since he admitted his liability. If he had not done so, he would not have been obligated to pay either of them until one could conclusively prove that he had stolen from him or that his father had deposited from him. However, if he wants to fulfill his full moral obligation he needs to pay them both 100 zuz." + ], + [ + "Four
Two men deposited money with a third, the one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz. [Afterward] one claimed that he deposited 200 and the other claimed that he deposited 200. He gives this one 100 zuz and this one 100 zuz and the rest remains until Elijah comes.
Rabbi Yose says: “If so, what does the deceiver lose? Rather the whole is left until Elijah comes.”
Mishnayoth four and five are very similar and we will therefore explain them together. They both deal with two people who deposited something with a third person and subsequently one of them makes a false claim as to what he deposited.
Mishnah six deals with a person whose friend deposited his produce with him and then his friend doesn’t return for an extended period.
In the scenarios in both of these mishnayoth two people deposit something with a third, one a larger deposit than the other. When they return to claim their deposit both claim to have deposited the larger amount of money (mishnah four or the more valuable vessel (mishnah five). Evidently the person who received the deposit does not remember who left which deposit. According to the first opinion each person should receive the value of the smaller deposit. If it was money than each person receives 100 zuz. If it was vessels one receives the less valuable vessel and the other vessel is sold and the value of the less valuable vessel is given to the other. The remainder of the money from the sale of the more expensive vessel stays with the third party until Elijah comes to clarify the matter.
Rabbi Yose points out that such a system does not punish a person for lying and claiming the larger deposit. Indeed, it may actually encourage him to do so. Therefore Rabbi Yose claims that all of the money should remain with the third party until Elijah comes. This way by lying the deceiver is penalized by not receiving even the smaller deposit. Hopefully, this will encourage him to tell the truth and thereby at least receive the smaller deposit. [This story reminds me of the famous story of King Solomon and the two mothers who dispute over whose son was the one that died during the night. See I Kings 3:16-28]." + ], + [ + "Five
So too, [two men deposited] vessels with a third, one worth 100 zuz and the other worth 1000 zuz. [Afterward] one claimed that the valuable one was his and the other claimed that the valuable one was his. He gives the less valuable one to one of them and from the value of the more valuable one he gives the value of the lesser one to the other person, and the rest remains until Elijah comes.
Rabbi Yose says: “If so, what does the deceiver lose? Rather the whole is left until Elijah comes.”
" + ], + [ + "If a man deposited produce with his fellow, even if it should perish he may not touch it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “He may sell it before a court of law, since he is like someone who returns a lost object to its owners.” In the scenario in our mishnah Reuven leaves his produce with Shimon to watch until he comes back. When Reuven doesn’t return for an extended period Shimon is left with a dilemma. On the one hand, a person guarding someone else’s possessions generally may not use the possessions. However, if he does nothing with the produce the produce will rot. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, Shimon should just leave the produce even at the risk of it perishing. The reason is that Reuven may want his produce back, since that was the produce he worked so hard to grow. If you have your own backyard garden you know that this is often true. Even if the fruit objectively is not better than the fruit in the store, to the person who grew it, it will taste better. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, better for Shimon to sell the produce and hold the money for the owner. This sale must be done in front of a court of law in order to prevent the person watching from selling the produce at too low of a price." + ], + [ + "When a man leaves produce for his fellow, [and his fellow returns it to the owner] he may exact reductions [due to natural depletion of the produce]. For wheat and rice, nine half kabs to the kor. For barley and durra nine kabs to the kor. For spelt and linseed three seahs to the kor.
All is in proportion to the quantity and according to the time [it is left]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said: “But what do the mice care about [the quantity]? Won’t they eat [the same amount] whether there is a lot or a little? Rather, he may exact a reduction from only one kor.
Rabbi Judah says: “If the quantity was great he may not exact any reduction, since the produce increases in bulk.”
Mishnayoth seven and eight deal with the reductions in the quantity of certain deposited products (produce, wine, olive oil etc.) that a guardian is permitted to make when he returns the products to their owner.
In our mishnah Reuven left his produce with Shimon and is now coming back to reclaim it. Shimon need not return exactly that amount that Reuven left but is legally permitted to reduce some of the quantity, on the assumption that mice would have eaten some of the produce. The mishnah then proceeds to list how much can be reduced for different types of produce.
According to the anonymous opinion in section two the amounts listed in section one can be reduced for each kor (a measure of volume) for each year that the produce was left with Reuven. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri raises a difficulty on this opinion. He points out that the mice will eat the same amount whether there is a lot or a little. In other words if there are 10 kor or 1 kor the mice will still eat only nine half kabs of wheat or rice. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri no matter how many kabs of produce there are, Shimon may only reduce from one of them.
Rabbi Judah states that if the amount of produce was large than Shimon may not reduce at all. According to Rabbi Judah, large amounts are measured in heaping imprecise measurements. Therefore the extra that was heaped on top of a strict measurement is enough to compensate for the loss to the mice." + ], + [ + "With wine he may exact [a reduction] of one-sixth. Rabbi Judah says: “One-fifth.”
He may exact of him three logs in every one hundred logs of oil one log and a half for sediment and one log and a half for absorption. If the oil was refined he may not exact for sediment. If the jars were old he may not exact for absorption.
Rabbi Judah says: “Also if a man sells to his fellow through the year, the buyer must undertake to accept a reduction of one and a half logs because of sediment.
With wine and oil there are no reductions for mice, as there were with produce, but there are reductions due to sediment and absorption in the sides of the clay vessels which were used at the time. With wine the guardian may exact a reduction of one-sixth or one-fifth according to Rabbi Judah.
With regards to oil it depends on the type of jar and the type of oil. Regular oil is reduced 1½ per cent due to sediment, but refined oil does not produce any sediment and therefore reductions may not be exacted. Regulars jars absorb 1½ per cent but old jars, whose sides are more hardened and have already absorbed oil, do not absorb any oil. Therefore if the jars were old the guardian may not exact a reduction for absorption.
Rabbi Judah adds that not only may a guardian exact a reduction of 1½ per cent the oil returned to the owner, but so too may a person who sells refined oil. In other words if Reuven tells Shimon that he is selling him 100 logs of oil and then gives him refined oil, he only need give him 98 ½ logs since 1½ logs of regular oil would be worthless sediment anyway." + ], + [ + "If a man left a jar with his fellow [to guard] and the owner did not assign it a special place [to be kept] and [the guardian] moved it and it broke: If it was broken while he was handling it: ( If for his own sake he is liable. ( If for the sake of the jar, he is not liable. But if it was broken after he had put it in place, whether he moved it for his own sake or for the sake of the jar, he is exempt.
If the owner had assigned it a special place, and the guardian moved it and it broke: Whether or not it broke while he was handling it or after he had put it in its place; ( If for his own sake he is liable, ( if for the sake of the jar, he is not liable.
Mishnayoth nine and ten deal with a guardian’s permission to use an object which he is watching and the subsequent liability for the object should it be damaged after he used it.
If a man left a jar with his fellow for safekeeping but did not specify the place for the jar to be kept, his fellow is allowed to move it, but only for the sake of the jar. For instance if his fellow did not tell him where to leave the jar, and he put it in the garage and then decided that the jar would be safer in the cellar he is allowed to move the jar to the cellar. In this case if the jar should break either while moving it or after having moved it and put it in a new place he will not be liable. However, if he moved the jar since he needed the space in the garage he takes a risk by moving it to the cellar. In this case if the jar breaks while moving it, he will be liable. However, since the owner did not specify where he wants the jar, once the jar is in its new place in the cellar, the guardian is no longer liable if the jar breaks.
If the owners did specify a place for the jar then he is not allowed to move it except for the sake of the jar. If he moved it for his own sake he will be liable, even after he put it down.
The following chart may help understand this mishnah.
Moved for sake of jar
Moved for sake of guardian
Owners specified place
Not obligated
Obligated
Owners did not specify place
Not obligated
Obligated if broken while handling
Not obligated if broken after being put down" + ], + [ + "If a man left money in his fellow’s keeping and his fellow bound it up and hung it over his back, or delivered it to his son or his daughter who were minors, or locked it up improperly, he is liable since he did not guard in the way of guardians. If he guarded it in the way of guardians he is exempt. This mishnah teaches how a person should guard another person’s given to him for safekeeping. He should not tie it up and put it in a bundle behind him lest a thief come and take it. He should not give it to minor children nor lock it up improperly. All of these are not the way that guardians watch other people’s objects. If he should act in such a manner and the money were to be lost he would be liable. If, however, he guarded it properly and something happened to the money, he would be exempt.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten: Why does the mishnah need to teach the idea of “the way of guardians”? Why not just state that the guardian is either liable or not liable? What additional information might we glean from these words?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final two mishnayoth of chapter three continue to deal with the laws of things left in another person’s guard. Mishnah eleven deals with coins left for another person to guard. Mishnah twelve deals with a guardian who uses something deposited with him, even though he does not have permission to do so.", + "This mishnah deals with two laws, one being directly related to the other. The first law is the legality of a guardian using coins deposited with him. The second is his responsibility if the coins were lost or stolen (in a case where the loss was not due to his negligence). The rule is that if the guardian has the right to use the coins than he is responsible if they are lost (even if he was not negligible with them).", + "Eleven
If a man left coins with a money-changer: If they were tied up [in a bag], he may not use them. ( Therefore, if they were lost, he is not responsible. If they were loose, he may use they were. ( Therefore, they were was lost, he is responsible. If a person leaves coins with a money-changer and the coins are tied up, assumedly the person does not want the money-changer to use the coins. Therefore he may not use them and is not responsible if they were lost. If, however, the coins were not tied up, the money-changer may use them. The fact that the owner left the coins with a money-changer who frequently needs coinage, means that the owner gave them to him assuming that the money-changer would use them. Since he may use the coins, he is responsible for their loss.", + "[If a man left coins] with a householder, Whether they were loose or tied up, he may not use them. ( Therefore, if they were lost he his not responsible. A regular householder does not use coins nearly as much as a money-changer and therefore when the owner gives them to him he assumes that the householder will not use them. Therefore he cannot use them, even if they were loose. He is also not obligated if they are lost.", + "A shopkeeper is like a householder, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says a shopkeeper is like a money-changer. According to Rabbi Meir the laws regarding a shopkeeper are like those regarding a householder and according to Rabbi Judah they are like those regarding a money-changer.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eleven, section three: Explain the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah. Why does Rabbi Meir think that a shopkeeper is like a householder and Rabbi Judah think he is like a money-changer?" + ], + [ + "If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. A guardian who uses a deposit for his own personal use without having permission to do so is liable to pay back the entire deposit if the deposit should be broken or otherwise lost. The question asked is, at what value is he obligated to do so. For instance if someone left a gold watch worth $500 with him. If he uses the watch and it then breaks or is stolen, he must pay back a watch. However, what would be the law if the price of gold went down and the watch was only worth $400 or vice versa and the price was worth $600. According to Bet Shammai the guardian always pays the higher amount, whether that amount was the initial value or current value. According to Bet Hillel the guardian must pay according to the value of the object when the guardian first used it, whether or not that is the higher amount or not. According to Rabbi Akiva, he must always pay the value at the time of the claim, again whether or not that is the higher amount.", + "One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? (1) If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. (2) If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug. According to Bet Shammai, the guardian is liable for the object even if he doesn’t actually use the deposit but lets it be known that he is thinking about using it. From that moment on the deposit has become available to him and he is therefore liable to repay it if it should be lost (and even if he is not negligent). According to Bet Hillel he is only liable if he actually takes the object. How this happens is explained in the end of the mishnah. Tilting a jug but leaving it on the ground is not legally considered “taking possession” of the object in order to be fully obligated for it. In such a case he is only liable for what he took. Only if he actually picks it up and uses it will he be subsequently liable if it breaks and therefore liable for the whole jug.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah twelve, section one: Explain the reasoning behind Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and Rabbi Akiva’s statements. How do they each differ from one another?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Gold acquires silver, but silver does not acquire gold.
Copper acquires silver, but silver does not acquire copper.
Bad coins acquire good coins but good coins do not acquire bad coins.
An unminted coin acquires a minted coin, but a minted coin does not acquire an unminted coin.
Movable property acquires coined money, but coined money does not acquire movable property.
This is the general rule: movable property acquires other movable property.
The first two mishnayoth of chapter four deal with what constitutes the finalizing of a transaction of movable property (movable property includes things and animals and does not include land). The importance of this halacha is that when the transaction is final neither side may retract the sale. For instance if an animal is sold and then dies before the seller can bring it to the buyer it is important to know if the sale was final. If the sale was final then the buyer’s animal died. If it was not final than the seller’s animal died. The general rule that is important to note in the outset is that the transfer of money does not cause the acquisition to be final. In other words if Reuven gave Shimon 100 zuz for his cow the cow does not belong to Reuven until he takes possession of it (this can be done in various ways).
As explained in the introduction, money does not acquire movable property, but the transfer of movable property does obligate the buyer to give the money. Our mishnah defines what money is in relation to movable property. To understand this mishnah one must keep in mind that in those times coins were based on their weight in silver and the authority of the government who had minted the coin. Most coins were made of silver but there were gold and copper coins as well. Silver coins were more easily accepted in the marketplace than gold or copper coins. Section one teaches that gold is “movable property” in relation to silver which is “money”. Therefore if the owner of the silver takes the gold from its owner he is obligated to give him the silver, even if he were to change his mind. If, however, the owner of the silver gave the silver to the owner of the gold, the sale is not final and the owner of the gold may still retract the exchange.
The remainder of the mishnah similarly defines property vis a vis money. Copper is “property” compared to silver. Bad, worn out and unminted coins do not fall into the category of “money” but are rather closer on the spectrum to being “movable property”. Finally, if two pieces of movable property are being exchanged, the acceptance of one creates an obligation for the other to be given as well.
Examples relevant to this mishnah will be given in the next mishnah.
 What might be a possible connection between those of the generations of the Flood and the Dispersion and those who don’t keep their word?" + ], + [ + "How is this so? If [the buyer] drew the produce away from [the seller] but did not give over the money, he cannot retract. If [the buyer] gave the money but did not draw the produce away from [the seller], he can retract. (1) But they said: “He that exacted punishment from the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion (at the time of the Tower of will exact punishment from one who does not keep by his word.
Rabbi Shimon says: “He that has the money has the upper hand.”
The examples given in section one demonstrate the rules learned in the previous mishnah. For instance if Shimon is selling produce to Reuven and Reuven takes the produce into his possession but Reuven does not pay the money, neither of them can retract. Even if for example the price should go way down, Reuven still owes Shimon the money that was agreed upon at the time of the sale. If, however, Reuven paid Shimon and Shimon did not give him the produce, either can retract the sale. If, for instance, the price of the produce should go up, Shimon can renegotiate the sale. However, the mishnah adds that although reneging is legal, God will eventually punish those who do not keep their word.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees with part of the opinion in section one. According to Rabbi Shimon the one who holds the money, i.e. the seller, can change his mind until the buyer draws the produce to him. The buyer may not, however, change his mind once he has paid the money. According to the previous opinion (section one) if the produce had not been given over to the buyer, either the buyer or seller could change their mind." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn Leviticus 25:14 it states (JPS translation): “When you sell property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.” From here the Rabbis learned that a person is not allowed to overcharge for certain items that had a known value. When an overcharge does occur there are three possible consequences: 1) the sale is nullified; 2) the amount paid over the value must be returned to the buyer; 3) the sale is valid and no amount is returned. The remainder of the chapter will deal with these laws.", + "According to the anonymous opinion in section one a sale that is one-sixth more than the true value of an item is considered fraud. If a person bought something for one-sixth more than it was worth he could demand a retraction of the sale. According to the first opinion he may retract the sale as long as it would take to show the object to merchant or to a kinsman, in other words someone else who could give a more objective evaluation of the object. After this amount of time has passed the sale can no longer be retracted.", + "Rabbi Tarfon gave instruction in Lud: “Fraud is an overcharge of 8 pieces of silver to the seller, a third of the purchase price”, and the merchants of Lod celebrated. He said to them: “He may retract any time within a whole day.” They said to him: “Leave us as we were, Rabbi Tarfon”, and they reverted to the teaching of the Sages. In section two we learn of Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion that he gave at an actual event that occurred in Lod (a city in Israel, near where Ben Gurion airport is currently located). Rabbi Tarfon taught in Lod that fraud is one-third of the purchase price (as opposed to the Sages who held that it was one-sixth). This teaching caused the merchants to be happy for they could now overcharge more on their merchandise without being worried about retractions on the part of the buyer. To temper their celebration, Rabbi Tarfon told them that he was allowing a longer time for retractions, even an entire day. At this point the merchants of Lod said they preferred the words of the Sages taught anonymously in section one, who gave a smaller margin for fraud but a shorter time for the buyer to retract.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah three: Why would the merchants prefer a lower margin for fraud (1/6) and a shorter time for retraction as opposed to the opposite?" + ], + [ + "Both the buyer and the seller are subject to the law of fraud. Either the buyer or the seller may claim that they were defrauded. The buyer may claim that the seller overcharged and the seller may claim that the buyer underpaid.", + "Just as the ordinary person is subject to the law of fraud so too is the merchant. Rabbi Judah said: “The law of fraud does not apply to the merchant.” According to the first opinion, the laws of fraud apply to everyone. According to Rabbi Judah the law of fraud does not apply to a merchant. Since a merchant should know the value of the products which he sells, he is not allowed to later claim that the buyer underpaid.", + "He who has been subjected to [fraud] has the upper hand: if he wants he may say to him, “Give me back my money or give me back the amount you defrauded me.” The person who has been defrauded, either the seller if the buyer underpaid, or the buyer if the seller overcharged, can decide between one of two options. The first option is to annul the sale. The second option is to return the amount of the fraud to the one defrauded. In other, words if the buyer underpaid he would pay the remaining amount to the seller. If the seller overcharged he would return the amount of the overcharge to the buyer. In this case the sale would remain valid.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four, section two: Why, according to the first opinion, does the law of fraud apply even to the merchant?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with the amount that may be missing in the weight of a coin before the use of the coin constitutes fraud.\nMishnah six deals with how long a seller has to return a coin to the purchaser if the coin is missing weight.", + "How much may be missing from a sela and still not fall within the rule of fraud? Rabbi Meir says: “Four issars, one issar per dinar.” Rabbi Judah says: “Four pondions, one pondion per dinar.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Eight pondions, two pondions per dinar.” In order to understand this mishnah we need to understand the coinage mentioned in it. One sela = four dinars = 48 pondions = 96 issars Rabbi Meir holds that if the weight of a sela is missing the weight of four issars then its use is considered to be fraud. This is a ratio of 1/24. Rabbi Judah holds that a ratio of 1/12 constitutes fraud and Rabbi Shimon that a ratio of 1/6 constitutes fraud, which is the same as regular fraud as we learned in the previous mishnayoth.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah five: If the normal ratio of fraud is 1/6 why would Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah hold a stricter standard with regards to the weight of coins?" + ], + [ + "Until when may he [that is defrauded] return the coin? In large towns until he has had time to show it to a money-changer. In villages until the Sabbath eve.
If he [that had given the coin] recognized it, even after twelve months he should accept it [in return], but [if he does not accept it the one who received it] only has a cause for complaint [against him].
And it is permitted to use it for redeeming the Second Tithe without concern, for [he who would not receive it] is but only a cheapskate.
If a person should receive a fraudulent coin (one that weighs less than it is supposed to), he may demand that the person who gave him the coin replace it with a better coin. However, there is a time limit for making such a demand. In large towns where money-changers who could check the coin would be found, he only has as much time as it would take to bring it to a money-changer. In small towns he has until the eve of the Sabbath, since it can be assumed that most people from small towns will visit the market and see money-changers before the Sabbath.
If the person who gave him the coin recognized the coin he should exchange it even after the time mentioned above has long lapsed. However, if he refuses to exchange the coin the person who received it has no legal claim against him. The most he has is the right to make a formal complaint, which may damage the reputation of the person who gave the coin but will not legally compel him to exchange the coin.
Finally the mishnah teaches that one may redeem his Second Tithe with this coin, since anyone who would not accept the coin is only being cheap. The Second Tithe was the second ten percent of a person’s produce. It had to be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. Since it was difficult to carry all of the produce itself to Jerusalem a person was allowed to redeem the produce with money, and then bring the money to Jerusalem to use it to buy food." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth seven and eight are not directly connected to the subject matter of the chapter. Rather they both contain lists of laws that revolve around certain amounts of money. Mishnah seven lists minimum amounts of money that are needed to enact certain laws. Mishnah eight lists “fifths”, places in Jewish law where a person must pay an added fifth of something.\nRemember, the Mishnah is oral law. Lists such as these were probably easy to remember.", + "Fraud is four pieces of silver. As we learned in mishnah three of this chapter, fraud is considered to be an overcharge or an undercharge of 1/6 of a sale. Four pieces of silver are 1/6 of a sela which consists of 24 pieces of silver. If the sale was over or under by four pieces of silver per sela, the sale is potentially fraudulent.", + "A claim is [a minimum] of two pieces of silver. An admission is [a minimum] of that which is worth a perutah. If Reuven claims in court that Shimon owes him a certain amount of money and Shimon admits that he owes part of the amount but not the full amount, the court can make Shimon swear that he does not owe the full amount. In order for the court to make Shimon swear he must deny owing an amount not less than two pieces of silver (the claim, section one) and admit to owing an amount not less than a perutah, the smallest coin that exists (the admission, section two).", + "There are five [rules involving] that which is worth a perutah: An admission is [a minimum] of that which is worth a perutah. A woman can be betrothed with that which is worth a perutah. Someone who benefits a perutah’s worth from that which belongs to the sanctuary has committed sacrilege. One who finds that which is worth a perutah must proclaim it [as a lost object]. One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow and swears [falsely] to him [that he did not steal it], must go after him [to return it] even as far as Medea. The mishnah lists five laws for which a perutah is the required amount. 1) The admission mentioned in the previous section of the mishnah. 2) A woman can be betrothed by the man giving her something which must be worth at least a perutah (see Kiddushin 1:1). Today this is usually done by giving a ring. 3) If a person benefits from something that belongs to the Temple he has committed sacrilege and he will have to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin. He is only obligated for this sacrifice if this benefit was worth a perutah. 4) If a person finds something worth a perutah and it is one of the things which must be proclaimed as lost, he must proclaim it. If, however, it is worth less than a perutah he need not proclaim it. 5) If a person steals from his fellow and then falsely swears to him that he did not steal, in order to make atonement he must return the object to its owner no matter how far away the owner may be (See Bava Kamma 9:5). If, however, the stolen item was worth less than a perutah he need not do so." + ], + [ + "This mishnah lists five cases in which a person must add a fifth of the value of something. [Note that the mishnah lists five fifths. This is clearly an aid to memory and not just a coincidence].", + "There are five cases in which one must add a fifth:
One who eats terumah, or the terumah taken from the tithe, or the terumah from a tithe taken from doubtfully tithed produce, or dough offering, or first fruits, must add a fifth [to the value of the principle when he makes restitution]. This is a list of agricultural offerings which must be given to the Priest. One who eats one of these things accidentally must restore the value of what was eaten plus a fifth. For further explanation of what these offerings are look at the Steinsaltz reference guide.", + "One that redeems [the fruit of] a fourth year plant, or his second tithe, must add a fifth. The fruit of a new plant is forbidden for the first three years. During the fourth year the fruit must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. So, too, the second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. If a person wishes to avoid carrying such a heavy load of produce all the way to Jerusalem he may “redeem” his produce and bring the money to Jerusalem. [Afterwards he will be able to eat the produce outside of Jerusalem]. If he redeems the produce he must redeem it at a fifth more than its value.", + "One that redeems that which he dedicated [to the Temple] must add a fifth. If someone dedicates something to the Temple and the object which he dedicates cannot be sacrificed at the Temple, such as a piece of land, he can “redeem” the object with money and donate the money to the Temple. If he redeems the dedicated object he must add a fifth of its value.", + "One that derives a perutah’s worth of benefit from that which belongs to the sanctuary must add a fifth [when he makes restitution]. Someone who benefits from that which belongs to the Temple has committed sacrilege. When he makes restitution for that which he has taken, for instance if he illegally ate a sacrifice, he must add a fifth of the value of that which he consumed.", + "One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow must add a fifth [when he makes restitution]. If a person steals from his fellow and then swears that he did not do so, and subsequently is caught or wishes to repent, he must restore not only the value of that which he stole, but an added fifth as well.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah eight: Is there another possibility for counting the five “fifths” in mishnah eight?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine lists things to which the laws of fraud by overcharging do not apply. Mishnah ten deals with defrauding by spoken words. This mishnah has nothing to do with the laws of sales but rather deals with things a person should not say to another person.", + "These are the things to which the laws of fraud through overcharging do not apply: The sale of slaves, debt documents, land and what belongs to the Temple. The laws of fraud through overcharging are learned from Leviticus 25:14, “When you sell something to your neighbor or buy from the hand of your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.” According to the Rabbinic interpretation of this verse, the “wrong” is fraud through overcharging. From the words “from the hand” the Rabbis learn that in order for a sale to be subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging it must be something passed from hand to hand. This excludes land and slaves (whose laws are always similar to the laws regarding land) which cannot be passed from hand to hand. The word “something” excludes documents which have no value of themselves. The word “neighbor” excludes property which belongs to the Temple.", + "They are not subject to twofold restitution, nor fourfold or fivefold restitution. An unpaid guardian does not take an oath [on their account, that he did not damage them] nor does a paid guardian make compensation [if they are lost on his watch]. The things listed in section one are also exempt from other laws. A thief who steals any of these things and is caught does not have to pay the fine of twofold, fourfold or fivefold restitution (see Bava Kamma 7:1). If an unpaid guardian was guarding these items and they were lost, he need not take an oath to the owner that he was not careless in his watch. If a paid guardian was watching them and they were lost he need not make restitution. (For the laws of guardians see Bava Metziah 7:8).", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “Holy Things for which he is responsible, are subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging, and Holy Things for which he is not responsible are not subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging.” If a person makes a statement saying that he will dedicate a certain animal, for instance a sheep, to the Temple, he must dedicate a sheep. If he sets aside a sheep to bring to the Temple and it is lost, he will have to bring another sheep in its place. This is an example of a Holy Thing for which he is responsible. If, however, he states “This sheep is dedicated to the Temple” then he is responsible for bringing this specific sheep. If the sheep should die he need not bring another in its place. This is a Holy Thing for which he is not responsible. According to Rabbi Shimon, the first category is subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging. Since the owners are responsible for the animal, it is as if the animal is their property, and thereby liable to the laws of fraud. On the other hand, Holy Things for which he is not responsible are not subject to the laws of fraud, since they cannot be construed at all as the property of the owner.", + "Rabbi Judah says: “Also one who sells a Torah scroll, and an animal or a pearl they are not subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging.” They (the said to him: “They only said these.” Rabbi Judah adds three more things that are not subject to the laws of fraud. According to the explanation of Rabbi Shimon found in the Talmud the laws of fraud through overcharging do not apply to the selling of a Torah scroll, since a set value cannot be placed on a Torah scroll by which to establish when there has been overcharging. An animal or pearl’s value is subject to the needs of the buyer and therefore it is impossible to establish a set value for these as well. The Sages disagree with Rabbi Judah. According to them the only things which are not subject to the laws of fraud are those listed in section one.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah nine, section four: If according to Rabbi Judah the laws of fraud through overcharging do not apply to the sale of land, slaves, animals or pearls, to what types of sales do these laws apply?" + ], + [ + "Just as the laws of fraud apply to buying and selling, so to do they apply to the spoken word. One may not say, “How much is this object?, if he does not wish to buy it. If one had repented, another should not say to him, “Remember your earlier deeds”. If one descended from converts, another should not say to him, “Remember the deeds of your ancestors”.
For it is said (Exodus 22:21), “And a stranger you shall not wrong or oppress.”
Just as a person can wrong another person by cheating him on a sale, so too can a person wrong another person through words. One may not ask someone how much something costs he doesn’t intend to buy it. This would raise false hopes for the seller. One may not remind a person who had repented of his former deeds. Nor may one remind a convert that his ancestors were idol worshippers. These laws are learned from a midrash on the verse in Exodus 22:21. The verse uses the word “ger” which in Biblical Hebrew means stranger but in Rabbinic Hebrew means convert. The word for “wrong” in this verse is the same word used in Leviticus 25:14 (see above) from where we learned the laws of fraud. The Rabbis extended the “wrong” mentioned in the verse to include even wrong done through words alone." + ], + [ + "Produce may not be mixed together with other produce, even new produce with new produce, and needless to say new with old. In truth they permitted sharp wine to be mixed with weak wine, since this improves [the taste].
Wine lees may not be mixed with wine, but [the seller] may give [the buyer] the lees that come from the same wine.
One whose wine has been mixed with water may not sell it in a store unless he informs [the buyer] and not to a merchant even if he has informed him, since [the merchant would buy it] only to deceive with it. In a place where they are accustomed to put water in wine, they may do so.
Mishnah eleven and the beginning of mishnah twelve deal with a seller’s mixing produce that comes from different fields or wine from different winepresses. The potential problem is that the seller might mix good produce with bad produce in order to hide the bad produce and thereby make it easier to sell. The remainder of mishnah twelve deals with other competitive and deceptive business practices.
One is not allowed to mix produce that comes from one field with produce that comes from another field, lest one field makes better produce than the other field. In other words, a buyer has a right to know from which field his produce is coming. New produce, probably grain that has not fully dried out, is not as valuable as old produce. Nevertheless it is forbidden to mix the produce even if both sets of produce are new. Needless to say it is forbidden to mix new produce with the old. In modern times this is akin to selling a bushel of fruit where the good fruit is on top and the bad fruit is hidden on the bottom.
Sharp wine may be mixed with weak wine since the mixture will improve the taste of both wines.
A seller may not artificially add lees to a jug of wine, thereby seeming to increase the amount of wine he is selling. On the other hand, he may sell a jug of wine with the lees that come from that wine itself. In other words, although he may not add lees to wine, he need not remove the already existing lees before he sells it. A buyer of wine should expect to receive a normal amount of lees.
One who has diluted his wine, probably to make it more drinkable, cannot sell it in a store unless he informs the purchasers that they are buying already diluted wine. He may not sell the wine to a merchant even if he informs the merchant, lest the merchant sell the wine to others without informing them that the wine is already diluted." + ], + [ + "A merchant may buy from five threshing floors and put the produce into a storage chamber, or from five wine-presses and put into one jug, as long as he doesn’t intend to mix them [for purposes of fraud]. This section is a continuation of the previous mishnah. There we learned that a person may not mix produce that comes from different fields. Here we learn that someone who purchases from different fields may place the produce or wine in the same storage chambers, as long as he doesn’t intend to mix good and bad produce.", + "Rabbi Judah says: “A storekeeper should not distribute parched corn or nuts to children, for that accustoms them to come [only] to him.” But the Sages permit. And he may not lower the price. But the Sages says: “Let him be remembered for good [if he lowers the price].” He may not sift crushed beans, according to Abba Shaul. But the Sages permit. (1) But they agree that he should not sift them [only] at the entry of the storage chamber, since he would be a deceiver of the eye. ( He should not beautify what he sells, whether humans, cattle or utensils. Rabbi Judah states that certain competitive business practices are forbidden. A shopkeeper may not give parched corn or nuts to children (they didn’t have candy back then) since that will make the kids want to come back and bring their parents along with them, thereby damaging the competing businesses. (I’m sure parents can identify with this mishnah. How many times have you been at the checkout counter of the store and your kids begs you to buy him/her the toy or candy blatantly displayed out front?). Rabbi Judah also forbids a seller to lower a price in order to compete with his fellow sellers. Both of these practices were permitted by the Sages. Abba Shaul forbids a seller to sift the crushed beans and thereby remove the waste. This would raise the price and again probably cause competition with the other sellers. Again, the Sages permit. They do, however, forbid a seller to sift the crushed beans that are on the outside of a container. The buyer would see sifted crushed beans and think the entire container is sifted. This is indeed a deceptive business practice, and not merely competitive. Similarly, it is forbidden to artificially improve something’s appearance in order to sell it. The modern example would be to put wall paper over walls of a house in order to hide the fact that they are in truth rotting away.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah twelve: What types of business practices are forbidden to the Sages and what types are permitted?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe fifth chapter of Bava Metziah deals with the Torah’s prohibition of lending money to another Jew with interest. Leviticus 25:35-37 states (JPS translation): “If your kinsman, being in straits, comes under your authority, and you hold him as though a resident alien, let him live by your side. Do not exact from him advance (neshech) or accrued interest (tarbit), but fear your God. Let him live by your side as a your kinsman. Do not lend him your money at advance interest (neshech), or give him your food at accrued interest (tarbit).”\nOur mishnah deals with the Rabbinic definitions of “neshech” and “tarbit”.", + "What is usury ( and what is increase (? It is usury ( when a man lends a sela for five dinars, or two seahs of wheat for three, because he bites ( [off too much]. Section one defines “neshech”. This is a simple form of loaning with interest, where a person gives another person a loan of either money or goods and expects to get back more in return. The mishnah understands that the Biblical word “neshech” derives from the word “noshech” which means to bite. Interest “bites” because the creditor bites off from the debtor more than he gave.", + "And what is increase? When a man increases [his gains] by [selling] produce. How is this so? (1) [If] one bought wheat at a golden dinars [=25 silver dinars] for a kor when such was the market price, and then wheat rose to thirty [silver] dinars [per kor]. (2) [If] he said to him, “Give me my wheat since I would sell it and buy wine with the proceeds” and the other said, “Let your wheat be reckoned with me at thirty dinars and you now have a claim on me for wine [to that value], although the creditor has no wine. Section two defines the word “tarbit”. This situation is more complicated. Reuven buys from Shimon wheat at 25 dinars (=one silver dinars) per kor (a unit of volume) which was the market price of wheat. Shimon does not immediately provide the wheat but rather will provide it at a later time. After the sale the market price of wheat rises to 30 dinars. Reuven requests from Shimon his wheat so that he can sell the wheat and buy wine. Reuven is allowed to purchase the wheat at the lower price since he bought it at what was at the time market value. Shimon says to Reuven that he will sell him wine in return for the wheat that he owes him. In other words Shimon promises to provide Reuven with 30 dinars worth of wine, since that is the current value of the wheat. If Shimon does not currently have this wine in his possession this is forbidden. The reason is that if the price of wine goes up Reuven will have in effect loaned Shimon 30 dinars (the amount of wheat that Shimon owes Reuven) and when he gets the wine that has gone up in price he will receive back more than he loaned. If Shimon had had the wine at the time when he said this to Reuven it would have been permitted, since by trading his wheat for wine, the wine would be in Reuven’s possession when it rose in price. The problem is that if Shimon doesn’t own the wine he is in essence borrowing Reuven’s money. If the price of wine should rise Shimon will end up returning interest to Reuven." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth two and three continue to discuss things that are forbidden since they are forms of usury.", + "One who lends money to his fellow may not dwell in his courtyard for free or rent it from him at a reduced rate, since that counts as usury. A person who has received a loan from another may not give the other person anything in return for the loan (except of course returning the lent money itself). Usually interest is defined as extra money returned to the creditor in return for the loan. However, as our mishnah points out, interest can come in other forms of benefit as well, such as free or reduced rent. A borrower, therefore, may not allow his creditor to rent a house for free or for a reduced rate.", + "One may increase rent-charge [not paid in advance] but not purchase price [not paid in advance]. How so? If his fellow rented him his courtyard, and said to him, “If you pay me now the cost is 10 selas per year, but if you pay me on a monthly basis, the rent is one sela per month”, this is permitted. However, if he sold him his field, and said to him, “If you pay me now it is yours for 1,000 zuz, but if you pay me at the time of threshing it will be 1,200 zuz”, it is forbidden. A renter may increase the rent-charge in return for not receiving the rent up front but a seller may not increase the price of a sale in return for a delayed payment. The mishnah now explains this principle. With regards to rent, the owner of the courtyard may say to the person renting the courtyard that he can either pay in advance 10 selas for the entire year or a monthly rate of one sela (12 selas per year) collected at the end of each month. This is not considered interest in return for delaying the payment. Since rent is reckoned on a monthly basis to be paid at the end of each month, each month of rental is considered individually, which is a permitted rental arrangement. When the owner said that he would rent it for 10 selas for the whole year he was only offering a discount which is permitted. However, a person cannot sell an item and state one price for paying immediately and a larger price for receiving the money later. This is considered interest. For instance if Reuven sells a field worth 1,000 and tells Shimon that if he pays later he must pay 1,200, it will turn out that Reuven has lent Shimon a field worth 1,000 in return for 1,200. This is usury." + ], + [ + "If a man sold a field, and the buyer gave him part of the price and he said to the buyer, “Pay me the rest of the price whenever you wish and then take what is yours”, this is forbidden. The scenario described in this case is forbidden because the seller gets the use and benefit from the field in return for allowing a delayed payment from the buyer. In other words the buyer in essence loans the seller the field in return for waiting until he can gather the remainder of the money to complete the sale. This is usury.", + "If a man lent another money on the security of his field and said to him, “If you do not pay me within three years it will be mine”, then it becomes his. This is what Boethus the son of Zunin used to do with the consent of the Sages. A person may loan another person money and use the other person’s field as collateral. Even though this may look as if the borrower is selling him his field in return for the loan, the Sages did not consider this to be usury.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah three, section one: Would it be forbidden for Reuven to sell a field to Shimon and for Reuven to continue to use the field until Shimon brought him the money?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four deals with business partnerships that are forbidden because one partner is in essence lending with interest to the other partner.", + "One may not set up a shopkeeper on the condition of receiving half the profit, or give him the money to buy produce on the condition of receiving half the profit, unless he pays him his wage as a laborer. In the case in our mishnah Reuven gives either produce or money with which to buy produce to Shimon in order for Shimon to sell the produce and share the profits. After having sold all of the produce Shimon will owe Reuven both the value of the produce originally given or the money given to buy the produce, plus half of the profits from the sales. In other words this is a typical investment loan made by the one who has the capital, Reuven, to the entrepreneur who is willing to turn the capital into a profit. The problem is that this is a form of lending with interest. In return for letting Shimon use his money or goods Reuven will receive half of the profits. Therefore, the mishnah states that this type of deal is forbidden unless Reuven pays Shimon as a laborer. If he does so then the share of the profits that Shimon will keep is actually wages which is of course permissible.", + "One may not set out his hens [for another to raise them and hatch their eggs] in order to share the profits, nor evaluate calves or foals [and give them to his fellow to raise] in order to share the profit, unless he pays him a wage for his labor and cost of the food. This section is similar to the scenario in section one. Reuven gives Shimon either hens and eggs to raise and hatch, or young animals to raise until they mature. When the eggs hatch or the young animals mature Shimon will pay back the value of the original investment and share in the profit. Since Shimon has worked in raising these animals, unless he is paid for his wages he will in essence be giving Reuven interest on his loan. If he is paid for his work then he is acting as a wage earner which is entirely permissible.", + "But one may receive the care of calves and foals in return for half the profits, and rear them until they reach a third of their growth, and donkeys until they can carry a burden. The difference in this scenario that makes it permissible is that Shimon, who receives the animals to raise from Reuven, does not take responsibility over the animals should they die. In other words, if the animals live Shimon will return them to Reuven and split the profit (their gain in value as they mature). However, if they die Shimon will not be responsible to return the value of the animals, as he was in the scenarios in sections one and two. Since this is so, it is as if the risk involved in raising the animals is the wage that Shimon receives and when he returns a profit it is not considered interest. There is another interpretation of this clause. According to this interpretation, in the scenario in this clause Shimon is only responsible for returning half the value of the original animal plus half of the profit. In other words if Reuven gives him an animal worth 200 zuz and when it is raised it is worth 500 zuz. Shimon pays back half the value of the original animal, 100, and receives half of the profit, 150. Although Reuven in essence gave an animal worth 200 and receives back a total of 250 (500 zuz for the animal minus 250 which was paid to Shimon) this is not considered interest. In this case Shimon and Reuven are true partners who are allowed to split profits. In the previous cases mentioned in the mishnah Reuven was an investor, in which case taking interest in order to make a profit is forbidden." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five and the beginning of mishnah six continue to deal with business arrangements that are forbidden because they are usurious. The remainder of mishnah six deals with lending with interest to gentiles.", + "One may evaluate cows and donkeys and anything that works and eats [and give them to one’s fellow to raise] in order to share the profit. In the previous mishnah we learned that it is forbidden to give a person animals to raise in order to share the profit and losses. Since in the end the person receiving the animals will repay the value of the animals plus half the value of the increase, this is considered interest. However, we learned that if the person receives a wage for raising the animals then this arrangement is permitted, for it is not a loan but rather a work arrangement. In other words the half of the profit goes to the owner in return for the wages and not in return for the loan. Our mishnah teaches that if the animal can do work or produce profit, such as cows or donkeys, then the work that the animal does is considered the wages that the person raising them receives. In this case the business arrangement is permitted.", + "Where the custom is to share the offspring immediately at birth, they do so; and where the custom is to first rear them [and then give them over to the owner], they do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “One may evaluate a calf with its mother, and a foal with its mother [and give them to one’s fellow to raise in order to share the profit.] In section one the mishnah taught that if the animal can work or otherwise produce profit, such as a milking cow or a donkey which can carry a load, it is permitted for one to give it to another person in order to share the profits and losses. If there are young born to the animal while this arrangement is in effect there is a potential problem. The young animals cannot work or produce and therefore there may be a potential problem of interest. The mishnah states, however, that the turning over of the animals immediately to the owner in order to avoid interest, is only necessary if that is the custom. If it is not the custom to turn over the young animals until they mature, there is still no problem of interest. Since the mothers will continue to produce the person raising them is still receiving a wage and not, therefore, in danger of paying interest to the owner. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that even from the outset young animals may be given to be raised with mature animals. Although the young animals do not produce any profit, since the mature animals do produce profit the person raising them does receive a wage and there is no problem of interest.", + "A tenant may offer increased rent in exchange for a loan to improve his field, without fearing that this is usury. If Reuven owns a field and Shimon rents the field in order to pay a fixed yearly sum to Reuven, Shimon may ask Reuven to loan him money in order for Shimon to repay Reuven with a higher yearly sum. The extra amount added to the sum is not considered to be interest on the loan but rather an increase in rent in return for Shimon’s working a more valuable field. Since rent is permitted this business arrangement is not usurious." + ], + [ + "One may not accept a flock from an Israelite on “iron terms” [that the one who tends the flock shares the profits from the flock and accepts full responsibility for their value]. A person may not give his flock to another person on condition that the receiver accept full responsibility and that the two will share in the profits. Since the person giving the flock is guaranteed to receive back his flock and will also receive half of the profit this is a form of usury.", + "But one may accept a flock from a gentile on “iron terms” and money may be borrowed from them and one may lend them money. The same is true with a resident alien. An Israelite may lend the money of a gentile with the knowledge [and consent] of the gentile but not with the knowledge of an Israelite. According to Deuteronomy 23:20-21 a Jew (Israelite) may lend and borrow with interest from a gentile but not from another Jew. In order to understand this difference between gentiles and Jews we must understand that lending and borrowing with interest is not an immoral act. It is actually fair and logical that the one who gives his money to others should receive a wage in return, just as one who gives his horse to others receives a wage in return. The reason that the Torah forbids lending with interest to other Jews is that this is a form of charity. A loan without interest is in actuality one of the highest forms of charity, and has been a practice of Jews throughout the ages. According to Jewish law charity begins within one’s own community. While it might be an ideal that one should be charitable to the whole world, it is impossible to obligate one community to support all communities. A Jewish community is legally obligated to support the Jews within the community. This obligation is not extended outside the community. Since lending is not immoral it is permitted to do so with non-Jews. At the end of the mishnah we learn that if Reuven had borrowed money from a non-Jew he may loan that money to Shimon if the non-Jew consents. He may not however lend the money to Shimon without the non-Jew’s consent since this would be a loan from one Jew to another." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that one who wishes to advance money to a merchant in order for the merchant to provide him with produce at a later time may not fix a price for the purchase if the produce is not currently in the hands of the merchant or the market-price for the produce has not been set. The fear is that the buyer will give money to the merchant and then the produce will rise in value and it will be as if the buyer received a discount for having advanced the money. This is a form of interest since in return for giving his money in advance and letting the seller use them the buyer will get a greater deal of merchandise in return. If, however, the market-price was set or the merchant had the produce in hand this type of purchase is permitted since the buyer could have currently bought and taken hold of the produce but just chose not to.", + "One may not set a price for produce before its market-price is known. After its market-price is known, one may set a price, for even though this one does not have [the produce] another does have it. Reuven may not set a fixed price to provide Shimon with produce at a future time unless there is an established market-price for the produce. The problem is that if the produce goes up in value then Shimon will have prepaid in return for a lower price. In such a case Shimon will receive in return more than he gave, which is a form of interest. If, however, the market-price has been set, and many people in the market are selling this type of produce, they may set a price even though Reuven does not currently have the produce. Since Shimon could have bought from others he is not benefiting by prepaying for the produce.", + "If he was the first to harvest his crop, he may set a price with his fellow over grain stacked in a heap, or over grapes in their harvesting basket, or over olives in a vat, or over the clay-balls of the potter, or over lime as soon as the limestone is sunk in the kiln. The aforementioned arrangement is also permitted if Reuven already has the produce in hand, even though the market-price has not yet been set. Since Shimon could have taken the produce at the time when he paid for it, it is not a problem of interest for Shimon to pay and then take it later. This is true even if the produce is not totally ready, such as wheat that has only just been harvested but not processed or any of the other examples in the mishnah. Although it is not completed Shimon still could have nevertheless acquired it in the present.", + "One may set a price for manure at any time of the year. Rabbi Yose says: “One may not set a price over manure unless the seller has manure on the dungheap.” But the Sages permit it. According to the first opinion in this section it is always permitted to set a price for manure, since manure is always available. Rabbi Yose disagrees and states that the one providing the manure must have it available. Otherwise we fear that the price of the manure may rise and the buyer will profit from having advanced the money, which is interest. The Sages agree with the first opinion and disagree with Rabbi Yose.", + "One may set the price at the cheapest rate [that will be at the time of delivery]. Rabbi Judah says: “Even if he didn’t set the price at the cheapest rate he may say, “Give me at the such a price or give me back my money.” Although one may not set a fixed price since if the price rises the buyer will receive interest for advancing the money, they may strike a bargain that the buyer will pay the lowest price when the market-price is set. In such a manner the buyer will definitely not receive a benefit for having advanced the money. Rabbi Judah states that in general if the buyer prepaid for his produce and the produce later goes down in price, he may give the seller a choice of providing the produce at the lower amount or of returning the money. Since the buyer did not actually take the produce and thereby legally acquire it, he is not legally obligated by the sale (Bava Metziah 4:2). [The buyer is also not sanctioned by the clause of “the one who exacted punishment” (ibid.) since his acquisition was from the outset a delayed acquisition]." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth eight and nine deal with a person who lends produce in order to receive produce in return. As we have learned previously, if after the loan the value of the type of produce rises, for instance at the time of the loan wheat was 1 dollar a pound and afterwards it was 2 dollars a pound, the borrower will end up returning more value to the lender, which is a form of interest.", + "[A landowner] may lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat, if it is for planting but not if it is for food. For Rabban Gamaliel used to lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat when it was for planting. And if he lent it when the price was high and it afterward fell, or when it was low and it afterward rose, he used to take wheat back at the lower rate, not because such was the rule but because he wanted to be strict upon himself. A person may not lend another person a seah of wheat on the condition that the other person pay back a seah of wheat. The reason is that if the wheat rises in price after the loan the lender will receive in return more than he gave, and that is considered to be a form of interest. Rather he would have to state an amount, such as 100 dollars worth of wheat and when he gets the loan back he will receive 100 dollars worth of wheat at whatever the rate is at the time of repayment. Our mishnah teaches that although one cannot loan wheat in order to be repaid in wheat when the wheat was intended for eating, one may do so when it is for planting and there is no concern that this be considered interest. The simplest way of understanding this is that it is as if the owner is giving him a better field to work, which he is allowed to do. The second half of the mishnah teaches a stringency that Rabban Gamaliel took upon himself. Although it is permitted to lend wheat for wheat if the wheat is for planting, Rabban Gamaliel would always collect upon the lower rate. In this way there was no potential that he would receive back a higher value than he gave in the beginning and thereby loan with interest." + ], + [ + "One should not say to his fellow, “Lend me a kor of wheat and I will repay you at the threshing time”, but he may say, “Lend it to me until my son comes”, or “until I find my key”. As we learned in the previous mishnah one cannot lend wheat and ask to receive the same amount of wheat in the future lest the wheat rise in price. If, however, the borrower has other wheat at the time he borrows from the other person, then it is permitted. The reason that this is permitted is that the borrower could have repaid the wheat immediately after receiving the loan before the price might potentially rise. The mishnah states that the borrower may say “loan me some wheat and I will repay you wheat as soon as my son comes to open my storehouse or I find the key to my storehouse”, where assumedly the borrower has wheat.", + "But Hillel used to forbid this. Moreover Hillel used to say, “A woman may not lend a loaf of bread to her neighbor unless she determines its value in money, lest wheat should rise in price and they are found to be engaging in usury.” Hillel was stricter in this matter and forbid this type of loan even if the borrower has wheat in his possession. Hillel forbid even a casual loan of a loaf of bread from one woman to her neighbor unless she set a price in money. Again, Hillel is concerned that the price of wheat would rise and she would receive interest in return for giving her bread to her friend.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why would the mishnah teach a stringency that Rabban Gamaliel accepted upon himself if it is not obligatory upon others?
• What is the difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Hillel?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah ten deals with a person who strikes a bargain with another person that each will help the other to do some field work. As we will see such an arrangement can be potentially usurious. In the second half of the mishnah Rabban Gamaliel gives a general definition of two different types of usury and Rabbi Shimon discusses verbal usury.\nMishnah eleven completes our discussion about usury by stating that all who are involved in an usurious contract violate the Torah and discussing which specific commandments they violate.", + "One may say to his fellow, “Help me weed and I will help you weed” or “Help me hoe and I will help you hoe.” But one may not say, “Help me weed and I will help you hoe”, or “Help me hoe and I will help you weed”. Reuven is allowed to make an arrangement with Shimon that one day he will work for Shimon and the other day Shimon will work for him, as long as both are doing the same work. If, however, Reuven helps weed and Shimon helps hoe or vice versa, and one of the labors is more difficult than the other, the bargain is forbidden because of usury. The problem is that the one who does the work for his friend second may do a more difficult type of labor in return for having his work done first. This is a form of usury, since one person will get back more in return for waiting to be paid for his work.", + "All days of the dry season are accounted alike, and all days of the rainy season are accounted alike. One may not say to another, “Help me plow in the dry season and I will help you plow in the rainy season.” Just as two different types of labor may not be exchanged for one another, so too the same labor may not be exchanged for the same labor if they are done during different seasons. Since working in one season may be harder than working in another, if the one who does the work for his friend second does the work in a harder season he is in essence repaying the loan of his friend’s work with interest.", + "Rabban Gamaliel says: “There is interest that is paid in advance and interest that is paid afterward. How is this so? If a one intended to borrow from another and made him a present and said, “This is so that you will lend to me”, this is interest that is paid in advance. If one borrowed from another and repaid it to him, and then sent a present and said, “This is for your money of which you have not had use while it was with me”, this is interest that is paid afterward. Rabban Gamaliel explains that it is forbidden to pay interest either before or after the loan is executed. Therefore, a person cannot give another person a present in order that that person would loan him money, since this is prepaid interest. Neither can a person give another a present for having loaned him money, since this is interest paid afterwards.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “There is interest paid in words: one may not say to his creditor, “Know that such and such a person has come form such and such a place.” According to Rabbi Shimon, interest need not only be a gift of things, money or work from the borrower to the creditor. Interest may even be verbally given to the creditor. If the debtor passes needed information to the creditor in return for the loan, this is interest through words alone. [In our days this might be akin to giving a stock tip to someone in return for a loan.]", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten, section three: Why does Rabban Gamaliel use the example of a present given as interest as opposed to money? Is he trying to teach some additional information?" + ], + [ + "These are the one who transgress a negative commandment: the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses. And the Sages say, “The scribe also.” When a loan with interest is executed it is not only the lender and borrower who violate a negative commandment but everyone involved in the loan. According the Sages, even the scribe transgresses a negative commandment if he draws up a document which contains in it a usurious loan.", + "They transgress the commandment, (1) “You will not give him your money upon interest” (Leviticus 25:37), and (2 “You shall not take usury from him” (Leviticus 25:36) and (3) “You shall not be to him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24), and (4) “Nor shall you place upon him usury” (ibid.) and (5) “You shall put a stumbling block before the blind, and you will fear your God, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:14). The mishnah now lists the specific transgressions that a person commits when a loan with interest is executed. Since there are several verses in the Torah that forbid lending in interest the Rabbis understood that each verse added another commandment. One loan with interest can therefore cause a person to violate several commandments. In the Talmud it is explained that the lender violates all of these commandments, the borrower violates the first two and number five. The witnesses violate number four and according to the sages the scribe violates number four as well.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eleven, section one: Why does the mishnah expand the list of those who transgress when a usurious loan is committed from the lender and borrower to all parties involved? What is this meant to teach us?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe sixth and most of the seventh chapters of Bava Metziah deal with various employment laws. The two mishnayoth which will we learn today discuss the consequences of employers or employees reneging.", + "If one hired craftsmen and they deceived each other, they have no legally valid complain against each other, but only cause for complaint. If an employer hired people to come work for him and then either side deceived the other side, for instance if the employer paid a lower wage than is generally acceptable or the employee claimed a higher wage than acceptable or one of the sides reneged on the deal, neither side can make a legal claim against the other side. All they can do is file a legal complaint which might damage the other side’s reputation but will not be sufficient to force the other side to make monetary compensation. Note that this is all in a case where there was no legally valid contract before the work began. If there had been then each side would be obligated to fulfill their obligations. Furthermore this mishnah deals with a case where the reneging occurs before the work begins. The following mishnah will deal with a case where one side reneges after the work has begun.", + "If one hired a donkey-driver or a wagon-driver to bring litter-bearers or pipers for a bride or for the dead, or laborers to take his flax out of the steep, or any matter that would be lost if delayed, and they retracted, if it was a place where there were no others [who could be hired for the same wage] he may hire others at their (the original expense or he may deceive them. In this situation the employer had hired workers to do a type of work that if not done immediately would be lost, such as carrying a bride to her wedding or carrying the dead to the graveyard or playing the flute at either a wedding or funeral, or removing flax from the steep which if not done immediately would ruin the flax. If in such a case the workers reneged on their deal by not showing up the employee has two options. The first option is to hire other workers at a higher rate and collect the extra money he had to pay from the original workers. In other words if the first workers charged 5 dollars per hour and the workers found at the last minute charge 10 dollars per hour, he can collect the extra five dollars per hour from the original workers. However, he may only do so if there are no other workers available for the same original rate. The second option is to deceive the original workers by telling them that they will get a higher wage and then not giving it to them in the end. Although deception is generally illegal, since the workers themselves put the employer into this situation, he is allowed to deceive them.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Do these laws seem to favor the employer or the employee? From these mishnayoth what rights does it seem that each side has?" + ], + [ + "If one hired craftsmen and they retracted, they are at a disadvantage. If one hired craftsmen and they retracted in the middle of fulfilling their contract, for instance painting a house, they are at a disadvantage. In such a case the householder who wants to have the rest of his house painted will need to hire more workers. If the second set of workers are more expensive than the first set the householder is allowed to reduce the wages paid to the first set of workers in order to compensate for paying more to the second set. If the second set are cheaper the first set of workers cannot ask for more money for doing the first half of the work, even though in the end the householder will pay a smaller total amount for the work. In this way the first workers who reneged in the middle of a deal can lose money but not gain.", + "If the householder (the retracted he is at a disadvantage. If, however, the employer changed his mind in the middle of the painting of the house, he is at a disadvantage. If the price of workers has gone up, he still must pay the first set of workers the full wage for the work they had done. If the price of workers has gone down he must pay the first workers the full total wage, minus what he has had to pay to the second workers. In such a way the employer will lose money, if the price of workers has gone up, but he will not gain, even if the price of workers has gone down.", + "Whosoever changes [the conditions of a contract] is at a disadvantage. If a person hires someone to do a certain piece of work in a certain way, for instance to color his wool red, and the employee did it in a different way, for instance he colored it green, the employee is at a disadvantage. If the cost of the dye was higher than the improvement in the price of the wool, from non-dyed wool to green wool, then the employer pays him the lower amount, that is the amount of improvement. If the amount that the wool was improved was higher than the cost of the dye than the employer only pays for the cost of the dye. (See Bava Kamma 9:4).", + "And anyone who retracts is at a disadvantage. This section summarizes what was in the first section of the mishnah.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• According to mishnah two does an employee have a right to stop working in the middle of a job? Compare this with contract law in modern times. How are they similar and how are they different?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three deals with one who hires an donkey to carry a load in a certain type of terrain and then takes the donkey to a different terrain, against the terms of the contract.", + "If one hires a donkey to drive it through hill country and he drove it through a valley, or to drive it through the valley and he drove it through the hill country, even though the distance of each was ten miles, if the donkey died the hirer is liable. If one hires a donkey with the explicit condition that the donkey will be driven through a certain type of terrain he is only allowed to drive the donkey through that type of terrain, be the terrain hilly or a valley. If, therefore, he drives the donkey into a different terrain and the donkey dies, he is obligated to compensate the owner for the lost donkey. Although in general hirers are not responsible if the animal that they have hired dies a natural death, since in this case the hirer did not abide by the terms of the contract, he is liable. This is true even though he didn’t drive the donkey any further than he was supposed to.", + "If a man hired a donkey and it went blind or was conscripted into the king’s service, the owner may say to the hirer, “Here is yours before you” [and he need not replace the donkey]. [But] if it died or was broken, he must give him a new donkey. If one hires a donkey and the donkey goes blind or is conscripted for use by the king, the owner of the donkey does not have to supply the hirer with a new donkey. He does not even have to return the money to the hirer. Since the donkey still exists the owner of the donkey can say to the hirer that he should keep using the donkey even though it is blind. If the donkey was conscripted the owner can tell the hirer that he must either wait until the term of conscription is over or try to bribe the animal back into his possession. Again, since the donkey still exists he need not supply the hirer with a new one. On the other hand, if the animal died the owner must give the hirer a new donkey.", + "If one hires a donkey to drive it through hill country and he drove it through a valley, if it slipped he is not liable, but if it overheated he is liable. [If one hires a donkey] to drive it through a valley and he drove it through hill country, if it slipped he is liable, but if it overheated he is not liable. But if [it overheated] due to the ascent he is liable. A donkey walking in hill country has a greater chance of slipping than a donkey walking in a flat valley. On the other hand, a donkey walking in the valley has a greater chance of becoming overheated than a donkey walking in the cooler hill country. Therefore, if one hired a donkey to walk in the hill country and he took it through the valley and it slipped he is not liable. Since the owner rented him the donkey with the intention that the donkey would walk in a place where it is likely to slip the hirer is not liable if the donkey slips while walking where it is even less likely to slip. If, however, the donkey overheated while being driven through the valley, the hirer is liable. The owner gave him the donkey assuming that he would take it through the hill country where overheating is unlikely. Since he took it to the valley where overheating is likely, he is liable. The opposite is true if one hired a donkey to walk through the valley and instead took it to the hill country. If it slipped the hirer is liable, since he took it to a place where it was more likely to slip. If, however, it overheated he is exempt since it is less likely to overheat in the hill country than in the valley where it was allowed to go. This is true with one caveat. If the donkey overheats due to an overly strenuous uphill climb, then the hirer is liable in any case. Since he should have been more careful about climbing so strenuously, he is liable for the damages caused.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the relationship between what is taught in section one and what is taught in section three?
• Section two deals with a subject different from the subject discussed in sections one and three. Why do you think this clause is placed in this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe two mishnayoth which we will learn today continue to discuss the main topic of the chapter: breaches of contract.\nMishnah four deals with one who hires a cow to plow on a certain type of terrain and then uses the cow for a different terrain and the plow attached to the cow breaks. Alternatively he hires the cow to thresh a certain type of produce and then he uses it to thresh a different type of produce and the cow slips and is injured.\nMishnah five deals with one who hires a donkey to carry a load of a certain weight or volume and then adds on to that weight or volume, thereby causing the donkey and be injured.", + "The general principle behind this mishnah (and the other mishnayoth of the chapter) is that if one hires an animal to do work in which it is unlikely to sustain a certain type of injury and he then uses the animal for a work in which he would be more likely to sustain that injury and the animal is injured he is obligated. If however he uses the animal for work in which the animal would be less likely to be injured and the animal is injured he is exempt from paying damages.", + "If one hired a cow to plow in the hill country and he plowed in the valley, if the plowshare was broken he is exempt. [If one hired a cow to plow] in the valley and he plowed in the hill country, if the plowshare was broken he is liable. The land in a valley is softer and less likely to break the plowshare than the land in the hill country. Therefore if he hires the cow and its plowshare to work in the rocky hill country and he uses it in the softer valley and the plowshare still breaks he is exempt. The assumption is that if it broke in the valley all the more so it would have broken in the hill country. If, however, he hired it to plow in the valley and he plowed with it in the hill country and the plowshare broke he is liable. The assumption is that if he had taken it to the valley, as he was supposed to, it would not have broken.", + "[If one hired it] to thresh beans and he threshed grain [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is exempt. [If one hired it] to thresh grain and he threshed beans [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is liable. An animal is more likely to slip and be damaged while threshing beans than while threshing grain. Therefore if he was supposed to thresh beans and he threshed grain and the animal slipped he is exempt. However, if he was supposed to thresh grain and he threshed beans he is liable, since he made the animal do a more difficult work than he had hired it for.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• In mishnah three we learned that a hirer who does not abide by the terms of the contract is automatically liable for any damage. However, in mishnayoth four and five there are circumstances where he is not automatically liable even though he did not abide by the terms of the contract. How are these mishnayoth different from the previous one?" + ], + [ + "If one hired a donkey to carry wheat and he used it to carry [a like weight] of barley, he is liable [if the donkey was injured]. [If he hired it to carry] grain and he used it to carry [a like weight of] chopped straw he is liable, since the greater bulk is more difficult to carry. In the scenario mentioned in this section, although the person did not add weight to the load being carried by the donkey, he did add bulk. In such a manner he made the work more difficult and is therefore liable if the donkey was injured. In the examples given barley is bulkier than wheat and straw is bulkier than produce.", + "[If he hired it to carry] a letech of wheat and it carried a letech of barley he is not liable. But if he increased the weight, he is liable. What increase in weight renders him liable? (1) Symmachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: “One seah for a camel and three kavs for a donkey.” If he hired the donkey to carry a letech of wheat, which is a unit of volume, and he carried a letech of barley he is exempt if the donkey was injured. Although he changed the terms of the contract since he in essence lightened the load (barley is lighter than wheat) he is exempt. If, on the other hand, he actually increased the weight he will certainly be liable. The end of the mishnah then proceeds to ask how much weight increase will cause him to be liable. According to Symmachus (the name of a Sage) in the name of Rabbi Meir one seah per camel, which is 1/15 of a letech or three kavs (1/2 seah) for a donkey. Less than this and the hirer is not liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• In mishnah three we learned that a hirer who does not abide by the terms of the contract is automatically liable for any damage. However, in mishnayoth four and five there are circumstances where he is not automatically liable even though he did not abide by the terms of the contract. How are these mishnayoth different from the previous one?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six deals with the legal liability of craftsmen: as paid or unpaid guardians. It also contains several other laws with regards to paid and unpaid guardians.\nMishnah seven deals with the liability of a lender vis a vis the pledge he took to guarantee his loan.\nMishnah eight deals with the liability of carriers who trip and break a jar that they had been carrying from place to place.", + "A paid guardian has a greater liability over objects that he is guarding than an unpaid guardian. A paid guardian is liable if the object is lost or stolen but not liable if the object dies (if it is an animal) is broken or taken captive.", + "All craftsmen are accounted paid guardians. But all that have said, “Take what is yours and give me the money”, are accounted unpaid guardians. Craftsmen who take objects into their possession to work on them, such as cloth to make into clothing or leather to make into shoes, have the status of paid guardians. If the object is lost or stolen they are liable to make compensation to the owner. If, however, the craftsmen told the owner to come and collect his item and pay the money, the craftsmen now have the status of an unpaid guardian.", + "If one man said to another, “Guard that for me and I will guard this for you”, he is accounted a paid guardian. If two people exchange objects for guarding they are both considered to be paid guardians. Although they are not paying each other for guarding the object, they are each in essence paying the other person by watching his object. Therefore they are each considered to be paid guardians.", + "If one said, “Guard this for me”, and the other said “Put it down in front of me”, he is accounted an unpaid guardian. If someone asks another person to watch his object and the person responds by saying “Put it down in front of me” the guardian has the status of an unpaid guardian. Although he didn’t specifically say that he would guard the object, telling the other person to put the object down is sufficient to cause him to be a guardian.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah six: Why does a craftsman have the status of an unpaid guardian after he says, “Take what is yours and give me the money”?" + ], + [ + "If one gave a loan and took a pledge he is accounted a paid guardian. Rabbi Judah says: “If he lent him money he is accounted an unpaid guardian; if he lent him produce he is accounted a paid guardian.” If one gave a loan to another person and took from that person a pledge to guarantee the loan, the lender is considered to be a paid guardian vis a vis the pledge. Since by keeping the pledge he is getting in return a guarantee on his loan he has the added liability of being a paid guardian. Rabbi Judah refines this law. According to Rabbi Judah one who loans money is accounted an unpaid guardian over a pledge. Since Jews cannot lend other Jews with interest, lending money is a total favor to the borrower. Therefore, in compensation, the lender has less liability over the pledge. However, one who lends produce actually benefits by lending it, since the produce may have gone bad while in his possession. Since he receives benefit he is a paid guardian over the pledge.", + "Abba Shaul, “One may hire out a poor man’s pledge and thereby reduce the debt, for in such a way he is like one who returns lost property.” Abba Shaul states that if a lender takes a pledge from a poor person he should rent out the pledge and keep the money in order to gradually reduce the amount of the pledge. In this way he is able to return the pledge to the poor person without the poor person actually having to pay back his loan." + ], + [ + "If one moved a jar from place to place and broke it, whether he is a paid guardian or an unpaid guardian, he may take an oath [that he did not break it through neglect and be exempt from liability]. Rabbi Eliezer says: “[I too have heard that] in either case he may take an oath, but I wonder whether in either case the oath is valid.” The subject of our mishnah is one who breaks a jar while moving it from place to place, evidently by tripping while carrying it. According to the opinion in the first clause of the mishnah the one carrying the object is exempt from paying and need only take an oath that he did not break it through neglect. According to this opinion tripping is not necessarily a neglectful act. Rabbi Eliezer agrees that the accepted law is as was stated in the first clause but he questions the logic of that law. According to Rabbi Eliezer tripping is indeed a neglectful act, and therefore one who tripped should not be able to take an oath that he was not neglectful. Note that with regards to this law it does not matter whether the carrier was a paid or unpaid guardian. If tripping is neglectful then both are liable and if tripping is not neglectful then neither are liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah eight: Why does Rabbi Eliezer say that he has heard that either may take an oath but then doubt whether such an oath is acceptable? What does this statement teach us about Rabbi Eliezer’s general approach to tradition versus logic?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah of chapter seven deals with the obligation to follow local customs in employee/employer practices.", + "If one hired laborers and told them to work early or to work late, he has no right to compel them to do so where the custom is not to work early or not to work late. In the scenario in this section the employer hired laborers and then later told them that he expected them to either arrive early or to stay late. The mishnah teaches that in a place where workers do not customarily arrive early or stay late, he has no right to do so. Since he made his original agreement without telling them of any unusual conditions, he must follow local custom.", + "In a place where the custom is to give them their food he should give it to them, and where the custom is to provide them with sweet food, he must give it to them. Everything should follow local custom. Similarly, the mishnah teaches that in a place where the employer customarily provides food for the employee he must do so, even if he doesn’t specifically promise to do so. If the custom is to provide sweet food then he must do so as well. On the other hand, if the local custom is not for the employer to provide the food or sweet food he is not obligated to do so. We will learn more about employers’ obligations to feed their employees in the coming mishnayoth of this chapter.", + "It once happened that Rabbi Yochanan ben Mattia said to his son: “Go and hire laborers for us”. He went and struck a deal to provide them with food. When he came to his father, his father said to him, “My son, even if you make them a banquet like Solomon’s in his time you will not have fulfilled your obligation to them. For they are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, rather, before they begin to work go and say to them, “On condition that I am not bound to give you more than bread and beans only.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “It was not necessary to speak thus, for everything should follow local use.” This section contains an interesting story of a father and his son. The son goes out and hires workers at his father’s request and tells them that he will provide their food. When he returns to his father his father fears that such a condition could potentially be interpreted to mean that he will provide them with a feast worthy of King Solomon. His father instructs the son to return and clarify to the workers that they are being hired under the condition that they will receive food but that the food will be minimal, consisting of only beans and bread. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that such a stipulation was not necessary. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in a case where the quantity of food was not clarified, the employees can only claim that which is customarily given to workers in their area. Since custom does not dictate that an employer provide his employees with food worthy of King Solomon he need not do so. Evidently the father had assumed that in a case where the employer had not made any limitation with regards to the amount of food to be provided to the employees, his promise could be interpreted in favor of the employees.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the significance of the line, “For they are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” mean?" + ], + [ + "These may eat [of the fruits among which they work] by the law of the Torah: one who works on that which is still connected to the ground [may eat of it] when the work is finished [at the time of harvest]; and one who works on that which is already detached from the ground [may eat of it] before the work is completely finished. This applies only to that which grows from the ground.
These are they that may not eat; one that works on what is still growing while the work is still unfinished; and one that works on what is already detached from the ground after the work is finished, and [one may not eat] of what does not grow from the soil.
In Deuteronomy 23:25-26 we learn that a person who is in another’s field or vineyard has a right to eat directly from the fruit of the field. However, he may not harvest the grapes or grain and put them in his basket in order to bring them back into his home. According to the Rabbis these verses deal with workers doing work in the field and not with normal people passing through another’s fields. A person just passing through another’s field does not have a right to eat anything from the field for that would be considered stealing.
Mishnayoth 2-8 deal with these verses and clarify in what situations a worker may eat and in what situations he may not.
This mishnah discusses when may a worker eat directly from the foodstuff with which he is laboring and when he may not. Note, this mishnah does not directly discuss an employer’s obligation to feed his employee which was a topic discussed in the previous mishnah.
1) One who is working with food that has not yet been harvested may eat of it at the time when it is harvested. However, he may not eat of the food while it is still attached to the ground.
2) One who works with produce that has already been harvested may eat of the produce until it has become completely processed, i.e. grapes turned into wine, olives into oil or grain into flour. After that point he may no longer eat of the produce.
3) Finally, a person who works with food that does not grow from the land, such as meat or dairy products may not eat directly from them.
All of these laws are learned exegetically from the verses in Deuteronomy mentioned above. Since the verses deal with fields and not with other types of food, the Rabbis deduced that a worker who worked with someone else’s meat or dairy products was never allowed to eat from them. Furthermore Deuteronomy 25:4 states, “Do not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” The Rabbis compared an ox to other workers and decided that while one was not allowed to prevent an ox from eating while working, under certain conditions one was allowed to prevent a working person from eating from that with which he is working." + ], + [ + "If one was working with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, or even with his shoulders only, he still may eat. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Judah says, “Only if he works with both his hands and his feet.” According to the Talmud, the two opinions in this mishnah are based upon differing interpretations of Biblical verses. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Judah’s is based on the verse in Deuteronomy 25:4, “Do not muzzle and ox while he is threshing”. According to his interpretation of this verse just as an ox works with both its hands and his feet and therefore may eat from that with which it is working, so too a worker must work with both his hands and his feet. The anonymous opinion in section one is based upon the verse in Deuteronomy 23:25. There it states “When you come into your neighbor’s field…”. Since the verse does not specify that he was working with both hands and feet it implies that all workers may eat from the field.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
The issue of a person eating from things that belong to his employer is still an issue in modern society. How do our customs or laws compare to those in the time of the Talmud? Keep this question in mind as we learn the next several mishnayoth as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe two mishnayoth which we will learn today continue to discuss a worker’s right to eat from the produce with which he is working.", + "If one was working with figs he may not eat grapes, and if among grapes he may not eat figs. But he may refrain [from eating] until he reaches the best produce and then eat. As we learned in the previous mishnah, according to the Rabbinic interpretation of the Torah a fieldworker is allowed to eat from the food in the field while he is working in the field. Our mishnah teaches that a worker may eat only of the food with which he is working. They may not eat of other foods even if they belong to the same owner. However, the worker may save his appetite and eat from the best fruit which he will work with in the end. In other words the worker may eat of any of the fruit with which he is working but he may not eat from anything with which he is not working.", + "In no case have they said [that he may eat] save during the time of his work. But because of the principle of restoring lost property to its owner they have said, “Field laborers may eat as they go from one furrow to another or as they return from the winepress. And a donkey [may eat] while it is unloading.” The basic law is that a worker may only eat while he is working. However, this situation presents a potential problem to both the worker and the employer. The worker would probably prefer to eat when he is completed with his work and the employer, who probably is paying per hour, would prefer the worker not stop working to eat. Therefore, the Rabbis stated that workers may wait to eat until they have completed their work and are going from one place of work to the other.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah four, section two: According to the mishnah is a worker allowed to eat while he is working or must he wait until he completes the job?" + ], + [ + "A laborer may eat cucumbers even to a denar’s worth, and dates even to a denar’s worth. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma says: “A laborer may not eat more than the value of his wages. But the Sages permit it, but they teach a man not to be gluttonous as to close the door against himself. According to the anonymous opinion in section one of the mishnah, a laborer may eat as much food as he wants. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma disagrees and states that by law a laborer may not eat more than he earns. The Sages, who are the same Rabbis who held the opinion in the first clause, permit a laborer to eat more than he earns. However, they state that for the laborer’s own good we teach him not to eat too much for if he does he will not be rehired. In other words while it may be legal for him to eat gluttonously, it will damage his reputation and in the future prevent him from being able to earn an income." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six deals with a person’s legal right to strike a deal with the employer on behalf of the other members of his household.\nMishnah seven deals with workers hired to work with food which they may not eat since it has not had the proper agricultural offerings taken out of it.", + "One may exact terms for himself and for his son or daughter that are of age, and for his slave or female slave that are of age, and for his wife, since these have understanding. But he may not exact terms for his son and daughter that are not of age, or for his slave or female slave that are not of age, or for his cattle, since these have no understanding. This mishnah deals with a man who is working in someone else’s field along with his family. The man has a right to make a contract with his employer that instead of taking food directly from the field the employer will pay them extra money with which they can buy their own food. This was probably a customary practice in their time. A man has a right to make this contract on behalf of his wife, his adult children and his adult male and female slaves. The reason is that these people have understanding and will be able to refrain from eating directly from the field. Therefore the man’s contract with the employer is legally binding on them as well and they may no longer eat directly from the field. However, a man may not exact terms for the minors in his family, be they children or slaves. Since these people have no legal understanding, meaning they cannot be held legally liable for their actions, the father may not make a contract to prevent them from eating from the field.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah six: What does this mishnah tell us about the structure of the Jewish family at the time of the Mishnah?" + ], + [ + "If one hired laborers to work among his fourth-year plantings, they not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were fourth-year plantings] he must first redeem the fruit and then allow them to eat. In this scenario workers are hired to work with produce from plants that are in their fourth year. Such fruit may not be eaten in any place but Jerusalem. (During the first three years of a plant’s life its fruit may not be eaten at all. This law is called “orlah”.) If the owner wished to, he could redeem the fruit of his fourth year plants with money and bring the money to Jerusalem and spend it there. If the workers were told beforehand that they would be working with fourth-year plantings, then they may not eat from them. Since they agreed to work with that which they could not eat, the employer is not obligated to make the food able to them. However, if the employer had not informed them that they would be working with food from which they may not eat, he is obligated to redeem the fruit and then let them eat.", + "If his fig-cakes broke up or his jars burst open, they may not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were liable to be tithed] he must first separate the tithes and then allow them to eat. One is not obligated to separate the tithe (which will go to the Levi) from produce until the work on the produce has been completed. In other words, fruit in the fields that has not yet been made ready for sale need not be tithed before eating, whereas fruit in the market must be tithed before it is eaten. In our mishnah the laborer was hired to work with produce upon which the work has already been completed. He therefore may not eat of the produce until the appropriate tithes have been taken. In this case the worker was hired to work with food after the work had been completed and yet something went wrong with the packaging. As we learned in section one, if the employer had informed the worker that he would be working with produce from which he could not eat then they may not eat from the produce. If, however, he had not informed them, then he must separate the tithes and allow them to eat from the produce.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah seven: What general principle can you extract from this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first line of mishnah eight introduces the laws concerning of guardians, which will continue to be the topic throughout the remainder of the chapter and the beginning of chapter eight. Some of these laws were discussed in chapter three of Bava Metziah.", + "Those that guard [gathered] produce may eat from it because that is the custom of the land and not because that is the law of the Torah. A guardian is not considered by the law of the Torah to be the type of worker who may eat from the produce with which he is working. Therefore, according to the law in the Torah a guardian may not eat of this produce. However, since local custom permits him to do so, he is allowed. Note, in this mishnah we see two important sources of Jewish law, the Torah and local custom.", + "There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen. This section lists the four types of guardians in Jewish law. The general principle is that the more benefit a guardian receives and the less benefit he gives to the owner of the object, the more liable he will be if the object is ruined. Therefore a borrower, who does not pay and gets use of the object pays in any case that the object is ruined. On the other hand, an unpaid guardian only gives benefit to the owner and receives no benefit in return. Therefore in all cases in which something occurs to the object that he is guarding he may take an oath that he was not neglectful and be exempt from liability. Paid guardians and hirers are in-between cases. The hirer gets use of the object but he pays for such use. The paid guardian is not allowed to use the object but he gets paid for watching it. Therefore both of these guardians are sometimes allowed to take an oath and thereby be exempt from liability and sometimes they are liable to pay the owner. If the animal was lost or stolen and is no longer in front of us, they must pay the owner the value of the animal. If, however, it died a natural death, was taken captive or injured then they may take an oath and exempt themselves from liability.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eight: What is the difference between something being Torah law or the custom of the land?" + ], + [ + "In the previous mishnah we learned that one who hirers an animal or one who is being paid to watch it is not liable if it was injured, taken captive or died a natural death. In our mishnah we learn that the hirer or paid guardian are not liable in any case where something happened to the animal that was beyond his control. This is called “ones” in Hebrew, and it means an unavoidable accident. This mishnah deals with attacks by wild animals on a flock that are out of the hirer or paid guardian’s control to stop.", + "If one wolf [attacked the flock that he was watching] it does not count as an unavoidable accident [for which no blame is placed on the guardian]. Two wolves do count as an unavoidable accident. Rabbi Judah says: “In a time where wolves are commonly attacking the settlements, even one wolf is considered to be an unavoidable accident.” An attack made by one wolf is not considered to be an unavoidable accident for the shepherd should have been able to fend him off. A shepherd could not, however, fend off two wolves and therefore an attack made by two wolves is considered unavoidable. Rabbi Judah adds that if even one wolf attacked at a time when wolves were commonly attacking, the shepherd would not be able to fend it off and it would be therefore be considered an unavoidable accident.", + "Two dogs do not count as an unavoidable accident. Yadua the Babylonian said in the name of Rabbi Meir says: “If [two dogs came] from one direction they do not count as an unavoidable accident, but if [they came] from two directions they count as an unavoidable accident. Dogs are less dangerous than wolves and therefore even two dogs are not considered to be an unavoidable accident. Yadua (the name of a Sage) the Babylonian in the name of Rabbi Meir qualifies this law to a situation where both dogs attacked from the same direction. If they attacked from different directions it is considered to be an unavoidable accident.", + "A bandit counts as an unavoidable accident. An attack by bandits is considered to be an unavoidable accident. When the previous mishnah stated that a hirer and an unpaid guardian are liable if the object was stolen the meaning is that they are liable if it was stolen by thievery. If the animal was stolen by an armed robber that is similar to the case where it was taken captive and they are not liable.", + "A lion or a bear or a leopard or a panther or a serpent counts as an unavoidable accident. An attack by any of the predatory wild animals listed here is considered to constitute an unavoidable accident.", + "When [is this so]? When they come of themselves. But if he took the flock to a place of wild animals or bandits they do not count as an unavoidable accident. The mishnah clarifies that an unavoidable accident is only when the animal or bandit attacked the flock when the flock was grazing in a safe area. If, however, the paid guardian or hirer took the flock to an area known to be unsafe and then the flock was attacked, they are liable. Since they were the ones who brought the animal to danger, they are liable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe beginning of mishnah ten continues to discuss the definition of an unavoidable accident for which a hirer or an unpaid guardian are not liable. The second half of mishnah ten deals with a guardian who makes a stipulation to lower his level of liability.\nMishnah eleven deals with some general laws of stipulations.", + "If a beast died a natural death this counts as an unavoidable accident [for which a hirer or paid guardian is not liable]. But if he tortured it and it died it does not count as an unavoidable accident [and the hirer and paid guardian would be liable]. If it was led up to the top of a crag and it fell down and died, this does not count as an unavoidable accident. As we learned in mishnah seven, a paid guardian and a hirer are not liable if the animal which they are guarding or using dies a natural death. As our mishnah explains, a natural death is considered an unavoidable accident. However, if the hirer or unpaid guardian tortured the animal and it died, or if he led it up to a dangerous crag and it fell it does not count as an unavoidable accident and the hirer or unpaid guardian would be liable to make restitution.", + "An unpaid guardian may make a stipulation that he will be exempt from taking an oath, and a borrower [may make a stipulation that he will be exempt] from making restitution, and a paid guardian and a hirer [may make a stipulation that they will be exempt] from taking an oath or from making restitution. The principle learned in this section is that all types of guardians may make stipulations with the owner of the object to lower their level of liability. An unpaid guardian is normally allowed to take an oath that he was not negligent and thereby exempt himself from liability. He may make a stipulation before agreeing to watch the object that if something happens to the object he will be exempt without an oath. Similarly a borrower is liable to make restitution in all cases where something happens to the object. He may make a stipulation before borrowing the object that if something happens he will be exempt. Finally, a hirer and an unpaid guardian are sometimes able to exempt themselves by taking an oath and sometimes they must make restitution. They may also make stipulations that if liable for an oath they would be exempt without the oath and if liable to make restitution they would be exempt. Obviously, in all of these cases the owner would need to agree to the stipulation before he gives them the object. If he did not wish to agree to the stipulation he would simply not give them the object.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten, section two: Why would an owner agree to a guardian lowering his level of liability?" + ], + [ + "If one makes a stipulation contrary to that which is written in the Torah he stipulation is void. In the previous mishnah we learned that guardians may make stipulations to exempt themselves from varying degrees of liability. However, in this mishnah we learn that stipulations made that are contrary to the Torah are null and void. Apparently there is a contradiction between the two mishnayoth, with mishnah ten allowing stipulations contrary to that which is in the Torah and mishnah eleven disallowing them. One possibility to reconcile the two is that monetary stipulations, such as those mentioned in mishnah ten are valid and non-monetary stipulations are not valid. A non-monetary stipulation would be, for example, if a man married a woman on condition that she would not need a get (a divorce document) to divorce him. This is certainly an invalid stipulation.", + "Any stipulation that mentions first the action is void. There are strict rules regarding the way in which stipulations must be stated. This mishnah teaches that the stipulation must be mentioned before the action. For instance if one says: “Behold you are betrothed to me on condition that my father will agree” the woman is married even if the father does not agree. If he wishes the stipulation to be valid he must mention the stipulation first by saying, “If my father agrees then you are betrothed to me”.", + "Any stipulation that can in the end be fulfilled and was laid down as a condition from the beginning, such a condition is valid. Finally we learn that for a stipulation to be valid it must be possible to fulfill it. For instance if one said, “If you fly to the sky then you are betrothed to me” the stipulation is invalid and she is betrothed immediately.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eleven, section three: Why do you think that for a stipulation to be valid it must be possible for one to perform it? Why would someone state an impossible stipulation?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah of chapter eight deals with a specific law which is applicable only to borrowers: if the owners were rented or borrowed with their animals, for instance a donkey driver with his donkey, then the borrowers or renters are not obligated if the animal should die.\nMishnah two deals with a person who rents an animal for half a day and borrows it for the other half.", + "If one borrowed a cow together with the service of its owner, or hired its owner together with the cow, or if he borrowed the service of the owner or hired him, and afterward borrowed the cow, and the cowed died he is not liable, for it is written, “If its owner was with it no restitution need be made” (Exodus 22:14). But if he first borrowed the cow and afterward borrowed or hired the service of its owner, and the cow died, he is liable, for it is written, “Its owner not being with it, he must make restitution” (Exodus 22:13). The Torah clearly states that if the owner of the animal was with the animal when it was borrowed and then it died or was injured the borrower is not obligated to make restitution. The assumption is that the owners should have taken care of the animal and therefore even though the borrower would normally be liable for the animal dying or being injured in this case he is not. Our mishnah clarifies two issues. First of all, it states that the services of the owner need not have been borrowed but may have been hired as well. As long as the cow is borrowed these laws will be applicable. Second, the services of the owner must have been borrowed or hired before the borrowing of the cow. The Rabbis interpret the Torah’s words “with it” or “not being with it” to mean that the owner was in service to the borrower at the time of the borrowing and not afterwards. If the borrower hired or borrowed the services of the owner after having borrowed the cow he will be liable if the cow dies, even if at that time the owner was with the cow.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah one: Why might the Rabbis have interpreted the verses in Exodus 22:13-14 in this way and not in a more literal manner?" + ], + [ + "If one borrowed a cow, and borrowed it for half a day and hired it for half a day; or borrowed it for one day and hired it for the next; or if he borrowed one cow, and hired another and the cow died if he that lent the cow says: “It was the borrowed cow that died”, [or] “On the day when it was borrowed it died”, [or] “During the time when it was borrowed it died” and the other one says: “I don’t know”, (1) he is liable. If the hirer says, “It is the hired one that died”, [or] “On the day when it was hired it died”, and the other says, “I do not know”, (1) he is not liable. If the one says, “It was borrowed”, and the other says, “It was hired”, (1) the hirer must take an oath that it was the hired one that died. If the one says, “I do not know”, and the other says, “I do not know”, (1) they share in the loss. There are three possible scenarios mentioned in this mishnah 1) Shimon borrows from Reuven a cow for half a day and rents the same cow for the other half of the day; 2) Shimon borrows the cow for one day and hires it on the next day; 3) Shimon borrows from Reuven one cow and rents a different cow. If the cow should die a natural death it will be in Shimon’s best interest that the cow died while it was being hired, since a hirer does not pay in cases of natural death. It will be in Reuven’s best interest if the cow died while being borrowed since borrowers do pay in cases of natural death. Our mishnah delineates the possible claims of Reuven and Shimon and the law in each case. Case a: If Reuven, who lent the cow, claims that he is certain that the cow died while being rented or that the rented cow died and Shimon claims that he doesn’t know, Shimon is liable. This goes according to the general principle that one who claims that he is certain has a stronger claim then one who claims he is not certain (see Steinsaltz reference guide, page 172. Case b: Similarly, if Shimon claims that he is sure that the cow died while being borrowed or that the borrowed cow died and Reuven claims that he does not know, Shimon is exempt. Since Shimon is certain that the borrowed cow died and Reuven doesn’t know, Shimon’s claim is stronger. Case c: If they disagree and each claims that he is certain, Shimon takes an oath that it died while it was being hired and he is exempt from making restitution. This is based on the principle that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. Since in this case Reuven is the plaintiff and he cannot prove his claim, Shimon is exempt. Case d: If both claim that they are uncertain then they split the loss of the cow. In this case Shimon will pay Reuven half the value of the cow." + ], + [ + "If one borrowed a cow and the owner sent it by the hand of his son or his slave or his agent, or by the hand of the borrower’s son or slave or agent and it died [on the way], the borrower is not liable.
But if the borrower said, “Send it to me by the hand of my son or my slave or my agent, or by the hand of your son or your slave or your agent”, or if the lender said, “I am sending it to you by the hand of my son or my slave or my agent”, or “by the hand of your son or your slave or your agent”, and the borrower said, “Send it”, and he sent it and it died [on the way], the borrower is liable.
So, too, when the cow is returned.
Mishnah three deals with a lender who uses an agent to deliver the object to be borrowed to the borrower.
Mishnah four deals with disputes in sales where it is either unknown whether the cow being sold gave birth before it was sold (in which case the calf belongs to the seller) or after it was sold (in which case the calf belongs to the buyer). Similarly this mishnah deals with a dispute between a buyer and a seller over which field or slave was sold, the larger or the smaller one.
The issue in this mishnah is the liability of the borrower during the time when the borrowed animal is being delivered from the lender to the borrower. If the lender sent it with a third party, be it his own son, slave or agent or even the borrower’s son, slave or agent, without being asked to do so by the borrower then the borrower is not liable for the animal until it reaches him. The borrower can say to the lender that he did not agree to accept liability until the animal reached his hand.
If, however, the borrower requested that the lender send the object with someone else or the lender told him that he was going to do so and the borrower agreed, then the borrower is liable for the object as soon as the animal leaves the hand of the lender. Since the borrower agreed that the animal could be delivered by a third party, it is as if he has accepted responsibility immediately.
All that was stated in the previous part of the mishnah is also true at the time when the animal is being returned. If the borrower sends the animal back through a third party without being asked he is responsible for the animal until it reaches the lender. If, however, the lender told him to return it through a third party or the borrower told him that he was returning it through a third party and the lender agreed, from the moment it leaves his hands the borrower is no longer liable for the animal." + ], + [ + "The principles learned in this mishnah are strikingly similar to those learned in mishnah two of this chapter, so it may help to look at the explanation to that mishnah as well. Basically, the mishnah teaches that when two people are both certain about a claim (and there is no corroborating evidence) they split the disputed amount. The caveat to this rule is that if there is a previous assumption of possession favoring one of the parties, the other party must prove his claim in order to win the dispute. If one party claims that he is certain and the other party that he is unsure, the one who claims certainty wins the dispute. If both are uncertain they also split the disputed amount. We will now go through the examples in this mishnah.", + "If one swapped a cow for a donkey, and it gave birth, So too if one sold his slave and she gave birth, [And] one (the says, “It was born before I sold her”, and the other (the says, “It was born after I bought her”, they shall divide [the value of what was born]. If this scenario a person exchanged a donkey for a cow and the cow gave birth but it is unknown when it gave birth. The one who acquired the cow will claim that the cow gave birth after the swap and therefore the calf belongs to him, and the one who gave his cow will claim that the birth was prior to the swap and therefore the young cow belongs to him. In this case, since there is no previous assumption of ownership over the young cow, the two parties split its value. The same principle is true if the seller sold a female slave and the dispute is over when she gave birth, before or after the sale.", + "If one had two slaves, one large and the other small, or two fields, one large and the other small,[And he sold one of them], If the buyer says, “I bought the large one” and the other says, “I don’t know”, the buyer can rightly claim the large one. If the seller said, “I sold the small one” and the buyer said, “I do not know”, he may only take the small one. If one said, “It was the large one” and the other said, “It was the small one”, the seller must take an oath that it was the small one that he sold [and the buyer can only take the small one]. If one said, “I do not know”, and the other said, “I do not know”, they shall divide the value [of both slaves or fields]. In this scenario a person sold one of two slaves or fields to his friend, and the two parties are disputing whether it the larger or smaller slave or field was sold. There are four possibilities for the two claims. 1) If they buyer claims that he is certain that he bought the large one and the seller is uncertain which he sold, the buyer gets the large one. 2) If the seller claims that he is certain that he sold the small one and the buyer is uncertain, the buyer receives only the small one. 3) If they are both certain then the seller must take an oath that he sold the small one and the buyer only receives the small one. 4) If both are uncertain they split the value of both of the fields or both of the slaves.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four: In section one and section 2iii, both parties claim certainty. Nevertheless in section one they split the value and in section 2iii, the seller takes an oath and the buyer gets only the smaller field or slave. Why is the law in these two sections different? What is essentially different about the two situations?" + ], + [ + "If one sold his olive trees as firewood and they bore fruit that gave less than a quarter-log of oil per seah, this belongs to the [new] owner of the olive trees. If they bore fruit that gave a quarter-log of oil [or more] per seah, and the one said, “It was my trees that produced it”, and the other said, “It was my land that produced it”, let them share the produce.
If a flood washed away a man’s olive trees and set them in the midst of his fellow’s field [where they bore fruit], and the one said, “It was my trees that produced it”, and the other said, “It was my land that produced it”, let them share the produce.
Mishnah five deals with a situation where one sold olive trees to another person to cut them down as firewood, but he did not sell the land. The issue is to whom do the olives belong: to the one who owns the trees or to the one who owns the land.
Mishnah six begins to discuss the laws of renting, a topic which will be discussed from now until the end of the tractate. The first topic of discussion is the renting of houses and specifically the laws of eviction.
The scenario in section one of our mishnah is that Reuven sold his olive trees to Shimon but did not sell him the land. The intent was for Shimon to cut down the trees and use them as firewood. However, before Shimon did so the olive trees bore some olives with which it was possible to make olive oil. If the olive oil was of a poor quality, in other words it came from olives that produced less than a quarter-log of oil per seah, then the owner of the trees can keep the oil. Since there is not much oil and it is of a low quality, we can safely assume that Reuven does not care about it and therefore Shimon may keep it. However, if the trees produce a better quality and higher quantity of olive oil there may be a dispute. Reuven may justly claim that the olives grew from his ground and Shimon may justly claim that they grew from his tree. In such a case they split the value of the olive oil.
The scenario in section two is different from that in section one but it has the same law. In this case Reuven’s trees were washed up in a flood and landed on Shimon’s property where they took root and bore fruit. Again, Reuven claims that his trees bore the fruit and Shimon that his land bore the fruit. Again, they split the value of the oil." + ], + [ + "This mishnah deals with how much warning a landlord must give his tenant before evicting him.", + "If one leased a house to his fellow in the rainy season, he cannot make him leave it [during the time] from Sukkot to Pesach. In the summer, [he must give him] thirty days [warning]. And in large cities, whether it is during the rainy season or the summer [he must give] twelve months [warning]. If he rented him a house in the winter, he cannot evict him from Sukkot (approximately October) till Pesach (approximately April). In Israel, where the Mishnah was composed, this is the rainy season. Since it would be difficult for the tenant to find a new house in the rainy season, and difficult for him to move while it is wet outside, he may not be evicted during this entire period. If it was during the summer and the house was rented in a small town, he need give him only 30 days warning before evicting him. If, however, he was in a large city he must give him 12 months warning. The assumption is that it will be more difficult to find new housing in a larger city where more people live.", + "[If one leased] a shop [to his fellow], whether in large cities or small towns, [he must give] twelve months [warning]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If it is a shop occupied by bakers or dyers [he must give] three years [warning]. If he rented him a store he must always give him twelve months, even during the summer in a small town (where if he had rented him a house he need only give thirty days warning). The reason is that a storekeeper needs time to collect his debts from his customers. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel points out that bakers and dyers will need three years warning. A likely reason for the need for such a long warning is that it is very difficult for a baker or dyer to move his equipment and find new accommodations.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah six: After whose interests is this mishnah concerned? The landlord or his tenant?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final three mishnayoth of chapter eight continue to deal with the laws of renting houses.\nMishnah seven deals with what “extras” are included in the standard rental of a house.\nMishnah eight deals with a person who rents a house for a year and the year ends up being a leap year, which in the Hebrew calendar has an extra month.\nMishnah nine deals with the obligation of the landlord to provide his tenant with a new house should the old one fall.", + "If one rented a house to his fellow, he is obligated to provide it with a door, a bolt a lock and anything which is the work of a craftsman. However, that which is not the work of a craftsman, the tenant must make himself. When a landlord rents a house to someone he is obligated to provide the house with a door, a bolt and a lock and any other type of accoutrement which is customarily part of the house and is the work of a craftsman. An example might be the beams to support the walls or the handles to open the windows. The assumption is that since these are customarily part of the house and the tenant could not make them by himself, the owner is obligated to do so. An example in our day might be a toilet or a sink. One who rents a house certainly expects it to have a toilet and a sink, and if it did not he could probably obligate the landlord to build one. Anything which is not the work of a craftsman, must be provided by the tenant himself. Examples of these might be a ladder to reach the second story or a railing around the roof. Since these are simple to make, the expectation is that the tenant will make them himself.", + "The manure [which collects in the courtyard] belongs to the owner of the house, and the tenant can only claim the refuse from the oven and the stove. In the time of the mishnah the courtyard was shared by several householders and it was used for many purposes, such as cooking, laundry, etc. There was a custom that on market days, those who came to town from the neighboring villages would bring their animals into other people’s courtyards and buy food and drink there, as if the courtyard was a temporary inn. Since we can assume that the animal owner himself would not bother to carry the animal’s manure back to his village, the issue of the ownership over the manure left by these animals needs to be clarified. According to the mishnah it belongs to the owner of the house and not to his tenant. Although the tenant provided the food and drink for the animal, the manure does not become his. The only waste-product that the tenant does get to keep are the ashes from the stove and oven. Note: manure was used to fertilize the fields. Ashes were also used to fertilize the fields as well as other uses, including medicinal." + ], + [ + "If one rented a house to his fellow by the year and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the tenant. If he rented it by the month and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the owner. It once happened in Tzippori that a person leased a bath-house from his fellow at “twelve golden dinars a year, one dinar per month”, and [when the year became a leap year] the case came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and Rabbi Yose, and they said: “Let them share the extra month.” In the time of the mishnah there was no fixed calendar as we have in our day. Rather each year they would decide whether to make a leap year of 13 months or not. The Hebrew months are lunar months, of either 28 or 29 days, making a total of 354 days per year. Since this is 11 days short or a regular solar year, the Hebrew year must receive an additional month about once every three years. If one leased a house by a yearly wage and the year became a leap year, the tenant benefits by receiving an extra month for free. Since the terms of the contract were for a year, the tenant receives a year, whether it is a leap year or not. If, however, he leased the house by the month, and the year became a leap year, he must pay for the extra month. In the story (1c), the rental agreement for the bath-house contained ambiguous language, stating both the yearly rate and the monthly rate. Since it was unclear whether the owner had rented the house on a yearly or monthly rate, they split the cost of the extra month." + ], + [ + "If one rented a house to his fellow and it fell down, the owner must build him a new house. If it was small he may not make it larger, and if it was large he may not make it smaller. If it was one house, he may not make it two; if it was two houses he may not make it one. He may not reduce or increase the number of windows, unless it is with both of their consent. If one rented a house to another person and the house fell down he must build him a new house that is basically the same as the previously rented house. He may neither add nor detract from the size of the house. The renter may have specifically rented a small house and may not want a larger house. If he rented a house with one room (1b) he may not split the house into two rooms or build a one room house if the former was two rooms. Nor may he increase or decrease the number of windows. Since in all of these cases a person might prefer the other option, the owner is obligated to build the same type of house that was previously rented. If, however, the tenant agrees to a change and the owner agrees as well, they may of course make any change they wish." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMost of the ninth chapter deals with arrangements between a field owner and his sharecropper, i.e. one who works the field and in return provides the owner with a fixed amount of produce (either through a percentage of the crops or a fixed amount). The first mishnah deals with some of the sharecroppers rights and obligations with regards to the field. The second mishnah deals with a field that has either a spring or a tree in it and the spring dries up or the tree is cut down.", + "If one leased a field from his fellow and the custom of the place was to cut the crops, he must cut them; If the custom was to uproot them, he must uproot them; If the custom was to plough after reaping, he must plough. Everything should follow local custom. A sharecropper must reap the field which he received from the owner in the manner that is normal for that type of crop in that area. If the custom was to cut the crops with a scythe then he must use the scythe. If the custom was to uproot the stalks then he must uproot them. Similarly, if the custom was to plough after reaping in order to uproot the weeds, then he must do so. If the custom was not to plough, the owner may not force him to do so. In summary, the owner of the field can force the sharecropper to treat the field in a “customary” manner, and the sharecropper need not perform “uncustomary” practices which the owner might demand.", + "Just as they share the grain, so too they share the chopped straw and the stubble. Just as they share the wine, so too they share the [dead] branches and the reeds [used to prop the vines]. And both parties must [at the outset] provide [their share of] the reeds. A sharecropper gives the owner of the field a percentage of the produce that is harvested, for instance grain. Our mishnah teaches that he must also give the owner the same percentage of by-products. If the field is of grain, he must give the owner the same percentage of straw and stubble, which are the by-products of the grain stalks. If he harvests grapes to make wine, he must give the same percentage of the vine’s branches (which people would use to start fires) and reeds. The reeds referred to are those used to prop up the grape vines. The mishnah then adds that when a new vineyard is being started, the owner of the field and the sharecropper split the costs of the reeds needed to prop up the vines.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah one: Why do you think the Mishnah quite frequently states that one must follow local custom? What does this say about the nature of these laws in the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "If one leased a field from his fellow and it was an irrigated field or a field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may not give [the owner] less than his agreed rental.
But if he had said, “Lease me this irrigated field, or this field with trees”, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may give less than the prescribed rental.
In the scenario in this mishnah a sharecropper receives a field from the owner, and the field contains either a spring (an irrigated field) or it has some trees in it. Evidently the sharecropper will be growing grain in the field, but as an added bonus it has a spring, from which he can more easily water the field, or trees from which he may eat. After he makes his agreement with the owner, the spring dries up or the trees are cut down (assumedly by someone either than owner or the sharecropper). If the sharecropper had not explicitly stated that he was renting the field since it had on it a spring or some trees, he must still give the owner of the field the same amount of grain that was stated in the original agreement. Although the sharecropper will have to work harder to water the field (if the field had a spring) or he will lose the added benefit of the trees (if it was a field with trees), since he did not specifically stipulate that he was renting the field on account of the spring or the trees, the agreement is not effected. If, however, he specifically stipulated that he was renting a field with a spring or trees, he may reduce his payments if the spring dries up or the trees are cut down." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three deals with a sharecropper who receives a field and subsequently decides that he doesn’t want to work the field. Mishnah four deals with a sharecropper who doesn’t want to weed the field.", + "If one leased a field from his fellow and he let it lie fallow, they assess how much it was likely to have yielded and he must pay the owner accordingly, since he wrote [in the leasing agreement]: “If I suffer the land to lie fallow and do not till it, I will pay thee at the rate of its highest yield.” This mishnah contains in it a clause that was considered to be standard in sharecropping agreements written in the time of the mishnah. The sharecropper would write to the landowner that if he did not work the land and instead allowed it to lie fallow, the sharecropper would be penalized by having to pay the owner as if the land had produced at the rate of its highest yield. This agreement was meant to allay the fears of the landowner that he would rent the field to the sharecropper and the sharecropper would subsequently decide that it was not worthwhile to work the field for whatever reason. After having written this clause a sharecropper would be forced to work the land or suffer a severe economic loss. Note that this clause was only necessary in agreements where the sharecropper had agreed to pay a percentage of the crops. If he had agreed on a fixed amount he would be obligated for that amount even if he did not work the land." + ], + [ + "If one leased a field from his fellow and he did not want to weed it, and he said to the owner, “What do you care, as long as I pay you the agreed rental?”, they do not listen to him, for the owner can say to him, “Tomorrow you will leave the field and it won’t bring forth anything but weeds.” According to our mishnah a sharecropper is responsible to weed the field that he is working. Even if he were to say to the owner that he will still give him the full amount of the rental agreement, the owner can force the sharecropper to weed, since not weeding will cause future damage to the field. It is in the owner’s best interests that should the sharecropper leave he could rent the field to others.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What do these two mishnayoth have in common with regards to the responsibilities of a sharecropper?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with a sharecropper whose crops are not ruined but nevertheless produce an extremely low yield. The question is asked must the sharecropper harvest the crop even though the effort will not be worth the yield.\nMishnah six deals with a sharecropper’s liability to uphold his share in the rental agreement when his crops are ruined by either locusts or strong winds.", + "If one leased a field from his fellow and it was not fruitful, if there was enough produce to make a heap, he must still tend to it. Rabbi Judah says: “What type of measure is a ‘heap’? Rather, [he must tend to it] only if it yields as much grain as was sown there.” In mishnah three we discussed a sharecropper who decided not to care for the field at all. In mishnah five we learn of a sharecropper who did plant the field with grain as he was supposed to, but the crops did not produce enough of a yield for it to be worthwhile for him to harvest them. The question is asked must the sharecropper nevertheless toil to give back to the owner of the field something, even if it is a small amount, or is he allowed to not harvest the field. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, as long as there is enough produce in the field to make a heap of grain he must harvest it. Even though for the sharecropper this will not be worthwhile for his labor is worth more than the value of crops harvested, he must nevertheless do so, so that he can give the owner his percentage. Rabbi Judah states that a “heap” is not a fixed enough measure, since it is not relative to the amount planted. In other words, a large field that produces a heap is not to be treated the same as a small field which produces a heap. Instead, according to Rabbi Judah, as long as there is enough produce in the field to replicate the grain that was sown there, the sharecropper must harvest it. In other words the needed yield is relative to the amount sown.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah five: Why does Rabbi Judah say that for the sharecropper to be obligated to harvest the field the field must yield as much grain as was used to seed the field? What is the significance of such an amount? How does this differ from the opinion in the first clause?" + ], + [ + "If one leased a field from his fellow and the locusts devoured the crop or it was blasted [by strong winds which caused the grain to be prematurely separated from the stalks], if it was a region-wide mishap he may reduce the amount of the rental agreement. If it was not a region-wide mishap, he may not reduce the amount of the rental agreement. Rabbi Judah says: “If he had leased it from him for a fixed amount of money, in neither case may he reduce the amount of the rental agreement.” In the scenario in our mishnah, the sharecropper’s crops are destroyed by either locusts or strong winds. If the sharecropper had promised to give the owner a percentage of the crops, then he may continue to do so, even if it turns out that the owner received nothing. This scenario is not even discussed in our mishnah. If, however, he promised the owner a fixed amount in return, in either crops or money, he will have a problem, since he did not grow enough crops to pay back the owner. This is the scenario discussed in the mishnah. According to the mishnah, if the locusts or the strong winds effected the entire region he may reduce the amount paid back. If, however, the locusts or strong winds effected only his field, he must still pay the owner back the full amount. According to Rabbi Judah, if the amount owed to the owner was fixed in money and not in crops, then the sharecropper must pay his full share in any case, even if the crops were destroyed by a region-wide plague. Since the money is considered to be separate from the field, it is unaffected by what happens to the field.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah six: Why is the sharecropper allowed to reduce the payments to the owner only if it was a region wide problem that ruined his crops? What might the mishnah be suspicious of if the locusts or winds ruined only his crops?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth seven and eight continue to deal with laws concerning sharecroppers. Mishnah seven teaches that the sharecropper is obligated to pay back the owner with the produce grown in the rented field (and not produce grown somewhere else) and that the owner is obligated to accept this produce as payment (and not demand other produce).\nMishnah eight teaches that a sharecropper who rents a field in order to sow it with a certain type of produce may usually not sow it with a different kind of seed.", + "If one leased a field from his fellow in return for ten kors of wheat a year and it produced bad wheat, he may pay him out of this crop. If [it produced] good wheat he may not say, “I will buy other wheat from the market”, rather he must pay him from the crop of that field. Both clauses in this mishnah essentially teach the same law: a person renting a field in return for a fixed amount of wheat must repay the owner with the wheat that comes from the rented field itself and not with produce coming from another field. This law can work to the advantage of either the renter or the owner. If the produce was of a poor quality the owner of the field will lose out for he cannot demand that the renter pay him back with better wheat. If the wheat was better than average wheat the renter loses out for he may not sell that wheat and buy lesser quality wheat to repay the owner. In other words the rental agreement legally binds the owner to accept the wheat from that field and legally binds the renter to pay back with the wheat from that field.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah seven: Why does the mishnah teach both clauses? What might you have thought had the mishnah taught only the first clause and not the second? What might you have thought had the mishnah taught only the second clause and not the first?" + ], + [ + "If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow barley, he may not sow wheat; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] wheat, he may sow barley. Rabban Gamaliel forbids this.
If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow grain, he may not sow beans; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] beans, he may sow grain. Rabban Gamaliel forbids this.
Both sections of this mishnah in essence teach the same law, so we will explain them together. If one leased a field with the stipulation that he sow a certain type of produce he may not sow something else that is more damaging to the soil of that field. He may, however, sow something that is less damaging to the soil. For instance, if he promised to sow barley he may not sow wheat since wheat is more damaging; but if he promised to sow wheat he may sow barley, since barley is less damaging. Similarly, if he promised to sow grain he may not sow beans which are more damaging; but if he promised to sow beans he may sow wheat which is less damaging. This is the anonymous opinion expressed in the first two clauses of each section. Rabban Gamaliel disagrees and states that one may not change the condition under any circumstance, even if the new seed will be less damaging to the field. Although there may not be exist a specific reason why in certain cases one should not change the conditions of the agreement, one is in general forbidden to do so." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine states some legal differences with regards to the rights of a sharecropper who receives a field for less than seven years versus one who receives the field for more than seven years.\nMishnah ten deals with the issue of including the sabbatical year in the rental agreement.", + "If one leased a field from his fellow for but a few years he may not sow flax and he has no right to cut beams from the sycamore tree. If he leased it for seven years he may sow flax the first year and he has a right to cut beams from the sycamore tree. When one rents a field he is expected to return the field and everything in it to its owner in a state similar to that that in which he received it. If he were to sow the field with flax which damages the soil and then return the field, the field would still bear the damage of the flax. Therefore, if he wishes to plant flax he must plant it at least seven years before the end of the rental agreement. If he rents the field, therefore, for seven years, he may plant flax during the first year. Similarly, he must return the trees that were on the field in the same condition in which he received them. If he were to cut down the thick branches of the sycamore, they would take a long time to grow back. Therefore, he may only cut down these types of branches if there are seven years left before the end of the rental agreement.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah Nine: If one were to rent a field for ten years when could he sow flax and cut down branches of the sycamore tree?" + ], + [ + "If one leased a field from his fellow for “a week of years” (seven for 700 zuz, the Seventh Year is included in the number. If he leased it for “seven years” for 700 zuz, the Seventh Year is not included in the number. During the Seventh Year Jews living in the Land of Israel are not allowed to work their fields (See Exodus 23:10-11, Leviticus 25:1-7). If a Jew rented a piece of land in the Land of Israel he would not, therefore, be able to work it or derive benefit from it during the Seventh Year. Our mishnah states that the inclusion of the Seventh Year as one of the years in the rental agreement depends on the language of the agreement. If he used inclusive language, stating “a week of years” then the Seventh Year is included. If however, he merely stated “seven years” then he receives seven years in which he would be allowed to plant and harvest. In such a case he would actually keep the land through the eighth year.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah Ten: What would happen if someone rented a piece of land on the fifth year of a Sabbatical cycle and the agreement was for four years? Would the Seventh (Sabbatical) Year count as one of the years or not?" + ], + [ + "One that is hired during the day collects his wages all during [the ensuing] night. One that is hired during the night collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day.
One that is hired by the hour collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day or [the ensuing] night.
If one was hired by the week, or by the month, or by the year, or by the week of years, if his time of hire expired during the day, he collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day. If his time of hire expired during the night, he collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day and night.
Deuteronomy 24:14-15 and Leviticus 19:13, both command that a worker’s wages must be paid on the same day, before the sun sets. These verses deal directly with one who works during the day, presumably on a daily wage. Mishnah eleven deals with workers who work at night, and with workers who work on hourly, weekly, monthly or yearly wages. Mishnah twelve deals with other laws concerning the commandment not to delay a worker’s wages and its applicability.
The general rule of our mishnah is that an employer may pay his employee within one time period of either day or night from the time of the completion of the work. He may not withhold the wages any longer. If the work was done during the day the employer may pay his employee at any time during the ensuing night. If he were to wait until the following morning he would be violating the commandment not to delay payment. If the work was done during the night he has until the end of the ensuing day to pay the employee.
If the employee was hired on an hourly basis the same rule still basically applies: the employer has one time period from the time of the completion of the work to pay the employee, whether that time period is the day or the night.
Similarly, if the employee is hired on a long term basis, for instance a week, a month, a year or even seven years, and it was agreed that the salary would be paid only upon completion of the work, the employer basically has one time period after the completion to pay his employee. The one exception is if the work is completed at night. According to section three of our mishnah, in such a case he has two time periods: the entire day and the entire night. This clause seems to differ with the rule in section two and indeed the Babylonian Talmud states that the two clauses contain two distinct opinions stemming from two different sources." + ], + [ + "The laws “You must pay him his wages on the same day” (Deut. 24:15) and “The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until the morning” (Lev. 19:13) apply both to the hire of a man or of a beast or of utensils. The Torah specifically states that an employer is not allowed to withhold the wages of a laborer overnight. The mishnah expands upon this prohibition and includes the wages owed for renting animals and renting utensils (which might include plows, mills and other farm equipment).", + "When is this so? When the employee has laid claim to it, but if he had not laid claim to it the employer does not commit a transgression. An employer only transgresses these two commandments if the employee has made a claim for his wages. Although the employer is certainly obligated to pay his employee in any circumstance, he does not violate these two negative commandments until the employee makes his claim.", + "If he gave him a draft on a shopkeeper or moneychanger [the employer] does not commit a transgression [even though the employee has not yet collected]. In the time of the mishnah people used shopkeepers or money- changers as small, personal banks to hold their money and pay off their debts. If the employer gave the employee an I.O.U. with which he could collect from the shopkeeper or the moneychanger, he is no longer be in violation of the two negative commandments in section one. Although the employee may not yet have collected, the employer has fulfilled his role by giving them a document with which they will be able to collect later.", + "If an employee [claimed his wages] within the set time he may take an oath and take his wages. [But] if the set time had passed he may not take an oath and take his wages. If witnesses testified that he had claimed his wages at the set time [and was not paid], he may take an oath and receive his wages. In many instances the Mishnah will mandate an oath to ensure that someone is not making a false claim. The assumption is that people would not make false oaths and therefore the person who takes the oath is believed, even though he has no evidence. Oaths are usually sufficient to exempt a person from paying when another person makes a claim against him, so long as there are no witnesses to support the claim of the plaintiff. In other words, the defendant and not the plaintiff is given the opportunity to swear an oath in lieu of evidence or testimony. However, in our mishnah the plaintiff, i.e. the employee seeking his wages, may take an oath that he has not yet received his wages and he may collect from the employer. This is true as long as he demands his wages during the time period mandated in mishnah eleven. If, however, this time period has elapsed, he may no longer take his wages through an oath. In such a case he is not believed to say that he didn’t yet receive his wages, since normally they would have already been paid. If, however, he had witnesses who state that he made a claim at the proper time, he may swear and take his wages.", + "The law “You must pay him his wages on the same day” applies also to the resident alien, but not the law, “The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until the morning”. Deuteronomy 24:14 specifically states: “You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, whether a fellow countrymen or a stranger (ger) who is in your land within your gates.” Picking up on the word “stranger” the mishnah states that one who withholds the wages of a stranger violates the commandment in Deuteronomy. However, Leviticus 19:13, the other verse which prohibits delaying wages overnight, begins by stating, “You shall not defraud your fellow”. “Your fellow” implies your fellow countrymen, and therefore one who withholds the wages of a stranger does not violate the commandment in Leviticus." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter nine discusses the laws concerning a creditor’s taking of a pledge from a borrower. A pledge is an object probably worth about the value of the loan. The borrower actually gives the pledge to the lender before receiving the loan. It is to be distinguished from collateral which does not go to the lender unless the borrower defaults on his loan.\nThere are three passages in Deuteronomy 24 concerning “pledges”. Verse 6 states: “Do not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge, for that would be taking someone’s life as a pledge”. In other words, since these two objects are necessary to produce food, a lender is prohibited from taking them. Verses 10-13 state two laws regarding pledges: 1) when one takes a pledge he must not enter the borrower’s house; 2) if the lender is poor the borrower may not keep his pledge overnight. The assumption here is that the pledge was a cloak in which the poor person will need to sleep. Verse 17 states, “Do not take the a widow’s garment as a pledge”.", + "If one lent one’s fellow, he may exact a pledge from him only with the permission of a court, and he may not enter his house to take the pledge, as it is states, “You shall stand outside” (Deut. 24:1. The Torah states that when a creditor takes a pledge from a poor person he should not enter his house to collect the pledge. Entering his house would humiliate the borrower. The mishnah expands this prohibition to include any borrower, and not just one who is known to be poor. Furthermore, the mishnah demands that the pledge be taken with the consent of the court, probably to prevent creditors from unfairly seizing the property of their debtors.", + "If the borrower had two utensils, he may take one but must give back the other. And he must give back the pillow at night and the plow during the day. The Torah states that a creditor may not keep overnight something that the borrower will need during the night, for instance a cloak in which he sleeps. The mishnah states that if the borrower had two such cloaks, and both were taken as a pledge, the creditor need only return one. The Torah discusses only a cloak which is essential to the borrower at night; one that is not essential may indeed be kept overnight. The mishnah adds that a creditor must return during the day items which are essential during the day, such as a plow. According to the mishnah the example in the Torah is just an example, one that sets up a paradigm demanding that the creditor only keep a pledge at a time when the pledge is not needed by the borrower. The Torah’s law is not limited just to the case of a cloak.", + "And if the creditor dies he need not return the pledge to his heirs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Even to the debtor himself he need only return the pledge within thirty days [of the loan], and after thirty days he may sell it with the consent of the court. If the borrower should die the creditor need not return the pledge to his heirs. The Torah’s concern is for the humiliation of the borrower. Once he is dead, this concern no longer exists. If the heirs wish to recover the pledge they will need to repay the loan. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that a creditor may keep a pledge not just when the borrower dies but even after thirty days have expired since the time of the loan. At this point the creditor may sell the pledge to recover the debt.", + "A pledge may not be taken from a widow, whether she be rich or poor, as it states, “Do not take the a widow’s garment as a pledge” (Deut. 24:17). The Torah states that one may not take a pledge from a widow. The mishnah states that this is true whether the widow is rich or poor.", + "If one takes a millstone as a pledge he violates a negative commandment and he is also in violation of both parts [of the millstone], as it states, “Do not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge” (Deut. 24:6). And they didn’t say just an upper millstone or a mill but anything that is necessary for food, as it states, “for that would be taking someone’s life as a pledge” (ibid.). The Torah states that one may not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge from a poor person. These two pieces of equipment are together used to grind wheat and without them the poor person could not make bread to eat. According to the mishnah the creditor who takes both of them is in violation of not one but two negative commandments, one for each piece. Furthermore, the mishnah again expands on the examples specifically mentioned in the Torah. The Torah mentions only the mill and upper millstone for they are a person’s “life”. Picking up on the last phrase of the verse the mishnah states that anything that helps to make food and is therefore a person’s “life” may not be taken as a pledge.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section four: The mishnah explains that it is forbidden to take a pledge from even a rich widow, and states that this is explicit in the Torah. Is it possible to explain verse 17 in Deut. 24 in another way, in other words that the prohibition is limited to poor widows? If so, why do you think the mishnah chose this explanation?
• The Rabbis twice expand on the specific examples mentioned in the Torah. What is their motivation in doing so?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter ten of Bava Metziah deals with laws concerning neighbors, a subject that the mishnah will continue to discuss in the first two chapters of Bava Batra (proving that originally these two tractates were part of one larger tractate which included Bava Kamma as well. This tractate was called “Nezikin”).\nOur two mishnayoth deal with two people who jointly own a house, one owning the second story and one owning the first.", + "If a house (the first and an upper room (the second belonging to two persons (each owning fell down, the two share in the wood and the stones and the earth. And they consider which stones were the more likely to have been broken. If one of them recognizes that some of the stones were his, he may take them and they count as part of his share. In order to understand the importance of this mishnah we must remember that in the time of the mishnah building materials, especially stone and wood, would have been scarce and therefore expensive, especially in the Land of Israel. When a building collapsed the broken materials would have been reused, either to rebuild the house or for other purposes. Our mishnah discusses to whom do these materials belong, in the case where the upper story was owned by one person and the bottom story by another. In general the two persons split the material under the assumption that half was used for the construction of the top story and half for the bottom. Beyond knowing that the two partners split the material, it is also necessary to decide which partner takes which stones. After all, in some cases some of the stones may be more valuable than others, such as broken stones versus whole one. To that end the mishnah makes two suggestions. 1) They try to determine which part of the house broke, and therefore who gets the broken stones. For instance if the house broke at its foundations the owner of the bottom floor gets the broken stones. If it broke from above, the owner of the top floor takes the broken stones. 2) If one of the partners recognizes his stones, he takes those stones and the other takes other stones. The mishnah further clarifies that these recognized stones count as part of the share of the one who recognizes them.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah one: Why would you think that the stones which one of the owners recognizes does not count as part of his share? In other words, why might the last statement of the mishnah not be obvious?" + ], + [ + "If there was a house (the first and an upper room (the second belonging to two people, and the [floor of the] upper room broke and the owner of the house (the bottom did not want to fix it, the owner of the upper room may come down and dwell below, until the owner [of the bottom story] fixes [the floor of the] upper room. Rabbi Yose says: “He that dwells below should provide the beams and he that dwells above the plastering. As in the previous mishnah, in mishnah two one person owns the bottom story and another owns the top story. However, here, instead of the whole building collapsing as occurred in mishnah one, the ceiling of the bottom story, which also serves as the floor of the top story collapses. According to the first opinion in the mishnah the owner of the bottom story is obligated to fix the ceiling/floor and until he does so the owner of the top story may occupy the bottom story. Rabbi Yose disagrees and states that the two partners must share in the building of the ceiling/floor. The owner of the bottom story provides the wooden beams and the owner of the top provides the plaster.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah two: What is the basis of Rabbi Yose’s disagreement with the first opinion? Why doesn’t Rabbi Yose think that the owner of the bottom floor should be responsible for providing the entire ceiling/floor?" + ], + [ + "If a house (the bottom and an upper room belonging to two persons (each owning fell down, and the owner of the upper room told the owner of the house (the bottom to rebuild it, and he did not want to rebuild it, the owner of the upper room may rebuild the house below and live in it until the other repays him what he has spent.
Rabbi Judah says: “He would then [after being reimbursed] have been dwelling on his fellow’s property and he should [therefore] pay him rent. Rather the owner of the upper room should rebuild both the house below and the upper room and put a roof on the upper room, and live in the house below until the other repays him what he has spent.”
Mishnah three continues to deal with a situation in which one person owns the bottom story of a house and another owns the top story, and the house collapses. In the scenario in this mishnah the owner of the bottom story refuses to rebuild his share, thereby preventing the owner of the top story from rebuilding his share.
Mishnah four deals with a case similar to that in mishnah three, except instead of a house here one person owns an underground olive press and another person owns a garden planted above the olive press, and the olive press collapses.
In the scenario in our mishnah after the entire house fell, the owner of the upper room wants to rebuild it so that he can return to live there, but the owner of the bottom story refuses to rebuild his share, thereby preventing the former from rebuilding his share. According to the opinion in section one, the owner of the upper room may rebuild the bottom story and live in it until its proper owner repays him for his expenses. Once the bottom story is rebuilt the owner of the upper room will be able to rebuild his share and live there.
According to Rabbi Judah, in this scenario it would turn out that the owner of the upper room had lived on the property of the owner of the bottom story without paying him rent. After all, at this point the upper room no longer existed and its owner therefore could not have lived there. Although the owner of the lower story should have rebuilt the house, he was not obligated to rebuild it and let the owner of the lower story live there for free.
Rather the owner of the upper room should rebuild the entire house, including the upper room, but live in the bottom story until it owner repays him for his costs. In this way the owner of the lower story could not claim from him rent, since while he was living there he had the upper room at his disposal." + ], + [ + "So, too, if an olive press was built in a rock and another had a garden on top of it, and [the olive press] was in part broken down, the owner of the garden may come down and sow below until the other rebuilds the ceiling of his olive press. This scenario is similar to the scenario in the previous mishnah, but instead of a house with an upper room, this mishnah deals with an olive press that has a garden growing on top of it. Should the roof of the olive press collapse, the owner of the garden is permitted to plant below until the owner of the olive press rebuilds the ceiling. Note how valuable space was in the Land of Israel. People would use any possible land to garden, even land which had on olive press beneath it. Much of the land of Israel is not arable, particularly the mountainous regions and the desert. This is still true in Israel today.", + "If a wall or a tree fell into the public domain and caused damage, the owner is not liable to make restitution. If a set time had been given to him to cut down the tree or pull down the wall, and they fell down within the time, he is not liable. If after that time, he is liable. This section of the mishnah does not deal with shared property as in the previous portions of the chapter but rather with a property owner’s responsibilities and liabilities with regards to the public domain. According to the mishnah if a person’s wall or tree fell into the public domain and thereby caused damage he is not liable. This is a case where he had no way of knowing that his tree or wall would fall, and therefore he cannot be held accountable. If, however, he had been given a warning by the court and told to either remove his tree or wall, or make them safer, and the time for doing so had elapsed, he will be subsequently liable for any damage done by the tree in the public domain.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four, section one: What is the difference between the scenario in this section and that in the previous mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five can actually be divided into two distinct units: sections one and two, and sections three through five. The first unit begins with a situation in which one person’s wall fell into another’s garden. Instead of clearing his fallen stones the owner of the wall wishes to compensate the owner of the garden by giving him the fallen stones. Section two deals with a similar scenario in which an employer wishes to compensate his employee by giving him some of the product instead of giving him his wages in money.\nSections three through five all deal with environmental damages done to the public domain.", + "If one’s wall was near his fellow’s garden and it fell down and his fellow said to him, “Clear away your stones”, and he answered, “They have become yours”, they do not listen to him. If after the other (the owner of the had accepted he (the owner of the said to him, “Here is your expenditures and I will take back what is mine”, they do not listen to him. In the scenario in section one a person’s wall collapsed into another person’s neighboring garden. In a typical situation it would be the owner of the wall’s responsibility to clear the stones, but they would nevertheless still belong to him. If the owner of the wall were to say to the owner of the garden that the latter may keep the stones, and thereby exempt himself from the responsibility of clearing them, he is not listened to. In other words the owner of the garden can force the owner of the wall to clear his stones. If the owner of the garden were to accept the offer and take the stones, the owner of the wall cannot later change his mind and force the owner of the garden to return them. Even if the owner of the wall repays the owner of the garden for the work of removing the stones, he cannot force him to give them back. Once the deal is done, the owner of the wall does not have a right to revoke it.", + "If one hired a laborer to help him in his work with chopped straw and stubble, and the laborer said to him, “Give me my wages”, and he said to him, “Take as your wages that with which you have labored”, they do not listen to him. If after the other (the had accepted he (the said to him, “Here are your wages and I will take what is mine”, they do not listen to him. In this scenario, in which the laws and language are similar to those in the previous mishnah, a person hires a worker to work [in his field collecting] straw and stubble. When it comes time to pay his wages the employer attempts to force the employee to accept the collected straw and stubble as the wages. The mishnah teaches that the employee need not accept such wages and may force the employer to pay him with money. If, however, the employee accepts the straw and stubble as his wages, the employer may not later change his mind and attempt to recover the straw and stubble by paying the employee his wages in money. Again, once the deal has been accepted the employer has no subsequent right to revoke it.", + "One who removes his manure into the public domain: from the time he removes it another may take it to manure [his fields]. For obvious reasons, one may not remove his animal manure into the public domain. If one did so, the manure, which in their time was considered valuable, became legally ownerless and anyone could come and claim it as their own.", + "One may not soak clay or make bricks in the public domain, but clay may be kneaded in the public domain but not bricks. Similarly, one is not allowed to make bricks or soak clay in the public domain, for these types of work would pollute property that does not belong to any one person. The mishnah does allow him to mix the clay in the public domain, for the clay would immediately be used in the building process. This type of mixing is brief as opposed to the original soaking of the clay which is a longer process and therefore forbidden in the public domain. Similarly making bricks takes a considerable amount of time and is therefore forbidden in the public domain.", + "One who builds in the public domain: one brings the stones and another builds (. And if he causes damage, he pays what he has damaged. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “He may, indeed, make preparation for his work for thirty days [in the public domain]. In order to build a house or other such structure in the private domain a person will often need to use the public domain to keep his wood and stones. The mishnah teaches that if one wishes to make such a use of the public domain, one person must bring the wood and stones and another build with them immediately. In other words it is forbidden to leave them there for an extended period of time. Furthermore, even though the mishnah permits using the public domain for such a purpose, if the person caused damage he is liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with the opinion taught in sections four and five. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel one may use the public domain for up to thirty days to prepare building properties: bricks, clay, stones and other necessities.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the nature of the public domain in the eyes of the author’s of the mishnah? What principles cause them to decide the law in such a manner? Would it be proper to consider the Rabbis to be environmentalists or do they have other factors motivating them?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Bava Metziah deals with two people who own adjacent gardens, one garden being at a higher level than the other. In other words the gardens were terraced. The following illustration should help.\nUpper Garden\nWall\nLower Garden\nThe mishnah deals with the issue of ownership over vegetables that grows from the wall separating the gardens.", + "If there were two gardens [in terraces] one above the other and vegetables grew between them: Rabbi Meir says: “They belong to the upper garden.” Rabbi Judah says: “They belong to the lower garden.” Rabbi Meir said: “If [the owner of] the upper garden wished to remove his soil there would be no vegetables.” Rabbi Judah said: “If [the owner of] the lower garden wished to fill up his garden [with soil] there would be no vegetables. (1) Rabbi Meir said: “Since each is able to thwart the other, we should consider from where these vegetables derive their life.” Rabbi Shimon said: “Whatever [the owner of ] the upper garden can take by stretching out his hand belongs to him, and the rest belongs to [the owner of] the lower garden. In our mishnah both owners claim that the vegetables that grow on the wall between the two gardens belongs to them. Rabbi Meir says that the vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden and Rabbi Judah says that they go to the owner of the lower garden. According to Rabbi Meir, since the owner of the upper garden could remove the soil and thereby remove the vegetables they must belong to him. According to Rabbi Judah, since the owner of the lower garden could fill his garden with soil and thereby kill the vegetables, they must belong to him. In clause (1) Rabbi Meir agrees with Rabbi Judah that each side could thwart the other side. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir sticks to his opinion, that the vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden, since they derive their life from his soil and not from the air of the lower garden. The end of the mishnah contains the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who reaches a compromise. If the owner of the upper garden could reach out his hand and grab the vegetables they belong to him. If not they belong to the owner of the lower garden.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How is Rabbi Meir’s argument in section 1a) different from his subsequent argument in section (1)?Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Bava Metziah!It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate and the entire previous tractate, Bava Kamma, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal in a short time and you should be proud of yourselves. Of course, we still have a lot of mishnah ahead of us. We will begin Bava Batra tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא מציעא", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d72bb2c97f257fe34a169c376d4ab2bbf7b6c08 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,558 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Bava_Metzia", + "text": { + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction
The first two mishnayoth of Bava Metzia deal with cases where two people both claim ownership over an object which they are jointly holding.", + "Mishnah One
1)\tIf two people are grasping a cloak: One says, “I found it” and the other says, “I found it”, or one says “It’s all mine”, and the other says, “It’s all mine”, they each swear that they don’t own more than half of the cloak and they split the cloak.
2)\t(If) one says, “It’s all mine” and the other says, “It’s half mine”, the one who says, “It’s all mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¾ and the one who says “It’s half mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¼, and the former takes ¾ and the latter takes ¼.", + "Explanation—Mishnah One
This Mishnah describes the common situation in which two people claim ownership of an article and neither can prove that it belongs to him. If they were to bring witnesses the judges would rule according to their testimony. In the absence of witnesses the judges must rule based on other assumptions. The means of ensuring that the person was telling the truth was in many cases, including this one, an oath. One should note that oaths were taken extremely seriously by Jews in ancient times and the assumption is that one would not swear falsely. Therefore taking an oath is a strong deterrent to lying.
Mishnah Two
1)\tIf two men were riding on an animal, or one was riding and the other was leading the animal, and one of them said, “The animal is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine.”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the animal and they split it.
2)\tIf after the case is settled, they both admit to the others claim, or if there are witnesses they can split the animal without an oath.", + "Explanation—Mishnah Two
This mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah and just deals with a different disputed object. In the second clause the mishnah states that if they agree to the other party’s claim or if there are witnesses that the animal is owned by both parties, they split the animal without an oath. The function of the oath is to ensure that the person is telling the truth. When there is no dispute, or when there are witnesses who testify, there is no need for an oath. Since it is preferable to avoid oaths altogether the two may split the animal without an oath.", + "Questions for Further Thought:

•\tMishnah one: When a person claims that the entire cloak is his, why does he swear that he doesn’t own less than half? What would happen if each person swore that it was all his?

•\tMishnah one: Why in the second clause does the person who swore that it was all his receive ¾ whereas in the first clause he receives only ½?
If two people are grasping a cloak: One says, “I found it” and the other says, “I found it”, or one says “It’s all mine”, and the other says, “It’s all mine”, they each swear that they don’t own more than half of the cloak and they split the cloak.
( one says, “It’s all mine” and the other says, “It’s half mine”, the one who says, “It’s all mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¾ and the one who says “It’s half mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¼, and the former takes ¾ and the latter takes ¼.
The first two mishnayoth of Bava Metzia deal with cases where two people both claim ownership over an object which they are jointly holding.
This Mishnah describes the common situation in which two people claim ownership of an article and neither can prove that it belongs to him. If they were to bring witnesses the judges would rule according to their testimony. In the absence of witnesses the judges must rule based on other assumptions. The means of ensuring that the person was telling the truth was in many cases, including this one, an oath. One should note that oaths were taken extremely seriously by Jews in ancient times and the assumption is that one would not swear falsely. Therefore taking an oath is a strong deterrent to lying." + ], + [ + "If two men were riding on an animal, or one was riding and the other was leading the animal, and one of them said, “The animal is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine.”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the animal and they split it.
If after the case is settled, they both admit to the others claim, or if there are witnesses they can split the animal without an oath.
This mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah and just deals with a different disputed object. In the second clause the mishnah states that if they agree to the other party’s claim or if there are witnesses that the animal is owned by both parties, they split the animal without an oath. The function of the oath is to ensure that the person is telling the truth. When there is no dispute, or when there are witnesses who testify, there is no need for an oath. Since it is preferable to avoid oaths altogether the two may split the animal without an oath." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe third and fourth mishnah of our chapter deal with ownership disputes in which two people lay claim to a found object.", + "If a man was riding on a beast and saw lost property and said to his fellow, “Give it to me”, and the other took it and said, “I have acquired it”, he (the has acquired it. But if after he gave it to him he said, “I acquired it first”, he has said nothing. In the first section of the mishnah a person saw an object while riding on an animal and told his friend to pick it up for him. When his friend picked it up he claimed it for himself. According to the mishnah the person who picked it up can claim title to the object. If, however, the person picked it up and then gave it to his fellow, he cannot subsequently claim title. The person’s claim to ownership must come at the same time that he actually has possession of the object and not after he has already given it to someone else. unable to leave the field; 3) the owner of the field makes a claim of acquisition over the animal.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah three: According to the mishnah by merely telling the other person to pick it up for him the person riding on the animal does not acquire the object. Why not?" + ], + [ + "If a man saw lost property and fell upon it and someone else came along and seized it, he that seized it acquired it. If a person saw a lost object and fell upon it in an attempt to take the object, and someone else came along and took it before the other person got to it, the person that took it gets to keep it. In the previous mishnah we learned that merely a person’s saying that he wished to take the object does not cause it to belong to him. In our mishnah we learn that even physically making a move to get it is also insufficient. The lost object is not his until he actually takes possession.", + "If a man saw people running [in his field] after lost property [such as] a deer with a broken leg, or pigeons that couldn’t fly, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has acquired them. But if the deer was running normally or the pigeons flying, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has said nothing. In this section we learn that under certain circumstances a person’s field can acquire something for him. In such a case the animal is acquired not by physical possession by the claimant but by the animal being on his field. If the person sees people running after a lost object in his field and that lost object cannot move off his field he can acquire it by saying that his field acquires it. If, however, the animal can run or fly and therefore is not “stuck” on the person’s field, the field cannot acquire the animal. In other words in order for the field to acquire the animal on behalf of its owner three conditions must be fulfilled: 1) other people have not claimed it (in the mishnah others are running after it but have not reached it; 2) the animal is physically unable to leave the field; 3) the owner of the field makes a claim of acquisition over the animal.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four: If my animal runs onto another person’s field and the other person claims that his field acquires the animal for him, does the animal now belong to him? How can you figure out the answer to this question from the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with the issue of ownership over lost objects found by a man’s children or wife.\nMishnah six (and the remainder of the chapter) deals with returning lost documents to their owners.", + "That which is found by a man’s minor son or daughter, and that which is found by his Canaanite slave or female slave, and that which is found by his wife belongs to him. A father (assumed in the Mishnah to be the head of the household) who is financially supporting his children can claim ownership over any financial benefit they might bring him including, as we learn here, found objects. In other words in return for his financial support, they must give him any of their earnings. A Canaanite (i.e. non-Jewish) slave or female slave is totally owned by their owner. They do not have the ability to own possessions and therefore anything they find belongs to their master. Finally, a married woman who is receiving financial support from her husband, gives him in return any of her earnings, including found objects. Note, that the relationship between a father and his children and a husband and his wife is one in which the latter are guaranteed support, even if they earn nothing. In such a familial structure allowing the child or wife to keep found objects while still receiving financial support from their father/husband may cause him to resent them, ultimately to their detriment.", + "That which is found by his son or daughter that are of age, and that which is found by his Hebrew slave or female slave, and that which is found by his wife whom he has divorced, even though he has not yet paid her ketubah, belongs to them. On the other hand, a father’s financial control over his children does not extend to his adult children who are not supported by him. What they find belongs to them. Also, a Hebrew slave is treated in the Mishnah to be more similar to a hired worker who can own his own possession. Anything the slave finds therefore, belongs to him/her. Finally, a divorced woman does not owe her husband any financial gains she accrues after the divorce. This is true even if he has not paid her ketubah, meaning the divorce settlement. In such a case he is still obligated to provide her with food, clothing and shelter. Nevertheless, since he divorced her, he does not receive any object she might find.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah five: Why doesn’t the mishnah say that as long as the husband has not given his divorcee her ketubah and is therefore supporting her, he would receive any object which she found? What might be a problem caused by such a law?" + ], + [ + "If a man found debt documents he should not return them [to the creditor] if they recorded a lien on the [debtor’s] property, since the court would exact repayment from the property. But if they did not record a lien on the [debtor’s] property he may return them, since the court would not exact payment from the property, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “In either case he should not return them, since [in either case] the court would exact payment from the property.” Generally, when a debtor pays back his debt he would take the document and tear it up, so that the creditor could not collect it again. If one found a debt document, one could therefore assume that it came from the creditor. However, according to our mishnah in most circumstances one should not return it to the creditor. Our mishnah is concerned concerned that the debtor and creditor colluded to defraud a third party. We will explain. If the debtor had written a lien on his property in the document the creditor could take from this property if the debtor defaulted. For example let us say that Reuven loaned Shimon 1000 dollars and Shimon put a lien over all his property. After the loan Shimon sold his property to Levi and then Shimon lost all of his money (probably in high tech stocks!). Reuven can now collect his debt from the property sold to Levi. Our mishnah is concerned that Reuven might make a deal with Shimon for Shimon to pay back, let’s say 500 dollars, and then to deny that he paid back anything and then Reuven would collect Shimon’s sold property from Levi. Lest such collusion had been committed one should not return debt documents that have written in them liens. According to Rabbi Meir, if no lien was written in the document there is nothing to fear and one may return it to the creditor. According to the Sages all loans done through documents imply a lien on the debtor’s property, whether or not this is written specifically in the document. Therefore no debt documents may be returned to the creditor.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah six: According to Rabbi Meir, if one finds a debt document in which there is no lien, he may return it to the creditor. Why is he allowed to do so, and why would you think he should not?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth seven and eight continue to deal with returning lost documents, a topic which was also discussed in the previous mishnah.", + "If a man found bills of divorce, or writs of emancipation or wills, or deeds of gifts, or receipts, he should not return them, for I might say, “they were written out, and the writer might have changed his mind and decided not to give them.” In this short mishnah are listed types of documents where one person gives something to another person, whether it be a divorce given to a wife by her husband, freedom to a slave from his master, inheritance to an inheritor, a present, or a receipt. These documents would normally be kept by the recipient. If one of these was found one might have expected to return it to the recipient, i.e. the wife, slave, etc. However, the mishnah states that they should not be returned. Since it is possible that the writer wrote the document and subsequently changed his mind and did not give the document, we cannot be sure that the recipient lost it.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
If the giver of one of the documents mentioned in this mishnah told the finder that he had indeed given the document to the recipient, would the finder then return it to the recipient? How is this different from the case in the previous mishnah?" + ], + [ + "If a man found letters of evaluation, or letters of sustenance, or documents of halitzah or refusal, or documents of arbitration or any document drawn out by the court he should return them. The documents listed in this section are all executed by a court. In such a case we need not fear that the court wrote the document and then did not fulfill what was stated in it, as we feared with regards to the documents mentioned in the previous mishnah. Therefore they can be returned to those named in the documents. A “letter of evaluation” is an evaluation of a person’s property should it need to be sold to pay off his debts. A “letter of sustenance” is permission given to a wife to sell her husband’s property should he not properly provide her with food (or other financial obligations). “Documents of halitzah” are documents that testify to a man’s having declared that he will not perform the levirate marriage (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10). “Documents of refusal” are documents that testify that a woman whose mother or brother (but not father) arranged her marriage when she was a minor refused the marriage when she became an adult. In such a case the woman does not need a regular divorce document, a get. “Documents of arbitration” are documents that state the litigants choices for judges.", + "If he found documents in a satchel or bag, or a bundle of documents he should return them. How many count as a bundle of documents? Three tied up together. If a person finds documents in an identifiable bag he should return them to the person who can identify the bag. In the upcoming chapter we will learn about identifying lost objects.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [If one found three documents in which] one borrowed from three others, they should be returned to the borrower. But if [one found three documents in which] one loaned to three, they should be returned to the lender. A set of three documents found together and all containing one name, was in all likelihood lost by that named person. Therefore if three documents state that one person borrowed from three others, it is reasonable that they belonged to the borrower. If the three documents all contain the name of the same creditor who loaned to three different debtors, it is reasonable that the documents belonged to the creditor.", + "If a man found a document among his documents and he does not know what is its nature, it must be left until Elijah comes. If a person finds a document amongst his documents that contains the name of a creditor and a debtor, but he doesn’t know who gave him the document, and therefore he doesn’t know if it was paid off, he should hold the document until Elijah comes. In other words he shouldn’t get rid of the document but neither is he permitted to give it to either the creditor or the debtor.", + "If there were postscripts amongst them, he should do what is stated in the postscript. If he finds amongst his documents torn or unreadable documents which have with them postscripts which state what needs to be done with the document, he should do what is in the postscript, even though the document itself is torn or unreadable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eight, section two: Why in this case is the finder supposed to return the lost documents? Why don’t we worry that they were lost by the writer who changed his mind after writing them and before giving them?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe second chapter of Bava Metziah deals exclusively with returning lost objects. According to Exodus 23:4 and Deuteronomy 22:1-4, a person has an obligation to return lost objects to their owner. The mishnah is concerned with which objects are included in this obligation and with the question of the owner claiming his object by identifying it.", + "Since the Torah states that a person must return lost objects, it is necessary to decide which lost objects must be returned. A society could not operate if every lost object had to be returned. Imagine if every time you found a pen, or a coin or some other small not valuable item, you had to spend time trying to find the owners. Furthermore, there are some lost items which could not be identified by their owner as belonging to them, such as money or mass produced merchandise. If a person should lose one of these types of things, meaning either something that cannot be identified as his or something of little value, he does not expect to ever have it returned. Such a situation is called in Hebrew “yeush” despair, and the legal consequence is that the finder may keep the lost object.", + "Which found objects belong to the finder and which ones must be proclaimed [in the lost and found]? These found objects belong to the finder: if a man found scattered fruit, scattered money, small sheaves in the public domain, cakes of figs, bakers’ loaves, strings of fish, pieces of meat, wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, stalks of flax and strips of purple wool, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “Anything which has in it something unusual, must be proclaimed. How is this so? If he found a fig cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it [he must proclaim them].” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “New merchandise need not be proclaimed.” Section one lists objects that are either not identifiable as belonging to a specific person, or of little value. We will learn the opposites of these items, meaning things that are of value and identifiable in the following mishnah. Therefore we will explain them more fully later on. According to Rabbi Judah, if there was a unidentifiable object which had something unusual about it, he must proclaim it. (We will learn the process of proclaiming a lost object later in the chapter.) For instance, a normal loaf of bread could not be identified as belonging to a certain person, and therefore the finder may keep it. If, however, there was money in the bread, the owner could identify it, and therefore the finder must proclaim it. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, mass produced merchandise need not be proclaimed. This would be something akin to tupperware in our day. Certainly before the item has been used its owner would not be able to give any special identification marks. Therefore the finder may keep it." + ], + [ + "And these must be proclaimed: if a man found fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; small sheaves in the private domain; home-made loaves of bread; wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; jugs of wine or jugs of oil, these must be proclaimed. Since this list is the opposite of the list mishnah one, it will help to line them both up in a table. Found objects which need not be proclaimed. Found objects which must be proclaimed. 1) scattered fruit, 2) scattered money, 3) small sheaves in the public domain, 4) cakes of figs, 5) bakers’ loaves, 6) strings of fish, pieces of meat, 7) wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, 8) stalks of flax and strips of purple wool 1) fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; 2) or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; 3) small sheaves in the private domain; 4) 5) home-made loaves of bread; 6) 7) wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; 8) 9) jugs of wine or jugs of oil 1+2) Scattered fruit and money cannot be identified by the owner. However, if the fruit or money is in a container or piled up, the owner may be able to identify the container or the size and place of the pile and therefore the finder must proclaim. 3) Small sheaves in the public domain cannot be identified by where they were found, because people may have moved them. However, in the private domain they can be identified by the place where they were found. 4) Bakers loaves are of standard size and shape and therefore cannot be identified. Home-made loaves will all look different and therefore the owner could identify them. 7) Wool which has not been processed, nor imported will all look the same and therefore could not be identified. However, if it has been processed by a craftsman, it would be identifiable and therefore must be proclaimed.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Try to translate some of the categories of the mishnah into modern day items. For instance, if one found a wallet, must he proclaim it? What about a book? A grocery bag full of groceries? A computer?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnayoth one and two we learned which lost objects a person may keep and which he must declare as lost. In mishnah three we learn a third category: objects that seem to be lost but may not be touched. There are some things that may not have been lost but rather put in their current place by their owner so that the she could return and get them later. One who sees such things should not touch them lest the owners later have difficulty finding the object.\nMishnah four deals with lost items found in different places inside stores.", + "If a man found pigeons tied together behind a fence or a hedge or on footpaths in the fields, he may not touch them. If a person finds pigeons tied together in a place where they may have been left on purpose by their owner, he must leave them there. Perhaps the owner had brought his pigeons with him to the field in order to slaughter them and eat them later for his dinner. (Remember they had no refrigeration, so one would not want to slaughter something in order to eat it later). Rather then carry them around with him in the field he tied them up so that they would not fly away, and he put them behind a fence. If the person were to find them and take them in order to proclaim them as a lost item the owner would have to go looking for them. Therefore the mishnah says they shouldn’t be touched.", + "If he found an object in the dungheap and it was covered up he may not touch it, but if it was exposed he should take it and proclaim. If a person finds an object hidden in a dungheap, he may assume that someone put it there to hide it and will come back for it later. In such a case he should not take it. If, however, it is exposed then thieves might come along and take it. In such a case the finder should take it and proclaim it as a lost item.", + "If he found it in a pile of stones or in an old wall it belongs to him. If he found it in a new wall and it was on the outside [of the wall] it belongs to him. If it was on the inner side it belongs to the householder. But if the house had been hired to others, even if a man found something within the house, it belongs to him. If one finds something in an old wall or under a pile of stones, and it is apparent that it has been there for quite a while, then he may keep it. It can be assumed that the owners forgot about it (yeush, despair) and therefore the item is legally ownerless. If, however, he were to find something in a new wall, he cannot make such a blanket assumption. If the item is on the outer part of the new wall, he may keep it, since anyone from the public domain may have put it there. (We are assuming that the object does not have a sign by which the person who lost it could identify it.) If it was on the inner part of the wall it belongs to the householder. Finally, if the house owner were using his house as an inn and place where many people passed through, then a found item there belongs to the finder. Although the item was in another person’s house, since the house was occupied by many people we cannot make an assumption as to who owned the item.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah three: What do you think he should do if he were to find pigeons tied up but not behind a fence, for instance in a public place? Should he leave them there? Should he pick them up and proclaim them? Or do they belong to the finder?" + ], + [ + "If he found [something] in a shop, it belongs to him. But if he found it between the counter and the shopkeeper it belongs to the shopkeeper. If a person finds something in a shop, for example a cheap pair of sunglasses, and it is not an item sold in the shop, he may keep it. (Again, we can assume that this was an object without an identifying mark and therefore it could not be proclaimed.) Even though the item was found on the shopkeeper’s property, since many people come in and out of the store it could have belonged to any of them. If, however, the object was found behind the counter, the assumption is that the shopkeeper himself lost it. Therefore it belongs to him.", + "If he found it in front of the money-changer it belongs to him. But if between the stool and the money-changer it belongs to the money-changer. The rule here is the same as the rule in the previous section. If the item was found in a place where many people mill about, then it belongs to the finder. If it is found in a place generally occupied only by the money-changer, then it belongs to the money-changer.", + "If a man bought fruit from his fellow or if his fellow sent him fruit and he found coins therein, they belong to him. But if they were tied up he must take them and proclaim them. If a person receives a bundle of fruit and there were a few coins scattered amongst the fruit he may keep the coins. If, however, there was a bag of coins, he must proclaim the bag, as we learned in mishnah two.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four, section three: Why don’t we assume that the scattered coins belong to the person who gave him the fruit? In other words, why is he not obligated to return the coins to the person who gave him the fruit?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five is actually a midrash, an exegetical explanation, of Deuteronomy 22:3. The midrash tells us general rules with regards to which items must be returned to the one who lost them.\nMishnah six discusses how long a lost item must be proclaimed.\nAs we go through the second chapter of Bava Metzia you will notice that the subjects dealt with are in the order in which they occur when someone finds a lost object. First we learn which items must be proclaimed and which items belong to the finder. Then we learn the process of proclamation. Finally, we will learn what a person must do with the object if no one claims it.", + "A garment was also included amongst all these things (which one must proclaim, listed in Deut. 22:3). Why was it mentioned separately? To compare [other things] to it: to teach you just as a garment is distinct in that it has special marks and it has those who claim it, so too everything that has special marks and those who claim it must be proclaimed. Deuteronomy 22:1-2 begin with a general command to return lost items. The specific item mentioned is an ox or a sheep. Verse 3 continues (JPS translation): “You shall do the same with his ass; you shall do the same with his garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find; you must not remain indifferent.” If we read the verse carefully, we will notice that it is superfluous. First the Torah mentions a lost ass and garment and then everything else. The question which our mishnah asks is why should garment be mentioned separately. The answer is that a garment is paradigmatic for which types of items must be proclaimed. First of all a garment has distinctive marks on it by which its owner could identify it. This is still generally true today but would have been especially true in Mishnaic times when everything was sewn by hand. Second of all, a garment has people who would claim it. It is a valuable enough item that someone who lost it will almost always want it back. Any item which does not fit these two categories, distinctive and of a certain, minimal value, need not be returned.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah five: According to the criteria listed in the mishnah what types of items in our society would need to be proclaimed and which would not?" + ], + [ + "For how long must a man proclaim [what he has found]? Until all of his neighbors know of it, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “At the three Pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the lest festival, to allow him three days to go back to his house, three days to return and one day on which to proclaim his loss.” According to Rabbi Meir a person must proclaim the lost objects until all of his neighbors know. Rabbi Judah’s suggestion reflects a law that would have been most applicable when the Temple in Jerusalem stood. When the Temple stood people would come to Jerusalem to proclaim and claim there lost items, no matter where they were lost. It was assumed that a person would come on at least one of the three Pilgrimage Festivals, Sukkot, Pesach and Shavuoth. Therefore the item should be proclaimed for these three festivals. In addition, there were seven days added after the end of the last festival to give the person a chance to go home, check to see if he had lost the object and then to return to Jerusalem to claim the lost item.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah six: How do people proclaim lost items in our society? How does that differ from the way they would do it in Mishnaic times?" + ], + [ + "If he (the named what was lost but could not describe its distinctive marks, he should not give it back to him. And it should not be give to a [known] deceiver, even if he describes its distinctive marks, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “Until your fellow claims it”, [which is to say] until you inquire about your fellow, if he is a deceiver or not.
Whatsoever works and eats, let it work and eat [while in the finder’s care]. But whatsoever does not work and eat should be sold, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “And you shall return it to him”, See how you can return it to him.
What shall be with the money [from the sale]?
Rabbi Tarfon says: “He may use it, therefore if it is lost he is responsible for it.”
Rabbi Akiva says: “He may not use it, therefore if it is lost he is not responsible for it.”
Mishnah seven deals with two subjects: 1) Under what circumstances should the person return the lost object to the claimant? 2) What should the finder do with the object if no one claims it?
Section one: If the person who claims the item is not able to state its distinctive marks, the finder should not return the item to him, lest the item really belong to someone else. If the claimant has a reputation for being a deceiver, then even if he states the distinctive marks, the item shouldn’t be given to him. This is learned through a pun on a word in Deut. 22:2. The verse states that the item should remain with the finder until the person who lost it claims it. The Hebrew word for claim, doresh, can also mean to interrogate. The Mishnah then switches the order of the verse. Instead of the person who lost the item claiming it from the finder, the finder interrogates the person who lost the item, to find out whether he is known to be a deceiver.
Section two: There are two possibilities for dealing with an unclaimed item. If it is something that can be used and the worth of its use will compensate for its upkeep, then it may be used. For instance, a lost cow may be milked to pay for its food. After all, it is unfair to the finder that he should have to pay for the upkeep without receiving compensation. Such a system would indeed discourage people from protecting other people’s lost items.
If the lost item could not work to pay for its feed than it should be sold. The mishnah learns this from the verse which demands that he return the item to the person who lost it. If the item did not earn money and just decreased in value, the finder would not be doing any favors to the loser by holding on to it. For instance if one were to find an expensive cake, that had identifying marks on it. Obviously one couldn’t save the cake for a long period of time or it would eventually be worthless. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the loser for the finder to sell and then return the value.
According to Rabbi Tarfon, the money from this sale may be used by the finder, and therefore if it is lost or stolen he is responsible to restore it. Since he gets the benefit of its use, he has extra responsibility over the item. According to Rabbi Akiva, the money may not be used. Since he doesn’t get the benefit of the use of the money, he is not responsible if it is lost." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight deals with a finder must care for the lost object while it is in his possession.\nMishnah nine deals with the definition of lost objects which the finder must return. The mishnah also deals with the finder’s rights to claim lost wages while taking care of the lost object.", + "This mishnah is concerned with the proper care given to lost objects. The finder has a responsibility to return the object to its owner in as best condition as possible. Therefore our mishnah tells us which things must be done with certain objects for their upkeep. In addition the mishnah lists certain things that shouldn’t be done lest the lost object is damaged.", + "If he found scrolls he must read them once every thirty days, and if he does not know how to read he should unroll them. But he may not learn from them something he has not yet learned, nor may another read with him. Scrolls (made of parchment) must be unrolled once every thirty days in order to air them out and prevent them from becoming brittle. If he wishes to read from it while he unrolls it he may. He may not however learn with another person lest they both pull the scroll and tear it. Nor may he learn something new which would require more intense and longer reading and a greater likelihood of damage to the scroll.", + "If he found clothing he must shake it out once every thirty days, and spread it out for [the clothing’s] own good, but not for his own honor. Clothing must be shaken out once every thirty days. He may spread it out in his house but he should not do so to improve the way his home looks (for his honor) but only to air out the garment.", + "[If he found] silver or copper vessels he must use them for their own good but not so as to wear them out. [If he found] vessels of gold or glass he may not touch them until Elijah comes. Silver and copper vessels should be used occasionally to prevent rust. They may not however be used in a way that would wear them out. Glass and gold vessels, which are the most expensive and fragile, may not be used at all.", + "If he found a sack or a large basket or anything that is not generally carried about, he may not carry it. Finally, containers that are not generally carried need not be carried in order to air them out. The implication is that things that are generally carried about should be aired out.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How does the subject of mishnah eight differ from the subject at the end of mishnah seven?" + ], + [ + "What counts as lost property? If he found an ass or a cow grazing on the path, this does not count as lost property. But if he found an ass with its trappings turned over, or a cow running in the vineyards, this is lost property. An animal that is merely grazing without its owners nearby is not considered a lost animal. However, if its trappings, meaning the load that it was carrying or the saddle on its back, were overturned or somehow misplaced, chances are that it is a lost object. So too, if the cow was running in an inappropriate place, such as the vineyard, it is in all likelihood a lost cow.", + "If he returned it and it escaped again, and he returned it and it escaped again, even four or five times, he is obligated to return it [yet again], since it is stated (Deut. 22:1): “You shall surely return it to your brother”. A person is obligated to return his fellow’s lost object no matter how many times it runs away. This is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy. In the Hebrew verse there is a repetition of the word which means to return. Grammatically this is normal Biblical Hebrew. However, the Rabbis assumed that such repetitions contained additional legal information. In this case they learn that no matter how many times the animal may have been lost and found, one is still obligated to return it.", + "If [the finder] lost time at work that was worth a sela (an amount of, he may not say to the owner, “Give me a sela”. Rather the owner need only pay him the wages of an unemployed laborer. If there was a court of law in the that place the finder may stipulate before them [for damages for time lost]. If there was no court of law, before whom can he stipulate? His comes first. A person who has already found and returned another person’s lost object cannot claim all of the wages which he lost while busying himself with the lost object. Since the owner of the animal may not have wanted someone to return his animal if he would have to pay such a large sum of money, he is not obligated to pay. All that the finder can claim is the minimal wage that an unemployed laborer would accept to have some work to do for the day. However, if before he begins to deal with the lost animal the finder makes a stipulation in front of a court that if he should lose time at work while returning the animal that he would recover the loss, then the owner must pay him. (Ostensibly if the loss of work was greater than the worth of the animal the court would not have agreed to such a condition.) If there is no court in front of which to make such a stipulation, his own work takes precedent over the loss of others.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah nine, section one: Why might one consider an animal grazing on a path to be a lost animal? In other words, why might this law not be obvious?
• Mishnah nine, section four: Why does his own work take precedence over the lost objects of others? Is this law just encouraging selfishness?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten deals with three subjects. 1) Further defining what is a lost object. 2) Potential conflicts between the commandment of returning lost objects and other commandments. 3) The commandment mentioned in Exodus 23:5 to help a person whose ass has fallen under its burden. The verse states: “When you see the ass of your enemy lying under its load and you would refrain from raising it, you must surely raise it with him.” A similar commandment appears in Deuteronomy 22:4.\nMishnah eleven deals with conflicts between helping return his father’s lost object, his teacher’s lost object and his own lost object.", + "If he found an [animal] in a stable, he is not responsible for it [even though the stable door was loose and unguarded. But if he found it in the public domain he is responsible for it. If he finds the animal in an improperly closed and unguarded stable he is not obligated to treat the animal as lost. Only if it was roaming in the public domain is he obligated to help return it to its owner.", + "If it was in a cemetery he need not contract uncleanness because of it. If his father said to him, “Contract uncleanness”, or if he said to him, “Do not return it”, he may not listen to him. This section deals with conflicting commandments. If a Kohen (priest) sees a lost object in the cemetery into which he is forbidden to enter since he would thereby contract ritual uncleanness, he is not obligated to take care of the object. If his father tells him to break a commandment, either the commandment that a Kohen may not enter a cemetery or the commandment that one must return lost objects, he should not listen to his father. Even though there is a commandment to respect one’s parents, respect does not include transgressing another commandment. [Note, this is an extremely important principle with many implications in our lives.]", + "If he unloaded [the ass fallen under its load] and reloaded it and again unloaded it and reloaded it, even four or five times he is still obligated, for it is written, “You must surely raise it with him”. If the owner went and sat down and said, “Since the commandment is upon you, if you wish to unload, unload”, he is not obligated, for it is written “with him”. But if the owner was aged or sick, he is obligated. The Torah states that a person must help raise another person’s fallen ass. Even if he has to do so several times, he is still obligated. This is learned from the Torah’s repetition of the Hebrew word “raise”. From the fact that it was used twice the Rabbis conclude that the commandment applies even if it must repeatedly be performed. (For a similar teaching see mishnah nine). The owner of the animal must help the other person raise the animal and cannot sit idly and watch. This is learned from the word “with him” at the end of the verse. Only a sick or old person who could not help is exempt from doing so.", + "It is a commandment from the Torah to unload but not to reload. Rabbi Shimon says, “To reload as well.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “If the beast was carrying more than its proper load he is not obligated [to help unload it], for it is written, “under its load”, [which is to say] a load which it is able to endure. The Rabbis disagreed with regards to the extent of the help that needs to be given to the person who’s ass has fallen. Some said that he must only raise the animal and some said that he must help reload as well. Rabbi Yose the Galilean adds that he need not help an owner who put too large of a load on the animal. The owner should have been more careful and does not deserve to be helped for his own negligent act.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten, section two: Why shouldn’t a Kohen enter a cemetery and become unclean in order to take care of the lost object? Does this mishnah mean that ritual cleanliness is more important than returning lost objects or is there another explanation?Mishnah ten, section four: What would be the result if the person was obligated to help unload an ass even if too great a load had been placed upon it?" + ], + [ + "If a man found his own lost property and his father’s, his own takes priority. If his own and that of his teacher, his own takes priority.
If he found his father’s and his teacher’s, his teacher’s takes priority for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher who taught him wisdom brings him into the world to come. If his father was a Sage, his father’s takes priority.
If his father and teacher each were carrying a load, he must first relieve his teacher and afterward relieve his father.
If his father and teacher were each taken captive, he must first ransom his teacher and afterward his father. But if his father was a Sage, he must first ransom his father and afterward his teacher.
In the beginning of this mishnah we learn that one’s own financial loss takes priority even over that of a father or a teacher (of Torah). The Torah expects people to help others but it also understands that people have a natural desire to help themselves.
The remainder of the mishnah deals with conflicts between helping his father and helping his teacher. In all of them we learn that his teacher (one who teaches him Torah) takes priority. Through this mishnah we can see how much the Rabbis valued learning and Torah study. His father brings him into this world and for that the Torah commands that he respect and fear his father. However, the teacher brings him into the world to come, and this is a greater responsibility even then being a father. Therefore the teacher receives even more respect than the father. However, if his father is a Sage, meaning learned in Torah, he deserves greater respect from his son than does another teacher/Sage, and he therefore takes priority." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a man left an animal or utensils in his fellow’s keeping and they were stolen or lost, and his fellow made restitution and did not want to take an oath – for they have taught: an unpaid guardian may take an oath and be exempt from liability – if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? He with whom the money was deposited.
If his fellow (the unpaid takes an oath and does not want to make restitution, if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the property deposited.
According to the Mishnah there are four different types of guardians or people who have responsibility to watch over other people’s objects. Each guardian has a different level of liability should the object be lost, damaged or die (if it was an animal). The Torah discusses guardians in Exodus 22:6-14.
1) The borrower. He is responsible to return the object at its original value to the owner no matter what happens to it. For instance should a person borrow a cow and the cow die even a natural death he would be obligated to give the owner the value of the live cow.
2) The renter. If the animal should be damaged or taken captive or die while he was renting it he may take an oath that he was not negligent with the animal and he is then exempt from paying back the value of the animal. If the animal should be stolen or lost he must repay the value of the animal.
3) The paid guardian, i.e. someone who is paid to watch the animal or object. His liability is the same as the renter’s.
4) The unpaid guardian. No matter what happens to the animal or object he may take an oath that he was not negligent in its care and then be exempt from paying.
As you will notice, the greater the benefit the greater the liability. A borrower, who uses the object and does not pay for the use only benefits. Therefore his liability is greatest. An unpaid guardian, who is not allowed to use the object, does not benefit at all. Therefore his liability is minimal. A renter gets to use the object but he pays for it. A paid guardian may not use the object but he gets paid for watching over it. Therefore renters and unpaid guardians have middle level liability.
These laws are a necessary background to many of the rules in our chapter and they will be dealt with at greater length in chapter eight.
Our mishnah deals with an object that is stolen or lost while under the watch of an unpaid guardian.
The scenario in the first half of the mishnah is as follows: a man leaves an animal or utensils with his friend who is an unpaid guardian. The animal or utensils are stolen by a thief. When the owner asks for them in return the unpaid guardian elects to repay the value instead of taking an oath. Assumedly he preferred to pay the value rather than take an oath lest the oath be a false oath. When the thief is found the thief must make twofold restitution if the animal was still alive and in his possession or fourfold or fivefold restitution if he had sold or slaughtered the animal (see chapter seven of Bava Kamma). The question our mishnah asks is who receives the payment. After all someone is going to benefit by receiving up to five times the value of the animal. In this scenario the guardian receives the money and the extra money as well. Since he already repaid the owner, it is as if he acquired the animal and all subsequent benefits that would come from the animal.
The difference in the second half of the mishnah is that the unpaid guardian took an oath and did not repay the owner. In such a case if the thief were to be found he would repay the value plus the penalty to the original owner." + ], + [ + "If a man rented a cow from his fellow and lent it to another, and it died a natural death, the hirer must swear that it died a natural death and the borrower must repay [its value] to the renter.
Rabbi Yose said: “How can this one make business out of his friend’s cow? Rather [the value of the cow] returns to the owner.”
Mishnah two deals with the liability of a person who rents a cow and then subsequently loans the cow to someone else and the cow dies.
Mishnah three deals with a person who admits to having stolen or otherwise received money from one of two people but does not know from which one.
As we learned in the introduction to mishnah one, a renter is not liable to pay back the owner if the rented animal dies a natural death. In such a case he is allowed to take an oath and be exempt. The borrower, on the other hand, is liable to pay back the value of the borrowed animal even if it dies a natural death. In our mishnah a renter loaned the rented cow to a third party and then the cow died. The renter may take an oath that the cow died a natural death and he is exempt. The borrower, however, is liable to pay the value of the cow. Since he borrowed from the renter he must repay the renter.
Rabbi Yose claims that such a law allows the renter to make unfair profit from the cow that belongs to someone else. In his opinion the value of the cow should be paid from the borrower directly to the original owner. In other words, although the renter can exempt himself from paying by taking an oath, he does not thereby earn the rights to future benefits accrued from the animal." + ], + [ + "If a man said to two others, “I have robbed one of you 100 zuz and I do not know which of you it is”, or “The father of one of you left me 100 zuz and I do not know whose father it was”, he must give each of them 100 zuz, since he himself admitted liability. In this mishnah the person speaking knows that he owes one of two people 100 zuz (a coin), either because he robbed one of them or because one of their father’s deposited 100 zuz with him. According to the mishnah he must give each of them 100 zuz, since he admitted his liability. If he had not done so, he would not have been obligated to pay either of them until one could conclusively prove that he had stolen from him or that his father had deposited from him. However, if he wants to fulfill his full moral obligation he needs to pay them both 100 zuz." + ], + [ + "Four
Two men deposited money with a third, the one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz. [Afterward] one claimed that he deposited 200 and the other claimed that he deposited 200. He gives this one 100 zuz and this one 100 zuz and the rest remains until Elijah comes.
Rabbi Yose says: “If so, what does the deceiver lose? Rather the whole is left until Elijah comes.”
Mishnayoth four and five are very similar and we will therefore explain them together. They both deal with two people who deposited something with a third person and subsequently one of them makes a false claim as to what he deposited.
Mishnah six deals with a person whose friend deposited his produce with him and then his friend doesn’t return for an extended period.
In the scenarios in both of these mishnayoth two people deposit something with a third, one a larger deposit than the other. When they return to claim their deposit both claim to have deposited the larger amount of money (mishnah four or the more valuable vessel (mishnah five). Evidently the person who received the deposit does not remember who left which deposit. According to the first opinion each person should receive the value of the smaller deposit. If it was money than each person receives 100 zuz. If it was vessels one receives the less valuable vessel and the other vessel is sold and the value of the less valuable vessel is given to the other. The remainder of the money from the sale of the more expensive vessel stays with the third party until Elijah comes to clarify the matter.
Rabbi Yose points out that such a system does not punish a person for lying and claiming the larger deposit. Indeed, it may actually encourage him to do so. Therefore Rabbi Yose claims that all of the money should remain with the third party until Elijah comes. This way by lying the deceiver is penalized by not receiving even the smaller deposit. Hopefully, this will encourage him to tell the truth and thereby at least receive the smaller deposit. [This story reminds me of the famous story of King Solomon and the two mothers who dispute over whose son was the one that died during the night. See I Kings 3:16-28]." + ], + [ + "Five
So too, [two men deposited] vessels with a third, one worth 100 zuz and the other worth 1000 zuz. [Afterward] one claimed that the valuable one was his and the other claimed that the valuable one was his. He gives the less valuable one to one of them and from the value of the more valuable one he gives the value of the lesser one to the other person, and the rest remains until Elijah comes.
Rabbi Yose says: “If so, what does the deceiver lose? Rather the whole is left until Elijah comes.”
" + ], + [ + "If a man deposited produce with his fellow, even if it should perish he may not touch it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “He may sell it before a court of law, since he is like someone who returns a lost object to its owners.” In the scenario in our mishnah Reuven leaves his produce with Shimon to watch until he comes back. When Reuven doesn’t return for an extended period Shimon is left with a dilemma. On the one hand, a person guarding someone else’s possessions generally may not use the possessions. However, if he does nothing with the produce the produce will rot. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, Shimon should just leave the produce even at the risk of it perishing. The reason is that Reuven may want his produce back, since that was the produce he worked so hard to grow. If you have your own backyard garden you know that this is often true. Even if the fruit objectively is not better than the fruit in the store, to the person who grew it, it will taste better. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, better for Shimon to sell the produce and hold the money for the owner. This sale must be done in front of a court of law in order to prevent the person watching from selling the produce at too low of a price." + ], + [ + "When a man leaves produce for his fellow, [and his fellow returns it to the owner] he may exact reductions [due to natural depletion of the produce]. For wheat and rice, nine half kabs to the kor. For barley and durra nine kabs to the kor. For spelt and linseed three seahs to the kor.
All is in proportion to the quantity and according to the time [it is left]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said: “But what do the mice care about [the quantity]? Won’t they eat [the same amount] whether there is a lot or a little? Rather, he may exact a reduction from only one kor.
Rabbi Judah says: “If the quantity was great he may not exact any reduction, since the produce increases in bulk.”
Mishnayoth seven and eight deal with the reductions in the quantity of certain deposited products (produce, wine, olive oil etc.) that a guardian is permitted to make when he returns the products to their owner.
In our mishnah Reuven left his produce with Shimon and is now coming back to reclaim it. Shimon need not return exactly that amount that Reuven left but is legally permitted to reduce some of the quantity, on the assumption that mice would have eaten some of the produce. The mishnah then proceeds to list how much can be reduced for different types of produce.
According to the anonymous opinion in section two the amounts listed in section one can be reduced for each kor (a measure of volume) for each year that the produce was left with Reuven. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri raises a difficulty on this opinion. He points out that the mice will eat the same amount whether there is a lot or a little. In other words if there are 10 kor or 1 kor the mice will still eat only nine half kabs of wheat or rice. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri no matter how many kabs of produce there are, Shimon may only reduce from one of them.
Rabbi Judah states that if the amount of produce was large than Shimon may not reduce at all. According to Rabbi Judah, large amounts are measured in heaping imprecise measurements. Therefore the extra that was heaped on top of a strict measurement is enough to compensate for the loss to the mice." + ], + [ + "With wine he may exact [a reduction] of one-sixth. Rabbi Judah says: “One-fifth.”
He may exact of him three logs in every one hundred logs of oil one log and a half for sediment and one log and a half for absorption. If the oil was refined he may not exact for sediment. If the jars were old he may not exact for absorption.
Rabbi Judah says: “Also if a man sells to his fellow through the year, the buyer must undertake to accept a reduction of one and a half logs because of sediment.
With wine and oil there are no reductions for mice, as there were with produce, but there are reductions due to sediment and absorption in the sides of the clay vessels which were used at the time. With wine the guardian may exact a reduction of one-sixth or one-fifth according to Rabbi Judah.
With regards to oil it depends on the type of jar and the type of oil. Regular oil is reduced 1½ per cent due to sediment, but refined oil does not produce any sediment and therefore reductions may not be exacted. Regulars jars absorb 1½ per cent but old jars, whose sides are more hardened and have already absorbed oil, do not absorb any oil. Therefore if the jars were old the guardian may not exact a reduction for absorption.
Rabbi Judah adds that not only may a guardian exact a reduction of 1½ per cent the oil returned to the owner, but so too may a person who sells refined oil. In other words if Reuven tells Shimon that he is selling him 100 logs of oil and then gives him refined oil, he only need give him 98 ½ logs since 1½ logs of regular oil would be worthless sediment anyway." + ], + [ + "If a man left a jar with his fellow [to guard] and the owner did not assign it a special place [to be kept] and [the guardian] moved it and it broke: If it was broken while he was handling it: ( If for his own sake he is liable. ( If for the sake of the jar, he is not liable. But if it was broken after he had put it in place, whether he moved it for his own sake or for the sake of the jar, he is exempt.
If the owner had assigned it a special place, and the guardian moved it and it broke: Whether or not it broke while he was handling it or after he had put it in its place; ( If for his own sake he is liable, ( if for the sake of the jar, he is not liable.
Mishnayoth nine and ten deal with a guardian’s permission to use an object which he is watching and the subsequent liability for the object should it be damaged after he used it.
If a man left a jar with his fellow for safekeeping but did not specify the place for the jar to be kept, his fellow is allowed to move it, but only for the sake of the jar. For instance if his fellow did not tell him where to leave the jar, and he put it in the garage and then decided that the jar would be safer in the cellar he is allowed to move the jar to the cellar. In this case if the jar should break either while moving it or after having moved it and put it in a new place he will not be liable. However, if he moved the jar since he needed the space in the garage he takes a risk by moving it to the cellar. In this case if the jar breaks while moving it, he will be liable. However, since the owner did not specify where he wants the jar, once the jar is in its new place in the cellar, the guardian is no longer liable if the jar breaks.
If the owners did specify a place for the jar then he is not allowed to move it except for the sake of the jar. If he moved it for his own sake he will be liable, even after he put it down.
The following chart may help understand this mishnah.
Moved for sake of jar
Moved for sake of guardian
Owners specified place
Not obligated
Obligated
Owners did not specify place
Not obligated
Obligated if broken while handling
Not obligated if broken after being put down" + ], + [ + "If a man left money in his fellow’s keeping and his fellow bound it up and hung it over his back, or delivered it to his son or his daughter who were minors, or locked it up improperly, he is liable since he did not guard in the way of guardians. If he guarded it in the way of guardians he is exempt. This mishnah teaches how a person should guard another person’s given to him for safekeeping. He should not tie it up and put it in a bundle behind him lest a thief come and take it. He should not give it to minor children nor lock it up improperly. All of these are not the way that guardians watch other people’s objects. If he should act in such a manner and the money were to be lost he would be liable. If, however, he guarded it properly and something happened to the money, he would be exempt.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten: Why does the mishnah need to teach the idea of “the way of guardians”? Why not just state that the guardian is either liable or not liable? What additional information might we glean from these words?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final two mishnayoth of chapter three continue to deal with the laws of things left in another person’s guard. Mishnah eleven deals with coins left for another person to guard. Mishnah twelve deals with a guardian who uses something deposited with him, even though he does not have permission to do so.", + "This mishnah deals with two laws, one being directly related to the other. The first law is the legality of a guardian using coins deposited with him. The second is his responsibility if the coins were lost or stolen (in a case where the loss was not due to his negligence). The rule is that if the guardian has the right to use the coins than he is responsible if they are lost (even if he was not negligible with them).", + "Eleven
If a man left coins with a money-changer: If they were tied up [in a bag], he may not use them. ( Therefore, if they were lost, he is not responsible. If they were loose, he may use they were. ( Therefore, they were was lost, he is responsible. If a person leaves coins with a money-changer and the coins are tied up, assumedly the person does not want the money-changer to use the coins. Therefore he may not use them and is not responsible if they were lost. If, however, the coins were not tied up, the money-changer may use them. The fact that the owner left the coins with a money-changer who frequently needs coinage, means that the owner gave them to him assuming that the money-changer would use them. Since he may use the coins, he is responsible for their loss.", + "[If a man left coins] with a householder, Whether they were loose or tied up, he may not use them. ( Therefore, if they were lost he his not responsible. A regular householder does not use coins nearly as much as a money-changer and therefore when the owner gives them to him he assumes that the householder will not use them. Therefore he cannot use them, even if they were loose. He is also not obligated if they are lost.", + "A shopkeeper is like a householder, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says a shopkeeper is like a money-changer. According to Rabbi Meir the laws regarding a shopkeeper are like those regarding a householder and according to Rabbi Judah they are like those regarding a money-changer.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eleven, section three: Explain the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah. Why does Rabbi Meir think that a shopkeeper is like a householder and Rabbi Judah think he is like a money-changer?" + ], + [ + "If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. A guardian who uses a deposit for his own personal use without having permission to do so is liable to pay back the entire deposit if the deposit should be broken or otherwise lost. The question asked is, at what value is he obligated to do so. For instance if someone left a gold watch worth $500 with him. If he uses the watch and it then breaks or is stolen, he must pay back a watch. However, what would be the law if the price of gold went down and the watch was only worth $400 or vice versa and the price was worth $600. According to Bet Shammai the guardian always pays the higher amount, whether that amount was the initial value or current value. According to Bet Hillel the guardian must pay according to the value of the object when the guardian first used it, whether or not that is the higher amount or not. According to Rabbi Akiva, he must always pay the value at the time of the claim, again whether or not that is the higher amount.", + "One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? (1) If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. (2) If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug. According to Bet Shammai, the guardian is liable for the object even if he doesn’t actually use the deposit but lets it be known that he is thinking about using it. From that moment on the deposit has become available to him and he is therefore liable to repay it if it should be lost (and even if he is not negligent). According to Bet Hillel he is only liable if he actually takes the object. How this happens is explained in the end of the mishnah. Tilting a jug but leaving it on the ground is not legally considered “taking possession” of the object in order to be fully obligated for it. In such a case he is only liable for what he took. Only if he actually picks it up and uses it will he be subsequently liable if it breaks and therefore liable for the whole jug.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah twelve, section one: Explain the reasoning behind Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and Rabbi Akiva’s statements. How do they each differ from one another?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Gold acquires silver, but silver does not acquire gold.
Copper acquires silver, but silver does not acquire copper.
Bad coins acquire good coins but good coins do not acquire bad coins.
An unminted coin acquires a minted coin, but a minted coin does not acquire an unminted coin.
Movable property acquires coined money, but coined money does not acquire movable property.
This is the general rule: movable property acquires other movable property.
The first two mishnayoth of chapter four deal with what constitutes the finalizing of a transaction of movable property (movable property includes things and animals and does not include land). The importance of this halacha is that when the transaction is final neither side may retract the sale. For instance if an animal is sold and then dies before the seller can bring it to the buyer it is important to know if the sale was final. If the sale was final then the buyer’s animal died. If it was not final than the seller’s animal died. The general rule that is important to note in the outset is that the transfer of money does not cause the acquisition to be final. In other words if Reuven gave Shimon 100 zuz for his cow the cow does not belong to Reuven until he takes possession of it (this can be done in various ways).
As explained in the introduction, money does not acquire movable property, but the transfer of movable property does obligate the buyer to give the money. Our mishnah defines what money is in relation to movable property. To understand this mishnah one must keep in mind that in those times coins were based on their weight in silver and the authority of the government who had minted the coin. Most coins were made of silver but there were gold and copper coins as well. Silver coins were more easily accepted in the marketplace than gold or copper coins. Section one teaches that gold is “movable property” in relation to silver which is “money”. Therefore if the owner of the silver takes the gold from its owner he is obligated to give him the silver, even if he were to change his mind. If, however, the owner of the silver gave the silver to the owner of the gold, the sale is not final and the owner of the gold may still retract the exchange.
The remainder of the mishnah similarly defines property vis a vis money. Copper is “property” compared to silver. Bad, worn out and unminted coins do not fall into the category of “money” but are rather closer on the spectrum to being “movable property”. Finally, if two pieces of movable property are being exchanged, the acceptance of one creates an obligation for the other to be given as well.
Examples relevant to this mishnah will be given in the next mishnah.
 What might be a possible connection between those of the generations of the Flood and the Dispersion and those who don’t keep their word?" + ], + [ + "How is this so? If [the buyer] drew the produce away from [the seller] but did not give over the money, he cannot retract. If [the buyer] gave the money but did not draw the produce away from [the seller], he can retract. (1) But they said: “He that exacted punishment from the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion (at the time of the Tower of will exact punishment from one who does not keep by his word.
Rabbi Shimon says: “He that has the money has the upper hand.”
The examples given in section one demonstrate the rules learned in the previous mishnah. For instance if Shimon is selling produce to Reuven and Reuven takes the produce into his possession but Reuven does not pay the money, neither of them can retract. Even if for example the price should go way down, Reuven still owes Shimon the money that was agreed upon at the time of the sale. If, however, Reuven paid Shimon and Shimon did not give him the produce, either can retract the sale. If, for instance, the price of the produce should go up, Shimon can renegotiate the sale. However, the mishnah adds that although reneging is legal, God will eventually punish those who do not keep their word.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees with part of the opinion in section one. According to Rabbi Shimon the one who holds the money, i.e. the seller, can change his mind until the buyer draws the produce to him. The buyer may not, however, change his mind once he has paid the money. According to the previous opinion (section one) if the produce had not been given over to the buyer, either the buyer or seller could change their mind." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn Leviticus 25:14 it states (JPS translation): “When you sell property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.” From here the Rabbis learned that a person is not allowed to overcharge for certain items that had a known value. When an overcharge does occur there are three possible consequences: 1) the sale is nullified; 2) the amount paid over the value must be returned to the buyer; 3) the sale is valid and no amount is returned. The remainder of the chapter will deal with these laws.", + "According to the anonymous opinion in section one a sale that is one-sixth more than the true value of an item is considered fraud. If a person bought something for one-sixth more than it was worth he could demand a retraction of the sale. According to the first opinion he may retract the sale as long as it would take to show the object to merchant or to a kinsman, in other words someone else who could give a more objective evaluation of the object. After this amount of time has passed the sale can no longer be retracted.", + "Rabbi Tarfon gave instruction in Lud: “Fraud is an overcharge of 8 pieces of silver to the seller, a third of the purchase price”, and the merchants of Lod celebrated. He said to them: “He may retract any time within a whole day.” They said to him: “Leave us as we were, Rabbi Tarfon”, and they reverted to the teaching of the Sages. In section two we learn of Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion that he gave at an actual event that occurred in Lod (a city in Israel, near where Ben Gurion airport is currently located). Rabbi Tarfon taught in Lod that fraud is one-third of the purchase price (as opposed to the Sages who held that it was one-sixth). This teaching caused the merchants to be happy for they could now overcharge more on their merchandise without being worried about retractions on the part of the buyer. To temper their celebration, Rabbi Tarfon told them that he was allowing a longer time for retractions, even an entire day. At this point the merchants of Lod said they preferred the words of the Sages taught anonymously in section one, who gave a smaller margin for fraud but a shorter time for the buyer to retract.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah three: Why would the merchants prefer a lower margin for fraud (1/6) and a shorter time for retraction as opposed to the opposite?" + ], + [ + "Both the buyer and the seller are subject to the law of fraud. Either the buyer or the seller may claim that they were defrauded. The buyer may claim that the seller overcharged and the seller may claim that the buyer underpaid.", + "Just as the ordinary person is subject to the law of fraud so too is the merchant. Rabbi Judah said: “The law of fraud does not apply to the merchant.” According to the first opinion, the laws of fraud apply to everyone. According to Rabbi Judah the law of fraud does not apply to a merchant. Since a merchant should know the value of the products which he sells, he is not allowed to later claim that the buyer underpaid.", + "He who has been subjected to [fraud] has the upper hand: if he wants he may say to him, “Give me back my money or give me back the amount you defrauded me.” The person who has been defrauded, either the seller if the buyer underpaid, or the buyer if the seller overcharged, can decide between one of two options. The first option is to annul the sale. The second option is to return the amount of the fraud to the one defrauded. In other, words if the buyer underpaid he would pay the remaining amount to the seller. If the seller overcharged he would return the amount of the overcharge to the buyer. In this case the sale would remain valid.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four, section two: Why, according to the first opinion, does the law of fraud apply even to the merchant?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with the amount that may be missing in the weight of a coin before the use of the coin constitutes fraud.\nMishnah six deals with how long a seller has to return a coin to the purchaser if the coin is missing weight.", + "How much may be missing from a sela and still not fall within the rule of fraud? Rabbi Meir says: “Four issars, one issar per dinar.” Rabbi Judah says: “Four pondions, one pondion per dinar.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Eight pondions, two pondions per dinar.” In order to understand this mishnah we need to understand the coinage mentioned in it. One sela = four dinars = 48 pondions = 96 issars Rabbi Meir holds that if the weight of a sela is missing the weight of four issars then its use is considered to be fraud. This is a ratio of 1/24. Rabbi Judah holds that a ratio of 1/12 constitutes fraud and Rabbi Shimon that a ratio of 1/6 constitutes fraud, which is the same as regular fraud as we learned in the previous mishnayoth.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah five: If the normal ratio of fraud is 1/6 why would Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah hold a stricter standard with regards to the weight of coins?" + ], + [ + "Until when may he [that is defrauded] return the coin? In large towns until he has had time to show it to a money-changer. In villages until the Sabbath eve.
If he [that had given the coin] recognized it, even after twelve months he should accept it [in return], but [if he does not accept it the one who received it] only has a cause for complaint [against him].
And it is permitted to use it for redeeming the Second Tithe without concern, for [he who would not receive it] is but only a cheapskate.
If a person should receive a fraudulent coin (one that weighs less than it is supposed to), he may demand that the person who gave him the coin replace it with a better coin. However, there is a time limit for making such a demand. In large towns where money-changers who could check the coin would be found, he only has as much time as it would take to bring it to a money-changer. In small towns he has until the eve of the Sabbath, since it can be assumed that most people from small towns will visit the market and see money-changers before the Sabbath.
If the person who gave him the coin recognized the coin he should exchange it even after the time mentioned above has long lapsed. However, if he refuses to exchange the coin the person who received it has no legal claim against him. The most he has is the right to make a formal complaint, which may damage the reputation of the person who gave the coin but will not legally compel him to exchange the coin.
Finally the mishnah teaches that one may redeem his Second Tithe with this coin, since anyone who would not accept the coin is only being cheap. The Second Tithe was the second ten percent of a person’s produce. It had to be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. Since it was difficult to carry all of the produce itself to Jerusalem a person was allowed to redeem the produce with money, and then bring the money to Jerusalem to use it to buy food." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth seven and eight are not directly connected to the subject matter of the chapter. Rather they both contain lists of laws that revolve around certain amounts of money. Mishnah seven lists minimum amounts of money that are needed to enact certain laws. Mishnah eight lists “fifths”, places in Jewish law where a person must pay an added fifth of something.\nRemember, the Mishnah is oral law. Lists such as these were probably easy to remember.", + "Fraud is four pieces of silver. As we learned in mishnah three of this chapter, fraud is considered to be an overcharge or an undercharge of 1/6 of a sale. Four pieces of silver are 1/6 of a sela which consists of 24 pieces of silver. If the sale was over or under by four pieces of silver per sela, the sale is potentially fraudulent.", + "A claim is [a minimum] of two pieces of silver. An admission is [a minimum] of that which is worth a perutah. If Reuven claims in court that Shimon owes him a certain amount of money and Shimon admits that he owes part of the amount but not the full amount, the court can make Shimon swear that he does not owe the full amount. In order for the court to make Shimon swear he must deny owing an amount not less than two pieces of silver (the claim, section one) and admit to owing an amount not less than a perutah, the smallest coin that exists (the admission, section two).", + "There are five [rules involving] that which is worth a perutah: An admission is [a minimum] of that which is worth a perutah. A woman can be betrothed with that which is worth a perutah. Someone who benefits a perutah’s worth from that which belongs to the sanctuary has committed sacrilege. One who finds that which is worth a perutah must proclaim it [as a lost object]. One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow and swears [falsely] to him [that he did not steal it], must go after him [to return it] even as far as Medea. The mishnah lists five laws for which a perutah is the required amount. 1) The admission mentioned in the previous section of the mishnah. 2) A woman can be betrothed by the man giving her something which must be worth at least a perutah (see Kiddushin 1:1). Today this is usually done by giving a ring. 3) If a person benefits from something that belongs to the Temple he has committed sacrilege and he will have to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin. He is only obligated for this sacrifice if this benefit was worth a perutah. 4) If a person finds something worth a perutah and it is one of the things which must be proclaimed as lost, he must proclaim it. If, however, it is worth less than a perutah he need not proclaim it. 5) If a person steals from his fellow and then falsely swears to him that he did not steal, in order to make atonement he must return the object to its owner no matter how far away the owner may be (See Bava Kamma 9:5). If, however, the stolen item was worth less than a perutah he need not do so." + ], + [ + "This mishnah lists five cases in which a person must add a fifth of the value of something. [Note that the mishnah lists five fifths. This is clearly an aid to memory and not just a coincidence].", + "There are five cases in which one must add a fifth:
One who eats terumah, or the terumah taken from the tithe, or the terumah from a tithe taken from doubtfully tithed produce, or dough offering, or first fruits, must add a fifth [to the value of the principle when he makes restitution]. This is a list of agricultural offerings which must be given to the Priest. One who eats one of these things accidentally must restore the value of what was eaten plus a fifth. For further explanation of what these offerings are look at the Steinsaltz reference guide.", + "One that redeems [the fruit of] a fourth year plant, or his second tithe, must add a fifth. The fruit of a new plant is forbidden for the first three years. During the fourth year the fruit must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. So, too, the second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. If a person wishes to avoid carrying such a heavy load of produce all the way to Jerusalem he may “redeem” his produce and bring the money to Jerusalem. [Afterwards he will be able to eat the produce outside of Jerusalem]. If he redeems the produce he must redeem it at a fifth more than its value.", + "One that redeems that which he dedicated [to the Temple] must add a fifth. If someone dedicates something to the Temple and the object which he dedicates cannot be sacrificed at the Temple, such as a piece of land, he can “redeem” the object with money and donate the money to the Temple. If he redeems the dedicated object he must add a fifth of its value.", + "One that derives a perutah’s worth of benefit from that which belongs to the sanctuary must add a fifth [when he makes restitution]. Someone who benefits from that which belongs to the Temple has committed sacrilege. When he makes restitution for that which he has taken, for instance if he illegally ate a sacrifice, he must add a fifth of the value of that which he consumed.", + "One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow must add a fifth [when he makes restitution]. If a person steals from his fellow and then swears that he did not do so, and subsequently is caught or wishes to repent, he must restore not only the value of that which he stole, but an added fifth as well.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah eight: Is there another possibility for counting the five “fifths” in mishnah eight?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine lists things to which the laws of fraud by overcharging do not apply. Mishnah ten deals with defrauding by spoken words. This mishnah has nothing to do with the laws of sales but rather deals with things a person should not say to another person.", + "These are the things to which the laws of fraud through overcharging do not apply: The sale of slaves, debt documents, land and what belongs to the Temple. The laws of fraud through overcharging are learned from Leviticus 25:14, “When you sell something to your neighbor or buy from the hand of your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.” According to the Rabbinic interpretation of this verse, the “wrong” is fraud through overcharging. From the words “from the hand” the Rabbis learn that in order for a sale to be subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging it must be something passed from hand to hand. This excludes land and slaves (whose laws are always similar to the laws regarding land) which cannot be passed from hand to hand. The word “something” excludes documents which have no value of themselves. The word “neighbor” excludes property which belongs to the Temple.", + "They are not subject to twofold restitution, nor fourfold or fivefold restitution. An unpaid guardian does not take an oath [on their account, that he did not damage them] nor does a paid guardian make compensation [if they are lost on his watch]. The things listed in section one are also exempt from other laws. A thief who steals any of these things and is caught does not have to pay the fine of twofold, fourfold or fivefold restitution (see Bava Kamma 7:1). If an unpaid guardian was guarding these items and they were lost, he need not take an oath to the owner that he was not careless in his watch. If a paid guardian was watching them and they were lost he need not make restitution. (For the laws of guardians see Bava Metziah 7:8).", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “Holy Things for which he is responsible, are subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging, and Holy Things for which he is not responsible are not subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging.” If a person makes a statement saying that he will dedicate a certain animal, for instance a sheep, to the Temple, he must dedicate a sheep. If he sets aside a sheep to bring to the Temple and it is lost, he will have to bring another sheep in its place. This is an example of a Holy Thing for which he is responsible. If, however, he states “This sheep is dedicated to the Temple” then he is responsible for bringing this specific sheep. If the sheep should die he need not bring another in its place. This is a Holy Thing for which he is not responsible. According to Rabbi Shimon, the first category is subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging. Since the owners are responsible for the animal, it is as if the animal is their property, and thereby liable to the laws of fraud. On the other hand, Holy Things for which he is not responsible are not subject to the laws of fraud, since they cannot be construed at all as the property of the owner.", + "Rabbi Judah says: “Also one who sells a Torah scroll, and an animal or a pearl they are not subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging.” They (the said to him: “They only said these.” Rabbi Judah adds three more things that are not subject to the laws of fraud. According to the explanation of Rabbi Shimon found in the Talmud the laws of fraud through overcharging do not apply to the selling of a Torah scroll, since a set value cannot be placed on a Torah scroll by which to establish when there has been overcharging. An animal or pearl’s value is subject to the needs of the buyer and therefore it is impossible to establish a set value for these as well. The Sages disagree with Rabbi Judah. According to them the only things which are not subject to the laws of fraud are those listed in section one.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah nine, section four: If according to Rabbi Judah the laws of fraud through overcharging do not apply to the sale of land, slaves, animals or pearls, to what types of sales do these laws apply?" + ], + [ + "Just as the laws of fraud apply to buying and selling, so to do they apply to the spoken word. One may not say, “How much is this object?, if he does not wish to buy it. If one had repented, another should not say to him, “Remember your earlier deeds”. If one descended from converts, another should not say to him, “Remember the deeds of your ancestors”.
For it is said (Exodus 22:21), “And a stranger you shall not wrong or oppress.”
Just as a person can wrong another person by cheating him on a sale, so too can a person wrong another person through words. One may not ask someone how much something costs he doesn’t intend to buy it. This would raise false hopes for the seller. One may not remind a person who had repented of his former deeds. Nor may one remind a convert that his ancestors were idol worshippers. These laws are learned from a midrash on the verse in Exodus 22:21. The verse uses the word “ger” which in Biblical Hebrew means stranger but in Rabbinic Hebrew means convert. The word for “wrong” in this verse is the same word used in Leviticus 25:14 (see above) from where we learned the laws of fraud. The Rabbis extended the “wrong” mentioned in the verse to include even wrong done through words alone." + ], + [ + "Produce may not be mixed together with other produce, even new produce with new produce, and needless to say new with old. In truth they permitted sharp wine to be mixed with weak wine, since this improves [the taste].
Wine lees may not be mixed with wine, but [the seller] may give [the buyer] the lees that come from the same wine.
One whose wine has been mixed with water may not sell it in a store unless he informs [the buyer] and not to a merchant even if he has informed him, since [the merchant would buy it] only to deceive with it. In a place where they are accustomed to put water in wine, they may do so.
Mishnah eleven and the beginning of mishnah twelve deal with a seller’s mixing produce that comes from different fields or wine from different winepresses. The potential problem is that the seller might mix good produce with bad produce in order to hide the bad produce and thereby make it easier to sell. The remainder of mishnah twelve deals with other competitive and deceptive business practices.
One is not allowed to mix produce that comes from one field with produce that comes from another field, lest one field makes better produce than the other field. In other words, a buyer has a right to know from which field his produce is coming. New produce, probably grain that has not fully dried out, is not as valuable as old produce. Nevertheless it is forbidden to mix the produce even if both sets of produce are new. Needless to say it is forbidden to mix new produce with the old. In modern times this is akin to selling a bushel of fruit where the good fruit is on top and the bad fruit is hidden on the bottom.
Sharp wine may be mixed with weak wine since the mixture will improve the taste of both wines.
A seller may not artificially add lees to a jug of wine, thereby seeming to increase the amount of wine he is selling. On the other hand, he may sell a jug of wine with the lees that come from that wine itself. In other words, although he may not add lees to wine, he need not remove the already existing lees before he sells it. A buyer of wine should expect to receive a normal amount of lees.
One who has diluted his wine, probably to make it more drinkable, cannot sell it in a store unless he informs the purchasers that they are buying already diluted wine. He may not sell the wine to a merchant even if he informs the merchant, lest the merchant sell the wine to others without informing them that the wine is already diluted." + ], + [ + "A merchant may buy from five threshing floors and put the produce into a storage chamber, or from five wine-presses and put into one jug, as long as he doesn’t intend to mix them [for purposes of fraud]. This section is a continuation of the previous mishnah. There we learned that a person may not mix produce that comes from different fields. Here we learn that someone who purchases from different fields may place the produce or wine in the same storage chambers, as long as he doesn’t intend to mix good and bad produce.", + "Rabbi Judah says: “A storekeeper should not distribute parched corn or nuts to children, for that accustoms them to come [only] to him.” But the Sages permit. And he may not lower the price. But the Sages says: “Let him be remembered for good [if he lowers the price].” He may not sift crushed beans, according to Abba Shaul. But the Sages permit. (1) But they agree that he should not sift them [only] at the entry of the storage chamber, since he would be a deceiver of the eye. ( He should not beautify what he sells, whether humans, cattle or utensils. Rabbi Judah states that certain competitive business practices are forbidden. A shopkeeper may not give parched corn or nuts to children (they didn’t have candy back then) since that will make the kids want to come back and bring their parents along with them, thereby damaging the competing businesses. (I’m sure parents can identify with this mishnah. How many times have you been at the checkout counter of the store and your kids begs you to buy him/her the toy or candy blatantly displayed out front?). Rabbi Judah also forbids a seller to lower a price in order to compete with his fellow sellers. Both of these practices were permitted by the Sages. Abba Shaul forbids a seller to sift the crushed beans and thereby remove the waste. This would raise the price and again probably cause competition with the other sellers. Again, the Sages permit. They do, however, forbid a seller to sift the crushed beans that are on the outside of a container. The buyer would see sifted crushed beans and think the entire container is sifted. This is indeed a deceptive business practice, and not merely competitive. Similarly, it is forbidden to artificially improve something’s appearance in order to sell it. The modern example would be to put wall paper over walls of a house in order to hide the fact that they are in truth rotting away.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah twelve: What types of business practices are forbidden to the Sages and what types are permitted?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe fifth chapter of Bava Metziah deals with the Torah’s prohibition of lending money to another Jew with interest. Leviticus 25:35-37 states (JPS translation): “If your kinsman, being in straits, comes under your authority, and you hold him as though a resident alien, let him live by your side. Do not exact from him advance (neshech) or accrued interest (tarbit), but fear your God. Let him live by your side as a your kinsman. Do not lend him your money at advance interest (neshech), or give him your food at accrued interest (tarbit).”\nOur mishnah deals with the Rabbinic definitions of “neshech” and “tarbit”.", + "What is usury ( and what is increase (? It is usury ( when a man lends a sela for five dinars, or two seahs of wheat for three, because he bites ( [off too much]. Section one defines “neshech”. This is a simple form of loaning with interest, where a person gives another person a loan of either money or goods and expects to get back more in return. The mishnah understands that the Biblical word “neshech” derives from the word “noshech” which means to bite. Interest “bites” because the creditor bites off from the debtor more than he gave.", + "And what is increase? When a man increases [his gains] by [selling] produce. How is this so? (1) [If] one bought wheat at a golden dinars [=25 silver dinars] for a kor when such was the market price, and then wheat rose to thirty [silver] dinars [per kor]. (2) [If] he said to him, “Give me my wheat since I would sell it and buy wine with the proceeds” and the other said, “Let your wheat be reckoned with me at thirty dinars and you now have a claim on me for wine [to that value], although the creditor has no wine. Section two defines the word “tarbit”. This situation is more complicated. Reuven buys from Shimon wheat at 25 dinars (=one silver dinars) per kor (a unit of volume) which was the market price of wheat. Shimon does not immediately provide the wheat but rather will provide it at a later time. After the sale the market price of wheat rises to 30 dinars. Reuven requests from Shimon his wheat so that he can sell the wheat and buy wine. Reuven is allowed to purchase the wheat at the lower price since he bought it at what was at the time market value. Shimon says to Reuven that he will sell him wine in return for the wheat that he owes him. In other words Shimon promises to provide Reuven with 30 dinars worth of wine, since that is the current value of the wheat. If Shimon does not currently have this wine in his possession this is forbidden. The reason is that if the price of wine goes up Reuven will have in effect loaned Shimon 30 dinars (the amount of wheat that Shimon owes Reuven) and when he gets the wine that has gone up in price he will receive back more than he loaned. If Shimon had had the wine at the time when he said this to Reuven it would have been permitted, since by trading his wheat for wine, the wine would be in Reuven’s possession when it rose in price. The problem is that if Shimon doesn’t own the wine he is in essence borrowing Reuven’s money. If the price of wine should rise Shimon will end up returning interest to Reuven." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth two and three continue to discuss things that are forbidden since they are forms of usury.", + "One who lends money to his fellow may not dwell in his courtyard for free or rent it from him at a reduced rate, since that counts as usury. A person who has received a loan from another may not give the other person anything in return for the loan (except of course returning the lent money itself). Usually interest is defined as extra money returned to the creditor in return for the loan. However, as our mishnah points out, interest can come in other forms of benefit as well, such as free or reduced rent. A borrower, therefore, may not allow his creditor to rent a house for free or for a reduced rate.", + "One may increase rent-charge [not paid in advance] but not purchase price [not paid in advance]. How so? If his fellow rented him his courtyard, and said to him, “If you pay me now the cost is 10 selas per year, but if you pay me on a monthly basis, the rent is one sela per month”, this is permitted. However, if he sold him his field, and said to him, “If you pay me now it is yours for 1,000 zuz, but if you pay me at the time of threshing it will be 1,200 zuz”, it is forbidden. A renter may increase the rent-charge in return for not receiving the rent up front but a seller may not increase the price of a sale in return for a delayed payment. The mishnah now explains this principle. With regards to rent, the owner of the courtyard may say to the person renting the courtyard that he can either pay in advance 10 selas for the entire year or a monthly rate of one sela (12 selas per year) collected at the end of each month. This is not considered interest in return for delaying the payment. Since rent is reckoned on a monthly basis to be paid at the end of each month, each month of rental is considered individually, which is a permitted rental arrangement. When the owner said that he would rent it for 10 selas for the whole year he was only offering a discount which is permitted. However, a person cannot sell an item and state one price for paying immediately and a larger price for receiving the money later. This is considered interest. For instance if Reuven sells a field worth 1,000 and tells Shimon that if he pays later he must pay 1,200, it will turn out that Reuven has lent Shimon a field worth 1,000 in return for 1,200. This is usury." + ], + [ + "If a man sold a field, and the buyer gave him part of the price and he said to the buyer, “Pay me the rest of the price whenever you wish and then take what is yours”, this is forbidden. The scenario described in this case is forbidden because the seller gets the use and benefit from the field in return for allowing a delayed payment from the buyer. In other words the buyer in essence loans the seller the field in return for waiting until he can gather the remainder of the money to complete the sale. This is usury.", + "If a man lent another money on the security of his field and said to him, “If you do not pay me within three years it will be mine”, then it becomes his. This is what Boethus the son of Zunin used to do with the consent of the Sages. A person may loan another person money and use the other person’s field as collateral. Even though this may look as if the borrower is selling him his field in return for the loan, the Sages did not consider this to be usury.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah three, section one: Would it be forbidden for Reuven to sell a field to Shimon and for Reuven to continue to use the field until Shimon brought him the money?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four deals with business partnerships that are forbidden because one partner is in essence lending with interest to the other partner.", + "One may not set up a shopkeeper on the condition of receiving half the profit, or give him the money to buy produce on the condition of receiving half the profit, unless he pays him his wage as a laborer. In the case in our mishnah Reuven gives either produce or money with which to buy produce to Shimon in order for Shimon to sell the produce and share the profits. After having sold all of the produce Shimon will owe Reuven both the value of the produce originally given or the money given to buy the produce, plus half of the profits from the sales. In other words this is a typical investment loan made by the one who has the capital, Reuven, to the entrepreneur who is willing to turn the capital into a profit. The problem is that this is a form of lending with interest. In return for letting Shimon use his money or goods Reuven will receive half of the profits. Therefore, the mishnah states that this type of deal is forbidden unless Reuven pays Shimon as a laborer. If he does so then the share of the profits that Shimon will keep is actually wages which is of course permissible.", + "One may not set out his hens [for another to raise them and hatch their eggs] in order to share the profits, nor evaluate calves or foals [and give them to his fellow to raise] in order to share the profit, unless he pays him a wage for his labor and cost of the food. This section is similar to the scenario in section one. Reuven gives Shimon either hens and eggs to raise and hatch, or young animals to raise until they mature. When the eggs hatch or the young animals mature Shimon will pay back the value of the original investment and share in the profit. Since Shimon has worked in raising these animals, unless he is paid for his wages he will in essence be giving Reuven interest on his loan. If he is paid for his work then he is acting as a wage earner which is entirely permissible.", + "But one may receive the care of calves and foals in return for half the profits, and rear them until they reach a third of their growth, and donkeys until they can carry a burden. The difference in this scenario that makes it permissible is that Shimon, who receives the animals to raise from Reuven, does not take responsibility over the animals should they die. In other words, if the animals live Shimon will return them to Reuven and split the profit (their gain in value as they mature). However, if they die Shimon will not be responsible to return the value of the animals, as he was in the scenarios in sections one and two. Since this is so, it is as if the risk involved in raising the animals is the wage that Shimon receives and when he returns a profit it is not considered interest. There is another interpretation of this clause. According to this interpretation, in the scenario in this clause Shimon is only responsible for returning half the value of the original animal plus half of the profit. In other words if Reuven gives him an animal worth 200 zuz and when it is raised it is worth 500 zuz. Shimon pays back half the value of the original animal, 100, and receives half of the profit, 150. Although Reuven in essence gave an animal worth 200 and receives back a total of 250 (500 zuz for the animal minus 250 which was paid to Shimon) this is not considered interest. In this case Shimon and Reuven are true partners who are allowed to split profits. In the previous cases mentioned in the mishnah Reuven was an investor, in which case taking interest in order to make a profit is forbidden." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five and the beginning of mishnah six continue to deal with business arrangements that are forbidden because they are usurious. The remainder of mishnah six deals with lending with interest to gentiles.", + "One may evaluate cows and donkeys and anything that works and eats [and give them to one’s fellow to raise] in order to share the profit. In the previous mishnah we learned that it is forbidden to give a person animals to raise in order to share the profit and losses. Since in the end the person receiving the animals will repay the value of the animals plus half the value of the increase, this is considered interest. However, we learned that if the person receives a wage for raising the animals then this arrangement is permitted, for it is not a loan but rather a work arrangement. In other words the half of the profit goes to the owner in return for the wages and not in return for the loan. Our mishnah teaches that if the animal can do work or produce profit, such as cows or donkeys, then the work that the animal does is considered the wages that the person raising them receives. In this case the business arrangement is permitted.", + "Where the custom is to share the offspring immediately at birth, they do so; and where the custom is to first rear them [and then give them over to the owner], they do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “One may evaluate a calf with its mother, and a foal with its mother [and give them to one’s fellow to raise in order to share the profit.] In section one the mishnah taught that if the animal can work or otherwise produce profit, such as a milking cow or a donkey which can carry a load, it is permitted for one to give it to another person in order to share the profits and losses. If there are young born to the animal while this arrangement is in effect there is a potential problem. The young animals cannot work or produce and therefore there may be a potential problem of interest. The mishnah states, however, that the turning over of the animals immediately to the owner in order to avoid interest, is only necessary if that is the custom. If it is not the custom to turn over the young animals until they mature, there is still no problem of interest. Since the mothers will continue to produce the person raising them is still receiving a wage and not, therefore, in danger of paying interest to the owner. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that even from the outset young animals may be given to be raised with mature animals. Although the young animals do not produce any profit, since the mature animals do produce profit the person raising them does receive a wage and there is no problem of interest.", + "A tenant may offer increased rent in exchange for a loan to improve his field, without fearing that this is usury. If Reuven owns a field and Shimon rents the field in order to pay a fixed yearly sum to Reuven, Shimon may ask Reuven to loan him money in order for Shimon to repay Reuven with a higher yearly sum. The extra amount added to the sum is not considered to be interest on the loan but rather an increase in rent in return for Shimon’s working a more valuable field. Since rent is permitted this business arrangement is not usurious." + ], + [ + "One may not accept a flock from an Israelite on “iron terms” [that the one who tends the flock shares the profits from the flock and accepts full responsibility for their value]. A person may not give his flock to another person on condition that the receiver accept full responsibility and that the two will share in the profits. Since the person giving the flock is guaranteed to receive back his flock and will also receive half of the profit this is a form of usury.", + "But one may accept a flock from a gentile on “iron terms” and money may be borrowed from them and one may lend them money. The same is true with a resident alien. An Israelite may lend the money of a gentile with the knowledge [and consent] of the gentile but not with the knowledge of an Israelite. According to Deuteronomy 23:20-21 a Jew (Israelite) may lend and borrow with interest from a gentile but not from another Jew. In order to understand this difference between gentiles and Jews we must understand that lending and borrowing with interest is not an immoral act. It is actually fair and logical that the one who gives his money to others should receive a wage in return, just as one who gives his horse to others receives a wage in return. The reason that the Torah forbids lending with interest to other Jews is that this is a form of charity. A loan without interest is in actuality one of the highest forms of charity, and has been a practice of Jews throughout the ages. According to Jewish law charity begins within one’s own community. While it might be an ideal that one should be charitable to the whole world, it is impossible to obligate one community to support all communities. A Jewish community is legally obligated to support the Jews within the community. This obligation is not extended outside the community. Since lending is not immoral it is permitted to do so with non-Jews. At the end of the mishnah we learn that if Reuven had borrowed money from a non-Jew he may loan that money to Shimon if the non-Jew consents. He may not however lend the money to Shimon without the non-Jew’s consent since this would be a loan from one Jew to another." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that one who wishes to advance money to a merchant in order for the merchant to provide him with produce at a later time may not fix a price for the purchase if the produce is not currently in the hands of the merchant or the market-price for the produce has not been set. The fear is that the buyer will give money to the merchant and then the produce will rise in value and it will be as if the buyer received a discount for having advanced the money. This is a form of interest since in return for giving his money in advance and letting the seller use them the buyer will get a greater deal of merchandise in return. If, however, the market-price was set or the merchant had the produce in hand this type of purchase is permitted since the buyer could have currently bought and taken hold of the produce but just chose not to.", + "One may not set a price for produce before its market-price is known. After its market-price is known, one may set a price, for even though this one does not have [the produce] another does have it. Reuven may not set a fixed price to provide Shimon with produce at a future time unless there is an established market-price for the produce. The problem is that if the produce goes up in value then Shimon will have prepaid in return for a lower price. In such a case Shimon will receive in return more than he gave, which is a form of interest. If, however, the market-price has been set, and many people in the market are selling this type of produce, they may set a price even though Reuven does not currently have the produce. Since Shimon could have bought from others he is not benefiting by prepaying for the produce.", + "If he was the first to harvest his crop, he may set a price with his fellow over grain stacked in a heap, or over grapes in their harvesting basket, or over olives in a vat, or over the clay-balls of the potter, or over lime as soon as the limestone is sunk in the kiln. The aforementioned arrangement is also permitted if Reuven already has the produce in hand, even though the market-price has not yet been set. Since Shimon could have taken the produce at the time when he paid for it, it is not a problem of interest for Shimon to pay and then take it later. This is true even if the produce is not totally ready, such as wheat that has only just been harvested but not processed or any of the other examples in the mishnah. Although it is not completed Shimon still could have nevertheless acquired it in the present.", + "One may set a price for manure at any time of the year. Rabbi Yose says: “One may not set a price over manure unless the seller has manure on the dungheap.” But the Sages permit it. According to the first opinion in this section it is always permitted to set a price for manure, since manure is always available. Rabbi Yose disagrees and states that the one providing the manure must have it available. Otherwise we fear that the price of the manure may rise and the buyer will profit from having advanced the money, which is interest. The Sages agree with the first opinion and disagree with Rabbi Yose.", + "One may set the price at the cheapest rate [that will be at the time of delivery]. Rabbi Judah says: “Even if he didn’t set the price at the cheapest rate he may say, “Give me at the such a price or give me back my money.” Although one may not set a fixed price since if the price rises the buyer will receive interest for advancing the money, they may strike a bargain that the buyer will pay the lowest price when the market-price is set. In such a manner the buyer will definitely not receive a benefit for having advanced the money. Rabbi Judah states that in general if the buyer prepaid for his produce and the produce later goes down in price, he may give the seller a choice of providing the produce at the lower amount or of returning the money. Since the buyer did not actually take the produce and thereby legally acquire it, he is not legally obligated by the sale (Bava Metziah 4:2). [The buyer is also not sanctioned by the clause of “the one who exacted punishment” (ibid.) since his acquisition was from the outset a delayed acquisition]." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth eight and nine deal with a person who lends produce in order to receive produce in return. As we have learned previously, if after the loan the value of the type of produce rises, for instance at the time of the loan wheat was 1 dollar a pound and afterwards it was 2 dollars a pound, the borrower will end up returning more value to the lender, which is a form of interest.", + "[A landowner] may lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat, if it is for planting but not if it is for food. For Rabban Gamaliel used to lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat when it was for planting. And if he lent it when the price was high and it afterward fell, or when it was low and it afterward rose, he used to take wheat back at the lower rate, not because such was the rule but because he wanted to be strict upon himself. A person may not lend another person a seah of wheat on the condition that the other person pay back a seah of wheat. The reason is that if the wheat rises in price after the loan the lender will receive in return more than he gave, and that is considered to be a form of interest. Rather he would have to state an amount, such as 100 dollars worth of wheat and when he gets the loan back he will receive 100 dollars worth of wheat at whatever the rate is at the time of repayment. Our mishnah teaches that although one cannot loan wheat in order to be repaid in wheat when the wheat was intended for eating, one may do so when it is for planting and there is no concern that this be considered interest. The simplest way of understanding this is that it is as if the owner is giving him a better field to work, which he is allowed to do. The second half of the mishnah teaches a stringency that Rabban Gamaliel took upon himself. Although it is permitted to lend wheat for wheat if the wheat is for planting, Rabban Gamaliel would always collect upon the lower rate. In this way there was no potential that he would receive back a higher value than he gave in the beginning and thereby loan with interest." + ], + [ + "One should not say to his fellow, “Lend me a kor of wheat and I will repay you at the threshing time”, but he may say, “Lend it to me until my son comes”, or “until I find my key”. As we learned in the previous mishnah one cannot lend wheat and ask to receive the same amount of wheat in the future lest the wheat rise in price. If, however, the borrower has other wheat at the time he borrows from the other person, then it is permitted. The reason that this is permitted is that the borrower could have repaid the wheat immediately after receiving the loan before the price might potentially rise. The mishnah states that the borrower may say “loan me some wheat and I will repay you wheat as soon as my son comes to open my storehouse or I find the key to my storehouse”, where assumedly the borrower has wheat.", + "But Hillel used to forbid this. Moreover Hillel used to say, “A woman may not lend a loaf of bread to her neighbor unless she determines its value in money, lest wheat should rise in price and they are found to be engaging in usury.” Hillel was stricter in this matter and forbid this type of loan even if the borrower has wheat in his possession. Hillel forbid even a casual loan of a loaf of bread from one woman to her neighbor unless she set a price in money. Again, Hillel is concerned that the price of wheat would rise and she would receive interest in return for giving her bread to her friend.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why would the mishnah teach a stringency that Rabban Gamaliel accepted upon himself if it is not obligatory upon others?
• What is the difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Hillel?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah ten deals with a person who strikes a bargain with another person that each will help the other to do some field work. As we will see such an arrangement can be potentially usurious. In the second half of the mishnah Rabban Gamaliel gives a general definition of two different types of usury and Rabbi Shimon discusses verbal usury.\nMishnah eleven completes our discussion about usury by stating that all who are involved in an usurious contract violate the Torah and discussing which specific commandments they violate.", + "One may say to his fellow, “Help me weed and I will help you weed” or “Help me hoe and I will help you hoe.” But one may not say, “Help me weed and I will help you hoe”, or “Help me hoe and I will help you weed”. Reuven is allowed to make an arrangement with Shimon that one day he will work for Shimon and the other day Shimon will work for him, as long as both are doing the same work. If, however, Reuven helps weed and Shimon helps hoe or vice versa, and one of the labors is more difficult than the other, the bargain is forbidden because of usury. The problem is that the one who does the work for his friend second may do a more difficult type of labor in return for having his work done first. This is a form of usury, since one person will get back more in return for waiting to be paid for his work.", + "All days of the dry season are accounted alike, and all days of the rainy season are accounted alike. One may not say to another, “Help me plow in the dry season and I will help you plow in the rainy season.” Just as two different types of labor may not be exchanged for one another, so too the same labor may not be exchanged for the same labor if they are done during different seasons. Since working in one season may be harder than working in another, if the one who does the work for his friend second does the work in a harder season he is in essence repaying the loan of his friend’s work with interest.", + "Rabban Gamaliel says: “There is interest that is paid in advance and interest that is paid afterward. How is this so? If a one intended to borrow from another and made him a present and said, “This is so that you will lend to me”, this is interest that is paid in advance. If one borrowed from another and repaid it to him, and then sent a present and said, “This is for your money of which you have not had use while it was with me”, this is interest that is paid afterward. Rabban Gamaliel explains that it is forbidden to pay interest either before or after the loan is executed. Therefore, a person cannot give another person a present in order that that person would loan him money, since this is prepaid interest. Neither can a person give another a present for having loaned him money, since this is interest paid afterwards.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “There is interest paid in words: one may not say to his creditor, “Know that such and such a person has come form such and such a place.” According to Rabbi Shimon, interest need not only be a gift of things, money or work from the borrower to the creditor. Interest may even be verbally given to the creditor. If the debtor passes needed information to the creditor in return for the loan, this is interest through words alone. [In our days this might be akin to giving a stock tip to someone in return for a loan.]", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten, section three: Why does Rabban Gamaliel use the example of a present given as interest as opposed to money? Is he trying to teach some additional information?" + ], + [ + "These are the one who transgress a negative commandment: the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses. And the Sages say, “The scribe also.” When a loan with interest is executed it is not only the lender and borrower who violate a negative commandment but everyone involved in the loan. According the Sages, even the scribe transgresses a negative commandment if he draws up a document which contains in it a usurious loan.", + "They transgress the commandment, (1) “You will not give him your money upon interest” (Leviticus 25:37), and (2 “You shall not take usury from him” (Leviticus 25:36) and (3) “You shall not be to him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24), and (4) “Nor shall you place upon him usury” (ibid.) and (5) “You shall put a stumbling block before the blind, and you will fear your God, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:14). The mishnah now lists the specific transgressions that a person commits when a loan with interest is executed. Since there are several verses in the Torah that forbid lending in interest the Rabbis understood that each verse added another commandment. One loan with interest can therefore cause a person to violate several commandments. In the Talmud it is explained that the lender violates all of these commandments, the borrower violates the first two and number five. The witnesses violate number four and according to the sages the scribe violates number four as well.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eleven, section one: Why does the mishnah expand the list of those who transgress when a usurious loan is committed from the lender and borrower to all parties involved? What is this meant to teach us?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe sixth and most of the seventh chapters of Bava Metziah deal with various employment laws. The two mishnayoth which will we learn today discuss the consequences of employers or employees reneging.", + "If one hired craftsmen and they deceived each other, they have no legally valid complain against each other, but only cause for complaint. If an employer hired people to come work for him and then either side deceived the other side, for instance if the employer paid a lower wage than is generally acceptable or the employee claimed a higher wage than acceptable or one of the sides reneged on the deal, neither side can make a legal claim against the other side. All they can do is file a legal complaint which might damage the other side’s reputation but will not be sufficient to force the other side to make monetary compensation. Note that this is all in a case where there was no legally valid contract before the work began. If there had been then each side would be obligated to fulfill their obligations. Furthermore this mishnah deals with a case where the reneging occurs before the work begins. The following mishnah will deal with a case where one side reneges after the work has begun.", + "If one hired a donkey-driver or a wagon-driver to bring litter-bearers or pipers for a bride or for the dead, or laborers to take his flax out of the steep, or any matter that would be lost if delayed, and they retracted, if it was a place where there were no others [who could be hired for the same wage] he may hire others at their (the original expense or he may deceive them. In this situation the employer had hired workers to do a type of work that if not done immediately would be lost, such as carrying a bride to her wedding or carrying the dead to the graveyard or playing the flute at either a wedding or funeral, or removing flax from the steep which if not done immediately would ruin the flax. If in such a case the workers reneged on their deal by not showing up the employee has two options. The first option is to hire other workers at a higher rate and collect the extra money he had to pay from the original workers. In other words if the first workers charged 5 dollars per hour and the workers found at the last minute charge 10 dollars per hour, he can collect the extra five dollars per hour from the original workers. However, he may only do so if there are no other workers available for the same original rate. The second option is to deceive the original workers by telling them that they will get a higher wage and then not giving it to them in the end. Although deception is generally illegal, since the workers themselves put the employer into this situation, he is allowed to deceive them.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Do these laws seem to favor the employer or the employee? From these mishnayoth what rights does it seem that each side has?" + ], + [ + "If one hired craftsmen and they retracted, they are at a disadvantage. If one hired craftsmen and they retracted in the middle of fulfilling their contract, for instance painting a house, they are at a disadvantage. In such a case the householder who wants to have the rest of his house painted will need to hire more workers. If the second set of workers are more expensive than the first set the householder is allowed to reduce the wages paid to the first set of workers in order to compensate for paying more to the second set. If the second set are cheaper the first set of workers cannot ask for more money for doing the first half of the work, even though in the end the householder will pay a smaller total amount for the work. In this way the first workers who reneged in the middle of a deal can lose money but not gain.", + "If the householder (the retracted he is at a disadvantage. If, however, the employer changed his mind in the middle of the painting of the house, he is at a disadvantage. If the price of workers has gone up, he still must pay the first set of workers the full wage for the work they had done. If the price of workers has gone down he must pay the first workers the full total wage, minus what he has had to pay to the second workers. In such a way the employer will lose money, if the price of workers has gone up, but he will not gain, even if the price of workers has gone down.", + "Whosoever changes [the conditions of a contract] is at a disadvantage. If a person hires someone to do a certain piece of work in a certain way, for instance to color his wool red, and the employee did it in a different way, for instance he colored it green, the employee is at a disadvantage. If the cost of the dye was higher than the improvement in the price of the wool, from non-dyed wool to green wool, then the employer pays him the lower amount, that is the amount of improvement. If the amount that the wool was improved was higher than the cost of the dye than the employer only pays for the cost of the dye. (See Bava Kamma 9:4).", + "And anyone who retracts is at a disadvantage. This section summarizes what was in the first section of the mishnah.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• According to mishnah two does an employee have a right to stop working in the middle of a job? Compare this with contract law in modern times. How are they similar and how are they different?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three deals with one who hires an donkey to carry a load in a certain type of terrain and then takes the donkey to a different terrain, against the terms of the contract.", + "If one hires a donkey to drive it through hill country and he drove it through a valley, or to drive it through the valley and he drove it through the hill country, even though the distance of each was ten miles, if the donkey died the hirer is liable. If one hires a donkey with the explicit condition that the donkey will be driven through a certain type of terrain he is only allowed to drive the donkey through that type of terrain, be the terrain hilly or a valley. If, therefore, he drives the donkey into a different terrain and the donkey dies, he is obligated to compensate the owner for the lost donkey. Although in general hirers are not responsible if the animal that they have hired dies a natural death, since in this case the hirer did not abide by the terms of the contract, he is liable. This is true even though he didn’t drive the donkey any further than he was supposed to.", + "If a man hired a donkey and it went blind or was conscripted into the king’s service, the owner may say to the hirer, “Here is yours before you” [and he need not replace the donkey]. [But] if it died or was broken, he must give him a new donkey. If one hires a donkey and the donkey goes blind or is conscripted for use by the king, the owner of the donkey does not have to supply the hirer with a new donkey. He does not even have to return the money to the hirer. Since the donkey still exists the owner of the donkey can say to the hirer that he should keep using the donkey even though it is blind. If the donkey was conscripted the owner can tell the hirer that he must either wait until the term of conscription is over or try to bribe the animal back into his possession. Again, since the donkey still exists he need not supply the hirer with a new one. On the other hand, if the animal died the owner must give the hirer a new donkey.", + "If one hires a donkey to drive it through hill country and he drove it through a valley, if it slipped he is not liable, but if it overheated he is liable. [If one hires a donkey] to drive it through a valley and he drove it through hill country, if it slipped he is liable, but if it overheated he is not liable. But if [it overheated] due to the ascent he is liable. A donkey walking in hill country has a greater chance of slipping than a donkey walking in a flat valley. On the other hand, a donkey walking in the valley has a greater chance of becoming overheated than a donkey walking in the cooler hill country. Therefore, if one hired a donkey to walk in the hill country and he took it through the valley and it slipped he is not liable. Since the owner rented him the donkey with the intention that the donkey would walk in a place where it is likely to slip the hirer is not liable if the donkey slips while walking where it is even less likely to slip. If, however, the donkey overheated while being driven through the valley, the hirer is liable. The owner gave him the donkey assuming that he would take it through the hill country where overheating is unlikely. Since he took it to the valley where overheating is likely, he is liable. The opposite is true if one hired a donkey to walk through the valley and instead took it to the hill country. If it slipped the hirer is liable, since he took it to a place where it was more likely to slip. If, however, it overheated he is exempt since it is less likely to overheat in the hill country than in the valley where it was allowed to go. This is true with one caveat. If the donkey overheats due to an overly strenuous uphill climb, then the hirer is liable in any case. Since he should have been more careful about climbing so strenuously, he is liable for the damages caused.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the relationship between what is taught in section one and what is taught in section three?
• Section two deals with a subject different from the subject discussed in sections one and three. Why do you think this clause is placed in this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe two mishnayoth which we will learn today continue to discuss the main topic of the chapter: breaches of contract.\nMishnah four deals with one who hires a cow to plow on a certain type of terrain and then uses the cow for a different terrain and the plow attached to the cow breaks. Alternatively he hires the cow to thresh a certain type of produce and then he uses it to thresh a different type of produce and the cow slips and is injured.\nMishnah five deals with one who hires a donkey to carry a load of a certain weight or volume and then adds on to that weight or volume, thereby causing the donkey and be injured.", + "The general principle behind this mishnah (and the other mishnayoth of the chapter) is that if one hires an animal to do work in which it is unlikely to sustain a certain type of injury and he then uses the animal for a work in which he would be more likely to sustain that injury and the animal is injured he is obligated. If however he uses the animal for work in which the animal would be less likely to be injured and the animal is injured he is exempt from paying damages.", + "If one hired a cow to plow in the hill country and he plowed in the valley, if the plowshare was broken he is exempt. [If one hired a cow to plow] in the valley and he plowed in the hill country, if the plowshare was broken he is liable. The land in a valley is softer and less likely to break the plowshare than the land in the hill country. Therefore if he hires the cow and its plowshare to work in the rocky hill country and he uses it in the softer valley and the plowshare still breaks he is exempt. The assumption is that if it broke in the valley all the more so it would have broken in the hill country. If, however, he hired it to plow in the valley and he plowed with it in the hill country and the plowshare broke he is liable. The assumption is that if he had taken it to the valley, as he was supposed to, it would not have broken.", + "[If one hired it] to thresh beans and he threshed grain [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is exempt. [If one hired it] to thresh grain and he threshed beans [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is liable. An animal is more likely to slip and be damaged while threshing beans than while threshing grain. Therefore if he was supposed to thresh beans and he threshed grain and the animal slipped he is exempt. However, if he was supposed to thresh grain and he threshed beans he is liable, since he made the animal do a more difficult work than he had hired it for.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• In mishnah three we learned that a hirer who does not abide by the terms of the contract is automatically liable for any damage. However, in mishnayoth four and five there are circumstances where he is not automatically liable even though he did not abide by the terms of the contract. How are these mishnayoth different from the previous one?" + ], + [ + "If one hired a donkey to carry wheat and he used it to carry [a like weight] of barley, he is liable [if the donkey was injured]. [If he hired it to carry] grain and he used it to carry [a like weight of] chopped straw he is liable, since the greater bulk is more difficult to carry. In the scenario mentioned in this section, although the person did not add weight to the load being carried by the donkey, he did add bulk. In such a manner he made the work more difficult and is therefore liable if the donkey was injured. In the examples given barley is bulkier than wheat and straw is bulkier than produce.", + "[If he hired it to carry] a letech of wheat and it carried a letech of barley he is not liable. But if he increased the weight, he is liable. What increase in weight renders him liable? (1) Symmachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: “One seah for a camel and three kavs for a donkey.” If he hired the donkey to carry a letech of wheat, which is a unit of volume, and he carried a letech of barley he is exempt if the donkey was injured. Although he changed the terms of the contract since he in essence lightened the load (barley is lighter than wheat) he is exempt. If, on the other hand, he actually increased the weight he will certainly be liable. The end of the mishnah then proceeds to ask how much weight increase will cause him to be liable. According to Symmachus (the name of a Sage) in the name of Rabbi Meir one seah per camel, which is 1/15 of a letech or three kavs (1/2 seah) for a donkey. Less than this and the hirer is not liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• In mishnah three we learned that a hirer who does not abide by the terms of the contract is automatically liable for any damage. However, in mishnayoth four and five there are circumstances where he is not automatically liable even though he did not abide by the terms of the contract. How are these mishnayoth different from the previous one?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six deals with the legal liability of craftsmen: as paid or unpaid guardians. It also contains several other laws with regards to paid and unpaid guardians.\nMishnah seven deals with the liability of a lender vis a vis the pledge he took to guarantee his loan.\nMishnah eight deals with the liability of carriers who trip and break a jar that they had been carrying from place to place.", + "A paid guardian has a greater liability over objects that he is guarding than an unpaid guardian. A paid guardian is liable if the object is lost or stolen but not liable if the object dies (if it is an animal) is broken or taken captive.", + "All craftsmen are accounted paid guardians. But all that have said, “Take what is yours and give me the money”, are accounted unpaid guardians. Craftsmen who take objects into their possession to work on them, such as cloth to make into clothing or leather to make into shoes, have the status of paid guardians. If the object is lost or stolen they are liable to make compensation to the owner. If, however, the craftsmen told the owner to come and collect his item and pay the money, the craftsmen now have the status of an unpaid guardian.", + "If one man said to another, “Guard that for me and I will guard this for you”, he is accounted a paid guardian. If two people exchange objects for guarding they are both considered to be paid guardians. Although they are not paying each other for guarding the object, they are each in essence paying the other person by watching his object. Therefore they are each considered to be paid guardians.", + "If one said, “Guard this for me”, and the other said “Put it down in front of me”, he is accounted an unpaid guardian. If someone asks another person to watch his object and the person responds by saying “Put it down in front of me” the guardian has the status of an unpaid guardian. Although he didn’t specifically say that he would guard the object, telling the other person to put the object down is sufficient to cause him to be a guardian.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah six: Why does a craftsman have the status of an unpaid guardian after he says, “Take what is yours and give me the money”?" + ], + [ + "If one gave a loan and took a pledge he is accounted a paid guardian. Rabbi Judah says: “If he lent him money he is accounted an unpaid guardian; if he lent him produce he is accounted a paid guardian.” If one gave a loan to another person and took from that person a pledge to guarantee the loan, the lender is considered to be a paid guardian vis a vis the pledge. Since by keeping the pledge he is getting in return a guarantee on his loan he has the added liability of being a paid guardian. Rabbi Judah refines this law. According to Rabbi Judah one who loans money is accounted an unpaid guardian over a pledge. Since Jews cannot lend other Jews with interest, lending money is a total favor to the borrower. Therefore, in compensation, the lender has less liability over the pledge. However, one who lends produce actually benefits by lending it, since the produce may have gone bad while in his possession. Since he receives benefit he is a paid guardian over the pledge.", + "Abba Shaul, “One may hire out a poor man’s pledge and thereby reduce the debt, for in such a way he is like one who returns lost property.” Abba Shaul states that if a lender takes a pledge from a poor person he should rent out the pledge and keep the money in order to gradually reduce the amount of the pledge. In this way he is able to return the pledge to the poor person without the poor person actually having to pay back his loan." + ], + [ + "If one moved a jar from place to place and broke it, whether he is a paid guardian or an unpaid guardian, he may take an oath [that he did not break it through neglect and be exempt from liability]. Rabbi Eliezer says: “[I too have heard that] in either case he may take an oath, but I wonder whether in either case the oath is valid.” The subject of our mishnah is one who breaks a jar while moving it from place to place, evidently by tripping while carrying it. According to the opinion in the first clause of the mishnah the one carrying the object is exempt from paying and need only take an oath that he did not break it through neglect. According to this opinion tripping is not necessarily a neglectful act. Rabbi Eliezer agrees that the accepted law is as was stated in the first clause but he questions the logic of that law. According to Rabbi Eliezer tripping is indeed a neglectful act, and therefore one who tripped should not be able to take an oath that he was not neglectful. Note that with regards to this law it does not matter whether the carrier was a paid or unpaid guardian. If tripping is neglectful then both are liable and if tripping is not neglectful then neither are liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah eight: Why does Rabbi Eliezer say that he has heard that either may take an oath but then doubt whether such an oath is acceptable? What does this statement teach us about Rabbi Eliezer’s general approach to tradition versus logic?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah of chapter seven deals with the obligation to follow local customs in employee/employer practices.", + "If one hired laborers and told them to work early or to work late, he has no right to compel them to do so where the custom is not to work early or not to work late. In the scenario in this section the employer hired laborers and then later told them that he expected them to either arrive early or to stay late. The mishnah teaches that in a place where workers do not customarily arrive early or stay late, he has no right to do so. Since he made his original agreement without telling them of any unusual conditions, he must follow local custom.", + "In a place where the custom is to give them their food he should give it to them, and where the custom is to provide them with sweet food, he must give it to them. Everything should follow local custom. Similarly, the mishnah teaches that in a place where the employer customarily provides food for the employee he must do so, even if he doesn’t specifically promise to do so. If the custom is to provide sweet food then he must do so as well. On the other hand, if the local custom is not for the employer to provide the food or sweet food he is not obligated to do so. We will learn more about employers’ obligations to feed their employees in the coming mishnayoth of this chapter.", + "It once happened that Rabbi Yochanan ben Mattia said to his son: “Go and hire laborers for us”. He went and struck a deal to provide them with food. When he came to his father, his father said to him, “My son, even if you make them a banquet like Solomon’s in his time you will not have fulfilled your obligation to them. For they are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, rather, before they begin to work go and say to them, “On condition that I am not bound to give you more than bread and beans only.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “It was not necessary to speak thus, for everything should follow local use.” This section contains an interesting story of a father and his son. The son goes out and hires workers at his father’s request and tells them that he will provide their food. When he returns to his father his father fears that such a condition could potentially be interpreted to mean that he will provide them with a feast worthy of King Solomon. His father instructs the son to return and clarify to the workers that they are being hired under the condition that they will receive food but that the food will be minimal, consisting of only beans and bread. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that such a stipulation was not necessary. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in a case where the quantity of food was not clarified, the employees can only claim that which is customarily given to workers in their area. Since custom does not dictate that an employer provide his employees with food worthy of King Solomon he need not do so. Evidently the father had assumed that in a case where the employer had not made any limitation with regards to the amount of food to be provided to the employees, his promise could be interpreted in favor of the employees.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the significance of the line, “For they are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” mean?" + ], + [ + "These may eat [of the fruits among which they work] by the law of the Torah: one who works on that which is still connected to the ground [may eat of it] when the work is finished [at the time of harvest]; and one who works on that which is already detached from the ground [may eat of it] before the work is completely finished. This applies only to that which grows from the ground.
These are they that may not eat; one that works on what is still growing while the work is still unfinished; and one that works on what is already detached from the ground after the work is finished, and [one may not eat] of what does not grow from the soil.
In Deuteronomy 23:25-26 we learn that a person who is in another’s field or vineyard has a right to eat directly from the fruit of the field. However, he may not harvest the grapes or grain and put them in his basket in order to bring them back into his home. According to the Rabbis these verses deal with workers doing work in the field and not with normal people passing through another’s fields. A person just passing through another’s field does not have a right to eat anything from the field for that would be considered stealing.
Mishnayoth 2-8 deal with these verses and clarify in what situations a worker may eat and in what situations he may not.
This mishnah discusses when may a worker eat directly from the foodstuff with which he is laboring and when he may not. Note, this mishnah does not directly discuss an employer’s obligation to feed his employee which was a topic discussed in the previous mishnah.
1) One who is working with food that has not yet been harvested may eat of it at the time when it is harvested. However, he may not eat of the food while it is still attached to the ground.
2) One who works with produce that has already been harvested may eat of the produce until it has become completely processed, i.e. grapes turned into wine, olives into oil or grain into flour. After that point he may no longer eat of the produce.
3) Finally, a person who works with food that does not grow from the land, such as meat or dairy products may not eat directly from them.
All of these laws are learned exegetically from the verses in Deuteronomy mentioned above. Since the verses deal with fields and not with other types of food, the Rabbis deduced that a worker who worked with someone else’s meat or dairy products was never allowed to eat from them. Furthermore Deuteronomy 25:4 states, “Do not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” The Rabbis compared an ox to other workers and decided that while one was not allowed to prevent an ox from eating while working, under certain conditions one was allowed to prevent a working person from eating from that with which he is working." + ], + [ + "If one was working with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, or even with his shoulders only, he still may eat. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Judah says, “Only if he works with both his hands and his feet.” According to the Talmud, the two opinions in this mishnah are based upon differing interpretations of Biblical verses. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Judah’s is based on the verse in Deuteronomy 25:4, “Do not muzzle and ox while he is threshing”. According to his interpretation of this verse just as an ox works with both its hands and his feet and therefore may eat from that with which it is working, so too a worker must work with both his hands and his feet. The anonymous opinion in section one is based upon the verse in Deuteronomy 23:25. There it states “When you come into your neighbor’s field…”. Since the verse does not specify that he was working with both hands and feet it implies that all workers may eat from the field.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
The issue of a person eating from things that belong to his employer is still an issue in modern society. How do our customs or laws compare to those in the time of the Talmud? Keep this question in mind as we learn the next several mishnayoth as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe two mishnayoth which we will learn today continue to discuss a worker’s right to eat from the produce with which he is working.", + "If one was working with figs he may not eat grapes, and if among grapes he may not eat figs. But he may refrain [from eating] until he reaches the best produce and then eat. As we learned in the previous mishnah, according to the Rabbinic interpretation of the Torah a fieldworker is allowed to eat from the food in the field while he is working in the field. Our mishnah teaches that a worker may eat only of the food with which he is working. They may not eat of other foods even if they belong to the same owner. However, the worker may save his appetite and eat from the best fruit which he will work with in the end. In other words the worker may eat of any of the fruit with which he is working but he may not eat from anything with which he is not working.", + "In no case have they said [that he may eat] save during the time of his work. But because of the principle of restoring lost property to its owner they have said, “Field laborers may eat as they go from one furrow to another or as they return from the winepress. And a donkey [may eat] while it is unloading.” The basic law is that a worker may only eat while he is working. However, this situation presents a potential problem to both the worker and the employer. The worker would probably prefer to eat when he is completed with his work and the employer, who probably is paying per hour, would prefer the worker not stop working to eat. Therefore, the Rabbis stated that workers may wait to eat until they have completed their work and are going from one place of work to the other.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah four, section two: According to the mishnah is a worker allowed to eat while he is working or must he wait until he completes the job?" + ], + [ + "A laborer may eat cucumbers even to a denar’s worth, and dates even to a denar’s worth. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma says: “A laborer may not eat more than the value of his wages. But the Sages permit it, but they teach a man not to be gluttonous as to close the door against himself. According to the anonymous opinion in section one of the mishnah, a laborer may eat as much food as he wants. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma disagrees and states that by law a laborer may not eat more than he earns. The Sages, who are the same Rabbis who held the opinion in the first clause, permit a laborer to eat more than he earns. However, they state that for the laborer’s own good we teach him not to eat too much for if he does he will not be rehired. In other words while it may be legal for him to eat gluttonously, it will damage his reputation and in the future prevent him from being able to earn an income." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six deals with a person’s legal right to strike a deal with the employer on behalf of the other members of his household.\nMishnah seven deals with workers hired to work with food which they may not eat since it has not had the proper agricultural offerings taken out of it.", + "One may exact terms for himself and for his son or daughter that are of age, and for his slave or female slave that are of age, and for his wife, since these have understanding. But he may not exact terms for his son and daughter that are not of age, or for his slave or female slave that are not of age, or for his cattle, since these have no understanding. This mishnah deals with a man who is working in someone else’s field along with his family. The man has a right to make a contract with his employer that instead of taking food directly from the field the employer will pay them extra money with which they can buy their own food. This was probably a customary practice in their time. A man has a right to make this contract on behalf of his wife, his adult children and his adult male and female slaves. The reason is that these people have understanding and will be able to refrain from eating directly from the field. Therefore the man’s contract with the employer is legally binding on them as well and they may no longer eat directly from the field. However, a man may not exact terms for the minors in his family, be they children or slaves. Since these people have no legal understanding, meaning they cannot be held legally liable for their actions, the father may not make a contract to prevent them from eating from the field.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah six: What does this mishnah tell us about the structure of the Jewish family at the time of the Mishnah?" + ], + [ + "If one hired laborers to work among his fourth-year plantings, they not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were fourth-year plantings] he must first redeem the fruit and then allow them to eat. In this scenario workers are hired to work with produce from plants that are in their fourth year. Such fruit may not be eaten in any place but Jerusalem. (During the first three years of a plant’s life its fruit may not be eaten at all. This law is called “orlah”.) If the owner wished to, he could redeem the fruit of his fourth year plants with money and bring the money to Jerusalem and spend it there. If the workers were told beforehand that they would be working with fourth-year plantings, then they may not eat from them. Since they agreed to work with that which they could not eat, the employer is not obligated to make the food able to them. However, if the employer had not informed them that they would be working with food from which they may not eat, he is obligated to redeem the fruit and then let them eat.", + "If his fig-cakes broke up or his jars burst open, they may not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were liable to be tithed] he must first separate the tithes and then allow them to eat. One is not obligated to separate the tithe (which will go to the Levi) from produce until the work on the produce has been completed. In other words, fruit in the fields that has not yet been made ready for sale need not be tithed before eating, whereas fruit in the market must be tithed before it is eaten. In our mishnah the laborer was hired to work with produce upon which the work has already been completed. He therefore may not eat of the produce until the appropriate tithes have been taken. In this case the worker was hired to work with food after the work had been completed and yet something went wrong with the packaging. As we learned in section one, if the employer had informed the worker that he would be working with produce from which he could not eat then they may not eat from the produce. If, however, he had not informed them, then he must separate the tithes and allow them to eat from the produce.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah seven: What general principle can you extract from this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first line of mishnah eight introduces the laws concerning of guardians, which will continue to be the topic throughout the remainder of the chapter and the beginning of chapter eight. Some of these laws were discussed in chapter three of Bava Metziah.", + "Those that guard [gathered] produce may eat from it because that is the custom of the land and not because that is the law of the Torah. A guardian is not considered by the law of the Torah to be the type of worker who may eat from the produce with which he is working. Therefore, according to the law in the Torah a guardian may not eat of this produce. However, since local custom permits him to do so, he is allowed. Note, in this mishnah we see two important sources of Jewish law, the Torah and local custom.", + "There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen. This section lists the four types of guardians in Jewish law. The general principle is that the more benefit a guardian receives and the less benefit he gives to the owner of the object, the more liable he will be if the object is ruined. Therefore a borrower, who does not pay and gets use of the object pays in any case that the object is ruined. On the other hand, an unpaid guardian only gives benefit to the owner and receives no benefit in return. Therefore in all cases in which something occurs to the object that he is guarding he may take an oath that he was not neglectful and be exempt from liability. Paid guardians and hirers are in-between cases. The hirer gets use of the object but he pays for such use. The paid guardian is not allowed to use the object but he gets paid for watching it. Therefore both of these guardians are sometimes allowed to take an oath and thereby be exempt from liability and sometimes they are liable to pay the owner. If the animal was lost or stolen and is no longer in front of us, they must pay the owner the value of the animal. If, however, it died a natural death, was taken captive or injured then they may take an oath and exempt themselves from liability.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eight: What is the difference between something being Torah law or the custom of the land?" + ], + [ + "In the previous mishnah we learned that one who hirers an animal or one who is being paid to watch it is not liable if it was injured, taken captive or died a natural death. In our mishnah we learn that the hirer or paid guardian are not liable in any case where something happened to the animal that was beyond his control. This is called “ones” in Hebrew, and it means an unavoidable accident. This mishnah deals with attacks by wild animals on a flock that are out of the hirer or paid guardian’s control to stop.", + "If one wolf [attacked the flock that he was watching] it does not count as an unavoidable accident [for which no blame is placed on the guardian]. Two wolves do count as an unavoidable accident. Rabbi Judah says: “In a time where wolves are commonly attacking the settlements, even one wolf is considered to be an unavoidable accident.” An attack made by one wolf is not considered to be an unavoidable accident for the shepherd should have been able to fend him off. A shepherd could not, however, fend off two wolves and therefore an attack made by two wolves is considered unavoidable. Rabbi Judah adds that if even one wolf attacked at a time when wolves were commonly attacking, the shepherd would not be able to fend it off and it would be therefore be considered an unavoidable accident.", + "Two dogs do not count as an unavoidable accident. Yadua the Babylonian said in the name of Rabbi Meir says: “If [two dogs came] from one direction they do not count as an unavoidable accident, but if [they came] from two directions they count as an unavoidable accident. Dogs are less dangerous than wolves and therefore even two dogs are not considered to be an unavoidable accident. Yadua (the name of a Sage) the Babylonian in the name of Rabbi Meir qualifies this law to a situation where both dogs attacked from the same direction. If they attacked from different directions it is considered to be an unavoidable accident.", + "A bandit counts as an unavoidable accident. An attack by bandits is considered to be an unavoidable accident. When the previous mishnah stated that a hirer and an unpaid guardian are liable if the object was stolen the meaning is that they are liable if it was stolen by thievery. If the animal was stolen by an armed robber that is similar to the case where it was taken captive and they are not liable.", + "A lion or a bear or a leopard or a panther or a serpent counts as an unavoidable accident. An attack by any of the predatory wild animals listed here is considered to constitute an unavoidable accident.", + "When [is this so]? When they come of themselves. But if he took the flock to a place of wild animals or bandits they do not count as an unavoidable accident. The mishnah clarifies that an unavoidable accident is only when the animal or bandit attacked the flock when the flock was grazing in a safe area. If, however, the paid guardian or hirer took the flock to an area known to be unsafe and then the flock was attacked, they are liable. Since they were the ones who brought the animal to danger, they are liable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe beginning of mishnah ten continues to discuss the definition of an unavoidable accident for which a hirer or an unpaid guardian are not liable. The second half of mishnah ten deals with a guardian who makes a stipulation to lower his level of liability.\nMishnah eleven deals with some general laws of stipulations.", + "If a beast died a natural death this counts as an unavoidable accident [for which a hirer or paid guardian is not liable]. But if he tortured it and it died it does not count as an unavoidable accident [and the hirer and paid guardian would be liable]. If it was led up to the top of a crag and it fell down and died, this does not count as an unavoidable accident. As we learned in mishnah seven, a paid guardian and a hirer are not liable if the animal which they are guarding or using dies a natural death. As our mishnah explains, a natural death is considered an unavoidable accident. However, if the hirer or unpaid guardian tortured the animal and it died, or if he led it up to a dangerous crag and it fell it does not count as an unavoidable accident and the hirer or unpaid guardian would be liable to make restitution.", + "An unpaid guardian may make a stipulation that he will be exempt from taking an oath, and a borrower [may make a stipulation that he will be exempt] from making restitution, and a paid guardian and a hirer [may make a stipulation that they will be exempt] from taking an oath or from making restitution. The principle learned in this section is that all types of guardians may make stipulations with the owner of the object to lower their level of liability. An unpaid guardian is normally allowed to take an oath that he was not negligent and thereby exempt himself from liability. He may make a stipulation before agreeing to watch the object that if something happens to the object he will be exempt without an oath. Similarly a borrower is liable to make restitution in all cases where something happens to the object. He may make a stipulation before borrowing the object that if something happens he will be exempt. Finally, a hirer and an unpaid guardian are sometimes able to exempt themselves by taking an oath and sometimes they must make restitution. They may also make stipulations that if liable for an oath they would be exempt without the oath and if liable to make restitution they would be exempt. Obviously, in all of these cases the owner would need to agree to the stipulation before he gives them the object. If he did not wish to agree to the stipulation he would simply not give them the object.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten, section two: Why would an owner agree to a guardian lowering his level of liability?" + ], + [ + "If one makes a stipulation contrary to that which is written in the Torah he stipulation is void. In the previous mishnah we learned that guardians may make stipulations to exempt themselves from varying degrees of liability. However, in this mishnah we learn that stipulations made that are contrary to the Torah are null and void. Apparently there is a contradiction between the two mishnayoth, with mishnah ten allowing stipulations contrary to that which is in the Torah and mishnah eleven disallowing them. One possibility to reconcile the two is that monetary stipulations, such as those mentioned in mishnah ten are valid and non-monetary stipulations are not valid. A non-monetary stipulation would be, for example, if a man married a woman on condition that she would not need a get (a divorce document) to divorce him. This is certainly an invalid stipulation.", + "Any stipulation that mentions first the action is void. There are strict rules regarding the way in which stipulations must be stated. This mishnah teaches that the stipulation must be mentioned before the action. For instance if one says: “Behold you are betrothed to me on condition that my father will agree” the woman is married even if the father does not agree. If he wishes the stipulation to be valid he must mention the stipulation first by saying, “If my father agrees then you are betrothed to me”.", + "Any stipulation that can in the end be fulfilled and was laid down as a condition from the beginning, such a condition is valid. Finally we learn that for a stipulation to be valid it must be possible to fulfill it. For instance if one said, “If you fly to the sky then you are betrothed to me” the stipulation is invalid and she is betrothed immediately.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eleven, section three: Why do you think that for a stipulation to be valid it must be possible for one to perform it? Why would someone state an impossible stipulation?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah of chapter eight deals with a specific law which is applicable only to borrowers: if the owners were rented or borrowed with their animals, for instance a donkey driver with his donkey, then the borrowers or renters are not obligated if the animal should die.\nMishnah two deals with a person who rents an animal for half a day and borrows it for the other half.", + "If one borrowed a cow together with the service of its owner, or hired its owner together with the cow, or if he borrowed the service of the owner or hired him, and afterward borrowed the cow, and the cowed died he is not liable, for it is written, “If its owner was with it no restitution need be made” (Exodus 22:14). But if he first borrowed the cow and afterward borrowed or hired the service of its owner, and the cow died, he is liable, for it is written, “Its owner not being with it, he must make restitution” (Exodus 22:13). The Torah clearly states that if the owner of the animal was with the animal when it was borrowed and then it died or was injured the borrower is not obligated to make restitution. The assumption is that the owners should have taken care of the animal and therefore even though the borrower would normally be liable for the animal dying or being injured in this case he is not. Our mishnah clarifies two issues. First of all, it states that the services of the owner need not have been borrowed but may have been hired as well. As long as the cow is borrowed these laws will be applicable. Second, the services of the owner must have been borrowed or hired before the borrowing of the cow. The Rabbis interpret the Torah’s words “with it” or “not being with it” to mean that the owner was in service to the borrower at the time of the borrowing and not afterwards. If the borrower hired or borrowed the services of the owner after having borrowed the cow he will be liable if the cow dies, even if at that time the owner was with the cow.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah one: Why might the Rabbis have interpreted the verses in Exodus 22:13-14 in this way and not in a more literal manner?" + ], + [ + "If one borrowed a cow, and borrowed it for half a day and hired it for half a day; or borrowed it for one day and hired it for the next; or if he borrowed one cow, and hired another and the cow died if he that lent the cow says: “It was the borrowed cow that died”, [or] “On the day when it was borrowed it died”, [or] “During the time when it was borrowed it died” and the other one says: “I don’t know”, (1) he is liable. If the hirer says, “It is the hired one that died”, [or] “On the day when it was hired it died”, and the other says, “I do not know”, (1) he is not liable. If the one says, “It was borrowed”, and the other says, “It was hired”, (1) the hirer must take an oath that it was the hired one that died. If the one says, “I do not know”, and the other says, “I do not know”, (1) they share in the loss. There are three possible scenarios mentioned in this mishnah 1) Shimon borrows from Reuven a cow for half a day and rents the same cow for the other half of the day; 2) Shimon borrows the cow for one day and hires it on the next day; 3) Shimon borrows from Reuven one cow and rents a different cow. If the cow should die a natural death it will be in Shimon’s best interest that the cow died while it was being hired, since a hirer does not pay in cases of natural death. It will be in Reuven’s best interest if the cow died while being borrowed since borrowers do pay in cases of natural death. Our mishnah delineates the possible claims of Reuven and Shimon and the law in each case. Case a: If Reuven, who lent the cow, claims that he is certain that the cow died while being rented or that the rented cow died and Shimon claims that he doesn’t know, Shimon is liable. This goes according to the general principle that one who claims that he is certain has a stronger claim then one who claims he is not certain (see Steinsaltz reference guide, page 172. Case b: Similarly, if Shimon claims that he is sure that the cow died while being borrowed or that the borrowed cow died and Reuven claims that he does not know, Shimon is exempt. Since Shimon is certain that the borrowed cow died and Reuven doesn’t know, Shimon’s claim is stronger. Case c: If they disagree and each claims that he is certain, Shimon takes an oath that it died while it was being hired and he is exempt from making restitution. This is based on the principle that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. Since in this case Reuven is the plaintiff and he cannot prove his claim, Shimon is exempt. Case d: If both claim that they are uncertain then they split the loss of the cow. In this case Shimon will pay Reuven half the value of the cow." + ], + [ + "If one borrowed a cow and the owner sent it by the hand of his son or his slave or his agent, or by the hand of the borrower’s son or slave or agent and it died [on the way], the borrower is not liable.
But if the borrower said, “Send it to me by the hand of my son or my slave or my agent, or by the hand of your son or your slave or your agent”, or if the lender said, “I am sending it to you by the hand of my son or my slave or my agent”, or “by the hand of your son or your slave or your agent”, and the borrower said, “Send it”, and he sent it and it died [on the way], the borrower is liable.
So, too, when the cow is returned.
Mishnah three deals with a lender who uses an agent to deliver the object to be borrowed to the borrower.
Mishnah four deals with disputes in sales where it is either unknown whether the cow being sold gave birth before it was sold (in which case the calf belongs to the seller) or after it was sold (in which case the calf belongs to the buyer). Similarly this mishnah deals with a dispute between a buyer and a seller over which field or slave was sold, the larger or the smaller one.
The issue in this mishnah is the liability of the borrower during the time when the borrowed animal is being delivered from the lender to the borrower. If the lender sent it with a third party, be it his own son, slave or agent or even the borrower’s son, slave or agent, without being asked to do so by the borrower then the borrower is not liable for the animal until it reaches him. The borrower can say to the lender that he did not agree to accept liability until the animal reached his hand.
If, however, the borrower requested that the lender send the object with someone else or the lender told him that he was going to do so and the borrower agreed, then the borrower is liable for the object as soon as the animal leaves the hand of the lender. Since the borrower agreed that the animal could be delivered by a third party, it is as if he has accepted responsibility immediately.
All that was stated in the previous part of the mishnah is also true at the time when the animal is being returned. If the borrower sends the animal back through a third party without being asked he is responsible for the animal until it reaches the lender. If, however, the lender told him to return it through a third party or the borrower told him that he was returning it through a third party and the lender agreed, from the moment it leaves his hands the borrower is no longer liable for the animal." + ], + [ + "The principles learned in this mishnah are strikingly similar to those learned in mishnah two of this chapter, so it may help to look at the explanation to that mishnah as well. Basically, the mishnah teaches that when two people are both certain about a claim (and there is no corroborating evidence) they split the disputed amount. The caveat to this rule is that if there is a previous assumption of possession favoring one of the parties, the other party must prove his claim in order to win the dispute. If one party claims that he is certain and the other party that he is unsure, the one who claims certainty wins the dispute. If both are uncertain they also split the disputed amount. We will now go through the examples in this mishnah.", + "If one swapped a cow for a donkey, and it gave birth, So too if one sold his slave and she gave birth, [And] one (the says, “It was born before I sold her”, and the other (the says, “It was born after I bought her”, they shall divide [the value of what was born]. If this scenario a person exchanged a donkey for a cow and the cow gave birth but it is unknown when it gave birth. The one who acquired the cow will claim that the cow gave birth after the swap and therefore the calf belongs to him, and the one who gave his cow will claim that the birth was prior to the swap and therefore the young cow belongs to him. In this case, since there is no previous assumption of ownership over the young cow, the two parties split its value. The same principle is true if the seller sold a female slave and the dispute is over when she gave birth, before or after the sale.", + "If one had two slaves, one large and the other small, or two fields, one large and the other small,[And he sold one of them], If the buyer says, “I bought the large one” and the other says, “I don’t know”, the buyer can rightly claim the large one. If the seller said, “I sold the small one” and the buyer said, “I do not know”, he may only take the small one. If one said, “It was the large one” and the other said, “It was the small one”, the seller must take an oath that it was the small one that he sold [and the buyer can only take the small one]. If one said, “I do not know”, and the other said, “I do not know”, they shall divide the value [of both slaves or fields]. In this scenario a person sold one of two slaves or fields to his friend, and the two parties are disputing whether it the larger or smaller slave or field was sold. There are four possibilities for the two claims. 1) If they buyer claims that he is certain that he bought the large one and the seller is uncertain which he sold, the buyer gets the large one. 2) If the seller claims that he is certain that he sold the small one and the buyer is uncertain, the buyer receives only the small one. 3) If they are both certain then the seller must take an oath that he sold the small one and the buyer only receives the small one. 4) If both are uncertain they split the value of both of the fields or both of the slaves.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four: In section one and section 2iii, both parties claim certainty. Nevertheless in section one they split the value and in section 2iii, the seller takes an oath and the buyer gets only the smaller field or slave. Why is the law in these two sections different? What is essentially different about the two situations?" + ], + [ + "If one sold his olive trees as firewood and they bore fruit that gave less than a quarter-log of oil per seah, this belongs to the [new] owner of the olive trees. If they bore fruit that gave a quarter-log of oil [or more] per seah, and the one said, “It was my trees that produced it”, and the other said, “It was my land that produced it”, let them share the produce.
If a flood washed away a man’s olive trees and set them in the midst of his fellow’s field [where they bore fruit], and the one said, “It was my trees that produced it”, and the other said, “It was my land that produced it”, let them share the produce.
Mishnah five deals with a situation where one sold olive trees to another person to cut them down as firewood, but he did not sell the land. The issue is to whom do the olives belong: to the one who owns the trees or to the one who owns the land.
Mishnah six begins to discuss the laws of renting, a topic which will be discussed from now until the end of the tractate. The first topic of discussion is the renting of houses and specifically the laws of eviction.
The scenario in section one of our mishnah is that Reuven sold his olive trees to Shimon but did not sell him the land. The intent was for Shimon to cut down the trees and use them as firewood. However, before Shimon did so the olive trees bore some olives with which it was possible to make olive oil. If the olive oil was of a poor quality, in other words it came from olives that produced less than a quarter-log of oil per seah, then the owner of the trees can keep the oil. Since there is not much oil and it is of a low quality, we can safely assume that Reuven does not care about it and therefore Shimon may keep it. However, if the trees produce a better quality and higher quantity of olive oil there may be a dispute. Reuven may justly claim that the olives grew from his ground and Shimon may justly claim that they grew from his tree. In such a case they split the value of the olive oil.
The scenario in section two is different from that in section one but it has the same law. In this case Reuven’s trees were washed up in a flood and landed on Shimon’s property where they took root and bore fruit. Again, Reuven claims that his trees bore the fruit and Shimon that his land bore the fruit. Again, they split the value of the oil." + ], + [ + "This mishnah deals with how much warning a landlord must give his tenant before evicting him.", + "If one leased a house to his fellow in the rainy season, he cannot make him leave it [during the time] from Sukkot to Pesach. In the summer, [he must give him] thirty days [warning]. And in large cities, whether it is during the rainy season or the summer [he must give] twelve months [warning]. If he rented him a house in the winter, he cannot evict him from Sukkot (approximately October) till Pesach (approximately April). In Israel, where the Mishnah was composed, this is the rainy season. Since it would be difficult for the tenant to find a new house in the rainy season, and difficult for him to move while it is wet outside, he may not be evicted during this entire period. If it was during the summer and the house was rented in a small town, he need give him only 30 days warning before evicting him. If, however, he was in a large city he must give him 12 months warning. The assumption is that it will be more difficult to find new housing in a larger city where more people live.", + "[If one leased] a shop [to his fellow], whether in large cities or small towns, [he must give] twelve months [warning]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If it is a shop occupied by bakers or dyers [he must give] three years [warning]. If he rented him a store he must always give him twelve months, even during the summer in a small town (where if he had rented him a house he need only give thirty days warning). The reason is that a storekeeper needs time to collect his debts from his customers. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel points out that bakers and dyers will need three years warning. A likely reason for the need for such a long warning is that it is very difficult for a baker or dyer to move his equipment and find new accommodations.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah six: After whose interests is this mishnah concerned? The landlord or his tenant?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final three mishnayoth of chapter eight continue to deal with the laws of renting houses.\nMishnah seven deals with what “extras” are included in the standard rental of a house.\nMishnah eight deals with a person who rents a house for a year and the year ends up being a leap year, which in the Hebrew calendar has an extra month.\nMishnah nine deals with the obligation of the landlord to provide his tenant with a new house should the old one fall.", + "If one rented a house to his fellow, he is obligated to provide it with a door, a bolt a lock and anything which is the work of a craftsman. However, that which is not the work of a craftsman, the tenant must make himself. When a landlord rents a house to someone he is obligated to provide the house with a door, a bolt and a lock and any other type of accoutrement which is customarily part of the house and is the work of a craftsman. An example might be the beams to support the walls or the handles to open the windows. The assumption is that since these are customarily part of the house and the tenant could not make them by himself, the owner is obligated to do so. An example in our day might be a toilet or a sink. One who rents a house certainly expects it to have a toilet and a sink, and if it did not he could probably obligate the landlord to build one. Anything which is not the work of a craftsman, must be provided by the tenant himself. Examples of these might be a ladder to reach the second story or a railing around the roof. Since these are simple to make, the expectation is that the tenant will make them himself.", + "The manure [which collects in the courtyard] belongs to the owner of the house, and the tenant can only claim the refuse from the oven and the stove. In the time of the mishnah the courtyard was shared by several householders and it was used for many purposes, such as cooking, laundry, etc. There was a custom that on market days, those who came to town from the neighboring villages would bring their animals into other people’s courtyards and buy food and drink there, as if the courtyard was a temporary inn. Since we can assume that the animal owner himself would not bother to carry the animal’s manure back to his village, the issue of the ownership over the manure left by these animals needs to be clarified. According to the mishnah it belongs to the owner of the house and not to his tenant. Although the tenant provided the food and drink for the animal, the manure does not become his. The only waste-product that the tenant does get to keep are the ashes from the stove and oven. Note: manure was used to fertilize the fields. Ashes were also used to fertilize the fields as well as other uses, including medicinal." + ], + [ + "If one rented a house to his fellow by the year and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the tenant. If he rented it by the month and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the owner. It once happened in Tzippori that a person leased a bath-house from his fellow at “twelve golden dinars a year, one dinar per month”, and [when the year became a leap year] the case came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and Rabbi Yose, and they said: “Let them share the extra month.” In the time of the mishnah there was no fixed calendar as we have in our day. Rather each year they would decide whether to make a leap year of 13 months or not. The Hebrew months are lunar months, of either 28 or 29 days, making a total of 354 days per year. Since this is 11 days short or a regular solar year, the Hebrew year must receive an additional month about once every three years. If one leased a house by a yearly wage and the year became a leap year, the tenant benefits by receiving an extra month for free. Since the terms of the contract were for a year, the tenant receives a year, whether it is a leap year or not. If, however, he leased the house by the month, and the year became a leap year, he must pay for the extra month. In the story (1c), the rental agreement for the bath-house contained ambiguous language, stating both the yearly rate and the monthly rate. Since it was unclear whether the owner had rented the house on a yearly or monthly rate, they split the cost of the extra month." + ], + [ + "If one rented a house to his fellow and it fell down, the owner must build him a new house. If it was small he may not make it larger, and if it was large he may not make it smaller. If it was one house, he may not make it two; if it was two houses he may not make it one. He may not reduce or increase the number of windows, unless it is with both of their consent. If one rented a house to another person and the house fell down he must build him a new house that is basically the same as the previously rented house. He may neither add nor detract from the size of the house. The renter may have specifically rented a small house and may not want a larger house. If he rented a house with one room (1b) he may not split the house into two rooms or build a one room house if the former was two rooms. Nor may he increase or decrease the number of windows. Since in all of these cases a person might prefer the other option, the owner is obligated to build the same type of house that was previously rented. If, however, the tenant agrees to a change and the owner agrees as well, they may of course make any change they wish." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMost of the ninth chapter deals with arrangements between a field owner and his sharecropper, i.e. one who works the field and in return provides the owner with a fixed amount of produce (either through a percentage of the crops or a fixed amount). The first mishnah deals with some of the sharecroppers rights and obligations with regards to the field. The second mishnah deals with a field that has either a spring or a tree in it and the spring dries up or the tree is cut down.", + "If one leased a field from his fellow and the custom of the place was to cut the crops, he must cut them; If the custom was to uproot them, he must uproot them; If the custom was to plough after reaping, he must plough. Everything should follow local custom. A sharecropper must reap the field which he received from the owner in the manner that is normal for that type of crop in that area. If the custom was to cut the crops with a scythe then he must use the scythe. If the custom was to uproot the stalks then he must uproot them. Similarly, if the custom was to plough after reaping in order to uproot the weeds, then he must do so. If the custom was not to plough, the owner may not force him to do so. In summary, the owner of the field can force the sharecropper to treat the field in a “customary” manner, and the sharecropper need not perform “uncustomary” practices which the owner might demand.", + "Just as they share the grain, so too they share the chopped straw and the stubble. Just as they share the wine, so too they share the [dead] branches and the reeds [used to prop the vines]. And both parties must [at the outset] provide [their share of] the reeds. A sharecropper gives the owner of the field a percentage of the produce that is harvested, for instance grain. Our mishnah teaches that he must also give the owner the same percentage of by-products. If the field is of grain, he must give the owner the same percentage of straw and stubble, which are the by-products of the grain stalks. If he harvests grapes to make wine, he must give the same percentage of the vine’s branches (which people would use to start fires) and reeds. The reeds referred to are those used to prop up the grape vines. The mishnah then adds that when a new vineyard is being started, the owner of the field and the sharecropper split the costs of the reeds needed to prop up the vines.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah one: Why do you think the Mishnah quite frequently states that one must follow local custom? What does this say about the nature of these laws in the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "If one leased a field from his fellow and it was an irrigated field or a field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may not give [the owner] less than his agreed rental.
But if he had said, “Lease me this irrigated field, or this field with trees”, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may give less than the prescribed rental.
In the scenario in this mishnah a sharecropper receives a field from the owner, and the field contains either a spring (an irrigated field) or it has some trees in it. Evidently the sharecropper will be growing grain in the field, but as an added bonus it has a spring, from which he can more easily water the field, or trees from which he may eat. After he makes his agreement with the owner, the spring dries up or the trees are cut down (assumedly by someone either than owner or the sharecropper). If the sharecropper had not explicitly stated that he was renting the field since it had on it a spring or some trees, he must still give the owner of the field the same amount of grain that was stated in the original agreement. Although the sharecropper will have to work harder to water the field (if the field had a spring) or he will lose the added benefit of the trees (if it was a field with trees), since he did not specifically stipulate that he was renting the field on account of the spring or the trees, the agreement is not effected. If, however, he specifically stipulated that he was renting a field with a spring or trees, he may reduce his payments if the spring dries up or the trees are cut down." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three deals with a sharecropper who receives a field and subsequently decides that he doesn’t want to work the field. Mishnah four deals with a sharecropper who doesn’t want to weed the field.", + "If one leased a field from his fellow and he let it lie fallow, they assess how much it was likely to have yielded and he must pay the owner accordingly, since he wrote [in the leasing agreement]: “If I suffer the land to lie fallow and do not till it, I will pay thee at the rate of its highest yield.” This mishnah contains in it a clause that was considered to be standard in sharecropping agreements written in the time of the mishnah. The sharecropper would write to the landowner that if he did not work the land and instead allowed it to lie fallow, the sharecropper would be penalized by having to pay the owner as if the land had produced at the rate of its highest yield. This agreement was meant to allay the fears of the landowner that he would rent the field to the sharecropper and the sharecropper would subsequently decide that it was not worthwhile to work the field for whatever reason. After having written this clause a sharecropper would be forced to work the land or suffer a severe economic loss. Note that this clause was only necessary in agreements where the sharecropper had agreed to pay a percentage of the crops. If he had agreed on a fixed amount he would be obligated for that amount even if he did not work the land." + ], + [ + "If one leased a field from his fellow and he did not want to weed it, and he said to the owner, “What do you care, as long as I pay you the agreed rental?”, they do not listen to him, for the owner can say to him, “Tomorrow you will leave the field and it won’t bring forth anything but weeds.” According to our mishnah a sharecropper is responsible to weed the field that he is working. Even if he were to say to the owner that he will still give him the full amount of the rental agreement, the owner can force the sharecropper to weed, since not weeding will cause future damage to the field. It is in the owner’s best interests that should the sharecropper leave he could rent the field to others.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What do these two mishnayoth have in common with regards to the responsibilities of a sharecropper?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with a sharecropper whose crops are not ruined but nevertheless produce an extremely low yield. The question is asked must the sharecropper harvest the crop even though the effort will not be worth the yield.\nMishnah six deals with a sharecropper’s liability to uphold his share in the rental agreement when his crops are ruined by either locusts or strong winds.", + "If one leased a field from his fellow and it was not fruitful, if there was enough produce to make a heap, he must still tend to it. Rabbi Judah says: “What type of measure is a ‘heap’? Rather, [he must tend to it] only if it yields as much grain as was sown there.” In mishnah three we discussed a sharecropper who decided not to care for the field at all. In mishnah five we learn of a sharecropper who did plant the field with grain as he was supposed to, but the crops did not produce enough of a yield for it to be worthwhile for him to harvest them. The question is asked must the sharecropper nevertheless toil to give back to the owner of the field something, even if it is a small amount, or is he allowed to not harvest the field. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, as long as there is enough produce in the field to make a heap of grain he must harvest it. Even though for the sharecropper this will not be worthwhile for his labor is worth more than the value of crops harvested, he must nevertheless do so, so that he can give the owner his percentage. Rabbi Judah states that a “heap” is not a fixed enough measure, since it is not relative to the amount planted. In other words, a large field that produces a heap is not to be treated the same as a small field which produces a heap. Instead, according to Rabbi Judah, as long as there is enough produce in the field to replicate the grain that was sown there, the sharecropper must harvest it. In other words the needed yield is relative to the amount sown.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah five: Why does Rabbi Judah say that for the sharecropper to be obligated to harvest the field the field must yield as much grain as was used to seed the field? What is the significance of such an amount? How does this differ from the opinion in the first clause?" + ], + [ + "If one leased a field from his fellow and the locusts devoured the crop or it was blasted [by strong winds which caused the grain to be prematurely separated from the stalks], if it was a region-wide mishap he may reduce the amount of the rental agreement. If it was not a region-wide mishap, he may not reduce the amount of the rental agreement. Rabbi Judah says: “If he had leased it from him for a fixed amount of money, in neither case may he reduce the amount of the rental agreement.” In the scenario in our mishnah, the sharecropper’s crops are destroyed by either locusts or strong winds. If the sharecropper had promised to give the owner a percentage of the crops, then he may continue to do so, even if it turns out that the owner received nothing. This scenario is not even discussed in our mishnah. If, however, he promised the owner a fixed amount in return, in either crops or money, he will have a problem, since he did not grow enough crops to pay back the owner. This is the scenario discussed in the mishnah. According to the mishnah, if the locusts or the strong winds effected the entire region he may reduce the amount paid back. If, however, the locusts or strong winds effected only his field, he must still pay the owner back the full amount. According to Rabbi Judah, if the amount owed to the owner was fixed in money and not in crops, then the sharecropper must pay his full share in any case, even if the crops were destroyed by a region-wide plague. Since the money is considered to be separate from the field, it is unaffected by what happens to the field.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah six: Why is the sharecropper allowed to reduce the payments to the owner only if it was a region wide problem that ruined his crops? What might the mishnah be suspicious of if the locusts or winds ruined only his crops?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth seven and eight continue to deal with laws concerning sharecroppers. Mishnah seven teaches that the sharecropper is obligated to pay back the owner with the produce grown in the rented field (and not produce grown somewhere else) and that the owner is obligated to accept this produce as payment (and not demand other produce).\nMishnah eight teaches that a sharecropper who rents a field in order to sow it with a certain type of produce may usually not sow it with a different kind of seed.", + "If one leased a field from his fellow in return for ten kors of wheat a year and it produced bad wheat, he may pay him out of this crop. If [it produced] good wheat he may not say, “I will buy other wheat from the market”, rather he must pay him from the crop of that field. Both clauses in this mishnah essentially teach the same law: a person renting a field in return for a fixed amount of wheat must repay the owner with the wheat that comes from the rented field itself and not with produce coming from another field. This law can work to the advantage of either the renter or the owner. If the produce was of a poor quality the owner of the field will lose out for he cannot demand that the renter pay him back with better wheat. If the wheat was better than average wheat the renter loses out for he may not sell that wheat and buy lesser quality wheat to repay the owner. In other words the rental agreement legally binds the owner to accept the wheat from that field and legally binds the renter to pay back with the wheat from that field.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah seven: Why does the mishnah teach both clauses? What might you have thought had the mishnah taught only the first clause and not the second? What might you have thought had the mishnah taught only the second clause and not the first?" + ], + [ + "If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow barley, he may not sow wheat; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] wheat, he may sow barley. Rabban Gamaliel forbids this.
If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow grain, he may not sow beans; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] beans, he may sow grain. Rabban Gamaliel forbids this.
Both sections of this mishnah in essence teach the same law, so we will explain them together. If one leased a field with the stipulation that he sow a certain type of produce he may not sow something else that is more damaging to the soil of that field. He may, however, sow something that is less damaging to the soil. For instance, if he promised to sow barley he may not sow wheat since wheat is more damaging; but if he promised to sow wheat he may sow barley, since barley is less damaging. Similarly, if he promised to sow grain he may not sow beans which are more damaging; but if he promised to sow beans he may sow wheat which is less damaging. This is the anonymous opinion expressed in the first two clauses of each section. Rabban Gamaliel disagrees and states that one may not change the condition under any circumstance, even if the new seed will be less damaging to the field. Although there may not be exist a specific reason why in certain cases one should not change the conditions of the agreement, one is in general forbidden to do so." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine states some legal differences with regards to the rights of a sharecropper who receives a field for less than seven years versus one who receives the field for more than seven years.\nMishnah ten deals with the issue of including the sabbatical year in the rental agreement.", + "If one leased a field from his fellow for but a few years he may not sow flax and he has no right to cut beams from the sycamore tree. If he leased it for seven years he may sow flax the first year and he has a right to cut beams from the sycamore tree. When one rents a field he is expected to return the field and everything in it to its owner in a state similar to that that in which he received it. If he were to sow the field with flax which damages the soil and then return the field, the field would still bear the damage of the flax. Therefore, if he wishes to plant flax he must plant it at least seven years before the end of the rental agreement. If he rents the field, therefore, for seven years, he may plant flax during the first year. Similarly, he must return the trees that were on the field in the same condition in which he received them. If he were to cut down the thick branches of the sycamore, they would take a long time to grow back. Therefore, he may only cut down these types of branches if there are seven years left before the end of the rental agreement.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah Nine: If one were to rent a field for ten years when could he sow flax and cut down branches of the sycamore tree?" + ], + [ + "If one leased a field from his fellow for “a week of years” (seven for 700 zuz, the Seventh Year is included in the number. If he leased it for “seven years” for 700 zuz, the Seventh Year is not included in the number. During the Seventh Year Jews living in the Land of Israel are not allowed to work their fields (See Exodus 23:10-11, Leviticus 25:1-7). If a Jew rented a piece of land in the Land of Israel he would not, therefore, be able to work it or derive benefit from it during the Seventh Year. Our mishnah states that the inclusion of the Seventh Year as one of the years in the rental agreement depends on the language of the agreement. If he used inclusive language, stating “a week of years” then the Seventh Year is included. If however, he merely stated “seven years” then he receives seven years in which he would be allowed to plant and harvest. In such a case he would actually keep the land through the eighth year.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah Ten: What would happen if someone rented a piece of land on the fifth year of a Sabbatical cycle and the agreement was for four years? Would the Seventh (Sabbatical) Year count as one of the years or not?" + ], + [ + "One that is hired during the day collects his wages all during [the ensuing] night. One that is hired during the night collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day.
One that is hired by the hour collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day or [the ensuing] night.
If one was hired by the week, or by the month, or by the year, or by the week of years, if his time of hire expired during the day, he collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day. If his time of hire expired during the night, he collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day and night.
Deuteronomy 24:14-15 and Leviticus 19:13, both command that a worker’s wages must be paid on the same day, before the sun sets. These verses deal directly with one who works during the day, presumably on a daily wage. Mishnah eleven deals with workers who work at night, and with workers who work on hourly, weekly, monthly or yearly wages. Mishnah twelve deals with other laws concerning the commandment not to delay a worker’s wages and its applicability.
The general rule of our mishnah is that an employer may pay his employee within one time period of either day or night from the time of the completion of the work. He may not withhold the wages any longer. If the work was done during the day the employer may pay his employee at any time during the ensuing night. If he were to wait until the following morning he would be violating the commandment not to delay payment. If the work was done during the night he has until the end of the ensuing day to pay the employee.
If the employee was hired on an hourly basis the same rule still basically applies: the employer has one time period from the time of the completion of the work to pay the employee, whether that time period is the day or the night.
Similarly, if the employee is hired on a long term basis, for instance a week, a month, a year or even seven years, and it was agreed that the salary would be paid only upon completion of the work, the employer basically has one time period after the completion to pay his employee. The one exception is if the work is completed at night. According to section three of our mishnah, in such a case he has two time periods: the entire day and the entire night. This clause seems to differ with the rule in section two and indeed the Babylonian Talmud states that the two clauses contain two distinct opinions stemming from two different sources." + ], + [ + "The laws “You must pay him his wages on the same day” (Deut. 24:15) and “The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until the morning” (Lev. 19:13) apply both to the hire of a man or of a beast or of utensils. The Torah specifically states that an employer is not allowed to withhold the wages of a laborer overnight. The mishnah expands upon this prohibition and includes the wages owed for renting animals and renting utensils (which might include plows, mills and other farm equipment).", + "When is this so? When the employee has laid claim to it, but if he had not laid claim to it the employer does not commit a transgression. An employer only transgresses these two commandments if the employee has made a claim for his wages. Although the employer is certainly obligated to pay his employee in any circumstance, he does not violate these two negative commandments until the employee makes his claim.", + "If he gave him a draft on a shopkeeper or moneychanger [the employer] does not commit a transgression [even though the employee has not yet collected]. In the time of the mishnah people used shopkeepers or money- changers as small, personal banks to hold their money and pay off their debts. If the employer gave the employee an I.O.U. with which he could collect from the shopkeeper or the moneychanger, he is no longer be in violation of the two negative commandments in section one. Although the employee may not yet have collected, the employer has fulfilled his role by giving them a document with which they will be able to collect later.", + "If an employee [claimed his wages] within the set time he may take an oath and take his wages. [But] if the set time had passed he may not take an oath and take his wages. If witnesses testified that he had claimed his wages at the set time [and was not paid], he may take an oath and receive his wages. In many instances the Mishnah will mandate an oath to ensure that someone is not making a false claim. The assumption is that people would not make false oaths and therefore the person who takes the oath is believed, even though he has no evidence. Oaths are usually sufficient to exempt a person from paying when another person makes a claim against him, so long as there are no witnesses to support the claim of the plaintiff. In other words, the defendant and not the plaintiff is given the opportunity to swear an oath in lieu of evidence or testimony. However, in our mishnah the plaintiff, i.e. the employee seeking his wages, may take an oath that he has not yet received his wages and he may collect from the employer. This is true as long as he demands his wages during the time period mandated in mishnah eleven. If, however, this time period has elapsed, he may no longer take his wages through an oath. In such a case he is not believed to say that he didn’t yet receive his wages, since normally they would have already been paid. If, however, he had witnesses who state that he made a claim at the proper time, he may swear and take his wages.", + "The law “You must pay him his wages on the same day” applies also to the resident alien, but not the law, “The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until the morning”. Deuteronomy 24:14 specifically states: “You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, whether a fellow countrymen or a stranger (ger) who is in your land within your gates.” Picking up on the word “stranger” the mishnah states that one who withholds the wages of a stranger violates the commandment in Deuteronomy. However, Leviticus 19:13, the other verse which prohibits delaying wages overnight, begins by stating, “You shall not defraud your fellow”. “Your fellow” implies your fellow countrymen, and therefore one who withholds the wages of a stranger does not violate the commandment in Leviticus." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter nine discusses the laws concerning a creditor’s taking of a pledge from a borrower. A pledge is an object probably worth about the value of the loan. The borrower actually gives the pledge to the lender before receiving the loan. It is to be distinguished from collateral which does not go to the lender unless the borrower defaults on his loan.\nThere are three passages in Deuteronomy 24 concerning “pledges”. Verse 6 states: “Do not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge, for that would be taking someone’s life as a pledge”. In other words, since these two objects are necessary to produce food, a lender is prohibited from taking them. Verses 10-13 state two laws regarding pledges: 1) when one takes a pledge he must not enter the borrower’s house; 2) if the lender is poor the borrower may not keep his pledge overnight. The assumption here is that the pledge was a cloak in which the poor person will need to sleep. Verse 17 states, “Do not take the a widow’s garment as a pledge”.", + "If one lent one’s fellow, he may exact a pledge from him only with the permission of a court, and he may not enter his house to take the pledge, as it is states, “You shall stand outside” (Deut. 24:1. The Torah states that when a creditor takes a pledge from a poor person he should not enter his house to collect the pledge. Entering his house would humiliate the borrower. The mishnah expands this prohibition to include any borrower, and not just one who is known to be poor. Furthermore, the mishnah demands that the pledge be taken with the consent of the court, probably to prevent creditors from unfairly seizing the property of their debtors.", + "If the borrower had two utensils, he may take one but must give back the other. And he must give back the pillow at night and the plow during the day. The Torah states that a creditor may not keep overnight something that the borrower will need during the night, for instance a cloak in which he sleeps. The mishnah states that if the borrower had two such cloaks, and both were taken as a pledge, the creditor need only return one. The Torah discusses only a cloak which is essential to the borrower at night; one that is not essential may indeed be kept overnight. The mishnah adds that a creditor must return during the day items which are essential during the day, such as a plow. According to the mishnah the example in the Torah is just an example, one that sets up a paradigm demanding that the creditor only keep a pledge at a time when the pledge is not needed by the borrower. The Torah’s law is not limited just to the case of a cloak.", + "And if the creditor dies he need not return the pledge to his heirs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Even to the debtor himself he need only return the pledge within thirty days [of the loan], and after thirty days he may sell it with the consent of the court. If the borrower should die the creditor need not return the pledge to his heirs. The Torah’s concern is for the humiliation of the borrower. Once he is dead, this concern no longer exists. If the heirs wish to recover the pledge they will need to repay the loan. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that a creditor may keep a pledge not just when the borrower dies but even after thirty days have expired since the time of the loan. At this point the creditor may sell the pledge to recover the debt.", + "A pledge may not be taken from a widow, whether she be rich or poor, as it states, “Do not take the a widow’s garment as a pledge” (Deut. 24:17). The Torah states that one may not take a pledge from a widow. The mishnah states that this is true whether the widow is rich or poor.", + "If one takes a millstone as a pledge he violates a negative commandment and he is also in violation of both parts [of the millstone], as it states, “Do not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge” (Deut. 24:6). And they didn’t say just an upper millstone or a mill but anything that is necessary for food, as it states, “for that would be taking someone’s life as a pledge” (ibid.). The Torah states that one may not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge from a poor person. These two pieces of equipment are together used to grind wheat and without them the poor person could not make bread to eat. According to the mishnah the creditor who takes both of them is in violation of not one but two negative commandments, one for each piece. Furthermore, the mishnah again expands on the examples specifically mentioned in the Torah. The Torah mentions only the mill and upper millstone for they are a person’s “life”. Picking up on the last phrase of the verse the mishnah states that anything that helps to make food and is therefore a person’s “life” may not be taken as a pledge.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section four: The mishnah explains that it is forbidden to take a pledge from even a rich widow, and states that this is explicit in the Torah. Is it possible to explain verse 17 in Deut. 24 in another way, in other words that the prohibition is limited to poor widows? If so, why do you think the mishnah chose this explanation?
• The Rabbis twice expand on the specific examples mentioned in the Torah. What is their motivation in doing so?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter ten of Bava Metziah deals with laws concerning neighbors, a subject that the mishnah will continue to discuss in the first two chapters of Bava Batra (proving that originally these two tractates were part of one larger tractate which included Bava Kamma as well. This tractate was called “Nezikin”).\nOur two mishnayoth deal with two people who jointly own a house, one owning the second story and one owning the first.", + "If a house (the first and an upper room (the second belonging to two persons (each owning fell down, the two share in the wood and the stones and the earth. And they consider which stones were the more likely to have been broken. If one of them recognizes that some of the stones were his, he may take them and they count as part of his share. In order to understand the importance of this mishnah we must remember that in the time of the mishnah building materials, especially stone and wood, would have been scarce and therefore expensive, especially in the Land of Israel. When a building collapsed the broken materials would have been reused, either to rebuild the house or for other purposes. Our mishnah discusses to whom do these materials belong, in the case where the upper story was owned by one person and the bottom story by another. In general the two persons split the material under the assumption that half was used for the construction of the top story and half for the bottom. Beyond knowing that the two partners split the material, it is also necessary to decide which partner takes which stones. After all, in some cases some of the stones may be more valuable than others, such as broken stones versus whole one. To that end the mishnah makes two suggestions. 1) They try to determine which part of the house broke, and therefore who gets the broken stones. For instance if the house broke at its foundations the owner of the bottom floor gets the broken stones. If it broke from above, the owner of the top floor takes the broken stones. 2) If one of the partners recognizes his stones, he takes those stones and the other takes other stones. The mishnah further clarifies that these recognized stones count as part of the share of the one who recognizes them.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah one: Why would you think that the stones which one of the owners recognizes does not count as part of his share? In other words, why might the last statement of the mishnah not be obvious?" + ], + [ + "If there was a house (the first and an upper room (the second belonging to two people, and the [floor of the] upper room broke and the owner of the house (the bottom did not want to fix it, the owner of the upper room may come down and dwell below, until the owner [of the bottom story] fixes [the floor of the] upper room. Rabbi Yose says: “He that dwells below should provide the beams and he that dwells above the plastering. As in the previous mishnah, in mishnah two one person owns the bottom story and another owns the top story. However, here, instead of the whole building collapsing as occurred in mishnah one, the ceiling of the bottom story, which also serves as the floor of the top story collapses. According to the first opinion in the mishnah the owner of the bottom story is obligated to fix the ceiling/floor and until he does so the owner of the top story may occupy the bottom story. Rabbi Yose disagrees and states that the two partners must share in the building of the ceiling/floor. The owner of the bottom story provides the wooden beams and the owner of the top provides the plaster.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah two: What is the basis of Rabbi Yose’s disagreement with the first opinion? Why doesn’t Rabbi Yose think that the owner of the bottom floor should be responsible for providing the entire ceiling/floor?" + ], + [ + "If a house (the bottom and an upper room belonging to two persons (each owning fell down, and the owner of the upper room told the owner of the house (the bottom to rebuild it, and he did not want to rebuild it, the owner of the upper room may rebuild the house below and live in it until the other repays him what he has spent.
Rabbi Judah says: “He would then [after being reimbursed] have been dwelling on his fellow’s property and he should [therefore] pay him rent. Rather the owner of the upper room should rebuild both the house below and the upper room and put a roof on the upper room, and live in the house below until the other repays him what he has spent.”
Mishnah three continues to deal with a situation in which one person owns the bottom story of a house and another owns the top story, and the house collapses. In the scenario in this mishnah the owner of the bottom story refuses to rebuild his share, thereby preventing the owner of the top story from rebuilding his share.
Mishnah four deals with a case similar to that in mishnah three, except instead of a house here one person owns an underground olive press and another person owns a garden planted above the olive press, and the olive press collapses.
In the scenario in our mishnah after the entire house fell, the owner of the upper room wants to rebuild it so that he can return to live there, but the owner of the bottom story refuses to rebuild his share, thereby preventing the former from rebuilding his share. According to the opinion in section one, the owner of the upper room may rebuild the bottom story and live in it until its proper owner repays him for his expenses. Once the bottom story is rebuilt the owner of the upper room will be able to rebuild his share and live there.
According to Rabbi Judah, in this scenario it would turn out that the owner of the upper room had lived on the property of the owner of the bottom story without paying him rent. After all, at this point the upper room no longer existed and its owner therefore could not have lived there. Although the owner of the lower story should have rebuilt the house, he was not obligated to rebuild it and let the owner of the lower story live there for free.
Rather the owner of the upper room should rebuild the entire house, including the upper room, but live in the bottom story until it owner repays him for his costs. In this way the owner of the lower story could not claim from him rent, since while he was living there he had the upper room at his disposal." + ], + [ + "So, too, if an olive press was built in a rock and another had a garden on top of it, and [the olive press] was in part broken down, the owner of the garden may come down and sow below until the other rebuilds the ceiling of his olive press. This scenario is similar to the scenario in the previous mishnah, but instead of a house with an upper room, this mishnah deals with an olive press that has a garden growing on top of it. Should the roof of the olive press collapse, the owner of the garden is permitted to plant below until the owner of the olive press rebuilds the ceiling. Note how valuable space was in the Land of Israel. People would use any possible land to garden, even land which had on olive press beneath it. Much of the land of Israel is not arable, particularly the mountainous regions and the desert. This is still true in Israel today.", + "If a wall or a tree fell into the public domain and caused damage, the owner is not liable to make restitution. If a set time had been given to him to cut down the tree or pull down the wall, and they fell down within the time, he is not liable. If after that time, he is liable. This section of the mishnah does not deal with shared property as in the previous portions of the chapter but rather with a property owner’s responsibilities and liabilities with regards to the public domain. According to the mishnah if a person’s wall or tree fell into the public domain and thereby caused damage he is not liable. This is a case where he had no way of knowing that his tree or wall would fall, and therefore he cannot be held accountable. If, however, he had been given a warning by the court and told to either remove his tree or wall, or make them safer, and the time for doing so had elapsed, he will be subsequently liable for any damage done by the tree in the public domain.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four, section one: What is the difference between the scenario in this section and that in the previous mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five can actually be divided into two distinct units: sections one and two, and sections three through five. The first unit begins with a situation in which one person’s wall fell into another’s garden. Instead of clearing his fallen stones the owner of the wall wishes to compensate the owner of the garden by giving him the fallen stones. Section two deals with a similar scenario in which an employer wishes to compensate his employee by giving him some of the product instead of giving him his wages in money.\nSections three through five all deal with environmental damages done to the public domain.", + "If one’s wall was near his fellow’s garden and it fell down and his fellow said to him, “Clear away your stones”, and he answered, “They have become yours”, they do not listen to him. If after the other (the owner of the had accepted he (the owner of the said to him, “Here is your expenditures and I will take back what is mine”, they do not listen to him. In the scenario in section one a person’s wall collapsed into another person’s neighboring garden. In a typical situation it would be the owner of the wall’s responsibility to clear the stones, but they would nevertheless still belong to him. If the owner of the wall were to say to the owner of the garden that the latter may keep the stones, and thereby exempt himself from the responsibility of clearing them, he is not listened to. In other words the owner of the garden can force the owner of the wall to clear his stones. If the owner of the garden were to accept the offer and take the stones, the owner of the wall cannot later change his mind and force the owner of the garden to return them. Even if the owner of the wall repays the owner of the garden for the work of removing the stones, he cannot force him to give them back. Once the deal is done, the owner of the wall does not have a right to revoke it.", + "If one hired a laborer to help him in his work with chopped straw and stubble, and the laborer said to him, “Give me my wages”, and he said to him, “Take as your wages that with which you have labored”, they do not listen to him. If after the other (the had accepted he (the said to him, “Here are your wages and I will take what is mine”, they do not listen to him. In this scenario, in which the laws and language are similar to those in the previous mishnah, a person hires a worker to work [in his field collecting] straw and stubble. When it comes time to pay his wages the employer attempts to force the employee to accept the collected straw and stubble as the wages. The mishnah teaches that the employee need not accept such wages and may force the employer to pay him with money. If, however, the employee accepts the straw and stubble as his wages, the employer may not later change his mind and attempt to recover the straw and stubble by paying the employee his wages in money. Again, once the deal has been accepted the employer has no subsequent right to revoke it.", + "One who removes his manure into the public domain: from the time he removes it another may take it to manure [his fields]. For obvious reasons, one may not remove his animal manure into the public domain. If one did so, the manure, which in their time was considered valuable, became legally ownerless and anyone could come and claim it as their own.", + "One may not soak clay or make bricks in the public domain, but clay may be kneaded in the public domain but not bricks. Similarly, one is not allowed to make bricks or soak clay in the public domain, for these types of work would pollute property that does not belong to any one person. The mishnah does allow him to mix the clay in the public domain, for the clay would immediately be used in the building process. This type of mixing is brief as opposed to the original soaking of the clay which is a longer process and therefore forbidden in the public domain. Similarly making bricks takes a considerable amount of time and is therefore forbidden in the public domain.", + "One who builds in the public domain: one brings the stones and another builds (. And if he causes damage, he pays what he has damaged. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “He may, indeed, make preparation for his work for thirty days [in the public domain]. In order to build a house or other such structure in the private domain a person will often need to use the public domain to keep his wood and stones. The mishnah teaches that if one wishes to make such a use of the public domain, one person must bring the wood and stones and another build with them immediately. In other words it is forbidden to leave them there for an extended period of time. Furthermore, even though the mishnah permits using the public domain for such a purpose, if the person caused damage he is liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with the opinion taught in sections four and five. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel one may use the public domain for up to thirty days to prepare building properties: bricks, clay, stones and other necessities.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the nature of the public domain in the eyes of the author’s of the mishnah? What principles cause them to decide the law in such a manner? Would it be proper to consider the Rabbis to be environmentalists or do they have other factors motivating them?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Bava Metziah deals with two people who own adjacent gardens, one garden being at a higher level than the other. In other words the gardens were terraced. The following illustration should help.\nUpper Garden\nWall\nLower Garden\nThe mishnah deals with the issue of ownership over vegetables that grows from the wall separating the gardens.", + "If there were two gardens [in terraces] one above the other and vegetables grew between them: Rabbi Meir says: “They belong to the upper garden.” Rabbi Judah says: “They belong to the lower garden.” Rabbi Meir said: “If [the owner of] the upper garden wished to remove his soil there would be no vegetables.” Rabbi Judah said: “If [the owner of] the lower garden wished to fill up his garden [with soil] there would be no vegetables. (1) Rabbi Meir said: “Since each is able to thwart the other, we should consider from where these vegetables derive their life.” Rabbi Shimon said: “Whatever [the owner of ] the upper garden can take by stretching out his hand belongs to him, and the rest belongs to [the owner of] the lower garden. In our mishnah both owners claim that the vegetables that grow on the wall between the two gardens belongs to them. Rabbi Meir says that the vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden and Rabbi Judah says that they go to the owner of the lower garden. According to Rabbi Meir, since the owner of the upper garden could remove the soil and thereby remove the vegetables they must belong to him. According to Rabbi Judah, since the owner of the lower garden could fill his garden with soil and thereby kill the vegetables, they must belong to him. In clause (1) Rabbi Meir agrees with Rabbi Judah that each side could thwart the other side. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir sticks to his opinion, that the vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden, since they derive their life from his soil and not from the air of the lower garden. The end of the mishnah contains the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who reaches a compromise. If the owner of the upper garden could reach out his hand and grab the vegetables they belong to him. If not they belong to the owner of the lower garden.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How is Rabbi Meir’s argument in section 1a) different from his subsequent argument in section (1)?Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Bava Metziah!It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate and the entire previous tractate, Bava Kamma, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal in a short time and you should be proud of yourselves. Of course, we still have a lot of mishnah ahead of us. We will begin Bava Batra tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא מציעא", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בבא מציעא", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a60e1644fec634ca6fb48789925297f5c2c7463 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,468 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עדיות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Shammai says: “For all women [who begin to menstruate] it suffices [to reckon their impurity from] the time [of their discovering it].” And Hillel says: “[Their impurity is reckoned backwards] from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, even if this covers many days.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one, but [they are considered impure for] the past twenty four hours when this lessens the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, and for the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination when this lessens the past twenty-four hours.” This mishnah discusses a woman’s ritual impurity as a menstruant. When a woman menstruates she makes impure certain things which she touches. The problem is that a woman may not always know when she begins to menstruate, in order to know which things that she touched are impure. Shammai is not concerned with this problem; he states that only things that they have touched after they discover that they are menstruating are impure. Hillel is very considered about this problem; he states that anything touched after the last time she checked herself is impure. In other words, since we cannot be certain when she began menstruating after the last time she checked, we are strict and anything from this time and onwards is impure. The Sages, who probably lived after Shammai and Hillel, found a compromise position. The things a menstruant touched before she discovered that she was menstruating are impure either within the last twenty-four hours or since she last checked, whichever was more recent. For example if it is now Tuesday afternoon and she checked herself on Tuesday morning, anything she touched between the morning and the afternoon is assumed to be impure. If however, it is now Tuesday afternoon and she checked herself Monday morning, anything she touched in the last twenty-four hour period is impure.", + "Any woman who has a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her impurity from] her set time. Any woman who has a regular cycle, begins to make things impure only from the moment she realizes that she is menstruating. It can be assumed that this woman did not begin menstruating at an earlier time since she has a regular cycle.", + "She who uses testing-cloths [when she has sexual relations], behold this is like an examination: it lessens either the period of the [past] twenty four hours or the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination. If a woman wipes herself clean after having relations with her husband, this counts as checking herself. If within the next twenty-four hours she should realize that she is menstruating, she has made impure only those things which she touched since she had relations and cleaned herself." + ], + [ + "Shammai says: “[Dough] of a kav or more is subject to the law of hallah.” And Hillel says: “Of two kavs or more.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one, but [dough of] a kav and a half is subject to the law of hallah.” Numbers 15:20-21 commands Jews to set aside some of their dough and give it to the priests. This is called “hallah”. The question is how big of a batch of dough makes a person liable to separate hallah? According to Shammai, if one mixes one kav of dough he must separate hallah to give to the priests. A kav is about 1 ½ liters. According to Hillel, two kavs of dough make one obligated to separate hallah. The Sages compromise between the two positions and state that 1 ½ kavs is sufficient to obligate for hallah.", + "And after they increased the measures they said: “[Dough of] five quarters is subject. Rabbi Yose said: “Five are exempt, five and more are liable.” Later in the Mishnaic period, in Tsippori which is in the Galilee, the measure of weights were increased so that a kav was now larger than it used to be. Therefore, the amount that obligates one to separate hallah became 1 1/5 kavs. According to Rabbi Yose, exactly 1 1/5 kavs does not obligate one to separate hallah, but anything over that amount does.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why should there be a minimum amount of dough to make one liable to separate hallah? Why shouldn’t a person have to separate hallah from even a small amount of dough?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three contains a dispute between Hillel and Shammai with regards to the laws of the mikveh (ritual bath).", + "Hillel says: “A hin full of drawn water renders the mikweh unfit.” (However, man must speak in the language of his teacher.) And Shammai says: “Nine kavs.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one;” But when two weavers from the dung-gate which is in Jerusalem came and testified in the name of Shemaiah and Avtalion, “Three logs of drawn water render the mikweh unfit,” the Sages confirmed their statement. A mikveh, a ritual bath used to cleanse ritual impurity, must contain water that has not been drawn by human hands. The water must get into the mikveh by natural means, either through rain or a stream. The question our mishnah asks is how much drawn water can fall into a mikveh before it becomes unfit to cleanse? According to Hillel, if one hin falls in, the mikveh is unfit. A hin is equal to three kavs (about 4 ½ liters). The mishnah notes that Hillel used the word “hin” and not the word “kav”, even though kav is more commonly used and Hillel himself used the word in the previous mishnah. The answer is that Hillel heard this law about the mikveh from his teacher in this language, and although Hillel himself did not regularly use this language he still taught the statement in the form that he heard it. This is to teach that when you quote your teacher you must use the same language s/he used. Shammai gives a larger measure which would make a mikveh unfit: nine kavs. A smaller amount of drawn water that falls into a mikveh does not render it unfit. As we saw in the first two mishnayoth, the Sages accept neither the words of Shammai nor the words of Hillel. Rather they accept the testimony given by two weavers who were at the Dung-Gate in Jerusalem (the gate next to the Western Wall), who said that Shemaiah and Avtalion, two early Sages, stated that three lugs, which is a quarter of a hin, are enough to render the mikveh unfit." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses why the Mishnah records opinions that are not accepted as normative Jewish law (halakhah).", + "And why do they record the opinions of Shammai and Hillel for naught? To teach the following generations that a man should not [always] persist in his opinion, for behold, the fathers of the world did not persist in their opinion. This mishnah, and the two mishnayoth which we will learn tomorrow ask deep questions about the nature of the Mishnah in its totality. In the previous two mishnayoth we learned statements of Shammai and Hillel that were not accepted as normative law. Indeed, throughout this year of learning we have read and discussed many statements that are not law in our days, nor in the days in which those statements were recited. Why then does the Mishnah record and do we continue to learn these statements? One answer, the answer that our mishnah provides, is to teach that just as Shammai and Hillel compromised and changed their minds when they saw they were contradicted, and they were the “fathers of the world”, the founders of Rabbinic Judaism, all the more so should lesser people change their mind when they realize that they may be wrong. The mishnah then becomes a lesson not in argumentation, but in compromise and unity. The mishnah records minority opinions to show that even great teachers change their mind when wrong. We will learn other reasons tomorrow." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the question why are minority opinions recorded in the Mishnah, if there is a rule that the halakhah (the law) is according to the majority opinion.", + "And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. Generally speaking, when there is a dispute in the Mishnah between an individual Sage and the rest of the Sages, the halakhah is according to the Sages. This is due to a “majority rules” principle. Our mishnah asks why then, does the Mishnah record the minority opinion, if that is not to be the accepted halakhah? Before we begin to discuss the answer, which is somewhat difficult to decipher, we should recognize the importance of the question. The Mishnah is not purely a book of halakhah, Jewish law, because it contains a plurality of opinions. In my mind this makes an important statement about Judaism and Jewish law: the first great work of the Oral Torah, that work which continues to shape Judaism to this very day, is not a recording of what one is supposed to do. It records a dialogue between the Sages, meant to be learned and extrapolated. This is the process of “Talmud Torah” that continues to this day. Furthermore, the Mishnah teaches that minority opinions are not necessarily “wrong” even though they may not be accepted. The answer the mishnah provides to its question is slightly cryptic. I will explain it in one way, but there are others who have explained it differently. The mishnah records the opinions of individual Sages so that future courts might rely on their opinions and decide halakhah according to them. Although at the time of the Mishnah these opinions were not accepted by the majority, since they are not “wrong”, in the future other courts may accept them. If a future court were to disagree with the opinions of an earlier court, and there was no recorded minority opinion, they could only change the decision if they were both wiser and greater in number than the earlier court. In other words there are two ways, according to our mishnah, that a future court can overturn an earlier decision: 1) by relying on a minority opinion; 2) by being greater in number and wisdom." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six contains a different answer to the same question asked in mishnah five: why are minority opinions recorded in the mishnah.", + "Rabbi Judah said: “If so, why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many to set it aside? So that if a man shall say, ‘Thus have I received the tradition’, it may be said to him, ‘According to the [refuted] opinion of that individual did you hear it.’” Rabbi Judah asks the same question that was asked in the previous mishnah: why does the Mishnah record minority opinions. His answer, however, is the exact opposite of the previous answer. According to Rabbi Judah, minority opinions are recorded so that future Rabbis will not be able to rely on those opinions. If a person in the future should say that he learned the tradition in a certain way, a Rabbi could point to the Mishnah and tell him that that is a minority opinion and is therefore not accepted as halakhah. Halakhah according to Rabbi Judah will continue to follow the majority. Note the irony that the Mishnah records a dispute about why it preserves minority opinions, and in this very discussion there is a recorded minority opinion. If we were to look at this dispute in these two mishnayoth through the eyes of those who gave the first answer, they would have to say that in the future Rabbi Judah’s answer might be acceptable! In other words those who allow for a change in the halakhah, must admit that in the future such change might not be acceptable. If we were to look at the same dispute through Rabbi Judah’s eyes, we would have to say that this opinion is unaccepted now and forever! Meaning, Rabbi Judah himself would have to admit that minority opinions are acceptable in the future, in which case, perhaps, even his minority opinion would someday be accepted.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What might be some of the underlying conceptual differences between Rabbi Judah’s and the Sages’ (mishnah five) reasons why minority opinions are preserved in the Mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Beth Shammai says: “A quarter-kav of any bones, even from two limbs or from three.”
And Beth Hillel says: “A quarter-kav of bones from a corpse, either from [the bones which form] the greater portion of the [body’s] build, or from the greater portion of the number [of the body’s bones].
Shammai says: “Even from a single bone.”
This mishnah begins to list disputes between Beth Shammai (the school of Shammai) and Beth Hillel (the school of Hillel). The rest of the chapter will contain disputes between these two schools.
Numbers 19:14 teaches that if a person dies in a tent things that are in the tent, including the people, can become impure, even though they have not touched the dead body. Our mishnah discusses how many bones must be in the tent for them to be considered a dead body which will cause ritual impurity.
According to Beth Shammai, a quarter-kav of bones will transmit impurity, as long as they come from at least two or three different bones. Beth Hillel agrees that a quarter-kav of bones is enough to cause impurity but they state that the bones must either come from the greater portion of the body (the hips, thighs, rib cage and spine) or from a majority of the number of bones in the body, considered to be 248. If there is a quarter-kav but they come from only one limb or many limbs but not a majority of the number or from the greater portion, they do not transmit impurity.
Shammai himself is even stricter than Beth Shammai, for he holds that a quarter-kav from one bone transmits impurity." + ], + [ + "Vetches of terumah: Beth Shammai says, “They must be soaked and rubbed in purity, but can be given for food in impurity.”
And Beth Hillel says: “They must be soaked in purity, but can be rubbed and given for food in impurity.”
Shammai says: “They must be eaten dry.”
Rabbi Akiva says: “All actions in connection with them [can be carried out] in impurity.”
In order to understand this mishnah we must first explain several rules.
1) Terumah (heave offering) is a portion of produce separated to give to the priests. It is only given from human food and not from animal feed. Vetches, a type of bean, are generally given to animals, but can be eaten by humans in time of need.
2) It is forbidden to cause terumah to become impure. A person who touches terumah must have previously ritually washed his hands.
3) Food can receive impurity only once it has been made wet. While it is dry it cannot receive impurity.
Our mishnah discusses the preparation of vetches of terumah. According to Beth Shammai they must be prepared (both soaked and rubbed) with pure hands, lest the person decide to eat them himself, in which case it would be forbidden to make them impure. However, they may be given to animals by a person with impure hands, since animal food is not really terumah.
According to Beth Hillel, they must be soaked by a person with pure hands, since getting them wet enables them to receive impurity. However, when he rubs them or gives them to an animal it is obvious that they are not intended for humans, and therefore he can do so with impure hands.
Shammai himself is again, stricter than Beth Shammai. He holds that vetches must be eaten dry so that they will not be able to receive impurity. Assumedly, Shammai would agree that a person might also eat them with clean hands.
Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is the most lenient. He holds that vetches are not fit for human consumption and therefore one may do anything with them while his hands are impure. Since vetches are animal food the rules of the purity of terumah do not apply to them." + ], + [ + "One who changes for a sela copper coins from second tithe: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel say: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” Rabbi Meir says: “Silver and fruits may not be substituted for silver.” But the sages allow it. Second tithe, the second ten percent of agricultural products, was to be taken to Jerusalem and consumed there. If it was inconvenient to carry all of the second tithe produce to Jerusalem, one could redeem the produce with money and bring the money to Jerusalem. Our mishnah discusses a person who has already redeemed some second tithe and wishes to exchange his small copper coins for a larger more valuable silver coin, a sela, which will be easier to carry to Jerusalem. According to Beth Shammai, in order to do this he must have a whole sela’s worth of copper coin. If he has only half a sela’s worth of copper (=shekel) and he has a silver shekel (=1/2 sela) which is also of second tithe, he may not exchange the shekel and shekel’s worth of copper for a sela since it is forbidden to exchange silver second tithe for other silver second tithe. According to Beth Hillel, one is permitted to exchange a silver shekel and a shekel’s worth of copper coins for a sela. Although it is in general forbidden to exchange silver second tithe for other silver second tithe, since part of this exchange is copper, it is permitted. Rabbi Meir limits Beth Hillel’s opinion. Although it is permitted to exchange silver and copper for silver second tithe, it is forbidden to exchange fruit and silver for other silver. However, the Sages allow even this." + ], + [ + "
One who exchanges a sela from second tithe in Jerusalem: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel says: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” The disputants before the Sages say: “Silver for three denars and copper coin for one denar.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Silver for three denars and for the fourth silver, copper coin.” Rabbi Tarfon says: “Four aspers in silver.” Shammai says: “He must leave it in the shop and eat on the credit thereof.” This mishnah discusses the person who arrives in Jerusalem with his silver sela of second tithe and wishes to exchange it for copper coins so that he can buy small quantities of food. According to Beth Shammai he must exchange the entire sela for copper. This is consistent with Beth Shammai’s opinion in the previous mishnah: one cannot exchange silver second tithe with silver, but only with copper. According to Beth Hillel, he may exchange half of the sela for a silver shekel and the other half for copper. Again, Beth Hillel holds that since he is exchanging part of the sela for copper he may also exchange part for silver. Rabbi Akiva takes Beth Hillel’s position even further. A person may exchange even ¼ of the sela (denar) for copper and the rest (3/4) for silver. A sela is worth four denars. Rabbi Tarfon goes even further. For the fourth denar he may even take four aspers of silver and one asper’s worth of copper. An asper is 1/5 of a denar. Shammai again is strictest. He holds that he shouldn’t exchange the sela at all. Rather he should leave it at a store and eat on credit." + ], + [ + "According to Leviticus 15:4, any object on which a person who has had a discharge sits is impure. The Rabbis taught that things that are not made to sit upon or are not fit to sit upon, do not receive impurity. Our mishnah discusses two types of stools and whether or not they can receive impurity.", + "A bride’s stool from which the covering-boards have been taken: Beth Shammai pronounces it [liable to become] unclean, And Beth Hillel pronounce it not [liable to become] unclean. Shammai says: “Even the framework of a stool [by itself is liable to become] unclean.” An ordinary stool was made of four legs held together by four boards (the framework), on which were placed covering boards for sitting. A bride’s stool had, in addition, three upright covering boards (also called ‘covering-boards’), against which the occupant leant. The question in our mishnah is with regards to the status of a bride’s stool that does not have its special covering boards. According to Beth Shammai, since this stool can still be sat upon, it can receive impurity. According to Beth Hillel, since it does not fulfill its intended function as a bride’s stool, it cannot receive impurity. Shammai, again taking the strictest position, holds that even a simple framework with no coverings can receive impurity. Since one could potentially sit on the framework, it is considered enough of a stool to potentially become impure.", + "A stool which has been set in a baker’s trough: Beth Shammai pronounces it [liable to become] unclean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it not [liable to become] unclean. Shammai says: “Even one made therein [is liable to become unclean].” If someone took a stool and put it into a kneading trough, in order to put flour or dough upon it, Beth Shammai would still rule that it is a stool and therefore susceptible to impurity. Beth Hillel rules that the stool is now part of the trough, and since the trough can’t become impure, neither can the stool. The reason that the trough can’t become impure is that it was not made for sitting. Shammai rules that even a stool that was made from the outset as part of a trough, and therefore was never intended for sitting, can become impure. Although it was not intended for sitting, since one could sit on it, it can become impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah twelve begins a series of mishnayoth in which Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai initially disagree, until Beth Hillel changes their minds and teaches according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. Aside from the specific content of these mishnayoth, Beth Hillel’s willingness to admit that their rivals, Beth Shammai were correct, and even to subsequently teach their opinions, teaches a lesson of humility for all generations. Beth Hillel did not allow their personal glory to supersede their search for truth; when they recognized their own mistakes, they admitted them and changed their opinions accordingly.", + "Our mishnah discusses a woman who returns from overseas and claims that her husband has died. The woman cannot bring any documentation to her husband’s death, and therefore the issue arises, is she to be believed? If she is believed, then there are four consequences to her statement discussed by our mishnah: 1) she may remarry, as a widow; 2) if the husband did not have children, she must be married to the husband’s brother (levirate marriage) or have him perform halitzah, the release from levirate marriage; 3) she may collect her kethubah, her marriage document which is paid upon death of the husband or divorce; 4) the husband’s brothers or other inheritors would divide his estate.", + "These are subjects concerning which Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai:
A woman who came from overseas and said: “My husband died” may be married again; “My husband died [without children]” she must be married by her husband’s brother (the. But Beth Hillel says: “We have heard so only in the case of one who came from the harvesting.” Beth Shammai said to them: “It is the same thing in the case of one who came from the harvesting or who came from the olive-picking or who came from overseas; they mentioned harvesting only because that is how it happened.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to Beth Shammai. According to Beth Shammai she is believed and may remarry. If the husband had no children she must either undergo levirate marriage or halitzah. Beth Hillel responds that the precedent for this law was a case where a woman had gone harvesting with her husband and she returned claiming that he had died. In such a case we don’t suspect that the woman would lie, for if she did her husband would return and contradict her. Since “harvesting” is close to the city, if the husband was alive he would return. However, if she was returning from abroad, she is not believed, for the husband may still be alive and she might lie assuming that he will not turn up. Beth Shammai responds that she is always believed, no matter where she had been. The case of “harvesting” was how the event really happened, but the Rabbis would have allowed her to remarry under any circumstance. In other words, from where she was returning is immaterial. Beth Hillel accepted Beth Shammai’s opinion and taught according to them.", + "Beth Shammai says: “She may be married again and take her kethubah payment.” Beth Shammai further stated that this woman may not only remarry but may collect her marriage payment from her husband’s estate. Beth Hillel responded to Beth Shammai that although she may remarry, we do not allow her to collect the money, lest the husband is still alive. Beth Shammai then raised a difficulty with Beth Hillel’s opinion: generally speaking the law is more strict with regards to issues of personal status than with issues of money. If you are going to allow her to remarry, as we have already done, for which there are serious consequences (if it turned out that her husband had not died), all the more so should she collect the kethubah payment, for which there are not such serious consequences (at worst she will have to pay it back). Beth Hillel responded that with regards to monetary results of the alleged death, the brothers do not share in his inheritance. In other words, Beth Hillel brings proof from another area of law that with regards to monetary issues, this man’s death is not considered confirmed. To this Beth Shammai responds that we can learn that she collects her kethubah payment from the language written in the kethubah itself. The kethubah states that if she remarries, she may collect her kethubah payment. From this wording Beth Shammai concludes that any time she is allowed to remarry, she may collect her kethubah. Beth Hillel thereby accepted Beth Shammai’s point and taught according to them.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What does Beth Shammai hold with regards to the division of the allegedly dead husband’s estate: do the brothers divide the inheritance? If they do not inherit, why not? Why would Beth Shammai on the one hand believe the woman enough to allow her to remarry, but not in order to allow the dead husband’s brothers to inherit?
• In all of these cases why do you think Beth Hillel changed their minds?" + ], + [ + "Whoever is half a slave and half a free man should work one day for his master and one day for himself, according to Beth Hillel.
Beth Shammai said to them: “You have set matters in order with regards to his master, but you have not set matters in order with regards to himself. He is not able to marry a slave-woman, nor is he able [to marry] a woman who is free. Is he to refrain [from marrying]? [How can he] for is it not the case that the world was created in order for people to be fruitful and multiply? For it is said, “He did not create it to be a waste; but formed it for inhabitation” (Isaiah 45:18). But for the rightful ordering of the world his master is compelled to make him free, and he writes out a bond for half his value.”
Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.
This mishnah discusses the case of a slave who is half free and half a slave. This situation could arise if a slave was owned by two masters and one of them set his half free. Beth Hillel allows such a situation to persists and rules that one day a week he should work for his master and one day a week he works for himself. In other words, this person can remain a half-slave.
Beth Shammai remarks to Beth Hillel that this is a fine arrangement for the master, but does not solve an essential problem for the slave. A slave is permitted to marry a female slave but a regular Jew is not allowed to marry a female slave. The half of this person who is a slave could marry a female slave but not a free Jewish woman, and the half of this person who is a Jew (when slaves are freed they become Jewish) could marry a Jewish woman but not a slave woman. Since this problem is irreconcilable, he could not marry anyone. Beth Shammai points out that this is also not an acceptable situation, and contradicts the existence of the entire creation. God created people so that they could establish families and not so that they could remain celibate.
The only solution is that he must be freed by the one remaining master, who writes him a manumission document. The slave then accepts upon himself a debt to pay back his owner and the slave goes free.
When Beth Hillel heard Beth Shammai’s argument they accepted it, and taught like them.
We should note how truly remarkable this mishnah is. Slavery was an accepted institution in the ancient world, and in every society slaves were amongst the lowest of the social classes. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai is concerned that even slaves should have the opportunity to fulfill the purpose of the creation of the world: procreation." + ], + [ + "A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel.
But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.” Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?” Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].” Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?” Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.”
Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.
According to Numbers 19:15, a clay vessel that is covered with a lid prevents impurity from entering inside of it. If this vessel is found in a room with a dead body, which would normally cause everything in the room to be impure, the clay vessel and all that is inside of it does not contract the impurity. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel argue about what types of things which may be inside the clay vessels are not impure. According to Beth Hillel any object inside the vessel is pure. Beth Shammai holds that only food, liquids and other clay vessels remain pure; non-clay vessels would be impure.
Beth Shammai explains that we can assume that the clay vessel has been touched by an ignoramus (am haaretz), a person who does not strictly know or observe the laws of ritual purity. It is assumed that the am haaretz makes the vessel impure. Since an impure vessel does not prevent the impurity from entering, the things inside of it are impure.
Beth Hillel responds to Beth Shammai by pointing out that they did indeed accept that the food and liquids inside the vessel were pure. If the clay vessel does not prevent impurity from entering, why should anything inside of it remain pure?
To this question Beth Shammai responds that when they stated that the food and liquids were pure they meant for the am haaretz himself and not for the haver (a person who scrupulously observes the laws of purity and indeed eats only pure food). Beth Shammai assumes that a haver will not borrow any of these things from an am haaretz, since they cannot be made pure (a clay vessel cannot be cleansed of its impurity). Therefore Beth Shammai can pronounce these things clean, knowing that they will never come into the hands of a haver. However, when Beth Hillel pronounced everything inside pure, they were in essence declaring it pure for both the am haaretz and the haver. Beth Hillel had implied that even metal vessels, inside the clay vessel, remained pure. A haver might borrow metal vessels from an am haaretz, with the intent of immersing them to cleanse them of their impurities. However, this immersion will only cleanse them from light impurities and not from impurity contracted from a dead body. Therefore, an am haaretz might borrow them thinking that he could cleanse them and in reality he could not. Due to this problem, Beth Hillel retracted their opinion and taught like Beth Shammai." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first three mishnayoth contain four things upon which Rabbi Hanina, the chief of the priests testified. The first mishnah discusses burning impure things.", + "Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, testified concerning four matters:
Through all their days the priests never refrained from burning meat which had been defiled by an “offspring” of impurity with meat which had been made impure by a “father” of impurity, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity. Rabbi Akiba added: “Through all their days the priests never shrank from lighting oil which had been rendered unfit by a tevul yom in a lamp made impure by one who was made impure by a corpse, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity.” In order to understand the first “testimony” of Rabbi Hanina we must explain some rules concerning impurity. There are a number of things which are considered to be “fathers” of impurity, including a human corpse. If a “father” of impurity touches something it becomes an “offspring” of impurity. There are several levels of “offspring” of impurity. The “first offspring”, when it touches food or liquids (but not people and things) causes them to be a “second offspring”. “Second offspring” makes only terumah food but not normal food into “third offspring”. “Third offspring” can make holy things such as sacrifices into “fourth offspring”. Rabbi Hanina testifies that the priests did not refrain from burning meat which had been made impure by an “offspring” with meat that had been made impure by a “father” of impurity, even though the latter meat, which is a “first offspring” increases the impurity of the former meat, which according to the Talmud had been a “third offspring”, to the status of “second offspring”. The reason is that all of this meat was going to be burned anyway, since impure sacrifices are forbidden to eat. Although it is generally forbidden to intentionall make sacrifices impure, that refers to already pure sacrifices. It is not a problem to increase the impurity of already impure sacrifices. Rabbi Akiva adds another example. The priests did not refrain from burning oil which had contracted a light form of impurity with oil that had contracted a serious form of impurity, even though this will increase the impurity of the oil. The light form of impurity is contracted by coming into contact with a “tevul yom”, one who had already been immersed in a ritual bath and was merely waiting for the sunset to become fully pure. The serious form of impurity is that which is contracted from a corpse." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two discusses burning the hides of sacrificially unfit animals.", + "Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, said: “All my days I never saw a hide taken out to the place of burning.” Rabbi Akiba said: “From his words we infer that whoever flays the hide of the firstborn beast and it is found to be trefah, the priests may enjoy the use of the hide.” But the Sages say: “[A testimony which consists of] ‘we didn’t see’ is not a proof; rather the hide must be taken out to the place of burning. In Tractate Zevahim 12:4 the Mishnah teaches that if a sacrificial animal is found to be unfit as a sacrifice before it’s hide is flayed, the entire animal must be burnt. If it is found to be unfit after it’s hide is flayed, the priests may keep the hide. Rabbi Hanina testifies that he never saw a hide being burnt. In other words, according to Rabbi Hanina if they already removed the hide, the priests may make use of it, even though the animal was deemed unfit to be a sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva learns from this that if one flays the hide of a firstborn animal, which belongs to the priests, and then discovers that it was a trefah, an animal with an internal flaw that would have caused its death, the priests may keep the hide. Since the flaw was not known before the hide was removed, the hide becomes the property of the priests. The Sages respond to Rabbi Akiva that the type of testimony that Rabbi Hanina transmitted is not reliable enough to base upon it halakhic solutions. Not seeing something does not mean that it did not happen. Since they exclude Rabbi Hanina’s testimony the law is that the hide must be burnt with the rest of the animal, and the priests are forbidden to receive benefit from it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three contains the final two testimonies of Rabbi Hananyah, chief of priests.", + "He also testified concerning a small village in the vicinity of Jerusalem in which there was an old man who used to lend to all the people of the village and write out [the bond] in his own handwriting and others signed it. And when the fact was brought before the Sages they pronounced it legal. Hence, incidentally, you may infer that a wife may write her own bill of divorcement, and a husband may write his own receipt; for the legality of a document depends only on those who sign it. The third thing about which Rabbi Hananyah testified is about the manner in which documents may be written. He testified that he saw an elder in a town near Jerusalem who used to write out his own loan documents and have others sign them and the Sages pronounced it legal, even though the witnesses did not write out the entire document themselves. Without Rabbi Hananyah’s testimony we might have thought that the lender is not allowed to write out the document himself, for fear that he would forget a document and thereby falsely claim that someone owed him money. From Rabbi Hananyah’s testimony we learn that a woman is allowed to write out her own divorce document and a man might right out his own receipt for having paid the woman’s ketubah (marriage payment). Even though the divorce document is given by the man to the woman and the receipt is given by the woman to the man, since the legality of a document depends solely upon the witnesses, it does not matter who writes it out. As long as these documents are witnessed properly, they are valid.", + "And [he testified] concerning a needle which was found in flesh of a [sacrifice], that the knife and the hands [which had been employed on the flesh] are clean, but the flesh itself is defiled; and if it was found in the excrement, all are clean. The final issue upon which Rabbi Hananyah testified is with regards to a needle which was found in the body of a sacrifice after it had been slaughtered. The needle was known to have been made impure by a dead body and the question is being asked, are the knife that had been used to slaughter the animal and the person who slaughtered the animal impure from having had contact with the impure needle. Rabbi Hananyah testifies that the knife and slaughterer are not impure but the flesh of the sacrifice is impure, for the needle surely came into contact with it. The reason that the knife and slaughterer are still pure is that doubtful cases of impurity in the public domain are considered pure. The flesh does not make the knife impure because food does not impart impurity to vessels. If, however, the needle was found in the feces of the animal, the knife, slaughterer and even the flesh are pure, because we cannot be sure that the animal’s flesh touched the needle. Although we could assume that the animal swallowed the needle and therefore it touched the flesh, this is not certain and therefore, since this happened in the public domain, the rules are lenient." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four contains three testimonies of Rabbi Yishmael, which he gave in front of the other Sages in Yavneh. As I stated in the introduction to Eduyoth, this is where the Sages gathered after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.", + "Rabbi Yishmael declared three things before the Sages in the vineyard at Yavneh: Concerning an egg which was beaten together, and placed on vegetables of terumah that it acts as a connection; but if it was in the form of a helmet it does not act as a connection. In the situation in this section a mixed egg is on top of a vegetable which is terumah (only eaten by priests). If a tevul yom, one who was been in the mikveh (bath of ritual purity), and who is considered to carry second degree impurity (see above mishnah one) touches the mixed egg it is as if he also touched the vegetable, and he conveys third degree impurity to the vegetable. In other words, the egg is part of the vegetable and touching the egg counts as touching the vegetable. Since third degree impurity makes terumah impure, the vegetable is impure. If however the egg has been cooked and rose to form a type of covering over the vegetable, it does not connect the tevul yom with the vegetable and the vegetable remains pure. In other words the central question asked is: does touching the egg make the vegetable impure.", + "And concerning an ear of corn in the harvesting, the top of which reached the standing corn that if it can be reaped together with the standing corn, it belongs to the owner; and if not, it belongs to the poor. When a farmer is harvesting his wheat, if he forgets a stalk he may not go back and reap it. Rather he must leave it for the poor (see Deuteronomy 24:19). Rabbi Yishmael defines what is a forgotten stalk. If a person leaves a stalk and it is close enough to another stalk at which he has not yet arrived, that if he were to bend the first stalk it could touch the other stalk, then it is not considered to have been forgotten and he may reap it. If it is not close enough to bend it and touch the other stalk, it is considered forgotten and he must leave it for the poor.", + "And concerning a small garden which was surrounded by a row of vines that if it has space for the grape-gatherer and his basket on one side, and space for the grape-gatherer and his basket on the other side, it may be sown with seed; but if not, it may not be sown with seed. According to Deuteronomy 22:9, it is forbidden to plant seeds in a vineyard. Rabbi Yishmael testifies that if a small garden surrounded by one row of grape vines is big enough on each of its sides for a grape-gatherer to stand there with his basket then he may plant the garden with seeds. In such a case the garden is large enough to be considered separate from the vineyard. If, however, the garden is smaller, then it is merely a bald patch inside a vineyard, and it is forbidden to plant there seeds." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four, which we learned yesterday, contained three things that Rabbi Yishmael had said in front of the Sages in Yavneh. Mishnah five contains three things which Rabbi Yishmael did not know how to explain, and Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained them for him.", + "They stated three things before Rabbi Yishmael, and he pronounced none of them either unlawful or lawful; and Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained them.
One who lances an abscess on the Sabbath: if it was to make an opening he is liable; if it was to bring out the pus, he is exempt. The first issue about which Rabbi Yishmael did not know how to answer is one who lances an abscess on the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained that if he did it in order to make a permanent opening in the abscess, then he is obligated for breaking the Sabbath. This type of work is considered to be like “constructing” which is forbidden. If, however, he intended to let out the pus, he is exempt, for his intention was not to “construct” an opening. The fact that an opening was constructed is an unintended by-product, for which one is not generally liable on the Sabbath.", + "And concerning one who hunts a snake on the Sabbath: that if he was occupied with it in order that it should not bite him, he is innocent; but if that he might use it as a remedy, he is guilty. Hunting is forbidden on the Sabbath. If a person should kill a snake in order to prevent it from biting him, he is exempt since the death of the snake is an unintended by-product. His true intent was to protect himself. If, however, he kills the snake to use it for medicine, he is liable since his intention was to kill the snake.", + "And concerning Ironian stewpots: that they do not contract impurity when under the same tent as a corpse; but become impure if they are carried by a zav. Rabbi Eliezer ben Zadok says: “Even if they are carried by a zav they remain pure, because they are unfinished.” Ironian stewpots are clay pots that were made by villagers. They were at first made into hollow balls and then split in half to create two pots. The issue here is what type of impurity can these pots receive. Rabbi Joshua ben Mattiah explains, that as long as they have not been opened, they are considered to be covered clay pots which do not receive impurity by being in the same roofed structure as a corpse (see chapter one, mishnah fourteen). If a zav, a person who has had an abnormal genital discharge, should carry one of these jars it is impure, since clay jars can receive impurity by being carried by zavim. However, Rabbi Elazar ben Zadok, a later Sage, points out that they are not even made impure by contact with zavim. There is a general rule that a vessel which has not been completely finished does not receive impurity. Since Ironian pots are not completed until they are split in half, it can’t receive any impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six contains three examples of one law, about which Rabbi Akiva disagreed with Rabbi Yishmael.", + "Rabbi Yishmael said three things, and Rabbi Akiba disagreed with him.
Garlic or unripe grapes or green ears of grain were being crushed [on the eve of the Sabbath] while it is yet day: Rabbi Yishmael says: “He may finish crushing after it grows dark.” But Rabbi Akiba says: “He may not finish.” According to Rabbi Yishmael, if a person began crushing garlic, unripe grapes or green ears of grain before the Sabbath, he may continue to do so on the Sabbath. It would be forbidden to begin to crush these things on the Sabbath, since crushing and squeezing to get the juice out of produce is forbidden. However, since he began crushing them before the Sabbath, and the liquid is already starting to come out, he may continue to do so. The liquid from these things would be used for certain types of dips. Rabbi Akiva forbids this. According to him, just as it is forbidden to begin to crush, so too it is forbidden to continue crushing." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven contains three things that other Sages said in front of Rabbi Akiva: two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer and one in the name of Rabbi Joshua.", + "Two things were said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer in front of Rabbi Akiva.", + "They said three things before Rabbi Akiva, two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer and one in the name of Rabbi Joshua. Two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer:
A woman may go out [on the Sabbath adorned] with a “golden-city”; A woman may go out of her house on the Sabbath wearing a tiara of gold, stamped with the imprint of Jerusalem. This is called a “golden city”. The general reason why women are not allowed to wear jewelry in the public domain on the Sabbath is that she might take off the piece to show it to others and will thereby transgress the prohibition of carrying in the public domain on the Sabbath. However, Rabbi Eliezer holds that since a woman who has such a tiara must be wealthy, and wealthy women do not take off their jewelry to show it off, we need not be concerned that they will do so. By the way, this phrase is reminiscent of the “Jerusalem of Gold”, the “Yerushalayim shel Zahav” given by Rabbi Akiva to his wife, and made famous by the modern song. Evidently it was a well known piece of jewelry in ancient times.", + "And they that fly pigeons are unfit to bear evidence. And one in the name of Rabbi Joshua: Those that race pigeons are unfit to testify, since this is a form of gambling. We learned this law in Sanhedrin 3:3.", + "If there was a creeping thing in the mouth of a weasel when it walked over loaves of terumah, and it is doubtful whether it touched them or whether it did not touch them, that about which there is doubt remains pure. There was one law stated in the name of Rabbi Joshua. If a weasel has a dead creepy crawly thing (which is a source of impurity) in its mouth, and the weasel walks on loaves of terumah, and we are unsure whether the creepy crawly thing touched the terumah, the terumah remains pure. This is due to a general rule that if a source of impurity is moving, and it is doubtful whether it touched anything, the thing it might have touched remains pure. Since the weasel was moving and it is doubtful whether what was in its mouth touched the terumah, the terumah remains pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah eight contains three statements of Rabbi Akiva. The Sages agreed with two of these statements and disagreed with the other.", + "Rabbi Akiba declared three things; about two they agreed with him, and about one they disagreed with him.
About a lime-burner’s sandal, that it is liable to contract midras impurity; A lime-burners sandal is a special sandal that he wears over his feet in order to protect them for the burning lime. The question being raised is are these sandals normal footwear, such that they receive midras impurity. Midras impurity is a kind of impurity imparted by a zav (someone who had an abnormal genital discharge) to things which are normally walked upon. For instance if a zav steps upon a carpet it is impure, for carpets are made to be walked upon. However, if he steps upon a book it does not receive midras impurity, since people don’t normally walk on books. Rabbi Akiva teaches that although lime-burners are not made to be walked in, since they are put on a person’s feet, they can receive midras impurity.", + "And about the remains of a [broken] oven, that they must be four handbreadths high [in order to retain impurity], whereas they used to say three and [when he said four] they agreed with him. And about one they disagreed with him If an object that has contracted impurity breaks and is therefore no longer useful, it is no longer impure. The question is into how small pieces must an oven break for it to become pure. According to Rabbi Akiva pieces which are smaller than 4 handbreaths (about a foot) retain impurity. Before the Sages heard Rabbi Akiva’s opinion they had held that a piece 3 handbreadths retains impurity. When they heard Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, they agreed with him.", + "About a stool, from which two of its covering-boards had been removed, the one beside the other, which Rabbi Akiba pronounces able to contract impurity, but the Sages declare unable to contract impurity. The disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Akiva is over a chair which had two adjoining cover-boards removed. We discussed this issue in chapter one, mishnah eleven, when we discussed the special bridal chair. Here we learn that according to The Sages, once two adjoining cover-boards are removed, it is no longer useful as a chair, and therefore it is not receptive to impurity. Rabbi Akiva hold that since the chair could still be used if there was great need for it, it can still receive impurity. In other words, it is still a chair." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth nine (and ten) contain further statements of Rabbi Akiva. These statements are not about halakhah, but rather about aggadah, or Jewish legend.", + "He used to say: the father transmits to the son beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom and years. This mishnah contains a popular saying by Rabbi Akiva, that a son inherits from his father, beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom and years, which is length of life.", + "And the number of generations before Him, that shall be their appointed end: For it is said, “calling the generations from the beginning” (Isaiah 51:4) Although it is said, “And shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13), it is also said, “And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again” (Genesis 15:16). This section has been explained in many different ways and is very difficult to understand. I will explain it the way that Albeck explains. Rabbi Akiva is dealing with the issue of fate: if a father controls the number of years that his son will live, how is that God has already determined how long the world will last. The answer that Rabbi Akiva gives is that the number of generations is fixed, as the verse in Isaiah says, but the number of years in each generation is not fixed. Although one verse from Exodus seems to say that God counts years, a few verses later generations are mentioned. According to Rabbi Akiva’s interpretation of these verses and his theology, a person’s years are determined by his actions and by his father’s actions, and not predetermined by God. It is only the number of generations until redemption that is known by God. Of course, human beings do not know this number. It is important to note that when we deal with issues such as fate and the end of the world, we are dealing with issues about which many different Jewish answers have been given. This is not an issue that human beings can fully understand." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth ten contains another statement of Rabbi Akiva.", + "There are five heavenly judgements which according to Rabbi Akiva were meted out for one year.", + "Also he used to say that there are five things that last twelve months:
The judgment of the generation of the flood [continued] twelve months; The judgement of the generation of the flood lasted one year. According to Genesis 7:11 the flood began on the seventeenth of the second month of the 600th year of Noah’s life. According to 8:14, the earth was dry one year and ten days later. The extra ten days are the adjustment for the difference between a lunar and solar calendar.", + "The judgment of Job [continued] twelve months; Job’s trial lasted a year. This is learned from Job 7:3 which states, “So have I been allotted months of futility; nights of misery have been apportioned to me.” According to a midrash the months of futility are the days of the summer which are long and the nights of misery which are also long. Together, it can be concluded that Job suffered for one whole year.", + "The judgment of the Egyptians [continued] twelve months; The ten plagues lasted a year, according to Rabbi Akiva. This is learned through a midrash on Exodus 5:12. According to this verse the plagues began only after the Egyptians forced the Israelite slaves to search for their own straw. Since straw is found in the month of Iyyar, May, and the Israelites left Egypt in Nissan, April, the conclusion can be drawn that the plagues lasted one year.", + "The judgment of Gog and Magog in the time to come [will continue] twelve months; Gog is a King and Magog is his country. According to Ezekiel 38-39, at the end of time Gog will fight a battle with Israel, at which point God will bring judgement upon Gog and his people. According to Rabbi Akiva, this judgement will last one year. This is learned in the midrash from Isaiah 18:6, “The kites shall summer on them and all the beasts of the earth shall winter on them”. This verse is understood as referring to the war of Gog at the end of days. The verse states that they will be punished for a summer and a winter, meaning for an entire year.", + "The judgment of the wicked in gehinom [continues] twelve months, for it is said, and “It will be from one month until its [same] month” (Isaiah 66:23). Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: “[As long as] from Passover to Shavuoth, for it is said, “And from one Sabbath until its [next] Sabbath” (ibid.). The wicked are judged in Gehinom, which is a Jewish word for hell, for one year. This is learned from Isaiah 66:24 which states, “They shall go out and gaze on the corpses of the men who rebelled against Me.” The previous verse states that “Month after month and Sabbath after Sabbath all flesh shall come and worship me.” How can all flesh come and praise God if the corpses of the rebellious are being punished. To solve this problem, the Rabbis reverse the order of the verses, understanding that the wicked are first punished and then allowed to return to praising God. From the words “month after month” Rabbi Akiva concludes that the wicked shall be judged from one month until the next appearance of the same month, meaning twelve months. As an aside, this is where the Jewish custom of saying Kaddish over a parent for 11 months originates. If one were to say Kaddish for a full twelve months, it would be assuming that the parent was wicked. Since no one would want to make such a statement, we say Kaddish for eleven months. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri learns from the words “Sabbath after Sabbath” in the above verse that the wicked are judged for a time period equal to the time between one holiday and the next. (Sabbath can sometimes mean holiday, as opposed to its usual meaning, the seventh day of the week). The shortest such period is the time between Passover and Shavuoth, which is seven weeks." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction The first six mishnayoth of this chapter contain ten disputes between Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the Sages.", + "This is a complicated mishnah, which requires the knowledge of some rules before we begin to explain the details. 1) A corpse causes impurity in three ways: a) by contact, b) by being carried; c) by being under the same roof-space, referred to as a tent. 2) Certain parts of a dead body impart impurity even though there is not a full corpse. 3) In order for a part of a corpse to impart impurity it must have a minimum measure the size of an olive. 4) Tent impurity is contracted in three ways: i) If a corpse, or part thereof, is found under a roof structure, anything under that roof structure is impure. ii) If the corpse, or part thereof, is above a person or vessel, the corpse imparts impurity. iii) If the person or vessel is above the corpse, the person and vessel are impure. Our mishnah discusses the ability of two pieces of a corpse, that are smaller than an olive, to join together and make a piece of corpse larger than an olive and transmit impurity in different situations.", + "[In the case of] all things which cause defilement in a “tent”, if they [the pieces of the corpse] were divided and brought into the house, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas pronounces [everything under the same roof-space] clean, but the Sages pronounce it unclean. This is an introduction to the mishnah. Here we learn that if two pieces of a dead body smaller than an olive but together the size of an olive are found under one roof, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinos declares that they do not join to impart impurity and the Sages declare that they do join.", + "How so? He who touches as much as two halves of an olive [in quantity] of an animal’s carcass or carries them; or in the case of a [human] corpse, he who touches as much as half an olive and stands over as much as half an olive; or touches as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him; or if he stands over as much as two halves of an olive; or if he stands over as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas pronounces him clean, and the Sages pronounce him unclean. The mishnah now goes over all of the different examples in which the Sages and Rabbi Dosa dispute. A. If one touches or carries two separate pieces of a dead animal, each the size of half an olive. Note that there is no tent impurity caused by dead animals, and therefore this example mentions only carrying and contact. B. If one touches a piece of corpse the size of half an olive and makes a tent, over another piece the same size (rule 4iii above). C. A person forms a tent over two half-olive size pieces of a corpse. D. A person forms a tent over one half-olive size piece of corpse and one half-olive size piece of corpse forms a tent over him. In all of these case Rabbi Dosa declares that the pieces of corpse do not join together.", + "But if he touches as much as half an olive [in quantity] and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive; or if he stood over as much as half an olive and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive, he is clean. In this section are listed two cases where the Sages would agree with Rabbi Dosa that he is pure. A. If one touches a half-olive size piece of corpse and something else forms a tent over him and a half-olive size piece, he is still pure. B. If one forms a tent over a half-olive size piece of corpse, and something else forms a tent over him and another half-olive size piece of corpse, he is still pure. The reason why in this case the Sages declare him pure is that the two types of impurity are of a different nature. When something forms a tent over a person and a piece of corpse that is considered to be tent impurity, whereas when a person forms a tent over a piece of corpse or a piece of corpse forms a tent over him, that is considered contact impurity. In the cases in section two, there were two kinds of contact impurity; hence the two half-olives joined to transmit impurity. In the cases in section three, one piece of corpse transmitted tent impurity and the other contact impurity. Hence the Sages agree that he is pure.", + "Rabbi Meir said: “Also in this case Rabbi Dosa pronounces him clean and the sages pronounce him unclean. In all such cases a man is unclean unless there is an act of touching and also an act of carrying, or an act of carrying and also [the fact of] being under the same roof-space.” Rabbi Meir holds that even in these cases the Sages would declare the person impure, and Rabbi Dosa would say he is pure. Rabbi Meir explains that according to the Sages tent impurity and contact impurity do join. The only type of impurity that does not join is contact impurity with carrying impurity.", + "This is the general rule: in whatever case the means of causing defilement are of one category, he is unclean; if they are of two categories, he is clean.” This is a general rule that summarizes the whole mishnah. Any time there are two pieces of corpse transmitting impurity, they join only if they are transmitting a type of impurity with the same name. According to Rabbi Dosa none of the three types of impurity, tent, carrying and contact join together. According to the first version of the Sages opinion, contact and tent impurity do not join. According to Rabbi Meir, contact and tent impurity join but carrying and contact impurity and carrying and tent impurity do not join. Congratulations! You just learned a very difficult mishnah. If you couldn’t follow all the details do not despair. This was probably one of the most complicated mishnayoth we have seen yet." + ], + [ + "Food which is in separate pieces does not combine together [to receive impurity], according to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. But the Sages say: “It does combines together.” For food to become impure it must be the size of an egg. According to Rabbi Dosa food which is broken up into pieces smaller than the size of an egg does not join to receive impurity, whereas according to the Sages it does.", + "One may exchange [ produce of] second tithe for uncoined metal, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “One may not so exchange it.” The second tithe may be redeemed with money and brought to Jerusalem. According to Rabbi Dosa one may redeem this second tithe even with a coin that does not have a stamp upon it. According to the Sages it must have a stamp. This is learned from Deuteronomy 14:25, which says “money” in connection with second tithe.", + "The hands [alone] need to be immersed for the waters of purification according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “If his hands have become unclean his whole body becomes unclean.” A person whose hands have become impure by touching impure food (but not a corpse, which would cause impurity to the whole body), need only wash his hands before touching the waters of purification which are used to purify someone who has contracted corpse impurity. This is according to Rabbi Dosa. The Sages disagree and say that with regards to touching waters of purification, if his hands are impure his whole body is impure. To become pure he would need to take a ritual bath (mikveh)." + ], + [ + "The insides of a melon and the discarded leaves of a vegetable of terumah: Rabbi Dosa permits [their] use to non-priests, and the Sages forbid it. Terumah, one of the agricultural offerings, may be eaten only by priests. According to Rabbi Dosa, the parts of terumah produce that are not commonly eaten are permitted to non-priests. Since these are not considered food, and the laws of terumah are only applicable to food, these things may be eaten by non-priests. The Sages forbid this. Presumably, according to the Sages since people do occasionally eat these things, the laws of terumah apply to them as well.", + "Five ewes, their fleeces weighing each a mina and a half, are subject to [the law of] the first of the fleece, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “Five ewes [are subject] whatever [their fleeces weigh].” According to Deuteronomy 18:4, the first shearings of a sheep must be given to the priest. In our mishnah Rabbi Dosa and the Sages disagree about the minimum weight of the fleeces of the sheep which would cause them to be subject to these laws. According to Rabbi Dosa a person is not liable to give these shearings to the priest unless he has five female sheep and each fleece weighs a mina and a half, about 150 grams. Less than this is not even considered “shearings”. The Sages disagree. According to them as long as five female sheep are sheared, he must give the first shearings to the priest, no matter what the weight of the wool." + ], + [ + "All mats are [liable to become] impure by “corpse” impurity, the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “[Also by] “midras” impurity. Rabbi Dosa and the Sages disagree with regards to the susceptibility of mats to midras impurity. Midras impurity is a type of impurity which is received by a zav sitting or lying down on an object. Only things that are typically sat on or lied down upon can receive this type of impurity. According to Rabbi Dosa, mats can receive corpse impurity by coming into contact with a dead body, or a part thereof. However, since the mats under discussion are not used for sitting or for lying down, they cannot receive midras impurity. The Sages hold that they can, since they are occasionally used for such a purpose.", + "All network is unsusceptible to impurity except a [network] girdle, the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “They are all liable to uncleanness, except those used by wool dealers [for carrying raw wool].” Network, things made of nets (not computer networks, which I suppose cannot receive impurity), are not considered by Rabbi Dosa to be clothing and therefore they cannot receive impurity. As we learned on several occasions, only things that are formed vessels or clothing can receive impurity. Since network is not really clothing, it cannot receive impurity. The only exception to this rule about things made of nets is a type of girdle which is a piece of clothing and therefore can be made impure. The Sages disagree. They hold that network is considered clothing. The only exception is a bag used by wool dealers to hold wool. Since this is definitely not clothing it cannot be made impure.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• We have now learned several disputes between Rabbi Dosa and the Sages. Do you seen any consistency to their opinions?
• Mishnah four: What modern items might be similar to the mats and network under discussion in this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "A sling whose pocket is woven is susceptible to impurity. If it is of leather, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas pronounces it susceptible to impurity, and the Sages pronounce it not susceptible to impurity. If its finger-hold is broken off, it is not susceptible to impurity; [But if the] string-handle [only] is broken off it is susceptible to impurity. This mishnah discusses when a sling is considered usable and therefore liable to receive impurity. If the pocket is woven, all agree that it is liable to receive impurity. However, if it is of leather, Rabbi Dosa hold that it may not receive impurity. This is based on two rules: 1) a strip of leather must be five handbreadths wide by five handbreadths long in order to receive impurity. Since a sling is not this large, it does not receive impurity due to its size and significance. 2) Rabbi Dosa does not consider the sling to be a “vessel” which inherently is receptive to impurity. The Sages disagree. They hold that a sling is inherently a vessel and therefore the pouch receives impurity no matter what it is made out of and no matter what size its pouch is. If the finger-hold is broken off the sling is unusable, and therefore cannot receive impurity. However, if the string-handle, which is attached to the pouch and is pulled back to throw the rock which is in the sling, is broken, the sling can still receive impurity, since it can be used." + ], + [ + "A female captive may eat of terumah, according to the words of Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas. But the Sages say: “There is a female captive who may eat, and there is a female captive who may not eat. How is this so? The woman who said: ‘I was taken captive but [nonetheless] I am pure’, she may eat; because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit. But if there are witnesses [who declare] that she was made a captive, and she says: ‘[nonetheless] I am pure’, she may not eat.” This mishnah discusses a woman who was married to a priest or an unmarried daughter of a priest who is taken captive. These two types of women, prior to having been taken captive, could certainly have eaten terumah. According to the halakhah, a woman who has had sexual relations, even against her will, with someone with whom it is forbidden to do so, can no longer eat terumah. The issue in our mishnah is, do we assume that a woman who was taken captive by a non-Jew was raped by the non-Jew and therefore can no longer eat terumah. According to Rabbi Dosa, we do not make such an assumption, and she may continue to eat terumah unless there is evidence that she has been raped. According to the Sages, this is not always true. Her ability to eat terumah will depend on the circumstances in which the court found out that she had been taken captive. If she came in front of the court and stated that she had been taken captive but that she was still pure, i.e. she had not been violated by the captor, she may continue to eat terumah. This is due to a legal principle known as “the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit”. It means that if a person makes a statement that is to his own detriment and then makes another related statement to his benefit, he is believed in both statements. Since he could have said nothing, and thereby not aroused any suspicion about himself, he is believed when he exculpates himself from that suspicion. For instance, if Reuven says to Shimon, “this piece of land of mine used to be your father’s but now he sold it to me.” Reuven is admitting that the land he owns was not always his, but he also says that he bought it. Telling Shimon that it was his father’s is “forbidding” it and stating that he bought it is “permitting” it. In our case, if the woman says that she was taken captive, she has “forbidden” herself by creating a suspicion that she may have had relations with the captor. When she says that she did not she is believed. However, if there are witnesses who testify that she had been taken captive, then when she denies having been violated by the captor, she is not believed. Since she did not “forbid” but rather the witnesses did, the rule of “the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit” is not applicable here." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth seven and eight both list cases in which one Sage declares something pure and the other Sages declare it impure.", + "Four cases of doubt Rabbi Joshua pronounces impure, and the Sages pronounce them pure. How is this so? If the impure person stands and the pure person passes by him; or if the pure person stands and the impure person passes by him; or if impurity is in the private domain and something pure is in the public domain; Or if something pure is in the private domain and something impure is in the public domain; If it is doubtful [in all of these case] whether one touched or did not touch the other, or if it is doubtful whether one formed a tent over the other or did not form a tent over the other, or if it is doubtful whether one moved or did not move the other Rabbi Joshua pronounces such a case impure, and the Sages pronounce it pure. In this mishnah are listed four situations in which there is a doubt whether or not the pure person was touched by the impure person, or one of them formed a tent over the other (which would cause impurity to be transmitted, even without contact) or one of them moved the other (which would also transmit impurity, even without contact). In all of these situations Rabbi Joshua rules that the previously pure person is now impure, whereas the Sages hold that he is still pure. The cases are: i + ii) A case where one of the people is moving and one is stationary. In this case Rabbi Joshua pronounces the person impure due to the general rule that doubtful cases of impurity which occur in the private domain are ruled impure. The Sages say that he is pure. Although there is a general rule that doubtful cases of impurity that occur in the private domain are ruled impure, this is true only when the pure and the impure are either both moving or both stationary. If their status is different, then the rule is not applicable. iii + iv) The pure and impure are in different domains, one in the public domain and one in the private domain. According to Rabbi Joshua, since at least one of the two is in the private domain, he is impure, due to the above mentioned rule. According to the Sages, since one is in the public domain, the rule that doubtful cases of impurity in the private domain does not apply." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight contains another case in which one Sage declares something pure and the other Sages declare it impure.", + "Three things Rabbi Zadok pronounces [liable to receive] impurity and the Sages pronounce them not [liable to receive]: The nail of the money-changer; And the chest of grist makers; And the nail of a stone dial. Rabbi Zadok pronounces [liable to receive] impurity and the Sages pronounce them not [liable to receive]. Rabbi Zadok and the Sages disagree with regards to the liability of three items to receive impurity. Again, in order to receive impurity something must be considered “a vessel”, which in the Mishnah can include any manmade usable object which a has a specified purpose to it. According to Rabbi Zadok the items listed in our mishnah fit the definition of “vessel” whereas according to the Sages, they do not. The items are: 1) The nail of a money-changer. According to Maimonides, this was the nail used to hang the scales that the money-changer would use to weigh the money. 2) The chest used by a grist-maker to store the grist. Others explain that this is the nail of a chest used by a grist-maker, which is used to attach the chest to a wagon to bring the grist to market. If this is the correct explanation, then our mishnah lists three different types of nails. 3) The nail used to measure time in a sundial." + ], + [ + "Four things Rabban Gamaliel pronounces susceptible to impurity, and the Sages pronounce them not susceptible to impurity.
The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders;
And the hanger of a strigil;
And metals vessels which are still unshaped;
And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the Sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity.
The next three mishnayoth contain halakhic traditions revolving around Rabban Gamaliel. Mishnah nine continues the pattern of the previous mishnah, of a dispute over which things are susceptible to impurity.
In mishnah eight we learned of three things that Rabbi Zadok declared susceptible to impurity and the Sages not susceptible. In mishnah nine we will learn of the same type of dispute, this time between Rabban Gamaliel and the Sages. Again, they seem to be disputing about how to define when something is a “vessel” such that it is susceptible to impurity. They dispute over four items:
1) The covering of a metal basket which belongs to a householder. In another tractate we learn that there is a difference between this type of covering if it is owned by a doctor. The doctors used these coverings for various uses, and therefore everyone agrees that they are susceptible to impurity. Rabban Gamaliel holds that a covering of this type of basket is used by non-professionals as well, and is therefore susceptible to impurity even if it belongs to a non-professional (a householder). The Sages disagree.
2) The hanger of a strigil. A strigil was a type of comb used during baths to scrape off dead skin. All agree that the strigil itself is susceptible to impurity. They disagree about the small chain attached to the strigil to hang it on a hook. According to Rabban Gamaliel it too is considered a vessel and therefore receives impurity. According to the Sages it does not.
3) Generally speaking, unformed vessels cannot receive impurity. However, when it comes to metal vessels that have not been fully finished, in other words they have not been polished, Rabban Gamaliel holds that they are susceptible to impurity, since they can be used. The Sages insist that as long as they are not fully finished they cannot receive impurity.
According to Rabban Gamaliel, a plate broken in two can still receive impurity. The Sages hold that broken vessels cannot generally speaking receive impurity. However, they agree with Rabban Gamaliel that if one of the pieces was large, that it still can receive impurity, since it is still useful. The small piece cannot receive impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten contains three cases in which Rabban Gamaliel ruled like Beth Shammai.", + "This mishnah lists three cases in which Rabban Gamaliel ruled strictly, as had Beth Shammai. Although later Sages generally ruled like Beth Hillel, there were some exceptions, and some of those are listed in our mishnah.", + "In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai.
One may not wrap up hot food on a festival for the Sabbath; The Torah allows one to cook on the festival but not on the Sabbath. This rule has a limitation: one may cook on the festival only to eat that day, and not to prepare food for later. It is even forbidden to prepare food on a festival for the Sabbath, since that would be considered an insult to the honor of the festival. However, since this was necessary in cases where the Sabbath fell after the festival, the Sages developed something which is known as “eruv tavshilin”. A person would symbolically begin to cook a meal for the Sabbath on the day before the festival. Since he had already begun to cook for the Sabbath, he was allowed to cook other things on the festival for the Sabbath. This is a type of legal fiction still practiced today by halakhic Jews. According to Beth Shammai, if a person must create a separate type of “eruv tavshilin” for each type of cooking he wishes to do: if he wants to bake he must begin baking before the festival; if he wants to boil he must begin boiling before the festival. Rabban Gamaliel rules that it is forbidden to wrap food to make it retain its heat, since that is not part of the “eruv tavshilin” that he had made before the holiday. Beth Hillel would have allowed such an action, since Beth Hillel holds that all one must begin to do is cook a little bit, and that is sufficient to continue to do any cooking activities on the festival.", + "And one may not join together a lamp on a festival; If a lamp made of several parts breaks on the festival, Rabban Gamaliel forbids one to fix it, since this is a type of “building” which is forbidden on the Sabbath. Beth Hillel holds that there is no prohibition of “building” with regards to erecting vessels, and therefore this is permitted.", + "And one may not bake [on festivals] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.” Rabban Gamaliel holds that it is forbidden to bake large loaves on a festival, and that only thin loaves are permitted. This is meant to prevent one from making too much bread on the festival, lest he make some for after the festival. Beth Hillel holds that it is permitted to bake large loaves, since bread cooks better when the oven is full. The final section of the mishnah contains some interaction between Rabban Gamaliel and the other Sages, who hold like Beth Hillel. Rabban Gamaliel testifies that his father’s house indeed acted in this manner, and only baked wafer-cakes on the festival. The other Sages accept this testimony of Rabban Gamaliel as being an accurate description of what Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house used to do, but they understand its significance differently. The Sages say that Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house was strict upon themselves, but allowed the rest of Israel to cook large loaves, even charcoal roasted loaves which are very difficult to make. The strict actions of Rabban Gamaliel’s fathers house were only meant for themselves and were not meant to set precedent for everyone else." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah ten we learned of three cases where Rabban Gamaliel was strict like Beth Shammai. In mishnah eleven we will learn three cases where he adopted a more lenient position than the other Sages.", + "Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character:
One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches, In the time of the Mishnah, during formal meals people would recline on couches on the ground and eat off personal tables which were more like trays. According to Rabban Gamaliel one can sweep up between the couches after the meal on a festival. The Sages forbid this for fear that one might fill in a hole that is in the floor, which could be considered a form of building, which is forbidden on the Sabbath.", + "And put spices [on the coals] on a festival; Cooking food is allowed on a festival (but not on the Sabbath). Rabban Gamaliel allowed people to put spices on coals, which would make a pleasant scent. Even though this is not cooking food, it is permitted since it is still a bodily pleasure. The Sages forbid doing so since not all people are equally accustomed to put spices on coals after a meal.", + "And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them. When there was a Temple in Jerusalem, people would roast kids (lambs, not the human kind) as Passover sacrifices on the day before Passover and eat them at night. When the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. sacrifices could no longer be offered. Nevertheless, Rabban Gamaliel permitted people to make roasted kids at their own seders. The other Sages forbid this, lest someone think that they were eating sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allows three things and the Sages forbid them:
His cow used to go out with the strap which she had between her horns;
One may curry cattle on a festival;
And one may grind pepper in its own mill.
Rabbi Judah says: one may not curry cattle on a festival, because it may cause a wound, but one may comb them.
But the Sages say: one may not curry them, and one may not even comb them.
Mishnah twelve contains three cases where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was more lenient than the other Sages.
Section one: It is forbidden to carry things in the public domain on the Sabbath. This is true even for a person’s animal, since it is forbidden to make one’s animal perform work on the Sabbath. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allowed his cow to go out with a strap between its horns, since this strap was only an adornment and therefore he did not consider it “work”. In the same way a person can wear clothing in the public domain and that is not considered carrying. However, the Sages forbid cows from carrying anything, since most cows do not do so. Furthermore, if others were to see this they would think that it is permitted for an animal to work on the Sabbath.
Section two: Rabbi Eleazar permits a person to curry an animal on the festival, even though that might cause a wound. Currying is a type of combing done with a sharp metal comb. Rabbi Eleazar permits this activity since even if he causes a wound he did not intend to do so and unintentionally performed work is permitted on the Sabbath. In section four, Rabbi Judah states that currying is forbidden since it will cause a wound, but combing with a wooden comb is permitted since it will not cause a wound. In section five the Sages state that even combing is forbidden, lest by permitting combing one might assume that currying is also permitted.
Section three: Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah permits the grinding of peppercorns on the Sabbath, even in grinders made for grinding large quantities of peppercorns. Although this is a large amount of work, and it is clear that most of the pepper will not be used on that day, Rabbi Eleazar nevertheless permits. The Sages forbid this. According to them, one may grind peppercorns only in small quantities with a mortar and pestle, since grinding more than this would be allowing one to prepare food on the festival for a week day, which is forbidden." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis entire chapter contains cases where Beth Shammai was lenient and Beth Hillel was strict. Generally speaking the opposite is true, hence these are exceptional cases.\nMost of the examples in these mishnayoth are from the laws concerning festivals. There is a halakhic concept in Judaism called “muktzeh”. There are many forms of “muktzeh”; I will explain the one form germane to these two mishnayoth. [For more information you can look at the Steinsaltz reference guide]. Anything consumed on Shabbat or a festival has to have been available before the day begins. This “availability” must be both physical and mental. In other words the thing must have been physically available before the day began and the person must have known the day before that he might use the object during the Sabbath or festival. Anything that is not available before the day began is considered “muktzeh”. We will see some examples as we proceed.", + "The following cases are [examples] of the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and of the rigorous rulings of Beth Hillel.
An egg which is laid on a festival Beth Shammai says: it may be eaten, and Beth Hillel says: it may not be eaten. An egg which is laid on a festival is considered by Beth Hillel to be “muktzeh” something which was not available to be consumed on the eve of the festival and therefore is forbidden on the festival itself. Beth Shammai holds that since the chicken was available on the eve of the festival, the egg is as well, for if the person had slaughtered the chicken he could have eaten the egg inside.", + "Beth Shammai says: yeast as much as an olive [in quantity], and leavened food as much as a date, and Beth Hillel says: as much as an olive [in quantity] in both cases. On Passover it is forbidden to eat either leavened products or the leaven itself, which is yeast. According to Beth Shammai if one eats as a much as olive’s worth of yeast or a date’s worth of leavened food, he is liable for having transgressed the laws of Passover. Beth Hillel holds that in both cases one who eats an olive’s worth is liable. Note that smaller amounts are not permitted either. A smaller amount is still forbidden but one who consumes a smaller amount has not transgressed the Biblical prohibition of eating yeast or leavened food on Passover." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues the subject of yesterday’s mishnah, muktzeh.", + "A beast which was born on a festival all agree that it is permitted; and a chicken which was hatched from the egg all agree that it is forbidden. This section contains an elaboration of the dispute that was in the first section of the previous mishnah. There we saw that a dispute with regards to an egg born on a festival: Beth Shammai permitted its consumption and Beth Hillel forbid. In this mishnah we learn that there are two other similar instances where the two houses do not disagree. They both hold that a beast that was born on a festival is permitted. Although the beast was not born before the festival, and therefore might have been thought to be “muktzeh”, it in reality was available since if the mother had been slaughtered, the unborn young could have been eaten as well. The two houses also agree that a chicken hatched on the festival is forbidden. Even though Beth Shammai permits an egg that is laid, the chicken that is hatched is different because it was still in its shell the day before. Unlike the beast which was in its mother who could have been slaughtered and eaten, the chicken was not part of another animal that could have been eaten.", + "He who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a festival Beth Shammai says: he may dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood] , but Beth Hillel says: he may not slaughter unless he has had earth made ready. But they agree that if he did slaughter he should dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood, and] that the ashes of a stove count as being prepared for the holiday. According to Leviticus 17:13, when one slaughters an undomesticated animal or any type of foul the blood must be poured out of the animal and covered with earth. One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or foul on the festival has a problem. Although it is permitted to slaughter if he doesn’t have any prepared earth to cover the blood, newly dug earth is “muktzeh” and cannot be used. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai permits one to dig up new earth and cover the blood. Beth Hillel says one cannot slaughter unless one has earth already prepared. However, they all agree that if he had already slaughtered the animal, even though Beth Hillel says he should not have done so without already prepared earth, he may still dig new earth to cover the blood. This is because the principle of “muktzeh” is only rabbinically ordained and the obligation to cover the blood is Biblical. When one has two competing commandments, one rabbinic and one Biblical, the latter takes precedence. The two houses also agree that the ashes in the oven are considered prepared for the festival, in other words they are not “muktzeh”. Since people used these ashes for different purposes, we can make the assumption that before the festival began he knew in his mind that he would use these ashes." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe Mishnah continues to bring disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, in which Beth Shammai took the lenient position.", + "Beth Shammai says: [produce pronounced] ownerless with respect to the poor [only] is counted as ownerless. But Beth Hillel says: it is not counted as ownerless unless it is made ownerless also with respect to the rich, as in the year of release (. This section discusses the process whereby a person announces that something he owns is legally ownerless. One of the important consequences of such an action is that if the item is a food product he need not separate tithes before he eats it. In other words if a person has some produce he may pronounce it ownerless and eat from it without tithing. Of course, he runs the risk of having other people come and take it from him. According to Beth Shammai one could partially pronounce his produce ownerless by declaring that only the poor may partake of it. Beth Hillel disagrees and says that pronouncing something legally ownerless must be complete. Beth Hillel learns this from the precedent set by the laws of the “year of release”, or the shmittah (seventh) year. During the seventh year all produce grown in the fields is ownerless and anyone may enter any field and eat from it, both rich and poor. Beth Hillel says that just as seventh year produce is ownerless and available to anyone, so too all produce must be available to all.", + "If all the sheaves of the field were of one kav each and one was of four kavs, and it was forgotten, Beth Shammai says: it does not count as forgotten, And Beth Hillel says: it counts as forgotten. There are a number of agricultural rights given by the Torah to the poor. One of them is the right to collect the harvested sheaves forgotten in a field (Deuteronomy 24:19). The dispute here is over the definition of a forgotten sheaf. According to Beth Shammai if all of the sheaves were one kav in volume and the forgotten sheaf was four times that size, and he left the large sheaf in the field, it is not considered forgotten. The reason is that four separate sheaves that are left together are not considered to be forgotten. In other words, if four separate sheaves are left in a field we can assume that the owner never came to collect them, and not that he came to collect them and left them behind. Beth Shammai says that if one sheaf is the size of four sheaves of that field we can consider it to be four separate sheaves and it is not considered forgotten. Beth Hillel holds that since it is really only one sheaf, we can assume that he did forget it, and hence it already belongs to the poor." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe Mishnah continues to bring disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, in which Beth Shammai took the lenient position.", + "A sheaf which was close to a wall or to a stack or to the herd or to [field] utensils, and was forgotten, Beth Shammai says: it does not count as forgotten, And Beth Hillel says: it counts as forgotten. This mishnah continues to discuss the definition of “forgotten”. According to Beth Shammai, if one left a sheaf close to a specific item, we can assume that he intended to go back and get the sheaf, and that is why he left it close to that item. In this case he may go back and collect it at a later time. Beth Hillel does consider this sheaf to be forgotten and therefore it belongs to the poor.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• From whose perspective is Beth Shammai lenient in these mishnayoth? Why does the editor of the Mishnah consider them lenient and Beth Hillel strict?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah contains several disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regards to the status of the fruit of a vineyard in its fourth year, which according to Leviticus 19:24 must be “set aside”. The Rabbis teach that this fruit is similar to second tithe and that both may be consumed by their owners only in Jerusalem. In our mishnah Beth Shammai says that despite some similarities to second tithe there are some key differences. Beth Hillel teaches that they are completely the same.", + "A vineyard of the fourth year Beth Shammai says: it is not subject to the law of the fifth nor to the law of removal. And Beth Hillel says: it is subject to the law of the fifth and to the law of removal. The fruit of a vineyard in its fourth year is treated similar to second tithe. Both must be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. If it is too far or too difficult to carry the actual fruit to Jerusalem one may redeem it for money and bring the money to Jerusalem and use it to buy food there. When second tithe is redeemed for money, a person must add one-fifth the value of the produce being redeemed. According to Beth Shammai, when one redeems the fruit of fourth year vineyard he does not need to add the fifth. According to Beth Hillel he does, just as he does with second tithe. Before Passover on the fourth and seventh years of a seven year (shmittah) cycle, one must remove all of the tithes from one’s house. This is called the “law of removal”. According to Beth Shammai the law does not apply to the removal of the fruit of a fourth year vineyard. According to Beth Hillel it does.", + "Beth Shammai says: it is subject to the law of fallen grapes and to the law of gleanings, and the poor redeem them for themselves. And Beth Hillel says: all of it goes to the winepress. According to Leviticus 19:10 one is not allowed to pick bare the fruit of a vineyard nor collect the fallen fruit. Rather these must be left for the poor. According to Beth Shammai these rules still apply for the fourth year vineyard. When the poor person has collected his share, he must redeem it himself and bring the money to Jerusalem and use it there to buy food. According to Beth Hillel fourth year produce is not subject to the laws of what must be left to the poor. Just as second tithe is not subject to the laws of what must be left for the poor, so too fourth year produce is not." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah contains two disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, the first over the impurity of olives inside a barrel and the second over the impurity of the oil dripping off a person who had entered the mikveh (ritual bath).", + "A barrel of pickled olives: Beth Shammai says: one need not perforate it, And Beth Hillel say: one must perforate it. But they agree that if it was perforated and the dregs stopped it up, it is not liable to receive impurity. Leviticus 11:38 teaches that food cannot receive impurity unless it has come into contact with water. The Rabbis taught that not only water but other liquids as well can cause food to become receptive to impurity. However, if the owner of the food did not wish the liquid to touch his food the liquid does not cause the food to become receptive to impurity. In this section of our mishnah Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regards to the liquid that oozes out of olives that have been pickled in salt. Everyone agrees that this liquid is not desired by the owner; all he wants are the edible olives. However, according to Beth Hillel the owner must put a hole in the barrel to let the liquid seep out in order to make it clear that he does not want the liquid. If he does not do so the olives will be made receptive to impurity by the liquid which oozes out of them. Beth Shammai does not require one to put this hole. According to them we can generally assume that a person does not want such liquids and therefore they do not cause food to become receptive to impurity. Both houses agree that if one put a hole in the barrel and then it was closed up by the dregs that the olives are not receptive to impurity. Since he put a hole in the barrel he has made it clear that he does not want the liquids inside and therefore their contact with the olives do not cause the olives to receive impurity.", + "One who had anointed himself with clean oil and [then] became unclean, and he went down and immersed himself, Beth Shammai says: although he still drips [oil], it is clean. And Beth Hillel says: [only while there remains] enough for anointing a small limb. And if from the beginning it was unclean oil, Beth Shammai says: [it is unclean as long as there remains] enough for anointing a small limb, And Beth Hillel says: [even if there remains as much] as a moist liquid. (4) Rabbi Judah says in the name of Beth Hillel: [provided it remains] moist [itself] and [can also] moisten [other things]. The first part of this section discusses one who anoints himself with pure oil and then becomes impure. [Anointing with oil was part of the bathing process]. If he enters the mikveh (ritual bath) to purify himself, according to Beth Shammai, he also purifies any remaining oil on his body. Although oil is cannot generally be made pure through a mikveh, in this case the oil becomes pure by being part of his body, which does become pure. Beth Hillel holds that if there is only enough oil remaining on his body to anoint a small limb, it is pure. In this case we can say that the oil is not of significance in and of itself and therefore is part of the body. However, if there is more than that, it is impure. If the oil was impure from the outset, and then the person became impure through another source of impurity (the oil itself cannot cause the person to become impure), and went into the mikveh, then both houses are stricter with regards to the purity of the oil remaining on his body. According to Beth Shammai if only enough remains to anoint a small limb, it is pure. If more remains it is impure. According to Beth Hillel if enough remains to moisten the hand that touches the oil, it is impure; if less, then it is pure. Rabbi Judah teaches a different version of Beth Hillel’s words. According to him if enough remains to moisten the hand that touches the oil and to moisten another area as well, it is impure.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Why are both houses stricter in the second case (where the oil was impure before he anointed himself with it) than they are in the first (where it only became impure when he became impure)?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues listing the leniencies of Beth Shammai. The issues listed in our mishnah are from the realm of marital law.", + "A woman is betrothed by a denar or the value of a denar, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: by a perutah or the value of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar. There are two stages in the Jewish marital process: kiddushin (betrothal) and nisuin (marriage). We will learn these laws more extensively when we learn Seder Nashim. For now I will merely mention that kiddushin creates a stronger bond than secular engagement does in our day. In order to separate from Jewish betrothal there is a need for a full divorce. One of the ways of contracting betrothal is for the man to give something of value to a woman. Today this is usually performed with a ring, a custom not mentioned in the Mishnah or even in the Talmud. According to Beth Shammai, the minimum amount that a man had to give a woman was a denar. While it is hard to know how much a denar was worth at those times, it probably was not more than a day’s wages, and maybe even less. Beth Hillel holds that a man can give a woman an even lesser amount, even one perutah, which was worth almost nothing.", + "Beth Shammai says: one may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorcement, But Beth Hillel forbids it. What is an old bill of divorcement? Whenever he was secluded with her after he has written it for her. This section discusses a man who writes a get (a divorce bill) for his wife but is secluded with her before he gives it to her (the divorce is not effective until she receives the get). If he had relations with her at this time, the get would nullified and in order to divorce her he would have to write a new get. Beth Shammai says that even though they were secluded we don’t suspect that they had relations and therefore, he may still give her the previously written get. Beth Hillel does suspect that they had relations, and therefore obligates the man to write a new get, if he wishes to divorce his wife.", + "One who divorces his wife and she [afterwards] spends a night with him at the [same] inn: Beth Shammai says: she does not require a second bill of divorcement from him. But Beth Hillel says: she requires a second bill of divorcement from him. When [does she require a second bill of divorcement]? (4) When she was divorced after marriage. ( But if she was divorced after betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of divorcement, since he is not [yet] familiar with her. This section discusses a similar incidence, except in this case the couple was already divorced before they were secluded. The question is did they have relations while secluded? If they did they may be betrothed, since sexual relations is one of the ways in which betrothal may be contracted (see Kiddushin 1:1). According to Beth Shammai we do not suspect that they had relations, and therefore she doesn’t need a new get from her former husband (the new get would allow her to marry someone else). Beth Hillel fears that they did have relations, and therefore she needs a new get if she wishes to marry someone else. The final clause limits this ruling of Beth Hillel to a couple that was already married. Since they were already sexually familiar with each other, we suspect that they may have again had sexual relations while they were at the inn. However, if the couple had been divorced before they were married, while they were still betrothed, there had not been sexual familiarity between them and therefore Beth Hillel does not suspect that they had relations while secluded. In this case Beth Hillel would agree with Beth Shammai that they do not need a get.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Why are these leniencies of Beth Shammai? To whom is Beth Shammai lenient?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a dispute in the laws of levirate marriage between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. We will learn these laws more fully when we learn tractate Yevamoth.", + "Beth Shammai permits the rival wives [of a deceased brother to be married] to the [surviving] brothers; But Beth Hillel forbids them. This mishnah describes a complicated situation which we will first explain. Reuven and Shimon are brothers. Leah and Rachel are sisters. Reuven marries Leah and Devorah (who is not related to anyone). Shimon marries Rachel. If Reuven should die without children one of his wives needs to either marry Shimon (levirate marriage) or have the ceremony of release (halitzah) performed. Shimon cannot marry Leah, since he is already married to her sister, Rachel, and it is forbidden for one man to marry sisters. According to Beth Shammai, although Leah cannot marry Shimon, Devorah, Leah’s rival wife from her marriage to Reuven, can. According to Beth Hillel, since Leah was forbidden, Devorah is also forbidden. If Shimon were to marry Devorah this would be considered the forbidden relationship of marrying a brother’s wife, which is only permitted when necessitated by levirate marriage. [Note: it is forbidden to marry a brother’s wife even after the brother is dead].", + "If they have performed halitzah, Beth Shammai pronounce them unfit to [marry into] the priesthood, But Beth Hillel pronounced them fit. If Shimon should perform halitzah for Devorah, according to Beth Shammai she is now truly a halutzah, a woman had been released from levirate marriage. Since halutzoth are forbidden to subsequently marry priests, Devorah cannot marry a priest. According to Beth Hillel, this halitzah was not necessary, since there was no necessity for levirate marriage in this case. Therefore Devorah is not considered a halutzah, and she may subsequently marry a priest.", + "If they have married their brother-in-law, Beth Shammai pronounce them fit [to marry into the priesthood], But Beth Hillel pronounced them unfit. If Shimon should marry Devorah and then die, according to Beth Shammai she could now marry a priest. Shimon’s marriage to Devorah was legal and therefore she has not been rendered unfit to marry a priest by having engaged in a forbidden relationship. Her status is that of a twice-widowed women. [Note: widows may marry priests.] According to Beth Hillel, since Shimon’s marriage to Devorah was illegal, she is unfit to subsequently marry into the priesthood. [Note: any woman who has had an illicit sexual relationship cannot subsequently marry a priest. This includes incestual and adulterous relationships.]", + "And although these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Shammai. The last two sections of this mishnah are amongst the most powerful statements of pluralism in the Rabbinic tradition. Up until now we have learned of serious and consequential disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. The marital laws of the two houses are substantially different: what one house accepts the other rejects. As a consequence of these different laws, Beth Shammai will consider some children born according to the rules of Beth Hillel to be mamzerim who are forbidden for regular Israelites to marry. The same is true for Beth Hillel with regards to the women of Beth Shammai. Nevertheless, scholars of neither house refrained from marrying the women of the other house. So important to them was the unity of Israel, that when it came to marriage they put aside their differences and intermarried.", + "And in the case of all matters of purity and impurity in respect to which these pronounce pure and these pronounce impure, they did not refrain from preparing foods requiring a condition of purity each by means of [the vessels of] the other. The same is true with regards to the laws of purity. Although we have learned many disputes with regards to these laws, Beth Shammai would prepare its food with vessels used by those from Beth Hillel, and vice versa.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• In what situations would a member of Beth Hillel theoretically not be able to marry a daughter of Beth Shammai and vice versa?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to list disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regards to the laws of levirate marriage.\nIn order to understand this mishnah it is important to understand one issue about how levirate marriage works. When a woman’s husband dies without children she must either marry her brother-in-law or be released from marriage by him. According to the laws of the Torah, this marriage does not require prior betrothal. Rather it is consummated in one step: sexual relations. However, the Rabbis instituted that the brother-in-law should first betroth her. This betrothal is called maamar.", + "[In the case of] three brothers, of whom two were married to two sisters and one was unmarried, if one of the husbands of the sisters died and the unmarried one betrothed her (, and afterwards his other brother died, Beth Shammai says: his wife remains with him, and the other [widow] is released on the grounds of [the law forbidding] the wife’s sister. But Beth Hillel says: he should put away his wife with a get and halitzah, and the wife of his brother [he should put away] with halitzah. This is the case of which they said: woe to him because of his wife, and woe to him because of his brother’s wife! If you thought the last case was complicated, it now gets even worse! In this mishnah there are three brothers, Reuven, Shimon and Levi. Reuven and Shimon were married to Leah and Rachel who are sisters and Levi is unmarried. When either Reuven and Shimon dies Levi performs maamar, betrothal in the case of levirate marriage, with one of the sisters. At this point the other brother dies. The other sister should according to the laws of levirate marriage, also marry Levi. This is a problem because the other brother has already betrothed, although not married this woman’s sister. It is also somewhat of a problem for Levi to consummate the marriage with the first widowed sister since her sister is also bound to Levi by her need for levirate marriage or halitzah. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai rules that Levi may marry the first sister. The second widowed sister does not need either halitzah or levirate marriage, since she is forbidden to Levi who is married to her sister. In other words, according to Beth Shammai although Levi only performed “maamar” with the first sister, the bond created is strong enough to exempt the second sister from halitzah or levirate marriage to Levi. Beth Hillel disagrees. According to them maamar is not as strong as full marriage. Therefore Levi must perform two ceremonies in order to release the first widow: 1) he must divorce her to untie the bond created by the maamar; 2) he must perform halitzah to untie the bond created by her being his dead brother’s wife. The second widow also requires halitzah. The mishnah ends with what must have been a popular saying, although not necessarily said strictly in this circumstance. This is truly a sorry case for both Levi, who loses both women, and for his wife (the first widow) and for his (dead) brother’s wife as well.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
In what other circumstance might the saying at the end of the mishnah been stated?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains four more disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. The first one continues to deal with marital law. The second one deals with laws of giving birth. The final two deal with other areas of law.", + "One who takes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife: Beth Shammai says: [after] two weeks [he must divorce her and pay her kethubah], And Beth Hillel say: after one week. According to the Rabbis, a husband is obligated to have sexual relations with his wife at regular intervals (see Ketuboth 5:6). If he takes a vow not to have relations with his wife, Beth Shammai says that after two weeks she can sue him for divorce and she will be able to collect her kethubah (marriage payment). Beth Hillel is stricter on the husband and gives him only one week.", + "A woman has a miscarriage on the eve of the eighty first [day]: Beth Shammai exempt her from bringing the offering, And Beth Hillel do not exempt her. According to Leviticus 12:5-6, a woman must bring a sacrifice 80 days after having given birth to a daughter. In other words, she brings a sacrifice on the 81st day. If she should become pregnant again during these 80 days, and have a miscarriage, the she need not bring another sacrifice for her miscarriage. [Generally she would have to bring a sacrifice for a miscarriage, just as she does for a live birth]. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regards to a woman who has a miscarriage on the night preceding the 81st day, the day she should have brought a sacrifice for the first birth. Beth Shammai rules that since she could not have brought a sacrifice at night, she is still within the 80 days, and she is exempt from bringing an additional sacrifice for the miscarriage. Beth Hillel rules that since the 80 days have been completed, she must bring a sacrifice for the miscarriage as well as one for the previous birth.", + "[With regards to the rules of] tzitzit ( on linen sheet: Beth Shammai exempts, And Beth Hillel does not exempt. This mishnah deals with the obligation to put fringes (tzitzit) on a linen sheet. There are two reasons why Beth Shammai exempts one from doing so: 1) a sheet is not a piece of clothing. Deuteronomy 22:12 specifically states that the fringes must be put on clothing. 2) The sheet is made of linen and tzitzit are made of wool. According to Deuteronomy 22:11 it is forbidden to mix wool and linen. Beth Hillel rules that one should put the fringes on the sheet for two reasons: 1) The sheet may be worn as a piece of clothing; 2) The commandment to put fringes on clothing supersedes the prohibition of mixing linen and wool.", + "A basket of [fruit set aside for] the Sabbath: Beth Shammai exempts it [from tithes]. And Beth Hillel does not exempt it. This mishnah deals with who has put aside a basket of fruit for Shabbat but wishes to snack from the basket before Shabbat. This snacking is not considered a fixed meal, and in general one may “snack” from produce before it has been tithed. However, this is not true on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath it is forbidden to eat any produce that has not been tithed. According to Beth Shammai one may eat the fruit of this basket before the Sabbath. Although on the Sabbath itself it will be forbidden to do so since it has not been tithed (and cannot be tithed on the Sabbath), before the Sabbath it is still permitted. Beth Hillel forbids. According to them, setting aside something for the Sabbath makes it forbidden to eat from it until it has been tithed.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How did these four disputes come to be strung together? Can you find some link between each section and the preceding one?
• Section one: If a man is obligated to have regular sexual relations with his wife, why doesn’t he have to divorce her immediately if he takes such a vow not to perform his duty?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn order to understand this mishnah we must first explain some laws concerning the nazirite. One who takes a vow to be a nazirite (see Numbers 6) is forbidden to do three things: 1) cut his hair; 2) drink wine or any grape products; 3) become impure. If a nazirite should become impure during his naziriteship, he must begin to count the days of his naziriteship again.\nAccording to the Rabbis one who takes a vow of naziriteship without specifying the length of the naziriteship is a nazirite for thirty days. If he specifies more than thirty days than he is a nazirite for that specified period. If he specifies less than thirty days, he is still a nazirite for thirty days. Thirty days is the minimum period that one can be a nazirite.\nIf one took a vow of naziriteship outside the land of Israel, he will have trouble observing his vow, because the Rabbis ruled that land outside of Israel imparts impurity. Since he is impure merely by being outside of Israel, he cannot truly keep his vow. Nevertheless the Rabbis said that he must observe his naziriteship outside of Israel, and then later when he arrives in Israel, observe another naziriteship. In our mishnah Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regards to how long he must be a nazirite when he arrives in Israel.", + "One who vowed [to keep] a longer naziriteship [than ordinary] and he completed his naziriteship and afterwards came to the [holy] land: Beth Shammai says: [he must be] a nazirite [only] thirty days, But Beth Hillel says: [he must be] a nazirite [the full time vowed as] in the beginning. If while living outside of the land of Israel one took a vow of naziriteship, and specified a period of over thirty days, when he afterwards comes to Israel, he must, according to Beth Shammai, observe only another thirty days of naziriteship. Since the impurity of land outside of Israel is only of Rabbinic (derabanan) ordinance and is not of the higher Toraitic status (deoraitta), Beth Shammai is lenient. Although his original vow was of greater length, he need observe only thirty days, the minimum length of naziriteship, when he arrives in the Holy Land. Beth Hillel holds that he must observe the full length of his original naziriteship.", + "One who has two groups of witnesses who testify about him, these testifying that he vowed two naziriteships and these testifying that he vowed five: Beth Shammai says: their testimony is divided, and there is no [obligation to perform] naziriteship. But Beth Hillel says: within the five, two are included, so that he must be a nazirite twice. If there are two groups of witnesses testifying that a certain man took several vows to be a nazirite, one group claiming that he took five vows to be a nazirite and therefore should observe 150 days of naziriteship, and the other group of witnesses testifying that he took two vows, and therefore should observe 60 days of naziriteship, according to Beth Shammai the testimony has been contradicted and there is no evidence that he is a nazirite. This person would therefore not be obligated to be a nazirite at all. According to Beth Hillel, since all of the witnesses agree that he took at least two vows, he must observe two periods of naziriteship.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Do you think there is significance to the mishnah’s using the numbers five and two, as opposed to three and four or any other smaller discrepancy between the two testimonies?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the final mishnah in the long list of mishnayoth that list the disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.", + "A man who was set beneath the gap: Beth Shammai says: he does not cause the impurity to pass over. But Beth Hillel says: a man is hollow, and the upper side causes the impurity to pass over. This mishnah, which is also found in tractate Ohalot 11:3, deals with a situation explained there in mishnah two. The situation is that there is a portico, a semi-covered courtyard, which is surrounded by pillars and on one side is a house. The portico is covered but the walls are open in three directions. This roof would normally cause tent impurity to be imparted to anything under the roof. In other words, if there was a source of impurity (such as a dead body) under the roof and a live person, or vessels under the same roof, the live person and vessels would be impure. The previous mishnah to our mishnah in Ohalot deals with a case where there is a crack in the roof. The impurity does not pass from one side of the crack to the other. Therefore if there is a dead body on one side and vessels on another, the vessels are not impure. The dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel is about a case when a person was lying on the ground, directly under the crack. According to Beth Shammai, this person does not bridge the crack in the roof above, and the vessels which are on the opposite side remain pure. Beth Hillel holds that since the body of a person is considered to be hollow, the roof of his abdomen bridges the gap created by the crack and brings the impurity over to the other side.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Do you think it would make a difference if the crack did not go the whole length of the roof?
• Would this same law be true if there were cracks in a house?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter five continues to list disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in which Beth Shammai were more lenient. The difference between these lists and those in the previous chapter is that in this chapter individual Sages state the lists as opposed the lists in the previous chapter which were not ascribed to anyone in particular. The first mishnah is Rabbi Judah’s list. It contains six disputes.", + "Rabbi Judah says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.
The blood of a carcass: Beth Shammai pronounces it clean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it unclean. Everyone holds that the flesh of a carcass (an animal which was not properly slaughtered) is impure. Beth Shammai holds that the blood of a carcass is not like the flesh, and it is not impure, whereas Beth Hillel holds that it is impure.", + "An egg found in a [bird’s] carcass: if the like of it were sold in the market, it is permitted, and if not, it is forbidden, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. And Beth Hillel forbids it. But they agree in the case of an egg found in a trefa [bird] that it is forbidden since it had its growth in a forbidden condition. 3+4) The blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of purity of a leprous woman: Beth Shammai pronounces clean; And Beth Hillel says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. If an egg is found in the carcass of a bird, the question arises, can one eat the egg? The bird is forbidden, but we need to know is the egg still part of the bird, in which case it too is forbidden, or is it a separate entity, in which case it is permitted. According to Beth Shammai, if this egg is fully-formed such that it is similar to eggs sold in the market, it is a separate entity and is permitted. Beth Hillel states that the egg is forbidden in any case. The mishnah notes that the two houses agree in the case of an egg found in a “trefah” that it is forbidden. A “trefah” is an animal suffering from a wound or illness that will cause it to die within 12 months. Since the egg grew in an animal that was definitely going to be forbidden to eat, even if it was slaughtered properly, the egg is forbidden. The egg which was found in the carcass of the dead bird, had the potential to be a kosher egg, and therefore, according to Beth Shammai, if the egg was fully formed, it is permitted to eat.", + "One may eat fruits of the seventh year with an expression of thanks and without an expression of thanks [to the owner of the field], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: one may not eat with an expression of thanks. Sections three and four: This section discusses the purity of the menstrual or gonorrheal blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of a gonorrheal Jewish woman during the first 40 days (for a boy) or 80 days (for a girl) after giving birth. According to Rabbinic law, fluids flowing from gentiles are impure. However, Beth Shammai argues that this is only with regards to their spit and urine, fluids which are always present. The decree of the Rabbis that their fluids are impure does not apply to their blood flows. With regards to the gonorrheal Jewish woman, she is normally impure. However, the blood flow of women is always pure during this period after childbirth. Beth Shammai says that the blood of a gonorrheal woman is also pure. Beth Hillel says that the blood flows of both of these women is like their urine and spit: they are all impure.", + "During the Sabbatical year all of the produce grown in the fields is considered ownerless, and may be eaten by anyone. Beth Shammai holds that when one eats such produce one may express his thanks to the owner of the field, or one may not choose not to express thanks. Beth Hillel holds that one may not express thanks to the owner of the field. These fruits are ownerless; giving thanks to the owner of the field may give people the impression that he is the one giving them, whereas in truth it is the Torah’s laws which have given them to the person eating. [I have explained the mishnah according to some versions of the text, which Albeck believes are correct.]", + "As we have stated many times, a vessel cannot receive impurity unless it is functional. Our mishnah discusses a waterskin. According to Beth Shammai, the waterskin receives impurity only if it is tied up and standing upright, so that it will retain the water which is inside. Beth Hillel holds that as long as it is upright, it need not be tied up to receive impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah Rabbi Yose lists six cases in which Beth Shammai ruled more leniently than did Beth Hillel.", + "Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.
A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. It is forbidden to place on one table both meat and cheese, lest by accident one come to eat them together. According to Beth Shammai this prohibition is with regards to meat (cow, lamb, sheep) only. Since eating fowl together with dairy is not forbidden according to the Torah, as is eating milk and meat, but rather fowl and dairy are forbidden only by Rabbinic law, the Rabbis were not so strict as to prevent one from putting them together on the same table. Beth Hillel says that even chicken and cheese are forbidden to be put on one table.", + "Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. According to Beth Shammai, if a person has olive oil and raw olives, or wine and grapes from which he needs to separate terumah (which goes to the priest), he may give from the raw fruits (olives or grapes) and have that count as the terumah for the finished products (olive oil or wine). Although these things are in different form, since they are of the same type, one may give terumah from one for the other. Beth Hillel says that one may not do so.", + "One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. According to Deuteronomy 22:9 it is forbidden to plant a vineyard with other types of seed. If one does neither may be used. The Rabbis stated that one must leave four cubits between the vineyard and the planting of the seed. If one plants within this four cubits, according to Beth Shammai the fruit of the first row of the vineyard, the one next to the planted seeds, is forbidden to eat. According to Beth Hillel two rows are forbidden.", + "Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. According to Numbers 15:19 the first yield of bread baking must be given to the priests. This is called “hallah”, and it is observed by separating some of the dough and giving it to the priests. Our mishnah discusses flour that has been mixed with boiling water and thereby cooked with water instead of being baked. According to Beth Shammai since it was not baked it is exempt from the laws of hallah. Beth Hillel says that it is subject to these laws, and therefore one must give part of it to the priest.", + "One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. Ritual baths are usually taken in a bath of water that is at least 40 seahs large. According to Beth Shammai, one may also bathe in a flow of rainwater, flowing down from the mountains. Although there is not 40 seahs in the specific place where he bathes, since from the beginning of the torrent up in the mountains, until its end in the valley there are certainly 40 seahs, he may make use of it as a ritual bath (mikveh). Beth Hillel says that he may not.", + "One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave. This mishnah discusses a new convert’s eating the Passover sacrifice, which cannot be eaten in a state of impurity. If he converted on the eve of Passover, according to Beth Shammai he may immerse and eat of the Passover sacrifice that very evening. According to Beth Shammai the convert is only impure by minor impurities, which dissipate at nightfall if the person took a ritual bath. However, Beth Hillel says that one who has just left the uncircumcised, meaning he was just circumcised, is like one who separates from the grave and is impure like one who came into contact with a dead body. This impurity lasts seven days, and therefore, one who converted on the eve of Passover will not be able to eat his Passover sacrifice that evening." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains Rabbi Yishmael’s list of three instances in which Beth Shammai ruled more leniently than Beth Hillel.", + "Rabbi Yishmael says: there are three instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel.
The book of Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: it defiles the hands. According to the Rabbis the Holy Scriptures, meaning any canonized book in the Bible, cause ones hands to be ritually defiled. According to the Talmud the reason is that people used to put the scrolls into arks with terumah food, reasoning that both were holy. Mice would come to eat the food and they would destroy the scrolls. By decreeing that the scrolls would defile the terumah, people stopped this practice. There are several debates in the Mishnah about what books are included in the Biblical canon such that they defile the hands. According to Beth Shammai, Ecclesiastes (Koheleth) does not defile the hands. This is probably due to the deeply pessimistic, bordering on heretical, tone of the book. At times the author of the book has at least serious doubts about whether or not the performance of good deeds brings with it rewards, a doctrine held as true by the Rabbis. Beth Hillel includes it in the Biblical canon probably for two reasons: 1) it was, according to tradition, written by King Solomon; 2) the last verse of the book exhorts the reader to listen to God’s word and to do good, a message that was certainly acceptable to the Rabbis.", + "Water of purification which has done its duty: Beth Shammai pronounces it pure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it impure. “Waters of purification” refers to the water that has been mixed with the ashes of a red heifer, and was used to rid a person of corpse impurity. According to Beth Shammai, the water remains pure even after it has been sprinkled on the impure person. Although before it has been used it causes impurity to one who touches it unnecessarily (see Numbers 19:21), according to Beth Shammai once it has been used it is no longer impure. Beth Hillel holds that these waters remain impure even after they have been used.", + "Black cumin: Beth Shammai pronounces it not liable to become impure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable to become impure. So, too, with regard to tithes. In this section Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel debate about the status of black cumin. If black cumin is considered a food, then it should be receptive to impurity and one who wishes to eat it would have to first separate the necessary tithes and terumah. Beth Shammai does not consider black cumin to be “food” and therefore holds that it is not receptive to impurity nor subject to the laws of tithes and terumah. Beth Hillel holds that it is food and is therefore receptive to impurity and one who eats it must separate tithes and terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah and the mishnah that we will learn tomorrow contain the last lists of disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in tractate Eduyoth.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: there are two instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel.
The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not immersed herself, Beth Shammai says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. But Beth Hillel says: it causes impurity whether wet or dry. However, they agree in the case of the blood of a woman who gave birth when she had non-menstrual discharge, that it causes defilement whether wet or dry. According to Leviticus, chapter 12, after a woman gives birth to a male she is impure for seven days and after giving birth to a female she is impure 14 days. After this time she is supposed to go to the mikveh (ritual bath) and she will be pure. Any blood that flows after this time is pure (up to 33 days for a boy and 66 days for a girl). Our mishnah discusses a woman who had not gone to the mikveh after the initial seven or 14 day period. According to Beth Shammai the blood of this woman is not totally impure. Rather it is impure only when it is wet, like her spittle and urine. When dry the blood is pure. Beth Hillel disagrees and holds that it is impure whether wet or dry. The two Houses agree that if the woman was a “zavah”, a woman with an unnatural discharge (such as gonorrhea) at the time of childbirth, that her blood remains impure both when wet and when dry. A “zavah” must count seven clean days (free from any blood) for her to be able to go to the mikveh and become pure. Since she has not been able to do so, her blood remains impure, both wet and dry, as blood normally is.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Now that we have learned the last list of disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, can you discern any order to their appearance in the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. It contains the second example of Rabbi Eliezer’s list of disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.", + "[In the case of] four brothers of whom two were married to two sisters, if those married to the sisters died, behold, these should perform halitzah and not enter into levirate marriage (with the brothers-in-. If they went ahead and married them, they must put them away (divorce. Rabbi Eliezer says in the name of Beth Shammai: they may keep them. But Beth Hillel say: they must put them away. In the case in our mishnah, Reuven, Shimon, Levi and Judah who are brothers, are each married, Reuven and Shimon being married to Rachel and Leah who are sisters and Levi and Judah being married to other women not related to Rachel and Leah. If Reuven and Shimon die without children, Rachel and Leah need to perform halitzah or enter into levirate marriage with either Levi and Judah. However, they cannot both be married to the same brother, since a man cannot marry two sisters. Since each sister is “tied” to each brother (by her need to perform halitzah or be married), the best thing to do is for each to perform halitzah, the release from levirate marriage. From here we learn that it is forbidden for a man to marry the sister of a woman who is tied to him, in a similar way that it is forbidden for a man to marry two sisters. According to Beth Shammai, if, even though it is forbidden to do so, Levi and/or Judah married Rachel or Leah, they are not forced to divorce them. According to Beth Shammai the law that says that they must perform “halitzah” is only “lekhathilah”, meaning ab initio. One should not do marry these sisters, but if one did the action is valid. According to Beth Hillel, this marriage is forbidden even “bediavad”, meaning even after it was done, it remains forbidden, and they are forced to divorce them. Beth Hillel probably reasons that if this marriage was permitted “bediavad”, “lekhathilah” people would marry in this situation.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do clauses 1a and 1c repeat the same opinion? What might this tell us about the structure and formation of the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the sad story of Akavia ben Mahalalel who was excommunicated for his disagreements with the other Sages. Although we have seen many disagreements in the Mishnah, some over major issues of law, it has seemed that the disputing Sages lived in peace despite their differences. This point was especially made with regards to the disputes of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in chapter four, mishnah eight. However, the border of legitimate dispute seems to have been crossed by Akavia ben Mahalalel. Although it will be difficult for us to understand what exactly it was that Akavia did that so angered the other Sages, this mishnah at least provides ample testimony to the ease in which legitimate dispute can turn into a fierce battle.", + "Akavia ben Mahalalel testified concerning four things. They said to him: Akavia, retract these four things which you say, and we will make you the head of the court in Israel. He said to them: it is better for me to be called a fool all my days than that I should become [even] for one hour a wicked man before God; So they shouldn’t say: “he withdrew his opinions for the sake of power.” In the first section of the mishnah we learn the background to the sad story of Akavia ben Mahalalel. The Sages pleaded with him to retract the four things that he stated and in return they would appoint him to the head of the court. Akavia responded in two ways: 1) God would know that his retraction was false, and therefore he could not do so; 2) he cannot change his beliefs merely in order to be appointed to a position of power.", + "He used to pronounce impure the hair which has been left over [in leprosy], The mishnah now begins to list the four statements that Akavia made and with which the Sages disagreed. The first is with regards to a certain type of hair found in someone afflicted with a leprous like disease. A white hair found on the leprous patch is impure. If the disease disappears and the white hair stays and then the disease returns, Akavia considers the hair to be impure, since it is likely to be the same disease merely returning. The Sages consider the disease to be a new affliction and therefore, since in order for the hair to be impure, the disease must precede the formation of the hair, the hair is pure.", + "And green ( blood (of vaginal; But the Sages declared them clean. If a woman has a vaginal discharge which is green (yellow), Akavia considers it to be similar to blood which everyone holds is impure and therefore the yellow discharge is also impure. The other Sages disagree and hold that a yellow discharge is not blood and is therefore pure.", + "He used to permit the wool of a first-born animal which was blemished and which had fallen out and had been put in a niche, the first-born being slaughtered afterwards; But the sages forbid it. It is forbidden to shear a first born animal, even one that has a flaw and is therefore is not sacrificable. (First born animals that have no flaw are sacrificed and their flesh belongs to the priests. First born animals that have a flaw belong to the priests but are not sacrificed). Since it is forbidden to shear this animal, the Sages decreed that it is forbidden to use any wool that comes from it, even if it falls off on its own. If some wool falls off while it is alive and someone puts it away for safekeeping, but does not use it, and then the animal is slaughtered to be eaten (which is permitted since it has a flaw) Akavia permits this wool to be used. Since the slaughtering permits the wool that is on the dead animal to be used (it is only forbidden to shear the live animal), it also permits the wool that fell off the animal before it died to be used. The Sages hold that this wool is not permitted.", + "He used to say: a woman proselyte and a freed slave-woman are not made to drink of the bitter waters. But the Sages say: they are made to drink. They said to him: it happened in the case of Karkemith, a freed slave-woman who was in Jerusalem, that Shemaiah and Avtalion made her drink. He said to them: they made her drink an example (and not the real. According to Numbers 5, a woman who is suspected of adultery is to be tested by drinking the “bitter waters” (5:24). In verse 12 of this chapter, in the introduction, it states, “speak unto the children of Israel”. From here Akavia learned that in order to drink the “bitter waters” the woman must be born an Israelite. According to Akavia, the chapter was taught to Israelites but not to non-Jews. This would exclude a woman who converted or a Canaanite slave who was freed (by being freed a Canaanite slave becomes a Jew). The Sages disagree and state that these women do drink. Although they were not born as Israelites, since they are currently full Jews they have the same ability and liability to drink the “bitter waters” if they are accused of adultery. The Sages support their opinion that the freed slave drinks by mentioning the precedent of Karkemith, a freed slave, who was given the “bitter waters” by Shemaiah and Avtalion, two early Sages. Akavia disagrees and states that they didn’t give her the real bitter waters, but rather a simulated version. The reason that they didn’t give her the real bitter waters is that the in the process of making the bitter waters God’s holy name is written on a scroll and then erased into the water, something which under normal circumstances is forbidden. To avoid unnecessarily erasing God’s name, Akaviah claims that Shemaiah and Avtalion gave the freed slave, Karkemith, some other type of waters.", + "Whereupon they excommunicated him; and he died while he was under excommunication, and the court stoned his coffin. When Akaviah made this statement they put him into excommunication. He died while still in excommunication and to emphasize their point, the Sages stoned his coffin.", + "Rabbi Judah said: God forbid [that one should say] that Akavia was excommunicated; for the courtyard is never locked for any man in Israel who was equal to Avavia ben Mahalalel in wisdom and the fear of sin. But whom did they excommunicate? Eliezer the son of Hanoch who cast doubt against the laws concerning the purifying of the hands. And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin. Rabbi Judah claims that Akavia was not put into excommunication. Rabbi Judah emphatically states that the courtyard of the Temple, even when full would not contain a person of greater wisdom and fear of sin than Akavia. Such a person could not commit a sin which would cause him to be excommunicated. Rather Eliezer ben Hanoch was the one put into excommunication for questioning the Rabbinic concept of the impurity of the hands. Without entering here into detail, this concept, that hands alone can become impure is a Rabbinic innovation that doesn’t appear in the Torah. By questioning this concept, Eliezer questions the entire substance of Rabbinic authority.", + "This teaches that whoever is excommunicated and dies while under excommunication, his coffin is stoned. According to Rabbi Judah, when Eliezer ben Hanoch died in excommunication, they put a stone on his ark (this is a form of stoning, see Sanhedrin 6:4). This action serves as a precedent for others who are excommunicated.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section four: Why do the Sages hold that this wool is forbidden?
• Section seven: What does this section teach us about why Rabbis are put into excommunication according to the Mishnah? What is the reason that Eliezer ben Hanoch is put into excommunication? How does this compare to why Akavia may have been excommunicated?
• Section eight: What is the symbolic meaning of stoning the excommunicated person’s coffin?
• Over all, what might be the message of this mishnah? In other words, what is the attitude of the editor of the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah concludes the story of Akavia ben Mehalalel.", + "At the time of his death he said to his son, “Retract the four opinions which I used to declare.” He (the said to him, “Why did not you retract them?” He said to him, “I heard them from the mouth of the many, and they heard [the contrary] from the mouth of the many. I stood fast by the tradition which I heard, and they stood fast by the tradition which they heard. But you have heard [my tradition] from the mouth of a single individual and [their tradition] from the mouth of the many. It is better to leave the opinion of the single individual and to hold by the opinion of the many.” As Akavia is about to die, he offers some conciliation to the Sages, by telling his son to retract the statements to which he had previously clung. His son is perplexed by this request of Akavia. After all, Akavia was willing to be put into permanent excommunication, to lose his entire standing in the Rabbinic community, in order to stand up for the statements which he had made. Why now was he all of a sudden willing to change his mind? Akavia’s answer returns us to the principle which we had learned in chapter one, mishnah five. When there is a dispute between many Sages on one side and a singular Sage on the other, the halakhah is like the many. Here Akavia teaches that a tradition that was learned from many Sages is stronger and more accepted as normative halakhah than a tradition that was learned from a singular Sage. His son had learned them only from him, and therefore their weight was less than the rulings of the Sages, who in the time of Akavia were considered the many.", + "He said to him, “Father commend me to your colleagues.” He said to him, “I will not commend you.” He said to him, “Have you found in me any wrong?” He said, “No; your own deeds will cause you to be near, and your own deeds will cause you to be far.” Akavia’s son’s final request of his father was that he put in a good word about him with his colleagues. Evidently, although Akavia had been put in excommunication, he retained some ties with other Sages. Akavia’s final words teach a lesson to all children of leaders. Although Akavia’s son was the child of a great teacher, one who was almost appointed to be the head of the court, the son will have to earn his own way into a position of leadership. If he is worthy, he will have the opportunity to achieve high positions as a Rabbi; if he is unworthy, a good word from his father will not help him.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• According to Akavia, what gives a halakhah its authority? In other words, why did he not retract the things which he had stated? Did he believe that these were the necessarily “true” statements?
• As a piece of literature, what is the function of the final piece of the story? Why does this story end with Akavia’s telling his son that his own merits are what will earn him status in the world? Has Akavia somehow changed due to his excommunication?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter six returns to the main style of Mishnah Eduyoth, the recording of traditions transmitted by individual Sages. In the first mishnah Rabbi Judah ben Bava testifies with regards to five things.", + "Rabbi Judah ben Bava testified concerning five things:
That women who are minors are made to declare an annulment of their marriage; Only a father has the right to marry off his daughter while she is a minor (under 12 ½) and have the marriage considered Biblically valid. If the father is not alive, the mother or brother can marry off the daughter while she is a minor, but the marriage is only Rabbinically valid. Being so, she has a right to refuse the marriage when she reaches majority. If she does so the marriage is annulled and is considered as having never been. This refusal is called “meun”. Occasionally, if it was in the best interests of all parties, the Rabbis instructed the daughter to refuse the marriage. Such an occasion could occur in the following instance. Two brothers, Reuven and Shimon, were married to two sisters who had no father, Leah who was of majority age and therefore arranged her own marriage (her marriage is Biblically valid) and Rachel, whose marriage was arranged by her mother or brother (her marriage is only Rabbinically valid). If Leah’s husband, Reuven, dies she must have levirate marriage with Shimon, Rachel’s husband. The problem is that Rachel’s marriage to Shimon is now impossible because Leah’s tie to Shimon which is Biblical, supersedes Rachel’s marriage which is only Rabbinic. In order to allow Leah to have levirate marriage with Shimon, the Rabbis teach Rachel to refuse their marriage, thereby annulling it.", + "That a woman is allowed to re-marry on the evidence of one witness; According to the Torah, proper testimony requires at least two witnesses. However, one exception to this rule is the case of a woman whose husband may have died. If she cannot ascertain his death, she cannot remarry, which will leave her an “agunah” a woman who cannot marry. In order to prevent this difficult situation for the widow the Rabbis were lenient and allowed testimony based on only one witness.", + "That a rooster was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a human being; According to Exodus 21:28 an ox that kills a human is to be stoned. Rabbi Judah ben Bava extends this law to include any animal that kills a human, even one as unlikely to do so as a rooster. (See Bava Kamma 5:7).", + "And about wine forty days old, that it was used as a libation on the altar; New wine is not as good as old, aged wine. The question that is asked is how old must wine be for it to be usable as a libation. Rabbi Judah ben Bava states that forty days is sufficient.", + "And about the morning tamid offering, that it is offered at the fourth hour. There are two “tamid” offerings which are offered every day, one in the morning and one at twilight (See Exodus 29:39). According to Rabbi Judah ben Bava the morning “tamid” may be offered up until the fourth hour, but not afterwards. (The day is divided into 12 hours, the length of which is determined by the amount of sunlight during the day. During the summer hours are longer than during the winter). In other words, the first third of a day is considered to be “morning”.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Why were the Rabbis willing to suspend the laws of testimony in order to allow a woman to remarry?" + ], + [ + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia ben Elinathan, a man of Kefar Habavli, testified concerning a limb [separated] from a corpse that it is impure;
whereas Rabbi Eliezer says: they declared [this] only of a limb from a living [man].
They said to him: is not there an inference from the minor to the major (kal: If in the case of a living man [who is himself pure] a limb severed from him is impure, how much more in the case of a corpse [which is itself impure] should a limb severed from it be impure!
He said to them: they have [nevertheless] declared it only of a limb from a living man.
Another answer: The impurity of living men is greater than the impurity of corpses, because a living man causes that on which he lies and sits to become capable of making impure a man and clothing, and [he causes also] what is over him to transfer impurity to foods and liquids- which is defilement that a corpse does not cause.
This mishnah contains Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia ben Elinathan’s testimony regarding the impurity of a limb separated from a corpse.
The dispute in our mishnah concerns whether or not a limb separated from corpse transmits tent impurity (anything which is under the same roof with it becomes impure). Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia state that it is impure. Rabbi Eliezer states that it is pure, and that the only type of “separated limb” which is impure is one that has been separated from a living body.
Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya respond with a classic type of Talmudic argumentation, called a “kal vehomer”. Generally a corpse is considered the greatest source of impurity, whereas a living body is often not a source of impurity at all. [It is not in and of itself impure; it only becomes impure if it contracts it somehow.] If a limb separated from a living body is impure, even though the living body itself is pure, all the more so a limb separated from a corpse is impure, since the corpse itself is impure.
Rabbi Eliezer’s response is very typical of Rabbi Eliezer. He states that although Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya’s reasoning may be good reasoning, the tradition that he received from his teachers was only that a limb separated from a living body was impure. Even though there may be logic in extending this principle to include limbs from corpses, Rabbi Eliezer does not believe that it is the sage’s responsibility to add on to received traditions. Rabbi Eliezer is known as an arch-traditionalist; in another place he claims never to have stated anything that he did not hear from his teachers. Here we see classic example of Rabbi Eliezer sticking to his received tradition, in the face of a good argument to extend that tradition.
The final section of the mishnah contains a logical refutation of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya’s kal vehomer argument. In order to refute a kal vehomer argument one must point out that one side is not always more stringent than the other side. In other words, if the kal vehomer was based on a stable, predictable relationship between two things, the refutation points out that this relationship is not so predictable. In this case Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya had pointed out that a corpse is more impure than a living body, and therefore if something that comes from a living body is impure, all the more so the same thing that comes from a corpse will be impure. The refutation points out that with regards to some laws, the living body is a greater source of impurity than the corpse. A zav (a person with an unusual genital discharge) causes anything on which he sits or lies to become impure and able to transmit impurity to people or clothing. He also causes anything above him to become impure and able to transmit impurity to food and liquids. The corpse does not have such a strong ability to impart impurity. Since in some ways the living body can have a stronger impurity than the corpse, one cannot make the kal vehomer argument that Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya tried to make." + ], + [ + "Introduction
This mishnah is one of the longer mishnayoth in the entire Mishnah, and it contains a long argument amongst the Sages about the quantities of flesh separated from corpses or from limbs separated from living bodies that will cause impurity. This mishnah is also a continuation of the previous mishnah, and the same Sages that were present there are present in our mishnah.
Due to the length of the mishnah, and its intricate detail, we will divide it into two parts, one for today and one for tomorrow.", + "An olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man: Rabbi Eliezer pronounces impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia pronounce pure. A barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man, Rabbi Nehunia pronounces impure and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua pronounce pure. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: what reason have you found for pronouncing impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man? He said to them: we find that a limb from a living man is like an entire corpse; just as in the case of a corpse, an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it is impure, so also in the case of a limb from a living man an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it must be impure. They said to him: No! When you pronounce impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a corpse, it is because you have pronounced impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it. But how can you also pronounce impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man, seeing that you have pronounced pure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it? They said to Rabbi Nehunia: what reason have you found for pronouncing impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man? He said to them: we find that a limb from a living man is like an entire corpse; just as in the case of a corpse, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it is impure, so also in the case of a limb from a living man, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it must be impure. They said to him: No! When you pronounce impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a corpse, it is because you have pronounced impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it. But how can you also pronounce impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man, seeing that you have pronounced pure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it?", + "Explanation
Section one: In the first section of this mishnah the opinions of the different Sages are listed without explanations. With regards to an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a living limb, Rabbi Eliezer declares it impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia declare it pure. With regards to a barley-grain’s (smaller than an olive) quantity of bone separated from living flesh, Rabbi Nehunia declares it impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer declare it pure. In other words, Rabbi Joshua consistently says that all of these things are pure, whereas Rabbi Nehunia and Rabbi Eliezer are somewhat inconsisent, each one declaring one thing pure and the other impure.", + "Section two: In this section the Sages ask Rabbi Eliezer why he declared that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a living limb is impure. He answered them that a limb separated from a living person is impure like a corpse. Therefore, just as an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure, so too an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a limb is impure. ", + "The Sages respond by refuting his analogy. The reason that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure is that he has already stated that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone is impure. However, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a living limb is pure (according to Rabbi Eliezer), and therefore he cannot state so easily that an olive’s quantity of flesh is impure. In other words a corpse is more impure than a limb separated from a living body (with regards to the purity of separated pieces of bones), and he therefore should not be able to compare one to the other. ", + "Section three: In this section the other Sages ask Rabbi Nehunia why he declared that a barley-grain’s size of bone separated from a living limb is impure. He answered them that a limb separated from a living person is impure like an entire corpse. Therefore, just as a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a corpse person is impure, so too a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a limb is impure. ", + "The Sages respond by refuting his analogy. The reason that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a corpse is impure is that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure. However, Rabbi Nehunia already stated that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a limb is pure; how therefore can he learn that a barley-grain’s size of bone separated from a limb is impure. In other word’s, Rabbi Nehunia’s analogy was based on the similarity in the impurity of limbs separated from living bodies with corpses. However, he taught above that flesh separated from corpses was more impure than flesh separated from limbs from a living body, and therefore he cannot learn one from the other with regards to the issue of bone impurity. ", + "Introduction
This is the second half of the mishnah which we began to learn yesterday.", + "They said to Rabbi Eliezer: what reason have you found for dividing your standards? Either pronounce them both impure, or pronounce them both pure! He said to them: greater is the impurity of flesh than the impurity of bones, for the defilement of flesh applies both to (animal) carcasses and to creeping things, but it is not so in the case of bones. Another answer: a limb which has on it the proper quantity of flesh causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); if the flesh is diminished it is still impure, while if the bone is diminished it is pure. They said to Rabbi Nehunia: what reason have you found for dividing your standards? Either pronounce them both impure, or pronounce them both pure! He said to them: greater is the impurity of bones than the impurity of flesh, for flesh severed from a living man is pure, whereas a limb severed from him, while in its natural condition, is impure. Another answer: an olive’s quantity of flesh (from a corpse) causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); and a majority of a corpse’s bones causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); if the flesh is diminished it is pure, but if a majority of the bones is diminished, although it does not cause impurity by being under the same roof-space, it yet causes defilement by touching and by carrying. Another answer: any flesh of a corpse less than an olive’s quantity is pure, but bones forming the greater portion of the body’ build or the greater portion of the number of the corpse’s bones, even though they do not fill a quarter-kav are yet impure. They said to Rabbi Joshua: what reason have you found for pronouncing them both pure? He said to them: No! When you pronounce impure in the case of a corpse, it is because the rules of “majority”, “quarter-kav”, and “decayed matter” apply to it. But how can you say the same of a living man, seeing that the rules of “majority”, “quarter-kav”, and “decayed matter” do not apply to him?", + "Explanation
Section one: The first question asked is to Rabbi Eliezer, why did he pronounce that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated a limb severed from a living body is impure but that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from such a limb is pure. He should have declared either both pure or both impure. Two answers to this question are provided. The first answer is that flesh is more impure than bone, for the flesh of creeping things is impure while the bones of creeping things are pure. ", + "The second answer also points at an aspect of flesh that is more impure than bone. A limb severed from a human being, if it has on it enough flesh that if it was still attached to the human being the limb would be viable, causes impurity through touching, carrying and by being underneath the same roof space. If some of the flesh falls off of this limb, it is still impure. If however, some of the bone falls off of this limb, the entire limb is pure. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer was more lenient with regards to bone impurity than with regards to flesh impurity.", + "Section two: The second question asked is to Rabbi Nehunia, why did he pronounce that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated a limb severed from a living body is pure but that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from such a limb is impure (the opposite of Rabbi Eliezer). He should have declared either both pure or both impure. This time three answers to the question are provided, all of which show ways in which bones are more impure than flesh. ", + "The first answer is that flesh that is separated directly from a living body is pure, whereas an entire limb separated from a living body, with its sinews and bone, is impure. ", + "The second answer is that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse transmits impurity by contact, carrying and by sharing the same roof-space; so too a majority of a corpse’s bones transmit impurity by contact, carrying and by sharing the same roof-space. If there is less than an olive’s quantity of flesh, it doesn’t transmit impurity at all; however, if there is less than a majority of the corpse’s bones, although they no longer transmit impurity by sharing roof-space, they do transmit impurity by contact and by carrying. In this way, bone impurity is more serious than flesh impurity. ", + "The third answer is that less than an olive’s quantity of flesh is always pure. However, with regards to bones there is the possibility that even less than a quarter-kav.\n" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to Exodus 13:13, the first born of a donkey must be “redeemed” with a sheep. Since donkeys are not fit to be sacrificed, their firstborn cannot be offered on the altar as are the firstborn of “pure” animals. Therefore they are redeemed with a sheep, which is then given to the priests (see Numbers 18:15).\nIn our mishnah the Rabbis dispute the responsibility that the owner of the donkey has over the sheep which he has used to redeem the first born of his donkey. The question is, if the sheep dies after it has been used to redeem the donkey but before he gives it to the priest, must he replace it with a new sheep?", + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testified concerning the redemption ( of a firstborn donkey, that if it died, the priest receives nothing, According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok, if the sheep used to redeem the first-born donkey should die before it is given to the priest, the owner is not responsible to provide the priest with a new sheep. According to these Sages, once he has “redeemed” the first-born donkey with the sheep he has fulfilled his religious duty. True the sheep belongs to the priest, but the owner has no responsibility to protect the sheep on behalf of the priest. Therefore if something happens to it, it is the priest’s loss.", + "Whereas Rabbi Eliezer says: the owner must bear the responsibility as with the five selas [in the case] of a [firstborn] son. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. He compares this sheep to the five selas that a father owes the priest to redeem his own first-born (pidyon ha-ben). In that case all the Rabbis agree that if the coins are lost before the father gives them over to the priest, the father must give the priest five new selas. Rabbi Eliezer says that just as in that case the father is responsible, so too in this case the owner of the donkey is responsible if the sheep should die before being presented to the priest.", + "But the Sages say: he bears no responsibility any more than in the case of the redemption of second tithes. The Sages, who in this case agree with Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok, compare this situation to that of lost coins of second tithe. These coins were used to redeem second tithe produce. The coins were then meant to be brought to Jerusalem and used there to buy food. If the owner of the coins should lose them before he arrives in Jerusalem, he is not obligated to replace them. According to the Sages, the same is true for the sheep.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why would the Sages not agree with Rabbi Eliezer’s analogy of the sheep to the five selas given for the redemption of the human first born?
• Why would Rabbi Eliezer not agree with the Sages’ analogy to second tithe?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to Leviticus 11:22, it is permitted to eat certain types of locusts. However, there are some types of locusts that are forbidden to eat. In the time of the mishnah people were able to distinguish between permitted and forbidden locusts. Nowadays, we do not know the difference and therefore Jews do not eat locusts. I’m sure we are all deeply disappointed.\nOur mishnah discusses the liquid that comes out of locusts when they have been preserved through salting.", + "Rabbi Zadok testified concerning brine of unclean locusts that it is clean, Rabbi Zadok teaches that the liquid that oozes out of unclean locusts when they have been salted is not considered a liquid that makes that with which it comes into contact receptive to impurities. (See Leviticus 11:38). The only liquids that do so are dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk and bee’s honey (see tractate Makhshirin 6:4). Likewise, it is permitted to drink this liquid, since it is not considered to be the blood of the locust.", + "Whereas the first mishnah [said]: unclean locusts that have been preserved together with clean locusts do not make their brine unfit. The earlier mishnah, which existed before Rabbi Zadok taught something slightly different. It taught that if unclean locusts were preserved, meaning pickled, with clean (edible) locusts, the it is permitted to drink the brine. Rabbi Zadok has added that even the liquid that oozes out of just unclean locusts, and not a mixture, is permitted to drink.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
What is the relationship of Rabbi Zadok to the “first mishnah”?" + ], + [ + "Rabbi Zadok testified concerning flowing water which exceeded in quantity dripping water; that it was valid.
There was such a case at Birath Hapilya, and when the case came before the Sages they declared it valid.
This mishnah discusses water which is used for a mikveh, the bath used by Jews to achieve ritual purification. This mishnah also appears in tractate Mikvaoth, where it is preceded by a distinction between running water and dripping water. Water which is flowing on the ground, such as a stream, creek or river, is valid for a mikveh even if there are less than 40 seahs in one place. However, dripping water, such as rain, must reach a minimum measure of 40 seahs in one defined place in order to be valid as a mikveh. [Note that water drawn to the mikveh is invalid in any case].
Our mishnah discusses a potential mikveh that has some flowing water and some dripping water. The question is, does this mikveh need to have 40 seahs?
According to Rabbi Zadok, as long as the quantity of flowing water exceeded the quantity of dripping water, the mikveh is valid, even if there are not 40 seahs in the place where the person immerses. If, however, there was more dripping water, then the mikveh would need to have 40 seahs of water in order to be valid. The mishnah then brings in an actual case where such a question arose and the Sages declared the mikveh to be valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains additional testimony of Rabbi Zadok concerning the validity of water for use in a mikveh. In the introduction to the previous mishnah we mentioned that flowing water such as a stream need not contain 40 seahs in any one place in order to be valid to be used as a mikveh. However, if the flowing water is directed by vessels, then it must contain 40 seahs in one place to be used as a mikveh.", + "Rabbi Zadok testified concerning flowing water which was made to run in a stream through nut-leaves, that it was valid. In the scenario under discussion a person has used nut-leaves to direct a stream of water. The question is, are these nut-leaves to be considered like a vessel? If they are then the stream would require 40 seahs in one place in order to be used as a mikveh. Rabbi Zadok testifies that these nut-leaves are not to be considered like vessels, even though the person who set them up may have used them in a similar fashion. Therefore the stream is valid as a mikveh even without 40 seahs in one place.", + "There was such a case at Ahaliyya, and when the case came before [the Sages in] the Chamber of Hewn Stone they declared it valid. This section brings additional support for Rabbi Zadok’s testimony. A case such as this actually happened in a place called Ahaliyya, and the Sages who sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, which was located in the Temple in Jerusalem (Sanhedrin 11:2) ruled that the water was valid without 40 seahs. Note the similar structure between this mishnah and the previous mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of mishnah five contains a testimony regarding the purity of a jar of red heifer ashes that had been placed on an impure creeping thing.\nThe second section contains a testimony regarding a person who took two nazirite vows.", + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Yakim, a man of Hadar, testified concerning a jar of ashes of a red heifer which was put over a creeping thing, that they were unclean. Whereas Rabbi Eliezer had pronounced them clean. In the case under discussion a person has a jar which contains the ashes of a red heifer, which are used in the purification process. The jar itself cannot receive impurity, for it is made out of stone which can never become impure. If the jar is placed over an impure creeping thing, the ashes inside the jar are impure, even though the jar itself remains pure. This is due to an interpretation of Numbers 19:9 which states, “A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place.” Since these ashes were not put in a “clean place”, they become impure. This law is in contrast to that which Rabbi Eliezer stated, namely that since the jar remains pure, the ashes remain pure as well.", + "Rabbi Papias testified concerning one who had vowed two naziriteships, that if he cut his hair after the first one on the thirtieth day, he could cut his hair after the second one on the sixtieth day; and if he cut his hair on the fifty-ninth day he has also fulfilled his duty, for the thirtieth day counts towards the required number. The testimony of Rabbi Papias concerns the length of a naziriteship. One who takes an oath to be a nazirite without specifying the length of the vow, is a nazirite for thirty days. During this time it is forbidden for him to cut his hair. On the thirty-first day, when the naziriteship was over he would cut his hair. If he were to cut his hair on the thirtieth day, he has fulfilled his naziriteship, since the observance of the vow for part of the day counts as if he observed it for the full day. If he were to take two nazirite vows, he should really cut his hair on the thirty-first day, and then begin to count that same day the second nazirite vow and then cut his hair again on the sixty-first day. However, if he cut his hair on the thirtieth day, he should cut his hair a second time on the sixtieth day. Furthermore, if he cut his hair for the second time on the fifty-ninth day, he has fulfilled his obligation. This is because the thirtieth day when he cut his hair the first time, counts both as the last day of his first naziriteship and the first day of his second naziriteship. In this manner one who takes two nazirite vows can “get away” with completing his second vow after only 59 days.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: What is the basis for the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the testimony of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Yakim?" + ], + [ + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testified concerning the offspring of a peace-offering, that it can be brought as a peace-offering, whereas Rabbi Eliezer says that the offspring of a peace-offering cannot be brought as a peace-offering.
But the sages say: it can be brought.
Rabbi Papias said: “I testify that we had a cow, which was a peace-offering, and we ate it at Passover, and its offspring we ate as a peace-offering at the [next] festival.
This mishnah discusses the offspring of a peace-offering. A peace-offering (shelamim) was a sacrifice that was usually brought either as a voluntary offering, or on festivals. The breast and the right hand leg would go to the priests and the remainder of the animal could be eaten by those who had brought it. The issue in our mishnah is the status of the offspring of an animal that had already been set aside to become a peace-offering. In other words, after the owner declared that he was going to bring the animal to the Temple as a peace-offering, it gave birth.
According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias, the offspring of a peace-offering can be brought as a peace-offering. Rabbi Eliezer ruled that it may not be brought as an peace-offering. The Talmud explains that according to Rabbi Eliezer the animal is put into a pen and let to die through starvation. The reason is that if the halakhah were to allow the owner to bring it as a peace-offering he would have incentive to delay bringing the mother , who has already been declared a peace-offering, to the Temple. The owner might wait until she gives birth, perhaps several times, in order that he would be able to bring more peace-offerings (after all he benefits as well by having more meat to eat). This delay in bringing the animal to the Temple would violate a rule in Deuteronomy 23:22 which states that when you offer a voluntary sacrifice, do not delay in bringing it.
The Sages side in this dispute with the testimony of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias. At the end of the mishnah Rabbi Papias brings his own personal experience of having eaten a peace-offering at one festival and its offspring at the next." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains four more testimonies given by Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias. Note that on the first two Rabbi Eliezer expresses a dissenting opinion, the same format we saw in the previous two mishnayoth.", + "They testified concerning the boards of bakers, that they are impure (they can receive, whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares them pure (unable to receive. The “boards of bakers” under discussion in this section are planks upon which the baker organizes his dough and puts it into the shape of loaves. If these planks are considered “vessels” than they can receive impurity, as can all “vessels”. If however, they are considered closer to raw material, less-shaped, then they cannot receive impurity. According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias since these boards are specially made to have dough put on them, they can receive impurity. Rabbi Eliezer holds that they cannot.", + "They testified concerning an oven which was cut into rings and sand was put between the rings that it is impure (can receive, whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure (unable to receive. The oven under discussion is one made of bricks. Sand has been placed between each brick and then a layer of plaster was put on the outside to seal the oven. The sand would prevent the bricks from being stuck together and therefore make this oven easy to take apart. According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias, since the oven was plastered from the outside, it is considered a proper oven and can receive impurity. Rabbi Eliezer holds that since each part is separate, it is not considered an oven, but a broken oven. Since broken vessels cannot receive impurity, this oven cannot be made impure.", + "They testified that the year may be intercalated throughout the whole of Adar, whereas they used to say: only until Purim. The Jewish year is based on both a lunar and solar model. It is lunar in that the length of a month is determined by the moon. It is solar in that the year is occasionally adjusted so that months and holidays will fall consistently in the same season. (The concept of a year exists only in a solar calendar; the concept of a month exists only in a lunar calendar). In today’s fixed calendar the year receives an extra month seven out of nineteen years. The extra month comes after Adar, the month in which we celebrate Purim. This extra month is called Adar Bet (second Adar). During the time of the Mishnah they did not have a fixed calendar. Each year a court would have to decide whether or not to “intercalate” the year, meaning add another month. They would do so depending on the weather outside. According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias, the court has until the end of Adar to intercalate the year. This means that they can do so at the last possible moment. The older halakhah was that it could only be intercalated before Purim, which falls on the 14th of Adar.", + "They testified that the year may be intercalated conditionally. There was such a case with Rabban Gamaliel who went to receive permission from the governor in Syria and he delayed in coming back; and they intercalated the year on condition that rabban gamaliel should approve; and when he came back he said: I approve, and the year was intercalated. The final testimony of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias is about conditionally intercalating the year. As we can see from the example in the story, this means that a court would decide to intercalate the year in the absence of the Patriarch, in this case Rabban Gamaliel, who evidently had the ultimate decision in whether or not to intercalate. When the Patriarch returned and agreed to the intercalation it becomes retroactively valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOlive-boilers and dyers would both use large metal cauldrons for boiling. In order to prevent the water from spilling out they would put a plaster ledge around the sides of the cauldron. The question in our mishnah is: are these plaster ledges receptive to impurity? In other words, are they considered “vessels” which receive impurity or raw material which does not.", + "Menahem ben Signai testified concerning the ledge attached to an olive-boiler’s cauldron, that it is [liable to become] impure; and concerning that of dyers, that it is not [liable to become] impure, whereas they used to say the reverse. According to Menahem ben Signai, the ledge attached to the olive-boiler’s cauldron can become impure. This is because it is necessary for the proper use of the cauldron; it allows the olive-boiler to fill the entire cauldron with water. The ledge that the dyer uses cannot become impure because the dyer is careful not to fill the cauldron up to the top with water so that it might boil over. Previously people reasoned the opposite. Evidently they thought that the dyer’s made more use of the ledge than did the olive-boilers. The principle, however, remains the same. If the ledge is normally used to keep the water in, than it receives impurity. Unfortunately, I must admit, never having boiled olives or dye, that I cannot fully understand the reason why people would change their minds about which is a “vessel” and which is not." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter nine contains four testimonies given by Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada.", + "Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; As we have learned in other places, the Rabbis considered a deaf-mute to lack intelligence, probably because in their time the deaf-mute had little way of communicating with the outside world. Usually a person who lacks intelligence, such a deaf-mute, minor or insane person, cannot enter into legally binding contracts, because they don’t understand their ramifications. However, as Rabbi Nehunia testifies, a deaf-mute can be divorced. (She was married off by her father). The reason is that divorce is not dependent upon the woman’s acquiescence; she can be divorced against her will. Since her will is irrelevant, even one who lacks awareness can be divorced. Although this might sound harsh, as if the Rabbis are going out of their way to allow a deaf-mute to be divorced, it may have also worked in her benefit. If men couldn’t divorce deaf-mutes, perhaps they might refrain from marrying them. By allowing a “way out” the Rabbis might actually be encouraging their marriage.", + "And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; This section deals with an orphaned minor girl of a non-priestly, Israelite family, who marries a priest. Generally this type of marriage is considered to be valid only rabbinically (derabanan) and not valid through Torah law (deoraita). Deoraita a minor can only be married off by her father. Only when she reaches majority she can marry herself off without her father’s aid. Despite the fact that this is really only a “derabanan” marriage, Rabbi Nehunya testifies that it is sufficient for her to be allowed to eat terumah and for her husband to inherit her, should she die. Even though these are usually rights only given to a valid “deoraita” marriage, Rabbi Nehunya testifies that the husband does receive these rights.", + "And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value; Usually one who steals an item must return the actual stolen item, as long as the item still exists. If one stole a beam and then used it in the foundation of a castle, legally he is bound to take down the castle and return the beam. Obviously this will discourage people from admitting that they stole, an essential part of making atonement for their crime. To allow people to more easily make atonement, the robber is allowed to pay back the value of the beam.", + "And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar. If it were forbidden to use animals that might have been stolen as sacrifices, the priests would never sacrifice an animal, lest it be stolen. Therefore, the mishnah rules that stolen animals can be used as sin-offerings, and that they do procure atonement for the one bringing them, as long as the theft is not publicly known. This mishnah is not permission to steal an animal and bring it as a sacrifice. Rather it is permission to use an animal without being concerned that it is stolen property. The mishnah teaches that if it was stolen property and the person who brought it did not know that it was stolen, that it is effective in bringing atonement.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Is there any common denominator to these four testimonies of Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah contains two testimonies, and an additional law stated by Rabbi Akiva.", + "Rabbi Joshua ben. Bathyra testified concerning the blood of carcasses that it was pure. This law was learned above, chapter five, mishnah one. There we learned that everyone holds that the flesh of a carcass (an animal which was not properly slaughtered) is impure. Beth Shammai held that the blood of a carcass is not like the flesh, and it is not impure, whereas Beth Hillel held that it is impure. In our mishnah Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testifies that the law is like Beth Hillel.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Bathyra testified concerning the ashes of purification, that if a defiled person had touched part of them he had defiled the whole of them. Rabbi Akiva added in regard to the fine flour, the incense, the frankincense, and the coals, that if a tevul yom had touched part of them he had made the whole of them unfit. The “ashes of purification” are the ashes of the red heifer which are combined with water and then used to purify one who has contracted corpse impurity. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Bathyra if an impure person touches some of these ashes, all of the ashes that are in the same pile have become impure. Even though each ash is its own distinct object and they are not attached to each other, one who touches some, defiles it all. Rabbi Akiva adds several other items that are in truth each individual, separate things, yet if part of them are touched by an impure person the entire pile is impure. This includes flour, incense, frankincense and coals, all of which are used on the altar in the Temple. If these are touched even by a “tevul yom”, someone who as already immersed himself in a mikveh to become clean but the sun has not yet set, will make them impure. Note that the reason that Rabbi Akiva mentions specifically the “tevul yom” is that the Saducees and other Jewish sects (including the Dead Sea sect) held that a “tevul yom” was pure. A person did not have to wait for sundown to become pure after having entered the mikveh. In fact, we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that this was one of the major disputes between the Dead Sea sect and those with whom they were arguing, probably the Pharisees." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nTwo more testimonies, both of which deal in some way with marital law.", + "Rabbi Judah ben Baba and Rabbi Judah the priest testified concerning a minor, the daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah as soon as she entered the bridal chamber even though she had not engaged in marital intercourse. According to the Torah when a woman from an Israelite family marries a priest she may eat terumah, food which is normally reserved for the priests. However, the question must be asked, when is the marriage considered valid such that she may eat terumah? Furthermore, this question must also be asked with regards to a minor girl, who was married off by her mother or brother. As we learned in mishnah 7:9, this type of marriage is not valid deoraita (from the Torah) and is only a rabbinic institution. Therefore, if she is not married according to the Torah, when can she eat terumah, a right normally reserved for those married deoraita? [We learned in 7:9 that when married she can eat terumah.] This is an important question, since the penalty for a non-priest who eats terumah is quite harsh (death by the hands of heaven). Our mishnah teaches that she may eat terumah once she has entered the bridal chamber (huppah) even though she has not yet had relations with her husband. She may not eat, however, while she is merely betrothed, a period that could last a year or even more.", + "Rabbi Yose the priest and Rabbi Zechariah ben Hakatzav testified concerning a young girl who had been taken as collateral (by in Ashkelon, and that her family had distanced her, even though her witnesses testified that she had not secluded herself [with any Man] and that she had not been defiled. The Sages said to them: if you believe that she had been taken as collateral, believe also that she did not seclude herself [with any man] and that she was not defiled; and if you do not believe that she did not seclude herself and that she was not defiled, neither believe that she had been taken as collateral. In the sad case under discussion in this mishnah a girl is taken by gentile debt collectors as security on a debt that a Jewish family owes them. The family, assuming that the girl has been raped by the gentiles, distances themselves from her. This “distancing” means that they refused to marry her (those in the family that would have been eligible to marry her, such as uncles and cousins), even though there was no law that prevented them from doing so. This family distanced her even though she had witnesses who testified that she had not been so much as secluded with a gentile, let alone raped. The Sages respond to this family that their position vis-a-vis the girl is illogical. If they believed the witnesses that she had been taken as collateral, then they must believe the same witnesses who testify that she had not been raped. If they don’t believe the witnesses that she had not been raped, then they shouldn’t believe them that she had been taken in the first place. The Sages do not tolerate the family’s overly stringent and extremely cruel position. While the Sages did believe that under certain circumstances, a girl who had been raped could no longer marry certain men (priests), they did not seek to compound this difficult situation by assuming that this had happened when witnesses testify explicitly that it had not. The family’s distancing the girl is a case of a stringency run amok, and one against which the Sages rightly put down their halakhic feet." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who is called “issa” or “dough”, meaning that his lineage is “mixed up” like dough. This is a man from a potentially priestly family that may have been “contaminated” by intermarrying with unfit priests, or “halalim”. A “halal” is the child of a mother who should not have been married to a priest, such as a divorcee. A woman who should not have been married to a priest but nevertheless does so becomes a “halalah”. The fact that “halalim” may have married into this family casts in doubt the status of all subsequent generations.\nWe should note again that lineage was an extremely important issue in Talmudic society, as it was in most of the ancient world. Lineage was especially important to the priestly elite, who could lose their status by not preserving the “purity” of their line.", + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testified concerning the widow of [a man belonging to] a family of doubtful lineage (an, that she was fit to marry into the priesthood, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testify that a widow of an “issa” is fit to marry into the priesthood. Since an “issa” is only a case of doubtful lineage, and we are not sure that there really were “halalim” in the family, the ruling is not stringent. Note that if we were sure that this widow had been married to a “halal” she would subsequently be forbidden to marry a priest. Furthermore, if this was a divorcee, there would be no issue since no divorcee can marry a priest. The only issue arises with the widow of an issa.", + "[And that those of] a family of doubtful lineage are fit to declare who was unclean and who clean, who was to be put away and who was to be brought near. Rabban Gamaliel said: we accept your testimony, but what can we do since Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai ordained that courts should not be commissioned for this purpose? The priests would listen to you concerning those who might be put away, but not concerning those who might be brought near! In their second testimony Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testify that the people of such a family are able to declare the status of the women among them: which women are “unclean” and therefore unable to marry priests, and which are “clean” and therefore able to marry priests. In other words, although this family itself has had a shadow cast upon its lineage, the members of the family are relied on to testify with regards to the status of the women within their family. Rabban Gamaliel responds that although this testimony is legally and logically acceptable, and he agrees that the family itself is fit to sort out its own lineage, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, the famous Sage who survived the destruction of the Second Temple, already decreed that the courts should not allow the widow of an “issa” to marry a priest. Although Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai agreed that this was permitted by law, the priests are stringent in this matter, and would not allow the court to permit them to marry such a woman. As we saw in the previous mishnah, many Jews were much more stringent in manners of lineage than the law required. Here Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai teaches an important principle: if the people are going to be so strict, the court should not make rulings that they in any case will ignore. This would cheapen the authority of the court by putting it into blatant conflict with the people." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer testifies concerning three things. One unusual feature of this mishnah is that it is all in Aramaic, as opposed to Hebrew which is the language of nearly all of the Mishnah.", + "Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer, a man of Zereda, testified concerning the ayal-locust, that it is pure; The Torah permits eating certain types of locusts and forbids others. However, it is very difficult to tell which locusts are permitted and which are not. Therefore, today we don’t eat locusts (I’m sure you’re disappointed!). Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer testifies that a certain type of locust, called the “ayal-locust” is pure, meaning one is allowed to eat it. Bon Appetit.", + "And concerning liquid in the slaughter-house (of the, that it is pure; The liquid which would be found on the floor of the slaughter-house of the Temple, which is assumedly a mixture of blood and water, is pure and cannot become impure. One explanation of this is that the concept of the impurity of liquids is a Rabbinic innovation (derabanan). The Rabbis did not include in this innovation the liquids found in the Temple, so as not to increase the impurity of things found in the Temple.", + "And that one who touches a corpse is impure. This section is puzzling. Seemingly Rabbi Yose makes the simple statement that one who touches a corpse is impure. This law is stated clearly in Numbers 19:11, 16, and there is no need for a “testimony” to restate that which is obvious. One explanation given is that according to the Torah one who touches a dead body is impure for seven days and one who touches this person is only impure for one day. However, the Rabbis were stricter and ruled that also one who touches a person who has touched a dead body is impure for seven days. Rabbi Yose disagreed with this ruling. When he states that one who touches a dead body is impure for seven days, he excludes one who touches a person who has touched a dead body. Another possibility is that Rabbi Yose ruled that one who definitely touched a dead body is impure, but one who may or may not have done so is not impure. An intriguing possibility that Albeck brings up is that this ruling of Rabbi Yose is against the Essenes, a Jewish sect that existed towards the end of the Second Temple period. The Essenes, who are likely the same group that occupied the Dead Sea settlement where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, were extremely strict in matters of purity and impurity. They ruled that a person could be impure for seven days under certain circumstances by touching a live human being. Rabbi Yose rules against this overly strict position; only a corpse can transmit seven day impurity.", + "And they called him “Yose the permitter”. For these rulings, Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer was called, “Rabbi Yose the permitter”. This was probably said with a certain degree of derision; Rabbi Yose was overly permissive. The fact that they called Rabbi Yose a “permitter” proves that section three also contained a permissive ruling." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nTwo more testimonies, one by Rabbi Akiva and one by Rabbi Joshua", + "Rabbi Akiva testified in the name of Nehemiah, a man of Beth Deli, that a woman is allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Usually Jewish law requires two witnesses in order for testimony to be effective. Here we learn of an exception to this rule. If one witness testifies that a woman’s husband has died, she is allowed to remarry based on one witness’s testimony. This leniency is to prevent the sad situation where a woman cannot remarry because she doesn’t know if her first husband is dead. This same testimony appears in chapter six mishnah one, there given by Rabbi Judah ben Bava. It is perplexing that Rabbi Akiva should repeat the same testimony. The reason why Rabbi Akiva repeats the testimony is explained in the last mishnah of Yevamoth. There Rabbi Akiva relates that when he traveled to Babylonia he met Rabbi Nehemiah of Beth Deli who told him that he had heard that in the Land of Israel only Rabbi Judah ben Bava allowed a woman to re-marry on the testimony of one witness; the other Sages disagree. Rabbi Akiva confirmed that this was true. Rabbi Nehemiah responded to him that he had heard from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder that a woman could remarry on the testimony of one witness. The testimony in our mishnah is Rabbi Akiva’s reporting of what Rabbi Nehemiah had told him. It is meant to teach that the testimony in chapter six, mishnah one is agreed to by more than just Rabbi Judah ben Bava.", + "Rabbi Joshua testified concerning bones found in the wood-shed that the Sages said: one may gather them, bone by bone, and they are all clean. Rabbi Joshua testifies that the bones of a human were found in the wood-shed in the Temple in Jerusalem, and that the Sages said that they could gather up the bones and bring them out of the Temple, without fearing that the bones had come into contact with other things in the Temple and impurified them. This is because the Temple is public domain and all cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are deemed pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua give testimony about the Temple and issues of its holiness.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said: I have heard that when they were building the Temple [complex] they made curtains for the Temple and curtains for the Temple-courts; but in the case of the Temple they built from the outside, and in the case of the Temple-court they built from the inside. This section discusses the building of the walls of the Temple. Rabbi Eliezer states that when they built the Second Temple and the surrounding courtyards they first demarcated the areas by hanging curtains. When it came to building the Temple itself they built the walls from the outside of the curtains. This way they did not actually see the Temple and become distracted by its splendor and not be able to build properly. Another possible reason is to prevent unnecessary infringement upon the Temple confines. However, when it came to the courtyard they built the walls from within the curtains.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be offered even though there is no Temple, and that the most holy sacrifices may be eaten even though there are no curtains, and the less holy sacrifices and second tithes even though there is no wall [around Jerusalem]; because the first sanctification sanctified both for its own time and for the time to come. Rabbi Joshua claims that although the Second Temple in Jerusalem has been destroyed, and the walls of the Temple, its courtyards and Jerusalem have been torn down, it is still, at least theoretically possible to offer sacrifices and to eat them in the places that they would have been eaten while the Temple stood. In other words even though there is no wall surrounding the Temple, the priests can still eat the sacrifices that had to be consumed within the Temple precents and even though there are no walls to Jerusalem, the people can still eat the sacrifices and second tithes that had to be consumed within Jerusalem. This is because when the Temple mount was sanctified originally when the First Temple was built by Solomon the area was sanctified permanently, and the sanctity of the place continues to exist even though the Temple no longer stands. Historians have paid careful attention to this statement by Rabbi Joshua, asking the question, did the Jews continue to offer sacrifices after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.? Although there is some evidence that the Jews did continue to do so, the overwhelming evidence is that they did not. Rabbi Joshua’s claim is likely to be more theoretical/ideological than realistic. Certainly after the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 C.E., when hopes of restoring the Temple were crushed, the Jews simply did not have the ability to offer sacrifices on the Temple mount. Nowadays, although Jews do have sovereignty over the Temple mount, few believe that we may return to offering sacrifices, although some fringe groups do and have attempted to do so.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
What might be the connection between these two sections?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Eduyoth discusses what Elijah, who according to the end of Malachi, will reappear at the end of time, will do.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: I have received a tradition from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher [heard it] from his teacher, as a halakhah [given] to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near, but to put away those brought near by force and to bring near those put away by force. The family of Beth Tzriphah was on the other side of the Jordan and Ben Zion put it away by force; and yet another family was there, and Ben Zion brought it near by force. It is such as these that Elijah will come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. Rabbi Joshua says that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai had a tradition that can be traced all the way back to Moses who received it at Sinai, that when Elijah the prophet reappears in Messianic time, he will not clarify which families are clean, meaning they have not intermarried with forbidden relationships, nor will he clarify the opposite. He will neither put away the unclean families nor draw near the clean families. All that he will do is bring near the families who were forcibly and illegitimately put away and put away the families that were forcibly and illegitimately brought near. In other words, decisions that humans had made as to which families were clean and which were not, and were made in a legal fashion without coercion, will be accepted by Elijah, even if he knows that they were wrong. However, actions which were enacted by force and not consented to by the law-abiding sections of society will be corrected. A note about “a law from Moses on Sinai”. The Rambam points out that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai did not actually have a tradition that Moses said these very words. Rather this is how the tradition understood Deuteronomy 30:3-4, which states that if you are scattered to the four corners of the earth, God will bring you back. This is understood to mean that if a family was illegitimately not allowed to intermarry with other Jewish families, Elijah would redeem the situation. The mishnah now proceeds to mention one family that had been put away by force, meaning that this person Ben Zion, forcibly pronounced them unclean and made the rest of society abide by his will. So too, Ben Zion, forcibly pronounced another family clean, and made society abide by his will.", + "Rabbi Judah says: to bring near, but not to put away. Rabbi Judah claims that Elijah will bring near but he will not put away. This is probably similar to the words of the Sages at the end of the mishnah. Elijah does not come to cause pain by putting some families away. The only problem that he will rectify is families who should be brought near, not those who should be put away.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: to conciliate disputes. Rabbi Shimon holds that when Elijah will come he will settle all the disputes between the Rabbis.", + "And the Sages say: neither to put away nor to bring near, but to make peace in the world, for it is said, “Behold I send to you Elijah the prophet”, etc., “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 3:23-2. The Sages hold that when Elijah comes it will only be to bring peace to the world. However, we should notice what peace means in this mishnah: a state of familial harmony. Peace doesn’t only mean the absence of warfare, rather it is more accurately interpreted as societal well-being, a reconciliation of parents with children. The Sages’ opinion is supported by the final verses of the book of Malachi, the very verses that teach that the Messianic age will be preceded by Elijah.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How does Rabbi Shimon’s opinion compare with the other opinions in the mishnah? What does he hold about Godly intervention in human affairs?Congratulations! We have finished Eduyoth.By now, for those of you who have been learning since the beginning of the Seder, you have grown accustomed to this point, where we thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.However, I believe in this case we should give pause and offer an even greater hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). This tractate is certainly one of the more difficult tractates, one which includes an extremely wide variety of topics. Oftentimes each mishnah or even each section of each mishnah contained a new topic. This has made the tractate difficult to follow. For those of you who nevertheless stuck it out, Yasher Koach. For those of you who gave up, do not despair. The remaining three tractates of Nezikin are much simpler. Tomorrow we begin to learn Tractate Avodah Zarah." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עדיות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3eb85ea65d6a2e218501002a84e561ba578c4db9 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,465 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Eduyot", + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Shammai says: “For all women [who begin to menstruate] it suffices [to reckon their impurity from] the time [of their discovering it].” And Hillel says: “[Their impurity is reckoned backwards] from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, even if this covers many days.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one, but [they are considered impure for] the past twenty four hours when this lessens the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, and for the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination when this lessens the past twenty-four hours.” This mishnah discusses a woman’s ritual impurity as a menstruant. When a woman menstruates she makes impure certain things which she touches. The problem is that a woman may not always know when she begins to menstruate, in order to know which things that she touched are impure. Shammai is not concerned with this problem; he states that only things that they have touched after they discover that they are menstruating are impure. Hillel is very considered about this problem; he states that anything touched after the last time she checked herself is impure. In other words, since we cannot be certain when she began menstruating after the last time she checked, we are strict and anything from this time and onwards is impure. The Sages, who probably lived after Shammai and Hillel, found a compromise position. The things a menstruant touched before she discovered that she was menstruating are impure either within the last twenty-four hours or since she last checked, whichever was more recent. For example if it is now Tuesday afternoon and she checked herself on Tuesday morning, anything she touched between the morning and the afternoon is assumed to be impure. If however, it is now Tuesday afternoon and she checked herself Monday morning, anything she touched in the last twenty-four hour period is impure.", + "Any woman who has a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her impurity from] her set time. Any woman who has a regular cycle, begins to make things impure only from the moment she realizes that she is menstruating. It can be assumed that this woman did not begin menstruating at an earlier time since she has a regular cycle.", + "She who uses testing-cloths [when she has sexual relations], behold this is like an examination: it lessens either the period of the [past] twenty four hours or the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination. If a woman wipes herself clean after having relations with her husband, this counts as checking herself. If within the next twenty-four hours she should realize that she is menstruating, she has made impure only those things which she touched since she had relations and cleaned herself." + ], + [ + "Shammai says: “[Dough] of a kav or more is subject to the law of hallah.” And Hillel says: “Of two kavs or more.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one, but [dough of] a kav and a half is subject to the law of hallah.” Numbers 15:20-21 commands Jews to set aside some of their dough and give it to the priests. This is called “hallah”. The question is how big of a batch of dough makes a person liable to separate hallah? According to Shammai, if one mixes one kav of dough he must separate hallah to give to the priests. A kav is about 1 ½ liters. According to Hillel, two kavs of dough make one obligated to separate hallah. The Sages compromise between the two positions and state that 1 ½ kavs is sufficient to obligate for hallah.", + "And after they increased the measures they said: “[Dough of] five quarters is subject. Rabbi Yose said: “Five are exempt, five and more are liable.” Later in the Mishnaic period, in Tsippori which is in the Galilee, the measure of weights were increased so that a kav was now larger than it used to be. Therefore, the amount that obligates one to separate hallah became 1 1/5 kavs. According to Rabbi Yose, exactly 1 1/5 kavs does not obligate one to separate hallah, but anything over that amount does.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why should there be a minimum amount of dough to make one liable to separate hallah? Why shouldn’t a person have to separate hallah from even a small amount of dough?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three contains a dispute between Hillel and Shammai with regards to the laws of the mikveh (ritual bath).", + "Hillel says: “A hin full of drawn water renders the mikweh unfit.” (However, man must speak in the language of his teacher.) And Shammai says: “Nine kavs.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one;” But when two weavers from the dung-gate which is in Jerusalem came and testified in the name of Shemaiah and Avtalion, “Three logs of drawn water render the mikweh unfit,” the Sages confirmed their statement. A mikveh, a ritual bath used to cleanse ritual impurity, must contain water that has not been drawn by human hands. The water must get into the mikveh by natural means, either through rain or a stream. The question our mishnah asks is how much drawn water can fall into a mikveh before it becomes unfit to cleanse? According to Hillel, if one hin falls in, the mikveh is unfit. A hin is equal to three kavs (about 4 ½ liters). The mishnah notes that Hillel used the word “hin” and not the word “kav”, even though kav is more commonly used and Hillel himself used the word in the previous mishnah. The answer is that Hillel heard this law about the mikveh from his teacher in this language, and although Hillel himself did not regularly use this language he still taught the statement in the form that he heard it. This is to teach that when you quote your teacher you must use the same language s/he used. Shammai gives a larger measure which would make a mikveh unfit: nine kavs. A smaller amount of drawn water that falls into a mikveh does not render it unfit. As we saw in the first two mishnayoth, the Sages accept neither the words of Shammai nor the words of Hillel. Rather they accept the testimony given by two weavers who were at the Dung-Gate in Jerusalem (the gate next to the Western Wall), who said that Shemaiah and Avtalion, two early Sages, stated that three lugs, which is a quarter of a hin, are enough to render the mikveh unfit." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses why the Mishnah records opinions that are not accepted as normative Jewish law (halakhah).", + "And why do they record the opinions of Shammai and Hillel for naught? To teach the following generations that a man should not [always] persist in his opinion, for behold, the fathers of the world did not persist in their opinion. This mishnah, and the two mishnayoth which we will learn tomorrow ask deep questions about the nature of the Mishnah in its totality. In the previous two mishnayoth we learned statements of Shammai and Hillel that were not accepted as normative law. Indeed, throughout this year of learning we have read and discussed many statements that are not law in our days, nor in the days in which those statements were recited. Why then does the Mishnah record and do we continue to learn these statements? One answer, the answer that our mishnah provides, is to teach that just as Shammai and Hillel compromised and changed their minds when they saw they were contradicted, and they were the “fathers of the world”, the founders of Rabbinic Judaism, all the more so should lesser people change their mind when they realize that they may be wrong. The mishnah then becomes a lesson not in argumentation, but in compromise and unity. The mishnah records minority opinions to show that even great teachers change their mind when wrong. We will learn other reasons tomorrow." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the question why are minority opinions recorded in the Mishnah, if there is a rule that the halakhah (the law) is according to the majority opinion.", + "And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. Generally speaking, when there is a dispute in the Mishnah between an individual Sage and the rest of the Sages, the halakhah is according to the Sages. This is due to a “majority rules” principle. Our mishnah asks why then, does the Mishnah record the minority opinion, if that is not to be the accepted halakhah? Before we begin to discuss the answer, which is somewhat difficult to decipher, we should recognize the importance of the question. The Mishnah is not purely a book of halakhah, Jewish law, because it contains a plurality of opinions. In my mind this makes an important statement about Judaism and Jewish law: the first great work of the Oral Torah, that work which continues to shape Judaism to this very day, is not a recording of what one is supposed to do. It records a dialogue between the Sages, meant to be learned and extrapolated. This is the process of “Talmud Torah” that continues to this day. Furthermore, the Mishnah teaches that minority opinions are not necessarily “wrong” even though they may not be accepted. The answer the mishnah provides to its question is slightly cryptic. I will explain it in one way, but there are others who have explained it differently. The mishnah records the opinions of individual Sages so that future courts might rely on their opinions and decide halakhah according to them. Although at the time of the Mishnah these opinions were not accepted by the majority, since they are not “wrong”, in the future other courts may accept them. If a future court were to disagree with the opinions of an earlier court, and there was no recorded minority opinion, they could only change the decision if they were both wiser and greater in number than the earlier court. In other words there are two ways, according to our mishnah, that a future court can overturn an earlier decision: 1) by relying on a minority opinion; 2) by being greater in number and wisdom." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six contains a different answer to the same question asked in mishnah five: why are minority opinions recorded in the mishnah.", + "Rabbi Judah said: “If so, why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many to set it aside? So that if a man shall say, ‘Thus have I received the tradition’, it may be said to him, ‘According to the [refuted] opinion of that individual did you hear it.’” Rabbi Judah asks the same question that was asked in the previous mishnah: why does the Mishnah record minority opinions. His answer, however, is the exact opposite of the previous answer. According to Rabbi Judah, minority opinions are recorded so that future Rabbis will not be able to rely on those opinions. If a person in the future should say that he learned the tradition in a certain way, a Rabbi could point to the Mishnah and tell him that that is a minority opinion and is therefore not accepted as halakhah. Halakhah according to Rabbi Judah will continue to follow the majority. Note the irony that the Mishnah records a dispute about why it preserves minority opinions, and in this very discussion there is a recorded minority opinion. If we were to look at this dispute in these two mishnayoth through the eyes of those who gave the first answer, they would have to say that in the future Rabbi Judah’s answer might be acceptable! In other words those who allow for a change in the halakhah, must admit that in the future such change might not be acceptable. If we were to look at the same dispute through Rabbi Judah’s eyes, we would have to say that this opinion is unaccepted now and forever! Meaning, Rabbi Judah himself would have to admit that minority opinions are acceptable in the future, in which case, perhaps, even his minority opinion would someday be accepted.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What might be some of the underlying conceptual differences between Rabbi Judah’s and the Sages’ (mishnah five) reasons why minority opinions are preserved in the Mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Beth Shammai says: “A quarter-kav of any bones, even from two limbs or from three.”
And Beth Hillel says: “A quarter-kav of bones from a corpse, either from [the bones which form] the greater portion of the [body’s] build, or from the greater portion of the number [of the body’s bones].
Shammai says: “Even from a single bone.”
This mishnah begins to list disputes between Beth Shammai (the school of Shammai) and Beth Hillel (the school of Hillel). The rest of the chapter will contain disputes between these two schools.
Numbers 19:14 teaches that if a person dies in a tent things that are in the tent, including the people, can become impure, even though they have not touched the dead body. Our mishnah discusses how many bones must be in the tent for them to be considered a dead body which will cause ritual impurity.
According to Beth Shammai, a quarter-kav of bones will transmit impurity, as long as they come from at least two or three different bones. Beth Hillel agrees that a quarter-kav of bones is enough to cause impurity but they state that the bones must either come from the greater portion of the body (the hips, thighs, rib cage and spine) or from a majority of the number of bones in the body, considered to be 248. If there is a quarter-kav but they come from only one limb or many limbs but not a majority of the number or from the greater portion, they do not transmit impurity.
Shammai himself is even stricter than Beth Shammai, for he holds that a quarter-kav from one bone transmits impurity." + ], + [ + "Vetches of terumah: Beth Shammai says, “They must be soaked and rubbed in purity, but can be given for food in impurity.”
And Beth Hillel says: “They must be soaked in purity, but can be rubbed and given for food in impurity.”
Shammai says: “They must be eaten dry.”
Rabbi Akiva says: “All actions in connection with them [can be carried out] in impurity.”
In order to understand this mishnah we must first explain several rules.
1) Terumah (heave offering) is a portion of produce separated to give to the priests. It is only given from human food and not from animal feed. Vetches, a type of bean, are generally given to animals, but can be eaten by humans in time of need.
2) It is forbidden to cause terumah to become impure. A person who touches terumah must have previously ritually washed his hands.
3) Food can receive impurity only once it has been made wet. While it is dry it cannot receive impurity.
Our mishnah discusses the preparation of vetches of terumah. According to Beth Shammai they must be prepared (both soaked and rubbed) with pure hands, lest the person decide to eat them himself, in which case it would be forbidden to make them impure. However, they may be given to animals by a person with impure hands, since animal food is not really terumah.
According to Beth Hillel, they must be soaked by a person with pure hands, since getting them wet enables them to receive impurity. However, when he rubs them or gives them to an animal it is obvious that they are not intended for humans, and therefore he can do so with impure hands.
Shammai himself is again, stricter than Beth Shammai. He holds that vetches must be eaten dry so that they will not be able to receive impurity. Assumedly, Shammai would agree that a person might also eat them with clean hands.
Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is the most lenient. He holds that vetches are not fit for human consumption and therefore one may do anything with them while his hands are impure. Since vetches are animal food the rules of the purity of terumah do not apply to them." + ], + [ + "One who changes for a sela copper coins from second tithe: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel say: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” Rabbi Meir says: “Silver and fruits may not be substituted for silver.” But the sages allow it. Second tithe, the second ten percent of agricultural products, was to be taken to Jerusalem and consumed there. If it was inconvenient to carry all of the second tithe produce to Jerusalem, one could redeem the produce with money and bring the money to Jerusalem. Our mishnah discusses a person who has already redeemed some second tithe and wishes to exchange his small copper coins for a larger more valuable silver coin, a sela, which will be easier to carry to Jerusalem. According to Beth Shammai, in order to do this he must have a whole sela’s worth of copper coin. If he has only half a sela’s worth of copper (=shekel) and he has a silver shekel (=1/2 sela) which is also of second tithe, he may not exchange the shekel and shekel’s worth of copper for a sela since it is forbidden to exchange silver second tithe for other silver second tithe. According to Beth Hillel, one is permitted to exchange a silver shekel and a shekel’s worth of copper coins for a sela. Although it is in general forbidden to exchange silver second tithe for other silver second tithe, since part of this exchange is copper, it is permitted. Rabbi Meir limits Beth Hillel’s opinion. Although it is permitted to exchange silver and copper for silver second tithe, it is forbidden to exchange fruit and silver for other silver. However, the Sages allow even this." + ], + [ + "
One who exchanges a sela from second tithe in Jerusalem: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel says: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” The disputants before the Sages say: “Silver for three denars and copper coin for one denar.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Silver for three denars and for the fourth silver, copper coin.” Rabbi Tarfon says: “Four aspers in silver.” Shammai says: “He must leave it in the shop and eat on the credit thereof.” This mishnah discusses the person who arrives in Jerusalem with his silver sela of second tithe and wishes to exchange it for copper coins so that he can buy small quantities of food. According to Beth Shammai he must exchange the entire sela for copper. This is consistent with Beth Shammai’s opinion in the previous mishnah: one cannot exchange silver second tithe with silver, but only with copper. According to Beth Hillel, he may exchange half of the sela for a silver shekel and the other half for copper. Again, Beth Hillel holds that since he is exchanging part of the sela for copper he may also exchange part for silver. Rabbi Akiva takes Beth Hillel’s position even further. A person may exchange even ¼ of the sela (denar) for copper and the rest (3/4) for silver. A sela is worth four denars. Rabbi Tarfon goes even further. For the fourth denar he may even take four aspers of silver and one asper’s worth of copper. An asper is 1/5 of a denar. Shammai again is strictest. He holds that he shouldn’t exchange the sela at all. Rather he should leave it at a store and eat on credit." + ], + [ + "According to Leviticus 15:4, any object on which a person who has had a discharge sits is impure. The Rabbis taught that things that are not made to sit upon or are not fit to sit upon, do not receive impurity. Our mishnah discusses two types of stools and whether or not they can receive impurity.", + "A bride’s stool from which the covering-boards have been taken: Beth Shammai pronounces it [liable to become] unclean, And Beth Hillel pronounce it not [liable to become] unclean. Shammai says: “Even the framework of a stool [by itself is liable to become] unclean.” An ordinary stool was made of four legs held together by four boards (the framework), on which were placed covering boards for sitting. A bride’s stool had, in addition, three upright covering boards (also called ‘covering-boards’), against which the occupant leant. The question in our mishnah is with regards to the status of a bride’s stool that does not have its special covering boards. According to Beth Shammai, since this stool can still be sat upon, it can receive impurity. According to Beth Hillel, since it does not fulfill its intended function as a bride’s stool, it cannot receive impurity. Shammai, again taking the strictest position, holds that even a simple framework with no coverings can receive impurity. Since one could potentially sit on the framework, it is considered enough of a stool to potentially become impure.", + "A stool which has been set in a baker’s trough: Beth Shammai pronounces it [liable to become] unclean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it not [liable to become] unclean. Shammai says: “Even one made therein [is liable to become unclean].” If someone took a stool and put it into a kneading trough, in order to put flour or dough upon it, Beth Shammai would still rule that it is a stool and therefore susceptible to impurity. Beth Hillel rules that the stool is now part of the trough, and since the trough can’t become impure, neither can the stool. The reason that the trough can’t become impure is that it was not made for sitting. Shammai rules that even a stool that was made from the outset as part of a trough, and therefore was never intended for sitting, can become impure. Although it was not intended for sitting, since one could sit on it, it can become impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah twelve begins a series of mishnayoth in which Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai initially disagree, until Beth Hillel changes their minds and teaches according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. Aside from the specific content of these mishnayoth, Beth Hillel’s willingness to admit that their rivals, Beth Shammai were correct, and even to subsequently teach their opinions, teaches a lesson of humility for all generations. Beth Hillel did not allow their personal glory to supersede their search for truth; when they recognized their own mistakes, they admitted them and changed their opinions accordingly.", + "Our mishnah discusses a woman who returns from overseas and claims that her husband has died. The woman cannot bring any documentation to her husband’s death, and therefore the issue arises, is she to be believed? If she is believed, then there are four consequences to her statement discussed by our mishnah: 1) she may remarry, as a widow; 2) if the husband did not have children, she must be married to the husband’s brother (levirate marriage) or have him perform halitzah, the release from levirate marriage; 3) she may collect her kethubah, her marriage document which is paid upon death of the husband or divorce; 4) the husband’s brothers or other inheritors would divide his estate.", + "These are subjects concerning which Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai:
A woman who came from overseas and said: “My husband died” may be married again; “My husband died [without children]” she must be married by her husband’s brother (the. But Beth Hillel says: “We have heard so only in the case of one who came from the harvesting.” Beth Shammai said to them: “It is the same thing in the case of one who came from the harvesting or who came from the olive-picking or who came from overseas; they mentioned harvesting only because that is how it happened.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to Beth Shammai. According to Beth Shammai she is believed and may remarry. If the husband had no children she must either undergo levirate marriage or halitzah. Beth Hillel responds that the precedent for this law was a case where a woman had gone harvesting with her husband and she returned claiming that he had died. In such a case we don’t suspect that the woman would lie, for if she did her husband would return and contradict her. Since “harvesting” is close to the city, if the husband was alive he would return. However, if she was returning from abroad, she is not believed, for the husband may still be alive and she might lie assuming that he will not turn up. Beth Shammai responds that she is always believed, no matter where she had been. The case of “harvesting” was how the event really happened, but the Rabbis would have allowed her to remarry under any circumstance. In other words, from where she was returning is immaterial. Beth Hillel accepted Beth Shammai’s opinion and taught according to them.", + "Beth Shammai says: “She may be married again and take her kethubah payment.” Beth Shammai further stated that this woman may not only remarry but may collect her marriage payment from her husband’s estate. Beth Hillel responded to Beth Shammai that although she may remarry, we do not allow her to collect the money, lest the husband is still alive. Beth Shammai then raised a difficulty with Beth Hillel’s opinion: generally speaking the law is more strict with regards to issues of personal status than with issues of money. If you are going to allow her to remarry, as we have already done, for which there are serious consequences (if it turned out that her husband had not died), all the more so should she collect the kethubah payment, for which there are not such serious consequences (at worst she will have to pay it back). Beth Hillel responded that with regards to monetary results of the alleged death, the brothers do not share in his inheritance. In other words, Beth Hillel brings proof from another area of law that with regards to monetary issues, this man’s death is not considered confirmed. To this Beth Shammai responds that we can learn that she collects her kethubah payment from the language written in the kethubah itself. The kethubah states that if she remarries, she may collect her kethubah payment. From this wording Beth Shammai concludes that any time she is allowed to remarry, she may collect her kethubah. Beth Hillel thereby accepted Beth Shammai’s point and taught according to them.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What does Beth Shammai hold with regards to the division of the allegedly dead husband’s estate: do the brothers divide the inheritance? If they do not inherit, why not? Why would Beth Shammai on the one hand believe the woman enough to allow her to remarry, but not in order to allow the dead husband’s brothers to inherit?
• In all of these cases why do you think Beth Hillel changed their minds?" + ], + [ + "Whoever is half a slave and half a free man should work one day for his master and one day for himself, according to Beth Hillel.
Beth Shammai said to them: “You have set matters in order with regards to his master, but you have not set matters in order with regards to himself. He is not able to marry a slave-woman, nor is he able [to marry] a woman who is free. Is he to refrain [from marrying]? [How can he] for is it not the case that the world was created in order for people to be fruitful and multiply? For it is said, “He did not create it to be a waste; but formed it for inhabitation” (Isaiah 45:18). But for the rightful ordering of the world his master is compelled to make him free, and he writes out a bond for half his value.”
Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.
This mishnah discusses the case of a slave who is half free and half a slave. This situation could arise if a slave was owned by two masters and one of them set his half free. Beth Hillel allows such a situation to persists and rules that one day a week he should work for his master and one day a week he works for himself. In other words, this person can remain a half-slave.
Beth Shammai remarks to Beth Hillel that this is a fine arrangement for the master, but does not solve an essential problem for the slave. A slave is permitted to marry a female slave but a regular Jew is not allowed to marry a female slave. The half of this person who is a slave could marry a female slave but not a free Jewish woman, and the half of this person who is a Jew (when slaves are freed they become Jewish) could marry a Jewish woman but not a slave woman. Since this problem is irreconcilable, he could not marry anyone. Beth Shammai points out that this is also not an acceptable situation, and contradicts the existence of the entire creation. God created people so that they could establish families and not so that they could remain celibate.
The only solution is that he must be freed by the one remaining master, who writes him a manumission document. The slave then accepts upon himself a debt to pay back his owner and the slave goes free.
When Beth Hillel heard Beth Shammai’s argument they accepted it, and taught like them.
We should note how truly remarkable this mishnah is. Slavery was an accepted institution in the ancient world, and in every society slaves were amongst the lowest of the social classes. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai is concerned that even slaves should have the opportunity to fulfill the purpose of the creation of the world: procreation." + ], + [ + "A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel.
But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.” Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?” Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].” Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?” Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.”
Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.
According to Numbers 19:15, a clay vessel that is covered with a lid prevents impurity from entering inside of it. If this vessel is found in a room with a dead body, which would normally cause everything in the room to be impure, the clay vessel and all that is inside of it does not contract the impurity. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel argue about what types of things which may be inside the clay vessels are not impure. According to Beth Hillel any object inside the vessel is pure. Beth Shammai holds that only food, liquids and other clay vessels remain pure; non-clay vessels would be impure.
Beth Shammai explains that we can assume that the clay vessel has been touched by an ignoramus (am haaretz), a person who does not strictly know or observe the laws of ritual purity. It is assumed that the am haaretz makes the vessel impure. Since an impure vessel does not prevent the impurity from entering, the things inside of it are impure.
Beth Hillel responds to Beth Shammai by pointing out that they did indeed accept that the food and liquids inside the vessel were pure. If the clay vessel does not prevent impurity from entering, why should anything inside of it remain pure?
To this question Beth Shammai responds that when they stated that the food and liquids were pure they meant for the am haaretz himself and not for the haver (a person who scrupulously observes the laws of purity and indeed eats only pure food). Beth Shammai assumes that a haver will not borrow any of these things from an am haaretz, since they cannot be made pure (a clay vessel cannot be cleansed of its impurity). Therefore Beth Shammai can pronounce these things clean, knowing that they will never come into the hands of a haver. However, when Beth Hillel pronounced everything inside pure, they were in essence declaring it pure for both the am haaretz and the haver. Beth Hillel had implied that even metal vessels, inside the clay vessel, remained pure. A haver might borrow metal vessels from an am haaretz, with the intent of immersing them to cleanse them of their impurities. However, this immersion will only cleanse them from light impurities and not from impurity contracted from a dead body. Therefore, an am haaretz might borrow them thinking that he could cleanse them and in reality he could not. Due to this problem, Beth Hillel retracted their opinion and taught like Beth Shammai." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first three mishnayoth contain four things upon which Rabbi Hanina, the chief of the priests testified. The first mishnah discusses burning impure things.", + "Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, testified concerning four matters:
Through all their days the priests never refrained from burning meat which had been defiled by an “offspring” of impurity with meat which had been made impure by a “father” of impurity, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity. Rabbi Akiba added: “Through all their days the priests never shrank from lighting oil which had been rendered unfit by a tevul yom in a lamp made impure by one who was made impure by a corpse, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity.” In order to understand the first “testimony” of Rabbi Hanina we must explain some rules concerning impurity. There are a number of things which are considered to be “fathers” of impurity, including a human corpse. If a “father” of impurity touches something it becomes an “offspring” of impurity. There are several levels of “offspring” of impurity. The “first offspring”, when it touches food or liquids (but not people and things) causes them to be a “second offspring”. “Second offspring” makes only terumah food but not normal food into “third offspring”. “Third offspring” can make holy things such as sacrifices into “fourth offspring”. Rabbi Hanina testifies that the priests did not refrain from burning meat which had been made impure by an “offspring” with meat that had been made impure by a “father” of impurity, even though the latter meat, which is a “first offspring” increases the impurity of the former meat, which according to the Talmud had been a “third offspring”, to the status of “second offspring”. The reason is that all of this meat was going to be burned anyway, since impure sacrifices are forbidden to eat. Although it is generally forbidden to intentionall make sacrifices impure, that refers to already pure sacrifices. It is not a problem to increase the impurity of already impure sacrifices. Rabbi Akiva adds another example. The priests did not refrain from burning oil which had contracted a light form of impurity with oil that had contracted a serious form of impurity, even though this will increase the impurity of the oil. The light form of impurity is contracted by coming into contact with a “tevul yom”, one who had already been immersed in a ritual bath and was merely waiting for the sunset to become fully pure. The serious form of impurity is that which is contracted from a corpse." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two discusses burning the hides of sacrificially unfit animals.", + "Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, said: “All my days I never saw a hide taken out to the place of burning.” Rabbi Akiba said: “From his words we infer that whoever flays the hide of the firstborn beast and it is found to be trefah, the priests may enjoy the use of the hide.” But the Sages say: “[A testimony which consists of] ‘we didn’t see’ is not a proof; rather the hide must be taken out to the place of burning. In Tractate Zevahim 12:4 the Mishnah teaches that if a sacrificial animal is found to be unfit as a sacrifice before it’s hide is flayed, the entire animal must be burnt. If it is found to be unfit after it’s hide is flayed, the priests may keep the hide. Rabbi Hanina testifies that he never saw a hide being burnt. In other words, according to Rabbi Hanina if they already removed the hide, the priests may make use of it, even though the animal was deemed unfit to be a sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva learns from this that if one flays the hide of a firstborn animal, which belongs to the priests, and then discovers that it was a trefah, an animal with an internal flaw that would have caused its death, the priests may keep the hide. Since the flaw was not known before the hide was removed, the hide becomes the property of the priests. The Sages respond to Rabbi Akiva that the type of testimony that Rabbi Hanina transmitted is not reliable enough to base upon it halakhic solutions. Not seeing something does not mean that it did not happen. Since they exclude Rabbi Hanina’s testimony the law is that the hide must be burnt with the rest of the animal, and the priests are forbidden to receive benefit from it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three contains the final two testimonies of Rabbi Hananyah, chief of priests.", + "He also testified concerning a small village in the vicinity of Jerusalem in which there was an old man who used to lend to all the people of the village and write out [the bond] in his own handwriting and others signed it. And when the fact was brought before the Sages they pronounced it legal. Hence, incidentally, you may infer that a wife may write her own bill of divorcement, and a husband may write his own receipt; for the legality of a document depends only on those who sign it. The third thing about which Rabbi Hananyah testified is about the manner in which documents may be written. He testified that he saw an elder in a town near Jerusalem who used to write out his own loan documents and have others sign them and the Sages pronounced it legal, even though the witnesses did not write out the entire document themselves. Without Rabbi Hananyah’s testimony we might have thought that the lender is not allowed to write out the document himself, for fear that he would forget a document and thereby falsely claim that someone owed him money. From Rabbi Hananyah’s testimony we learn that a woman is allowed to write out her own divorce document and a man might right out his own receipt for having paid the woman’s ketubah (marriage payment). Even though the divorce document is given by the man to the woman and the receipt is given by the woman to the man, since the legality of a document depends solely upon the witnesses, it does not matter who writes it out. As long as these documents are witnessed properly, they are valid.", + "And [he testified] concerning a needle which was found in flesh of a [sacrifice], that the knife and the hands [which had been employed on the flesh] are clean, but the flesh itself is defiled; and if it was found in the excrement, all are clean. The final issue upon which Rabbi Hananyah testified is with regards to a needle which was found in the body of a sacrifice after it had been slaughtered. The needle was known to have been made impure by a dead body and the question is being asked, are the knife that had been used to slaughter the animal and the person who slaughtered the animal impure from having had contact with the impure needle. Rabbi Hananyah testifies that the knife and slaughterer are not impure but the flesh of the sacrifice is impure, for the needle surely came into contact with it. The reason that the knife and slaughterer are still pure is that doubtful cases of impurity in the public domain are considered pure. The flesh does not make the knife impure because food does not impart impurity to vessels. If, however, the needle was found in the feces of the animal, the knife, slaughterer and even the flesh are pure, because we cannot be sure that the animal’s flesh touched the needle. Although we could assume that the animal swallowed the needle and therefore it touched the flesh, this is not certain and therefore, since this happened in the public domain, the rules are lenient." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four contains three testimonies of Rabbi Yishmael, which he gave in front of the other Sages in Yavneh. As I stated in the introduction to Eduyoth, this is where the Sages gathered after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.", + "Rabbi Yishmael declared three things before the Sages in the vineyard at Yavneh: Concerning an egg which was beaten together, and placed on vegetables of terumah that it acts as a connection; but if it was in the form of a helmet it does not act as a connection. In the situation in this section a mixed egg is on top of a vegetable which is terumah (only eaten by priests). If a tevul yom, one who was been in the mikveh (bath of ritual purity), and who is considered to carry second degree impurity (see above mishnah one) touches the mixed egg it is as if he also touched the vegetable, and he conveys third degree impurity to the vegetable. In other words, the egg is part of the vegetable and touching the egg counts as touching the vegetable. Since third degree impurity makes terumah impure, the vegetable is impure. If however the egg has been cooked and rose to form a type of covering over the vegetable, it does not connect the tevul yom with the vegetable and the vegetable remains pure. In other words the central question asked is: does touching the egg make the vegetable impure.", + "And concerning an ear of corn in the harvesting, the top of which reached the standing corn that if it can be reaped together with the standing corn, it belongs to the owner; and if not, it belongs to the poor. When a farmer is harvesting his wheat, if he forgets a stalk he may not go back and reap it. Rather he must leave it for the poor (see Deuteronomy 24:19). Rabbi Yishmael defines what is a forgotten stalk. If a person leaves a stalk and it is close enough to another stalk at which he has not yet arrived, that if he were to bend the first stalk it could touch the other stalk, then it is not considered to have been forgotten and he may reap it. If it is not close enough to bend it and touch the other stalk, it is considered forgotten and he must leave it for the poor.", + "And concerning a small garden which was surrounded by a row of vines that if it has space for the grape-gatherer and his basket on one side, and space for the grape-gatherer and his basket on the other side, it may be sown with seed; but if not, it may not be sown with seed. According to Deuteronomy 22:9, it is forbidden to plant seeds in a vineyard. Rabbi Yishmael testifies that if a small garden surrounded by one row of grape vines is big enough on each of its sides for a grape-gatherer to stand there with his basket then he may plant the garden with seeds. In such a case the garden is large enough to be considered separate from the vineyard. If, however, the garden is smaller, then it is merely a bald patch inside a vineyard, and it is forbidden to plant there seeds." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four, which we learned yesterday, contained three things that Rabbi Yishmael had said in front of the Sages in Yavneh. Mishnah five contains three things which Rabbi Yishmael did not know how to explain, and Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained them for him.", + "They stated three things before Rabbi Yishmael, and he pronounced none of them either unlawful or lawful; and Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained them.
One who lances an abscess on the Sabbath: if it was to make an opening he is liable; if it was to bring out the pus, he is exempt. The first issue about which Rabbi Yishmael did not know how to answer is one who lances an abscess on the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained that if he did it in order to make a permanent opening in the abscess, then he is obligated for breaking the Sabbath. This type of work is considered to be like “constructing” which is forbidden. If, however, he intended to let out the pus, he is exempt, for his intention was not to “construct” an opening. The fact that an opening was constructed is an unintended by-product, for which one is not generally liable on the Sabbath.", + "And concerning one who hunts a snake on the Sabbath: that if he was occupied with it in order that it should not bite him, he is innocent; but if that he might use it as a remedy, he is guilty. Hunting is forbidden on the Sabbath. If a person should kill a snake in order to prevent it from biting him, he is exempt since the death of the snake is an unintended by-product. His true intent was to protect himself. If, however, he kills the snake to use it for medicine, he is liable since his intention was to kill the snake.", + "And concerning Ironian stewpots: that they do not contract impurity when under the same tent as a corpse; but become impure if they are carried by a zav. Rabbi Eliezer ben Zadok says: “Even if they are carried by a zav they remain pure, because they are unfinished.” Ironian stewpots are clay pots that were made by villagers. They were at first made into hollow balls and then split in half to create two pots. The issue here is what type of impurity can these pots receive. Rabbi Joshua ben Mattiah explains, that as long as they have not been opened, they are considered to be covered clay pots which do not receive impurity by being in the same roofed structure as a corpse (see chapter one, mishnah fourteen). If a zav, a person who has had an abnormal genital discharge, should carry one of these jars it is impure, since clay jars can receive impurity by being carried by zavim. However, Rabbi Elazar ben Zadok, a later Sage, points out that they are not even made impure by contact with zavim. There is a general rule that a vessel which has not been completely finished does not receive impurity. Since Ironian pots are not completed until they are split in half, it can’t receive any impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six contains three examples of one law, about which Rabbi Akiva disagreed with Rabbi Yishmael.", + "Rabbi Yishmael said three things, and Rabbi Akiba disagreed with him.
Garlic or unripe grapes or green ears of grain were being crushed [on the eve of the Sabbath] while it is yet day: Rabbi Yishmael says: “He may finish crushing after it grows dark.” But Rabbi Akiba says: “He may not finish.” According to Rabbi Yishmael, if a person began crushing garlic, unripe grapes or green ears of grain before the Sabbath, he may continue to do so on the Sabbath. It would be forbidden to begin to crush these things on the Sabbath, since crushing and squeezing to get the juice out of produce is forbidden. However, since he began crushing them before the Sabbath, and the liquid is already starting to come out, he may continue to do so. The liquid from these things would be used for certain types of dips. Rabbi Akiva forbids this. According to him, just as it is forbidden to begin to crush, so too it is forbidden to continue crushing." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven contains three things that other Sages said in front of Rabbi Akiva: two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer and one in the name of Rabbi Joshua.", + "Two things were said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer in front of Rabbi Akiva.", + "They said three things before Rabbi Akiva, two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer and one in the name of Rabbi Joshua. Two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer:
A woman may go out [on the Sabbath adorned] with a “golden-city”; A woman may go out of her house on the Sabbath wearing a tiara of gold, stamped with the imprint of Jerusalem. This is called a “golden city”. The general reason why women are not allowed to wear jewelry in the public domain on the Sabbath is that she might take off the piece to show it to others and will thereby transgress the prohibition of carrying in the public domain on the Sabbath. However, Rabbi Eliezer holds that since a woman who has such a tiara must be wealthy, and wealthy women do not take off their jewelry to show it off, we need not be concerned that they will do so. By the way, this phrase is reminiscent of the “Jerusalem of Gold”, the “Yerushalayim shel Zahav” given by Rabbi Akiva to his wife, and made famous by the modern song. Evidently it was a well known piece of jewelry in ancient times.", + "And they that fly pigeons are unfit to bear evidence. And one in the name of Rabbi Joshua: Those that race pigeons are unfit to testify, since this is a form of gambling. We learned this law in Sanhedrin 3:3.", + "If there was a creeping thing in the mouth of a weasel when it walked over loaves of terumah, and it is doubtful whether it touched them or whether it did not touch them, that about which there is doubt remains pure. There was one law stated in the name of Rabbi Joshua. If a weasel has a dead creepy crawly thing (which is a source of impurity) in its mouth, and the weasel walks on loaves of terumah, and we are unsure whether the creepy crawly thing touched the terumah, the terumah remains pure. This is due to a general rule that if a source of impurity is moving, and it is doubtful whether it touched anything, the thing it might have touched remains pure. Since the weasel was moving and it is doubtful whether what was in its mouth touched the terumah, the terumah remains pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah eight contains three statements of Rabbi Akiva. The Sages agreed with two of these statements and disagreed with the other.", + "Rabbi Akiba declared three things; about two they agreed with him, and about one they disagreed with him.
About a lime-burner’s sandal, that it is liable to contract midras impurity; A lime-burners sandal is a special sandal that he wears over his feet in order to protect them for the burning lime. The question being raised is are these sandals normal footwear, such that they receive midras impurity. Midras impurity is a kind of impurity imparted by a zav (someone who had an abnormal genital discharge) to things which are normally walked upon. For instance if a zav steps upon a carpet it is impure, for carpets are made to be walked upon. However, if he steps upon a book it does not receive midras impurity, since people don’t normally walk on books. Rabbi Akiva teaches that although lime-burners are not made to be walked in, since they are put on a person’s feet, they can receive midras impurity.", + "And about the remains of a [broken] oven, that they must be four handbreadths high [in order to retain impurity], whereas they used to say three and [when he said four] they agreed with him. And about one they disagreed with him If an object that has contracted impurity breaks and is therefore no longer useful, it is no longer impure. The question is into how small pieces must an oven break for it to become pure. According to Rabbi Akiva pieces which are smaller than 4 handbreaths (about a foot) retain impurity. Before the Sages heard Rabbi Akiva’s opinion they had held that a piece 3 handbreadths retains impurity. When they heard Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, they agreed with him.", + "About a stool, from which two of its covering-boards had been removed, the one beside the other, which Rabbi Akiba pronounces able to contract impurity, but the Sages declare unable to contract impurity. The disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Akiva is over a chair which had two adjoining cover-boards removed. We discussed this issue in chapter one, mishnah eleven, when we discussed the special bridal chair. Here we learn that according to The Sages, once two adjoining cover-boards are removed, it is no longer useful as a chair, and therefore it is not receptive to impurity. Rabbi Akiva hold that since the chair could still be used if there was great need for it, it can still receive impurity. In other words, it is still a chair." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth nine (and ten) contain further statements of Rabbi Akiva. These statements are not about halakhah, but rather about aggadah, or Jewish legend.", + "He used to say: the father transmits to the son beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom and years. This mishnah contains a popular saying by Rabbi Akiva, that a son inherits from his father, beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom and years, which is length of life.", + "And the number of generations before Him, that shall be their appointed end: For it is said, “calling the generations from the beginning” (Isaiah 51:4) Although it is said, “And shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13), it is also said, “And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again” (Genesis 15:16). This section has been explained in many different ways and is very difficult to understand. I will explain it the way that Albeck explains. Rabbi Akiva is dealing with the issue of fate: if a father controls the number of years that his son will live, how is that God has already determined how long the world will last. The answer that Rabbi Akiva gives is that the number of generations is fixed, as the verse in Isaiah says, but the number of years in each generation is not fixed. Although one verse from Exodus seems to say that God counts years, a few verses later generations are mentioned. According to Rabbi Akiva’s interpretation of these verses and his theology, a person’s years are determined by his actions and by his father’s actions, and not predetermined by God. It is only the number of generations until redemption that is known by God. Of course, human beings do not know this number. It is important to note that when we deal with issues such as fate and the end of the world, we are dealing with issues about which many different Jewish answers have been given. This is not an issue that human beings can fully understand." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth ten contains another statement of Rabbi Akiva.", + "There are five heavenly judgements which according to Rabbi Akiva were meted out for one year.", + "Also he used to say that there are five things that last twelve months:
The judgment of the generation of the flood [continued] twelve months; The judgement of the generation of the flood lasted one year. According to Genesis 7:11 the flood began on the seventeenth of the second month of the 600th year of Noah’s life. According to 8:14, the earth was dry one year and ten days later. The extra ten days are the adjustment for the difference between a lunar and solar calendar.", + "The judgment of Job [continued] twelve months; Job’s trial lasted a year. This is learned from Job 7:3 which states, “So have I been allotted months of futility; nights of misery have been apportioned to me.” According to a midrash the months of futility are the days of the summer which are long and the nights of misery which are also long. Together, it can be concluded that Job suffered for one whole year.", + "The judgment of the Egyptians [continued] twelve months; The ten plagues lasted a year, according to Rabbi Akiva. This is learned through a midrash on Exodus 5:12. According to this verse the plagues began only after the Egyptians forced the Israelite slaves to search for their own straw. Since straw is found in the month of Iyyar, May, and the Israelites left Egypt in Nissan, April, the conclusion can be drawn that the plagues lasted one year.", + "The judgment of Gog and Magog in the time to come [will continue] twelve months; Gog is a King and Magog is his country. According to Ezekiel 38-39, at the end of time Gog will fight a battle with Israel, at which point God will bring judgement upon Gog and his people. According to Rabbi Akiva, this judgement will last one year. This is learned in the midrash from Isaiah 18:6, “The kites shall summer on them and all the beasts of the earth shall winter on them”. This verse is understood as referring to the war of Gog at the end of days. The verse states that they will be punished for a summer and a winter, meaning for an entire year.", + "The judgment of the wicked in gehinom [continues] twelve months, for it is said, and “It will be from one month until its [same] month” (Isaiah 66:23). Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: “[As long as] from Passover to Shavuoth, for it is said, “And from one Sabbath until its [next] Sabbath” (ibid.). The wicked are judged in Gehinom, which is a Jewish word for hell, for one year. This is learned from Isaiah 66:24 which states, “They shall go out and gaze on the corpses of the men who rebelled against Me.” The previous verse states that “Month after month and Sabbath after Sabbath all flesh shall come and worship me.” How can all flesh come and praise God if the corpses of the rebellious are being punished. To solve this problem, the Rabbis reverse the order of the verses, understanding that the wicked are first punished and then allowed to return to praising God. From the words “month after month” Rabbi Akiva concludes that the wicked shall be judged from one month until the next appearance of the same month, meaning twelve months. As an aside, this is where the Jewish custom of saying Kaddish over a parent for 11 months originates. If one were to say Kaddish for a full twelve months, it would be assuming that the parent was wicked. Since no one would want to make such a statement, we say Kaddish for eleven months. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri learns from the words “Sabbath after Sabbath” in the above verse that the wicked are judged for a time period equal to the time between one holiday and the next. (Sabbath can sometimes mean holiday, as opposed to its usual meaning, the seventh day of the week). The shortest such period is the time between Passover and Shavuoth, which is seven weeks." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction The first six mishnayoth of this chapter contain ten disputes between Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the Sages.", + "This is a complicated mishnah, which requires the knowledge of some rules before we begin to explain the details. 1) A corpse causes impurity in three ways: a) by contact, b) by being carried; c) by being under the same roof-space, referred to as a tent. 2) Certain parts of a dead body impart impurity even though there is not a full corpse. 3) In order for a part of a corpse to impart impurity it must have a minimum measure the size of an olive. 4) Tent impurity is contracted in three ways: i) If a corpse, or part thereof, is found under a roof structure, anything under that roof structure is impure. ii) If the corpse, or part thereof, is above a person or vessel, the corpse imparts impurity. iii) If the person or vessel is above the corpse, the person and vessel are impure. Our mishnah discusses the ability of two pieces of a corpse, that are smaller than an olive, to join together and make a piece of corpse larger than an olive and transmit impurity in different situations.", + "[In the case of] all things which cause defilement in a “tent”, if they [the pieces of the corpse] were divided and brought into the house, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas pronounces [everything under the same roof-space] clean, but the Sages pronounce it unclean. This is an introduction to the mishnah. Here we learn that if two pieces of a dead body smaller than an olive but together the size of an olive are found under one roof, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinos declares that they do not join to impart impurity and the Sages declare that they do join.", + "How so? He who touches as much as two halves of an olive [in quantity] of an animal’s carcass or carries them; or in the case of a [human] corpse, he who touches as much as half an olive and stands over as much as half an olive; or touches as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him; or if he stands over as much as two halves of an olive; or if he stands over as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas pronounces him clean, and the Sages pronounce him unclean. The mishnah now goes over all of the different examples in which the Sages and Rabbi Dosa dispute. A. If one touches or carries two separate pieces of a dead animal, each the size of half an olive. Note that there is no tent impurity caused by dead animals, and therefore this example mentions only carrying and contact. B. If one touches a piece of corpse the size of half an olive and makes a tent, over another piece the same size (rule 4iii above). C. A person forms a tent over two half-olive size pieces of a corpse. D. A person forms a tent over one half-olive size piece of corpse and one half-olive size piece of corpse forms a tent over him. In all of these case Rabbi Dosa declares that the pieces of corpse do not join together.", + "But if he touches as much as half an olive [in quantity] and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive; or if he stood over as much as half an olive and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive, he is clean. In this section are listed two cases where the Sages would agree with Rabbi Dosa that he is pure. A. If one touches a half-olive size piece of corpse and something else forms a tent over him and a half-olive size piece, he is still pure. B. If one forms a tent over a half-olive size piece of corpse, and something else forms a tent over him and another half-olive size piece of corpse, he is still pure. The reason why in this case the Sages declare him pure is that the two types of impurity are of a different nature. When something forms a tent over a person and a piece of corpse that is considered to be tent impurity, whereas when a person forms a tent over a piece of corpse or a piece of corpse forms a tent over him, that is considered contact impurity. In the cases in section two, there were two kinds of contact impurity; hence the two half-olives joined to transmit impurity. In the cases in section three, one piece of corpse transmitted tent impurity and the other contact impurity. Hence the Sages agree that he is pure.", + "Rabbi Meir said: “Also in this case Rabbi Dosa pronounces him clean and the sages pronounce him unclean. In all such cases a man is unclean unless there is an act of touching and also an act of carrying, or an act of carrying and also [the fact of] being under the same roof-space.” Rabbi Meir holds that even in these cases the Sages would declare the person impure, and Rabbi Dosa would say he is pure. Rabbi Meir explains that according to the Sages tent impurity and contact impurity do join. The only type of impurity that does not join is contact impurity with carrying impurity.", + "This is the general rule: in whatever case the means of causing defilement are of one category, he is unclean; if they are of two categories, he is clean.” This is a general rule that summarizes the whole mishnah. Any time there are two pieces of corpse transmitting impurity, they join only if they are transmitting a type of impurity with the same name. According to Rabbi Dosa none of the three types of impurity, tent, carrying and contact join together. According to the first version of the Sages opinion, contact and tent impurity do not join. According to Rabbi Meir, contact and tent impurity join but carrying and contact impurity and carrying and tent impurity do not join. Congratulations! You just learned a very difficult mishnah. If you couldn’t follow all the details do not despair. This was probably one of the most complicated mishnayoth we have seen yet." + ], + [ + "Food which is in separate pieces does not combine together [to receive impurity], according to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. But the Sages say: “It does combines together.” For food to become impure it must be the size of an egg. According to Rabbi Dosa food which is broken up into pieces smaller than the size of an egg does not join to receive impurity, whereas according to the Sages it does.", + "One may exchange [ produce of] second tithe for uncoined metal, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “One may not so exchange it.” The second tithe may be redeemed with money and brought to Jerusalem. According to Rabbi Dosa one may redeem this second tithe even with a coin that does not have a stamp upon it. According to the Sages it must have a stamp. This is learned from Deuteronomy 14:25, which says “money” in connection with second tithe.", + "The hands [alone] need to be immersed for the waters of purification according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “If his hands have become unclean his whole body becomes unclean.” A person whose hands have become impure by touching impure food (but not a corpse, which would cause impurity to the whole body), need only wash his hands before touching the waters of purification which are used to purify someone who has contracted corpse impurity. This is according to Rabbi Dosa. The Sages disagree and say that with regards to touching waters of purification, if his hands are impure his whole body is impure. To become pure he would need to take a ritual bath (mikveh)." + ], + [ + "The insides of a melon and the discarded leaves of a vegetable of terumah: Rabbi Dosa permits [their] use to non-priests, and the Sages forbid it. Terumah, one of the agricultural offerings, may be eaten only by priests. According to Rabbi Dosa, the parts of terumah produce that are not commonly eaten are permitted to non-priests. Since these are not considered food, and the laws of terumah are only applicable to food, these things may be eaten by non-priests. The Sages forbid this. Presumably, according to the Sages since people do occasionally eat these things, the laws of terumah apply to them as well.", + "Five ewes, their fleeces weighing each a mina and a half, are subject to [the law of] the first of the fleece, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “Five ewes [are subject] whatever [their fleeces weigh].” According to Deuteronomy 18:4, the first shearings of a sheep must be given to the priest. In our mishnah Rabbi Dosa and the Sages disagree about the minimum weight of the fleeces of the sheep which would cause them to be subject to these laws. According to Rabbi Dosa a person is not liable to give these shearings to the priest unless he has five female sheep and each fleece weighs a mina and a half, about 150 grams. Less than this is not even considered “shearings”. The Sages disagree. According to them as long as five female sheep are sheared, he must give the first shearings to the priest, no matter what the weight of the wool." + ], + [ + "All mats are [liable to become] impure by “corpse” impurity, the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “[Also by] “midras” impurity. Rabbi Dosa and the Sages disagree with regards to the susceptibility of mats to midras impurity. Midras impurity is a type of impurity which is received by a zav sitting or lying down on an object. Only things that are typically sat on or lied down upon can receive this type of impurity. According to Rabbi Dosa, mats can receive corpse impurity by coming into contact with a dead body, or a part thereof. However, since the mats under discussion are not used for sitting or for lying down, they cannot receive midras impurity. The Sages hold that they can, since they are occasionally used for such a purpose.", + "All network is unsusceptible to impurity except a [network] girdle, the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “They are all liable to uncleanness, except those used by wool dealers [for carrying raw wool].” Network, things made of nets (not computer networks, which I suppose cannot receive impurity), are not considered by Rabbi Dosa to be clothing and therefore they cannot receive impurity. As we learned on several occasions, only things that are formed vessels or clothing can receive impurity. Since network is not really clothing, it cannot receive impurity. The only exception to this rule about things made of nets is a type of girdle which is a piece of clothing and therefore can be made impure. The Sages disagree. They hold that network is considered clothing. The only exception is a bag used by wool dealers to hold wool. Since this is definitely not clothing it cannot be made impure.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• We have now learned several disputes between Rabbi Dosa and the Sages. Do you seen any consistency to their opinions?
• Mishnah four: What modern items might be similar to the mats and network under discussion in this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "A sling whose pocket is woven is susceptible to impurity. If it is of leather, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas pronounces it susceptible to impurity, and the Sages pronounce it not susceptible to impurity. If its finger-hold is broken off, it is not susceptible to impurity; [But if the] string-handle [only] is broken off it is susceptible to impurity. This mishnah discusses when a sling is considered usable and therefore liable to receive impurity. If the pocket is woven, all agree that it is liable to receive impurity. However, if it is of leather, Rabbi Dosa hold that it may not receive impurity. This is based on two rules: 1) a strip of leather must be five handbreadths wide by five handbreadths long in order to receive impurity. Since a sling is not this large, it does not receive impurity due to its size and significance. 2) Rabbi Dosa does not consider the sling to be a “vessel” which inherently is receptive to impurity. The Sages disagree. They hold that a sling is inherently a vessel and therefore the pouch receives impurity no matter what it is made out of and no matter what size its pouch is. If the finger-hold is broken off the sling is unusable, and therefore cannot receive impurity. However, if the string-handle, which is attached to the pouch and is pulled back to throw the rock which is in the sling, is broken, the sling can still receive impurity, since it can be used." + ], + [ + "A female captive may eat of terumah, according to the words of Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas. But the Sages say: “There is a female captive who may eat, and there is a female captive who may not eat. How is this so? The woman who said: ‘I was taken captive but [nonetheless] I am pure’, she may eat; because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit. But if there are witnesses [who declare] that she was made a captive, and she says: ‘[nonetheless] I am pure’, she may not eat.” This mishnah discusses a woman who was married to a priest or an unmarried daughter of a priest who is taken captive. These two types of women, prior to having been taken captive, could certainly have eaten terumah. According to the halakhah, a woman who has had sexual relations, even against her will, with someone with whom it is forbidden to do so, can no longer eat terumah. The issue in our mishnah is, do we assume that a woman who was taken captive by a non-Jew was raped by the non-Jew and therefore can no longer eat terumah. According to Rabbi Dosa, we do not make such an assumption, and she may continue to eat terumah unless there is evidence that she has been raped. According to the Sages, this is not always true. Her ability to eat terumah will depend on the circumstances in which the court found out that she had been taken captive. If she came in front of the court and stated that she had been taken captive but that she was still pure, i.e. she had not been violated by the captor, she may continue to eat terumah. This is due to a legal principle known as “the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit”. It means that if a person makes a statement that is to his own detriment and then makes another related statement to his benefit, he is believed in both statements. Since he could have said nothing, and thereby not aroused any suspicion about himself, he is believed when he exculpates himself from that suspicion. For instance, if Reuven says to Shimon, “this piece of land of mine used to be your father’s but now he sold it to me.” Reuven is admitting that the land he owns was not always his, but he also says that he bought it. Telling Shimon that it was his father’s is “forbidding” it and stating that he bought it is “permitting” it. In our case, if the woman says that she was taken captive, she has “forbidden” herself by creating a suspicion that she may have had relations with the captor. When she says that she did not she is believed. However, if there are witnesses who testify that she had been taken captive, then when she denies having been violated by the captor, she is not believed. Since she did not “forbid” but rather the witnesses did, the rule of “the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit” is not applicable here." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth seven and eight both list cases in which one Sage declares something pure and the other Sages declare it impure.", + "Four cases of doubt Rabbi Joshua pronounces impure, and the Sages pronounce them pure. How is this so? If the impure person stands and the pure person passes by him; or if the pure person stands and the impure person passes by him; or if impurity is in the private domain and something pure is in the public domain; Or if something pure is in the private domain and something impure is in the public domain; If it is doubtful [in all of these case] whether one touched or did not touch the other, or if it is doubtful whether one formed a tent over the other or did not form a tent over the other, or if it is doubtful whether one moved or did not move the other Rabbi Joshua pronounces such a case impure, and the Sages pronounce it pure. In this mishnah are listed four situations in which there is a doubt whether or not the pure person was touched by the impure person, or one of them formed a tent over the other (which would cause impurity to be transmitted, even without contact) or one of them moved the other (which would also transmit impurity, even without contact). In all of these situations Rabbi Joshua rules that the previously pure person is now impure, whereas the Sages hold that he is still pure. The cases are: i + ii) A case where one of the people is moving and one is stationary. In this case Rabbi Joshua pronounces the person impure due to the general rule that doubtful cases of impurity which occur in the private domain are ruled impure. The Sages say that he is pure. Although there is a general rule that doubtful cases of impurity that occur in the private domain are ruled impure, this is true only when the pure and the impure are either both moving or both stationary. If their status is different, then the rule is not applicable. iii + iv) The pure and impure are in different domains, one in the public domain and one in the private domain. According to Rabbi Joshua, since at least one of the two is in the private domain, he is impure, due to the above mentioned rule. According to the Sages, since one is in the public domain, the rule that doubtful cases of impurity in the private domain does not apply." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight contains another case in which one Sage declares something pure and the other Sages declare it impure.", + "Three things Rabbi Zadok pronounces [liable to receive] impurity and the Sages pronounce them not [liable to receive]: The nail of the money-changer; And the chest of grist makers; And the nail of a stone dial. Rabbi Zadok pronounces [liable to receive] impurity and the Sages pronounce them not [liable to receive]. Rabbi Zadok and the Sages disagree with regards to the liability of three items to receive impurity. Again, in order to receive impurity something must be considered “a vessel”, which in the Mishnah can include any manmade usable object which a has a specified purpose to it. According to Rabbi Zadok the items listed in our mishnah fit the definition of “vessel” whereas according to the Sages, they do not. The items are: 1) The nail of a money-changer. According to Maimonides, this was the nail used to hang the scales that the money-changer would use to weigh the money. 2) The chest used by a grist-maker to store the grist. Others explain that this is the nail of a chest used by a grist-maker, which is used to attach the chest to a wagon to bring the grist to market. If this is the correct explanation, then our mishnah lists three different types of nails. 3) The nail used to measure time in a sundial." + ], + [ + "Four things Rabban Gamaliel pronounces susceptible to impurity, and the Sages pronounce them not susceptible to impurity.
The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders;
And the hanger of a strigil;
And metals vessels which are still unshaped;
And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the Sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity.
The next three mishnayoth contain halakhic traditions revolving around Rabban Gamaliel. Mishnah nine continues the pattern of the previous mishnah, of a dispute over which things are susceptible to impurity.
In mishnah eight we learned of three things that Rabbi Zadok declared susceptible to impurity and the Sages not susceptible. In mishnah nine we will learn of the same type of dispute, this time between Rabban Gamaliel and the Sages. Again, they seem to be disputing about how to define when something is a “vessel” such that it is susceptible to impurity. They dispute over four items:
1) The covering of a metal basket which belongs to a householder. In another tractate we learn that there is a difference between this type of covering if it is owned by a doctor. The doctors used these coverings for various uses, and therefore everyone agrees that they are susceptible to impurity. Rabban Gamaliel holds that a covering of this type of basket is used by non-professionals as well, and is therefore susceptible to impurity even if it belongs to a non-professional (a householder). The Sages disagree.
2) The hanger of a strigil. A strigil was a type of comb used during baths to scrape off dead skin. All agree that the strigil itself is susceptible to impurity. They disagree about the small chain attached to the strigil to hang it on a hook. According to Rabban Gamaliel it too is considered a vessel and therefore receives impurity. According to the Sages it does not.
3) Generally speaking, unformed vessels cannot receive impurity. However, when it comes to metal vessels that have not been fully finished, in other words they have not been polished, Rabban Gamaliel holds that they are susceptible to impurity, since they can be used. The Sages insist that as long as they are not fully finished they cannot receive impurity.
According to Rabban Gamaliel, a plate broken in two can still receive impurity. The Sages hold that broken vessels cannot generally speaking receive impurity. However, they agree with Rabban Gamaliel that if one of the pieces was large, that it still can receive impurity, since it is still useful. The small piece cannot receive impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten contains three cases in which Rabban Gamaliel ruled like Beth Shammai.", + "This mishnah lists three cases in which Rabban Gamaliel ruled strictly, as had Beth Shammai. Although later Sages generally ruled like Beth Hillel, there were some exceptions, and some of those are listed in our mishnah.", + "In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai.
One may not wrap up hot food on a festival for the Sabbath; The Torah allows one to cook on the festival but not on the Sabbath. This rule has a limitation: one may cook on the festival only to eat that day, and not to prepare food for later. It is even forbidden to prepare food on a festival for the Sabbath, since that would be considered an insult to the honor of the festival. However, since this was necessary in cases where the Sabbath fell after the festival, the Sages developed something which is known as “eruv tavshilin”. A person would symbolically begin to cook a meal for the Sabbath on the day before the festival. Since he had already begun to cook for the Sabbath, he was allowed to cook other things on the festival for the Sabbath. This is a type of legal fiction still practiced today by halakhic Jews. According to Beth Shammai, if a person must create a separate type of “eruv tavshilin” for each type of cooking he wishes to do: if he wants to bake he must begin baking before the festival; if he wants to boil he must begin boiling before the festival. Rabban Gamaliel rules that it is forbidden to wrap food to make it retain its heat, since that is not part of the “eruv tavshilin” that he had made before the holiday. Beth Hillel would have allowed such an action, since Beth Hillel holds that all one must begin to do is cook a little bit, and that is sufficient to continue to do any cooking activities on the festival.", + "And one may not join together a lamp on a festival; If a lamp made of several parts breaks on the festival, Rabban Gamaliel forbids one to fix it, since this is a type of “building” which is forbidden on the Sabbath. Beth Hillel holds that there is no prohibition of “building” with regards to erecting vessels, and therefore this is permitted.", + "And one may not bake [on festivals] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.” Rabban Gamaliel holds that it is forbidden to bake large loaves on a festival, and that only thin loaves are permitted. This is meant to prevent one from making too much bread on the festival, lest he make some for after the festival. Beth Hillel holds that it is permitted to bake large loaves, since bread cooks better when the oven is full. The final section of the mishnah contains some interaction between Rabban Gamaliel and the other Sages, who hold like Beth Hillel. Rabban Gamaliel testifies that his father’s house indeed acted in this manner, and only baked wafer-cakes on the festival. The other Sages accept this testimony of Rabban Gamaliel as being an accurate description of what Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house used to do, but they understand its significance differently. The Sages say that Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house was strict upon themselves, but allowed the rest of Israel to cook large loaves, even charcoal roasted loaves which are very difficult to make. The strict actions of Rabban Gamaliel’s fathers house were only meant for themselves and were not meant to set precedent for everyone else." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah ten we learned of three cases where Rabban Gamaliel was strict like Beth Shammai. In mishnah eleven we will learn three cases where he adopted a more lenient position than the other Sages.", + "Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character:
One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches, In the time of the Mishnah, during formal meals people would recline on couches on the ground and eat off personal tables which were more like trays. According to Rabban Gamaliel one can sweep up between the couches after the meal on a festival. The Sages forbid this for fear that one might fill in a hole that is in the floor, which could be considered a form of building, which is forbidden on the Sabbath.", + "And put spices [on the coals] on a festival; Cooking food is allowed on a festival (but not on the Sabbath). Rabban Gamaliel allowed people to put spices on coals, which would make a pleasant scent. Even though this is not cooking food, it is permitted since it is still a bodily pleasure. The Sages forbid doing so since not all people are equally accustomed to put spices on coals after a meal.", + "And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them. When there was a Temple in Jerusalem, people would roast kids (lambs, not the human kind) as Passover sacrifices on the day before Passover and eat them at night. When the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. sacrifices could no longer be offered. Nevertheless, Rabban Gamaliel permitted people to make roasted kids at their own seders. The other Sages forbid this, lest someone think that they were eating sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allows three things and the Sages forbid them:
His cow used to go out with the strap which she had between her horns;
One may curry cattle on a festival;
And one may grind pepper in its own mill.
Rabbi Judah says: one may not curry cattle on a festival, because it may cause a wound, but one may comb them.
But the Sages say: one may not curry them, and one may not even comb them.
Mishnah twelve contains three cases where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was more lenient than the other Sages.
Section one: It is forbidden to carry things in the public domain on the Sabbath. This is true even for a person’s animal, since it is forbidden to make one’s animal perform work on the Sabbath. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allowed his cow to go out with a strap between its horns, since this strap was only an adornment and therefore he did not consider it “work”. In the same way a person can wear clothing in the public domain and that is not considered carrying. However, the Sages forbid cows from carrying anything, since most cows do not do so. Furthermore, if others were to see this they would think that it is permitted for an animal to work on the Sabbath.
Section two: Rabbi Eleazar permits a person to curry an animal on the festival, even though that might cause a wound. Currying is a type of combing done with a sharp metal comb. Rabbi Eleazar permits this activity since even if he causes a wound he did not intend to do so and unintentionally performed work is permitted on the Sabbath. In section four, Rabbi Judah states that currying is forbidden since it will cause a wound, but combing with a wooden comb is permitted since it will not cause a wound. In section five the Sages state that even combing is forbidden, lest by permitting combing one might assume that currying is also permitted.
Section three: Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah permits the grinding of peppercorns on the Sabbath, even in grinders made for grinding large quantities of peppercorns. Although this is a large amount of work, and it is clear that most of the pepper will not be used on that day, Rabbi Eleazar nevertheless permits. The Sages forbid this. According to them, one may grind peppercorns only in small quantities with a mortar and pestle, since grinding more than this would be allowing one to prepare food on the festival for a week day, which is forbidden." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis entire chapter contains cases where Beth Shammai was lenient and Beth Hillel was strict. Generally speaking the opposite is true, hence these are exceptional cases.\nMost of the examples in these mishnayoth are from the laws concerning festivals. There is a halakhic concept in Judaism called “muktzeh”. There are many forms of “muktzeh”; I will explain the one form germane to these two mishnayoth. [For more information you can look at the Steinsaltz reference guide]. Anything consumed on Shabbat or a festival has to have been available before the day begins. This “availability” must be both physical and mental. In other words the thing must have been physically available before the day began and the person must have known the day before that he might use the object during the Sabbath or festival. Anything that is not available before the day began is considered “muktzeh”. We will see some examples as we proceed.", + "The following cases are [examples] of the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and of the rigorous rulings of Beth Hillel.
An egg which is laid on a festival Beth Shammai says: it may be eaten, and Beth Hillel says: it may not be eaten. An egg which is laid on a festival is considered by Beth Hillel to be “muktzeh” something which was not available to be consumed on the eve of the festival and therefore is forbidden on the festival itself. Beth Shammai holds that since the chicken was available on the eve of the festival, the egg is as well, for if the person had slaughtered the chicken he could have eaten the egg inside.", + "Beth Shammai says: yeast as much as an olive [in quantity], and leavened food as much as a date, and Beth Hillel says: as much as an olive [in quantity] in both cases. On Passover it is forbidden to eat either leavened products or the leaven itself, which is yeast. According to Beth Shammai if one eats as a much as olive’s worth of yeast or a date’s worth of leavened food, he is liable for having transgressed the laws of Passover. Beth Hillel holds that in both cases one who eats an olive’s worth is liable. Note that smaller amounts are not permitted either. A smaller amount is still forbidden but one who consumes a smaller amount has not transgressed the Biblical prohibition of eating yeast or leavened food on Passover." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues the subject of yesterday’s mishnah, muktzeh.", + "A beast which was born on a festival all agree that it is permitted; and a chicken which was hatched from the egg all agree that it is forbidden. This section contains an elaboration of the dispute that was in the first section of the previous mishnah. There we saw that a dispute with regards to an egg born on a festival: Beth Shammai permitted its consumption and Beth Hillel forbid. In this mishnah we learn that there are two other similar instances where the two houses do not disagree. They both hold that a beast that was born on a festival is permitted. Although the beast was not born before the festival, and therefore might have been thought to be “muktzeh”, it in reality was available since if the mother had been slaughtered, the unborn young could have been eaten as well. The two houses also agree that a chicken hatched on the festival is forbidden. Even though Beth Shammai permits an egg that is laid, the chicken that is hatched is different because it was still in its shell the day before. Unlike the beast which was in its mother who could have been slaughtered and eaten, the chicken was not part of another animal that could have been eaten.", + "He who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a festival Beth Shammai says: he may dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood] , but Beth Hillel says: he may not slaughter unless he has had earth made ready. But they agree that if he did slaughter he should dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood, and] that the ashes of a stove count as being prepared for the holiday. According to Leviticus 17:13, when one slaughters an undomesticated animal or any type of foul the blood must be poured out of the animal and covered with earth. One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or foul on the festival has a problem. Although it is permitted to slaughter if he doesn’t have any prepared earth to cover the blood, newly dug earth is “muktzeh” and cannot be used. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai permits one to dig up new earth and cover the blood. Beth Hillel says one cannot slaughter unless one has earth already prepared. However, they all agree that if he had already slaughtered the animal, even though Beth Hillel says he should not have done so without already prepared earth, he may still dig new earth to cover the blood. This is because the principle of “muktzeh” is only rabbinically ordained and the obligation to cover the blood is Biblical. When one has two competing commandments, one rabbinic and one Biblical, the latter takes precedence. The two houses also agree that the ashes in the oven are considered prepared for the festival, in other words they are not “muktzeh”. Since people used these ashes for different purposes, we can make the assumption that before the festival began he knew in his mind that he would use these ashes." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe Mishnah continues to bring disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, in which Beth Shammai took the lenient position.", + "Beth Shammai says: [produce pronounced] ownerless with respect to the poor [only] is counted as ownerless. But Beth Hillel says: it is not counted as ownerless unless it is made ownerless also with respect to the rich, as in the year of release (. This section discusses the process whereby a person announces that something he owns is legally ownerless. One of the important consequences of such an action is that if the item is a food product he need not separate tithes before he eats it. In other words if a person has some produce he may pronounce it ownerless and eat from it without tithing. Of course, he runs the risk of having other people come and take it from him. According to Beth Shammai one could partially pronounce his produce ownerless by declaring that only the poor may partake of it. Beth Hillel disagrees and says that pronouncing something legally ownerless must be complete. Beth Hillel learns this from the precedent set by the laws of the “year of release”, or the shmittah (seventh) year. During the seventh year all produce grown in the fields is ownerless and anyone may enter any field and eat from it, both rich and poor. Beth Hillel says that just as seventh year produce is ownerless and available to anyone, so too all produce must be available to all.", + "If all the sheaves of the field were of one kav each and one was of four kavs, and it was forgotten, Beth Shammai says: it does not count as forgotten, And Beth Hillel says: it counts as forgotten. There are a number of agricultural rights given by the Torah to the poor. One of them is the right to collect the harvested sheaves forgotten in a field (Deuteronomy 24:19). The dispute here is over the definition of a forgotten sheaf. According to Beth Shammai if all of the sheaves were one kav in volume and the forgotten sheaf was four times that size, and he left the large sheaf in the field, it is not considered forgotten. The reason is that four separate sheaves that are left together are not considered to be forgotten. In other words, if four separate sheaves are left in a field we can assume that the owner never came to collect them, and not that he came to collect them and left them behind. Beth Shammai says that if one sheaf is the size of four sheaves of that field we can consider it to be four separate sheaves and it is not considered forgotten. Beth Hillel holds that since it is really only one sheaf, we can assume that he did forget it, and hence it already belongs to the poor." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe Mishnah continues to bring disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, in which Beth Shammai took the lenient position.", + "A sheaf which was close to a wall or to a stack or to the herd or to [field] utensils, and was forgotten, Beth Shammai says: it does not count as forgotten, And Beth Hillel says: it counts as forgotten. This mishnah continues to discuss the definition of “forgotten”. According to Beth Shammai, if one left a sheaf close to a specific item, we can assume that he intended to go back and get the sheaf, and that is why he left it close to that item. In this case he may go back and collect it at a later time. Beth Hillel does consider this sheaf to be forgotten and therefore it belongs to the poor.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• From whose perspective is Beth Shammai lenient in these mishnayoth? Why does the editor of the Mishnah consider them lenient and Beth Hillel strict?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah contains several disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regards to the status of the fruit of a vineyard in its fourth year, which according to Leviticus 19:24 must be “set aside”. The Rabbis teach that this fruit is similar to second tithe and that both may be consumed by their owners only in Jerusalem. In our mishnah Beth Shammai says that despite some similarities to second tithe there are some key differences. Beth Hillel teaches that they are completely the same.", + "A vineyard of the fourth year Beth Shammai says: it is not subject to the law of the fifth nor to the law of removal. And Beth Hillel says: it is subject to the law of the fifth and to the law of removal. The fruit of a vineyard in its fourth year is treated similar to second tithe. Both must be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. If it is too far or too difficult to carry the actual fruit to Jerusalem one may redeem it for money and bring the money to Jerusalem and use it to buy food there. When second tithe is redeemed for money, a person must add one-fifth the value of the produce being redeemed. According to Beth Shammai, when one redeems the fruit of fourth year vineyard he does not need to add the fifth. According to Beth Hillel he does, just as he does with second tithe. Before Passover on the fourth and seventh years of a seven year (shmittah) cycle, one must remove all of the tithes from one’s house. This is called the “law of removal”. According to Beth Shammai the law does not apply to the removal of the fruit of a fourth year vineyard. According to Beth Hillel it does.", + "Beth Shammai says: it is subject to the law of fallen grapes and to the law of gleanings, and the poor redeem them for themselves. And Beth Hillel says: all of it goes to the winepress. According to Leviticus 19:10 one is not allowed to pick bare the fruit of a vineyard nor collect the fallen fruit. Rather these must be left for the poor. According to Beth Shammai these rules still apply for the fourth year vineyard. When the poor person has collected his share, he must redeem it himself and bring the money to Jerusalem and use it there to buy food. According to Beth Hillel fourth year produce is not subject to the laws of what must be left to the poor. Just as second tithe is not subject to the laws of what must be left for the poor, so too fourth year produce is not." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah contains two disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, the first over the impurity of olives inside a barrel and the second over the impurity of the oil dripping off a person who had entered the mikveh (ritual bath).", + "A barrel of pickled olives: Beth Shammai says: one need not perforate it, And Beth Hillel say: one must perforate it. But they agree that if it was perforated and the dregs stopped it up, it is not liable to receive impurity. Leviticus 11:38 teaches that food cannot receive impurity unless it has come into contact with water. The Rabbis taught that not only water but other liquids as well can cause food to become receptive to impurity. However, if the owner of the food did not wish the liquid to touch his food the liquid does not cause the food to become receptive to impurity. In this section of our mishnah Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regards to the liquid that oozes out of olives that have been pickled in salt. Everyone agrees that this liquid is not desired by the owner; all he wants are the edible olives. However, according to Beth Hillel the owner must put a hole in the barrel to let the liquid seep out in order to make it clear that he does not want the liquid. If he does not do so the olives will be made receptive to impurity by the liquid which oozes out of them. Beth Shammai does not require one to put this hole. According to them we can generally assume that a person does not want such liquids and therefore they do not cause food to become receptive to impurity. Both houses agree that if one put a hole in the barrel and then it was closed up by the dregs that the olives are not receptive to impurity. Since he put a hole in the barrel he has made it clear that he does not want the liquids inside and therefore their contact with the olives do not cause the olives to receive impurity.", + "One who had anointed himself with clean oil and [then] became unclean, and he went down and immersed himself, Beth Shammai says: although he still drips [oil], it is clean. And Beth Hillel says: [only while there remains] enough for anointing a small limb. And if from the beginning it was unclean oil, Beth Shammai says: [it is unclean as long as there remains] enough for anointing a small limb, And Beth Hillel says: [even if there remains as much] as a moist liquid. (4) Rabbi Judah says in the name of Beth Hillel: [provided it remains] moist [itself] and [can also] moisten [other things]. The first part of this section discusses one who anoints himself with pure oil and then becomes impure. [Anointing with oil was part of the bathing process]. If he enters the mikveh (ritual bath) to purify himself, according to Beth Shammai, he also purifies any remaining oil on his body. Although oil is cannot generally be made pure through a mikveh, in this case the oil becomes pure by being part of his body, which does become pure. Beth Hillel holds that if there is only enough oil remaining on his body to anoint a small limb, it is pure. In this case we can say that the oil is not of significance in and of itself and therefore is part of the body. However, if there is more than that, it is impure. If the oil was impure from the outset, and then the person became impure through another source of impurity (the oil itself cannot cause the person to become impure), and went into the mikveh, then both houses are stricter with regards to the purity of the oil remaining on his body. According to Beth Shammai if only enough remains to anoint a small limb, it is pure. If more remains it is impure. According to Beth Hillel if enough remains to moisten the hand that touches the oil, it is impure; if less, then it is pure. Rabbi Judah teaches a different version of Beth Hillel’s words. According to him if enough remains to moisten the hand that touches the oil and to moisten another area as well, it is impure.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Why are both houses stricter in the second case (where the oil was impure before he anointed himself with it) than they are in the first (where it only became impure when he became impure)?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues listing the leniencies of Beth Shammai. The issues listed in our mishnah are from the realm of marital law.", + "A woman is betrothed by a denar or the value of a denar, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: by a perutah or the value of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar. There are two stages in the Jewish marital process: kiddushin (betrothal) and nisuin (marriage). We will learn these laws more extensively when we learn Seder Nashim. For now I will merely mention that kiddushin creates a stronger bond than secular engagement does in our day. In order to separate from Jewish betrothal there is a need for a full divorce. One of the ways of contracting betrothal is for the man to give something of value to a woman. Today this is usually performed with a ring, a custom not mentioned in the Mishnah or even in the Talmud. According to Beth Shammai, the minimum amount that a man had to give a woman was a denar. While it is hard to know how much a denar was worth at those times, it probably was not more than a day’s wages, and maybe even less. Beth Hillel holds that a man can give a woman an even lesser amount, even one perutah, which was worth almost nothing.", + "Beth Shammai says: one may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorcement, But Beth Hillel forbids it. What is an old bill of divorcement? Whenever he was secluded with her after he has written it for her. This section discusses a man who writes a get (a divorce bill) for his wife but is secluded with her before he gives it to her (the divorce is not effective until she receives the get). If he had relations with her at this time, the get would nullified and in order to divorce her he would have to write a new get. Beth Shammai says that even though they were secluded we don’t suspect that they had relations and therefore, he may still give her the previously written get. Beth Hillel does suspect that they had relations, and therefore obligates the man to write a new get, if he wishes to divorce his wife.", + "One who divorces his wife and she [afterwards] spends a night with him at the [same] inn: Beth Shammai says: she does not require a second bill of divorcement from him. But Beth Hillel says: she requires a second bill of divorcement from him. When [does she require a second bill of divorcement]? (4) When she was divorced after marriage. ( But if she was divorced after betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of divorcement, since he is not [yet] familiar with her. This section discusses a similar incidence, except in this case the couple was already divorced before they were secluded. The question is did they have relations while secluded? If they did they may be betrothed, since sexual relations is one of the ways in which betrothal may be contracted (see Kiddushin 1:1). According to Beth Shammai we do not suspect that they had relations, and therefore she doesn’t need a new get from her former husband (the new get would allow her to marry someone else). Beth Hillel fears that they did have relations, and therefore she needs a new get if she wishes to marry someone else. The final clause limits this ruling of Beth Hillel to a couple that was already married. Since they were already sexually familiar with each other, we suspect that they may have again had sexual relations while they were at the inn. However, if the couple had been divorced before they were married, while they were still betrothed, there had not been sexual familiarity between them and therefore Beth Hillel does not suspect that they had relations while secluded. In this case Beth Hillel would agree with Beth Shammai that they do not need a get.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Why are these leniencies of Beth Shammai? To whom is Beth Shammai lenient?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a dispute in the laws of levirate marriage between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. We will learn these laws more fully when we learn tractate Yevamoth.", + "Beth Shammai permits the rival wives [of a deceased brother to be married] to the [surviving] brothers; But Beth Hillel forbids them. This mishnah describes a complicated situation which we will first explain. Reuven and Shimon are brothers. Leah and Rachel are sisters. Reuven marries Leah and Devorah (who is not related to anyone). Shimon marries Rachel. If Reuven should die without children one of his wives needs to either marry Shimon (levirate marriage) or have the ceremony of release (halitzah) performed. Shimon cannot marry Leah, since he is already married to her sister, Rachel, and it is forbidden for one man to marry sisters. According to Beth Shammai, although Leah cannot marry Shimon, Devorah, Leah’s rival wife from her marriage to Reuven, can. According to Beth Hillel, since Leah was forbidden, Devorah is also forbidden. If Shimon were to marry Devorah this would be considered the forbidden relationship of marrying a brother’s wife, which is only permitted when necessitated by levirate marriage. [Note: it is forbidden to marry a brother’s wife even after the brother is dead].", + "If they have performed halitzah, Beth Shammai pronounce them unfit to [marry into] the priesthood, But Beth Hillel pronounced them fit. If Shimon should perform halitzah for Devorah, according to Beth Shammai she is now truly a halutzah, a woman had been released from levirate marriage. Since halutzoth are forbidden to subsequently marry priests, Devorah cannot marry a priest. According to Beth Hillel, this halitzah was not necessary, since there was no necessity for levirate marriage in this case. Therefore Devorah is not considered a halutzah, and she may subsequently marry a priest.", + "If they have married their brother-in-law, Beth Shammai pronounce them fit [to marry into the priesthood], But Beth Hillel pronounced them unfit. If Shimon should marry Devorah and then die, according to Beth Shammai she could now marry a priest. Shimon’s marriage to Devorah was legal and therefore she has not been rendered unfit to marry a priest by having engaged in a forbidden relationship. Her status is that of a twice-widowed women. [Note: widows may marry priests.] According to Beth Hillel, since Shimon’s marriage to Devorah was illegal, she is unfit to subsequently marry into the priesthood. [Note: any woman who has had an illicit sexual relationship cannot subsequently marry a priest. This includes incestual and adulterous relationships.]", + "And although these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Shammai. The last two sections of this mishnah are amongst the most powerful statements of pluralism in the Rabbinic tradition. Up until now we have learned of serious and consequential disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. The marital laws of the two houses are substantially different: what one house accepts the other rejects. As a consequence of these different laws, Beth Shammai will consider some children born according to the rules of Beth Hillel to be mamzerim who are forbidden for regular Israelites to marry. The same is true for Beth Hillel with regards to the women of Beth Shammai. Nevertheless, scholars of neither house refrained from marrying the women of the other house. So important to them was the unity of Israel, that when it came to marriage they put aside their differences and intermarried.", + "And in the case of all matters of purity and impurity in respect to which these pronounce pure and these pronounce impure, they did not refrain from preparing foods requiring a condition of purity each by means of [the vessels of] the other. The same is true with regards to the laws of purity. Although we have learned many disputes with regards to these laws, Beth Shammai would prepare its food with vessels used by those from Beth Hillel, and vice versa.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• In what situations would a member of Beth Hillel theoretically not be able to marry a daughter of Beth Shammai and vice versa?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to list disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regards to the laws of levirate marriage.\nIn order to understand this mishnah it is important to understand one issue about how levirate marriage works. When a woman’s husband dies without children she must either marry her brother-in-law or be released from marriage by him. According to the laws of the Torah, this marriage does not require prior betrothal. Rather it is consummated in one step: sexual relations. However, the Rabbis instituted that the brother-in-law should first betroth her. This betrothal is called maamar.", + "[In the case of] three brothers, of whom two were married to two sisters and one was unmarried, if one of the husbands of the sisters died and the unmarried one betrothed her (, and afterwards his other brother died, Beth Shammai says: his wife remains with him, and the other [widow] is released on the grounds of [the law forbidding] the wife’s sister. But Beth Hillel says: he should put away his wife with a get and halitzah, and the wife of his brother [he should put away] with halitzah. This is the case of which they said: woe to him because of his wife, and woe to him because of his brother’s wife! If you thought the last case was complicated, it now gets even worse! In this mishnah there are three brothers, Reuven, Shimon and Levi. Reuven and Shimon were married to Leah and Rachel who are sisters and Levi is unmarried. When either Reuven and Shimon dies Levi performs maamar, betrothal in the case of levirate marriage, with one of the sisters. At this point the other brother dies. The other sister should according to the laws of levirate marriage, also marry Levi. This is a problem because the other brother has already betrothed, although not married this woman’s sister. It is also somewhat of a problem for Levi to consummate the marriage with the first widowed sister since her sister is also bound to Levi by her need for levirate marriage or halitzah. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai rules that Levi may marry the first sister. The second widowed sister does not need either halitzah or levirate marriage, since she is forbidden to Levi who is married to her sister. In other words, according to Beth Shammai although Levi only performed “maamar” with the first sister, the bond created is strong enough to exempt the second sister from halitzah or levirate marriage to Levi. Beth Hillel disagrees. According to them maamar is not as strong as full marriage. Therefore Levi must perform two ceremonies in order to release the first widow: 1) he must divorce her to untie the bond created by the maamar; 2) he must perform halitzah to untie the bond created by her being his dead brother’s wife. The second widow also requires halitzah. The mishnah ends with what must have been a popular saying, although not necessarily said strictly in this circumstance. This is truly a sorry case for both Levi, who loses both women, and for his wife (the first widow) and for his (dead) brother’s wife as well.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
In what other circumstance might the saying at the end of the mishnah been stated?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains four more disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. The first one continues to deal with marital law. The second one deals with laws of giving birth. The final two deal with other areas of law.", + "One who takes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife: Beth Shammai says: [after] two weeks [he must divorce her and pay her kethubah], And Beth Hillel say: after one week. According to the Rabbis, a husband is obligated to have sexual relations with his wife at regular intervals (see Ketuboth 5:6). If he takes a vow not to have relations with his wife, Beth Shammai says that after two weeks she can sue him for divorce and she will be able to collect her kethubah (marriage payment). Beth Hillel is stricter on the husband and gives him only one week.", + "A woman has a miscarriage on the eve of the eighty first [day]: Beth Shammai exempt her from bringing the offering, And Beth Hillel do not exempt her. According to Leviticus 12:5-6, a woman must bring a sacrifice 80 days after having given birth to a daughter. In other words, she brings a sacrifice on the 81st day. If she should become pregnant again during these 80 days, and have a miscarriage, the she need not bring another sacrifice for her miscarriage. [Generally she would have to bring a sacrifice for a miscarriage, just as she does for a live birth]. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regards to a woman who has a miscarriage on the night preceding the 81st day, the day she should have brought a sacrifice for the first birth. Beth Shammai rules that since she could not have brought a sacrifice at night, she is still within the 80 days, and she is exempt from bringing an additional sacrifice for the miscarriage. Beth Hillel rules that since the 80 days have been completed, she must bring a sacrifice for the miscarriage as well as one for the previous birth.", + "[With regards to the rules of] tzitzit ( on linen sheet: Beth Shammai exempts, And Beth Hillel does not exempt. This mishnah deals with the obligation to put fringes (tzitzit) on a linen sheet. There are two reasons why Beth Shammai exempts one from doing so: 1) a sheet is not a piece of clothing. Deuteronomy 22:12 specifically states that the fringes must be put on clothing. 2) The sheet is made of linen and tzitzit are made of wool. According to Deuteronomy 22:11 it is forbidden to mix wool and linen. Beth Hillel rules that one should put the fringes on the sheet for two reasons: 1) The sheet may be worn as a piece of clothing; 2) The commandment to put fringes on clothing supersedes the prohibition of mixing linen and wool.", + "A basket of [fruit set aside for] the Sabbath: Beth Shammai exempts it [from tithes]. And Beth Hillel does not exempt it. This mishnah deals with who has put aside a basket of fruit for Shabbat but wishes to snack from the basket before Shabbat. This snacking is not considered a fixed meal, and in general one may “snack” from produce before it has been tithed. However, this is not true on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath it is forbidden to eat any produce that has not been tithed. According to Beth Shammai one may eat the fruit of this basket before the Sabbath. Although on the Sabbath itself it will be forbidden to do so since it has not been tithed (and cannot be tithed on the Sabbath), before the Sabbath it is still permitted. Beth Hillel forbids. According to them, setting aside something for the Sabbath makes it forbidden to eat from it until it has been tithed.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How did these four disputes come to be strung together? Can you find some link between each section and the preceding one?
• Section one: If a man is obligated to have regular sexual relations with his wife, why doesn’t he have to divorce her immediately if he takes such a vow not to perform his duty?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn order to understand this mishnah we must first explain some laws concerning the nazirite. One who takes a vow to be a nazirite (see Numbers 6) is forbidden to do three things: 1) cut his hair; 2) drink wine or any grape products; 3) become impure. If a nazirite should become impure during his naziriteship, he must begin to count the days of his naziriteship again.\nAccording to the Rabbis one who takes a vow of naziriteship without specifying the length of the naziriteship is a nazirite for thirty days. If he specifies more than thirty days than he is a nazirite for that specified period. If he specifies less than thirty days, he is still a nazirite for thirty days. Thirty days is the minimum period that one can be a nazirite.\nIf one took a vow of naziriteship outside the land of Israel, he will have trouble observing his vow, because the Rabbis ruled that land outside of Israel imparts impurity. Since he is impure merely by being outside of Israel, he cannot truly keep his vow. Nevertheless the Rabbis said that he must observe his naziriteship outside of Israel, and then later when he arrives in Israel, observe another naziriteship. In our mishnah Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regards to how long he must be a nazirite when he arrives in Israel.", + "One who vowed [to keep] a longer naziriteship [than ordinary] and he completed his naziriteship and afterwards came to the [holy] land: Beth Shammai says: [he must be] a nazirite [only] thirty days, But Beth Hillel says: [he must be] a nazirite [the full time vowed as] in the beginning. If while living outside of the land of Israel one took a vow of naziriteship, and specified a period of over thirty days, when he afterwards comes to Israel, he must, according to Beth Shammai, observe only another thirty days of naziriteship. Since the impurity of land outside of Israel is only of Rabbinic (derabanan) ordinance and is not of the higher Toraitic status (deoraitta), Beth Shammai is lenient. Although his original vow was of greater length, he need observe only thirty days, the minimum length of naziriteship, when he arrives in the Holy Land. Beth Hillel holds that he must observe the full length of his original naziriteship.", + "One who has two groups of witnesses who testify about him, these testifying that he vowed two naziriteships and these testifying that he vowed five: Beth Shammai says: their testimony is divided, and there is no [obligation to perform] naziriteship. But Beth Hillel says: within the five, two are included, so that he must be a nazirite twice. If there are two groups of witnesses testifying that a certain man took several vows to be a nazirite, one group claiming that he took five vows to be a nazirite and therefore should observe 150 days of naziriteship, and the other group of witnesses testifying that he took two vows, and therefore should observe 60 days of naziriteship, according to Beth Shammai the testimony has been contradicted and there is no evidence that he is a nazirite. This person would therefore not be obligated to be a nazirite at all. According to Beth Hillel, since all of the witnesses agree that he took at least two vows, he must observe two periods of naziriteship.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Do you think there is significance to the mishnah’s using the numbers five and two, as opposed to three and four or any other smaller discrepancy between the two testimonies?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the final mishnah in the long list of mishnayoth that list the disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.", + "A man who was set beneath the gap: Beth Shammai says: he does not cause the impurity to pass over. But Beth Hillel says: a man is hollow, and the upper side causes the impurity to pass over. This mishnah, which is also found in tractate Ohalot 11:3, deals with a situation explained there in mishnah two. The situation is that there is a portico, a semi-covered courtyard, which is surrounded by pillars and on one side is a house. The portico is covered but the walls are open in three directions. This roof would normally cause tent impurity to be imparted to anything under the roof. In other words, if there was a source of impurity (such as a dead body) under the roof and a live person, or vessels under the same roof, the live person and vessels would be impure. The previous mishnah to our mishnah in Ohalot deals with a case where there is a crack in the roof. The impurity does not pass from one side of the crack to the other. Therefore if there is a dead body on one side and vessels on another, the vessels are not impure. The dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel is about a case when a person was lying on the ground, directly under the crack. According to Beth Shammai, this person does not bridge the crack in the roof above, and the vessels which are on the opposite side remain pure. Beth Hillel holds that since the body of a person is considered to be hollow, the roof of his abdomen bridges the gap created by the crack and brings the impurity over to the other side.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Do you think it would make a difference if the crack did not go the whole length of the roof?
• Would this same law be true if there were cracks in a house?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter five continues to list disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in which Beth Shammai were more lenient. The difference between these lists and those in the previous chapter is that in this chapter individual Sages state the lists as opposed the lists in the previous chapter which were not ascribed to anyone in particular. The first mishnah is Rabbi Judah’s list. It contains six disputes.", + "Rabbi Judah says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.
The blood of a carcass: Beth Shammai pronounces it clean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it unclean. Everyone holds that the flesh of a carcass (an animal which was not properly slaughtered) is impure. Beth Shammai holds that the blood of a carcass is not like the flesh, and it is not impure, whereas Beth Hillel holds that it is impure.", + "An egg found in a [bird’s] carcass: if the like of it were sold in the market, it is permitted, and if not, it is forbidden, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. And Beth Hillel forbids it. But they agree in the case of an egg found in a trefa [bird] that it is forbidden since it had its growth in a forbidden condition. 3+4) The blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of purity of a leprous woman: Beth Shammai pronounces clean; And Beth Hillel says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. If an egg is found in the carcass of a bird, the question arises, can one eat the egg? The bird is forbidden, but we need to know is the egg still part of the bird, in which case it too is forbidden, or is it a separate entity, in which case it is permitted. According to Beth Shammai, if this egg is fully-formed such that it is similar to eggs sold in the market, it is a separate entity and is permitted. Beth Hillel states that the egg is forbidden in any case. The mishnah notes that the two houses agree in the case of an egg found in a “trefah” that it is forbidden. A “trefah” is an animal suffering from a wound or illness that will cause it to die within 12 months. Since the egg grew in an animal that was definitely going to be forbidden to eat, even if it was slaughtered properly, the egg is forbidden. The egg which was found in the carcass of the dead bird, had the potential to be a kosher egg, and therefore, according to Beth Shammai, if the egg was fully formed, it is permitted to eat.", + "One may eat fruits of the seventh year with an expression of thanks and without an expression of thanks [to the owner of the field], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: one may not eat with an expression of thanks. Sections three and four: This section discusses the purity of the menstrual or gonorrheal blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of a gonorrheal Jewish woman during the first 40 days (for a boy) or 80 days (for a girl) after giving birth. According to Rabbinic law, fluids flowing from gentiles are impure. However, Beth Shammai argues that this is only with regards to their spit and urine, fluids which are always present. The decree of the Rabbis that their fluids are impure does not apply to their blood flows. With regards to the gonorrheal Jewish woman, she is normally impure. However, the blood flow of women is always pure during this period after childbirth. Beth Shammai says that the blood of a gonorrheal woman is also pure. Beth Hillel says that the blood flows of both of these women is like their urine and spit: they are all impure.", + "During the Sabbatical year all of the produce grown in the fields is considered ownerless, and may be eaten by anyone. Beth Shammai holds that when one eats such produce one may express his thanks to the owner of the field, or one may not choose not to express thanks. Beth Hillel holds that one may not express thanks to the owner of the field. These fruits are ownerless; giving thanks to the owner of the field may give people the impression that he is the one giving them, whereas in truth it is the Torah’s laws which have given them to the person eating. [I have explained the mishnah according to some versions of the text, which Albeck believes are correct.]", + "As we have stated many times, a vessel cannot receive impurity unless it is functional. Our mishnah discusses a waterskin. According to Beth Shammai, the waterskin receives impurity only if it is tied up and standing upright, so that it will retain the water which is inside. Beth Hillel holds that as long as it is upright, it need not be tied up to receive impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah Rabbi Yose lists six cases in which Beth Shammai ruled more leniently than did Beth Hillel.", + "Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.
A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. It is forbidden to place on one table both meat and cheese, lest by accident one come to eat them together. According to Beth Shammai this prohibition is with regards to meat (cow, lamb, sheep) only. Since eating fowl together with dairy is not forbidden according to the Torah, as is eating milk and meat, but rather fowl and dairy are forbidden only by Rabbinic law, the Rabbis were not so strict as to prevent one from putting them together on the same table. Beth Hillel says that even chicken and cheese are forbidden to be put on one table.", + "Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. According to Beth Shammai, if a person has olive oil and raw olives, or wine and grapes from which he needs to separate terumah (which goes to the priest), he may give from the raw fruits (olives or grapes) and have that count as the terumah for the finished products (olive oil or wine). Although these things are in different form, since they are of the same type, one may give terumah from one for the other. Beth Hillel says that one may not do so.", + "One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. According to Deuteronomy 22:9 it is forbidden to plant a vineyard with other types of seed. If one does neither may be used. The Rabbis stated that one must leave four cubits between the vineyard and the planting of the seed. If one plants within this four cubits, according to Beth Shammai the fruit of the first row of the vineyard, the one next to the planted seeds, is forbidden to eat. According to Beth Hillel two rows are forbidden.", + "Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. According to Numbers 15:19 the first yield of bread baking must be given to the priests. This is called “hallah”, and it is observed by separating some of the dough and giving it to the priests. Our mishnah discusses flour that has been mixed with boiling water and thereby cooked with water instead of being baked. According to Beth Shammai since it was not baked it is exempt from the laws of hallah. Beth Hillel says that it is subject to these laws, and therefore one must give part of it to the priest.", + "One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. Ritual baths are usually taken in a bath of water that is at least 40 seahs large. According to Beth Shammai, one may also bathe in a flow of rainwater, flowing down from the mountains. Although there is not 40 seahs in the specific place where he bathes, since from the beginning of the torrent up in the mountains, until its end in the valley there are certainly 40 seahs, he may make use of it as a ritual bath (mikveh). Beth Hillel says that he may not.", + "One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave. This mishnah discusses a new convert’s eating the Passover sacrifice, which cannot be eaten in a state of impurity. If he converted on the eve of Passover, according to Beth Shammai he may immerse and eat of the Passover sacrifice that very evening. According to Beth Shammai the convert is only impure by minor impurities, which dissipate at nightfall if the person took a ritual bath. However, Beth Hillel says that one who has just left the uncircumcised, meaning he was just circumcised, is like one who separates from the grave and is impure like one who came into contact with a dead body. This impurity lasts seven days, and therefore, one who converted on the eve of Passover will not be able to eat his Passover sacrifice that evening." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains Rabbi Yishmael’s list of three instances in which Beth Shammai ruled more leniently than Beth Hillel.", + "Rabbi Yishmael says: there are three instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel.
The book of Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: it defiles the hands. According to the Rabbis the Holy Scriptures, meaning any canonized book in the Bible, cause ones hands to be ritually defiled. According to the Talmud the reason is that people used to put the scrolls into arks with terumah food, reasoning that both were holy. Mice would come to eat the food and they would destroy the scrolls. By decreeing that the scrolls would defile the terumah, people stopped this practice. There are several debates in the Mishnah about what books are included in the Biblical canon such that they defile the hands. According to Beth Shammai, Ecclesiastes (Koheleth) does not defile the hands. This is probably due to the deeply pessimistic, bordering on heretical, tone of the book. At times the author of the book has at least serious doubts about whether or not the performance of good deeds brings with it rewards, a doctrine held as true by the Rabbis. Beth Hillel includes it in the Biblical canon probably for two reasons: 1) it was, according to tradition, written by King Solomon; 2) the last verse of the book exhorts the reader to listen to God’s word and to do good, a message that was certainly acceptable to the Rabbis.", + "Water of purification which has done its duty: Beth Shammai pronounces it pure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it impure. “Waters of purification” refers to the water that has been mixed with the ashes of a red heifer, and was used to rid a person of corpse impurity. According to Beth Shammai, the water remains pure even after it has been sprinkled on the impure person. Although before it has been used it causes impurity to one who touches it unnecessarily (see Numbers 19:21), according to Beth Shammai once it has been used it is no longer impure. Beth Hillel holds that these waters remain impure even after they have been used.", + "Black cumin: Beth Shammai pronounces it not liable to become impure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable to become impure. So, too, with regard to tithes. In this section Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel debate about the status of black cumin. If black cumin is considered a food, then it should be receptive to impurity and one who wishes to eat it would have to first separate the necessary tithes and terumah. Beth Shammai does not consider black cumin to be “food” and therefore holds that it is not receptive to impurity nor subject to the laws of tithes and terumah. Beth Hillel holds that it is food and is therefore receptive to impurity and one who eats it must separate tithes and terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah and the mishnah that we will learn tomorrow contain the last lists of disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in tractate Eduyoth.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: there are two instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel.
The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not immersed herself, Beth Shammai says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. But Beth Hillel says: it causes impurity whether wet or dry. However, they agree in the case of the blood of a woman who gave birth when she had non-menstrual discharge, that it causes defilement whether wet or dry. According to Leviticus, chapter 12, after a woman gives birth to a male she is impure for seven days and after giving birth to a female she is impure 14 days. After this time she is supposed to go to the mikveh (ritual bath) and she will be pure. Any blood that flows after this time is pure (up to 33 days for a boy and 66 days for a girl). Our mishnah discusses a woman who had not gone to the mikveh after the initial seven or 14 day period. According to Beth Shammai the blood of this woman is not totally impure. Rather it is impure only when it is wet, like her spittle and urine. When dry the blood is pure. Beth Hillel disagrees and holds that it is impure whether wet or dry. The two Houses agree that if the woman was a “zavah”, a woman with an unnatural discharge (such as gonorrhea) at the time of childbirth, that her blood remains impure both when wet and when dry. A “zavah” must count seven clean days (free from any blood) for her to be able to go to the mikveh and become pure. Since she has not been able to do so, her blood remains impure, both wet and dry, as blood normally is.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Now that we have learned the last list of disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, can you discern any order to their appearance in the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. It contains the second example of Rabbi Eliezer’s list of disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.", + "[In the case of] four brothers of whom two were married to two sisters, if those married to the sisters died, behold, these should perform halitzah and not enter into levirate marriage (with the brothers-in-. If they went ahead and married them, they must put them away (divorce. Rabbi Eliezer says in the name of Beth Shammai: they may keep them. But Beth Hillel say: they must put them away. In the case in our mishnah, Reuven, Shimon, Levi and Judah who are brothers, are each married, Reuven and Shimon being married to Rachel and Leah who are sisters and Levi and Judah being married to other women not related to Rachel and Leah. If Reuven and Shimon die without children, Rachel and Leah need to perform halitzah or enter into levirate marriage with either Levi and Judah. However, they cannot both be married to the same brother, since a man cannot marry two sisters. Since each sister is “tied” to each brother (by her need to perform halitzah or be married), the best thing to do is for each to perform halitzah, the release from levirate marriage. From here we learn that it is forbidden for a man to marry the sister of a woman who is tied to him, in a similar way that it is forbidden for a man to marry two sisters. According to Beth Shammai, if, even though it is forbidden to do so, Levi and/or Judah married Rachel or Leah, they are not forced to divorce them. According to Beth Shammai the law that says that they must perform “halitzah” is only “lekhathilah”, meaning ab initio. One should not do marry these sisters, but if one did the action is valid. According to Beth Hillel, this marriage is forbidden even “bediavad”, meaning even after it was done, it remains forbidden, and they are forced to divorce them. Beth Hillel probably reasons that if this marriage was permitted “bediavad”, “lekhathilah” people would marry in this situation.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do clauses 1a and 1c repeat the same opinion? What might this tell us about the structure and formation of the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the sad story of Akavia ben Mahalalel who was excommunicated for his disagreements with the other Sages. Although we have seen many disagreements in the Mishnah, some over major issues of law, it has seemed that the disputing Sages lived in peace despite their differences. This point was especially made with regards to the disputes of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in chapter four, mishnah eight. However, the border of legitimate dispute seems to have been crossed by Akavia ben Mahalalel. Although it will be difficult for us to understand what exactly it was that Akavia did that so angered the other Sages, this mishnah at least provides ample testimony to the ease in which legitimate dispute can turn into a fierce battle.", + "Akavia ben Mahalalel testified concerning four things. They said to him: Akavia, retract these four things which you say, and we will make you the head of the court in Israel. He said to them: it is better for me to be called a fool all my days than that I should become [even] for one hour a wicked man before God; So they shouldn’t say: “he withdrew his opinions for the sake of power.” In the first section of the mishnah we learn the background to the sad story of Akavia ben Mahalalel. The Sages pleaded with him to retract the four things that he stated and in return they would appoint him to the head of the court. Akavia responded in two ways: 1) God would know that his retraction was false, and therefore he could not do so; 2) he cannot change his beliefs merely in order to be appointed to a position of power.", + "He used to pronounce impure the hair which has been left over [in leprosy], The mishnah now begins to list the four statements that Akavia made and with which the Sages disagreed. The first is with regards to a certain type of hair found in someone afflicted with a leprous like disease. A white hair found on the leprous patch is impure. If the disease disappears and the white hair stays and then the disease returns, Akavia considers the hair to be impure, since it is likely to be the same disease merely returning. The Sages consider the disease to be a new affliction and therefore, since in order for the hair to be impure, the disease must precede the formation of the hair, the hair is pure.", + "And green ( blood (of vaginal; But the Sages declared them clean. If a woman has a vaginal discharge which is green (yellow), Akavia considers it to be similar to blood which everyone holds is impure and therefore the yellow discharge is also impure. The other Sages disagree and hold that a yellow discharge is not blood and is therefore pure.", + "He used to permit the wool of a first-born animal which was blemished and which had fallen out and had been put in a niche, the first-born being slaughtered afterwards; But the sages forbid it. It is forbidden to shear a first born animal, even one that has a flaw and is therefore is not sacrificable. (First born animals that have no flaw are sacrificed and their flesh belongs to the priests. First born animals that have a flaw belong to the priests but are not sacrificed). Since it is forbidden to shear this animal, the Sages decreed that it is forbidden to use any wool that comes from it, even if it falls off on its own. If some wool falls off while it is alive and someone puts it away for safekeeping, but does not use it, and then the animal is slaughtered to be eaten (which is permitted since it has a flaw) Akavia permits this wool to be used. Since the slaughtering permits the wool that is on the dead animal to be used (it is only forbidden to shear the live animal), it also permits the wool that fell off the animal before it died to be used. The Sages hold that this wool is not permitted.", + "He used to say: a woman proselyte and a freed slave-woman are not made to drink of the bitter waters. But the Sages say: they are made to drink. They said to him: it happened in the case of Karkemith, a freed slave-woman who was in Jerusalem, that Shemaiah and Avtalion made her drink. He said to them: they made her drink an example (and not the real. According to Numbers 5, a woman who is suspected of adultery is to be tested by drinking the “bitter waters” (5:24). In verse 12 of this chapter, in the introduction, it states, “speak unto the children of Israel”. From here Akavia learned that in order to drink the “bitter waters” the woman must be born an Israelite. According to Akavia, the chapter was taught to Israelites but not to non-Jews. This would exclude a woman who converted or a Canaanite slave who was freed (by being freed a Canaanite slave becomes a Jew). The Sages disagree and state that these women do drink. Although they were not born as Israelites, since they are currently full Jews they have the same ability and liability to drink the “bitter waters” if they are accused of adultery. The Sages support their opinion that the freed slave drinks by mentioning the precedent of Karkemith, a freed slave, who was given the “bitter waters” by Shemaiah and Avtalion, two early Sages. Akavia disagrees and states that they didn’t give her the real bitter waters, but rather a simulated version. The reason that they didn’t give her the real bitter waters is that the in the process of making the bitter waters God’s holy name is written on a scroll and then erased into the water, something which under normal circumstances is forbidden. To avoid unnecessarily erasing God’s name, Akaviah claims that Shemaiah and Avtalion gave the freed slave, Karkemith, some other type of waters.", + "Whereupon they excommunicated him; and he died while he was under excommunication, and the court stoned his coffin. When Akaviah made this statement they put him into excommunication. He died while still in excommunication and to emphasize their point, the Sages stoned his coffin.", + "Rabbi Judah said: God forbid [that one should say] that Akavia was excommunicated; for the courtyard is never locked for any man in Israel who was equal to Avavia ben Mahalalel in wisdom and the fear of sin. But whom did they excommunicate? Eliezer the son of Hanoch who cast doubt against the laws concerning the purifying of the hands. And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin. Rabbi Judah claims that Akavia was not put into excommunication. Rabbi Judah emphatically states that the courtyard of the Temple, even when full would not contain a person of greater wisdom and fear of sin than Akavia. Such a person could not commit a sin which would cause him to be excommunicated. Rather Eliezer ben Hanoch was the one put into excommunication for questioning the Rabbinic concept of the impurity of the hands. Without entering here into detail, this concept, that hands alone can become impure is a Rabbinic innovation that doesn’t appear in the Torah. By questioning this concept, Eliezer questions the entire substance of Rabbinic authority.", + "This teaches that whoever is excommunicated and dies while under excommunication, his coffin is stoned. According to Rabbi Judah, when Eliezer ben Hanoch died in excommunication, they put a stone on his ark (this is a form of stoning, see Sanhedrin 6:4). This action serves as a precedent for others who are excommunicated.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section four: Why do the Sages hold that this wool is forbidden?
• Section seven: What does this section teach us about why Rabbis are put into excommunication according to the Mishnah? What is the reason that Eliezer ben Hanoch is put into excommunication? How does this compare to why Akavia may have been excommunicated?
• Section eight: What is the symbolic meaning of stoning the excommunicated person’s coffin?
• Over all, what might be the message of this mishnah? In other words, what is the attitude of the editor of the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah concludes the story of Akavia ben Mehalalel.", + "At the time of his death he said to his son, “Retract the four opinions which I used to declare.” He (the said to him, “Why did not you retract them?” He said to him, “I heard them from the mouth of the many, and they heard [the contrary] from the mouth of the many. I stood fast by the tradition which I heard, and they stood fast by the tradition which they heard. But you have heard [my tradition] from the mouth of a single individual and [their tradition] from the mouth of the many. It is better to leave the opinion of the single individual and to hold by the opinion of the many.” As Akavia is about to die, he offers some conciliation to the Sages, by telling his son to retract the statements to which he had previously clung. His son is perplexed by this request of Akavia. After all, Akavia was willing to be put into permanent excommunication, to lose his entire standing in the Rabbinic community, in order to stand up for the statements which he had made. Why now was he all of a sudden willing to change his mind? Akavia’s answer returns us to the principle which we had learned in chapter one, mishnah five. When there is a dispute between many Sages on one side and a singular Sage on the other, the halakhah is like the many. Here Akavia teaches that a tradition that was learned from many Sages is stronger and more accepted as normative halakhah than a tradition that was learned from a singular Sage. His son had learned them only from him, and therefore their weight was less than the rulings of the Sages, who in the time of Akavia were considered the many.", + "He said to him, “Father commend me to your colleagues.” He said to him, “I will not commend you.” He said to him, “Have you found in me any wrong?” He said, “No; your own deeds will cause you to be near, and your own deeds will cause you to be far.” Akavia’s son’s final request of his father was that he put in a good word about him with his colleagues. Evidently, although Akavia had been put in excommunication, he retained some ties with other Sages. Akavia’s final words teach a lesson to all children of leaders. Although Akavia’s son was the child of a great teacher, one who was almost appointed to be the head of the court, the son will have to earn his own way into a position of leadership. If he is worthy, he will have the opportunity to achieve high positions as a Rabbi; if he is unworthy, a good word from his father will not help him.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• According to Akavia, what gives a halakhah its authority? In other words, why did he not retract the things which he had stated? Did he believe that these were the necessarily “true” statements?
• As a piece of literature, what is the function of the final piece of the story? Why does this story end with Akavia’s telling his son that his own merits are what will earn him status in the world? Has Akavia somehow changed due to his excommunication?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter six returns to the main style of Mishnah Eduyoth, the recording of traditions transmitted by individual Sages. In the first mishnah Rabbi Judah ben Bava testifies with regards to five things.", + "Rabbi Judah ben Bava testified concerning five things:
That women who are minors are made to declare an annulment of their marriage; Only a father has the right to marry off his daughter while she is a minor (under 12 ½) and have the marriage considered Biblically valid. If the father is not alive, the mother or brother can marry off the daughter while she is a minor, but the marriage is only Rabbinically valid. Being so, she has a right to refuse the marriage when she reaches majority. If she does so the marriage is annulled and is considered as having never been. This refusal is called “meun”. Occasionally, if it was in the best interests of all parties, the Rabbis instructed the daughter to refuse the marriage. Such an occasion could occur in the following instance. Two brothers, Reuven and Shimon, were married to two sisters who had no father, Leah who was of majority age and therefore arranged her own marriage (her marriage is Biblically valid) and Rachel, whose marriage was arranged by her mother or brother (her marriage is only Rabbinically valid). If Leah’s husband, Reuven, dies she must have levirate marriage with Shimon, Rachel’s husband. The problem is that Rachel’s marriage to Shimon is now impossible because Leah’s tie to Shimon which is Biblical, supersedes Rachel’s marriage which is only Rabbinic. In order to allow Leah to have levirate marriage with Shimon, the Rabbis teach Rachel to refuse their marriage, thereby annulling it.", + "That a woman is allowed to re-marry on the evidence of one witness; According to the Torah, proper testimony requires at least two witnesses. However, one exception to this rule is the case of a woman whose husband may have died. If she cannot ascertain his death, she cannot remarry, which will leave her an “agunah” a woman who cannot marry. In order to prevent this difficult situation for the widow the Rabbis were lenient and allowed testimony based on only one witness.", + "That a rooster was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a human being; According to Exodus 21:28 an ox that kills a human is to be stoned. Rabbi Judah ben Bava extends this law to include any animal that kills a human, even one as unlikely to do so as a rooster. (See Bava Kamma 5:7).", + "And about wine forty days old, that it was used as a libation on the altar; New wine is not as good as old, aged wine. The question that is asked is how old must wine be for it to be usable as a libation. Rabbi Judah ben Bava states that forty days is sufficient.", + "And about the morning tamid offering, that it is offered at the fourth hour. There are two “tamid” offerings which are offered every day, one in the morning and one at twilight (See Exodus 29:39). According to Rabbi Judah ben Bava the morning “tamid” may be offered up until the fourth hour, but not afterwards. (The day is divided into 12 hours, the length of which is determined by the amount of sunlight during the day. During the summer hours are longer than during the winter). In other words, the first third of a day is considered to be “morning”.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Why were the Rabbis willing to suspend the laws of testimony in order to allow a woman to remarry?" + ], + [ + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia ben Elinathan, a man of Kefar Habavli, testified concerning a limb [separated] from a corpse that it is impure;
whereas Rabbi Eliezer says: they declared [this] only of a limb from a living [man].
They said to him: is not there an inference from the minor to the major (kal: If in the case of a living man [who is himself pure] a limb severed from him is impure, how much more in the case of a corpse [which is itself impure] should a limb severed from it be impure!
He said to them: they have [nevertheless] declared it only of a limb from a living man.
Another answer: The impurity of living men is greater than the impurity of corpses, because a living man causes that on which he lies and sits to become capable of making impure a man and clothing, and [he causes also] what is over him to transfer impurity to foods and liquids- which is defilement that a corpse does not cause.
This mishnah contains Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia ben Elinathan’s testimony regarding the impurity of a limb separated from a corpse.
The dispute in our mishnah concerns whether or not a limb separated from corpse transmits tent impurity (anything which is under the same roof with it becomes impure). Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia state that it is impure. Rabbi Eliezer states that it is pure, and that the only type of “separated limb” which is impure is one that has been separated from a living body.
Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya respond with a classic type of Talmudic argumentation, called a “kal vehomer”. Generally a corpse is considered the greatest source of impurity, whereas a living body is often not a source of impurity at all. [It is not in and of itself impure; it only becomes impure if it contracts it somehow.] If a limb separated from a living body is impure, even though the living body itself is pure, all the more so a limb separated from a corpse is impure, since the corpse itself is impure.
Rabbi Eliezer’s response is very typical of Rabbi Eliezer. He states that although Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya’s reasoning may be good reasoning, the tradition that he received from his teachers was only that a limb separated from a living body was impure. Even though there may be logic in extending this principle to include limbs from corpses, Rabbi Eliezer does not believe that it is the sage’s responsibility to add on to received traditions. Rabbi Eliezer is known as an arch-traditionalist; in another place he claims never to have stated anything that he did not hear from his teachers. Here we see classic example of Rabbi Eliezer sticking to his received tradition, in the face of a good argument to extend that tradition.
The final section of the mishnah contains a logical refutation of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya’s kal vehomer argument. In order to refute a kal vehomer argument one must point out that one side is not always more stringent than the other side. In other words, if the kal vehomer was based on a stable, predictable relationship between two things, the refutation points out that this relationship is not so predictable. In this case Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya had pointed out that a corpse is more impure than a living body, and therefore if something that comes from a living body is impure, all the more so the same thing that comes from a corpse will be impure. The refutation points out that with regards to some laws, the living body is a greater source of impurity than the corpse. A zav (a person with an unusual genital discharge) causes anything on which he sits or lies to become impure and able to transmit impurity to people or clothing. He also causes anything above him to become impure and able to transmit impurity to food and liquids. The corpse does not have such a strong ability to impart impurity. Since in some ways the living body can have a stronger impurity than the corpse, one cannot make the kal vehomer argument that Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya tried to make." + ], + [ + "Introduction
This mishnah is one of the longer mishnayoth in the entire Mishnah, and it contains a long argument amongst the Sages about the quantities of flesh separated from corpses or from limbs separated from living bodies that will cause impurity. This mishnah is also a continuation of the previous mishnah, and the same Sages that were present there are present in our mishnah.
Due to the length of the mishnah, and its intricate detail, we will divide it into two parts, one for today and one for tomorrow.", + "An olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man: Rabbi Eliezer pronounces impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia pronounce pure. A barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man, Rabbi Nehunia pronounces impure and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua pronounce pure. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: what reason have you found for pronouncing impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man? He said to them: we find that a limb from a living man is like an entire corpse; just as in the case of a corpse, an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it is impure, so also in the case of a limb from a living man an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it must be impure. They said to him: No! When you pronounce impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a corpse, it is because you have pronounced impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it. But how can you also pronounce impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man, seeing that you have pronounced pure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it? They said to Rabbi Nehunia: what reason have you found for pronouncing impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man? He said to them: we find that a limb from a living man is like an entire corpse; just as in the case of a corpse, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it is impure, so also in the case of a limb from a living man, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it must be impure. They said to him: No! When you pronounce impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a corpse, it is because you have pronounced impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it. But how can you also pronounce impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man, seeing that you have pronounced pure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it?", + "Explanation
Section one: In the first section of this mishnah the opinions of the different Sages are listed without explanations. With regards to an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a living limb, Rabbi Eliezer declares it impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia declare it pure. With regards to a barley-grain’s (smaller than an olive) quantity of bone separated from living flesh, Rabbi Nehunia declares it impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer declare it pure. In other words, Rabbi Joshua consistently says that all of these things are pure, whereas Rabbi Nehunia and Rabbi Eliezer are somewhat inconsisent, each one declaring one thing pure and the other impure.", + "Section two: In this section the Sages ask Rabbi Eliezer why he declared that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a living limb is impure. He answered them that a limb separated from a living person is impure like a corpse. Therefore, just as an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure, so too an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a limb is impure. ", + "The Sages respond by refuting his analogy. The reason that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure is that he has already stated that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone is impure. However, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a living limb is pure (according to Rabbi Eliezer), and therefore he cannot state so easily that an olive’s quantity of flesh is impure. In other words a corpse is more impure than a limb separated from a living body (with regards to the purity of separated pieces of bones), and he therefore should not be able to compare one to the other. ", + "Section three: In this section the other Sages ask Rabbi Nehunia why he declared that a barley-grain’s size of bone separated from a living limb is impure. He answered them that a limb separated from a living person is impure like an entire corpse. Therefore, just as a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a corpse person is impure, so too a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a limb is impure. ", + "The Sages respond by refuting his analogy. The reason that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a corpse is impure is that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure. However, Rabbi Nehunia already stated that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a limb is pure; how therefore can he learn that a barley-grain’s size of bone separated from a limb is impure. In other word’s, Rabbi Nehunia’s analogy was based on the similarity in the impurity of limbs separated from living bodies with corpses. However, he taught above that flesh separated from corpses was more impure than flesh separated from limbs from a living body, and therefore he cannot learn one from the other with regards to the issue of bone impurity. ", + "Introduction
This is the second half of the mishnah which we began to learn yesterday.", + "They said to Rabbi Eliezer: what reason have you found for dividing your standards? Either pronounce them both impure, or pronounce them both pure! He said to them: greater is the impurity of flesh than the impurity of bones, for the defilement of flesh applies both to (animal) carcasses and to creeping things, but it is not so in the case of bones. Another answer: a limb which has on it the proper quantity of flesh causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); if the flesh is diminished it is still impure, while if the bone is diminished it is pure. They said to Rabbi Nehunia: what reason have you found for dividing your standards? Either pronounce them both impure, or pronounce them both pure! He said to them: greater is the impurity of bones than the impurity of flesh, for flesh severed from a living man is pure, whereas a limb severed from him, while in its natural condition, is impure. Another answer: an olive’s quantity of flesh (from a corpse) causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); and a majority of a corpse’s bones causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); if the flesh is diminished it is pure, but if a majority of the bones is diminished, although it does not cause impurity by being under the same roof-space, it yet causes defilement by touching and by carrying. Another answer: any flesh of a corpse less than an olive’s quantity is pure, but bones forming the greater portion of the body’ build or the greater portion of the number of the corpse’s bones, even though they do not fill a quarter-kav are yet impure. They said to Rabbi Joshua: what reason have you found for pronouncing them both pure? He said to them: No! When you pronounce impure in the case of a corpse, it is because the rules of “majority”, “quarter-kav”, and “decayed matter” apply to it. But how can you say the same of a living man, seeing that the rules of “majority”, “quarter-kav”, and “decayed matter” do not apply to him?", + "Explanation
Section one: The first question asked is to Rabbi Eliezer, why did he pronounce that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated a limb severed from a living body is impure but that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from such a limb is pure. He should have declared either both pure or both impure. Two answers to this question are provided. The first answer is that flesh is more impure than bone, for the flesh of creeping things is impure while the bones of creeping things are pure. ", + "The second answer also points at an aspect of flesh that is more impure than bone. A limb severed from a human being, if it has on it enough flesh that if it was still attached to the human being the limb would be viable, causes impurity through touching, carrying and by being underneath the same roof space. If some of the flesh falls off of this limb, it is still impure. If however, some of the bone falls off of this limb, the entire limb is pure. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer was more lenient with regards to bone impurity than with regards to flesh impurity.", + "Section two: The second question asked is to Rabbi Nehunia, why did he pronounce that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated a limb severed from a living body is pure but that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from such a limb is impure (the opposite of Rabbi Eliezer). He should have declared either both pure or both impure. This time three answers to the question are provided, all of which show ways in which bones are more impure than flesh. ", + "The first answer is that flesh that is separated directly from a living body is pure, whereas an entire limb separated from a living body, with its sinews and bone, is impure. ", + "The second answer is that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse transmits impurity by contact, carrying and by sharing the same roof-space; so too a majority of a corpse’s bones transmit impurity by contact, carrying and by sharing the same roof-space. If there is less than an olive’s quantity of flesh, it doesn’t transmit impurity at all; however, if there is less than a majority of the corpse’s bones, although they no longer transmit impurity by sharing roof-space, they do transmit impurity by contact and by carrying. In this way, bone impurity is more serious than flesh impurity. ", + "The third answer is that less than an olive’s quantity of flesh is always pure. However, with regards to bones there is the possibility that even less than a quarter-kav.\n" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to Exodus 13:13, the first born of a donkey must be “redeemed” with a sheep. Since donkeys are not fit to be sacrificed, their firstborn cannot be offered on the altar as are the firstborn of “pure” animals. Therefore they are redeemed with a sheep, which is then given to the priests (see Numbers 18:15).\nIn our mishnah the Rabbis dispute the responsibility that the owner of the donkey has over the sheep which he has used to redeem the first born of his donkey. The question is, if the sheep dies after it has been used to redeem the donkey but before he gives it to the priest, must he replace it with a new sheep?", + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testified concerning the redemption ( of a firstborn donkey, that if it died, the priest receives nothing, According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok, if the sheep used to redeem the first-born donkey should die before it is given to the priest, the owner is not responsible to provide the priest with a new sheep. According to these Sages, once he has “redeemed” the first-born donkey with the sheep he has fulfilled his religious duty. True the sheep belongs to the priest, but the owner has no responsibility to protect the sheep on behalf of the priest. Therefore if something happens to it, it is the priest’s loss.", + "Whereas Rabbi Eliezer says: the owner must bear the responsibility as with the five selas [in the case] of a [firstborn] son. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. He compares this sheep to the five selas that a father owes the priest to redeem his own first-born (pidyon ha-ben). In that case all the Rabbis agree that if the coins are lost before the father gives them over to the priest, the father must give the priest five new selas. Rabbi Eliezer says that just as in that case the father is responsible, so too in this case the owner of the donkey is responsible if the sheep should die before being presented to the priest.", + "But the Sages say: he bears no responsibility any more than in the case of the redemption of second tithes. The Sages, who in this case agree with Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok, compare this situation to that of lost coins of second tithe. These coins were used to redeem second tithe produce. The coins were then meant to be brought to Jerusalem and used there to buy food. If the owner of the coins should lose them before he arrives in Jerusalem, he is not obligated to replace them. According to the Sages, the same is true for the sheep.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why would the Sages not agree with Rabbi Eliezer’s analogy of the sheep to the five selas given for the redemption of the human first born?
• Why would Rabbi Eliezer not agree with the Sages’ analogy to second tithe?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to Leviticus 11:22, it is permitted to eat certain types of locusts. However, there are some types of locusts that are forbidden to eat. In the time of the mishnah people were able to distinguish between permitted and forbidden locusts. Nowadays, we do not know the difference and therefore Jews do not eat locusts. I’m sure we are all deeply disappointed.\nOur mishnah discusses the liquid that comes out of locusts when they have been preserved through salting.", + "Rabbi Zadok testified concerning brine of unclean locusts that it is clean, Rabbi Zadok teaches that the liquid that oozes out of unclean locusts when they have been salted is not considered a liquid that makes that with which it comes into contact receptive to impurities. (See Leviticus 11:38). The only liquids that do so are dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk and bee’s honey (see tractate Makhshirin 6:4). Likewise, it is permitted to drink this liquid, since it is not considered to be the blood of the locust.", + "Whereas the first mishnah [said]: unclean locusts that have been preserved together with clean locusts do not make their brine unfit. The earlier mishnah, which existed before Rabbi Zadok taught something slightly different. It taught that if unclean locusts were preserved, meaning pickled, with clean (edible) locusts, the it is permitted to drink the brine. Rabbi Zadok has added that even the liquid that oozes out of just unclean locusts, and not a mixture, is permitted to drink.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
What is the relationship of Rabbi Zadok to the “first mishnah”?" + ], + [ + "Rabbi Zadok testified concerning flowing water which exceeded in quantity dripping water; that it was valid.
There was such a case at Birath Hapilya, and when the case came before the Sages they declared it valid.
This mishnah discusses water which is used for a mikveh, the bath used by Jews to achieve ritual purification. This mishnah also appears in tractate Mikvaoth, where it is preceded by a distinction between running water and dripping water. Water which is flowing on the ground, such as a stream, creek or river, is valid for a mikveh even if there are less than 40 seahs in one place. However, dripping water, such as rain, must reach a minimum measure of 40 seahs in one defined place in order to be valid as a mikveh. [Note that water drawn to the mikveh is invalid in any case].
Our mishnah discusses a potential mikveh that has some flowing water and some dripping water. The question is, does this mikveh need to have 40 seahs?
According to Rabbi Zadok, as long as the quantity of flowing water exceeded the quantity of dripping water, the mikveh is valid, even if there are not 40 seahs in the place where the person immerses. If, however, there was more dripping water, then the mikveh would need to have 40 seahs of water in order to be valid. The mishnah then brings in an actual case where such a question arose and the Sages declared the mikveh to be valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains additional testimony of Rabbi Zadok concerning the validity of water for use in a mikveh. In the introduction to the previous mishnah we mentioned that flowing water such as a stream need not contain 40 seahs in any one place in order to be valid to be used as a mikveh. However, if the flowing water is directed by vessels, then it must contain 40 seahs in one place to be used as a mikveh.", + "Rabbi Zadok testified concerning flowing water which was made to run in a stream through nut-leaves, that it was valid. In the scenario under discussion a person has used nut-leaves to direct a stream of water. The question is, are these nut-leaves to be considered like a vessel? If they are then the stream would require 40 seahs in one place in order to be used as a mikveh. Rabbi Zadok testifies that these nut-leaves are not to be considered like vessels, even though the person who set them up may have used them in a similar fashion. Therefore the stream is valid as a mikveh even without 40 seahs in one place.", + "There was such a case at Ahaliyya, and when the case came before [the Sages in] the Chamber of Hewn Stone they declared it valid. This section brings additional support for Rabbi Zadok’s testimony. A case such as this actually happened in a place called Ahaliyya, and the Sages who sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, which was located in the Temple in Jerusalem (Sanhedrin 11:2) ruled that the water was valid without 40 seahs. Note the similar structure between this mishnah and the previous mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of mishnah five contains a testimony regarding the purity of a jar of red heifer ashes that had been placed on an impure creeping thing.\nThe second section contains a testimony regarding a person who took two nazirite vows.", + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Yakim, a man of Hadar, testified concerning a jar of ashes of a red heifer which was put over a creeping thing, that they were unclean. Whereas Rabbi Eliezer had pronounced them clean. In the case under discussion a person has a jar which contains the ashes of a red heifer, which are used in the purification process. The jar itself cannot receive impurity, for it is made out of stone which can never become impure. If the jar is placed over an impure creeping thing, the ashes inside the jar are impure, even though the jar itself remains pure. This is due to an interpretation of Numbers 19:9 which states, “A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place.” Since these ashes were not put in a “clean place”, they become impure. This law is in contrast to that which Rabbi Eliezer stated, namely that since the jar remains pure, the ashes remain pure as well.", + "Rabbi Papias testified concerning one who had vowed two naziriteships, that if he cut his hair after the first one on the thirtieth day, he could cut his hair after the second one on the sixtieth day; and if he cut his hair on the fifty-ninth day he has also fulfilled his duty, for the thirtieth day counts towards the required number. The testimony of Rabbi Papias concerns the length of a naziriteship. One who takes an oath to be a nazirite without specifying the length of the vow, is a nazirite for thirty days. During this time it is forbidden for him to cut his hair. On the thirty-first day, when the naziriteship was over he would cut his hair. If he were to cut his hair on the thirtieth day, he has fulfilled his naziriteship, since the observance of the vow for part of the day counts as if he observed it for the full day. If he were to take two nazirite vows, he should really cut his hair on the thirty-first day, and then begin to count that same day the second nazirite vow and then cut his hair again on the sixty-first day. However, if he cut his hair on the thirtieth day, he should cut his hair a second time on the sixtieth day. Furthermore, if he cut his hair for the second time on the fifty-ninth day, he has fulfilled his obligation. This is because the thirtieth day when he cut his hair the first time, counts both as the last day of his first naziriteship and the first day of his second naziriteship. In this manner one who takes two nazirite vows can “get away” with completing his second vow after only 59 days.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: What is the basis for the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the testimony of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Yakim?" + ], + [ + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testified concerning the offspring of a peace-offering, that it can be brought as a peace-offering, whereas Rabbi Eliezer says that the offspring of a peace-offering cannot be brought as a peace-offering.
But the sages say: it can be brought.
Rabbi Papias said: “I testify that we had a cow, which was a peace-offering, and we ate it at Passover, and its offspring we ate as a peace-offering at the [next] festival.
This mishnah discusses the offspring of a peace-offering. A peace-offering (shelamim) was a sacrifice that was usually brought either as a voluntary offering, or on festivals. The breast and the right hand leg would go to the priests and the remainder of the animal could be eaten by those who had brought it. The issue in our mishnah is the status of the offspring of an animal that had already been set aside to become a peace-offering. In other words, after the owner declared that he was going to bring the animal to the Temple as a peace-offering, it gave birth.
According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias, the offspring of a peace-offering can be brought as a peace-offering. Rabbi Eliezer ruled that it may not be brought as an peace-offering. The Talmud explains that according to Rabbi Eliezer the animal is put into a pen and let to die through starvation. The reason is that if the halakhah were to allow the owner to bring it as a peace-offering he would have incentive to delay bringing the mother , who has already been declared a peace-offering, to the Temple. The owner might wait until she gives birth, perhaps several times, in order that he would be able to bring more peace-offerings (after all he benefits as well by having more meat to eat). This delay in bringing the animal to the Temple would violate a rule in Deuteronomy 23:22 which states that when you offer a voluntary sacrifice, do not delay in bringing it.
The Sages side in this dispute with the testimony of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias. At the end of the mishnah Rabbi Papias brings his own personal experience of having eaten a peace-offering at one festival and its offspring at the next." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains four more testimonies given by Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias. Note that on the first two Rabbi Eliezer expresses a dissenting opinion, the same format we saw in the previous two mishnayoth.", + "They testified concerning the boards of bakers, that they are impure (they can receive, whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares them pure (unable to receive. The “boards of bakers” under discussion in this section are planks upon which the baker organizes his dough and puts it into the shape of loaves. If these planks are considered “vessels” than they can receive impurity, as can all “vessels”. If however, they are considered closer to raw material, less-shaped, then they cannot receive impurity. According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias since these boards are specially made to have dough put on them, they can receive impurity. Rabbi Eliezer holds that they cannot.", + "They testified concerning an oven which was cut into rings and sand was put between the rings that it is impure (can receive, whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure (unable to receive. The oven under discussion is one made of bricks. Sand has been placed between each brick and then a layer of plaster was put on the outside to seal the oven. The sand would prevent the bricks from being stuck together and therefore make this oven easy to take apart. According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias, since the oven was plastered from the outside, it is considered a proper oven and can receive impurity. Rabbi Eliezer holds that since each part is separate, it is not considered an oven, but a broken oven. Since broken vessels cannot receive impurity, this oven cannot be made impure.", + "They testified that the year may be intercalated throughout the whole of Adar, whereas they used to say: only until Purim. The Jewish year is based on both a lunar and solar model. It is lunar in that the length of a month is determined by the moon. It is solar in that the year is occasionally adjusted so that months and holidays will fall consistently in the same season. (The concept of a year exists only in a solar calendar; the concept of a month exists only in a lunar calendar). In today’s fixed calendar the year receives an extra month seven out of nineteen years. The extra month comes after Adar, the month in which we celebrate Purim. This extra month is called Adar Bet (second Adar). During the time of the Mishnah they did not have a fixed calendar. Each year a court would have to decide whether or not to “intercalate” the year, meaning add another month. They would do so depending on the weather outside. According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias, the court has until the end of Adar to intercalate the year. This means that they can do so at the last possible moment. The older halakhah was that it could only be intercalated before Purim, which falls on the 14th of Adar.", + "They testified that the year may be intercalated conditionally. There was such a case with Rabban Gamaliel who went to receive permission from the governor in Syria and he delayed in coming back; and they intercalated the year on condition that rabban gamaliel should approve; and when he came back he said: I approve, and the year was intercalated. The final testimony of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias is about conditionally intercalating the year. As we can see from the example in the story, this means that a court would decide to intercalate the year in the absence of the Patriarch, in this case Rabban Gamaliel, who evidently had the ultimate decision in whether or not to intercalate. When the Patriarch returned and agreed to the intercalation it becomes retroactively valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOlive-boilers and dyers would both use large metal cauldrons for boiling. In order to prevent the water from spilling out they would put a plaster ledge around the sides of the cauldron. The question in our mishnah is: are these plaster ledges receptive to impurity? In other words, are they considered “vessels” which receive impurity or raw material which does not.", + "Menahem ben Signai testified concerning the ledge attached to an olive-boiler’s cauldron, that it is [liable to become] impure; and concerning that of dyers, that it is not [liable to become] impure, whereas they used to say the reverse. According to Menahem ben Signai, the ledge attached to the olive-boiler’s cauldron can become impure. This is because it is necessary for the proper use of the cauldron; it allows the olive-boiler to fill the entire cauldron with water. The ledge that the dyer uses cannot become impure because the dyer is careful not to fill the cauldron up to the top with water so that it might boil over. Previously people reasoned the opposite. Evidently they thought that the dyer’s made more use of the ledge than did the olive-boilers. The principle, however, remains the same. If the ledge is normally used to keep the water in, than it receives impurity. Unfortunately, I must admit, never having boiled olives or dye, that I cannot fully understand the reason why people would change their minds about which is a “vessel” and which is not." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter nine contains four testimonies given by Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada.", + "Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; As we have learned in other places, the Rabbis considered a deaf-mute to lack intelligence, probably because in their time the deaf-mute had little way of communicating with the outside world. Usually a person who lacks intelligence, such a deaf-mute, minor or insane person, cannot enter into legally binding contracts, because they don’t understand their ramifications. However, as Rabbi Nehunia testifies, a deaf-mute can be divorced. (She was married off by her father). The reason is that divorce is not dependent upon the woman’s acquiescence; she can be divorced against her will. Since her will is irrelevant, even one who lacks awareness can be divorced. Although this might sound harsh, as if the Rabbis are going out of their way to allow a deaf-mute to be divorced, it may have also worked in her benefit. If men couldn’t divorce deaf-mutes, perhaps they might refrain from marrying them. By allowing a “way out” the Rabbis might actually be encouraging their marriage.", + "And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; This section deals with an orphaned minor girl of a non-priestly, Israelite family, who marries a priest. Generally this type of marriage is considered to be valid only rabbinically (derabanan) and not valid through Torah law (deoraita). Deoraita a minor can only be married off by her father. Only when she reaches majority she can marry herself off without her father’s aid. Despite the fact that this is really only a “derabanan” marriage, Rabbi Nehunya testifies that it is sufficient for her to be allowed to eat terumah and for her husband to inherit her, should she die. Even though these are usually rights only given to a valid “deoraita” marriage, Rabbi Nehunya testifies that the husband does receive these rights.", + "And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value; Usually one who steals an item must return the actual stolen item, as long as the item still exists. If one stole a beam and then used it in the foundation of a castle, legally he is bound to take down the castle and return the beam. Obviously this will discourage people from admitting that they stole, an essential part of making atonement for their crime. To allow people to more easily make atonement, the robber is allowed to pay back the value of the beam.", + "And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar. If it were forbidden to use animals that might have been stolen as sacrifices, the priests would never sacrifice an animal, lest it be stolen. Therefore, the mishnah rules that stolen animals can be used as sin-offerings, and that they do procure atonement for the one bringing them, as long as the theft is not publicly known. This mishnah is not permission to steal an animal and bring it as a sacrifice. Rather it is permission to use an animal without being concerned that it is stolen property. The mishnah teaches that if it was stolen property and the person who brought it did not know that it was stolen, that it is effective in bringing atonement.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Is there any common denominator to these four testimonies of Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah contains two testimonies, and an additional law stated by Rabbi Akiva.", + "Rabbi Joshua ben. Bathyra testified concerning the blood of carcasses that it was pure. This law was learned above, chapter five, mishnah one. There we learned that everyone holds that the flesh of a carcass (an animal which was not properly slaughtered) is impure. Beth Shammai held that the blood of a carcass is not like the flesh, and it is not impure, whereas Beth Hillel held that it is impure. In our mishnah Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testifies that the law is like Beth Hillel.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Bathyra testified concerning the ashes of purification, that if a defiled person had touched part of them he had defiled the whole of them. Rabbi Akiva added in regard to the fine flour, the incense, the frankincense, and the coals, that if a tevul yom had touched part of them he had made the whole of them unfit. The “ashes of purification” are the ashes of the red heifer which are combined with water and then used to purify one who has contracted corpse impurity. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Bathyra if an impure person touches some of these ashes, all of the ashes that are in the same pile have become impure. Even though each ash is its own distinct object and they are not attached to each other, one who touches some, defiles it all. Rabbi Akiva adds several other items that are in truth each individual, separate things, yet if part of them are touched by an impure person the entire pile is impure. This includes flour, incense, frankincense and coals, all of which are used on the altar in the Temple. If these are touched even by a “tevul yom”, someone who as already immersed himself in a mikveh to become clean but the sun has not yet set, will make them impure. Note that the reason that Rabbi Akiva mentions specifically the “tevul yom” is that the Saducees and other Jewish sects (including the Dead Sea sect) held that a “tevul yom” was pure. A person did not have to wait for sundown to become pure after having entered the mikveh. In fact, we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that this was one of the major disputes between the Dead Sea sect and those with whom they were arguing, probably the Pharisees." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nTwo more testimonies, both of which deal in some way with marital law.", + "Rabbi Judah ben Baba and Rabbi Judah the priest testified concerning a minor, the daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah as soon as she entered the bridal chamber even though she had not engaged in marital intercourse. According to the Torah when a woman from an Israelite family marries a priest she may eat terumah, food which is normally reserved for the priests. However, the question must be asked, when is the marriage considered valid such that she may eat terumah? Furthermore, this question must also be asked with regards to a minor girl, who was married off by her mother or brother. As we learned in mishnah 7:9, this type of marriage is not valid deoraita (from the Torah) and is only a rabbinic institution. Therefore, if she is not married according to the Torah, when can she eat terumah, a right normally reserved for those married deoraita? [We learned in 7:9 that when married she can eat terumah.] This is an important question, since the penalty for a non-priest who eats terumah is quite harsh (death by the hands of heaven). Our mishnah teaches that she may eat terumah once she has entered the bridal chamber (huppah) even though she has not yet had relations with her husband. She may not eat, however, while she is merely betrothed, a period that could last a year or even more.", + "Rabbi Yose the priest and Rabbi Zechariah ben Hakatzav testified concerning a young girl who had been taken as collateral (by in Ashkelon, and that her family had distanced her, even though her witnesses testified that she had not secluded herself [with any Man] and that she had not been defiled. The Sages said to them: if you believe that she had been taken as collateral, believe also that she did not seclude herself [with any man] and that she was not defiled; and if you do not believe that she did not seclude herself and that she was not defiled, neither believe that she had been taken as collateral. In the sad case under discussion in this mishnah a girl is taken by gentile debt collectors as security on a debt that a Jewish family owes them. The family, assuming that the girl has been raped by the gentiles, distances themselves from her. This “distancing” means that they refused to marry her (those in the family that would have been eligible to marry her, such as uncles and cousins), even though there was no law that prevented them from doing so. This family distanced her even though she had witnesses who testified that she had not been so much as secluded with a gentile, let alone raped. The Sages respond to this family that their position vis-a-vis the girl is illogical. If they believed the witnesses that she had been taken as collateral, then they must believe the same witnesses who testify that she had not been raped. If they don’t believe the witnesses that she had not been raped, then they shouldn’t believe them that she had been taken in the first place. The Sages do not tolerate the family’s overly stringent and extremely cruel position. While the Sages did believe that under certain circumstances, a girl who had been raped could no longer marry certain men (priests), they did not seek to compound this difficult situation by assuming that this had happened when witnesses testify explicitly that it had not. The family’s distancing the girl is a case of a stringency run amok, and one against which the Sages rightly put down their halakhic feet." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who is called “issa” or “dough”, meaning that his lineage is “mixed up” like dough. This is a man from a potentially priestly family that may have been “contaminated” by intermarrying with unfit priests, or “halalim”. A “halal” is the child of a mother who should not have been married to a priest, such as a divorcee. A woman who should not have been married to a priest but nevertheless does so becomes a “halalah”. The fact that “halalim” may have married into this family casts in doubt the status of all subsequent generations.\nWe should note again that lineage was an extremely important issue in Talmudic society, as it was in most of the ancient world. Lineage was especially important to the priestly elite, who could lose their status by not preserving the “purity” of their line.", + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testified concerning the widow of [a man belonging to] a family of doubtful lineage (an, that she was fit to marry into the priesthood, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testify that a widow of an “issa” is fit to marry into the priesthood. Since an “issa” is only a case of doubtful lineage, and we are not sure that there really were “halalim” in the family, the ruling is not stringent. Note that if we were sure that this widow had been married to a “halal” she would subsequently be forbidden to marry a priest. Furthermore, if this was a divorcee, there would be no issue since no divorcee can marry a priest. The only issue arises with the widow of an issa.", + "[And that those of] a family of doubtful lineage are fit to declare who was unclean and who clean, who was to be put away and who was to be brought near. Rabban Gamaliel said: we accept your testimony, but what can we do since Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai ordained that courts should not be commissioned for this purpose? The priests would listen to you concerning those who might be put away, but not concerning those who might be brought near! In their second testimony Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testify that the people of such a family are able to declare the status of the women among them: which women are “unclean” and therefore unable to marry priests, and which are “clean” and therefore able to marry priests. In other words, although this family itself has had a shadow cast upon its lineage, the members of the family are relied on to testify with regards to the status of the women within their family. Rabban Gamaliel responds that although this testimony is legally and logically acceptable, and he agrees that the family itself is fit to sort out its own lineage, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, the famous Sage who survived the destruction of the Second Temple, already decreed that the courts should not allow the widow of an “issa” to marry a priest. Although Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai agreed that this was permitted by law, the priests are stringent in this matter, and would not allow the court to permit them to marry such a woman. As we saw in the previous mishnah, many Jews were much more stringent in manners of lineage than the law required. Here Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai teaches an important principle: if the people are going to be so strict, the court should not make rulings that they in any case will ignore. This would cheapen the authority of the court by putting it into blatant conflict with the people." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer testifies concerning three things. One unusual feature of this mishnah is that it is all in Aramaic, as opposed to Hebrew which is the language of nearly all of the Mishnah.", + "Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer, a man of Zereda, testified concerning the ayal-locust, that it is pure; The Torah permits eating certain types of locusts and forbids others. However, it is very difficult to tell which locusts are permitted and which are not. Therefore, today we don’t eat locusts (I’m sure you’re disappointed!). Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer testifies that a certain type of locust, called the “ayal-locust” is pure, meaning one is allowed to eat it. Bon Appetit.", + "And concerning liquid in the slaughter-house (of the, that it is pure; The liquid which would be found on the floor of the slaughter-house of the Temple, which is assumedly a mixture of blood and water, is pure and cannot become impure. One explanation of this is that the concept of the impurity of liquids is a Rabbinic innovation (derabanan). The Rabbis did not include in this innovation the liquids found in the Temple, so as not to increase the impurity of things found in the Temple.", + "And that one who touches a corpse is impure. This section is puzzling. Seemingly Rabbi Yose makes the simple statement that one who touches a corpse is impure. This law is stated clearly in Numbers 19:11, 16, and there is no need for a “testimony” to restate that which is obvious. One explanation given is that according to the Torah one who touches a dead body is impure for seven days and one who touches this person is only impure for one day. However, the Rabbis were stricter and ruled that also one who touches a person who has touched a dead body is impure for seven days. Rabbi Yose disagreed with this ruling. When he states that one who touches a dead body is impure for seven days, he excludes one who touches a person who has touched a dead body. Another possibility is that Rabbi Yose ruled that one who definitely touched a dead body is impure, but one who may or may not have done so is not impure. An intriguing possibility that Albeck brings up is that this ruling of Rabbi Yose is against the Essenes, a Jewish sect that existed towards the end of the Second Temple period. The Essenes, who are likely the same group that occupied the Dead Sea settlement where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, were extremely strict in matters of purity and impurity. They ruled that a person could be impure for seven days under certain circumstances by touching a live human being. Rabbi Yose rules against this overly strict position; only a corpse can transmit seven day impurity.", + "And they called him “Yose the permitter”. For these rulings, Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer was called, “Rabbi Yose the permitter”. This was probably said with a certain degree of derision; Rabbi Yose was overly permissive. The fact that they called Rabbi Yose a “permitter” proves that section three also contained a permissive ruling." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nTwo more testimonies, one by Rabbi Akiva and one by Rabbi Joshua", + "Rabbi Akiva testified in the name of Nehemiah, a man of Beth Deli, that a woman is allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Usually Jewish law requires two witnesses in order for testimony to be effective. Here we learn of an exception to this rule. If one witness testifies that a woman’s husband has died, she is allowed to remarry based on one witness’s testimony. This leniency is to prevent the sad situation where a woman cannot remarry because she doesn’t know if her first husband is dead. This same testimony appears in chapter six mishnah one, there given by Rabbi Judah ben Bava. It is perplexing that Rabbi Akiva should repeat the same testimony. The reason why Rabbi Akiva repeats the testimony is explained in the last mishnah of Yevamoth. There Rabbi Akiva relates that when he traveled to Babylonia he met Rabbi Nehemiah of Beth Deli who told him that he had heard that in the Land of Israel only Rabbi Judah ben Bava allowed a woman to re-marry on the testimony of one witness; the other Sages disagree. Rabbi Akiva confirmed that this was true. Rabbi Nehemiah responded to him that he had heard from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder that a woman could remarry on the testimony of one witness. The testimony in our mishnah is Rabbi Akiva’s reporting of what Rabbi Nehemiah had told him. It is meant to teach that the testimony in chapter six, mishnah one is agreed to by more than just Rabbi Judah ben Bava.", + "Rabbi Joshua testified concerning bones found in the wood-shed that the Sages said: one may gather them, bone by bone, and they are all clean. Rabbi Joshua testifies that the bones of a human were found in the wood-shed in the Temple in Jerusalem, and that the Sages said that they could gather up the bones and bring them out of the Temple, without fearing that the bones had come into contact with other things in the Temple and impurified them. This is because the Temple is public domain and all cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are deemed pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua give testimony about the Temple and issues of its holiness.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said: I have heard that when they were building the Temple [complex] they made curtains for the Temple and curtains for the Temple-courts; but in the case of the Temple they built from the outside, and in the case of the Temple-court they built from the inside. This section discusses the building of the walls of the Temple. Rabbi Eliezer states that when they built the Second Temple and the surrounding courtyards they first demarcated the areas by hanging curtains. When it came to building the Temple itself they built the walls from the outside of the curtains. This way they did not actually see the Temple and become distracted by its splendor and not be able to build properly. Another possible reason is to prevent unnecessary infringement upon the Temple confines. However, when it came to the courtyard they built the walls from within the curtains.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be offered even though there is no Temple, and that the most holy sacrifices may be eaten even though there are no curtains, and the less holy sacrifices and second tithes even though there is no wall [around Jerusalem]; because the first sanctification sanctified both for its own time and for the time to come. Rabbi Joshua claims that although the Second Temple in Jerusalem has been destroyed, and the walls of the Temple, its courtyards and Jerusalem have been torn down, it is still, at least theoretically possible to offer sacrifices and to eat them in the places that they would have been eaten while the Temple stood. In other words even though there is no wall surrounding the Temple, the priests can still eat the sacrifices that had to be consumed within the Temple precents and even though there are no walls to Jerusalem, the people can still eat the sacrifices and second tithes that had to be consumed within Jerusalem. This is because when the Temple mount was sanctified originally when the First Temple was built by Solomon the area was sanctified permanently, and the sanctity of the place continues to exist even though the Temple no longer stands. Historians have paid careful attention to this statement by Rabbi Joshua, asking the question, did the Jews continue to offer sacrifices after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.? Although there is some evidence that the Jews did continue to do so, the overwhelming evidence is that they did not. Rabbi Joshua’s claim is likely to be more theoretical/ideological than realistic. Certainly after the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 C.E., when hopes of restoring the Temple were crushed, the Jews simply did not have the ability to offer sacrifices on the Temple mount. Nowadays, although Jews do have sovereignty over the Temple mount, few believe that we may return to offering sacrifices, although some fringe groups do and have attempted to do so.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
What might be the connection between these two sections?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Eduyoth discusses what Elijah, who according to the end of Malachi, will reappear at the end of time, will do.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: I have received a tradition from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher [heard it] from his teacher, as a halakhah [given] to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near, but to put away those brought near by force and to bring near those put away by force. The family of Beth Tzriphah was on the other side of the Jordan and Ben Zion put it away by force; and yet another family was there, and Ben Zion brought it near by force. It is such as these that Elijah will come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. Rabbi Joshua says that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai had a tradition that can be traced all the way back to Moses who received it at Sinai, that when Elijah the prophet reappears in Messianic time, he will not clarify which families are clean, meaning they have not intermarried with forbidden relationships, nor will he clarify the opposite. He will neither put away the unclean families nor draw near the clean families. All that he will do is bring near the families who were forcibly and illegitimately put away and put away the families that were forcibly and illegitimately brought near. In other words, decisions that humans had made as to which families were clean and which were not, and were made in a legal fashion without coercion, will be accepted by Elijah, even if he knows that they were wrong. However, actions which were enacted by force and not consented to by the law-abiding sections of society will be corrected. A note about “a law from Moses on Sinai”. The Rambam points out that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai did not actually have a tradition that Moses said these very words. Rather this is how the tradition understood Deuteronomy 30:3-4, which states that if you are scattered to the four corners of the earth, God will bring you back. This is understood to mean that if a family was illegitimately not allowed to intermarry with other Jewish families, Elijah would redeem the situation. The mishnah now proceeds to mention one family that had been put away by force, meaning that this person Ben Zion, forcibly pronounced them unclean and made the rest of society abide by his will. So too, Ben Zion, forcibly pronounced another family clean, and made society abide by his will.", + "Rabbi Judah says: to bring near, but not to put away. Rabbi Judah claims that Elijah will bring near but he will not put away. This is probably similar to the words of the Sages at the end of the mishnah. Elijah does not come to cause pain by putting some families away. The only problem that he will rectify is families who should be brought near, not those who should be put away.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: to conciliate disputes. Rabbi Shimon holds that when Elijah will come he will settle all the disputes between the Rabbis.", + "And the Sages say: neither to put away nor to bring near, but to make peace in the world, for it is said, “Behold I send to you Elijah the prophet”, etc., “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 3:23-2. The Sages hold that when Elijah comes it will only be to bring peace to the world. However, we should notice what peace means in this mishnah: a state of familial harmony. Peace doesn’t only mean the absence of warfare, rather it is more accurately interpreted as societal well-being, a reconciliation of parents with children. The Sages’ opinion is supported by the final verses of the book of Malachi, the very verses that teach that the Messianic age will be preceded by Elijah.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How does Rabbi Shimon’s opinion compare with the other opinions in the mishnah? What does he hold about Godly intervention in human affairs?Congratulations! We have finished Eduyoth.By now, for those of you who have been learning since the beginning of the Seder, you have grown accustomed to this point, where we thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.However, I believe in this case we should give pause and offer an even greater hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). This tractate is certainly one of the more difficult tractates, one which includes an extremely wide variety of topics. Oftentimes each mishnah or even each section of each mishnah contained a new topic. This has made the tractate difficult to follow. For those of you who nevertheless stuck it out, Yasher Koach. For those of you who gave up, do not despair. The remaining three tractates of Nezikin are much simpler. Tomorrow we begin to learn Tractate Avodah Zarah." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עדיות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עדיות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..818d10819fbd32f4bd60f3deca77cf9c5a31bb2a --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה הוריות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Leviticus 4 discusses sacrifices that must be brought as a result of unintentional sins. Verses 1-12 discuss the unwitting sins of the high priest (the anointed priest) and verses 13-21 discuss the unwitting sins of the whole community of Israel. According to the rabbinic interpretation of these passages, they refer to a case where either the high priest or the sanhedrin (a court) permitted a certain action, which when performed unwittingly by an individual causes him to be liable to bring a sin-offering. In other words the court mistakenly permitted forbidden actions. Verses 1-12, according to the rabbis, refer to a case where the high priest himself performs the sin, and verses 13-21 refer to a case where the majority of the community performed the sin. In both cases a sacrificial bull must be brought, either by the high priest or by the sanhedrin. These bulls have different technical names which we will learn throughout the tractate.", + "The above is true with regard to all sins except accidental idol worship. If a court ruled that an action was not idol worship and the majority of the community performed the action, and later it was found that the court ruled wrongly, the court must bring a bull and a goat. This situation is referred to in Numbers 15:22-29. If an individual accidentally worshipped idols, he only brings a goat as a sin-offering. This situation is referred to in Numbers 15:27-29. ", + "With regard to an individual accidentally worshipping idols, there is no distinction made between a high priest, a prince or an individual. However, with regard to all other sins which are punishable (if done with intent) by kareth (extirpation) if a regular person performs them s/he brings a she-goat or a female ship, but the prince brings a he-goat.", + "Tractate Horayoth, which means “teachings” discusses various situations where a court has made a mistake, and in which of these situations the court must bring a bull to atone for its mistake but those who accidentally sinned are not liable to bring a sacrifice. The tractate also talks about those cases in which the court is not liable but the actual sinners are liable for a sacrifice. ", + "The reason that this tractate is part of Seder Nezikin is that it is directed to judges, the subject of tractate Sanhedrin and Makkot. It is last in the order because it is the shortest of Nezikin’s tractates. \n" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "If the court ruled that one of the commandments mentioned in the Torah may be transgressed, and an individual proceeded and acted through error in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is exempt, because he relied on the court.
If the court ruled [in error], and one of them knew that they had erred, or a disciple who was himself fit to rule on matters of law, and [one of these] proceeded and acted in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is liable, since he did not rely upon the court.
This is the general rule: he who is [in a position] to rely upon himself is liable, and he who relies upon the court is exempt.
Our mishnah discusses a person who follows a ruling that a court made in error, and thereby accidentally transgresses a commandment.
Section one: If a person follows a court ruling that was made in error, and thereby transgresses a negative commandment which carries with it the liability to bring a sin-offering [when done unintentionally], he is not liable, since this was not his error but their error. This rule is true whether he acted together with them, after them or even if he transgressed and the court itself did not even perform the transgression. In other words, even if he relied on their words and not their concrete example, he is exempt. This is not considered to be an unintentional sin that he has committed and therefore he need not bring a sin-offering.
Section two: However, if the person who committed the transgression was a member of the court who knew that his fellow judges were in error, or was a student who was fit to be a member of the court and he knew that the court was in error, he is liable if he acts according to the wrong ruling. Note that this person is still considered to be an unintentional sinner and not an intentional one. His mistake was that he thought that he should listen to the court, even if he knew they were wrong. Since he did not need to rely on the court, but was fit to rely on his own ruling, he is liable, at least as an unintentional sinner, for his own transgression. He therefore needs to bring a sin-offering." + ], + [ + "If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful.
Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt.
Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.
This mishnah discusses a case where a court made a wrong decision and then reversed their decision, thereby correcting it. The question asked is whether or not one who follows the wrong decision after it has been revoked is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for his accidental transgression.
Section one: The offering referred to in this section will be discussed more fully below in mishnah five, specifically the question of who brings the sacrifice.
Rabbi Shimon exempts this person because he relied on the court. As we learned above in mishnah one, a person who relies on the court is exempt from bringing an individual sin-offering. Rabbi Elazar declares this case doubtful, for we do not know if he had already heard that the court had reversed its decision.
The mishnah now continues to discuss in which specific cases the matter is in doubt. If the person was at home and could have known that the court reversed its decision, he is responsible for not having followed the new decision. However, if he had gone abroad, he could not have known of the reversal, and he is therefore exempt.
Rabbi Akiva states that this person, who went abroad, is actually closer to being totally exempt, for it is very unlikely that he knew that the court reversed its decision. As he explains to Ben Azzai, his colleague, the person sitting in his house could have heard, whereas the one who was abroad could not have." + ], + [ + "If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt.
If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so? If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13), “some matter” but not the entire principle.
Our mishnah teaches that if the court rules that an entire commandment does not exist, they are not liable. Whereas if they rule that one part of the commandment does not exist, they are liable.
This mishnah teaches an important principle for establishing when the court is liable to bring the special sin-offering for having made a wrongful ruling. If the court were to state that the entirety of a well-known commandment does not exist, and people were to act upon the court’s ruling, the people who actually sin are liable and not the court. Since these three things, the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant, the prohibition of Sabbath laws and the prohibition of idol worship are so clearly stated in the Torah, everyone should have known that the court erred when it ruled that these things don’t exist. This is not even truly considered a ruling by the court, but merely an empty statement against the Torah. While interpretation of the Torah is flexible, it does have its limits.
However, if the court rules that a certain act which is one part of a larger prohibition, is permitted, and people act upon the court’s ruling, the court is liable and not the people. For instance, a woman who sees blood at a time when she is not supposed to be menstruating must wait one day for every day that she saw blood before she can resume sexual relations. If the court ruled that one could have relations with such a woman, they are permitting an act which is against the Torah. Similarly, if they permit a person to remove an object from one domain to another on Shabbat, they are permitting carrying, which is forbidden. Finally, if they admit that idol worship is prohibited, but bowing down is not considered idol worship, they have made an errant ruling. In all of these cases, since they admit that the commandment exists, but have made an error on a detail (these are all well-known and rather large details in rabbinic literature), they are liable if the people listen to their ruling. People might not have known that such actions were prohibited, even though they knew that the general commandment exists. Therefore, they are not liable for following the court’s ruling.
The mishnah ends with a midrash supporting this view. One can understand the word davar to mean “part of the matter”; from here the rabbis learn that if the whole matter escapes the court, the court is not liable.
Questions
Why do you think the rabbis posited this exception to the general rule of the court’s culpability for errors?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah really contains two totally separate mishnayoth. We will therefore explain each separately.", + "This mishnah teaches three principles. First of all, if even one judge on the court knew that the court had erred in its ruling and told the rest of the court so, and yet his advice was overrode, the court is not liable to bring an offering if people transgress by obeying their ruling. For the special law of the erring court to be in effect, the entire court must err. If the mufla was absent when the errant decision was made, the court is not liable. The mufla was evidently the person who sat on the court and had many, many halakhot memorized. He was like a human archive who could recite orally from the tradition. His absence would have impeded the court’s ability to make the correct decision, and therefore they are not liable. The third rule is that all of the members of the court must be “fit” to issue rulings. Our mishnah lists several categories of people who are not fit for this type of court. Converts, netinim (Temple slaves) and mamzerim (children born of illicit marriages) cannot act as judges in capital cases (see Sanhedrin 4:2). The innovation of our mishnah is that an elder who does not have children can also not act as a judge. This is because we are concerned that he will not have pity on others when it comes to adjudicating capital cases. In other words having children makes a person more compassionate. Personally, I can say that when my first child was born I began to look at other human beings differently; everybody is somebody’s child. Having children can certainly increase a person’s sense of the suffering of others. [I don’t mean to say that one who doesn’t have children is necessarily not sympathetic to others suffering. When the mishnah sets qualities for judges it bases itself on the most likely norm and not on the range of possibilities for human characteristics]. This third rule is learned through a midrashic technique called a gezerah shavah, which is a linguistic comparison. The word “congregation” (edah) is mentioned here in Lev 4 and in Num 35, which discusses capital cases brought before a court. From those verses the rabbis learn that capital cases are tried before a court of 23 (see Sanhedrin 1:6). Just as in capital cases, if there are not 23 qualified judges, the judgment is invalid, so too here, in order for the law that requires an offering for an unwitting errant ruling to be applicable, there must be only qualified judges.", + "If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulings
If the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. This first section is the classic case in which the court must bring the bull as a sin-offering (mentioned in Lev 4:14).", + "[If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. In this case the court intentionally made the wrong ruling. They therefore cannot bring the bull as a sin-offering because intentional sinners are not allowed to bring offerings to atone for their sins. Sin-offerings are an opportunity for atonement, and not a punishment. Only one who sinned accidentally is given this opportunity to atone through sacrifice. [Intentional sinners can possibly achieve atonement in other ways]. Since the court cannot bring an offering, the people are considered as individual unwitting sinners, and they bring the typical sacrifice for a person in such a category: a lamb or goat (Lev 4:28, 32).", + "[If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt. If the court unwittingly ruled in error but the congregation knowingly sinned, the court does not bring the bull offering because the congregation did not act based on the court’s ruling. The congregation knew that the act was wrong, even though the court said it was permitted. Since they did not act upon the court’s ruling, the court is not held responsible for their transgressions. The congregation cannot bring an offering since they transgressed intentionally. As we learned in the previous section, intentional sinners cannot achieve atonement through sacrifice." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous mishnah we learned that if the court issued an errant ruling and everyone acted erroneously in accord with that ruling they bring a bull, as it says in Leviticus 4:14, “The congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering.” Our mishnah discusses who the “congregation” is that brings the bull.\nThroughout this mishnah we will read that there is a distinction made between sins involving idol worship and all other sins. In the introduction to the tractate I explained that the rabbis understood Leviticus 4 as referring to regular sins and Numbers 15:22-29 as referring to idol worship. If the sin was idol worship, then the congregation brings a bull and a goat (Numbers 15:24).", + "If the court ruled [in error] and all the people or a majority of them acted accordingly they bring a bull. And in the case of idolatry they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the twelve tribes bring twelve bulls;
And in the case of idolatry twelve bulls and twelve goats. R. Shimon says: thirteen bullocks;
And in the case of idolatry, thirteen bulls and thirteen goats: a bull and a goat for each tribe, and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court ruled [in error] and seven tribes or a majority of them acted accordingly, they bring a bull; And in the case of idolatry, they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: the seven tribes who sinned must bring seven bulls and the rest of the tribes who did not sin must bring bulls on their behalf because even those who did not sin must bring on behalf of the ones who sinned. Rabbi Shimon said: eight bulls;
And in the case of idolatry, eight bulls and eight goats, a bull and a goat for every tribe and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court of one of the tribes ruled [in error], and that tribe acted accordingly, that tribe is liable, but all the other tribes are exempt; these are the words of Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: there is no liability except as a result of the rulings of the highest court; for it says, “And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err”, but not the congregation of one particular tribe. In this section we read three opinions as to who the congregation is that brings sin-offerings if all or most of the nation sins according to the courts errant ruling. According to Rabbi Meir in all sins except idol worship the court brings a bull and if the sin was idol worship they bring a bull and a goat. Rabbi Meir understands that the court is the “congregation” referred to in the verse who brings the offering. Rabbi Judah understands “congregation” to refer to the people of Israel themselves, namely all twelve tribes. Therefore each tribe brings its own bull or bull and goat. Rabbi Shimon agrees in essence with both Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir: each tribe brings its own bull (or bull and goat) and the court brings one as well, bringing the total to thirteen.", + "If only seven of the tribes sin according to the errant ruling, but these seven tribes do not add up to a majority of all of Israel, or a majority of each of the seven tribes sins, Rabbi Meir still holds that the court brings a bull or bull and goat. Rabbi Judah also holds that all twelve tribes still bring a bull, even though only seven sinned. Even the tribes that did not sin are responsible to ask for atonement for those that did sin. Rabbi Shimon, however, holds that only the tribes that actually sinned bring the sacrifices, as well as the court.", + "If the high court of one of the individual tribes ruled in error and that tribe acted according to its ruling, that tribe is held accountable and must bring a bull, according to Rabbi Judah. Note that if the high court of the entire nation had ruled in error, but only one tribe had followed the ruling, these laws would not be in effect (the individuals who sinned would therefore be regarded as individual sinners and not treated as a collective). The Sages disagree. According to them all of these laws only apply in the case of the high court of the nation. The verse states that “the whole congregation of Israel” must sin, or at least a majority thereof. Therefore, the ruling court must also be the court of all of the congregation of Israel." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nLeviticus 4:3 states, “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, so that blame falls upon the people, he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering to the Lord.” According to the rabbis, this verse refers to a high priest who issues an errant ruling to himself. If he acts according to his errant ruling then he is not treated as if he was an individual who would have to bring a regular goat sin offering. Rather in his ruling he is considered parallel to the court and in his acting he is parallel to a community, much in the same way we learned above in mishnah 1:4. Our mishnah, and the mishnayoth that follow it, takes some of the rules that apply when a court rules and the congregation sins in error, and applies them to the high priest.", + "An anointed priest who rendered a decision for himself in error and acted unwittingly accordingly, must bring a bull. If he rendered the decision in error but acted upon it willfully, or made it willfully but acted upon it unwittingly, he is exempt; for a decision a high priest made for himself is like a ruling issued by the court to the community. If the high priest ruled that something was permitted, and in reality it was punishable by kareth (if done willfully) or the transgression causes one to be liable to bring a sin offering (if done unwittingly) and then he acted upon his ruling, without realizing that he is transgressing, he must bring a bull as a sin offering. In other words, instead of being just an individual who unwittingly transgresses and therefore brings a goat as a sin offering, the high priest brings a bull. If, however, either the ruling was in error but the action was an intentional transgression, or vice versa, the ruling was intentionally wrong, but the action was unwitting, he is not liable to bring the bull. As we learned at the end of mishnah four, both the ruling and the act must be done unwittingly for the court, or in this case the high priest to be liable to bring a bull." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two continues to discuss the anointed high priest who issues an errant ruling.", + "An [anointed high priest] who rendered an errant decision alone and acted accordingly alone, he makes his atonement alone. If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation and acted accordingly together with the congregation, he makes his atonement together with the congregation. For the court is not liable unless they ruled to annul part of a commandment and to retain a part of it; and so [it is with] the anointed [high] priest. Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part and to retain it in part. If the high priest issued an errant ruling on his own, in other words without the court having taken part in the decision making, and then he acted alone, he alone must bring a bull as a sin offering. This is basically the same rule that we learned in the previous mishnah. It is summarized here in order to offer a contrast with the following section.", + "If the high priest ruled in error with the court of the congregation, the sanhedrin, and transgressed together with the rest of the congregation, then he need not bring a special bull on his own. Rather he receives atonement through the same bull that the community brings.", + "The language of this section makes it look as if it is a commentary on the previous section, but its content seems independent. The section teaches that just as we learned above in chapter one, mishnah three, that a court is not liable to bring the bull sin-offering unless it ruled to annul part of a commandment but retain the rest, the same is true for the high priest. If he rules, for example, that there is no such thing as Shabbat, he is not liable to bring a bull; but if he rules that a certain forbidden activity is actually permitted on Shabbat, he is liable. These same rules apply with regard to both regular sins and to sins involving idolatry." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to teach laws of errant rulings in which the court is treated the same way that a high priest is treated. It also continues to equate errant rulings with regard to idolatry with errant rulings with regard to other sins.", + "The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action. The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless they ruled concerning a matter the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly. The court is not obligated to bring a sacrifice except in a case where they did not realize that they were issuing an errant ruling and those that acted did not realize that they were transgressing. The same is true if the high priest issues an errant ruling. He must rule and act unwittingly for him to be able to bring a bull as a sin offering. There is no difference in this rule between idolatry and all other commandments.", + "The particular commandment with regard to which the court erred and the people transgressed unwittingly, must be one for which the punishment is kareth (heavenly excommunication) if done intentionally and a sin offering if done unwittingly. Examples of such commandments are Shabbat, many incest prohibitions, the eating of certain prohibited foods, work on Yom Kippur, and cursing God. These are all listed in tractate Karetoth 1:1-2. Idol worship is a sin for which one is potentially liable for kareth or a sin offering (if done unwittingly). However, not all forms of idol worship are punishable by kareth or a sin offering. If one worships an idol in an unusual manner, a type of worship that is not considered normal for that idol or any other idol, than he is not liable for kareth or a sin offering. If the court were to issue an errant ruling with regard to one of these types of worship, the court would not be liable to bring a bull as a sin offering." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses errant rulings with regard to Temple-related laws and compares them with errant rulings made in connection to a menstruating woman (a menstruant).\nThe mishnah also discusses a sacrifice known as the “asham talui” or the “hanging guilt offering”. The “asham talui” is brought by a person who may or may not have accidentally transgressed a prohibition, the punishment for which is kareth, if transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly. For instance if a person has two pieces of animal fat in front of him, one is permitted fat and the other is forbidden fat (helev) and he eats one but he doesn’t know which he ate, he brings an asham talui.", + "[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant.
Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant? Separate yourself from the menstruant. An impure person is not allowed to enter the Temple precincts and if he becomes impure while in the Temple, he must leave immediately. If the court issued an errant ruling with regard to this law, and an impure person followed their ruling, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering. This is true both for positive and negative commandments. A positive commandment is that if a person should become impure while in the Temple he must leave in the quickest, most direct manner possible. If the court ruled that he can take a longer route, and he does so, the court is not obligated to bring a sin offering. A negative commandment is that an impure person in not allowed to enter the Temple. If the court ruled that he may, they are not liable to bring a sin offering. This is because the impurity laws of the Temple are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices and not by sin offerings (see Shevuoth 2:3). As we learned above, the court is obligated for errant rulings only if the sin was atoned for by a sin offering. This exact same rule applies to the laws regarding an asham talui. A person brings an asham talui (explained above in the intro) only if the sin was usually atoned for by a sin offering, and not, as in this case, by a sliding scale sacrifice.", + "And the negative commandment? Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant. In contrast to the previous section, where the court was not held liable for their errant ruling, if they make an errant ruling with regard to a menstruant the court is liable, since transgressions of the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant are punishable by kareth (if done intentionally) and a sin offering (if done unwittingly). Similarly, one brings an asham talui for the transgression of positive and negative commandments involving a menstruant (such as a case where he does not know if he had relations with his wife while she was menstruating). The positive commandment with regard to a menstruant is that if a man is having sexual intercourse with his wife and she, in the middle of intercourse, tells him that she has become impure (she has begun to menstruate), he must not separate from her immediately, since his withdrawal is pleasurable (for further details see Shevuoth 2:4). Rather he must stop and wait until he loses an erection and only then withdraw. This waiting period is seen as a positive commandment. The negative commandment is the prohibition of having sexual relations with a menstruant.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah compare the laws of Temple related impurity with those of having relations with a menstruant? Why doesn’t the mishnah use other prohibitions punishable by kareth and a sin offering as points of reference?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe main topic of our mishnah is the king (a ruler, see below 3:3) who accidentally transgresses. In Leviticus 4:22-23, we read, “In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the Lord his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish.” The question asked by our mishnah is for what sins does the king bring this type of sacrifice.", + "[The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things. And the ruler is similarly [exempt]; these are the words of Rabbi Yose Hagalili. Rabbi Akiva says; the ruler is liable in the case of all these except that of hearing of the voice [of adjuration], because the king may neither judge nor be judged, neither may he testify nor may others testify against him. This section basically states what we have already learned above. A court that issues an errant ruling is liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if the transgression was one which if done unwittingly can be atoned for with a sin offering. The three transgressions mentioned in this mishnah are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices (the rich bring a goat, the middle class bring bird and the poor bring grain, see Leviticus 5 and tractate Shevuoth). The first transgression is the taking of a false oath that he does not know any testimony, called in our mishnah “the hearing of the voice of adjuration”. It is called this because usually someone adjures someone else to take this oath (“I adjure you that you do not know any testimony concerning me”). The second transgression is in regard to an oath of expression. This is when a person swears that he will or will not do something. The third transgression is either entering the Temple impure, or eating holy food while impure. If the court makes an errant ruling with regard to any of these laws, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering.", + "According to Rabbi Yose Hagalili, the same is true if the ruler, or king, accidentally transgressed one of these commandments. The reason is that a sliding scale sacrifice is not applicable to a king, for a king never becomes poor. Leviticus 5:7, 11 state, “But if his means do not suffice”. Since this can never be true of a king, who always has financial means, Rabbi Yose Hagalili concludes that the entire law and sacrifice is not applicable to the king. In other words, the king is not simply in the category of a rich person, because rich people can become poor, while kings do not. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says that the king can be liable to bring a sliding scale sacrifice for all of these sins, with the exception of oaths of adjuration. Since the king cannot judge or be judged, testify or be testified against, he is considered outside of the framework of the regular legal system. If someone adjures him that he doesn’t know testimony and he swears that he does not know testimony, but in reality he does, he is not liable for a false oath. This is because even if he had admitted that he knows testimony, he cannot testify in a court of law (see Sanhedrin 2:2)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah summarizes who brings what type of sin offering for transgressions done unwittingly.", + "For all the commandments in the Torah, the penalty for which, if committed intentionally, is kareth and, if committed unwittingly, a sin offering, the individual brings as an offering a lamb or a goat, the ruler brings a goat, and the anointed priest and the court bring a bull. In the case of idolatry, the individual and the ruler and the anointed priest bring a goat while the court bring a bull and a goat: the bull for a burnt offering and the goat for a sin offering. The first section of the mishnah deals with all commandments except idolatry. In these cases, if an individual unwittingly transgresses, s/he brings a sin offering of a lamb or a goat. This is stated in Leviticus 4:27-28, 32. If a ruler (a king) is the unwitting transgressor, he brings a goat (Leviticus 4:22-23). If the anointed priest (the high priest) made an errant ruling and then unwittingly transgressed, he brings a bull. This is stated in Leviticus 4:3. The same is true of a court who made an errant ruling (Leviticus 4:13-14).", + "If the transgression was one of idolatry the individual brings a goat. As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis consider Numbers 15:22-29 to be dealing with sins of idolatry. Verse 27 states, “In case it is an individual who has sinned unwittingly, he shall offer a she-goat in its first year as a sin offering.” Since the Torah does not make any exceptions for rulers or high priests, they too bring the same sin offering in this case as does a regular Israelite. Verse 24, “If this was done unwittingly, through the inadvertence of the community, the whole community shall present one bull of the herd as burnt offering of pleasing odor to the Lord, with its proper meal offering and libation, and one he-goat as a sin offering.” The rabbis consider this verse to be dealing with a case where a court issued an errant ruling and the people followed its ruling. We saw this discussed above in mishnah 1:5." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six compared the sin offerings offered for unwitting transgressions that the individual, the ruler, the high priest and the court bring. Mishnah seven compares these parties with regard to the asham talui (see above 2:4), the asham vadai and the sliding scale sacrifice (see above 2:5). An asham vadai is a guilt offering. There are five different situations in which a person must bring an asham vadai: 1) for robbery (Lev 5:21-25; 2) for illegal use of sacred property (Lev 5:14-16); 3) for relations with an betrothed slave woman (Lev 19:20-22); 4) a nazir (Num 6:9-12); 5) a leper (Lev 14:10-12).", + "The individual and the ruler are both obligated to bring an asham talui, but the anointed priest and the court are exempt. The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated to bring an asham vadai, but the court is exempt. For the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things, the court is not obligated but the individual, the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated. Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.
What do they bring? A sliding scale sacrifice. With regard to the asham talui, the king is like any individual Israelite. If he may (or may not) have transgressed a commandment which is punishable by kareth, he brings an asham talui. However, the high priest and the court, if they made a ruling and they do not know if they erred, do not bring an asham talui. In other words, for the court or high priest to be liable for their errant ruling, it must be certain that they did so.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat. All individuals, even a high priest, who unwittingly transgress one of the five commandments which are atoned for by an asham vadai, must bring the asham. However, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to one of these commandments, and the people follow their errant ruling, the court does not bring an asham vadai, nor do they bring any sacrifice. They are liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if they issue an errant ruling about a commandment punishable by kareth and atoned for by a sin offering (and not a guilt offering).", + "As we learned in mishnah five, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to a commandment atoned for by a sliding scale sacrifice, they are not liable. If, however, if an individual, king or high priest were to transgress one of these commandments, he must bring a sliding scale sacrifice. The one exception is that the high priest is not obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice if he transgresses a commandment involving the purity of the Temple and its holy things. The mishnah now asks what type of sacrifice the king or the anointed priest brings should he transgress one of these commandments. According to the first opinion, they bring a sliding scale sacrifice, as do all regular Israelites. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the king brings a goat." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn the case discussed by our mishnah, a high priest or king issued an errant ruling that was subsequently followed by the people, but before they could bring the appropriate sin-offering, they lost their office. The question is, are they still obligated to bring the same offering, even though they are no longer high priest or king.\nAs a background to this mishnah, I should point out that the removal of high priests and kings from their office was not an uncommon occurrence in the Second Temple period. Due to the political pressures of the Roman rulers, kings and especially high priests were often replaced.", + "If an anointed priest transgressed and afterwards relinquished his high priesthood, and similarly if a ruler transgressed and afterwards relinquished his reign, the anointed priest brings a bullock, and the ruler brings a he-goat. The mishnah rules that in the situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling but were removed from office before bringing their sin-offering, they still bring the same sin-offering that they would have brought had they still been in office. The obligation for the offering is set at the time of the errant ruling, and not at the time of the bringing of the sacrifice. Therefore, the high priest still brings a bull, and the king still brings a goat. In the next mishnah we will see that the high priest brings a bull even if he issued the errant ruling after he was removed from office. Therefore, our mishnah is not really necessary with regard to the high priest because he in any case brings a bull. The only reason that the mishnah teaches about the high priest is because it wants to teach about the ruler, who brings a goat only if he issues the errant ruling while still a king." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two teaches the halakhah regarding a high priest or king who issue an errant ruling after having relinquished their office.", + "If the anointed priest relinquished his high priesthood and afterwards transgressed, and similarly if a ruler relinquished his reign and afterwards transgressed, the anointed priest brings a bull while the ruler is like a regular person. When the high priest is removed from office, he does not lose his sacred status (we will discuss this below in mishnah four). Therefore, even if he issues an errant ruling after having been removed, he is still considered like a high priest, and he brings a bull. However, the king does lose his status, and is therefore treated like a regular person who unwittingly sins and brings a she-goat or female sheep." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of this mishnah discusses a situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed to their position.\nSection two defines the word which we have been translating as ruler. Leviticus 4:22 employs the word “nasi” which is translated occasionally by “chieftain” or “prince”. In the Torah, it does not usually refer to a king. However, our mishnah defines it as a king, as we shall see below. It is worthwhile to note that in the times of the Mishnah, there was an official who used the title “nasi”, usually translated as the patriarch (for example Rabbi Judah Hanasi). However, the patriarch certainly did not have kingly powers.", + "If they transgressed before they were appointed, and afterwards they were appointed, they are regarded as regular people. Rabbi Shimon said: if their sin came to their knowledge before they were appointed they are liable, but if after they were appointed they are exempt. Who is meant by a ruler? A king; for it says, “Any of all the commandments of the Lord his God” (Leviticus 4:22), a ruler ( who has none above him save the Lord his God. If the priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed, they are not liable for the special sin offering, since at the time of the ruling they were regular individuals. As we learned above, their liability is dependent upon the time of the ruling. In this case, if they transgressed they are liable to bring the same sin-offering as would a regular Israelite. Rabbi Shimon holds that if they found out they had erred before their appointment they are liable to bring a sin offering as would a regular Israelite. However, if they found out about their sin after they were appointed, they are completely exempt. Rabbi Shimon holds that their liability is dependent both upon the timing of the errant ruling and the realization that it was errant. In order for there to be liability, the high priest or king must be of the exact same status at the time of the realization that he was at the time of the ruling and sin. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon would disagree with the opinion given in the previous mishnah as well, that if the high priest or ruler issued an errant ruling and then relinquished their office they are still liable. According to R. Shimon, if they realized that the ruling was errant after they left office, they would not be liable.", + "As stated above, according to the mishnah the word “nasi”, which we have been loosely translating as “ruler”, really refers to the king. This is learned from the phrase, “the Lord his God”. Only the king is second to God. Note, the simple meaning of “nasi” in Leviticus is probably head of a tribe. That is the usual usage of the word in the Torah (see for instance Numbers 7)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nDuring the time of the First Temple (destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E.) the high priest was anointed with special anointing oils wore eight special pieces of priestly garments, as opposed to the four worn by regular priests. From the time of King Josiah (640-609 B.C.E.) there was no anointing oil and therefore the high priest was only distinguished by his wearing more garments.\nThe first part of our mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who was anointed with the anointing oil and the high priest who only wore more garments.\nThe second part of the mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who currently holds office, and the high priest who has already relinquished his office.", + "And who is the anointed priest? He who was anointed with the anointing oil and not he that has more garments. The only difference between a high priest who is anointed with the anointing oil and one who has more garments is the bull that is offered for [the unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments. And the only difference between the acting ( priest and the former ( priest is the bull on the Day of Atonement and the tenth part of the ephah. They are both equal in the service of the Day of Atonement, and both are commanded to marry a virgin and are forbidden to marry a widow; they are both forbidden to become impure for their relatives; they do not let their hair grow long, nor do they rend their clothes; and they return the ( killer (from the city of. Throughout this tractate we have been talking about the “anointed priest”. Our mishnah teaches that these laws refer specifically to the anointed high priest, and not merely to a high priest who wears the eight garments. In other words, all of these laws were no longer applicable during the entire Second Temple period.", + "This section is taught in a familiar literary format for the mishnah: a direct comparison between two similar things. The only difference between these two types of priests is that an anointed high priest who follows his own errant ruling brings a bull, whereas one who merely wears more clothing brings the same sin-offering that a regular person brings.", + "The mishnah now continues to employ the same literary formula, this time comparing the high priest who has already relinquished office with one who currently holds office. The only difference between the two is that the high priest who currently holds office offers the bull on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:6) and the tenth of the ephah, which is a grain offering (a minhah) offered daily by the high priest (see Leviticus 6:13). The former high priest does not make these offerings.", + "With regard to the other laws special to the high priest, they are both the same. Note that all of these laws are contained in the beginning of chapter 21 of Leviticus and all have to do with the special sanctity of priests and especially the high priest. Both types of high priests can marry only virgins and not widows (Leviticus 21:13-14). Neither are allowed to become impure in order to bury any of their relatives, even their mother or father (ibid. 21:11). They are not allowed to grow their hair long (ibid. 21:10) nor tear their clothes (ibid.). At the death of either one of them, accidental killers may leave the cities of refuge, as it says in Numbers 35:25, “And he shall dwell their until the death of the high priest” (see Makkot 2:6)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous mishnah we learned that both acting high priests and former high priests do not rend their clothes when a relative dies. Our mishnah clarifies that halakhah and teaches that the high priest does rend his clothes but not in the same way that an ordinary priest does. In section two, the mishnah makes a further comparison between an ordinary and a high priest.", + "A high priest rends [his clothes] from below and an ordinary priest from above. A high priest offers sacrifices while an onen but does not eat them and an ordinary priest neither offers sacrifices nor eats them. If one of the high priest’s seven close relatives (father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter or wife) for whom he is obligated to mourn dies, he rends his clothes at the bottom. When Leviticus 21:10 states that the high priest shall not rend his clothes, the interpretation of the rabbis is that he should not rend them in a normal fashion, which is above. In contrast, an ordinary priest rends his clothes the same way that all people do, above.", + "An onen is one who has had one of his seven close relatives die, but has not yet buried them (after the burial a person is an avel, a mourner). According to the Torah he is an onen only for the day of the death, but the rabbis extended the status of aninut (being an onen) to include the night after the death, and the entire period until burial. Our mishnah teaches that a high priest continues to offer sacrifices even while he is an onen, as it says in Leviticus 21:12, “He shall not go outside the sanctuary”. He stays in the sanctuary in order to offer sacrifices. However, he does not eat sacrifices on that day. We learn this from Aaron’s words on the day that his sons, Nadav and Avihu, die, “Had I eaten sin offering today would the Lord have approved?” (Leviticus 10:19). It is clear from here that Aaron did not eat sacrifices on that day. In contrast, an ordinary priest who is an onen may neither offer sacrifices, nor eat them. Since an ordinary priest is allowed to become impure for one of these seven relatives, his status during this period is basically the same as that of ordinary people." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches which sacrifice takes precedence over other sacrifices, in a case where both are ready to be sacrificed.\nThe importance of this mishnah is that it does not just give specific rules for precedence in sacrificial law, but teaches general principles, which are still applied today, especially in laws of prayer.", + "Whatever is more frequent than another takes precedence over that other; And whatever is more sacred than another takes precedence over that other. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation are standing [to be sacrificed], the bull of the anointed priest precedes that of the congregation in all its details. Something that is frequently done is performed before something else that is not frequently done. This is learned from the fact that in the morning the tamid burnt offering is sacrificed before any of the special festival sacrifices are offered. Since the tamid is a daily offering and is therefore frequent, it takes precedence over less frequently offered sacrifices. We should note that this principle seems somewhat counterintuitive. A person would naturally be more inclined to do first that which is special, more unusual, and only afterwards do what is regular and routine. Judaism teaches that it is the routine which takes precedence and not the special occasion. Through this mishnah, we learn to appreciate not just what is ordinary, but to take note of the importance of those things that we do regularly. We should not allow their frequency to diminish their significance. A couple of examples where this principle is still evoked. During Shabbat and festival kiddush, one first recites the blessing over the wine and only then the blessing over Shabbat. This is because the blessing over the wine is more frequent than the blessing over the Shabbat. Another example: in morning prayers we recite a psalm for each day of the week. On Rosh Hodesh (the first day of the new month) we also recite a special psalm. The psalm that is recited for the day of the week is done first, because it is more frequently recited than the one for Rosh Hodesh.", + "In cases where one cannot apply the previous rule, then the rule is that whatever is more sacred comes first. We will see an application of this principle in the next section, and in the next mishnah.", + "If the bull that is offered by the high priest for an errant ruling, and the bull that is offered by the community for their having followed the errant ruling of the court are both waiting to be sacrificed, the bull of the high priest takes precedence. This is because the high priest is more sanctified than the general populace, and also because he brings atonement for others (see Leviticus 4:16), whereas they are just being atoned for. This is also hinted at in Leviticus 16:17, “And he (the high priest) will make expiation for himself and his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel.” He takes precedence over all of Israel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous mishnah we learned which sacrifice takes precedence in cases where two need to be offered. In addition, we learned some general principles of which things take precedence over others in halakhah. Our mishnah contains another such principle.", + "A man takes precedence over a woman in matters concerning the saving of life and the restoration of lost property, and a woman takes precedence over a man in respect of clothing and ransom from captivity. When both are exposed to degradation in their captivity the man takes precedence over the woman. Our mishnah is clearly chauvinistic, and we should acknowledge it as such. As I have stated before when such types of mishnayoth have appeared, while I can understand the mishnah as reflecting common societal values in the ancient world, I cannot internalize the mishnah as reflecting my own values. Nor do I believe that any Jew reading this mishnah should do so. The mishnah states that if one has the opportunity to save the life of a man or a woman, but only one of them, the man takes precedence. Similarly, if one has the opportunity to restore lost property to either a man or a woman, he should return that which belongs to the man. For instance if he finds two lost horses, one that he knows belongs to Jacob and one to Rachel, but can only return one, he should return that which belongs to Jacob. However, when it comes to issues of potential degradation, the woman’s modesty comes first. If one has only enough money to help buy clothing for a man or woman, the woman takes precedence. This is because it is more embarrassing for a woman to be poorly clothed than for a man. Similarly, if one has only enough money to redeem one captive, one should redeem the woman, lest she be raped during captivity. Men are not usually raped during captivity. We know that this is the reason that women are redeemed first, because the end of the mishnah states that if there is concern that the man might be raped, he is to be redeemed first. According to the mishnah, it is worse for the man to be raped than for the woman." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah continues to provide rules of precedence.", + "A priest takes precedence over a levite, a levite over an israelite, an israelite over a mamzer, a mamzer over a natin, a natin over a convert, and a convert over a freed slave. When is this so? When all these were in other respects equal. However, if the mamzer was a scholar and the high priest an ignoramus, the scholar mamzer takes precedence over the ignorant high priest. According to commentaries, this mishnah deals with precedence in any matter of honor or profit. The mishnah considers certain genealogical lines of Jews to be inherently more holy than others. A priest is holier than a levite and a levite is holier than an Israelite. A mamzer is someone who was born of an illicit sexual union of two Jews, therefore an israelite takes precedence over a mamzer. A natin is a descendent of the Gibeonites who converted during the time of Joshua (see above 1:4). Since a mamzer does not have any foreign descent, he is holier than a natin. A natin is holier than a current convert, because a natin was part of Israel from before his birth, whereas a convert has only just now converted. A convert is holier than a freed slave for a convert was never part of such a lowly occupation. Up until now the mishnah has stated what must be considered something similar to a genealogical caste system. Each person is born into a certain status, and these separate statuses are ranked. We might think that at least during a person’s lifetime, he could not move up or down in status. The last clause of the mishnah radically undercuts that ideology. While in theory a person’s “holiness” is attributed to birth, a person’s true holiness is attained through the study of Torah. A mamzer who studies Torah is higher than a high priest who does not, even though the latter has the highest pedigree of genealogical status. In practice, this will become the only criteria for “ranking” individuals, for no two individuals will be exactly the same in their Torah learning. This statement in essence is one of the supreme value statements for the entire Mishnah. The rabbinic social system was a meritocracy, where one merited one’s position based on commitment to Torah study, and not based on one’s filial connections. Congratulations! We have finished Horayoth and all of Seder Nezikin. As I have mentioned at the end of every tractate, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. This time we have not only finished Horayoth, but we have finished all of Seder Nezikin, one sixth of the entire Mishnah. This is a great accomplishment and for those of you who have been studying with us from the beginning, give yourselves hearty yasher koach, and a big pat on the back (those who haven’t been learning since the beginning may do so as well). The next Seder (order) which we will learn is Nashim. As you will note, we are not learning the Mishnah in its order. In truth, there is not really order between different seders of the mishnah, nor even between different tractates. The only order internal to the Mishnah is inside the tractate. Therefore, there is no reason to learn or not to learn the Mishnah in the order that its tractates appear. Again, congratulations and good luck with your continuing learning. Tomorrow we begin tractate Yevamoth." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה הוריות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7aef1f1345b072c438bfba69c87a17a63961da2d --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Horayot", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Leviticus 4 discusses sacrifices that must be brought as a result of unintentional sins. Verses 1-12 discuss the unwitting sins of the high priest (the anointed priest) and verses 13-21 discuss the unwitting sins of the whole community of Israel. According to the rabbinic interpretation of these passages, they refer to a case where either the high priest or the sanhedrin (a court) permitted a certain action, which when performed unwittingly by an individual causes him to be liable to bring a sin-offering. In other words the court mistakenly permitted forbidden actions. Verses 1-12, according to the rabbis, refer to a case where the high priest himself performs the sin, and verses 13-21 refer to a case where the majority of the community performed the sin. In both cases a sacrificial bull must be brought, either by the high priest or by the sanhedrin. These bulls have different technical names which we will learn throughout the tractate.", + "The above is true with regard to all sins except accidental idol worship. If a court ruled that an action was not idol worship and the majority of the community performed the action, and later it was found that the court ruled wrongly, the court must bring a bull and a goat. This situation is referred to in Numbers 15:22-29. If an individual accidentally worshipped idols, he only brings a goat as a sin-offering. This situation is referred to in Numbers 15:27-29. ", + "With regard to an individual accidentally worshipping idols, there is no distinction made between a high priest, a prince or an individual. However, with regard to all other sins which are punishable (if done with intent) by kareth (extirpation) if a regular person performs them s/he brings a she-goat or a female ship, but the prince brings a he-goat.", + "Tractate Horayoth, which means “teachings” discusses various situations where a court has made a mistake, and in which of these situations the court must bring a bull to atone for its mistake but those who accidentally sinned are not liable to bring a sacrifice. The tractate also talks about those cases in which the court is not liable but the actual sinners are liable for a sacrifice. ", + "The reason that this tractate is part of Seder Nezikin is that it is directed to judges, the subject of tractate Sanhedrin and Makkot. It is last in the order because it is the shortest of Nezikin’s tractates. \n" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "If the court ruled that one of the commandments mentioned in the Torah may be transgressed, and an individual proceeded and acted through error in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is exempt, because he relied on the court.
If the court ruled [in error], and one of them knew that they had erred, or a disciple who was himself fit to rule on matters of law, and [one of these] proceeded and acted in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is liable, since he did not rely upon the court.
This is the general rule: he who is [in a position] to rely upon himself is liable, and he who relies upon the court is exempt.
Our mishnah discusses a person who follows a ruling that a court made in error, and thereby accidentally transgresses a commandment.
Section one: If a person follows a court ruling that was made in error, and thereby transgresses a negative commandment which carries with it the liability to bring a sin-offering [when done unintentionally], he is not liable, since this was not his error but their error. This rule is true whether he acted together with them, after them or even if he transgressed and the court itself did not even perform the transgression. In other words, even if he relied on their words and not their concrete example, he is exempt. This is not considered to be an unintentional sin that he has committed and therefore he need not bring a sin-offering.
Section two: However, if the person who committed the transgression was a member of the court who knew that his fellow judges were in error, or was a student who was fit to be a member of the court and he knew that the court was in error, he is liable if he acts according to the wrong ruling. Note that this person is still considered to be an unintentional sinner and not an intentional one. His mistake was that he thought that he should listen to the court, even if he knew they were wrong. Since he did not need to rely on the court, but was fit to rely on his own ruling, he is liable, at least as an unintentional sinner, for his own transgression. He therefore needs to bring a sin-offering." + ], + [ + "If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful.
Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt.
Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.
This mishnah discusses a case where a court made a wrong decision and then reversed their decision, thereby correcting it. The question asked is whether or not one who follows the wrong decision after it has been revoked is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for his accidental transgression.
Section one: The offering referred to in this section will be discussed more fully below in mishnah five, specifically the question of who brings the sacrifice.
Rabbi Shimon exempts this person because he relied on the court. As we learned above in mishnah one, a person who relies on the court is exempt from bringing an individual sin-offering. Rabbi Elazar declares this case doubtful, for we do not know if he had already heard that the court had reversed its decision.
The mishnah now continues to discuss in which specific cases the matter is in doubt. If the person was at home and could have known that the court reversed its decision, he is responsible for not having followed the new decision. However, if he had gone abroad, he could not have known of the reversal, and he is therefore exempt.
Rabbi Akiva states that this person, who went abroad, is actually closer to being totally exempt, for it is very unlikely that he knew that the court reversed its decision. As he explains to Ben Azzai, his colleague, the person sitting in his house could have heard, whereas the one who was abroad could not have." + ], + [ + "If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt.
If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so? If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13), “some matter” but not the entire principle.
Our mishnah teaches that if the court rules that an entire commandment does not exist, they are not liable. Whereas if they rule that one part of the commandment does not exist, they are liable.
This mishnah teaches an important principle for establishing when the court is liable to bring the special sin-offering for having made a wrongful ruling. If the court were to state that the entirety of a well-known commandment does not exist, and people were to act upon the court’s ruling, the people who actually sin are liable and not the court. Since these three things, the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant, the prohibition of Sabbath laws and the prohibition of idol worship are so clearly stated in the Torah, everyone should have known that the court erred when it ruled that these things don’t exist. This is not even truly considered a ruling by the court, but merely an empty statement against the Torah. While interpretation of the Torah is flexible, it does have its limits.
However, if the court rules that a certain act which is one part of a larger prohibition, is permitted, and people act upon the court’s ruling, the court is liable and not the people. For instance, a woman who sees blood at a time when she is not supposed to be menstruating must wait one day for every day that she saw blood before she can resume sexual relations. If the court ruled that one could have relations with such a woman, they are permitting an act which is against the Torah. Similarly, if they permit a person to remove an object from one domain to another on Shabbat, they are permitting carrying, which is forbidden. Finally, if they admit that idol worship is prohibited, but bowing down is not considered idol worship, they have made an errant ruling. In all of these cases, since they admit that the commandment exists, but have made an error on a detail (these are all well-known and rather large details in rabbinic literature), they are liable if the people listen to their ruling. People might not have known that such actions were prohibited, even though they knew that the general commandment exists. Therefore, they are not liable for following the court’s ruling.
The mishnah ends with a midrash supporting this view. One can understand the word davar to mean “part of the matter”; from here the rabbis learn that if the whole matter escapes the court, the court is not liable.
Questions
Why do you think the rabbis posited this exception to the general rule of the court’s culpability for errors?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah really contains two totally separate mishnayoth. We will therefore explain each separately.", + "This mishnah teaches three principles. First of all, if even one judge on the court knew that the court had erred in its ruling and told the rest of the court so, and yet his advice was overrode, the court is not liable to bring an offering if people transgress by obeying their ruling. For the special law of the erring court to be in effect, the entire court must err. If the mufla was absent when the errant decision was made, the court is not liable. The mufla was evidently the person who sat on the court and had many, many halakhot memorized. He was like a human archive who could recite orally from the tradition. His absence would have impeded the court’s ability to make the correct decision, and therefore they are not liable. The third rule is that all of the members of the court must be “fit” to issue rulings. Our mishnah lists several categories of people who are not fit for this type of court. Converts, netinim (Temple slaves) and mamzerim (children born of illicit marriages) cannot act as judges in capital cases (see Sanhedrin 4:2). The innovation of our mishnah is that an elder who does not have children can also not act as a judge. This is because we are concerned that he will not have pity on others when it comes to adjudicating capital cases. In other words having children makes a person more compassionate. Personally, I can say that when my first child was born I began to look at other human beings differently; everybody is somebody’s child. Having children can certainly increase a person’s sense of the suffering of others. [I don’t mean to say that one who doesn’t have children is necessarily not sympathetic to others suffering. When the mishnah sets qualities for judges it bases itself on the most likely norm and not on the range of possibilities for human characteristics]. This third rule is learned through a midrashic technique called a gezerah shavah, which is a linguistic comparison. The word “congregation” (edah) is mentioned here in Lev 4 and in Num 35, which discusses capital cases brought before a court. From those verses the rabbis learn that capital cases are tried before a court of 23 (see Sanhedrin 1:6). Just as in capital cases, if there are not 23 qualified judges, the judgment is invalid, so too here, in order for the law that requires an offering for an unwitting errant ruling to be applicable, there must be only qualified judges.", + "If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulings
If the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. This first section is the classic case in which the court must bring the bull as a sin-offering (mentioned in Lev 4:14).", + "[If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. In this case the court intentionally made the wrong ruling. They therefore cannot bring the bull as a sin-offering because intentional sinners are not allowed to bring offerings to atone for their sins. Sin-offerings are an opportunity for atonement, and not a punishment. Only one who sinned accidentally is given this opportunity to atone through sacrifice. [Intentional sinners can possibly achieve atonement in other ways]. Since the court cannot bring an offering, the people are considered as individual unwitting sinners, and they bring the typical sacrifice for a person in such a category: a lamb or goat (Lev 4:28, 32).", + "[If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt. If the court unwittingly ruled in error but the congregation knowingly sinned, the court does not bring the bull offering because the congregation did not act based on the court’s ruling. The congregation knew that the act was wrong, even though the court said it was permitted. Since they did not act upon the court’s ruling, the court is not held responsible for their transgressions. The congregation cannot bring an offering since they transgressed intentionally. As we learned in the previous section, intentional sinners cannot achieve atonement through sacrifice." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous mishnah we learned that if the court issued an errant ruling and everyone acted erroneously in accord with that ruling they bring a bull, as it says in Leviticus 4:14, “The congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering.” Our mishnah discusses who the “congregation” is that brings the bull.\nThroughout this mishnah we will read that there is a distinction made between sins involving idol worship and all other sins. In the introduction to the tractate I explained that the rabbis understood Leviticus 4 as referring to regular sins and Numbers 15:22-29 as referring to idol worship. If the sin was idol worship, then the congregation brings a bull and a goat (Numbers 15:24).", + "If the court ruled [in error] and all the people or a majority of them acted accordingly they bring a bull. And in the case of idolatry they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the twelve tribes bring twelve bulls;
And in the case of idolatry twelve bulls and twelve goats. R. Shimon says: thirteen bullocks;
And in the case of idolatry, thirteen bulls and thirteen goats: a bull and a goat for each tribe, and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court ruled [in error] and seven tribes or a majority of them acted accordingly, they bring a bull; And in the case of idolatry, they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: the seven tribes who sinned must bring seven bulls and the rest of the tribes who did not sin must bring bulls on their behalf because even those who did not sin must bring on behalf of the ones who sinned. Rabbi Shimon said: eight bulls;
And in the case of idolatry, eight bulls and eight goats, a bull and a goat for every tribe and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court of one of the tribes ruled [in error], and that tribe acted accordingly, that tribe is liable, but all the other tribes are exempt; these are the words of Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: there is no liability except as a result of the rulings of the highest court; for it says, “And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err”, but not the congregation of one particular tribe. In this section we read three opinions as to who the congregation is that brings sin-offerings if all or most of the nation sins according to the courts errant ruling. According to Rabbi Meir in all sins except idol worship the court brings a bull and if the sin was idol worship they bring a bull and a goat. Rabbi Meir understands that the court is the “congregation” referred to in the verse who brings the offering. Rabbi Judah understands “congregation” to refer to the people of Israel themselves, namely all twelve tribes. Therefore each tribe brings its own bull or bull and goat. Rabbi Shimon agrees in essence with both Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir: each tribe brings its own bull (or bull and goat) and the court brings one as well, bringing the total to thirteen.", + "If only seven of the tribes sin according to the errant ruling, but these seven tribes do not add up to a majority of all of Israel, or a majority of each of the seven tribes sins, Rabbi Meir still holds that the court brings a bull or bull and goat. Rabbi Judah also holds that all twelve tribes still bring a bull, even though only seven sinned. Even the tribes that did not sin are responsible to ask for atonement for those that did sin. Rabbi Shimon, however, holds that only the tribes that actually sinned bring the sacrifices, as well as the court.", + "If the high court of one of the individual tribes ruled in error and that tribe acted according to its ruling, that tribe is held accountable and must bring a bull, according to Rabbi Judah. Note that if the high court of the entire nation had ruled in error, but only one tribe had followed the ruling, these laws would not be in effect (the individuals who sinned would therefore be regarded as individual sinners and not treated as a collective). The Sages disagree. According to them all of these laws only apply in the case of the high court of the nation. The verse states that “the whole congregation of Israel” must sin, or at least a majority thereof. Therefore, the ruling court must also be the court of all of the congregation of Israel." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nLeviticus 4:3 states, “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, so that blame falls upon the people, he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering to the Lord.” According to the rabbis, this verse refers to a high priest who issues an errant ruling to himself. If he acts according to his errant ruling then he is not treated as if he was an individual who would have to bring a regular goat sin offering. Rather in his ruling he is considered parallel to the court and in his acting he is parallel to a community, much in the same way we learned above in mishnah 1:4. Our mishnah, and the mishnayoth that follow it, takes some of the rules that apply when a court rules and the congregation sins in error, and applies them to the high priest.", + "An anointed priest who rendered a decision for himself in error and acted unwittingly accordingly, must bring a bull. If he rendered the decision in error but acted upon it willfully, or made it willfully but acted upon it unwittingly, he is exempt; for a decision a high priest made for himself is like a ruling issued by the court to the community. If the high priest ruled that something was permitted, and in reality it was punishable by kareth (if done willfully) or the transgression causes one to be liable to bring a sin offering (if done unwittingly) and then he acted upon his ruling, without realizing that he is transgressing, he must bring a bull as a sin offering. In other words, instead of being just an individual who unwittingly transgresses and therefore brings a goat as a sin offering, the high priest brings a bull. If, however, either the ruling was in error but the action was an intentional transgression, or vice versa, the ruling was intentionally wrong, but the action was unwitting, he is not liable to bring the bull. As we learned at the end of mishnah four, both the ruling and the act must be done unwittingly for the court, or in this case the high priest to be liable to bring a bull." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two continues to discuss the anointed high priest who issues an errant ruling.", + "An [anointed high priest] who rendered an errant decision alone and acted accordingly alone, he makes his atonement alone. If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation and acted accordingly together with the congregation, he makes his atonement together with the congregation. For the court is not liable unless they ruled to annul part of a commandment and to retain a part of it; and so [it is with] the anointed [high] priest. Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part and to retain it in part. If the high priest issued an errant ruling on his own, in other words without the court having taken part in the decision making, and then he acted alone, he alone must bring a bull as a sin offering. This is basically the same rule that we learned in the previous mishnah. It is summarized here in order to offer a contrast with the following section.", + "If the high priest ruled in error with the court of the congregation, the sanhedrin, and transgressed together with the rest of the congregation, then he need not bring a special bull on his own. Rather he receives atonement through the same bull that the community brings.", + "The language of this section makes it look as if it is a commentary on the previous section, but its content seems independent. The section teaches that just as we learned above in chapter one, mishnah three, that a court is not liable to bring the bull sin-offering unless it ruled to annul part of a commandment but retain the rest, the same is true for the high priest. If he rules, for example, that there is no such thing as Shabbat, he is not liable to bring a bull; but if he rules that a certain forbidden activity is actually permitted on Shabbat, he is liable. These same rules apply with regard to both regular sins and to sins involving idolatry." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to teach laws of errant rulings in which the court is treated the same way that a high priest is treated. It also continues to equate errant rulings with regard to idolatry with errant rulings with regard to other sins.", + "The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action. The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless they ruled concerning a matter the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly. The court is not obligated to bring a sacrifice except in a case where they did not realize that they were issuing an errant ruling and those that acted did not realize that they were transgressing. The same is true if the high priest issues an errant ruling. He must rule and act unwittingly for him to be able to bring a bull as a sin offering. There is no difference in this rule between idolatry and all other commandments.", + "The particular commandment with regard to which the court erred and the people transgressed unwittingly, must be one for which the punishment is kareth (heavenly excommunication) if done intentionally and a sin offering if done unwittingly. Examples of such commandments are Shabbat, many incest prohibitions, the eating of certain prohibited foods, work on Yom Kippur, and cursing God. These are all listed in tractate Karetoth 1:1-2. Idol worship is a sin for which one is potentially liable for kareth or a sin offering (if done unwittingly). However, not all forms of idol worship are punishable by kareth or a sin offering. If one worships an idol in an unusual manner, a type of worship that is not considered normal for that idol or any other idol, than he is not liable for kareth or a sin offering. If the court were to issue an errant ruling with regard to one of these types of worship, the court would not be liable to bring a bull as a sin offering." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses errant rulings with regard to Temple-related laws and compares them with errant rulings made in connection to a menstruating woman (a menstruant).\nThe mishnah also discusses a sacrifice known as the “asham talui” or the “hanging guilt offering”. The “asham talui” is brought by a person who may or may not have accidentally transgressed a prohibition, the punishment for which is kareth, if transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly. For instance if a person has two pieces of animal fat in front of him, one is permitted fat and the other is forbidden fat (helev) and he eats one but he doesn’t know which he ate, he brings an asham talui.", + "[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant.
Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant? Separate yourself from the menstruant. An impure person is not allowed to enter the Temple precincts and if he becomes impure while in the Temple, he must leave immediately. If the court issued an errant ruling with regard to this law, and an impure person followed their ruling, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering. This is true both for positive and negative commandments. A positive commandment is that if a person should become impure while in the Temple he must leave in the quickest, most direct manner possible. If the court ruled that he can take a longer route, and he does so, the court is not obligated to bring a sin offering. A negative commandment is that an impure person in not allowed to enter the Temple. If the court ruled that he may, they are not liable to bring a sin offering. This is because the impurity laws of the Temple are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices and not by sin offerings (see Shevuoth 2:3). As we learned above, the court is obligated for errant rulings only if the sin was atoned for by a sin offering. This exact same rule applies to the laws regarding an asham talui. A person brings an asham talui (explained above in the intro) only if the sin was usually atoned for by a sin offering, and not, as in this case, by a sliding scale sacrifice.", + "And the negative commandment? Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant. In contrast to the previous section, where the court was not held liable for their errant ruling, if they make an errant ruling with regard to a menstruant the court is liable, since transgressions of the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant are punishable by kareth (if done intentionally) and a sin offering (if done unwittingly). Similarly, one brings an asham talui for the transgression of positive and negative commandments involving a menstruant (such as a case where he does not know if he had relations with his wife while she was menstruating). The positive commandment with regard to a menstruant is that if a man is having sexual intercourse with his wife and she, in the middle of intercourse, tells him that she has become impure (she has begun to menstruate), he must not separate from her immediately, since his withdrawal is pleasurable (for further details see Shevuoth 2:4). Rather he must stop and wait until he loses an erection and only then withdraw. This waiting period is seen as a positive commandment. The negative commandment is the prohibition of having sexual relations with a menstruant.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah compare the laws of Temple related impurity with those of having relations with a menstruant? Why doesn’t the mishnah use other prohibitions punishable by kareth and a sin offering as points of reference?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe main topic of our mishnah is the king (a ruler, see below 3:3) who accidentally transgresses. In Leviticus 4:22-23, we read, “In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the Lord his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish.” The question asked by our mishnah is for what sins does the king bring this type of sacrifice.", + "[The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things. And the ruler is similarly [exempt]; these are the words of Rabbi Yose Hagalili. Rabbi Akiva says; the ruler is liable in the case of all these except that of hearing of the voice [of adjuration], because the king may neither judge nor be judged, neither may he testify nor may others testify against him. This section basically states what we have already learned above. A court that issues an errant ruling is liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if the transgression was one which if done unwittingly can be atoned for with a sin offering. The three transgressions mentioned in this mishnah are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices (the rich bring a goat, the middle class bring bird and the poor bring grain, see Leviticus 5 and tractate Shevuoth). The first transgression is the taking of a false oath that he does not know any testimony, called in our mishnah “the hearing of the voice of adjuration”. It is called this because usually someone adjures someone else to take this oath (“I adjure you that you do not know any testimony concerning me”). The second transgression is in regard to an oath of expression. This is when a person swears that he will or will not do something. The third transgression is either entering the Temple impure, or eating holy food while impure. If the court makes an errant ruling with regard to any of these laws, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering.", + "According to Rabbi Yose Hagalili, the same is true if the ruler, or king, accidentally transgressed one of these commandments. The reason is that a sliding scale sacrifice is not applicable to a king, for a king never becomes poor. Leviticus 5:7, 11 state, “But if his means do not suffice”. Since this can never be true of a king, who always has financial means, Rabbi Yose Hagalili concludes that the entire law and sacrifice is not applicable to the king. In other words, the king is not simply in the category of a rich person, because rich people can become poor, while kings do not. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says that the king can be liable to bring a sliding scale sacrifice for all of these sins, with the exception of oaths of adjuration. Since the king cannot judge or be judged, testify or be testified against, he is considered outside of the framework of the regular legal system. If someone adjures him that he doesn’t know testimony and he swears that he does not know testimony, but in reality he does, he is not liable for a false oath. This is because even if he had admitted that he knows testimony, he cannot testify in a court of law (see Sanhedrin 2:2)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah summarizes who brings what type of sin offering for transgressions done unwittingly.", + "For all the commandments in the Torah, the penalty for which, if committed intentionally, is kareth and, if committed unwittingly, a sin offering, the individual brings as an offering a lamb or a goat, the ruler brings a goat, and the anointed priest and the court bring a bull. In the case of idolatry, the individual and the ruler and the anointed priest bring a goat while the court bring a bull and a goat: the bull for a burnt offering and the goat for a sin offering. The first section of the mishnah deals with all commandments except idolatry. In these cases, if an individual unwittingly transgresses, s/he brings a sin offering of a lamb or a goat. This is stated in Leviticus 4:27-28, 32. If a ruler (a king) is the unwitting transgressor, he brings a goat (Leviticus 4:22-23). If the anointed priest (the high priest) made an errant ruling and then unwittingly transgressed, he brings a bull. This is stated in Leviticus 4:3. The same is true of a court who made an errant ruling (Leviticus 4:13-14).", + "If the transgression was one of idolatry the individual brings a goat. As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis consider Numbers 15:22-29 to be dealing with sins of idolatry. Verse 27 states, “In case it is an individual who has sinned unwittingly, he shall offer a she-goat in its first year as a sin offering.” Since the Torah does not make any exceptions for rulers or high priests, they too bring the same sin offering in this case as does a regular Israelite. Verse 24, “If this was done unwittingly, through the inadvertence of the community, the whole community shall present one bull of the herd as burnt offering of pleasing odor to the Lord, with its proper meal offering and libation, and one he-goat as a sin offering.” The rabbis consider this verse to be dealing with a case where a court issued an errant ruling and the people followed its ruling. We saw this discussed above in mishnah 1:5." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six compared the sin offerings offered for unwitting transgressions that the individual, the ruler, the high priest and the court bring. Mishnah seven compares these parties with regard to the asham talui (see above 2:4), the asham vadai and the sliding scale sacrifice (see above 2:5). An asham vadai is a guilt offering. There are five different situations in which a person must bring an asham vadai: 1) for robbery (Lev 5:21-25; 2) for illegal use of sacred property (Lev 5:14-16); 3) for relations with an betrothed slave woman (Lev 19:20-22); 4) a nazir (Num 6:9-12); 5) a leper (Lev 14:10-12).", + "The individual and the ruler are both obligated to bring an asham talui, but the anointed priest and the court are exempt. The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated to bring an asham vadai, but the court is exempt. For the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things, the court is not obligated but the individual, the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated. Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.
What do they bring? A sliding scale sacrifice. With regard to the asham talui, the king is like any individual Israelite. If he may (or may not) have transgressed a commandment which is punishable by kareth, he brings an asham talui. However, the high priest and the court, if they made a ruling and they do not know if they erred, do not bring an asham talui. In other words, for the court or high priest to be liable for their errant ruling, it must be certain that they did so.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat. All individuals, even a high priest, who unwittingly transgress one of the five commandments which are atoned for by an asham vadai, must bring the asham. However, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to one of these commandments, and the people follow their errant ruling, the court does not bring an asham vadai, nor do they bring any sacrifice. They are liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if they issue an errant ruling about a commandment punishable by kareth and atoned for by a sin offering (and not a guilt offering).", + "As we learned in mishnah five, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to a commandment atoned for by a sliding scale sacrifice, they are not liable. If, however, if an individual, king or high priest were to transgress one of these commandments, he must bring a sliding scale sacrifice. The one exception is that the high priest is not obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice if he transgresses a commandment involving the purity of the Temple and its holy things. The mishnah now asks what type of sacrifice the king or the anointed priest brings should he transgress one of these commandments. According to the first opinion, they bring a sliding scale sacrifice, as do all regular Israelites. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the king brings a goat." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn the case discussed by our mishnah, a high priest or king issued an errant ruling that was subsequently followed by the people, but before they could bring the appropriate sin-offering, they lost their office. The question is, are they still obligated to bring the same offering, even though they are no longer high priest or king.\nAs a background to this mishnah, I should point out that the removal of high priests and kings from their office was not an uncommon occurrence in the Second Temple period. Due to the political pressures of the Roman rulers, kings and especially high priests were often replaced.", + "If an anointed priest transgressed and afterwards relinquished his high priesthood, and similarly if a ruler transgressed and afterwards relinquished his reign, the anointed priest brings a bullock, and the ruler brings a he-goat. The mishnah rules that in the situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling but were removed from office before bringing their sin-offering, they still bring the same sin-offering that they would have brought had they still been in office. The obligation for the offering is set at the time of the errant ruling, and not at the time of the bringing of the sacrifice. Therefore, the high priest still brings a bull, and the king still brings a goat. In the next mishnah we will see that the high priest brings a bull even if he issued the errant ruling after he was removed from office. Therefore, our mishnah is not really necessary with regard to the high priest because he in any case brings a bull. The only reason that the mishnah teaches about the high priest is because it wants to teach about the ruler, who brings a goat only if he issues the errant ruling while still a king." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two teaches the halakhah regarding a high priest or king who issue an errant ruling after having relinquished their office.", + "If the anointed priest relinquished his high priesthood and afterwards transgressed, and similarly if a ruler relinquished his reign and afterwards transgressed, the anointed priest brings a bull while the ruler is like a regular person. When the high priest is removed from office, he does not lose his sacred status (we will discuss this below in mishnah four). Therefore, even if he issues an errant ruling after having been removed, he is still considered like a high priest, and he brings a bull. However, the king does lose his status, and is therefore treated like a regular person who unwittingly sins and brings a she-goat or female sheep." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of this mishnah discusses a situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed to their position.\nSection two defines the word which we have been translating as ruler. Leviticus 4:22 employs the word “nasi” which is translated occasionally by “chieftain” or “prince”. In the Torah, it does not usually refer to a king. However, our mishnah defines it as a king, as we shall see below. It is worthwhile to note that in the times of the Mishnah, there was an official who used the title “nasi”, usually translated as the patriarch (for example Rabbi Judah Hanasi). However, the patriarch certainly did not have kingly powers.", + "If they transgressed before they were appointed, and afterwards they were appointed, they are regarded as regular people. Rabbi Shimon said: if their sin came to their knowledge before they were appointed they are liable, but if after they were appointed they are exempt. Who is meant by a ruler? A king; for it says, “Any of all the commandments of the Lord his God” (Leviticus 4:22), a ruler ( who has none above him save the Lord his God. If the priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed, they are not liable for the special sin offering, since at the time of the ruling they were regular individuals. As we learned above, their liability is dependent upon the time of the ruling. In this case, if they transgressed they are liable to bring the same sin-offering as would a regular Israelite. Rabbi Shimon holds that if they found out they had erred before their appointment they are liable to bring a sin offering as would a regular Israelite. However, if they found out about their sin after they were appointed, they are completely exempt. Rabbi Shimon holds that their liability is dependent both upon the timing of the errant ruling and the realization that it was errant. In order for there to be liability, the high priest or king must be of the exact same status at the time of the realization that he was at the time of the ruling and sin. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon would disagree with the opinion given in the previous mishnah as well, that if the high priest or ruler issued an errant ruling and then relinquished their office they are still liable. According to R. Shimon, if they realized that the ruling was errant after they left office, they would not be liable.", + "As stated above, according to the mishnah the word “nasi”, which we have been loosely translating as “ruler”, really refers to the king. This is learned from the phrase, “the Lord his God”. Only the king is second to God. Note, the simple meaning of “nasi” in Leviticus is probably head of a tribe. That is the usual usage of the word in the Torah (see for instance Numbers 7)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nDuring the time of the First Temple (destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E.) the high priest was anointed with special anointing oils wore eight special pieces of priestly garments, as opposed to the four worn by regular priests. From the time of King Josiah (640-609 B.C.E.) there was no anointing oil and therefore the high priest was only distinguished by his wearing more garments.\nThe first part of our mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who was anointed with the anointing oil and the high priest who only wore more garments.\nThe second part of the mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who currently holds office, and the high priest who has already relinquished his office.", + "And who is the anointed priest? He who was anointed with the anointing oil and not he that has more garments. The only difference between a high priest who is anointed with the anointing oil and one who has more garments is the bull that is offered for [the unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments. And the only difference between the acting ( priest and the former ( priest is the bull on the Day of Atonement and the tenth part of the ephah. They are both equal in the service of the Day of Atonement, and both are commanded to marry a virgin and are forbidden to marry a widow; they are both forbidden to become impure for their relatives; they do not let their hair grow long, nor do they rend their clothes; and they return the ( killer (from the city of. Throughout this tractate we have been talking about the “anointed priest”. Our mishnah teaches that these laws refer specifically to the anointed high priest, and not merely to a high priest who wears the eight garments. In other words, all of these laws were no longer applicable during the entire Second Temple period.", + "This section is taught in a familiar literary format for the mishnah: a direct comparison between two similar things. The only difference between these two types of priests is that an anointed high priest who follows his own errant ruling brings a bull, whereas one who merely wears more clothing brings the same sin-offering that a regular person brings.", + "The mishnah now continues to employ the same literary formula, this time comparing the high priest who has already relinquished office with one who currently holds office. The only difference between the two is that the high priest who currently holds office offers the bull on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:6) and the tenth of the ephah, which is a grain offering (a minhah) offered daily by the high priest (see Leviticus 6:13). The former high priest does not make these offerings.", + "With regard to the other laws special to the high priest, they are both the same. Note that all of these laws are contained in the beginning of chapter 21 of Leviticus and all have to do with the special sanctity of priests and especially the high priest. Both types of high priests can marry only virgins and not widows (Leviticus 21:13-14). Neither are allowed to become impure in order to bury any of their relatives, even their mother or father (ibid. 21:11). They are not allowed to grow their hair long (ibid. 21:10) nor tear their clothes (ibid.). At the death of either one of them, accidental killers may leave the cities of refuge, as it says in Numbers 35:25, “And he shall dwell their until the death of the high priest” (see Makkot 2:6)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous mishnah we learned that both acting high priests and former high priests do not rend their clothes when a relative dies. Our mishnah clarifies that halakhah and teaches that the high priest does rend his clothes but not in the same way that an ordinary priest does. In section two, the mishnah makes a further comparison between an ordinary and a high priest.", + "A high priest rends [his clothes] from below and an ordinary priest from above. A high priest offers sacrifices while an onen but does not eat them and an ordinary priest neither offers sacrifices nor eats them. If one of the high priest’s seven close relatives (father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter or wife) for whom he is obligated to mourn dies, he rends his clothes at the bottom. When Leviticus 21:10 states that the high priest shall not rend his clothes, the interpretation of the rabbis is that he should not rend them in a normal fashion, which is above. In contrast, an ordinary priest rends his clothes the same way that all people do, above.", + "An onen is one who has had one of his seven close relatives die, but has not yet buried them (after the burial a person is an avel, a mourner). According to the Torah he is an onen only for the day of the death, but the rabbis extended the status of aninut (being an onen) to include the night after the death, and the entire period until burial. Our mishnah teaches that a high priest continues to offer sacrifices even while he is an onen, as it says in Leviticus 21:12, “He shall not go outside the sanctuary”. He stays in the sanctuary in order to offer sacrifices. However, he does not eat sacrifices on that day. We learn this from Aaron’s words on the day that his sons, Nadav and Avihu, die, “Had I eaten sin offering today would the Lord have approved?” (Leviticus 10:19). It is clear from here that Aaron did not eat sacrifices on that day. In contrast, an ordinary priest who is an onen may neither offer sacrifices, nor eat them. Since an ordinary priest is allowed to become impure for one of these seven relatives, his status during this period is basically the same as that of ordinary people." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches which sacrifice takes precedence over other sacrifices, in a case where both are ready to be sacrificed.\nThe importance of this mishnah is that it does not just give specific rules for precedence in sacrificial law, but teaches general principles, which are still applied today, especially in laws of prayer.", + "Whatever is more frequent than another takes precedence over that other; And whatever is more sacred than another takes precedence over that other. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation are standing [to be sacrificed], the bull of the anointed priest precedes that of the congregation in all its details. Something that is frequently done is performed before something else that is not frequently done. This is learned from the fact that in the morning the tamid burnt offering is sacrificed before any of the special festival sacrifices are offered. Since the tamid is a daily offering and is therefore frequent, it takes precedence over less frequently offered sacrifices. We should note that this principle seems somewhat counterintuitive. A person would naturally be more inclined to do first that which is special, more unusual, and only afterwards do what is regular and routine. Judaism teaches that it is the routine which takes precedence and not the special occasion. Through this mishnah, we learn to appreciate not just what is ordinary, but to take note of the importance of those things that we do regularly. We should not allow their frequency to diminish their significance. A couple of examples where this principle is still evoked. During Shabbat and festival kiddush, one first recites the blessing over the wine and only then the blessing over Shabbat. This is because the blessing over the wine is more frequent than the blessing over the Shabbat. Another example: in morning prayers we recite a psalm for each day of the week. On Rosh Hodesh (the first day of the new month) we also recite a special psalm. The psalm that is recited for the day of the week is done first, because it is more frequently recited than the one for Rosh Hodesh.", + "In cases where one cannot apply the previous rule, then the rule is that whatever is more sacred comes first. We will see an application of this principle in the next section, and in the next mishnah.", + "If the bull that is offered by the high priest for an errant ruling, and the bull that is offered by the community for their having followed the errant ruling of the court are both waiting to be sacrificed, the bull of the high priest takes precedence. This is because the high priest is more sanctified than the general populace, and also because he brings atonement for others (see Leviticus 4:16), whereas they are just being atoned for. This is also hinted at in Leviticus 16:17, “And he (the high priest) will make expiation for himself and his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel.” He takes precedence over all of Israel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous mishnah we learned which sacrifice takes precedence in cases where two need to be offered. In addition, we learned some general principles of which things take precedence over others in halakhah. Our mishnah contains another such principle.", + "A man takes precedence over a woman in matters concerning the saving of life and the restoration of lost property, and a woman takes precedence over a man in respect of clothing and ransom from captivity. When both are exposed to degradation in their captivity the man takes precedence over the woman. Our mishnah is clearly chauvinistic, and we should acknowledge it as such. As I have stated before when such types of mishnayoth have appeared, while I can understand the mishnah as reflecting common societal values in the ancient world, I cannot internalize the mishnah as reflecting my own values. Nor do I believe that any Jew reading this mishnah should do so. The mishnah states that if one has the opportunity to save the life of a man or a woman, but only one of them, the man takes precedence. Similarly, if one has the opportunity to restore lost property to either a man or a woman, he should return that which belongs to the man. For instance if he finds two lost horses, one that he knows belongs to Jacob and one to Rachel, but can only return one, he should return that which belongs to Jacob. However, when it comes to issues of potential degradation, the woman’s modesty comes first. If one has only enough money to help buy clothing for a man or woman, the woman takes precedence. This is because it is more embarrassing for a woman to be poorly clothed than for a man. Similarly, if one has only enough money to redeem one captive, one should redeem the woman, lest she be raped during captivity. Men are not usually raped during captivity. We know that this is the reason that women are redeemed first, because the end of the mishnah states that if there is concern that the man might be raped, he is to be redeemed first. According to the mishnah, it is worse for the man to be raped than for the woman." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah continues to provide rules of precedence.", + "A priest takes precedence over a levite, a levite over an israelite, an israelite over a mamzer, a mamzer over a natin, a natin over a convert, and a convert over a freed slave. When is this so? When all these were in other respects equal. However, if the mamzer was a scholar and the high priest an ignoramus, the scholar mamzer takes precedence over the ignorant high priest. According to commentaries, this mishnah deals with precedence in any matter of honor or profit. The mishnah considers certain genealogical lines of Jews to be inherently more holy than others. A priest is holier than a levite and a levite is holier than an Israelite. A mamzer is someone who was born of an illicit sexual union of two Jews, therefore an israelite takes precedence over a mamzer. A natin is a descendent of the Gibeonites who converted during the time of Joshua (see above 1:4). Since a mamzer does not have any foreign descent, he is holier than a natin. A natin is holier than a current convert, because a natin was part of Israel from before his birth, whereas a convert has only just now converted. A convert is holier than a freed slave for a convert was never part of such a lowly occupation. Up until now the mishnah has stated what must be considered something similar to a genealogical caste system. Each person is born into a certain status, and these separate statuses are ranked. We might think that at least during a person’s lifetime, he could not move up or down in status. The last clause of the mishnah radically undercuts that ideology. While in theory a person’s “holiness” is attributed to birth, a person’s true holiness is attained through the study of Torah. A mamzer who studies Torah is higher than a high priest who does not, even though the latter has the highest pedigree of genealogical status. In practice, this will become the only criteria for “ranking” individuals, for no two individuals will be exactly the same in their Torah learning. This statement in essence is one of the supreme value statements for the entire Mishnah. The rabbinic social system was a meritocracy, where one merited one’s position based on commitment to Torah study, and not based on one’s filial connections. Congratulations! We have finished Horayoth and all of Seder Nezikin. As I have mentioned at the end of every tractate, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. This time we have not only finished Horayoth, but we have finished all of Seder Nezikin, one sixth of the entire Mishnah. This is a great accomplishment and for those of you who have been studying with us from the beginning, give yourselves hearty yasher koach, and a big pat on the back (those who haven’t been learning since the beginning may do so as well). The next Seder (order) which we will learn is Nashim. As you will note, we are not learning the Mishnah in its order. In truth, there is not really order between different seders of the mishnah, nor even between different tractates. The only order internal to the Mishnah is inside the tractate. Therefore, there is no reason to learn or not to learn the Mishnah in the order that its tractates appear. Again, congratulations and good luck with your continuing learning. Tomorrow we begin tractate Yevamoth." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה הוריות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה הוריות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..41844bd2bb62d7041ba6b24b0bbb50d6585280c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first six mishnayoth of Makkoth deal with perjuring witnesses, who according to Deuteronomy 20:18-19 are to receive the same punishment that they tried to impose upon the accused. For instance if they testified that a person was guilty of murder and therefore should be executed and then were found to have perjured themselves, they are themselves to be executed.\nThe first mishnah points out cases where this punishment upon the witnesses cannot be carried out, at least not in a simple fashion.", + "Although this mishnah begins with the question, how do witnesses become perjurers, we will not learn the mishnaic definition of perjury until mishnah four. This mishnah will instead discuss the punishment of perjuring witnesses who do not, for various, reasons, simply receive the punishment they tried to impose upon the accused.", + "How do witnesses become liable [to punishment] as perjurers?
[If they say:] “We testify that so and so [a priest] is a son of a woman who had [formerly] been divorced or a haluzah,” it is not said that each witness should himself be as if he was born of a divorcee or a haluzah; rather he receives forty [lashes]. According to Jewish law a kohen (a priest) is not allowed to marry a divorcee or a woman who had undergone the process known as “halitzah”, the refusal of the levirate marriage (marriage to the husband’s brother upon the husband’s death when he had no children, see Deuteronomy 25:5-10). A child born of the union of a priest and a divorcee or a halutzah loses his priestly status. If witnesses falsely testify that a priest is really the son of a divorcee or a halutzah, they are attempting to cause him to forfeit his status. Although in general a perjuring witness is punished with the punishment which he tried to impose, in this case it is impossible to do so. Rather he is punished by being lashed forty times (Deuteronomy 25:3).", + "[If they say]: “We testify that so and so is guilty of [a crime entailing] exile”, it is not said that each witness should himself be exiled; rather he receives forty [lashes]. If witnesses falsely testify that another person committed a crime which entails exile (we will learn which crimes entail exile in chapter two), the perjuring witnesses are not themselves exiled. Rather they received forty lashes.", + "[If they say:] “We testify that so and so divorced his wife and has not paid her kethubah” seeing that either today or tomorrow he [the husband] will pay her kethubah, the assessment should be made how much a man will be willing to pay [now] for the ownership of her kethubah, on the condition that if she should be widowed or divorced [he will take it over] but if she should die, her husband will inherit her [estate including the kethubah]. If a person falsely testifies that a man divorced his wife and did not pay her kethubah (marriage settlement) it does not make sense to punish him with a fine equal to the kethubah. Since if the husband should in the future divorce his wife or die and then have to pay the kethubah in any case, by falsely testifying now the perjuring witness didn’t necessarily cause the husband the loss of the kethubah. Rather we assess how much a person would want to pay to take a risk on buying the woman’s kethubah, on condition that if she would be divorced or widowed he would get the kethubah but if she should die before her husband he would not get the kethubah (since the husband inherits his wife). This is what he kethubah is worth at the present moment, while she and her husband are still alive, and this is what the perjuring witnesses therefore have to pay.", + "[If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend one thousand zuz on the condition that he will pay him within thirty days”, while the debtor says “ten years”, the assessment should be made how much a man is willing to pay for the use of a thousand zuz, whether he pays them in thirty days or ten years. In this scenario the witnesses falsely testify that a certain person borrowed a thousand zuz and must pay them back within thirty days. The accused does owe the thousand zuz but must pay them back only within ten years and not thirty days. Again, in this case we cannot merely fine the perjurers one thousand zuz since in the end the accused will have to pay back the zuz. Rather the witnesses tried to cause him to lose ten years minus thirty days use of the money, and they are therefore fined whatever a person would pay to use one thousand zuz for ten years minus thirty days." + ], + [ + "[If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend two hundred zuz”, and they are found to be perjurers, they are flogged and ordered to make restitution, because the count which brings upon them the flogging is not the count that brings upon them the necessity to make restitution, these are the words of Rabbi Meir.
But the Sages say: “Anyone who makes restitution is not flogged.”
This mishnah discusses the punishment for a perjuring witness in a financial case.
There is a principle in Jewish law that one cannot receive two penalties for one crime. By testifying falsely a person is committing two crimes that theoretically carry with them two different penalties: 1) flogging for transgressing the commandment against false testimony (Exodus 20:13); 2) compensation for whatever financial loss he tried to impose upon his fellow (Deuteronomy 19:18-19). According to Rabbi Meir, since these are two different crimes categorized in two different Biblical verses, a person can be punished by both being flogged and having to make financial restitution, in this case 200 zuz. However, according to the Sages, anyone who makes restitution cannot be flogged. In this case the perjuring witnesses would pay the 200 zuz and would not be flogged." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth three continues to discuss the laws of perjuring witnesses.", + "[If they say:] “We testify that so and so is liable to a flogging of forty lashes, and they are found to be perjurers, they receive eighty lashes, because of, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13) and “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuternomy 19:19), these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, “They receive only forty lashes.” This section is actually a continuation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages begun in mishnah two. According to Rabbi Meir one can receive eighty lashes for one false testimony, forty for violating the commandment in Exodus and forty for trying to impose forty lashes upon the accused, the violation mentioned in Deuteronomy. According to the Sages, since this was only one act he can receive only one punishment, namely forty lashes, as he tried to impose upon the accused.", + "Monetary impositions are shared among the offenders, but the lashes are not shared among the offenders. How so? If they testified that he owed his friend one hundred zuz, and they were found to be perjurers, they divide the corresponding damages proportionately between them. But if they testified that he was liable to a flogging of forty lashes and were found to be perjurers, each one receives forty lashes. Witnesses who perjure themselves in a monetary case are punished by a fine equal to the financial loss they tried to impose upon the accused. In this type of case the witnesses may share the burden of the financial penalty. For instance if they lied with regards to two hundred zuz, each witness will compensate the accused one hundred zuz. If, however, they lied in a case involving lashes, the witnesses do not share the lashes. Rather each witness receives the number of lashes that they attempted to impose upon the accused.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: What is the connection between the dispute in mishnah three and the dispute that we learned yesterday in mishnah two?
• Section two: Why do you think that the witnesses may share the financial penalty but not share the lashes?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four continues to discuss the laws of perjuring witnesses.", + "Witnesses are not condemned as perjurers until they themselves are incriminated; How so? If they said: “We testify that so and so killed a person” and others said to them: “How could you testify to that, as that murdered person or that [alleged] murderer was with us on that very day, at such and such a place?” [then] the witnesses are not condemned as perjurers. But, if these [other] witnesses said: “How could you testify to that, as on that very day, you were with us at such and such a place?’ [then] the former are condemned as perjurers, and are executed by their [the other witnesses] word. This mishnah contains the Rabbinic definition of the type of perjuring witnesses referred to in the Torah. According to the Rabbis witnesses who are contradicted in their testimony are not always to receive the punishment that they tried to impose upon the accused. If other witnesses come and merely contradict the first witnesses’ testimony, while the testimony of the first witnesses may be invalidated, they do not receive the punishment that they tried to impose. After all, why should the court believe the testimony of the last witnesses more than it believes the testimony of the first witnesses? Rather, only if the second set of witnesses testify that the first set of witnesses could not have even seen that which they purport to have seen are the first witnesses punished as perjurers. This is what the mishnah means when it states that the witnesses themselves must be incriminated. In other words the form of perjury referred to in the Torah is only a case where the witnesses lie about their own whereabouts at the time of the crime. If they lie about the crime itself, while they may be punished with lashes for false testimony, they do not receive the punishment they attempted to impose." + ], + [ + "If other witnesses came, and they charged them [with perjury]: then [again] others came, and they [again] charged them [with perjury], even a hundred, they are all to be executed.
Rabbi Judah says: “This is a conspiracy and the first set alone is [to be] executed.”
Mishnah five deals with multiple sets of perjuring witnesses.
According to the opinion in the first section of the mishnah every set of witnesses that perjures themselves with regards to a certain crime can be executed for perjury (if the case was a capital case). If, for instance, Reuven and Shimon testify that Jacob committed a crime which entails the death penalty and then Levi and Judah come and state that at the time of the alleged crime Reuven and Shimon were with them and not at the scene of the crime, Reuven and Shimon are executed. If afterwards Zevulun and Issachar come and testify to the same crime and again Levi and Judah claim that they were with them at the time of the crime, then Zevulun and Issachar are to be executed as well. Levi and Judah can testify against as many witnesses as they want, and even one hundred witnesses, all saying the same thing, could be executed for perjury.
Rabbi Judah claims that in this scenario there is a conspiracy between the accused and those who contradict everyone else’s testimony, namely, Levi and Judah. While we do accept their testimony, only the first set of witnesses are executed." + ], + [ + "Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial.
Because the Sadducees say: “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21).
The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19) which implies when his brother is still alive?
If so, why does it say “A life for life”?
For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial.
Mishnah six discusses at one point in the judicial process the witnesses are proven to be perjurers in order for them to receive the penalty that they tried to impose upon the accused.
This mishnah contains a dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees, two of the main Jewish sects that competed during the Second Temple period (until 70 C.E.). The issue at hand is when are the perjuring witnesses to be executed: after the trial or only after the accused has been himself executed. The Sadducees claim that perjuring witnesses are only executed if they have been successful in having the accused actually executed. In other words, the witnesses are executed not for intending to unjustly execute the accused but for actually doing so. Just as in a case of murder of person the guilty can be convicted and executed as a murderer only if he actually succeeds and murders the victim, so too in this case, the witnesses are only executed if they succeed and have the accused wrongfully executed. The Sadducees learn this from the verse that states “A life for a life”. The witnesses have their lives taken away only if the accused already lost his life.
The Sages, who assumedly are Pharisees, the predecessors of the Rabbis of the Mishnah, state that the perjurers are executed once the verdict has been delivered, meaning the wrongful verdict that they attempted to impose upon the accused. If their testimony is contradicted beforehand then they are not executed because they were not even successful in getting a verdict pronounced against the accused. The Sages arrive at this conclusion by finding the middle ground between two seemingly contradictory verses. Verse 19 says that “you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” which sounds like “his fellow” is still alive when the perjurers are executed. From this verse alone we might have concluded that the perjuring witnesses are executed as soon as their testimony is found to be false, even if the accused has not been convicted. However, verse 21, “a life for a life” seems to imply that the perjurers are executed only if the accused actually loses his life, as the Sadducees said. The middle ground is that the perjurers are not executed immediately after they give their testimony (and they are found to be perjuring themselves) nor must the accused have been actually executed for the perjurers to be executed. Rather they are executed if the trial was completed, the accused found guilty and then the witnesses proven to be perjurers." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nBoth mishnah seven and mishnah eight which we will learn tomorrow contain midrashim, exegeses, of the verse in Deuteronomy 17:6 which states that a person may be executed by the testimony of “two or three witnesses”. This statement is not a precise legal statement. If two witnesses are sufficient than the Torah should have stated two. If three witnesses are necessary the Torah should not have stated two. Since all of the Sages held that two witnesses were sufficient, they must answer why the Torah also stated three.", + "This mishnah contains three opinions with regards to a perceived problem in the Biblical verse mentioned in the beginning of the mishnah.", + "“A person shall be put to death only on the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6).
If the testimony is sufficiently established by two witnesses, why does Scripture [further] specify three? This is to compare two to three: just as three are competent to incriminate two as perjurers, so are two competent to incriminate three as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. The first solution is that the Torah teaches that a set of three witnesses can be made into perjurers even by a set of two witnesses. If the Torah had only taught “two witnesses” we might have thought that two was sufficient to incriminate two other witnesses but not three, since they are more numerous. Therefore, the Torah teaches that no matter how large the group of witnesses, even one hundred, they do not have more power than a contradictory set of two. If, therefore, three witnesses were to testify to a capital crime and the person was found guilty and condemned to die and then two witnesses claimed that the three prior witnesses were not present at the time of the alleged crime and rather were with them, the first three are executed as perjurers.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as two witnesses are not put to death until both have been incriminated as perjurers, so three are not put to death until all three have been incriminated as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that just as when a pair of witnesses testify neither can be executed until both are proven to be perjurers, so too when three witnesses testify, none may be executed until all are proven to be perjurers. Without the word “three” in the Torah we might have thought that if three or more testify and two are found to be perjurers they may be executed, even if the third was not a perjurer. After all, the two would have been sufficient to have the accused executed. Therefore the Torah teaches “three” and “witnesses” to teach that none are executed as perjurers until all are proven to be so.", + "Rabbi Akiba says: “The third witness was only mentioned in order to be stringent upon him and make his judgement the same as the other two. And if Scripture thus penalizes one who consorts with those who commit a transgression, as [if he is actually] one of those who commits the transgression, how much more so shall he who consorts with those who perform commandments receive a reward as [if he is actually] one of those who performs the commandments!” According to Rabbi Akiva, if three witnesses testify and two are incriminated as perjurers, the third witness is executed even if he was not a perjurer. He is punished not for his false testimony but for joining in with other perjurers/evildoers. Although this is a harsh sentence, Rabbi Akiva finds in it a ray of hope. If those who merely join with evildoers are punished so harshly all the more so will those who join with those who perform commandments be greatly rewarded.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would be the practical result of the various interpretations on the procedures of the court? What type of psychological effect would they have on the witnesses?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah Eight continues to expound upon the verse in Deuteronomy 17:6 which states that a person may be executed by the testimony of “two or three witnesses”.", + "Just as in the case of two witnesses, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, their whole evidence is rendered void, so it is with three, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, the whole evidence is void. How do we know that this is the case even with a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. This section is a continuation of the previous mishnah’s discussion of the verse in Deuteronomy which stated “two or three witnesses”. Another reason why the Torah states “two or three” is to teach that if one witness is invalidated (for reasons why witnesses may be invalidated see Sanhedrin 3:4), the entire grouping of witnesses is invalid. This is obvious when there are two witnesses, for if one is invalidated, obviously the other one’s singular testimony will be invalidated due to its insufficiency. However, even if there are three or more witnesses, and only one’s testimony is invalidated, and their remain two or more valid witnesses, nevertheless all of their testimony is invalidated.", + "Rabbi Yose said: “When is this true? With regards to capital cases; but in monetary suits, the evidence may be established by the rest. Rabbis says: “It is one and the same rule, be it in monetary suits or capital cases.” Rabbi Yose limits this ruling to capital crimes. In civil/monetary suits if one witness’s testimony is invalidated the other witnesses’ testimony can still stand. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and claims that there is no difference between monetary and capital cases.", + "This is the rule when both [disqualified] witnesses warned the trasngressor, but when they did not warn him, what could two brothers do that saw someone killing a person? The mishnah now again limits the ruling in section one. In order to convict someone of a capital crime he must be warned before he commits the crime. If a person warns him before he commits the crime and then he commits it anyway, the person who warned him may testify against him. If a relative warned the person before he committed the crime, he will become one of the witnesses, thereby invalidating all of the testimony due to his being a relative or otherwise invalid. If, however, the witness did not warn the potential offender, he does not necessarily become a witness and he will therefore not invalidate the others’ testimony. The mishnah points out that if merely by witnessing a crime relatives can invalidate everyone’s testimony, neither of two brothers who saw a murder would be able to testify against the murderer. If two brothers and a third person saw a murder and the law was that relatives may not join together to testify, and just by seeing the crime they become witnesses, the murderer would not be able to be convicted. Rather, the mishnah teaches that the third person can join his testimony with one of the brothers and thereby convict the accused." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine continues to discuss the laws of witnessing capital crimes. It deals with the question when are witnesses consider two groups and when are they considered one group. Furthermore this mishnah deals with the requirement of the witnesses to warn the transgressor before he commits his crime.", + "If two persons see him [the transgressor] from one window and two other persons see him from another window and one standing in the middle warns him, then, if some on one side and some on the other side can see one another, they constitute together one body of evidence, but if they cannot [see one another], they are two bodies of evidence. Consequently, if one of these is found to be a perjurer, both [the transgressor] and those two witnesses are put to death, while other group of witnesses is exempt. If a murder is witnessed by two sets of witnesses from two different angles we need to know if they are legally considered one set of witnesses or two sets. If they constitute one set of witnesses then if any one of the four is caught as a perjurer, or is otherwise invalidated, all of their testimony is invalid, and none of the witnesses can be executed, unless they were all caught as perjurers . If they are two sets of witnesses, then if one set is caught as a perjurers or otherwise disqualified, there remains a set of valid witnesses, and the transgessor is executed upon their testimony. According to the mishnah the two sets of witnesses’ testimony is joined only under two conditions: 1) the two sets can see each other; 2) the person warning the transgessor stands between the two sets of witnesses such that all may see him. If the witnesses cannot see each other or the person warning was not seen by all of the witnesses, then they are two different sets.", + "Rabbi Yose says: “He is never put to death unless two witnesses had warned him, as it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses..” (Deut. 17:6). Rabbi Yose states that two must warn the transgessor before he commits the crime in order to convict him afterwards. He learns this from the verse in Deut. 17:6, which literally translates, “by the mouth of two witnesses” (which is just idiomatic for “by two witnesses”). Rabbi Yose understands that not only the verbal testimony but the verbal warning as well must come from two witnesses.", + "Another interpretation: “By the mouth of two witnesses”: that the Sanhedrin shall not hear the evidence from the mouth of an interpreter. Another interpretation of the phrase “by the mouth of” is that testimony may not be given through a translator. A translator would cause the testimony to come from someone else’s mouth. If the witness does not speak a language that the sanhedrin understands, his testimony does not count." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten discusses a criminal who flees after being convicted. The final part of mishnah ten contains the famous discussion regarding how often the sanhedrins actually carried out executions.", + "If one fled after having been convicted at a court and again comes up before the same court, the [first] judgment is not set aside. Wherever two witnesses stand up and declare, “We testify that so and so was tried and convicted at a certain court and that so and so were the witnesses” the accused is executed. If the convicted felon fled and was returned before the same court, he is executed without another trial. If he was caught and brought before a different court two witnesses must state that this person was already convicted by another court. They must also name the court and name those who testified against the felon. If they do so he may be executed by the new court without a full trial.", + "[Trials before] a sanhedrin are customary both in the land [of Israel] and outside it. The sanhedrin of twenty three is a communal structure that is functional both in the Land of Israel and outside of it.", + "A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous. Rabbi Eliezer b. Azariah Says: once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: “Had we been members of a sanhedrin, no person would ever be put to death. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel remarked: “They would also multiply murderers in Israel.” This famous piece of mishnah testifies to some of the Rabbis’ deep hesitations with regards to the death penalty. As we have seen throughout tractate Sanhedrin and tractate Makkoth, convicting a person of a capital crime is no easy matter. The person must be warned beforehand and then the crime has to be explicitly witnessed by two valid witnesses. Therefore, the first opinion in our mishnah, concludes that a court that executes once every seven years is a murderous court. Since the laws of testimony are so strict, any court that executes more often than this is assumed to be illegally suspending the laws and is therefore, in a sense, engaging in murder itself. Rabbi Elezar ben Azariah says that once in seventy years already makes a court murderous. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva brag that had they been on a sanhedrin no one would have ever been executed. At the end of the mishnah Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the political leader of the Jews at the time, notes a sound of caution. The Rabbinic tendency to be overly lenient on executing murderers can take its toll on society. In his opinion the attitudes of the other Rabbis cause the numbers of murderers to rise.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Why might one have thought that the sanhedrin was not functional outside of the Land of Israel?
• Section three: Why do the Rabbis feel the need to state how infrequently a court should execute? What is Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s argument with the others?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe second chapter of Makkoth discusses the laws regarding accidental killing. These laws are discussed extensively in Numbers 35:9-28, 32 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13. According to these passages, if a person killed another person by accident the victim’s relative could exact blood vengeance upon the accidental killer. If the accidental killer wanted to avoid being killed by the blood avenger he would run to one of the cities of refuge that were to be established when the Land of Israel was conquered. The accidental killer would have to stay in this city until the death of the High Priest at which point he could return to his former city and the blood avenger would be forbidden from killing him.\nThe mishnah which we will learn today defines what killing is considered accidental such that it allows a killer to escape to a city of refuge.", + "The following go into banishment: one who kills in error. If [for instance] while he was pushing a roller [on the roof] and it fell down and killed somebody; If while he was lowering a cask it fell down and killed somebody; If while coming down a ladder he fell on somebody and killed him, he goes into banishment. But, if while he was pulling up the roller it fell back and killed somebody; If while he was raising a cask and the rope snapped and the cask fell and killed somebody; If while going up a ladder he fell down and killed somebody, he does not go into banishment. (1) This is the general principle: [whenever the death was caused] in the course of a downward movement, he goes into banishment, but [if it was caused] not in the course of a downward movement, he does not go into banishment. This entire section illustrates the principle that an accidental death which will force the killer to go into exile is a case where a person is lowering a heavy object or he himself is going down a ladder and the object or the person slips and accidentally kills someone. If however, he was bringing something up or going up a ladder and the object or he fell downward he is not obligated to go into exile. The difference between the two is that in the first case the likelihood of injuring someone below is relatively high and he therefore should have been more cautious. In the second case, when he is bringing something up, the likelihood that it will fall below and cause injury is unlikely. Therefore he does not need to go into exile. This section illustrates an important difference in the Rabbinic understanding of exile from the Biblical understanding of exile. In the Bible the accidental killer’s fleeing to the refuge city is to his own advantage. If he does not the blood avenger will kill him. Exile is not a punishment for a crime or for negligence but legal protection offered to an accidental killer. In the Rabbinic legal system exile is a punishment for negligence. This is probably partly due to the fact that blood vengeance was not accepted in their society. The Rabbis understand exile as a punishment for negligence. Therefore if the killing was totally unanticipated, he need not go to the city of exile.", + "If the iron slipped from its heft and killed [somebody]: Rabbi says, “He does not go into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He goes into banishment.” If it flew from the log being split: Rabbi says, “He goes into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He does not go into banishment.” Deuteronomy 19:5 brings up an example of accidental killing whereby a man goes into the forest with an ax and the “ax flies off the handle and strikes another so that he dies”. This phrase “ax flies off the handle” is read in two different ways. The Sages read the verse as we have translated it, that the instrument which kills is the metal part of the ax which flies off its handle. According to Rabbi (Judah the Prince) in this situation the person is not liable for exile. He reads the verse as if it states that the ax causes a chip to fly off from the tree and the chip kills someone else. [Rabbi would translate the word handle as “tree”, and they are both indeed the same word.] According to the Sages, in this situation he is not liable for exile." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two continues to define what killing is considered accidental such that it allows a killer to escape to a city of refuge.", + "If a man threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person, he goes into banishment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: “If after the stone had left his hand another person put out his head and caught it, the thrower is exempt [from banishment].” One who throws a stone into the public domain has thereby committed a negligent act and is exiled if the stone kills. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob the stone must be thrown at the place where a person is standing, before the stone is thrown. If after the stone is thrown a person moves into its way he is not liable to be exiled. This is probably because he is less negligent, having thrown a stone to a place where no one was standing. However, according to the first opinion in the mishnah, merely throwing a stone to a place that might kill is enough to cause the thrower to be exiled.", + "If a man threw a stone into his [own] court and killed a person, then, if the victim had a right of entry there, the thrower goes into banishment, and if not, he does not go into banishment, as it says, “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor” (Deut. 19:5): the forest is a domain accessible to the victim and to the slayer and it therefore excludes the court of the householder where the victim has no right of entry. If a person throws a stone into his own courtyard and it kills a trespasser the thrower is not liable to be exiled. This is learned from the example of accidental killing mentioned in Deuteronomy 19:5, that of an accidental killing taking place in the forest. Just as the forest is a place where anyone may enter, so too any accidental killing can only occur in a place where the victim had permission to enter. An accidental killing which takes place on private property when the victim had not been given permission to enter will not make the killer liable for exile.", + "Abba Shaul says: “Hewing of wood is an optional act and it therefore excludes a father beating his son, or a master disciplining his pupil, or an agent of the court [administering lashes].” Abba Shaul learns another law from the example given in the Torah, that of a person chopping wood. Chopping wood is a voluntary activity and therefore any accidental killing which will force the killer to go into exile must also entail voluntary activities. If however the striking was mandatory such as a father disciplining his son, a master his student or a court agent administering lashes, the accidental killer is exempt. When reading this mishnah, as harsh as it sounds we must remember that corporal discipline was an accepted part of all ancient societies." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three discusses categories of accidental killers who do or do not go into exile.", + "The father goes into banishment for [the death of] his son, and the son goes into banishment for [that of] his father. Although we learned in the previous mishnah that a father does not go into banishment if he accidentally kills his son while disciplining him, he nevertheless does go into banishment if he accidentally kills him under other circumstances. So too a son goes into banishment if he accidentally kills his father.", + "All go into banishment for [the death of] an Israelite, and Israelites go into banishment on their account, except for a resident alien. And a resident alien does not go into banishment except for [the death of another] resident alien. Anyone who accidentally kills an Israelite, meaning a Jew, is exiled, including a slave or a Samaritan (a sect that broke away from the Jews). So too, any Jew who accidentally kills someone goes into exile, even if he accidentally kills a slave or a Samaritan. The one exception is a resident alien, a person who lives in the Land of Israel and has accepted upon himself to perform the seven Noahide commandments (the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, sexual sins, theft, and eating from a living animal, as well as the injunction to establish a legal system) but has not fully converted to Judaism. If a Jew accidentally kills a resident alien he is not banished. However, if a resident alien accidentally kills a Jew he is to be executed. These laws are learned in the Talmud exegetically from Deuteronomy 19:5.", + "A blind person does not go into banishment, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “He goes into banishment.” Numbers 35:23 states that if a person drops a stone on someone else “without seeing” he is to be banished. Based on this verse there is a dispute amongst the Sages with regards to the banishing of a blind person. According to Rabbi Judah since a blind person can never see he is exempted from the laws of banishment. According to Rabbi Meir, as long as the killing was accidental the killer is banished.", + "An enemy does not go into banishment. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “An enemy is executed, for it is as if he has been warned.” Rabbi Shimon says: “There is an enemy that goes into banishment and there is an enemy that does not go into banishment: wherever it can be said that he had killed [his victim] wittingly, he goes not into banishment, and where he had slain unwittingly, he goes into banishment. A person who accidentally kills his enemy is understandably going to be looked at with some suspicion. Deuteronomy 19:11 states that “If, however, a person who is the enemy of another lies in wait for him and sets upon him and strikes him with a fatal blow” this person is to be executed. The question our mishnah asks is what to do with the an enemy who claims that he killed accidentally. According to the first opinion, since he is an enemy, he is not banished. Neither is he to be executed by a court. Rather, the blood avenger is allowed to exact revenge upon this person and not be considered guilty of murder himself. According to Rabbi Yose bar Judah he is to be executed, for we can assume that he murdered with intent, and it is as if he has already been warned not to murder such and such a person. Rabbi Shimon states that not all situations in which a person kills his enemy are the same. If it can be stated that the enemy killed with intent than he is not to be banished. In other words, the cities of refuge will not offer him protection and the blood avenger will be permitted to exact revenge. If, however, it cannot be stated that he killed with intent he is banished like all other accidental killers.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why would you think that a father doesn’t go into banishment for his son? Why would you think that a son doesn’t go into banishment for accidentally killing his father?
• Section four: There are three different opinions in this section. Try to figure out how each opinion might be based on the verse in Deuteronomy." + ], + [ + "To where are they banished? To the cities of refuge, to the three cities situated on the far side of the Jordan and the three cities situated in Canaan, as it says, “Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:14).
Not until three cities were selected in the land of Israel did the [first] three cities beyond the jordan receive fugitives, as it says, “Six cities of refuge in all” (Numbers 35:13), until all six could simultaneously receive fugitives.
Mishnah four begins to discuss the refuge cities, those cities to where the accidental killer would flee.

This mishnah begins to discuss the cities of refuge to where the accidental killer would flee in order to protect himself from the blood avenger. There were three cities on one side of the Jordan river (where the country of Jordan currently exists) and three in the land of Israel. Although the land on the other side of the Jordan river was conquered first and assumedly its refuge cities were assigned before the remainder of the land was conquered, nevertheless these refuge cities were not functional until all six had been conquered and assigned." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses the making of roads to lead to the cities of refuge and the accompaniment of the manslayer as he makes his way.", + "And direct roads were made leading from one to the other, as it says, “You shall prepare the way and divide the borders of your land into three parts” (Deut. 19:3). Roads were to be made leading to the cities of refuge so that the manslayer would not have a difficult time finding his way. Remember that if the blood avenger found him before he arrived at the city of refuge he could kill him without incurring penalty.", + "And they delegate to him to disciples of the Sages [as escorts] in case anyone attempted to slay him on the way, and that they might speak to him. Rabbi Meir says: “He may [even] plead his cause himself, as it says, “And this is the word of the manslayer” (Deut. 19:4). In order to prevent the blood avenger from finding the manslayer on his way to the city of refuge the court would assign two disciples of the Sages to travel with him and plead with the blood avenger should he try and attack while on the way. Rabbi Meir’s statement can be read in two ways. He may be suggesting that not only should the disciples of the Sages plead his case, but he should plead himself. According to this interpretation, Rabbi Meir does not disagree with the previous opinion, but rather adds upon it. Alternatively, Rabbi Meir may disagree with the previous opinion. Rabbi Meir may believe that only the manslayer may plead his case, but not the disciples of the Sages. In either case the act of pleading is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy which states “the word of the manslayer”, understood by Rabbi Meir to hint that the manslayer should plead his own case." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah six states that all killers, accidental or intentional, would initially flee to the city of refuge, before standing trial. The second half discusses issues concerning the death of the high priest, which according to Numbers 35:25, 28 is what allows the manslayer to leave the city of refuge and return home without fear of the blood avenger.", + "Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “Initially a slayer is sent in advance to [one of] the cities of refuge, whether he had slain in error or with intent and then the court sends and brings him out. Whoever was found guilty of a capital crime the court had executed, and whoever was found not guilty of a capital crime they acquitted. Whoever was found liable to banishment they restored to his place [of refuge] as it says, “And the congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he fled” (Numbers 35:25). Before a trial it is impossible to know whether the killing was done accidentally or with intent. Therefore, all killers flee to the city of refuge immediately. Afterwards the court sends for them and puts them on trial. If they are found guilty of murder they are executed. If they are found not to have killed with intent and not to have been negligent, then they are totally exempt and incur no penalty. If they are found to have killed accidentally, without intent but with some degree of negligence, then they are sent back to the city of refuge.", + "All the same are [the deaths of] the high priest who had been anointed with the anointing oil; or had worn many garments, or had retired from his office all make possible the return of the manslayer. Rabbi Judah says also the [death of the] priest who had been anointed for war makes possible the return of the manslayer. There are several different types of high priests described in our mishnah. The first are those who have been anointed with oil, a practice that only existed during the First Temple period. The second are those who wore the high priest’s special clothing, which included more pieces of clothing than a normal priest. This would have included the high priest during the Second Temple period. Thirdly, the mishnah mentions a high priest who retires from office. The manslayer may leave the city of refuge at the death of any one of these types of high priests (see Numbers 35:25, 28). According to Rabbi Judah, even the priest who has been anointed to charge the people into war, referred to in Deuteronomy 20:2, is considered to be like a high priest, and therefore his death allows the manslayer to return home.", + "Therefore, mothers of high priests would provide food and clothing for them [who had been exiled] that they might not pray for their son’s death. Naturally, it is in the best interest of the manslayer who has been banished to the refuge city for the high priest to die as quickly as possible. They may even pray for his speedy death. In order to encourage them not to pray for their sons’ deaths, the mothers of the high priests would feed and clothe the manslayers who were stuck in the cities of refuge.", + "If the high priest died at the conclusion of the trial, the slayer does not go into banishment. If he died before the trial was concluded and another high priest was appointed in his stead and the trial was then concluded, the slayer returns [home from refuge only] after the latter’s death. If the high priest were to die after the conclusion of the trial the manslayer does not need to go into banishment, for the high priest has already died. Although he never reached the city of refuge, once his trial has been concluded it is as if he is already there. If, however, the high priest dies before the conclusion of the trial and a new one is appointed, the manslayer must wait until the newly appointed high priest dies before he can leave the city of refuge.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why does Rabbi Yose bar Judah suggest that all killers initially flee to the refuge city, even before a trial?
• Section three: What does this section teach us about the nature of prayer in the eyes of the Rabbis?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven continues to deal with various law concerning the cities of refuge.", + "If the trial was concluded when there was no high priest [in office], or if one kills a high priest, or a high priest that kills, [in these cases the manslayer] can never come away from that place [of refuge]. This section is a conclusion of the previous mishnah. If the trial of the manslayer is concluded at a time when there was no high priest he can never leave the city of refuge. Even when a new high priest is appointed, his death will not free the manslayer since he was not the high priest when the person was convicted of manslaughter. Similarly, one who kills a high priest or a high priest that kills can never leave the city of refuge, since there would be no existing high priest at the conclusion of the trial.", + "He [the manslayer] may not go out to bear witness, neither for cases having to do with a religious observance, nor to bear witness in a monetary suit, nor to bear witness in a capital case. Even should [all] Israel need him, and even a general like Yoav the son of Zeruiah, he may never go out, as it is said, “to there he fled”: ‘there’ must be his abode, ‘there’ his death, ‘there’ his burial. The manslayer may not leave the city of refuge under any circumstance, even to testify to a religious matter, such as the new month. Neither may he leave to testify in monetary cases nor in capital cases. Even if he was a general in the army and Israel needed him in war, he may not leave. The mishnah emphatically states that “there”, i.e. in the city of refuge will be his permanent dwelling, his death and his burial.", + "Just as the city affords asylum so does its Sabbath boundary afford asylum. Just as the city proper offers the manslayer refuge from the blood avenger, so too does any area within the Sabbath limit (a boundary within which a person may freely travel on the Sabbath). This is defined as a 2000 amot perimeter of the city.", + "If a manslayer went beyond the boundary [of the city] and the blood avenger found him: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “For the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to kill him]; for everyone else, a matter of option.” Rabbi Akiba says: “It is a matter of option for the avenger, and anyone else [who kills him] is not liable for doing so.” If he does leave the city of refuge before the high priest dies, he is liable to be killed. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, the blood avenger is actually commanded to kill him and any other person is permitted to kill him. According to Rabbi Akiva the blood avenger may kill him, and other people may not. However, if other people do kill him they are not liable as murderers.", + "If a tree was standing within the boundary and its boughs extended beyond [the boundary] or if it was standing outside of the boundary and its boughs extended within, it wholly follows [the position of] the boughs. A tree standing in the city and leaning out of it, or standing outside of the city and leaning in, is judged to be in our out of the city boundaries based on its boughs and not on the position of its trunk. This will be of import if the manslayer reaches the tree and the blood avenger tries to kill him. If the tree is in the boundaries the blood avenger may not kill him but if it is outside of the boundaries, he may.", + "If he slew [someone] in that city [of refuge] he is banished from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. And a Levite is banished from one city to another. A person who accidentally kills someone in a city of refuge presents a legal problem since he is already in the place that protects people from the blood avenger. The mishnah remedies this problem by stating that he is to be exiled from neighborhood to neighborhood. A Levite who lives in a city of refuge (see Numbers 35:6) may not stay in the city if he accidentally kills someone. Rather he must go to a different city of refuge." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight deals with the arrival of the manslayer in the city of refuge, his acceptance there, and his eventual leaving of the city.", + "A manslayer who went to his city of his refuge and the men of that city wished to do him honor, should [refuse] by saying to them, “I am a manslayer!”. If they say to him, “Nevertheless” he should accept from them [the proffered honor], as it is said: “and this is the word of the manslayer.” Upon reaching the city of refuge the manslayer should initially attempt to refuse any honors that the people of the city may offer him. However, if they insist he may accept. This is learned from the verse, “and this is the word of the manslayer.” The mishnah understands the verse as hinting that the manslayer need only speak one word of refusal of honor. He need not refuse a second time.", + "They used to pay rent to the Levites, according to the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “They did not pay them rent.” According to Numbers 35:6 the cities of refuge are actually owned by the tribe of Levi which was not apportioned a geographical inheritance in Israel as were the other tribes. Therefore Rabbi Judah states that those who fled to the city of refuge must pay rent to the Levites. Rabbi Meir hold that they need not.", + "And [on his return home] he returns to the office he formerly held, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “He does not return to the office he formerly held.” When he returns to his former home after the death of the high priest, Rabbi Meir holds that he returns to his former positions of power and honor. Rabbi Judah holds that he does not.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What might be the connection between the two disputes at the end of this mishnah? Are Rabbis Meir and Judah holding consistent opinions? If so, what conception of manslaying underlies each of their words?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe final chapter of Makkoth discussed those who are liable to be flogged. There are three reasons that a person is flogged: 1) one who transgresses a Biblical law for which the penalty is kareth (heavenly excommunication). According to the Rabbis one who was flogged is not penalized by kareth, considered to be a more serious punishment. 2) One who transgresses a Biblical law which is punishable by death by the hands of Heaven. 3) One who transgresses a Biblical negative commandment, provided the transgression was active. Our chapter lists many categories of those who are to flogged but the list is not exhaustive.", + "And these are liable to be flogged:
One who had relations with his sister, or his father's sister, or his mother's sister, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or his father's brother's wife, or a menstruant; This mishnah lists sexual offenses which are not punishable by death. In each of these cases both offenders, the man and the woman will be flogged. These forbidden relations are discussed in Leviticus chapters eighteen and twenty.", + "A high priest who marries a widow, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee or a halutzah; This section lists marriages forbidden to high priests and ordinary priests. They are listed in Leviticus 21:7, 13-15.", + "An Israelite who marries a mamzereth or natinah, or an Israelite woman who is married to a mamzer or a natin. This section lists marriages forbidden to ordinary Israelites. A mamzer or mamzereth (a female mamzer), mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:3, is one born of a forbidden union which carries with it a punishment of kareth or death. A natin or natina (a female natin) is a descendent of the Gibeonites, those who tricked Joshua into accepting them as converts, upon which he declared them to be woodchoppers and water-drawers and forbade them to marry ordinary Israelites (Joshua 9:27).", + "In the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a widow [a high priest] is liable on two counts. But in the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a halutzah, an ordinary priest is liable only on one count. A widow who is also a divorcee, i.e. her first husband died and her second husband divorced her, is forbidden to a high priest on two counts. If he were to marry such a woman he would be obligated to be flogged for each transgression, even though he did only one act. A divorcee and a halutzah (one who has been rejected by her levir, her dead husband’s brother) are forbidden to an ordinary priest. However, the prohibition of the halutzah to an ordinary priest is only a Rabbinic prohibition, not Biblical, as is the prohibition to a divorcee Therefore, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee who is also a halutzah is only flogged for one transgression." + ], + [ + "An unclean person who ate holy meat (Leviticus 7:20, 12:4);
One who entered the sanctuary while unclean (Leviticus 12:4, Numbers 5:3, 19:13);
One who ate forbidden fat or blood (Leviticus 3:16, 7:23-27);
Or leftover sacrificial meats (Leviticus 19:6-8);
Or sacrifices that had been offered up with improper intention (Leviticus 7:18);
Or [an offering] that has became unclean (Leviticus 7:19);
One who slaughters, or offers up a sacrifice, outside the Temple precincts (Leviticus 17:4);
One who ate leavened [bread] during Passover (Exodus 12:15, 19);
One who partakes of food [or drink] or does work on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-31);
One who puts together the ingredients for the [anointing] oil, or the ingredients for the incense, or anoints with the oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-28):
One who eats an animal that died a natural death (Deuteronomy 14:21);
Or was improperly slaughtered (Exodus 22:30);
Or any of the [creatures deemed] ‘abominable’ and ‘teeming’ (Leviticus 11:11, 40).
One who eats non-tithed produce, or first-tithe from which heave offering has not been removed, or unredeemed second-tithe, or unredeemed sanctified property.
How much untithed produce is one to eat to become liable? Rabbi Shimon says: “Any amount.” The Sages say: “An olive's size.” Rabbi Shimon said to them: “Do you not admit that if one ate the minutest ant that he would be liable? They said to him: “[Only] because it is a whole creature.” He said to them: “Even a grain of wheat is a whole entity.”
The first fourteen sections of our mishnah mostly lists different types of forbidden foods and a few other Temple related prohibitions for which one is to be flogged. Section fifteen discusses the amount of untithed produce that if one eats he is liable for a transgression.
Section fifteen: According to Rabbi Shimon one is liable for flogging if he eats any amount of untithed produce, even a single grain. The Sages disagree and state that only if one eats an olive’s size of untithed produce is he liable for flogging. Less than that and he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon attempts to prove his point by making an analogy to eating an entire ant. All agree that if one eats an entire ant (on purpose) he is liable to be flogged, even though the ant is smaller than an olive. The Sages respond that one is liable for eating an ant since it is an entire creature. Since it is a distinct, full entity it is enough to make one who consumes it liable for punishment. Rabbi Shimon responds that a single grain is also a whole entity, and therefore one who eats a single grain of untithed produce is liable to be flogged as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah continues to discuss which transgressions are punishable by flogging.", + "One who eats of first fruits previous to the recital over them (Deut. 26:3-10); First fruits were to be brought to Jerusalem and given as a gift to the priests. The bearer of the first fruits was supposed to recite a liturgical text contained in Deuteronomy 26:3-10, which contained a brief history of Israel (the text is now part of the Passover Haggadah). A priest who ate of the first fruits before the recitation was made was punished by flogging.", + "Of most holy things outside of the Temple curtains (Exodus 27:9); Certain sacrifices were only to be eaten within the curtains of the Temple. These included sin offerings and guilt offerings. One who ate them outside of this area was punished by flogging.", + "Of lesser holy things or of second tithe, outside the city wall (Deut. 12:17-18). Other sacrifices could be consumed anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem. These included thanksgiving offerings, offerings of wellbeing and the Passover offering. The second tithe was to be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. One who ate any of these things outside of the walls was punished by flogging.", + "One who breaks a bone of a ritually clean Passover offering receives forty [lashes] (Exodus 12:46); But one who leaves over a clean [Passover offering] (Exodus 12:10), or breaks a bone of an unclean [Passover offering], is not given forty [lashes]. The Torah forbids breaking a bone of the Passover sacrifice. The mishnah limits this law to a Passover sacrifice brought by a ritually clean person. Usually unclean people could not bring the Passover sacrifice and they were to wait a month and celebrate what is called Pesach Sheni, or The Second Passover (see Numbers 9:4-13). However, if most of the congregation was impure at the time of the first Passover (the 14th of Nissan) they were allowed to sacrifice the Passover offering while impure. Our mishnah teaches that one who breaks a bone of a Passover offering brought while the congregation is impure is not liable to be lashed. The Torah also states that the Passover offering must be consumed that very night. One who does not consume the Passover offering, while having violated a commandment, is nevertheless not flogged. We will learn why in the next mishnah.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think a person who breaks the bone of an impure Passover offering is not to liable for flogging?" + ], + [ + "If one takes the mother bird with the young (Deuteronomy 22:6-7): Rabbi Judah says he is flogged and need not [then] send the mother free; But the Sages say: “He lets the mother go and is not flogged.”
This is the general principle; any negative commandment which involves a positive deed, one is not liable (for transgressing over.
Mishnah four discusses the prohibition of taking a mother bird with her young.
The last section of the mishnah states the principle that will explain the Sages’ position in the previous section as well as the last section of the previous mishnah. According to the mishnah any negative commandment which can be immediately remedied by a positive deed is not punishable by lashing. Our two mishnayoth illustrate commandments of this nature. Deuteronomy 22:6-7 states: “Do not take the mother (bird) with the young, Let the mother go”. The Sages understand the first half of this statement to be a negative commandment and the second half a positive deed which would remedy the violation of the negative commandment. In other words one who violates the negative commandment by taking the mother and the young can remedy it by doing a positive deed, namely by releasing the mother. Therefore, the Sages say that since he released the mother, he is not liable to be flogged.
Rabbi Judah reads the verse differently. He understands the second half to mean “Let the mother go” before you take her and the young. Once the person has taken the mother bird while the young are together with her in the nest he is immediately punishable by flogging, since he cannot remedy the situation. Since the commandment has already been violated and cannot be remedied, he is not obligated to release the mother bird.
This same general rule is also applicable with regards to the end of the previous mishnah which discussed leaving the Passover offering until morning. Exodus 12:10 states: “You shall not leave any of it until morning; if any of it is left until morning you shall burn it.” Again the first half of the verse is a negative commandment and the second half contains a remedy to the violation of that commandment. Therefore one who violates the prohibition of leaving the sacrifice until morning is not flogged." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses the various prohibitions of shaving one’s head either as a sign of mourning (Leviticus 21:5, Deuteronomy 14:1) or in general (Leviticus 19:26). These prohibitions are punishable by flogging.", + "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Making a baldness on one’s head as a sign of mourning is prohibited in Deuteronomy 14:1 and Leviticus 21:5. Rounding the corner of one’s head and marring the corner of one’s beard are prohibited in Leviticus 19:27. Cutting one’s flesh for the dead is prohibited in Leviticus 19:28. All of these transgressions are punishable by flogging. Our mishnah now proceeds to list how many violations are contained in each of these commandments.", + "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause a: With regards to cutting one’s flesh, each cut for each dead counts as a violation. If he cuts once for five dead he receives five sets of lashes. Likewise, if he cuts five times for one dead he receives five sets of lashes.", + "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause b: Rounding one’s head is considered two violations, one for each side of the head. Therefore he will receive two sets of lashes.", + "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause c: Marring the corners of one’s beard is considered five violations, two for marring each side and one for marring the chin. Therefore he will receive five sets of lashes.", + "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause d: Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the previous opinion. In his opinion just because there are separate areas of the head to round or beard to mar does not mean that one is obligated lashes for each section. What causes a person to receive multiple sets of lashes is his having violated the prohibition on different occasions. If he mars one part of the beard today and another at a later time, for instance tomorrow, he will be obligated for two sets of lashes. However, if he violates the prohibition in one sitting he is only obligated for one set of lashes.", + "And he is only liable if he takes off with a razor; Rabbi Eliezer says: “Even if he picks off the hairs with tweezers, or with pincers, he is liable. According to the first opinion in the mishnah he is only liable for having marred his beard if he does so with a razor. Rabbi Eliezer holds that marring even with pincers or tweezers is a violation of the commandment.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: What might be the basis of Rabbi Eliezer’s disagreement with the previous opinion?" + ], + [ + "He who writes an incision on his skin [is flogged].
If he writes [on his flesh] without incising, or incises without writing, he is not liable, until he writes and incises with ink, eye-paint or anything that lasts.
Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: “He is not liable until he has written there the name [of a god], as it is says: “Nor shall you incise any marks on yourselves; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).
This mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah which discussed the prohibitions in Leviticus 19:27-28.
The last half of verse Lev. 19:28 prohibits tattooing, defined in our mishnah as incising with a knife and making a permanent mark. If he were to incise without using permanent ink, or write on himself with permanent ink without first incising he would not be liable for lashes.
The first opinion in the mishnah understood that one is liable to be flogged no matter what he writes. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah disagrees and states that one is obligated only if he writes the name of another god. This is learned from the end or verse 28, “I am the Lord”. Rabbi Shimon understands this to mean God saying, “I am the Lord” and therefore you may not write any other god’s name." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven discusses a nazirite who violates the prohibition of drinking wine.", + "If a nazirite has been drinking wine all day, he is liable for only one lashing. If they said to him, “Don’t drink wine”, “Don’t drink wine”, and he kept drinking, he is liable for each instance. A nazirite is forbidden to shave his hair, drink wine or become impure (Numbers 6:1-21). Our mishnah asks the question about a nazirite who drinks wine all day long. Is this considered one violation or many violations? In other words, what splits one act of violation from another, in order to make him liable on multiple counts? The mishnah states that it is his awareness of his crime, proven by others warning him to cease drinking, that separates counts of violations. If he drinks all day long yet no one warns him, it is only considered one violation. If others warn him, it is considered a violation every time he continues to drink.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How does this mishnah compare to Rabbi Eliezer’s statement at the end of mishnah five? Does this mishnah go according to his opinion or not?" + ], + [ + "If he has been defiling himself for the dead all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not defile yourself! Do not defile yourself!” and he did defile himself [each time], he is liable on each instance.
If he was shaving all day he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not shave, Do not shave” and he did shave [each time], he is liable on each instance.
If he was wearing a garment of mixed linen and wool all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not put it on! Do not put it on!” and he takes it off and puts it on, he is liable on each instance.
Mishnah eight is a continuation of mishnah seven which discussed the punishment for the continuous violation of a negative commandment.
All three sections of this mishnah teach the same ruling, which we learned already in the end of mishnah seven. If a person is violating a prohibition continuously over an entire day he is only punished for one violation. In other words, even though he may have violated the prohibition several times, it is considered one continuous violation and he is only punished once. However, if he is warned by others and continues to violate the prohibition he is obligated for each violation. Since he was warned he cannot claim that he didn’t realize what he was doing.
The first two sections deal with two of the prohibitions placed by the Torah on the nazirite: ritually defile himself through contact with a dead body or shave his hair. The other prohibition for the nazirite, drinking wine, was the subject of mishnah seven.
The final section of the mishnah deals with the wearing of a garment which contains wool and linen. This is prohibited in Leviticus 19:19." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine discusses a case where one can perform one act and thereby violate eight or nine negative commandments and therefore receive eight or nine sets of lashes.", + "Our mishnah lists a situation where a person plows one furrow in the ground and yet has violated eight different negative commandments. We will describe all eight and their Biblical precedents. (1) It is forbidden to plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together (Deuteronomy 22:10). (2+3) If the animals were sanctified to the Temple then one is forbidden to use them for other purposes. Since there are two animals that were both sanctified, he has violated two negative commandments not to use sanctified property. (4) It is forbidden to sew ones vineyard with other types of seeds (Deuteronomy 22:9). If by plowing he overturns seeds in a vineyard, this is considered as if he is sewing them anew and he thereby violates this commandment. (5) It is forbidden to plow the land during the Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:4). (6) It is forbidden to plow on the Festival (see for instance Leviticus 23:7). It is also forbidden to plow on the Sabbath. However, violations of the Sabbath are not punished by lashes, as are the other violations in our mishnah, but rather by death. Since there is a principle that if one violates two commandments with one act he receives the more serious punishment, if this plowing were to have taken place on the Sabbath he would be executed and not flogged. Hence our mishnah lists the Festival and not the Sabbath. (7) A priest is forbidden to defile himself by contact with the dead or with a cemetery (Leviticus 21:1). If the plowing was done in a cemetery he will be obligated for this violation as well. (8) A nazirite is also forbidden to defile himself by contact with the dead (Numbers 6:6).", + "Hanania ben Hakinai says: “He may also have been wearing a garment mixed of wool and linen.” They said too him: “This is not of the same category.” He said to them: “Even the nazirite is not in the same category.” Hananiah ben Hakinai adds another possible violation to the list. If, while performing all of these activities, he wears the forbidden mixture of wool and linen, he has now violated a ninth prohibition. The Sages respond that this ninth violation has nothing to do with the plowing and therefore they did not list it in the first section of our mishnah. Hananiah ben Hakinai responds that being a nazirite (or a priest) who defiles himself is also not a violation that is a result of the plowing, since a nazirite and a priest are forbidden even to enter the cemetery. Since according to Hananiah the list already includes violations that are not a direct result of plowing, it may be expanded to other violations that are not a result of the plowing, such as wearing wool and linen. In this way Hananiah ben Hakinai has found a way that a person can be obligated for having violated nine prohibitions in one act.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why would the authors of the mishnah want to list all of the possible violations involved in plowing one furrow? What principle does this teach us? How does it relate to the subject of the previous mishnah?
• Section two: What might the Sages respond to Hananiah ben Hakinai, who received the last word in the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten discusses the number of lashes a transgressor is to receive.", + "How many lashes is he given? Forty save one, as it says, “By number forty” (Deuteronomy 25:2-3) which means, a number close to forty. Rabbi Judah says: “He is given forty [lashes] in full.” And where does he receive the additional lash? Between his shoulders. Through a clever midrash our mishnah learns from Deuteronomy 25:2-3 that a person can receive up to 39 lashes for a single crime. The simple reading of those verses is actually that he can receive 40 lashes. Verse 3 states explicitly, “He may be given up to forty lashes.” The Rabbis derive 39 from the fact that verse 2 ends with the word “by number” and verse 3 with the word “forty”. The midrash is that the “number” is before “forty” and therefore he is lashed 39 times. Interestingly, the Rambam thinks that the midrash in our mishnah is not the derivation of the law but rather merely a Biblical support. The real reason that he only receives a maximum of 39 lashes is that if the person counting the lashes makes a mistake of one, he will still have only received 40 lashes. In this way the court will not violate the explicit prohibition in verse 3 not to give more than 40 lashes. Rabbi Judah reads the verse literally, and therefore does prescribe forty full lashes. In mishnah thirteen we will learn that the person receives a third of the lashes on his front and two-thirds on his back. The end of our mishnah asks where does he receive the fortieth lash, according to Rabbi Judah who says that he gets 40 full lashes. The mishnah teaches that the fortieth lash is between his shoulders." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten continues to discuss the number of lashes a person is to receive.", + "Our mishnah assumes that when the Torah states that a person is to be lashed 40 (39) times, the meaning is that this is the maximum number of lashes any person can receive. Before a person is lashed, he is to be examined by doctors who will estimate how many lashes he can receive without his life being endangered. This estimate is the number of lashes that he will actually receive.", + "When they estimate the number of lashes he can stand it must be a number divisible by three. As we will learn in mishnah thirteen the lashes are divided into three sets, one set on his front and two on his back. Since they are divided into three sets, the number of lashes that the doctors say that the person can receive must be divisible by three.", + "If they estimated him capable of receiving forty, and after receiving some they said he cannot receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If they estimated him fit to receive eighteen, and after he was lashed they said he could receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. Estimates made by the doctors are not necessarily going to be accurate. If the doctors err the criminal always receives the benefit of the doubt. If they prescribe a high number of lashes, and as he is being lashed they see that he will not be able to withstand the prescribed number, they stop lashing him. If the doctors prescribe a low number, and after having finished lashing him they see that he can withstand more, they do not give him more lashes. In other words the criminal can never receive more than the prescribed number nor more than they think he can withstand.", + "If he committed a transgression which violated two prohibitions and they made one estimate [for the lashes for both prohibitions], he is lashed and then exempt [from more]. And if [they had] not [made one estimate for both], he is lashed [for one transgression], is allowed to recover and then is lashed again. If a person committed two violations with one act then there is the possibility that the lashes he receives for both will be joined together. If the doctors give one estimate as to how many lashes he can receive, for instance they say he can receive 42, 39 for the first violation and then 3 more for the second, then he receives the 42 lashes and is not lashed any more. However, if they make separate evaluations, for instance they say he can receive 39 for the first crime and do not state a number for the second, then he receives the lashes for the first crime, is allowed to heal, and then receives the prescribed number of lashes for the second crime. In other words, since the lashes were not estimated together, they are considered separate sets of lashes, and he must be allowed to recuperate in between.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three: Do you think that the ruling might be different if instead of performing one act whereby he violated two prohibitions, he instead violated two prohibitions by performing two separate acts?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth twelve describes where and how the one being lashed and the one lashing should stand. It also describes the whip itself.", + "How do they lash him? His two hands are tied to a pillar on either side of it and the minister of the synagogue grabs his clothing, if they are torn, they are torn; if they are ripped open, they are ripped open, until he exposes the offender’s chest. And a stone is placed behind the offender, the minister of the synagogue stands on it, a strap of cowhide in his hands, doubled over into two, and redoubled, and two straps that rise and fall attached to it. While being lashed the victim is tied to a post with his hands spread apart. The “minister of the synagogue”, who was responsible for most of the administrative duties, would open the offender’s garments, even if this would cause them to rip. The minister would then stand upon a stone and hold a whip in his hand. The whip was made of cowhide folded twice to make it thicker, and thereby stronger. From the central piece came out two other straps. According to the Talmud these two other straps were made of donkey’s hide, which was not as thick as the cowhide." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah thirteen continues to describe the whip and how the lashes are to be administered.", + "The handle is a handbreadth long and a handbreadth wide, its tip reaching to the edge of the [offender’s] abdomen. Our mishnah continues to describe the whip used for lashing. Its handle was one handbreadth by one handbreadth. The tip of the whip, meaning the extra straps, should be long enough to reach the offender’s abdomen when the minister strikes him. The offender will be struck by the tip and not by the body of the whip, made of the cowhide.", + "He administers one-third [of the lashes] in front and two-thirds behind. He lashes him not in a standing or sitting position but stooping, as it says, “And the judge shall cause him to fall [stoop] down” (Deut. 25:2). He who administers the lashes lashes with his one hand and with his whole force. As we learned previously, one-third of the lashes are on his front and two-thirds on his back. The offender, when he is being lashed, is not to stand nor to sit but to lean over. This is learned from the verse which states that the judge should cause him to fall over. The verse is understood not to mean that the judge should cause him to fall all the way down but to stoop down. The person lashing can use only one hand but he should use all of his force.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think that two-thirds of the lashes are given on the back and one-third on the front?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah fourteen lists the Biblical verses that are called out while the lashes are being administered. The second half of the mishnah discusses the offender either dying or befouling himself while being lashed.", + "And the one who recites, says: “If you fail to observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching…the Lord will inflict upon you extraordinary plagues (” (Deut. 25:58-59) And then (if time he returns to the beginning of the section. While the lashes are being administered Biblical verses are read out loud. These verses function as a warning to the person being lashed and to those witnessing. The verse in Deuteronomy warns that if Israel fails to observe the Torah (“Teaching”) God will punish Israel with plagues. In Hebrew the word plagues (makkoth) is the same word as lashes. This verse can be read to say that one who does not observe the Torah will be punished with lashes. If the reader has finished reciting the verses and there remains more lashes to be administered, the reader begins again to recite the verse from the beginning.", + "[“Therefore observe faithfully all the terms of this covenant” (Deut. 28:9) and he completes by saying, “And He is merciful, forgiving iniquity” (Psalms 78:38).] This line is missing in many versions of the mishnah, hence it is in brackets. Those manuscripts which do contain this line do not contain the previous line, section 2a. According to this version, a different verse is also recited and when close to finishing the lashes, the reader calls out a verse which mentions God’s mercy.", + "If the offender dies under his hand, he is exempt [from penalty]. If he gave him one more lash and the offender died, he goes into banishment. If the offender dies while being lashed the one administering the lashes is not responsible, not even as an accidental killer. This law was already learned in chapter two, mishnah two. Our mishnah adds that if the one lashing mistakenly added one lash more than was prescribed, and then the offender died, he is considered a manslayer and hence must go into banishment. The assumption is that the one lashing did not kill the offender on purpose and therefore he is not judged as an intentional killer but as an accidental one.", + "If the offender befouled himself either with feces or urine, he is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: “Feces in the case of a man and [even] urine in the case of a woman. If the offender befouls himself, either by defecating or urinating, while being lashed, the lashing ends. This is a remarkable law, teaching that even at the time when the court is by definition punishing and humiliating the criminal, we are still to be concerned for his honor. By befouling himself in public the criminal is overwhelmingly shamed, and therefore the court cannot continue to punish him. Rabbi Judah states that there is a difference between men and women. Since women are more easily shamed, if they either defecate or urinate while being flogged they are immediately exempt from further lashes. Men, on the other hand, are exempt only if they defecate, which is for obvious reasons considered to be a greater embarrassment.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the context of the verse in Deuteronomy, quoted in section one? How might this context effect how the verse is understood when recited during the lashing?
• Why do some versions have the reader call out the verse from Psalms? What message does this verse convey?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final two mishnayoth of Makkoth are in essence the final two mishnayoth of a long tractate, which at one time included both Sanhedrin and Makkoth, a total of 14 chapters. As is typical of the Mishnah, long tractates are completed with words of “aggadah”, sermonic material, not usually of a legal nature. Both of these mishnayoth teach how great will be the reward of those who fulfill the commandments and deal with some weighty theological issues.", + "All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more] ... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel. The punishment of kareth, being cut off from one’s people, while not enforced by a court of law, was considered to be a very serious punishment, one with dire consequences. The Rabbis taught that by receiving lashes one is expiated from the punishment of kareth. This is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy which calls the person being lashed “your brother”. After he has been lashed his punishment of kareth is erased and he returns to his full status as a member of Israel.", + "Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel said: “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.” All throughout our tractate and tractate Sanhedrin we have been learning about punishments, including such serious punishments as lashings, kareth and execution. Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel finds hope in the seriousness of these punishments. If a person can be so harshly punished for merely one sin, all the more great will be the reward for one who fulfills even one commandment.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage; as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept. Rabbi Shimon claims that an even greater principle can be learned from a verse dealing with kareth itself. The end of chapter 18 in Leviticus states that one who does one of these sins will be punished by kareth, i.e. cut off from his people. The beginning of the chapter states that if one performs the commandments he will live through them. In other words, the end of the chapter discusses those who transgress and the beginning of the chapter mentions those who perform the commandments. Rabbi Shimon concludes that these are flip sides to the same coin. By merely not transgressing a person is considered as if he had actively performed a commandment and will receive his just reward.", + "Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says: Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”-- now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations! Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi continues to discuss how great the reward is for performing the commandments. Deuteronomy states that one who refrains from eating the blood of an animal will merit reward, as will all of his descendents. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi points out that if a person receives such a great reward for refraining from doing something that he wouldn’t want to do anyway, since most people are disgusted by blood, how much greater will be his reward for refraining from stealing and transgressing sexually, sins which most people crave. In other words, rewards are based on resistance to evil temptations. The greater the temptation the greater the reward for resistance." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of the tractate is a continuation of mishnah fifteen.", + "Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashia says: “The Holy Blessed One, desired to make Israel worthy, therefore gave He gave them much Torah [to study] and many commandments [to perform]: for it is says, “The Lord desires [his servant’s] vindication, that he may magnify and glorify [His] teaching.” This oft-quoted mishnah responds to an important theological question regarding the performance of commandments. Why does God care, or how is God affected, by Israel performing ritual commandments, for instance, kashruth, the dietary laws? Many have asked, what does God care how I eat my meat, whether I eat it with milk or not? The answer that Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashiah gives is that by performing God’s commandment, Israel accrues merit with God. It is a way for Israel to live up to a covenant, entered into with the infinite divine. The mitvoth, the commandments, and the learning of Torah, are not magical rites, performed in order to manipulate God into treating us better. Rather they are a symbol God’s grace to Israel, a means by which Israel can act out the will of the divine. They are means by which Israel can show God how much they love God. While there are other answers to this question, this answer is one of the most meaningful and often quoted one’s that I have seen. Congratulations! We have finished Makkoth. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves. Indeed we have now finished together five tractates of Mishnah, and are more than halfway through the entire order of Nezikin. Of course, we have much more to learn. We will begin Shevuoth tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12da5e70240425325cffa7485ed1332495b1dc07 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,239 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Makkot", + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first six mishnayoth of Makkoth deal with perjuring witnesses, who according to Deuteronomy 20:18-19 are to receive the same punishment that they tried to impose upon the accused. For instance if they testified that a person was guilty of murder and therefore should be executed and then were found to have perjured themselves, they are themselves to be executed.\nThe first mishnah points out cases where this punishment upon the witnesses cannot be carried out, at least not in a simple fashion.", + "Although this mishnah begins with the question, how do witnesses become perjurers, we will not learn the mishnaic definition of perjury until mishnah four. This mishnah will instead discuss the punishment of perjuring witnesses who do not, for various, reasons, simply receive the punishment they tried to impose upon the accused.", + "How do witnesses become liable [to punishment] as perjurers?
[If they say:] “We testify that so and so [a priest] is a son of a woman who had [formerly] been divorced or a haluzah,” it is not said that each witness should himself be as if he was born of a divorcee or a haluzah; rather he receives forty [lashes]. According to Jewish law a kohen (a priest) is not allowed to marry a divorcee or a woman who had undergone the process known as “halitzah”, the refusal of the levirate marriage (marriage to the husband’s brother upon the husband’s death when he had no children, see Deuteronomy 25:5-10). A child born of the union of a priest and a divorcee or a halutzah loses his priestly status. If witnesses falsely testify that a priest is really the son of a divorcee or a halutzah, they are attempting to cause him to forfeit his status. Although in general a perjuring witness is punished with the punishment which he tried to impose, in this case it is impossible to do so. Rather he is punished by being lashed forty times (Deuteronomy 25:3).", + "[If they say]: “We testify that so and so is guilty of [a crime entailing] exile”, it is not said that each witness should himself be exiled; rather he receives forty [lashes]. If witnesses falsely testify that another person committed a crime which entails exile (we will learn which crimes entail exile in chapter two), the perjuring witnesses are not themselves exiled. Rather they received forty lashes.", + "[If they say:] “We testify that so and so divorced his wife and has not paid her kethubah” seeing that either today or tomorrow he [the husband] will pay her kethubah, the assessment should be made how much a man will be willing to pay [now] for the ownership of her kethubah, on the condition that if she should be widowed or divorced [he will take it over] but if she should die, her husband will inherit her [estate including the kethubah]. If a person falsely testifies that a man divorced his wife and did not pay her kethubah (marriage settlement) it does not make sense to punish him with a fine equal to the kethubah. Since if the husband should in the future divorce his wife or die and then have to pay the kethubah in any case, by falsely testifying now the perjuring witness didn’t necessarily cause the husband the loss of the kethubah. Rather we assess how much a person would want to pay to take a risk on buying the woman’s kethubah, on condition that if she would be divorced or widowed he would get the kethubah but if she should die before her husband he would not get the kethubah (since the husband inherits his wife). This is what he kethubah is worth at the present moment, while she and her husband are still alive, and this is what the perjuring witnesses therefore have to pay.", + "[If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend one thousand zuz on the condition that he will pay him within thirty days”, while the debtor says “ten years”, the assessment should be made how much a man is willing to pay for the use of a thousand zuz, whether he pays them in thirty days or ten years. In this scenario the witnesses falsely testify that a certain person borrowed a thousand zuz and must pay them back within thirty days. The accused does owe the thousand zuz but must pay them back only within ten years and not thirty days. Again, in this case we cannot merely fine the perjurers one thousand zuz since in the end the accused will have to pay back the zuz. Rather the witnesses tried to cause him to lose ten years minus thirty days use of the money, and they are therefore fined whatever a person would pay to use one thousand zuz for ten years minus thirty days." + ], + [ + "[If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend two hundred zuz”, and they are found to be perjurers, they are flogged and ordered to make restitution, because the count which brings upon them the flogging is not the count that brings upon them the necessity to make restitution, these are the words of Rabbi Meir.
But the Sages say: “Anyone who makes restitution is not flogged.”
This mishnah discusses the punishment for a perjuring witness in a financial case.
There is a principle in Jewish law that one cannot receive two penalties for one crime. By testifying falsely a person is committing two crimes that theoretically carry with them two different penalties: 1) flogging for transgressing the commandment against false testimony (Exodus 20:13); 2) compensation for whatever financial loss he tried to impose upon his fellow (Deuteronomy 19:18-19). According to Rabbi Meir, since these are two different crimes categorized in two different Biblical verses, a person can be punished by both being flogged and having to make financial restitution, in this case 200 zuz. However, according to the Sages, anyone who makes restitution cannot be flogged. In this case the perjuring witnesses would pay the 200 zuz and would not be flogged." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth three continues to discuss the laws of perjuring witnesses.", + "[If they say:] “We testify that so and so is liable to a flogging of forty lashes, and they are found to be perjurers, they receive eighty lashes, because of, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13) and “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuternomy 19:19), these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, “They receive only forty lashes.” This section is actually a continuation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages begun in mishnah two. According to Rabbi Meir one can receive eighty lashes for one false testimony, forty for violating the commandment in Exodus and forty for trying to impose forty lashes upon the accused, the violation mentioned in Deuteronomy. According to the Sages, since this was only one act he can receive only one punishment, namely forty lashes, as he tried to impose upon the accused.", + "Monetary impositions are shared among the offenders, but the lashes are not shared among the offenders. How so? If they testified that he owed his friend one hundred zuz, and they were found to be perjurers, they divide the corresponding damages proportionately between them. But if they testified that he was liable to a flogging of forty lashes and were found to be perjurers, each one receives forty lashes. Witnesses who perjure themselves in a monetary case are punished by a fine equal to the financial loss they tried to impose upon the accused. In this type of case the witnesses may share the burden of the financial penalty. For instance if they lied with regards to two hundred zuz, each witness will compensate the accused one hundred zuz. If, however, they lied in a case involving lashes, the witnesses do not share the lashes. Rather each witness receives the number of lashes that they attempted to impose upon the accused.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: What is the connection between the dispute in mishnah three and the dispute that we learned yesterday in mishnah two?
• Section two: Why do you think that the witnesses may share the financial penalty but not share the lashes?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four continues to discuss the laws of perjuring witnesses.", + "Witnesses are not condemned as perjurers until they themselves are incriminated; How so? If they said: “We testify that so and so killed a person” and others said to them: “How could you testify to that, as that murdered person or that [alleged] murderer was with us on that very day, at such and such a place?” [then] the witnesses are not condemned as perjurers. But, if these [other] witnesses said: “How could you testify to that, as on that very day, you were with us at such and such a place?’ [then] the former are condemned as perjurers, and are executed by their [the other witnesses] word. This mishnah contains the Rabbinic definition of the type of perjuring witnesses referred to in the Torah. According to the Rabbis witnesses who are contradicted in their testimony are not always to receive the punishment that they tried to impose upon the accused. If other witnesses come and merely contradict the first witnesses’ testimony, while the testimony of the first witnesses may be invalidated, they do not receive the punishment that they tried to impose. After all, why should the court believe the testimony of the last witnesses more than it believes the testimony of the first witnesses? Rather, only if the second set of witnesses testify that the first set of witnesses could not have even seen that which they purport to have seen are the first witnesses punished as perjurers. This is what the mishnah means when it states that the witnesses themselves must be incriminated. In other words the form of perjury referred to in the Torah is only a case where the witnesses lie about their own whereabouts at the time of the crime. If they lie about the crime itself, while they may be punished with lashes for false testimony, they do not receive the punishment they attempted to impose." + ], + [ + "If other witnesses came, and they charged them [with perjury]: then [again] others came, and they [again] charged them [with perjury], even a hundred, they are all to be executed.
Rabbi Judah says: “This is a conspiracy and the first set alone is [to be] executed.”
Mishnah five deals with multiple sets of perjuring witnesses.
According to the opinion in the first section of the mishnah every set of witnesses that perjures themselves with regards to a certain crime can be executed for perjury (if the case was a capital case). If, for instance, Reuven and Shimon testify that Jacob committed a crime which entails the death penalty and then Levi and Judah come and state that at the time of the alleged crime Reuven and Shimon were with them and not at the scene of the crime, Reuven and Shimon are executed. If afterwards Zevulun and Issachar come and testify to the same crime and again Levi and Judah claim that they were with them at the time of the crime, then Zevulun and Issachar are to be executed as well. Levi and Judah can testify against as many witnesses as they want, and even one hundred witnesses, all saying the same thing, could be executed for perjury.
Rabbi Judah claims that in this scenario there is a conspiracy between the accused and those who contradict everyone else’s testimony, namely, Levi and Judah. While we do accept their testimony, only the first set of witnesses are executed." + ], + [ + "Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial.
Because the Sadducees say: “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21).
The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19) which implies when his brother is still alive?
If so, why does it say “A life for life”?
For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial.
Mishnah six discusses at one point in the judicial process the witnesses are proven to be perjurers in order for them to receive the penalty that they tried to impose upon the accused.
This mishnah contains a dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees, two of the main Jewish sects that competed during the Second Temple period (until 70 C.E.). The issue at hand is when are the perjuring witnesses to be executed: after the trial or only after the accused has been himself executed. The Sadducees claim that perjuring witnesses are only executed if they have been successful in having the accused actually executed. In other words, the witnesses are executed not for intending to unjustly execute the accused but for actually doing so. Just as in a case of murder of person the guilty can be convicted and executed as a murderer only if he actually succeeds and murders the victim, so too in this case, the witnesses are only executed if they succeed and have the accused wrongfully executed. The Sadducees learn this from the verse that states “A life for a life”. The witnesses have their lives taken away only if the accused already lost his life.
The Sages, who assumedly are Pharisees, the predecessors of the Rabbis of the Mishnah, state that the perjurers are executed once the verdict has been delivered, meaning the wrongful verdict that they attempted to impose upon the accused. If their testimony is contradicted beforehand then they are not executed because they were not even successful in getting a verdict pronounced against the accused. The Sages arrive at this conclusion by finding the middle ground between two seemingly contradictory verses. Verse 19 says that “you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” which sounds like “his fellow” is still alive when the perjurers are executed. From this verse alone we might have concluded that the perjuring witnesses are executed as soon as their testimony is found to be false, even if the accused has not been convicted. However, verse 21, “a life for a life” seems to imply that the perjurers are executed only if the accused actually loses his life, as the Sadducees said. The middle ground is that the perjurers are not executed immediately after they give their testimony (and they are found to be perjuring themselves) nor must the accused have been actually executed for the perjurers to be executed. Rather they are executed if the trial was completed, the accused found guilty and then the witnesses proven to be perjurers." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nBoth mishnah seven and mishnah eight which we will learn tomorrow contain midrashim, exegeses, of the verse in Deuteronomy 17:6 which states that a person may be executed by the testimony of “two or three witnesses”. This statement is not a precise legal statement. If two witnesses are sufficient than the Torah should have stated two. If three witnesses are necessary the Torah should not have stated two. Since all of the Sages held that two witnesses were sufficient, they must answer why the Torah also stated three.", + "This mishnah contains three opinions with regards to a perceived problem in the Biblical verse mentioned in the beginning of the mishnah.", + "“A person shall be put to death only on the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6).
If the testimony is sufficiently established by two witnesses, why does Scripture [further] specify three? This is to compare two to three: just as three are competent to incriminate two as perjurers, so are two competent to incriminate three as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. The first solution is that the Torah teaches that a set of three witnesses can be made into perjurers even by a set of two witnesses. If the Torah had only taught “two witnesses” we might have thought that two was sufficient to incriminate two other witnesses but not three, since they are more numerous. Therefore, the Torah teaches that no matter how large the group of witnesses, even one hundred, they do not have more power than a contradictory set of two. If, therefore, three witnesses were to testify to a capital crime and the person was found guilty and condemned to die and then two witnesses claimed that the three prior witnesses were not present at the time of the alleged crime and rather were with them, the first three are executed as perjurers.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as two witnesses are not put to death until both have been incriminated as perjurers, so three are not put to death until all three have been incriminated as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that just as when a pair of witnesses testify neither can be executed until both are proven to be perjurers, so too when three witnesses testify, none may be executed until all are proven to be perjurers. Without the word “three” in the Torah we might have thought that if three or more testify and two are found to be perjurers they may be executed, even if the third was not a perjurer. After all, the two would have been sufficient to have the accused executed. Therefore the Torah teaches “three” and “witnesses” to teach that none are executed as perjurers until all are proven to be so.", + "Rabbi Akiba says: “The third witness was only mentioned in order to be stringent upon him and make his judgement the same as the other two. And if Scripture thus penalizes one who consorts with those who commit a transgression, as [if he is actually] one of those who commits the transgression, how much more so shall he who consorts with those who perform commandments receive a reward as [if he is actually] one of those who performs the commandments!” According to Rabbi Akiva, if three witnesses testify and two are incriminated as perjurers, the third witness is executed even if he was not a perjurer. He is punished not for his false testimony but for joining in with other perjurers/evildoers. Although this is a harsh sentence, Rabbi Akiva finds in it a ray of hope. If those who merely join with evildoers are punished so harshly all the more so will those who join with those who perform commandments be greatly rewarded.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would be the practical result of the various interpretations on the procedures of the court? What type of psychological effect would they have on the witnesses?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah Eight continues to expound upon the verse in Deuteronomy 17:6 which states that a person may be executed by the testimony of “two or three witnesses”.", + "Just as in the case of two witnesses, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, their whole evidence is rendered void, so it is with three, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, the whole evidence is void. How do we know that this is the case even with a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. This section is a continuation of the previous mishnah’s discussion of the verse in Deuteronomy which stated “two or three witnesses”. Another reason why the Torah states “two or three” is to teach that if one witness is invalidated (for reasons why witnesses may be invalidated see Sanhedrin 3:4), the entire grouping of witnesses is invalid. This is obvious when there are two witnesses, for if one is invalidated, obviously the other one’s singular testimony will be invalidated due to its insufficiency. However, even if there are three or more witnesses, and only one’s testimony is invalidated, and their remain two or more valid witnesses, nevertheless all of their testimony is invalidated.", + "Rabbi Yose said: “When is this true? With regards to capital cases; but in monetary suits, the evidence may be established by the rest. Rabbis says: “It is one and the same rule, be it in monetary suits or capital cases.” Rabbi Yose limits this ruling to capital crimes. In civil/monetary suits if one witness’s testimony is invalidated the other witnesses’ testimony can still stand. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and claims that there is no difference between monetary and capital cases.", + "This is the rule when both [disqualified] witnesses warned the trasngressor, but when they did not warn him, what could two brothers do that saw someone killing a person? The mishnah now again limits the ruling in section one. In order to convict someone of a capital crime he must be warned before he commits the crime. If a person warns him before he commits the crime and then he commits it anyway, the person who warned him may testify against him. If a relative warned the person before he committed the crime, he will become one of the witnesses, thereby invalidating all of the testimony due to his being a relative or otherwise invalid. If, however, the witness did not warn the potential offender, he does not necessarily become a witness and he will therefore not invalidate the others’ testimony. The mishnah points out that if merely by witnessing a crime relatives can invalidate everyone’s testimony, neither of two brothers who saw a murder would be able to testify against the murderer. If two brothers and a third person saw a murder and the law was that relatives may not join together to testify, and just by seeing the crime they become witnesses, the murderer would not be able to be convicted. Rather, the mishnah teaches that the third person can join his testimony with one of the brothers and thereby convict the accused." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine continues to discuss the laws of witnessing capital crimes. It deals with the question when are witnesses consider two groups and when are they considered one group. Furthermore this mishnah deals with the requirement of the witnesses to warn the transgressor before he commits his crime.", + "If two persons see him [the transgressor] from one window and two other persons see him from another window and one standing in the middle warns him, then, if some on one side and some on the other side can see one another, they constitute together one body of evidence, but if they cannot [see one another], they are two bodies of evidence. Consequently, if one of these is found to be a perjurer, both [the transgressor] and those two witnesses are put to death, while other group of witnesses is exempt. If a murder is witnessed by two sets of witnesses from two different angles we need to know if they are legally considered one set of witnesses or two sets. If they constitute one set of witnesses then if any one of the four is caught as a perjurer, or is otherwise invalidated, all of their testimony is invalid, and none of the witnesses can be executed, unless they were all caught as perjurers . If they are two sets of witnesses, then if one set is caught as a perjurers or otherwise disqualified, there remains a set of valid witnesses, and the transgessor is executed upon their testimony. According to the mishnah the two sets of witnesses’ testimony is joined only under two conditions: 1) the two sets can see each other; 2) the person warning the transgessor stands between the two sets of witnesses such that all may see him. If the witnesses cannot see each other or the person warning was not seen by all of the witnesses, then they are two different sets.", + "Rabbi Yose says: “He is never put to death unless two witnesses had warned him, as it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses..” (Deut. 17:6). Rabbi Yose states that two must warn the transgessor before he commits the crime in order to convict him afterwards. He learns this from the verse in Deut. 17:6, which literally translates, “by the mouth of two witnesses” (which is just idiomatic for “by two witnesses”). Rabbi Yose understands that not only the verbal testimony but the verbal warning as well must come from two witnesses.", + "Another interpretation: “By the mouth of two witnesses”: that the Sanhedrin shall not hear the evidence from the mouth of an interpreter. Another interpretation of the phrase “by the mouth of” is that testimony may not be given through a translator. A translator would cause the testimony to come from someone else’s mouth. If the witness does not speak a language that the sanhedrin understands, his testimony does not count." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten discusses a criminal who flees after being convicted. The final part of mishnah ten contains the famous discussion regarding how often the sanhedrins actually carried out executions.", + "If one fled after having been convicted at a court and again comes up before the same court, the [first] judgment is not set aside. Wherever two witnesses stand up and declare, “We testify that so and so was tried and convicted at a certain court and that so and so were the witnesses” the accused is executed. If the convicted felon fled and was returned before the same court, he is executed without another trial. If he was caught and brought before a different court two witnesses must state that this person was already convicted by another court. They must also name the court and name those who testified against the felon. If they do so he may be executed by the new court without a full trial.", + "[Trials before] a sanhedrin are customary both in the land [of Israel] and outside it. The sanhedrin of twenty three is a communal structure that is functional both in the Land of Israel and outside of it.", + "A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous. Rabbi Eliezer b. Azariah Says: once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: “Had we been members of a sanhedrin, no person would ever be put to death. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel remarked: “They would also multiply murderers in Israel.” This famous piece of mishnah testifies to some of the Rabbis’ deep hesitations with regards to the death penalty. As we have seen throughout tractate Sanhedrin and tractate Makkoth, convicting a person of a capital crime is no easy matter. The person must be warned beforehand and then the crime has to be explicitly witnessed by two valid witnesses. Therefore, the first opinion in our mishnah, concludes that a court that executes once every seven years is a murderous court. Since the laws of testimony are so strict, any court that executes more often than this is assumed to be illegally suspending the laws and is therefore, in a sense, engaging in murder itself. Rabbi Elezar ben Azariah says that once in seventy years already makes a court murderous. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva brag that had they been on a sanhedrin no one would have ever been executed. At the end of the mishnah Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the political leader of the Jews at the time, notes a sound of caution. The Rabbinic tendency to be overly lenient on executing murderers can take its toll on society. In his opinion the attitudes of the other Rabbis cause the numbers of murderers to rise.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Why might one have thought that the sanhedrin was not functional outside of the Land of Israel?
• Section three: Why do the Rabbis feel the need to state how infrequently a court should execute? What is Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s argument with the others?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe second chapter of Makkoth discusses the laws regarding accidental killing. These laws are discussed extensively in Numbers 35:9-28, 32 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13. According to these passages, if a person killed another person by accident the victim’s relative could exact blood vengeance upon the accidental killer. If the accidental killer wanted to avoid being killed by the blood avenger he would run to one of the cities of refuge that were to be established when the Land of Israel was conquered. The accidental killer would have to stay in this city until the death of the High Priest at which point he could return to his former city and the blood avenger would be forbidden from killing him.\nThe mishnah which we will learn today defines what killing is considered accidental such that it allows a killer to escape to a city of refuge.", + "The following go into banishment: one who kills in error. If [for instance] while he was pushing a roller [on the roof] and it fell down and killed somebody; If while he was lowering a cask it fell down and killed somebody; If while coming down a ladder he fell on somebody and killed him, he goes into banishment. But, if while he was pulling up the roller it fell back and killed somebody; If while he was raising a cask and the rope snapped and the cask fell and killed somebody; If while going up a ladder he fell down and killed somebody, he does not go into banishment. (1) This is the general principle: [whenever the death was caused] in the course of a downward movement, he goes into banishment, but [if it was caused] not in the course of a downward movement, he does not go into banishment. This entire section illustrates the principle that an accidental death which will force the killer to go into exile is a case where a person is lowering a heavy object or he himself is going down a ladder and the object or the person slips and accidentally kills someone. If however, he was bringing something up or going up a ladder and the object or he fell downward he is not obligated to go into exile. The difference between the two is that in the first case the likelihood of injuring someone below is relatively high and he therefore should have been more cautious. In the second case, when he is bringing something up, the likelihood that it will fall below and cause injury is unlikely. Therefore he does not need to go into exile. This section illustrates an important difference in the Rabbinic understanding of exile from the Biblical understanding of exile. In the Bible the accidental killer’s fleeing to the refuge city is to his own advantage. If he does not the blood avenger will kill him. Exile is not a punishment for a crime or for negligence but legal protection offered to an accidental killer. In the Rabbinic legal system exile is a punishment for negligence. This is probably partly due to the fact that blood vengeance was not accepted in their society. The Rabbis understand exile as a punishment for negligence. Therefore if the killing was totally unanticipated, he need not go to the city of exile.", + "If the iron slipped from its heft and killed [somebody]: Rabbi says, “He does not go into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He goes into banishment.” If it flew from the log being split: Rabbi says, “He goes into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He does not go into banishment.” Deuteronomy 19:5 brings up an example of accidental killing whereby a man goes into the forest with an ax and the “ax flies off the handle and strikes another so that he dies”. This phrase “ax flies off the handle” is read in two different ways. The Sages read the verse as we have translated it, that the instrument which kills is the metal part of the ax which flies off its handle. According to Rabbi (Judah the Prince) in this situation the person is not liable for exile. He reads the verse as if it states that the ax causes a chip to fly off from the tree and the chip kills someone else. [Rabbi would translate the word handle as “tree”, and they are both indeed the same word.] According to the Sages, in this situation he is not liable for exile." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two continues to define what killing is considered accidental such that it allows a killer to escape to a city of refuge.", + "If a man threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person, he goes into banishment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: “If after the stone had left his hand another person put out his head and caught it, the thrower is exempt [from banishment].” One who throws a stone into the public domain has thereby committed a negligent act and is exiled if the stone kills. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob the stone must be thrown at the place where a person is standing, before the stone is thrown. If after the stone is thrown a person moves into its way he is not liable to be exiled. This is probably because he is less negligent, having thrown a stone to a place where no one was standing. However, according to the first opinion in the mishnah, merely throwing a stone to a place that might kill is enough to cause the thrower to be exiled.", + "If a man threw a stone into his [own] court and killed a person, then, if the victim had a right of entry there, the thrower goes into banishment, and if not, he does not go into banishment, as it says, “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor” (Deut. 19:5): the forest is a domain accessible to the victim and to the slayer and it therefore excludes the court of the householder where the victim has no right of entry. If a person throws a stone into his own courtyard and it kills a trespasser the thrower is not liable to be exiled. This is learned from the example of accidental killing mentioned in Deuteronomy 19:5, that of an accidental killing taking place in the forest. Just as the forest is a place where anyone may enter, so too any accidental killing can only occur in a place where the victim had permission to enter. An accidental killing which takes place on private property when the victim had not been given permission to enter will not make the killer liable for exile.", + "Abba Shaul says: “Hewing of wood is an optional act and it therefore excludes a father beating his son, or a master disciplining his pupil, or an agent of the court [administering lashes].” Abba Shaul learns another law from the example given in the Torah, that of a person chopping wood. Chopping wood is a voluntary activity and therefore any accidental killing which will force the killer to go into exile must also entail voluntary activities. If however the striking was mandatory such as a father disciplining his son, a master his student or a court agent administering lashes, the accidental killer is exempt. When reading this mishnah, as harsh as it sounds we must remember that corporal discipline was an accepted part of all ancient societies." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three discusses categories of accidental killers who do or do not go into exile.", + "The father goes into banishment for [the death of] his son, and the son goes into banishment for [that of] his father. Although we learned in the previous mishnah that a father does not go into banishment if he accidentally kills his son while disciplining him, he nevertheless does go into banishment if he accidentally kills him under other circumstances. So too a son goes into banishment if he accidentally kills his father.", + "All go into banishment for [the death of] an Israelite, and Israelites go into banishment on their account, except for a resident alien. And a resident alien does not go into banishment except for [the death of another] resident alien. Anyone who accidentally kills an Israelite, meaning a Jew, is exiled, including a slave or a Samaritan (a sect that broke away from the Jews). So too, any Jew who accidentally kills someone goes into exile, even if he accidentally kills a slave or a Samaritan. The one exception is a resident alien, a person who lives in the Land of Israel and has accepted upon himself to perform the seven Noahide commandments (the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, sexual sins, theft, and eating from a living animal, as well as the injunction to establish a legal system) but has not fully converted to Judaism. If a Jew accidentally kills a resident alien he is not banished. However, if a resident alien accidentally kills a Jew he is to be executed. These laws are learned in the Talmud exegetically from Deuteronomy 19:5.", + "A blind person does not go into banishment, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “He goes into banishment.” Numbers 35:23 states that if a person drops a stone on someone else “without seeing” he is to be banished. Based on this verse there is a dispute amongst the Sages with regards to the banishing of a blind person. According to Rabbi Judah since a blind person can never see he is exempted from the laws of banishment. According to Rabbi Meir, as long as the killing was accidental the killer is banished.", + "An enemy does not go into banishment. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “An enemy is executed, for it is as if he has been warned.” Rabbi Shimon says: “There is an enemy that goes into banishment and there is an enemy that does not go into banishment: wherever it can be said that he had killed [his victim] wittingly, he goes not into banishment, and where he had slain unwittingly, he goes into banishment. A person who accidentally kills his enemy is understandably going to be looked at with some suspicion. Deuteronomy 19:11 states that “If, however, a person who is the enemy of another lies in wait for him and sets upon him and strikes him with a fatal blow” this person is to be executed. The question our mishnah asks is what to do with the an enemy who claims that he killed accidentally. According to the first opinion, since he is an enemy, he is not banished. Neither is he to be executed by a court. Rather, the blood avenger is allowed to exact revenge upon this person and not be considered guilty of murder himself. According to Rabbi Yose bar Judah he is to be executed, for we can assume that he murdered with intent, and it is as if he has already been warned not to murder such and such a person. Rabbi Shimon states that not all situations in which a person kills his enemy are the same. If it can be stated that the enemy killed with intent than he is not to be banished. In other words, the cities of refuge will not offer him protection and the blood avenger will be permitted to exact revenge. If, however, it cannot be stated that he killed with intent he is banished like all other accidental killers.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why would you think that a father doesn’t go into banishment for his son? Why would you think that a son doesn’t go into banishment for accidentally killing his father?
• Section four: There are three different opinions in this section. Try to figure out how each opinion might be based on the verse in Deuteronomy." + ], + [ + "To where are they banished? To the cities of refuge, to the three cities situated on the far side of the Jordan and the three cities situated in Canaan, as it says, “Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:14).
Not until three cities were selected in the land of Israel did the [first] three cities beyond the jordan receive fugitives, as it says, “Six cities of refuge in all” (Numbers 35:13), until all six could simultaneously receive fugitives.
Mishnah four begins to discuss the refuge cities, those cities to where the accidental killer would flee.

This mishnah begins to discuss the cities of refuge to where the accidental killer would flee in order to protect himself from the blood avenger. There were three cities on one side of the Jordan river (where the country of Jordan currently exists) and three in the land of Israel. Although the land on the other side of the Jordan river was conquered first and assumedly its refuge cities were assigned before the remainder of the land was conquered, nevertheless these refuge cities were not functional until all six had been conquered and assigned." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses the making of roads to lead to the cities of refuge and the accompaniment of the manslayer as he makes his way.", + "And direct roads were made leading from one to the other, as it says, “You shall prepare the way and divide the borders of your land into three parts” (Deut. 19:3). Roads were to be made leading to the cities of refuge so that the manslayer would not have a difficult time finding his way. Remember that if the blood avenger found him before he arrived at the city of refuge he could kill him without incurring penalty.", + "And they delegate to him to disciples of the Sages [as escorts] in case anyone attempted to slay him on the way, and that they might speak to him. Rabbi Meir says: “He may [even] plead his cause himself, as it says, “And this is the word of the manslayer” (Deut. 19:4). In order to prevent the blood avenger from finding the manslayer on his way to the city of refuge the court would assign two disciples of the Sages to travel with him and plead with the blood avenger should he try and attack while on the way. Rabbi Meir’s statement can be read in two ways. He may be suggesting that not only should the disciples of the Sages plead his case, but he should plead himself. According to this interpretation, Rabbi Meir does not disagree with the previous opinion, but rather adds upon it. Alternatively, Rabbi Meir may disagree with the previous opinion. Rabbi Meir may believe that only the manslayer may plead his case, but not the disciples of the Sages. In either case the act of pleading is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy which states “the word of the manslayer”, understood by Rabbi Meir to hint that the manslayer should plead his own case." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah six states that all killers, accidental or intentional, would initially flee to the city of refuge, before standing trial. The second half discusses issues concerning the death of the high priest, which according to Numbers 35:25, 28 is what allows the manslayer to leave the city of refuge and return home without fear of the blood avenger.", + "Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “Initially a slayer is sent in advance to [one of] the cities of refuge, whether he had slain in error or with intent and then the court sends and brings him out. Whoever was found guilty of a capital crime the court had executed, and whoever was found not guilty of a capital crime they acquitted. Whoever was found liable to banishment they restored to his place [of refuge] as it says, “And the congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he fled” (Numbers 35:25). Before a trial it is impossible to know whether the killing was done accidentally or with intent. Therefore, all killers flee to the city of refuge immediately. Afterwards the court sends for them and puts them on trial. If they are found guilty of murder they are executed. If they are found not to have killed with intent and not to have been negligent, then they are totally exempt and incur no penalty. If they are found to have killed accidentally, without intent but with some degree of negligence, then they are sent back to the city of refuge.", + "All the same are [the deaths of] the high priest who had been anointed with the anointing oil; or had worn many garments, or had retired from his office all make possible the return of the manslayer. Rabbi Judah says also the [death of the] priest who had been anointed for war makes possible the return of the manslayer. There are several different types of high priests described in our mishnah. The first are those who have been anointed with oil, a practice that only existed during the First Temple period. The second are those who wore the high priest’s special clothing, which included more pieces of clothing than a normal priest. This would have included the high priest during the Second Temple period. Thirdly, the mishnah mentions a high priest who retires from office. The manslayer may leave the city of refuge at the death of any one of these types of high priests (see Numbers 35:25, 28). According to Rabbi Judah, even the priest who has been anointed to charge the people into war, referred to in Deuteronomy 20:2, is considered to be like a high priest, and therefore his death allows the manslayer to return home.", + "Therefore, mothers of high priests would provide food and clothing for them [who had been exiled] that they might not pray for their son’s death. Naturally, it is in the best interest of the manslayer who has been banished to the refuge city for the high priest to die as quickly as possible. They may even pray for his speedy death. In order to encourage them not to pray for their sons’ deaths, the mothers of the high priests would feed and clothe the manslayers who were stuck in the cities of refuge.", + "If the high priest died at the conclusion of the trial, the slayer does not go into banishment. If he died before the trial was concluded and another high priest was appointed in his stead and the trial was then concluded, the slayer returns [home from refuge only] after the latter’s death. If the high priest were to die after the conclusion of the trial the manslayer does not need to go into banishment, for the high priest has already died. Although he never reached the city of refuge, once his trial has been concluded it is as if he is already there. If, however, the high priest dies before the conclusion of the trial and a new one is appointed, the manslayer must wait until the newly appointed high priest dies before he can leave the city of refuge.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why does Rabbi Yose bar Judah suggest that all killers initially flee to the refuge city, even before a trial?
• Section three: What does this section teach us about the nature of prayer in the eyes of the Rabbis?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven continues to deal with various law concerning the cities of refuge.", + "If the trial was concluded when there was no high priest [in office], or if one kills a high priest, or a high priest that kills, [in these cases the manslayer] can never come away from that place [of refuge]. This section is a conclusion of the previous mishnah. If the trial of the manslayer is concluded at a time when there was no high priest he can never leave the city of refuge. Even when a new high priest is appointed, his death will not free the manslayer since he was not the high priest when the person was convicted of manslaughter. Similarly, one who kills a high priest or a high priest that kills can never leave the city of refuge, since there would be no existing high priest at the conclusion of the trial.", + "He [the manslayer] may not go out to bear witness, neither for cases having to do with a religious observance, nor to bear witness in a monetary suit, nor to bear witness in a capital case. Even should [all] Israel need him, and even a general like Yoav the son of Zeruiah, he may never go out, as it is said, “to there he fled”: ‘there’ must be his abode, ‘there’ his death, ‘there’ his burial. The manslayer may not leave the city of refuge under any circumstance, even to testify to a religious matter, such as the new month. Neither may he leave to testify in monetary cases nor in capital cases. Even if he was a general in the army and Israel needed him in war, he may not leave. The mishnah emphatically states that “there”, i.e. in the city of refuge will be his permanent dwelling, his death and his burial.", + "Just as the city affords asylum so does its Sabbath boundary afford asylum. Just as the city proper offers the manslayer refuge from the blood avenger, so too does any area within the Sabbath limit (a boundary within which a person may freely travel on the Sabbath). This is defined as a 2000 amot perimeter of the city.", + "If a manslayer went beyond the boundary [of the city] and the blood avenger found him: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “For the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to kill him]; for everyone else, a matter of option.” Rabbi Akiba says: “It is a matter of option for the avenger, and anyone else [who kills him] is not liable for doing so.” If he does leave the city of refuge before the high priest dies, he is liable to be killed. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, the blood avenger is actually commanded to kill him and any other person is permitted to kill him. According to Rabbi Akiva the blood avenger may kill him, and other people may not. However, if other people do kill him they are not liable as murderers.", + "If a tree was standing within the boundary and its boughs extended beyond [the boundary] or if it was standing outside of the boundary and its boughs extended within, it wholly follows [the position of] the boughs. A tree standing in the city and leaning out of it, or standing outside of the city and leaning in, is judged to be in our out of the city boundaries based on its boughs and not on the position of its trunk. This will be of import if the manslayer reaches the tree and the blood avenger tries to kill him. If the tree is in the boundaries the blood avenger may not kill him but if it is outside of the boundaries, he may.", + "If he slew [someone] in that city [of refuge] he is banished from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. And a Levite is banished from one city to another. A person who accidentally kills someone in a city of refuge presents a legal problem since he is already in the place that protects people from the blood avenger. The mishnah remedies this problem by stating that he is to be exiled from neighborhood to neighborhood. A Levite who lives in a city of refuge (see Numbers 35:6) may not stay in the city if he accidentally kills someone. Rather he must go to a different city of refuge." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight deals with the arrival of the manslayer in the city of refuge, his acceptance there, and his eventual leaving of the city.", + "A manslayer who went to his city of his refuge and the men of that city wished to do him honor, should [refuse] by saying to them, “I am a manslayer!”. If they say to him, “Nevertheless” he should accept from them [the proffered honor], as it is said: “and this is the word of the manslayer.” Upon reaching the city of refuge the manslayer should initially attempt to refuse any honors that the people of the city may offer him. However, if they insist he may accept. This is learned from the verse, “and this is the word of the manslayer.” The mishnah understands the verse as hinting that the manslayer need only speak one word of refusal of honor. He need not refuse a second time.", + "They used to pay rent to the Levites, according to the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “They did not pay them rent.” According to Numbers 35:6 the cities of refuge are actually owned by the tribe of Levi which was not apportioned a geographical inheritance in Israel as were the other tribes. Therefore Rabbi Judah states that those who fled to the city of refuge must pay rent to the Levites. Rabbi Meir hold that they need not.", + "And [on his return home] he returns to the office he formerly held, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “He does not return to the office he formerly held.” When he returns to his former home after the death of the high priest, Rabbi Meir holds that he returns to his former positions of power and honor. Rabbi Judah holds that he does not.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What might be the connection between the two disputes at the end of this mishnah? Are Rabbis Meir and Judah holding consistent opinions? If so, what conception of manslaying underlies each of their words?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe final chapter of Makkoth discussed those who are liable to be flogged. There are three reasons that a person is flogged: 1) one who transgresses a Biblical law for which the penalty is kareth (heavenly excommunication). According to the Rabbis one who was flogged is not penalized by kareth, considered to be a more serious punishment. 2) One who transgresses a Biblical law which is punishable by death by the hands of Heaven. 3) One who transgresses a Biblical negative commandment, provided the transgression was active. Our chapter lists many categories of those who are to flogged but the list is not exhaustive.", + "And these are liable to be flogged:
One who had relations with his sister, or his father's sister, or his mother's sister, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or his father's brother's wife, or a menstruant; This mishnah lists sexual offenses which are not punishable by death. In each of these cases both offenders, the man and the woman will be flogged. These forbidden relations are discussed in Leviticus chapters eighteen and twenty.", + "A high priest who marries a widow, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee or a halutzah; This section lists marriages forbidden to high priests and ordinary priests. They are listed in Leviticus 21:7, 13-15.", + "An Israelite who marries a mamzereth or natinah, or an Israelite woman who is married to a mamzer or a natin. This section lists marriages forbidden to ordinary Israelites. A mamzer or mamzereth (a female mamzer), mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:3, is one born of a forbidden union which carries with it a punishment of kareth or death. A natin or natina (a female natin) is a descendent of the Gibeonites, those who tricked Joshua into accepting them as converts, upon which he declared them to be woodchoppers and water-drawers and forbade them to marry ordinary Israelites (Joshua 9:27).", + "In the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a widow [a high priest] is liable on two counts. But in the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a halutzah, an ordinary priest is liable only on one count. A widow who is also a divorcee, i.e. her first husband died and her second husband divorced her, is forbidden to a high priest on two counts. If he were to marry such a woman he would be obligated to be flogged for each transgression, even though he did only one act. A divorcee and a halutzah (one who has been rejected by her levir, her dead husband’s brother) are forbidden to an ordinary priest. However, the prohibition of the halutzah to an ordinary priest is only a Rabbinic prohibition, not Biblical, as is the prohibition to a divorcee Therefore, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee who is also a halutzah is only flogged for one transgression." + ], + [ + "An unclean person who ate holy meat (Leviticus 7:20, 12:4);
One who entered the sanctuary while unclean (Leviticus 12:4, Numbers 5:3, 19:13);
One who ate forbidden fat or blood (Leviticus 3:16, 7:23-27);
Or leftover sacrificial meats (Leviticus 19:6-8);
Or sacrifices that had been offered up with improper intention (Leviticus 7:18);
Or [an offering] that has became unclean (Leviticus 7:19);
One who slaughters, or offers up a sacrifice, outside the Temple precincts (Leviticus 17:4);
One who ate leavened [bread] during Passover (Exodus 12:15, 19);
One who partakes of food [or drink] or does work on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-31);
One who puts together the ingredients for the [anointing] oil, or the ingredients for the incense, or anoints with the oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-28):
One who eats an animal that died a natural death (Deuteronomy 14:21);
Or was improperly slaughtered (Exodus 22:30);
Or any of the [creatures deemed] ‘abominable’ and ‘teeming’ (Leviticus 11:11, 40).
One who eats non-tithed produce, or first-tithe from which heave offering has not been removed, or unredeemed second-tithe, or unredeemed sanctified property.
How much untithed produce is one to eat to become liable? Rabbi Shimon says: “Any amount.” The Sages say: “An olive's size.” Rabbi Shimon said to them: “Do you not admit that if one ate the minutest ant that he would be liable? They said to him: “[Only] because it is a whole creature.” He said to them: “Even a grain of wheat is a whole entity.”
The first fourteen sections of our mishnah mostly lists different types of forbidden foods and a few other Temple related prohibitions for which one is to be flogged. Section fifteen discusses the amount of untithed produce that if one eats he is liable for a transgression.
Section fifteen: According to Rabbi Shimon one is liable for flogging if he eats any amount of untithed produce, even a single grain. The Sages disagree and state that only if one eats an olive’s size of untithed produce is he liable for flogging. Less than that and he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon attempts to prove his point by making an analogy to eating an entire ant. All agree that if one eats an entire ant (on purpose) he is liable to be flogged, even though the ant is smaller than an olive. The Sages respond that one is liable for eating an ant since it is an entire creature. Since it is a distinct, full entity it is enough to make one who consumes it liable for punishment. Rabbi Shimon responds that a single grain is also a whole entity, and therefore one who eats a single grain of untithed produce is liable to be flogged as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah continues to discuss which transgressions are punishable by flogging.", + "One who eats of first fruits previous to the recital over them (Deut. 26:3-10); First fruits were to be brought to Jerusalem and given as a gift to the priests. The bearer of the first fruits was supposed to recite a liturgical text contained in Deuteronomy 26:3-10, which contained a brief history of Israel (the text is now part of the Passover Haggadah). A priest who ate of the first fruits before the recitation was made was punished by flogging.", + "Of most holy things outside of the Temple curtains (Exodus 27:9); Certain sacrifices were only to be eaten within the curtains of the Temple. These included sin offerings and guilt offerings. One who ate them outside of this area was punished by flogging.", + "Of lesser holy things or of second tithe, outside the city wall (Deut. 12:17-18). Other sacrifices could be consumed anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem. These included thanksgiving offerings, offerings of wellbeing and the Passover offering. The second tithe was to be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. One who ate any of these things outside of the walls was punished by flogging.", + "One who breaks a bone of a ritually clean Passover offering receives forty [lashes] (Exodus 12:46); But one who leaves over a clean [Passover offering] (Exodus 12:10), or breaks a bone of an unclean [Passover offering], is not given forty [lashes]. The Torah forbids breaking a bone of the Passover sacrifice. The mishnah limits this law to a Passover sacrifice brought by a ritually clean person. Usually unclean people could not bring the Passover sacrifice and they were to wait a month and celebrate what is called Pesach Sheni, or The Second Passover (see Numbers 9:4-13). However, if most of the congregation was impure at the time of the first Passover (the 14th of Nissan) they were allowed to sacrifice the Passover offering while impure. Our mishnah teaches that one who breaks a bone of a Passover offering brought while the congregation is impure is not liable to be lashed. The Torah also states that the Passover offering must be consumed that very night. One who does not consume the Passover offering, while having violated a commandment, is nevertheless not flogged. We will learn why in the next mishnah.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think a person who breaks the bone of an impure Passover offering is not to liable for flogging?" + ], + [ + "If one takes the mother bird with the young (Deuteronomy 22:6-7): Rabbi Judah says he is flogged and need not [then] send the mother free; But the Sages say: “He lets the mother go and is not flogged.”
This is the general principle; any negative commandment which involves a positive deed, one is not liable (for transgressing over.
Mishnah four discusses the prohibition of taking a mother bird with her young.
The last section of the mishnah states the principle that will explain the Sages’ position in the previous section as well as the last section of the previous mishnah. According to the mishnah any negative commandment which can be immediately remedied by a positive deed is not punishable by lashing. Our two mishnayoth illustrate commandments of this nature. Deuteronomy 22:6-7 states: “Do not take the mother (bird) with the young, Let the mother go”. The Sages understand the first half of this statement to be a negative commandment and the second half a positive deed which would remedy the violation of the negative commandment. In other words one who violates the negative commandment by taking the mother and the young can remedy it by doing a positive deed, namely by releasing the mother. Therefore, the Sages say that since he released the mother, he is not liable to be flogged.
Rabbi Judah reads the verse differently. He understands the second half to mean “Let the mother go” before you take her and the young. Once the person has taken the mother bird while the young are together with her in the nest he is immediately punishable by flogging, since he cannot remedy the situation. Since the commandment has already been violated and cannot be remedied, he is not obligated to release the mother bird.
This same general rule is also applicable with regards to the end of the previous mishnah which discussed leaving the Passover offering until morning. Exodus 12:10 states: “You shall not leave any of it until morning; if any of it is left until morning you shall burn it.” Again the first half of the verse is a negative commandment and the second half contains a remedy to the violation of that commandment. Therefore one who violates the prohibition of leaving the sacrifice until morning is not flogged." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses the various prohibitions of shaving one’s head either as a sign of mourning (Leviticus 21:5, Deuteronomy 14:1) or in general (Leviticus 19:26). These prohibitions are punishable by flogging.", + "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Making a baldness on one’s head as a sign of mourning is prohibited in Deuteronomy 14:1 and Leviticus 21:5. Rounding the corner of one’s head and marring the corner of one’s beard are prohibited in Leviticus 19:27. Cutting one’s flesh for the dead is prohibited in Leviticus 19:28. All of these transgressions are punishable by flogging. Our mishnah now proceeds to list how many violations are contained in each of these commandments.", + "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause a: With regards to cutting one’s flesh, each cut for each dead counts as a violation. If he cuts once for five dead he receives five sets of lashes. Likewise, if he cuts five times for one dead he receives five sets of lashes.", + "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause b: Rounding one’s head is considered two violations, one for each side of the head. Therefore he will receive two sets of lashes.", + "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause c: Marring the corners of one’s beard is considered five violations, two for marring each side and one for marring the chin. Therefore he will receive five sets of lashes.", + "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause d: Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the previous opinion. In his opinion just because there are separate areas of the head to round or beard to mar does not mean that one is obligated lashes for each section. What causes a person to receive multiple sets of lashes is his having violated the prohibition on different occasions. If he mars one part of the beard today and another at a later time, for instance tomorrow, he will be obligated for two sets of lashes. However, if he violates the prohibition in one sitting he is only obligated for one set of lashes.", + "And he is only liable if he takes off with a razor; Rabbi Eliezer says: “Even if he picks off the hairs with tweezers, or with pincers, he is liable. According to the first opinion in the mishnah he is only liable for having marred his beard if he does so with a razor. Rabbi Eliezer holds that marring even with pincers or tweezers is a violation of the commandment.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: What might be the basis of Rabbi Eliezer’s disagreement with the previous opinion?" + ], + [ + "He who writes an incision on his skin [is flogged].
If he writes [on his flesh] without incising, or incises without writing, he is not liable, until he writes and incises with ink, eye-paint or anything that lasts.
Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: “He is not liable until he has written there the name [of a god], as it is says: “Nor shall you incise any marks on yourselves; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).
This mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah which discussed the prohibitions in Leviticus 19:27-28.
The last half of verse Lev. 19:28 prohibits tattooing, defined in our mishnah as incising with a knife and making a permanent mark. If he were to incise without using permanent ink, or write on himself with permanent ink without first incising he would not be liable for lashes.
The first opinion in the mishnah understood that one is liable to be flogged no matter what he writes. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah disagrees and states that one is obligated only if he writes the name of another god. This is learned from the end or verse 28, “I am the Lord”. Rabbi Shimon understands this to mean God saying, “I am the Lord” and therefore you may not write any other god’s name." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven discusses a nazirite who violates the prohibition of drinking wine.", + "If a nazirite has been drinking wine all day, he is liable for only one lashing. If they said to him, “Don’t drink wine”, “Don’t drink wine”, and he kept drinking, he is liable for each instance. A nazirite is forbidden to shave his hair, drink wine or become impure (Numbers 6:1-21). Our mishnah asks the question about a nazirite who drinks wine all day long. Is this considered one violation or many violations? In other words, what splits one act of violation from another, in order to make him liable on multiple counts? The mishnah states that it is his awareness of his crime, proven by others warning him to cease drinking, that separates counts of violations. If he drinks all day long yet no one warns him, it is only considered one violation. If others warn him, it is considered a violation every time he continues to drink.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How does this mishnah compare to Rabbi Eliezer’s statement at the end of mishnah five? Does this mishnah go according to his opinion or not?" + ], + [ + "If he has been defiling himself for the dead all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not defile yourself! Do not defile yourself!” and he did defile himself [each time], he is liable on each instance.
If he was shaving all day he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not shave, Do not shave” and he did shave [each time], he is liable on each instance.
If he was wearing a garment of mixed linen and wool all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not put it on! Do not put it on!” and he takes it off and puts it on, he is liable on each instance.
Mishnah eight is a continuation of mishnah seven which discussed the punishment for the continuous violation of a negative commandment.
All three sections of this mishnah teach the same ruling, which we learned already in the end of mishnah seven. If a person is violating a prohibition continuously over an entire day he is only punished for one violation. In other words, even though he may have violated the prohibition several times, it is considered one continuous violation and he is only punished once. However, if he is warned by others and continues to violate the prohibition he is obligated for each violation. Since he was warned he cannot claim that he didn’t realize what he was doing.
The first two sections deal with two of the prohibitions placed by the Torah on the nazirite: ritually defile himself through contact with a dead body or shave his hair. The other prohibition for the nazirite, drinking wine, was the subject of mishnah seven.
The final section of the mishnah deals with the wearing of a garment which contains wool and linen. This is prohibited in Leviticus 19:19." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine discusses a case where one can perform one act and thereby violate eight or nine negative commandments and therefore receive eight or nine sets of lashes.", + "Our mishnah lists a situation where a person plows one furrow in the ground and yet has violated eight different negative commandments. We will describe all eight and their Biblical precedents. (1) It is forbidden to plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together (Deuteronomy 22:10). (2+3) If the animals were sanctified to the Temple then one is forbidden to use them for other purposes. Since there are two animals that were both sanctified, he has violated two negative commandments not to use sanctified property. (4) It is forbidden to sew ones vineyard with other types of seeds (Deuteronomy 22:9). If by plowing he overturns seeds in a vineyard, this is considered as if he is sewing them anew and he thereby violates this commandment. (5) It is forbidden to plow the land during the Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:4). (6) It is forbidden to plow on the Festival (see for instance Leviticus 23:7). It is also forbidden to plow on the Sabbath. However, violations of the Sabbath are not punished by lashes, as are the other violations in our mishnah, but rather by death. Since there is a principle that if one violates two commandments with one act he receives the more serious punishment, if this plowing were to have taken place on the Sabbath he would be executed and not flogged. Hence our mishnah lists the Festival and not the Sabbath. (7) A priest is forbidden to defile himself by contact with the dead or with a cemetery (Leviticus 21:1). If the plowing was done in a cemetery he will be obligated for this violation as well. (8) A nazirite is also forbidden to defile himself by contact with the dead (Numbers 6:6).", + "Hanania ben Hakinai says: “He may also have been wearing a garment mixed of wool and linen.” They said too him: “This is not of the same category.” He said to them: “Even the nazirite is not in the same category.” Hananiah ben Hakinai adds another possible violation to the list. If, while performing all of these activities, he wears the forbidden mixture of wool and linen, he has now violated a ninth prohibition. The Sages respond that this ninth violation has nothing to do with the plowing and therefore they did not list it in the first section of our mishnah. Hananiah ben Hakinai responds that being a nazirite (or a priest) who defiles himself is also not a violation that is a result of the plowing, since a nazirite and a priest are forbidden even to enter the cemetery. Since according to Hananiah the list already includes violations that are not a direct result of plowing, it may be expanded to other violations that are not a result of the plowing, such as wearing wool and linen. In this way Hananiah ben Hakinai has found a way that a person can be obligated for having violated nine prohibitions in one act.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why would the authors of the mishnah want to list all of the possible violations involved in plowing one furrow? What principle does this teach us? How does it relate to the subject of the previous mishnah?
• Section two: What might the Sages respond to Hananiah ben Hakinai, who received the last word in the mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten discusses the number of lashes a transgressor is to receive.", + "How many lashes is he given? Forty save one, as it says, “By number forty” (Deuteronomy 25:2-3) which means, a number close to forty. Rabbi Judah says: “He is given forty [lashes] in full.” And where does he receive the additional lash? Between his shoulders. Through a clever midrash our mishnah learns from Deuteronomy 25:2-3 that a person can receive up to 39 lashes for a single crime. The simple reading of those verses is actually that he can receive 40 lashes. Verse 3 states explicitly, “He may be given up to forty lashes.” The Rabbis derive 39 from the fact that verse 2 ends with the word “by number” and verse 3 with the word “forty”. The midrash is that the “number” is before “forty” and therefore he is lashed 39 times. Interestingly, the Rambam thinks that the midrash in our mishnah is not the derivation of the law but rather merely a Biblical support. The real reason that he only receives a maximum of 39 lashes is that if the person counting the lashes makes a mistake of one, he will still have only received 40 lashes. In this way the court will not violate the explicit prohibition in verse 3 not to give more than 40 lashes. Rabbi Judah reads the verse literally, and therefore does prescribe forty full lashes. In mishnah thirteen we will learn that the person receives a third of the lashes on his front and two-thirds on his back. The end of our mishnah asks where does he receive the fortieth lash, according to Rabbi Judah who says that he gets 40 full lashes. The mishnah teaches that the fortieth lash is between his shoulders." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten continues to discuss the number of lashes a person is to receive.", + "Our mishnah assumes that when the Torah states that a person is to be lashed 40 (39) times, the meaning is that this is the maximum number of lashes any person can receive. Before a person is lashed, he is to be examined by doctors who will estimate how many lashes he can receive without his life being endangered. This estimate is the number of lashes that he will actually receive.", + "When they estimate the number of lashes he can stand it must be a number divisible by three. As we will learn in mishnah thirteen the lashes are divided into three sets, one set on his front and two on his back. Since they are divided into three sets, the number of lashes that the doctors say that the person can receive must be divisible by three.", + "If they estimated him capable of receiving forty, and after receiving some they said he cannot receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If they estimated him fit to receive eighteen, and after he was lashed they said he could receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. Estimates made by the doctors are not necessarily going to be accurate. If the doctors err the criminal always receives the benefit of the doubt. If they prescribe a high number of lashes, and as he is being lashed they see that he will not be able to withstand the prescribed number, they stop lashing him. If the doctors prescribe a low number, and after having finished lashing him they see that he can withstand more, they do not give him more lashes. In other words the criminal can never receive more than the prescribed number nor more than they think he can withstand.", + "If he committed a transgression which violated two prohibitions and they made one estimate [for the lashes for both prohibitions], he is lashed and then exempt [from more]. And if [they had] not [made one estimate for both], he is lashed [for one transgression], is allowed to recover and then is lashed again. If a person committed two violations with one act then there is the possibility that the lashes he receives for both will be joined together. If the doctors give one estimate as to how many lashes he can receive, for instance they say he can receive 42, 39 for the first violation and then 3 more for the second, then he receives the 42 lashes and is not lashed any more. However, if they make separate evaluations, for instance they say he can receive 39 for the first crime and do not state a number for the second, then he receives the lashes for the first crime, is allowed to heal, and then receives the prescribed number of lashes for the second crime. In other words, since the lashes were not estimated together, they are considered separate sets of lashes, and he must be allowed to recuperate in between.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three: Do you think that the ruling might be different if instead of performing one act whereby he violated two prohibitions, he instead violated two prohibitions by performing two separate acts?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth twelve describes where and how the one being lashed and the one lashing should stand. It also describes the whip itself.", + "How do they lash him? His two hands are tied to a pillar on either side of it and the minister of the synagogue grabs his clothing, if they are torn, they are torn; if they are ripped open, they are ripped open, until he exposes the offender’s chest. And a stone is placed behind the offender, the minister of the synagogue stands on it, a strap of cowhide in his hands, doubled over into two, and redoubled, and two straps that rise and fall attached to it. While being lashed the victim is tied to a post with his hands spread apart. The “minister of the synagogue”, who was responsible for most of the administrative duties, would open the offender’s garments, even if this would cause them to rip. The minister would then stand upon a stone and hold a whip in his hand. The whip was made of cowhide folded twice to make it thicker, and thereby stronger. From the central piece came out two other straps. According to the Talmud these two other straps were made of donkey’s hide, which was not as thick as the cowhide." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah thirteen continues to describe the whip and how the lashes are to be administered.", + "The handle is a handbreadth long and a handbreadth wide, its tip reaching to the edge of the [offender’s] abdomen. Our mishnah continues to describe the whip used for lashing. Its handle was one handbreadth by one handbreadth. The tip of the whip, meaning the extra straps, should be long enough to reach the offender’s abdomen when the minister strikes him. The offender will be struck by the tip and not by the body of the whip, made of the cowhide.", + "He administers one-third [of the lashes] in front and two-thirds behind. He lashes him not in a standing or sitting position but stooping, as it says, “And the judge shall cause him to fall [stoop] down” (Deut. 25:2). He who administers the lashes lashes with his one hand and with his whole force. As we learned previously, one-third of the lashes are on his front and two-thirds on his back. The offender, when he is being lashed, is not to stand nor to sit but to lean over. This is learned from the verse which states that the judge should cause him to fall over. The verse is understood not to mean that the judge should cause him to fall all the way down but to stoop down. The person lashing can use only one hand but he should use all of his force.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think that two-thirds of the lashes are given on the back and one-third on the front?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah fourteen lists the Biblical verses that are called out while the lashes are being administered. The second half of the mishnah discusses the offender either dying or befouling himself while being lashed.", + "And the one who recites, says: “If you fail to observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching…the Lord will inflict upon you extraordinary plagues (” (Deut. 25:58-59) And then (if time he returns to the beginning of the section. While the lashes are being administered Biblical verses are read out loud. These verses function as a warning to the person being lashed and to those witnessing. The verse in Deuteronomy warns that if Israel fails to observe the Torah (“Teaching”) God will punish Israel with plagues. In Hebrew the word plagues (makkoth) is the same word as lashes. This verse can be read to say that one who does not observe the Torah will be punished with lashes. If the reader has finished reciting the verses and there remains more lashes to be administered, the reader begins again to recite the verse from the beginning.", + "[“Therefore observe faithfully all the terms of this covenant” (Deut. 28:9) and he completes by saying, “And He is merciful, forgiving iniquity” (Psalms 78:38).] This line is missing in many versions of the mishnah, hence it is in brackets. Those manuscripts which do contain this line do not contain the previous line, section 2a. According to this version, a different verse is also recited and when close to finishing the lashes, the reader calls out a verse which mentions God’s mercy.", + "If the offender dies under his hand, he is exempt [from penalty]. If he gave him one more lash and the offender died, he goes into banishment. If the offender dies while being lashed the one administering the lashes is not responsible, not even as an accidental killer. This law was already learned in chapter two, mishnah two. Our mishnah adds that if the one lashing mistakenly added one lash more than was prescribed, and then the offender died, he is considered a manslayer and hence must go into banishment. The assumption is that the one lashing did not kill the offender on purpose and therefore he is not judged as an intentional killer but as an accidental one.", + "If the offender befouled himself either with feces or urine, he is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: “Feces in the case of a man and [even] urine in the case of a woman. If the offender befouls himself, either by defecating or urinating, while being lashed, the lashing ends. This is a remarkable law, teaching that even at the time when the court is by definition punishing and humiliating the criminal, we are still to be concerned for his honor. By befouling himself in public the criminal is overwhelmingly shamed, and therefore the court cannot continue to punish him. Rabbi Judah states that there is a difference between men and women. Since women are more easily shamed, if they either defecate or urinate while being flogged they are immediately exempt from further lashes. Men, on the other hand, are exempt only if they defecate, which is for obvious reasons considered to be a greater embarrassment.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the context of the verse in Deuteronomy, quoted in section one? How might this context effect how the verse is understood when recited during the lashing?
• Why do some versions have the reader call out the verse from Psalms? What message does this verse convey?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final two mishnayoth of Makkoth are in essence the final two mishnayoth of a long tractate, which at one time included both Sanhedrin and Makkoth, a total of 14 chapters. As is typical of the Mishnah, long tractates are completed with words of “aggadah”, sermonic material, not usually of a legal nature. Both of these mishnayoth teach how great will be the reward of those who fulfill the commandments and deal with some weighty theological issues.", + "All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more] ... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel. The punishment of kareth, being cut off from one’s people, while not enforced by a court of law, was considered to be a very serious punishment, one with dire consequences. The Rabbis taught that by receiving lashes one is expiated from the punishment of kareth. This is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy which calls the person being lashed “your brother”. After he has been lashed his punishment of kareth is erased and he returns to his full status as a member of Israel.", + "Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel said: “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.” All throughout our tractate and tractate Sanhedrin we have been learning about punishments, including such serious punishments as lashings, kareth and execution. Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel finds hope in the seriousness of these punishments. If a person can be so harshly punished for merely one sin, all the more great will be the reward for one who fulfills even one commandment.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage; as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept. Rabbi Shimon claims that an even greater principle can be learned from a verse dealing with kareth itself. The end of chapter 18 in Leviticus states that one who does one of these sins will be punished by kareth, i.e. cut off from his people. The beginning of the chapter states that if one performs the commandments he will live through them. In other words, the end of the chapter discusses those who transgress and the beginning of the chapter mentions those who perform the commandments. Rabbi Shimon concludes that these are flip sides to the same coin. By merely not transgressing a person is considered as if he had actively performed a commandment and will receive his just reward.", + "Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says: Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”-- now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations! Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi continues to discuss how great the reward is for performing the commandments. Deuteronomy states that one who refrains from eating the blood of an animal will merit reward, as will all of his descendents. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi points out that if a person receives such a great reward for refraining from doing something that he wouldn’t want to do anyway, since most people are disgusted by blood, how much greater will be his reward for refraining from stealing and transgressing sexually, sins which most people crave. In other words, rewards are based on resistance to evil temptations. The greater the temptation the greater the reward for resistance." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of the tractate is a continuation of mishnah fifteen.", + "Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashia says: “The Holy Blessed One, desired to make Israel worthy, therefore gave He gave them much Torah [to study] and many commandments [to perform]: for it is says, “The Lord desires [his servant’s] vindication, that he may magnify and glorify [His] teaching.” This oft-quoted mishnah responds to an important theological question regarding the performance of commandments. Why does God care, or how is God affected, by Israel performing ritual commandments, for instance, kashruth, the dietary laws? Many have asked, what does God care how I eat my meat, whether I eat it with milk or not? The answer that Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashiah gives is that by performing God’s commandment, Israel accrues merit with God. It is a way for Israel to live up to a covenant, entered into with the infinite divine. The mitvoth, the commandments, and the learning of Torah, are not magical rites, performed in order to manipulate God into treating us better. Rather they are a symbol God’s grace to Israel, a means by which Israel can act out the will of the divine. They are means by which Israel can show God how much they love God. While there are other answers to this question, this answer is one of the most meaningful and often quoted one’s that I have seen. Congratulations! We have finished Makkoth. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves. Indeed we have now finished together five tractates of Mishnah, and are more than halfway through the entire order of Nezikin. Of course, we have much more to learn. We will begin Shevuoth tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1601008fd61728c8d172d2680fe19aa6719656fe --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,447 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה סנהדרין", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first four mishnayoth of Sanhedrin discuss how many judges are needed to adjudicate certain cases of civil and criminal law. The typical number for civil cases was three and the typical number for criminal cases was twenty-three. The problem will arise in situations where it is not clear whether a certain case is civil or criminal.", + "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three. Property cases include disputes arising out of loans, sales, inheritance, gifts and other similar monetary matters.", + "Cases concerning robbery or personal injury, by three. Personal injury is a case where one person directly injures another. Robbery, as we learned in Bava Kamma chapter nine, does not carry with it a penalty of twofold restitution as does thievery.", + "Claims for full damages or half-damages, twofold restitution, or fourfold or fivefold restitution, by three. Full damages are assessed when a “warned” animal, one that has previously injured three times, causes further damage. Half-damages are assessed when the damaging animal had not injured three times. Twofold restitution is the penalty for a thief, and fourfold or fivefold restitution is the penalty for a thief who stole an animal and either sold it or slaughtered it.", + "Claims against a rapist, a seducer and one who defames [a virgin are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: “One who defames [a virgin is decided] by twenty-three, for there may arise from it a capital case. According to the Torah the rapist (Deut. 22:29) and the seducer (Ex. 22:16-17) pay fines of 50 shekel for having illegally taken the woman’s virginity. In addition, according to the Rabbis the rapist also pays for injuring the woman as would any person who causes another person injury (see Bava Kamma, chapter eight). The “one who defames a virgin” is referred to in Deut. 22:13-22. This is a case where a husband falsely claims that the wife was not a virgin. If the husband was found to be a liar he is beaten and must pay a fine of 100 shekels. If his accusation turned out to be true the woman is put to death. The Rabbinic understanding of this law greatly differs from its simple understanding in the Torah, but now is not the place for a detailed explanation." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two continues to list the numbers of judges needed for different types of cases.", + "[Cases concerning offenses punishable by] beating [are decided] by three. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said twenty-three. According to Deut. 25:1-3, in certain cases a criminal is punished by beating through lashes. According to Rabbi Yishmael, although this is not truly a capital case, it nevertheless must be adjudicated by twenty-three probably because they occasionally will lead to death.", + "The intercalation of the month and intercalation of the year [are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The matter is begun by three, discussed by five, and decided upon by seven. But if they decided upon it with three, the intercalation is valid.” A month according to the Jewish calendar is 29 or 30 days. The court would decide each month whether the month should have 29 or 30 days. This was the intercalation of the month. The intercalation of the year was the decision whether or not to add another month of Adar (the twelfth month of the Jewish year if we begin counting at Nisan) in order to turn the twelve month year into a thirteen month year. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the process of the intercalation of the year is such a serious matter that it must be discussed by more than three judges. The process is begun with three. If they agree to intercalate the year two more judges are added. If they still agree then yet another two judges are added. If the seven agree then the year becomes intercalated. However, if they decided with only three judges the intercalation is nevertheless valid.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel considered the intercalation of the year to be such an important issue?" + ], + [ + "The laying on of the elders’ hands and the breaking of the heifer’s neck [are decided upon] by three, according to Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Judah says: “By five.”
The rites of halitzah and “refusal” [are performed] before three.
The fruit of fourth year plantings and Second Tithes whose value is not known [are redeemed] before three.
Things dedicated to the Temple [are redeemed] before three.
Vows of evaluation to be redeemed with movable property, [are evaluated] before three. Rabbi Judah says: “One must be a priest.” [Vows of evaluation], [to be redeemed] with land [are evaluated] before nine and a priest.
And similarly [for the evaluation] of a man.
Mishnah three deals with the number of judges needed in cases that are of a religious/ritual nature.
Section one: According to Leviticus 4:13-21, when the whole community of Israel commits an accidental transgression, they must bring a bull as a sin offering. According to verse 15, before sacrificing the bull the elders would lay their hands on the bull’s head. Our mishnah teaches that this laying on of the hands was done by three judges.
The “breaking of the heifer’s neck” refers to Deut. 21:1-9. These verses describe a ritual of expiation that was to be done in the case where a person was found murdered but the murderer was unknown. Deuteronomy refers to “elders” who were to carry out the process and our mishnah teaches that there were three.
Section two: Halitzah is the refusal of the Levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10). If a woman’s husband dies and they have no offspring, his brother is obligated to marry her and bring forth offspring on his dead brother’s behalf. This is called “Levirate marriage”. If the brother should refuse to do so, they must go through a process called Halitzah before the woman is free to marry someone else. This is done in front of three judges.
“Refusal” refers to a daughter who was married off by her brother or mother. According to the Rabbis a father has a right to marry off his daughter while she is a minor and this marriage is totally binding and the girl cannot be released from the marriage except upon the death of the husband or divorce. However, a mother or brother’s ability to marry off the girl is less binding. When she becomes of a majority age she may refuse her husband and thereby annul the marriage. The “refusal” must be done in front of three judges.
Section three: Plants that are in their fourth year and the Second Tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. If one lived far from Jerusalem and did not wish to carry all of this produce all the way to Jerusalem he could “redeem” the produce and bring the money to Jerusalem and use it to buy food there. The redeeming had to be done in front of three judges.
Section four: If a person dedicated an animal to the Temple that was not fit to be sacrificed, for instance a donkey, he could redeem the animal and donate the money to the Temple (Lev. 27:11). The redemption had to be done in front of three.
Section five: According to Lev. 27 a person could take a vow to donate his own value to the Temple. In such a case the Torah gives set amounts of money that must be donated to the Temple, depending on the age and gender of the one who took the vow. In general, since the Torah prescribes set amounts, no judges will be needed to evaluate how much the person owes. If however, the person has no money, he will need to donate some of his property. If the property to be donated is movable property a court of three is sufficient for its evaluation. According to Rabbi Judah, one of them must be a priest. If the property to be donated is land, a court of ten, including one priest is needed to determine the value of the land. According to Lev. 27:8, if the one who took the vow could not afford to donate his own value a priest was allowed to assess how much he could afford. According to the mishnah this assessment was done in front of a court of ten, which would include one priest." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four deals with the number of judges in cases involving capital crimes.", + "Cases concerning offenses punishable by death [are decided] by twenty three. Capital crimes are adjudicated by a court of twenty three. This is certainly due to the gravity of the punishment, which is of course irrevocable.", + "A beast that has sexual relations with a woman or with a man is [judged] by twenty three, as it says, “You shall execute the woman and the beast” (Lev. 20:16) and it says, “You shall execute the beast”. According to Lev. 2O:15-16 when a man or woman has sexual relations with an animal, not only are the human beings to be executed but the animal as well. Our mishnah teaches that just as the human beings are judged by twenty three so too are the animals.", + "The ox that is stoned [is judged] by twenty three., as it says, “The ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29), as is the death of the owner, so too is the death of the ox. According to Exodus 21:28-29 if an ox kills a man or woman the ox must be stoned. If the ox was a “warned” ox, that is one that had previously gored, the owner of the ox is to be stoned as well. Our mishnah teaches, just as the human being would be judged by twenty three, so too the animal.", + "The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther, or serpent [that have killed a human being] their death is [adjudicated] by twenty three. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Anyone who kills them before they come to court merits.” But Rabbi Akiva says: “Their death must be [adjudicated] by twenty three. Not only are oxen who kill humans to be executed but any animal that kills a human. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, these animals are also to be judged by a court of twenty three. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says that the first person who sees them should kill them. After all, these animals which are wild and cannot be guarded as an ox can be guarded, present a hazard to the safety of the public. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and states that they must be judged in front of a court of twenty three and only then can they be executed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with cases which are only adjudicated in front of a full court of seventy one, which was the number of the full Sanhedrin.", + "A tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest may not be tried save by the court of seventy-one; The trial of a “tribe” refers to a case in which an entire tribe is suspected of having committed idolatry. According to the mishnah in such a case the tribe is tried in front of seventy-one judges and not the twenty three who would adjudicate a normal case of idol worship (which is punishable by death). A false prophet is referred to in Deut. 18:20 which states that such a prophet should be executed. The High Priest also may only be judged by a court of seventy one. The common denominator between the High Priest and the prophet is the high regard that society would have for both of them. In order to reflect this high regard and the public nature of such trials they would have been held in front of the Great Sanhedrin of 71. Note that according to the Christian Bible, Mark 14:53ff and John 18:13 Jesus was tried in front of the Sanhedrin. In other passages some of the disciples and Paul are also questioned by the Sanhedrin.", + "They may not send forth the people to wage a battle of free choice save by the decision of the court of one and seventy; In Jewish law there are two types of war: a mandatory war and a war of free choice. A mandatory war would be either a defensive war or a war whose purpose was to capture the Land of Israel as was in the days of Joshua. A war of free choice would be one which expands the borders beyond the Biblical borders. [Note: the Biblical borders are very difficult to delineate, and there are indeed several versions of them]. Since there will inevitably be heavy casualties in war, the decision to go to a war of free choice requires a full Sanhedrin of 71. A mandatory war would not require the decision of any court.", + "They may not add to the City [of Jerusalem], or the Courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of seventy-one; They would not add to the borders of Jerusalem or to the size of the Courts in the Temple except by a court of 71. Adding to either the border of Jerusalem or the Temple causes a greater level of sanctity in these places and therefore requires a full court. Note that as the population grew it was occasionally necessary to expand both the Temple and Jerusalem itself, a fact that can be seen in any archaeological dig in Jerusalem.", + "They may not set up sanhedrins for the several tribes save by the decision of the court of one and seventy. Setting up smaller, local sanhedrins, which would have included 23 judges can only be done by the Great Sanhedrin of 71.", + "And they may not proclaim [any city to be] an Apostate City (ir ha- (Deut. 13:13–19] save by the decision of one and seventy. According to Deut. 13:12ff. if a town has been subverted into idol worship all of the residents of the town are to be executed and the entire town and all of its contents are to be burned. This harsh law (that was never in actuality carried out) could only be decided upon by the Great Sanhedrin.", + "No city on the frontier may be proclaimed an Apostate City, nor three together, but only one or two. This section contains several other laws pertaining to the Apostate City. According to Deuteronomy only cities within the borders of Israel can become an Apostate City which is to be executed. The fear is that if this law is performed on one of the border towns it will encourage raids from neighboring tribes, which would endanger all of Israel. For a similar reason even the Great Sanhedrin was not allowed to declare more than two cities to be Apostate Cities. For obvious reasons declaring a city to be an Apostate City and thereby killing all of its inhabitants might encourage other countries to engage Israel in war.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section six is quite apparently a law brought by the mishnaic editor to our mishnah from another source. Why do you think he taught this law here? What light might it shed upon the previous law?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter having learned in the first five mishnayoth of the chapter how many judges were needed for each type of case, the sixth mishnah gives Biblical proof texts for these numbers.", + "This mishnah basically contains exegetical (midrashic) proofs for the greater Sanhedrin of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three.", + "The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three.
From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” The greater Sanhedrin was composed of seventy one judges to correspond to the seventy elders plus Moses mentioned in Numbers 11:16. According to Rabbi Judah, the seventy elders included Moses, and therefore the greater Sanhedrin was only to be composed of seventy one.", + "From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? (1) As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) [which refers to the twelve spies] but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others [to the twenty]? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “[To follow] after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). [It means that] your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. The exegesis used to derive the number 23 for the little Sanhedrin is much more complicated. Firstly, from the verses in Numbers 35:24-25, which refer to an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers the condemned from being punished, the Rabbis derive that capital cases require the potential to have both a full “assembly” that judges (convicts) and a full assembly that delivers (acquits). Although this is certainly not the simple meaning of this verse, this is the way it is understood in our mishnah. An assembly is taken to mean a group of ten, as proven from the use of the word in Num. 14:27. If two “assemblies” are required than we need at least twenty on a court to adjudicate capital cases. In order to exegetically prove that we need another three, the mishnah turns to Exodus 23:2 and a potential redundancy between the two halves of the verse. The first half states that one should not follow a majority of people in order to do evil, and therefore we could learn that one should follow the majority to do good. However, this is understood to also be the explanation of the second half of the verse, which states that one should follow the majority, clearly to do good. In order to solve this supposed redundancy the mishnah says that the majority needed to convict is not the same as the majority needed to acquit. In order to acquit we only need a majority of one and in order to convict we need a majority of two. The verse is therefore explained in the following manner: when it says “, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil”, it means do not follow a majority of one to convict. When it says “[To follow] after the many to change judgment”, it means you should follow a majority of two to acquit. We have now arrived at the number twenty-two, since if an assembly (10) convicts we will need another assembly of 12 to acquit. In order not to have a court that is even and therefore might not arrive at any decision, they add one more judge.", + "And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that [the Sanhedrin of twenty three] should correspond with them that are chiefs of [at least] groups of ten. In order for a city to be worthy or large enough to merit a little Sanhedrin, which according to mishnah five had to be appointed by the greater Sanhedrin, it had to have 120 permanent inhabitants. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, it had to have 230 inhabitants, ten for each judge. According to Rabbi Nehemiah this is so each judge can act as a chief of at least ten people, which is the smallest judicial appointment according to Ex. 18:21.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is a greater majority required for conviction than acquittal?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah one contains with special rules regarding the High Priest.", + "This mishnah can be divided into three basic sections: 1) the High Priest’s relationship to the court; 2) the High Priest’s ability to perform halitzah (the release of the widow from the obligation to marry the levir, her dead husband’s brother) and levirate marriage; 3) the High Priest’s participation in the mourning ritual.", + "The High Priest can judge and be judged; he can testify and others can testify against him. The High Priest is treated like a normal person with regards to the laws of the court. As we shall see in mishnah two, this is not true with regards to the king.", + "He can perform halitzah for another’s wife and others can perform halitzah for his wife or contract levirate marriage with his widow, but he cannot contract levirate marriage since he is forbidden to marry a widow. The High Priest is basically the same as any other person with regards to the laws of levirate marriage. If he should die without children, his wife must either marry his brother or his brother must perform halitzah for her. If his brother should die without children he must perform halitzah for his wife. He cannot, however, contract levirate marriage with her since he is in general prohibited from marrying a widow (Lev. 21:14).", + "If any of his near kin die he may not follow after the bier, rather when the bearers are not visible, he is visible, when they are visible he is not visible, and he may go out with them as far as the city gate, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, “He may not leave the Temple, as it says, “Nor shall he go out of the Sanctuary”. And when he comforts other mourners the custom is for all of the people to pass by, the one after the other, while the appointed [priest] stands between him and the people. And when he receives comfort from others, all the people say to him, “Let us be your atonement”, and he says to them, “May you be blessed by Heaven.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit around on the ground and he sits on a stool. The High Priest is severely restricted with regards to his participation in the rituals of burial. Since contact with the dead causes impurity the High Priest cannot even participate in the burying of his own immediate family (unlike a regular priest who may) (see Lev. 21:10-12). According to Rabbi Meir, the High Priest is allowed to semi-secretly participate in the burial procession, up until they leave the city gates of Jerusalem (people were not buried within the city confines). Rabbi Judah states that he may not even participate this much, since the Torah states that he may not leave the Sanctuary at all. If the High Priest needs to participate in the comforting of mourners he may do so, but the “appointed” priest would come in between him and the other people. According to the Rambam this is to show the honor due to the High Priest, that he shouldn’t be just a part of the crowd. When others comfort him they say, “Let us be your atonement”. It seems to me that this is to assuage the sense of guilt that the High Priest must feel since he was not able to participate in the burying of his own dead. When he comforts others he should give them a blessing. When he is fed the traditional funeral meal which would normally be eaten by the mourner while sitting close to the ground, the rest of the people must sit on the ground. This fulfills two functions: 1) he retains a higher status than them; 2) they are able to participate in his sorrow and grief." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two contains special rules regarding the king.", + "The king can neither judge nor be judged, he cannot testify and others cannot testify against him. The king cannot participate in the regular system of the court. This is probably due to the fear that the king will threaten the existence of the court if a decision is not found in his favor. Since he cannot be tried, it is not fitting to allow him to testify. There is also an issue of honor at stake in this prohibition. The king’s honor is not just an issue of personal concern but of national concern as well. Forcing a king to participate in the legal system would, in the mind of the Mishnah, diminish his authority.", + "He may not perform halitzah, nor may others perform halitzah for his wife. He may not contract levirate marriage nor may his brothers contract levirate marriage with his wife. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wished to perform halitzah or to contract levirate marriage his memory is a blessing.” They said to him: “They should not listen to him.” The king also may not participate in the halitzah ceremony, since part of this ceremony is the woman spitting in front of the dead husband’s brother. This is obviously not respectful to a king. It is also not a sign of respect for him to have to marry his dead brother’s widow (levirate marriage) in order to bring forth children under his brother’s name. Since his widow may not remarry, his brothers do not perform halitzah for her or contract levirate marriage with her. Rabbi Judah says that a king can perform halitzah and levirate marriage, and it is actually praiseworthy for him to do so (but not mandatory). In other words, according to Rabbi Judah, a king is allowed to forgo his own honor. According to those who respond to him, he is prohibited to do so.", + "None may marry his widow. Rabbi Judah says: “The king may marry the widow of a king, for so have we found it with David, who married the widow of Saul, as it says, “And I gave you my master’s house and my master’s wives into your embrace” (II Samuel 12:8). According to the first opinion, the widow of a king may not remarry, since this is disrespectful to the dead king. However, Rabbi Judah finds precedent in David who married Saul’s widow, and therefore he allows all kings to marry other kings widows (this should remind us of MacBeth!)." + ], + [ + "If any of his near kin die he may not go out of the door of his palace. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wishes to follow the bier he may, since we have found that David followed the bier of Avner, as it says, “And King David followed the bier” (II Samuel 3:31) They answered, “That was only to appease the people.”
When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit on the floor and he sits on a couch.
Mishnah three discusses the procedures of mourning if a king’s family member dies.
This mishnah deals with funeral procedure when one of the king’s near relatives dies. Although there is no prohibition in the Torah against the king participating in funerals, the Sages did not think it respectful for a king to be seen in a state of mourning. Rabbi Judah again finds biblical precedent for the king to participate in the funeral (as he found precedent for the king to marry another king’s widow in mishnah two). When during the battles between the House of Saul and the House of David, Avner, Saul’s army commander, was murdered by Joab, the commander of David’s army for having killed Joab’s brother, David goes out after Avner’s bier. According to Rabbi Judah this is precedent for any king. The Sages reply to Rabbi Judah that David only did so to appease the people so that they wouldn’t say that Joab killed Avner with David’s permission. In other, normal, cases it is forbidden for the king to participate in the funeral procession.
When the people feed the king his funeral meal, they sit on the floor, to show their participation in his grief and he sits on a couch, since he is not allowed to truly mourn. Note that the high priest was allowed to sit on a low stool. The Sages were less concerned about the respect shown for the high priest than they were for the respect shown towards the king." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four deals the rights and responsibilities of a king.", + "He may send forth the people to a battle waged of free choice by the decision of the court of seventy one. The king has a right to take his people out to war, but he first must receive permission from the Sanhedrin. This is probably seen to be a check to make sure a king does not take his people out to dangerous and frivolous wars.", + "He may break through [the private domain of any man] to make himself a road and none may protest him. The king’s road has no limit. The king has a right to expropriate anyone’s property if he should need the property to make a path. Furthermore, this path has no limits to its size. There are some commentators who say that this section of the mishnah is applicable only if the king is going out to war.", + "Whatsoever the people take in plunder they must place before him, and he may take first. When the people plunder conquered cities after a victorious war, the king may have his first pick at the plunder.", + "“And he shall not have many wives” (Deut. 17:17) eighteen only. Rabbi Judah says: “He may take many wives provided they don’t turn his heart away [from worshipping God]. Rabbi Shimon says: “Even one that might turn his heart away, he should not marry. Why then does it say, “He shall not have many wives”, even if they are like Avigayil. The remainder of the mishnah is a midrash (exegesis) on Deuteronomy 16-19. The first midrash discusses the limitation on the number of wives a king may take. According to the first opinion he may only (!) have 18 wives. Rabbi Judah emphasizes the continuation of verse 17 which says, “lest his heart go astray.” According to Rabbi Judah the verse does not prohibit a certain number of wives, rather it prohibits the king from taking any wife who will lead his heart astray. The Bible itself relates that this is exactly what happened with Solomon in his old age (See I Kings 11). Rabbi Eliezer responds to Rabbi Judah and says that if the verse had only meant to say that he may not marry women who will lead his heart astray then why did it state a specific number. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer says that he may not marry many wives even if they were like Avigayil, David’s wife, who is the prototypical example of a smart and good wife (see I Samuel 25:3).", + "“He shall not keep many horses” (Deut. 17:16) enough for his chariot only. When the Torah states that the king may not have many horses, it means to limit him to those which he needs for his chariot only.", + "“Nor shall he amass silver and gold to excess” (Deut. 17:17) enough to pay his soldier’s wages. The king may only have enough gold to pay his soldiers.", + "He must write a Torah scroll for himself; when he goes forth to battle he shall take it with him, and when he returns he shall bring it back with him; when he sits in judgement it shall be with him, and when he sits to eat it shall be with him, as it says, “Let it remain with him and let him read it all his life” (Deut. 17:19) The Torah states that the king should have a Torah scroll and learn it all the days of his life. The mishnah emphasizes that this Torah scroll must always be with him, even when he goes out to war! The king is to always be reminded that he serves a higher King, God. Keeping the Torah with him at all times reminds him that his authority is secondary to the ultimate authority of God, as revealed in the Torah.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section four: What is the difference in opinion between the first opinion (the king may take 18 wives) and Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion?" + ], + [ + "None may ride his horse and none may sit on his throne and none may make use of his scepter.
No one may see him when his hair is being cut or when he is naked or when he is in the bath house, for it says, “You shall set a king upon yourself” (Deut. 17:15) that his awe should be over you.
Mishnah five teaches that the people must respect and have awe for a king.
This mishnah continues the midrash on Deut. 17 that began in the previous mishnah. The Torah states that the people of Israel shall set a king upon themselves. The Torah uses a typical syntax repeating the verb “to set” twice. In usual fashion, the Rabbis see this as an unnecessary repetition of a word and therefore a legitimate basis for a midrash. The midrash is that the Torah mandates awe of the king, and therefore one is not allowed to not sit in his place, use his scepter or see him in a position of compromise." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges].
This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.”
This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them.
This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.
Chapter Three begins to discuss the court procedure in cases of financial matters, which only require three judges. The first mishnah discusses the selection of judges.
This mishnah contains three disputes between Rabbi Meir and the Sages with regards to the selection of judges and witnesses in cases concerning property disputes. All agree that the first two judges are selected by the litigants themselves, each litigant choosing one judge. However, Rabbi Meir and the Sages dispute with regards to the selection of the third judge. Rabbi Meir holds that the litigants together select a third judge and the Sages hold that the first two judges, those already selected by the litigants, are the ones to select the third judge.
With regards to the invalidation of the judges, Rabbi Meir holds that each litigant can indiscriminately invalidate the judge who was chosen by the opposing litigant. The Sages hold that the judges may only be invalidated on objective grounds, for either being relatives of the litigant or otherwise invalid. (We will learn more about the what cause a person to be invalid to be a a judge in mishnah three). If the judges are otherwise valid the opposing litigant may not disqualify them.
The Sages and Rabbi Meir have basically the same dispute with regard to witnesses. Note, that in this case Rabbi Meir’s opinion is much more radical. If a litigant can disqualify his rival’s witnesses without any due cause, how could anyone ever be convicted. The Talmud deliberates at length on this problem and makes several suggestions: 1) the litigant can only disqualify witnesses when there is only one witness. In such a case, since there are not the requisite number of witnesses, the litigant is not truly destroying his rival’s case; 2) the mishnah deals with a case where a person has two sets of witnesses, and the rival disqualifies only one set; 3) the rival has another witness who testifies with him that the other witnesses are disqualified; 4) the litigant claimed that the judges and witnesses were not valid. When it is established by independent evidence that he told the truth about the judges, he is believed with regard to the witnesses.
In any case, from the fact that there are four solutions to this problem, we can see how puzzling Rabbi Meir’s opinion truly is." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the ability of the litigant to retract on a deal he made before the trial began.", + "This mishnah contains another two disputes between Rabbi Meir and the Sages. The subject in this mishnah is a litigant’s ability to retract when he has allowed the opposing litigant to suspend the usual court rules.", + "If one litigant said to the other, “I accept my father as trustworthy”, or “I accept your father as trustworthy”, or “I accept three herdsman as trustworthy”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.” Usually relatives of either litigant are invalid as either judges or witnesses. Furthermore, criminals are not accepted as judges or witnesses. Herdsman were assumed to be thieves, since it was assumed that they would allow their herds to graze in others’ fields. However, Rabbi Meir and the Sages agree that if one was to accept a relative or a criminal as a judge or witness they could act as such. On the other hand, Rabbi Meir says that if, during the trial or even after the trial the litigant who accepted the relative or criminal were to change his mind, he could do so and ask for a retrial. The Sages say he may not retract. Once he has accepted the relative or the criminal he must accept the decision they make.", + "If one must take an oath before his fellow, and his fellow said to him, “Vow to me by the life of your head”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.” In certain circumstances the defendant will have to take an oath that he doesn’t owe the plaintiff money or property (on rarer occasions the plaintiff is allowed to take an oath and collect from the defendant). The usual oath is one taken in front of a court, and it was considered an extremely grave matter. However, all agree that the other litigant could allow the litigant who must take the oath to take a more personal oath, one by his own head, and not have to take an oath in front of the court. Again, according to Rabbi Meir, if at a later point he wanted his opposing litigant to take an oath in front of the court, an oath that was considered to be graver, he may do so. As in the previous case, Rabbi Meir allows him to retract, whereas the Sages do not.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Rabbi Meir allow the person to retract? What effect will Rabbi Meir’s permission to retract have on the opposing litigant?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three lists those people disqualified from testifying and judging.", + "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]:
A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce. Rabbi Shimon said: “In the beginning they called them ‘gatherers’ of Seventh Year produce, but after the oppressors grew many they changed this and called them ‘traffickers’ of Seventh Year produce.” Rabbi Judah said: “This applies only if they have no other trade, but if they have some other trade other than that, they are not disqualified.” There are four types of people who are disqualified from acting as witnesses or judges: 1) The first is a dice player, in other words a gambler. Such a person cannot testify since he is known to be a liar, especially with regards to monetary matters. Another reason is that he doesn’t participate constructively in building society. 2) A usurer. He is also probably considered to not be trustworthy in monetary matters. 3) A pigeon racer. Racing pigeons was a form of gambling. 4) Those who sell produce grown during the Seventh Year. According to Lev. 25:5-7 produce grown in the fields during the Seventh Year may be eaten by its owners, but it may not be sold. One who therefore sells Seventh Year produce is engaging in forbidden business practices which according to our mishnah make him not trustworthy to testify or act as a judge. Rabbi Shimon points out that this law actually was different in an earlier period. According to Rabbi Shimon at first the law was stricter and forbade even those who gathered Seventh Year produce from testifying or judging. Although eating from the fields was permitted, a person who gathered the produce was suspected of later selling it, which was prohibited. Therefore, they originally forbade even those who gathered Seventh Year produce from testifying. However, once the oppressors grew too many they relaxed the prohibition. In the Talmud it is explained that the “oppressors” refers to the Roman government which demanded taxes from the produce grown on the land, even during the Seventh Year. The Rabbis therefore permitted a person to gather his produce and give it for taxes. When this happened they decided to allow people who gathered Seventh Year produce to testify. Rabbi Judah adds an important qualification on those who are prohibited from testifying. These people are disallowed to testify only if they have no other profession. If gambling or racing pigeons was only a hobby or an irregular activity they could still act as witnesses or as judges.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the reasoning behind Rabbi Judah’s opinion?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four lists which relatives are forbidden to testify or act as judges at a trial.", + "These are the relatives [that are not qualified to be witnesses or judges]:
A suitor’s father, brother, father’s brother, mother’s brother, sister’s husband, father’s sister’s husband, mother’s sister’s husband, mother’s husband, father-in-law, or wife’s sister’s husband them and their sons and their sons-in-law; also the suitor’s step-son only [but not the stepsons’ sons]. Rabbi Yose said, “Such was the mishnah of Rabbi Akiva, but the first mishnah taught: ‘a suitor’s uncle, or his uncle’s son, and all that are qualified to be his heir. The first section lists relatives who are disqualified from testifying. The list is self explanatory, and only a few require explanation. A mother’s husband refers to someone who is not the suitor’s father. Any son or son-in-law of any of these listed relatives is likewise forbidden to testify. For instance one’s father’s brother’s son (a cousin) is forbidden to testify. The only exception is that the suitor’s stepson, i.e. his wife’s son from another marriage, is forbidden to testify but stepson’s son is allowed. Rabbi Yose gives us a glimpse into the development of the Mishnah. The previous clause was the mishnah of Rabbi Akiva, who lived from about 50-135 C.E. Rabbi Yose then relates the way it was taught before this time. While there are some legal differences between the two formulations, the most basic difference is that “first mishnah” used language that approximated Biblical style (see Lev. 25:49). This change from the earlier language to the later style which was more distinct from the Biblical language, may signify the growing independence of the Oral Torah from the Written Torah. It seems likely that in an earlier stage the Oral Torah was usually preserved as an exegesis or midrash on the verses of the Torah. The advantage to this system was that the Torah was a text known to most. The second advantage was that it was clear that Rabbinic law attained its authority by its being an interpretation of Biblical law. However, the biggest detriment was its lack of organization. Many laws appear in parallel forms in several books of the Torah. For instance laws concerning slavery appear in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Laws concerning the redemption of the first born appear in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. One who wished to know the law would not know where to find it. One of the innovations of Rabbi Akiva was to sort Jewish law into topical tractates. In our mishnah we see that as this processed developed the language of the laws changed from Biblical to Rabbinic Hebrew. As far as substantive differences between the first mishnah and Rabbi Akiva’s mishnah. There are three potential differences: his mother’s sister’s husband, his mother’s husband and his wife’s sister’s husband. These three men are not potential inheritors and therefore could testify according to the first mishnah, but they may not according to Rabbi Akiva’s mishnah.", + "Moreover all that were kinsmen at the time [are disqualified]; but kinsmen that have ceased to be kinsmen become qualified.” Rabbi Judah says: “If a man’s daughter died and left children, her husband still counts as a kinsman.” Only if the relative is a current relative may he not testify. If the relationship is by marriage and it is severed through divorce before the trial, the formal relative may testify. Rabbi Judah states that there is one exception to this rule. If a daughter married a man and had children the husband cannot testify, even after the daughter dies. Since the children bind the husband to the grandfather, he is still considered to be a relative." + ], + [ + "A friend or an enemy [is disqualified]. “A friend”: this is one’s groomsman. “An enemy”: anyone whom he has not spoken to in three days because of anger.
They replied: “Israelites are not suspected of such.”
Mishnah five continues to discuss those people who are disqualified from testifying or acting as judges.
The first clause in the mishnah states that one may not testify or judge in a trial involving one’s friend or enemy. The next two clauses define the first clause. “A friend” who is disqualified from testifying or judging is a man’s groomsman, a person who helped him celebrate his wedding. “An enemy” is anyone with whom one has not spoken for three days due to anger.
It must be assumed that the first three clauses are a continuation of Rabbi Judah’s words, begun in the previous mishnah. The Sages in section 1d respond to Rabbi Judah by claiming that Jews are not suspected of lying in court because they are testifying with regards to a friend or enemy. Therefore, a person may testify and judge in cases involving a friend or an enemy." + ], + [ + "How do they check the witnesses?
They bring them in and warn them, and then they take them out and leave behind the most important of [the witnesses].
And they would say to him: “State [for us], how do you know that this one is in debt to this one?” If he said, “He said to me, ‘I am in debt to him’, or ‘So-and-so said to me that he was in debt to him’”, he has said nothing. He must be able to say, “In our presence he acknowledged to the other one that he owed him 200 zuz.”
Afterward they bring in the second witness and check him.
If their words were found to agree, the judges discuss the matter.
If two say, “He is not guilty” and one says, “He is guilty”, he is not guilty. If two say, “He is guilty” and one says, “He is not guilty”, he is guilty. If one says, “He is not guilty”, and one says, “He is guilty”, and even if two declared him not guilty or declared him guilty while one said, “I do not know”, they must add more judges.
Mishnah six begins to describe the process of the interrogation of the witnesses.
This mishnah describes the process by which the judges would examine the testimony of the witnesses. Keep in mind that the mishnaic court system did not include lawyers. Rather the discussion was conducted directly between the litigants and the judges.
(1) The first step is to warn the witnesses of the seriousness of testifying in a court. (2) The second step was to remove all but one of the witnesses, so that they would not merely mimic each other’s testimony. Jewish law is strict in requiring two independent witnesses, and one may not therefore learn of his testimony from another. (3) They could now begin interrogating the most important of the witnesses. The witness is asked how he received that information that so-and-so owes someone money. The only answer that is accepted as valid testimony is for the witness to say that he saw the defendant actually admit to the plaintiff that he is in debt to him. If a third party told the witness that the defendant was obligated, or even if the defendant himself admitted such, the testimony is not accepted. (4) Afterwards they repeat the process with the second witness. (5) If the testimony of all of the witnesses is found to be in agreement, the judges discuss the matter. (6) A majority decision is always accepted as binding, as long as all of the judges have made a conclusive decision. If one of the judges said that he did not know they must add more judges until there are three judges who have actually rendered decisions. In other words, one who cannot render a decision is not counted as one of the necessary three judges to make up a court of three." + ], + [ + "When the judges reached their decision they would bring in the litigants.
The chief among the judges says: “You, so-and-so are not obligated”, or “You, so-and-so are obligated”.
And from where do we know that after one of the judges has gone out that he may not say, “I declared him not obligated and my colleagues declared him obligated, so what can I do since they outvoted me?” Of such a one it says, “Do not go about as a talebearer amongst your people” (Lev. 19:16) and it also says, “He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets” (Proverbs 11:13).
Mishnah seven describes the court procedures at the end of the trial.
At the end of the trial, when the judges have reached their verdict the most important of them would announce whether or not the defendant was obligated to pay the plaintiff. In addition the mishnah warns judges that when the trial is completed the judge who disagreed with the verdict of the majority may not walk out and announce to the public his disagreement. Such a person is considered to be the type of “talebearer” censured by the Torah." + ], + [ + "So long as a litigant can produce proof he may overturn the verdict.
If they had said to him, “Bring all of the proofs that you have within thirty days” and he brought them within thirty days, the court may overturn the verdict. But if he brought any proof after thirty days, the court cannot reverse the verdict. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “What could he have done that he did not find [the proof] within thirty days but found it after thirty days?”
If they had said to him, “Bring witnesses” and he said, “I have no witnesses”, or [if they said], “Bring proof”, and he said, “I have no proof”, and he later found proof or witnesses, then they are totally invalid. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “What could he have done that he did not know that he had witnesses, then found witnesses, or that he did not know that he had proof, then found proof?
If they had said to him, “Bring witnesses” and he said, “I have no witnesses”, or [if they said], “Bring proof”, and he said, “I have no proof”, but when he saw that he was about to be found obligated, he said, “Come near, so-and-so and so-and-so and testify for me!”, or if he brought forth some proof from his wallet, then they are totally invalid.
Mishnah eight discusses the ability of the litigants to overturn the verdict by bringing new evidence (physical proof or witnesses) after the trial.
Mishnah eight discusses the situation where a person did not bring proof or witnesses until after he was found to be obligated. If the court had not told him that he had a time limit on bringing such evidence, he may always bring it and thereby give the judges reason to overturn the verdict. If, however, the court had set a time limit on his bringing proof or witnesses, and that time limit elapsed, he may no longer attempt to overturn the verdict. Since the court set a time limit, anything brought afterwards is not considered relevant to the trial. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with this time limit. According to him even if a time limit was set, if the defendant should find new evidence he may bring it to the court’s attention and have the decision overturned. In other words there is a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the Sages (the anonymous opinion), the former holding that time limits are irrelevant and the latter that they are valid.
The final clause of the mishnah contains an opinion to which even Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel agrees. Even though he generally allows evidence to be brought later, if it is clear that the defendant could have known about the evidence and chose not to use it and then produced it just at the moment when the verdict was about to be delivered against him, the evidence is invalid. In such a case we may rightfully wonder why he didn’t bring the evidence earlier and we suspect him of lying." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah which we will learn today discusses the differences in how a court acts during non-capital trials (cases entailing penalty not by death) and capital trials. As we will learn in our mishnah and also in mishnah five of this chapter the Rabbis took capital cases very seriously and wanted to ensure as much as possible that no person would be wrongfully executed.", + "Our mishnah opens with the one similarity between capital and non-capital cases: they both require interrogation of the witnesses. We will learn what questions were asked of the witnesses in chapter five. The mishnah then lists eight differences between capital and non-capital cases.", + "Capital cases require twenty three judges, while non-capital cases require only three. This law was already learned in chapter one.", + "In non-capital cases the judges may begin their deliberations either with points in favor or points against the accused. Capital cases must begin with points in favor of the accused.", + "Non-capital cases require a majority of one to either convict or acquit, while capital cases require a majority of two to convict and one to acquit. This law was also already learned in chapter one, mishnah six.", + "If new evidence should arise non-capital cases may later be reversed either from conviction to acquittal or vice versa. Capital cases may only be reversed from conviction to acquittal. Once a person is acquitted of a capital crime he may no longer be tried.", + "In non-capital cases anyone may speak in favor or against the accused, even the disciples of the Sages who are not counted amongst the judges. (We will learn more about them in mishnah four of this chapter). In capital cases the disciples may speak in favor of the accused but not against him.", + "In non-capital cases a judge who argued in favor may later argue against, if he is convinced by the arguments of his colleagues. In capital cases once one has argued in favor he may no longer argue against.", + "The verdict of a non-capital case may be reached at night, whereas the verdict of a capital case must be reached during the day.", + "Non-capital cases may be completed in one day, but capital cases require the judges to wait overnight before rendering their decision. Since this is so, capital cases are not adjudicated on the day before the Sabbath or a Festival, for if they were the punishment would have to be carried out on the Sabbath or Festival and it was considered to be a breach of Sabbath or Festival law to execute on those days. Furthermore, they didn’t want to try someone on Friday, pronounce him guilty on the Sabbath and have to wait until Sunday to execute him. Such a wait would prolong the psychological pain of the person about to be put to death.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why did the Sages insist on these differences between capital and non-capital cases? What is their function?" + ], + [ + "In non-capital cases and those concerning uncleanness and cleanness [the judges declare their opinion] beginning from the eldest, but in capital cases they begin from [them that sit at] the side.
All are qualified to try non-capital cases, but not all are qualified to try capital cases, only priests, levites and Israelites that may give [their daughters] in marriage to priests.
Mishnah two contains more information regarding the differences between capital and non-capital cases.
This mishnah contains an additional two differences between non-capital cases and capital cases. (We learned of eight differences in mishnah one.)
In all types of non-capital cases the eldest judge may state his opinion first, but in capital cases the decision stating process begins from the side of the room, where the younger members of the court would sit. This is to prevent the youngest judge from being unduly influenced by the opinion of the eldest judge.
A person of any lineage may judge non-capital cases, even mamzerim (those born of illicit unions) and even converts. However, only those who can marry their daughters to priests, meaning priests, levites and Israelites can judge capital cases. This law certainly reflects the import that the Rabbinic society ascribed to familial relations." + ], + [ + "Introductio Mishnah three begins to discuss the physical arrangement of the sanhedrin, the scribes who would record the decisions and the disciples of the Sages who observed the proceedings and learned.
The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing-floor so that they all might see one another.
Before them stood the two scribes of the judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal and the words of them that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah says: “There were three: one wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal, and one wrote down the words of them that favored conviction, and the third wrote down the words of both them that favored acquittal and them that favored conviction.
The sanhedrin of twenty three that would try capital cases and the sanhedrin of seventy one would sit in a half circle. This was the seating arrangement that would best allow all of the judges to see each other. A full circle would mean that the one testifying before the court would have his back to some of the judges.
The second half of the mishnah describes the court stenographers. According to the first opinion, there were two scribes who recorded the court procedure, one which recorded the opinion of those that favored acquittal and one those that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah claims that there was a third scribe who recorded all of the opinions. In this way there would be two copies of all of the decisions made." + ], + [ + "And there were three rows of disciples of the Sages who sat before them, and each knew his proper place.
If they needed to appoint [another as a judge] they appointed him from the first row, and one from the second row came into the first row, and one from the third row came into the second row, and they chose another from the congregation and set him in the third row.
He did not sit in the place of the former, but he sat in the place that was proper for him.
Mishnah four discusses the disciples who sat in front of the Sages in the Sanhedrin and the procedure for a disciple’s appointment to the court.
This mishnah describe the seating arrangement of the disciples of the Sages (talmidei hachamim) who would sit and observe the proceedings of the Sanhedrin. There were three rows of official disciples, those waiting in the ranks to one day become judges. This was somewhat of an apprenticeship. If one of the judges had to leave or died, one of the disciples would take his place. The disciples themselves sat in rows according to their rank and when one would move up to be a judge, everyone behind him would move up in place. When the one from the second row moved up to the first, and the one in the third moved up to the second, and the one from the congregation moved up to the third, they would not sit in the beginning of the row but rather at the end of the row, which was their proper place." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins with a description of the warning that the judges would give to the witnesses in a capital case. The mishnah then continues with a discussion of the uniqueness of every human being and the consequential extreme severity of capital punishment.", + "How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” The mishnah begins with an exhortation made by the judges to the witnesses before they testify. The judges warn the witnesses of the severity of their testimony and they warn them that secondhand testimony, even if it was heard from a reliable source is inadmissible. The judges also remind the witnesses that they will be examined carefully. The judges then warn the witnesses that the consequences of executing a wrongfully accused person are extremely serious and indeed eternal. By testifying falsely against a person and thereby leading to his execution the witness is not only killing the accused himself, but is in essence eliminating all of his future descendants.", + "For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. The mishnah proves its point, that killing one person is like killing all of his future descendants, by using a midrash on God’s words to Cain after he killed Abel, “The bloods of your brother call out”. The midrash is based on the fact that God uses the plural “bloods” instead of blood. This is to teach us that Cain killed not only Abel but all of Abel’s descendants as well. The mishnah then proceeds with an additional interpretation of “the bloods”. According to this interpretation God uses the plural because Abel’s blood was strewn in many places. This last note is obviously a late gloss interpolated into the mishnah.", + "Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” The mishnah now proceeds with four different reasons why God at first created only one human being. The first reason is that it was meant to teach us that one human being is in and of himself or herself an entire world. Therefore, one who kills another person it is as if he destroys an entire world and one who saves another person it is as if he saves an entire world. [This line may be familiar from the beginning of Schindler’s List. It is probably one of the more famous lines in the Mishnah]. The second reason is so that people will not brag about their lineage. Since we all come from the same person, no one can say “my father is greater than yours.” The third reason is to prove to the heretics that there is only one God. If more than one person had been originally created people might claim that each God created his own human being. The fourth reason is to show the greatness of God, that although God created only one human, and each subsequent person is therefore stamped with Adam’s genes, no two people look or are alike. This teaches us that each person must say that for his/her sake the world was created.", + "And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?, was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).] Finally, the mishnah returns to the exhortation that the judges give to the witnesses. After having warned them of the dire consequences of false testimony there is fear that they will not want to testify at all. Therefore they remind the witnesses that one who truly knows testimony and does not bring it to the court is considered to be a sinner. According to the Torah a person has a religious obligation to testify if he has seen a crime. Finally, although the Jewish law abhors the wrongful execution of a person, the rightful execution improves the world. By testifying faithfully against a person who has truly committed a crime, the witnesses are bringing much needed justice into the world." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "They used to examine witnesses with seven inquiries: ( In what week of years? (2) In what year? (3) In what month? (4) On what date in the month? (5) On what day? (6) In what hour? (7) In what place? Rabbi Yose says: [They only asked:] On what day? In what hour? In what place?
[Moreover they asked:] Do you recognize him? Did you warn him?
If one had committed idolatry [they asked the witnesses:] What did he worship and how did he worship it?
Chapter five begins to discuss how the judges examine the testimony of the witnesses.
This mishnah lists the questions that the judges would ask the witnesses. The purpose of the first set of questions was to make sure that the witnesses were actually there at the scene of the crime and not somewhere else. By pinpointing the date and place, the witnesses are in essence promising that no one else could say they were somewhere else when the crime allegedly occurred. According to Jewish law, if witnesses are found to testify about a crime and it turns out that they were not even there when the crime as committed, they receive the punishment that the accused would have received.
Rabbi Yose holds that the judges only need to ask three questions, instead of the seven asked according to the first opinion in the mishnah. These three questions are sufficient in order to establish when and where the crime was committed. The Sages, whose anonymous opinion is taught in section one, hold that by asking many questions they can check to see if the witness is truly confused with regards to his testimony. If he gets confused then it is a sign that his testimony may not be accurate.
Aside from the questions of time and place the judges would also ask the witnesses if they recognized the accused, and in the case of murder they would also ask if the witnesses recognized the murdered person. Furthermore they would ask the witnesses if they had warned the accused. According to Jewish law a person cannot be executed or receive corporal punishment unless he had previously been warned that if he were to commit this crime the punishment would be death or flogging.
If the trial was for idol worship, which according to Jewish law is a capital offense, they would ask the witnesses what type of idol the accused worshipped and how he worshipped it." + ], + [ + "The more a judge examines the evidence the more he is deserving of praise. Ben Zakkai once checked with regards to the stalks of figs.
What is the difference between inquiries and examinations? With regards to inquiries, if one [of the two witnesses] says “I do not know”, their evidence becomes invalid. But if to one of the examinations one answered, “I do not know”, or even if they both answered, “We do not know”, their evidence remains valid. Yet if they contradict each other, whether during the inquiries or examinations, their evidence becomes invalid.
Mishnah two continues to discuss the inquiries and examinations performed on the witnesses by the judge.
This mishnah discusses the questions regarding the circumstances of the crime itself. Although the mishnah lists seven official “inquiries” that must be asked, with regards to “examinations” the more the judge asks the better able he is to ascertain the truth. Ben Zakkai (who is usually called Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai) once even checked to see if the witnesses who testified that a murder was committed under a fig tree knew what the stalks of the figs looked like.
The second half of the mishnah discusses cases where one of the witnesses does not know the answer to one of the questions. If the witness could not say where the crime took place or when it took place, both of the witnesses testimony becomes invalid. These are called “inquiries”. However, if one cannot answer with certainty one of the substantive questions regarding the crime, the rest of his testimony is not invalidated. These are called “examinations”. Even if both cannot answer the question, the other parts of their testimony are not necessarily invalidate. In other words, not knowing a detail does not necessarily disqualify all of their testimony. Rather the judges will have to decide when making their decision if there exists enough testimony to convict the accused.
If, however, the two witnesses disagree with regards to a detail, then all of their testimony is invalid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three deals with invalidating the testimony due to discrepancies between the testimony of the two witnesses.", + "This mishnah deals with discrepancies between the testimony of the witnesses with regards to the time at which the crime was committed.", + "If one said, “On the second of the month”, and the other said, “On the third”, their evidence remains valid, since one may have known that the month was intercalated and the other may not have known that the month was intercalated. If one said, “On the third” and the other said, “On the fifth”, their evidence is invalid. If there is a discrepancy of one day between the witness’s testimony it is not invalidated. This is due to the intercalation of the Jewish month. Jewish months go according to the cycles of the moon. There are between 29 and 30 days in a lunar month. Therefore some months are of 29 days and some are of 30. In the time of the Mishnah the Jewish calendar was not yet fixed. This meant that at the end of every month, on what was potentially the 30th day of the month, the court would need to decide if the current day was the first of the next month or the last of the previous month. According to our mishnah, witnesses may not know that the previous month was actually a 30 day month and therefore they may not know the exact current date. Hence, a one day discrepancy does not invalidate their testimony. A two day discrepancy does, however, invalidate their entire testimony.", + "If one said, “At the second hour”, and the other said, “At the third”, their evidence remains valid. If one said, “At the third hour”, and the other said, “At the fifth”, their evidence becomes invalid. Rabbi Judah says: “It remains valid. [But] if one said, ‘At the fifth hour’ and one said ‘At the seventh’, their evidence becomes invalid, since at the fifth hour the sun is in the east and at the seventh it is in the west. At the time of the Mishnah daytime was divided into 12 hours, no matter how long the actual day. During the summer the hours would be longer and during the winter they would be shorter. A one hour discrepancy between the two witnesses is not significant and therefore does not invalidate their testimony. This makes strong sense if we remember that they certainly did not have clocks in the time of the Mishnah. A two hour discrepancy does invalidate the testimony. It is assumed that although they did not have clocks, people were able to chart the sun and thereby keep rough track of time. Rabbi Judah disagrees. According to him sometimes even a two hour discrepancy between the witnesses does not invalidate the testimony. If the discrepancy was all within one period of the day, it does not invalidate the testimony. If, however, it was between the fifth and seventh hour, in other words between the first half and the second half of the day, at the time when the sun would pass from the east to the west, the testimony would be invalidated, since this is a point of time that most people would recognize." + ], + [ + "They afterward bring in the second witness and examine him.
If their words were found to agree together they begin [to examine the evidence] in favor of acquittal.
If one of the witnesses said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, or if one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his conviction”, they silence him.
If one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, they bring him up and set him among them and he does not come down from there all day. If there is anything of substance in his words they listen to him. Even if the accused said, “I have something to argue in favor of my acquittal”, they listen to him, provided that there is substance to his words.
Mishnah four deals with the court procedure after the testimony has been presented.
After the second witness is examined, the judges begin to examine the evidence. They first examine evidence that might lead to the accused person’s acquittal. The witnesses are not allowed to testify again, even if they know testimony that might lead to acquittal. The disciples, those students of the Sages who sat in rows in front of the judges, were not allowed to speak in favor of conviction. If, however, one of the students was able to raise a point in favor of acquittal, he would be promoted to one of the judge’s seats and from there he could say what he has to say. Finally, the accused himself may testify on his own behalf, provided his claim has some substantial basis." + ], + [ + "If they find him not guilty, he is discharged, if not, it [the trial] is adjourned till the following day. During this time they [the judges] go about in pairs, practice moderation in food, drink no wine the whole day, and discuss the case throughout the night.
Early next morning they reassemble in court. He who is in favor of acquittal states, ‘I declare him innocent and I stand by my opinion.’ While he who is in favor of condemnation says: ‘I declare him guilty and stand by my opinion.’ One who [previously] argued for conviction may now argue for acquittal, but one who [previously] argued for acquittal may not now argue for conviction. If they have made any mistake, the two judges’ scribes are to remind them.
If they find him not guilty, they discharge him.
If not, they take a vote. If twelve acquit and eleven condemn, he is acquitted. If twelve condemn and eleven acquit, or if eleven condemn and eleven acquit and one says, ‘I do not know,’ or even if twenty-two acquit or condemn and a single one says, ‘I do not know,’ they add to the judges.
Up to what number is the court increased? By twos up to the limit of seventy-one.
If thirty-six acquit and thirty-five condemn, he is acquitted. But if thirty-six condemn and thirty-five acquit, the two sides debate the case together until one of those who condemn agrees with the view of those who are for acquittal.
Our mishnah deals with the end of the trial procedure, before the final verdict is pronounced. Note that the mishnah gives numerous opportunities for a judge who voted for conviction to overturn his ruling and vote for acquittal. The Rabbis were very cautious that an innocent man should not be found guilty.
Our mishnah describes the court’s procedure after an initial vote has been taken. If at any point the defendant is found to be innocent the trial is over and he is dismissed. If after the initial vote he is found to be guilty, the judges adjourn for the day in order to “sleep” on the case. During this time the judges continuously debate the merits of the case, and neither eat a lot nor drink wine.
When they reassemble the next morning each judge is asked again to state his opinion. A judge may change his vote from a vote for conviction to a vote for acquittal, but not vice versa. If they make a mistake and do not remember how they voted the scribes who recorded the previous vote remind them.
Again, after the second vote, if he is found to be innocent he is dismissed. In order to convict they need a majority of two votes. In a court of twenty three, the requisite number for a capital case, a conviction would therefore require thirteen in favor of conviction with only ten opposed. If a judge states that he does not know whether to convict or acquit he is not counted as part of the quorum of judges. Therefore, even if 22 judges either convict or acquit and one states that he doesn’t know, they need to add more judges in order to fill the quorum of twenty three. These judges who are added in are, as we learned in chapter four, mishnah four, moved up from the ranks of the disciples who sit before the judges. They continue to add judges until they reach either a majority of two in favor of conviction or a majority of one in favor of acquittal. The maximum number of judges is 71, which is the number of the Great Sanhedrin. If, even after there are 71 judges there is still a majority of only one in favor of conviction, they keep discussing the merits of the case until one who had voted for conviction changes his mind and votes for acquittal. Note, that one who had already voted for acquittal may not change his mind and vote now for conviction, as we learned in the beginning of the mishnah." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "When the trial is completed he [the condemned] is led forth to be stoned.
The place of stoning was outside of the court, as it is says, “Bring out him that has cursed” (Lev. 24:14).
A man was stationed at the door of the court with the handkerchiefs in his hand, and a man on a horse was stationed at a distance yet within sight of him. If one says, ‘I have something [further] to state in his favor’, he [the signaler] waves the handkerchief, and the man on the horse runs and stops them. And even if he [the convict] himself says, ‘I have something to plead in my own favor’, he is brought back, even four or five times, providing, however, that there is substance in his assertion.
If then they find him innocent, they discharge him.
But if not, he goes forth to be stoned, and a herald precedes him [crying]: so and so, the son of so and so, is going forth to be stoned because he committed such and such an offense, and so and so are his witnesses. Whoever knows anything in his favor, let him come and state it.”
The sixth chapter of Sanhedrin deals with the execution by stoning of a person convicted of a capital crime. Although stoning sounds like quite a brutal death, and it certainly must have been painful, as we read the chapter try to keep in mind that execution was an acceptable punishment in all societies in the ancient world. It is also mentioned numerous times in the Bible. Stoning as a mode of execution is also mentioned many times in the Bible. It would be anachronistic of us to expect the Rabbis to exclude the possibility of execution. On the other hand, you should note how cautious the Rabbis were in even theoretically punishing someone through execution. The possibility of the convict’s being exonerated always remained open, even until the last moment. Even while performing the execution the Rabbis were extremely concerned for the respect shown to the convict’s body, as we will see in later mishnayoth. Finally, we must keep in mind that the requirements for proper testimony were so strict that convicting someone would be extremely difficult. Indeed, execution was probably rarely, if ever, carried out, at least according to the rules of Jewish law.
Our mishnah describes the process of stoning, one of the four methods of execution which the mishnah describes. The other three will be described later.
The stoning was not done at the place of the trial, but rather further away from the city. This is proven from a verse in Leviticus which describes taking out the person who cursed God, a capital crime according to the Torah. According to our mishnah “taking out” implies that they took him out of the city.
There are two functionaries described in our mishnah: one who would hold a handkerchief, or flag of some sort and would stay near the court, and one who would ride on a horse and stand some distance from the first man, but still be able to see him. If someone came and offered testimony that would exonerate the convict, the man with the handkerchief would wave and the man on the horse would see the sign and ride out and halt the execution. Even if the convict himself brought up new testimony they would halt the execution, provided he made a substantial claim. If at any time they found in his favor, he would be immediately dismissed. Although this might be a rare occurrence, being so late in the process, nevertheless the mishnah considers it important to remind us that it is never to late to change a verdict from guilty to innocent.
As they are bringing the convict out to be stoned a herald would walk in front of him announcing who he was and why he was being executed. We might have assumed that the purpose of such a custom would be to make an example of the accused, and thereby prevent others from repeating his crime. However, the mishnah does not describe this as the reason for the herald’s crying out. Rather, this is yet another opportunity to find someone to exonerate the convict, and thereby prevent an innocent person’s blood from being shed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two discusses the confession that the convict is to make before he is executed. In Rabbinic theology, the confession allows the execution to expiate the convict of his crime, thereby causing him to die clean of all sins.", + "When he is about ten cubits away from the place of stoning, they say to him, ‘confess’, for such is the practice of all who are executed, that they [first] confess, for he who confesses has a portion in the world to come. For so we find in the case of Achan, that Joshua said to him, “My son, pay honor to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession to him. [Tell me what you have done, do not hold anything back from me.” And Achan answered Joshua and said, “It is true, I have sinned against the Lord the God of Israel, and this is what I have done” (Josh. 7:19-20). And how do we know that his confessions made atonement for him? As it says, “And Joshua said, “What calamity have you brought upon us! The Lord will bring calamity upon you this day” (Josh. 7:35), [meaning] this day you are a calamity, but you are not to be a calamity in the next world. And if he does not know how to confess, they say to him, “Say, may my death be an expiation for all my sins.” When the convict reaches ten cubits distance from the place where he is to be stoned, he is asked to confess of his crimes. The mishnah teaches that anyone who confesses, no matter how heinous their crime, has a place in the world to come. This lesson is based the story of Achan in the book of Joshua. When Joshua conquered Jericho, the people were not supposed to take anything from the city. Rather they were supposed to kill anything that was alive and bring only the silver and gold to the treasury. Achan violated this ruling and took from the proscribed property of Jericho. As a punishment God causes Israel to lose their subsequent battle at Ai (Joshua, chapter 7). When Joshua figures out that their loss was due to Achan’s taking from the proscribed property, he sentences Achan to death for having violated God’s word not to take from the property of Jericho. Joshua requests of Achan to confess his crime, which he subsequently does. The innovation that our mishnah makes is that this confession expiates Achan of his crime and Achan therefore has a place in the world to come. Joshua says to Achan, “What calamity have you brought upon us! The Lord will bring calamity upon you this day”. The simple sense of the verse is that God is punishing Achan and carrying out the punishment today. The midrashic reading of our mishnah is that God is punishing Achan only today, and he will not punish him tomorrow. Achan, therefore, has a place in the world to come. Even one who does not know how to confess is taught how to do so. The Rabbis are concerned that although the criminal’s time in this world is drawing to a close, he should still be able to have a share in the world to come.", + "Rabbi Judah said: “If he knows that he is a victim of false evidence, he can say: may my death be an expiation for all my sins but this.” They [the sages] said to him: “If so, everyone will speak likewise in order to clear himself.” The mishnah ends with a dispute between Rabbi Judah and the Sages. According to Rabbi Judah, if the convicted person does not believe that he was guilty, he need not ask for forgiveness for this sin. Rather he can make a general statement, asking for forgiveness from other sins. The Sages disagree with Rabbi Judah. If convicted people were allowed to make such a confession, everyone would do so, in order to give the impression that they were dying innocent. Rather, if he will not confess to this crime he is not allowed to confess to any crime.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Why are the Sages so afraid of the convicted person not confessing to this specific sin? What do they mean when they say “everyone will speak likewise in order to clear himself?”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three deals with whether or not the person should wear clothing while being stoned.", + "When he is about four cubits distant from the place of stoning, he is stripped of his clothing. A man is covered in front and a woman both in front and behind, according to Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: “A man is to be stoned naked and a woman is not to be stoned naked. According to the Sages a man is stoned naked while a woman is stone clothed. According to Maimonides explanation of this mishnah, the reason that the man is stoned naked is to hasten his death. The clothing would present a barrier that would prolong his death and therefore prolong his suffering. Both the Sages and Rabbi Judah agree that a woman is stoned while clothed. Evidently this is out of a sense of modesty. Note, that even while executing a person, the Rabbis are concerned with issues of personal modesty. According to Rabbi Judah, this sense of modesty requires that even the man be clothed, although he need only be covered in the front, while the woman must be clothed from both sides" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four describes how the person was to be stoned. The mishnah also discusses the hanging mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:22-23. We should mention that we don’t really know exactly how this hanging was to be performed. The JPS translation translates it as “impaling” but this is not the literal meaning of the word. The purpose of such an action was to expose the body, and it was a common practice in the ancient and indeed also the modern world. The Torah states that while this type of action may be done, the body may not be left overnight. The Torah is concerned for the respect due to the human body and therefore it states that leaving a body hanging overnight is strictly forbidden.", + "The place of stoning was twice a man's height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled [his duty]; but if not, the second witness took a stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby, he had done [his duty]; but if not, he [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel, for it is says: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). According to the Rabbis, stoning was not carried out by throwing stones at the person until he dies, which would seem to be the normal way that one would understand stoning. Rather the person is pushed off a two story platform and then stones are dropped on him. The first witness is the one who pushes him off and if he dies then the execution is over and no further stoning is done. If the person is still alive then the second witness throws a stone on him. If he dies the execution is over, but if he remains alive the rest of Israel throws stones at him. This process is based on a biblical verse. We should note two things. First of all the mishnah is careful to stone the person only until he dies. Once he dies, the Rabbis forbade further disfiguration of his body. Second, the Torah requires the witnesses to take part in the stoning. A witness must believe his testimony firmly enough to actually carry out the execution himself. In some cases this might discourage false testimony.", + "All who are stoned are [afterwards] hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged.” A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: a man is hanged, but not a woman. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: “But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women at ashkelon?” They said: “[On that occasion] he hanged eighty women, even though two must not be tried on the same day. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the Torah commands that all executed people are hung after their execution. However, the Sages say that this is done only to the blasphemer (of God) and to the idol worshipper. Rabbi Eliezer states that both men and women are to be hung, whereas the Sages say that only men are hung. Note that even though Rabbi Eliezer believes that women are hung, he is still concerned with their modesty. In order to prove his point that women are also hung, Rabbi Eliezer brings up the precedent of Shimon ben Shetach, an early Sage, who hung 80 women in Ashkelon. (We don’t know why he hung them). The Sages retort that this hanging was not done according to the law, for Jewish law forbids convicting even two people on one day. According to the Sages the incident of Shimon ben Shetach was an unusual, one time affair, and does not set precedent for future cases.", + "How is he hanged? The post is sunk into the ground with a [cross-] piece branching off [at the top] and he brings his hands together one over the other and hangs him up [thereby]. R. Jose said: the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up the way butchers do. He is immediately let down. If he is left [hanging] over night, a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it says, “You shall not let his corpse remain all night upon the tree, but you must bury him the same day because a hanged body is a curse against god” (Deut. 21:23). As if to say why was he hanged? because he cursed the name [of god]; and so the name of Heaven [God] is profaned. Rabbi Yose and the Sages dispute how a person is to be hung. Note that the hanging described by the mishnah is not done by the person’s neck but rather by their hands. This is, of course, closer to what we would call crucifixion. However, according to the Rabbis hanging is not a form of the death penalty but is to be performed after the execution has been carried out. The body must be let down immediately. Indeed according to other sources, one hand puts the body up and another lets it down. The disgrace done to the body is indeed only momentary. The verse in Deuteronomy states that a hanged body is a disgrace to God. Our mishnah understands that the verse comes to teach that people who see the body hanging will realize that it was because he cursed God, either by explicitly doing so or by worshipping idols, as we learned in section two.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why are the Rabbis so concerned about not disfiguring the body of the executed criminal? What value lies behind their laws?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with several subjects: 1) God’s sorrow at seeing one of His children die; 2) the commandment to bury all people on the day they die; 3) the process of burying the executed criminal.", + "R. Meir said: “When man suffers, what expression does the shechinah (God’s use? “My head is too light (a euphemism for for me, my arm is too light (a euphemism for for me.” If god is so grieved over the blood of the wicked that is shed, how much more so over the blood of the righteous! Throughout this chapter we have seen that although the Rabbis did allow executions to take place, after all the Torah talks in many places about executions, they were troubled by this punishment and went to lengths to make sure that no innocent man was ever executed. Furthermore, according to the Rabbis, execution expiates the criminal of his sin, thereby allowing him a place in the world to come. Our mishnah continues with this trend by stating God’s pain at the loss of even a criminal. According to Rabbi Meir as the execution is being carried out, God exclaims that his head and arms are too heavy to bear. We learn from this that if God mourns so greatly for the death of the wicked, all the more so will He mourn at the bloodshed of the righteous.", + "And not only of this one [a criminal did the sages not to leave him overnight] but whosoever lets his dead lie over night transgresses a negative commandment. If he kept him over night for the sake of his honor, to procure for him a coffin or a shroud, he does not transgress. We learned in mishnah four that one is not allowed to leave the body of the executed man hanging over night. Rather the court must bury him that very day. In mishnah five we learn that not only are criminals to be buried on the same day they die but every Jew should be buried on the same day that he dies. Although most Jews do not still observe this custom, mostly due to people having to travel to make the funeral, and many funerals are delayed by a day or two, Jews in Jerusalem are still usually buried on the same day that they die. Furthermore, Jewish law prohibits the use of chemicals to preserve the body, making a quick burial all the more imperative. The mishnah adds that if the delay was for the sake of the dead person, to arrange a proper burial, then no negative commandment is transgressed.", + "And they did not bury him [the executed person] in his ancestral tomb, but two burial places were prepared by the court, one for those who were decapitated or strangled, and the other for those who were stoned or burned. In this section and in the following mishnah we return to the subject of the executed criminal. Jewish burial, and indeed many forms of ancient burial, was a two stage process. First the person was buried and allowed to lie in the ground until his flesh deteriorated. When this occurred they would collect the bones and put them into an ossuary with the bones from other deceased members of his family. According to our mishnah the initial burial of the criminal was in a special grave reserved for those executed by the court. There were two graves, one for those decapitated and strangled, and one for those burned and stoned. (These are the four types of execution mentioned in the mishnah, as we will learn in the next chapter).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the connection between section one and section two? In other words, why does the mishnah discuss the need for a speedy burial of non-criminals here as opposed to mishnah four?" + ], + [ + "When the flesh was completely decomposed, the bones were gathered and buried in their proper place.
The relatives then came and greeted the judges and witnesses, as if to say, we have no [ill feelings] against you, for you gave a true judgment.
And they observed no mourning rites but grieved [for him], for grief is in the heart alone.
Mishnah six discusses the process which occurs a year or so after the initial burial of the criminal. At this time formal reconciliation is made between the family of the criminal and the court, thereby restoring proper order to society.
When the flesh was decomposed the bones were allowed to be returned to their ancestral burial place. This is the first step of reconciliation: allowing the criminal’s bones to rejoin the bones of his family. The mishnah then prescribes a procedure in which the relatives of the criminal were to greet the judges and witnesses, thereby tacitly admitting that the verdict had been correct. This second process of reconciliation and admission to the authority of the court allows society to return to some sense of normalcy, after the severe disruption of an execution. Finally, although the family may not observe proper mourning rites, which would involve elaborate eulogies and public rituals, inappropriate for a criminal, they were allowed to observe the private ritual of grief. While the mishnah cannot allow the public ritual, it is sensitive to the private needs of the mourning family. This too is a form of reconciliation, as if the court is saying to the family that although your relative was a criminal, the moral stain is not borne by his entire surviving family. They are to return to regular members of society." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Four deaths have been entrusted to the court: stoning, burning, slaying [by the sword] and strangulation.
R. Simeon says: “burning, stoning, strangulation and slaying.”
That (the previous is the manner of stoning.
The first mishnah of chapter seven lists the four types of execution that Jewish law prescribed.
There are four types of death carried out (at least theoretically) according to Jewish law. Our mishnah contains a dispute with regards to which type of execution is harsher than the others. The Sages claim that stoning is the harshest, followed by burning, slaying and strangulation. Rabbi Shimon disagrees. He holds that burning is the harshest, and slaying the least harsh.
The mishnah notes that the previous chapter described how stoning was to be carried out. The following two mishnayoth will describe burning, slaying and strangulation." + ], + [ + "The manner in which burning is executed is as follows: They would lower him into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two loose ends pulled in opposite directions, forcing him to open his mouth. A wick was then lit, and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body and burned his bowels.
R. Judah says: “Should he have died at their hands [being strangled by the bandage before the wick was thrown into his mouth], they would not have fulfilled the requirements of execution by fire. Rather his mouth was forced open with pincers against his wish, the wick lit and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body and burned his bowels.
Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok said: “It once happened that a priest's daughter committed adultery, whereupon bundles of sticks were placed around her and she was burnt. The Sages said to him: “That was because the court at that time was not well learned in law.
Our mishnah describes how execution by burning was to be carried out. It might be helpful to begin with Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok (section three), who testifies to having seen a priest’s daughter executed by being totally burnt (evidently alive). This follows the seemingly simple requirement mentioned in Lev. 21:9, that a priest’s daughter who committed adultery should be burned. However, the Sages who disagree with him, and those who state their opinion in section one, believed that execution by burning was to be done by burning up the insides of the person. They would open up his mouth and throw burning material inside and it would descend and burn him from the inside. Rabbi Judah’s dispute with the Sages is with regards to the manner in which they would force open his mouth; he does not disagree with the Sages general understanding of how execution by burning was carried out. Rabbi Judah is concerned lest in the process of opening his mouth they strangle him which is a different form of execution.
It is worth discussing briefly the nature of the two different understandings of death by burning. The Rabbis prescribe a form of burning that doesn’t seem to be the simple understanding of the Torah. When the Torah states that someone is to be burned, it probably means an execution similar to that referred to by Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok in section three. Therefore the question needs to be asked: why did the Rabbis insist that burning would take place by burning the inside and not the outside? The answer is probably not that one form of death was more or less painful than the other. They both sound quite painful. The best answer that is borne out by many other sources, is that the Rabbis did not want to sanction an execution in which the outer body was disfigured. While they believed in the death penalty (again, at least theoretically) they wanted to execute the criminal while doing as little physical, external damage to the body as possible. The body, after all, is a gift from God, and while the person may deserve death according to the law, damaging the body serves no purpose. This is to be contrasted to other cultures that have existed until this very day, who considered the public disfiguring of the body of the criminal to be desirable, either as an example to the rest of society, or as a means to take vengeance even on the corpse. The Rabbis took a strong stand against such practices, one that we will see in several places. Indeed we have already seen this attitude in the previous chapter, when it stated that the hanged body was to be taken down immediately. Although the criminal deserved to die, mutilating his body was indeed, according to Jewish law, an affront to God." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three describes the final two forms of execution: slaying by the sword and strangulation.", + "Slaying by the sword was performed thus: they would cut off his head by the sword, as is done by the civil authorities. R. Judah says: “This is a disgrace! Rather his head was laid on a block and severed with an axe. They said to him: “No death is more disgraceful than this.” According to the Sages execution by sword was done by decapitating the condemned, as is the practice amongst the non-Jewish authorities. Rabbi Judah says that this is a disgrace. Rather they should lay his head on a block of wood and chop it off with an axe. The Sages reply to Rabbi Judah that this is even more disgraceful. Although it is hard for us to understand why one form of decapitation is more disgraceful than the others, the important issue in this mishnah is that both sides want to prevent a disgraceful execution. As we have already stated, in the ancient world it was common to search for the most disgraceful execution possible. The Rabbis took a totally opposite approach. Even while executing the man the court must look for the least disgraceful way of ending his life.", + "Strangulation was performed thus: the condemned man was lowered into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead. Strangulation was done by tying a rope around the condemned man’s neck and pulling it from both sides until he dies. Again, we see in this mishnah that the Sages tried as much as possible to prevent disfiguration to the body. This is accomplished in our mishnah by putting the rough rope inside a soft rope. Although in either way the condemned will die, the soft rope will leave less damage on the body. It is also important to note that while all of the other forms of execution are mentioned specifically in the Torah, strangulation is not. It is probably a new form of execution, created by the Rabbis, specifically with the intent of causing as little physical damage to the body as possible.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Judah and the Sages?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four lists those crimes for which one is stoned and begins to explain them.", + "This mishnah lists all of those who are executed by stoning and then begins to explain some of the details. Most of these crimes are specifically listed in the Torah as being punishable by stoning. Some are learned through an analogy with other crimes. We will mention the verses for each crime.(1) one who has sexual relations with his mother: Leviticus 18:7, 20:11. (2) with his father's wife: Leviticus 18:8, 20:11. (3) with his daughter -in-law: Leviticus 20:12. (4) with a male: Leviticus 20:13. (5) with a beast: Leviticus 20:15. (6) a woman who commits bestiality with a beast: Leviticus 20:16. (7) a blasphemer: Leviticus 24:15-16. (8) an idolater: Deuteronomy 17:2-5. (9) one who gives of his seed to molech: Leviticus 20:2. (10) a necromancer or a wizard: Leviticus 20:27. (11) one who desecrates the Sabbath: Number 15:35. (12) he who curses his father or mother: Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9. (13) he who commits adultery with a betrothed woman: Deuteronomy 22:23-24. (14) one who incites [individuals to idolatry: Deuteronomy 13:7-11. (15) one who seduces [a whole town to idolatry]: Deuteronomy 13:7-11. (16) a sorcerer: Exodus 22:17, Deuteronomy 18:10. (17) a wayward and rebellious son: Deuteronomy 21:18-21. The rest of chapter seven will deal with the first 16 of these issues.", + "He who has sexual relations with his mother incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his mother and as his father's wife. R. Judah says: “He is liable in respect of her as his mother only.” One who has relations with his mother incurs two crimes, one for having relations with his mother and a separate crime for having relations with his father’s wife. Of course there is no practical difference with regards to how many crimes he has committed if he is to incur the death penalty, since you can only kill a man once. There is a difference though if the relations were accidental (such as he didn’t know that she was his mother). In such a case he must bring a sacrifice to make atonement. Our mishnah teaches that he will have to bring two sacrifices. Rabbi Judah holds that he is obligated for only one sacrifice.", + "He who has sexual relations with his father's wife incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his father's wife, and as a married woman, both during his father's lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. One who has relations with his father’s wife (not his mother) is obligated for having relations with a married woman and with his father’s wife. He is obligated no matter if his father is alive or has already died and she is now his widow. Similarly, he is obligated even if she was only betrothed to his father, but not fully married.", + "He who has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his daughter-in-law and as a married woman, both during his son's lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. All of the same laws with regards to the prohibition of having relations with one’s father’s wife are true with regards to one’s son’s wife.", + "He who has sexual relations with a male or a beast, and a woman that commits bestiality: if the man has sinned, how has the animal sinned? But because the human was enticed to sin by the animal, therefore scripture ordered that it should be stoned. Another reason is that the animal should not pass through the market, and people say, this is the animal on account of which so and so was stoned. This section deals with bestiality. According to Leviticus 20:15-16, an animal who has had sexual relations with a man or woman is to be killed. Our mishnah asks why should the animal be killed. After all it certainly had no control over its actions. The mishnah supplies two answers: 1) since it caused a man or woman to sin. Perhaps we are concerned that another person might also sin with this animal. 2) So people will not be reminded of the crime every time they see the animal." + ], + [ + "The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the divine] name.
Rabbi Joshua b. Korcha said: “The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name:, ‘may Yose smite Yose.”
When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally what you heard.’
Thereupon he did so, [using the divine name].
The judges then arose and tore their garments, which were not to be resewn.
The second witness stated: “I too have heard thus” [but not uttering the divine name], and the third says: “I too heard thus.”
Mishnah five deals with the blasphemer and the special circumstances of his trial.
With regards to the blasphemer the Torah states (Lev. 24:15): “Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt. If he also pronounces the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.” From these verses the Rabbis learned that the blasphemer was obligated for the death penalty only if he used God’s four letter name.
The problem with putting the blasphemer on trial is that when the witnesses testify and repeat what they heard, they too will be blaspheming God’s name. Although they certainly would not receive the death penalty for doing so, it was nevertheless seen to be unacceptable for even a witness to repeat what he heard, especially in a public trial. Therefore, during the court’s deliberation they used a code word, “may Yose smite Yose”. However, in order to complete the trial the witnesses needed to state what they heard explicitly at least one time. Therefore, at the end of the trial they would remove everyone from the court and only the witnesses and the judges would remain. They would then ask the eldest witness to say explicitly what he heard. So painful was it for the judges to hear God’s name being blasphemed that they would tear their clothes and not repair them. This was a typical sign of mourning. The remaining witnesses would not need to say exactly what they heard, thereby repeating the blasphemy. Rather they would merely say that they heard what the first person heard." + ], + [ + "He who engages in idol-worship [is executed]. This includes the one whoserves it, sacrifices, offers incense, makes libations, bows to it, accepts it as a god, or says to it, “You are my god.”
But he who embraces, kisses it, sweeps or sprinkles the ground before it, washes it, anoints it, clothes it, or puts shoes on it, he transgresses a negative commandment [but is not executed].
He who vows or swears by its name, violates a negative commandment.
He who uncovers himself before Baal-Peor [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped.
He who casts a stone on Merculis [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped.
Mishnah six deals with which forms of idol worship will cause a Jew to incur the death penalty.
Our mishnah describes what types of idolatrous activities are punished by death and what types are forbidden but not punishable by death. Basically we can summarize that activities that are performed solely in worship of the idol, such as bowing to it, sacrificing to it, or specifically stating that the idol is a god, are punished by death. However, ancillary actions that are not done with the purpose of worship are forbidden but not punishable by death.
The final two clauses of our mishnah mention two idols who were worshipped by strange types of actions. Baal-Peor is worshipped by the idolater’s exposing himself. Merculis (Mercury) is worshipped by throwing stones at it. Since these are considered to be worship, the one who performs them is obligated for the death penalty." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah seven deals with one who gives of his seed to Molech. The second half of mishnah seven deals with the “Ba’al Ob” and the “Yidde’oni”. We will explain all of these terms below.", + "He who gives of his seed to Molech is not liable unless he delivers it to Molech and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molech but did not cause it to pass through the fire, or he caused it to pass through fire but did not give it to Molech, he incurs no penalty, unless he does both. “Molech” was the name given by a god worshipped by some of Israel’s neighbors. It is mentioned in Leviticus 20:2, where it specifically states that one who gives of his seed to Molech shall be stoned. It is also mentioned in Leviticus 18:21 and II Kings 23:10. According to the Rabbis “giving one’s seed to Molech” involved giving one’s child to the priests of Molech and their passing him from one side of a fire to another. The child was not consumed by the fire. (Although some commentators hold that this was a form of child sacrifice. For an interesting article on Biblical scholarship with regards to the cult of Molech, see the JPS Commentary on Leviticus). Our mishnah teaches that in order for the father to be obligated for the death penalty he must both give the child to the priests of Molech and cause the child to be passed through the fire. If he does only one of these he is not to be stoned.", + "A Ba'al Ob is the pithom who speaks from his armpit. The Yidde'oni is one who speaks from his mouth. These two are stoned; while he who inquires of them transgresses a formal prohibition. Leviticus 19:31 specifically warns that Israelites are not to make inquiry of the “Ovoth” or the “Yidde’onim”. These were different types of sorcerers or oracles who would conjure up spirits in order to tell the future. According to our mishnah a “Ba’al Ob”, or Master of the Ob” was a “pithom”, which in Greek means a conjurer. According to Rashi he would place a skull underneath his armpit and use it to predict the future. A “Yidde’oni” would also conjure up spirits but he would speak from his mouth. If an Israelite were to act as a conjurer of this sort he would be obligated for stoning. If an Israelite were to inquire of a “Ba’al Ob” or “Yidde’oni” he would transgress a negative commandment, but he would not be obligated for the death penalty." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight deals with one who violates the Sabbath and one who curses his parents.", + "He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], providing that it is an offence punished by “kareth” if deliberate, and by a sin-offering if unwitting. According to Numbers 15:35, one who breaks the Sabbath is punished by being stoned. However, we learn elsewhere that he is stoned only if he is warned prior to the transgression that if he violates the Sabbath in such a manner he will be stoned. Our mishnah teaches that this is true provided that his violation was one which is punished by “kareth” (a death penalty meted out by God) if not warned (but nevertheless committed with intent to break the Sabbath). He also must commit a transgression for which he is obligated to bring a sin-offering if he did it unwittingly (for instance he didn’t know that today was the Sabbath or that this type of work is prohibited). The seventh chapter of Tractate Shabbat lists which types of work one is prohibited from doing on the Sabbath. One who is warned not to do one of these types of work and does so anyway is to be stoned. There are other types of work which are forbidden to do on the Sabbath but are not punished by stoning.", + "One who curses His father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the divine name. If he cursed them by a nickname, Rabbi Meir held him liable, but the Sages ruled that he is exempt. According to Leviticus 20:9 and Exodus 21:17 one who curses his parents is liable for the death penalty. Our mishnah teaches that he is liable only if he curses them using God’s explicit name (which we no longer know). Although Rabbi Meir holds that he is obligated even if he uses a nickname for God, the Sages disagree." + ], + [ + "He who has sexual relations with a betrothed young woman is not punished until she is a young woman, a virgin, betrothed, and in her father's house.
If two men had sexual relations with her, the first is stoned, but the second is strangled.
Mishnah nine deals with a man who has relations with a betrothed virgin.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 states: “In the case of a virgin who is betrothed to a man if a man comes upon her in town and lies with her, you shall take the two of them out to the gate of that town and stone them.” A man who has sexual relations with a betrothed woman is an adulterer, as is she, and they are both punishable by death. However, unlike a regular adulterer who is punished by strangulation, one who has relations with a betrothed woman is punished with a more serious form of the death penalty, stoning. Our mishnah teaches that in order for the two to be punished by stoning she must be betrothed and not married. She must be a virgin, and she must be a young woman, usually defined as being from the age of 12-12 ½. Older or younger than that and he will only be punished by strangulation. She also must still be residing in her father’s house. If she has already moved to her husband’s house she is considered married and adultery is then punished by strangulation.
If two men commit adultery with her the first is punished by being stoned and the second is punished by strangulation, since by the time he had relations with her she was no longer a virgin." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten deals with those who incite individuals or whole towns to commit idolatry.", + "One who incites [individuals to idolatry] -- this refers to an ordinary person who incites an individual who said, “There is an idol in such and such a place; it eats thus, it drinks thus, it does good [to those who worship it] and harm [to those who do not].” Deuteronomy 13:7-11 discusses an Israelite who attempts to incite his fellow Israelite to worship idols. According to our mishnah this is a regular individual (as opposed to a prophet) who attempts to incite another individual (as opposed to the entire town) to commit idolatry, by telling the other person about an idol that he intends to worship.", + "For all who are liable for the death penalty according to the Torah no witnesses are hidden to entrap them, excepting for this one. If he said [these things] to two, they themselves are witnesses against him, and he is brought to court and stoned. But if he said [these things] to one, he should reply, “I have friends who wish to do so likewise [come and propose it to them too].” But if he was cunning and declined to speak before them, witnesses are hidden behind a partition, while he [who was incited] says to him, make your proposal to me now in private. When the inciter says to him (repeats to him what he had already, the other replies, “How can we abandon our God in heaven to go and serve wood and stones?” Should he retract, it is well. But if he answers, “It is our duty [to worship idols], and is seemly for us”, then the witnesses stationed behind the partition take him to court, and have him stoned. Jewish law requires that all crimes, and certainly capital crimes, be witnessed by two people. However, due to the subversive nature of idol worship, the Rabbis allowed entrapping of one who was trying to incite others to worship idols. Such a form of entrapment was forbidden in all other cases. The reason that this was allowed in this case was to prevent one from inciting many individuals privately, thereby circumventing any possible punishment by the court. The mishnah now explains how this works. If he had incited two people directly, the two of them may bring him to court and he can be tried based on their testimony. If he incited one person, that person should first attempt to get the inciter to say the same thing to other people, and if he does they may bring him to court and testify against him. Should the inciter be clever and not repeat the same words in front of more than one person, the person who has already heard what the inciter said may hide witnesses behind a partition and encourage the inciter to repeat his words. Interestingly, the person who is being incited should even at this late stage try to get the inciter to recant. Jewish law is more interested in having the person recant and return to being part of the Jewish people than having him stoned. If he does not, however, recant, these witnesses may testify against him in a court of law, and if found guilty he will be stoned.", + "He who incites [individuals to idolatry is one who] is one who says, “I will worship it”, or, “I will go and worship”, or, “let us go and worship”; or, “I will sacrifice [to it]”, “I will go and sacrifice”, “let us go and sacrifice”; “I will burn incense, “I will go and burn incense”; “let us go and burn incense”; or “I will make libations to it”, “I will go and make libations to it”, “let us go and make libations”; “I will prostrate myself before it”, “I will go and prostrate myself”, “let us go and prostrate ourselves”. This section lists all of the possible statements that are considered incitement. Basically it doesn’t matter if he states that he is going to do the idol worship or suggests that other do it with him, nor does it matter what type of worship it may be worshipping, sacrificing, bringing incense, making libations or bowing down, in any case he is considered an inciter and is liable for the death penalty of stoning. Note the similarity between this list and the list of forbidden types of worship in mishnah six.", + "One who seduces [a whole town to idolatry] is one who says, “Let us go and serve idols”. In Deuteronomy 13:13-19 a different type of inciter is discussed, one who incites an entire city to worship idols. The mishnah states that to be this type of inciter one must suggest in public that they all go and worship idols. If he had used singular language than his incitement does not fall into this category. We will discuss this case more when we learn chapter ten." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eleven deals with different forms of sorcery.", + "A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death], but not if he merely creates illusions. Rabbi Akiva says in Rabbi Joshua's name: “If two are gathering cucumbers [by magic] one may be punished and the other exempt: he who really gathers them is punished: while he who produces an illusion is exempt.” When the mishnah stated that a sorcerer is liable to be stoned, it meant one who actually performs magic, but not one who creates illusions. [Therefore, modern magicians who use illusions are not obligated for the death penalty]. Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Joshua illustrates this principle by mentioning a form of magic that must have been at least somewhat known in the time of the mishnah, something like pulling a rabbit out of a hat in our days." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter eight deals almost exclusively with the wayward and rebellious son mentioned in Deut. 21:18-21. According to this famous passage in the Torah, if parents have a son who does not obey their words they may take him to the elders of the city, pronounce him to be wayward and rebellious and the child will be punished through stoning. Much can be said about this passage and indeed it sounds quite harsh to our modern ears. The Rabbis too seemed to be troubled by the passage and dealt with it in three different ways: 1) there is one strain of thought in Rabbinic sources which says that this law was never fulfilled. In other words, there never was a rebellious and wayward son who was stoned. 2) Although we may not understand the passage it is God’s word and we have no right to question it. 3) The rebellious son is not punished because of his prior actions but rather to prevent him from becoming a worse menace to society.", + "This mishnah deals with the age that a boy must be in order for him to be stoned as a wayward and rebellious son. Section a states that he must have already have reached the beginning stages of puberty but not have reached adulthood. Through a midrash on the opening verse, “If a man has a son” the Rabbis conclude that the passage in Deuteronomy relates to a son and not a daughter, to someone who still acts as the son of his father but not to an adult who is already beyond the strict authority of his parents.", + "Section b states that the minor is exempt, since he is not obligated for commandments. Taken in its totality the mishnah severely limits the age at which a child can be punished as a wayward and rebellious son. We are probably talking about a time period of about six months." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two defines the actions that a son must take in order to be defined as “wayward and rebellious”.", + "This mishnah deals with what actions are required to make a child punishable as a wayward and rebellious son.", + "When does he become liable [to be stoned]? Once he has eaten a tartemar of meat and drunk half a log of wine. Rabbi Yose said: “A maneh of meat and a log of wine. The child must eat a minimum amount of meat and drink a minimum amount of wine. This is proven at the end of the mishnah in sections 2g and 2gi. The verse from Deuteronomy states that the parents must accuse their child of being a glutton or a drunkard. The verses from Deuteronomy do not explain what these two terms mean. In the book of Proverbs it is stated that a glutton refers to one who eats too much meat and a drunkard is one who drinks too much wine. From here the mishnah concludes that the child must have drunk wine and eaten meat in order for him to be wayward and rebellious. The Rabbis disagree with regards to how much wine and meat he drank.", + "If he ate it in a company [celebrating] a religious act; or at a gathering for the purpose of intercalating the month; if he ate the second tithe in Jerusalem; if he ate the carrion or terefoth (meat that was not slaughtered in a kosher, abominable and creeping things, or untithed produce, or the first tithe from which terumah had not been separated, or unredeemed second tithe, or unredeemed sacred food; if his eating involved a religious act or a transgression; if he ate any food but did not eat meat or drank any drink but did not drink wine, he does not become a ‘stubborn and rebellious son, unless he eats meat and drinks wine, for it is written, “This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice;] he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deut. 21:20). Although there is no clear proof for this, there is at least a hint, as it is says, “Do not be among wine drinkers, among gluttonous meat eaters of flesh (Proverbs 23:20). This section lists all sorts of circumstances of eating and drinking that would not cause him to be a wayward and rebellious son. These circumstances can be divided into two types: 1) religious celebrations; 2) consumption of forbidden food. If he ate at a religious celebration he cannot be punished since it is praiseworthy to eat much wine and meat at such affairs. These types of affairs are listed in the first three clauses of the section. Second tithe, mentioned in section b, is consumed only in Jerusalem, and therefore by eating it there he is fulfilling a religious duty. Clauses c and d list several foods that are forbidden to be consumed, whether they are agricultural products who have not had the agricultural offerings separated from them (untithed produce, etc.), meat that was not slaughtered properly (carrion or terefoth) or animals that are forbidden to eat (abominable and creeping things). The Talmud explains that eating or drinking these things do not make one a wayward and rebellious son because the parents state, “He does not listen to our voice”, whereas one who eats these things doesn’t listen even to God’s voice. A wayward and rebellious son is only defiant to his parents but not to his entire religious obligation. Finally the mishnah reminds us that he must have eaten meat and drunk wine in order to become a wayward and rebellious son. Eating other food gluttonously and getting drunk off other beverages will not make a child liable to be punished as a wayward and rebellious son.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Can you detect a common denominator in the Rabbis understanding of the passage of the wayward and rebellious son? Of the strategies (listed in the introduction to yesterday’s mishnah) that the Rabbis used to deal with this difficult portion of the Torah, which one is employed in this mishnah and in the previous mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three contains further restrictions with regards to the “wayward and rebellious son”.", + "If he stole from his father and ate it on his father’s property, or of strangers and ate it on the property of the strangers, or of strangers and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a “wayward and rebellious son,” until he steals from his father and eats on other’s property. Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah said: “Until he steals from his father and mother.” According to our mishnah in order for a son to become a “wayward and rebellious son” he must steal from his father and consume the stolen food on other people’s property. This is because stealing from his father is easy due to his easy access to his father’s property. Eating the stolen food on other people’s property is also easy, since other people will not know that that which he is eating was stolen. Any other combination of stealing and eating will not make him a “wayward and rebellious son”, since one element will not be so easy. In other words, in order to be a “wayward and rebellious son” he must violate the norms of society in a way that will be easy and therefore encourage him to continuously do so. A riskier action is less likely to be repeated and is therefore more lightly punished. According to Rabbi Judah he must steal from both his father and mother. This “egalitarian” approach is probably based on the fact that the verses in Deuteronomy say that both parents bring the child to his punishment, as we will learn in greater depth in the next mishnah. If both parents bring the child to be punished, the crimes must have been directed at both parents as well.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Of the strategies for dealing with understanding the laws of the “wayward and rebellious son” that we discussed in the introduction to this chapter, which are employed in this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four contains further restrictions with regards to the “wayward and rebellious son”.", + "If his father wants [to have him punished], but not his mother; or his father does not want [to have him punished] but his mother does, he is not treated as a ‘wayward a rebellious son’, unless they both desire it. Rabbi Judah said: “If his mother is not fit for his father, he does not become a ‘wayward and rebellious son”. Deut. 21:19 states, “His father and mother shall take hold of him”. On this one verse the Rabbis made a number of restrictions on the applicability of the case of the wayward and rebellious son. First of all, a most basic understanding of this verse states that both the father and mother must agree to the punishment. This is to prevent one parent from punishing the child without the consent of the other parent. Rabbi Judah learns something slightly more complicated from this verse. He states that if the woman was not “fit” for her husband, the child cannot be punished. One explanation for the word “fit” is that the marriage was a forbidden marriage (for instance a Kohen and a divorcee). A different explanation is that the she was not equal to him in height and appearance. This requirement would then make it almost impossible for a child to become a wayward and rebellious son. After all, how many parents look exactly alike.", + "If one of them [his father or his mother] had a hand cut off, or was lame, mute, blind or deaf, he cannot become a “wayward and rebellious son”, because it says “his father and mother shall take hold of him” (Deut. 21:19) not those with a hand cut off; “and bring him out”, not lame parents; “and they shall say”, and not mute parents; “this our son”, and not blind parents; “he will not obey our voice” (Deut. 21:20), and not deaf parents. This section contains a midrash which excludes children of certain types of parents from being able to be punished as wayward and rebellious. The aforementioned verse states that the parents shall “take hold of him”: this means that a parent who has only one hand cannot fulfill the procedure and therefore his/her child cannot be punished as a wayward and rebellious son. The verse states that the parents must “take him out”: therefore parents with physical disabilities (probably unable to walk) cannot fulfill the procedure. They must make a statement: therefore the parents cannot be mute. They must point him out when they say, “This son of ours”: therefore they cannot be blind. Finally, they must both hear each other’s voice so that they know that he disobeys both of them: therefore they cannot be deaf.", + "He is warned in the presence of three and beaten. If he transgresses again after this, he is tried by a court of twenty three. He cannot be sentenced to stoning unless the first three are present, because it says, “this our son” (Deut. 21:20), [implying], this one who was whipped in your presence. The Torah states that the wayward and rebellious son had already been disciplined before he is brought to the elders to be stoned. Our mishnah understands this to be a formal beating administered by the court. The idea is to pressure the child to change before it is too late. While disciplining the son by beating him only requires a court of three, executing him requires a court of twenty three, as do all executions. The three in front of whom he was beaten must be present at the subsequent trial and execution. This is learned from the parents’ statement, “This is our son”. The word “this” implies that this same son was already beaten in front of the same judges.", + "If he [the rebellious son] fled before his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he is free. But if he fled after his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he remains liable. We learned in the first mishnah of the chapter that a child cannot be punished as a wayward and rebellious son has reached full puberty. Our mishnah teaches that if the accused child runs away before the trial is over, and by the time he returns he has reached full puberty, he can no longer be punished. However, if the trial is already over and the son was convicted, he can be punished even if he runs away and then achieves full puberty before being brought back. Since the trial is already over and we are only waiting for the punishment to be meted out, it does not matter that he is now too old to be tried as a wayward and rebellious son.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Of the strategies for dealing with understanding the laws of the “wayward and rebellious son” that we discussed in the introduction to this chapter, which is employed in this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses an important Rabbinic conception of the punishment of the wayward and rebellious son, namely that he is not punished on account of the sins that he has already committed but on account of the sins that he will commit in the future.", + "A “wayward and rebellious son” is judged on account of his outcome: let him die innocent and let him not die guilty. One of the difficulties in comprehending the severe punishment meted out to the wayward and rebellious son is that it does not seem to fit the crime. The Talmud itself asks, just because he ate too much meat and drank too much wine should this child be stoned. Our mishnah provides one potential answer: the son is not punished for that which he has already done but for that which he will do in the future. The punishment prevents a minor criminal from becoming an even worse criminal. The mishnah teaches that executing the potential criminal is not only good for society, but is a benefit to the criminal as well, for he will die innocent and not guilty. Behind this idea lies a concept of reward and punishment in the world to come. Since the wayward and rebellious son is punished before he can be guilty of a serious crime, he will not receive further punishment in the world to come.", + "For the death of the wicked benefits themselves and the world; [and the death] of the righteous, injures themselves and the world d. Wine and sleep of the wicked benefit themselves and the world; of the righteous, injure themselves and the world The scattering of the wicked benefits themselves and the world; of the righteous, injures themselves and the world. The assembling of the wicked injures themselves and the world; of the righteous, benefits themselves and the world. The tranquillity of the wicked injures themselves and the world; of the righteous, benefits themselves and the world. The mishnah then continues with a discussion of things that are good for the wicked and for the whole world, and bad for the righteous and for the world. Death is good for the wicked, for they will die before they commit more crimes, and for obvious reasons it is good for the world. Death of the righteous prevents them from performing more good deeds and, again for obvious reasons, it is bad for the world. Wine and sleep will prevent the wicked from committing more sins and is therefore good for them and for the world, but bad for the righteous for it prevents them from performing good deeds. The scattering of the wicked prevents them collaboration in sinning whereas the scattering of the righteous prevents their collaboration in good deeds. The ingathering of the wicked allows them to commit more and greater sins, whereas the ingathering of the righteous allows them to perform more good deeds. Finally, tranquility affords the wicked the freedom to commit more crime, whereas it provides the righteous the freedom to do more good." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six discusses the permission that one has to kill a thief who has tunneled into one’s home.", + "[The thief] who burrows his way in [to someone’s home] is judged on account of his outcome. Exodus 22:1-2 teaches that if a householder kills a thief who has burrowed his way into his house, the householder is not guilty of murder. Although execution is not the usual punishment for a thief, since the householder was taken by surprise and did not know the intention of the illegal intruder, he is not held liable for having killed him. Our mishnah understands that this preemptive killing of the intruder is to prevent him from committing more sins, specifically the murder of the householder.", + "If he burrowed his way in and broke a jug, should there be blood-guiltiness for him, he must pay [for the jug], but if there is no blood-guiltiness for him, he is not liable. The Torah also teaches that if the thief burrowed in during the day the householder is not allowed to kill him (unless it is in self-defense). If the householder does kill him he will be accounted guilty. Our mishnah teaches that if the thief broke a jug while burrowing he is liable for damages only in a case where the householder was not allowed to kill him. If, however, the householder was allowed to kill him, i.e. at night, since the thief can be executed he is not liable for monetary damages. This is based on a common principle in Jewish law that if on account of one act one becomes liable for two punishments, he is punished by the greater of the two punishments, in this case death (see Bava Kamma 3:10).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do the Rabbis understand the killing of the “tunneling thief” as preventing him from committing worse crimes, as opposed to self-defense?" + ], + [ + "The following can be saved [from sinning] even at the cost of their lives: he who pursues after his neighbor to slay him, [or] after a male [to rape him], [or] after a betrothed maiden [to rape her].
But he who pursues after an animal [to have relations with it], or one who would violate the Sabbath, or commit idolatry, must not be saved [from sinning] at the cost of his life.
The final mishnah of chapter eight continues to discuss this concept of “preventive punishment” and its limited applicability in Jewish law.
The principle of preventive punishment is a dangerous principle for even a court cannot tell with certainty if someone will surely commit a crime in the future. The Rabbis recognized the danger of this principle and therefore limited its applicability. Section one teaches that one may be killed preemptively only if he was about to commit a capital crime that would violate another person. Section two lists cases in which a person may be killed preemptively, even though he is about to commit a capital crime. Since none of these sins are crimes against other people, the only way the criminal can be executed for having committed one of them is by a proper trial done in front of a court of twenty three." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah one discusses those who are executed by burning, while the second half discusses those executed by being decapitated.", + "The following are burnt: he who has sexual relations with a woman and her daughter, and a priest's adulterous daughter. There is included in [the prohibition of having relations with] a woman and her daughter his own daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son's daughter, his wife's daughter and the daughter of her daughter or son, his mother-in-law, her mother, and his father-in-law's mother. There are two people who are punished by being burnt: one who has relations with a woman and her daughter (Lev. 20:14) and a priest’s daughter who commits adultery (Lev. 21:9). Our mishnah teaches that the prohibition of having relations with a woman and her daughter includes incestuous relationships, such as having relations with one’s wife and her daughter (whether or not she is his daughter). It also includes granddaughters. In all of these cases the man’s punishment will be execution by burning.", + "The following are decapitated: a murderer, and the inhabitants of a city subverted into worshipping idols. A murderer who slew his fellow with a stone or iron, or kept him down under water or in fire, so that he could not get out of there, is executed. If he pushed him into water or fire, but he could get out of there , yet he died, he is not liable [for the death penalty]. The mishnah now begins to discuss those who are executed by decapitation. The first example is a murderer. (We will discuss the city seduced to idol worship more in chapter ten). A murderer is one who strikes his fellow person with intention of killing him. If he pushed his head into fire or water and did not allow him out, he is punished as a murderer. However, if he threw him into water or fire and the person died, he is not punished as a murderer, since the person could have escaped. According to another source, although he is not obligated in a court, he is obligated in a heavenly court.", + "If he set a dog or a snake against him [and they killed him], he is free from death. If he caused a snake to bite him, Rabbi Judah ruled that he is liable [for the death penalty] and the Sages, that he is not. If he set a dog or snake upon another person and they bit him and he died, he is not liable, since he did not kill him with his hands. If he put the dog or snake on the other person, according to Rabbi Judah he is liable, since this counts as murder with one’s hands. According to the Sages this does not count as murder with one’s hands.", + "If a man struck his fellow, whether with a stone or with his fist, and they [the experts] declared that he would die, but then its effect lessened [so that it was thought that he would live], only to increase subsequently, so that he died he is liable. Rabbi Nehemiah said that he is exempt, since there is a strong possibility [that he did not die as a result of his injuries]. If a person struck another person and then the doctors stated that he would die, and then later the patient started to recover, and then still later died, according to the Sages the striker is obligated for the death penalty. We can assume that he died of his wounds, even though he slightly recovered in the interim. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, since he even slightly recovered, we have a reasonable doubt with regards to the cause of his death, for perhaps he died of a different cause and not directly from the wounds. This reasonable doubt is enough to exempt him from the death penalty.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section four: Why does the mishnah mention this strange case? What might it teach us in general about other cases?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a murderer who intends to kill either in a certain manner or a certain person but does not fulfill his intention and yet nevertheless he kills someone. The question is, since he did not fulfill his intention is he liable to the death penalty. Before learning this mishnah we should note that the Exodus 21:12-13 states: “He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death. If he did not do it by design, but it came about by an act of God…”. The Rabbis in our mishnah seem to be discussing what does “by design” mean. How much intention must there be in the act of murder for someone to be liable in the death penalty. While I am not an expert on modern law, I know that our modern law system also distinguishes between degrees of murder based on the level of intention in the act.", + "If he intended to kill an animal but killed a man, or [he intended to kill] a non-Jew and he killed an Israelite, or [if he intended to kill] a prematurely born child [who was bound to die in any case] and he killed a viable child, he is not liable. In this scenario a person intended to kill someone for whom he is not liable for the death penalty, either an animal, a non-Jew or a prematurely born child. However, instead of killing one of these, he kills someone for whom he is liable for the death penalty. In such a case, since he did not fulfill his intention, he is not liable for the death penalty, even though he did kill someone for whom he is generally liable. We should note that although according to our mishnah, one does not receive the death penalty for killing a non-Jew, Jewish law certainly today forbids doing so. With regards to the prematurely born child, it is also important to note that our mishnah is referring to a child who will certainly die. In our days a prematurely born child often times lives, and therefore is no different from any other child. We indeed can be thankful for the many advances in modern medicine, advances which have surely had and will continue to have an impact on many areas of Jewish law.", + "If he intended to strike him on his loins, and the blow was insufficient to kill [when struck] on his loins, but struck the heart instead, where it was sufficient to kill, and he died he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on the heart, where it was sufficient to kill but struck him on the loins, where it was not sufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike an adult, and the blow was insufficient to kill [an adult], but the blow landed on a child, whom it was enough to kill, and he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike a child with a blow sufficient to kill a child, but struck an adult, for whom it was insufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. But if he intended to strike his loins with sufficient force to kill, but struck the heart instead, he is liable. If he intended to strike an adult with a blow sufficient to kill an adult, but struck a child instead, and he died, he is liable. If one intends to strike another person on his waist area (his loins) with a blow that would not kill in that area but instead struck him on his chest (his heart) where the blow was enough to kill, he is not liable for the death penalty, since, if he had landed the blow where he intended he would not have killed him. If he intended to strike him on his chest with a blow that would be sufficient to kill but he struck him on his waist where the blow would generally not be sufficient to kill, but nevertheless it did kill, he is not liable. Since normally this strike would not kill where it did end up landing, he is not held liable. We can summarize that in order to be liable one must strike a place on the victim’s body with a blow generally strong enough to kill when struck on that place, and one must have intended to strike that place from the outset. If one intended to strike an adult with a strike that was insufficient to kill an adult but struck a child he is not liable for the death penalty, since if the strike had landed where he had intended it would not have killed. If he intended to strike a minor with a strike insufficient to kill a minor but he struck an adult instead and the adult died he is not liable, since, normally this strike would not kill an adult. The final two clauses of this section teach cases where he is liable. If he intended to strike him on his waist and it was sufficient to kill and he struck him on his chest and killed him he is liable. Although he did not intend to strike him there, since his intention had been to strike with a blow strong enough to kill no matter where it hit, he is liable. Similarly, if he intended to strike an adult with a blow sufficient to kill, and he struck and killed a minor, he is obligated, since his intention had been to strike with a blow strong enough to kill no matter whom it hit.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: “Even if he intended to kill one but killed another, he is not liable. Rabbi Shimon goes even further than the other Sages in advancing the theory that in order for one to be liable for the death penalty he must completely fulfill his intentions. According to Rabbi Shimon if one intended to kill one person and killed instead another, he is not liable for the death penalty. The Sages in section one had stated that if he intended to kill an animal and instead killed a person he is not liable. The reason seems to be that he intended on killing something for which he would not receive the death penalty. One can deduce, therefore, that if he had intended on killing one adult Jew but instead killed another, he would be liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Shimon states that even if one intended on killing someone for whom one would receive the death penalty, if he did not fulfill his exact intention, he is not liable for the death penalty.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How are the scenarios in 2d and 2e different from those in the previous clauses?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe opening clause of this mishnah deals with a murderer who is mixed up with others who are not murderers, and the court does not know which one was the murderer. The second clause deals with people condemned to die by different forms of execution who become mixed up together such that the court does not know who gets which punishment..", + "If a murderer became mixed up with others, they are all exempted [from the death penalty]. R. Judah said: they are placed in a cell. If a condemned murderer becomes mixed up in a crowd of people so that no one can identify which one is the murderer and which one is not, none of them may be executed. Although this sounds like a strange and highly unlikely prospect, it nevertheless teaches the principle that unless the court is 100 per cent sure of the identity of the murderer, he may not be killed. According to Rabbi Judah, the court cannot leave this problem without a solution. They would therefore put all of the people into prison until the matter was clarified. [The Talmud has many difficulties in understanding this ruling of Rabbi Judah, since it seems to unfairly punish innocent people. Therefore they understand this as only applying to certain, limited cases.]", + "If a number of persons condemned to different types of sentences became mixed with one another, they are executed by the most lenient. If criminals condemned to stoning [became mixed up] with others condemned to burning, Rabbi Shimon said: they are stoned, because burning is severer. But the sages say they are burned, because stoning is severer. (1) Rabbi Shimon said to them: “If burning was not severer, it would not be decreed for a priest's adulterous daughter.” (2) They replied: “If stoning was not severer, it would not be the penalty of a blasphemer and an idolater.” If men condemned to decapitation became mixed up with others condemned to strangling, Rabbi Shimon said: “They are [all] decapitated.” The sages say: “They are [all] strangled.” The remainder of the mishnah deals with the intermixing of persons condemned to different types of death penalties. The principle is stated very clearly in the beginning of the section that in such a case they all receive the most lenient of the death penalties to which any one person in the group had been condemned. The remainder of the disputes between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages are over which types of execution are more serious than the others. This dispute was already discussed in the beginning of chapter seven. Rabbi Shimon believes that burning is more serious than stoning, whereas the Sages believe that stoning is more serious. Each side tries to prove his case by bringing an example of a serious crime which is punished by one of these types of execution. According to Rabbi Shimon, the fact that an adulterous daughter of a priest (kohen) is punished by burning proves that burning is more serious. According to the Sages, the fact that the blasphemer and the idol worshipper are punished by stoning proves that stoning is more serious. Finally, in the end of the mishnah we learn that according to Rabbi Shimon strangling is more serious than decapitation, whereas according to the Sages, decapitation is more serious. Despite these disputes, everyone agrees that when in doubt a person is punished by the least serious form of the death penalty.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why might Rabbi Shimon think that an adulterous daughter of a priest is a prime example of a very serious crime, one which is punished by the most serious type of death penalty? Why might the Sages disagree?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses a person who through one act incurs two different types of death penalty.", + "While in the previous mishnah we learned that if we are unsure of which death penalty a person is to receive he gets the more lenient one, in our mishnah we learn that if a person deserves two death penalties, he gets the more severe one.", + "He who incurs two death penalties imposed by the court is executed by the severer. Section one deals with a person who has committed two different crimes which carry the death penalty. Even if he was already sentenced to the lighter death penalty, and then committed another crime which carries a more severe form of the death penalty, he still gets the more severe form. In other words, we do not say that since he already was sentenced to one death penalty it is as if he has already been executed and therefore he cannot get another.", + "If he committed one sin for which a twofold death penalty is incurred, he is executed by the severer. R. Jose says: “He is judged according to the first penalty which was placed upon him.” Section two deals with a person who through one crime receives two different forms of the death penalty. For instance if a man has relations with his married mother-in-law he is obligated for burning (since he had relations with a mother and her daughter) and for strangulation, since he committed adultery. According to the Sages he again receives the more serious form of the death penalty. According to Rabbi Yose he receives the death penalty for the crime which potentially existed first. We will explain. If he marries a widow’s daughter, this woman is now forbidden to him since she is his mother-in-law but she is not forbidden as a married woman, since she is a widow. If he were to now have relations with her he would be punished through burning. If she were then to get married, the punishment would also be strangulation. Since the prohibition of a mother-in-law existed first, he is punished by burning. If, however, she was married and then he married her daughter, he would be punished by strangulation, since she was first prohibited to him due to her being a married woman." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with special punishments for a repeat criminal and for one who commits murder without witnesses. These punishments are what I would call extra-halakhic punishments. They don’t seem to have been prescribed by the Torah, but rather by the Rabbis desire to shape their legal system.", + "He who was flogged and then flogged again [for two transgressions, and then sinned again,] is placed by the court in a cell and fed with barley bread, until his stomach bursts. According to the Talmud this clause is dealing with a person who committed a sin for which one is obligated for “kareth” or excommunication, a punishment of premature death meted out by God and not by a human court. According to Jewish law, if one is beaten for a crime that carries a punishment of “kareth”, the “kareth” is mitigated. If one commits this crime, is beaten, and repeats the crime, and is beaten again and then commits the same crime again, he is put into a jail and fed food that will cause him to die. Since this person has shown over and over that beating is an ineffective form of punishment, the court has no way to stop his behavior other than killing him.", + "One who commits murder without witnesses is placed in a cell and [forcibly] fed with bread of adversity and water of affliction. Earlier in our tractate we learned just how difficult it is for testimony to be accepted by the court. There will certainly be cases in which the testimony cannot be officially accepted but nevertheless it is clear that this person is a murderer. In such a case the court has the authority to cause him to die by imprisoning him and feeding him food that will cause his stomach to rupture. The “bread of adversity and water of affliction” (based on the language of Isaiah 30:20) mentioned here is understood as synonymous with the barley mentioned in the first section.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why didn’t the Rabbis merely state that these two categories of people are to be executed in one of the four ways? Why this strange system of feeding them food that will cause them to die?" + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah six continues to list what I have termed “extra-halakhic” punishments.", + "If one steals the sacred vessel called a “kasvah” (Numbers 4:7), or cursed by the name of an idol, or has sexual relations with an Aramean (non-Jewish woman, he is punished by zealots. This section lists three crimes in which the mishnah allows religious zealots to kill the perpertrator at the moment of the crime even though these crimes do not normally carry the death penalty. The first crime is stealing a sacred vessel from the Temple. The second crime is one who used the name of an idol to curse another person. The third crime is one who has relations with an Aramean woman (or any idol worshipping woman). The quintessential example of the zealot in the Torah is the example Pinchas, who upon seeing an Israelite having sexual relations in public with an Midianite woman, kills the two of them on the spot. God rewards Pinchas for his zealotry by giving him a “covenant of peace” (Numbers 25:6-13). Of course, Jewish tradition was very troubled by people taking the law into their own hands and summarily executing others. When reading this mishnah we must take into consideration that it is embedded in a tractate entirely devoted to the establishment of courts and judicial procedure. This mishnah does teach, though, that occasionally vigilante justice is legitimate.", + "If a priest performed the temple service while impure, his fellow priests do not bring him to the court, but rather the young priests take him out into the courtyard and split his skull with clubs. A priest who served in the Temple while impure has committed a grave crime in the eyes of Jewish law and is, according to halacha to be flogged. However, our mishnah describes what the kohanim would in practice do to one of their fellow kohanim who had served in the Temple while impure. The younger members of the priesthood would split his skull with clubs. Although this mishnah sounds barbaric to our modern ears, it is important to remember the degree of sanctity that existed in the Temple. The Temple was God’s dwelling place on earth and one who caused it to become impure endangered all of Israel. The kohanim have been charged with protecting that sanctity, and therefore took any violation of it with the utmost seriousness.", + "A layman who performed the service in the Temple: Rabbi Akiva says: “He is strangled.” But the Sages say: “[His death is] at the hands of heaven.” According to Numbers 18:7 any stranger, i.e. one who is not a priest, who performs the priest’s work in the Temple shall die. Rabbi Akiva understands this as a court enforced death penalty, whereas the Sages understand this as a death penalty meted out by God, and not by the court.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between section three and the previous two sections of this mishnah and the previous mishnah?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction Chapter ten of Sanhedrin is one of the most theologically challenging chapters in the entire Mishnah. It lists those people who have a part in the world to come (olam haba) and those who don’t. There are two main opinions amongst Jewish authorities with regards to the definition of olam haba referred to in our chapter. There are those who say that the mishnah refers to a future time when God will resurrect the dead (tehiyat hametim) which will happen only after the coming of the Messiah (yemot hamashiach). Others say that the Mishnah refers to what is called to in modern language “heaven”. This final opinion is the opinion of Maimonides (the Rambam) who wrote a lengthy treatise on our chapter in which he included his thirteen principles of faith, which were later summarized in the “Yigdal” a poem commonly sung in synagogues. We do not have the space to go into detail with regards to the differing Jewish opinions on these concepts (olam haba, tehiyat hametim and yemot hamashiach). Nevertheless it is worthy to mention that the Rambam categorizes three different types of approaches to “agaddah” or Rabbinic texts of legendary nature, in which he includes this entire chapter. There are those who take each and every word literally and believe them to be true. There are others who assume that the Rabbis meant their words to be taken literally and since these thoughts contradict provable nature, they assume the Rabbis to be foolish. Finally, there are those who understand the legends of the Rabbis to be allegories, human language meant to convey divine truth. The Rabbis were confined to the limited language with which all human beings communicate and therefore could not fully describe the infinite aspects of the divine. Finally, while our chapter is theologically dogmatic, it is worthwhile noting that the Talmudic commentary on this chapter, contains, as usual, differing opinions with regards to these matters. With some notable exceptions, Jewish thinkers have tended not to be theologically dogmatic, allowing Jews to preserve a variety of opinions and philosophies with regards to our understanding of God and creation. When approaching this chapter we should therefore understand it to contain one opinion with regards to these matters and not the only authoritative opinion that exists.", + "All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2). All Jews have a portion in the world to come, even the executed criminals discussed in the previous chapters of Sanhedrin. Our mishnah proves this from the verse from Isaiah which states “all of them (Israel) are righteous”. Since it is apparent that in this world not all Jews are righteous, the verse must be understood as referring to the world to come, where all Jews will be accounted as righteous. Furthermore, the reference to the possession of the land is understood not as a literal reference to the land of Israel but as a reference to the world to come.", + "And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.” While criminals can receive a portion in the world to come, those who disagree with the main tenets of Jewish faith do not. These include: 1) that the doctrine of resurrection is mentioned in the Torah. Although resurrection is not mentioned literally in the Torah, the Rabbis exegetically derived it from certain verses. 2) One who denies the heavenly origin of the Torah. One who states that human beings invented the Torah, without even divine inspiration, loses his portion in the world to come. 3) An epikoros, a Greek word, derived from the Greek philosopher, Epicurus, who encouraged people to seek out the pleasures of this world. In Rabbinic literature this is a code word for one who despises the Torah, the commandments and the Sages. 4) According to Rabbi Akiva one who reads sectarian works not included in the Jewish Biblical canon also does not have a portion in the world to come. 5) Rabbi Akiva further adds to the list one who whispers medical charms. 6) Abba Shaul adds one who pronounces God’s name by its spelling. Outside of the Temple this was a forbidden practice. Today we do not pronounce God’s name as it is written but rather state, “Adonai”.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section 2b: What is wrong with whispering a charm while performing an act of healing?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses seven individual Biblical characters, three kings and four commoners, who do not have a place in the world to come.", + "Three kings and four commoners have no portion in the world to come:
The three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh. Rabbi Judah says: “Manasseh has a portion in the world to come, for it says, “He prayed to him, and He granted his prayer, and heard his plea and he restored him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13). They [the sages] said to him: “They restored him to his kingdom, but not to [his portion in] the world to come.” The mishnah lists three wicked Jewish kings who have lost their portions in the world to come: Jeroboam (see I Kings 13:34, 14:10), Ahab (see I Kings 21:21-22) and Manasseh (see II Kings 21:2-3). All of these Kings encouraged idol worship and shed the blood of God’s true prophets. For these sins God specifically warns them that they and their seed will be totally cut off from Israel. Rabbi Judah argues that Manasseh repented and was restored at the end of his days. The Sages retort that his restoration was political but did not restore his place in the world to come. Implied in their argument is that no matter how heinous the crime, repentance even at the end of one’s days can restore one’s place in the world to come.", + "The four commoners are: Bilaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi. The four non-Kings mentioned in the Torah who do not receive a portion in the world to come are: 1) Bilaam, the prophet who attempted to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24); 2) Doeg, who informed on David to Saul and caused the death of the priests of Nob (I Samuel 22:9-22); 3) Ahitophel, who advised Absolom against David and subsequently hung himself (II Samuel 17:1-23); 4) Gehazi, Elisha’s servant (see II Kings 5:20-27).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Can you think of Biblical characters who you would have thought should have appeared on this list but do not?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis lengthy mishnah lists groups of people in the Bible who do not have a portion in the world to come. In each case the mishnah brings a Biblical text to proves its point.", + "The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. Due to the extreme severity of their crimes the generation of the flood not only has no portion in the world to come, but they also will not have the opportunity to stand in judgement at the time of the resurrection. This mishnah discusses in several points a certain type of future judgement, which is somewhat separate from a person’s portion in the world to come. It is difficult to ascertain with any sense of certainty to what the mishnah is exactly referring.", + "The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The generation of the dispersion, which happened when humanity tried to build the Tower of Babel, has no place in the world to come. The Rabbis understood their sin to be one of rebellion against God.", + "The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The men of Sodom also do not have a place in the world to come. However, according to the Sages, they do have the opportunity to stand in judgement at the time of resurrection. Although they do not have a promised place in the world to come as do the righteous, they at least have the opportunity to stand in judgement. According to the Sages, this is also true of the generation of dispersion. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, they do not even have the opportunity to stand in judgement. He proves this opinion by using a proof text from the book of Psalms.", + "The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The spies, who brought back to Moses and the Children of Israel an evil report about the Land of Israel, do not have a place in the world to come. Due to their extreme lack of faith in God, they are not only killed in this world but lose hope for the future. The final three sections of our mishnah contain disputes between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer. In each case Rabbi Akiva takes a more strict opinion, one which leaves less hope for the future.", + "The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). According to Rabbi Akiva, all of the children of Israel who died in the desert lose their portion in the world to come and are not even allowed to stand for judgement in the time of the resurrection. Even though this generation received the Torah at Sinai, as well as witnessing the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, their sins in the desert, including the worst sin of all, lack of faith in God when they accepted the spies’ evil report, cause them to lose their portion in the world to come. Rabbi Eliezer learns from a verse in Psalms that all of those who made a covenant with God have a portion in the world to come, despite the severity of their sins.", + "The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). According to Rabbi Akiva, the congregation of Korach who were swallowed up by the Earth in punishment for rebelling against Moses and Aaron will never be brought back up. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. Based on a verse in I Samuel he points out that God has the power not only to send down to Sheol but He may bring up as well.", + "The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “‘As is this day’ just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them. According to Rabbi Akiva, once the ten northern tribes of Israel (see II Kings 17) were sent into exile they were never to return. Again, Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. Although the day turned metaphorically dark on these tribes, they retain the hope for a bright future. Just as the night eventually turns to light, so too will the ten tribes one day be returned to their land." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses the punishment of a city seduced into idol worship (see Deuteronomy 13:13-19), which was mentioned briefly in chapter nine, mishnah one. There we learned that the inhabitants are to be executed by decapitation. The remainder of chapter ten will discuss various details of this law. We should note that these laws were certainly not practiced in the time of the Mishnah and Talmud, and according to one opinion in the Talmud there never was such a thing as a city that was judged as having been seduced into idol worship.", + "The inhabitants of a city seduced into worshipping idols have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “Certain men, wicked persons, have gone out from among you and seduced the inhabitants of their town” (Deuteronomy 13:14). The first section is the bridge which connects this mishnah and the remainder of the chapter with the beginning half of the chapter, which dealt with those who have a portion in the world to come. The inhabitants of a city seduced into worshipping idols lose their place in the world to come. This is learned from the words in the quoted verse, “have gone out from among you”, which is understood by the author of the mishnah to mean that they have left the whole of Israel (clal Yisrael) to whom is promised a portion in the world to come.", + "They are not executed unless the seducers are of that city and that tribe, and until the majority of the city are seduced, and the seducers are men. If women or minors seduced it, or if a minority of the city were seduced, or if the seducers were from outside the city, they are treated as individuals, and therefore two witnesses and a formal warning are necessary for each [offender]. From the words, “the inhabitants of their town” the mishnah learns that those who seduce the others into worshipping idols must be from the same town as those being seduced. From the words “from among you” the mishnah learns that they must be from the same tribe of Israel. The mishnah also states that the majority of the city must be seduced in order for it to be deemed a seduced city whose inhabitants are to be decapitated. It is unclear from which part of the verse the mishnah learns this law. Since the verse specifically states “men” the mishnah concludes that the seducers must be men. If any of these criteria are not met, i.e. the seducers are women or minors, or a minority of the city is seduced or the seducers are from another city, those who have worshipped idols are judged and sentenced individually. This means that witnesses are required to testify against each one of them and each one must be warned that if s/he worships idols s/he will be executed.", + "In this [the penalty of] individuals is severer than [that of] the multitudes, for individuals are stoned, therefore their property is saved; but the multitudes are decapitated; hence their possessions are destroyed. Finally, the mishnah compares the punishment of an individual who worships idols with those of a city seduced into worshipping idols. Each one receives both a stringency and a leniency. Individuals are executed by stoning (see chapter 7, mishnah six), a more stringent form of the death penalty, therefore their property is not destroyed and their descendents may receive their inheritance. Those of a seduced city are executed by decapitation, which is a less stringent form of the death penalty, therefore their property is destroyed and their descendents do not inherit." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five (and mishnah six) contain midrashim, exegeses, on the verses in Deuteronomy that discuss the city seduced into idol worship. The structure of these mishnayoth is to quote a verse and then bring a law that is derived from that verse.", + "“You shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword” (Deut. 13:16): a company of donkey-drivers or camel-drivers passing from place to place saves the city. The verse states that you must smite the inhabitants of the city. If, however, there are people living in the city who are not permanent inhabitants, such as donkey or camel drivers, they are not counted as part of the city in order to add up to the majority needed for the city to be declared a “seduced city”. Occasionally they may save the city from being doomed.", + "“Doom it and all that is in it” (ibid.): From here they said that the property of the righteous, which is within [the city] is destroyed, but that which is outside of the city is saved, while that of the wicked, whether in or outside of the city, is destroyed. From the words “and all that is in it” the Rabbis learn that even the property of the righteous is to be destroyed. However, from the words “doom it”, the Rabbis understand that the Torah is limiting that which is destroyed. The property which belongs to the righteous that is outside of the city is therefore not destroyed. However, the property of the wicked is destroyed whether or not it is in the city itself." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMidrash six concludes the exegesis on the verses discussing the city seduced into idol worship.", + "“And you shall gather all its spoil into the public square” (Deut. 13:17): if it had no public square, one is made for it; if the public square was outside of [the city], it is brought within it. The Torah states that the spoil must be brought into the public square. If the city did not have a public square, or the public square existed outside of the city limits, the court must build one before the sentence is carried out.", + "“And you shall burn with fire the city, and all its spoil as a whole burnt offering for the Lord your God” (ibid.): “And all its spoil”, but not the spoil of heaven. From here they said, the holy objects in the city must be redeemed and the heave offerings ( allowed to rot; and the second tithe and the sacred writings hidden. The spoil that is to be burned is property that belongs to people and not property that has in some way been sanctified. Therefore, things that were dedicated to the Temple are redeemed with money and the money is brought to the Temple. After having been redeemed the object is no longer holy and may be burned. The terumoth may not be burned while they are edible and therefore must be allowed to spoil. The second tithe and holy books may never be burned. In order to prevent people from using them they are hidden.", + "“A whole burnt offering for the Lord your God”: Rabbi Shimon said: “The holy Blessed One declared, ‘If you execute judgment upon the seduced city, I will ascribe merit to you as though you had sacrificed to me a whole offering.’” The verse states that the spoil must be entirely burned. Rabbi Shimon compares this burning with the sacrificial burning of whole burnt offerings (olah). Although the burning of the spoil of a seduced city is not literally a sacrificial offering, since it is not offered on the altar, and most of the things being burned will not be fit to be offered on the altar, nevertheless Rabbi Shimon states that God will reward those who burn the spoil the same as He rewards those who offer sacrifices.", + "“And it shall remain an everlasting ruin, never to be rebuilt”: it may not be made even into gardens and orchards, according to the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: “Never to be rebuilt”: it may not be built as it was, but it may be made into gardens and orchards. Rabbi Yose the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regards to the interpretation of the words, “never to be rebuilt”. According to the former nothing may ever be again built on that site. Rabbi Akiva understands the verse in a more minimalist fashion. The city may not be rebuilt exactly as it was; however, gardens and orchards may be built in its place.", + "“Let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand, in order that the Lord may turn His blazing anger and show you compassion” (Deut. 13:18): as long as the wicked exist in the world, there is blazing anger in the world; when the wicked perish from the world, blazing anger disappears from the world. The mishnah finishes with an exhortation stating that until these laws are fulfilled, God’s anger cannot be fully assuaged. According to the Talmud, the “wicked” refer to those who take from the spoil of the seduced city. For an illustration of how serious a crime taking from illegal spoil was considered to be read Joshua, chapter seven. There Achan takes from the spoil, and as a punishment God causes Israel to lose an important battle. It is not until Achan is executed that God’s anger is assuaged (see verse 26).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why was taking from illegal spoil considered to be such a serious crime? Can you think of other Biblical stories that illustrate this point?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe final chapter of Sanhedrin returns to the categorization of which criminals receive which death penalty, a topic that the Mishnah began to discuss in chapter seven. Our chapter discusses those who are executed by strangling. According to the Rabbis anyone whom the Torah states should be executed without stating the form of the execution, is to be executed by strangling, which is the least destructive and probably least painful form of execution.", + "The following are strangled: One who strikes his father or mother; One who kidnaps a Jew; An elder who rebels against the ruling of the court; A false prophet; One who prophesies in the name of an idol; One who commits adultery; Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. As did the mishnah with regards to those executed by stoning, burning and decapitation, so too with regards to strangling the mishnah first lists all of those who are punished by this form of execution. The mishnah will now proceed, from here to the end of the tractate to go into greater detail with regards to each category. We will therefore explain each category and its Biblical proof texts as we come to them later in the Mishnah.", + "The one who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than striking, for one who curses [his/her parents] after death is liable, while one who strikes them after death is not. Exodus 21:15 teaches that one who strikes either of his parents is liable to the death penalty. Striking an ordinary person is not a capital crime and is punishable through financial penalties only. However, striking one’s parent is a form of rebellion against not only society but in essence against God as well. Therefore the Torah deems it, and cursing one’s parents (Ex. 21:17) to be capital crimes, punishable by death. Since the Torah does not state how the execution is to be performed, the Rabbis declared that the person is to be strangled. Our mishnah teaches that in order for the child to be guilty of striking he must make a wound. If the child strikes without causing a wound s/he is not to be executed. The mishnah also teaches that although a child is executed for either striking or cursing one’s parents, there is a stringency with regards to cursing that does not exist with regards to striking. One who curses is liable even if he curses the parent after death, whereas one who strikes is only liable if the parent was alive when struck.", + "One who kidnaps a Jew is not liable unless he brings him onto his own property. Rabbi Judah said: “Until he brings him onto his own property and puts him to service, as it says, “If a man is found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite, enslaving him or selling him” (Deut. 24:7). If he kidnaps his own son. Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him]. If he kidnapped one who was half a slave and half free, Rabbi Judah declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him]. Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7 both state that one who kidnaps is liable for the death penalty. Our mishnah defines kidnapping as taking a person and bringing them forcefully onto one’s property. Just the mere act of taking the person does not constitute the type of kidnapping punishable by death. Rabbi Judah, basing himself on the verse in Deuteronomy states that even kidnapping and bringing onto one’s property is not punishable by death. Only if the kidnapper forces the abductee to work as a slave is he to be executed. According to the Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, one who kidnaps his own son is not liable as a kidnapper, whereas the Sages say that he is. Rabbi Yishmael probably assumes that a parents’ authority over their children is so great that categorically the laws of kidnapping cannot apply. The Sages, representing the majority opinion, limit the parents authority by applying the laws of kidnapping even to one’s own child. The aforementioned verse in Deuteronomy clearly limits the laws of kidnapping to an Israelite who kidnaps another Israelite. According to all of the Sages in our mishnah, one who kidnaps a non-Jew is not liable for the death penalty. There is however a dispute with regards to one who is half a slave and half a free Jew (i.e. he was owned by two owners and one freed him while the other did not). According to Rabbi Judah, the mere fact that he is half a Jew means that the laws of kidnapping do apply to him. According to the Sages since he is half a slave, the laws of kidnapping do not apply.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Is there a thematic connection between the laws taught in section 2 and section 2a?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth two through four deal with the rebellious elder, who is considered to be an ordained elder who taught against an authoritative ruling of the high court in Jerusalem. While Jewish learning is usually quite pluralistic, allowing for the existence of many differences of opinions without deeming one to be heretical, there is a theoretical limit to this pluralism. The high court in Jerusalem was considered to be the final word in all matters. An ordained teacher who ruled against the high court in a matter of practical law was to be condemned to death. Since the high court has not existed since the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, this law is (for better or for worse) no longer enforceable.", + "An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court [is strangled], for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement […you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS. This section introduces the Biblical prooftext for the category of the rebellious elder. The Torah mentions one who “acts presumptuously”, ignoring the teaching of the priestly magistrate. The Torah does not state who this person was, or under what circumstances he disobeyed the authority of our court. Our mishnah attempts to define this person, giving, interestingly enough, a narrow definition. This definition will leave much room for a Jew to disagree with even the high court, without allowing total disobedience to its rulings.", + "Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the [Temple] court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They [first] went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he [the rebellious elder] stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this first court] had heard [a ruling on the matter], they state it. If not, they go to the [second court] which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this second court] had heard [a ruling on the matter] they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, [you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you] from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). This section describes the judicial process by which an elder could be brought to the high court. When an elder made a teaching upon which the other elders disagreed he is first brought to the court that sat at the opening of the Temple mount. The elder is allowed to state how he expounded the Torah or how he taught and how his colleagues expounded or taught. If this court had heard a ruling with regard to the matter they would decide in the matter. If not they would send him to the court that sat at the entrance to the Temple court, where the process would be repeated. If they too had not heard a ruling then they would send him to the highest court, the great court that sat in the Temple in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. This court would by necessity make a ruling, one that was considered authoritative for all of Israel.", + "If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision [opposed to the court], he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency. This section lists under what circumstances the elder is to be deemed guilty and therefore executed. If he continues to teach as he was teaching previously, thereby ignoring the verdict of the high court, but does not tell others to act according to this teaching, he is not guilty. This is learned from the word “to do” in the verse in Deuteronomy. One is allowed to disagree with the high court, but not to incite others to act against their rulings. A student, who is never allowed to give practical halachic rulings, who does give a practical halachic ruling, and that ruling is against that of the high court, is also not to be executed. Since his ruling is not authoritative in any case, because he is only a student, it is not considered to be the type of rebellion punished by death. The stringency that disallows a student from teaching is the leniency that gets him off the hook if he teaches contradictory to the high court.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do the lower courts state whether they had “heard” a ruling on the matter and not whether they “know” a ruling on the matter? What about the high court? Do they have to have “heard” a ruling on the matter? What if they had not?
• Why is the elder allowed to continue to teach that he disagrees with the authoritative ruling but not allowed to act or teach others to act according to his own opinion? What does this say with regards to the nature of Jewish law?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to discuss the rebellious elder.", + "There is greater stringency in respect to the teachings of the scribes than in respect to the torah: [thus,] if [a rebellious elder] says, there is no commandment of tefillin, so that a biblical law may be transgressed, he is exempt. [But if he rules that the tefillin must contain] five compartments, thus adding to the words of the scribes, he is liable. This mishnah states that a rebellious elder who teaches against a Rabbinic teaching, one not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, is dealt with more severely than one who teaches against the explicit words of the Torah. An elder who states that there is no commandment of tefillin is not to be executed, since the commandment of tefillin is stated explicitly in the Torah (Exodus 13:9, 16, Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18). Anyone who hears this elder teach that there is no tefillin will be able to check the Torah and realize that the elder’s teaching is false. However, one who states that the tefillin must be made of five boxes, instead of the four prescribed by the Rabbis, is liable for the death penalty. Since the Torah does not state how many boxes are to be in the tefillin, this is a teaching that if we didn’t know from the Rabbis we would not know at all. Therefore, an elder who teaches against this teaching is more of a threat than the elder who teaches against something stated specifically in the Torah. Note: The tefillin worn on one’s head contain four boxes but the one worn on the arm contains only one box. From the outside each is painted black and therefore looks like one box." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses the execution of the rebellious elder.", + "He [the rebellious elder] was executed neither by his local court nor by the court at Yavneh, but rather was taken to the great court in Jerusalem and kept there until the [next] festival and executed on the festival, for it says, “And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously” (Deut. 17:13), according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Judah says: “His judgment must not be delayed, but he is executed immediately, and proclamations are written and sent by messengers to all places, “So and so has been sentenced to death at the court.” The execution of the rebellious elder has a deterrent quality to it, demonstrating to all who see or hear the execution that rebellion against the high court is punishable by death. There are two opinions in our mishnah with regards to how the execution is to be carried out. According to Rabbi Akiva, the execution must take place at the high court, where it will receive the most exposure. Furthermore, it must take place during the festival when Jews would gather at the Temple to celebrate. Only by bringing the person to the Temple and executing him on the holiday will the execution achieve the maximum deterrence. Rabbi Judah seems to be disturbed by the long wait between the sentence and execution which would result from Rabbi Akiva’s suggestion. Rabbi Judah therefore states that the rebellious elder is to be executed immediately, and the deterrent will be achieved by sending letters with messengers stating that so and so had been executed.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is Rabbi Judah so concerned that the execution take place immediately?" + ], + [ + "‘A false prophet’; he who prophesies what he has not heard, or what was not told to him, is executed by man.
But he who suppresses his prophecy, or disregards the words of a prophet, or a prophet who transgresses his own word , his death is at the hands of heaven, as it says, “[And if anybody fails to heed the words he speaks in my name] I Myself will call him to account (Deut. 18:19).
Mishnah five defines the “false prophet” who is executed by strangling.
Deuteronomy 18:20 states that any prophet who “presumes to speak in My name an oracle that I did not command him to utter” shall be killed. Our mishnah teaches that a false prophet is one who states a prophecy that he either did not hear at all, or that he heard from another person and not straight from God. However, a prophet who hears the words of God but does not tell others (like Jonah) or one who ignores the words of another prophet (see I Kings 20:35-36) or one who ignores even his own prophecy (see I Kings 13:26) is killed not by a human court but by God. This exegesis presents an interesting twist on the verse quoted from Deuteronomy. The simple meaning of the verse is that a member of the tribe of Israel who ignores the true words of the prophet is not to be executed by the court but God will take His own revenge. The mishnah interprets the verse to refer not to a normal person, but to the prophet himself." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of mishnah six defines what it means to prophesy in the name of an idol. The remainder of the mishnah discusses the adulterer.", + "“He who prophesies in the name of an idol”: this is one who says, “Thus has the idol declared” even if he directed the teaching to declare the unclean, unclean, or the clean, clean. One who prophesies in the name of an idol is liable for the death penalty even if his teaching agreed with the accepted halacha. The very act of attributing a teaching to an idol is punishable by death regardless of the content of the teaching itself (see Deuteronomy 18:20).", + "“One who has sexual relations with a married woman” after her entry into her husband’s home for marriage, though she did not have sexual relations with her husband, the one who has relations with her is strangled. Adultery with a married woman is punishable by strangling whereas adultery with a betrothed woman is punishable by stoning (see chapter 7, mishnah four). Our mishnah defines the moment that a woman is transformed from being a betrothed woman to being a married woman. That moment is defined as her entering her husband’s house, after having left her father’s house, regardless of whether or not she has yet had sexual relations with her husband. Henceforth anyone who has adultery with her will be punished by strangling and not stoning.", + "“Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her”, for all false witnesses are led forth to meet the same death [which they sought to impose,] save witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. Generally, when a witness is found to have testified falsely, he is punished with the same punishment that he tried to impose on the accused (see Deuteronomy 19:16-21). We will learn about this law in greater length in the next tractate, Makkoth. Witnesses who testify falsely with regards to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery, punishable by burning, (see chapter nine, mishnah one) and the one who had relations with her, punishable by strangling, are not burned as they tried to impose on her but rather strangled as they tried to impose on him. Since with one act of false testimony they testify that she is to be burned and he is to be strangled, they (the false witnesses) are punished by the lesser of the two, which is strangling. Congratulations! We have finished Sanhedrin. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves. Indeed we have now finished together four tractates of Mishnah, and are more than halfway through the entire order of Nezikin. Of course, we have much more to learn. We will begin Makkoth tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה סנהדרין", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ac54641a368f361dc5dfab023c835d8040e6a10 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,444 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Sanhedrin", + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first four mishnayoth of Sanhedrin discuss how many judges are needed to adjudicate certain cases of civil and criminal law. The typical number for civil cases was three and the typical number for criminal cases was twenty-three. The problem will arise in situations where it is not clear whether a certain case is civil or criminal.", + "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three. Property cases include disputes arising out of loans, sales, inheritance, gifts and other similar monetary matters.", + "Cases concerning robbery or personal injury, by three. Personal injury is a case where one person directly injures another. Robbery, as we learned in Bava Kamma chapter nine, does not carry with it a penalty of twofold restitution as does thievery.", + "Claims for full damages or half-damages, twofold restitution, or fourfold or fivefold restitution, by three. Full damages are assessed when a “warned” animal, one that has previously injured three times, causes further damage. Half-damages are assessed when the damaging animal had not injured three times. Twofold restitution is the penalty for a thief, and fourfold or fivefold restitution is the penalty for a thief who stole an animal and either sold it or slaughtered it.", + "Claims against a rapist, a seducer and one who defames [a virgin are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: “One who defames [a virgin is decided] by twenty-three, for there may arise from it a capital case. According to the Torah the rapist (Deut. 22:29) and the seducer (Ex. 22:16-17) pay fines of 50 shekel for having illegally taken the woman’s virginity. In addition, according to the Rabbis the rapist also pays for injuring the woman as would any person who causes another person injury (see Bava Kamma, chapter eight). The “one who defames a virgin” is referred to in Deut. 22:13-22. This is a case where a husband falsely claims that the wife was not a virgin. If the husband was found to be a liar he is beaten and must pay a fine of 100 shekels. If his accusation turned out to be true the woman is put to death. The Rabbinic understanding of this law greatly differs from its simple understanding in the Torah, but now is not the place for a detailed explanation." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two continues to list the numbers of judges needed for different types of cases.", + "[Cases concerning offenses punishable by] beating [are decided] by three. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said twenty-three. According to Deut. 25:1-3, in certain cases a criminal is punished by beating through lashes. According to Rabbi Yishmael, although this is not truly a capital case, it nevertheless must be adjudicated by twenty-three probably because they occasionally will lead to death.", + "The intercalation of the month and intercalation of the year [are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The matter is begun by three, discussed by five, and decided upon by seven. But if they decided upon it with three, the intercalation is valid.” A month according to the Jewish calendar is 29 or 30 days. The court would decide each month whether the month should have 29 or 30 days. This was the intercalation of the month. The intercalation of the year was the decision whether or not to add another month of Adar (the twelfth month of the Jewish year if we begin counting at Nisan) in order to turn the twelve month year into a thirteen month year. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the process of the intercalation of the year is such a serious matter that it must be discussed by more than three judges. The process is begun with three. If they agree to intercalate the year two more judges are added. If they still agree then yet another two judges are added. If the seven agree then the year becomes intercalated. However, if they decided with only three judges the intercalation is nevertheless valid.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel considered the intercalation of the year to be such an important issue?" + ], + [ + "The laying on of the elders’ hands and the breaking of the heifer’s neck [are decided upon] by three, according to Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Judah says: “By five.”
The rites of halitzah and “refusal” [are performed] before three.
The fruit of fourth year plantings and Second Tithes whose value is not known [are redeemed] before three.
Things dedicated to the Temple [are redeemed] before three.
Vows of evaluation to be redeemed with movable property, [are evaluated] before three. Rabbi Judah says: “One must be a priest.” [Vows of evaluation], [to be redeemed] with land [are evaluated] before nine and a priest.
And similarly [for the evaluation] of a man.
Mishnah three deals with the number of judges needed in cases that are of a religious/ritual nature.
Section one: According to Leviticus 4:13-21, when the whole community of Israel commits an accidental transgression, they must bring a bull as a sin offering. According to verse 15, before sacrificing the bull the elders would lay their hands on the bull’s head. Our mishnah teaches that this laying on of the hands was done by three judges.
The “breaking of the heifer’s neck” refers to Deut. 21:1-9. These verses describe a ritual of expiation that was to be done in the case where a person was found murdered but the murderer was unknown. Deuteronomy refers to “elders” who were to carry out the process and our mishnah teaches that there were three.
Section two: Halitzah is the refusal of the Levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10). If a woman’s husband dies and they have no offspring, his brother is obligated to marry her and bring forth offspring on his dead brother’s behalf. This is called “Levirate marriage”. If the brother should refuse to do so, they must go through a process called Halitzah before the woman is free to marry someone else. This is done in front of three judges.
“Refusal” refers to a daughter who was married off by her brother or mother. According to the Rabbis a father has a right to marry off his daughter while she is a minor and this marriage is totally binding and the girl cannot be released from the marriage except upon the death of the husband or divorce. However, a mother or brother’s ability to marry off the girl is less binding. When she becomes of a majority age she may refuse her husband and thereby annul the marriage. The “refusal” must be done in front of three judges.
Section three: Plants that are in their fourth year and the Second Tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. If one lived far from Jerusalem and did not wish to carry all of this produce all the way to Jerusalem he could “redeem” the produce and bring the money to Jerusalem and use it to buy food there. The redeeming had to be done in front of three judges.
Section four: If a person dedicated an animal to the Temple that was not fit to be sacrificed, for instance a donkey, he could redeem the animal and donate the money to the Temple (Lev. 27:11). The redemption had to be done in front of three.
Section five: According to Lev. 27 a person could take a vow to donate his own value to the Temple. In such a case the Torah gives set amounts of money that must be donated to the Temple, depending on the age and gender of the one who took the vow. In general, since the Torah prescribes set amounts, no judges will be needed to evaluate how much the person owes. If however, the person has no money, he will need to donate some of his property. If the property to be donated is movable property a court of three is sufficient for its evaluation. According to Rabbi Judah, one of them must be a priest. If the property to be donated is land, a court of ten, including one priest is needed to determine the value of the land. According to Lev. 27:8, if the one who took the vow could not afford to donate his own value a priest was allowed to assess how much he could afford. According to the mishnah this assessment was done in front of a court of ten, which would include one priest." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four deals with the number of judges in cases involving capital crimes.", + "Cases concerning offenses punishable by death [are decided] by twenty three. Capital crimes are adjudicated by a court of twenty three. This is certainly due to the gravity of the punishment, which is of course irrevocable.", + "A beast that has sexual relations with a woman or with a man is [judged] by twenty three, as it says, “You shall execute the woman and the beast” (Lev. 20:16) and it says, “You shall execute the beast”. According to Lev. 2O:15-16 when a man or woman has sexual relations with an animal, not only are the human beings to be executed but the animal as well. Our mishnah teaches that just as the human beings are judged by twenty three so too are the animals.", + "The ox that is stoned [is judged] by twenty three., as it says, “The ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29), as is the death of the owner, so too is the death of the ox. According to Exodus 21:28-29 if an ox kills a man or woman the ox must be stoned. If the ox was a “warned” ox, that is one that had previously gored, the owner of the ox is to be stoned as well. Our mishnah teaches, just as the human being would be judged by twenty three, so too the animal.", + "The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther, or serpent [that have killed a human being] their death is [adjudicated] by twenty three. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Anyone who kills them before they come to court merits.” But Rabbi Akiva says: “Their death must be [adjudicated] by twenty three. Not only are oxen who kill humans to be executed but any animal that kills a human. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, these animals are also to be judged by a court of twenty three. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says that the first person who sees them should kill them. After all, these animals which are wild and cannot be guarded as an ox can be guarded, present a hazard to the safety of the public. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and states that they must be judged in front of a court of twenty three and only then can they be executed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with cases which are only adjudicated in front of a full court of seventy one, which was the number of the full Sanhedrin.", + "A tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest may not be tried save by the court of seventy-one; The trial of a “tribe” refers to a case in which an entire tribe is suspected of having committed idolatry. According to the mishnah in such a case the tribe is tried in front of seventy-one judges and not the twenty three who would adjudicate a normal case of idol worship (which is punishable by death). A false prophet is referred to in Deut. 18:20 which states that such a prophet should be executed. The High Priest also may only be judged by a court of seventy one. The common denominator between the High Priest and the prophet is the high regard that society would have for both of them. In order to reflect this high regard and the public nature of such trials they would have been held in front of the Great Sanhedrin of 71. Note that according to the Christian Bible, Mark 14:53ff and John 18:13 Jesus was tried in front of the Sanhedrin. In other passages some of the disciples and Paul are also questioned by the Sanhedrin.", + "They may not send forth the people to wage a battle of free choice save by the decision of the court of one and seventy; In Jewish law there are two types of war: a mandatory war and a war of free choice. A mandatory war would be either a defensive war or a war whose purpose was to capture the Land of Israel as was in the days of Joshua. A war of free choice would be one which expands the borders beyond the Biblical borders. [Note: the Biblical borders are very difficult to delineate, and there are indeed several versions of them]. Since there will inevitably be heavy casualties in war, the decision to go to a war of free choice requires a full Sanhedrin of 71. A mandatory war would not require the decision of any court.", + "They may not add to the City [of Jerusalem], or the Courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of seventy-one; They would not add to the borders of Jerusalem or to the size of the Courts in the Temple except by a court of 71. Adding to either the border of Jerusalem or the Temple causes a greater level of sanctity in these places and therefore requires a full court. Note that as the population grew it was occasionally necessary to expand both the Temple and Jerusalem itself, a fact that can be seen in any archaeological dig in Jerusalem.", + "They may not set up sanhedrins for the several tribes save by the decision of the court of one and seventy. Setting up smaller, local sanhedrins, which would have included 23 judges can only be done by the Great Sanhedrin of 71.", + "And they may not proclaim [any city to be] an Apostate City (ir ha- (Deut. 13:13–19] save by the decision of one and seventy. According to Deut. 13:12ff. if a town has been subverted into idol worship all of the residents of the town are to be executed and the entire town and all of its contents are to be burned. This harsh law (that was never in actuality carried out) could only be decided upon by the Great Sanhedrin.", + "No city on the frontier may be proclaimed an Apostate City, nor three together, but only one or two. This section contains several other laws pertaining to the Apostate City. According to Deuteronomy only cities within the borders of Israel can become an Apostate City which is to be executed. The fear is that if this law is performed on one of the border towns it will encourage raids from neighboring tribes, which would endanger all of Israel. For a similar reason even the Great Sanhedrin was not allowed to declare more than two cities to be Apostate Cities. For obvious reasons declaring a city to be an Apostate City and thereby killing all of its inhabitants might encourage other countries to engage Israel in war.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section six is quite apparently a law brought by the mishnaic editor to our mishnah from another source. Why do you think he taught this law here? What light might it shed upon the previous law?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter having learned in the first five mishnayoth of the chapter how many judges were needed for each type of case, the sixth mishnah gives Biblical proof texts for these numbers.", + "This mishnah basically contains exegetical (midrashic) proofs for the greater Sanhedrin of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three.", + "The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three.
From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” The greater Sanhedrin was composed of seventy one judges to correspond to the seventy elders plus Moses mentioned in Numbers 11:16. According to Rabbi Judah, the seventy elders included Moses, and therefore the greater Sanhedrin was only to be composed of seventy one.", + "From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? (1) As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) [which refers to the twelve spies] but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others [to the twenty]? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “[To follow] after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). [It means that] your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. The exegesis used to derive the number 23 for the little Sanhedrin is much more complicated. Firstly, from the verses in Numbers 35:24-25, which refer to an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers the condemned from being punished, the Rabbis derive that capital cases require the potential to have both a full “assembly” that judges (convicts) and a full assembly that delivers (acquits). Although this is certainly not the simple meaning of this verse, this is the way it is understood in our mishnah. An assembly is taken to mean a group of ten, as proven from the use of the word in Num. 14:27. If two “assemblies” are required than we need at least twenty on a court to adjudicate capital cases. In order to exegetically prove that we need another three, the mishnah turns to Exodus 23:2 and a potential redundancy between the two halves of the verse. The first half states that one should not follow a majority of people in order to do evil, and therefore we could learn that one should follow the majority to do good. However, this is understood to also be the explanation of the second half of the verse, which states that one should follow the majority, clearly to do good. In order to solve this supposed redundancy the mishnah says that the majority needed to convict is not the same as the majority needed to acquit. In order to acquit we only need a majority of one and in order to convict we need a majority of two. The verse is therefore explained in the following manner: when it says “, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil”, it means do not follow a majority of one to convict. When it says “[To follow] after the many to change judgment”, it means you should follow a majority of two to acquit. We have now arrived at the number twenty-two, since if an assembly (10) convicts we will need another assembly of 12 to acquit. In order not to have a court that is even and therefore might not arrive at any decision, they add one more judge.", + "And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that [the Sanhedrin of twenty three] should correspond with them that are chiefs of [at least] groups of ten. In order for a city to be worthy or large enough to merit a little Sanhedrin, which according to mishnah five had to be appointed by the greater Sanhedrin, it had to have 120 permanent inhabitants. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, it had to have 230 inhabitants, ten for each judge. According to Rabbi Nehemiah this is so each judge can act as a chief of at least ten people, which is the smallest judicial appointment according to Ex. 18:21.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is a greater majority required for conviction than acquittal?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah one contains with special rules regarding the High Priest.", + "This mishnah can be divided into three basic sections: 1) the High Priest’s relationship to the court; 2) the High Priest’s ability to perform halitzah (the release of the widow from the obligation to marry the levir, her dead husband’s brother) and levirate marriage; 3) the High Priest’s participation in the mourning ritual.", + "The High Priest can judge and be judged; he can testify and others can testify against him. The High Priest is treated like a normal person with regards to the laws of the court. As we shall see in mishnah two, this is not true with regards to the king.", + "He can perform halitzah for another’s wife and others can perform halitzah for his wife or contract levirate marriage with his widow, but he cannot contract levirate marriage since he is forbidden to marry a widow. The High Priest is basically the same as any other person with regards to the laws of levirate marriage. If he should die without children, his wife must either marry his brother or his brother must perform halitzah for her. If his brother should die without children he must perform halitzah for his wife. He cannot, however, contract levirate marriage with her since he is in general prohibited from marrying a widow (Lev. 21:14).", + "If any of his near kin die he may not follow after the bier, rather when the bearers are not visible, he is visible, when they are visible he is not visible, and he may go out with them as far as the city gate, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, “He may not leave the Temple, as it says, “Nor shall he go out of the Sanctuary”. And when he comforts other mourners the custom is for all of the people to pass by, the one after the other, while the appointed [priest] stands between him and the people. And when he receives comfort from others, all the people say to him, “Let us be your atonement”, and he says to them, “May you be blessed by Heaven.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit around on the ground and he sits on a stool. The High Priest is severely restricted with regards to his participation in the rituals of burial. Since contact with the dead causes impurity the High Priest cannot even participate in the burying of his own immediate family (unlike a regular priest who may) (see Lev. 21:10-12). According to Rabbi Meir, the High Priest is allowed to semi-secretly participate in the burial procession, up until they leave the city gates of Jerusalem (people were not buried within the city confines). Rabbi Judah states that he may not even participate this much, since the Torah states that he may not leave the Sanctuary at all. If the High Priest needs to participate in the comforting of mourners he may do so, but the “appointed” priest would come in between him and the other people. According to the Rambam this is to show the honor due to the High Priest, that he shouldn’t be just a part of the crowd. When others comfort him they say, “Let us be your atonement”. It seems to me that this is to assuage the sense of guilt that the High Priest must feel since he was not able to participate in the burying of his own dead. When he comforts others he should give them a blessing. When he is fed the traditional funeral meal which would normally be eaten by the mourner while sitting close to the ground, the rest of the people must sit on the ground. This fulfills two functions: 1) he retains a higher status than them; 2) they are able to participate in his sorrow and grief." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two contains special rules regarding the king.", + "The king can neither judge nor be judged, he cannot testify and others cannot testify against him. The king cannot participate in the regular system of the court. This is probably due to the fear that the king will threaten the existence of the court if a decision is not found in his favor. Since he cannot be tried, it is not fitting to allow him to testify. There is also an issue of honor at stake in this prohibition. The king’s honor is not just an issue of personal concern but of national concern as well. Forcing a king to participate in the legal system would, in the mind of the Mishnah, diminish his authority.", + "He may not perform halitzah, nor may others perform halitzah for his wife. He may not contract levirate marriage nor may his brothers contract levirate marriage with his wife. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wished to perform halitzah or to contract levirate marriage his memory is a blessing.” They said to him: “They should not listen to him.” The king also may not participate in the halitzah ceremony, since part of this ceremony is the woman spitting in front of the dead husband’s brother. This is obviously not respectful to a king. It is also not a sign of respect for him to have to marry his dead brother’s widow (levirate marriage) in order to bring forth children under his brother’s name. Since his widow may not remarry, his brothers do not perform halitzah for her or contract levirate marriage with her. Rabbi Judah says that a king can perform halitzah and levirate marriage, and it is actually praiseworthy for him to do so (but not mandatory). In other words, according to Rabbi Judah, a king is allowed to forgo his own honor. According to those who respond to him, he is prohibited to do so.", + "None may marry his widow. Rabbi Judah says: “The king may marry the widow of a king, for so have we found it with David, who married the widow of Saul, as it says, “And I gave you my master’s house and my master’s wives into your embrace” (II Samuel 12:8). According to the first opinion, the widow of a king may not remarry, since this is disrespectful to the dead king. However, Rabbi Judah finds precedent in David who married Saul’s widow, and therefore he allows all kings to marry other kings widows (this should remind us of MacBeth!)." + ], + [ + "If any of his near kin die he may not go out of the door of his palace. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wishes to follow the bier he may, since we have found that David followed the bier of Avner, as it says, “And King David followed the bier” (II Samuel 3:31) They answered, “That was only to appease the people.”
When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit on the floor and he sits on a couch.
Mishnah three discusses the procedures of mourning if a king’s family member dies.
This mishnah deals with funeral procedure when one of the king’s near relatives dies. Although there is no prohibition in the Torah against the king participating in funerals, the Sages did not think it respectful for a king to be seen in a state of mourning. Rabbi Judah again finds biblical precedent for the king to participate in the funeral (as he found precedent for the king to marry another king’s widow in mishnah two). When during the battles between the House of Saul and the House of David, Avner, Saul’s army commander, was murdered by Joab, the commander of David’s army for having killed Joab’s brother, David goes out after Avner’s bier. According to Rabbi Judah this is precedent for any king. The Sages reply to Rabbi Judah that David only did so to appease the people so that they wouldn’t say that Joab killed Avner with David’s permission. In other, normal, cases it is forbidden for the king to participate in the funeral procession.
When the people feed the king his funeral meal, they sit on the floor, to show their participation in his grief and he sits on a couch, since he is not allowed to truly mourn. Note that the high priest was allowed to sit on a low stool. The Sages were less concerned about the respect shown for the high priest than they were for the respect shown towards the king." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four deals the rights and responsibilities of a king.", + "He may send forth the people to a battle waged of free choice by the decision of the court of seventy one. The king has a right to take his people out to war, but he first must receive permission from the Sanhedrin. This is probably seen to be a check to make sure a king does not take his people out to dangerous and frivolous wars.", + "He may break through [the private domain of any man] to make himself a road and none may protest him. The king’s road has no limit. The king has a right to expropriate anyone’s property if he should need the property to make a path. Furthermore, this path has no limits to its size. There are some commentators who say that this section of the mishnah is applicable only if the king is going out to war.", + "Whatsoever the people take in plunder they must place before him, and he may take first. When the people plunder conquered cities after a victorious war, the king may have his first pick at the plunder.", + "“And he shall not have many wives” (Deut. 17:17) eighteen only. Rabbi Judah says: “He may take many wives provided they don’t turn his heart away [from worshipping God]. Rabbi Shimon says: “Even one that might turn his heart away, he should not marry. Why then does it say, “He shall not have many wives”, even if they are like Avigayil. The remainder of the mishnah is a midrash (exegesis) on Deuteronomy 16-19. The first midrash discusses the limitation on the number of wives a king may take. According to the first opinion he may only (!) have 18 wives. Rabbi Judah emphasizes the continuation of verse 17 which says, “lest his heart go astray.” According to Rabbi Judah the verse does not prohibit a certain number of wives, rather it prohibits the king from taking any wife who will lead his heart astray. The Bible itself relates that this is exactly what happened with Solomon in his old age (See I Kings 11). Rabbi Eliezer responds to Rabbi Judah and says that if the verse had only meant to say that he may not marry women who will lead his heart astray then why did it state a specific number. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer says that he may not marry many wives even if they were like Avigayil, David’s wife, who is the prototypical example of a smart and good wife (see I Samuel 25:3).", + "“He shall not keep many horses” (Deut. 17:16) enough for his chariot only. When the Torah states that the king may not have many horses, it means to limit him to those which he needs for his chariot only.", + "“Nor shall he amass silver and gold to excess” (Deut. 17:17) enough to pay his soldier’s wages. The king may only have enough gold to pay his soldiers.", + "He must write a Torah scroll for himself; when he goes forth to battle he shall take it with him, and when he returns he shall bring it back with him; when he sits in judgement it shall be with him, and when he sits to eat it shall be with him, as it says, “Let it remain with him and let him read it all his life” (Deut. 17:19) The Torah states that the king should have a Torah scroll and learn it all the days of his life. The mishnah emphasizes that this Torah scroll must always be with him, even when he goes out to war! The king is to always be reminded that he serves a higher King, God. Keeping the Torah with him at all times reminds him that his authority is secondary to the ultimate authority of God, as revealed in the Torah.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section four: What is the difference in opinion between the first opinion (the king may take 18 wives) and Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion?" + ], + [ + "None may ride his horse and none may sit on his throne and none may make use of his scepter.
No one may see him when his hair is being cut or when he is naked or when he is in the bath house, for it says, “You shall set a king upon yourself” (Deut. 17:15) that his awe should be over you.
Mishnah five teaches that the people must respect and have awe for a king.
This mishnah continues the midrash on Deut. 17 that began in the previous mishnah. The Torah states that the people of Israel shall set a king upon themselves. The Torah uses a typical syntax repeating the verb “to set” twice. In usual fashion, the Rabbis see this as an unnecessary repetition of a word and therefore a legitimate basis for a midrash. The midrash is that the Torah mandates awe of the king, and therefore one is not allowed to not sit in his place, use his scepter or see him in a position of compromise." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges].
This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.”
This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them.
This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.
Chapter Three begins to discuss the court procedure in cases of financial matters, which only require three judges. The first mishnah discusses the selection of judges.
This mishnah contains three disputes between Rabbi Meir and the Sages with regards to the selection of judges and witnesses in cases concerning property disputes. All agree that the first two judges are selected by the litigants themselves, each litigant choosing one judge. However, Rabbi Meir and the Sages dispute with regards to the selection of the third judge. Rabbi Meir holds that the litigants together select a third judge and the Sages hold that the first two judges, those already selected by the litigants, are the ones to select the third judge.
With regards to the invalidation of the judges, Rabbi Meir holds that each litigant can indiscriminately invalidate the judge who was chosen by the opposing litigant. The Sages hold that the judges may only be invalidated on objective grounds, for either being relatives of the litigant or otherwise invalid. (We will learn more about the what cause a person to be invalid to be a a judge in mishnah three). If the judges are otherwise valid the opposing litigant may not disqualify them.
The Sages and Rabbi Meir have basically the same dispute with regard to witnesses. Note, that in this case Rabbi Meir’s opinion is much more radical. If a litigant can disqualify his rival’s witnesses without any due cause, how could anyone ever be convicted. The Talmud deliberates at length on this problem and makes several suggestions: 1) the litigant can only disqualify witnesses when there is only one witness. In such a case, since there are not the requisite number of witnesses, the litigant is not truly destroying his rival’s case; 2) the mishnah deals with a case where a person has two sets of witnesses, and the rival disqualifies only one set; 3) the rival has another witness who testifies with him that the other witnesses are disqualified; 4) the litigant claimed that the judges and witnesses were not valid. When it is established by independent evidence that he told the truth about the judges, he is believed with regard to the witnesses.
In any case, from the fact that there are four solutions to this problem, we can see how puzzling Rabbi Meir’s opinion truly is." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the ability of the litigant to retract on a deal he made before the trial began.", + "This mishnah contains another two disputes between Rabbi Meir and the Sages. The subject in this mishnah is a litigant’s ability to retract when he has allowed the opposing litigant to suspend the usual court rules.", + "If one litigant said to the other, “I accept my father as trustworthy”, or “I accept your father as trustworthy”, or “I accept three herdsman as trustworthy”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.” Usually relatives of either litigant are invalid as either judges or witnesses. Furthermore, criminals are not accepted as judges or witnesses. Herdsman were assumed to be thieves, since it was assumed that they would allow their herds to graze in others’ fields. However, Rabbi Meir and the Sages agree that if one was to accept a relative or a criminal as a judge or witness they could act as such. On the other hand, Rabbi Meir says that if, during the trial or even after the trial the litigant who accepted the relative or criminal were to change his mind, he could do so and ask for a retrial. The Sages say he may not retract. Once he has accepted the relative or the criminal he must accept the decision they make.", + "If one must take an oath before his fellow, and his fellow said to him, “Vow to me by the life of your head”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.” In certain circumstances the defendant will have to take an oath that he doesn’t owe the plaintiff money or property (on rarer occasions the plaintiff is allowed to take an oath and collect from the defendant). The usual oath is one taken in front of a court, and it was considered an extremely grave matter. However, all agree that the other litigant could allow the litigant who must take the oath to take a more personal oath, one by his own head, and not have to take an oath in front of the court. Again, according to Rabbi Meir, if at a later point he wanted his opposing litigant to take an oath in front of the court, an oath that was considered to be graver, he may do so. As in the previous case, Rabbi Meir allows him to retract, whereas the Sages do not.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Rabbi Meir allow the person to retract? What effect will Rabbi Meir’s permission to retract have on the opposing litigant?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three lists those people disqualified from testifying and judging.", + "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]:
A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce. Rabbi Shimon said: “In the beginning they called them ‘gatherers’ of Seventh Year produce, but after the oppressors grew many they changed this and called them ‘traffickers’ of Seventh Year produce.” Rabbi Judah said: “This applies only if they have no other trade, but if they have some other trade other than that, they are not disqualified.” There are four types of people who are disqualified from acting as witnesses or judges: 1) The first is a dice player, in other words a gambler. Such a person cannot testify since he is known to be a liar, especially with regards to monetary matters. Another reason is that he doesn’t participate constructively in building society. 2) A usurer. He is also probably considered to not be trustworthy in monetary matters. 3) A pigeon racer. Racing pigeons was a form of gambling. 4) Those who sell produce grown during the Seventh Year. According to Lev. 25:5-7 produce grown in the fields during the Seventh Year may be eaten by its owners, but it may not be sold. One who therefore sells Seventh Year produce is engaging in forbidden business practices which according to our mishnah make him not trustworthy to testify or act as a judge. Rabbi Shimon points out that this law actually was different in an earlier period. According to Rabbi Shimon at first the law was stricter and forbade even those who gathered Seventh Year produce from testifying or judging. Although eating from the fields was permitted, a person who gathered the produce was suspected of later selling it, which was prohibited. Therefore, they originally forbade even those who gathered Seventh Year produce from testifying. However, once the oppressors grew too many they relaxed the prohibition. In the Talmud it is explained that the “oppressors” refers to the Roman government which demanded taxes from the produce grown on the land, even during the Seventh Year. The Rabbis therefore permitted a person to gather his produce and give it for taxes. When this happened they decided to allow people who gathered Seventh Year produce to testify. Rabbi Judah adds an important qualification on those who are prohibited from testifying. These people are disallowed to testify only if they have no other profession. If gambling or racing pigeons was only a hobby or an irregular activity they could still act as witnesses or as judges.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the reasoning behind Rabbi Judah’s opinion?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four lists which relatives are forbidden to testify or act as judges at a trial.", + "These are the relatives [that are not qualified to be witnesses or judges]:
A suitor’s father, brother, father’s brother, mother’s brother, sister’s husband, father’s sister’s husband, mother’s sister’s husband, mother’s husband, father-in-law, or wife’s sister’s husband them and their sons and their sons-in-law; also the suitor’s step-son only [but not the stepsons’ sons]. Rabbi Yose said, “Such was the mishnah of Rabbi Akiva, but the first mishnah taught: ‘a suitor’s uncle, or his uncle’s son, and all that are qualified to be his heir. The first section lists relatives who are disqualified from testifying. The list is self explanatory, and only a few require explanation. A mother’s husband refers to someone who is not the suitor’s father. Any son or son-in-law of any of these listed relatives is likewise forbidden to testify. For instance one’s father’s brother’s son (a cousin) is forbidden to testify. The only exception is that the suitor’s stepson, i.e. his wife’s son from another marriage, is forbidden to testify but stepson’s son is allowed. Rabbi Yose gives us a glimpse into the development of the Mishnah. The previous clause was the mishnah of Rabbi Akiva, who lived from about 50-135 C.E. Rabbi Yose then relates the way it was taught before this time. While there are some legal differences between the two formulations, the most basic difference is that “first mishnah” used language that approximated Biblical style (see Lev. 25:49). This change from the earlier language to the later style which was more distinct from the Biblical language, may signify the growing independence of the Oral Torah from the Written Torah. It seems likely that in an earlier stage the Oral Torah was usually preserved as an exegesis or midrash on the verses of the Torah. The advantage to this system was that the Torah was a text known to most. The second advantage was that it was clear that Rabbinic law attained its authority by its being an interpretation of Biblical law. However, the biggest detriment was its lack of organization. Many laws appear in parallel forms in several books of the Torah. For instance laws concerning slavery appear in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Laws concerning the redemption of the first born appear in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. One who wished to know the law would not know where to find it. One of the innovations of Rabbi Akiva was to sort Jewish law into topical tractates. In our mishnah we see that as this processed developed the language of the laws changed from Biblical to Rabbinic Hebrew. As far as substantive differences between the first mishnah and Rabbi Akiva’s mishnah. There are three potential differences: his mother’s sister’s husband, his mother’s husband and his wife’s sister’s husband. These three men are not potential inheritors and therefore could testify according to the first mishnah, but they may not according to Rabbi Akiva’s mishnah.", + "Moreover all that were kinsmen at the time [are disqualified]; but kinsmen that have ceased to be kinsmen become qualified.” Rabbi Judah says: “If a man’s daughter died and left children, her husband still counts as a kinsman.” Only if the relative is a current relative may he not testify. If the relationship is by marriage and it is severed through divorce before the trial, the formal relative may testify. Rabbi Judah states that there is one exception to this rule. If a daughter married a man and had children the husband cannot testify, even after the daughter dies. Since the children bind the husband to the grandfather, he is still considered to be a relative." + ], + [ + "A friend or an enemy [is disqualified]. “A friend”: this is one’s groomsman. “An enemy”: anyone whom he has not spoken to in three days because of anger.
They replied: “Israelites are not suspected of such.”
Mishnah five continues to discuss those people who are disqualified from testifying or acting as judges.
The first clause in the mishnah states that one may not testify or judge in a trial involving one’s friend or enemy. The next two clauses define the first clause. “A friend” who is disqualified from testifying or judging is a man’s groomsman, a person who helped him celebrate his wedding. “An enemy” is anyone with whom one has not spoken for three days due to anger.
It must be assumed that the first three clauses are a continuation of Rabbi Judah’s words, begun in the previous mishnah. The Sages in section 1d respond to Rabbi Judah by claiming that Jews are not suspected of lying in court because they are testifying with regards to a friend or enemy. Therefore, a person may testify and judge in cases involving a friend or an enemy." + ], + [ + "How do they check the witnesses?
They bring them in and warn them, and then they take them out and leave behind the most important of [the witnesses].
And they would say to him: “State [for us], how do you know that this one is in debt to this one?” If he said, “He said to me, ‘I am in debt to him’, or ‘So-and-so said to me that he was in debt to him’”, he has said nothing. He must be able to say, “In our presence he acknowledged to the other one that he owed him 200 zuz.”
Afterward they bring in the second witness and check him.
If their words were found to agree, the judges discuss the matter.
If two say, “He is not guilty” and one says, “He is guilty”, he is not guilty. If two say, “He is guilty” and one says, “He is not guilty”, he is guilty. If one says, “He is not guilty”, and one says, “He is guilty”, and even if two declared him not guilty or declared him guilty while one said, “I do not know”, they must add more judges.
Mishnah six begins to describe the process of the interrogation of the witnesses.
This mishnah describes the process by which the judges would examine the testimony of the witnesses. Keep in mind that the mishnaic court system did not include lawyers. Rather the discussion was conducted directly between the litigants and the judges.
(1) The first step is to warn the witnesses of the seriousness of testifying in a court. (2) The second step was to remove all but one of the witnesses, so that they would not merely mimic each other’s testimony. Jewish law is strict in requiring two independent witnesses, and one may not therefore learn of his testimony from another. (3) They could now begin interrogating the most important of the witnesses. The witness is asked how he received that information that so-and-so owes someone money. The only answer that is accepted as valid testimony is for the witness to say that he saw the defendant actually admit to the plaintiff that he is in debt to him. If a third party told the witness that the defendant was obligated, or even if the defendant himself admitted such, the testimony is not accepted. (4) Afterwards they repeat the process with the second witness. (5) If the testimony of all of the witnesses is found to be in agreement, the judges discuss the matter. (6) A majority decision is always accepted as binding, as long as all of the judges have made a conclusive decision. If one of the judges said that he did not know they must add more judges until there are three judges who have actually rendered decisions. In other words, one who cannot render a decision is not counted as one of the necessary three judges to make up a court of three." + ], + [ + "When the judges reached their decision they would bring in the litigants.
The chief among the judges says: “You, so-and-so are not obligated”, or “You, so-and-so are obligated”.
And from where do we know that after one of the judges has gone out that he may not say, “I declared him not obligated and my colleagues declared him obligated, so what can I do since they outvoted me?” Of such a one it says, “Do not go about as a talebearer amongst your people” (Lev. 19:16) and it also says, “He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets” (Proverbs 11:13).
Mishnah seven describes the court procedures at the end of the trial.
At the end of the trial, when the judges have reached their verdict the most important of them would announce whether or not the defendant was obligated to pay the plaintiff. In addition the mishnah warns judges that when the trial is completed the judge who disagreed with the verdict of the majority may not walk out and announce to the public his disagreement. Such a person is considered to be the type of “talebearer” censured by the Torah." + ], + [ + "So long as a litigant can produce proof he may overturn the verdict.
If they had said to him, “Bring all of the proofs that you have within thirty days” and he brought them within thirty days, the court may overturn the verdict. But if he brought any proof after thirty days, the court cannot reverse the verdict. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “What could he have done that he did not find [the proof] within thirty days but found it after thirty days?”
If they had said to him, “Bring witnesses” and he said, “I have no witnesses”, or [if they said], “Bring proof”, and he said, “I have no proof”, and he later found proof or witnesses, then they are totally invalid. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “What could he have done that he did not know that he had witnesses, then found witnesses, or that he did not know that he had proof, then found proof?
If they had said to him, “Bring witnesses” and he said, “I have no witnesses”, or [if they said], “Bring proof”, and he said, “I have no proof”, but when he saw that he was about to be found obligated, he said, “Come near, so-and-so and so-and-so and testify for me!”, or if he brought forth some proof from his wallet, then they are totally invalid.
Mishnah eight discusses the ability of the litigants to overturn the verdict by bringing new evidence (physical proof or witnesses) after the trial.
Mishnah eight discusses the situation where a person did not bring proof or witnesses until after he was found to be obligated. If the court had not told him that he had a time limit on bringing such evidence, he may always bring it and thereby give the judges reason to overturn the verdict. If, however, the court had set a time limit on his bringing proof or witnesses, and that time limit elapsed, he may no longer attempt to overturn the verdict. Since the court set a time limit, anything brought afterwards is not considered relevant to the trial. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with this time limit. According to him even if a time limit was set, if the defendant should find new evidence he may bring it to the court’s attention and have the decision overturned. In other words there is a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the Sages (the anonymous opinion), the former holding that time limits are irrelevant and the latter that they are valid.
The final clause of the mishnah contains an opinion to which even Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel agrees. Even though he generally allows evidence to be brought later, if it is clear that the defendant could have known about the evidence and chose not to use it and then produced it just at the moment when the verdict was about to be delivered against him, the evidence is invalid. In such a case we may rightfully wonder why he didn’t bring the evidence earlier and we suspect him of lying." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah which we will learn today discusses the differences in how a court acts during non-capital trials (cases entailing penalty not by death) and capital trials. As we will learn in our mishnah and also in mishnah five of this chapter the Rabbis took capital cases very seriously and wanted to ensure as much as possible that no person would be wrongfully executed.", + "Our mishnah opens with the one similarity between capital and non-capital cases: they both require interrogation of the witnesses. We will learn what questions were asked of the witnesses in chapter five. The mishnah then lists eight differences between capital and non-capital cases.", + "Capital cases require twenty three judges, while non-capital cases require only three. This law was already learned in chapter one.", + "In non-capital cases the judges may begin their deliberations either with points in favor or points against the accused. Capital cases must begin with points in favor of the accused.", + "Non-capital cases require a majority of one to either convict or acquit, while capital cases require a majority of two to convict and one to acquit. This law was also already learned in chapter one, mishnah six.", + "If new evidence should arise non-capital cases may later be reversed either from conviction to acquittal or vice versa. Capital cases may only be reversed from conviction to acquittal. Once a person is acquitted of a capital crime he may no longer be tried.", + "In non-capital cases anyone may speak in favor or against the accused, even the disciples of the Sages who are not counted amongst the judges. (We will learn more about them in mishnah four of this chapter). In capital cases the disciples may speak in favor of the accused but not against him.", + "In non-capital cases a judge who argued in favor may later argue against, if he is convinced by the arguments of his colleagues. In capital cases once one has argued in favor he may no longer argue against.", + "The verdict of a non-capital case may be reached at night, whereas the verdict of a capital case must be reached during the day.", + "Non-capital cases may be completed in one day, but capital cases require the judges to wait overnight before rendering their decision. Since this is so, capital cases are not adjudicated on the day before the Sabbath or a Festival, for if they were the punishment would have to be carried out on the Sabbath or Festival and it was considered to be a breach of Sabbath or Festival law to execute on those days. Furthermore, they didn’t want to try someone on Friday, pronounce him guilty on the Sabbath and have to wait until Sunday to execute him. Such a wait would prolong the psychological pain of the person about to be put to death.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why did the Sages insist on these differences between capital and non-capital cases? What is their function?" + ], + [ + "In non-capital cases and those concerning uncleanness and cleanness [the judges declare their opinion] beginning from the eldest, but in capital cases they begin from [them that sit at] the side.
All are qualified to try non-capital cases, but not all are qualified to try capital cases, only priests, levites and Israelites that may give [their daughters] in marriage to priests.
Mishnah two contains more information regarding the differences between capital and non-capital cases.
This mishnah contains an additional two differences between non-capital cases and capital cases. (We learned of eight differences in mishnah one.)
In all types of non-capital cases the eldest judge may state his opinion first, but in capital cases the decision stating process begins from the side of the room, where the younger members of the court would sit. This is to prevent the youngest judge from being unduly influenced by the opinion of the eldest judge.
A person of any lineage may judge non-capital cases, even mamzerim (those born of illicit unions) and even converts. However, only those who can marry their daughters to priests, meaning priests, levites and Israelites can judge capital cases. This law certainly reflects the import that the Rabbinic society ascribed to familial relations." + ], + [ + "Introductio Mishnah three begins to discuss the physical arrangement of the sanhedrin, the scribes who would record the decisions and the disciples of the Sages who observed the proceedings and learned.
The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing-floor so that they all might see one another.
Before them stood the two scribes of the judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal and the words of them that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah says: “There were three: one wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal, and one wrote down the words of them that favored conviction, and the third wrote down the words of both them that favored acquittal and them that favored conviction.
The sanhedrin of twenty three that would try capital cases and the sanhedrin of seventy one would sit in a half circle. This was the seating arrangement that would best allow all of the judges to see each other. A full circle would mean that the one testifying before the court would have his back to some of the judges.
The second half of the mishnah describes the court stenographers. According to the first opinion, there were two scribes who recorded the court procedure, one which recorded the opinion of those that favored acquittal and one those that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah claims that there was a third scribe who recorded all of the opinions. In this way there would be two copies of all of the decisions made." + ], + [ + "And there were three rows of disciples of the Sages who sat before them, and each knew his proper place.
If they needed to appoint [another as a judge] they appointed him from the first row, and one from the second row came into the first row, and one from the third row came into the second row, and they chose another from the congregation and set him in the third row.
He did not sit in the place of the former, but he sat in the place that was proper for him.
Mishnah four discusses the disciples who sat in front of the Sages in the Sanhedrin and the procedure for a disciple’s appointment to the court.
This mishnah describe the seating arrangement of the disciples of the Sages (talmidei hachamim) who would sit and observe the proceedings of the Sanhedrin. There were three rows of official disciples, those waiting in the ranks to one day become judges. This was somewhat of an apprenticeship. If one of the judges had to leave or died, one of the disciples would take his place. The disciples themselves sat in rows according to their rank and when one would move up to be a judge, everyone behind him would move up in place. When the one from the second row moved up to the first, and the one in the third moved up to the second, and the one from the congregation moved up to the third, they would not sit in the beginning of the row but rather at the end of the row, which was their proper place." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins with a description of the warning that the judges would give to the witnesses in a capital case. The mishnah then continues with a discussion of the uniqueness of every human being and the consequential extreme severity of capital punishment.", + "How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” The mishnah begins with an exhortation made by the judges to the witnesses before they testify. The judges warn the witnesses of the severity of their testimony and they warn them that secondhand testimony, even if it was heard from a reliable source is inadmissible. The judges also remind the witnesses that they will be examined carefully. The judges then warn the witnesses that the consequences of executing a wrongfully accused person are extremely serious and indeed eternal. By testifying falsely against a person and thereby leading to his execution the witness is not only killing the accused himself, but is in essence eliminating all of his future descendants.", + "For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. The mishnah proves its point, that killing one person is like killing all of his future descendants, by using a midrash on God’s words to Cain after he killed Abel, “The bloods of your brother call out”. The midrash is based on the fact that God uses the plural “bloods” instead of blood. This is to teach us that Cain killed not only Abel but all of Abel’s descendants as well. The mishnah then proceeds with an additional interpretation of “the bloods”. According to this interpretation God uses the plural because Abel’s blood was strewn in many places. This last note is obviously a late gloss interpolated into the mishnah.", + "Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” The mishnah now proceeds with four different reasons why God at first created only one human being. The first reason is that it was meant to teach us that one human being is in and of himself or herself an entire world. Therefore, one who kills another person it is as if he destroys an entire world and one who saves another person it is as if he saves an entire world. [This line may be familiar from the beginning of Schindler’s List. It is probably one of the more famous lines in the Mishnah]. The second reason is so that people will not brag about their lineage. Since we all come from the same person, no one can say “my father is greater than yours.” The third reason is to prove to the heretics that there is only one God. If more than one person had been originally created people might claim that each God created his own human being. The fourth reason is to show the greatness of God, that although God created only one human, and each subsequent person is therefore stamped with Adam’s genes, no two people look or are alike. This teaches us that each person must say that for his/her sake the world was created.", + "And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?, was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).] Finally, the mishnah returns to the exhortation that the judges give to the witnesses. After having warned them of the dire consequences of false testimony there is fear that they will not want to testify at all. Therefore they remind the witnesses that one who truly knows testimony and does not bring it to the court is considered to be a sinner. According to the Torah a person has a religious obligation to testify if he has seen a crime. Finally, although the Jewish law abhors the wrongful execution of a person, the rightful execution improves the world. By testifying faithfully against a person who has truly committed a crime, the witnesses are bringing much needed justice into the world." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "They used to examine witnesses with seven inquiries: ( In what week of years? (2) In what year? (3) In what month? (4) On what date in the month? (5) On what day? (6) In what hour? (7) In what place? Rabbi Yose says: [They only asked:] On what day? In what hour? In what place?
[Moreover they asked:] Do you recognize him? Did you warn him?
If one had committed idolatry [they asked the witnesses:] What did he worship and how did he worship it?
Chapter five begins to discuss how the judges examine the testimony of the witnesses.
This mishnah lists the questions that the judges would ask the witnesses. The purpose of the first set of questions was to make sure that the witnesses were actually there at the scene of the crime and not somewhere else. By pinpointing the date and place, the witnesses are in essence promising that no one else could say they were somewhere else when the crime allegedly occurred. According to Jewish law, if witnesses are found to testify about a crime and it turns out that they were not even there when the crime as committed, they receive the punishment that the accused would have received.
Rabbi Yose holds that the judges only need to ask three questions, instead of the seven asked according to the first opinion in the mishnah. These three questions are sufficient in order to establish when and where the crime was committed. The Sages, whose anonymous opinion is taught in section one, hold that by asking many questions they can check to see if the witness is truly confused with regards to his testimony. If he gets confused then it is a sign that his testimony may not be accurate.
Aside from the questions of time and place the judges would also ask the witnesses if they recognized the accused, and in the case of murder they would also ask if the witnesses recognized the murdered person. Furthermore they would ask the witnesses if they had warned the accused. According to Jewish law a person cannot be executed or receive corporal punishment unless he had previously been warned that if he were to commit this crime the punishment would be death or flogging.
If the trial was for idol worship, which according to Jewish law is a capital offense, they would ask the witnesses what type of idol the accused worshipped and how he worshipped it." + ], + [ + "The more a judge examines the evidence the more he is deserving of praise. Ben Zakkai once checked with regards to the stalks of figs.
What is the difference between inquiries and examinations? With regards to inquiries, if one [of the two witnesses] says “I do not know”, their evidence becomes invalid. But if to one of the examinations one answered, “I do not know”, or even if they both answered, “We do not know”, their evidence remains valid. Yet if they contradict each other, whether during the inquiries or examinations, their evidence becomes invalid.
Mishnah two continues to discuss the inquiries and examinations performed on the witnesses by the judge.
This mishnah discusses the questions regarding the circumstances of the crime itself. Although the mishnah lists seven official “inquiries” that must be asked, with regards to “examinations” the more the judge asks the better able he is to ascertain the truth. Ben Zakkai (who is usually called Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai) once even checked to see if the witnesses who testified that a murder was committed under a fig tree knew what the stalks of the figs looked like.
The second half of the mishnah discusses cases where one of the witnesses does not know the answer to one of the questions. If the witness could not say where the crime took place or when it took place, both of the witnesses testimony becomes invalid. These are called “inquiries”. However, if one cannot answer with certainty one of the substantive questions regarding the crime, the rest of his testimony is not invalidated. These are called “examinations”. Even if both cannot answer the question, the other parts of their testimony are not necessarily invalidate. In other words, not knowing a detail does not necessarily disqualify all of their testimony. Rather the judges will have to decide when making their decision if there exists enough testimony to convict the accused.
If, however, the two witnesses disagree with regards to a detail, then all of their testimony is invalid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three deals with invalidating the testimony due to discrepancies between the testimony of the two witnesses.", + "This mishnah deals with discrepancies between the testimony of the witnesses with regards to the time at which the crime was committed.", + "If one said, “On the second of the month”, and the other said, “On the third”, their evidence remains valid, since one may have known that the month was intercalated and the other may not have known that the month was intercalated. If one said, “On the third” and the other said, “On the fifth”, their evidence is invalid. If there is a discrepancy of one day between the witness’s testimony it is not invalidated. This is due to the intercalation of the Jewish month. Jewish months go according to the cycles of the moon. There are between 29 and 30 days in a lunar month. Therefore some months are of 29 days and some are of 30. In the time of the Mishnah the Jewish calendar was not yet fixed. This meant that at the end of every month, on what was potentially the 30th day of the month, the court would need to decide if the current day was the first of the next month or the last of the previous month. According to our mishnah, witnesses may not know that the previous month was actually a 30 day month and therefore they may not know the exact current date. Hence, a one day discrepancy does not invalidate their testimony. A two day discrepancy does, however, invalidate their entire testimony.", + "If one said, “At the second hour”, and the other said, “At the third”, their evidence remains valid. If one said, “At the third hour”, and the other said, “At the fifth”, their evidence becomes invalid. Rabbi Judah says: “It remains valid. [But] if one said, ‘At the fifth hour’ and one said ‘At the seventh’, their evidence becomes invalid, since at the fifth hour the sun is in the east and at the seventh it is in the west. At the time of the Mishnah daytime was divided into 12 hours, no matter how long the actual day. During the summer the hours would be longer and during the winter they would be shorter. A one hour discrepancy between the two witnesses is not significant and therefore does not invalidate their testimony. This makes strong sense if we remember that they certainly did not have clocks in the time of the Mishnah. A two hour discrepancy does invalidate the testimony. It is assumed that although they did not have clocks, people were able to chart the sun and thereby keep rough track of time. Rabbi Judah disagrees. According to him sometimes even a two hour discrepancy between the witnesses does not invalidate the testimony. If the discrepancy was all within one period of the day, it does not invalidate the testimony. If, however, it was between the fifth and seventh hour, in other words between the first half and the second half of the day, at the time when the sun would pass from the east to the west, the testimony would be invalidated, since this is a point of time that most people would recognize." + ], + [ + "They afterward bring in the second witness and examine him.
If their words were found to agree together they begin [to examine the evidence] in favor of acquittal.
If one of the witnesses said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, or if one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his conviction”, they silence him.
If one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, they bring him up and set him among them and he does not come down from there all day. If there is anything of substance in his words they listen to him. Even if the accused said, “I have something to argue in favor of my acquittal”, they listen to him, provided that there is substance to his words.
Mishnah four deals with the court procedure after the testimony has been presented.
After the second witness is examined, the judges begin to examine the evidence. They first examine evidence that might lead to the accused person’s acquittal. The witnesses are not allowed to testify again, even if they know testimony that might lead to acquittal. The disciples, those students of the Sages who sat in rows in front of the judges, were not allowed to speak in favor of conviction. If, however, one of the students was able to raise a point in favor of acquittal, he would be promoted to one of the judge’s seats and from there he could say what he has to say. Finally, the accused himself may testify on his own behalf, provided his claim has some substantial basis." + ], + [ + "If they find him not guilty, he is discharged, if not, it [the trial] is adjourned till the following day. During this time they [the judges] go about in pairs, practice moderation in food, drink no wine the whole day, and discuss the case throughout the night.
Early next morning they reassemble in court. He who is in favor of acquittal states, ‘I declare him innocent and I stand by my opinion.’ While he who is in favor of condemnation says: ‘I declare him guilty and stand by my opinion.’ One who [previously] argued for conviction may now argue for acquittal, but one who [previously] argued for acquittal may not now argue for conviction. If they have made any mistake, the two judges’ scribes are to remind them.
If they find him not guilty, they discharge him.
If not, they take a vote. If twelve acquit and eleven condemn, he is acquitted. If twelve condemn and eleven acquit, or if eleven condemn and eleven acquit and one says, ‘I do not know,’ or even if twenty-two acquit or condemn and a single one says, ‘I do not know,’ they add to the judges.
Up to what number is the court increased? By twos up to the limit of seventy-one.
If thirty-six acquit and thirty-five condemn, he is acquitted. But if thirty-six condemn and thirty-five acquit, the two sides debate the case together until one of those who condemn agrees with the view of those who are for acquittal.
Our mishnah deals with the end of the trial procedure, before the final verdict is pronounced. Note that the mishnah gives numerous opportunities for a judge who voted for conviction to overturn his ruling and vote for acquittal. The Rabbis were very cautious that an innocent man should not be found guilty.
Our mishnah describes the court’s procedure after an initial vote has been taken. If at any point the defendant is found to be innocent the trial is over and he is dismissed. If after the initial vote he is found to be guilty, the judges adjourn for the day in order to “sleep” on the case. During this time the judges continuously debate the merits of the case, and neither eat a lot nor drink wine.
When they reassemble the next morning each judge is asked again to state his opinion. A judge may change his vote from a vote for conviction to a vote for acquittal, but not vice versa. If they make a mistake and do not remember how they voted the scribes who recorded the previous vote remind them.
Again, after the second vote, if he is found to be innocent he is dismissed. In order to convict they need a majority of two votes. In a court of twenty three, the requisite number for a capital case, a conviction would therefore require thirteen in favor of conviction with only ten opposed. If a judge states that he does not know whether to convict or acquit he is not counted as part of the quorum of judges. Therefore, even if 22 judges either convict or acquit and one states that he doesn’t know, they need to add more judges in order to fill the quorum of twenty three. These judges who are added in are, as we learned in chapter four, mishnah four, moved up from the ranks of the disciples who sit before the judges. They continue to add judges until they reach either a majority of two in favor of conviction or a majority of one in favor of acquittal. The maximum number of judges is 71, which is the number of the Great Sanhedrin. If, even after there are 71 judges there is still a majority of only one in favor of conviction, they keep discussing the merits of the case until one who had voted for conviction changes his mind and votes for acquittal. Note, that one who had already voted for acquittal may not change his mind and vote now for conviction, as we learned in the beginning of the mishnah." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "When the trial is completed he [the condemned] is led forth to be stoned.
The place of stoning was outside of the court, as it is says, “Bring out him that has cursed” (Lev. 24:14).
A man was stationed at the door of the court with the handkerchiefs in his hand, and a man on a horse was stationed at a distance yet within sight of him. If one says, ‘I have something [further] to state in his favor’, he [the signaler] waves the handkerchief, and the man on the horse runs and stops them. And even if he [the convict] himself says, ‘I have something to plead in my own favor’, he is brought back, even four or five times, providing, however, that there is substance in his assertion.
If then they find him innocent, they discharge him.
But if not, he goes forth to be stoned, and a herald precedes him [crying]: so and so, the son of so and so, is going forth to be stoned because he committed such and such an offense, and so and so are his witnesses. Whoever knows anything in his favor, let him come and state it.”
The sixth chapter of Sanhedrin deals with the execution by stoning of a person convicted of a capital crime. Although stoning sounds like quite a brutal death, and it certainly must have been painful, as we read the chapter try to keep in mind that execution was an acceptable punishment in all societies in the ancient world. It is also mentioned numerous times in the Bible. Stoning as a mode of execution is also mentioned many times in the Bible. It would be anachronistic of us to expect the Rabbis to exclude the possibility of execution. On the other hand, you should note how cautious the Rabbis were in even theoretically punishing someone through execution. The possibility of the convict’s being exonerated always remained open, even until the last moment. Even while performing the execution the Rabbis were extremely concerned for the respect shown to the convict’s body, as we will see in later mishnayoth. Finally, we must keep in mind that the requirements for proper testimony were so strict that convicting someone would be extremely difficult. Indeed, execution was probably rarely, if ever, carried out, at least according to the rules of Jewish law.
Our mishnah describes the process of stoning, one of the four methods of execution which the mishnah describes. The other three will be described later.
The stoning was not done at the place of the trial, but rather further away from the city. This is proven from a verse in Leviticus which describes taking out the person who cursed God, a capital crime according to the Torah. According to our mishnah “taking out” implies that they took him out of the city.
There are two functionaries described in our mishnah: one who would hold a handkerchief, or flag of some sort and would stay near the court, and one who would ride on a horse and stand some distance from the first man, but still be able to see him. If someone came and offered testimony that would exonerate the convict, the man with the handkerchief would wave and the man on the horse would see the sign and ride out and halt the execution. Even if the convict himself brought up new testimony they would halt the execution, provided he made a substantial claim. If at any time they found in his favor, he would be immediately dismissed. Although this might be a rare occurrence, being so late in the process, nevertheless the mishnah considers it important to remind us that it is never to late to change a verdict from guilty to innocent.
As they are bringing the convict out to be stoned a herald would walk in front of him announcing who he was and why he was being executed. We might have assumed that the purpose of such a custom would be to make an example of the accused, and thereby prevent others from repeating his crime. However, the mishnah does not describe this as the reason for the herald’s crying out. Rather, this is yet another opportunity to find someone to exonerate the convict, and thereby prevent an innocent person’s blood from being shed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two discusses the confession that the convict is to make before he is executed. In Rabbinic theology, the confession allows the execution to expiate the convict of his crime, thereby causing him to die clean of all sins.", + "When he is about ten cubits away from the place of stoning, they say to him, ‘confess’, for such is the practice of all who are executed, that they [first] confess, for he who confesses has a portion in the world to come. For so we find in the case of Achan, that Joshua said to him, “My son, pay honor to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession to him. [Tell me what you have done, do not hold anything back from me.” And Achan answered Joshua and said, “It is true, I have sinned against the Lord the God of Israel, and this is what I have done” (Josh. 7:19-20). And how do we know that his confessions made atonement for him? As it says, “And Joshua said, “What calamity have you brought upon us! The Lord will bring calamity upon you this day” (Josh. 7:35), [meaning] this day you are a calamity, but you are not to be a calamity in the next world. And if he does not know how to confess, they say to him, “Say, may my death be an expiation for all my sins.” When the convict reaches ten cubits distance from the place where he is to be stoned, he is asked to confess of his crimes. The mishnah teaches that anyone who confesses, no matter how heinous their crime, has a place in the world to come. This lesson is based the story of Achan in the book of Joshua. When Joshua conquered Jericho, the people were not supposed to take anything from the city. Rather they were supposed to kill anything that was alive and bring only the silver and gold to the treasury. Achan violated this ruling and took from the proscribed property of Jericho. As a punishment God causes Israel to lose their subsequent battle at Ai (Joshua, chapter 7). When Joshua figures out that their loss was due to Achan’s taking from the proscribed property, he sentences Achan to death for having violated God’s word not to take from the property of Jericho. Joshua requests of Achan to confess his crime, which he subsequently does. The innovation that our mishnah makes is that this confession expiates Achan of his crime and Achan therefore has a place in the world to come. Joshua says to Achan, “What calamity have you brought upon us! The Lord will bring calamity upon you this day”. The simple sense of the verse is that God is punishing Achan and carrying out the punishment today. The midrashic reading of our mishnah is that God is punishing Achan only today, and he will not punish him tomorrow. Achan, therefore, has a place in the world to come. Even one who does not know how to confess is taught how to do so. The Rabbis are concerned that although the criminal’s time in this world is drawing to a close, he should still be able to have a share in the world to come.", + "Rabbi Judah said: “If he knows that he is a victim of false evidence, he can say: may my death be an expiation for all my sins but this.” They [the sages] said to him: “If so, everyone will speak likewise in order to clear himself.” The mishnah ends with a dispute between Rabbi Judah and the Sages. According to Rabbi Judah, if the convicted person does not believe that he was guilty, he need not ask for forgiveness for this sin. Rather he can make a general statement, asking for forgiveness from other sins. The Sages disagree with Rabbi Judah. If convicted people were allowed to make such a confession, everyone would do so, in order to give the impression that they were dying innocent. Rather, if he will not confess to this crime he is not allowed to confess to any crime.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Why are the Sages so afraid of the convicted person not confessing to this specific sin? What do they mean when they say “everyone will speak likewise in order to clear himself?”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three deals with whether or not the person should wear clothing while being stoned.", + "When he is about four cubits distant from the place of stoning, he is stripped of his clothing. A man is covered in front and a woman both in front and behind, according to Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: “A man is to be stoned naked and a woman is not to be stoned naked. According to the Sages a man is stoned naked while a woman is stone clothed. According to Maimonides explanation of this mishnah, the reason that the man is stoned naked is to hasten his death. The clothing would present a barrier that would prolong his death and therefore prolong his suffering. Both the Sages and Rabbi Judah agree that a woman is stoned while clothed. Evidently this is out of a sense of modesty. Note, that even while executing a person, the Rabbis are concerned with issues of personal modesty. According to Rabbi Judah, this sense of modesty requires that even the man be clothed, although he need only be covered in the front, while the woman must be clothed from both sides" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four describes how the person was to be stoned. The mishnah also discusses the hanging mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:22-23. We should mention that we don’t really know exactly how this hanging was to be performed. The JPS translation translates it as “impaling” but this is not the literal meaning of the word. The purpose of such an action was to expose the body, and it was a common practice in the ancient and indeed also the modern world. The Torah states that while this type of action may be done, the body may not be left overnight. The Torah is concerned for the respect due to the human body and therefore it states that leaving a body hanging overnight is strictly forbidden.", + "The place of stoning was twice a man's height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled [his duty]; but if not, the second witness took a stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby, he had done [his duty]; but if not, he [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel, for it is says: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). According to the Rabbis, stoning was not carried out by throwing stones at the person until he dies, which would seem to be the normal way that one would understand stoning. Rather the person is pushed off a two story platform and then stones are dropped on him. The first witness is the one who pushes him off and if he dies then the execution is over and no further stoning is done. If the person is still alive then the second witness throws a stone on him. If he dies the execution is over, but if he remains alive the rest of Israel throws stones at him. This process is based on a biblical verse. We should note two things. First of all the mishnah is careful to stone the person only until he dies. Once he dies, the Rabbis forbade further disfiguration of his body. Second, the Torah requires the witnesses to take part in the stoning. A witness must believe his testimony firmly enough to actually carry out the execution himself. In some cases this might discourage false testimony.", + "All who are stoned are [afterwards] hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged.” A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: a man is hanged, but not a woman. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: “But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women at ashkelon?” They said: “[On that occasion] he hanged eighty women, even though two must not be tried on the same day. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the Torah commands that all executed people are hung after their execution. However, the Sages say that this is done only to the blasphemer (of God) and to the idol worshipper. Rabbi Eliezer states that both men and women are to be hung, whereas the Sages say that only men are hung. Note that even though Rabbi Eliezer believes that women are hung, he is still concerned with their modesty. In order to prove his point that women are also hung, Rabbi Eliezer brings up the precedent of Shimon ben Shetach, an early Sage, who hung 80 women in Ashkelon. (We don’t know why he hung them). The Sages retort that this hanging was not done according to the law, for Jewish law forbids convicting even two people on one day. According to the Sages the incident of Shimon ben Shetach was an unusual, one time affair, and does not set precedent for future cases.", + "How is he hanged? The post is sunk into the ground with a [cross-] piece branching off [at the top] and he brings his hands together one over the other and hangs him up [thereby]. R. Jose said: the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up the way butchers do. He is immediately let down. If he is left [hanging] over night, a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it says, “You shall not let his corpse remain all night upon the tree, but you must bury him the same day because a hanged body is a curse against god” (Deut. 21:23). As if to say why was he hanged? because he cursed the name [of god]; and so the name of Heaven [God] is profaned. Rabbi Yose and the Sages dispute how a person is to be hung. Note that the hanging described by the mishnah is not done by the person’s neck but rather by their hands. This is, of course, closer to what we would call crucifixion. However, according to the Rabbis hanging is not a form of the death penalty but is to be performed after the execution has been carried out. The body must be let down immediately. Indeed according to other sources, one hand puts the body up and another lets it down. The disgrace done to the body is indeed only momentary. The verse in Deuteronomy states that a hanged body is a disgrace to God. Our mishnah understands that the verse comes to teach that people who see the body hanging will realize that it was because he cursed God, either by explicitly doing so or by worshipping idols, as we learned in section two.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why are the Rabbis so concerned about not disfiguring the body of the executed criminal? What value lies behind their laws?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with several subjects: 1) God’s sorrow at seeing one of His children die; 2) the commandment to bury all people on the day they die; 3) the process of burying the executed criminal.", + "R. Meir said: “When man suffers, what expression does the shechinah (God’s use? “My head is too light (a euphemism for for me, my arm is too light (a euphemism for for me.” If god is so grieved over the blood of the wicked that is shed, how much more so over the blood of the righteous! Throughout this chapter we have seen that although the Rabbis did allow executions to take place, after all the Torah talks in many places about executions, they were troubled by this punishment and went to lengths to make sure that no innocent man was ever executed. Furthermore, according to the Rabbis, execution expiates the criminal of his sin, thereby allowing him a place in the world to come. Our mishnah continues with this trend by stating God’s pain at the loss of even a criminal. According to Rabbi Meir as the execution is being carried out, God exclaims that his head and arms are too heavy to bear. We learn from this that if God mourns so greatly for the death of the wicked, all the more so will He mourn at the bloodshed of the righteous.", + "And not only of this one [a criminal did the sages not to leave him overnight] but whosoever lets his dead lie over night transgresses a negative commandment. If he kept him over night for the sake of his honor, to procure for him a coffin or a shroud, he does not transgress. We learned in mishnah four that one is not allowed to leave the body of the executed man hanging over night. Rather the court must bury him that very day. In mishnah five we learn that not only are criminals to be buried on the same day they die but every Jew should be buried on the same day that he dies. Although most Jews do not still observe this custom, mostly due to people having to travel to make the funeral, and many funerals are delayed by a day or two, Jews in Jerusalem are still usually buried on the same day that they die. Furthermore, Jewish law prohibits the use of chemicals to preserve the body, making a quick burial all the more imperative. The mishnah adds that if the delay was for the sake of the dead person, to arrange a proper burial, then no negative commandment is transgressed.", + "And they did not bury him [the executed person] in his ancestral tomb, but two burial places were prepared by the court, one for those who were decapitated or strangled, and the other for those who were stoned or burned. In this section and in the following mishnah we return to the subject of the executed criminal. Jewish burial, and indeed many forms of ancient burial, was a two stage process. First the person was buried and allowed to lie in the ground until his flesh deteriorated. When this occurred they would collect the bones and put them into an ossuary with the bones from other deceased members of his family. According to our mishnah the initial burial of the criminal was in a special grave reserved for those executed by the court. There were two graves, one for those decapitated and strangled, and one for those burned and stoned. (These are the four types of execution mentioned in the mishnah, as we will learn in the next chapter).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the connection between section one and section two? In other words, why does the mishnah discuss the need for a speedy burial of non-criminals here as opposed to mishnah four?" + ], + [ + "When the flesh was completely decomposed, the bones were gathered and buried in their proper place.
The relatives then came and greeted the judges and witnesses, as if to say, we have no [ill feelings] against you, for you gave a true judgment.
And they observed no mourning rites but grieved [for him], for grief is in the heart alone.
Mishnah six discusses the process which occurs a year or so after the initial burial of the criminal. At this time formal reconciliation is made between the family of the criminal and the court, thereby restoring proper order to society.
When the flesh was decomposed the bones were allowed to be returned to their ancestral burial place. This is the first step of reconciliation: allowing the criminal’s bones to rejoin the bones of his family. The mishnah then prescribes a procedure in which the relatives of the criminal were to greet the judges and witnesses, thereby tacitly admitting that the verdict had been correct. This second process of reconciliation and admission to the authority of the court allows society to return to some sense of normalcy, after the severe disruption of an execution. Finally, although the family may not observe proper mourning rites, which would involve elaborate eulogies and public rituals, inappropriate for a criminal, they were allowed to observe the private ritual of grief. While the mishnah cannot allow the public ritual, it is sensitive to the private needs of the mourning family. This too is a form of reconciliation, as if the court is saying to the family that although your relative was a criminal, the moral stain is not borne by his entire surviving family. They are to return to regular members of society." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Four deaths have been entrusted to the court: stoning, burning, slaying [by the sword] and strangulation.
R. Simeon says: “burning, stoning, strangulation and slaying.”
That (the previous is the manner of stoning.
The first mishnah of chapter seven lists the four types of execution that Jewish law prescribed.
There are four types of death carried out (at least theoretically) according to Jewish law. Our mishnah contains a dispute with regards to which type of execution is harsher than the others. The Sages claim that stoning is the harshest, followed by burning, slaying and strangulation. Rabbi Shimon disagrees. He holds that burning is the harshest, and slaying the least harsh.
The mishnah notes that the previous chapter described how stoning was to be carried out. The following two mishnayoth will describe burning, slaying and strangulation." + ], + [ + "The manner in which burning is executed is as follows: They would lower him into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two loose ends pulled in opposite directions, forcing him to open his mouth. A wick was then lit, and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body and burned his bowels.
R. Judah says: “Should he have died at their hands [being strangled by the bandage before the wick was thrown into his mouth], they would not have fulfilled the requirements of execution by fire. Rather his mouth was forced open with pincers against his wish, the wick lit and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body and burned his bowels.
Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok said: “It once happened that a priest's daughter committed adultery, whereupon bundles of sticks were placed around her and she was burnt. The Sages said to him: “That was because the court at that time was not well learned in law.
Our mishnah describes how execution by burning was to be carried out. It might be helpful to begin with Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok (section three), who testifies to having seen a priest’s daughter executed by being totally burnt (evidently alive). This follows the seemingly simple requirement mentioned in Lev. 21:9, that a priest’s daughter who committed adultery should be burned. However, the Sages who disagree with him, and those who state their opinion in section one, believed that execution by burning was to be done by burning up the insides of the person. They would open up his mouth and throw burning material inside and it would descend and burn him from the inside. Rabbi Judah’s dispute with the Sages is with regards to the manner in which they would force open his mouth; he does not disagree with the Sages general understanding of how execution by burning was carried out. Rabbi Judah is concerned lest in the process of opening his mouth they strangle him which is a different form of execution.
It is worth discussing briefly the nature of the two different understandings of death by burning. The Rabbis prescribe a form of burning that doesn’t seem to be the simple understanding of the Torah. When the Torah states that someone is to be burned, it probably means an execution similar to that referred to by Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok in section three. Therefore the question needs to be asked: why did the Rabbis insist that burning would take place by burning the inside and not the outside? The answer is probably not that one form of death was more or less painful than the other. They both sound quite painful. The best answer that is borne out by many other sources, is that the Rabbis did not want to sanction an execution in which the outer body was disfigured. While they believed in the death penalty (again, at least theoretically) they wanted to execute the criminal while doing as little physical, external damage to the body as possible. The body, after all, is a gift from God, and while the person may deserve death according to the law, damaging the body serves no purpose. This is to be contrasted to other cultures that have existed until this very day, who considered the public disfiguring of the body of the criminal to be desirable, either as an example to the rest of society, or as a means to take vengeance even on the corpse. The Rabbis took a strong stand against such practices, one that we will see in several places. Indeed we have already seen this attitude in the previous chapter, when it stated that the hanged body was to be taken down immediately. Although the criminal deserved to die, mutilating his body was indeed, according to Jewish law, an affront to God." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three describes the final two forms of execution: slaying by the sword and strangulation.", + "Slaying by the sword was performed thus: they would cut off his head by the sword, as is done by the civil authorities. R. Judah says: “This is a disgrace! Rather his head was laid on a block and severed with an axe. They said to him: “No death is more disgraceful than this.” According to the Sages execution by sword was done by decapitating the condemned, as is the practice amongst the non-Jewish authorities. Rabbi Judah says that this is a disgrace. Rather they should lay his head on a block of wood and chop it off with an axe. The Sages reply to Rabbi Judah that this is even more disgraceful. Although it is hard for us to understand why one form of decapitation is more disgraceful than the others, the important issue in this mishnah is that both sides want to prevent a disgraceful execution. As we have already stated, in the ancient world it was common to search for the most disgraceful execution possible. The Rabbis took a totally opposite approach. Even while executing the man the court must look for the least disgraceful way of ending his life.", + "Strangulation was performed thus: the condemned man was lowered into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead. Strangulation was done by tying a rope around the condemned man’s neck and pulling it from both sides until he dies. Again, we see in this mishnah that the Sages tried as much as possible to prevent disfiguration to the body. This is accomplished in our mishnah by putting the rough rope inside a soft rope. Although in either way the condemned will die, the soft rope will leave less damage on the body. It is also important to note that while all of the other forms of execution are mentioned specifically in the Torah, strangulation is not. It is probably a new form of execution, created by the Rabbis, specifically with the intent of causing as little physical damage to the body as possible.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Judah and the Sages?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four lists those crimes for which one is stoned and begins to explain them.", + "This mishnah lists all of those who are executed by stoning and then begins to explain some of the details. Most of these crimes are specifically listed in the Torah as being punishable by stoning. Some are learned through an analogy with other crimes. We will mention the verses for each crime.(1) one who has sexual relations with his mother: Leviticus 18:7, 20:11. (2) with his father's wife: Leviticus 18:8, 20:11. (3) with his daughter -in-law: Leviticus 20:12. (4) with a male: Leviticus 20:13. (5) with a beast: Leviticus 20:15. (6) a woman who commits bestiality with a beast: Leviticus 20:16. (7) a blasphemer: Leviticus 24:15-16. (8) an idolater: Deuteronomy 17:2-5. (9) one who gives of his seed to molech: Leviticus 20:2. (10) a necromancer or a wizard: Leviticus 20:27. (11) one who desecrates the Sabbath: Number 15:35. (12) he who curses his father or mother: Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9. (13) he who commits adultery with a betrothed woman: Deuteronomy 22:23-24. (14) one who incites [individuals to idolatry: Deuteronomy 13:7-11. (15) one who seduces [a whole town to idolatry]: Deuteronomy 13:7-11. (16) a sorcerer: Exodus 22:17, Deuteronomy 18:10. (17) a wayward and rebellious son: Deuteronomy 21:18-21. The rest of chapter seven will deal with the first 16 of these issues.", + "He who has sexual relations with his mother incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his mother and as his father's wife. R. Judah says: “He is liable in respect of her as his mother only.” One who has relations with his mother incurs two crimes, one for having relations with his mother and a separate crime for having relations with his father’s wife. Of course there is no practical difference with regards to how many crimes he has committed if he is to incur the death penalty, since you can only kill a man once. There is a difference though if the relations were accidental (such as he didn’t know that she was his mother). In such a case he must bring a sacrifice to make atonement. Our mishnah teaches that he will have to bring two sacrifices. Rabbi Judah holds that he is obligated for only one sacrifice.", + "He who has sexual relations with his father's wife incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his father's wife, and as a married woman, both during his father's lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. One who has relations with his father’s wife (not his mother) is obligated for having relations with a married woman and with his father’s wife. He is obligated no matter if his father is alive or has already died and she is now his widow. Similarly, he is obligated even if she was only betrothed to his father, but not fully married.", + "He who has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his daughter-in-law and as a married woman, both during his son's lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. All of the same laws with regards to the prohibition of having relations with one’s father’s wife are true with regards to one’s son’s wife.", + "He who has sexual relations with a male or a beast, and a woman that commits bestiality: if the man has sinned, how has the animal sinned? But because the human was enticed to sin by the animal, therefore scripture ordered that it should be stoned. Another reason is that the animal should not pass through the market, and people say, this is the animal on account of which so and so was stoned. This section deals with bestiality. According to Leviticus 20:15-16, an animal who has had sexual relations with a man or woman is to be killed. Our mishnah asks why should the animal be killed. After all it certainly had no control over its actions. The mishnah supplies two answers: 1) since it caused a man or woman to sin. Perhaps we are concerned that another person might also sin with this animal. 2) So people will not be reminded of the crime every time they see the animal." + ], + [ + "The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the divine] name.
Rabbi Joshua b. Korcha said: “The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name:, ‘may Yose smite Yose.”
When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally what you heard.’
Thereupon he did so, [using the divine name].
The judges then arose and tore their garments, which were not to be resewn.
The second witness stated: “I too have heard thus” [but not uttering the divine name], and the third says: “I too heard thus.”
Mishnah five deals with the blasphemer and the special circumstances of his trial.
With regards to the blasphemer the Torah states (Lev. 24:15): “Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt. If he also pronounces the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.” From these verses the Rabbis learned that the blasphemer was obligated for the death penalty only if he used God’s four letter name.
The problem with putting the blasphemer on trial is that when the witnesses testify and repeat what they heard, they too will be blaspheming God’s name. Although they certainly would not receive the death penalty for doing so, it was nevertheless seen to be unacceptable for even a witness to repeat what he heard, especially in a public trial. Therefore, during the court’s deliberation they used a code word, “may Yose smite Yose”. However, in order to complete the trial the witnesses needed to state what they heard explicitly at least one time. Therefore, at the end of the trial they would remove everyone from the court and only the witnesses and the judges would remain. They would then ask the eldest witness to say explicitly what he heard. So painful was it for the judges to hear God’s name being blasphemed that they would tear their clothes and not repair them. This was a typical sign of mourning. The remaining witnesses would not need to say exactly what they heard, thereby repeating the blasphemy. Rather they would merely say that they heard what the first person heard." + ], + [ + "He who engages in idol-worship [is executed]. This includes the one whoserves it, sacrifices, offers incense, makes libations, bows to it, accepts it as a god, or says to it, “You are my god.”
But he who embraces, kisses it, sweeps or sprinkles the ground before it, washes it, anoints it, clothes it, or puts shoes on it, he transgresses a negative commandment [but is not executed].
He who vows or swears by its name, violates a negative commandment.
He who uncovers himself before Baal-Peor [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped.
He who casts a stone on Merculis [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped.
Mishnah six deals with which forms of idol worship will cause a Jew to incur the death penalty.
Our mishnah describes what types of idolatrous activities are punished by death and what types are forbidden but not punishable by death. Basically we can summarize that activities that are performed solely in worship of the idol, such as bowing to it, sacrificing to it, or specifically stating that the idol is a god, are punished by death. However, ancillary actions that are not done with the purpose of worship are forbidden but not punishable by death.
The final two clauses of our mishnah mention two idols who were worshipped by strange types of actions. Baal-Peor is worshipped by the idolater’s exposing himself. Merculis (Mercury) is worshipped by throwing stones at it. Since these are considered to be worship, the one who performs them is obligated for the death penalty." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah seven deals with one who gives of his seed to Molech. The second half of mishnah seven deals with the “Ba’al Ob” and the “Yidde’oni”. We will explain all of these terms below.", + "He who gives of his seed to Molech is not liable unless he delivers it to Molech and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molech but did not cause it to pass through the fire, or he caused it to pass through fire but did not give it to Molech, he incurs no penalty, unless he does both. “Molech” was the name given by a god worshipped by some of Israel’s neighbors. It is mentioned in Leviticus 20:2, where it specifically states that one who gives of his seed to Molech shall be stoned. It is also mentioned in Leviticus 18:21 and II Kings 23:10. According to the Rabbis “giving one’s seed to Molech” involved giving one’s child to the priests of Molech and their passing him from one side of a fire to another. The child was not consumed by the fire. (Although some commentators hold that this was a form of child sacrifice. For an interesting article on Biblical scholarship with regards to the cult of Molech, see the JPS Commentary on Leviticus). Our mishnah teaches that in order for the father to be obligated for the death penalty he must both give the child to the priests of Molech and cause the child to be passed through the fire. If he does only one of these he is not to be stoned.", + "A Ba'al Ob is the pithom who speaks from his armpit. The Yidde'oni is one who speaks from his mouth. These two are stoned; while he who inquires of them transgresses a formal prohibition. Leviticus 19:31 specifically warns that Israelites are not to make inquiry of the “Ovoth” or the “Yidde’onim”. These were different types of sorcerers or oracles who would conjure up spirits in order to tell the future. According to our mishnah a “Ba’al Ob”, or Master of the Ob” was a “pithom”, which in Greek means a conjurer. According to Rashi he would place a skull underneath his armpit and use it to predict the future. A “Yidde’oni” would also conjure up spirits but he would speak from his mouth. If an Israelite were to act as a conjurer of this sort he would be obligated for stoning. If an Israelite were to inquire of a “Ba’al Ob” or “Yidde’oni” he would transgress a negative commandment, but he would not be obligated for the death penalty." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight deals with one who violates the Sabbath and one who curses his parents.", + "He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], providing that it is an offence punished by “kareth” if deliberate, and by a sin-offering if unwitting. According to Numbers 15:35, one who breaks the Sabbath is punished by being stoned. However, we learn elsewhere that he is stoned only if he is warned prior to the transgression that if he violates the Sabbath in such a manner he will be stoned. Our mishnah teaches that this is true provided that his violation was one which is punished by “kareth” (a death penalty meted out by God) if not warned (but nevertheless committed with intent to break the Sabbath). He also must commit a transgression for which he is obligated to bring a sin-offering if he did it unwittingly (for instance he didn’t know that today was the Sabbath or that this type of work is prohibited). The seventh chapter of Tractate Shabbat lists which types of work one is prohibited from doing on the Sabbath. One who is warned not to do one of these types of work and does so anyway is to be stoned. There are other types of work which are forbidden to do on the Sabbath but are not punished by stoning.", + "One who curses His father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the divine name. If he cursed them by a nickname, Rabbi Meir held him liable, but the Sages ruled that he is exempt. According to Leviticus 20:9 and Exodus 21:17 one who curses his parents is liable for the death penalty. Our mishnah teaches that he is liable only if he curses them using God’s explicit name (which we no longer know). Although Rabbi Meir holds that he is obligated even if he uses a nickname for God, the Sages disagree." + ], + [ + "He who has sexual relations with a betrothed young woman is not punished until she is a young woman, a virgin, betrothed, and in her father's house.
If two men had sexual relations with her, the first is stoned, but the second is strangled.
Mishnah nine deals with a man who has relations with a betrothed virgin.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 states: “In the case of a virgin who is betrothed to a man if a man comes upon her in town and lies with her, you shall take the two of them out to the gate of that town and stone them.” A man who has sexual relations with a betrothed woman is an adulterer, as is she, and they are both punishable by death. However, unlike a regular adulterer who is punished by strangulation, one who has relations with a betrothed woman is punished with a more serious form of the death penalty, stoning. Our mishnah teaches that in order for the two to be punished by stoning she must be betrothed and not married. She must be a virgin, and she must be a young woman, usually defined as being from the age of 12-12 ½. Older or younger than that and he will only be punished by strangulation. She also must still be residing in her father’s house. If she has already moved to her husband’s house she is considered married and adultery is then punished by strangulation.
If two men commit adultery with her the first is punished by being stoned and the second is punished by strangulation, since by the time he had relations with her she was no longer a virgin." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah ten deals with those who incite individuals or whole towns to commit idolatry.", + "One who incites [individuals to idolatry] -- this refers to an ordinary person who incites an individual who said, “There is an idol in such and such a place; it eats thus, it drinks thus, it does good [to those who worship it] and harm [to those who do not].” Deuteronomy 13:7-11 discusses an Israelite who attempts to incite his fellow Israelite to worship idols. According to our mishnah this is a regular individual (as opposed to a prophet) who attempts to incite another individual (as opposed to the entire town) to commit idolatry, by telling the other person about an idol that he intends to worship.", + "For all who are liable for the death penalty according to the Torah no witnesses are hidden to entrap them, excepting for this one. If he said [these things] to two, they themselves are witnesses against him, and he is brought to court and stoned. But if he said [these things] to one, he should reply, “I have friends who wish to do so likewise [come and propose it to them too].” But if he was cunning and declined to speak before them, witnesses are hidden behind a partition, while he [who was incited] says to him, make your proposal to me now in private. When the inciter says to him (repeats to him what he had already, the other replies, “How can we abandon our God in heaven to go and serve wood and stones?” Should he retract, it is well. But if he answers, “It is our duty [to worship idols], and is seemly for us”, then the witnesses stationed behind the partition take him to court, and have him stoned. Jewish law requires that all crimes, and certainly capital crimes, be witnessed by two people. However, due to the subversive nature of idol worship, the Rabbis allowed entrapping of one who was trying to incite others to worship idols. Such a form of entrapment was forbidden in all other cases. The reason that this was allowed in this case was to prevent one from inciting many individuals privately, thereby circumventing any possible punishment by the court. The mishnah now explains how this works. If he had incited two people directly, the two of them may bring him to court and he can be tried based on their testimony. If he incited one person, that person should first attempt to get the inciter to say the same thing to other people, and if he does they may bring him to court and testify against him. Should the inciter be clever and not repeat the same words in front of more than one person, the person who has already heard what the inciter said may hide witnesses behind a partition and encourage the inciter to repeat his words. Interestingly, the person who is being incited should even at this late stage try to get the inciter to recant. Jewish law is more interested in having the person recant and return to being part of the Jewish people than having him stoned. If he does not, however, recant, these witnesses may testify against him in a court of law, and if found guilty he will be stoned.", + "He who incites [individuals to idolatry is one who] is one who says, “I will worship it”, or, “I will go and worship”, or, “let us go and worship”; or, “I will sacrifice [to it]”, “I will go and sacrifice”, “let us go and sacrifice”; “I will burn incense, “I will go and burn incense”; “let us go and burn incense”; or “I will make libations to it”, “I will go and make libations to it”, “let us go and make libations”; “I will prostrate myself before it”, “I will go and prostrate myself”, “let us go and prostrate ourselves”. This section lists all of the possible statements that are considered incitement. Basically it doesn’t matter if he states that he is going to do the idol worship or suggests that other do it with him, nor does it matter what type of worship it may be worshipping, sacrificing, bringing incense, making libations or bowing down, in any case he is considered an inciter and is liable for the death penalty of stoning. Note the similarity between this list and the list of forbidden types of worship in mishnah six.", + "One who seduces [a whole town to idolatry] is one who says, “Let us go and serve idols”. In Deuteronomy 13:13-19 a different type of inciter is discussed, one who incites an entire city to worship idols. The mishnah states that to be this type of inciter one must suggest in public that they all go and worship idols. If he had used singular language than his incitement does not fall into this category. We will discuss this case more when we learn chapter ten." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eleven deals with different forms of sorcery.", + "A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death], but not if he merely creates illusions. Rabbi Akiva says in Rabbi Joshua's name: “If two are gathering cucumbers [by magic] one may be punished and the other exempt: he who really gathers them is punished: while he who produces an illusion is exempt.” When the mishnah stated that a sorcerer is liable to be stoned, it meant one who actually performs magic, but not one who creates illusions. [Therefore, modern magicians who use illusions are not obligated for the death penalty]. Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Joshua illustrates this principle by mentioning a form of magic that must have been at least somewhat known in the time of the mishnah, something like pulling a rabbit out of a hat in our days." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter eight deals almost exclusively with the wayward and rebellious son mentioned in Deut. 21:18-21. According to this famous passage in the Torah, if parents have a son who does not obey their words they may take him to the elders of the city, pronounce him to be wayward and rebellious and the child will be punished through stoning. Much can be said about this passage and indeed it sounds quite harsh to our modern ears. The Rabbis too seemed to be troubled by the passage and dealt with it in three different ways: 1) there is one strain of thought in Rabbinic sources which says that this law was never fulfilled. In other words, there never was a rebellious and wayward son who was stoned. 2) Although we may not understand the passage it is God’s word and we have no right to question it. 3) The rebellious son is not punished because of his prior actions but rather to prevent him from becoming a worse menace to society.", + "This mishnah deals with the age that a boy must be in order for him to be stoned as a wayward and rebellious son. Section a states that he must have already have reached the beginning stages of puberty but not have reached adulthood. Through a midrash on the opening verse, “If a man has a son” the Rabbis conclude that the passage in Deuteronomy relates to a son and not a daughter, to someone who still acts as the son of his father but not to an adult who is already beyond the strict authority of his parents.", + "Section b states that the minor is exempt, since he is not obligated for commandments. Taken in its totality the mishnah severely limits the age at which a child can be punished as a wayward and rebellious son. We are probably talking about a time period of about six months." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two defines the actions that a son must take in order to be defined as “wayward and rebellious”.", + "This mishnah deals with what actions are required to make a child punishable as a wayward and rebellious son.", + "When does he become liable [to be stoned]? Once he has eaten a tartemar of meat and drunk half a log of wine. Rabbi Yose said: “A maneh of meat and a log of wine. The child must eat a minimum amount of meat and drink a minimum amount of wine. This is proven at the end of the mishnah in sections 2g and 2gi. The verse from Deuteronomy states that the parents must accuse their child of being a glutton or a drunkard. The verses from Deuteronomy do not explain what these two terms mean. In the book of Proverbs it is stated that a glutton refers to one who eats too much meat and a drunkard is one who drinks too much wine. From here the mishnah concludes that the child must have drunk wine and eaten meat in order for him to be wayward and rebellious. The Rabbis disagree with regards to how much wine and meat he drank.", + "If he ate it in a company [celebrating] a religious act; or at a gathering for the purpose of intercalating the month; if he ate the second tithe in Jerusalem; if he ate the carrion or terefoth (meat that was not slaughtered in a kosher, abominable and creeping things, or untithed produce, or the first tithe from which terumah had not been separated, or unredeemed second tithe, or unredeemed sacred food; if his eating involved a religious act or a transgression; if he ate any food but did not eat meat or drank any drink but did not drink wine, he does not become a ‘stubborn and rebellious son, unless he eats meat and drinks wine, for it is written, “This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice;] he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deut. 21:20). Although there is no clear proof for this, there is at least a hint, as it is says, “Do not be among wine drinkers, among gluttonous meat eaters of flesh (Proverbs 23:20). This section lists all sorts of circumstances of eating and drinking that would not cause him to be a wayward and rebellious son. These circumstances can be divided into two types: 1) religious celebrations; 2) consumption of forbidden food. If he ate at a religious celebration he cannot be punished since it is praiseworthy to eat much wine and meat at such affairs. These types of affairs are listed in the first three clauses of the section. Second tithe, mentioned in section b, is consumed only in Jerusalem, and therefore by eating it there he is fulfilling a religious duty. Clauses c and d list several foods that are forbidden to be consumed, whether they are agricultural products who have not had the agricultural offerings separated from them (untithed produce, etc.), meat that was not slaughtered properly (carrion or terefoth) or animals that are forbidden to eat (abominable and creeping things). The Talmud explains that eating or drinking these things do not make one a wayward and rebellious son because the parents state, “He does not listen to our voice”, whereas one who eats these things doesn’t listen even to God’s voice. A wayward and rebellious son is only defiant to his parents but not to his entire religious obligation. Finally the mishnah reminds us that he must have eaten meat and drunk wine in order to become a wayward and rebellious son. Eating other food gluttonously and getting drunk off other beverages will not make a child liable to be punished as a wayward and rebellious son.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Can you detect a common denominator in the Rabbis understanding of the passage of the wayward and rebellious son? Of the strategies (listed in the introduction to yesterday’s mishnah) that the Rabbis used to deal with this difficult portion of the Torah, which one is employed in this mishnah and in the previous mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three contains further restrictions with regards to the “wayward and rebellious son”.", + "If he stole from his father and ate it on his father’s property, or of strangers and ate it on the property of the strangers, or of strangers and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a “wayward and rebellious son,” until he steals from his father and eats on other’s property. Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah said: “Until he steals from his father and mother.” According to our mishnah in order for a son to become a “wayward and rebellious son” he must steal from his father and consume the stolen food on other people’s property. This is because stealing from his father is easy due to his easy access to his father’s property. Eating the stolen food on other people’s property is also easy, since other people will not know that that which he is eating was stolen. Any other combination of stealing and eating will not make him a “wayward and rebellious son”, since one element will not be so easy. In other words, in order to be a “wayward and rebellious son” he must violate the norms of society in a way that will be easy and therefore encourage him to continuously do so. A riskier action is less likely to be repeated and is therefore more lightly punished. According to Rabbi Judah he must steal from both his father and mother. This “egalitarian” approach is probably based on the fact that the verses in Deuteronomy say that both parents bring the child to his punishment, as we will learn in greater depth in the next mishnah. If both parents bring the child to be punished, the crimes must have been directed at both parents as well.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Of the strategies for dealing with understanding the laws of the “wayward and rebellious son” that we discussed in the introduction to this chapter, which are employed in this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four contains further restrictions with regards to the “wayward and rebellious son”.", + "If his father wants [to have him punished], but not his mother; or his father does not want [to have him punished] but his mother does, he is not treated as a ‘wayward a rebellious son’, unless they both desire it. Rabbi Judah said: “If his mother is not fit for his father, he does not become a ‘wayward and rebellious son”. Deut. 21:19 states, “His father and mother shall take hold of him”. On this one verse the Rabbis made a number of restrictions on the applicability of the case of the wayward and rebellious son. First of all, a most basic understanding of this verse states that both the father and mother must agree to the punishment. This is to prevent one parent from punishing the child without the consent of the other parent. Rabbi Judah learns something slightly more complicated from this verse. He states that if the woman was not “fit” for her husband, the child cannot be punished. One explanation for the word “fit” is that the marriage was a forbidden marriage (for instance a Kohen and a divorcee). A different explanation is that the she was not equal to him in height and appearance. This requirement would then make it almost impossible for a child to become a wayward and rebellious son. After all, how many parents look exactly alike.", + "If one of them [his father or his mother] had a hand cut off, or was lame, mute, blind or deaf, he cannot become a “wayward and rebellious son”, because it says “his father and mother shall take hold of him” (Deut. 21:19) not those with a hand cut off; “and bring him out”, not lame parents; “and they shall say”, and not mute parents; “this our son”, and not blind parents; “he will not obey our voice” (Deut. 21:20), and not deaf parents. This section contains a midrash which excludes children of certain types of parents from being able to be punished as wayward and rebellious. The aforementioned verse states that the parents shall “take hold of him”: this means that a parent who has only one hand cannot fulfill the procedure and therefore his/her child cannot be punished as a wayward and rebellious son. The verse states that the parents must “take him out”: therefore parents with physical disabilities (probably unable to walk) cannot fulfill the procedure. They must make a statement: therefore the parents cannot be mute. They must point him out when they say, “This son of ours”: therefore they cannot be blind. Finally, they must both hear each other’s voice so that they know that he disobeys both of them: therefore they cannot be deaf.", + "He is warned in the presence of three and beaten. If he transgresses again after this, he is tried by a court of twenty three. He cannot be sentenced to stoning unless the first three are present, because it says, “this our son” (Deut. 21:20), [implying], this one who was whipped in your presence. The Torah states that the wayward and rebellious son had already been disciplined before he is brought to the elders to be stoned. Our mishnah understands this to be a formal beating administered by the court. The idea is to pressure the child to change before it is too late. While disciplining the son by beating him only requires a court of three, executing him requires a court of twenty three, as do all executions. The three in front of whom he was beaten must be present at the subsequent trial and execution. This is learned from the parents’ statement, “This is our son”. The word “this” implies that this same son was already beaten in front of the same judges.", + "If he [the rebellious son] fled before his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he is free. But if he fled after his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he remains liable. We learned in the first mishnah of the chapter that a child cannot be punished as a wayward and rebellious son has reached full puberty. Our mishnah teaches that if the accused child runs away before the trial is over, and by the time he returns he has reached full puberty, he can no longer be punished. However, if the trial is already over and the son was convicted, he can be punished even if he runs away and then achieves full puberty before being brought back. Since the trial is already over and we are only waiting for the punishment to be meted out, it does not matter that he is now too old to be tried as a wayward and rebellious son.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Of the strategies for dealing with understanding the laws of the “wayward and rebellious son” that we discussed in the introduction to this chapter, which is employed in this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses an important Rabbinic conception of the punishment of the wayward and rebellious son, namely that he is not punished on account of the sins that he has already committed but on account of the sins that he will commit in the future.", + "A “wayward and rebellious son” is judged on account of his outcome: let him die innocent and let him not die guilty. One of the difficulties in comprehending the severe punishment meted out to the wayward and rebellious son is that it does not seem to fit the crime. The Talmud itself asks, just because he ate too much meat and drank too much wine should this child be stoned. Our mishnah provides one potential answer: the son is not punished for that which he has already done but for that which he will do in the future. The punishment prevents a minor criminal from becoming an even worse criminal. The mishnah teaches that executing the potential criminal is not only good for society, but is a benefit to the criminal as well, for he will die innocent and not guilty. Behind this idea lies a concept of reward and punishment in the world to come. Since the wayward and rebellious son is punished before he can be guilty of a serious crime, he will not receive further punishment in the world to come.", + "For the death of the wicked benefits themselves and the world; [and the death] of the righteous, injures themselves and the world d. Wine and sleep of the wicked benefit themselves and the world; of the righteous, injure themselves and the world The scattering of the wicked benefits themselves and the world; of the righteous, injures themselves and the world. The assembling of the wicked injures themselves and the world; of the righteous, benefits themselves and the world. The tranquillity of the wicked injures themselves and the world; of the righteous, benefits themselves and the world. The mishnah then continues with a discussion of things that are good for the wicked and for the whole world, and bad for the righteous and for the world. Death is good for the wicked, for they will die before they commit more crimes, and for obvious reasons it is good for the world. Death of the righteous prevents them from performing more good deeds and, again for obvious reasons, it is bad for the world. Wine and sleep will prevent the wicked from committing more sins and is therefore good for them and for the world, but bad for the righteous for it prevents them from performing good deeds. The scattering of the wicked prevents them collaboration in sinning whereas the scattering of the righteous prevents their collaboration in good deeds. The ingathering of the wicked allows them to commit more and greater sins, whereas the ingathering of the righteous allows them to perform more good deeds. Finally, tranquility affords the wicked the freedom to commit more crime, whereas it provides the righteous the freedom to do more good." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six discusses the permission that one has to kill a thief who has tunneled into one’s home.", + "[The thief] who burrows his way in [to someone’s home] is judged on account of his outcome. Exodus 22:1-2 teaches that if a householder kills a thief who has burrowed his way into his house, the householder is not guilty of murder. Although execution is not the usual punishment for a thief, since the householder was taken by surprise and did not know the intention of the illegal intruder, he is not held liable for having killed him. Our mishnah understands that this preemptive killing of the intruder is to prevent him from committing more sins, specifically the murder of the householder.", + "If he burrowed his way in and broke a jug, should there be blood-guiltiness for him, he must pay [for the jug], but if there is no blood-guiltiness for him, he is not liable. The Torah also teaches that if the thief burrowed in during the day the householder is not allowed to kill him (unless it is in self-defense). If the householder does kill him he will be accounted guilty. Our mishnah teaches that if the thief broke a jug while burrowing he is liable for damages only in a case where the householder was not allowed to kill him. If, however, the householder was allowed to kill him, i.e. at night, since the thief can be executed he is not liable for monetary damages. This is based on a common principle in Jewish law that if on account of one act one becomes liable for two punishments, he is punished by the greater of the two punishments, in this case death (see Bava Kamma 3:10).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do the Rabbis understand the killing of the “tunneling thief” as preventing him from committing worse crimes, as opposed to self-defense?" + ], + [ + "The following can be saved [from sinning] even at the cost of their lives: he who pursues after his neighbor to slay him, [or] after a male [to rape him], [or] after a betrothed maiden [to rape her].
But he who pursues after an animal [to have relations with it], or one who would violate the Sabbath, or commit idolatry, must not be saved [from sinning] at the cost of his life.
The final mishnah of chapter eight continues to discuss this concept of “preventive punishment” and its limited applicability in Jewish law.
The principle of preventive punishment is a dangerous principle for even a court cannot tell with certainty if someone will surely commit a crime in the future. The Rabbis recognized the danger of this principle and therefore limited its applicability. Section one teaches that one may be killed preemptively only if he was about to commit a capital crime that would violate another person. Section two lists cases in which a person may be killed preemptively, even though he is about to commit a capital crime. Since none of these sins are crimes against other people, the only way the criminal can be executed for having committed one of them is by a proper trial done in front of a court of twenty three." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah one discusses those who are executed by burning, while the second half discusses those executed by being decapitated.", + "The following are burnt: he who has sexual relations with a woman and her daughter, and a priest's adulterous daughter. There is included in [the prohibition of having relations with] a woman and her daughter his own daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son's daughter, his wife's daughter and the daughter of her daughter or son, his mother-in-law, her mother, and his father-in-law's mother. There are two people who are punished by being burnt: one who has relations with a woman and her daughter (Lev. 20:14) and a priest’s daughter who commits adultery (Lev. 21:9). Our mishnah teaches that the prohibition of having relations with a woman and her daughter includes incestuous relationships, such as having relations with one’s wife and her daughter (whether or not she is his daughter). It also includes granddaughters. In all of these cases the man’s punishment will be execution by burning.", + "The following are decapitated: a murderer, and the inhabitants of a city subverted into worshipping idols. A murderer who slew his fellow with a stone or iron, or kept him down under water or in fire, so that he could not get out of there, is executed. If he pushed him into water or fire, but he could get out of there , yet he died, he is not liable [for the death penalty]. The mishnah now begins to discuss those who are executed by decapitation. The first example is a murderer. (We will discuss the city seduced to idol worship more in chapter ten). A murderer is one who strikes his fellow person with intention of killing him. If he pushed his head into fire or water and did not allow him out, he is punished as a murderer. However, if he threw him into water or fire and the person died, he is not punished as a murderer, since the person could have escaped. According to another source, although he is not obligated in a court, he is obligated in a heavenly court.", + "If he set a dog or a snake against him [and they killed him], he is free from death. If he caused a snake to bite him, Rabbi Judah ruled that he is liable [for the death penalty] and the Sages, that he is not. If he set a dog or snake upon another person and they bit him and he died, he is not liable, since he did not kill him with his hands. If he put the dog or snake on the other person, according to Rabbi Judah he is liable, since this counts as murder with one’s hands. According to the Sages this does not count as murder with one’s hands.", + "If a man struck his fellow, whether with a stone or with his fist, and they [the experts] declared that he would die, but then its effect lessened [so that it was thought that he would live], only to increase subsequently, so that he died he is liable. Rabbi Nehemiah said that he is exempt, since there is a strong possibility [that he did not die as a result of his injuries]. If a person struck another person and then the doctors stated that he would die, and then later the patient started to recover, and then still later died, according to the Sages the striker is obligated for the death penalty. We can assume that he died of his wounds, even though he slightly recovered in the interim. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, since he even slightly recovered, we have a reasonable doubt with regards to the cause of his death, for perhaps he died of a different cause and not directly from the wounds. This reasonable doubt is enough to exempt him from the death penalty.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section four: Why does the mishnah mention this strange case? What might it teach us in general about other cases?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a murderer who intends to kill either in a certain manner or a certain person but does not fulfill his intention and yet nevertheless he kills someone. The question is, since he did not fulfill his intention is he liable to the death penalty. Before learning this mishnah we should note that the Exodus 21:12-13 states: “He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death. If he did not do it by design, but it came about by an act of God…”. The Rabbis in our mishnah seem to be discussing what does “by design” mean. How much intention must there be in the act of murder for someone to be liable in the death penalty. While I am not an expert on modern law, I know that our modern law system also distinguishes between degrees of murder based on the level of intention in the act.", + "If he intended to kill an animal but killed a man, or [he intended to kill] a non-Jew and he killed an Israelite, or [if he intended to kill] a prematurely born child [who was bound to die in any case] and he killed a viable child, he is not liable. In this scenario a person intended to kill someone for whom he is not liable for the death penalty, either an animal, a non-Jew or a prematurely born child. However, instead of killing one of these, he kills someone for whom he is liable for the death penalty. In such a case, since he did not fulfill his intention, he is not liable for the death penalty, even though he did kill someone for whom he is generally liable. We should note that although according to our mishnah, one does not receive the death penalty for killing a non-Jew, Jewish law certainly today forbids doing so. With regards to the prematurely born child, it is also important to note that our mishnah is referring to a child who will certainly die. In our days a prematurely born child often times lives, and therefore is no different from any other child. We indeed can be thankful for the many advances in modern medicine, advances which have surely had and will continue to have an impact on many areas of Jewish law.", + "If he intended to strike him on his loins, and the blow was insufficient to kill [when struck] on his loins, but struck the heart instead, where it was sufficient to kill, and he died he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on the heart, where it was sufficient to kill but struck him on the loins, where it was not sufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike an adult, and the blow was insufficient to kill [an adult], but the blow landed on a child, whom it was enough to kill, and he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike a child with a blow sufficient to kill a child, but struck an adult, for whom it was insufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. But if he intended to strike his loins with sufficient force to kill, but struck the heart instead, he is liable. If he intended to strike an adult with a blow sufficient to kill an adult, but struck a child instead, and he died, he is liable. If one intends to strike another person on his waist area (his loins) with a blow that would not kill in that area but instead struck him on his chest (his heart) where the blow was enough to kill, he is not liable for the death penalty, since, if he had landed the blow where he intended he would not have killed him. If he intended to strike him on his chest with a blow that would be sufficient to kill but he struck him on his waist where the blow would generally not be sufficient to kill, but nevertheless it did kill, he is not liable. Since normally this strike would not kill where it did end up landing, he is not held liable. We can summarize that in order to be liable one must strike a place on the victim’s body with a blow generally strong enough to kill when struck on that place, and one must have intended to strike that place from the outset. If one intended to strike an adult with a strike that was insufficient to kill an adult but struck a child he is not liable for the death penalty, since if the strike had landed where he had intended it would not have killed. If he intended to strike a minor with a strike insufficient to kill a minor but he struck an adult instead and the adult died he is not liable, since, normally this strike would not kill an adult. The final two clauses of this section teach cases where he is liable. If he intended to strike him on his waist and it was sufficient to kill and he struck him on his chest and killed him he is liable. Although he did not intend to strike him there, since his intention had been to strike with a blow strong enough to kill no matter where it hit, he is liable. Similarly, if he intended to strike an adult with a blow sufficient to kill, and he struck and killed a minor, he is obligated, since his intention had been to strike with a blow strong enough to kill no matter whom it hit.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: “Even if he intended to kill one but killed another, he is not liable. Rabbi Shimon goes even further than the other Sages in advancing the theory that in order for one to be liable for the death penalty he must completely fulfill his intentions. According to Rabbi Shimon if one intended to kill one person and killed instead another, he is not liable for the death penalty. The Sages in section one had stated that if he intended to kill an animal and instead killed a person he is not liable. The reason seems to be that he intended on killing something for which he would not receive the death penalty. One can deduce, therefore, that if he had intended on killing one adult Jew but instead killed another, he would be liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Shimon states that even if one intended on killing someone for whom one would receive the death penalty, if he did not fulfill his exact intention, he is not liable for the death penalty.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How are the scenarios in 2d and 2e different from those in the previous clauses?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe opening clause of this mishnah deals with a murderer who is mixed up with others who are not murderers, and the court does not know which one was the murderer. The second clause deals with people condemned to die by different forms of execution who become mixed up together such that the court does not know who gets which punishment..", + "If a murderer became mixed up with others, they are all exempted [from the death penalty]. R. Judah said: they are placed in a cell. If a condemned murderer becomes mixed up in a crowd of people so that no one can identify which one is the murderer and which one is not, none of them may be executed. Although this sounds like a strange and highly unlikely prospect, it nevertheless teaches the principle that unless the court is 100 per cent sure of the identity of the murderer, he may not be killed. According to Rabbi Judah, the court cannot leave this problem without a solution. They would therefore put all of the people into prison until the matter was clarified. [The Talmud has many difficulties in understanding this ruling of Rabbi Judah, since it seems to unfairly punish innocent people. Therefore they understand this as only applying to certain, limited cases.]", + "If a number of persons condemned to different types of sentences became mixed with one another, they are executed by the most lenient. If criminals condemned to stoning [became mixed up] with others condemned to burning, Rabbi Shimon said: they are stoned, because burning is severer. But the sages say they are burned, because stoning is severer. (1) Rabbi Shimon said to them: “If burning was not severer, it would not be decreed for a priest's adulterous daughter.” (2) They replied: “If stoning was not severer, it would not be the penalty of a blasphemer and an idolater.” If men condemned to decapitation became mixed up with others condemned to strangling, Rabbi Shimon said: “They are [all] decapitated.” The sages say: “They are [all] strangled.” The remainder of the mishnah deals with the intermixing of persons condemned to different types of death penalties. The principle is stated very clearly in the beginning of the section that in such a case they all receive the most lenient of the death penalties to which any one person in the group had been condemned. The remainder of the disputes between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages are over which types of execution are more serious than the others. This dispute was already discussed in the beginning of chapter seven. Rabbi Shimon believes that burning is more serious than stoning, whereas the Sages believe that stoning is more serious. Each side tries to prove his case by bringing an example of a serious crime which is punished by one of these types of execution. According to Rabbi Shimon, the fact that an adulterous daughter of a priest (kohen) is punished by burning proves that burning is more serious. According to the Sages, the fact that the blasphemer and the idol worshipper are punished by stoning proves that stoning is more serious. Finally, in the end of the mishnah we learn that according to Rabbi Shimon strangling is more serious than decapitation, whereas according to the Sages, decapitation is more serious. Despite these disputes, everyone agrees that when in doubt a person is punished by the least serious form of the death penalty.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why might Rabbi Shimon think that an adulterous daughter of a priest is a prime example of a very serious crime, one which is punished by the most serious type of death penalty? Why might the Sages disagree?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses a person who through one act incurs two different types of death penalty.", + "While in the previous mishnah we learned that if we are unsure of which death penalty a person is to receive he gets the more lenient one, in our mishnah we learn that if a person deserves two death penalties, he gets the more severe one.", + "He who incurs two death penalties imposed by the court is executed by the severer. Section one deals with a person who has committed two different crimes which carry the death penalty. Even if he was already sentenced to the lighter death penalty, and then committed another crime which carries a more severe form of the death penalty, he still gets the more severe form. In other words, we do not say that since he already was sentenced to one death penalty it is as if he has already been executed and therefore he cannot get another.", + "If he committed one sin for which a twofold death penalty is incurred, he is executed by the severer. R. Jose says: “He is judged according to the first penalty which was placed upon him.” Section two deals with a person who through one crime receives two different forms of the death penalty. For instance if a man has relations with his married mother-in-law he is obligated for burning (since he had relations with a mother and her daughter) and for strangulation, since he committed adultery. According to the Sages he again receives the more serious form of the death penalty. According to Rabbi Yose he receives the death penalty for the crime which potentially existed first. We will explain. If he marries a widow’s daughter, this woman is now forbidden to him since she is his mother-in-law but she is not forbidden as a married woman, since she is a widow. If he were to now have relations with her he would be punished through burning. If she were then to get married, the punishment would also be strangulation. Since the prohibition of a mother-in-law existed first, he is punished by burning. If, however, she was married and then he married her daughter, he would be punished by strangulation, since she was first prohibited to him due to her being a married woman." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with special punishments for a repeat criminal and for one who commits murder without witnesses. These punishments are what I would call extra-halakhic punishments. They don’t seem to have been prescribed by the Torah, but rather by the Rabbis desire to shape their legal system.", + "He who was flogged and then flogged again [for two transgressions, and then sinned again,] is placed by the court in a cell and fed with barley bread, until his stomach bursts. According to the Talmud this clause is dealing with a person who committed a sin for which one is obligated for “kareth” or excommunication, a punishment of premature death meted out by God and not by a human court. According to Jewish law, if one is beaten for a crime that carries a punishment of “kareth”, the “kareth” is mitigated. If one commits this crime, is beaten, and repeats the crime, and is beaten again and then commits the same crime again, he is put into a jail and fed food that will cause him to die. Since this person has shown over and over that beating is an ineffective form of punishment, the court has no way to stop his behavior other than killing him.", + "One who commits murder without witnesses is placed in a cell and [forcibly] fed with bread of adversity and water of affliction. Earlier in our tractate we learned just how difficult it is for testimony to be accepted by the court. There will certainly be cases in which the testimony cannot be officially accepted but nevertheless it is clear that this person is a murderer. In such a case the court has the authority to cause him to die by imprisoning him and feeding him food that will cause his stomach to rupture. The “bread of adversity and water of affliction” (based on the language of Isaiah 30:20) mentioned here is understood as synonymous with the barley mentioned in the first section.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why didn’t the Rabbis merely state that these two categories of people are to be executed in one of the four ways? Why this strange system of feeding them food that will cause them to die?" + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah six continues to list what I have termed “extra-halakhic” punishments.", + "If one steals the sacred vessel called a “kasvah” (Numbers 4:7), or cursed by the name of an idol, or has sexual relations with an Aramean (non-Jewish woman, he is punished by zealots. This section lists three crimes in which the mishnah allows religious zealots to kill the perpertrator at the moment of the crime even though these crimes do not normally carry the death penalty. The first crime is stealing a sacred vessel from the Temple. The second crime is one who used the name of an idol to curse another person. The third crime is one who has relations with an Aramean woman (or any idol worshipping woman). The quintessential example of the zealot in the Torah is the example Pinchas, who upon seeing an Israelite having sexual relations in public with an Midianite woman, kills the two of them on the spot. God rewards Pinchas for his zealotry by giving him a “covenant of peace” (Numbers 25:6-13). Of course, Jewish tradition was very troubled by people taking the law into their own hands and summarily executing others. When reading this mishnah we must take into consideration that it is embedded in a tractate entirely devoted to the establishment of courts and judicial procedure. This mishnah does teach, though, that occasionally vigilante justice is legitimate.", + "If a priest performed the temple service while impure, his fellow priests do not bring him to the court, but rather the young priests take him out into the courtyard and split his skull with clubs. A priest who served in the Temple while impure has committed a grave crime in the eyes of Jewish law and is, according to halacha to be flogged. However, our mishnah describes what the kohanim would in practice do to one of their fellow kohanim who had served in the Temple while impure. The younger members of the priesthood would split his skull with clubs. Although this mishnah sounds barbaric to our modern ears, it is important to remember the degree of sanctity that existed in the Temple. The Temple was God’s dwelling place on earth and one who caused it to become impure endangered all of Israel. The kohanim have been charged with protecting that sanctity, and therefore took any violation of it with the utmost seriousness.", + "A layman who performed the service in the Temple: Rabbi Akiva says: “He is strangled.” But the Sages say: “[His death is] at the hands of heaven.” According to Numbers 18:7 any stranger, i.e. one who is not a priest, who performs the priest’s work in the Temple shall die. Rabbi Akiva understands this as a court enforced death penalty, whereas the Sages understand this as a death penalty meted out by God, and not by the court.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between section three and the previous two sections of this mishnah and the previous mishnah?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction Chapter ten of Sanhedrin is one of the most theologically challenging chapters in the entire Mishnah. It lists those people who have a part in the world to come (olam haba) and those who don’t. There are two main opinions amongst Jewish authorities with regards to the definition of olam haba referred to in our chapter. There are those who say that the mishnah refers to a future time when God will resurrect the dead (tehiyat hametim) which will happen only after the coming of the Messiah (yemot hamashiach). Others say that the Mishnah refers to what is called to in modern language “heaven”. This final opinion is the opinion of Maimonides (the Rambam) who wrote a lengthy treatise on our chapter in which he included his thirteen principles of faith, which were later summarized in the “Yigdal” a poem commonly sung in synagogues. We do not have the space to go into detail with regards to the differing Jewish opinions on these concepts (olam haba, tehiyat hametim and yemot hamashiach). Nevertheless it is worthy to mention that the Rambam categorizes three different types of approaches to “agaddah” or Rabbinic texts of legendary nature, in which he includes this entire chapter. There are those who take each and every word literally and believe them to be true. There are others who assume that the Rabbis meant their words to be taken literally and since these thoughts contradict provable nature, they assume the Rabbis to be foolish. Finally, there are those who understand the legends of the Rabbis to be allegories, human language meant to convey divine truth. The Rabbis were confined to the limited language with which all human beings communicate and therefore could not fully describe the infinite aspects of the divine. Finally, while our chapter is theologically dogmatic, it is worthwhile noting that the Talmudic commentary on this chapter, contains, as usual, differing opinions with regards to these matters. With some notable exceptions, Jewish thinkers have tended not to be theologically dogmatic, allowing Jews to preserve a variety of opinions and philosophies with regards to our understanding of God and creation. When approaching this chapter we should therefore understand it to contain one opinion with regards to these matters and not the only authoritative opinion that exists.", + "All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2). All Jews have a portion in the world to come, even the executed criminals discussed in the previous chapters of Sanhedrin. Our mishnah proves this from the verse from Isaiah which states “all of them (Israel) are righteous”. Since it is apparent that in this world not all Jews are righteous, the verse must be understood as referring to the world to come, where all Jews will be accounted as righteous. Furthermore, the reference to the possession of the land is understood not as a literal reference to the land of Israel but as a reference to the world to come.", + "And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.” While criminals can receive a portion in the world to come, those who disagree with the main tenets of Jewish faith do not. These include: 1) that the doctrine of resurrection is mentioned in the Torah. Although resurrection is not mentioned literally in the Torah, the Rabbis exegetically derived it from certain verses. 2) One who denies the heavenly origin of the Torah. One who states that human beings invented the Torah, without even divine inspiration, loses his portion in the world to come. 3) An epikoros, a Greek word, derived from the Greek philosopher, Epicurus, who encouraged people to seek out the pleasures of this world. In Rabbinic literature this is a code word for one who despises the Torah, the commandments and the Sages. 4) According to Rabbi Akiva one who reads sectarian works not included in the Jewish Biblical canon also does not have a portion in the world to come. 5) Rabbi Akiva further adds to the list one who whispers medical charms. 6) Abba Shaul adds one who pronounces God’s name by its spelling. Outside of the Temple this was a forbidden practice. Today we do not pronounce God’s name as it is written but rather state, “Adonai”.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section 2b: What is wrong with whispering a charm while performing an act of healing?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses seven individual Biblical characters, three kings and four commoners, who do not have a place in the world to come.", + "Three kings and four commoners have no portion in the world to come:
The three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh. Rabbi Judah says: “Manasseh has a portion in the world to come, for it says, “He prayed to him, and He granted his prayer, and heard his plea and he restored him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13). They [the sages] said to him: “They restored him to his kingdom, but not to [his portion in] the world to come.” The mishnah lists three wicked Jewish kings who have lost their portions in the world to come: Jeroboam (see I Kings 13:34, 14:10), Ahab (see I Kings 21:21-22) and Manasseh (see II Kings 21:2-3). All of these Kings encouraged idol worship and shed the blood of God’s true prophets. For these sins God specifically warns them that they and their seed will be totally cut off from Israel. Rabbi Judah argues that Manasseh repented and was restored at the end of his days. The Sages retort that his restoration was political but did not restore his place in the world to come. Implied in their argument is that no matter how heinous the crime, repentance even at the end of one’s days can restore one’s place in the world to come.", + "The four commoners are: Bilaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi. The four non-Kings mentioned in the Torah who do not receive a portion in the world to come are: 1) Bilaam, the prophet who attempted to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24); 2) Doeg, who informed on David to Saul and caused the death of the priests of Nob (I Samuel 22:9-22); 3) Ahitophel, who advised Absolom against David and subsequently hung himself (II Samuel 17:1-23); 4) Gehazi, Elisha’s servant (see II Kings 5:20-27).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Can you think of Biblical characters who you would have thought should have appeared on this list but do not?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis lengthy mishnah lists groups of people in the Bible who do not have a portion in the world to come. In each case the mishnah brings a Biblical text to proves its point.", + "The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. Due to the extreme severity of their crimes the generation of the flood not only has no portion in the world to come, but they also will not have the opportunity to stand in judgement at the time of the resurrection. This mishnah discusses in several points a certain type of future judgement, which is somewhat separate from a person’s portion in the world to come. It is difficult to ascertain with any sense of certainty to what the mishnah is exactly referring.", + "The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The generation of the dispersion, which happened when humanity tried to build the Tower of Babel, has no place in the world to come. The Rabbis understood their sin to be one of rebellion against God.", + "The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The men of Sodom also do not have a place in the world to come. However, according to the Sages, they do have the opportunity to stand in judgement at the time of resurrection. Although they do not have a promised place in the world to come as do the righteous, they at least have the opportunity to stand in judgement. According to the Sages, this is also true of the generation of dispersion. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, they do not even have the opportunity to stand in judgement. He proves this opinion by using a proof text from the book of Psalms.", + "The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The spies, who brought back to Moses and the Children of Israel an evil report about the Land of Israel, do not have a place in the world to come. Due to their extreme lack of faith in God, they are not only killed in this world but lose hope for the future. The final three sections of our mishnah contain disputes between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer. In each case Rabbi Akiva takes a more strict opinion, one which leaves less hope for the future.", + "The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). According to Rabbi Akiva, all of the children of Israel who died in the desert lose their portion in the world to come and are not even allowed to stand for judgement in the time of the resurrection. Even though this generation received the Torah at Sinai, as well as witnessing the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, their sins in the desert, including the worst sin of all, lack of faith in God when they accepted the spies’ evil report, cause them to lose their portion in the world to come. Rabbi Eliezer learns from a verse in Psalms that all of those who made a covenant with God have a portion in the world to come, despite the severity of their sins.", + "The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). According to Rabbi Akiva, the congregation of Korach who were swallowed up by the Earth in punishment for rebelling against Moses and Aaron will never be brought back up. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. Based on a verse in I Samuel he points out that God has the power not only to send down to Sheol but He may bring up as well.", + "The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “‘As is this day’ just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them. According to Rabbi Akiva, once the ten northern tribes of Israel (see II Kings 17) were sent into exile they were never to return. Again, Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. Although the day turned metaphorically dark on these tribes, they retain the hope for a bright future. Just as the night eventually turns to light, so too will the ten tribes one day be returned to their land." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses the punishment of a city seduced into idol worship (see Deuteronomy 13:13-19), which was mentioned briefly in chapter nine, mishnah one. There we learned that the inhabitants are to be executed by decapitation. The remainder of chapter ten will discuss various details of this law. We should note that these laws were certainly not practiced in the time of the Mishnah and Talmud, and according to one opinion in the Talmud there never was such a thing as a city that was judged as having been seduced into idol worship.", + "The inhabitants of a city seduced into worshipping idols have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “Certain men, wicked persons, have gone out from among you and seduced the inhabitants of their town” (Deuteronomy 13:14). The first section is the bridge which connects this mishnah and the remainder of the chapter with the beginning half of the chapter, which dealt with those who have a portion in the world to come. The inhabitants of a city seduced into worshipping idols lose their place in the world to come. This is learned from the words in the quoted verse, “have gone out from among you”, which is understood by the author of the mishnah to mean that they have left the whole of Israel (clal Yisrael) to whom is promised a portion in the world to come.", + "They are not executed unless the seducers are of that city and that tribe, and until the majority of the city are seduced, and the seducers are men. If women or minors seduced it, or if a minority of the city were seduced, or if the seducers were from outside the city, they are treated as individuals, and therefore two witnesses and a formal warning are necessary for each [offender]. From the words, “the inhabitants of their town” the mishnah learns that those who seduce the others into worshipping idols must be from the same town as those being seduced. From the words “from among you” the mishnah learns that they must be from the same tribe of Israel. The mishnah also states that the majority of the city must be seduced in order for it to be deemed a seduced city whose inhabitants are to be decapitated. It is unclear from which part of the verse the mishnah learns this law. Since the verse specifically states “men” the mishnah concludes that the seducers must be men. If any of these criteria are not met, i.e. the seducers are women or minors, or a minority of the city is seduced or the seducers are from another city, those who have worshipped idols are judged and sentenced individually. This means that witnesses are required to testify against each one of them and each one must be warned that if s/he worships idols s/he will be executed.", + "In this [the penalty of] individuals is severer than [that of] the multitudes, for individuals are stoned, therefore their property is saved; but the multitudes are decapitated; hence their possessions are destroyed. Finally, the mishnah compares the punishment of an individual who worships idols with those of a city seduced into worshipping idols. Each one receives both a stringency and a leniency. Individuals are executed by stoning (see chapter 7, mishnah six), a more stringent form of the death penalty, therefore their property is not destroyed and their descendents may receive their inheritance. Those of a seduced city are executed by decapitation, which is a less stringent form of the death penalty, therefore their property is destroyed and their descendents do not inherit." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five (and mishnah six) contain midrashim, exegeses, on the verses in Deuteronomy that discuss the city seduced into idol worship. The structure of these mishnayoth is to quote a verse and then bring a law that is derived from that verse.", + "“You shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword” (Deut. 13:16): a company of donkey-drivers or camel-drivers passing from place to place saves the city. The verse states that you must smite the inhabitants of the city. If, however, there are people living in the city who are not permanent inhabitants, such as donkey or camel drivers, they are not counted as part of the city in order to add up to the majority needed for the city to be declared a “seduced city”. Occasionally they may save the city from being doomed.", + "“Doom it and all that is in it” (ibid.): From here they said that the property of the righteous, which is within [the city] is destroyed, but that which is outside of the city is saved, while that of the wicked, whether in or outside of the city, is destroyed. From the words “and all that is in it” the Rabbis learn that even the property of the righteous is to be destroyed. However, from the words “doom it”, the Rabbis understand that the Torah is limiting that which is destroyed. The property which belongs to the righteous that is outside of the city is therefore not destroyed. However, the property of the wicked is destroyed whether or not it is in the city itself." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMidrash six concludes the exegesis on the verses discussing the city seduced into idol worship.", + "“And you shall gather all its spoil into the public square” (Deut. 13:17): if it had no public square, one is made for it; if the public square was outside of [the city], it is brought within it. The Torah states that the spoil must be brought into the public square. If the city did not have a public square, or the public square existed outside of the city limits, the court must build one before the sentence is carried out.", + "“And you shall burn with fire the city, and all its spoil as a whole burnt offering for the Lord your God” (ibid.): “And all its spoil”, but not the spoil of heaven. From here they said, the holy objects in the city must be redeemed and the heave offerings ( allowed to rot; and the second tithe and the sacred writings hidden. The spoil that is to be burned is property that belongs to people and not property that has in some way been sanctified. Therefore, things that were dedicated to the Temple are redeemed with money and the money is brought to the Temple. After having been redeemed the object is no longer holy and may be burned. The terumoth may not be burned while they are edible and therefore must be allowed to spoil. The second tithe and holy books may never be burned. In order to prevent people from using them they are hidden.", + "“A whole burnt offering for the Lord your God”: Rabbi Shimon said: “The holy Blessed One declared, ‘If you execute judgment upon the seduced city, I will ascribe merit to you as though you had sacrificed to me a whole offering.’” The verse states that the spoil must be entirely burned. Rabbi Shimon compares this burning with the sacrificial burning of whole burnt offerings (olah). Although the burning of the spoil of a seduced city is not literally a sacrificial offering, since it is not offered on the altar, and most of the things being burned will not be fit to be offered on the altar, nevertheless Rabbi Shimon states that God will reward those who burn the spoil the same as He rewards those who offer sacrifices.", + "“And it shall remain an everlasting ruin, never to be rebuilt”: it may not be made even into gardens and orchards, according to the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: “Never to be rebuilt”: it may not be built as it was, but it may be made into gardens and orchards. Rabbi Yose the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regards to the interpretation of the words, “never to be rebuilt”. According to the former nothing may ever be again built on that site. Rabbi Akiva understands the verse in a more minimalist fashion. The city may not be rebuilt exactly as it was; however, gardens and orchards may be built in its place.", + "“Let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand, in order that the Lord may turn His blazing anger and show you compassion” (Deut. 13:18): as long as the wicked exist in the world, there is blazing anger in the world; when the wicked perish from the world, blazing anger disappears from the world. The mishnah finishes with an exhortation stating that until these laws are fulfilled, God’s anger cannot be fully assuaged. According to the Talmud, the “wicked” refer to those who take from the spoil of the seduced city. For an illustration of how serious a crime taking from illegal spoil was considered to be read Joshua, chapter seven. There Achan takes from the spoil, and as a punishment God causes Israel to lose an important battle. It is not until Achan is executed that God’s anger is assuaged (see verse 26).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why was taking from illegal spoil considered to be such a serious crime? Can you think of other Biblical stories that illustrate this point?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe final chapter of Sanhedrin returns to the categorization of which criminals receive which death penalty, a topic that the Mishnah began to discuss in chapter seven. Our chapter discusses those who are executed by strangling. According to the Rabbis anyone whom the Torah states should be executed without stating the form of the execution, is to be executed by strangling, which is the least destructive and probably least painful form of execution.", + "The following are strangled: One who strikes his father or mother; One who kidnaps a Jew; An elder who rebels against the ruling of the court; A false prophet; One who prophesies in the name of an idol; One who commits adultery; Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. As did the mishnah with regards to those executed by stoning, burning and decapitation, so too with regards to strangling the mishnah first lists all of those who are punished by this form of execution. The mishnah will now proceed, from here to the end of the tractate to go into greater detail with regards to each category. We will therefore explain each category and its Biblical proof texts as we come to them later in the Mishnah.", + "The one who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than striking, for one who curses [his/her parents] after death is liable, while one who strikes them after death is not. Exodus 21:15 teaches that one who strikes either of his parents is liable to the death penalty. Striking an ordinary person is not a capital crime and is punishable through financial penalties only. However, striking one’s parent is a form of rebellion against not only society but in essence against God as well. Therefore the Torah deems it, and cursing one’s parents (Ex. 21:17) to be capital crimes, punishable by death. Since the Torah does not state how the execution is to be performed, the Rabbis declared that the person is to be strangled. Our mishnah teaches that in order for the child to be guilty of striking he must make a wound. If the child strikes without causing a wound s/he is not to be executed. The mishnah also teaches that although a child is executed for either striking or cursing one’s parents, there is a stringency with regards to cursing that does not exist with regards to striking. One who curses is liable even if he curses the parent after death, whereas one who strikes is only liable if the parent was alive when struck.", + "One who kidnaps a Jew is not liable unless he brings him onto his own property. Rabbi Judah said: “Until he brings him onto his own property and puts him to service, as it says, “If a man is found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite, enslaving him or selling him” (Deut. 24:7). If he kidnaps his own son. Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him]. If he kidnapped one who was half a slave and half free, Rabbi Judah declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him]. Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7 both state that one who kidnaps is liable for the death penalty. Our mishnah defines kidnapping as taking a person and bringing them forcefully onto one’s property. Just the mere act of taking the person does not constitute the type of kidnapping punishable by death. Rabbi Judah, basing himself on the verse in Deuteronomy states that even kidnapping and bringing onto one’s property is not punishable by death. Only if the kidnapper forces the abductee to work as a slave is he to be executed. According to the Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, one who kidnaps his own son is not liable as a kidnapper, whereas the Sages say that he is. Rabbi Yishmael probably assumes that a parents’ authority over their children is so great that categorically the laws of kidnapping cannot apply. The Sages, representing the majority opinion, limit the parents authority by applying the laws of kidnapping even to one’s own child. The aforementioned verse in Deuteronomy clearly limits the laws of kidnapping to an Israelite who kidnaps another Israelite. According to all of the Sages in our mishnah, one who kidnaps a non-Jew is not liable for the death penalty. There is however a dispute with regards to one who is half a slave and half a free Jew (i.e. he was owned by two owners and one freed him while the other did not). According to Rabbi Judah, the mere fact that he is half a Jew means that the laws of kidnapping do apply to him. According to the Sages since he is half a slave, the laws of kidnapping do not apply.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Is there a thematic connection between the laws taught in section 2 and section 2a?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnayoth two through four deal with the rebellious elder, who is considered to be an ordained elder who taught against an authoritative ruling of the high court in Jerusalem. While Jewish learning is usually quite pluralistic, allowing for the existence of many differences of opinions without deeming one to be heretical, there is a theoretical limit to this pluralism. The high court in Jerusalem was considered to be the final word in all matters. An ordained teacher who ruled against the high court in a matter of practical law was to be condemned to death. Since the high court has not existed since the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, this law is (for better or for worse) no longer enforceable.", + "An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court [is strangled], for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement […you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS. This section introduces the Biblical prooftext for the category of the rebellious elder. The Torah mentions one who “acts presumptuously”, ignoring the teaching of the priestly magistrate. The Torah does not state who this person was, or under what circumstances he disobeyed the authority of our court. Our mishnah attempts to define this person, giving, interestingly enough, a narrow definition. This definition will leave much room for a Jew to disagree with even the high court, without allowing total disobedience to its rulings.", + "Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the [Temple] court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They [first] went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he [the rebellious elder] stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this first court] had heard [a ruling on the matter], they state it. If not, they go to the [second court] which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this second court] had heard [a ruling on the matter] they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, [you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you] from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). This section describes the judicial process by which an elder could be brought to the high court. When an elder made a teaching upon which the other elders disagreed he is first brought to the court that sat at the opening of the Temple mount. The elder is allowed to state how he expounded the Torah or how he taught and how his colleagues expounded or taught. If this court had heard a ruling with regard to the matter they would decide in the matter. If not they would send him to the court that sat at the entrance to the Temple court, where the process would be repeated. If they too had not heard a ruling then they would send him to the highest court, the great court that sat in the Temple in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. This court would by necessity make a ruling, one that was considered authoritative for all of Israel.", + "If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision [opposed to the court], he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency. This section lists under what circumstances the elder is to be deemed guilty and therefore executed. If he continues to teach as he was teaching previously, thereby ignoring the verdict of the high court, but does not tell others to act according to this teaching, he is not guilty. This is learned from the word “to do” in the verse in Deuteronomy. One is allowed to disagree with the high court, but not to incite others to act against their rulings. A student, who is never allowed to give practical halachic rulings, who does give a practical halachic ruling, and that ruling is against that of the high court, is also not to be executed. Since his ruling is not authoritative in any case, because he is only a student, it is not considered to be the type of rebellion punished by death. The stringency that disallows a student from teaching is the leniency that gets him off the hook if he teaches contradictory to the high court.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do the lower courts state whether they had “heard” a ruling on the matter and not whether they “know” a ruling on the matter? What about the high court? Do they have to have “heard” a ruling on the matter? What if they had not?
• Why is the elder allowed to continue to teach that he disagrees with the authoritative ruling but not allowed to act or teach others to act according to his own opinion? What does this say with regards to the nature of Jewish law?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to discuss the rebellious elder.", + "There is greater stringency in respect to the teachings of the scribes than in respect to the torah: [thus,] if [a rebellious elder] says, there is no commandment of tefillin, so that a biblical law may be transgressed, he is exempt. [But if he rules that the tefillin must contain] five compartments, thus adding to the words of the scribes, he is liable. This mishnah states that a rebellious elder who teaches against a Rabbinic teaching, one not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, is dealt with more severely than one who teaches against the explicit words of the Torah. An elder who states that there is no commandment of tefillin is not to be executed, since the commandment of tefillin is stated explicitly in the Torah (Exodus 13:9, 16, Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18). Anyone who hears this elder teach that there is no tefillin will be able to check the Torah and realize that the elder’s teaching is false. However, one who states that the tefillin must be made of five boxes, instead of the four prescribed by the Rabbis, is liable for the death penalty. Since the Torah does not state how many boxes are to be in the tefillin, this is a teaching that if we didn’t know from the Rabbis we would not know at all. Therefore, an elder who teaches against this teaching is more of a threat than the elder who teaches against something stated specifically in the Torah. Note: The tefillin worn on one’s head contain four boxes but the one worn on the arm contains only one box. From the outside each is painted black and therefore looks like one box." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses the execution of the rebellious elder.", + "He [the rebellious elder] was executed neither by his local court nor by the court at Yavneh, but rather was taken to the great court in Jerusalem and kept there until the [next] festival and executed on the festival, for it says, “And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously” (Deut. 17:13), according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Judah says: “His judgment must not be delayed, but he is executed immediately, and proclamations are written and sent by messengers to all places, “So and so has been sentenced to death at the court.” The execution of the rebellious elder has a deterrent quality to it, demonstrating to all who see or hear the execution that rebellion against the high court is punishable by death. There are two opinions in our mishnah with regards to how the execution is to be carried out. According to Rabbi Akiva, the execution must take place at the high court, where it will receive the most exposure. Furthermore, it must take place during the festival when Jews would gather at the Temple to celebrate. Only by bringing the person to the Temple and executing him on the holiday will the execution achieve the maximum deterrence. Rabbi Judah seems to be disturbed by the long wait between the sentence and execution which would result from Rabbi Akiva’s suggestion. Rabbi Judah therefore states that the rebellious elder is to be executed immediately, and the deterrent will be achieved by sending letters with messengers stating that so and so had been executed.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is Rabbi Judah so concerned that the execution take place immediately?" + ], + [ + "‘A false prophet’; he who prophesies what he has not heard, or what was not told to him, is executed by man.
But he who suppresses his prophecy, or disregards the words of a prophet, or a prophet who transgresses his own word , his death is at the hands of heaven, as it says, “[And if anybody fails to heed the words he speaks in my name] I Myself will call him to account (Deut. 18:19).
Mishnah five defines the “false prophet” who is executed by strangling.
Deuteronomy 18:20 states that any prophet who “presumes to speak in My name an oracle that I did not command him to utter” shall be killed. Our mishnah teaches that a false prophet is one who states a prophecy that he either did not hear at all, or that he heard from another person and not straight from God. However, a prophet who hears the words of God but does not tell others (like Jonah) or one who ignores the words of another prophet (see I Kings 20:35-36) or one who ignores even his own prophecy (see I Kings 13:26) is killed not by a human court but by God. This exegesis presents an interesting twist on the verse quoted from Deuteronomy. The simple meaning of the verse is that a member of the tribe of Israel who ignores the true words of the prophet is not to be executed by the court but God will take His own revenge. The mishnah interprets the verse to refer not to a normal person, but to the prophet himself." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of mishnah six defines what it means to prophesy in the name of an idol. The remainder of the mishnah discusses the adulterer.", + "“He who prophesies in the name of an idol”: this is one who says, “Thus has the idol declared” even if he directed the teaching to declare the unclean, unclean, or the clean, clean. One who prophesies in the name of an idol is liable for the death penalty even if his teaching agreed with the accepted halacha. The very act of attributing a teaching to an idol is punishable by death regardless of the content of the teaching itself (see Deuteronomy 18:20).", + "“One who has sexual relations with a married woman” after her entry into her husband’s home for marriage, though she did not have sexual relations with her husband, the one who has relations with her is strangled. Adultery with a married woman is punishable by strangling whereas adultery with a betrothed woman is punishable by stoning (see chapter 7, mishnah four). Our mishnah defines the moment that a woman is transformed from being a betrothed woman to being a married woman. That moment is defined as her entering her husband’s house, after having left her father’s house, regardless of whether or not she has yet had sexual relations with her husband. Henceforth anyone who has adultery with her will be punished by strangling and not stoning.", + "“Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her”, for all false witnesses are led forth to meet the same death [which they sought to impose,] save witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. Generally, when a witness is found to have testified falsely, he is punished with the same punishment that he tried to impose on the accused (see Deuteronomy 19:16-21). We will learn about this law in greater length in the next tractate, Makkoth. Witnesses who testify falsely with regards to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery, punishable by burning, (see chapter nine, mishnah one) and the one who had relations with her, punishable by strangling, are not burned as they tried to impose on her but rather strangled as they tried to impose on him. Since with one act of false testimony they testify that she is to be burned and he is to be strangled, they (the false witnesses) are punished by the lesser of the two, which is strangling. Congratulations! We have finished Sanhedrin. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves. Indeed we have now finished together four tractates of Mishnah, and are more than halfway through the entire order of Nezikin. Of course, we have much more to learn. We will begin Makkoth tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה סנהדרין", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה סנהדרין", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..770c5a7f9402042bf6ae7effdc21b19e7aee3e0f --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,416 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה שבועות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah one is an introductory mishnah to the entire tractate. Besides mentioning oaths it mentions knowledge of impurity, a topic to be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter.", + "Oaths are of two kinds, subdivided into four; There are two kinds of oaths of “expression” (category one above, in introduction) which are explicit in the Torah: 1) A person swears to do something such as eating; 2) A person swears to refrain from doing something. If a person takes such an oath and then breaks it, he will be obligated to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin (see Leviticus 5:4-13). The types of oaths specifically referred to in the Torah are oaths regarding the future, that a person will or will not do something. The Sages added two more types of oaths: those taken with regards to the past: 1) A person swears that he did do something; 2) A person swears that he did not do something. This is what the mishnah means when it says that there are two types of oaths which are four.", + "The laws concerning the discovery of having contracted uncleanness are of two kinds, subdivided into four; There are two types of sins mentioned in the Torah with regards to one who becomes impure without realizing it. The first is one who is impure and then eats holy food, such as sacrifices or terumah (heave offering). The second is one who is impure and then enters the Temple. One who had intentionally committed one of these acts would be obligated for kareth (excommunication). Our mishnah teaches that one who unintentionally does one of these acts, and later realizes what he has done, is obligated to bring a sacrifice. The Sages added two other types of sins of this nature. 1) A person knew that he was impure but did not know that what he was eating was holy food; 2) A person knew that he was impure but entered the Temple without realizing that he was doing so. In both of these cases the person is again obligated for a sacrifice.", + "The laws concerning carrying on the Sabbath are of two kinds, subdivided into four. On the Sabbath it is forbidden to carry an object from the private domain to the public domain. The two primary categories of this prohibition are: 1) A person stands in the public domain and puts his hand into the private domain and brings something out; 2) A person stands in the private domain and puts something out into the public domain. The Sages taught that there are another two categories of forbidden carrying: 1) A person stands in the private domain and puts his hand out into the public domain and brings something in; 2) A person stands in the public domain and puts something from there into the private domain. These laws are discussed at greater length in Tractate Shabbath. They are only mentioned here due to the similarity in language with the first two sections.", + "The symptoms of negas are of two kinds, subdivided into four. A nega is a skin disorder, discussed at length in Leviticus 13. It is often referred to as leprosy but in truth we do not know precisely what disease is referred to in the Torah. Our mishnah teaches that there are two types of negas mentioned specifically in the Torah: 1) A swelling; 2) A discoloration. The Sages added two more types of negas, both of which are learned from the word “rash” mentioned in the verse. These laws are discussed at greater length in Tractate Negaim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two begins to define when a person is obligated to bring a sacrifice in a situation where he did not know that he had been impure.", + "Our mishnah begins to discuss the laws concerning the discovery of the contracting of uncleanness mentioned in section two of the previous mishnah.", + "Where there is knowledge at the beginning and at the end but forgetfulness between, a “sliding scales” sacrifice is brought. In order for one to become obligated to bring a sacrifice for this type of sin, one must have known that he had become impure, and then forgot, and then ate of a holy thing or entered the Temple, and then afterwards remembered that he was impure. In other words there must be knowledge of the impurity in the beginning of the process and knowledge at the end, as well as forgetfulness in between at the time when he either at holy food or entered the Temple.", + "Where there is knowledge at the beginning but not at the end, the goat which is [sacrificed and its blood sprinkled] within [the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement] together with the Day of Atonement itself hold the sin in suspense until it become known to the sinner, and he brings the “sliding scale” sacrifice. If after having eaten the holy food or entered the Temple one never afterwards rembembered that one was impure at the time, obviously one will not even realize the need to bring a sacrifice to atone for the sin. Therefore our mishnah teaches that the sin is suspended, meaning punishment for the sin is suspended, through the sacrifice of the goat on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) and through Yom Kippur itself. Once he does remember what he has done, although Yom Kippur and the sacrificial goat have meanwhile suspended the punishment for the sin, he must bring a sacrifice in order to achieve full atonement." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to define when a person is obligated to bring a sacrifice in a situation where he did not know that he had been impure.", + "Where there is no knowledge at the beginning but there is knowledge at the end, the goat sacrificed on the outer altar together with the day of atonement bring atonement, for it says: “[one he-goat for a sin-offering] beside the sin-offering of atonement” (Numbers 29:1: for that which this goat [prepared inside the Holy of Holies] atones this goat [prepared outside] atones: just as the ‘inner’ goat atones only for a sin where there was knowledge [at the beginning], so the “outer” goat atones only for a sin where there was knowledge [at the end]. Our mishnah deals with the situation where a person did not know that they had become impure and then ate of holy food or entered the Temple and then realized that they were impure. Since there is not knowledge in the beginning and in the end, this person cannot achieve atonement by personally bringing a “sliding scale” sacrifice. Rather our mishnah teaches that the goat sacrificed on Yom Kippur at the outer altar as a sin-offering brings atonement from this person. This teaching is learned by a comparison with the goat offered inside the Holy of Holies. Just as the goat offered inside brings atonement in a case where there was knowledge of the contraction of uncleanness, in this case prior to the eating of the holy food or the entering into the Temple (see mishnah two) so too the goat offered outside brings atonement in a case where there was knowledge of the contraction of uncleanness, in this case after the eating of the holy food or the entering into the Temple." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses which goat offerings atone for which sins. There are three goat offerings discussed in this mishnah, all of which are sin-offerings (hatat): 1) Those offered on festivals; 2) Those offered on the first of the new month; 3) The goat offered on the outer altar on Yom Kippur. The Sages all agree in general that these sin-offerings atone for one who imparts impurity either to holy food or to the Temple. However, they disagree as to which goat atones for which specific sin.", + "Where there is no knowledge [of the impurity] either at the beginning or at the end, the goats offered as sin-offerings on festivals and new months bring atonement, the words of Rabbi Judah. According to Rabbi Judah, the goats offered on the holidays and on the new months atone for sins of impure people who entered the Temple or ate holy food, in cases where their impurity never became known to them. In the previous two mishnayoth we learned the procedures of atonement in cases where their impurity did become known to them, either in the beginning in the end.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “The festival goats atone [for such sins] and not the new moon goats. And for what do the new month goats bring atonement? For a pure man who ate impure holy food.” According to Rabbi Shimon, the goats offered on the festival atone for sins of pure people eating holy food or entering the Temple. The goats offered on the new month atone for sins whereby a pure person unintentionally ate impure holy food.", + "Rabbi Meir says: “All the goats have equal powers of atonement for imparting impurity to the Temple and holy food. According to Rabbi Meir all three of the goats mentioned here atone for all three of the crimes mentioned in this mishnah and in the previous one: 1) An impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and only realized that he had been impure after the fact; 2) An impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and never realized that he had been impure; 3) A pure person who unintentionally ate impure holy food.", + "Rabbi Shimon used to say: “The new month goats bring atonement for a pure man who ate impure holy food; and the festival goats atone for transgression of the laws of impurity where there was no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end; and the ‘outer’ goat of the Day of Atonement atones for transgression of these laws where there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was knowledge at the end. This section reviews Rabbi Shimon’s opinion with regards to the three goats and the three sins. According to his opinion each goat atones for its own sin. 1) The goat offered on new months atones for a pure person who unintentionally ate impure holy food. 2) The goat offered on festivals atones for an impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and never realized that he had been impure. 3) The goat offered on the outer altar on Yom Kippur atones for an impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and only realized that he had been impure after the fact.", + "They said to him: “Is it permitted to offer up the goat set apart for one day on another?” He said to them: “Let it be offered.” They said to him: “Since they are not equal in the atonement they bring how can they take each other's place?” He replied: “They are all at least equal [in the wider sense] in that they bring atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food.” The Rabbis ask Rabbi Shimon what happens in a situation where one of the goats set aside to be offered on one of these occasions is lost and then found on a different occasion. Since all three of the goats are all sin-offerings can the goat set aside for one occasion be offered on another? Rabbi Shimon answers that it can. The other Rabbis then raise a difficulty on Rabbi Shimon’s response. Since according to Rabbi Shimon each goat atones for its own sin, it would seem that each goat is different from the other goats. Therefore, how could a goat intended for example for a new month be offered on a festival? Rabbi Shimon responds that they all have a common denominator in that they atone for sins of imparting impurity to the Temple and to holy food. Since they are all means of atonement for similar types of sins, each can replace the other.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section five: Why is this question asked of Rabbi Shimon and not of Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Judah? What might these other Sages have responded to this question?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five is a continuation of the discussion in the previous mishnah. There we learned three different opinions with regards to the topic of which sin-offering goats bring atonement for which sin. The final opinion was that of Rabbi Shimon, whose full name is Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai. According to his opinion each goat atones for its own sin. 1) The goat offered on new months atones for a pure person who unintentionally ate impure holy food. 2) The goat offered on festivals atones for an impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and never realized that he had been impure. 3) The goat offered on the outer altar on Yom Kippur atones for an impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and only realized that he had been impure after the fact. Our mishnah contains a different version of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s opinion, taught by Rabbi Shimon ben Judah, one of his students. It seems that the students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, who lived in the middle of the second century C.E., disputed what their teacher’s opinion really was. The previous mishnah contained one student’s opinion and our mishnah contains another’s.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Judah said in his name [of Rabbi Shimon (bar]: “The new month goats bring atonement for a pure person who ate impure holy food; the festival goats, in addition to bringing atonement for a pure person who ate impure holy food, atone also for a case where there was no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end; the ‘outer’ goat of the Day of Atonement, in addition to bringing atonement for a pure person who ate impure holy food and for a case where there was no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end, atones also for a case where there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was knowledge at the end. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Judah the goats offered on the festival atone for a pure person who ate impure holy food, the goats offered on the new months atone for this sin as well as a case where an impure person entered the Temple or ate holy food and never realized that he had been impure, and the goat offered on the outer altar on Yom Kippur atones for both of these previous sins as well as a case where an impure person entered the Temple or ate holy food and only realized that he had been impure after the fact. In other words festival goats atone for one sin, new month goats for two sins and Yom Kippur goats for all three of the sins under discussion.", + "They said to him: “Is it permitted to offer up the goat set apart for one day on another?” He said, “Yes.” They [further] said to him: “Granted that the Day of Atonement goat may be offered up on the new month, but how can the new month goat be offered up on the Day of Atonement to bring atonement for a sin that is not within its scope?” He replied: “They are all at least equal [in the wider sense] in that they bring atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food.” Similar to the previous mishnah, our mishnah now continues with a discussion of a case where one of the goats set aside to be offered on one of these occasions is lost and then found on a different occasion. The question is asked: since they are all sin-offerings, can one be offered in another’s place? Rabbi Shimon ben Judah answers that they can, just as his teacher Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai answered in the previous mishnah. The Rabbis then raise a difficulty with this answer. It is possible to understand how a Yom Kippur goat could be offered on the new month, since all of the sins for which the new month goat atones, the Yom Kippur goat also atones. However, how can a new month goat be offered on Yom Kippur since the new month goat does not atone for all of the sins for which a Yom Kippur goat atones? Rabbi Shimon ben Judah’s answer is the same answer as that of his teacher. All of the goats have a common denominator in that they atone for sins of imparting impurity to the Temple and to holy food. Since they are all means of atonement for similar types of sins, each can replace the other.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the end of this mishnah and the end of the previous mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to discuss which sacrificial goat brought as a sin-offering brings atonement for which transgression.", + "For intentional transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food, the goat offered inside [the Holy of Holies] on the Day of Atonement together with the Day of Atonement itself bring atonement. The previous several mishnayoth discussed for which sins the goats offered on new months, festivals and at the outer altar in the Temple on Yom Kippur bring atonement. Our mishnah discusses yet a fourth goat, the goat sacrificed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and whose blood is sprinkled inside the Holy of Holies. This goat along with Yom Kippur itself atones for intentional transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food. The previous mishnayoth discussed only unintentional sins.", + "For other transgressions of the Torah, light and grave, intentional and unintentional, known and unknown, positive and negative, those punishable by kareth and those punishable by death imposed by the court for all these the scapegoat [sent out on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement. All of the other possible transgressions of the Torah’s laws, no matter how they are punished and no matter how serious they may be, whether done intentionally or unintentionally, are atoned for by the scapegoat, sent out to the wilderness, on Yom Kippur. This teaching is learned from Leviticus 16:21-22: “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated man. Thus the goat shall carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region.” Our mishnah does not mention this, but there is one exception to this rule: transgressions between one human being and another, for instance shaming another person in public. The last mishnah in Tractate Yoma, which deals with Yom Kippur, states explicitly: “For sins between a man and God Yom Kippur atones; for sins between a man and his fellow, Yom Kippur does not atone.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven discusses differences between the atonement of Israelites and the atonement of priests.", + "[The scapegoat] brings atonement to Israelites, priests, and the anointed high priest alike. What [then] is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed high priest? [None], save that the bullock [offered on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement to the priests for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food. The scapegoat mentioned in the previous mishnah atones for the transgression of all of the members of Israel, including the priests. The one difference between priests and regular Israelites is that priests are atoned for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food by the sacrificial bullock, brought on Yom Kippur. This is learned from Leviticus 16:11, “Aaron shall then offer his bull of sin offering, to make expiation for himself and his household.” “His household” refers to all of the priesthood. However, except for this difference, there is not difference in the atonement process for priests and Israelites.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as the blood of the goat that is offered within [the Holy of Holies] brings atonement for Israelites, so the blood of the bullock [offered on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement for priests; and just as the confession of sins pronounced over the scapegoat brings atonement for Israelites, so the confession pronounced over the bullock brings atonement for priests. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the opinion in the previous mishnah. H learns this by means of an analogy. Israelites receive atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food by the sprinkling of the blood of the inner goat, without the confessional recited on the scapegoat. So too do priests receive atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food by the means of the blood of the sacrificial bullock without the confessional mentioned Leviticus 16:11. Therefore, we must ask, for what sin does the confessional bring atonement? According to Rabbi Shimon the confessional over the bullock acts for priests the same way that the confessional over the scapegoat acts for Israelites. Just as the confessional over the scapegoat brings atonement for all sins for Israelites, so too the confessional over the bullock brings atonement for all sins for priests. This is the disagreement between Rabbi Shimon and the opinion in section one: according to Rabbi Shimon priests receive atonement for most of their sins by the confession over the bullock, while according to the other Sages they receive atonement the same way other Israelites do, by the confession over the scapegoat." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah one discusses the second clause of the first mishnah of chapter one, which dealt with the case where a person either entered the Temple or ate holy food without knowing that he was impure.", + "The first line of the mishnah is a quote of the second clause of the first mishnah in chapter one. After a long digression in chapter one in which the mishnah discussed which goats offered as sin-offerings atone for which types of crimes, our chapter returns to discuss the main topic at hand: the case where a person unknowingly became impure and entered the Temple or ate holy food. To refresh our memories, according to chapter one in order to enter into this category one must first have awareness then forgetfulness and then awareness. Our mishnah explains the four different possibilities for such a scenario.", + "The laws concerning the discovery of having contracted uncleanness are of two kinds, subdivided into four;
[If] he became impure and was aware of it, then he forgot that he had been impure, though he remembered that the food was holy; [If the fact that it was] holy food was unknown to him, though he remembered that he was impure; [If] both were unknown to him; And he ate holy food, and was not aware, and after he had eaten, he became aware: in these cases he brings a sliding scale sacrifice. In all of the cases mentioned in this section the transgression is the eating of holy food while impure. There are actually three different possibilities mentioned in the mishnah, although the mishnah considers them to be two: 1) He knew that had contracted impurity, and then forgot but he knew that the food that he was eating was holy; 2) He forgot that the food that he was eating was holy but he knew that he was impure; 3) He forgot that the food was holy and that he was impure. In all of these cases if he were to eat of the holy food while being unaware either that he was impure or that the food was holy (or both) and afterwards realized that the food was holy or that he was impure, he is obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. A sliding scale sacrifice is a sacrifice brought based on the economic means of the sinner. If he has financial means he must bring either a sheep or goat. If he cannot afford a sheep or a goat he brings two turtledoves. If he can’t even afford these, he may bring a grain offering. This sacrifice is described in Leviticus 5:6-13.", + "[[If] he became impure and was aware of it, then he forgot that he had been impure, though he remembered that [he was entering] the Temple; [If the fact that he was entering] the Temple was unknown to him, though he remembered that he was impure; [If] both were hidden from him; And he entered the Temple and was not aware, and after he had gone out, became aware: in these cases he brings a sliding scale sacrifice. This section teaches the exact same law as in section one, except the sin discussed here is entrance into the Temple while impure. In this case either forgetting that he is entering the Temple or forgetting that he is impure or both will obligate him to bring a sliding scale sacrifice.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah consider the three possibilities in each section to be only two?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two discusses which areas of the Temple are included in these laws.", + "It is the same whether one [while impure] enters the Temple court or the addition to the Temple court, for additions are not made to the city [of Jerusalem], or to the Temple courts except by the king, prophet, Urim and Thummim, the Sanhedrin of seventy one, and with two [loaves] of thanksgiving, and with song. And the court walks in a procession, the two [loaves] of thanksgiving [being carried] after them, and all Israel [following] behind them. The inner one is eaten, and the outer one is burnt. And as to any addition that was made without all these he who enters it [while impure] is not liable. A person who is impure and enters the Temple is obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice even if he only entered an addition that had been made to the Temple court. In other words, the holiness inherent to the Temple is also to be found in any additions made to the Temple. The reason is that the additions made to the Temple are made with the consent of all of the ruling institutions in Israel, as well being performed in a religious ceremony. Additions to the Temple or to the city of Jerusalem, which is also considered to be holy, can only be made with the consent of the following parties: 1) the king; 2) the Urim and Thummim, the two stones that sat in the high priest’s breastplate which were used to receive oracles (see Numbers 27:21); 3) the Sanhedrin of 71 elders. The additions to the Temple would be made in a great procession with two loaves of thanksgiving. Any addition to the Temple that was not made using all of these elements was considered to be of a lower status. Therefore, one who entered there while impure would not have to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. This mishnah has some interesting historical implications. In the Second Temple period, which began in the 5th century B.C.E. and continued until the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. there were no Urim and Thummim. Therefore, any additions to the Temple would not have been of the same holiness. On the other hand, the mishnah does not completely delegitimize these additions to the Temple. The last clause in the mishnah indeed admits that additions to the Temple can be made without the approval of the all of these parties. The only consequence is that one who entered there impure would not be obligated to bring a sacrifice.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think that in order to add on to the Temple they need the approval of the king, the priestly oracles and the Sanhedrin?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three discusses one who entered the Temple while impure.", + "If he became impure while in the Temple court [and was aware of it], and then forgot that he was impure, though he remembered that he was in the Temple; [Or] he forgot that he was in the Temple, though he remembered that he was impure; [Or,] he forgot both; And he prostrated himself, or waited [in the Temple] the time it takes to prostrate; Or went out the long way, he is liable; [If he went out] the shorter way, he is not liable; This section is similar to the teaching in mishnah one, except it presents a new problem: he is actually in the Temple while he becomes impure. Since it is forbidden to be in the Temple while impure he therefore must leave immediately, and in the shortest possible manner. To remind ourselves, in order for him to be liable for a sliding scale sacrifice for having been in the Temple while impure he must have awareness, forgetting and then afterwards awareness. Our mishnah teaches that the forgetting can either be of the fact he was impure or that he was in the Temple or both. As long as he knew what had happened or where he was and forgot one of those two things or both, and then he worshipped in the Temple by prostrating himself, or even stayed in the Temple long enough to prostrate, or even did not take the quickest way out, he is obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. In other words, should he delay himself at all within the Temple after having become impure he will be obligated for a sliding scale sacrifice. Only if he goes out immediately will he be exempt.", + "This is the positive precept concerning the temple for which they [the court] are not liable. Usually, if the court gives a mistaken ruling with regards to a mitzvah that is punishable if done intentionally by kareth and obligates one for a sacrifice if done unintentionally, the court must bring a bullock as a sacrifice (see Leviticus 4:12). However, in this case, if the court told the person who had become impure while in the Temple that it was okay to leave through a longer path, the court is not obligated to bring the sacrifice. We will learn this law again in Tractate Horayoth 2:4, the last tractate in Seder Nezikin." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four contains a short digression which discusses the obligation of a court to bring a sacrificial bullock if they give a wrong teaching. This subject is learned more fully in Tractate Horayoth. This digression is found here because one of the wrongful teachings for which the court is not obligated is given as an example in mishnah three.", + "And which is the positive precept concerning a menstruant for which they are liable? [This:] if one cohabited with a [ritually] pure woman, and she said to him: “I have become impure”, and he withdrew immediately, he is liable, because his withdrawal is as pleasant to him as his entry. This mishnah continues the subject taught in section two of the previous mishnah, namely cases where the court is or is not obligated to bring a sacrifice if they gave a mistaken ruling. In Tractate Horayoth 2:4 we will learn that if the court made a mistake with regards to the laws of menstrual purity, in either a positive or negative commandment, they must bring the sacrifice. Our mishnah asks what is the positive commandment to which that mishnah refers. The answer is a case where a man was having sexual relations with a pure woman, i.e. a woman who was not menstruating. If, while having sex she told him that she had just begun to menstruate, he has a problem, since the Torah forbids sexual relations with a menstruant (Leviticus 20:18). Our mishnah teaches that if the court instructed him to withdraw immediately, the court has taught mistakenly and must bring a sacrifice. This is because his withdrawal while erect is actually pleasurable for him. Rather he is forbidden to withdraw until his erection disappears." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Eliezer said: “[Scripture says: ‘If any one touch… the carcass of] an impure creeping thing, and it be unknown to him’ (Leviticus 5:2), when the impure creeping thing is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.”
Rabbi Akiba said: “[Scripture says:] ‘and it be hidden from him that he is impure’: when his impurity is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.”
Rabbi Ishmael said: “[Scripture] twice [says:] ‘and it be hidden from him’, in order to make him liable both for the forgetfulness of the impurity and the forgetfulness of the Temple.”
Mishnah five conclude the discussion of a person who enters the Temple while not realizing that he is impure. It contains a midrashic discussion which took place between Rabbis Eliezer, Akiba, and Ishmael.
As we have explained throughout this chapter, in order to be obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice one must have known something and then forgotten it and then remembered it later on. In both mishnah one and mishnah three of this chapter we assumed that what was known and forgotten was either the fact that he was impure or the fact that he was in the Temple or both. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael in section three. His opinion is the dominant opinion in this chapter of mishnah.
Rabbi Eliezer holds that what was known and then forgotten was specifically the source of the impurity, be it an impure creeping thing or other source of impurity mentioned in Leviticus 5:2 (carcasses of pure animals). If he forgot that he was in the Temple he is not obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. Likewise if never knew that he had been made impure by an impure creepy thing, but merely knew that he was impure, he is not obligated.
Rabbi Akiva holds that what was forgotten was the fact of impurity but not the fact that he was in the Temple. Unlike Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva does not limit the knowledge and subsequent forgetfulness to the source of the impurity. Even if he never knew what the source of the impurity was, but knew only that he was impure and then forgot, he will be obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael in that the latter holds that being aware and then forgetting that one was in the Temple also makes him obligated for bringing a sliding scale sacrifice, whereas Rabbi Akiva (and Rabbi Eliezer) believe that it does not." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins to discuss oaths, the main topic of the tractate. The oaths discussed in the beginning of this chapter are oaths of utterance, whereby one swears that he has or has not done something, or that he will or will not do something. One who breaks such an oath is liable for a sliding scale sacrifice, described in chapters one and two and in Leviticus 5:6-13.", + "Oaths are two, subdivided into four. “I swear I shall eat”, and “[I swear] I shall not eat”; “[I swear] I have eaten”, and “[I swear] I have not eaten”. The first line of this mishnah is a quote of the first mishnah of the tractate. After two chapters of digression, we return to the main topic at hand, oaths. Our mishnah lists all four types of oaths of utterance, two with regards to the past and two with regards to the future, two negative and two positive. Eating is just an example of a common oath. An oath can involve most types of actions.", + "“I swear I shall not eat”, and he ate [even] a minute quantity, he is liable, the words of Rabbi Akiva. They [the Sages] said to Rabbi Akiva: “Where do we find that he who eats a minute quantity is liable, that this one should be liable?” Rabbi Akiba said to them: “But where do we find that he who [merely] speaks brings a sacrifice, that this one should bring a sacrifice?” According to Rabbi Akiva, one who swore not to eat and then ate is liable to bring a sacrifice even if he ate the most minute amount of food. The Sages raise a difficulty on this Rabbi Akiva’s position. Generally, a person is not obligated for having eaten a forbidden food unless he ate a minimum measure of the food, usually the size of an olive. Rabbi Akiva responds that we cannot compare the laws of oaths of utterance to any other laws, for an oath of utterance can obligate a person to bring a sacrifice of atonement just by his having said something. In all other realms of law in order to be liable to bring a sacrifice of atonement one has to actually perform a sin. Only with regards to oaths of utterance can a person merely retract on his words, and thereby be obligated for a sacrifice. Since the laws of oaths of utterance are already different, there is no room, according to Rabbi Akiva, to compare them to other laws.", + "[If a man says,] “I swear I shall not eat” and he ate and drank, he is liable only once. “I swear I shall not eat and I shall not drink,” and he ate and drank, he is liable twice. This section deals with the question is drinking subsumed under the category of drinking. According to the mishnah, generally drinking is considered a form of eating and therefore, if after having sworn not to eat, he eats and drinks, he is liable for only one sacrifice. Drinking is considered a separate violation from eating only if he specifically swore not to eat or drink. In this case if he ate and drank he would be obligated to bring two sacrifices.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What might be other reasons behind Rabbi Akiva’s opinion?
• What would be the ruling if someone swore not to eat and then drank but did not eat? Would he be liable to bring a sacrifice for having violated his oath?" + ], + [ + "“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once.
“I swear I shall not eat wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread,” and he ate [all three], he is liable for each one.
Mishnah two discusses a person who swears not to eat different types of bread. The question again is, how many different oaths did he make.
Similar to the end of the first mishnah, we learn here that if a person made one oath not to eat and did not specify what foods were covered, he will be obligated to bring only one sacrifice if he were to break the oath. If, however, he specifically swore not to eat three different types of bread and he ate all three, he is obligated to bring three sacrifices. In this case he has actually sworn three oaths and subsequently broken three oaths, thereby making him obligated for three sacrifices." + ], + [ + "“I swear I shall not drink,” and he drank many liquids, he is liable only once.
“I swear I shall not drink wine, oil, and honey,” and he drank [all three], he is liable for each one.
Mishnah three discusses a person who swears not to drink. The question again is, how many different oaths did he make.
This mishnah teaches the same law as the previous mishnah, except it discusses drinking. Again we learn that if he specifies what he will not drink, he has sworn (and then broken) three separate oaths and he will be obligated for three separate sacrifices. If he makes one general oath, he will be obligated to bring only one separate sacrifice." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four continues to discuss how many oaths one is liable for when he takes an oath not to eat. This mishnah talks about one who violates the oath by eating things that are either not fit to be eaten or forbidden.", + "“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate foods which are not fit to be eaten, and drank liquids which are not fit to be drunk, he is exempt. Again this mishnah discusses a person who swears not to eat. In this case after having sworn not to eat he eats food which are not fit to be eaten, for example rotten fruit, or drinks liquids not fit to drink. The mishnah teaches that in such a case he is exempt from having to bring a sacrifice. The assumption is that when a person swears not to eat his intention is not to eat food that is fit for consumption. Therefore, by eating food not fit for consumption he has not in actuality broken his oath.", + "“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate carrion, trefot, and reptiles and creepy things, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him. In this case the person who swore not to eat, ate foods which are forbidden to a Jew. Carrion are animals that died either a natural death or died as a result of an improperly carried out act of ritual slaughter. Trefot are animals that were either torn by beasts of prey or afflicted with severe diseases or defects that would have caused them to die within 12 months. They are both forbidden to eat, as are reptiles and creepy things. If one swears not to eat them and does eat them, according to the first opinion he is liable to bring a sacrifice. Even though he is forbidden to eat them, they are still considered edible food, which other people eat, and therefore he has broken his oath. Rabbi Shimon disagrees. According to his opinion, at Mount Sinai the Jewish people took an oath not to break the commandments. This oath was binding for all future generations as well. Therefore, one cannot add another oath to that which he has already sworn not to do. One who does so has not done anything legally significant, and is therefore not obligated to bring a sacrifice.", + "He said, “I vow that my wife shall not benefit from me, if I have eaten today,” and he had eaten carrion, trefot, forbidden animals, or reptiles, his wife is prohibited to him. This section discusses vows (nedarim) which are halachically different from oaths (shevuoth). If a man took a vow that if he had already eaten today his wife would be forbidden to benefit from him or his property, and he had in fact eaten a forbidden thing, she is forbidden to benefit from him. This law is agreed upon by all of the Sages, even Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Shimon in essence does consider eating forbidden food to be considered eating. The reason that he exempted the one who swore not to eat and then ate forbidden food was that there was a prior existing oath upon him not to eat. In the case in our section, this logic is not applicable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three: How do you know that Rabbi Shimon would agree to the ruling stated in section three?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that a person can swear with regards to things that concern himself or others. He also may swear about things whether or not they have substance.\nThe second half of the mishnah contains an important debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael with regards to the validity of oaths taken about the past.", + "It is the same [whether he swears of] things concerning himself, or of things concerning others, or of things which have substance, or of things which have no substance. How so? [If] he said, “I swear that I shall give to so-and-so”, or “I shall not give”; “I have given”, or “I have not given”; “I shall sleep”, or “I shall not sleep”; “I have slept”, or “I have not slept”; “I shall throw a pebble into the sea”, or “I shall not throw”; “I have thrown”, or “I have not thrown”; [he is liable.] An oath of utterance is valid, according to the mishnah, whether or not it was taken with respect to himself or with respect to his involvement with others. It is also valid even if the oath is made on a non-substantive thing. The mishnah now gives example of all of these categories.", + "It is the same [whether he swears of] things concerning himself, or of things concerning others, or of things which have substance, or of things which have no substance. How so? [If] he said, “I swear that I shall give to so-and-so”, or “I shall not give”; “I have given”, or “I have not given”; “I shall sleep”, or “I shall not sleep”; “I have slept”, or “I have not slept”; “I shall throw a pebble into the sea”, or “I shall not throw”; “I have thrown”, or “I have not thrown”; [he is liable.] One who takes an oath with regards to giving things to others has taken a valid oath, whether it was to give, not to give, that he had given or that he had not given. This is an example of an oath with regards to others. If he breaks any of these oaths, or any of them turn out to be false, he will be obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice.", + "It is the same [whether he swears of] things concerning himself, or of things concerning others, or of things which have substance, or of things which have no substance. How so? [If] he said, “I swear that I shall give to so-and-so”, or “I shall not give”; “I have given”, or “I have not given”; “I shall sleep”, or “I shall not sleep”; “I have slept”, or “I have not slept”; “I shall throw a pebble into the sea”, or “I shall not throw”; “I have thrown”, or “I have not thrown”; [he is liable.] Oaths regarding sleeping are also valid even though sleep is not a substantive thing.", + "It is the same [whether he swears of] things concerning himself, or of things concerning others, or of things which have substance, or of things which have no substance. How so? [If] he said, “I swear that I shall give to so-and-so”, or “I shall not give”; “I have given”, or “I have not given”; “I shall sleep”, or “I shall not sleep”; “I have slept”, or “I have not slept”; “I shall throw a pebble into the sea”, or “I shall not throw”; “I have thrown”, or “I have not thrown”; [he is liable.] Throwing a pebble into the sea is a useless action that has no value to a human being. For this reason the mishnah considers it a type of action that has no substance. Nevertheless, if one takes an oath regarding throwing a pebble into the sea, the oath is valid.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: “He is liable only for [an oath with regards to] the future, for it says, “To do bad or to do good” (Leviticus 5:4). Rabbi Akiva said to him: “If so, we would know only such cases where doing evil and doing good are applicable; but how do we know such cases where doing evil and doing good are not applicable? He said to him: “From the amplification of the verse.” He said to him: “If the verse amplifies for that, it amplifies for this also.” Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regards to the validity of oaths taken about the past, such as “I swear that I did eat” or “I swear that I did not eat”. Up until now, we have assumed that such oaths were valid (see mishnah one, and the first half of this mishnah). Rabbi Yishmael disagrees. According to Rabbi Yishmael oaths taken with regards to the future, i.e. “I swear that I will eat”, or “I swear that I will not eat” are valid. Oaths taken with regards to the past are not valid. Rabbi Yishmael learns this from Leviticus 5:4, which states “to do bad or to do good”. The simple meaning of this verse is that the person is swearing to do or not do something in the future. Rabbi Akiva responds to Rabbi Yishmael by pointing out that we cannot take the verse literally. If we were to do so, we would rule that oaths are only valid if they are about doing something good or something evil. However, we know that oaths can involve neutral activities as well, such as eating or drinking, which are neither “good” nor “evil”. Rabbi Yishmael responds that the second half of the aforementioned verse in Leviticus which states, “whatever a man may utter in an oath” expands the category of oaths, thereby making neutral oaths also valid. Rabbi Akiva argues that if the second half of the verse expands the validity of oaths to include neutral oaths, it also expands the category of oaths to include oaths with regards to past actions. To summarize: for Rabbi Yishmael the first half of the verse refers to oaths for the future involving “good or bad” while the second half of the verse expands the category of oaths to include all oaths about the future. To Rabbi Akiva, the second half of the verse expands the category of oaths to include even oaths about the past.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Whose opinion seems to be closer to the literal reading of the verse in Leviticus, Rabbi Yishmael’s or Rabbi Akiva’s?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six discusses swearing to either break or fulfill a commandment.", + "The subject of this mishnah is swearing with regards to positive and negative commandments, a subject that the Mishnah dealt with briefly in mishnah four.", + "If he swore to annul a commandment, and did not annul it, he is exempt. [If he swore] to fulfill [a commandment], and did not fulfill it, he is exempt. For it would have been logical [in the second instance] that he should have been liable, as is the opinion of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. If a person swears not to fulfill a positive commandment, for instance he swears not to eat matzah on Passover, and he does eat it, he is not obligated for having broken his oath. The positive commandment of matzah takes precedence over his oath. Similarly, if a person swears to break a negative commandment, such as eating forbidden foods, and he then does observe the commandment by not eating the food, he is also exempt. These cases are agreed upon by all of the Sages. The dispute in our mishnah is about a person who swears to observe a commandment and then does not. For instance he swears to eat matzah on the first night of Passover and then he does not. According to the Sages in section one, he is not obligated for having broken his oath. Since he was already obligated to eat matzah on Passover, his oath did not add upon him any new obligation. It is as if it had no effect and therefore if he breaks the oath by not eating matzah he will not be liable for having broken the oath. Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra disagrees with this ruling, as we will learn in section two.", + "[For] Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, “Now, if for [swearing with regards to] an optional matter, for which he is not adjured from Mount Sinai, he is liable [should he not fulfill his oath], for [swearing with regards to] a commandment, for which he is adjured from Mount Sinai, he should most certainly be liable [should he not fulfill his oath]! They said to him: “No! If you say that for an oath with regards to an optional matter [he is liable], it is because [Scripture] has in that case made negative equal to positive [for liability]; But how can you say that for an oath [to fulfill] a commandment [he is liable], since [Scripture] has not in that case made negative equal to positive, for if he swore to annul [a commandment], and did not annul it, he is exempt! Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra analogizes swearing on a commandment to swearing on an optional, non-commandment activity. His argument is that just as a person is liable if he makes an oath about an optional activity and then breaks the oath, even though he had no prior obligation to perform this activity, all the more so he should be obligated if he makes and then breaks an oath with regards to a commandment, which he had a prior obligation to observe. This type of argument is called a “kal vechomer” argument. It takes a “light” law (the kal) and says that if the law is such in this case all the more so must it be in the “serious” law (the chomer). Swearing on an optional activity is “light” and swearing on a commandment is “heavy”. If one is obligated for the “light” all the more so is he obligated for the “heavy”. The Sages respond that the two cases are too dissimilar to be comparable. In the case of swearing about optional activities, the oath is valid whether he swore in the positive (“I swear to eat”) or in the negative (“I swear not to eat”). However, in the case of swearing about a commandment there is a difference between positive and negative swearing. As we learned in section one, all of the Sages agree that if one swears not to perform a commandment he is exempt. Since the two cases are already dissimilar, the Sages conclude that even if he swears positively with regards to a commandment he is exempt." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven concludes the mishnah’s discussion of “oaths of utterance.”", + "“I swear I shall not eat this loaf”; “I swear I shall not eat it”; “I swear I shall not eat it”; and he ate it, he is liable only once. If one repeats the same oath several times and then breaks the oath(s) he is only liable for having broken one oath. Since after he made the first oath the loaf was already forbidden to him, he cannot make the same loaf any more forbidden to him. The repeated oaths do not create any new forbidden things, and therefore they do not count.", + "This is the oath of utterance, for which one is liable, for its willful transgression, flogging; and for its unwitting transgression, a sliding scale sacrifice. For a vain oath one is liable for willful transgression, flogging, and for unwitting transgression one is exempt. This is the concluding section of mishnah which began at the beginning of the chapter and which has discussed “oaths of utterance.” For intentionally breaking an oath of utterance one is flogged and for unintentionally breaking an oath of utterance one must bring a sacrifice. The mishnah now mentions “vain oaths” a topic which will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. For intentionally swearing a vain oath one is flogged. There is no punishment for unintentionally swearing a vain oath." + ], + [ + "Introduction", + "At the end of the previous mishnah we were introduced to the concept of a vain oath, which is forbidden in Exodus 20:7, one of the verses of the Ten Commandments. The punishment for intentionally swearing in vain is lashes and for unintentional swearing in vain there is no punishment. Our mishnah lists four different types of vain oaths.", + "What is a vain oath?
If he swore that which is contrary to the facts known to people, saying of a pillar of stone that it is of gold; or of a man that he is a woman; or of a woman that she is a man. If one swears about something that is obviously false, for instance if he looks at a pillar of stone and swears that it is gold, then he has taken God’s name in vain by swearing in vain.", + "If he swore concerning a thing which is impossible, [for instance if he said,] “If I have not seen a camel flying in the air”, or “If I have not seen a serpent as thick as the beam of the olive press”. Similarly, if he swears by something that cannot happen, for instance he swears that he saw a camel fly in the air, he has also sworn in vain.", + "If he said to witnesses, “Come and bear testimony for me”, [and they replied,] “We swear that we will not bear testimony for you”. According to Leviticus 5:1, if a person has been witness to an event he is obligated to testify. If a person asks another person to testify and he has testimony to give, and he swears that the he will not testify, then he has sworn in vain. This example actually can fit into the example in the next section, one who swears not to observe one of the commandments. Since testifying is a positive commandment one who swears not to do so has sworn in vain.", + "If he swore to annul a commandment, [for example] not to make a sukkah, or not to take a lulav, or not to put on tefillin. These are vain oaths, for which one is liable, for intentional transgression, lashes, and for unintentional transgression one is exempt. One who swears not to observe one of the commandments has sworn in vain.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah consider all of these oaths to be in vain?
• What is the difference between a false oath and a vain oath?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine discusses one who takes two oaths, the second oath being the exact opposite of the first oath.", + "[If one said:] “I swear I shall eat this loaf”; [and then he said,] “I swear I shall not eat it,” the first is an oath of utterance, and the second is a vain oath. If he ate it, he transgressed the vain oath; if he did not eat it, he transgressed the oath of utterance. In the case in our mishnah a person swears two oaths, the second oath contradicting the first. The first oath is considered to be a normal oath of utterance, which he must observe or be liable for breaking his oath. The second oath is considered a vain oath, since it is forbidden to observe the oath. In other words, similar to one who swears not to observe a commandment, this person has sworn to do that which is forbidden for him to do. If he eats the loaf, as he swore to do in the first oath, he is liable for having broken the second oath. If he does not eat it, he is liable for having broken his oath of utterance. In the Talmud it is explained that if he does not eat the loaf he has transgressed not only his oath of utterance but he has also made a vain oath, despite the fact that he kept the oath. Since at the time that he made the oath it was forbidden to keep, he is liable for having made a vain oath even if he does keep it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah that we will learn today contains a list of when the oath of utterance is applicable. A similar list will appear in tomorrow’s mishnah with regard to vain oaths. The similarities between these two types of oaths will be contrasted with the rules of the testimonial oath, to be learned in the first mishnah of chapter four. Some of the points in these mishnayoth may seem obvious. They are included here only to be contrasted with what we learn in chapter four mishnah one.", + "The oath of utterance applies to men and women, to relatives and non-relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and those not qualified, [whether uttered] before the court, or not before the court, [but it must be uttered] with a man’s own mouth. And he is liable, for intentional transgression, lashes, and for unintentional transgression, a sliding scale sacrifice. An oath of utterance equally applies to men and women. Similarly it does not matter if the person swears concerning a relative or non-relative, one who is fit to testify or not fit to testify. It can be uttered before or not before a court. Again, these laws may seem obvious, but we will see in chapter four that they are different with regards to testimonial oaths. The oath of utterance must be uttered by the one swearing. We will learn at the end of mishnah eleven that he may also swear by being adjured by someone else and answering amen. The end of the mishnah reiterates the punishments for breaking an oath of utterance. The punishments for oaths of utterance and vain oaths were already taught in mishnah seven." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah except that it discusses the vain oath. The end of the mishnah discusses a similarity between the two oaths: in both cases one person can adjure another person.", + "A vain oath applies to men and women, to relatives and non-relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and those not qualified, [whether uttered] before the court, or not before the court, [but it must be uttered] with a man's own mouth. And he is liable, for intentional transgression, stripes, and for unintentional transgression he is exempt. This section is the same as the previous mishnah. It is here only to contrast it with the rules of the testimonial oath taught in the next chapter.", + "[In the case of] both this and that [oath], if he was adjured by the mouth of others, he is liable. How so? If he said, “I have not eaten today,” or, “I have not put on tefillin today” [and the another person said,] “I adjure thee,” and he said, “Amen!”, he is liable [if his oath was false]. A person need not utter the entire oath on his own in order for it to be valid. If he makes a statement without using the language of an oath, and then another person adjures him with regards to the truth of his words, and he answers “amen”, he has sworn an oath. In this case his answer “amen” to another person using the language of an oath makes it as if he himself swore. If his oath is false he will be liable." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nLeviticus 5:1 states, “If a person incurs guilt, when he has heard a public imprecation and although able to testify as one who has seen or learned of the matter he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment.” In simple English this verse refers to one who has sworn that he does not know information regarding another person’s case in court. The Mishnah refers to this as an oath of testimony. Our entire chapter discusses the rules and regulations of this type of oath. The mishnah which we learn today and the one we will learn tomorrow serve as a contrast to the last two mishnayoth of chapter three, which discussed oaths of utterance and vain oaths.", + "The oath of testimony applies to men and not to women, to non-relatives and not to relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and not to those unqualified. And it applies only to those eligible to bear witness. The oath of testimony only applies to those who are allowed to testify. In other words, if a person adjures another person to testify on his behalf, and they know testimony, and they are qualified to testify, and they swear that they do not know any information, then these witnesses have made a false oath of testimony. If they were not qualified to testify then they have not made a false oath of testimony, even if they knew information. Therefore the rules of oaths of testimony do not apply to women, to relatives or to otherwise unqualified individuals (see Sanhedrin 3:3-4). In the last clause of this mishnah it is not entirely clear to whom the mishnah refers when it states that the oath of testimony applies only to those qualified to testify. The Talmud interprets this clause to mean the King, who according to Sanhedrin 2:2 does not testify.", + "Whether [uttered] in front of the court or not in front of the court, if [uttered] with his own mouth; [but if adjured] by the mouth of others he is not liable unless he denies it before the court, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “Whether [uttered] with his own mouth or [adjured] by the mouth of others he is not liable unless he denies it before the court.” According to Rabbi Meir, when an oath of testimony is sworn by the witness himself it can be done either before or not before a court However, if the litigant adjures the witness to take an oath, then the witness is not obligated for making a false oath of testimony unless he denies knowing information while in front of the court. The Sages say that in both the case of a witness swearing on his own and the case of the litigant adjuring the witness, the witness is not liable until he denies knowing information in front of a court. One who swears a false testimony while not in front of the court is not liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Rabbi Meir require denial in front of the court in a case where the litigant adjured the witness but not in a case where the witness himself swore? Why do the Sages always require denial in front of a court?" + ], + [ + "And they are liable for intentional transgression of the oath, and for its unintentional transgression coupled with intentional [denial of knowledge of] testimony, but they are not liable for unintentional transgression.
And what are they liable for the intentional transgression of the oath? A sliding scale sacrifice.
This mishnah continues the lists we have seen in the previous three mishnayoth.
There are two elements to the false oath of testimony: 1) knowing information and intentionally withholding it; 2) intentionally swearing falsely that one does not know the information. The mishnah teaches that if the witnesses intentionally deny knowledge of the testimony, even if they don’t realize that swearing falsely is forbidden, they are liable for intentionally swearing falsely. However, if they don’t realize that they know information then they are not liable, since this was a totally unintentional transgression. In other words, there punishment hinges upon their intentional denial of knowledge of information. If they intentionally withheld information and swore to it, then they are liable to bring a sliding scale sacrifice, as described in Leviticus 5:5-13." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah three explains how an oath of testimony is done. The second half of the mishnah discusses a witness who falsely swears five times that he had no knowledge of testimony.", + "The oath of testimony: How is it done? If he said to two [persons]: “Come and bear testimony for me”; [and they replied:] “We swear we know no testimony for you”; Or they said to him: “We know no testimony for you”, [and he said:] “I adjure you” and they said, “Amen! “, they are liable. An oath of testimony can be done in one of two ways. The first way is for the litigant to ask the witnesses to come and testify on his behalf and for them to swear that they have no knowledge of testimony. Alternatively the witnesses can state that they know no testimony and the litigant can adjure them that they know no testimony. If they answer amen, they have sworn an oath of testimony. If they have sworn falsely they are liable.", + "If he adjured them five times outside the court, and the they came to the court and admitted [knowledge of testimony], they are exempt. If they denied, they are liable for each [oath]. If he adjured them five times before the court, and they denied [knowledge of testimony], they are liable only once. Said Rabbi Shimon: “What is the reason? Because they cannot afterwards admit [knowledge]. This section discusses a case where a litigant adjured the witnesses five times. The mishnah asks the question, in what case will they be liable for having sworn falsely five times, in what case they will be liable for having sworn falsely once and in what case will they be exempt. If, he adjured them outside of the court, and then when they came to court they admitted that they knew testimony, they are not liable. As we learned in mishnah one, the denial of knowledge must occur in front of the court. If, after having adjured them five times they come to court and continue to deny knowledge, then they are liable for having sworn five false oaths of testimony. The denial at court makes each oath outside of court a potentially effective oath, and therefore if it was false, it causes them to be liable. If he adjured them five times in front of the court and they denied knowledge each time, they will be liable for having sworn only one false oath. Rabbi Shimon explains that since after the first denial in front of the court they will not be able to change their minds, the subsequent oaths were meaningless. Once a person has in court denied knowing testimony he cannot change his mind and testify. Since, except for the first oath, the other oaths were meaningless, he can only be liable for one false oath." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses how many of the witnesses deny knowledge such that they become liable for swearing a false oath of testimony.", + "In order to understand this mishnah it is important to remember that in Jewish law two witnesses are needed to prove a case. A single witness’s testimony is not acceptable in court.", + "If both [persons] denied [knowledge] together, they are both liable. If both witnesses deny knowledge at the same time then they are both liable for false oaths. Since they both equally have caused the litigant to lose his case, they are both liable.", + "If one after another, the first is liable, and the second exempt. If one denies knowing testimony and then the second witness also denies, the first witness is liable and the second is not. Since, when the second witness was asked to testify, the only other witness had already sworn that he had no knowledge, the second person’s testimony would not have been accepted in any case. In other words, by denying knowledge he did not cause any loss to the litigant, and he is therefore not liable.", + "If one denied, and the other admitted, the one who denied is liable. If one person denies knowledge and the other person admits to knowing testimony, the first person is liable since he caused the litigant to lose his case. If he had admitted, there would have been the sufficient two to prove the case.", + "If there were two sets of witnesses, and the first denied, and then the second denied, they are both liable, because the testimony could be upheld by [either of] the two. If two sets of two witnesses deny knowledge, one after the other, both sets, meaning all four witnesses, are liable. Since the testimony could have been established by either set of witnesses, they have all caused a loss to the litigant by denying knowledge, and they are therefore, all liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the scenario in section two and the scenario in section four?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses combining several oaths into one oath or separating one oath into several oaths.", + "“I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that there are of mine in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, and a lost object”; [And they respond]: “We swear we know no testimony for you”, they are liable only once. “We swear we know not that there are of yours in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, and a lost object”, they are liable for each one. In the scenario in this section a person adjures witnesses to testify that another person has in his possession a deposit, a loan, a stolen object and a lost object that belong to him (the first person). If the witnesses swear falsely that they know no testimony, they are only obligated for having sworn one false oath of testimony. Since they made only one oath they can be obligated only once. If however, they swear four different oaths, by separately mentioning the deposit, loan, stolen object and lost object, then they are obligated for four false oaths. Since they separated their response into four details they have sworn four oaths and they are obligated for each one.", + "“I adjure you that you bear testimony for me that there is of mine in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”; [And they respond]: “We swear we know no testimony for you”, they are liable only once. “We swear we know no testimony for you that there is of yours in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”, they are liable for each one. The scenario in this section is similar to the scenario in the previous section. The only difference is that here at issue are three different kinds of grain. Again, if the witnesses combine their denial into one oath, then they are obligated only once. If they separate the oath into three different details they will be obligated for each detail.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Why does the mishnah need to teach section two after having already taught section one? Would you have been able to learn the ruling with regards to section two from having known only section one?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six defines a false oath of testimony as denying testimony that would have aided the litigant in a monetary suit.", + "All of the cases mentioned in our mishnah are cases where a person is adjuring witnesses to testify for him in a monetary suit. In mishnah seven we will learn examples of testimony in non-monetary suits. Together these two mishnayoth teach that if a person swears a false oath of testimony in a monetary suit he is liable, but if he swears a false oath of testimony in a non-monetary suit he is not liable.", + "“I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that so-and-so owes me full damages, or half damages, or double payment, or four or five payment; Half-damages are paid in cases where an animal damages in an unusual fashion, and it has not previously done so three times. Full damages are paid in all other cases. Double payment refers to a thief’s obligation to pay back double the theft. Four and five times payment is what a thief must restore if he sold or slaughtered the stolen animal.", + "Or that so-and-so raped my daughter, or seduced my daughter; One of the penalties for rape and seduction of a virgin is a fine to the father of the girl.", + "Or that my son struck me; Striking one’s parent and not causing a wound is punishable by a financial penalty, as are all cases of personal injury. In mishnah seven this will be contrasted with striking one’s parent and causing a wound, which is punishable by death.", + "Or that my neighbor injured me, or set fire to my haystack on the Day of Atonement”; [And they deny knowledge of testimony] they are liable. Injuring another person and causing a wound or burning their haystack on the Day of Atonement is punishable by kareth (excommunication) and a financial penalty. In mishnah seven we will learn that doing either of these two things on the Sabbath is punishable by death. As we shall learn there, there is a general rule in Jewish law that if a person does one action for which he is liable to pay money and to be executed he is executed and does not owe money (see Bava Kamma 8:5). However, if by one action he is liable for kareth and to pay money, he gets kareth and still has to pay the money (see Bava Kamma 8:3)." + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah seven lists cases where although the person falsely testifies, since the case did not concern money, he is not guilty of a false oath of testimony.", + "This mishnah is a contrast to mishnah six. In it a person adjures witnesses to testify in non-monetary cases, or at least in cases in which the one adjuring does not stand to gain money by the testimony.", + "\"I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that I am a priest, or, that I am a levite, or, that I am not the son of a divorced woman, or, that I am not the son of a halutzah; That so-and-so is a priest, or, that so-and-so is a levite, or, that he is not the son of a divorced woman, or, that he is not the son of a halutzah; In all of these cases the testimony is about the status of either the person who adjures the witnesses or about a third party. There is no monetary suit. The son of priest and divorcee or a priest and a halutzah (one rejected by the levir) are considered disqualified priests and they do not retain their priestly status.", + "That so-and-so violated his daughter, or seduced his daughter; A person who rapes or seduces his own daughter is liable for the death penalty and not for a fine, as is one who rapes or seduces another person's daughter.", + "That my son injured me; A child who strikes his parent and inflicts a wound is liable for the death penalty. Since he will be executed he is exempt from paying a financial penalty, and therefore this case is not a monetary suit.", + "That my neighbor injured me, or set fire to my haystack on the Sabbath\" [And they deny knowledge of testimony] they are exempt. One who injures another person on the Sabbath or burns a haystack is liable for the death penalty. Although these cases also involve financial damage, since a person cannot be obligated for death and payment for the same act, the criminal would be liable for death and not payment. This is not, therefore, a monetary suit.", + "Questions for Further Thought: Why might you have thought that these cases were monetary suits?
" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses one who gives falsely swears about money that one person promised to give to another.", + "[If a man said,] “I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that so-and-so promised to give me two hundred zuz, and did not give me”, they are exempt, for they are liable only for a money claim as [in the case of] deposit. The oath of testimony is discussed in Leviticus 5:1. Leviticus 5:21 discusses an oath a person makes to deny having received a deposit, a loan, found a lost object or a stolen an object. The similarity in the language between these two verses led the Rabbis to conclude that although not mentioned specifically in verse 5:1 it is similar to 5:21 as it also concerns things similar to deposit. Therefore, in order for the witnesses to be liable for a false oath of testimony they must deny knowledge of a case that is similar to the case of a deposit, where one person claims he deposited money with another. If the case is one of a monetary promise, such as our mishnah, the false oath does not make the witnesses liable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah continues to discuss cases that are not technically considered false oaths of testimony.", + "“I adjure you that, when you know any testimony for me, you should come and bear testimony for me,” they are exempt, because the oath preceded the testimony. This mishnah teaches that the testimony must precede the oath. A person may not in advance adjure witnesses that if they, in the future know any testimony for him, that they must come and testify. The order of the verbs in Leviticus 5:1 also points to the fact that the testimony must precede the oath." + ], + [ + "[If] he stood in the synagogue and said, “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”, they are exempt unless he directs himself to them. If the litigant stood in a public place and adjured a large, unspecified crowd of people that they should testify for him, and they all swore that they knew no testimony, the ones who did in fact know testimony are nevertheless exempt. The mishnah teaches that the litigant must specify exactly who he is adjuring. When learning this mishnah we must remember that people who witness an event have a religious duty to testify, regardless of whether the litigant adjures them or not. Our mishnah merely teaches that they have not sworn a false oath unless specifically adjured." + ], + [ + "If he said to two [persons]: “I adjure you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”: [And they replied,] “We swear we know no testimony for you”, and they did know testimony for him, [but it was evidence of] one witness from the mouth of another witness; or if one of them was a relative or [otherwise] ineligible [as a witness], they are exempt. This mishnah teaches that if the witnesses who swore that they do not know testimony did know testimony but that the testimony would not have been accepted in the court, they are exempt for having sworn falsely. The reasons that their testimony might not have been accepted are: 1) the testimony was hearsay (see Sanhedrin 4:5); 2) they were related to one of the litigants (see mishnah one of this chapter); 3) they were otherwise unfit to testify (ibid.). Since their testimony would not have been sufficient to render a verdict in any case, they are not liable for having sworn falsely." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah twelve teaches that the claimant must be the one who recites the adjuration.", + "If he sent by the hand of his servant, or if the defendant said to them: “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for him you should come and bear testimony for him”, they are exempt, until they hear [the adjuration] direct from the claimant. If the claimant (the plaintiff) sends a servant to adjure potential witnesses to testify on his or if defendant the adjures the witnesses to testify in his defense, and the witnesses swear falsely they are not liable. The claimant must be the one who adjures them directly." + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah thirteen discusses different possibilities for the language of the adjuration.", + " [If he said]: \"I adjure you\"; \"I command you\"; \"I bind you\"; they are liable. \"By heaven and earth!\", they are exempt. \"By Alef Daleth\"; \"By Yod He\"; \"By God Almighty\"; \"By The Lord of Hosts; \"By the Merciful and Gracious one\"; \"By the Long Suffering One\"; \"By the One Abounding in Kindness\"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. The first section of our mishnah establishes which words are valid as words of adjuration. If we look at Leviticus 5:1, the Biblical verse that discusses the oath of testimony, we will notice that the word “shevuah”, oath, is not used. Rather the Torah uses the word “allah” which can mean a curse but can also mean an oath. The Rabbis did not limit adjuration to the use of the word “allah” but extended it to included either a “shevuah”, or something similar. We will learn what an “allah” is in section five. This section discusses words that are similar to “shevuah” and therefore may be used in adjuration.", + "Sections 1a and 1b contain invalid and valid substitutes for God’s name. “Heaven and Earth” are not substitutes for God’s name and therefore may not be used in adjuration. Heaven and earth were created by God but they are not potential substitutes for His name. However, the letters of his name, and various substitutes used frequently in the Torah are valid. \"Aleph Dalet\" are the first two letters of Adonay, which means \"My Lord\" and is a name frequently used for God. \"Yod He\" are the first two letters of God's unpronounceable four letter name, YHWH. The rest are names for God used in the Torah or attributes of God.", + "He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. There are three different types of blasphemies mentioned in this section: blaspheming God, blaspheming one's parents and blaspheming oneself or another person. Blaspheming God or one's parents is punishable by death. We learned in Sanhedrin 7:5 that one is not liable for having blasphemed unless he uses God's name. According to Rabbi Meir, one who blasphemes using one of the aforementioned substitutes for God's name is liable for the death penalty. According to the Sages he must use God's specific name, meaning the full four letter name.", + "As an aside the mishnah mentions that blaspheming others and even blaspheming oneself violates a negative commandment. The commandment referred to is in Leviticus 19:14, \"Do not curse a deaf person\". The Rabbis reason that if it is forbidden to curse a deaf person it is also forbidden to curse any other person. The Torah means to say, \"Don't curse even a deaf person, who cannot hear.\"", + " [If he said,] \"May God smite you\"; or \"Yea, may God smite you\"; this is the curse written in the Torah. \"May [God] not smite you\"; or \"May he bless you\"; Or \"May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]\": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them]. The mishnah now explains that the \"alla\"”, the curse mentioned in Leviticus 5:1 is saying \"May God smite you [if you know testimony for me and do not testify]\". According to Rabbi Meir the \"allah\" may be phrased in the positive. Instead of saying \"May God smite you\", the claimant may say something like, \"May God be good to you if you testify for me\". According to Rabbi Meir from the positive statement you can conclude that the claimant means to say that if you do not testify may God not be good to you. According to the other Sages the \"allah\" must be stated in the negative, as a curse. Stating the adjuration in the positive does not allow one to conclude the negative.", + "Questions for Further Thought: Why don’t the Sages hold that one could phrase the \"allah\" in the positive?
" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter five discusses the oath of deposit. The scenario in which this type of oath would be taken is one where Reuven requests of Shimon to return to him something he (Reuven) left in his (Shimon’s) guard. If Shimon denies having accepted the item as a deposit and takes an oath that he did not do so, and then admits that the oath was false, he is liable. This oath is referred to in Leviticus 5:21-26. An oath of deposit need not only be on a deposit but may be on any item that one person claims from the other.\nThe first mishnah is similar to those that we have learned previously. It categorizes when and to whom this type of oath is applicable.", + "The oath of deposit applies to men and women, to non-relatives and relatives, to those qualified [to bear testimony] and those unqualified; before the court and not before the court, [if uttered] from his own mouth. And [if adjured] by the mouth of others, he is not liable unless he denies it before the court, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, whether [uttered] from his own mouth or [adjured] by the mouth of others since he denied it, he is liable. This section is similar to the mishnayoth learned at the end of chapter three and the first mishnah of chapter four, which discussed the same regulations with regards to other types of oaths. The oath of deposit applies to anyone (as did the oath of utterance and the vain oath, but not the oath of testimony). Again, there is a dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Meir with regards to whether or not the person must state the oath in front of the court in order to make it valid. According to Rabbi Meir if the person utters the oath himself, he need not do it in front of a court. If, however, he is adjured, meaning the claimant asks him “Do you swear?” and he answers “Amen”, then it must be done in front of the court. According to the Sages, whether the person utters the oath on his own, or is adjured by others, he need not do so in front of a court.", + "And he is liable for intentional transgression of the oath, and for its unintentional transgression coupled with intentional [denial of having received the] deposit, but he is not liable for unintentional transgression. And what is he liable for the intentional transgression of the oath? A guilt offering of [the value of] two shekels of silver. A person is liable whether he intentionally swears a false oath or even unintentionally swears a false oath, meaning he didn’t know that one who swears falsely is liable to bring a sacrifice, but did know that he had the object being claimed. If he didn’t know that he had the object and then swore falsely, he is not liable. If he has intentionally violated either of these (the oath or the knowledge of the deposit) he must bring a guilt offering which is worth at least two shekels. This is the amount mentioned in Leviticus 5:15.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Compare this mishnah with the first two mishnayoth of chapter four. What are the differences and why are they different?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah explains how an oath of deposit works.", + "This mishnah is almost exactly the same as the chapter four, mishnah three. It may help to look back there as well.", + "The oath of deposit how? If he said to him: “Give me my deposit which I have in your possession” [and the other replied:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession”; or he replied to him; “You have nothing in my possession,” [and the depositor said:] “I adjure you”, and he responded, “Amen!”, he is liable. An oath of deposit may either be done by the claimant asking the other person to return the object and the other person swearing that it is not in his possession, or by the claimant adjuring the other person and the other person answering “Amen”. In either case, if the other person falsely denied having the object he will be liable.", + "If he adjured him five times, whether before the court or not before the court, and he denied, he is liable for each one. Rabbi Shimon said: “What is the reason? Because he can retract and admit.” If the claimant adjured the other person five times and he falsely denied it five times, he will be obligated for five sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon explains that since he could legally change his mind and admit at any point that the object was in his possession, each subsequent oath is in fact effective and is treated as a new oath. This differs from an oath of testimony mentioned in 4:3, where if the witnesses denied knowledge in front of the court five times, they will be obligated only once, since they cannot change their mind after having already testified.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Does the last section of this mishnah go according to Rabbi Meir or the Sages (see mishnah one)? How so?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah distinguishes between cases where a person has taken one oath of deposit and cases where a person has taken more than one oath of deposit. Similar mishnayoth were taught in 4:5, and 3:2-3 with regards to the other types of oaths.", + "If five claimed from him, and said to him: “Give us the deposit that we have in your possession,” [and he replied:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession,” he is liable only once. [If he said:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession, nor you, nor you,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ at the end.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ to each one.” In this scenario five people at the same time claim from one person an object that they say is in his possession. If he takes one oath denying that he has the object, he will be liable for one sacrifice, if the oath was false. There are three different opinions as to how he can make his statement into five different oaths and thereby be liable for each one. According to the first opinion each time he repeats “you” he is swearing a new oath, and will therefore be liable for another sacrifice. According to Rabbi Eliezer, in order to make all of the subsequent “you”s into new oaths, he must repeat the word “oath” at the end of the statement. If he does not it still counts as one oath. According to Rabbi Shimon he must repeat the word, “I swear” to each individual who makes a claim against him. If he does not it will count as one oath.", + "“Give me the deposit, loan, theft, and lost object that I have in your possession,” [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession a deposit, a loan, a theft, and a lost object,” he is liable for each one. In this scenario a person claims four different categories of things from another person. These four are patterned after the language of the Leviticus 5:21. If the person responds with one oath of denial without specifying what he is denying, he will be liable for only one sacrifice. If he mentions all four things which he is denying, he will be obligated for four sacrifices.", + "“Give me the wheat, barley, and spelt that I have in your possession”, [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession wheat, barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Meir said: “Even if he said, ‘... A grain of wheat, barley and spelt,’ he is liable for each one. This same rule applies if the claimant claims different types of the same item. Again, if he mentions each type individually, he is liable for multiple sacrifices. If he groups them together in one general statement, then he is liable for only one sacrifice. Rabbi Meir adds that even if he slightly changes the language of the claim, from plural to singular, he is still liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah need to teach section three after having taught section two? In other words, why would you have thought that the case of wheat, barley and spelt was different from the case of deposit, loan, theft and lost object?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final two mishnayoth of chapter five teach that in order for one who makes a false oath of deposit to be liable to bring a sacrifice he must deny something to which if he had admitted he would have been liable. Since he is not liable to pay a fine for a self-admission, he is not liable if he denies owing a fine. He is liable only if he denies owing something which is considered financial compensation. Mishnah four deals with a case of rape or seduction.", + "“You raped or seduced my daughter” and the other says, “I did not rape, nor seduce,” “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him, for he does not pay a fine on his own admission. They said to him: “Even though he does not pay a fine on his own admission, he still pays for the shame and blemish [to the girl], based on his own admission. According to the Exodus 22:15-16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if a man rapes or seduces a virgin, he must pay her father a fine of 50 shekels. The Rabbis added that besides the fine, he also has to pay other which penalties incumbent upon anyone who injures another person (see Bava Kamma, chapter eight). He must pay for having embarrassed her, and he must pay for having injured her, thereby decreasing her value. (We will learn the details of these laws in the third chapter of tractate Kethuboth.) In the scenario in our mishnah a man approaches another man and accuses him of having raped or seduced his daughter and therefore owing him the 50 shekels, plus the other penalties. The person responds that he didn’t do so, and then when the claimant adjures him, he affirms the adjuration. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, when he admits that he did in fact rape or seduce the other man’s daughter, he will be liable for a sacrifice for his false oath. Of course he will also be obligated to pay the fine and the other financial penalties. Rabbi Shimon disagrees. Since there is a rule in Jewish law, that one who admits to a crime does not have to pay the fine for having done so, even if this person had admitted to having raped or seduced the daughter, he would not have been obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, there was no denial of money, and the laws of the oath of deposit do not apply. The Sages respond to Rabbi Shimon that although one who admits to a crime does not have to pay a fine, he does have to pay compensatory damages, which in this case include the payment for embarrassment and the payment for having decreased her value. Since if he had admitted he would have had to pay, he did deny money, and is therefore liable for having sworn a false oath of deposit." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with a principle similar to that which we learned yesterday, namely that a person is only liable for an oath of testimony if had he admitted to doing what he swore he did not do he would have been liable to pay money.", + "The examples in the first six sections of this mishnah illustrate the rule that is stated at the end. If a person denies a claim, to which if they had admitted they would have had to pay money to the claimant, they have caused the claimant to lose money and are liable to bring a sacrifice. If the person denies a claim, to which even if they had admitted they would not have been liable to pay money to the claimant, they have not caused the claimant to lose money, and they are therefore not liable for a sacrifice. The other relevant rule for our mishnah is the one mentioned in the previous mishnah, that one is not obligated to pay a fine based on his own admission, but he is obligated to make financial compensation based on his own admission. The general difference between a fine and financial compensation is that a fine is a fixed amount whereas financial compensation is based on the actual damages.", + "“You stole my ox,” and he says, “I have not stolen it” “I adjure You,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. In this case a person denies having stolen the object. If he had admitted to stealing he would have had to pay the value of the object to the owner, plus an additional one times the value of the object. Paying back the value of the stolen object itself is considered financial compensation. Since he would have been obligated to pay if he had admitted, he is liable for a sacrifice for having lied.", + "“I have stolen it, but I have not killed it or sold it”, “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is exempt. If the thief slaughters or sells the stolen animal he is liable to pay four (for a sheep) or five (for an ox) times the value of the stolen animal. In this case the person admitted to stealing the animal but denied having sold or slaughtered it. This extra payment, beyond the value of the animal, is considered a fine. Since he would not have been obligated to pay even if he had admitted, he is not liable for a sacrifice for having lied.", + "“Your ox killed my ox,” and he says, “It did not kill [your ox]”, “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. When one’s ox kills another’s ox, the owner of the ox that killed must financially compensate the owner of the dead ox. Since he would have been obligated to pay if he had admitted, he is liable for a sacrifice for having lied.", + "“Your ox killed my slave,” and he says, “It did not kill [your slave]”, “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is exempt. When one person’s ox kills another person’s slave, the owner of the ox must pay the owner of the slave 30 shekels. This is a fixed amount and is therefore considered a fine. Since he would not have been obligated to pay even if he had admitted, he is not liable for a sacrifice for having lied.", + "He said to him, “You injured me, or bruised me,” and the other says, “I have not injured you or bruised you,” “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. When one injures another person he is liable to make different types of financial compensation. Since he would have been obligated to pay if he had admitted, he is liable for a sacrifice for having lied.", + "His slave said to him, “You knocked out my tooth, or blinded my eye,” and he said, “I did not knock out [your tooth], or blind [your eye],’ “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is exempt. If a slave owner knocks out the tooth or puts out the eye of his slave he must set the slave free. This is not a monetary claim but rather is considered to be a fine. Since he would not have been obligated to set the slave free had he admitted to putting out his tooth or eye, he is not liable for a sacrifice for having lied." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous three chapters the mishnah discussed oaths which a person takes on his own. Our chapter begins to discuss oaths which are imposed by a court. There are several different types of oaths that may be imposed by a court. The first type of oath, the one described in our chapter, is sworn in a case where a person admits to owing part of a claim but denies the other part of the claim. We will learn the particulars of this oath as we proceed. For the sake of clarity, when explaining these mishnayoth we will use the name Reuven as the claimant, and Shimon as the defendant.", + "The oath of the judges [is imposed when] the claim is [at least] two silver coins, and the admission the equivalent of a perutah. And if the admission is not of the same kind as the claim, he is exempt. How is this so? This section introduces two general rules for the “oath of judges” described in our mishnah. The case is where Reuven tells Shimon that he owes him money and Shimon denies owing the full amount. Our mishnah teaches that if Shimon denies owing Reuven at least 2 ma’ah (a small, silver coin) and admits to owing at least a perutah (a small, not valuable, copper coin) he will be obligated to swear an oath that he does not owe the rest. Furthermore, he only has to swear an oath if that which he admits owing is the same kind as that which he denies. For instance if Reuven claims that Shimon owes him 50 barrels of oil and Shimon responds that he owes 50 barrels of wine, Shimon need not swear. The mishnah will explicate this ruling in mishnah three.", + "“Two silver ma’ahs of mine are in your possession,” [and the other replies], “I have nothing of yours in my possession except a perutah,” he is exempt. “Two silver ma’ahs of mine and a perutah are in your possession,” [and the other replies,] “I have nothing of yours in my possession except a perutah,” he is liable. The remainder of the mishnah explains the first rule, that the denial must be of two ma’ahs and the admission one perutah. If Reuven claims two ma’ahs and Shimon admits to one perutah, Shimon is not obligated for he denied only two ma’ahs less a perutah, which is less than the minimum two ma’ahs required. He will be obligated to swear if Reuven claims two ma’ahs and a perutah and Shimon admits to owing a perutah, for in this case Shimon did deny a full two ma’ahs.", + "“A hundred denarii of mine are in your possession”, [and the other replies], “I have nothing of yours,” he is exempt. “A hundred denarii of mine are in your possession”, [and the other replies], “I have of yours only fifty denarii,” he is liable. If Shimon completely denies owing Reuven money he is exempt from taking an oath. If, however, he admits to part of the claim, he must take an oath. This law requires some explanation for it may seem counterintuitive. The reasoning is thus: people are generally not so brazen as to completely deny something that is true. If Reuven claims money from Shimon and Shimon really does owe money he will not be so brash as to deny the debt completely. Therefore if he does deny the debt, he is believed without having to take an oath. People are however brazen enough to deny parts of debts. Shimon may reason to himself that he will deny owing Reuven part of the debt now and then when he gets the chance he will repay the whole debt. Since we assume that people might lie in such occasions, he must take an oath so that we can more safely assume that he is telling the truth.", + "“You have of my father’s a hundred denarii”, [and the other replies], “I have of his only fifty denarii”, he is exempt, because it is as if he restores a lost object. If Reuven claims that Shimon’s father owes him money and Shimon admits to part of the claim, he need not take an oath on the rest. Since this was not a claim against Shimon but against Shimon’s father, Shimon could have been brazen enough to deny the entire claim. Since he admitted to part of it, we trust him without making him take an oath.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is this compared to returning a lost object?" + ], + [ + "“You have of mine a hundred denarii”, he said to him, “Yes.” The next day he said to him, “Give them to me”, [and he replied,] “I have given them to you,” he is exempt. [If he says,] “Nothing of yours is in my possession,” he is liable. In the first scenario, Shimon admits one day to owing Reuven a hundred denarii (a coin). When the next day Reuven claims them, Shimon counterclaims that he has already paid him back. In such a case Shimon is exempt since Reuven cannot prove that Shimon did not pay him back. If, however, Shimon changes his claim from the previous day, and now denies owing Reuven money, he is liable to pay. After having admitted to owing money on one day, he may not change his mind the next.", + "“You have of mine a hundred denarii”, he said to him, “Yes”. [And then he said], “Do not give them to me except before witnesses.” The next day he said to him, “Give them to me;” [and he replied,] “I have given them to you,” he is liable, because he should have given them to him before witnesses. If, when Shimon admits to owing money, Reuven tells him that he wants the money returned only in front of witnesses, and then the next day Shimon claims that he paid back the money, Shimon is not believed. Since Reuven specified that he wanted the money returned in front of witnesses, the burden is now on Shimon to prove that he did pay him back. Without witnesses he will not be able to do so.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah one, section four: Why is this compared to returning a lost object?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah explains the second rule mentioned in mishnah one: the denial and the claim must be of the same “kind”. Our mishnah discusses what does “kind” mean, so that we will know when the person who admits to part of the claim must take an oath.", + "“You have of mine a litra of gold”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a litra of silver,” he is exempt. “You have of mine a golden denar”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a silver denar, or a tresis, or a pundion, or a perutah”, he is liable, for all are one kind of coinage. A litra is a measure of volume (liter in English). If Reuven claims from Shimon a litra of gold and Shimon admits to owing a litra of silver he need not swear since gold and silver are two different kinds. However, if Reuven claims gold money, and Shimon admits to owing silver money of any coinage, he is liable to swear since all money is of the same kind.", + "“You have of mine a kor of grain”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans”, he is exempt. “You have of mine a kor of produce”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans,” he is liable, for beans are included in produce. If Reuven claims from Shimon a kor (a unit of weight) of grain and Shimon admits to owing a kor of beans, he need not swear that he does not owe the difference (grain is worth more than beans) since grain and beans are two different “kinds”. If Reuven claims a kor of produce and Shimon admits to beans, then he is liable to swear that he does not owe the difference, because beans are a form of produce.", + "If he claimed from him wheat, and the other admitted barley, he is exempt. But Rabban Gamaliel makes him liable. If Reuven claims wheat and Shimon admits to barley the first opinion in our mishnah considers these different kinds and therefore Shimon need not swear that he doesn’t owe the difference. Rabban Gamaliel does think that Shimon needs to swear.", + "If he claims from his neighbor jars of oil, and he admits [his claim to the empty] jars, Admon says, since he admits to him a portion of the same kind as the claim, he must swear. But the sages say, the admission is not of the same kind as the claim. Rabban Gamaliel said, “I approve the words of admon. In this scenario Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him jars of oil. Shimon admitted that he owed Reuven jars but denied that he owed the oil. According to Admon, an early Sage, this is considered a partial admission to the claim: Reuven claimed jars and oil and Shimon admitted only to the jars but denied the oil. Therefore Shimon must swear that he doesn’t owe the oil. The other Sages who disagree with Admon say that Reuven really only claimed oil. The fact that Reuven said “jars of oil” was in order to express the amount of oil that he was claiming from Shimon. Since the claim and the admission were of different kinds, Shimon does not swear. Rabban Gamaliel says that he agrees with Admon.", + "If he claims from him vessels and lands, and he admits the vessels, but denies the lands; or admits the lands, but denies the vessels, he is exempt. If he admits a portion of the lands, he is exempt; a portion of the vessels, he is liable because properties for which there is no security bind properties for which there is security to take an oath for them. If Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him land and vessels and Shimon admitted to owing the land and not the vessels or the vessels and not the land, Shimon is exempt from swearing. This mishnah teaches that oaths are not taken on land (we will learn this again in mishnah five). Therefore, even if he admits that he owes land, he need not swear with regards to the vessels which he denies. If Shimon admitted owing part of the land, he is still not liable to swear, for the same reason mentioned above. If, however, he admitted to owing some of the vessels, then he must swear with regards to both the other vessels that he denies owing as well as the land that he denies. He must swear with regards to the vessels because he admitted to owing part and he denied owing part. He must also swear with regards to the land because property for which there is no security (meaning property that cannot be used as a lien, namely movable property) can force one to swear on property for which there is security (land and slaves). This means that once someone is liable to swear to another person with regards to movable property the other person can force him to swear about land as well, even though in general one doesn’t swear about land.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: How do you know that this mishnah assumes that grain is more valuable than beans?
• Section four: Upon what basis might Rabban Gamaliel disagree with the first opinion?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah four we will learn cases where an oath is not taken because of the status of the claimant or defendant.", + "No oath is imposed in a claim by a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor. If a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor make a claim against another person, that person does not have to swear an oath. Since the mishnah considers these people to be lacking intelligence, their claims are not trustworthy enough to impose an oath upon others. [When we learned Bava Kamma 4:4 I discussed the mishnah’s attitude towards deaf-mutes, and how Jewish law has changed now that sign language has been developed.]", + "And no oath is imposed on a minor. A minor is never asked to take an oath, since he cannot understand the consequences of falsely swearing.", + "But an oath is imposed when a claim is lodged against a minor, or against the Temple’s property. One who comes to collect a debt that a minor’s deceased father owed him, may take an oath that he is owed the money. This is not considered a case of the minor being a defendant, but in reality the deceased’s estate is the defendant. If Reuven owes Shimon money and then Reuven dedicates all his property to the Temple, Reuven may take an oath and collect from the property that had been dedicated to the Temple." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses cases where no oath is imposed because of the nature of the object in dispute.", + "And these are the things for which no oath is imposed: slaves, bonds, lands, and dedicated objects. [The law of] paying double, or four or five times the value, does not apply to them. An unpaid guardian does not take an oath, and a paid guardian does not pay. Rabbi Shimon says: “For dedicated objects for which he is responsible an oath is imposed and for [dedicated objects] for which he is not responsible an oath is not imposed. A person does not have to take an oath over any of the objects that are listed in this section. This means that if Reuven claims that Shimon owes him slaves, bonds or land, and Shimon admits to part of the claim, he need not swear over the rest. The laws of paying double, or four of five times the value also do not apply to these things. These are the penalties for one who steals, or one who steals and then sells or slaughters that which he stole. If Reuven steals a bond from Shimon and then sells it, Reuven is only obligated to restore the value of the slave, but not the double payment. If Reuven steals a sheep that had been dedicated to the Temple, and then sells the sheep, he is not liable to pay back to the Temple four times the value of the sheep. The laws of guardianship also do not apply to these things. If an unpaid guardian is watching a slave, and the slave runs away, the unpaid guardian need not swear that he was not negligent. A paid guardian does not have to pay if, while watching one of these objects, it is stolen or lost. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between dedicated objects for which a person is responsible and those for which he is not responsible. If a person says, “I dedicate this sheep to the Temple” and the sheep dies, he is not responsible to replace the sheep. Since this sheep is already considered Temple property, it is not subject to the laws of oaths and guardianship. If a person says, “I dedicate a sheep to the Temple” and he sets aside a sheep to bring to the Temple, and the sheep dies, he must replace the sheep with another sheep. Since the first sheep is still under his responsibility, and is therefore still his sheep, it is subject to the laws of oaths and guardianship." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to discuss land, which as we learned in the previous section, is not subject to the laws of oaths. Finally, in the last section of the mishnah, after several mishnayoth in which we learned when oaths are not taken, the mishnah states when oaths are taken.", + "Rabbi Meir says: “There are things which are [attached] to land, but are not like land.” But the sages do not agree with him. How so? [If one says,] “Ten vines laden with fruit I delivered to you” and the other says, “There were only five”; Rabbi Meir makes him take an oath; But the Sages say: “All that is attached to land is like land.” After we stated in the previous mishnah that oaths are not imposed on claims of land, our mishnah discusses the status of things attached to the land, such as grapevines. According to Rabbi Meir grapevines are like land, and if a person admits to owing part of a claim of grapevines, he is exempt from swearing. The Sages say that grapevines are independent of land, and therefore one swears on them.", + "An oath is imposed only for a thing [defined] by size, weight, or number. How so? [If one says,] “A store room full [of produce] I delivered to you,” or “A purse full [of money] I delivered to you” – and the other says, “I do not know; but what you left you may take,” he is exempt. If one says, “[I gave you produce reaching] up to the moulding [above the window],” and the other says, “Only up to the window,” he is liable. In order for an oath to be imposed in defense of a claim, what was claimed and what was admitted must be measurable, by size, weight or number. In the first scenario in our mishnah, Shimon responds to Reuven that he doesn’t know how much Reuven gave him, but that Reuven can take whatever is left. Shimon’s admission was not phrased as a measurable amount. Therefore he does not have to take an oath regarding that which he denied. The second scenario is a case where the claim and admission were measurable amounts. Reuven claims that the house full of produce that he left for Shimon was full up to the top moulding over the window. Shimon admits that the store room was full only up to the window. Although it may seem that this is not a claim nor an admission of a measurable amount, the mishnah rules that it is, and Shimon must swear to Reuven." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter six discusses a dispute between two people over the value of a pledge taken to secure a loan. We will learn that if the defendant admits to owing part of the claim then he must swear that he does not owe the rest.", + "In the scenario in both sections of our mishnah Reuven lent Shimon money and took from Shimon a pledge, which would generally be returned upon payment of the loan. Reuven subsequently loses the pledge. Shimon now owes Reuven the amount of the loan and Reuven owes Shimon the value of the pledge. Our mishnah will teach that if one side denies part of the claim must an oath be taken. If the entire claim is denied there will be no oath. There are three coins mentioned in our mishnah. There relative values are: 1 sela = two shekels = 4 denar.", + "If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. Reuven tells Shimon that the loan was a sela and the pledge was worth a shekel. He is in essence claiming from Shimon a shekel. Shimon responds that the pledge was worth a full sela, and he therefore does not owe Reuven anything. Since he denies the entire claim, there is no oath. If Shimon were to say that the pledge was worth three denarii (¾ of a sela), then he has admitted to owing Reuven one denar and denied owing him another denar. In such a case an oath must be taken. [At the end of the mishnah we will learn who swears.]", + "“You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. Shimon tells Reuven that the pledge was worth two selas and the loan was only one sela. Reuven responds that the pledge was worth only one sela. Since he has denied the entire claim, he need not take an oath. If Reuven were to respond that the pledge was worth five denarii, he has admitted that he owes Shimon one denar. Since he has admitted part of the claim, he must swear that he doesn’t owe the rest.", + "And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit. This section asks who takes the oath. We would have expected that in the first section Shimon would swear, since he is the one who admitted part of the claim that Reuven made against him, and that in section two Reuven would swear, since he was the one who admitted part of the claim that Shimon made against him. However, the mishnah teaches that the one who had the deposit, in our case Reuven, is always the one who has to swear. The simple reading of this mishnah is that Reuven will swear and then take from Shimon the money that he claims. This is an exception to the general rule that people swear to exempt themselves from paying, but not to allow themselves to take money from others. The reason that this case is exceptional and that the one who holds the pledge must swear is that we are concerned lest Shimon, who does not have the pledge, would swear and then Reuven would take out the pledge. If Shimon’s claim to the value of the pledge would turn out to be wrong, his oath will have been a false oath. The Rabbis tried to prevent situations where people might swear falsely, and therefore, in this case, they allowed the claimant, as opposed to the defendant, swear. We should note that the Talmud explains the mishnah differently, and there are some difficulties in understanding this last clause.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why aren’t the Rabbis as concerned in a normal case of a monetary dispute, lest the defendant swear falsely? What makes this case different from the others?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first six mishnayoth of our chapter discuss the exceptional cases in which a person takes an oath and thereby collects money from another person. All of the cases that we have seen in the mishnah until now have been examples of people who take oaths and are thereby exempt from paying.", + "All whom the Torah obligates to take an oath, take an oath, and do not pay. But these take an oath, and receive [payment]: the hired laborer, he who has been robbed, he who has been wounded, and he whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath, and the shopkeeper with his account book. Under most circumstances the one who takes an oath is the defendant or the one who would potentially owe money. Usually he swears and is thereby believed and does not have to pay the claimant. However, there are five cases in which a claimant takes an oath and thereby collects. This section briefly lists these five cases. The mishnah through mishnah six will explain these cases one at a time.", + "“The hired laborer” How so? [If] he says to him [his employer], “Give me my wages which you owe me,” and he replies, “I have given,” and the other says, “I have not received it,” he [the laborer] takes an oath and collects his wages. Rabbi Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? If he says to him, “Give me my wages, fifty denarii, which you owe me,” and the other says, “You have received a gold denar (25 silver.” The first person who takes an oath and is thereby able to collect a debt is a hired laborer. If a hired laborer claims his wages and his employer claims to have already paid him, the laborer may take an oath and collect his wages. The Talmud explains that since employers have many employees, they may tend to forget whom they have paid and whom they have not. It is not unlikely that they have indeed forgotten to pay their employees. Therefore, the hired laborer is allowed to swear that he has not been paid, and thereby collect his wages. According to Rabbi Judah, the hired laborer is allowed to collect by swearing only if the employer admitted to owing him part of his wages. In the scenario that he presents, the employer admitted to owing him 25 denarii but denied owing him an additional 25 denarii. The laborer may swear that the employer owes him 25 and collect. If the employer had denied the entire debt the employee would not be able to take an oath and collect.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Rabbi Judah believe there needs to be a partial admission in order for the claimant to swear and then collect?" + ], + [ + "“He who has been robbed” How so?
If they testified of a man that he entered into another’s house to take a pledge without permission, and the other says, “You have taken my vessels, and he says, “I have not taken them,” he takes an oath, and takes back his vessels.
Rabbi Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? He said to him, “You have taken two vessels,” and the other says, “I have taken only one.”
This mishnah discusses the oath taken by one who has been robbed. Through this oath the one who was robbed can recover his money from the robber.
The second type of person who is allowed to swear and collect is one who has been robbed. In the scenario presented in the mishnah Reuven enters Shimon’s home to take Shimon’s property as a pledge against Shimon’s debt to Reuven, but Reuven did not have permission, neither from Shimon nor from the court, to do so. Shimon claims that Reuven took his vessels when intruding into the house. If Reuven denies having done so, Shimon may swear and take from Reuven the value of the vessels that he has claimed. The reason that Shimon is allowed to swear and thereby collect is that Reuven is punished for having illegally entered Shimon’s house. Since he already broke the law, we do not trust him to deny having further broken the law.
According to Rabbi Judah, he is allowed to swear and collect only if Reuven denies part of the claim and admits to the other part. If Reuven denies the entire claim, Shimon cannot swear and thereby collect." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the oath taken by one who has been wounded. Through this oath he can collect money from the one who wounded him.", + "“He who has been wounded,” How so? If they testified about a person that another went onto his property whole, and came out wounded, and he said to him, “You have wounded me,” and the other said, “I have not wounded you,” he takes an oath, and receives [damages]. R. Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? He said to him, you have inflicted on me two wounds,” and the other said, “I inflicted on you only one wound.” This mishnah discusses the third example of one who swears and thereby collects: a person who has been wounded. In this scenario witnesses testify that Shimon entered Reuven’s property without having been previously injured and that he came out wounded. Shimon claims that Reuven injured him and Reuven denies having done so. Since it is highly likely that Shimon is telling the truth and that Reuven did indeed injure Shimon, Shimon may take an oath and collect damages. Rabbi Judah states that Shimon may collect only if Reuven admits to part of the claim. For instance if Shimon claims that Reuven injured him twice and Reuven admits to having done so only once, then Shimon may swear and collect. This opinion of Rabbi Judah is consistent with his opinion in the two previous mishnayoth.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would be the law if there were no witnesses who testified that Shimon went onto Reuven’s property? Would Shimon still be able to collect?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses an oath taken by one person in order to collect from another person who is not allowed to take an oath because he is suspected of taking false oaths.", + "“He whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath,” How so? Whether it be the oath of testimony, or the oath of deposit, or even a vain oath. The fourth category of person who swears and thereby collects is one whose opponent is suspected of taking false oaths. The mishnah explains that this is true no matter what type of false oath he took, even a vain oath.", + "If one [of the litigants] was a dice-player, or usurer, or pigeon-flyer, or dealer in the produce of the seventh year, his opponent takes the oath and collects [his claim]. The mishnah now expands the list of those who are suspected of taking false oaths. This category includes all those who are forbidden from testifying (see Sanhedrin 3:3). Since these people are gamblers or otherwise do not respect the normal societal rules for money, they are not trusted when another claims a debt from them.", + "If both are suspect, the oath returns to its place, these are the words of Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Meir says: “They divide [the claim].” If both sides are not trustworthy, Rabbi Yose says that the normal rules return to their place. This means that the defendant, the one who had a claim made against him, takes an oath and is thereby exempt from paying money. Rabbi Meir disagrees. If both are suspected of taking false oaths, the court cannot allow either of them to swear. This would be in essence encouraging people to take false oaths. Rather they split the claim, meaning that the defendant will have to pay half the claim.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah say “even a vain oath”? Why might you have thought that if he took a vain oath he would still be trustworthy with regards to other oaths? Why is he not trustworthy with other oaths after having taken a vain oath?
• Why doesn’t Rabbi Judah disagree on this mishnah, as he has on the three previous mishnayoth in our chapter?" + ], + [ + "“And the shopkeeper with his account book,” How so? Not that he [the shopkeeper] says to him [the customer], “It is written in my account book that you owe me two hundred zuz”. Rather he [the customer] says to him [the shopkeeper], “Give my son two seahs of wheat,” or, “Give my laborer small change to the value of a sela” and then he says, “I have given,” and they say, “We have not received”; he [the shopkeeper] takes an oath, and receives [his due from the customer]. And they take an oath, and receive [their due].
Ben Nanas said: “How can both be permitted to come to a vain oath? Rather he takes without an oath, and they take without an oath.”
The mishnah which we will learn today discusses the fifth type of person who swears and collects: the shopkeeper with his account book.
This mishnah explains the fifth category of person who swears and thereby collects: the shopkeeper with his account book. The mishnah first explains that this is not a case where a shopkeeper claims that it is written in his book that so-and-so owes him money. In such a case the shopkeeper would not be able to swear and thereby collect from his customer. In that case the customer would be able to deny the debt without even having to take an oath.
Rather the mishnah describes a case where a customer requested that a shopkeeper give his son 2 seah of wheat or his worker coins the value of two sela. The customer promises to pay the shopkeeper back later on. We can see from here that in the time of the Mishnah shopkeepers, who usually had cash and produce on hand, functioned somewhat like a bank. Later on, the shopkeeper claims that he has paid the son or the workers. The son or the workers respond that they have not been paid. In other words, both sides are claiming that the customer/employer owes them money. According to the first opinion in our mishnah the shopkeeper can swear and collect from the customer. He is allowed to do so because he did not have any direct dealings with the son or the workers, direct dealings which would have implied that he trusts them to take an oath that they had not collected. There is no true business relationship between the son or workers and the shopkeeper. Rather there is a relationship only between the customer and the shopkeeper, and the customer and his son or workers.
The workers also may swear and thereby collect their wages from their employer. Since they have no business relationship with the shopkeeper, they need not trust him to swear that he did pay them. They may then swear and collect from their employer as all wage earners do (see mishnah one).
Ben Nanas points out a problem in this situation: if the shopkeeper swears that he did give the wheat or money and the son or employees swear that they didn’t receive, one of them is definitely swearing falsely. By the court mandating that both sides swear, the court is actually encouraging God’s name to be disgraced by a false oath. Rather, Ben Nanas rules that both sides collect without taking an oath." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to discuss the oath of the shopkeeper.", + "If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” Reuven asks Shimon the shopkeeper to sell him a denar’s worth of fruit, and Shimon gives him the fruit. When Shimon claims the denar from Reuven, Reuven responds that he has already paid him, and that Shimon put it in into the till. The mishnah rules that Reuven may swear that he gave Shimon the denar and be exempt from paying. Since Shimon cannot prove that he did not receive the denar, he cannot recover the alleged debt. In the second scenario in this section, Reuven gives the denar before getting the fruit. When Reuven claims the fruit, Shimon responds that he has already paid him and that Reuven put the fruit into his house. In this case Shimon is allowed to swear that he has already paid, for the same reason that Reuven was allowed to swear in the first case. Rabbi Judah says that whoever holds the fruit has the advantage. According to Rashi, Rabbi Judah disagrees with the ruling in section one. Since the customer already has possession of the fruit he is believed when he says that he gave the denar without taking an oath. Even though it is not unusual for shopkeepers to give their produce on credit, Rabbi Judah still believes the customer who claims to have paid since he has possession of the goods.", + "If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.” This section is basically the same as the previous one, accept that it discusses a money-changer and not a shopkeeper. Rabbi Judah’s opinion differs slightly, at least in the way he phrases it. Rabbi Judah again disagrees with the first part of the section (according to Rashi). When the customer has already received the change and the money-changer claims that he has not received the denar, the customer is believed to have given the denar even without taking an oath. Since money-changers generally do not give coins without having received other coins, we can assume that the other person did indeed give the coin.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How are the two scenarios in the two halves of this mishnah different?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven teaches two more categories of people who swear and thereby collect.", + "So too they have said that she who impairs her kethubah [by admitting that it had already been partially paid] cannot receive [the remainder of the] payment except on oath; And that if one witness testifies against her that it [the kethubah] has been paid [in full], she cannot receive payment except on oath; And that from assigned property or orphans’ property she cannot exact payment [for her kethubah] except on oath; And that if she claims [her kethubah] not in his presence, she cannot receive payment except on oath. The previous six mishnayoth listed five cases where a person could swear and collect from others. Our mishnah lists two other such cases. There is however a difference between the cases listed here and those listed above. In those above, the innovation of the mishnah was that the person might take an oath and thereby collect. Without the mishnah we would have thought that the person could not have collected at all, since they could not prove their claim. In the cases in our mishnah, the mishnah is teaching that they must swear before they collect. Without the mishnah we would have thought that they could have collected without an oath, for as we shall see, these people can indeed prove their claims. The first section discusses women collecting their “kethubah” or marriage document, which has written in it an amount of money paid to the woman upon death or divorce. In normal circumstances the woman could collect without taking an oath, since she holds the actual document. However, there are several circumstances where in order to collect, she must take an oath: 1) a woman who has already received part of the kethubah money; 2) if one person testifies that she has already received her kethubah (two witnesses are needed for the husband to prove that she has already collected); 3) if she collects from property that the husband had already given to others (the kethubah creates a lien on all of the husband’s property) or from the husband’s children; 4) if she collects while not in front of him. In all of these cases, the woman must swear that she has not received her kethubah before she can collect from the husband or from his estate.", + "So, too, orphans cannot receive payment except on oath [namely]: “We swear that our father did not enjoin in his will, neither did our father say unto us, nor did we find [written] among the documents of our father that this document is paid.” Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: “Even if the son was born after his father’s death he may take an oath, and collect his claim.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “If there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death that this document was not paid, he receives [his claim] without an oath.” Similarly, if orphans find amongst their fathers documents a bill that says that others owe him money they must swear that their father did not tell them, either verbally, in a will or in a separate document, that the bill had already collected. If they take this oath they may then collect the debt. According to Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka, even if the son was born after the father’s death, and therefore cannot swear that his father did not tell him that the bill had already been paid, he may still swear that he did not find amongst his father’s other documents a note stating that the debt had already been paid. After taking this oath the son may collect the debt. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel if there are witnesses who say that at the time of death the father said to them that the bill was not paid, the father’s heirs may collect the debt without taking an oath." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight teaches five types of defendants who must take oaths even though the claimant’s claim is not certain.", + "And these take an oath though there is no [definite] claim: partners, tenants, guardians, the wife who transacts the affairs in the house, and the son of the house. Generally, a person has to swear that he doesn’t owe the claimant, only if the claimant had professed to be certain that he was owed money. If the claimant is not himself certain, the defendant need not swear. Our mishnah lists several exceptions to this rule. 1. If one partner suspects another partner of not equally sharing the business costs or profits, he may impose upon him an oath. 2. If a landowner suspects that a sharecropper did not honestly report the amount of crops harvested, he may impose upon him an oath. 3. If a person suspects that someone who had been appointed as a guardian over his property, had withheld some of the property for himself, he may impose upon him an oath. 4. If a husband leaves his household and finances in the care of his wife, he may make her take an oath that she did not take any of his property. 5. Similarly, if one brother administers an inheritance, the other brothers impose upon him an oath that he did not take any of the property for himself.", + "[If] he said to him, “What do you claim of me?”, [and the other replied,] “I want you to swear to me”, he must take an oath. In all of these circumstances the claimant may request that the defendant swear that he didn’t take any of the property, without the claimant having to express a definite claim.", + "If the partners or tenants had divided, he cannot impose an oath upon them. Once partners have already split up their partnership, one partner may not force another partner to swear that he didn’t take a part that didn’t belong to him while the partnership still existed.", + "If an oath was imposed upon him in another case, they impose upon him the whole. If a person already must take an oath to another person that he does not owe him something, the claimant may make him swear another oath, that under normal circumstances he would not have the power to impose.", + "And the seventh year cancels the oath. The Sabbatical year cancels all debts. If Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him money, and Shimon admitted to owing part of the money and denied owing the rest, and then the Sabbatical year arrived, Shimon does not need to swear that he doesn’t owe the rest. Since the Sabbatical year cancels the debt, it also erases the need to swear with regards to the debt.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah rule that in these circumstances a person make another person take an oath without having a definite claim? Why under normal circumstances must there be a definite claim for an oath to be imposed?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah in this chapter was taught in its entirety in Bava Metziah 7:8. It is repeated here as an opening to the rest of the chapter which discusses when a guardian is liable to bring a sacrifice for having sworn a false oath. There are certain types of guardians who under circumstances if not able to return the object under their guard may take an oath and thereby exempt themselves from having to pay back the owner. Our chapter will teach that they are liable to bring a sacrifice only if they take an oath that exempted them from paying back the owner. The type of oath described here is an “oath of deposit”, discussed above in chapter five. The punishment for intentionally swearing a false oath of deposit is a guilt offering.", + "There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen. This mishnah lists the four types of guardians in Jewish law. The general principle is that the more benefit a guardian receives and the less benefit he gives to the owner of the object, the more liable he will be if the object is not returnable. Therefore a borrower, who does not pay and gets full use of the object pays in any case that the object is not returnable. On the other hand, an unpaid guardian only gives benefit to the owner and receives no benefit in return. Therefore in all cases in which something occurs to the object that he is guarding he may take an oath that he was not neglectful and be exempt from liability. Paid guardians and hirers are in-between cases. The hirer gets use of the object but he pays for such use. The paid guardian is not allowed to use the object but he gets paid for watching it. Therefore both of these guardians are sometimes allowed to take an oath and thereby be exempt from liability and sometimes they are liable to pay the owner. If the animal was lost or stolen and is no longer in front of us, they must pay the owner the value of the animal. If, however, it died a natural death, was taken captive or injured then they may take an oath and exempt themselves from liability." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the oath taken by the unpaid guardian, who as we learned in the previous mishnah, can always take an oath to exculpate himself from liability.", + "If he [the owner] said to the unpaid guardian, “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It died,” whereas in reality it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied], “It was injured,” whereas in reality it died or was captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was captured,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was stolen,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was lost,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “amen”, he is exempt [from having to bring a sacrifice for a false oath]. As we learned in the previous mishnah, an unpaid guardian can always take an oath and exempt himself from repaying the owner if he cannot return the object under guard. It doesn’t matter whether the animal died, was injured, taken captive, stolen or lost; in all of these cases the unpaid guardian may swear that he was not negligent and be exempt from having to pay back the owner. In the five different scenarios in our mishnah the unpaid guardian lies with regards to what happened to the animal. However, even if he had told the truth, he would not have been liable to pay back the owner. For instance, if he says that the animal died, but in truth it had been lost, he has lied, but he could have told the truth without having to pay back the owner. In all of these cases, even if the unpaid guardian swears to his lie, he is not liable to bring a sacrifice. Since his false oath was unnecessary it does not obligate him for the same consequences as an oath that did actually exempt him from paying back the value of the animal under his watch.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah have to list all of these possibilities? What might a reader have thought had some of the possibilities not been listed?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to discuss unpaid guardians who swear falsely with regards to the object under their watch.", + "[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “I do not know what you are talking about,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost, [and the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen”, he is exempt. When the unpaid guardian is asked by the owner of the ox where is his ox, the he denies ever having received it. When adjured, the he swears that he never received the ox. If the ox in reality had died, been injured captured or lost, the unpaid guardian is exempt from bringing a sacrifice or from paying back the owner. As we learned in the previous mishnah, since he could have told the truth and been exempt, when he lies he is still exempt.", + "[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It was lost”; [and the owner said,] “I adjure you”, and he said, “Amen”, and witnesses testify against him that he had consumed it, he pays the principal; if he confessed himself, he pays the principal, a fifth, and brings a guilt-offering. In this case the unpaid guardian swears falsely that the animal had been lost. In reality he had consumed the animal himself. If he had told the truth he would have had to pay back to the owner the value of the animal. If witnesses testify against him that he had consumed the animal himself, he must repay the value of the animal to the owner. If he himself admits that he consumed the animal, without witnesses testifying against him, he must not only restore the value of the animal, but pay an additional fifth and bring a guilt offering. This is the punishment prescribed in Leviticus 5:21-25. Our mishnah teaches that a person makes this type of expiation for a false oath, only if he admits to having sworn falsely. If witnesses prove him to have sworn falsely he does not bring a sacrifice or an additional fifth.", + "[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It was stolen;” [and the owner said,] “I adjure you, and he said, “Amen”, and witnesses testify against him that he himself stole it, he pays double; if he confessed himself, he pays the principal, fifth, and brings a guilt-offering. If the unpaid guardian claims that the ox was stolen but in reality he stole it, he is considered a thief. If witnesses testify that he stole it he is obligated to pay back double the value of the ox, as are all thieves required to pay back double. If he himself admits to having stolen the ox, he must pay back the value of the ox, and an additional fifth and bring a sacrifice, for having sworn a false oath. He does not bring the double payment, due to the general rule that one who admits to having done a crime does not pay a fine. Double payment is considered a fine.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: What is the paradox in this section, a law that seems to be counterintuitive?
• Why is one who admits to a crime exempt from paying the fine? What does this say about the penal system at the time of the Mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four is a digression in the Mishnah, which deals with some laws of stealing.", + "If a man said to one in the market, “Where is my ox which you have stolen?” and he replied, “I did not steal it,” and witnesses testified against him that he did steal it, he pays double. If he killed it or sold it, he pays four or five times its value. If he saw witnesses coming nearer and nearer, and he said, “I did steal it, but I did not kill or sell it,” he pays only the principal. This mishnah does not discuss false swearing but rather some laws of stealing. As we learned in Bava Kamma, one who steals and is caught must pay back a double payment. If he killed or sold a stolen animal he must pay back four (for a sheep or goat) or five (for an ox or cow) times the value. We have also learned on several occasions, that one who admits to having stolen the object, without witnesses first testifying against him, only pays back the principal. The scenario in our mishnah, in which a person accuses someone (not a guardian, rather any person in the marketplace) of having stolen his ox teaches two new rulings. First of all, if the accused admits to having stolen the object only because witnesses are about to testify against him, he is nevertheless obligated to pay back the principal but exempt from the double payment. In other words, even though witnesses were about to testify against him, this still counts as an admission. Second, if he admits to stealing the object, but does not admit to killing or selling it, he is exempt from paying back four or five times the value. Although witnesses testify that he did indeed sell or slaughter the ox, since he admitted to stealing it, it is considered an admission and he must pay back only the principal. There is no case in Jewish law where a person makes the four or five times payment, but is exempt for the double payment. This is because the Torah states that he will pay back four or five times. If he didn’t pay the double payment he would end up paying three or four times, an amount not specified anywhere in the Torah.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How would the ruling in this mishnah differ, if the accused was the unpaid guardian of the ox?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is similar to mishnah two, except it discusses a borrower as opposed to an unpaid guardian. The principle taught as that learned above: if the false claim does not effect his liability to pay back the owner he is not liable for having taken a false oath.", + "If he [the owner] said to the borrower, “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It died,” whereas in reality it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was injured,” whereas in reality it died or was captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was captured”, whereas in reality it died or was injured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was stolen”, whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was lost”, whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt. This mishnah contains the exact same structure as mishnah two, and can be seen as the flip side to that mishnah. Mishnah two discussed an unpaid guardian, who is always exempt from having to pay back the owner, should something happen to the animal under his guard (of course, if he stole or ate the animal he is liable). Therefore, if he lies about what did happen, his lie has no effect on his liability to pay back the owner, for he would have been exempt in any case. Mishnah five discusses a borrower who is always liable to pay back the value of the animal should something happen to it. It does not matter whether the animal died, was injured, taken captive, stolen or lost; in any case in which he cannot restore the animal as it was, he must compensate the owner. Therefore, if he lies with regards to what happened to the animal, his lie has no effect. If for instance he says that the animal died, he still must pay back the value of the animal. The fact that the animal in reality was stolen does not change his degree of liability. Since the false oath did not change his liability he does not need to bring a sacrifice for swearing falsely." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of our mishnah contains one more law concerning the borrower. Sections 2-4 discuss the paid guardian and the hirer. Sections five and six contain general rules which summarize most of the laws learned in this chapter.", + "[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “I do not know what you are talking about,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost; [and the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is liable. This section continues to discuss a borrower. If the borrower denies having received the ox in the first place, he is attempting to exempt himself from paying back the owner. This is in reality the only way that the borrower can exempt himself from having to pay back the owner. If his oath was false he is liable to pay back the owner the value of the animal, as well as bring an additional fifth and a sacrifice for having sworn a false oath.", + "If he said to a paid guardian, or hirer, “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It died,” whereas in reality it was injured or captured; [Or he replied,] “It was injured,” whereas in reality it died or was captured; [Or he replied,] “It was captured,” whereas in reality it died or was injured; [Or he replied,] “It was stolen”, whereas in reality it was lost; [Or he replied,] “It was lost,” whereas in reality it was stolen; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt. Sections two-four discuss the paid guardian and the hirer, who have the same liabilities to pay back the owner of the animal. If the animal was injured, taken captive or died they may take an oath that they were not negligent and thereby exempt themselves from having to pay back the owner. If the animal was stolen or lost they cannot take an oath; rather they must pay back the owner. Our mishnah again illustrates the principle that if the false oath would have exempted the guardian in a case where if he had told the truth he would have been obligated, he must bring a sacrifice for having sworn falsely. If the oath does not reduce his liability he is not liable, even though he swore falsely. For instance, if he swears that it was injured, but in reality it was taken captive, he has sworn falsely, but his false oath did not reduce his liability. He is exempt in either case. Similarly, if he says that the animal was lost and it was really stolen, the false oath did not effect his liability. He would have been liable in any case. Since his false oath does not reduce his liability, it also does not make him liable to bring a sacrifice.", + "[If he replied,] “It died,” or, “It was injured,” or, “It was captured,” whereas in reality it was stolen or lost; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is liable. By swearing that the animal died, was injured or taken captive, the hirer or paid guardian is attempting to exempt himself from having to pay back the guardian. If, in reality, the animal was stolen or lost, the guardian has taken a false oath which would have exempted him from having to pay back the owner. Since the oath reduced the liability, the false oath makes him liable to bring an additional fifth, and a sacrifice.", + "[If he replied,] “It was lost,” or, “It was stolen,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt. By swearing that the animal was lost or stolen the hirer or paid guardian is making a claim that will make him liable to pay back the value of the animal to the owner. If, in reality, the animal was lost in a manner that would not have made him liable, it turns out that the false oath did not reduce his liability. On the contrary, in this case the false oath actually made him more liable. Even though the oath effected his liability, since it did not reduce his liability, he is still not obligated to bring an additional fifth or a sacrifice. He is, however, liable to pay back the value of the animal.", + "This is the principle: he who [by lying] changes from liability to liability or from exemption to exemption, or from exemption to liability, is exempt; From liability to exemption, is liable. This section contains a general rule that summarizes must of the laws learned in this entire chapter. It is interesting to note, that although one could have learned all of the laws from this rule, the mishnah nevertheless states all of the laws using concrete examples, rather than abbreviating to just the general rule.", + "This is the principle: he who takes an oath to make it more lenient for himself, is liable; to make it more stringent for himself, is exempt. This section contains another general rule meant to explain the laws of the chapter. Some versions of the Mishnah do not contain this line. It seems that this is an alternative version of the rule in section five. Congratulations! We have finished Shevuoth. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves. Indeed we have now finished together six tractates of Mishnah, and are three quarters of the way through the entire order of Nezikin. Of course, we have much more to learn. We will begin Shevuoth tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה שבועות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eae85e9efdf775ea283e0ec4bfb067760299ad5c --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,413 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Shevuot", + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah one is an introductory mishnah to the entire tractate. Besides mentioning oaths it mentions knowledge of impurity, a topic to be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter.", + "Oaths are of two kinds, subdivided into four; There are two kinds of oaths of “expression” (category one above, in introduction) which are explicit in the Torah: 1) A person swears to do something such as eating; 2) A person swears to refrain from doing something. If a person takes such an oath and then breaks it, he will be obligated to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin (see Leviticus 5:4-13). The types of oaths specifically referred to in the Torah are oaths regarding the future, that a person will or will not do something. The Sages added two more types of oaths: those taken with regards to the past: 1) A person swears that he did do something; 2) A person swears that he did not do something. This is what the mishnah means when it says that there are two types of oaths which are four.", + "The laws concerning the discovery of having contracted uncleanness are of two kinds, subdivided into four; There are two types of sins mentioned in the Torah with regards to one who becomes impure without realizing it. The first is one who is impure and then eats holy food, such as sacrifices or terumah (heave offering). The second is one who is impure and then enters the Temple. One who had intentionally committed one of these acts would be obligated for kareth (excommunication). Our mishnah teaches that one who unintentionally does one of these acts, and later realizes what he has done, is obligated to bring a sacrifice. The Sages added two other types of sins of this nature. 1) A person knew that he was impure but did not know that what he was eating was holy food; 2) A person knew that he was impure but entered the Temple without realizing that he was doing so. In both of these cases the person is again obligated for a sacrifice.", + "The laws concerning carrying on the Sabbath are of two kinds, subdivided into four. On the Sabbath it is forbidden to carry an object from the private domain to the public domain. The two primary categories of this prohibition are: 1) A person stands in the public domain and puts his hand into the private domain and brings something out; 2) A person stands in the private domain and puts something out into the public domain. The Sages taught that there are another two categories of forbidden carrying: 1) A person stands in the private domain and puts his hand out into the public domain and brings something in; 2) A person stands in the public domain and puts something from there into the private domain. These laws are discussed at greater length in Tractate Shabbath. They are only mentioned here due to the similarity in language with the first two sections.", + "The symptoms of negas are of two kinds, subdivided into four. A nega is a skin disorder, discussed at length in Leviticus 13. It is often referred to as leprosy but in truth we do not know precisely what disease is referred to in the Torah. Our mishnah teaches that there are two types of negas mentioned specifically in the Torah: 1) A swelling; 2) A discoloration. The Sages added two more types of negas, both of which are learned from the word “rash” mentioned in the verse. These laws are discussed at greater length in Tractate Negaim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two begins to define when a person is obligated to bring a sacrifice in a situation where he did not know that he had been impure.", + "Our mishnah begins to discuss the laws concerning the discovery of the contracting of uncleanness mentioned in section two of the previous mishnah.", + "Where there is knowledge at the beginning and at the end but forgetfulness between, a “sliding scales” sacrifice is brought. In order for one to become obligated to bring a sacrifice for this type of sin, one must have known that he had become impure, and then forgot, and then ate of a holy thing or entered the Temple, and then afterwards remembered that he was impure. In other words there must be knowledge of the impurity in the beginning of the process and knowledge at the end, as well as forgetfulness in between at the time when he either at holy food or entered the Temple.", + "Where there is knowledge at the beginning but not at the end, the goat which is [sacrificed and its blood sprinkled] within [the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement] together with the Day of Atonement itself hold the sin in suspense until it become known to the sinner, and he brings the “sliding scale” sacrifice. If after having eaten the holy food or entered the Temple one never afterwards rembembered that one was impure at the time, obviously one will not even realize the need to bring a sacrifice to atone for the sin. Therefore our mishnah teaches that the sin is suspended, meaning punishment for the sin is suspended, through the sacrifice of the goat on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) and through Yom Kippur itself. Once he does remember what he has done, although Yom Kippur and the sacrificial goat have meanwhile suspended the punishment for the sin, he must bring a sacrifice in order to achieve full atonement." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to define when a person is obligated to bring a sacrifice in a situation where he did not know that he had been impure.", + "Where there is no knowledge at the beginning but there is knowledge at the end, the goat sacrificed on the outer altar together with the day of atonement bring atonement, for it says: “[one he-goat for a sin-offering] beside the sin-offering of atonement” (Numbers 29:1: for that which this goat [prepared inside the Holy of Holies] atones this goat [prepared outside] atones: just as the ‘inner’ goat atones only for a sin where there was knowledge [at the beginning], so the “outer” goat atones only for a sin where there was knowledge [at the end]. Our mishnah deals with the situation where a person did not know that they had become impure and then ate of holy food or entered the Temple and then realized that they were impure. Since there is not knowledge in the beginning and in the end, this person cannot achieve atonement by personally bringing a “sliding scale” sacrifice. Rather our mishnah teaches that the goat sacrificed on Yom Kippur at the outer altar as a sin-offering brings atonement from this person. This teaching is learned by a comparison with the goat offered inside the Holy of Holies. Just as the goat offered inside brings atonement in a case where there was knowledge of the contraction of uncleanness, in this case prior to the eating of the holy food or the entering into the Temple (see mishnah two) so too the goat offered outside brings atonement in a case where there was knowledge of the contraction of uncleanness, in this case after the eating of the holy food or the entering into the Temple." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses which goat offerings atone for which sins. There are three goat offerings discussed in this mishnah, all of which are sin-offerings (hatat): 1) Those offered on festivals; 2) Those offered on the first of the new month; 3) The goat offered on the outer altar on Yom Kippur. The Sages all agree in general that these sin-offerings atone for one who imparts impurity either to holy food or to the Temple. However, they disagree as to which goat atones for which specific sin.", + "Where there is no knowledge [of the impurity] either at the beginning or at the end, the goats offered as sin-offerings on festivals and new months bring atonement, the words of Rabbi Judah. According to Rabbi Judah, the goats offered on the holidays and on the new months atone for sins of impure people who entered the Temple or ate holy food, in cases where their impurity never became known to them. In the previous two mishnayoth we learned the procedures of atonement in cases where their impurity did become known to them, either in the beginning in the end.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “The festival goats atone [for such sins] and not the new moon goats. And for what do the new month goats bring atonement? For a pure man who ate impure holy food.” According to Rabbi Shimon, the goats offered on the festival atone for sins of pure people eating holy food or entering the Temple. The goats offered on the new month atone for sins whereby a pure person unintentionally ate impure holy food.", + "Rabbi Meir says: “All the goats have equal powers of atonement for imparting impurity to the Temple and holy food. According to Rabbi Meir all three of the goats mentioned here atone for all three of the crimes mentioned in this mishnah and in the previous one: 1) An impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and only realized that he had been impure after the fact; 2) An impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and never realized that he had been impure; 3) A pure person who unintentionally ate impure holy food.", + "Rabbi Shimon used to say: “The new month goats bring atonement for a pure man who ate impure holy food; and the festival goats atone for transgression of the laws of impurity where there was no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end; and the ‘outer’ goat of the Day of Atonement atones for transgression of these laws where there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was knowledge at the end. This section reviews Rabbi Shimon’s opinion with regards to the three goats and the three sins. According to his opinion each goat atones for its own sin. 1) The goat offered on new months atones for a pure person who unintentionally ate impure holy food. 2) The goat offered on festivals atones for an impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and never realized that he had been impure. 3) The goat offered on the outer altar on Yom Kippur atones for an impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and only realized that he had been impure after the fact.", + "They said to him: “Is it permitted to offer up the goat set apart for one day on another?” He said to them: “Let it be offered.” They said to him: “Since they are not equal in the atonement they bring how can they take each other's place?” He replied: “They are all at least equal [in the wider sense] in that they bring atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food.” The Rabbis ask Rabbi Shimon what happens in a situation where one of the goats set aside to be offered on one of these occasions is lost and then found on a different occasion. Since all three of the goats are all sin-offerings can the goat set aside for one occasion be offered on another? Rabbi Shimon answers that it can. The other Rabbis then raise a difficulty on Rabbi Shimon’s response. Since according to Rabbi Shimon each goat atones for its own sin, it would seem that each goat is different from the other goats. Therefore, how could a goat intended for example for a new month be offered on a festival? Rabbi Shimon responds that they all have a common denominator in that they atone for sins of imparting impurity to the Temple and to holy food. Since they are all means of atonement for similar types of sins, each can replace the other.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section five: Why is this question asked of Rabbi Shimon and not of Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Judah? What might these other Sages have responded to this question?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five is a continuation of the discussion in the previous mishnah. There we learned three different opinions with regards to the topic of which sin-offering goats bring atonement for which sin. The final opinion was that of Rabbi Shimon, whose full name is Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai. According to his opinion each goat atones for its own sin. 1) The goat offered on new months atones for a pure person who unintentionally ate impure holy food. 2) The goat offered on festivals atones for an impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and never realized that he had been impure. 3) The goat offered on the outer altar on Yom Kippur atones for an impure person who entered the Temple or ate holy food and only realized that he had been impure after the fact. Our mishnah contains a different version of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s opinion, taught by Rabbi Shimon ben Judah, one of his students. It seems that the students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, who lived in the middle of the second century C.E., disputed what their teacher’s opinion really was. The previous mishnah contained one student’s opinion and our mishnah contains another’s.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Judah said in his name [of Rabbi Shimon (bar]: “The new month goats bring atonement for a pure person who ate impure holy food; the festival goats, in addition to bringing atonement for a pure person who ate impure holy food, atone also for a case where there was no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end; the ‘outer’ goat of the Day of Atonement, in addition to bringing atonement for a pure person who ate impure holy food and for a case where there was no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end, atones also for a case where there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was knowledge at the end. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Judah the goats offered on the festival atone for a pure person who ate impure holy food, the goats offered on the new months atone for this sin as well as a case where an impure person entered the Temple or ate holy food and never realized that he had been impure, and the goat offered on the outer altar on Yom Kippur atones for both of these previous sins as well as a case where an impure person entered the Temple or ate holy food and only realized that he had been impure after the fact. In other words festival goats atone for one sin, new month goats for two sins and Yom Kippur goats for all three of the sins under discussion.", + "They said to him: “Is it permitted to offer up the goat set apart for one day on another?” He said, “Yes.” They [further] said to him: “Granted that the Day of Atonement goat may be offered up on the new month, but how can the new month goat be offered up on the Day of Atonement to bring atonement for a sin that is not within its scope?” He replied: “They are all at least equal [in the wider sense] in that they bring atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food.” Similar to the previous mishnah, our mishnah now continues with a discussion of a case where one of the goats set aside to be offered on one of these occasions is lost and then found on a different occasion. The question is asked: since they are all sin-offerings, can one be offered in another’s place? Rabbi Shimon ben Judah answers that they can, just as his teacher Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai answered in the previous mishnah. The Rabbis then raise a difficulty with this answer. It is possible to understand how a Yom Kippur goat could be offered on the new month, since all of the sins for which the new month goat atones, the Yom Kippur goat also atones. However, how can a new month goat be offered on Yom Kippur since the new month goat does not atone for all of the sins for which a Yom Kippur goat atones? Rabbi Shimon ben Judah’s answer is the same answer as that of his teacher. All of the goats have a common denominator in that they atone for sins of imparting impurity to the Temple and to holy food. Since they are all means of atonement for similar types of sins, each can replace the other.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the end of this mishnah and the end of the previous mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to discuss which sacrificial goat brought as a sin-offering brings atonement for which transgression.", + "For intentional transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food, the goat offered inside [the Holy of Holies] on the Day of Atonement together with the Day of Atonement itself bring atonement. The previous several mishnayoth discussed for which sins the goats offered on new months, festivals and at the outer altar in the Temple on Yom Kippur bring atonement. Our mishnah discusses yet a fourth goat, the goat sacrificed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and whose blood is sprinkled inside the Holy of Holies. This goat along with Yom Kippur itself atones for intentional transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food. The previous mishnayoth discussed only unintentional sins.", + "For other transgressions of the Torah, light and grave, intentional and unintentional, known and unknown, positive and negative, those punishable by kareth and those punishable by death imposed by the court for all these the scapegoat [sent out on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement. All of the other possible transgressions of the Torah’s laws, no matter how they are punished and no matter how serious they may be, whether done intentionally or unintentionally, are atoned for by the scapegoat, sent out to the wilderness, on Yom Kippur. This teaching is learned from Leviticus 16:21-22: “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated man. Thus the goat shall carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region.” Our mishnah does not mention this, but there is one exception to this rule: transgressions between one human being and another, for instance shaming another person in public. The last mishnah in Tractate Yoma, which deals with Yom Kippur, states explicitly: “For sins between a man and God Yom Kippur atones; for sins between a man and his fellow, Yom Kippur does not atone.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven discusses differences between the atonement of Israelites and the atonement of priests.", + "[The scapegoat] brings atonement to Israelites, priests, and the anointed high priest alike. What [then] is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed high priest? [None], save that the bullock [offered on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement to the priests for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food. The scapegoat mentioned in the previous mishnah atones for the transgression of all of the members of Israel, including the priests. The one difference between priests and regular Israelites is that priests are atoned for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food by the sacrificial bullock, brought on Yom Kippur. This is learned from Leviticus 16:11, “Aaron shall then offer his bull of sin offering, to make expiation for himself and his household.” “His household” refers to all of the priesthood. However, except for this difference, there is not difference in the atonement process for priests and Israelites.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as the blood of the goat that is offered within [the Holy of Holies] brings atonement for Israelites, so the blood of the bullock [offered on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement for priests; and just as the confession of sins pronounced over the scapegoat brings atonement for Israelites, so the confession pronounced over the bullock brings atonement for priests. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the opinion in the previous mishnah. H learns this by means of an analogy. Israelites receive atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food by the sprinkling of the blood of the inner goat, without the confessional recited on the scapegoat. So too do priests receive atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food by the means of the blood of the sacrificial bullock without the confessional mentioned Leviticus 16:11. Therefore, we must ask, for what sin does the confessional bring atonement? According to Rabbi Shimon the confessional over the bullock acts for priests the same way that the confessional over the scapegoat acts for Israelites. Just as the confessional over the scapegoat brings atonement for all sins for Israelites, so too the confessional over the bullock brings atonement for all sins for priests. This is the disagreement between Rabbi Shimon and the opinion in section one: according to Rabbi Shimon priests receive atonement for most of their sins by the confession over the bullock, while according to the other Sages they receive atonement the same way other Israelites do, by the confession over the scapegoat." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah one discusses the second clause of the first mishnah of chapter one, which dealt with the case where a person either entered the Temple or ate holy food without knowing that he was impure.", + "The first line of the mishnah is a quote of the second clause of the first mishnah in chapter one. After a long digression in chapter one in which the mishnah discussed which goats offered as sin-offerings atone for which types of crimes, our chapter returns to discuss the main topic at hand: the case where a person unknowingly became impure and entered the Temple or ate holy food. To refresh our memories, according to chapter one in order to enter into this category one must first have awareness then forgetfulness and then awareness. Our mishnah explains the four different possibilities for such a scenario.", + "The laws concerning the discovery of having contracted uncleanness are of two kinds, subdivided into four;
[If] he became impure and was aware of it, then he forgot that he had been impure, though he remembered that the food was holy; [If the fact that it was] holy food was unknown to him, though he remembered that he was impure; [If] both were unknown to him; And he ate holy food, and was not aware, and after he had eaten, he became aware: in these cases he brings a sliding scale sacrifice. In all of the cases mentioned in this section the transgression is the eating of holy food while impure. There are actually three different possibilities mentioned in the mishnah, although the mishnah considers them to be two: 1) He knew that had contracted impurity, and then forgot but he knew that the food that he was eating was holy; 2) He forgot that the food that he was eating was holy but he knew that he was impure; 3) He forgot that the food was holy and that he was impure. In all of these cases if he were to eat of the holy food while being unaware either that he was impure or that the food was holy (or both) and afterwards realized that the food was holy or that he was impure, he is obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. A sliding scale sacrifice is a sacrifice brought based on the economic means of the sinner. If he has financial means he must bring either a sheep or goat. If he cannot afford a sheep or a goat he brings two turtledoves. If he can’t even afford these, he may bring a grain offering. This sacrifice is described in Leviticus 5:6-13.", + "[[If] he became impure and was aware of it, then he forgot that he had been impure, though he remembered that [he was entering] the Temple; [If the fact that he was entering] the Temple was unknown to him, though he remembered that he was impure; [If] both were hidden from him; And he entered the Temple and was not aware, and after he had gone out, became aware: in these cases he brings a sliding scale sacrifice. This section teaches the exact same law as in section one, except the sin discussed here is entrance into the Temple while impure. In this case either forgetting that he is entering the Temple or forgetting that he is impure or both will obligate him to bring a sliding scale sacrifice.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah consider the three possibilities in each section to be only two?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two discusses which areas of the Temple are included in these laws.", + "It is the same whether one [while impure] enters the Temple court or the addition to the Temple court, for additions are not made to the city [of Jerusalem], or to the Temple courts except by the king, prophet, Urim and Thummim, the Sanhedrin of seventy one, and with two [loaves] of thanksgiving, and with song. And the court walks in a procession, the two [loaves] of thanksgiving [being carried] after them, and all Israel [following] behind them. The inner one is eaten, and the outer one is burnt. And as to any addition that was made without all these he who enters it [while impure] is not liable. A person who is impure and enters the Temple is obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice even if he only entered an addition that had been made to the Temple court. In other words, the holiness inherent to the Temple is also to be found in any additions made to the Temple. The reason is that the additions made to the Temple are made with the consent of all of the ruling institutions in Israel, as well being performed in a religious ceremony. Additions to the Temple or to the city of Jerusalem, which is also considered to be holy, can only be made with the consent of the following parties: 1) the king; 2) the Urim and Thummim, the two stones that sat in the high priest’s breastplate which were used to receive oracles (see Numbers 27:21); 3) the Sanhedrin of 71 elders. The additions to the Temple would be made in a great procession with two loaves of thanksgiving. Any addition to the Temple that was not made using all of these elements was considered to be of a lower status. Therefore, one who entered there while impure would not have to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. This mishnah has some interesting historical implications. In the Second Temple period, which began in the 5th century B.C.E. and continued until the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. there were no Urim and Thummim. Therefore, any additions to the Temple would not have been of the same holiness. On the other hand, the mishnah does not completely delegitimize these additions to the Temple. The last clause in the mishnah indeed admits that additions to the Temple can be made without the approval of the all of these parties. The only consequence is that one who entered there impure would not be obligated to bring a sacrifice.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think that in order to add on to the Temple they need the approval of the king, the priestly oracles and the Sanhedrin?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three discusses one who entered the Temple while impure.", + "If he became impure while in the Temple court [and was aware of it], and then forgot that he was impure, though he remembered that he was in the Temple; [Or] he forgot that he was in the Temple, though he remembered that he was impure; [Or,] he forgot both; And he prostrated himself, or waited [in the Temple] the time it takes to prostrate; Or went out the long way, he is liable; [If he went out] the shorter way, he is not liable; This section is similar to the teaching in mishnah one, except it presents a new problem: he is actually in the Temple while he becomes impure. Since it is forbidden to be in the Temple while impure he therefore must leave immediately, and in the shortest possible manner. To remind ourselves, in order for him to be liable for a sliding scale sacrifice for having been in the Temple while impure he must have awareness, forgetting and then afterwards awareness. Our mishnah teaches that the forgetting can either be of the fact he was impure or that he was in the Temple or both. As long as he knew what had happened or where he was and forgot one of those two things or both, and then he worshipped in the Temple by prostrating himself, or even stayed in the Temple long enough to prostrate, or even did not take the quickest way out, he is obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. In other words, should he delay himself at all within the Temple after having become impure he will be obligated for a sliding scale sacrifice. Only if he goes out immediately will he be exempt.", + "This is the positive precept concerning the temple for which they [the court] are not liable. Usually, if the court gives a mistaken ruling with regards to a mitzvah that is punishable if done intentionally by kareth and obligates one for a sacrifice if done unintentionally, the court must bring a bullock as a sacrifice (see Leviticus 4:12). However, in this case, if the court told the person who had become impure while in the Temple that it was okay to leave through a longer path, the court is not obligated to bring the sacrifice. We will learn this law again in Tractate Horayoth 2:4, the last tractate in Seder Nezikin." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four contains a short digression which discusses the obligation of a court to bring a sacrificial bullock if they give a wrong teaching. This subject is learned more fully in Tractate Horayoth. This digression is found here because one of the wrongful teachings for which the court is not obligated is given as an example in mishnah three.", + "And which is the positive precept concerning a menstruant for which they are liable? [This:] if one cohabited with a [ritually] pure woman, and she said to him: “I have become impure”, and he withdrew immediately, he is liable, because his withdrawal is as pleasant to him as his entry. This mishnah continues the subject taught in section two of the previous mishnah, namely cases where the court is or is not obligated to bring a sacrifice if they gave a mistaken ruling. In Tractate Horayoth 2:4 we will learn that if the court made a mistake with regards to the laws of menstrual purity, in either a positive or negative commandment, they must bring the sacrifice. Our mishnah asks what is the positive commandment to which that mishnah refers. The answer is a case where a man was having sexual relations with a pure woman, i.e. a woman who was not menstruating. If, while having sex she told him that she had just begun to menstruate, he has a problem, since the Torah forbids sexual relations with a menstruant (Leviticus 20:18). Our mishnah teaches that if the court instructed him to withdraw immediately, the court has taught mistakenly and must bring a sacrifice. This is because his withdrawal while erect is actually pleasurable for him. Rather he is forbidden to withdraw until his erection disappears." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Eliezer said: “[Scripture says: ‘If any one touch… the carcass of] an impure creeping thing, and it be unknown to him’ (Leviticus 5:2), when the impure creeping thing is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.”
Rabbi Akiba said: “[Scripture says:] ‘and it be hidden from him that he is impure’: when his impurity is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.”
Rabbi Ishmael said: “[Scripture] twice [says:] ‘and it be hidden from him’, in order to make him liable both for the forgetfulness of the impurity and the forgetfulness of the Temple.”
Mishnah five conclude the discussion of a person who enters the Temple while not realizing that he is impure. It contains a midrashic discussion which took place between Rabbis Eliezer, Akiba, and Ishmael.
As we have explained throughout this chapter, in order to be obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice one must have known something and then forgotten it and then remembered it later on. In both mishnah one and mishnah three of this chapter we assumed that what was known and forgotten was either the fact that he was impure or the fact that he was in the Temple or both. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael in section three. His opinion is the dominant opinion in this chapter of mishnah.
Rabbi Eliezer holds that what was known and then forgotten was specifically the source of the impurity, be it an impure creeping thing or other source of impurity mentioned in Leviticus 5:2 (carcasses of pure animals). If he forgot that he was in the Temple he is not obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. Likewise if never knew that he had been made impure by an impure creepy thing, but merely knew that he was impure, he is not obligated.
Rabbi Akiva holds that what was forgotten was the fact of impurity but not the fact that he was in the Temple. Unlike Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva does not limit the knowledge and subsequent forgetfulness to the source of the impurity. Even if he never knew what the source of the impurity was, but knew only that he was impure and then forgot, he will be obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael in that the latter holds that being aware and then forgetting that one was in the Temple also makes him obligated for bringing a sliding scale sacrifice, whereas Rabbi Akiva (and Rabbi Eliezer) believe that it does not." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins to discuss oaths, the main topic of the tractate. The oaths discussed in the beginning of this chapter are oaths of utterance, whereby one swears that he has or has not done something, or that he will or will not do something. One who breaks such an oath is liable for a sliding scale sacrifice, described in chapters one and two and in Leviticus 5:6-13.", + "Oaths are two, subdivided into four. “I swear I shall eat”, and “[I swear] I shall not eat”; “[I swear] I have eaten”, and “[I swear] I have not eaten”. The first line of this mishnah is a quote of the first mishnah of the tractate. After two chapters of digression, we return to the main topic at hand, oaths. Our mishnah lists all four types of oaths of utterance, two with regards to the past and two with regards to the future, two negative and two positive. Eating is just an example of a common oath. An oath can involve most types of actions.", + "“I swear I shall not eat”, and he ate [even] a minute quantity, he is liable, the words of Rabbi Akiva. They [the Sages] said to Rabbi Akiva: “Where do we find that he who eats a minute quantity is liable, that this one should be liable?” Rabbi Akiba said to them: “But where do we find that he who [merely] speaks brings a sacrifice, that this one should bring a sacrifice?” According to Rabbi Akiva, one who swore not to eat and then ate is liable to bring a sacrifice even if he ate the most minute amount of food. The Sages raise a difficulty on this Rabbi Akiva’s position. Generally, a person is not obligated for having eaten a forbidden food unless he ate a minimum measure of the food, usually the size of an olive. Rabbi Akiva responds that we cannot compare the laws of oaths of utterance to any other laws, for an oath of utterance can obligate a person to bring a sacrifice of atonement just by his having said something. In all other realms of law in order to be liable to bring a sacrifice of atonement one has to actually perform a sin. Only with regards to oaths of utterance can a person merely retract on his words, and thereby be obligated for a sacrifice. Since the laws of oaths of utterance are already different, there is no room, according to Rabbi Akiva, to compare them to other laws.", + "[If a man says,] “I swear I shall not eat” and he ate and drank, he is liable only once. “I swear I shall not eat and I shall not drink,” and he ate and drank, he is liable twice. This section deals with the question is drinking subsumed under the category of drinking. According to the mishnah, generally drinking is considered a form of eating and therefore, if after having sworn not to eat, he eats and drinks, he is liable for only one sacrifice. Drinking is considered a separate violation from eating only if he specifically swore not to eat or drink. In this case if he ate and drank he would be obligated to bring two sacrifices.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What might be other reasons behind Rabbi Akiva’s opinion?
• What would be the ruling if someone swore not to eat and then drank but did not eat? Would he be liable to bring a sacrifice for having violated his oath?" + ], + [ + "“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once.
“I swear I shall not eat wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread,” and he ate [all three], he is liable for each one.
Mishnah two discusses a person who swears not to eat different types of bread. The question again is, how many different oaths did he make.
Similar to the end of the first mishnah, we learn here that if a person made one oath not to eat and did not specify what foods were covered, he will be obligated to bring only one sacrifice if he were to break the oath. If, however, he specifically swore not to eat three different types of bread and he ate all three, he is obligated to bring three sacrifices. In this case he has actually sworn three oaths and subsequently broken three oaths, thereby making him obligated for three sacrifices." + ], + [ + "“I swear I shall not drink,” and he drank many liquids, he is liable only once.
“I swear I shall not drink wine, oil, and honey,” and he drank [all three], he is liable for each one.
Mishnah three discusses a person who swears not to drink. The question again is, how many different oaths did he make.
This mishnah teaches the same law as the previous mishnah, except it discusses drinking. Again we learn that if he specifies what he will not drink, he has sworn (and then broken) three separate oaths and he will be obligated for three separate sacrifices. If he makes one general oath, he will be obligated to bring only one separate sacrifice." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four continues to discuss how many oaths one is liable for when he takes an oath not to eat. This mishnah talks about one who violates the oath by eating things that are either not fit to be eaten or forbidden.", + "“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate foods which are not fit to be eaten, and drank liquids which are not fit to be drunk, he is exempt. Again this mishnah discusses a person who swears not to eat. In this case after having sworn not to eat he eats food which are not fit to be eaten, for example rotten fruit, or drinks liquids not fit to drink. The mishnah teaches that in such a case he is exempt from having to bring a sacrifice. The assumption is that when a person swears not to eat his intention is not to eat food that is fit for consumption. Therefore, by eating food not fit for consumption he has not in actuality broken his oath.", + "“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate carrion, trefot, and reptiles and creepy things, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him. In this case the person who swore not to eat, ate foods which are forbidden to a Jew. Carrion are animals that died either a natural death or died as a result of an improperly carried out act of ritual slaughter. Trefot are animals that were either torn by beasts of prey or afflicted with severe diseases or defects that would have caused them to die within 12 months. They are both forbidden to eat, as are reptiles and creepy things. If one swears not to eat them and does eat them, according to the first opinion he is liable to bring a sacrifice. Even though he is forbidden to eat them, they are still considered edible food, which other people eat, and therefore he has broken his oath. Rabbi Shimon disagrees. According to his opinion, at Mount Sinai the Jewish people took an oath not to break the commandments. This oath was binding for all future generations as well. Therefore, one cannot add another oath to that which he has already sworn not to do. One who does so has not done anything legally significant, and is therefore not obligated to bring a sacrifice.", + "He said, “I vow that my wife shall not benefit from me, if I have eaten today,” and he had eaten carrion, trefot, forbidden animals, or reptiles, his wife is prohibited to him. This section discusses vows (nedarim) which are halachically different from oaths (shevuoth). If a man took a vow that if he had already eaten today his wife would be forbidden to benefit from him or his property, and he had in fact eaten a forbidden thing, she is forbidden to benefit from him. This law is agreed upon by all of the Sages, even Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Shimon in essence does consider eating forbidden food to be considered eating. The reason that he exempted the one who swore not to eat and then ate forbidden food was that there was a prior existing oath upon him not to eat. In the case in our section, this logic is not applicable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three: How do you know that Rabbi Shimon would agree to the ruling stated in section three?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that a person can swear with regards to things that concern himself or others. He also may swear about things whether or not they have substance.\nThe second half of the mishnah contains an important debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael with regards to the validity of oaths taken about the past.", + "It is the same [whether he swears of] things concerning himself, or of things concerning others, or of things which have substance, or of things which have no substance. How so? [If] he said, “I swear that I shall give to so-and-so”, or “I shall not give”; “I have given”, or “I have not given”; “I shall sleep”, or “I shall not sleep”; “I have slept”, or “I have not slept”; “I shall throw a pebble into the sea”, or “I shall not throw”; “I have thrown”, or “I have not thrown”; [he is liable.] An oath of utterance is valid, according to the mishnah, whether or not it was taken with respect to himself or with respect to his involvement with others. It is also valid even if the oath is made on a non-substantive thing. The mishnah now gives example of all of these categories.", + "It is the same [whether he swears of] things concerning himself, or of things concerning others, or of things which have substance, or of things which have no substance. How so? [If] he said, “I swear that I shall give to so-and-so”, or “I shall not give”; “I have given”, or “I have not given”; “I shall sleep”, or “I shall not sleep”; “I have slept”, or “I have not slept”; “I shall throw a pebble into the sea”, or “I shall not throw”; “I have thrown”, or “I have not thrown”; [he is liable.] One who takes an oath with regards to giving things to others has taken a valid oath, whether it was to give, not to give, that he had given or that he had not given. This is an example of an oath with regards to others. If he breaks any of these oaths, or any of them turn out to be false, he will be obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice.", + "It is the same [whether he swears of] things concerning himself, or of things concerning others, or of things which have substance, or of things which have no substance. How so? [If] he said, “I swear that I shall give to so-and-so”, or “I shall not give”; “I have given”, or “I have not given”; “I shall sleep”, or “I shall not sleep”; “I have slept”, or “I have not slept”; “I shall throw a pebble into the sea”, or “I shall not throw”; “I have thrown”, or “I have not thrown”; [he is liable.] Oaths regarding sleeping are also valid even though sleep is not a substantive thing.", + "It is the same [whether he swears of] things concerning himself, or of things concerning others, or of things which have substance, or of things which have no substance. How so? [If] he said, “I swear that I shall give to so-and-so”, or “I shall not give”; “I have given”, or “I have not given”; “I shall sleep”, or “I shall not sleep”; “I have slept”, or “I have not slept”; “I shall throw a pebble into the sea”, or “I shall not throw”; “I have thrown”, or “I have not thrown”; [he is liable.] Throwing a pebble into the sea is a useless action that has no value to a human being. For this reason the mishnah considers it a type of action that has no substance. Nevertheless, if one takes an oath regarding throwing a pebble into the sea, the oath is valid.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: “He is liable only for [an oath with regards to] the future, for it says, “To do bad or to do good” (Leviticus 5:4). Rabbi Akiva said to him: “If so, we would know only such cases where doing evil and doing good are applicable; but how do we know such cases where doing evil and doing good are not applicable? He said to him: “From the amplification of the verse.” He said to him: “If the verse amplifies for that, it amplifies for this also.” Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regards to the validity of oaths taken about the past, such as “I swear that I did eat” or “I swear that I did not eat”. Up until now, we have assumed that such oaths were valid (see mishnah one, and the first half of this mishnah). Rabbi Yishmael disagrees. According to Rabbi Yishmael oaths taken with regards to the future, i.e. “I swear that I will eat”, or “I swear that I will not eat” are valid. Oaths taken with regards to the past are not valid. Rabbi Yishmael learns this from Leviticus 5:4, which states “to do bad or to do good”. The simple meaning of this verse is that the person is swearing to do or not do something in the future. Rabbi Akiva responds to Rabbi Yishmael by pointing out that we cannot take the verse literally. If we were to do so, we would rule that oaths are only valid if they are about doing something good or something evil. However, we know that oaths can involve neutral activities as well, such as eating or drinking, which are neither “good” nor “evil”. Rabbi Yishmael responds that the second half of the aforementioned verse in Leviticus which states, “whatever a man may utter in an oath” expands the category of oaths, thereby making neutral oaths also valid. Rabbi Akiva argues that if the second half of the verse expands the validity of oaths to include neutral oaths, it also expands the category of oaths to include oaths with regards to past actions. To summarize: for Rabbi Yishmael the first half of the verse refers to oaths for the future involving “good or bad” while the second half of the verse expands the category of oaths to include all oaths about the future. To Rabbi Akiva, the second half of the verse expands the category of oaths to include even oaths about the past.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Whose opinion seems to be closer to the literal reading of the verse in Leviticus, Rabbi Yishmael’s or Rabbi Akiva’s?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six discusses swearing to either break or fulfill a commandment.", + "The subject of this mishnah is swearing with regards to positive and negative commandments, a subject that the Mishnah dealt with briefly in mishnah four.", + "If he swore to annul a commandment, and did not annul it, he is exempt. [If he swore] to fulfill [a commandment], and did not fulfill it, he is exempt. For it would have been logical [in the second instance] that he should have been liable, as is the opinion of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. If a person swears not to fulfill a positive commandment, for instance he swears not to eat matzah on Passover, and he does eat it, he is not obligated for having broken his oath. The positive commandment of matzah takes precedence over his oath. Similarly, if a person swears to break a negative commandment, such as eating forbidden foods, and he then does observe the commandment by not eating the food, he is also exempt. These cases are agreed upon by all of the Sages. The dispute in our mishnah is about a person who swears to observe a commandment and then does not. For instance he swears to eat matzah on the first night of Passover and then he does not. According to the Sages in section one, he is not obligated for having broken his oath. Since he was already obligated to eat matzah on Passover, his oath did not add upon him any new obligation. It is as if it had no effect and therefore if he breaks the oath by not eating matzah he will not be liable for having broken the oath. Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra disagrees with this ruling, as we will learn in section two.", + "[For] Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, “Now, if for [swearing with regards to] an optional matter, for which he is not adjured from Mount Sinai, he is liable [should he not fulfill his oath], for [swearing with regards to] a commandment, for which he is adjured from Mount Sinai, he should most certainly be liable [should he not fulfill his oath]! They said to him: “No! If you say that for an oath with regards to an optional matter [he is liable], it is because [Scripture] has in that case made negative equal to positive [for liability]; But how can you say that for an oath [to fulfill] a commandment [he is liable], since [Scripture] has not in that case made negative equal to positive, for if he swore to annul [a commandment], and did not annul it, he is exempt! Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra analogizes swearing on a commandment to swearing on an optional, non-commandment activity. His argument is that just as a person is liable if he makes an oath about an optional activity and then breaks the oath, even though he had no prior obligation to perform this activity, all the more so he should be obligated if he makes and then breaks an oath with regards to a commandment, which he had a prior obligation to observe. This type of argument is called a “kal vechomer” argument. It takes a “light” law (the kal) and says that if the law is such in this case all the more so must it be in the “serious” law (the chomer). Swearing on an optional activity is “light” and swearing on a commandment is “heavy”. If one is obligated for the “light” all the more so is he obligated for the “heavy”. The Sages respond that the two cases are too dissimilar to be comparable. In the case of swearing about optional activities, the oath is valid whether he swore in the positive (“I swear to eat”) or in the negative (“I swear not to eat”). However, in the case of swearing about a commandment there is a difference between positive and negative swearing. As we learned in section one, all of the Sages agree that if one swears not to perform a commandment he is exempt. Since the two cases are already dissimilar, the Sages conclude that even if he swears positively with regards to a commandment he is exempt." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven concludes the mishnah’s discussion of “oaths of utterance.”", + "“I swear I shall not eat this loaf”; “I swear I shall not eat it”; “I swear I shall not eat it”; and he ate it, he is liable only once. If one repeats the same oath several times and then breaks the oath(s) he is only liable for having broken one oath. Since after he made the first oath the loaf was already forbidden to him, he cannot make the same loaf any more forbidden to him. The repeated oaths do not create any new forbidden things, and therefore they do not count.", + "This is the oath of utterance, for which one is liable, for its willful transgression, flogging; and for its unwitting transgression, a sliding scale sacrifice. For a vain oath one is liable for willful transgression, flogging, and for unwitting transgression one is exempt. This is the concluding section of mishnah which began at the beginning of the chapter and which has discussed “oaths of utterance.” For intentionally breaking an oath of utterance one is flogged and for unintentionally breaking an oath of utterance one must bring a sacrifice. The mishnah now mentions “vain oaths” a topic which will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. For intentionally swearing a vain oath one is flogged. There is no punishment for unintentionally swearing a vain oath." + ], + [ + "Introduction", + "At the end of the previous mishnah we were introduced to the concept of a vain oath, which is forbidden in Exodus 20:7, one of the verses of the Ten Commandments. The punishment for intentionally swearing in vain is lashes and for unintentional swearing in vain there is no punishment. Our mishnah lists four different types of vain oaths.", + "What is a vain oath?
If he swore that which is contrary to the facts known to people, saying of a pillar of stone that it is of gold; or of a man that he is a woman; or of a woman that she is a man. If one swears about something that is obviously false, for instance if he looks at a pillar of stone and swears that it is gold, then he has taken God’s name in vain by swearing in vain.", + "If he swore concerning a thing which is impossible, [for instance if he said,] “If I have not seen a camel flying in the air”, or “If I have not seen a serpent as thick as the beam of the olive press”. Similarly, if he swears by something that cannot happen, for instance he swears that he saw a camel fly in the air, he has also sworn in vain.", + "If he said to witnesses, “Come and bear testimony for me”, [and they replied,] “We swear that we will not bear testimony for you”. According to Leviticus 5:1, if a person has been witness to an event he is obligated to testify. If a person asks another person to testify and he has testimony to give, and he swears that the he will not testify, then he has sworn in vain. This example actually can fit into the example in the next section, one who swears not to observe one of the commandments. Since testifying is a positive commandment one who swears not to do so has sworn in vain.", + "If he swore to annul a commandment, [for example] not to make a sukkah, or not to take a lulav, or not to put on tefillin. These are vain oaths, for which one is liable, for intentional transgression, lashes, and for unintentional transgression one is exempt. One who swears not to observe one of the commandments has sworn in vain.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah consider all of these oaths to be in vain?
• What is the difference between a false oath and a vain oath?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah nine discusses one who takes two oaths, the second oath being the exact opposite of the first oath.", + "[If one said:] “I swear I shall eat this loaf”; [and then he said,] “I swear I shall not eat it,” the first is an oath of utterance, and the second is a vain oath. If he ate it, he transgressed the vain oath; if he did not eat it, he transgressed the oath of utterance. In the case in our mishnah a person swears two oaths, the second oath contradicting the first. The first oath is considered to be a normal oath of utterance, which he must observe or be liable for breaking his oath. The second oath is considered a vain oath, since it is forbidden to observe the oath. In other words, similar to one who swears not to observe a commandment, this person has sworn to do that which is forbidden for him to do. If he eats the loaf, as he swore to do in the first oath, he is liable for having broken the second oath. If he does not eat it, he is liable for having broken his oath of utterance. In the Talmud it is explained that if he does not eat the loaf he has transgressed not only his oath of utterance but he has also made a vain oath, despite the fact that he kept the oath. Since at the time that he made the oath it was forbidden to keep, he is liable for having made a vain oath even if he does keep it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah that we will learn today contains a list of when the oath of utterance is applicable. A similar list will appear in tomorrow’s mishnah with regard to vain oaths. The similarities between these two types of oaths will be contrasted with the rules of the testimonial oath, to be learned in the first mishnah of chapter four. Some of the points in these mishnayoth may seem obvious. They are included here only to be contrasted with what we learn in chapter four mishnah one.", + "The oath of utterance applies to men and women, to relatives and non-relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and those not qualified, [whether uttered] before the court, or not before the court, [but it must be uttered] with a man’s own mouth. And he is liable, for intentional transgression, lashes, and for unintentional transgression, a sliding scale sacrifice. An oath of utterance equally applies to men and women. Similarly it does not matter if the person swears concerning a relative or non-relative, one who is fit to testify or not fit to testify. It can be uttered before or not before a court. Again, these laws may seem obvious, but we will see in chapter four that they are different with regards to testimonial oaths. The oath of utterance must be uttered by the one swearing. We will learn at the end of mishnah eleven that he may also swear by being adjured by someone else and answering amen. The end of the mishnah reiterates the punishments for breaking an oath of utterance. The punishments for oaths of utterance and vain oaths were already taught in mishnah seven." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah except that it discusses the vain oath. The end of the mishnah discusses a similarity between the two oaths: in both cases one person can adjure another person.", + "A vain oath applies to men and women, to relatives and non-relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and those not qualified, [whether uttered] before the court, or not before the court, [but it must be uttered] with a man's own mouth. And he is liable, for intentional transgression, stripes, and for unintentional transgression he is exempt. This section is the same as the previous mishnah. It is here only to contrast it with the rules of the testimonial oath taught in the next chapter.", + "[In the case of] both this and that [oath], if he was adjured by the mouth of others, he is liable. How so? If he said, “I have not eaten today,” or, “I have not put on tefillin today” [and the another person said,] “I adjure thee,” and he said, “Amen!”, he is liable [if his oath was false]. A person need not utter the entire oath on his own in order for it to be valid. If he makes a statement without using the language of an oath, and then another person adjures him with regards to the truth of his words, and he answers “amen”, he has sworn an oath. In this case his answer “amen” to another person using the language of an oath makes it as if he himself swore. If his oath is false he will be liable." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nLeviticus 5:1 states, “If a person incurs guilt, when he has heard a public imprecation and although able to testify as one who has seen or learned of the matter he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment.” In simple English this verse refers to one who has sworn that he does not know information regarding another person’s case in court. The Mishnah refers to this as an oath of testimony. Our entire chapter discusses the rules and regulations of this type of oath. The mishnah which we learn today and the one we will learn tomorrow serve as a contrast to the last two mishnayoth of chapter three, which discussed oaths of utterance and vain oaths.", + "The oath of testimony applies to men and not to women, to non-relatives and not to relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and not to those unqualified. And it applies only to those eligible to bear witness. The oath of testimony only applies to those who are allowed to testify. In other words, if a person adjures another person to testify on his behalf, and they know testimony, and they are qualified to testify, and they swear that they do not know any information, then these witnesses have made a false oath of testimony. If they were not qualified to testify then they have not made a false oath of testimony, even if they knew information. Therefore the rules of oaths of testimony do not apply to women, to relatives or to otherwise unqualified individuals (see Sanhedrin 3:3-4). In the last clause of this mishnah it is not entirely clear to whom the mishnah refers when it states that the oath of testimony applies only to those qualified to testify. The Talmud interprets this clause to mean the King, who according to Sanhedrin 2:2 does not testify.", + "Whether [uttered] in front of the court or not in front of the court, if [uttered] with his own mouth; [but if adjured] by the mouth of others he is not liable unless he denies it before the court, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “Whether [uttered] with his own mouth or [adjured] by the mouth of others he is not liable unless he denies it before the court.” According to Rabbi Meir, when an oath of testimony is sworn by the witness himself it can be done either before or not before a court However, if the litigant adjures the witness to take an oath, then the witness is not obligated for making a false oath of testimony unless he denies knowing information while in front of the court. The Sages say that in both the case of a witness swearing on his own and the case of the litigant adjuring the witness, the witness is not liable until he denies knowing information in front of a court. One who swears a false testimony while not in front of the court is not liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Rabbi Meir require denial in front of the court in a case where the litigant adjured the witness but not in a case where the witness himself swore? Why do the Sages always require denial in front of a court?" + ], + [ + "And they are liable for intentional transgression of the oath, and for its unintentional transgression coupled with intentional [denial of knowledge of] testimony, but they are not liable for unintentional transgression.
And what are they liable for the intentional transgression of the oath? A sliding scale sacrifice.
This mishnah continues the lists we have seen in the previous three mishnayoth.
There are two elements to the false oath of testimony: 1) knowing information and intentionally withholding it; 2) intentionally swearing falsely that one does not know the information. The mishnah teaches that if the witnesses intentionally deny knowledge of the testimony, even if they don’t realize that swearing falsely is forbidden, they are liable for intentionally swearing falsely. However, if they don’t realize that they know information then they are not liable, since this was a totally unintentional transgression. In other words, there punishment hinges upon their intentional denial of knowledge of information. If they intentionally withheld information and swore to it, then they are liable to bring a sliding scale sacrifice, as described in Leviticus 5:5-13." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of mishnah three explains how an oath of testimony is done. The second half of the mishnah discusses a witness who falsely swears five times that he had no knowledge of testimony.", + "The oath of testimony: How is it done? If he said to two [persons]: “Come and bear testimony for me”; [and they replied:] “We swear we know no testimony for you”; Or they said to him: “We know no testimony for you”, [and he said:] “I adjure you” and they said, “Amen! “, they are liable. An oath of testimony can be done in one of two ways. The first way is for the litigant to ask the witnesses to come and testify on his behalf and for them to swear that they have no knowledge of testimony. Alternatively the witnesses can state that they know no testimony and the litigant can adjure them that they know no testimony. If they answer amen, they have sworn an oath of testimony. If they have sworn falsely they are liable.", + "If he adjured them five times outside the court, and the they came to the court and admitted [knowledge of testimony], they are exempt. If they denied, they are liable for each [oath]. If he adjured them five times before the court, and they denied [knowledge of testimony], they are liable only once. Said Rabbi Shimon: “What is the reason? Because they cannot afterwards admit [knowledge]. This section discusses a case where a litigant adjured the witnesses five times. The mishnah asks the question, in what case will they be liable for having sworn falsely five times, in what case they will be liable for having sworn falsely once and in what case will they be exempt. If, he adjured them outside of the court, and then when they came to court they admitted that they knew testimony, they are not liable. As we learned in mishnah one, the denial of knowledge must occur in front of the court. If, after having adjured them five times they come to court and continue to deny knowledge, then they are liable for having sworn five false oaths of testimony. The denial at court makes each oath outside of court a potentially effective oath, and therefore if it was false, it causes them to be liable. If he adjured them five times in front of the court and they denied knowledge each time, they will be liable for having sworn only one false oath. Rabbi Shimon explains that since after the first denial in front of the court they will not be able to change their minds, the subsequent oaths were meaningless. Once a person has in court denied knowing testimony he cannot change his mind and testify. Since, except for the first oath, the other oaths were meaningless, he can only be liable for one false oath." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four discusses how many of the witnesses deny knowledge such that they become liable for swearing a false oath of testimony.", + "In order to understand this mishnah it is important to remember that in Jewish law two witnesses are needed to prove a case. A single witness’s testimony is not acceptable in court.", + "If both [persons] denied [knowledge] together, they are both liable. If both witnesses deny knowledge at the same time then they are both liable for false oaths. Since they both equally have caused the litigant to lose his case, they are both liable.", + "If one after another, the first is liable, and the second exempt. If one denies knowing testimony and then the second witness also denies, the first witness is liable and the second is not. Since, when the second witness was asked to testify, the only other witness had already sworn that he had no knowledge, the second person’s testimony would not have been accepted in any case. In other words, by denying knowledge he did not cause any loss to the litigant, and he is therefore not liable.", + "If one denied, and the other admitted, the one who denied is liable. If one person denies knowledge and the other person admits to knowing testimony, the first person is liable since he caused the litigant to lose his case. If he had admitted, there would have been the sufficient two to prove the case.", + "If there were two sets of witnesses, and the first denied, and then the second denied, they are both liable, because the testimony could be upheld by [either of] the two. If two sets of two witnesses deny knowledge, one after the other, both sets, meaning all four witnesses, are liable. Since the testimony could have been established by either set of witnesses, they have all caused a loss to the litigant by denying knowledge, and they are therefore, all liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the scenario in section two and the scenario in section four?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses combining several oaths into one oath or separating one oath into several oaths.", + "“I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that there are of mine in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, and a lost object”; [And they respond]: “We swear we know no testimony for you”, they are liable only once. “We swear we know not that there are of yours in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, and a lost object”, they are liable for each one. In the scenario in this section a person adjures witnesses to testify that another person has in his possession a deposit, a loan, a stolen object and a lost object that belong to him (the first person). If the witnesses swear falsely that they know no testimony, they are only obligated for having sworn one false oath of testimony. Since they made only one oath they can be obligated only once. If however, they swear four different oaths, by separately mentioning the deposit, loan, stolen object and lost object, then they are obligated for four false oaths. Since they separated their response into four details they have sworn four oaths and they are obligated for each one.", + "“I adjure you that you bear testimony for me that there is of mine in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”; [And they respond]: “We swear we know no testimony for you”, they are liable only once. “We swear we know no testimony for you that there is of yours in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”, they are liable for each one. The scenario in this section is similar to the scenario in the previous section. The only difference is that here at issue are three different kinds of grain. Again, if the witnesses combine their denial into one oath, then they are obligated only once. If they separate the oath into three different details they will be obligated for each detail.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
Why does the mishnah need to teach section two after having already taught section one? Would you have been able to learn the ruling with regards to section two from having known only section one?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six defines a false oath of testimony as denying testimony that would have aided the litigant in a monetary suit.", + "All of the cases mentioned in our mishnah are cases where a person is adjuring witnesses to testify for him in a monetary suit. In mishnah seven we will learn examples of testimony in non-monetary suits. Together these two mishnayoth teach that if a person swears a false oath of testimony in a monetary suit he is liable, but if he swears a false oath of testimony in a non-monetary suit he is not liable.", + "“I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that so-and-so owes me full damages, or half damages, or double payment, or four or five payment; Half-damages are paid in cases where an animal damages in an unusual fashion, and it has not previously done so three times. Full damages are paid in all other cases. Double payment refers to a thief’s obligation to pay back double the theft. Four and five times payment is what a thief must restore if he sold or slaughtered the stolen animal.", + "Or that so-and-so raped my daughter, or seduced my daughter; One of the penalties for rape and seduction of a virgin is a fine to the father of the girl.", + "Or that my son struck me; Striking one’s parent and not causing a wound is punishable by a financial penalty, as are all cases of personal injury. In mishnah seven this will be contrasted with striking one’s parent and causing a wound, which is punishable by death.", + "Or that my neighbor injured me, or set fire to my haystack on the Day of Atonement”; [And they deny knowledge of testimony] they are liable. Injuring another person and causing a wound or burning their haystack on the Day of Atonement is punishable by kareth (excommunication) and a financial penalty. In mishnah seven we will learn that doing either of these two things on the Sabbath is punishable by death. As we shall learn there, there is a general rule in Jewish law that if a person does one action for which he is liable to pay money and to be executed he is executed and does not owe money (see Bava Kamma 8:5). However, if by one action he is liable for kareth and to pay money, he gets kareth and still has to pay the money (see Bava Kamma 8:3)." + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah seven lists cases where although the person falsely testifies, since the case did not concern money, he is not guilty of a false oath of testimony.", + "This mishnah is a contrast to mishnah six. In it a person adjures witnesses to testify in non-monetary cases, or at least in cases in which the one adjuring does not stand to gain money by the testimony.", + "\"I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that I am a priest, or, that I am a levite, or, that I am not the son of a divorced woman, or, that I am not the son of a halutzah; That so-and-so is a priest, or, that so-and-so is a levite, or, that he is not the son of a divorced woman, or, that he is not the son of a halutzah; In all of these cases the testimony is about the status of either the person who adjures the witnesses or about a third party. There is no monetary suit. The son of priest and divorcee or a priest and a halutzah (one rejected by the levir) are considered disqualified priests and they do not retain their priestly status.", + "That so-and-so violated his daughter, or seduced his daughter; A person who rapes or seduces his own daughter is liable for the death penalty and not for a fine, as is one who rapes or seduces another person's daughter.", + "That my son injured me; A child who strikes his parent and inflicts a wound is liable for the death penalty. Since he will be executed he is exempt from paying a financial penalty, and therefore this case is not a monetary suit.", + "That my neighbor injured me, or set fire to my haystack on the Sabbath\" [And they deny knowledge of testimony] they are exempt. One who injures another person on the Sabbath or burns a haystack is liable for the death penalty. Although these cases also involve financial damage, since a person cannot be obligated for death and payment for the same act, the criminal would be liable for death and not payment. This is not, therefore, a monetary suit.", + "Questions for Further Thought: Why might you have thought that these cases were monetary suits?
" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses one who gives falsely swears about money that one person promised to give to another.", + "[If a man said,] “I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that so-and-so promised to give me two hundred zuz, and did not give me”, they are exempt, for they are liable only for a money claim as [in the case of] deposit. The oath of testimony is discussed in Leviticus 5:1. Leviticus 5:21 discusses an oath a person makes to deny having received a deposit, a loan, found a lost object or a stolen an object. The similarity in the language between these two verses led the Rabbis to conclude that although not mentioned specifically in verse 5:1 it is similar to 5:21 as it also concerns things similar to deposit. Therefore, in order for the witnesses to be liable for a false oath of testimony they must deny knowledge of a case that is similar to the case of a deposit, where one person claims he deposited money with another. If the case is one of a monetary promise, such as our mishnah, the false oath does not make the witnesses liable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah continues to discuss cases that are not technically considered false oaths of testimony.", + "“I adjure you that, when you know any testimony for me, you should come and bear testimony for me,” they are exempt, because the oath preceded the testimony. This mishnah teaches that the testimony must precede the oath. A person may not in advance adjure witnesses that if they, in the future know any testimony for him, that they must come and testify. The order of the verbs in Leviticus 5:1 also points to the fact that the testimony must precede the oath." + ], + [ + "[If] he stood in the synagogue and said, “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”, they are exempt unless he directs himself to them. If the litigant stood in a public place and adjured a large, unspecified crowd of people that they should testify for him, and they all swore that they knew no testimony, the ones who did in fact know testimony are nevertheless exempt. The mishnah teaches that the litigant must specify exactly who he is adjuring. When learning this mishnah we must remember that people who witness an event have a religious duty to testify, regardless of whether the litigant adjures them or not. Our mishnah merely teaches that they have not sworn a false oath unless specifically adjured." + ], + [ + "If he said to two [persons]: “I adjure you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”: [And they replied,] “We swear we know no testimony for you”, and they did know testimony for him, [but it was evidence of] one witness from the mouth of another witness; or if one of them was a relative or [otherwise] ineligible [as a witness], they are exempt. This mishnah teaches that if the witnesses who swore that they do not know testimony did know testimony but that the testimony would not have been accepted in the court, they are exempt for having sworn falsely. The reasons that their testimony might not have been accepted are: 1) the testimony was hearsay (see Sanhedrin 4:5); 2) they were related to one of the litigants (see mishnah one of this chapter); 3) they were otherwise unfit to testify (ibid.). Since their testimony would not have been sufficient to render a verdict in any case, they are not liable for having sworn falsely." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah twelve teaches that the claimant must be the one who recites the adjuration.", + "If he sent by the hand of his servant, or if the defendant said to them: “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for him you should come and bear testimony for him”, they are exempt, until they hear [the adjuration] direct from the claimant. If the claimant (the plaintiff) sends a servant to adjure potential witnesses to testify on his or if defendant the adjures the witnesses to testify in his defense, and the witnesses swear falsely they are not liable. The claimant must be the one who adjures them directly." + ], + [ + "Introduction Mishnah thirteen discusses different possibilities for the language of the adjuration.", + " [If he said]: \"I adjure you\"; \"I command you\"; \"I bind you\"; they are liable. \"By heaven and earth!\", they are exempt. \"By Alef Daleth\"; \"By Yod He\"; \"By God Almighty\"; \"By The Lord of Hosts; \"By the Merciful and Gracious one\"; \"By the Long Suffering One\"; \"By the One Abounding in Kindness\"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. The first section of our mishnah establishes which words are valid as words of adjuration. If we look at Leviticus 5:1, the Biblical verse that discusses the oath of testimony, we will notice that the word “shevuah”, oath, is not used. Rather the Torah uses the word “allah” which can mean a curse but can also mean an oath. The Rabbis did not limit adjuration to the use of the word “allah” but extended it to included either a “shevuah”, or something similar. We will learn what an “allah” is in section five. This section discusses words that are similar to “shevuah” and therefore may be used in adjuration.", + "Sections 1a and 1b contain invalid and valid substitutes for God’s name. “Heaven and Earth” are not substitutes for God’s name and therefore may not be used in adjuration. Heaven and earth were created by God but they are not potential substitutes for His name. However, the letters of his name, and various substitutes used frequently in the Torah are valid. \"Aleph Dalet\" are the first two letters of Adonay, which means \"My Lord\" and is a name frequently used for God. \"Yod He\" are the first two letters of God's unpronounceable four letter name, YHWH. The rest are names for God used in the Torah or attributes of God.", + "He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. There are three different types of blasphemies mentioned in this section: blaspheming God, blaspheming one's parents and blaspheming oneself or another person. Blaspheming God or one's parents is punishable by death. We learned in Sanhedrin 7:5 that one is not liable for having blasphemed unless he uses God's name. According to Rabbi Meir, one who blasphemes using one of the aforementioned substitutes for God's name is liable for the death penalty. According to the Sages he must use God's specific name, meaning the full four letter name.", + "As an aside the mishnah mentions that blaspheming others and even blaspheming oneself violates a negative commandment. The commandment referred to is in Leviticus 19:14, \"Do not curse a deaf person\". The Rabbis reason that if it is forbidden to curse a deaf person it is also forbidden to curse any other person. The Torah means to say, \"Don't curse even a deaf person, who cannot hear.\"", + " [If he said,] \"May God smite you\"; or \"Yea, may God smite you\"; this is the curse written in the Torah. \"May [God] not smite you\"; or \"May he bless you\"; Or \"May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]\": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them]. The mishnah now explains that the \"alla\"”, the curse mentioned in Leviticus 5:1 is saying \"May God smite you [if you know testimony for me and do not testify]\". According to Rabbi Meir the \"allah\" may be phrased in the positive. Instead of saying \"May God smite you\", the claimant may say something like, \"May God be good to you if you testify for me\". According to Rabbi Meir from the positive statement you can conclude that the claimant means to say that if you do not testify may God not be good to you. According to the other Sages the \"allah\" must be stated in the negative, as a curse. Stating the adjuration in the positive does not allow one to conclude the negative.", + "Questions for Further Thought: Why don’t the Sages hold that one could phrase the \"allah\" in the positive?
" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter five discusses the oath of deposit. The scenario in which this type of oath would be taken is one where Reuven requests of Shimon to return to him something he (Reuven) left in his (Shimon’s) guard. If Shimon denies having accepted the item as a deposit and takes an oath that he did not do so, and then admits that the oath was false, he is liable. This oath is referred to in Leviticus 5:21-26. An oath of deposit need not only be on a deposit but may be on any item that one person claims from the other.\nThe first mishnah is similar to those that we have learned previously. It categorizes when and to whom this type of oath is applicable.", + "The oath of deposit applies to men and women, to non-relatives and relatives, to those qualified [to bear testimony] and those unqualified; before the court and not before the court, [if uttered] from his own mouth. And [if adjured] by the mouth of others, he is not liable unless he denies it before the court, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, whether [uttered] from his own mouth or [adjured] by the mouth of others since he denied it, he is liable. This section is similar to the mishnayoth learned at the end of chapter three and the first mishnah of chapter four, which discussed the same regulations with regards to other types of oaths. The oath of deposit applies to anyone (as did the oath of utterance and the vain oath, but not the oath of testimony). Again, there is a dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Meir with regards to whether or not the person must state the oath in front of the court in order to make it valid. According to Rabbi Meir if the person utters the oath himself, he need not do it in front of a court. If, however, he is adjured, meaning the claimant asks him “Do you swear?” and he answers “Amen”, then it must be done in front of the court. According to the Sages, whether the person utters the oath on his own, or is adjured by others, he need not do so in front of a court.", + "And he is liable for intentional transgression of the oath, and for its unintentional transgression coupled with intentional [denial of having received the] deposit, but he is not liable for unintentional transgression. And what is he liable for the intentional transgression of the oath? A guilt offering of [the value of] two shekels of silver. A person is liable whether he intentionally swears a false oath or even unintentionally swears a false oath, meaning he didn’t know that one who swears falsely is liable to bring a sacrifice, but did know that he had the object being claimed. If he didn’t know that he had the object and then swore falsely, he is not liable. If he has intentionally violated either of these (the oath or the knowledge of the deposit) he must bring a guilt offering which is worth at least two shekels. This is the amount mentioned in Leviticus 5:15.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Compare this mishnah with the first two mishnayoth of chapter four. What are the differences and why are they different?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah explains how an oath of deposit works.", + "This mishnah is almost exactly the same as the chapter four, mishnah three. It may help to look back there as well.", + "The oath of deposit how? If he said to him: “Give me my deposit which I have in your possession” [and the other replied:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession”; or he replied to him; “You have nothing in my possession,” [and the depositor said:] “I adjure you”, and he responded, “Amen!”, he is liable. An oath of deposit may either be done by the claimant asking the other person to return the object and the other person swearing that it is not in his possession, or by the claimant adjuring the other person and the other person answering “Amen”. In either case, if the other person falsely denied having the object he will be liable.", + "If he adjured him five times, whether before the court or not before the court, and he denied, he is liable for each one. Rabbi Shimon said: “What is the reason? Because he can retract and admit.” If the claimant adjured the other person five times and he falsely denied it five times, he will be obligated for five sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon explains that since he could legally change his mind and admit at any point that the object was in his possession, each subsequent oath is in fact effective and is treated as a new oath. This differs from an oath of testimony mentioned in 4:3, where if the witnesses denied knowledge in front of the court five times, they will be obligated only once, since they cannot change their mind after having already testified.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Does the last section of this mishnah go according to Rabbi Meir or the Sages (see mishnah one)? How so?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah distinguishes between cases where a person has taken one oath of deposit and cases where a person has taken more than one oath of deposit. Similar mishnayoth were taught in 4:5, and 3:2-3 with regards to the other types of oaths.", + "If five claimed from him, and said to him: “Give us the deposit that we have in your possession,” [and he replied:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession,” he is liable only once. [If he said:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession, nor you, nor you,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ at the end.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ to each one.” In this scenario five people at the same time claim from one person an object that they say is in his possession. If he takes one oath denying that he has the object, he will be liable for one sacrifice, if the oath was false. There are three different opinions as to how he can make his statement into five different oaths and thereby be liable for each one. According to the first opinion each time he repeats “you” he is swearing a new oath, and will therefore be liable for another sacrifice. According to Rabbi Eliezer, in order to make all of the subsequent “you”s into new oaths, he must repeat the word “oath” at the end of the statement. If he does not it still counts as one oath. According to Rabbi Shimon he must repeat the word, “I swear” to each individual who makes a claim against him. If he does not it will count as one oath.", + "“Give me the deposit, loan, theft, and lost object that I have in your possession,” [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession a deposit, a loan, a theft, and a lost object,” he is liable for each one. In this scenario a person claims four different categories of things from another person. These four are patterned after the language of the Leviticus 5:21. If the person responds with one oath of denial without specifying what he is denying, he will be liable for only one sacrifice. If he mentions all four things which he is denying, he will be obligated for four sacrifices.", + "“Give me the wheat, barley, and spelt that I have in your possession”, [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession wheat, barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Meir said: “Even if he said, ‘... A grain of wheat, barley and spelt,’ he is liable for each one. This same rule applies if the claimant claims different types of the same item. Again, if he mentions each type individually, he is liable for multiple sacrifices. If he groups them together in one general statement, then he is liable for only one sacrifice. Rabbi Meir adds that even if he slightly changes the language of the claim, from plural to singular, he is still liable.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah need to teach section three after having taught section two? In other words, why would you have thought that the case of wheat, barley and spelt was different from the case of deposit, loan, theft and lost object?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final two mishnayoth of chapter five teach that in order for one who makes a false oath of deposit to be liable to bring a sacrifice he must deny something to which if he had admitted he would have been liable. Since he is not liable to pay a fine for a self-admission, he is not liable if he denies owing a fine. He is liable only if he denies owing something which is considered financial compensation. Mishnah four deals with a case of rape or seduction.", + "“You raped or seduced my daughter” and the other says, “I did not rape, nor seduce,” “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him, for he does not pay a fine on his own admission. They said to him: “Even though he does not pay a fine on his own admission, he still pays for the shame and blemish [to the girl], based on his own admission. According to the Exodus 22:15-16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if a man rapes or seduces a virgin, he must pay her father a fine of 50 shekels. The Rabbis added that besides the fine, he also has to pay other which penalties incumbent upon anyone who injures another person (see Bava Kamma, chapter eight). He must pay for having embarrassed her, and he must pay for having injured her, thereby decreasing her value. (We will learn the details of these laws in the third chapter of tractate Kethuboth.) In the scenario in our mishnah a man approaches another man and accuses him of having raped or seduced his daughter and therefore owing him the 50 shekels, plus the other penalties. The person responds that he didn’t do so, and then when the claimant adjures him, he affirms the adjuration. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, when he admits that he did in fact rape or seduce the other man’s daughter, he will be liable for a sacrifice for his false oath. Of course he will also be obligated to pay the fine and the other financial penalties. Rabbi Shimon disagrees. Since there is a rule in Jewish law, that one who admits to a crime does not have to pay the fine for having done so, even if this person had admitted to having raped or seduced the daughter, he would not have been obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, there was no denial of money, and the laws of the oath of deposit do not apply. The Sages respond to Rabbi Shimon that although one who admits to a crime does not have to pay a fine, he does have to pay compensatory damages, which in this case include the payment for embarrassment and the payment for having decreased her value. Since if he had admitted he would have had to pay, he did deny money, and is therefore liable for having sworn a false oath of deposit." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five deals with a principle similar to that which we learned yesterday, namely that a person is only liable for an oath of testimony if had he admitted to doing what he swore he did not do he would have been liable to pay money.", + "The examples in the first six sections of this mishnah illustrate the rule that is stated at the end. If a person denies a claim, to which if they had admitted they would have had to pay money to the claimant, they have caused the claimant to lose money and are liable to bring a sacrifice. If the person denies a claim, to which even if they had admitted they would not have been liable to pay money to the claimant, they have not caused the claimant to lose money, and they are therefore not liable for a sacrifice. The other relevant rule for our mishnah is the one mentioned in the previous mishnah, that one is not obligated to pay a fine based on his own admission, but he is obligated to make financial compensation based on his own admission. The general difference between a fine and financial compensation is that a fine is a fixed amount whereas financial compensation is based on the actual damages.", + "“You stole my ox,” and he says, “I have not stolen it” “I adjure You,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. In this case a person denies having stolen the object. If he had admitted to stealing he would have had to pay the value of the object to the owner, plus an additional one times the value of the object. Paying back the value of the stolen object itself is considered financial compensation. Since he would have been obligated to pay if he had admitted, he is liable for a sacrifice for having lied.", + "“I have stolen it, but I have not killed it or sold it”, “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is exempt. If the thief slaughters or sells the stolen animal he is liable to pay four (for a sheep) or five (for an ox) times the value of the stolen animal. In this case the person admitted to stealing the animal but denied having sold or slaughtered it. This extra payment, beyond the value of the animal, is considered a fine. Since he would not have been obligated to pay even if he had admitted, he is not liable for a sacrifice for having lied.", + "“Your ox killed my ox,” and he says, “It did not kill [your ox]”, “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. When one’s ox kills another’s ox, the owner of the ox that killed must financially compensate the owner of the dead ox. Since he would have been obligated to pay if he had admitted, he is liable for a sacrifice for having lied.", + "“Your ox killed my slave,” and he says, “It did not kill [your slave]”, “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is exempt. When one person’s ox kills another person’s slave, the owner of the ox must pay the owner of the slave 30 shekels. This is a fixed amount and is therefore considered a fine. Since he would not have been obligated to pay even if he had admitted, he is not liable for a sacrifice for having lied.", + "He said to him, “You injured me, or bruised me,” and the other says, “I have not injured you or bruised you,” “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. When one injures another person he is liable to make different types of financial compensation. Since he would have been obligated to pay if he had admitted, he is liable for a sacrifice for having lied.", + "His slave said to him, “You knocked out my tooth, or blinded my eye,” and he said, “I did not knock out [your tooth], or blind [your eye],’ “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is exempt. If a slave owner knocks out the tooth or puts out the eye of his slave he must set the slave free. This is not a monetary claim but rather is considered to be a fine. Since he would not have been obligated to set the slave free had he admitted to putting out his tooth or eye, he is not liable for a sacrifice for having lied." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous three chapters the mishnah discussed oaths which a person takes on his own. Our chapter begins to discuss oaths which are imposed by a court. There are several different types of oaths that may be imposed by a court. The first type of oath, the one described in our chapter, is sworn in a case where a person admits to owing part of a claim but denies the other part of the claim. We will learn the particulars of this oath as we proceed. For the sake of clarity, when explaining these mishnayoth we will use the name Reuven as the claimant, and Shimon as the defendant.", + "The oath of the judges [is imposed when] the claim is [at least] two silver coins, and the admission the equivalent of a perutah. And if the admission is not of the same kind as the claim, he is exempt. How is this so? This section introduces two general rules for the “oath of judges” described in our mishnah. The case is where Reuven tells Shimon that he owes him money and Shimon denies owing the full amount. Our mishnah teaches that if Shimon denies owing Reuven at least 2 ma’ah (a small, silver coin) and admits to owing at least a perutah (a small, not valuable, copper coin) he will be obligated to swear an oath that he does not owe the rest. Furthermore, he only has to swear an oath if that which he admits owing is the same kind as that which he denies. For instance if Reuven claims that Shimon owes him 50 barrels of oil and Shimon responds that he owes 50 barrels of wine, Shimon need not swear. The mishnah will explicate this ruling in mishnah three.", + "“Two silver ma’ahs of mine are in your possession,” [and the other replies], “I have nothing of yours in my possession except a perutah,” he is exempt. “Two silver ma’ahs of mine and a perutah are in your possession,” [and the other replies,] “I have nothing of yours in my possession except a perutah,” he is liable. The remainder of the mishnah explains the first rule, that the denial must be of two ma’ahs and the admission one perutah. If Reuven claims two ma’ahs and Shimon admits to one perutah, Shimon is not obligated for he denied only two ma’ahs less a perutah, which is less than the minimum two ma’ahs required. He will be obligated to swear if Reuven claims two ma’ahs and a perutah and Shimon admits to owing a perutah, for in this case Shimon did deny a full two ma’ahs.", + "“A hundred denarii of mine are in your possession”, [and the other replies], “I have nothing of yours,” he is exempt. “A hundred denarii of mine are in your possession”, [and the other replies], “I have of yours only fifty denarii,” he is liable. If Shimon completely denies owing Reuven money he is exempt from taking an oath. If, however, he admits to part of the claim, he must take an oath. This law requires some explanation for it may seem counterintuitive. The reasoning is thus: people are generally not so brazen as to completely deny something that is true. If Reuven claims money from Shimon and Shimon really does owe money he will not be so brash as to deny the debt completely. Therefore if he does deny the debt, he is believed without having to take an oath. People are however brazen enough to deny parts of debts. Shimon may reason to himself that he will deny owing Reuven part of the debt now and then when he gets the chance he will repay the whole debt. Since we assume that people might lie in such occasions, he must take an oath so that we can more safely assume that he is telling the truth.", + "“You have of my father’s a hundred denarii”, [and the other replies], “I have of his only fifty denarii”, he is exempt, because it is as if he restores a lost object. If Reuven claims that Shimon’s father owes him money and Shimon admits to part of the claim, he need not take an oath on the rest. Since this was not a claim against Shimon but against Shimon’s father, Shimon could have been brazen enough to deny the entire claim. Since he admitted to part of it, we trust him without making him take an oath.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is this compared to returning a lost object?" + ], + [ + "“You have of mine a hundred denarii”, he said to him, “Yes.” The next day he said to him, “Give them to me”, [and he replied,] “I have given them to you,” he is exempt. [If he says,] “Nothing of yours is in my possession,” he is liable. In the first scenario, Shimon admits one day to owing Reuven a hundred denarii (a coin). When the next day Reuven claims them, Shimon counterclaims that he has already paid him back. In such a case Shimon is exempt since Reuven cannot prove that Shimon did not pay him back. If, however, Shimon changes his claim from the previous day, and now denies owing Reuven money, he is liable to pay. After having admitted to owing money on one day, he may not change his mind the next.", + "“You have of mine a hundred denarii”, he said to him, “Yes”. [And then he said], “Do not give them to me except before witnesses.” The next day he said to him, “Give them to me;” [and he replied,] “I have given them to you,” he is liable, because he should have given them to him before witnesses. If, when Shimon admits to owing money, Reuven tells him that he wants the money returned only in front of witnesses, and then the next day Shimon claims that he paid back the money, Shimon is not believed. Since Reuven specified that he wanted the money returned in front of witnesses, the burden is now on Shimon to prove that he did pay him back. Without witnesses he will not be able to do so.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah one, section four: Why is this compared to returning a lost object?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah explains the second rule mentioned in mishnah one: the denial and the claim must be of the same “kind”. Our mishnah discusses what does “kind” mean, so that we will know when the person who admits to part of the claim must take an oath.", + "“You have of mine a litra of gold”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a litra of silver,” he is exempt. “You have of mine a golden denar”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a silver denar, or a tresis, or a pundion, or a perutah”, he is liable, for all are one kind of coinage. A litra is a measure of volume (liter in English). If Reuven claims from Shimon a litra of gold and Shimon admits to owing a litra of silver he need not swear since gold and silver are two different kinds. However, if Reuven claims gold money, and Shimon admits to owing silver money of any coinage, he is liable to swear since all money is of the same kind.", + "“You have of mine a kor of grain”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans”, he is exempt. “You have of mine a kor of produce”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans,” he is liable, for beans are included in produce. If Reuven claims from Shimon a kor (a unit of weight) of grain and Shimon admits to owing a kor of beans, he need not swear that he does not owe the difference (grain is worth more than beans) since grain and beans are two different “kinds”. If Reuven claims a kor of produce and Shimon admits to beans, then he is liable to swear that he does not owe the difference, because beans are a form of produce.", + "If he claimed from him wheat, and the other admitted barley, he is exempt. But Rabban Gamaliel makes him liable. If Reuven claims wheat and Shimon admits to barley the first opinion in our mishnah considers these different kinds and therefore Shimon need not swear that he doesn’t owe the difference. Rabban Gamaliel does think that Shimon needs to swear.", + "If he claims from his neighbor jars of oil, and he admits [his claim to the empty] jars, Admon says, since he admits to him a portion of the same kind as the claim, he must swear. But the sages say, the admission is not of the same kind as the claim. Rabban Gamaliel said, “I approve the words of admon. In this scenario Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him jars of oil. Shimon admitted that he owed Reuven jars but denied that he owed the oil. According to Admon, an early Sage, this is considered a partial admission to the claim: Reuven claimed jars and oil and Shimon admitted only to the jars but denied the oil. Therefore Shimon must swear that he doesn’t owe the oil. The other Sages who disagree with Admon say that Reuven really only claimed oil. The fact that Reuven said “jars of oil” was in order to express the amount of oil that he was claiming from Shimon. Since the claim and the admission were of different kinds, Shimon does not swear. Rabban Gamaliel says that he agrees with Admon.", + "If he claims from him vessels and lands, and he admits the vessels, but denies the lands; or admits the lands, but denies the vessels, he is exempt. If he admits a portion of the lands, he is exempt; a portion of the vessels, he is liable because properties for which there is no security bind properties for which there is security to take an oath for them. If Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him land and vessels and Shimon admitted to owing the land and not the vessels or the vessels and not the land, Shimon is exempt from swearing. This mishnah teaches that oaths are not taken on land (we will learn this again in mishnah five). Therefore, even if he admits that he owes land, he need not swear with regards to the vessels which he denies. If Shimon admitted owing part of the land, he is still not liable to swear, for the same reason mentioned above. If, however, he admitted to owing some of the vessels, then he must swear with regards to both the other vessels that he denies owing as well as the land that he denies. He must swear with regards to the vessels because he admitted to owing part and he denied owing part. He must also swear with regards to the land because property for which there is no security (meaning property that cannot be used as a lien, namely movable property) can force one to swear on property for which there is security (land and slaves). This means that once someone is liable to swear to another person with regards to movable property the other person can force him to swear about land as well, even though in general one doesn’t swear about land.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: How do you know that this mishnah assumes that grain is more valuable than beans?
• Section four: Upon what basis might Rabban Gamaliel disagree with the first opinion?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah four we will learn cases where an oath is not taken because of the status of the claimant or defendant.", + "No oath is imposed in a claim by a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor. If a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor make a claim against another person, that person does not have to swear an oath. Since the mishnah considers these people to be lacking intelligence, their claims are not trustworthy enough to impose an oath upon others. [When we learned Bava Kamma 4:4 I discussed the mishnah’s attitude towards deaf-mutes, and how Jewish law has changed now that sign language has been developed.]", + "And no oath is imposed on a minor. A minor is never asked to take an oath, since he cannot understand the consequences of falsely swearing.", + "But an oath is imposed when a claim is lodged against a minor, or against the Temple’s property. One who comes to collect a debt that a minor’s deceased father owed him, may take an oath that he is owed the money. This is not considered a case of the minor being a defendant, but in reality the deceased’s estate is the defendant. If Reuven owes Shimon money and then Reuven dedicates all his property to the Temple, Reuven may take an oath and collect from the property that had been dedicated to the Temple." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah five discusses cases where no oath is imposed because of the nature of the object in dispute.", + "And these are the things for which no oath is imposed: slaves, bonds, lands, and dedicated objects. [The law of] paying double, or four or five times the value, does not apply to them. An unpaid guardian does not take an oath, and a paid guardian does not pay. Rabbi Shimon says: “For dedicated objects for which he is responsible an oath is imposed and for [dedicated objects] for which he is not responsible an oath is not imposed. A person does not have to take an oath over any of the objects that are listed in this section. This means that if Reuven claims that Shimon owes him slaves, bonds or land, and Shimon admits to part of the claim, he need not swear over the rest. The laws of paying double, or four of five times the value also do not apply to these things. These are the penalties for one who steals, or one who steals and then sells or slaughters that which he stole. If Reuven steals a bond from Shimon and then sells it, Reuven is only obligated to restore the value of the slave, but not the double payment. If Reuven steals a sheep that had been dedicated to the Temple, and then sells the sheep, he is not liable to pay back to the Temple four times the value of the sheep. The laws of guardianship also do not apply to these things. If an unpaid guardian is watching a slave, and the slave runs away, the unpaid guardian need not swear that he was not negligent. A paid guardian does not have to pay if, while watching one of these objects, it is stolen or lost. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between dedicated objects for which a person is responsible and those for which he is not responsible. If a person says, “I dedicate this sheep to the Temple” and the sheep dies, he is not responsible to replace the sheep. Since this sheep is already considered Temple property, it is not subject to the laws of oaths and guardianship. If a person says, “I dedicate a sheep to the Temple” and he sets aside a sheep to bring to the Temple, and the sheep dies, he must replace the sheep with another sheep. Since the first sheep is still under his responsibility, and is therefore still his sheep, it is subject to the laws of oaths and guardianship." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to discuss land, which as we learned in the previous section, is not subject to the laws of oaths. Finally, in the last section of the mishnah, after several mishnayoth in which we learned when oaths are not taken, the mishnah states when oaths are taken.", + "Rabbi Meir says: “There are things which are [attached] to land, but are not like land.” But the sages do not agree with him. How so? [If one says,] “Ten vines laden with fruit I delivered to you” and the other says, “There were only five”; Rabbi Meir makes him take an oath; But the Sages say: “All that is attached to land is like land.” After we stated in the previous mishnah that oaths are not imposed on claims of land, our mishnah discusses the status of things attached to the land, such as grapevines. According to Rabbi Meir grapevines are like land, and if a person admits to owing part of a claim of grapevines, he is exempt from swearing. The Sages say that grapevines are independent of land, and therefore one swears on them.", + "An oath is imposed only for a thing [defined] by size, weight, or number. How so? [If one says,] “A store room full [of produce] I delivered to you,” or “A purse full [of money] I delivered to you” – and the other says, “I do not know; but what you left you may take,” he is exempt. If one says, “[I gave you produce reaching] up to the moulding [above the window],” and the other says, “Only up to the window,” he is liable. In order for an oath to be imposed in defense of a claim, what was claimed and what was admitted must be measurable, by size, weight or number. In the first scenario in our mishnah, Shimon responds to Reuven that he doesn’t know how much Reuven gave him, but that Reuven can take whatever is left. Shimon’s admission was not phrased as a measurable amount. Therefore he does not have to take an oath regarding that which he denied. The second scenario is a case where the claim and admission were measurable amounts. Reuven claims that the house full of produce that he left for Shimon was full up to the top moulding over the window. Shimon admits that the store room was full only up to the window. Although it may seem that this is not a claim nor an admission of a measurable amount, the mishnah rules that it is, and Shimon must swear to Reuven." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter six discusses a dispute between two people over the value of a pledge taken to secure a loan. We will learn that if the defendant admits to owing part of the claim then he must swear that he does not owe the rest.", + "In the scenario in both sections of our mishnah Reuven lent Shimon money and took from Shimon a pledge, which would generally be returned upon payment of the loan. Reuven subsequently loses the pledge. Shimon now owes Reuven the amount of the loan and Reuven owes Shimon the value of the pledge. Our mishnah will teach that if one side denies part of the claim must an oath be taken. If the entire claim is denied there will be no oath. There are three coins mentioned in our mishnah. There relative values are: 1 sela = two shekels = 4 denar.", + "If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. Reuven tells Shimon that the loan was a sela and the pledge was worth a shekel. He is in essence claiming from Shimon a shekel. Shimon responds that the pledge was worth a full sela, and he therefore does not owe Reuven anything. Since he denies the entire claim, there is no oath. If Shimon were to say that the pledge was worth three denarii (¾ of a sela), then he has admitted to owing Reuven one denar and denied owing him another denar. In such a case an oath must be taken. [At the end of the mishnah we will learn who swears.]", + "“You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. Shimon tells Reuven that the pledge was worth two selas and the loan was only one sela. Reuven responds that the pledge was worth only one sela. Since he has denied the entire claim, he need not take an oath. If Reuven were to respond that the pledge was worth five denarii, he has admitted that he owes Shimon one denar. Since he has admitted part of the claim, he must swear that he doesn’t owe the rest.", + "And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit. This section asks who takes the oath. We would have expected that in the first section Shimon would swear, since he is the one who admitted part of the claim that Reuven made against him, and that in section two Reuven would swear, since he was the one who admitted part of the claim that Shimon made against him. However, the mishnah teaches that the one who had the deposit, in our case Reuven, is always the one who has to swear. The simple reading of this mishnah is that Reuven will swear and then take from Shimon the money that he claims. This is an exception to the general rule that people swear to exempt themselves from paying, but not to allow themselves to take money from others. The reason that this case is exceptional and that the one who holds the pledge must swear is that we are concerned lest Shimon, who does not have the pledge, would swear and then Reuven would take out the pledge. If Shimon’s claim to the value of the pledge would turn out to be wrong, his oath will have been a false oath. The Rabbis tried to prevent situations where people might swear falsely, and therefore, in this case, they allowed the claimant, as opposed to the defendant, swear. We should note that the Talmud explains the mishnah differently, and there are some difficulties in understanding this last clause.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why aren’t the Rabbis as concerned in a normal case of a monetary dispute, lest the defendant swear falsely? What makes this case different from the others?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first six mishnayoth of our chapter discuss the exceptional cases in which a person takes an oath and thereby collects money from another person. All of the cases that we have seen in the mishnah until now have been examples of people who take oaths and are thereby exempt from paying.", + "All whom the Torah obligates to take an oath, take an oath, and do not pay. But these take an oath, and receive [payment]: the hired laborer, he who has been robbed, he who has been wounded, and he whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath, and the shopkeeper with his account book. Under most circumstances the one who takes an oath is the defendant or the one who would potentially owe money. Usually he swears and is thereby believed and does not have to pay the claimant. However, there are five cases in which a claimant takes an oath and thereby collects. This section briefly lists these five cases. The mishnah through mishnah six will explain these cases one at a time.", + "“The hired laborer” How so? [If] he says to him [his employer], “Give me my wages which you owe me,” and he replies, “I have given,” and the other says, “I have not received it,” he [the laborer] takes an oath and collects his wages. Rabbi Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? If he says to him, “Give me my wages, fifty denarii, which you owe me,” and the other says, “You have received a gold denar (25 silver.” The first person who takes an oath and is thereby able to collect a debt is a hired laborer. If a hired laborer claims his wages and his employer claims to have already paid him, the laborer may take an oath and collect his wages. The Talmud explains that since employers have many employees, they may tend to forget whom they have paid and whom they have not. It is not unlikely that they have indeed forgotten to pay their employees. Therefore, the hired laborer is allowed to swear that he has not been paid, and thereby collect his wages. According to Rabbi Judah, the hired laborer is allowed to collect by swearing only if the employer admitted to owing him part of his wages. In the scenario that he presents, the employer admitted to owing him 25 denarii but denied owing him an additional 25 denarii. The laborer may swear that the employer owes him 25 and collect. If the employer had denied the entire debt the employee would not be able to take an oath and collect.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Rabbi Judah believe there needs to be a partial admission in order for the claimant to swear and then collect?" + ], + [ + "“He who has been robbed” How so?
If they testified of a man that he entered into another’s house to take a pledge without permission, and the other says, “You have taken my vessels, and he says, “I have not taken them,” he takes an oath, and takes back his vessels.
Rabbi Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? He said to him, “You have taken two vessels,” and the other says, “I have taken only one.”
This mishnah discusses the oath taken by one who has been robbed. Through this oath the one who was robbed can recover his money from the robber.
The second type of person who is allowed to swear and collect is one who has been robbed. In the scenario presented in the mishnah Reuven enters Shimon’s home to take Shimon’s property as a pledge against Shimon’s debt to Reuven, but Reuven did not have permission, neither from Shimon nor from the court, to do so. Shimon claims that Reuven took his vessels when intruding into the house. If Reuven denies having done so, Shimon may swear and take from Reuven the value of the vessels that he has claimed. The reason that Shimon is allowed to swear and thereby collect is that Reuven is punished for having illegally entered Shimon’s house. Since he already broke the law, we do not trust him to deny having further broken the law.
According to Rabbi Judah, he is allowed to swear and collect only if Reuven denies part of the claim and admits to the other part. If Reuven denies the entire claim, Shimon cannot swear and thereby collect." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the oath taken by one who has been wounded. Through this oath he can collect money from the one who wounded him.", + "“He who has been wounded,” How so? If they testified about a person that another went onto his property whole, and came out wounded, and he said to him, “You have wounded me,” and the other said, “I have not wounded you,” he takes an oath, and receives [damages]. R. Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? He said to him, you have inflicted on me two wounds,” and the other said, “I inflicted on you only one wound.” This mishnah discusses the third example of one who swears and thereby collects: a person who has been wounded. In this scenario witnesses testify that Shimon entered Reuven’s property without having been previously injured and that he came out wounded. Shimon claims that Reuven injured him and Reuven denies having done so. Since it is highly likely that Shimon is telling the truth and that Reuven did indeed injure Shimon, Shimon may take an oath and collect damages. Rabbi Judah states that Shimon may collect only if Reuven admits to part of the claim. For instance if Shimon claims that Reuven injured him twice and Reuven admits to having done so only once, then Shimon may swear and collect. This opinion of Rabbi Judah is consistent with his opinion in the two previous mishnayoth.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What would be the law if there were no witnesses who testified that Shimon went onto Reuven’s property? Would Shimon still be able to collect?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses an oath taken by one person in order to collect from another person who is not allowed to take an oath because he is suspected of taking false oaths.", + "“He whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath,” How so? Whether it be the oath of testimony, or the oath of deposit, or even a vain oath. The fourth category of person who swears and thereby collects is one whose opponent is suspected of taking false oaths. The mishnah explains that this is true no matter what type of false oath he took, even a vain oath.", + "If one [of the litigants] was a dice-player, or usurer, or pigeon-flyer, or dealer in the produce of the seventh year, his opponent takes the oath and collects [his claim]. The mishnah now expands the list of those who are suspected of taking false oaths. This category includes all those who are forbidden from testifying (see Sanhedrin 3:3). Since these people are gamblers or otherwise do not respect the normal societal rules for money, they are not trusted when another claims a debt from them.", + "If both are suspect, the oath returns to its place, these are the words of Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Meir says: “They divide [the claim].” If both sides are not trustworthy, Rabbi Yose says that the normal rules return to their place. This means that the defendant, the one who had a claim made against him, takes an oath and is thereby exempt from paying money. Rabbi Meir disagrees. If both are suspected of taking false oaths, the court cannot allow either of them to swear. This would be in essence encouraging people to take false oaths. Rather they split the claim, meaning that the defendant will have to pay half the claim.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah say “even a vain oath”? Why might you have thought that if he took a vain oath he would still be trustworthy with regards to other oaths? Why is he not trustworthy with other oaths after having taken a vain oath?
• Why doesn’t Rabbi Judah disagree on this mishnah, as he has on the three previous mishnayoth in our chapter?" + ], + [ + "“And the shopkeeper with his account book,” How so? Not that he [the shopkeeper] says to him [the customer], “It is written in my account book that you owe me two hundred zuz”. Rather he [the customer] says to him [the shopkeeper], “Give my son two seahs of wheat,” or, “Give my laborer small change to the value of a sela” and then he says, “I have given,” and they say, “We have not received”; he [the shopkeeper] takes an oath, and receives [his due from the customer]. And they take an oath, and receive [their due].
Ben Nanas said: “How can both be permitted to come to a vain oath? Rather he takes without an oath, and they take without an oath.”
The mishnah which we will learn today discusses the fifth type of person who swears and collects: the shopkeeper with his account book.
This mishnah explains the fifth category of person who swears and thereby collects: the shopkeeper with his account book. The mishnah first explains that this is not a case where a shopkeeper claims that it is written in his book that so-and-so owes him money. In such a case the shopkeeper would not be able to swear and thereby collect from his customer. In that case the customer would be able to deny the debt without even having to take an oath.
Rather the mishnah describes a case where a customer requested that a shopkeeper give his son 2 seah of wheat or his worker coins the value of two sela. The customer promises to pay the shopkeeper back later on. We can see from here that in the time of the Mishnah shopkeepers, who usually had cash and produce on hand, functioned somewhat like a bank. Later on, the shopkeeper claims that he has paid the son or the workers. The son or the workers respond that they have not been paid. In other words, both sides are claiming that the customer/employer owes them money. According to the first opinion in our mishnah the shopkeeper can swear and collect from the customer. He is allowed to do so because he did not have any direct dealings with the son or the workers, direct dealings which would have implied that he trusts them to take an oath that they had not collected. There is no true business relationship between the son or workers and the shopkeeper. Rather there is a relationship only between the customer and the shopkeeper, and the customer and his son or workers.
The workers also may swear and thereby collect their wages from their employer. Since they have no business relationship with the shopkeeper, they need not trust him to swear that he did pay them. They may then swear and collect from their employer as all wage earners do (see mishnah one).
Ben Nanas points out a problem in this situation: if the shopkeeper swears that he did give the wheat or money and the son or employees swear that they didn’t receive, one of them is definitely swearing falsely. By the court mandating that both sides swear, the court is actually encouraging God’s name to be disgraced by a false oath. Rather, Ben Nanas rules that both sides collect without taking an oath." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah six continues to discuss the oath of the shopkeeper.", + "If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” Reuven asks Shimon the shopkeeper to sell him a denar’s worth of fruit, and Shimon gives him the fruit. When Shimon claims the denar from Reuven, Reuven responds that he has already paid him, and that Shimon put it in into the till. The mishnah rules that Reuven may swear that he gave Shimon the denar and be exempt from paying. Since Shimon cannot prove that he did not receive the denar, he cannot recover the alleged debt. In the second scenario in this section, Reuven gives the denar before getting the fruit. When Reuven claims the fruit, Shimon responds that he has already paid him and that Reuven put the fruit into his house. In this case Shimon is allowed to swear that he has already paid, for the same reason that Reuven was allowed to swear in the first case. Rabbi Judah says that whoever holds the fruit has the advantage. According to Rashi, Rabbi Judah disagrees with the ruling in section one. Since the customer already has possession of the fruit he is believed when he says that he gave the denar without taking an oath. Even though it is not unusual for shopkeepers to give their produce on credit, Rabbi Judah still believes the customer who claims to have paid since he has possession of the goods.", + "If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.” This section is basically the same as the previous one, accept that it discusses a money-changer and not a shopkeeper. Rabbi Judah’s opinion differs slightly, at least in the way he phrases it. Rabbi Judah again disagrees with the first part of the section (according to Rashi). When the customer has already received the change and the money-changer claims that he has not received the denar, the customer is believed to have given the denar even without taking an oath. Since money-changers generally do not give coins without having received other coins, we can assume that the other person did indeed give the coin.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How are the two scenarios in the two halves of this mishnah different?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven teaches two more categories of people who swear and thereby collect.", + "So too they have said that she who impairs her kethubah [by admitting that it had already been partially paid] cannot receive [the remainder of the] payment except on oath; And that if one witness testifies against her that it [the kethubah] has been paid [in full], she cannot receive payment except on oath; And that from assigned property or orphans’ property she cannot exact payment [for her kethubah] except on oath; And that if she claims [her kethubah] not in his presence, she cannot receive payment except on oath. The previous six mishnayoth listed five cases where a person could swear and collect from others. Our mishnah lists two other such cases. There is however a difference between the cases listed here and those listed above. In those above, the innovation of the mishnah was that the person might take an oath and thereby collect. Without the mishnah we would have thought that the person could not have collected at all, since they could not prove their claim. In the cases in our mishnah, the mishnah is teaching that they must swear before they collect. Without the mishnah we would have thought that they could have collected without an oath, for as we shall see, these people can indeed prove their claims. The first section discusses women collecting their “kethubah” or marriage document, which has written in it an amount of money paid to the woman upon death or divorce. In normal circumstances the woman could collect without taking an oath, since she holds the actual document. However, there are several circumstances where in order to collect, she must take an oath: 1) a woman who has already received part of the kethubah money; 2) if one person testifies that she has already received her kethubah (two witnesses are needed for the husband to prove that she has already collected); 3) if she collects from property that the husband had already given to others (the kethubah creates a lien on all of the husband’s property) or from the husband’s children; 4) if she collects while not in front of him. In all of these cases, the woman must swear that she has not received her kethubah before she can collect from the husband or from his estate.", + "So, too, orphans cannot receive payment except on oath [namely]: “We swear that our father did not enjoin in his will, neither did our father say unto us, nor did we find [written] among the documents of our father that this document is paid.” Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: “Even if the son was born after his father’s death he may take an oath, and collect his claim.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “If there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death that this document was not paid, he receives [his claim] without an oath.” Similarly, if orphans find amongst their fathers documents a bill that says that others owe him money they must swear that their father did not tell them, either verbally, in a will or in a separate document, that the bill had already collected. If they take this oath they may then collect the debt. According to Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka, even if the son was born after the father’s death, and therefore cannot swear that his father did not tell him that the bill had already been paid, he may still swear that he did not find amongst his father’s other documents a note stating that the debt had already been paid. After taking this oath the son may collect the debt. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel if there are witnesses who say that at the time of death the father said to them that the bill was not paid, the father’s heirs may collect the debt without taking an oath." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah eight teaches five types of defendants who must take oaths even though the claimant’s claim is not certain.", + "And these take an oath though there is no [definite] claim: partners, tenants, guardians, the wife who transacts the affairs in the house, and the son of the house. Generally, a person has to swear that he doesn’t owe the claimant, only if the claimant had professed to be certain that he was owed money. If the claimant is not himself certain, the defendant need not swear. Our mishnah lists several exceptions to this rule. 1. If one partner suspects another partner of not equally sharing the business costs or profits, he may impose upon him an oath. 2. If a landowner suspects that a sharecropper did not honestly report the amount of crops harvested, he may impose upon him an oath. 3. If a person suspects that someone who had been appointed as a guardian over his property, had withheld some of the property for himself, he may impose upon him an oath. 4. If a husband leaves his household and finances in the care of his wife, he may make her take an oath that she did not take any of his property. 5. Similarly, if one brother administers an inheritance, the other brothers impose upon him an oath that he did not take any of the property for himself.", + "[If] he said to him, “What do you claim of me?”, [and the other replied,] “I want you to swear to me”, he must take an oath. In all of these circumstances the claimant may request that the defendant swear that he didn’t take any of the property, without the claimant having to express a definite claim.", + "If the partners or tenants had divided, he cannot impose an oath upon them. Once partners have already split up their partnership, one partner may not force another partner to swear that he didn’t take a part that didn’t belong to him while the partnership still existed.", + "If an oath was imposed upon him in another case, they impose upon him the whole. If a person already must take an oath to another person that he does not owe him something, the claimant may make him swear another oath, that under normal circumstances he would not have the power to impose.", + "And the seventh year cancels the oath. The Sabbatical year cancels all debts. If Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him money, and Shimon admitted to owing part of the money and denied owing the rest, and then the Sabbatical year arrived, Shimon does not need to swear that he doesn’t owe the rest. Since the Sabbatical year cancels the debt, it also erases the need to swear with regards to the debt.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah rule that in these circumstances a person make another person take an oath without having a definite claim? Why under normal circumstances must there be a definite claim for an oath to be imposed?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah in this chapter was taught in its entirety in Bava Metziah 7:8. It is repeated here as an opening to the rest of the chapter which discusses when a guardian is liable to bring a sacrifice for having sworn a false oath. There are certain types of guardians who under circumstances if not able to return the object under their guard may take an oath and thereby exempt themselves from having to pay back the owner. Our chapter will teach that they are liable to bring a sacrifice only if they take an oath that exempted them from paying back the owner. The type of oath described here is an “oath of deposit”, discussed above in chapter five. The punishment for intentionally swearing a false oath of deposit is a guilt offering.", + "There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen. This mishnah lists the four types of guardians in Jewish law. The general principle is that the more benefit a guardian receives and the less benefit he gives to the owner of the object, the more liable he will be if the object is not returnable. Therefore a borrower, who does not pay and gets full use of the object pays in any case that the object is not returnable. On the other hand, an unpaid guardian only gives benefit to the owner and receives no benefit in return. Therefore in all cases in which something occurs to the object that he is guarding he may take an oath that he was not neglectful and be exempt from liability. Paid guardians and hirers are in-between cases. The hirer gets use of the object but he pays for such use. The paid guardian is not allowed to use the object but he gets paid for watching it. Therefore both of these guardians are sometimes allowed to take an oath and thereby be exempt from liability and sometimes they are liable to pay the owner. If the animal was lost or stolen and is no longer in front of us, they must pay the owner the value of the animal. If, however, it died a natural death, was taken captive or injured then they may take an oath and exempt themselves from liability." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the oath taken by the unpaid guardian, who as we learned in the previous mishnah, can always take an oath to exculpate himself from liability.", + "If he [the owner] said to the unpaid guardian, “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It died,” whereas in reality it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied], “It was injured,” whereas in reality it died or was captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was captured,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was stolen,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was lost,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “amen”, he is exempt [from having to bring a sacrifice for a false oath]. As we learned in the previous mishnah, an unpaid guardian can always take an oath and exempt himself from repaying the owner if he cannot return the object under guard. It doesn’t matter whether the animal died, was injured, taken captive, stolen or lost; in all of these cases the unpaid guardian may swear that he was not negligent and be exempt from having to pay back the owner. In the five different scenarios in our mishnah the unpaid guardian lies with regards to what happened to the animal. However, even if he had told the truth, he would not have been liable to pay back the owner. For instance, if he says that the animal died, but in truth it had been lost, he has lied, but he could have told the truth without having to pay back the owner. In all of these cases, even if the unpaid guardian swears to his lie, he is not liable to bring a sacrifice. Since his false oath was unnecessary it does not obligate him for the same consequences as an oath that did actually exempt him from paying back the value of the animal under his watch.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah have to list all of these possibilities? What might a reader have thought had some of the possibilities not been listed?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three continues to discuss unpaid guardians who swear falsely with regards to the object under their watch.", + "[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “I do not know what you are talking about,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost, [and the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen”, he is exempt. When the unpaid guardian is asked by the owner of the ox where is his ox, the he denies ever having received it. When adjured, the he swears that he never received the ox. If the ox in reality had died, been injured captured or lost, the unpaid guardian is exempt from bringing a sacrifice or from paying back the owner. As we learned in the previous mishnah, since he could have told the truth and been exempt, when he lies he is still exempt.", + "[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It was lost”; [and the owner said,] “I adjure you”, and he said, “Amen”, and witnesses testify against him that he had consumed it, he pays the principal; if he confessed himself, he pays the principal, a fifth, and brings a guilt-offering. In this case the unpaid guardian swears falsely that the animal had been lost. In reality he had consumed the animal himself. If he had told the truth he would have had to pay back to the owner the value of the animal. If witnesses testify against him that he had consumed the animal himself, he must repay the value of the animal to the owner. If he himself admits that he consumed the animal, without witnesses testifying against him, he must not only restore the value of the animal, but pay an additional fifth and bring a guilt offering. This is the punishment prescribed in Leviticus 5:21-25. Our mishnah teaches that a person makes this type of expiation for a false oath, only if he admits to having sworn falsely. If witnesses prove him to have sworn falsely he does not bring a sacrifice or an additional fifth.", + "[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It was stolen;” [and the owner said,] “I adjure you, and he said, “Amen”, and witnesses testify against him that he himself stole it, he pays double; if he confessed himself, he pays the principal, fifth, and brings a guilt-offering. If the unpaid guardian claims that the ox was stolen but in reality he stole it, he is considered a thief. If witnesses testify that he stole it he is obligated to pay back double the value of the ox, as are all thieves required to pay back double. If he himself admits to having stolen the ox, he must pay back the value of the ox, and an additional fifth and bring a sacrifice, for having sworn a false oath. He does not bring the double payment, due to the general rule that one who admits to having done a crime does not pay a fine. Double payment is considered a fine.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: What is the paradox in this section, a law that seems to be counterintuitive?
• Why is one who admits to a crime exempt from paying the fine? What does this say about the penal system at the time of the Mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah four is a digression in the Mishnah, which deals with some laws of stealing.", + "If a man said to one in the market, “Where is my ox which you have stolen?” and he replied, “I did not steal it,” and witnesses testified against him that he did steal it, he pays double. If he killed it or sold it, he pays four or five times its value. If he saw witnesses coming nearer and nearer, and he said, “I did steal it, but I did not kill or sell it,” he pays only the principal. This mishnah does not discuss false swearing but rather some laws of stealing. As we learned in Bava Kamma, one who steals and is caught must pay back a double payment. If he killed or sold a stolen animal he must pay back four (for a sheep or goat) or five (for an ox or cow) times the value. We have also learned on several occasions, that one who admits to having stolen the object, without witnesses first testifying against him, only pays back the principal. The scenario in our mishnah, in which a person accuses someone (not a guardian, rather any person in the marketplace) of having stolen his ox teaches two new rulings. First of all, if the accused admits to having stolen the object only because witnesses are about to testify against him, he is nevertheless obligated to pay back the principal but exempt from the double payment. In other words, even though witnesses were about to testify against him, this still counts as an admission. Second, if he admits to stealing the object, but does not admit to killing or selling it, he is exempt from paying back four or five times the value. Although witnesses testify that he did indeed sell or slaughter the ox, since he admitted to stealing it, it is considered an admission and he must pay back only the principal. There is no case in Jewish law where a person makes the four or five times payment, but is exempt for the double payment. This is because the Torah states that he will pay back four or five times. If he didn’t pay the double payment he would end up paying three or four times, an amount not specified anywhere in the Torah.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• How would the ruling in this mishnah differ, if the accused was the unpaid guardian of the ox?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is similar to mishnah two, except it discusses a borrower as opposed to an unpaid guardian. The principle taught as that learned above: if the false claim does not effect his liability to pay back the owner he is not liable for having taken a false oath.", + "If he [the owner] said to the borrower, “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It died,” whereas in reality it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was injured,” whereas in reality it died or was captured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was captured”, whereas in reality it died or was injured or stolen or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was stolen”, whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or lost; [Or he replied,] “It was lost”, whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt. This mishnah contains the exact same structure as mishnah two, and can be seen as the flip side to that mishnah. Mishnah two discussed an unpaid guardian, who is always exempt from having to pay back the owner, should something happen to the animal under his guard (of course, if he stole or ate the animal he is liable). Therefore, if he lies about what did happen, his lie has no effect on his liability to pay back the owner, for he would have been exempt in any case. Mishnah five discusses a borrower who is always liable to pay back the value of the animal should something happen to it. It does not matter whether the animal died, was injured, taken captive, stolen or lost; in any case in which he cannot restore the animal as it was, he must compensate the owner. Therefore, if he lies with regards to what happened to the animal, his lie has no effect. If for instance he says that the animal died, he still must pay back the value of the animal. The fact that the animal in reality was stolen does not change his degree of liability. Since the false oath did not change his liability he does not need to bring a sacrifice for swearing falsely." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of our mishnah contains one more law concerning the borrower. Sections 2-4 discuss the paid guardian and the hirer. Sections five and six contain general rules which summarize most of the laws learned in this chapter.", + "[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “I do not know what you are talking about,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost; [and the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is liable. This section continues to discuss a borrower. If the borrower denies having received the ox in the first place, he is attempting to exempt himself from paying back the owner. This is in reality the only way that the borrower can exempt himself from having to pay back the owner. If his oath was false he is liable to pay back the owner the value of the animal, as well as bring an additional fifth and a sacrifice for having sworn a false oath.", + "If he said to a paid guardian, or hirer, “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It died,” whereas in reality it was injured or captured; [Or he replied,] “It was injured,” whereas in reality it died or was captured; [Or he replied,] “It was captured,” whereas in reality it died or was injured; [Or he replied,] “It was stolen”, whereas in reality it was lost; [Or he replied,] “It was lost,” whereas in reality it was stolen; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt. Sections two-four discuss the paid guardian and the hirer, who have the same liabilities to pay back the owner of the animal. If the animal was injured, taken captive or died they may take an oath that they were not negligent and thereby exempt themselves from having to pay back the owner. If the animal was stolen or lost they cannot take an oath; rather they must pay back the owner. Our mishnah again illustrates the principle that if the false oath would have exempted the guardian in a case where if he had told the truth he would have been obligated, he must bring a sacrifice for having sworn falsely. If the oath does not reduce his liability he is not liable, even though he swore falsely. For instance, if he swears that it was injured, but in reality it was taken captive, he has sworn falsely, but his false oath did not reduce his liability. He is exempt in either case. Similarly, if he says that the animal was lost and it was really stolen, the false oath did not effect his liability. He would have been liable in any case. Since his false oath does not reduce his liability, it also does not make him liable to bring a sacrifice.", + "[If he replied,] “It died,” or, “It was injured,” or, “It was captured,” whereas in reality it was stolen or lost; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is liable. By swearing that the animal died, was injured or taken captive, the hirer or paid guardian is attempting to exempt himself from having to pay back the guardian. If, in reality, the animal was stolen or lost, the guardian has taken a false oath which would have exempted him from having to pay back the owner. Since the oath reduced the liability, the false oath makes him liable to bring an additional fifth, and a sacrifice.", + "[If he replied,] “It was lost,” or, “It was stolen,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt. By swearing that the animal was lost or stolen the hirer or paid guardian is making a claim that will make him liable to pay back the value of the animal to the owner. If, in reality, the animal was lost in a manner that would not have made him liable, it turns out that the false oath did not reduce his liability. On the contrary, in this case the false oath actually made him more liable. Even though the oath effected his liability, since it did not reduce his liability, he is still not obligated to bring an additional fifth or a sacrifice. He is, however, liable to pay back the value of the animal.", + "This is the principle: he who [by lying] changes from liability to liability or from exemption to exemption, or from exemption to liability, is exempt; From liability to exemption, is liable. This section contains a general rule that summarizes must of the laws learned in this entire chapter. It is interesting to note, that although one could have learned all of the laws from this rule, the mishnah nevertheless states all of the laws using concrete examples, rather than abbreviating to just the general rule.", + "This is the principle: he who takes an oath to make it more lenient for himself, is liable; to make it more stringent for himself, is exempt. This section contains another general rule meant to explain the laws of the chapter. Some versions of the Mishnah do not contain this line. It seems that this is an alternative version of the rule in section five. Congratulations! We have finished Shevuoth. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves. Indeed we have now finished together six tractates of Mishnah, and are three quarters of the way through the entire order of Nezikin. Of course, we have much more to learn. We will begin Shevuoth tomorrow!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה שבועות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה שבועות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Pirkei Avot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Pirkei Avot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89a4b365c0d885f05fe7a63f34cd397b50cf7859 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Pirkei Avot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,504 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Pirkei Avot", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה אבות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly.
They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.
Avoth begins by tracing the transmission of Torah and contains three sayings by the Men of the Great Assembly.
One of the most basic tenets of Judaism is related in this mishnah: that Moses received an oral as well as a written Torah and that there is an unbroken chain connecting the Rabbis with the revelation at Sinai. Therefore the oral Torah, observed and studied during the time of the Mishnah (and in subsequent generations as well) is not the creation of human beings, but is actually as divine in origin as is the written Torah. Now this an extremely significant claim, about which many, many books have been written, and indeed some fierce battles were fought (such as that between the Sadducees and Pharisees and that between the Rabbinites and Karaites). There are many sub-questions that require further resolution, most importantly what was the nature of the oral Torah received at Sinai. Did Moses receive every detail of observance and belief that any Jew would ever need to know? If so then all of the debates in the Mishnah and Talmud are attempts to recover what was originally known, and for some reason lost (this is Rav Saadiah Gaon’s position). Alternatively, were only the principles given to Moses, and perhaps rules by which later Jews could create new laws, laws that would have roots at Sinai but not have been specified at Sinai? If so, then the Mishnah and Talmud contain actual creativity in advancing and expanding the Oral Torah (this is basically the Rambam’s position).
Needless to say, we don’t have the answer to this question and it has been a great debate since the medieval period. The Talmud itself is unclear on the matter, and there are statements that support both. For instance the Talmud states that even any new innovation taught by a student was already revealed to Moses at Sinai. However, the Talmud also relates a famous story that God showed Moses what was going on in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall and Moses did not understand a word. Nevertheless, one thing is clear from this mishnah. Jewish tradition teaches that the Oral Torah (whether all of the details or just the essence) does come from Sinai and that each generation thereafter is obligated to learn that Torah and transmit it to the following generation.
The Men of the Great Assembly refers to the leaders who arose at the time of the building of the Second Temple, around 500 B.C.E (See Nehemiah 8-10). Little is actually known about this group and there are very few sayings attributed to them. They may have had judicial as well as legislative powers, but again little is known.
In our mishnah three sayings are attributed to them. The first is that judgements should not hastily be delivered. This has also been interpreted to mean that even if a case has come before a judge three or four times before, he must examine it closely perhaps he will find a new angle that he had not before noticed.
Although it may seem obvious that a teacher should seek many disciples, not all Rabbis thought so. Particularly Beth Shammai and Rabban Gamaliel were known for not allowing those whom they deemed disqualified to participate in the discussions in the study halls. This mishnah emphasizes that students should be encouraged to continue to learn, even if he is not perfect.
Making a fence around the Torah is another principle of supreme importance in Judaism. There are many laws that are not strictly obligatory upon a person from the Torah, but rather were instituted by the Rabbis to prevent a Jew from transgressing a Torah law. An example is the use of money on Shabbat. The Torah itself does not prohibit using money on Shabbat. However, the Rabbis said one should not do so, lest one write, which is prohibited by the Torah (at least the midrashic understanding of the Torah)." + ], + [ + "Shimon the Righteous was one of the last of the men of the great assembly.
He used to say: the world stands upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety.
The mishnah begins by noting that Shimon Hatzadik (the righteous) was one of the last men of the great assembly, which was the last link in the chain of the transmission of oral Torah mentioned in mishnah one. In other words, Shimon Hatzadik lived long before the time of the mishnah, and is not really part of the rabbinic period. He is one of the few people whose name is remembered from this period of Jewish history.
There are two interpretations of Shimon Hatzadik’s statement that the world could not stand without these three things. The first is that he means that the world literally could not exist without these things. These three things are the three legs upon which the world rests. Another interpretation is that it was for the sake of these three things that the world was created.
According to the rabbis, without Torah the world could not exist. Without people continuing to study Torah, God would destroy the world, for the study of Torah is one of the purposes of creation.
The word used to denote Temple service in the mishnah is “avodah”, literally worship. When the Temple stood, it was through the merit of the worship performed there, that God brought rain upon the earth (see Deut. 11:13-14). Without this worship, the world could not continue to exist. When the Temple was destroyed, prayer took its place.
There are two other interpretations to the word “avodah” in the mishnah. The first is the performance of mitzvoth in general. The second interpretation is literal work, plowing, harvesting etc. The idea behind this interpretation is that God gave the world to human beings so that they would tend to it and thereby become God’s partner in creation. If human beings were to cease acting as God’s partner, God would cease his role as well.
Gemilut hasadim, acts of loving kindness, are not merely acts of charity, but any act that helps another person in his time of need (visiting the sick, comforting the mourner, welcoming guests). The rabbis teach that these acts are even greater than giving charity, for a person gives charity with his money, but these acts are performed with money and by the person’s own body.
We should also note that according to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, after the destruction of the Temple acts of loving kindness take the place of the Temple service that can no longer be performed. Whereas in the past a person would be atoned through sacrifices, after the destruction the way to achieve atonement was by the performance of acts of piety." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAntigonus (certainly a Greek name) was from the city of Socho, which was in Judea. He received the oral tradition from Shimon the Righteous, mentioned above in mishnah two.", + "Antigonus a man of Socho received [the oral tradition] from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: do not be like servants who serve the master in the expectation of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master without the expectation of receiving a reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you. This mishnah contains an important basic concept in Judaism, one which the Rambam viewed as perhaps the most important concept. Although the Torah promises rewards for those who fulfill the commandments, one who constantly performs mitzvoth in order to receive a reward is not acting in an ideal manner. The reward is for the person who cannot see the innate wisdom in performing a mitzvah totally out of love (ahavah). Like a servant who only works for an allowance, this person has a shallow relationship with his master. One who performs the mitzvoth out of love can achieve a much greater closeness to God, for he expects nothing in return. In essence his performance of the mitzvoth is a statement that the mitzvoth are good in an of themselves, regardless of the reward that they might bring. The Rabbis teach that the reward for performing a mitzvah is the ability to perform another mitzvah. As a person improves himself, he will be given more and more opportunities to do so, to live a good life, and draw closer to God. Despite the fact that Antigonus emphasizes that one should serve God out of love, he finishes his statement by reminding us of the commandment to fear God. There are times when love will not suffice as a motivating factor for the performance of the mitzvoth. The Rabbis teach that love is a strong motivator for the performance of positive commandments but that fear is a stronger motivator for negative commandments. Antigonus’s balanced statement reminds us that we need to have both love and fear of God." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter the teaching of Antigonus from Socho, the mishnah begins with a period in Jewish history known as the period of the “pairs”. There are five “pairs” of Sages that are mentioned in our chapter, beginning in this mishnah and continuing through mishnah fifteen. The final pair are Hillel and Shammai.\nWe should note how important the concept of the Sage and learning from the Sage is in this mishnah and in the entire chapter. The “pairs” lived in the period between the Maccabean revolt (167 B.C.E.) until about two generations before the destruction of the Temple, which was in 70 C.E. This was a time when many Jews became greatly influenced by Helenistic culture. It was also the formative period of many of the sects, including the Sadducees and probably the Essenes (as well as the Dead Sea sect, who were probably Essenes). It was probably also the formative period for the Pharisees, the predecessors of the Rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud. Against this historical backdrop it is easy to understand why these Sages were so concerned with the authority and influence that they would have on the general public.", + "Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan [a man] of Jerusalem received [the oral tradition] from them [i.e. Shimon the Righteous and Antigonus]. Yose ben Yoezer used to say: let thy house be a house of meeting for the Sages and sit in the very dust of their feet, and drink in their words with thirst. Yose ben Yoezer encourages Jews to make their own homes into a place for the gathering of Sages. One should sit at the dust of their feet, which reflects the custom of the day whereby the Sage would sit on a chair and the disciple would sit at his feet. At this time period in history fixed study halls such existed in later times, especially in Babylonia during the late Talmudic period, did not yet exist. Learning the Oral Torah was performed (recited and not read) in small “disciple circles”, usually centered around a charismatic leader who would be the teacher. When the leader passed away the center of learning often moved to wherever the new leader was located. Yose ben Yoezer is encouraging people to make their homes open to the Sages, to turn them into places of learning, so that these disciple circles can exist there. When Yose ben Yoezer says “drink in their words with thirst” he is comparing the Torah to water, a common comparison in rabbinic literature. Just as water can eventually wear down rock, Torah learning eventually can seep into the hardened minds of human beings, even those who have never before learned." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the teaching of Yose ben Yochanan, the second Sage of the first “pair”. Midrash Shmuel makes an interesting note on the order of the chapter so far. Shimon the Righteous (mishnah two) stated that the world depends on three things: 1) Torah; 2) Worship (which is the same word as servitude); 3) acts of piety. Antigonus (mishnah three) spoke of servitude, Yose ben Yoezer (mishnah four) spoke of Torah and now Yose ben Yochanan will speak of acts of piety, namely helping the poor.", + "Yose ben Yochanan (a of Jerusalem used to say:
Let thy house be wide open, and let the poor be members of thy household. If in the previous mishnah we learned that one should open his house to Sages, in this mishnah we learn that one should open his house to the poor.", + "Engage not in too much conversation with women. They said this with regard to one’s own wife, how much more [does the rule apply] with regard to another man’s wife. From here the Sages said: as long as a man engages in too much conversation with women, he causes evil to himself, he neglects the study of the Torah, and in the end he will inherit gehinnom. This section strikes a strongly misogynistic note. This Mishnah’s opinions on women does not (and in my humble opinion, should not) agree with our modern sensibilities. In our society women are treated as equals to men (or they should be treated as equals to men). Needless to say, women were not seen as equal to men two thousand years ago (or even 50 years ago!). We should keep in mind that women did not receive the education that men received, and in general were not considered to be as intelligent as men. Therefore it is not surprising that Yose ben Yochanan warns men to avoid talking to women. Talking to women was considered the antithesis of Torah learning, because they assumed that women could not talk Torah. If we were to translate the advice in this section to our situation, the advice is not to waste one’s time away with idle chat, for such chat limits the time that one has to learn Torah. Note that sections 2a-b are not from Yose ben Yochanan himself but rather are the words of later Sages appended to his statement. They both explain the statement and expand upon it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins the teachings of the second “pair”. Note again the heavy concentration on learning and the continuation of the tradition, points which we noted in previous mishnayoth.", + "Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [the oral tradition] from them. Joshua ben Perahiah used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, and acquire for thyself a companion and judge all men with the scale weighted in his favor. Joshua ben Perahiah’s three pieces of advice have one common factor: they are concerned with a person properly socializing himself with other human beings. A person should not isolate himself for that may lead to moral problems and to feelings of despair. In order to accomplish this he must do three things: 1) find himself a teacher to teach him Torah; 2) find himself a friend; 3) have a positive attitude in his dealings with others. 1) When the mishnah states that one is supposed to find for himself a teacher, it means a fixed teacher with whom he can have a long lasting relationship. This teacher is ideally supposed to teach him all that there is to know. Avoth de Rabbi Nathan, which is a later expansion on Mishnah Avoth teaches an interesting parable. “Rabbi Meir used to say: He that studies Torah with a single teacher, to whom may he be likened? To one who had a single field, part of which he sowed with wheat and part with barley, and planted part with olives and part with oak trees. Now that man is full of good and blessing. But when one studies with two or three teachers he is like him who has many fields: one he sows with wheat and one he sows with barley, and plants one with olives and one with oak trees. Now this man’s attention is divided between may pieces of land without good or blessing.” 2) One of the main purposes of having a friend is to study with that friend. When a person learns alone, there is no one to correct his mistakes, no one to compliment him on his insight and no one whom he can bounce his ideas off. Traditionally Jewish learning has always been done in “hevrutot” which literally means “social circles”. Usually this is two people sitting together and learning a Jewish text. From personal experience, this is a much more effective means of learning than sitting by oneself, a more common way of learning in modern universities. 3) Judging every person with favor is perhaps some of the sagest advice the mishnah can give in teaching a person to succeed in society. One who is constantly skeptical of others’ actions and motives will certainly not be able to have the friends or teachers mentioned in the previous two clauses of the mishnah. We saw this ideal in Mishnah Sanhedrin when the Rabbis actually legislated that a court is obligated to search for means to exonerate the accused." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven contains the teaching of Nitai who was from Arbel, a settlement in the lower Galilee.", + "Nittai the Arbelite used to say: keep a distance from an evil neighbor, do not become attached to the wicked, and do not abandon faith in [divine] retribution. In the previous mishnah Joshua ben Perahiah taught that one should judge others with the scale weighted in their favor. Nittai the Arbelite balances this advice by adding that there may nevertheless be objective differences between different people. The fact that one should judge everyone favorably does not mean that one should not stay away from the wicked. In many places the rabbis teach that one who associates with evil people, even if he himself is not wicked, will have some of their ways rub off on him. Forming a just and righteous society means that each individual must be careful with whom he/she associates. The third statement of Nittai the Arbelite, although seemingly unconnected, is connected to the previous statements. If one sees many wicked people, he should not abandon his faith that someday these people will be punished by God, be it in this world or in the world to come. Abandoning faith in retribution could lead to a person losing faith in any objective difference between good and evil, at least in God’s eyes. In other words, belief in a God that cares about human actions and takes them into account is a basic tenet of a just society, especially a just society that cannot always enforce its ideals. Another interpretation of this last line is that a person, no matter how rich, should not feel totally secure in his wealth, for if he does not act in a righteous manner, divine retribution will eventually come. The flip side of this is also true. One who is poor and struggles in life, but acts in a righteous manner, should not despair of better days, for just as divine retribution is promised, so too is divine reward." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the teachings of Judah ben Tabbai, the first sage of the third “pair”. The subject of his teaching is the proper attitude of the judge to the litigants who come before him.", + "Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received [the oral tradition] from them. Judah ben Tabbai said: do not [as a judge] play the part of an advocate; and when the litigants are standing before you, look upon them as if they were [both] guilty; and when they leave your presence, look upon them as if they were [both] innocent, when they have accepted the judgement. Judah ben Tabbai teaches three things concerning the attitude of the judge. The first is that the judge should not be an advocate for either side. If a litigant does not make the best claim that he could make, the judge is not allowed to make such a claim on his behalf. In other words the judge cannot act the part of the lawyer, but he must judge based on the claims actually made. We should note that lawyers were not usual participants in trials in the time of the mishnah. Another version of this teaching is that the judge should not make himself like “the chief of the judges” (in Hebrew there is only a one letter difference between “chief of the judges” and “advocate”, the former beginning with an aleph and the latter with an ayin. The reading “chief of judges” is found in the better manuscripts of the mishnah). This means that a judge should not make himself like the chief justice who does not actually look into the details of the case. Rather the judge has the responsibility to carefully check all of the facts before he makes his ruling. The second two teachings are basically the flip side of the coin of each other. Before the judgement is delivered the judge must examine both parties as if both are guilty. Even if he thinks that one side is telling the truth, he must examine both impartially and with a skeptical eye, for if he favors one side before the trial, justice will not be served. However, when the sides accept the judgement, he must look at both sides as innocent. This may be for two reasons: first of all, the fact that the one found guilty accepts his judgement means that in the end he was willing to do the right thing. His acceptance of the judgement is a form of repentance. Second, the judge can never be one hundred per cent of the correctness of his sentence." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the teaching of Shimon ben Shetach, the second of the third pair. Shimon ben Shetach lived during the rule of Alexander Janneus and his wife Shelomith. Shimon was Shelomith’s brother. According to a legend found in both Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud (with some differences) the king killed many of the Pharisaic sages, but Shimon ben Shetach managed to escape. Through the aid of his sister he was able to return to Jerusalem and rejoin the Sanhedrin, which had been filled in the meanwhile with Sadducees. Along with Judah ben Tabbai, who had escaped to Egypt, they were successful in restoring the Pharisees to their place in the Sanhedrin. That may be why both of these pairs are so concerned with the behavior of judges.", + "Shimon ben Shetach used to say: be thorough in the interrogation of witnesses, and be careful with your words, lest from them they learn to lie. Shimon ben Shetach continues to give instructions to the judges. The first statement is self-explanatory. The second statement means that the judge should be careful while examining the witnesses, lest he inadvertently teach them how to help one side win the case." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nShemaiah and Abtalion, the fourth pair, lived at the end of the period of Hasmonean rule and towards the beginning of Herod’s reign. According to the Talmud both were converts. Mishnah nine contains Shemaiah’s teachings.", + "Shemaiah and Abtalion received [the oral tradition] from them. Shemaiah used to say: love work, hate acting the superior, and do not attempt to draw near to the ruling authority. In many places we see that the rabbis considered work to be important to proper moral behavior. This is learned from Exodus 20:9, “six days shall you work… and on the seventh day you shall rest.” Just as on the seventh day it is a commandment not to work, so too on the first six days it is a commandment to work. Even the wealthy should work, for idleness may lead a person into depression and perhaps even into licentiousness. A person should not seek positions of superiority over others. Although society does need leaders, such leadership can take its toll on a person. It is also dangerous to the person’s own proper behavior, for often times people in leadership abuse their positions. This statement also connects to the previous statement. No person should consider himself so important as not to engage in work. Shemaiah certainly lived at a time when avoiding close contact with the government was good advice. Although one may be able to gain some benefit from having good contacts with powerful people, in the end rulers do only what is good for themselves. Furthermore, when the tides turn, those who were too close to the ruling parties are often the first to suffer. This is has been demonstrated throughout history in dictatorships and other tyrannical forms of government. A person who is closely identified with one ruler, is often killed or jailed when the next ruler takes power." + ], + [ + "Introduction Abtalion is the second sage of the fourth “pair”.", + "Abtalion used to say: Sages be careful with your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile, and be carried off to a place of evil waters, and the disciples who follow you drink and die, and thus the name of heaven becomes profaned. Abtalion’s teaching deals with the accountability of the Sage, one who is responsible for continuing the tradition and teaching the world the proper interpretation of Scripture. Abtalion warns the Sages to be careful with their words, to make them clear so that their students will not misunderstand their intention. In many places the rabbis teach how dangerous the words of Torah can be if not understood in the right contexts, by people with the correct intentions in their application. A teacher has a responsibility not only to teach by reciting what he knows, but he must make sure that it is understood by the listener as well. Improper teaching will eventually force the teacher to leave his place in exile and go to a place of “evil waters”. This is probably a euphemism for heretical beliefs. If a teacher is not careful with his words, his students may end up as heretics. This certainly occurred in the times of Abtalyon, when many students left the path of the Sages and joined other sects, such as the Sadducees or Essenes. A disciple of a Sage leaving the path of Torah and joining other sects is not just a loss for the disciple himself, but it is a profaning of God’s name, and may lead to even worse consequences. People are very conscious of where people learned. For instance in Israel a person who grew up in a secular home and considers himself an atheist is not news. However, when, as has happened on occasion, a person who grew up in a Hasidic or ultra-orthodox home, and perhaps was even related to a famous rabbi, becomes an atheist and is politically active for a secular party that is news. The fact that the person knows the tradition and rejects it makes his rejection more consequential than that of one who rejects the tradition out of ignorance. His rejection reflects badly on the tradition and its source as well, God. It will lead others to think that if one who knew the Torah so well, said that it was not true, than why should we even bother to learn. For this reason teachers must be very careful that students do not misinterpret their words. I might add that this is especially difficult with learning over the internet, in situations where the teacher has no idea of who is reading what s/he writes. When sitting face to face with students, a teacher can directly answer their questions, and clarify misunderstood points. When these words which I write on a computer in my home in Israel, go up on the internet, billions of people, none of whom I know, will have access to them. I guess the advantages of having such a large potential audience are also balanced by some of the inherent dangers." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nHillel and Shammai, the fifth “pair” are probably familiar to many of you, for they were the founders of that two great schools, Beth Shammai (the House of Shammai) and Beth Hillel (the House of Hillel), that truly begin a new era in Jewish history.\nHillel and Shammai lived during Herod’s rule, which began in 37 B.C.E. and lasted until 4 C.E. Hillel was actually an immigrant from Babylonia. He is known for his kindness and love of fellow human being. Many legends exist about Hillel, most of them are about his great humility and love.", + "Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah. According to a legend in Avoth de Rabbi Nathan, when two men had quarreled with each other, Aaron would go and sit down with one of them and say to him: “My son, mark what your fellow is saying! He beats his breast and tears his clothing, saying, ‘Woe unto me! How shall I lift my eyes and look upon my fellow! I am ashamed before him, for I it is who treated him badly.’” He would sit with him until he had removed all anger from his heart, and then Aaron would go and sit with the other one and say to him the same thing that he had said to the first. And when the two men met each other they embraced and kissed one another. Aaron brought peace between Jews. A lesson that Jews have learned throughout history, and that they continue to learn today, is that when peace reigns between them, even if they worship idols, they can have their independence. And when Jews fight with one another, no matter how many commandments they keep, they are easily conquered. Hillel also teaches that one should love other people. Hillel taught that it was much easier to influence people with love than with fear, for love is truly the best motivation in life. By acting in such a manner, Aaron was able to draw people closer to Torah. According to another story about Aaron, he would make a habit of associating with evil people until they grew embarrassed and thought, “Woe unto us! If Aaron knew what we are like, what our life is like, he would resolve never again to set eye upon us. He must think we are worthy people. We ought at least to try to make our conduct correspond to his thinking.” In that way they would be drawn to association with him and learning Torah from him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains more statements from Hillel. All of the sayings in this mishnah are in Aramaic. Although almost all of the Mishnah is in Hebrew, it is unclear what the common spoken language of the Jews was at the time of the Mishnah. These sayings are folksy, that is they are pithy and easy to remember. The fact that they are in Aramaic may mean that many of the “folk” spoke Aramaic, but that the language of study was Hebrew. By the time of the Talmud it is clear that Aramaic was the dominant language in the land of Israel, at least amongst the Jews (many non-Jews would have spoken Greek).", + "He [also] used to say: one who makes his name great causes his name to be destroyed; one who does not add [to his knowledge] causes [it] to cease; one who does not study [the Torah] deserves death; on who makes [unworthy] use of the crown [of learning] shall away. Although there are four separate statements in this mishnah, they can all be summarized as saying two things: a person must always study, but he should be careful not to use his learning for his own grandeur. A person who tries to make his name, meaning his reputation great, will eventually lose his good name. One who seeks his own honor, will have honor elude his grip. This statement has also been taken as a warning to a person to avoid the attention of the ruling power, for their attention can only lead to danger. This is a lesson already mentioned in mishnah ten. One must constantly be seeking to increase his knowledge, never satisfied with the learning he has already done (this could be contrasted with what we learn later, that a rich man is one who is happy with his portion). In Judaism learning is a life long project, and not relegated to children. One who does not learn Torah deserves to die. I don’t believe that this harsh statement is not meant to be taken literally; it is certainly not a directive to a court to execute the unlearned. Rather Hillel may mean to say that without the spirituality of the Torah, a person’s life is empty. One commentator states that one who has not studied Torah is like a beast, for human beings were only created different from animals for them to learn and study Torah. One who only fills his base needs of food and sex, has not truly differentiated himself from an animal. Although Hillel urges people to study Torah, he warns them not to make use of this Torah study for their own advancement. One who does so will not receive any reward for his Torah study. In ancient times it was forbidden for Rabbis to take a salary, or receive any material benefit from their work. While this demand became impractical already a long time ago, I do believe that at least part of the ideal must be preserved. A Rabbi or any teacher of Torah, must not have his own personal advance or profit in mind when he teaches, for that is a corruption of Torah. Note how the first and last clauses of the mishnah are similar (warnings to those who use Torah for their own ends), and the two middle clauses are similar (statements about what happens to those who don’t learn Torah). This type of order is known as “chiastic” order, and is very common in rabbinic literature." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains one of the most famous statements of Hillel. Its poetry and its succinct message still make this, in my mind, one of the most memorable of rabbinic sayings.", + "He [also] used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self [only], what am I? And if not now, when? This first statement of Hillel’s is not a statement lauding selfishness, but rather a statement which places a person’s character and qualities squarely on his own two shoulders. A person must work in this world to acquire his own merits, for no one else can do this on his behalf. The second statement balances out the first. Although a person must be concerned for himself, his responsibilities do not end there. One who does only for himself does not contribute to his people and to the world. He is not important, for when he passes away, no one else will be effected. Finally, if a person puts off his responsibilities, when will he find time to carry them out. As we say in English, “now is as good a time as ever”." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains Shammai’s teaching. Note that the mishnah contained several teachings of Hillel and only one of Shammai. This demonstrates how much more dominant Hillel and his school were in the world of the rabbis.", + "Shammai used to say: make your [study of the] Torah a fixed practice; speak little, but do much; and receive all men with a pleasant countenance. Shammai had a reputation for being severe, perhaps even irritable. This is exemplified in the famous story of a non-Jew who came before him and asked him to teach him the whole Torah on one foot. Shammai promptly threw him out of the study hall, whereas Hillel eloquently told the non-Jew, “‘love your neighbor as yourself’, the rest is all commentary, go and learn.” Despite Shammai’s reputation, his teaching does not laud such qualities, but rather Shammai emphasizes that one should act pleasantly to others. Shammai’s first statement is that a person should make his Torah learning a fixed practice. In other words, he should not study only in his spare time, when he finds a free moment, but set aside fixed times to learn, and make them the focal point of his life. Another interpretation of this line is that when someone learns something new, he should make it a fixed part of his consciousness and not allow himself to forget what he has learned, so that he could teach it to others. The second statement is that one should speak little and do much. This is learned through the example set by Abraham, who told his guests that he would bring them “a morsel of bread” (Genesis 18:5). In the end, Abraham brought them much more than a morsel of bread; he brought them butter and milk and a calf which he had prepared (vs. 8). The third statement teaches that when one helps others he must do so cheerfully. Visiting the sick, giving charity to the poor, welcoming guests into one’s home and giving presents to friends must all be done with joy, for if he does so with a downcast face, his good deed will be spoiled." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter completing the teachings of the “pairs” Mishnah Avoth turns to the teachings of the patriarchs, the leaders of the Jewish people who were from the family of Hillel. Rabban Gamaliel of our mishnah is Rabban Gamaliel the elder, who was the grandson of Hillel. He was the patriarch during the final years of the Second Temple. He is also the first who is called by the title “Rabban” a title reserved (with one exception) for the patriarchs from Hillel’s family.\nAnother interesting thing to note is that almost all of the remainder of Avoth does not use the terminology “received from him/them”. While this change in terminology in the mishnah is certainly significant, it is hard to know exactly what the significance is. One thing is clear: Rabban Gamaliel, the first person to be called Rabban, and the first person in Avoth not to “receive”, opens a new era in the history of the Oral Torah.", + "Rabban Gamaliel used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, avoid doubt, and do not make a habit of tithing by guesswork. The first statement of Rabban Gamaliel is the same statement taught by Rabbi Joshua ben Perahiah, in mishnah six. “Avoid doubt” means that if a person should be confronted by a doubtful halachic case, for instance he doesn’t know whether something is pure or impure, he should not decide for himself, but rather he should ask a higher authority, a rabbi whose knowledge is greater. For if the person says that something is impure and it was really pure, he will cause a financial loss to the owner. And if he says it was pure and it was really impure, he will cause someone to transgress. Note how this statement connects to the previous one. In order to avoid doubt a person must have a teacher. Before one eats his produce he must give two tithes. The first tithe goes to the Levite and the second tithe must either be consumed in Jerusalem (during the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th years of a Sabbatical cycle) or be given to the poor (during the 3rd and 6th years). Rabban Gamaliel teaches that one should not tithe by estimate, but rather should make sure that his tithes are precise. This also connects with the previous statement, that one should avoid doubt. If one tithes by estimate, his food is considered “doubtfully tithed produce”, which is forbidden. This final statement is also understood by commentators as meaning that a person should not make any halachic decisions by guesswork. Rather he should carefully check his sources to make sure that his decision is not only reasonable, but correct." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabban Shimon ben Gamaliel the elder, who is referred to in this mishnah as “Shimon, his (Rabban Gamaliel the elder’s) son” was the head of the Sanhedrin at the time of the destruction of the Temple. Perhaps the reason that he is referred to here as “his son” and not with the title “Rabban” is that he made these statement while he was younger. There are very few statements in the Mishnah that were made by this sage. (This is not the same sage that will appear in the next mishnah).\nNote that this is the first case in Avoth where a son’s statements follow his fathers. Most rabbis did not inherit their positions from their fathers. The notable exceptions are the patriarchs who did bequeath their titles to their sons.", + "Shimon, his son, used to say: all my days I grew up among the sages, and I have found nothing better for a person than silence. Study is not the most important thing, but actions; whoever indulges in too many words brings about sin. Shimon makes three statements, all of which clearly have a common element. A person should say little and do much, which is basically the same lesson taught by Shammai in mishnah fifteen above. [Perhaps Shimon’s praise of silence might explain why so few of his statements were preserved. Maybe he didn’t say all that much!] There are different ways of understanding Shimon’s praise of silence. One understanding is that when others verbally abuse you, the best defense is to remain silent. I realize that this is controversial advice, and certainly sometimes it is not best to just be quiet. But certainly there are times when it is best to “hold one’s peace” and not respond to the other person with more verbal abuse. Everyone knows that in a shouting match neither side wins. Often the best strategy at defusing a difficutl situation is to gather one’s inner strength and remain quiet. Another understanding of Shimon’s first statement is that a silent person might be considered intelligent, even if he is not. Whereas the more an intelligent person talks, the more foolish he will often be considered. There were many debates amongst the rabbis about what was greater, study or action. Shimon clearly sides with action, for a person who learns but does not fulfill the commandments of which he is learning, might as well not have learned. According to Shimon the purpose of study is action. [Note that he does not discount the value of study, but rather the value of study without action]. On the last statement of Shimon, Rabbenu Jonah, a medieval Spanish commentator makes an interesting note. People have two ears and only one tongue. This is to teach that a person should hear twice as much as what he says." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in this mishnah is not the same Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel that we saw in the previous mishnah, but rather his grandson, the son of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh. He was the patriarch after the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 C.E.). He lived in the Gallilee, which became the center of Judaism after the revolt. Many of his statements appear in the mishnah. He was the father of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, who edited the Mishnah..", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: on three things does the world stand: On justice, on truth and on peace, as it is said: “execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16). Note how close this mishnah is in style to mishnah two in the beginning of the chapter. This is surely not accidental. The editor of the mishnah chose to begin and end a unit with similar language and style, perhaps to aid in memory. This type of literary structure is not unusual in the mishnah. However, there may be some differences between the two mishnayoth. Some versions of our mishnah read “does the world exist” and not “stand”. The Meiri comments that the difference is that in mishnah two, Shimon the Righteous, taught three things without which the world would crumble: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety. Our mishnah teaches things without which the world could stand but the political/societal structure would fall apart. Without justice, truth and peace, the world be anarchical, full of danger. Justice: the Rabbis also stated that any judge who judges correctly is a partner with God in creation. Creating a just world is one of the responsibilities of all human beings, Jew and non-Jew alike. Truth: Some commentators understand this as speaking truthfully to one’s fellow human being. Others understand this as a recognition of God. Peace: Without peace, even if a person has personal wealth and all of the material things he needs, he will not be able to enjoy them, for war will tear apart his life. Proper Torah study is also impossible to fulfill in times of strife and war. This statement can also be understood as peace between the people of Israel, as was learned in mishnah twelve. The Palestinian Talmud comments that these are all actually connected. If there is justice, there will be truth and if there are truth and justice there will be peace. That is why all three are learned from one verse." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Rabbi Said: which is the straight path that a man should choose for himself? One which is an honor to the person adopting it, and [on account of which] honor [accrues] to him from others.
And be careful with a light commandment as with a grave one, for you did know not the reward for the fulfillment of the commandments.
Also, reckon the loss [that may be sustained through the fulfillment] of a commandment against the reward [accruing] thereby, and the gain [that may be obtained through the committing] of a transgression against the loss [entailed] thereby.
Apply your mind to three things and you will not come into the clutches of sin: Know what there is above you: an eye that sees, an ear that hears, and all your deeds are written in a book.
“Rabbi” in the Mishnah without a name refers to Rabbi Judah Hanasi (the Prince), the son of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. He lived in a city called Beth Shearim, afterwards in Beth Shean and at the end of his life he moved to Tzippori. Rabbi acquired eternal fame as the editor of the Mishnah.
Note that this mishnah through mishnah seven of this chapter continues a list of statements made by descendents of Hillel, whose first statement was in mishnah twelve of the previous chapter.
All of Rabbi’s statements deal in one way or another with the reward that one receives for one’s good deeds and the punishments for transgressions. Rabbi is dealing with the question, how does a person choose a path in life based on the rewards and losses that may come to him through choosing this path. Note that some of these rewards may be the recognition that he receives from others but that usually Rabbi refers to a reward given by God.
The first thing that Rabbi teaches is that a person should choose a path that is both honorable to himself, and will bring him honor from others. Maimonides understood this as advice to take the “golden mean”, the middle path, in all aspects of life. For instance if a person has a lot of money and hoards it all for himself, it might bring honor (pleasure) to him, but if he doesn’t give any to others, others will not praise him. And if he gives all of his money away, others will praise him, but he will not have any for himself. Therefore, one should choose an in-between path (between 10 and 20 percent of one’s money), both in this matter and in all things in life. Another understanding of this statement is that one should strive to choose a path that he himself believes is correct and one which is deemed correct by others. A person must be true both to himself, but he can also not afford to ignore the society in which he lives.
The second statement is that one should be careful in the observance of commandments that seem to him “light” just as he is careful in the observance of what he considers more serious commandments. There is an interesting parable given on this statement. “R. Hiyya taught by way of parable: “A king brought laborers into one of his orchards, but did not inform them in advance what would be the compensation for the respective plants they would cultivate. For had he given them this information, each of them would have looked for that plant for which the compensation was generous and taken care of it. As a result only some of the work in the orchard would have been taken care of; some would have been neglected. Said Rabbi Acha in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana: The Holy One did not reveal what would be the reward for the different commandments of the Torah, lest only some of these be carried out, while some would be neglected.”
The third statement teaches that one should pay attention to the reward that one might receive for performing a commandment, even though there is a financial loss through its performance. The same is true of the opposite. Although one might make a financial gain by committing a sin, there is a loss that is worse than the financial gain. Obviously the reward referred to in the first half of Rabbi’s statement and the loss in the second half are referring to those meted out by God.
All of the above statements were based upon the belief that God rewards those who perform the commandments and punishes those who transgress. [Note this statement is a matter of faith; it cannot be empirically observed in this world]. This is the direct meaning of Rabbi’s last statement. God (figuratively) sees all of our actions, hears all of our words, and records them in a book. A person should always act as if he is in the presence of God. If he keeps that in mind he will distance himself from sin." + ], + [ + "Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi said: excellent is the study of the torah when combined with a worldly occupation, for toil in them both keeps sin out of one’s mind;
But [study of the] Torah which is not combined with a worldly occupation, in the end comes to be neglected and becomes the cause of sin.
And all who labor with the community, should labor with them for the sake Heaven, for the merit of their forefathers sustains them (the, and their (the forefather’ righteousness endures for ever; And as for you, [God in such case says] I credit you with a rich reward, as if you [yourselves] had [actually] accomplished [it all].
Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, is chronologically the last patriarch mentioned in Mishnah Avoth. Although he lived after what is normally termed the “tannaitic period” some of his statements were nevertheless included in the Mishnah. Note how this tanna’s name is slightly different. Instead of calling him “Rabban Gamaliel ben Judah” as is typical, he is called Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi. This probably alludes to the high status of his father.
The first part of Rabban Gamaliel’s statement is connected to the last part of Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s statement from the previous mishnah: how does one avoid sin? Rabban Gamaliel teaches that the study of Torah is not sufficient to avoid sin, rather one should have a worldly profession as well. Together the two will keep a person busy enough that he will not have the energy to sin. This statement might also mean that because of his Torah study he will know what he is supposed to do, and because he works for his living, he will not have to steal or engage in fraudulent practices to earn money.
A person who only studies and does not work, will in the end not even be able to reap the rewards of his study. A person must somehow earn his daily bread. Furthermore, such a lifestyle will ultimately lead to sin.
The third statement probably also connects to the previous two. People who work with the community should do so for the right reasons, “for the sake of Heaven” and not for their own personal glory or profit. This also seems to be a warning against those teachers who might combine their Torah learning with their professional work. If they do so they must be careful that all of their actions are for the right reasons: to guide people in the right direction, and to bring Torah more deeply into more people’s lives, and not so they can have the benefits of being called “rabbi” or the profit of a nice salary.
Rabban Gamaliel points out that one who succeeds in working with the community should not chalk this solely up to his/her personal talents. The Jewish community has merits by the very fact of their being the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose righteousness is bequeathed to all of the people of Israel. Nevertheless, although the success of the community is not truly based on the efforts of the community’s leaders, God says to the leaders that for their efforts they receive reward as if the community’s successes were their personal successes. In other words in a leader’s own mind he must be careful not to give himself the credit. However, God does count the tremendous sacrifices that community leaders give, and treats them as if they themselves had performed the good deeds of the community. Furthermore, even if a leader’s efforts do not result in an improvement of the community, they will receive a reward as if they had." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAnother statement by Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi.", + "Be careful [in your dealings] with the ruling authorities for they do not befriend a person except for their own needs; they seem like friends when it is to their own interest, but they do not stand by a man in the hour of his distress. This is the second time in Avoth that we have seen a warning to be careful in dealing with the ruling authorities. The first time was Shemaiah’s statement in 1:10: “love work, hate acting the superior, and do not attempt to draw near to the ruling authority.” According to Midrash Shmuel, Rabban Gamaliel is adding on to this statement. One should “love work”, only when it is accompanied with Torah (see the previous mishnah). One need not avoid all positions of leadership, only those that are not for the sake of Heaven. Finally, Rabban Gamaliel realized that it is impossible to totally avoid the ruling authorities, but one should at least be careful, for they only look out for their own interest. This mishnah might connect to the previous mishnah, in that a person who has communal responsibilities will often find himself dealing with politicians." + ], + [ + "He used to say: do His will as though it were your will, so that He will do your will as though it were His. Set aside your will in the face of His will, so that he may set aside the will of others for the sake of your will.
Hillel said: do not separate yourself from the community, Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death, Do not judge not your fellow man until you have reached his place. Do not say something that cannot be understood [trusting] that in the end it will be understood. Say not: ‘when I shall have leisure I shall study;’ perhaps you will not have leisure.
The first half of this mishnah contains another statement by Rabban Gamaliel, the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi. The second half of the mishnah returns to the statements of Hillel, whose statements were already taught in the previous chapter. The reason that the mishnah goes back to Hillel, is that he was the teacher of Rabban Johanan ben Zakai, whose statements are taught beginning in mishnah eight. The interruption of Hillel’s statements was done in order to bring all of the patriarchs from Hillel’s line together.
One way of understanding Rabban Gamaliel’s statement is that a person should do God’s will with such fervor that it is as if it is his own will. In that way a person’s will will be done for him by God. The first half of Rabban Gamaliel’s statement deals with positive commandments, those which a person “does” and the second half, “set aside your will” etc., deals with negative commandments, those things that a person should refrain from doing. A person should negate his own desires before the commandments given by God. In this way God will protect him against the evil designs of other people. The last half of this statement can also be understood as referring in a respectful way to God. That is to say, God will annul God’s own will to punish human beings, if that human being performs God’s will. Understood in this way, the overall message is one of the unity of the divine and human will. As one commentator (Rabbi Jonah) said, “There should be no distinction between the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, and one’s own will. Both should be the same.”
Do not separate yourself from the community. Hillel’s first statement means that a person should join the community for both its celebrations and for its trials and tribulations. This also has been understand as the reason for praying together as a community. For when one prays by himself, he might ask for things that are detrimental to some. But the community only prays for things which are of benefit to everybody. A reed on its own is easily broken but a bundle of reeds standing together cannot be broken even by the strongest winds.
Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death: do not be sure of your righteousness until the day of your death, for a person can lose a lifetime of merit by doing the wrong things at the end of his life. This lesson is learned from John Hyrcanus, the high priest from the Hasmonean dynasty who at the end of his life became a Sadducee.
Do not judge not your fellow man until you have reached his place: just as you cannot be sure of your own merits, all the more so you can not be sure of the merits and liabilities of your fellow. You do not know what you would do were you in his situation. A clever interpretation of this statement offered by the Meiri is that if one sees a person outside of his city and you find him full of extraordinary virtues, do not conclude that this is his true personality. You can only judge his character by seeing if he acts the same way in “his place”.
Do not say something that cannot be understood [trusting] that in the end it will be understood: a person should make his words clear from the outset, and not speak or write in an unclear manner. Although in the end the matter might be cleared up, in the meanwhile the listener might make mistakes.
Say not: ‘when I shall have leisure I shall study;’ perhaps you will not have leisure: this is similar to the statement that Hillel made in chapter one, mishnah fourteen, “if not now, when?” A person cannot delay studying Torah, saying that he will never have the opportunity to learn. Thus Shammai stated, “make your Torah study a fixed practice” despite your being extremely busy." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis statement of Hillel’s is about virtue and Torah learning.", + "He used to say: A brute is not sin-fearing, nor is an ignorant person pious; nor can a timid person learn, nor can an impatient person teach; nor will someone who engages too much in business become wise. In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man. A brute is not sin-fearing: a “brute” is one who is not learned at all and has no or moral virtue. However, he is not inherently evil. Since he does not have any intellectual capacity, he does not know what are virtues and what are vices, hence he does not fear sin. Nor is an ignorant person pious: An “ignorant person” the “am ha-aretz” is one who has not learned Torah. This type of person can have fear of sin, because he is able to distinguish wrong from right. However, he cannot be pious a “hasid”. Nor can a timid person learn: Now that Hillel has emphasized how important Torah learning is towards the creation of a virtuous person, he discusses how a person can learn. A person who is too timid to admit to what he doesn’t know cannot learn. When in a class, if a teacher asks “did you understand?” the student who did not understand must respond that he did not. This statement also means that it is never to late to begin learning Torah. A person should not be intimidated by the fact that s/he reached a mature age and has not learned Torah. Rather, they should be like Rabbi Akiva, who didn’t begin learning until he was 40! Nor can an impatient person teach: The flip side to the previous statement is that an impatient person cannot teach. A teacher must listen to his/her students’ questions, even if those questions are not good questions. An impatient teacher will scare off students, intimidate them and be detrimental to their learning. Nor will someone who engages too much in business becomes wise: A person who spends all of his life engaged in business, will not have the requisite time to acquire wisdom. Rather a person must strike a balance between his work and his learning. In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man: Where there is no one else to take the initiative and assume responsibility, a person should take the leadership upon himself. This person is not considered haughty, but rather responsible. This also can be connected to the issue of learning. Where there is no one to teach you Torah, you are not excused from your duty of Torah learning. You must still try your best to learn what Torah you can on your own." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis saying of Hillel’s is in Aramaic, as was his saying in chapter one, mishnah thirteen. Note that what in English requires 18 words, requires in Aramaic only six.", + "Moreover he saw a skull floating on the face of the water. He said to it: because you drowned others, they drowned you. And in the end, they that drowned you will be drowned. This mishnah expresses Hillel’s deep faith in the ultimate justice of the world. In the end everyone receives not only a punishment for their crimes, but the exact punishment that fits their crimes. The person who drowned others is not only punished by being killed as a murderer, but he receives the same type of death that he meted out to others. Although this may seem to be a statement purely of faith, one not empirically observable, Maimonides points out that it is borne out by experience all of the time and in all places. People who do evil and introduce violence and corruption into society, fall eventually as victims to the very violence that they perpetuated.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Do you think that there is any specific symbolism to the skull and water? If so, what?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the last of Hillel’s statements in this list. In it he preaches the living of a simple life, devoted not to fame and material acquisitions but to the study of Torah.", + "He used to say: The more flesh, the more worms; The more property, the more anxiety; The more wives, the more witchcraft; The more female slaves, the more lewdness; The more slaves, the more robbery; [But] the more Torah, the more life; The more sitting [in the company of scholars], the more wisdom; The more counsel, the more understanding; The more charity, the more peace. If one acquires a good name, he has acquired something for himself; If one acquires for himself knowledge of torah, he has acquired life in the world to come. The more flesh, the more worms: In our times being overweight is not a sign of wealth (and is often just the opposite). In contrast in ancient times obesity was a sign of wealth; it meant that one had the financial means to eat in excess. Hillel points out that in the end, the fat accumulated through wealth only turns into food for the worms when the body is buried. In other words, unlike Torah, which Hillel will later state takes a person into the next world, material gains become food for worms at the time of death. The more property, the more anxiety: A rich person may have more property, but that property is accompanied by more worries over its preservation. The more wives, the more witchcraft: Witchcraft was associated primarily with women. This is why the prohibition of sorcery in the Torah (Exodus 22:17) uses the feminine word for witch. The more female slaves, the more lewdness: Throughout rabbinic literature, female slaves are considered to have lax sexual morality. In truth this was probably because their masters took liberties with them. In any case, although the possession of many female slaves may be a sign of wealth, the more that one has, the more likely that they will lead him into temptation and lewdness. The more slaves, the more robbery: Male slaves were often not trusted. Some slaves became slaves because they were sold to pay off debts incurred while robbing ohers. [But] the more Torah, the more life: In this section, Hillel begins to list those things whose accumulation is beneficial. This first statement is the counterpart of the first statement above, “the more flesh the more worms”. Torah prolongs a man’s days in this world and in the world to come. The more sitting [in the company of scholars], the more wisdom: In order to gain wisdom a disciple needs to join a group of scholars. The more counsel, the more understanding: Similarly, a person who wishes to truly understand, must ask advice and counsel of those who know more than he. The more charity, the more peace: According to Hillel, the best way to bring peace in the world was to strive for economic justice through charity. If one acquires a good name, he has acquired something for himself: Unlike the material possessions, which Hillel so disparages in the first section of his statement, he does consider a good name to be of great value. If one acquires for himself knowledge of torah, he has acquired life in the world to come: Even greater than a good name, is the knowledge of Torah, which goes with a person even into the next world." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah returns to the list of the “receivers” of the oral tradition. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who received from Hillel and Shammai, was the patriarch who survived the destruction of the Second Temple and escaped to Yavneh, where he helped the Jewish people continue to exist despite the great trauma they had just suffered. The legend is told that he escaped the besieged Jerusalem in a coffin and requested that Vespasion, the future Roman emperor, save Yavneh and its sages.\nAccording to a legend, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai was the least of Hillel’s 80 students.\nThe reason that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai’s words were not brought in their correct chronological place is that the editor of the Mishnah wanted to first teach all of the words of the descendents of Hillel, who also served as patriarchs. The Mishnah now returns to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai and will proceed in subsequent mishnayoth with statements of his students.", + "Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai received [the oral tradition] from Hillel and Shammai.
He used to say: if you have learned much torah, do not claim credit for yourself, because for such a purpose were you created. A person should not take credit for himself for learning Torah, but rather should realize that the study of Torah is the purpose of his creation. This idea is also mentioned in a midrash that teaches that God made a stipulation that if Israel does not study Torah, He will wipe the world out of existence. Another explanation of this statement is that if a person has learned much Torah, he should not merely give credit to himself, rather he is obligated to teach others.", + "Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai had five disciples and they were these: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Yose, the priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nethaneel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach. He [Rabbi Johanan] used to list their outstanding virtues: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus is a plastered cistern which loses not a drop; Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah happy is the woman that gave birth to him; Rabbi Yose, the priest, is a pious man; Rabbi Simeon ben Nethaneel is one that fears sin, And Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach is like a spring that [ever] gathers force. We should note that the first two rabbis on this list, Rabbis Joshua and Eliezer, are two of the most famous rabbis that lived in the generation of the destruction of the Temple and they are found in many places in the mishnah. The other three rabbis are much less known. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai lists the qualities of each of his five students. Rabbi Eliezer is known for his fantastic memory. In general Rabbi Eliezer is known to be an archconservative sage, one whose main goal was to preserve the Torah that he had received from his teachers. He is not an innovator. Rabbi Joshua is known for his great kindness, and therefore Rabban Yohanan says how happy his mother must have been. Rabbi Yose is pious, meaning he goes beyond the letter of the law. Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel fear sin and distances himself from it by creating “fences” around the Torah. Rabbi Elazar ben Arach was known for his great intelligence and creativity which made him like an ever-increasing fountain. Note that this is the contrast to Rabbi Eliezer, the conservative, who appears in the beginning of the list of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai’s students.", + "He [Rabbi Yohanan] used to say: if all the sages of Israel were on one scale of the balance and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus on the other scale, he would outweigh them all. Abba Shaul said in his name: if all the sages of Israel were on one scale of the balance, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus also with them, and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach on the other scale, he would outweigh them all. As noted Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach are opposite characters, the first representing conservatism and the second innovation. The battle between conservatism and innovation was an important ideological struggle during this time in Jewish history, with some claiming that now that the Temple had been destroyed there was a need to concentrate on the preservation of that which was received from previous generations and others claiming that now that the Temple was destroyed innovation was an imperative. This ideological dispute is borne out in the last section of the mishnah. According to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai the conservative sage, Rabbi Eliezer, is the most essential to the Jewish people. [This is interesting because Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai was known to be a great innovator himself]. Abba Shaul, a later sage, disagrees with this assessment and states that Rabbi Elazar ben Arach, the ever-increasing spring, is the most essential to the survival of the Jewish people and the oral Torah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains interactions between Rabban Yohanan and his five students. One interesting thing is that it shows one way in which rabbinic masters taught there students. Rabban Yohanan sends them out on assignments and then evaluates their work when they return.", + "He [Rabban Yohanan] said unto them: go forth and observe which is the right way to which a man should cleave? Rabbi Eliezer said, a good eye; Rabbi Joshua said, a good companion; Rabbi Yose said, a good neighbor; Rabbi Shimon said, foresight. Rabbi Elazar said, a good heart. He [Rabban Yohanan] said to them: I prefer the words of Elazar ben Arach, for in his words your words are included. The first question that Rabban Yohanan asks his students is what is the best quality that a person can acquire to lead himself to righteousness. Rabbi Eliezer said, a good eye: this refers to a person who does not begrudge his fellow his good fortune. He is satisfied with what he has and he is not constantly “eyeing” what others have. Rabbi Joshua said, a good companion: the ability to befriend a fellow human being teaches a person to be compassion and caring for all of humanity. Rabbi Yose said, a good neighbor: Rabbi Yose says that a person must make himself a good neighbor. Although he can be a neighbor to only a small number of people, if everyone would strive to be a good neighbor, the world would be a much-improved place. A person does not have to set out to fix the whole world on his own. He begins by improving his own backyard, with the hope that others will follow his example and improve their “neighborhoods”. Alternatively there are those who explain that Rabbi Joshua says that a person should acquire for himself a good companion, who will aid him in acts of righteousness. Rabbi Yose says that a person should seek good neighbors, who will positively influence his own actions. Rabbi Shimon said, foresight: a person should always think ahead and contemplate what will be the results of his actions. Rabbi Elazar said, a good heart: a good heart, which according to ancient thought was the seat of one’s thoughts (and not feelings as it is thought of today) is interpreted in several different ways. Maimonides explained it to mean that a person’s conduct should follow the golden mean. Since this is the ideal behavior, Rabban Yohanah said that it was inclusive of all of the others’ words. Rabbi Jonah said that it means one who doesn’t easily lose his temper. Rabban Yohanan prefers the words of Rabbi Elazar “a good heart” because one who has a good heart will be all of the other things mentioned by the other students. He will be a good friend, a good neighbor, generous to his fellow human beings and he will think his actions through to the end.", + "He [Rabban Yohanan] said unto them: go forth and observe which is the evil way which a man should shun? Rabbi Eliezer said, an evil eye; Rabbi Joshua said, an evil companion; Rabbi Yose said, an evil neighbor; Rabbi Shimon said, one who borrows and does not repay for he that borrows from man is as one who borrows from God, blessed be He, as it is said, “the wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous deal graciously and give” (Psalms 37:21). Rabbi Elazar said, an evil heart. He [Rabban Yohanan] said to them: I prefer the words of Elazar ben Arach, for in his words your words are included. Most of this section is merely the opposite to the first part of the previous section. I will comment only on Rabbi Shimon. The worst evil according to Rabbi Shimon is a debtor who does not pay back his debts. In some ways this negative quality is the opposite of the positive quality he mentioned in section one, foresight. A person who does not pay back his debts does not realize that in the future no one will trust him. Rabbi Shimon does not say that the “evil way” is “one who lacks foresight” because the lack of foresight in and of itself is not evil. One might lack foresight and still strive to do the right thing. There is a midrash added to Rabbi Shimon’s statement here. Not paying back one’s debts is not only a sin against one’s fellow man, but it is a sin against God as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe Mishnah now begins to list the sayings of the students of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai, each of whom said three things. The first student is Rabbi Eliezer. The second half of this mishnah is not part of the original list but a later addition to the mishnah. This is why there are actually four sayings in the mishnah.", + "Let the honor of your friend be as dear to you as your own: this is similar to the famous saying of Rabbi Akiva, “what is hateful to you, do not do to others.” A person should be as careful about the honor of his fellow as he is about his own honor. Another explanation of this statement is that if one sees that his close friend is being honored, instead of being jealous of his friend, he should enjoy that honor as if it was his own. And be not easily provoked to anger: according to the rabbis, anger brings one to sin and to forget one’s Torah learning. And repent one day before your death: since a person does not know when he will die, this statement means that one should constantly be repenting, lest he die. One commentator explains that this is the reason that people do not know how long they will live. If a person knew he was about to die, he would not engage in anything useful in this world; if he knew his day of death was far off, he would not engage in good works, for he would say, “There is still time”.", + "And [he also said:] warm yourself before the fire of the wise, but beware of being singed by their glowing coals, for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting is the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like coals of fire. If a person comes to learn Torah, he must treat that Torah as if it were a dangerous, yet beneficial fire. Just as a person who sits by a campfire sits as close as he can without getting burned, so too a student of Torah should draw as near as possible without coming too close and thereby being burned. Mixing his metaphors, Rabbi Eliezer likens the words of the sages to the bite of a fox, the sting of a scorpion, the hiss of a snake and flaming coals. This mishnah points out the awesome power of Torah, which can both heal and warm a person, and yet at the same time burn and destroy." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Joshua said: an evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred for humankind put a person out of the world. Rabbi Joshua lists three things that “put a man of the world”. The first is an evil eye, which was already mentioned by Rabbi Joshua as the worst human quality in mishnah nine. One who has an “evil eye” is one who is constantly begrudging others what they have. One who loses control over his “evil inclination” is one who follows all of his base instincts and has no control over himself. “Hatred for humankind” means that he hates others for no reason. According to Rabbi Joshua all of these things “put a person of the world”. An interesting way of explaining this mishnah is that it describes the downward moral spiral of a deteriorating human being. He begins by being constantly jealous of what others have. This leads him to stumble upon his evil inclination, for he may actually take what others have. By giving in to his evil inclination he will begin to hate the entire world, and in essence he will not be part of the civilized world." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Yose said:
Let the property of your fellow be as precious unto you as your own;
Make yourself fit to study torah for it will not be yours by inheritance;
And let all your actions be for [the sake of] the name of heaven.
Let the property of your fellow be as precious unto you as your own: a person should take care of his fellows’ property as it were his own. For instance, if you see a fire on your friend’s property you must help him protect his property. This principle is learned from the Torah which teaches that one has a responsibility to return lost objects to their rightful owners. From here the general principle is deduced that a person has a responsibility over his friend’s property.
Make yourself fit to study torah for it will not be yours by inheritance: while the Torah might in some ways be the “inheritance” of the Jewish people it is not acquired automatically, the way that an inheritance is. Just because your father, or nowadays your mother, was a scholar of Torah does not mean that you will become one as well. A person must labor over Torah, and push himself to study.
This statement is also a statement against the concept of fate. A person is not born “fated” to be a Torah scholar, or indeed anything else. Rather a person works to shape his future; he must prepare himself for all that he will do in life. First and foremost, he must prepare himself to study Torah.
And let all your actions be for [the sake of] the name of Heaven: this means that even ordinary actions that a person does, such as eating, drinking, sitting down, getting up, walking, lying down, sexual intercourse, conversation and all bodily needs, should be done in such a way that serves God. All things that one does should lead to the improvement of his relationship to God and of his moral character." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Shimon said: Be careful with the reading of Shema and the prayer, And when you pray, do not make your prayer something automatic, but a plea for compassion before God, for it is said: “for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in kindness, and renouncing punishment” (Joel 2:13); And be not wicked in your own esteem. Be careful with the reading of Shema and the prayer: the “Shema” and the “prayer” which is known today as the “amidah” or the “shmoneh esreh” are the two central elements to Jewish prayer. The “Shema” consists of Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. It is recited in the morning and in the evening. The “prayer” is recited three times a day on weekdays, four times a day on Shabbat and holidays mentioned in the Torah, and five times on Yom Kippur. It contains praises of God and requests. Rabbi Shimon teaches that a person should be careful to say these things the correct number of times and at the right time of day. And when you pray, do not make your prayer something automatic, but a plea for compassion before God: this statement balances out the previous statement. One must be careful to recite prayers at the correct times but prayer can nevertheless not become automatic. It must be a genuine plea for compassion before God, and not a mere recital of words that someone else composed. This is the great challenge of Jewish prayer: it has strict laws as to what must be said and when, and yet it is supposed to be a spontaneous outpouring from a person’s heart. The idea of spontaneous/fixed prayer and the tension between the two is one of the most unique aspects of Jewish prayer. And be not wicked in your own esteem: do not do something which you yourself know to be wrong, though others do not recognize the truth. Another interpretation is that a person should not regard himself as wicked, for that will lead to despair. A person should look upon himself as half-wicked, half-good; far from perfection but close enough to having his good side outweigh his bad side. In this way he will always be motivated to do one more good deed, to “put himself over the top”. According to Maimonides this teaches that if a man thinks of himself as mean, he will not hesitate to act mean to others. Having a positive image of oneself helps one be a better person." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Elazar said:
Be diligent in the study the torah;
And know how to answer an epicuros,
And know before whom you toil, and that your employer is faithful, for He will pay you the reward of your labor.
Be diligent in the study the torah: diligence can either mean quick and energetic or it can mean regularity and faithful attendance.
And know how to answer an epicuros: a person should learn Torah in order to answer the questions of an epicuros. An epicuros is explained several different ways in the Talmud. He may be one who denies that there is a God, or one who denies that the Torah is of divine origin, or that , or one who despises Torah scholars. The origin of the term is the name of the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who taught that the ultimate goal of life is to pursue the pleasures of this world. He emphasized that the gods have nothing to do with human affairs. Rabbi Elazar teaches that one should know the Torah well enough to be able to engage in a debate with the epicuros. Interestingly, some commentators say that this is the reason that Jews are allowed to study Greek philosophy, for in order to know how to refute them with their own words, one must be learned in their works.
And know before whom you toil, and that your employer is faithful, for He will pay you the reward of your labor: this is connected to the previous statement, the rejection of the epicuros. A Jew must have faith in the ultimate reward and punishment for his actions. This is indeed one of Maimonides principles of Jewish faith. Unlike Greek philosophy which did not conceive of a God who was involved in the moral affairs of human beings, a God who was at most a “primal cause”, Jews believe in a God that intimately cares about how they act. The “toil” that a Jew does is before God, and not before an empty void." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nUp until this point the statements in Avoth have been organized mostly according to chronological order, with a few minor excursions that also serve the overall order. From this point and onwards the statements are not in chronological order. The general order of the remainder of the tractate is more difficult to discern.\nThe reason that Rabbi Tarfon’s statement is brought here is its similarity to the statement of Rabbi Elazar in the previous mishnah. Both compare the Torah to “labor” and both talk about the reward for performing this labor.\nRabbi Tarfon was also a student of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, but younger than the others. He was one of the leading sages in Yavneh, after the destruction of the Temple.", + "Rabbi Tarfon said: the day is short, and the work is plentiful, and the laborers are indolent, and the reward is great, and the master of the house is insistent. Rabbi Tarfon compares the study of Torah to pressing matters of work. There is never enough time, because our lives are so short. There is so much Torah to be learned and relearned that a person could never truly learn it all in his lifetime. The laborers are indolent and put off the study of Torah and instead engage themselves in other matters. The reward for the study of Torah is great, and the master is pressing his workers to work harder, as it says in Joshua 1:8, “and you shall meditate upon it night and day”. Rabbenu Jonah makes an interesting parable. He teaches that when Moses went up to Sinai he did not sleep at all. Compare this to a king who said to his servant: “Count gold pieces from now until tomorrow, and whatever you count off will be yours.” How can such a person sleep? Why the time he spent in sleep he would be losing a fortune! So said Moses, “If I go to sleep, how many precious words of Torah I would lose!”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of Rabbi Tarfon’s statement in the previous mishnah.", + "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it; If you have studied much Torah, you shall be given much reward. Faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor; And know that the grant of reward unto the righteous is in the age to come. It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it: although Rabbi Tarfon has already stated that the work is great and the day is short, this is not a cause for despair. It is not our duty to “finish” the study of Torah, but only to push ourselves to continue in this endeavor. A person must engage in study to the best of his abilities. There is a parable made about a king who hires workers to fill in a gigantic hole. The foolish worker takes a look at the hole and says, “How can I ever finish this?” The intelligent worker says to himself, “I was only hired for a day, at least I have found work.” Thus God says to his people, “You are all only hired for your day. Do your day’s work and do not worry about the rest”. The end of the mishnah repeats a message that we have heard many times, that the study of Torah will bring reward and that God is faithful to pay this reward. However, the end of the statement reminds us that rewards are not received in this world. A person who fulfills the commandments and studies Torah as he is commanded to do and yet does not receive a reward should not despair and lose faith in God, for the reward is not received in this lifetime. We should probably remind ourselves of Antigonus’s statement in chapter one, mishnah three. Although the rabbis emphasize the reward for learning Torah, we are warned not to serve God in order to receive this reward. Note that there are different explanations for “the world to come” and it is obviously not a concept that human beings can truly grasp, for no human can ever achieve true knowledge of the “world to come”. All of the statements made by Rabbis about the world to come are only meant to be understood as allegories and parables and not taken literally." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAkabyah ben Mahalalel lived in the time of Hillel, before the destruction of the Temple. We learned about the conflicts that this sage had with the other sages in Eduyoth 5:6-7.", + "Akabyah ben Mahalalel said: mark well three things and you will not come into the power of sin: Know from where you come, and where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give an account and reckoning. From where do you come? From a putrid drop. Where are you going? To a place of dust, of worm and of maggot. Before whom you are destined to give an account and reckoning? Before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be he. Akabyah ben Mahalalel teaches a strategy whereby a person can avoid the clutches of sin. A person should first of all remember his humble origins, a drop of semen. In Avoth de-Rabbi Nathan, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar teaches a parable: to what may this be likened? To a king who built a large palace and decorated it, but a tannery pipe led through it and emptied at its doorway. Says every passerby: “How handsome and magnificent this palace would be if it were not for the tannery pipe coming through it!” So too is man. If then, with a foul stream issuing from his bowels, he exalts himself over other creatures, how much the more so would he exalt himself over other creatures if a stream of precious oil, balsam or ointment issued from him!. Where are you going? To a place of dust, of worm and of maggot: remembering that the end of all human beings is the same, and that in the end we will all go to our graves, keeps a person humble and prevents him from greedily seeking material gain. About this mishnah Maimonides comments, “Reflection on his origin will lead a man to humility. When he contemplates his ultimate end, he will get to despise mundane matters. And when he contemplates the majesty of the Commander, he will come to obey His commandments speedily. And when a person succeeds in keeping his mind on these three things, he will sin no more.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of this mishnah contains a teaching of Rabbi Hanina who was the vice-high priest, (he would fill in for the high priest when he couldn’t serve). Rabbi Hanina lived through the destruction of the Second Temple. Perhaps there is a connection between his statement and the great political turmoil he witnessed during his lifetime.\nThe second section contains the teaching of Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion, who was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva’s. He was martyred by the Romans during the Bar-Kochva revolt. Legend has it that he was wrapped with a Torah scroll and then burned alive. This legend is part of the Yom Kippur liturgy, contained in a section called the martyrology.", + "Rabbi Hanina, the vice-high priest said: pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive. One should pray for the welfare of the government, even a non-Jewish government. For without government anarchy reins, and people could not peacefully pursue their course of life. Rabbi Hanina is aware that governments are not perfect, as he certainly was witness to the tyranny of being ruled by a foreign government. Nevertheless, in this statement he recognizes that even the sometimes oppressive rule of the Roman is preferable to anarchy.", + "R. Hananiah ben Teradion said: if two sit together and there are no words of Torah [spoken] between them, then this is a session of scorners, as it is said: “nor sat he in the seat of the scornful…[rather, the teaching of the Lord is his delight]” (Psalms 1:1); but if two sit together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, then the Shekhinah abides among them, as it is said: “then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). Now I have no [scriptural proof for the presence of the Shekhinah] except [among] two, how [do we know] that even one who sits and studies Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, fixes his reward? As it is said: “though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself” (Lamentations 3:28). From the verse in Psalms used as a prooftext we can see that the opposite of a gathering of scorners (synonymous with sinners) is a gathering for the study of Torah. Therefore any gathering in which Torah study is completely absent is considered a gathering of scorners. Furthermore, the statement is that there must be between them words of Torah. It is not sufficient that each studies or meditates upon Torah on his own. The words of Torah should be shared with others. However, even two people who gather to study Torah cause the Shekhinah, the Divine Presence, to abide amongst them. This is learned from the verse in Malachi, which implies that when the group of God-fearers gathered, God hearkened to their words, for He dwelled amongst them. Finally, even one who studies on his own, receives a reward for such study." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the teaching of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, a student of Rabbi Akiva’s. It is brought here due to its topical connection to the previous mishnah.\nNote how important small gatherings are to the rabbis of this and the previous mishnah. These were one of the ways that Torah was studied in the time of the Mishnah. People would gather around in small circles, perhaps around a table, and learn Torah together.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: if three have eaten at one table and have not spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten sacrifices [offered] to the dead, as it is said, “for all tables are full of filthy vomit, when the All-Present is absent” (Isaiah 28:8). Rabbi Shimon’s first statement is based on a pun on the verse in Isaiah. The literal translation of the verse according to JPS is, “Yea, all the tables are covered with vomit and filth so that no space is lift.” The words “so that no space is lift” can also be interpreted to mean, “when the All-Present is absent” for the word for “All-Present” and “space” are one and the same. Sacrifices to the dead are how Rabbi Shimon interprets the word “filthy vomit”. The reason that he assumes that this is three is that a communal meal must have three. This is also the minimum number that must be gathered in order to do a communal grace after meals “birkat hamazon”.", + "But, if three have eaten at one table, and have spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten at the table of the All-Present, blessed be He, as it is said, “And He said unto me, ‘this is the table before the Lord’” (Ezekiel 41:2. The verse in Ezekiel is discussing the altar, yet it refers to it as a “table”. This fact is “midrashically” interpreted by Rabbi Shimon to mean that sometimes a normal table can become an altar. This is so when the meal has been accompanied by the study of Torah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Hananiah ben Hakinai was one of Rabbi Akiva’s students. According to legend he was also martyred.", + "Rabbi Hananiah ben Hakinai said: one who wakes up at night, or walks on the way alone and turns his heart to idle matters, behold, this man is mortally guilty. One explanation for this statement is that nighttime is when demons are most active. So too, demons are especially present on the road. The person who wakes up at night or who walks alone on the road is vulnerable to these demons (demons are less likely to attack two). Therefore, if he is not engaged in the study of Torah, but rather in idle matters, he is liable to die. In other words, this is a physically dangerous act. [Many of us probably do not believe in demons. Nevertheless there may be some deep psychological truth to this statement. Waking up at night when no one else is around, or walking alone on a deserted path are times when a person is most likely to feel lonely and afraid. The antidote for such fears is Torah. Idle thoughts will only lead to more fear]. An alternative explanation for this statement is that these are golden opportunities to think about Torah. One who wastes his time thinking about idle matters when he could be learning Torah is, at least metaphorically speaking, mortally guilty. Maimonides actually teaches that the best time to learn, the time when a person is most likely to remember his studies, is at night. We should note that Maimonides followed his own advice and is known to have barely slept." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Nehunia ben Hakkanah lived at the same time as Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, that is around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple.", + "Rabbi Nehunia ben Hakkanah said: whoever takes upon himself the yoke of the Torah, they remove from him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns, and whoever breaks off from himself the yoke of the Torah, they place upon him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns. One interpretation of this statement is that one who takes upon himself the yoke of Torah, meaning he spends all of his time studying Torah, is not liable to pay taxes to the government, nor must he worry about earning a living for the Jewish community will make sure that he and his family are provided for. Since Torah is such a high value to the Jewish community, the Jewish people are willing to relieve of their economic burdens if they wish to study Torah full time. If, however, a person does not engage in Torah he must pay taxes and earn his living. Another possibility is that one who studies Torah will nevertheless need to work for a living as well, but his living will come to him so easily that he will have no trouble paying taxes or supporting those dependent on him. In other words he will not feel that the government or his other worldly concerns are a “yoke” around his neck. The difference between this explanation and the previous one is that in this explanation God rewards the Torah scholar, whereas in the previous one the community rewarded the Torah scholar by supporting him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Halafta was a student of Rabbi Meir (who himself was a student of Rabbi Akiva). Kefar Hanania was a village on the border between the Lower and Upper Galillee.", + "The most important aspect of this mishnah to note is its highly-crafted structure. The mishnah begins by saying that God (the Shechinah) resides only when ten are gathered together to study Torah. If the mishnah were to have stopped here one would think that any lesser number of people studying Torah do not merit the Shechinah’s presence. However, the mishnah continues to lower the number until at the end it reaches the climax: even one who studies Torah merits the presence of the Shechinah. Since the idea of this mishnah is not difficult, and has been presented in previous mishnayoth, we will only explain now the use of the Biblical prooftexts.", + "Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hanania said: when ten sit together and occupy themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: “God stands in the congregation of God” (Psalm 82:. The word “congregation” is understood to refer to a minimum of ten. See Sanhedrin 1:6 which makes reference to Numbers 14:27.", + "How do we know that the same is true even of five? As it is said: “This band of His He has established on earth” (Amos 9:6). The word “band” is understood to mean five, for a “band” is what is gathered in a person’s hand which has five fingers.", + "How do we know that the same is true even of three? As it is said: “In the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalm 82:1) The minimum number of judges for a court is three.", + "How do we know that the same is true even of two? As it is said: “Then they that fear the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard” (Malachi 3:16). This verse, which uses the plural, must refer to at least two people. Note that the same verse was used in a similar manner above in mishnah two of this chapter.", + "How do we know that the same is true even of one? As it is said: “In every place where I cause my name to be mentioned I will come unto you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21). Although this is not apparent from the English, the Hebrew uses the second person singular form of you. Therefore it must mean that God will cause his presence to be with even a singular person who “mentions” His name by studying Torah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first statement in our mishnah is from Rabbi Elazar of Bartotha, a colleague of Rabbi Akiva’s.\nThe second statement in this mishnah is attributed to Rabbi Shimon, but this is probably a mistake in the printed edition of the mishnah. The real author of the statement is Rabbi Jacob, who was one of Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s teachers.", + "Rabbi Elazar of Bartotha said: give to Him of that which is His, for you and that which is yours is His; and thus it says with regards to David: “for everything comes from You, and from Your own hand have we given you” (I Chronicles 29:14). Rabbi Elazar preaches that one should not be stingy in giving any form of charity (tzedakah), be it charity to the poor or any of the potential donations to the Temple (or nowadays Jewish organizations) for in the end everything comes from God. According to a story in the Talmud, Rabbi Elazar did not only preach this, but fulfilled it himself. Whenever the charity collectors saw him they would run away because he would always give them everything that he owned.", + "Rabbi Jacob said: if one is studying while walking on the road and interrupts his study and says, “how fine is this tree!” [or] “how fine is this newly ploughed field!” scripture accounts it to him as if he was mortally guilty. Rabbi Jacob’s statement is one of the more memorable statements (at least in my mind) in all of Avoth. What seems to be an innocuous appreciation of nature or human agricultural work, is turned by Rabbi Jacob into a mortal sin. Studying Torah is so important in the eyes of the rabbis that one must allow no distractions, even something as innocent as a tree or field. Note that the term “mortally guilty” was also used above in mishnah four. However, there, where the person woke at night or walked alone on the road and didn’t learn Torah, he was actually “mortally guilty”. Here in our mishnah it is only “as if he was mortally guilty”. For at least this person mixed the studying of Torah with other things, as opposed to the one mentioned in mishnah four who neglected Torah study altogether." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Dostai’s teaching is a continuation of the previous mishnah. Whereas there the topic was one who interrupts his learning, here the topic is one who forgets that which he has already learned.", + "Rabbi Dostai ben Rabbi Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: whoever forgets one word of his study, scripture accounts it to him as if he were mortally guilty, as it is said, “But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that you do not forget the things that you saw with your own eyes” (Deuteronomy 4:9). One could [have inferred that this is the case] even when his study proved [too] hard for him, therefore scripture says, “that they do not fade from your mind as long as you live” (ibid.). Thus, he is not mortally guilty unless he deliberately removes them from his heart. The problem of forgetting that which one has already learned is one of the most serious problems that the rabbis encountered. Although we have the Mishnah in front of us in a book, for the rabbis who lived during this period the Mishnah and the Talmud and all of their works were oral. Therefore one had to repeat his learning frequently in order to commit it to memory. Indeed the meaning of the word “mishnah” is to teach through repetition. One who forgets his learning is in some ways worse than one who has never learned, because the one who forgets had knowledge at one point but was careless in its preservation. The second half of Rabbi Dostai’s statement is an essential reservation on the first half. One who has trouble learning, but genuinely tries his best, is not to be faulted for his forgetfulness. Rabbi Dostai recognizes that remembering the complicated oral Torah is not easy, and that not all people are built for such types of intellectual activity. Therefore he clarifies that only one who forgets out of negligence or on purpose neglects his study is mortally guilty. Perhaps I should emphasize here to those who have been learning Mishnah Yomit for some time that review of the material is as important, if not more important, than continuing to learn new material. By reviewing that which you have already learned your background in Jewish learning will increase. By analogy, think how much better you remember a movie after you have seen it two or three times. Reading through mishnayoth which you learned in the past is essential." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Hanina ben Dosa, the author of this mishnah, was famous for his righteousness and for his close connection to God, a connection so close that God directly answered his prayers. For instance, the following story is told of him in the Talmud (Berachot 34b): It happened that Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa went to study Torah with Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai. The son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai fell ill. He said to him: Hanina my son, pray for him that he may live. He put his head between his knees and prayed for him and he lived. Said Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai: If Ben Zakkai had stuck his head between his knees for the whole day, no notice would have been taken of him. Said his wife to him: Is Hanina greater than you are? He replied to her: No; but he is like a servant before the king (who has permission to visit the king at any time), and I am like a nobleman before a king (who only visits at appointed times).” For a further reference see Mishnah Berachot 5:5.\nThis mishnah clearly reflects Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa’s righteous qualities and his concern with instilling them in others.", + "Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa said: anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom is not enduring. According to Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa a person who does not fear sin before he begins learning Torah, will not have his learning endure. In other words, his fear of sin must be what leads him to study and not his study lead him to fear of sin. Rabbi Hanina is saying that the purely intellectual study of Torah, a type of study that does not have an impact on one’s character, will not last. Maimonides extrapolated this to mean that proper moral behavior will lead to proper intellectual pursuit. However, one who pursues evil and is a great sinner, but hopes that his study will bring him to better deeds, will not succeed even in his study. Others comment on this mishnah that practice of the commandments is what leads to proper belief. One does not begin practicing Judaism by learning dogma or creed. One begins by the performance of the commandments and only then follows up with learning about them.", + "He [also] used to say: anyone whose deeds exceed his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, his wisdom is not enduring. This statement is similar to the previous one, except here Rabbi Hanina talks about works and not the fear of sin. Furthermore, whereas in the previous section he talked about chronological development, here he talks about a quantitative comparison. A person whose works exceed his knowledge, will retain his knowledge. However, a person whose knowledge exceeds his works, meaning he knows what he should do but does not carry it out, will in the end not retain his learning. Note that the worst consequence in these mishnayoth is forgetfulness. The punishment is not that he will be judged unfavorably by God, but that he will not remember that which he learned. As I mentioned in the previous mishnah, this is one of the great fears that the rabbis often had. In a culture where learning is basically oral, the fear of forgetfulness is omnipresent." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of the mishnah is another statement of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, the author of the previous mishnah. The second half of the mishnah is from Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, a contemporary of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai.", + "He used to say: one with whom men are pleased, God is pleased. But anyone from whom men are displeased, God is displeased. God’s approval or disapproval with a person is dependent upon the way that person acts with other human beings. If the person helps his fellow neighbor and performs acts of charity and loving kindness, not only are people pleased with him, but God is as well. However, if a person is not kind to others, and does not speak with them in a gentle manner, God is displeased with him even if he is a great scholar. One interesting note that a commentator on the mishnah made is that the mishnah speaks of him “with whom men are pleased” and not “all men are pleased” for there is no person who is pleasing to everyone.", + "Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: morning sleep, midday wine, children’s talk and sitting in the assemblies of the ignorant put a man out of the world. According to Rabbi Dosa, a person should not sleep late in the morning, for that is a waste of time. Keep in mind that before electric light was invented people went to sleep much earlier than they do now. Sleeping late in the morning was therefore truly oversleeping and a waste of time. Drinking wine during the middle of the day is also a sign of laziness, for it will make one sluggish and less productive during his waking hours. Speaking with children, while it may be fun, diverts one from engaging in higher pursuits (note that this is not directed at those educating the children). Finally, engaging in pointless gatherings of the uneducated is not proper behavior for one who wants to lead a life of Torah. This would include something like sitting and loitering on street corners. All of these things “take a person out of the world”. This is a phrase we saw in chapter two, mishnah eleven. I understand this as meaning that they cause a person to lose the precious time he has on this earth, by wasting it with meaningless activity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Elazar of our mishnah was from Modiin (which is where I live!), the ancestral home of the Hasmoneans (Maccabees). This is his only appearance in the mishnah but he appears many times in aggadic texts in the Talmud. According to legend he was Bar Kochba’s uncle but when Bar Kochba suspected that he wanted to surrender, Bar Kochba assassinated him.", + "Rabbi Elazar of Modiin said: one who profanes sacred things, and one who despises the festivals, and one who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public, and one who annuls the covenant of our father Abraham, may he rest in peace, and he who is contemptuous towards the Torah, even though he has to his credit [knowledge of the] Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come. Rabbi Elazar lists five sins that cause a person to lose a share in the world to come (see the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin). One who profanes sacred things: this refers to one who causes sacrificial animals to become impure, uses them for his own benefit, damages them or takes them out of the Temple precints. His disrespect for them is a sign that he does not believe in their validity. In other words he does not believe in the validity of the Temple and its worship service. One who despises the festivals: this refers to one who does work on the intermediate days of the festivals. Although it is permitted to do some types of work on these days, in situations where cessation of work will not cause a financial loss, work is generally forbidden (there are exceptions). One who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public: a well-known aggadah teaches that one who causes his fellow to be embarrassed, it is as if he had killed him. The rush of blood to his face is similar to bloodshed. One who annuls the covenant of our father Abraham: this refers to one who does not circumcise his son or one who uncircumcises himself (this was a surgical procedure known in the ancient world, and mentioned many times in the Talmud, despite how painful it must have been). This person is making a statement that he does not want to be part of the Jewish people, for circumcision is the most basic sign that identifies a person as a Jew (at least it was when most people did not circumcise, and especially in the Greek world where circumcision was abhorred.) He who is contemptuous towards the Torah: this refers to one who ascribes disgraceful or improper meanings to the contents of the Torah. The Meiri notes that Rabbi Elazar does not speak of transgressions that come about as a result of an overpowering evil impulse, such as eating forbidden foods or performing forbidden acts. Many of these are connected somehow to heresy (the possible exception being embarrassing one’s friend in public).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is one who is not scrupulous in his observance of the intermediate days of the festival sanctioned so harshly? In other words, why does Rabbi Elazar mention this transgression as opposed to one who breaks the Sabbath, for instance?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Ishmael was a regular disputant with Rabbi Akiva. His teachers were Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua. From Rabbi Nahuniah haKaneh he learned his midrashic methodology, for which he later became famous. His midrashic formula are still recited everyday by those who follow a traditional siddur (prayer book).\nIn our mishnah Rabbi Ishmael discusses how one should act with other people of different social strata.", + "Rabbi Ishmael said: be suppliant to a superior, submissive under compulsory service, and receive every man happily. Be suppliant to a superior: According to Rabbi Ishmael, when one stands in the presence of a superior, he should consider himself inferior and serve him as he requests. Submissive under compulsory service: If a person is called up by the government for compulsory service he should not resist. Note that I have translated this clause according to the explanation of Albeck. The word for “compulsory service”, tishchoret, is an unusual word and is interpreted differently by others. Some interpret the word to mean the young. The interpretation is that when with young people, although one does not need to be suppliant with them, one should still treat them with respect. Receive every man happily: This is similar to Shammai’s statement above in 1:15." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Akiva said:
Merriment and frivolity accustom one to sexual licentiousness;
Tradition is a fence to the Torah;
Tithes a fence to wealth,
Vows a fence to abstinence;
A fence to wisdom is silence.
Rabbi Akiva is arguably the most famous and influential rabbi in Jewish history. He was certainly the most influential rabbi in the mishnaic period. The Mishnah is based largely on his teachings, although most of them are attributed to his students.
There are numerous legends about Rabbi Akiva, perhaps the most famous one of them being that he did not begin to learn Torah until he was 40 years old. He died the death of a martyer when the Romans used a steel comb to flay his skin.
Merriment and frivolity accustom one to sexual licentiousness: one who acts with frivolity and is merry in the company of the opposite sex will eventually have sex with those with whom sex is prohibited (such as adultery).
Tradition is a fence to the Torah: according to most commentators this refers to the comments which were added to the text of Biblical books, and are meant to explain how the words are sometimes read in a manner different from the way that they are spelled. These comments act as a fence in the sense that they prevent misinterpretation of the Bible. The reason that they are called “tradition” is that they were preserved as traditions that were added to the Biblical text itself. [The Hebrew word for tradition is “masoret”. Those who eventually put down in writing all of these marks and fixed the “correct” readings for the Bible were called the Masoretes.]
Another explanation of this statement is that “tradition” refers to the Oral Torah, which was transmitted from generation to generation to teach us the correct interpretation of the Bible.
Tithes a fence to wealth: by properly tithing one’s produce one can ensure that he will grow rich. By extension, according to the rabbis, one who wanted to ensure that he would prosper should give more charity.
Vows a fence to abstinence: by taking vows a person can prevent himself from engaging in forbidden sex. If a person’s desires are strong, and he feels that he cannot overcome them, he may be better able to motivate himself and keep himself from sinning if he takes a vow not to do what is forbidden. In an interesting analogy, I know people who keep kosher who have no problem doing so but have terrible trouble sticking to their weight-loss diets. Sometimes, in order to more motivate themselves not to eat heavy dairy deserts they will eat a small piece of meat, thereby making it forbidden to eat milk afterwards. This is like the person who can only control his sexual desires if he takes a vow not to act upon them.
A fence to wisdom is silence: as we saw above in mishnah 1:17, one who tends to keep quiet will always at least seem wiser than one who can’t keep quiet. Also by being silent a person can actually hear what others are saying and thereby learn from them. According to a rabbinic teaching, this is why people were created with two ears and only one mouth, so that they could listen twice as much as they speak." + ], + [ + "He used to say: Beloved is man for he was created in the image [of God]. Especially beloved is he for it was made known to him that he had been created in the image [of God], as it is said: “for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6).
Beloved are Israel in that they were called children to the All-Present. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that they are called children of the All-Present, as it is said: “your are children to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1).
Beloved are Israel in that a precious vessel was given to them. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that the desirable instrument, with which the world had been created, was given to them, as it is said: “for I give you good instruction; forsake not my teaching” (Proverbs 4:2).
Mishnah fourteen contains another teaching of Rabbi Akiva.
This mishnah contains one of the clearest statements in rabbinic literature about the special status that the Jewish people enjoy as the chosen people. The mishnah begins with a general statement about humanity, that all of humanity was created in the image of God and that God actually tells human beings that they are created in His image. In essence, this may be one of the Bible’s clearest statements as to the nature of God; man was created in His image, and perhaps we could say that by seeing and understanding other human beings we actually see a reflection of God. [Although this may be obvious I use the word man in these situations to mean humankind and not to in any way exclude women]. God especially manifests His love by telling humanity that they were created in His image.
Rabbi Akiva now jumps from discussing all of humanity to discussing the particular relationship that God has with the Jewish people. This relationship, according to Rabbi Akiva, is not covenantal, that is based upon the Jews performance of the commandments. Rather it is genealogical. Jews are children of God, and just as a parent’s love for his/her child is (at least supposed to be) unconditional, so too is God’s love for Israel. Furthermore, this relationship cannot be severed. Imagine what a comforting image this must have been to those living through the tumultuous times in which Rabbi Akiva lived.
We could perhaps interpret the next phrase in the same way. The vessel under discussion is the Torah, which according to the rabbinic interpretation of Proverbs, was the blueprints through which the world was created. Just as the previous two signs of love in this mishnah were unconditional and irrevocable, so too is the gift of the Torah. Furthermore, according to Rabbi Akiva, the Torah was given to Israel and not as a gift to the entire world.
We should note that this ideology expressed by Rabbi Akiva was not the only ideology that existed in the time of the Mishnah. There were other sages who believed that God’s relationship to Israel was based conditionally upon Israel’s performance of the commandments and that the Torah belongs to all of humanity and not just Israel. However, the dominant trend amongst the rabbis was certainly that represented by R. Akiva." + ], + [ + "Everything is foreseen yet freedom of choice is granted,
And the world is judged with goodness;
And everything is in accordance with the preponderance of works.
This is another statement by Rabbi Akiva. Note how in this extremely short mishnah, Rabbi Akiva succeeds in teaching some of the most basic theological principles of Judaism. It is testimony not only to the depth of Rabbi Akiva in particular and the Mishnah in general, but to their poetic abilities as well.
Everything is foreseen yet freedom of choice is granted: this is one of the most deliciously paradoxical statement of the rabbis. It captures in just four (Hebrew) words, much of the spirit of Jewish thought. Since God is all-powerful, God must know everything, including the future. However, our actions were totally due to fate, we would not be morally responsible for our actions. In order to hold ourselves responsible for what we do, we must assume that we have free choice. Judaism is therefore a religion based on these two beliefs: God is the all-powerful, master of the universe and yet human beings have moral responsibility.
And the world is judged with goodness: this is a follow-up statement to the previous one. The freedom of choice granted to human beings is in some senses frightening. If human beings have choice then they are responsible for their choices, and at the end of the day, most of us don’t stack up to what we should be. Therefore Rabbi Akiva assures us that God judges with goodness, meaning mercifully. He allows repentance to remedy our submissions to the evil inclination.
And everything is in accordance with the preponderance of works: a person is judged based on the majority of that person’s actions. This may also relate to the previous statement. Although God judges mercifully, one should not think that one’s performance of the commandments are not of consequence. God judges a person not based on any single deed, but on a character that has been built up throughout his lifetime. People who have built up a lifetime of good deeds will be justly rewarded.
Another interpretation of this last statement is that it does not have to do with God’s judgement. Rather it teaches that a person’s character is developed throughout his lifetime by the performance of works. For example, one charitable gift does not make a person have a charitable nature. However, a person who gives frequently will be described and act as a generally charitable person. Note that in Judaism a person is mostly judged based on his actions; he is what he does. While belief is important, it is not the essential aspect of a person’s character. Furthermore, character is shaped through action." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is another statement by Rabbi Akiva.", + "He used to say: everything is given against a pledge, and a net is spread out over all the living; the store is open and the storekeeper allows credit, but the ledger is open and the hand writes, and whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow; but the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent, and they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment, and everything is prepared for the banquet. There are many metaphors employed in this mishnah and we shall attempt to make sense of them one by one. Everything is given against a pledge: everything that a person receives in this world is given against a pledge that may be exacted from him in the future. This means that everyone will have to pay eventually for their sins. A net is spread out over all the living: there is no escaping from God’s power. God sees all of the deeds of man and will eventually exact payment for them. The store is open and the storekeeper allows credit: a person can take what he wishes in this world, and even take it temporarily without paying. God does not punish sinners immediately, but rather extends them credit, hoping that eventually they will return to righteousness. But the ledger is open and the hand writes: although God is merciful, this is not the same as forgetting or ignoring man’s deeds. All of man’s deeds are written in a book; eventually he will be held accountable for them. And whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow: a person has free choice and may act wrongly today, hoping that in the future he will act better and be able to overcome the things he did wrong. But the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent: although a person may borrow, he must be careful for he does not know when his day of judgement will arrive. The “collectors” can come any day, and when they do they will collect whether he is ready to pay back his debt or not. Therefore a person should be careful to make sure he is never in “overdraft”. And they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment: in the end God’s judgement is righteous and fitting, even if humans cannot see it in this world. And everything is prepared for the banquet: in the world to come each person will eat the meal that he has prepared for himself in this world.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Rabbi Akiva use the metaphor of the world as a shop and God as the shopkeeper?
• What is the one central message of this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Elazar ben Azariah was one of the rabbis at Yavneh, after the destruction of the Temple. When Rabban Gamaliel was deposed as patriarch, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah took his place.\nIn this mishnah there are really two totally separate mishnayoth. I have explained and numbered each individually." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Eliezer Hisma was a student of Rabban Gamaliel and of Rabbi Joshua. Legend has it that he was a great mathematician.", + "Rabbi Eliezer Hisma said: the laws of mixed bird offerings and the key to the calculations of menstruation days these, these are the body of the halakhah. The calculation of the equinoxes and gematria are the desserts of wisdom. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma states that there are two different types of laws that are “the body of the halakhah”. This means that they are essential halakhot, paradigmatic of the Oral Torah. The “laws of mixed bird offerings” refers to cases where one type of bird offering accidentally became mixed up with a different type. For instance an obligatory offering became mixed up (perhaps in a net or in a dovecote) with a voluntary offering; or a sin offering became mixed up with a whole burnt offering. There is a whole tractate entitled Kinnim that deals with these situations. The second type of halakhah are the calculations of menstruation days. This refers to calculating how many days there are between a woman’s cycle. It is important to figure this out so that women can distinguish between menstrual bleeding and other types of bleeding. Much of tractate Niddah is devoted to this subject. There are two types of laws that are only “desserts of wisdom”. That is they help learning, but they are not essential. One is astronomy, that is the calculation of the seasons. The other is gematria, which refers to the adding up of numbers (obviously this is from the same word as geometry). According to the Meiri, Rabbi Eliezer Hisma wants to guide a person in his course of study. The first thing a person should learn is Torah. The two areas of Torah learning that he mentions are representative of some of the most difficult subjects in the learning of Torah. A person should first learn Torah so well, that he is able to master even tractates Kinnim and Niddah. Afterwards, when he has completely mastered even in these subjects, a person should turn his attention to science and mathematics, represented here by astronomy and geometry." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction Ben Zoma’s full name was Shimon ben Zoma, and he is never called by the title Rabbi, although he was clearly quite learned. He is famous for being one of the four rabbis who entered into the “Pardes”, the mythical orchard, which may refer to some type of esoteric theological speculation. The experience was too much for him and he went crazy (one died, another became an apostate and one, Rabbi Akiva, became one of the great sages of Jewish history). In this mishnah Ben Zoma teaches the definitions of wise, mighty, rich and honored. In my humble opinion the advice that he gives is amongst the best and most useful advice ever given.", + "Ben Zoma said:
Who is wise? He who learns from every man, as it is said: “From all who taught me have I gained understanding” (Psalms 119:99). A person who is ready to learn from anyone will not reject the things he learns from other people just because they do not have high social or economic standing. For instance, a good teacher will not reject a suggested explanation from a student just because the student is younger and less experienced. A truly wise person is always looking for ways to expand his knowledge. This is true even of one who does not know a lot. If he is always looking for ways to learn, then he is truly wise.", + "Who is mighty? He who subdues his [evil] inclination, as it is said: “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that rules his spirit than he that takes a city” (Proverbs 16:32. This one statement may sum up 2000 years of Jewish experience. The Jewish ideal of strength and might is not the same as the Greek ideal, which is that of the mighty warrior and champion athlete. A person of great physical strength who performs amazing deeds is not necessarily mighty. The most difficult thing to conquer is not others or even great armies, but our own inclination to do wrong things. One who has control over this inclination is truly mighty. This is why for thousands of years Jews did not look to soldiers as their heroes, but to rabbis and other thinkers. Strength in Judaism is one of character and not one of might. After all the strongest person in the world is no stronger than a weak gorilla or bear. It is only through our ability to curb our appetites and control our instincts that human beings can differ themselves from animals.", + "Who is rich? He who rejoices in his lot, as it is said: “You shall enjoy the fruit of your labors, you shall be happy and you shall prosper” (Psalms 128:2) “You shall be happy” in this world, “and you shall prosper” in the world to come. This saying can be observed every day in newspapers and magazines. The rich and famous are not called the rich and happy for good reasons. Wealth is not measured by how much money one has in the bank account, but by how satisfied one is with what one has. This is not to say that people should not work hard in order to earn more money, or that people should renounce their material wealth and live lives of poverty. Such is not a typically Jewish ideal. However, along with working hard, a person who wants to be happy must be satisfied with what he has. In the middle of this section is a brief interpolated midrash on the verse from Psalms. The verse seems superfluous for it would have been enough to state either that “you will be happy” or “and you shall prosper”. The repetition teaches, according to the mishnah, that the verse refers to happiness and prosperity in both this world and the next.", + "Who is he that is honored? He who honors his fellow human beings as it is said: “For I honor those that honor Me, but those who spurn Me shall be dishonored” (I Samuel 2:30). One who honors others is really bringing honor to himself. Note that the prooftext from I Samuel is said by God, and not by a human being. However, one could argue that all the more so this is true with regard to humans. If God honors those who honor Him, even though we were only created to honor Him, all the more so will humans honor those who honor them." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nBen Azzai’s full name was Shimon ben Azzai, and like Ben Zoma of the previous mishnah, he was never called Rabbi. He is famous for his utter devotion to Torah, a devotion so great that he never married (to the disdain of the other rabbis). Like Ben Zoma, he also entered the “pardes” the orchard of metaphysical speculation and died as a result.", + "Ben Azzai said:
Be quick in performing a minor commandment as in the case of a major one, and flee from transgression; A person should be as careful in the performance of what seem in his eyes to be minor commandments as he is in the performance of what seem in his eyes to be major commandments. Likewise a person should distance himself from transgression, even a transgression that does not seem to be so serious.", + "For one commandment leads to another commandment, and transgression leads to another transgression; This is the first reason for why one should be scrupulous in the performance of even minor commandments. The performance of one commandment awakens a person to perform other commandments as well. I think we can compare this statement to exercise and healthy eating habits. A person who begins to physically exercise his body will naturally want to exercise more, to eat healthy and to stop bad habits such as smoking. One good thing he does for his body will lead to another good thing. So too with the negative side. If a person does not exercise, chances are he will also eat poorly. The worse he eats the less he will want to exercise, and he will deteriorate in a cycle. So too with commandments, the spiritual equivalent to exercise. The more a person performs the commandments, the more spiritually awake his soul will be and the more he will want to perform more commandments. However, the more a person transgresses, the more spiritually dead he will progressively continue to be, and he will continue in a downward spiral of sin.", + "For the reward for performing a commandment is another commandment and the reward for committing a transgression is a transgression. This is an extremely important statement. Throughout Avoth we have learned that the reward for the performance of commandments and the punishment for sin are meted out in the world to come. This is basically saying that one cannot expect to see divine justice in this world. However, Ben Azzai points out that there is one type of reward which is received in this world. A person who performs a commandment is rewarded by God by having the next commandment become easier for him. I think this means that one who takes the initiative to begin to lead a good and righteous life, will be rewarded by being able to continue to live a good and righteous life. In essence, the performance of the commandments is a reward in and of itself. The same is true with the opposite. One who sins will be punished by performing another sin. Once he is accustomed to sinning, his life will deteriorate into a life full of sin. The punishment is then, in essence, a direct result of what he does, in other words his sinful life is a punishment for his sins. Perhaps this is somewhat like the English saying, “you made your bed, now sleep in it”.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the relationship of section two to section three?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three contains another teaching of Ben Azzai.", + "He used to say: do not despise any man, and do not discriminate against anything, for there is no man that has not his hour, and there is no thing that has not its place. The central idea in the first part of Ben Azzai’s statement is that every person has worth, just by the mere fact that humans were created in the image of God. Indeed, whereas Rabbi Akiva says that the foundation of all ethics is “love your neighbor as yourself” according to Ben Azzai the foundation of ethics is that man was created in God’s image. Since all humans are created in the image of God, a person should despise no man, for doing so would be like despising God. Furthermore, even someone who seems to be worthless and a total detriment to society has his hour and his place. One never knows when that hour or place might come. The second part of the statement teaches that one should one discriminate against things, thinking that they are useless. This line could be read as an environmental message. A person should not look at a piece of nature, for instance a fly or mosquito and wish that it had never been created. For each piece of God’s creation has it’s place and what may look to us as unnecessary actually fulfills a function in nature. A different interpretation of this last section, “do not discriminate against anything… and there is no thing that has not its place”, is that a person should not treat lightly any of his material belongings. What you may think is actually useless could be used by someone else or may even someday be useful to you. This too can be read environmentally, urging people to not lightly cast away things that have outgrown their use but to think about how they might be further used in the future.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
What is the difference between Rabbi Akiva’s emphasis on “love your neighbor as yourself” and Ben Azzai’s emphasis on “in the image of God man was created”?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are actually two mishnayoth in mishnah four. The first mishnah is from Rabbi Levitas of Yavneh, who does not appear anywhere else in the mishnah.\nRabbi Yohanan ben Berokah was a student of Rabbi Joshua.", + "Rabbi Levitas a man of Yavneh said: be exceeding humble spirit, for the end of man is the worm. Usually a person should take the middle path and not be “exceedingly” anything. However, with humility one can be even exceedingly humble. For in the end all men end up in the ground, serving as food for worms.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah said: whoever profanes the name of heaven in secret, he shall be punished in the open. Unwittingly or wittingly, it is all one in profaning the name. This refers to a person who commits a transgression in private which had he done it in public would have desecrated God’s name. For instance, if he is a sage or other type of communal leader, if people would have seen him sinning, they would have learned from him. Such a person will be punished in the open so that everyone can see his hypocrisy. Since profaning God’s name is such a great crime, one that can lead to other people committing even more sins, the punishment is meted out even to one who unwittingly profanes God’s name. Maimonides points out that this is not to say that a person who unwittingly profanes God’s name receives the same punishment as one who does so wittingly. This would be inherently unfair. Rather what the mishnah teaches is that each gets their punishment in public." + ], + [ + "Introduction part one Since this mishnah is really two mishnayoth, I will treat each piece separately. Rabbi Ishmael of this mishnah is the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka. He was a student of those rabbis who founded the yeshiva in Yavneh after the destruction of the Temple. Rabbi Ishmael his son said: He who learns in order to teach, it is granted to him to study and to teach; But he who learns in order to practice, it is granted to him to learn and to teach and to practice. Rabbi Zadok said: do not make them a crown for self-exaltation, nor a spade with which to dig. So to Hillel used to say, “And he that puts the crown to his own use shall perish.” Thus you have learned, anyone who derives worldly benefit from the words of the Torah, removes his life from the world. Although one who learns Torah only in order to teach is not really learning for “the sake of heaven”, he is nevertheless rewarded by God, by having the opportunity to learn and teach. However, one who learns in order to practice, which is an even higher commitment, is rewarded by even having the opportunity to practice the commandments. Note again that this mishnah considers the performance of the commandments a reward unto those who perform them. In other words, the one who learns, teaches and studies is rewarded not with material wealth or with other promises, but with the opportunity to continue to perform these commandments. He will not be persecuted by the ruling authorities, which would and did prevent many people from learning Torah throughout Jewish history. Introduction section two Rabbi Zadok lived before the destruction of the Temple. According to legend he fasted for forty years before the destruction, praying that the Temple should not be destroyed. When Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai fled Jerusalem and was granted three requests by Vespasion, the Roman general turned emperor, one of them was that a doctor be provided for Rabbi Zadok. The teaching of Rabbi Zadok is connected thematically to Rabbi Ishmael’s teaching from the previous mishnah. Rabbi Zadok’s first warning is clear. One should not use Torah learning as means for self-aggrandizement. Torah should be studied for the sake of God, and in the end honor will come of itself. To use the Torah as a spade means to use the Torah for a means to earn a living. The Talmud teaches that just as God taught the children of Israel for free, so too should you teach for free. We should note that although this was an ideal that Torah should be taught for free it has rarely been followed throughout Jewish history. There were certain exemptions sought for this rule, and in practice, due largely to the exigencies of history, rabbis were often paid for their work. Furthermore, Torah study and teaching is difficult enough that it often requires one to devote full time to its pursuit. However, despite this, Maimonides excoriates those who earn a living teaching Torah. He writes, “There is no basis at all for this [for earning a living teaching Torah] in the Torah.” According to Maimonides the sages of the Talmud did not accept charity from their neighbors and were content to live a life of poverty, so devoted were they to Torah. “They never permitted themselves this begging people for money. They saw, indeed, that this taking founds would be profaning the Name of God in the sight of the masses because then people come to regard the study of Torah as no more than another occupation by means of which a man makes a living.” Other medieval scholars vehemently disagreed with Maimonides and stated that Torah scholars who earn a living are not guilty of any transgression. Speaking personally, I believe that Maimonides rule is somewhat impractical, and would potentially lead to a deterioration in the study of Torah. If people could not feed their families while studying Torah, they would not be able to study, nor teach. However, I think that the spirit of his warning should remain in the ears of those who engage in the study of Torah or work as rabbis. While it may be necessary to earn a living doing so, the primary motivation cannot be profit. A rabbi who turns his training into a way to earn a buck and does not do so “for the sake of Heaven” seems to me to have broken this transgression. In the second half of this mishnah, Rabbi Zadok quotes Hillel. This quote is taken from chapter one, mishnah thirteen. This is the first time we have seen in our mishnah one rabbi quoting another. Rabbi Zadok treats Hillel’s saying almost as if it were a prooftext from the Bible. By Rabbi Zadok’s time, Hillel’s statements had become “sanctified” and were good enough to prove things. This phenomenon is very important as we trace the development of Torah study and rabbinic literary compositions. According to Rabbi Zadok, one who receives financial compensation in this world for teaching Torah, will not get a reward in the world to come. It is as if he uses up the reward which he deserves." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Yose was one of Rabbi Akiva’s students. He was one of Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s teachers, and is one of more prevalent sages in the Mishnah.", + "Rabbi Yose said: whoever honors the Torah is himself honored by others, and whoever dishonors the Torah is himself dishonored by others. There are several explanations as to what it means to “honor the Torah”. One is that to honor the Torah is not to place a Torah scroll on a bed or a bench, or a book of the Torah (the Pentateuch) on a Torah scroll, or a volume of the “Prophets” or “Writings” on a volume of the Torah, or a volume of the Talmud on top of any book of the Bible. These are all physical ways of honoring the Torah. Others explain that honoring the Torah means to honor its commandments and to perform them eagerly. Still others explain that honoring the Torah means acting in a moral manner when performing the commandments." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Ishmael was the oldest of Rabbi Yose’s five sons. Most of his statements in the Talmud were stated in the name of his father. He lived in Tzippori (in the Galilee).\nIn this mishnah and in the next, Rabbi Ishmael discusses judgement. We should note that in the time of the Mishnah, being a judge was not a profession. Jewish courts were not fixed institutions, such as an independent state might have. While there may have been rabbis to whom people knew they could turn, this is not the same as an established court system. Furthermore, in some cases, anyone could act as a judge, even those without any special qualifications. A person could potentially gather three people and ask them to render a decision. (See Sanhedrin, chapter three). In such a system (or lack of system) it becomes especially important to give instructions to people when they should or should not judge. This is the subject of the next two mishnayoth.", + "Rabbi Ishmael his son said: he who refrains himself from judgment, rids himself of enmity, robbery and false swearing; But he whose heart is presumptuous in giving a judicial decision, is foolish, wicked and arrogant. Seemingly, Rabbi Ishmael is asking all people to avoid acting as judges, saying that those who don’t judge avoid many pitfalls. They don’t make enemies out of those whom they find guilty, they don’t misjudge, thereby in essence robbing from the falsely convicted, and they don’t make people swear when they shouldn’t have to. However, the second half of Rabbi Ishmael’s statement seems to imply that the first half is not referring to normal, qualified judges. A good judge is not “presumptuous”, in other words he carefully weighs his decisions, and makes sure he knows all of the facts and all of the laws before he renders his decision. One who does not do so is foolish, for he thinks that he is smarter than he really is, wicked, for he recklessly renders decisions, and arrogant, for he assumes that he will not make a mistake. According to Rabbi Ishmael it is the presumptuous, untrained judge that is problematic. Rabbi Ishmael’s statement should be considered a warning not to judge when one is not qualified. It is not a warning that even the qualified should refrain from judgement. Counterbalancing this tradition, there is an assumption that those who are trained have a duty to judge others, for if they did not, society would not be able to enforce its laws. Other commentators point out that this mishnah only applies in a case where there are other, more qualified judges. But if there is no one else more qualified, each person has an obligation to judge as best as he can. Nevertheless, he must render his decision with fear and with the proper respect for the seriousness of his job." + ], + [ + "He used to say: judge not alone, for none may judge alone save one. And say not “accept my view”, for they are free but not you. According to the rabbis, the Torah does permit an expert judge to judge alone. Nevertheless, Rabbi Ishmael warns judges not to do so, for only God can truly judge alone. Human beings, even those who are expert in law, should set up courts of three, as is described in Sanhedrin, chapter three. When this expert judge is sitting with two others, and they disagree with his decision, he may not say to them “accept my view”. He may not use force, even verbal force, to get them to acquiesce to his own view. “For they are free but not you”, means that since they are the majority, they may compel you to accept their, majority decision. You, even though an expert, cannot compel them to accept your, minority decision." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Jonathan was a student of Rabbi Ishmael’s. This is his only statement in the mishnah. These two facts go hand in hand. Rabbi Ishmael was the founder of a bet midrash (study house) that differed from the bet midrash founded by Rabbi Akiva. The Mishnah is the product of Rabbi Akiva’s bet midrash, and therefore sages who were from Rabbi Ishmael’s bet midrash rarely have their statements included in it.", + "Rabbi Jonathan said: whoever fulfills the Torah out of a state of poverty, his end will be to fulfill it out of a state of wealth; And whoever discards The torah out of a state of wealth, his end will be to discard it out of a state of poverty. One who studies Torah despite his poverty and despite the fact that he could earn more money if he worked more, will eventually be rewarded with wealth. In contrast, one who neglects the study of Torah because he is so busy trying to earn more money, will eventually lose his wealth. Some commentators on the mishnah raise a difficulty. Empirically speaking one can observe that this mishnah simply is not true. We often see people who study Torah and yet do not become rich and we see people who do not study Torah and do not grow poor. These commentators therefore interpret it to mean that anyone who studies the Torah out of poverty will continue to keep the Torah even if he becomes wealthy; and anyone who does not study the Torah while wealthy will not study it even if he becomes poor. In other words we should not assume that his Torah study, or lack thereof, is a result of his economic status. Another interpretation is that wealth is not to be taken literally. Rather it refers to the type of wealth mentioned in mishnah one of this chapter, that is being satisfied with one’s portion in life. One who is poor but studies Torah will be satisfied with his life, and thereby will feel himself to be wealthy." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Meir was one of the great students of Rabbi Akiva, and according to the Talmud, the anonymous sayings in the mishnah were really stated by Rabbi Meir. In other words, when Rabbi Judah Hanasi composed the mishnah, he used Rabbi Meir’s mishnah as the base.", + "Rabbi Meir said:
Engage but little in business, and busy yourself with the Torah. A story is told of Rabbi Meir, that he earned three sela’s a week. One he would spend on food, one on clothing and one he would give to support other scholars. When asked why he was leaving nothing for his children as an inheritance, he replied that if they are righteous, they will merit their own living and if they are wicked, why should he leave his belongings to God’s enemies. This story illustrates well Rabbi Meir’s faith that God would help provide for those who learn Torah. Note that Rabbi Meir works for a living; he does not himself accept charity nor solely depend on God’s provenance. Furthermore he recognizes that although he can earn a living while studying, others are not so successful. God’s aid is not forthcoming to all and therefore he gives charity. While he has faith that in the end God will provide, his faith does not prevent him from taking action.", + "Be of humble spirit before all men. A person should act humbly in front of all other human beings, not just those who are superior to him. This is also true (or perhaps especially true) for those who are learned in Torah. Although they are more learned than others, they must act humbly in front of all people.", + "If you have neglected the Torah, you shall have many who bring you to neglect it, but if you have labored at the study of Torah, there is much reward to give unto you If a person neglects the study of Torah, there will continuously be things that further prevent him from studying Torah. This can easily be observed. When someone postpones doing something, be it study, exercise or any activity that can be postponed, it only gets more and more difficult to find the time to engage in that activity. However, if one does start to study, Rabbi Meir has faith that he will receive a rich reward. The commentators understand this to mean that God himself will reward such a person." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nSince this mishnah contains two mishnayoth from two different sages, we will treat each one individually.\nThere were two Tannaitic sages by the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. The first lived during the time of the Second Temple, and the second was a student of Rabbi Akiva. This mishnah is from the latter sage." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Elazar was another student of Rabbi Akiva’s. In other places in the mishnah he is referred to as Rabbi Elazar without the name of his father, Shammua.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said: let the honor of your student be as dear to you as your own, and the honor of your colleague as the reverence for your teacher, and the reverence for your teacher as the reverence of heaven. Rabbi Elazar’s statement ranks the honor that a person would customarily give to others, and says that in each case one should give even more honor than is expected. A teacher should respect students as if they were teachers themselves. This is learned from Moses’s conduct, for in Exodus 17:9 he says to Joshua, “choose for us men”. He does not say, “choose for me” but rather “us” even though he is clearly Joshua’s superior. Similarly, one should treat a colleague with the same reverence one would give a teacher, who is one step higher. This is learned from Aaron who says to Moses in Numbers 12:11, “O my lord”, even though he was Moses’s brother. Finally, a person should have as much reverence for one’s teacher as he has for God. This is learned from Joshua in Numbers 11:28, who tells Moses to execute Eldad and Medad, who Joshua believes are rebelling against Moses. Joshua considers their rebellion against Moses to be like a rebellion against God, because Moses is Joshua’s teacher." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Judah, the author of the first saying in this mishnah, was the son of Rabbi Ilai, and was a student of Rabbi Akiva and of Rabbi Tarphon. Rabbi Judah is the most prevalent sage in the entire Mishnah. When he disputes with Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Shimon (two sages with whom he often disputes) the halakhah is always according to his view.\nRabbi Shimon is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the famous sage who according to legend wrote the Zohar. He is also a student of Rabbi Akiva’s.", + "Rabbi Judah said: be careful in study, for an error in study counts as deliberate sin. The study of Torah, of which Rabbi Judah speaks, is one in which the one studying compares different traditions and strives to learn the matter deeply, its reasons and its details, all in order to know what the correct halakhah should be. One who errs in this type of learning, and therefore makes an incorrect halakhic ruling, is considered as if he did so intentionally, and therefore has intentionally caused someone else to sin. A rabbi must be very careful in his rulings, and carelessness is considered to be as sinful as intentionally making a mistake. Note that in this mishnah we can detect the tension between tradition and innovation. The “study of Torah” referred to does not mean the mere recitation of the learning one has received. The “study of Torah” means delving into Torah to come up with rulings that have not been made before. One who passes down his tradition word for word as it was received does not have to worry as much, because he is not adding anything of his own. However, one who adds his own reasoning, must be extremely cautious, and if he carelessly makes an error, it is counted against him as if he did so intentionally. While innovation, according to Rabbi Judah, is important and possible, it requires more caution than mere transmission.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: There are three crowns: the crown of torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty, but the crown of a good name supersedes them all. There are three crowns that the Torah teaches us to respect: 1) one who has learned Torah; 2) the priest; 3) the King. These are representative of the three types of leadership in Israel, the sage/prophet, the priest who is connected to the Temple and the king who governs the people. However, Rabbi Shimon says there is a crown greater than all three, and that is the crown of a good name. This can be proven by the fact that if any of these three, the sage, the priest or the king behaves badly by sinning and thereby gains an ill reputation, we are no longer obligated to respect that person. This is a statement of the responsibility of leaders. A leadership position in society does not automatically entitle one to respect, without any connection to actions. A leader who wishes to be respected must earn that respect by his deeds. An interesting commentary on the three crowns is that they are representative of three types of qualities that leaders often have: the king is wealthy, the priest is from an aristocratic family, and the sage is intelligent. In all of these cases the crown is meaningless, without the crown of a good name." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nSome believe that name of Nehorai is a nickname for either Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Nehemiah or Rabbi Elazar ben Arach. The word Nehorai means “full of light” in Aramaic. Others believe that Nehorai is the name of a tanna who was a student of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Tarphon.", + "Rabbi Nehorai said: go as a [voluntary] exile to a place of Torah and say not that it will come after you, for [it is] your fellow [student]s who will make it permanent in your hand and “and lean not upon your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). Rabbi Nehorai teaches that one should leave one’s home and search out someone with whom to learn Torah for one cannot learn Torah on one’s own. Torah study is best done in the company of others, with a “hevruta” and with a teacher. Remember that since the Oral Torah was not yet written down at this point, learning Torah on one’s own was next to impossible. If one was lucky and wealthy he might have had a copy of the written Torah, but the Mishnah and all of the other compositions of the rabbis did not yet exist and even when they were compiled, they were learned orally. Although in our day we have books and one can learn Torah without a hevruta, it is still far more effective to learn with a hevruta. Furthermore, one cannot really begin to learn Talmud without a teacher, someone to explain how to read the Talmud and understand what the arguments mean. Rabbi Nehorai emphasizes that a person should not wait for a teacher to come to him. He must go out and even go into exile in order to find a teacher. Perhaps in the word “exile” Rabbi Nehorai hints that one may even leave the land of Israel to go study Torah. In general exile from the land of Israel was seen as a punishment and it was forbidden for a person to initiate such an exile. However, if exile is for the sake of Torah, it is permitted, and even under some circumstances, encouraged." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAgain, this mishnah is really two mishnayoth and we will treat each separately.\nRabbi Yannai is probably the father of Rabbi Dostai who was mentioned above in mishnah 3:8. This is his only statement in the mishnah", + "Rabbi Yannai said: it is not in our hands [to explain the reason] either of the security of the wicked, or even of the afflictions of the righteous. Rabbi Mathia ben Harash said: Upon meeting people, be the first to extend greetings; And be a tail unto lions, and not a head unto foxes. Although we have seen that on several occasions tractate Avoth attempts to answer the question why do the wicked sometimes prosper and the righteous suffer, Rabbi Yannai admits that humans do not truly know the answer to this question. Usually the rabbis say that the wicked receive whatever reward is due to them in this world, so that in the world to come they will only suffer, whereas the opposite is true of the righteous. However, Rabbi Yannai evidently finds this answer, or others of its nature, not to be satisfactory. We should note that the translation above reflects one explanation of this mishnah. The words “to explain the reason” do not actually appear in the mishnah itself. Without them, others explain that Rabbi Yannai is making a statement about life without a Temple in Jerusalem. In this time, we don’t have the security that the wicked often enjoy, nor do we have the afflictions that the righteous suffer. In other words, Rabbi Yannai considers his generation to be neither fully wicked, nor totally righteous. Upon meeting people, be the first to extend greetings: When relating to others we should always try to be the first to wish them well, even, and perhaps especially, to those that we consider to be below our social status. One of the praises that was told of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was that no one ever greeted him before he greeted them. And be a tail unto lions, and not a head unto foxes: It is better to attach oneself to a group of people who are above you, in wisdom and goodness and to be accounted the least among them, then to be the head of a group of people who are below you in wisdom or goodness, and to be the first among them. A person should not measure himself against a lower group of people and thereby make himself feel better about his standing. Rather he should strive to join a higher group, one where he can grow more. We could apply this saying to many situations. For example an athlete will grow more when he plays with other players better than he, than if he were to play with those of lesser talent. Midrash Shmuel makes an interesting note on this saying. A lion waves its tail above his head whereas a fox puts it between his legs. So too honorable people honor those who are lesser than them and are not concerned that their own honor will be thereby impinged; whereas dishonorable people belittle those lesser in order to (seemingly) increase their own import." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Jacob was the teacher of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, who composed the mishnah. He appeared above in chapter three, mishnah seven (the printed edition of the Mishnah mistakenly reads Rabbi Shimon). In another place Rabbi Jacob was famous for stating that all heavenly punishments and rewards are meted out in the world to come. In other words, in this world there is no correlation between a person’s virtues and his fate.", + "Rabbi Jacob said: this world is like a vestibule before the world to come; prepare yourself in the vestibule, so that you may enter the banqueting-hall. The world in which we live is, according to Rabbi Jacob, merely a vestibule in preparation for the main meal, that is the world to come. A person must perform good deeds in this world, in order to ensure himself a place in the world to come. In a midrash on Proverbs a similar teaching appears. “In the future the wicked will ask God to give them a chance to repent. God will answer them saying ‘you fools, the world you were in was like the day before the Sabbath and this world [the world to come] is like the Sabbath. If one doesn’t prepare on the Sabbath eve, how will he have to eat on the Sabbath…[God further said], ‘the world you were in was like dry land and the world to come like sailing on the sea. If one doesn’t prepare food while on dry land, how will he have to eat while at sea.’”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of Rabbi Jacob’s statement from the previous mishnah.", + "He used to say: more precious is one hour in repentance and good deeds in this world, than all the life of the world to come; In this world one has a chance to perform good deeds and to repent and thereby earn a greater reward in the world to come, which as we learned yesterday is where, according to Rabbi Jacob, all rewards are meted out. In the world to come, it is too late to repent. Actions are not truly categorically possible in the world to come. Note that the meaning of this statement is that one must take every opportunity to use wisely his time in this world. In the past I have heard people say that Judaism is “this-world religion”. This is true and not true. As we have seen time and time again, the rabbis firmly believed in the world to come; disbelief in it was probably one of the causes of the split between the Pharisees and Sadducees. However, a person cannot know anything about the world to come, and what counts is our actions in this world. Furthermore, one should not want to hurry his entrance into the world to come, an idea that has gained some popularity in other religions. One should desire to live as long as possible in this world, not because of its inherent, material delights, but because humans need the time in this world to perform good deeds and thereby earn themselves a greater reward in the world to come. In this sense Judaism is a religion which concentrates on this world.", + "And more precious is one hour of the tranquility of the world to come, than all the life of this world. Rabbi Jacob’s statement finishes by emphasizing how peaceful and tranquil is the world to come. One hour in the world to come is worth more than all of the physical pleasures one could ever find in this world." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Shimon ben Elazar was a student of Rabbi Meir and a colleague of Rabbi Judah Hanasi.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Do not try to appease your friend during his hour of anger; Nor comfort him at the hour while his dead still lies before him; Nor question him at the hour of his vow; Nor strive to see him in the hour of his disgrace. The first two statements in this mishnah are statements of sound psychological advice. Appeasing a friend while he is still angry is not going to be effective, nor will trying to offer comfort to a mourner before he has buried his dead. Nor question him at the time of his vow: this refers to something called “the undoing of vows” (we will learn this subject in greater detail when we learn tractate Nedarim (vows). If a person takes a vow not to do something, for instance see his father, but then wants to do that which he vowed not to do, he may ask a sage to “undo his vow”. The way that a sage does this is by asking him questions to see if he may have vowed not fully understanding the consequences. For instance the sage might ask him, “when you vowed not to see your father did you know that it would cause your parents such emotional pain?” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar teaches that one should not ask these questions right at the time of his vow, for not enough time has passed for him to regret taking the vow. At this time he is still angry and he will not want to get out of his vow. Nor strive to see him in the hour of his disgrace: when a person has just done something disgraceful, he doesn’t want anyone to see him. Therefore you should avoid him during this time, for it will be embarrassing to him to be seen and may cause him to take his anger out at you.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What do these four sayings have in common?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nShmuel Hakatan means “Little Samuel” (or “Little Sammy”). The Palestinian Talmud provides two reasons for such a strange nickname. The first is that he would belittle himself in front of others; in other words he was exceedingly humble. The second reason is that he was he was just a little below the level of Samuel from the Bible. Shmuel Hakatan was at Yavneh after the destruction and he conducted one of the benedictions in the Amidah, namely the benediction directed against heretics. Despite his nickname he was evidently held in great regard.", + "Shmuel Hakatan said: “If your enemy falls, do not exult; if he trips, let your heart not rejoice, lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and avert his wrath from you” (Proverbs 24:17). The most interesting thing about this saying is that it is only a verse from the book of Proverbs. Whereas in every other case in the Mishnah, there are words of the rabbis, this mishnah contains only a biblical verse. While there are some versions of this mishnah in which there appears a midrash, in which case Shmuel Hakatan does add his own words and does not merely quote a verse, these are probably later versions and do not reflect the original. The traditional explanation for this phenomenon is that Shmuel Hakatan regularly quoted this verse. The verse’s meaning is that one should not rejoice at the fall of one’s enemy and that if one does God’s wrath will be placed upon the one rejoicing." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nElisha ben Abuyah was a colleague of Rabbi Akiva and a teacher of Rabbi Meir. According to legend he was one of the four sages who went into the “orchard” (perhaps a reference to metaphysical speculation). As a result he became an apostate. As a result of his apostasy, he is referred to in most places as “aher”, which means “other”. There are many fascinating legends about Elisha ben Abuya, many of which have been compiled into a novel called, As a Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg. This is a truly remarkable book that I cannot recommend highly enough. It is both a good read and provides a setting in which the mishnah might have taken place. Another good place to look for legends about Elisha ben Abuya is Sefer Haaggadah, by Bialik and Ravnitzky. This is a compilation of many talmudic legends.", + "Elisha ben Abuyah said: He who learns when a child, to what is he compared? To ink written upon a new writing sheet. And he who learns when an old man, to what is he compared? To ink written on a rubbed writing sheet. A young person is like a blank slate upon which things may be written clearly and read easily by others. However, an old person is like a piece of paper previously written upon and then erased. Subsequent writing on this paper will not be clear. This statement is not quite as negative about learning as an adult as the English saying, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” but it is said in a similar vein.", + "Rabbi Yose ben Judah a man of Kfar Ha-babli said: He who learns from the young, to what is he compared? To one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks wine from his vat; And he who learns from the old, to what is he compared? To one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine. Rabbi said: don’t look at the container but at that which is in it: there is a new container full of old wine, and an old [container] in which there is not even new [wine]. This section of the mishnah refers not to the age of the student, but to the age of the teacher. Rabbi Yose says that it is preferable to learn from an older person, who is like ripe grapes and vintage wine. One who learns from the young is like one who eats unripe grapes or drinks straight from the vat. While these are edible and drinkable, they do not taste good nor are they particularly satisfying. According to Rabbi Yose a person’s teaching needs time to settle down, to “ripen” within him, before he becomes an effective teacher. If we combine this with the previous section, we see that the best situation is one in which someone learns while young and doesn’t begin to teach until much older. However, Rabbi [Judah Hanasi], in one of the most famous statements in Avoth, says that it is not the outer container that determines the nature of the wisdom but rather that which is inside. Just as with wine, an outer container can be deceiving as to the inner content, so too with wisdom. There may be young people contain mature wisdom and older people who remain immature with regards to their wisdom, and even empty. Perhaps Rabbi would disagree with the first statement as well; if one can teach while young, maybe he would hold that one can learn when old. All is determined not by one’s physical age, but by one’s inner character." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Elazar Ha-kappar was one of the last of the tannaim. One interesting note is that this name was found in the Galilee written on a lintel piece dated to the mishnaic period. While we cannot be certain that this refers to the same person who is named in the mishnah, it is likely that this was from his residence.", + "Rabbi Elazar Ha-kappar said: envy, lust and [the desire for] honor put a man out of the world. This saying is parallel to the saying of Rabbi Joshua which we saw in mishnah 2:11, “Rabbi Joshua said: an evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred for humankind put a person out of the world.” It may even be that Rabbi Elazar is interpreting Rabbi Joshua’s statement. An evil eye causes a person to be envious, lustfulness comes from the evil inclination and hatred for humankind stems from an overwhelming desire to rise above everyone else, hence a pursuit of honor. These things “put a man out of the world”, meaning they interfere with his ability to function in this world and they cause him to lose entrance into the world to come." + ], + [ + "He used to say: the ones who were born are to die, and the ones who have died are to be brought to life, and the ones brought to life are to be judged; So that one may know, make known and have the knowledge that He is God, He is the designer, He is the creator, He is the discerner, He is the judge, He the witness, He the complainant, and that He will summon to judgment. Blessed be He, before Whom there is no iniquity, nor forgetting, nor respect of persons, nor taking of bribes, for all is His. And know that all is according to the reckoning. And let not your impulse assure thee that the grave is a place of refuge for you; for against your will were you formed, against your will were you born, against your will you live, against your will you will die, and against your will you will give an account and reckoning before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. In this long mishnah, full of rhetorical speech, Rabbi Elazar Ha-kappar teaches about the certainty of the judgment day to come. In the beginning of the mishnah, Rabbi Elazar goes through the stages in human existence, from birth to death to resurrection on judgment day. A person should know, tell others and let the whole world know that there is one God responsible for all this. The same God that created us will eventually act as our judge, witness and complainant. [Today we would say that He is the judge, jury and executioner.] Next, Rabbi Elazar reminds us that God is not like human judges, who can be bribed, nor is it possible that He will forget or somehow pervert justice. Everyone will receive his fair due. There is indeed no way to bribe God, for in the end, all of the world belongs to God. All of our deeds count at the time of judgment [see above, 3:15]. One should not fool himself into thinking that the grave will be a place where one can escape the consequences of one’s life, for just as humans were created and will die without their consent, so too will they eventually be judged without their consent. The Rambam notes that the mishnah lists “natural” phenomenon as being out of a person’s control. A person cannot control where, when and into what family he is born, nor does he have a lot of control over when and where he will die. However, the mishnah does not state that a person’s moral actions are out of his control, for a person has full choice over whether he sins or does good deeds. In this way, while we have no control over whether we will be judged in the future, we do have ultimate control with regard to our sentence, because only we can control our actions." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAll of the mishnayoth in chapter five are taught anonymously. The chapter begins with mishnayoth that revolve around the numbers 10, 7, and 4.", + "With ten utterances the world was created. And what does this teach, for surely it could have been created with one utterance? But this was so in order to punish the wicked who destroy the world that was created with ten utterances, And to give a good reward to the righteous who maintain the world that was created with ten utterances. In the first chapter of Genesis the phrase “and God said” appears nine times. If you add to this the first three words of the Torah, which are also considered an “utterance”, you get to the number ten, which is considered a number of completion. God could have created the world with one utterance, but He took more effort in His creation in order to teach human beings their awesome responsibility in being stewards over the world. The wicked who ruin the world are ruining something that took God ten utterances to create and therefore there crime is greater. The opposite is true for the righteous, who preserve the “ten-utterance” world, and are therefore greatly rewarded for their actions. The ways that the wicked destroy the world and the righteous preserve the world can be understood on several levels. One explanation is that this refers to religious or moral wickedness or righteousness. When the wicked corrupt the world, they bring ruin on our great world, and when the righteous act morally and with piety, they preserve our world, which took a full ten utterances to create. On another level it may be taken environmentally. The world was not created with great ease and therefore those who destroy it, are destroying a carefully crafted structure. Those who physically take care of the world, are preserving this incredibly complicated world which God gave over to humanity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two continues to provides things that came in ten in the Bible and that teach lessons about God. This mishnah contains a highly schematic version of history. In other words, history and its length are divided into equal periods and in those equal periods we can detect God’s directing hand at work. This type of learning from history and from its division into equal periods was extremely prevalent in ancient Judaism both amongst the rabbis and amongst other sects of Jews.", + "[There were] ten generations from Adam to Noah, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until He brought upon them the waters of the flood. Although all of the generations between Adam and Noah were evil, God did not destroy them immediately. He put up with their provocation until the tenth generation, when He decided to destroy the world with a flood. In God’s long-suffering we can learn a lesson of patience and forgiveness. Even though in the end God did decide to destroy the world, He did not do so immediately, but gave the world a chance to repent. We also, by the way, learn that God will not tolerate provocation forever; He will eventually bring judgment. Jewish commentators in the Middle Ages found in this comfort, for they lived under terrible oppression at the hands of the Muslims and especially the Christians. A Jew should not despair, for God will eventually punish them for their evil acts.", + "[There were] ten generations from Noah to Abraham, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until Abraham, came and received the reward of all of them. This section is a little more difficult to explain, for what does the phrase, “Abraham came and received the reward of all of them” mean. Rashi explains that Abraham received the reward that they would have received had they repented. Others explain that based upon the merit of Abraham God did not destroy again the whole world. Abraham taught them that repentance was possible and therefore God did not destroy the world. A third explanation is that Abraham received the reward that they all would have received had they learned from him the principles of monotheism." + ], + [ + "With ten trials was Abraham, our father (may he rest in peace), tried, and he withstood them all; to make known how great was the love of Abraham, our father (peace be upon him). The ten trials which Abraham withstood can be counted in several different ways. One count is as follows: twice when ordered to move (Gen. 12:1 ff., 12:10), twice in connection with his two sons (21:10, 22:1 ff.), twice in connection with his two wives (12:11 ff., 21:10), once on the occasion of his war with the kings (14:13 ff.), once at the covenant between the pieces (14:13 ff.), once in Ur of the Chaldees, when he was thrown into a fire furnace by Nimrod (this one is not in the Bible but appears in a midrash), and once at the covenant of circumcision (17:9 ff.). Some commentators point out the connection between Abraham’s trials and the ten utterances with which the world was created. Abraham was tried with ten trials and withstood them all, thereby proving that he was worthy of sustaining the world which was created by ten utterances. A scholar of midrash and ancient Jewish literature named James Kugel (Harvard University) has shown in his book, The Bible as It Was, that the idea that Abraham was tested was an ancient idea, common to many ancient Biblical commentators. Indeed Abraham’s life does seem to have been full of trials; he is told to leave his homeland, he faces famine, war, troubles with his wives and son, Ishmael, and especially obvious, his command to sacrifice his son, Isaac. It is not surprising that many ancient commentators would assume that he was “tried” by God many times. As an aside, this fascinating book is highly recommended." + ], + [ + "Ten miracles were wrought for our ancestors in Egypt, and ten at the sea.
Ten plagues did the Holy one, blessed be He, bring upon the Egyptians in Egypt and ten at the sea.
[With] ten trials did our ancestors try God, blessed be He, as it is said, “and they have tried Me these ten times and they have not listened to my voice” (Numbers 14:22).
The ten miracles that were wrought for our ancestors in Egypt were their being spared from the ten plagues that were afflicted upon the Egyptians.
The ten miracles that were performed at the sea are not mentioned in the Torah but are contained in a midrash and are listed as follows by the Rambam: 1) the sea was split; 2) the water formed a tent over their heads; 3) the land became firm (not muddy); 4) when the Egyptians tried to cross the land in the sea returned to being muddy; 5) the sea was split into 12 strips so each tribe could travel separately; 6) the water froze and became hard as a rock; 7) the water which became as a rock was actually many rocks and was beautifully arranged; 8) the water remained clear so that the tribes could see each other; 9) water that was fit for drinking leaked from the sides; 10) after they finished drinking the water, the water that was left immediately again froze.
The ten plagues that were wrought upon the Egyptians in Egypt are well known and listed in the Torah.
The ten plagues at the sea are, according to some commentators, the ten different verbs used to describe the death of the Egyptians in chapter 15 of Exodus, “he has thrown” (15:2); “he has cast” (15:4); “deeps cover them” (15:5); “they went down into the depths” (15:5); “dashes in pieces the enemy” (15:6); “You overthrow them that rise up against You” (15:7); “it consumes them like straw” (15:7); “the waters were piled up, the floods stood upright as a heap” (15:8); “they sank as lead” (15:10).
The ten times that the children of Israel tried God are as follows: 1) at the sea (Ex. 14:11); 2) at Marah (ibid. 15:24); 3) in the wilderness of Sin (ibid. 16:3); 4) with the Manna (ibid. 16:20); 5) again with the Manna (ibid. 16:27); 6) at Rephidim (ibid. 17:2); 7) with the golden calf (ibid. 32:1); 8) at Tavera (Numbers 11:1); 9) at Kivroth-taaverah (ibid. 11:4); 10) in the wilderness of Paraan, at the incident of the spies (ibid. 13:3)." + ], + [ + "In the first three miracles in this mishnah we can see reflected the practical problems that one would have imagined to have occurred in Jerusalem and specifically in the Temple. Many of these are issues of cleanliness. The Temple would have been full of animals and of meat, and in times when there was no refrigeration and running water was a luxury, it must have been very difficult to keep the place clean. Therefore the mishnah teaches that miracles were wrought that prevented a woman from miscarrying due to the smell of the sacrifices, the meat from going bad and flies from gathering.", + "If the high priest were to have a seminal emission, he would be disqualified from performing the special Yom Kippur worship.", + "Even though the altar was uncovered, the fire underneath never was extinguished by rain.", + "The pillar of smoke coming up from the altar always went straight up without being effected by the wind (according to the Rambam, there was never wind at the time when sacrifices were being offered).", + "On the sixteenth of Nissan they would bring the omer sacrifice, which consisted of barley. After this sacrifice people were allowed to eat from the new harvest. The two loaves refers to the two loaves brought on Shavuoth. After these two loaves were offered, new wheat could be used for minhah sacrifices. The showbread was baked on the eve of the Sabbath and remained on the table for a week. According to the mishnah, disqualifying defects were never found in these three things.", + "Although it must have been crowded in the Temple during the pilgrimage festivals, and people stood pressed up against each other, when it came time to bow, miraculously there was room to do so.", + "If a snake or scorpion killed someone in Jerusalem, it would have potentially caused sudden impurity to any of those standing near. The miracle that this didn’t ever happen would have prevented this problem.", + "Although it must have been unpleasantly crowded in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage festivals, no one ever complained.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the last miracle and all of the previous ones?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists fourteen things (10 + 3 + 1) that seem to defy the laws of nature. These are problematic because God is supposed to have created a world that acts upon the laws of nature. In order to solve this metaphysical problem, the mishnah claims that these supernatural items were created for this very purpose during the six days of creation. They were created during this in-between time, right before creation ended at the end of the sixth day. These items are therefore part of God’s ultimate plan and they are not in essence “supernatural”.", + "Ten things were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight, and these are they: [1] the mouth of the earth, [2] the mouth of the well, [3] the mouth of the donkey, [4] the rainbow, [5] the manna, [6] the staff [of Moses], [7] the shamir, [8] the letters, [9] the writing, [10] and the tablets. And some say: also the demons, the grave of Moses, and the ram of Abraham, our father. And some say: and also tongs, made with tongs. [1] the mouth of the earth: which swallowed Korah and his congregation (Numbers 16:32). [2] the mouth of the well: that gave the children of Israel water in the desert. (See Numbers 21:16-18). [3] the mouth of the donkey: that spoke to Balaam (Numbers 22:28). [4] the rainbow: that was a sign to Noah (Genesis 9:13). [5] the manna: (Exodus 16:15). [6] the staff [of Moses]: (Exodus 4:17). [7] the shamir: this was the strong stone used to cut rocks for the breastplate used during the first temple. [8] the letters: the shape of the letters used to write the Ten Commandments. [9] the writing: See Exodus 32:16. The writing, according to legend, could be seen from all four sides of the tablets. [10] and the tablets: this refers to the first set of the tablets (ibid.) Moses made the second set of tablets (Exodus 34:1). Demons: In the ancient world, people firmly believed in demons, much as we believe in bacteria and viruses even if we have never seen one. These being unnatural phenomenon, must have been created on the twilight of the sixth day. The grave of Moses: Since no one was there for Moses’s burial, we could surmise that it was not created by any human being (Deuteronomy 34:6). And the ram of Abraham, our father: which seemed to have miraculously appeared before Abraham sacrificed Isaac (Genesis 22:13). The mishnah teaches that God all along created the ram to be sacrificed in Isaac’s place. Otherwise it might seem that if the ram had not gotten caught in the bushes, Abraham would have been allowed to sacrifice his son. Tongs made with tongs: One cannot forge tongs in fire, without already having a set of tongs. The first set of tongs must therefore have been made during the twilight of the sixth day.  Why do you think that the mishnah divides its list into three parts, a list, then a list of three and then one last item?  Why aren’t miracles such as the splitting of the sea and the standing still of the sun mentioned here?" + ], + [ + "[There are] seven things [characteristic] in a clod, and seven in a wise man:
A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than he in wisdom,
And does not break into his fellow’s speech;
And is not hasty to answer;
He asks what is relevant, and he answers to the point;
And he speaks of the first [point] first, and of the last [point] last;
And concerning that which he has not heard, he says: I have not heard;
And he acknowledges the truth. And the reverse of these [are characteristic] in a clod.
In what may or may not be a coincidence, the seventh mishnah of our chapter begins to list things that come in sevens.
Our mishnah lists the differences between a “clod” and a wise man. According to Maimonides a “clod” is a person in whom are to be found moral and intellectual virtues, but in state of incompleteness, and not functioning properly. That is why he is called a clod; he is like an implement beginning to take shape in the hands of a craftsman, but still lacking completion.
The mishnah lists the qualities of the wise man and then at the end tells us that the opposite is true for the clod. Note that many of these qualities are important in the learning of Torah. In other words, the mishnah is discussing the type of behavior that is most appropriate for inside the bet midrash, the rabbinic study hall. Also, many of the qualities are important in a learning environment that is all oral, without books, as learning was during the time of the Mishnah. In an “oral” culture, properly organized speech is a highly regarded quality.
Some of these qualities are self-explanatory, so we will only explain those which require some clarification.
And does not break into his fellow’s speech: it is extremely important to wait to fully hear what your fellow has said, lest by interrupting him you distract his train of thought or ask a question that will be answered later.
And is not hasty to answer: the wise man must consider his answer before he gives it, for others will take his words quite seriously.
He asks what is relevant, and he answers to the point: Asking what is relevant means that when discussing one subject, for instance the laws of Sabbath observance, he doesn’t ask about another subject, such as the laws of prayer. He answers to the point means that the wise man does not give long-winded arguments that others will not understand.
And he speaks of the first [point] first, and of the last [point] last: In an oral culture, organized speech is easiest to remember and is therefore most effective.
And concerning that which he has not heard, he says: I have not heard: This does not mean that he admits that he doesn’t know the answer to something. The mishnah is stating that if he has reasoned out an answer to a question on his own, but does not have a tradition as to what the right answer is, he must admit that his answer is based upon reason and not tradition. In the eyes of many of the rabbis tradition was a stronger criterion in determining points of law than reason.
And he acknowledges the truth: If he realizes he has lost an argument, he admits it
And the reverse of these [are characteristic] in a clod." + ], + [ + "The purpose of this saying is that people should check their behavior to see if perhaps calamities are punishments for what they have done. While it is true that humans will often not be able to see a direct correlation between what happens to them and what their actions are, Judaism continues to believe that there is such a correlation. We should also note a couple of other theological statements made by this mishnah. First of all, the mishnah talks about collective punishments and not individual ones. Second of all, the mishnah teaches that God’s punishments are “measure against measure”, in other words, the punishments somehow fit the crime. Third, and perhaps most important, God is seen as responsible for everything, even the bad things that happen in this world.", + "Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of transgression:
When some of them give tithes, and others do not give tithes, a famine from drought comes some go hungry, and others are satisfied. In this section and in the following two, we will see that tithes are connected to rain. In a perhaps more modern interpretation of this concept, we might say that our attitude towards the food that we grow can have an effect on the earth itself. In the first section the punishment of famine due to drought, is seen as the least of the types of famine (it is also clearly not uncommon in the dry land of Israel). Since some tithe and some do not, the punishment will only fall on part of the community. However, the mishnah does not state that those who tithe will not be punished and those who don’t will.", + "When they have all decided not to give tithes, a famine from tumult and drought comes; If all people decide not to tithe, then famine comes not only as a result of lack of rain, but also as a result of war. Since people will be out fighting war, they are not able to tend to their lands and many more people will go hungry.", + "[When they have, in addition, decided] not to set apart the dough-offering, an all-consuming famine comes. When making bread, Jewish law dictates that a piece of the dough be separated and given to the priests. This dough is called “challah”. If Jews don’t separate the challah and they don’t separate tithes, a total famine will come. In this famine people will die of their hunger.", + "Pestilence comes to the world for sins punishable by death according to the Torah, but which have not been referred to the court, and for neglect of the law regarding the fruits of the sabbatical year. There are several possible explanations for “sins punishable by death according to the Torah, but which have not been referred to the court”. This might refer to crimes that should have been punished by death, but were not brought to trial for various reasons (for example not enough witnesses or the perpetrator was not properly warned). Another explanation is that this refers to cases that could have been brought to trial, and maybe were, but for some reason the courts neglected their duty to execute. Yet another explanation is that this refers to crimes punishable by death at the hand of Heaven (in other words they were not referred to the court because by definition the court could not punish for these crimes. If enough people commit these crimes, perhaps reasoning that a court won’t punish them anyway, pestilence will come to the world. In addition, pestilence comes to the world because people transgress the laws of the fruit of the sabbatical year. According to Jewish law, fruit that grows on its own during the sabbatical year may be collected in order to eat, but not in order to sell. If one collects in order to eat but then has extra, he may sell the extra. Since this system is open to abuse, for only God can tell what a person’s intentions were when he collected, the punishment is great. One who thinks that he won’t bring punishment into the world because people do not see his sins, is actually causing even greater punishment.", + "The sword comes to the world for the delay of judgment, and for the perversion of judgment, and because of those who teach the Torah not in accordance with the accepted law. The sword, representative of war, comes to the world because of delay and perversion of justice. In other words because the system of justice was not implemented properly, society will decay into the anarchy of war, an inherently unjust situation. The sword also comes when people teach Torah not according to the accepted halakhah. Although there are many interpretations of this sentence, my sense is that it means that this person teaches Jewish law from what seems to them to be the simple meaning of the Torah. Jewish law is derived from the Torah, but it is mitigated by the oral Torah, the traditional teachings that have always accompanied the Torah. The Sadducees were the ones who taught literal interpretations of the Torah, whereas the Pharisees used tradition to help them interpret and make legal rulings." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to list calamities that come to the world as a result of sin.", + "Wild beasts come to the world for swearing in vain, and for the profanation of the Name. A vain oath is one taken unnecessarily (see Shevuoth 3:8). Profaning God’s name refers to one who sins in public, thereby giving not only himself a bad name but all of Judaism. It can also refer to the sin committed by a respectable person, from whom others learn. When such a person sins it causes a greater profanation of God’s name than when a regular person sins. The Meiri draws a connection between the punishment and the crime. By taking a vain oath and profaning God’s name, the person attempts to bring God’s holiness down a level. As a punishment God brings him down to the level of an animal and wild animals come and attack him.", + "Exile comes to the world for idolatry, for sexual sins and for bloodshed, and for [transgressing the commandment of] the [year of the] release of the land. Exile, which is the ultimate punishment, comes from a trio of the worst crimes: idol worship, sexual crimes (incest and adultery) and murder. Generally, if a person is told that he must sin or he will be killed, he is supposed to commit the sin. The three exceptions are idol worship, sexual crimes and adultery. When people willingly commit these sins, God will exile them from their land. According to Jewish legend, it is for these three sins that the first Temple was destroyed. During the seventh year Jews are not allowed to work their land. The punishment for not observing this law is that the land itself will exile you from living on it. This is another case of “measure for measure”; the punishment fits the crime.", + "At four times pestilence increases: in the fourth year, in the seventh year and at the conclusion of the seventh year, and at the conclusion of the Feast [of Tabernacles] in every year. In the fourth year, on account of the tithe of the poor which is due in the third year. In the seventh year, on account of the tithe of the poor which is due in the sixth year; At the conclusion of the seventh year, on account of the produce of the seventh year; And at the conclusion of the Feast [of Tabernacles] in every year, for robbing the gifts to the poor. This section expands on section four of the previous mishnah, where we learned that “Pestilence comes to the world for …neglect of the law regarding the fruits of the sabbatical year.” Fruits of the sabbatical year (which grow on their own without the field having been worked) should be left in the field to be collected by the poor. One who collects them is actually stealing from the poor. Our mishnah teaches that pestilence can come as a result of other crimes committed involving food intended for the poor, and that the punishment comes after immediately after the sin has been committed. In the third and sixth years, the second tithe goes to the poor. When people don’t give those tithes, there will be pestilence in the fourth and seventh years. The punishment that comes at the end of the seventh year was already mentioned above. The pestilence that comes after the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) is retribution for not leaving parts of the harvest for the poor. According to the Torah the corners of the field, things that have fallen and things that have been forgotten must be left for the poor. Since the main harvest time in Israel is in the fall, the punishment for not leaving these things to the poor comes after Sukkoth." + ], + [ + "There are four types of character in human beings:
One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace type; and some say this is a sodom-type of character.
[One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person (am;
[One that says:] “mine is yours is yours is yours” is a pious person.
[One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person.
The Mishnah now begins to list things that come in fours.
One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace type: a person who acts in this way is not pious, for he does not give of his own to others, but neither is he wicked for he is careful not to take others property.
And some say this is a sodom-type of character: Some say that this is the way that the people of Sodom acted. When the angelic visitors visited Lot in Sodom, the people of Sodom were angered by Lot’s generosity (Genesis 19:5). Ezekiel states, “Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy” (Ezekiel 16:49). We see that one of the cardinal crimes of the people of Sodom was their lack of generosity, especially when contrasted with the generosity and hospitality of Abraham.
The commentators also point out that one who does not want to give of himself to others will eventual never want to give anything to others, even if it costs him nothing.
[One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person (am haaretz): One explanation is that this literally refers to the “am haaretz”, which literally translates as the “people of the land”, who live in partnership on the land. There is no concept of ownership amongst this type of people, and therefore they don’t recognize any border between what is theirs and what belongs to others. In a positive manner, we could state that they share everything equally. Others explain this as having a negative connotation, and “am haaretz” refers to an uncivilized, unlearned, almost barbaric people.
[One that says:] “mine is yours is yours is yours” is a pious person: A person who does not want to ever take of others’ property but does want to give to others is truly pious, for he gives without expecting anything in return.
[One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person: He is wicked for he wishes to take and not give anything in return." + ], + [ + "There are four kinds of temperments:
Easy to become angry, and easy to be appeased: his gain disappears in his loss;
Hard to become angry, and hard to be appeased: his loss disappears in his gain;
Hard to become angry and easy to be appeased: a pious person;
Easy to become angry and hard to be appeased: a wicked person.
One commentator points out that although the mishnah calls these qualities “temperaments”, human beings have the ability to change their “temperaments” from one to the other. Otherwise the one who is slow to anger and quick to be appeased would not be considered pious, for these qualities would be out of his control. While we might be born genetically disposed to certain characteristics, he can overcome our predisposition. Human beings, unlike animals, have control over their temperaments and therefore their moral attributes can be described by their level of self-control.
Easy to become angry, and easy to be pacified: his gain disappears in his loss: The fact that he is easily appeased is not helpful since he is so easily angered. This person ends up with a net loss.
Hard to become angry, and hard to be appeased: his loss disappears in his gain: The fact that he is “hard to be appeased” is compensated for by the fact that he rarely becomes angry. This person ends up with a net gain, although there is still room for improvement.
Hard to become angry and easy to be appeased: a pious person: Note that the pious person does occasionally get angry. He is not perfect. However, even on the rare occasions when he does get angry, he is subsequently easily appeased.
Easy to become angry and hard to be appeased: a wicked person: This person is constantly getting angry and can never be appeased. No one can get along with him and he is therefore accounted as wicked by most people." + ], + [ + "There are four types of disciples: Quick to comprehend, and quick to forget: his gain disappears in his loss; Slow to comprehend, and slow to forget: his loss disappears in his gain; Quick to comprehend, and slow to forget: he is a wise man; Slow to comprehend, and quick to forget, this is an evil portion. If you belong to the first category of this mishnah, you will quickly grasp that you belong to the first category, but you will quickly forget what you just realized. Your quick comprehension will be meaningless for you will not retain what you have comprehended. If you belong to the second category, you may have to read this mishnah over many times before you understand that you are actually in this category. However, once you finally understand, you won’t forget it. Your slow comprehension is compensated by your strong memory, and in the end you are left with a gain. If you belong to the third category, congratulations, you are lucky to be so wise. If you belong to the fourth category, this mishnah will take you a long time to comprehend, and then you will forget it anyway. It is too bad that you have not been blessed with either quick comprehension or a good memory, but don’t give up hope. You will have to work harder to learn but the mishnah has already taught us that “according to the effort is the reward”. Since you will have to make a great effort to learn, at least your reward will be commensurate." + ], + [ + "There are four types of charity givers. He who wishes to give, but that others should not give: his eye is evil to that which belongs to others; He who wishes that others should give, but that he himself should not give: his eye is evil towards that which is his own; He who desires that he himself should give, and that others should give: he is a pious man; He who desires that he himself should not give and that others too should not give: he is a wicked man. This mishnah is straightforward and not difficult to understand. However, a few notes can be made. First of all, the “evil eye” is one that begrudges and does not want to give charity to the poor. The mishnah is not only concerned with whether or not a person gives charity but whether or not he encourages others to give charity. The truly pious person gives of himself and encourages others to do the same. The type of person who wants to give but does not want others to give is probably a familiar figure. He wants to give not because giving is the correct thing to do, but because of the honor he will accrue from being known as generous. Others giving more than him eclipses his honor and hence he begrudges their generosity. He is not looking out for the ultimate welfare of the poor who really need the charity. One who does not want to give and also does not want others to give, is probably the most wicked type of person we have yet encountered in this series of mishnayoth. Despite the fact that he does not benefit from others’ generosity, his cruelty towards the poor and his desire to see them suffer, makes him begrudge even others’ generosity. It is also possible that he does not want others to give so that they should not be seen as more generous than him. His greediness and pursuit of honor at the cost of the welfare of the needy make him an evil and perhaps even dangerous figure." + ], + [ + "There are four types among those who frequent the study-house (bet:
He who attends but does not practice: he receives a reward for attendance.
He who practices but does not attend: he receives a reward for practice.
He who attends and practices: he is a pious man;
He who neither attends nor practices: he is a wicked man.
“Practice” in this mishnah does not refer to one who does not observe any of the commandments, for the mishnah would not describe such a person as receiving any reward. Rather, “practice” refers to one who applies himself diligently to his learning.
He who attends but does not practice: he receives a reward for attendance: This person goes to the bet midrash to learn, but does not apply himself there and work hard at learning Torah. What he has learned will probably not stay with him for very long. Nevertheless, he receives a reward just for making the effort to go.
He who practices but does not attend: he receives a reward for practice: This refers to a person who learns at home but does not attend the bet midrash. He receives a reward for learning Torah, but he would have received a greater reward had he gone to the bet midrash. He also would have learned a great deal more had he gone to the bet midrash.
He who attends and practices: he is a pious man: This person could have learned on his own at home, but in order to set a good example for others and to participate in the community of Torah-learners he attends the bet midrash. He is considered pious.
He who neither attends nor practices: he is a wicked man: This person’s contempt for learning Torah makes the mishnah consider him wicked.
There are other mishnaic commentators who explain that this mishnah does refer to the observance of the commandments. However, one who does not “practice” does not refer to one who doesn’t practice any of the commandments. Rather he does not make an effort to learn more about what he should do. He therefore receives no special reward for his lackadaisical observance, but neither is he considered wicked." + ], + [ + "There are four types among those who sit before the sages: a sponge, a funnel, a strainer and a sieve.
A sponge, soaks up everything;
A funnel, takes in at one end and lets out at the other;
A strainer, which lets out the wine and retains the lees;
A sieve, which lets out the coarse meal and retains the choice flour.
Above in mishnah twelve we learned about four types of disciples. This mishnah is similar but instead of just describing the different types of students, it uses metaphors to compare them to different instruments in the kitchen. Furthermore, whereas that mishnah was considered with comprehension and retention, our mishnah is also concerned with the proper selection of what is worthy of retaining. The discussions in the mishnaic and talmudic study halls were probably very long, and no one could remember everything that was said. It would have been extremely important for the listeners to decide which statements were important and worthy of preservation and which were not.
A sponge, soaks up everything; The sponge soaks up all liquids, whether or not they are good or yucky. So too there are some students who remember everything that was said, whether or not it was reasonable and worthy of being remembered.
A funnel, takes in at one end and lets out at the other: The student who is like a funnel is able to take in all that is said, but he easily forgets it, like a funnel which lets everything out the other end.
A strainer, which lets out the wine and retains the lees: This is the most unfortunate type of student, who does not retain any of the well-reasoned valuable statements out, and only retains that which is not worthy of retention. It isn’t that he simply forgets the important things which were said, because he does remember some of what he has heard. Rather he cannot discern what was worthy of remembering in the first place.
A sieve, which lets out the coarse meal and retains the choice flour: After all of the bran is removed from the flour, the flour is passed through a sieve. What remains in the sieve are the larger, useful pieces of fine flour and the stuff that falls out is not useful [this is evidently not like the sieve we use today]. So too there are students who retain only that information which is important and remove the extraneous things that they have heard. This is obviously the best kind of student." + ], + [ + "All love that depends on a something, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not depend on anything, will never cease.
What is an example of love that depended on a something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar.
And what is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the love of David and Jonathan.
The previous mishnah was the last mishnah that was based on numbers. The mishnah which we learn today teaches about love.
Love which is based on something tangible, such as beauty or financial gain, will not last. Since “things” can end, when the “thing” upon which the love is based does end, the love will end. Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar, which is better described as lust than love. The story takes place in II Samuel 13. Amnon falls in love with his beautiful half-sister, Tamar. Once he rapes her (verse 14) her beauty and lack of accessibility are gone and he hates her.
The love of David and Jonathan is opposite. Jonathan, son of Saul, loved David with all of his soul (see I Samuel 18:1) and indeed tried to save his life when Saul sought to kill David, even though David was a threat to his father’s crown, as well as his own right to inherit the kingship. David too loved Jonathan despite his own inevitable rivalry with him. Their love was not based on any sexual relationship nor was it based on a gain that one would receive from the other. It was as the love of a parent for a child, totally unconditional." + ], + [ + "Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure.
Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai.
And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.
This mishnah discusses legitimate and non-legitimate disputes. While reading the mishnah we should keep in mind that the Mishnah is the first Jewish book which records disputes between different viewpoints without claiming that one viewpoint is necessarily illegitimate. 150 years before the Mishnah was composed, Judaism had certainly been rife with disputes which caused splinter movements, such as the early Christians and the Dead Sea sect. Part of the overall goal of the Mishnah’s composers was to say that sages can disagree and still live together. We will soon see a classic exmple of this philosophy when we begin to learn tractate Yevamoth.
In Judaism debate is legitimate. Indeed Jews are famed worldwide for being an argumentative people, and this is considered (at least by most Jews themselves) a positive attribute. What is problematic is not debate itself, but debate that does not attempt to reveal the truth, and especially God’s truth. Debate that is only self-serving, an attempt to be victorious over the other side is considered to be illegitimate. The debate that is for the sake of Heaven, which stems from a desire to seek the truth, will endure. The classic example of this are the debates between Shammai and Hillel. This debate endured in several ways. First of all, in the time of the Mishnah, there were probably still scholars who followed Shammai. The debate literally endured, because scholars were still arguing about who is right. Second, students of the Mishnah and Talmud continue to study the debates of Shammai and Hillel. Although by the time of the Talmud law usually follows Hillel, the debate endures as study material throughout the generations.
Korah and his congregation rose up against Moses’s leadership in Numbers 16. Their intent was not a pure complaint against the perceived autocratic style of Moses’s leadership. Rather it was a blatant attempt to gain power for themselves. As our mishnah teaches, it was not a dispute for the sake of Heaven, but rather for their own profit. Therefore, the dispute did not endure, for Korah and his congregation were all wiped out (either by the earth swallowing them or by fire).
Note that the mishnah does not say “the dispute of Moses and Korah”, but rather only mentions Korah and his congregation. This is in contrast to the previous section where both Hillel and Shammai were mentioned. This discrepancy is because Moses and Korah were not operating out of the same motives. Moses disputed with Korah not for his own glory, but for the sake of Heaven. Therefore the mishnah could not mention them together." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah talks about the responsibility of leadership, its rewards and its punishments.", + "Whoever causes the multitudes to be righteous, sin will not occur on his account; And whoever causes the multitudes to sin, they do not give him the ability to repent. One who causes, through his example and his teaching, others to be righteous, will not accidentally sin or accidentally cause others to sin. He will receive help from Heaven in his endeavors. This is to prevent a situation whereby his followers are rewarded for following his teachings and he is punished for the sins upon which he stumbled. The opposite is true of one who himself sins and causes others to sin as well. Although in general anyone may repent of his sins, this person will not be given the opportunity to do so. According to the Rambam, this means that he does not have the free will to not sin. It would, after all, not be right for him to repent and earn a place in the world to come, while his students are punished for the sinful ways which he taught them.", + "Moses was righteous and caused the multitudes to be righteous, [therefore] the righteousness of the multitudes is hung on him, as it is said, “He executed the Lord’s righteousness and His decisions with Israel” (Deut. 33:21). Jeroboam, sinned and caused the multitudes to sin, [therefore] the sin of the multitudes is hung on him, as it is said, “For the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he caused Israel to sin thereby” (I Kings 15:30). Moses is the greatest example of leadership that the Jewish people has ever known. He was righteous in his own right and he taught others to be righteous as well. As a reward, the righteous acts that the people performed are accredited to him, as if he himself performed them. The verse in Deuteronomy quoted in the mishnah is understood as referring to Moses (although this is not at all clear from the verse itself). According to the mishnah’s understanding, the verse states that Moses did God’s righteousness, and that all of the acts of Israel were counted as his acts as well. From here we learn that when students perform the righteous acts which they have learned from their teachers, the teachers receive credit themselves. Jeroboam was the first king of the northern kingdom (Israel) when it split from the southern kingdom (Judea) after Solomon’s death. Jeroboam told Israel that they no longer had to go to Jerusalem to worship, but could worship at Bethel as well as other places in the north. He made two golden calves and told the people “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (I Kings 12:28). Jeroboam did not only himself sin, but he caused others to sin as well. In I Kings 15:25-30, Baasha son of Ahijah kills Nadav, son of Jeroboam and all of Jeroboam’s house as well (Jeroboam himself had already died). Verse 30 concludes that the Jeroboam’s house was killed on account of Jeroboam and his sin and the sins that he caused Israel to sin. From here we can conclude that Jeroboam himself was held accountable for those sins which he caused others to do.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the overall statement of the mishnah with regards to education and the educator?" + ], + [ + "Whoever possesses these three things, he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father; and [whoever possesses] three other things, he is of the disciples of Balaam, the wicked. A good eye, a humble spirit and a moderate appetite he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father. An evil eye, a haughty spirit and a limitless appetite he is of the disciples of Balaam, the wicked.
What is the difference between the disciples of Abraham, our father, and the disciples of Balaam, the wicked? The disciples of Abraham, our father, enjoy this world, and inherit the world to come, as it is said: “I will endow those who love me with substance, I will fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21). But the disciples of Balaam, the wicked, inherit gehinnom, and descend into the nethermost pit, as it is said: “For you, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit those murderous and treacherous men; they shall not live out half their days; but I trust in You” (Psalms 55:24).
This mishnah contrasts those who follow the ways of Abraham with those who follow the ways of Balaam, the wicked prophet who was hired by Balak to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24). We should note that the rabbis understood Balaam as an archetype of evil, even though in the Torah itself he seems to be more of an ambivalent character, acting as merely a passive messenger of God. In Sanhedrin 10:2 we learned that Balaam does not have a portion in the world to come. Balaam is also seen by the rabbis as greedy for he attempted to take a bribe to curse Israel.
In contrasting Abraham with Balaam we should note that both saddle their own donkeys in the Torah (Abraham in Genesis 23:2 and Balaam in Numbers 22:21). Perhaps this similarity led to their comparison in our mishnah, and in several other sources.
Abraham is known for three things: generosity, humility and temperance. He demonstrates his generosity when he brings generous portions of food to the messengers who visit his home (Genesis 18:17). He is humble when he negotiates the purchase of a grave for Sarah. He states, “I am a resident alien among you” (Genesis 23:4, see also his words in 18:27). His temperance in appetite is learned from a midrash on Gen. 12:11, where he states to Sarah, “Behold, I now know that you are a beautiful woman”. According to the midrash Abraham had not looked at her until that moment.
In contrast, Balaam is greedy for he pursues the reward he would have received for cursing Israel. In Numbers 22:18 he states, “Even if Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold”. Rashi comments that from here we can see that Balak had already begun to think about the material reward that he might receive. He is haughty as we can see from his statement, “The word of him who hears God’s speech, who obtains knowledge from the Most High” (Num 24:16). He has a limitless appetite, for a midrash teaches that after he failed in cursing Israel, he advised Balak to allow the Moabite women to prostitute themselves to Israel, and thereby ensnare them in idol worship (see the beginning of Numbers 25). He would not have advised such a thing if he himself did not desire such sexual licentiousness.
The second half of the mishnah teaches the rewards that will be given to the disciples of Abraham and the punishments that will be given to the disciples of Balaam. The verse from Proverbs is understood as referring to Abraham’s disciples since “those who love me” is also used in reference to Abraham (Isaiah 41:18). The verse in Psalms is understood as referring to Balaam since he was murderous, for he advised Balak to seduce Israel and thereby led to the death of 24,000 Israelites (Num 25:9)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nFrom the fact that this mishnah ends in a short prayer, it can be concluded that it was originally the last mishnah in the tractate. The remaining mishnayoth in this chapter, and all of chapter six are addenda added in post-Mishnaic times (I will discuss chapter six later).\nJudah ben Tema is not mentioned anywhere else in the Mishnah.", + "Judah ben Tema said: Be strong as a leopard, and swift as an eagle, and fleet as a gazelle, and brave as a lion, to do the will of your Father who is in heaven. Judah ben Tema uses images that are taken from the animal world. He at first seems to be making statements about a man’s physical strength. These statements would sound more appropriate in the Greek gymnasium than in the rabbinic study house. It is only at the end of his statement that we learn that these physical attributes are to be used for following God’s will and not for human glory. Strong like a leopard to stand up against people who denounce those who observe the Torah. Others say that this refers to the strength needed to rebuke those who don’t observe the commandments. Swift as an eagle to run away from sin. Others say this refers to ministering to Torah scholars, which should be performed with great speed. Fleet as a gazelle to perform the commandments. Others say that this refers to moving to a place where one can study Torah. Brave as a lion to conquer one’s evil inclination. Others say that this refers to getting up at night to learn Torah.", + "He used to say: the arrogant is headed for Gehinnom and the blushing for the garden of Eden. The word “arrogant” in Hebrew is the same word used in section one to mean “strong”. Although one should be strong, this is only so if the strength is used for holy purposes, for the sake of Heaven. However, arrogance, which is unjustified demonstrations of strength, leads one to despise those who might legitimately criticize him. An arrogant person will not check his deeds to make sure that he is acting correctly. One who is embarrassed and blushes at his mistakes, will learn from them and will not continue to sin. Judaism does not seek out perfection, but rather moral progress. One who is capable of such embarrassment will, in the end, inherit the garden of Eden.", + "May it be the will, O Lord our God, that your city be rebuilt speedily in our days and set our portion in the studying of your Torah. According to the Rambam, after having spoken of the virtue of blushing, the mishnah utters a prayer: O our God, even as in Your grace You have bestowed upon us this virtue, so be gracious unto us and have Your city rebuilt speedily in our days." + ], + [ + "He used to say:
At five years of age the study of Scripture;
At ten the study of Mishnah;
At thirteen subject to the commandments;
At fifteen the study of Talmud;
At eighteen the bridal canopy;
At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood];
At thirty the peak of strength;
At forty wisdom;
At fifty able to give counsel;
At sixty old age;
At seventy fullness of years;
At eighty the age of “strength”;
At ninety a bent body;
At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.
This mishnah gives ages that are appropriate for the different stages in life. We should note that in most places in the Mishnah, the age at which a child is obligated or allowed to do something is dependent not on his true age but either on his/her physical or mental development. Indeed this mishnah, which lists true ages, is probably more of a guide and not to meant to be legally binding. The Meiri states that it is meant as a stimulus to parents to teach their children the right subject at the right time. In modern times we also give rough ages of development but realize that some children will be quicker to reach those milestones and some will be slower.
Although this mishnah begins “he used to say” and therefore seems to be Judah ben Tema’s words, according to the Tosafot Yom Tov it is actually the words of Shmuel Hakatan. As we noted in the previous mishnah, this mishnah and the next two are addenda to tractate Avoth.
At five years of age the study of Scripture: Some interpret this to mean that at five the child should begin formal schooling, where he will first learn how to read the words of Scripture and later understand them. Interestingly, in modern times it is still typical to begin to learn to read at five.
At ten the study of Mishnah: The study of mishnah refers not to the study of the Mishnah as we have it today, but rather to the rote memorization of brief, usually halakhic material, which is the literary format of most of the Mishnah.
At thirteen subject to the commandments: At thirteen a child is liable for his own sins. This was the average age of puberty at the time of the Mishnah. This is the earliest reference to “bar-mitzvah” in Talmudic literature. The concept of a celebration of the bar-mitzvah does not appear until the fifteenth century. The idea of a “bat-mitzvah” does not appear until the 19th century.
At fifteen the study of Talmud: Talmud refers to the learning of the reasons and the Biblical proof of the laws that are “mishnah”. At this age the child is more intellectually developed and can begin to learn the more difficult material. Note that most children probably did not go to school this long. The mishnah is referring to an ideal and not to common practice.
At eighteen the bridal canopy: According to many scholars, this is also an ideal. In practice men (but not necessarily women) got married later.
At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]: Once he has married a woman and had a child or two, he must pursue means to support his family. By twenty a person should have a profession. Others interpret this to mean that at twenty a person stops learning Torah and begins to work. Still others interpret this to mean that at twenty he pursues the enemy in war. This is the age at which one is liable to join the army, according to the Torah (Numbers 1:3).
At thirty the peak of strength: At thirty a person is at the peak of his strength. In the Torah the Levites only begin to work in the Tabernacle at thirty (see Numbers 4:47).
At forty wisdom: At forty a person’s wisdom comes to fruition. This is traditionally the age at which a person can be considered a “rabbi”. Nowadays people becomes rabbis at a much earlier age.
At fifty able to give counsel: In order to give advice a person needs to be wise but he also needs experience. At fifty a person still has the wisdom he reached at forty, and he now has the experience needed to advise others.
At sixty old age: A person enters old age at 60. Interestingly, the retiring age in our society is usually considered 65 (although in our society, with its advances in nutrition and health care, people are often able to work well past this age).
At seventy fullness of years: David died at 70 years of age, and I Chronicles 29:28 states, “And David died at a full age”.
At eighty the age of “strength”: See Psalms 90:10, which states that the given strength, one can live until 80.
At ninety a bent body: We should note that in the time of the Mishnah it was probably quite unusual to live this long.
At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world: In the time of the Mishnah one who lived to one hundred probably could not see or walk, and was probably extremely senile. This mishnah considers such a person as good as dead. If you are over one hundred and you are reading this or even having someone read it to you, a hearty Mazal Tov. You have outlived the mishnah’s wildest dreams. And for the rest of you, may you live and continue to learn until 120!" + ], + [ + "Ben Bag Bag said:
Turn it over, and [again] turn it over, for all is therein.
And look into it;
And become gray and old therein;
And do not move away from it, for you have no better portion than it.
According to legend, Ben Bag Bag and Ben He He (the author of the next mishnah) were converts. In order to hide them from the Roman authorities who forbade conversion, they were called by nicknames (these are obviously not real names). Both nicknames are in essence the letter “heh”, which is the letter that was added to Sarai and Avram’s, the first two converts, names. Bag Bag is in gematria (numerical value) five (bet is two and gimmel is three), which is equivalent to He He, the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The language of the next two mishnayoth is Aramaic, as are the sayings of Hillel that we saw in chapter one, mishnah thirteen. It is possible that these two sages are from the same time period as Hillel.
Ben Bag Bag’s four statements all refer to the study of Torah. The first statement teaches that one should continuously study Torah, turning it over and over, for all wisdom is contained in it. He also comes to warn man not to be satisfied with superficial learning of the Torah. Rather he must study it over many times to delve into its deeper meanings.
One should continue to look into Torah even after he has gotten old. Torah study does not end in youth but is a lifelong endeavor.
One should not leave the Torah for there is nothing better in the world than the study of Torah.
This mishnah is a quintessential example of how precious the study of Torah was in the eyes of the rabbis. It is one of the most studied books in human history and no people has ever developed such a devotion to the study of texts as have the Jews." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous mishnah we learned that one must continuously study Torah. In our mishnah Ben He He adds that one must work hard at Torah study in order to gain the greater reward of true understanding.", + "Ben He He said: According to the labor is the reward. This might remind us of the modern saying, “no pain, no gain.” The difference between the two statements is that the mishnah refers to study whereas our modern saying refers to physical exercise. Wisdom which is acquired with great labor will last longer than that which is acquired through casual reading. We might experience this if we notice that things upon which we are tested are easier to remember than the casual reading we might do on our own." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The sages taught in the language of the mishnah. Blessed be He who chose them and their teaching. Rabbi Meir said: Whoever occupies himself with the Torah for its own sake, merits many things; not only that but he is worth the whole world.
He is called beloved friend; one that loves God; one that loves humankind; one that gladdens God; one that gladdens humankind.
And the Torah clothes him in humility and reverence, and equips him to be righteous, pious, upright and trustworthy; it keeps him far from sin, and brings him near to merit.
And people benefit from his counsel, sound knowledge, understanding and strength, as it is said, “Counsel is mine and sound wisdom; I am understanding, strength is mine” (Proverbs 8:14).
And it bestows upon him royalty, dominion, and acuteness in judgment.
To him are revealed the secrets of the Torah, and he is made as an ever-flowing spring, and like a stream that never ceases.
And he becomes modest, long-suffering and forgiving of insult.
And it magnifies him and exalts him over everything.
The sixth chapter of Avoth is not truly part of the Mishnah and was not originally part of tractate Avoth. It is not found in the good manuscripts of the mishnah, but is generally found in early manuscripts of tractate Avoth as recorded in the siddur. It was added to Avoth in the middle ages as a result of the custom to learn Avoth during the Sabbaths between Pesach and Shavuoth. Since there are six Sabbaths between the two festivals, and the original tractate Avoth was only five chapters, another chapter was added. The chapter that was chosen was originally part of tractate Kallah, one of the minor tractates. It deals with the study of Torah, and is hence called “Perek Kinyan Torah”, “The Acquisition of Torah”. The chapter was chosen because of its similarity in content and style to Avoth and because Shavuoth, the holiday which immediately follows the reading of this chapter in synagogues, is the time when the Torah was given.
Although this material is not really mishnah, it has been included in Mishnah Yomit since it is now part of printed editions of the mishnah. Throughout my commentary I will call each individual unit a “mishnah”, even though this is not truly accurate.
The first section of the mishnah is an introduction, which lets the reader know that this is not truly part of the Mishnah, but that it is similar to the mishnah. It also contains a short, opening praise for God. These two lines were added in the middle ages when this chapter was appended to Avoth.
The remainder of the mishnah contains the ultimate praise of the one who studies Torah for its own sake. We should also note that the mishnah can be divided into seven sections (although there may be other ways of dividing the mishnah). This may not be accidental and this “perfect number” may part of the poetics of Rabbi Meir’s praise of Torah study. Each section seems to move forward in its praise, until it reaches the thundering crescendo the Torah scholar sits at the top of God’s creation.
Most of the mishnah is self-explanatory but we should note that although there is great glory to the Torah scholar, and he has royalty and strength and is above everyone else, he is nevertheless humble, and is not easily insulted. The Torah scholar is not a prima donna, using his knowledge to show everyone his superiority. His leadership and closeness to God is not expressed through deriding others, but he is loved by people as much as he is loved by God. Without this balance, he probably could not truly be called a Torah scholar, for his learning has not perfected his personal attributes. He also would not fit the category of one who studies Torah for “its own sake”. The great attributes that Rabbi Meir describes would not be used for one who studies Torah for ulterior motives." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Joshua ben Levi was not a tanna (a sage from the Mishnaic period) but an amora, a sage who lived during the time of the Talmud. He was a student of one of Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s students (Bar Kapara). He was originally from Lod (close to where Ben Gurion airport is currently located) and later in life he moved to Tiberius.", + "Although the word “and” connects the parts of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s complex statement, the different sections are probably best understood as separate statements, all denouncing one who does not study Torah and praising one who does.", + "Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: every day a bat kol (a heavenly goes forth from Mount Horeb and makes proclamation and says: “Woe unto humankind for their contempt towards the Torah”, for whoever does not occupy himself with the study of Torah is called, nazuf (the rebuked. Mount Horeb is synonymous with Mt. Sinai, where the Torah was given. A bat kol is some sort of heavenly voice. It literally translates as “the daughter of a voice”. It was considered a means of receiving knowledge of the intent of God, after prophecy had ended (which was during the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple). However, the use in this mishnah may be more metaphorical.", + "As it is said, “Like a gold ring in the snout of a pig is a beautiful woman bereft of sense” (Proverbs 22:11). In the literal meaning of this verse, the gold ring on the snout of a pig serves as a simile for a beautiful woman bereft of sense. Although she may have outer beauty, like the gold ring, it is useless, for like the gold ring it is attached to something disgraceful. The verse is being used as an analogy in our mishnah to one who knows Torah but does not learn. The Torah is figuratively “in his nose” but like the pig, he does not learn it.", + "And it says, “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tablets” (Exodus 32:16). Read not haruth [‘graven’] but heruth [ ‘freedom’]. For there is no free man but one that occupies himself with the study of the Torah. There are several rich layers of meaning in the midrash in this section. First of all, the midrash makes a word play on the word “harut” and instead of reading it as meaning “engraved” it reads it as meaning “freedom” or “herut”. We learn that at the Sinaitic revelation the Israelites received their freedom (and not at the Exodus). However, “freedom” in Jewish thought does not mean freedom from responsibility but it actually means the study of Torah. According to the rabbis, there is no person freer than the one who learns Torah.", + "And whoever regularly occupies himself with the study of the Torah he is surely exalted, as it is said, “And from Mattanah to Nahaliel; and Nahaliel to Bamoth” (Numbers 21:19). There is a word play in this section. According to its simple meaning, the verse refers to the travels of Israel in the desert. Israel traveled from a place called “Matanah” to “Nahaliel”. “Matanah” means “present” and “Nahaliel” can be understood as a compound word meaning “the inheritance of God”. From the Torah, which is a gift, Israel inherits God. From there, Israel went to “Bamoth” which means “high places”. Once Israel has inherited God, they will merit being exalted in the “high places”." + ], + [ + "One who learns from his fellow one chapter, or one halakhah, or one verse, or one word, or even one letter, is obligated to treat him with honor; for so we find with David, king of Israel, who learned from Ahitophel no more than two things, yet called him his master, his guide and his beloved friend, as it is said, “But it was you, a man mine equal, my guide and my beloved friend” (Psalms 55:14). Is this not [an instance of the argument] “from the less to the greater” (kal vehomer)? If David, king of Israel who learned from Ahitophel no more than two things, nevertheless called him his master, his guide and his beloved friend; then in the case of one who learns from his fellow one chapter, or one halakhah, or one verse, or one word, or even one letter, all the more so he is under obligation to treat him with honor. And “honor’” means nothing but Torah, as it is said, “It is honor that sages inherit” (Proverbs 3:35). “And the perfect shall inherit good” (Proverbs 28:10), and “good” means nothing but Torah, as it is said, “For I give you good instruction; do not forsake my Torah” (Proverbs 4:2). This mishnah teaches that one who learns even the smallest amount of Torah from someone else, must treat him with honor. This lesson is learned from King David’s treatment of Ahitophel. Ahitophel was David’s adviser, who betrayed him when Absalom, David’s son rebelled and claimed the kingship (See II Samuel 15:12). When Absalom did not take his advice to immediately wage war on David, Ahitophel committed suicide (17:23). According to rabbinic aggadah (legend), Ahitophel was a great sage, but came to an dishonorable end due to his excessive honor. Psalms 55:13-15 is understood as being a lament by David referring to Ahitophel (this is even how the ancient Aramaic translation, targum, translates the verse). David refers to Ahitophel with three titles of respect, due to the mere two things that Ahitophel taught him. According to various legends found in rabbinic literature these two things are: 1) That the Levites should carry the ark on their shoulders and not on a cart (see II Samuel 6:3-8); 2) That he could write the name of God on a piece of clay in order to prevent the primal waters from rising (this is a legend found in Sukkah 53b). If David, King of Israel treated Ahitophel, who only taught him these two things, with such honor, all the more so must a normal person treat those from whom he learns with respect. The mishnah ends with two midrashim. The first teaches that honor is equated with Torah and the second teaches that goodness is also equated with Torah. Keep in mind that this whole chapter is about the supreme value of the Torah." + ], + [ + "Such is the way [of a life] of Torah: you shall eat bread with salt, and rationed water shall you drink; you shall sleep on the ground, your life will be one of privation, and in Torah shall you labor. If you do this, “Happy shall you be and it shall be good for you” (Psalms 128:2): “Happy shall you be” in this world, “and it shall be good for you” in the world to come. This mishnah teaches the way of life of one who is totally dedicated to the study of Torah, so much so that he neglects his worldly, material needs. His life will be one of privation. He will eat little and sleep on the hard floor. Paradoxically this seemingly poor life, will in actuality be one of great happiness and reward. The materially deprived Torah scholar will be happy in this world for he will fall so in love with the study of Torah that nothing else will matter. In the world to come he will be justly rewarded for his efforts. Others explain that this mishnah as a warning to the rich, that their delights in worldly pleasures may make it more difficult for them to learn Torah. For once a person becomes too accustomed to worldly pleasures, that person will need to work harder and harder to earn more money to keep up his extravagant lifestyle. This excessive work will make it impossible for him to learn Torah. [Note how big of a problem this is still in our society. People work harder and harder to earn more and more money, yet no matter how much money they have, they are not satisfied. It is a rare person who finally says, “I have enough” and turns his attention to things more important than earning money. The people who are able to do so, are often greatly admired by our society, a society which rarely can deny material pleasure.]" + ], + [ + "Do not seek greatness for yourself, and do not covet honor. The mishnah further warns that even when one has attained the status of being a learned person, he should not exalt himself over others, but rather remain faithful to his humble beginnings. Similarly, he should not seek honor for himself, meaning he should not learn in order that others will call him “Rabbi”.", + "Practice more than you learn. As great as his learning may be, he must remember to practice more that he has learned. The goal of learning is not knowledge for its own sake, but practice as well. We learned this above in chapter three, mishnah nine.", + "Do not yearn for the table of kings, for your table is greater than their table, and your crown is greater than their crown, and faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor. The mishnah finishes with a warning, similar to that with which it began. One should not crave the wealth or power of kings, for the table of Torah is even greater than theirs. [Some explain this to mean that your reward in the world to come is greater than that of a king]. The crown of Torah is greater than the crown of kingship, as we learned above in chapter four, mishnah thirteen. Finally, God, who is truly the master (employer) of all human beings, is faithful to pay your reward in the world to come. While the king never truly knows what awaits him, a righteous Torah scholar can be confident that in the end, he will receive his just due." + ], + [ + "Greater is learning Torah than the priesthood and than royalty, for royalty is acquired by thirty stages, and the priesthood by twenty-four, but the Torah by forty-eight things
By study,
Attentive listening,
Proper speech,
By an understanding heart,
By an intelligent heart,
By awe,
By fear,
By humility,
By joy,
By attending to the sages,
By critical give and take with friends,
By fine argumentation with disciples,
By clear thinking,
By study of Scripture,
By study of mishnah,
By a minimum of sleep,
By a minimum of chatter,
By a minimum of pleasure,
By a minimum of frivolity,
By a minimum of preoccupation with worldly matters,
By long-suffering,
By generosity,
By faith in the sages,
By acceptance of suffering.
This mishnah begins by stating that the crown of Torah is greater than that of the priesthood or royalty. This message has been one of the central themes of all of tractate Avoth. The hereditary position of the priest and the king, two of the central figures of leadership in the Bible and in the Second Temple period, is surpassed, according to the rabbis, by the exalted position of the Torah scholar. Indeed this is one of the revolutions wrought by the rabbis. Jewish leadership was open not just to those born into a certain class, but to any person who worked hard enough to earn it through the study of Torah.
The mishnah states that royalty is earned through thirty “stages”. This is understood by commentators to mean thirty special rights that only a king has. Some of these were listed in chapter two of Mishnah Sanhedrin and some are in the Bible. We will not list these here, because, in my opinion, this is only an aside in the mishnah. The twenty-four stages of the priesthood are the twenty-four different types of things they receive as gifts from other Israelites (agricultural and sacrificial gifts).
With regard to Torah, the mishnah contains the first twenty-four of a list of forty-eight ways in which Torah is acquired. Since most are self-explanatory, I will only comment on things that require further explanation.
Proper speech: this means that he must put his learning into proper order, much in the same way that the Mishnah is ordered in an organized fashion.
By awe: this refers to fear of one’s teacher.
By fear: this refers to fear of God.
By humility: humility prevents the student from being too afraid to ask a question.
By joy: only by enjoying learning can a student hope to be good at what he is doing or learning.
By attending to the sages: a student of Torah does not only learn from a sage’s words, but from his actions as well. This is why the student must serve as an apprentice to his teacher.
By critical give and take with friends: Torah cannot be studied alone.
By fine argumentation with disciples: once a person acquires the status of Teacher, he must learn from the questions his students/disciples ask him. From personal experience I can testify that I have to teach what I am learning to others. Indeed, as much as you may be learning from Mishnah Yomit, I guarantee that I am learning more by being your teacher.
By a minimum of sleep: too much sleep is a waste of time and leads one to be lazy. However, not enough sleep also can be damaging to the study of Torah, for it weakens the body and mind. The ancient rabbis recommended eight hours of sleep a night.
By long-suffering: an angry person will have great difficulty in learning. In order to learn a person must be tolerant and patient.
By acceptance of suffering: this refers to one who accepts his fate in life and does not challenge God.", + "[Learning of Torah is also acquired by one]
Who recognizes his place,
Who rejoices in his portion,
Who makes a fence about his words,
Who takes no credit for himself,
Who is loved,
Who loves God,
Who loves [his fellow] creatures, Who loves righteous ways,
Who loves reproof,
Who loves uprightness,
Who keeps himself far from honors,
Who does not let his heart become swelled on account of his learning,
Who does not delight in giving legal decisions,
Who shares in the bearing of a burden with his colleague,
Who judges with the scales weighted in his favor,
Who leads him on to truth,
Who leads him on to peace,
Who composes himself at his study,
Who asks and answers,
Who listens [to others], and [himself] adds [to his knowledge],
Who learns in order to teach,
Who learns in order to practice,
Who makes his teacher wiser,
Who is exact in what he has learned,
And who says a thing in the name of him who said it. Thus you have learned: everyone who says a thing in the name of him who said it, brings deliverance into the world, as it is said: “And Esther told the king in Mordecai’s name” (Esther 2:22).
This mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah which listed ways in which Torah is acquired. The first twenty-four were in mishnah five and the final twenty-four are here. [Note that 31a is not counted to the forty-eight. According to some commentators this line should not be part of the mishnah.]
As I did in the previous mishnah, I will only explain those things which require explanation.
Who recognizes his place: Some say that this means that he comes early to the bet midrash (study house). Others interpret it to mean that the person knows in which study house it is appropriate for him to learn.
Who rejoices in his portion: he is satisfied with the abilities that God has given him and is not jealous of others. This is similar to one “who recognizes his place.”
Who makes a fence about his words: this refers to one who is careful with his words, so that others should not come to err by them.
Who loves [his fellow] creatures: if a Torah scholar hates humanity, others who observe him will begin to hate Torah. In such a way he will desecrate God’s name. A true student of Torah must also love God’s human creations, as much as he loves God’s legal/theological manifesto.
Who loves reproof: one who seeks wisdom must also appreciate the necessity of reproof. Only by accepting criticism for his errors will he grow, both as a human being and as a scholar.
Who keeps himself far from honors: as we learned above in mishnah four.
Who does not delight not in giving legal decisions: see above, chapter four, mishnah seven.
Who shares in the bearing of a burden with his colleague: when a fellow student bears a burden, such as having to act on behalf of the government, he should help him complete his duty, and together resume learning as quickly as possible. This also may mean that when a fellow student grieves, he must grieve with him.
Who judges with the scales weighted in his favor: as we learned in tractate Sanhedrin, it is always preferable to seek to exculpate the accused.
Who leads him on to truth: this statement balances out the previous statement. Although the judge should look to weigh the scales in favor of the accused, this does not come at the expense of truth.
Who leads him on to peace: one who learns and teaches Torah should use his knowledge to bring peace and friendship between others.
Who composes himself at his study: he learns cautiously and not with excess haste.
Who asks and answers: note that asking the right questions is as important if not more important than giving the right answers.
Who listens [to others], and [himself] adds [to his knowledge]: although he may be the teacher, he learns from his students. See above, chapter one, mishnah thirteen.
Who learns in order to teach: see above, chapter four, mishnah five.
Who makes his teacher wiser: by asking intelligent questions. Thus his teacher will be able to say that he “has learned most from my students”.
Who is exact in what he has learned: he does not add to the tradition that he has received, nor detract from it.
And who says a thing in the name of him who said it: he does not attribute that which he has learned from his teacher, to himself.
Thus you have learned: everyone that says a thing in the name of him who said it, brings deliverance into the world, as it is said: “And Esther told the king in Mordecai’s name” (Esther 2:22): and it was through Esther’s words to the king that the Jewish people were saved." + ], + [ + "Great is Torah for it gives life to those that practice it, in this world, and in the world to come,
As it is said: “For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh” (Proverbs 4:22),
And it says: “It will be a cure for your navel and marrow for your bones” (ibid. 3:8)
And it says: “She is a tree of life to those that grasp her, and whoever holds onto her is happy” (ibid. 3:18),
And it says: “For they are a graceful wreath upon your head, a necklace about your throat” (ibid. 1:9),
And it says: “She will adorn your head with a graceful wreath; crown you with a glorious diadem” (ibid. 4:9)
And it says: “In her right hand is length of days, in her left riches and honor” (ibid. 3:1,
And it says: “For they will bestow on you length of days, years of life and peace” (ibid. 3:2).
This mishnah is basically a series of prooftexts taken from Proverbs, and used to prove the life-giving qualities of Torah. The book of Proverbs was an especially rich source for quotes in rabbinic literature. Note that there are seven prooftexts, a number that is surely not accidental.
This mishnah is a series of quotes from Proverbs, each of which proves that Torah is beneficial, that it bestows life and wealth. I will only comment on a few of these texts.
Section three: The Torah is a tree of life, but only for those who “grasp her”. This means that the words of Torah require reinforcement, that is continuous study.
Section four: According to the commentators, the head mentioned in this verse refers to thought and the throat refers to speech. Torah learning is only acquired by engaging both one’s head and one’s throat.
Section seven: Just as the Amidah prayer concludes with a request for peace, so too does this mishnah." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: Beauty, strength, riches, honor, wisdom, [old age], gray hair, and children are becoming to the righteous, and becoming to the world,
As it is said: “Gray hair is a crown of glory (; it is attained by way of righteousness” (Proverbs 16:31,
And it says: “The ornament of the wise is their wealth” (ibid. 14:24),
And it says: “Grandchildren are the glory of their elders, and the glory of children is their parents” (ibid. 17:6),
And it says: “The glory of youths is their strength; and the beauty of old men is their gray hair” (ibid. 20:29),
And it says: “Then the moon shall be ashamed, and the sun shall be abashed. For the Lord of Hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and God’s Honor will be revealed to his elders” (Isaiah 24:23). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said: these seven qualities, which the sages have listed [as becoming] to the righteous, were all of them fulfilled in Rabbi and his sons.
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya was a colleague of Rabbi Judah Hanasi. He and another rabbi were part of a group called “the holy assembly” for one of two reasons. Either they split their day into three parts, one third in study, one third in prayer and one third working. Alternatively they worked during the summer and learned Torah all winter.
Similar to the previous mishnah, this mishnah employs mostly verses from Proverbs.
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya lists seven qualities that when possessed by a righteous person, are beneficial to him and beneficial to the whole world. In this list I have placed the words “old age” in parentheses, for they should not be part of the source. Old age is synonymous with “gray hair” (my apologies if this insults those who have gone prematurely gray). Furthermore, if this were part of the list there would be eight qualities and not seven. It is obvious from the end of the mishnah that there are supposed to be only seven.
1. Beauty although we may not like to admit this, good-looking people are more admired and listened to than not good-looking people. The righteous person’s good looks benefit him and the rest of the world for others will listen to his sage advice.
2. Strength with strength the righteous person will be able to vanquish the wicked.
3. Wealth to be used to support the poor.
4. Honor when the righteous person is honored, others will listen to his words.
5. Wisdom to learn what it is that God wants him to do.
6. Gray hair with gray hair and the accompanying onset of old age comes the important quality of experience, which is so essential to any teacher.
7. Children who will hopefully inherit his righteous ways.
In order to facilitate the understanding of the texts brought as support, I have highlighted the appearance of each of these qualities in the various verses.
At the end of the mishnah Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya testifies that all of these characteristics were fully present in Rabbi [Judah Hanasi], the editor of the Mishnah, and his sons." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a beautiful story of Rabbi Yose ben Kisma and his desire to live in a city where other sages live.", + "Rabbi Yose ben Kisma said: Once I was walking by the way when a man met me, and greeted me and I greeted him. He said to me, “Rabbi, where are you from?” I said to him, “I am from a great city of sages and scribes”. He said to me, “Rabbi, would you consider living with us in our place? I would give you a thousand thousand denarii of gold, and precious stones and pearls.” I said to him: “My son, even if you were to give me all the silver and gold, precious stones and pearls that are in the world, I would not dwell anywhere except in a place of Torah; for when a man passes away there accompany him neither gold nor silver, nor precious stones nor pearls, but Torah and good deeds alone, as it is said, “When you walk it will lead you. When you lie down it will watch over you; and when you are awake it will talk with you” (Proverbs 6:22). “When you walk it will lead you” in this world. “When you lie down it will watch over you” in the grave; “And when you are awake it will talk with you” in the world to come. And thus it is written in the book of Psalms by David, king of Israel, “I prefer the teaching You proclaimed to thousands of pieces of gold and silver” (Psalms 119:71), And it says: “Mine is the silver, and mine the gold, says the Lord of Hosts” (Haggai 2:8). The teaching in this mishnah is similar to the words of Rabbi Nehorai in chapter four, mishnah fourteen, “go as a [voluntary] exile to a place of Torah and say not that it will come after you” Rabbi Nehorai teaches that one should leave a city where one cannot learn Torah to go to a place where one can learn Torah. In our mishnah we see a reverse move: Rabbi Yose ben Kisma will not leave his city which is full of sages, even to go to a place where they will give him all of the money in the world. The wealth of Torah accompanies not only in this world, but to the grave and onwards to the world to come. Note how opposite this idea is from the ancient practice of burying a person with some of his material possessions, which were to go on with him to the world to come. In Judaism what accompanies a person to the world to come are not his material possessions but his spiritual accomplishments: learning Torah and performing good deeds. This is what God truly cares about. Rabbi Yose uses several texts to prove that true wealth belongs to God and is given through His Torah. The wealth of money and jewels cannot tempt Rabbi Yose to leave a life of Torah." + ], + [ + "Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they:
The Torah, one possession;
Heaven and earth, another possession;
Abraham, another possession;
Israel, another possession;
The Temple, another possession. 1 The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’ me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). , 2 Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3 Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4 Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire ( is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5 The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).
This mishnah lists five things that are mentioned in the Torah as having been “possessed” or acquired by God. The Hebrew root for this word is knh, which can also mean, in Biblical Hebrew, “create”. Hence you will note that some of the verses quoted are usually translated as “create”. However to make the connections between the verses and their use in the mishnah more clear, I have translated the word as “possess”.
Since this mishnah is simple and self-explanatory, I have refrained from commenting. However, it may be worthwhile to think about what these five things have in common, beside the fact that the verb knh is used in connection with them in various places in the Bible." + ], + [ + "Whatever the Holy Blessed One created in His world, he created only for His glory, as it is said: “All who are linked to My name, whom I have created, formed and made for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7), And it says: “The Lord shall reign for ever and ever” (Exodus 15:18). In the previous mishnah we learned that God has five possessions in this world. Our mishnah expands this idea and states that all of creation is meant to glorify God. Even pieces of our world that we may think are extraneous and unnecessary, are somehow linked into the great web called God’s creation. Each piece, as unexplainable as it may be to us, has its place and ultimately it too gives glory to God. As much as this mishnah teaches about God, it teaches more about the world and how we, as God’s caretakers, must look at it. You may note that the second verse does not seem to support the idea in this section. It was probably brought as a small prayer, to be said at the end of the last mishnah of the chapter (the next section is not truly part of this chapter).", + "Said Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashya: It pleased the Holy Blessed One to grant merit to Israel, that is why He gave them Torah and commandments in abundance, as it is said, “The Lord was pleased for His righteousness, to make Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). This last section appears as the last mishnah in tractate Makkot. In order to save you the trouble of looking back, I will quote what I wrote there (with a few minor additions which I have thought about since then): This oft-quoted mishnah responds to an important theological question regarding the performance of commandments. Why does God care, or how is God affected, by Israel performing ritual commandments, for instance, kashruth, the dietary laws? Many have asked, what does God care how I eat my meat, whether I eat it with milk or not? The answer that Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashiah gives is that by performing God’s commandment, Israel accrues merit with God. It is a way for Israel to live up to a covenant, entered into with the infinite divine. The mitvoth, the commandments, and the learning of Torah, are not magical rites, performed in order to manipulate God into treating us better. Rather they are a symbol God’s grace to Israel, a means by which Israel can act out the will of the divine. They are means by which Israel can show God how much they love God. Note that this concept is opposed to that which Paul, the leader of early Christianity posited, namely that the law causes people to be sinners, and without the law there is no sin. In Judaism halakhah is not a stumbling block but an opportunity for people to perform God’s will. This is not an opportunity that should be taken for granted. This mishnah is customarily recited in synagogues after the completion of each chapter of Avoth, which is studied between Pesach and Shavuoth. Since it is one of the core ideas in all of Judaism, it has become in essence a prayer recited liturgically, and not just a learned text. Congratulations! We have finished Avoth. As I have mentioned at the end of every tractate, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. I might add that now that we have learned many tractates, it becomes more important to go back and look over material. You will have noted how different and special tractate Avoth really was. The lessons that we have learned should be internalized, for they contain some of the most important concepts in all of Judaism. Tomorrow we begin tractate Horayoth, and with God’s help, when we complete Horayoth, we will have finished all of Seder Nezikin!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה אבות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Pirkei Avot", + "key": "English Explanation of Pirkei Avot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Pirkei Avot/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Pirkei Avot/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e588c6820c01db0ccae0a8ba1350ff17d3d7f9ef --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Pirkei Avot/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,501 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Pirkei Avot", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Pirkei_Avot", + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly.
They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.
Avoth begins by tracing the transmission of Torah and contains three sayings by the Men of the Great Assembly.
One of the most basic tenets of Judaism is related in this mishnah: that Moses received an oral as well as a written Torah and that there is an unbroken chain connecting the Rabbis with the revelation at Sinai. Therefore the oral Torah, observed and studied during the time of the Mishnah (and in subsequent generations as well) is not the creation of human beings, but is actually as divine in origin as is the written Torah. Now this an extremely significant claim, about which many, many books have been written, and indeed some fierce battles were fought (such as that between the Sadducees and Pharisees and that between the Rabbinites and Karaites). There are many sub-questions that require further resolution, most importantly what was the nature of the oral Torah received at Sinai. Did Moses receive every detail of observance and belief that any Jew would ever need to know? If so then all of the debates in the Mishnah and Talmud are attempts to recover what was originally known, and for some reason lost (this is Rav Saadiah Gaon’s position). Alternatively, were only the principles given to Moses, and perhaps rules by which later Jews could create new laws, laws that would have roots at Sinai but not have been specified at Sinai? If so, then the Mishnah and Talmud contain actual creativity in advancing and expanding the Oral Torah (this is basically the Rambam’s position).
Needless to say, we don’t have the answer to this question and it has been a great debate since the medieval period. The Talmud itself is unclear on the matter, and there are statements that support both. For instance the Talmud states that even any new innovation taught by a student was already revealed to Moses at Sinai. However, the Talmud also relates a famous story that God showed Moses what was going on in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall and Moses did not understand a word. Nevertheless, one thing is clear from this mishnah. Jewish tradition teaches that the Oral Torah (whether all of the details or just the essence) does come from Sinai and that each generation thereafter is obligated to learn that Torah and transmit it to the following generation.
The Men of the Great Assembly refers to the leaders who arose at the time of the building of the Second Temple, around 500 B.C.E (See Nehemiah 8-10). Little is actually known about this group and there are very few sayings attributed to them. They may have had judicial as well as legislative powers, but again little is known.
In our mishnah three sayings are attributed to them. The first is that judgements should not hastily be delivered. This has also been interpreted to mean that even if a case has come before a judge three or four times before, he must examine it closely perhaps he will find a new angle that he had not before noticed.
Although it may seem obvious that a teacher should seek many disciples, not all Rabbis thought so. Particularly Beth Shammai and Rabban Gamaliel were known for not allowing those whom they deemed disqualified to participate in the discussions in the study halls. This mishnah emphasizes that students should be encouraged to continue to learn, even if he is not perfect.
Making a fence around the Torah is another principle of supreme importance in Judaism. There are many laws that are not strictly obligatory upon a person from the Torah, but rather were instituted by the Rabbis to prevent a Jew from transgressing a Torah law. An example is the use of money on Shabbat. The Torah itself does not prohibit using money on Shabbat. However, the Rabbis said one should not do so, lest one write, which is prohibited by the Torah (at least the midrashic understanding of the Torah)." + ], + [ + "Shimon the Righteous was one of the last of the men of the great assembly.
He used to say: the world stands upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety.
The mishnah begins by noting that Shimon Hatzadik (the righteous) was one of the last men of the great assembly, which was the last link in the chain of the transmission of oral Torah mentioned in mishnah one. In other words, Shimon Hatzadik lived long before the time of the mishnah, and is not really part of the rabbinic period. He is one of the few people whose name is remembered from this period of Jewish history.
There are two interpretations of Shimon Hatzadik’s statement that the world could not stand without these three things. The first is that he means that the world literally could not exist without these things. These three things are the three legs upon which the world rests. Another interpretation is that it was for the sake of these three things that the world was created.
According to the rabbis, without Torah the world could not exist. Without people continuing to study Torah, God would destroy the world, for the study of Torah is one of the purposes of creation.
The word used to denote Temple service in the mishnah is “avodah”, literally worship. When the Temple stood, it was through the merit of the worship performed there, that God brought rain upon the earth (see Deut. 11:13-14). Without this worship, the world could not continue to exist. When the Temple was destroyed, prayer took its place.
There are two other interpretations to the word “avodah” in the mishnah. The first is the performance of mitzvoth in general. The second interpretation is literal work, plowing, harvesting etc. The idea behind this interpretation is that God gave the world to human beings so that they would tend to it and thereby become God’s partner in creation. If human beings were to cease acting as God’s partner, God would cease his role as well.
Gemilut hasadim, acts of loving kindness, are not merely acts of charity, but any act that helps another person in his time of need (visiting the sick, comforting the mourner, welcoming guests). The rabbis teach that these acts are even greater than giving charity, for a person gives charity with his money, but these acts are performed with money and by the person’s own body.
We should also note that according to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, after the destruction of the Temple acts of loving kindness take the place of the Temple service that can no longer be performed. Whereas in the past a person would be atoned through sacrifices, after the destruction the way to achieve atonement was by the performance of acts of piety." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAntigonus (certainly a Greek name) was from the city of Socho, which was in Judea. He received the oral tradition from Shimon the Righteous, mentioned above in mishnah two.", + "Antigonus a man of Socho received [the oral tradition] from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: do not be like servants who serve the master in the expectation of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master without the expectation of receiving a reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you. This mishnah contains an important basic concept in Judaism, one which the Rambam viewed as perhaps the most important concept. Although the Torah promises rewards for those who fulfill the commandments, one who constantly performs mitzvoth in order to receive a reward is not acting in an ideal manner. The reward is for the person who cannot see the innate wisdom in performing a mitzvah totally out of love (ahavah). Like a servant who only works for an allowance, this person has a shallow relationship with his master. One who performs the mitzvoth out of love can achieve a much greater closeness to God, for he expects nothing in return. In essence his performance of the mitzvoth is a statement that the mitzvoth are good in an of themselves, regardless of the reward that they might bring. The Rabbis teach that the reward for performing a mitzvah is the ability to perform another mitzvah. As a person improves himself, he will be given more and more opportunities to do so, to live a good life, and draw closer to God. Despite the fact that Antigonus emphasizes that one should serve God out of love, he finishes his statement by reminding us of the commandment to fear God. There are times when love will not suffice as a motivating factor for the performance of the mitzvoth. The Rabbis teach that love is a strong motivator for the performance of positive commandments but that fear is a stronger motivator for negative commandments. Antigonus’s balanced statement reminds us that we need to have both love and fear of God." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter the teaching of Antigonus from Socho, the mishnah begins with a period in Jewish history known as the period of the “pairs”. There are five “pairs” of Sages that are mentioned in our chapter, beginning in this mishnah and continuing through mishnah fifteen. The final pair are Hillel and Shammai.\nWe should note how important the concept of the Sage and learning from the Sage is in this mishnah and in the entire chapter. The “pairs” lived in the period between the Maccabean revolt (167 B.C.E.) until about two generations before the destruction of the Temple, which was in 70 C.E. This was a time when many Jews became greatly influenced by Helenistic culture. It was also the formative period of many of the sects, including the Sadducees and probably the Essenes (as well as the Dead Sea sect, who were probably Essenes). It was probably also the formative period for the Pharisees, the predecessors of the Rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud. Against this historical backdrop it is easy to understand why these Sages were so concerned with the authority and influence that they would have on the general public.", + "Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan [a man] of Jerusalem received [the oral tradition] from them [i.e. Shimon the Righteous and Antigonus]. Yose ben Yoezer used to say: let thy house be a house of meeting for the Sages and sit in the very dust of their feet, and drink in their words with thirst. Yose ben Yoezer encourages Jews to make their own homes into a place for the gathering of Sages. One should sit at the dust of their feet, which reflects the custom of the day whereby the Sage would sit on a chair and the disciple would sit at his feet. At this time period in history fixed study halls such existed in later times, especially in Babylonia during the late Talmudic period, did not yet exist. Learning the Oral Torah was performed (recited and not read) in small “disciple circles”, usually centered around a charismatic leader who would be the teacher. When the leader passed away the center of learning often moved to wherever the new leader was located. Yose ben Yoezer is encouraging people to make their homes open to the Sages, to turn them into places of learning, so that these disciple circles can exist there. When Yose ben Yoezer says “drink in their words with thirst” he is comparing the Torah to water, a common comparison in rabbinic literature. Just as water can eventually wear down rock, Torah learning eventually can seep into the hardened minds of human beings, even those who have never before learned." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the teaching of Yose ben Yochanan, the second Sage of the first “pair”. Midrash Shmuel makes an interesting note on the order of the chapter so far. Shimon the Righteous (mishnah two) stated that the world depends on three things: 1) Torah; 2) Worship (which is the same word as servitude); 3) acts of piety. Antigonus (mishnah three) spoke of servitude, Yose ben Yoezer (mishnah four) spoke of Torah and now Yose ben Yochanan will speak of acts of piety, namely helping the poor.", + "Yose ben Yochanan (a of Jerusalem used to say:
Let thy house be wide open, and let the poor be members of thy household. If in the previous mishnah we learned that one should open his house to Sages, in this mishnah we learn that one should open his house to the poor.", + "Engage not in too much conversation with women. They said this with regard to one’s own wife, how much more [does the rule apply] with regard to another man’s wife. From here the Sages said: as long as a man engages in too much conversation with women, he causes evil to himself, he neglects the study of the Torah, and in the end he will inherit gehinnom. This section strikes a strongly misogynistic note. This Mishnah’s opinions on women does not (and in my humble opinion, should not) agree with our modern sensibilities. In our society women are treated as equals to men (or they should be treated as equals to men). Needless to say, women were not seen as equal to men two thousand years ago (or even 50 years ago!). We should keep in mind that women did not receive the education that men received, and in general were not considered to be as intelligent as men. Therefore it is not surprising that Yose ben Yochanan warns men to avoid talking to women. Talking to women was considered the antithesis of Torah learning, because they assumed that women could not talk Torah. If we were to translate the advice in this section to our situation, the advice is not to waste one’s time away with idle chat, for such chat limits the time that one has to learn Torah. Note that sections 2a-b are not from Yose ben Yochanan himself but rather are the words of later Sages appended to his statement. They both explain the statement and expand upon it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins the teachings of the second “pair”. Note again the heavy concentration on learning and the continuation of the tradition, points which we noted in previous mishnayoth.", + "Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [the oral tradition] from them. Joshua ben Perahiah used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, and acquire for thyself a companion and judge all men with the scale weighted in his favor. Joshua ben Perahiah’s three pieces of advice have one common factor: they are concerned with a person properly socializing himself with other human beings. A person should not isolate himself for that may lead to moral problems and to feelings of despair. In order to accomplish this he must do three things: 1) find himself a teacher to teach him Torah; 2) find himself a friend; 3) have a positive attitude in his dealings with others. 1) When the mishnah states that one is supposed to find for himself a teacher, it means a fixed teacher with whom he can have a long lasting relationship. This teacher is ideally supposed to teach him all that there is to know. Avoth de Rabbi Nathan, which is a later expansion on Mishnah Avoth teaches an interesting parable. “Rabbi Meir used to say: He that studies Torah with a single teacher, to whom may he be likened? To one who had a single field, part of which he sowed with wheat and part with barley, and planted part with olives and part with oak trees. Now that man is full of good and blessing. But when one studies with two or three teachers he is like him who has many fields: one he sows with wheat and one he sows with barley, and plants one with olives and one with oak trees. Now this man’s attention is divided between may pieces of land without good or blessing.” 2) One of the main purposes of having a friend is to study with that friend. When a person learns alone, there is no one to correct his mistakes, no one to compliment him on his insight and no one whom he can bounce his ideas off. Traditionally Jewish learning has always been done in “hevrutot” which literally means “social circles”. Usually this is two people sitting together and learning a Jewish text. From personal experience, this is a much more effective means of learning than sitting by oneself, a more common way of learning in modern universities. 3) Judging every person with favor is perhaps some of the sagest advice the mishnah can give in teaching a person to succeed in society. One who is constantly skeptical of others’ actions and motives will certainly not be able to have the friends or teachers mentioned in the previous two clauses of the mishnah. We saw this ideal in Mishnah Sanhedrin when the Rabbis actually legislated that a court is obligated to search for means to exonerate the accused." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah seven contains the teaching of Nitai who was from Arbel, a settlement in the lower Galilee.", + "Nittai the Arbelite used to say: keep a distance from an evil neighbor, do not become attached to the wicked, and do not abandon faith in [divine] retribution. In the previous mishnah Joshua ben Perahiah taught that one should judge others with the scale weighted in their favor. Nittai the Arbelite balances this advice by adding that there may nevertheless be objective differences between different people. The fact that one should judge everyone favorably does not mean that one should not stay away from the wicked. In many places the rabbis teach that one who associates with evil people, even if he himself is not wicked, will have some of their ways rub off on him. Forming a just and righteous society means that each individual must be careful with whom he/she associates. The third statement of Nittai the Arbelite, although seemingly unconnected, is connected to the previous statements. If one sees many wicked people, he should not abandon his faith that someday these people will be punished by God, be it in this world or in the world to come. Abandoning faith in retribution could lead to a person losing faith in any objective difference between good and evil, at least in God’s eyes. In other words, belief in a God that cares about human actions and takes them into account is a basic tenet of a just society, especially a just society that cannot always enforce its ideals. Another interpretation of this last line is that a person, no matter how rich, should not feel totally secure in his wealth, for if he does not act in a righteous manner, divine retribution will eventually come. The flip side of this is also true. One who is poor and struggles in life, but acts in a righteous manner, should not despair of better days, for just as divine retribution is promised, so too is divine reward." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the teachings of Judah ben Tabbai, the first sage of the third “pair”. The subject of his teaching is the proper attitude of the judge to the litigants who come before him.", + "Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received [the oral tradition] from them. Judah ben Tabbai said: do not [as a judge] play the part of an advocate; and when the litigants are standing before you, look upon them as if they were [both] guilty; and when they leave your presence, look upon them as if they were [both] innocent, when they have accepted the judgement. Judah ben Tabbai teaches three things concerning the attitude of the judge. The first is that the judge should not be an advocate for either side. If a litigant does not make the best claim that he could make, the judge is not allowed to make such a claim on his behalf. In other words the judge cannot act the part of the lawyer, but he must judge based on the claims actually made. We should note that lawyers were not usual participants in trials in the time of the mishnah. Another version of this teaching is that the judge should not make himself like “the chief of the judges” (in Hebrew there is only a one letter difference between “chief of the judges” and “advocate”, the former beginning with an aleph and the latter with an ayin. The reading “chief of judges” is found in the better manuscripts of the mishnah). This means that a judge should not make himself like the chief justice who does not actually look into the details of the case. Rather the judge has the responsibility to carefully check all of the facts before he makes his ruling. The second two teachings are basically the flip side of the coin of each other. Before the judgement is delivered the judge must examine both parties as if both are guilty. Even if he thinks that one side is telling the truth, he must examine both impartially and with a skeptical eye, for if he favors one side before the trial, justice will not be served. However, when the sides accept the judgement, he must look at both sides as innocent. This may be for two reasons: first of all, the fact that the one found guilty accepts his judgement means that in the end he was willing to do the right thing. His acceptance of the judgement is a form of repentance. Second, the judge can never be one hundred per cent of the correctness of his sentence." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the teaching of Shimon ben Shetach, the second of the third pair. Shimon ben Shetach lived during the rule of Alexander Janneus and his wife Shelomith. Shimon was Shelomith’s brother. According to a legend found in both Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud (with some differences) the king killed many of the Pharisaic sages, but Shimon ben Shetach managed to escape. Through the aid of his sister he was able to return to Jerusalem and rejoin the Sanhedrin, which had been filled in the meanwhile with Sadducees. Along with Judah ben Tabbai, who had escaped to Egypt, they were successful in restoring the Pharisees to their place in the Sanhedrin. That may be why both of these pairs are so concerned with the behavior of judges.", + "Shimon ben Shetach used to say: be thorough in the interrogation of witnesses, and be careful with your words, lest from them they learn to lie. Shimon ben Shetach continues to give instructions to the judges. The first statement is self-explanatory. The second statement means that the judge should be careful while examining the witnesses, lest he inadvertently teach them how to help one side win the case." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nShemaiah and Abtalion, the fourth pair, lived at the end of the period of Hasmonean rule and towards the beginning of Herod’s reign. According to the Talmud both were converts. Mishnah nine contains Shemaiah’s teachings.", + "Shemaiah and Abtalion received [the oral tradition] from them. Shemaiah used to say: love work, hate acting the superior, and do not attempt to draw near to the ruling authority. In many places we see that the rabbis considered work to be important to proper moral behavior. This is learned from Exodus 20:9, “six days shall you work… and on the seventh day you shall rest.” Just as on the seventh day it is a commandment not to work, so too on the first six days it is a commandment to work. Even the wealthy should work, for idleness may lead a person into depression and perhaps even into licentiousness. A person should not seek positions of superiority over others. Although society does need leaders, such leadership can take its toll on a person. It is also dangerous to the person’s own proper behavior, for often times people in leadership abuse their positions. This statement also connects to the previous statement. No person should consider himself so important as not to engage in work. Shemaiah certainly lived at a time when avoiding close contact with the government was good advice. Although one may be able to gain some benefit from having good contacts with powerful people, in the end rulers do only what is good for themselves. Furthermore, when the tides turn, those who were too close to the ruling parties are often the first to suffer. This is has been demonstrated throughout history in dictatorships and other tyrannical forms of government. A person who is closely identified with one ruler, is often killed or jailed when the next ruler takes power." + ], + [ + "Introduction Abtalion is the second sage of the fourth “pair”.", + "Abtalion used to say: Sages be careful with your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile, and be carried off to a place of evil waters, and the disciples who follow you drink and die, and thus the name of heaven becomes profaned. Abtalion’s teaching deals with the accountability of the Sage, one who is responsible for continuing the tradition and teaching the world the proper interpretation of Scripture. Abtalion warns the Sages to be careful with their words, to make them clear so that their students will not misunderstand their intention. In many places the rabbis teach how dangerous the words of Torah can be if not understood in the right contexts, by people with the correct intentions in their application. A teacher has a responsibility not only to teach by reciting what he knows, but he must make sure that it is understood by the listener as well. Improper teaching will eventually force the teacher to leave his place in exile and go to a place of “evil waters”. This is probably a euphemism for heretical beliefs. If a teacher is not careful with his words, his students may end up as heretics. This certainly occurred in the times of Abtalyon, when many students left the path of the Sages and joined other sects, such as the Sadducees or Essenes. A disciple of a Sage leaving the path of Torah and joining other sects is not just a loss for the disciple himself, but it is a profaning of God’s name, and may lead to even worse consequences. People are very conscious of where people learned. For instance in Israel a person who grew up in a secular home and considers himself an atheist is not news. However, when, as has happened on occasion, a person who grew up in a Hasidic or ultra-orthodox home, and perhaps was even related to a famous rabbi, becomes an atheist and is politically active for a secular party that is news. The fact that the person knows the tradition and rejects it makes his rejection more consequential than that of one who rejects the tradition out of ignorance. His rejection reflects badly on the tradition and its source as well, God. It will lead others to think that if one who knew the Torah so well, said that it was not true, than why should we even bother to learn. For this reason teachers must be very careful that students do not misinterpret their words. I might add that this is especially difficult with learning over the internet, in situations where the teacher has no idea of who is reading what s/he writes. When sitting face to face with students, a teacher can directly answer their questions, and clarify misunderstood points. When these words which I write on a computer in my home in Israel, go up on the internet, billions of people, none of whom I know, will have access to them. I guess the advantages of having such a large potential audience are also balanced by some of the inherent dangers." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nHillel and Shammai, the fifth “pair” are probably familiar to many of you, for they were the founders of that two great schools, Beth Shammai (the House of Shammai) and Beth Hillel (the House of Hillel), that truly begin a new era in Jewish history.\nHillel and Shammai lived during Herod’s rule, which began in 37 B.C.E. and lasted until 4 C.E. Hillel was actually an immigrant from Babylonia. He is known for his kindness and love of fellow human being. Many legends exist about Hillel, most of them are about his great humility and love.", + "Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah. According to a legend in Avoth de Rabbi Nathan, when two men had quarreled with each other, Aaron would go and sit down with one of them and say to him: “My son, mark what your fellow is saying! He beats his breast and tears his clothing, saying, ‘Woe unto me! How shall I lift my eyes and look upon my fellow! I am ashamed before him, for I it is who treated him badly.’” He would sit with him until he had removed all anger from his heart, and then Aaron would go and sit with the other one and say to him the same thing that he had said to the first. And when the two men met each other they embraced and kissed one another. Aaron brought peace between Jews. A lesson that Jews have learned throughout history, and that they continue to learn today, is that when peace reigns between them, even if they worship idols, they can have their independence. And when Jews fight with one another, no matter how many commandments they keep, they are easily conquered. Hillel also teaches that one should love other people. Hillel taught that it was much easier to influence people with love than with fear, for love is truly the best motivation in life. By acting in such a manner, Aaron was able to draw people closer to Torah. According to another story about Aaron, he would make a habit of associating with evil people until they grew embarrassed and thought, “Woe unto us! If Aaron knew what we are like, what our life is like, he would resolve never again to set eye upon us. He must think we are worthy people. We ought at least to try to make our conduct correspond to his thinking.” In that way they would be drawn to association with him and learning Torah from him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains more statements from Hillel. All of the sayings in this mishnah are in Aramaic. Although almost all of the Mishnah is in Hebrew, it is unclear what the common spoken language of the Jews was at the time of the Mishnah. These sayings are folksy, that is they are pithy and easy to remember. The fact that they are in Aramaic may mean that many of the “folk” spoke Aramaic, but that the language of study was Hebrew. By the time of the Talmud it is clear that Aramaic was the dominant language in the land of Israel, at least amongst the Jews (many non-Jews would have spoken Greek).", + "He [also] used to say: one who makes his name great causes his name to be destroyed; one who does not add [to his knowledge] causes [it] to cease; one who does not study [the Torah] deserves death; on who makes [unworthy] use of the crown [of learning] shall away. Although there are four separate statements in this mishnah, they can all be summarized as saying two things: a person must always study, but he should be careful not to use his learning for his own grandeur. A person who tries to make his name, meaning his reputation great, will eventually lose his good name. One who seeks his own honor, will have honor elude his grip. This statement has also been taken as a warning to a person to avoid the attention of the ruling power, for their attention can only lead to danger. This is a lesson already mentioned in mishnah ten. One must constantly be seeking to increase his knowledge, never satisfied with the learning he has already done (this could be contrasted with what we learn later, that a rich man is one who is happy with his portion). In Judaism learning is a life long project, and not relegated to children. One who does not learn Torah deserves to die. I don’t believe that this harsh statement is not meant to be taken literally; it is certainly not a directive to a court to execute the unlearned. Rather Hillel may mean to say that without the spirituality of the Torah, a person’s life is empty. One commentator states that one who has not studied Torah is like a beast, for human beings were only created different from animals for them to learn and study Torah. One who only fills his base needs of food and sex, has not truly differentiated himself from an animal. Although Hillel urges people to study Torah, he warns them not to make use of this Torah study for their own advancement. One who does so will not receive any reward for his Torah study. In ancient times it was forbidden for Rabbis to take a salary, or receive any material benefit from their work. While this demand became impractical already a long time ago, I do believe that at least part of the ideal must be preserved. A Rabbi or any teacher of Torah, must not have his own personal advance or profit in mind when he teaches, for that is a corruption of Torah. Note how the first and last clauses of the mishnah are similar (warnings to those who use Torah for their own ends), and the two middle clauses are similar (statements about what happens to those who don’t learn Torah). This type of order is known as “chiastic” order, and is very common in rabbinic literature." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains one of the most famous statements of Hillel. Its poetry and its succinct message still make this, in my mind, one of the most memorable of rabbinic sayings.", + "He [also] used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self [only], what am I? And if not now, when? This first statement of Hillel’s is not a statement lauding selfishness, but rather a statement which places a person’s character and qualities squarely on his own two shoulders. A person must work in this world to acquire his own merits, for no one else can do this on his behalf. The second statement balances out the first. Although a person must be concerned for himself, his responsibilities do not end there. One who does only for himself does not contribute to his people and to the world. He is not important, for when he passes away, no one else will be effected. Finally, if a person puts off his responsibilities, when will he find time to carry them out. As we say in English, “now is as good a time as ever”." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains Shammai’s teaching. Note that the mishnah contained several teachings of Hillel and only one of Shammai. This demonstrates how much more dominant Hillel and his school were in the world of the rabbis.", + "Shammai used to say: make your [study of the] Torah a fixed practice; speak little, but do much; and receive all men with a pleasant countenance. Shammai had a reputation for being severe, perhaps even irritable. This is exemplified in the famous story of a non-Jew who came before him and asked him to teach him the whole Torah on one foot. Shammai promptly threw him out of the study hall, whereas Hillel eloquently told the non-Jew, “‘love your neighbor as yourself’, the rest is all commentary, go and learn.” Despite Shammai’s reputation, his teaching does not laud such qualities, but rather Shammai emphasizes that one should act pleasantly to others. Shammai’s first statement is that a person should make his Torah learning a fixed practice. In other words, he should not study only in his spare time, when he finds a free moment, but set aside fixed times to learn, and make them the focal point of his life. Another interpretation of this line is that when someone learns something new, he should make it a fixed part of his consciousness and not allow himself to forget what he has learned, so that he could teach it to others. The second statement is that one should speak little and do much. This is learned through the example set by Abraham, who told his guests that he would bring them “a morsel of bread” (Genesis 18:5). In the end, Abraham brought them much more than a morsel of bread; he brought them butter and milk and a calf which he had prepared (vs. 8). The third statement teaches that when one helps others he must do so cheerfully. Visiting the sick, giving charity to the poor, welcoming guests into one’s home and giving presents to friends must all be done with joy, for if he does so with a downcast face, his good deed will be spoiled." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter completing the teachings of the “pairs” Mishnah Avoth turns to the teachings of the patriarchs, the leaders of the Jewish people who were from the family of Hillel. Rabban Gamaliel of our mishnah is Rabban Gamaliel the elder, who was the grandson of Hillel. He was the patriarch during the final years of the Second Temple. He is also the first who is called by the title “Rabban” a title reserved (with one exception) for the patriarchs from Hillel’s family.\nAnother interesting thing to note is that almost all of the remainder of Avoth does not use the terminology “received from him/them”. While this change in terminology in the mishnah is certainly significant, it is hard to know exactly what the significance is. One thing is clear: Rabban Gamaliel, the first person to be called Rabban, and the first person in Avoth not to “receive”, opens a new era in the history of the Oral Torah.", + "Rabban Gamaliel used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, avoid doubt, and do not make a habit of tithing by guesswork. The first statement of Rabban Gamaliel is the same statement taught by Rabbi Joshua ben Perahiah, in mishnah six. “Avoid doubt” means that if a person should be confronted by a doubtful halachic case, for instance he doesn’t know whether something is pure or impure, he should not decide for himself, but rather he should ask a higher authority, a rabbi whose knowledge is greater. For if the person says that something is impure and it was really pure, he will cause a financial loss to the owner. And if he says it was pure and it was really impure, he will cause someone to transgress. Note how this statement connects to the previous one. In order to avoid doubt a person must have a teacher. Before one eats his produce he must give two tithes. The first tithe goes to the Levite and the second tithe must either be consumed in Jerusalem (during the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th years of a Sabbatical cycle) or be given to the poor (during the 3rd and 6th years). Rabban Gamaliel teaches that one should not tithe by estimate, but rather should make sure that his tithes are precise. This also connects with the previous statement, that one should avoid doubt. If one tithes by estimate, his food is considered “doubtfully tithed produce”, which is forbidden. This final statement is also understood by commentators as meaning that a person should not make any halachic decisions by guesswork. Rather he should carefully check his sources to make sure that his decision is not only reasonable, but correct." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabban Shimon ben Gamaliel the elder, who is referred to in this mishnah as “Shimon, his (Rabban Gamaliel the elder’s) son” was the head of the Sanhedrin at the time of the destruction of the Temple. Perhaps the reason that he is referred to here as “his son” and not with the title “Rabban” is that he made these statement while he was younger. There are very few statements in the Mishnah that were made by this sage. (This is not the same sage that will appear in the next mishnah).\nNote that this is the first case in Avoth where a son’s statements follow his fathers. Most rabbis did not inherit their positions from their fathers. The notable exceptions are the patriarchs who did bequeath their titles to their sons.", + "Shimon, his son, used to say: all my days I grew up among the sages, and I have found nothing better for a person than silence. Study is not the most important thing, but actions; whoever indulges in too many words brings about sin. Shimon makes three statements, all of which clearly have a common element. A person should say little and do much, which is basically the same lesson taught by Shammai in mishnah fifteen above. [Perhaps Shimon’s praise of silence might explain why so few of his statements were preserved. Maybe he didn’t say all that much!] There are different ways of understanding Shimon’s praise of silence. One understanding is that when others verbally abuse you, the best defense is to remain silent. I realize that this is controversial advice, and certainly sometimes it is not best to just be quiet. But certainly there are times when it is best to “hold one’s peace” and not respond to the other person with more verbal abuse. Everyone knows that in a shouting match neither side wins. Often the best strategy at defusing a difficutl situation is to gather one’s inner strength and remain quiet. Another understanding of Shimon’s first statement is that a silent person might be considered intelligent, even if he is not. Whereas the more an intelligent person talks, the more foolish he will often be considered. There were many debates amongst the rabbis about what was greater, study or action. Shimon clearly sides with action, for a person who learns but does not fulfill the commandments of which he is learning, might as well not have learned. According to Shimon the purpose of study is action. [Note that he does not discount the value of study, but rather the value of study without action]. On the last statement of Shimon, Rabbenu Jonah, a medieval Spanish commentator makes an interesting note. People have two ears and only one tongue. This is to teach that a person should hear twice as much as what he says." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in this mishnah is not the same Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel that we saw in the previous mishnah, but rather his grandson, the son of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh. He was the patriarch after the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 C.E.). He lived in the Gallilee, which became the center of Judaism after the revolt. Many of his statements appear in the mishnah. He was the father of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, who edited the Mishnah..", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: on three things does the world stand: On justice, on truth and on peace, as it is said: “execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16). Note how close this mishnah is in style to mishnah two in the beginning of the chapter. This is surely not accidental. The editor of the mishnah chose to begin and end a unit with similar language and style, perhaps to aid in memory. This type of literary structure is not unusual in the mishnah. However, there may be some differences between the two mishnayoth. Some versions of our mishnah read “does the world exist” and not “stand”. The Meiri comments that the difference is that in mishnah two, Shimon the Righteous, taught three things without which the world would crumble: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety. Our mishnah teaches things without which the world could stand but the political/societal structure would fall apart. Without justice, truth and peace, the world be anarchical, full of danger. Justice: the Rabbis also stated that any judge who judges correctly is a partner with God in creation. Creating a just world is one of the responsibilities of all human beings, Jew and non-Jew alike. Truth: Some commentators understand this as speaking truthfully to one’s fellow human being. Others understand this as a recognition of God. Peace: Without peace, even if a person has personal wealth and all of the material things he needs, he will not be able to enjoy them, for war will tear apart his life. Proper Torah study is also impossible to fulfill in times of strife and war. This statement can also be understood as peace between the people of Israel, as was learned in mishnah twelve. The Palestinian Talmud comments that these are all actually connected. If there is justice, there will be truth and if there are truth and justice there will be peace. That is why all three are learned from one verse." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Rabbi Said: which is the straight path that a man should choose for himself? One which is an honor to the person adopting it, and [on account of which] honor [accrues] to him from others.
And be careful with a light commandment as with a grave one, for you did know not the reward for the fulfillment of the commandments.
Also, reckon the loss [that may be sustained through the fulfillment] of a commandment against the reward [accruing] thereby, and the gain [that may be obtained through the committing] of a transgression against the loss [entailed] thereby.
Apply your mind to three things and you will not come into the clutches of sin: Know what there is above you: an eye that sees, an ear that hears, and all your deeds are written in a book.
“Rabbi” in the Mishnah without a name refers to Rabbi Judah Hanasi (the Prince), the son of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. He lived in a city called Beth Shearim, afterwards in Beth Shean and at the end of his life he moved to Tzippori. Rabbi acquired eternal fame as the editor of the Mishnah.
Note that this mishnah through mishnah seven of this chapter continues a list of statements made by descendents of Hillel, whose first statement was in mishnah twelve of the previous chapter.
All of Rabbi’s statements deal in one way or another with the reward that one receives for one’s good deeds and the punishments for transgressions. Rabbi is dealing with the question, how does a person choose a path in life based on the rewards and losses that may come to him through choosing this path. Note that some of these rewards may be the recognition that he receives from others but that usually Rabbi refers to a reward given by God.
The first thing that Rabbi teaches is that a person should choose a path that is both honorable to himself, and will bring him honor from others. Maimonides understood this as advice to take the “golden mean”, the middle path, in all aspects of life. For instance if a person has a lot of money and hoards it all for himself, it might bring honor (pleasure) to him, but if he doesn’t give any to others, others will not praise him. And if he gives all of his money away, others will praise him, but he will not have any for himself. Therefore, one should choose an in-between path (between 10 and 20 percent of one’s money), both in this matter and in all things in life. Another understanding of this statement is that one should strive to choose a path that he himself believes is correct and one which is deemed correct by others. A person must be true both to himself, but he can also not afford to ignore the society in which he lives.
The second statement is that one should be careful in the observance of commandments that seem to him “light” just as he is careful in the observance of what he considers more serious commandments. There is an interesting parable given on this statement. “R. Hiyya taught by way of parable: “A king brought laborers into one of his orchards, but did not inform them in advance what would be the compensation for the respective plants they would cultivate. For had he given them this information, each of them would have looked for that plant for which the compensation was generous and taken care of it. As a result only some of the work in the orchard would have been taken care of; some would have been neglected. Said Rabbi Acha in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana: The Holy One did not reveal what would be the reward for the different commandments of the Torah, lest only some of these be carried out, while some would be neglected.”
The third statement teaches that one should pay attention to the reward that one might receive for performing a commandment, even though there is a financial loss through its performance. The same is true of the opposite. Although one might make a financial gain by committing a sin, there is a loss that is worse than the financial gain. Obviously the reward referred to in the first half of Rabbi’s statement and the loss in the second half are referring to those meted out by God.
All of the above statements were based upon the belief that God rewards those who perform the commandments and punishes those who transgress. [Note this statement is a matter of faith; it cannot be empirically observed in this world]. This is the direct meaning of Rabbi’s last statement. God (figuratively) sees all of our actions, hears all of our words, and records them in a book. A person should always act as if he is in the presence of God. If he keeps that in mind he will distance himself from sin." + ], + [ + "Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi said: excellent is the study of the torah when combined with a worldly occupation, for toil in them both keeps sin out of one’s mind;
But [study of the] Torah which is not combined with a worldly occupation, in the end comes to be neglected and becomes the cause of sin.
And all who labor with the community, should labor with them for the sake Heaven, for the merit of their forefathers sustains them (the, and their (the forefather’ righteousness endures for ever; And as for you, [God in such case says] I credit you with a rich reward, as if you [yourselves] had [actually] accomplished [it all].
Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, is chronologically the last patriarch mentioned in Mishnah Avoth. Although he lived after what is normally termed the “tannaitic period” some of his statements were nevertheless included in the Mishnah. Note how this tanna’s name is slightly different. Instead of calling him “Rabban Gamaliel ben Judah” as is typical, he is called Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi. This probably alludes to the high status of his father.
The first part of Rabban Gamaliel’s statement is connected to the last part of Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s statement from the previous mishnah: how does one avoid sin? Rabban Gamaliel teaches that the study of Torah is not sufficient to avoid sin, rather one should have a worldly profession as well. Together the two will keep a person busy enough that he will not have the energy to sin. This statement might also mean that because of his Torah study he will know what he is supposed to do, and because he works for his living, he will not have to steal or engage in fraudulent practices to earn money.
A person who only studies and does not work, will in the end not even be able to reap the rewards of his study. A person must somehow earn his daily bread. Furthermore, such a lifestyle will ultimately lead to sin.
The third statement probably also connects to the previous two. People who work with the community should do so for the right reasons, “for the sake of Heaven” and not for their own personal glory or profit. This also seems to be a warning against those teachers who might combine their Torah learning with their professional work. If they do so they must be careful that all of their actions are for the right reasons: to guide people in the right direction, and to bring Torah more deeply into more people’s lives, and not so they can have the benefits of being called “rabbi” or the profit of a nice salary.
Rabban Gamaliel points out that one who succeeds in working with the community should not chalk this solely up to his/her personal talents. The Jewish community has merits by the very fact of their being the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose righteousness is bequeathed to all of the people of Israel. Nevertheless, although the success of the community is not truly based on the efforts of the community’s leaders, God says to the leaders that for their efforts they receive reward as if the community’s successes were their personal successes. In other words in a leader’s own mind he must be careful not to give himself the credit. However, God does count the tremendous sacrifices that community leaders give, and treats them as if they themselves had performed the good deeds of the community. Furthermore, even if a leader’s efforts do not result in an improvement of the community, they will receive a reward as if they had." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAnother statement by Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi.", + "Be careful [in your dealings] with the ruling authorities for they do not befriend a person except for their own needs; they seem like friends when it is to their own interest, but they do not stand by a man in the hour of his distress. This is the second time in Avoth that we have seen a warning to be careful in dealing with the ruling authorities. The first time was Shemaiah’s statement in 1:10: “love work, hate acting the superior, and do not attempt to draw near to the ruling authority.” According to Midrash Shmuel, Rabban Gamaliel is adding on to this statement. One should “love work”, only when it is accompanied with Torah (see the previous mishnah). One need not avoid all positions of leadership, only those that are not for the sake of Heaven. Finally, Rabban Gamaliel realized that it is impossible to totally avoid the ruling authorities, but one should at least be careful, for they only look out for their own interest. This mishnah might connect to the previous mishnah, in that a person who has communal responsibilities will often find himself dealing with politicians." + ], + [ + "He used to say: do His will as though it were your will, so that He will do your will as though it were His. Set aside your will in the face of His will, so that he may set aside the will of others for the sake of your will.
Hillel said: do not separate yourself from the community, Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death, Do not judge not your fellow man until you have reached his place. Do not say something that cannot be understood [trusting] that in the end it will be understood. Say not: ‘when I shall have leisure I shall study;’ perhaps you will not have leisure.
The first half of this mishnah contains another statement by Rabban Gamaliel, the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi. The second half of the mishnah returns to the statements of Hillel, whose statements were already taught in the previous chapter. The reason that the mishnah goes back to Hillel, is that he was the teacher of Rabban Johanan ben Zakai, whose statements are taught beginning in mishnah eight. The interruption of Hillel’s statements was done in order to bring all of the patriarchs from Hillel’s line together.
One way of understanding Rabban Gamaliel’s statement is that a person should do God’s will with such fervor that it is as if it is his own will. In that way a person’s will will be done for him by God. The first half of Rabban Gamaliel’s statement deals with positive commandments, those which a person “does” and the second half, “set aside your will” etc., deals with negative commandments, those things that a person should refrain from doing. A person should negate his own desires before the commandments given by God. In this way God will protect him against the evil designs of other people. The last half of this statement can also be understood as referring in a respectful way to God. That is to say, God will annul God’s own will to punish human beings, if that human being performs God’s will. Understood in this way, the overall message is one of the unity of the divine and human will. As one commentator (Rabbi Jonah) said, “There should be no distinction between the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, and one’s own will. Both should be the same.”
Do not separate yourself from the community. Hillel’s first statement means that a person should join the community for both its celebrations and for its trials and tribulations. This also has been understand as the reason for praying together as a community. For when one prays by himself, he might ask for things that are detrimental to some. But the community only prays for things which are of benefit to everybody. A reed on its own is easily broken but a bundle of reeds standing together cannot be broken even by the strongest winds.
Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death: do not be sure of your righteousness until the day of your death, for a person can lose a lifetime of merit by doing the wrong things at the end of his life. This lesson is learned from John Hyrcanus, the high priest from the Hasmonean dynasty who at the end of his life became a Sadducee.
Do not judge not your fellow man until you have reached his place: just as you cannot be sure of your own merits, all the more so you can not be sure of the merits and liabilities of your fellow. You do not know what you would do were you in his situation. A clever interpretation of this statement offered by the Meiri is that if one sees a person outside of his city and you find him full of extraordinary virtues, do not conclude that this is his true personality. You can only judge his character by seeing if he acts the same way in “his place”.
Do not say something that cannot be understood [trusting] that in the end it will be understood: a person should make his words clear from the outset, and not speak or write in an unclear manner. Although in the end the matter might be cleared up, in the meanwhile the listener might make mistakes.
Say not: ‘when I shall have leisure I shall study;’ perhaps you will not have leisure: this is similar to the statement that Hillel made in chapter one, mishnah fourteen, “if not now, when?” A person cannot delay studying Torah, saying that he will never have the opportunity to learn. Thus Shammai stated, “make your Torah study a fixed practice” despite your being extremely busy." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis statement of Hillel’s is about virtue and Torah learning.", + "He used to say: A brute is not sin-fearing, nor is an ignorant person pious; nor can a timid person learn, nor can an impatient person teach; nor will someone who engages too much in business become wise. In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man. A brute is not sin-fearing: a “brute” is one who is not learned at all and has no or moral virtue. However, he is not inherently evil. Since he does not have any intellectual capacity, he does not know what are virtues and what are vices, hence he does not fear sin. Nor is an ignorant person pious: An “ignorant person” the “am ha-aretz” is one who has not learned Torah. This type of person can have fear of sin, because he is able to distinguish wrong from right. However, he cannot be pious a “hasid”. Nor can a timid person learn: Now that Hillel has emphasized how important Torah learning is towards the creation of a virtuous person, he discusses how a person can learn. A person who is too timid to admit to what he doesn’t know cannot learn. When in a class, if a teacher asks “did you understand?” the student who did not understand must respond that he did not. This statement also means that it is never to late to begin learning Torah. A person should not be intimidated by the fact that s/he reached a mature age and has not learned Torah. Rather, they should be like Rabbi Akiva, who didn’t begin learning until he was 40! Nor can an impatient person teach: The flip side to the previous statement is that an impatient person cannot teach. A teacher must listen to his/her students’ questions, even if those questions are not good questions. An impatient teacher will scare off students, intimidate them and be detrimental to their learning. Nor will someone who engages too much in business becomes wise: A person who spends all of his life engaged in business, will not have the requisite time to acquire wisdom. Rather a person must strike a balance between his work and his learning. In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man: Where there is no one else to take the initiative and assume responsibility, a person should take the leadership upon himself. This person is not considered haughty, but rather responsible. This also can be connected to the issue of learning. Where there is no one to teach you Torah, you are not excused from your duty of Torah learning. You must still try your best to learn what Torah you can on your own." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis saying of Hillel’s is in Aramaic, as was his saying in chapter one, mishnah thirteen. Note that what in English requires 18 words, requires in Aramaic only six.", + "Moreover he saw a skull floating on the face of the water. He said to it: because you drowned others, they drowned you. And in the end, they that drowned you will be drowned. This mishnah expresses Hillel’s deep faith in the ultimate justice of the world. In the end everyone receives not only a punishment for their crimes, but the exact punishment that fits their crimes. The person who drowned others is not only punished by being killed as a murderer, but he receives the same type of death that he meted out to others. Although this may seem to be a statement purely of faith, one not empirically observable, Maimonides points out that it is borne out by experience all of the time and in all places. People who do evil and introduce violence and corruption into society, fall eventually as victims to the very violence that they perpetuated.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Do you think that there is any specific symbolism to the skull and water? If so, what?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the last of Hillel’s statements in this list. In it he preaches the living of a simple life, devoted not to fame and material acquisitions but to the study of Torah.", + "He used to say: The more flesh, the more worms; The more property, the more anxiety; The more wives, the more witchcraft; The more female slaves, the more lewdness; The more slaves, the more robbery; [But] the more Torah, the more life; The more sitting [in the company of scholars], the more wisdom; The more counsel, the more understanding; The more charity, the more peace. If one acquires a good name, he has acquired something for himself; If one acquires for himself knowledge of torah, he has acquired life in the world to come. The more flesh, the more worms: In our times being overweight is not a sign of wealth (and is often just the opposite). In contrast in ancient times obesity was a sign of wealth; it meant that one had the financial means to eat in excess. Hillel points out that in the end, the fat accumulated through wealth only turns into food for the worms when the body is buried. In other words, unlike Torah, which Hillel will later state takes a person into the next world, material gains become food for worms at the time of death. The more property, the more anxiety: A rich person may have more property, but that property is accompanied by more worries over its preservation. The more wives, the more witchcraft: Witchcraft was associated primarily with women. This is why the prohibition of sorcery in the Torah (Exodus 22:17) uses the feminine word for witch. The more female slaves, the more lewdness: Throughout rabbinic literature, female slaves are considered to have lax sexual morality. In truth this was probably because their masters took liberties with them. In any case, although the possession of many female slaves may be a sign of wealth, the more that one has, the more likely that they will lead him into temptation and lewdness. The more slaves, the more robbery: Male slaves were often not trusted. Some slaves became slaves because they were sold to pay off debts incurred while robbing ohers. [But] the more Torah, the more life: In this section, Hillel begins to list those things whose accumulation is beneficial. This first statement is the counterpart of the first statement above, “the more flesh the more worms”. Torah prolongs a man’s days in this world and in the world to come. The more sitting [in the company of scholars], the more wisdom: In order to gain wisdom a disciple needs to join a group of scholars. The more counsel, the more understanding: Similarly, a person who wishes to truly understand, must ask advice and counsel of those who know more than he. The more charity, the more peace: According to Hillel, the best way to bring peace in the world was to strive for economic justice through charity. If one acquires a good name, he has acquired something for himself: Unlike the material possessions, which Hillel so disparages in the first section of his statement, he does consider a good name to be of great value. If one acquires for himself knowledge of torah, he has acquired life in the world to come: Even greater than a good name, is the knowledge of Torah, which goes with a person even into the next world." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah returns to the list of the “receivers” of the oral tradition. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who received from Hillel and Shammai, was the patriarch who survived the destruction of the Second Temple and escaped to Yavneh, where he helped the Jewish people continue to exist despite the great trauma they had just suffered. The legend is told that he escaped the besieged Jerusalem in a coffin and requested that Vespasion, the future Roman emperor, save Yavneh and its sages.\nAccording to a legend, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai was the least of Hillel’s 80 students.\nThe reason that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai’s words were not brought in their correct chronological place is that the editor of the Mishnah wanted to first teach all of the words of the descendents of Hillel, who also served as patriarchs. The Mishnah now returns to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai and will proceed in subsequent mishnayoth with statements of his students.", + "Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai received [the oral tradition] from Hillel and Shammai.
He used to say: if you have learned much torah, do not claim credit for yourself, because for such a purpose were you created. A person should not take credit for himself for learning Torah, but rather should realize that the study of Torah is the purpose of his creation. This idea is also mentioned in a midrash that teaches that God made a stipulation that if Israel does not study Torah, He will wipe the world out of existence. Another explanation of this statement is that if a person has learned much Torah, he should not merely give credit to himself, rather he is obligated to teach others.", + "Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai had five disciples and they were these: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Yose, the priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nethaneel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach. He [Rabbi Johanan] used to list their outstanding virtues: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus is a plastered cistern which loses not a drop; Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah happy is the woman that gave birth to him; Rabbi Yose, the priest, is a pious man; Rabbi Simeon ben Nethaneel is one that fears sin, And Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach is like a spring that [ever] gathers force. We should note that the first two rabbis on this list, Rabbis Joshua and Eliezer, are two of the most famous rabbis that lived in the generation of the destruction of the Temple and they are found in many places in the mishnah. The other three rabbis are much less known. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai lists the qualities of each of his five students. Rabbi Eliezer is known for his fantastic memory. In general Rabbi Eliezer is known to be an archconservative sage, one whose main goal was to preserve the Torah that he had received from his teachers. He is not an innovator. Rabbi Joshua is known for his great kindness, and therefore Rabban Yohanan says how happy his mother must have been. Rabbi Yose is pious, meaning he goes beyond the letter of the law. Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel fear sin and distances himself from it by creating “fences” around the Torah. Rabbi Elazar ben Arach was known for his great intelligence and creativity which made him like an ever-increasing fountain. Note that this is the contrast to Rabbi Eliezer, the conservative, who appears in the beginning of the list of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai’s students.", + "He [Rabbi Yohanan] used to say: if all the sages of Israel were on one scale of the balance and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus on the other scale, he would outweigh them all. Abba Shaul said in his name: if all the sages of Israel were on one scale of the balance, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus also with them, and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach on the other scale, he would outweigh them all. As noted Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach are opposite characters, the first representing conservatism and the second innovation. The battle between conservatism and innovation was an important ideological struggle during this time in Jewish history, with some claiming that now that the Temple had been destroyed there was a need to concentrate on the preservation of that which was received from previous generations and others claiming that now that the Temple was destroyed innovation was an imperative. This ideological dispute is borne out in the last section of the mishnah. According to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai the conservative sage, Rabbi Eliezer, is the most essential to the Jewish people. [This is interesting because Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai was known to be a great innovator himself]. Abba Shaul, a later sage, disagrees with this assessment and states that Rabbi Elazar ben Arach, the ever-increasing spring, is the most essential to the survival of the Jewish people and the oral Torah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains interactions between Rabban Yohanan and his five students. One interesting thing is that it shows one way in which rabbinic masters taught there students. Rabban Yohanan sends them out on assignments and then evaluates their work when they return.", + "He [Rabban Yohanan] said unto them: go forth and observe which is the right way to which a man should cleave? Rabbi Eliezer said, a good eye; Rabbi Joshua said, a good companion; Rabbi Yose said, a good neighbor; Rabbi Shimon said, foresight. Rabbi Elazar said, a good heart. He [Rabban Yohanan] said to them: I prefer the words of Elazar ben Arach, for in his words your words are included. The first question that Rabban Yohanan asks his students is what is the best quality that a person can acquire to lead himself to righteousness. Rabbi Eliezer said, a good eye: this refers to a person who does not begrudge his fellow his good fortune. He is satisfied with what he has and he is not constantly “eyeing” what others have. Rabbi Joshua said, a good companion: the ability to befriend a fellow human being teaches a person to be compassion and caring for all of humanity. Rabbi Yose said, a good neighbor: Rabbi Yose says that a person must make himself a good neighbor. Although he can be a neighbor to only a small number of people, if everyone would strive to be a good neighbor, the world would be a much-improved place. A person does not have to set out to fix the whole world on his own. He begins by improving his own backyard, with the hope that others will follow his example and improve their “neighborhoods”. Alternatively there are those who explain that Rabbi Joshua says that a person should acquire for himself a good companion, who will aid him in acts of righteousness. Rabbi Yose says that a person should seek good neighbors, who will positively influence his own actions. Rabbi Shimon said, foresight: a person should always think ahead and contemplate what will be the results of his actions. Rabbi Elazar said, a good heart: a good heart, which according to ancient thought was the seat of one’s thoughts (and not feelings as it is thought of today) is interpreted in several different ways. Maimonides explained it to mean that a person’s conduct should follow the golden mean. Since this is the ideal behavior, Rabban Yohanah said that it was inclusive of all of the others’ words. Rabbi Jonah said that it means one who doesn’t easily lose his temper. Rabban Yohanan prefers the words of Rabbi Elazar “a good heart” because one who has a good heart will be all of the other things mentioned by the other students. He will be a good friend, a good neighbor, generous to his fellow human beings and he will think his actions through to the end.", + "He [Rabban Yohanan] said unto them: go forth and observe which is the evil way which a man should shun? Rabbi Eliezer said, an evil eye; Rabbi Joshua said, an evil companion; Rabbi Yose said, an evil neighbor; Rabbi Shimon said, one who borrows and does not repay for he that borrows from man is as one who borrows from God, blessed be He, as it is said, “the wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous deal graciously and give” (Psalms 37:21). Rabbi Elazar said, an evil heart. He [Rabban Yohanan] said to them: I prefer the words of Elazar ben Arach, for in his words your words are included. Most of this section is merely the opposite to the first part of the previous section. I will comment only on Rabbi Shimon. The worst evil according to Rabbi Shimon is a debtor who does not pay back his debts. In some ways this negative quality is the opposite of the positive quality he mentioned in section one, foresight. A person who does not pay back his debts does not realize that in the future no one will trust him. Rabbi Shimon does not say that the “evil way” is “one who lacks foresight” because the lack of foresight in and of itself is not evil. One might lack foresight and still strive to do the right thing. There is a midrash added to Rabbi Shimon’s statement here. Not paying back one’s debts is not only a sin against one’s fellow man, but it is a sin against God as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe Mishnah now begins to list the sayings of the students of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai, each of whom said three things. The first student is Rabbi Eliezer. The second half of this mishnah is not part of the original list but a later addition to the mishnah. This is why there are actually four sayings in the mishnah.", + "Let the honor of your friend be as dear to you as your own: this is similar to the famous saying of Rabbi Akiva, “what is hateful to you, do not do to others.” A person should be as careful about the honor of his fellow as he is about his own honor. Another explanation of this statement is that if one sees that his close friend is being honored, instead of being jealous of his friend, he should enjoy that honor as if it was his own. And be not easily provoked to anger: according to the rabbis, anger brings one to sin and to forget one’s Torah learning. And repent one day before your death: since a person does not know when he will die, this statement means that one should constantly be repenting, lest he die. One commentator explains that this is the reason that people do not know how long they will live. If a person knew he was about to die, he would not engage in anything useful in this world; if he knew his day of death was far off, he would not engage in good works, for he would say, “There is still time”.", + "And [he also said:] warm yourself before the fire of the wise, but beware of being singed by their glowing coals, for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting is the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like coals of fire. If a person comes to learn Torah, he must treat that Torah as if it were a dangerous, yet beneficial fire. Just as a person who sits by a campfire sits as close as he can without getting burned, so too a student of Torah should draw as near as possible without coming too close and thereby being burned. Mixing his metaphors, Rabbi Eliezer likens the words of the sages to the bite of a fox, the sting of a scorpion, the hiss of a snake and flaming coals. This mishnah points out the awesome power of Torah, which can both heal and warm a person, and yet at the same time burn and destroy." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Joshua said: an evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred for humankind put a person out of the world. Rabbi Joshua lists three things that “put a man of the world”. The first is an evil eye, which was already mentioned by Rabbi Joshua as the worst human quality in mishnah nine. One who has an “evil eye” is one who is constantly begrudging others what they have. One who loses control over his “evil inclination” is one who follows all of his base instincts and has no control over himself. “Hatred for humankind” means that he hates others for no reason. According to Rabbi Joshua all of these things “put a person of the world”. An interesting way of explaining this mishnah is that it describes the downward moral spiral of a deteriorating human being. He begins by being constantly jealous of what others have. This leads him to stumble upon his evil inclination, for he may actually take what others have. By giving in to his evil inclination he will begin to hate the entire world, and in essence he will not be part of the civilized world." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Yose said:
Let the property of your fellow be as precious unto you as your own;
Make yourself fit to study torah for it will not be yours by inheritance;
And let all your actions be for [the sake of] the name of heaven.
Let the property of your fellow be as precious unto you as your own: a person should take care of his fellows’ property as it were his own. For instance, if you see a fire on your friend’s property you must help him protect his property. This principle is learned from the Torah which teaches that one has a responsibility to return lost objects to their rightful owners. From here the general principle is deduced that a person has a responsibility over his friend’s property.
Make yourself fit to study torah for it will not be yours by inheritance: while the Torah might in some ways be the “inheritance” of the Jewish people it is not acquired automatically, the way that an inheritance is. Just because your father, or nowadays your mother, was a scholar of Torah does not mean that you will become one as well. A person must labor over Torah, and push himself to study.
This statement is also a statement against the concept of fate. A person is not born “fated” to be a Torah scholar, or indeed anything else. Rather a person works to shape his future; he must prepare himself for all that he will do in life. First and foremost, he must prepare himself to study Torah.
And let all your actions be for [the sake of] the name of Heaven: this means that even ordinary actions that a person does, such as eating, drinking, sitting down, getting up, walking, lying down, sexual intercourse, conversation and all bodily needs, should be done in such a way that serves God. All things that one does should lead to the improvement of his relationship to God and of his moral character." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Shimon said: Be careful with the reading of Shema and the prayer, And when you pray, do not make your prayer something automatic, but a plea for compassion before God, for it is said: “for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in kindness, and renouncing punishment” (Joel 2:13); And be not wicked in your own esteem. Be careful with the reading of Shema and the prayer: the “Shema” and the “prayer” which is known today as the “amidah” or the “shmoneh esreh” are the two central elements to Jewish prayer. The “Shema” consists of Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. It is recited in the morning and in the evening. The “prayer” is recited three times a day on weekdays, four times a day on Shabbat and holidays mentioned in the Torah, and five times on Yom Kippur. It contains praises of God and requests. Rabbi Shimon teaches that a person should be careful to say these things the correct number of times and at the right time of day. And when you pray, do not make your prayer something automatic, but a plea for compassion before God: this statement balances out the previous statement. One must be careful to recite prayers at the correct times but prayer can nevertheless not become automatic. It must be a genuine plea for compassion before God, and not a mere recital of words that someone else composed. This is the great challenge of Jewish prayer: it has strict laws as to what must be said and when, and yet it is supposed to be a spontaneous outpouring from a person’s heart. The idea of spontaneous/fixed prayer and the tension between the two is one of the most unique aspects of Jewish prayer. And be not wicked in your own esteem: do not do something which you yourself know to be wrong, though others do not recognize the truth. Another interpretation is that a person should not regard himself as wicked, for that will lead to despair. A person should look upon himself as half-wicked, half-good; far from perfection but close enough to having his good side outweigh his bad side. In this way he will always be motivated to do one more good deed, to “put himself over the top”. According to Maimonides this teaches that if a man thinks of himself as mean, he will not hesitate to act mean to others. Having a positive image of oneself helps one be a better person." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Elazar said:
Be diligent in the study the torah;
And know how to answer an epicuros,
And know before whom you toil, and that your employer is faithful, for He will pay you the reward of your labor.
Be diligent in the study the torah: diligence can either mean quick and energetic or it can mean regularity and faithful attendance.
And know how to answer an epicuros: a person should learn Torah in order to answer the questions of an epicuros. An epicuros is explained several different ways in the Talmud. He may be one who denies that there is a God, or one who denies that the Torah is of divine origin, or that , or one who despises Torah scholars. The origin of the term is the name of the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who taught that the ultimate goal of life is to pursue the pleasures of this world. He emphasized that the gods have nothing to do with human affairs. Rabbi Elazar teaches that one should know the Torah well enough to be able to engage in a debate with the epicuros. Interestingly, some commentators say that this is the reason that Jews are allowed to study Greek philosophy, for in order to know how to refute them with their own words, one must be learned in their works.
And know before whom you toil, and that your employer is faithful, for He will pay you the reward of your labor: this is connected to the previous statement, the rejection of the epicuros. A Jew must have faith in the ultimate reward and punishment for his actions. This is indeed one of Maimonides principles of Jewish faith. Unlike Greek philosophy which did not conceive of a God who was involved in the moral affairs of human beings, a God who was at most a “primal cause”, Jews believe in a God that intimately cares about how they act. The “toil” that a Jew does is before God, and not before an empty void." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nUp until this point the statements in Avoth have been organized mostly according to chronological order, with a few minor excursions that also serve the overall order. From this point and onwards the statements are not in chronological order. The general order of the remainder of the tractate is more difficult to discern.\nThe reason that Rabbi Tarfon’s statement is brought here is its similarity to the statement of Rabbi Elazar in the previous mishnah. Both compare the Torah to “labor” and both talk about the reward for performing this labor.\nRabbi Tarfon was also a student of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, but younger than the others. He was one of the leading sages in Yavneh, after the destruction of the Temple.", + "Rabbi Tarfon said: the day is short, and the work is plentiful, and the laborers are indolent, and the reward is great, and the master of the house is insistent. Rabbi Tarfon compares the study of Torah to pressing matters of work. There is never enough time, because our lives are so short. There is so much Torah to be learned and relearned that a person could never truly learn it all in his lifetime. The laborers are indolent and put off the study of Torah and instead engage themselves in other matters. The reward for the study of Torah is great, and the master is pressing his workers to work harder, as it says in Joshua 1:8, “and you shall meditate upon it night and day”. Rabbenu Jonah makes an interesting parable. He teaches that when Moses went up to Sinai he did not sleep at all. Compare this to a king who said to his servant: “Count gold pieces from now until tomorrow, and whatever you count off will be yours.” How can such a person sleep? Why the time he spent in sleep he would be losing a fortune! So said Moses, “If I go to sleep, how many precious words of Torah I would lose!”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of Rabbi Tarfon’s statement in the previous mishnah.", + "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it; If you have studied much Torah, you shall be given much reward. Faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor; And know that the grant of reward unto the righteous is in the age to come. It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it: although Rabbi Tarfon has already stated that the work is great and the day is short, this is not a cause for despair. It is not our duty to “finish” the study of Torah, but only to push ourselves to continue in this endeavor. A person must engage in study to the best of his abilities. There is a parable made about a king who hires workers to fill in a gigantic hole. The foolish worker takes a look at the hole and says, “How can I ever finish this?” The intelligent worker says to himself, “I was only hired for a day, at least I have found work.” Thus God says to his people, “You are all only hired for your day. Do your day’s work and do not worry about the rest”. The end of the mishnah repeats a message that we have heard many times, that the study of Torah will bring reward and that God is faithful to pay this reward. However, the end of the statement reminds us that rewards are not received in this world. A person who fulfills the commandments and studies Torah as he is commanded to do and yet does not receive a reward should not despair and lose faith in God, for the reward is not received in this lifetime. We should probably remind ourselves of Antigonus’s statement in chapter one, mishnah three. Although the rabbis emphasize the reward for learning Torah, we are warned not to serve God in order to receive this reward. Note that there are different explanations for “the world to come” and it is obviously not a concept that human beings can truly grasp, for no human can ever achieve true knowledge of the “world to come”. All of the statements made by Rabbis about the world to come are only meant to be understood as allegories and parables and not taken literally." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAkabyah ben Mahalalel lived in the time of Hillel, before the destruction of the Temple. We learned about the conflicts that this sage had with the other sages in Eduyoth 5:6-7.", + "Akabyah ben Mahalalel said: mark well three things and you will not come into the power of sin: Know from where you come, and where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give an account and reckoning. From where do you come? From a putrid drop. Where are you going? To a place of dust, of worm and of maggot. Before whom you are destined to give an account and reckoning? Before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be he. Akabyah ben Mahalalel teaches a strategy whereby a person can avoid the clutches of sin. A person should first of all remember his humble origins, a drop of semen. In Avoth de-Rabbi Nathan, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar teaches a parable: to what may this be likened? To a king who built a large palace and decorated it, but a tannery pipe led through it and emptied at its doorway. Says every passerby: “How handsome and magnificent this palace would be if it were not for the tannery pipe coming through it!” So too is man. If then, with a foul stream issuing from his bowels, he exalts himself over other creatures, how much the more so would he exalt himself over other creatures if a stream of precious oil, balsam or ointment issued from him!. Where are you going? To a place of dust, of worm and of maggot: remembering that the end of all human beings is the same, and that in the end we will all go to our graves, keeps a person humble and prevents him from greedily seeking material gain. About this mishnah Maimonides comments, “Reflection on his origin will lead a man to humility. When he contemplates his ultimate end, he will get to despise mundane matters. And when he contemplates the majesty of the Commander, he will come to obey His commandments speedily. And when a person succeeds in keeping his mind on these three things, he will sin no more.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of this mishnah contains a teaching of Rabbi Hanina who was the vice-high priest, (he would fill in for the high priest when he couldn’t serve). Rabbi Hanina lived through the destruction of the Second Temple. Perhaps there is a connection between his statement and the great political turmoil he witnessed during his lifetime.\nThe second section contains the teaching of Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion, who was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva’s. He was martyred by the Romans during the Bar-Kochva revolt. Legend has it that he was wrapped with a Torah scroll and then burned alive. This legend is part of the Yom Kippur liturgy, contained in a section called the martyrology.", + "Rabbi Hanina, the vice-high priest said: pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive. One should pray for the welfare of the government, even a non-Jewish government. For without government anarchy reins, and people could not peacefully pursue their course of life. Rabbi Hanina is aware that governments are not perfect, as he certainly was witness to the tyranny of being ruled by a foreign government. Nevertheless, in this statement he recognizes that even the sometimes oppressive rule of the Roman is preferable to anarchy.", + "R. Hananiah ben Teradion said: if two sit together and there are no words of Torah [spoken] between them, then this is a session of scorners, as it is said: “nor sat he in the seat of the scornful…[rather, the teaching of the Lord is his delight]” (Psalms 1:1); but if two sit together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, then the Shekhinah abides among them, as it is said: “then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). Now I have no [scriptural proof for the presence of the Shekhinah] except [among] two, how [do we know] that even one who sits and studies Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, fixes his reward? As it is said: “though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself” (Lamentations 3:28). From the verse in Psalms used as a prooftext we can see that the opposite of a gathering of scorners (synonymous with sinners) is a gathering for the study of Torah. Therefore any gathering in which Torah study is completely absent is considered a gathering of scorners. Furthermore, the statement is that there must be between them words of Torah. It is not sufficient that each studies or meditates upon Torah on his own. The words of Torah should be shared with others. However, even two people who gather to study Torah cause the Shekhinah, the Divine Presence, to abide amongst them. This is learned from the verse in Malachi, which implies that when the group of God-fearers gathered, God hearkened to their words, for He dwelled amongst them. Finally, even one who studies on his own, receives a reward for such study." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the teaching of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, a student of Rabbi Akiva’s. It is brought here due to its topical connection to the previous mishnah.\nNote how important small gatherings are to the rabbis of this and the previous mishnah. These were one of the ways that Torah was studied in the time of the Mishnah. People would gather around in small circles, perhaps around a table, and learn Torah together.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: if three have eaten at one table and have not spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten sacrifices [offered] to the dead, as it is said, “for all tables are full of filthy vomit, when the All-Present is absent” (Isaiah 28:8). Rabbi Shimon’s first statement is based on a pun on the verse in Isaiah. The literal translation of the verse according to JPS is, “Yea, all the tables are covered with vomit and filth so that no space is lift.” The words “so that no space is lift” can also be interpreted to mean, “when the All-Present is absent” for the word for “All-Present” and “space” are one and the same. Sacrifices to the dead are how Rabbi Shimon interprets the word “filthy vomit”. The reason that he assumes that this is three is that a communal meal must have three. This is also the minimum number that must be gathered in order to do a communal grace after meals “birkat hamazon”.", + "But, if three have eaten at one table, and have spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten at the table of the All-Present, blessed be He, as it is said, “And He said unto me, ‘this is the table before the Lord’” (Ezekiel 41:2. The verse in Ezekiel is discussing the altar, yet it refers to it as a “table”. This fact is “midrashically” interpreted by Rabbi Shimon to mean that sometimes a normal table can become an altar. This is so when the meal has been accompanied by the study of Torah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Hananiah ben Hakinai was one of Rabbi Akiva’s students. According to legend he was also martyred.", + "Rabbi Hananiah ben Hakinai said: one who wakes up at night, or walks on the way alone and turns his heart to idle matters, behold, this man is mortally guilty. One explanation for this statement is that nighttime is when demons are most active. So too, demons are especially present on the road. The person who wakes up at night or who walks alone on the road is vulnerable to these demons (demons are less likely to attack two). Therefore, if he is not engaged in the study of Torah, but rather in idle matters, he is liable to die. In other words, this is a physically dangerous act. [Many of us probably do not believe in demons. Nevertheless there may be some deep psychological truth to this statement. Waking up at night when no one else is around, or walking alone on a deserted path are times when a person is most likely to feel lonely and afraid. The antidote for such fears is Torah. Idle thoughts will only lead to more fear]. An alternative explanation for this statement is that these are golden opportunities to think about Torah. One who wastes his time thinking about idle matters when he could be learning Torah is, at least metaphorically speaking, mortally guilty. Maimonides actually teaches that the best time to learn, the time when a person is most likely to remember his studies, is at night. We should note that Maimonides followed his own advice and is known to have barely slept." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Nehunia ben Hakkanah lived at the same time as Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, that is around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple.", + "Rabbi Nehunia ben Hakkanah said: whoever takes upon himself the yoke of the Torah, they remove from him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns, and whoever breaks off from himself the yoke of the Torah, they place upon him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns. One interpretation of this statement is that one who takes upon himself the yoke of Torah, meaning he spends all of his time studying Torah, is not liable to pay taxes to the government, nor must he worry about earning a living for the Jewish community will make sure that he and his family are provided for. Since Torah is such a high value to the Jewish community, the Jewish people are willing to relieve of their economic burdens if they wish to study Torah full time. If, however, a person does not engage in Torah he must pay taxes and earn his living. Another possibility is that one who studies Torah will nevertheless need to work for a living as well, but his living will come to him so easily that he will have no trouble paying taxes or supporting those dependent on him. In other words he will not feel that the government or his other worldly concerns are a “yoke” around his neck. The difference between this explanation and the previous one is that in this explanation God rewards the Torah scholar, whereas in the previous one the community rewarded the Torah scholar by supporting him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Halafta was a student of Rabbi Meir (who himself was a student of Rabbi Akiva). Kefar Hanania was a village on the border between the Lower and Upper Galillee.", + "The most important aspect of this mishnah to note is its highly-crafted structure. The mishnah begins by saying that God (the Shechinah) resides only when ten are gathered together to study Torah. If the mishnah were to have stopped here one would think that any lesser number of people studying Torah do not merit the Shechinah’s presence. However, the mishnah continues to lower the number until at the end it reaches the climax: even one who studies Torah merits the presence of the Shechinah. Since the idea of this mishnah is not difficult, and has been presented in previous mishnayoth, we will only explain now the use of the Biblical prooftexts.", + "Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hanania said: when ten sit together and occupy themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: “God stands in the congregation of God” (Psalm 82:. The word “congregation” is understood to refer to a minimum of ten. See Sanhedrin 1:6 which makes reference to Numbers 14:27.", + "How do we know that the same is true even of five? As it is said: “This band of His He has established on earth” (Amos 9:6). The word “band” is understood to mean five, for a “band” is what is gathered in a person’s hand which has five fingers.", + "How do we know that the same is true even of three? As it is said: “In the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalm 82:1) The minimum number of judges for a court is three.", + "How do we know that the same is true even of two? As it is said: “Then they that fear the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard” (Malachi 3:16). This verse, which uses the plural, must refer to at least two people. Note that the same verse was used in a similar manner above in mishnah two of this chapter.", + "How do we know that the same is true even of one? As it is said: “In every place where I cause my name to be mentioned I will come unto you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21). Although this is not apparent from the English, the Hebrew uses the second person singular form of you. Therefore it must mean that God will cause his presence to be with even a singular person who “mentions” His name by studying Torah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first statement in our mishnah is from Rabbi Elazar of Bartotha, a colleague of Rabbi Akiva’s.\nThe second statement in this mishnah is attributed to Rabbi Shimon, but this is probably a mistake in the printed edition of the mishnah. The real author of the statement is Rabbi Jacob, who was one of Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s teachers.", + "Rabbi Elazar of Bartotha said: give to Him of that which is His, for you and that which is yours is His; and thus it says with regards to David: “for everything comes from You, and from Your own hand have we given you” (I Chronicles 29:14). Rabbi Elazar preaches that one should not be stingy in giving any form of charity (tzedakah), be it charity to the poor or any of the potential donations to the Temple (or nowadays Jewish organizations) for in the end everything comes from God. According to a story in the Talmud, Rabbi Elazar did not only preach this, but fulfilled it himself. Whenever the charity collectors saw him they would run away because he would always give them everything that he owned.", + "Rabbi Jacob said: if one is studying while walking on the road and interrupts his study and says, “how fine is this tree!” [or] “how fine is this newly ploughed field!” scripture accounts it to him as if he was mortally guilty. Rabbi Jacob’s statement is one of the more memorable statements (at least in my mind) in all of Avoth. What seems to be an innocuous appreciation of nature or human agricultural work, is turned by Rabbi Jacob into a mortal sin. Studying Torah is so important in the eyes of the rabbis that one must allow no distractions, even something as innocent as a tree or field. Note that the term “mortally guilty” was also used above in mishnah four. However, there, where the person woke at night or walked alone on the road and didn’t learn Torah, he was actually “mortally guilty”. Here in our mishnah it is only “as if he was mortally guilty”. For at least this person mixed the studying of Torah with other things, as opposed to the one mentioned in mishnah four who neglected Torah study altogether." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Dostai’s teaching is a continuation of the previous mishnah. Whereas there the topic was one who interrupts his learning, here the topic is one who forgets that which he has already learned.", + "Rabbi Dostai ben Rabbi Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: whoever forgets one word of his study, scripture accounts it to him as if he were mortally guilty, as it is said, “But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that you do not forget the things that you saw with your own eyes” (Deuteronomy 4:9). One could [have inferred that this is the case] even when his study proved [too] hard for him, therefore scripture says, “that they do not fade from your mind as long as you live” (ibid.). Thus, he is not mortally guilty unless he deliberately removes them from his heart. The problem of forgetting that which one has already learned is one of the most serious problems that the rabbis encountered. Although we have the Mishnah in front of us in a book, for the rabbis who lived during this period the Mishnah and the Talmud and all of their works were oral. Therefore one had to repeat his learning frequently in order to commit it to memory. Indeed the meaning of the word “mishnah” is to teach through repetition. One who forgets his learning is in some ways worse than one who has never learned, because the one who forgets had knowledge at one point but was careless in its preservation. The second half of Rabbi Dostai’s statement is an essential reservation on the first half. One who has trouble learning, but genuinely tries his best, is not to be faulted for his forgetfulness. Rabbi Dostai recognizes that remembering the complicated oral Torah is not easy, and that not all people are built for such types of intellectual activity. Therefore he clarifies that only one who forgets out of negligence or on purpose neglects his study is mortally guilty. Perhaps I should emphasize here to those who have been learning Mishnah Yomit for some time that review of the material is as important, if not more important, than continuing to learn new material. By reviewing that which you have already learned your background in Jewish learning will increase. By analogy, think how much better you remember a movie after you have seen it two or three times. Reading through mishnayoth which you learned in the past is essential." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Hanina ben Dosa, the author of this mishnah, was famous for his righteousness and for his close connection to God, a connection so close that God directly answered his prayers. For instance, the following story is told of him in the Talmud (Berachot 34b): It happened that Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa went to study Torah with Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai. The son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai fell ill. He said to him: Hanina my son, pray for him that he may live. He put his head between his knees and prayed for him and he lived. Said Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai: If Ben Zakkai had stuck his head between his knees for the whole day, no notice would have been taken of him. Said his wife to him: Is Hanina greater than you are? He replied to her: No; but he is like a servant before the king (who has permission to visit the king at any time), and I am like a nobleman before a king (who only visits at appointed times).” For a further reference see Mishnah Berachot 5:5.\nThis mishnah clearly reflects Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa’s righteous qualities and his concern with instilling them in others.", + "Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa said: anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom is not enduring. According to Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa a person who does not fear sin before he begins learning Torah, will not have his learning endure. In other words, his fear of sin must be what leads him to study and not his study lead him to fear of sin. Rabbi Hanina is saying that the purely intellectual study of Torah, a type of study that does not have an impact on one’s character, will not last. Maimonides extrapolated this to mean that proper moral behavior will lead to proper intellectual pursuit. However, one who pursues evil and is a great sinner, but hopes that his study will bring him to better deeds, will not succeed even in his study. Others comment on this mishnah that practice of the commandments is what leads to proper belief. One does not begin practicing Judaism by learning dogma or creed. One begins by the performance of the commandments and only then follows up with learning about them.", + "He [also] used to say: anyone whose deeds exceed his wisdom, his wisdom is enduring, but anyone whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, his wisdom is not enduring. This statement is similar to the previous one, except here Rabbi Hanina talks about works and not the fear of sin. Furthermore, whereas in the previous section he talked about chronological development, here he talks about a quantitative comparison. A person whose works exceed his knowledge, will retain his knowledge. However, a person whose knowledge exceeds his works, meaning he knows what he should do but does not carry it out, will in the end not retain his learning. Note that the worst consequence in these mishnayoth is forgetfulness. The punishment is not that he will be judged unfavorably by God, but that he will not remember that which he learned. As I mentioned in the previous mishnah, this is one of the great fears that the rabbis often had. In a culture where learning is basically oral, the fear of forgetfulness is omnipresent." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of the mishnah is another statement of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, the author of the previous mishnah. The second half of the mishnah is from Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, a contemporary of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai.", + "He used to say: one with whom men are pleased, God is pleased. But anyone from whom men are displeased, God is displeased. God’s approval or disapproval with a person is dependent upon the way that person acts with other human beings. If the person helps his fellow neighbor and performs acts of charity and loving kindness, not only are people pleased with him, but God is as well. However, if a person is not kind to others, and does not speak with them in a gentle manner, God is displeased with him even if he is a great scholar. One interesting note that a commentator on the mishnah made is that the mishnah speaks of him “with whom men are pleased” and not “all men are pleased” for there is no person who is pleasing to everyone.", + "Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: morning sleep, midday wine, children’s talk and sitting in the assemblies of the ignorant put a man out of the world. According to Rabbi Dosa, a person should not sleep late in the morning, for that is a waste of time. Keep in mind that before electric light was invented people went to sleep much earlier than they do now. Sleeping late in the morning was therefore truly oversleeping and a waste of time. Drinking wine during the middle of the day is also a sign of laziness, for it will make one sluggish and less productive during his waking hours. Speaking with children, while it may be fun, diverts one from engaging in higher pursuits (note that this is not directed at those educating the children). Finally, engaging in pointless gatherings of the uneducated is not proper behavior for one who wants to lead a life of Torah. This would include something like sitting and loitering on street corners. All of these things “take a person out of the world”. This is a phrase we saw in chapter two, mishnah eleven. I understand this as meaning that they cause a person to lose the precious time he has on this earth, by wasting it with meaningless activity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Elazar of our mishnah was from Modiin (which is where I live!), the ancestral home of the Hasmoneans (Maccabees). This is his only appearance in the mishnah but he appears many times in aggadic texts in the Talmud. According to legend he was Bar Kochba’s uncle but when Bar Kochba suspected that he wanted to surrender, Bar Kochba assassinated him.", + "Rabbi Elazar of Modiin said: one who profanes sacred things, and one who despises the festivals, and one who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public, and one who annuls the covenant of our father Abraham, may he rest in peace, and he who is contemptuous towards the Torah, even though he has to his credit [knowledge of the] Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come. Rabbi Elazar lists five sins that cause a person to lose a share in the world to come (see the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin). One who profanes sacred things: this refers to one who causes sacrificial animals to become impure, uses them for his own benefit, damages them or takes them out of the Temple precints. His disrespect for them is a sign that he does not believe in their validity. In other words he does not believe in the validity of the Temple and its worship service. One who despises the festivals: this refers to one who does work on the intermediate days of the festivals. Although it is permitted to do some types of work on these days, in situations where cessation of work will not cause a financial loss, work is generally forbidden (there are exceptions). One who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public: a well-known aggadah teaches that one who causes his fellow to be embarrassed, it is as if he had killed him. The rush of blood to his face is similar to bloodshed. One who annuls the covenant of our father Abraham: this refers to one who does not circumcise his son or one who uncircumcises himself (this was a surgical procedure known in the ancient world, and mentioned many times in the Talmud, despite how painful it must have been). This person is making a statement that he does not want to be part of the Jewish people, for circumcision is the most basic sign that identifies a person as a Jew (at least it was when most people did not circumcise, and especially in the Greek world where circumcision was abhorred.) He who is contemptuous towards the Torah: this refers to one who ascribes disgraceful or improper meanings to the contents of the Torah. The Meiri notes that Rabbi Elazar does not speak of transgressions that come about as a result of an overpowering evil impulse, such as eating forbidden foods or performing forbidden acts. Many of these are connected somehow to heresy (the possible exception being embarrassing one’s friend in public).", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why is one who is not scrupulous in his observance of the intermediate days of the festival sanctioned so harshly? In other words, why does Rabbi Elazar mention this transgression as opposed to one who breaks the Sabbath, for instance?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Ishmael was a regular disputant with Rabbi Akiva. His teachers were Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua. From Rabbi Nahuniah haKaneh he learned his midrashic methodology, for which he later became famous. His midrashic formula are still recited everyday by those who follow a traditional siddur (prayer book).\nIn our mishnah Rabbi Ishmael discusses how one should act with other people of different social strata.", + "Rabbi Ishmael said: be suppliant to a superior, submissive under compulsory service, and receive every man happily. Be suppliant to a superior: According to Rabbi Ishmael, when one stands in the presence of a superior, he should consider himself inferior and serve him as he requests. Submissive under compulsory service: If a person is called up by the government for compulsory service he should not resist. Note that I have translated this clause according to the explanation of Albeck. The word for “compulsory service”, tishchoret, is an unusual word and is interpreted differently by others. Some interpret the word to mean the young. The interpretation is that when with young people, although one does not need to be suppliant with them, one should still treat them with respect. Receive every man happily: This is similar to Shammai’s statement above in 1:15." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Akiva said:
Merriment and frivolity accustom one to sexual licentiousness;
Tradition is a fence to the Torah;
Tithes a fence to wealth,
Vows a fence to abstinence;
A fence to wisdom is silence.
Rabbi Akiva is arguably the most famous and influential rabbi in Jewish history. He was certainly the most influential rabbi in the mishnaic period. The Mishnah is based largely on his teachings, although most of them are attributed to his students.
There are numerous legends about Rabbi Akiva, perhaps the most famous one of them being that he did not begin to learn Torah until he was 40 years old. He died the death of a martyer when the Romans used a steel comb to flay his skin.
Merriment and frivolity accustom one to sexual licentiousness: one who acts with frivolity and is merry in the company of the opposite sex will eventually have sex with those with whom sex is prohibited (such as adultery).
Tradition is a fence to the Torah: according to most commentators this refers to the comments which were added to the text of Biblical books, and are meant to explain how the words are sometimes read in a manner different from the way that they are spelled. These comments act as a fence in the sense that they prevent misinterpretation of the Bible. The reason that they are called “tradition” is that they were preserved as traditions that were added to the Biblical text itself. [The Hebrew word for tradition is “masoret”. Those who eventually put down in writing all of these marks and fixed the “correct” readings for the Bible were called the Masoretes.]
Another explanation of this statement is that “tradition” refers to the Oral Torah, which was transmitted from generation to generation to teach us the correct interpretation of the Bible.
Tithes a fence to wealth: by properly tithing one’s produce one can ensure that he will grow rich. By extension, according to the rabbis, one who wanted to ensure that he would prosper should give more charity.
Vows a fence to abstinence: by taking vows a person can prevent himself from engaging in forbidden sex. If a person’s desires are strong, and he feels that he cannot overcome them, he may be better able to motivate himself and keep himself from sinning if he takes a vow not to do what is forbidden. In an interesting analogy, I know people who keep kosher who have no problem doing so but have terrible trouble sticking to their weight-loss diets. Sometimes, in order to more motivate themselves not to eat heavy dairy deserts they will eat a small piece of meat, thereby making it forbidden to eat milk afterwards. This is like the person who can only control his sexual desires if he takes a vow not to act upon them.
A fence to wisdom is silence: as we saw above in mishnah 1:17, one who tends to keep quiet will always at least seem wiser than one who can’t keep quiet. Also by being silent a person can actually hear what others are saying and thereby learn from them. According to a rabbinic teaching, this is why people were created with two ears and only one mouth, so that they could listen twice as much as they speak." + ], + [ + "He used to say: Beloved is man for he was created in the image [of God]. Especially beloved is he for it was made known to him that he had been created in the image [of God], as it is said: “for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6).
Beloved are Israel in that they were called children to the All-Present. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that they are called children of the All-Present, as it is said: “your are children to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1).
Beloved are Israel in that a precious vessel was given to them. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that the desirable instrument, with which the world had been created, was given to them, as it is said: “for I give you good instruction; forsake not my teaching” (Proverbs 4:2).
Mishnah fourteen contains another teaching of Rabbi Akiva.
This mishnah contains one of the clearest statements in rabbinic literature about the special status that the Jewish people enjoy as the chosen people. The mishnah begins with a general statement about humanity, that all of humanity was created in the image of God and that God actually tells human beings that they are created in His image. In essence, this may be one of the Bible’s clearest statements as to the nature of God; man was created in His image, and perhaps we could say that by seeing and understanding other human beings we actually see a reflection of God. [Although this may be obvious I use the word man in these situations to mean humankind and not to in any way exclude women]. God especially manifests His love by telling humanity that they were created in His image.
Rabbi Akiva now jumps from discussing all of humanity to discussing the particular relationship that God has with the Jewish people. This relationship, according to Rabbi Akiva, is not covenantal, that is based upon the Jews performance of the commandments. Rather it is genealogical. Jews are children of God, and just as a parent’s love for his/her child is (at least supposed to be) unconditional, so too is God’s love for Israel. Furthermore, this relationship cannot be severed. Imagine what a comforting image this must have been to those living through the tumultuous times in which Rabbi Akiva lived.
We could perhaps interpret the next phrase in the same way. The vessel under discussion is the Torah, which according to the rabbinic interpretation of Proverbs, was the blueprints through which the world was created. Just as the previous two signs of love in this mishnah were unconditional and irrevocable, so too is the gift of the Torah. Furthermore, according to Rabbi Akiva, the Torah was given to Israel and not as a gift to the entire world.
We should note that this ideology expressed by Rabbi Akiva was not the only ideology that existed in the time of the Mishnah. There were other sages who believed that God’s relationship to Israel was based conditionally upon Israel’s performance of the commandments and that the Torah belongs to all of humanity and not just Israel. However, the dominant trend amongst the rabbis was certainly that represented by R. Akiva." + ], + [ + "Everything is foreseen yet freedom of choice is granted,
And the world is judged with goodness;
And everything is in accordance with the preponderance of works.
This is another statement by Rabbi Akiva. Note how in this extremely short mishnah, Rabbi Akiva succeeds in teaching some of the most basic theological principles of Judaism. It is testimony not only to the depth of Rabbi Akiva in particular and the Mishnah in general, but to their poetic abilities as well.
Everything is foreseen yet freedom of choice is granted: this is one of the most deliciously paradoxical statement of the rabbis. It captures in just four (Hebrew) words, much of the spirit of Jewish thought. Since God is all-powerful, God must know everything, including the future. However, our actions were totally due to fate, we would not be morally responsible for our actions. In order to hold ourselves responsible for what we do, we must assume that we have free choice. Judaism is therefore a religion based on these two beliefs: God is the all-powerful, master of the universe and yet human beings have moral responsibility.
And the world is judged with goodness: this is a follow-up statement to the previous one. The freedom of choice granted to human beings is in some senses frightening. If human beings have choice then they are responsible for their choices, and at the end of the day, most of us don’t stack up to what we should be. Therefore Rabbi Akiva assures us that God judges with goodness, meaning mercifully. He allows repentance to remedy our submissions to the evil inclination.
And everything is in accordance with the preponderance of works: a person is judged based on the majority of that person’s actions. This may also relate to the previous statement. Although God judges mercifully, one should not think that one’s performance of the commandments are not of consequence. God judges a person not based on any single deed, but on a character that has been built up throughout his lifetime. People who have built up a lifetime of good deeds will be justly rewarded.
Another interpretation of this last statement is that it does not have to do with God’s judgement. Rather it teaches that a person’s character is developed throughout his lifetime by the performance of works. For example, one charitable gift does not make a person have a charitable nature. However, a person who gives frequently will be described and act as a generally charitable person. Note that in Judaism a person is mostly judged based on his actions; he is what he does. While belief is important, it is not the essential aspect of a person’s character. Furthermore, character is shaped through action." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is another statement by Rabbi Akiva.", + "He used to say: everything is given against a pledge, and a net is spread out over all the living; the store is open and the storekeeper allows credit, but the ledger is open and the hand writes, and whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow; but the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent, and they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment, and everything is prepared for the banquet. There are many metaphors employed in this mishnah and we shall attempt to make sense of them one by one. Everything is given against a pledge: everything that a person receives in this world is given against a pledge that may be exacted from him in the future. This means that everyone will have to pay eventually for their sins. A net is spread out over all the living: there is no escaping from God’s power. God sees all of the deeds of man and will eventually exact payment for them. The store is open and the storekeeper allows credit: a person can take what he wishes in this world, and even take it temporarily without paying. God does not punish sinners immediately, but rather extends them credit, hoping that eventually they will return to righteousness. But the ledger is open and the hand writes: although God is merciful, this is not the same as forgetting or ignoring man’s deeds. All of man’s deeds are written in a book; eventually he will be held accountable for them. And whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow: a person has free choice and may act wrongly today, hoping that in the future he will act better and be able to overcome the things he did wrong. But the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent: although a person may borrow, he must be careful for he does not know when his day of judgement will arrive. The “collectors” can come any day, and when they do they will collect whether he is ready to pay back his debt or not. Therefore a person should be careful to make sure he is never in “overdraft”. And they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment: in the end God’s judgement is righteous and fitting, even if humans cannot see it in this world. And everything is prepared for the banquet: in the world to come each person will eat the meal that he has prepared for himself in this world.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Rabbi Akiva use the metaphor of the world as a shop and God as the shopkeeper?
• What is the one central message of this mishnah?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Elazar ben Azariah was one of the rabbis at Yavneh, after the destruction of the Temple. When Rabban Gamaliel was deposed as patriarch, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah took his place.\nIn this mishnah there are really two totally separate mishnayoth. I have explained and numbered each individually." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Eliezer Hisma was a student of Rabban Gamaliel and of Rabbi Joshua. Legend has it that he was a great mathematician.", + "Rabbi Eliezer Hisma said: the laws of mixed bird offerings and the key to the calculations of menstruation days these, these are the body of the halakhah. The calculation of the equinoxes and gematria are the desserts of wisdom. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma states that there are two different types of laws that are “the body of the halakhah”. This means that they are essential halakhot, paradigmatic of the Oral Torah. The “laws of mixed bird offerings” refers to cases where one type of bird offering accidentally became mixed up with a different type. For instance an obligatory offering became mixed up (perhaps in a net or in a dovecote) with a voluntary offering; or a sin offering became mixed up with a whole burnt offering. There is a whole tractate entitled Kinnim that deals with these situations. The second type of halakhah are the calculations of menstruation days. This refers to calculating how many days there are between a woman’s cycle. It is important to figure this out so that women can distinguish between menstrual bleeding and other types of bleeding. Much of tractate Niddah is devoted to this subject. There are two types of laws that are only “desserts of wisdom”. That is they help learning, but they are not essential. One is astronomy, that is the calculation of the seasons. The other is gematria, which refers to the adding up of numbers (obviously this is from the same word as geometry). According to the Meiri, Rabbi Eliezer Hisma wants to guide a person in his course of study. The first thing a person should learn is Torah. The two areas of Torah learning that he mentions are representative of some of the most difficult subjects in the learning of Torah. A person should first learn Torah so well, that he is able to master even tractates Kinnim and Niddah. Afterwards, when he has completely mastered even in these subjects, a person should turn his attention to science and mathematics, represented here by astronomy and geometry." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction Ben Zoma’s full name was Shimon ben Zoma, and he is never called by the title Rabbi, although he was clearly quite learned. He is famous for being one of the four rabbis who entered into the “Pardes”, the mythical orchard, which may refer to some type of esoteric theological speculation. The experience was too much for him and he went crazy (one died, another became an apostate and one, Rabbi Akiva, became one of the great sages of Jewish history). In this mishnah Ben Zoma teaches the definitions of wise, mighty, rich and honored. In my humble opinion the advice that he gives is amongst the best and most useful advice ever given.", + "Ben Zoma said:
Who is wise? He who learns from every man, as it is said: “From all who taught me have I gained understanding” (Psalms 119:99). A person who is ready to learn from anyone will not reject the things he learns from other people just because they do not have high social or economic standing. For instance, a good teacher will not reject a suggested explanation from a student just because the student is younger and less experienced. A truly wise person is always looking for ways to expand his knowledge. This is true even of one who does not know a lot. If he is always looking for ways to learn, then he is truly wise.", + "Who is mighty? He who subdues his [evil] inclination, as it is said: “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that rules his spirit than he that takes a city” (Proverbs 16:32. This one statement may sum up 2000 years of Jewish experience. The Jewish ideal of strength and might is not the same as the Greek ideal, which is that of the mighty warrior and champion athlete. A person of great physical strength who performs amazing deeds is not necessarily mighty. The most difficult thing to conquer is not others or even great armies, but our own inclination to do wrong things. One who has control over this inclination is truly mighty. This is why for thousands of years Jews did not look to soldiers as their heroes, but to rabbis and other thinkers. Strength in Judaism is one of character and not one of might. After all the strongest person in the world is no stronger than a weak gorilla or bear. It is only through our ability to curb our appetites and control our instincts that human beings can differ themselves from animals.", + "Who is rich? He who rejoices in his lot, as it is said: “You shall enjoy the fruit of your labors, you shall be happy and you shall prosper” (Psalms 128:2) “You shall be happy” in this world, “and you shall prosper” in the world to come. This saying can be observed every day in newspapers and magazines. The rich and famous are not called the rich and happy for good reasons. Wealth is not measured by how much money one has in the bank account, but by how satisfied one is with what one has. This is not to say that people should not work hard in order to earn more money, or that people should renounce their material wealth and live lives of poverty. Such is not a typically Jewish ideal. However, along with working hard, a person who wants to be happy must be satisfied with what he has. In the middle of this section is a brief interpolated midrash on the verse from Psalms. The verse seems superfluous for it would have been enough to state either that “you will be happy” or “and you shall prosper”. The repetition teaches, according to the mishnah, that the verse refers to happiness and prosperity in both this world and the next.", + "Who is he that is honored? He who honors his fellow human beings as it is said: “For I honor those that honor Me, but those who spurn Me shall be dishonored” (I Samuel 2:30). One who honors others is really bringing honor to himself. Note that the prooftext from I Samuel is said by God, and not by a human being. However, one could argue that all the more so this is true with regard to humans. If God honors those who honor Him, even though we were only created to honor Him, all the more so will humans honor those who honor them." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nBen Azzai’s full name was Shimon ben Azzai, and like Ben Zoma of the previous mishnah, he was never called Rabbi. He is famous for his utter devotion to Torah, a devotion so great that he never married (to the disdain of the other rabbis). Like Ben Zoma, he also entered the “pardes” the orchard of metaphysical speculation and died as a result.", + "Ben Azzai said:
Be quick in performing a minor commandment as in the case of a major one, and flee from transgression; A person should be as careful in the performance of what seem in his eyes to be minor commandments as he is in the performance of what seem in his eyes to be major commandments. Likewise a person should distance himself from transgression, even a transgression that does not seem to be so serious.", + "For one commandment leads to another commandment, and transgression leads to another transgression; This is the first reason for why one should be scrupulous in the performance of even minor commandments. The performance of one commandment awakens a person to perform other commandments as well. I think we can compare this statement to exercise and healthy eating habits. A person who begins to physically exercise his body will naturally want to exercise more, to eat healthy and to stop bad habits such as smoking. One good thing he does for his body will lead to another good thing. So too with the negative side. If a person does not exercise, chances are he will also eat poorly. The worse he eats the less he will want to exercise, and he will deteriorate in a cycle. So too with commandments, the spiritual equivalent to exercise. The more a person performs the commandments, the more spiritually awake his soul will be and the more he will want to perform more commandments. However, the more a person transgresses, the more spiritually dead he will progressively continue to be, and he will continue in a downward spiral of sin.", + "For the reward for performing a commandment is another commandment and the reward for committing a transgression is a transgression. This is an extremely important statement. Throughout Avoth we have learned that the reward for the performance of commandments and the punishment for sin are meted out in the world to come. This is basically saying that one cannot expect to see divine justice in this world. However, Ben Azzai points out that there is one type of reward which is received in this world. A person who performs a commandment is rewarded by God by having the next commandment become easier for him. I think this means that one who takes the initiative to begin to lead a good and righteous life, will be rewarded by being able to continue to live a good and righteous life. In essence, the performance of the commandments is a reward in and of itself. The same is true with the opposite. One who sins will be punished by performing another sin. Once he is accustomed to sinning, his life will deteriorate into a life full of sin. The punishment is then, in essence, a direct result of what he does, in other words his sinful life is a punishment for his sins. Perhaps this is somewhat like the English saying, “you made your bed, now sleep in it”.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the relationship of section two to section three?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah three contains another teaching of Ben Azzai.", + "He used to say: do not despise any man, and do not discriminate against anything, for there is no man that has not his hour, and there is no thing that has not its place. The central idea in the first part of Ben Azzai’s statement is that every person has worth, just by the mere fact that humans were created in the image of God. Indeed, whereas Rabbi Akiva says that the foundation of all ethics is “love your neighbor as yourself” according to Ben Azzai the foundation of ethics is that man was created in God’s image. Since all humans are created in the image of God, a person should despise no man, for doing so would be like despising God. Furthermore, even someone who seems to be worthless and a total detriment to society has his hour and his place. One never knows when that hour or place might come. The second part of the statement teaches that one should one discriminate against things, thinking that they are useless. This line could be read as an environmental message. A person should not look at a piece of nature, for instance a fly or mosquito and wish that it had never been created. For each piece of God’s creation has it’s place and what may look to us as unnecessary actually fulfills a function in nature. A different interpretation of this last section, “do not discriminate against anything… and there is no thing that has not its place”, is that a person should not treat lightly any of his material belongings. What you may think is actually useless could be used by someone else or may even someday be useful to you. This too can be read environmentally, urging people to not lightly cast away things that have outgrown their use but to think about how they might be further used in the future.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
What is the difference between Rabbi Akiva’s emphasis on “love your neighbor as yourself” and Ben Azzai’s emphasis on “in the image of God man was created”?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are actually two mishnayoth in mishnah four. The first mishnah is from Rabbi Levitas of Yavneh, who does not appear anywhere else in the mishnah.\nRabbi Yohanan ben Berokah was a student of Rabbi Joshua.", + "Rabbi Levitas a man of Yavneh said: be exceeding humble spirit, for the end of man is the worm. Usually a person should take the middle path and not be “exceedingly” anything. However, with humility one can be even exceedingly humble. For in the end all men end up in the ground, serving as food for worms.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah said: whoever profanes the name of heaven in secret, he shall be punished in the open. Unwittingly or wittingly, it is all one in profaning the name. This refers to a person who commits a transgression in private which had he done it in public would have desecrated God’s name. For instance, if he is a sage or other type of communal leader, if people would have seen him sinning, they would have learned from him. Such a person will be punished in the open so that everyone can see his hypocrisy. Since profaning God’s name is such a great crime, one that can lead to other people committing even more sins, the punishment is meted out even to one who unwittingly profanes God’s name. Maimonides points out that this is not to say that a person who unwittingly profanes God’s name receives the same punishment as one who does so wittingly. This would be inherently unfair. Rather what the mishnah teaches is that each gets their punishment in public." + ], + [ + "Introduction part one Since this mishnah is really two mishnayoth, I will treat each piece separately. Rabbi Ishmael of this mishnah is the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka. He was a student of those rabbis who founded the yeshiva in Yavneh after the destruction of the Temple. Rabbi Ishmael his son said: He who learns in order to teach, it is granted to him to study and to teach; But he who learns in order to practice, it is granted to him to learn and to teach and to practice. Rabbi Zadok said: do not make them a crown for self-exaltation, nor a spade with which to dig. So to Hillel used to say, “And he that puts the crown to his own use shall perish.” Thus you have learned, anyone who derives worldly benefit from the words of the Torah, removes his life from the world. Although one who learns Torah only in order to teach is not really learning for “the sake of heaven”, he is nevertheless rewarded by God, by having the opportunity to learn and teach. However, one who learns in order to practice, which is an even higher commitment, is rewarded by even having the opportunity to practice the commandments. Note again that this mishnah considers the performance of the commandments a reward unto those who perform them. In other words, the one who learns, teaches and studies is rewarded not with material wealth or with other promises, but with the opportunity to continue to perform these commandments. He will not be persecuted by the ruling authorities, which would and did prevent many people from learning Torah throughout Jewish history. Introduction section two Rabbi Zadok lived before the destruction of the Temple. According to legend he fasted for forty years before the destruction, praying that the Temple should not be destroyed. When Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai fled Jerusalem and was granted three requests by Vespasion, the Roman general turned emperor, one of them was that a doctor be provided for Rabbi Zadok. The teaching of Rabbi Zadok is connected thematically to Rabbi Ishmael’s teaching from the previous mishnah. Rabbi Zadok’s first warning is clear. One should not use Torah learning as means for self-aggrandizement. Torah should be studied for the sake of God, and in the end honor will come of itself. To use the Torah as a spade means to use the Torah for a means to earn a living. The Talmud teaches that just as God taught the children of Israel for free, so too should you teach for free. We should note that although this was an ideal that Torah should be taught for free it has rarely been followed throughout Jewish history. There were certain exemptions sought for this rule, and in practice, due largely to the exigencies of history, rabbis were often paid for their work. Furthermore, Torah study and teaching is difficult enough that it often requires one to devote full time to its pursuit. However, despite this, Maimonides excoriates those who earn a living teaching Torah. He writes, “There is no basis at all for this [for earning a living teaching Torah] in the Torah.” According to Maimonides the sages of the Talmud did not accept charity from their neighbors and were content to live a life of poverty, so devoted were they to Torah. “They never permitted themselves this begging people for money. They saw, indeed, that this taking founds would be profaning the Name of God in the sight of the masses because then people come to regard the study of Torah as no more than another occupation by means of which a man makes a living.” Other medieval scholars vehemently disagreed with Maimonides and stated that Torah scholars who earn a living are not guilty of any transgression. Speaking personally, I believe that Maimonides rule is somewhat impractical, and would potentially lead to a deterioration in the study of Torah. If people could not feed their families while studying Torah, they would not be able to study, nor teach. However, I think that the spirit of his warning should remain in the ears of those who engage in the study of Torah or work as rabbis. While it may be necessary to earn a living doing so, the primary motivation cannot be profit. A rabbi who turns his training into a way to earn a buck and does not do so “for the sake of Heaven” seems to me to have broken this transgression. In the second half of this mishnah, Rabbi Zadok quotes Hillel. This quote is taken from chapter one, mishnah thirteen. This is the first time we have seen in our mishnah one rabbi quoting another. Rabbi Zadok treats Hillel’s saying almost as if it were a prooftext from the Bible. By Rabbi Zadok’s time, Hillel’s statements had become “sanctified” and were good enough to prove things. This phenomenon is very important as we trace the development of Torah study and rabbinic literary compositions. According to Rabbi Zadok, one who receives financial compensation in this world for teaching Torah, will not get a reward in the world to come. It is as if he uses up the reward which he deserves." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Yose was one of Rabbi Akiva’s students. He was one of Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s teachers, and is one of more prevalent sages in the Mishnah.", + "Rabbi Yose said: whoever honors the Torah is himself honored by others, and whoever dishonors the Torah is himself dishonored by others. There are several explanations as to what it means to “honor the Torah”. One is that to honor the Torah is not to place a Torah scroll on a bed or a bench, or a book of the Torah (the Pentateuch) on a Torah scroll, or a volume of the “Prophets” or “Writings” on a volume of the Torah, or a volume of the Talmud on top of any book of the Bible. These are all physical ways of honoring the Torah. Others explain that honoring the Torah means to honor its commandments and to perform them eagerly. Still others explain that honoring the Torah means acting in a moral manner when performing the commandments." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Ishmael was the oldest of Rabbi Yose’s five sons. Most of his statements in the Talmud were stated in the name of his father. He lived in Tzippori (in the Galilee).\nIn this mishnah and in the next, Rabbi Ishmael discusses judgement. We should note that in the time of the Mishnah, being a judge was not a profession. Jewish courts were not fixed institutions, such as an independent state might have. While there may have been rabbis to whom people knew they could turn, this is not the same as an established court system. Furthermore, in some cases, anyone could act as a judge, even those without any special qualifications. A person could potentially gather three people and ask them to render a decision. (See Sanhedrin, chapter three). In such a system (or lack of system) it becomes especially important to give instructions to people when they should or should not judge. This is the subject of the next two mishnayoth.", + "Rabbi Ishmael his son said: he who refrains himself from judgment, rids himself of enmity, robbery and false swearing; But he whose heart is presumptuous in giving a judicial decision, is foolish, wicked and arrogant. Seemingly, Rabbi Ishmael is asking all people to avoid acting as judges, saying that those who don’t judge avoid many pitfalls. They don’t make enemies out of those whom they find guilty, they don’t misjudge, thereby in essence robbing from the falsely convicted, and they don’t make people swear when they shouldn’t have to. However, the second half of Rabbi Ishmael’s statement seems to imply that the first half is not referring to normal, qualified judges. A good judge is not “presumptuous”, in other words he carefully weighs his decisions, and makes sure he knows all of the facts and all of the laws before he renders his decision. One who does not do so is foolish, for he thinks that he is smarter than he really is, wicked, for he recklessly renders decisions, and arrogant, for he assumes that he will not make a mistake. According to Rabbi Ishmael it is the presumptuous, untrained judge that is problematic. Rabbi Ishmael’s statement should be considered a warning not to judge when one is not qualified. It is not a warning that even the qualified should refrain from judgement. Counterbalancing this tradition, there is an assumption that those who are trained have a duty to judge others, for if they did not, society would not be able to enforce its laws. Other commentators point out that this mishnah only applies in a case where there are other, more qualified judges. But if there is no one else more qualified, each person has an obligation to judge as best as he can. Nevertheless, he must render his decision with fear and with the proper respect for the seriousness of his job." + ], + [ + "He used to say: judge not alone, for none may judge alone save one. And say not “accept my view”, for they are free but not you. According to the rabbis, the Torah does permit an expert judge to judge alone. Nevertheless, Rabbi Ishmael warns judges not to do so, for only God can truly judge alone. Human beings, even those who are expert in law, should set up courts of three, as is described in Sanhedrin, chapter three. When this expert judge is sitting with two others, and they disagree with his decision, he may not say to them “accept my view”. He may not use force, even verbal force, to get them to acquiesce to his own view. “For they are free but not you”, means that since they are the majority, they may compel you to accept their, majority decision. You, even though an expert, cannot compel them to accept your, minority decision." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Jonathan was a student of Rabbi Ishmael’s. This is his only statement in the mishnah. These two facts go hand in hand. Rabbi Ishmael was the founder of a bet midrash (study house) that differed from the bet midrash founded by Rabbi Akiva. The Mishnah is the product of Rabbi Akiva’s bet midrash, and therefore sages who were from Rabbi Ishmael’s bet midrash rarely have their statements included in it.", + "Rabbi Jonathan said: whoever fulfills the Torah out of a state of poverty, his end will be to fulfill it out of a state of wealth; And whoever discards The torah out of a state of wealth, his end will be to discard it out of a state of poverty. One who studies Torah despite his poverty and despite the fact that he could earn more money if he worked more, will eventually be rewarded with wealth. In contrast, one who neglects the study of Torah because he is so busy trying to earn more money, will eventually lose his wealth. Some commentators on the mishnah raise a difficulty. Empirically speaking one can observe that this mishnah simply is not true. We often see people who study Torah and yet do not become rich and we see people who do not study Torah and do not grow poor. These commentators therefore interpret it to mean that anyone who studies the Torah out of poverty will continue to keep the Torah even if he becomes wealthy; and anyone who does not study the Torah while wealthy will not study it even if he becomes poor. In other words we should not assume that his Torah study, or lack thereof, is a result of his economic status. Another interpretation is that wealth is not to be taken literally. Rather it refers to the type of wealth mentioned in mishnah one of this chapter, that is being satisfied with one’s portion in life. One who is poor but studies Torah will be satisfied with his life, and thereby will feel himself to be wealthy." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Meir was one of the great students of Rabbi Akiva, and according to the Talmud, the anonymous sayings in the mishnah were really stated by Rabbi Meir. In other words, when Rabbi Judah Hanasi composed the mishnah, he used Rabbi Meir’s mishnah as the base.", + "Rabbi Meir said:
Engage but little in business, and busy yourself with the Torah. A story is told of Rabbi Meir, that he earned three sela’s a week. One he would spend on food, one on clothing and one he would give to support other scholars. When asked why he was leaving nothing for his children as an inheritance, he replied that if they are righteous, they will merit their own living and if they are wicked, why should he leave his belongings to God’s enemies. This story illustrates well Rabbi Meir’s faith that God would help provide for those who learn Torah. Note that Rabbi Meir works for a living; he does not himself accept charity nor solely depend on God’s provenance. Furthermore he recognizes that although he can earn a living while studying, others are not so successful. God’s aid is not forthcoming to all and therefore he gives charity. While he has faith that in the end God will provide, his faith does not prevent him from taking action.", + "Be of humble spirit before all men. A person should act humbly in front of all other human beings, not just those who are superior to him. This is also true (or perhaps especially true) for those who are learned in Torah. Although they are more learned than others, they must act humbly in front of all people.", + "If you have neglected the Torah, you shall have many who bring you to neglect it, but if you have labored at the study of Torah, there is much reward to give unto you If a person neglects the study of Torah, there will continuously be things that further prevent him from studying Torah. This can easily be observed. When someone postpones doing something, be it study, exercise or any activity that can be postponed, it only gets more and more difficult to find the time to engage in that activity. However, if one does start to study, Rabbi Meir has faith that he will receive a rich reward. The commentators understand this to mean that God himself will reward such a person." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nSince this mishnah contains two mishnayoth from two different sages, we will treat each one individually.\nThere were two Tannaitic sages by the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. The first lived during the time of the Second Temple, and the second was a student of Rabbi Akiva. This mishnah is from the latter sage." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Elazar was another student of Rabbi Akiva’s. In other places in the mishnah he is referred to as Rabbi Elazar without the name of his father, Shammua.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said: let the honor of your student be as dear to you as your own, and the honor of your colleague as the reverence for your teacher, and the reverence for your teacher as the reverence of heaven. Rabbi Elazar’s statement ranks the honor that a person would customarily give to others, and says that in each case one should give even more honor than is expected. A teacher should respect students as if they were teachers themselves. This is learned from Moses’s conduct, for in Exodus 17:9 he says to Joshua, “choose for us men”. He does not say, “choose for me” but rather “us” even though he is clearly Joshua’s superior. Similarly, one should treat a colleague with the same reverence one would give a teacher, who is one step higher. This is learned from Aaron who says to Moses in Numbers 12:11, “O my lord”, even though he was Moses’s brother. Finally, a person should have as much reverence for one’s teacher as he has for God. This is learned from Joshua in Numbers 11:28, who tells Moses to execute Eldad and Medad, who Joshua believes are rebelling against Moses. Joshua considers their rebellion against Moses to be like a rebellion against God, because Moses is Joshua’s teacher." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Judah, the author of the first saying in this mishnah, was the son of Rabbi Ilai, and was a student of Rabbi Akiva and of Rabbi Tarphon. Rabbi Judah is the most prevalent sage in the entire Mishnah. When he disputes with Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Shimon (two sages with whom he often disputes) the halakhah is always according to his view.\nRabbi Shimon is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the famous sage who according to legend wrote the Zohar. He is also a student of Rabbi Akiva’s.", + "Rabbi Judah said: be careful in study, for an error in study counts as deliberate sin. The study of Torah, of which Rabbi Judah speaks, is one in which the one studying compares different traditions and strives to learn the matter deeply, its reasons and its details, all in order to know what the correct halakhah should be. One who errs in this type of learning, and therefore makes an incorrect halakhic ruling, is considered as if he did so intentionally, and therefore has intentionally caused someone else to sin. A rabbi must be very careful in his rulings, and carelessness is considered to be as sinful as intentionally making a mistake. Note that in this mishnah we can detect the tension between tradition and innovation. The “study of Torah” referred to does not mean the mere recitation of the learning one has received. The “study of Torah” means delving into Torah to come up with rulings that have not been made before. One who passes down his tradition word for word as it was received does not have to worry as much, because he is not adding anything of his own. However, one who adds his own reasoning, must be extremely cautious, and if he carelessly makes an error, it is counted against him as if he did so intentionally. While innovation, according to Rabbi Judah, is important and possible, it requires more caution than mere transmission.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: There are three crowns: the crown of torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty, but the crown of a good name supersedes them all. There are three crowns that the Torah teaches us to respect: 1) one who has learned Torah; 2) the priest; 3) the King. These are representative of the three types of leadership in Israel, the sage/prophet, the priest who is connected to the Temple and the king who governs the people. However, Rabbi Shimon says there is a crown greater than all three, and that is the crown of a good name. This can be proven by the fact that if any of these three, the sage, the priest or the king behaves badly by sinning and thereby gains an ill reputation, we are no longer obligated to respect that person. This is a statement of the responsibility of leaders. A leadership position in society does not automatically entitle one to respect, without any connection to actions. A leader who wishes to be respected must earn that respect by his deeds. An interesting commentary on the three crowns is that they are representative of three types of qualities that leaders often have: the king is wealthy, the priest is from an aristocratic family, and the sage is intelligent. In all of these cases the crown is meaningless, without the crown of a good name." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nSome believe that name of Nehorai is a nickname for either Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Nehemiah or Rabbi Elazar ben Arach. The word Nehorai means “full of light” in Aramaic. Others believe that Nehorai is the name of a tanna who was a student of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Tarphon.", + "Rabbi Nehorai said: go as a [voluntary] exile to a place of Torah and say not that it will come after you, for [it is] your fellow [student]s who will make it permanent in your hand and “and lean not upon your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). Rabbi Nehorai teaches that one should leave one’s home and search out someone with whom to learn Torah for one cannot learn Torah on one’s own. Torah study is best done in the company of others, with a “hevruta” and with a teacher. Remember that since the Oral Torah was not yet written down at this point, learning Torah on one’s own was next to impossible. If one was lucky and wealthy he might have had a copy of the written Torah, but the Mishnah and all of the other compositions of the rabbis did not yet exist and even when they were compiled, they were learned orally. Although in our day we have books and one can learn Torah without a hevruta, it is still far more effective to learn with a hevruta. Furthermore, one cannot really begin to learn Talmud without a teacher, someone to explain how to read the Talmud and understand what the arguments mean. Rabbi Nehorai emphasizes that a person should not wait for a teacher to come to him. He must go out and even go into exile in order to find a teacher. Perhaps in the word “exile” Rabbi Nehorai hints that one may even leave the land of Israel to go study Torah. In general exile from the land of Israel was seen as a punishment and it was forbidden for a person to initiate such an exile. However, if exile is for the sake of Torah, it is permitted, and even under some circumstances, encouraged." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAgain, this mishnah is really two mishnayoth and we will treat each separately.\nRabbi Yannai is probably the father of Rabbi Dostai who was mentioned above in mishnah 3:8. This is his only statement in the mishnah", + "Rabbi Yannai said: it is not in our hands [to explain the reason] either of the security of the wicked, or even of the afflictions of the righteous. Rabbi Mathia ben Harash said: Upon meeting people, be the first to extend greetings; And be a tail unto lions, and not a head unto foxes. Although we have seen that on several occasions tractate Avoth attempts to answer the question why do the wicked sometimes prosper and the righteous suffer, Rabbi Yannai admits that humans do not truly know the answer to this question. Usually the rabbis say that the wicked receive whatever reward is due to them in this world, so that in the world to come they will only suffer, whereas the opposite is true of the righteous. However, Rabbi Yannai evidently finds this answer, or others of its nature, not to be satisfactory. We should note that the translation above reflects one explanation of this mishnah. The words “to explain the reason” do not actually appear in the mishnah itself. Without them, others explain that Rabbi Yannai is making a statement about life without a Temple in Jerusalem. In this time, we don’t have the security that the wicked often enjoy, nor do we have the afflictions that the righteous suffer. In other words, Rabbi Yannai considers his generation to be neither fully wicked, nor totally righteous. Upon meeting people, be the first to extend greetings: When relating to others we should always try to be the first to wish them well, even, and perhaps especially, to those that we consider to be below our social status. One of the praises that was told of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was that no one ever greeted him before he greeted them. And be a tail unto lions, and not a head unto foxes: It is better to attach oneself to a group of people who are above you, in wisdom and goodness and to be accounted the least among them, then to be the head of a group of people who are below you in wisdom or goodness, and to be the first among them. A person should not measure himself against a lower group of people and thereby make himself feel better about his standing. Rather he should strive to join a higher group, one where he can grow more. We could apply this saying to many situations. For example an athlete will grow more when he plays with other players better than he, than if he were to play with those of lesser talent. Midrash Shmuel makes an interesting note on this saying. A lion waves its tail above his head whereas a fox puts it between his legs. So too honorable people honor those who are lesser than them and are not concerned that their own honor will be thereby impinged; whereas dishonorable people belittle those lesser in order to (seemingly) increase their own import." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Jacob was the teacher of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, who composed the mishnah. He appeared above in chapter three, mishnah seven (the printed edition of the Mishnah mistakenly reads Rabbi Shimon). In another place Rabbi Jacob was famous for stating that all heavenly punishments and rewards are meted out in the world to come. In other words, in this world there is no correlation between a person’s virtues and his fate.", + "Rabbi Jacob said: this world is like a vestibule before the world to come; prepare yourself in the vestibule, so that you may enter the banqueting-hall. The world in which we live is, according to Rabbi Jacob, merely a vestibule in preparation for the main meal, that is the world to come. A person must perform good deeds in this world, in order to ensure himself a place in the world to come. In a midrash on Proverbs a similar teaching appears. “In the future the wicked will ask God to give them a chance to repent. God will answer them saying ‘you fools, the world you were in was like the day before the Sabbath and this world [the world to come] is like the Sabbath. If one doesn’t prepare on the Sabbath eve, how will he have to eat on the Sabbath…[God further said], ‘the world you were in was like dry land and the world to come like sailing on the sea. If one doesn’t prepare food while on dry land, how will he have to eat while at sea.’”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of Rabbi Jacob’s statement from the previous mishnah.", + "He used to say: more precious is one hour in repentance and good deeds in this world, than all the life of the world to come; In this world one has a chance to perform good deeds and to repent and thereby earn a greater reward in the world to come, which as we learned yesterday is where, according to Rabbi Jacob, all rewards are meted out. In the world to come, it is too late to repent. Actions are not truly categorically possible in the world to come. Note that the meaning of this statement is that one must take every opportunity to use wisely his time in this world. In the past I have heard people say that Judaism is “this-world religion”. This is true and not true. As we have seen time and time again, the rabbis firmly believed in the world to come; disbelief in it was probably one of the causes of the split between the Pharisees and Sadducees. However, a person cannot know anything about the world to come, and what counts is our actions in this world. Furthermore, one should not want to hurry his entrance into the world to come, an idea that has gained some popularity in other religions. One should desire to live as long as possible in this world, not because of its inherent, material delights, but because humans need the time in this world to perform good deeds and thereby earn themselves a greater reward in the world to come. In this sense Judaism is a religion which concentrates on this world.", + "And more precious is one hour of the tranquility of the world to come, than all the life of this world. Rabbi Jacob’s statement finishes by emphasizing how peaceful and tranquil is the world to come. One hour in the world to come is worth more than all of the physical pleasures one could ever find in this world." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Shimon ben Elazar was a student of Rabbi Meir and a colleague of Rabbi Judah Hanasi.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Do not try to appease your friend during his hour of anger; Nor comfort him at the hour while his dead still lies before him; Nor question him at the hour of his vow; Nor strive to see him in the hour of his disgrace. The first two statements in this mishnah are statements of sound psychological advice. Appeasing a friend while he is still angry is not going to be effective, nor will trying to offer comfort to a mourner before he has buried his dead. Nor question him at the time of his vow: this refers to something called “the undoing of vows” (we will learn this subject in greater detail when we learn tractate Nedarim (vows). If a person takes a vow not to do something, for instance see his father, but then wants to do that which he vowed not to do, he may ask a sage to “undo his vow”. The way that a sage does this is by asking him questions to see if he may have vowed not fully understanding the consequences. For instance the sage might ask him, “when you vowed not to see your father did you know that it would cause your parents such emotional pain?” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar teaches that one should not ask these questions right at the time of his vow, for not enough time has passed for him to regret taking the vow. At this time he is still angry and he will not want to get out of his vow. Nor strive to see him in the hour of his disgrace: when a person has just done something disgraceful, he doesn’t want anyone to see him. Therefore you should avoid him during this time, for it will be embarrassing to him to be seen and may cause him to take his anger out at you.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What do these four sayings have in common?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nShmuel Hakatan means “Little Samuel” (or “Little Sammy”). The Palestinian Talmud provides two reasons for such a strange nickname. The first is that he would belittle himself in front of others; in other words he was exceedingly humble. The second reason is that he was he was just a little below the level of Samuel from the Bible. Shmuel Hakatan was at Yavneh after the destruction and he conducted one of the benedictions in the Amidah, namely the benediction directed against heretics. Despite his nickname he was evidently held in great regard.", + "Shmuel Hakatan said: “If your enemy falls, do not exult; if he trips, let your heart not rejoice, lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and avert his wrath from you” (Proverbs 24:17). The most interesting thing about this saying is that it is only a verse from the book of Proverbs. Whereas in every other case in the Mishnah, there are words of the rabbis, this mishnah contains only a biblical verse. While there are some versions of this mishnah in which there appears a midrash, in which case Shmuel Hakatan does add his own words and does not merely quote a verse, these are probably later versions and do not reflect the original. The traditional explanation for this phenomenon is that Shmuel Hakatan regularly quoted this verse. The verse’s meaning is that one should not rejoice at the fall of one’s enemy and that if one does God’s wrath will be placed upon the one rejoicing." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nElisha ben Abuyah was a colleague of Rabbi Akiva and a teacher of Rabbi Meir. According to legend he was one of the four sages who went into the “orchard” (perhaps a reference to metaphysical speculation). As a result he became an apostate. As a result of his apostasy, he is referred to in most places as “aher”, which means “other”. There are many fascinating legends about Elisha ben Abuya, many of which have been compiled into a novel called, As a Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg. This is a truly remarkable book that I cannot recommend highly enough. It is both a good read and provides a setting in which the mishnah might have taken place. Another good place to look for legends about Elisha ben Abuya is Sefer Haaggadah, by Bialik and Ravnitzky. This is a compilation of many talmudic legends.", + "Elisha ben Abuyah said: He who learns when a child, to what is he compared? To ink written upon a new writing sheet. And he who learns when an old man, to what is he compared? To ink written on a rubbed writing sheet. A young person is like a blank slate upon which things may be written clearly and read easily by others. However, an old person is like a piece of paper previously written upon and then erased. Subsequent writing on this paper will not be clear. This statement is not quite as negative about learning as an adult as the English saying, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” but it is said in a similar vein.", + "Rabbi Yose ben Judah a man of Kfar Ha-babli said: He who learns from the young, to what is he compared? To one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks wine from his vat; And he who learns from the old, to what is he compared? To one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine. Rabbi said: don’t look at the container but at that which is in it: there is a new container full of old wine, and an old [container] in which there is not even new [wine]. This section of the mishnah refers not to the age of the student, but to the age of the teacher. Rabbi Yose says that it is preferable to learn from an older person, who is like ripe grapes and vintage wine. One who learns from the young is like one who eats unripe grapes or drinks straight from the vat. While these are edible and drinkable, they do not taste good nor are they particularly satisfying. According to Rabbi Yose a person’s teaching needs time to settle down, to “ripen” within him, before he becomes an effective teacher. If we combine this with the previous section, we see that the best situation is one in which someone learns while young and doesn’t begin to teach until much older. However, Rabbi [Judah Hanasi], in one of the most famous statements in Avoth, says that it is not the outer container that determines the nature of the wisdom but rather that which is inside. Just as with wine, an outer container can be deceiving as to the inner content, so too with wisdom. There may be young people contain mature wisdom and older people who remain immature with regards to their wisdom, and even empty. Perhaps Rabbi would disagree with the first statement as well; if one can teach while young, maybe he would hold that one can learn when old. All is determined not by one’s physical age, but by one’s inner character." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Elazar Ha-kappar was one of the last of the tannaim. One interesting note is that this name was found in the Galilee written on a lintel piece dated to the mishnaic period. While we cannot be certain that this refers to the same person who is named in the mishnah, it is likely that this was from his residence.", + "Rabbi Elazar Ha-kappar said: envy, lust and [the desire for] honor put a man out of the world. This saying is parallel to the saying of Rabbi Joshua which we saw in mishnah 2:11, “Rabbi Joshua said: an evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred for humankind put a person out of the world.” It may even be that Rabbi Elazar is interpreting Rabbi Joshua’s statement. An evil eye causes a person to be envious, lustfulness comes from the evil inclination and hatred for humankind stems from an overwhelming desire to rise above everyone else, hence a pursuit of honor. These things “put a man out of the world”, meaning they interfere with his ability to function in this world and they cause him to lose entrance into the world to come." + ], + [ + "He used to say: the ones who were born are to die, and the ones who have died are to be brought to life, and the ones brought to life are to be judged; So that one may know, make known and have the knowledge that He is God, He is the designer, He is the creator, He is the discerner, He is the judge, He the witness, He the complainant, and that He will summon to judgment. Blessed be He, before Whom there is no iniquity, nor forgetting, nor respect of persons, nor taking of bribes, for all is His. And know that all is according to the reckoning. And let not your impulse assure thee that the grave is a place of refuge for you; for against your will were you formed, against your will were you born, against your will you live, against your will you will die, and against your will you will give an account and reckoning before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. In this long mishnah, full of rhetorical speech, Rabbi Elazar Ha-kappar teaches about the certainty of the judgment day to come. In the beginning of the mishnah, Rabbi Elazar goes through the stages in human existence, from birth to death to resurrection on judgment day. A person should know, tell others and let the whole world know that there is one God responsible for all this. The same God that created us will eventually act as our judge, witness and complainant. [Today we would say that He is the judge, jury and executioner.] Next, Rabbi Elazar reminds us that God is not like human judges, who can be bribed, nor is it possible that He will forget or somehow pervert justice. Everyone will receive his fair due. There is indeed no way to bribe God, for in the end, all of the world belongs to God. All of our deeds count at the time of judgment [see above, 3:15]. One should not fool himself into thinking that the grave will be a place where one can escape the consequences of one’s life, for just as humans were created and will die without their consent, so too will they eventually be judged without their consent. The Rambam notes that the mishnah lists “natural” phenomenon as being out of a person’s control. A person cannot control where, when and into what family he is born, nor does he have a lot of control over when and where he will die. However, the mishnah does not state that a person’s moral actions are out of his control, for a person has full choice over whether he sins or does good deeds. In this way, while we have no control over whether we will be judged in the future, we do have ultimate control with regard to our sentence, because only we can control our actions." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAll of the mishnayoth in chapter five are taught anonymously. The chapter begins with mishnayoth that revolve around the numbers 10, 7, and 4.", + "With ten utterances the world was created. And what does this teach, for surely it could have been created with one utterance? But this was so in order to punish the wicked who destroy the world that was created with ten utterances, And to give a good reward to the righteous who maintain the world that was created with ten utterances. In the first chapter of Genesis the phrase “and God said” appears nine times. If you add to this the first three words of the Torah, which are also considered an “utterance”, you get to the number ten, which is considered a number of completion. God could have created the world with one utterance, but He took more effort in His creation in order to teach human beings their awesome responsibility in being stewards over the world. The wicked who ruin the world are ruining something that took God ten utterances to create and therefore there crime is greater. The opposite is true for the righteous, who preserve the “ten-utterance” world, and are therefore greatly rewarded for their actions. The ways that the wicked destroy the world and the righteous preserve the world can be understood on several levels. One explanation is that this refers to religious or moral wickedness or righteousness. When the wicked corrupt the world, they bring ruin on our great world, and when the righteous act morally and with piety, they preserve our world, which took a full ten utterances to create. On another level it may be taken environmentally. The world was not created with great ease and therefore those who destroy it, are destroying a carefully crafted structure. Those who physically take care of the world, are preserving this incredibly complicated world which God gave over to humanity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah two continues to provides things that came in ten in the Bible and that teach lessons about God. This mishnah contains a highly schematic version of history. In other words, history and its length are divided into equal periods and in those equal periods we can detect God’s directing hand at work. This type of learning from history and from its division into equal periods was extremely prevalent in ancient Judaism both amongst the rabbis and amongst other sects of Jews.", + "[There were] ten generations from Adam to Noah, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until He brought upon them the waters of the flood. Although all of the generations between Adam and Noah were evil, God did not destroy them immediately. He put up with their provocation until the tenth generation, when He decided to destroy the world with a flood. In God’s long-suffering we can learn a lesson of patience and forgiveness. Even though in the end God did decide to destroy the world, He did not do so immediately, but gave the world a chance to repent. We also, by the way, learn that God will not tolerate provocation forever; He will eventually bring judgment. Jewish commentators in the Middle Ages found in this comfort, for they lived under terrible oppression at the hands of the Muslims and especially the Christians. A Jew should not despair, for God will eventually punish them for their evil acts.", + "[There were] ten generations from Noah to Abraham, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until Abraham, came and received the reward of all of them. This section is a little more difficult to explain, for what does the phrase, “Abraham came and received the reward of all of them” mean. Rashi explains that Abraham received the reward that they would have received had they repented. Others explain that based upon the merit of Abraham God did not destroy again the whole world. Abraham taught them that repentance was possible and therefore God did not destroy the world. A third explanation is that Abraham received the reward that they all would have received had they learned from him the principles of monotheism." + ], + [ + "With ten trials was Abraham, our father (may he rest in peace), tried, and he withstood them all; to make known how great was the love of Abraham, our father (peace be upon him). The ten trials which Abraham withstood can be counted in several different ways. One count is as follows: twice when ordered to move (Gen. 12:1 ff., 12:10), twice in connection with his two sons (21:10, 22:1 ff.), twice in connection with his two wives (12:11 ff., 21:10), once on the occasion of his war with the kings (14:13 ff.), once at the covenant between the pieces (14:13 ff.), once in Ur of the Chaldees, when he was thrown into a fire furnace by Nimrod (this one is not in the Bible but appears in a midrash), and once at the covenant of circumcision (17:9 ff.). Some commentators point out the connection between Abraham’s trials and the ten utterances with which the world was created. Abraham was tried with ten trials and withstood them all, thereby proving that he was worthy of sustaining the world which was created by ten utterances. A scholar of midrash and ancient Jewish literature named James Kugel (Harvard University) has shown in his book, The Bible as It Was, that the idea that Abraham was tested was an ancient idea, common to many ancient Biblical commentators. Indeed Abraham’s life does seem to have been full of trials; he is told to leave his homeland, he faces famine, war, troubles with his wives and son, Ishmael, and especially obvious, his command to sacrifice his son, Isaac. It is not surprising that many ancient commentators would assume that he was “tried” by God many times. As an aside, this fascinating book is highly recommended." + ], + [ + "Ten miracles were wrought for our ancestors in Egypt, and ten at the sea.
Ten plagues did the Holy one, blessed be He, bring upon the Egyptians in Egypt and ten at the sea.
[With] ten trials did our ancestors try God, blessed be He, as it is said, “and they have tried Me these ten times and they have not listened to my voice” (Numbers 14:22).
The ten miracles that were wrought for our ancestors in Egypt were their being spared from the ten plagues that were afflicted upon the Egyptians.
The ten miracles that were performed at the sea are not mentioned in the Torah but are contained in a midrash and are listed as follows by the Rambam: 1) the sea was split; 2) the water formed a tent over their heads; 3) the land became firm (not muddy); 4) when the Egyptians tried to cross the land in the sea returned to being muddy; 5) the sea was split into 12 strips so each tribe could travel separately; 6) the water froze and became hard as a rock; 7) the water which became as a rock was actually many rocks and was beautifully arranged; 8) the water remained clear so that the tribes could see each other; 9) water that was fit for drinking leaked from the sides; 10) after they finished drinking the water, the water that was left immediately again froze.
The ten plagues that were wrought upon the Egyptians in Egypt are well known and listed in the Torah.
The ten plagues at the sea are, according to some commentators, the ten different verbs used to describe the death of the Egyptians in chapter 15 of Exodus, “he has thrown” (15:2); “he has cast” (15:4); “deeps cover them” (15:5); “they went down into the depths” (15:5); “dashes in pieces the enemy” (15:6); “You overthrow them that rise up against You” (15:7); “it consumes them like straw” (15:7); “the waters were piled up, the floods stood upright as a heap” (15:8); “they sank as lead” (15:10).
The ten times that the children of Israel tried God are as follows: 1) at the sea (Ex. 14:11); 2) at Marah (ibid. 15:24); 3) in the wilderness of Sin (ibid. 16:3); 4) with the Manna (ibid. 16:20); 5) again with the Manna (ibid. 16:27); 6) at Rephidim (ibid. 17:2); 7) with the golden calf (ibid. 32:1); 8) at Tavera (Numbers 11:1); 9) at Kivroth-taaverah (ibid. 11:4); 10) in the wilderness of Paraan, at the incident of the spies (ibid. 13:3)." + ], + [ + "In the first three miracles in this mishnah we can see reflected the practical problems that one would have imagined to have occurred in Jerusalem and specifically in the Temple. Many of these are issues of cleanliness. The Temple would have been full of animals and of meat, and in times when there was no refrigeration and running water was a luxury, it must have been very difficult to keep the place clean. Therefore the mishnah teaches that miracles were wrought that prevented a woman from miscarrying due to the smell of the sacrifices, the meat from going bad and flies from gathering.", + "If the high priest were to have a seminal emission, he would be disqualified from performing the special Yom Kippur worship.", + "Even though the altar was uncovered, the fire underneath never was extinguished by rain.", + "The pillar of smoke coming up from the altar always went straight up without being effected by the wind (according to the Rambam, there was never wind at the time when sacrifices were being offered).", + "On the sixteenth of Nissan they would bring the omer sacrifice, which consisted of barley. After this sacrifice people were allowed to eat from the new harvest. The two loaves refers to the two loaves brought on Shavuoth. After these two loaves were offered, new wheat could be used for minhah sacrifices. The showbread was baked on the eve of the Sabbath and remained on the table for a week. According to the mishnah, disqualifying defects were never found in these three things.", + "Although it must have been crowded in the Temple during the pilgrimage festivals, and people stood pressed up against each other, when it came time to bow, miraculously there was room to do so.", + "If a snake or scorpion killed someone in Jerusalem, it would have potentially caused sudden impurity to any of those standing near. The miracle that this didn’t ever happen would have prevented this problem.", + "Although it must have been unpleasantly crowded in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage festivals, no one ever complained.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the difference between the last miracle and all of the previous ones?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists fourteen things (10 + 3 + 1) that seem to defy the laws of nature. These are problematic because God is supposed to have created a world that acts upon the laws of nature. In order to solve this metaphysical problem, the mishnah claims that these supernatural items were created for this very purpose during the six days of creation. They were created during this in-between time, right before creation ended at the end of the sixth day. These items are therefore part of God’s ultimate plan and they are not in essence “supernatural”.", + "Ten things were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight, and these are they: [1] the mouth of the earth, [2] the mouth of the well, [3] the mouth of the donkey, [4] the rainbow, [5] the manna, [6] the staff [of Moses], [7] the shamir, [8] the letters, [9] the writing, [10] and the tablets. And some say: also the demons, the grave of Moses, and the ram of Abraham, our father. And some say: and also tongs, made with tongs. [1] the mouth of the earth: which swallowed Korah and his congregation (Numbers 16:32). [2] the mouth of the well: that gave the children of Israel water in the desert. (See Numbers 21:16-18). [3] the mouth of the donkey: that spoke to Balaam (Numbers 22:28). [4] the rainbow: that was a sign to Noah (Genesis 9:13). [5] the manna: (Exodus 16:15). [6] the staff [of Moses]: (Exodus 4:17). [7] the shamir: this was the strong stone used to cut rocks for the breastplate used during the first temple. [8] the letters: the shape of the letters used to write the Ten Commandments. [9] the writing: See Exodus 32:16. The writing, according to legend, could be seen from all four sides of the tablets. [10] and the tablets: this refers to the first set of the tablets (ibid.) Moses made the second set of tablets (Exodus 34:1). Demons: In the ancient world, people firmly believed in demons, much as we believe in bacteria and viruses even if we have never seen one. These being unnatural phenomenon, must have been created on the twilight of the sixth day. The grave of Moses: Since no one was there for Moses’s burial, we could surmise that it was not created by any human being (Deuteronomy 34:6). And the ram of Abraham, our father: which seemed to have miraculously appeared before Abraham sacrificed Isaac (Genesis 22:13). The mishnah teaches that God all along created the ram to be sacrificed in Isaac’s place. Otherwise it might seem that if the ram had not gotten caught in the bushes, Abraham would have been allowed to sacrifice his son. Tongs made with tongs: One cannot forge tongs in fire, without already having a set of tongs. The first set of tongs must therefore have been made during the twilight of the sixth day.  Why do you think that the mishnah divides its list into three parts, a list, then a list of three and then one last item?  Why aren’t miracles such as the splitting of the sea and the standing still of the sun mentioned here?" + ], + [ + "[There are] seven things [characteristic] in a clod, and seven in a wise man:
A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than he in wisdom,
And does not break into his fellow’s speech;
And is not hasty to answer;
He asks what is relevant, and he answers to the point;
And he speaks of the first [point] first, and of the last [point] last;
And concerning that which he has not heard, he says: I have not heard;
And he acknowledges the truth. And the reverse of these [are characteristic] in a clod.
In what may or may not be a coincidence, the seventh mishnah of our chapter begins to list things that come in sevens.
Our mishnah lists the differences between a “clod” and a wise man. According to Maimonides a “clod” is a person in whom are to be found moral and intellectual virtues, but in state of incompleteness, and not functioning properly. That is why he is called a clod; he is like an implement beginning to take shape in the hands of a craftsman, but still lacking completion.
The mishnah lists the qualities of the wise man and then at the end tells us that the opposite is true for the clod. Note that many of these qualities are important in the learning of Torah. In other words, the mishnah is discussing the type of behavior that is most appropriate for inside the bet midrash, the rabbinic study hall. Also, many of the qualities are important in a learning environment that is all oral, without books, as learning was during the time of the Mishnah. In an “oral” culture, properly organized speech is a highly regarded quality.
Some of these qualities are self-explanatory, so we will only explain those which require some clarification.
And does not break into his fellow’s speech: it is extremely important to wait to fully hear what your fellow has said, lest by interrupting him you distract his train of thought or ask a question that will be answered later.
And is not hasty to answer: the wise man must consider his answer before he gives it, for others will take his words quite seriously.
He asks what is relevant, and he answers to the point: Asking what is relevant means that when discussing one subject, for instance the laws of Sabbath observance, he doesn’t ask about another subject, such as the laws of prayer. He answers to the point means that the wise man does not give long-winded arguments that others will not understand.
And he speaks of the first [point] first, and of the last [point] last: In an oral culture, organized speech is easiest to remember and is therefore most effective.
And concerning that which he has not heard, he says: I have not heard: This does not mean that he admits that he doesn’t know the answer to something. The mishnah is stating that if he has reasoned out an answer to a question on his own, but does not have a tradition as to what the right answer is, he must admit that his answer is based upon reason and not tradition. In the eyes of many of the rabbis tradition was a stronger criterion in determining points of law than reason.
And he acknowledges the truth: If he realizes he has lost an argument, he admits it
And the reverse of these [are characteristic] in a clod." + ], + [ + "The purpose of this saying is that people should check their behavior to see if perhaps calamities are punishments for what they have done. While it is true that humans will often not be able to see a direct correlation between what happens to them and what their actions are, Judaism continues to believe that there is such a correlation. We should also note a couple of other theological statements made by this mishnah. First of all, the mishnah talks about collective punishments and not individual ones. Second of all, the mishnah teaches that God’s punishments are “measure against measure”, in other words, the punishments somehow fit the crime. Third, and perhaps most important, God is seen as responsible for everything, even the bad things that happen in this world.", + "Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of transgression:
When some of them give tithes, and others do not give tithes, a famine from drought comes some go hungry, and others are satisfied. In this section and in the following two, we will see that tithes are connected to rain. In a perhaps more modern interpretation of this concept, we might say that our attitude towards the food that we grow can have an effect on the earth itself. In the first section the punishment of famine due to drought, is seen as the least of the types of famine (it is also clearly not uncommon in the dry land of Israel). Since some tithe and some do not, the punishment will only fall on part of the community. However, the mishnah does not state that those who tithe will not be punished and those who don’t will.", + "When they have all decided not to give tithes, a famine from tumult and drought comes; If all people decide not to tithe, then famine comes not only as a result of lack of rain, but also as a result of war. Since people will be out fighting war, they are not able to tend to their lands and many more people will go hungry.", + "[When they have, in addition, decided] not to set apart the dough-offering, an all-consuming famine comes. When making bread, Jewish law dictates that a piece of the dough be separated and given to the priests. This dough is called “challah”. If Jews don’t separate the challah and they don’t separate tithes, a total famine will come. In this famine people will die of their hunger.", + "Pestilence comes to the world for sins punishable by death according to the Torah, but which have not been referred to the court, and for neglect of the law regarding the fruits of the sabbatical year. There are several possible explanations for “sins punishable by death according to the Torah, but which have not been referred to the court”. This might refer to crimes that should have been punished by death, but were not brought to trial for various reasons (for example not enough witnesses or the perpetrator was not properly warned). Another explanation is that this refers to cases that could have been brought to trial, and maybe were, but for some reason the courts neglected their duty to execute. Yet another explanation is that this refers to crimes punishable by death at the hand of Heaven (in other words they were not referred to the court because by definition the court could not punish for these crimes. If enough people commit these crimes, perhaps reasoning that a court won’t punish them anyway, pestilence will come to the world. In addition, pestilence comes to the world because people transgress the laws of the fruit of the sabbatical year. According to Jewish law, fruit that grows on its own during the sabbatical year may be collected in order to eat, but not in order to sell. If one collects in order to eat but then has extra, he may sell the extra. Since this system is open to abuse, for only God can tell what a person’s intentions were when he collected, the punishment is great. One who thinks that he won’t bring punishment into the world because people do not see his sins, is actually causing even greater punishment.", + "The sword comes to the world for the delay of judgment, and for the perversion of judgment, and because of those who teach the Torah not in accordance with the accepted law. The sword, representative of war, comes to the world because of delay and perversion of justice. In other words because the system of justice was not implemented properly, society will decay into the anarchy of war, an inherently unjust situation. The sword also comes when people teach Torah not according to the accepted halakhah. Although there are many interpretations of this sentence, my sense is that it means that this person teaches Jewish law from what seems to them to be the simple meaning of the Torah. Jewish law is derived from the Torah, but it is mitigated by the oral Torah, the traditional teachings that have always accompanied the Torah. The Sadducees were the ones who taught literal interpretations of the Torah, whereas the Pharisees used tradition to help them interpret and make legal rulings." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to list calamities that come to the world as a result of sin.", + "Wild beasts come to the world for swearing in vain, and for the profanation of the Name. A vain oath is one taken unnecessarily (see Shevuoth 3:8). Profaning God’s name refers to one who sins in public, thereby giving not only himself a bad name but all of Judaism. It can also refer to the sin committed by a respectable person, from whom others learn. When such a person sins it causes a greater profanation of God’s name than when a regular person sins. The Meiri draws a connection between the punishment and the crime. By taking a vain oath and profaning God’s name, the person attempts to bring God’s holiness down a level. As a punishment God brings him down to the level of an animal and wild animals come and attack him.", + "Exile comes to the world for idolatry, for sexual sins and for bloodshed, and for [transgressing the commandment of] the [year of the] release of the land. Exile, which is the ultimate punishment, comes from a trio of the worst crimes: idol worship, sexual crimes (incest and adultery) and murder. Generally, if a person is told that he must sin or he will be killed, he is supposed to commit the sin. The three exceptions are idol worship, sexual crimes and adultery. When people willingly commit these sins, God will exile them from their land. According to Jewish legend, it is for these three sins that the first Temple was destroyed. During the seventh year Jews are not allowed to work their land. The punishment for not observing this law is that the land itself will exile you from living on it. This is another case of “measure for measure”; the punishment fits the crime.", + "At four times pestilence increases: in the fourth year, in the seventh year and at the conclusion of the seventh year, and at the conclusion of the Feast [of Tabernacles] in every year. In the fourth year, on account of the tithe of the poor which is due in the third year. In the seventh year, on account of the tithe of the poor which is due in the sixth year; At the conclusion of the seventh year, on account of the produce of the seventh year; And at the conclusion of the Feast [of Tabernacles] in every year, for robbing the gifts to the poor. This section expands on section four of the previous mishnah, where we learned that “Pestilence comes to the world for …neglect of the law regarding the fruits of the sabbatical year.” Fruits of the sabbatical year (which grow on their own without the field having been worked) should be left in the field to be collected by the poor. One who collects them is actually stealing from the poor. Our mishnah teaches that pestilence can come as a result of other crimes committed involving food intended for the poor, and that the punishment comes after immediately after the sin has been committed. In the third and sixth years, the second tithe goes to the poor. When people don’t give those tithes, there will be pestilence in the fourth and seventh years. The punishment that comes at the end of the seventh year was already mentioned above. The pestilence that comes after the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) is retribution for not leaving parts of the harvest for the poor. According to the Torah the corners of the field, things that have fallen and things that have been forgotten must be left for the poor. Since the main harvest time in Israel is in the fall, the punishment for not leaving these things to the poor comes after Sukkoth." + ], + [ + "There are four types of character in human beings:
One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace type; and some say this is a sodom-type of character.
[One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person (am;
[One that says:] “mine is yours is yours is yours” is a pious person.
[One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person.
The Mishnah now begins to list things that come in fours.
One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace type: a person who acts in this way is not pious, for he does not give of his own to others, but neither is he wicked for he is careful not to take others property.
And some say this is a sodom-type of character: Some say that this is the way that the people of Sodom acted. When the angelic visitors visited Lot in Sodom, the people of Sodom were angered by Lot’s generosity (Genesis 19:5). Ezekiel states, “Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy” (Ezekiel 16:49). We see that one of the cardinal crimes of the people of Sodom was their lack of generosity, especially when contrasted with the generosity and hospitality of Abraham.
The commentators also point out that one who does not want to give of himself to others will eventual never want to give anything to others, even if it costs him nothing.
[One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person (am haaretz): One explanation is that this literally refers to the “am haaretz”, which literally translates as the “people of the land”, who live in partnership on the land. There is no concept of ownership amongst this type of people, and therefore they don’t recognize any border between what is theirs and what belongs to others. In a positive manner, we could state that they share everything equally. Others explain this as having a negative connotation, and “am haaretz” refers to an uncivilized, unlearned, almost barbaric people.
[One that says:] “mine is yours is yours is yours” is a pious person: A person who does not want to ever take of others’ property but does want to give to others is truly pious, for he gives without expecting anything in return.
[One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person: He is wicked for he wishes to take and not give anything in return." + ], + [ + "There are four kinds of temperments:
Easy to become angry, and easy to be appeased: his gain disappears in his loss;
Hard to become angry, and hard to be appeased: his loss disappears in his gain;
Hard to become angry and easy to be appeased: a pious person;
Easy to become angry and hard to be appeased: a wicked person.
One commentator points out that although the mishnah calls these qualities “temperaments”, human beings have the ability to change their “temperaments” from one to the other. Otherwise the one who is slow to anger and quick to be appeased would not be considered pious, for these qualities would be out of his control. While we might be born genetically disposed to certain characteristics, he can overcome our predisposition. Human beings, unlike animals, have control over their temperaments and therefore their moral attributes can be described by their level of self-control.
Easy to become angry, and easy to be pacified: his gain disappears in his loss: The fact that he is easily appeased is not helpful since he is so easily angered. This person ends up with a net loss.
Hard to become angry, and hard to be appeased: his loss disappears in his gain: The fact that he is “hard to be appeased” is compensated for by the fact that he rarely becomes angry. This person ends up with a net gain, although there is still room for improvement.
Hard to become angry and easy to be appeased: a pious person: Note that the pious person does occasionally get angry. He is not perfect. However, even on the rare occasions when he does get angry, he is subsequently easily appeased.
Easy to become angry and hard to be appeased: a wicked person: This person is constantly getting angry and can never be appeased. No one can get along with him and he is therefore accounted as wicked by most people." + ], + [ + "There are four types of disciples: Quick to comprehend, and quick to forget: his gain disappears in his loss; Slow to comprehend, and slow to forget: his loss disappears in his gain; Quick to comprehend, and slow to forget: he is a wise man; Slow to comprehend, and quick to forget, this is an evil portion. If you belong to the first category of this mishnah, you will quickly grasp that you belong to the first category, but you will quickly forget what you just realized. Your quick comprehension will be meaningless for you will not retain what you have comprehended. If you belong to the second category, you may have to read this mishnah over many times before you understand that you are actually in this category. However, once you finally understand, you won’t forget it. Your slow comprehension is compensated by your strong memory, and in the end you are left with a gain. If you belong to the third category, congratulations, you are lucky to be so wise. If you belong to the fourth category, this mishnah will take you a long time to comprehend, and then you will forget it anyway. It is too bad that you have not been blessed with either quick comprehension or a good memory, but don’t give up hope. You will have to work harder to learn but the mishnah has already taught us that “according to the effort is the reward”. Since you will have to make a great effort to learn, at least your reward will be commensurate." + ], + [ + "There are four types of charity givers. He who wishes to give, but that others should not give: his eye is evil to that which belongs to others; He who wishes that others should give, but that he himself should not give: his eye is evil towards that which is his own; He who desires that he himself should give, and that others should give: he is a pious man; He who desires that he himself should not give and that others too should not give: he is a wicked man. This mishnah is straightforward and not difficult to understand. However, a few notes can be made. First of all, the “evil eye” is one that begrudges and does not want to give charity to the poor. The mishnah is not only concerned with whether or not a person gives charity but whether or not he encourages others to give charity. The truly pious person gives of himself and encourages others to do the same. The type of person who wants to give but does not want others to give is probably a familiar figure. He wants to give not because giving is the correct thing to do, but because of the honor he will accrue from being known as generous. Others giving more than him eclipses his honor and hence he begrudges their generosity. He is not looking out for the ultimate welfare of the poor who really need the charity. One who does not want to give and also does not want others to give, is probably the most wicked type of person we have yet encountered in this series of mishnayoth. Despite the fact that he does not benefit from others’ generosity, his cruelty towards the poor and his desire to see them suffer, makes him begrudge even others’ generosity. It is also possible that he does not want others to give so that they should not be seen as more generous than him. His greediness and pursuit of honor at the cost of the welfare of the needy make him an evil and perhaps even dangerous figure." + ], + [ + "There are four types among those who frequent the study-house (bet:
He who attends but does not practice: he receives a reward for attendance.
He who practices but does not attend: he receives a reward for practice.
He who attends and practices: he is a pious man;
He who neither attends nor practices: he is a wicked man.
“Practice” in this mishnah does not refer to one who does not observe any of the commandments, for the mishnah would not describe such a person as receiving any reward. Rather, “practice” refers to one who applies himself diligently to his learning.
He who attends but does not practice: he receives a reward for attendance: This person goes to the bet midrash to learn, but does not apply himself there and work hard at learning Torah. What he has learned will probably not stay with him for very long. Nevertheless, he receives a reward just for making the effort to go.
He who practices but does not attend: he receives a reward for practice: This refers to a person who learns at home but does not attend the bet midrash. He receives a reward for learning Torah, but he would have received a greater reward had he gone to the bet midrash. He also would have learned a great deal more had he gone to the bet midrash.
He who attends and practices: he is a pious man: This person could have learned on his own at home, but in order to set a good example for others and to participate in the community of Torah-learners he attends the bet midrash. He is considered pious.
He who neither attends nor practices: he is a wicked man: This person’s contempt for learning Torah makes the mishnah consider him wicked.
There are other mishnaic commentators who explain that this mishnah does refer to the observance of the commandments. However, one who does not “practice” does not refer to one who doesn’t practice any of the commandments. Rather he does not make an effort to learn more about what he should do. He therefore receives no special reward for his lackadaisical observance, but neither is he considered wicked." + ], + [ + "There are four types among those who sit before the sages: a sponge, a funnel, a strainer and a sieve.
A sponge, soaks up everything;
A funnel, takes in at one end and lets out at the other;
A strainer, which lets out the wine and retains the lees;
A sieve, which lets out the coarse meal and retains the choice flour.
Above in mishnah twelve we learned about four types of disciples. This mishnah is similar but instead of just describing the different types of students, it uses metaphors to compare them to different instruments in the kitchen. Furthermore, whereas that mishnah was considered with comprehension and retention, our mishnah is also concerned with the proper selection of what is worthy of retaining. The discussions in the mishnaic and talmudic study halls were probably very long, and no one could remember everything that was said. It would have been extremely important for the listeners to decide which statements were important and worthy of preservation and which were not.
A sponge, soaks up everything; The sponge soaks up all liquids, whether or not they are good or yucky. So too there are some students who remember everything that was said, whether or not it was reasonable and worthy of being remembered.
A funnel, takes in at one end and lets out at the other: The student who is like a funnel is able to take in all that is said, but he easily forgets it, like a funnel which lets everything out the other end.
A strainer, which lets out the wine and retains the lees: This is the most unfortunate type of student, who does not retain any of the well-reasoned valuable statements out, and only retains that which is not worthy of retention. It isn’t that he simply forgets the important things which were said, because he does remember some of what he has heard. Rather he cannot discern what was worthy of remembering in the first place.
A sieve, which lets out the coarse meal and retains the choice flour: After all of the bran is removed from the flour, the flour is passed through a sieve. What remains in the sieve are the larger, useful pieces of fine flour and the stuff that falls out is not useful [this is evidently not like the sieve we use today]. So too there are students who retain only that information which is important and remove the extraneous things that they have heard. This is obviously the best kind of student." + ], + [ + "All love that depends on a something, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not depend on anything, will never cease.
What is an example of love that depended on a something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar.
And what is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the love of David and Jonathan.
The previous mishnah was the last mishnah that was based on numbers. The mishnah which we learn today teaches about love.
Love which is based on something tangible, such as beauty or financial gain, will not last. Since “things” can end, when the “thing” upon which the love is based does end, the love will end. Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar, which is better described as lust than love. The story takes place in II Samuel 13. Amnon falls in love with his beautiful half-sister, Tamar. Once he rapes her (verse 14) her beauty and lack of accessibility are gone and he hates her.
The love of David and Jonathan is opposite. Jonathan, son of Saul, loved David with all of his soul (see I Samuel 18:1) and indeed tried to save his life when Saul sought to kill David, even though David was a threat to his father’s crown, as well as his own right to inherit the kingship. David too loved Jonathan despite his own inevitable rivalry with him. Their love was not based on any sexual relationship nor was it based on a gain that one would receive from the other. It was as the love of a parent for a child, totally unconditional." + ], + [ + "Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure.
Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai.
And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.
This mishnah discusses legitimate and non-legitimate disputes. While reading the mishnah we should keep in mind that the Mishnah is the first Jewish book which records disputes between different viewpoints without claiming that one viewpoint is necessarily illegitimate. 150 years before the Mishnah was composed, Judaism had certainly been rife with disputes which caused splinter movements, such as the early Christians and the Dead Sea sect. Part of the overall goal of the Mishnah’s composers was to say that sages can disagree and still live together. We will soon see a classic exmple of this philosophy when we begin to learn tractate Yevamoth.
In Judaism debate is legitimate. Indeed Jews are famed worldwide for being an argumentative people, and this is considered (at least by most Jews themselves) a positive attribute. What is problematic is not debate itself, but debate that does not attempt to reveal the truth, and especially God’s truth. Debate that is only self-serving, an attempt to be victorious over the other side is considered to be illegitimate. The debate that is for the sake of Heaven, which stems from a desire to seek the truth, will endure. The classic example of this are the debates between Shammai and Hillel. This debate endured in several ways. First of all, in the time of the Mishnah, there were probably still scholars who followed Shammai. The debate literally endured, because scholars were still arguing about who is right. Second, students of the Mishnah and Talmud continue to study the debates of Shammai and Hillel. Although by the time of the Talmud law usually follows Hillel, the debate endures as study material throughout the generations.
Korah and his congregation rose up against Moses’s leadership in Numbers 16. Their intent was not a pure complaint against the perceived autocratic style of Moses’s leadership. Rather it was a blatant attempt to gain power for themselves. As our mishnah teaches, it was not a dispute for the sake of Heaven, but rather for their own profit. Therefore, the dispute did not endure, for Korah and his congregation were all wiped out (either by the earth swallowing them or by fire).
Note that the mishnah does not say “the dispute of Moses and Korah”, but rather only mentions Korah and his congregation. This is in contrast to the previous section where both Hillel and Shammai were mentioned. This discrepancy is because Moses and Korah were not operating out of the same motives. Moses disputed with Korah not for his own glory, but for the sake of Heaven. Therefore the mishnah could not mention them together." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah talks about the responsibility of leadership, its rewards and its punishments.", + "Whoever causes the multitudes to be righteous, sin will not occur on his account; And whoever causes the multitudes to sin, they do not give him the ability to repent. One who causes, through his example and his teaching, others to be righteous, will not accidentally sin or accidentally cause others to sin. He will receive help from Heaven in his endeavors. This is to prevent a situation whereby his followers are rewarded for following his teachings and he is punished for the sins upon which he stumbled. The opposite is true of one who himself sins and causes others to sin as well. Although in general anyone may repent of his sins, this person will not be given the opportunity to do so. According to the Rambam, this means that he does not have the free will to not sin. It would, after all, not be right for him to repent and earn a place in the world to come, while his students are punished for the sinful ways which he taught them.", + "Moses was righteous and caused the multitudes to be righteous, [therefore] the righteousness of the multitudes is hung on him, as it is said, “He executed the Lord’s righteousness and His decisions with Israel” (Deut. 33:21). Jeroboam, sinned and caused the multitudes to sin, [therefore] the sin of the multitudes is hung on him, as it is said, “For the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he caused Israel to sin thereby” (I Kings 15:30). Moses is the greatest example of leadership that the Jewish people has ever known. He was righteous in his own right and he taught others to be righteous as well. As a reward, the righteous acts that the people performed are accredited to him, as if he himself performed them. The verse in Deuteronomy quoted in the mishnah is understood as referring to Moses (although this is not at all clear from the verse itself). According to the mishnah’s understanding, the verse states that Moses did God’s righteousness, and that all of the acts of Israel were counted as his acts as well. From here we learn that when students perform the righteous acts which they have learned from their teachers, the teachers receive credit themselves. Jeroboam was the first king of the northern kingdom (Israel) when it split from the southern kingdom (Judea) after Solomon’s death. Jeroboam told Israel that they no longer had to go to Jerusalem to worship, but could worship at Bethel as well as other places in the north. He made two golden calves and told the people “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (I Kings 12:28). Jeroboam did not only himself sin, but he caused others to sin as well. In I Kings 15:25-30, Baasha son of Ahijah kills Nadav, son of Jeroboam and all of Jeroboam’s house as well (Jeroboam himself had already died). Verse 30 concludes that the Jeroboam’s house was killed on account of Jeroboam and his sin and the sins that he caused Israel to sin. From here we can conclude that Jeroboam himself was held accountable for those sins which he caused others to do.", + "Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the overall statement of the mishnah with regards to education and the educator?" + ], + [ + "Whoever possesses these three things, he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father; and [whoever possesses] three other things, he is of the disciples of Balaam, the wicked. A good eye, a humble spirit and a moderate appetite he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father. An evil eye, a haughty spirit and a limitless appetite he is of the disciples of Balaam, the wicked.
What is the difference between the disciples of Abraham, our father, and the disciples of Balaam, the wicked? The disciples of Abraham, our father, enjoy this world, and inherit the world to come, as it is said: “I will endow those who love me with substance, I will fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21). But the disciples of Balaam, the wicked, inherit gehinnom, and descend into the nethermost pit, as it is said: “For you, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit those murderous and treacherous men; they shall not live out half their days; but I trust in You” (Psalms 55:24).
This mishnah contrasts those who follow the ways of Abraham with those who follow the ways of Balaam, the wicked prophet who was hired by Balak to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24). We should note that the rabbis understood Balaam as an archetype of evil, even though in the Torah itself he seems to be more of an ambivalent character, acting as merely a passive messenger of God. In Sanhedrin 10:2 we learned that Balaam does not have a portion in the world to come. Balaam is also seen by the rabbis as greedy for he attempted to take a bribe to curse Israel.
In contrasting Abraham with Balaam we should note that both saddle their own donkeys in the Torah (Abraham in Genesis 23:2 and Balaam in Numbers 22:21). Perhaps this similarity led to their comparison in our mishnah, and in several other sources.
Abraham is known for three things: generosity, humility and temperance. He demonstrates his generosity when he brings generous portions of food to the messengers who visit his home (Genesis 18:17). He is humble when he negotiates the purchase of a grave for Sarah. He states, “I am a resident alien among you” (Genesis 23:4, see also his words in 18:27). His temperance in appetite is learned from a midrash on Gen. 12:11, where he states to Sarah, “Behold, I now know that you are a beautiful woman”. According to the midrash Abraham had not looked at her until that moment.
In contrast, Balaam is greedy for he pursues the reward he would have received for cursing Israel. In Numbers 22:18 he states, “Even if Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold”. Rashi comments that from here we can see that Balak had already begun to think about the material reward that he might receive. He is haughty as we can see from his statement, “The word of him who hears God’s speech, who obtains knowledge from the Most High” (Num 24:16). He has a limitless appetite, for a midrash teaches that after he failed in cursing Israel, he advised Balak to allow the Moabite women to prostitute themselves to Israel, and thereby ensnare them in idol worship (see the beginning of Numbers 25). He would not have advised such a thing if he himself did not desire such sexual licentiousness.
The second half of the mishnah teaches the rewards that will be given to the disciples of Abraham and the punishments that will be given to the disciples of Balaam. The verse from Proverbs is understood as referring to Abraham’s disciples since “those who love me” is also used in reference to Abraham (Isaiah 41:18). The verse in Psalms is understood as referring to Balaam since he was murderous, for he advised Balak to seduce Israel and thereby led to the death of 24,000 Israelites (Num 25:9)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nFrom the fact that this mishnah ends in a short prayer, it can be concluded that it was originally the last mishnah in the tractate. The remaining mishnayoth in this chapter, and all of chapter six are addenda added in post-Mishnaic times (I will discuss chapter six later).\nJudah ben Tema is not mentioned anywhere else in the Mishnah.", + "Judah ben Tema said: Be strong as a leopard, and swift as an eagle, and fleet as a gazelle, and brave as a lion, to do the will of your Father who is in heaven. Judah ben Tema uses images that are taken from the animal world. He at first seems to be making statements about a man’s physical strength. These statements would sound more appropriate in the Greek gymnasium than in the rabbinic study house. It is only at the end of his statement that we learn that these physical attributes are to be used for following God’s will and not for human glory. Strong like a leopard to stand up against people who denounce those who observe the Torah. Others say that this refers to the strength needed to rebuke those who don’t observe the commandments. Swift as an eagle to run away from sin. Others say this refers to ministering to Torah scholars, which should be performed with great speed. Fleet as a gazelle to perform the commandments. Others say that this refers to moving to a place where one can study Torah. Brave as a lion to conquer one’s evil inclination. Others say that this refers to getting up at night to learn Torah.", + "He used to say: the arrogant is headed for Gehinnom and the blushing for the garden of Eden. The word “arrogant” in Hebrew is the same word used in section one to mean “strong”. Although one should be strong, this is only so if the strength is used for holy purposes, for the sake of Heaven. However, arrogance, which is unjustified demonstrations of strength, leads one to despise those who might legitimately criticize him. An arrogant person will not check his deeds to make sure that he is acting correctly. One who is embarrassed and blushes at his mistakes, will learn from them and will not continue to sin. Judaism does not seek out perfection, but rather moral progress. One who is capable of such embarrassment will, in the end, inherit the garden of Eden.", + "May it be the will, O Lord our God, that your city be rebuilt speedily in our days and set our portion in the studying of your Torah. According to the Rambam, after having spoken of the virtue of blushing, the mishnah utters a prayer: O our God, even as in Your grace You have bestowed upon us this virtue, so be gracious unto us and have Your city rebuilt speedily in our days." + ], + [ + "He used to say:
At five years of age the study of Scripture;
At ten the study of Mishnah;
At thirteen subject to the commandments;
At fifteen the study of Talmud;
At eighteen the bridal canopy;
At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood];
At thirty the peak of strength;
At forty wisdom;
At fifty able to give counsel;
At sixty old age;
At seventy fullness of years;
At eighty the age of “strength”;
At ninety a bent body;
At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.
This mishnah gives ages that are appropriate for the different stages in life. We should note that in most places in the Mishnah, the age at which a child is obligated or allowed to do something is dependent not on his true age but either on his/her physical or mental development. Indeed this mishnah, which lists true ages, is probably more of a guide and not to meant to be legally binding. The Meiri states that it is meant as a stimulus to parents to teach their children the right subject at the right time. In modern times we also give rough ages of development but realize that some children will be quicker to reach those milestones and some will be slower.
Although this mishnah begins “he used to say” and therefore seems to be Judah ben Tema’s words, according to the Tosafot Yom Tov it is actually the words of Shmuel Hakatan. As we noted in the previous mishnah, this mishnah and the next two are addenda to tractate Avoth.
At five years of age the study of Scripture: Some interpret this to mean that at five the child should begin formal schooling, where he will first learn how to read the words of Scripture and later understand them. Interestingly, in modern times it is still typical to begin to learn to read at five.
At ten the study of Mishnah: The study of mishnah refers not to the study of the Mishnah as we have it today, but rather to the rote memorization of brief, usually halakhic material, which is the literary format of most of the Mishnah.
At thirteen subject to the commandments: At thirteen a child is liable for his own sins. This was the average age of puberty at the time of the Mishnah. This is the earliest reference to “bar-mitzvah” in Talmudic literature. The concept of a celebration of the bar-mitzvah does not appear until the fifteenth century. The idea of a “bat-mitzvah” does not appear until the 19th century.
At fifteen the study of Talmud: Talmud refers to the learning of the reasons and the Biblical proof of the laws that are “mishnah”. At this age the child is more intellectually developed and can begin to learn the more difficult material. Note that most children probably did not go to school this long. The mishnah is referring to an ideal and not to common practice.
At eighteen the bridal canopy: According to many scholars, this is also an ideal. In practice men (but not necessarily women) got married later.
At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]: Once he has married a woman and had a child or two, he must pursue means to support his family. By twenty a person should have a profession. Others interpret this to mean that at twenty a person stops learning Torah and begins to work. Still others interpret this to mean that at twenty he pursues the enemy in war. This is the age at which one is liable to join the army, according to the Torah (Numbers 1:3).
At thirty the peak of strength: At thirty a person is at the peak of his strength. In the Torah the Levites only begin to work in the Tabernacle at thirty (see Numbers 4:47).
At forty wisdom: At forty a person’s wisdom comes to fruition. This is traditionally the age at which a person can be considered a “rabbi”. Nowadays people becomes rabbis at a much earlier age.
At fifty able to give counsel: In order to give advice a person needs to be wise but he also needs experience. At fifty a person still has the wisdom he reached at forty, and he now has the experience needed to advise others.
At sixty old age: A person enters old age at 60. Interestingly, the retiring age in our society is usually considered 65 (although in our society, with its advances in nutrition and health care, people are often able to work well past this age).
At seventy fullness of years: David died at 70 years of age, and I Chronicles 29:28 states, “And David died at a full age”.
At eighty the age of “strength”: See Psalms 90:10, which states that the given strength, one can live until 80.
At ninety a bent body: We should note that in the time of the Mishnah it was probably quite unusual to live this long.
At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world: In the time of the Mishnah one who lived to one hundred probably could not see or walk, and was probably extremely senile. This mishnah considers such a person as good as dead. If you are over one hundred and you are reading this or even having someone read it to you, a hearty Mazal Tov. You have outlived the mishnah’s wildest dreams. And for the rest of you, may you live and continue to learn until 120!" + ], + [ + "Ben Bag Bag said:
Turn it over, and [again] turn it over, for all is therein.
And look into it;
And become gray and old therein;
And do not move away from it, for you have no better portion than it.
According to legend, Ben Bag Bag and Ben He He (the author of the next mishnah) were converts. In order to hide them from the Roman authorities who forbade conversion, they were called by nicknames (these are obviously not real names). Both nicknames are in essence the letter “heh”, which is the letter that was added to Sarai and Avram’s, the first two converts, names. Bag Bag is in gematria (numerical value) five (bet is two and gimmel is three), which is equivalent to He He, the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The language of the next two mishnayoth is Aramaic, as are the sayings of Hillel that we saw in chapter one, mishnah thirteen. It is possible that these two sages are from the same time period as Hillel.
Ben Bag Bag’s four statements all refer to the study of Torah. The first statement teaches that one should continuously study Torah, turning it over and over, for all wisdom is contained in it. He also comes to warn man not to be satisfied with superficial learning of the Torah. Rather he must study it over many times to delve into its deeper meanings.
One should continue to look into Torah even after he has gotten old. Torah study does not end in youth but is a lifelong endeavor.
One should not leave the Torah for there is nothing better in the world than the study of Torah.
This mishnah is a quintessential example of how precious the study of Torah was in the eyes of the rabbis. It is one of the most studied books in human history and no people has ever developed such a devotion to the study of texts as have the Jews." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous mishnah we learned that one must continuously study Torah. In our mishnah Ben He He adds that one must work hard at Torah study in order to gain the greater reward of true understanding.", + "Ben He He said: According to the labor is the reward. This might remind us of the modern saying, “no pain, no gain.” The difference between the two statements is that the mishnah refers to study whereas our modern saying refers to physical exercise. Wisdom which is acquired with great labor will last longer than that which is acquired through casual reading. We might experience this if we notice that things upon which we are tested are easier to remember than the casual reading we might do on our own." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The sages taught in the language of the mishnah. Blessed be He who chose them and their teaching. Rabbi Meir said: Whoever occupies himself with the Torah for its own sake, merits many things; not only that but he is worth the whole world.
He is called beloved friend; one that loves God; one that loves humankind; one that gladdens God; one that gladdens humankind.
And the Torah clothes him in humility and reverence, and equips him to be righteous, pious, upright and trustworthy; it keeps him far from sin, and brings him near to merit.
And people benefit from his counsel, sound knowledge, understanding and strength, as it is said, “Counsel is mine and sound wisdom; I am understanding, strength is mine” (Proverbs 8:14).
And it bestows upon him royalty, dominion, and acuteness in judgment.
To him are revealed the secrets of the Torah, and he is made as an ever-flowing spring, and like a stream that never ceases.
And he becomes modest, long-suffering and forgiving of insult.
And it magnifies him and exalts him over everything.
The sixth chapter of Avoth is not truly part of the Mishnah and was not originally part of tractate Avoth. It is not found in the good manuscripts of the mishnah, but is generally found in early manuscripts of tractate Avoth as recorded in the siddur. It was added to Avoth in the middle ages as a result of the custom to learn Avoth during the Sabbaths between Pesach and Shavuoth. Since there are six Sabbaths between the two festivals, and the original tractate Avoth was only five chapters, another chapter was added. The chapter that was chosen was originally part of tractate Kallah, one of the minor tractates. It deals with the study of Torah, and is hence called “Perek Kinyan Torah”, “The Acquisition of Torah”. The chapter was chosen because of its similarity in content and style to Avoth and because Shavuoth, the holiday which immediately follows the reading of this chapter in synagogues, is the time when the Torah was given.
Although this material is not really mishnah, it has been included in Mishnah Yomit since it is now part of printed editions of the mishnah. Throughout my commentary I will call each individual unit a “mishnah”, even though this is not truly accurate.
The first section of the mishnah is an introduction, which lets the reader know that this is not truly part of the Mishnah, but that it is similar to the mishnah. It also contains a short, opening praise for God. These two lines were added in the middle ages when this chapter was appended to Avoth.
The remainder of the mishnah contains the ultimate praise of the one who studies Torah for its own sake. We should also note that the mishnah can be divided into seven sections (although there may be other ways of dividing the mishnah). This may not be accidental and this “perfect number” may part of the poetics of Rabbi Meir’s praise of Torah study. Each section seems to move forward in its praise, until it reaches the thundering crescendo the Torah scholar sits at the top of God’s creation.
Most of the mishnah is self-explanatory but we should note that although there is great glory to the Torah scholar, and he has royalty and strength and is above everyone else, he is nevertheless humble, and is not easily insulted. The Torah scholar is not a prima donna, using his knowledge to show everyone his superiority. His leadership and closeness to God is not expressed through deriding others, but he is loved by people as much as he is loved by God. Without this balance, he probably could not truly be called a Torah scholar, for his learning has not perfected his personal attributes. He also would not fit the category of one who studies Torah for “its own sake”. The great attributes that Rabbi Meir describes would not be used for one who studies Torah for ulterior motives." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nRabbi Joshua ben Levi was not a tanna (a sage from the Mishnaic period) but an amora, a sage who lived during the time of the Talmud. He was a student of one of Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s students (Bar Kapara). He was originally from Lod (close to where Ben Gurion airport is currently located) and later in life he moved to Tiberius.", + "Although the word “and” connects the parts of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s complex statement, the different sections are probably best understood as separate statements, all denouncing one who does not study Torah and praising one who does.", + "Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: every day a bat kol (a heavenly goes forth from Mount Horeb and makes proclamation and says: “Woe unto humankind for their contempt towards the Torah”, for whoever does not occupy himself with the study of Torah is called, nazuf (the rebuked. Mount Horeb is synonymous with Mt. Sinai, where the Torah was given. A bat kol is some sort of heavenly voice. It literally translates as “the daughter of a voice”. It was considered a means of receiving knowledge of the intent of God, after prophecy had ended (which was during the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple). However, the use in this mishnah may be more metaphorical.", + "As it is said, “Like a gold ring in the snout of a pig is a beautiful woman bereft of sense” (Proverbs 22:11). In the literal meaning of this verse, the gold ring on the snout of a pig serves as a simile for a beautiful woman bereft of sense. Although she may have outer beauty, like the gold ring, it is useless, for like the gold ring it is attached to something disgraceful. The verse is being used as an analogy in our mishnah to one who knows Torah but does not learn. The Torah is figuratively “in his nose” but like the pig, he does not learn it.", + "And it says, “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tablets” (Exodus 32:16). Read not haruth [‘graven’] but heruth [ ‘freedom’]. For there is no free man but one that occupies himself with the study of the Torah. There are several rich layers of meaning in the midrash in this section. First of all, the midrash makes a word play on the word “harut” and instead of reading it as meaning “engraved” it reads it as meaning “freedom” or “herut”. We learn that at the Sinaitic revelation the Israelites received their freedom (and not at the Exodus). However, “freedom” in Jewish thought does not mean freedom from responsibility but it actually means the study of Torah. According to the rabbis, there is no person freer than the one who learns Torah.", + "And whoever regularly occupies himself with the study of the Torah he is surely exalted, as it is said, “And from Mattanah to Nahaliel; and Nahaliel to Bamoth” (Numbers 21:19). There is a word play in this section. According to its simple meaning, the verse refers to the travels of Israel in the desert. Israel traveled from a place called “Matanah” to “Nahaliel”. “Matanah” means “present” and “Nahaliel” can be understood as a compound word meaning “the inheritance of God”. From the Torah, which is a gift, Israel inherits God. From there, Israel went to “Bamoth” which means “high places”. Once Israel has inherited God, they will merit being exalted in the “high places”." + ], + [ + "One who learns from his fellow one chapter, or one halakhah, or one verse, or one word, or even one letter, is obligated to treat him with honor; for so we find with David, king of Israel, who learned from Ahitophel no more than two things, yet called him his master, his guide and his beloved friend, as it is said, “But it was you, a man mine equal, my guide and my beloved friend” (Psalms 55:14). Is this not [an instance of the argument] “from the less to the greater” (kal vehomer)? If David, king of Israel who learned from Ahitophel no more than two things, nevertheless called him his master, his guide and his beloved friend; then in the case of one who learns from his fellow one chapter, or one halakhah, or one verse, or one word, or even one letter, all the more so he is under obligation to treat him with honor. And “honor’” means nothing but Torah, as it is said, “It is honor that sages inherit” (Proverbs 3:35). “And the perfect shall inherit good” (Proverbs 28:10), and “good” means nothing but Torah, as it is said, “For I give you good instruction; do not forsake my Torah” (Proverbs 4:2). This mishnah teaches that one who learns even the smallest amount of Torah from someone else, must treat him with honor. This lesson is learned from King David’s treatment of Ahitophel. Ahitophel was David’s adviser, who betrayed him when Absalom, David’s son rebelled and claimed the kingship (See II Samuel 15:12). When Absalom did not take his advice to immediately wage war on David, Ahitophel committed suicide (17:23). According to rabbinic aggadah (legend), Ahitophel was a great sage, but came to an dishonorable end due to his excessive honor. Psalms 55:13-15 is understood as being a lament by David referring to Ahitophel (this is even how the ancient Aramaic translation, targum, translates the verse). David refers to Ahitophel with three titles of respect, due to the mere two things that Ahitophel taught him. According to various legends found in rabbinic literature these two things are: 1) That the Levites should carry the ark on their shoulders and not on a cart (see II Samuel 6:3-8); 2) That he could write the name of God on a piece of clay in order to prevent the primal waters from rising (this is a legend found in Sukkah 53b). If David, King of Israel treated Ahitophel, who only taught him these two things, with such honor, all the more so must a normal person treat those from whom he learns with respect. The mishnah ends with two midrashim. The first teaches that honor is equated with Torah and the second teaches that goodness is also equated with Torah. Keep in mind that this whole chapter is about the supreme value of the Torah." + ], + [ + "Such is the way [of a life] of Torah: you shall eat bread with salt, and rationed water shall you drink; you shall sleep on the ground, your life will be one of privation, and in Torah shall you labor. If you do this, “Happy shall you be and it shall be good for you” (Psalms 128:2): “Happy shall you be” in this world, “and it shall be good for you” in the world to come. This mishnah teaches the way of life of one who is totally dedicated to the study of Torah, so much so that he neglects his worldly, material needs. His life will be one of privation. He will eat little and sleep on the hard floor. Paradoxically this seemingly poor life, will in actuality be one of great happiness and reward. The materially deprived Torah scholar will be happy in this world for he will fall so in love with the study of Torah that nothing else will matter. In the world to come he will be justly rewarded for his efforts. Others explain that this mishnah as a warning to the rich, that their delights in worldly pleasures may make it more difficult for them to learn Torah. For once a person becomes too accustomed to worldly pleasures, that person will need to work harder and harder to earn more money to keep up his extravagant lifestyle. This excessive work will make it impossible for him to learn Torah. [Note how big of a problem this is still in our society. People work harder and harder to earn more and more money, yet no matter how much money they have, they are not satisfied. It is a rare person who finally says, “I have enough” and turns his attention to things more important than earning money. The people who are able to do so, are often greatly admired by our society, a society which rarely can deny material pleasure.]" + ], + [ + "Do not seek greatness for yourself, and do not covet honor. The mishnah further warns that even when one has attained the status of being a learned person, he should not exalt himself over others, but rather remain faithful to his humble beginnings. Similarly, he should not seek honor for himself, meaning he should not learn in order that others will call him “Rabbi”.", + "Practice more than you learn. As great as his learning may be, he must remember to practice more that he has learned. The goal of learning is not knowledge for its own sake, but practice as well. We learned this above in chapter three, mishnah nine.", + "Do not yearn for the table of kings, for your table is greater than their table, and your crown is greater than their crown, and faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor. The mishnah finishes with a warning, similar to that with which it began. One should not crave the wealth or power of kings, for the table of Torah is even greater than theirs. [Some explain this to mean that your reward in the world to come is greater than that of a king]. The crown of Torah is greater than the crown of kingship, as we learned above in chapter four, mishnah thirteen. Finally, God, who is truly the master (employer) of all human beings, is faithful to pay your reward in the world to come. While the king never truly knows what awaits him, a righteous Torah scholar can be confident that in the end, he will receive his just due." + ], + [ + "Greater is learning Torah than the priesthood and than royalty, for royalty is acquired by thirty stages, and the priesthood by twenty-four, but the Torah by forty-eight things
By study,
Attentive listening,
Proper speech,
By an understanding heart,
By an intelligent heart,
By awe,
By fear,
By humility,
By joy,
By attending to the sages,
By critical give and take with friends,
By fine argumentation with disciples,
By clear thinking,
By study of Scripture,
By study of mishnah,
By a minimum of sleep,
By a minimum of chatter,
By a minimum of pleasure,
By a minimum of frivolity,
By a minimum of preoccupation with worldly matters,
By long-suffering,
By generosity,
By faith in the sages,
By acceptance of suffering.
This mishnah begins by stating that the crown of Torah is greater than that of the priesthood or royalty. This message has been one of the central themes of all of tractate Avoth. The hereditary position of the priest and the king, two of the central figures of leadership in the Bible and in the Second Temple period, is surpassed, according to the rabbis, by the exalted position of the Torah scholar. Indeed this is one of the revolutions wrought by the rabbis. Jewish leadership was open not just to those born into a certain class, but to any person who worked hard enough to earn it through the study of Torah.
The mishnah states that royalty is earned through thirty “stages”. This is understood by commentators to mean thirty special rights that only a king has. Some of these were listed in chapter two of Mishnah Sanhedrin and some are in the Bible. We will not list these here, because, in my opinion, this is only an aside in the mishnah. The twenty-four stages of the priesthood are the twenty-four different types of things they receive as gifts from other Israelites (agricultural and sacrificial gifts).
With regard to Torah, the mishnah contains the first twenty-four of a list of forty-eight ways in which Torah is acquired. Since most are self-explanatory, I will only comment on things that require further explanation.
Proper speech: this means that he must put his learning into proper order, much in the same way that the Mishnah is ordered in an organized fashion.
By awe: this refers to fear of one’s teacher.
By fear: this refers to fear of God.
By humility: humility prevents the student from being too afraid to ask a question.
By joy: only by enjoying learning can a student hope to be good at what he is doing or learning.
By attending to the sages: a student of Torah does not only learn from a sage’s words, but from his actions as well. This is why the student must serve as an apprentice to his teacher.
By critical give and take with friends: Torah cannot be studied alone.
By fine argumentation with disciples: once a person acquires the status of Teacher, he must learn from the questions his students/disciples ask him. From personal experience I can testify that I have to teach what I am learning to others. Indeed, as much as you may be learning from Mishnah Yomit, I guarantee that I am learning more by being your teacher.
By a minimum of sleep: too much sleep is a waste of time and leads one to be lazy. However, not enough sleep also can be damaging to the study of Torah, for it weakens the body and mind. The ancient rabbis recommended eight hours of sleep a night.
By long-suffering: an angry person will have great difficulty in learning. In order to learn a person must be tolerant and patient.
By acceptance of suffering: this refers to one who accepts his fate in life and does not challenge God.", + "[Learning of Torah is also acquired by one]
Who recognizes his place,
Who rejoices in his portion,
Who makes a fence about his words,
Who takes no credit for himself,
Who is loved,
Who loves God,
Who loves [his fellow] creatures, Who loves righteous ways,
Who loves reproof,
Who loves uprightness,
Who keeps himself far from honors,
Who does not let his heart become swelled on account of his learning,
Who does not delight in giving legal decisions,
Who shares in the bearing of a burden with his colleague,
Who judges with the scales weighted in his favor,
Who leads him on to truth,
Who leads him on to peace,
Who composes himself at his study,
Who asks and answers,
Who listens [to others], and [himself] adds [to his knowledge],
Who learns in order to teach,
Who learns in order to practice,
Who makes his teacher wiser,
Who is exact in what he has learned,
And who says a thing in the name of him who said it. Thus you have learned: everyone who says a thing in the name of him who said it, brings deliverance into the world, as it is said: “And Esther told the king in Mordecai’s name” (Esther 2:22).
This mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah which listed ways in which Torah is acquired. The first twenty-four were in mishnah five and the final twenty-four are here. [Note that 31a is not counted to the forty-eight. According to some commentators this line should not be part of the mishnah.]
As I did in the previous mishnah, I will only explain those things which require explanation.
Who recognizes his place: Some say that this means that he comes early to the bet midrash (study house). Others interpret it to mean that the person knows in which study house it is appropriate for him to learn.
Who rejoices in his portion: he is satisfied with the abilities that God has given him and is not jealous of others. This is similar to one “who recognizes his place.”
Who makes a fence about his words: this refers to one who is careful with his words, so that others should not come to err by them.
Who loves [his fellow] creatures: if a Torah scholar hates humanity, others who observe him will begin to hate Torah. In such a way he will desecrate God’s name. A true student of Torah must also love God’s human creations, as much as he loves God’s legal/theological manifesto.
Who loves reproof: one who seeks wisdom must also appreciate the necessity of reproof. Only by accepting criticism for his errors will he grow, both as a human being and as a scholar.
Who keeps himself far from honors: as we learned above in mishnah four.
Who does not delight not in giving legal decisions: see above, chapter four, mishnah seven.
Who shares in the bearing of a burden with his colleague: when a fellow student bears a burden, such as having to act on behalf of the government, he should help him complete his duty, and together resume learning as quickly as possible. This also may mean that when a fellow student grieves, he must grieve with him.
Who judges with the scales weighted in his favor: as we learned in tractate Sanhedrin, it is always preferable to seek to exculpate the accused.
Who leads him on to truth: this statement balances out the previous statement. Although the judge should look to weigh the scales in favor of the accused, this does not come at the expense of truth.
Who leads him on to peace: one who learns and teaches Torah should use his knowledge to bring peace and friendship between others.
Who composes himself at his study: he learns cautiously and not with excess haste.
Who asks and answers: note that asking the right questions is as important if not more important than giving the right answers.
Who listens [to others], and [himself] adds [to his knowledge]: although he may be the teacher, he learns from his students. See above, chapter one, mishnah thirteen.
Who learns in order to teach: see above, chapter four, mishnah five.
Who makes his teacher wiser: by asking intelligent questions. Thus his teacher will be able to say that he “has learned most from my students”.
Who is exact in what he has learned: he does not add to the tradition that he has received, nor detract from it.
And who says a thing in the name of him who said it: he does not attribute that which he has learned from his teacher, to himself.
Thus you have learned: everyone that says a thing in the name of him who said it, brings deliverance into the world, as it is said: “And Esther told the king in Mordecai’s name” (Esther 2:22): and it was through Esther’s words to the king that the Jewish people were saved." + ], + [ + "Great is Torah for it gives life to those that practice it, in this world, and in the world to come,
As it is said: “For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh” (Proverbs 4:22),
And it says: “It will be a cure for your navel and marrow for your bones” (ibid. 3:8)
And it says: “She is a tree of life to those that grasp her, and whoever holds onto her is happy” (ibid. 3:18),
And it says: “For they are a graceful wreath upon your head, a necklace about your throat” (ibid. 1:9),
And it says: “She will adorn your head with a graceful wreath; crown you with a glorious diadem” (ibid. 4:9)
And it says: “In her right hand is length of days, in her left riches and honor” (ibid. 3:1,
And it says: “For they will bestow on you length of days, years of life and peace” (ibid. 3:2).
This mishnah is basically a series of prooftexts taken from Proverbs, and used to prove the life-giving qualities of Torah. The book of Proverbs was an especially rich source for quotes in rabbinic literature. Note that there are seven prooftexts, a number that is surely not accidental.
This mishnah is a series of quotes from Proverbs, each of which proves that Torah is beneficial, that it bestows life and wealth. I will only comment on a few of these texts.
Section three: The Torah is a tree of life, but only for those who “grasp her”. This means that the words of Torah require reinforcement, that is continuous study.
Section four: According to the commentators, the head mentioned in this verse refers to thought and the throat refers to speech. Torah learning is only acquired by engaging both one’s head and one’s throat.
Section seven: Just as the Amidah prayer concludes with a request for peace, so too does this mishnah." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: Beauty, strength, riches, honor, wisdom, [old age], gray hair, and children are becoming to the righteous, and becoming to the world,
As it is said: “Gray hair is a crown of glory (; it is attained by way of righteousness” (Proverbs 16:31,
And it says: “The ornament of the wise is their wealth” (ibid. 14:24),
And it says: “Grandchildren are the glory of their elders, and the glory of children is their parents” (ibid. 17:6),
And it says: “The glory of youths is their strength; and the beauty of old men is their gray hair” (ibid. 20:29),
And it says: “Then the moon shall be ashamed, and the sun shall be abashed. For the Lord of Hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and God’s Honor will be revealed to his elders” (Isaiah 24:23). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said: these seven qualities, which the sages have listed [as becoming] to the righteous, were all of them fulfilled in Rabbi and his sons.
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya was a colleague of Rabbi Judah Hanasi. He and another rabbi were part of a group called “the holy assembly” for one of two reasons. Either they split their day into three parts, one third in study, one third in prayer and one third working. Alternatively they worked during the summer and learned Torah all winter.
Similar to the previous mishnah, this mishnah employs mostly verses from Proverbs.
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya lists seven qualities that when possessed by a righteous person, are beneficial to him and beneficial to the whole world. In this list I have placed the words “old age” in parentheses, for they should not be part of the source. Old age is synonymous with “gray hair” (my apologies if this insults those who have gone prematurely gray). Furthermore, if this were part of the list there would be eight qualities and not seven. It is obvious from the end of the mishnah that there are supposed to be only seven.
1. Beauty although we may not like to admit this, good-looking people are more admired and listened to than not good-looking people. The righteous person’s good looks benefit him and the rest of the world for others will listen to his sage advice.
2. Strength with strength the righteous person will be able to vanquish the wicked.
3. Wealth to be used to support the poor.
4. Honor when the righteous person is honored, others will listen to his words.
5. Wisdom to learn what it is that God wants him to do.
6. Gray hair with gray hair and the accompanying onset of old age comes the important quality of experience, which is so essential to any teacher.
7. Children who will hopefully inherit his righteous ways.
In order to facilitate the understanding of the texts brought as support, I have highlighted the appearance of each of these qualities in the various verses.
At the end of the mishnah Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya testifies that all of these characteristics were fully present in Rabbi [Judah Hanasi], the editor of the Mishnah, and his sons." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a beautiful story of Rabbi Yose ben Kisma and his desire to live in a city where other sages live.", + "Rabbi Yose ben Kisma said: Once I was walking by the way when a man met me, and greeted me and I greeted him. He said to me, “Rabbi, where are you from?” I said to him, “I am from a great city of sages and scribes”. He said to me, “Rabbi, would you consider living with us in our place? I would give you a thousand thousand denarii of gold, and precious stones and pearls.” I said to him: “My son, even if you were to give me all the silver and gold, precious stones and pearls that are in the world, I would not dwell anywhere except in a place of Torah; for when a man passes away there accompany him neither gold nor silver, nor precious stones nor pearls, but Torah and good deeds alone, as it is said, “When you walk it will lead you. When you lie down it will watch over you; and when you are awake it will talk with you” (Proverbs 6:22). “When you walk it will lead you” in this world. “When you lie down it will watch over you” in the grave; “And when you are awake it will talk with you” in the world to come. And thus it is written in the book of Psalms by David, king of Israel, “I prefer the teaching You proclaimed to thousands of pieces of gold and silver” (Psalms 119:71), And it says: “Mine is the silver, and mine the gold, says the Lord of Hosts” (Haggai 2:8). The teaching in this mishnah is similar to the words of Rabbi Nehorai in chapter four, mishnah fourteen, “go as a [voluntary] exile to a place of Torah and say not that it will come after you” Rabbi Nehorai teaches that one should leave a city where one cannot learn Torah to go to a place where one can learn Torah. In our mishnah we see a reverse move: Rabbi Yose ben Kisma will not leave his city which is full of sages, even to go to a place where they will give him all of the money in the world. The wealth of Torah accompanies not only in this world, but to the grave and onwards to the world to come. Note how opposite this idea is from the ancient practice of burying a person with some of his material possessions, which were to go on with him to the world to come. In Judaism what accompanies a person to the world to come are not his material possessions but his spiritual accomplishments: learning Torah and performing good deeds. This is what God truly cares about. Rabbi Yose uses several texts to prove that true wealth belongs to God and is given through His Torah. The wealth of money and jewels cannot tempt Rabbi Yose to leave a life of Torah." + ], + [ + "Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they:
The Torah, one possession;
Heaven and earth, another possession;
Abraham, another possession;
Israel, another possession;
The Temple, another possession. 1 The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’ me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). , 2 Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3 Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4 Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire ( is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5 The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).
This mishnah lists five things that are mentioned in the Torah as having been “possessed” or acquired by God. The Hebrew root for this word is knh, which can also mean, in Biblical Hebrew, “create”. Hence you will note that some of the verses quoted are usually translated as “create”. However to make the connections between the verses and their use in the mishnah more clear, I have translated the word as “possess”.
Since this mishnah is simple and self-explanatory, I have refrained from commenting. However, it may be worthwhile to think about what these five things have in common, beside the fact that the verb knh is used in connection with them in various places in the Bible." + ], + [ + "Whatever the Holy Blessed One created in His world, he created only for His glory, as it is said: “All who are linked to My name, whom I have created, formed and made for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7), And it says: “The Lord shall reign for ever and ever” (Exodus 15:18). In the previous mishnah we learned that God has five possessions in this world. Our mishnah expands this idea and states that all of creation is meant to glorify God. Even pieces of our world that we may think are extraneous and unnecessary, are somehow linked into the great web called God’s creation. Each piece, as unexplainable as it may be to us, has its place and ultimately it too gives glory to God. As much as this mishnah teaches about God, it teaches more about the world and how we, as God’s caretakers, must look at it. You may note that the second verse does not seem to support the idea in this section. It was probably brought as a small prayer, to be said at the end of the last mishnah of the chapter (the next section is not truly part of this chapter).", + "Said Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashya: It pleased the Holy Blessed One to grant merit to Israel, that is why He gave them Torah and commandments in abundance, as it is said, “The Lord was pleased for His righteousness, to make Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). This last section appears as the last mishnah in tractate Makkot. In order to save you the trouble of looking back, I will quote what I wrote there (with a few minor additions which I have thought about since then): This oft-quoted mishnah responds to an important theological question regarding the performance of commandments. Why does God care, or how is God affected, by Israel performing ritual commandments, for instance, kashruth, the dietary laws? Many have asked, what does God care how I eat my meat, whether I eat it with milk or not? The answer that Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashiah gives is that by performing God’s commandment, Israel accrues merit with God. It is a way for Israel to live up to a covenant, entered into with the infinite divine. The mitvoth, the commandments, and the learning of Torah, are not magical rites, performed in order to manipulate God into treating us better. Rather they are a symbol God’s grace to Israel, a means by which Israel can act out the will of the divine. They are means by which Israel can show God how much they love God. Note that this concept is opposed to that which Paul, the leader of early Christianity posited, namely that the law causes people to be sinners, and without the law there is no sin. In Judaism halakhah is not a stumbling block but an opportunity for people to perform God’s will. This is not an opportunity that should be taken for granted. This mishnah is customarily recited in synagogues after the completion of each chapter of Avoth, which is studied between Pesach and Shavuoth. Since it is one of the core ideas in all of Judaism, it has become in essence a prayer recited liturgically, and not just a learned text. Congratulations! We have finished Avoth. As I have mentioned at the end of every tractate, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. I might add that now that we have learned many tractates, it becomes more important to go back and look over material. You will have noted how different and special tractate Avoth really was. The lessons that we have learned should be internalized, for they contain some of the most important concepts in all of Judaism. Tomorrow we begin tractate Horayoth, and with God’s help, when we complete Horayoth, we will have finished all of Seder Nezikin!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה אבות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nezikin" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה אבות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Pirkei Avot", + "key": "English Explanation of Pirkei Avot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ddd0012199a02eca2dd43889d5a37437b2c20b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,1519 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה כלים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Before I begin to discuss Kelim, I would like to begin with a note on learning the laws of purity, a subject which we have only indirectly touched upon until now. The very fact that at least 1/6 of the Mishnah and probably a large percentage of Leviticus are dedicated to the laws of purity certainly implies that these rules had important meaning in their lives. For us it is hard to determine what exactly that meaning might have been, but my sense is that all societies, primitive and modern, have their ways of ordering the world, and that purity/impurity systems are a means of going about this. This is a subject that Mary Douglass, an anthropologist, has written extensively about (she even has a book on Leviticus). I would urge any of you who are interested in further reading to look at some of her work, or the commentaries of Jacob Millgrom, for further insights into some of these subjects. Jonathan Klawans has also written an excellent book on purity. While nearly all of these rules are no longer practiced, I think that if we want to truly enter into the rabbinic bet midrash, into their way of thinking, there is no better way to do so than to learn Seder Toharot. There are five main causes of impurity discussed in Seder Toharot: 1) A dead body. 2) The eight creepy-crawly things listed in Leviticus 11. These are called \"sheretz/sheratzim.\" 3) The carcass of a nevelah, a kosher animal that was not slaughtered properly. 4) The zav or zavah (man or woman suffering abnormal genital discharge), a menstruant or a woman who gave birth. 5) Tsaraat, which is some sort of skin disease. These five sources of impurity are discussed in the first chapter of Kelim. ", + "The following items can become impure: people, vessels, food and drinks. To become susceptible to impurity, food must first come into contact with a liquid. People and vessels can become pure by entering a mikveh. After entering the mikveh they become pure after sunset. A person who becomes impure through contact with a dead body must undergo a stricter purification process, involving the ashes of the red heifer. There are obviously many more rules that we will learn on the way, but these are the basics, and if you remember them, you will find the Seder a bit easier (just a bit!). ", + "The word \"kelim\" means \"vessels\" but it has a broader meaning in mishnaic Hebrew than the word \"vessels\" in English. It basically includes most things made for human use—utensils, tools, clothing, furniture and many others. Our tractate deals with how these objects can become impure and pure, and how they convey purity to other things, mostly food and drink. At the outset, I will describe certain rules that the rabbis established. Most of these were learned either directly or indirectly from biblical verses, but I shall not go in to all of the midrashim that lie at the heart of these rules. The verses are found below, and we shall make frequent reference to them throughout.", + "How a vessel receives/conveys impurity depends largely on the material from which that vessel was made. We shall now deal with the materials addressed throughout the tractate.", + "Earthenware: Earthenware vessels become impure only if something impure falls into them. They cannot become impure by something touching their outside. However, from the inside they can become impure even without contact, for instance the impure thing hangs inside their air space. Because of this rule, for an earthenware vessel to become impure it must have an inside, such as a cup, a tub, a jar, etc. If the earthenware vessel has a lid and the lid is sealed to it, impurity cannot enter. Earthenware vessels convey impurity to food and drink found inside, even if they are not touching. But they do not convey impurity to other vessels. ", + "Other types of vessels (especially wood, leather and bone): Vessels made of other types of material receive impurity by contact, even if they don't have any inside. However, if impurity enters their airspace, they are not impure. Wooden, leather and bone vessels must be meant to receive or hold both people and things in order to become impure. For instance, a wooden table can become impure, because it serves both people and things, but a ladder only serves people and therefore it cannot become impure. They most also be the types of vessels that are moved for them to become impure. Thus a very large container cannot become impure. They convey impurity to food and drink. Vessels made of stone, dirt or manure cannot become or convey impurity. According to Torah law, glass vessels also cannot become or convey impurity. However, rabbinic law treats them as wood, leather and bone vessels. ", + "The major difficulty in understanding Kelim is that we often don't have a clear picture as to what the vessel being discussed actually was. The words for vessels tend to change over time, as technology and language develop, and rabbinic traditions did not always preserve what the meaning of these words was. In addition, Kelim and all of Seder Toharot was not as well learned as other sedarim and tractates, again contributing to a loss in meaning. As is typical in the Mishnah, the mishnah often conveys its meaning by using specific examples, as opposed to outlining general rules. The problem is that when one doesn't understand the example, the rule is harder to understand. We will do the best we can in learning this tractate, and as a rule, I shall use Albeck's explanations. In order to prevent confusion, I will infrequently cite variant explanations. I hope that despite these difficulties, the tractate is interesting and somewhat intelligible.", + "Leviticus 11 29 The following shall be unclean for you from among the things that swarm on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and great lizards of every variety; 30 the gecko, the land crocodile, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. 31 Those are for you the unclean among all the swarming things; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. 32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. 33 And if any of those falls into an earthen vessel, everything inside it shall be unclean and [the vessel] itself you shall break. 34 As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become unclean if it came in contact with water; as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become unclean if it was inside any vessel. 35 Everything on which the carcass of any of them falls shall be unclean: an oven or stove shall be smashed. They are unclean and unclean they shall remain for you. 36 However, a spring or cistern in which water is collected shall be clean, but whoever touches such a carcass in it shall be unclean. 37 If such a carcass falls upon seed grain that is to be sown, it is clean; 38 but if water is put on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be unclean for you. ", + "Leviticus Chapter 15 1 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: 2 Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When any man has a discharge issuing from his member, he is unclean. 3 The uncleanness from his discharge shall mean the following — whether his member runs with the discharge or is stopped up so that there is no discharge, his uncleanness means this: 4 Any bedding on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean, and every object on which he sits shall be unclean. 5 Anyone who touches his bedding shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 6 Whoever sits on an object on which the one with the discharge has sat shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 7 Whoever touches the body of the one with the discharge shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 8 If one with a discharge spits on one who is clean, the latter shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 9 Any means for riding that one with a discharge has mounted shall be unclean; 10 whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until evening; and whoever carries such things shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 11 If one with a discharge, without having rinsed his hands in water, touches another person, that person shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 12 An earthen vessel that one with a discharge touches shall be broken; and any wooden implement shall be rinsed with water. 19 When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body, she shall remain in her impurity seven days; whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. 20 Anything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; and anything that she sits on shall be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bedding shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; 22 and anyone who touches any object on which she has sat shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 23 Be it the bedding or be it the object on which she has sat, on touching it he shall be unclean until evening. 24 And if a man lies with her, her impurity is communicated to him; he shall be unclean seven days, and any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean. 25 When a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or when she has a discharge beyond her period of impurity, she shall be unclean, as though at the time of her impurity, as long as her discharge lasts. 26 Any bedding on which she lies while her discharge lasts shall be for her like bedding during her impurity; and any object on which she sits shall become unclean, as it does during her impurity: 27 whoever touches them shall be unclean; he shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. ", + "Numbers 19 14 This is the ritual: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be unclean seven days; 15 and every open vessel, with no lid fastened down, shall be unclean." + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction Mishnah Kelim begins by listing five types of impurity that are called \"fathers of impurity.\" The word \"fathers of…\" is also used in connection with damages and in connection with the 39 types of labor prohibited on Shabbat.", + "The fathers of impurity are a: sheretz, semen, [an Israelite] who has contracted corpse impurity, a metzora during the days of his counting, and the waters of purification whose quantity is less than the minimum needed for sprinkling. Below in sections three and four the mishnah explains the shared characteristics of these types of impurity. A) Sheretz one of the eight creepy crawly things listed in Leviticus 11:29ff. B) See Leviticus 15:16-17. C) See Numbers 19:11, 17. D) Once the metzora (person with skin disease) is healed, he spends seven days outside of the camp until he is allowed back in. During these days he is still impure and he conveys impurity to other things. See Leviticus 14. E) These are waters with the red heifer's ashes in them. See Numbers 19:21. If there is not sufficient water to be used to sprinkle on the dead, then these waters convey impurity in the ways described below. Tomorrow's mishnah will discuss how they convey impurity if there is enough to sprinkle.", + "Behold, these convey impurity to people and vessels by contact and to earthenware by presence within their airspace, These five \"fathers of impurity\" convey impurity by contact with people and vessels. When it comes to earthenware, as we explained in the introduction, the vessel is impure only if the source of impurity enters its airspace. It does not convey impurity through contact.", + "But they do not convey impurity by being carried. If a person carries one of these things without coming into physical contact with it, he is not thereby made impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMoving up on the hierarchy of \"fathers of impurity,\" we now encounter two more types of impurity which are even more contagious than the five listed in yesterday's mishnah.", + "Above them are nevelah and waters of purification whose quantity is sufficient to be sprinkled, for these convey impurity to a person [even] by being carried so that he in turn conveys impurity to clothing by contact. Nevelah is carrion of a pure animal, that is, a kosher animal that was not slaughtered properly. See Leviticus 11:24-28, 39-40. Anyone who even carries nevelah, or a piece of nevelah, is impure, even if he doesn't directly touch the carrion. Furthermore, he in turn defiles the clothing that he is wearing while carrying the carrion. The same halakhah applies to the waters of impurity (see yesterday's mishnah) if there is a sufficient amount to sprinkle on a person to purify him.", + "Clothing, however, is free from impurity where there was contact alone. If a person touches one of these things, his clothes are not thereby defiled. They are only defiled if he carries one of these things." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWe continue moving up the line of defiling agents.", + "Above them is one who had intercourse with a menstruant, for he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. The impurity of a man who has sex with a menstruant is referred to in Leviticus 15:24: \"And if a man lies with her, her impurity is communicated to him; he shall be unclean seven days, and any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean.\" The rabbis interpret the end of this verse to mean that no matter how much bedding lies beneath him, they are all impure. The bedding will have first degree impurity, which means it defiles food and drink, but not other people or vessels.", + "Above them is the issue of a zav, his spit, his semen and his urine, and the blood of a menstruant, for they convey impurity both by contact and by carrying. Fluids which come out of the zav (spit, semen and urine) and menstrual blood convey impurity to a person by carrying and contact, such that he in turn conveys impurity to his clothing. This is different from the impurities mentioned above in mishnah two, which through contact do not defile a person such that he defiles his clothing. And a person who has sex with a menstruant does not defile others by being carried.", + "Above them is an object on which one can ride, for it conveys impurity even when it lies under a heavy stone. If a zav sits on a heavy stone, and underneath the stone there is a vessel used for riding (such as a saddle) the vessel is impure even though the stone cannot become impure. This is a special characteristic of something that is ridden upon.", + "Above the object on which one can ride is that on which one can lie, for contact is the same as its carrying. Something that a zav lies upon (and is a vessel used for lying down, such as a bed) is even more serious in its impurity than something upon which he rides, in that the former conveys impurity through both contact and carrying. Furthermore, if someone has contact with something upon which the zav lay, he will himself further convey impurity to clothing. In contrast, one who has contact with something upon which the zav rides, does not defile clothing.", + "Above the object on which one can lie is the zav, for a zav conveys impurity to the object on which he lies, while the object on which he lies cannot convey the same impurity to that upon which it lies. The zav himself can cause anything upon which he lies to become a defiling agent. However, the thing upon which he lies does not itself cause other bedding to become a \"father of impurity.\" Rather, anything it touches just has \"first degree impurity.\" We will learn more about the implications of being either a \"father of impurity\" or merely a \"first\" or lower degree of impurity as we proceed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the last mishnah that ranks defiling agents. It ends with the greatest source of impurity the dead body.", + "Above the zav is the zavah, for she conveys impurity to the man who has intercourse with her. The zavah conveys impurity to the man who has relations with her, just as does the menstruant. In other words, not only is he impure, but he also defiles that which he lies upon, even without contact.", + "Above the zavah is the metzora, for he conveys impurity by entering into a house. When a metzora enters a house, everything in the house is impure, even if he doesn't come into contact with it.", + "Above the metzora is a [human] bone the size of a barley grain, for it conveys impurity for seven days. Contact with a bone from a dead body makes a person impure for seven full days.", + "More strict than all these is a corpse, for it conveys impurity by ohel ( whereby all the others convey no impurity. This is the final clause of the hierarchy. The most severe form of impurity is conveyed by a dead body, for it conveys a significant form of impurity to anyone found in the same \"ohel\" as the body. In rabbinic parlance, \"ohel\" doesn't just mean \"tent\" as it does in Hebrew. It means \"overhanging.\" We shall learn more details concerning this concept throughout the tractate, and also in tractate Ohalot (I bet you can't wait!)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are ten grades of impurity when it comes to impurities that are a result of emissions from a male body. These include semen, flux (abnormal genital discharge), skin disease (tsaraat) and separated limbs.", + "There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person:
A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. The lowest level of impurity is a person who has immersed in the mikveh but is not fully pure until he brings his sacrifices. An example is the metzora (see Keritot 2:1). Such a person cannot eat sacrifices, but he can already eat terumah and second tithe.", + "If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. A tevul yom is a person who has immersed in the mikveh but is waiting for the sun to set before he becomes fully pure. He can't eat terumah or sacrifices, but he can still eat second tithe.", + "If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. A man who has a seminal emission (and has not yet been to the mikveh) cannot eat any of these three things, giving him a more serious form of impurity than the tevul yom.", + "If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. A man who has intercourse with a menstruant has an even more serious form of impurity. This was explained above in mishnah three.", + "If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. A zav who has had one or two abnormal discharges has a higher form of impurity, in that he needs to immerse in a spring in order to become pure. See Leviticus 15:13, \"When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge, he shall count off seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes and bathe his body in fresh water; then he shall be clean.\"", + "If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he has three abnormal discharges within three days, he must bring a sacrifice of either two turtle-doves or two pigeons. See Leviticus 15:14.", + "If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. There are two stages when it comes to the impurity of a person who has developed tzaraat (skin disease). The first is when the priest sends him away to wait and see if fuller signs of the affliction develop. Already at this period he conveys impurity by entering a house (see mishnah four). However, he does not have to rend his clothes, loosen his hair or shave his body. Concerning these things see Leviticus 13:45. He also does not need to bring sacrifices, if later he is determined not to have tzaraat.", + "But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. Once it is determined that he does have tzaraat, he is liable to do all of these things.", + "If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. A limb which is severed from a living person conveys impurity, even if the person remains alive. If it does not have a sufficient amount of flesh, then its level of impurity is such that it defiles by contact and carrying, but not by entering into an ohel. Below the mishnah will explain \"sufficient amount of flesh.\"", + "But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A \"proper quantity of flesh\" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing. If there is a sufficient amount of flesh, then it also conveys impurity by being in an ohel. For there to be \"a sufficient amount of flesh\" there must be enough flesh on the limb such that it could heal if it was attached to the body. So if one's finger falls off, for instance, but it had already been damaged so much that there was barely any flesh on it, it doesn't convey impurity by being in an ohel. Rabbi Judah provides a slightly different interpretation. If there is enough flesh in one place on the limb, such that if it was stripped off it could surround the limb, and the strip would have the width of the thread of a woof, then it is sufficient." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe remainder of this chapter establishes geographical grades of holiness which lands are holier than others, and which places within Israel holier than other places.", + "There are ten grades of holiness: the land of Israel is holier than all other lands. And what is the nature of its holiness? That from it are brought the omer, the firstfruits and the two loaves, which cannot be brought from any of the other lands. The first grade of holiness, meaning the first place with any degree of holiness at all, is the land of Israel, which is holier than any other land. The mishnah then proceeds to explain what are the ramifications of Israel being holier than the other lands. Israeli is holier for three reasons: 1) The barley that is reaped on the day after Pesah (see Leviticus 23:10-15), called the omer, must be harvested in the land of Israel. 2) First fruits, which are brought to the Temple (see Mishnah Bikkurim) and eaten in Jerusalem by their owners, are brought only from fruits that grow in the land of Israel. We should note that this is true of all agricultural offerings terumah, tithes, etc. Anything brought directly from produce grown on the land comes only from the land of Israel. The mishnah specifies first fruits because they are brought to the Temple in a formal ceremony, whereas the other offerings are given directly to the priest or Levite, without any special ritual. 3) The two loaves are brought on Shavuot. They must come from grain grown in Israel (see Leviticus 23:17). It is revealing that the rabbis grade holiness by opportunities to perform mitzvot. A place in which more mitzvot can be performed is holier than others. This implies that holiness is wrapped up in the performance of God's will, as if to say that the more one can perform God's will, the more holiness is brought to the world. A different view of gradations of holiness might claim that God \"resides\" in a certain place, and therefore, that place is holier." + ], + [ + "Cities that are walled are holier, for metzoras must be sent out of them and a corpse, though it may be carried about within them as long as it is desired, may not be brought back once it has been taken out. There are two halakhot that make walled cities holier than non-walled cities. First of all, metzoras must be sent out of walled cities. This is based loosely on Leviticus 13:46 which states that a metzora must be sent out of the \"camp.\" The second halakhah is that a corpse may not be brought into a walled city. However, a corpse that is already in a walled city need not be removed quickly." + ], + [ + "The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten. Within the walls of Jerusalem is holier than within other walled cities, for within these walls one may eat lesser holy things (kodashim kalim) such as the pesah sacrifice and shelamim sacrifices. One may also eat second tithe inside the walls of Jerusalem.", + "The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it. Men or women who are zavim or zavot, and menstruants and women after childbirth are not allowed to enter the Temple Mount. This is stated with regard to the woman who gave birth in Leviticus 12:4.", + "The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it. The chel is a sort of corridor surrounding the Temple's courtyards. See Middot 2:3. Strictly speaking, its area is not considered part of the Temple. Non-Jews and Jews who contracted corpse impurity are not allowed into this area. This seems to be an extra insurance policy to keep these two categories further away from the Temple itself.", + "The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so. The Women's court was the first court into which one would enter upon entering the Temple. See Middot 2:5-6. A person who had gone to the mikveh but who had not yet waited till sundown could not go into this court, meaning he/she cannot enter the Temple. However, if he/she accidently enters this court, he is not liable for a sin-offering, as would be a person who entered the Temple while fully impure.", + "The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat. After going through the Women's Court, one would enter the Israelites' court. Obviously, any impure Israelite cannot enter here. The mishnah adds that a metzora (skin disease) who had been purified but had not yet offered his sacrifices cannot enter this area, and if he does so, he is liable for a hatat.", + "The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving. The Priests' Court is basically off limits to the Israelites. However, they may enter in order to perform one of the sacrificial actions that they are either obligated or permitted to perform. These including laying one's hands on the sacrifice (see Menahot 9:8), slaughtering the sacrifice (Israelites can, but do not have to perform this see Zevahim 3:1) and waving the sacrifice (see Menahot 5:6-7)." + ], + [ + "The area between the porch ( and the altar is holier, for [priests] who have blemishes or unkempt hair may not enter it. There were 22 cubits between the porch and the altar (see Middot 3:6, 5:1). This section is off-limits to a priest who is blemished (Leviticus 21:17), or one who grew his hair too long (Leviticus 10:6).", + "The Hekhal is holier, for no one whose hands or feet are unwashed may enter it. Priests who had not washed their hands and feet could not enter the Hekhal, the Sanctuary. However, according to the first opinion they could enter the area between the porch and the altar without washing their hands.", + "The Holy of Holies is holier, for only the high priest, on Yom Kippur, at the time of the service, may enter it. The highest degree of sanctity is accorded to the Holy of Holies, for the high priest could only enter there once a year, on Yom Kippur.", + "Rabbi Yose said: in five respects the area between the porch and the altar is equal to the Hekhal, for those afflicted with blemishes or with a wild growth of hair, or who have drunk wine or whose hands or feet are unwashed may not enter there, and the people must keep away from the area between the porch and the altar when the incense is being burned. According to Rabbi Yose the prohibitions that the first opinion says begin at the Sanctuary, begin between the porch and the altar. He also holds that priests who had drunk wine (or other alcohol) cannot go into this area (see Leviticus 10:9). If you go back and count, Rabbi Yose holds that there are ten levels of holiness whereas the first opinion holds that there are eleven. In addition, when the incense is being burned on a daily basis, the people must leave both the Sanctuary and the area between the porch and the altar. On Yom Kippur they need not withdraw all the way to the porch, but rather just leave the Sanctuary itself." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAfter the introductory chapter, our mishnah begins to deal with the purity and impurity of vessels.", + "Vessels of wood, vessels of leather, vessels of bone or vessels of glass: If they are simple they are clean If they form a receptacle they are unclean. Vessels made of wood, leather, bone or glass can come in two forms: simple or with a receptacle. They are simple if they are not made to accept anything. Simple vessels cannot become defiled. They are susceptible to impurity only if they have a receptacle. This rule seems to be derived from Leviticus 11:32.", + "If they were broken they become clean again. If the vessel was impure when it was whole and then was broken, it now automatically becomes pure.", + "If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. Once it is fixed, it is now susceptible again to impurity. However, the vessel does not return to its old impurity. In other words, the slate is wiped clean.", + "Earthen vessels and vessels of sodium carbonate are equal in respect of impurity: they contract and convey impurity through their air-space; they convey impurity through the outside but they do not become impure through their backs; and when broken they become clean. The rules regarding earthenware and sodium carbonate vessels are different. As I explained in the introduction, they can be made impure only by something entering their air space, even if the defiling agent does not touch them. They also convey impurity to food or other vessels that enter their air space, even if they do not come into contact with them. This is derived from Leviticus 11:33. They also convey impurity through their outsides. So if they are impure, and a piece of food touches the outside of the vessel, the food is impure. But if something impure touches the outside of the vessel (their backs) they are not defiled. Earthenware vessels cannot be made pure by entering a mikveh. The only way they can become pure is by being broken (see Leviticus 6:21, 11:33, 15:12)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah we learned that vessels become pure when they are broken. Our mishnah modifies yesterday's mishnah, by teaching that the vessels are \"broken\" and thereby pure only when they are no longer usable. If pieces of the vessel can be used for any purpose, that piece retains its impurity, or at least its capacity to become impure.\nThe tannaim in our mishnah argue as to how big the piece must be in order to still be able to become impure or retain its impurity.", + "As regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of the larger but broken vessels] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold oil sufficient for the anointing of a little finger of a child [if their former capacity] was that of a log. If [their former capacity] was from one log to a se'ah [their present capacity] must be a quarter of a log. If it was from a se'ah to two se'ah it must be half a log. If from two se'ah to three se'ah or as much as five se'ah it must be a log, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. This section is Rabbi Yishmael's opinion. In each section there are two sizes how big the vessel was before it was broken, and how big the piece left needs to be in order to still be susceptible to impurity. When it comes to broken pieces, if it is a side piece it needs to be able to stand unsupported. If it can't, the size of the piece is irrelevant, for it won't receive impurity. If the vessel (or the broken piece thereof) was very small, and couldn't even hold a log (1/2 liter) before it was broken, then it only needs to be able to hold enough oil for a small child to soak his finger in. If it can't hold even this small amount of oil, then it cannot receive impurity. If the original size was from a log to a seah (24 logs), then it needs to be able to hold at least a 1/4 of a log. If the original size was from one to two seahs, it must now be able to hold 1/2 of a log, and if the original size was from two to five seahs, it must be able to hold a full log. The assumption behind all of this seems to be that if a person has a small vessel, he may save a smaller shard of that vessel. But if the vessel was originally very large, very small shards will seem to lack any value and he will get rid of them. In this case, the vessel is not susceptible to impurity.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: I do not prescribe any size for the unbroken vessels, rather: as regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of larger but broken ones] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold enough oil to anoint the little finger of a child. [This size is prescribed for pots] that are not bigger than the small cooking-pots. For small cooking-pots and for those between these and the jars from Lydda the prescribed capacity is a quarter of a log. For those which have a size between that of Lydda jars and Bethlehem jars the capacity must be that of half a log. For those between Bethlehem jars and large stone jars the capacity must be that of a log. Rabbi Akiva basically agrees with Rabbi Yishmael, but he uses a different system to delineate the original sizes of the vessels. Instead of listing capacities, he lists typical types of jars or other containers used in his day. Other than that, he agrees with Rabbi Yishmael as to how big the pieces must be in order to still be susceptible to impurity. Jars and containers seem to have been typically named based on their place of manufacture.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai says: [the prescribed capacity for the fragments] of large stone jars is two logs, and that for the bottoms of broken Galilean flasks and small jars is any whatsoever, but the fragments of their sides are not susceptible to impurity Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai seems to basically agree with Rabbi Akiva. He disagrees in that he gives different measures for how big the pieces must be for large stone jars. Whereas Rabbi Akiva held that they need hold only one log, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai holds that they must hold two logs. He also holds that small jars and Galilean flasks can still receive impurity no matter how small a piece was left. Assumedly, people would use these shards even if they were very small. However, this only applies to the base. In his opinion, the walls of these flasks or jars were not usable at all, and therefore once broken, they cannot receive impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn our mishnah we learn that earthenware vessels are susceptible to impurity only if they have an \"inner part\" that is made to receive something.", + "The following are not susceptible to impurity among earthen vessels: A tray without a rim, A broken incense-pan, A pierced pan for roasting corn, Gutters even if they are bent and even if they have some form of receptacle, A cooking vessel that was turned into a bread-basket cover, A bucket that was turned into a cover for grapes, A barrel used for swimmers, A small jar fixed to the sides of a ladle, A bed, a stool, a bench, a table, a ship, and an earthen lamp, behold these are no susceptible to impurity. The vessels listed in this section cannot become impure because they do not have any \"inner part,\" which is made to accept things. Some of these should be understandable, but I will make an attempt to explain some of the others. Gutters are not meant to hold the rain or other things and therefore they can't be defiled. The cooking vessel does have a receptacle, but since they changed it to be used as a cover for grapes which does not \"receive\" things, it is not susceptible to impurity. The fact that the barrel holds a person does not seem sufficient to consider it a vessel that receives. The little jar fixed to the sides of the ladle has a receptacle, but it is not used to put things in it. Therefore, it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "The following is a general rule: any among earthen vessels that has no inner part is not susceptible to impurity on its outer sides. This is the general rule. An earthenware vessel that does not have an \"inner part\" cannot become impure by having something touch it on the outside. In contrast, vessels made of wood etc., can become impure even if they do not have an inner part. If they are made to \"receive\" something, such as a tray, then they are impure even though they do not have an \"inner part.\"" + ], + [ + "A lantern that has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to impurity, but one that has none is not susceptible. All of the vessels mentioned in this mishnah are earthenware vessels. If the lantern has a receptacle for oil, it is susceptible to impurity. If it does not, it cannot be made impure. Even though it has walls, they are only there to protect the fire and not to contain the oil.", + "A potter's mould on which one begins to shape the clay is not susceptible to impurity, but that on which one finishes it is susceptible. The mould on which the potter begins to shape the clay does not have a receptacle, therefore it is not susceptible to impurity. However, the mould on which he finishes making the vessel does have a receptacle and therefore it is susceptible to impurity.", + "A funnel for home use is not susceptible to impurity, but that of merchants is susceptible because it also serves as a measure, the words of Rabbi Judah ben Batera. Rabbi Akiva says: because he puts it on its side to let the buyer smell it. A funnel doesn't hold the liquids or dry goods poured into it, therefore it is not susceptible to impurity. However, since a merchant uses the funnel for measuring (sticking his finger below to hold in that which he is measuring), his funnel is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Akiva agrees that the funnel used by the merchant is impure but for a different reason. Occasionally, the merchant will tilt the funnel on its side so that a little bit of liquid stays in it. This qualifies it as a receptacle." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the covers of various types of vessels.", + "The covers of wine jars and oil jars and the covers of papyrus jars are not susceptible to impurity But if he adapted them for use as receptacles they are susceptible. Generally, the covers of wine, oil and papyrus jars are not susceptible to impurity because they are not usually used as receptacles. However, if one fixes them in such a way that they can be used as receptacles, then they take on the characteristic of being able to receive impurity.", + "The cover of a pot: When it has a hole or it has a point, it is not susceptible to impurity, But if it does not have a hole or a pointed top it is susceptible because she drains the vegetables into it. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says: because she turns out the contents [of the pot] on to it. If the cover of a cooking pot has a hole in it, or has a pointed lid, then it cannot be stood on its reverse side so as to contain the contents of the pot. Since it can't be used as a receptacle, it is not susceptible to impurity. However, if it does not have a hole or a pointed top, the person (assumed by the Mishnah to be a woman) might use the top as a colander for her vegetables (the lid does not have sides, so the water goes out the side). Since it holds the vegetables, it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok agrees that in this case the lid is susceptible to impurity but provides a slightly different explanation. When the woman turns over the pot, she uses the lid to hold in the contents of the pot while the water goes out the side. I think that this is something we still do when we make pasta." + ], + [ + "A damaged jar found in a furnace: Before its manufacture was complete it is not susceptible to impurity, But if after its manufacture was complete it is susceptible. A damaged jar is one that is not complete, and is considered damaged even if only its handles have been removed. Mishnah 4:3 will discuss the damaged jar. If it is found in the furnace before its manufacturing process was complete, then it cannot become impure. In other words, if it was broken before it ever became a complete vessel, then it is pure, even though it has a receptacle. However, if it is first forged in the oven thereby completing its manufacturing, and then it breaks, since it does have a receptacle it is susceptible to impurity. In other words, once something is a finished vessel, it can receive impurity so long as it has a receptacle.", + "A sprinkler: Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok holds it is not susceptible to impurity; But Rabbi Yose holds it to be susceptible because it lets the liquid out in drops only. The \"sprinkler\" referred to here was a vessel with one hole above and many holes below. When one would cover the top hole with his finger, the water would not sprinkle out below. According to Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok, such a vessel is not considered a receptacle and therefore is not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose holds that it is susceptible because it only lets out small drops. However, if it lets the liquid out faster, then it is not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur Mishnah deals with some vessels that have multiple parts. The main issue at hand is whether all parts become unclean if one part does.", + "The following among earthen vessels are susceptible to impurity:
A tray with a rim, This is the opposite of the tray mentioned in Mishnah three, which did not have a rim.", + "An unbroken fire-pan, Also referred to in mishnah three.", + "And a tray made up of dishes, If one of them was defiled by a [dead] creeping thing they do not all become unclean, But if it had a rim that projected above the rims of the dishes and one of them was defiled all are unclean. The mishnah refers to a tray that has dishes attached to it. If one dish is defiled, the others remain pure. However, if the tray has a rim above it that surrounds all of the dishes, it joins them into one vessel. In such a case if one dish is defiled, all are unclean.", + "Similarly with an earthen spice-box and a double ink-pot. If one container was defiled from a liquid, the other is not unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: its thickness is divided and that side which serves the unclean one is unclean while that which serves the clean one remains clean. If its rim projects above the others and one of them contracted impurity the other is unclean. These two vessels also have multiple parts, such that if one is defiled the other is not. For instance if the liquid in one side becomes impure by contact with a sheretz, the liquid only touches the outside wall of the other side of the vessel and vessels are not defiled by having their outsides defiled by a liquid. However, if the sheretz had touched the vessel itself, one side of the wooden vessel will convey its impurity to the other side. This is a subject to which we return later in the tractate. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says that the wall that separates the two sides can be divided in two. The side that was on the impure half is impure, whereas the side on the half that didn't come into direct contact with the liquid remains clean. Finally, as in the previous case, if there is a rim that projects above and around both sides, it serves to join the two separate halves into one vessel, meaning that all sides are defiled." + ], + [ + "A torch is susceptible to impurity. A torch made of earthenware has a receptacle and is therefore susceptible to impurity.", + "And the reservoir of a lamp contracts impurity through its air- space. The reservoir of an earthenware lamp is considered a \"receptacle\" and therefore if something defiling comes within its airspace, it is defiled.", + "The comb of a tzartzur: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is susceptible. A tzartzur is some sort of bottle whose mouth is covered with netting made of earthenware. Around the mouth are teeth that look like those of a comb. Rabbi Eliezer holds that if impurity goes into the airspace of the comb, the comb is not defiled. But the sages hold that this area is considered a receptacle, and the comb can therefore be defiled." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAs we have learned previously, if an earthenware vessel is broken, it becomes clean. \"Broken\" would include a vessel that has a hole in it. The general rule is that if the hole is large enough to make the vessel unusable, it is clean.\nOur mishnah begins discussing how large the holes need to be in various vessels for them to be rendered pure.", + "The size of a hole that renders an earthen vessel clean:
If the vessel was made for food, the hole must be big enough for olives [to fall through]. If the vessel was made to hold food, it is impure until the hole is big enough to let out olives. Olive's are often the standard size used in food measures.", + "If it was used for liquids it suffices for the hole to be big enough for liquids [to go through it]. If the vessel was used for liquids, then the hole must be large enough to let the liquids escape.", + "And if it was used for both, we apply the greater stringency, that olives must be able to fall through. If a vessel was used for both food and liquids, then the rule is stringent. If the hole is big enough to let out liquid but not food then the vessel is still partially usable, so the vessel is still susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A jar: the size of the hole must be such that a dried fig [will fall through], the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah said: walnuts. Rabbi Meir said: olives.
A stew-pot or a cooking pot: such that olives [will fall through].
A bucket and a pitcher: such that oil [will fall through].
A tzartzur: such that water [will fall through].
Rabbi Shimon says: in the case of all three, [the hole] must be such that seedlings [will fall through].
A lamp: the size of the hole must be such that oil [will fall through]. Rabbi Eliezer says: such that a small perutah [will fall through].
A lamp whose nozzle has been removed is clean.
And one made of earth whose nozzle has been burned by the wick is also clean.
Section one: There are three different opinions as to how big the hole in a jar must be for the jar to become pure: big enough to let fall through, dried figs, walnuts or olives. Of these three the fig is the largest, then the walnut then the olives. So Rabbi Meir is the most lenient (the jar is pure even if it can still hold figs or walnuts) and Rabbi Shimon is the most stringent (the jar is impure until it can no longer hold even the larger figs).
Sections three and four: This section lists vessels used for liquids. Since the bucket and the pitcher are usually used for oil, the hole must be big enough to let out oil, which flows thickly and contains considerable sediment.
As I explained in 2:8, a tzartzur is some sort of bottle whose mouth is covered with netting made of earthenware. It is pure once it can no longer hold water. It seems that such a vessel was usually used to hold water. This is a smaller hole than the one required to purify the bucket or the pitcher.
Section five: Rabbi Shimon refers to the vessels mentioned in sections three and four. While the earlier opinion held that when these vessels can no longer hold liquid they are pure, Rabbi Shimon is more stringent and holds that the hole must be large enough to let out seedlings. If the vessel cannot be hold oil/water but can still be used for seedlings, it is still impure or at least susceptible to impurity.
Section six: There is a debate about the hole needed to render a lamp pure. According to the first opinion, since a lamp usually holds oil, the measure of the hole is such to hold in oil. If it no longer holds in oil it is unusable and therefore pure. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent and holds that the hole must be sufficient to let out a small coin (a perutah). It seems that according to Rabbi Eliezer, lamps are occasionally used to store such coins, and therefore they continue to be useful until even small coins fall out.
Section seven: Since the mishnah began to discuss lamps, we have a small digression on the purity of lamps (sounds like the title of a nineteenth century book \"A Small Digression on the Purity of Lamps\"). If the nozzle, the place where the wick rests, of a lamp is removed, the lamp can no longer be used and it is pure.
Section eight: A lamp made of earth must be forged for it to become susceptible to impurity. Forging is the completion of its manufacturing process and vessels are generally not susceptible to impurity until they have been completed. If the nozzle has been burned by the heat of the fire of the wick, the lamp's manufacturing is still not complete and therefore the lamp is pure." + ], + [ + "A jar that had a hole and was mended with pitch and then was broken again: If the fragment that was mended with the pitch can hold a quarter of a log it is unclean, since the designation of a vessel has never ceased to be applied to it. A jar had a hole in it and thereby became pure, as we learned in mishnah two. When someone fixed it, it again became susceptible to impurity. Then it was broken yet again, leaving a fragment that had been fixed with the pitch. As long as this fragment can still hold a quarter of a log, it is susceptible to impurity. The reason is that although the jar broke, it is still considered a vessel, and when it was fixed it could receive impurity again. Therefore broken pieces of it that can hold a quarter of a log are susceptible to impurity.", + "A potsherd that had a hole and was mended with pitch, it is clean though it can contain a quarter of a log, because the designation of a vessel has ceased to be applied to it. In contrast, a potsherd that had a hole in it and was then fixed, cannot become impure because a potsherd is not a vessel, even if it can contain a quarter of a log. The rule in this matter is as follows: if a broken piece of earthenware gets a hole in it, it can never become impure again because even if it is fixed, it is not considered a vessel." + ], + [ + "If a jar was about to be cracked but was strengthened with cattle dung, although the potsherds would fall apart were the dung to be removed, it is unclean, because the designation of vessel never ceased to apply. The jar was about to fall apart, but dung was applied to the outside as glue and the pieces were held together. Although the jar would fall apart were the dung removed, it is still susceptible to impurity because the jar never broke, and therefore never lost its designation as a vessel.", + "If it was broken and some of its pieces were stuck together again, or if he brought other pieces of clay from elsewhere, and it was also lined with cattle dung, even though the potsherds hold together when the dung is removed, it is clean, because the designation of vessel ceased to apply. In this case the jar actually broke, thereby ceasing to be a vessel. Although it has been repaired, the jar can no longer receive impurity, because once a vessel has been completely broken (and not just pierced) it can no longer receive impurity.", + "If it contained one potsherd that could hold a quarter of a log, all its parts contract impurity by contact, but that potsherd contracts impurity through its air-space. If one potsherd was large enough to hold a quarter of a log, then if a defiling agent touches the inside of the jar, the entire jar is impure, even if it touched a different potsherd. Since one potsherd was large enough to be considered a \"vessel\" the entire repaired vessel can still be defiled. The large potsherd can become impure even through something defiling entering its airspace. So if a piece of something impure enters the airspace opposite that piece, then the entire jar is impure. But if something impure enters the airspace opposite the other potsherds, nothing is impure." + ], + [ + "One who lines a sound vessel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: [the lining] contracts impurity.
But the sages say: a lining over a sound vessel is not susceptible to impurity, and only one over a cracked vessel is susceptible.
And the same dispute applies to the hoop of a pumpkin shell.
Section one: The debate in this mishnah concerns a person who lined the outside of a vessel that was in sound shape. According to the Tosefta, he did this so that he could cook with this vessel.
Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule that if the vessel becomes defiled from the inside (earthenware vessels can only be defiled from the inside), the lining on the outside is also impure. The lining can then subsequently defile any food or drink that touches it on the outside.
The other sages say that the lining is susceptible to impurity only if it is necessary to hold the vessel together. So the lining of a sound vessel is not susceptible, whereas the lining of a cracked vessel is.
Section two: Dried pumpkin shells were used to draw water. They would attach a hoop to the shell in order to strengthen it. This is similar to the previous case, in that both are cases of strengthening a vessel that is in sound shape. According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon the hoop is susceptible to impurity, whereas the sages hold that it is not." + ], + [ + "As to dog's tooth which which they line large jars: anything that touches it becomes unclean. Dog's tooth is a type of grass that was used to line jars. If the large jar becomes defiled, then the grass is defiled as well. If food or liquids then touch the lining they too are impure.", + "The plug of a jar is not regarded as connected. The jar's impurity does not affect the plug of the jar because the plug is meant to be removed.", + "That which touches the lining of an oven is unclean. The lining of an earthenware oven is an integral part of the oven. Therefore, if the oven becomes impure the lining is impure as well and it will subsequently cause food or drink that comes into contact with it to become impure." + ], + [ + "A cauldron which was lined with mortar or with potter's clay: That which touches the mortar is unclean; But that which touches the potter's clay is clean. The mishnah presents an earthenware cauldron which was lined with either of two materials: mortar or potter's clay. The mortar is thick and is a permanent coating. Therefore, if the kettle is defiled the coating is as well and it will subsequently affect food or liquid as well, as if they touched the kettle. But the potter's clay is not permanent and is thinner than the mortar. Therefore the lining is not affected by the impurity of the kettle.", + "A kettle which was punctured and the hole was stopped with pitch: Rabbi Yose rules that it is clean since it cannot hold hot water as cold. According to Rabbi Yose the pitch used to stop up the hole is not sufficient to make the kettle useful again. Since it cannot be used for its main purpose, to hold hot water, it is not considered to be a vessel and it cannot contract impurity. This is true even though it can be used to hold cold water.", + "The same ruling he also gave concerning vessels made of pitch. Copper vessels which were lined with pitch the lining is clean, But if they are used for wine, it is unclean. Rabbi Yose issued the same ruling with regard to all vessels coated with pitch. If the vessel was meant to be used with hot water, the pitch cannot be made impure by the impurity of the vessel. This is illustrated with regard to copper vessels. If the copper vessel was designed to be used with hot liquids, the impurity of the vessel is not transmitted to the coating. But if the vessel is used to hold wine which is cold, the vessel can transmit impurity to the lining because the lining is sufficient for holding wine." + ], + [ + "A jar which which was pierced and the hole stopped up with more pitch than was necessary: That which touches the needed portion is unclean, But that which touches the unneeded portion is clean. If one used more pitch than necessary to stop up an earthenware jar, only the part of the pitch that is necessary to stop up the hole is considered to be part of the jar. The unnecessary part is not part of the jar and therefore even if the jar is impure, this part remains pure.", + "Pitch which dripped upon a jar, that which touches it is clean. Pitch that simply dripped onto a jar has no function and is not considered to be part of the jar and therefore it remains pure even if the jar is impure.", + "A wooden or earthen funnel which was stopped up with pitch: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that it is unclean. Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean when it is of wood and clean when it is of earthenware. Rabbi Yose says that both are clean. By plugging the funnel with pitch he has now created a receptacle. The rabbis debate whether this makes the funnel (not just the pitch) susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says that this does indeed turn it into a receptacle, thereby making it susceptible to impurity (a susceptible receptacle this should remind you of a Supertramp song). Rabbi Akiva notes that since pitch is made of wood extract, it can turn a wooden funnel into a receptacle. However, it does not turn an earthenware funnel into a receptacle because it is of a different kind, so therefore the funnel remains pure. Rabbi Yose holds that since the plug is not permanent, in neither case is the funnel susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah 2:2 we learned that a potsherd (broken piece of pottery) which can stand without support and can be used to contain a minimal amount of liquid is still susceptible to impurity. In today's mishnah we learn that if it cannot stand without support than it is not susceptible.", + "A potsherd that cannot stand unsupported on account of its handle, or a potsherd whose bottom is pointed and that point causes it to overbalance, is clean. Since the broken piece of pottery cannot stand on its own, it is not considered a vessel and it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "If the handle was removed or the point was broken off it is still clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. According to the first opinion, once a broken piece of pottery becomes pure (because it cannot stand on its own) it can never go back to becoming susceptible to impurity. This serves to distinguish a broken piece from a whole vessel, because if whole vessels are repaired they can again become susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah disagrees, holding that broken pieces are just like whole vessels. Once repaired such that they can hold a minimal amount of liquid, they again become susceptible to impurity.", + "If a jar was broken but is still capable of holding something in its sides, or if it was split into a kind of two troughs: Rabbi Judah says it is clean But the sages say it is unclean. The jar was broken such that it can still hold liquids when stood on its side. Alternatively, it was split into two pieces, both of which can hold some liquid when stood on their side. In this case, Rabbi Judah rules leniently. According to Rabbi Judah a potsherd can retain its susceptibility to impurity only if it can contain liquids in the same way that the original vessel did. Since these potsherds receive liquids only when standing on their sides and not when standing upright, they are pure. The other sages disagree and hold that as long as it can hold liquids, the potsherd is still susceptible to impurity. Note that the mishnah seems to want to balance a lenient ruling of Rabbi Judah with a stringent one, and so too when it comes to the sages. This could either be an easier way of remembering things, or perhaps a way of telling the reader that rabbis cannot necessarily be classified as either stringent or lenient on these matters. Rather they differ based on principles, and those principles sometimes lead them in differing directions." + ], + [ + "If a jar was cracked and cannot be moved with half a kav of dried figs in it, it is clean. Half a kav of dried figs is an amount deemed worthy of a meal (see Peah 8:5). If a jar cannot hold this minimum measure of food, it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "If a damaged vessel ( was cracked and it cannot hold any liquid, even though it can hold foodstuffs, it is clean, since remnants do not have remnants. A damaged broken piece of an earthenware vessel that is still used to hold liquids is still susceptible to impurity. However, if it then becomes cracked such that it cannot hold liquids, it is no longer susceptible to impurity. This is because there is a general rule that once a damaged piece of earthenware becomes further damaged, it is usually discarded and therefore no longer susceptible to impurity. Note that is true even though this broken piece of a utensil could be used to hold food. Since people generally throw such a thing away, it is no longer considered a vessel." + ], + [ + "What is meant by a \"damaged vessel\" (? One whose handles were removed. Yesterday's mishnah dealt with a damaged vessel called a gistera. A vessel is considered to be a gistera once its handles have fallen off.", + "If sharp ends projected from it: Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity through its air-space. The gistera described here has sharp edges protruding where the handle broke off from the vessel. These sharp edges seem to be on the top of the broken vessel. If these edges are close enough together so that the vessel can still hold olives, then the entire vessel can be defiled by contact on the inside of the vessel. And anything inside the vessel facing the sharp edges will convey impurity through air space, even if it does not come into contact with the vessel. In this case the sharp edges are simply part of the vessel. However, if the sharp edges are far enough apart so that they cannot hold olives, then they can still become impure through contact, but they cannot become impure by something entering their airspace. In this case the sharp edges are considered to be a handle to the vessel, and handles are not defiled by something that enters their airspace.", + "If it was leaning on its side like a kind of cathedra, Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity to the vessel through its air-space. If the gistera was split in two from top to bottom so that it looks like a \"cathedra,\" a carriage seat with a back and two sides. In other words, one side is open but three sides are closed. In such a case any part of the vessel that can be used to hold olives, contracts impurity both by contact and by defiling agents entering its airspace. The part of the gistera that cannot contain olives contracts impurity only through contact and not through defiling agents entering its airspace. Note that this halakhah matches the opinion of the sages in 4:1.", + "Bowls with Korfian [bottoms], and cups with Zidonian bottoms, although they cannot stand unsupported, are susceptible to impurity, because they were originally fashioned in this manner. Korfian bottoms are pointed so that the bowl cannot stand unsupported. So too, Sidonian cups have pointed bottoms. Generally, the \"gistera\" of a vessel that cannot stand unsupported is not susceptible to impurity. But because these vessels were originally made to be this way, their gisteras are susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "An earthenware vessel that has three rims: If the innermost one projects above the others, all outside it is not susceptible to impurity. If the outermost one projects above the others all within it is susceptible to impurity; And if the middle one projects above the others, that which is within it is susceptible to impurity, while that which is without it is not susceptible to impurity. The vessel referred to here has three rims, forming three circles around the vessel. Since earthenware vessels do not become impure by contact through their backs (their outside) the mishnah needs to determine which of the rims is \"inside\" and which is the actual rim. The basic determining factor is that the highest rim is the \"real\" rim. So if the innermost rim is highest, the outer two rims are the outside of the vessel and are not susceptible to impurity. And if the outermost rim is highest, then it is the \"real\" rim and everything inside is susceptible.", + "If they were equal in height: Rabbi Judah says: the middle one is deemed to be divided. But the sages ruled: all are not susceptible to impurity. If all three rims are of the same height, then Rabbi Judah says we split them right down the middle. From the middle of the middle rim and inwards is susceptible and the outside is not susceptible. The other sages disagree and hold that anything outside of the inner rim is not susceptible to impurity.", + "When do earthenware vessels become susceptible to impurity? As soon as they are baked in the furnace, that being the completion of their manufacture. This clause contains an essential principle in the laws of impurity. Vessels are susceptible to impurity once their manufacture is complete. At that point they become \"vessels.\" The manufacture of earthenware vessels is complete once they are baked in the furnace. If a defiling agent comes into contact with them before that point, they are still clean." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe next five chapters of Mishnah Kelim will do with the purity of oven and stoves. The oven referred to in the mishnah was like an inverted pot, with a narrow top to let a little air escape and enter. It had no floor, but rather the earth served as the floor. It was used primarily for the cooking of flat bread, which would be stuck to its sides.", + "A baking oven originally must be no less than four handbreadths [high] and what is left of it four handbreadths, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: this applies only to a large oven but in the case of a small one it originally can be [any height] and what is left is the greater part of it. According to Rabbi Meir for an oven to be susceptible to impurity, its original size must be at least four handbreadths. If it was originally higher than four handbreadths, and then it broke and not all of it remains, the minimum height for it to be susceptible to impurity is still four handbreadths. The sages make a distinction between ovens that were intended to be large from the outset and ovens that were originally intended to be small. When it comes to the large oven they agree with Rabbi Meir. However, they hold that some ovens were intended to be small from the outset. Such an oven can originally be of any height for it to be susceptible to impurity and if it breaks as long as a majority of it remains it is still susceptible to impurity.", + "[Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. Rabbi Judah says: when a new oven has been heated to a degree that sufficed for the baking of spongy cakes in an old one. The oven is susceptible to impurity once its manufacture is complete. The rabbis debate what is considered the completion of its manufacturing. According to the first opinion, the oven is susceptible once it has been forged sufficiently for it to be used to cook spongy cakes, which can be cooked at a relatively low temperature. Rabbi Judah slightly modifies this. Sponge-cakes would require more heat in a new oven than in an old one. If the new oven had been heated up enough for an old oven to cook sponge-cakes, then it is already susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah begins to deal with the \"stove\" which either had one or two holes on its top upon which they would place pots and pans.", + "A double stove: its original height must be no less than three fingerbreadths and what is left of it three fingerbreadths. Stoves were much smaller than ovens and therefore as long as it was originally three fingerbreadths or if it was broken and there remain three fingerbreadths, the stove is considered usable and susceptible to impurity.", + "[Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of the lightest of eggs when scrambled and put in a saucepan. A stove of this height is susceptible to impurity once its walls have been fired enough to cook on it a scrambled egg.", + "A single stove: if it was made for baking its prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking its prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. A single stove was hotter than a double stove and therefore it could either be used to bake bread inside like a baking oven, or to cook on top. If it was made to bake bread, then it must be as large as an oven (see yesterday's mishnah) in order to contract impurity. If it was made to serve as a stove, then it only needs to be as large as a stove to become impure.", + "A stone that projects one handbreadth from a baking-oven or three fingerbreadths from a double stove is considered a connection. One that projects from a single stove, if it was made for baking, the prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking the prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. Stones protruding from ovens and stoves may either be useless, in which case they are not susceptible to impurity, or they may be handles through which the oven or stove is carried, in which case they are susceptible to impurity. For an oven the stone can be up to a handbreadth for it to be considered connected and therefore a handle. If it is larger than it is not susceptible. For a double stove, which is smaller, the measure is only three fingerbreadths. Again, the single stove does not have its own set of rules rather it is considered like an oven if made for baking and like a double stove if made for cooking on top.", + "Rabbi Judah said: they spoke of a ‘handbreadth’ only where the projection was between the oven and a wall. Rabbi Judah says that the measure of the stone as a \"handbreadth\" was only given in the case of a stone that was between the oven and the wall. In order to push the oven up against the wall, they reduced the stone to a handbreadth. But if the oven is not next to the wall, the stone is considered connected as a handle no matter how long it is. It will always be susceptible.", + "If two ovens were adjacent to one another, they allot one handbreadth to this one and one to the other and the remainder is clean. If two ovens were next to each other and one stone connected them, then the handbreadth closest to each oven is susceptible to impurity. Any space between the two beyond the handbreadth allotted to each remains clean, even if the oven is impure." + ], + [ + "The crown of a double stove is clean. The crown is like a lid for the stove. It was placed on top of the hole to keep the heat in. Since it is unattached, it is unaffected by the impurity of the stove.", + "The fender around an oven: if it is four handbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, but if it was lower it is clean. The fender around the oven is not attached to the oven. Some commentators explain that the purpose of this structure was to hold bread after it had been removed from the oven. If this fender is four handbreadths high, which is the minimum height of the oven, it is susceptible to the impurity of the oven. Thus an oven which is rendered impure by a defiling agent which comes into contact with it or enters its air-space will cause the fender to be impure. However, if it is lower than the oven than it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "If it was joined to it, even if only by three stones, it is unclean. In all cases if the fender was joined to the oven, then it is susceptible to the oven's impurity because it is part of the oven.", + "The place [on the stove] for the oil cruse, the spice-pot, and the lamp contract impurity by contact but not through their air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Ishmael rules that they are clean. On the stove's outer walls were compartments to hold the oil cruse, the spice-pot and the lamp. However, they are only susceptible to impurity if the oven came into actual contact with a defiling agent. If an impurity came into the oven's air-space, while the oven is impure the compartments remain pure. This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Ishmael holds that the compartments are independent of the stove and therefore unaffected by the stove's impurity." + ], + [ + "An oven that was heated from its outside, or one that was heated without the owner's knowledge, or one that was heated while still in the craftsman's house is susceptible to impurity. Usually an oven is heated up from the inside, with the owner's knowledge, after the craftsmen has put on the finishing touches. However, as long as the oven is heated up enough to cook sponge-cakes, the oven is susceptible to impurity.", + "It once happened that a fire broke out among the ovens of Kefar Signah, and when the case was brought up at Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel ruled that they were unclean. Even though these ovens were not heated up intentionally, and they were heated up probably in the craftsmen's house, they are still susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "The additional piece of a householder's oven is clean, but that of bakers is unclean because he rests the roasting spit on it.
Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar said: because one bakes on it when pressed [for space].
Similarly the additional part of the boiler used by olive cookers is susceptible to impurity, but that of one used by dyers is not susceptible.
Section one: This additional piece was put around the hole at the top but since it serves no special function, it is not susceptible to impurity. However, the same piece when part of a baker's oven is susceptible because the baker may occasionally use this piece to roast some meat.
Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar agrees that this piece is susceptible but he holds that it serves a different function. Sometimes the baker will use it to bake bread when the oven is full.
Section two: The same principle is employed here. Since the additional part of the boiler is used by olive cookers it is impure, but the dyers did not use this additional part and therefore it is pure." + ], + [ + "If an oven was half filled with earth, the part from the earth downwards contracts impurity by contact only while the part from the earth upwards contracts impurity [also] from its air- space. If a person filled part of an oven up with earth, then it is less susceptible to impurity than the empty/usable part. The filled part is impure only if a defiling agent touched the upper part, whereas the empty part is impure even if the defilement only enters the oven's airspace.", + "If he put the oven over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar and he put a stone at its side: Rabbi Judah says: if when heated below it becomes also heated above it is susceptible to impurity. But the sages say: since it was heated, no matter how, it is susceptible to impurity. In this case a person put an unfinished oven above either a pit or over a cistern and he wedged a stone to keep it from falling. Rabbi Judah says that it must be possible to forge the oven from below in the pit or cistern. If the oven can only be heated up by using its own bottom part, then the oven's manufacturing is not complete. Rabbi Judah holds that an oven must be attached to the ground when heated for the first time. The other sages do not share this rule with Rabbi Judah. They hold that as long as the oven is heated up, it is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses how one can purify an oven. To recall, in the time of the mishnah the oven was like an upside down pot, and it was attached to the ground before it was used. To provide with extra insulation, they would cover the walls with clay.", + "If an oven contracted impurity how is it to be cleansed? He must divide into three parts and scrape off the plastering so that [the oven] touches the ground. According to the first opinion, the first step in purifying an oven is to divide it into three parts, from top to bottom. As we will learn in the final clause, he should divide it so that no part is equal to half of the oven. Then he scrapes off the clay on the outside of the oven. This either refers to the clay that covers the wall of the oven, or the clay which attaches the oven to the ground. In either case, the oven has now ceased to be a functional vessel and is therefore no longer impure.", + "Rabbi Meir says: he does not need to scrape off the plastering nor is it necessary for [the oven] to touch the ground. Rather he reduces it within to a height of less than four handbreadths. Rabbi Meir is a bit less strict. To purify the oven, he can split the oven from inside, without removing the layer of clay on the outside. The split should be less than four handbreadths from the ground. Since Rabbi Meir holds that any oven that is not four handbreadths from the ground is not susceptible to impurity (see 5:1) this oven is now pure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: he must move it [from its position]. Rabbi Shimon rules more strictly than either two previous opinions. Not only must he split the oven and scrape off the coating, but he must also move it from its position.", + "If it was divided into two parts, one large and the other small, the larger remains unclean and the smaller becomes clean. If he split it into only two pieces, one large and one small, the small piece is pure because it is less than half the size of the original oven. The large piece remains impure.", + "If it was divided into three parts one of which was as big as the other two together, the big one remains unclean and the two small ones become clean. Furthermore, if he split it into three pieces but one piece was still as large as the other two combined, then the large piece is still impure because it is more than half of the size of the oven. In other words, when section one stated that the oven must be split into three, it meant that no piece should be more than half of the size of the original oven." + ], + [ + "If an oven was cut up by its width into rings that are each less than four handbreadths in height, it is clean. If instead of cutting the oven into pieces from top to bottom, he cut it along its breadth into rings, each ring of the oven that is less than four handbreadths high is clean. This accords with Rabbi Meir's opinion in 5:1, who said that if the remnants of the oven are less than four handbreadths, the oven is clean. The other sages in that mishnah would limit this to a case where the oven was larger than eight handbreadths. If it was smaller, then it remains unclean until less than a majority is left in the ring.", + "If he subsequently plastered it over with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. If after taking the oven apart he reassembles it and plasters it over with clay, the oven is not susceptible to impurity until he fires it up sufficiently so that it could be used to bake sponge cakes. This is the same rule for when a new oven is susceptible to impurity. In other words, a reconstituted oven is treated the same as a new oven.", + "If he distanced the plastering, and sand or gravel was put between it and the oven sides of such an oven it has been said, \"A menstruant as well as a clean woman may bake in it and it remains clean.\" If instead of plastering the clay directly back on the rings of the oven, he made a covering of plaster and then filled in the space with stones or gravel, the oven is not susceptible to impurity because for an oven to be susceptible the clay must be directly on the oven. In this case, a pure woman and a menstruant can bake in the oven at the same time, without fear that the menstruant will defile the oven which would subsequently defile the pure woman's bread. It seems that this may have been a way to circumvent what was certainly a problem how can women who are menstruationg bake their bread without the need for a separate oven?" + ], + [ + "An oven which came cut up in sections from the craftsman's house and he made for it hoops and put them on it, it is clean. The oven came to the person who ordered it cut up in pieces from top to bottom. The craftsmen had made hoops for it so that it could be held together while it was plastered and heated. The oven is still clean while he assembles it with the hoops because it is not yet ready to be used.", + "If it contracts impurity, and then he removed its hoops it is clean. If he put a clay coating on it while the hoops were still attached and heated it up and then it became impure and then he removed the hoops, it is clean again because removal of the hoops causes the clay to fall off.", + "If he put them back on, it is still clean. It is still pure when he puts the hoops back on because there is still no coating of clay.", + "If he plastered it with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity and there is no need to heat it since it was once heated. If he again plasters it with clay, it is susceptible to impurity. It does not need to be reheated because it was heated up earlier while the hoops were still attached." + ], + [ + "If he cut the oven up into rings, and then he put sand between each pair of rings, Rabbi Eliezer says: it is clean. But the sages say: it is unclean. This is the oven of Akhnai. In this case a person took an oven and cut it into rings, and then reassembled it, filling in with sand in between the rings. He then coated it all over with clay and heated it up so that it would be usable. Rabbi Eliezer rules that such an oven is not susceptible to impurity because of the presence of the sand between the rings, whereas the sages hold that the coating makes the oven into one unit and therefore it is susceptible. This oven is known as \"the oven of Akhnai,\" which probably refers to the manufacturer of the oven. The Talmud's famous tale of the argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua is told concerning this oven. In this tale Rabbi Eliezer calls upon God to break the laws of nature to prove that his position is correct, and the miracles indeed occur. Rabbi Joshua responds \"it is not in Heaven,\" meaning that after God gave the Torah to Israel, the law is no longer in Heaven, but rather subject to the independent interpretation of human beings. This is a foundational story for the rabbis, for it substantiates their understanding of Torah interpretation.", + "As regards Arabian vats, which are holes dug in the ground and plastered with clay, if the plastering can stand of itself it is susceptible to impurity; Otherwise it is not susceptible. This is the oven of Ben Dinai. An \"Arabian vat\" is simply a hole dug in the ground whose walls are covered with plaster. If the plaster can stand on its own, then the oven is susceptible to impurity, but if it requires the earth to support it, then it is not susceptible. This oven is called the oven of \"Ben Dinai.\" Some hold that Ben Dinai was a robber who would bake his bread in such an oven. Others hold that \"Ben Dinai\" comes from the word \"din\" which is Hebrew for either logic or law. It was called \"Ben Dinai\" because there were debates over such an oven." + ], + [ + "An oven of stone or of metal is clean, But the latter is unclean as a metal vessel. All stone vessels are totally unsusceptible to impurity, so a stone oven can never become impure. A metal oven can become impure but not in the same way as an earthenware oven. While an earthenware oven is susceptible to impurity through its interior space, and not from its outside, the reverse is true for a metal oven. Also, a metal oven that has been attached to the ground is not susceptible, whereas an earthenware oven is.", + "If a hole was made in it, or if it was damaged or cracked, and he lined it with plaster or with a rim of clay, it is unclean. What must be the size of the hole [for it to be pure]? It must be big enough for the flame to come through. If the oven was in some way damaged such that a flame could go through the hole in the side, the oven is pure because it is not usable. However, it becomes susceptible again to impurity once it has been repaired.", + "The same applies also to a stove. A stove of stone or of metal is clean. But the latter is unclean as a metal vessel. If a hole was made in it or if it was damaged or cracked but was provided with props it is unclean. The same general rules apply to a stove. The mishnah adds that if he makes \"props\" which is either a tripod for pots put on top of the stove or legs to plug the holes on the bottom, the stove is again susceptible because it is usable. As usual, once a vessel has been repaired, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "If it was lined with clay, whether inside or outside, it remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: if [the lining was] inside it is unclean but if outside it remains clean. According to the first opinion, if he spread a clay lining over a stone or metal stove, it is still pure, meaning it is not considered an earthenware vessel. This is because the clay is not necessary and does not affect the functioning of the oven. Rabbi Judah holds that if the clay lining is spread inside the oven it does make the stove into an \"earthenware vessel\" and subject to the purity rules governing such a vessel. But if he spreads it on the outside of the vessel, it is still considered to be of stone/metal and the rules governing an earthenware vessel do not apply." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the purity of makeshift stoves.", + "If he put three props into the ground and joined them [to the ground] with clay so that a pot could be set on them, [the structure] is susceptible to impurity. The props used to make this stove are of earthenware. If he set three of them together so that he could rest a stove on top of them and attached them to the ground with clay, the structure is susceptible to impurity.", + "If he set three nails in the ground so that a pot could be set on them, even though a place was made on the top for the pot to rest, [the structure] is not susceptible to impurity. The nails are made of metal and metal that is attached to the ground is not susceptible to impurity. Therefore this structure remains pure even if he makes a place on top out of earthenware for a pot to sit on. The fact that it is covered with some earthenware does not affect its status.", + "One who made a stove of two stones, joining them [to the ground] with clay: It is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says that it is not susceptible to impurity, unless a third stone is added or [the structure] is placed near a wall. According to the first opinion, since the stones are wide enough to support the pot, once they are attached with clay to the ground they are considered a stove and they are susceptible to impurity. However, Rabbi Judah retains the rule that we need a tri-partite structure in order to be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, he must either add a third stone or put the structure next to the wall to serve as a third stone.", + "If one stone was joined with clay and the other was not joined with clay, [the structure] is not susceptible to impurity. According to the sages both stones must be attached to the ground for it to be susceptible to impurity. If one was attached to the ground with clay and the other was not, the structure is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "A stone on which he placed a pot, [on it] and on an oven, or on it and a double stove, or on it and on a stove, is susceptible to impurity. In this case a person places a pot on a makeshift stove, where one side consists of a stone attached to the ground by clay and the other side consists of either an oven a double stove or a single stove. The stone is susceptible to impurity in this case because the oven or stove counts as a second attached stone. This is similar to the situation in yesterday's mishnah.", + "[If he set the pot] on it and on another stone, on it and on a rock, or on it and on a wall, it is not susceptible to impurity. And such was the stove of the Nazirites in Jerusalem which was set up against a rock. In this case he sets the other side of the pot not on another oven or stove, but on another stone which was unattached to the ground with clay or on a rock which was part of the ground, or on a wall. These do not count as a \"second stone attached to the ground\" which as we learned in yesterday's mishnah causes both stones to be susceptible to impurity. Rather in this case the stone which is attached to the ground with clay is susceptible. At the end of his/her term of naziriteship a nazirite must bring a shelamim offering. To prevent the sacrifice from being defiled, they would cook it in a stove made of one stone attached to the ground and the other side of the pot resting on the wall.", + "As regards the stove of the butchers, where the stones are placed side by side, if one of the stoves contracted impurity, the others do not become unclean. Butchers would make a line of stoves made of stones attached to the ground. Each stone, except for the outer ones, could be used to hold up two pots, one to the left and one to the right. The mishnah looks at each pair of stones as an independent unit such that if one stone becomes impure, the pair next to it retains its purity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues the subject of stones lined up in a row to make multiple stoves.", + "If one made two stoves of three stones and one of the outer ones was defiled the half of the middle one that serves the unclean one is unclean but the half of it that serves the clean one remains clean. The structure described here consists of three stones, each attached either to the ground with clay or to each other. This will make two stoves, one between each stone. If one of the outer stones is defiled, then the half of the middle stone facing the impure stone is impure. But the side facing the pure stone remains pure.", + "If the clean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the unclean one. If he removed the clean stone on the outside, then the middle stone is used entirely with the unclean stone. Therefore the middle one is now entirely unclean.", + "If the unclean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the clean one. Similarly, if the unclean stone is removed, the middle stone is entirely pure because it is only used with the pure stone.", + "Should the two outer ones become defiled, if the middle stone was large, each outer stone is allowed such a part of it as suffices for the support of a pot and the remainder is clean. But if it was small all of it is unclean. If both outer stones are defiled, then the parts of the middle stone that are used with the outer stones are also considered defiled, but if there remains unused space in between the used portions, the unused space is pure. If the middle stone was small and all of it was used to rest the pots whose other side was placed on the outer stones, then the entire stone is impure.", + "Should the middle stone be removed, if a big kettle can be set on the two outer stones they are unclean. If the middle stone is removed, the outer stones remain impure if they can still be used to heat up a large vat.", + "If the middle stone is returned they all become clean again. If it was plastered with clay it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of an egg. If after removing the middle stone he returns it, the entire structure becomes pure again. We look at this stove as if it was first destroyed, which causes it to shed its impurity and then was rebuilt. In such cases the vessel does not return to its original impurity. In order for this stove to again become susceptible to impurity, he must plaster it with clay to attach it to the ground and heat up all three stones such that they could be used to cook an egg. In other words this is a new stove." + ], + [ + "If two stones were made into a stove and they became defiled, and a stone was set up near the outer side of the one and another stone near the outer side of the other, [the inner half] of each [inner stones] remains unclean while [the outer] half of each [of these stones] is clean. At the outset there are simply two stones attached to the ground and made into a stove. These stones become defiled. Then he put another stone on each side, creating three stoves made of four stones. The inner half of each of the original stones remains impure because it serves the inside stove. The outer half which faces the pure stone becomes pure because it has now been made into a new stove.", + "If the clean stones are removed the others revert to their impurity. If he then removes the outer stones, the inner stones revert to their earlier state of impurity which means they are completely impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The fire-basket of a householder which was lessened by less than three handbreadths is susceptible to impurity because when it is heated from below a pot above would still boil. If [it was lessened] to a lower depth it is not susceptible to impurity. The fire-basket referred to in our mishnah is a portable earthenware stove. The bottom was thick so that it could be placed on any surface. Coals would be placed inside and the pot would be placed on top. If the fire-basket was reduced, meaning the bottom was further from the top, but the reduction is less than three hand-breadths, it is still susceptible to impurity because it is still usable. However, if it was lessened more than three handbreadths, it is pure because the fire-basket is not usable.", + "If subsequently a stone or gravel was put into it, it is still not susceptible to impurity. Putting stone or pebbles into the stove to fill in the gap does not restore the fire-basket to its original state and therefore it remains impure.", + "If it was plastered over with clay, it may contract impurity from that point and onwards. However, if he put in stones or pebbles and then plastered them over with clay, they again become susceptible to impurity.", + "This was Rabbi Judah's reply in connection with the oven that was placed over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar. This section refers to mishnah 5:6, where Rabbi Judah and the sages had a dispute concerning an oven placed over the mouth of a cistern or a cellar. According to Rabbi Judah the oven was not susceptible to impurity unless the fire in the pit could heat it sufficiently. According to our mishnah, he referred to the fire-basket to prove his point. The fire-basket is not impure unless the coals in the bottom are close enough to the top to heat up the pot." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMost of today's mishnah deals with a protrusion on the side of the oven used to store pots to keep them warm. It is called a \"dachon\" in Hebrew and is usually translated as a \"hob\" (a word that I will admit I have never used before).", + "A hob that has a receptacle for pots is clean as a stove but unclean as a receptacle. The hob is not considered to be a part of the stove, and therefore if the stove is defiled the hob remains pure. However, it can become impure independently since it is a receptacle. This means that it will contract impurity if something impure enters its airspace.", + "As to its sides, whatever touches them does not become unclean as if the hob had been a stove, The outer edges of the hob which are not connected to the stove are not considered part of the stove. Thus if the stove is impure and food touches them, the food remains pure.", + "But as regards its wide side: Rabbi Meir holds it to be clean But Rabbi Judah holds it to be unclean. The rabbis argue with regard to the wide side that is attached to the stove. Rabbi Meir says that the part of the earthenware that faces the hob is clean, although the part that faces the stove is unclean. Rabbi Judah says that this entire piece of earthenware is used for the stove therefore it is all unclean.", + "The same law applies also where a basket was inverted and a stove was put upon it. The same rule as above applies to a situation where a person took a basket, and turned it over and used the bottom as a base for the stove. He then left part of the bottom as a hob. The hob itself is not subject to the impurity of the stove. The dispute is concerning the wall of the stove facing the hob part of the basket: is it part of the hob (Rabbi Meir) or not (Rabbi Judah)?" + ], + [ + "A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. If a double stove was split lengthwise it is rendered unusable since each opening is cut in half. Therefore it is pure. However, if it split by its breadth, it is pure because it is still usable. In contrast, a single stove is rendered useless if it split, no matter how it is split. Therefore, in all cases it is pure.", + "As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air- space. The \"extension\" is an earthenware base that surrounds the stove. Occasionally pots were placed on the extension. If it is three fingerbreadths high, the minimum height of a stove, then it is subject to impurity through contact and through airspace. This means that if a defiling agent enters the stove's airspace or touches the inside of the stove, the extension is also impure. If it is less than three fingerbreadths high, then it is impure only if the stove is defiled by touching and not by airspace. It seems that in this case the extension is not a vessel in and of its own right, but only a \"yad\" an \"appendage\" of the stove. A \"yad\" cannot be defiled through airspace.", + "How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. The mishnah questions how we determine the airspace of the extension. This is a problem because the extension surrounds the stove which is much higher than the extension. Rabbi Ishmael says that we take a spit and lay it diagonally from the top of the stove to the top of the extension. If a defiling agent enters its airspace below this diagonal line, it transmits its impurity.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov considers the extension to be an appendage to the stove. Hence, if the stove becomes defiled, its extension is always impure, even if the stove contracted impurity through its airspace and the extension is less than three fingerbreadths high. However, an appendage cannot transmit impurity to the main vessel and therefore if the extension contracts impurity, the stove remains pure." + ], + [ + "If it [the extension] was detached from the stove, whenever it was three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, If it was lower or if it was smooth it is clean. If the extension that surrounds the stove was not attached to the stove, it is susceptible to impurity only if it is three fingerbreadths high. This means that if the stove contracts impurity through its airspace or by contact, the extension will also be impure. If, however, the extension was less than three fingerbreadths high, or it had no rim (it was smooth), then it is considered separate from the stove and if the stove becomes defiled the extension remains pure.", + "If three props on a stove were three fingerbreadths high, they contract impurity by contact and through their air-space. If they were lower, all the more so they contract impurity, even where they were four in number. Some commentators explain that the three props form a tri-pod for the pot to rest on the stove, while others explain them as serving as a base for the stove itself. If they are no more than three fingerbreadths above the stove, then they are considered part of the stove and the impurity of the stove contracted either by contact or through its airspace will similarly defile the props. If the props are closer to the stove, they are all the more so susceptible to impurity. This is true even if there were four of them, meaning that one was superfluous. However, if there were five or more props, they are not considered to be part of the stove and if the stove is defiled the props remain clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains four debates between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon concerning the purity of the props used to support either the stove or the pot that rests on top of the stove.\nThe basis for this debate seems to be the same in all four cases. If the props are not considered to be attached to the stove, Rabbi Meir holds that they are still susceptible to the stove's impurity, but just to a lesser extent. Rabbi Shimon holds that the props are not susceptible at all.", + "If one of them [i.e. the props] was removed, the remaining ones contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If one of the props is removed, leaving two props, Rabbi Meir holds that they are still susceptible to impurity but only through contact and not through airspace. This means that if the oven is defiled through its airspace, the props remain pure, but if the oven is defiled by contact, the props are impure. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon considers the props to be separate from the stove and therefore pure even if the stove contracts impurity through contact.", + "If originally he made two props, one opposite the other, they contract impurity by contact and through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If he originally made two props but he made them opposite each other so that he could rest a pot on them, Rabbi Meir holds that they are fully susceptible to impurity, both through airspace and contact. We should note that there is a variant reading of this section, according to which these props are susceptible to impurity only through contact and not through airspace (making this section consistent with the others). Rabbi Shimon considers this to be the same as the previous case, and the props are pure.", + "If they were more than three fingerbreadths high, the parts that are three fingerbreadths high and below contract impurity by contact and through air-space but the parts that are more than three fingerbreadths high contract impurity by contact and not through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. In yesterday's mishnah we learned that if the props were less than three fingerbreadths high, they are susceptible to the stove's impurity. If they are more than three fingerbreadths high, then according to Rabbi Meir we draw an imaginary line three fingerbreadths over the stove. Above this line the props are susceptible to the impurity of the stove, but only if the stove contracts impurity through contact. Below the line, the props are fully susceptible. Rabbi Shimon considers these oversized props to be independent of the stove and therefore any part above three fingerbreadths is completely unsusceptible to impurity.", + "If they were withdrawn from the rim [of the stove], the parts which are within three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact and through air-space, and those parts that are removed more than three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If the props were moved away from the stove by a distance of less than three fingerbreadths they are still fully susceptible to impurity. If they were removed by a greater distance, Rabbi Meir holds that they are still susceptible but only through contact and not through airspace. Again, Rabbi Shimon holds that since these props are considered to be unattached from the stove, they are pure." + ], + [ + "How do we measure them? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he puts the measuring-rod between them, and any part that is outside the measuring-rod is clean while any part inside the measuring-rod, including the place of the measuring-rod itself, is unclean. Today's mishnah asks how we measure the three fingerbreadths separating the stove from the three props. The prongs themselves can simply be measured from the edge of the stove, but we need to figure out what is considered to be inside the airspace of the area that is not directly corresponding to the prongs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that he uses a measuring rod to form a straight line from prong to prong, thereby creating a triangle around the stove. Anything outside of this triangle is not susceptible to impurity, and anything inside the triangle is susceptible." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "An oven which they partitioned with boards or hangings, and in it was found a sheretz in one compartment, the entire oven is unclean. If people divided an oven into different parts, all the way from the bottom to the top, and then a dead sheretz (an impure creepy crawling thing) is found in one section, the entire oven is impure. This is because a partition put into an earthenware vessel does not count as far as stopping impurity from spreading from one side to the other.", + "A hive which was broken and its gap was stopped up with straw and was suspended within the air-space of an oven while a sheretz was within it, the oven becomes unclean. The mishnah now complicates the picture a bit more. If a vessel shaped as a beehive was broken, it no longer counts a vessel, even if the gap was stopped up with straw. If there is a sheretz in this vessel and the entire vessel is suspended in an oven, the impurity breaks out of the hive-vessel and defiles the oven.", + "If a sheretz was within the oven, any food within the hive becomes unclean. But Rabbi Eliezer says that it is clean. Similarly, at least according to the sages, if there is a sheretz within the oven, the impurity of the sheretz defiles that which is in the hive-vessel. Rabbi Eliezer disputes and holds that the hive which has been stopped up with straw protects the food within it from being contaminated by the sheretz in the oven.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said: if it affords protection in the case of a corpse which is more consequential, should it not afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is less consequential? Rabbi Eliezer argues his point by making an analogy with a corpse found in a building. If a corpse is in a building and the building has been divided by boards or curtains, the vessels found in sections of the building in which the corpse is not present are not considered contaminated. If, Rabbi Eliezer reasons, partitions protect against corpse impurity which is the most serious form of impurity, then the partition of the hive should also protect the food within it. In other words, even if the vessel is not complete, it should still count as a partition, just as do curtains and boards in a building.", + "They said to him: if it affords protection in the case of corpse impurity, this is because tents are divided, should it also afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is not divided? The other rabbis reject his argument because the situations are not analogous. Tents, i.e. buildings, are commonly partitioned, and therefore their partition succeeds in dividing one section from the other. In contrast, as we learned in the first half of the mishnah, partitions within ovens are not typical and therefore they do not succeed in stopping the impurity from going to the other side. Here is a classic example where we can see that the laws of impurity are not purely physical but that they in some way describe reality. The material that is used to divide an oven or a house may be the exact same thing, but in one case it provides a barrier to the spread of impurity and in the other case it does not. The law conveys the reality that houses are divided into parts and ovens are not." + ], + [ + "If the hive was complete, and so too in the case of a basket or a skin-bottle, and a sheretz was within it the oven remains clean. If the hive-vessel had not been broken, or alternatively the vessel placed into the oven was an unbroken basket or skin-bottle, the sheretz in the vessel does not defile the oven. Since this is a complete vessel it works as a barrier to keep the impurity away from oven.", + "If the sheretz was in the oven, any food in the hive remain clean. Similarly, if the sheretz was in the oven, the hive-vessel protects the food within it from becoming impure.", + "If a hole was made in it: A vessel that is used for food must have a hole large enough for olives to fall through, If it is used for liquids the hole must be large enough for liquids to pass into it, And if it is used for either it is subjected to the greater restriction: the hole need only be large enough for liquids to pass into it. If one of these vessels was perforated with a large enough hole, it no longer counts as a vessel and therefore will not prevent impurity from going from the oven to the inside of the vessel and vice versa. The mishnah now repeats that which we learned in 3:1. The vessel is \"annulled\" from being considered a vessel if the hole is large enough to let out that which it normally holds. So if it normally holds food, if the hole is large enough to let olives fall through, it is no longer a vessel. If it holds liquids, it must be large enough to let liquids out. If it is used for both liquids and solids then we go by the stricter measure if the hole is large enough to let even liquids out, it is not a vessel and it does not serve as a barrier to impurity." + ], + [ + "Netting placed over the mouth of an oven and slightly sinking into it, and having no frame: If a sheretz was in it, the oven becomes unclean; If the sheretz was in the oven, the food in the netting becomes unclean, since only vessels afford protection against an impurity in an earthen vessel. This netting is not considered to be a vessel because it does not have an \"inside.\" Therefore it does not serve as a barrier for impurity vis a vis the oven. This means that if a sheretz was in it, it defiles the oven. And if a sheretz is in the oven, then the food in the netting becomes unclean.", + "A jar full of pure liquids placed beneath the bottom of an oven, and a sheretz in the oven – the jar and the liquids remain clean. If it was inverted, with its mouth projecting into the air-space of the oven, and a sheretz was in the oven, the liquid that clings to the sides of the jar remains clean. Since the jar is below the oven, the impurity of the oven doesn't spread into the jar. This is true even if the jar is open and there is a hole in the bottom of the oven. As long as the jar is not in the oven's airspace, it is not susceptible. If they put the jar on top of the oven and its mouth is open the liquid which remains in the jar is still pure. Again, this liquid is not in the airspace of the oven, rather above it. Therefore it remains pure." + ], + [ + "A pot which was placed in an oven if a sheretz was in the oven, the pot remains clean since an earthen vessel does not impart impurity to vessels. The sheretz in the oven does not defile the pot because it is not in the air-space of the pot, but rather in the air-space of the oven. And the oven's contact with the pot does not defile the pot because earthenware vessels do not defile other earthenware vessels.", + "If it contained dripping liquid, the latter contracts impurity and the pot also becomes unclean. It is as if this one says, \"That which made you unclean did not make me unclean, but you have made me unclean.\" If there is liquid dripping off the pot, it is defiled by the oven which was defiled by the sheretz. In turn this liquid causes the pot itself to become impure because liquids can defile earthenware vessels. The mishnah personifies a dialogue between the pot and the liquid (think Mrs. Potts in Beauty and the Beast). The pot says to the liquid the oven which made you unclean didn't directly make me unclean. But you, Mr. Liquid, you made me unclean!" + ], + [ + "If a rooster that swallowed a sheretz fell within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean; A source of impurity that is contained within a living being, such as a rooster, does not spread out and cause impurity to the vessel in which the rooster is found.", + "If the rooster died, the oven becomes unclean. However, if the rooster dies, it can no longer contain the impurity of the sheretz and the impurity of the sheretz will escape and defile the oven.", + "If a sheretz was found in an oven, any bread in it contracts second degree impurity since the oven is of the first degree. When a sheretz is found in an oven, contracts first degree impurity. The oven then imparts its impurity to the bread, which now has second degree impurity. We do not consider the air of the oven to be impure such that it directly defiles the bread. This would cause the bread to have first degree impurity. As we proceed we will learn about the practical differences between first and second degree impurity." + ], + [ + "A leavening pot with a tightly fitting lid which was put in an oven, and there was some leaven and a sheretz within the pot, but there was a partition (of inedible between them, the oven is unclean but the leaven is clean. The mishnah describes a situation where a special pot used to leaven bread has a tight lid and was placed in an oven. Inside the pot there are two parts separated by a piece of inedible bread. On one side of the pot is some leaven and on the other side is a sheretz. The sheretz does not defile the leaven on the other side of the pot because it is totally separated, from the lid to the bottom. However, the lid does not stop the impurity from leaving the pot through its top. Therefore, the sheretz's impurity defiles the oven.", + "But if it was an olive's bulk of corpse, both the oven and the house are unclean, and the leaven remains clean. Similarly, if there is an olive's worth of corpse in the pot, its impurity escapes and defiles the entire house.", + "If in the partition there was an opening of one handbreadth, all become unclean. If there is a hole in the partition at least one handbreadth wide, then the partition no longer separates the sheretz from the leaven, and even the leaven is impure." + ], + [ + "A sheretz which was found in the eye-hole of an oven or of a double stove or of a single stove: If it was outside the inner edge, it is clean. The eye-hole of an oven is a hole made in the bottom of the oven or stove to let in air and let out smoke. It also could have been used to remove the ashes. If a sheretz was found outside of the inner edge of this hole, the oven remains pure. This is because the hole is not considered to be inside the oven or stove.", + "If it [the oven] was in the open air, even if it was an olive's bulk of corpse it is clean. If the oven was outside in the open air, meaning it was not inside a house or other building, and a source of impurity is found in its eye-hole, the oven is pure because the impurity cannot enter the oven. And since it is outside, there is no \"tent\" through which an olive's bulk of corpse could convey its impurity to the oven (we will learn a lot more about this as we proceed). Thus the oven remains clean.", + "If there was [in the eye-hole] an opening of one handbreadth, it is all unclean. However, if there was an opening the size of a handbreadth in the eye-hole (besides its main opening) then the impurity can enter through it into the oven, and the oven is impure." + ], + [ + "If a sheretz was found in the [place in a stove] where wood is put: Rabbi Judah says: if it was within the outer edge, [the stove] becomes unclean. But the sages say: if it was outside the inner edge [the stove] remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: if it was found beneath the spot where the pot is placed and inwards, the stove becomes unclean, but if beneath the spot where the pot is set and outwards, it remains clean. In this section a sheretz is found in the bottom part of a stove, where they put the wood to burn. Rabbi Judah says that the sheretz defiles the stove if it is found within the outer edge of the place where the wood is put and inwards, inside the stove. The other sages say that if the sheretz was outside of the inner edge, then the stove remains clean. In other words, the debate exists in a situation where the sheretz is found between the inner and outer edge. Rabbi Yose defines the place where the sheretz can defile the stove in a slightly different manner. If the sheretz is found directly below the place where the pot is placed on top of the stove, or anywhere within this area, it defiles the whole stove. But if it is outside this area, the stove remains clean.", + "If it was found on the place where the bath-keeper sits, or where the dyer sits, or where the olive-boilers sit, the stove remains clean. It only becomes unclean only [when the sheretz] is found in the enclosed part and inwards. This mishnah now describes ovens upon which people sit: bath-keepers, dyers and olive-boilers. If a sheretz is found on this place, the oven remains pure. The mishnah explains that the sheretz defiles the oven only if it is found in the closed part of the oven. These workers sit on the outside part of the oven, where it is open to the air. Therefore, the sheretz does not defile the oven. However, Albeck notes that according to the Tosefta, if the sheretz comes into contact with the oven, the oven is impure. It does not convey impurity through entering the oven's air-space unless it is within the oven." + ], + [ + "A pit which has a place on which a pot may be set is unclean. The pit to which this section refers is an oven placed into the ground and attached to the ground with clay. There was a place on top where they could rest a large pot. Since it is an oven, and it can be used to make food, it can contract impurity.", + "And so also an oven of glass-blowers, if it has a place on which a pot may be set, it is unclean. Since this oven can be used for cooking food, it too is susceptible to impurity, as long as it has a place on it upon which one could balance a pot.", + "The furnace of lime-burners, or of glaziers, or of potters is clean. The furnace used by lime-burners, glaziers or potters is not made for cooking or baking and therefore it is not susceptible to impurity, even if it has a place on which a pot can be placed. In other words, whereas the oven used by glass-blowers is also made to be used for cooking or baking the oven used by these three professions is not.", + "A purna: If it has a frame is unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if it has coverings [for compartments.] Rabban Gamaliel says: if it has edges. A purna is an oven similar to the ovens that we use today. It has a hole in its side, and one doesn't stick the bread to the side as was typically done with ovens during the mishnaic period. Rather the bread was put into bottom of the purna-oven as we do today. There are three different opinions as to what the purna needs for it to be susceptible to impurity. The first opinion holds that if it has a frame around it upon which one could balance a pot, it is susceptible. If it has no frame, and only the ground part of the oven is used for cooking, then it is not considered to really be an \"oven\" and it is not susceptible. The second opinion holds that if it has covered compartments it is susceptible. The third opinion is that it needs edges upon which one could balance a pot. Without at least one of these three things, the purna is simply some clay attached to the ground to keep the heat in, and none of it is used for actual cooking. Such a simple oven is not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals mostly with the purity of food or liquids that are found in a person's mouth.", + "If a person who came in contact with one who has contracted corpse impurity had (food liquids in his mouth and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was clean, they cause the oven to be unclean. When a person comes into contact with another person who has contracted corpse impurity, the second person contracts first degree impurity. The liquids that he has in his mouth are impure. If he puts his head into an oven (not sure why one would do this, but let's just forget about that for a moment) the liquids cause the oven to be impure. This is because liquids can defile vessels. The person himself, who has first degree impurity, does not defile the vessel, because people don't defile vessels unless they have a higher form of impurity. We should note that Albeck explains that the word \"foods\" is not really relevant here because only liquids defile vessels. Foods cannot. The word \"foods\" is, however, relevant in the subsequent clauses.", + "If a person who was clean had food or liquids in his mouth and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was unclean, they become unclean. If a pure person has pure food or liquid in his mouth, and he puts his head into an impure oven (didn't learn the first time) then the food or liquids are defiled by the oven.", + "If a person was eating a pressed fig with impure hands and he put his hand into his mouth to remove a small stone: Rabbi Meir considers the fig to be unclean But Rabbi Judah says it as clean. Rabbi Yose says: if he turned it over [in his mouth] the fig is unclean but if he did not turn it over the fig is clean. This person's hands are impure, although the rest of his body is not (this is a concept which we will deal with when we learn Tractate Yadayim). If he puts his hand in his mouth to take something out, and at the same time he has a fig in his mouth, Rabbi Meir considers the fig to be impure. His hands defile the spit in his mouth, and it in turn defiles the fig. Rabbi Judah disagrees because he holds that the spit in his mouth is not considered to be a liquid. Rabbi Yose says that the spit in his mouth is considered a liquid only if he moved the fig around in his mouth, thereby uprooting the spit from its original space. In other words, if one gathers up his spit, it is considered a liquid and is susceptible to impurity, but the mere moistness of his mouth is not.", + "If the person had a pondion in his mouth, Rabbi Yose says: if he kept it there to relieve his thirst it becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose has another qualification for when spit can be considered a liquid. If he has a small coin, a pondion, in his mouth in order to cause him to salivate and thereby feel less thirsty, then his spit is considered to be a liquid and it can be impure. As an aside, I have heard of people putting small stones in their mouths on fast days. They say it helps one get over being thirsty." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with various liquids that come from an impure woman and defile an oven.", + "If milk [of an impure woman] dripped from a woman's breasts and fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven becomes unclean, since a liquid conveys impurity regardless of whether one wanted it there or not. Liquids convey impurity whether or not one wanted them to end up where they end up. As we shall see, there are other purity laws concerning liquids that work differently, namely when does a liquid make a food susceptible to impurity. In any case, assumedly the woman did not want her breasts to leak onto the oven. Nevertheless, if this impure milk (impure because she is impure) falls into the oven, it defiles the oven.", + "If she was sweeping it out and a thorn pricked her and she bled, or if she burnt herself and put her finger into her mouth, the oven becomes unclean. If she is sweeping out the oven and she pricks her finger and bleeds into the oven, her blood defiles the oven, even though she certainly didn't want it there. Similarly, if she burns herself and puts her finger in her mouth, covering it with spit, and then puts her finger back into the oven, the spit on her finger defiles the oven, even though she wanted the spit on her finger, not on the oven. In all cases, if an impure liquid enters an oven, it defiles it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a needle or a ring (metal vessels) that are found in certain places, and with the question of whether or not they have become impure.", + "If a needle or a ring was found in the ground of an oven, and they can be seen but they don't stick out into the oven, if one bakes dough and it touches them, the [oven] is unclean. In this section we don't know for certain whether or not the needle or the ring is impure, but we have reason to suspect that they might be. They are found in the floor of an oven and can be seen from inside the oven but they do not project into the oven's air-space. If a person bakes dough and the dough can expand into the hole in the floor in which these instruments are found, the oven is defiled by the needle or ring. In other words, since the dough enters this space, it is considered part of the oven and if a defiling agent is found there, it defiles the oven. If the dough did not touch them, then it would be a sign that the place in which they are found is not considered to be part of the oven.", + "Regarding which dough did they speak? Medium dough. The mishnah clarifies that the dough which the mishnah uses as a barometer is of medium elasticity. It is not so soft that it would sink into any hole, nor is it so hard that it wouldn't sink at all.", + "If they are found in the plaster of an oven with a tightly fitting lid: If the oven is unclean, they are unclean, If the oven is clean, they are clean. Here we have an oven that has a layer of plaster around its outside. In this layer of plaster the ring and needle are imbedded. The oven is tightly covered and it is found in a building in which a dead body is also located. If the oven is impure, then the needle and ring are impure. An earthenware vessel with a tightly fitting lid prevents impurity from entering, but only if the vessel itself is impure. And since the oven doesn't prevent impurity, so too anything attached to it doesn't prevent impurity.", + "If they are found in the stopper of a jar: If on the sides, they are unclean. If opposite the mouth, they are clean. Now this pesky little ring or needle is found in the stopper of a tightly closed jar, which is also found in a building with a dead person in it. The jar, since it is tightly closed, does prevent impurity from infiltrating but only if the needle or ring is found opposite the mouth of the jar. If it is found on the sides of the stopper, since this is not the part of the stopper used by the jar, it doesn't count as part of the jar. Thus the needle and ring are defiled.", + "If they can be seen in it, but they do not enter its airspace, they are clean. If the ring or needle can be seen from the top in the stopper, then they have not gotten into the airspace of the stopper, which is the airspace of the jar. Since they are part of the stopper, they are pure.", + "If they sink into it, and there is [plaster] underneath them as thick as garlic peel, they are clean. If they are sunken into the stopper, and there is still stopper, even as thin as a peel of garlic, underneath them, then they are pure. However if they have truly entered the jar's air-space they are impure because an earthenware vessel with a tightly covered lid does not save metal vessels found inside it from being defiled." + ], + [ + "A jar that was full of clean liquids, with a siphon in it, and it had a tightly fitting cover and was in a tent in which there was a corpse: Bet Shammai says: both the jar and the liquids are clean but the siphon is unclean. And Bet Hillel says: the siphon also is clean. The siphon is made of metal, and as we learned, an earthenware vessel with a tightly fitting cover does not prevent impurity from defiling metal vessels that are within it. Therefore, Bet Shammai rules that the metal siphon is impure. The jar and the liquids inside are clean because the covered earthenware vessel does protect them from the impurity.", + "Bet Hillel changed their mind and ruled in agreement with Bet Shammai. At first Bet Hillel disagreed and held that even the siphon was pure. However, they eventually changed their mind and agreed with Bet Shammai. This is a phenomenon that occurs occasionally in the Mishnah. Bet Hillel at first disagrees with Bet Shammai, but eventually they change their mind." + ], + [ + "If a sheretz was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that it fell there while it was still alive and that it died only now. Underneath the bottom of the oven does not count as the air-space of the oven. Therefore, the dead sheretz found there does not defile the oven. We can assume that the sheretz was still alive while it passed through the air-space of the oven, and did not defile the oven on its way down. Thus the oven is clean.", + "If a needle or a ring was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that they were there before the oven arrived. Similarly, if an unclean needle or ring is found underneath the oven, we need not assume that it made its way there through the oven's air-space, defiling the oven while it was going down.", + "If it was found in the wood ashes, the oven is unclean since one has no ground on which to base an assumption of cleanness. However, if the needle or ring is found in the midst of the oven's ashes, even if it is underneath the oven, it defiles the oven, because we cannot assume that it was there before the oven was put there. Had it been there before the oven, it should have been underneath the ashes, not in them." + ], + [ + "A sponge which had absorbed unclean liquids and its outer surface became dry and it fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven is unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. Since the unclean liquids in the sponge will eventually seep out, the oven is unclean as soon as the sponge enters. In other words, since the liquids will eventually seep out, we look at them as if they are already out, and as we have learned, unclean liquids can defile an oven.", + "And the same with regard to a piece of turnip or reed grass. Rabbi Shimon says: the oven is clean in both these cases. Evidently, turnips and reed grass were also used in a \"sponge-like\" manner, to gather in liquids and then to squeeze them out later. Therefore, according to the first opinion, if a piece of turnip or reed grass that has been used to soak up unclean liquids falls into the oven, the oven is immediately unclean, the same as it is with a sponge. Rabbi Shimon says that in these two cases the liquid will not seep out like it does from a sponge and therefore the oven remains clean." + ], + [ + "Potsherds that had been used for unclean liquids which fell into the air-space of an oven, if the oven was heated, it becomes unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. The potsherd which was used in a vessel which contained unclean liquids would have absorbed some of that liquid. When it falls into a heated oven, the liquids will eventually come out and therefore the oven is unclean.", + "And the same with regard to fresh olive peat, but if it was old, the oven remains clean. If it was known that liquid emerges, even after the lapse of three years, the oven becomes unclean. Olive peat is the olive waste that is left over after the olives have been pressed. If the olive press was unclean (or the pressing was done by unclean people), the oil is also unclean. Fresh olive peat will still retain some of this oil, so if fresh peat falls into a hot oven, the oven is unclean. The oil will emerge due to the heat. Old olive peat (after twelve months) no longer contains the oil and therefore impure oil will not seep out and defile the oven. This is true unless we know that liquid came out of the old olive peat. If we know that liquid came out, then it can defile the oven even if the peat is as old as three years." + ], + [ + "If olive peat or grape skins had been prepared in conditions of cleanness, and unclean persons trod upon them and afterwards liquids emerged from them, they remain clean, since they had originally been prepared in conditions of cleanness. The olives and grapes were squeezed or tread upon by people who were in a state of purity. Then unclean people tread upon the waste products the olive peat or the grape skins and then liquids emerged. Generally, liquids make things susceptible to impurity. But because the person treading upon the olive peat or grape skins did not intend to squeeze out the liquids (because he probably wanted them to remain dry), this type of liquid does not make the olive peat or grape skins susceptible to impurity. They both remain pure, and if they are put into an oven, the oven also remains pure.", + "If a spindle hook was sunk into the spindle, or the iron point into the ox goad, or a ring into a brick, and all these were clean, and then they were brought into a tent in which was a corpse, they become unclean. The instruments in this section consist of one metal instrument sunk into another larger instrument that cannot become impure because it does not have a receptacle. If the larger item with the smaller instrument inside it are taken into a tent in which a corpse is found, the sunken metal instrument is not protected by the larger item from becoming impure. Metal instruments are not protected from impurity unless they were swallowed by a living being (animal or human).", + "If a zav caused them to move they become unclean. A zav (person with abnormal genital discharge) who moves something causes it to be impure, even without touching it. Again, the outer vessel does not protect these instruments from becoming impure.", + "If they then fell into the air-space of a clean oven, they cause it to be unclean. Just as they are not protected from being defiled, so too they can defile an oven if they enter its airspace.", + "If a loaf of terumah came in contact with them, it remains clean. However, if a loaf of terumah bread comes into contact with them, it remains pure because it did not directly come into contact with the spindle hook, iron point or ring. It only touched the spindle, goad or brick and they were pure." + ], + [ + "If there was netting placed over the mouth of an oven, forming a tightly fitting lid, and a split appeared between the oven and the colander, the minimum size [to allow impurity to enter] is that of the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that cannot actually enter it. Rabbi Judah says: it must be one into which the tip can actually enter. We have learned that if an earthenware vessel has a tightly fitting cover, impurity cannot enter into it and defile it. If such a vessel is found in the same room as a dead body, the vessel remains pure. In the case discussed here, if the netting (some sort of colander) is truly \"tightly fitting\" it counts as a cover and the vessel remains pure. If the part between the oven and the netting is split, if the split is the exact same measurement as the circumference of the tip of an ox goad, it is not considered tightly fitting, and the oven is impure (if it is in a tent with a corpse). According to the first opinion, the tip need not actually be able to enter the split. Rabbi Judah holds that in order for the oven to be considered to not have a \"tightly fitting lid\" the split needs to be large enough to allow the tip to actually enter.", + "If a split appeared in the netting, the minimum size is the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can enter it. Rabbi Judah says: even if it cannot enter. In this case, the split is not between the netting and the oven but in the netting itself. The opinions from section one are reversed. We should note that there is no inherent logic as to when the measure is \"the ox goad can enter\" and when it is \"even if it cannot enter.\" It seems random why the sages reverse their opinions in the two cases. Albeck explains that all of the sages of the Mishnah (the tannaim) had a tradition that in one case the split must be large enough for the ox goad to actually enter, and in the other case, the split need be no larger than the ox goad. The sages and Rabbi Judah disagreed as to which measure was applicable in which case. In other words, they had some sort of halakhic tradition that they had received from their predecessors, but its details were not received and therefore they argued over them.", + "If the split was curved it must not be regarded as straight, and still the minimum size must be the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can actually enter. If the split was really like a small hole, from the oven to the netting, and it wasn't just a regular crack, the minimum size still remains in effect. Albeck explains that this means that if we were to even out the curved split, and only then could it allow in the tip of the ox goad, the oven is still not considered to have a tightly fitting lid. It must actually be the size of the ox goad." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with the topic of how large a hole in an oven can be before it ceases to be considered \"tightly closed.\" The size of this hole will vary depending upon where in the oven it is located.", + "If there was a hole in the \"eye\" of an oven, the minimum size [for it to leave the category of being tightly closed] is the circumference of a burning spindle staff that can enter and come out [without being extinguished]. Rabbi Judah says: one that is not burning. The \"eye\" of the oven is the hole made in the oven's bottom to let in wind and let out smoke (see 8:7). If there is a hole that would allow a burning spindle staff to come in and go out while burning and not be extinguished, the oven is not considered to be \"tightly covered\" and if found in a tent with a dead body, it is impure. Again, Rabbi Judah argues about one of these details. He holds that it need not be able to enter and come out while burning (and not be extinguished). As long as it can come in and out, the oven is unclean.", + "If the hole appeared at its side, the minimum size must be that of the circumference of a spindle staff that can enter and come out while it is not burning. Rabbi Judah says: while burning. If the hole is in the side of the oven, then the opinions in section one are reversed, although the basic measure is the same. Note that this debate is formatted similarly to the debate in yesterday's mishnah. There is no rational reason why one place should have to allow in a burning and one place need not. Rather all sages (the anonymous opinion and Rabbi Judah) hold that in one case the spindle staff must be burning and in one case it need not, and they dispute as to which case is which.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if the hole is in the middle its size must be such that a spindle staff can enter it, but if it was at the side it need only be such as the spindle staff cannot actually enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning the stopper of a jar in which a hole appeared: the minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in an oat stalk. If the hole was in the middle the stalk should be able to enter, and if at the side it need not be able to enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning large stone jars in the stoppers of which appeared a hole. The minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in a reed. If the hole was in the middle the reed must be able to enter it, and if it was at the side the reed need not be able to enter it. Rabbi Shimon holds that there is a difference if the hole is in the middle of the oven, or in its side. If the hole is in the middle, the spindle must be able to go in and out, but if it is on the side, the measure is smaller, and the oven is considered open even if the hole is the exact same size as the spindle-staff. According to other sources, the other rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold the reverse if the hole is on the side, the measure is larger than if it's in the middle. The mishnah now proceeds to list several cases, in which Rabbi Shimon holds that if the hole is in the side, the measure is larger than if the hole is in the middle. The first is a hole found in a stopper. The minimum measure is the size of the second knot in an oat-stalk. Oat stalks (so I gather from this mishnah) had many knots, and the sages used the second knot as a basis this measure. The second instance is a hole found in a large jar. Here the measure was the second knot found in a reed (which I guess also have knots).", + "When is this so? When the jars were made for wine, but if they were made for other liquids, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. The above two halakhot are true when it comes to wine jars, which regularly had holes in them. Since holes were normal in these vessels, they had to establish minimum sizes for a hole to nullify the vessel from being considered \"tightly covered.\" If the vessel was used for other liquids, then it shouldn't have any holes. Therefore, even the smallest hole will nullify it from being considered \"tightly lidded.\"", + "When is this so? When the holes were not made by a person, but if they were made by a person, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. If the hole was done intentionally by a person, then even the smallest hole nullifies it from being \"tightly covered.\" The minimum measurements refer only to cases where the hole appeared on its own.", + "If a hole appeared [in other vessels its prescribed size ] is as follows: if the vessel was used for food, [the hole must be one] through which olives can fall out; if for liquids, one that lets out liquids; If for either, the greater restriction is imposed [even with regard to the issue of] a tightly fitting cover [the size of the hole need only be] one that admits a liquid. If other types of vessels (not wine jars) have holes in them, then the minimum measure depends on what the jar is used for. If it is used for food, it must be a big enough hole to let out food. If it holds liquids, then the vessel is not considered tightly covered if it would allow in other liquids. Finally, if the vessel is used for both liquids and solids, the more stringent measure, that of liquids is applied." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction Finally, a mishnah whose focus is not ovens! The tenth chapter of Kelim deals with the types of vessels who remain clean if they have a tightly fitting lid. This halakhah is rooted in Numbers 19:14-15 which reads: \"14 This is the ritual: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be unclean seven days; 15 and every open vessel, with no lid fastened down, shall be unclean.\"", + "The following vessels protect their contents when they have a tightly fitting cover: those made of cattle dung, of stone, of clay, of earthenware, of sodium carbonate, of the bones of a fish or of its skin, or of the bones of any animal of the sea or of its skin, and wooden vessels that are always clean. Vessels made of the materials listed in this section protect their contents from becoming unclean if the vessel is found in a tent (any building) with a dead body in it. We should note that vessels made of cattle dung, stone and clay (that has not been fired in a kiln) are never susceptible to impurity. Similarly most vessels made of the skins of fish or animals of the sea are not susceptible to impurity. There are wooden vessels that are susceptible to impurity and there are some that are not. Basically, there are two kinds of vessels listed here that can become impure earthenware and sodium carbonate. These two types of vessels have rules that differ from metal, glass and wooden vessels. As we have learned, the former can become impure from their air-space, but are not made impure by contact with their outside. Thus any vessel that cannot be defiled by contact with its outside, protects against impurity if it has a tightly fitting lid.", + "They protect whether the covers close their mouths or their sides, whether they stand on their bottoms or lean on their sides. It doesn't matter where the lid is or how the vessel is standing. In all cases it protects its contents.", + "If they were turned over with their mouths downwards they afford protection to all that is beneath them to the nethermost deep. Rabbi Eliezer declares this unclean. If the vessel is turned over and it was connected to the ground by some plaster, then it protects anything below it from becoming unclean. In other words, the ground is the lid. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that the ground cannot be considered a lid.", + "These protect everything, except that an earthen vessel protects only foods, liquids and earthen vessels. Most of these vessels protect anything that is found in them, including metal vessels. However, earthenware vessels only protect other things that cannot be made pure in a mikveh (bath) food, liquid and other earthenware vessels. If there are metal vessels inside the earthenware vessels, they become unclean in the tent with a corpse." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses what materials can be used to seal the cover of an earthenware vessel such that it will protect it from becoming impure.", + "How may it be tightly covered? With lime or gypsum, pitch or wax, mud or excrement, crude clay or potter's clay, or any substance that is used for plastering. All of the materials listed here will form a tight seal around the lid's edges. Thus all of these materials cause the vessel to be protected from impurity if the vessel is found in a building with a corpse in it.", + "One may not make a tightly fitting cover with tin or with lead because though it is a covering, it is not tightly fitting. Soft metals such as tin or lead do not offer as tight of a seal and therefore they do not protect the vessel. They are a \"covering\" but they are not \"tightly fitting.\"", + "One may not make a tightly fitting cover with swollen fig-cakes or with dough that was kneaded with fruit juice, since it might cause it to become unfit. If he did make a tightly fitting cover [from such material] it protects. These soft, pliable food products will, at least temporarily, offer a tightly fitting seal. Therefore, if one makes a seal out of them, they do protect the vessel from impurity. However, since they will dry up and no longer be a tight seal, the mishnah says that one should not use them." + ], + [ + "A stopper of a jar that is loose but does not fall out: Rabbi Judah says: it protects. But the sages say: it does not protect. According to Rabbi Judah, although the stopper is loose in its place, it still protects the jar from becoming impure. The sages disagree.", + "If its finger-hold was sunk within the jar and a sheretz was in it, the jar becomes unclean. If the sheretz was in the jar, any food in it, become unclean. The finger-hold is the depression within the stopper used to get a grip on the stopper and pull it out. If there was a sheretz in this finger-hold and it was sunk within the jar, then the jar is unclean. The finger-hold does not count as sealing the jar, even though the stopper does. Similarly, if the sheretz was in the jar and the finger-hold was sunk into the jar and there was food in the finger-hold, the food is impure. Put simply, the finger-hold does not protect from impurity." + ], + [ + "If a ball or coil of reed grass was placed over the mouth of a jar, and only its sides were plastered, it does not protect unless it was also plastered above or below. The reed grass does not offer an especially good sealant. Therefore, for it to protect he must also plaster either over or under the ball or coil. The jar is not considered tightly sealed if all he does is plaster its sides.", + "The same is true with regard to a patch of cloth. The same is true with a small patch of cloth (too small to be itself susceptible to impurity).", + "If it was of paper or leather and bound with a cord, if he plastered it from the sides, it protects. The paper or leather, bound to the jar with a cord, does not have holes (as does the reed grass and the cloth). Therefore, as long as he plasters from the side, the paper or leather protect the jar. [It would seem that their paper was probably far thicker and more durable than our paper]." + ], + [ + "If [the outer layer] a jar had been peeled off but its pitch [lining] remained intact, The outer layer of plaster peeled off the jar, but the inner layer of pitch remains, thereby sealing the jar off at the place where the outer layer peeled off. ", + "And similarly if pots of fish brine were sealed up with gypsum at a level with the brim: Rabbi Judah says: they do not protect. But the sages say: they do protect. The type of fish pot referred to here has a lip below the rim and inside the pot. The person sealed the pot at this point, in other words within the pot.", + "It turns out that in both of these cases the seal is inside the pot or jar and not external to it. According to Rabbi Judah these containers do not protect their contents because the lid must be on the jar. This is a very literal reading of Numbers 19:15—”a tightly fitting lid on it.”", + "The other sages do not read the text quite as literally, and therefore claim that these types of lids or seals do protect their contents from impurity." + ], + [ + "If a jar had a hole in it and wine lees stopped it up, they protect it. This section goes according to the opinion of the sages in yesterday's mishnah. The wine lees protect the jar from impurity because they form a tight seal from within.", + "If one stopped it up with a vine shoot [it does not protect] until he plasters it at the sides. In order for the vine shoot to count as a tightly-fitting lid, he must plaster it around from the sides.", + "If there were two vine shoots, [it does not protect] unless he plastered it at the sides and also between the one shoot and the other. If he closed it up with two vine shoots, then he must plaster it from both the sides and between the shoots in order for the shoots to be considered a tight seal.", + "If a board was placed over the mouth of an oven, it protects if he plastered it at the sides. A board, one that cannot become impure, can offer a protective seal to an oven, as long as he plasters it from the sides.", + "If there were two boards [it does not protect] unless he plastered at the sides and also between the one board and the other. If they were fastened together with pegs or with bamboo joints there is no need for them to be plastered in the middle. Similar to the case of the two vines, if he uses two boards, he must plaster in between them as well as at the sides. However, if the two boards were fastened together with either pegs or joints, he need not plaster in between them for them to be considered a tight lid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses a case where one oven is within another oven. A note of introduction will help in understanding this mishnah. For a jar (susceptible to impurity) to be protected from impurity when it is found inside a tent with a dead body it must have a tightly fitting lid. However, an inner tent (not susceptible to impurity) can protect its contents from an outer tent with a dead body in it, even if the covering of the inner tent is not \"tightly-fitting.\" As long as the inner tent is covered, it protects its contents.", + "An old oven was within a new one and netting was over the mouth of the old [new] one: If [it was placed such that if] the old one were to be removed the netting would drop, all [the contents of both ovens] are unclean; But if it would not drop, all are clean. In this scenario, the old oven, one that had already been used, was within a new one, which had not been glazed and therefore was not susceptible to impurity (see 5:1). There is netting over the new one (this according to Albeck is how the mishnah should read. The reading \"old one\" is a mistake.) Concerning \"netting\" see 9:7. The first possibility is that when the old one is removed the netting would fall. In such a case the netting is on the old, inside oven, and not on the new outer oven. The mishnah rules that if the old oven is found in a tent with a dead body, it and all of its contents, are impure. The outer oven cannot serve as a tent-covering because its opening is not covered by the netting. And the inner oven is not considered to have a lid, because although the netting is over its opening, it is not considered a tight-fitting lid. However, if the netting was placed over the outer, new oven, it protects the inner oven because the new oven serves as a \"tent.\" In other words, the netting is not sufficient to act as a lid for the old oven, but it is sufficient to turn the new oven, one that is not susceptible to impurity, into a \"tent\" such that the inner oven is not directly in a tent with a dead body. Rather it is inside one tent which is inside another tent with a dead body.", + "A new oven was within an old one and netting was over the mouth of the old one if there was not a handbreadth of space between the new oven and the netting, all the contents of the new one are clean. In this case, the new oven is on the inside and the old, susceptible to impurity oven, is on the outside. The netting is over the old, outer one but if the old one is removed, it won't fall into the new oven, because its mouth is narrower. The outer one is definitely impure because nothing is protecting it from the impurity in the tent. But if there is less than a handbreadth between the new one and the netting, then the netting turns the new one into a \"tent\" and it can protect its contents from the impurity found in the larger tent in which it is all found." + ], + [ + "If [earthenware] pans were placed one within the other and their rims were on the same level, and there was a sheretz in the upper one or in the lower one, that pan alone becomes unclean but all the others remain clean. If the sheretz is in the upper pan, the lower pans are still clean because the sheretz is not considered to be in the air-space of the lower pans. Only the upper pan is impure because the sheretz is in its air-space. If the sheretz is in the lower pan it is unclean but the upper pans are clean because the sheretz is not in their air-space.", + "If [they were perforated] to the extent of admitting a liquid, and the sheretz was in the uppermost one, all become unclean. If in the lowest one, that one is unclean while the others remain clean. If the pans were perforated enough that they could let liquid in and out, they are still susceptible to impurity. In order for them not to be susceptible they must be able to admit and let out an olive (see 3:2). Nevertheless, they are not considered to be \"vessels\" vis a vis other vessels in order to afford protection from impurity. Therefore, if the sheretz is in the upper one, it doesn't protect the lower ones. The sheretz is considered to be in their air-space as well. However, if it is in the lower one, the upper (inner) pans are pure because the sheretz is still not in their air-space.", + "If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, both are unclean. The mishnah now returns to the first scenario, where the pans are not perforated. If the lowest pan projects above the upper one, and the sheretz is in the upper one, then both of those pans are unclean, because the sheretz is in both of their air-spaces. However, the middle pans remain clean because the sheretz is not in their air-space.", + "If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, any one that contained dripping liquid becomes unclean. This section seems to be some sort of later addition to the mishnah which relates to that which was immediately stated before. When it was stated in section three that the middle pans are pure, that was true only if they were dry. If they were moist with dripping liquid, then the liquid is unclean and it in turn defiles the pan." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapters eleven through fourteen deal with purity issues related to metal vessels.", + "Metal vessels, whether they are flat or form a receptacle, are susceptible to impurity. Metal vessels are susceptible to impurity whether or not they have a receptacle. This distinguishes them from other material (wood see 2:1) which needs to have a receptacle.", + "On being broken they become clean. If they break such that they are no longer usable, they become pure again.", + "If they were re-made into vessels they revert to their former impurity. If they are re-fashioned, their original impurity is restored to them. In other words, they don't only become susceptible to impurity, they actually get their old impurity back. In the Talmud, it is explained that this was a rabbinic decree made by Shimon ben Shetach, a Second Temple sage. According to the rules of the Torah, once the metal vessel has been broken, it does not go back to its former impurity.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: this does not apply to every form of impurity but only to that contracted from a corpse. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel limits this rabbinic decree to a case where it had contracted corpse impurity. If it had been defiled in some other, less significant way, then it does not revert to its former impurity." + ], + [ + "Every metal vessel that has a name of its own [is susceptible to impurity,] As long as a metal vessel has a name of its own, and its name is not based on another vessel, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "Except for a door, a bolt, a lock, a socket under a hinge, a hinge, a clapper, and the [threshold] groove under a door post, since these are intended to be attached to the ground. The exceptions are various parts of doors. These are not susceptible to impurity because they are meant to be attached to the ground, and any vessel that is attached to the ground is not susceptible to impurity (see 8:9)." + ], + [ + "If vessels are made from iron ore, from smelted iron, from the hoop of a wheel, from sheets, from plating, from the bases, rims or handles of vessels, from chippings or filings, they are clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even those made of pieces of vessels. Vessels that are made from any of these materials are pure (unless they contract impurity). We need not be concerned that they come from material that was at one time impure because all of the things that are listed here are not \"vessels\" and therefore they are not susceptible to impurity. In other words, if a vessels comes from recycled material that could never have been impure, it is itself pure. \"Pieces of vessels\" are pieces that are cut off of the raw metarl material when vessels are being made. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that these too cannot be impure, and therefore vessels made of them are pure.", + "From [vessels that are made] of fragments of vessels, from pieces of old vessels, or from nails that were known to have been made from vessels, are unclean. In this case the older vessels may have been impure before they were broken and recycled. Therefore, the new vessels made from them must also be treated as impure, for when the old vessels were forged into new vessels, they return to their former state of impurity (see mishnah one).", + "[If they were made] from ordinary nails: Bet Shammai says: they are unclean, And Bet Hillel says that they are clean. In this case, we don't know whether the nails were once parts of vessels, in which case they are susceptible to impurity, or were from nails that were never parts of vessels, in which case they are not susceptible to impurity. Bet Shammai rules strictly and renders them unclean lest they came from vessels that were once impure. Bet Hillel rules leniently, reasoning that there is a double-doubt in this case. The nails may not have ever been part of vessels, and even if they were, there is the possibility that the previous vessel was clean." + ], + [ + "If unclean iron was smelted together with clean iron and the greater part was from the unclean iron, [the vessel made of the mixture] is unclean; If the greater part was from the clean iron, the vessel is clean. If each was half, it is unclean. The unclean iron comes from vessels that were unclean, and the clean iron comes from vessels that are clean. The status of the new vessel follows the majority of the material used. If both materials are used in equal amounts the law is strict and the new vessel must be treated as unclean.", + "The same law also applies to a mixture of cement and cattle dung. Cement is susceptible to impurity, whereas cattle dung is not. If one makes a vessel by mixing these two materials together, the vessel's susceptibility to impurity depends on which material composes the majority, as in the previous section.", + "A door bolt is susceptible to impurity, but [one of wood] that is only plated with metal is not susceptible to impurity. The susceptibility of the type of door belt referred to here depends upon whether it is made of metal, in which case it is susceptible, or of wood which is only plated with metal, in which case it is not susceptible.", + "The clutch and the crosspiece [of a lock] are susceptible to impurity. These two pieces of the door are susceptible to impurity.", + "A door-bolt: Rabbi Joshua says: he may remove it from one door and hang it on another on Shabbat. Rabbi Tarfon says: it is like all other vessels and may be carried about in a courtyard. These laws relate to the door-bolt mentioned in section three. According to Rabbi Joshua one can remove it from one door and drag it to another door on Shabbat. But he can't directly carry it, because it is not a vessel and one is not allowed to handle non-vessels on Shabbat. This opinion flows or at least accords with the opinion above, that the door bolt is not a vessel. Rabbi Tarfon says that the door-bolt is a vessel and can be carried about in the courtyard, as can vessels in general on Shabbat. Since it is a vessel, it is also susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Tarfon disagrees with the opinion in section three." + ], + [ + "The scorpion [-shaped] bit of a bridle is susceptible to impurity, but the cheek-pieces are clean. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cheek-pieces are susceptible to impurity. But the sages says that the scorpion-bit alone is susceptible to impurity, The two pieces of equipment mentioned here are used in bridling an animal. According to the Rambam, the scorpion-shaped bit is susceptible because it has its own name, whereas the cheek-pieces do not. Rabbi Eliezer holds that since the cheek-pieces are made for people to use and they are part of the bit, they too are susceptible.", + "When they are joined together it is all susceptible to impurity. The sages agree that if the cheek-pieces are attached to the bridle, they too are susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A metal spindle-knob:
Rabbi Akiva says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is not susceptible. If it was only plated [with metal] it is clean. A metal-spindle knob is placed on top of the spindle used in spinning wool. According to the sages, it does not have its own name and therefore it is clean. Rabbi Akiva holds that it does have its own name, so it is susceptible. Rabbi Akiva agrees that if it is only covered with metal, it is considered a simple wooden vessel, and it is not susceptible.", + "A spindle, a distaff, a rod, a double flute and a pipe are susceptible to impurity if they are of metal, but if they are only plated [with metal] they are clean. All of these vessels have their own name and therefore they are all susceptible to impurity, if made of metal. However, if they are only covered with metal, but their base is wood they are not susceptible, because they do not have a receptacle.", + "If a double flute has a receptacle for the wings it is susceptible to impurity in either case. If the double-flute has a receptacle in which to receive \"wings\" which somehow make other types of musical noises, then it is susceptible even if it is made of wood. Wooden vessels are not-susceptible only if they have no receptacle." + ], + [ + "A curved horn is susceptible to impurity but a straight one is clean. A curved horn (perhaps a type of shofar, although some explain this to be a wood instrument) is susceptible to impurity because it contains a receptacle in which it would be possible to receive liquids. But the straight one is not susceptible, as is the rule with vessels made of bone or wood.", + "If its mouthpiece was covered with metal it is unclean. If parts of the horn are covered with metal, it may be susceptible to impurity. If the mouthpiece is covered with metal, it is considered a metal vessel and is susceptible whether or not it is curved.", + "If its broad side [is covered with metal]: Rabbi Tarfon says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is clean. There is a debate over whether the straight horn is susceptible if its broader side is covered with metal. According to Rabbi Tarfon, this is sufficient to turn it into a metal vessel, whereas the sages say that it is not. Only if the mouthpiece is covered with metal is it susceptible.", + "While they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity. If the mouthpiece is joined together with the broad side, making one seamless whole, then if any part is susceptible, it is all susceptible.", + "Similarly: the branches of a candlestick are clean. And the cups and the base are susceptible to impurity, But while they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity. Similar rules apply to a candlestick. Its branches are not susceptible when they are separated from the whole, because they do not have their own names. The cups and base are susceptible because they contain receptacles. But if they are all joined together, all of the parts are susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the purity of weapons and jewelry. It is interesting to note that the Mishnah often juxtaposes these topics, as if to create an analogy weapons are adornments to men, as jewelry is an adornment to women.", + "A helmet is susceptible to impurity but the cheek-pieces are clean, But if they have a receptacle for water they are susceptible to impurity. The helmet has its own name and is therefore susceptible to impurity, but the cheek-pieces do not have their own name, and therefore they are not susceptible unless they also have a receptacle for water.", + "All weapons of war are susceptible to impurity: a javelin, a spear-head, metal boots, and a breastplate are susceptible to impurity. Weapons of war are all susceptible to impurity because they are made of metal.", + "All women's ornaments are susceptible to impurity: a golden city (a, a necklace, ear-rings, finger-rings, a ring whether it has a seal or does not have a seal, and nose-rings. Similarly, women's jewelry is made of metal and therefore it too is susceptible to impurity. The ring need not have a receptacle for a seal for it to be susceptible. Note that \"a golden city\" this refers to a \"Yerushalayim shel Zahav,\" or any other city.", + "If a necklace has metal beads on a thread of flax or wool and the thread broke, the beads are still susceptible to impurity, since each one is a vessel in itself. A whole the necklace is susceptible, as we learned in section three. If the thread breaks, the beads are still susceptible because each is considered its own vessel.", + "If the thread was of metal and the beads were of precious stones or pearls or glass, and the beads were broken while the thread alone remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. If the thread is metal, it is susceptible even if the beads that served as its adornments broke and fell off.", + "The remnant of a necklace [is susceptible] as long as there is enough for the neck of a little girl. Rabbi Eliezer says: even if only one ring remained it is unclean, since it also is hung around the neck. If a chain necklace breaks, it is still susceptible as long as enough remains to serve as a necklace for a young girl. If it is smaller than that, it is not susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer says that as long as one ring in the chain remains it is still usable because a person might hang that ring on another chain around her neck. Therefore it is still susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction Today's mishnah deals with the purity of earrings.", + "If an earring was shaped like a pot at its bottom and like a lentil at the top and the sections fell apart, the pot-shaped section is susceptible to impurity because it is a receptacle, while the lentil shaped section is susceptible to impurity in itself. The earring described here has two parts: the top is shaped like a lentil and the bottom like a pot (maybe someone should go into designing Talmudic jewelry might make a good business). When the earring is whole, all of it is of course susceptible to impurity. If it falls apart both parts are still susceptible to impurity. The bottom part is no longer considered a piece of jewelry, but since it has a receptacle, it is still susceptible. The top part has no receptacle, but it is still susceptible because it is still considered a piece of jewelry.", + "The hooklet is clean. However, the hooklet thread used to attach the earring to the ear is pure.", + "If the sections of an ear-ring that was in the shape of a cluster of grapes fell apart, they are clean. The individual pieces of this type of earring are not considered to be jewelry, and therefore when it falls apart they are clean. To summarize: if the parts of a larger piece of jewelry are considered to be jewelry in their own right, they are still susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A man's ring is susceptible to impurity. The ring that a man wears is susceptible to impurity, just as is a ring worn by a woman.", + "A ring for cattle or for vessels and all other rings are clean. On its own and not used as jewelry, a ring is not considered a vessel. Therefore, if it is used for cattle or for other vessels, the ring is clean.", + "A beam for arrows is susceptible to impurity, but one for prisoners is clean. The beam described here is made of metal, and is used as a target for shooting arrows. It is susceptible because it is considered a vessel. On the other hand, the beam used to shackle prisoners is not considered a vessel and is therefore not susceptible.", + "A prisoner's collar is susceptible to impurity. The collar which is put on the necks of multiple prisoners is susceptible because it is considered a vessel.", + "A chain that has a lock-piece is susceptible to impurity. But that used for tying up cattle is clean. A chain that has a place for a lock is susceptible, but if it is just used to tie up cattle it is not susceptible.", + "The chain used by wholesalers is susceptible to impurity. That used by householders is clean. Rabbi Yose said: When is this so? When it attaches to one door, but if it attaches to two doors or if it had a snail[-shaped] piece at its end it is susceptible to impurity. Albeck explains that the chain used by the wholesalers was used to lock up their storehouses. It is susceptible because it is used as a means of locking up something. In contrast, the chain used by householders is only decorative and therefore it is not susceptible. Albeck explains that according to Rabbi Yose, if this chain attaches to only one door, then it is merely decorative, but if it attaches to multiple doors, it is susceptible. It is also susceptible if it has a vessel at its end (the snail-shaped piece). This vessel gives the entire chain the status of vessel. [I should note that I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck. There are other interpretations of the last section]." + ], + [ + "The beam of a wool-combers’ balance is susceptible to impurity on account of the hooks.
And that of a householder, if it has hooks is also susceptible to impurity.
The hooks of porters are clean but those of peddlers are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: in the case of the peddlers' [hooks], [the hook] that is in front is susceptible to impurity but that which is behind is clean.
The hook of a couch is susceptible to impurity but that of bed poles is clean.
[The hook of] a chest is susceptible to impurity but that of a fish trap is clean.
That of a table is susceptible to impurity but that of a wooden candlestick is clean.
This is the general rule: any hook that is attached to a susceptible vessel is susceptible to impurity, but one that is attached to a vessel that is not susceptible to impurity is clean.
All these, however, are by themselves clean.
Most of this mishnah deals with the susceptibility of various types of hooks to impurity.
Section one: Wool-combers' hooks are used for hanging and weighing wool. Since the hooks are a vessel, they can receive impurity, and by extension, so can the whole beam.
Section two: Generally, the beam that a householder uses to weigh things doesn't have metal hooks. Therefore, it is not susceptible to impurity. However, if it does have metal hooks, it is susceptible.
Section three: The porters use a beam with hooks attached to carry their load. The hooks are metal and the beam is wood. These hooks are clean, because the main instrument is the beam, and since it is made of wood and has no receptacle, it is pure. In contrast, the hooks used by peddlers have receptacles in which to hang their wares. Therefore, they are susceptible.
Rabbi Judah says that only the front hooks are used to hang the peddlers' wares, and therefore only they are susceptible.
Sections four-seven: The general rule here explains the particular details in sections 4-6. In all of these cases, as long as the hook is attached to a susceptible vessel, the hook has the status of the vessel and it too is susceptible. However, if the hook is attached to something that cannot become impure (poles, fish-trap or wooden candlestick), it too is pure.
Section eight: When the hooks are not attached to something else, they are clean. There are two possible reasons: 1) they don't have their own name; 2) they are not usable unless attached to something else." + ], + [ + "The metal cover of a basket of householders: Rabban Gamaliel says: it is susceptible to impurity, The sages say that it is clean. According to Rabban Gamaliel, the cover of the basket is itself considered a vessel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity, even separate from the basket. The other sages hold that the cover is not a vessel, and therefore it is not susceptible.", + "But that of physicians is susceptible to impurity. Since physicians would make use of the cover of a basket, it has the status of a vessel and it can become impure.", + "The door of a cupboard of householders is clean but that of physicians is susceptible to impurity. Since the cupboard is not susceptible to impurity, its door is not either. However, physicians would use the door of their cupboard, draping the bandage over it before applying it to their patient. Therefore, it is susceptible.", + "Tongs are susceptible to impurity but stove-tongs are clean. Metal tongs used to lift a hot pan off a stove and empty their contents elsewhere are susceptible to impurity. But tongs that come attached to the stove are not susceptible because they are considered to be attached to the ground.", + "The scorpion [-shaped] hook in an olive-press is susceptible to impurity but the hooks for the walls are clean. The scorpion-shaped hook is susceptible because it is attached to the beams used in the olive-press. However, the hooks which are attached to the wall of the olive-press are not susceptible because the wall itself is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah, as well as tomorrow's, deals with the purity of various types of \"nails.\" When the Mishnah uses the word \"nail\" it does not refer only to building nails, but to various nail-like instruments used in a variety of ways.", + "A blood-letters’ nail is susceptible to impurity. The word \"nail\" is used here, but we are probably talking about a small scalpel. It is considered a vessel and therefore is susceptible to impurity.", + "But [the nail] of a sundial is clean. Rabbi Zadok says that it is susceptible to impurity. Since the nail of a sundial is fixed in the stone that serves as its base, it counts as if it were attached to the ground, and things that are attached to the ground are not susceptible to impurity.", + "A weaver's nail is susceptible to impurity. This \"nail\" is an instrument used to straighten out the thread on the loom. It is susceptible to impurity.", + "The chest of a grist-dealer: Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean. Albeck brings two interpretations of the \"chest of a grist-dealer.\" The first is that it refers to the chest itself. The second that it refers to the nail used to attach the chest to a wagon. Rabbi Zadok and the sages debate whether this nail is susceptible to impurity.", + "If its wagon was made of metal it is susceptible to impurity. If the wagon used to draw the chest is made of metal, then it (the wagon) is susceptible." + ], + [ + "A nail which he adapted to be able to open or to shut a lock is susceptible to impurity. A nail which one bent to be able to open or close a lock is considered to be a vessel and it is susceptible to impurity.", + "But one used for guarding is clean. However, a nail that is simply stuck in a door to close it and keep out cats or other animals is not sophisticated enough to be a vessel and it is clean.", + "A nail which he adapted to open a jar: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean unless he forges it. According to Rabbi Akiva, if he bends the nail to be able to open up a jar, it is already susceptible to impurity. The other sages say that to turn a simple nail into a jar opener he must forge it again in the oven. It is not susceptible until he does so.", + "A money-changer's nail is clean, But Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity. The Rambam explains that the money-changer uses his nail to hang up his scale. Another possible explanation is that this nail was used in the daily set up of the money changers \"table\" (in Hebrew the money-changer is called \"the table-man\"). According to Rabbi Zadok this nail is a vessel and is susceptible, whereas the sages disagree.", + "There are three things which Rabbi Zadok holds to be susceptible to impurity and the sages hold clean: The nail of a money-changer, The chest of a grist-dealer And the nail of a sundial. Rabbi Zadok rules that these are susceptible to impurity and the sages rule that they are clean. This section and mishnah six were brought to Mishnah Kelim from Mishnah Eduyot 3:8-9. In the case of Rabbi Zadok, this section merely repeats that which we learned in the previous two mishnayot. It is interesting to note the different literary styles between the regular tractate, Kelim, which organizes its material by topic, and Eduyot, which organizes its material by name." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is found word for word in Eduyot 3:9. It is brought here due to the fact that it discusses the purity of vessels, and that the first vessel discussed is also mentioned above in mishnah three.", + "Rabban Gamaliel and the other sages dispute over the susceptibility of four items to impurity.", + "There are four things which Rabban Gamaliel says are susceptible to impurity, and the sages say are not susceptible to impurity.
The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders; See mishnah three for an explanation.", + "And the hanger of a strigil; A strigil was a type of comb used during baths to scrape off dead skin. All agree that the strigil itself is susceptible to impurity. They disagree about the small chain attached to the strigil to hang it on a hook. According to Rabban Gamaliel it too is considered a vessel and therefore receives impurity. According to the sages it does not.", + "And metal vessels which are still unshaped; Generally speaking, unformed vessels cannot receive impurity. However, when it comes to metal vessels that have not been fully finished, meaning they have not been polished, Rabban Gamaliel holds that they are susceptible to impurity, since they can be used. The sages insist that as long as they are not fully finished they cannot receive impurity.", + "And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity. According to Rabban Gamaliel, a plate broken in two can still receive impurity. The sages hold that broken vessels cannot generally speaking receive impurity. However, they agree with Rabban Gamaliel that if one of the pieces was large, that it still can receive impurity, since it is still useful. The small piece cannot receive impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the susceptibility to impurity of invalidated coins that have put to a secondary purpose.", + "If a dinar had been invalidated and then was adapted for hanging around a young girl's neck it is susceptible to impurity. A coin is not susceptible to impurity, but if it is invalidated and cannot be used and is then hung around a young girl's neck as jewelry, it is susceptible.", + "So, too, if a sela had been invalidated was adapted for use as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity. A sela is a heavier, more valuable coin, worth four denars. If a sela was invalidated, but then used as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "How much may it depreciate while one is still permitted to keep it? As much as two denars. Less and he must be cut it up. It is forbidden for a person to hold on to an invalidated coin, lest he deceive people with it and exchange it for a real coin. However, if the coin is obviously defective, he can keep it because people will know that it is defective. Our mishnah therefore asks how much the coin can depreciate before he has to cut it up and get rid of it. The answer is that it can be up to two denars defective. Two denars is equivalent to a shekel. If it has depreciated more than this, he may not hold on to it, lest he try to exchange it for a shekel." + ], + [ + "A pen-knife, a writing pen, a plummet, a weight, pressing plates, a measuring-rod, and a measuring-table are susceptible to impurity. All of the instruments in this section are metal vessels and are therefore susceptible to impurity. Pressing plates are used in pressing olive.", + "All unfinished wooden vessels also are susceptible to impurity, excepting those made of boxwood. Wooden vessels, unlike earthenware ones, are considered susceptible to impurity even if they are not completely finished. This is because they are usable even in their unfinished state. The exception is boxwood, because its bark is thick and vessels made of it are not considered vessels until they are finished.", + "Rabbi Judah says: one made of an olive-tree branch is also clean unless it was first heated. Rabbi Judah adds that vessels made of olive-tree branches are not susceptible unless the branches were first heated up to remove their moisture." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The sword, knife, dagger, spear, hand-sickle, harvest-sickle, clipper, and barbers’ whose component parts were separated, are susceptible to impurity. All of these instruments are metal and are therefore susceptible to impurity. The scissors are susceptible even though their two knives have been separated.", + "Rabbi Yose says: the part that is near the hand is susceptible to impurity, but that which is near the top is clean. Rabbi Yose says that when any of these instruments has been separated into multiple pieces, only the part that is near the hand is still susceptible, because only it can be held. The other parts are not susceptible because they can't be held without cutting one's hands.", + "The two parts of shears which were separated: Rabbi Judah says: they are still susceptible to impurity; But the sages say that they are clean. The \"shears\" referred to here have only one knife, which is bent to aid in cutting. If this type of shears was split into two, Rabbi Judah says that it is still susceptible, since each part is still usable. The other sages say that since it is difficult to use each individual part on its own, both are clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with tools that have two ends with which two different types of work can be performed.", + "A koligrophon whose spoon has been removed is still susceptible to impurity on account of its teeth. If its teeth have been removed it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. The koligrophon has a shovel on one end which was used to remove bread baking on the sides of an oven. On its other end are teeth, used to rake the coals in the oven. As long as one side is still functional, the entire instrument is susceptible to impurity.", + "A makhol whose spoon is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its point; If its point was missing it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A makhol has a spoon on one end for cleaning out one's ears, and a sharp other end to apply make-up to one's eyes. Again, as long as one side is still functional, the entire instrument is susceptible to impurity.", + "A stylus whose writing point is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its eraser; If its eraser is missing it is susceptible on account of its writing point. The stylus has one end used for writing and one end used for erasing.", + "A zomalister whose spoon is lost is still susceptible to impurity on account of its fork; If its fork is missing, it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A zomalister seems to be the ancient version of the spork, except it had it spoon (actually a ladle for pouring soup) on one end and its fork (for taking meat out of a dish).", + "So too with regard to the prong of a mattock. A mattock is a tool shaped like an axe and used to break up the ground before planting. Sometimes they would affix teeth to its other end to aid in breaking up ground. It is susceptible to impurity as long as one side remains.", + "The minimum size for all these instruments: so that they can perform their usual work. As is normally the case, as long as the tool is still usable for its original purpose, it is still susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A harhur that is damaged is still susceptible to impurity until its greater part is removed. But if its shaft-socket is broken it is clean. A harhur is the iron vessel into which an ox-goad (see 9:7) can be placed in order to dig and to remove dirt from a plow. It is susceptible to impurity even if damaged, as long as its shaft-socket, the opening into which the ox-goad is placed, is intact.", + "A hatchet whose cutting edge is lost remains susceptible to impurity on account of its splitting edge. If its splitting edge is lost it remains susceptible on account of its cutting edge. If its shaft-socket is broken it is clean. The head of the hatchet has a thin side for cutting and a thick side for splitting wood. If either side remains usable, it is still susceptible. If the shaft-socket, the hole into which the head is affixed, is broken, the entire hatchet is unusable and it is pure." + ], + [ + "An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean. The ash-shovel is used to rake out coals from an oven. According to Rabbi Meir even if the shovel was removed, it is still susceptible because its heavy iron body is still usable as a hammer. Although this was not its original use, it still has some use, this use is sufficient for it to remain susceptible. The other sages hold that since it can no longer be used for its original purpose, it is no longer susceptible to impurity.", + "A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity. If one out of every two teeth is missing, the saw is no longer susceptible to impurity, because with so many teeth missing, it is no longer usable. However, if a hasit (some say that this is the length between the forefinger and thumb and some say between the forefinger and middle finger) length of teeth remain in one place, then the saw is still usable and is still susceptible.", + "An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean. In general, these instruments remain usable and therefore susceptible to impurity even when damaged. They would put a piece of steel in all of these instruments to strengthen and sharpen it. If this piece of steel was removed, then the instrument is no longer susceptible.", + "In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill. Except for the drill, all of these instruments are usable even if split in two. Therefore, they are all still susceptible. Since the drill is not usable when it is split in two, it is not susceptible.", + "The block of a plane by itself is clean. The block of a plane whose steel edge has been removed is no longer usable and therefore it is clean." + ], + [ + "A needle whose eye or point is missing is clean. If he adapted it to be a stretching-pin it is susceptible to impurity. If the needle is missing its eye or point it is pure because it cannot be used. However, if he fixed this needle to use it as a stretching-pin (to stretch out canvases or laundry for them to dry), it is susceptible because stretching-pins don't need points or eyes to be usable.", + "A pack-needle whose eye was missing is still susceptible to impurity since one writes with it. If its point was missing it is clean. A \"pack-needle\" is generally used to sew packs. However, due to its large size it can be used to write with on wax, and therefore it is still susceptible to impurity even without an eye through which to thread it. But if its point is missing, it is not at all usable and is clean.", + "A stretching-pin is in either case susceptible to impurity. As we learned in section one, a pin without an eye or a point can still be used as a stretching pin. Therefore it is susceptible in all cases.", + "A needle that has become rusty: If this hinders it from sewing it is clean, But if not it remains susceptible to impurity. A needle which has become rusty is susceptible to impurity as long as the rust does not hinder it from use.", + "A hook that was straightened out is clean. If it is bent back it resumes its susceptibility to impurity. The hook loses its usability if it is straightened out. Thus it is pure. If he bends it back to make it a hook, it is again susceptible to impurity. The Rambam explains this line as meaning that it returns to its original state of impurity, as is the rule with metal vessels that are broken and then fixed (see 11:1)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur principle teaches and illustrates the general principle that a vessel is considered to be made of the material which makes up its function part. This principle is of importance because the rules governing wooden and metal vessels are different.", + "Wood that serves a metal vessel is susceptible to impurity, but metal that serves a wooden vessel is clean. If the functional part of a vessel is made of metal, it is susceptible to impurity even if its ancillary parts are made of wood. But if the functional part is made of wood, it is not susceptible even if its ancillary parts are metal.", + "How so? If a lock is of wood and its clutches are of metal, even if only one of them is so, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the lock is of metal and its clutches are of wood, it is clean. The mishnah now illustrates this through several examples. The first example is a lock. The clutches are the functional part. Therefore, even if only one of them is of metal, the lock is susceptible.", + "If a ring was of metal and its seal of coral, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the ring was of coral and its seal of metal, it is clean. The main part of the ring is the ring itself. Therefore if it is of coral, the ring is clean (coral is never susceptible to impurity), but if it is of metal, it is susceptible.", + "The tooth in the plate of a lock or in a key is susceptible to impurity by itself. Since the mishnah discussed locks, it adds that if the tooth in the plate of a lock is separate from the lock or key, it can still be susceptible to impurity, because it is considered a vessel in and of itself." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with vessels that are basically wooden, but have one part made of metal.", + "If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity. Since the hooks are the main parts of the grappling-irons, as long as they remain, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. Furthermore, although the vessel is made of wood, since its hooks are of metal, it is susceptible.", + "If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity. These are all tools with teeth. Most of the tool is made of wood, but one of the missing wooden teeth was replaced with metal. This one metal tooth gives the entire vessel the status of a metal vessel and it is therefore susceptible to impurity.", + "And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer. Rabbi Joshua adds here a fascinating note, one which I don't believe we have encountered elsewhere in the Mishnah. In all of the above cases, since the basic vessel was of wood, and it was a simple vessel without a receptacle, the vessel should not have been susceptible to impurity. The innovation that the earlier scribes innovated was that although only one part was of metal, the entire vessel is susceptible. Rabbi Joshua accepts this innovation, but nevertheless admits that he does not understand it. We can see here his deference to tradition, and yet his striving to understand it, and his sense of frustration when he cannot. This is an attitude that I believe is very typical among rabbis. They have a strong sense of respect for tradition, and yet they do not simply accept all that they have received. Rather, they constantly attempt to understand the early halakhot, to make sense out of them, and to use the principles that they perceive as underlying these halakhot to derive further halakhot." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter thirteen deals with various types of combs that have their teeth missing.", + "A flax-comb: if the teeth were missing but two remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. If only one remained it is clean. As long as two teeth of the flax-comb remained, the comb is somewhat usable and is therefore susceptible to impurity. If only one tooth remains, it is useless and therefore clean.", + "As regards all the teeth, each one individually is susceptible to impurity. According to the Tosefta one can use the teeth of this type of comb as a writing instrument, and therefore if they are separated from the comb they can still become impure.", + "A wool-comb: if one tooth out of every two is missing it is clean. If three consecutive teeth remained, it is susceptible to impurity. If the outermost tooth was one of them, the comb is clean. The rules governing a wool-comb are slightly different. If one out of every two teeth is missing, it is not usable and it is clean. But if three remain in one place, it can be used so it is susceptible, but only if the outer, wider tooth is not one of them. Since this tooth can't be used for combing, it doesn't count for the requisite three.", + "If two teeth were removed from the comb and made into a pair of tweezers, they are susceptible to impurity. Even if only one was removed but it was adapted to be used for a lamp or as a stretching-pin, it is susceptible to impurity. As was the case with the flax-comb, it is possible for the teeth to be removed and put to secondary use. Thus, if one uses the teeth of the wool-comb as tweezers, they are susceptible. And even a single tooth can be impure if it is removed and fixed to be used for a candle (to trim the wick) or for a stretching pin (see above, mishnah five)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the minimum size that broken pieces of metals vessels need to be in order for them to be susceptible to impurity or for them to still retain the impurity that they already have.", + "What is the minimum size of [broken] metal vessels [for them to be susceptible to impurity]? A bucket must be of such a size as to draw water with it. A kettle must be such as water can be heated in it. A boiler, such as can hold selas. A cauldron, such as can hold jugs. Jugs, such as can hold perutahs. Wine-measures, such as can measure wine; and oil-measures, such as can measure oil. A bucket is used to draw water, therefore if a piece remains that is large enough to do so, it is still susceptible. A broken piece of a kettle must still be large enough to heat up water. A boiler must still be large enough to hold the hot stones that are thrown in to aid in heating up its contents. A cauldron was a large pot used to hold smaller jugs. The broken pieces of the jugs must be large enough to hold perutahs, which are small coins. Wine and oil measures must still be large enough to hold either wine or oil. We can see that the general rule is quite simple: the broken piece must still be able to perform at least some of its former functions.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: the size for all these is such as can hold perutahs. Rabbi Eliezer rules differently and more strictly. With regard to any of these vessels, as long as they can hold perutahs, meaning as long as what remains of them is large enough to hold basically anything, they are still susceptible.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: a vessel that lacks trimming is susceptible to impurity, but one that lacks polishing is clean. Rabbi Akiva says that if the broken vessel lacks decorative aspects, then it is still susceptible to impurity because the decoration is not necessary for its functioning. However, polishing is necessary for a metal vessel to be used. Therefore, if the broken piece of metal vessel needs to be polished it is clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with various metal objects that are attached to a wooden staff. The wooden staff itself has no receptacle and is therefore not susceptible to impurity. The question is: does the metal instrument attached to it cause it to be susceptible.", + "A staff to the end of which he attached a nail like an axe is susceptible to impurity. I have translated the word for the instrument describe as being affixed at the end of the staff as \"axe\" but there are other explanations. The Rambam, for instance, says that it was a round piece of iron that looked like a pomegranate. In any case, as long as this vessel has some function, it is susceptible.", + "If the staff was studded with nails it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon ruled: only if he put in three rows. The staff studded with nails is clearly a weapon. According to Rabbi Shimon it must have a minimum of three rows of nails for it to be susceptible.", + "In all cases where he put them in as ornamentation the staff is clean. In all of the above cases, if the metal vessels were attached to the wooden staff only for decorative purposes, the staff is still clean. There must be some functional reason they were adjoined for it to be susceptible.", + "If he attached a tube to its end, and so also in the case of a door, it is clean. If it was once an independent vessel and then it was fixed to the staff, it remains susceptible to impurity. The metal tube was attached to the end of the staff for decorative purposes, and therefore the staff is still pure. Similarly, if one attaches a tube to a door so that the door doesn't get worn down by the ground, the metal tube is pure. This is a case where a metal vessel serves a wooden vessel and as we learned in 13:6, such metal vessels are pure. If the tube was once an independent vessel, used for instance to pour liquids (see 9:6) and then he attached it to the staff, it retains its ability to become impure.", + "When does it become pure? Bet Shammai says: when it is damaged; And Bet Hillel says: when it is joined on. This section is a continuation of section four. When does a tube that was once an independent vessel and was now attached to a staff lose its susceptibility to impurity? Bet Shammai says that it must be damaged sufficiently so that it can no longer be used. Bet Hillel says that as soon as it is attached to the staff or door, it is susceptible. Interestingly, it seems that the opinion in section four is closer, if not identical to Bet Shammai, for Bet Hillel holds that as soon as the tube is attached to the door or staff, it is pure." + ], + [ + "A builder's staff and a carpenter's axes are susceptible to impurity. Since these are metal tools, they are susceptible to impurity.", + "Tent-pegs and surveyors’ pegs are susceptible to impurity. Tent pegs are considered utensils and are therefore susceptible to impurity. Surveyors' pegs are put into the ground and strings are attached to them to measure the ground. They too are susceptible.", + "A surveyor's chain is susceptible to impurity, but one used for wood is clean. A chain used by surveyors to measure the length of the ground is susceptible to impurity, just as are the pegs. However, if the chain is used to bundle up wood, it is not susceptible because it is not considered a vessel.", + "The chain of a big bucket [is susceptible to impurity to a length of] four handbreadths, and that of a small one [to a length of] ten handbreadths. Up until four handbreadths, the chain attached to a large bucket is considered to be part of the bucket and it is susceptible to impurity. However, the large bucket does not need a chain any longer than this, and therefore if the chain is longer, the remainder is not susceptible. Smaller buckets have longer chains and therefore the chain is susceptible to impurity up to a length of ten handbreadths.", + "A blacksmith's jack is susceptible to impurity. The blacksmith's jack is the iron base which he uses to forge his vessels. It itself is considered a vessel and is susceptible to impurity.", + "A saw whose teeth were made in a hole susceptible to impurity, but if they were turned from below upwards it is clean. In this section I am following the Rambam's interpretation. If a person made a saw by inserting teeth into the holes in the saw, the saw is susceptible to impurity. However, if he turns the teeth in such a way that he cannot use the saw, it is clean.", + "All covers are clean except that of a boiler. Generally, metal covers are pure because they are not considered vessels. The exception is the cover of a boiler, which is on occasion used independently of the boiler." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next two mishnayot deal with the parts of an ox-pulled wagon that are susceptible to impurity and the parts that are not.", + "The parts of a wagon that are susceptible to impurity: the metal yoke, the cross-bar, the side-pieces that hold the straps, the iron bar under the necks of the cattle, the pole-pin, the metal girth, the trays, the clapper, the hook, and any nail that holds any of its parts together. Rather than explain what each of these things exactly is (I'm not even sure I could explain), I think it is better to simply point out that all of these vessels serve indispensable functions on the wagon. Without them, the wagon will not function properly. Therefore, they are all susceptible to impurity. In other words, functional and necessary vessels are susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "The clean parts of a wagon are the following: the yoke that is only plated [with metal], side-pieces made for ornamentation, tubes that give out a noise, the lead at the side of the necks of the cattle, the rim of the wheel, the plates and mountings, and all other nails, all of these are clean. This section is the opposite of yesterday's mishnah. The objects mentioned here are either ornamental or not absolutely necessary for the functioning of the wagon. The yoke that is made of wood but is covered with metal is considered to be a wood vessel and the metal parts serve the wood. Therefore it is clean.", + "Metal shoes of cattle are susceptible to impurity but those made of cork are clean. Metal shoes made so that animals don't slip are susceptible but not simply because they are shoes. They are susceptible for soldiers, in time of need, use them for drinking. But cork shoes are not used for drinking, and therefore they are not susceptible.", + "When does a sword become susceptible to impurity? When it has been polished. And a knife? When it has been sharpened. The mishnah now returns to discuss the topic of when the manufacturing of certain objects is considered to have been completed such that they are susceptible to impurity. A sword is used only after it has been polished, and therefore it is susceptible only then. In contrast, a knife is susceptible as soon as it has been sharpened." + ], + [ + "A metal basket-cover which was turned into a mirror: Rabbi Judah rules that it is clean. And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. Had it not been made into a mirror, all would agree that this metal basket-cover is pure because it is a metal object used for the purposes of a wooden object (see 12:6). As we learned, in such cases the vessel has the status of being made of wood. However, if he polishes it and makes it into its own vessel to be used as a mirror, it is susceptible, according to the sages. Rabbi Judah holds that it is still not considered a vessel and it is still pure.", + "A broken mirror, if it does not reflect the greater part of the face, is clean. If the broken mirror cannot show most of a person's face, it is no longer susceptible to impurity because it is really not usable. But if it can still reflect most of the face, it is still usable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMetal vessels can be purified by having hatat waters (the water that contains the ashes of the red heifer) sprinkled on them on the third and seventh days from their impurity. Metal vessels also can become clean by being broken.\nOur mishnah deals with how these two ways of becoming pure work (or don't work) together.", + "Metal vessels remain unclean and become clean even when broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: they can be made clean only when they are whole. Rabbi Eliezer basically says that just as a whole metal vessel found in a tent with a dead body is unclean and can be purified by the sprinkling of the hatat waters, so too broken metal vessels can become impure and clean in such a manner. Rabbi Joshua disagrees and holds that metal vessels can be made impure and then made clean only when they are whole. If they are broken they can't be made clean and if they are made unclean when whole and then broken they cannot be purified until they are repaired. Note that this doesn't mean that they are impure. It means that if he repairs them, they are still impure until the water is sprinkled upon the.", + "How so? If they were sprinkled upon and on the same day they were broken and then they were recast and sprinkled upon on the same day, they are clean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: there can be no effective sprinkling earlier than on the third and the seventh day. The words \"How so?\" usually imply that section two is an illustration of section one. However, Albeck and some other traditional commentators, claim that in this mishnah section two is an independent debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua and that the words \"How so?\" should not be there. We will explain accordingly. According to Rabbi Eliezer, once the metal vessel was broken and then repaired, there is no need to wait for the seventh day for the second sprinkling. Since their breaking also purifies them, they do not need to wait for a full period. Rabbi Joshua is consistent with his opinion in section one. Once the process of purification has begun, it must be completed on a whole vessel. The sprinkling is only effective if done on the third and seventh days." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the purity of keys.", + "A knee-shaped key that was broken off at the knee is clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean because one can open with it from within. The first opinion holds that if a knee-shaped key is broken off at the knee, the key is pure because it can no longer be used to open the door. Rabbi Judah says it still retains some function. The key can be used from the inside to unlock the door, but from the outside, the key would not reach the lock. Because it still has some use, it is still susceptible.", + "A gamma-shaped key that was broken off at its shorter arm is clean. This key is similar to the Greek letter gamma. If it is broken off such that he can no longer handle it, it is clean.", + "If it retained the teeth and the gaps it remains unclean. If the teeth were missing it is still unclean on account of the gaps; if the gaps were blocked up it is unclean on account of the teeth. If the teeth were missing and the gaps were blocked up, or if they were merged into one another, it is clean. This mishnah discusses keys in general, and not just the gamma key mentioned in section two. A key has teeth and gaps both are necessary to open the lock. Obviously, if both remain, the key is functional and susceptible to impurity. However, even if only the teeth or gaps are still there, the key is still susceptible to impurity. The key only becomes clean when both the teeth are missing and the gaps are blocked up.", + "If in a mustard-strainer three holes in its bottom were merged into one another the strainer is clean. If there were three holes in a mustard-strainer that joined together to form one large gap, the strainer is no longer usable and it is clean.", + "A metal mill-funnel is unclean. The metal mill-funnel that is used for pouring wheat into the mill is considered a vessel and is susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapters fifteen through nineteen deal with vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass.", + "Vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass: those that are flat are clean and those that form a receptacle are susceptible to impurity. The general rule here was already taught in 2:1. Unlike metal vessels that can always become impure, wood, leather, bone or glass vessels must have a receptacle.", + "If they are broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. If they are broken they become clean again, and when one remakes them they do not return to their original impurity (unlike metal vessels which do). Rather, they are merely susceptible again.", + "A chest, a box, a cupboard, a straw basket, a reed basket, or the tank of an Alexandrian ship, that have flat bottoms and can hold a minimum of forty se'ah in liquid measure which represent two kor in dry measure, are clean. The mishnah lists various large containers. The general rule is that in order to be susceptible the vessel has to be something that is carried around. If a container can hold forty seah of liquid (about 480 liters), it is simply too heavy to be carried around and it is clean. These vessels are meant to be stationary.", + "All other vessels whether they can contain the minimum or cannot contain it, are susceptible to impurity, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir holds that the list in section three is exhaustive. All other vessels, even if they hold this amount , are susceptible to impurity.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the tub of a wagon, the food chests of kings, the tanners trough, the tank of a small ship, and an ark, even though they are able to contain the minimum, are susceptible to impurity, since they are intended to be moved about with their contents. As to all other vessels, those that can contain the minimum are clean and those that cannot contain it are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah provides a list of vessels that are always susceptible to impurity, even though they can hold more than 40 seahs. These vessels are always susceptible because they are meant to be moved around, and anything that is meant to be moved around is susceptible. But when it comes to all other vessels, they are susceptible if they can't hold forty seahs, and they are clean if they can.", + "There is no difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah except a baking trough which belongs to a householder. The only practical debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah is over a baking trough that belongs to a householder. According to Rabbi Meir since it is not part of the list in section three, it is susceptible. Rabbi Judah holds that if the vessel is not on the list and it doesn't hold forty seahs, it is clean. This includes the baker's trough. The debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah is interesting. It seems that there was some sort of accepted list of vessels that cannot become impure. Rabbi Meir acts like a traditionalist and limits the halakhah to those on the list. Rabbi Judah is more of an innovator (at least in this case). He derives a general rule from the list and then applies it to most other vessels." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the wake of yesterday's mishnah which ended by mentioning a baker's trough, our mishnah continues to deal with various instruments used by a baker.", + "Bakers’ baking-boards are susceptible to impurity, but those used by householders are clean. But if he dyed them red or saffron they are susceptible to impurity. Since bakers' boards are specially designed to hold the dough so that it can be arranged into loaves, they are susceptible to impurity. But householders will use any old board, and therefore one used for such a purpose is not susceptible. However, if he dyes it, he turns it into a vessel and it is susceptible.", + "If a bakers’ shelf was fixed to a wall: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is clean And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. The baker's shelf is where the baker would put the loaves of bread while they wait to rise. Rabbi Eliezer rules that since it is attached to the wall, it is clean, because anything that is attached to the ground is clean. The other rabbis disagree and hold that despite it being attached to the ground, it is still considered a vessel. We will see this same type of debate in subsequent chapters.", + "The bakers' frame is susceptible to impurity but one used by householders is clean. If he made a rim on its four sides it is susceptible to impurity, but if one side was open it is clean. Rabbi Shimon says: if he fixed it so that one can cut the dough upon it, it is susceptible to impurity. This frame was used by bakers to hold their water pitchers while they were baking. The one used by professionals is susceptible because it is specified for this purpose. But generally the one used by householders is not, because it is not specified for this type of use. However, if the householder makes a frame for it from all four of its sides he has specified it for this type of use and it is susceptible. Similarly, if he fixed the board so that he could use it for cutting dough, it is susceptible.", + "Similarly, a rolling-pin is susceptible to impurity. Albeck explains that this rolling pin was also used to bring the bread to the oven. Since it \"receives\" the bread, it is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "The container of the flour-dealers’ sifter is susceptible to impurity, but the one of a householder is clean. Albeck explains that they would attach a container to either the bottom or the top of the flour-dealer's sifter to catch loose flour when sifting. The type of container used by a professional is large enough to be considered an independent vessel and therefore it can become impure on its own. But the one used by a householder is small and insignificant and is therefore clean.", + "Rabbi Judah says: also one that is used by a hairdresser is susceptible to impurity as a seat, since girls sit in it when their hair is dressed. A similar type of container is used by women when dressing other women's hair. This container is sometimes used as a seat, and therefore it is susceptible to \"sitting impurity.\" This means that if an impure person sits on it, the chair is impure even if the person doesn't touch it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is about the susceptibility to impurity of hangers. These hangers seem to have been attached to vessels and were used to hang the vessels. They don't seem to be the types of hangers we use today to hang clothes.", + "All hangers are susceptible to impurity, except for those of a sifter and a sieve that are used by householders, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir the fact that most hangers are kept on a vessel and are used to hang the vessel is sufficient for them to be considered part of the vessel and therefore susceptible to impurity. The exceptions are the hangers used with sifters and sieves owned by non-professionals. Since these are sometimes removed from the vessel, they do not count as part of the vessel.", + "But the sages say: all hangers are clean, excepting those of a sifter of flour-dealers, of a sieve used in threshing-floors, of a hand-sickle and of a detective's staff, since they aid when the instrument is in use. This is the general rule: [a hanger] that is intended to aid when the instrument is in use is susceptible to impurity and one intended to serve only as a hanger is clean. The other sages say that hangers that are used only to hang vessels are not susceptible. In order to be susceptible they must have a use other than hanging. This is the case with the types of hangers mentioned here. A \"detective's staff\" was used by people inspecting produce. A modern example of such an instrument might be an umbrella. Its \"hanger\" is also used as its handle. The sages conclude their section with the general principle which serves as the basis for their halakhah." + ], + [ + "The grist-dealers’ shovel is susceptible to impurity but the one used in grain stores is clean.
The one used in wine- presses is susceptible to impurity but that used in threshing- floors is clean.
This is the general rule: [a shovel] that is intended to hold anything is susceptible to impurity but one intended only to heap stuff together is clean.
The general rule expressed in section three summarizes this halakhah well. A shovel is susceptible to impurity if it is used to hold things, even temporarily. This is enough to fill the requirement that the vessel have a receptacle.
However, if the shovel is used only to move things around, then it is clean because it is not considered to have a receptacle.
The rest of the mishnah is straightforward, so there is no commentary below." + ], + [ + "Ordinary harps are susceptible to impurity, but the harps of Levites are clean. According to one explanation of this section, ordinary harps are susceptible because the harp-player sometimes uses certain parts of the harp to collect the coins he receives for playing. The harps used by the Levites do not have places to collect coins, so they are pure.", + "All liquids are susceptible to impurity, but the liquids in the Temple slaughtering house are clean. The seven main types of liquid are: water, wine, oil, honey, milk, blood and dew. These are all susceptible to impurity and if they moisten food items, the food item becomes susceptible to impurity (we will learn more about this when we learn Tracate Makshirin). The exception is the liquids found in the place in the Temple were they would slaughter. One explanation of this is that the concept of the impurity of liquids is a rabbinic innovation (derabanan). The Rabbis did not include in this innovation the liquids found in the Temple, so as not to increase the impurity of things found in the Temple (see Eduyot 8:4).", + "All scrolls convey impurity to the hands, excepting the scroll of the Temple courtyard. Sacred scrolls, Torah, Prophets and Writings, convey impurity to the hands of one who handles them. This is a concept we shall discuss when we learn Tractate Yadayim. This is true of all sacred scrolls with one exception the official copy of the Torah which was held in the Temple.", + "A wooden toy horse is clean. Others explain this word (markof) to be a musical instrument made of cedar. In any case, it is pure.", + "The belly-lute, the donkey-shaped musical instrument and the erus are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: the erus is susceptible to sitting impurity since the wailing woman sits on it. These are various types of musical instruments. The \"belly-lute\" rests on the player's belly. The \"donkey-shaped instrument\" is, according to one interpretation, carried by clowns on their shoulders. The \"erus\" is some sort of bell. They are all susceptible to impurity, probably because they all have some sort of receptacle. Rabbi Judah holds that it is also susceptible to sitting-impurity, which means that if someone sits on it, they defile it, even if they don't touch it.", + "A weasel-trap is susceptible to impurity, but a mouse- trap is clean. One explanation for the difference between the weasel-trap and the mouse-trap is that the former has the shape of a vessel, whereas the latter does not. Others explain that the former has a receptacle, whereas the mouse-trap does not." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A wooden vessel that was broken into two parts becomes clean, except for a folding table, a dish with compartments for [different kinds of] food, and a householder's footstool.
Rabbi Judah says: a double dish and a Babylonian drinking vessel are subject to the same law.
When do wooden vessels begin to be susceptible to impurity?
A bed and a cot, after they are sanded with fishskin. If the owner determined not to sand them over they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir says: a bed becomes susceptible to impurity as soon as three rows of meshes have been knitted in it.
Section one: Generally, if a wooden vessel is broken into two parts it becomes clean if it was previously impure. So too, the two parts are no longer susceptible to impurity. The exceptions are wooden vessels whose pieces can still be used when the original vessel is cut into two. All of the vessels listed here can be used even when broken into two parts.
Section two: The mishnah now asks the question that it has asked with regard to vessels made of other types of material (earthenware and metal) when is the manufacture of the vessel completed such that the vessel can become impure?
For a bed and a cot to be susceptible, the wood frame must have been sanded.
However, if the owner decided to use them without sanding them, then they are susceptible even without sanding.
Beds were made by tying ropes under the frame and then tightening them to form a support (hence the phrase sleep tight!). The ropes ran the length and the breadth of the bed. According to Rabbi Meir, as soon as three rows are made in each direction, the bed is usable and is susceptible to impurity.
" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the completion of the manufacturing of various types of baskets.", + "Wooden baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off. Wooden baskets are considered to be completed once the loose ends around the rim of the basket are tied together and the ends of pieces of wood are cut off, both on the rim and inside. From this point on the basket is susceptible to impurity.", + "But those that are made of palm-branches [become susceptible to impurity] even though their ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since they are allowed to remain in this condition. Baskets made of palm-branches do not need for their ends to be cut off on the insides of the basket, because they are used even without this step being performed. Again, the principle is straightforward a vessel is considered to be completed once it is in a state in which people will typically use it.", + "A basket [of reed-grass becomes susceptible to impurity] as soon as its rim is rounded off, its rough ends are smoothed off, and its hanger is finished. The basket made of reed grass referred to here has a hanger by which it can be hung. Since this hanger is necessary for its normal functioning, it is not susceptible until the hanger is completed. Other than that, the other steps needed for wooden vessels also apply.", + "A wicker basket flasks or for cups [is susceptible to impurity] even if the rough ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since these are allowed to remain in this condition. Evidently, wicker baskets used to hold flasks or cups are used in a state similar to the palm-branch baskets mentioned in section two. Therefore, they too do not need their inside parts to be finished off for them to be susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with various types of baskets and when they become susceptible to impurity.", + "Small reed baskets and baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off. These small baskets are ready for use and therefore susceptible as soon as their ends are tied and the loose pieces cut off, as was the rule with regard to the baskets mentioned in yesterday's mishnah.", + "Large reed baskets and large hampers, as soon as two rows have been made round their sides. Larger baskets are susceptible as soon as they have a bottom and they are built up two rows from the bottom. It seems that since they were large in their width, their sides did not need to be too high.", + "The container of a sifter or a sieve and a cup of the balances, as soon as one circling band has been made round their sides. These containers don't even need to be built up two rows one row is sufficient for them to be of minimal use.", + "A willow basket, as soon as two twists have been made around its wide sides. The word \"twists\" which I have translated here reflects the fact that the Hebrew uses a different word for rows and twists. However, commentators interpret them to mean basically the same thing, the only difference being that willow and rush baskets are made in a slightly different fashion. Nevertheless, if they are built up two rows/twists, they are susceptible.", + "And a rush basket, as soon as one twist has been made round it. The rule regarding rush baskets is the same as that regarding the containers mentioned in section three." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah begins to deal with leather vessels and when they become susceptible to impurity.", + "When do leather vessels become susceptible to impurity?
A leather pouch, as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough ends trimmed and its straps sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: so soon as its ears have been sewn on. A leather pouch's manufacturing is completed once its hem has been stitched, its rough ends trimmed and the straps used to cinch it up are sewn on. Note that this is similar to the rule regarding baskets that we learned in yesterday's mishnah. Rabbi Judah says that the processing is complete once its two \"ears\" or handles have been sewn on. Throughout this mishnah Rabbi Judah seems to give a later stage as the time when the item is susceptible to impurity. This means his opinion is more lenient.", + "A leather apron [becomes susceptible to impurity] as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough end trimmed and its strings sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: as soon as its loops have been sewn on. The rule and the debate between the first opinion and Rabbi Judah concerning a leather apron are nearly identical to that which was in section one.", + "A leather bed cover [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says: as soon as its straps have been sewn on. The straps to which Rabbi Judah refers are used to attach the bed cover to the bed. Note that leather bed covers, cushions and mattresses do not have receptacles and therefore we would think that they should not be susceptible to impurity (see 15:1). However, they are susceptible because a vessel made for sitting or lying is susceptible even without a receptacle.", + "A leather cushion or mattress [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says: as it has been sew up and less than five handbreadths remained open. Rabbi Judah says that the cushion or mattress is not susceptible until most of it has been sewn up so that it can be stuffed with whatever cushioning will go inside." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with the case of baskets you might call it another basketcase! (I know, this was not good, but I couldn't resist).", + "A basket [for figs] is susceptible to uncleanness but a basket for wheat is clean. The basket for figs is considered to be a vessel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity. But the basket for wheat is not usually moved, and therefore it is not susceptible.", + "Small baskets made of leaves are clean, but those made of branches are susceptible to uncleanness. The small baskets made of leaves are clean because they are only used in a temporary fashion, and therefore they don't have the status of \"vessel.\" However, if the same basket is made of branches, it is more permanent and it does have the status of vessel.", + "The palm wrapping [in which dates are left] and into which they can be easily put and from which they can easily be taken out is susceptible to uncleanness, but if this cannot be done without tearing it or undoing it, it is clean. To aid in the ripening of dates, they would wrap them in the leaves of the palm tree. If this wrapping had an opening which made it easy to add and remove dates, then it is considered a vessel and it is susceptible to impurity. However, if in order to remove or add dates one had to tear or undo the wrapping, then it is not a vessel. This seems to me analogous to some of the items we use on a daily basis. If one has to tear a wrapper, then it's not a vessel, because it can't be reused. But if one can easily open a lid, then the container has at least the potential to be used again in the future." + ], + [ + "The leather glove of winnowers, travelers, or flax workers is susceptible to uncleanness.
But the one for dyers or blacksmiths is clean.
Rabbi Yose says: the same law applies to the glove of grist dealers.
This is the general rule: that which is made for holding anything is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which only affords protection against perspiration is clean.
Today's mishnah deals with the purity of gloves. The general rule is stated clearly in section four: if the glove is made to protect the hand while holding potentially lacerating or irritating objects, then the glove is considered a receptacle and it is susceptible. However, if it is only made to prevent slippage due to sweat, then it is not susceptible. To use a modern case: a baseball fielder's mitt would be susceptible because it is meant to hold the ball. Without it, one would hurt one's hands. But a wide receiver's gloves are meant largely to give him a better grip on the ball and to prevent slippage due to sweat. Therefore they would probably be pure.
The mishnah itself is straightforward once we know the general rule, therefore I have refrained from commenting below." + ], + [ + "The dung bag of a bull and its muzzle, a bee shelf, and a fan are clean.
The cover of a small box is susceptible to uncleanness;
The cover of a clothes chest is clean.
The cover of a box, the cover of a basket, a carpenter's vice, a cushion under a box or its arched cover, a reading-desk for a book, a bolt-socket, a lock-socket, a mezuzah case, a lyre case, a violin case, the block of the turban-makers, a wooden musical toy horse, the clappers of a wailing woman, a poor man's parasol, bed posts, a tefillin mould, and the mould of string makers all these are clean.
This is the general rule which Rabbi Yose stated: all objects that serve as a protection to objects that a man uses, both when the latter are in use and when they are not in use, are susceptible to uncleanness; but those that serve them as a protection only when the latter are in use are clean.
Section one: The dung bag is attached to the bull and used to collect its dung when it is threshing. Think of it as a bull-diaper (I wouldn't want to be one to change it!). The muzzle keeps the bull from eating. The bee shelf is placed in front of the hive and the bees sit on it before entering. None of these objects is susceptible because none of them are considered to be vessels.
Section two: Since people will use the cover of the small (jewelry) box to hold things, even temporarily, it is susceptible.
Section three: In contrast, people don't use the cover of a clothes chest, so it is not considered a vessel.
Sections four-five: The mishnah now contains a long list of items that are clean. Rabbi Yose's general rule in section five explains why they are pure. If an item is used to protect and store other objects then it is susceptible. The fact that it is used to store something when not in use proves that we consider it a container. However, if it is only used when the object it serves is in use then it is not considered to be susceptible. For instance, if a lid is only used on a container when the container is full, then the lid is pure. But if the lid is always on the vessel, then it is susceptible.
We should note that some of the objects in section four would seem to be used for storage. Therefore commentators explain that the \"cases\" here do not have receptacles and therefore are not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "The sheath of a sword, a knife or a dagger, the case for scissors, or shears or a razor, the case of make-up and the make-up box, the stylus case, the compass case, the tablet case, the case for a board, a quiver and a javelin case all these are susceptible to uncleanness.
The case for a double flute is susceptible to uncleanness if the instrument is put in from above, but if it is put in from the side it is clean.
A case for flutes Rabbi Judah says it is clean because these are put in from the side.
The covering of a club, a bow or a spear is clean.
This is the general rule: that which serves as a case is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which is merely a covering is clean.
Our mishnah deals with cases for weapons and musical instruments. Sections one through five bring various examples of cases, but the explanation for the entire mishnah comes in section five. If the case is used for storage then it is susceptible. This means that it is something that the vessel is put into, such as the sheath of a sword. But if it is merely a \"covering\" and not a \"container\" it is not susceptible. To use a modern example a bread box would be susceptible, but a hallah cover would not.
In section two, if the double flute is put in from the top, then the case is considered to be a container and it is susceptible. However, if it is put in from the side, then it is considered to only be a covering.
I think the rest of the mishnah is understandable in light of the general rule in section five." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "All [wooden] vessels that belong to householder [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of pomegranates.
Rabbi Eliezer says: [the size of the hole depends] on what it is used for. Gardeners’ vegetable baskets [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of bundles of vegetables. Baskets of householders [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of [bundles] of straws. Those of bath-keepers, if bundles of chaff [will drop through].
Rabbi Joshua says: in all these the size is that of pomegranates.
In previous chapters 3:1 and 14:1 we learned that a vessel gets a hole in it large enough so that the vessel will not be use the vessel becomes pure. Our mishnah deals with this rule concerning wood and leather vessels.
Section one: According to the first opinion in the mishnah, all wooden vessels which are owned by non-professionals are clean if the hole that appears in the them is the size of a pomegranate. This is the same opinion as Rabbi Joshua in section six.
Section two: Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with Rabbi Joshua and holds that there is no standard for how big the hole must be. It all depends on what the vessel is used for.
Rabbi Eliezer now illustrates this rule with regard to several types of wooden baskets.
The chaff collected by the bath-keepers is used to heat the fires to keep the bath warm.
I have interpreted the mishnah according to the interpretation offered by most major commentators. In contrast, Albeck interprets the words that I have translated in Rabbi Eliezer's statement to mean \"at the smallest size.\" According to this interpretation, Rabbi Eliezer says that the smallest hole renders a wooden vessel owned by a householder clean. This impacts our interpretation of the following sections. According to Albeck's interpretation, these sections are not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer but rather the anonymous opinion. It would seem that the vessels listed here are not \"vessels belonging to householders\" and therefore their measure is not that of a pomegranate. Rabbi Joshua disagrees and holds that even in these cases, the measure is that of a pomegranate." + ], + [ + "A skin bottle [becomes clean if the holes in it are of] a size through which warp-stoppers [can fall out].
If a warp-stopper cannot be held in, but it can still hold a woof-stopper it remains unclean.
A dish holder that cannot hold dishes but can still hold trays remains unclean.
A chamber- pot that cannot hold liquids but can still hold excrements remains unclean.
Rabban Gamaliel rules that it is clean since people do not usually keep one that is in such a condition.
Section one: The warp-stopper is smaller than the woof-stopper. According to the opinion in this section, if the smaller stopper can fall out, the skin-bottle is impure.
Section two: Albeck explains that this section, and sections two through four, are all the opinion of the sages who disagree with Rabban Gamaliel, whose opinion is in section one. The sages hold that as long as the skin can hold the larger woof-stopper it is usable and remains unclean.
Sections three and four: This is a continuation of the sages' opinion. The sages hold that as long as the original vessel can hold something similar to that which it was designated to hold, or one of the things that it was designated to hold, the vessel is still unclean.
Section five: Rabban Gamaliel disagrees and holds that since people generally discard such things, they are no longer unclean. This accords with what Albeck ascribes to him in section one." + ], + [ + "Bread-baskets [become clean if] the size [of their hole is such] that loaves of bread [would fall through]. This section continues the list found in yesterday's mishnah.", + "Papyrus frames through into which reeds were inserted from the bottom upwards to strengthen them, are clean. If he fixed walls to it, they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says: if it cannot be lifted up by these walls it is clean. These vessels were made of weak papyrus and then reeds were inserted into the frame in order to strengthen them. The vessel is still clean because it is not considered to have a receptacle. The reeds don't seem to have been strong enough to really make it useful. However, if he fixes walls for them, then they are susceptible to impurity because they are strong enough to be considered vessels. Rabbi Shimon says that the walls must be strong enough that the vessel can be lifted by them. Otherwise it is not considered a vessel and it is clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the first mishnah of this chapter we learned that if the vessel has a hole large enough to let pomegranates fall through, it is clean. Our mishnah expands on that mishnah.", + "The pomegranates of which they have spoken--three attached to one another. In mishnah one of this chapter, the first (and anonymous) opinion stated that if a wooden or leather vessel has a hole large enough to let out pomegranates, the vessel is clean. Our mishnah states that the hole must be soooo large as to let out three pomegranates attached to one another. I don't know exactly how large this is, but it strikes me as quite large.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in a sifter or a sieve [the size of the hole must be such that a pomegranate will drop out] when one picks it up and walks about with it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that when it comes to a wooden sifter or a sieve if the hole is large enough so that the three pomegranates would fall out while they are being carried, it is clean, even if the pomegranates would not fall out while the vessel is stationary.", + "In a basket it must be such [as would allow a pomegranate] to fall through while one hangs it behind him. This seems to be a continuation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel's opinion. When it comes to a basket, the pomegranates must be able to fall out when the person takes the basket and slings it behind his back.", + "And all other vessels which cannot hold pomegranates as, for instance, the quarter kav measure and the half quarter kav measure, and small baskets, the size [of their holes must be] such as would extend over the greater part of them, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: [the size of their hole must be such that] olives [could fall through]. When it comes to small wooden or leather vessels which are too small to hold a pomegranate, they are susceptible to impurity until the hole covers a majority of them. If a majority of the vessel remains, then the vessel is still susceptible. Rabbi Shimon is more lenient and rules that the vessel is clean if olives can fall through.", + "If their sides were broken [the size of their hole must be] such as olives would drop through. If they are worn away the size must be such as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them [to drop through]. The anonymous opinion agrees with Rabbi Shimon if the sides of the vessel were broken. In such a case, if the hole will let olives fall through, it is clean. However, if the vessel was worn away at its edges, then it is susceptible as long as it can still hold the objects that are usually kept in it. [I should note that this is the traditional explanation. Albeck explains that the words I have translated as \"as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them\" to mean \"in the smallest amount.\" According to this interpretation the rule is even more lenient if the vessel is worn away.]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMore discussion of pomegranates which by the way are delicious and very healthy.\nThis mishnah begins a series of mishnayot which refer to various items that were used for the purposes of measuring. This will lead us to some side discussions about issues that don't relate directly to Tractate Kelim.", + "The pomegranate of which they spoke refers to one that is neither small nor big but of moderate size. The pomegranates referred to in previous mishnayot are of middle size.", + "And why did they mention the pomegranates of Baddan? That whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: to use them as a measure for holes in vessels. Rabbi Akiva said: they were mentioned for both reasons: that they are to be used as a measure for holes in vessels and that whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden. This section refers to an old halakhah concerning the pomegranates of Badan, a region in the north of Israel (Samaria). Our mishnah knows that something was said about these pomegranates by previous generations of sages, but the current sages debate why these pomegranates were mentioned. According to Rabbi Meir if orlah (produce during its first three years, which is prohibited) pomegranates are mixed up with non-orlah pomegranates, the whole lot is prohibited, no matter how few forbidden pomegranates there are. This deviates from the normal rule according to which as long as there are 200 permitted fruits for every orlah fruit, the whole mixture is permitted (see Orlah 3:7). Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that the pomegranates of Baddan were mentioned because they were the middle-sized pomegranates used to measure how large the holes must be for the vessel to be clean. Our chapter was written according to this perspective. Rabbi Akiva, the peacemaker, agrees with both opinions and says that the pomegranates were mentioned with regard to both halakhot.", + "Rabbi Yose said: the pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba were mentioned only to indicate that they must be tithed everywhere with certain tithe. Rabbi Yose has a different opinion. The pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba both come from Samaria, which was at the time dominated by the Samaritans. According to the rabbis the Samaritans did not tithe their produce, or at least did not do so in a proper fashion. Therefore, if a person bought pomegranates or leeks that grew in this region he can be sure that they were not tithed. And although usually when one buys produce from an am haaretz (a non-educated person) he only needs to separate tithes out of doubt (called demai, and there was a whole tractate about this) when it comes to this produce, he can be sure that the am haaretz didn't separate tithes, because the am haaretz will think that the Samaritan did. Note that Rabbi Yose is the only sage who connects this produce with the region from which it comes." + ], + [ + "The egg of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. Concerning many halakhic measures, the egg is used as the standard. The egg to which these halakhot refer is an egg of medium size.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the largest and the smallest must be brought and put in water and the displaced water is then divided. The problem is that it is not easy to determine what egg is of medium size. As a solution Rabbi Judah says that one should bring the largest egg and the smallest egg and place both in a bowl of water. The water that is displaced can be divided into two to determine the volume of the medium egg.", + "Rabbi Yose says: but who can tell me which is the largest and which is the smallest? Rather, it all depends on the observer's estimate. Even this method is not perfect, because it requires a person to know what the \"largest\" egg is and what the \"smallest\" egg is. In other words, there is no way to remove subjectivity from this. In the end, no matter what you do, it will always depend upon the subjective estimate of the observer." + ], + [ + "The dried fig of which they spoke--- it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. Dried figs are a measure used in several halakhot (see for instance Shabbat 7:4 and Kelim 3:2, and 4:2). As with the egg and pomegranate, these laws referred to medium sized eggs.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the biggest in the land of Israel is like one of medium size in other lands. Rabbi Judah now notes that what are considered to be large figs in the land of Israel, are only medium sized in other lands. Note that some commentators say that the mishnah should be reversed and read \"the smallest in the land of Israel is like one of medium size in other lands.\" This would imply that the figs in Israel are the best. I can personally attest to the fact that the figs here in Israel are delicious, and I am tempted to go to the store right now and buy some (seriously). But I really don't know how good they are in surrounding countries, especially since I can't visit many of them." + ], + [ + "The olive of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the egori. Many halakhic measures are based on the olive, including many minimum measures of how much food a person needs to eat to fulfill a mitzvah. This olive is of medium size. This medium-sized olive even had a name the egori oliv.", + "The barleycorn of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the midbarit The barleycorn is the size that a piece of a bone needs to be to convey impurity. This barleycorn is of medium size and it is called \"midbarit,\" which means wild.", + "The lentil of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size--the egyptian kind. For a piece of a dead creepy crawly thing (a sheretz) to convey impurity it needs to be the size of a medium lentil, of the Egyptian kind.", + "\"Any movable object conveys uncleanness if it is of the thickness of an ox goad\" it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. What is meant by \"one of moderate size?\" One whose circumference is just a handbreadth. This halakhah is taken from Ohalot 16:1 (a tractate which we have not yet learned). An \"ohel\" or tent is anything that overhangs. If a dead body or piece thereof is found under an ohel and under the same ohel there is a pure vessel, the dead body defiles the pure vessel. Here we learn that if the ohel is a movable object, it must be the thickness of a medium-sized ox goad. Its circumference must be at least one handbreadth for it to convey uncleanness." + ], + [ + "The cubit of which they spoke is one of medium size. The measure of a cubit is a standard measure found in connection to many halakhot, including the issue of carrying on Shabbat (see Shabbat 11:3).", + "There were two standard cubits in Shushan Habirah, one in the north-eastern corner and the other in the south-eastern corner. The one in the north-eastern corner exceeded that of Moses by half a fingerbreadth, while the one in the south-eastern corner exceeded the other by half a fingerbreadth, so that the latter exceeded that of Moses by a fingerbreadth. Shushan Habirah is the capital of Persia, as mentioned in Esther. There was a place on the eastern gate of the Temple with a drawing of Shushan Habirah (see Middot 1:3). At this place there were two rods which were used to set the size of the amah, the cubit. The rod in northeastern corner was shorter than the other rod by a fingerbreadth. The cubit that was normative in the days of Moses was right in between the size of these two rods one fingerbreadth larger than the small rod and one fingerbreadth smaller than the large rod.", + "But why were there a larger and a smaller cubit? Only for this reason: so that craftsmen might take their orders according to the smaller cubit and return their finished work according to the larger cubit, so that they might not be guilty of any possible trespassing of Temple property. The mishnah now asks the logical question why have two different sized cubits? The answer has to do with the artisans who work for the Temple. These craftsmen would take their orders using the smaller cubit, meaning they would receive material from the Temple based on the smaller measure. Then when they made their products for the Temple, they would return them based on the larger measure. This ensured that they did not transgress the prohibition of trespassing, meaning illegal use of Temple property. In this way, the Temple could be sure that the craftsmen would make sure they used every bit of material they received from the Temple." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with the size of the cubits used to measure various parts of the Temple. In today's mishnah we learn that there were two different size cubits, one of six handbreadths (this is the cubit referred to in yesterday's mishnah) and one of five handbreadths.", + "Rabbi Meir says: all cubits were of the moderate length except that for the golden altar, the horns, the surround and the base. According to Rabbi Meir, everything in the Temple was measured in the moderate length of the cubit, the one that was exactly six handbreadths, and not the longer length mentioned in yesterday's mishnah (six handbreadths and one fingerbreadth). The only exceptions were the golden incense altar, the horns of the outer altar, the surround (a protrusion around the outer altar), and the base of the altar. All of these were measured with the five handbreadth cubit.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the cubit used for the building was one of six handbreadths and that for the vessels one of five handbreadths. Rabbi Judah says that all of the measurements made in the building of the Temple itself were based on the six handbreadths cubit, while those used for making the vessels, used the smaller cubit of five handbreadths." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn previous mishnayot we learned all of the halakhot in which the medium measure was used. In today's mishnah we learned that sometimes smaller measures were used, and sometimes the measure used depended upon the person for whom the halakhah was relevant.", + "Sometimes they stated a smaller measure: Liquid and dry measures were measured with the Italian standard which was the one that was used in the wilderness. The dry and liquid measures used in the Temple, for instance the measures of wine, oil and flour that accompanied sacrifices (see Menahot 9:1-2) were all measured using an Italian standard that was considered to be the same as that used in the Temple.", + "Sometimes they stated a measure that varied according to the individual concerned: One who takes the handful of a minhah, One who takes both hands full of incense, One who drinks a cheek full on Yom Kippur, And the two meals for an eruv, For other halakhot, the size of the measure depends upon the individual person. The mishnah lists four such cases. The first is the priest who removes a handful from the minhah offering (Leviticus 2:2). The size of the handful depends on the person. The same is true with the two handfuls of incense on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:12). If one drinks a cheek full of liquid on Yom Kippur he is liable for karet. The size of this amount obviously depends upon the size of the individual's cheek. Finally, when it comes to Shabbat border eruvim (an eruv set to allow a person to travel further outside of his city on Shabbat, see Introduction to Eruvin) the food set aside as the eruv must consist of two meals. The amount of food necessary for the meal depends on how much the person setting the eruv eats.", + "The remainder of this mishnah is found in Eruvin. It is clearly brought here because once we mention the amount of food necessary for an eruv meal, the mishnah deals briefly with a debate concerning the issue. According to Rabbi Meir, the eruv must consist of enough food for two weekday meals. Rabbi Judah says the food should be enough for Shabbat meals and not weekday meals. Seemingly we would think that a person eats more on Shabbat than during the week, so Rabbi Judah would be stricter than Rabbi Meir. However, the mishnah says that both intended to be lenient. In order to understand this, we need to explain that the eruv’s minimum measurement was set according to the amount of bread eaten at a typical meal. According to Rabbi Meir, on Shabbat one eats a lot of different types of food and a lot of bread to accompany the food. Therefore, on Shabbat one eats more, and the minimum amount of food for the eruv is set according to the bread eaten during the week, a lesser amount. According to Rabbi Judah, since on Shabbat there are many side dishes a person eats less bread than he would during the week when there are less side dishes. Therefore, Rabbi Judah sets the minimum amount of bread for the eruv according to what one eats on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Shimon, two meals are equivalent to two-thirds of a loaf when three loaves are made from a kav of wheat. A loaf is therefore 1/3 of a kav and 2/3 of a loaf is two meals. Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka gives a minimum amount of bread that must be used for the eruv. This amount of bread is what is sufficient for two meals. It is the size of a loaf that can be bought for one pundion (a coin) when 4 se’ah (24 kav, a measure of volume) of wheat are sold for a sela (a coin worth 48 pundion). If we do the math, we can see that a kav of wheat is bought for two pundionim, meaning that one pundion will buy half a kav of wheat, which according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka is sufficient for two meals. This is a larger amount than that set by Rabbi Shimon." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah describes six cases in which a large measure was the standard.", + "And sometimes they stated a large measure:
A ladleful of corpse mould refers to the big ladle of physicians; Decomposing dead bodies and their rot can cause defilement within a tent. However, there must be a minimum amount of material for this defilement to spread. The minimum amount is a ladleful. The size of the ladle for this halakhah is the large ladle used by physicians.", + "The split bean in the case of skin disease refers to the Cilician kind; For a spot of skin disease to defile it must be the size of a split bean. The split bean referred to in this halakhah is of the Cilician kind (a region in Asia Minor). Evidently, this is a largish bean.", + "One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; One who eats a quantity of food equivalent to a large date and its pit on Yom Kippur is liable for karet.", + "In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes] must be as big as their large stopper; If skins containing wine and oil have holes that are as large as their large stopper they are pure.", + "In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands the prescribed size of which is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. The last two sections are relevant to the laws concerning purity in tents. If a dead body is in one room vessels in another room are clean, unless there is some way for the impurity from the first room to get into the second room. If there is a hole in the wall, one not made by a person, and it lets in light from one room to the other, it allows impurity to travel to the second room if the hole is the size of a large fist. The large fist referred to here is the first of Ben Batiah. Albeck explains that this man was known for having large fists thanks Albeck! Rabbi Yose says that his fist was as large as a human head. Don King would be very excited.", + "And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size is that of the large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela or like the hole in a yoke. The measure is smaller if the hole was made by human hands. In such a case if the hole is the size of the large drill used to make holes in the Temple, then it conveys impurity. This drill, the mishnah notes, was the size if the Italian pundion coin, or the Neronian sela coin, or the hole put in a yoke in which the straps were placed. All three of these measures (the pundion, the sela and the hole in the yoke) are the same size." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with one who makes vessels out of the bones or skin of fish or other creatures that come from the sea.", + "All that live in the sea are clean, except the sea-dog because it seeks refuge on dry land, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Vessels made of skin and bones of all creatures of the sea are not susceptible to impurity only of those of land creatures. Rabbi Akiva notes that the one exception is the sea-dog (probably a seal) because it lives both in the sea and on land. Since it lives partly on the land, vessels made from its skin and bones are susceptible to impurity.", + "If one made vessels from what grows in the sea and joined to them anything that grows on land, even if only a thread or a cord, if it is susceptible to uncleanness, they are unclean. If one made a vessel that is mostly of material from the sea, if even a small part of the vessel was made from something that comes from land, it is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis fascinating mishnah goes through the six days of creation and discusses whether or not the laws of impurity can apply to the things that were created on each day.", + "The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the first day. The earth was created on the first day of creation. Vessels made of earthenware are susceptible to impurity. But the rules of impurity do not apply to vessels made of stone or dirt. Therefore, the mishnah states that the laws of impurity can apply to that which was created on the first day.", + "There can be no uncleanness in what was created on the second day. The heavens were created on the second day. Obviously they cannot become impure.", + "The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the third day. Trees were created on the third day and vessels made of wood are susceptible to impurity.", + "No there can be no uncleanness in what was created on the fourth day and on the fifth day, except for the wing of the vulture or an ostrich-egg that is plated. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: why should the wing of a vulture be different from all other wings? On the fourth day the stars, moon and sun were created no impurity there. On the fifth day the birds and fish were created. Vessels made of anything that comes from birds or fish are basically not susceptible to impurity, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. There are two exceptions. The first are lasting vessels made from the wings of vultures. The second is a metal-plated ostrich egg. Most commentators explain that these vessels are susceptible to impurity because they are similar to other vessels. In order to prevent confusion, the sages decreed that they too are susceptible. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri questions why there should be a difference between vulture wings and other wings. Rather all wings are the same; if they are used to make lasting vessels that have receptacles, the vessels are susceptible to impurity.", + "The laws of uncleanness can apply to all that was created on the sixth day. On the sixth day land animals were created. Vessels made from their skin or bones is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "If one made a receptacle whatever its size it is susceptible to uncleanness. A vessel that has a receptacle is susceptible to impurity, no matter how small the receptacle is. Others explain the words that I have translated \"whatever its size\" to mean \"whatever it is made of,\" which then refers to the law in section three even vessels made of poor quality material can be susceptible.", + "If one made a couch or a bed whatever its purpose it is susceptible to uncleanness. Vessels which are made to sit upon or lay upon are susceptible, no matter the actual type of sitting or laying done upon them. Commentators explain that this includes vessels which are meant to be leaned upon.", + "If one made a wallet from untanned hide or from papyrus it is susceptible to uncleanness. A proper wallet is made from tanned leather. However, a wallet made from the inferior materials of papyrus or untanned leather is still usable and hence susceptible to impurity.", + "A pomegranate, an acorn and a nut which children hollowed out to measure dust or fashioned them into a pair of scales, are susceptible to uncleanness, since in the case of children an act is valid though an intention is not. If an object can be used as a receptacle, all that an adult has to do for it to be susceptible is think about using it in such a manner. Thinking counts as using. However, children must actually use the object in that way for it to be susceptible. So if a child takes a piece of fruit or a nut and makes it into a receptacle it is susceptible once he uses it. But if all he does is think about using it this way, it is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "The beam of a balance and a leveler that contain a receptacle for metal, carrying-stick that has a receptacle for money, a beggar's cane that has a receptacle for water, and a stick that has a receptacle for a mezuzah and for pearls are susceptible to uncleanness.
About all these Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Oy to me if I should mention them, Oy to me if I don't mention them.
Sections one and two: All of these vessels are various sticks or things like sticks that can contain other things and are therefore susceptible to impurity. In addition, each could be or is generally used for a negative purpose. The beam of a balance that has room to hide metal in it can be used to deceive a buyer by tilting the scales. A leveler is used to level out measuring cups. A person could make a receptacle in the leveler in order to skim the tops of the cups and cheat the buyer.
A carrying-stick with a hidden compartment for money could be used by a worker to deceive his employer into paying him a second time. I.e. he could say search me if you find the money on me, then you paid me.
What's wrong with a beggar's cane that has a receptacle for water? The Rambam explains that the beggar can claim that he has not been drinking so that people will have pity on him.
The sticks that have a receptacle for a mezuzah or a pearl could be used to cheat a tax collector.
Albeck explains that while all of these things also have legitimate uses, since they can be used deceptively, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai laments having to mention them. In other words, he has to teach these halakhot because these vessels can be used in a legal way, but he wishes he could forget about them." + ], + [ + "The base of the goldsmiths’ anvil is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of the blacksmiths is clean. The base of the goldsmiths' anvil is susceptible because it has a place to store small pieces of gold that break off. However, the blacksmiths' anvil has no such receptacle and therefore it is clean.", + "A whetting-board which has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A whetting board is used for sharpening a knife. If it has a receptacle to store oil it is susceptible but if it is not it is clean.", + "A writing-tablet that has a receptacle for wax is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. To write on a writing tablet one would rub wax on the tablet and carve into the wax. If the tablet has a receptacle to store the wax it is susceptible.", + "A straw mat or a tube of straw: Rabbi Akiva rules it is susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that is it clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the hollow stalk of colocynth is subject to the same law. According to Rabbi Akiva a straw mat or straw tube both last long enough to be considered a vessel and therefore they are both susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that they do not last long enough, and therefore they are clean. Rabbi Shimon says the same debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri also exists with regard to the hollow stalk of a colocynth plant or a mat made from colocynth. The following is the intro to colocynth that I found on Wikipedia: The colocynth, also known as bitter apple, bitter cucumber, egusi, or vine of Sodom, is a viny plant native to the Mediterranean Basin and Asia, especially Turkey (especially in regions such as İzmir), Nubia, and Trieste.", + "A mat of reeds or rushes is clean. A mat made of reeds or rushes is not soft enough to sit on and is therefore not susceptible to impurity. These mats are generally used for shade.", + "A reed-tube that was cut for holding anything remains clean until all the pith has been removed. If a reed tube was cut to be used as a receptacle, it is not susceptible to impurity until the pith, the stuff inside the stalk, has been removed." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAbove in 15:1 we learned that if a chest or box can contain 40 seahs of liquids it is too big to be susceptible to impurity. The sages say that the dimensions of such a box are: 1 x 1 x 3 cubits. In our mishnah the rabbis debate how such measures are taken.", + "A wooden chest: Beth Shammai says: it is measured on the inside; And Bet Hillel says: on the outside. According to Bet Shammai when measuring the chest, one measures it from the inside. Meaning it must actually be able to hold 40 seahs to be pure. Bet Hillel holds that the thickness of the walls is included in the measurement because the box is measured from the outside.", + "Both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are not included in the measurement. Rabbi Yose says: both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are included in the measurement, but the space between them is not included. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri ruled: if the legs are one handbreadth high the space between them is not included in the measurement, otherwise it is included. The mishnah now discusses whether the thickness of the legs or the rim are included in the measurement. There are three different opinions in this section. According to the first opinion, both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that the area of the legs and the rim are not included in the measurement to get to forty seahs. This makes sense since this area does not add to the weight of the box. According to Rabbi Yose, Bet Hillel only agrees that the area between the legs is not counted in the measurement. The thickness of the legs is counted in measurement to get to forty seahs. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says that if the legs are only one handbreadth away from the chest, then the space in between them is counted in the measurement. In such a case we look at it as if the legs were simply an extension of the walls of the chest. But if they are more than one handbreadth high, then the space in between them is not counted. We can see in this mishnah the progressive leniencies. Bet Hillel is more lenient than Bet Shammai and \"fictionalizes\" the traditional forty seah amount. The box doesn't even have to hold forty, it just has to have the dimensions of forty seah. The later sages extend the leniency of Bet Hillel even further. The box doesn't even have to be that big for one can occasionally even count the spaces in between the legs despite the fact that this space is empty! Note how far this halakhah has developed from its original rational a large box is too heavy to be moved therefore it isn't considered a vessel.Empty spaces don't weigh anything so it's not going to be any harder to move the box." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with how the box is measured.", + "Its carriage: if it can be slipped off, is not regarded as connected, nor is it included in its measurement, nor does it afford protection together with it in the tent of a corpse, nor may it be drawn along on Shabbat if it contains money. The word I have translated as \"carriage\" is interpreted by some to mean the box's wheels and by others to mean the box's base. In any case, as we shall see, the rules differ depending on whether the carriage can be detached. If the carriage can be slipped off then it is not regarded as connected to the box, even when it is connected. This means that its status as far as purity goes is independent of the box. If the box is small enough to become impure, the carriage remains pure. And if the carriage becomes impure, the box is pure. And if the box is too large to become impure, the carriage is still susceptible. When measuring the size of the box, the carriage is not included, since it can be taken off. Vessels that are in a box are not defiled if the box is found in the tent of a corpse. However, if the carriage is what separates the vessels from the air of the tent, the carriage does not offer such protection and the vessels will be defiled. If the carriage has coins it, it may not be drawn on Shabbat because the carriage is the base for an object that cannot be used on Shabbat (the coins).", + "If it cannot be slipped off, it is regarded as connected, it is included in its measurement, it affords protection together with it in the tent of a corpse, it may be drawn along on Shabbat even if it contains money. If the carriage cannot be slipped off, all of the above halakhot are reversed. It is regarded as connected and therefore has the same purity status as the box. It is measured with the box and it affords protection as if it was part of the box. It can be drawn on Shabbat even though there are coins in it. This is because there are permitted things in the box (clothes, etc.) and when something has permitted and forbidden things in it, it may be moved.", + "Its arched top, if it is fixed [to the box], is considered connected and is measured with it, but if it is not fixed it is not connected and is not measured with it. The box's arched top is considered to be part of the box only if it is fixed to the box with nails. In such a case its purity status goes with the box itself and it is measured with the box. If it is not nailed to the box, it is not considered part of the box.", + "How is it measured? As an ox-head. How do they measure the arched top when it measurements are included with the box? They measure it with a sharp angle called \"an ox head.\" Picture a half circle with a triangle inside it. Whatever is in this triangle is counted as far as the dimensions of the box.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand by itself it is clean. Rabbi Judah says that if the box cannot stand without the aid of the arched top, then the box is pure even if it cannot contain forty seahs." + ], + [ + "If one of the legs was missing from a chest, a box or a cupboard, even though it is still capable of holding [things], it is clean, since it cannot hold [things] in the usual manner. But Rabbi Yose says: it is susceptible to impurity. According to the first opinion, if a leg is missing the box, chest or cupboard is no longer susceptible to impurity, even if it can still hold things in it. The reason it is clean is that it can no longer be used in its usual fashion. Rabbi Yose says that as long as the box, chest or cupboard is usable, it is still susceptible.", + "The poles of a bed, its base, and [its] covering are clean. The mishnah now begins to discuss the various parts of beds. The poles, the base and the bed covering are all clean, because they are no truly necessary for the bed's functioning. The poles stand one at each end of the bed and they hold up the canopy.", + "Only the bed itself and its rectangle [frame] are susceptible to uncleanness. The rectangular frame is put into the empty area of the bed and the bedding is placed on it. Since the frame and the bed are actually slept upon, they are susceptible to impurity.", + "The rectangle frames of the Levites are clean. The Levites would take their rectangular frames with them when they went to Jerusalem and sleep on them without putting them into a real bed. Since they were not used with a bed, they are not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A bed frame that was put on props: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say it is susceptible to uncleanness. But Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that it is clean. The rectangle frame was not put into a proper bed but rather propped up so that it stood off the ground. According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah this setup is enough like a bed that it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that it is clean.", + "Rabbi Yose said: Why is this different from the rectangle frames of the Levites which are clean? Here Rabbi Yose argues out his point, by referring to the end of yesterday's mishnah, where we learned that the rectangle frames used by the Levites are clean. Rabbi Yose says that if those frames are clean since they were not put into a bed, then the frames put on props should also be clean because they too were not put into a bed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how much of a bed must be removed for it to be considered defective and therefore no longer unclean (or susceptible to impurity).", + "A bed that had contracted midras uncleanness: If a short side was removed and its two legs still remains it is unclean. But if a long side and two legs were removed it becomes clean. Rabbi Nehemiah says: it is unclean. Midras impurity is impurity conveyed when an object is sat upon or laid upon by a zav (one with abnormal genital discharge). If the board on the short side of the bed, meaning the head or foot of the bed, was removed and with it its two legs the bed is still unclean, because it can still be used. However, if one of the long sides is removed the bed can no longer be used because the person lying on it will fall off. Therefore the bed is clean. Rabbi Nehemiah says that what remains is still unclean because he can use it by leaning it up against the wall or in some other way. If we were to summarize the principle that emerges from this debate, the sages would say that a vessel that is broken and can no longer be used without support of another vessel is clean. Rabbi Nehemiah holds that as long as it can still be used, it is still unclean.", + "If two props at opposite corners were cut off, or if two legs at opposite corners were cut off, or if the bed was reduced to a level of less than a handbreadth, it becomes clean. The \"props\" referred to here are the supports upon which the rectangle rests. If two props or two legs at opposite corners were cut off then the bed won't be able to stand. In both cases the bed is clean because it is unusable. In addition, if he cuts down the legs so that the bed is lower than a handbreadth high, the bed is clean because it is considered unusable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with a bed that has contracted midras impurity. In order to understand this mishnah we should note that there is a difference between \"midras impurity\" and \"contact with midras.\" Midras impurity is a \"father of impurity\" and it defiles other things. \"Contact with midras\" is a first degree impurity and its defiling powers are limited.", + "A bed that had contracted midras impurity:
If a long side of it was broken and then he repaired it, it still retains its midras impurity. If the long side broke and then he repaired it, the bed still retains its madras impurity.", + "If the second side was also broke and then he repaired it, it becomes pure from midras impurity but is unclean by virtue of contact with midras. However, if the second long side broke and then he repaired it as well, the bed sheds its original midras impurity because it is considered new. In other words, when does a repaired bed become a new bed? When both long sides were fixed. Although the original midras impurity is gone, the bed does have a lesser degree of impurity because it was in contact with something that had midras impurity. I shall explain. When the first long side was repaired and put back into the bed it contacted impurity from the rest of the bed. And even when the second side broke, and the bed lost the impurity it had by being in contact with a zav, it does not lose the impurity it had by being in contact with other impure parts of the bed. This is because the bed continued to be usable.", + "If before one could manage to repair the first side the second one broke, the bed becomes clean. If both sides were broken at the same time, then the bed is completely pure, even from contact with midras. This is because when both sides are broken, the bed cannot be used." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a bed leg that has a high level of impurity that is attached to a clean bed and then removed from the bed. Commentators explain that the leg was leaned or sat upon by the zav while it was separate from the bed.", + "If a [bed] leg that had contracted midras uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts midras uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off, it retains its midras uncleanness while the bed is unclean from contact with midras. Once the leg with the midras uncleanness becomes part of the bed the whole bed contracts midras uncleanness. However, if he removes the leg, the midras uncleanness, the higher level of impurity, is removed from the bed. The bed continues to retain the status of unclean by virtue of contact with midras because it was once in contact with the leg. This, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, is a lower level of impurity.", + "If a bed leg that was subject to a seven-day uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts seven-day uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it remains subject to seven-day uncleanness while the bed is only subject to evening-uncleanness. \"Seven day uncleanness\" is contracted by coming into contact with a dead body. If the leg had seven day uncleanness and then it was attached to the bed, the bed is also considered to have seven day uncleanness. When the leg is removed, it still has seven day uncleanness, but the bed only has the lesser uncleanness of \"evening uncleanness\" (uncleanness that only lasts until night). When the bed came into contact with the leg the bed was defiled, but only for one day.", + "If a leg that was subject to evening uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts evening uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it is still subject to evening uncleanness while the bed becomes clean. In this case, the leg only has a lower state of impurity evening uncleanness. When the leg is attached to the bed, the bed takes on the status of the leg. But when the leg is removed, the bed becomes fully clean. A vessel that only has evening uncleanness does not defile other vessels.", + "The same law applies also to the prong of a mattock. The same relationship between leg and bed would also apply in similar situations to the prong of a mattock. The mattock is a tool used for loosening the soil and cutting through roots. The prong is equivalent to the leg of the bed and the mattock is equivalent to the bed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe tefillin box worn on one's head has four compartments to hold four scrolls. The box was defiled with corpse impurity. Our mishnah deals with cases where one replaces the compartments, eventually causing the entire tefillin box to be pure.", + "A tefillin box consisting of four vessels: if the first compartment was unloosed, and then he mended it, it retains its corpse uncleanness. So is it also the case with the second and the third. If he opens up the first compartment and removes it, and then makes a new compartment, the whole box of tefillin retains its corpse impurity. The same is true if he removes and then repairs all three of the first boxes. Since one compartment is still there, the tefillin is not considered new and it retains the same level of impurity.", + "If he unloosed the fourth it becomes free from corpse uncleanness but it is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness. If after having replaced all three of the first compartments, he now replaces the fourth compartment, then the box loses it corpse impurity because it is an entirely new tefillin box. However, the box still has some level of uncleanness. When he replaced each of the first three compartments he put them back into contact with a compartment that has corpse uncleanness. The unclean compartment which is a \"father of impurity\" defiles by contact the compartment that it touches, giving it first degree impurity. So all of the first three compartments have this status, and therefore the whole box has this status.", + "If he went back to the first compartment and unloosed and mended it, it remains unclean from contact. So also in the case of the second compartment. Going back and undoing the first compartment and then replacing it, and then doing the same with the second department, will not cause the box to be entirely clean. Because some of the compartments are unclean, the whole box is unclean.", + "If he then unloosed the third compartment and mended it becomes clean, since the fourth is unclean from contact, and what is unclean from contact cannot convey uncleanness by contact. However, if he goes back and replaces the third compartment, the whole box becomes completely pure. As long as one of the first three replacement boxes was still around, the whole box is impure with first degree impurity, because these three replacement compartments came into contact with something that was a \"father of impurity.\" The first came into contact with the second, the second witht the third and the third with the fourth. However, once the first three compartments are replaced again, none of the compartments left was ever in contact with something that was a \"father of impurity.\" All that is left is the fourth compartment which also was never in contact with a \"father of impurity.\" It has \"first degree impurity\" only because it was part of a box that had \"first degree impurity.\" The fourth compartment does not now return to defile the new third compartment, because something with \"first degree impurity\" does not defile other vessels. And since the first three compartments are completely pure, the fourth one is also pure." + ], + [ + "A bed half of which was stolen or lost, or one which brothers or joint owners divided between themselves, becomes clean. If a bed was half stolen or lost (perhaps he lost it under the bed?) or if it was divided up by two different owners (I would want the side closest to the TV) the bed is clean because it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to its whole state.", + "If it was restored it is susceptible to uncleanness henceforth. If it is restored, then the bed is only clean from that point and onward. The impurity it had before half of it was lost, stolen or divided does not return to it.", + "A bed may contract uncleanness and be rendered clean when all its parts are bound together, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: it can contract uncleanness and is rendered clean in single parts. I am going to explain this section according to Albeck's commentary. Others explain it differently. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if a bed is broken into pieces and then one part of the broken piece is defiled, the whole broken piece is defiled. In other words, just as all of a bed is considered defiled if one of its pieces is defiled, so too all of a piece of a bed is considered to be defiled if any one of its components is defiled. If one immerses an entire piece of a bed in a mikveh (a piece made up of several components) then the whole piece is pure, and the pieces do not serve as a barrier for the effectiveness of the mikveh (this is called hatzitzah in Hebrew). The other rabbis disagree. If a bed is broken into pieces and one component becomes impure, the whole piece is not thereby impure. A piece of a bed does not have the same rules as the whole bed. Similarly, if one immerses a piece of a bed in a mikveh, he must immerse each part separately. If he does not, each part will serve as a barrier (hatzitzah) for the part that it is connected to." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One who dismantles a bed in order that he might immerse it and [while doing so] touches the ropes remains clean. If while dismantling a large bed in order to immerse it in a mikveh to purify it a person touched the ropes of the bed, he is not thereby defiled. This is because the ropes of a dismantled bed are not considered impure. As we shall see, the ropes are considered to be impure only when attached to the bed.", + "When does the rope begin to constitute a connective with the bed? As soon as three rows of meshes of it have been knotted. Beds in the time of the Mishnah were made by tying ropes tightly around the bed frame. The mishnah now asks when are ropes considered connected to the bed such that their purity/impurity status matches that of the bed. The answer is that as soon as three rows have been tied onto the bed. It would seem that at that point the bed offers at least minimal support.", + "And [if another rope was tied to this one] and a person touches it: If from the knot inwards he becomes unclean; But if from the knot outwards he remains clean. If one ties another rope to the rope that is already tied to the bed, the new rope is considered connected from the knot and inwards. That portion of the rope is impure, and if the bed is impure it will defile him if he touches it. But from the rope and outwards, it is pure and it will not defile him.", + "As to the loose ends of the knot, any one that touches that part which is needed for it becomes unclean. And how much is needed for it? Rabbi Judah says: three fingerbreadths. The first three fingerbreadths of the loose ends of the knot were needed to tie the knot. Therefore, they are impure. Anything beyond that is not impure." + ], + [ + "A rope that hangs out from a bed:
If it is shorter than five handbreadths, it is clean,
If it is from five to ten handbreadths long, it is unclean.
From ten handbreadths and longer is clean;
For it is with [this rope] that paschal lambs were tied and beds were lowered down.
Today's mishnah deals with ropes that hang out from a bed after the main part of the rope was woven around the bed frame.
Section one: If the rope is less than five handbreadths long, it is not useful and it is not susceptible to impurity.
Sections two and four: If it is longer than five handbreadths, it is useful, but only the portion up to ten handbreadths is susceptible. Section four explains how they would use these ropes. The first use was to tie the paschal lamb to the bed in preparation for the lamb's slaughter on Pesah. On the original Pesah which was celebrated in Egypt it was required that one would set aside the lamb on the tenth of Nissan. This was not required on subsequent observations of the holiday, but evidently people did so in any case. My only explanation for why they would tie it to the bed is so that it wouldn't get mixed up with other non-paschal lambs, or with paschal lambs set aside by other people.
The other use was to lower their beds when taking them down from the roofs (where they sometimes slept) or for lowering them down into the mikveh.
Section four: Only the part that was between five and ten handbreadths was really needed. The rest of the rope was extraneous and therefore it is clean." + ], + [ + "If a part of a mattress hangs over, it is unclean whatever its length, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: only that which is shorter than ten handbreadths. It seems that during the time of the Mishnah, not all beds were used with mattresses. The Geonim (rabbis in Babylonia in the 8-11th centuries) defined the word that I have translated as \"mattress\" in the following way: \"a wool garment which rich people put on their beds underneath the regular bedding. And they put it on the edge of the bed frame.\" If the mattress hangs over the bed, according to Rabbi Meir no matter how long the part that hangs over is, it is all considered to be connected to the bed and if the bed is impure, all of the mattress is impure. Rabbi Yose says that only that which is shorter than ten handbreadths (this is quite long). Anything longer is already far enough away from the bed that it has an independent status of impurity.", + "The remnant of a mattress remains unclean if the length is at least seven handbreadths from which a donkey's covering can be made. The remnant of a mattress can remain unclean if it is at least seven handbreadths long, because this is the measure that could be used to make a donkey's covering. This goes according to the general principle that as long as something can still be used as a vessel it retains its impurity." + ], + [ + "If a zav was carried on a bed and on its mattress, the latter causes an uncleanness of two grades and an unfitness of one grade, the words of Rabbi Meir. The zav (person with abnormal genital discharge) causes the mattress to become a primary source of impurity (the bed also is a primary source of impurity, but this mishnah deals only with this mattress). The mattress causes anything that touches it to have first degree impurity. Whatever has first degree impurity imparts second degree impurity to whatever it touches. That which has second degree impurity renders unfit any terumah that it might touch (giving it third degree impurity). But the terumah does not disqualify anything by giving it fourth degree impurity.", + "Rabbi Yose says: if a zav was carried on a bed and on its mattress the part that is shorter than ten handbreadths causes an uncleanness of two grades and an unfitness of one grade, but that which is over the ten handbreadths causes only an uncleanness of one grade and an unfitness of one grade. Rabbi Yose distinguishes between the part of the mattress that extends from the bed less than ten handbreadths and the part that extends more than ten handbreadths. This accords with what he stated in yesterday's mishnah. The part that extends less than ten handbreadths has the same rule that Rabbi Meir stated above. The part that is further away from the bed is treated not like the bed but as if it were a separate piece that had contact with the remainder of the mattress. Therefore, this part has first degree impurity which it got from the main part of the mattress and it defiles that which it touches, giving it second degree impurity. That which has second degree impurity renders unfit any terumah that it might touch (giving it third degree impurity).", + "If he was carried on the mattress, [on the overhanging part] that was shorter than ten handbreadths, it becomes unclean, but if on the part that was longer than ten handbreadths it remains clean. In this scenario he was carried on the part of the mattress that extends over the bed, but not on the bed itself. If he was carried on the part of the mattress that is less than ten handbreadths from the bed, the mattress is unclean. But if further from the bed, then the mattress is clean because it is not susceptible to \"midras\" impurity (imparted by sitting, lying or leaning on something) because it is not considered part of the bed. And since the zav did not directly touch the mattress (he touched the mattress covering), the mattress is completely clean." + ], + [ + "If around a bed that had contracted midras uncleanness one wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to midras uncleanness. If it was removed, the bed remains subject to midras uncleanness but the mattress is unclean only from contact with midras. When he wraps the mattress around the bed, the mattress becomes part of the bed and takes on the impurity status of the bed. And when he removes the mattress from the bed, it loses the impurity status that the bed had. But since it had contact with something that had \"midras\" impurity, the mattress remains unclean, albeit with a lower type of impurity (first degree impurity).", + "If around a bed that had contracted seven-day uncleanness one wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to seven-day uncleanness. If it was removed, the bed remains subject to seven-day uncleanness but the mattress is unclean until the evening. The same halakhah is true with regard to seven day uncleanness, the type of uncleanness contracted from contact with a dead body. When the mattress is attached to the bed it has the same impurity as does the bed. When it is removed, it has the lower status of \"evening uncleanness,\" meaning it will become pure in the evening. This is because the bed was a \"father of impurity\" and it caused the mattress to have first degree impurity, but first degree impurity lasts only until evening.", + "If the bed was subject to evening uncleanness and around it he wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to evening uncleanness; If it was removed, the bed remains subject to evening uncleanness but the mattress becomes clean. However, if the bed was itself unclean only with \"evening uncleanness\" it does not defile at all other vessels that have contact with it. When the mattress is attached, it has \"evening uncleanness\" but when it is removed, it is completely pure." + ], + [ + "If a mattress was wrapped around a bed and a corpse touched them, they are subject to a seven-day uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to a seven-day uncleanness. In this case the mattress is impure because it too came into contact with a corpse, and not just because it became part of a bed that had corpse impurity (as in yesterday's mishnah). Therefore, even when it is taken apart from the bed, it still retains its corpse impurity.", + "If a sheretz touched them they are subject to an evening uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to evening uncleanness. The same is true if the bed and mattress become defiled with evening uncleanness through contact with a sheretz. Since the mattress was also defiled, it retains its impurity even when removed from the bed.", + "A bed from which the two longer sides were removed and two new ones were prepared for it but the original sockets were not changed: If the new sides were broken the bed retains its uncleanness, But if the old ones were broken it becomes clean, since all depends on the old ones. One removed the two longer sides of the frame of a bed and he made new ones to replace them. But since he did not change the sockets of the bed, if the new ones break he can still replace them with the old ones. If he puts the new ones in and they break, the bed regains its old impurity. In other words, it's not a new bed if the old bed can still be reconstituted. But if the old ones are broken, then the bed cannot be reconstituted and it is pure. As the mishnah notes, the purity of the bed depends on the existence of the old ones, not the new ones." + ], + [ + "A box whose opening is at the top is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If a box has an opening on its top it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, and to other types of uncleanness as well. The only type of impurity to which it is not susceptible is midras impurity, because midras impurity is imparted only to objects that are meant for sitting.", + "If a piece fell out above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If the box broke but only at its top, it is still usable so it is still susceptible to impurity.", + "If it was damaged below, it becomes clean. However, if it was damaged below it is no longer usable so it becomes clean.", + "The compartments within it remain unclean and are not regarded as a connected to it. If the box had compartments and the box became clean because it was broken, the compartments are still usable so they remain unclean. They are not considered as connected to the box, for it is clean and they are unclean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nJust a warning this mishnah might make you chuckle a bit.", + "If a shepherd's bag was damaged, the pocket within it retains its uncleanness and is not regarded as a connected to it. A shepherd's bag which is made of leather has pockets in it to store things. If the bag is damaged, the larger bag is pure, but the smaller pockets retain their impurity because they are still usable.", + "A skin whose testicle bags serve also as receptacles and they were damaged, they become clean, since they will no longer serve their original purpose. Evidently, they would make skins for holding wine that would also have pouches made from the testicles of the animal. They would do this by skinning the animal complete from head to legs. This would leave the testicles intact and usable for storing liquids. If the testicle bags are damaged they become clean because they can't be used to store liquids, which is the normal way in which they are used. Even if they can still be used for some other purpose, since they can't be used in their normal way, they are clean. I bet you wish you had a bag like this. It would definitely be the talk of the town!" + ], + [ + "A box whose opening is at the side is susceptible to both midras uncleanness and corpse uncleanness. Today's mishnah discusses a box whose opening is at the side. Since this box can be sat upon it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. It is also susceptible to other types of impurity, including corpse impurity.", + "Rabbi Yose said: When does this apply? When it is less than ten handbreadths in height or when it does not have a rim one handbreadth deep. Rabbi Yose says that it is susceptible to midras impurity only if it is less than ten handbreadths high or does not have a rim of at least a handbreadth. A high box with a rim will not be sat upon, and therefore it is not susceptible to midras. But a low box might be sat upon, with or without a rim.", + "If it was damaged above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If it was damaged above, it cannot be sat upon so it is no longer susceptible to midras. But it is still usable as a box, so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "If it was damaged below: Rabbi Meir rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages rule that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases. If it is damaged below, it can be sat upon, but it cannot be used for storage, which is its main purpose. Rabbi Meir rules that since it can still be sat upon, it is susceptible to midras impurity. The sages disagree. They hold that if a vessel cannot be used in its primary function, in this case storing, it is not susceptible due to its secondary function, sitting. Therefore, the box is completely clean." + ], + [ + "A dung-basket that was so damaged that it will not hold pomegranates: Rabbi Meir says is still susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases. The mishnah deals with a \"dung-basket,\" a basket used to take out dung used for fertilizer. If the basket has a hole large enough for pomegranates to escape, then the basket then it can't be used as a dung-basket (it would make some serious mess on the floor). Rabbi Meir says that since it can still be used as a seat cushion, it is still susceptible to impurity. The other sages disagree, invoking the principle we saw in yesterday's mishnah. If something can no longer be used for its primary purpose (to carry dung) then it is no longer susceptible, even if it can be used for a secondary one." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Pillows, bed coverings, sacks and packing cases that were damaged are still susceptible to midras uncleanness. All of these items were originally made for two purposes to contain something within, and to lie or sit upon. Pillows and bed coverings contain feathers, but they are mostly made for lying or sitting upon. Therefore, they are susceptible to midras impurity (impurity conveyed by sitting, lying or leaning). Sacks and packing cases are mostly for containing things, but from the outset they also are intended to serve as seats or ground coverings. Therefore, even if they are damaged and cannot be used to hold the things that they originally held, they are still susceptible to midras impurity.", + "A fodder-bag that can hold four kav, a shepherd's bag that can hold five kav, a traveling bag that can hold a se'ah, a skin that can hold seven kav, Rabbi Judah adds: also a spice-bag, and a food wallet that can hold the smallest quantity are susceptible to midras uncleanness. The mishnah now lists a number of types of bags, and provides a minimum amount that each must hold in order for it to be susceptible to impurity. If it cannot hold this amount, it is not useful and therefore is clean. In addition, since these things can also be used as a seat, they are also susceptible to midras impurity.", + "If any of them was damaged it becomes clean, since if the primary function ceases the secondary function also ceases. In contrast with the bags listed in section one, these bags have a main purpose to carry things inside them. Sitting is only a secondary function. Therefore, if they are damaged and can no longer carry things, they are no longer susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A bagpipe is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. A bagpipe is not intended for sitting, and therefore it is not susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "A trough for mixing mortar: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras uncleanness , And Bet Hillel says it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only. According to Bet Shammai, a trough meant mainly for mixing mortar is also used for sitting and therefore it is susceptible to midras impurity. But Bet Hillel holds that it is not meant for sitting and therefore it is susceptible only to other types of impurity, such as corpse uncleanness. It is not susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "If a trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav is split, it becomes susceptible to midras uncleanness. A trough that is large enough to hold between two logs of liquid (1/2 of a kav) and nine kav and then is split, is subsequently susceptible to midras impurity because it can be used for sitting. Note that when it was used to hold liquids it would not have been used as a seat and therefore it would not have been susceptible to midras impurity.", + "If he left it out in the rain and it swelled it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness alone. If he leaves it out in the rain, it will swell and the split will be repaired. It will now be possible to again fill it with liquids. At this point it will be susceptible to corpse uncleanness, but not to midras uncleanness because it won't be used as a seat.", + "[If he left it out] during the east wind and it split, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. If he again leaves it out and a dry east wind comes along, the split will again prevent it from holding liquids. At this point, it will go back to being able to be used as a seat and it will be susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "In this respect the law is stricter in the case of remnants of wooden vessels than in [that of such vessels] in their original condition. The mishnah now notes an oddity with regard to the impurity of the remnant of wooden vessels. In their original condition, they would not have been susceptible to midras uncleanness, but when they are cracked they become susceptible.", + "It is also stricter in regard to the remnants of wicker vessels than [to such vessels] as are in their original condition, for when they are in their original condition they are insusceptible to uncleanness until their rim is finished, but after their rim has been finished, even though their edges fell away leaving only the slightest trace of them, they are unclean. The mishnah notes another case where the law is stricter with vessels later in their existence than it is when they are first produced. The manufacturing of a wicker vessel is not considered complete until its rim is finished (see 16:2). But once their manufacturing is complete , their outer edges can completely wear away and the vessel will still be susceptible to impurity. When we think about it, this makes sense. When we buy something new, we expect it to be in mint shape. We wouldn't buy a pair of shoes with worn-out soles. However, once we own a pair, we will hold onto them even after the soles, or other parts of the shoe show considerable wear." + ], + [ + "If a stick was used as a handle for a hatchet, it is regarded as connected for uncleanness at the time of use. When the hatchet is in use, its handle is considered connected to it with regard to impurity. This means that if either piece, the handle or the hatchet, is defiled, both are defiled.", + "A yarn winder is regarded as connected for uncleanness at the time of its use. A \"yarn winder\" is a small stick with a nail attached to it which was used for weaving. While it is in use, the nail is considered connected to the stick for issues of impurity.", + "If it was fixed to a pole it is susceptible to uncleanness, but it is not considered connected to it. If he fixed the yarn winder to a pole, the yarn winder remains susceptible to impurity, but it is not considered connected to the pole, which remains clean.", + "If the pole itself was converted into a yarn winder, only that part which is needed for use is susceptible to uncleanness. In this case he makes the end of the pole into a yarn winder. The part that is used as a yarn winder is susceptible, but the remainder of the pole stays clean, because it is a simple wood vessel.", + "A seat that was fixed to the pole is susceptible to uncleanness, but the latter is not regarded as connected to it. If one fixed a seat to the end of a pole, the seat (like the yarn winder) is susceptible to impurity, but it is treated separately from the pole.", + "If the pole itself was turned into a seat, only the place of the seat is susceptible to uncleanness. This is the same as section four, just with regard to the seat.", + "A seat that was fixed to the beam of an olive-press is susceptible to uncleanness, but it is not connected to it. The same rule as found in section three and section six.", + "If the end of a beam was turned into a seat it remains clean, because people would tell him, \"Get up and let us do our work.\" If the end of an olive press beam is turned into a seat, even the seat part remains pure. People won't let another person sit there because that would prevent them from doing their work. Therefore, it's a dysfunctional seat and not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "If a large trough was so damaged that it could no longer hold pomegranates and he fixed it to be used as a seat: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless its rough parts have been smoothed. According to Rabbi Akiva, although the trough cannot be used for its original purpose, since he set it up to be used as a seat, it is susceptible to impurity. The other sages basically agree with Rabbi Akiva, but add the caveat that the trough is not susceptible unless its rough section has been smoothed to make it fit for a seat.", + "If it was turned into a feeding bowl for cattle, even if it was fixed to a wall, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he turned it into a feeding bowl, then it is susceptible to impurity even though it is attached to the wall. The vessel is not considered as nullified due to its attachment to something that is attached to the ground." + ], + [ + "A wood block that was fixed to a row on a wall, whether he fixed it and did not built upon it or built upon it but did not fix it, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he fixed it and also built upon, it is clean. The Rambam explains that the \"row on a wall\" referred to here is the scaffolding in between which builders make their wall. The \"wood block\" is a thick piece of wood that the builders attach to the wall and to the building adjacent to the wall in order to keep the wall close to the building. If he fixes it to the wall but does not build upon it, or if he builds upon it but does not fix it to the wall, then the wood block is not considered part of the building and it is still susceptible to impurity. But if he fixes it to the wall and builds upon it, then it is part of the building and it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "Matting that was spread over the roof-beams, whether he fixed it but did not put on the plasterwork or whether he put on the plasterwork but did not fix it, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If it was fixed and he laid plasterwork over it, it is clean. The matting is used here as a base for the plasterwork which will serve as the ceiling to the house. If the matting has been fixed to the beams but the plasterwork has not yet been put on, or if the plasterwork has been put on, but it has not yet been fixed to the beams, it is not yet part of the building, and it is still susceptible to impurity. The matting is part of the building and therefore clean, only if it has the plasterwork and has been fixed to the building.", + "A dish that was fixed to a chest, box or cupboard: If in such a manner as to hold its contents in the usual way, it is susceptible to uncleanness, But if it was in a manner that it cannot hold its contents in the usual way it is clean. The chest, box or cupboard referred to here are large enough so that they are not susceptible to impurity. If one attaches a dish to one of these things in such a way that the dish can still hold things, that is the mouth of the dish faces up, the dish is still susceptible to impurity. But if he attaches it face down (not sure why one would do such a thing) then it is considered nullified vis a vis the chest, box or cupboard and it is clean." + ], + [ + "If a sheet that was susceptible to midras uncleanness made into a curtain, it becomes clean from midras uncleanness but it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. A sheet used for bedding is susceptible to midras uncleanness because it is laid upon. But if he makes it into a curtain, it is no longer used for lying upon, and therefore it is not susceptible to madras impurity. It will however be susceptible to corpse impurity as are all vessels made of cloth.", + "When does it become insusceptible to [midras] uncleanness? Bet Shammai says: when the loops have been tied to it. . Bet Hillel says: when it has been attached. Rabbi Akiva says: when it has been fixed. There are three opinions as to the exact point at which the sheet ceases being a sheet and becomes a curtain. According to Bet Shammai, once loops have been attached to the sheet, it is a curtain. To put it abstractly, it is a curtain if it looks like a curtain even before it functions as such. Bet Hillel says that it must be attached to the opening for it to be a curtain. A curtain must function like a curtain. Rabbi Akiva postpones the time a bit more. It must be fixed to the opening with nails. Abstractly speaking it must be set up as is a normal curtain with loops, attached to the opening with nails. Before that, it is still just a sheet." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA mat for lying upon was normally made in the following way: reeds would be placed across its breadth every four handbreadths. Lengthwise they would weave straw and other such material. People would lie between the reeds, because it was not comfortable to lie on the hard reeds. Our mishnah deals with mats made in an unusual manner.", + "A mat whose reeds stretched lengthwise is insusceptible to uncleanness; But the sages rule: only if they lay in the shape of [the Greek letter] chi. According to the first opinion, since the reeds were laid lengthwise, the mat is not susceptible for impurity. A mat made in such a way must not have been meant for lying because it would be uncomfortable to lie on the reeds. But the other sages say that even though the reeds were placed lengthwise, one still could lie in between the reeds. It is insusceptible to impurity only if he places the reeds in the shape of the letter x (chi in Greek). Such a mat is certainly not good for lying because the reeds would be unavoidable.", + "If they were laid along its width and there was a distance of less than four handbreadths between the two reeds, it is insusceptible to uncleanness. If he didn't leave four handbreadths between the reeds, then it is not good for lying and it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "If it was divided along its width, Rabbi Judah rules that is clean. If it was divided along its width, it is pure. Eventually the whole mat will fall apart because the straw will come undone.", + "So also, where the end-knots are untied, it is clean. The same is true if he unties the end knots. Since the mat will eventually fall apart, it is pure.", + "If it was divided along its length but three end-knots remained intact across a stretch of six handbreadths, it is susceptible to uncleanness. Ties are usually made every two handbreadths along the mat's width. If the mat is divided along its length, but three end-knots remain on its width, covering a stretch of six handbreadths, that section of the mat is still usable and is still susceptible to impurity. Note that this is the minimum size in which a mat is susceptible to impurity (we will return to this subject in 27:3 I bet you can't wait).", + "When does a mat become susceptible to uncleanness? When its rough ends are trimmed, this being the completion of its manufacture. Since we're dealing with the purity of mats, the mishnah now answers the question as to when the manufacturing of a mat is complete such that it is susceptible to impurity. The answer is that it is susceptible once its rough ends have been trimmed. These are the ends of the tied knots." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a situation where a completed unclean woven garment is on a loom and a person touches various parts of the loom. Parts that are considered to be connected to the woven garment defile the person who touches them, whereas parts that are not considered to be as connected do not.\nI am not all that familiar with looms. I did find a decent illustration on the web of a \"treadle loom\" that seems to be the type referred to in the Mishnah. I will try my best to describe some of the parts. The main issue is the principle, which should be clear after the mishnah is learned.", + "One who touches the upper beam, the lower beam, the harnesses, the sley, the thread that is drawn over purple material, or a spool which is not to be shot back, remains clean. A loom has two beams, an upper and a lower one. These are used to move the warp up and down. The heddles are the strings attached to the reeds laid across the loom. The sley is a reed used to straighten the warp. When making purple cloth, weavers would pass a string over the cloth and then remove it. A spool that is not shot back refers to strings that will not be brought back and woven into the garment. All of these things are not considered to be attached to the garment. Therefore, one who touches them is pure, even if the garment is unclean.", + "If he touches the woof, the standing warp, the double thread that is drawn over purple material or a spool which is to be shot back, he becomes unclean. The \"woof\" refers to the strings of the woof that have already been put into the warp strings but have not yet been straightened out properly. The \"standing warp\" refers to the strings of the warp stretched out between the upper and lower beams. The double string passed over the purple cloth will not be removed. And the spool that will be shot back is attached to a string that will be part of the garment. One who touches any of these things is defiled, because these are connected enough to the garment to be considered already as being part of the garment.", + "If one touches the wool that is on the distaff, or on the spool, he remains clean. The wool that is on the distaff or on the spool is not considered to be connected, and therefore one who touches it is pure.", + "If he touches the spinner: Before it was uncovered he is unclean, After it was uncovered he remains clean. If the spindle was impure, one who touches the spinner on the head of the spindle is impure if he touches it before he removes the string and uncovers the spinner. But if he touches it after the string was removed and the spinner is uncovered, remains clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is similar to yesterday's except that it discusses instruments connected to the plow.", + "One who touches the yoke, the crossbar, the collar-piece, or the thick ropes, even when they are being used, he remains clean. These are all pieces of the plow that are not considered to be connected to it, so if the plow is impure, the person who touches one of them is still pure.", + "If he touched the tail piece, knee or handle, he becomes unclean. These are all pieces of the plow itself, and not just things that connect the plow to something else. Therefore one who touches them is unclean.", + "If he touched the metal rings, the guides, or the flanks, he becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says that he remains clean if he touched the guides since they only serve to increase the soil. The \"guides\" are two pieces of wood used to bring the soil into contact with the plow, to \"increase the soil\" in the words of Rabbi Judah. The \"flanks\" are made to crush the soil. With regard to the metal rings and the flanks, all sages agree that one who touches them is unclean. There is a debate with regard to the \"guides.\" The first opinion holds that they are considered connected to the plow, whereas Rabbi Judah says that they are not really part of the plow. Their sole function is put more soil into contact with the plow. Therefore, one who touches them remains pure." + ], + [ + "One who touches the handle of a saw at either end becomes unclean; The handles of a two-handled saw are both considered to be part of the saw. Therefore, one who touches either of them is unclean.", + "[If he touched] its string, cord, cross-piece or side-pieces, a carpenter's vice, or the bow-handle of a bow-drill, he remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: so too he who touches the frame of a large saw remains clean. The string or cord run from one handle of the saw to the other to keep them attached. A cross-piece is a piece of wood connecting the handles on a saw. The side-pieces support the handles of a saw. The carpenter's vice is made of two boards, between which the carpenter places bent pieces of wood to straighten them. If one touches any of these things, he remains clean. Rabbi Judah adds that the same is true with regard to the frame of a large saw.", + "One who touches the bow-string or the bow, even though it was stretched, he remains clean. The different parts of the bow (as in bow and arrow) are not considered to be connected to one another. Therefore, if one touches the bow-string when the bow is unclean or the bow when the arrow is unclean, he is not unclean. This is true even if the arrow is taut in the bow.", + "A mole-trap is clean. Rabbi Judah says: when it is stretched, the separate parts are [regarded as] connected. The various parts of a mole trap are not considered to be connected one to the other. If one is unclean, and a person touches the other part, he is still clean. Rabbi Judah says that when the mole-trap is stretched, ready to trap the mole, the separate parts are considered to be connected. They are considered unconnected only when the trap mechanism is relaxed." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a table or a side-board was damaged or he covered them with marble but room was left for cups to be set, it is unclean. Rabbi Judah ruled: there must be room enough for pieces of food. The mishnah describes two situations. The first is of a table or side-board (what we might call a counter) that was damaged. The second is of a table or side-board (both made of wood) that were covered with marble. Marble is not susceptible to impurity. In both cases, if enough of the table remains undamaged, or if enough remains uncovered with marble, for cups to be placed on the table, it is still susceptible.", + "Rabbi Judah says that space for cups is not enough. There must be enough space for pieces of food. If not, the table is not considered usable or is considered to be fully covered with marble, and it is clean." + ], + [ + "A table one of whose legs was removed is clean. If one of a three-legged table's legs is removed, it is no longer functional and therefore it is clean.", + "If a second leg was removed it is still clean. But if a third was removed it becomes unclean where the owner has the intention of using it. If the second leg is removed it is still clean, because it can still not be used. However, if the third leg is removed, then all that remains is a board. If he intends to use the board without the legs, then it becomes susceptible to impurity.", + "Rabbi Yose says: no intention is necessary. Rabbi Yose says that since the board can be used, it is automatically susceptible to impurity. He need not even intend to use it.", + "The same law applies also to the side-board. The same debate occurs in reference to a side-board (mentioned also in yesterday's mishnah)." + ], + [ + "A bench, one of whose legs was removed, is clean. If its second leg also was removed it is still clean. If it was one handbreadth high it is unclean. A bench has two legs, one on either end. Clearly if one leg is removed, the bench cannot be used and it is pure. The same is true even if both legs are removed. One does not sit on a bench when it is simply a board on the ground, because it is usually too thin. However, if the bench-board is at least one handbreadth high, it is unclean because a person might come to sit on it.", + "A footstool one of whose legs was removed is unclean. A footstool can be used to put one's feet up even if one of the legs has been removed. In other words, a footstool does not have to be exactly upright because one doesn't sit on it. Therefore, since it can fulfill its original function, it remains unclean (or susceptible to impurity).", + "The same applies to the stool in front of a cathedra. A \"cathedra\" is a couch used by the upper class (same word as cathedral). The stool in front of it has the same rule as does a footstool." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah has two parts, each of which contains three opinions: Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and Shammai. In both cases, Shammai rules more strictly than Bet Shammai. This is an interesting historical phenomenon. It might demonstrate that in the generation between Shammai and the founding of his eponymous school, his disciples began to be influenced by the leniencies of Bet Hillel. In other words, Bet Hillel's dominance, which we know of from a later historical period, already influenced the early Shammaites themselves.", + "A bride's stool which lost the coverings for the seatboards: Bet Shammai rules that it still susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even the frame of the stool is susceptible to uncleanness. A bride's stool is made up of a frame and seatboards placed on top of the frame. On top of the seatboards they would place coverings to make it more comfortable. Think of it as an ancient lazyboy (or lazygirl in this case). According to Bet Shammai, the stool without the coverings can still be used by normal people, and therefore it is susceptible to impurity. Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that since it is not fit for a bride, it is clean. Shammai says that even the frame alone is susceptible, because it can be sat upon in time of need.", + "A stool which was fixed to a kneading-trough, Bet Shammai rules that it susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even one made out of it is susceptible to uncleanness. The mishnah now deals with a stool attached to a knead-trough. The kneading-trough itself is not susceptible to midras impurity, because it is not meant for sitting. According to Bet Shammai, the stool is not nullified vis a vis the trough and it remains susceptible to midras impurity. Bet Hillel disagrees, and holds that the stool is part of the trough. Shammai rules that even if the stool was originally made as an attachment to the kneading-trough, and was never made independently for sitting, it is still susceptible to midras impurity. Again, Shammai is stricter than Bet Shammai." + ], + [ + "A chair whose seat boards did not project and then they were removed, it is still susceptible to uncleanness, for it is usual to turn it on its side and to sit on it. The seat boards of this chair did not project outside of the frame of the chair. Thus this type of stool could be turned on its side, and one could sit on the boards that were used to form the sides. If the seat boards are removed from the place where the chair is usually sat upon, the chair can still become impure, because even before they were removed, it was common to use the chair from the side." + ], + [ + "A chair whose middle seat board was removed but the outer ones remained, it is still susceptible to uncleanness. The chair referred to here has three seat boards. If only the middle one is removed, it is still susceptible to impurity. The outer ones should be sufficient to support the sitter's tuches (the seat on my bike is a little like this).", + "If the outer ones were removed and the middle seat board remained it is also susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was a handbreadth wide. So too, if the outer ones are removed and only the inner one remains. The middle one can still be sat upon, so the chair is still susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon adds that the middle one must be at least one handbreadth wide. If it is not, it is pure." + ], + [ + "A chair, of which two seat boards were removed, this one next to this one: Rabbi Akiva says: it is susceptible to impurity; And the sages say that it is clean. If two adjacent seat boards were removed, one of the side ones and the middle one, Rabbi Akiva still considers it susceptible to impurity. One could sit on the side seat board. The other sages say that this is no longer considered a chair, and therefore it is clean.", + "Rabbi Judah said: so too if the seat boards of a bride's chair were lost, though the receptacle under remained, it is clean, since where the primary function has ceased, the secondary one also ceases. Rabbi Judah relates back to mishnah four. There Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagreed with regard to a bride's chair whose seat boards were removed. Bet Hillel held that such a chair is clean. Rabbi Judah adds to this. The chair is clean even if the receptacle that they make under the chair to hold various things remained. Since the chair cannot be used in its normal fashion, for the bride to sit upon, the fact that it can be used for other purposes does not mean that it is still susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A chest whose top part was removed is still susceptible to uncleanness on account of its bottom; If its bottom was removed it is still susceptible to uncleanness on account of its top part. The type of chest referred to here seems to contain some drawers. If the top part is removed, the whole chest is still susceptible to impurity on account of the bottom part. Similarly, if the bottom part is removed, the whole chest is susceptible to impurity on account of the top part.", + "If both the top part and the bottom part were removed: Rabbi Judah says that it is susceptible to uncleanness on account of its sides, But the sages rule that it is clean. According to Rabbi Judah, if both the bottom and top part are removed, the chest is still susceptible to impurity on account of its sides. However, the sages rule that such a chest is no longer usable and is therefore clean.", + "A stonecutter's seat is subject to midras uncleanness. A stonecutter's seat is a temporary seat that a stonecutter will fashion for him to use while performing his work. The seat is considered to be a real seat and is therefore susceptible to midras impurity." + ], + [ + "A [wooden] block which was painted red or saffron, or was polished: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless [a seat] was carved out. The issue at hand in this section is what does one have to do to a plain wooden block in order to turn it into a chair? According to Rabbi Akiva, it is sufficient to paint it or to polish it for it to be considered a chair and therefore susceptible to impurity. The other sages rule that this is insufficient. To make something into a real chair a seat must be carved out.", + "A small basket or a big one that was filled with straw or other soft material remains clean [even] if it was prepared as a seat. But if it was plaited over with reed-grass or with a cord it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. Even if one fills a basket with soft material and intends to use it as a seat, it is not susceptible to impurity. The problem with it is that as soon as he turns the basket over, the stuff will fall out and the seat will no longer exist. To turn the basket into a seat he must fill it with some sort of stuffing and plait over it with some type of binding material to keep the contents in. If he does this, the basket will be a seat and it will be susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A toilet is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If the leather seat was separated, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness and the iron is subject only to corpse uncleanness. The toilet described here is made of a leather seat and an iron base. When it is whole, the entire toilet is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness, because it is a seat and it is a vessel. If the leather seat is removed, the seat is still subject to midras uncleanness because it is still usable as a seat. But the iron base can no longer be sat upon, and therefore it is subject only to corpse uncleanness, because it is still a vessel.", + "A folding stool whose cover is of leather is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If it was taken apart, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness while the stool is altogether clean. When the leather cover is part of the stool, the entire stool is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If the cover is removed, it remains susceptible to midras uncleanness, but the remainder of the stool cannot be used so it is clean.", + "A bath-house bench that has two wooden legs is susceptible to uncleanness. If one leg was of wood and the other of stone it is clean. The bench is made of stone which is not susceptible to impurity. However, if both of its legs are made of wood, the entire bench becomes susceptible on account of the legs. If only one leg is made of wood and the other is made of stone, the bench is still clean.", + "Boards in a bath-house which were joined together: Rabbi Akiva says that they are susceptible to [midras] uncleanness; But the sages say that they are clean, since they are made only for the water to flow under them. In a bath-house, there would be seats made of wood joined together for the bathers to sit on. According to Rabbi Akiva, since people sit on these seats, they are susceptible to impurity. The sages disagree because they see the function of the seats as just letting dirty water already used by others to pass beneath. In other words, people don't want to sit on the seats; they just want to avoid something else.", + "A fumigation-cage that contains a receptacle for garments is susceptible to uncleanness, But one that is made like a bee-hive is clean. A fumigation cage is a vessel into which fire and sulfur are put to fumigate the clothing that would be put above. If it has a receptacle in which to put the clothing, it is susceptible to impurity. But if it is made in the shape of a bee-hive and does not have a receptacle, it cannot become impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a ball, a mould, an amulet or tefillin were torn, one that touches them becomes unclean, But one that touches what is inside them remains clean. The objects listed here contain something inside them. The ball contains some sort of soft filling (they didn't fill balls with air back then). The mould is made of leather and is also filled with similar material. Artisans would craft their wares around the mould. The amulet and tefillin contain parchment with writing on it. If any of these items are torn, they are still unclean because they can still contain things inside them. A vessel which has a receptacle is impure even if it is not sealed shut. However, the contents are not considered to be connected to the vessel. Therefore, if one touches the contents and they are pure, he is still pure even if the vessel is unclean.", + "If a saddle was torn, one that touches its contents unclean, because the stitching joins them. When it comes to a saddle, the stitching attaches the contents to the saddle. The contents are part of the saddle and not just inside the saddle. Therefore, even if the saddle is torn, a person who touches the saddle (when it is unclean) will be defiled, regardless of whether he touches the saddle or its contents." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses a special type of uncleanness called \"merkav\" which means \"riding\" as in riding a camel, horse or donkey. This is a type of uncleanness that only a vessel meant to be ridden upon can contract. Mishnah 1:3 made some mention of special characteristics that characterize things that are \"merkav.\" We shall discuss this more in tomorrow's mishnah.", + "The following are susceptible to uncleanness as objects that are fit for riding upon (: an Ashkelon donkey belt, a Medean saddle, a camel's pillow, and a horse-cloth. The Ashkelon donkey belt and Medean saddle seem to be named after the places in which they are produced. A camel's pillow is not for the camel to sleep with, but to put on the camel's back for the comfort of the rider. The horse-cloth is used to cover the horse's back and on top of it goes the saddle. All of these are meant for riding upon, but they are not directly sat upon.", + "Rabbi Yose says: a horse-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat, since people stand on it in the arena. Rabbi Yose says that a horse-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness not because it is ridden upon but because it is stood upon when people are in the arena. If a zav stands on something that is susceptible to midras, he gives it sitting (moshav) uncleanness. We shall explain this type of uncleanness in tomorrow's mishnah.", + "But a saddle of a female camel is susceptible to [sitting] uncleanness. All agree that it is customary to sit directly upon the saddle of a female donkey. Therefore, it is susceptible to sitting uncleanness." + ], + [ + "What is the practical difference between [the uncleanness of an object used for] riding upon and [one used for] sitting upon? In the case of the former the effect of contact with it is different from the effect of carrying it, but in the case of the latter there is no difference between the effect of coming in contact with it or carrying it. If one carries something that has contracted uncleanness by a zav riding upon it his clothes are unclean. But if someone touches something that has contracted uncleanness by a zav riding upon it, his clothes remain clean. Thus, when it comes to the uncleanness of something that was used for riding, there is a difference between carrying it and touching it. However, when it comes to something that has contracted sitting impurity (moshav) there is no difference between touching and carrying. In both cases, his clothes are unclean.", + "The pack-frame of a donkey on which a zav sat is clean; But if the size of the spaces has been changed or if they have been broken one into another it is susceptible to uncleanness. One does not normally sit upon the pack-frame of a donkey. Therefore, it is not susceptible to sitting impurity and it remains clean even if a zav sits upon it. However, if he changes the spaces or breaks them one into another such that he can sit upon it, then he has changed it into a seat and it is susceptible to sitting impurity." + ], + [ + "A bier, the mattress and the pillow of a corpse are susceptible to the uncleanness of midras. The fact that these three things are used for a dead body does not make them susceptible to midras uncleanness. However, the Tosefta explains that women sit on these when they wail over the dead. Therefore they are considered seats and they are susceptible to midras impurity.", + "A bride's stool, a midwife's stool, and a launderer's stool on which he piles the clothes: Rabbi Yose says: it is not regarded as a seat. These stools are not sat upon for comfort, just so that one doesn't have to be on one's feet. The bride sits in the chair only as part of the bridal procession. The midwife sits on the stool so that she may assist in the birth. The launderer sits on the stool while he launders and folds the clothes. Since these are not used for comfort, they are excluded from being susceptible to sitting impurity." + ], + [ + "A fishing net is susceptible to uncleanness on account of its bag. The bottom part of a fish-net is sewn together like a bag. Therefore, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "Nets, snares, bird-traps, slings and fishermen's skeins are susceptible to uncleanness. All of these various types of traps are considered to be vessels and therefore they are susceptible to impurity.", + "A fish-trap, a bird-basket and a bird-cage are not susceptible to uncleanness. In contrast, these types are not considered vessels and they are therefore pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nEvery mishnah in Chapter Twenty-Four of Kelim has the format of \"there are three different types of X.\" The differences between the different types of X (in our case shields) means that there are differences as to their susceptibility to impurity. All of the mishnayot have the same structure. The first item is susceptible to midras uncleanness because it can be used as a seat. The second item is not used for sitting but it is a vessel so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. The third item is completely pure.", + "There are three different types of shields:
A bent shield is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A bent shield can be used to lie upon and therefore it is susceptible even to midras uncleanness. All the more so it is susceptible to other types of uncleanness.", + "A shield used in the arena is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; A shield used in battle is not meant to be laid upon and therefore it is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. However, like all vessels it is subject to corpse uncleanness, meaning if it comes into contact with a corpse, it is unclean.", + "And the Arabian toy shield is pure from all uncleanness. A shield that is not used as protection is not susceptible to impurity. This is the case with the Arabian toy shield." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of wagons:
The one made like a cathedra is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A \"cathedra\" is a seat upon which important people sit (see 22:3). If a wagon is made in such a manner it is considered a seat and it is susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "The one made like a bed is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, A wagon made like a bed is used for transporting goods and it is not meant for people to sit or lie upon. Therefore, it is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. However, it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And the one for [the transport of] stones is free from all uncleanness. A wagon used to transport large stones is made of boards placed upon the length and breadth of the wagon. There are large gaps between the boards such that it cannot hold in pomegranates. Therefore, it is not considered a vessel that can become impure. Rather, it is a simple wooden vessel (17:1) and simple wooden vessels are not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of baking-troughs:
If a baking-trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav was split it is susceptible to midras uncleanness; This section was explained above in 20:2. There I wrote: A trough that is large enough to hold between two logs of liquid (1/2 of a kav) and nine kav and then is split, is subsequently susceptible to midras impurity because it can be used for sitting. Note that when it was used to hold liquids it would not have been used as a seat and therefore it would not have been susceptible to midras impurity.", + "If it was whole it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; As stated above, when whole the trough could not have been used as a seat and therefore it was just a normal vessel, susceptible to corpse impurity.", + "And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free from all uncleanness. If the trough can hold 40 seahs, it is too big to be transported and therefore it is not susceptible. This halakhah was learned in 15:1." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of boxes:
A box whose opening is at the sides is susceptible to midras uncleanness; This was explained above in 19:9. Since this box can be sat upon, it is susceptible to midras impurity.", + "If it is on the top it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; See 19:7. Since this box cannot be sat upon, it cannot contract midras impurity. But it is a vessel so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free from all uncleanness. If it holds more than 40 seahs, it is not susceptible to impurity at all (see the end of yesterday's mishnah)." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of leather covers:
That of barbers is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The leather cover that barbers use is meant to be sat upon, therefore it is susceptible to midras.", + "That on which people eat is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. The leather cover people eat on is not meant for sitting but it is considered a vessel. Therefore, it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And that for [spreading out] olives is free from all uncleanness. The leather cover used to spread out olives isn't even considered a vessel, and therefore it is pure" + ], + [ + "There are three different types of bases:
One which lies before a bed or before a scribe is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The base which is put in front of a bed or in front of a scribe is sometimes sat upon. Therefore it is susceptible to midras impurity.", + "One for a side-table is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; The base next to a side-table is sometimes stood upon by a servant, therefore it is considered a vessel. But it is not sat upon therefore it is not susceptible to midras.", + "And one for a cupboard is free from all uncleanness. The one that serves as the base for a cupboard is not considered a vessel at all, and therefore it is not susceptible to uncleanness." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of writing tablets:
That of papyrus is susceptible to midras uncleanness; Evidently, a scribe would lean on the papyrus while he was writing. This is sufficient for it to be susceptible to midras impurity, for things that are leaned upon are susceptible to midras.", + "That which had a receptacle for wax is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; Some tablets were set up so that they would be covered with wax and the writing would be written in the wax. If such a tablet has a receptacle to hold the wax before it is spread on the surface of the table, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "And that which is smooth is free from all uncleanness. A smooth writing tablet, one that has no receptacle, is not susceptible to impurity. It is considered a simple wooden vessel." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of beds:
One that is used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A regular bed made to lie upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "One used by glass makers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; Glass makers would use the bed to arrange the glass that they had already made. This type of bed is considered a vessel and therefore is susceptible to impurity. I should note that some of the commentators ask why this type of bed is considered to be a vessel and is susceptible, whereas the wagon used in olive making (mishnah five) is pure. The same question might be asked concerning the next section: why is this bed susceptible but a bed used by weavers not?", + "And one used by weavers is free from all uncleanness. The bed used by weavers (there are various interpretations as to how this bed is used) is pure because it is not considered to be something used by a person." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of baskets:
The one for dung is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The basket used to take dung out to the fields to be used as fertilizer is susceptible to midras impurity because it can be sat upon.", + "The one for straw is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; The type of basket used for straw is not sat upon, so it is not susceptible to midras. But it is a vessel, therefore it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And a camel's rope bag is free from all uncleanness. The rope bag put onto a camel has holes in it that are large enough to let out pomegranates. Therefore, it is not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of mats:
One used for sitting upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A mat used to sit upon is obviously susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "One used by dyers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. The mat used by dyers is not sat upon (would be a bit messy). But it is considered a vessel so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And one used in wine-presses is free from all uncleanness. The mat used in wine-presses is used to cover the grapes. Therefore, it is not a vessel and it is not susceptible to uncleanness." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of water skins and three different types of shepherds' wallets:
Those that can hold the prescribed quantity are susceptible to midras uncleanness; In 20:1 we learned that for a water skin to be susceptible to midras impurity it must be capable of holding seven kavs and a shepherds' wallet must be capable of holding five kavs. If they are of this size, then they are also meant to be sat upon.", + "Those that cannot hold the prescribed quantity are susceptible to corpse uncleanness; If they are smaller than this size, then they are not meant for sitting. They are still vessels, so they are susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And those made of fish skin are free from all uncleanness. Fish skin cannot become impure (see 10:1)." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of hides:
That which is used as a rug is susceptible to midras uncleanness; An animal hide used as a rug is sat and lain upon. Therefore, it is liable to midras.", + "That which is used as a wrapper for vessels is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; If it is used to wrap vessels, it counts as a vessel because it \"contains something.\" Therefore, it is susceptible to impurity, just not midras impurity.", + "And that which is intended for straps and sandals is free from all uncleanness. If the hide was made such that straps and sandals can be cut from it, it is not yet a vessel and it is not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of sheets:
One used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness;
One used as a curtain is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;
And one used as a mural decoration is free from all uncleanness.
I think by now the principles underlying this mishnah should be clear." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of napkins:
One used for hands is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The word that I have translated here as \"napkins\" really would be best translated as a small piece of cloth. If the cloth is used to clean one's hands, it is susceptible even to midras impurity because it is sometimes used to cover the seat cushion and then it is sat upon.", + "One used for books is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; If it is used to cover a book, it counts as a vessel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity.", + "And the one used as a shroud or a covering for the harps of the Levites is free from all uncleanness. If the cloth is used only to cover a dead body or to cover a harp it is not considered a vessel. The difference between this and a book cover is that one continues to use a book when it is covered, whereas one cannot use a harp (or a dead body for that matter) when it is covered." + ], + [ + "The word which I have translated \"hip-boots\" is based on Albeck's explanation of this mishnah. Traditional commentators explain the word to mean some sort of leather gloves.", + "There are three different types of hip-boots:
Those used by the hunters of animals and birds are susceptible to midras uncleanness; According to Albeck, when hunters wear these boots, they cover all the way down to the foot. Since they are walked upon, they are susceptible to midras.", + "Those used by locust gatherers are susceptible to corpse uncleanness. The hip-boots used by locust gatherers are considered vessels, but they do not cover the feet. Therefore, they are not susceptible to midras. Note that in the time of the mishnah Jews would have eaten locusts. Today very few Jews do so, although certain locusts are still considered kosher.", + "And those used by fig-pickers are free from all uncleanness. The hip-boots used by fig-pickers are not considered vessels at all." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of hair nets:
A girl's is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A girl's hair net is made so that it can also be sat upon. Therefore, it is susceptible to midras.", + "An old woman's is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; According to our mishnah, an old woman's hair net is not made to be sat upon, therefore it is not susceptible to midras. Note that in 28:9 the Mishnah will teach the opposite: a girl's is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness but an old woman's is susceptible to midras. Albeck seems to think that the version preserved in 28:9 is more accurate.", + "And [the hair net] of a woman who \"goes out\" is free from all uncleanness. There are two explanations for a woman who \"goes out.\" Some explain this to be a temporary hair net used by a woman who merely goes out to the courtyard. Others explain that a woman who \"goes out\" refers to a prostitute. Her hair net does not cover much hair so it is not considered a vessel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last mishnah of this chapter (yes, we made it there) ostensibly follows the same literary pattern as the first sixteen mishnayot. It begins with the words \"there are three types of…\" However, the internal structure is quite different. The topic is baskets that are attached to other baskets in cases where one basket is pure and one is impure.", + "There are three different types of baskets: If a worn-out basket is patched on to a sound one, all is determined by the sound one; If a small basket is patched on to a large one all is determined by the large one; If they are equal all is determined by the inner one. Whereas in the previous sixteen mishnayot the \"three different types of x\" meant that one was subject to midras impurity, one to corpse impurity and one was pure, today's mishnah deals with three possible results of one basket being attached to another. If a worn-out basket is attached to a sound one, the purity/impurity is determined by the sound basket, because that is the basket that is essential. Thus is the sound basket is pure, both are pure, and if the sound basket is impure, both are impure. Similarly, if a small basket is attached to a large basket, the status of the large basket determines the purity/impurity of both baskets. If both baskets are equal in size and soundness, then the inner basket is the one that is essentially used so it determines the purity status. If the inner one is pure, both are pure and if the inner one is impure, both are impure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if the cup of a balance was patched on to the bottom of a boiler on the inside, the latter becomes unclean; but if on the outside it remains clean. If it was patched on to the side, whether on the inside or the outside, it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon extends the principle learned above. If an impure cup of a balance was patched on to the inside of a hot water boiler then the cup has the status of the \"inside\" vessel and the entire apparatus is impure. However, if the cup is patched onto the side of the hot water boiler, then the boiler is considered the inside vessel and the entire apparatus is pure. This is true even if the cup is inside the boiler. Since it is not attached to the bottom, it is not the main part and the boiler determines the status of the cup." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMost of chapter twenty-five deals with the differences between cases in which an impure liquid touched the inside of a vessel and cases in which the liquid touched the outside of a vessel. Mishnah six will teach this rule explicitly if the liquid touched the outside of the vessel, the inside remains pure. But if it touches the inside of the vessel, the outer side is impure as well. Our mishnah, as well as the subsequent ones discuss which vessels are deemed to have \"insides\" and \"outsides\" such that these rules apply.", + "All vessels have [different laws] for outer and inner sides, as for instance, cushions, coverings, sacks and packing-bags, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: any vessel that has loops has [different laws] for inner and outer sides but one that has no loops does not have different laws for outer and inner sides. According to Rabbi Judah all vessels have different laws depending on whether the impure liquid touched them on the inside or the outside. This includes even cushions etc, which might not seem to have insides and outsides because they can be reversed. Rabbi Meir however limits the distinction to cases where the vessel has loops on the outside through which one can put a belt or something else. If a vessel has loops sewn on the outside, then it is clear what side is supposed to face out and what side is supposed to face in. However, if there are no loops than the vessel could be turned inside out and used either way. In such a case there is no way to determine what is inside and what is outside. Therefore, it doesn't matter what side the impure liquid comes into contact with. It is impure.", + "A table and a side-board have [different laws] for outer and inner sides, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: they do not have a different law for their outer sides. According to Rabbi Judah, the side of a table or side-table that is used is considered to be the inside. If an impure liquid touches this side, both sides are impure. However, the back side is the outside and if the liquid touches there, the inside remains pure. Rabbi Meir rules that such rules do not apply tables.", + "The same applies to a frame. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir have the same argument concerning a tray. Rabbi Judah says that the face of the tray is considered its \"inside\" whereas Rabbi Meir holds that both sides are considered \"inside.\"" + ], + [ + "An ox-goad has different laws for its outer and inner parts, [The outer part is] the seven handbreadths from the broad blade and four handbreadths from the point, the words of Rabbi Judah. An ox-goad is the stick which was used to drive the oxen (to goad them on). On one end was a point. The other end was a broad piece of iron that was also used for plowing and for cleaning the dirt off the plow. According to Rabbi Judah beyond seven handbreadths on the piece of iron and four handbreadths on the point is considered the outer part of the ox-goad. If impure liquids come into contact with the ox-goad beyond these two points, the \"inner\" part of the ox-goad remains pure.", + "Rabbi Meir says: it is not to [subject to such distinction], the four and the seven handbreadths were mentioned only in regard to its remnants. Rabbi Meir again disagrees and holds that there is no \"inner\" or \"outer\" portion for an ox-goad. He does admit that the numbers four and seven handbreadths were mentioned by earlier generations of sages. But he holds that these numbers were mentioned with regard to the remnants of an ox-goad, not with regard to the \"inner\" or \"outer\" sides. According to Rabbi Meir, if seven handbreadths of the blade or four handbreadths of the point remain, the ox-goad is still impure (or susceptible to impurity). Less than that and the ox-goad is pure." + ], + [ + "Measures of wine or oil, a fork-ladle, a mustard-strainer and a wine-filter have an outer and inner side, the words of Rabbi Meir. A \"fork-ladle\" is an instrument with a ladle on one end and a fork on the other end. According to Rabbi Meir, all of these vessels have inner and outer sides, so if an impure liquid touches them on the outer side, the inner side remains pure.", + "Rabbi Judah says: they do not have. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that they do not have inner and outer sides. No matter where the liquid touches, the entire vessel is impure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: they do have, for if their outer parts contracted uncleanness that which is inside remains clean, and immersion is required. Rabbi Shimon seems to bridge between these two opinions. These vessels do, in some sense, have inner and outer sides, and if an impure liquid comes into contact with the outer side, the content on the inside remains clean. However, the entire vessel requires immersion in order to purify it, even the inside of the vessel. In other words, the paradox is the inside of the vessel requires immersion, but the contents are clean." + ], + [ + "If [in a measure consisting of] a quarter [of a log] and half a quarter [of a log] the quarter measure contracted uncleanness, the half-quarter measure does not become unclean, and if the half-quarter contracted uncleanness the quarter does not become unclean. Today's mishnah deals with a measuring vessel that has two measures built into one vessel one that measures a quarter-log of liquid (about 1/2 a liter) and the other that measures a half-quarter of a log (about 250 ml). There is a partition that separates the two sides of the vessel. According to the first opinion, which later will be identified with Rabbi Akiva, both sides are basically considered to be independent vessels. If one measure becomes unclean, the other measure remains clean. In other words, one vessel is not the inside vessel and the other the outside.", + "They argued before Rabbi Akiva: since the half quarter measure is the outer part of the quarter measure, should not the outer side of the vessel whose inner side contracted uncleanness become unclean? Some other figures, whose names are not mentioned, argue in front of Rabbi Akiva. These are probably students, as can be sensed from the way that Rabbi Akiva addresses them. In any case, they argue that since the main measuring cup is the half-quarter log, it should be considered the \"inner\" vessel. So if the inner, half-quarter log is defiled, the outer measure, the quarter-log, should also be considered impure.", + "He answered them: Are you sure that it belongs to the category [of vessels] that have inner [and outer] parts? Perhaps the quarter is to be regarded as the outer side of the half quarter and, surely, the inner side of a vessel does not become unclean if the outer side contracted uncleanness. Rabbi Akiva responds by noting that their assumption that the half-quarter is the inner vessel may not be correct. Rather, the half-quarter might be the outer vessel, in which case the other side is pure. Therefore, we have to treat each side as if it might be the outside, in which case no matter which side is defiled, the other side remains pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss the measuring vessel that has two sides one of a quarter log and one of a half-quarter.", + "If the [inside of the] quarter contracted uncleanness, the quarter and its outer side are unclean, but the half quarter and its outer side remain clean. Having determined in yesterday's mishnah that each vessel is independent, the mishnah now deals with the thorny issue of their shared wall. If the inside of the quarter log became unclean, its own outer side is also unclean. However, the walls of the vessel that surround the half-quarter measuring cup remain clean.", + "If the [inside of the] half quarter contracted uncleanness, the half quarter and its outer side are unclean, but the quarter and its outer side remain clean. The same rules apply if the inside of the half-quarter vessel become unclean.", + "If the outer side of the quarter contracted uncleanness,the outer side of the half quarter remains clean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the outer side cannot be divided. According to Rabbi Meir, if the outer wall of the quarter vessel becomes unclean, only this outer wall is unclean. The outer wall of the half-quarter remains clean. In other words, although this wall surrounds the entire vessel, we look at it as if it were divided in half and only the part that surrounds the quarter is unclean. The other sages disagree and say that you can't divide the wall of a vessel in half. So if the outer wall of either side becomes unclean, both outer walls are considered unclean.", + "When he immerses the vessel, he must immerse the whole thing. Despite the fact that it is possible for one side to be clean and the other to be unclean, when he immerses the vessel, he must immerse both sides. If he does not do so, the vessel remains unclean. Note that this is similar to the end of mishnah three." + ], + [ + "The bases, rims, hangers or handles of vessels that have a receptacle upon which an unclean liquid fell, one dries them and they remain clean. If an unclean liquid falls on an ancillary part of a vessel, such as its base, rim, hanger or handle, the entire vessel need not be immersed in the mikveh. It is sufficient to dry off the liquid and the vessel will remain clean. However, this is true only if the vessel is one that has a receptacle. In such a case we can distinguish between the main part of the vessel and its ancillary parts.", + "But [if unclean liquid fell] on any part of any other vessel which cannot hold pomegranates (or in which no distinction is made between its outer and inner, the whole becomes unclean. If the vessel cannot hold pomegranates, meaning it does not have a proper receptacle (see 17:1, 4), then no matter where the unclean liquid falls the whole vessel is impure. Alternatively, if the vessel is the type that is not considered to have an inside or an inside, which would preclude vessels with receptacles, then similarly the impure liquid defiles the whole thing. In such cases we can't distinguish between the main part of the vessel (the receptacle) and the ancillary parts, so we must treat the entire vessel as impure.", + "If the outer side of a vessel contracted uncleanness from a liquid, only its outer side is unclean but its inner side, rim, hanger and handles remain clean. If its inner side contracted uncleanness the whole is unclean. This section contains the general rule that has been mentioned throughout the chapter. If the outside becomes unclean, the inside is still clean, but if the inside becomes unclean, the outside is unclean. It is interesting to note that the Mishnah waits a full six mishnayot before providing us with the background which we need in order to understand what we're talking about. This demonstrates that the Mishnah is not a didactic text meant to teach students who do not know the Mishnah's laws. Rather, the Mishnah is better understood as a recording of the main halakhot and some discussions that serve as the background to rabbinic law and culture. Put another way in order to understand the Mishnah, you have to already know the Mishnah. If this makes it a bit frustrating for the beginning student, you can be thankful that we have two thousand years of commentary to help us along the way!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the \"bet tzviah\" the rabbinic word for the place where the vessel is held. This is not a handle but rather an indentation in the wall of the vessel from where the vessel can be held. It is considered part of both the inner and outer sides of the vessel. If unclean liquids touch the bet tzviah the inner and outer sides remain pure. And if the outer part of the vessel becomes impure, the bet tzviah is still pure. But if the inner side of the vessel becomes impure, the entire vessel is impure.\nIn the mishnah various sages debate the applicability of this law.", + "All vessels have outer and inner sides and have a part by which they are held. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, all vessels have a part by which they are held. This means that the rule reported in the introduction can apply to any vessel that has an indentation by which the vessel may be held.", + "Rabbi Tarfon says: this applies only to a large wooden [kneading] trough. Rabbi Tarfon limits this rule to a large wooden trough. The result is that if impure liquids came into contact with the outside of the trough, he can hold the trough by this part without his hands being defiled. This might be important if the kneader wants to ensure the purity of the bread, such that pure hallah could be separated from it and given to the kohen. But when it comes to other vessels, they are not considered as having a bet tzviah.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: it applies to cups. Rabbi Akiva says that the rule [also] applies to cups. This will allow one to drink from a cup whose outer side has become impure without defiling one's hands and perhaps defiling the contents of the cup.", + "Rabbi Meir says: it applies to unclean and clean hands. According to Rabbi Meir, if one's hands are unclean and the outer side of the vessel is clean and there is some liquid on the outside of the vessel, one can hold the bet tzviah and need not be concerned lest these liquids become unclean and defile the vessel. This is what Rabbi Meir means when he says that these laws apply to unclean hands. Tomorrow's mishnah will explain how they apply to clean hands, so stay tuned!", + "Rabbi Yose says: they said this only concerning clean hands. Rabbi Yose limits the applicability of these laws to clean hands. This shall be explained in tomorrow's mishnah. But if he has clean hands and he holds the vessel by its bet tzviah, he must be concerned lest the liquids were defiled and they would thereby defile the cup." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches how the laws of the \"bet tzviah\" the indentation on a cup (or other vessel) through which the vessel may be held applies to clean hands. This was a point of agreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose at the end of yesterday's mishnah.", + "How so?
If one's hands were clean and the outer side of a cup was unclean, one may hold it by its holding-place and need not be concerned lest his hands have contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup. If one has clean hands that have some liquid on them, and he wants to hold an impure cup without defiling the liquids on his hands which would then defile his hands, he can hold the cup by the bet tzviah, the holding place. In such a case he need not be concerned lest his hands accidentally touched the outside of the cup.", + "If one was drinking from a cup whose outer side was unclean he need not be concerned lest the liquid in his mouth contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup and that it then conveyed uncleanness to the cup. This section is independent of the halakhah taught in section one. It is brought here because of the similar formula \"he need not be concerned.\" If one is drinking from a cup whose outer side is impure and whose inner side is pure he does not have to be concerned that the liquid in his mouth became impure and then conveyed impurity to the inside of the cup.", + "If a kettle was boiling one need not be concerned lest liquid should come out from it and touch its outer side and return again within it. The kettle is impure on the outside and pure on the inside. If one is boiling water in the kettle he need not be concerned lest the water boils over, becomes impure upon contact with the outside of the kettle and then spills back inside and conveys impurity to the inside of the kettle." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter twenty-five gives a few general rules concerning the purity of vessels.", + "Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. The laws concerning holy vessels are more stringent than the laws governing regular vessels. Therefore, if one side of a holy vessel becomes impure, the entire vessel is impure. Similarly, the holding place is not considered separate from the rest of the vessel. If any part of the vessel is impure, even the holding place is impure.", + "One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. It is possible to purify multiple non-sacred vessels by immersing one vessel within another one in a mikveh. But the laws governing holy vessels are more stringent. Each vessel must be immersed separately.", + "All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention. This section contains a crucial general principle with regard to the purity of vessels. Generally, a vessel is susceptible to impurity once its manufacturing has been completed. However, a vessel can become susceptible to impurity merely by intention, even if its manufacturing does not seem to be complete. For instance, if one has not fully completed the manufacturing of a vessel, but then decides that he is not going to work on it anymore and that he is going to use it as is, it is susceptible at that point to impurity (see 22:2, 26:5, 7). But if he has a vessel that is already susceptible to impurity and then he decides to modify it into a vessel that is not susceptible, it remains susceptible until he actually changes it. In other words, intent to use something as a vessel is sufficient to make it susceptible to impurity, but intent to change a vessel into a non-vessel is not sufficient. The mishnah further clarifies physical changes wrought on a vessel can annul both the original manufacturing of the vessel or the intent the person had to use the vessel before it was ready. Put another way physically modifying a vessel can make it no longer susceptible to impurity (see 20:6, 26:9). However, intent cannot annul the original intent to use the vessel in a certain manner, or the original manufacturing. Intention is weaker than action (a good motto for life, if you ask me)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapters 26-28 deal with vessels made of leather and cloth. The general rule with regard to these vessels was stated in 2:1 if they are simple, they are clean but if they form a receptacle they are susceptible to impurity.\nToday's mishnah lists four vessels that are either laced or tied up.", + "An Imki sandal and a laced-up bag, Rabbi Judah says: also an Egyptian basket; Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: also to a Lattakian sandal can be made susceptible to uncleanness and again be made insusceptible without the aid of a craftsman. The \"Imki sandal\" seems to have been made in a village called Imki. We don't really know much more about how this sandal was formed. Assumedly, it was a distinct enough brand that it would have been known to all by name. An \"Egyptian basket\" is woven from branches of palm trees. Lattakian sandals come from the town with that name in Syria, and assumedly they were distinctive as well. The commonality of all of these vessels is that even a lay person, one who is not a craftsman, can make these vessels and cause them to be susceptible to impurity. Such a person can also undo the vessels so that they are no longer susceptible to impurity. For instance, a non-expert can put the laces into a laced bag and thereby make it susceptible to impurity. He can also remove the laces and flatten the bag out such that the bag is no longer susceptible (we will learn more about the lace-bag in particular in tomorrow's mishnah).", + "Rabbi Yose said: But can't all vessels be made susceptible to uncleanness and again insusceptible without the aid of a craftsman? Rather, these, even when they are unlaced are susceptible to uncleanness since a layman is able to restore them. They spoke only of an Egyptian basket which even a craftsman cannot [easily] restore. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that all vessels can be made by a non-expert, if he knows how to do so. In other words, if a non-expert succeeds in making any vessel, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. And if he succeeds in taking it apart, it is no longer susceptible. In this respect, these four vessels are not unique. While Rabbi Yose disagrees with the previous halakhah, he does acknowledge that these vessels are in some ways distinct from others. They were indeed \"mentioned\" in an older list and moreover, this list is connected to the distinction between acts performed by a craftsman and acts performed by a layman. The distinctiveness of these vessels is that even when they are untied, they are still susceptible to impurity because even a non-expert can retie and refashion them into a vessel. Of the vessels mentioned in section one, only the Egyptian basket is clean when it is untied because even an expert has trouble retying this vessel. Since this vessel is so hard to tie once it has been untied, it differs from the other vessels, and it is pure when untied." + ], + [ + "A laced-up bag whose laces were removed is still susceptible to uncleanness; But if it was made flat it is pure. If the laces from a lace-bag are completely removed, it is still susceptible to impurity. It only becomes pure if it is flattened out such that it does not have a receptacle (see yesterday's mishnah).", + "If a strip of cloth has been put on it below, it is susceptible. By taking a strip of cloth and sewing it below the lace-bag he changes the lace-bag into a regular pouch without laces. If he does so, it has a receptacle and it is susceptible to impurity.", + "If a bag was within another bag and one of them became unclean from a liquid, the other does not become unclean. In this case the rabbis were lenient because liquids defile vessels only \"derabbanan\" from rabbinic decree. According to Torah law, liquids cannot convey impurity to vessels. Therefore, if one bag was inside another bag and one bag came into contact with an unclean liquid, only that bag is defiled. The other bag remains pure.", + "A pearl pouch is susceptible to uncleanness. A pearl pouch is a small piece of leather sewed up to protect a pearl. It is susceptible to impurity.", + "A money pouch: Rabbi Eliezer says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is pure. Rabbi Eliezer says that a money pouch is susceptible in the same way that a pearl pouch is. Both have receptacles, and therefore both can become impure. The sages disagree. A money pouch is opened frequently and when it is opened it no longer has a receptacle. Since it is so frequently found in its \"simple\" state, without a receptacle, it is considered a \"simple\" vessel and is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with various types of protective clothing worn by fruit-pickers.", + "The hand-coverings of thorn-pickers are pure. The hand-coverings used by thorn-pickers are simple pieces of leather, not fashioned fully into gloves. Since they do not have a receptacle, they are pure.", + "A belt and leg guards are susceptible to uncleanness. However, their belt or leg-guards are susceptible either because they do have receptacles or because they are considered to be vessels.", + "Sleeves are susceptible to uncleanness. The sleeves referred to here are not attached to a shirt, but are independent. They are susceptible for they are considered vessels, even though they don't have a receptacle.", + "But hand-coverings are pure. But hand-coverings (these are different from those mentioned in section one) are not susceptible.", + "All finger-coverings are pure except that of fig-pickers, since the latter holds the sumac berries. If it was torn, if it cannot hold the greater part of a sumac berry it is pure. Fruit-pickers would use finger-coverings to protect their fingers while harvesting the fruit. Generally these finger-coverings are simple pieces of leather and are pure. The exception is the finger-coverings used by fig-pickers for they would use these finger-coverings to hold sumac berries. If the fig-pickers finger-coverings were torn, they could no longer hold berries and they would be pure." + ], + [ + "A sandal, one of whose holes was broken but was then fixed, retains its midras uncleanness. If a second hole was broken and it was fixed, it is free from midras uncleanness but is unclean from contact with midras. If the second hole was broken before the first could be mended, it is clean. The sandal has two holes through which straps are put in to tie the sandal to the shoe. The mishnah deals with the purity of the sandal when one or both of these holes are broken. This type of mishnah, one which distinguishes between something that has midras uncleanness and something that had contact with midras uncleanness can be found in 18:6-7. My explanation here is similar to my explanation there. If one hole was broken, and then it was fixed, the whole sandal and even the part with the new hole, retain the midras uncleanness that was there in the original sandal. This is because the new hole is part of the old sandal and the old sandal never lost its impurity. However, if the second hole broke and then he repaired it as well, the sandal lost its original midras impurity because it is considered new. Although the original midras impurity is gone, the sandal does have a lesser degree of impurity because it was in contact with something that had midras impurity. When the first hole was repaired it contacted impurity from the rest of the sandal. And even when the second hole broke, and the sandal lost the impurity it had, it did not lose the impurity it had by being in contact with other impure parts of the sandal. This is because the bed continued to be usable. If both holes were broken at the same time, then the sandal is completely pure, even from contact with midras. This is because when both holes are broken, the sandal cannot be used.", + "If its heel was torn off, or if its toe-piece was removed, or if it was torn in two, it becomes clean. In these cases the sandal is unusable and therefore it is pure.", + "A heel-less slipper that was torn anywhere becomes clean. The heel-less slipper has a forefoot but no heel (duh!). Since it is so insubstantial, any missing part renders it is unusable and pure.", + "A shoe that was damaged becomes clean if it cannot contain the greater part of the foot. If any shoe is damaged so much that it doesn't hold even the greater part of the foot, meaning at least half of the foot, it is pure.", + "A shoe that is still on the last: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is insusceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is susceptible. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the shoe's manufacturing is not considered to be complete until it is removed from the last, the model upon which the shoe is formed. The sages disagree and rule that as long as the work on the shoe has been completed, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "All water skins whose holes have been tied up are insusceptible to uncleanness, except for Arabian ones. Rabbi Meir says: if they are tied up for a while, they are clean; but if they are tied with a permanent knot they are unclean. Rabbi Yose says: all tied up water skins are clean. The mishnah now begins to deal with water skins. If they have simply been tied up but not sewn shut, they are not fully usable and therefore are pure. They need to be sewn in order to hold in water well. The one exception is the Arabian water skin which was customarily tied tightly and not sewn. Rabbi Meir says that if the tie is temporary, meant to last only a short time, the skin is not considered a vessel and is pure. But if it is tied with a permanent tie, then it is a vessel and is susceptible. Rabbi Yose disagrees with both previous opinions. All water skins that are tied up are pure, even Arabian ones, and even ones that are permanently tied. A water skin needs to be sewn in order to be considered a vessel." + ], + [ + "The following hides are susceptible to midras uncleanness: A hide which he intended to use as a rug, A hide used as an apron, A hide used as the lower covering of a bed, A hide used by a donkey-driver, A hide used by a flax-worker, A hide used by a porter, A hide used by a doctor, A hide used for a crib, A hide put over a child's chest, A hide for a cushion. A hide for a covering. All these are susceptible to midras uncleanness. For a hide to be subject to midras uncleanness it must be either sat, laid or leaned upon. All of the following hides fit this criterion. I shall explain the ones that seem to require some explanation. A hide used by a donkey-driver: While usually put over his clothing, sometimes he would sit on this hide. A hide used by a flax-worker: Placed in front of the flax-worker to protect him while he beats the flax. A hide used by a porter: The hide covers his shoulders. A hide used by a doctor: As an apron. A hide put over a child's chest: Like a bib. While the main use of these hides is not necessarily for sitting, leaning or lying down, they are sometimes used in this manner and therefore they are susceptible to midras impurity.", + "A hide for wrapping up combed wool and a hide worn by a wool-comber: Rabbi Eliezer says it is susceptible to midras, But the sages say that it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the hide used to cover combed wool and the hide used to protect wool-worker are also susceptible to midras, because sometimes one might sit or lie on them. The sages disagree and say that these types of hides are not sat or laid upon and therefore are susceptible only to corpse impurity, which is true of all vessels." + ], + [ + "A bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to midras. Since these leather bags or wrappers are occasionally sat upon, they are susceptible to midras.", + "A bag or wrapper for purple wool: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras, But Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness. Purple wool was more expensive than regular cloth. Due to its expense, Bet Hillel holds that one would not use a bag or wrapper of purple wool for sitting or lying upon. Bet Shammai disagrees and does not differentiate between wrappers and bags for regular clothing and wrappers or bags for purple wool.", + "A hide which was made to be a covering for vessels is not susceptible to uncleanness, but for weights it is susceptible. Rabbi Yose says in the name of his father that it is pure. A hide that is simply used as a covering for regular vessels does not have a receptacle and therefore is free from impurity. However, a hide used as a covering for weights used on scales does have a receptacle, so it is not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose states in the name of his father, R. Halafta, that even hides used to cover weights are not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAbove, in 25:9 we learned that vessels can become susceptible to impurity by virtue of the fact that a person intends to use them in their current state, even though their manufacturing has not been entirely completed. Our mishnah limits that halakhah.", + "Whenever no act is lacking, intention alone causes a vessel to be susceptible to uncleanness, If a given article is in a physical state in which it can be used, it is susceptible to impurity as soon as a person decides to use it, even if its manufacturing has not been fully completed. Let's take a table for instance. If it was usable and the owner decided to not polish it and use it immediately, the table is susceptible.", + "But whenever an act is lacking, intention alone does not render it susceptible to uncleanness, except for a fur cover. But if the article cannot be used, then merely intending to use it does not render it susceptible to impurity. The exception to this rule is a fur cover, put over a saddle. This fur cover is susceptible as soon as a person decides to use it, even though he has not yet fully cut it into its proper shape. The reason for its \"early\" susceptibility is that it is not unusual for people to use unshaped pieces of fur to cover the saddle." + ], + [ + "The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. If a householder, a non-professional, owns a hide, as soon as he decides that it is ready for use it is susceptible to impurity (providing it is usable in its current state). However, the same is not true of a tanner. Even if he decides to use a hide before its processing is fully completed, it is still not susceptible to impurity for he is likely to change his mind and go back and finish the hide's processing. In other words, since the tanner is a professional, he is less likely to be satisfied with less than perfect results. Therefore, his intention is less final.", + "Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber do not become susceptible by mere intention. A \"thief\" is a person who surreptitiously steals something. His identity will not be known to those from whom he stole. A \"robber\" is someone who violently takes something in broad daylight. His identity will be known. According to the first opinion, if a thief steals something, the owners' will lose all hope of getting it back because they don't know who stole it. Therefore, the thief's intentions determine whether the article is susceptible to impurity. But if a robber robs something, they will have hope of recovering the item, and therefore his intention is not determinative.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief do not become susceptible by intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery. Rabbi Shimon reverses the reasoning expressed by the previous opinion. When a thief steals something, the owner hopes to get it back, because all he must do is discover who the thief is and he will be able to recover his item. But when a robber robs a person, right in front of their eyes and there was nothing they could do to stop it, the owner loses hope of recovering the item. [Note there is little faith in any form of law enforcement]. Therefore, a robber's intentions are determinative, and a thief's are not." + ], + [ + "If a hide had contracted midras uncleanness and its owner then intended it to be used for straps or sandals, it becomes clean as soon as he put the knife to it, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: it does not become clean until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths. The hide mentioned here is one that has already been designated for a use and then contracted midras uncleanness. The owner then decided to cut the hide up and use the leather for straps or sandals. Leather cut into straps for such use is pure (until it is attached to another vessel). According to Rabbi Judah, as soon as he begins to cut the leather up, it loses its status as a hide and it becomes pure. The other sages argue that it is not pure until it is reduced to a size of less than five handbreadths. A piece of hide less than five handbreadths in size is not considered usable (we will learn this in 27:2) and is pure. But simply beginning to cut the hide is not a sufficient act to free it from its impurity.", + "Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: even if one made a napkin from a hide it remains unclean, But if [he made one from] a covering it becomes clean. According to Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok, if one makes a small napkin out of a large hide used as a rug, the hide is still impure because a napkin is considered just a small rug. Merely reducing the size of a hide is not the type of physical change required to rid it of its impurity, because the leather is still being used in the same manner. However, if he changes a covering into a napkin he has changed the nature of the hide's usage. In this case, even though he changed it into another item that is susceptible to impurity (a napkin is susceptible), it loses its old impurity. While the new item will be susceptible, the impurity that was within the hide is gone." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Cloth is susceptible to five categories of uncleanness;
Sack-cloth is susceptible to four;
Leather to three;
Wood to two;
And an earthenware vessel to one.
An earthenware vessel is susceptible to uncleanness [only] as a receptacle; any earthen vessel that has no inner part is not susceptible to uncleanness from its outer part.
Wood is subject to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Similarly a tablet which has no rim is susceptible to uncleanness if it is a wooden object and insusceptible if it is an earthenware one.
Leather is susceptible to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to the uncleanness of a tent.
Sack-cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness as woven work.
Cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness when it is only three by three fingerbreadths.
Section one: There are five different ways in which cloth can become impure, and each way differs from the other in respect to how large a piece of cloth there needs to be for it to be susceptible. The first is a piece of cloth that has a receptacle. In such a case even the smallest piece of cloth is susceptible. The second is cloth that is either sat or laid upon. Such cloth is susceptible if it is three handbreadths. The third is a piece of cloth that functions as a \"tent,\" meaning an overhanging. In such a case, the smallest piece of cloth is sufficient. The fourth is a woven piece of cloth; again, the smallest piece is susceptible. The fifth is that a piece of cloth that is three by three handbreadths is susceptible.
Sections two-five: Below, the mishnah will explain these categories.
Section six: If an earthenware vessel does not have a receptacle, meaning an \"inside,\" then even its outside is not susceptible to impurity.
Section seven: Wood can become impure by having a receptacle, like earthenware. Even without a receptacle, it is impure if it is made for sitting.
If one makes a wood tablet without a frame it is susceptible to impurity, whereas an earthenware tablet without a frame is pure because it does not have a receptacle.
Section eight: Leather that hangs over a dead body is impure, but if a wood or earthenware vessel hangs over a dead body, the vessel remains pure.
Section nine: If sack-cloth is woven, even the smallest piece is susceptible to impurity.
Section ten: As explained in section one, a piece of cloth is susceptible to impurity if it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths." + ], + [ + "Cloth is susceptible to midras uncleanness when it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths, and to corpse uncleanness when it is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. Sack-cloth when it is four handbreadths by four handbreadths. Leather, five handbreadths by five handbreadths. And matting, six handbreadths by six handbreadths. [All of these] are equally susceptible to both midras and corpse uncleanness. This section provides minimum sizes for various materials to be susceptible to impurity. When it comes to cloth, there is a distinction between the minimum size susceptible to midras impurity and corpse impurity. For a piece of cloth to be susceptible to midras, it must be a piece of cloth that someone might use for sitting on or laying upon. Thus it must be at least three by three handbreadths. But for it to be susceptible to corpse impurity it need be only three by three fingerbreadths, which is quite a small piece of cloth. We can learn from here of the value of cloth during the mishnaic period people would save pieces as small as one's fist. When it comes to the other materials, there is no distinction between the minimum size to be susceptible to midras or corpse impurity. We should also note that the mishnah demonstrates the relative value of materials. Cloth was most valuable, then the coarser sack-cloth, then leather and finally matting, which was made from reeds.", + "Rabbi Meir says: what remains of sack-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness if it is four handbreadths, but when in its first condition [it becomes susceptible only after its manufacture] is completed. Rabbi Meir partially modifies the halakhah found in section one. Sack-cloth that remains from a larger piece of sack-cloth is impure as long as four handbreadths by four handbreadths remain. This accords with the previous opinion. However, when one first manufactures a piece of sack-cloth, it is not susceptible to impurity until it is finished. If it is unfinished, it is not susceptible, even if it is larger than four by four handbreadths." + ], + [ + "If one made up a piece of material from two handbreadths of cloth and one of sack-cloth, or of three of sack-cloth and one of leather or four of leather and one of matting, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. In this section, the piece added is subject to lesser restrictions, and therefore the entire piece is not susceptible to impurity. For instance, cloth needs to be three handbreadths to be susceptible (greater restrictions) and sack-cloth must be four (lesser restrictions). If he takes two pieces of cloth and adds one piece of sack-cloth, it is not susceptible, even though there are three handbreadths altogether.", + "If the piece of material was made up of five handbreadths of matting and one of leather or four of leather and one of sack-cloth, or three of sack-cloth and one of cloth it is susceptible to uncleanness. In contrast, matting must be six handbreadths (lesser restrictions) but leather only five (greater restrictions). So if he takes one handbreadth of leather and adds it to five handbreadths of matting, it is susceptible.", + "This is the general rule: if the material added is subject to greater restrictions it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if the material added was subject to lesser restrictions it is not susceptible. This is the general rule that explains the halakhot in sections one and two." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a person who takes a piece of one of the materials mentioned in mishnah two and cuts off a swatch one handbreadth by one handbreadth in order to sit on it.", + "If one cut off from any of these a piece one by one handbreadth it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one takes a piece of cloth, leather, sack-cloth or matting and makes a one square handbreadth swatch in order to sit upon it, it is susceptible to midras impurity. The sages provided minimum measures which a piece of cloth needs to be to be susceptible, but only in cases where the cloth was not meant for a seat.", + "[If one cut off a one by one handbreadth piece] from the bottom of a basket it is susceptible to uncleanness. The same rule applies if one cuts off a piece of material from the bottom of a basket.", + "If one cut off from the sides of the basket: Rabbi Shimon says that it is not susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say one who cuts off a square handbreadth from anywhere, it is susceptible to uncleanness. There is a debate over whether a one square piece cut from the sides of the basket is susceptible. Rabbi Shimon holds that it is not. Albeck proposes that the sides of the basket are curved and not good for sitting, unless he reshapes the material. Therefore, simply cutting a piece from the sides to sit upon does not make it susceptible to uncleanness. The other sages disagree and say that even a piece cut from the side is susceptible." + ], + [ + "Worn-out pieces of a sifter or a sieve that were adapted for use as a seat: Rabbi Akiva rules that they are susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages rule that they are not susceptible unless their rough ends were cut off. If one takes a worn-out sifter or sieve and cuts a piece out of it to use as a seat (not really sure how comfy this must have been, but what do I know?), Rabbi Akiva says that it is immediately susceptible to impurity. The other sages say that before it can be considered a seat he must cut off the rough edges (see 20:4 for a similar dispute).", + "A child's stool that has legs, even though it is less than a handbreadth high, is susceptible to uncleanness. A child's stool (meaning chair, not the other kind ☺) need not be one handbreadth high to be susceptible to impurity.", + "A child's shirt: Rabbi Eliezer rules it is susceptible to uncleanness at any size. But the sages rule: it is susceptible only if it is of the prescribed size, and it is measured when doubled over. According to Rabbi Eliezer, a child's shirt can be of the smallest size and still be susceptible because it is considered a vessel. The other sages say that even a child's shirt must fulfill the minimum sizes mentioned in mishnah two. If it is made of cloth, it must be three handbreadths square and it is measured on each side, i.e. the front must be three by three and the back must be three by three as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah we learned that a child's shirt is measured when doubled, meaning that it needs to be three handbreadths square on both sides. Today's mishnah teaches that there are other pieces of clothing that are measured doubled.", + "The following are measured when doubled: Felt socks, long stockings, pants, a cap and a money-belt. All of these articles of clothing are measured \"doubled,\" meaning they must have three square handbreadths in the front and back for them to be susceptible to impurity.", + "As regards a patch sewn on the hem, if it was simple it is measured simple, but if it was doubled it is measured when doubled. If he sewed the patch on one side of the hem, then it is measured \"singly\" but if he sewed it on two sides, then it is measured doubled." + ], + [ + "If a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three by three handbreadths, and then it contracted midras uncleanness, and then he completed the rest of the piece, and then one removed a single thread from the original part, it is free from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. When he makes a piece of cloth that is three by three, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. It then is defiled so that it has midras. When he makes the rest of the cloth, the whole piece of cloth has midras uncleanness. But then when he removes one string from the original three by three, the whole cloth loses midras uncleanness because only the original piece actually had midras, and it is no longer there. However, the cloth still has uncleanness by virtue of its contact with something that had midras. For a similar type of mishnah see 19:5.", + "If he removed a thread from the original part and then he finished the whole cloth, it is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. In this case, first he made the three by three and it became impure and then he reduced it by a single thread, and then completed the rest of the cloth. Even though the cloth was reduced in size before he completed it, thereby losing its midras impurity, the whole cloth is impure by virtue of contact with midras. This is because the three by three piece of cloth is considered as having contact with itself before it was reduced. After it was reduced, although it can no longer have midras impurity, it still has impurity by contact with midras, and when he completes the cloth, the whole thing has impurity by contact with midras." + ], + [ + "Similarly, if a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three [fingerbreadths] square, and it contracted corpse uncleanness, and afterwards he finished the entire piece, and then he removed a single thread from its original part, it is free from corpse uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness. This is virtually the same halakhah as was found in section one of yesterday's mishnah, except that today's mishnah deals with a smaller piece of cloth, three fingerbreadths square. A piece this size cannot contract midras, but it can contract corpse impurity.", + "If a thread was removed from the original part and then all the cloth was finished it remains clean, for the sages have ruled: if a piece of three [fingerbreadths] square is lessened it becomes clean. If a three fingerbreadths piece of cloth contracts corpse uncleanness and then is reduced, it is completely pure. Even if he then enlarges the cloth, there is no impurity left, so the whole cloth is pure.", + "But if one of three handbreadths square is lessened, even though it is released from midras, it is still susceptible to all other forms of uncleanness. This is the difference between the type of impurity contracted by a three fingerbreadths piece of cloth, and one that is three handbreadths. A three handbreadths piece of cloth is still susceptible to other forms of impurity, such as corpse impurity. In contrast, something smaller than three fingerbreadths square is completely pure." + ], + [ + "If a sheet that had contracted midras uncleanness was made into a curtain, it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. Once he turns the sheet into a curtain it loses its midras impurity because it is no longer something that is sat or lain upon. However, the curtain is considered to have had \"contact with itself,\" and therefore it is still unclean by virtue of contact with midras uncleanness.", + "Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had touched it is it unclean from contact with a zav. Rabbi Yose holds that having \"contact with itself\" does not cause something to be impure. In other words, if the sheet/curtain is no longer impure with midras, then it is not impure by virtue of contact with midras. However, this does not necessarily mean that the curtain (former sheet) is pure. If a zav (the one who conveys midras impurity) touched it when it was a sheet, he gave it both midras impurity because he sat on it and contact impurity by touching it. When it becomes a curtain, it loses its midras impurity because it is no longer sat or lain upon, but it retains its impurity by virtue of contact with the zav. Note that if the zav had sat or lain upon the sheet without touching it, it would have only had midras impurity and when it was turned into a sheet it would be completely pure." + ], + [ + "If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square was divided, it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. In order for the piece of cloth to be susceptible to midras uncleanness, it must be three handbreadths square, as we learned in mishnah two. If it is divided in half, each piece can no longer be unclean with midras, but each piece had \"contact with itself.\" Therefore, both pieces retain uncleanness by virtue of contact with midras.", + "Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had touched it is it unclean from contact with a zav. Rabbi Yose's words here are exactly the same as in yesterday's mishnah. Again he holds that impurity is not conveyed by \"contact with itself.\" Therefore, if the two halves of the piece of cloth do not have midras uncleanness, they also do not have uncleanness by contact with midras. Nevertheless, if a zav had actually touched the cloth, it retains the uncleanness contracted through contact with a zav. Such uncleanness is not lost when the cloth becomes less than three handbreadths square, as long as it is at least three fingerbreadths square." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses how strong a small piece of cloth needs to be to be susceptible to impurity.", + "If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square [was found] in a rubbish heap it must be both sound and capable of wrapping up salt; But [if it was found] in the house it need only be either sound or capable of wrapping up salt. For the piece of cloth found in a garbage heap to be susceptible to impurity it must fulfill two conditions, besides the usual stipulation that it be three handbreadths square. First of all, it must be sound, meaning of strong quality so that it doesn't easily tear. Second, it must not have holes in it, so that it could be used to bundle up salt without the salt passing through. In contrast, a piece of cloth found in a house is more easily susceptible to impurity, because no one has discarded it. Thus it only needs to fulfill one of the criteria either strong quality or no holes (can carry salt).", + "How much salt must it be capable of wrapping up? A quarter of a kav. Rabbi Judah says: this refers to fine salt, But the sages stated: it refers to coarse salt. Both intended to be lenient. The rabbis disagree as to what type of salt the cloth must be able to carry. According to Rabbi Judah it must be able to hold fine salt, whereas the sages say it needs to hold coarse salt. It would seem that Rabbi Judah is lenient, because he holds that the cloth is pure unless it can hold even fine salt, and that the sages are more stringent. However, the mishnah says that both the sages and Rabbi Judah intended to be lenient. Rabbi Judah was lenient as we explained above. But even the sages are lenient because they hold that the cloth is not susceptible unless it is strong enough to hold a quarter of a kav of coarse salt without the salt melting. Since coarse salt will last longer, the cloth will have to last longer to protect the salt.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: the law concerning a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square found in a rubbish heap is the same as that for a piece of cloth that was three [fingerbreadths] square in a house. Rabbi Shimon holds that just as a three fingerbreadths square piece of cloth that is found in a house is not susceptible to midras, but is susceptible to other types of impurity, so too a three handbreadths square piece of cloth found in a garbage heap is not susceptible to midras, but is susceptible to other forms of impurity." + ], + [ + "[A piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was torn: if he put it on a chair, and his skin touches the chair, it is pure; And if not, it remains impure. The piece of cloth described here is torn, but has not yet been completely torn into two pieces. Therefore, we need a test to determine whether or not it is still considered one piece of cloth such that it should be susceptible to midras impurity. If when one puts the cloth on a chair and then sits on the chair, one's skin touches the chair, the cloth is considered as if it had been torn completely, and it is not susceptible. If the cloth does block his contact with the chair, then it is considered to be whole and is still susceptible to impurity.", + "[A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square one thread of which was worn away, or in which a knot was found, or in which two threads ran alongside each other, is pure. The piece of cloth here is exactly large enough to be susceptible to impurity, but in some way something is awry with one of the strings. Either one of the strings was worn out, or a knot was found in one of the strings, or two of the strings ran parallel and not opposed to each other, as is supposed to be the case in woven garments. In all of these cases the cloth is considered to be smaller than three fingerbreadths and therefore it is pure.", + "[A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was thrown on the rubbish heap becomes pure. If he brought it back, it it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. Throwing away a small piece of cloth renders it pure because it is no longer considered of use. Taking it back renders it again susceptible.", + "Throwing it away always renders it pure and taking it back renders it susceptible to uncleanness, except when it is of purple or fine crimson. There are two exceptions to the rule in section three purple and fine crimson cloth. Since these are such expensive materials, even throwing them away does not render them free from uncleanness.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: a patch of new cloth is also subject to the same law. Rabbi Eliezer says that the same exception applies to a new piece of cloth. Since it is new, it is more important and even throwing it away does not render it free from impurity.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: all these materials become pure; they were mentioned only in connection with the return of lost property. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the anonymous opinion in section four. All material is free from impurity when it is thrown into the garbage heap. However, there is a difference between purple and crimson cloth and regular cloth in that if one finds the former in the trash heap he must announce that he has found them in an attempt to find the owners. The assumption is that no one would throw away such fine cloth. But if one finds a piece of regular cloth in the trash heap, one can assume that it was intentionally thrown away and he may keep it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "[A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was stuffed into a ball or was itself made into a ball is clean.
But [a piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was stuffed into a ball remains unclean.
If he made it into a ball itself, it is clean because the sewing reduces its size.
Section one: By making this small piece of cloth either into a ball or using it as stuffing for a ball, the cloth loses its importance and it becomes clean from impurity. Note that this does not mean that the ball is necessarily clean. It just means that the piece of cloth that used to be unclean has shed its impurity.
Section two: In contrast, if one takes a larger piece of cloth and puts it into a ball it is still susceptible to impurity because it is still significant. However, if he sews the cloth into a ball itself, it still loses its impurity because it loses its size. A ball that is made of a less than three handbreadths piece of cloth is not large enough to be susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "[A piece of cloth] less than three [handbreadths] square that was adapted for the purpose of stopping up a hole in a bath house, of emptying a cooking-pot or of wiping with it the mill stones, whether it was or was not kept in readiness for any such use, is susceptible to uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. According to Rabbi Eliezer, any time a worn-out piece of cloth that was too small to be impure was adapted for a specific use it goes back to being susceptible to impurity. The cloth might be used to stop up a hole in the floor of a bath-house. It might be used to hold a hot pot so that one could pour out its contents. Or it might be used to wipe up millstones. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cloth is impure whether or not it was previously designated for such usage. In other words, as long as it is being used, it is susceptible.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: whether it was or was not kept in readiness it is pure. Rabbi Joshua completely disagrees and holds that since the cloth is less than three handbreadths and it is worn out, it is no longer susceptible.", + "Rabbi Akiba ruled: if it was kept in readiness it is susceptible, and if it was not kept in readiness it is pure. Rabbi Akiva mediates between these two warring sages. If it was designated for such usage, then it was intentionally not thrown away (see 27:12). In this case it is still susceptible to impurity. However, if it was not designated for such usage, then even using it in such a manner does not change the fact that the cloth was discarded. In such a case, it is not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "If a bandage is made of cloth or leather it is pure. (Rabbi Yose says: with leather it is pure.) A piece of cloth or leather that is used as a bandage on a wound will not afterwards be used for another purpose. Therefore, it is pure. Serving as a bandage is not sufficient for it to be considered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose's words are not found in many manuscripts of the Mishnah and they are probably out of place here. There actual context is mishnah six.", + "A poultice is pure if it is on cloth, but if on leather it is susceptible. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even if it was on cloth it remains susceptible to uncleanness because it can be shaken off. If one puts a poultice on cloth, the cloth will no longer be used for another purpose. Therefore it is pure. However, if he puts it on leather, the leather can be cleaned off and reused. Therefore, the leather remains susceptible to impurity. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that even if put on cloth the poultice could be shaken off and the cloth reused. Therefore, the cloth also remains susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Covers of scrolls, whether they are decorated or not, are susceptible to uncleanness according to the view of Bet Shammai. According to Bet Shammai, one might take a scroll covering and convert it for another usage. Therefore, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "Bet Hillel says: those that are decorated are pure, but those that are not decorated are susceptible. Bet Hillel says that this is true only of an undecorated scroll cover. It might be converted to other usage. However, a decorated scroll cover is not susceptible because one would take such a beautiful scroll cover and use it for some other need. Note that this accords with the mishnah in 24:14.", + "Rabban Gamaliel says: both the former and the latter are pure. Rabban Gamaliel says that even undecorated scroll covers will not be used for another purpose. Therefore they are pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with various cases where one cloth item that is susceptible to impurity is turned into a different item that is also susceptible to impurity. The question is: does it lose its earlier impurity?", + "If a head-wrap that had contracted midras uncleanness was wrapped around a scroll, it is released from midras uncleanness but it remains susceptible to corpse uncleanness. Head-wraps are susceptible to midras impurity for occasionally a person will use it for sitting. However, undecorated scroll covers are susceptible only to corpse uncleanness (see yesterday's mishnah). So when he changes the head-wrap to a scroll cover it loses its midras uncleanness but it is now susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "A skin that was made into a rug or a rug that was made into a skin becomes clean. A skin for carrying liquids is not in the same category as a rug. Therefore, if one changes a skin into a rug or vice versa, the vessel is pure. Note that it is susceptible to impurity; it only loses its old impurity.", + "A skin that was made into a [shepherd's] wallet or a [shepherd's] wallet that was made into a skin; Or a cushion cover that was made into a sheet or a sheet that was made into a cushion cover; Or a sheet cover that was made into a plain sheet or a plain sheet that was made into a sheet cover, remains unclean. In all of these cases he changes something to something else that is in the same general category. Therefore, the object retains its impurity.", + "This is the general rule: any object that has been changed into one of the same class remains unclean, but if into one of another class it becomes clean. This is the general rule that explains the distinction between the case found in section two and that found in section three." + ], + [ + "If a patch was sewn on to a basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness. The piece of cloth (the patch) discussed in today's mishnah was already defiled with midras impurity. Then someone used it to patch up a basket, thereby transforming it from a vessel that is sat upon to a vessel that is not sat upon. The patch loses its midras impurity. The entire basket, including the patch, is now impure by virtue of its contact with something that had midras impurity. This is first degree impurity and anything that touches it will now have second degree impurity. This is what the mishnah means when it states \"it conveys one grade of uncleanness.\" And when terumah touches something with second degree impurity, it becomes \"unfit,\" although it is not impure. This is the meaning of \"one of unfitness.\"", + "If it was separated from the basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, but the patch becomes clean. If he separates the patch from the basket, the basket retains its level of impurity, but the patch is pure. Note that it has shed its midras impurity (see 18:8).", + "If it was sewn on to cloth it conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. If he puts the patch on a piece of cloth, it doesn't lose its midras impurity and all of the cloth becomes impure with midras. This is because the function of the cloth has not changed. Something that has midras impurity is a \"father of uncleanness\" and conveys first degree uncleanness to things that come into contact with it. Therefore, this cloth conveys two degrees of uncleanness (father to first degree to second degree) and one degree of unfitness (second to third degree).", + "If it was separated from the cloth, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, while the patch conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. When it is removed from the cloth, the cloth's level of impurity is reduced. Now it only has \"contact with midras\" impurity, which is first degree. The patch, however, never changed its status, and therefore it still has midras impurity.", + "The same law applies to a patch was sewn on to sacking or leather, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean. Rabbi Yose says: if [it was sewn] on leather it becomes clean; but if on sacking it remains unclean, since the latter is a woven material. According to Rabbi Meir, it doesn't matter whether the cloth onto which the patch was sewn was made of cloth, sacking or leather. Rabbi Meir holds that sacking and leather are really types of cloth and therefore in all cases when the patch is removed, it retains its impurity. Rabbi Shimon holds that sacking and cloth are not types of cloth. Therefore, it is like patching a basket which is of a different type, and when he removes the patch it will be pure. Rabbi Yose holds that sacking is a sub-category of cloth because like cloth it is woven. However, leather is different from cloth and therefore, if used to patch a cloth and then removed, the patch is pure." + ], + [ + "The three ( square of which they have spoken do not include the hem, the words of Rabbi Shimon. But the sages say: exactly three [fingerbreadths] square. In 27:2 we learned that for a piece of cloth to be susceptible to impurity it must be at least three fingerbreadths square. According to Rabbi Shimon, this does not include the hem. Some commentators interpret this to mean that it doesn't include the strings that come out of the edges of the piece of cloth. The other rabbis disagree and hold that as long as the piece of cloth is at least three fingerbreadths square, the cloth is susceptible to impurity.", + "If a patch was sewn on to a cloth by one side only, it is not considered as connected. If a patch is sewn on to the cloth and it is attached only at one side, then it is not considered to be attached to the cloth. If the cloth is impure, the patch remains pure and vice versa.", + "If it was sewn on by two opposite sides, it is considered connected. If it was sewn on two opposite sides, it is sufficiently attached for it to be considered connected and for impurity to be conveyed from one to the other.", + "If it was sewn on the shape of a gamma: Rabbi Akiva says that the cloth is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. To be sewn on in the shape of a gamma means that it was sewn on two perpendicular sides. Rabbi Akiva considers this connection to be sufficient to convey impurity from the patch to the cloth and vice versa. But the sages say that if the patch is unclean, the cloth remains clean because this is not sufficient for it to be considered connected.", + "Rabbi Judah stated: When does this apply? To a cloak, but in the case of an undershirt the patch is regarded as connected if it was sewn by its upper side, but if by its lower side it is not connected. Rabbi Judah says that the rule in section two applies only if the garment under discussion is a cloak that is worn above one's other garments. In such a case, a patch sewn on by one side will not stay well on the garment. But when it comes to an undershirt, if the patch is sewn to the shoulder part of the shirt, it will stay in place and therefore it is considered connected. But if it is sewn by one side only onto the lower side of the shirt, it will not stay in place and therefore it is not considered connected." + ], + [ + "Poor men's clothes, though made up of pieces none of which is three [fingerbreadths] square are susceptible to midras uncleanness. Poor people's clothing is susceptible to midras uncleanness even if each piece is smaller than three fingerbreadths square. This is because poor people settle for whatever clothing they can find and therefore what they consider worthy of wearing might be thrown out by others.", + "If a cloak began to be torn, as soon as its greater part is torn [the pieces] are not regarded as connected. The two parts of the cloak are considered to be separate once the greater part of the cloak is torn. At this point, if one piece is impure, the other can remain pure.", + "Exceptionally thick or thin materials are not governed by the prescribed minimum of three [fingerbreadths] square. If material is exceptionally thin or thick, it is not usable. Therefore, it is not subject to the usual rule that a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A porter's pad is susceptible to midras uncleanness. A porter's pad is what the porter places on his back to help him carry his load. Since he sometimes sits on it while resting, it is susceptible to midras impurity.", + "A wine filter is not susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. People don’t sit on wine filters, so they are not susceptible to uncleanness as seats.", + "An old woman's hair-net is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. An old woman might sit occasionally on her hair net. Therefore, it is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Note that this mishnah disagrees with a mishnah that we learned in 24:16.", + "A prostitute's shirt which is woven like a net is not susceptible to uncleanness. A prostitute's shirt is not considered clothing. I guess it was simply too revealing. Therefore, it is not susceptible to uncleanness, just as her hair covering is not susceptible (see 24:16).", + "A garment made of fishing net is not susceptible to uncleanness, but one made of its bag is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a garment is made out of a fishing net but is made double it is susceptible to uncleanness. The garment made of fishing net is not substantial enough to count as clothing, therefore it is not susceptible. But the bag at the bottom (see 23:5) is closed and therefore if one makes a garment out of it, the garment is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that if the fishing net is doubled over, then it too is substantial enough for a garment made of it to be susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the susceptibility to impurity of a hair-net.", + "A hair-net that one began to make from its upper hem remains pure until its bottom section is finished. If one began from its bottom section, it remains pure until its hem is finished. When making a hair-net, it is not considered completed until both the top hem and bottom hem are finished, and it doesn't matter whether one begins to sew from top to bottom or bottom to top.", + "Its head band is susceptible to uncleanness in itself. The head band is considered a vessel independent of the rest of the hair-net and therefore is susceptible even if separate. Furthermore, it is not considered connected to the head band and if it is impure, the hair-net can still be pure.", + "Its strings are susceptible to uncleanness because they are connected. The strings which come out of the hair-net are considered connected, because they cannot be removed. Therefore, if the hair-net is impure, the strings are impure as well.", + "A hair-net that is torn becomes pure if it cannot contain the greater part of the hair. Once the hair-net is torn enough such that it cannot contain the greater part of the hair, it is no longer functional and it is not susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The fringe strings of a sheet, a scarf, a head-wrap and a felt cap [are regarded as connected] up to a length of six fingerbreadths;
Those of an undergarment up to ten [fingerbreadths].
The fringes of a thick wool cloak, a veil, a shirt, or a light cloak [are regarded as connected] up to a length of three fingerbreadths.
The fringes of an old woman's head-wrap, of Arabian face wraps, of Cilician goat's-hair clothing, of a money-belt, of a turban or of a curtain are regarded as connected whatever their length may be.
Today's mishnah continues to discuss the strings that hang off a garment and whether they are considered connected to the garment.
For certain garments, only part of the strings are considered as connected to the garment. The reason seems to be that anything longer is going to be removed. Therefore, these parts are not connected. But small amounts of strings that hang out from a garment may be retained, and are therefore considered connected. And with some garments, no matter how long the strings are, they are retained and therefore they are considered connected.
With this in mind, the mishnah is understandable on its own and therefore there is no commentary below." + ], + [ + "Three woolen pillow-covers, six linen ones, three sheets, twelve handkerchiefs, two pant-sleeves, one shirt, one cloak, or one winter-cloak, can be regarded as connected in respect of both uncleanness and sprinkling. If one sews or weaves together a combination of these numbers of items, they are considered connected in terms of both uncleanness and sprinkling. What this means is that if one becomes impure, all are impure and if one is sprinkled with the waters of purifications (red heifer waters) all are clean. Note that the number of pieces that can be sewn or woven together depends on the size of the cloth. Small pieces such as handkerchiefs can have large numbers but larger garments such as a cloak cannot be considered as connected to other cloaks. Once something is that big, attaching it to another large piece would be cumbersome and probably was not done. It seems to me that the smaller pieces may have been sewn together by merchants carrying them to market.", + "If they exceed this number they are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Rabbi Yose says: not even in respect of uncleanness. If there are more than this number sewn together the law is stringent. This means that they are regarded as connected for matters of uncleanness, so if one is unclean all are unclean. But when it comes to purification, they are not considered connected, and all must be sprinkled upon for them to be pure. Rabbi Yose says that the law is consistent. Just as they are not considered connected with regard to the laws of sprinkling, so too with regard to the laws of uncleanness they are not considered connected." + ], + [ + "The string of a [common] plumb-line is regarded as connected up to a length of twelve [cubits]; That of the carpenters’ plumb-line, up to eighteen [cubits]; And that of the builders’ plumb-line up to fifty cubits. The parts that exceed these lengths, even if it was desired to retain them, are pure. The string of a plumb-line is regarded as connected for most types of plumb-lines as far as is generally necessary to drop the weight. A common plumb-line is only used for twelve cubits, a carpenters' is used for 18 and a builders for fifty (that's a pretty high building). Anything beyond that is pure, even if he wishes to retain the extra length.", + "The plumb-line of plasterers or moulders is regarded as connected whatsoever its length. Plasterers and moulders work on walls and therefore can use plumb-lines of any length. Therefore, no matter how long it is, it is considered connected." + ], + [ + "The cord of the balances of goldsmiths or the weighers of fine purple cloth is regarded as a connective up to a length of three fingerbreadths, The cord is attached to the balance in the middle and it is used to grip the balance. Three fingerbreadths are sufficient for this small cord, and therefore any longer and it is not considered connected to the balance.", + "The handle of an axe behind the grip, up to a length of three fingerbreadths. Rabbi Yose says: if the length behind the grip is no less than one handbreadth the entire handle is unsusceptible to uncleanness. The \"handle\" of an axe is the part directly behind the hole in which the blade is inserted. Up to three fingerbreadths of this handle are considered connected to the axe. Rabbi Yose adds that if the handle is more than one handbreadth, it will interfere with the functioning of the axe and it is all pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with how much of a vessel is regarded as connected to the vessel.", + "The cord of the balances of shopkeepers or householders is regarded as connected up to a length of one handbreadth. These cords are regarded as connected for a greater length than those mentioned in mishnah four, assumedly because a longer cord is needed to weigh heavier material. Gold and purple cloth, the topic of yesterday's mishnah, are expensive and therefore smaller amounts will be measured.", + "The shaft of an axe in front of the grip, up to one handbreadth. This is the part of the axe that is used, as opposed to yesterday's mishnah which referred to the back part which is not used. Therefore, the connected part is longer.", + "The projection of the shaft of a compass, up to one handbreadth. I must admit that I don't have a clear picture of how their compass looked. In any case, this part of the compass is considered attached up to a length of one handbreadth.", + "That of the shaft of the stone-masons’ chisel, one handbreadth. This handle is also considered connected up to a length of one handbreadth." + ], + [ + "The cord of the balances of wool dealers or of glass-weighers is regarded as connected up to a length of two handbreadths.
The shaft of a millstone chisel, up to a length of two handbreadths.
The shaft of the battle-axe of the legions, up to a length of two handbreadths.
The shaft of the goldsmiths’ hammer, up to a length of two handbreadths.
And that of the blacksmiths' hammer, up to three handbreadths.
Today's mishnah continues to list how much of various cords and shafts are considered connected to the main vessel, be it a balance or a type of axe, or a type of hammer.
The principles behind this mishnah are the same as those behind the other mishnayot we have already learned in this chapter. Therefore, there is not much commentary below.
Section two: A millstone chisel is used to roughen the surface of the millstone so that it will more effectively grind the grain." + ], + [ + "The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its upper end is regarded as connected up to a length of four [handbreadths].
The shaft of a spade, to a length of four [handbreadths].
The shaft of a weeding-spade, to five handbreadths.
The shaft of a small hammer, to five handbreadths.
That of a common hammer, to six handbreadths.
The shaft of an axe used for splitting wood or of one used for digging, to six [handbreadths].
The shaft of the stone-trimmers’ axe, up to six handbreadths.
Another mishnah discussing the lengths of shafts. If you're getting a bit bored with this (and I'm sure you're not) don't worry, we are almost done with the tractate!
As with yesterday's mishnah, I have commented below on the sections that I believe need some extra clarification.
Section one: We discussed the ox-goad briefly in 25:2. This shaft seems to work similarly to the shaft of an ax. The mishnah discusses the \"remnant\" which is the part that sticks upward out of the ox-goad. It is considered connected up to a length of four handbreadths.
I am trying to put a picture in here that I found on the web, but I'm not sure that you will all receive it. If you don't google \"oxgoad\" and you should be able to find some pics." + ], + [ + "The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its lower end is regarded as connected up to a length of seven handbreadths.
The shaft of a householders' shovel Bet Shammai says: to a length of seven handbreadths, And Bet Hillel says: eight handbreadths.
That of the plasterers: Bet Shammai says: nine handbreadths And Bet Hillel says: ten handbreadths.
Any parts exceeding these lengths, if he wanted to retain it, is also susceptible to uncleanness.
The shafts of fire instruments are susceptible to uncleanness whatsoever their length.
Section one: Concerning the ox-goad, see yesterday's mishnah. Yesterday's mishnah referred to the upper end, whereas today's mishnah refers to the lower end.
Section two: The next two sections contain disputes between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning the length of the shaft of different types of shovels. It is curious that the two houses have not had any disputes until the end of this chapter. I would imagine that indeed they did dispute many other vessels mentioned in this chapter, but for some reason the editors of the Mishnah did not preserve their disputes.
Section four: The lengths of the shafts or cords for all of the vessels mentioned in this chapter are default lengths. What this means is that up to such a length is always susceptible to impurity and we can assume that beyond that length is pure, because the person doesn’t really want the cord or shaft to extend beyond that length. However, as this section notes, if one does want to retain the shaft or cord for a greater length, then whatever he wants to retain is susceptible to impurity. In other words, his personal intention can supersede the default.
Section five: It is understandable why one might want a very long handle on an instrument used with fire. Therefore, the handle is susceptible to impurity for as long as it might be.
[By the way you just finished the chapter. Only one more chapter to go four days!]" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter thirty, the final chapter of Kelim (phew!), deals with the rules of purity that relate to glass vessels.", + "Glass vessels--those that are flat are pure and those that have receptacles are susceptible. This general rule was already taught in 15:1.", + "After they are broken they become clean. If he again made vessels of them they become susceptible to uncleanness from that point and onward. Once a glass vessel is broken, it is not usable. Therefore it is pure it loses any impurity that it once had, and it is not susceptible to impurity. If one repaired the glass such that it could again be used, it is considered a new vessel and is susceptible to impurity from that point and onward. It does not regain its old impurity.", + "A glass tray or a flat dish is pure. If it has a rim it is susceptible. These glass vessels are usually flat. Therefore, they are pure. However, if they have a rim, they are susceptible to impurity because they have a receptacle.", + "The concave bottom of a glass bowl or plate which was adapted for use is pure. If it was polished or scraped with a file it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. This section refers to the bottom of a bowl or plate that remained after the bowl or plate was broken. The person then made some modification so that he could use them. Despite the fact that these do now have a receptacle, and would seem to be susceptible to impurity, they are still pure because the edges are still rough. However, if he polished the edges, the vessel is now susceptible to impurity because it is finished." + ], + [ + "A mirror is pure. A mirror is pure because it is a glass vessel without a receptacle.", + "A tray that was made into a mirror remains susceptible, but if it was originally made to serve as a mirror it is pure. A glass tray is susceptible to impurity. Therefore, even if he backs it up with some metal to be able to use it as a mirror, it is still considered a tray and it is still susceptible to impurity. However, if he made it to be a mirror from the outset, it is pure, even if it could be used as a tray. Reading this mishnah made me a bit curious concerning the history of mirror making. I found the following in Wikipedia: Metal-coated glass mirrors are said to have been invented in Sidon (modern-day Lebanon) in the first century AD,[6] and glass mirrors backed with gold leaf are mentioned by the Roman author Pliny in his Natural History, written in about 77 AD.[7] The Romans also developed a technique for creating crude mirrors by coating blown glass with molten lead.[8] It would seem that our mishnah would serve as additional evidence for the existence of glass mirrors during the first two centuries C.E. If any of you out there are Wikipedia editors, maybe you should even write this reference in!", + "A large [glass] spoon that has been placed on a table is susceptible to uncleanness if it can hold anything whatsoever. The test of whether this spoon is susceptible is whether it can stand on a table and still retain its liquid. If it can, everyone considers it a vessel and it is susceptible to impurity.", + "But if it cannot do so: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible, And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that it is pure. If the spoon cannot hold liquids when placed on the table, Rabbi Akiva still considers it impure. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that it is pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the purity of glass cups.", + "A cup the greater part of which is broken off is pure. If most of the cup is broken off, it is unusable and no longer susceptible to impurity.", + "If it was broken in three places extending over its greater part it is pure. If there are three breaks spread out onto the greater part of the cup, it is also pure. However, if the three cracks are all in the same place and most of the cup is intact, the cup can remain impure or susceptible to impurity.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if it lets the greater part of the water leak out it is pure. Rabbi Shimon adds that if the cracks are sufficient such that it lets most of the water out, then it is pure.", + "If a hole appeared in it and it was mended with tin or pitch it is pure. Rabbi Yose says: if with tin it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if with pitch it is pure. According to the first opinion, even though he fixed the hole in the cup with tin or pitch it is still pure. According to this opinion, it is not really possible to fix glass cups. Rabbi Yose holds that if one fixes the cup with tin it is considered repaired and is again susceptible to impurity. He agrees that if it is fixed with pitch, it is still not susceptible. Assumedly, the one drinking from the cup will taste/smell the pitch while he will not taste or smell the tin." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Kelim (yes, it really is) deals with the purity of various glass flasks.", + "A small flask whose neck was removed remains susceptible to uncleanness, A small flask whose neck was removed is still usable. Therefore, it is still susceptible to impurity.", + "But a large one whose neck was removed becomes pure. However, a large flask used to store oil or wine, one that requires two hands to hold, can no longer be used if its neck is broken because its contents will be spilled.", + "[A small flask] of spikenard oil whose neck was removed becomes pure, since it scratches the hand. Spikenard oil is a fragrant oil used for perfume. One would use this oil by putting a finger into the flask and then dabbing the oil onto one's body. If the flask's neck is broken one will cut one's hand when taking out the oil. Since the flask cannot be used properly, it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "Large flagons whose necks were removed remain susceptible to uncleanness, since they are adapted for the use of holding pickled foods. Large flagons (a type of jar) whose neck is broken off can still be used to pickle vegetables. Therefore, they are still susceptible.", + "A glass funnel is clean. Glass vessels must have a receptacle to be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, a glass funnel is pure.", + "Rabbi Yose said: Happy are you Kelim; for you began with uncleanness, but you ended with cleanness. Even Rabbi Yose wanted to celebrate when finishing Tractate Kelim. The first mishnah in the chapter, which we learned on October 31 (!), over eight months ago, dealt with the \"fathers of impurity.\" In other words, the tractate began by dealing with matters of impurity and the final section of the last mishnah deals with a vessel that is pure. Thus we have moved from a state of impurity to purity. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Kelim! I bet you never thought this day would really come. Seriously, as I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Kelim is the longest tractate in the Mishnah, and as I noted above, we began to learn it many months ago. While it is at times hard for us to comprehend, the laws of purity were a major part of the religious life of Jews from the time of the Torah through the Second Temple period, and as we see, continued to be a major focus of rabbinic law. I do admit that the tractate did tend to get a bit detailed (understatement) and without a clear picture of what all of these vessels looked like, it is hard to understand some of the laws. Nevertheless, we did learn some important principles that will help us throughout the rest of our learning. I am sure that we will review most of these as we can continue to learn together. Our learning of Seder Toharot continues tomorrow with Tractate Ohalot, where we learn the laws associated the impurity of a dead body." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה כלים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7c50fd94f9beff1f0e07412b1584e46c7974efa --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,1516 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Kelim", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Before I begin to discuss Kelim, I would like to begin with a note on learning the laws of purity, a subject which we have only indirectly touched upon until now. The very fact that at least 1/6 of the Mishnah and probably a large percentage of Leviticus are dedicated to the laws of purity certainly implies that these rules had important meaning in their lives. For us it is hard to determine what exactly that meaning might have been, but my sense is that all societies, primitive and modern, have their ways of ordering the world, and that purity/impurity systems are a means of going about this. This is a subject that Mary Douglass, an anthropologist, has written extensively about (she even has a book on Leviticus). I would urge any of you who are interested in further reading to look at some of her work, or the commentaries of Jacob Millgrom, for further insights into some of these subjects. Jonathan Klawans has also written an excellent book on purity. While nearly all of these rules are no longer practiced, I think that if we want to truly enter into the rabbinic bet midrash, into their way of thinking, there is no better way to do so than to learn Seder Toharot. There are five main causes of impurity discussed in Seder Toharot: 1) A dead body. 2) The eight creepy-crawly things listed in Leviticus 11. These are called \"sheretz/sheratzim.\" 3) The carcass of a nevelah, a kosher animal that was not slaughtered properly. 4) The zav or zavah (man or woman suffering abnormal genital discharge), a menstruant or a woman who gave birth. 5) Tsaraat, which is some sort of skin disease. These five sources of impurity are discussed in the first chapter of Kelim. ", + "The following items can become impure: people, vessels, food and drinks. To become susceptible to impurity, food must first come into contact with a liquid. People and vessels can become pure by entering a mikveh. After entering the mikveh they become pure after sunset. A person who becomes impure through contact with a dead body must undergo a stricter purification process, involving the ashes of the red heifer. There are obviously many more rules that we will learn on the way, but these are the basics, and if you remember them, you will find the Seder a bit easier (just a bit!). ", + "The word \"kelim\" means \"vessels\" but it has a broader meaning in mishnaic Hebrew than the word \"vessels\" in English. It basically includes most things made for human use—utensils, tools, clothing, furniture and many others. Our tractate deals with how these objects can become impure and pure, and how they convey purity to other things, mostly food and drink. At the outset, I will describe certain rules that the rabbis established. Most of these were learned either directly or indirectly from biblical verses, but I shall not go in to all of the midrashim that lie at the heart of these rules. The verses are found below, and we shall make frequent reference to them throughout.", + "How a vessel receives/conveys impurity depends largely on the material from which that vessel was made. We shall now deal with the materials addressed throughout the tractate.", + "Earthenware: Earthenware vessels become impure only if something impure falls into them. They cannot become impure by something touching their outside. However, from the inside they can become impure even without contact, for instance the impure thing hangs inside their air space. Because of this rule, for an earthenware vessel to become impure it must have an inside, such as a cup, a tub, a jar, etc. If the earthenware vessel has a lid and the lid is sealed to it, impurity cannot enter. Earthenware vessels convey impurity to food and drink found inside, even if they are not touching. But they do not convey impurity to other vessels. ", + "Other types of vessels (especially wood, leather and bone): Vessels made of other types of material receive impurity by contact, even if they don't have any inside. However, if impurity enters their airspace, they are not impure. Wooden, leather and bone vessels must be meant to receive or hold both people and things in order to become impure. For instance, a wooden table can become impure, because it serves both people and things, but a ladder only serves people and therefore it cannot become impure. They most also be the types of vessels that are moved for them to become impure. Thus a very large container cannot become impure. They convey impurity to food and drink. Vessels made of stone, dirt or manure cannot become or convey impurity. According to Torah law, glass vessels also cannot become or convey impurity. However, rabbinic law treats them as wood, leather and bone vessels. ", + "The major difficulty in understanding Kelim is that we often don't have a clear picture as to what the vessel being discussed actually was. The words for vessels tend to change over time, as technology and language develop, and rabbinic traditions did not always preserve what the meaning of these words was. In addition, Kelim and all of Seder Toharot was not as well learned as other sedarim and tractates, again contributing to a loss in meaning. As is typical in the Mishnah, the mishnah often conveys its meaning by using specific examples, as opposed to outlining general rules. The problem is that when one doesn't understand the example, the rule is harder to understand. We will do the best we can in learning this tractate, and as a rule, I shall use Albeck's explanations. In order to prevent confusion, I will infrequently cite variant explanations. I hope that despite these difficulties, the tractate is interesting and somewhat intelligible.", + "Leviticus 11 29 The following shall be unclean for you from among the things that swarm on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and great lizards of every variety; 30 the gecko, the land crocodile, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. 31 Those are for you the unclean among all the swarming things; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. 32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. 33 And if any of those falls into an earthen vessel, everything inside it shall be unclean and [the vessel] itself you shall break. 34 As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become unclean if it came in contact with water; as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become unclean if it was inside any vessel. 35 Everything on which the carcass of any of them falls shall be unclean: an oven or stove shall be smashed. They are unclean and unclean they shall remain for you. 36 However, a spring or cistern in which water is collected shall be clean, but whoever touches such a carcass in it shall be unclean. 37 If such a carcass falls upon seed grain that is to be sown, it is clean; 38 but if water is put on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be unclean for you. ", + "Leviticus Chapter 15 1 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: 2 Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When any man has a discharge issuing from his member, he is unclean. 3 The uncleanness from his discharge shall mean the following — whether his member runs with the discharge or is stopped up so that there is no discharge, his uncleanness means this: 4 Any bedding on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean, and every object on which he sits shall be unclean. 5 Anyone who touches his bedding shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 6 Whoever sits on an object on which the one with the discharge has sat shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 7 Whoever touches the body of the one with the discharge shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 8 If one with a discharge spits on one who is clean, the latter shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 9 Any means for riding that one with a discharge has mounted shall be unclean; 10 whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until evening; and whoever carries such things shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 11 If one with a discharge, without having rinsed his hands in water, touches another person, that person shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 12 An earthen vessel that one with a discharge touches shall be broken; and any wooden implement shall be rinsed with water. 19 When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body, she shall remain in her impurity seven days; whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. 20 Anything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; and anything that she sits on shall be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bedding shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; 22 and anyone who touches any object on which she has sat shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 23 Be it the bedding or be it the object on which she has sat, on touching it he shall be unclean until evening. 24 And if a man lies with her, her impurity is communicated to him; he shall be unclean seven days, and any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean. 25 When a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or when she has a discharge beyond her period of impurity, she shall be unclean, as though at the time of her impurity, as long as her discharge lasts. 26 Any bedding on which she lies while her discharge lasts shall be for her like bedding during her impurity; and any object on which she sits shall become unclean, as it does during her impurity: 27 whoever touches them shall be unclean; he shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. ", + "Numbers 19 14 This is the ritual: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be unclean seven days; 15 and every open vessel, with no lid fastened down, shall be unclean." + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction Mishnah Kelim begins by listing five types of impurity that are called \"fathers of impurity.\" The word \"fathers of…\" is also used in connection with damages and in connection with the 39 types of labor prohibited on Shabbat.", + "The fathers of impurity are a: sheretz, semen, [an Israelite] who has contracted corpse impurity, a metzora during the days of his counting, and the waters of purification whose quantity is less than the minimum needed for sprinkling. Below in sections three and four the mishnah explains the shared characteristics of these types of impurity. A) Sheretz one of the eight creepy crawly things listed in Leviticus 11:29ff. B) See Leviticus 15:16-17. C) See Numbers 19:11, 17. D) Once the metzora (person with skin disease) is healed, he spends seven days outside of the camp until he is allowed back in. During these days he is still impure and he conveys impurity to other things. See Leviticus 14. E) These are waters with the red heifer's ashes in them. See Numbers 19:21. If there is not sufficient water to be used to sprinkle on the dead, then these waters convey impurity in the ways described below. Tomorrow's mishnah will discuss how they convey impurity if there is enough to sprinkle.", + "Behold, these convey impurity to people and vessels by contact and to earthenware by presence within their airspace, These five \"fathers of impurity\" convey impurity by contact with people and vessels. When it comes to earthenware, as we explained in the introduction, the vessel is impure only if the source of impurity enters its airspace. It does not convey impurity through contact.", + "But they do not convey impurity by being carried. If a person carries one of these things without coming into physical contact with it, he is not thereby made impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMoving up on the hierarchy of \"fathers of impurity,\" we now encounter two more types of impurity which are even more contagious than the five listed in yesterday's mishnah.", + "Above them are nevelah and waters of purification whose quantity is sufficient to be sprinkled, for these convey impurity to a person [even] by being carried so that he in turn conveys impurity to clothing by contact. Nevelah is carrion of a pure animal, that is, a kosher animal that was not slaughtered properly. See Leviticus 11:24-28, 39-40. Anyone who even carries nevelah, or a piece of nevelah, is impure, even if he doesn't directly touch the carrion. Furthermore, he in turn defiles the clothing that he is wearing while carrying the carrion. The same halakhah applies to the waters of impurity (see yesterday's mishnah) if there is a sufficient amount to sprinkle on a person to purify him.", + "Clothing, however, is free from impurity where there was contact alone. If a person touches one of these things, his clothes are not thereby defiled. They are only defiled if he carries one of these things." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWe continue moving up the line of defiling agents.", + "Above them is one who had intercourse with a menstruant, for he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. The impurity of a man who has sex with a menstruant is referred to in Leviticus 15:24: \"And if a man lies with her, her impurity is communicated to him; he shall be unclean seven days, and any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean.\" The rabbis interpret the end of this verse to mean that no matter how much bedding lies beneath him, they are all impure. The bedding will have first degree impurity, which means it defiles food and drink, but not other people or vessels.", + "Above them is the issue of a zav, his spit, his semen and his urine, and the blood of a menstruant, for they convey impurity both by contact and by carrying. Fluids which come out of the zav (spit, semen and urine) and menstrual blood convey impurity to a person by carrying and contact, such that he in turn conveys impurity to his clothing. This is different from the impurities mentioned above in mishnah two, which through contact do not defile a person such that he defiles his clothing. And a person who has sex with a menstruant does not defile others by being carried.", + "Above them is an object on which one can ride, for it conveys impurity even when it lies under a heavy stone. If a zav sits on a heavy stone, and underneath the stone there is a vessel used for riding (such as a saddle) the vessel is impure even though the stone cannot become impure. This is a special characteristic of something that is ridden upon.", + "Above the object on which one can ride is that on which one can lie, for contact is the same as its carrying. Something that a zav lies upon (and is a vessel used for lying down, such as a bed) is even more serious in its impurity than something upon which he rides, in that the former conveys impurity through both contact and carrying. Furthermore, if someone has contact with something upon which the zav lay, he will himself further convey impurity to clothing. In contrast, one who has contact with something upon which the zav rides, does not defile clothing.", + "Above the object on which one can lie is the zav, for a zav conveys impurity to the object on which he lies, while the object on which he lies cannot convey the same impurity to that upon which it lies. The zav himself can cause anything upon which he lies to become a defiling agent. However, the thing upon which he lies does not itself cause other bedding to become a \"father of impurity.\" Rather, anything it touches just has \"first degree impurity.\" We will learn more about the implications of being either a \"father of impurity\" or merely a \"first\" or lower degree of impurity as we proceed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the last mishnah that ranks defiling agents. It ends with the greatest source of impurity the dead body.", + "Above the zav is the zavah, for she conveys impurity to the man who has intercourse with her. The zavah conveys impurity to the man who has relations with her, just as does the menstruant. In other words, not only is he impure, but he also defiles that which he lies upon, even without contact.", + "Above the zavah is the metzora, for he conveys impurity by entering into a house. When a metzora enters a house, everything in the house is impure, even if he doesn't come into contact with it.", + "Above the metzora is a [human] bone the size of a barley grain, for it conveys impurity for seven days. Contact with a bone from a dead body makes a person impure for seven full days.", + "More strict than all these is a corpse, for it conveys impurity by ohel ( whereby all the others convey no impurity. This is the final clause of the hierarchy. The most severe form of impurity is conveyed by a dead body, for it conveys a significant form of impurity to anyone found in the same \"ohel\" as the body. In rabbinic parlance, \"ohel\" doesn't just mean \"tent\" as it does in Hebrew. It means \"overhanging.\" We shall learn more details concerning this concept throughout the tractate, and also in tractate Ohalot (I bet you can't wait!)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are ten grades of impurity when it comes to impurities that are a result of emissions from a male body. These include semen, flux (abnormal genital discharge), skin disease (tsaraat) and separated limbs.", + "There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person:
A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. The lowest level of impurity is a person who has immersed in the mikveh but is not fully pure until he brings his sacrifices. An example is the metzora (see Keritot 2:1). Such a person cannot eat sacrifices, but he can already eat terumah and second tithe.", + "If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. A tevul yom is a person who has immersed in the mikveh but is waiting for the sun to set before he becomes fully pure. He can't eat terumah or sacrifices, but he can still eat second tithe.", + "If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. A man who has a seminal emission (and has not yet been to the mikveh) cannot eat any of these three things, giving him a more serious form of impurity than the tevul yom.", + "If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. A man who has intercourse with a menstruant has an even more serious form of impurity. This was explained above in mishnah three.", + "If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. A zav who has had one or two abnormal discharges has a higher form of impurity, in that he needs to immerse in a spring in order to become pure. See Leviticus 15:13, \"When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge, he shall count off seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes and bathe his body in fresh water; then he shall be clean.\"", + "If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he has three abnormal discharges within three days, he must bring a sacrifice of either two turtle-doves or two pigeons. See Leviticus 15:14.", + "If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. There are two stages when it comes to the impurity of a person who has developed tzaraat (skin disease). The first is when the priest sends him away to wait and see if fuller signs of the affliction develop. Already at this period he conveys impurity by entering a house (see mishnah four). However, he does not have to rend his clothes, loosen his hair or shave his body. Concerning these things see Leviticus 13:45. He also does not need to bring sacrifices, if later he is determined not to have tzaraat.", + "But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. Once it is determined that he does have tzaraat, he is liable to do all of these things.", + "If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. A limb which is severed from a living person conveys impurity, even if the person remains alive. If it does not have a sufficient amount of flesh, then its level of impurity is such that it defiles by contact and carrying, but not by entering into an ohel. Below the mishnah will explain \"sufficient amount of flesh.\"", + "But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A \"proper quantity of flesh\" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing. If there is a sufficient amount of flesh, then it also conveys impurity by being in an ohel. For there to be \"a sufficient amount of flesh\" there must be enough flesh on the limb such that it could heal if it was attached to the body. So if one's finger falls off, for instance, but it had already been damaged so much that there was barely any flesh on it, it doesn't convey impurity by being in an ohel. Rabbi Judah provides a slightly different interpretation. If there is enough flesh in one place on the limb, such that if it was stripped off it could surround the limb, and the strip would have the width of the thread of a woof, then it is sufficient." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe remainder of this chapter establishes geographical grades of holiness which lands are holier than others, and which places within Israel holier than other places.", + "There are ten grades of holiness: the land of Israel is holier than all other lands. And what is the nature of its holiness? That from it are brought the omer, the firstfruits and the two loaves, which cannot be brought from any of the other lands. The first grade of holiness, meaning the first place with any degree of holiness at all, is the land of Israel, which is holier than any other land. The mishnah then proceeds to explain what are the ramifications of Israel being holier than the other lands. Israeli is holier for three reasons: 1) The barley that is reaped on the day after Pesah (see Leviticus 23:10-15), called the omer, must be harvested in the land of Israel. 2) First fruits, which are brought to the Temple (see Mishnah Bikkurim) and eaten in Jerusalem by their owners, are brought only from fruits that grow in the land of Israel. We should note that this is true of all agricultural offerings terumah, tithes, etc. Anything brought directly from produce grown on the land comes only from the land of Israel. The mishnah specifies first fruits because they are brought to the Temple in a formal ceremony, whereas the other offerings are given directly to the priest or Levite, without any special ritual. 3) The two loaves are brought on Shavuot. They must come from grain grown in Israel (see Leviticus 23:17). It is revealing that the rabbis grade holiness by opportunities to perform mitzvot. A place in which more mitzvot can be performed is holier than others. This implies that holiness is wrapped up in the performance of God's will, as if to say that the more one can perform God's will, the more holiness is brought to the world. A different view of gradations of holiness might claim that God \"resides\" in a certain place, and therefore, that place is holier." + ], + [ + "Cities that are walled are holier, for metzoras must be sent out of them and a corpse, though it may be carried about within them as long as it is desired, may not be brought back once it has been taken out. There are two halakhot that make walled cities holier than non-walled cities. First of all, metzoras must be sent out of walled cities. This is based loosely on Leviticus 13:46 which states that a metzora must be sent out of the \"camp.\" The second halakhah is that a corpse may not be brought into a walled city. However, a corpse that is already in a walled city need not be removed quickly." + ], + [ + "The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten. Within the walls of Jerusalem is holier than within other walled cities, for within these walls one may eat lesser holy things (kodashim kalim) such as the pesah sacrifice and shelamim sacrifices. One may also eat second tithe inside the walls of Jerusalem.", + "The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it. Men or women who are zavim or zavot, and menstruants and women after childbirth are not allowed to enter the Temple Mount. This is stated with regard to the woman who gave birth in Leviticus 12:4.", + "The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it. The chel is a sort of corridor surrounding the Temple's courtyards. See Middot 2:3. Strictly speaking, its area is not considered part of the Temple. Non-Jews and Jews who contracted corpse impurity are not allowed into this area. This seems to be an extra insurance policy to keep these two categories further away from the Temple itself.", + "The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so. The Women's court was the first court into which one would enter upon entering the Temple. See Middot 2:5-6. A person who had gone to the mikveh but who had not yet waited till sundown could not go into this court, meaning he/she cannot enter the Temple. However, if he/she accidently enters this court, he is not liable for a sin-offering, as would be a person who entered the Temple while fully impure.", + "The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat. After going through the Women's Court, one would enter the Israelites' court. Obviously, any impure Israelite cannot enter here. The mishnah adds that a metzora (skin disease) who had been purified but had not yet offered his sacrifices cannot enter this area, and if he does so, he is liable for a hatat.", + "The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving. The Priests' Court is basically off limits to the Israelites. However, they may enter in order to perform one of the sacrificial actions that they are either obligated or permitted to perform. These including laying one's hands on the sacrifice (see Menahot 9:8), slaughtering the sacrifice (Israelites can, but do not have to perform this see Zevahim 3:1) and waving the sacrifice (see Menahot 5:6-7)." + ], + [ + "The area between the porch ( and the altar is holier, for [priests] who have blemishes or unkempt hair may not enter it. There were 22 cubits between the porch and the altar (see Middot 3:6, 5:1). This section is off-limits to a priest who is blemished (Leviticus 21:17), or one who grew his hair too long (Leviticus 10:6).", + "The Hekhal is holier, for no one whose hands or feet are unwashed may enter it. Priests who had not washed their hands and feet could not enter the Hekhal, the Sanctuary. However, according to the first opinion they could enter the area between the porch and the altar without washing their hands.", + "The Holy of Holies is holier, for only the high priest, on Yom Kippur, at the time of the service, may enter it. The highest degree of sanctity is accorded to the Holy of Holies, for the high priest could only enter there once a year, on Yom Kippur.", + "Rabbi Yose said: in five respects the area between the porch and the altar is equal to the Hekhal, for those afflicted with blemishes or with a wild growth of hair, or who have drunk wine or whose hands or feet are unwashed may not enter there, and the people must keep away from the area between the porch and the altar when the incense is being burned. According to Rabbi Yose the prohibitions that the first opinion says begin at the Sanctuary, begin between the porch and the altar. He also holds that priests who had drunk wine (or other alcohol) cannot go into this area (see Leviticus 10:9). If you go back and count, Rabbi Yose holds that there are ten levels of holiness whereas the first opinion holds that there are eleven. In addition, when the incense is being burned on a daily basis, the people must leave both the Sanctuary and the area between the porch and the altar. On Yom Kippur they need not withdraw all the way to the porch, but rather just leave the Sanctuary itself." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAfter the introductory chapter, our mishnah begins to deal with the purity and impurity of vessels.", + "Vessels of wood, vessels of leather, vessels of bone or vessels of glass: If they are simple they are clean If they form a receptacle they are unclean. Vessels made of wood, leather, bone or glass can come in two forms: simple or with a receptacle. They are simple if they are not made to accept anything. Simple vessels cannot become defiled. They are susceptible to impurity only if they have a receptacle. This rule seems to be derived from Leviticus 11:32.", + "If they were broken they become clean again. If the vessel was impure when it was whole and then was broken, it now automatically becomes pure.", + "If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. Once it is fixed, it is now susceptible again to impurity. However, the vessel does not return to its old impurity. In other words, the slate is wiped clean.", + "Earthen vessels and vessels of sodium carbonate are equal in respect of impurity: they contract and convey impurity through their air-space; they convey impurity through the outside but they do not become impure through their backs; and when broken they become clean. The rules regarding earthenware and sodium carbonate vessels are different. As I explained in the introduction, they can be made impure only by something entering their air space, even if the defiling agent does not touch them. They also convey impurity to food or other vessels that enter their air space, even if they do not come into contact with them. This is derived from Leviticus 11:33. They also convey impurity through their outsides. So if they are impure, and a piece of food touches the outside of the vessel, the food is impure. But if something impure touches the outside of the vessel (their backs) they are not defiled. Earthenware vessels cannot be made pure by entering a mikveh. The only way they can become pure is by being broken (see Leviticus 6:21, 11:33, 15:12)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah we learned that vessels become pure when they are broken. Our mishnah modifies yesterday's mishnah, by teaching that the vessels are \"broken\" and thereby pure only when they are no longer usable. If pieces of the vessel can be used for any purpose, that piece retains its impurity, or at least its capacity to become impure.\nThe tannaim in our mishnah argue as to how big the piece must be in order to still be able to become impure or retain its impurity.", + "As regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of the larger but broken vessels] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold oil sufficient for the anointing of a little finger of a child [if their former capacity] was that of a log. If [their former capacity] was from one log to a se'ah [their present capacity] must be a quarter of a log. If it was from a se'ah to two se'ah it must be half a log. If from two se'ah to three se'ah or as much as five se'ah it must be a log, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. This section is Rabbi Yishmael's opinion. In each section there are two sizes how big the vessel was before it was broken, and how big the piece left needs to be in order to still be susceptible to impurity. When it comes to broken pieces, if it is a side piece it needs to be able to stand unsupported. If it can't, the size of the piece is irrelevant, for it won't receive impurity. If the vessel (or the broken piece thereof) was very small, and couldn't even hold a log (1/2 liter) before it was broken, then it only needs to be able to hold enough oil for a small child to soak his finger in. If it can't hold even this small amount of oil, then it cannot receive impurity. If the original size was from a log to a seah (24 logs), then it needs to be able to hold at least a 1/4 of a log. If the original size was from one to two seahs, it must now be able to hold 1/2 of a log, and if the original size was from two to five seahs, it must be able to hold a full log. The assumption behind all of this seems to be that if a person has a small vessel, he may save a smaller shard of that vessel. But if the vessel was originally very large, very small shards will seem to lack any value and he will get rid of them. In this case, the vessel is not susceptible to impurity.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: I do not prescribe any size for the unbroken vessels, rather: as regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of larger but broken ones] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold enough oil to anoint the little finger of a child. [This size is prescribed for pots] that are not bigger than the small cooking-pots. For small cooking-pots and for those between these and the jars from Lydda the prescribed capacity is a quarter of a log. For those which have a size between that of Lydda jars and Bethlehem jars the capacity must be that of half a log. For those between Bethlehem jars and large stone jars the capacity must be that of a log. Rabbi Akiva basically agrees with Rabbi Yishmael, but he uses a different system to delineate the original sizes of the vessels. Instead of listing capacities, he lists typical types of jars or other containers used in his day. Other than that, he agrees with Rabbi Yishmael as to how big the pieces must be in order to still be susceptible to impurity. Jars and containers seem to have been typically named based on their place of manufacture.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai says: [the prescribed capacity for the fragments] of large stone jars is two logs, and that for the bottoms of broken Galilean flasks and small jars is any whatsoever, but the fragments of their sides are not susceptible to impurity Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai seems to basically agree with Rabbi Akiva. He disagrees in that he gives different measures for how big the pieces must be for large stone jars. Whereas Rabbi Akiva held that they need hold only one log, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai holds that they must hold two logs. He also holds that small jars and Galilean flasks can still receive impurity no matter how small a piece was left. Assumedly, people would use these shards even if they were very small. However, this only applies to the base. In his opinion, the walls of these flasks or jars were not usable at all, and therefore once broken, they cannot receive impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn our mishnah we learn that earthenware vessels are susceptible to impurity only if they have an \"inner part\" that is made to receive something.", + "The following are not susceptible to impurity among earthen vessels: A tray without a rim, A broken incense-pan, A pierced pan for roasting corn, Gutters even if they are bent and even if they have some form of receptacle, A cooking vessel that was turned into a bread-basket cover, A bucket that was turned into a cover for grapes, A barrel used for swimmers, A small jar fixed to the sides of a ladle, A bed, a stool, a bench, a table, a ship, and an earthen lamp, behold these are no susceptible to impurity. The vessels listed in this section cannot become impure because they do not have any \"inner part,\" which is made to accept things. Some of these should be understandable, but I will make an attempt to explain some of the others. Gutters are not meant to hold the rain or other things and therefore they can't be defiled. The cooking vessel does have a receptacle, but since they changed it to be used as a cover for grapes which does not \"receive\" things, it is not susceptible to impurity. The fact that the barrel holds a person does not seem sufficient to consider it a vessel that receives. The little jar fixed to the sides of the ladle has a receptacle, but it is not used to put things in it. Therefore, it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "The following is a general rule: any among earthen vessels that has no inner part is not susceptible to impurity on its outer sides. This is the general rule. An earthenware vessel that does not have an \"inner part\" cannot become impure by having something touch it on the outside. In contrast, vessels made of wood etc., can become impure even if they do not have an inner part. If they are made to \"receive\" something, such as a tray, then they are impure even though they do not have an \"inner part.\"" + ], + [ + "A lantern that has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to impurity, but one that has none is not susceptible. All of the vessels mentioned in this mishnah are earthenware vessels. If the lantern has a receptacle for oil, it is susceptible to impurity. If it does not, it cannot be made impure. Even though it has walls, they are only there to protect the fire and not to contain the oil.", + "A potter's mould on which one begins to shape the clay is not susceptible to impurity, but that on which one finishes it is susceptible. The mould on which the potter begins to shape the clay does not have a receptacle, therefore it is not susceptible to impurity. However, the mould on which he finishes making the vessel does have a receptacle and therefore it is susceptible to impurity.", + "A funnel for home use is not susceptible to impurity, but that of merchants is susceptible because it also serves as a measure, the words of Rabbi Judah ben Batera. Rabbi Akiva says: because he puts it on its side to let the buyer smell it. A funnel doesn't hold the liquids or dry goods poured into it, therefore it is not susceptible to impurity. However, since a merchant uses the funnel for measuring (sticking his finger below to hold in that which he is measuring), his funnel is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Akiva agrees that the funnel used by the merchant is impure but for a different reason. Occasionally, the merchant will tilt the funnel on its side so that a little bit of liquid stays in it. This qualifies it as a receptacle." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the covers of various types of vessels.", + "The covers of wine jars and oil jars and the covers of papyrus jars are not susceptible to impurity But if he adapted them for use as receptacles they are susceptible. Generally, the covers of wine, oil and papyrus jars are not susceptible to impurity because they are not usually used as receptacles. However, if one fixes them in such a way that they can be used as receptacles, then they take on the characteristic of being able to receive impurity.", + "The cover of a pot: When it has a hole or it has a point, it is not susceptible to impurity, But if it does not have a hole or a pointed top it is susceptible because she drains the vegetables into it. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says: because she turns out the contents [of the pot] on to it. If the cover of a cooking pot has a hole in it, or has a pointed lid, then it cannot be stood on its reverse side so as to contain the contents of the pot. Since it can't be used as a receptacle, it is not susceptible to impurity. However, if it does not have a hole or a pointed top, the person (assumed by the Mishnah to be a woman) might use the top as a colander for her vegetables (the lid does not have sides, so the water goes out the side). Since it holds the vegetables, it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok agrees that in this case the lid is susceptible to impurity but provides a slightly different explanation. When the woman turns over the pot, she uses the lid to hold in the contents of the pot while the water goes out the side. I think that this is something we still do when we make pasta." + ], + [ + "A damaged jar found in a furnace: Before its manufacture was complete it is not susceptible to impurity, But if after its manufacture was complete it is susceptible. A damaged jar is one that is not complete, and is considered damaged even if only its handles have been removed. Mishnah 4:3 will discuss the damaged jar. If it is found in the furnace before its manufacturing process was complete, then it cannot become impure. In other words, if it was broken before it ever became a complete vessel, then it is pure, even though it has a receptacle. However, if it is first forged in the oven thereby completing its manufacturing, and then it breaks, since it does have a receptacle it is susceptible to impurity. In other words, once something is a finished vessel, it can receive impurity so long as it has a receptacle.", + "A sprinkler: Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok holds it is not susceptible to impurity; But Rabbi Yose holds it to be susceptible because it lets the liquid out in drops only. The \"sprinkler\" referred to here was a vessel with one hole above and many holes below. When one would cover the top hole with his finger, the water would not sprinkle out below. According to Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok, such a vessel is not considered a receptacle and therefore is not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose holds that it is susceptible because it only lets out small drops. However, if it lets the liquid out faster, then it is not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur Mishnah deals with some vessels that have multiple parts. The main issue at hand is whether all parts become unclean if one part does.", + "The following among earthen vessels are susceptible to impurity:
A tray with a rim, This is the opposite of the tray mentioned in Mishnah three, which did not have a rim.", + "An unbroken fire-pan, Also referred to in mishnah three.", + "And a tray made up of dishes, If one of them was defiled by a [dead] creeping thing they do not all become unclean, But if it had a rim that projected above the rims of the dishes and one of them was defiled all are unclean. The mishnah refers to a tray that has dishes attached to it. If one dish is defiled, the others remain pure. However, if the tray has a rim above it that surrounds all of the dishes, it joins them into one vessel. In such a case if one dish is defiled, all are unclean.", + "Similarly with an earthen spice-box and a double ink-pot. If one container was defiled from a liquid, the other is not unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: its thickness is divided and that side which serves the unclean one is unclean while that which serves the clean one remains clean. If its rim projects above the others and one of them contracted impurity the other is unclean. These two vessels also have multiple parts, such that if one is defiled the other is not. For instance if the liquid in one side becomes impure by contact with a sheretz, the liquid only touches the outside wall of the other side of the vessel and vessels are not defiled by having their outsides defiled by a liquid. However, if the sheretz had touched the vessel itself, one side of the wooden vessel will convey its impurity to the other side. This is a subject to which we return later in the tractate. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says that the wall that separates the two sides can be divided in two. The side that was on the impure half is impure, whereas the side on the half that didn't come into direct contact with the liquid remains clean. Finally, as in the previous case, if there is a rim that projects above and around both sides, it serves to join the two separate halves into one vessel, meaning that all sides are defiled." + ], + [ + "A torch is susceptible to impurity. A torch made of earthenware has a receptacle and is therefore susceptible to impurity.", + "And the reservoir of a lamp contracts impurity through its air- space. The reservoir of an earthenware lamp is considered a \"receptacle\" and therefore if something defiling comes within its airspace, it is defiled.", + "The comb of a tzartzur: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is susceptible. A tzartzur is some sort of bottle whose mouth is covered with netting made of earthenware. Around the mouth are teeth that look like those of a comb. Rabbi Eliezer holds that if impurity goes into the airspace of the comb, the comb is not defiled. But the sages hold that this area is considered a receptacle, and the comb can therefore be defiled." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAs we have learned previously, if an earthenware vessel is broken, it becomes clean. \"Broken\" would include a vessel that has a hole in it. The general rule is that if the hole is large enough to make the vessel unusable, it is clean.\nOur mishnah begins discussing how large the holes need to be in various vessels for them to be rendered pure.", + "The size of a hole that renders an earthen vessel clean:
If the vessel was made for food, the hole must be big enough for olives [to fall through]. If the vessel was made to hold food, it is impure until the hole is big enough to let out olives. Olive's are often the standard size used in food measures.", + "If it was used for liquids it suffices for the hole to be big enough for liquids [to go through it]. If the vessel was used for liquids, then the hole must be large enough to let the liquids escape.", + "And if it was used for both, we apply the greater stringency, that olives must be able to fall through. If a vessel was used for both food and liquids, then the rule is stringent. If the hole is big enough to let out liquid but not food then the vessel is still partially usable, so the vessel is still susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A jar: the size of the hole must be such that a dried fig [will fall through], the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah said: walnuts. Rabbi Meir said: olives.
A stew-pot or a cooking pot: such that olives [will fall through].
A bucket and a pitcher: such that oil [will fall through].
A tzartzur: such that water [will fall through].
Rabbi Shimon says: in the case of all three, [the hole] must be such that seedlings [will fall through].
A lamp: the size of the hole must be such that oil [will fall through]. Rabbi Eliezer says: such that a small perutah [will fall through].
A lamp whose nozzle has been removed is clean.
And one made of earth whose nozzle has been burned by the wick is also clean.
Section one: There are three different opinions as to how big the hole in a jar must be for the jar to become pure: big enough to let fall through, dried figs, walnuts or olives. Of these three the fig is the largest, then the walnut then the olives. So Rabbi Meir is the most lenient (the jar is pure even if it can still hold figs or walnuts) and Rabbi Shimon is the most stringent (the jar is impure until it can no longer hold even the larger figs).
Sections three and four: This section lists vessels used for liquids. Since the bucket and the pitcher are usually used for oil, the hole must be big enough to let out oil, which flows thickly and contains considerable sediment.
As I explained in 2:8, a tzartzur is some sort of bottle whose mouth is covered with netting made of earthenware. It is pure once it can no longer hold water. It seems that such a vessel was usually used to hold water. This is a smaller hole than the one required to purify the bucket or the pitcher.
Section five: Rabbi Shimon refers to the vessels mentioned in sections three and four. While the earlier opinion held that when these vessels can no longer hold liquid they are pure, Rabbi Shimon is more stringent and holds that the hole must be large enough to let out seedlings. If the vessel cannot be hold oil/water but can still be used for seedlings, it is still impure or at least susceptible to impurity.
Section six: There is a debate about the hole needed to render a lamp pure. According to the first opinion, since a lamp usually holds oil, the measure of the hole is such to hold in oil. If it no longer holds in oil it is unusable and therefore pure. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent and holds that the hole must be sufficient to let out a small coin (a perutah). It seems that according to Rabbi Eliezer, lamps are occasionally used to store such coins, and therefore they continue to be useful until even small coins fall out.
Section seven: Since the mishnah began to discuss lamps, we have a small digression on the purity of lamps (sounds like the title of a nineteenth century book \"A Small Digression on the Purity of Lamps\"). If the nozzle, the place where the wick rests, of a lamp is removed, the lamp can no longer be used and it is pure.
Section eight: A lamp made of earth must be forged for it to become susceptible to impurity. Forging is the completion of its manufacturing process and vessels are generally not susceptible to impurity until they have been completed. If the nozzle has been burned by the heat of the fire of the wick, the lamp's manufacturing is still not complete and therefore the lamp is pure." + ], + [ + "A jar that had a hole and was mended with pitch and then was broken again: If the fragment that was mended with the pitch can hold a quarter of a log it is unclean, since the designation of a vessel has never ceased to be applied to it. A jar had a hole in it and thereby became pure, as we learned in mishnah two. When someone fixed it, it again became susceptible to impurity. Then it was broken yet again, leaving a fragment that had been fixed with the pitch. As long as this fragment can still hold a quarter of a log, it is susceptible to impurity. The reason is that although the jar broke, it is still considered a vessel, and when it was fixed it could receive impurity again. Therefore broken pieces of it that can hold a quarter of a log are susceptible to impurity.", + "A potsherd that had a hole and was mended with pitch, it is clean though it can contain a quarter of a log, because the designation of a vessel has ceased to be applied to it. In contrast, a potsherd that had a hole in it and was then fixed, cannot become impure because a potsherd is not a vessel, even if it can contain a quarter of a log. The rule in this matter is as follows: if a broken piece of earthenware gets a hole in it, it can never become impure again because even if it is fixed, it is not considered a vessel." + ], + [ + "If a jar was about to be cracked but was strengthened with cattle dung, although the potsherds would fall apart were the dung to be removed, it is unclean, because the designation of vessel never ceased to apply. The jar was about to fall apart, but dung was applied to the outside as glue and the pieces were held together. Although the jar would fall apart were the dung removed, it is still susceptible to impurity because the jar never broke, and therefore never lost its designation as a vessel.", + "If it was broken and some of its pieces were stuck together again, or if he brought other pieces of clay from elsewhere, and it was also lined with cattle dung, even though the potsherds hold together when the dung is removed, it is clean, because the designation of vessel ceased to apply. In this case the jar actually broke, thereby ceasing to be a vessel. Although it has been repaired, the jar can no longer receive impurity, because once a vessel has been completely broken (and not just pierced) it can no longer receive impurity.", + "If it contained one potsherd that could hold a quarter of a log, all its parts contract impurity by contact, but that potsherd contracts impurity through its air-space. If one potsherd was large enough to hold a quarter of a log, then if a defiling agent touches the inside of the jar, the entire jar is impure, even if it touched a different potsherd. Since one potsherd was large enough to be considered a \"vessel\" the entire repaired vessel can still be defiled. The large potsherd can become impure even through something defiling entering its airspace. So if a piece of something impure enters the airspace opposite that piece, then the entire jar is impure. But if something impure enters the airspace opposite the other potsherds, nothing is impure." + ], + [ + "One who lines a sound vessel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: [the lining] contracts impurity.
But the sages say: a lining over a sound vessel is not susceptible to impurity, and only one over a cracked vessel is susceptible.
And the same dispute applies to the hoop of a pumpkin shell.
Section one: The debate in this mishnah concerns a person who lined the outside of a vessel that was in sound shape. According to the Tosefta, he did this so that he could cook with this vessel.
Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule that if the vessel becomes defiled from the inside (earthenware vessels can only be defiled from the inside), the lining on the outside is also impure. The lining can then subsequently defile any food or drink that touches it on the outside.
The other sages say that the lining is susceptible to impurity only if it is necessary to hold the vessel together. So the lining of a sound vessel is not susceptible, whereas the lining of a cracked vessel is.
Section two: Dried pumpkin shells were used to draw water. They would attach a hoop to the shell in order to strengthen it. This is similar to the previous case, in that both are cases of strengthening a vessel that is in sound shape. According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon the hoop is susceptible to impurity, whereas the sages hold that it is not." + ], + [ + "As to dog's tooth which which they line large jars: anything that touches it becomes unclean. Dog's tooth is a type of grass that was used to line jars. If the large jar becomes defiled, then the grass is defiled as well. If food or liquids then touch the lining they too are impure.", + "The plug of a jar is not regarded as connected. The jar's impurity does not affect the plug of the jar because the plug is meant to be removed.", + "That which touches the lining of an oven is unclean. The lining of an earthenware oven is an integral part of the oven. Therefore, if the oven becomes impure the lining is impure as well and it will subsequently cause food or drink that comes into contact with it to become impure." + ], + [ + "A cauldron which was lined with mortar or with potter's clay: That which touches the mortar is unclean; But that which touches the potter's clay is clean. The mishnah presents an earthenware cauldron which was lined with either of two materials: mortar or potter's clay. The mortar is thick and is a permanent coating. Therefore, if the kettle is defiled the coating is as well and it will subsequently affect food or liquid as well, as if they touched the kettle. But the potter's clay is not permanent and is thinner than the mortar. Therefore the lining is not affected by the impurity of the kettle.", + "A kettle which was punctured and the hole was stopped with pitch: Rabbi Yose rules that it is clean since it cannot hold hot water as cold. According to Rabbi Yose the pitch used to stop up the hole is not sufficient to make the kettle useful again. Since it cannot be used for its main purpose, to hold hot water, it is not considered to be a vessel and it cannot contract impurity. This is true even though it can be used to hold cold water.", + "The same ruling he also gave concerning vessels made of pitch. Copper vessels which were lined with pitch the lining is clean, But if they are used for wine, it is unclean. Rabbi Yose issued the same ruling with regard to all vessels coated with pitch. If the vessel was meant to be used with hot water, the pitch cannot be made impure by the impurity of the vessel. This is illustrated with regard to copper vessels. If the copper vessel was designed to be used with hot liquids, the impurity of the vessel is not transmitted to the coating. But if the vessel is used to hold wine which is cold, the vessel can transmit impurity to the lining because the lining is sufficient for holding wine." + ], + [ + "A jar which which was pierced and the hole stopped up with more pitch than was necessary: That which touches the needed portion is unclean, But that which touches the unneeded portion is clean. If one used more pitch than necessary to stop up an earthenware jar, only the part of the pitch that is necessary to stop up the hole is considered to be part of the jar. The unnecessary part is not part of the jar and therefore even if the jar is impure, this part remains pure.", + "Pitch which dripped upon a jar, that which touches it is clean. Pitch that simply dripped onto a jar has no function and is not considered to be part of the jar and therefore it remains pure even if the jar is impure.", + "A wooden or earthen funnel which was stopped up with pitch: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that it is unclean. Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean when it is of wood and clean when it is of earthenware. Rabbi Yose says that both are clean. By plugging the funnel with pitch he has now created a receptacle. The rabbis debate whether this makes the funnel (not just the pitch) susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says that this does indeed turn it into a receptacle, thereby making it susceptible to impurity (a susceptible receptacle this should remind you of a Supertramp song). Rabbi Akiva notes that since pitch is made of wood extract, it can turn a wooden funnel into a receptacle. However, it does not turn an earthenware funnel into a receptacle because it is of a different kind, so therefore the funnel remains pure. Rabbi Yose holds that since the plug is not permanent, in neither case is the funnel susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah 2:2 we learned that a potsherd (broken piece of pottery) which can stand without support and can be used to contain a minimal amount of liquid is still susceptible to impurity. In today's mishnah we learn that if it cannot stand without support than it is not susceptible.", + "A potsherd that cannot stand unsupported on account of its handle, or a potsherd whose bottom is pointed and that point causes it to overbalance, is clean. Since the broken piece of pottery cannot stand on its own, it is not considered a vessel and it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "If the handle was removed or the point was broken off it is still clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. According to the first opinion, once a broken piece of pottery becomes pure (because it cannot stand on its own) it can never go back to becoming susceptible to impurity. This serves to distinguish a broken piece from a whole vessel, because if whole vessels are repaired they can again become susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah disagrees, holding that broken pieces are just like whole vessels. Once repaired such that they can hold a minimal amount of liquid, they again become susceptible to impurity.", + "If a jar was broken but is still capable of holding something in its sides, or if it was split into a kind of two troughs: Rabbi Judah says it is clean But the sages say it is unclean. The jar was broken such that it can still hold liquids when stood on its side. Alternatively, it was split into two pieces, both of which can hold some liquid when stood on their side. In this case, Rabbi Judah rules leniently. According to Rabbi Judah a potsherd can retain its susceptibility to impurity only if it can contain liquids in the same way that the original vessel did. Since these potsherds receive liquids only when standing on their sides and not when standing upright, they are pure. The other sages disagree and hold that as long as it can hold liquids, the potsherd is still susceptible to impurity. Note that the mishnah seems to want to balance a lenient ruling of Rabbi Judah with a stringent one, and so too when it comes to the sages. This could either be an easier way of remembering things, or perhaps a way of telling the reader that rabbis cannot necessarily be classified as either stringent or lenient on these matters. Rather they differ based on principles, and those principles sometimes lead them in differing directions." + ], + [ + "If a jar was cracked and cannot be moved with half a kav of dried figs in it, it is clean. Half a kav of dried figs is an amount deemed worthy of a meal (see Peah 8:5). If a jar cannot hold this minimum measure of food, it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "If a damaged vessel ( was cracked and it cannot hold any liquid, even though it can hold foodstuffs, it is clean, since remnants do not have remnants. A damaged broken piece of an earthenware vessel that is still used to hold liquids is still susceptible to impurity. However, if it then becomes cracked such that it cannot hold liquids, it is no longer susceptible to impurity. This is because there is a general rule that once a damaged piece of earthenware becomes further damaged, it is usually discarded and therefore no longer susceptible to impurity. Note that is true even though this broken piece of a utensil could be used to hold food. Since people generally throw such a thing away, it is no longer considered a vessel." + ], + [ + "What is meant by a \"damaged vessel\" (? One whose handles were removed. Yesterday's mishnah dealt with a damaged vessel called a gistera. A vessel is considered to be a gistera once its handles have fallen off.", + "If sharp ends projected from it: Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity through its air-space. The gistera described here has sharp edges protruding where the handle broke off from the vessel. These sharp edges seem to be on the top of the broken vessel. If these edges are close enough together so that the vessel can still hold olives, then the entire vessel can be defiled by contact on the inside of the vessel. And anything inside the vessel facing the sharp edges will convey impurity through air space, even if it does not come into contact with the vessel. In this case the sharp edges are simply part of the vessel. However, if the sharp edges are far enough apart so that they cannot hold olives, then they can still become impure through contact, but they cannot become impure by something entering their airspace. In this case the sharp edges are considered to be a handle to the vessel, and handles are not defiled by something that enters their airspace.", + "If it was leaning on its side like a kind of cathedra, Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity to the vessel through its air-space. If the gistera was split in two from top to bottom so that it looks like a \"cathedra,\" a carriage seat with a back and two sides. In other words, one side is open but three sides are closed. In such a case any part of the vessel that can be used to hold olives, contracts impurity both by contact and by defiling agents entering its airspace. The part of the gistera that cannot contain olives contracts impurity only through contact and not through defiling agents entering its airspace. Note that this halakhah matches the opinion of the sages in 4:1.", + "Bowls with Korfian [bottoms], and cups with Zidonian bottoms, although they cannot stand unsupported, are susceptible to impurity, because they were originally fashioned in this manner. Korfian bottoms are pointed so that the bowl cannot stand unsupported. So too, Sidonian cups have pointed bottoms. Generally, the \"gistera\" of a vessel that cannot stand unsupported is not susceptible to impurity. But because these vessels were originally made to be this way, their gisteras are susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "An earthenware vessel that has three rims: If the innermost one projects above the others, all outside it is not susceptible to impurity. If the outermost one projects above the others all within it is susceptible to impurity; And if the middle one projects above the others, that which is within it is susceptible to impurity, while that which is without it is not susceptible to impurity. The vessel referred to here has three rims, forming three circles around the vessel. Since earthenware vessels do not become impure by contact through their backs (their outside) the mishnah needs to determine which of the rims is \"inside\" and which is the actual rim. The basic determining factor is that the highest rim is the \"real\" rim. So if the innermost rim is highest, the outer two rims are the outside of the vessel and are not susceptible to impurity. And if the outermost rim is highest, then it is the \"real\" rim and everything inside is susceptible.", + "If they were equal in height: Rabbi Judah says: the middle one is deemed to be divided. But the sages ruled: all are not susceptible to impurity. If all three rims are of the same height, then Rabbi Judah says we split them right down the middle. From the middle of the middle rim and inwards is susceptible and the outside is not susceptible. The other sages disagree and hold that anything outside of the inner rim is not susceptible to impurity.", + "When do earthenware vessels become susceptible to impurity? As soon as they are baked in the furnace, that being the completion of their manufacture. This clause contains an essential principle in the laws of impurity. Vessels are susceptible to impurity once their manufacture is complete. At that point they become \"vessels.\" The manufacture of earthenware vessels is complete once they are baked in the furnace. If a defiling agent comes into contact with them before that point, they are still clean." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe next five chapters of Mishnah Kelim will do with the purity of oven and stoves. The oven referred to in the mishnah was like an inverted pot, with a narrow top to let a little air escape and enter. It had no floor, but rather the earth served as the floor. It was used primarily for the cooking of flat bread, which would be stuck to its sides.", + "A baking oven originally must be no less than four handbreadths [high] and what is left of it four handbreadths, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: this applies only to a large oven but in the case of a small one it originally can be [any height] and what is left is the greater part of it. According to Rabbi Meir for an oven to be susceptible to impurity, its original size must be at least four handbreadths. If it was originally higher than four handbreadths, and then it broke and not all of it remains, the minimum height for it to be susceptible to impurity is still four handbreadths. The sages make a distinction between ovens that were intended to be large from the outset and ovens that were originally intended to be small. When it comes to the large oven they agree with Rabbi Meir. However, they hold that some ovens were intended to be small from the outset. Such an oven can originally be of any height for it to be susceptible to impurity and if it breaks as long as a majority of it remains it is still susceptible to impurity.", + "[Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. Rabbi Judah says: when a new oven has been heated to a degree that sufficed for the baking of spongy cakes in an old one. The oven is susceptible to impurity once its manufacture is complete. The rabbis debate what is considered the completion of its manufacturing. According to the first opinion, the oven is susceptible once it has been forged sufficiently for it to be used to cook spongy cakes, which can be cooked at a relatively low temperature. Rabbi Judah slightly modifies this. Sponge-cakes would require more heat in a new oven than in an old one. If the new oven had been heated up enough for an old oven to cook sponge-cakes, then it is already susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah begins to deal with the \"stove\" which either had one or two holes on its top upon which they would place pots and pans.", + "A double stove: its original height must be no less than three fingerbreadths and what is left of it three fingerbreadths. Stoves were much smaller than ovens and therefore as long as it was originally three fingerbreadths or if it was broken and there remain three fingerbreadths, the stove is considered usable and susceptible to impurity.", + "[Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of the lightest of eggs when scrambled and put in a saucepan. A stove of this height is susceptible to impurity once its walls have been fired enough to cook on it a scrambled egg.", + "A single stove: if it was made for baking its prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking its prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. A single stove was hotter than a double stove and therefore it could either be used to bake bread inside like a baking oven, or to cook on top. If it was made to bake bread, then it must be as large as an oven (see yesterday's mishnah) in order to contract impurity. If it was made to serve as a stove, then it only needs to be as large as a stove to become impure.", + "A stone that projects one handbreadth from a baking-oven or three fingerbreadths from a double stove is considered a connection. One that projects from a single stove, if it was made for baking, the prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking the prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. Stones protruding from ovens and stoves may either be useless, in which case they are not susceptible to impurity, or they may be handles through which the oven or stove is carried, in which case they are susceptible to impurity. For an oven the stone can be up to a handbreadth for it to be considered connected and therefore a handle. If it is larger than it is not susceptible. For a double stove, which is smaller, the measure is only three fingerbreadths. Again, the single stove does not have its own set of rules rather it is considered like an oven if made for baking and like a double stove if made for cooking on top.", + "Rabbi Judah said: they spoke of a ‘handbreadth’ only where the projection was between the oven and a wall. Rabbi Judah says that the measure of the stone as a \"handbreadth\" was only given in the case of a stone that was between the oven and the wall. In order to push the oven up against the wall, they reduced the stone to a handbreadth. But if the oven is not next to the wall, the stone is considered connected as a handle no matter how long it is. It will always be susceptible.", + "If two ovens were adjacent to one another, they allot one handbreadth to this one and one to the other and the remainder is clean. If two ovens were next to each other and one stone connected them, then the handbreadth closest to each oven is susceptible to impurity. Any space between the two beyond the handbreadth allotted to each remains clean, even if the oven is impure." + ], + [ + "The crown of a double stove is clean. The crown is like a lid for the stove. It was placed on top of the hole to keep the heat in. Since it is unattached, it is unaffected by the impurity of the stove.", + "The fender around an oven: if it is four handbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, but if it was lower it is clean. The fender around the oven is not attached to the oven. Some commentators explain that the purpose of this structure was to hold bread after it had been removed from the oven. If this fender is four handbreadths high, which is the minimum height of the oven, it is susceptible to the impurity of the oven. Thus an oven which is rendered impure by a defiling agent which comes into contact with it or enters its air-space will cause the fender to be impure. However, if it is lower than the oven than it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "If it was joined to it, even if only by three stones, it is unclean. In all cases if the fender was joined to the oven, then it is susceptible to the oven's impurity because it is part of the oven.", + "The place [on the stove] for the oil cruse, the spice-pot, and the lamp contract impurity by contact but not through their air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Ishmael rules that they are clean. On the stove's outer walls were compartments to hold the oil cruse, the spice-pot and the lamp. However, they are only susceptible to impurity if the oven came into actual contact with a defiling agent. If an impurity came into the oven's air-space, while the oven is impure the compartments remain pure. This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Ishmael holds that the compartments are independent of the stove and therefore unaffected by the stove's impurity." + ], + [ + "An oven that was heated from its outside, or one that was heated without the owner's knowledge, or one that was heated while still in the craftsman's house is susceptible to impurity. Usually an oven is heated up from the inside, with the owner's knowledge, after the craftsmen has put on the finishing touches. However, as long as the oven is heated up enough to cook sponge-cakes, the oven is susceptible to impurity.", + "It once happened that a fire broke out among the ovens of Kefar Signah, and when the case was brought up at Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel ruled that they were unclean. Even though these ovens were not heated up intentionally, and they were heated up probably in the craftsmen's house, they are still susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "The additional piece of a householder's oven is clean, but that of bakers is unclean because he rests the roasting spit on it.
Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar said: because one bakes on it when pressed [for space].
Similarly the additional part of the boiler used by olive cookers is susceptible to impurity, but that of one used by dyers is not susceptible.
Section one: This additional piece was put around the hole at the top but since it serves no special function, it is not susceptible to impurity. However, the same piece when part of a baker's oven is susceptible because the baker may occasionally use this piece to roast some meat.
Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar agrees that this piece is susceptible but he holds that it serves a different function. Sometimes the baker will use it to bake bread when the oven is full.
Section two: The same principle is employed here. Since the additional part of the boiler is used by olive cookers it is impure, but the dyers did not use this additional part and therefore it is pure." + ], + [ + "If an oven was half filled with earth, the part from the earth downwards contracts impurity by contact only while the part from the earth upwards contracts impurity [also] from its air- space. If a person filled part of an oven up with earth, then it is less susceptible to impurity than the empty/usable part. The filled part is impure only if a defiling agent touched the upper part, whereas the empty part is impure even if the defilement only enters the oven's airspace.", + "If he put the oven over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar and he put a stone at its side: Rabbi Judah says: if when heated below it becomes also heated above it is susceptible to impurity. But the sages say: since it was heated, no matter how, it is susceptible to impurity. In this case a person put an unfinished oven above either a pit or over a cistern and he wedged a stone to keep it from falling. Rabbi Judah says that it must be possible to forge the oven from below in the pit or cistern. If the oven can only be heated up by using its own bottom part, then the oven's manufacturing is not complete. Rabbi Judah holds that an oven must be attached to the ground when heated for the first time. The other sages do not share this rule with Rabbi Judah. They hold that as long as the oven is heated up, it is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses how one can purify an oven. To recall, in the time of the mishnah the oven was like an upside down pot, and it was attached to the ground before it was used. To provide with extra insulation, they would cover the walls with clay.", + "If an oven contracted impurity how is it to be cleansed? He must divide into three parts and scrape off the plastering so that [the oven] touches the ground. According to the first opinion, the first step in purifying an oven is to divide it into three parts, from top to bottom. As we will learn in the final clause, he should divide it so that no part is equal to half of the oven. Then he scrapes off the clay on the outside of the oven. This either refers to the clay that covers the wall of the oven, or the clay which attaches the oven to the ground. In either case, the oven has now ceased to be a functional vessel and is therefore no longer impure.", + "Rabbi Meir says: he does not need to scrape off the plastering nor is it necessary for [the oven] to touch the ground. Rather he reduces it within to a height of less than four handbreadths. Rabbi Meir is a bit less strict. To purify the oven, he can split the oven from inside, without removing the layer of clay on the outside. The split should be less than four handbreadths from the ground. Since Rabbi Meir holds that any oven that is not four handbreadths from the ground is not susceptible to impurity (see 5:1) this oven is now pure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: he must move it [from its position]. Rabbi Shimon rules more strictly than either two previous opinions. Not only must he split the oven and scrape off the coating, but he must also move it from its position.", + "If it was divided into two parts, one large and the other small, the larger remains unclean and the smaller becomes clean. If he split it into only two pieces, one large and one small, the small piece is pure because it is less than half the size of the original oven. The large piece remains impure.", + "If it was divided into three parts one of which was as big as the other two together, the big one remains unclean and the two small ones become clean. Furthermore, if he split it into three pieces but one piece was still as large as the other two combined, then the large piece is still impure because it is more than half of the size of the oven. In other words, when section one stated that the oven must be split into three, it meant that no piece should be more than half of the size of the original oven." + ], + [ + "If an oven was cut up by its width into rings that are each less than four handbreadths in height, it is clean. If instead of cutting the oven into pieces from top to bottom, he cut it along its breadth into rings, each ring of the oven that is less than four handbreadths high is clean. This accords with Rabbi Meir's opinion in 5:1, who said that if the remnants of the oven are less than four handbreadths, the oven is clean. The other sages in that mishnah would limit this to a case where the oven was larger than eight handbreadths. If it was smaller, then it remains unclean until less than a majority is left in the ring.", + "If he subsequently plastered it over with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. If after taking the oven apart he reassembles it and plasters it over with clay, the oven is not susceptible to impurity until he fires it up sufficiently so that it could be used to bake sponge cakes. This is the same rule for when a new oven is susceptible to impurity. In other words, a reconstituted oven is treated the same as a new oven.", + "If he distanced the plastering, and sand or gravel was put between it and the oven sides of such an oven it has been said, \"A menstruant as well as a clean woman may bake in it and it remains clean.\" If instead of plastering the clay directly back on the rings of the oven, he made a covering of plaster and then filled in the space with stones or gravel, the oven is not susceptible to impurity because for an oven to be susceptible the clay must be directly on the oven. In this case, a pure woman and a menstruant can bake in the oven at the same time, without fear that the menstruant will defile the oven which would subsequently defile the pure woman's bread. It seems that this may have been a way to circumvent what was certainly a problem how can women who are menstruationg bake their bread without the need for a separate oven?" + ], + [ + "An oven which came cut up in sections from the craftsman's house and he made for it hoops and put them on it, it is clean. The oven came to the person who ordered it cut up in pieces from top to bottom. The craftsmen had made hoops for it so that it could be held together while it was plastered and heated. The oven is still clean while he assembles it with the hoops because it is not yet ready to be used.", + "If it contracts impurity, and then he removed its hoops it is clean. If he put a clay coating on it while the hoops were still attached and heated it up and then it became impure and then he removed the hoops, it is clean again because removal of the hoops causes the clay to fall off.", + "If he put them back on, it is still clean. It is still pure when he puts the hoops back on because there is still no coating of clay.", + "If he plastered it with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity and there is no need to heat it since it was once heated. If he again plasters it with clay, it is susceptible to impurity. It does not need to be reheated because it was heated up earlier while the hoops were still attached." + ], + [ + "If he cut the oven up into rings, and then he put sand between each pair of rings, Rabbi Eliezer says: it is clean. But the sages say: it is unclean. This is the oven of Akhnai. In this case a person took an oven and cut it into rings, and then reassembled it, filling in with sand in between the rings. He then coated it all over with clay and heated it up so that it would be usable. Rabbi Eliezer rules that such an oven is not susceptible to impurity because of the presence of the sand between the rings, whereas the sages hold that the coating makes the oven into one unit and therefore it is susceptible. This oven is known as \"the oven of Akhnai,\" which probably refers to the manufacturer of the oven. The Talmud's famous tale of the argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua is told concerning this oven. In this tale Rabbi Eliezer calls upon God to break the laws of nature to prove that his position is correct, and the miracles indeed occur. Rabbi Joshua responds \"it is not in Heaven,\" meaning that after God gave the Torah to Israel, the law is no longer in Heaven, but rather subject to the independent interpretation of human beings. This is a foundational story for the rabbis, for it substantiates their understanding of Torah interpretation.", + "As regards Arabian vats, which are holes dug in the ground and plastered with clay, if the plastering can stand of itself it is susceptible to impurity; Otherwise it is not susceptible. This is the oven of Ben Dinai. An \"Arabian vat\" is simply a hole dug in the ground whose walls are covered with plaster. If the plaster can stand on its own, then the oven is susceptible to impurity, but if it requires the earth to support it, then it is not susceptible. This oven is called the oven of \"Ben Dinai.\" Some hold that Ben Dinai was a robber who would bake his bread in such an oven. Others hold that \"Ben Dinai\" comes from the word \"din\" which is Hebrew for either logic or law. It was called \"Ben Dinai\" because there were debates over such an oven." + ], + [ + "An oven of stone or of metal is clean, But the latter is unclean as a metal vessel. All stone vessels are totally unsusceptible to impurity, so a stone oven can never become impure. A metal oven can become impure but not in the same way as an earthenware oven. While an earthenware oven is susceptible to impurity through its interior space, and not from its outside, the reverse is true for a metal oven. Also, a metal oven that has been attached to the ground is not susceptible, whereas an earthenware oven is.", + "If a hole was made in it, or if it was damaged or cracked, and he lined it with plaster or with a rim of clay, it is unclean. What must be the size of the hole [for it to be pure]? It must be big enough for the flame to come through. If the oven was in some way damaged such that a flame could go through the hole in the side, the oven is pure because it is not usable. However, it becomes susceptible again to impurity once it has been repaired.", + "The same applies also to a stove. A stove of stone or of metal is clean. But the latter is unclean as a metal vessel. If a hole was made in it or if it was damaged or cracked but was provided with props it is unclean. The same general rules apply to a stove. The mishnah adds that if he makes \"props\" which is either a tripod for pots put on top of the stove or legs to plug the holes on the bottom, the stove is again susceptible because it is usable. As usual, once a vessel has been repaired, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "If it was lined with clay, whether inside or outside, it remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: if [the lining was] inside it is unclean but if outside it remains clean. According to the first opinion, if he spread a clay lining over a stone or metal stove, it is still pure, meaning it is not considered an earthenware vessel. This is because the clay is not necessary and does not affect the functioning of the oven. Rabbi Judah holds that if the clay lining is spread inside the oven it does make the stove into an \"earthenware vessel\" and subject to the purity rules governing such a vessel. But if he spreads it on the outside of the vessel, it is still considered to be of stone/metal and the rules governing an earthenware vessel do not apply." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the purity of makeshift stoves.", + "If he put three props into the ground and joined them [to the ground] with clay so that a pot could be set on them, [the structure] is susceptible to impurity. The props used to make this stove are of earthenware. If he set three of them together so that he could rest a stove on top of them and attached them to the ground with clay, the structure is susceptible to impurity.", + "If he set three nails in the ground so that a pot could be set on them, even though a place was made on the top for the pot to rest, [the structure] is not susceptible to impurity. The nails are made of metal and metal that is attached to the ground is not susceptible to impurity. Therefore this structure remains pure even if he makes a place on top out of earthenware for a pot to sit on. The fact that it is covered with some earthenware does not affect its status.", + "One who made a stove of two stones, joining them [to the ground] with clay: It is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says that it is not susceptible to impurity, unless a third stone is added or [the structure] is placed near a wall. According to the first opinion, since the stones are wide enough to support the pot, once they are attached with clay to the ground they are considered a stove and they are susceptible to impurity. However, Rabbi Judah retains the rule that we need a tri-partite structure in order to be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, he must either add a third stone or put the structure next to the wall to serve as a third stone.", + "If one stone was joined with clay and the other was not joined with clay, [the structure] is not susceptible to impurity. According to the sages both stones must be attached to the ground for it to be susceptible to impurity. If one was attached to the ground with clay and the other was not, the structure is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "A stone on which he placed a pot, [on it] and on an oven, or on it and a double stove, or on it and on a stove, is susceptible to impurity. In this case a person places a pot on a makeshift stove, where one side consists of a stone attached to the ground by clay and the other side consists of either an oven a double stove or a single stove. The stone is susceptible to impurity in this case because the oven or stove counts as a second attached stone. This is similar to the situation in yesterday's mishnah.", + "[If he set the pot] on it and on another stone, on it and on a rock, or on it and on a wall, it is not susceptible to impurity. And such was the stove of the Nazirites in Jerusalem which was set up against a rock. In this case he sets the other side of the pot not on another oven or stove, but on another stone which was unattached to the ground with clay or on a rock which was part of the ground, or on a wall. These do not count as a \"second stone attached to the ground\" which as we learned in yesterday's mishnah causes both stones to be susceptible to impurity. Rather in this case the stone which is attached to the ground with clay is susceptible. At the end of his/her term of naziriteship a nazirite must bring a shelamim offering. To prevent the sacrifice from being defiled, they would cook it in a stove made of one stone attached to the ground and the other side of the pot resting on the wall.", + "As regards the stove of the butchers, where the stones are placed side by side, if one of the stoves contracted impurity, the others do not become unclean. Butchers would make a line of stoves made of stones attached to the ground. Each stone, except for the outer ones, could be used to hold up two pots, one to the left and one to the right. The mishnah looks at each pair of stones as an independent unit such that if one stone becomes impure, the pair next to it retains its purity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues the subject of stones lined up in a row to make multiple stoves.", + "If one made two stoves of three stones and one of the outer ones was defiled the half of the middle one that serves the unclean one is unclean but the half of it that serves the clean one remains clean. The structure described here consists of three stones, each attached either to the ground with clay or to each other. This will make two stoves, one between each stone. If one of the outer stones is defiled, then the half of the middle stone facing the impure stone is impure. But the side facing the pure stone remains pure.", + "If the clean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the unclean one. If he removed the clean stone on the outside, then the middle stone is used entirely with the unclean stone. Therefore the middle one is now entirely unclean.", + "If the unclean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the clean one. Similarly, if the unclean stone is removed, the middle stone is entirely pure because it is only used with the pure stone.", + "Should the two outer ones become defiled, if the middle stone was large, each outer stone is allowed such a part of it as suffices for the support of a pot and the remainder is clean. But if it was small all of it is unclean. If both outer stones are defiled, then the parts of the middle stone that are used with the outer stones are also considered defiled, but if there remains unused space in between the used portions, the unused space is pure. If the middle stone was small and all of it was used to rest the pots whose other side was placed on the outer stones, then the entire stone is impure.", + "Should the middle stone be removed, if a big kettle can be set on the two outer stones they are unclean. If the middle stone is removed, the outer stones remain impure if they can still be used to heat up a large vat.", + "If the middle stone is returned they all become clean again. If it was plastered with clay it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of an egg. If after removing the middle stone he returns it, the entire structure becomes pure again. We look at this stove as if it was first destroyed, which causes it to shed its impurity and then was rebuilt. In such cases the vessel does not return to its original impurity. In order for this stove to again become susceptible to impurity, he must plaster it with clay to attach it to the ground and heat up all three stones such that they could be used to cook an egg. In other words this is a new stove." + ], + [ + "If two stones were made into a stove and they became defiled, and a stone was set up near the outer side of the one and another stone near the outer side of the other, [the inner half] of each [inner stones] remains unclean while [the outer] half of each [of these stones] is clean. At the outset there are simply two stones attached to the ground and made into a stove. These stones become defiled. Then he put another stone on each side, creating three stoves made of four stones. The inner half of each of the original stones remains impure because it serves the inside stove. The outer half which faces the pure stone becomes pure because it has now been made into a new stove.", + "If the clean stones are removed the others revert to their impurity. If he then removes the outer stones, the inner stones revert to their earlier state of impurity which means they are completely impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The fire-basket of a householder which was lessened by less than three handbreadths is susceptible to impurity because when it is heated from below a pot above would still boil. If [it was lessened] to a lower depth it is not susceptible to impurity. The fire-basket referred to in our mishnah is a portable earthenware stove. The bottom was thick so that it could be placed on any surface. Coals would be placed inside and the pot would be placed on top. If the fire-basket was reduced, meaning the bottom was further from the top, but the reduction is less than three hand-breadths, it is still susceptible to impurity because it is still usable. However, if it was lessened more than three handbreadths, it is pure because the fire-basket is not usable.", + "If subsequently a stone or gravel was put into it, it is still not susceptible to impurity. Putting stone or pebbles into the stove to fill in the gap does not restore the fire-basket to its original state and therefore it remains impure.", + "If it was plastered over with clay, it may contract impurity from that point and onwards. However, if he put in stones or pebbles and then plastered them over with clay, they again become susceptible to impurity.", + "This was Rabbi Judah's reply in connection with the oven that was placed over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar. This section refers to mishnah 5:6, where Rabbi Judah and the sages had a dispute concerning an oven placed over the mouth of a cistern or a cellar. According to Rabbi Judah the oven was not susceptible to impurity unless the fire in the pit could heat it sufficiently. According to our mishnah, he referred to the fire-basket to prove his point. The fire-basket is not impure unless the coals in the bottom are close enough to the top to heat up the pot." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMost of today's mishnah deals with a protrusion on the side of the oven used to store pots to keep them warm. It is called a \"dachon\" in Hebrew and is usually translated as a \"hob\" (a word that I will admit I have never used before).", + "A hob that has a receptacle for pots is clean as a stove but unclean as a receptacle. The hob is not considered to be a part of the stove, and therefore if the stove is defiled the hob remains pure. However, it can become impure independently since it is a receptacle. This means that it will contract impurity if something impure enters its airspace.", + "As to its sides, whatever touches them does not become unclean as if the hob had been a stove, The outer edges of the hob which are not connected to the stove are not considered part of the stove. Thus if the stove is impure and food touches them, the food remains pure.", + "But as regards its wide side: Rabbi Meir holds it to be clean But Rabbi Judah holds it to be unclean. The rabbis argue with regard to the wide side that is attached to the stove. Rabbi Meir says that the part of the earthenware that faces the hob is clean, although the part that faces the stove is unclean. Rabbi Judah says that this entire piece of earthenware is used for the stove therefore it is all unclean.", + "The same law applies also where a basket was inverted and a stove was put upon it. The same rule as above applies to a situation where a person took a basket, and turned it over and used the bottom as a base for the stove. He then left part of the bottom as a hob. The hob itself is not subject to the impurity of the stove. The dispute is concerning the wall of the stove facing the hob part of the basket: is it part of the hob (Rabbi Meir) or not (Rabbi Judah)?" + ], + [ + "A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. If a double stove was split lengthwise it is rendered unusable since each opening is cut in half. Therefore it is pure. However, if it split by its breadth, it is pure because it is still usable. In contrast, a single stove is rendered useless if it split, no matter how it is split. Therefore, in all cases it is pure.", + "As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air- space. The \"extension\" is an earthenware base that surrounds the stove. Occasionally pots were placed on the extension. If it is three fingerbreadths high, the minimum height of a stove, then it is subject to impurity through contact and through airspace. This means that if a defiling agent enters the stove's airspace or touches the inside of the stove, the extension is also impure. If it is less than three fingerbreadths high, then it is impure only if the stove is defiled by touching and not by airspace. It seems that in this case the extension is not a vessel in and of its own right, but only a \"yad\" an \"appendage\" of the stove. A \"yad\" cannot be defiled through airspace.", + "How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. The mishnah questions how we determine the airspace of the extension. This is a problem because the extension surrounds the stove which is much higher than the extension. Rabbi Ishmael says that we take a spit and lay it diagonally from the top of the stove to the top of the extension. If a defiling agent enters its airspace below this diagonal line, it transmits its impurity.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov considers the extension to be an appendage to the stove. Hence, if the stove becomes defiled, its extension is always impure, even if the stove contracted impurity through its airspace and the extension is less than three fingerbreadths high. However, an appendage cannot transmit impurity to the main vessel and therefore if the extension contracts impurity, the stove remains pure." + ], + [ + "If it [the extension] was detached from the stove, whenever it was three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, If it was lower or if it was smooth it is clean. If the extension that surrounds the stove was not attached to the stove, it is susceptible to impurity only if it is three fingerbreadths high. This means that if the stove contracts impurity through its airspace or by contact, the extension will also be impure. If, however, the extension was less than three fingerbreadths high, or it had no rim (it was smooth), then it is considered separate from the stove and if the stove becomes defiled the extension remains pure.", + "If three props on a stove were three fingerbreadths high, they contract impurity by contact and through their air-space. If they were lower, all the more so they contract impurity, even where they were four in number. Some commentators explain that the three props form a tri-pod for the pot to rest on the stove, while others explain them as serving as a base for the stove itself. If they are no more than three fingerbreadths above the stove, then they are considered part of the stove and the impurity of the stove contracted either by contact or through its airspace will similarly defile the props. If the props are closer to the stove, they are all the more so susceptible to impurity. This is true even if there were four of them, meaning that one was superfluous. However, if there were five or more props, they are not considered to be part of the stove and if the stove is defiled the props remain clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains four debates between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon concerning the purity of the props used to support either the stove or the pot that rests on top of the stove.\nThe basis for this debate seems to be the same in all four cases. If the props are not considered to be attached to the stove, Rabbi Meir holds that they are still susceptible to the stove's impurity, but just to a lesser extent. Rabbi Shimon holds that the props are not susceptible at all.", + "If one of them [i.e. the props] was removed, the remaining ones contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If one of the props is removed, leaving two props, Rabbi Meir holds that they are still susceptible to impurity but only through contact and not through airspace. This means that if the oven is defiled through its airspace, the props remain pure, but if the oven is defiled by contact, the props are impure. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon considers the props to be separate from the stove and therefore pure even if the stove contracts impurity through contact.", + "If originally he made two props, one opposite the other, they contract impurity by contact and through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If he originally made two props but he made them opposite each other so that he could rest a pot on them, Rabbi Meir holds that they are fully susceptible to impurity, both through airspace and contact. We should note that there is a variant reading of this section, according to which these props are susceptible to impurity only through contact and not through airspace (making this section consistent with the others). Rabbi Shimon considers this to be the same as the previous case, and the props are pure.", + "If they were more than three fingerbreadths high, the parts that are three fingerbreadths high and below contract impurity by contact and through air-space but the parts that are more than three fingerbreadths high contract impurity by contact and not through air-space; the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. In yesterday's mishnah we learned that if the props were less than three fingerbreadths high, they are susceptible to the stove's impurity. If they are more than three fingerbreadths high, then according to Rabbi Meir we draw an imaginary line three fingerbreadths over the stove. Above this line the props are susceptible to the impurity of the stove, but only if the stove contracts impurity through contact. Below the line, the props are fully susceptible. Rabbi Shimon considers these oversized props to be independent of the stove and therefore any part above three fingerbreadths is completely unsusceptible to impurity.", + "If they were withdrawn from the rim [of the stove], the parts which are within three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact and through air-space, and those parts that are removed more than three fingerbreadths contract impurity by contact but not through air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. If the props were moved away from the stove by a distance of less than three fingerbreadths they are still fully susceptible to impurity. If they were removed by a greater distance, Rabbi Meir holds that they are still susceptible but only through contact and not through airspace. Again, Rabbi Shimon holds that since these props are considered to be unattached from the stove, they are pure." + ], + [ + "How do we measure them? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he puts the measuring-rod between them, and any part that is outside the measuring-rod is clean while any part inside the measuring-rod, including the place of the measuring-rod itself, is unclean. Today's mishnah asks how we measure the three fingerbreadths separating the stove from the three props. The prongs themselves can simply be measured from the edge of the stove, but we need to figure out what is considered to be inside the airspace of the area that is not directly corresponding to the prongs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that he uses a measuring rod to form a straight line from prong to prong, thereby creating a triangle around the stove. Anything outside of this triangle is not susceptible to impurity, and anything inside the triangle is susceptible." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "An oven which they partitioned with boards or hangings, and in it was found a sheretz in one compartment, the entire oven is unclean. If people divided an oven into different parts, all the way from the bottom to the top, and then a dead sheretz (an impure creepy crawling thing) is found in one section, the entire oven is impure. This is because a partition put into an earthenware vessel does not count as far as stopping impurity from spreading from one side to the other.", + "A hive which was broken and its gap was stopped up with straw and was suspended within the air-space of an oven while a sheretz was within it, the oven becomes unclean. The mishnah now complicates the picture a bit more. If a vessel shaped as a beehive was broken, it no longer counts a vessel, even if the gap was stopped up with straw. If there is a sheretz in this vessel and the entire vessel is suspended in an oven, the impurity breaks out of the hive-vessel and defiles the oven.", + "If a sheretz was within the oven, any food within the hive becomes unclean. But Rabbi Eliezer says that it is clean. Similarly, at least according to the sages, if there is a sheretz within the oven, the impurity of the sheretz defiles that which is in the hive-vessel. Rabbi Eliezer disputes and holds that the hive which has been stopped up with straw protects the food within it from being contaminated by the sheretz in the oven.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said: if it affords protection in the case of a corpse which is more consequential, should it not afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is less consequential? Rabbi Eliezer argues his point by making an analogy with a corpse found in a building. If a corpse is in a building and the building has been divided by boards or curtains, the vessels found in sections of the building in which the corpse is not present are not considered contaminated. If, Rabbi Eliezer reasons, partitions protect against corpse impurity which is the most serious form of impurity, then the partition of the hive should also protect the food within it. In other words, even if the vessel is not complete, it should still count as a partition, just as do curtains and boards in a building.", + "They said to him: if it affords protection in the case of corpse impurity, this is because tents are divided, should it also afford protection in the case of an earthenware vessel which is not divided? The other rabbis reject his argument because the situations are not analogous. Tents, i.e. buildings, are commonly partitioned, and therefore their partition succeeds in dividing one section from the other. In contrast, as we learned in the first half of the mishnah, partitions within ovens are not typical and therefore they do not succeed in stopping the impurity from going to the other side. Here is a classic example where we can see that the laws of impurity are not purely physical but that they in some way describe reality. The material that is used to divide an oven or a house may be the exact same thing, but in one case it provides a barrier to the spread of impurity and in the other case it does not. The law conveys the reality that houses are divided into parts and ovens are not." + ], + [ + "If the hive was complete, and so too in the case of a basket or a skin-bottle, and a sheretz was within it the oven remains clean. If the hive-vessel had not been broken, or alternatively the vessel placed into the oven was an unbroken basket or skin-bottle, the sheretz in the vessel does not defile the oven. Since this is a complete vessel it works as a barrier to keep the impurity away from oven.", + "If the sheretz was in the oven, any food in the hive remain clean. Similarly, if the sheretz was in the oven, the hive-vessel protects the food within it from becoming impure.", + "If a hole was made in it: A vessel that is used for food must have a hole large enough for olives to fall through, If it is used for liquids the hole must be large enough for liquids to pass into it, And if it is used for either it is subjected to the greater restriction: the hole need only be large enough for liquids to pass into it. If one of these vessels was perforated with a large enough hole, it no longer counts as a vessel and therefore will not prevent impurity from going from the oven to the inside of the vessel and vice versa. The mishnah now repeats that which we learned in 3:1. The vessel is \"annulled\" from being considered a vessel if the hole is large enough to let out that which it normally holds. So if it normally holds food, if the hole is large enough to let olives fall through, it is no longer a vessel. If it holds liquids, it must be large enough to let liquids out. If it is used for both liquids and solids then we go by the stricter measure if the hole is large enough to let even liquids out, it is not a vessel and it does not serve as a barrier to impurity." + ], + [ + "Netting placed over the mouth of an oven and slightly sinking into it, and having no frame: If a sheretz was in it, the oven becomes unclean; If the sheretz was in the oven, the food in the netting becomes unclean, since only vessels afford protection against an impurity in an earthen vessel. This netting is not considered to be a vessel because it does not have an \"inside.\" Therefore it does not serve as a barrier for impurity vis a vis the oven. This means that if a sheretz was in it, it defiles the oven. And if a sheretz is in the oven, then the food in the netting becomes unclean.", + "A jar full of pure liquids placed beneath the bottom of an oven, and a sheretz in the oven – the jar and the liquids remain clean. If it was inverted, with its mouth projecting into the air-space of the oven, and a sheretz was in the oven, the liquid that clings to the sides of the jar remains clean. Since the jar is below the oven, the impurity of the oven doesn't spread into the jar. This is true even if the jar is open and there is a hole in the bottom of the oven. As long as the jar is not in the oven's airspace, it is not susceptible. If they put the jar on top of the oven and its mouth is open the liquid which remains in the jar is still pure. Again, this liquid is not in the airspace of the oven, rather above it. Therefore it remains pure." + ], + [ + "A pot which was placed in an oven if a sheretz was in the oven, the pot remains clean since an earthen vessel does not impart impurity to vessels. The sheretz in the oven does not defile the pot because it is not in the air-space of the pot, but rather in the air-space of the oven. And the oven's contact with the pot does not defile the pot because earthenware vessels do not defile other earthenware vessels.", + "If it contained dripping liquid, the latter contracts impurity and the pot also becomes unclean. It is as if this one says, \"That which made you unclean did not make me unclean, but you have made me unclean.\" If there is liquid dripping off the pot, it is defiled by the oven which was defiled by the sheretz. In turn this liquid causes the pot itself to become impure because liquids can defile earthenware vessels. The mishnah personifies a dialogue between the pot and the liquid (think Mrs. Potts in Beauty and the Beast). The pot says to the liquid the oven which made you unclean didn't directly make me unclean. But you, Mr. Liquid, you made me unclean!" + ], + [ + "If a rooster that swallowed a sheretz fell within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean; A source of impurity that is contained within a living being, such as a rooster, does not spread out and cause impurity to the vessel in which the rooster is found.", + "If the rooster died, the oven becomes unclean. However, if the rooster dies, it can no longer contain the impurity of the sheretz and the impurity of the sheretz will escape and defile the oven.", + "If a sheretz was found in an oven, any bread in it contracts second degree impurity since the oven is of the first degree. When a sheretz is found in an oven, contracts first degree impurity. The oven then imparts its impurity to the bread, which now has second degree impurity. We do not consider the air of the oven to be impure such that it directly defiles the bread. This would cause the bread to have first degree impurity. As we proceed we will learn about the practical differences between first and second degree impurity." + ], + [ + "A leavening pot with a tightly fitting lid which was put in an oven, and there was some leaven and a sheretz within the pot, but there was a partition (of inedible between them, the oven is unclean but the leaven is clean. The mishnah describes a situation where a special pot used to leaven bread has a tight lid and was placed in an oven. Inside the pot there are two parts separated by a piece of inedible bread. On one side of the pot is some leaven and on the other side is a sheretz. The sheretz does not defile the leaven on the other side of the pot because it is totally separated, from the lid to the bottom. However, the lid does not stop the impurity from leaving the pot through its top. Therefore, the sheretz's impurity defiles the oven.", + "But if it was an olive's bulk of corpse, both the oven and the house are unclean, and the leaven remains clean. Similarly, if there is an olive's worth of corpse in the pot, its impurity escapes and defiles the entire house.", + "If in the partition there was an opening of one handbreadth, all become unclean. If there is a hole in the partition at least one handbreadth wide, then the partition no longer separates the sheretz from the leaven, and even the leaven is impure." + ], + [ + "A sheretz which was found in the eye-hole of an oven or of a double stove or of a single stove: If it was outside the inner edge, it is clean. The eye-hole of an oven is a hole made in the bottom of the oven or stove to let in air and let out smoke. It also could have been used to remove the ashes. If a sheretz was found outside of the inner edge of this hole, the oven remains pure. This is because the hole is not considered to be inside the oven or stove.", + "If it [the oven] was in the open air, even if it was an olive's bulk of corpse it is clean. If the oven was outside in the open air, meaning it was not inside a house or other building, and a source of impurity is found in its eye-hole, the oven is pure because the impurity cannot enter the oven. And since it is outside, there is no \"tent\" through which an olive's bulk of corpse could convey its impurity to the oven (we will learn a lot more about this as we proceed). Thus the oven remains clean.", + "If there was [in the eye-hole] an opening of one handbreadth, it is all unclean. However, if there was an opening the size of a handbreadth in the eye-hole (besides its main opening) then the impurity can enter through it into the oven, and the oven is impure." + ], + [ + "If a sheretz was found in the [place in a stove] where wood is put: Rabbi Judah says: if it was within the outer edge, [the stove] becomes unclean. But the sages say: if it was outside the inner edge [the stove] remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: if it was found beneath the spot where the pot is placed and inwards, the stove becomes unclean, but if beneath the spot where the pot is set and outwards, it remains clean. In this section a sheretz is found in the bottom part of a stove, where they put the wood to burn. Rabbi Judah says that the sheretz defiles the stove if it is found within the outer edge of the place where the wood is put and inwards, inside the stove. The other sages say that if the sheretz was outside of the inner edge, then the stove remains clean. In other words, the debate exists in a situation where the sheretz is found between the inner and outer edge. Rabbi Yose defines the place where the sheretz can defile the stove in a slightly different manner. If the sheretz is found directly below the place where the pot is placed on top of the stove, or anywhere within this area, it defiles the whole stove. But if it is outside this area, the stove remains clean.", + "If it was found on the place where the bath-keeper sits, or where the dyer sits, or where the olive-boilers sit, the stove remains clean. It only becomes unclean only [when the sheretz] is found in the enclosed part and inwards. This mishnah now describes ovens upon which people sit: bath-keepers, dyers and olive-boilers. If a sheretz is found on this place, the oven remains pure. The mishnah explains that the sheretz defiles the oven only if it is found in the closed part of the oven. These workers sit on the outside part of the oven, where it is open to the air. Therefore, the sheretz does not defile the oven. However, Albeck notes that according to the Tosefta, if the sheretz comes into contact with the oven, the oven is impure. It does not convey impurity through entering the oven's air-space unless it is within the oven." + ], + [ + "A pit which has a place on which a pot may be set is unclean. The pit to which this section refers is an oven placed into the ground and attached to the ground with clay. There was a place on top where they could rest a large pot. Since it is an oven, and it can be used to make food, it can contract impurity.", + "And so also an oven of glass-blowers, if it has a place on which a pot may be set, it is unclean. Since this oven can be used for cooking food, it too is susceptible to impurity, as long as it has a place on it upon which one could balance a pot.", + "The furnace of lime-burners, or of glaziers, or of potters is clean. The furnace used by lime-burners, glaziers or potters is not made for cooking or baking and therefore it is not susceptible to impurity, even if it has a place on which a pot can be placed. In other words, whereas the oven used by glass-blowers is also made to be used for cooking or baking the oven used by these three professions is not.", + "A purna: If it has a frame is unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if it has coverings [for compartments.] Rabban Gamaliel says: if it has edges. A purna is an oven similar to the ovens that we use today. It has a hole in its side, and one doesn't stick the bread to the side as was typically done with ovens during the mishnaic period. Rather the bread was put into bottom of the purna-oven as we do today. There are three different opinions as to what the purna needs for it to be susceptible to impurity. The first opinion holds that if it has a frame around it upon which one could balance a pot, it is susceptible. If it has no frame, and only the ground part of the oven is used for cooking, then it is not considered to really be an \"oven\" and it is not susceptible. The second opinion holds that if it has covered compartments it is susceptible. The third opinion is that it needs edges upon which one could balance a pot. Without at least one of these three things, the purna is simply some clay attached to the ground to keep the heat in, and none of it is used for actual cooking. Such a simple oven is not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals mostly with the purity of food or liquids that are found in a person's mouth.", + "If a person who came in contact with one who has contracted corpse impurity had (food liquids in his mouth and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was clean, they cause the oven to be unclean. When a person comes into contact with another person who has contracted corpse impurity, the second person contracts first degree impurity. The liquids that he has in his mouth are impure. If he puts his head into an oven (not sure why one would do this, but let's just forget about that for a moment) the liquids cause the oven to be impure. This is because liquids can defile vessels. The person himself, who has first degree impurity, does not defile the vessel, because people don't defile vessels unless they have a higher form of impurity. We should note that Albeck explains that the word \"foods\" is not really relevant here because only liquids defile vessels. Foods cannot. The word \"foods\" is, however, relevant in the subsequent clauses.", + "If a person who was clean had food or liquids in his mouth and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was unclean, they become unclean. If a pure person has pure food or liquid in his mouth, and he puts his head into an impure oven (didn't learn the first time) then the food or liquids are defiled by the oven.", + "If a person was eating a pressed fig with impure hands and he put his hand into his mouth to remove a small stone: Rabbi Meir considers the fig to be unclean But Rabbi Judah says it as clean. Rabbi Yose says: if he turned it over [in his mouth] the fig is unclean but if he did not turn it over the fig is clean. This person's hands are impure, although the rest of his body is not (this is a concept which we will deal with when we learn Tractate Yadayim). If he puts his hand in his mouth to take something out, and at the same time he has a fig in his mouth, Rabbi Meir considers the fig to be impure. His hands defile the spit in his mouth, and it in turn defiles the fig. Rabbi Judah disagrees because he holds that the spit in his mouth is not considered to be a liquid. Rabbi Yose says that the spit in his mouth is considered a liquid only if he moved the fig around in his mouth, thereby uprooting the spit from its original space. In other words, if one gathers up his spit, it is considered a liquid and is susceptible to impurity, but the mere moistness of his mouth is not.", + "If the person had a pondion in his mouth, Rabbi Yose says: if he kept it there to relieve his thirst it becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose has another qualification for when spit can be considered a liquid. If he has a small coin, a pondion, in his mouth in order to cause him to salivate and thereby feel less thirsty, then his spit is considered to be a liquid and it can be impure. As an aside, I have heard of people putting small stones in their mouths on fast days. They say it helps one get over being thirsty." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with various liquids that come from an impure woman and defile an oven.", + "If milk [of an impure woman] dripped from a woman's breasts and fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven becomes unclean, since a liquid conveys impurity regardless of whether one wanted it there or not. Liquids convey impurity whether or not one wanted them to end up where they end up. As we shall see, there are other purity laws concerning liquids that work differently, namely when does a liquid make a food susceptible to impurity. In any case, assumedly the woman did not want her breasts to leak onto the oven. Nevertheless, if this impure milk (impure because she is impure) falls into the oven, it defiles the oven.", + "If she was sweeping it out and a thorn pricked her and she bled, or if she burnt herself and put her finger into her mouth, the oven becomes unclean. If she is sweeping out the oven and she pricks her finger and bleeds into the oven, her blood defiles the oven, even though she certainly didn't want it there. Similarly, if she burns herself and puts her finger in her mouth, covering it with spit, and then puts her finger back into the oven, the spit on her finger defiles the oven, even though she wanted the spit on her finger, not on the oven. In all cases, if an impure liquid enters an oven, it defiles it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a needle or a ring (metal vessels) that are found in certain places, and with the question of whether or not they have become impure.", + "If a needle or a ring was found in the ground of an oven, and they can be seen but they don't stick out into the oven, if one bakes dough and it touches them, the [oven] is unclean. In this section we don't know for certain whether or not the needle or the ring is impure, but we have reason to suspect that they might be. They are found in the floor of an oven and can be seen from inside the oven but they do not project into the oven's air-space. If a person bakes dough and the dough can expand into the hole in the floor in which these instruments are found, the oven is defiled by the needle or ring. In other words, since the dough enters this space, it is considered part of the oven and if a defiling agent is found there, it defiles the oven. If the dough did not touch them, then it would be a sign that the place in which they are found is not considered to be part of the oven.", + "Regarding which dough did they speak? Medium dough. The mishnah clarifies that the dough which the mishnah uses as a barometer is of medium elasticity. It is not so soft that it would sink into any hole, nor is it so hard that it wouldn't sink at all.", + "If they are found in the plaster of an oven with a tightly fitting lid: If the oven is unclean, they are unclean, If the oven is clean, they are clean. Here we have an oven that has a layer of plaster around its outside. In this layer of plaster the ring and needle are imbedded. The oven is tightly covered and it is found in a building in which a dead body is also located. If the oven is impure, then the needle and ring are impure. An earthenware vessel with a tightly fitting lid prevents impurity from entering, but only if the vessel itself is impure. And since the oven doesn't prevent impurity, so too anything attached to it doesn't prevent impurity.", + "If they are found in the stopper of a jar: If on the sides, they are unclean. If opposite the mouth, they are clean. Now this pesky little ring or needle is found in the stopper of a tightly closed jar, which is also found in a building with a dead person in it. The jar, since it is tightly closed, does prevent impurity from infiltrating but only if the needle or ring is found opposite the mouth of the jar. If it is found on the sides of the stopper, since this is not the part of the stopper used by the jar, it doesn't count as part of the jar. Thus the needle and ring are defiled.", + "If they can be seen in it, but they do not enter its airspace, they are clean. If the ring or needle can be seen from the top in the stopper, then they have not gotten into the airspace of the stopper, which is the airspace of the jar. Since they are part of the stopper, they are pure.", + "If they sink into it, and there is [plaster] underneath them as thick as garlic peel, they are clean. If they are sunken into the stopper, and there is still stopper, even as thin as a peel of garlic, underneath them, then they are pure. However if they have truly entered the jar's air-space they are impure because an earthenware vessel with a tightly covered lid does not save metal vessels found inside it from being defiled." + ], + [ + "A jar that was full of clean liquids, with a siphon in it, and it had a tightly fitting cover and was in a tent in which there was a corpse: Bet Shammai says: both the jar and the liquids are clean but the siphon is unclean. And Bet Hillel says: the siphon also is clean. The siphon is made of metal, and as we learned, an earthenware vessel with a tightly fitting cover does not prevent impurity from defiling metal vessels that are within it. Therefore, Bet Shammai rules that the metal siphon is impure. The jar and the liquids inside are clean because the covered earthenware vessel does protect them from the impurity.", + "Bet Hillel changed their mind and ruled in agreement with Bet Shammai. At first Bet Hillel disagreed and held that even the siphon was pure. However, they eventually changed their mind and agreed with Bet Shammai. This is a phenomenon that occurs occasionally in the Mishnah. Bet Hillel at first disagrees with Bet Shammai, but eventually they change their mind." + ], + [ + "If a sheretz was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that it fell there while it was still alive and that it died only now. Underneath the bottom of the oven does not count as the air-space of the oven. Therefore, the dead sheretz found there does not defile the oven. We can assume that the sheretz was still alive while it passed through the air-space of the oven, and did not defile the oven on its way down. Thus the oven is clean.", + "If a needle or a ring was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, for I can assume that they were there before the oven arrived. Similarly, if an unclean needle or ring is found underneath the oven, we need not assume that it made its way there through the oven's air-space, defiling the oven while it was going down.", + "If it was found in the wood ashes, the oven is unclean since one has no ground on which to base an assumption of cleanness. However, if the needle or ring is found in the midst of the oven's ashes, even if it is underneath the oven, it defiles the oven, because we cannot assume that it was there before the oven was put there. Had it been there before the oven, it should have been underneath the ashes, not in them." + ], + [ + "A sponge which had absorbed unclean liquids and its outer surface became dry and it fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven is unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. Since the unclean liquids in the sponge will eventually seep out, the oven is unclean as soon as the sponge enters. In other words, since the liquids will eventually seep out, we look at them as if they are already out, and as we have learned, unclean liquids can defile an oven.", + "And the same with regard to a piece of turnip or reed grass. Rabbi Shimon says: the oven is clean in both these cases. Evidently, turnips and reed grass were also used in a \"sponge-like\" manner, to gather in liquids and then to squeeze them out later. Therefore, according to the first opinion, if a piece of turnip or reed grass that has been used to soak up unclean liquids falls into the oven, the oven is immediately unclean, the same as it is with a sponge. Rabbi Shimon says that in these two cases the liquid will not seep out like it does from a sponge and therefore the oven remains clean." + ], + [ + "Potsherds that had been used for unclean liquids which fell into the air-space of an oven, if the oven was heated, it becomes unclean, for the liquid would eventually come out. The potsherd which was used in a vessel which contained unclean liquids would have absorbed some of that liquid. When it falls into a heated oven, the liquids will eventually come out and therefore the oven is unclean.", + "And the same with regard to fresh olive peat, but if it was old, the oven remains clean. If it was known that liquid emerges, even after the lapse of three years, the oven becomes unclean. Olive peat is the olive waste that is left over after the olives have been pressed. If the olive press was unclean (or the pressing was done by unclean people), the oil is also unclean. Fresh olive peat will still retain some of this oil, so if fresh peat falls into a hot oven, the oven is unclean. The oil will emerge due to the heat. Old olive peat (after twelve months) no longer contains the oil and therefore impure oil will not seep out and defile the oven. This is true unless we know that liquid came out of the old olive peat. If we know that liquid came out, then it can defile the oven even if the peat is as old as three years." + ], + [ + "If olive peat or grape skins had been prepared in conditions of cleanness, and unclean persons trod upon them and afterwards liquids emerged from them, they remain clean, since they had originally been prepared in conditions of cleanness. The olives and grapes were squeezed or tread upon by people who were in a state of purity. Then unclean people tread upon the waste products the olive peat or the grape skins and then liquids emerged. Generally, liquids make things susceptible to impurity. But because the person treading upon the olive peat or grape skins did not intend to squeeze out the liquids (because he probably wanted them to remain dry), this type of liquid does not make the olive peat or grape skins susceptible to impurity. They both remain pure, and if they are put into an oven, the oven also remains pure.", + "If a spindle hook was sunk into the spindle, or the iron point into the ox goad, or a ring into a brick, and all these were clean, and then they were brought into a tent in which was a corpse, they become unclean. The instruments in this section consist of one metal instrument sunk into another larger instrument that cannot become impure because it does not have a receptacle. If the larger item with the smaller instrument inside it are taken into a tent in which a corpse is found, the sunken metal instrument is not protected by the larger item from becoming impure. Metal instruments are not protected from impurity unless they were swallowed by a living being (animal or human).", + "If a zav caused them to move they become unclean. A zav (person with abnormal genital discharge) who moves something causes it to be impure, even without touching it. Again, the outer vessel does not protect these instruments from becoming impure.", + "If they then fell into the air-space of a clean oven, they cause it to be unclean. Just as they are not protected from being defiled, so too they can defile an oven if they enter its airspace.", + "If a loaf of terumah came in contact with them, it remains clean. However, if a loaf of terumah bread comes into contact with them, it remains pure because it did not directly come into contact with the spindle hook, iron point or ring. It only touched the spindle, goad or brick and they were pure." + ], + [ + "If there was netting placed over the mouth of an oven, forming a tightly fitting lid, and a split appeared between the oven and the colander, the minimum size [to allow impurity to enter] is that of the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that cannot actually enter it. Rabbi Judah says: it must be one into which the tip can actually enter. We have learned that if an earthenware vessel has a tightly fitting cover, impurity cannot enter into it and defile it. If such a vessel is found in the same room as a dead body, the vessel remains pure. In the case discussed here, if the netting (some sort of colander) is truly \"tightly fitting\" it counts as a cover and the vessel remains pure. If the part between the oven and the netting is split, if the split is the exact same measurement as the circumference of the tip of an ox goad, it is not considered tightly fitting, and the oven is impure (if it is in a tent with a corpse). According to the first opinion, the tip need not actually be able to enter the split. Rabbi Judah holds that in order for the oven to be considered to not have a \"tightly fitting lid\" the split needs to be large enough to allow the tip to actually enter.", + "If a split appeared in the netting, the minimum size is the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can enter it. Rabbi Judah says: even if it cannot enter. In this case, the split is not between the netting and the oven but in the netting itself. The opinions from section one are reversed. We should note that there is no inherent logic as to when the measure is \"the ox goad can enter\" and when it is \"even if it cannot enter.\" It seems random why the sages reverse their opinions in the two cases. Albeck explains that all of the sages of the Mishnah (the tannaim) had a tradition that in one case the split must be large enough for the ox goad to actually enter, and in the other case, the split need be no larger than the ox goad. The sages and Rabbi Judah disagreed as to which measure was applicable in which case. In other words, they had some sort of halakhic tradition that they had received from their predecessors, but its details were not received and therefore they argued over them.", + "If the split was curved it must not be regarded as straight, and still the minimum size must be the circumference of the tip of an ox goad that can actually enter. If the split was really like a small hole, from the oven to the netting, and it wasn't just a regular crack, the minimum size still remains in effect. Albeck explains that this means that if we were to even out the curved split, and only then could it allow in the tip of the ox goad, the oven is still not considered to have a tightly fitting lid. It must actually be the size of the ox goad." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with the topic of how large a hole in an oven can be before it ceases to be considered \"tightly closed.\" The size of this hole will vary depending upon where in the oven it is located.", + "If there was a hole in the \"eye\" of an oven, the minimum size [for it to leave the category of being tightly closed] is the circumference of a burning spindle staff that can enter and come out [without being extinguished]. Rabbi Judah says: one that is not burning. The \"eye\" of the oven is the hole made in the oven's bottom to let in wind and let out smoke (see 8:7). If there is a hole that would allow a burning spindle staff to come in and go out while burning and not be extinguished, the oven is not considered to be \"tightly covered\" and if found in a tent with a dead body, it is impure. Again, Rabbi Judah argues about one of these details. He holds that it need not be able to enter and come out while burning (and not be extinguished). As long as it can come in and out, the oven is unclean.", + "If the hole appeared at its side, the minimum size must be that of the circumference of a spindle staff that can enter and come out while it is not burning. Rabbi Judah says: while burning. If the hole is in the side of the oven, then the opinions in section one are reversed, although the basic measure is the same. Note that this debate is formatted similarly to the debate in yesterday's mishnah. There is no rational reason why one place should have to allow in a burning and one place need not. Rather all sages (the anonymous opinion and Rabbi Judah) hold that in one case the spindle staff must be burning and in one case it need not, and they dispute as to which case is which.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if the hole is in the middle its size must be such that a spindle staff can enter it, but if it was at the side it need only be such as the spindle staff cannot actually enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning the stopper of a jar in which a hole appeared: the minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in an oat stalk. If the hole was in the middle the stalk should be able to enter, and if at the side it need not be able to enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning large stone jars in the stoppers of which appeared a hole. The minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in a reed. If the hole was in the middle the reed must be able to enter it, and if it was at the side the reed need not be able to enter it. Rabbi Shimon holds that there is a difference if the hole is in the middle of the oven, or in its side. If the hole is in the middle, the spindle must be able to go in and out, but if it is on the side, the measure is smaller, and the oven is considered open even if the hole is the exact same size as the spindle-staff. According to other sources, the other rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold the reverse if the hole is on the side, the measure is larger than if it's in the middle. The mishnah now proceeds to list several cases, in which Rabbi Shimon holds that if the hole is in the side, the measure is larger than if the hole is in the middle. The first is a hole found in a stopper. The minimum measure is the size of the second knot in an oat-stalk. Oat stalks (so I gather from this mishnah) had many knots, and the sages used the second knot as a basis this measure. The second instance is a hole found in a large jar. Here the measure was the second knot found in a reed (which I guess also have knots).", + "When is this so? When the jars were made for wine, but if they were made for other liquids, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. The above two halakhot are true when it comes to wine jars, which regularly had holes in them. Since holes were normal in these vessels, they had to establish minimum sizes for a hole to nullify the vessel from being considered \"tightly covered.\" If the vessel was used for other liquids, then it shouldn't have any holes. Therefore, even the smallest hole will nullify it from being considered \"tightly lidded.\"", + "When is this so? When the holes were not made by a person, but if they were made by a person, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. If the hole was done intentionally by a person, then even the smallest hole nullifies it from being \"tightly covered.\" The minimum measurements refer only to cases where the hole appeared on its own.", + "If a hole appeared [in other vessels its prescribed size ] is as follows: if the vessel was used for food, [the hole must be one] through which olives can fall out; if for liquids, one that lets out liquids; If for either, the greater restriction is imposed [even with regard to the issue of] a tightly fitting cover [the size of the hole need only be] one that admits a liquid. If other types of vessels (not wine jars) have holes in them, then the minimum measure depends on what the jar is used for. If it is used for food, it must be a big enough hole to let out food. If it holds liquids, then the vessel is not considered tightly covered if it would allow in other liquids. Finally, if the vessel is used for both liquids and solids, the more stringent measure, that of liquids is applied." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction Finally, a mishnah whose focus is not ovens! The tenth chapter of Kelim deals with the types of vessels who remain clean if they have a tightly fitting lid. This halakhah is rooted in Numbers 19:14-15 which reads: \"14 This is the ritual: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be unclean seven days; 15 and every open vessel, with no lid fastened down, shall be unclean.\"", + "The following vessels protect their contents when they have a tightly fitting cover: those made of cattle dung, of stone, of clay, of earthenware, of sodium carbonate, of the bones of a fish or of its skin, or of the bones of any animal of the sea or of its skin, and wooden vessels that are always clean. Vessels made of the materials listed in this section protect their contents from becoming unclean if the vessel is found in a tent (any building) with a dead body in it. We should note that vessels made of cattle dung, stone and clay (that has not been fired in a kiln) are never susceptible to impurity. Similarly most vessels made of the skins of fish or animals of the sea are not susceptible to impurity. There are wooden vessels that are susceptible to impurity and there are some that are not. Basically, there are two kinds of vessels listed here that can become impure earthenware and sodium carbonate. These two types of vessels have rules that differ from metal, glass and wooden vessels. As we have learned, the former can become impure from their air-space, but are not made impure by contact with their outside. Thus any vessel that cannot be defiled by contact with its outside, protects against impurity if it has a tightly fitting lid.", + "They protect whether the covers close their mouths or their sides, whether they stand on their bottoms or lean on their sides. It doesn't matter where the lid is or how the vessel is standing. In all cases it protects its contents.", + "If they were turned over with their mouths downwards they afford protection to all that is beneath them to the nethermost deep. Rabbi Eliezer declares this unclean. If the vessel is turned over and it was connected to the ground by some plaster, then it protects anything below it from becoming unclean. In other words, the ground is the lid. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that the ground cannot be considered a lid.", + "These protect everything, except that an earthen vessel protects only foods, liquids and earthen vessels. Most of these vessels protect anything that is found in them, including metal vessels. However, earthenware vessels only protect other things that cannot be made pure in a mikveh (bath) food, liquid and other earthenware vessels. If there are metal vessels inside the earthenware vessels, they become unclean in the tent with a corpse." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses what materials can be used to seal the cover of an earthenware vessel such that it will protect it from becoming impure.", + "How may it be tightly covered? With lime or gypsum, pitch or wax, mud or excrement, crude clay or potter's clay, or any substance that is used for plastering. All of the materials listed here will form a tight seal around the lid's edges. Thus all of these materials cause the vessel to be protected from impurity if the vessel is found in a building with a corpse in it.", + "One may not make a tightly fitting cover with tin or with lead because though it is a covering, it is not tightly fitting. Soft metals such as tin or lead do not offer as tight of a seal and therefore they do not protect the vessel. They are a \"covering\" but they are not \"tightly fitting.\"", + "One may not make a tightly fitting cover with swollen fig-cakes or with dough that was kneaded with fruit juice, since it might cause it to become unfit. If he did make a tightly fitting cover [from such material] it protects. These soft, pliable food products will, at least temporarily, offer a tightly fitting seal. Therefore, if one makes a seal out of them, they do protect the vessel from impurity. However, since they will dry up and no longer be a tight seal, the mishnah says that one should not use them." + ], + [ + "A stopper of a jar that is loose but does not fall out: Rabbi Judah says: it protects. But the sages say: it does not protect. According to Rabbi Judah, although the stopper is loose in its place, it still protects the jar from becoming impure. The sages disagree.", + "If its finger-hold was sunk within the jar and a sheretz was in it, the jar becomes unclean. If the sheretz was in the jar, any food in it, become unclean. The finger-hold is the depression within the stopper used to get a grip on the stopper and pull it out. If there was a sheretz in this finger-hold and it was sunk within the jar, then the jar is unclean. The finger-hold does not count as sealing the jar, even though the stopper does. Similarly, if the sheretz was in the jar and the finger-hold was sunk into the jar and there was food in the finger-hold, the food is impure. Put simply, the finger-hold does not protect from impurity." + ], + [ + "If a ball or coil of reed grass was placed over the mouth of a jar, and only its sides were plastered, it does not protect unless it was also plastered above or below. The reed grass does not offer an especially good sealant. Therefore, for it to protect he must also plaster either over or under the ball or coil. The jar is not considered tightly sealed if all he does is plaster its sides.", + "The same is true with regard to a patch of cloth. The same is true with a small patch of cloth (too small to be itself susceptible to impurity).", + "If it was of paper or leather and bound with a cord, if he plastered it from the sides, it protects. The paper or leather, bound to the jar with a cord, does not have holes (as does the reed grass and the cloth). Therefore, as long as he plasters from the side, the paper or leather protect the jar. [It would seem that their paper was probably far thicker and more durable than our paper]." + ], + [ + "If [the outer layer] a jar had been peeled off but its pitch [lining] remained intact, The outer layer of plaster peeled off the jar, but the inner layer of pitch remains, thereby sealing the jar off at the place where the outer layer peeled off. ", + "And similarly if pots of fish brine were sealed up with gypsum at a level with the brim: Rabbi Judah says: they do not protect. But the sages say: they do protect. The type of fish pot referred to here has a lip below the rim and inside the pot. The person sealed the pot at this point, in other words within the pot.", + "It turns out that in both of these cases the seal is inside the pot or jar and not external to it. According to Rabbi Judah these containers do not protect their contents because the lid must be on the jar. This is a very literal reading of Numbers 19:15—”a tightly fitting lid on it.”", + "The other sages do not read the text quite as literally, and therefore claim that these types of lids or seals do protect their contents from impurity." + ], + [ + "If a jar had a hole in it and wine lees stopped it up, they protect it. This section goes according to the opinion of the sages in yesterday's mishnah. The wine lees protect the jar from impurity because they form a tight seal from within.", + "If one stopped it up with a vine shoot [it does not protect] until he plasters it at the sides. In order for the vine shoot to count as a tightly-fitting lid, he must plaster it around from the sides.", + "If there were two vine shoots, [it does not protect] unless he plastered it at the sides and also between the one shoot and the other. If he closed it up with two vine shoots, then he must plaster it from both the sides and between the shoots in order for the shoots to be considered a tight seal.", + "If a board was placed over the mouth of an oven, it protects if he plastered it at the sides. A board, one that cannot become impure, can offer a protective seal to an oven, as long as he plasters it from the sides.", + "If there were two boards [it does not protect] unless he plastered at the sides and also between the one board and the other. If they were fastened together with pegs or with bamboo joints there is no need for them to be plastered in the middle. Similar to the case of the two vines, if he uses two boards, he must plaster in between them as well as at the sides. However, if the two boards were fastened together with either pegs or joints, he need not plaster in between them for them to be considered a tight lid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses a case where one oven is within another oven. A note of introduction will help in understanding this mishnah. For a jar (susceptible to impurity) to be protected from impurity when it is found inside a tent with a dead body it must have a tightly fitting lid. However, an inner tent (not susceptible to impurity) can protect its contents from an outer tent with a dead body in it, even if the covering of the inner tent is not \"tightly-fitting.\" As long as the inner tent is covered, it protects its contents.", + "An old oven was within a new one and netting was over the mouth of the old [new] one: If [it was placed such that if] the old one were to be removed the netting would drop, all [the contents of both ovens] are unclean; But if it would not drop, all are clean. In this scenario, the old oven, one that had already been used, was within a new one, which had not been glazed and therefore was not susceptible to impurity (see 5:1). There is netting over the new one (this according to Albeck is how the mishnah should read. The reading \"old one\" is a mistake.) Concerning \"netting\" see 9:7. The first possibility is that when the old one is removed the netting would fall. In such a case the netting is on the old, inside oven, and not on the new outer oven. The mishnah rules that if the old oven is found in a tent with a dead body, it and all of its contents, are impure. The outer oven cannot serve as a tent-covering because its opening is not covered by the netting. And the inner oven is not considered to have a lid, because although the netting is over its opening, it is not considered a tight-fitting lid. However, if the netting was placed over the outer, new oven, it protects the inner oven because the new oven serves as a \"tent.\" In other words, the netting is not sufficient to act as a lid for the old oven, but it is sufficient to turn the new oven, one that is not susceptible to impurity, into a \"tent\" such that the inner oven is not directly in a tent with a dead body. Rather it is inside one tent which is inside another tent with a dead body.", + "A new oven was within an old one and netting was over the mouth of the old one if there was not a handbreadth of space between the new oven and the netting, all the contents of the new one are clean. In this case, the new oven is on the inside and the old, susceptible to impurity oven, is on the outside. The netting is over the old, outer one but if the old one is removed, it won't fall into the new oven, because its mouth is narrower. The outer one is definitely impure because nothing is protecting it from the impurity in the tent. But if there is less than a handbreadth between the new one and the netting, then the netting turns the new one into a \"tent\" and it can protect its contents from the impurity found in the larger tent in which it is all found." + ], + [ + "If [earthenware] pans were placed one within the other and their rims were on the same level, and there was a sheretz in the upper one or in the lower one, that pan alone becomes unclean but all the others remain clean. If the sheretz is in the upper pan, the lower pans are still clean because the sheretz is not considered to be in the air-space of the lower pans. Only the upper pan is impure because the sheretz is in its air-space. If the sheretz is in the lower pan it is unclean but the upper pans are clean because the sheretz is not in their air-space.", + "If [they were perforated] to the extent of admitting a liquid, and the sheretz was in the uppermost one, all become unclean. If in the lowest one, that one is unclean while the others remain clean. If the pans were perforated enough that they could let liquid in and out, they are still susceptible to impurity. In order for them not to be susceptible they must be able to admit and let out an olive (see 3:2). Nevertheless, they are not considered to be \"vessels\" vis a vis other vessels in order to afford protection from impurity. Therefore, if the sheretz is in the upper one, it doesn't protect the lower ones. The sheretz is considered to be in their air-space as well. However, if it is in the lower one, the upper (inner) pans are pure because the sheretz is still not in their air-space.", + "If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, both are unclean. The mishnah now returns to the first scenario, where the pans are not perforated. If the lowest pan projects above the upper one, and the sheretz is in the upper one, then both of those pans are unclean, because the sheretz is in both of their air-spaces. However, the middle pans remain clean because the sheretz is not in their air-space.", + "If the sheretz was in the uppermost one and the lowest projected above it, any one that contained dripping liquid becomes unclean. This section seems to be some sort of later addition to the mishnah which relates to that which was immediately stated before. When it was stated in section three that the middle pans are pure, that was true only if they were dry. If they were moist with dripping liquid, then the liquid is unclean and it in turn defiles the pan." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapters eleven through fourteen deal with purity issues related to metal vessels.", + "Metal vessels, whether they are flat or form a receptacle, are susceptible to impurity. Metal vessels are susceptible to impurity whether or not they have a receptacle. This distinguishes them from other material (wood see 2:1) which needs to have a receptacle.", + "On being broken they become clean. If they break such that they are no longer usable, they become pure again.", + "If they were re-made into vessels they revert to their former impurity. If they are re-fashioned, their original impurity is restored to them. In other words, they don't only become susceptible to impurity, they actually get their old impurity back. In the Talmud, it is explained that this was a rabbinic decree made by Shimon ben Shetach, a Second Temple sage. According to the rules of the Torah, once the metal vessel has been broken, it does not go back to its former impurity.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: this does not apply to every form of impurity but only to that contracted from a corpse. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel limits this rabbinic decree to a case where it had contracted corpse impurity. If it had been defiled in some other, less significant way, then it does not revert to its former impurity." + ], + [ + "Every metal vessel that has a name of its own [is susceptible to impurity,] As long as a metal vessel has a name of its own, and its name is not based on another vessel, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "Except for a door, a bolt, a lock, a socket under a hinge, a hinge, a clapper, and the [threshold] groove under a door post, since these are intended to be attached to the ground. The exceptions are various parts of doors. These are not susceptible to impurity because they are meant to be attached to the ground, and any vessel that is attached to the ground is not susceptible to impurity (see 8:9)." + ], + [ + "If vessels are made from iron ore, from smelted iron, from the hoop of a wheel, from sheets, from plating, from the bases, rims or handles of vessels, from chippings or filings, they are clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even those made of pieces of vessels. Vessels that are made from any of these materials are pure (unless they contract impurity). We need not be concerned that they come from material that was at one time impure because all of the things that are listed here are not \"vessels\" and therefore they are not susceptible to impurity. In other words, if a vessels comes from recycled material that could never have been impure, it is itself pure. \"Pieces of vessels\" are pieces that are cut off of the raw metarl material when vessels are being made. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that these too cannot be impure, and therefore vessels made of them are pure.", + "From [vessels that are made] of fragments of vessels, from pieces of old vessels, or from nails that were known to have been made from vessels, are unclean. In this case the older vessels may have been impure before they were broken and recycled. Therefore, the new vessels made from them must also be treated as impure, for when the old vessels were forged into new vessels, they return to their former state of impurity (see mishnah one).", + "[If they were made] from ordinary nails: Bet Shammai says: they are unclean, And Bet Hillel says that they are clean. In this case, we don't know whether the nails were once parts of vessels, in which case they are susceptible to impurity, or were from nails that were never parts of vessels, in which case they are not susceptible to impurity. Bet Shammai rules strictly and renders them unclean lest they came from vessels that were once impure. Bet Hillel rules leniently, reasoning that there is a double-doubt in this case. The nails may not have ever been part of vessels, and even if they were, there is the possibility that the previous vessel was clean." + ], + [ + "If unclean iron was smelted together with clean iron and the greater part was from the unclean iron, [the vessel made of the mixture] is unclean; If the greater part was from the clean iron, the vessel is clean. If each was half, it is unclean. The unclean iron comes from vessels that were unclean, and the clean iron comes from vessels that are clean. The status of the new vessel follows the majority of the material used. If both materials are used in equal amounts the law is strict and the new vessel must be treated as unclean.", + "The same law also applies to a mixture of cement and cattle dung. Cement is susceptible to impurity, whereas cattle dung is not. If one makes a vessel by mixing these two materials together, the vessel's susceptibility to impurity depends on which material composes the majority, as in the previous section.", + "A door bolt is susceptible to impurity, but [one of wood] that is only plated with metal is not susceptible to impurity. The susceptibility of the type of door belt referred to here depends upon whether it is made of metal, in which case it is susceptible, or of wood which is only plated with metal, in which case it is not susceptible.", + "The clutch and the crosspiece [of a lock] are susceptible to impurity. These two pieces of the door are susceptible to impurity.", + "A door-bolt: Rabbi Joshua says: he may remove it from one door and hang it on another on Shabbat. Rabbi Tarfon says: it is like all other vessels and may be carried about in a courtyard. These laws relate to the door-bolt mentioned in section three. According to Rabbi Joshua one can remove it from one door and drag it to another door on Shabbat. But he can't directly carry it, because it is not a vessel and one is not allowed to handle non-vessels on Shabbat. This opinion flows or at least accords with the opinion above, that the door bolt is not a vessel. Rabbi Tarfon says that the door-bolt is a vessel and can be carried about in the courtyard, as can vessels in general on Shabbat. Since it is a vessel, it is also susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Tarfon disagrees with the opinion in section three." + ], + [ + "The scorpion [-shaped] bit of a bridle is susceptible to impurity, but the cheek-pieces are clean. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cheek-pieces are susceptible to impurity. But the sages says that the scorpion-bit alone is susceptible to impurity, The two pieces of equipment mentioned here are used in bridling an animal. According to the Rambam, the scorpion-shaped bit is susceptible because it has its own name, whereas the cheek-pieces do not. Rabbi Eliezer holds that since the cheek-pieces are made for people to use and they are part of the bit, they too are susceptible.", + "When they are joined together it is all susceptible to impurity. The sages agree that if the cheek-pieces are attached to the bridle, they too are susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A metal spindle-knob:
Rabbi Akiva says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is not susceptible. If it was only plated [with metal] it is clean. A metal-spindle knob is placed on top of the spindle used in spinning wool. According to the sages, it does not have its own name and therefore it is clean. Rabbi Akiva holds that it does have its own name, so it is susceptible. Rabbi Akiva agrees that if it is only covered with metal, it is considered a simple wooden vessel, and it is not susceptible.", + "A spindle, a distaff, a rod, a double flute and a pipe are susceptible to impurity if they are of metal, but if they are only plated [with metal] they are clean. All of these vessels have their own name and therefore they are all susceptible to impurity, if made of metal. However, if they are only covered with metal, but their base is wood they are not susceptible, because they do not have a receptacle.", + "If a double flute has a receptacle for the wings it is susceptible to impurity in either case. If the double-flute has a receptacle in which to receive \"wings\" which somehow make other types of musical noises, then it is susceptible even if it is made of wood. Wooden vessels are not-susceptible only if they have no receptacle." + ], + [ + "A curved horn is susceptible to impurity but a straight one is clean. A curved horn (perhaps a type of shofar, although some explain this to be a wood instrument) is susceptible to impurity because it contains a receptacle in which it would be possible to receive liquids. But the straight one is not susceptible, as is the rule with vessels made of bone or wood.", + "If its mouthpiece was covered with metal it is unclean. If parts of the horn are covered with metal, it may be susceptible to impurity. If the mouthpiece is covered with metal, it is considered a metal vessel and is susceptible whether or not it is curved.", + "If its broad side [is covered with metal]: Rabbi Tarfon says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is clean. There is a debate over whether the straight horn is susceptible if its broader side is covered with metal. According to Rabbi Tarfon, this is sufficient to turn it into a metal vessel, whereas the sages say that it is not. Only if the mouthpiece is covered with metal is it susceptible.", + "While they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity. If the mouthpiece is joined together with the broad side, making one seamless whole, then if any part is susceptible, it is all susceptible.", + "Similarly: the branches of a candlestick are clean. And the cups and the base are susceptible to impurity, But while they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity. Similar rules apply to a candlestick. Its branches are not susceptible when they are separated from the whole, because they do not have their own names. The cups and base are susceptible because they contain receptacles. But if they are all joined together, all of the parts are susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the purity of weapons and jewelry. It is interesting to note that the Mishnah often juxtaposes these topics, as if to create an analogy weapons are adornments to men, as jewelry is an adornment to women.", + "A helmet is susceptible to impurity but the cheek-pieces are clean, But if they have a receptacle for water they are susceptible to impurity. The helmet has its own name and is therefore susceptible to impurity, but the cheek-pieces do not have their own name, and therefore they are not susceptible unless they also have a receptacle for water.", + "All weapons of war are susceptible to impurity: a javelin, a spear-head, metal boots, and a breastplate are susceptible to impurity. Weapons of war are all susceptible to impurity because they are made of metal.", + "All women's ornaments are susceptible to impurity: a golden city (a, a necklace, ear-rings, finger-rings, a ring whether it has a seal or does not have a seal, and nose-rings. Similarly, women's jewelry is made of metal and therefore it too is susceptible to impurity. The ring need not have a receptacle for a seal for it to be susceptible. Note that \"a golden city\" this refers to a \"Yerushalayim shel Zahav,\" or any other city.", + "If a necklace has metal beads on a thread of flax or wool and the thread broke, the beads are still susceptible to impurity, since each one is a vessel in itself. A whole the necklace is susceptible, as we learned in section three. If the thread breaks, the beads are still susceptible because each is considered its own vessel.", + "If the thread was of metal and the beads were of precious stones or pearls or glass, and the beads were broken while the thread alone remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. If the thread is metal, it is susceptible even if the beads that served as its adornments broke and fell off.", + "The remnant of a necklace [is susceptible] as long as there is enough for the neck of a little girl. Rabbi Eliezer says: even if only one ring remained it is unclean, since it also is hung around the neck. If a chain necklace breaks, it is still susceptible as long as enough remains to serve as a necklace for a young girl. If it is smaller than that, it is not susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer says that as long as one ring in the chain remains it is still usable because a person might hang that ring on another chain around her neck. Therefore it is still susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction Today's mishnah deals with the purity of earrings.", + "If an earring was shaped like a pot at its bottom and like a lentil at the top and the sections fell apart, the pot-shaped section is susceptible to impurity because it is a receptacle, while the lentil shaped section is susceptible to impurity in itself. The earring described here has two parts: the top is shaped like a lentil and the bottom like a pot (maybe someone should go into designing Talmudic jewelry might make a good business). When the earring is whole, all of it is of course susceptible to impurity. If it falls apart both parts are still susceptible to impurity. The bottom part is no longer considered a piece of jewelry, but since it has a receptacle, it is still susceptible. The top part has no receptacle, but it is still susceptible because it is still considered a piece of jewelry.", + "The hooklet is clean. However, the hooklet thread used to attach the earring to the ear is pure.", + "If the sections of an ear-ring that was in the shape of a cluster of grapes fell apart, they are clean. The individual pieces of this type of earring are not considered to be jewelry, and therefore when it falls apart they are clean. To summarize: if the parts of a larger piece of jewelry are considered to be jewelry in their own right, they are still susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A man's ring is susceptible to impurity. The ring that a man wears is susceptible to impurity, just as is a ring worn by a woman.", + "A ring for cattle or for vessels and all other rings are clean. On its own and not used as jewelry, a ring is not considered a vessel. Therefore, if it is used for cattle or for other vessels, the ring is clean.", + "A beam for arrows is susceptible to impurity, but one for prisoners is clean. The beam described here is made of metal, and is used as a target for shooting arrows. It is susceptible because it is considered a vessel. On the other hand, the beam used to shackle prisoners is not considered a vessel and is therefore not susceptible.", + "A prisoner's collar is susceptible to impurity. The collar which is put on the necks of multiple prisoners is susceptible because it is considered a vessel.", + "A chain that has a lock-piece is susceptible to impurity. But that used for tying up cattle is clean. A chain that has a place for a lock is susceptible, but if it is just used to tie up cattle it is not susceptible.", + "The chain used by wholesalers is susceptible to impurity. That used by householders is clean. Rabbi Yose said: When is this so? When it attaches to one door, but if it attaches to two doors or if it had a snail[-shaped] piece at its end it is susceptible to impurity. Albeck explains that the chain used by the wholesalers was used to lock up their storehouses. It is susceptible because it is used as a means of locking up something. In contrast, the chain used by householders is only decorative and therefore it is not susceptible. Albeck explains that according to Rabbi Yose, if this chain attaches to only one door, then it is merely decorative, but if it attaches to multiple doors, it is susceptible. It is also susceptible if it has a vessel at its end (the snail-shaped piece). This vessel gives the entire chain the status of vessel. [I should note that I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck. There are other interpretations of the last section]." + ], + [ + "The beam of a wool-combers’ balance is susceptible to impurity on account of the hooks.
And that of a householder, if it has hooks is also susceptible to impurity.
The hooks of porters are clean but those of peddlers are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: in the case of the peddlers' [hooks], [the hook] that is in front is susceptible to impurity but that which is behind is clean.
The hook of a couch is susceptible to impurity but that of bed poles is clean.
[The hook of] a chest is susceptible to impurity but that of a fish trap is clean.
That of a table is susceptible to impurity but that of a wooden candlestick is clean.
This is the general rule: any hook that is attached to a susceptible vessel is susceptible to impurity, but one that is attached to a vessel that is not susceptible to impurity is clean.
All these, however, are by themselves clean.
Most of this mishnah deals with the susceptibility of various types of hooks to impurity.
Section one: Wool-combers' hooks are used for hanging and weighing wool. Since the hooks are a vessel, they can receive impurity, and by extension, so can the whole beam.
Section two: Generally, the beam that a householder uses to weigh things doesn't have metal hooks. Therefore, it is not susceptible to impurity. However, if it does have metal hooks, it is susceptible.
Section three: The porters use a beam with hooks attached to carry their load. The hooks are metal and the beam is wood. These hooks are clean, because the main instrument is the beam, and since it is made of wood and has no receptacle, it is pure. In contrast, the hooks used by peddlers have receptacles in which to hang their wares. Therefore, they are susceptible.
Rabbi Judah says that only the front hooks are used to hang the peddlers' wares, and therefore only they are susceptible.
Sections four-seven: The general rule here explains the particular details in sections 4-6. In all of these cases, as long as the hook is attached to a susceptible vessel, the hook has the status of the vessel and it too is susceptible. However, if the hook is attached to something that cannot become impure (poles, fish-trap or wooden candlestick), it too is pure.
Section eight: When the hooks are not attached to something else, they are clean. There are two possible reasons: 1) they don't have their own name; 2) they are not usable unless attached to something else." + ], + [ + "The metal cover of a basket of householders: Rabban Gamaliel says: it is susceptible to impurity, The sages say that it is clean. According to Rabban Gamaliel, the cover of the basket is itself considered a vessel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity, even separate from the basket. The other sages hold that the cover is not a vessel, and therefore it is not susceptible.", + "But that of physicians is susceptible to impurity. Since physicians would make use of the cover of a basket, it has the status of a vessel and it can become impure.", + "The door of a cupboard of householders is clean but that of physicians is susceptible to impurity. Since the cupboard is not susceptible to impurity, its door is not either. However, physicians would use the door of their cupboard, draping the bandage over it before applying it to their patient. Therefore, it is susceptible.", + "Tongs are susceptible to impurity but stove-tongs are clean. Metal tongs used to lift a hot pan off a stove and empty their contents elsewhere are susceptible to impurity. But tongs that come attached to the stove are not susceptible because they are considered to be attached to the ground.", + "The scorpion [-shaped] hook in an olive-press is susceptible to impurity but the hooks for the walls are clean. The scorpion-shaped hook is susceptible because it is attached to the beams used in the olive-press. However, the hooks which are attached to the wall of the olive-press are not susceptible because the wall itself is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah, as well as tomorrow's, deals with the purity of various types of \"nails.\" When the Mishnah uses the word \"nail\" it does not refer only to building nails, but to various nail-like instruments used in a variety of ways.", + "A blood-letters’ nail is susceptible to impurity. The word \"nail\" is used here, but we are probably talking about a small scalpel. It is considered a vessel and therefore is susceptible to impurity.", + "But [the nail] of a sundial is clean. Rabbi Zadok says that it is susceptible to impurity. Since the nail of a sundial is fixed in the stone that serves as its base, it counts as if it were attached to the ground, and things that are attached to the ground are not susceptible to impurity.", + "A weaver's nail is susceptible to impurity. This \"nail\" is an instrument used to straighten out the thread on the loom. It is susceptible to impurity.", + "The chest of a grist-dealer: Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean. Albeck brings two interpretations of the \"chest of a grist-dealer.\" The first is that it refers to the chest itself. The second that it refers to the nail used to attach the chest to a wagon. Rabbi Zadok and the sages debate whether this nail is susceptible to impurity.", + "If its wagon was made of metal it is susceptible to impurity. If the wagon used to draw the chest is made of metal, then it (the wagon) is susceptible." + ], + [ + "A nail which he adapted to be able to open or to shut a lock is susceptible to impurity. A nail which one bent to be able to open or close a lock is considered to be a vessel and it is susceptible to impurity.", + "But one used for guarding is clean. However, a nail that is simply stuck in a door to close it and keep out cats or other animals is not sophisticated enough to be a vessel and it is clean.", + "A nail which he adapted to open a jar: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean unless he forges it. According to Rabbi Akiva, if he bends the nail to be able to open up a jar, it is already susceptible to impurity. The other sages say that to turn a simple nail into a jar opener he must forge it again in the oven. It is not susceptible until he does so.", + "A money-changer's nail is clean, But Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity. The Rambam explains that the money-changer uses his nail to hang up his scale. Another possible explanation is that this nail was used in the daily set up of the money changers \"table\" (in Hebrew the money-changer is called \"the table-man\"). According to Rabbi Zadok this nail is a vessel and is susceptible, whereas the sages disagree.", + "There are three things which Rabbi Zadok holds to be susceptible to impurity and the sages hold clean: The nail of a money-changer, The chest of a grist-dealer And the nail of a sundial. Rabbi Zadok rules that these are susceptible to impurity and the sages rule that they are clean. This section and mishnah six were brought to Mishnah Kelim from Mishnah Eduyot 3:8-9. In the case of Rabbi Zadok, this section merely repeats that which we learned in the previous two mishnayot. It is interesting to note the different literary styles between the regular tractate, Kelim, which organizes its material by topic, and Eduyot, which organizes its material by name." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is found word for word in Eduyot 3:9. It is brought here due to the fact that it discusses the purity of vessels, and that the first vessel discussed is also mentioned above in mishnah three.", + "Rabban Gamaliel and the other sages dispute over the susceptibility of four items to impurity.", + "There are four things which Rabban Gamaliel says are susceptible to impurity, and the sages say are not susceptible to impurity.
The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders; See mishnah three for an explanation.", + "And the hanger of a strigil; A strigil was a type of comb used during baths to scrape off dead skin. All agree that the strigil itself is susceptible to impurity. They disagree about the small chain attached to the strigil to hang it on a hook. According to Rabban Gamaliel it too is considered a vessel and therefore receives impurity. According to the sages it does not.", + "And metal vessels which are still unshaped; Generally speaking, unformed vessels cannot receive impurity. However, when it comes to metal vessels that have not been fully finished, meaning they have not been polished, Rabban Gamaliel holds that they are susceptible to impurity, since they can be used. The sages insist that as long as they are not fully finished they cannot receive impurity.", + "And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity. According to Rabban Gamaliel, a plate broken in two can still receive impurity. The sages hold that broken vessels cannot generally speaking receive impurity. However, they agree with Rabban Gamaliel that if one of the pieces was large, that it still can receive impurity, since it is still useful. The small piece cannot receive impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the susceptibility to impurity of invalidated coins that have put to a secondary purpose.", + "If a dinar had been invalidated and then was adapted for hanging around a young girl's neck it is susceptible to impurity. A coin is not susceptible to impurity, but if it is invalidated and cannot be used and is then hung around a young girl's neck as jewelry, it is susceptible.", + "So, too, if a sela had been invalidated was adapted for use as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity. A sela is a heavier, more valuable coin, worth four denars. If a sela was invalidated, but then used as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "How much may it depreciate while one is still permitted to keep it? As much as two denars. Less and he must be cut it up. It is forbidden for a person to hold on to an invalidated coin, lest he deceive people with it and exchange it for a real coin. However, if the coin is obviously defective, he can keep it because people will know that it is defective. Our mishnah therefore asks how much the coin can depreciate before he has to cut it up and get rid of it. The answer is that it can be up to two denars defective. Two denars is equivalent to a shekel. If it has depreciated more than this, he may not hold on to it, lest he try to exchange it for a shekel." + ], + [ + "A pen-knife, a writing pen, a plummet, a weight, pressing plates, a measuring-rod, and a measuring-table are susceptible to impurity. All of the instruments in this section are metal vessels and are therefore susceptible to impurity. Pressing plates are used in pressing olive.", + "All unfinished wooden vessels also are susceptible to impurity, excepting those made of boxwood. Wooden vessels, unlike earthenware ones, are considered susceptible to impurity even if they are not completely finished. This is because they are usable even in their unfinished state. The exception is boxwood, because its bark is thick and vessels made of it are not considered vessels until they are finished.", + "Rabbi Judah says: one made of an olive-tree branch is also clean unless it was first heated. Rabbi Judah adds that vessels made of olive-tree branches are not susceptible unless the branches were first heated up to remove their moisture." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The sword, knife, dagger, spear, hand-sickle, harvest-sickle, clipper, and barbers’ whose component parts were separated, are susceptible to impurity. All of these instruments are metal and are therefore susceptible to impurity. The scissors are susceptible even though their two knives have been separated.", + "Rabbi Yose says: the part that is near the hand is susceptible to impurity, but that which is near the top is clean. Rabbi Yose says that when any of these instruments has been separated into multiple pieces, only the part that is near the hand is still susceptible, because only it can be held. The other parts are not susceptible because they can't be held without cutting one's hands.", + "The two parts of shears which were separated: Rabbi Judah says: they are still susceptible to impurity; But the sages say that they are clean. The \"shears\" referred to here have only one knife, which is bent to aid in cutting. If this type of shears was split into two, Rabbi Judah says that it is still susceptible, since each part is still usable. The other sages say that since it is difficult to use each individual part on its own, both are clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with tools that have two ends with which two different types of work can be performed.", + "A koligrophon whose spoon has been removed is still susceptible to impurity on account of its teeth. If its teeth have been removed it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. The koligrophon has a shovel on one end which was used to remove bread baking on the sides of an oven. On its other end are teeth, used to rake the coals in the oven. As long as one side is still functional, the entire instrument is susceptible to impurity.", + "A makhol whose spoon is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its point; If its point was missing it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A makhol has a spoon on one end for cleaning out one's ears, and a sharp other end to apply make-up to one's eyes. Again, as long as one side is still functional, the entire instrument is susceptible to impurity.", + "A stylus whose writing point is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its eraser; If its eraser is missing it is susceptible on account of its writing point. The stylus has one end used for writing and one end used for erasing.", + "A zomalister whose spoon is lost is still susceptible to impurity on account of its fork; If its fork is missing, it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A zomalister seems to be the ancient version of the spork, except it had it spoon (actually a ladle for pouring soup) on one end and its fork (for taking meat out of a dish).", + "So too with regard to the prong of a mattock. A mattock is a tool shaped like an axe and used to break up the ground before planting. Sometimes they would affix teeth to its other end to aid in breaking up ground. It is susceptible to impurity as long as one side remains.", + "The minimum size for all these instruments: so that they can perform their usual work. As is normally the case, as long as the tool is still usable for its original purpose, it is still susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A harhur that is damaged is still susceptible to impurity until its greater part is removed. But if its shaft-socket is broken it is clean. A harhur is the iron vessel into which an ox-goad (see 9:7) can be placed in order to dig and to remove dirt from a plow. It is susceptible to impurity even if damaged, as long as its shaft-socket, the opening into which the ox-goad is placed, is intact.", + "A hatchet whose cutting edge is lost remains susceptible to impurity on account of its splitting edge. If its splitting edge is lost it remains susceptible on account of its cutting edge. If its shaft-socket is broken it is clean. The head of the hatchet has a thin side for cutting and a thick side for splitting wood. If either side remains usable, it is still susceptible. If the shaft-socket, the hole into which the head is affixed, is broken, the entire hatchet is unusable and it is pure." + ], + [ + "An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean. The ash-shovel is used to rake out coals from an oven. According to Rabbi Meir even if the shovel was removed, it is still susceptible because its heavy iron body is still usable as a hammer. Although this was not its original use, it still has some use, this use is sufficient for it to remain susceptible. The other sages hold that since it can no longer be used for its original purpose, it is no longer susceptible to impurity.", + "A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity. If one out of every two teeth is missing, the saw is no longer susceptible to impurity, because with so many teeth missing, it is no longer usable. However, if a hasit (some say that this is the length between the forefinger and thumb and some say between the forefinger and middle finger) length of teeth remain in one place, then the saw is still usable and is still susceptible.", + "An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean. In general, these instruments remain usable and therefore susceptible to impurity even when damaged. They would put a piece of steel in all of these instruments to strengthen and sharpen it. If this piece of steel was removed, then the instrument is no longer susceptible.", + "In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill. Except for the drill, all of these instruments are usable even if split in two. Therefore, they are all still susceptible. Since the drill is not usable when it is split in two, it is not susceptible.", + "The block of a plane by itself is clean. The block of a plane whose steel edge has been removed is no longer usable and therefore it is clean." + ], + [ + "A needle whose eye or point is missing is clean. If he adapted it to be a stretching-pin it is susceptible to impurity. If the needle is missing its eye or point it is pure because it cannot be used. However, if he fixed this needle to use it as a stretching-pin (to stretch out canvases or laundry for them to dry), it is susceptible because stretching-pins don't need points or eyes to be usable.", + "A pack-needle whose eye was missing is still susceptible to impurity since one writes with it. If its point was missing it is clean. A \"pack-needle\" is generally used to sew packs. However, due to its large size it can be used to write with on wax, and therefore it is still susceptible to impurity even without an eye through which to thread it. But if its point is missing, it is not at all usable and is clean.", + "A stretching-pin is in either case susceptible to impurity. As we learned in section one, a pin without an eye or a point can still be used as a stretching pin. Therefore it is susceptible in all cases.", + "A needle that has become rusty: If this hinders it from sewing it is clean, But if not it remains susceptible to impurity. A needle which has become rusty is susceptible to impurity as long as the rust does not hinder it from use.", + "A hook that was straightened out is clean. If it is bent back it resumes its susceptibility to impurity. The hook loses its usability if it is straightened out. Thus it is pure. If he bends it back to make it a hook, it is again susceptible to impurity. The Rambam explains this line as meaning that it returns to its original state of impurity, as is the rule with metal vessels that are broken and then fixed (see 11:1)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur principle teaches and illustrates the general principle that a vessel is considered to be made of the material which makes up its function part. This principle is of importance because the rules governing wooden and metal vessels are different.", + "Wood that serves a metal vessel is susceptible to impurity, but metal that serves a wooden vessel is clean. If the functional part of a vessel is made of metal, it is susceptible to impurity even if its ancillary parts are made of wood. But if the functional part is made of wood, it is not susceptible even if its ancillary parts are metal.", + "How so? If a lock is of wood and its clutches are of metal, even if only one of them is so, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the lock is of metal and its clutches are of wood, it is clean. The mishnah now illustrates this through several examples. The first example is a lock. The clutches are the functional part. Therefore, even if only one of them is of metal, the lock is susceptible.", + "If a ring was of metal and its seal of coral, it is susceptible to impurity, but if the ring was of coral and its seal of metal, it is clean. The main part of the ring is the ring itself. Therefore if it is of coral, the ring is clean (coral is never susceptible to impurity), but if it is of metal, it is susceptible.", + "The tooth in the plate of a lock or in a key is susceptible to impurity by itself. Since the mishnah discussed locks, it adds that if the tooth in the plate of a lock is separate from the lock or key, it can still be susceptible to impurity, because it is considered a vessel in and of itself." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with vessels that are basically wooden, but have one part made of metal.", + "If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity. Since the hooks are the main parts of the grappling-irons, as long as they remain, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. Furthermore, although the vessel is made of wood, since its hooks are of metal, it is susceptible.", + "If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity. These are all tools with teeth. Most of the tool is made of wood, but one of the missing wooden teeth was replaced with metal. This one metal tooth gives the entire vessel the status of a metal vessel and it is therefore susceptible to impurity.", + "And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer. Rabbi Joshua adds here a fascinating note, one which I don't believe we have encountered elsewhere in the Mishnah. In all of the above cases, since the basic vessel was of wood, and it was a simple vessel without a receptacle, the vessel should not have been susceptible to impurity. The innovation that the earlier scribes innovated was that although only one part was of metal, the entire vessel is susceptible. Rabbi Joshua accepts this innovation, but nevertheless admits that he does not understand it. We can see here his deference to tradition, and yet his striving to understand it, and his sense of frustration when he cannot. This is an attitude that I believe is very typical among rabbis. They have a strong sense of respect for tradition, and yet they do not simply accept all that they have received. Rather, they constantly attempt to understand the early halakhot, to make sense out of them, and to use the principles that they perceive as underlying these halakhot to derive further halakhot." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter thirteen deals with various types of combs that have their teeth missing.", + "A flax-comb: if the teeth were missing but two remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. If only one remained it is clean. As long as two teeth of the flax-comb remained, the comb is somewhat usable and is therefore susceptible to impurity. If only one tooth remains, it is useless and therefore clean.", + "As regards all the teeth, each one individually is susceptible to impurity. According to the Tosefta one can use the teeth of this type of comb as a writing instrument, and therefore if they are separated from the comb they can still become impure.", + "A wool-comb: if one tooth out of every two is missing it is clean. If three consecutive teeth remained, it is susceptible to impurity. If the outermost tooth was one of them, the comb is clean. The rules governing a wool-comb are slightly different. If one out of every two teeth is missing, it is not usable and it is clean. But if three remain in one place, it can be used so it is susceptible, but only if the outer, wider tooth is not one of them. Since this tooth can't be used for combing, it doesn't count for the requisite three.", + "If two teeth were removed from the comb and made into a pair of tweezers, they are susceptible to impurity. Even if only one was removed but it was adapted to be used for a lamp or as a stretching-pin, it is susceptible to impurity. As was the case with the flax-comb, it is possible for the teeth to be removed and put to secondary use. Thus, if one uses the teeth of the wool-comb as tweezers, they are susceptible. And even a single tooth can be impure if it is removed and fixed to be used for a candle (to trim the wick) or for a stretching pin (see above, mishnah five)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the minimum size that broken pieces of metals vessels need to be in order for them to be susceptible to impurity or for them to still retain the impurity that they already have.", + "What is the minimum size of [broken] metal vessels [for them to be susceptible to impurity]? A bucket must be of such a size as to draw water with it. A kettle must be such as water can be heated in it. A boiler, such as can hold selas. A cauldron, such as can hold jugs. Jugs, such as can hold perutahs. Wine-measures, such as can measure wine; and oil-measures, such as can measure oil. A bucket is used to draw water, therefore if a piece remains that is large enough to do so, it is still susceptible. A broken piece of a kettle must still be large enough to heat up water. A boiler must still be large enough to hold the hot stones that are thrown in to aid in heating up its contents. A cauldron was a large pot used to hold smaller jugs. The broken pieces of the jugs must be large enough to hold perutahs, which are small coins. Wine and oil measures must still be large enough to hold either wine or oil. We can see that the general rule is quite simple: the broken piece must still be able to perform at least some of its former functions.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: the size for all these is such as can hold perutahs. Rabbi Eliezer rules differently and more strictly. With regard to any of these vessels, as long as they can hold perutahs, meaning as long as what remains of them is large enough to hold basically anything, they are still susceptible.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: a vessel that lacks trimming is susceptible to impurity, but one that lacks polishing is clean. Rabbi Akiva says that if the broken vessel lacks decorative aspects, then it is still susceptible to impurity because the decoration is not necessary for its functioning. However, polishing is necessary for a metal vessel to be used. Therefore, if the broken piece of metal vessel needs to be polished it is clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with various metal objects that are attached to a wooden staff. The wooden staff itself has no receptacle and is therefore not susceptible to impurity. The question is: does the metal instrument attached to it cause it to be susceptible.", + "A staff to the end of which he attached a nail like an axe is susceptible to impurity. I have translated the word for the instrument describe as being affixed at the end of the staff as \"axe\" but there are other explanations. The Rambam, for instance, says that it was a round piece of iron that looked like a pomegranate. In any case, as long as this vessel has some function, it is susceptible.", + "If the staff was studded with nails it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon ruled: only if he put in three rows. The staff studded with nails is clearly a weapon. According to Rabbi Shimon it must have a minimum of three rows of nails for it to be susceptible.", + "In all cases where he put them in as ornamentation the staff is clean. In all of the above cases, if the metal vessels were attached to the wooden staff only for decorative purposes, the staff is still clean. There must be some functional reason they were adjoined for it to be susceptible.", + "If he attached a tube to its end, and so also in the case of a door, it is clean. If it was once an independent vessel and then it was fixed to the staff, it remains susceptible to impurity. The metal tube was attached to the end of the staff for decorative purposes, and therefore the staff is still pure. Similarly, if one attaches a tube to a door so that the door doesn't get worn down by the ground, the metal tube is pure. This is a case where a metal vessel serves a wooden vessel and as we learned in 13:6, such metal vessels are pure. If the tube was once an independent vessel, used for instance to pour liquids (see 9:6) and then he attached it to the staff, it retains its ability to become impure.", + "When does it become pure? Bet Shammai says: when it is damaged; And Bet Hillel says: when it is joined on. This section is a continuation of section four. When does a tube that was once an independent vessel and was now attached to a staff lose its susceptibility to impurity? Bet Shammai says that it must be damaged sufficiently so that it can no longer be used. Bet Hillel says that as soon as it is attached to the staff or door, it is susceptible. Interestingly, it seems that the opinion in section four is closer, if not identical to Bet Shammai, for Bet Hillel holds that as soon as the tube is attached to the door or staff, it is pure." + ], + [ + "A builder's staff and a carpenter's axes are susceptible to impurity. Since these are metal tools, they are susceptible to impurity.", + "Tent-pegs and surveyors’ pegs are susceptible to impurity. Tent pegs are considered utensils and are therefore susceptible to impurity. Surveyors' pegs are put into the ground and strings are attached to them to measure the ground. They too are susceptible.", + "A surveyor's chain is susceptible to impurity, but one used for wood is clean. A chain used by surveyors to measure the length of the ground is susceptible to impurity, just as are the pegs. However, if the chain is used to bundle up wood, it is not susceptible because it is not considered a vessel.", + "The chain of a big bucket [is susceptible to impurity to a length of] four handbreadths, and that of a small one [to a length of] ten handbreadths. Up until four handbreadths, the chain attached to a large bucket is considered to be part of the bucket and it is susceptible to impurity. However, the large bucket does not need a chain any longer than this, and therefore if the chain is longer, the remainder is not susceptible. Smaller buckets have longer chains and therefore the chain is susceptible to impurity up to a length of ten handbreadths.", + "A blacksmith's jack is susceptible to impurity. The blacksmith's jack is the iron base which he uses to forge his vessels. It itself is considered a vessel and is susceptible to impurity.", + "A saw whose teeth were made in a hole susceptible to impurity, but if they were turned from below upwards it is clean. In this section I am following the Rambam's interpretation. If a person made a saw by inserting teeth into the holes in the saw, the saw is susceptible to impurity. However, if he turns the teeth in such a way that he cannot use the saw, it is clean.", + "All covers are clean except that of a boiler. Generally, metal covers are pure because they are not considered vessels. The exception is the cover of a boiler, which is on occasion used independently of the boiler." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next two mishnayot deal with the parts of an ox-pulled wagon that are susceptible to impurity and the parts that are not.", + "The parts of a wagon that are susceptible to impurity: the metal yoke, the cross-bar, the side-pieces that hold the straps, the iron bar under the necks of the cattle, the pole-pin, the metal girth, the trays, the clapper, the hook, and any nail that holds any of its parts together. Rather than explain what each of these things exactly is (I'm not even sure I could explain), I think it is better to simply point out that all of these vessels serve indispensable functions on the wagon. Without them, the wagon will not function properly. Therefore, they are all susceptible to impurity. In other words, functional and necessary vessels are susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "The clean parts of a wagon are the following: the yoke that is only plated [with metal], side-pieces made for ornamentation, tubes that give out a noise, the lead at the side of the necks of the cattle, the rim of the wheel, the plates and mountings, and all other nails, all of these are clean. This section is the opposite of yesterday's mishnah. The objects mentioned here are either ornamental or not absolutely necessary for the functioning of the wagon. The yoke that is made of wood but is covered with metal is considered to be a wood vessel and the metal parts serve the wood. Therefore it is clean.", + "Metal shoes of cattle are susceptible to impurity but those made of cork are clean. Metal shoes made so that animals don't slip are susceptible but not simply because they are shoes. They are susceptible for soldiers, in time of need, use them for drinking. But cork shoes are not used for drinking, and therefore they are not susceptible.", + "When does a sword become susceptible to impurity? When it has been polished. And a knife? When it has been sharpened. The mishnah now returns to discuss the topic of when the manufacturing of certain objects is considered to have been completed such that they are susceptible to impurity. A sword is used only after it has been polished, and therefore it is susceptible only then. In contrast, a knife is susceptible as soon as it has been sharpened." + ], + [ + "A metal basket-cover which was turned into a mirror: Rabbi Judah rules that it is clean. And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. Had it not been made into a mirror, all would agree that this metal basket-cover is pure because it is a metal object used for the purposes of a wooden object (see 12:6). As we learned, in such cases the vessel has the status of being made of wood. However, if he polishes it and makes it into its own vessel to be used as a mirror, it is susceptible, according to the sages. Rabbi Judah holds that it is still not considered a vessel and it is still pure.", + "A broken mirror, if it does not reflect the greater part of the face, is clean. If the broken mirror cannot show most of a person's face, it is no longer susceptible to impurity because it is really not usable. But if it can still reflect most of the face, it is still usable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMetal vessels can be purified by having hatat waters (the water that contains the ashes of the red heifer) sprinkled on them on the third and seventh days from their impurity. Metal vessels also can become clean by being broken.\nOur mishnah deals with how these two ways of becoming pure work (or don't work) together.", + "Metal vessels remain unclean and become clean even when broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: they can be made clean only when they are whole. Rabbi Eliezer basically says that just as a whole metal vessel found in a tent with a dead body is unclean and can be purified by the sprinkling of the hatat waters, so too broken metal vessels can become impure and clean in such a manner. Rabbi Joshua disagrees and holds that metal vessels can be made impure and then made clean only when they are whole. If they are broken they can't be made clean and if they are made unclean when whole and then broken they cannot be purified until they are repaired. Note that this doesn't mean that they are impure. It means that if he repairs them, they are still impure until the water is sprinkled upon the.", + "How so? If they were sprinkled upon and on the same day they were broken and then they were recast and sprinkled upon on the same day, they are clean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: there can be no effective sprinkling earlier than on the third and the seventh day. The words \"How so?\" usually imply that section two is an illustration of section one. However, Albeck and some other traditional commentators, claim that in this mishnah section two is an independent debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua and that the words \"How so?\" should not be there. We will explain accordingly. According to Rabbi Eliezer, once the metal vessel was broken and then repaired, there is no need to wait for the seventh day for the second sprinkling. Since their breaking also purifies them, they do not need to wait for a full period. Rabbi Joshua is consistent with his opinion in section one. Once the process of purification has begun, it must be completed on a whole vessel. The sprinkling is only effective if done on the third and seventh days." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the purity of keys.", + "A knee-shaped key that was broken off at the knee is clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean because one can open with it from within. The first opinion holds that if a knee-shaped key is broken off at the knee, the key is pure because it can no longer be used to open the door. Rabbi Judah says it still retains some function. The key can be used from the inside to unlock the door, but from the outside, the key would not reach the lock. Because it still has some use, it is still susceptible.", + "A gamma-shaped key that was broken off at its shorter arm is clean. This key is similar to the Greek letter gamma. If it is broken off such that he can no longer handle it, it is clean.", + "If it retained the teeth and the gaps it remains unclean. If the teeth were missing it is still unclean on account of the gaps; if the gaps were blocked up it is unclean on account of the teeth. If the teeth were missing and the gaps were blocked up, or if they were merged into one another, it is clean. This mishnah discusses keys in general, and not just the gamma key mentioned in section two. A key has teeth and gaps both are necessary to open the lock. Obviously, if both remain, the key is functional and susceptible to impurity. However, even if only the teeth or gaps are still there, the key is still susceptible to impurity. The key only becomes clean when both the teeth are missing and the gaps are blocked up.", + "If in a mustard-strainer three holes in its bottom were merged into one another the strainer is clean. If there were three holes in a mustard-strainer that joined together to form one large gap, the strainer is no longer usable and it is clean.", + "A metal mill-funnel is unclean. The metal mill-funnel that is used for pouring wheat into the mill is considered a vessel and is susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapters fifteen through nineteen deal with vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass.", + "Vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass: those that are flat are clean and those that form a receptacle are susceptible to impurity. The general rule here was already taught in 2:1. Unlike metal vessels that can always become impure, wood, leather, bone or glass vessels must have a receptacle.", + "If they are broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. If they are broken they become clean again, and when one remakes them they do not return to their original impurity (unlike metal vessels which do). Rather, they are merely susceptible again.", + "A chest, a box, a cupboard, a straw basket, a reed basket, or the tank of an Alexandrian ship, that have flat bottoms and can hold a minimum of forty se'ah in liquid measure which represent two kor in dry measure, are clean. The mishnah lists various large containers. The general rule is that in order to be susceptible the vessel has to be something that is carried around. If a container can hold forty seah of liquid (about 480 liters), it is simply too heavy to be carried around and it is clean. These vessels are meant to be stationary.", + "All other vessels whether they can contain the minimum or cannot contain it, are susceptible to impurity, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir holds that the list in section three is exhaustive. All other vessels, even if they hold this amount , are susceptible to impurity.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the tub of a wagon, the food chests of kings, the tanners trough, the tank of a small ship, and an ark, even though they are able to contain the minimum, are susceptible to impurity, since they are intended to be moved about with their contents. As to all other vessels, those that can contain the minimum are clean and those that cannot contain it are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah provides a list of vessels that are always susceptible to impurity, even though they can hold more than 40 seahs. These vessels are always susceptible because they are meant to be moved around, and anything that is meant to be moved around is susceptible. But when it comes to all other vessels, they are susceptible if they can't hold forty seahs, and they are clean if they can.", + "There is no difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah except a baking trough which belongs to a householder. The only practical debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah is over a baking trough that belongs to a householder. According to Rabbi Meir since it is not part of the list in section three, it is susceptible. Rabbi Judah holds that if the vessel is not on the list and it doesn't hold forty seahs, it is clean. This includes the baker's trough. The debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah is interesting. It seems that there was some sort of accepted list of vessels that cannot become impure. Rabbi Meir acts like a traditionalist and limits the halakhah to those on the list. Rabbi Judah is more of an innovator (at least in this case). He derives a general rule from the list and then applies it to most other vessels." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the wake of yesterday's mishnah which ended by mentioning a baker's trough, our mishnah continues to deal with various instruments used by a baker.", + "Bakers’ baking-boards are susceptible to impurity, but those used by householders are clean. But if he dyed them red or saffron they are susceptible to impurity. Since bakers' boards are specially designed to hold the dough so that it can be arranged into loaves, they are susceptible to impurity. But householders will use any old board, and therefore one used for such a purpose is not susceptible. However, if he dyes it, he turns it into a vessel and it is susceptible.", + "If a bakers’ shelf was fixed to a wall: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is clean And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. The baker's shelf is where the baker would put the loaves of bread while they wait to rise. Rabbi Eliezer rules that since it is attached to the wall, it is clean, because anything that is attached to the ground is clean. The other rabbis disagree and hold that despite it being attached to the ground, it is still considered a vessel. We will see this same type of debate in subsequent chapters.", + "The bakers' frame is susceptible to impurity but one used by householders is clean. If he made a rim on its four sides it is susceptible to impurity, but if one side was open it is clean. Rabbi Shimon says: if he fixed it so that one can cut the dough upon it, it is susceptible to impurity. This frame was used by bakers to hold their water pitchers while they were baking. The one used by professionals is susceptible because it is specified for this purpose. But generally the one used by householders is not, because it is not specified for this type of use. However, if the householder makes a frame for it from all four of its sides he has specified it for this type of use and it is susceptible. Similarly, if he fixed the board so that he could use it for cutting dough, it is susceptible.", + "Similarly, a rolling-pin is susceptible to impurity. Albeck explains that this rolling pin was also used to bring the bread to the oven. Since it \"receives\" the bread, it is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "The container of the flour-dealers’ sifter is susceptible to impurity, but the one of a householder is clean. Albeck explains that they would attach a container to either the bottom or the top of the flour-dealer's sifter to catch loose flour when sifting. The type of container used by a professional is large enough to be considered an independent vessel and therefore it can become impure on its own. But the one used by a householder is small and insignificant and is therefore clean.", + "Rabbi Judah says: also one that is used by a hairdresser is susceptible to impurity as a seat, since girls sit in it when their hair is dressed. A similar type of container is used by women when dressing other women's hair. This container is sometimes used as a seat, and therefore it is susceptible to \"sitting impurity.\" This means that if an impure person sits on it, the chair is impure even if the person doesn't touch it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is about the susceptibility to impurity of hangers. These hangers seem to have been attached to vessels and were used to hang the vessels. They don't seem to be the types of hangers we use today to hang clothes.", + "All hangers are susceptible to impurity, except for those of a sifter and a sieve that are used by householders, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir the fact that most hangers are kept on a vessel and are used to hang the vessel is sufficient for them to be considered part of the vessel and therefore susceptible to impurity. The exceptions are the hangers used with sifters and sieves owned by non-professionals. Since these are sometimes removed from the vessel, they do not count as part of the vessel.", + "But the sages say: all hangers are clean, excepting those of a sifter of flour-dealers, of a sieve used in threshing-floors, of a hand-sickle and of a detective's staff, since they aid when the instrument is in use. This is the general rule: [a hanger] that is intended to aid when the instrument is in use is susceptible to impurity and one intended to serve only as a hanger is clean. The other sages say that hangers that are used only to hang vessels are not susceptible. In order to be susceptible they must have a use other than hanging. This is the case with the types of hangers mentioned here. A \"detective's staff\" was used by people inspecting produce. A modern example of such an instrument might be an umbrella. Its \"hanger\" is also used as its handle. The sages conclude their section with the general principle which serves as the basis for their halakhah." + ], + [ + "The grist-dealers’ shovel is susceptible to impurity but the one used in grain stores is clean.
The one used in wine- presses is susceptible to impurity but that used in threshing- floors is clean.
This is the general rule: [a shovel] that is intended to hold anything is susceptible to impurity but one intended only to heap stuff together is clean.
The general rule expressed in section three summarizes this halakhah well. A shovel is susceptible to impurity if it is used to hold things, even temporarily. This is enough to fill the requirement that the vessel have a receptacle.
However, if the shovel is used only to move things around, then it is clean because it is not considered to have a receptacle.
The rest of the mishnah is straightforward, so there is no commentary below." + ], + [ + "Ordinary harps are susceptible to impurity, but the harps of Levites are clean. According to one explanation of this section, ordinary harps are susceptible because the harp-player sometimes uses certain parts of the harp to collect the coins he receives for playing. The harps used by the Levites do not have places to collect coins, so they are pure.", + "All liquids are susceptible to impurity, but the liquids in the Temple slaughtering house are clean. The seven main types of liquid are: water, wine, oil, honey, milk, blood and dew. These are all susceptible to impurity and if they moisten food items, the food item becomes susceptible to impurity (we will learn more about this when we learn Tracate Makshirin). The exception is the liquids found in the place in the Temple were they would slaughter. One explanation of this is that the concept of the impurity of liquids is a rabbinic innovation (derabanan). The Rabbis did not include in this innovation the liquids found in the Temple, so as not to increase the impurity of things found in the Temple (see Eduyot 8:4).", + "All scrolls convey impurity to the hands, excepting the scroll of the Temple courtyard. Sacred scrolls, Torah, Prophets and Writings, convey impurity to the hands of one who handles them. This is a concept we shall discuss when we learn Tractate Yadayim. This is true of all sacred scrolls with one exception the official copy of the Torah which was held in the Temple.", + "A wooden toy horse is clean. Others explain this word (markof) to be a musical instrument made of cedar. In any case, it is pure.", + "The belly-lute, the donkey-shaped musical instrument and the erus are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: the erus is susceptible to sitting impurity since the wailing woman sits on it. These are various types of musical instruments. The \"belly-lute\" rests on the player's belly. The \"donkey-shaped instrument\" is, according to one interpretation, carried by clowns on their shoulders. The \"erus\" is some sort of bell. They are all susceptible to impurity, probably because they all have some sort of receptacle. Rabbi Judah holds that it is also susceptible to sitting-impurity, which means that if someone sits on it, they defile it, even if they don't touch it.", + "A weasel-trap is susceptible to impurity, but a mouse- trap is clean. One explanation for the difference between the weasel-trap and the mouse-trap is that the former has the shape of a vessel, whereas the latter does not. Others explain that the former has a receptacle, whereas the mouse-trap does not." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A wooden vessel that was broken into two parts becomes clean, except for a folding table, a dish with compartments for [different kinds of] food, and a householder's footstool.
Rabbi Judah says: a double dish and a Babylonian drinking vessel are subject to the same law.
When do wooden vessels begin to be susceptible to impurity?
A bed and a cot, after they are sanded with fishskin. If the owner determined not to sand them over they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir says: a bed becomes susceptible to impurity as soon as three rows of meshes have been knitted in it.
Section one: Generally, if a wooden vessel is broken into two parts it becomes clean if it was previously impure. So too, the two parts are no longer susceptible to impurity. The exceptions are wooden vessels whose pieces can still be used when the original vessel is cut into two. All of the vessels listed here can be used even when broken into two parts.
Section two: The mishnah now asks the question that it has asked with regard to vessels made of other types of material (earthenware and metal) when is the manufacture of the vessel completed such that the vessel can become impure?
For a bed and a cot to be susceptible, the wood frame must have been sanded.
However, if the owner decided to use them without sanding them, then they are susceptible even without sanding.
Beds were made by tying ropes under the frame and then tightening them to form a support (hence the phrase sleep tight!). The ropes ran the length and the breadth of the bed. According to Rabbi Meir, as soon as three rows are made in each direction, the bed is usable and is susceptible to impurity.
" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the completion of the manufacturing of various types of baskets.", + "Wooden baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off. Wooden baskets are considered to be completed once the loose ends around the rim of the basket are tied together and the ends of pieces of wood are cut off, both on the rim and inside. From this point on the basket is susceptible to impurity.", + "But those that are made of palm-branches [become susceptible to impurity] even though their ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since they are allowed to remain in this condition. Baskets made of palm-branches do not need for their ends to be cut off on the insides of the basket, because they are used even without this step being performed. Again, the principle is straightforward a vessel is considered to be completed once it is in a state in which people will typically use it.", + "A basket [of reed-grass becomes susceptible to impurity] as soon as its rim is rounded off, its rough ends are smoothed off, and its hanger is finished. The basket made of reed grass referred to here has a hanger by which it can be hung. Since this hanger is necessary for its normal functioning, it is not susceptible until the hanger is completed. Other than that, the other steps needed for wooden vessels also apply.", + "A wicker basket flasks or for cups [is susceptible to impurity] even if the rough ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since these are allowed to remain in this condition. Evidently, wicker baskets used to hold flasks or cups are used in a state similar to the palm-branch baskets mentioned in section two. Therefore, they too do not need their inside parts to be finished off for them to be susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with various types of baskets and when they become susceptible to impurity.", + "Small reed baskets and baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off. These small baskets are ready for use and therefore susceptible as soon as their ends are tied and the loose pieces cut off, as was the rule with regard to the baskets mentioned in yesterday's mishnah.", + "Large reed baskets and large hampers, as soon as two rows have been made round their sides. Larger baskets are susceptible as soon as they have a bottom and they are built up two rows from the bottom. It seems that since they were large in their width, their sides did not need to be too high.", + "The container of a sifter or a sieve and a cup of the balances, as soon as one circling band has been made round their sides. These containers don't even need to be built up two rows one row is sufficient for them to be of minimal use.", + "A willow basket, as soon as two twists have been made around its wide sides. The word \"twists\" which I have translated here reflects the fact that the Hebrew uses a different word for rows and twists. However, commentators interpret them to mean basically the same thing, the only difference being that willow and rush baskets are made in a slightly different fashion. Nevertheless, if they are built up two rows/twists, they are susceptible.", + "And a rush basket, as soon as one twist has been made round it. The rule regarding rush baskets is the same as that regarding the containers mentioned in section three." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah begins to deal with leather vessels and when they become susceptible to impurity.", + "When do leather vessels become susceptible to impurity?
A leather pouch, as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough ends trimmed and its straps sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: so soon as its ears have been sewn on. A leather pouch's manufacturing is completed once its hem has been stitched, its rough ends trimmed and the straps used to cinch it up are sewn on. Note that this is similar to the rule regarding baskets that we learned in yesterday's mishnah. Rabbi Judah says that the processing is complete once its two \"ears\" or handles have been sewn on. Throughout this mishnah Rabbi Judah seems to give a later stage as the time when the item is susceptible to impurity. This means his opinion is more lenient.", + "A leather apron [becomes susceptible to impurity] as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough end trimmed and its strings sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: as soon as its loops have been sewn on. The rule and the debate between the first opinion and Rabbi Judah concerning a leather apron are nearly identical to that which was in section one.", + "A leather bed cover [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says: as soon as its straps have been sewn on. The straps to which Rabbi Judah refers are used to attach the bed cover to the bed. Note that leather bed covers, cushions and mattresses do not have receptacles and therefore we would think that they should not be susceptible to impurity (see 15:1). However, they are susceptible because a vessel made for sitting or lying is susceptible even without a receptacle.", + "A leather cushion or mattress [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says: as it has been sew up and less than five handbreadths remained open. Rabbi Judah says that the cushion or mattress is not susceptible until most of it has been sewn up so that it can be stuffed with whatever cushioning will go inside." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with the case of baskets you might call it another basketcase! (I know, this was not good, but I couldn't resist).", + "A basket [for figs] is susceptible to uncleanness but a basket for wheat is clean. The basket for figs is considered to be a vessel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity. But the basket for wheat is not usually moved, and therefore it is not susceptible.", + "Small baskets made of leaves are clean, but those made of branches are susceptible to uncleanness. The small baskets made of leaves are clean because they are only used in a temporary fashion, and therefore they don't have the status of \"vessel.\" However, if the same basket is made of branches, it is more permanent and it does have the status of vessel.", + "The palm wrapping [in which dates are left] and into which they can be easily put and from which they can easily be taken out is susceptible to uncleanness, but if this cannot be done without tearing it or undoing it, it is clean. To aid in the ripening of dates, they would wrap them in the leaves of the palm tree. If this wrapping had an opening which made it easy to add and remove dates, then it is considered a vessel and it is susceptible to impurity. However, if in order to remove or add dates one had to tear or undo the wrapping, then it is not a vessel. This seems to me analogous to some of the items we use on a daily basis. If one has to tear a wrapper, then it's not a vessel, because it can't be reused. But if one can easily open a lid, then the container has at least the potential to be used again in the future." + ], + [ + "The leather glove of winnowers, travelers, or flax workers is susceptible to uncleanness.
But the one for dyers or blacksmiths is clean.
Rabbi Yose says: the same law applies to the glove of grist dealers.
This is the general rule: that which is made for holding anything is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which only affords protection against perspiration is clean.
Today's mishnah deals with the purity of gloves. The general rule is stated clearly in section four: if the glove is made to protect the hand while holding potentially lacerating or irritating objects, then the glove is considered a receptacle and it is susceptible. However, if it is only made to prevent slippage due to sweat, then it is not susceptible. To use a modern case: a baseball fielder's mitt would be susceptible because it is meant to hold the ball. Without it, one would hurt one's hands. But a wide receiver's gloves are meant largely to give him a better grip on the ball and to prevent slippage due to sweat. Therefore they would probably be pure.
The mishnah itself is straightforward once we know the general rule, therefore I have refrained from commenting below." + ], + [ + "The dung bag of a bull and its muzzle, a bee shelf, and a fan are clean.
The cover of a small box is susceptible to uncleanness;
The cover of a clothes chest is clean.
The cover of a box, the cover of a basket, a carpenter's vice, a cushion under a box or its arched cover, a reading-desk for a book, a bolt-socket, a lock-socket, a mezuzah case, a lyre case, a violin case, the block of the turban-makers, a wooden musical toy horse, the clappers of a wailing woman, a poor man's parasol, bed posts, a tefillin mould, and the mould of string makers all these are clean.
This is the general rule which Rabbi Yose stated: all objects that serve as a protection to objects that a man uses, both when the latter are in use and when they are not in use, are susceptible to uncleanness; but those that serve them as a protection only when the latter are in use are clean.
Section one: The dung bag is attached to the bull and used to collect its dung when it is threshing. Think of it as a bull-diaper (I wouldn't want to be one to change it!). The muzzle keeps the bull from eating. The bee shelf is placed in front of the hive and the bees sit on it before entering. None of these objects is susceptible because none of them are considered to be vessels.
Section two: Since people will use the cover of the small (jewelry) box to hold things, even temporarily, it is susceptible.
Section three: In contrast, people don't use the cover of a clothes chest, so it is not considered a vessel.
Sections four-five: The mishnah now contains a long list of items that are clean. Rabbi Yose's general rule in section five explains why they are pure. If an item is used to protect and store other objects then it is susceptible. The fact that it is used to store something when not in use proves that we consider it a container. However, if it is only used when the object it serves is in use then it is not considered to be susceptible. For instance, if a lid is only used on a container when the container is full, then the lid is pure. But if the lid is always on the vessel, then it is susceptible.
We should note that some of the objects in section four would seem to be used for storage. Therefore commentators explain that the \"cases\" here do not have receptacles and therefore are not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "The sheath of a sword, a knife or a dagger, the case for scissors, or shears or a razor, the case of make-up and the make-up box, the stylus case, the compass case, the tablet case, the case for a board, a quiver and a javelin case all these are susceptible to uncleanness.
The case for a double flute is susceptible to uncleanness if the instrument is put in from above, but if it is put in from the side it is clean.
A case for flutes Rabbi Judah says it is clean because these are put in from the side.
The covering of a club, a bow or a spear is clean.
This is the general rule: that which serves as a case is susceptible to uncleanness, but that which is merely a covering is clean.
Our mishnah deals with cases for weapons and musical instruments. Sections one through five bring various examples of cases, but the explanation for the entire mishnah comes in section five. If the case is used for storage then it is susceptible. This means that it is something that the vessel is put into, such as the sheath of a sword. But if it is merely a \"covering\" and not a \"container\" it is not susceptible. To use a modern example a bread box would be susceptible, but a hallah cover would not.
In section two, if the double flute is put in from the top, then the case is considered to be a container and it is susceptible. However, if it is put in from the side, then it is considered to only be a covering.
I think the rest of the mishnah is understandable in light of the general rule in section five." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "All [wooden] vessels that belong to householder [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of pomegranates.
Rabbi Eliezer says: [the size of the hole depends] on what it is used for. Gardeners’ vegetable baskets [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of bundles of vegetables. Baskets of householders [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of [bundles] of straws. Those of bath-keepers, if bundles of chaff [will drop through].
Rabbi Joshua says: in all these the size is that of pomegranates.
In previous chapters 3:1 and 14:1 we learned that a vessel gets a hole in it large enough so that the vessel will not be use the vessel becomes pure. Our mishnah deals with this rule concerning wood and leather vessels.
Section one: According to the first opinion in the mishnah, all wooden vessels which are owned by non-professionals are clean if the hole that appears in the them is the size of a pomegranate. This is the same opinion as Rabbi Joshua in section six.
Section two: Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with Rabbi Joshua and holds that there is no standard for how big the hole must be. It all depends on what the vessel is used for.
Rabbi Eliezer now illustrates this rule with regard to several types of wooden baskets.
The chaff collected by the bath-keepers is used to heat the fires to keep the bath warm.
I have interpreted the mishnah according to the interpretation offered by most major commentators. In contrast, Albeck interprets the words that I have translated in Rabbi Eliezer's statement to mean \"at the smallest size.\" According to this interpretation, Rabbi Eliezer says that the smallest hole renders a wooden vessel owned by a householder clean. This impacts our interpretation of the following sections. According to Albeck's interpretation, these sections are not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer but rather the anonymous opinion. It would seem that the vessels listed here are not \"vessels belonging to householders\" and therefore their measure is not that of a pomegranate. Rabbi Joshua disagrees and holds that even in these cases, the measure is that of a pomegranate." + ], + [ + "A skin bottle [becomes clean if the holes in it are of] a size through which warp-stoppers [can fall out].
If a warp-stopper cannot be held in, but it can still hold a woof-stopper it remains unclean.
A dish holder that cannot hold dishes but can still hold trays remains unclean.
A chamber- pot that cannot hold liquids but can still hold excrements remains unclean.
Rabban Gamaliel rules that it is clean since people do not usually keep one that is in such a condition.
Section one: The warp-stopper is smaller than the woof-stopper. According to the opinion in this section, if the smaller stopper can fall out, the skin-bottle is impure.
Section two: Albeck explains that this section, and sections two through four, are all the opinion of the sages who disagree with Rabban Gamaliel, whose opinion is in section one. The sages hold that as long as the skin can hold the larger woof-stopper it is usable and remains unclean.
Sections three and four: This is a continuation of the sages' opinion. The sages hold that as long as the original vessel can hold something similar to that which it was designated to hold, or one of the things that it was designated to hold, the vessel is still unclean.
Section five: Rabban Gamaliel disagrees and holds that since people generally discard such things, they are no longer unclean. This accords with what Albeck ascribes to him in section one." + ], + [ + "Bread-baskets [become clean if] the size [of their hole is such] that loaves of bread [would fall through]. This section continues the list found in yesterday's mishnah.", + "Papyrus frames through into which reeds were inserted from the bottom upwards to strengthen them, are clean. If he fixed walls to it, they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says: if it cannot be lifted up by these walls it is clean. These vessels were made of weak papyrus and then reeds were inserted into the frame in order to strengthen them. The vessel is still clean because it is not considered to have a receptacle. The reeds don't seem to have been strong enough to really make it useful. However, if he fixes walls for them, then they are susceptible to impurity because they are strong enough to be considered vessels. Rabbi Shimon says that the walls must be strong enough that the vessel can be lifted by them. Otherwise it is not considered a vessel and it is clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the first mishnah of this chapter we learned that if the vessel has a hole large enough to let pomegranates fall through, it is clean. Our mishnah expands on that mishnah.", + "The pomegranates of which they have spoken--three attached to one another. In mishnah one of this chapter, the first (and anonymous) opinion stated that if a wooden or leather vessel has a hole large enough to let out pomegranates, the vessel is clean. Our mishnah states that the hole must be soooo large as to let out three pomegranates attached to one another. I don't know exactly how large this is, but it strikes me as quite large.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in a sifter or a sieve [the size of the hole must be such that a pomegranate will drop out] when one picks it up and walks about with it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that when it comes to a wooden sifter or a sieve if the hole is large enough so that the three pomegranates would fall out while they are being carried, it is clean, even if the pomegranates would not fall out while the vessel is stationary.", + "In a basket it must be such [as would allow a pomegranate] to fall through while one hangs it behind him. This seems to be a continuation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel's opinion. When it comes to a basket, the pomegranates must be able to fall out when the person takes the basket and slings it behind his back.", + "And all other vessels which cannot hold pomegranates as, for instance, the quarter kav measure and the half quarter kav measure, and small baskets, the size [of their holes must be] such as would extend over the greater part of them, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: [the size of their hole must be such that] olives [could fall through]. When it comes to small wooden or leather vessels which are too small to hold a pomegranate, they are susceptible to impurity until the hole covers a majority of them. If a majority of the vessel remains, then the vessel is still susceptible. Rabbi Shimon is more lenient and rules that the vessel is clean if olives can fall through.", + "If their sides were broken [the size of their hole must be] such as olives would drop through. If they are worn away the size must be such as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them [to drop through]. The anonymous opinion agrees with Rabbi Shimon if the sides of the vessel were broken. In such a case, if the hole will let olives fall through, it is clean. However, if the vessel was worn away at its edges, then it is susceptible as long as it can still hold the objects that are usually kept in it. [I should note that this is the traditional explanation. Albeck explains that the words I have translated as \"as would allow the objects which are usually kept in them\" to mean \"in the smallest amount.\" According to this interpretation the rule is even more lenient if the vessel is worn away.]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMore discussion of pomegranates which by the way are delicious and very healthy.\nThis mishnah begins a series of mishnayot which refer to various items that were used for the purposes of measuring. This will lead us to some side discussions about issues that don't relate directly to Tractate Kelim.", + "The pomegranate of which they spoke refers to one that is neither small nor big but of moderate size. The pomegranates referred to in previous mishnayot are of middle size.", + "And why did they mention the pomegranates of Baddan? That whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: to use them as a measure for holes in vessels. Rabbi Akiva said: they were mentioned for both reasons: that they are to be used as a measure for holes in vessels and that whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden. This section refers to an old halakhah concerning the pomegranates of Badan, a region in the north of Israel (Samaria). Our mishnah knows that something was said about these pomegranates by previous generations of sages, but the current sages debate why these pomegranates were mentioned. According to Rabbi Meir if orlah (produce during its first three years, which is prohibited) pomegranates are mixed up with non-orlah pomegranates, the whole lot is prohibited, no matter how few forbidden pomegranates there are. This deviates from the normal rule according to which as long as there are 200 permitted fruits for every orlah fruit, the whole mixture is permitted (see Orlah 3:7). Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that the pomegranates of Baddan were mentioned because they were the middle-sized pomegranates used to measure how large the holes must be for the vessel to be clean. Our chapter was written according to this perspective. Rabbi Akiva, the peacemaker, agrees with both opinions and says that the pomegranates were mentioned with regard to both halakhot.", + "Rabbi Yose said: the pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba were mentioned only to indicate that they must be tithed everywhere with certain tithe. Rabbi Yose has a different opinion. The pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba both come from Samaria, which was at the time dominated by the Samaritans. According to the rabbis the Samaritans did not tithe their produce, or at least did not do so in a proper fashion. Therefore, if a person bought pomegranates or leeks that grew in this region he can be sure that they were not tithed. And although usually when one buys produce from an am haaretz (a non-educated person) he only needs to separate tithes out of doubt (called demai, and there was a whole tractate about this) when it comes to this produce, he can be sure that the am haaretz didn't separate tithes, because the am haaretz will think that the Samaritan did. Note that Rabbi Yose is the only sage who connects this produce with the region from which it comes." + ], + [ + "The egg of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. Concerning many halakhic measures, the egg is used as the standard. The egg to which these halakhot refer is an egg of medium size.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the largest and the smallest must be brought and put in water and the displaced water is then divided. The problem is that it is not easy to determine what egg is of medium size. As a solution Rabbi Judah says that one should bring the largest egg and the smallest egg and place both in a bowl of water. The water that is displaced can be divided into two to determine the volume of the medium egg.", + "Rabbi Yose says: but who can tell me which is the largest and which is the smallest? Rather, it all depends on the observer's estimate. Even this method is not perfect, because it requires a person to know what the \"largest\" egg is and what the \"smallest\" egg is. In other words, there is no way to remove subjectivity from this. In the end, no matter what you do, it will always depend upon the subjective estimate of the observer." + ], + [ + "The dried fig of which they spoke--- it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. Dried figs are a measure used in several halakhot (see for instance Shabbat 7:4 and Kelim 3:2, and 4:2). As with the egg and pomegranate, these laws referred to medium sized eggs.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the biggest in the land of Israel is like one of medium size in other lands. Rabbi Judah now notes that what are considered to be large figs in the land of Israel, are only medium sized in other lands. Note that some commentators say that the mishnah should be reversed and read \"the smallest in the land of Israel is like one of medium size in other lands.\" This would imply that the figs in Israel are the best. I can personally attest to the fact that the figs here in Israel are delicious, and I am tempted to go to the store right now and buy some (seriously). But I really don't know how good they are in surrounding countries, especially since I can't visit many of them." + ], + [ + "The olive of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the egori. Many halakhic measures are based on the olive, including many minimum measures of how much food a person needs to eat to fulfill a mitzvah. This olive is of medium size. This medium-sized olive even had a name the egori oliv.", + "The barleycorn of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size the midbarit The barleycorn is the size that a piece of a bone needs to be to convey impurity. This barleycorn is of medium size and it is called \"midbarit,\" which means wild.", + "The lentil of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size--the egyptian kind. For a piece of a dead creepy crawly thing (a sheretz) to convey impurity it needs to be the size of a medium lentil, of the Egyptian kind.", + "\"Any movable object conveys uncleanness if it is of the thickness of an ox goad\" it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. What is meant by \"one of moderate size?\" One whose circumference is just a handbreadth. This halakhah is taken from Ohalot 16:1 (a tractate which we have not yet learned). An \"ohel\" or tent is anything that overhangs. If a dead body or piece thereof is found under an ohel and under the same ohel there is a pure vessel, the dead body defiles the pure vessel. Here we learn that if the ohel is a movable object, it must be the thickness of a medium-sized ox goad. Its circumference must be at least one handbreadth for it to convey uncleanness." + ], + [ + "The cubit of which they spoke is one of medium size. The measure of a cubit is a standard measure found in connection to many halakhot, including the issue of carrying on Shabbat (see Shabbat 11:3).", + "There were two standard cubits in Shushan Habirah, one in the north-eastern corner and the other in the south-eastern corner. The one in the north-eastern corner exceeded that of Moses by half a fingerbreadth, while the one in the south-eastern corner exceeded the other by half a fingerbreadth, so that the latter exceeded that of Moses by a fingerbreadth. Shushan Habirah is the capital of Persia, as mentioned in Esther. There was a place on the eastern gate of the Temple with a drawing of Shushan Habirah (see Middot 1:3). At this place there were two rods which were used to set the size of the amah, the cubit. The rod in northeastern corner was shorter than the other rod by a fingerbreadth. The cubit that was normative in the days of Moses was right in between the size of these two rods one fingerbreadth larger than the small rod and one fingerbreadth smaller than the large rod.", + "But why were there a larger and a smaller cubit? Only for this reason: so that craftsmen might take their orders according to the smaller cubit and return their finished work according to the larger cubit, so that they might not be guilty of any possible trespassing of Temple property. The mishnah now asks the logical question why have two different sized cubits? The answer has to do with the artisans who work for the Temple. These craftsmen would take their orders using the smaller cubit, meaning they would receive material from the Temple based on the smaller measure. Then when they made their products for the Temple, they would return them based on the larger measure. This ensured that they did not transgress the prohibition of trespassing, meaning illegal use of Temple property. In this way, the Temple could be sure that the craftsmen would make sure they used every bit of material they received from the Temple." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with the size of the cubits used to measure various parts of the Temple. In today's mishnah we learn that there were two different size cubits, one of six handbreadths (this is the cubit referred to in yesterday's mishnah) and one of five handbreadths.", + "Rabbi Meir says: all cubits were of the moderate length except that for the golden altar, the horns, the surround and the base. According to Rabbi Meir, everything in the Temple was measured in the moderate length of the cubit, the one that was exactly six handbreadths, and not the longer length mentioned in yesterday's mishnah (six handbreadths and one fingerbreadth). The only exceptions were the golden incense altar, the horns of the outer altar, the surround (a protrusion around the outer altar), and the base of the altar. All of these were measured with the five handbreadth cubit.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the cubit used for the building was one of six handbreadths and that for the vessels one of five handbreadths. Rabbi Judah says that all of the measurements made in the building of the Temple itself were based on the six handbreadths cubit, while those used for making the vessels, used the smaller cubit of five handbreadths." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn previous mishnayot we learned all of the halakhot in which the medium measure was used. In today's mishnah we learned that sometimes smaller measures were used, and sometimes the measure used depended upon the person for whom the halakhah was relevant.", + "Sometimes they stated a smaller measure: Liquid and dry measures were measured with the Italian standard which was the one that was used in the wilderness. The dry and liquid measures used in the Temple, for instance the measures of wine, oil and flour that accompanied sacrifices (see Menahot 9:1-2) were all measured using an Italian standard that was considered to be the same as that used in the Temple.", + "Sometimes they stated a measure that varied according to the individual concerned: One who takes the handful of a minhah, One who takes both hands full of incense, One who drinks a cheek full on Yom Kippur, And the two meals for an eruv, For other halakhot, the size of the measure depends upon the individual person. The mishnah lists four such cases. The first is the priest who removes a handful from the minhah offering (Leviticus 2:2). The size of the handful depends on the person. The same is true with the two handfuls of incense on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:12). If one drinks a cheek full of liquid on Yom Kippur he is liable for karet. The size of this amount obviously depends upon the size of the individual's cheek. Finally, when it comes to Shabbat border eruvim (an eruv set to allow a person to travel further outside of his city on Shabbat, see Introduction to Eruvin) the food set aside as the eruv must consist of two meals. The amount of food necessary for the meal depends on how much the person setting the eruv eats.", + "The remainder of this mishnah is found in Eruvin. It is clearly brought here because once we mention the amount of food necessary for an eruv meal, the mishnah deals briefly with a debate concerning the issue. According to Rabbi Meir, the eruv must consist of enough food for two weekday meals. Rabbi Judah says the food should be enough for Shabbat meals and not weekday meals. Seemingly we would think that a person eats more on Shabbat than during the week, so Rabbi Judah would be stricter than Rabbi Meir. However, the mishnah says that both intended to be lenient. In order to understand this, we need to explain that the eruv’s minimum measurement was set according to the amount of bread eaten at a typical meal. According to Rabbi Meir, on Shabbat one eats a lot of different types of food and a lot of bread to accompany the food. Therefore, on Shabbat one eats more, and the minimum amount of food for the eruv is set according to the bread eaten during the week, a lesser amount. According to Rabbi Judah, since on Shabbat there are many side dishes a person eats less bread than he would during the week when there are less side dishes. Therefore, Rabbi Judah sets the minimum amount of bread for the eruv according to what one eats on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Shimon, two meals are equivalent to two-thirds of a loaf when three loaves are made from a kav of wheat. A loaf is therefore 1/3 of a kav and 2/3 of a loaf is two meals. Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka gives a minimum amount of bread that must be used for the eruv. This amount of bread is what is sufficient for two meals. It is the size of a loaf that can be bought for one pundion (a coin) when 4 se’ah (24 kav, a measure of volume) of wheat are sold for a sela (a coin worth 48 pundion). If we do the math, we can see that a kav of wheat is bought for two pundionim, meaning that one pundion will buy half a kav of wheat, which according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka is sufficient for two meals. This is a larger amount than that set by Rabbi Shimon." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah describes six cases in which a large measure was the standard.", + "And sometimes they stated a large measure:
A ladleful of corpse mould refers to the big ladle of physicians; Decomposing dead bodies and their rot can cause defilement within a tent. However, there must be a minimum amount of material for this defilement to spread. The minimum amount is a ladleful. The size of the ladle for this halakhah is the large ladle used by physicians.", + "The split bean in the case of skin disease refers to the Cilician kind; For a spot of skin disease to defile it must be the size of a split bean. The split bean referred to in this halakhah is of the Cilician kind (a region in Asia Minor). Evidently, this is a largish bean.", + "One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; One who eats a quantity of food equivalent to a large date and its pit on Yom Kippur is liable for karet.", + "In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes] must be as big as their large stopper; If skins containing wine and oil have holes that are as large as their large stopper they are pure.", + "In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands the prescribed size of which is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. The last two sections are relevant to the laws concerning purity in tents. If a dead body is in one room vessels in another room are clean, unless there is some way for the impurity from the first room to get into the second room. If there is a hole in the wall, one not made by a person, and it lets in light from one room to the other, it allows impurity to travel to the second room if the hole is the size of a large fist. The large fist referred to here is the first of Ben Batiah. Albeck explains that this man was known for having large fists thanks Albeck! Rabbi Yose says that his fist was as large as a human head. Don King would be very excited.", + "And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size is that of the large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela or like the hole in a yoke. The measure is smaller if the hole was made by human hands. In such a case if the hole is the size of the large drill used to make holes in the Temple, then it conveys impurity. This drill, the mishnah notes, was the size if the Italian pundion coin, or the Neronian sela coin, or the hole put in a yoke in which the straps were placed. All three of these measures (the pundion, the sela and the hole in the yoke) are the same size." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with one who makes vessels out of the bones or skin of fish or other creatures that come from the sea.", + "All that live in the sea are clean, except the sea-dog because it seeks refuge on dry land, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Vessels made of skin and bones of all creatures of the sea are not susceptible to impurity only of those of land creatures. Rabbi Akiva notes that the one exception is the sea-dog (probably a seal) because it lives both in the sea and on land. Since it lives partly on the land, vessels made from its skin and bones are susceptible to impurity.", + "If one made vessels from what grows in the sea and joined to them anything that grows on land, even if only a thread or a cord, if it is susceptible to uncleanness, they are unclean. If one made a vessel that is mostly of material from the sea, if even a small part of the vessel was made from something that comes from land, it is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis fascinating mishnah goes through the six days of creation and discusses whether or not the laws of impurity can apply to the things that were created on each day.", + "The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the first day. The earth was created on the first day of creation. Vessels made of earthenware are susceptible to impurity. But the rules of impurity do not apply to vessels made of stone or dirt. Therefore, the mishnah states that the laws of impurity can apply to that which was created on the first day.", + "There can be no uncleanness in what was created on the second day. The heavens were created on the second day. Obviously they cannot become impure.", + "The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the third day. Trees were created on the third day and vessels made of wood are susceptible to impurity.", + "No there can be no uncleanness in what was created on the fourth day and on the fifth day, except for the wing of the vulture or an ostrich-egg that is plated. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: why should the wing of a vulture be different from all other wings? On the fourth day the stars, moon and sun were created no impurity there. On the fifth day the birds and fish were created. Vessels made of anything that comes from birds or fish are basically not susceptible to impurity, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. There are two exceptions. The first are lasting vessels made from the wings of vultures. The second is a metal-plated ostrich egg. Most commentators explain that these vessels are susceptible to impurity because they are similar to other vessels. In order to prevent confusion, the sages decreed that they too are susceptible. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri questions why there should be a difference between vulture wings and other wings. Rather all wings are the same; if they are used to make lasting vessels that have receptacles, the vessels are susceptible to impurity.", + "The laws of uncleanness can apply to all that was created on the sixth day. On the sixth day land animals were created. Vessels made from their skin or bones is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "If one made a receptacle whatever its size it is susceptible to uncleanness. A vessel that has a receptacle is susceptible to impurity, no matter how small the receptacle is. Others explain the words that I have translated \"whatever its size\" to mean \"whatever it is made of,\" which then refers to the law in section three even vessels made of poor quality material can be susceptible.", + "If one made a couch or a bed whatever its purpose it is susceptible to uncleanness. Vessels which are made to sit upon or lay upon are susceptible, no matter the actual type of sitting or laying done upon them. Commentators explain that this includes vessels which are meant to be leaned upon.", + "If one made a wallet from untanned hide or from papyrus it is susceptible to uncleanness. A proper wallet is made from tanned leather. However, a wallet made from the inferior materials of papyrus or untanned leather is still usable and hence susceptible to impurity.", + "A pomegranate, an acorn and a nut which children hollowed out to measure dust or fashioned them into a pair of scales, are susceptible to uncleanness, since in the case of children an act is valid though an intention is not. If an object can be used as a receptacle, all that an adult has to do for it to be susceptible is think about using it in such a manner. Thinking counts as using. However, children must actually use the object in that way for it to be susceptible. So if a child takes a piece of fruit or a nut and makes it into a receptacle it is susceptible once he uses it. But if all he does is think about using it this way, it is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "The beam of a balance and a leveler that contain a receptacle for metal, carrying-stick that has a receptacle for money, a beggar's cane that has a receptacle for water, and a stick that has a receptacle for a mezuzah and for pearls are susceptible to uncleanness.
About all these Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Oy to me if I should mention them, Oy to me if I don't mention them.
Sections one and two: All of these vessels are various sticks or things like sticks that can contain other things and are therefore susceptible to impurity. In addition, each could be or is generally used for a negative purpose. The beam of a balance that has room to hide metal in it can be used to deceive a buyer by tilting the scales. A leveler is used to level out measuring cups. A person could make a receptacle in the leveler in order to skim the tops of the cups and cheat the buyer.
A carrying-stick with a hidden compartment for money could be used by a worker to deceive his employer into paying him a second time. I.e. he could say search me if you find the money on me, then you paid me.
What's wrong with a beggar's cane that has a receptacle for water? The Rambam explains that the beggar can claim that he has not been drinking so that people will have pity on him.
The sticks that have a receptacle for a mezuzah or a pearl could be used to cheat a tax collector.
Albeck explains that while all of these things also have legitimate uses, since they can be used deceptively, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai laments having to mention them. In other words, he has to teach these halakhot because these vessels can be used in a legal way, but he wishes he could forget about them." + ], + [ + "The base of the goldsmiths’ anvil is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of the blacksmiths is clean. The base of the goldsmiths' anvil is susceptible because it has a place to store small pieces of gold that break off. However, the blacksmiths' anvil has no such receptacle and therefore it is clean.", + "A whetting-board which has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A whetting board is used for sharpening a knife. If it has a receptacle to store oil it is susceptible but if it is not it is clean.", + "A writing-tablet that has a receptacle for wax is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. To write on a writing tablet one would rub wax on the tablet and carve into the wax. If the tablet has a receptacle to store the wax it is susceptible.", + "A straw mat or a tube of straw: Rabbi Akiva rules it is susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that is it clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the hollow stalk of colocynth is subject to the same law. According to Rabbi Akiva a straw mat or straw tube both last long enough to be considered a vessel and therefore they are both susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that they do not last long enough, and therefore they are clean. Rabbi Shimon says the same debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri also exists with regard to the hollow stalk of a colocynth plant or a mat made from colocynth. The following is the intro to colocynth that I found on Wikipedia: The colocynth, also known as bitter apple, bitter cucumber, egusi, or vine of Sodom, is a viny plant native to the Mediterranean Basin and Asia, especially Turkey (especially in regions such as İzmir), Nubia, and Trieste.", + "A mat of reeds or rushes is clean. A mat made of reeds or rushes is not soft enough to sit on and is therefore not susceptible to impurity. These mats are generally used for shade.", + "A reed-tube that was cut for holding anything remains clean until all the pith has been removed. If a reed tube was cut to be used as a receptacle, it is not susceptible to impurity until the pith, the stuff inside the stalk, has been removed." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAbove in 15:1 we learned that if a chest or box can contain 40 seahs of liquids it is too big to be susceptible to impurity. The sages say that the dimensions of such a box are: 1 x 1 x 3 cubits. In our mishnah the rabbis debate how such measures are taken.", + "A wooden chest: Beth Shammai says: it is measured on the inside; And Bet Hillel says: on the outside. According to Bet Shammai when measuring the chest, one measures it from the inside. Meaning it must actually be able to hold 40 seahs to be pure. Bet Hillel holds that the thickness of the walls is included in the measurement because the box is measured from the outside.", + "Both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are not included in the measurement. Rabbi Yose says: both agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim are included in the measurement, but the space between them is not included. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri ruled: if the legs are one handbreadth high the space between them is not included in the measurement, otherwise it is included. The mishnah now discusses whether the thickness of the legs or the rim are included in the measurement. There are three different opinions in this section. According to the first opinion, both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that the area of the legs and the rim are not included in the measurement to get to forty seahs. This makes sense since this area does not add to the weight of the box. According to Rabbi Yose, Bet Hillel only agrees that the area between the legs is not counted in the measurement. The thickness of the legs is counted in measurement to get to forty seahs. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says that if the legs are only one handbreadth away from the chest, then the space in between them is counted in the measurement. In such a case we look at it as if the legs were simply an extension of the walls of the chest. But if they are more than one handbreadth high, then the space in between them is not counted. We can see in this mishnah the progressive leniencies. Bet Hillel is more lenient than Bet Shammai and \"fictionalizes\" the traditional forty seah amount. The box doesn't even have to hold forty, it just has to have the dimensions of forty seah. The later sages extend the leniency of Bet Hillel even further. The box doesn't even have to be that big for one can occasionally even count the spaces in between the legs despite the fact that this space is empty! Note how far this halakhah has developed from its original rational a large box is too heavy to be moved therefore it isn't considered a vessel.Empty spaces don't weigh anything so it's not going to be any harder to move the box." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with how the box is measured.", + "Its carriage: if it can be slipped off, is not regarded as connected, nor is it included in its measurement, nor does it afford protection together with it in the tent of a corpse, nor may it be drawn along on Shabbat if it contains money. The word I have translated as \"carriage\" is interpreted by some to mean the box's wheels and by others to mean the box's base. In any case, as we shall see, the rules differ depending on whether the carriage can be detached. If the carriage can be slipped off then it is not regarded as connected to the box, even when it is connected. This means that its status as far as purity goes is independent of the box. If the box is small enough to become impure, the carriage remains pure. And if the carriage becomes impure, the box is pure. And if the box is too large to become impure, the carriage is still susceptible. When measuring the size of the box, the carriage is not included, since it can be taken off. Vessels that are in a box are not defiled if the box is found in the tent of a corpse. However, if the carriage is what separates the vessels from the air of the tent, the carriage does not offer such protection and the vessels will be defiled. If the carriage has coins it, it may not be drawn on Shabbat because the carriage is the base for an object that cannot be used on Shabbat (the coins).", + "If it cannot be slipped off, it is regarded as connected, it is included in its measurement, it affords protection together with it in the tent of a corpse, it may be drawn along on Shabbat even if it contains money. If the carriage cannot be slipped off, all of the above halakhot are reversed. It is regarded as connected and therefore has the same purity status as the box. It is measured with the box and it affords protection as if it was part of the box. It can be drawn on Shabbat even though there are coins in it. This is because there are permitted things in the box (clothes, etc.) and when something has permitted and forbidden things in it, it may be moved.", + "Its arched top, if it is fixed [to the box], is considered connected and is measured with it, but if it is not fixed it is not connected and is not measured with it. The box's arched top is considered to be part of the box only if it is fixed to the box with nails. In such a case its purity status goes with the box itself and it is measured with the box. If it is not nailed to the box, it is not considered part of the box.", + "How is it measured? As an ox-head. How do they measure the arched top when it measurements are included with the box? They measure it with a sharp angle called \"an ox head.\" Picture a half circle with a triangle inside it. Whatever is in this triangle is counted as far as the dimensions of the box.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand by itself it is clean. Rabbi Judah says that if the box cannot stand without the aid of the arched top, then the box is pure even if it cannot contain forty seahs." + ], + [ + "If one of the legs was missing from a chest, a box or a cupboard, even though it is still capable of holding [things], it is clean, since it cannot hold [things] in the usual manner. But Rabbi Yose says: it is susceptible to impurity. According to the first opinion, if a leg is missing the box, chest or cupboard is no longer susceptible to impurity, even if it can still hold things in it. The reason it is clean is that it can no longer be used in its usual fashion. Rabbi Yose says that as long as the box, chest or cupboard is usable, it is still susceptible.", + "The poles of a bed, its base, and [its] covering are clean. The mishnah now begins to discuss the various parts of beds. The poles, the base and the bed covering are all clean, because they are no truly necessary for the bed's functioning. The poles stand one at each end of the bed and they hold up the canopy.", + "Only the bed itself and its rectangle [frame] are susceptible to uncleanness. The rectangular frame is put into the empty area of the bed and the bedding is placed on it. Since the frame and the bed are actually slept upon, they are susceptible to impurity.", + "The rectangle frames of the Levites are clean. The Levites would take their rectangular frames with them when they went to Jerusalem and sleep on them without putting them into a real bed. Since they were not used with a bed, they are not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A bed frame that was put on props: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say it is susceptible to uncleanness. But Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that it is clean. The rectangle frame was not put into a proper bed but rather propped up so that it stood off the ground. According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah this setup is enough like a bed that it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that it is clean.", + "Rabbi Yose said: Why is this different from the rectangle frames of the Levites which are clean? Here Rabbi Yose argues out his point, by referring to the end of yesterday's mishnah, where we learned that the rectangle frames used by the Levites are clean. Rabbi Yose says that if those frames are clean since they were not put into a bed, then the frames put on props should also be clean because they too were not put into a bed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how much of a bed must be removed for it to be considered defective and therefore no longer unclean (or susceptible to impurity).", + "A bed that had contracted midras uncleanness: If a short side was removed and its two legs still remains it is unclean. But if a long side and two legs were removed it becomes clean. Rabbi Nehemiah says: it is unclean. Midras impurity is impurity conveyed when an object is sat upon or laid upon by a zav (one with abnormal genital discharge). If the board on the short side of the bed, meaning the head or foot of the bed, was removed and with it its two legs the bed is still unclean, because it can still be used. However, if one of the long sides is removed the bed can no longer be used because the person lying on it will fall off. Therefore the bed is clean. Rabbi Nehemiah says that what remains is still unclean because he can use it by leaning it up against the wall or in some other way. If we were to summarize the principle that emerges from this debate, the sages would say that a vessel that is broken and can no longer be used without support of another vessel is clean. Rabbi Nehemiah holds that as long as it can still be used, it is still unclean.", + "If two props at opposite corners were cut off, or if two legs at opposite corners were cut off, or if the bed was reduced to a level of less than a handbreadth, it becomes clean. The \"props\" referred to here are the supports upon which the rectangle rests. If two props or two legs at opposite corners were cut off then the bed won't be able to stand. In both cases the bed is clean because it is unusable. In addition, if he cuts down the legs so that the bed is lower than a handbreadth high, the bed is clean because it is considered unusable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with a bed that has contracted midras impurity. In order to understand this mishnah we should note that there is a difference between \"midras impurity\" and \"contact with midras.\" Midras impurity is a \"father of impurity\" and it defiles other things. \"Contact with midras\" is a first degree impurity and its defiling powers are limited.", + "A bed that had contracted midras impurity:
If a long side of it was broken and then he repaired it, it still retains its midras impurity. If the long side broke and then he repaired it, the bed still retains its madras impurity.", + "If the second side was also broke and then he repaired it, it becomes pure from midras impurity but is unclean by virtue of contact with midras. However, if the second long side broke and then he repaired it as well, the bed sheds its original midras impurity because it is considered new. In other words, when does a repaired bed become a new bed? When both long sides were fixed. Although the original midras impurity is gone, the bed does have a lesser degree of impurity because it was in contact with something that had midras impurity. I shall explain. When the first long side was repaired and put back into the bed it contacted impurity from the rest of the bed. And even when the second side broke, and the bed lost the impurity it had by being in contact with a zav, it does not lose the impurity it had by being in contact with other impure parts of the bed. This is because the bed continued to be usable.", + "If before one could manage to repair the first side the second one broke, the bed becomes clean. If both sides were broken at the same time, then the bed is completely pure, even from contact with midras. This is because when both sides are broken, the bed cannot be used." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a bed leg that has a high level of impurity that is attached to a clean bed and then removed from the bed. Commentators explain that the leg was leaned or sat upon by the zav while it was separate from the bed.", + "If a [bed] leg that had contracted midras uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts midras uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off, it retains its midras uncleanness while the bed is unclean from contact with midras. Once the leg with the midras uncleanness becomes part of the bed the whole bed contracts midras uncleanness. However, if he removes the leg, the midras uncleanness, the higher level of impurity, is removed from the bed. The bed continues to retain the status of unclean by virtue of contact with midras because it was once in contact with the leg. This, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, is a lower level of impurity.", + "If a bed leg that was subject to a seven-day uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts seven-day uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it remains subject to seven-day uncleanness while the bed is only subject to evening-uncleanness. \"Seven day uncleanness\" is contracted by coming into contact with a dead body. If the leg had seven day uncleanness and then it was attached to the bed, the bed is also considered to have seven day uncleanness. When the leg is removed, it still has seven day uncleanness, but the bed only has the lesser uncleanness of \"evening uncleanness\" (uncleanness that only lasts until night). When the bed came into contact with the leg the bed was defiled, but only for one day.", + "If a leg that was subject to evening uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts evening uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it is still subject to evening uncleanness while the bed becomes clean. In this case, the leg only has a lower state of impurity evening uncleanness. When the leg is attached to the bed, the bed takes on the status of the leg. But when the leg is removed, the bed becomes fully clean. A vessel that only has evening uncleanness does not defile other vessels.", + "The same law applies also to the prong of a mattock. The same relationship between leg and bed would also apply in similar situations to the prong of a mattock. The mattock is a tool used for loosening the soil and cutting through roots. The prong is equivalent to the leg of the bed and the mattock is equivalent to the bed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe tefillin box worn on one's head has four compartments to hold four scrolls. The box was defiled with corpse impurity. Our mishnah deals with cases where one replaces the compartments, eventually causing the entire tefillin box to be pure.", + "A tefillin box consisting of four vessels: if the first compartment was unloosed, and then he mended it, it retains its corpse uncleanness. So is it also the case with the second and the third. If he opens up the first compartment and removes it, and then makes a new compartment, the whole box of tefillin retains its corpse impurity. The same is true if he removes and then repairs all three of the first boxes. Since one compartment is still there, the tefillin is not considered new and it retains the same level of impurity.", + "If he unloosed the fourth it becomes free from corpse uncleanness but it is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness. If after having replaced all three of the first compartments, he now replaces the fourth compartment, then the box loses it corpse impurity because it is an entirely new tefillin box. However, the box still has some level of uncleanness. When he replaced each of the first three compartments he put them back into contact with a compartment that has corpse uncleanness. The unclean compartment which is a \"father of impurity\" defiles by contact the compartment that it touches, giving it first degree impurity. So all of the first three compartments have this status, and therefore the whole box has this status.", + "If he went back to the first compartment and unloosed and mended it, it remains unclean from contact. So also in the case of the second compartment. Going back and undoing the first compartment and then replacing it, and then doing the same with the second department, will not cause the box to be entirely clean. Because some of the compartments are unclean, the whole box is unclean.", + "If he then unloosed the third compartment and mended it becomes clean, since the fourth is unclean from contact, and what is unclean from contact cannot convey uncleanness by contact. However, if he goes back and replaces the third compartment, the whole box becomes completely pure. As long as one of the first three replacement boxes was still around, the whole box is impure with first degree impurity, because these three replacement compartments came into contact with something that was a \"father of impurity.\" The first came into contact with the second, the second witht the third and the third with the fourth. However, once the first three compartments are replaced again, none of the compartments left was ever in contact with something that was a \"father of impurity.\" All that is left is the fourth compartment which also was never in contact with a \"father of impurity.\" It has \"first degree impurity\" only because it was part of a box that had \"first degree impurity.\" The fourth compartment does not now return to defile the new third compartment, because something with \"first degree impurity\" does not defile other vessels. And since the first three compartments are completely pure, the fourth one is also pure." + ], + [ + "A bed half of which was stolen or lost, or one which brothers or joint owners divided between themselves, becomes clean. If a bed was half stolen or lost (perhaps he lost it under the bed?) or if it was divided up by two different owners (I would want the side closest to the TV) the bed is clean because it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to its whole state.", + "If it was restored it is susceptible to uncleanness henceforth. If it is restored, then the bed is only clean from that point and onward. The impurity it had before half of it was lost, stolen or divided does not return to it.", + "A bed may contract uncleanness and be rendered clean when all its parts are bound together, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: it can contract uncleanness and is rendered clean in single parts. I am going to explain this section according to Albeck's commentary. Others explain it differently. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if a bed is broken into pieces and then one part of the broken piece is defiled, the whole broken piece is defiled. In other words, just as all of a bed is considered defiled if one of its pieces is defiled, so too all of a piece of a bed is considered to be defiled if any one of its components is defiled. If one immerses an entire piece of a bed in a mikveh (a piece made up of several components) then the whole piece is pure, and the pieces do not serve as a barrier for the effectiveness of the mikveh (this is called hatzitzah in Hebrew). The other rabbis disagree. If a bed is broken into pieces and one component becomes impure, the whole piece is not thereby impure. A piece of a bed does not have the same rules as the whole bed. Similarly, if one immerses a piece of a bed in a mikveh, he must immerse each part separately. If he does not, each part will serve as a barrier (hatzitzah) for the part that it is connected to." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One who dismantles a bed in order that he might immerse it and [while doing so] touches the ropes remains clean. If while dismantling a large bed in order to immerse it in a mikveh to purify it a person touched the ropes of the bed, he is not thereby defiled. This is because the ropes of a dismantled bed are not considered impure. As we shall see, the ropes are considered to be impure only when attached to the bed.", + "When does the rope begin to constitute a connective with the bed? As soon as three rows of meshes of it have been knotted. Beds in the time of the Mishnah were made by tying ropes tightly around the bed frame. The mishnah now asks when are ropes considered connected to the bed such that their purity/impurity status matches that of the bed. The answer is that as soon as three rows have been tied onto the bed. It would seem that at that point the bed offers at least minimal support.", + "And [if another rope was tied to this one] and a person touches it: If from the knot inwards he becomes unclean; But if from the knot outwards he remains clean. If one ties another rope to the rope that is already tied to the bed, the new rope is considered connected from the knot and inwards. That portion of the rope is impure, and if the bed is impure it will defile him if he touches it. But from the rope and outwards, it is pure and it will not defile him.", + "As to the loose ends of the knot, any one that touches that part which is needed for it becomes unclean. And how much is needed for it? Rabbi Judah says: three fingerbreadths. The first three fingerbreadths of the loose ends of the knot were needed to tie the knot. Therefore, they are impure. Anything beyond that is not impure." + ], + [ + "A rope that hangs out from a bed:
If it is shorter than five handbreadths, it is clean,
If it is from five to ten handbreadths long, it is unclean.
From ten handbreadths and longer is clean;
For it is with [this rope] that paschal lambs were tied and beds were lowered down.
Today's mishnah deals with ropes that hang out from a bed after the main part of the rope was woven around the bed frame.
Section one: If the rope is less than five handbreadths long, it is not useful and it is not susceptible to impurity.
Sections two and four: If it is longer than five handbreadths, it is useful, but only the portion up to ten handbreadths is susceptible. Section four explains how they would use these ropes. The first use was to tie the paschal lamb to the bed in preparation for the lamb's slaughter on Pesah. On the original Pesah which was celebrated in Egypt it was required that one would set aside the lamb on the tenth of Nissan. This was not required on subsequent observations of the holiday, but evidently people did so in any case. My only explanation for why they would tie it to the bed is so that it wouldn't get mixed up with other non-paschal lambs, or with paschal lambs set aside by other people.
The other use was to lower their beds when taking them down from the roofs (where they sometimes slept) or for lowering them down into the mikveh.
Section four: Only the part that was between five and ten handbreadths was really needed. The rest of the rope was extraneous and therefore it is clean." + ], + [ + "If a part of a mattress hangs over, it is unclean whatever its length, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: only that which is shorter than ten handbreadths. It seems that during the time of the Mishnah, not all beds were used with mattresses. The Geonim (rabbis in Babylonia in the 8-11th centuries) defined the word that I have translated as \"mattress\" in the following way: \"a wool garment which rich people put on their beds underneath the regular bedding. And they put it on the edge of the bed frame.\" If the mattress hangs over the bed, according to Rabbi Meir no matter how long the part that hangs over is, it is all considered to be connected to the bed and if the bed is impure, all of the mattress is impure. Rabbi Yose says that only that which is shorter than ten handbreadths (this is quite long). Anything longer is already far enough away from the bed that it has an independent status of impurity.", + "The remnant of a mattress remains unclean if the length is at least seven handbreadths from which a donkey's covering can be made. The remnant of a mattress can remain unclean if it is at least seven handbreadths long, because this is the measure that could be used to make a donkey's covering. This goes according to the general principle that as long as something can still be used as a vessel it retains its impurity." + ], + [ + "If a zav was carried on a bed and on its mattress, the latter causes an uncleanness of two grades and an unfitness of one grade, the words of Rabbi Meir. The zav (person with abnormal genital discharge) causes the mattress to become a primary source of impurity (the bed also is a primary source of impurity, but this mishnah deals only with this mattress). The mattress causes anything that touches it to have first degree impurity. Whatever has first degree impurity imparts second degree impurity to whatever it touches. That which has second degree impurity renders unfit any terumah that it might touch (giving it third degree impurity). But the terumah does not disqualify anything by giving it fourth degree impurity.", + "Rabbi Yose says: if a zav was carried on a bed and on its mattress the part that is shorter than ten handbreadths causes an uncleanness of two grades and an unfitness of one grade, but that which is over the ten handbreadths causes only an uncleanness of one grade and an unfitness of one grade. Rabbi Yose distinguishes between the part of the mattress that extends from the bed less than ten handbreadths and the part that extends more than ten handbreadths. This accords with what he stated in yesterday's mishnah. The part that extends less than ten handbreadths has the same rule that Rabbi Meir stated above. The part that is further away from the bed is treated not like the bed but as if it were a separate piece that had contact with the remainder of the mattress. Therefore, this part has first degree impurity which it got from the main part of the mattress and it defiles that which it touches, giving it second degree impurity. That which has second degree impurity renders unfit any terumah that it might touch (giving it third degree impurity).", + "If he was carried on the mattress, [on the overhanging part] that was shorter than ten handbreadths, it becomes unclean, but if on the part that was longer than ten handbreadths it remains clean. In this scenario he was carried on the part of the mattress that extends over the bed, but not on the bed itself. If he was carried on the part of the mattress that is less than ten handbreadths from the bed, the mattress is unclean. But if further from the bed, then the mattress is clean because it is not susceptible to \"midras\" impurity (imparted by sitting, lying or leaning on something) because it is not considered part of the bed. And since the zav did not directly touch the mattress (he touched the mattress covering), the mattress is completely clean." + ], + [ + "If around a bed that had contracted midras uncleanness one wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to midras uncleanness. If it was removed, the bed remains subject to midras uncleanness but the mattress is unclean only from contact with midras. When he wraps the mattress around the bed, the mattress becomes part of the bed and takes on the impurity status of the bed. And when he removes the mattress from the bed, it loses the impurity status that the bed had. But since it had contact with something that had \"midras\" impurity, the mattress remains unclean, albeit with a lower type of impurity (first degree impurity).", + "If around a bed that had contracted seven-day uncleanness one wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to seven-day uncleanness. If it was removed, the bed remains subject to seven-day uncleanness but the mattress is unclean until the evening. The same halakhah is true with regard to seven day uncleanness, the type of uncleanness contracted from contact with a dead body. When the mattress is attached to the bed it has the same impurity as does the bed. When it is removed, it has the lower status of \"evening uncleanness,\" meaning it will become pure in the evening. This is because the bed was a \"father of impurity\" and it caused the mattress to have first degree impurity, but first degree impurity lasts only until evening.", + "If the bed was subject to evening uncleanness and around it he wrapped a mattress, the whole becomes subject to evening uncleanness; If it was removed, the bed remains subject to evening uncleanness but the mattress becomes clean. However, if the bed was itself unclean only with \"evening uncleanness\" it does not defile at all other vessels that have contact with it. When the mattress is attached, it has \"evening uncleanness\" but when it is removed, it is completely pure." + ], + [ + "If a mattress was wrapped around a bed and a corpse touched them, they are subject to a seven-day uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to a seven-day uncleanness. In this case the mattress is impure because it too came into contact with a corpse, and not just because it became part of a bed that had corpse impurity (as in yesterday's mishnah). Therefore, even when it is taken apart from the bed, it still retains its corpse impurity.", + "If a sheretz touched them they are subject to an evening uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to evening uncleanness. The same is true if the bed and mattress become defiled with evening uncleanness through contact with a sheretz. Since the mattress was also defiled, it retains its impurity even when removed from the bed.", + "A bed from which the two longer sides were removed and two new ones were prepared for it but the original sockets were not changed: If the new sides were broken the bed retains its uncleanness, But if the old ones were broken it becomes clean, since all depends on the old ones. One removed the two longer sides of the frame of a bed and he made new ones to replace them. But since he did not change the sockets of the bed, if the new ones break he can still replace them with the old ones. If he puts the new ones in and they break, the bed regains its old impurity. In other words, it's not a new bed if the old bed can still be reconstituted. But if the old ones are broken, then the bed cannot be reconstituted and it is pure. As the mishnah notes, the purity of the bed depends on the existence of the old ones, not the new ones." + ], + [ + "A box whose opening is at the top is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If a box has an opening on its top it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, and to other types of uncleanness as well. The only type of impurity to which it is not susceptible is midras impurity, because midras impurity is imparted only to objects that are meant for sitting.", + "If a piece fell out above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If the box broke but only at its top, it is still usable so it is still susceptible to impurity.", + "If it was damaged below, it becomes clean. However, if it was damaged below it is no longer usable so it becomes clean.", + "The compartments within it remain unclean and are not regarded as a connected to it. If the box had compartments and the box became clean because it was broken, the compartments are still usable so they remain unclean. They are not considered as connected to the box, for it is clean and they are unclean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nJust a warning this mishnah might make you chuckle a bit.", + "If a shepherd's bag was damaged, the pocket within it retains its uncleanness and is not regarded as a connected to it. A shepherd's bag which is made of leather has pockets in it to store things. If the bag is damaged, the larger bag is pure, but the smaller pockets retain their impurity because they are still usable.", + "A skin whose testicle bags serve also as receptacles and they were damaged, they become clean, since they will no longer serve their original purpose. Evidently, they would make skins for holding wine that would also have pouches made from the testicles of the animal. They would do this by skinning the animal complete from head to legs. This would leave the testicles intact and usable for storing liquids. If the testicle bags are damaged they become clean because they can't be used to store liquids, which is the normal way in which they are used. Even if they can still be used for some other purpose, since they can't be used in their normal way, they are clean. I bet you wish you had a bag like this. It would definitely be the talk of the town!" + ], + [ + "A box whose opening is at the side is susceptible to both midras uncleanness and corpse uncleanness. Today's mishnah discusses a box whose opening is at the side. Since this box can be sat upon it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. It is also susceptible to other types of impurity, including corpse impurity.", + "Rabbi Yose said: When does this apply? When it is less than ten handbreadths in height or when it does not have a rim one handbreadth deep. Rabbi Yose says that it is susceptible to midras impurity only if it is less than ten handbreadths high or does not have a rim of at least a handbreadth. A high box with a rim will not be sat upon, and therefore it is not susceptible to midras. But a low box might be sat upon, with or without a rim.", + "If it was damaged above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If it was damaged above, it cannot be sat upon so it is no longer susceptible to midras. But it is still usable as a box, so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "If it was damaged below: Rabbi Meir rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages rule that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases. If it is damaged below, it can be sat upon, but it cannot be used for storage, which is its main purpose. Rabbi Meir rules that since it can still be sat upon, it is susceptible to midras impurity. The sages disagree. They hold that if a vessel cannot be used in its primary function, in this case storing, it is not susceptible due to its secondary function, sitting. Therefore, the box is completely clean." + ], + [ + "A dung-basket that was so damaged that it will not hold pomegranates: Rabbi Meir says is still susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases. The mishnah deals with a \"dung-basket,\" a basket used to take out dung used for fertilizer. If the basket has a hole large enough for pomegranates to escape, then the basket then it can't be used as a dung-basket (it would make some serious mess on the floor). Rabbi Meir says that since it can still be used as a seat cushion, it is still susceptible to impurity. The other sages disagree, invoking the principle we saw in yesterday's mishnah. If something can no longer be used for its primary purpose (to carry dung) then it is no longer susceptible, even if it can be used for a secondary one." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Pillows, bed coverings, sacks and packing cases that were damaged are still susceptible to midras uncleanness. All of these items were originally made for two purposes to contain something within, and to lie or sit upon. Pillows and bed coverings contain feathers, but they are mostly made for lying or sitting upon. Therefore, they are susceptible to midras impurity (impurity conveyed by sitting, lying or leaning). Sacks and packing cases are mostly for containing things, but from the outset they also are intended to serve as seats or ground coverings. Therefore, even if they are damaged and cannot be used to hold the things that they originally held, they are still susceptible to midras impurity.", + "A fodder-bag that can hold four kav, a shepherd's bag that can hold five kav, a traveling bag that can hold a se'ah, a skin that can hold seven kav, Rabbi Judah adds: also a spice-bag, and a food wallet that can hold the smallest quantity are susceptible to midras uncleanness. The mishnah now lists a number of types of bags, and provides a minimum amount that each must hold in order for it to be susceptible to impurity. If it cannot hold this amount, it is not useful and therefore is clean. In addition, since these things can also be used as a seat, they are also susceptible to midras impurity.", + "If any of them was damaged it becomes clean, since if the primary function ceases the secondary function also ceases. In contrast with the bags listed in section one, these bags have a main purpose to carry things inside them. Sitting is only a secondary function. Therefore, if they are damaged and can no longer carry things, they are no longer susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A bagpipe is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. A bagpipe is not intended for sitting, and therefore it is not susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "A trough for mixing mortar: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras uncleanness , And Bet Hillel says it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only. According to Bet Shammai, a trough meant mainly for mixing mortar is also used for sitting and therefore it is susceptible to midras impurity. But Bet Hillel holds that it is not meant for sitting and therefore it is susceptible only to other types of impurity, such as corpse uncleanness. It is not susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "If a trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav is split, it becomes susceptible to midras uncleanness. A trough that is large enough to hold between two logs of liquid (1/2 of a kav) and nine kav and then is split, is subsequently susceptible to midras impurity because it can be used for sitting. Note that when it was used to hold liquids it would not have been used as a seat and therefore it would not have been susceptible to midras impurity.", + "If he left it out in the rain and it swelled it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness alone. If he leaves it out in the rain, it will swell and the split will be repaired. It will now be possible to again fill it with liquids. At this point it will be susceptible to corpse uncleanness, but not to midras uncleanness because it won't be used as a seat.", + "[If he left it out] during the east wind and it split, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. If he again leaves it out and a dry east wind comes along, the split will again prevent it from holding liquids. At this point, it will go back to being able to be used as a seat and it will be susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "In this respect the law is stricter in the case of remnants of wooden vessels than in [that of such vessels] in their original condition. The mishnah now notes an oddity with regard to the impurity of the remnant of wooden vessels. In their original condition, they would not have been susceptible to midras uncleanness, but when they are cracked they become susceptible.", + "It is also stricter in regard to the remnants of wicker vessels than [to such vessels] as are in their original condition, for when they are in their original condition they are insusceptible to uncleanness until their rim is finished, but after their rim has been finished, even though their edges fell away leaving only the slightest trace of them, they are unclean. The mishnah notes another case where the law is stricter with vessels later in their existence than it is when they are first produced. The manufacturing of a wicker vessel is not considered complete until its rim is finished (see 16:2). But once their manufacturing is complete , their outer edges can completely wear away and the vessel will still be susceptible to impurity. When we think about it, this makes sense. When we buy something new, we expect it to be in mint shape. We wouldn't buy a pair of shoes with worn-out soles. However, once we own a pair, we will hold onto them even after the soles, or other parts of the shoe show considerable wear." + ], + [ + "If a stick was used as a handle for a hatchet, it is regarded as connected for uncleanness at the time of use. When the hatchet is in use, its handle is considered connected to it with regard to impurity. This means that if either piece, the handle or the hatchet, is defiled, both are defiled.", + "A yarn winder is regarded as connected for uncleanness at the time of its use. A \"yarn winder\" is a small stick with a nail attached to it which was used for weaving. While it is in use, the nail is considered connected to the stick for issues of impurity.", + "If it was fixed to a pole it is susceptible to uncleanness, but it is not considered connected to it. If he fixed the yarn winder to a pole, the yarn winder remains susceptible to impurity, but it is not considered connected to the pole, which remains clean.", + "If the pole itself was converted into a yarn winder, only that part which is needed for use is susceptible to uncleanness. In this case he makes the end of the pole into a yarn winder. The part that is used as a yarn winder is susceptible, but the remainder of the pole stays clean, because it is a simple wood vessel.", + "A seat that was fixed to the pole is susceptible to uncleanness, but the latter is not regarded as connected to it. If one fixed a seat to the end of a pole, the seat (like the yarn winder) is susceptible to impurity, but it is treated separately from the pole.", + "If the pole itself was turned into a seat, only the place of the seat is susceptible to uncleanness. This is the same as section four, just with regard to the seat.", + "A seat that was fixed to the beam of an olive-press is susceptible to uncleanness, but it is not connected to it. The same rule as found in section three and section six.", + "If the end of a beam was turned into a seat it remains clean, because people would tell him, \"Get up and let us do our work.\" If the end of an olive press beam is turned into a seat, even the seat part remains pure. People won't let another person sit there because that would prevent them from doing their work. Therefore, it's a dysfunctional seat and not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "If a large trough was so damaged that it could no longer hold pomegranates and he fixed it to be used as a seat: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless its rough parts have been smoothed. According to Rabbi Akiva, although the trough cannot be used for its original purpose, since he set it up to be used as a seat, it is susceptible to impurity. The other sages basically agree with Rabbi Akiva, but add the caveat that the trough is not susceptible unless its rough section has been smoothed to make it fit for a seat.", + "If it was turned into a feeding bowl for cattle, even if it was fixed to a wall, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he turned it into a feeding bowl, then it is susceptible to impurity even though it is attached to the wall. The vessel is not considered as nullified due to its attachment to something that is attached to the ground." + ], + [ + "A wood block that was fixed to a row on a wall, whether he fixed it and did not built upon it or built upon it but did not fix it, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he fixed it and also built upon, it is clean. The Rambam explains that the \"row on a wall\" referred to here is the scaffolding in between which builders make their wall. The \"wood block\" is a thick piece of wood that the builders attach to the wall and to the building adjacent to the wall in order to keep the wall close to the building. If he fixes it to the wall but does not build upon it, or if he builds upon it but does not fix it to the wall, then the wood block is not considered part of the building and it is still susceptible to impurity. But if he fixes it to the wall and builds upon it, then it is part of the building and it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "Matting that was spread over the roof-beams, whether he fixed it but did not put on the plasterwork or whether he put on the plasterwork but did not fix it, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If it was fixed and he laid plasterwork over it, it is clean. The matting is used here as a base for the plasterwork which will serve as the ceiling to the house. If the matting has been fixed to the beams but the plasterwork has not yet been put on, or if the plasterwork has been put on, but it has not yet been fixed to the beams, it is not yet part of the building, and it is still susceptible to impurity. The matting is part of the building and therefore clean, only if it has the plasterwork and has been fixed to the building.", + "A dish that was fixed to a chest, box or cupboard: If in such a manner as to hold its contents in the usual way, it is susceptible to uncleanness, But if it was in a manner that it cannot hold its contents in the usual way it is clean. The chest, box or cupboard referred to here are large enough so that they are not susceptible to impurity. If one attaches a dish to one of these things in such a way that the dish can still hold things, that is the mouth of the dish faces up, the dish is still susceptible to impurity. But if he attaches it face down (not sure why one would do such a thing) then it is considered nullified vis a vis the chest, box or cupboard and it is clean." + ], + [ + "If a sheet that was susceptible to midras uncleanness made into a curtain, it becomes clean from midras uncleanness but it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. A sheet used for bedding is susceptible to midras uncleanness because it is laid upon. But if he makes it into a curtain, it is no longer used for lying upon, and therefore it is not susceptible to madras impurity. It will however be susceptible to corpse impurity as are all vessels made of cloth.", + "When does it become insusceptible to [midras] uncleanness? Bet Shammai says: when the loops have been tied to it. . Bet Hillel says: when it has been attached. Rabbi Akiva says: when it has been fixed. There are three opinions as to the exact point at which the sheet ceases being a sheet and becomes a curtain. According to Bet Shammai, once loops have been attached to the sheet, it is a curtain. To put it abstractly, it is a curtain if it looks like a curtain even before it functions as such. Bet Hillel says that it must be attached to the opening for it to be a curtain. A curtain must function like a curtain. Rabbi Akiva postpones the time a bit more. It must be fixed to the opening with nails. Abstractly speaking it must be set up as is a normal curtain with loops, attached to the opening with nails. Before that, it is still just a sheet." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA mat for lying upon was normally made in the following way: reeds would be placed across its breadth every four handbreadths. Lengthwise they would weave straw and other such material. People would lie between the reeds, because it was not comfortable to lie on the hard reeds. Our mishnah deals with mats made in an unusual manner.", + "A mat whose reeds stretched lengthwise is insusceptible to uncleanness; But the sages rule: only if they lay in the shape of [the Greek letter] chi. According to the first opinion, since the reeds were laid lengthwise, the mat is not susceptible for impurity. A mat made in such a way must not have been meant for lying because it would be uncomfortable to lie on the reeds. But the other sages say that even though the reeds were placed lengthwise, one still could lie in between the reeds. It is insusceptible to impurity only if he places the reeds in the shape of the letter x (chi in Greek). Such a mat is certainly not good for lying because the reeds would be unavoidable.", + "If they were laid along its width and there was a distance of less than four handbreadths between the two reeds, it is insusceptible to uncleanness. If he didn't leave four handbreadths between the reeds, then it is not good for lying and it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "If it was divided along its width, Rabbi Judah rules that is clean. If it was divided along its width, it is pure. Eventually the whole mat will fall apart because the straw will come undone.", + "So also, where the end-knots are untied, it is clean. The same is true if he unties the end knots. Since the mat will eventually fall apart, it is pure.", + "If it was divided along its length but three end-knots remained intact across a stretch of six handbreadths, it is susceptible to uncleanness. Ties are usually made every two handbreadths along the mat's width. If the mat is divided along its length, but three end-knots remain on its width, covering a stretch of six handbreadths, that section of the mat is still usable and is still susceptible to impurity. Note that this is the minimum size in which a mat is susceptible to impurity (we will return to this subject in 27:3 I bet you can't wait).", + "When does a mat become susceptible to uncleanness? When its rough ends are trimmed, this being the completion of its manufacture. Since we're dealing with the purity of mats, the mishnah now answers the question as to when the manufacturing of a mat is complete such that it is susceptible to impurity. The answer is that it is susceptible once its rough ends have been trimmed. These are the ends of the tied knots." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a situation where a completed unclean woven garment is on a loom and a person touches various parts of the loom. Parts that are considered to be connected to the woven garment defile the person who touches them, whereas parts that are not considered to be as connected do not.\nI am not all that familiar with looms. I did find a decent illustration on the web of a \"treadle loom\" that seems to be the type referred to in the Mishnah. I will try my best to describe some of the parts. The main issue is the principle, which should be clear after the mishnah is learned.", + "One who touches the upper beam, the lower beam, the harnesses, the sley, the thread that is drawn over purple material, or a spool which is not to be shot back, remains clean. A loom has two beams, an upper and a lower one. These are used to move the warp up and down. The heddles are the strings attached to the reeds laid across the loom. The sley is a reed used to straighten the warp. When making purple cloth, weavers would pass a string over the cloth and then remove it. A spool that is not shot back refers to strings that will not be brought back and woven into the garment. All of these things are not considered to be attached to the garment. Therefore, one who touches them is pure, even if the garment is unclean.", + "If he touches the woof, the standing warp, the double thread that is drawn over purple material or a spool which is to be shot back, he becomes unclean. The \"woof\" refers to the strings of the woof that have already been put into the warp strings but have not yet been straightened out properly. The \"standing warp\" refers to the strings of the warp stretched out between the upper and lower beams. The double string passed over the purple cloth will not be removed. And the spool that will be shot back is attached to a string that will be part of the garment. One who touches any of these things is defiled, because these are connected enough to the garment to be considered already as being part of the garment.", + "If one touches the wool that is on the distaff, or on the spool, he remains clean. The wool that is on the distaff or on the spool is not considered to be connected, and therefore one who touches it is pure.", + "If he touches the spinner: Before it was uncovered he is unclean, After it was uncovered he remains clean. If the spindle was impure, one who touches the spinner on the head of the spindle is impure if he touches it before he removes the string and uncovers the spinner. But if he touches it after the string was removed and the spinner is uncovered, remains clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is similar to yesterday's except that it discusses instruments connected to the plow.", + "One who touches the yoke, the crossbar, the collar-piece, or the thick ropes, even when they are being used, he remains clean. These are all pieces of the plow that are not considered to be connected to it, so if the plow is impure, the person who touches one of them is still pure.", + "If he touched the tail piece, knee or handle, he becomes unclean. These are all pieces of the plow itself, and not just things that connect the plow to something else. Therefore one who touches them is unclean.", + "If he touched the metal rings, the guides, or the flanks, he becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says that he remains clean if he touched the guides since they only serve to increase the soil. The \"guides\" are two pieces of wood used to bring the soil into contact with the plow, to \"increase the soil\" in the words of Rabbi Judah. The \"flanks\" are made to crush the soil. With regard to the metal rings and the flanks, all sages agree that one who touches them is unclean. There is a debate with regard to the \"guides.\" The first opinion holds that they are considered connected to the plow, whereas Rabbi Judah says that they are not really part of the plow. Their sole function is put more soil into contact with the plow. Therefore, one who touches them remains pure." + ], + [ + "One who touches the handle of a saw at either end becomes unclean; The handles of a two-handled saw are both considered to be part of the saw. Therefore, one who touches either of them is unclean.", + "[If he touched] its string, cord, cross-piece or side-pieces, a carpenter's vice, or the bow-handle of a bow-drill, he remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: so too he who touches the frame of a large saw remains clean. The string or cord run from one handle of the saw to the other to keep them attached. A cross-piece is a piece of wood connecting the handles on a saw. The side-pieces support the handles of a saw. The carpenter's vice is made of two boards, between which the carpenter places bent pieces of wood to straighten them. If one touches any of these things, he remains clean. Rabbi Judah adds that the same is true with regard to the frame of a large saw.", + "One who touches the bow-string or the bow, even though it was stretched, he remains clean. The different parts of the bow (as in bow and arrow) are not considered to be connected to one another. Therefore, if one touches the bow-string when the bow is unclean or the bow when the arrow is unclean, he is not unclean. This is true even if the arrow is taut in the bow.", + "A mole-trap is clean. Rabbi Judah says: when it is stretched, the separate parts are [regarded as] connected. The various parts of a mole trap are not considered to be connected one to the other. If one is unclean, and a person touches the other part, he is still clean. Rabbi Judah says that when the mole-trap is stretched, ready to trap the mole, the separate parts are considered to be connected. They are considered unconnected only when the trap mechanism is relaxed." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a table or a side-board was damaged or he covered them with marble but room was left for cups to be set, it is unclean. Rabbi Judah ruled: there must be room enough for pieces of food. The mishnah describes two situations. The first is of a table or side-board (what we might call a counter) that was damaged. The second is of a table or side-board (both made of wood) that were covered with marble. Marble is not susceptible to impurity. In both cases, if enough of the table remains undamaged, or if enough remains uncovered with marble, for cups to be placed on the table, it is still susceptible.", + "Rabbi Judah says that space for cups is not enough. There must be enough space for pieces of food. If not, the table is not considered usable or is considered to be fully covered with marble, and it is clean." + ], + [ + "A table one of whose legs was removed is clean. If one of a three-legged table's legs is removed, it is no longer functional and therefore it is clean.", + "If a second leg was removed it is still clean. But if a third was removed it becomes unclean where the owner has the intention of using it. If the second leg is removed it is still clean, because it can still not be used. However, if the third leg is removed, then all that remains is a board. If he intends to use the board without the legs, then it becomes susceptible to impurity.", + "Rabbi Yose says: no intention is necessary. Rabbi Yose says that since the board can be used, it is automatically susceptible to impurity. He need not even intend to use it.", + "The same law applies also to the side-board. The same debate occurs in reference to a side-board (mentioned also in yesterday's mishnah)." + ], + [ + "A bench, one of whose legs was removed, is clean. If its second leg also was removed it is still clean. If it was one handbreadth high it is unclean. A bench has two legs, one on either end. Clearly if one leg is removed, the bench cannot be used and it is pure. The same is true even if both legs are removed. One does not sit on a bench when it is simply a board on the ground, because it is usually too thin. However, if the bench-board is at least one handbreadth high, it is unclean because a person might come to sit on it.", + "A footstool one of whose legs was removed is unclean. A footstool can be used to put one's feet up even if one of the legs has been removed. In other words, a footstool does not have to be exactly upright because one doesn't sit on it. Therefore, since it can fulfill its original function, it remains unclean (or susceptible to impurity).", + "The same applies to the stool in front of a cathedra. A \"cathedra\" is a couch used by the upper class (same word as cathedral). The stool in front of it has the same rule as does a footstool." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah has two parts, each of which contains three opinions: Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and Shammai. In both cases, Shammai rules more strictly than Bet Shammai. This is an interesting historical phenomenon. It might demonstrate that in the generation between Shammai and the founding of his eponymous school, his disciples began to be influenced by the leniencies of Bet Hillel. In other words, Bet Hillel's dominance, which we know of from a later historical period, already influenced the early Shammaites themselves.", + "A bride's stool which lost the coverings for the seatboards: Bet Shammai rules that it still susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even the frame of the stool is susceptible to uncleanness. A bride's stool is made up of a frame and seatboards placed on top of the frame. On top of the seatboards they would place coverings to make it more comfortable. Think of it as an ancient lazyboy (or lazygirl in this case). According to Bet Shammai, the stool without the coverings can still be used by normal people, and therefore it is susceptible to impurity. Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that since it is not fit for a bride, it is clean. Shammai says that even the frame alone is susceptible, because it can be sat upon in time of need.", + "A stool which was fixed to a kneading-trough, Bet Shammai rules that it susceptible to uncleanness, And Bet Hillel rules that it is clean. Shammai rules: even one made out of it is susceptible to uncleanness. The mishnah now deals with a stool attached to a knead-trough. The kneading-trough itself is not susceptible to midras impurity, because it is not meant for sitting. According to Bet Shammai, the stool is not nullified vis a vis the trough and it remains susceptible to midras impurity. Bet Hillel disagrees, and holds that the stool is part of the trough. Shammai rules that even if the stool was originally made as an attachment to the kneading-trough, and was never made independently for sitting, it is still susceptible to midras impurity. Again, Shammai is stricter than Bet Shammai." + ], + [ + "A chair whose seat boards did not project and then they were removed, it is still susceptible to uncleanness, for it is usual to turn it on its side and to sit on it. The seat boards of this chair did not project outside of the frame of the chair. Thus this type of stool could be turned on its side, and one could sit on the boards that were used to form the sides. If the seat boards are removed from the place where the chair is usually sat upon, the chair can still become impure, because even before they were removed, it was common to use the chair from the side." + ], + [ + "A chair whose middle seat board was removed but the outer ones remained, it is still susceptible to uncleanness. The chair referred to here has three seat boards. If only the middle one is removed, it is still susceptible to impurity. The outer ones should be sufficient to support the sitter's tuches (the seat on my bike is a little like this).", + "If the outer ones were removed and the middle seat board remained it is also susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was a handbreadth wide. So too, if the outer ones are removed and only the inner one remains. The middle one can still be sat upon, so the chair is still susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon adds that the middle one must be at least one handbreadth wide. If it is not, it is pure." + ], + [ + "A chair, of which two seat boards were removed, this one next to this one: Rabbi Akiva says: it is susceptible to impurity; And the sages say that it is clean. If two adjacent seat boards were removed, one of the side ones and the middle one, Rabbi Akiva still considers it susceptible to impurity. One could sit on the side seat board. The other sages say that this is no longer considered a chair, and therefore it is clean.", + "Rabbi Judah said: so too if the seat boards of a bride's chair were lost, though the receptacle under remained, it is clean, since where the primary function has ceased, the secondary one also ceases. Rabbi Judah relates back to mishnah four. There Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagreed with regard to a bride's chair whose seat boards were removed. Bet Hillel held that such a chair is clean. Rabbi Judah adds to this. The chair is clean even if the receptacle that they make under the chair to hold various things remained. Since the chair cannot be used in its normal fashion, for the bride to sit upon, the fact that it can be used for other purposes does not mean that it is still susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A chest whose top part was removed is still susceptible to uncleanness on account of its bottom; If its bottom was removed it is still susceptible to uncleanness on account of its top part. The type of chest referred to here seems to contain some drawers. If the top part is removed, the whole chest is still susceptible to impurity on account of the bottom part. Similarly, if the bottom part is removed, the whole chest is susceptible to impurity on account of the top part.", + "If both the top part and the bottom part were removed: Rabbi Judah says that it is susceptible to uncleanness on account of its sides, But the sages rule that it is clean. According to Rabbi Judah, if both the bottom and top part are removed, the chest is still susceptible to impurity on account of its sides. However, the sages rule that such a chest is no longer usable and is therefore clean.", + "A stonecutter's seat is subject to midras uncleanness. A stonecutter's seat is a temporary seat that a stonecutter will fashion for him to use while performing his work. The seat is considered to be a real seat and is therefore susceptible to midras impurity." + ], + [ + "A [wooden] block which was painted red or saffron, or was polished: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless [a seat] was carved out. The issue at hand in this section is what does one have to do to a plain wooden block in order to turn it into a chair? According to Rabbi Akiva, it is sufficient to paint it or to polish it for it to be considered a chair and therefore susceptible to impurity. The other sages rule that this is insufficient. To make something into a real chair a seat must be carved out.", + "A small basket or a big one that was filled with straw or other soft material remains clean [even] if it was prepared as a seat. But if it was plaited over with reed-grass or with a cord it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. Even if one fills a basket with soft material and intends to use it as a seat, it is not susceptible to impurity. The problem with it is that as soon as he turns the basket over, the stuff will fall out and the seat will no longer exist. To turn the basket into a seat he must fill it with some sort of stuffing and plait over it with some type of binding material to keep the contents in. If he does this, the basket will be a seat and it will be susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A toilet is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If the leather seat was separated, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness and the iron is subject only to corpse uncleanness. The toilet described here is made of a leather seat and an iron base. When it is whole, the entire toilet is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness, because it is a seat and it is a vessel. If the leather seat is removed, the seat is still subject to midras uncleanness because it is still usable as a seat. But the iron base can no longer be sat upon, and therefore it is subject only to corpse uncleanness, because it is still a vessel.", + "A folding stool whose cover is of leather is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If it was taken apart, the leather is subject to midras uncleanness while the stool is altogether clean. When the leather cover is part of the stool, the entire stool is subject to both midras and corpse uncleanness. If the cover is removed, it remains susceptible to midras uncleanness, but the remainder of the stool cannot be used so it is clean.", + "A bath-house bench that has two wooden legs is susceptible to uncleanness. If one leg was of wood and the other of stone it is clean. The bench is made of stone which is not susceptible to impurity. However, if both of its legs are made of wood, the entire bench becomes susceptible on account of the legs. If only one leg is made of wood and the other is made of stone, the bench is still clean.", + "Boards in a bath-house which were joined together: Rabbi Akiva says that they are susceptible to [midras] uncleanness; But the sages say that they are clean, since they are made only for the water to flow under them. In a bath-house, there would be seats made of wood joined together for the bathers to sit on. According to Rabbi Akiva, since people sit on these seats, they are susceptible to impurity. The sages disagree because they see the function of the seats as just letting dirty water already used by others to pass beneath. In other words, people don't want to sit on the seats; they just want to avoid something else.", + "A fumigation-cage that contains a receptacle for garments is susceptible to uncleanness, But one that is made like a bee-hive is clean. A fumigation cage is a vessel into which fire and sulfur are put to fumigate the clothing that would be put above. If it has a receptacle in which to put the clothing, it is susceptible to impurity. But if it is made in the shape of a bee-hive and does not have a receptacle, it cannot become impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a ball, a mould, an amulet or tefillin were torn, one that touches them becomes unclean, But one that touches what is inside them remains clean. The objects listed here contain something inside them. The ball contains some sort of soft filling (they didn't fill balls with air back then). The mould is made of leather and is also filled with similar material. Artisans would craft their wares around the mould. The amulet and tefillin contain parchment with writing on it. If any of these items are torn, they are still unclean because they can still contain things inside them. A vessel which has a receptacle is impure even if it is not sealed shut. However, the contents are not considered to be connected to the vessel. Therefore, if one touches the contents and they are pure, he is still pure even if the vessel is unclean.", + "If a saddle was torn, one that touches its contents unclean, because the stitching joins them. When it comes to a saddle, the stitching attaches the contents to the saddle. The contents are part of the saddle and not just inside the saddle. Therefore, even if the saddle is torn, a person who touches the saddle (when it is unclean) will be defiled, regardless of whether he touches the saddle or its contents." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses a special type of uncleanness called \"merkav\" which means \"riding\" as in riding a camel, horse or donkey. This is a type of uncleanness that only a vessel meant to be ridden upon can contract. Mishnah 1:3 made some mention of special characteristics that characterize things that are \"merkav.\" We shall discuss this more in tomorrow's mishnah.", + "The following are susceptible to uncleanness as objects that are fit for riding upon (: an Ashkelon donkey belt, a Medean saddle, a camel's pillow, and a horse-cloth. The Ashkelon donkey belt and Medean saddle seem to be named after the places in which they are produced. A camel's pillow is not for the camel to sleep with, but to put on the camel's back for the comfort of the rider. The horse-cloth is used to cover the horse's back and on top of it goes the saddle. All of these are meant for riding upon, but they are not directly sat upon.", + "Rabbi Yose says: a horse-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat, since people stand on it in the arena. Rabbi Yose says that a horse-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness not because it is ridden upon but because it is stood upon when people are in the arena. If a zav stands on something that is susceptible to midras, he gives it sitting (moshav) uncleanness. We shall explain this type of uncleanness in tomorrow's mishnah.", + "But a saddle of a female camel is susceptible to [sitting] uncleanness. All agree that it is customary to sit directly upon the saddle of a female donkey. Therefore, it is susceptible to sitting uncleanness." + ], + [ + "What is the practical difference between [the uncleanness of an object used for] riding upon and [one used for] sitting upon? In the case of the former the effect of contact with it is different from the effect of carrying it, but in the case of the latter there is no difference between the effect of coming in contact with it or carrying it. If one carries something that has contracted uncleanness by a zav riding upon it his clothes are unclean. But if someone touches something that has contracted uncleanness by a zav riding upon it, his clothes remain clean. Thus, when it comes to the uncleanness of something that was used for riding, there is a difference between carrying it and touching it. However, when it comes to something that has contracted sitting impurity (moshav) there is no difference between touching and carrying. In both cases, his clothes are unclean.", + "The pack-frame of a donkey on which a zav sat is clean; But if the size of the spaces has been changed or if they have been broken one into another it is susceptible to uncleanness. One does not normally sit upon the pack-frame of a donkey. Therefore, it is not susceptible to sitting impurity and it remains clean even if a zav sits upon it. However, if he changes the spaces or breaks them one into another such that he can sit upon it, then he has changed it into a seat and it is susceptible to sitting impurity." + ], + [ + "A bier, the mattress and the pillow of a corpse are susceptible to the uncleanness of midras. The fact that these three things are used for a dead body does not make them susceptible to midras uncleanness. However, the Tosefta explains that women sit on these when they wail over the dead. Therefore they are considered seats and they are susceptible to midras impurity.", + "A bride's stool, a midwife's stool, and a launderer's stool on which he piles the clothes: Rabbi Yose says: it is not regarded as a seat. These stools are not sat upon for comfort, just so that one doesn't have to be on one's feet. The bride sits in the chair only as part of the bridal procession. The midwife sits on the stool so that she may assist in the birth. The launderer sits on the stool while he launders and folds the clothes. Since these are not used for comfort, they are excluded from being susceptible to sitting impurity." + ], + [ + "A fishing net is susceptible to uncleanness on account of its bag. The bottom part of a fish-net is sewn together like a bag. Therefore, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "Nets, snares, bird-traps, slings and fishermen's skeins are susceptible to uncleanness. All of these various types of traps are considered to be vessels and therefore they are susceptible to impurity.", + "A fish-trap, a bird-basket and a bird-cage are not susceptible to uncleanness. In contrast, these types are not considered vessels and they are therefore pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nEvery mishnah in Chapter Twenty-Four of Kelim has the format of \"there are three different types of X.\" The differences between the different types of X (in our case shields) means that there are differences as to their susceptibility to impurity. All of the mishnayot have the same structure. The first item is susceptible to midras uncleanness because it can be used as a seat. The second item is not used for sitting but it is a vessel so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. The third item is completely pure.", + "There are three different types of shields:
A bent shield is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A bent shield can be used to lie upon and therefore it is susceptible even to midras uncleanness. All the more so it is susceptible to other types of uncleanness.", + "A shield used in the arena is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; A shield used in battle is not meant to be laid upon and therefore it is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. However, like all vessels it is subject to corpse uncleanness, meaning if it comes into contact with a corpse, it is unclean.", + "And the Arabian toy shield is pure from all uncleanness. A shield that is not used as protection is not susceptible to impurity. This is the case with the Arabian toy shield." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of wagons:
The one made like a cathedra is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A \"cathedra\" is a seat upon which important people sit (see 22:3). If a wagon is made in such a manner it is considered a seat and it is susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "The one made like a bed is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, A wagon made like a bed is used for transporting goods and it is not meant for people to sit or lie upon. Therefore, it is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. However, it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And the one for [the transport of] stones is free from all uncleanness. A wagon used to transport large stones is made of boards placed upon the length and breadth of the wagon. There are large gaps between the boards such that it cannot hold in pomegranates. Therefore, it is not considered a vessel that can become impure. Rather, it is a simple wooden vessel (17:1) and simple wooden vessels are not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of baking-troughs:
If a baking-trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav was split it is susceptible to midras uncleanness; This section was explained above in 20:2. There I wrote: A trough that is large enough to hold between two logs of liquid (1/2 of a kav) and nine kav and then is split, is subsequently susceptible to midras impurity because it can be used for sitting. Note that when it was used to hold liquids it would not have been used as a seat and therefore it would not have been susceptible to midras impurity.", + "If it was whole it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; As stated above, when whole the trough could not have been used as a seat and therefore it was just a normal vessel, susceptible to corpse impurity.", + "And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free from all uncleanness. If the trough can hold 40 seahs, it is too big to be transported and therefore it is not susceptible. This halakhah was learned in 15:1." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of boxes:
A box whose opening is at the sides is susceptible to midras uncleanness; This was explained above in 19:9. Since this box can be sat upon, it is susceptible to midras impurity.", + "If it is on the top it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; See 19:7. Since this box cannot be sat upon, it cannot contract midras impurity. But it is a vessel so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free from all uncleanness. If it holds more than 40 seahs, it is not susceptible to impurity at all (see the end of yesterday's mishnah)." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of leather covers:
That of barbers is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The leather cover that barbers use is meant to be sat upon, therefore it is susceptible to midras.", + "That on which people eat is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. The leather cover people eat on is not meant for sitting but it is considered a vessel. Therefore, it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And that for [spreading out] olives is free from all uncleanness. The leather cover used to spread out olives isn't even considered a vessel, and therefore it is pure" + ], + [ + "There are three different types of bases:
One which lies before a bed or before a scribe is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The base which is put in front of a bed or in front of a scribe is sometimes sat upon. Therefore it is susceptible to midras impurity.", + "One for a side-table is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; The base next to a side-table is sometimes stood upon by a servant, therefore it is considered a vessel. But it is not sat upon therefore it is not susceptible to midras.", + "And one for a cupboard is free from all uncleanness. The one that serves as the base for a cupboard is not considered a vessel at all, and therefore it is not susceptible to uncleanness." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of writing tablets:
That of papyrus is susceptible to midras uncleanness; Evidently, a scribe would lean on the papyrus while he was writing. This is sufficient for it to be susceptible to midras impurity, for things that are leaned upon are susceptible to midras.", + "That which had a receptacle for wax is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; Some tablets were set up so that they would be covered with wax and the writing would be written in the wax. If such a tablet has a receptacle to hold the wax before it is spread on the surface of the table, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "And that which is smooth is free from all uncleanness. A smooth writing tablet, one that has no receptacle, is not susceptible to impurity. It is considered a simple wooden vessel." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of beds:
One that is used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A regular bed made to lie upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "One used by glass makers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; Glass makers would use the bed to arrange the glass that they had already made. This type of bed is considered a vessel and therefore is susceptible to impurity. I should note that some of the commentators ask why this type of bed is considered to be a vessel and is susceptible, whereas the wagon used in olive making (mishnah five) is pure. The same question might be asked concerning the next section: why is this bed susceptible but a bed used by weavers not?", + "And one used by weavers is free from all uncleanness. The bed used by weavers (there are various interpretations as to how this bed is used) is pure because it is not considered to be something used by a person." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of baskets:
The one for dung is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The basket used to take dung out to the fields to be used as fertilizer is susceptible to midras impurity because it can be sat upon.", + "The one for straw is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; The type of basket used for straw is not sat upon, so it is not susceptible to midras. But it is a vessel, therefore it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And a camel's rope bag is free from all uncleanness. The rope bag put onto a camel has holes in it that are large enough to let out pomegranates. Therefore, it is not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of mats:
One used for sitting upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A mat used to sit upon is obviously susceptible to midras uncleanness.", + "One used by dyers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness. The mat used by dyers is not sat upon (would be a bit messy). But it is considered a vessel so it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And one used in wine-presses is free from all uncleanness. The mat used in wine-presses is used to cover the grapes. Therefore, it is not a vessel and it is not susceptible to uncleanness." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of water skins and three different types of shepherds' wallets:
Those that can hold the prescribed quantity are susceptible to midras uncleanness; In 20:1 we learned that for a water skin to be susceptible to midras impurity it must be capable of holding seven kavs and a shepherds' wallet must be capable of holding five kavs. If they are of this size, then they are also meant to be sat upon.", + "Those that cannot hold the prescribed quantity are susceptible to corpse uncleanness; If they are smaller than this size, then they are not meant for sitting. They are still vessels, so they are susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "And those made of fish skin are free from all uncleanness. Fish skin cannot become impure (see 10:1)." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of hides:
That which is used as a rug is susceptible to midras uncleanness; An animal hide used as a rug is sat and lain upon. Therefore, it is liable to midras.", + "That which is used as a wrapper for vessels is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; If it is used to wrap vessels, it counts as a vessel because it \"contains something.\" Therefore, it is susceptible to impurity, just not midras impurity.", + "And that which is intended for straps and sandals is free from all uncleanness. If the hide was made such that straps and sandals can be cut from it, it is not yet a vessel and it is not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of sheets:
One used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness;
One used as a curtain is susceptible to corpse uncleanness;
And one used as a mural decoration is free from all uncleanness.
I think by now the principles underlying this mishnah should be clear." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of napkins:
One used for hands is susceptible to midras uncleanness; The word that I have translated here as \"napkins\" really would be best translated as a small piece of cloth. If the cloth is used to clean one's hands, it is susceptible even to midras impurity because it is sometimes used to cover the seat cushion and then it is sat upon.", + "One used for books is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; If it is used to cover a book, it counts as a vessel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity.", + "And the one used as a shroud or a covering for the harps of the Levites is free from all uncleanness. If the cloth is used only to cover a dead body or to cover a harp it is not considered a vessel. The difference between this and a book cover is that one continues to use a book when it is covered, whereas one cannot use a harp (or a dead body for that matter) when it is covered." + ], + [ + "The word which I have translated \"hip-boots\" is based on Albeck's explanation of this mishnah. Traditional commentators explain the word to mean some sort of leather gloves.", + "There are three different types of hip-boots:
Those used by the hunters of animals and birds are susceptible to midras uncleanness; According to Albeck, when hunters wear these boots, they cover all the way down to the foot. Since they are walked upon, they are susceptible to midras.", + "Those used by locust gatherers are susceptible to corpse uncleanness. The hip-boots used by locust gatherers are considered vessels, but they do not cover the feet. Therefore, they are not susceptible to midras. Note that in the time of the mishnah Jews would have eaten locusts. Today very few Jews do so, although certain locusts are still considered kosher.", + "And those used by fig-pickers are free from all uncleanness. The hip-boots used by fig-pickers are not considered vessels at all." + ], + [ + "There are three different types of hair nets:
A girl's is susceptible to midras uncleanness; A girl's hair net is made so that it can also be sat upon. Therefore, it is susceptible to midras.", + "An old woman's is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; According to our mishnah, an old woman's hair net is not made to be sat upon, therefore it is not susceptible to midras. Note that in 28:9 the Mishnah will teach the opposite: a girl's is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness but an old woman's is susceptible to midras. Albeck seems to think that the version preserved in 28:9 is more accurate.", + "And [the hair net] of a woman who \"goes out\" is free from all uncleanness. There are two explanations for a woman who \"goes out.\" Some explain this to be a temporary hair net used by a woman who merely goes out to the courtyard. Others explain that a woman who \"goes out\" refers to a prostitute. Her hair net does not cover much hair so it is not considered a vessel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last mishnah of this chapter (yes, we made it there) ostensibly follows the same literary pattern as the first sixteen mishnayot. It begins with the words \"there are three types of…\" However, the internal structure is quite different. The topic is baskets that are attached to other baskets in cases where one basket is pure and one is impure.", + "There are three different types of baskets: If a worn-out basket is patched on to a sound one, all is determined by the sound one; If a small basket is patched on to a large one all is determined by the large one; If they are equal all is determined by the inner one. Whereas in the previous sixteen mishnayot the \"three different types of x\" meant that one was subject to midras impurity, one to corpse impurity and one was pure, today's mishnah deals with three possible results of one basket being attached to another. If a worn-out basket is attached to a sound one, the purity/impurity is determined by the sound basket, because that is the basket that is essential. Thus is the sound basket is pure, both are pure, and if the sound basket is impure, both are impure. Similarly, if a small basket is attached to a large basket, the status of the large basket determines the purity/impurity of both baskets. If both baskets are equal in size and soundness, then the inner basket is the one that is essentially used so it determines the purity status. If the inner one is pure, both are pure and if the inner one is impure, both are impure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if the cup of a balance was patched on to the bottom of a boiler on the inside, the latter becomes unclean; but if on the outside it remains clean. If it was patched on to the side, whether on the inside or the outside, it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon extends the principle learned above. If an impure cup of a balance was patched on to the inside of a hot water boiler then the cup has the status of the \"inside\" vessel and the entire apparatus is impure. However, if the cup is patched onto the side of the hot water boiler, then the boiler is considered the inside vessel and the entire apparatus is pure. This is true even if the cup is inside the boiler. Since it is not attached to the bottom, it is not the main part and the boiler determines the status of the cup." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMost of chapter twenty-five deals with the differences between cases in which an impure liquid touched the inside of a vessel and cases in which the liquid touched the outside of a vessel. Mishnah six will teach this rule explicitly if the liquid touched the outside of the vessel, the inside remains pure. But if it touches the inside of the vessel, the outer side is impure as well. Our mishnah, as well as the subsequent ones discuss which vessels are deemed to have \"insides\" and \"outsides\" such that these rules apply.", + "All vessels have [different laws] for outer and inner sides, as for instance, cushions, coverings, sacks and packing-bags, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: any vessel that has loops has [different laws] for inner and outer sides but one that has no loops does not have different laws for outer and inner sides. According to Rabbi Judah all vessels have different laws depending on whether the impure liquid touched them on the inside or the outside. This includes even cushions etc, which might not seem to have insides and outsides because they can be reversed. Rabbi Meir however limits the distinction to cases where the vessel has loops on the outside through which one can put a belt or something else. If a vessel has loops sewn on the outside, then it is clear what side is supposed to face out and what side is supposed to face in. However, if there are no loops than the vessel could be turned inside out and used either way. In such a case there is no way to determine what is inside and what is outside. Therefore, it doesn't matter what side the impure liquid comes into contact with. It is impure.", + "A table and a side-board have [different laws] for outer and inner sides, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: they do not have a different law for their outer sides. According to Rabbi Judah, the side of a table or side-table that is used is considered to be the inside. If an impure liquid touches this side, both sides are impure. However, the back side is the outside and if the liquid touches there, the inside remains pure. Rabbi Meir rules that such rules do not apply tables.", + "The same applies to a frame. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir have the same argument concerning a tray. Rabbi Judah says that the face of the tray is considered its \"inside\" whereas Rabbi Meir holds that both sides are considered \"inside.\"" + ], + [ + "An ox-goad has different laws for its outer and inner parts, [The outer part is] the seven handbreadths from the broad blade and four handbreadths from the point, the words of Rabbi Judah. An ox-goad is the stick which was used to drive the oxen (to goad them on). On one end was a point. The other end was a broad piece of iron that was also used for plowing and for cleaning the dirt off the plow. According to Rabbi Judah beyond seven handbreadths on the piece of iron and four handbreadths on the point is considered the outer part of the ox-goad. If impure liquids come into contact with the ox-goad beyond these two points, the \"inner\" part of the ox-goad remains pure.", + "Rabbi Meir says: it is not to [subject to such distinction], the four and the seven handbreadths were mentioned only in regard to its remnants. Rabbi Meir again disagrees and holds that there is no \"inner\" or \"outer\" portion for an ox-goad. He does admit that the numbers four and seven handbreadths were mentioned by earlier generations of sages. But he holds that these numbers were mentioned with regard to the remnants of an ox-goad, not with regard to the \"inner\" or \"outer\" sides. According to Rabbi Meir, if seven handbreadths of the blade or four handbreadths of the point remain, the ox-goad is still impure (or susceptible to impurity). Less than that and the ox-goad is pure." + ], + [ + "Measures of wine or oil, a fork-ladle, a mustard-strainer and a wine-filter have an outer and inner side, the words of Rabbi Meir. A \"fork-ladle\" is an instrument with a ladle on one end and a fork on the other end. According to Rabbi Meir, all of these vessels have inner and outer sides, so if an impure liquid touches them on the outer side, the inner side remains pure.", + "Rabbi Judah says: they do not have. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that they do not have inner and outer sides. No matter where the liquid touches, the entire vessel is impure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: they do have, for if their outer parts contracted uncleanness that which is inside remains clean, and immersion is required. Rabbi Shimon seems to bridge between these two opinions. These vessels do, in some sense, have inner and outer sides, and if an impure liquid comes into contact with the outer side, the content on the inside remains clean. However, the entire vessel requires immersion in order to purify it, even the inside of the vessel. In other words, the paradox is the inside of the vessel requires immersion, but the contents are clean." + ], + [ + "If [in a measure consisting of] a quarter [of a log] and half a quarter [of a log] the quarter measure contracted uncleanness, the half-quarter measure does not become unclean, and if the half-quarter contracted uncleanness the quarter does not become unclean. Today's mishnah deals with a measuring vessel that has two measures built into one vessel one that measures a quarter-log of liquid (about 1/2 a liter) and the other that measures a half-quarter of a log (about 250 ml). There is a partition that separates the two sides of the vessel. According to the first opinion, which later will be identified with Rabbi Akiva, both sides are basically considered to be independent vessels. If one measure becomes unclean, the other measure remains clean. In other words, one vessel is not the inside vessel and the other the outside.", + "They argued before Rabbi Akiva: since the half quarter measure is the outer part of the quarter measure, should not the outer side of the vessel whose inner side contracted uncleanness become unclean? Some other figures, whose names are not mentioned, argue in front of Rabbi Akiva. These are probably students, as can be sensed from the way that Rabbi Akiva addresses them. In any case, they argue that since the main measuring cup is the half-quarter log, it should be considered the \"inner\" vessel. So if the inner, half-quarter log is defiled, the outer measure, the quarter-log, should also be considered impure.", + "He answered them: Are you sure that it belongs to the category [of vessels] that have inner [and outer] parts? Perhaps the quarter is to be regarded as the outer side of the half quarter and, surely, the inner side of a vessel does not become unclean if the outer side contracted uncleanness. Rabbi Akiva responds by noting that their assumption that the half-quarter is the inner vessel may not be correct. Rather, the half-quarter might be the outer vessel, in which case the other side is pure. Therefore, we have to treat each side as if it might be the outside, in which case no matter which side is defiled, the other side remains pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss the measuring vessel that has two sides one of a quarter log and one of a half-quarter.", + "If the [inside of the] quarter contracted uncleanness, the quarter and its outer side are unclean, but the half quarter and its outer side remain clean. Having determined in yesterday's mishnah that each vessel is independent, the mishnah now deals with the thorny issue of their shared wall. If the inside of the quarter log became unclean, its own outer side is also unclean. However, the walls of the vessel that surround the half-quarter measuring cup remain clean.", + "If the [inside of the] half quarter contracted uncleanness, the half quarter and its outer side are unclean, but the quarter and its outer side remain clean. The same rules apply if the inside of the half-quarter vessel become unclean.", + "If the outer side of the quarter contracted uncleanness,the outer side of the half quarter remains clean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the outer side cannot be divided. According to Rabbi Meir, if the outer wall of the quarter vessel becomes unclean, only this outer wall is unclean. The outer wall of the half-quarter remains clean. In other words, although this wall surrounds the entire vessel, we look at it as if it were divided in half and only the part that surrounds the quarter is unclean. The other sages disagree and say that you can't divide the wall of a vessel in half. So if the outer wall of either side becomes unclean, both outer walls are considered unclean.", + "When he immerses the vessel, he must immerse the whole thing. Despite the fact that it is possible for one side to be clean and the other to be unclean, when he immerses the vessel, he must immerse both sides. If he does not do so, the vessel remains unclean. Note that this is similar to the end of mishnah three." + ], + [ + "The bases, rims, hangers or handles of vessels that have a receptacle upon which an unclean liquid fell, one dries them and they remain clean. If an unclean liquid falls on an ancillary part of a vessel, such as its base, rim, hanger or handle, the entire vessel need not be immersed in the mikveh. It is sufficient to dry off the liquid and the vessel will remain clean. However, this is true only if the vessel is one that has a receptacle. In such a case we can distinguish between the main part of the vessel and its ancillary parts.", + "But [if unclean liquid fell] on any part of any other vessel which cannot hold pomegranates (or in which no distinction is made between its outer and inner, the whole becomes unclean. If the vessel cannot hold pomegranates, meaning it does not have a proper receptacle (see 17:1, 4), then no matter where the unclean liquid falls the whole vessel is impure. Alternatively, if the vessel is the type that is not considered to have an inside or an inside, which would preclude vessels with receptacles, then similarly the impure liquid defiles the whole thing. In such cases we can't distinguish between the main part of the vessel (the receptacle) and the ancillary parts, so we must treat the entire vessel as impure.", + "If the outer side of a vessel contracted uncleanness from a liquid, only its outer side is unclean but its inner side, rim, hanger and handles remain clean. If its inner side contracted uncleanness the whole is unclean. This section contains the general rule that has been mentioned throughout the chapter. If the outside becomes unclean, the inside is still clean, but if the inside becomes unclean, the outside is unclean. It is interesting to note that the Mishnah waits a full six mishnayot before providing us with the background which we need in order to understand what we're talking about. This demonstrates that the Mishnah is not a didactic text meant to teach students who do not know the Mishnah's laws. Rather, the Mishnah is better understood as a recording of the main halakhot and some discussions that serve as the background to rabbinic law and culture. Put another way in order to understand the Mishnah, you have to already know the Mishnah. If this makes it a bit frustrating for the beginning student, you can be thankful that we have two thousand years of commentary to help us along the way!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the \"bet tzviah\" the rabbinic word for the place where the vessel is held. This is not a handle but rather an indentation in the wall of the vessel from where the vessel can be held. It is considered part of both the inner and outer sides of the vessel. If unclean liquids touch the bet tzviah the inner and outer sides remain pure. And if the outer part of the vessel becomes impure, the bet tzviah is still pure. But if the inner side of the vessel becomes impure, the entire vessel is impure.\nIn the mishnah various sages debate the applicability of this law.", + "All vessels have outer and inner sides and have a part by which they are held. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, all vessels have a part by which they are held. This means that the rule reported in the introduction can apply to any vessel that has an indentation by which the vessel may be held.", + "Rabbi Tarfon says: this applies only to a large wooden [kneading] trough. Rabbi Tarfon limits this rule to a large wooden trough. The result is that if impure liquids came into contact with the outside of the trough, he can hold the trough by this part without his hands being defiled. This might be important if the kneader wants to ensure the purity of the bread, such that pure hallah could be separated from it and given to the kohen. But when it comes to other vessels, they are not considered as having a bet tzviah.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: it applies to cups. Rabbi Akiva says that the rule [also] applies to cups. This will allow one to drink from a cup whose outer side has become impure without defiling one's hands and perhaps defiling the contents of the cup.", + "Rabbi Meir says: it applies to unclean and clean hands. According to Rabbi Meir, if one's hands are unclean and the outer side of the vessel is clean and there is some liquid on the outside of the vessel, one can hold the bet tzviah and need not be concerned lest these liquids become unclean and defile the vessel. This is what Rabbi Meir means when he says that these laws apply to unclean hands. Tomorrow's mishnah will explain how they apply to clean hands, so stay tuned!", + "Rabbi Yose says: they said this only concerning clean hands. Rabbi Yose limits the applicability of these laws to clean hands. This shall be explained in tomorrow's mishnah. But if he has clean hands and he holds the vessel by its bet tzviah, he must be concerned lest the liquids were defiled and they would thereby defile the cup." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches how the laws of the \"bet tzviah\" the indentation on a cup (or other vessel) through which the vessel may be held applies to clean hands. This was a point of agreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose at the end of yesterday's mishnah.", + "How so?
If one's hands were clean and the outer side of a cup was unclean, one may hold it by its holding-place and need not be concerned lest his hands have contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup. If one has clean hands that have some liquid on them, and he wants to hold an impure cup without defiling the liquids on his hands which would then defile his hands, he can hold the cup by the bet tzviah, the holding place. In such a case he need not be concerned lest his hands accidentally touched the outside of the cup.", + "If one was drinking from a cup whose outer side was unclean he need not be concerned lest the liquid in his mouth contracted uncleanness from the outer side of the cup and that it then conveyed uncleanness to the cup. This section is independent of the halakhah taught in section one. It is brought here because of the similar formula \"he need not be concerned.\" If one is drinking from a cup whose outer side is impure and whose inner side is pure he does not have to be concerned that the liquid in his mouth became impure and then conveyed impurity to the inside of the cup.", + "If a kettle was boiling one need not be concerned lest liquid should come out from it and touch its outer side and return again within it. The kettle is impure on the outside and pure on the inside. If one is boiling water in the kettle he need not be concerned lest the water boils over, becomes impure upon contact with the outside of the kettle and then spills back inside and conveys impurity to the inside of the kettle." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter twenty-five gives a few general rules concerning the purity of vessels.", + "Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. The laws concerning holy vessels are more stringent than the laws governing regular vessels. Therefore, if one side of a holy vessel becomes impure, the entire vessel is impure. Similarly, the holding place is not considered separate from the rest of the vessel. If any part of the vessel is impure, even the holding place is impure.", + "One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. It is possible to purify multiple non-sacred vessels by immersing one vessel within another one in a mikveh. But the laws governing holy vessels are more stringent. Each vessel must be immersed separately.", + "All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention. This section contains a crucial general principle with regard to the purity of vessels. Generally, a vessel is susceptible to impurity once its manufacturing has been completed. However, a vessel can become susceptible to impurity merely by intention, even if its manufacturing does not seem to be complete. For instance, if one has not fully completed the manufacturing of a vessel, but then decides that he is not going to work on it anymore and that he is going to use it as is, it is susceptible at that point to impurity (see 22:2, 26:5, 7). But if he has a vessel that is already susceptible to impurity and then he decides to modify it into a vessel that is not susceptible, it remains susceptible until he actually changes it. In other words, intent to use something as a vessel is sufficient to make it susceptible to impurity, but intent to change a vessel into a non-vessel is not sufficient. The mishnah further clarifies physical changes wrought on a vessel can annul both the original manufacturing of the vessel or the intent the person had to use the vessel before it was ready. Put another way physically modifying a vessel can make it no longer susceptible to impurity (see 20:6, 26:9). However, intent cannot annul the original intent to use the vessel in a certain manner, or the original manufacturing. Intention is weaker than action (a good motto for life, if you ask me)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapters 26-28 deal with vessels made of leather and cloth. The general rule with regard to these vessels was stated in 2:1 if they are simple, they are clean but if they form a receptacle they are susceptible to impurity.\nToday's mishnah lists four vessels that are either laced or tied up.", + "An Imki sandal and a laced-up bag, Rabbi Judah says: also an Egyptian basket; Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: also to a Lattakian sandal can be made susceptible to uncleanness and again be made insusceptible without the aid of a craftsman. The \"Imki sandal\" seems to have been made in a village called Imki. We don't really know much more about how this sandal was formed. Assumedly, it was a distinct enough brand that it would have been known to all by name. An \"Egyptian basket\" is woven from branches of palm trees. Lattakian sandals come from the town with that name in Syria, and assumedly they were distinctive as well. The commonality of all of these vessels is that even a lay person, one who is not a craftsman, can make these vessels and cause them to be susceptible to impurity. Such a person can also undo the vessels so that they are no longer susceptible to impurity. For instance, a non-expert can put the laces into a laced bag and thereby make it susceptible to impurity. He can also remove the laces and flatten the bag out such that the bag is no longer susceptible (we will learn more about the lace-bag in particular in tomorrow's mishnah).", + "Rabbi Yose said: But can't all vessels be made susceptible to uncleanness and again insusceptible without the aid of a craftsman? Rather, these, even when they are unlaced are susceptible to uncleanness since a layman is able to restore them. They spoke only of an Egyptian basket which even a craftsman cannot [easily] restore. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that all vessels can be made by a non-expert, if he knows how to do so. In other words, if a non-expert succeeds in making any vessel, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. And if he succeeds in taking it apart, it is no longer susceptible. In this respect, these four vessels are not unique. While Rabbi Yose disagrees with the previous halakhah, he does acknowledge that these vessels are in some ways distinct from others. They were indeed \"mentioned\" in an older list and moreover, this list is connected to the distinction between acts performed by a craftsman and acts performed by a layman. The distinctiveness of these vessels is that even when they are untied, they are still susceptible to impurity because even a non-expert can retie and refashion them into a vessel. Of the vessels mentioned in section one, only the Egyptian basket is clean when it is untied because even an expert has trouble retying this vessel. Since this vessel is so hard to tie once it has been untied, it differs from the other vessels, and it is pure when untied." + ], + [ + "A laced-up bag whose laces were removed is still susceptible to uncleanness; But if it was made flat it is pure. If the laces from a lace-bag are completely removed, it is still susceptible to impurity. It only becomes pure if it is flattened out such that it does not have a receptacle (see yesterday's mishnah).", + "If a strip of cloth has been put on it below, it is susceptible. By taking a strip of cloth and sewing it below the lace-bag he changes the lace-bag into a regular pouch without laces. If he does so, it has a receptacle and it is susceptible to impurity.", + "If a bag was within another bag and one of them became unclean from a liquid, the other does not become unclean. In this case the rabbis were lenient because liquids defile vessels only \"derabbanan\" from rabbinic decree. According to Torah law, liquids cannot convey impurity to vessels. Therefore, if one bag was inside another bag and one bag came into contact with an unclean liquid, only that bag is defiled. The other bag remains pure.", + "A pearl pouch is susceptible to uncleanness. A pearl pouch is a small piece of leather sewed up to protect a pearl. It is susceptible to impurity.", + "A money pouch: Rabbi Eliezer says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is pure. Rabbi Eliezer says that a money pouch is susceptible in the same way that a pearl pouch is. Both have receptacles, and therefore both can become impure. The sages disagree. A money pouch is opened frequently and when it is opened it no longer has a receptacle. Since it is so frequently found in its \"simple\" state, without a receptacle, it is considered a \"simple\" vessel and is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with various types of protective clothing worn by fruit-pickers.", + "The hand-coverings of thorn-pickers are pure. The hand-coverings used by thorn-pickers are simple pieces of leather, not fashioned fully into gloves. Since they do not have a receptacle, they are pure.", + "A belt and leg guards are susceptible to uncleanness. However, their belt or leg-guards are susceptible either because they do have receptacles or because they are considered to be vessels.", + "Sleeves are susceptible to uncleanness. The sleeves referred to here are not attached to a shirt, but are independent. They are susceptible for they are considered vessels, even though they don't have a receptacle.", + "But hand-coverings are pure. But hand-coverings (these are different from those mentioned in section one) are not susceptible.", + "All finger-coverings are pure except that of fig-pickers, since the latter holds the sumac berries. If it was torn, if it cannot hold the greater part of a sumac berry it is pure. Fruit-pickers would use finger-coverings to protect their fingers while harvesting the fruit. Generally these finger-coverings are simple pieces of leather and are pure. The exception is the finger-coverings used by fig-pickers for they would use these finger-coverings to hold sumac berries. If the fig-pickers finger-coverings were torn, they could no longer hold berries and they would be pure." + ], + [ + "A sandal, one of whose holes was broken but was then fixed, retains its midras uncleanness. If a second hole was broken and it was fixed, it is free from midras uncleanness but is unclean from contact with midras. If the second hole was broken before the first could be mended, it is clean. The sandal has two holes through which straps are put in to tie the sandal to the shoe. The mishnah deals with the purity of the sandal when one or both of these holes are broken. This type of mishnah, one which distinguishes between something that has midras uncleanness and something that had contact with midras uncleanness can be found in 18:6-7. My explanation here is similar to my explanation there. If one hole was broken, and then it was fixed, the whole sandal and even the part with the new hole, retain the midras uncleanness that was there in the original sandal. This is because the new hole is part of the old sandal and the old sandal never lost its impurity. However, if the second hole broke and then he repaired it as well, the sandal lost its original midras impurity because it is considered new. Although the original midras impurity is gone, the sandal does have a lesser degree of impurity because it was in contact with something that had midras impurity. When the first hole was repaired it contacted impurity from the rest of the sandal. And even when the second hole broke, and the sandal lost the impurity it had, it did not lose the impurity it had by being in contact with other impure parts of the sandal. This is because the bed continued to be usable. If both holes were broken at the same time, then the sandal is completely pure, even from contact with midras. This is because when both holes are broken, the sandal cannot be used.", + "If its heel was torn off, or if its toe-piece was removed, or if it was torn in two, it becomes clean. In these cases the sandal is unusable and therefore it is pure.", + "A heel-less slipper that was torn anywhere becomes clean. The heel-less slipper has a forefoot but no heel (duh!). Since it is so insubstantial, any missing part renders it is unusable and pure.", + "A shoe that was damaged becomes clean if it cannot contain the greater part of the foot. If any shoe is damaged so much that it doesn't hold even the greater part of the foot, meaning at least half of the foot, it is pure.", + "A shoe that is still on the last: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is insusceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is susceptible. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the shoe's manufacturing is not considered to be complete until it is removed from the last, the model upon which the shoe is formed. The sages disagree and rule that as long as the work on the shoe has been completed, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "All water skins whose holes have been tied up are insusceptible to uncleanness, except for Arabian ones. Rabbi Meir says: if they are tied up for a while, they are clean; but if they are tied with a permanent knot they are unclean. Rabbi Yose says: all tied up water skins are clean. The mishnah now begins to deal with water skins. If they have simply been tied up but not sewn shut, they are not fully usable and therefore are pure. They need to be sewn in order to hold in water well. The one exception is the Arabian water skin which was customarily tied tightly and not sewn. Rabbi Meir says that if the tie is temporary, meant to last only a short time, the skin is not considered a vessel and is pure. But if it is tied with a permanent tie, then it is a vessel and is susceptible. Rabbi Yose disagrees with both previous opinions. All water skins that are tied up are pure, even Arabian ones, and even ones that are permanently tied. A water skin needs to be sewn in order to be considered a vessel." + ], + [ + "The following hides are susceptible to midras uncleanness: A hide which he intended to use as a rug, A hide used as an apron, A hide used as the lower covering of a bed, A hide used by a donkey-driver, A hide used by a flax-worker, A hide used by a porter, A hide used by a doctor, A hide used for a crib, A hide put over a child's chest, A hide for a cushion. A hide for a covering. All these are susceptible to midras uncleanness. For a hide to be subject to midras uncleanness it must be either sat, laid or leaned upon. All of the following hides fit this criterion. I shall explain the ones that seem to require some explanation. A hide used by a donkey-driver: While usually put over his clothing, sometimes he would sit on this hide. A hide used by a flax-worker: Placed in front of the flax-worker to protect him while he beats the flax. A hide used by a porter: The hide covers his shoulders. A hide used by a doctor: As an apron. A hide put over a child's chest: Like a bib. While the main use of these hides is not necessarily for sitting, leaning or lying down, they are sometimes used in this manner and therefore they are susceptible to midras impurity.", + "A hide for wrapping up combed wool and a hide worn by a wool-comber: Rabbi Eliezer says it is susceptible to midras, But the sages say that it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the hide used to cover combed wool and the hide used to protect wool-worker are also susceptible to midras, because sometimes one might sit or lie on them. The sages disagree and say that these types of hides are not sat or laid upon and therefore are susceptible only to corpse impurity, which is true of all vessels." + ], + [ + "A bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to midras. Since these leather bags or wrappers are occasionally sat upon, they are susceptible to midras.", + "A bag or wrapper for purple wool: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras, But Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness. Purple wool was more expensive than regular cloth. Due to its expense, Bet Hillel holds that one would not use a bag or wrapper of purple wool for sitting or lying upon. Bet Shammai disagrees and does not differentiate between wrappers and bags for regular clothing and wrappers or bags for purple wool.", + "A hide which was made to be a covering for vessels is not susceptible to uncleanness, but for weights it is susceptible. Rabbi Yose says in the name of his father that it is pure. A hide that is simply used as a covering for regular vessels does not have a receptacle and therefore is free from impurity. However, a hide used as a covering for weights used on scales does have a receptacle, so it is not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose states in the name of his father, R. Halafta, that even hides used to cover weights are not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAbove, in 25:9 we learned that vessels can become susceptible to impurity by virtue of the fact that a person intends to use them in their current state, even though their manufacturing has not been entirely completed. Our mishnah limits that halakhah.", + "Whenever no act is lacking, intention alone causes a vessel to be susceptible to uncleanness, If a given article is in a physical state in which it can be used, it is susceptible to impurity as soon as a person decides to use it, even if its manufacturing has not been fully completed. Let's take a table for instance. If it was usable and the owner decided to not polish it and use it immediately, the table is susceptible.", + "But whenever an act is lacking, intention alone does not render it susceptible to uncleanness, except for a fur cover. But if the article cannot be used, then merely intending to use it does not render it susceptible to impurity. The exception to this rule is a fur cover, put over a saddle. This fur cover is susceptible as soon as a person decides to use it, even though he has not yet fully cut it into its proper shape. The reason for its \"early\" susceptibility is that it is not unusual for people to use unshaped pieces of fur to cover the saddle." + ], + [ + "The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. If a householder, a non-professional, owns a hide, as soon as he decides that it is ready for use it is susceptible to impurity (providing it is usable in its current state). However, the same is not true of a tanner. Even if he decides to use a hide before its processing is fully completed, it is still not susceptible to impurity for he is likely to change his mind and go back and finish the hide's processing. In other words, since the tanner is a professional, he is less likely to be satisfied with less than perfect results. Therefore, his intention is less final.", + "Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber do not become susceptible by mere intention. A \"thief\" is a person who surreptitiously steals something. His identity will not be known to those from whom he stole. A \"robber\" is someone who violently takes something in broad daylight. His identity will be known. According to the first opinion, if a thief steals something, the owners' will lose all hope of getting it back because they don't know who stole it. Therefore, the thief's intentions determine whether the article is susceptible to impurity. But if a robber robs something, they will have hope of recovering the item, and therefore his intention is not determinative.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief do not become susceptible by intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery. Rabbi Shimon reverses the reasoning expressed by the previous opinion. When a thief steals something, the owner hopes to get it back, because all he must do is discover who the thief is and he will be able to recover his item. But when a robber robs a person, right in front of their eyes and there was nothing they could do to stop it, the owner loses hope of recovering the item. [Note there is little faith in any form of law enforcement]. Therefore, a robber's intentions are determinative, and a thief's are not." + ], + [ + "If a hide had contracted midras uncleanness and its owner then intended it to be used for straps or sandals, it becomes clean as soon as he put the knife to it, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: it does not become clean until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths. The hide mentioned here is one that has already been designated for a use and then contracted midras uncleanness. The owner then decided to cut the hide up and use the leather for straps or sandals. Leather cut into straps for such use is pure (until it is attached to another vessel). According to Rabbi Judah, as soon as he begins to cut the leather up, it loses its status as a hide and it becomes pure. The other sages argue that it is not pure until it is reduced to a size of less than five handbreadths. A piece of hide less than five handbreadths in size is not considered usable (we will learn this in 27:2) and is pure. But simply beginning to cut the hide is not a sufficient act to free it from its impurity.", + "Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: even if one made a napkin from a hide it remains unclean, But if [he made one from] a covering it becomes clean. According to Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok, if one makes a small napkin out of a large hide used as a rug, the hide is still impure because a napkin is considered just a small rug. Merely reducing the size of a hide is not the type of physical change required to rid it of its impurity, because the leather is still being used in the same manner. However, if he changes a covering into a napkin he has changed the nature of the hide's usage. In this case, even though he changed it into another item that is susceptible to impurity (a napkin is susceptible), it loses its old impurity. While the new item will be susceptible, the impurity that was within the hide is gone." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Cloth is susceptible to five categories of uncleanness;
Sack-cloth is susceptible to four;
Leather to three;
Wood to two;
And an earthenware vessel to one.
An earthenware vessel is susceptible to uncleanness [only] as a receptacle; any earthen vessel that has no inner part is not susceptible to uncleanness from its outer part.
Wood is subject to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Similarly a tablet which has no rim is susceptible to uncleanness if it is a wooden object and insusceptible if it is an earthenware one.
Leather is susceptible to an additional form of uncleanness in that it is also susceptible to the uncleanness of a tent.
Sack-cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness as woven work.
Cloth has an additional form of uncleanness in that it is susceptible to uncleanness when it is only three by three fingerbreadths.
Section one: There are five different ways in which cloth can become impure, and each way differs from the other in respect to how large a piece of cloth there needs to be for it to be susceptible. The first is a piece of cloth that has a receptacle. In such a case even the smallest piece of cloth is susceptible. The second is cloth that is either sat or laid upon. Such cloth is susceptible if it is three handbreadths. The third is a piece of cloth that functions as a \"tent,\" meaning an overhanging. In such a case, the smallest piece of cloth is sufficient. The fourth is a woven piece of cloth; again, the smallest piece is susceptible. The fifth is that a piece of cloth that is three by three handbreadths is susceptible.
Sections two-five: Below, the mishnah will explain these categories.
Section six: If an earthenware vessel does not have a receptacle, meaning an \"inside,\" then even its outside is not susceptible to impurity.
Section seven: Wood can become impure by having a receptacle, like earthenware. Even without a receptacle, it is impure if it is made for sitting.
If one makes a wood tablet without a frame it is susceptible to impurity, whereas an earthenware tablet without a frame is pure because it does not have a receptacle.
Section eight: Leather that hangs over a dead body is impure, but if a wood or earthenware vessel hangs over a dead body, the vessel remains pure.
Section nine: If sack-cloth is woven, even the smallest piece is susceptible to impurity.
Section ten: As explained in section one, a piece of cloth is susceptible to impurity if it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths." + ], + [ + "Cloth is susceptible to midras uncleanness when it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths, and to corpse uncleanness when it is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. Sack-cloth when it is four handbreadths by four handbreadths. Leather, five handbreadths by five handbreadths. And matting, six handbreadths by six handbreadths. [All of these] are equally susceptible to both midras and corpse uncleanness. This section provides minimum sizes for various materials to be susceptible to impurity. When it comes to cloth, there is a distinction between the minimum size susceptible to midras impurity and corpse impurity. For a piece of cloth to be susceptible to midras, it must be a piece of cloth that someone might use for sitting on or laying upon. Thus it must be at least three by three handbreadths. But for it to be susceptible to corpse impurity it need be only three by three fingerbreadths, which is quite a small piece of cloth. We can learn from here of the value of cloth during the mishnaic period people would save pieces as small as one's fist. When it comes to the other materials, there is no distinction between the minimum size to be susceptible to midras or corpse impurity. We should also note that the mishnah demonstrates the relative value of materials. Cloth was most valuable, then the coarser sack-cloth, then leather and finally matting, which was made from reeds.", + "Rabbi Meir says: what remains of sack-cloth is susceptible to uncleanness if it is four handbreadths, but when in its first condition [it becomes susceptible only after its manufacture] is completed. Rabbi Meir partially modifies the halakhah found in section one. Sack-cloth that remains from a larger piece of sack-cloth is impure as long as four handbreadths by four handbreadths remain. This accords with the previous opinion. However, when one first manufactures a piece of sack-cloth, it is not susceptible to impurity until it is finished. If it is unfinished, it is not susceptible, even if it is larger than four by four handbreadths." + ], + [ + "If one made up a piece of material from two handbreadths of cloth and one of sack-cloth, or of three of sack-cloth and one of leather or four of leather and one of matting, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. In this section, the piece added is subject to lesser restrictions, and therefore the entire piece is not susceptible to impurity. For instance, cloth needs to be three handbreadths to be susceptible (greater restrictions) and sack-cloth must be four (lesser restrictions). If he takes two pieces of cloth and adds one piece of sack-cloth, it is not susceptible, even though there are three handbreadths altogether.", + "If the piece of material was made up of five handbreadths of matting and one of leather or four of leather and one of sack-cloth, or three of sack-cloth and one of cloth it is susceptible to uncleanness. In contrast, matting must be six handbreadths (lesser restrictions) but leather only five (greater restrictions). So if he takes one handbreadth of leather and adds it to five handbreadths of matting, it is susceptible.", + "This is the general rule: if the material added is subject to greater restrictions it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if the material added was subject to lesser restrictions it is not susceptible. This is the general rule that explains the halakhot in sections one and two." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a person who takes a piece of one of the materials mentioned in mishnah two and cuts off a swatch one handbreadth by one handbreadth in order to sit on it.", + "If one cut off from any of these a piece one by one handbreadth it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one takes a piece of cloth, leather, sack-cloth or matting and makes a one square handbreadth swatch in order to sit upon it, it is susceptible to midras impurity. The sages provided minimum measures which a piece of cloth needs to be to be susceptible, but only in cases where the cloth was not meant for a seat.", + "[If one cut off a one by one handbreadth piece] from the bottom of a basket it is susceptible to uncleanness. The same rule applies if one cuts off a piece of material from the bottom of a basket.", + "If one cut off from the sides of the basket: Rabbi Shimon says that it is not susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say one who cuts off a square handbreadth from anywhere, it is susceptible to uncleanness. There is a debate over whether a one square piece cut from the sides of the basket is susceptible. Rabbi Shimon holds that it is not. Albeck proposes that the sides of the basket are curved and not good for sitting, unless he reshapes the material. Therefore, simply cutting a piece from the sides to sit upon does not make it susceptible to uncleanness. The other sages disagree and say that even a piece cut from the side is susceptible." + ], + [ + "Worn-out pieces of a sifter or a sieve that were adapted for use as a seat: Rabbi Akiva rules that they are susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages rule that they are not susceptible unless their rough ends were cut off. If one takes a worn-out sifter or sieve and cuts a piece out of it to use as a seat (not really sure how comfy this must have been, but what do I know?), Rabbi Akiva says that it is immediately susceptible to impurity. The other sages say that before it can be considered a seat he must cut off the rough edges (see 20:4 for a similar dispute).", + "A child's stool that has legs, even though it is less than a handbreadth high, is susceptible to uncleanness. A child's stool (meaning chair, not the other kind ☺) need not be one handbreadth high to be susceptible to impurity.", + "A child's shirt: Rabbi Eliezer rules it is susceptible to uncleanness at any size. But the sages rule: it is susceptible only if it is of the prescribed size, and it is measured when doubled over. According to Rabbi Eliezer, a child's shirt can be of the smallest size and still be susceptible because it is considered a vessel. The other sages say that even a child's shirt must fulfill the minimum sizes mentioned in mishnah two. If it is made of cloth, it must be three handbreadths square and it is measured on each side, i.e. the front must be three by three and the back must be three by three as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah we learned that a child's shirt is measured when doubled, meaning that it needs to be three handbreadths square on both sides. Today's mishnah teaches that there are other pieces of clothing that are measured doubled.", + "The following are measured when doubled: Felt socks, long stockings, pants, a cap and a money-belt. All of these articles of clothing are measured \"doubled,\" meaning they must have three square handbreadths in the front and back for them to be susceptible to impurity.", + "As regards a patch sewn on the hem, if it was simple it is measured simple, but if it was doubled it is measured when doubled. If he sewed the patch on one side of the hem, then it is measured \"singly\" but if he sewed it on two sides, then it is measured doubled." + ], + [ + "If a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three by three handbreadths, and then it contracted midras uncleanness, and then he completed the rest of the piece, and then one removed a single thread from the original part, it is free from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. When he makes a piece of cloth that is three by three, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. It then is defiled so that it has midras. When he makes the rest of the cloth, the whole piece of cloth has midras uncleanness. But then when he removes one string from the original three by three, the whole cloth loses midras uncleanness because only the original piece actually had midras, and it is no longer there. However, the cloth still has uncleanness by virtue of its contact with something that had midras. For a similar type of mishnah see 19:5.", + "If he removed a thread from the original part and then he finished the whole cloth, it is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. In this case, first he made the three by three and it became impure and then he reduced it by a single thread, and then completed the rest of the cloth. Even though the cloth was reduced in size before he completed it, thereby losing its midras impurity, the whole cloth is impure by virtue of contact with midras. This is because the three by three piece of cloth is considered as having contact with itself before it was reduced. After it was reduced, although it can no longer have midras impurity, it still has impurity by contact with midras, and when he completes the cloth, the whole thing has impurity by contact with midras." + ], + [ + "Similarly, if a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three [fingerbreadths] square, and it contracted corpse uncleanness, and afterwards he finished the entire piece, and then he removed a single thread from its original part, it is free from corpse uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness. This is virtually the same halakhah as was found in section one of yesterday's mishnah, except that today's mishnah deals with a smaller piece of cloth, three fingerbreadths square. A piece this size cannot contract midras, but it can contract corpse impurity.", + "If a thread was removed from the original part and then all the cloth was finished it remains clean, for the sages have ruled: if a piece of three [fingerbreadths] square is lessened it becomes clean. If a three fingerbreadths piece of cloth contracts corpse uncleanness and then is reduced, it is completely pure. Even if he then enlarges the cloth, there is no impurity left, so the whole cloth is pure.", + "But if one of three handbreadths square is lessened, even though it is released from midras, it is still susceptible to all other forms of uncleanness. This is the difference between the type of impurity contracted by a three fingerbreadths piece of cloth, and one that is three handbreadths. A three handbreadths piece of cloth is still susceptible to other forms of impurity, such as corpse impurity. In contrast, something smaller than three fingerbreadths square is completely pure." + ], + [ + "If a sheet that had contracted midras uncleanness was made into a curtain, it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. Once he turns the sheet into a curtain it loses its midras impurity because it is no longer something that is sat or lain upon. However, the curtain is considered to have had \"contact with itself,\" and therefore it is still unclean by virtue of contact with midras uncleanness.", + "Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had touched it is it unclean from contact with a zav. Rabbi Yose holds that having \"contact with itself\" does not cause something to be impure. In other words, if the sheet/curtain is no longer impure with midras, then it is not impure by virtue of contact with midras. However, this does not necessarily mean that the curtain (former sheet) is pure. If a zav (the one who conveys midras impurity) touched it when it was a sheet, he gave it both midras impurity because he sat on it and contact impurity by touching it. When it becomes a curtain, it loses its midras impurity because it is no longer sat or lain upon, but it retains its impurity by virtue of contact with the zav. Note that if the zav had sat or lain upon the sheet without touching it, it would have only had midras impurity and when it was turned into a sheet it would be completely pure." + ], + [ + "If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square was divided, it is pure from midras uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with midras uncleanness. In order for the piece of cloth to be susceptible to midras uncleanness, it must be three handbreadths square, as we learned in mishnah two. If it is divided in half, each piece can no longer be unclean with midras, but each piece had \"contact with itself.\" Therefore, both pieces retain uncleanness by virtue of contact with midras.", + "Rabbi Yose said: but what midras uncleanness has this touched! Only if a zav had touched it is it unclean from contact with a zav. Rabbi Yose's words here are exactly the same as in yesterday's mishnah. Again he holds that impurity is not conveyed by \"contact with itself.\" Therefore, if the two halves of the piece of cloth do not have midras uncleanness, they also do not have uncleanness by contact with midras. Nevertheless, if a zav had actually touched the cloth, it retains the uncleanness contracted through contact with a zav. Such uncleanness is not lost when the cloth becomes less than three handbreadths square, as long as it is at least three fingerbreadths square." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses how strong a small piece of cloth needs to be to be susceptible to impurity.", + "If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square [was found] in a rubbish heap it must be both sound and capable of wrapping up salt; But [if it was found] in the house it need only be either sound or capable of wrapping up salt. For the piece of cloth found in a garbage heap to be susceptible to impurity it must fulfill two conditions, besides the usual stipulation that it be three handbreadths square. First of all, it must be sound, meaning of strong quality so that it doesn't easily tear. Second, it must not have holes in it, so that it could be used to bundle up salt without the salt passing through. In contrast, a piece of cloth found in a house is more easily susceptible to impurity, because no one has discarded it. Thus it only needs to fulfill one of the criteria either strong quality or no holes (can carry salt).", + "How much salt must it be capable of wrapping up? A quarter of a kav. Rabbi Judah says: this refers to fine salt, But the sages stated: it refers to coarse salt. Both intended to be lenient. The rabbis disagree as to what type of salt the cloth must be able to carry. According to Rabbi Judah it must be able to hold fine salt, whereas the sages say it needs to hold coarse salt. It would seem that Rabbi Judah is lenient, because he holds that the cloth is pure unless it can hold even fine salt, and that the sages are more stringent. However, the mishnah says that both the sages and Rabbi Judah intended to be lenient. Rabbi Judah was lenient as we explained above. But even the sages are lenient because they hold that the cloth is not susceptible unless it is strong enough to hold a quarter of a kav of coarse salt without the salt melting. Since coarse salt will last longer, the cloth will have to last longer to protect the salt.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: the law concerning a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square found in a rubbish heap is the same as that for a piece of cloth that was three [fingerbreadths] square in a house. Rabbi Shimon holds that just as a three fingerbreadths square piece of cloth that is found in a house is not susceptible to midras, but is susceptible to other types of impurity, so too a three handbreadths square piece of cloth found in a garbage heap is not susceptible to midras, but is susceptible to other forms of impurity." + ], + [ + "[A piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was torn: if he put it on a chair, and his skin touches the chair, it is pure; And if not, it remains impure. The piece of cloth described here is torn, but has not yet been completely torn into two pieces. Therefore, we need a test to determine whether or not it is still considered one piece of cloth such that it should be susceptible to midras impurity. If when one puts the cloth on a chair and then sits on the chair, one's skin touches the chair, the cloth is considered as if it had been torn completely, and it is not susceptible. If the cloth does block his contact with the chair, then it is considered to be whole and is still susceptible to impurity.", + "[A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square one thread of which was worn away, or in which a knot was found, or in which two threads ran alongside each other, is pure. The piece of cloth here is exactly large enough to be susceptible to impurity, but in some way something is awry with one of the strings. Either one of the strings was worn out, or a knot was found in one of the strings, or two of the strings ran parallel and not opposed to each other, as is supposed to be the case in woven garments. In all of these cases the cloth is considered to be smaller than three fingerbreadths and therefore it is pure.", + "[A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was thrown on the rubbish heap becomes pure. If he brought it back, it it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. Throwing away a small piece of cloth renders it pure because it is no longer considered of use. Taking it back renders it again susceptible.", + "Throwing it away always renders it pure and taking it back renders it susceptible to uncleanness, except when it is of purple or fine crimson. There are two exceptions to the rule in section three purple and fine crimson cloth. Since these are such expensive materials, even throwing them away does not render them free from uncleanness.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: a patch of new cloth is also subject to the same law. Rabbi Eliezer says that the same exception applies to a new piece of cloth. Since it is new, it is more important and even throwing it away does not render it free from impurity.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: all these materials become pure; they were mentioned only in connection with the return of lost property. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the anonymous opinion in section four. All material is free from impurity when it is thrown into the garbage heap. However, there is a difference between purple and crimson cloth and regular cloth in that if one finds the former in the trash heap he must announce that he has found them in an attempt to find the owners. The assumption is that no one would throw away such fine cloth. But if one finds a piece of regular cloth in the trash heap, one can assume that it was intentionally thrown away and he may keep it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "[A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was stuffed into a ball or was itself made into a ball is clean.
But [a piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was stuffed into a ball remains unclean.
If he made it into a ball itself, it is clean because the sewing reduces its size.
Section one: By making this small piece of cloth either into a ball or using it as stuffing for a ball, the cloth loses its importance and it becomes clean from impurity. Note that this does not mean that the ball is necessarily clean. It just means that the piece of cloth that used to be unclean has shed its impurity.
Section two: In contrast, if one takes a larger piece of cloth and puts it into a ball it is still susceptible to impurity because it is still significant. However, if he sews the cloth into a ball itself, it still loses its impurity because it loses its size. A ball that is made of a less than three handbreadths piece of cloth is not large enough to be susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "[A piece of cloth] less than three [handbreadths] square that was adapted for the purpose of stopping up a hole in a bath house, of emptying a cooking-pot or of wiping with it the mill stones, whether it was or was not kept in readiness for any such use, is susceptible to uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. According to Rabbi Eliezer, any time a worn-out piece of cloth that was too small to be impure was adapted for a specific use it goes back to being susceptible to impurity. The cloth might be used to stop up a hole in the floor of a bath-house. It might be used to hold a hot pot so that one could pour out its contents. Or it might be used to wipe up millstones. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cloth is impure whether or not it was previously designated for such usage. In other words, as long as it is being used, it is susceptible.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: whether it was or was not kept in readiness it is pure. Rabbi Joshua completely disagrees and holds that since the cloth is less than three handbreadths and it is worn out, it is no longer susceptible.", + "Rabbi Akiba ruled: if it was kept in readiness it is susceptible, and if it was not kept in readiness it is pure. Rabbi Akiva mediates between these two warring sages. If it was designated for such usage, then it was intentionally not thrown away (see 27:12). In this case it is still susceptible to impurity. However, if it was not designated for such usage, then even using it in such a manner does not change the fact that the cloth was discarded. In such a case, it is not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "If a bandage is made of cloth or leather it is pure. (Rabbi Yose says: with leather it is pure.) A piece of cloth or leather that is used as a bandage on a wound will not afterwards be used for another purpose. Therefore, it is pure. Serving as a bandage is not sufficient for it to be considered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose's words are not found in many manuscripts of the Mishnah and they are probably out of place here. There actual context is mishnah six.", + "A poultice is pure if it is on cloth, but if on leather it is susceptible. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even if it was on cloth it remains susceptible to uncleanness because it can be shaken off. If one puts a poultice on cloth, the cloth will no longer be used for another purpose. Therefore it is pure. However, if he puts it on leather, the leather can be cleaned off and reused. Therefore, the leather remains susceptible to impurity. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that even if put on cloth the poultice could be shaken off and the cloth reused. Therefore, the cloth also remains susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Covers of scrolls, whether they are decorated or not, are susceptible to uncleanness according to the view of Bet Shammai. According to Bet Shammai, one might take a scroll covering and convert it for another usage. Therefore, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "Bet Hillel says: those that are decorated are pure, but those that are not decorated are susceptible. Bet Hillel says that this is true only of an undecorated scroll cover. It might be converted to other usage. However, a decorated scroll cover is not susceptible because one would take such a beautiful scroll cover and use it for some other need. Note that this accords with the mishnah in 24:14.", + "Rabban Gamaliel says: both the former and the latter are pure. Rabban Gamaliel says that even undecorated scroll covers will not be used for another purpose. Therefore they are pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with various cases where one cloth item that is susceptible to impurity is turned into a different item that is also susceptible to impurity. The question is: does it lose its earlier impurity?", + "If a head-wrap that had contracted midras uncleanness was wrapped around a scroll, it is released from midras uncleanness but it remains susceptible to corpse uncleanness. Head-wraps are susceptible to midras impurity for occasionally a person will use it for sitting. However, undecorated scroll covers are susceptible only to corpse uncleanness (see yesterday's mishnah). So when he changes the head-wrap to a scroll cover it loses its midras uncleanness but it is now susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "A skin that was made into a rug or a rug that was made into a skin becomes clean. A skin for carrying liquids is not in the same category as a rug. Therefore, if one changes a skin into a rug or vice versa, the vessel is pure. Note that it is susceptible to impurity; it only loses its old impurity.", + "A skin that was made into a [shepherd's] wallet or a [shepherd's] wallet that was made into a skin; Or a cushion cover that was made into a sheet or a sheet that was made into a cushion cover; Or a sheet cover that was made into a plain sheet or a plain sheet that was made into a sheet cover, remains unclean. In all of these cases he changes something to something else that is in the same general category. Therefore, the object retains its impurity.", + "This is the general rule: any object that has been changed into one of the same class remains unclean, but if into one of another class it becomes clean. This is the general rule that explains the distinction between the case found in section two and that found in section three." + ], + [ + "If a patch was sewn on to a basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness. The piece of cloth (the patch) discussed in today's mishnah was already defiled with midras impurity. Then someone used it to patch up a basket, thereby transforming it from a vessel that is sat upon to a vessel that is not sat upon. The patch loses its midras impurity. The entire basket, including the patch, is now impure by virtue of its contact with something that had midras impurity. This is first degree impurity and anything that touches it will now have second degree impurity. This is what the mishnah means when it states \"it conveys one grade of uncleanness.\" And when terumah touches something with second degree impurity, it becomes \"unfit,\" although it is not impure. This is the meaning of \"one of unfitness.\"", + "If it was separated from the basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, but the patch becomes clean. If he separates the patch from the basket, the basket retains its level of impurity, but the patch is pure. Note that it has shed its midras impurity (see 18:8).", + "If it was sewn on to cloth it conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. If he puts the patch on a piece of cloth, it doesn't lose its midras impurity and all of the cloth becomes impure with midras. This is because the function of the cloth has not changed. Something that has midras impurity is a \"father of uncleanness\" and conveys first degree uncleanness to things that come into contact with it. Therefore, this cloth conveys two degrees of uncleanness (father to first degree to second degree) and one degree of unfitness (second to third degree).", + "If it was separated from the cloth, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, while the patch conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. When it is removed from the cloth, the cloth's level of impurity is reduced. Now it only has \"contact with midras\" impurity, which is first degree. The patch, however, never changed its status, and therefore it still has midras impurity.", + "The same law applies to a patch was sewn on to sacking or leather, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean. Rabbi Yose says: if [it was sewn] on leather it becomes clean; but if on sacking it remains unclean, since the latter is a woven material. According to Rabbi Meir, it doesn't matter whether the cloth onto which the patch was sewn was made of cloth, sacking or leather. Rabbi Meir holds that sacking and leather are really types of cloth and therefore in all cases when the patch is removed, it retains its impurity. Rabbi Shimon holds that sacking and cloth are not types of cloth. Therefore, it is like patching a basket which is of a different type, and when he removes the patch it will be pure. Rabbi Yose holds that sacking is a sub-category of cloth because like cloth it is woven. However, leather is different from cloth and therefore, if used to patch a cloth and then removed, the patch is pure." + ], + [ + "The three ( square of which they have spoken do not include the hem, the words of Rabbi Shimon. But the sages say: exactly three [fingerbreadths] square. In 27:2 we learned that for a piece of cloth to be susceptible to impurity it must be at least three fingerbreadths square. According to Rabbi Shimon, this does not include the hem. Some commentators interpret this to mean that it doesn't include the strings that come out of the edges of the piece of cloth. The other rabbis disagree and hold that as long as the piece of cloth is at least three fingerbreadths square, the cloth is susceptible to impurity.", + "If a patch was sewn on to a cloth by one side only, it is not considered as connected. If a patch is sewn on to the cloth and it is attached only at one side, then it is not considered to be attached to the cloth. If the cloth is impure, the patch remains pure and vice versa.", + "If it was sewn on by two opposite sides, it is considered connected. If it was sewn on two opposite sides, it is sufficiently attached for it to be considered connected and for impurity to be conveyed from one to the other.", + "If it was sewn on the shape of a gamma: Rabbi Akiva says that the cloth is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. To be sewn on in the shape of a gamma means that it was sewn on two perpendicular sides. Rabbi Akiva considers this connection to be sufficient to convey impurity from the patch to the cloth and vice versa. But the sages say that if the patch is unclean, the cloth remains clean because this is not sufficient for it to be considered connected.", + "Rabbi Judah stated: When does this apply? To a cloak, but in the case of an undershirt the patch is regarded as connected if it was sewn by its upper side, but if by its lower side it is not connected. Rabbi Judah says that the rule in section two applies only if the garment under discussion is a cloak that is worn above one's other garments. In such a case, a patch sewn on by one side will not stay well on the garment. But when it comes to an undershirt, if the patch is sewn to the shoulder part of the shirt, it will stay in place and therefore it is considered connected. But if it is sewn by one side only onto the lower side of the shirt, it will not stay in place and therefore it is not considered connected." + ], + [ + "Poor men's clothes, though made up of pieces none of which is three [fingerbreadths] square are susceptible to midras uncleanness. Poor people's clothing is susceptible to midras uncleanness even if each piece is smaller than three fingerbreadths square. This is because poor people settle for whatever clothing they can find and therefore what they consider worthy of wearing might be thrown out by others.", + "If a cloak began to be torn, as soon as its greater part is torn [the pieces] are not regarded as connected. The two parts of the cloak are considered to be separate once the greater part of the cloak is torn. At this point, if one piece is impure, the other can remain pure.", + "Exceptionally thick or thin materials are not governed by the prescribed minimum of three [fingerbreadths] square. If material is exceptionally thin or thick, it is not usable. Therefore, it is not subject to the usual rule that a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "A porter's pad is susceptible to midras uncleanness. A porter's pad is what the porter places on his back to help him carry his load. Since he sometimes sits on it while resting, it is susceptible to midras impurity.", + "A wine filter is not susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. People don’t sit on wine filters, so they are not susceptible to uncleanness as seats.", + "An old woman's hair-net is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. An old woman might sit occasionally on her hair net. Therefore, it is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Note that this mishnah disagrees with a mishnah that we learned in 24:16.", + "A prostitute's shirt which is woven like a net is not susceptible to uncleanness. A prostitute's shirt is not considered clothing. I guess it was simply too revealing. Therefore, it is not susceptible to uncleanness, just as her hair covering is not susceptible (see 24:16).", + "A garment made of fishing net is not susceptible to uncleanness, but one made of its bag is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a garment is made out of a fishing net but is made double it is susceptible to uncleanness. The garment made of fishing net is not substantial enough to count as clothing, therefore it is not susceptible. But the bag at the bottom (see 23:5) is closed and therefore if one makes a garment out of it, the garment is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that if the fishing net is doubled over, then it too is substantial enough for a garment made of it to be susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the susceptibility to impurity of a hair-net.", + "A hair-net that one began to make from its upper hem remains pure until its bottom section is finished. If one began from its bottom section, it remains pure until its hem is finished. When making a hair-net, it is not considered completed until both the top hem and bottom hem are finished, and it doesn't matter whether one begins to sew from top to bottom or bottom to top.", + "Its head band is susceptible to uncleanness in itself. The head band is considered a vessel independent of the rest of the hair-net and therefore is susceptible even if separate. Furthermore, it is not considered connected to the head band and if it is impure, the hair-net can still be pure.", + "Its strings are susceptible to uncleanness because they are connected. The strings which come out of the hair-net are considered connected, because they cannot be removed. Therefore, if the hair-net is impure, the strings are impure as well.", + "A hair-net that is torn becomes pure if it cannot contain the greater part of the hair. Once the hair-net is torn enough such that it cannot contain the greater part of the hair, it is no longer functional and it is not susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The fringe strings of a sheet, a scarf, a head-wrap and a felt cap [are regarded as connected] up to a length of six fingerbreadths;
Those of an undergarment up to ten [fingerbreadths].
The fringes of a thick wool cloak, a veil, a shirt, or a light cloak [are regarded as connected] up to a length of three fingerbreadths.
The fringes of an old woman's head-wrap, of Arabian face wraps, of Cilician goat's-hair clothing, of a money-belt, of a turban or of a curtain are regarded as connected whatever their length may be.
Today's mishnah continues to discuss the strings that hang off a garment and whether they are considered connected to the garment.
For certain garments, only part of the strings are considered as connected to the garment. The reason seems to be that anything longer is going to be removed. Therefore, these parts are not connected. But small amounts of strings that hang out from a garment may be retained, and are therefore considered connected. And with some garments, no matter how long the strings are, they are retained and therefore they are considered connected.
With this in mind, the mishnah is understandable on its own and therefore there is no commentary below." + ], + [ + "Three woolen pillow-covers, six linen ones, three sheets, twelve handkerchiefs, two pant-sleeves, one shirt, one cloak, or one winter-cloak, can be regarded as connected in respect of both uncleanness and sprinkling. If one sews or weaves together a combination of these numbers of items, they are considered connected in terms of both uncleanness and sprinkling. What this means is that if one becomes impure, all are impure and if one is sprinkled with the waters of purifications (red heifer waters) all are clean. Note that the number of pieces that can be sewn or woven together depends on the size of the cloth. Small pieces such as handkerchiefs can have large numbers but larger garments such as a cloak cannot be considered as connected to other cloaks. Once something is that big, attaching it to another large piece would be cumbersome and probably was not done. It seems to me that the smaller pieces may have been sewn together by merchants carrying them to market.", + "If they exceed this number they are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Rabbi Yose says: not even in respect of uncleanness. If there are more than this number sewn together the law is stringent. This means that they are regarded as connected for matters of uncleanness, so if one is unclean all are unclean. But when it comes to purification, they are not considered connected, and all must be sprinkled upon for them to be pure. Rabbi Yose says that the law is consistent. Just as they are not considered connected with regard to the laws of sprinkling, so too with regard to the laws of uncleanness they are not considered connected." + ], + [ + "The string of a [common] plumb-line is regarded as connected up to a length of twelve [cubits]; That of the carpenters’ plumb-line, up to eighteen [cubits]; And that of the builders’ plumb-line up to fifty cubits. The parts that exceed these lengths, even if it was desired to retain them, are pure. The string of a plumb-line is regarded as connected for most types of plumb-lines as far as is generally necessary to drop the weight. A common plumb-line is only used for twelve cubits, a carpenters' is used for 18 and a builders for fifty (that's a pretty high building). Anything beyond that is pure, even if he wishes to retain the extra length.", + "The plumb-line of plasterers or moulders is regarded as connected whatsoever its length. Plasterers and moulders work on walls and therefore can use plumb-lines of any length. Therefore, no matter how long it is, it is considered connected." + ], + [ + "The cord of the balances of goldsmiths or the weighers of fine purple cloth is regarded as a connective up to a length of three fingerbreadths, The cord is attached to the balance in the middle and it is used to grip the balance. Three fingerbreadths are sufficient for this small cord, and therefore any longer and it is not considered connected to the balance.", + "The handle of an axe behind the grip, up to a length of three fingerbreadths. Rabbi Yose says: if the length behind the grip is no less than one handbreadth the entire handle is unsusceptible to uncleanness. The \"handle\" of an axe is the part directly behind the hole in which the blade is inserted. Up to three fingerbreadths of this handle are considered connected to the axe. Rabbi Yose adds that if the handle is more than one handbreadth, it will interfere with the functioning of the axe and it is all pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with how much of a vessel is regarded as connected to the vessel.", + "The cord of the balances of shopkeepers or householders is regarded as connected up to a length of one handbreadth. These cords are regarded as connected for a greater length than those mentioned in mishnah four, assumedly because a longer cord is needed to weigh heavier material. Gold and purple cloth, the topic of yesterday's mishnah, are expensive and therefore smaller amounts will be measured.", + "The shaft of an axe in front of the grip, up to one handbreadth. This is the part of the axe that is used, as opposed to yesterday's mishnah which referred to the back part which is not used. Therefore, the connected part is longer.", + "The projection of the shaft of a compass, up to one handbreadth. I must admit that I don't have a clear picture of how their compass looked. In any case, this part of the compass is considered attached up to a length of one handbreadth.", + "That of the shaft of the stone-masons’ chisel, one handbreadth. This handle is also considered connected up to a length of one handbreadth." + ], + [ + "The cord of the balances of wool dealers or of glass-weighers is regarded as connected up to a length of two handbreadths.
The shaft of a millstone chisel, up to a length of two handbreadths.
The shaft of the battle-axe of the legions, up to a length of two handbreadths.
The shaft of the goldsmiths’ hammer, up to a length of two handbreadths.
And that of the blacksmiths' hammer, up to three handbreadths.
Today's mishnah continues to list how much of various cords and shafts are considered connected to the main vessel, be it a balance or a type of axe, or a type of hammer.
The principles behind this mishnah are the same as those behind the other mishnayot we have already learned in this chapter. Therefore, there is not much commentary below.
Section two: A millstone chisel is used to roughen the surface of the millstone so that it will more effectively grind the grain." + ], + [ + "The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its upper end is regarded as connected up to a length of four [handbreadths].
The shaft of a spade, to a length of four [handbreadths].
The shaft of a weeding-spade, to five handbreadths.
The shaft of a small hammer, to five handbreadths.
That of a common hammer, to six handbreadths.
The shaft of an axe used for splitting wood or of one used for digging, to six [handbreadths].
The shaft of the stone-trimmers’ axe, up to six handbreadths.
Another mishnah discussing the lengths of shafts. If you're getting a bit bored with this (and I'm sure you're not) don't worry, we are almost done with the tractate!
As with yesterday's mishnah, I have commented below on the sections that I believe need some extra clarification.
Section one: We discussed the ox-goad briefly in 25:2. This shaft seems to work similarly to the shaft of an ax. The mishnah discusses the \"remnant\" which is the part that sticks upward out of the ox-goad. It is considered connected up to a length of four handbreadths.
I am trying to put a picture in here that I found on the web, but I'm not sure that you will all receive it. If you don't google \"oxgoad\" and you should be able to find some pics." + ], + [ + "The remnant of the shaft of an ox-goad at its lower end is regarded as connected up to a length of seven handbreadths.
The shaft of a householders' shovel Bet Shammai says: to a length of seven handbreadths, And Bet Hillel says: eight handbreadths.
That of the plasterers: Bet Shammai says: nine handbreadths And Bet Hillel says: ten handbreadths.
Any parts exceeding these lengths, if he wanted to retain it, is also susceptible to uncleanness.
The shafts of fire instruments are susceptible to uncleanness whatsoever their length.
Section one: Concerning the ox-goad, see yesterday's mishnah. Yesterday's mishnah referred to the upper end, whereas today's mishnah refers to the lower end.
Section two: The next two sections contain disputes between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning the length of the shaft of different types of shovels. It is curious that the two houses have not had any disputes until the end of this chapter. I would imagine that indeed they did dispute many other vessels mentioned in this chapter, but for some reason the editors of the Mishnah did not preserve their disputes.
Section four: The lengths of the shafts or cords for all of the vessels mentioned in this chapter are default lengths. What this means is that up to such a length is always susceptible to impurity and we can assume that beyond that length is pure, because the person doesn’t really want the cord or shaft to extend beyond that length. However, as this section notes, if one does want to retain the shaft or cord for a greater length, then whatever he wants to retain is susceptible to impurity. In other words, his personal intention can supersede the default.
Section five: It is understandable why one might want a very long handle on an instrument used with fire. Therefore, the handle is susceptible to impurity for as long as it might be.
[By the way you just finished the chapter. Only one more chapter to go four days!]" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter thirty, the final chapter of Kelim (phew!), deals with the rules of purity that relate to glass vessels.", + "Glass vessels--those that are flat are pure and those that have receptacles are susceptible. This general rule was already taught in 15:1.", + "After they are broken they become clean. If he again made vessels of them they become susceptible to uncleanness from that point and onward. Once a glass vessel is broken, it is not usable. Therefore it is pure it loses any impurity that it once had, and it is not susceptible to impurity. If one repaired the glass such that it could again be used, it is considered a new vessel and is susceptible to impurity from that point and onward. It does not regain its old impurity.", + "A glass tray or a flat dish is pure. If it has a rim it is susceptible. These glass vessels are usually flat. Therefore, they are pure. However, if they have a rim, they are susceptible to impurity because they have a receptacle.", + "The concave bottom of a glass bowl or plate which was adapted for use is pure. If it was polished or scraped with a file it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. This section refers to the bottom of a bowl or plate that remained after the bowl or plate was broken. The person then made some modification so that he could use them. Despite the fact that these do now have a receptacle, and would seem to be susceptible to impurity, they are still pure because the edges are still rough. However, if he polished the edges, the vessel is now susceptible to impurity because it is finished." + ], + [ + "A mirror is pure. A mirror is pure because it is a glass vessel without a receptacle.", + "A tray that was made into a mirror remains susceptible, but if it was originally made to serve as a mirror it is pure. A glass tray is susceptible to impurity. Therefore, even if he backs it up with some metal to be able to use it as a mirror, it is still considered a tray and it is still susceptible to impurity. However, if he made it to be a mirror from the outset, it is pure, even if it could be used as a tray. Reading this mishnah made me a bit curious concerning the history of mirror making. I found the following in Wikipedia: Metal-coated glass mirrors are said to have been invented in Sidon (modern-day Lebanon) in the first century AD,[6] and glass mirrors backed with gold leaf are mentioned by the Roman author Pliny in his Natural History, written in about 77 AD.[7] The Romans also developed a technique for creating crude mirrors by coating blown glass with molten lead.[8] It would seem that our mishnah would serve as additional evidence for the existence of glass mirrors during the first two centuries C.E. If any of you out there are Wikipedia editors, maybe you should even write this reference in!", + "A large [glass] spoon that has been placed on a table is susceptible to uncleanness if it can hold anything whatsoever. The test of whether this spoon is susceptible is whether it can stand on a table and still retain its liquid. If it can, everyone considers it a vessel and it is susceptible to impurity.", + "But if it cannot do so: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible, And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that it is pure. If the spoon cannot hold liquids when placed on the table, Rabbi Akiva still considers it impure. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that it is pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the purity of glass cups.", + "A cup the greater part of which is broken off is pure. If most of the cup is broken off, it is unusable and no longer susceptible to impurity.", + "If it was broken in three places extending over its greater part it is pure. If there are three breaks spread out onto the greater part of the cup, it is also pure. However, if the three cracks are all in the same place and most of the cup is intact, the cup can remain impure or susceptible to impurity.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if it lets the greater part of the water leak out it is pure. Rabbi Shimon adds that if the cracks are sufficient such that it lets most of the water out, then it is pure.", + "If a hole appeared in it and it was mended with tin or pitch it is pure. Rabbi Yose says: if with tin it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if with pitch it is pure. According to the first opinion, even though he fixed the hole in the cup with tin or pitch it is still pure. According to this opinion, it is not really possible to fix glass cups. Rabbi Yose holds that if one fixes the cup with tin it is considered repaired and is again susceptible to impurity. He agrees that if it is fixed with pitch, it is still not susceptible. Assumedly, the one drinking from the cup will taste/smell the pitch while he will not taste or smell the tin." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Kelim (yes, it really is) deals with the purity of various glass flasks.", + "A small flask whose neck was removed remains susceptible to uncleanness, A small flask whose neck was removed is still usable. Therefore, it is still susceptible to impurity.", + "But a large one whose neck was removed becomes pure. However, a large flask used to store oil or wine, one that requires two hands to hold, can no longer be used if its neck is broken because its contents will be spilled.", + "[A small flask] of spikenard oil whose neck was removed becomes pure, since it scratches the hand. Spikenard oil is a fragrant oil used for perfume. One would use this oil by putting a finger into the flask and then dabbing the oil onto one's body. If the flask's neck is broken one will cut one's hand when taking out the oil. Since the flask cannot be used properly, it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "Large flagons whose necks were removed remain susceptible to uncleanness, since they are adapted for the use of holding pickled foods. Large flagons (a type of jar) whose neck is broken off can still be used to pickle vegetables. Therefore, they are still susceptible.", + "A glass funnel is clean. Glass vessels must have a receptacle to be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, a glass funnel is pure.", + "Rabbi Yose said: Happy are you Kelim; for you began with uncleanness, but you ended with cleanness. Even Rabbi Yose wanted to celebrate when finishing Tractate Kelim. The first mishnah in the chapter, which we learned on October 31 (!), over eight months ago, dealt with the \"fathers of impurity.\" In other words, the tractate began by dealing with matters of impurity and the final section of the last mishnah deals with a vessel that is pure. Thus we have moved from a state of impurity to purity. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Kelim! I bet you never thought this day would really come. Seriously, as I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Kelim is the longest tractate in the Mishnah, and as I noted above, we began to learn it many months ago. While it is at times hard for us to comprehend, the laws of purity were a major part of the religious life of Jews from the time of the Torah through the Second Temple period, and as we see, continued to be a major focus of rabbinic law. I do admit that the tractate did tend to get a bit detailed (understatement) and without a clear picture of what all of these vessels looked like, it is hard to understand some of the laws. Nevertheless, we did learn some important principles that will help us throughout the rest of our learning. I am sure that we will review most of these as we can continue to learn together. Our learning of Seder Toharot continues tomorrow with Tractate Ohalot, where we learn the laws associated the impurity of a dead body." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה כלים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה כלים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0846b4dc7611d912a2be8e34e77182b1d58655b --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,349 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכשירין", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "intro": [ + "Introduction to Tractate Makhshirin", + "Our tractate is about liquids that come into contact with produce and thereby make it susceptible to impurity (I know, a topic you've been dying to learn about). ", + "Leviticus 11:34 reads: As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become unclean if it came into contact with water; as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become unclean if it was inside any vessel.", + "And verse 38 reads: But if water is put on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be unclean for you." + ], + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Any liquid which was desired at the beginning though it was not desired at the end, or which was desired at the end though it was not desired at the beginning, comes under the law of \"if water be put.\" For a liquid to make produce susceptible to impurity its contact with the produce has to be desired either at the beginning or the end. The \"beginning\" is when the liquid came into being, or was separated from its natural source. Rainfall begins when it comes from the sky. If while the rain is falling a person says or thinks to himself that he wants to use the water for some purpose, then the rain is \"desired.\" Alternatively, if he is happy that the rain fell on his produce, then the rain is desired. \"Not desired at the end\" means that too much rain fell on his produce. If it was desired at the end but not in the beginning means that at first he was not happy with the fact that water was falling on his produce. But then, at the end, he saw that this was good and he was happy. All's well that ends well, as they say. In either case, the produce is susceptible to impurity. It would only not be susceptible if he was never happy that it got on his produce.", + "Unclean liquids render unclean whether [their action] is desired or is not desired. Unclean liquids, those that have already been defiled in some way, make produce susceptible whether or not their contact is desired." + ], + [ + "If one shook a tree in order to cause food or something unclean to fall down from it, [the rain water dropping down from it] does not come under the law of ‘if water be put.' Since his intention was not to bring the rain down from the tree, but rather food or something else, such as an impure thing, the water that falls down does not cause produce to be susceptible to impurity. He doesn't want this water to fall down.", + "If [he shook the tree] in order to cause liquids to fall down from it: Bet Shammai says: both [the liquids] that fall down and [the liquids] that remain [on the tree] come under the law of ‘if water be put.' But Bet Hillel say: [the liquids] that fall down come under the law of ‘if water be put’, but [the liquids] that remain [on the tree] do not come under the law of ‘if water be put,' because his intention was that [the liquids] should drop down from all the tree. In this case, he shook the tree in order to cause the rain water to fall down. Bet Shammai rules that even the water that remains in the tree now causes produce to be susceptible because he wanted that water to fall down. In other words, even if his intention is not fulfilled, the water still causes impurity because he wanted it. Bet Hillel says that only the water that falls causes susceptibility because in the end, this is the water that he wanted." + ], + [ + "If one shook a tree and it fell on another tree, or a branch and it fell on another branch, and under them were seeds or vegetables [still] joined to the ground: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Shammai holds that even though the water fell on produce that was still attached to the ground, the water is now sufficient to make other produce susceptible to impurity. In other words, since the water has been intentionally removed from its original place, it now makes produce susceptible. Note that the produce on which it fell is not susceptible because produce attached to the ground is never susceptible. Bet Hillel holds that since the water fell on produce attached to the ground, it is not yet sufficient to make food susceptible. However, if after this the water fell subsequently onto other trees or other branches the water becomes ready to make food susceptible to impurity.", + "R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Yose Holikofri a man of Tivon: Be surprised if there is any liquid that according to the Torah causes susceptibility to uncleanness except one put it on with intention, for it is said: \"If water be put upon the seed.\" Rabbi Joshua holds that liquid causes produce to be susceptible only if it was intentionally put on to food. This is because he reads the verb \"be put upon\" with different vocalization, which yields, \"if one puts upon.\" In Hebrew the former is \"ki yutan\" whereas the latter is \"ki yiten\" the only difference between the two is in vocalization." + ], + [ + "If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to Bet Shammai, even if the water only moves from part of the bundle to another part, it still causes the water to make the produce susceptible to impurity. In contrast, Bet Hillel again rules leniently. Since the water has not left the bundle, it does not yet cause produce to be susceptible.", + "Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel argues with Bet Shammai from what they perceive to be an analogous case. If one has a stalk of some sort of produce and one shakes it and water drops from one leaf to another, all agree that the water has not yet been separated from its source such that it causes susceptibility to impurity. So too, if one shakes a bunch of produce it does not yet cause susceptibility. Bet Shammai says that the two situations are different, for when it comes to the stalk, it is only one piece of produce. The bundle contains many pieces of produce, and therefore we can perceive of the water as having left its original place and moving to another.", + "Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? Bet Hillel again argues against Bet Shammai. When one brings a sack of produce to the river so that water will soak out of the sack and flow into the river, we do not consider the produce to be susceptible because water flowed from the upper side of the bag to the lower side. So too, in the case of a bunch of produce, even if water flows from one part to the other, it is not susceptible.", + "But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness. However, Bet Hillel agrees that if the water flows from one sack to the other, that it does cause the lower sack to be susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose says that even in this case the water does not cause susceptibility because it has not yet been separated from its totality." + ], + [ + "If one rubbed a leek or pressed his hair or his garment, Rabbi Yose says: the liquid which came out comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but the liquid that remained does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the liquid should come out of all of it. There are two scenarios in this mishnah. In the first he rubs off water that fell onto a leek. The second is that he squeezed out his hair or his garment to get the liquid out of them. According to Rabbi Yose in both of these cases the liquid that comes out of his hair has been separated from its source so it can now cause food to be susceptible to impurity. However, the water that remains on the leek, hair or garment does not make food susceptible to impurity because his intention was only upon the water that would come out. This fits the opinion of Bet Hillel in mishnah two." + ], + [ + "If one blew on lentils in order to test whether they were good: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to Rabbi Shimon, the moisture that comes out of a person's mouth when he blows on the lentils does not count as a liquid. But the sages say it is a liquid and therefore the lentils are susceptible to impurity.", + "If one ate sesame with his finger, with regard to the liquid that was on his hand: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. A person wets his finger so he can eat sesame seeds by having them stick to his finger. Again, Rabbi Shimon does not consider this to be liquid such that the seeds are susceptible to impurity, but the other sages do.", + "If one hid his fruit in water from thieves, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once it happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig cakes in water from the robbers, and the sages declared that they were not susceptible to uncleanness. This person hid his produce in water only to protect it from thieves. Since he didn't really want the produce to get wet, it is not susceptible to impurity. The mishnah even includes a story of such a case occurring and the sages ruling that the produce remained insusceptible to impurity.", + "If one put his fruit in the stream of a river to make it come down with him, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Again, this person didn't want his produce to get wet, he just wanted to put it in the stream so that he could transport it. The produce remains insusceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with sweat when does it cause something to be susceptible to uncleanness and when does it not.", + "The sweat of houses, of cisterns, of ditches and caverns does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. Sweat from buildings and other structures, meaning the moisture formed on their outsides, has not been moved by a person and therefore it does not cause susceptibility to impurity.", + "A man's perspiration does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. Human perspiration similarly does not cause susceptibility.", + "If a man drank unclean water and perspired, his perspiration does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. The sweat that comes out of his body is not accorded the same status as the unclean water from which it comes, because he already ingested it. It counts as sweat and therefore it does not cause susceptibility.", + "If he entered into drawn water and perspired, his perspiration causes susceptibility to uncleanness. In this case, since he didn't ingest the water but rather bathed in it, his sweat is considered as if it came from the drawn water. Therefore, it causes susceptibility.", + "If he dried himself and then perspired, his perspiration does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. If he then dries himself, he has gotten rid of the water from the drawn water and his sweat is considered to be from his body. Therefore, it no longer causes susceptibility." + ], + [ + "The sweat of an unclean bath is unclean, The sweat that comes from an unclean bath of water has the same status as the water in the bath. It is unclean. It also causes susceptibility, for unclean liquids always cause susceptibility.", + "But that of a clean bath comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. The sweat of a clean bath is not inherently unclean, but it does cause susceptibility to impurity.", + "If there was a pool in a house, the house sweats because of it if the pool was unclean, the sweat of all the house which was caused by the pool is unclean. The purity of the sweat of a house with a pool in it depends upon the purity of the water in the pool. If the pool is unclean, then the sweat is unclean and will cause susceptibility. If the pool is clean, the sweat of the house is considered as coming from the pool and it will cause susceptibility. This is different from general sweat from a house which does not cause susceptibility, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah." + ], + [ + "Two pools, the one clean and the other unclean: The sweat near the unclean pool is unclean, And the sweat near the clean pool is clean, And what is at equal distance [from both pools] is unclean. Things that sweat and are closer to the unclean pool are considered unclean, for we assume that the sweat came from the unclean pool. The same is true in the opposite case. If something was right in the middle of the two, the ruling is stringent due to the doubt, and the sweat must be considered unclean.", + "Unclean iron was smelted with clean iron: If the greater part [came] from the unclean iron, it is unclean; If the greater part [came] from the clean iron, it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean. The mishnah now goes on to consider other cases which have the same literary structure as section one. This structure will continue through the end of the chapter, and will cover topics that diverge from the main topic at hand the ability of liquids to cause susceptibility to impurity. The first topic at hand concerns pure and impure iron that have been smelted together. The status follows the majority and if they are of equal amount, the rule is stringent.", + "Pots owned by Israelites and non-Jews used for passing water: If the greater part is from the unclean [urine], it is unclean; If the greater part is from the clean [urine], it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean. Jewish urine is considered clean but gentile urine is considered impure due to rabbinic law (see Niddah 4:3). In this case, if the mixture is equal, then the rule is lenient because the impurity of gentile urine is only derabanan (bet you never thought you'd be reading about that!).", + "Waste-water, in which rain had fallen: If the greater part consisted of the unclean water, it is unclean; If the greater part consisted of clean water, it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean. Waste-water is assumed to be impure. Again, the rule follows the majority and if they are of equal amount the rule is stringent.", + "When [is this the case]? When the waste-water came first; but if the rain water came before [the waste-water], it is unclean whatever the quantity [of the rain water]. The above is true if the waste-water was there first. In such a case, the rainwater went into the vessel against his wishes and therefore this water is not susceptible to impurity. If there is a majority of rainwater the whole vessel will be pure. However, if the rainwater went in first, then he was probably collecting it, and it went in to his desire. In such a case, the rainwater is susceptible to impurity. When any amount of waste-water falls in, it will defile it." + ], + [ + "If one flattened out his roof or washed his garment and rain came down upon it: There are two situations in this mishnah. The first is that one is flattening out his roof and he pours out waste water at on the completed roof to smooth it out. The second is laundering a garment. In both of these cases the water being used is impure. This water is then mixed in with rain water and the question is whether the water is impure such that when it falls on food it would defile it.", + "If the greater part consisted of the unclean water, it is unclean; If the greater part consisted of the clean water, it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean. As in the previous cases, the status of the water follows the majority. If it is half and half, then we rule strictly and it is unclean.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if the dripping increased, [it is clean]. If the dripping from the roof or the laundered garment increased after the rain flow, then we can assume that the rain water was greater than the impure water from flattening the roof or laundering the garment. In this case, any water that subsequently comes from the roof or garment will be considered pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA Jew is not permitted to benefit from work done for another Jew on Shabbat, but a Jew can benefit from work done for a non-Jew on Shabbat. If a Jew does forbidden work on Shabbat and another Jew wants to benefit from that work, he/she must wait after Shabbat however long it would take for that work to be done. For instance, if I make a roast on Shabbat (Heaven forbid!) and then my wife (who is Jewish) wants to eat it, she must wait after Shabbat however long it would take to make that roast.\nOur mishnah deals with a case where we don't know whether the work that was done on Shabbat was done for Jews or non-Jews.\nWe should note that it doesn't matter who did the work Jew or non-Jew. What matters is whether the work was done for a Jew or for a non-Jew.\nThis mishnah begins a series of mishnayot, all of which deal with a city in which there are some Jewish and some non-Jewish inhabitants.", + "A city in which Israelites and non-Jews dwell together and there was a bathhouse working on Shabbat: In this city there is a bathhouse that operates on Shabbat and the question is whether a Jew can go and bathe there immediately after Shabbat in water that was heated on Shabbat.", + "If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, one may bathe in it immediately [after the conclusion of the Shabbat]; If the majority were Israelites, one must wait until the water can be heated; If they were half and half, one must [also] wait until the water can be heated. If the majority of the residents of the city were non-Jews, then we can assume the water was heated on behalf of a non-Jew and one can bathe there right after Shabbat. If the majority were Jews then the water was probably heated for a Jew. In such a situation if the Jew bathed there immediately after Shabbat he would be deriving benefit from work done for a Jew on Shabbat. Therefore, he must wait a sufficient time after Shabbat for the water to have been heated. Then he can take a bath (always nice to take a bath after Shabbat). Again, if the amount of Jews and non-Jews is equivalent, the rule is strict.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if the bathhouse was small and there was there a [non-Jewish] authority, one may bathe in it immediately [after the conclusion of Shabbat]. If there was a small bathhouse and there was a non-Jewish, probably Roman, government located there, we can assume the water was heated for them (it's good to be the king, or the king's messengers). In this case a Jew could bathe there immediately after Shabbat, even if the majority of the city were Jews." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah, dealing with a city in which Jews and Gentiles live mixed.", + "If one found in that city vegetables sold [on Shabbat]: The person finds vegetables in such a city and doesn't know whether they were picked that day and transported by a Jew or by a non-Jew. If they were picked by a Jew then they are prohibited because it is prohibited for a Jew to pick vegetables on Shabbat.", + "If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, one may buy them immediately [after the conclusion of Shabbat]; If the majority were Israelites, one must wait until [vegetables] can arrive from the nearest place; If they were half and half, one must [also] wait until [vegetables] can arrive from the nearest place; This is the same as the clauses found in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If there was there a [non-Jewish] authority, one may buy them immediately [after the conclusion of Shabbat]. As in yesterday's mishnah, we learn here that if there are some non-Jewish authorities in town we can assume that the special resources (vegetables, warm bath water) were designated for them. In this case, the Jew can buy the vegetables immediately after Shabbat." + ], + [ + "If one found [an abandoned] child there: The mishnah continues to deal with a city composed of both non-Jews and Jews. A child is found, abandoned by his parents and we need to know whether to assume that the child is Jewish or not.", + "If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, it is considered a non-Jew; If the majority were non-Jews then in certain ways the child is treated as if s/he were non-Jewish. According to mishnaic commentaries based on the Talmud, we treat the child as non-Jewish and we are allowed to feed him/her non-kosher food.", + "If the majority were Israelites, it is considered an Israelite; If the majority were Israelites, the child is treated like a Jew. According to commentaries this means that we are obligated to return lost objects to the child (when s/he grows up and owns things), which as we learned in Bava Metzia and we will see again in tomorrow's mishnah, is obligatory only to fellow Jews.", + "If the majority were Israelites, it is considered an Israelite; If the town is evenly split, the child is considered Jewish. Again, the commentators limit this to a case of damages. If this child's ox damages a fellow Jew's ox, the child's ox only pays half damages, if it is an attested danger. Note that the ramifications of the child being considered Jewish were limited to monetary matters. The Talmud says that when it comes to matters of personal status, such as marital law, the child is considered to be a \"doubtful Jew.\" If he marries a Jewish woman, she is potentially married and would require a divorce document to marry someone else. He/she is not fully considered an Israelite until conversion.", + "If they were half and half, it is also considered an Israelite. Rabbi Judah says that it is not logical to simply follow the majority of people in the city. We need to look at who most likely abandoned their kids. So if the majority of abandoners are Jews, then the kid is considered a Jew, even if the majority of the town is non-Jews." + ], + [ + "If one found there lost property, The issue here is finding lost property. The rabbis obligated one to declare lost property that was found and return it to the owner if the owner could identify it. These halakhot are found in the second chapter of Bava Metzia. This obligation is only to a fellow Jew. One is not obligated to return property to a non-Jew, at least not according to the Mishnah. Later halakhah rectified this discrimination, as it did in many cases.", + "If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, he need not proclaim it; If the majority was not Jewish, then he need not proclaim that he found a lost object because he can assume that it belonged to a non-Jew.", + "If the majority were Israelites, he must proclaim it; If the majority were Jews he must proclaim it and if a Jew claims it, he would have to return it to him. This would make for quite an awkward situation if he proclaimed it and then it turned out to belong to a non-Jew.", + "If they were half and half, he must [also] proclaim it. If the split is 50/50 he must assume that it could belong to a Jew and he must proclaim it.", + "If one found bread there we must consider who form the majority of the bakers. The second half of the mishnah deals with bread that is found in the mixed city. The rabbis prohibited Jews from eating bread made by Gentiles, not because the bread is impure or not kosher, but in order to prevent assimilation. The first criterion is to follow the majority of bakers, as has been the rule in most of the previous mishnayot.", + "If it was bread of clean flour, we must consider who form the majority of those who eat bread of pure flour. However, if the bread is of a special kind, such as bread made of clean flour, we need to look at who makes clean flour bread. This is more expensive so it will be made probably by the upper class.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if it was coarse bread, we must consider who form the majority of those who eat coarse bread. Today coarse bread is the most expensive type of bread, but back then (and probably not too long ago), it was for the poorer folk. So Rabbi Judah adds that if the bread is of poor quality, i.e. it is coarse, then we can assume it was made by someone poor and we follow the majority of poor people." + ], + [ + "If one found meat there, we follow the majority of the butchers. A piece of meat is found lying somewhere in this mixed city. Today, most of us would not really consider eating a piece of meat just found lying around, even those of us who don't keep kosher. But back then meat was exceedingly rare and if it looked good enough to eat, why not. The mishnah says that if the majority of butchers slaughter their meat in a kosher manner, then a Jew can eat the meat. Note that the meat is assumed to come from a butcher because normal people did not store meat in their homes. So we don't need to know who were the majority of the people.", + "If it was cooked meat, we follow the majority of those who eat cooked meat. I find this section very interesting. At first sight, one might wonder who doesn't eat cooked meat? Do some people eat raw meat? However, when we think about it, the mishnah shows us something interesting about meat consumption in those days. Most people probably didn't eat meat at all. Only wealthy people would be considered \"those who eat cooked meat.\" So to figure out from whom the meat likely fell, we must consider who composes the majority of the wealthy people who eat cooked meat." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with finding produce in the mixed city and determining whether it needs to be tithed or not. Produce that has not been tithed generally may not be eaten once it is brought into one's home. However, under certain circumstances one may eat it while on the road.\nProduce that might or might not have been tithed is called demai. We'll discuss some of these rules here but for a fuller exposition, look at the Introduction to Demai, as well as the Introduction to Maasrot.", + "If one found produce on the road: If the majority [of the inhabitants] gathered produce into their homes, he is exempt [from tithes]; If [the majority gathered it] for selling in the market, he is liable [for tithes]; If they were half and half, the produce is demai. According to Maasrot 1:5 if a person was carrying produce to his home, he may eat of the produce untithed until he gets home. But if he was bringing it to market, it cannot be eaten untithed as long as the processing has been finished (which it assumedly has if it's being brought to the market). So what we need to determine here is whether the produce was being brought to market or being brought home. As with the other mishnayot, so too here we follow a majority. If the majority was bringing the produce to the market, then he must tithe what he found even if he is only eating of them in an extemporaneous fashion and not as part of a meal. In other words, we assume that this produce was being brought to market in which case all further eating is prohibited. If there is no majority, then the produce is deemed demai. He must tithe them even if he wants to eat them before he gets home.", + "A granary into which both Israelites and non-Jews put their produce, If the majority were non-Jews, [the produce must be considered] certainly untithed; If the majority were Israelites, [it must be considered] demai; If they were half and half, [it must be considered] certainly untithed, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: even if they were all non-Jews, and only one Israelite put his produce into the granary, [it must be considered] demai. There is a granary full of grain and we need to know whether it has been tithed or not. If the majority are non-Jews then we can be sure it has not been tithed. A Jew who eats such grain must certainly tithe it. If the majority are Israelites, then it might have been tithed. We can't know for sure because some Jews, perhaps many Jews, do not tithe. Therefore it is demai, which means that one must take out terumah, terumat maaser (the terumah taken from tithes) and maaser sheni. These must be removed because an Israelite cannot eat them. However, he does not have to take out first tithe or poor tithe, because these can be eaten by an Israelite (see Intro to Demai). If the numbers are evenly split, then Rabbi Meir assumes that it certainly hasn't been tithed. The sages disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that even if only one Jew puts grain into the granary, all of the grain must be considered demai and not certainly untithed produce. The sages hold that grain grown on land owned by non-Jews is not liable for tithes. If the granary was only non-Jewish grain, he wouldn't be obligated to tithe it at all. However, since one Jew puts his grain in there he must treat it as demai, because the sages hold that Jewish grain is not annulled in a greater quantity of non-Jewish grain." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nDuring the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the sabbatical cycle second tithe is taken out from produce. This tithe must be consumed in Jerusalem, or at least exchanged for money and separated in Jerusalem. In the third and sixth years the poor tithe is taken out and given to the poor. Seventh year produce is holy and it is forbidden to conduct business with it (i.e. sell it for a profit).\nOur mishnah deals with produce from the second year which are mixed with third year produce or other such mixtures.\nMakhshirin\nIf the produce of the second year exceeded in quantity the produce of the third year, or the produce of the third year exceeded the produce of the fourth year, or the produce of the fourth year exceeded the produce of the fifth year, or the produce of the fifth year exceeded the produce of the sixth year, or the produce of the sixth year exceeded the produce of the seventh year, or the produce of the seventh year exceeded the produce of the year after the conclusion of the seventh year, we follow the majority.\nIf half and half, the rule is stringent.", + " The rule here is quite simple we follow the majority of the produce. Note that some of these possibilities are not really important, since the produce of those two years has the same status. For instance, if fourth and fifth year produce are mixed up, it doesn't matter because one takes second tithe from both. The mishnah just runs through the whole list of possibilities.", + "If the mixture is evenly split, we follow the strictest possibility. So if we are not sure if second tithe or poor tithe should be taken out he would have to take out both, and bring the second tithe to Jerusalem (or redeem it for money) and give the poor tithe to the poor. If there is a possibility that the produce is sabbatical year produce, then it all must be treated with the appropriate sanctity and one could not engage in business with it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter three (finally) returns to the subject of our tractate when does contact with liquid cause food to be susceptible to impurity?", + "If a sack full of produce was put by the side of a river or by the side of the mouth of a cistern or on the steps of a cavern, and [the produce] absorbed water, all [the produce] which absorbed the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. A person put a sack of produce near a source of wetness, either a river, a cistern or a cavern in order for it to stay moist. The produce in the sack, even the side of the sack that didn't really get all that wet, has been made susceptible to impurity. This is because he wanted the produce to get wet.", + "Rabbi Judah says: all [the produce] which faced the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but all [the produce] which did not face the water does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah limits the susceptibility to the side of the sack that actually faced the water. This side absorbed the water so it is susceptible. The other side didn't really absorb any water so it is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "A jar full of produce which was put into liquids, or a jar full of liquids was put into produce and [the produce] absorbed, all [the produce] which absorbed comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. The jar is made of earthenware which will easily absorb water. It doesn't matter whether the jar has liquids and it is put into the produce or the jar has produce and it is put into liquids in all of these cases the produce that has absorbed any liquid is susceptible to impurity. This is true even of pulse (mostly beans) which is less absorbent than other produce such as grain.", + "Concerning what liquids were they speaking? Water, wine and vinegar; but all the other liquids do not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. This halakhah is limited to two of the 7 liquids that cause susceptibility: water and wine (vinegar is made of wine). The other liquids (we will see the full list in 6:4 dew, oil, blood, milk and honey are the other five) are thicker and will not be as easily absorbed. Therefore, they won't cause the produce to be susceptible.", + "Rabbi Nehemiah says pulse is insusceptible, because pulse does not absorb [liquids]. Rabbi Nehemiah says that pulse put in such a jar is not susceptible to impurity because it is less likely to absorb the liquid. In other words, whereas the previous opinion only limited the thicker, less absorbable liquids, Rabbi Nehemiah adds that the thicker less absorbent produce doesn't become susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "One who drew hot bread off the side of an oven and put it upon the mouth of a jar of wine: The bread mentioned here must be bread that was mixed with fruit juice which does not cause flour to be susceptible to impurity. [If the bread was already susceptible because it had been mixed with water, then this mishnah is not an issue].", + "Rabbi Meir declares it susceptible to uncleanness; Rabbi Meir says that the hot bread, no matter the kind, will draw wine out of the barrel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity.", + "But Rabbi Judah declares it insusceptible. Rabbi Judah says that the bread does not draw off the wine and therefore it is not susceptible.", + "Rabbi Yose declares it insusceptible in the case of wheat bread and susceptible in the case of barley bread, because barley absorbs [liquids]. Rabbi Yose distinguishes between wheat bread, which is less absorbent and barley bread which is more absorbent. Only the latter is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "If one sprinkled [the floor of] his house [with water] and put wheat therein and it became moist: If [the moisture came] from the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if [the moisture came] from the stones [on the floor], it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. In mishnaic times people would sprinkle their floors with water in order to keep down the dust. A person did this and then put wheat on the floor (or it just got there somehow) and the wheat got moist. If the moisture came from the water he sprinkled on the floor then the wheat is susceptible to impurity because a person put the water there. If the moisture came from moisture that naturally accumulated on the floor then it is not susceptible to impurity because no one put that water there.", + "If one washed his garment in a tub and put wheat therein and it became moist: If [the moisture came] from the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if [the moisture came] of itself, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The same rule basically applies to someone who puts wheat in a laundry trough (after he has completed the laundry). If the wheat became moist due to the water that he put there, the wheat is susceptible.", + "If one put [produce] in sand for it to become moist, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. It happened with the men of Mahoz that they used to moisten [their produce] with sand, and the sages said to them: if you have always acted in this manner, you have never prepared your food in purity. In this case, although no one put the water into the sand, since he intended the produce to become wet, it is susceptible. In other words, from this mishnah we can see two possibilities for when liquid causes susceptibility to impurity. 1) If a person put the liquid where it currently is. 2) If he wanted the produce to come into contact with the liquid. As long as one of these is true, the produce is susceptible. Evidently, the people of Mahoz, a sandy region (see Mishnah Arakhin 3:2), were doing this their whole lives without knowing that this would cause their food to be susceptible. Poor guys!" + ], + [ + "If one moistened [produce] with drying clay: Rabbi Shimon says: if there was still in it dripping liquid, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if there was not, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Shimon says that in this case the produce is susceptible only if the drying clay is sufficiently wet that it actually drips. If not, it is not susceptible.", + "If one sprinkled his threshing-floor with water, he need not be concerned lest wheat be put there and it become moist. The assumption is that by the time he puts wheat down on his threshing floor it will already be dry enough such that the wheat will not become moist and susceptible to impurity. This is probably because a threshing floor is outside, while the house is obviously inside.", + "If one gathered grass with the dew still on it in order to moisten wheat with it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, But if his intention was for this purpose, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The intention here was to moisten the produce with the moisture from the grass. The dew was incidental to his intentions so it doesn't cause the produce to be susceptible. However, if he intended to use the dew to make the produce moist, it does become susceptible.", + "If one carried wheat to be milled and rain came down upon it and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped [on his way]. In this case the produce is only susceptible if he was happy that the rainwater came down upon it. The produce is not automatically susceptible because he didn't put it there actively. Rabbi Judah says that there is simply no way a person won't be happy if the rainwater comes down on his wheat. I'm assuming this makes it easier to mill. Therefore, we can't gauge its susceptibility by whether he is happy. Rather, in order for it to be susceptible he must actively do something to make it susceptible, such as stop walking so that more rain can come down upon the wheat before he brings it to the mill." + ], + [ + "If his olives were put on the roof and rain came down upon them and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to the first opinion the olives are susceptible to impurity as long as the person is happy that the rainwater came upon them. If he wanted them to stay dry, they are not susceptible. Again, his inner thoughts are what determine the susceptibility of the produce.", + "Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he plugged up the gutter or if he shook the water [onto the olives]. As he did in yesterday's mishnah, Rabbi Judah says that a person will always be happy when rainwater comes upon his olives. Therefore, in order for them to be susceptible he must physically do something to get the rainwater on them. There are two possibilities. Either he stops up the gutter so that the roof fills up with water, or he shakes water onto the olives." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with situations in which Rabbi Judah says that one can't help but be happy about his produce getting wet.", + "If donkey-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks [filled with produce] fell into the water and they were happy about it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if they turned over [the sacks]. If the donkey drivers were happy about their produce getting wet, it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah responds that since they will obviously be happy about the produce getting wet, there must be something more. For the produce to be susceptible he must turn over the sack so it gets wet.", + "If one's feet were full of clay, similarly, the feet of his beast, and he crossed a river and he was happy about it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped and rinsed off his [feet] or those of his [domesticated] beast. If he is happy about his feet or his animal's feet getting wet (and thereby cleaned off) by the river then the water that is on them will make produce susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says that the water on his or his domesticated beast's feet does not make produce susceptible unless he stops in the river to wash off his feet.", + "But with an unclean [beast] it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness. However, when it comes to unclean animals, it doesn't matter whether he stops to wash his feet or not. The water will in any case make produce susceptible because he will always be happy about his feet or his animal's feet getting cleaned by the river. I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck. Albeck states that the difference between clean and unclean animals, and why one must wash off the feet of the former for the water to make produce susceptible, is not clear. The meaning of this mishnah has been lost." + ], + [ + "If one lowered wheels or the gear of oxen into water at the time of the hot east wind in order that they might become tightened, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. The person brings some wooden wheels or oxen gear down to the river to soak them in water so that they will tighten (seems like this means to expand, thereby tightening the parts) because it is so dry outside. The water that clings to them when he removes them will cause susceptibility to impurity. This is because he intended to use this water.", + "If one took down a beast to drink, the water which came up on its mouth comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but that which came up on its feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If he intended that its feet should be washed, even the water that came up on its feet comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. At the time of footsoreness or of threshing it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness. In this case he intended the water to go into the mouth of his beast, so it does causes susceptibility. But if he didn't intend to wash off the animal's feet, then the water attached to the feet does not cause susceptibility. However, there are two occasions in which we assume that he wanted the feet to be washed off. First, if the animal has some affliction, \"footsoreness,\" then he must have wanted its feet to be washed off. Alternatively, when he is using the animal for threshing, it can be assumed that he wanted to cool down its feet and the water causes susceptibility.", + "If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor took it down, even though his intention was that its feet should be washed, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention. These three categories of people are not legally capable of having intent. Therefore, in order for them to make the water cause susceptibility they would have to actually do something to the water, like put it in a bucket and then use it to wash the animal's feet. Merely being happy that it washed off the animal's feet is not sufficient." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If one bent down to drink, the water which came up on his mouth or on his moustache comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But [what came up] on his nose or on his head or on his beard does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. When one drinks water from a river there is no way to avoid getting one's mouth or mustache wet. Therefore, the water that comes up on his mouth or mustache is, in a sense, something he wanted, because without it, he couldn't drink. It will therefore cause susceptibility. But he didn't need to get his nose, head or beard wet. Therefore, the water that comes up with these parts of the body does not cause susceptibility.", + "If one drew water with a jar, the water which came up on its outside, or on the rope which was wound round its neck, or on the rope which was needed for its use, comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. How much rope is needed for its use? Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: a handbreadth. When he lets the jar down into the cistern to bring up water, these parts of the jar/rope will certainly get wet. Therefore, the water on them will cause susceptibility. But he really only needs enough rope to lower the jug down into the cistern. Since he could lean down and fill the jug and only have a small bit of rope get wet, he doesn't really need the rest to become wet. Therefore, the water on the rest of the rope does not cause susceptibility.", + "If he put the jar under the rain-pipe, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. In this case, he wants the water to fall into the bucket and if he were to place it correctly there would be no rain on the outside the bucket. Therefore, any water on the outside of the jar does not cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "If rain came down upon a person, even if he was unclean with a father of impurity, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; The assumption the Mishnah makes is that a person does not want water to come down on his head. Therefore, the rainwater that falls on him remains pure, even if he is totally impure by being a \"father of impurity\" (for instance, he came into contact with a dead body).", + "But if he shook it off, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. However, once he shakes the water off his body, it now causes produce to be susceptible to impurity because it has been intentionally removed from its \"source,\" which in this case, is his body.", + "If one stood under a rain-pipe to cool himself or to wash himself, [the water falling on him] is unclean if he is unclean; If he is clean, it [only] comes under the law of if water be put. In this case he intentionally wanted the water to fall on him. Therefore, if he is unclean, the water becomes unclean. It also causes produce to be susceptible to impurity (unclean water always causes produce to be susceptible, but it doesn't transmit impurity to non-sacred food). If he is clean then the water is not yet unclean in and of itself. However, because he wanted it to come onto his body, it does make produce susceptible. Again, we see here an excellent example of how intent dictates purity/impurity. If he intends to get wet, the water is impure or causes susceptibility." + ], + [ + "If one inclined a dish against a wall that it might be rinsed [by rainwater], it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Again, the whole issue here is intent, as it is generally in these mishnayot. If he intended for the dish to get rinsed off, then the water does cause susceptibility.", + "But if in order that the wall might not be damaged, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But if he only put the dish up against the wall so that it would protect the wall, then the water has not been \"used\" so it doesn't cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "A jar into which a leak [from a roof] fell: Bet Shammai say: it should be broken. But Bet Hillel say: it may be emptied out. The roof leaks into a jar full of produce. Clearly this was not something that the owner would have wanted. Thus, at this point the water has not made the produce susceptible to impurity. The problem is how can he get the water out without then making the produce susceptible? According to Bet Shammai he really can't. Because once he tilts it over to the side the water will go from one side to the other and since this is something he wants, the produce will now be susceptible. The only way to get all the produce out without it becoming susceptible is to break the jar. Bet Hillel says that as long as the water is in the jar, it is not something he wants and it won't make the produce susceptible.", + "But they agree that one may put out his hand and take produce from it and they are insusceptible to uncleanness. However, both houses agree that as long as he doesn't shift the water around to pour it out, the produce will not be susceptible. He can reach his hand in and take out produce and it will remain insusceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday's mishnah dealt with water from a roof that falls into a jar of produce. Today's mishnah deals with water that falls into a tub.", + "A tub into which a like [from a roof] fell, the water which splashed out or ran over does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The water in the tub and even the water that flows or splashes out of the tub does not cause susceptibility because in this case (unlike the case in section three) he didn't put it there in order to collect it.", + "If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water: Bet Shammai say: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to Bet Shammai, once he lifts up the tub in order to pour out the water, he gives significance to the water because he is thinking about what to do with it. Therefore, it will now cause susceptibility to impurity. Bet Hillel says that even in this case the water does not cause susceptibility.", + "If one placed the tub in order that the leak [from the roof] should fall into it: Bet Shammai say: the water that splashes out or runs over comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. In this case, he intentionally put the tub under the roof so that the water would fall in. Both houses would agree that the water in the tub does cause susceptibility because that is where he intended the water to go. The houses disagree concerning the water that spills or splashes out. According to Bet Shammai since he wanted the water to go into the tub, the water that goes in and then splashes out does cause susceptibility. Bet Hillel says that since this water did not end up in the tub, where he wanted it to go, it does not cause susceptibility.", + "If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water, both agree that it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once he lifts up the tub to pour out the water, the water retains its ability to cause susceptibility. The difference here is that he intentionally removed the water, whereas in section three it just spilled or splashed out.", + "If one immersed vessels or washed his garment in a cavern, the water that came up on his hands comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but what came up on his feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Eliezer says: if it was not possible for him to go down into the cavern without soiling his feet, what came up on his feet also comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Since he needed to get his hands wet to immerse the vessel, the water that clings to his hands does cause susceptibility. But theoretically he could immerse the vessel without getting his feet wet or dirty, so the water that clings to his feet does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Eliezer adds a caveat that if there was no way to immerse the vessel without getting his feet wet and dirty then the water that clings to his feet also causes susceptibility. As a reminder, when someone does something that will necessarily cause him or part of him, or even his things to get wet, the water that clings to him is something he desired because he knew that he would get wet. But if he didn't need to get wet, and also wouldn't have wanted to do so, then the contact with the water is not to his wishes and the water does not cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "A basket full of lupines placed in a mikveh, one may put out his hand and take lupines from it and they remain clean. In this case the basket was not put into the mikveh in order to rinse off the lupines. As long as the water in the mikveh remains connected to the mikveh it does not cause produce to become susceptible. And when he removes the lupines (a type of bean) he didn't want the water to come out with them (he didn't intend to rinse them off) so that water also does not cause susceptibility.", + "But if he lifted them out of the water, those that touch the basket are unclean, but the rest of the lupines are clean. However, if he lifts the basket out of the water then the water on the sides of the basket does cause impurity because this water is something he would have wanted it cleans the sides of the basket. Therefore, any lupines that touch the sides of the basket are susceptible. The rest of the lupines are still not susceptible because the water that touched them is not something he wanted.", + "If there was a radish in a cavern, a niddah may rinse it and leave it clean. But if she lifted it, however little, out of the water, it becomes unclean. The water in the cavern is still in its source. Therefore it does not cause susceptibility. A niddah could put the radish in the water and it would remain clean. However, as soon as she removes it, even a little bit, the water causes the radish to be susceptible to impurity because the water has been removed from it source, and this was something the woman would have wanted (she put it in there to rinse it off). Thus we see the difference in this mishnah between intentionally washing off, such as the case of the radish, and unintentional washing off. Only in the first case does the water that clings to the produce cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "If produce fell into a channel of water, and one whose hands were unclean put out his hands and took it, his hands become clean and the produce [also] remains clean. By putting his hands into the channel of water, he has purified them, assuming that only his hands were unclean (like netilat yadayim). The produce has not been made susceptible to impurity because he didn't intentionally put the produce into the water.", + "But if his intention was that his hands should be rinsed, his hands become clean and the produce comes under the law of ‘if water be put.’ If he intends to rinse the produce off, the produce is clearly susceptible to impurity. His hands are in any case purified by having been put in the water." + ], + [ + "If a pot full of water was placed in a mikveh, and a person who was unclean by a father of impurity put his hand into the pot, it becomes unclean. The pot in this mishnah is made of earthenware, which does not become pure by having been put in a mikveh. If a person who is a \"father of impurity,\" meaning he has a high level of impurity (for instance, contact with a dead body or with a sheretz), puts his hand into the pot, he defiles the pot.", + "But if [he was unclean] by a \"touch of defilement,\" the pot remains clean. However, if the person putting his hand in the pot has a lower degree of impurity, meaning he touched someone who is a \"father of impurity,\" then the pot remains clean for such a person does not defile vessels. Only a \"father of impurity\" defiles vessels. The water remains clean as well, for the water is in the mikveh.", + "But any of the other liquids [contained in the pot] becomes unclean, for water cannot purify the other liquids. However, any other liquid that might be in the pot (oil, for instance) does become impure and then it will defile the pot. The water of the mikveh purifies only water, not other liquids (see Mikvaot 10:6). See also Kelim 8:4, where the irony of this situation was discussed." + ], + [ + "If one drew water through a kilon (a pump-, it causes susceptibility to uncleanness for three days. A \"kilon\" is a pump-beam used to draw water from a deep well. If produce becomes wet through contact with water in the pump the produce is susceptible for up to three days after the pump has been used. For three days we can assume any water in there that was drawn from the well hasn't dried up and therefore it causes susceptibility. After three days, we can assume that the water pumped from the well dried up and that the water found in there currently came from elsewhere, and does not cause susceptibility.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: if it was dried, it at once does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness; but if it was not dried, it causes susceptibility even for thirty days. Rabbi Akiva says that if we know that the kilon was dried, then even if produce comes into contact with water in there immediately thereafter, we can assume that the moisture was not from water drawn from the well. But if the kilon has not been dried, then the assumption is that the water in it was pumped from the well and it will cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "If [unclean] liquids fell upon wood and rain came down upon it and [the rain water] exceeded [the liquids] in quantity, they are clean. Two liquids fall on this wood rain and unclean liquids. Rain does not cause susceptibility to impurity, unless one wants something to get wet. Unclean liquids do cause susceptibility. If the rain water is greater in quantity than the unclean water, the wood remains pure.", + "If he took [the wood out] so that rain would come down upon it, they are unclean even though [the rain water] exceeded in quantity. If he wanted the wood to get wet, then the rainwater does cause it to be susceptible. Since unclean water fell on the wood, the wood is now unclean. We should note that others explain that the water wasn't unclean, just that it caused susceptibility to impurity. Therefore, the wood wouldn't be actually unclean. It would only be susceptible to impurity.", + "If [the wood] had absorbed unclean liquids, even if he took the wood outside in order that rain should come down upon it, it is clean. But one may not light the wood in an oven except with clean hands. Rabbi Shimon says: if the wood was moist and then he lit it, and the liquids that came out of it exceeded in quantity the liquids which it had absorbed, they become clean. In this case, the wood absorbed the unclean liquid and this liquid can no longer be seen. The wood was therefore never susceptible to impurity. When the rain comes down upon it, it is not defiled, even if he took the wood outside so that it would get wet. However, when he puts the wood into the oven to light it he should make sure his hands are pure. If his hands are impure, his hands will defile the liquids on the wood and then the liquid on the wood could defile the oven. Rabbi Shimon says that if the wood was moist (meaning freshly cut) and then he lit it in the oven and more water came out then the quantity that it absorbed from the impure water, then the impure water that comes out is considered clean. Don't even ask me how one would practically measure such a thing, I have no idea." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One who immersed himself in a river and then there was in front of him another river and he crossed it, the second [water] purifies the first [water].
If his fellow pushed him in during exercise or his beast [pushed him in], the second [water] purifies the first [water].
But if [he did it] out of playfulness, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.
Section one: When he gets out of the first river, the water that remains on his body causes produce to be susceptible to impurity, because he intentionally went into the river to bathe. Then he has to cross another river but he doesn't need this river to bathe. The water from the second river does not cause susceptibility because he didn't want to get wet, he just wanted to cross. The water on him from the second river therefore purifies, or causes not to make susceptible, the water from the first river.
Section two: A person comes up out of the water after bathing. Then he gets pushed in again, either because he and his friend were exercising or his animal pushes him in. The second time in the river is not something he wanted, so this water \"purifies\" the water that was on him from the first time. Note that here he goes into the same river twice the water from the first time does cause susceptibility but the water from the second time does not.
However, if he and his friend were just playing around, then entering the water is something that they wanted. Therefore, this water too causes susceptibility. Again, it is all a matter of intent." + ], + [ + "One who swam in water, the water that splashed out does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if it was his intention to splash his friend, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Since the person did not intend to splash water, the water that is splashed out does not cause susceptibility. However, if he intends to splash the water on his friend, it does cause susceptibility.", + "If one made a ‘bird’ in the water, neither [the water] that splashed out nor what remained in it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. A \"bird\" is according to Albeck some kind of floating toy. In this case, he didn't want water to splash out nor did he want water to get into his toy. So this water does not cause susceptibility. The water on the outside of the bird will cause susceptibility because he wanted the bird-toy to get wet." + ], + [ + "Produce onto which a leak [from a roof] fell and he mixed it up in order that it might become dry [quickly]: Rabbi Shimon says: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The water from the leaky roof itself doesn't make the produce susceptible to impurity because he didn’t want it there. However, according to Rabbi Shimon, if he mixed the produce up so that the water would be absorbed into it, the produce is susceptible. Although he didn't originally want the produce to get wet, he did want the water to be absorbed into it. This is sufficient intent for the produce to be susceptible. The other sages say that since he didn't want the produce to get wet in the first place, it is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses one who uses a stick to measure a cistern. Does the water that comes up with the stick cause produce to be susceptible to impurity?", + "One who measures a cistern whether for its depth of for its breadth, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put' the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Tarfon says that since the stick will likely get wet, even if he is only measuring the breadth, in essence he wanted it to get wet. Without getting it wet, he would not have been able to measure the cistern. Therefore, no matter whether he is measuring the length or the depth, the water causes susceptibility.", + "But Rabbi Akiva says: if [it was measured] for its depth, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but if for its breadth, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Akiva says that only if he is measuring for depth does the water cause susceptibility for in this case he needs to see the mark that the water makes on the stick, i.e. how high it goes. When measuring for breadth, even though it gets wet, he doesn't need to see the mark and therefore it doesn't cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "If one put his hand or his foot or a reed into a cistern in order to check whether it had any water, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if to ascertain how much water it had, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. In the first case he just wants to see if there is any water in the cistern, but he doesn't need to see how deep the cistern is. Since he doesn't need to see the mark that it makes on his foot, hand or reed (see Rabbi Akiva's opinion in yesterday's mishnah), the water is not \"to his will\" and it doesn't cause susceptibility. However, if he does need to check how much water is in the cistern, then the water that comes up on his hand, foot or reed does cause susceptibility, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If one threw a stone into a cistern to check whether it had any water, [the water] that was splashed up does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, and also [the water] that is on the stone is clean. In this case, he didn't want to bring up any water or cause any splash. He just wanted to hear the sound of the rock hitting the water. Therefore, the water that does come up and the water that is on the rock (if half of it is sticking out of the water) does not cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "One beats upon a hide: If outside the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; Inside the water, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The hide referred to in this mishnah was laundered, probably in a large body of water, and now the person is beating on it to get the dirty water out. If he does this outside of the body of water, then the water that sprays out does cause susceptibility, because he wants this water to come out. But if he stands in the water and hits on the hide, then he doesn't really care if the water comes out, because new water will come in. In other words, standing outside the water is a way to get it dry but standing inside the water will not make it dry.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even inside the water it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the water should come off together with the filth. Rabbi Yose says that even if he is standing inside the water, the water that splashes out causes susceptibility because he does want that water to come out of the hide in order to clean the hide. Thus even though the hide remains wet, the water that comes out is something he wants." + ], + [ + "The water that comes up into a ship or into the bilge or on the oars does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.
The water that comes up in snares, nets, or in fishing nets does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if he shook them out it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’.
One who leads a ship out into the Great Sea in order to forge its bolts, or one who a nail out into the rain in order to forge it, or one who puts a brand out in the rain in order to extinguish it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.
Sections one and two: In all of these cases, the water that comes up onto various parts of the boat or its accoutrements does not cause susceptibility. However, if he shakes them out to get the water out, the water does cause susceptibility because he wanted to move it.
Section three: In these cases someone put something into the water in order to achieve some goal: to forge the metal, to strengthen the wood of the boat, or to cool off a brand. Since in all of these cases he wanted it the item to get wet, the water does cause susceptibility.
The Great Sea refers to the Mediterranean." + ], + [ + "[Water on] the covering of tables or on the matting of bricks does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; A person put a covering on a table or on a pile of bricks to protect them from the rain and sun. If the covering gets wet, the water does not cause susceptibility because he didn't want it there.", + "But if they were shaken, it does come under the law of ‘it water be put’. However, as in yesterdays' mishnah, if he shakes the coverings off to remove the water, then since he wanted to move the water, it does cause susceptibility to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the case of liquid being poured from a top vessel to a lower vessel. The lower vessel has impure liquids, or liquids that cause susceptibility. The mishnah rules that with a few exceptions the impurity of the lower vessel's liquids does not flow upwards to the higher vessel.\nWe should note that while this seems to be a boring, technical subject, this very subject was the source of a bitter debate between the Pharisees and the Dead Sea Sect. The latter group wrote a letter called \"Miktzat Maase Torah\" or \"The Halakhic Scroll\" in which they complain that the leaders in Jerusalem are not observing Jewish law correctly. Among their complaints is the claim that those Jews in Jerusalem purify the \"pouring flow\" they use the same Hebrew word as is found in the Mishnah. In other words, archaeologists have found and reconstructed the historical basis of this Mishnah and what looked like simply another detail in a sea of details, was actually a real topic in the Second Temple period, one that was hotly contested by two rival groups. People split apart their communities over issues like this. I don't know if you find this fascinating, but I do! [This topic was also covered in Toharot 8:9].", + "A flow pouring [from one vessel to another] is clean, except [the flow] of honey of ziphim bees and honey batter. The upper liquids remain clean except in the case of honey. Since honey is thick, the rabbis consider it to be attached to the lower liquid.", + "Bet Shammai say: also [the flow of] thick pottage of split beans, because it thickens up backwards. Bet Shammai rules slightly more strictly. A thick pottage of split beans will also convey impurity from below to above." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with the purity of clean water that is being poured into impure water.", + "One who pours hot water into hot water, or cold water into cold water, or hot water [poured] into cold water remains clean; But from cold water into hot water, the [cold water] becomes unclean. If one pours from cold water into hot water, the heat of the impure hot water rises into the cold water and causes it to be impure. It seems that the sages think that the lower hot water might raise the temperature of the upper cold water. Since it has a physical effect, it also has a defiling effect. However, in all other cases, the upper water remains pure. In the case of hot water being poured into hot water, since the upper water will not rise in temperature due to the lower water, it remains pure. Again, simple contact through the flow does not cause the impurity to flow from below to above.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: even in the case of hot water poured into hot water it becomes unclean if the strength of the heat of the lower [water] is greater than that of the upper [water]. Rabbi Shimon says that if the lower one is hotter than the upper one, it too will defile the upper one, even if the upper one is also hot. The principle is that if the lower one could heat up the upper one, the impurity of the bottom contaminates the purity of the upper." + ], + [ + "If a woman whose hands were clean stirred an unclean pot and her hands perspired, they become unclean. We can assume that the liquid on the woman's wet and sweaty hands comes from the liquid in the pot and therefore her hands are unclean.", + "If her hands were unclean and she stirred a clean pot and her hands perspired the pot becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose says: only if her hands dripped. In this case, since her hands sweated due to the heat of the pot, we look at the hot liquid in the pot as if it was connected to the liquid in her hands. Just as the liquid on her hands is unclean, so too the liquid in the pot has become unclean. Rabbi Yose disagrees and doesn't consider the liquid in the pot to be connected to her hands. The liquid in the pot is impure only if the liquid from her hands drops back into the pot.", + "One who weighs grapes with a balance, the wine in the scale is clean until it is poured into a vessel. Behold, this is like baskets of olives and grapes when they are dripping [with sap]. A person weighs grapes by putting them into a basket on a balance. Some liquid, called here wine although it is not yet wine, drips out into the basket. This liquid is clean and does not cause susceptibility to impurity until it is poured into a vessel. This is because he doesn't want the liquids to come out while the grapes are still being weighed, just as he doesn't want the liquids to come out of olives or grapes while they are still in the basket (we will return to this subject in 6:8)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One who carries his produce up to the roof because of maggots, and dew came down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if he intended for this to happen, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. This person carries his produce up to the roof because he hopes that the maggots that got into his produce will go out there. He doesn't intend for the produce to become wet. Therefore, the dew that comes down on it does cause it to be susceptible to impurity. However, if he intentionally brings it up to the roof so that it will get wet, it does cause susceptibility.", + "If a deaf-mute, or a person not of sound senses, or a minor carried it up, although he expected that dew should come down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention. This section is one of the clearest statements with regard to intent found in the entire Mishnah. These three categories of people are understood as not having the mental awareness sufficient for their action to have intent (we have seen this many times throughout the Mishnah). Therefore, we judge their actions by themselves, without resort to assumptions of intent. Since bringing produce up to the roof is not sufficient for it to become susceptible to impurity, the produce remain unsusceptible." + ], + [ + "One who carries up to the roof bundles [of vegetables] or cakes of figs or garlic so as to keep them fresh, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Since he carried his vegetables or other such items up to the roof only to let them air out and not so that they would get wet, they do not become susceptible to impurity if dew falls on them.", + "All bundles [of vegetables] in the market places are unclean. Rabbi Judah declares them clean if they are fresh. Rabbi Meir said: Why did they declare them unclean? Only because of liquid from the mouth. The assumption is that the sellers in the marketplace moisten their vegetables to keep them fresh and make them look more appetizing (supermarkets still do this with their mist machines). In the marketplace impure people might touch them. Therefore, when one buys vegetables from the market, one has to assume that they are impure. Rabbi Judah says that sellers don't throw water over fresh vegetables, so they are considered clean because they were never made susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir disagrees as to why they declared bundles of vegetables to be unclean. Bundles come untied and when they do a person uses his mouth to moisten the ties so they can be retied. The assumption is that the person who does this is impure and this moisture from the mouth is what causes them to be defiled. So even fresh ones, ones that have never had water put on them, are impure.", + "All coarse and fine flours of the market places are unclean. The wheat used to make flour is moistened before it is ground up. This moistening causes it to be susceptible to impurity. In the marketplace we have to assume that anyone might have touched the flour, including impure people. Therefore, it must be assumed to be impure. Outside of the marketplace impure people won't necessarily be touching the flour so it remains pure.", + "Crushed wheat, groats, and pearl-barley are unclean everywhere. These crushed grains are frequently touched, unlike flour and fine flour which not as many people will touch. Since people touch them everywhere, not just in the market, they are always considered impure." + ], + [ + "All eggs are presumed to be clean except those of sellers of liquids. But if they sold with them dry produce, they are clean. Eggs sold anywhere are presumed to be clean unless they are sold by sellers who also sell liquids. If the person also sells liquids we can assume that he touched the eggs with wet hands. This would have made them susceptible to impurity. Then when an impure person in the marketplace touched them, they would become defiled. We should note again that defiled eggs can be eaten. The only real relevance would be for a person who only wants to eat pure food. However, if the person who sold liquids sold the eggs near dry food we can assume he would dry his hands off first because he wouldn't want the dry food to get wet. Therefore the eggs can be assumed not to have come into contact with liquid.", + "All fish are presumed unclean. While alive, fish are not susceptible to impurity (this is true of all animals). However, when a fisher kills the fish there is still water on it. This water causes it to be susceptible to impurity. When impure people touch the fish, it becomes impure.", + "Rabbi Judah says: pieces of aylatit and Egyptian fish which arrives in a basket, and Spanish tunny, these may be presumed clean. According to Rabbi Judah, these types of fish live long after they have been caught. By the time they die there will be no water left on them. Since they are not again moistened, they were not made susceptible to impurity.", + "All kinds of brine may be presumed unclean. The brine that comes out of fish is mixed with water. This makes it susceptible to impurity. Since we can assume that an impure person touched it, it is assumed to be impure.", + "Concerning all these an am ha-aretz may be trusted when he declares them to be clean, except in the case of small fish, since they are usually stored with any am ha-aretz. In all of the cases discussed above, eggs, fish and brine, an am haaretz, a person who doesn't generally observe the laws of purity, is believed to say that the food has not come into contact with water and therefore it has not become susceptible to impurity. The only exception is small fish which, according to the mishnah, are often left with another am haaretz. Since the am haaretz who says they are clean cannot know if the other am haaretz defiled them or got them wet, we can't believe the first am haaretz.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: clean brine into which water fell in any quantity must be deemed unclean. If there is brine that we know to be clean because there is no water in it and then even the smallest amount of water falls in, that small amount of water makes the brine susceptible. We might have thought that since the brine is also liquid, the small amount of water is nullified. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov teaches that it is not." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nFinally, when we're at last nearing the end of the tractate Makhshirin, the Mishnah lists the liquids that cause susceptibility to impurity. This is the subject of the remainder of the tractate.\nI should note that there are various midrashim and explanations as to why some liquids cause impurity whereas others do not.", + "There are seven liquids: dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk and bees’ honey. If one of these seven liquids comes into contact with food, it makes the food susceptible to impurity.", + "Hornets’ honey does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness and may be eaten. Hornet's honey is not in the same category as bees' honey. Only the latter causes susceptibility. However, any honey is kosher the only kosher food to come from an unkosher animal." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with sub-categories of the seven arch-categories found above in mishnah four.", + "Derivatives of water are: the liquids that come from the eye, from the ear, from the nose and from the mouth, and urine, whether of adults or of children, whether [its flow is] conscious or unconscious. Various liquids emitted from the body are categorized as water.", + "Derivatives of blood are: blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are clean, and blood from bloodletting for drinking. The blood referred to in mishnah four is the blood that comes out of an animal when it is kosherly slaughtered. The mishnah adds that blood from bloodletting that he intends to give to another animal to drink also causes susceptibility. In all of these cases he wanted or needed the blood to come out of the animal or person. However, blood that simply comes out due to injury is not desirable and therefore does not cause susceptibility.", + "Whey is like milk, Whey, the milky substance left after making cheese, is considered to be like milk and does cause susceptibility.", + "And the sap of olives is deemed like oil, since it is never free from oil, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: even though it contains no oil. The sap that comes out of olives causes susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says that this is because we can be assured that there is some oil in it. Rabbi Meir says that even if we know that there is no oil in it, it still causes susceptibility because a person wants this sap to come out of his olives.", + "The blood of a sheretz is like its flesh, it causes uncleanness but does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness, and there is nothing else like it. Blood of a sheretz causes impurity as does the flesh of the sheretz. However, it does not cause susceptibility to impurity. This means that if this blood falls on food that is not yet susceptible, the food remains pure. The blood of a sheretz is unique in that it is the only blood that joins with the flesh to create the minimum measure that causes impurity. In other words, if there is a lentil's worth of flesh and blood there is enough sheretz to cause impurity." + ], + [ + "The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness]; The fluids in this mishnah are both impure and they make food susceptible to impurity. Two for the price of one!", + "The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine; A zav is a person with some sort of unnatural genital flow (i.e. not semen and not menstrual blood). If a zav emits the fluids listed here they cause food to become impure immediately, even if it hadn't previously come into contact with water.", + "A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant. Both of these types of blood cause impurity and susceptibility.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Eliezer holds that semen does not cause susceptibility. Therefore food will have to first be made susceptible for contact with semen to cause it to be impure.", + "R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah hold that menstrual blood does not cause susceptibility.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient and he holds that even the blood of a corpse doesn't cause susceptibility. The Talmud explains that in all of these cases since the substance is referred to by two words (shikhvat zera is the Hebrew for semen, dam niddah for menstrual blood and dam hamet for blood of a corpse) the fluid doesn't cause susceptibility. Only fluids referred to by one word blood, milk, etc. cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "The following cause neither uncleanness nor susceptibility to uncleanness: These liquids don't cause either susceptibility or uncleanness. Some of them are still pretty yucky though.", + "Sweat, rotten secretion, excrement, blood issuing with any of these, liquid [issuing from a child born in the] eight month. Rabbi Yose says: except its blood. Rotten secretion is something like pus. Blood that comes out with pus or with excrement doesn't cause impurity or susceptibility. The rabbis considered a child born at 8 months to be one who would surely die. The child is in a sense considered dead even before he actually dies (remember they had no way to really care for such children). Liquid such as urine and spittle that comes from the child before he dies does not cause impurity or susceptibility, as it would for a viable child. Rabbi Yose says that the blood of such a child does cause impurity.", + "[The discharge from the bowels of] one who drinks the water of Tiberias even though it comes out clean. I guess drinking the waters of Tiberias will make you sick. While the water causes susceptibility once it passes through a person's body and comes out the other end (not as urine) even if it simply passed right through him, it doesn't cause susceptibility.", + "Blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are unclean, and blood from bloodletting for healing. As we learned in mishnah five, only the blood from slaughtering a clean animal causes susceptibility. Also blood from a bloodletting that he wants to let another animal drink. If he is just bloodletting for healing then it doesn't cause susceptibility.", + "Rabbi Eliezer declares these unclean. Rabbi Eliezer holds that all of these liquids do cause susceptibility.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: the milk of a male is clean. Evidently men can occasionally secrete small amounts of milk from their breasts. Rabbi Elazar says that such milk is pure it doesn't cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nLast mishnah of Makhshirin and the longest!\nThe argument here is over whether cow's milk renders produce susceptible even when its flow wasn't desired.", + "A woman's milk renders unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, but the milk of cattle renders unclean only if [its flow is] desired. This section lays down the rule concerning milk from a woman and milk from cattle. The rule is stricter with regard to the former even if she didn't desire its flow, it still causes susceptibility. When it comes to cattle milk (milk from a cow, sheep or goat) it causes susceptibility only if he wanted it.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: there is a kal vehomer argument here: if a woman's milk, which is specifically for infants, can render unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, all the more should the milk of cattle, which is for infants and adults, should render unclean both when [its flow is] desired and when it is not desired. The remainder of the mishnah is a long argument between the sages and Rabbi Akiva, who wishes to prove that cattle milk causes susceptibility even when its flow was not desired. He proves his point by saying that there is a kal vehomer argument, one made from by analogizing from the stricter to the more lenient case. Human milk is only for infants and nevertheless it causes susceptibility in all cases. All the more so should cattle milk which is for both human infants and human adults, cause susceptibility in all cases.", + "They said to him: No; a woman's milk renders unclean when [its flow is] not desired, because the blood issuing from her wound is unclean; but how could the milk of cattle render unclean when [its flow is] not desired, seeing that the blood issuing from its wound is clean? The other rabbis show that the rules governing a human are sometimes stricter than those governing an animal. Blood from a human wound causes susceptibility whereas blood from an animal wound does not. Therefore, there is no \"kal\" lenient or \"homer\" stringent when comparing humans to animals. The rules are simply different.", + "He said to them: I am stricter in the case of milk than in the case of blood, for if one milks for healing, [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood for healing, [the blood] is clean. Rabbi Akiva responds by finding saying that the rules governing milk are more stringent than the rules governing blood. One who milks not because someone needs to drink the milk but just to get the milk out for health reasons, the milk does not cause susceptibility. But one who blood lets for health reasons, the blood is clean. Therefore, we should be strict with regard to milk it causes susceptibility even if it was not desired.", + "They said to him: let baskets of olives and grapes prove it; for liquids flowing from them are unclean only when [the flow is] desired, but when [the flow is] not desired they are clean. The other rabbis resort to another analogy the liquids that flow from grapes and olives while they are still in the basket before they begin to be pressed. Such liquid doesn't cause susceptibility because he doesn't desire it. So too when it comes to cattle, if the milk comes out and is not wanted, it doesn't cause susceptibility.", + "He said to them: No; if you say [thus] of baskets of olives and grapes which are at first a solid food and at the end become a liquid, could you say [the same] of milk which remains a liquid from beginning to end? Of course, Rabbi Akiva has an answer. Olives and grapes are turning from solid food into liquid food and therefore when liquid comes out that he doesn't want, it doesn't cause susceptibility. The same cannot be said with milk which is always a liquid.", + "Thus far was the argument. That was the end of the historical argument between Rabbi Akiva. In sections 8 and 9, Rabbi Akiva begins to argue with his students, including Rabbi Akiva.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: from here on in we used to argue before him: let rain water prove it, for it remains a liquid from beginning to end, and renders unclean only when [its flow is] desired. Rabbi Shimon argues that rainwater should prove that milk renders unclean only when he desires its flow. Rainwater causes susceptibility only when he wanted it to get his food wet. Therefore, cattle milk, which is also a liquid from beginning to start, should do the same.", + "But he said to us: No; if you say [thus] of rain water, it is because most of it is intended not for human usage but for the soil and for trees, whereas most milk is intended for human usage. Rabbi Akiva points out that since most cattle milk is for human consumption, it is always considered a liquid, even when it wasn't desired. Rain is mostly not for drinking it is for watering the ground and for the trees. Therefore, cattle milk causes susceptibility no matter what. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Makhshirin! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Makhshirin was probably the most obscure topic you could ever imagine what liquids make food susceptible to impurity. I'll admit, it's not the topic you've dreamed about learning. Still there was one thing I found very interesting throughout the whole tractate the role that intent plays in matters of purity and impurity. As we've seen over and over again, things are pure or impure not just based on what happens to them, but based on the intent of the human being who owned the object or who performed the activity. The central halakhah in this tractate is that food is susceptible only if the person wanted it to come into contact with the liquid. Indeed, this opens a window to one of the largest issues in the entire mishnah how human intent actually affects the world. The rabbis believed that humans could affect the world not just by what they did but by their intent while doing it. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Zavim." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכשירין", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2db3e6201207212d39f9fefd0e9402a9fb24272 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,346 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Makhshirin", + "text": { + "intro": [ + "Introduction to Tractate Makhshirin", + "Our tractate is about liquids that come into contact with produce and thereby make it susceptible to impurity (I know, a topic you've been dying to learn about). ", + "Leviticus 11:34 reads: As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become unclean if it came into contact with water; as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become unclean if it was inside any vessel.", + "And verse 38 reads: But if water is put on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be unclean for you." + ], + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Any liquid which was desired at the beginning though it was not desired at the end, or which was desired at the end though it was not desired at the beginning, comes under the law of \"if water be put.\" For a liquid to make produce susceptible to impurity its contact with the produce has to be desired either at the beginning or the end. The \"beginning\" is when the liquid came into being, or was separated from its natural source. Rainfall begins when it comes from the sky. If while the rain is falling a person says or thinks to himself that he wants to use the water for some purpose, then the rain is \"desired.\" Alternatively, if he is happy that the rain fell on his produce, then the rain is desired. \"Not desired at the end\" means that too much rain fell on his produce. If it was desired at the end but not in the beginning means that at first he was not happy with the fact that water was falling on his produce. But then, at the end, he saw that this was good and he was happy. All's well that ends well, as they say. In either case, the produce is susceptible to impurity. It would only not be susceptible if he was never happy that it got on his produce.", + "Unclean liquids render unclean whether [their action] is desired or is not desired. Unclean liquids, those that have already been defiled in some way, make produce susceptible whether or not their contact is desired." + ], + [ + "If one shook a tree in order to cause food or something unclean to fall down from it, [the rain water dropping down from it] does not come under the law of ‘if water be put.' Since his intention was not to bring the rain down from the tree, but rather food or something else, such as an impure thing, the water that falls down does not cause produce to be susceptible to impurity. He doesn't want this water to fall down.", + "If [he shook the tree] in order to cause liquids to fall down from it: Bet Shammai says: both [the liquids] that fall down and [the liquids] that remain [on the tree] come under the law of ‘if water be put.' But Bet Hillel say: [the liquids] that fall down come under the law of ‘if water be put’, but [the liquids] that remain [on the tree] do not come under the law of ‘if water be put,' because his intention was that [the liquids] should drop down from all the tree. In this case, he shook the tree in order to cause the rain water to fall down. Bet Shammai rules that even the water that remains in the tree now causes produce to be susceptible because he wanted that water to fall down. In other words, even if his intention is not fulfilled, the water still causes impurity because he wanted it. Bet Hillel says that only the water that falls causes susceptibility because in the end, this is the water that he wanted." + ], + [ + "If one shook a tree and it fell on another tree, or a branch and it fell on another branch, and under them were seeds or vegetables [still] joined to the ground: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Shammai holds that even though the water fell on produce that was still attached to the ground, the water is now sufficient to make other produce susceptible to impurity. In other words, since the water has been intentionally removed from its original place, it now makes produce susceptible. Note that the produce on which it fell is not susceptible because produce attached to the ground is never susceptible. Bet Hillel holds that since the water fell on produce attached to the ground, it is not yet sufficient to make food susceptible. However, if after this the water fell subsequently onto other trees or other branches the water becomes ready to make food susceptible to impurity.", + "R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Yose Holikofri a man of Tivon: Be surprised if there is any liquid that according to the Torah causes susceptibility to uncleanness except one put it on with intention, for it is said: \"If water be put upon the seed.\" Rabbi Joshua holds that liquid causes produce to be susceptible only if it was intentionally put on to food. This is because he reads the verb \"be put upon\" with different vocalization, which yields, \"if one puts upon.\" In Hebrew the former is \"ki yutan\" whereas the latter is \"ki yiten\" the only difference between the two is in vocalization." + ], + [ + "If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to Bet Shammai, even if the water only moves from part of the bundle to another part, it still causes the water to make the produce susceptible to impurity. In contrast, Bet Hillel again rules leniently. Since the water has not left the bundle, it does not yet cause produce to be susceptible.", + "Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel argues with Bet Shammai from what they perceive to be an analogous case. If one has a stalk of some sort of produce and one shakes it and water drops from one leaf to another, all agree that the water has not yet been separated from its source such that it causes susceptibility to impurity. So too, if one shakes a bunch of produce it does not yet cause susceptibility. Bet Shammai says that the two situations are different, for when it comes to the stalk, it is only one piece of produce. The bundle contains many pieces of produce, and therefore we can perceive of the water as having left its original place and moving to another.", + "Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? Bet Hillel again argues against Bet Shammai. When one brings a sack of produce to the river so that water will soak out of the sack and flow into the river, we do not consider the produce to be susceptible because water flowed from the upper side of the bag to the lower side. So too, in the case of a bunch of produce, even if water flows from one part to the other, it is not susceptible.", + "But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness. However, Bet Hillel agrees that if the water flows from one sack to the other, that it does cause the lower sack to be susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose says that even in this case the water does not cause susceptibility because it has not yet been separated from its totality." + ], + [ + "If one rubbed a leek or pressed his hair or his garment, Rabbi Yose says: the liquid which came out comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but the liquid that remained does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the liquid should come out of all of it. There are two scenarios in this mishnah. In the first he rubs off water that fell onto a leek. The second is that he squeezed out his hair or his garment to get the liquid out of them. According to Rabbi Yose in both of these cases the liquid that comes out of his hair has been separated from its source so it can now cause food to be susceptible to impurity. However, the water that remains on the leek, hair or garment does not make food susceptible to impurity because his intention was only upon the water that would come out. This fits the opinion of Bet Hillel in mishnah two." + ], + [ + "If one blew on lentils in order to test whether they were good: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to Rabbi Shimon, the moisture that comes out of a person's mouth when he blows on the lentils does not count as a liquid. But the sages say it is a liquid and therefore the lentils are susceptible to impurity.", + "If one ate sesame with his finger, with regard to the liquid that was on his hand: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. A person wets his finger so he can eat sesame seeds by having them stick to his finger. Again, Rabbi Shimon does not consider this to be liquid such that the seeds are susceptible to impurity, but the other sages do.", + "If one hid his fruit in water from thieves, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once it happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig cakes in water from the robbers, and the sages declared that they were not susceptible to uncleanness. This person hid his produce in water only to protect it from thieves. Since he didn't really want the produce to get wet, it is not susceptible to impurity. The mishnah even includes a story of such a case occurring and the sages ruling that the produce remained insusceptible to impurity.", + "If one put his fruit in the stream of a river to make it come down with him, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Again, this person didn't want his produce to get wet, he just wanted to put it in the stream so that he could transport it. The produce remains insusceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with sweat when does it cause something to be susceptible to uncleanness and when does it not.", + "The sweat of houses, of cisterns, of ditches and caverns does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. Sweat from buildings and other structures, meaning the moisture formed on their outsides, has not been moved by a person and therefore it does not cause susceptibility to impurity.", + "A man's perspiration does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. Human perspiration similarly does not cause susceptibility.", + "If a man drank unclean water and perspired, his perspiration does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. The sweat that comes out of his body is not accorded the same status as the unclean water from which it comes, because he already ingested it. It counts as sweat and therefore it does not cause susceptibility.", + "If he entered into drawn water and perspired, his perspiration causes susceptibility to uncleanness. In this case, since he didn't ingest the water but rather bathed in it, his sweat is considered as if it came from the drawn water. Therefore, it causes susceptibility.", + "If he dried himself and then perspired, his perspiration does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. If he then dries himself, he has gotten rid of the water from the drawn water and his sweat is considered to be from his body. Therefore, it no longer causes susceptibility." + ], + [ + "The sweat of an unclean bath is unclean, The sweat that comes from an unclean bath of water has the same status as the water in the bath. It is unclean. It also causes susceptibility, for unclean liquids always cause susceptibility.", + "But that of a clean bath comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. The sweat of a clean bath is not inherently unclean, but it does cause susceptibility to impurity.", + "If there was a pool in a house, the house sweats because of it if the pool was unclean, the sweat of all the house which was caused by the pool is unclean. The purity of the sweat of a house with a pool in it depends upon the purity of the water in the pool. If the pool is unclean, then the sweat is unclean and will cause susceptibility. If the pool is clean, the sweat of the house is considered as coming from the pool and it will cause susceptibility. This is different from general sweat from a house which does not cause susceptibility, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah." + ], + [ + "Two pools, the one clean and the other unclean: The sweat near the unclean pool is unclean, And the sweat near the clean pool is clean, And what is at equal distance [from both pools] is unclean. Things that sweat and are closer to the unclean pool are considered unclean, for we assume that the sweat came from the unclean pool. The same is true in the opposite case. If something was right in the middle of the two, the ruling is stringent due to the doubt, and the sweat must be considered unclean.", + "Unclean iron was smelted with clean iron: If the greater part [came] from the unclean iron, it is unclean; If the greater part [came] from the clean iron, it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean. The mishnah now goes on to consider other cases which have the same literary structure as section one. This structure will continue through the end of the chapter, and will cover topics that diverge from the main topic at hand the ability of liquids to cause susceptibility to impurity. The first topic at hand concerns pure and impure iron that have been smelted together. The status follows the majority and if they are of equal amount, the rule is stringent.", + "Pots owned by Israelites and non-Jews used for passing water: If the greater part is from the unclean [urine], it is unclean; If the greater part is from the clean [urine], it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean. Jewish urine is considered clean but gentile urine is considered impure due to rabbinic law (see Niddah 4:3). In this case, if the mixture is equal, then the rule is lenient because the impurity of gentile urine is only derabanan (bet you never thought you'd be reading about that!).", + "Waste-water, in which rain had fallen: If the greater part consisted of the unclean water, it is unclean; If the greater part consisted of clean water, it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean. Waste-water is assumed to be impure. Again, the rule follows the majority and if they are of equal amount the rule is stringent.", + "When [is this the case]? When the waste-water came first; but if the rain water came before [the waste-water], it is unclean whatever the quantity [of the rain water]. The above is true if the waste-water was there first. In such a case, the rainwater went into the vessel against his wishes and therefore this water is not susceptible to impurity. If there is a majority of rainwater the whole vessel will be pure. However, if the rainwater went in first, then he was probably collecting it, and it went in to his desire. In such a case, the rainwater is susceptible to impurity. When any amount of waste-water falls in, it will defile it." + ], + [ + "If one flattened out his roof or washed his garment and rain came down upon it: There are two situations in this mishnah. The first is that one is flattening out his roof and he pours out waste water at on the completed roof to smooth it out. The second is laundering a garment. In both of these cases the water being used is impure. This water is then mixed in with rain water and the question is whether the water is impure such that when it falls on food it would defile it.", + "If the greater part consisted of the unclean water, it is unclean; If the greater part consisted of the clean water, it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean. As in the previous cases, the status of the water follows the majority. If it is half and half, then we rule strictly and it is unclean.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if the dripping increased, [it is clean]. If the dripping from the roof or the laundered garment increased after the rain flow, then we can assume that the rain water was greater than the impure water from flattening the roof or laundering the garment. In this case, any water that subsequently comes from the roof or garment will be considered pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA Jew is not permitted to benefit from work done for another Jew on Shabbat, but a Jew can benefit from work done for a non-Jew on Shabbat. If a Jew does forbidden work on Shabbat and another Jew wants to benefit from that work, he/she must wait after Shabbat however long it would take for that work to be done. For instance, if I make a roast on Shabbat (Heaven forbid!) and then my wife (who is Jewish) wants to eat it, she must wait after Shabbat however long it would take to make that roast.\nOur mishnah deals with a case where we don't know whether the work that was done on Shabbat was done for Jews or non-Jews.\nWe should note that it doesn't matter who did the work Jew or non-Jew. What matters is whether the work was done for a Jew or for a non-Jew.\nThis mishnah begins a series of mishnayot, all of which deal with a city in which there are some Jewish and some non-Jewish inhabitants.", + "A city in which Israelites and non-Jews dwell together and there was a bathhouse working on Shabbat: In this city there is a bathhouse that operates on Shabbat and the question is whether a Jew can go and bathe there immediately after Shabbat in water that was heated on Shabbat.", + "If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, one may bathe in it immediately [after the conclusion of the Shabbat]; If the majority were Israelites, one must wait until the water can be heated; If they were half and half, one must [also] wait until the water can be heated. If the majority of the residents of the city were non-Jews, then we can assume the water was heated on behalf of a non-Jew and one can bathe there right after Shabbat. If the majority were Jews then the water was probably heated for a Jew. In such a situation if the Jew bathed there immediately after Shabbat he would be deriving benefit from work done for a Jew on Shabbat. Therefore, he must wait a sufficient time after Shabbat for the water to have been heated. Then he can take a bath (always nice to take a bath after Shabbat). Again, if the amount of Jews and non-Jews is equivalent, the rule is strict.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if the bathhouse was small and there was there a [non-Jewish] authority, one may bathe in it immediately [after the conclusion of Shabbat]. If there was a small bathhouse and there was a non-Jewish, probably Roman, government located there, we can assume the water was heated for them (it's good to be the king, or the king's messengers). In this case a Jew could bathe there immediately after Shabbat, even if the majority of the city were Jews." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah, dealing with a city in which Jews and Gentiles live mixed.", + "If one found in that city vegetables sold [on Shabbat]: The person finds vegetables in such a city and doesn't know whether they were picked that day and transported by a Jew or by a non-Jew. If they were picked by a Jew then they are prohibited because it is prohibited for a Jew to pick vegetables on Shabbat.", + "If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, one may buy them immediately [after the conclusion of Shabbat]; If the majority were Israelites, one must wait until [vegetables] can arrive from the nearest place; If they were half and half, one must [also] wait until [vegetables] can arrive from the nearest place; This is the same as the clauses found in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If there was there a [non-Jewish] authority, one may buy them immediately [after the conclusion of Shabbat]. As in yesterday's mishnah, we learn here that if there are some non-Jewish authorities in town we can assume that the special resources (vegetables, warm bath water) were designated for them. In this case, the Jew can buy the vegetables immediately after Shabbat." + ], + [ + "If one found [an abandoned] child there: The mishnah continues to deal with a city composed of both non-Jews and Jews. A child is found, abandoned by his parents and we need to know whether to assume that the child is Jewish or not.", + "If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, it is considered a non-Jew; If the majority were non-Jews then in certain ways the child is treated as if s/he were non-Jewish. According to mishnaic commentaries based on the Talmud, we treat the child as non-Jewish and we are allowed to feed him/her non-kosher food.", + "If the majority were Israelites, it is considered an Israelite; If the majority were Israelites, the child is treated like a Jew. According to commentaries this means that we are obligated to return lost objects to the child (when s/he grows up and owns things), which as we learned in Bava Metzia and we will see again in tomorrow's mishnah, is obligatory only to fellow Jews.", + "If the majority were Israelites, it is considered an Israelite; If the town is evenly split, the child is considered Jewish. Again, the commentators limit this to a case of damages. If this child's ox damages a fellow Jew's ox, the child's ox only pays half damages, if it is an attested danger. Note that the ramifications of the child being considered Jewish were limited to monetary matters. The Talmud says that when it comes to matters of personal status, such as marital law, the child is considered to be a \"doubtful Jew.\" If he marries a Jewish woman, she is potentially married and would require a divorce document to marry someone else. He/she is not fully considered an Israelite until conversion.", + "If they were half and half, it is also considered an Israelite. Rabbi Judah says that it is not logical to simply follow the majority of people in the city. We need to look at who most likely abandoned their kids. So if the majority of abandoners are Jews, then the kid is considered a Jew, even if the majority of the town is non-Jews." + ], + [ + "If one found there lost property, The issue here is finding lost property. The rabbis obligated one to declare lost property that was found and return it to the owner if the owner could identify it. These halakhot are found in the second chapter of Bava Metzia. This obligation is only to a fellow Jew. One is not obligated to return property to a non-Jew, at least not according to the Mishnah. Later halakhah rectified this discrimination, as it did in many cases.", + "If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, he need not proclaim it; If the majority was not Jewish, then he need not proclaim that he found a lost object because he can assume that it belonged to a non-Jew.", + "If the majority were Israelites, he must proclaim it; If the majority were Jews he must proclaim it and if a Jew claims it, he would have to return it to him. This would make for quite an awkward situation if he proclaimed it and then it turned out to belong to a non-Jew.", + "If they were half and half, he must [also] proclaim it. If the split is 50/50 he must assume that it could belong to a Jew and he must proclaim it.", + "If one found bread there we must consider who form the majority of the bakers. The second half of the mishnah deals with bread that is found in the mixed city. The rabbis prohibited Jews from eating bread made by Gentiles, not because the bread is impure or not kosher, but in order to prevent assimilation. The first criterion is to follow the majority of bakers, as has been the rule in most of the previous mishnayot.", + "If it was bread of clean flour, we must consider who form the majority of those who eat bread of pure flour. However, if the bread is of a special kind, such as bread made of clean flour, we need to look at who makes clean flour bread. This is more expensive so it will be made probably by the upper class.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if it was coarse bread, we must consider who form the majority of those who eat coarse bread. Today coarse bread is the most expensive type of bread, but back then (and probably not too long ago), it was for the poorer folk. So Rabbi Judah adds that if the bread is of poor quality, i.e. it is coarse, then we can assume it was made by someone poor and we follow the majority of poor people." + ], + [ + "If one found meat there, we follow the majority of the butchers. A piece of meat is found lying somewhere in this mixed city. Today, most of us would not really consider eating a piece of meat just found lying around, even those of us who don't keep kosher. But back then meat was exceedingly rare and if it looked good enough to eat, why not. The mishnah says that if the majority of butchers slaughter their meat in a kosher manner, then a Jew can eat the meat. Note that the meat is assumed to come from a butcher because normal people did not store meat in their homes. So we don't need to know who were the majority of the people.", + "If it was cooked meat, we follow the majority of those who eat cooked meat. I find this section very interesting. At first sight, one might wonder who doesn't eat cooked meat? Do some people eat raw meat? However, when we think about it, the mishnah shows us something interesting about meat consumption in those days. Most people probably didn't eat meat at all. Only wealthy people would be considered \"those who eat cooked meat.\" So to figure out from whom the meat likely fell, we must consider who composes the majority of the wealthy people who eat cooked meat." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with finding produce in the mixed city and determining whether it needs to be tithed or not. Produce that has not been tithed generally may not be eaten once it is brought into one's home. However, under certain circumstances one may eat it while on the road.\nProduce that might or might not have been tithed is called demai. We'll discuss some of these rules here but for a fuller exposition, look at the Introduction to Demai, as well as the Introduction to Maasrot.", + "If one found produce on the road: If the majority [of the inhabitants] gathered produce into their homes, he is exempt [from tithes]; If [the majority gathered it] for selling in the market, he is liable [for tithes]; If they were half and half, the produce is demai. According to Maasrot 1:5 if a person was carrying produce to his home, he may eat of the produce untithed until he gets home. But if he was bringing it to market, it cannot be eaten untithed as long as the processing has been finished (which it assumedly has if it's being brought to the market). So what we need to determine here is whether the produce was being brought to market or being brought home. As with the other mishnayot, so too here we follow a majority. If the majority was bringing the produce to the market, then he must tithe what he found even if he is only eating of them in an extemporaneous fashion and not as part of a meal. In other words, we assume that this produce was being brought to market in which case all further eating is prohibited. If there is no majority, then the produce is deemed demai. He must tithe them even if he wants to eat them before he gets home.", + "A granary into which both Israelites and non-Jews put their produce, If the majority were non-Jews, [the produce must be considered] certainly untithed; If the majority were Israelites, [it must be considered] demai; If they were half and half, [it must be considered] certainly untithed, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: even if they were all non-Jews, and only one Israelite put his produce into the granary, [it must be considered] demai. There is a granary full of grain and we need to know whether it has been tithed or not. If the majority are non-Jews then we can be sure it has not been tithed. A Jew who eats such grain must certainly tithe it. If the majority are Israelites, then it might have been tithed. We can't know for sure because some Jews, perhaps many Jews, do not tithe. Therefore it is demai, which means that one must take out terumah, terumat maaser (the terumah taken from tithes) and maaser sheni. These must be removed because an Israelite cannot eat them. However, he does not have to take out first tithe or poor tithe, because these can be eaten by an Israelite (see Intro to Demai). If the numbers are evenly split, then Rabbi Meir assumes that it certainly hasn't been tithed. The sages disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that even if only one Jew puts grain into the granary, all of the grain must be considered demai and not certainly untithed produce. The sages hold that grain grown on land owned by non-Jews is not liable for tithes. If the granary was only non-Jewish grain, he wouldn't be obligated to tithe it at all. However, since one Jew puts his grain in there he must treat it as demai, because the sages hold that Jewish grain is not annulled in a greater quantity of non-Jewish grain." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nDuring the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the sabbatical cycle second tithe is taken out from produce. This tithe must be consumed in Jerusalem, or at least exchanged for money and separated in Jerusalem. In the third and sixth years the poor tithe is taken out and given to the poor. Seventh year produce is holy and it is forbidden to conduct business with it (i.e. sell it for a profit).\nOur mishnah deals with produce from the second year which are mixed with third year produce or other such mixtures.\nMakhshirin\nIf the produce of the second year exceeded in quantity the produce of the third year, or the produce of the third year exceeded the produce of the fourth year, or the produce of the fourth year exceeded the produce of the fifth year, or the produce of the fifth year exceeded the produce of the sixth year, or the produce of the sixth year exceeded the produce of the seventh year, or the produce of the seventh year exceeded the produce of the year after the conclusion of the seventh year, we follow the majority.\nIf half and half, the rule is stringent.", + " The rule here is quite simple we follow the majority of the produce. Note that some of these possibilities are not really important, since the produce of those two years has the same status. For instance, if fourth and fifth year produce are mixed up, it doesn't matter because one takes second tithe from both. The mishnah just runs through the whole list of possibilities.", + "If the mixture is evenly split, we follow the strictest possibility. So if we are not sure if second tithe or poor tithe should be taken out he would have to take out both, and bring the second tithe to Jerusalem (or redeem it for money) and give the poor tithe to the poor. If there is a possibility that the produce is sabbatical year produce, then it all must be treated with the appropriate sanctity and one could not engage in business with it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter three (finally) returns to the subject of our tractate when does contact with liquid cause food to be susceptible to impurity?", + "If a sack full of produce was put by the side of a river or by the side of the mouth of a cistern or on the steps of a cavern, and [the produce] absorbed water, all [the produce] which absorbed the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. A person put a sack of produce near a source of wetness, either a river, a cistern or a cavern in order for it to stay moist. The produce in the sack, even the side of the sack that didn't really get all that wet, has been made susceptible to impurity. This is because he wanted the produce to get wet.", + "Rabbi Judah says: all [the produce] which faced the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but all [the produce] which did not face the water does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah limits the susceptibility to the side of the sack that actually faced the water. This side absorbed the water so it is susceptible. The other side didn't really absorb any water so it is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "A jar full of produce which was put into liquids, or a jar full of liquids was put into produce and [the produce] absorbed, all [the produce] which absorbed comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. The jar is made of earthenware which will easily absorb water. It doesn't matter whether the jar has liquids and it is put into the produce or the jar has produce and it is put into liquids in all of these cases the produce that has absorbed any liquid is susceptible to impurity. This is true even of pulse (mostly beans) which is less absorbent than other produce such as grain.", + "Concerning what liquids were they speaking? Water, wine and vinegar; but all the other liquids do not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. This halakhah is limited to two of the 7 liquids that cause susceptibility: water and wine (vinegar is made of wine). The other liquids (we will see the full list in 6:4 dew, oil, blood, milk and honey are the other five) are thicker and will not be as easily absorbed. Therefore, they won't cause the produce to be susceptible.", + "Rabbi Nehemiah says pulse is insusceptible, because pulse does not absorb [liquids]. Rabbi Nehemiah says that pulse put in such a jar is not susceptible to impurity because it is less likely to absorb the liquid. In other words, whereas the previous opinion only limited the thicker, less absorbable liquids, Rabbi Nehemiah adds that the thicker less absorbent produce doesn't become susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "One who drew hot bread off the side of an oven and put it upon the mouth of a jar of wine: The bread mentioned here must be bread that was mixed with fruit juice which does not cause flour to be susceptible to impurity. [If the bread was already susceptible because it had been mixed with water, then this mishnah is not an issue].", + "Rabbi Meir declares it susceptible to uncleanness; Rabbi Meir says that the hot bread, no matter the kind, will draw wine out of the barrel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity.", + "But Rabbi Judah declares it insusceptible. Rabbi Judah says that the bread does not draw off the wine and therefore it is not susceptible.", + "Rabbi Yose declares it insusceptible in the case of wheat bread and susceptible in the case of barley bread, because barley absorbs [liquids]. Rabbi Yose distinguishes between wheat bread, which is less absorbent and barley bread which is more absorbent. Only the latter is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "If one sprinkled [the floor of] his house [with water] and put wheat therein and it became moist: If [the moisture came] from the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if [the moisture came] from the stones [on the floor], it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. In mishnaic times people would sprinkle their floors with water in order to keep down the dust. A person did this and then put wheat on the floor (or it just got there somehow) and the wheat got moist. If the moisture came from the water he sprinkled on the floor then the wheat is susceptible to impurity because a person put the water there. If the moisture came from moisture that naturally accumulated on the floor then it is not susceptible to impurity because no one put that water there.", + "If one washed his garment in a tub and put wheat therein and it became moist: If [the moisture came] from the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if [the moisture came] of itself, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The same rule basically applies to someone who puts wheat in a laundry trough (after he has completed the laundry). If the wheat became moist due to the water that he put there, the wheat is susceptible.", + "If one put [produce] in sand for it to become moist, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. It happened with the men of Mahoz that they used to moisten [their produce] with sand, and the sages said to them: if you have always acted in this manner, you have never prepared your food in purity. In this case, although no one put the water into the sand, since he intended the produce to become wet, it is susceptible. In other words, from this mishnah we can see two possibilities for when liquid causes susceptibility to impurity. 1) If a person put the liquid where it currently is. 2) If he wanted the produce to come into contact with the liquid. As long as one of these is true, the produce is susceptible. Evidently, the people of Mahoz, a sandy region (see Mishnah Arakhin 3:2), were doing this their whole lives without knowing that this would cause their food to be susceptible. Poor guys!" + ], + [ + "If one moistened [produce] with drying clay: Rabbi Shimon says: if there was still in it dripping liquid, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if there was not, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Shimon says that in this case the produce is susceptible only if the drying clay is sufficiently wet that it actually drips. If not, it is not susceptible.", + "If one sprinkled his threshing-floor with water, he need not be concerned lest wheat be put there and it become moist. The assumption is that by the time he puts wheat down on his threshing floor it will already be dry enough such that the wheat will not become moist and susceptible to impurity. This is probably because a threshing floor is outside, while the house is obviously inside.", + "If one gathered grass with the dew still on it in order to moisten wheat with it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, But if his intention was for this purpose, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The intention here was to moisten the produce with the moisture from the grass. The dew was incidental to his intentions so it doesn't cause the produce to be susceptible. However, if he intended to use the dew to make the produce moist, it does become susceptible.", + "If one carried wheat to be milled and rain came down upon it and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped [on his way]. In this case the produce is only susceptible if he was happy that the rainwater came down upon it. The produce is not automatically susceptible because he didn't put it there actively. Rabbi Judah says that there is simply no way a person won't be happy if the rainwater comes down on his wheat. I'm assuming this makes it easier to mill. Therefore, we can't gauge its susceptibility by whether he is happy. Rather, in order for it to be susceptible he must actively do something to make it susceptible, such as stop walking so that more rain can come down upon the wheat before he brings it to the mill." + ], + [ + "If his olives were put on the roof and rain came down upon them and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to the first opinion the olives are susceptible to impurity as long as the person is happy that the rainwater came upon them. If he wanted them to stay dry, they are not susceptible. Again, his inner thoughts are what determine the susceptibility of the produce.", + "Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he plugged up the gutter or if he shook the water [onto the olives]. As he did in yesterday's mishnah, Rabbi Judah says that a person will always be happy when rainwater comes upon his olives. Therefore, in order for them to be susceptible he must physically do something to get the rainwater on them. There are two possibilities. Either he stops up the gutter so that the roof fills up with water, or he shakes water onto the olives." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with situations in which Rabbi Judah says that one can't help but be happy about his produce getting wet.", + "If donkey-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks [filled with produce] fell into the water and they were happy about it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if they turned over [the sacks]. If the donkey drivers were happy about their produce getting wet, it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah responds that since they will obviously be happy about the produce getting wet, there must be something more. For the produce to be susceptible he must turn over the sack so it gets wet.", + "If one's feet were full of clay, similarly, the feet of his beast, and he crossed a river and he was happy about it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped and rinsed off his [feet] or those of his [domesticated] beast. If he is happy about his feet or his animal's feet getting wet (and thereby cleaned off) by the river then the water that is on them will make produce susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says that the water on his or his domesticated beast's feet does not make produce susceptible unless he stops in the river to wash off his feet.", + "But with an unclean [beast] it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness. However, when it comes to unclean animals, it doesn't matter whether he stops to wash his feet or not. The water will in any case make produce susceptible because he will always be happy about his feet or his animal's feet getting cleaned by the river. I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck. Albeck states that the difference between clean and unclean animals, and why one must wash off the feet of the former for the water to make produce susceptible, is not clear. The meaning of this mishnah has been lost." + ], + [ + "If one lowered wheels or the gear of oxen into water at the time of the hot east wind in order that they might become tightened, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. The person brings some wooden wheels or oxen gear down to the river to soak them in water so that they will tighten (seems like this means to expand, thereby tightening the parts) because it is so dry outside. The water that clings to them when he removes them will cause susceptibility to impurity. This is because he intended to use this water.", + "If one took down a beast to drink, the water which came up on its mouth comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but that which came up on its feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If he intended that its feet should be washed, even the water that came up on its feet comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. At the time of footsoreness or of threshing it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness. In this case he intended the water to go into the mouth of his beast, so it does causes susceptibility. But if he didn't intend to wash off the animal's feet, then the water attached to the feet does not cause susceptibility. However, there are two occasions in which we assume that he wanted the feet to be washed off. First, if the animal has some affliction, \"footsoreness,\" then he must have wanted its feet to be washed off. Alternatively, when he is using the animal for threshing, it can be assumed that he wanted to cool down its feet and the water causes susceptibility.", + "If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor took it down, even though his intention was that its feet should be washed, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention. These three categories of people are not legally capable of having intent. Therefore, in order for them to make the water cause susceptibility they would have to actually do something to the water, like put it in a bucket and then use it to wash the animal's feet. Merely being happy that it washed off the animal's feet is not sufficient." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If one bent down to drink, the water which came up on his mouth or on his moustache comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But [what came up] on his nose or on his head or on his beard does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. When one drinks water from a river there is no way to avoid getting one's mouth or mustache wet. Therefore, the water that comes up on his mouth or mustache is, in a sense, something he wanted, because without it, he couldn't drink. It will therefore cause susceptibility. But he didn't need to get his nose, head or beard wet. Therefore, the water that comes up with these parts of the body does not cause susceptibility.", + "If one drew water with a jar, the water which came up on its outside, or on the rope which was wound round its neck, or on the rope which was needed for its use, comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. How much rope is needed for its use? Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: a handbreadth. When he lets the jar down into the cistern to bring up water, these parts of the jar/rope will certainly get wet. Therefore, the water on them will cause susceptibility. But he really only needs enough rope to lower the jug down into the cistern. Since he could lean down and fill the jug and only have a small bit of rope get wet, he doesn't really need the rest to become wet. Therefore, the water on the rest of the rope does not cause susceptibility.", + "If he put the jar under the rain-pipe, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. In this case, he wants the water to fall into the bucket and if he were to place it correctly there would be no rain on the outside the bucket. Therefore, any water on the outside of the jar does not cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "If rain came down upon a person, even if he was unclean with a father of impurity, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; The assumption the Mishnah makes is that a person does not want water to come down on his head. Therefore, the rainwater that falls on him remains pure, even if he is totally impure by being a \"father of impurity\" (for instance, he came into contact with a dead body).", + "But if he shook it off, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. However, once he shakes the water off his body, it now causes produce to be susceptible to impurity because it has been intentionally removed from its \"source,\" which in this case, is his body.", + "If one stood under a rain-pipe to cool himself or to wash himself, [the water falling on him] is unclean if he is unclean; If he is clean, it [only] comes under the law of if water be put. In this case he intentionally wanted the water to fall on him. Therefore, if he is unclean, the water becomes unclean. It also causes produce to be susceptible to impurity (unclean water always causes produce to be susceptible, but it doesn't transmit impurity to non-sacred food). If he is clean then the water is not yet unclean in and of itself. However, because he wanted it to come onto his body, it does make produce susceptible. Again, we see here an excellent example of how intent dictates purity/impurity. If he intends to get wet, the water is impure or causes susceptibility." + ], + [ + "If one inclined a dish against a wall that it might be rinsed [by rainwater], it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Again, the whole issue here is intent, as it is generally in these mishnayot. If he intended for the dish to get rinsed off, then the water does cause susceptibility.", + "But if in order that the wall might not be damaged, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But if he only put the dish up against the wall so that it would protect the wall, then the water has not been \"used\" so it doesn't cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "A jar into which a leak [from a roof] fell: Bet Shammai say: it should be broken. But Bet Hillel say: it may be emptied out. The roof leaks into a jar full of produce. Clearly this was not something that the owner would have wanted. Thus, at this point the water has not made the produce susceptible to impurity. The problem is how can he get the water out without then making the produce susceptible? According to Bet Shammai he really can't. Because once he tilts it over to the side the water will go from one side to the other and since this is something he wants, the produce will now be susceptible. The only way to get all the produce out without it becoming susceptible is to break the jar. Bet Hillel says that as long as the water is in the jar, it is not something he wants and it won't make the produce susceptible.", + "But they agree that one may put out his hand and take produce from it and they are insusceptible to uncleanness. However, both houses agree that as long as he doesn't shift the water around to pour it out, the produce will not be susceptible. He can reach his hand in and take out produce and it will remain insusceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday's mishnah dealt with water from a roof that falls into a jar of produce. Today's mishnah deals with water that falls into a tub.", + "A tub into which a like [from a roof] fell, the water which splashed out or ran over does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The water in the tub and even the water that flows or splashes out of the tub does not cause susceptibility because in this case (unlike the case in section three) he didn't put it there in order to collect it.", + "If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water: Bet Shammai say: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to Bet Shammai, once he lifts up the tub in order to pour out the water, he gives significance to the water because he is thinking about what to do with it. Therefore, it will now cause susceptibility to impurity. Bet Hillel says that even in this case the water does not cause susceptibility.", + "If one placed the tub in order that the leak [from the roof] should fall into it: Bet Shammai say: the water that splashes out or runs over comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. In this case, he intentionally put the tub under the roof so that the water would fall in. Both houses would agree that the water in the tub does cause susceptibility because that is where he intended the water to go. The houses disagree concerning the water that spills or splashes out. According to Bet Shammai since he wanted the water to go into the tub, the water that goes in and then splashes out does cause susceptibility. Bet Hillel says that since this water did not end up in the tub, where he wanted it to go, it does not cause susceptibility.", + "If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water, both agree that it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once he lifts up the tub to pour out the water, the water retains its ability to cause susceptibility. The difference here is that he intentionally removed the water, whereas in section three it just spilled or splashed out.", + "If one immersed vessels or washed his garment in a cavern, the water that came up on his hands comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but what came up on his feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Eliezer says: if it was not possible for him to go down into the cavern without soiling his feet, what came up on his feet also comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Since he needed to get his hands wet to immerse the vessel, the water that clings to his hands does cause susceptibility. But theoretically he could immerse the vessel without getting his feet wet or dirty, so the water that clings to his feet does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Eliezer adds a caveat that if there was no way to immerse the vessel without getting his feet wet and dirty then the water that clings to his feet also causes susceptibility. As a reminder, when someone does something that will necessarily cause him or part of him, or even his things to get wet, the water that clings to him is something he desired because he knew that he would get wet. But if he didn't need to get wet, and also wouldn't have wanted to do so, then the contact with the water is not to his wishes and the water does not cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "A basket full of lupines placed in a mikveh, one may put out his hand and take lupines from it and they remain clean. In this case the basket was not put into the mikveh in order to rinse off the lupines. As long as the water in the mikveh remains connected to the mikveh it does not cause produce to become susceptible. And when he removes the lupines (a type of bean) he didn't want the water to come out with them (he didn't intend to rinse them off) so that water also does not cause susceptibility.", + "But if he lifted them out of the water, those that touch the basket are unclean, but the rest of the lupines are clean. However, if he lifts the basket out of the water then the water on the sides of the basket does cause impurity because this water is something he would have wanted it cleans the sides of the basket. Therefore, any lupines that touch the sides of the basket are susceptible. The rest of the lupines are still not susceptible because the water that touched them is not something he wanted.", + "If there was a radish in a cavern, a niddah may rinse it and leave it clean. But if she lifted it, however little, out of the water, it becomes unclean. The water in the cavern is still in its source. Therefore it does not cause susceptibility. A niddah could put the radish in the water and it would remain clean. However, as soon as she removes it, even a little bit, the water causes the radish to be susceptible to impurity because the water has been removed from it source, and this was something the woman would have wanted (she put it in there to rinse it off). Thus we see the difference in this mishnah between intentionally washing off, such as the case of the radish, and unintentional washing off. Only in the first case does the water that clings to the produce cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "If produce fell into a channel of water, and one whose hands were unclean put out his hands and took it, his hands become clean and the produce [also] remains clean. By putting his hands into the channel of water, he has purified them, assuming that only his hands were unclean (like netilat yadayim). The produce has not been made susceptible to impurity because he didn't intentionally put the produce into the water.", + "But if his intention was that his hands should be rinsed, his hands become clean and the produce comes under the law of ‘if water be put.’ If he intends to rinse the produce off, the produce is clearly susceptible to impurity. His hands are in any case purified by having been put in the water." + ], + [ + "If a pot full of water was placed in a mikveh, and a person who was unclean by a father of impurity put his hand into the pot, it becomes unclean. The pot in this mishnah is made of earthenware, which does not become pure by having been put in a mikveh. If a person who is a \"father of impurity,\" meaning he has a high level of impurity (for instance, contact with a dead body or with a sheretz), puts his hand into the pot, he defiles the pot.", + "But if [he was unclean] by a \"touch of defilement,\" the pot remains clean. However, if the person putting his hand in the pot has a lower degree of impurity, meaning he touched someone who is a \"father of impurity,\" then the pot remains clean for such a person does not defile vessels. Only a \"father of impurity\" defiles vessels. The water remains clean as well, for the water is in the mikveh.", + "But any of the other liquids [contained in the pot] becomes unclean, for water cannot purify the other liquids. However, any other liquid that might be in the pot (oil, for instance) does become impure and then it will defile the pot. The water of the mikveh purifies only water, not other liquids (see Mikvaot 10:6). See also Kelim 8:4, where the irony of this situation was discussed." + ], + [ + "If one drew water through a kilon (a pump-, it causes susceptibility to uncleanness for three days. A \"kilon\" is a pump-beam used to draw water from a deep well. If produce becomes wet through contact with water in the pump the produce is susceptible for up to three days after the pump has been used. For three days we can assume any water in there that was drawn from the well hasn't dried up and therefore it causes susceptibility. After three days, we can assume that the water pumped from the well dried up and that the water found in there currently came from elsewhere, and does not cause susceptibility.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: if it was dried, it at once does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness; but if it was not dried, it causes susceptibility even for thirty days. Rabbi Akiva says that if we know that the kilon was dried, then even if produce comes into contact with water in there immediately thereafter, we can assume that the moisture was not from water drawn from the well. But if the kilon has not been dried, then the assumption is that the water in it was pumped from the well and it will cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "If [unclean] liquids fell upon wood and rain came down upon it and [the rain water] exceeded [the liquids] in quantity, they are clean. Two liquids fall on this wood rain and unclean liquids. Rain does not cause susceptibility to impurity, unless one wants something to get wet. Unclean liquids do cause susceptibility. If the rain water is greater in quantity than the unclean water, the wood remains pure.", + "If he took [the wood out] so that rain would come down upon it, they are unclean even though [the rain water] exceeded in quantity. If he wanted the wood to get wet, then the rainwater does cause it to be susceptible. Since unclean water fell on the wood, the wood is now unclean. We should note that others explain that the water wasn't unclean, just that it caused susceptibility to impurity. Therefore, the wood wouldn't be actually unclean. It would only be susceptible to impurity.", + "If [the wood] had absorbed unclean liquids, even if he took the wood outside in order that rain should come down upon it, it is clean. But one may not light the wood in an oven except with clean hands. Rabbi Shimon says: if the wood was moist and then he lit it, and the liquids that came out of it exceeded in quantity the liquids which it had absorbed, they become clean. In this case, the wood absorbed the unclean liquid and this liquid can no longer be seen. The wood was therefore never susceptible to impurity. When the rain comes down upon it, it is not defiled, even if he took the wood outside so that it would get wet. However, when he puts the wood into the oven to light it he should make sure his hands are pure. If his hands are impure, his hands will defile the liquids on the wood and then the liquid on the wood could defile the oven. Rabbi Shimon says that if the wood was moist (meaning freshly cut) and then he lit it in the oven and more water came out then the quantity that it absorbed from the impure water, then the impure water that comes out is considered clean. Don't even ask me how one would practically measure such a thing, I have no idea." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One who immersed himself in a river and then there was in front of him another river and he crossed it, the second [water] purifies the first [water].
If his fellow pushed him in during exercise or his beast [pushed him in], the second [water] purifies the first [water].
But if [he did it] out of playfulness, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.
Section one: When he gets out of the first river, the water that remains on his body causes produce to be susceptible to impurity, because he intentionally went into the river to bathe. Then he has to cross another river but he doesn't need this river to bathe. The water from the second river does not cause susceptibility because he didn't want to get wet, he just wanted to cross. The water on him from the second river therefore purifies, or causes not to make susceptible, the water from the first river.
Section two: A person comes up out of the water after bathing. Then he gets pushed in again, either because he and his friend were exercising or his animal pushes him in. The second time in the river is not something he wanted, so this water \"purifies\" the water that was on him from the first time. Note that here he goes into the same river twice the water from the first time does cause susceptibility but the water from the second time does not.
However, if he and his friend were just playing around, then entering the water is something that they wanted. Therefore, this water too causes susceptibility. Again, it is all a matter of intent." + ], + [ + "One who swam in water, the water that splashed out does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if it was his intention to splash his friend, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Since the person did not intend to splash water, the water that is splashed out does not cause susceptibility. However, if he intends to splash the water on his friend, it does cause susceptibility.", + "If one made a ‘bird’ in the water, neither [the water] that splashed out nor what remained in it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. A \"bird\" is according to Albeck some kind of floating toy. In this case, he didn't want water to splash out nor did he want water to get into his toy. So this water does not cause susceptibility. The water on the outside of the bird will cause susceptibility because he wanted the bird-toy to get wet." + ], + [ + "Produce onto which a leak [from a roof] fell and he mixed it up in order that it might become dry [quickly]: Rabbi Shimon says: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The water from the leaky roof itself doesn't make the produce susceptible to impurity because he didn’t want it there. However, according to Rabbi Shimon, if he mixed the produce up so that the water would be absorbed into it, the produce is susceptible. Although he didn't originally want the produce to get wet, he did want the water to be absorbed into it. This is sufficient intent for the produce to be susceptible. The other sages say that since he didn't want the produce to get wet in the first place, it is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses one who uses a stick to measure a cistern. Does the water that comes up with the stick cause produce to be susceptible to impurity?", + "One who measures a cistern whether for its depth of for its breadth, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put' the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Tarfon says that since the stick will likely get wet, even if he is only measuring the breadth, in essence he wanted it to get wet. Without getting it wet, he would not have been able to measure the cistern. Therefore, no matter whether he is measuring the length or the depth, the water causes susceptibility.", + "But Rabbi Akiva says: if [it was measured] for its depth, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but if for its breadth, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Akiva says that only if he is measuring for depth does the water cause susceptibility for in this case he needs to see the mark that the water makes on the stick, i.e. how high it goes. When measuring for breadth, even though it gets wet, he doesn't need to see the mark and therefore it doesn't cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "If one put his hand or his foot or a reed into a cistern in order to check whether it had any water, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if to ascertain how much water it had, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. In the first case he just wants to see if there is any water in the cistern, but he doesn't need to see how deep the cistern is. Since he doesn't need to see the mark that it makes on his foot, hand or reed (see Rabbi Akiva's opinion in yesterday's mishnah), the water is not \"to his will\" and it doesn't cause susceptibility. However, if he does need to check how much water is in the cistern, then the water that comes up on his hand, foot or reed does cause susceptibility, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If one threw a stone into a cistern to check whether it had any water, [the water] that was splashed up does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, and also [the water] that is on the stone is clean. In this case, he didn't want to bring up any water or cause any splash. He just wanted to hear the sound of the rock hitting the water. Therefore, the water that does come up and the water that is on the rock (if half of it is sticking out of the water) does not cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "One beats upon a hide: If outside the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; Inside the water, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The hide referred to in this mishnah was laundered, probably in a large body of water, and now the person is beating on it to get the dirty water out. If he does this outside of the body of water, then the water that sprays out does cause susceptibility, because he wants this water to come out. But if he stands in the water and hits on the hide, then he doesn't really care if the water comes out, because new water will come in. In other words, standing outside the water is a way to get it dry but standing inside the water will not make it dry.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even inside the water it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the water should come off together with the filth. Rabbi Yose says that even if he is standing inside the water, the water that splashes out causes susceptibility because he does want that water to come out of the hide in order to clean the hide. Thus even though the hide remains wet, the water that comes out is something he wants." + ], + [ + "The water that comes up into a ship or into the bilge or on the oars does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.
The water that comes up in snares, nets, or in fishing nets does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if he shook them out it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’.
One who leads a ship out into the Great Sea in order to forge its bolts, or one who a nail out into the rain in order to forge it, or one who puts a brand out in the rain in order to extinguish it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.
Sections one and two: In all of these cases, the water that comes up onto various parts of the boat or its accoutrements does not cause susceptibility. However, if he shakes them out to get the water out, the water does cause susceptibility because he wanted to move it.
Section three: In these cases someone put something into the water in order to achieve some goal: to forge the metal, to strengthen the wood of the boat, or to cool off a brand. Since in all of these cases he wanted it the item to get wet, the water does cause susceptibility.
The Great Sea refers to the Mediterranean." + ], + [ + "[Water on] the covering of tables or on the matting of bricks does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; A person put a covering on a table or on a pile of bricks to protect them from the rain and sun. If the covering gets wet, the water does not cause susceptibility because he didn't want it there.", + "But if they were shaken, it does come under the law of ‘it water be put’. However, as in yesterdays' mishnah, if he shakes the coverings off to remove the water, then since he wanted to move the water, it does cause susceptibility to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the case of liquid being poured from a top vessel to a lower vessel. The lower vessel has impure liquids, or liquids that cause susceptibility. The mishnah rules that with a few exceptions the impurity of the lower vessel's liquids does not flow upwards to the higher vessel.\nWe should note that while this seems to be a boring, technical subject, this very subject was the source of a bitter debate between the Pharisees and the Dead Sea Sect. The latter group wrote a letter called \"Miktzat Maase Torah\" or \"The Halakhic Scroll\" in which they complain that the leaders in Jerusalem are not observing Jewish law correctly. Among their complaints is the claim that those Jews in Jerusalem purify the \"pouring flow\" they use the same Hebrew word as is found in the Mishnah. In other words, archaeologists have found and reconstructed the historical basis of this Mishnah and what looked like simply another detail in a sea of details, was actually a real topic in the Second Temple period, one that was hotly contested by two rival groups. People split apart their communities over issues like this. I don't know if you find this fascinating, but I do! [This topic was also covered in Toharot 8:9].", + "A flow pouring [from one vessel to another] is clean, except [the flow] of honey of ziphim bees and honey batter. The upper liquids remain clean except in the case of honey. Since honey is thick, the rabbis consider it to be attached to the lower liquid.", + "Bet Shammai say: also [the flow of] thick pottage of split beans, because it thickens up backwards. Bet Shammai rules slightly more strictly. A thick pottage of split beans will also convey impurity from below to above." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with the purity of clean water that is being poured into impure water.", + "One who pours hot water into hot water, or cold water into cold water, or hot water [poured] into cold water remains clean; But from cold water into hot water, the [cold water] becomes unclean. If one pours from cold water into hot water, the heat of the impure hot water rises into the cold water and causes it to be impure. It seems that the sages think that the lower hot water might raise the temperature of the upper cold water. Since it has a physical effect, it also has a defiling effect. However, in all other cases, the upper water remains pure. In the case of hot water being poured into hot water, since the upper water will not rise in temperature due to the lower water, it remains pure. Again, simple contact through the flow does not cause the impurity to flow from below to above.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: even in the case of hot water poured into hot water it becomes unclean if the strength of the heat of the lower [water] is greater than that of the upper [water]. Rabbi Shimon says that if the lower one is hotter than the upper one, it too will defile the upper one, even if the upper one is also hot. The principle is that if the lower one could heat up the upper one, the impurity of the bottom contaminates the purity of the upper." + ], + [ + "If a woman whose hands were clean stirred an unclean pot and her hands perspired, they become unclean. We can assume that the liquid on the woman's wet and sweaty hands comes from the liquid in the pot and therefore her hands are unclean.", + "If her hands were unclean and she stirred a clean pot and her hands perspired the pot becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose says: only if her hands dripped. In this case, since her hands sweated due to the heat of the pot, we look at the hot liquid in the pot as if it was connected to the liquid in her hands. Just as the liquid on her hands is unclean, so too the liquid in the pot has become unclean. Rabbi Yose disagrees and doesn't consider the liquid in the pot to be connected to her hands. The liquid in the pot is impure only if the liquid from her hands drops back into the pot.", + "One who weighs grapes with a balance, the wine in the scale is clean until it is poured into a vessel. Behold, this is like baskets of olives and grapes when they are dripping [with sap]. A person weighs grapes by putting them into a basket on a balance. Some liquid, called here wine although it is not yet wine, drips out into the basket. This liquid is clean and does not cause susceptibility to impurity until it is poured into a vessel. This is because he doesn't want the liquids to come out while the grapes are still being weighed, just as he doesn't want the liquids to come out of olives or grapes while they are still in the basket (we will return to this subject in 6:8)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One who carries his produce up to the roof because of maggots, and dew came down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if he intended for this to happen, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. This person carries his produce up to the roof because he hopes that the maggots that got into his produce will go out there. He doesn't intend for the produce to become wet. Therefore, the dew that comes down on it does cause it to be susceptible to impurity. However, if he intentionally brings it up to the roof so that it will get wet, it does cause susceptibility.", + "If a deaf-mute, or a person not of sound senses, or a minor carried it up, although he expected that dew should come down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention. This section is one of the clearest statements with regard to intent found in the entire Mishnah. These three categories of people are understood as not having the mental awareness sufficient for their action to have intent (we have seen this many times throughout the Mishnah). Therefore, we judge their actions by themselves, without resort to assumptions of intent. Since bringing produce up to the roof is not sufficient for it to become susceptible to impurity, the produce remain unsusceptible." + ], + [ + "One who carries up to the roof bundles [of vegetables] or cakes of figs or garlic so as to keep them fresh, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Since he carried his vegetables or other such items up to the roof only to let them air out and not so that they would get wet, they do not become susceptible to impurity if dew falls on them.", + "All bundles [of vegetables] in the market places are unclean. Rabbi Judah declares them clean if they are fresh. Rabbi Meir said: Why did they declare them unclean? Only because of liquid from the mouth. The assumption is that the sellers in the marketplace moisten their vegetables to keep them fresh and make them look more appetizing (supermarkets still do this with their mist machines). In the marketplace impure people might touch them. Therefore, when one buys vegetables from the market, one has to assume that they are impure. Rabbi Judah says that sellers don't throw water over fresh vegetables, so they are considered clean because they were never made susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir disagrees as to why they declared bundles of vegetables to be unclean. Bundles come untied and when they do a person uses his mouth to moisten the ties so they can be retied. The assumption is that the person who does this is impure and this moisture from the mouth is what causes them to be defiled. So even fresh ones, ones that have never had water put on them, are impure.", + "All coarse and fine flours of the market places are unclean. The wheat used to make flour is moistened before it is ground up. This moistening causes it to be susceptible to impurity. In the marketplace we have to assume that anyone might have touched the flour, including impure people. Therefore, it must be assumed to be impure. Outside of the marketplace impure people won't necessarily be touching the flour so it remains pure.", + "Crushed wheat, groats, and pearl-barley are unclean everywhere. These crushed grains are frequently touched, unlike flour and fine flour which not as many people will touch. Since people touch them everywhere, not just in the market, they are always considered impure." + ], + [ + "All eggs are presumed to be clean except those of sellers of liquids. But if they sold with them dry produce, they are clean. Eggs sold anywhere are presumed to be clean unless they are sold by sellers who also sell liquids. If the person also sells liquids we can assume that he touched the eggs with wet hands. This would have made them susceptible to impurity. Then when an impure person in the marketplace touched them, they would become defiled. We should note again that defiled eggs can be eaten. The only real relevance would be for a person who only wants to eat pure food. However, if the person who sold liquids sold the eggs near dry food we can assume he would dry his hands off first because he wouldn't want the dry food to get wet. Therefore the eggs can be assumed not to have come into contact with liquid.", + "All fish are presumed unclean. While alive, fish are not susceptible to impurity (this is true of all animals). However, when a fisher kills the fish there is still water on it. This water causes it to be susceptible to impurity. When impure people touch the fish, it becomes impure.", + "Rabbi Judah says: pieces of aylatit and Egyptian fish which arrives in a basket, and Spanish tunny, these may be presumed clean. According to Rabbi Judah, these types of fish live long after they have been caught. By the time they die there will be no water left on them. Since they are not again moistened, they were not made susceptible to impurity.", + "All kinds of brine may be presumed unclean. The brine that comes out of fish is mixed with water. This makes it susceptible to impurity. Since we can assume that an impure person touched it, it is assumed to be impure.", + "Concerning all these an am ha-aretz may be trusted when he declares them to be clean, except in the case of small fish, since they are usually stored with any am ha-aretz. In all of the cases discussed above, eggs, fish and brine, an am haaretz, a person who doesn't generally observe the laws of purity, is believed to say that the food has not come into contact with water and therefore it has not become susceptible to impurity. The only exception is small fish which, according to the mishnah, are often left with another am haaretz. Since the am haaretz who says they are clean cannot know if the other am haaretz defiled them or got them wet, we can't believe the first am haaretz.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: clean brine into which water fell in any quantity must be deemed unclean. If there is brine that we know to be clean because there is no water in it and then even the smallest amount of water falls in, that small amount of water makes the brine susceptible. We might have thought that since the brine is also liquid, the small amount of water is nullified. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov teaches that it is not." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nFinally, when we're at last nearing the end of the tractate Makhshirin, the Mishnah lists the liquids that cause susceptibility to impurity. This is the subject of the remainder of the tractate.\nI should note that there are various midrashim and explanations as to why some liquids cause impurity whereas others do not.", + "There are seven liquids: dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk and bees’ honey. If one of these seven liquids comes into contact with food, it makes the food susceptible to impurity.", + "Hornets’ honey does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness and may be eaten. Hornet's honey is not in the same category as bees' honey. Only the latter causes susceptibility. However, any honey is kosher the only kosher food to come from an unkosher animal." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with sub-categories of the seven arch-categories found above in mishnah four.", + "Derivatives of water are: the liquids that come from the eye, from the ear, from the nose and from the mouth, and urine, whether of adults or of children, whether [its flow is] conscious or unconscious. Various liquids emitted from the body are categorized as water.", + "Derivatives of blood are: blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are clean, and blood from bloodletting for drinking. The blood referred to in mishnah four is the blood that comes out of an animal when it is kosherly slaughtered. The mishnah adds that blood from bloodletting that he intends to give to another animal to drink also causes susceptibility. In all of these cases he wanted or needed the blood to come out of the animal or person. However, blood that simply comes out due to injury is not desirable and therefore does not cause susceptibility.", + "Whey is like milk, Whey, the milky substance left after making cheese, is considered to be like milk and does cause susceptibility.", + "And the sap of olives is deemed like oil, since it is never free from oil, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: even though it contains no oil. The sap that comes out of olives causes susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says that this is because we can be assured that there is some oil in it. Rabbi Meir says that even if we know that there is no oil in it, it still causes susceptibility because a person wants this sap to come out of his olives.", + "The blood of a sheretz is like its flesh, it causes uncleanness but does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness, and there is nothing else like it. Blood of a sheretz causes impurity as does the flesh of the sheretz. However, it does not cause susceptibility to impurity. This means that if this blood falls on food that is not yet susceptible, the food remains pure. The blood of a sheretz is unique in that it is the only blood that joins with the flesh to create the minimum measure that causes impurity. In other words, if there is a lentil's worth of flesh and blood there is enough sheretz to cause impurity." + ], + [ + "The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness]; The fluids in this mishnah are both impure and they make food susceptible to impurity. Two for the price of one!", + "The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine; A zav is a person with some sort of unnatural genital flow (i.e. not semen and not menstrual blood). If a zav emits the fluids listed here they cause food to become impure immediately, even if it hadn't previously come into contact with water.", + "A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant. Both of these types of blood cause impurity and susceptibility.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Eliezer holds that semen does not cause susceptibility. Therefore food will have to first be made susceptible for contact with semen to cause it to be impure.", + "R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah hold that menstrual blood does not cause susceptibility.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient and he holds that even the blood of a corpse doesn't cause susceptibility. The Talmud explains that in all of these cases since the substance is referred to by two words (shikhvat zera is the Hebrew for semen, dam niddah for menstrual blood and dam hamet for blood of a corpse) the fluid doesn't cause susceptibility. Only fluids referred to by one word blood, milk, etc. cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "The following cause neither uncleanness nor susceptibility to uncleanness: These liquids don't cause either susceptibility or uncleanness. Some of them are still pretty yucky though.", + "Sweat, rotten secretion, excrement, blood issuing with any of these, liquid [issuing from a child born in the] eight month. Rabbi Yose says: except its blood. Rotten secretion is something like pus. Blood that comes out with pus or with excrement doesn't cause impurity or susceptibility. The rabbis considered a child born at 8 months to be one who would surely die. The child is in a sense considered dead even before he actually dies (remember they had no way to really care for such children). Liquid such as urine and spittle that comes from the child before he dies does not cause impurity or susceptibility, as it would for a viable child. Rabbi Yose says that the blood of such a child does cause impurity.", + "[The discharge from the bowels of] one who drinks the water of Tiberias even though it comes out clean. I guess drinking the waters of Tiberias will make you sick. While the water causes susceptibility once it passes through a person's body and comes out the other end (not as urine) even if it simply passed right through him, it doesn't cause susceptibility.", + "Blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are unclean, and blood from bloodletting for healing. As we learned in mishnah five, only the blood from slaughtering a clean animal causes susceptibility. Also blood from a bloodletting that he wants to let another animal drink. If he is just bloodletting for healing then it doesn't cause susceptibility.", + "Rabbi Eliezer declares these unclean. Rabbi Eliezer holds that all of these liquids do cause susceptibility.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: the milk of a male is clean. Evidently men can occasionally secrete small amounts of milk from their breasts. Rabbi Elazar says that such milk is pure it doesn't cause susceptibility." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nLast mishnah of Makhshirin and the longest!\nThe argument here is over whether cow's milk renders produce susceptible even when its flow wasn't desired.", + "A woman's milk renders unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, but the milk of cattle renders unclean only if [its flow is] desired. This section lays down the rule concerning milk from a woman and milk from cattle. The rule is stricter with regard to the former even if she didn't desire its flow, it still causes susceptibility. When it comes to cattle milk (milk from a cow, sheep or goat) it causes susceptibility only if he wanted it.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: there is a kal vehomer argument here: if a woman's milk, which is specifically for infants, can render unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, all the more should the milk of cattle, which is for infants and adults, should render unclean both when [its flow is] desired and when it is not desired. The remainder of the mishnah is a long argument between the sages and Rabbi Akiva, who wishes to prove that cattle milk causes susceptibility even when its flow was not desired. He proves his point by saying that there is a kal vehomer argument, one made from by analogizing from the stricter to the more lenient case. Human milk is only for infants and nevertheless it causes susceptibility in all cases. All the more so should cattle milk which is for both human infants and human adults, cause susceptibility in all cases.", + "They said to him: No; a woman's milk renders unclean when [its flow is] not desired, because the blood issuing from her wound is unclean; but how could the milk of cattle render unclean when [its flow is] not desired, seeing that the blood issuing from its wound is clean? The other rabbis show that the rules governing a human are sometimes stricter than those governing an animal. Blood from a human wound causes susceptibility whereas blood from an animal wound does not. Therefore, there is no \"kal\" lenient or \"homer\" stringent when comparing humans to animals. The rules are simply different.", + "He said to them: I am stricter in the case of milk than in the case of blood, for if one milks for healing, [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood for healing, [the blood] is clean. Rabbi Akiva responds by finding saying that the rules governing milk are more stringent than the rules governing blood. One who milks not because someone needs to drink the milk but just to get the milk out for health reasons, the milk does not cause susceptibility. But one who blood lets for health reasons, the blood is clean. Therefore, we should be strict with regard to milk it causes susceptibility even if it was not desired.", + "They said to him: let baskets of olives and grapes prove it; for liquids flowing from them are unclean only when [the flow is] desired, but when [the flow is] not desired they are clean. The other rabbis resort to another analogy the liquids that flow from grapes and olives while they are still in the basket before they begin to be pressed. Such liquid doesn't cause susceptibility because he doesn't desire it. So too when it comes to cattle, if the milk comes out and is not wanted, it doesn't cause susceptibility.", + "He said to them: No; if you say [thus] of baskets of olives and grapes which are at first a solid food and at the end become a liquid, could you say [the same] of milk which remains a liquid from beginning to end? Of course, Rabbi Akiva has an answer. Olives and grapes are turning from solid food into liquid food and therefore when liquid comes out that he doesn't want, it doesn't cause susceptibility. The same cannot be said with milk which is always a liquid.", + "Thus far was the argument. That was the end of the historical argument between Rabbi Akiva. In sections 8 and 9, Rabbi Akiva begins to argue with his students, including Rabbi Akiva.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: from here on in we used to argue before him: let rain water prove it, for it remains a liquid from beginning to end, and renders unclean only when [its flow is] desired. Rabbi Shimon argues that rainwater should prove that milk renders unclean only when he desires its flow. Rainwater causes susceptibility only when he wanted it to get his food wet. Therefore, cattle milk, which is also a liquid from beginning to start, should do the same.", + "But he said to us: No; if you say [thus] of rain water, it is because most of it is intended not for human usage but for the soil and for trees, whereas most milk is intended for human usage. Rabbi Akiva points out that since most cattle milk is for human consumption, it is always considered a liquid, even when it wasn't desired. Rain is mostly not for drinking it is for watering the ground and for the trees. Therefore, cattle milk causes susceptibility no matter what. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Makhshirin! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Makhshirin was probably the most obscure topic you could ever imagine what liquids make food susceptible to impurity. I'll admit, it's not the topic you've dreamed about learning. Still there was one thing I found very interesting throughout the whole tractate the role that intent plays in matters of purity and impurity. As we've seen over and over again, things are pure or impure not just based on what happens to them, but based on the intent of the human being who owned the object or who performed the activity. The central halakhah in this tractate is that food is susceptible only if the person wanted it to come into contact with the liquid. Indeed, this opens a window to one of the largest issues in the entire mishnah how human intent actually affects the world. The rabbis believed that humans could affect the world not just by what they did but by their intent while doing it. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Zavim." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכשירין", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכשירין", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d3ee6a079d6a594b64b3a7ccf8e0707c5933458 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,433 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מקואות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Today most people are familiar with the \"mikveh\" usually translated as a \"ritual bath.\" In modern halakhah it is mostly used for conversion and by women immersing after their menstrual period. Some men also have a custom of going to the mikveh but that is more as a custom. ", + "Most people are not all that familiar with the laws of the mikveh which can be quite complicated. This is the topic of our tractate—what exactly constitutes a mikveh and who needs to immerse in a mikveh in order to become pure. ", + "The Torah states that a zav, a person who has had an abnormal genital discharge must \"bathe his body in fresh water; then he shall be clean\" (Leviticus 15:13). The \"fresh water\" is understood as a living stream, in Hebrew a \"maayan.\" In contrast, people with other forms of impurity must only \"bathe his whole body in water\" (Leviticus 15:16). This latter requirement is understood to be bathing in a mikveh. We shall talk throughout the tractate about what differentiates a \"mikveh\" from a \"maayan\" a living stream, how large a mikveh must be, and how the water must get into the mikveh. For now, I will merely quote the verses below that refer to what the rabbis call a \"mikveh.\" We shall reference these as we continue to learn. Good luck with learning Mikvaot!", + "Leviticus 11 31 Those are for you the unclean among all the swarming things; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. 32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean.", + "Leviticus 15 13 When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge, he shall count off seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in fresh water; then he shall be clean…16 When a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water and remain unclean until evening. ", + "Numbers 31 22\"This is the ritual law that the Lord has enjoined upon Moses: 22 Gold and silver, copper, iron, tin, and lead 23 — any article that can withstand fire — these you shall pass through fire and they shall be clean, except that they must be cleansed with water of lustration; and anything that cannot withstand fire you must pass through water. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMikvaot begins with a list of \"six degrees\" of the purity of mikvaot. [We should note that many tractates begin with numbers. For instance, Shabbat, Shevuot, Kiddushin, Ohalot, etc. It seems that the tannaim liked starting mishnayot in this way].\n\"Mikveh\" here refers to any water gathered in the ground.\nOur mishnah deals with laws concerning water gathered in pools that don't have forty seah in them. This shall be the topic of the first five mishnayot of the chapter.", + "There are six degrees of mikvaot, each superior to the other. This is the introduction to the entire first chapter.", + "The water of pools [smaller than 40 seah] if an unclean person drank of it and then a clean person drank of it, he becomes unclean; If an unclean person came and drank from a pool of water, and then a clean person came and drank from the same water, the clean person becomes unclean. This is because it is possible that the clean person drank from the exact water that the unclean person touched. Although water that is still \"connected to the ground\" by virtue of it being in a pool cannot become impure (see Leviticus 11:36) the mishnah considers the water that was removed from the pool and then put back in by the unclean person to be separate from the other water. This already-defiled water does not mix back in with the pool and become nullified. When the clean person removes some water, this water is now detached from the ground and since there will be some of the unclean water with it, all of the water is defiled. The water then defiles the clean person by contact.", + "If an unclean person drank of it and then drew water from it in a clean vessel, [the vessel] becomes unclean; Similarly, a clean vessel is defiled by contact with this water. Again, the water inside does not become nullified.", + "If an unclean person drank of it and then a loaf of terumah fell in: If he washed [his hands] in it, it becomes unclean; But if he did not wash [his hands] in it, it continues clean. In this case a loaf of bread falls in and then someone takes it out. If the person who took it out first washed his hands off in the water, then he hands are unclean and he will defile the loaf. If, however, he does not first wash his hands off, then the loaf remains clean. The reason is a bit complicated. The water in the pool cannot become impure until it has been removed from the pool. When he removes this water, the clean water is greater in quantity than the unclean water and therefore the unclean water is nullified. In this case, we don't say that the unclean water defiles the clean water, as we said in section two because we hold that the unclean water has been absorbed by the loaf. Since this water cannot be seen, it is considered to be nullified by the clean water. I realize that this is complicated. Just remember I didn't write it." + ], + [ + "If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and then a clean person drank [out of the pit], he becomes unclean.
If one drew water [from it] in an unclean vessel and then drew water from it in a clean vessel, it becomes unclean.
If one drew water [from it] in an unclean vessel and a loaf of terumah fell in: If he washed [his hands] in it, it becomes unclean; But if he did not wash [his hands] in it, it is clean.
This mishnah is basically the same exact mishnah as yesterday's mishnah, except the water in the pool is defiled not by a person drinking directly from it but by a person filling up an unclean vessel from it." + ], + [ + "If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he becomes unclean.
If unclean water fell into it and then water was drawn from it in a clean vessel, it becomes unclean.
If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in: If he washed [his hands] in it, it becomes unclean; But if he did not wash [his hands] in it, it is clean.
Rabbi Shimon says: it becomes unclean whether he washed in it or whether he did not wash in it.
The first three sections of today's mishnah are the same as the first two mishnayot, except in today's case, the water in the pool was defiled because someone poured unclean water into the pool. In the last section of today's mishnah, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the laws in section three (concerning the loaf) all first three mishnayot.
Section four: Rabbi Shimon holds that the water was not fully absorbed into the loaf. There will be at least a drop that remains on the loaf. This drop will defile the entire loaf. The same would be true in the situations in the previous two mishnayot." + ], + [ + "If a corpse fell into it or an unclean person walked in it, and a clean person drank of it, he is clean. The water that is in the pool is not susceptible to impurity. It became impure in the cases discussed in the previous three mishnayot because someone took out some of the water and then put it back in. In contrast, if a corpse falls in or an unclean person walks in it, none of the water has been taken out and then put back in. Therefore, if a clean person comes and drinks from it, it remains pure.", + "The same rule applies to the water of pools, the water of cisterns, the water of ditches, the water of caverns, the water of rain flows which have stopped, and mikvehs of less than forty seahs. The rules that were found in the first three mishnayot and the beginning of this mishnah apply to all bodies of water that are less than forty seahs. [A seah is assumed to be about 12 liters, so we're talking about 480 liters, or about 126 gallons]. The \"water of rain flows which have stopped\" refers to water that has flown down from a mountain, but has stopped flowing. If it still flows, then the rule is different (we will see this in mishnah six).", + "They are all clean during the time of rain; Rain water does not receive impurity. Therefore, when the rains are still falling, all of the small bodies of water mentioned in section two are pure. Even if someone had defiled this water, the rain waters nullify the impure water.", + "When the rain has stopped those near to a city or to a road are unclean, and those distant remain clean until the majority of people pass [that way]. If the rain has stopped, then we need to figure out whether the water is pure or not. If the body is close to the city or to a path, then we have to assume that people drank from there and since people might be impure, the water must be treated as impure. But if the body of water is far from the city or the path, then we can assume that it is pure until we know that many people have gone there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is the last mishnah that deals with the water found in pools that are less than forty seahs. The mishnah refers to a pool of water that had been made unclean and now rain has started to flow back into it. The question is at what point the pool becomes clean again.", + "When do they become clean?
Bet Shammai say: when their contents have been increased [by more than the original quantity] and they overflow. Bet Shammai rules most strictly. In order for the pool to become clean again, the new water that has come in from the rain must be more than the original water that remained and the contents must also overflow.", + "Bet Hillel say: when their contents have been increased [by more than their original quantity] even if they do not overflow. Bet Hillel says that the pool need not overflow.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: when they overflow although their contents have not been so increased. Rabbi Shimon rules even more leniently. If the pool was almost full and then it rained and it overflowed, the pool is clean even if there is only a small amount of rainwater.", + "[These] are valid [for preparing dough] for hallah and for the washing of the hands. The water in the pool is now completely clean. The mishnah emphasizes how pure the water is by stating that one could even use it to prepare hallah or two wash one's hands. The same is true for preparing terumah. In other words, the water is not at all impure." + ], + [ + "Superior to such [water] is the water of rain flows which have not stopped.
If an unclean person drank of it and then a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and water was then drawn from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hand in it, it is clean.
If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and then a clean person drank [out of the pool], he is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and a loaf of terumah fell [into the pool], even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean.
If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If unclean water fell into it and one drew water from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean.
[All such water] is valid for terumah and for the washing of the hands.
Today's mishnah is basically a repeat of mishnayot 1-3 except here we deal with rainwater that continues to flow into the pool. This rain will continuously nullify the water that has been defiled and put back into the pool. Thus, this water cannot become impure (although water taken out of it can be made impure).
The commentary to this mishnah would be the same as that found in mishnayot 1-3 so I have not repeated it from there. Section two is parallel to mishnah one, section three is parallel to mishnah two, and section four is parallel to mishnah three. Section five is similar to the end of yesterday's mishnah. It notes that this water is pure enough that it can be used in the preparation of terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah talks about the next two bodies of water that have greater purity than the pool consisting of renewed rainwater.", + "Superior to such [water] is [the water of] the mikveh containing forty seahs, for in it people may immerse themselves and immerse other [things]. One level superior to the pool of flowing rainwater is the mikveh, a pool that has forty seahs of water that have not been drawn. A person can immerse in a mikveh in order to become pure and he can also immerse things (such as vessels) in a mikveh in order to purify them.", + "Superior to such [water] is [the water of] a spring whose own water is little but has been increased by a greater quantity of drawn water. It is equivalent to the mikveh in as much as it may render clean by standing water, and to an [ordinary] spring in as much as one may immerse in it whatever the quantity of its contents. Greater purity is accorded to spring water. A mikveh does not purify when its water is trickling on the ground. All forty seahs have to be gathered in one place for it to purify. In contrast, a spring generally purifies even if its water is trickling on the ground. However, in the case in our mishnah since the spring waters have been augmented with drawn water, they don't purify unless they have been gathered together, i.e. they are standing. In this way it is similar to the mikveh. This spring is similar to an ordinary spring, one whose water has not been augmented with drawn water, in that the fresh spring water purifies even if there are less than forty seahs. In contrast, a mikveh, water that has been gathered (we shall learn how in subsequent mishnayot) only purifies if there are forty seahs." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the two bodies of water that have the highest degree of purity.", + "Superior to them are \"smitten waters\" which can purify even when flowing [on the ground]. \"Smitten waters\" is a term used to refer to a spring whose water has somehow been despoiled. Either the water is salty or it is not cold because it is standing. These waters are purer than the spring whose standing waters have been augmented with drawn water because the water of this spring purifies even when the water is flowing on the ground. However, it still does not count as \"living waters\" which is the purest form of water. Indeed, \"smitten waters\" literally could be translated as \"killed waters\" which is the opposite of \"living waters.\"", + "Superior to them are \"living waters\" for in them there is immersion for zavim and sprinkling for metzoraim, and they are valid for the preparation of the hatat waters. \"Living waters\" are fresh water in the spring. This is the level of purity required for the immersion of a zav, a person with an abnormal genital discharge (see Leviticus 15:13). The metzora is a person who had some sort of skin disease (we learned about this in Negaim; see Leviticus 14). This is also the type of water required to make the \"hatat waters\" the waters into which are put the ashes of the red heifer (see Leviticus 19:16; we learned about this in Parah)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "An unclean man who went down to immerse himself:
If it is doubtful whether he did immerse himself or not;
And even if he did immerse himself, it is doubtful whether the mikveh contained forty seahs or not;
And if there were two mikvehs, one containing forty seahs but the other not containing forty seahs, and he immersed himself in one of them but he does not know in which of them he immersed himself,
In such a doubt he is unclean.
Today's mishnah deals with a case of an impure person who immersed himself in a mikveh in order to become pure, but it is unclear whether he did so in a manner that would purify him. In all such cases he is not considered clean. The reason is that his last determinable status was unclean. Therefore, he remains unclean until we can be sure that he is actually clean.
The mishnah is pretty straightforward, so there is no explanation below." + ], + [ + "If a mikveh was measured and was found lacking [in its prescribed quantity], all things which had been purified in it, whether in private domain or in a public domain, are accounted unclean retroactively. If there is a mikveh that is assumed to be large enough to purify the person or things being immersed and then it turns out that the mikveh actually did not contain enough water, then everything purified in it is retroactively accounted impure. This is true even if this occurred in the public domain, where doubtful impurity is usually considered pure. The rule here is that the item or person immersed reverts back to its last established status, which in this case is impure.", + "To what does this rule apply? To a serious uncleanness. However, this ruling, as well as the ruling in mishnah one, apply only to a type of impurity that is considered serious, for instance if he had contracted an impurity that would make him a \"father of impurity.\" If it was of lesser origin then he is pure.", + "But in the case of a lesser uncleanness, for instance if he ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids, or if his head and the greater part of his body entered into drawn water, or if three logs of drawn water fell on his head and the greater part of his body, and he then went down to immerse himself and he is in doubt whether he immersed himself or not, or even if he did immerse himself there is [still] a doubt whether the mikveh contained forty seahs or not, or if there were two mikvehs, one containing forty seahs and not the other, and he immersed himself in one of them but does not know in which of them he immersed himself, in such a doubt he is accounted clean. In all of the following cases his impurity is only of rabbinic origin. The mishnah gives a couple of examples of this. The first is when a person ate or drank something unclean. The second is concerning drawn water. The rabbis decreed that drawn water defiles if a person immerses his head and most of his body in them or if three log of drawn water falls on him (we shall learn more about this later). In both of these cases, the doubt is deemed pure because the impurity is only derabanan. The second part of this list is a repeat of the list in yesterday's mishnah. Yesterday's mishnah declared him impure if the source of impurity was a father of impurity. If it was of a lesser nature, then the doubtful case is ruled pure.", + "Rabbi Yose considers him unclean, for Rabbi Yose says: anything which is presumed to be unclean always remains in a condition of unfitness until it is known that it has become clean; but if there is a doubt whether a person became unclean or caused uncleanness, it is to be accounted clean. Rabbi Yose says that even if the impurity was a lesser one, a person or thing remains in his presumptive status until we can be sure that he or it was purified in a proper mikveh. However, if the doubt is whether or not he ever became impure in the first place, or whether he ever defiled something else, for instance we don't know whether he ate unclean food, or we know that he ate unclean food but we don't know if he touched something else, then the doubt is ruled pure. This is because he, or the thing he might have defiled, did not have a presumptive status of being impure. In sum, the sages and R. Yose disagree as to what principle we invoke in these types of situations. According to the first opinion, if the impurity is serious we rule stringently and if it is lesser than we rule leniently. Rabbi Yose says that the principle is that a person retains his presumptive status." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nDrawn water that falls into a mikveh that has less than forty seahs of water is invalid and remains invalid even if more kosher water comes into the mikveh. In Toharot 4:7 we learned that if there is a doubt about whether drawn water went into the mikveh, the rabbis declared it clean. Our mishnah deals with what sort of case of doubt is pure and what case of doubt must be ruled impure.", + "The case of a doubt about drawn water which the sages have declared clean;
If there is a doubt whether [three logs of drawn water] fell into the mikveh or not, The first possible doubt is whether or not the three logs of drawn water fell into the mikveh in the first place.", + "Or even if they did fall in, there is a doubt whether [the mikveh] contained forty seahs or not, If the mikveh contained forty seahs of valid water (not drawn) then even if three logs of drawn water fall in, the mikveh remains kosher. So the second level of doubt is whether or not the mikveh was large enough to nullify the three logs.", + "Or if there were two mikvehs one of which contained forty seahs and the other did not, and drawn water fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, In this case there are two mikvaot, one of which is large enough to nullify the three logs and we are not sure into which mikveh the logs fell.", + "In such a doubt it is accounted clean, because there exists [a possibility] on which we may depend [in declaring it clean]. In all of these cases, we can consider the mikveh clean. If the mikveh currently has less than 40 seahs, we can add more water. The reason that the doubt is considered clean is that there is a possibility that the mikveh or both mikvaot are valid.", + "If they both contained less than forty seahs, and [drawn water] fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, in such a doubt it is accounted unclean, because there exists no [possibility] on which we may depend [in declaring it clean]. In contrast, in this case one of the mikvaot is definitely invalid because neither had forty seahs. Therefore, we have to treat both mikvaot as if they are invalid." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Eliezer says: a quarter-log of drawn water in the beginning makes the mikveh invalid, and three logs on the surface of the water. According to Rabbi Eliezer there is a difference a case when drawn water falls into the mikveh before water is in the hole in the ground and after valid water has already been put in. If the drawn water falls in first, then all that has to fall in is a quarter of a log, which is a very small amount (about 125 grams). If the drawn water falls in at the end, on the surface of water that is already there, then there must be three logs to disqualify the mikveh.", + "But the sages say: both in the beginning and at the end, the measure [which makes the mikveh invalid] is three logs. The other sages rule more leniently. In either case there must be three logs to disqualify the mikveh." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nPicture a hole in the ground that is to be used for a mikveh. There is currently no water in the hole, but there are three cavities adjacent to the hole, each of which has in it one log of drawn water. If this water is part of the mikveh, it might invalidate the valid waters. Our mishnah deals with the potential validity of such a mikveh.", + "If there were three cavities in a mikveh each holding a log of drawn water, if it is known that forty seahs of valid water fell in before reaching the third cavity, [such a mikveh is] valid; otherwise it is invalid. As long as the forty seahs of valid water get into the mikveh before they are joined by the third log of drawn water, the mikveh is valid. As is always the case, less than three logs of drawn water do not invalidate a mikveh and three logs invalidates the mikveh only before there are already forty seahs of valid water. Since in this case, the forty seahs were in the mikveh before the third log of drawn water, the mikveh is valid.", + "Rabbi Shimon declares it valid, since it resembles a mikveh adjoining another mikveh. If there is a mikveh of drawn water that is next to a mikveh of valid water that doesn't have forty seahs, the drawn water does not invalidate the valid water. So too, according to Rabbi Shimon, the cavities of drawn water that are next to the mikveh do not invalidate the other water in the mikveh." + ], + [ + "If one scraped mud to the sides and then three logs [of water] were drawn out from it [from the mud], [the mikveh is still] valid. If one scraped some mud out of the bottom of a mikveh that doesn't have forty seahs of water in it, and then three logs of water dripped back into the mikveh from the scraped mud, the mikveh is still valid. The water that comes out of the mud is not considered to be \"drawn water\" such that it invalidates the mikveh.", + "But if removed the mud away and three logs were drawn from it [into the mikveh] it becomes invalid. In this case he removed the mud from the mikveh and didn't just scrape it away to the sides. If the water again seeps out of the mud and goes back into the mikveh it does disqualify it. Such water is considered to be \"drawn water.\"", + "Rabbi Shimon pronounces it valid, since there was no intention to draw [the water]. Water that one doesn't intend to draw out from somewhere doesn't count as drawn water in order to disqualify a mikveh. Rabbi Shimon considers the water that comes out of the mud to be unintended because his intention was to draw out the mud, not the water. However, the first opinion in the mishnah considers this water to be drawn because there was no way for him to draw out the mud without also drawing out the water." + ], + [ + "If one had left wine-jars on the roof to dry and they became filled with water:
Rabbi Eliezer says: if it was the season of rain and there was [in the cistern] a little water, one may break the jars; otherwise one may not break them.
Rabbi Joshua says: in either case one may break them or tilt them over, but one may not empty [them into the cistern].
This mishnah deals with rain water that collected in jars on the roof. Is this rain water considered to be \"drawn water\" such that it will disqualify the water in the cistern to be used as a mikveh.
Section one: The person left the jars on the roof to dry out so that he could use them for wine. Had he left them there with the purpose of gathering water the collected water would count as drawn water and could not be put into the mikveh.
Another complicating factor is that it's the rainy season so it looks like he might have left the jars up there intentionally to gather water (note that if it's not the rainy season, this scenario simply won't occur in Israel, when it's not the rainy season, it doesn't rain at all).
According to Rabbi Eliezer, if there's a little water in the cistern already, then he may break the jars and let the water flow into the cistern and the mikveh will be valid. This is because the water in the jars is not really drawn water, it just looks like drawn water. Therefore, there is room to be lenient when there is already some water in the cistern. However, if there is no water in the cistern, then he may not do so. As he was in mishnah four, Rabbi Eliezer is stringent when it comes to adding water to a cistern at the outset.
Section three: Rabbi Joshua is more lenient. First of all, there is no difference between letting the water flow in before there is other water there and after there is other water there. In both cases, one may either break the jar or even tilt it over and let the water flow into the cistern. The one thing he may not do is pick up the jars and pour them into the mikveh. Picking up the jars turns the water into drawn water which invalidates a mikveh, unless there are already in there 40 seahs of valid water." + ], + [ + "A plasterer forgot his lime-tub in a cistern and it became filled with water: if water flowed above it a little, it may be broken; and if not, it may not be broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. This is a similar situation to yesterday's mishnah. A plasterer, probably making the cistern, forgot his lime-tub in a cistern. Water then collected in the cistern, entered into the tub and then overflowed. The water in the tub now counts as if it was in the cistern. If he wants to make the cistern into a valid mikveh, he can break the tub and take it out. However, if the water has not overflowed the tub, then the water in it counts as drawn water. Therefore, he can't break the tub and let the water into the cistern.", + "But Rabbi Joshua says: in either case it may be broken. Rabbi Joshua again rules leniently the water does not count as drawn water and does not disqualify the mikveh." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the final mishnah in the series concerning water that overflowed vessels into a mikveh. Note that in today's mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua do not disagree. This is a sign that Rabbi Eliezer agrees that in this case the water does not count as drawn water.", + "If one had arranged wine-jars in a cistern and they became filled with water, even though the water of the cistern was all soaked up, they may be broken. The person put the jars in the cistern so that the walls of the jars would become saturated with water (I guess this is good for the jars). He did not intend for the inside of the jars to be filled up. Even if the water in the cistern completely disappears and all that is left is the water in the jars, the jars may be broken and the water let out into the mikveh. In this case, even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that this water doesn't count as drawn water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a mikveh whose forty seahs are a mixture of mud and water.", + "A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud [combined]: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud. Rabbi Eliezer says that one may immerse only in the water, but not in the mud. Rabbi Joshua is again lenient. He allows one to use such a mikveh.", + "In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats. Rabbi Joshua allows one to immerse in such a mikveh only if the water floats on top of the mud. If the mud floats on top of the water he agrees that it is not usable.", + "If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud. Furthermore, if the water is not mixed up with the mud, he can't just immerse in the mud. He can immerse only in the water and it would seem that in such a case, the mud doesn't join together with the water.", + "Of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [mud] in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: [mud] into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water- skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure. There are six different opinions as to what type of mud can be mixed in with the water such that it counts to bring the total to forty seahs, even for Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Meir says that the mud must be loose enough to let a reed sink into it on its own without being pushed down. Rabbi Judah says the mud must be loose enough such that measuring-rod won't stand on its own. Abba Elazar ben Dulai (never heard of him before) says that the mud must be thin enough so that a plummet will sink due to its weight. Rabbi Eliezer refers to a type of jar used to clean out a cistern. Such a jar has a thin mouth. If the mud will flow into such a jar, then it does not disqualify the water in the cistern. Rabbi Shimon refers to a water skin whose mouth is even narrower. The mud must be loose enough to flow into such a water skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says it must be measurable in a log measuring instrument. This also means it must be relatively loose mud." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Rabbi Yose says: two mikvehs neither of which contains forty seahs and a log and a half [of drawn water] fell into this one and a log and a half into this one, and then they are mixed together, they remain valid, since they had never been called as invalid. But if there is a mikveh holding less than forty seahs, and three logs [of drawn water] fell into it, and it was then divided into two, it is invalid, since it had already been called invalid. According to Rabbi Yose, if the mikveh was never declared invalid because a full three logs of drawn water fell in at one time, then it remains valid even if it turns out that there are three logs of drawn water in it. This is what occurs in the first scenario. The opposite is true in the second scenario. Even though the mikveh was split into two and now in each mikveh there are less than three logs of drawn water, since it was originally declared invalid, both mikvaot remain invalid.", + "Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, for Rabbi Joshua used to say: any mikveh containing less than forty seahs into which three logs [of drawn water] fell and from which a kortov was withdrawn becomes valid, since the three logs have also been diminished. Rabbi Joshua says that both mikvaot are valid because neither mikveh now contains three logs of drawn water. This matches his general opinion that a mikveh into which exactly three logs of drawn water have been put can be made valid by removal of even a kortov, 1/64 of a log of water. Since this tiny bit of water will have some drawn water mixed in with it, there will now be less than three logs of drawn water in the mikveh. Therefore it is valid.", + "But the sages say: it always remains invalid until the amount of its former contents and a little more are removed. The other sages disagree with Rabbi Joshua. They hold that once a mikveh is disqualified because it has three logs of drawn water it cannot be made valid until an amount equal to and a little bit more than its original contents (the amount that was in it before the three logs were put in) is removed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's. It explains how a mikveh that has been disqualified because three logs fell into it can again become valid.", + "How so? If there was a cistern in a courtyard and three logs [of drawn water] fell into it, it will always remain invalid until the whole of it is removed and a little more, or until [another mikveh containing] forty se'ahs is placed in the courtyard, so that the higher mikveh is rendered valid by the lower. The mishnah provides two ways to revalidate a mikveh that has been declared invalid because of three logs of drawn water. The first is to remove all of the water and then allow new valid water to flow in. This is the solution we saw in yesterday's mishnah. The second way of validating the mikveh can work if there are two cisterns in the courtyard, one higher than the other. The higher one is the one that has been made invalid. He can add water to this cistern so that it overflows and the water will flow down into the lower cistern which also has less than forty seahs of water. The water flowing from the upper cistern will cause the lower one to have more than forty seahs and it will be pure. By virtue of its connection with the lower cistern which is valid, the higher cistern is also validated as a mikveh. We shall learn of this principle below in 6:8.", + "Rabbi Elazer ben Azariah declares it invalid unless the [new mikveh] is stopped up. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says he must stop up the upper mikveh, and then the bottom mikveh will fill up with forty seahs of valid water that he has allowed to flow into the courtyard and then he can attach the two mikvaot. But if he doesn't stop up the upper mikveh, then the invalid water will flow into the lower mikveh and it too will be invalid." + ], + [ + "If a cistern is full of drawn water and a channel leads into it and out of it, it continues to be invalid until it can be reckoned that there does not remain in it three logs of the former [water]. The water flowing through the channel is valid to be used as a mikveh. It will validate the cistern full of drawn water when we can assume that the channel has flushed out most of the drawn water, leaving no more than three logs worth in the cistern.", + "If two men each poured a log and a half [of drawn water] into a mikveh, or if one wrung out his clothes and so poured in [water] from several places, or if one emptied out a water-jug and so poured in [water]from several places, Rabbi Akiva declares it valid, But the sages declare it invalid. Rabbi Akiva said: they did not say \"if they poured in,\" rather \"if one poured in.\" But they said: they said neither thus nor thus, but rather \"if there fell in three logs [of drawn water].\" Rabbi Akiva says that for three logs of drawn water to invalidate a mikveh, they must all come from one source made in one pouring. Separate pourings do not join together to invalidate the mikveh. The water-jug to which he refers seems to have multiple spouts, so if one person pours in, it gets there in several pouring. The other sages disagree. Three logs of drawn water invalidate the mikveh even if they come from multiple sources. Both Rabbi Akiva and the sages derive their halakhah from a precise understanding of their received oral tradition. Rabbi Akiva's mishnah reads \"If one poured into a mikveh three logs of drawn water he invalidates it.\" Rabbi Akiva reads this mishnah precisely it is invalid only if one poured three logs in. If two or more together poured three logs into the mikveh, it is not invalid. The other sages have a different reading in their older mishnah. There mishnah reads \"if there fell in…\" There is no difference how these three logs got in. Their very presence invalidates the mikveh. As an aside, this is one of the most interesting examples I have come across of two sages arguing over the wording of an ancient mishnah. It is a clear example of the fact that prior to the generation of Rabbi Akiva there already existed an oral Torah upon which each sage could base his argument." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah. It continues to deal with logs of drawn water that fell from different vessels joining together to disqualify a mikveh.", + "[If the three logs of drawn water fell in] from one vessel or from two or from three, they combine together; but if from four, they do not combine together. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, the sages hold that the three logs can fall in from multiple sources and still disqualify the mikveh. However, if they fall in from four different vessels, since each vessel does not contain a full log (assuming equal distribution) they do not disqualify the mikveh.", + "If a man who had a seminal issue was sick and nine kavs of water fell on him, or if there fell on the head and the greater part of the body of a clean person three logs of drawn water from one vessel or from two or from three, they combine together; but if from four, they do not combine together. The mishnah now addresses a similar issue where there is a difference between three and four. There are two situations here. The first is a sick person who can't immerse in a mikveh. He is allowed to have nine kavs of drawn water poured on him to purify him from the impurity that is a result of a seminal emission. The second situation is a pure person upon whom fall three logs of drawn water this water is considered impure and will defile him. In both of these cases, if the amount falls on his head and the greater part of his body from three different sources, they combine together to purify the man who had the seminal emission or to defile the clean person. But if from four different sources, they do not have any effect.", + "In what case does this apply? When the second began before the first finished. The pouring from different vessels joins together if the second vessel began to be poured before the first was completed. If not, they are considered separate episodes of pouring.", + "And in what case does [the other statement] apply? When there was no intention to increase it. But if there was an intention to increase it, if only a kortov in a whole year, they combine together to add up to the three logs. This section limits the cases where the separate pourings do not join, either because they were from four vessels or because the first pouring stopped before the second began. That is only true when one poured into the mikveh by accident. If one poured the drawn water into the mikveh on purpose then it disqualifies the mikveh no matter how long it takes to get the three logs into the mikveh, even if it takes a whole year, the mikveh is invalidated." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If one put vessels under a water-spout, whether they be large vessels or small vessels or even vessels of dung, vessels of stone or earthen vessels, they make the mikveh invalid. Rain falls onto the roof and then comes down the water-spout and fills up the mikveh. Such rain is valid for use in the mikveh. The water-spout does not make it into drawn water. However, if after leaving the water-spout the rain water first passes through vessels it does invalidate the mikveh. This is true no matter what the vessels are, even if they are vessels that can't become impure. In other words, even though these vessels are not considered to be vessels such that they are susceptible to impurity, they are considered vessels such that they turn rain water into drawn water.", + "It is all alike whether they were put there [purposely] or were [merely] forgotten, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel declare it clean in the case of one who forgets. According to Bet Shammai, it doesn't matter how these vessels got there. Even if he forgot them underneath the water spout, the water collected in them will invalidate the mikveh. Bet Hillel holds that if the water was not drawn with intent, then it doesn't disqualify the mikveh (see 2:6-7). Therefore, if he forgets the vessel under the spout, the water that flows through it does not disqualify the mikveh.", + "Rabbi Meir said: they voted and Bet Shammai had a majority over Bet Hillel. Rabbi Meir says that the sages gathered together and ruled in favor of Bet Shammai. Since the halakhah is usually according to Bet Hillel, this seems to have been an especially memorable occasion (see also Shabbat 1:4).", + "Yet they agree in the case of one who forgets [and leaves vessels] in a courtyard that the mikveh remains clean. Rabbi Yose said: the controversy still remains as it was. Bet Shammai agrees that if he leaves vessels in the courtyard and they fill up with water that such water does not count as drawn water, for he certainly did not intend to draw water in such a manner. In contrast, if he forgot the vessels underneath the water spout, Bet Shammai fears that when he left the vessels there he intended to gather water. He only forgot them there at a later point. This is as if he put them there intentionally, therefore they invalidate the mikveh. Rabbi Yose disagrees with this. He holds that even if they were forgotten in the courtyard, Bet Shammai still holds that the water invalidates the mikveh." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with vessels placed under a water-spout and whether the water that flows from the roof, through the spout, into the vessel and then into the mikveh counts as drawn water to disqualify the mikveh.", + "One who put a board under a water-spout: if it had a rim to it, it disqualifies the mikveh; otherwise it does not disqualify the mikveh. If the board had a rim to it, then it counts as a vessel. Water that gathers in it is considered drawn water that disqualifies a mikveh. Without a rim it is not a vessel and the water in it does not disqualify the mikveh.", + "If he made it stand upright to be rinsed, in neither case does it disqualify the mikveh. Here it is 100 per cent clear that he did not put the board under the water-spout to collect water, just to rinse the spout. Therefore, it does not count as drawn water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with cases where the water-spout itself is considered a vessel and therefore any water that flows from it would disqualify the mikveh.", + "If one makes a hollow in a water-spout to collect pebbles, its water disqualifies the mikveh; In the case of a wooden [spout] if it holds even a little, But in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it will hold a quarter-log. Rabbi Yose says: also in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it holds even a little: they have spoken of \"a quarter-log\" only in the case of broken sherds of an earthenware utensil. The hollow was made to collect the pebbles and prevent them from continuing through the spout and clogging it up. However, this makes the water-spout itself into a vessel and the water that flows through it will, or at least might, disqualify the mikveh. The size of the hollow that will turn it into a vessel depends on the material in which it was made. If it was made of wood, the receptacle can be of any size, even the smallest size, and it causes the wood to be considered a receptacle. Since wood is the more expensive material, it seems that it is easier for wood to be considered a vessel. If it is of earthenware, it must hold at least a quarter-log. However, Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that even earthenware need hold only a minimal amount. Rabbi Yose acknowledges that there is an old halakhah concerning earthenware and the measurement of a quarter-log. However, this measurement deals with broken earthenware vessels they are still considered vessels as long as they can hold a quarter-log. But if the earthenware vessel is unbroken, it need hold only a minimal amount to be considered a vessel.", + "If the pieces of gravel moved about inside [the hollow], it disqualifies the mikveh. If dirt went down into it and was pressed down, [the mikveh continues to be] valid. The mishnah now deals with the question of when is the hollow considered to be full such that it no longer turns the water-spout into a vessel. If the pieces of gravel are still moving around, then it is not full. However, if dirt has been pressed down into it, then it is considered full and water that flows through the spout will not disqualify the mikveh.", + "If the spout was narrow at each end and wide in the middle, it does not disqualify [the mikveh] invalid, because it had not been made to gather anything in it. Although water might gather in such a spout, whose ends are narrow and middle is wide, the middle was not designed to hold water, just to let it pass through. Its water will not disqualify the mikveh." + ], + [ + "Drawn water and rain water which were mixed together in a courtyard or in a cavity or on the steps of a cave: If the greater part was valid, the whole is valid; And if the greater part is invalid, the whole is invalid. If they were equal in quantity, the whole is invalid. The \"cavity\" referred to here is a depression in the ground close to the mikveh, but not part of the mikveh. The steps of the cave are those that lead down into the mikveh (if you're ever in an archaeological site in Israel you will see those all over the place). Thus in all three of these cases the waters that are mixed together have not yet arrived at the mikveh. This is important because if the drawn water had flowed directly into the mikveh and there were not forty seahs of valid water in the mikveh, the mikveh would be invalid. In the cases listed here, as long as the majority is rain water, which is valid for use in the mikveh, the entire mikveh is valid.", + "When [does this apply]? When they were mingled together before they arrived at the mikveh. The leniency in the above section applies only if they are mingling such that they cannot be recognized as coming from different sources before they get to the mikveh.", + "If [the drawn water] flowed into the [rain] water: it was known that there fell in forty seahs of valid water before there came in three logs of drawn water, [the mikveh is] valid; otherwise it is invalid. However, if the drawn water is recognizable as it flows into the rain water (for instance the drawn water has a different color), then for the mikveh to be valid we must be sure that there were forty seahs of valid water in the mikveh before three logs of drawn water got in. As a reminder, once forty seahs of valid water (not drawn water) are in the mikveh, it is not invalidated by the addition of drawn water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the water gathered either in a trough found inside a rock, or with some sort of containing vessel made out of the stone of such a trough.", + "In the case of a trough in a rock: One may not fill up [the hatat waters] from it, nor may the [hatat waters] be consecrated in it, nor may one sprinkle from it. And it does not require a tightly stopped-up covering, And it does not invalidate the mikveh. While the trough is still in the rock, it doesn't count as a vessel. There are three areas of consequence to this. The first is that it can't be used for various parts of the preparation of the \"hatat waters\" those waters into which the ashes of the red heifer are mixed. This same mishnah can be found in Parah 5:7. Secondly, since it is not a vessel it does not need a tightly-fitting cover to protect its contents from becoming impure if found in a tent (an ohel) with a dead body. Third, the water in it is not considered drawn water such that it doesn't disqualify a mikveh.", + "If it was a vessel and had been joined to the ground with lime: One may fill up the hatat waters from it and the hatat waters may be consecrated in it, and one may sprinkle from it, And it requires a tightly stopped-up covering; And it invalidates the mikveh invalid. If he cut the trough out of the rock and made a vessel out of it, all of the opposite is true. Now it is a vessel so it can be used for the hatat waters but not for the mikveh.", + "If a hole was made in it below or at the side so that it could not contain water in however small a quantity, it is valid. And how large must the hole be? Like the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Yehudah ben Batera said: it happened in the case of the trough of Yehu in Jerusalem that there was a hole in it like the tube of a water-skin, all the pure things in Jerusalem were made using it. But Bet Shammai sent and broke it down, for Bet Shammai say: [it remains a vessel] unless the greater part of it is broken down. A trough can be nullified from being a vessel by having a hole in it the size of the tube of a water-skin. This is about two fingers in width. Since it can no longer contain water, it is no longer considered a vessel. Rabbi Yehudah ben Batera relates a story that happened during the Second Temple period in Jerusalem. The water in this trough was used to in the mikvaot of Jerusalem and everything that went through those mikvaot was considered pure. Until Bet Shammai came along, that is. Bet Shammai holds that the trough remains a vessel until the greater part is broken. So Bet Shammai actually sent for the trough and had it broken down to accommodate their purity stringencies. The mishnah does not say how Bet Hillel responded, but I am sure they were not happy." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "[Water from] a spring which is made to pass over into a trough becomes invalid. The trough that is set into the rock in the ground is considered a vessel. Therefore, when they direct the water from the spring into and through the trough, it gains the status of \"drawn water\" and cannot be used for a mikveh. The trough in this case is not above the spring, as it was in the case in 4:5.", + "If it was made to pass over the edge in any quantity, [what is] outside [the trough] is valid, for [the water of] a spring purifies however little its quantity. In this case, most of the waters from the spring pass into the trough but some go over the edge, outside of the trough. Even if the part of the spring that goes outside of the trough is only the smallest amount, it still validates the remainder of the water, because the living waters of the spring purify the drawn water from the trough even in the smallest amount. The only thing one couldn't do in this case is immerse directly into the water in the trough.", + "If it is made to pass over into a pool and then is stopped, the pool counts as a mikveh. If the spring is made to flow into a pool and then the spring is stopped up, the pool becomes a mikveh. When there are forty seahs in the mikveh, it will purify.", + "If it is made to flow again, it is invalid for zavim and for those with skin disease and for the preparation of the hatat waters until it is known that the former [water] is gone. If he lets the spring flow again the water that immediately flows after the point at which it had been stopped cannot be used for those people who require \"living waters\" zavim, people with tzaraat (skin disease) and for preparing that hatat waters (red heifer waters). The spring cannot be used until the water that had been temporarily stopped is gone, because once the water was stopped, it is no longer living waters." + ], + [ + "If it was made to pass over the outside of vessels or over a bench: Rabbi Judah says: behold it remains as it was before. Rabbi Yose says: behold it is like a mikveh, except that one may not immerse anything above the bench. In this case, the spring was made to pass over movable vessels or over a bench. Rabbi Judah says that the status of the spring has not changed. This means that the water still counts as \"living waters\" and even zavim, etc. can immerse in them. Such people can immerse in the spring after it has passed over the vessels or bench, just not in the part of the spring that directly passes over the vessels. Rabbi Yose says that now that the spring has passed over vessels the status is that of a mikveh. There will need to be forty seahs for the person to immerse but these are not \"living waters\" so zavim and those who require living waters cannot immerse there. And one cannot immerse directly over the bench or vessels themselves because while the water is there it counts as drawn water." + ], + [ + "If [water from] a spring that flows into many channels was increased in quantity so that it was made to flow in abundance, it remains as it was before. The spring here flows gently and splits into many little channels. The Hebrew word used to describe this is \"nadal\" which is the Hebrew word for centipede! If he added drawn water to such a spring, it still counts as a spring and one can immerse in it or in its small tributaries.", + "If it was standing and its quantity was increased so that it was made to flow, it becomes equal to a mikveh in that it can purify in standing water, and to a spring in that one may immerse [objects] therein however small its quantity. This spring is completely standing still and not flowing into little rivulets like the one in section one. It is like a mikveh in that a mikveh need not be flowing for it to effect purification. And it is also like a spring in that it need not be forty seahs in order for it to be valid for immersion." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the status of the seas do they count as a mikveh or as living waters?\nThe exact same mishnah is found in Parah 8:8. Most of my commentary is the same as it was there.", + "All seas are equivalent to a mikveh, for it is said, \"And the gathering ( of the waters He called the seas\" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir the seas are considered to be like a mikveh and not like a flowing spring, which can be used for the red cow, for zavim (those with unusual genital discharge) and for metzoraim (those with scale disease), all of whom require \"living waters.\" In contrast to the rules governing a spring, for a mikveh to purify the water must be gathered into one place and it cannot be running. The seas are treated like a mikveh and therefore its waters purify only when they are gathered in one place. Rabbi Meir learns this from a midrash on the word \"gathering\" which is in Hebrew, mikveh. Genesis calls the seas a mikveh and therefore they are subject to the same rules as a mikveh and not to the rules of a live spring.", + "Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a mikveh, for it says \"seas\" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. In contrast, Rabbi Judah limits this to the ocean, which in his case is the Mediterranean. Other seas are treated like springs and purify even when they are running. He explains that Genesis states \"seas\" not because it refers to all seas as a mikveh. Rather the Mediterranean is \"seas\" because it contains many different seas. One interpretation of this is that a fish that is caught in Akko does not have the same taste as a fish that is caught in Sidon!", + "Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose says that all seas can purify when they are running none have the same restrictions as do a mikveh. However, the seas are not considered to be \"living waters\" as would be a spring. Therefore, none of the seas can be used for any of the rituals that requires \"living waters\" the red cow, zavim and metzoraim. " + ], + [ + "Flowing water is considered like a spring and dripping water is considered like a mikveh. If one sees flowing water, then one can assume it comes from a spring and it can be treated like spring water for matters of purity. But if the water is dripping slowly on the ground, then it probably came from rain water and it must be treated like a mikveh. There will need to be forty seahs for it to be a source of purity.", + "Rabbi Zadok testified that if flowing water exceeded dripping water [with which it was mixed] it was valid [as flowing water]. If most of the water comes from flowing water, then it counts as flowing water and there need not be forty seahs for it to be purificatory.", + "If dripping water became flowing water, its flow may be blocked by a stick or by a reed or even by a zav or a zavah, and then one may go down and immerse oneself in it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: one may not stop the flow of water with anything which is liable to uncleanness. There is a stream of dripping water which one directed downhill such that it now became flowing water and it now flows into a river or wadi. If one wants to gather some of it in a specific place so that he can fully immerse in it, he can put a stick or reed to stop the water up. Even a zav or a zavah who require living water can direct the flow of this water and immerse in it. Rabbi Yose says that if one wants to immerse in flowing water one can't stop the flow with anything that is liable to uncleanness. All the more so, a zav or zavah cannot use such water because it is no longer considered living water. This principle was stated in Parah 6:4." + ], + [ + "If a wave was separated [from the sea] and was forty seahs, and it fell on a man or on vessels, they become clean. The wave that was separated from the sea is equivalent to a spring; thus one can immerse in it even when it is flowing. But it is also similar to the mikveh in that it must contain forty seahs. So if one put vessels in such a wave, the vessels would be pure.", + "Any place containing forty seahs is valid for immersing oneself and for immersing other things. Any hole in the ground that has forty seahs of water that has not been drawn is valid for a mikveh. One can immerse in it and one can immerse vessels in it as well.", + "One may immerse in trenches or in ditches or even in a donkey-track whose water is connected in a valley. This section illustrates the previous one. As long as there are forty seahs and the water was not drawn, one can immerse in water found anywhere. One can immerse even in donkey tracks found in a valley whose little puddles have been connected so that together they add up to 40 seahs.", + "Bet Shammai say: one may immerse in a rain torrent. But Bet Hillel say: one may not immerse. They agree that one may block its flow with vessels and immerse oneself in it, but the vessels with which the flow is blocked are not thereby [validly] immersed. According to Bet Shammai, if the from the start to the end of the rain flow there are 40 seahs of water, one can immerse in them. In other words, one doesn't even need any shape to the water whatsoever. As long as the source is rain (if the source was from the ground this would not be a mikveh but a spring) the water can serve as a mikveh. Bet Hillel says that the water must be gathered together for it to count as mikveh. After all, that is the meaning of the word \"mikveh\" gathered waters. Bet Hillel agrees that one may fence off the flow of rain water with vessels and thereby create a mikveh out of flowing rain water. But the vessels themselves don't count as having been immersed because the outside of the vessel is not touching the mikveh that has been formed on the inside and the water that flows outside is not valid for use as a mikveh." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Anything which is joined with [the water of] a mikveh is like a mikveh. A small body of water which is joined with a valid mikveh takes on the properties of the mikveh and can be used as such, even if it doesn't contain forty seahs.", + "One may immerse in holes of a cavern and in crevices of a cavern just as they are. This is an example of the principle in section one. One may use the holes in the sides of a cavern in which a mikveh is found, even if they are not connected to the mikveh itsel by a hole the size of the tube of a water-skin.", + "The pit of a cavern, one may not immerse in it unless it had a hole as big as the tube of a water-skin. This pit is dug out next to the mikveh in the cavern and is not part of the cavern itself. For this pit to be used as part of the mikveh it must be attached to the mikveh by a hole at least as wide as the tube of a water-skin. This same measure was mentioned in 4:5 concerning attaching a trough to a mikveh.", + "Rabbi Judah said: when [is this the case]? When it stands by itself; but if it does not stand by itself, one may immerse in it just as it is. Rabbi Judah limits this to a case when the pit stands on its own. If the pit does not stand on its own, but rather is leaning on the walls of the mikveh, then it is considered part of the mikveh and one can immerse in it even if it is not attached by a hole the size of the tube of a water-skin." + ], + [ + "If a bucket was full of utensils and they were immersed, they become clean; If one fully immerses a bucket into a mikveh, and in the bucket there are vessels that he wishes to purify, the vessels become clean. The waters of the mikveh enter the bucket and therefore even if the mouth of the bucket is narrower than the tube of a water-skin, all of the vessels count as being in the bucket.", + "But if [the bucket] was not immersed, the water in the bucket is not considered as joined [with the water of the mikveh] unless it be joined [by means of a hole in the bucket which is as big] as the tube of a water-skin. If he didn't put the entire bucket into the vessel, just part of it, and the waters of the mikveh entered the vessel through a hole in the vessel, then that hole must be as big as the tube of a water-skin. As we have seen, this is the size that allows the waters of the mikveh to be joined with another container." + ], + [ + "Three mikvehs, two of which held twenty seahs [of valid water] and the third held twenty seahs of drawn water, and that holding drawn water was at the side: If three persons went down and immersed themselves in them and [the water of the three mikvehs] joined, the mikvehs are clean and they that immersed themselves become clean. When the three people go down into the three mikvaot the water level rises and the water from each mikveh is mixed with the others. Since the mikveh with the invalid drawn water is at the side, this is a case where the two mikvaot with the valid water are mixed together first and then they together validate the drawn water from the third mikveh.", + "If the one holding the drawn water was in the middle and three persons went down and immersed themselves in them and [the water of the three mikvehs] joined, the mikvehs continue as they were before and they that immersed themselves are as they were before. If the mikveh with the invalid water is in the middle, then none of the mikvaot are rendered valid because the drawn water invalidates them both. However, the water is not invalidated because we don't know for sure that three logs of drawn water have gone in to the other mikvaot. If he were to subsequently fill one of these mikvaot, it would become valid. The people that immersed remain impure." + ], + [ + "If a sponge or a bucket containing three logs of water fell into a mikveh, they do not make it invalid, because they have only said: \"if three logs fell in.\" This mishnah is a great example of how some later rabbis read and expound upon statements made by earlier sages. The earlier sages said that if three logs of drawn water fall into a mikveh that doesn't have forty logs of water, they render it invalid. The rabbis of our mishnah say that there must be three actual logs of water that fall into the mikveh, not a sponge or a bucket containing three logs of water. Note that the mouth of the bucket must be thinner than the tube of a water-skin. If not, we are in the situation in mishnah two of this chapter and we consider the two sources to be joined." + ], + [ + "A chest or a box which is in the sea: one may not immerse in them unless they have a hole as large as the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Judah says: in the case of a large vessel [the hole should be] four handbreadths, and in a small one [the hole should be as large as] the greater part of it. The chest or box is floating on the water and water is entering through cracks. The question is whether the water in the box counts as if it was in the sea, in which case there is certainly sufficient water to immerse in it. The first opinion rules that a hole in the box the size of the tube of a water-skin is sufficient for the water in the box to count as mixed in with the waters of the sea. Rabbi Judah rules more stringently. He says that if the box is large, meaning that the majority of the box is more than four handbreadths, then the hole must be at least four handbreadths for the water to be considered mingled. If the box is smaller than that, than the hole must be at least the greater part of the size of the box. Basically, the box must have a pretty big hole relative to its size.", + "If there was a sack or a basket [in the sea], one may immerse in them as they are, since the water is mixed together. If they are placed under a water-spout, they do not make the mikveh invalid. And they may be immersed and brought up in the ordinary way. The sack and the basket are not at all water-proof, therefore their rules are different from those governing the box or chest. If they are in the sea, they count as being part of the sea and they don't need a hole in order to be able to immerse in them. If they are placed under a water-spout they don't cause the water to be considered \"drawn water\" as would vessels that are made to hold water. Finally, since the water in them doesn't count as \"drawn water\" one could immerse them in a mikveh containing exactly forty seahs of water and then pick them up again. The water that will gather in the basket and then fall back into the mikveh does not count as \"drawn water\" which would disqualify the mikveh." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah brings up some interesting cases in which a person can become pure and be made impure at virtually the same time.", + "If there was a broken [earthenware] vessel in the mikveh and utensils were immersed in it, they become clean from their [former] uncleanness but are again rendered unclean because of the earthenware vessel. But if water flowed above it in any quantity, they are clean. An impure broken earthenware vessel is floating on top of a mikveh or the sea. Water is entering it from its sides. If one immerses vessels in this broken vessel they are clean. This means that the water in the vessel does not count as \"drawn water\" because the vessel is broken. However, there is a problem (isn't there always?). An earthenware vessel cannot become pure by virtue of immersing it in a mikveh. [Earthenware vessels must be broken to become pure]. Therefore, this broken vessel is still impure. When one pulls out the vessel he is immersing, the water that comes up with it will immediately become impure by being in the airspace of the impure earthenware vessel. That water will then defile the vessel being immersed, as liquids always do. However, if the earthenware vessel is fully immersed in the water of the mikveh, then the water above it is pure because it is part of the mikveh. Thus if he immerses the vessel on top of the earthenware vessel, when he takes it out, it will be pure.", + "If [water of] a spring flowed forth from an oven and a man went down and immersed himself in it, he is clean but his hands become unclean. But if [the water was as] high above the oven as the height of his hands, his hands also are clean. An impure earthenware oven is set or even attached to the ground, as was the custom with ovens. Suddenly, a spring bursts forth from the ground through the oven (thereby ruining the pot roast, but that's another issue.) One can immerse in the spring inside the oven. However, his hands which will be inside the oven's airspace when he comes out, will be defiled. But if the water flows over the oven by at least the height of his hands, then when he comes out, his hands will be immersed in this water. If this is the case, they will remain pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah talks about how two mikvaot can be joined together such that if each has less than forty seahs of water, we can consider them both together so that they have forty seahs.", + "Mikvaot can be joined together [if their connection is as big] as the tube of a water-skin in thickness and in space, in which two fingers can be fully turned round. The hole connecting the two mikvaot must be the size the tube of a water-skin, which is two fingerbreadths in width. As the mishnah explains, one must be able to put one's fingers in the tube and fully turn them around.", + "If there is a doubt [whether it is as big] as the tube of a water skin or not, it is invalid, because [this is a mitzvah] from the Torah. If someone immerses in one of these mikvaot, and it alone has less than forty handbreadths and he is not sure whether the connection with the other mikveh is as big as the tube of a water-skin, he remains impure. This is because the mitzvah to immerse in the mikveh is from the Torah and in cases of doubt concerning toraitic impurity, the law is strict.", + "The same applies also to the olive's bulk of a corpse and the olive's bulk of carrion and the lentil's bulk of a sheretz. If there is a doubt whether a piece of corpse is the bulk of an olive, which is the size required to defile, or a piece of carrion (of an impure animal) is the size of an olive or a dead sheretz (creepy-crawly thing) is the size of a lentil, in all of these cases the law is stringent and that which it touched is considered impure. Again, this type of defilement is from the Torah.", + "Anything which remains in [the space measuring] the tube of a water-skin lessens [its measure]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if it is any water creature whatsoever, [the mikvaot] remain clean. If something remains in the hole that connects the two mikvaot, it reduces the size of the hole. If it is less than the size of a water-tube, the two mikvaot are not considered connected. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that if there is some sort of water-creature, perhaps a water-worm of some sorts, in the hole, it does not reduce the size of the hole. If someone immerses, he will be clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches how one can use one valid mikveh to make valid another mikveh valid.", + "Mikvaot may be made clean [by joining drawn water from] a higher [mikveh to valid water] from a lower [mikveh or drawn water from] a distant [mikveh to valid water] in a [mikveh] near at hand. If there are two mikvaot on the sides of sloped ground, one can make the higher mikveh valid by having it touch (literally, kiss) the lower mikveh. If the two mikvaot are on equal ground, one can similarly make the one valid by having it touch the other mikveh. The mishnah will now demonstrate how.", + "How so? One brings a pipe of earthenware or of lead and puts his hand beneath it till it is filled with water; then he draws it along till [the two waters] touch even if it be by a hair's breadth it is sufficient. He takes some pipe made of either earthenware or lead and puts one end in the higher (invalid) mikveh. Then he closes up the other end of the pipe with his hand and draws it along until the water in the pipe touches the lower mikveh. Even if only a little bit of water touches the lower mikveh, the waters of the upper mikveh are validated.", + "If in the higher [mikveh] there were forty seahs and nothing in the lower, one may draw water and carry it on the shoulder and place it in the higher [mikveh] till forty seahs have flowed down into the lower [mikveh]. In this case there are forty seahs of valid water in the upper mikveh but nothing in the lower mikveh. He can draw more water and carry it to fill up the upper mikveh because once it has forty valid seahs, no amount of drawn water renders it invalid. Then he can use a pipe to let water flow from the upper mikveh to the lower mikveh. In this way he can essentially use drawn water to fill the lower mikveh. Pretty neat!" + ], + [ + "If a wall between two mikvaot had a perpendicular crack, [their waters] may be reckoned together; [If it was cracked] horizontally, they cannot be reckoned together, unless there is at one place [a hole as big] as the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Judah says: the rule is reversed. According to the first opinion, perpendicular cracks between the walls that runs add up together, such that if all of the cracks add up to the size of the tube of a water-skin, then the two mikvaot can be reckoned together to reach the requisite 40 seahs. However, if the crack runs horizontally, then there must be at least the size of the tube of a water-skin at one single point for the two mikvaot to be joined. Rabbi Judah says the reverse horizontal cracks do join together to add up the requisite size of a whole, but perpendicular cracks do not join together.", + "If there is a breach from one [mikveh] to the other, [they can be reckoned together] if the height is as [the thickness of] the skin of garlic and the breadth like the tube of a water-skin. For a breach to serve to connect two mikvaot that have a wall separating them, the breach must have a very minimum height, only as high as the skin of a piece of garlic. However, it must be as wide as the tube of a water-skin." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a bathtub that has a pipe leading out of it for drainage. The bathtub itself seems to have been filled up with collected rainwater, such that the water in it could be valid as a mikveh. However, the pipe has a stopper on the outside and putting the stopper into the end of the pipe causes the water in the stopper to be considered drawn water. The question is: does this drawn water invalidate the valid water in the tub?", + "The outlet of a bath-basin: if it is in the center, it renders [the bath] invalid [as a mikveh]; but if it is at the side, it does not render it invalid, because then it is like one mikveh adjoining another mikveh, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, if the outlet is in the middle of the bathtub, the drawn water in it causes the entire bathtub to be invalid. However, if the outlet is at the end of the tub then the mikveh remains valid because this is considered like a mikveh of drawn water which is invalid, which is next to a mikveh of valid water. As we learned in 2:5, such a mikveh is not invalidated.", + "But the sages say: if the bath- basin can contain a quarter-log of [water] before it reaches the outlet, it is valid; but if not, it is not valid. According to the sages, if there is a quarter-log of water in the basin before any water drains out the outlet, then the mikveh is valid for this is the minimum measure from the Torah (as determined by the sages) for a valid mikveh. In such a case, we would have a valid mikveh next to an invalid mikveh. But if not, then the water in the bath-basin cannot count as a mikveh.", + "Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: if the outlet can contain any amount of [water], it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer considers the water in the outlet to be water in a vessel that is in a mikveh, which means that there is drawn water in the mikveh. No matter the size or position of the outlet, the mikveh is invalid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a pool of cool water that people were accustomed to immerse in after bathing in the hot waters of the bathhouse. The waters in the bathhouse were definitely drawn water, so one would need to purify after emerging from the hot bath.", + "The ‘purifier' in the bathhouse: the bottom was full of drawn [water] and the top full of valid [water], if [the space] in front of the hole can contain three logs it is invalid [as a mikveh]. How large must the hole be to contain three logs? 1/320th of the pool, the words of Rabbi Yose. There are two pools next to each other, one elevated above the other. The bottom one contains drawn water and the top is full of valid water. The two pools are connected by a hole. If the hole can contain three logs (the amount of drawn water that invalidates a mikveh) then we look at it as if the water from the lower pool has gone into the upper pool and its waters are invalid to use as a mikveh. If a normal pool has forty seahs, which is equivalent to 960 logs of water (1 seah=24 logs) then three logs are 1/320th of the size of a normal mikveh.", + "But Rabbi Elazar says: even if the bottom [pipe] was full of valid [water] and the top [pipe] full of drawn [water] and by the hole's side were three logs, [the bath is] valid, for they have only said: \"if three logs fell in.\" Rabbi Elazar says that three logs invalidate a mikveh only if they fall in. They do not invalidate a mikveh in a case such as we have here, because in this case there was invalid water standing next to valid water and connected by a hole. This same literal reading of the older tradition was found above in mishnah four." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Some materials raise the mikveh up [to the required quantity] and do not make it invalid.
Some make it invalid and do not raise it up [to the required quantity];
And some neither raise it up [to the required quantity] nor make it invalid.
These raise it up to the required quantity and do not make the mikveh invalid. Snow, hail, frosted dew, ice, salt, and thin mud.
Rabbi Akiva said: Rabbi Ishmael once argued against me saying; snow does not raise up the mikveh [to its required quantity]. But the men of Madeba testified in his name that he had once told them: go and bring snow and with it prepare a mikveh from the outset.
Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: hailstones are like drawn water.
How do they raise it up [to the required quantity] and not render it invalid? If the mikveh contained forty seahs less one, and a se'ah of them fell in and made up [the required quantity], they thus make up [the required quantity] but do not render it invalid.
Sections 1-3: These sections serve as an introduction to the next few mishnayot which will explain each section and case, one at a time.
Section four: If one of the following materials falls into a mikveh that does not have forty seahs, and with the addition of the material the mikveh now has forty seahs, the mikveh is valid. In addition, if any of these materials fall into a mikveh, they do not invalidate it, even if they were put into a vessel. In other words, these materials can only benefit and not harm the mikveh.
Section five: Rabbi Akiva says that Rabbi Ishmael tried to argue that snow does not count in raising the mikveh up to its requisite amount. However, his argument failed because some men from Madeba (a city in Jordan, there is a famous mosaic map of the Holy Land there) testified that Rabbi Ishmael once told them to fill up a mikveh with snow, even though he wasn't sure if this was valid.
We should note that this is a very interesting and unique case where one rabbi testifies that another rabbi argued a position with which he did not agree.
Section six: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that hailstones are treated like water. If they have been drawn in a vessel and then they were put into a mikveh, they render the mikveh invalid.
Section seven: This section explains how any of these substances can raise a mikveh up to the requisite quantity." + ], + [ + "These invalidate the mikveh and do not raise it up to [the required quantity]: Drawn water, whether clean or unclean, water that has been used for pickling or for boiling, and grape-skin wine before it becomes vinegar. How do they make the mikveh invalid and do not raise it up [the required quantity]? If a mikveh contained forty seahs less a kortov, and a kortov of these fell into it, it does not raise it up [the required quantity]; And if there were three logs of any of these, they would invalidate the mikveh. The mishnah now explains the types of materials that do invalidate a mikveh. As we have learned many times, drawn water certainly invalidates a mikveh, at least one that doesn't already have forty seahs of valid water. This is true regardless of whether the water is pure or impure. Similarly, water that has been used for pickling or for boiling invalidates the mikveh. Grape-skin wine is really water with a little bit of flavor in it. This type of wine invalidates a mikveh only before it turns into vinegar. Grape-skin wine that has fermented into vinegar is dealt with in section two. If one of these substances falls into a mikveh and thereby raises the level of the mikveh to forty seahs, it does not cause the mikveh to have the requisite amount. And if three logs or more fall in, they invalidate the mikveh.", + "But other liquids, and the juice of fruits, brine, and liquid in which fish has been pickled, and grape-skin wine that has fermented sometimes raise it up to [the required quantity] and sometimes do not raise it up. How so? If a mikveh contained forty seahs less one, and a seah of any of these fell in it, it does not raise it up to [the required quantity]. But if the mikveh contained forty seahs and a se'ah of any of these was put in and one seah was removed, the mikveh is still valid. Other liquids like milk, wine and the liquids listed here are neutral they neither raise the level nor invalidate the mikveh. If the mikveh has less than forty seahs and a seah of one of these substances spills in, it does not raise it up to the requisite level. But if the mikveh has the requisite level and one of these falls in and then one seah is removed, the mikveh remains valid because when the seah of the liquid fell in, there were already forty seahs. In this way, the liquid can, in a sense, aid in raising the mikveh to the requisite level." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with various ways in which a change in the color of the water of the mikveh can render it invalid.", + "If he rinsed in the mikveh baskets of olives or baskets of grapes and they changed its color, it remains valid. Changing the color of the water renders it invalid only if something of substance falls into the mikveh, such as grapes or olives. However, the color from the baskets that are rinsed in the mikveh does not count as a substance and therefore it does not render the mikveh invalid.", + "Rabbi Yose says: dye-water renders it invalid by a quantity of three logs, but not merely by changing its color. Dye water is treated like drawn water. It renders the mikveh invalid but only if there are three logs of it. A smaller amount does not render the mikveh invalid, even if it changes the color of the water", + "If wine or the sap of olives fell into it and changed its color, it becomes invalid. Since these do count as substances, they do render the mikveh invalid if there is enough to change the color of the water.", + "What should one do [to make it valid again]? One should wait until the rain falls and the color reverts to the color of water. This section teaches how one can \"fix\" a mikveh that became invalid because it was colored. This mikveh does not have forty seahs of water. One can wait until the rain falls and enough water goes in so that the color returns to the normal color of water. Note that this might take a while in Israel, where rain does not fall for about half of the year (May-October).", + "If it contained forty seahs, water may be drawn and carried on the shoulder and put into it until the color reverts to that of water. If the mikveh already has forty seahs it is even easier to fix it if the color has changed. One can simply fill up a bucket with drawn water and add it to the mikveh, because drawn water does not invalidate a mikveh that already has forty seahs of valid water." + ], + [ + "If wine or the sap of olives fell into the mikveh and changed the color of a portion of the water, if there is not a portion [of the mikveh] that has forty seahs with the color of water, one may not immerse in there. If the wine or sap from olives changed one part of the mikveh, meaning somehow the color stayed on one side, then one cannot immerse in the mikveh unless the remaining side that still has the color of water has at least forty seahs. I'm not really sure how practical this is (the color would assumedly dissipate pretty quickly throughout the mikveh), but it does teach a principle. The colored water is not usable as a mikveh but it doesn't disqualify the mikveh. Therefore, we can effectively ignore the fact that there is colored water on one side of the mikveh such water doesn't count, but doesn't disqualify." + ], + [ + "If a kortov of wine fell into three logs of water and its color became like that of wine, and the water then fell into a mikveh, it does not render it invalid. Wine doesn't disqualify a mikveh. Drawn water does. So what do we do with a mixture of the two? According to the mishnah, if the color is like wine, then the water is treated like wine. It is interesting to note that since in the time of the Mishnah people usually drank their wine mixed with water, a cup of wine/water would probably be in their eyes, wine, not water mixed with wine. In other words, if it has the color of wine, its wine.", + "If there were three logs of water less a kortov into which a kortov of milk fell, and their color remained like the color of water, and then they fell into a mikveh, they do not render it invalid. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: everything goes by the color. In this case, a little bit of milk, which does not disqualify the mikveh, falls into almost three logs of drawn water, which are not quite sufficient to disqualify the mikveh. There are now three logs of what looks like drawn water, but since there are not actually three logs of drawn water, the mikveh is not disqualified. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees with this case. Since the color is that of water, the substance must be treated as water which does disqualify the mikveh. This would make the rule in section two consistent with that in section one." + ], + [ + "If a mikveh contained forty seahs exactly and two persons went down and immersed themselves one after the other, the first becomes clean but the second remains unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the feet of the first were still touching the water, the second also becomes clean. When the first person exits the mikveh, he will inevitably remove some water with him. The mikveh will now have less than forty seahs of water, so the second person to immerse will not become pure. Rabbi Judah says that if the feet of the first person are still in the mikveh, we consider all of the water on his body to still be in the mikveh. In such a case, the second person to immerse is pure.", + "If one immersed a thick cloak and when he drew it out a part was still in contact with the water [and then another person immersed himself in the mikveh], he becomes clean. This matches Rabbi Judah's opinion from above. As long as part of the thick cloak is still in the water, the water that is on or soaked up by the cloak counts as if it was still part of the mikveh.", + "A pillow case or a cushion of leather, as soon as it is taken out of the water by its open ends the water which still remains in it is drawn water. How should one do it? One should immerse them and draw them up by their lower edges. The pillow case and leather cushion both have a receptacle. Therefore, as soon as they are immersed in the mikveh and some of the open ends are removed, the water in them is considered drawn water. This would disqualify the mikveh if it wasn't large enough, meaning if there wasn't forty seahs of valid water. The way to fix this problem is to immerse the pillow case or leather cushion with the open side down, such that when he pulls them out, there is no water inside. Simple problem, simple solution!" + ], + [ + "If he immersed a bed in it, even though its legs sink into the thick mud, it still becomes clean because the water touched them before [the mud]. Since the legs of the bed are immersed in the mikveh's waters before they sink into the mud at the bottom of the mikveh, they are clean. Note that this mikveh has at least forty seahs of water. Furthermore, immersing only in water thick with mud would not suffice to make something clean (see mishnah one of this chapter).", + "The water of a mikveh which is shallow, one may press down even bundles of sticks, even bundles of reeds, so that the level of the water may rise, and then go down and immerse oneself. This mikveh is shallow but still has exactly forty seahs of water. The problem is that the water is too shallow to immerse his whole body. He may take bundles of wood or reeds and place them on the sides of the mikveh to create a narrower deeper space. He is allowed to do this even though water will creep into the sides of the mikveh in between the spaces within the bundles of the wood or reeds and thereby reduce the volume of the other water in the mikveh. The mishnah teaches that the water in these spaces counts in constituting the requisite forty seahs for a mikveh.", + "If an [unclean] needle is placed on the step [leading down to a mikveh] in a cavern, and the water is put in motion, once a wave has passed over it, [the needle] becomes clean. The wave of water that reaches up from the mikveh and immerses the unclean needle is sufficient to purify the needle." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with mikvaot that are found and with whether one can assume that they have been filled with rainwater and are valid or that they have been filled with drawn water and are invalid.", + "The land of Israel is clean and its mikvaot are clean. The rabbis declared that merely being in the land of the other nations defiles. The land of Israel, on the other hand, is clean. Similarly, if one sees a mikveh in Israel and is not sure if it is valid or not, the presumption is that it too is valid.", + "The mikvaot of the nations outside the land are valid for those who had a seminal emission even though they have been filled by a pump-beam; According to rabbinic legend/law, Ezra decreed that men who have had a seminal emission must immerse in a mikveh before they study Torah or pray (this is no longer observed). A mikveh found outside of the land of Israel can be assumed to be valid for such a purpose for this immersion is mandated only by rabbinic law. This is true even if it had been filled with a pump-beam, which would mean that it is certainly drawn water. However, the mikveh is not valid for other types of immersions that are toraitic in origin.", + "Those in the land of Israel: when outside the entrance [to the city] are valid even for menstruants, and those within the entrance [to the city] are valid for those who had a seminal emission but invalid for all [others] who are unclean. Mikvaot found outside of the city can be assumed to have been filled with rain water or some other natural water. Mikvaot in the city are assumed to have been filled with drawn water and are invalid. With that in mind, if one finds a mikveh outside of the city gates, anyone can immerse there, even a menstruant, whose obligation to immerse is from the Torah. But if one finds a mikveh inside the city, it is only valid for men who have had a seminal emission, whose obligation is derabanan, from the rabbis.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: those which are near to a city or to a road are unclean because of laundering; but those at a distance are clean. Rabbi Eliezer adds that mikvaot found near the city or near a road may have been used for laundering. During the laundering water would have been put into the mikveh and this creates the presumption that the mikveh is invalid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah and tomorrow's deal with what constitutes a seminal emission such that a man must go to the mikveh. I know, you're thinking, doesn't a man know when one has had a emission? I would imagine that this is generally the case. But the rabbis talk about everything like this. They also talk about how a woman can distinguish between menstrual blood and blood from another source, even though most women probably can tell the difference. This is simply part of the way the rabbis talk.", + "These are the men who had a seminal emission who require immersion: The men listed below require immersion even though we are not one hundred per cent sure that they have had a seminal emission.", + "If he noticed that his urine issued in drops or was murky: At the beginning he is clean; In the middle and at the end, he is unclean; From the beginning to the end, he is clean. The liquid being emitted is not like urine, which generally doesn't come out in drops, as does semen. But then again, it is not like semen, which is usually white not murky. What is it? If the stream begins this way, he is clean, for this is not considered semen. It is probably just problematic urination (yes, we've heard of this problem on radio ads). If it occurs at the middle or end of his urination, then it is considered semen for it is unusual for urine to begin normally and then turn into murky drops. If it occurs from the beginning to the end, then that's just the way he urinates. Hopefully, things will get better.", + "If it was white and viscous, he is unclean. Rabbi Yose says: what is white counts like what is murky. If the issue was white and viscous, meaning in clumps, not little drops, then it is semen and he is unclean. Rabbi Yose says that even if it is white, if he sees such a type of emission at the beginning, he is pure, the same as is true with murky liquid." + ], + [ + "If he emitted thick drops from his member, he is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar Hisma. Thick drops are characteristic of semen (I refuse to disclose my sources on this one). Therefore, if he emits thick drops, even at the beginning of the stream (see yesterday's mishnah), he is unclean.", + "If one had sexual dreams in the night and arose and found his flesh heated, he is unclean. His flesh is a euphemism for his penis (see Leviticus 15:2, every language seems to have an abundance of these words). If he has sexual dreams at night and he wakes up and finds his flesh warm, he can assume that he had an emission, even if he doesn't find any other signs.", + "If a woman discharged semen on the third day, she is clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Ishmael says: sometimes there are four time periods, and sometimes five, and sometimes six. Rabbi Akiva says: there are always five. Semen defiles not only the man, but also a woman with whom he has had sexual intercourse (see Leviticus 15:18). The question asked here is how long the semen that is inside her counts as semen such that it defiles her. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, by the third day the semen inside her has deteriorated enough such that it doesn't count as semen. If she has some discharge, she is not impure. A time period is either a day or a night. Rabbi Ishmael holds that a woman who has discharge on the third day is impure, but one who has discharge on the fourth day is pure. Therefore, sometimes there can be four time periods in which she is impure. For instance if she has relations on late Sunday afternoon, the discharge is impure through Wednesday morning, which is four full time periods (Sunday night, Monday day, Monday night, Tuesday day). But if she has relations at the beginning of Sunday morning, then Sunday day counts as another time period, and there are five. And if she has relations on Saturday night at the beginning of the night, then Saturday night counts as one of the time periods, and there will be six time periods. Rabbi Akiva says that the time is set by the number of periods between the time she had relations and the time that she discharges the semen. If she discharges within five time periods, she is impure." + ], + [ + "If a non-Jewish woman discharged semen from an Israelite, it is unclean. If an Israelite woman discharged semen from a non-Jewish man, it is clean. In general, non-Jews were considered to be outside the scope of the Israelite purity laws. Only semen from an Israelite is considered halakhically unclean. Therefore, the religion of the woman who discharged the semen is irrelevant; only the religion of the man has any relevance.", + "If a woman had intercourse and then went down and immersed herself but did not sweep out the house, it is as though she had not immersed herself. \"Sweeping out the house\" is a euphemism for a woman cleaning herself out after sexual relations with a man. If she does not clean herself out, the semen defiles her when she immerses from the mikveh.", + "If a man who had a seminal emission immersed himself but did not first pass urine, he again becomes unclean when he passes urine. Rabbi Yose says: if he was sick or old he is unclean, but if he was young and healthy he remains clean. Urinating will flush out the semen that remains in the man. Therefore, he should urinate before he immerses in the mikveh. If he does not, he remains unclean. Rabbi Yose says that this is so only with an old or sick person, who evidently does not ejaculate with quite as much vigor. A young healthy male expels all of the semen and therefore does not need to urinate in order to clear himself out." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is about things that block the water of the mikveh from having full contact with the body such that proper immersion occurs. The Hebrew term for this is \"hatzitzah.\"", + "If a menstruant placed coins in her mouth and went down and immersed herself, she becomes clean from her [former] uncleanness, but she becomes unclean on account of her spittle. The coins that are found in a menstruant's mouth do not block her from becoming clean from her impurity, because one does not need to immerse the inside of one's mouth. However, she is made unclean immediately by the spittle that is found on the coins. This spittle is considered to have separated from her and landed on the coins and from there it re-defiles the woman.", + "If she put her hair in her mouth or closed her hand or pressed her lips tightly, it is as though she had not immersed herself. While she need not cleanse the inside of her mouth, she does need to cleanse her hair, the palms of her hands and the outside parts of her lips. If she prevents the water from getting to these spots, then she remains impure.", + "If a person held on to another man or to vessels and immersed them, they remain unclean; but if he had washed his hand before in the water, they become clean. Rabbi Shimon says: he should hold them loosely that water may enter into them. By holding on tightly to the other person or to vessels, he blocks the water from reaching the spots where he is holding them. Therefore, the person he is holding or the vessels remain unclean. However, if he washed his hands in the mikveh before he immerses, then the water that is on his hands joins the water that is in the mikveh and there is no blockage. Rabbi Shimon says that this is not sufficient. He should let his hands hold them loosely so that water comes between his hands and the vessels or the other person.", + "The hidden or wrinkled parts of the body do not need that water should enter into them. The hidden parts include, for instance, the inside of one's mouth or the inside one's ears. The wrinkled parts might include a wrinkle of fat, or something of that nature. These parts do not need to come into contact with water." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe ninth chapter deals completely with the issue of what blocks immersion.\nToday's mishnah begins with what blocks immersion for a person. The end of the chapter (5-7) deals with what blocks immersion in vessels.", + "The following block [immersion] in the case of a person: threads of wool, threads of flax and the ribbons on the heads of girls. If a girl wears threads of wool, flax or other types of ribbons in her hair, they block her immersion.", + "Rabbi Judah says: those of wool or of hair do not interpose, because water enters through them. According to Rabbi Judah, threads of wool or hair do not block the water from entering. Therefore, her immersion is successful" + ], + [ + "The matted hair on the heart and on the beard and on a woman's hidden parts; pus outside the eye, hardened pus outside a wound and the plaster over it, dried-up juice, clots of excrement on the body, dough under the finger nails, sweat-crumbs, miry clay, potter's clay, and road-clay.
What is meant by 'miry clay’? This means the clay in pits, for it is written: \"He lifted me out of the miry pit, the slimy clay\" (Psalms 40:3).
\"Potter's clay\" according to its literal sense. Rabbi Yose declares potter's clay clean, but clay for putty unclean.
And \"road-clay.\"
These become like road-side pegs in these [kinds of clay] one may not immerse oneself nor immerse [other things] with them;
But in all other clay one may immerse when it is wet.
One may not immerse oneself with dust [still] on one's feet.
One may not immerse a kettle with soot [on it] unless he scraped it.
Section one: This section is a list of things that block successful immersion.
Most of these are self-explanatory. Sweat-crumbs are formed on your hands when they are dirty and you rub them together and little balls are formed (this is actually quite a clever description of those little things).
The various types of clay are explained in the continuation of the mishnah.
Section two: Miry clay is clay found in pits the word comes from the verse in Psalms.
Sections three and four: These seem to be self-explanatory.
Section five: All of these types of clay become like \"road-side pegs.\" This refers to a person who walks in mud and has around his legs cakes of mud. One is not allowed to immerse with these types of clay on him, nor can one immerse vessels with this type of mud on them.
Section six: Other types of mud do not block immersion, as long as they are wet.
Section seven: The dust on one's feet block immersion.
Section eight: Before one immerses a kettle, one must scrape off the soot. The words \"unless he scraped it\" can also refer to the dust on one's legs." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with clumps of matted hair that do not block successful immersion from occurring.", + "The following do not block: the matted hair of the head and of the armpits and of a man's hidden parts. These types of matted hair do not block successful immersion from occurring, in contrast with those found in yesterday's mishnah which do. Note that male pubic hair does not block immersion, whereas female pubic hair does.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: it is the same with a man or a woman: if it is something which one finds annoying, it blocks; but if it is something which one does not find annoying, it does not interpose. Rabbi Eliezer issues a more egalitarian ruling. No matter the gender, if the person finds the matted hair annoying, then it blocks immersion. This same general rule is found in mishnah seven. Rabbi Eliezer differs from the other sages in that he applies it also to pubic hair." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues the list of things that do not block immersion.", + "Pus within the eye, hardened pus within a wound, juice that is moist, moist excrement on the body, excrement inside the finger nail, and a dangling finger nail and the downy hair of a child. All of the things listed here do not cause immersion to be blocked. Note that some of these should be contrasted with the list in mishnah one, for instance moist excrement, which does not block, and dry excrement, which does.", + "[These] are not liable to uncleanness and do not cause uncleanness. In addition, all of the items listed above are not considered to be attached to the body. Thus if the body became impure, these things remain pure. And if these things contracted impurity, the rest of the body remains pure.", + "The membrane which forms over a wound is liable to uncleanness and causes uncleanness. In contrast, the scab of a wound is part of the body and its purity status goes along with the rest of the body. If it contracts impurity, a person's whole body is impure and if the body is defiled, it too is defiled." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with cases in which pitch and myrhh stains block the successful immersion of vessels. The general rule is quite obvious if the person would want to remove the stain of pitch or myrrh, then it blocks immersion. But if we can assume that they don't care, then they do not.", + "In the case of vessels the following block: pitch and myrrh; The entire mishnah deals with when pitch and myrrh (the sap that comes from the myrrh tree), block successful immersion.", + "In the case of glass vessels, whether inside or outside; Glass vessels are the most precious and expensive of all vessels. If pitch or myrrh were to be found anywhere, inside or outside of these vessels, the person would wish to have it removed. Therefore they block immersion.", + "On a table or on a board or on a couch; On those that are [usually] kept clean they block; On those that are allowed to remain dirty they do not block. If the table is generally kept clean, then one would want to remove the pitch or myrrh. Therefore, they do block immersion. If the table is allowed to remain dirty, then one doesn't care if there is pitch or myrrh on it. Since one doesn't care about it, it doesn't block immersion.", + "They block in the case of beds belonging to householders, but they do not block on beds belonging to a poor person. A normal householder would care if there was pitch or myrrh on his bed. Therefore, if the bed belongs to a householder, pitch and myrrh block immersion. But a poor person is probably used to having a bed with some dirt on it. For him, pitch and myrrh do not block immersion.", + "They block on the saddle of a house-holder, but they do not block on the saddle of a dealer in water-skins. Again, a regular house-holder cares that there shouldn't be pitch or myrrh on his saddle. But those who deal in water-skins are used to the presence of pitch and myrrh. Therefore, they don't block the successful immersion of his saddle.", + "They block in the case of a pack-saddle. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [only if the stain is as big] as an Italian issar. On a pack-saddle, they always block immersion. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that the stain must have a minimum size that of a coin called the Italian issar." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah talks about when such types of stains block the successful immersion of vessels.", + "On clothing: if on one side [only] they do not block. But [if found] on two sides they do block. If the stain can be seen on only one side of the clothing, it does not block. But if the stain can be seen on both sides of the clothing then it is a deeper stain and it must be removed before the clothing can be successful immersed.", + "Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: on one side also. According to Rabbi Judah, even if the stain can only be seen on one side of the clothing, it blocks immersion.", + "Rabbi Yose says: in the case of builders they block if on one side, but in the case of the ditch-digger only if on both sides. Rabbi Yose says that when it comes to builders, their clothing cannot be immersed even if the stain can be seen only on one side . According to this interpretation (others interpret the mishnah to refer to bathhouse attendants), builders take care that their clothes shouldn't have any stains on them, and therefore they would wish to remove this stain. But ditch-diggers (this is the interpretation suggested by Albeck others read \"the uncultured\") do not care if their clothing is stained on one side. Therefore, it blocks immersion only if the stain can be seen on both sides." + ], + [ + "They do not block in the case of aprons belonging to workers in pitch, potters, or trimmers of trees. Rabbi Judah says: the same applies also to summer fruit-driers. Since these people don't care how dirty their aprons become, stains never block successful immersion.", + "This is the general rule: if it is something which one cares enough [to remove], it blocks; but if it is something which one does not care enough [to remove], it does not block. This is the general rule that basically explains the entire chapter. If the person is assumed to want to remove the stain from his clothing, vessel or himself, then it does block immersion. But if he doesn't care that it's there, then the person or article/vessel can be immersed even with the substance on it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Any handles of vessels which have been fixed not in their usual manner, or, if fixed in their usual manner, have not been fixed firmly, or, if fixed firmly, have been broken, they block. Handles of vessels that have not been attached properly, or were attached properly but broke, block successful immersion. However, if the handle is properly attached to the vessel, it does not block immersion.", + "If a vessel was immersed with its mouth downwards, it is as though it had not been immersed. If the vessel is immersed with its mouth downwards, water will not fully enter it. Therefore, the immersion does not count.", + "If immersed in the regular manner but without the attachment, [it becomes clean] only if turned on its side. The attachment referred to here seems to be some sort of drainage pipe placed on the side of the vessel. If he immerses it in the normal manner, the water will not enter this attachment. Therefore, it is not pure until he immerses it on its side so that water will enter the drainage pipe.", + "If a vessel is narrow at each end and broad in the center, it becomes clean only if turned on its side. The water will enter this vessel only if it is immersed on its side.", + "A flask which has its mouth turned inwards becomes clean only if a hole is made at the side. Water will not enter this vessel through its mouth, therefore to successfully immerse it he must make a hole in its side.", + "An inkpot of laymen becomes clean only if a hole is made at the side. The inkpot of Joseph the priest had a hole at its side. The inkpot used by laypeople will not allow water into its mouth, if it is immersed. Therefore, one must make a hole in it to allow the water in. It would seem that the inkpots of professional scribes were made differently. Joseph the priest seems to have been well-known for making a permanent hole in his inkpot so that it would be easy to immerse. Assumedly, when using it, he would plug it up temporarily." + ], + [ + "A bolster and a cushion of leather it is necessary that the water enter inside them. This section lists coverings which one regularly puts stuff in and takes stuff out of. Therefore, the insides must be immersed as well as the outsides.", + "A round cushion or a ball or a bootmaker's last or an amulet or a phylactery, it is not necessary that the water enter inside them. In contrast, these items have something inside of them which is not customarily removed. Therefore, they do not need to be opened up in order to be immersed.", + "This is the general rule: any article the filling of which is not usually taken out and put in may be immersed unopened. This is the general rule that explains the distinction between the items in sections one and two." + ], + [ + "The following do not require that the water shall enter inside them:
Knots [in the clothes] of a poor man,
or in tassels,
or in the thong of a sandal,
or in a head-tefillin if it is fastened tightly,
or in an arm-tefillin if it does not move up or down,
or in the handles of a water-skin,
or in the handles of a wallet.
This mishnah lists things that don't require the water of the mikveh to enter into them in order to be cleansed.
Section one: The poor man will not undo the knots, therefore water need not enter inside the knot.
Section two: Tassels on the fringes of garments are not generally undone.
Section three: This is the knot that attaches the sandal to attach the forefoot. The straps on the other side would be tied and untied but the thong part would not.
Section four: As we know, straps are attached to the tefillin. If the strap is attached tightly to the head tefillin, it does not need to be loosened to be immersed in the mikveh.
Section five: If the strap on the arm-tefillin is tight enough so that the box doesn't move up and down on its own, then the water need not go inside the connection between the two. This is a lesser connection then the connection required for the head-tefillin because the arm-tefillin must be adjusted in order to put it on one's arm.
Sections six and seven: One never removes these handles. Therefore, water need not enter in between the handle and the skin or wallet." + ], + [ + "The following require that water shall enter inside them:
The knot in an undergarment which is tied to the shoulder.
The hem of a sheet must be stretched out.
And the knot of head tefillin if it is not fastened tightly,
Or of the arm-tefillin if it moves up and down.
And the laces of a sandal.
Clothes which are immersed when they have just been washed must be kept immersed until they bubble up; But if they are immersed when already dry, they must be kept immersed until they throw up bubbles and then cease to bubble up.
Today's mishnah is the opposite of yesterday's. It deals with situations in which water does need to come into contact with the insides of knots or other such cases.
Section one: The undergarment was attached to the shoulders by a knot. Since this knot would regularly be undone, it needs to allow water inside when immersed.
Section two: Before one immerses the hem of a sheet which has wrinkles and folds in it, one must stretch it out so that the water comes into contact with every part.
Sections three and four: These were explained in yesterday's mishnah.
Section five: While the thong of a sandal did not need to let the water inside it, the laces are regularly undone. Therefore, they need to be undone to allow water in and out.
Section six: The mishnah requires a sign that the water has come into contact with the clothes for the immersion to be efective. If the clothes are already wet, then all that needs to happen is for the clothes to sort of bubble up, meaning they pop up to the surface.
If they are already dry, then the clothes must first bubble up and then stop bubbling up to the surface. Only this is a sign that they have been successfully immersed." + ], + [ + "Any handles of vessels which are too long and which will be cut short, need only be immersed up to the point of their proper measure. Rabbi Judah says: [they are unclean] until the whole of them is immersed. If the handle of a vessel is too long and is supposed to be cut off, but has not yet been cut off, it needs to be immersed only up to the point at which it will be cut off. We consider the remainder of the handle as if it had already been cut off. Rabbi Judah says that since the extra part of the handle is connected to the part that will remain, he must immerse the whole thing.", + "The chain of a large bucket, to the length of four handbreadths, and a small bucket, to the length of ten handbreadths, and they need only be immersed up to the point of their proper measure. Rabbi Tarfon says: it is not clean unless the whole of the chain-ring is immersed. Up until four cubits, the chain of a large bucket is considered to be its handle. But longer than that, it is not necessary for the bucket and is not considered to be part of it. Therefore, it doesn't need to be immersed beyond four cubits. The small bucket must be immersed up until 10 handbreadths because it is lowered using this chain into the well. (See Kelim 14:3). Rabbi Tarfon adds that if the proper measure (4 or 10) ended in the middle of a chain ring, then the whole ring must be immersed. A bit nit-picky, but no one's asking my opinion, are they?", + "The rope bound to a basket is not counted as a connection unless it has been sewn on. A rope attached to a basket is not considered to be connected to the basket, so it need not be immersed with the basket." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of our mishnah discusses the purification of impure water through a process known as \"kissing.\" This is when the edge of a vessel with impure water is brought up and allowed to \"kiss\" or \"touch\" a body of purifying water.\nThe second half deals with immersing a vessel that has some sort of liquid already in it.", + "Bet Shammai say: hot water may not be immersed in cold, or cold in hot, foul in fresh or fresh in foul. But Bet Hillel say: it may be immersed. According to Bet Shammai, when one does \"kissing\" in order to purify water, both the pure and the impure water must be the same. If one is of a different temperature or a different quality from the other, then the immersion doesn't work. It is as if by having the waters touch, they become one body and this can only be true if they are of the same quality. Bet Hillel says that this is not essential. To Bet Hillel, all water is the same, be it foul or fresh, cold or hot.", + "A vessel full of liquids which one immersed, it is as if it has not been immersed. If it was full of urine, this is reckoned as water. If it contained hatat waters, [it is unclean] unless the water [of the mikveh which enters the vessel] exceeds the hatat waters. Liquids other than water cannot be immersed in order to purify them. Therefore, a vessel full of liquid cannot be immersed. If the vessel is not full, however, it can be immersed because the water that enters swishes around and has contact with the whole vessel. Interestingly, urine is treated like water in this manner. A vessel can be immersed even if full of water. Hatat waters are the waters used in the red heifer purification ritual. If the vessel needs to be purified then the waters of the mikveh that enter the vessel must be greater than the hatat waters that are already in the vessel. In other words, the law is more stringent here than it is with other types of liquids.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even if a vessel with the capacity of a kor contains but a quarter-log, it is as if it had not been immersed. Rabbi Yose adds that it doesn't matter how large the vessel is---if there is even a small amount of liquid in it, it cannot be immersed. Rabbi Yose seems to be speaking about all liquids, not just water. Whereas the previous opinion allowed the immersion of vessels with liquids in them, as long as the vessel wasn't full, Rabbi Yose is stricter. The vessel must be completely empty." + ], + [ + "All foods combine together to make up the half of a half-loaf which makes the body unfit. One who eats a impure food that is equivalent in volume to 1/4 of a loaf of bread (=volume of two eggs) is disqualified from eating terumah. If one eats several different types of impure food, they combine together to disqualify him (note that he is not impure, just disqualified).", + "All liquids combine together to make up the quarter-log which makes the body unfit. Similarly, different types of liquid combine together to constitute the quarter-log of liquid that is required to disqualify a person from eating terumah.", + "This is more of a stringency in the case of one who drinks unclean liquids than in the case of the mikveh, for in this case they have made all other liquids like water. The mishnah now notes, as it likes to do, that this makes the rules governing the drinking of unclean liquids more stringent than the rules governing a mikveh. For when it comes to a mikveh, only three logs of drawn water disqualify it. Other liquids do not. But when it comes disqualifying a person from eating terumah, where all liquids can join together." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last mishnah in Mikvaot! This mishnah deals with purifying things that have been swallowed up in the body.", + "If one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids and then he immersed and then vomited them up, they are still unclean because they did not become clean in the body. The unclean foods or liquids that were in a person's body while he immersed in the mikveh, and then were subsequently vomited up, do not become clean. There are two reasons for this. First of all, they did not come into contact with the waters of the mikveh. Second, unclean food and liquid cannot be purified in a mikveh.", + "If one drank unclean water and immersed and then vomited it up, it is clean because it became clean in the body. In contrast, the water that he swallows is purified in his body. This is not because the water came into contact with the mikveh, but rather because water is immediately purified upon swallowing.", + "If one swallowed a clean ring and then went into the tent of a corpse, if he sprinkled himself once and twice and immersed himself and then vomited it up, behold, it remains as it was before. A person has swallowed a pure ring (I'm sure this has happened to someone you know). He then goes into a tent with a corpse in it and becomes impure. He goes through the purification ritual and has the hatat waters sprinkled on him on the third and seventh day, and thereby becomes pure. Then he vomits up the ring. The ring is clean as it was before (well, at least ritually clean, I hope he washes it off first). Not because it was purified in the mikveh, but because it was never defiled in his body.", + "If one swallowed an unclean ring, he may immerse himself and eat terumah. If he vomited it up, it is unclean and it renders him unclean. The impure ring that he swallowed does not become pure in the mikveh, but neither does it disqualify him from eating terumah. In other words, it is ignored. If he vomits it up, the ring remains unclean and will now disqualify him from eating terumah.", + "If an arrow was stuck into a man, it blocks so long as it is visible. But if it is not visible, he may immerse himself and eat terumah. An arrow stuck in a person blocks him from being able to immerse, as long as it is visible (although he might consider having it removed first). If it has fully entered his body and can no longer be seen from the outside, then he may immerse. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Mikvaot! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Mikvaot is one of the tractates of Seder Toharot that does have some practical significance in the modern world. Mikvaot are still used in the modern world, by women immersing after the menstrual periods, by those converting to Judaism and by men who have taken upon various immersion customs. I hope that learning the tractate has given you an appreciation of what a mikveh actually is, what disqualifies a mikveh and what disqualifies a valid immersion in a mikveh. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Niddah." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מקואות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b1223a614768d58e0194c3296e074169779eb94 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,430 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Mikvaot", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Today most people are familiar with the \"mikveh\" usually translated as a \"ritual bath.\" In modern halakhah it is mostly used for conversion and by women immersing after their menstrual period. Some men also have a custom of going to the mikveh but that is more as a custom. ", + "Most people are not all that familiar with the laws of the mikveh which can be quite complicated. This is the topic of our tractate—what exactly constitutes a mikveh and who needs to immerse in a mikveh in order to become pure. ", + "The Torah states that a zav, a person who has had an abnormal genital discharge must \"bathe his body in fresh water; then he shall be clean\" (Leviticus 15:13). The \"fresh water\" is understood as a living stream, in Hebrew a \"maayan.\" In contrast, people with other forms of impurity must only \"bathe his whole body in water\" (Leviticus 15:16). This latter requirement is understood to be bathing in a mikveh. We shall talk throughout the tractate about what differentiates a \"mikveh\" from a \"maayan\" a living stream, how large a mikveh must be, and how the water must get into the mikveh. For now, I will merely quote the verses below that refer to what the rabbis call a \"mikveh.\" We shall reference these as we continue to learn. Good luck with learning Mikvaot!", + "Leviticus 11 31 Those are for you the unclean among all the swarming things; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. 32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean.", + "Leviticus 15 13 When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge, he shall count off seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in fresh water; then he shall be clean…16 When a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water and remain unclean until evening. ", + "Numbers 31 22\"This is the ritual law that the Lord has enjoined upon Moses: 22 Gold and silver, copper, iron, tin, and lead 23 — any article that can withstand fire — these you shall pass through fire and they shall be clean, except that they must be cleansed with water of lustration; and anything that cannot withstand fire you must pass through water. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nMikvaot begins with a list of \"six degrees\" of the purity of mikvaot. [We should note that many tractates begin with numbers. For instance, Shabbat, Shevuot, Kiddushin, Ohalot, etc. It seems that the tannaim liked starting mishnayot in this way].\n\"Mikveh\" here refers to any water gathered in the ground.\nOur mishnah deals with laws concerning water gathered in pools that don't have forty seah in them. This shall be the topic of the first five mishnayot of the chapter.", + "There are six degrees of mikvaot, each superior to the other. This is the introduction to the entire first chapter.", + "The water of pools [smaller than 40 seah] if an unclean person drank of it and then a clean person drank of it, he becomes unclean; If an unclean person came and drank from a pool of water, and then a clean person came and drank from the same water, the clean person becomes unclean. This is because it is possible that the clean person drank from the exact water that the unclean person touched. Although water that is still \"connected to the ground\" by virtue of it being in a pool cannot become impure (see Leviticus 11:36) the mishnah considers the water that was removed from the pool and then put back in by the unclean person to be separate from the other water. This already-defiled water does not mix back in with the pool and become nullified. When the clean person removes some water, this water is now detached from the ground and since there will be some of the unclean water with it, all of the water is defiled. The water then defiles the clean person by contact.", + "If an unclean person drank of it and then drew water from it in a clean vessel, [the vessel] becomes unclean; Similarly, a clean vessel is defiled by contact with this water. Again, the water inside does not become nullified.", + "If an unclean person drank of it and then a loaf of terumah fell in: If he washed [his hands] in it, it becomes unclean; But if he did not wash [his hands] in it, it continues clean. In this case a loaf of bread falls in and then someone takes it out. If the person who took it out first washed his hands off in the water, then he hands are unclean and he will defile the loaf. If, however, he does not first wash his hands off, then the loaf remains clean. The reason is a bit complicated. The water in the pool cannot become impure until it has been removed from the pool. When he removes this water, the clean water is greater in quantity than the unclean water and therefore the unclean water is nullified. In this case, we don't say that the unclean water defiles the clean water, as we said in section two because we hold that the unclean water has been absorbed by the loaf. Since this water cannot be seen, it is considered to be nullified by the clean water. I realize that this is complicated. Just remember I didn't write it." + ], + [ + "If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and then a clean person drank [out of the pit], he becomes unclean.
If one drew water [from it] in an unclean vessel and then drew water from it in a clean vessel, it becomes unclean.
If one drew water [from it] in an unclean vessel and a loaf of terumah fell in: If he washed [his hands] in it, it becomes unclean; But if he did not wash [his hands] in it, it is clean.
This mishnah is basically the same exact mishnah as yesterday's mishnah, except the water in the pool is defiled not by a person drinking directly from it but by a person filling up an unclean vessel from it." + ], + [ + "If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he becomes unclean.
If unclean water fell into it and then water was drawn from it in a clean vessel, it becomes unclean.
If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in: If he washed [his hands] in it, it becomes unclean; But if he did not wash [his hands] in it, it is clean.
Rabbi Shimon says: it becomes unclean whether he washed in it or whether he did not wash in it.
The first three sections of today's mishnah are the same as the first two mishnayot, except in today's case, the water in the pool was defiled because someone poured unclean water into the pool. In the last section of today's mishnah, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the laws in section three (concerning the loaf) all first three mishnayot.
Section four: Rabbi Shimon holds that the water was not fully absorbed into the loaf. There will be at least a drop that remains on the loaf. This drop will defile the entire loaf. The same would be true in the situations in the previous two mishnayot." + ], + [ + "If a corpse fell into it or an unclean person walked in it, and a clean person drank of it, he is clean. The water that is in the pool is not susceptible to impurity. It became impure in the cases discussed in the previous three mishnayot because someone took out some of the water and then put it back in. In contrast, if a corpse falls in or an unclean person walks in it, none of the water has been taken out and then put back in. Therefore, if a clean person comes and drinks from it, it remains pure.", + "The same rule applies to the water of pools, the water of cisterns, the water of ditches, the water of caverns, the water of rain flows which have stopped, and mikvehs of less than forty seahs. The rules that were found in the first three mishnayot and the beginning of this mishnah apply to all bodies of water that are less than forty seahs. [A seah is assumed to be about 12 liters, so we're talking about 480 liters, or about 126 gallons]. The \"water of rain flows which have stopped\" refers to water that has flown down from a mountain, but has stopped flowing. If it still flows, then the rule is different (we will see this in mishnah six).", + "They are all clean during the time of rain; Rain water does not receive impurity. Therefore, when the rains are still falling, all of the small bodies of water mentioned in section two are pure. Even if someone had defiled this water, the rain waters nullify the impure water.", + "When the rain has stopped those near to a city or to a road are unclean, and those distant remain clean until the majority of people pass [that way]. If the rain has stopped, then we need to figure out whether the water is pure or not. If the body is close to the city or to a path, then we have to assume that people drank from there and since people might be impure, the water must be treated as impure. But if the body of water is far from the city or the path, then we can assume that it is pure until we know that many people have gone there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is the last mishnah that deals with the water found in pools that are less than forty seahs. The mishnah refers to a pool of water that had been made unclean and now rain has started to flow back into it. The question is at what point the pool becomes clean again.", + "When do they become clean?
Bet Shammai say: when their contents have been increased [by more than the original quantity] and they overflow. Bet Shammai rules most strictly. In order for the pool to become clean again, the new water that has come in from the rain must be more than the original water that remained and the contents must also overflow.", + "Bet Hillel say: when their contents have been increased [by more than their original quantity] even if they do not overflow. Bet Hillel says that the pool need not overflow.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: when they overflow although their contents have not been so increased. Rabbi Shimon rules even more leniently. If the pool was almost full and then it rained and it overflowed, the pool is clean even if there is only a small amount of rainwater.", + "[These] are valid [for preparing dough] for hallah and for the washing of the hands. The water in the pool is now completely clean. The mishnah emphasizes how pure the water is by stating that one could even use it to prepare hallah or two wash one's hands. The same is true for preparing terumah. In other words, the water is not at all impure." + ], + [ + "Superior to such [water] is the water of rain flows which have not stopped.
If an unclean person drank of it and then a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and water was then drawn from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hand in it, it is clean.
If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and then a clean person drank [out of the pool], he is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and a loaf of terumah fell [into the pool], even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean.
If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If unclean water fell into it and one drew water from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean.
[All such water] is valid for terumah and for the washing of the hands.
Today's mishnah is basically a repeat of mishnayot 1-3 except here we deal with rainwater that continues to flow into the pool. This rain will continuously nullify the water that has been defiled and put back into the pool. Thus, this water cannot become impure (although water taken out of it can be made impure).
The commentary to this mishnah would be the same as that found in mishnayot 1-3 so I have not repeated it from there. Section two is parallel to mishnah one, section three is parallel to mishnah two, and section four is parallel to mishnah three. Section five is similar to the end of yesterday's mishnah. It notes that this water is pure enough that it can be used in the preparation of terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah talks about the next two bodies of water that have greater purity than the pool consisting of renewed rainwater.", + "Superior to such [water] is [the water of] the mikveh containing forty seahs, for in it people may immerse themselves and immerse other [things]. One level superior to the pool of flowing rainwater is the mikveh, a pool that has forty seahs of water that have not been drawn. A person can immerse in a mikveh in order to become pure and he can also immerse things (such as vessels) in a mikveh in order to purify them.", + "Superior to such [water] is [the water of] a spring whose own water is little but has been increased by a greater quantity of drawn water. It is equivalent to the mikveh in as much as it may render clean by standing water, and to an [ordinary] spring in as much as one may immerse in it whatever the quantity of its contents. Greater purity is accorded to spring water. A mikveh does not purify when its water is trickling on the ground. All forty seahs have to be gathered in one place for it to purify. In contrast, a spring generally purifies even if its water is trickling on the ground. However, in the case in our mishnah since the spring waters have been augmented with drawn water, they don't purify unless they have been gathered together, i.e. they are standing. In this way it is similar to the mikveh. This spring is similar to an ordinary spring, one whose water has not been augmented with drawn water, in that the fresh spring water purifies even if there are less than forty seahs. In contrast, a mikveh, water that has been gathered (we shall learn how in subsequent mishnayot) only purifies if there are forty seahs." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the two bodies of water that have the highest degree of purity.", + "Superior to them are \"smitten waters\" which can purify even when flowing [on the ground]. \"Smitten waters\" is a term used to refer to a spring whose water has somehow been despoiled. Either the water is salty or it is not cold because it is standing. These waters are purer than the spring whose standing waters have been augmented with drawn water because the water of this spring purifies even when the water is flowing on the ground. However, it still does not count as \"living waters\" which is the purest form of water. Indeed, \"smitten waters\" literally could be translated as \"killed waters\" which is the opposite of \"living waters.\"", + "Superior to them are \"living waters\" for in them there is immersion for zavim and sprinkling for metzoraim, and they are valid for the preparation of the hatat waters. \"Living waters\" are fresh water in the spring. This is the level of purity required for the immersion of a zav, a person with an abnormal genital discharge (see Leviticus 15:13). The metzora is a person who had some sort of skin disease (we learned about this in Negaim; see Leviticus 14). This is also the type of water required to make the \"hatat waters\" the waters into which are put the ashes of the red heifer (see Leviticus 19:16; we learned about this in Parah)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "An unclean man who went down to immerse himself:
If it is doubtful whether he did immerse himself or not;
And even if he did immerse himself, it is doubtful whether the mikveh contained forty seahs or not;
And if there were two mikvehs, one containing forty seahs but the other not containing forty seahs, and he immersed himself in one of them but he does not know in which of them he immersed himself,
In such a doubt he is unclean.
Today's mishnah deals with a case of an impure person who immersed himself in a mikveh in order to become pure, but it is unclear whether he did so in a manner that would purify him. In all such cases he is not considered clean. The reason is that his last determinable status was unclean. Therefore, he remains unclean until we can be sure that he is actually clean.
The mishnah is pretty straightforward, so there is no explanation below." + ], + [ + "If a mikveh was measured and was found lacking [in its prescribed quantity], all things which had been purified in it, whether in private domain or in a public domain, are accounted unclean retroactively. If there is a mikveh that is assumed to be large enough to purify the person or things being immersed and then it turns out that the mikveh actually did not contain enough water, then everything purified in it is retroactively accounted impure. This is true even if this occurred in the public domain, where doubtful impurity is usually considered pure. The rule here is that the item or person immersed reverts back to its last established status, which in this case is impure.", + "To what does this rule apply? To a serious uncleanness. However, this ruling, as well as the ruling in mishnah one, apply only to a type of impurity that is considered serious, for instance if he had contracted an impurity that would make him a \"father of impurity.\" If it was of lesser origin then he is pure.", + "But in the case of a lesser uncleanness, for instance if he ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids, or if his head and the greater part of his body entered into drawn water, or if three logs of drawn water fell on his head and the greater part of his body, and he then went down to immerse himself and he is in doubt whether he immersed himself or not, or even if he did immerse himself there is [still] a doubt whether the mikveh contained forty seahs or not, or if there were two mikvehs, one containing forty seahs and not the other, and he immersed himself in one of them but does not know in which of them he immersed himself, in such a doubt he is accounted clean. In all of the following cases his impurity is only of rabbinic origin. The mishnah gives a couple of examples of this. The first is when a person ate or drank something unclean. The second is concerning drawn water. The rabbis decreed that drawn water defiles if a person immerses his head and most of his body in them or if three log of drawn water falls on him (we shall learn more about this later). In both of these cases, the doubt is deemed pure because the impurity is only derabanan. The second part of this list is a repeat of the list in yesterday's mishnah. Yesterday's mishnah declared him impure if the source of impurity was a father of impurity. If it was of a lesser nature, then the doubtful case is ruled pure.", + "Rabbi Yose considers him unclean, for Rabbi Yose says: anything which is presumed to be unclean always remains in a condition of unfitness until it is known that it has become clean; but if there is a doubt whether a person became unclean or caused uncleanness, it is to be accounted clean. Rabbi Yose says that even if the impurity was a lesser one, a person or thing remains in his presumptive status until we can be sure that he or it was purified in a proper mikveh. However, if the doubt is whether or not he ever became impure in the first place, or whether he ever defiled something else, for instance we don't know whether he ate unclean food, or we know that he ate unclean food but we don't know if he touched something else, then the doubt is ruled pure. This is because he, or the thing he might have defiled, did not have a presumptive status of being impure. In sum, the sages and R. Yose disagree as to what principle we invoke in these types of situations. According to the first opinion, if the impurity is serious we rule stringently and if it is lesser than we rule leniently. Rabbi Yose says that the principle is that a person retains his presumptive status." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nDrawn water that falls into a mikveh that has less than forty seahs of water is invalid and remains invalid even if more kosher water comes into the mikveh. In Toharot 4:7 we learned that if there is a doubt about whether drawn water went into the mikveh, the rabbis declared it clean. Our mishnah deals with what sort of case of doubt is pure and what case of doubt must be ruled impure.", + "The case of a doubt about drawn water which the sages have declared clean;
If there is a doubt whether [three logs of drawn water] fell into the mikveh or not, The first possible doubt is whether or not the three logs of drawn water fell into the mikveh in the first place.", + "Or even if they did fall in, there is a doubt whether [the mikveh] contained forty seahs or not, If the mikveh contained forty seahs of valid water (not drawn) then even if three logs of drawn water fall in, the mikveh remains kosher. So the second level of doubt is whether or not the mikveh was large enough to nullify the three logs.", + "Or if there were two mikvehs one of which contained forty seahs and the other did not, and drawn water fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, In this case there are two mikvaot, one of which is large enough to nullify the three logs and we are not sure into which mikveh the logs fell.", + "In such a doubt it is accounted clean, because there exists [a possibility] on which we may depend [in declaring it clean]. In all of these cases, we can consider the mikveh clean. If the mikveh currently has less than 40 seahs, we can add more water. The reason that the doubt is considered clean is that there is a possibility that the mikveh or both mikvaot are valid.", + "If they both contained less than forty seahs, and [drawn water] fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, in such a doubt it is accounted unclean, because there exists no [possibility] on which we may depend [in declaring it clean]. In contrast, in this case one of the mikvaot is definitely invalid because neither had forty seahs. Therefore, we have to treat both mikvaot as if they are invalid." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Eliezer says: a quarter-log of drawn water in the beginning makes the mikveh invalid, and three logs on the surface of the water. According to Rabbi Eliezer there is a difference a case when drawn water falls into the mikveh before water is in the hole in the ground and after valid water has already been put in. If the drawn water falls in first, then all that has to fall in is a quarter of a log, which is a very small amount (about 125 grams). If the drawn water falls in at the end, on the surface of water that is already there, then there must be three logs to disqualify the mikveh.", + "But the sages say: both in the beginning and at the end, the measure [which makes the mikveh invalid] is three logs. The other sages rule more leniently. In either case there must be three logs to disqualify the mikveh." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nPicture a hole in the ground that is to be used for a mikveh. There is currently no water in the hole, but there are three cavities adjacent to the hole, each of which has in it one log of drawn water. If this water is part of the mikveh, it might invalidate the valid waters. Our mishnah deals with the potential validity of such a mikveh.", + "If there were three cavities in a mikveh each holding a log of drawn water, if it is known that forty seahs of valid water fell in before reaching the third cavity, [such a mikveh is] valid; otherwise it is invalid. As long as the forty seahs of valid water get into the mikveh before they are joined by the third log of drawn water, the mikveh is valid. As is always the case, less than three logs of drawn water do not invalidate a mikveh and three logs invalidates the mikveh only before there are already forty seahs of valid water. Since in this case, the forty seahs were in the mikveh before the third log of drawn water, the mikveh is valid.", + "Rabbi Shimon declares it valid, since it resembles a mikveh adjoining another mikveh. If there is a mikveh of drawn water that is next to a mikveh of valid water that doesn't have forty seahs, the drawn water does not invalidate the valid water. So too, according to Rabbi Shimon, the cavities of drawn water that are next to the mikveh do not invalidate the other water in the mikveh." + ], + [ + "If one scraped mud to the sides and then three logs [of water] were drawn out from it [from the mud], [the mikveh is still] valid. If one scraped some mud out of the bottom of a mikveh that doesn't have forty seahs of water in it, and then three logs of water dripped back into the mikveh from the scraped mud, the mikveh is still valid. The water that comes out of the mud is not considered to be \"drawn water\" such that it invalidates the mikveh.", + "But if removed the mud away and three logs were drawn from it [into the mikveh] it becomes invalid. In this case he removed the mud from the mikveh and didn't just scrape it away to the sides. If the water again seeps out of the mud and goes back into the mikveh it does disqualify it. Such water is considered to be \"drawn water.\"", + "Rabbi Shimon pronounces it valid, since there was no intention to draw [the water]. Water that one doesn't intend to draw out from somewhere doesn't count as drawn water in order to disqualify a mikveh. Rabbi Shimon considers the water that comes out of the mud to be unintended because his intention was to draw out the mud, not the water. However, the first opinion in the mishnah considers this water to be drawn because there was no way for him to draw out the mud without also drawing out the water." + ], + [ + "If one had left wine-jars on the roof to dry and they became filled with water:
Rabbi Eliezer says: if it was the season of rain and there was [in the cistern] a little water, one may break the jars; otherwise one may not break them.
Rabbi Joshua says: in either case one may break them or tilt them over, but one may not empty [them into the cistern].
This mishnah deals with rain water that collected in jars on the roof. Is this rain water considered to be \"drawn water\" such that it will disqualify the water in the cistern to be used as a mikveh.
Section one: The person left the jars on the roof to dry out so that he could use them for wine. Had he left them there with the purpose of gathering water the collected water would count as drawn water and could not be put into the mikveh.
Another complicating factor is that it's the rainy season so it looks like he might have left the jars up there intentionally to gather water (note that if it's not the rainy season, this scenario simply won't occur in Israel, when it's not the rainy season, it doesn't rain at all).
According to Rabbi Eliezer, if there's a little water in the cistern already, then he may break the jars and let the water flow into the cistern and the mikveh will be valid. This is because the water in the jars is not really drawn water, it just looks like drawn water. Therefore, there is room to be lenient when there is already some water in the cistern. However, if there is no water in the cistern, then he may not do so. As he was in mishnah four, Rabbi Eliezer is stringent when it comes to adding water to a cistern at the outset.
Section three: Rabbi Joshua is more lenient. First of all, there is no difference between letting the water flow in before there is other water there and after there is other water there. In both cases, one may either break the jar or even tilt it over and let the water flow into the cistern. The one thing he may not do is pick up the jars and pour them into the mikveh. Picking up the jars turns the water into drawn water which invalidates a mikveh, unless there are already in there 40 seahs of valid water." + ], + [ + "A plasterer forgot his lime-tub in a cistern and it became filled with water: if water flowed above it a little, it may be broken; and if not, it may not be broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. This is a similar situation to yesterday's mishnah. A plasterer, probably making the cistern, forgot his lime-tub in a cistern. Water then collected in the cistern, entered into the tub and then overflowed. The water in the tub now counts as if it was in the cistern. If he wants to make the cistern into a valid mikveh, he can break the tub and take it out. However, if the water has not overflowed the tub, then the water in it counts as drawn water. Therefore, he can't break the tub and let the water into the cistern.", + "But Rabbi Joshua says: in either case it may be broken. Rabbi Joshua again rules leniently the water does not count as drawn water and does not disqualify the mikveh." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the final mishnah in the series concerning water that overflowed vessels into a mikveh. Note that in today's mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua do not disagree. This is a sign that Rabbi Eliezer agrees that in this case the water does not count as drawn water.", + "If one had arranged wine-jars in a cistern and they became filled with water, even though the water of the cistern was all soaked up, they may be broken. The person put the jars in the cistern so that the walls of the jars would become saturated with water (I guess this is good for the jars). He did not intend for the inside of the jars to be filled up. Even if the water in the cistern completely disappears and all that is left is the water in the jars, the jars may be broken and the water let out into the mikveh. In this case, even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that this water doesn't count as drawn water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a mikveh whose forty seahs are a mixture of mud and water.", + "A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud [combined]: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud. Rabbi Eliezer says that one may immerse only in the water, but not in the mud. Rabbi Joshua is again lenient. He allows one to use such a mikveh.", + "In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats. Rabbi Joshua allows one to immerse in such a mikveh only if the water floats on top of the mud. If the mud floats on top of the water he agrees that it is not usable.", + "If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud. Furthermore, if the water is not mixed up with the mud, he can't just immerse in the mud. He can immerse only in the water and it would seem that in such a case, the mud doesn't join together with the water.", + "Of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [mud] in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: [mud] into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water- skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure. There are six different opinions as to what type of mud can be mixed in with the water such that it counts to bring the total to forty seahs, even for Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Meir says that the mud must be loose enough to let a reed sink into it on its own without being pushed down. Rabbi Judah says the mud must be loose enough such that measuring-rod won't stand on its own. Abba Elazar ben Dulai (never heard of him before) says that the mud must be thin enough so that a plummet will sink due to its weight. Rabbi Eliezer refers to a type of jar used to clean out a cistern. Such a jar has a thin mouth. If the mud will flow into such a jar, then it does not disqualify the water in the cistern. Rabbi Shimon refers to a water skin whose mouth is even narrower. The mud must be loose enough to flow into such a water skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says it must be measurable in a log measuring instrument. This also means it must be relatively loose mud." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Rabbi Yose says: two mikvehs neither of which contains forty seahs and a log and a half [of drawn water] fell into this one and a log and a half into this one, and then they are mixed together, they remain valid, since they had never been called as invalid. But if there is a mikveh holding less than forty seahs, and three logs [of drawn water] fell into it, and it was then divided into two, it is invalid, since it had already been called invalid. According to Rabbi Yose, if the mikveh was never declared invalid because a full three logs of drawn water fell in at one time, then it remains valid even if it turns out that there are three logs of drawn water in it. This is what occurs in the first scenario. The opposite is true in the second scenario. Even though the mikveh was split into two and now in each mikveh there are less than three logs of drawn water, since it was originally declared invalid, both mikvaot remain invalid.", + "Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, for Rabbi Joshua used to say: any mikveh containing less than forty seahs into which three logs [of drawn water] fell and from which a kortov was withdrawn becomes valid, since the three logs have also been diminished. Rabbi Joshua says that both mikvaot are valid because neither mikveh now contains three logs of drawn water. This matches his general opinion that a mikveh into which exactly three logs of drawn water have been put can be made valid by removal of even a kortov, 1/64 of a log of water. Since this tiny bit of water will have some drawn water mixed in with it, there will now be less than three logs of drawn water in the mikveh. Therefore it is valid.", + "But the sages say: it always remains invalid until the amount of its former contents and a little more are removed. The other sages disagree with Rabbi Joshua. They hold that once a mikveh is disqualified because it has three logs of drawn water it cannot be made valid until an amount equal to and a little bit more than its original contents (the amount that was in it before the three logs were put in) is removed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's. It explains how a mikveh that has been disqualified because three logs fell into it can again become valid.", + "How so? If there was a cistern in a courtyard and three logs [of drawn water] fell into it, it will always remain invalid until the whole of it is removed and a little more, or until [another mikveh containing] forty se'ahs is placed in the courtyard, so that the higher mikveh is rendered valid by the lower. The mishnah provides two ways to revalidate a mikveh that has been declared invalid because of three logs of drawn water. The first is to remove all of the water and then allow new valid water to flow in. This is the solution we saw in yesterday's mishnah. The second way of validating the mikveh can work if there are two cisterns in the courtyard, one higher than the other. The higher one is the one that has been made invalid. He can add water to this cistern so that it overflows and the water will flow down into the lower cistern which also has less than forty seahs of water. The water flowing from the upper cistern will cause the lower one to have more than forty seahs and it will be pure. By virtue of its connection with the lower cistern which is valid, the higher cistern is also validated as a mikveh. We shall learn of this principle below in 6:8.", + "Rabbi Elazer ben Azariah declares it invalid unless the [new mikveh] is stopped up. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says he must stop up the upper mikveh, and then the bottom mikveh will fill up with forty seahs of valid water that he has allowed to flow into the courtyard and then he can attach the two mikvaot. But if he doesn't stop up the upper mikveh, then the invalid water will flow into the lower mikveh and it too will be invalid." + ], + [ + "If a cistern is full of drawn water and a channel leads into it and out of it, it continues to be invalid until it can be reckoned that there does not remain in it three logs of the former [water]. The water flowing through the channel is valid to be used as a mikveh. It will validate the cistern full of drawn water when we can assume that the channel has flushed out most of the drawn water, leaving no more than three logs worth in the cistern.", + "If two men each poured a log and a half [of drawn water] into a mikveh, or if one wrung out his clothes and so poured in [water] from several places, or if one emptied out a water-jug and so poured in [water]from several places, Rabbi Akiva declares it valid, But the sages declare it invalid. Rabbi Akiva said: they did not say \"if they poured in,\" rather \"if one poured in.\" But they said: they said neither thus nor thus, but rather \"if there fell in three logs [of drawn water].\" Rabbi Akiva says that for three logs of drawn water to invalidate a mikveh, they must all come from one source made in one pouring. Separate pourings do not join together to invalidate the mikveh. The water-jug to which he refers seems to have multiple spouts, so if one person pours in, it gets there in several pouring. The other sages disagree. Three logs of drawn water invalidate the mikveh even if they come from multiple sources. Both Rabbi Akiva and the sages derive their halakhah from a precise understanding of their received oral tradition. Rabbi Akiva's mishnah reads \"If one poured into a mikveh three logs of drawn water he invalidates it.\" Rabbi Akiva reads this mishnah precisely it is invalid only if one poured three logs in. If two or more together poured three logs into the mikveh, it is not invalid. The other sages have a different reading in their older mishnah. There mishnah reads \"if there fell in…\" There is no difference how these three logs got in. Their very presence invalidates the mikveh. As an aside, this is one of the most interesting examples I have come across of two sages arguing over the wording of an ancient mishnah. It is a clear example of the fact that prior to the generation of Rabbi Akiva there already existed an oral Torah upon which each sage could base his argument." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah. It continues to deal with logs of drawn water that fell from different vessels joining together to disqualify a mikveh.", + "[If the three logs of drawn water fell in] from one vessel or from two or from three, they combine together; but if from four, they do not combine together. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, the sages hold that the three logs can fall in from multiple sources and still disqualify the mikveh. However, if they fall in from four different vessels, since each vessel does not contain a full log (assuming equal distribution) they do not disqualify the mikveh.", + "If a man who had a seminal issue was sick and nine kavs of water fell on him, or if there fell on the head and the greater part of the body of a clean person three logs of drawn water from one vessel or from two or from three, they combine together; but if from four, they do not combine together. The mishnah now addresses a similar issue where there is a difference between three and four. There are two situations here. The first is a sick person who can't immerse in a mikveh. He is allowed to have nine kavs of drawn water poured on him to purify him from the impurity that is a result of a seminal emission. The second situation is a pure person upon whom fall three logs of drawn water this water is considered impure and will defile him. In both of these cases, if the amount falls on his head and the greater part of his body from three different sources, they combine together to purify the man who had the seminal emission or to defile the clean person. But if from four different sources, they do not have any effect.", + "In what case does this apply? When the second began before the first finished. The pouring from different vessels joins together if the second vessel began to be poured before the first was completed. If not, they are considered separate episodes of pouring.", + "And in what case does [the other statement] apply? When there was no intention to increase it. But if there was an intention to increase it, if only a kortov in a whole year, they combine together to add up to the three logs. This section limits the cases where the separate pourings do not join, either because they were from four vessels or because the first pouring stopped before the second began. That is only true when one poured into the mikveh by accident. If one poured the drawn water into the mikveh on purpose then it disqualifies the mikveh no matter how long it takes to get the three logs into the mikveh, even if it takes a whole year, the mikveh is invalidated." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If one put vessels under a water-spout, whether they be large vessels or small vessels or even vessels of dung, vessels of stone or earthen vessels, they make the mikveh invalid. Rain falls onto the roof and then comes down the water-spout and fills up the mikveh. Such rain is valid for use in the mikveh. The water-spout does not make it into drawn water. However, if after leaving the water-spout the rain water first passes through vessels it does invalidate the mikveh. This is true no matter what the vessels are, even if they are vessels that can't become impure. In other words, even though these vessels are not considered to be vessels such that they are susceptible to impurity, they are considered vessels such that they turn rain water into drawn water.", + "It is all alike whether they were put there [purposely] or were [merely] forgotten, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel declare it clean in the case of one who forgets. According to Bet Shammai, it doesn't matter how these vessels got there. Even if he forgot them underneath the water spout, the water collected in them will invalidate the mikveh. Bet Hillel holds that if the water was not drawn with intent, then it doesn't disqualify the mikveh (see 2:6-7). Therefore, if he forgets the vessel under the spout, the water that flows through it does not disqualify the mikveh.", + "Rabbi Meir said: they voted and Bet Shammai had a majority over Bet Hillel. Rabbi Meir says that the sages gathered together and ruled in favor of Bet Shammai. Since the halakhah is usually according to Bet Hillel, this seems to have been an especially memorable occasion (see also Shabbat 1:4).", + "Yet they agree in the case of one who forgets [and leaves vessels] in a courtyard that the mikveh remains clean. Rabbi Yose said: the controversy still remains as it was. Bet Shammai agrees that if he leaves vessels in the courtyard and they fill up with water that such water does not count as drawn water, for he certainly did not intend to draw water in such a manner. In contrast, if he forgot the vessels underneath the water spout, Bet Shammai fears that when he left the vessels there he intended to gather water. He only forgot them there at a later point. This is as if he put them there intentionally, therefore they invalidate the mikveh. Rabbi Yose disagrees with this. He holds that even if they were forgotten in the courtyard, Bet Shammai still holds that the water invalidates the mikveh." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with vessels placed under a water-spout and whether the water that flows from the roof, through the spout, into the vessel and then into the mikveh counts as drawn water to disqualify the mikveh.", + "One who put a board under a water-spout: if it had a rim to it, it disqualifies the mikveh; otherwise it does not disqualify the mikveh. If the board had a rim to it, then it counts as a vessel. Water that gathers in it is considered drawn water that disqualifies a mikveh. Without a rim it is not a vessel and the water in it does not disqualify the mikveh.", + "If he made it stand upright to be rinsed, in neither case does it disqualify the mikveh. Here it is 100 per cent clear that he did not put the board under the water-spout to collect water, just to rinse the spout. Therefore, it does not count as drawn water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with cases where the water-spout itself is considered a vessel and therefore any water that flows from it would disqualify the mikveh.", + "If one makes a hollow in a water-spout to collect pebbles, its water disqualifies the mikveh; In the case of a wooden [spout] if it holds even a little, But in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it will hold a quarter-log. Rabbi Yose says: also in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it holds even a little: they have spoken of \"a quarter-log\" only in the case of broken sherds of an earthenware utensil. The hollow was made to collect the pebbles and prevent them from continuing through the spout and clogging it up. However, this makes the water-spout itself into a vessel and the water that flows through it will, or at least might, disqualify the mikveh. The size of the hollow that will turn it into a vessel depends on the material in which it was made. If it was made of wood, the receptacle can be of any size, even the smallest size, and it causes the wood to be considered a receptacle. Since wood is the more expensive material, it seems that it is easier for wood to be considered a vessel. If it is of earthenware, it must hold at least a quarter-log. However, Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that even earthenware need hold only a minimal amount. Rabbi Yose acknowledges that there is an old halakhah concerning earthenware and the measurement of a quarter-log. However, this measurement deals with broken earthenware vessels they are still considered vessels as long as they can hold a quarter-log. But if the earthenware vessel is unbroken, it need hold only a minimal amount to be considered a vessel.", + "If the pieces of gravel moved about inside [the hollow], it disqualifies the mikveh. If dirt went down into it and was pressed down, [the mikveh continues to be] valid. The mishnah now deals with the question of when is the hollow considered to be full such that it no longer turns the water-spout into a vessel. If the pieces of gravel are still moving around, then it is not full. However, if dirt has been pressed down into it, then it is considered full and water that flows through the spout will not disqualify the mikveh.", + "If the spout was narrow at each end and wide in the middle, it does not disqualify [the mikveh] invalid, because it had not been made to gather anything in it. Although water might gather in such a spout, whose ends are narrow and middle is wide, the middle was not designed to hold water, just to let it pass through. Its water will not disqualify the mikveh." + ], + [ + "Drawn water and rain water which were mixed together in a courtyard or in a cavity or on the steps of a cave: If the greater part was valid, the whole is valid; And if the greater part is invalid, the whole is invalid. If they were equal in quantity, the whole is invalid. The \"cavity\" referred to here is a depression in the ground close to the mikveh, but not part of the mikveh. The steps of the cave are those that lead down into the mikveh (if you're ever in an archaeological site in Israel you will see those all over the place). Thus in all three of these cases the waters that are mixed together have not yet arrived at the mikveh. This is important because if the drawn water had flowed directly into the mikveh and there were not forty seahs of valid water in the mikveh, the mikveh would be invalid. In the cases listed here, as long as the majority is rain water, which is valid for use in the mikveh, the entire mikveh is valid.", + "When [does this apply]? When they were mingled together before they arrived at the mikveh. The leniency in the above section applies only if they are mingling such that they cannot be recognized as coming from different sources before they get to the mikveh.", + "If [the drawn water] flowed into the [rain] water: it was known that there fell in forty seahs of valid water before there came in three logs of drawn water, [the mikveh is] valid; otherwise it is invalid. However, if the drawn water is recognizable as it flows into the rain water (for instance the drawn water has a different color), then for the mikveh to be valid we must be sure that there were forty seahs of valid water in the mikveh before three logs of drawn water got in. As a reminder, once forty seahs of valid water (not drawn water) are in the mikveh, it is not invalidated by the addition of drawn water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the water gathered either in a trough found inside a rock, or with some sort of containing vessel made out of the stone of such a trough.", + "In the case of a trough in a rock: One may not fill up [the hatat waters] from it, nor may the [hatat waters] be consecrated in it, nor may one sprinkle from it. And it does not require a tightly stopped-up covering, And it does not invalidate the mikveh. While the trough is still in the rock, it doesn't count as a vessel. There are three areas of consequence to this. The first is that it can't be used for various parts of the preparation of the \"hatat waters\" those waters into which the ashes of the red heifer are mixed. This same mishnah can be found in Parah 5:7. Secondly, since it is not a vessel it does not need a tightly-fitting cover to protect its contents from becoming impure if found in a tent (an ohel) with a dead body. Third, the water in it is not considered drawn water such that it doesn't disqualify a mikveh.", + "If it was a vessel and had been joined to the ground with lime: One may fill up the hatat waters from it and the hatat waters may be consecrated in it, and one may sprinkle from it, And it requires a tightly stopped-up covering; And it invalidates the mikveh invalid. If he cut the trough out of the rock and made a vessel out of it, all of the opposite is true. Now it is a vessel so it can be used for the hatat waters but not for the mikveh.", + "If a hole was made in it below or at the side so that it could not contain water in however small a quantity, it is valid. And how large must the hole be? Like the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Yehudah ben Batera said: it happened in the case of the trough of Yehu in Jerusalem that there was a hole in it like the tube of a water-skin, all the pure things in Jerusalem were made using it. But Bet Shammai sent and broke it down, for Bet Shammai say: [it remains a vessel] unless the greater part of it is broken down. A trough can be nullified from being a vessel by having a hole in it the size of the tube of a water-skin. This is about two fingers in width. Since it can no longer contain water, it is no longer considered a vessel. Rabbi Yehudah ben Batera relates a story that happened during the Second Temple period in Jerusalem. The water in this trough was used to in the mikvaot of Jerusalem and everything that went through those mikvaot was considered pure. Until Bet Shammai came along, that is. Bet Shammai holds that the trough remains a vessel until the greater part is broken. So Bet Shammai actually sent for the trough and had it broken down to accommodate their purity stringencies. The mishnah does not say how Bet Hillel responded, but I am sure they were not happy." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "[Water from] a spring which is made to pass over into a trough becomes invalid. The trough that is set into the rock in the ground is considered a vessel. Therefore, when they direct the water from the spring into and through the trough, it gains the status of \"drawn water\" and cannot be used for a mikveh. The trough in this case is not above the spring, as it was in the case in 4:5.", + "If it was made to pass over the edge in any quantity, [what is] outside [the trough] is valid, for [the water of] a spring purifies however little its quantity. In this case, most of the waters from the spring pass into the trough but some go over the edge, outside of the trough. Even if the part of the spring that goes outside of the trough is only the smallest amount, it still validates the remainder of the water, because the living waters of the spring purify the drawn water from the trough even in the smallest amount. The only thing one couldn't do in this case is immerse directly into the water in the trough.", + "If it is made to pass over into a pool and then is stopped, the pool counts as a mikveh. If the spring is made to flow into a pool and then the spring is stopped up, the pool becomes a mikveh. When there are forty seahs in the mikveh, it will purify.", + "If it is made to flow again, it is invalid for zavim and for those with skin disease and for the preparation of the hatat waters until it is known that the former [water] is gone. If he lets the spring flow again the water that immediately flows after the point at which it had been stopped cannot be used for those people who require \"living waters\" zavim, people with tzaraat (skin disease) and for preparing that hatat waters (red heifer waters). The spring cannot be used until the water that had been temporarily stopped is gone, because once the water was stopped, it is no longer living waters." + ], + [ + "If it was made to pass over the outside of vessels or over a bench: Rabbi Judah says: behold it remains as it was before. Rabbi Yose says: behold it is like a mikveh, except that one may not immerse anything above the bench. In this case, the spring was made to pass over movable vessels or over a bench. Rabbi Judah says that the status of the spring has not changed. This means that the water still counts as \"living waters\" and even zavim, etc. can immerse in them. Such people can immerse in the spring after it has passed over the vessels or bench, just not in the part of the spring that directly passes over the vessels. Rabbi Yose says that now that the spring has passed over vessels the status is that of a mikveh. There will need to be forty seahs for the person to immerse but these are not \"living waters\" so zavim and those who require living waters cannot immerse there. And one cannot immerse directly over the bench or vessels themselves because while the water is there it counts as drawn water." + ], + [ + "If [water from] a spring that flows into many channels was increased in quantity so that it was made to flow in abundance, it remains as it was before. The spring here flows gently and splits into many little channels. The Hebrew word used to describe this is \"nadal\" which is the Hebrew word for centipede! If he added drawn water to such a spring, it still counts as a spring and one can immerse in it or in its small tributaries.", + "If it was standing and its quantity was increased so that it was made to flow, it becomes equal to a mikveh in that it can purify in standing water, and to a spring in that one may immerse [objects] therein however small its quantity. This spring is completely standing still and not flowing into little rivulets like the one in section one. It is like a mikveh in that a mikveh need not be flowing for it to effect purification. And it is also like a spring in that it need not be forty seahs in order for it to be valid for immersion." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the status of the seas do they count as a mikveh or as living waters?\nThe exact same mishnah is found in Parah 8:8. Most of my commentary is the same as it was there.", + "All seas are equivalent to a mikveh, for it is said, \"And the gathering ( of the waters He called the seas\" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir the seas are considered to be like a mikveh and not like a flowing spring, which can be used for the red cow, for zavim (those with unusual genital discharge) and for metzoraim (those with scale disease), all of whom require \"living waters.\" In contrast to the rules governing a spring, for a mikveh to purify the water must be gathered into one place and it cannot be running. The seas are treated like a mikveh and therefore its waters purify only when they are gathered in one place. Rabbi Meir learns this from a midrash on the word \"gathering\" which is in Hebrew, mikveh. Genesis calls the seas a mikveh and therefore they are subject to the same rules as a mikveh and not to the rules of a live spring.", + "Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a mikveh, for it says \"seas\" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. In contrast, Rabbi Judah limits this to the ocean, which in his case is the Mediterranean. Other seas are treated like springs and purify even when they are running. He explains that Genesis states \"seas\" not because it refers to all seas as a mikveh. Rather the Mediterranean is \"seas\" because it contains many different seas. One interpretation of this is that a fish that is caught in Akko does not have the same taste as a fish that is caught in Sidon!", + "Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose says that all seas can purify when they are running none have the same restrictions as do a mikveh. However, the seas are not considered to be \"living waters\" as would be a spring. Therefore, none of the seas can be used for any of the rituals that requires \"living waters\" the red cow, zavim and metzoraim. " + ], + [ + "Flowing water is considered like a spring and dripping water is considered like a mikveh. If one sees flowing water, then one can assume it comes from a spring and it can be treated like spring water for matters of purity. But if the water is dripping slowly on the ground, then it probably came from rain water and it must be treated like a mikveh. There will need to be forty seahs for it to be a source of purity.", + "Rabbi Zadok testified that if flowing water exceeded dripping water [with which it was mixed] it was valid [as flowing water]. If most of the water comes from flowing water, then it counts as flowing water and there need not be forty seahs for it to be purificatory.", + "If dripping water became flowing water, its flow may be blocked by a stick or by a reed or even by a zav or a zavah, and then one may go down and immerse oneself in it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: one may not stop the flow of water with anything which is liable to uncleanness. There is a stream of dripping water which one directed downhill such that it now became flowing water and it now flows into a river or wadi. If one wants to gather some of it in a specific place so that he can fully immerse in it, he can put a stick or reed to stop the water up. Even a zav or a zavah who require living water can direct the flow of this water and immerse in it. Rabbi Yose says that if one wants to immerse in flowing water one can't stop the flow with anything that is liable to uncleanness. All the more so, a zav or zavah cannot use such water because it is no longer considered living water. This principle was stated in Parah 6:4." + ], + [ + "If a wave was separated [from the sea] and was forty seahs, and it fell on a man or on vessels, they become clean. The wave that was separated from the sea is equivalent to a spring; thus one can immerse in it even when it is flowing. But it is also similar to the mikveh in that it must contain forty seahs. So if one put vessels in such a wave, the vessels would be pure.", + "Any place containing forty seahs is valid for immersing oneself and for immersing other things. Any hole in the ground that has forty seahs of water that has not been drawn is valid for a mikveh. One can immerse in it and one can immerse vessels in it as well.", + "One may immerse in trenches or in ditches or even in a donkey-track whose water is connected in a valley. This section illustrates the previous one. As long as there are forty seahs and the water was not drawn, one can immerse in water found anywhere. One can immerse even in donkey tracks found in a valley whose little puddles have been connected so that together they add up to 40 seahs.", + "Bet Shammai say: one may immerse in a rain torrent. But Bet Hillel say: one may not immerse. They agree that one may block its flow with vessels and immerse oneself in it, but the vessels with which the flow is blocked are not thereby [validly] immersed. According to Bet Shammai, if the from the start to the end of the rain flow there are 40 seahs of water, one can immerse in them. In other words, one doesn't even need any shape to the water whatsoever. As long as the source is rain (if the source was from the ground this would not be a mikveh but a spring) the water can serve as a mikveh. Bet Hillel says that the water must be gathered together for it to count as mikveh. After all, that is the meaning of the word \"mikveh\" gathered waters. Bet Hillel agrees that one may fence off the flow of rain water with vessels and thereby create a mikveh out of flowing rain water. But the vessels themselves don't count as having been immersed because the outside of the vessel is not touching the mikveh that has been formed on the inside and the water that flows outside is not valid for use as a mikveh." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Anything which is joined with [the water of] a mikveh is like a mikveh. A small body of water which is joined with a valid mikveh takes on the properties of the mikveh and can be used as such, even if it doesn't contain forty seahs.", + "One may immerse in holes of a cavern and in crevices of a cavern just as they are. This is an example of the principle in section one. One may use the holes in the sides of a cavern in which a mikveh is found, even if they are not connected to the mikveh itsel by a hole the size of the tube of a water-skin.", + "The pit of a cavern, one may not immerse in it unless it had a hole as big as the tube of a water-skin. This pit is dug out next to the mikveh in the cavern and is not part of the cavern itself. For this pit to be used as part of the mikveh it must be attached to the mikveh by a hole at least as wide as the tube of a water-skin. This same measure was mentioned in 4:5 concerning attaching a trough to a mikveh.", + "Rabbi Judah said: when [is this the case]? When it stands by itself; but if it does not stand by itself, one may immerse in it just as it is. Rabbi Judah limits this to a case when the pit stands on its own. If the pit does not stand on its own, but rather is leaning on the walls of the mikveh, then it is considered part of the mikveh and one can immerse in it even if it is not attached by a hole the size of the tube of a water-skin." + ], + [ + "If a bucket was full of utensils and they were immersed, they become clean; If one fully immerses a bucket into a mikveh, and in the bucket there are vessels that he wishes to purify, the vessels become clean. The waters of the mikveh enter the bucket and therefore even if the mouth of the bucket is narrower than the tube of a water-skin, all of the vessels count as being in the bucket.", + "But if [the bucket] was not immersed, the water in the bucket is not considered as joined [with the water of the mikveh] unless it be joined [by means of a hole in the bucket which is as big] as the tube of a water-skin. If he didn't put the entire bucket into the vessel, just part of it, and the waters of the mikveh entered the vessel through a hole in the vessel, then that hole must be as big as the tube of a water-skin. As we have seen, this is the size that allows the waters of the mikveh to be joined with another container." + ], + [ + "Three mikvehs, two of which held twenty seahs [of valid water] and the third held twenty seahs of drawn water, and that holding drawn water was at the side: If three persons went down and immersed themselves in them and [the water of the three mikvehs] joined, the mikvehs are clean and they that immersed themselves become clean. When the three people go down into the three mikvaot the water level rises and the water from each mikveh is mixed with the others. Since the mikveh with the invalid drawn water is at the side, this is a case where the two mikvaot with the valid water are mixed together first and then they together validate the drawn water from the third mikveh.", + "If the one holding the drawn water was in the middle and three persons went down and immersed themselves in them and [the water of the three mikvehs] joined, the mikvehs continue as they were before and they that immersed themselves are as they were before. If the mikveh with the invalid water is in the middle, then none of the mikvaot are rendered valid because the drawn water invalidates them both. However, the water is not invalidated because we don't know for sure that three logs of drawn water have gone in to the other mikvaot. If he were to subsequently fill one of these mikvaot, it would become valid. The people that immersed remain impure." + ], + [ + "If a sponge or a bucket containing three logs of water fell into a mikveh, they do not make it invalid, because they have only said: \"if three logs fell in.\" This mishnah is a great example of how some later rabbis read and expound upon statements made by earlier sages. The earlier sages said that if three logs of drawn water fall into a mikveh that doesn't have forty logs of water, they render it invalid. The rabbis of our mishnah say that there must be three actual logs of water that fall into the mikveh, not a sponge or a bucket containing three logs of water. Note that the mouth of the bucket must be thinner than the tube of a water-skin. If not, we are in the situation in mishnah two of this chapter and we consider the two sources to be joined." + ], + [ + "A chest or a box which is in the sea: one may not immerse in them unless they have a hole as large as the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Judah says: in the case of a large vessel [the hole should be] four handbreadths, and in a small one [the hole should be as large as] the greater part of it. The chest or box is floating on the water and water is entering through cracks. The question is whether the water in the box counts as if it was in the sea, in which case there is certainly sufficient water to immerse in it. The first opinion rules that a hole in the box the size of the tube of a water-skin is sufficient for the water in the box to count as mixed in with the waters of the sea. Rabbi Judah rules more stringently. He says that if the box is large, meaning that the majority of the box is more than four handbreadths, then the hole must be at least four handbreadths for the water to be considered mingled. If the box is smaller than that, than the hole must be at least the greater part of the size of the box. Basically, the box must have a pretty big hole relative to its size.", + "If there was a sack or a basket [in the sea], one may immerse in them as they are, since the water is mixed together. If they are placed under a water-spout, they do not make the mikveh invalid. And they may be immersed and brought up in the ordinary way. The sack and the basket are not at all water-proof, therefore their rules are different from those governing the box or chest. If they are in the sea, they count as being part of the sea and they don't need a hole in order to be able to immerse in them. If they are placed under a water-spout they don't cause the water to be considered \"drawn water\" as would vessels that are made to hold water. Finally, since the water in them doesn't count as \"drawn water\" one could immerse them in a mikveh containing exactly forty seahs of water and then pick them up again. The water that will gather in the basket and then fall back into the mikveh does not count as \"drawn water\" which would disqualify the mikveh." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah brings up some interesting cases in which a person can become pure and be made impure at virtually the same time.", + "If there was a broken [earthenware] vessel in the mikveh and utensils were immersed in it, they become clean from their [former] uncleanness but are again rendered unclean because of the earthenware vessel. But if water flowed above it in any quantity, they are clean. An impure broken earthenware vessel is floating on top of a mikveh or the sea. Water is entering it from its sides. If one immerses vessels in this broken vessel they are clean. This means that the water in the vessel does not count as \"drawn water\" because the vessel is broken. However, there is a problem (isn't there always?). An earthenware vessel cannot become pure by virtue of immersing it in a mikveh. [Earthenware vessels must be broken to become pure]. Therefore, this broken vessel is still impure. When one pulls out the vessel he is immersing, the water that comes up with it will immediately become impure by being in the airspace of the impure earthenware vessel. That water will then defile the vessel being immersed, as liquids always do. However, if the earthenware vessel is fully immersed in the water of the mikveh, then the water above it is pure because it is part of the mikveh. Thus if he immerses the vessel on top of the earthenware vessel, when he takes it out, it will be pure.", + "If [water of] a spring flowed forth from an oven and a man went down and immersed himself in it, he is clean but his hands become unclean. But if [the water was as] high above the oven as the height of his hands, his hands also are clean. An impure earthenware oven is set or even attached to the ground, as was the custom with ovens. Suddenly, a spring bursts forth from the ground through the oven (thereby ruining the pot roast, but that's another issue.) One can immerse in the spring inside the oven. However, his hands which will be inside the oven's airspace when he comes out, will be defiled. But if the water flows over the oven by at least the height of his hands, then when he comes out, his hands will be immersed in this water. If this is the case, they will remain pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah talks about how two mikvaot can be joined together such that if each has less than forty seahs of water, we can consider them both together so that they have forty seahs.", + "Mikvaot can be joined together [if their connection is as big] as the tube of a water-skin in thickness and in space, in which two fingers can be fully turned round. The hole connecting the two mikvaot must be the size the tube of a water-skin, which is two fingerbreadths in width. As the mishnah explains, one must be able to put one's fingers in the tube and fully turn them around.", + "If there is a doubt [whether it is as big] as the tube of a water skin or not, it is invalid, because [this is a mitzvah] from the Torah. If someone immerses in one of these mikvaot, and it alone has less than forty handbreadths and he is not sure whether the connection with the other mikveh is as big as the tube of a water-skin, he remains impure. This is because the mitzvah to immerse in the mikveh is from the Torah and in cases of doubt concerning toraitic impurity, the law is strict.", + "The same applies also to the olive's bulk of a corpse and the olive's bulk of carrion and the lentil's bulk of a sheretz. If there is a doubt whether a piece of corpse is the bulk of an olive, which is the size required to defile, or a piece of carrion (of an impure animal) is the size of an olive or a dead sheretz (creepy-crawly thing) is the size of a lentil, in all of these cases the law is stringent and that which it touched is considered impure. Again, this type of defilement is from the Torah.", + "Anything which remains in [the space measuring] the tube of a water-skin lessens [its measure]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if it is any water creature whatsoever, [the mikvaot] remain clean. If something remains in the hole that connects the two mikvaot, it reduces the size of the hole. If it is less than the size of a water-tube, the two mikvaot are not considered connected. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that if there is some sort of water-creature, perhaps a water-worm of some sorts, in the hole, it does not reduce the size of the hole. If someone immerses, he will be clean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches how one can use one valid mikveh to make valid another mikveh valid.", + "Mikvaot may be made clean [by joining drawn water from] a higher [mikveh to valid water] from a lower [mikveh or drawn water from] a distant [mikveh to valid water] in a [mikveh] near at hand. If there are two mikvaot on the sides of sloped ground, one can make the higher mikveh valid by having it touch (literally, kiss) the lower mikveh. If the two mikvaot are on equal ground, one can similarly make the one valid by having it touch the other mikveh. The mishnah will now demonstrate how.", + "How so? One brings a pipe of earthenware or of lead and puts his hand beneath it till it is filled with water; then he draws it along till [the two waters] touch even if it be by a hair's breadth it is sufficient. He takes some pipe made of either earthenware or lead and puts one end in the higher (invalid) mikveh. Then he closes up the other end of the pipe with his hand and draws it along until the water in the pipe touches the lower mikveh. Even if only a little bit of water touches the lower mikveh, the waters of the upper mikveh are validated.", + "If in the higher [mikveh] there were forty seahs and nothing in the lower, one may draw water and carry it on the shoulder and place it in the higher [mikveh] till forty seahs have flowed down into the lower [mikveh]. In this case there are forty seahs of valid water in the upper mikveh but nothing in the lower mikveh. He can draw more water and carry it to fill up the upper mikveh because once it has forty valid seahs, no amount of drawn water renders it invalid. Then he can use a pipe to let water flow from the upper mikveh to the lower mikveh. In this way he can essentially use drawn water to fill the lower mikveh. Pretty neat!" + ], + [ + "If a wall between two mikvaot had a perpendicular crack, [their waters] may be reckoned together; [If it was cracked] horizontally, they cannot be reckoned together, unless there is at one place [a hole as big] as the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Judah says: the rule is reversed. According to the first opinion, perpendicular cracks between the walls that runs add up together, such that if all of the cracks add up to the size of the tube of a water-skin, then the two mikvaot can be reckoned together to reach the requisite 40 seahs. However, if the crack runs horizontally, then there must be at least the size of the tube of a water-skin at one single point for the two mikvaot to be joined. Rabbi Judah says the reverse horizontal cracks do join together to add up the requisite size of a whole, but perpendicular cracks do not join together.", + "If there is a breach from one [mikveh] to the other, [they can be reckoned together] if the height is as [the thickness of] the skin of garlic and the breadth like the tube of a water-skin. For a breach to serve to connect two mikvaot that have a wall separating them, the breach must have a very minimum height, only as high as the skin of a piece of garlic. However, it must be as wide as the tube of a water-skin." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a bathtub that has a pipe leading out of it for drainage. The bathtub itself seems to have been filled up with collected rainwater, such that the water in it could be valid as a mikveh. However, the pipe has a stopper on the outside and putting the stopper into the end of the pipe causes the water in the stopper to be considered drawn water. The question is: does this drawn water invalidate the valid water in the tub?", + "The outlet of a bath-basin: if it is in the center, it renders [the bath] invalid [as a mikveh]; but if it is at the side, it does not render it invalid, because then it is like one mikveh adjoining another mikveh, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, if the outlet is in the middle of the bathtub, the drawn water in it causes the entire bathtub to be invalid. However, if the outlet is at the end of the tub then the mikveh remains valid because this is considered like a mikveh of drawn water which is invalid, which is next to a mikveh of valid water. As we learned in 2:5, such a mikveh is not invalidated.", + "But the sages say: if the bath- basin can contain a quarter-log of [water] before it reaches the outlet, it is valid; but if not, it is not valid. According to the sages, if there is a quarter-log of water in the basin before any water drains out the outlet, then the mikveh is valid for this is the minimum measure from the Torah (as determined by the sages) for a valid mikveh. In such a case, we would have a valid mikveh next to an invalid mikveh. But if not, then the water in the bath-basin cannot count as a mikveh.", + "Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: if the outlet can contain any amount of [water], it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer considers the water in the outlet to be water in a vessel that is in a mikveh, which means that there is drawn water in the mikveh. No matter the size or position of the outlet, the mikveh is invalid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a pool of cool water that people were accustomed to immerse in after bathing in the hot waters of the bathhouse. The waters in the bathhouse were definitely drawn water, so one would need to purify after emerging from the hot bath.", + "The ‘purifier' in the bathhouse: the bottom was full of drawn [water] and the top full of valid [water], if [the space] in front of the hole can contain three logs it is invalid [as a mikveh]. How large must the hole be to contain three logs? 1/320th of the pool, the words of Rabbi Yose. There are two pools next to each other, one elevated above the other. The bottom one contains drawn water and the top is full of valid water. The two pools are connected by a hole. If the hole can contain three logs (the amount of drawn water that invalidates a mikveh) then we look at it as if the water from the lower pool has gone into the upper pool and its waters are invalid to use as a mikveh. If a normal pool has forty seahs, which is equivalent to 960 logs of water (1 seah=24 logs) then three logs are 1/320th of the size of a normal mikveh.", + "But Rabbi Elazar says: even if the bottom [pipe] was full of valid [water] and the top [pipe] full of drawn [water] and by the hole's side were three logs, [the bath is] valid, for they have only said: \"if three logs fell in.\" Rabbi Elazar says that three logs invalidate a mikveh only if they fall in. They do not invalidate a mikveh in a case such as we have here, because in this case there was invalid water standing next to valid water and connected by a hole. This same literal reading of the older tradition was found above in mishnah four." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Some materials raise the mikveh up [to the required quantity] and do not make it invalid.
Some make it invalid and do not raise it up [to the required quantity];
And some neither raise it up [to the required quantity] nor make it invalid.
These raise it up to the required quantity and do not make the mikveh invalid. Snow, hail, frosted dew, ice, salt, and thin mud.
Rabbi Akiva said: Rabbi Ishmael once argued against me saying; snow does not raise up the mikveh [to its required quantity]. But the men of Madeba testified in his name that he had once told them: go and bring snow and with it prepare a mikveh from the outset.
Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: hailstones are like drawn water.
How do they raise it up [to the required quantity] and not render it invalid? If the mikveh contained forty seahs less one, and a se'ah of them fell in and made up [the required quantity], they thus make up [the required quantity] but do not render it invalid.
Sections 1-3: These sections serve as an introduction to the next few mishnayot which will explain each section and case, one at a time.
Section four: If one of the following materials falls into a mikveh that does not have forty seahs, and with the addition of the material the mikveh now has forty seahs, the mikveh is valid. In addition, if any of these materials fall into a mikveh, they do not invalidate it, even if they were put into a vessel. In other words, these materials can only benefit and not harm the mikveh.
Section five: Rabbi Akiva says that Rabbi Ishmael tried to argue that snow does not count in raising the mikveh up to its requisite amount. However, his argument failed because some men from Madeba (a city in Jordan, there is a famous mosaic map of the Holy Land there) testified that Rabbi Ishmael once told them to fill up a mikveh with snow, even though he wasn't sure if this was valid.
We should note that this is a very interesting and unique case where one rabbi testifies that another rabbi argued a position with which he did not agree.
Section six: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that hailstones are treated like water. If they have been drawn in a vessel and then they were put into a mikveh, they render the mikveh invalid.
Section seven: This section explains how any of these substances can raise a mikveh up to the requisite quantity." + ], + [ + "These invalidate the mikveh and do not raise it up to [the required quantity]: Drawn water, whether clean or unclean, water that has been used for pickling or for boiling, and grape-skin wine before it becomes vinegar. How do they make the mikveh invalid and do not raise it up [the required quantity]? If a mikveh contained forty seahs less a kortov, and a kortov of these fell into it, it does not raise it up [the required quantity]; And if there were three logs of any of these, they would invalidate the mikveh. The mishnah now explains the types of materials that do invalidate a mikveh. As we have learned many times, drawn water certainly invalidates a mikveh, at least one that doesn't already have forty seahs of valid water. This is true regardless of whether the water is pure or impure. Similarly, water that has been used for pickling or for boiling invalidates the mikveh. Grape-skin wine is really water with a little bit of flavor in it. This type of wine invalidates a mikveh only before it turns into vinegar. Grape-skin wine that has fermented into vinegar is dealt with in section two. If one of these substances falls into a mikveh and thereby raises the level of the mikveh to forty seahs, it does not cause the mikveh to have the requisite amount. And if three logs or more fall in, they invalidate the mikveh.", + "But other liquids, and the juice of fruits, brine, and liquid in which fish has been pickled, and grape-skin wine that has fermented sometimes raise it up to [the required quantity] and sometimes do not raise it up. How so? If a mikveh contained forty seahs less one, and a seah of any of these fell in it, it does not raise it up to [the required quantity]. But if the mikveh contained forty seahs and a se'ah of any of these was put in and one seah was removed, the mikveh is still valid. Other liquids like milk, wine and the liquids listed here are neutral they neither raise the level nor invalidate the mikveh. If the mikveh has less than forty seahs and a seah of one of these substances spills in, it does not raise it up to the requisite level. But if the mikveh has the requisite level and one of these falls in and then one seah is removed, the mikveh remains valid because when the seah of the liquid fell in, there were already forty seahs. In this way, the liquid can, in a sense, aid in raising the mikveh to the requisite level." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with various ways in which a change in the color of the water of the mikveh can render it invalid.", + "If he rinsed in the mikveh baskets of olives or baskets of grapes and they changed its color, it remains valid. Changing the color of the water renders it invalid only if something of substance falls into the mikveh, such as grapes or olives. However, the color from the baskets that are rinsed in the mikveh does not count as a substance and therefore it does not render the mikveh invalid.", + "Rabbi Yose says: dye-water renders it invalid by a quantity of three logs, but not merely by changing its color. Dye water is treated like drawn water. It renders the mikveh invalid but only if there are three logs of it. A smaller amount does not render the mikveh invalid, even if it changes the color of the water", + "If wine or the sap of olives fell into it and changed its color, it becomes invalid. Since these do count as substances, they do render the mikveh invalid if there is enough to change the color of the water.", + "What should one do [to make it valid again]? One should wait until the rain falls and the color reverts to the color of water. This section teaches how one can \"fix\" a mikveh that became invalid because it was colored. This mikveh does not have forty seahs of water. One can wait until the rain falls and enough water goes in so that the color returns to the normal color of water. Note that this might take a while in Israel, where rain does not fall for about half of the year (May-October).", + "If it contained forty seahs, water may be drawn and carried on the shoulder and put into it until the color reverts to that of water. If the mikveh already has forty seahs it is even easier to fix it if the color has changed. One can simply fill up a bucket with drawn water and add it to the mikveh, because drawn water does not invalidate a mikveh that already has forty seahs of valid water." + ], + [ + "If wine or the sap of olives fell into the mikveh and changed the color of a portion of the water, if there is not a portion [of the mikveh] that has forty seahs with the color of water, one may not immerse in there. If the wine or sap from olives changed one part of the mikveh, meaning somehow the color stayed on one side, then one cannot immerse in the mikveh unless the remaining side that still has the color of water has at least forty seahs. I'm not really sure how practical this is (the color would assumedly dissipate pretty quickly throughout the mikveh), but it does teach a principle. The colored water is not usable as a mikveh but it doesn't disqualify the mikveh. Therefore, we can effectively ignore the fact that there is colored water on one side of the mikveh such water doesn't count, but doesn't disqualify." + ], + [ + "If a kortov of wine fell into three logs of water and its color became like that of wine, and the water then fell into a mikveh, it does not render it invalid. Wine doesn't disqualify a mikveh. Drawn water does. So what do we do with a mixture of the two? According to the mishnah, if the color is like wine, then the water is treated like wine. It is interesting to note that since in the time of the Mishnah people usually drank their wine mixed with water, a cup of wine/water would probably be in their eyes, wine, not water mixed with wine. In other words, if it has the color of wine, its wine.", + "If there were three logs of water less a kortov into which a kortov of milk fell, and their color remained like the color of water, and then they fell into a mikveh, they do not render it invalid. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: everything goes by the color. In this case, a little bit of milk, which does not disqualify the mikveh, falls into almost three logs of drawn water, which are not quite sufficient to disqualify the mikveh. There are now three logs of what looks like drawn water, but since there are not actually three logs of drawn water, the mikveh is not disqualified. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees with this case. Since the color is that of water, the substance must be treated as water which does disqualify the mikveh. This would make the rule in section two consistent with that in section one." + ], + [ + "If a mikveh contained forty seahs exactly and two persons went down and immersed themselves one after the other, the first becomes clean but the second remains unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the feet of the first were still touching the water, the second also becomes clean. When the first person exits the mikveh, he will inevitably remove some water with him. The mikveh will now have less than forty seahs of water, so the second person to immerse will not become pure. Rabbi Judah says that if the feet of the first person are still in the mikveh, we consider all of the water on his body to still be in the mikveh. In such a case, the second person to immerse is pure.", + "If one immersed a thick cloak and when he drew it out a part was still in contact with the water [and then another person immersed himself in the mikveh], he becomes clean. This matches Rabbi Judah's opinion from above. As long as part of the thick cloak is still in the water, the water that is on or soaked up by the cloak counts as if it was still part of the mikveh.", + "A pillow case or a cushion of leather, as soon as it is taken out of the water by its open ends the water which still remains in it is drawn water. How should one do it? One should immerse them and draw them up by their lower edges. The pillow case and leather cushion both have a receptacle. Therefore, as soon as they are immersed in the mikveh and some of the open ends are removed, the water in them is considered drawn water. This would disqualify the mikveh if it wasn't large enough, meaning if there wasn't forty seahs of valid water. The way to fix this problem is to immerse the pillow case or leather cushion with the open side down, such that when he pulls them out, there is no water inside. Simple problem, simple solution!" + ], + [ + "If he immersed a bed in it, even though its legs sink into the thick mud, it still becomes clean because the water touched them before [the mud]. Since the legs of the bed are immersed in the mikveh's waters before they sink into the mud at the bottom of the mikveh, they are clean. Note that this mikveh has at least forty seahs of water. Furthermore, immersing only in water thick with mud would not suffice to make something clean (see mishnah one of this chapter).", + "The water of a mikveh which is shallow, one may press down even bundles of sticks, even bundles of reeds, so that the level of the water may rise, and then go down and immerse oneself. This mikveh is shallow but still has exactly forty seahs of water. The problem is that the water is too shallow to immerse his whole body. He may take bundles of wood or reeds and place them on the sides of the mikveh to create a narrower deeper space. He is allowed to do this even though water will creep into the sides of the mikveh in between the spaces within the bundles of the wood or reeds and thereby reduce the volume of the other water in the mikveh. The mishnah teaches that the water in these spaces counts in constituting the requisite forty seahs for a mikveh.", + "If an [unclean] needle is placed on the step [leading down to a mikveh] in a cavern, and the water is put in motion, once a wave has passed over it, [the needle] becomes clean. The wave of water that reaches up from the mikveh and immerses the unclean needle is sufficient to purify the needle." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with mikvaot that are found and with whether one can assume that they have been filled with rainwater and are valid or that they have been filled with drawn water and are invalid.", + "The land of Israel is clean and its mikvaot are clean. The rabbis declared that merely being in the land of the other nations defiles. The land of Israel, on the other hand, is clean. Similarly, if one sees a mikveh in Israel and is not sure if it is valid or not, the presumption is that it too is valid.", + "The mikvaot of the nations outside the land are valid for those who had a seminal emission even though they have been filled by a pump-beam; According to rabbinic legend/law, Ezra decreed that men who have had a seminal emission must immerse in a mikveh before they study Torah or pray (this is no longer observed). A mikveh found outside of the land of Israel can be assumed to be valid for such a purpose for this immersion is mandated only by rabbinic law. This is true even if it had been filled with a pump-beam, which would mean that it is certainly drawn water. However, the mikveh is not valid for other types of immersions that are toraitic in origin.", + "Those in the land of Israel: when outside the entrance [to the city] are valid even for menstruants, and those within the entrance [to the city] are valid for those who had a seminal emission but invalid for all [others] who are unclean. Mikvaot found outside of the city can be assumed to have been filled with rain water or some other natural water. Mikvaot in the city are assumed to have been filled with drawn water and are invalid. With that in mind, if one finds a mikveh outside of the city gates, anyone can immerse there, even a menstruant, whose obligation to immerse is from the Torah. But if one finds a mikveh inside the city, it is only valid for men who have had a seminal emission, whose obligation is derabanan, from the rabbis.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: those which are near to a city or to a road are unclean because of laundering; but those at a distance are clean. Rabbi Eliezer adds that mikvaot found near the city or near a road may have been used for laundering. During the laundering water would have been put into the mikveh and this creates the presumption that the mikveh is invalid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah and tomorrow's deal with what constitutes a seminal emission such that a man must go to the mikveh. I know, you're thinking, doesn't a man know when one has had a emission? I would imagine that this is generally the case. But the rabbis talk about everything like this. They also talk about how a woman can distinguish between menstrual blood and blood from another source, even though most women probably can tell the difference. This is simply part of the way the rabbis talk.", + "These are the men who had a seminal emission who require immersion: The men listed below require immersion even though we are not one hundred per cent sure that they have had a seminal emission.", + "If he noticed that his urine issued in drops or was murky: At the beginning he is clean; In the middle and at the end, he is unclean; From the beginning to the end, he is clean. The liquid being emitted is not like urine, which generally doesn't come out in drops, as does semen. But then again, it is not like semen, which is usually white not murky. What is it? If the stream begins this way, he is clean, for this is not considered semen. It is probably just problematic urination (yes, we've heard of this problem on radio ads). If it occurs at the middle or end of his urination, then it is considered semen for it is unusual for urine to begin normally and then turn into murky drops. If it occurs from the beginning to the end, then that's just the way he urinates. Hopefully, things will get better.", + "If it was white and viscous, he is unclean. Rabbi Yose says: what is white counts like what is murky. If the issue was white and viscous, meaning in clumps, not little drops, then it is semen and he is unclean. Rabbi Yose says that even if it is white, if he sees such a type of emission at the beginning, he is pure, the same as is true with murky liquid." + ], + [ + "If he emitted thick drops from his member, he is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar Hisma. Thick drops are characteristic of semen (I refuse to disclose my sources on this one). Therefore, if he emits thick drops, even at the beginning of the stream (see yesterday's mishnah), he is unclean.", + "If one had sexual dreams in the night and arose and found his flesh heated, he is unclean. His flesh is a euphemism for his penis (see Leviticus 15:2, every language seems to have an abundance of these words). If he has sexual dreams at night and he wakes up and finds his flesh warm, he can assume that he had an emission, even if he doesn't find any other signs.", + "If a woman discharged semen on the third day, she is clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Ishmael says: sometimes there are four time periods, and sometimes five, and sometimes six. Rabbi Akiva says: there are always five. Semen defiles not only the man, but also a woman with whom he has had sexual intercourse (see Leviticus 15:18). The question asked here is how long the semen that is inside her counts as semen such that it defiles her. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, by the third day the semen inside her has deteriorated enough such that it doesn't count as semen. If she has some discharge, she is not impure. A time period is either a day or a night. Rabbi Ishmael holds that a woman who has discharge on the third day is impure, but one who has discharge on the fourth day is pure. Therefore, sometimes there can be four time periods in which she is impure. For instance if she has relations on late Sunday afternoon, the discharge is impure through Wednesday morning, which is four full time periods (Sunday night, Monday day, Monday night, Tuesday day). But if she has relations at the beginning of Sunday morning, then Sunday day counts as another time period, and there are five. And if she has relations on Saturday night at the beginning of the night, then Saturday night counts as one of the time periods, and there will be six time periods. Rabbi Akiva says that the time is set by the number of periods between the time she had relations and the time that she discharges the semen. If she discharges within five time periods, she is impure." + ], + [ + "If a non-Jewish woman discharged semen from an Israelite, it is unclean. If an Israelite woman discharged semen from a non-Jewish man, it is clean. In general, non-Jews were considered to be outside the scope of the Israelite purity laws. Only semen from an Israelite is considered halakhically unclean. Therefore, the religion of the woman who discharged the semen is irrelevant; only the religion of the man has any relevance.", + "If a woman had intercourse and then went down and immersed herself but did not sweep out the house, it is as though she had not immersed herself. \"Sweeping out the house\" is a euphemism for a woman cleaning herself out after sexual relations with a man. If she does not clean herself out, the semen defiles her when she immerses from the mikveh.", + "If a man who had a seminal emission immersed himself but did not first pass urine, he again becomes unclean when he passes urine. Rabbi Yose says: if he was sick or old he is unclean, but if he was young and healthy he remains clean. Urinating will flush out the semen that remains in the man. Therefore, he should urinate before he immerses in the mikveh. If he does not, he remains unclean. Rabbi Yose says that this is so only with an old or sick person, who evidently does not ejaculate with quite as much vigor. A young healthy male expels all of the semen and therefore does not need to urinate in order to clear himself out." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is about things that block the water of the mikveh from having full contact with the body such that proper immersion occurs. The Hebrew term for this is \"hatzitzah.\"", + "If a menstruant placed coins in her mouth and went down and immersed herself, she becomes clean from her [former] uncleanness, but she becomes unclean on account of her spittle. The coins that are found in a menstruant's mouth do not block her from becoming clean from her impurity, because one does not need to immerse the inside of one's mouth. However, she is made unclean immediately by the spittle that is found on the coins. This spittle is considered to have separated from her and landed on the coins and from there it re-defiles the woman.", + "If she put her hair in her mouth or closed her hand or pressed her lips tightly, it is as though she had not immersed herself. While she need not cleanse the inside of her mouth, she does need to cleanse her hair, the palms of her hands and the outside parts of her lips. If she prevents the water from getting to these spots, then she remains impure.", + "If a person held on to another man or to vessels and immersed them, they remain unclean; but if he had washed his hand before in the water, they become clean. Rabbi Shimon says: he should hold them loosely that water may enter into them. By holding on tightly to the other person or to vessels, he blocks the water from reaching the spots where he is holding them. Therefore, the person he is holding or the vessels remain unclean. However, if he washed his hands in the mikveh before he immerses, then the water that is on his hands joins the water that is in the mikveh and there is no blockage. Rabbi Shimon says that this is not sufficient. He should let his hands hold them loosely so that water comes between his hands and the vessels or the other person.", + "The hidden or wrinkled parts of the body do not need that water should enter into them. The hidden parts include, for instance, the inside of one's mouth or the inside one's ears. The wrinkled parts might include a wrinkle of fat, or something of that nature. These parts do not need to come into contact with water." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe ninth chapter deals completely with the issue of what blocks immersion.\nToday's mishnah begins with what blocks immersion for a person. The end of the chapter (5-7) deals with what blocks immersion in vessels.", + "The following block [immersion] in the case of a person: threads of wool, threads of flax and the ribbons on the heads of girls. If a girl wears threads of wool, flax or other types of ribbons in her hair, they block her immersion.", + "Rabbi Judah says: those of wool or of hair do not interpose, because water enters through them. According to Rabbi Judah, threads of wool or hair do not block the water from entering. Therefore, her immersion is successful" + ], + [ + "The matted hair on the heart and on the beard and on a woman's hidden parts; pus outside the eye, hardened pus outside a wound and the plaster over it, dried-up juice, clots of excrement on the body, dough under the finger nails, sweat-crumbs, miry clay, potter's clay, and road-clay.
What is meant by 'miry clay’? This means the clay in pits, for it is written: \"He lifted me out of the miry pit, the slimy clay\" (Psalms 40:3).
\"Potter's clay\" according to its literal sense. Rabbi Yose declares potter's clay clean, but clay for putty unclean.
And \"road-clay.\"
These become like road-side pegs in these [kinds of clay] one may not immerse oneself nor immerse [other things] with them;
But in all other clay one may immerse when it is wet.
One may not immerse oneself with dust [still] on one's feet.
One may not immerse a kettle with soot [on it] unless he scraped it.
Section one: This section is a list of things that block successful immersion.
Most of these are self-explanatory. Sweat-crumbs are formed on your hands when they are dirty and you rub them together and little balls are formed (this is actually quite a clever description of those little things).
The various types of clay are explained in the continuation of the mishnah.
Section two: Miry clay is clay found in pits the word comes from the verse in Psalms.
Sections three and four: These seem to be self-explanatory.
Section five: All of these types of clay become like \"road-side pegs.\" This refers to a person who walks in mud and has around his legs cakes of mud. One is not allowed to immerse with these types of clay on him, nor can one immerse vessels with this type of mud on them.
Section six: Other types of mud do not block immersion, as long as they are wet.
Section seven: The dust on one's feet block immersion.
Section eight: Before one immerses a kettle, one must scrape off the soot. The words \"unless he scraped it\" can also refer to the dust on one's legs." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with clumps of matted hair that do not block successful immersion from occurring.", + "The following do not block: the matted hair of the head and of the armpits and of a man's hidden parts. These types of matted hair do not block successful immersion from occurring, in contrast with those found in yesterday's mishnah which do. Note that male pubic hair does not block immersion, whereas female pubic hair does.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: it is the same with a man or a woman: if it is something which one finds annoying, it blocks; but if it is something which one does not find annoying, it does not interpose. Rabbi Eliezer issues a more egalitarian ruling. No matter the gender, if the person finds the matted hair annoying, then it blocks immersion. This same general rule is found in mishnah seven. Rabbi Eliezer differs from the other sages in that he applies it also to pubic hair." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues the list of things that do not block immersion.", + "Pus within the eye, hardened pus within a wound, juice that is moist, moist excrement on the body, excrement inside the finger nail, and a dangling finger nail and the downy hair of a child. All of the things listed here do not cause immersion to be blocked. Note that some of these should be contrasted with the list in mishnah one, for instance moist excrement, which does not block, and dry excrement, which does.", + "[These] are not liable to uncleanness and do not cause uncleanness. In addition, all of the items listed above are not considered to be attached to the body. Thus if the body became impure, these things remain pure. And if these things contracted impurity, the rest of the body remains pure.", + "The membrane which forms over a wound is liable to uncleanness and causes uncleanness. In contrast, the scab of a wound is part of the body and its purity status goes along with the rest of the body. If it contracts impurity, a person's whole body is impure and if the body is defiled, it too is defiled." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with cases in which pitch and myrhh stains block the successful immersion of vessels. The general rule is quite obvious if the person would want to remove the stain of pitch or myrrh, then it blocks immersion. But if we can assume that they don't care, then they do not.", + "In the case of vessels the following block: pitch and myrrh; The entire mishnah deals with when pitch and myrrh (the sap that comes from the myrrh tree), block successful immersion.", + "In the case of glass vessels, whether inside or outside; Glass vessels are the most precious and expensive of all vessels. If pitch or myrrh were to be found anywhere, inside or outside of these vessels, the person would wish to have it removed. Therefore they block immersion.", + "On a table or on a board or on a couch; On those that are [usually] kept clean they block; On those that are allowed to remain dirty they do not block. If the table is generally kept clean, then one would want to remove the pitch or myrrh. Therefore, they do block immersion. If the table is allowed to remain dirty, then one doesn't care if there is pitch or myrrh on it. Since one doesn't care about it, it doesn't block immersion.", + "They block in the case of beds belonging to householders, but they do not block on beds belonging to a poor person. A normal householder would care if there was pitch or myrrh on his bed. Therefore, if the bed belongs to a householder, pitch and myrrh block immersion. But a poor person is probably used to having a bed with some dirt on it. For him, pitch and myrrh do not block immersion.", + "They block on the saddle of a house-holder, but they do not block on the saddle of a dealer in water-skins. Again, a regular house-holder cares that there shouldn't be pitch or myrrh on his saddle. But those who deal in water-skins are used to the presence of pitch and myrrh. Therefore, they don't block the successful immersion of his saddle.", + "They block in the case of a pack-saddle. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [only if the stain is as big] as an Italian issar. On a pack-saddle, they always block immersion. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that the stain must have a minimum size that of a coin called the Italian issar." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah talks about when such types of stains block the successful immersion of vessels.", + "On clothing: if on one side [only] they do not block. But [if found] on two sides they do block. If the stain can be seen on only one side of the clothing, it does not block. But if the stain can be seen on both sides of the clothing then it is a deeper stain and it must be removed before the clothing can be successful immersed.", + "Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: on one side also. According to Rabbi Judah, even if the stain can only be seen on one side of the clothing, it blocks immersion.", + "Rabbi Yose says: in the case of builders they block if on one side, but in the case of the ditch-digger only if on both sides. Rabbi Yose says that when it comes to builders, their clothing cannot be immersed even if the stain can be seen only on one side . According to this interpretation (others interpret the mishnah to refer to bathhouse attendants), builders take care that their clothes shouldn't have any stains on them, and therefore they would wish to remove this stain. But ditch-diggers (this is the interpretation suggested by Albeck others read \"the uncultured\") do not care if their clothing is stained on one side. Therefore, it blocks immersion only if the stain can be seen on both sides." + ], + [ + "They do not block in the case of aprons belonging to workers in pitch, potters, or trimmers of trees. Rabbi Judah says: the same applies also to summer fruit-driers. Since these people don't care how dirty their aprons become, stains never block successful immersion.", + "This is the general rule: if it is something which one cares enough [to remove], it blocks; but if it is something which one does not care enough [to remove], it does not block. This is the general rule that basically explains the entire chapter. If the person is assumed to want to remove the stain from his clothing, vessel or himself, then it does block immersion. But if he doesn't care that it's there, then the person or article/vessel can be immersed even with the substance on it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Any handles of vessels which have been fixed not in their usual manner, or, if fixed in their usual manner, have not been fixed firmly, or, if fixed firmly, have been broken, they block. Handles of vessels that have not been attached properly, or were attached properly but broke, block successful immersion. However, if the handle is properly attached to the vessel, it does not block immersion.", + "If a vessel was immersed with its mouth downwards, it is as though it had not been immersed. If the vessel is immersed with its mouth downwards, water will not fully enter it. Therefore, the immersion does not count.", + "If immersed in the regular manner but without the attachment, [it becomes clean] only if turned on its side. The attachment referred to here seems to be some sort of drainage pipe placed on the side of the vessel. If he immerses it in the normal manner, the water will not enter this attachment. Therefore, it is not pure until he immerses it on its side so that water will enter the drainage pipe.", + "If a vessel is narrow at each end and broad in the center, it becomes clean only if turned on its side. The water will enter this vessel only if it is immersed on its side.", + "A flask which has its mouth turned inwards becomes clean only if a hole is made at the side. Water will not enter this vessel through its mouth, therefore to successfully immerse it he must make a hole in its side.", + "An inkpot of laymen becomes clean only if a hole is made at the side. The inkpot of Joseph the priest had a hole at its side. The inkpot used by laypeople will not allow water into its mouth, if it is immersed. Therefore, one must make a hole in it to allow the water in. It would seem that the inkpots of professional scribes were made differently. Joseph the priest seems to have been well-known for making a permanent hole in his inkpot so that it would be easy to immerse. Assumedly, when using it, he would plug it up temporarily." + ], + [ + "A bolster and a cushion of leather it is necessary that the water enter inside them. This section lists coverings which one regularly puts stuff in and takes stuff out of. Therefore, the insides must be immersed as well as the outsides.", + "A round cushion or a ball or a bootmaker's last or an amulet or a phylactery, it is not necessary that the water enter inside them. In contrast, these items have something inside of them which is not customarily removed. Therefore, they do not need to be opened up in order to be immersed.", + "This is the general rule: any article the filling of which is not usually taken out and put in may be immersed unopened. This is the general rule that explains the distinction between the items in sections one and two." + ], + [ + "The following do not require that the water shall enter inside them:
Knots [in the clothes] of a poor man,
or in tassels,
or in the thong of a sandal,
or in a head-tefillin if it is fastened tightly,
or in an arm-tefillin if it does not move up or down,
or in the handles of a water-skin,
or in the handles of a wallet.
This mishnah lists things that don't require the water of the mikveh to enter into them in order to be cleansed.
Section one: The poor man will not undo the knots, therefore water need not enter inside the knot.
Section two: Tassels on the fringes of garments are not generally undone.
Section three: This is the knot that attaches the sandal to attach the forefoot. The straps on the other side would be tied and untied but the thong part would not.
Section four: As we know, straps are attached to the tefillin. If the strap is attached tightly to the head tefillin, it does not need to be loosened to be immersed in the mikveh.
Section five: If the strap on the arm-tefillin is tight enough so that the box doesn't move up and down on its own, then the water need not go inside the connection between the two. This is a lesser connection then the connection required for the head-tefillin because the arm-tefillin must be adjusted in order to put it on one's arm.
Sections six and seven: One never removes these handles. Therefore, water need not enter in between the handle and the skin or wallet." + ], + [ + "The following require that water shall enter inside them:
The knot in an undergarment which is tied to the shoulder.
The hem of a sheet must be stretched out.
And the knot of head tefillin if it is not fastened tightly,
Or of the arm-tefillin if it moves up and down.
And the laces of a sandal.
Clothes which are immersed when they have just been washed must be kept immersed until they bubble up; But if they are immersed when already dry, they must be kept immersed until they throw up bubbles and then cease to bubble up.
Today's mishnah is the opposite of yesterday's. It deals with situations in which water does need to come into contact with the insides of knots or other such cases.
Section one: The undergarment was attached to the shoulders by a knot. Since this knot would regularly be undone, it needs to allow water inside when immersed.
Section two: Before one immerses the hem of a sheet which has wrinkles and folds in it, one must stretch it out so that the water comes into contact with every part.
Sections three and four: These were explained in yesterday's mishnah.
Section five: While the thong of a sandal did not need to let the water inside it, the laces are regularly undone. Therefore, they need to be undone to allow water in and out.
Section six: The mishnah requires a sign that the water has come into contact with the clothes for the immersion to be efective. If the clothes are already wet, then all that needs to happen is for the clothes to sort of bubble up, meaning they pop up to the surface.
If they are already dry, then the clothes must first bubble up and then stop bubbling up to the surface. Only this is a sign that they have been successfully immersed." + ], + [ + "Any handles of vessels which are too long and which will be cut short, need only be immersed up to the point of their proper measure. Rabbi Judah says: [they are unclean] until the whole of them is immersed. If the handle of a vessel is too long and is supposed to be cut off, but has not yet been cut off, it needs to be immersed only up to the point at which it will be cut off. We consider the remainder of the handle as if it had already been cut off. Rabbi Judah says that since the extra part of the handle is connected to the part that will remain, he must immerse the whole thing.", + "The chain of a large bucket, to the length of four handbreadths, and a small bucket, to the length of ten handbreadths, and they need only be immersed up to the point of their proper measure. Rabbi Tarfon says: it is not clean unless the whole of the chain-ring is immersed. Up until four cubits, the chain of a large bucket is considered to be its handle. But longer than that, it is not necessary for the bucket and is not considered to be part of it. Therefore, it doesn't need to be immersed beyond four cubits. The small bucket must be immersed up until 10 handbreadths because it is lowered using this chain into the well. (See Kelim 14:3). Rabbi Tarfon adds that if the proper measure (4 or 10) ended in the middle of a chain ring, then the whole ring must be immersed. A bit nit-picky, but no one's asking my opinion, are they?", + "The rope bound to a basket is not counted as a connection unless it has been sewn on. A rope attached to a basket is not considered to be connected to the basket, so it need not be immersed with the basket." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first half of our mishnah discusses the purification of impure water through a process known as \"kissing.\" This is when the edge of a vessel with impure water is brought up and allowed to \"kiss\" or \"touch\" a body of purifying water.\nThe second half deals with immersing a vessel that has some sort of liquid already in it.", + "Bet Shammai say: hot water may not be immersed in cold, or cold in hot, foul in fresh or fresh in foul. But Bet Hillel say: it may be immersed. According to Bet Shammai, when one does \"kissing\" in order to purify water, both the pure and the impure water must be the same. If one is of a different temperature or a different quality from the other, then the immersion doesn't work. It is as if by having the waters touch, they become one body and this can only be true if they are of the same quality. Bet Hillel says that this is not essential. To Bet Hillel, all water is the same, be it foul or fresh, cold or hot.", + "A vessel full of liquids which one immersed, it is as if it has not been immersed. If it was full of urine, this is reckoned as water. If it contained hatat waters, [it is unclean] unless the water [of the mikveh which enters the vessel] exceeds the hatat waters. Liquids other than water cannot be immersed in order to purify them. Therefore, a vessel full of liquid cannot be immersed. If the vessel is not full, however, it can be immersed because the water that enters swishes around and has contact with the whole vessel. Interestingly, urine is treated like water in this manner. A vessel can be immersed even if full of water. Hatat waters are the waters used in the red heifer purification ritual. If the vessel needs to be purified then the waters of the mikveh that enter the vessel must be greater than the hatat waters that are already in the vessel. In other words, the law is more stringent here than it is with other types of liquids.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even if a vessel with the capacity of a kor contains but a quarter-log, it is as if it had not been immersed. Rabbi Yose adds that it doesn't matter how large the vessel is---if there is even a small amount of liquid in it, it cannot be immersed. Rabbi Yose seems to be speaking about all liquids, not just water. Whereas the previous opinion allowed the immersion of vessels with liquids in them, as long as the vessel wasn't full, Rabbi Yose is stricter. The vessel must be completely empty." + ], + [ + "All foods combine together to make up the half of a half-loaf which makes the body unfit. One who eats a impure food that is equivalent in volume to 1/4 of a loaf of bread (=volume of two eggs) is disqualified from eating terumah. If one eats several different types of impure food, they combine together to disqualify him (note that he is not impure, just disqualified).", + "All liquids combine together to make up the quarter-log which makes the body unfit. Similarly, different types of liquid combine together to constitute the quarter-log of liquid that is required to disqualify a person from eating terumah.", + "This is more of a stringency in the case of one who drinks unclean liquids than in the case of the mikveh, for in this case they have made all other liquids like water. The mishnah now notes, as it likes to do, that this makes the rules governing the drinking of unclean liquids more stringent than the rules governing a mikveh. For when it comes to a mikveh, only three logs of drawn water disqualify it. Other liquids do not. But when it comes disqualifying a person from eating terumah, where all liquids can join together." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last mishnah in Mikvaot! This mishnah deals with purifying things that have been swallowed up in the body.", + "If one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids and then he immersed and then vomited them up, they are still unclean because they did not become clean in the body. The unclean foods or liquids that were in a person's body while he immersed in the mikveh, and then were subsequently vomited up, do not become clean. There are two reasons for this. First of all, they did not come into contact with the waters of the mikveh. Second, unclean food and liquid cannot be purified in a mikveh.", + "If one drank unclean water and immersed and then vomited it up, it is clean because it became clean in the body. In contrast, the water that he swallows is purified in his body. This is not because the water came into contact with the mikveh, but rather because water is immediately purified upon swallowing.", + "If one swallowed a clean ring and then went into the tent of a corpse, if he sprinkled himself once and twice and immersed himself and then vomited it up, behold, it remains as it was before. A person has swallowed a pure ring (I'm sure this has happened to someone you know). He then goes into a tent with a corpse in it and becomes impure. He goes through the purification ritual and has the hatat waters sprinkled on him on the third and seventh day, and thereby becomes pure. Then he vomits up the ring. The ring is clean as it was before (well, at least ritually clean, I hope he washes it off first). Not because it was purified in the mikveh, but because it was never defiled in his body.", + "If one swallowed an unclean ring, he may immerse himself and eat terumah. If he vomited it up, it is unclean and it renders him unclean. The impure ring that he swallowed does not become pure in the mikveh, but neither does it disqualify him from eating terumah. In other words, it is ignored. If he vomits it up, the ring remains unclean and will now disqualify him from eating terumah.", + "If an arrow was stuck into a man, it blocks so long as it is visible. But if it is not visible, he may immerse himself and eat terumah. An arrow stuck in a person blocks him from being able to immerse, as long as it is visible (although he might consider having it removed first). If it has fully entered his body and can no longer be seen from the outside, then he may immerse. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Mikvaot! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Mikvaot is one of the tractates of Seder Toharot that does have some practical significance in the modern world. Mikvaot are still used in the modern world, by women immersing after the menstrual periods, by those converting to Judaism and by men who have taken upon various immersion customs. I hope that learning the tractate has given you an appreciation of what a mikveh actually is, what disqualifies a mikveh and what disqualifies a valid immersion in a mikveh. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Niddah." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מקואות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מקואות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4439df9d5633524067aebe4284a357000eb004e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,746 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה נגעים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Leviticus 13-14 contains lengthy description of some sort of scaly disease that can inflict a person's skin, clothes or a home. Our tractate is an extended commentary, explanation and clarification of these laws. This is not the place for a critical commentary on these laws, why they occupy such an important place in the Torah, their parallels in other ancient cultures, and other such topics. For that I refer the reader to the JPS Commentary on Leviticus, or for more detailed reading, to the Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus. I strongly suggest reading these chapters carefully before beginning to learn the mishnaic material. ", + "A note on my translation: many scholars doubt whether the Torah refers to the disease now known as leprosy. In my translation I have tried to use the transliterated terms as much as possible. This way the description the rabbis provide will speak for itself, rather than knowledge from the outside determining the meaning of these terms. Thus I will use the word \"nega\" or \"negaim\" to mean some sort of skin, clothing or house infliction. The Torah and the rabbis frequently use the word \"baheret\" or \"se'et\" to refer to these \"plagues.\" I will occasionally use these terms as well, but \"baheret\" will usually be translated as white spot. This will, I hope, increase our familiarity with the Hebrew original as well.", + "Let me just give a brief intro to how the \"nega\" process works. A nega is a white spot found on a person's skin. In order for the nega to be impure it must have one of three signs: 1) white hairs; 2) quick flesh, which means that there is some live flesh within the nega; 3) the spreading of the nega. If the nega doesn't have one of these signs, the person is isolated for a week. If after the first week he still doesn't have one of these signs he is isolated again. If after two weeks he doesn't have one of the signs, he is pronounced pure. If he is declared impure at any time, he must burn his clothes and he is sent away from the camp. ", + "The mishnah also talks about other skin problems, namely the boil (shekhin) and the burn (mikhvah). It also discusses negaim that occur on the head or beard, for they have their own rules and regulations. ", + "For the rabbis, since there are so many verses in the Torah on the topic, it is one that will quite obviously occupy them (and there are fourteen chapters in this tractate). What I am trying to say (in a bit of a roundabout manner) is that even if negaim (scale disease) was not familiar to them, and was of no practical concern, it is \"real\" to them because the Torah pays so much attention to it. Chapter 13 1 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: 2 When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling, a rash, or a discoloration, and it develops into a scaly affection on the skin of his body, it shall be reported to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests. 3 The priest shall examine the affection on the skin of his body: if hair in the affected patch has turned white and the affection appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a leprous affection; when the priest sees it, he shall pronounce him unclean. 4 But if it is a white discoloration on the skin of his body which does not appear to be deeper than the skin and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest shall isolate the affected person for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him, and if the affection has remained unchanged in color and the disease has not spread on the skin, the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. 6 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him again: if the affection has faded and has not spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean. It is a rash; he shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. 7 But if the rash should spread on the skin after he has presented himself to the priest and been pronounced clean, he shall present himself again to the priest. 8 And if the priest sees that the rash has spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is leprosy. 9 When a person has a scaly affection, it shall be reported to the priest. 10 If the priest finds on the skin a white swelling which has turned some hair white, with a patch of undiscolored flesh in the swelling, 11 it is chronic leprosy on the skin of his body, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he need not isolate him, for he is unclean. 12 If the eruption spreads out over the skin so that it covers all the skin of the affected person from head to foot, wherever the priest can see — 13 if the priest sees that the eruption has covered the whole body — he shall pronounce the affected person clean; he is clean, for he has turned all white. 14 But as soon as undiscolored flesh appears in it, he shall be unclean; 15 when the priest sees the undiscolored flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The undiscolored flesh is unclean; it is leprosy. 16 But if the undiscolored flesh again turns white, he shall come to the priest, 17 and the priest shall examine him: if the affection has turned white, the priest shall pronounce the affected person clean; he is clean. 18 When an inflammation appears on the skin of one's body and it heals, 19 and a white swelling or a white discoloration streaked with red develops where the inflammation was, he shall present himself to the priest. 20 If the priest finds that it appears lower than the rest of the skin and that the hair in it has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous affection that has broken out in the inflammation. 21 But if the priest finds that there is no white hair in it and it is not lower than the rest of the skin, and it is faded, the priest shall isolate him for seven days. 22 If it should spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an affection. 23 But if the discoloration remains stationary, not having spread, it is the scar of the inflammation; the priest shall pronounce him clean. 24 When the skin of one's body sustains a burn by fire, and the patch from the burn is a discoloration, either white streaked with red, or white, 25 the priest shall examine it. If some hair has turned white in the discoloration, which itself appears to go deeper than the skin, it is leprosy that has broken out in the burn. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous affection. 26 But if the priest finds that there is no white hair in the discoloration, and that it is not lower than the rest of the skin, and it is faded, the priest shall isolate him for seven days. 27 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him: if it has spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous affection. 28 But if the discoloration has remained stationary, not having spread on the skin, and it is faded, it is the swelling from the burn. The priest shall pronounce him clean, for it is the scar of the burn. 29 If a man or a woman has an affection on the head or in the beard, 30 the priest shall examine the affection. If it appears to go deeper than the skin and there is thin yellow hair in it, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a scall, a scaly eruption in the hair or beard. 31 But if the priest finds that the scall affection does not appear to go deeper than the skin, yet there is no black hair in it, the priest shall isolate the person with the scall affection for seven days. 32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection. If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it, and the scall does not appear to go deeper than the skin, 33 the person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall; the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. 34 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the scall. If the scall has not spread on the skin, and does not appear to go deeper than the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; he shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. 35 If, however, the scall should spread on the skin after he has been pronounced clean, 36 the priest shall examine him. If the scall has spread on the skin, the priest need not look for yellow hair: he is unclean. 37 But if the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it, the scall is healed; he is clean. The priest shall pronounce him clean. 38 If a man or a woman has the skin of the body streaked with white discolorations, 39 and the priest sees that the discolorations on the skin of the body are of a dull white, it is a tetter broken out on the skin; he is clean. 40 If a man loses the hair of his head and becomes bald, he is clean. 41 If he loses the hair on the front part of his head and becomes bald at the forehead, he is clean. 42 But if a white affection streaked with red appears on the bald part in the front or at the back of the head, it is a scaly eruption that is spreading over the bald part in the front or at the back of the head. 43 The priest shall examine him: if the swollen affection on the bald part in the front or at the back of his head is white streaked with red, like the leprosy of body skin in appearance, 44 the man is leprous; he is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; he has the affection on his head. 45 As for the person with a leprous affection, his clothes shall be rent, his head shall be left bare, and he shall cover over his upper lip; and he shall call out, \"Unclean! Unclean!\" 46 He shall be unclean as long as the disease is on him. Being unclean, he shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall be outside the camp. 47 When an eruptive affection occurs in a cloth of wool or linen fabric, 48 in the warp or in the woof of the linen or the wool, or in a skin or in anything made of skin; 49 if the affection in the cloth or the skin, in the warp or the woof, or in any article of skin, is streaky green or red, it is an eruptive affection. It shall be shown to the priest; 50 and the priest, after examining the affection, shall isolate the affected article for seven days. 51 On the seventh day he shall examine the affection: if the affection has spread in the cloth — whether in the warp or the woof, or in the skin, for whatever purpose the skin may be used — the affection is a malignant eruption; it is unclean. 52 The cloth — whether warp or woof in wool or linen, or any article of skin — in which the affection is found, shall be burned, for it is a malignant eruption; it shall be consumed in fire. 53 But if the priest sees that the affection in the cloth — whether in warp or in woof, or in any article of skin — has not spread, 54 the priest shall order the affected article washed, and he shall isolate it for another seven days. 55 And if, after the affected article has been washed, the priest sees that the affection has not changed color and that it has not spread, it is unclean. It shall be consumed in fire; it is a fret, whether on its inner side or on its outer side. 56 But if the priest sees that the affected part, after it has been washed, is faded, he shall tear it out from the cloth or skin, whether in the warp or in the woof; 57 and if it occurs again in the cloth — whether in warp or in woof — or in any article of skin, it is a wild growth; the affected article shall be consumed in fire. 58 If, however, the affection disappears from the cloth — warp or woof — or from any article of skin that has been washed, it shall be washed again, and it shall be clean. 59 Such is the procedure for eruptive affections of cloth, woolen or linen, in warp or in woof, or of any article of skin, for pronouncing it clean or unclean. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins to discuss the signs of \"negaim\" that appear on the skin, meaning what counts as a \"nega\" and what does not. These are all various shades of white. The two mains signs are called \"baheret\" and \"se'et,\" both terms found in Leviticus 13:2.", + "The signs of negaim are two which, in fact, are four. One might be familiar with this literary style for it is the same style used to open tractates Shabbat and Bava Kamma. Here it means that there are two types of negaim mentioned in the Torah baheret and se'et. Both of these have arch-categories and derived categories. The rabbis say that the \"derived categories\" are the \"sapachat\" referred to in Leviticus 13:2. \"Sapach\" can mean \"appended to\" these signs are \"appended to the main signs.", + "The bright spot ( is bright white like snow; secondary to it is the sign as white as the lime of the Temple. Baheret is bright white, like snow. The notion that these plagues were white like snow comes from Exodus 4:6, where Moses is afflicted with leprosy that is white as snow. Similarly, Miriam (Numbers 12:10) and Gehazi (II Kings 5:27) are afflicted with leprosy that is white as snow. Secondary to it is an affliction that is as white as the lime plaster found on the foundations of the Temple (see Middot 3:4).", + "The rising (se' is as white of the skin of an egg; secondary to it is the like white wool, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the rising (se' is white wool and secondary to it is like the white of the skin of an egg. According to Rabbi Meir, se'et is like the white of the peel of an egg, and secondary to it is bleached wool. The Talmud explains that this is the white of the wool of a newborn lamb. The other sages reverse which is the main type of nega and which is secondary." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nLeviticus 19:12-13 states:\n18 When an inflammation appears on the skin of one's body and it heals, 19 and a white swelling or a white discoloration streaked with red develops where the inflammation was, he shall present himself to the priest.\nOur mishnah deals with the color of this red, called the patukh, which is translated as \"variegation.\" Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to the color of this variegation.", + "The variegation of the snow-like whiteness is like wine mixed with snow. The variegation of the lime-like whiteness is like blood mixed with milk, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. The \"snow-like whiteness\" refers to the archetype of the baheret mentioned in yesterday's mishnah. If the red is found in such a nega, it must be the color of wine mixed with snow. But if it is found in the duller white spot, the one that is the color of the lime plaster in the Temple, it must be like the color of blood mixed with milk, which I would assume is brighter.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: the reddishness in either of them is like wine mixed with water, only that in the snow-like whiteness the color is bright while in that of lime-like whiteness it is duller. Rabbi Akiva says that in both cases, that of the snow-white baheret, and the lime-white baheret, the variegation must be noticeable, like the color of wine mixed with water. The only difference is that in the case of the snow-white baheret the color must be bright, whereas in the lime-white baheret it can be duller." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nFor a nega to be impure it must be the size of a barleycorn. Our mishnah teaches that negaim of different colors, for instance, part is white like snow and part is like the skin of an egg, can join together to achieve the requisite barleycorn.", + "These four colors combine with each other to declare free [from uncleanness], to certify or to shut up. These are the four colors mentioned in yesterday's mishnah, two shades of white and two shades of red. They can combine in three different ways, as the mishnah will now proceed to explain.", + "\"To shut up\" one who is at the end of the first week; \"To shut up\" refers to putting a person who has shown some signs of having a nega into a sort of limbo status. If the nega doesn't get worse, then he is not impure, and if it gets worse then he is declared as having a nega. Here are the relevant verses: 4 But if it is a white discoloration on the skin of his body which does not appear to be deeper than the skin and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest shall isolate the affected person for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him, and if the affection has remained unchanged in color and the disease has not spread on the skin, the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. Our mishnah teaches that if a person has nega of one color at the beginning of this process and is then \"isolated\" for a week and then is re-examined and the nega is one of the other colors then he is isolated for a second week. We don’t consider it to be a new nega which would make the process start all over again.", + "\"To declare free [from uncleanness]\", one who is at the end of the second week. If at the end of the first week of isolation there was a nega the size of a barleycorn that was the color of snow (or any other color), and at the end of the second week it has not spread but it is a different color, we treat it as if it is the same nega. Since the nega did not spread, the priest can declare him pure.", + "\"To certify\", one in which a discoloration or white hair arose, by the end of the first week, by the end of the second week or after it had been declared free [from uncleanness]. If half of the nega is one color and half is another color and there is discoloration or a white hair (see Leviticus 13:10) then the person is certified as impure. This is true whether the discoloration or white hair is present at the outset, when the first examination takes place, or at the end of the first week, after one week of isolation, or at the end of the second week, at the end of the second week of isolation.", + "\"To certify\", when a spreading arose in it by the end of the first week, by the end of the second week or after it had been declared free [from uncleanness]. If the nega spread, the person is declared impure even if the color of the spreading is different from the original color. This is true no matter when the spreading occurred; at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or even later on, after the person has been declared pure.", + "\"To certify\", when all one's skin turned white after it had been declared free from uncleanness; If after the person has been declared clean, the scaly affection erupts in the entire nega, the person is impure, even if it is a different color.", + "\"To declare free from uncleanness’, when all one's skin turned white after the sign had been certified unclean or after it had been shut up. But if the same thing happens after the person has been either isolated or certified unclean, then he is declared pure (see 13:13).", + "These are the colors of signs of negaim upon which depend all decisions concerning negaim. This concludes the first three mishnayot." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Hanina, the vice-chief of priests, says: the colors of negaim are sixteen. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: the colors of negaim are thirty-six. Akaviah ben Mahalalel says: seventy-two. The three rabbis in this mishnah sub-divide the four colors of negaim into either sixteen, thirty-six or seventy-two different colors. The same rules would apply as we learned in mishnah three. Evidently, these rabbis were simply more attuned to color than the other rabbis.", + "Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of priests says: negaim may not be inspected for the first time at the end of Shabbat, since the end of that week will fall on Shabbat; Nor on a Monday, since the end of the second week will fall on Shabbat; Nor on a Tuesday, in the case of houses, since the end of the third week will fall on Shabbat. If a priest examines a nega on Sunday (here called the end of Shabbat), then the end of that week, when it will be determined whether or not the person should be isolated, will fall on Shabbat, and it is forbidden to examine negaim on Shabbat. The same problem will occur if one examines the nega on Monday. The end of the first week will be on Sunday, and Sunday will count as both the end of the first week and the first day of the next week. Therefore, the end of the second week will fall on Shabbat. When it comes to the negaim that infect houses, there are three weeks of isolating. If the house is first examined on Tuesday, then the second week will begin on Monday and end on Sunday, and the third week will end on Shabbat.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: they may be inspected at all times, and if the time for the second inspection falls on Shabbat it is postponed to after Shabbat; and this procedure leads sometimes to a leniency and sometimes to a stringency. Rabbi Akiva agrees that a priest cannot examine negaim on Shabbat. However, he disagrees as to whether this means that we need to adjust the original exam. Rabbi Akiva prefers to conduct the original exam on the day upon which the person/house is brought to the attention of the priest. If the seventh day falls on Shabbat, we simply delay the examination until after Shabbat. Sometimes this will lead to a leniency and sometimes to a stringency. The following two mishnayot will explain what these leniencies/stringencies are." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah explains Rabbi Akiva's position from the end of yesterday's mishnah. There he claimed that sometimes delaying the examination of a nega can lead to a leniency. Our mishnah explains when this is so. The mishnah goes over numerous (and I'm not exaggerating) cases in which a nega would be declared impure had it been seen on Shabbat, but then changes to something that is not impure. Therefore, not seeing a nega Shabbat caused a leniency.\nWhat we now need to do is explain all of these scenarios.", + "How does it lead to a leniency?
If the nega had two white hairs and one white hair disappeared. If there were two white hairs and they turned black. If one hair was white and the other black and both turned black. If they were long and then they became short. If one was long and the other short and both became short. On Shabbat, the person had two white hairs on his nega. Had the priest examined him that day, he would have certified him as impure. By the next day, there is only one white hair. If this was the end of the first week, the priest would isolate him for a second week and as long as the appearance stays the same, at the end of the second week he would be pure. Note that had the priest declared him impure, he would have had to bring a sacrifice and shaved the hair of his body. The mishnah now brings up various other scenarios in which on Shabbat there is a nega that would make him impure but then something happens to one of the hairs such that they are now no longer sufficient to make him impure. Only white hairs are impure and the hairs must be of sufficient length.", + "If a boil adjoined both hairs or one of them. If the boil surrounded both hairs or one of them. Or if they were separated from each other by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, or the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf. For the hairs to be a sign of impurity, they must be inside a discoloration, swelling or rash. If they are in a boil they are not a sign of impurity. If they were in some type of discoloration on Shabbat and then they were either adjoined by a boil or surrounded by a boil, they are pure. The final piece here is a parenthetical remark regarding the boil mentioned above. Such a boil can either be a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn or the quick flesh of a burn, or \"white scurf.\" Now if you don’t know what \"white scurf\" is don't worry. Albeck explains that it is some kind of whitish discoloration that is not considered impure. Note that if you google-image this, you will get many pictures of a white scarf. Pretty, but not very helpful.", + "If it had undiscolored flesh and this undiscolored flesh disappeared. Leviticus 13:10 says, 10 If the priest finds on the skin a white swelling which has turned some hair white, with a patch of undiscolored flesh in the swelling, 11 it is chronic leprosy on the skin of his body, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he need not isolate him, for he is unclean.\" If it had such undiscolored flesh on Shabbat and then it disappeared, he is pure.", + "If it was square and then became round or elongated. For the undiscolored flesh to be impure it must be square. If it was square and then became round or elongated it is no longer impure.", + "If it was encompassed and then moved to the side. If it was united and then it was dispersed. Or a boil appeared and made its way into it. If it was encompassed, parted or lessened by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf; If the discoloration is encompassed by the nega it is impure. Such was the case on Shabbat, but by the time Shabbat was over, it was not encompassed and it was pure. Alternatively, the discoloration was all in one place in Shabbat and then spread apart such that it is not impure. Or a boil entered the area of the discoloration and now the discoloration is now inside a boil. Or if any other way the boil or burn, or quick flesh of such, disrupted the discoloration then it is no longer impure.", + "If it had a spreading and then the spreading disappeared; Or the first sign itself disappeared or was so lessened that both are less than the size of a split bean; Or if a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf, formed a division between the first sign and the spreading Behold these lead to a leniency in the law. If on Shabbat the nega had spread sufficiently for it to be impure, but then by after Shabbat the part that had spread had disappeared, it is pure. Or if the original nega completely disappeared, or if the original or spreading part had been diminished from the required amount (we will learn more about this later), then the nega is not impure.", + "If a boil, burn or quick flesh divide the nega into two, it is pure. In all of these cases we have learned that there is a fine line between a pure and impure nega. Something that is impure one day can be pure the next. As we shall see in tomorrow's mishnah, this can also lead to a stringency for something that is pure one day (Shabbat) can be impure the next." + ], + [ + "How does it lead to a stringency?
If it had no white hairs and then white hairs appeared; If they were black and then turned white; If one hair was black and the other white and both turned white; If they were short and they became long; If one was short and the other long and both became long.
If a boil adjoined both hairs or one of them, if a boil encompassed both hairs or one of them or if they were parted from one another by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, or the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf, and then [one of these things] disappeared.
If it had no quick flesh and then quick flesh appeared.
If it was round or long and then became four sided; If it was at the side and then it became encompassed. If it was dispersed and then it became united or a boil appeared and made its way into it. If it was encompassed, parted or lessened by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn or white scurf, and then they disappeared;
If it had no spreading and then a spreading appeared;
If a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf formed a division between the first sign and the spreading and then they disappeared. Behold all of these lead to a stringency.
Today's mishnah is basically the opposite of yesterday's. It deals with scenarios in which the nega was pure on Shabbat, but then by Sunday, when it was examined it had become impure. We shall explain how this leads to a stringency.
Section one: On Shabbat there were no white hairs in the nega but since there were white hairs by the time he saw him after Shabbat, he is impure. This creates a stringency.
We should note that had the priest seen him on Shabbat, he would have put him into isolation and then when the white hairs appeared (or any other case mentioned below), he would have had to declare him impure. Therefore, we might ask why this is considered a stringency. The answer is that the extra week might have afforded him time to heal, and by the time the priest saw him a second time, he may have healed and never became impure.
The rest of the mishnah is just a reversal of the order found in yesterday's mishnah. To understand what is going on, refer back there. I will make a few comments that will help here.
Section two: On Shabbat there were signs that would prevent the nega from being impure. However, by the time Sunday rolled around those signs were gone. Similarly, in the cases below, the mitigating signs disappear right after Shabbat, before he is examined.
Section three: The quick flesh causes it to be impure.
Sections 4-6: See yesterday's mishnah." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the problem that the color of negaim appear differently depending upon the skin color of the person being examined. This could undermine the objectivity of the examination", + "The bright spot in a German appears as dull white, and the dull white spot in an Ethiopian appears as bright white. A \"bright spot\" is impure, but on a pale German (I assume this means anyone from northern Europe) it will look dull. This would mean that he will be declared pure, even though he should not be. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a dull spot, which should not be impure, will look bright on an Ethiopian's skin. This will cause him to be isolated and then, if it remains, to be declared impure. The question is how do we deal with this situation?", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: the children of Israel (may I be atonement for them!) are like boxwood, neither black nor white but of an intermediate shade. Rabbi Ishmael says that we use the skin of Israelites, which is dark but not black, as the barometer. This is because the laws of negaim were stated with regard to Israelites. As an aside, Rabbi Ishmael offers to take upon himself vicarious atonement for Israel's sins.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: painters have materials with which they portray figures in black, in white, and in an intermediate shade; let, therefore a paint of an intermediate shade be brought and applied around the outside of the nega, and it will then appear as on skin of intermediate shade. Rabbi Akiva says that we actually paint the person's skin, at least around the nega. This way we can get an unbiased portrait of what shade the nega really is.", + "Rabbi Judah says: in determining the colors of negaim the law is to be lenient and not stringent; let,therefore, the negaim of the German be inspected on the color of his own body so that the law is lenient, and let that of the Ethiopian be inspected as if it were on the intermediate shade so that the law is also lenient. Rabbi Judah says that we always rule leniently. Therefore, if the spot looks dull on the German, he is pure. And if it looks bright on the Ethiopian, we estimate how it would look on a person of average skin color.", + "The sages say: both are to be treated as if the nega was on the intermediate shade. The sages disagree and say that all negaim are judged based on an average background. This opinion seems to agree with Rabbi Akiva." + ], + [ + "Negaim may not be inspected in the early morning or in the evening, nor in a house, nor on a cloudy day, because then the dull white appears like bright white; nor may they be inspected at noon, because then the bright white appears like dull white. If the nega is inspected in weak light or in too strong light it will be difficult to assess its true color.", + "When are they to be inspected? During the third, fourth, fifth, eighth or ninth hour, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah ruled: during the fourth, fifth, eighth or ninth hour. Therefore it must be inspected in either the early part of the day or the later part of the day, but not at dawn or dusk. The day was divided into twelve hours. Roughly speaking, Rabbi Meir would say that the nega must be examined during the third, fourth and fifth hours of the day, and then later, from the eighth and ninth hours. Rabbi Judah says three is too early." + ], + [ + "A priest who is blind in one eye or the light of whose eyes is dim should not inspect negaim; for it says, \"Wherever the priest's eyes can see\" (Leviticus 13:12). The priest must have two fully functioning eyes in order to examine negaim.", + "In a dark house one may not open up windows in order to inspect his nega. A \"dark house\" is a house that doesn't have any windows. One should not open up new windows in such a house in order to examine a nega. However, Albeck notes that if a house already has windows, they may be opened to examine the nega." + ], + [ + "Introduction Our mishnah deals with how a person is to be positioned when examined for a nega, such that his modesty is [at least to a certain extent] preserved. The verse we used in yesterday's mishnah \"wherever the priest's eyes can see\" also serves as the basis for today's mishnah. The priest's eyes should not examine parts of the body that should not be seen due to modesty. The exact parts will differ for men and women.", + "What is [the posture] of examining negaim?
A man is inspected in the posture of one that hoes or one that gathers olives. If the nega is in between a man's legs, when being inspected he must stand as one who is hoeing would stand. He spreads his legs a bit and the priest can see the nega. But the priest doesn't have to look at the parts between his legs that he can't see when one is hoeing. I'm assuming that he is wearing some sort of cloak, but clearly not pants. The other private part that is dealt with here is under the armpits. The person would lift up his arms as if he is picking olives, and any part that still can't be seen need not be inspected.", + "And a woman [is inspected in the posture] of one who is arranging dough and one who nurses her child, and one that weaves at an upright loom if the nega was in the right armpit. If a woman has a nega in between her legs, she is inspected while in the posture of a woman who is arranging dough to go into the oven. This seems to require a very minimal amount of leg-spreading. If the nega is under her breast, any flesh that can be seen while nursing must be examined. I suppose that this implies that a woman would only uncover part of her breasts in order to nurse. When it comes to a nega found under the arm, if it is on her right arm, whatever part of her arm that she exposes while weaving on a loom is inspected by the priest. The rest is considered private.", + "Rabbi Judah says: also in the posture of one that spins flax if it was within the left armpit. Rabbi Judah says that when it comes to the left armpit, whatever she exposes when spinning flax is inspected. We should note that the mishnah ascribes to men and women work that each typically performed. Men typically worked in the field and women typically baked bread, took care of their children and made clothing. Their posture when examined is determined by their typical posture at work.", + "Just as [is the posture] for examining for the nega, so too [is the posture] for shaving hair. A metzora (one who had a nega) must shave his/her body when completing the period of impurity (see Leviticus 14:9). The parts of the body that must be shaved are the same as those that are inspected in the first place. In other words, private parts need not be shaved (sigh of relief!)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that a person is not allowed to rule on a situation that effects his own status or possessions.", + "All negaim may be examined by a person, except his own. Rabbi Meir ruled: not even the negaim of his relatives. According to the first opinion, a priest can examine all negaim except his own. Rabbi Meir adds that he may also not inspect his relatives' negaim. Since being determined to have a nega would entail becoming impure for a potentially long period of time, allowing one to rule on his own negaim or those of his family would create a serious conflict of interest.", + "All vows may be released by a person, except his own. Rabbi Judah says: not even those vows of his wife that affect relationships between her and others. A sage has the ability to release others from their vows. However, he cannot release his own vows. Rabbi Judah says that he can't release his wife's vows either, unless they are concerning matters that would affect their relationship. This is a topic that is discussed at length in Tractate Nedarim.", + "All firstlings may be examined by a person, except his own firstlings. First-born animals are examined to see if they have a blemish. If they do, they may be slaughtered and eaten as if they were non-sacred animals. One may not examine his own first-born animals because this is an obvious conflict of interest." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien. The laws of negaim apply to all Jews, even to minors and even to slaves. They do not apply to non-Jews or to the \"resident alien (ger toshav).\" According to one, common, definition of this category is that it refers to a non-Jew who has accepted upon himself to observe the seven Noahide laws.", + "All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, \"Say: 'unclean,'\" and he repeats \"unclean,\" or \"Say: 'clean,'\" and he repeats \"clean.\" In light of the Torah, we would think that only a priest is qualified to examine a nega. However, the rabbis say that while the priest must declare whether the person has a nega or not, anyone can determine whether it is a nega or not. The mishnah goes on to describe a priest being told by a sage whether to pronounce the nega clean or unclean. This seems to be part of the general rabbinic tendency to make the priests subservient to the sage. We need the priest, but the priest does not have the learning (according to the rabbis) to know when a discoloration of some sort is the type of nega referred to in the Torah.", + "Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second. One is not supposed to examine two negaim at the same time, whether both negaim are on the same person or on two different people.", + "One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean. If someone has been isolated already, and then he gets another nega, he is not isolated again based on the second nega. Neither can one who is already declared impure be declared impure for a second nega. Similarly, one who is already isolated cannot be declared impure, nor can one who is impure be isolated. Basically, if one already has one status, isolated/impure, he cannot be changed to the other status based on a second nega.", + "But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean. However, if the second nega appears before he is isolated for the first nega, or it appears at the end of the first week of isolation for the first nega before he is isolated for a second week or determined unclean or declared pure, then the priest can isolate or determine him unclean/clean for both negaim at the same time. Or he can isolate or determine him unclean for one nega, and declare him clean from the other. Basically, since the first week is up or has not yet even begun, he can determine the status of two negaim at the same time." + ], + [ + "A bridegroom on whom a nega has appeared is given the seven days of the marriage feast [in which he is not examined]; [This grace period is given to] him, and to his house and to his clothing. A priest should not examine a bridegroom, or a bridegroom's house or clothing, for a nega for the entire period of the seven day marriage feast.", + "Similarly during a festival, one is granted exemption from inspection during all the days of the festival. Similarly, nobody should be examined during a festival. In both occasions we fear that the nega would be pronounced impure and the person would have to be sent away in the midst of his marriage feast, or a festival and he would not get to rejoice with the community. This mishnah is testimony to the great significance the rabbis lent to the joyous occasion of a wedding or a festival. These celebrations override the biblical concern for a nega, so much so that we can ignore the nega for a week. We can also see from here that the issue with negaim is not one of health, for if it were, then we could hardly imagine delaying its treatment for a week." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe remaining mishnayot of chapter three all deal with various types of negaim, what their signs are and how long their period of impurity lasts. The Mishnah will go into greater detail concerning these negaim later on in the tractate. These are just introductory mishnayot. The pattern and meaning of these mishnayot is quite repetitive so I will comment more on the first few examples and then reference those comments as we proceed.", + "The skin of the flesh becomes unclean for two weeks and by one of three signs: by white hair or by quick flesh or by a spreading. A person can be isolated and then declared impure within a period of two weeks based on a nega seen on his skin. Such a nega is determined by one of three signs: by a white hair, by some quick flesh, or by some sort of spreading. One of these signs will cause him to be declared impure.", + "\"By white hair or by quick flesh\" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after it had been pronounced clean. A white hair or quick flesh will cause him to be declared impure whether seen during the first examination, after the first week of isolation, after the second week of isolation or even after he has been declared pure. In other words, these two signs will always cause him to be impure.", + "\"Or by a spreading,\" at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after it had been pronounced clean. In contrast, the spreading of the nega will cause him to be declared impure only if it is seen after the first week, after the second week or after he has been declared clean. If the nega has spread before he was even isolated, he is still pure.", + "It becomes unclean for two weeks which are thirteen days. The impurity lasts for thirteen days, and not the full two weeks because the last day of the first isolation count towards the first week and to the second week, as we learned in1:4." + ], + [ + "A boil or a burn becomes unclean for one week and by one of the following two tokens: by white hair or by a spreading.
By white hair, in the beginning, at the end of the week, or after it has been pronounced clean.
\"Or by a spreading:\" At the end of the week, or after it had been declared clean. They become unclean for a week which is seven days.
Section one: The Torah mentions a nega found in a boil or a burn (Leviticus 13: 18, 25). But it does not mention a two week period of isolation in connection with such a nega. Therefore, a person can become impure after only one week of isolation. Also, quick flesh is not a sign here, as it was for a nega found on regular skin.
Sections two and three: These are the same as yesterday's mishnah, except there are only two signs and the uncleanness happens after one week, not two." + ], + [ + "Head or beard ( negaim become unclean for two weeks and by one of the following two signs: by yellow thin hair or by a spreading. Today's mishnah deals with negaim that are found on the head or beard. This topic is dealt with directly in Leviticus 13:29. Such negaim are identified by a thin yellow hair (Leviticus 13:30) or by spreading.", + "\"By yellow thin hair\" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean. The yellow thin hair can serve as an identifying mark at the beginning of the examination period, or at the end of any of the weeks of isolation.", + "\"Or by a spreading,\" at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week or after they have been pronounced clean. The spreading must occur at the end of at least one of the weeks.", + "They become unclean for two weeks which are only thirteen days. Same as mishnah three." + ], + [ + "Scalp baldness or forehead baldness [negaim] become unclean for two weeks and by one of the following two signs: by quick flesh or by a spreading.
\"By quick flesh,\" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean.
\"Or by a spreading,\" at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean.
They become unclean for two weeks which are only thirteen days.
Section one: Today's mishnah outlines the signs and length of impurity for negaim that appear on a bald head or a scalp (Leviticus 13:40).
The remainder of this mishnah has already been explained above in mishnayot 2-5." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to Leviticus 13 clothes and houses can also contract negaim. Our mishnah deals with the signs of negaim for clothes (Leviticus 13:47ff).", + "Garments become unclean for two weeks and by one of three signs: by a greenish color, by a reddish color or by a spreading. The sign of a nega in a garment is a greenish or reddish color, or the spread of the nega later on in its development.", + "\"By a greenish colour or by a reddish color,\" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean. When the garment is brought to the priest and it has a reddish or greenish nega, the priest will isolate it for one week. If the nega remains, he will isolate it for a second week. If it remains after two weeks, he will pronounce it unclean and burn the clothing.", + "\"Or by a spreading,\" at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean. Similarly, if it spreads, he will burn the clothing.", + "They become unclean for two weeks which are but thirteen days. Same as in previous mishnayot." + ], + [ + "Houses become unclean for three weeks and by one of the following three signs: by a greenish color or by a reddish color or by a spreading.
\"By a greenish color or by a reddish color,\" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, at the end of the third week, or after they have been pronounced clean.
\"Or by a spreading,\" at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, at the end of the third week, or after they have been pronounced clean.
They become unclean for three weeks which are nineteen days.
None of the leprosy signs is for less than a week or for more than three weeks.
Section one: A house has a three week period of impurity and not two like most human negaim and negaim found in clothes (see Leviticus 14:35ff). House impurity will be discussed in chapter twelve.
The signs of a house nega are green or red colored spots, or a spreading after the initial nega has been identified.
Sections two-four: Same as in previous mishnayot.
Section five: This is a summary of all of the laws in most of this chapter. The shortest period is for the nega found in a boil or burn (mishnah four) and the longest period is for negaim found in a house." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first three mishnayot of this chapter compare the laws that apply to different signs of negaim and it demonstrates how each nega has different rules and regulations.\nOur mishnah begins by covering the sign of the white hair with the sign of the spreading of the nega.", + "There are [laws] that apply to the white hair that do not apply to the spreading, while others apply to the spreading and do not apply to the white hair. This sets up the comparison that shall be fleshed out (pun intended) below.", + "That white hair causes uncleanness at the beginning, it causes uncleanness whatever the state of its whiteness, and it is never a sign of cleanness. As we learned in 3:3, a white hair is a sign of a nega when it is first examined by the priest, even before any period of isolation. In contrast, spreading can be a sign only after the afflicted person has been isolated for a week. A white hair is a sign of uncleanness even if its white is duller than any of the shades listed in mishnah 1:1. However, for the spreading to be a sign of uncleanness it must be one of these shades. Even if the whole body became full of white hairs, it is not a sign that the person is clean. In contrast, if the nega spreads to the whole body, the person is deemed clean (see Leviticus 13:13).", + "There are laws that apply to the spreading, for the spreading causes uncleanness however small its extent, it causes uncleanness for all negaim and even when it is outside the nega, and these laws do not apply to the white hair. Even the smallest spread of the nega will cause him to be unclean. In contrast, there must be two at least white hairs for them to be unclean. The spreading applies to all negaim, whereas the white hair only applies to skin, boils and burns. The spreading is a sign of impurity when it extends beyond the nega, whereas white hairs are a sign of impurity only within the nega." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah compares the rules regarding the sign of \"quick flesh\" with the sign of spreading.", + "There are [laws] that apply to the quick flesh that do not apply to the spreading, while other restrictions apply to the spreading and do not apply to the quick flesh. An introductory statement.", + "That quick flesh causes uncleanness at the beginning, it causes uncleanness whatever its color, and it is never a sign of cleanness. Quick flesh can be an initial sign of a nega. The color can be any color, even black. And even if the entire body is covered with quick flesh, he is still impure, whereas if the spreading covers the whole body, he is pure (see yesterday's mishnah).", + "There are [laws] that apply to the spreading, for the spreading causes uncleanness however small its extent, it causes uncleanness in all forms of negaim and also where it is outside the leprosy sign, and these laws do not apply to the quick flesh. For quick flesh to be a sign of impurity it must be at least the size of a lentil, whereas the spreading can be even to the smallest extent. Quick flesh is a sign of impurity only in skin negaim and those found on the bald head or forehead. Finally, quick flesh is a sign only if it appears in the nega. Appearance of quick flesh elsewhere on the body is not a sign of a nega." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter comparing white hair and quick flesh to spreading, the Mishnah now compares them to each other.", + "There are [laws] that apply to white hair that do not apply to quick flesh, while others apply to quick flesh and not to white hair. The introductory statement.", + "White hair causes uncleanness in a boil and in a burn, whether growing together or dispersed, and whether encompassed or unencompassed. White hair is a sign of a nega when it is in a burn or boil (see 3:4). The two requisite white hairs can be on opposite sides of the nega, whereas the quick flesh must all be in the same spot. The white hairs can either be surrounded by the nega, or not. In either case they are a sign of impurity. In contrast, the quick flesh must be surrounded by the nega for it to be a sign of impurity.", + "There are [laws] that apply to quick flesh, for quick flesh causes uncleanness in scalp baldness and in forehead baldness, whether it was turned or was not turned, it prevents the cleanness of one who is turned all white, and causes uncleanness whatever its color, and these do not apply to white hair. Quick flesh is a sign of uncleanness in scalp or forehead baldness (see 3:6) whereas white hairs are not (he wouldn't really be bald if there were white hairs there, would he?). \"Turned\" and \"not turned\" refer to the nega and quick flesh appearing in a certain order. Quick flesh is a sign of impurity whether the nega pre-existed the quick flesh, meaning part of the nega turned into quick flesh, or the quick flesh existed before the nega, meaning the nega arose near the quick flesh. In contrast, the nega must appear before the white hairs for them to be a sign of impurity. If a person turns all white and he is purified but then some quick flesh appears, he is impure (see Leviticus 13:14). But if he turns all white and is purified and then some white hairs appear, he is still pure. Quick flesh can be any color, whereas the white hairs must be white (duh!)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with various rules concerning the two white hairs that appear in a nega.", + "If the two hairs were black at the root and white at the tip he is clean. If they were white at the root and black at the tip he is unclean. Only white hairs are a sign of impurity; black hairs are not. The color of the hair is determined by the color at the root. Thus if the tips are white, he is clean but if the roots are white he is not.", + "How much whiteness must there be? Rabbi Meir says: any amount. Rabbi Shimon says: enough to be cut with a pair of scissors. How much of the tips must be white for them to be a sign of uncleanness? Rabbi Meir says that even the smallest amount is a sign of uncleanness, whereas Rabbi Shimon says that there must be enough for it to be cut by a pair of scissors.", + "If it was single at the root but split at the tip, and it looks like two hairs, he is clean. One hair that is split still counts as one, even if it looks like there are two.", + "If a bright spot had [two] white hairs or black hair he is unclean, for we are not concerned that the place of the black hair lessened the space of the bright spot, since the former is of no consequence. If there is a bright spot (a type of nega, called a baheret) and it is the minimum size of a barleycorn and there are many white hairs there, we do not consider them as reducing the size of the bright spot to less than the barleycorn. Since there are white hairs, he is impure. The same is true for black hairs inside a bright spot. These black hairs mean that he is to be isolated. We do not consider them as reducing the size of the nega such that he need not even be isolated. Another interpretation of this line is that if black hairs are mixed in with the white hairs in the nega (the bright spot), we don't consider the black hairs as reducing the overall size of the nega, for the black hairs are of no consequence." + ], + [ + "If a bright spot was of the size of a split bean and a string extended from it, if it was two hairs in breadth, it is subject to the restrictions in respect of white hair and spreading, but not to that in respect of its quick flesh. The mishnah discusses a nega (a bright spot or baheret in Hebrew) from which a line of some sort extends. If this line is thick enough, then the line is considered part of the nega in that if a white hair comes out of the line or if the line spreads, it is a sign of impurity. However, if quick flesh appears in the line it is not a sign of impurity unless the quick flesh itself is the size of a split bean.", + "If there were two bright spots and a streak extended from one to the other, if it was two hairs in breadth, it combines them; but if not, it does not combine them. A line (a streak) between two negaim serves to join them if it is wide enough. In such a case they are treated as one nega, and if a white hair or spreading appears in one, both are judged to be impure." + ], + [ + "If a bright spot the size of a split bean had within it quick flesh the size of a lentil and there was white hair within the quick flesh: if the quick flesh disappeared the spot is unclean on account of the white hair; if the white hair disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon makes it clean, since it was not the bright spot that caused it [the hair] to turn [white]. There is a bright spot which is large enough to be impure and inside it there is quick flesh, itself large enough to be a sign of impurity, and white hair, one (the quick flesh or white hair) of which is necessary to cause the bright spot to be impure. If one of these two signs disappears, the bright spot is still impure on account of the second sign. Rabbi Shimon disagrees if the quick flesh disappears because it is not the bright spot (the actual nega) that caused the hair to turn white but rather the quick flesh. In other words, the white hair must be caused by the nega and not by the sign that the nega is impure.", + "If a bright spot together with the quick flesh in it was of the size of a split bean and there was white hair within the spot: if the quick flesh disappeared the bright spot is unclean on account of the white hair; if the white hair disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean, since it was not a bright spot the size of a split bean that caused the hair to turn [white]. In this case the bright spot is not large enough to be impure on its own. Rather together with the enclosed quick flesh the entire region adds up to a split bean. There is also white hair. If the quick flesh disappears and the bright spot fills its place it is impure because the bright spot is now the size of a split bean. If the white hair disappears it is also impure because the bright spot is large enough with the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon says that if the quick flesh disappears it is not impure because the hair didn't appear in a bright spot that was itself the size of a split bean.", + "He agrees that if where the white hair was, was the size of a split bean, that it is impure. Rabbi Shimon agrees that if the bright spot is the size of a split bean and it has in it quick flesh the size of a lentil but the white hair is in the bright spot (and not in the quick flesh) that the nega is impure if the quick flesh disappears. This is because the bright spot itself caused the hair to turn white, whereas in the other cases the white hair was found in the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon holds that the bright spot must cause the hair to turn white and not something else. He derives this from a close reading of Leviticus 13:4, \"and its hair did not turn white\" \"its\" refers to the bright spot and not the quick flesh." + ], + [ + "A bright spot which had quick flesh and a spreading: if the quick flesh disappeared it is unclean on account of the spreading; if the spreading disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. The mishnah refers to a person who has a bright spot (a nega) and then was isolated. When examined again it had quick flesh and a spreading and the priest pronounced him impure. If one of these signs disappears, he is still impure because of the presence of the second sign.", + "So also in the case of white hair and a spreading. The same thing is true if one of the signs is a white hair and one is spreading.", + "If it [the bright spot] disappeared and appeared again at the end of the week, it is regarded as though it had remained as it was. The person was isolated at the beginning of the week because of the appearance of a nega. During the week of isolation, the nega disappeared and then reappeared. We treat this as if the nega had never disappeared. If he is at the end of the first week, the priest will isolate him for another week. If he is at the end of the second week, then he will be pronounced pure.", + "If it reappeared after it had been pronounced clean, it must be inspected as a new one. If the nega disappeared and he was pronounced pure, and then it reappeared, it is treated as if it was a new nega. He will need two periods of isolation before he can be pronounced pure again.", + "If it had been bright white but was now dull white, or if it had been dull white but was now bright white, it is regarded as though it had remained as it was, provided that it does not become less white than the four principal colors. If the nega changes color it is still treated as the same nega as long as it is still one of the four requisite shades mentioned in 1:1.", + "If it contracted and then spread, or if it spread and then contracted: Rabbi Akiva rules that it is unclean; But the sages rule that it is clean. There are two situations described here. In the first the nega is large enough to be impure and then it becomes smaller than a barleycorn and then it spreads back to its original size. Rabbi Akiva counts this as \"spreading\" and therefore declares it impure. The sages say that this does not count as spreading, so he is not impure. If he is at the end of the second week of isolation, he is pure. The second situation is opposite. It spread and then contracted back to its original size. Rabbi Akiva says that this is a new nega and he must go back to a new period of isolation. The rabbis say again that this doesn't count as spreading and he is pure (if he has already been isolated for two weeks)." + ], + [ + "A bright spot the size of a split bean, and it spreads to the extent of half a split bean, while of the original spot there disappeared as much as half a split bean: Rabbi Akiba says: it must be inspected as a new one, But the sages say: it is clean. At the outset, the bright spot (the nega) is the requisite size, the size of a split bean. It then spreads, but the original spot contracts an equal amount. It is almost as if the nega shifted a bit. Rabbi Akiva says that this is considered a new nega. This means that he will have to be isolated, as at the outset. The other sages say that since the nega remained the same size as it was in the beginning, it is treated as if it didn't grow and he is pronounced clean (because it didn't spread), if he is at the end of the second week of isolation. If he is at the end of the first week of isolation, he will be isolated for a second week. We should note that others explain that since there is less than the size of a split bean left of the original nega, it is pure. The part that remains does not join together with the spreading to make it impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with cases that are similar to that found in yesterday's mishnah a bright spot both spread (a sign of impurity) and contracted during the same period of isolation. The question is: does this count as spreading?", + "A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of half a split bean and a little more, while as much as half the size of a split bean disappeared from the original spot: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. In this case the bright spot spread more than the amount that disappeared. In other words, it had a net gain in size. Rabbi Akiva says that this counts as spreading. The rabbis say that since that since it did not spread sufficiently, the spreading is not enough to count it as pure. If he is at the end of the second week of isolation, he will be pronounced pure.", + "A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of a split bean and a little more, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says that is it unclean, But the sages say: it should be inspected as a new one. In this case, the original spot disappeared altogether. The spreading is large enough to be itself a nega. Rabbi Akiva is consistent in his opinion this counts as spreading and not as a new nega. Therefore, he is impure. The other sages say that since the old nega has completely disappeared, this counts as a new nega and it must be inspected as such. He will begin a new period of isolation." + ], + [ + "A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. This is the last of the debates between Rabbi Akiva and the sages on this subject. The nega starts out the size of a split bean and then spreads again the size of a split bean. In the spreading there appears quick flesh or white hair. Had these appeared in the original nega, they would be a sign of impurity. However, the original spot also disappears. Rabbi Akiva is again consistent and holds that we consider this spreading to be part of the original nega, and therefore he says that he is impure. The other sages say that since the original nega is gone, he must begin the process over again. We should note that in this case, since there is a white hair or quick flesh in the nega, he will immediately be pronounced impure by the priest.", + "A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. The original bright spot is smaller than a split bean and does not have a white hair in it. Then a second bright spot appears with a white hair. We now have one full bright spot the size of a split bean, but since there is only one hair, the person is isolated and not deemed impure.", + "A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. In order for the white hair to be a sign of impurity, it must come out of a bright spot the size of a split bean. Although there are two white hairs in this bright spot, each came out of a bright spot less than the size of a split bean. Therefore, the two white hairs don't count as signs of impurity.", + "A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated. In this case, there are two white hairs in one bright spot, but it is only the size of half a split bean. As we saw before, for the white hairs to be a sign of impurity, they must come out of a bright spot the size of a split bean." + ], + [ + "A bright spot the size of a split bean and there was nothing else, and then there appeared a bright spot of the size of half a split bean having two hairs, this one is declared unclean. Originally there was a nega (the bright spot) the size of half a split bean without any white hairs. Then another bright spot appeared next to it, but it too was not large enough itself to be a nega. However, it did have two hairs. When we combine the two bright spots we now have a nega the size of a split bean, which is enough to count as a nega. And because half of the nega came before the white hairs, this is considered a case of the nega preceding the white hairs. Therefore he is declared impure.", + "Because they said: if the bright spot preceded the white hair he is unclean; if the white hair preceded the bright spot he is clean; and if it is doubtful he is unclean. This is the general rule the nega must precede the white hairs for him to be unclean. However, if it is doubtful which came first, he is considered unclean.", + "Rabbi Joshua regards this as unsolvable. Rabbi Joshua wasn't so certain what to do in the above case. He basically deemed it unsolvable because he wasn't sure if this was a case of the nega coming first since only half of it existed before the white hairs. According to most commentators, he also disagreed with the ruling that \"if it is doubtful he is unclean\" for he reasoned that in cases of doubt we should be lenient. I thought it might be interesting to bring a Talmudic story related to this mishnah. It appears in Bava Metzia 86a: There was a dispute in the heavenly college: if the bright spot comes before the white hairs, he is impure. And if the white hairs come before the bright spot, he is pure. If it is doubtful [what is the law]? And it was decided that Rabbah bar Nahmani should decide the case, for Rabbah bar Nahmani used to say that he was the only one who knew the law of Negaim and the only one who knew the law of Ohalot. They sent a messenger for him and the angel of death could not touch him, for he did not stop studying for one moment. In the meantime a wind blew and made noise with the trees of the forest, and Rabbah thought that a legion of soldiers was after him and he said: It is better for me to die through the angel of death than to be taken by the Government. When he was dying, he said \"he is pure, he is pure.\" Then a heavenly voice came forth, saying: Happy are you, Rabbah bar Nahmani, for your body is pure, and your soul left you body while you were saying \"pure.\" There are many interesting things about this story, but one of the tidbits I really find interesting is that only Rabbah bar Nahmani knew the laws of Ohalot and Negaim well enough to make decisions on these matters. It is difficult material so hard even the rabbis themselves had trouble with it!" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Any doubtful nega is regarded as clean, except this case and one other. In general, in a doubtful case concerning a nega, meaning it is unclear whether it is or is not a nega, the affected person is considered clean. However, there are two exceptions. The first is the case we saw in yesterday's mishnah (4:11) and the second case is in this mishnah.", + "Which is that? If he had a bright spot of the size of a split bean and he was isolated, and by the end of the week it was as big as a sela, and it is doubtful whether it is the original one or whether another came in its place, he must be regarded as unclean. Originally, the nega was the size of a split bean. This is large enough to cause him to be isolated for a week to see if it spreads or if white hairs appear. By the end of the first week, the nega is the size of a sela, a coin which is much larger than a split bean. It is unclear whether this is the original nega and it just spread or if it is a new nega. If it is a new nega, he would start a new period of isolation. However, in this case the halakhah is strict and we consider the original nega to have spread, causing him to be impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn all of the cases in this mishnah, there were signs of impurity in the nega and the person was declared impure. And then those signs disappeared and new signs arose. The question is: does this count as a new nega or does he continue in his earlier state of impurity?", + "If one had been certified unclean on account of white hair, and the white hair disappeared and other white hair appeared, And so also in the case of quick flesh or a spreading, Whether this occurred in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after he had been released from uncleanness, he is regarded as being in the same position as before. In the first example, the sign of impurity was the white hairs. After having been declared impure, the original white hairs disappeared and either new white hairs came in their place, or quick flesh or the spreading of the original nega, both of which are also signs of impurity. No matter when this \"replacement\" occurred, he continues in his earlier state of impurity. In other words, if he was deemed impure immediately, without any weeks of isolation, or if he was deemed impure after a week or two weeks of isolation, or even if he was declared pure after the isolation, if the original signs disappear and new signs, he retains (or regains) his original impurity.", + "If he had been certified unclean on account of quick flesh, and the quick flesh disappeared and other quick flesh appeared, And so also in the case of white hair and spreading, Whether this occurred in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after the man had been released from uncleanness, he is regarded as being in the same position as before. This section is the same as section one, except the original sign is quick flesh and not white hairs.", + "If he had been certified unclean on account of a spreading, and the spreading disappeared and another spreading appeared, And so also in the case of white hair, Whether this occurred at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after the man had been released from uncleanness, he is in the same position as before. Here the original sign is the spreading. \"Spreading\" cannot be a sign of impurity at the outset, therefore this section does not read \"in the beginning.\"" + ], + [ + "Deposited hair: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it is unclean. But the sages hold it to be clean. This is an introductory section. A fuller version appears in section two.", + "What is \"deposited hair\"? If one had a bright spot with white hair in it, and the bright spot disappeared leaving the white hair in position and then it reappeared: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it to be unclean, But the sages hold it to be clean. According to Akaviah ben Mahalel, since the bright spot left white hair behind when it disappeared, we treat it as if the bright spot had stayed there the whole time. In other words, the white hair is a sign that the nega really never disappeared and therefore he remains impure. The word \"deposited\" means that the nega \"left\" the white hairs as a \"deposit\" to hold its place till it returned. The other sages say that it is a new bright spot. Therefore, this is a case where the white hairs came before the bright spot, which means that the nega is pure, as we learned in 4:11.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: in this case I agree that he is clean; But what is \"deposited hair\"? If one had a bright spot of the size of a split bean with two hairs in it, and a part the size of a half a split bean disappeared leaving the white hair in the place of the white spot and then it reappeared. They said to him: just as they rejected the ruling of Akaviah so is there no validity in your ruling. Rabbi Akiva agrees with the sages that in such a case, the person is clean. However, he has a different definition altogether of what \"deposited hair\" is, and in this case he agrees with Akaviah ben Mahalel. The difference is that in this case, the bright spot didn't completely disappear, it only partly disappeared. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva agrees that this is not a case of the white hairs coming before the nega, and he is impure. The other sages reject Rabbi Akiva because he holds like Akaviah ben Mahalel and the latter is a rejected sage. For more information see Eduyot 5:6. It is interesting that this attack seems to be more \"ad hominem\" then logically based. The rabbis reject Rabbi Akiva not because they don't agree with him, but because he agrees with the wrong person." + ], + [ + "Any doubt in negaim in the beginning is regarded as clean before uncleanness has been established, but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean. In the first mishnah of this chapter we learned that if there is a doubt concerning a nega, it is considered pure. Today's and tomorrow's mishnah clarify that this is only before any impurity has been established. Once some impurity has been established, doubtful cases are impure.", + "How is this so? If two men came to a priest one having a bright spot the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela, and at the end of the week each had one the size of a sela, and it is not known on which of them the spreading had occurred, Whether this occurred with one man or with two men, each is clean. The mishnah first explains cases where the doubt comes before the purity is established and therefore he is pure. Two men come to a priest (yes, this does sound like the beginning of a joke) and both have a bright spot. One has a nega the size of a split bean and another has a nega that is larger, the size of a sela. Both are isolated for a week, and at the end of the week one person's nega has spread to be the size of a sela, and the other's has not spread. The problem is that the priest can't remember who had one the size of a sela and whose was the size of a split bean, meaning he doesn't know which spread and which did not. Since no impurity has yet been established, both are considered pure. The rabbis add that this is true even if both negaim are on one man. Although we know that one nega spread, we don't know which, and therefore he cannot be deemed impure.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: if one man is involved he is unclean, but if two men are involved each is clean. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this latter statement. If both negaim are on one person, then he is unclean because we can be certain that one of his negaim spread." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah clarifies when cases of doubt are deemed unclean.", + "\"But after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean.\" This is a quote from mishnah four.", + "How so? If two men came to a priest, one having a bright spot of the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela and at the end of the week each was of the size of a sela and a little more, both are unclean; The difference between this mishnah and yesterday's mishnah is that in this case, both negaim spread. One began at the size of a split bean and spread to be a bit larger than a sela, and one started as a sela and spread just a little bit. Nevertheless, since both spread both are impure.", + "And even though both returned to be the size of a sela both are unclean, and remain unclean until they return to the size of a split split bean. They remain impure even if both return to be the size of a sela. This is the \"doubt.\" One of these has returned to its original size, and since the \"spreading\" is gone, that one should be pure. But since they were already pronounced unclean, they both remain impure until the spreading has certainly disappeared from both.", + "They is what they meant when they said, \"but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean.\" A summary of what was taught above." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The minimum size of a bright spot must be that of a Cilician split bean squared.
The space covered by a split bean equals that of nine lentils.
The space covered by a lentil equals that of four hairs;
It turns out that the size of a bright spot must be no less than that of thirty-six hairs.
Today's mishnah deals with how large a nega/bright spot must be for it to be impure.
Section one: The bright spot must be the size of a squared Cicilian split bean. Cicilia is an area in Asia Minor.
Sections two-four: 9 x 4 is 36, so you can fit 36 hairs into a Cicilian bean. Either those are some big beans, or those are some hairy people!" + ], + [ + "If a bright spot was of the size of a split bean and in it there was quick flesh of the size of a lentil: The bright spot is large enough to be impure and inside it there is quick flesh, which is one of the signs of impurity. The quick flesh is the size of a lentil, which is also the minimum size it needs to be in order to be impure.", + "If the bright spot grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller it is clean. It is obvious that if the bright spot grew larger, it is unclean. It was already unclean due to the quick flesh. This line is here because of the second half. If the bright spot grew smaller, it is pure because it is now less than the size of a split bean.", + "If the quick flesh grew larger it is unclean, and if it grew smaller it is clean. If the quick flesh grew larger, the nega is still impure, as long as it is still surrounded by the nega itself. However, if the quick flesh grew to be smaller than a lentil, the nega is pure, because that is the minimum size for the quick flesh." + ], + [ + "A bright spot the size of a split bean and in it there was quick flesh less than the size of a lentil: In this case, the nega is large enough to be impure, but the quick flesh is too small.", + "If the bright spot grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller it is clean. This section is obvious. It is only here to be contrasted with the other sections.", + "If the quick flesh grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller, Rabbi Meir rules that it is unclean; But the sages rule that it is clean, since a nega cannot spread within itself. If the quick flesh grows larger it is obviously unclean. However, if it grows smaller that would mean that the nega (the bright spot) itself had spread into the place where the quick flesh used to be. Rabbi Meir says that since the nega spread, it is impure because spreading is a sign of impurity. But the other sages say that the nega must spread out beyond its previous borders in order to be impure. Spreading into itself does not count as \"spreading.\"" + ], + [ + "If a bright spot was larger in size than a split bean and in it there was quick flesh larger than a lentil, irrespective of whether they increased or decreased, they are unclean, provided that they do not decrease to less than the prescribed minimum. This case is quite straightforward both the nega and the quick flesh are larger than the required size for them to be impure. Therefore, they are immediately impure and it doesn't matter whether they increase or decrease. They will only become pure if they decrease to smaller than the prescribed size." + ], + [ + "If a bright spot was the size of a split bean and quick flesh the size of a lentil encompassed it, and outside the quick flesh there was another bright spot, the inner one must be isolated and the outer one must be certified unclean. Rabbi Yose says: the quick flesh is not a sign of uncleanness for the outer one, since the inner bright spot is within it. There are three levels inside this nega. An inner bright spot which is large enough to be impure, surrounded by quick flesh, surrounded by another bright spot. The outer bright spot has quick flesh in it, so it is impure. But the inner one does not have quick flesh in it, so it is only isolated (and if this is at the end of two weeks, it is pure). Rabbi Yose says that since the quick flesh has a bright spot within it, it is considered a divided piece of quick flesh, which is not a sign of impurity, even for the outer nega. Even it is not impure.", + "If it decreased or disappeared: Rabban Gamaliel says: if its destruction was on its inner side it is a sign of spreading of the inner bright spot while the outer one is clean, but if its destruction was on its outer side, the outer one is clean while the inner one must be isolated. Rabbi Akiva says: in either case it is clean. The mishnah now deals with a case where the quick flesh disappears or becomes smaller than a lentil. Rabban Gamaliel says that if the inner bright spot took over the quick flesh, then we consider the inner one as having spread and it is unclean. The outer one is pure because its quick flesh either disappeared or grew too small to be a sign of impurity. If the outer bright spot spread into the quick flesh, the outer one is also pure because its quick flesh disappeared or grew too small. The fact that the inner bright spot is now part of the outer one is not considered to be \"spreading.\" The inner one has not changed so it still requires isolation, as in section one. Rabbi Akiva says that even if the inner one takes over the quick flesh (the quick flesh was destroyed to the inside), the nega is not considered to have spread and it is clean because a nega can't spread into another nega. The Tosefta adds that if this occurs after the first week of isolation, he would be isolated again based on the inner nega because it is still present. He is only pure if it doesn't spread after two weeks." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday's mishnah discussed a case where there is a bright spot which is inside some quick flesh which is in a larger bright spot. Rabbi Akiva says that if the inner bright spot spreads into the quick flesh it is pure, because a nega that spreads into another nega is not considered as having \"spread.\" In today's mishnah Rabbi Shimon qualifies Rabbi Akiva's statement.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: when is this the case? When the quick flesh was exactly the size of a lentil. But if it was larger than a lentil, the excess is a sign of spreading of the inner one, and the outer one is unclean. Rabbi Akiva's rule that if the inner nega spreads into the quick flesh both the inner and outer nega are pure is true if the quick flesh was exactly the size of a lentil. Once the quick flesh is smaller than a lentil, it is no longer a sign of impurity. However, if the quick flesh was larger than a lentil but then the inner nega (the bright spot) spread into it but the quick flesh remained at least the size of a lentil, the inside nega is impure. This is because the excess part of the quick flesh is not considered part of the nega but rather flesh. Therefore the inner nega spread into flesh and not into quick flesh and any time a nega spreads into flesh, it is impure. The outer nega is also impure because the quick flesh is large enough to be a sign of impurity. To summarize: the excess part of the quick flesh is not considered \"nega,\" and thus the inner nega is considered to have spread. But since a lentil's worth of quick flesh remains, the outer one is also impure.", + "If there was white scurf less that the size of a lentil, it is a sign of the spreading of the inner bright spot but it is not a sign of spreading of the outer one. In this case instead of quick flesh being in between the inner and outer nega (bright spot) there is white scurf (mentioned in 1:5-6; it is a darker shade of white than that required for a nega). White scurf need not be the size of a lentil. If the inner nega spreads into the white scurf it is considered to have spread because white scurf is not a nega (it is not a sign of impurity, see 1:5), rather it is flesh. Thus even Rabbi Akiva would agree that the inner nega is impure. However, if the outer nega takes over the white scurf it is not considered to have spread, for spreading towards the inside of itself is not considered spreading (see above, mishnah three and five)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to the rabbis, for a nega to be impure, it must be on a place on the body that it can be seen entirely at once. Therefore, if the nega is found on the tip of a limb with two sides (such as a finger) such that if one were to look at half the nega, the other half wouldn't be seen, the nega is not impure. Our mishnah lists which \"tips of limbs\" do not become unclean even if there is a nega on them.", + "There are twenty-four tips of limbs in the human body that do not become unclean on account of quick flesh: the tips of the fingers and the toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the penis; and also the nipples of a woman. The twenty-four tips of limbs include the tips of all the fingers and toes, the tips of the ears, nose and penis. That equals twenty four. Added to that on a woman are the tips of her nipples.", + "Rabbi Judah says: also those of a man. Rabbi Judah adds the nipples of men. [I know this might be a bit funny, and I could make some comments, but I will refrain].", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: also warts and warts with thin necks do not become unclean on account of quick flesh. Rabbi Eliezer adds in various types of warts. Albeck explains that \"warts with thin necks\" are warts that appear on a limb that has been partially severed from a person. Does not sound pleasant." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah lists other parts of a man's body which cannot become impure even if they have a nega. There are different reasons for some of these places. Some of them are not considered \"flesh.\" And others are considered to be in \"hidden\" spots, and a nega must be in a visible area for it to be a sign of impurity.", + "The following places in a person do not become unclean on account of a bright spot: the inside of the eye, the inside of the ear, the inside of the nose and the inside of the mouth, wrinkles, wrinkles in the neck, under the breast and the armpit, the sole of the foot, the nails, the head and the beard; and a boil, a burn and a blister that are festering. Most of these are self-explanatory. If a nega appears on the head or the beard it is not a sign of impurity. There are special rules governing these two areas, as we shall see below. With regard to a boil Leviticus 13 says, \"18 When an inflammation (a boil) appears on the skin of one's body and it heals, 19 and a white swelling or a white spot streaked with red develops where the inflammation was, he shall present himself to the priest.\" The boil is only a sign of impurity when it is has healed. If it is still festering it is not. When it comes to the burn verse 24 states, \"When the skin of one's body sustains a burn by fire, and the quick flesh (healed flesh) from the burn is a white spot, either white streaked with red, or white.\" Again, the burn must first heal. The same is true in the case of a blister. As long as they have not healed, they are not susceptible to negaim.", + "All these: Do not become unclean on account of negaim Do not combine with other negaim, A nega is not considered to spread into them, Do not become unclean on account of quick flesh, And they do not act to prevent a person from being considered to have turned completely white. The mishnah now goes over all of the special rules that apply to these areas of the body. A) If a nega appears on them, it is not a sign of impurity. B) If a nega on an adjacent piece of flesh is less than the size of a split bean and there is a nega on this piece of flesh as well, they do not combine with the other nega to make it large enough to be impure. C) If a nega is on a piece of adjacent flesh and it spreads into one of these areas, it is not considered to have spread. D) If one of these areas is inside a larger nega, and it turns into quick flesh, the larger nega is not impure. E) If a person has turned completely white except for one of these areas, the absence of whiteness in these areas does not prevent him from being pure (one who has turned completely white is pure). In short, these areas are not considered to be flesh when it comes to the laws of negaim.", + "If subsequently a bald spot arose in the head or beard, or if a boil, a burn or a blister formed a scar: They may become unclean by negaim, But they do not combine with other negaim, A nega is not considered to spread into them, And they do not become unclean on account of quick flesh. But they do act to prevent a person from being considered to have all turned white. A bald head or beard is subject to certain laws of negaim (this will be discussed in chapter ten). Similarly, a boil, burn or blister that has scarred over is considered flesh and is subject to some of the laws of negaim. The mishnah now discusses what laws apply in these situations. A) If a nega appears in one of these regions it is a sign of impurity. B) Nevertheless, a nega that appears on a bald head or beard or on a boil, burn or blister that have not healed, does not join with a nega on regular skin to create the requisite split bean needed to be impure. C) Similarly, if a nega from an adjacent piece of flesh spreads into one of these areas, it is not considered to have spread. D) Same as section D above. E) But since negaim can be formed in these areas, if a person is completely white except for one of these areas, he is not considered to be completely white and he will be impure. We could summarize that these areas are susceptible to negaim, but they don't join with others because they are considered to be separate from other areas.", + "The head and the beard before they have grown hair, and warts with thin necks on the head or the beard, are treated as the skin of the flesh. A bald baby's head or face is susceptible to negaim impurity until hair begins to grow. These areas are only differentiated once hair appears. Warts that are sort of falling from a person's face (ok, this is yukky) count as flesh as well." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah lists negaim that are clean because when they were formed they couldn't count as negaim.", + "The following bright spots are clean:
Those that one had before the Torah was given, Those that a non-Jew had when he converted; Or a child when it was born, The halakhot concerning negaim were in effect only after the Torah was given. If an Israelite had a nega before the Torah was given the nega is not considered impure. The same is true if an individual had a nega before the Torah was given to him/her as an individual. This would include a non-Jew who converted and a child who was born. Since they were not governed by the laws of negaim when the nega formed, the nega is not impure even when they becomes subject to these laws.", + "Or those that were in a crease and were subsequently uncovered. We learned in 6:8 that if there is a nega in a crease in one's skin, it is not impure. This is true even if the nega becomes uncovered.", + "If they were on the head or the beard, on a boil, a burn or a blister that is festering, and subsequently the head or the beard became bald, and the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, they are clean. This section also refers to yesterday's mishnah. As we learned there, if negaim appear on the head or beard, or in a boil, burn or blister which are still festering, they are not impure. Our mishnah adds that even if these areas become susceptible to negaim by losing their hair or by healing, the nega that appeared when they were not susceptible is not a sign of impurity.", + "If they were on the head or the beard before they grew hair, and they then grew hair and subsequently became bald, or if they were on the body before the boil, burn or blister before they were festering and then these formed a scar or were healed: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said that they are unclean since at the beginning and at the end they were unclean, But the sages say: they are clean. In these cases the nega was first formed in a place that was susceptible to negaim (before hair grew or before the boil, burn or blister was festering or perhaps had even formed) and then the place became unsusceptible, and then it returned to being susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says it is impure because it began in a place susceptible to impurity and ended in a place susceptible to impurity. The other sages say that since in between those two moments it was in a place that was at the time unsusceptible, the nega remains forever unsusceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's. It discusses a case where the nega was not impure because the person or part of body was not subject to negaim when it first appeared. Then when the person or area of body became subject to the laws of negaim the nega changed color. For instance, a non-Jew had a nega of a certain color and then once he converted, the nega turned into a different color. The question at hand is whether or not this must be treated as a new nega.", + "If their color changed, whether to be lenient or stringent: How is it \"to be lenient\"? If it was white like snow and it became white like the lime of the Temple, or like wool or like the skin of an egg, or [as white] as the second shade of a rising or the second shade of bright white. How is it \"to be stringent\"? If it was the color of the skin of an egg and it became like white wool, the lime of the Temple or like snow. There are two ways for the color to change. A whiter color can get darker (this is \"to be lenient\") and a darker color can become whiter (this is \"to be strict\"). These various colors are mentioned in 1:1.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah rules that they are clean. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that even if the color changes, it is still the same nega and since it started in a case of purity, it remains pure.", + "Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: if the change was to be lenient it is clean, but if it was one to be stringent it must be inspected as if it were a new one. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma distinguishes between white spots that get darker and darker white spots that get lighter. If the spot gets darker, the rule is lenient and it remains clean. But if it gets darker, we have to treat it as a new nega, and it must be examined afresh by the priest.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: whether the change was to be lenient or to be strict it must be inspected as if it were a new one. Rabbi Akiva says in either case it must be examined, for any change causes it to be considered a new nega." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses what happens if while pronouncing whether a given nega is clean or unclean, there are changes in the nega.", + "A bright spot in which there were no signs of uncleanness: At the beginning, or at the end of the first week, he is isolated; At the end of the second week or after it had been pronounced clean, he is pronounced clean. If while the priest was about to isolate him or to pronounce him clean, signs of uncleanness appeared in it, he certifies him as unclean. If the bright spot has no signs of uncleanness (white hairs or quick flesh) he is isolated for one week and then for another, if the nega doesn't change. If at the end of two weeks no signs have developed, he is pronounced pure. This is all information we know and it is only here because of the next line. The mishnah adds that if while the priest is pronouncing him pure, signs of impurity appear, he must be certified as unclean.", + "A bright spot in which there are signs of uncleanness, he certifies him as unclean. If while the priest was about to certify it as unclean the signs of uncleanness disappeared: If at the beginning, or at the end of the first week, he isolates him; But if at the end of the second week or after the spot had been pronounced clean, he is pronounced clean. In this case the bright spot was already examined and certified unclean. This is obvious (like in section one). While pronouncing him unclean the signs of impurity disappear but the nega remains. If this occurs in the beginning or at the end of the first week, he is isolated as he would be with any nega that doesn't have one of the signs of impurity. However, if this occurs after the second week ,or after he has been pronounced clean the signs return to the nega and then while pronouncing him unclean they disappear again, he is pronounced clean. To summarize this mishnah: if the status of the nega changes while the priest is making his proclamation, the change must be taken into account, whether this causes a stringency (section one) or a leniency (section two)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a person who removes the white hairs from a nega or burns the quick flesh in a nega. In other words, he tries to remove the signs of uncleanness.", + "One who plucks out signs of uncleanness or burns quick flesh transgresses a negative commandment. Deuteronomy 24:8 states, \"In cases of skin affection be most careful to do exactly as the levitical priests instruct you.\" The rabbis read this as a prohibition against removing the signs of impurity.", + "And as regards cleanness: If they were plucked out before he came to the priest, he is clean; But if after he had been certified as unclean, he remains unclean. The mishnah now deals with the consequences of one who transgresses and removes the signs of impurity. In other words, even though he should not have done what he did, the signs are gone and therefore we must determine whether he is pure or not. If he did so before the priest examined him, he remains clean. However, if he removes them after he is already impure, his removal doesn't help and he remains impure.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua while they were on the way to Narbata, \"What is the ruling if the plucking occurred while he was isolated?\" They said to me, \"We did not hear anything [about this case], but we have heard that if they were plucked before he came to the priest he is clean, and if after he had been certified as unclean he remains unclean.\" I began to bring them proofs: whether the man stands before the priest or whether he is isolated, he is clean unless the priest had pronounced him unclean. This is a fascinating glimpse of how the sages discussed these matters with each other. Rabbi Akiva, the young intellect, catches Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua while they are making their way to Narbata, which is on the eastern side of Caesarea. He seems to have used the opportunity to ask them a question which was troubling him. He asks them about a case where the man plucked the signs out of the nega after he had been isolated but before he had been pronounced unclean. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua respond conservatively they never heard any answer to this question. All they know is what happens if he plucks the signs before the priest saw the nega or after he pronounced it unclean, the two situations presented in section two. These sages refuse to answer a question if they don't have a tradition concerning the answer. Not so the young whippersnapper of a rabbi, Rabbi Akiva. He presents them with proofs that as long as the person has not been pronounced unclean, he is pure. The mishnah does not present what the argument that Rabbi Akiva makes is. Such an argument is presented by the Tosefta and there we learn that the other sages agree with him.", + "When does he attain cleanness [after he has been certified unclean]? Rabbi Eliezer says: after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness after it. But the sages says: only after another nega has spread over his whole body or after his bright spot has been reduced to less than the size of a split bean. This section deals with a difficult problem. Normally, when one is pronounced impure because of a nega, he becomes pure when the signs disappear. However, this person removed the signs himself and therefore this can't be the sign of impurity. Rabbi Eliezer says that he is not pure until he gets another nega and then it becomes pure. It seems that the purification from this second nega is an opportunity to purify him from the first nega as well. The other sages say that this doesn't work. He has to have the nega spread to his entire body at which time he would become pure even if the signs of impurity were still there. The other way for him to become pure is for the nega itself to disappear. This would make him pure even if the white hair or quick flesh was still there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a nega (the bright spot) that is cut off intentionally or unintentionally.", + "If one had a bright spot and it was cut off, he becomes clean; If the bright spot was cut off unintentionally we treat it as if it just disappeared and he is pure.", + "If he cut it off intentionally: Rabbi Eliezer says: [he is clean] only after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness after it. But the sages say: only after it has spread over all his body. If he cut it off intentionally after he was already impure, he is in the same situation as described in yesterday's mishnah. Rabbi Eliezer says he must wait until another nega appears and he is purified from that nega. The sages say that he must wait until the nega spreads over his whole body. Until then he is impure. Note that this mishnah can't say \"until the nega becomes smaller than a bean\" because it has already disappeared.", + "If it was on the tip of one's foreskin, he should be circumcised. Circumcision is a positive commandment. It overrides the prohibition not to cut off a nega. Therefore if a nega appears on the tip of the foreskin that is about to be circumcised, the circumcision is still performed." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe following verses from Leviticus 13 teach that if the nega (leprosy) breaks out completely over the person's entire body, he is clean.\n12 If the eruption spreads out over the skin so that it covers all the skin of the affected person from head to foot, wherever the priest can see 13 if the priest sees that the eruption has covered the whole body he shall pronounce the affected person clean; he is clean, for he has turned all white. 14 But as soon as undiscolored flesh appears in it, he shall be unclean; 15 when the priest sees the undiscolored flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The undiscolored flesh is unclean; it is leprosy.\nChapter eight deals with the details of these laws.", + "If a nega broke out completely upon one who was unclean, he becomes clean; If the ends of his limbs reappeared, he becomes unclean until the bright spot is reduced to less than the size of a split bean. If the person was already declared unclean, and then his entire body turned white, meaning the nega spread to his entire body, he is clean. This is the simple interpretation of the biblical verses sited above. If any part of his body, even the ends of his limbs, returns to not being white, he becomes unclean. This is an interpretation of verse 14 above. He will remain impure until the size of the nega is reduced to less than the size of a split bean, the minimum size for an impure nega.", + "[If it broke out completely upon him] when he was clean, he becomes unclean; If the ends of his limbs reappeared, he remains unclean until his bright spot resumes its former size. In this case, the nega spreads to his entire body after he has been pronounced clean by the priest, probably because the nega had not spread. In this case, the spread of the nega is a sign of uncleanness. He remains impure if the nega retracts and parts of his limbs return to their natural color. Note that a person with a nega over part of his body is impure this is no different from any other situation. However, if the nega (bright spot) returns to its original proportion, then its \"spreading\" has disappeared. At this point he becomes pure again." + ], + [ + "A bright spot the size of a split bean in which there was quick flesh the size of a lentil and then it broke out covering a person's entire skin and then the quick flesh disappeared, or if the quick flesh disappeared and then the bright spot broke out covering all his skin, he is clean. At the outset, this person had a bright spot (nega) with quick flesh and the priest declared him impure. Then the nega spread to his entire body, except for the quick flesh (where there is no nega) and then the nega spread to the area of the quick flesh as well. Since the nega now covers his entire body, he is pure. The mishnah teaches that the nega does not need to cover his entire body in one stage. The same is true if the quick flesh first disappears and then the nega spreads to the entire body, including the area that had previously been quick flesh. Since it covers his entire body, he is pure.", + "If quick flesh arose [subsequently], he is unclean. If quick flesh appears in the midst of a nega that covers his entire body, he is impure because the nega no longer covers his entire body. See Leviticus 13:14.", + "If white hair grew [subsequently]: Rabbi Joshua rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean. The mishnah now discusses what happens if white hair appears in the midst of the nega that covers his entire body. Leviticus 13:14 says that if quick flesh (undiscolored flesh) appears in the body-covering nega he is impure. Rabbi Joshua reasons that just as quick flesh is a sign of impurity so too is white hair, which is also usually a sign of impurity. The sages read the Torah more literally. Since the Torah mentions quick flesh and not white hairs, it means to say that quick flesh and not white hairs is a sign of impurity in a body-covering nega." + ], + [ + "A bright spot in which there was white hair and then it broke out covering his entire skin, even though the white hair remained in its place, he is clean. Even though the white hair remains, the fact that the bright spot spread to cover his entire body means that he is pure. In this case even Rabbi Joshua, who holds that if a white hair appeared in a body-covering nega he is impure, agrees that since the white hair was there before the nega covered his entire body, he is pure. The rule that we learned in mishnah one applies here if a person is declared impure and then a nega breaks out and covers his entire body, he is pure.", + "A bright spot in which there was a spreading and then it broke out covering his entire skin, he is clean. Again, if a nega breaks out and covers the entire body after one has been declared impure (here because the nega had already spread), he is pure.", + "But in all of these cases if [even] the ends of the his limbs reappeared [in their natural color], he is unclean. If it broke out covering a part of his skin he is unclean; If it broke out covering all his skin he is clean. If even the ends of his limbs return to their natural color, he becomes impure again. This halakhah is the same as that found in mishnah one. The last two lines of this mishnah are a type of explanation for section three. Since he is unclean if the nega spreads to only part of his body, he is unclean if the ends of his limbs reappear in their natural color. He is clean only if the nega covers his entire body." + ], + [ + "In all cases of breaking out and covering the ends of the limbs whereby the unclean have been pronounced clean, if they reappeared they become unclean again. In any case where a nega covered a person's entire body and even the ends of his limbs and he was pronounced clean, and then the ends reappeared in their natural color he is unclean. This is as we learned in mishnah one: if a nega covers a person's entire body and he was previously impure, he is pure. If the nega retracts, he becomes impure again.", + "In all cases of reappearance of the ends of the limbs whereby the clean have been pronounced unclean, if they were covered again these become clean again. If the ends of the limbs are first uncovered (meaning the nega disappears) and then they are covered again by the nega, the person goes back to being pure. This is another case of a nega covering an impure person's entire body.", + "If subsequently they become uncovered these are unclean, even if this occurs a hundred times. This process can continue without end. In other words, the rule that if a nega spreads to one's entire body and that person was previously impure that he becomes pure remains no matter how many times the process occurs." + ], + [ + "Any part [of the body] that can be subject to the uncleanness of a bright spot nega can prevent the effectiveness of the breaking out [over the entire body], and any part that cannot be subject to the uncleanness of a bright spot nega does not prevent the effectiveness of the breaking out abroad. In 6:8 we learned that there are some parts of a person's body that are not susceptible to negaim under certain circumstances (a head or beard with hair, a festering boil, burn or blister). This means that if a nega appears there he is not impure. Since these spots are not susceptible to negaim, they also do not prevent a nega from being considered as having spread to one's entire body. He is pure even if the nega doesn't spread there. Simply put these parts (under certain circumstances) are not relevant to the laws of negaim. However, any part that is subject to negaim, does prevent the nega from being considered to have spread to his entire body, if the nega does not spread there.", + "How so? If it broke out covering all of his skin, but not on the head or the beard, or on a festering boil, burn or blister, and then the head or the beard became bald, or the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, he is clean. The mishnah now illustrates this principle. At first the nega spreads to his entire body, except to parts that are not susceptible to negaim (for an explanation of these parts see 6:8). Subsequently, these parts changed so that they have become susceptible to negaim. Despite the fact that the nega is now not found on parts that are susceptible to negaim, he is still pure since when the nega spread to his entire body these parts were not susceptible. In other words, if the person is pure because the nega covered all susceptible parts of his body, he remains pure even if other parts later become susceptible.", + "If it broke out covering all of his skin, except a spot of the size of half a lentil near the head or beard, or near a boil, burn or blister, and then the head or the beard became bald, or the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, even though the place of the quick flesh became a bright spot, he is unclean unless it breaks out covering all his body. In this case the nega spread to his entire body, except to one tiny part. He is now impure because the nega did not actually spread to his entire body. This part was adjacent to a part of the body that was not susceptible to negaim. Subsequently, two things happen. The nega spreads to the small spot that it had not previously spread to. And the parts that were not susceptible become susceptible. In this case he is impure because at the time when the nega spread to his entire body, the head, beard and previously festering spots had already become susceptible to negaim. He will be impure until the nega spreads to these spots as well." + ], + [ + "If there were two bright spots, one unclean and the other clean, and they broke out from one to the other, and then [a nega] broke out covering all of his skin, he is clean. In this case a person has two white spots (negaim) one of which has been pronounced clean and one of which has been pronounced unclean. The nega then spreads from one to the other and then breaks out over his entire body. He is deemed to be pure because the nega has spread to his entire body. We don't consider this to be a case where the nega covered his entire body \"from a point of purity\" because we consider the spreading over his body to have come from the impure nega and not from the pure bright spot.", + "[If the bright spots] were on his upper lip and lower lip, or on two of his fingers, or on his two eyelids, even though they cleave together and appear as one, he is clean. In this case, the two bright spots, one pure and one impure, are from two adjoining parts of his body that can be put together to look like one. We might have thought that the nega spread over his whole body from a pure bright spot, in which case he is impure. However, the mishnah says that since these are actually separate bright spots and one is impure, the situation is the same as in section one and he is ruled pure.", + "If it broke out covering all his skin except white scurf, he is unclean. White scurf is a white spot that is darker than the color of any of the four shades of white required of a nega (see 1:1). If the nega covers his whole body but the white scurf remains, he is still impure because the nega is not considered to have covered his entire body.", + "If the ends of his limbs reappeared in the color of white scurf, he is clean. Although white scurf can prevent the nega from being considered to have spread over his whole body, if white scurf appears on a person who already had a nega cover his whole body, it is not considered to be the normal color of flesh and he remains pure. The Torah says that if undiscolored flesh appears on the person covered with the nega, he is impure. But white scurf is not undiscolored flesh, so this person stays pure.", + "If the ends of his limbs reappeared to the extent of less than a lentil: Rabbi Meir rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that a piece of white scurf less in size than a lentil, is a sign of uncleanness in the beginning, but it is not a sign of uncleanness at the end. According to Rabbi Meir if any part of his limbs returns to its natural color, even if it is less than the size of a lentil, he becomes impure again. The rabbis disagree. They address two cases here: white scurf and quick flesh less than the size of a lentil. In both of these cases, if the nega does not spread there at the outset he is still impure. So if any flesh is not covered by the nega, he is still impure. However, when it comes to retracting from a nega that covered the entire body, these are not signs of a return to impurity. If a piece of white scurf emerges or quick flesh returns to a spot smaller than the size of a lentil, he remains pure" + ], + [ + "One who came [in front of the priest] with all his body white is isolated. Someone who comes in front of a priest and is already completely covered by a nega is to be isolated, just as if he had come in front of the priest with a bright spot the size of a split bean. He isn't pure, because a nega covering the whole body is a sign of purity only if he was already impure.", + "If white hair grew, he is certified unclean. If both hairs or one of them turned black, If both or one of them became short, If a boil adjoined both or one of them, If a boil surrounded both or one of them, Or if a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf divided them [he is pure]. If white hair grew at the end of the first or second week, then he will be certified unclean. The remainder of this section are all circumstances that makes the person pure. The mishnah listed these things and I explained them in 1:5.", + "If quick flesh or white hair arose, he is unclean; But if neither quick flesh nor white hair arose he is clean. This goes back to referring to the person who came to the priest totally covered by a nega. Quick flesh and white hair are both signs of impurity and therefore if they develop after the first or second week he is impure. And if either of these signs does not appear, then he is pure.", + "In all these cases if the ends of his limbs reappeared he remains as he was before. Whether or not quick flesh or white hair appeared or whether it appeared and then disappeared, if the ends of his limbs return to their natural color, he stays pure. This is not like a normal case where the natural color returns to a person who had been fully covered by a nega, since in this case he was not made pure by having become fully covered. In other words, this person is treated as if he simply came in front of the priest with a nega. If signs appear, he is impure. If signs don't appear or appear and then disappear, he is pure, even if the nega begins to leave parts of his body.", + "If the nega broke out, covering a part of him, he is unclean. If it broke out covering all of them, he is clean. If after the natural color returns to the ends of his limbs the nega begins to spread again, he is impure because spreading is a sign of impurity. If it then spreads and covers his entire body he is pure, for this is a case of spreading over the entire body of one who is impure." + ], + [ + "If it broke out covering all of his skin all at once: If this originated in a condition of cleanness, he is unclean; But if it originated in a condition of uncleanness, he is clean. As we have learned, sometimes if a nega breaks out and covers someone's whole body he is impure. For instance, if he comes in front of a priest already covered in a nega, he is isolated. And then, the natural color returns to the ends of his limbs and then the nega spreads back to cover his entire body, he becomes impure. However, if someone comes in front of the priest when he is totally covered and a sign of impurity comes up (white hair or quick flesh) he is impure. When the ends of the limbs reappear he stays impure. If the nega now spreads to his whole body, he becomes pure.", + "One who becomes clean after having been isolated is exempt from the uncovering his head and rending his clothes, from shaving his hair and from bringing the birds. If he becomes clean after he had been certified unclean, he is liable to all these. Both convey uncleanness by entering. The end of this mishnah compares a person who becomes clean after having been isolated with one who becomes clean after having been declared unclean. The former is not liable to uncover his hair or rend his clothes (see Leviticus 13:45), nor is he liable to shave his body or bring bird sacrifices (see Leviticus 14:1-9). Only one who was certified unclean is liable to do so. However, both a metzora (one who had a nega) who had been isolated and one who had been declared unclean convey uncleanness by entering a house. This is a topic to which we will return in chapter 13 (so stay tuned!)." + ], + [ + "If one came with his whole body white, and on it there was quick flesh to the extent of a lentil, and then the nega spread out covering all his skin, and then the ends of his limbs reappeared: I will chart out the stages in this scenario one by one: Stage one: His whole body was covered with a nega except for a spot with quick flesh. This means he is impure. Stage two: The nega then spreads over the quick flesh. He is now pure. Stage three: The ends of his limbs reappear.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: this is the same as when the ends of the limbs reappear in that of a large bright spot. Rabbi Ishmael says that this is similar to a case we learned about in mishnah seven. A person comes in front of a priest with a nega already covering his whole body and then signs of impurity appear (he is impure) and then they disappear (he is pure). If the ends of his limbs reappear, he remains pure as he was before. So too here when the nega spread to his whole body we consider it as if he is beginning with a large bright spot, one that covers his whole body. The reappearance of natural color in his limbs is not a sign of impurity.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah ruled: as when the ends of the limbs reappeared in a small bright spot. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says that since at the outset there was some quick flesh in his nega (the one that covered the rest of his body) this person is not considered to be like someone who was totally covered at the outset. Rather this person is like someone who had a nega that made him impure, and then it spread to his whole body, thereby making him pure. When his limbs reappear he returns to being impure." + ], + [ + "There is one who shows his nega [to the priest] and thereby gains advantage, while there is one who shows and loses. The mishnah notes the paradox that sometimes a person can benefit by showing his nega to a priest and sometimes he loses out.", + "How so? If one was certified unclean and the signs of his uncleanness disappeared, and before he could show it to the priest the nega broke out covering all his skin, he is clean; whereas if he had shown it to the priest he would have been unclean. He benefits in the following situation. He was already certified unclean and then the signs of his uncleanness (white hair, quick flesh or spreading) disappeared. Had he gone to see the priest now the priest would have declared him pure. The nega then spreads to his whole body. Since he did not go to the priest to be purified, this is a case of a nega covering a person who is already unclean. He is now clean. Had he gone to the priest, then this would be a case of a nega covering a clean person, in which case he would be impure.", + "If he had a bright spot in which there was nothing else, and before he could show it to the priest it broke out covering all his skin, he is unclean; whereas if he had shown it to the priest he would have been clean. He has a bright spot with no sign of impurity. Had he gone to the priest he would have isolated him. But before he can go to the priest it spreads over his whole body. He now requires isolation, as we learned in mishnah seven. Had he gone to see the priest when the bright spot first appeared, he would have been isolated and then when the nega spread he would have been declared pure, because a nega that spreads over a person who has been isolated causes him to be declared pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter nine deals with a nega that forms in a boil or a burn. This is dealt with in Leviticus 13:18-28.", + "A boil or a burn may become unclean in a week and by two signs: by white hair or by a spreading. As we learned in 3:4, when it comes to a nega in a boil or burn, only white hair and spreading are signs of impurity. Quick flesh is not. And there is only one week of isolation, not two as there are with other negaim.", + "What is a \"boil\"? An injury received from wood, stone, peat, or the waters of Tiberias, of from any other object whose heat is not due to fire is a boil. What I have translated as \"boil\" is really an inflammation due to contact with something hot other than fire. \"Peat\" is the refuse from the pressing of olives and it can be very hot when removed from the press. The waters of Tiberias are hot springs.", + "What exactly is a \"burn\"? A burn caused by a live coal, hot embers, or any object whose heat is due to fire is a burning. A burn is from contact with something that had contact with fire." + ], + [ + "A boil and a burn do not combine, nor do they spread from one to the other, nor do they spread from there to the skin of the flesh, nor does [a nega] on the skin of the flesh spread to them. If there is a boil the size of a half a split bean and a burn the size of half a split bean, they do not combine to form a nega the size of a split bean. Also, if a boil and a burn are right next to each other and the nega spreads from one to the other, it is not considered as having spread and it is pure. If the nega spreads from the boil or burn to other skin, or if a nega from other skin spreads into the burn or boil, it is not considered to have spread. Rather, the nega must spread within the boil or burn. Put simply: the burn and boil nega are considered completely separately from an adjacent nega.", + "If they were festering they are clean. If the boil or burn is still festering, it is pure. This was explained in 6:8.", + "If they formed a scale as thick as garlic peel, such is the scar of the boil that is spoken of in the Torah. Leviticus 13:23 states, \"But if the boil (inflammation) remains stationary, not having spread, it is the scar of the boil (inflammation); the priest shall pronounce him clean.\" The rabbis explain that this doesn't refer to a boil (or burn in v. 28) that have healed completely. Rather, a little bit of a scab seems to have formed on it. Since the bright spot didn't spread (see the verse) he is not isolated for a second week, as he would be for other negaim. Rather he is pronounced clean.", + "If they were subsequently healed, even though there was a mark in their place, they are regarded as the skin of the flesh. If the boil or burn completely heals, it is treated like regular skin, even if a mark remains. If a new nega appears there, the nega is treated like a regular nega, and not one that formed in a boil or burn." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a fascinating discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and the other sages, which reveals Rabbi Eliezer's personality as the arch-conservative sage.", + "They asked R. Eliezer: \"[What is the ruling concerning] one who had a bright spot the size of a sela form on the inside of his hand and it covered up the scar of a boil?\" The sages ask Rabbi Eliezer about someone who had a nega form on the palm of his hand and it covered up a smaller boil that had already scarred over.", + "He replied: \"He should be isolated.\" Rabbi Eliezer answers that he should be isolated to see if it will develop a sign of impurity.", + "They said to him: \"Why? Since it is neither capable of growing white hair nor can it effectively spread nor does quick flesh cause it to be unclean?\" The other sages point out that this is problematic. Hair does not grow on the palm of one's hand so he can't become impure for that reason. It cannot be considered to have spread for a nega formed in a boil or burn must spread into the area of the burn or boil, and in this case it already fully covers the burn or boil. Nor is quick flesh a sign of impurity inside a burn or boil. Therefore it seems that there is no reason to isolate this person for he cannot become impure.", + "He replied, \"It is possible that it will contract and then spread again.\" Rabbi Eliezer says it is possible that after the first week the nega will retract a bit and then the priest will declare him pure. If the nega would then spread back into the burn or boil, he would be impure.", + "They said to him, \"But what about when its only the size of a split bean?' The problem with Rabbi Eliezer's answer is that it only works if the burn/boil underneath the nega was originally the size of a sela, which is larger than a split bean. If the burn/boil was the size of a split bean then when the nega retracts and then spreads it will still spread into regular skin, which doesn't count as spreading. And if the nega retracts to being smaller than a split bean, the nega is considered to have disappeared. The priest will pronounce him pure and if it spreads again, this is not considered \"spreading\" but rather a new nega.", + "He said to them: I have not heard anything. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him, \"Can I teach something about this?\" He replied, \"If you would thereby confirm the ruling of the sages, go ahead.\" He said, \"Lest another boil would arise outside it and spread into it. He replied: \"You are a great scholar for you have confirmed the words of the sages.\" To this Rabbi Eliezer has no answer. He knows that the sages said that he should be isolated, but he doesn't know why. Rabbi Judah ben Batera asks permission to give an answer. Fascinatingly, Rabbi Eliezer says that he can give an answer but only if it explains the sages' opinion that he should be isolated. He is not allowed to disagree with this reason. Here we see Rabbi Eliezer's conservative tendencies. He allows a new explanation, but only if it upholds the older halakhah. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says he is isolated lest another boil appears outside of the first boil, and then the latter nega spreads into the former. A nega from one boil can spread into a nega from another boil. Rabbi Eliezer seems to be overjoyed at his student's answer, not for its inherent wisdom, but because it explains the words of the sages." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter ten deals with negaim that appear on one's head or beard. These negaim are called \"scalls\" or \"netek/netakim\". According to the rabbis the scall appears on a place on the beard or head from which regular hair has already fallen out. First the hair falls out and then the scall appears. At this point, the priest is to determine whether it is impure or not, as he does in other cases of negaim. The following are the relevant verses from Leviticus 13 that deal with the scall.\n29 If a man or a woman has an affection on the head or in the beard, 30 the priest shall examine the affection. If it appears to go deeper than the skin and there is thin yellow hair in it, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a scall, a scaly eruption in the hair or beard. 31 But if the priest finds that the scall affection does not appear to go deeper than the skin, yet there is no black hair in it, the priest shall isolate the person with the scall affection for seven days. 32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection. If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it, and the scall does not appear to go deeper than the skin, 33 the person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall; the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. 34 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the scall. If the scall has not spread on the skin, and does not appear to go deeper than the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; he shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. 35 If, however, the scall should spread on the skin after he has been pronounced clean, 36 the priest shall examine him. If the scall has spread on the skin, the priest need not look for yellow hair: he is unclean. 37 But if the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it, the scall is healed; he is clean. The priest shall pronounce him clean.", + "Scalls may become unclean for two weeks and by two signs: by thin yellow hair and by spreading. This section was found above in 3:5. Negaim of the beard or head have a two week period in which their impurity is examined, as do the other negaim we have discussed up until now. They are impure if yellow hair appears, or if they spread.", + "By thin yellow hair: means stunted and short, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: even though it is long. The rest of the mishnah discusses what the Torah means by \"thin yellow hair\" (Leviticus 13:30). Specifically, there is a debate whether the hair must be short as well as thin. Rabbi Akiva says that it must be both \"stunted\" which means that it is thin, or poor in quality. And it must also be short. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri argues that it is a sign of impurity even if it is long.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: what is the meaning of the expression when people say, \"This stick is thin,\" or \"This reed is thin\"? Does \"thin\" imply that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long? Rabbi Akiva replied: before we learn from the reed let us learn from hair, [for they say] \"So and so's hair is thin\": \"thin\" means that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long. The mishnah now records a fascinating argument between these two rabbis, each defending his own position. Both argue that they can interpret the meaning of \"thin\" from the way in which people commonly speak. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri points out that when people say \"thin\" as in \"this stick is thin\" or \"this reed is thin\" they mean that it is thin but they don't necessarily mean that it is short and thin. The adjective \"thin\" implies nothing when it comes to length. Rabbi Akiva says that the word \"thin\" does imply \"short\" when it comes to hair, which is after all the subject at hand. People will call hair \"thin\" and what they really mean is thin and short. As someone who used to have \"thinning\" hair, I'm going to have to side with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. Some of those lone hairs left on my head were indeed quite long, even if they were few and far in-between!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today's mishnah two sages argue whether the thin yellow hair that is a sign of impurity in a scall must appear only after the scall has already appeared or whether it can precede the scall.", + "Yellow thin hair causes uncleanness whether it is clustered together or dispersed, whether it is encompassed or unencompassed, or whether it came after the scall or before it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: it causes uncleanness only when it came after the scall. The two yellow hairs that cause a scall to be unclean can either be clustered together, i.e. right next to each other, or they can be at opposite ends of the scall. They can be encompassed completely by the scall or they can be unencompassed, at its edges. According to Rabbi Judah, it doesn't matter whether they come before or after the scall. In all cases they are a sign of impurity. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that the hairs must appear after the scall.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: Is it not logical: if white hair, against which other hair affords no protection, causes uncleanness only when it comes after the nega, how much more should yellow thin hair, against which other hair does afford protection, cause uncleanness only when it comes after the scall? Rabbi Shimon now explains his logic. When it comes to the white hairs that are a sign of impurity in a regular nega, one that appears on the body, they cause uncleanness only if they appear after the nega. For these hairs the rule is more stringent no other hair will \"afford protection\" for them. This means that if black hairs are also there, the nega is still impure, as long as there are at least two white hairs. The rule with regard to yellow hairs is more lenient other hairs of other colors \"afford protection\" such that if there are two yellow hairs and two black hairs, the nega is pure. Therefore, the rule with regard to which comes first should also be lenient only if the scall precedes the yellow hairs should they be a sign of impurity.", + "Rabbi Judah says: Whenever it was necessary to say, \"it turns\" Scripture says, \"it turns.\" But the scall, since about it Scripture says, \"there is no yellow hair in it,\" it causes uncleanness whether it came before or after it. Rabbi Judah prefers a more literal reading of the verse. Leviticus 13:3 says, \"and the hair in the nega turned white.\" Clearly, the nega precedes the white hairs. When it comes to the scall, the Torah doesn't use the word \"turned yellow\" rather it states, \"and there is no yellow hair in it.\" This means that it doesn't matter whether the yellow hair came before or after the scall. We should note that these are two different ways of deriving halakhah. Rabbi Shimon employs a rabbinic type of argument. We know the halakhah in one situation (white hairs in a nega) and we compare them with yellow hairs in a scall. Rabbi Judah employs a more literal reading of the Torah. Indeed, this is typical of Rabbi Judah who is more often known as the literalist." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with Leviticus 13:37 which states, \"But if the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it, the scall is healed; he is clean.\"", + "[Black hair] that sprouts up affords protection against yellow hair and against a spreading, whether it was clustered together or dispersed, whether it was encompassed or unencompassed. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if a black hair grows in the scall, he is pure. According to the rabbis this is true even if there is yellow hair or the scall spreads. This is true whether the black hairs were clustered together or dispersed, or whether they were totally encompassed by the scall or they were unencompassed and found at the edge of the scall. In all cases, if black hairs sprout up in the scall, he is pure.", + "And that which is left [over from before the scall] affords protection against yellow hair and against a spreading, whether it is clustered together or dispersed, and also when encompassed, but it affords no protection where it is at the side unless it is distant from the standing hair by the place of two hairs. This section deals with hairs that appear after the scall has already formed. These hairs were there and then remained when the rest of the hair on the head or beard fell out. Basically, the same laws that applied in section one apply here. This is implied explicitly Leviticus 13:31. The one difference between the two situations is when the two black hairs appear at the side. In this case they afford protection only if they are two hairs distance away from the hairs that already exist in the netek (the scall).", + "If one hair was yellow and the other black, or if one was yellow and the other white, they afford no protection. In order to afford protection from impurity there need to be two black hairs. If one hair is black and one is yellow, the scall is impure if there is a spreading or another yellow hair." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with yellow hair that exists before the scall.", + "Yellow hair that preceded a scall is clean. This opinion matches Rabbi Shimon's opinion in mishnah two. For the yellow hair to be a sign of uncleanness it must turn yellow or grow after the scall already exists. If it is there before, it is clean.", + "Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. This matches Rabbi Judah's opinion in mishnah two. As long as there is yellow hair in the scall, it is a sign of impurity.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: it neither causes uncleanness nor does it afford protection. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that while yellow hairs that precede the scall are not a sign of uncleanness, they do not afford protection. This means that if two yellow hairs sprout after the formation of the scall, the two that existed before the scall do not protect it from being impure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: anything in a scall that is not a sign of uncleanness is a sign of cleanness. Rabbi Shimon agrees with the opinion in section one, and disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Since yellow hairs that precede the scall are not a sign of impurity, they do afford protection. If there are yellow hairs before the formation of the scall, the scall is pure even if subsequently other yellow hairs sprout." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first part of our mishnah deals with the obligation to shave the head or beard due to a scall. After a week of isolation, if no signs of impurity appear the person with the scall shaves his head and beard except for the place of the scall. This is stated in Leviticus 13:32-33:\n32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection. If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it, and the scall does not appear to go deeper than the skin, 33 the person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall; the priest shall isolate him for another seven days.\nAs a reminder, the scall was located on a place from where the hairs had fallen out.", + "How does one shave who has a scall? He shaves outside it and leaves next to it two hairs in order to determine whether it spreads. When shaving at the end of the first week of isolation, he shaves around the scall and leaves the space of two hairs unshaven. If these two hairs fall out, it is a sign of spreading and he is impure.", + "If he was certified unclean on account of yellow hair, and then the yellow hair disappeared and other yellow hair appeared, and so also if there was a spreading, irrespective of whether the certification took place at the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week or after his release from uncleanness, behold he remains as he was before. In this case the person is certified unclean because of yellow hair. Then the yellow hair falls out and other yellow hair appears or the scall spreads. No matter when he was certified unclean at the outset or at any other time, once the new sign appears he becomes impure again without the priest declaring him impure again. This halakhah was taught with regard to a bright spot in 5:2.", + "If he was certified unclean on account of a spreading, and the spreading disappeared and then reappeared, and so also if there was yellow hair, irrespective of whether the certification took place at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week or after his release from uncleanness, he remains as he was before. Here he is declared unclean because the scall spread. This section is basically the same as section two, except since spreading is not a sign of impurity at the outset, he cannot be declared impure at the outset. See also 5:2." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with two scalls that are next to each other, with a line of hair separating the two of them. The mishnah is concerned with determining how to tell if one of the scalls has spread.", + "Two scalls side by side and a line of hair separating between them: If a gap opened up in one place he is unclean, But if it opened up in two places he is clean. If one gap opens up between the two scalls then we can say that one of the scalls spread and he is impure. However, if two gaps open up between them then we look at both scalls as having joined together. Since there are black hairs now within the scall, they prevent the person from being considered impure.", + "How big should the gap be? The space of two hairs. The gap that opens up in the line of hair must be the size of two hairs for the two scalls to be considered as one.", + "If there was a gap in one place, even though it is as big as a split bean, he is unclean. This section is superfluous for we have already learned that if there is only one gap he is unclean. The section is here because of it is opposite of the last section in mishnah seven which we will learn tomorrow." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday's mishnah dealt with two scalls next to each other but separated by a line of hair. Today's mishnah deals with two scalls where one surrounds the other, and there is a line of hair separating the inside one from the outside one.", + "Two scalls one within the other and a line of hair separating between them: If there appeared a gap in one place the inner one is unclean, But if in two places it is clean. If one gap opens up between the two scalls then the inner one is unclean because it is considered to have spread. The line of hairs adjacent to it does not afford protection because it is at the side of the inner scall. But the outer scall is not impure because there are two hairs which it surrounds. To reiterate: hairs which exist prior to the scall must be inside in order to afford protection (see mishnah three). If, however, there are two gaps, then both scalls are considered one and the black hairs afford protection", + "How big must the gap be? The space of two hairs. Same as yesterday's mishnah.", + "If there was a gap in one place of the size of a split bean he is clean. If there is only one gap between them and the outer scall encompasses the inner one, then if the gap is the size of a split bean it causes the two scalls to be considered as one. The black hairs inside the scall mean that it is pure." + ], + [ + "One who has a scall with yellow hair within it is unclean. If one has a scall with a yellow hair in it, whether that yellow hair preceded the scall or developed after the scall, he is impure.", + "If subsequently black hair grew in it, he is clean; even if the black hair disappeared again he remains clean. Even if the black hair subsequently disappears, once he is pronounced clean he stays clean.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: any scall that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah formulates a general principle that reflects what he believes the previous opinion had stated. Any scall that was unclean, whether because it had spread or because it had a yellow hair, and then became clean because the spreading disappeared or because the yellow hair disappeared, the scall can never become unclean again.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: any yellow hair that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean. Rabbi Shimon himself gives a more limited general rule. If the yellow hair was pronounced clean because of the black hair, that yellow hair can itself never serve as a sign of impurity. However, if yellow hair forms and then disappears, and then other yellow hair forms or the scall spreads, then the scall can again become impure." + ], + [ + "If one had a scall the size of a split bean and it spread over all his head he becomes clean. Just as a body nega (a bright spot) that spreads over one's entire body becomes pure (see 8:1) so too a scall that spread all over one's head causes him to be pure.", + "The head and the beard do not prevent [one another], the words of Rabbi Judah. According to Rabbi Judah, if the scall spreads all over his head but not his beard, or all over his beard but not his head, he is pure. This is the meaning of \"do not prevent\" one doesn't need the scall to spread all over the other for him to be pure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: they do prevent. Rabbi Shimon said: Is there not a logical inference: if the skin of the face and the skin of the body, between which something intervenes, do prevent [one another], the head and the beard, between which nothing intervenes, should they not also prevent [one another]? Rabbi Shimon holds that they do prevent one another from becoming pure. He now argues this out using a logical inference. The skin of the face and the skin of the body are separated by the head and beard. Nevertheless, if one has a nega on his entire body and it doesn't cover his face, or vice versa, he is still impure. This means that they do \"prevent one another\" they do prevent the other from causing him to be clean. All the more so, the head and the beard, two parts of the body with nothing in between them, should \"prevent one another\" from becoming pure if one and not the other is covered with a scall.", + "The head and the beard do not combine, nor is a spreading from one to the other effective. If there is a scall half the size of a split bean on the beard and an adjacent scall half the size of a split bean on the head, the two half-sized scalls do not combine to form one scall large enough to be impure. Similarly, if there is a scall on the beard and it spreads to the head or vice versa, this is not considered spreading and the person is not impure.", + "What exactly counts as the beard? From the joint of the jaw to the thyroid cartilage. This section gives the dimensions of what is considered the beard and what is considered the head. Obviously, to be able to determine the halakhah in the scenarios in sections 1-4 we would need to know exactly where the beard and head begin and end." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah Ten deals with negaim that appear in scalp or forehead baldness, mentioned in Leviticus 13:40-44:\n40 If a man loses the hair of his head and becomes bald, he is clean. 41 If he loses the hair on the front part of his head and becomes bald at the forehead, he is clean. 42 But if a white affection streaked with red appears on the bald part in the front or at the back of the head, it is a scaly eruption that is spreading over the bald part in the front or at the back of the head. 43 The priest shall examine him: if the swollen affection on the bald part in the front or at the back of his head is white streaked with red, like the leprosy of body skin in appearance, 44 the man is leprous; he is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; he has the affection on his head.\nThese negaim appear in a place from which hair has already fallen out completely, whereas the scalls we have been talking about up until now appear in places with hair.", + "Scalp baldness ( or forehead baldness ( may become unclean in two weeks and by two signs: by quick flesh or by spreading. Scalp and forehead baldness have some of the same rules as negaim on the body. There is a two week period of isolation in which it is determined whether he is impure. The two signs of impurity are quick flesh and spreading. Yellow hair is not a sign of impurity because there is no hair in bald spots at all.", + "What constitutes baldness? If one ate neshem or smeared himself with neshem or had a wound from which hair can no longer grow. The mishnah asks what type of baldness is referred to here. In other words, what caused the hair on his scalp or forehead to fall out? The baldness is not natural baldness but baldness caused either by a drug (neshem) or by a wound.", + "What is the extent of scalp baldness? From the crown sloping backwards to the protruding cartilage of the neck. Scalp baldness is baldness on the back of the head. It begins at the crown of the head and slopes back to the neck.", + "What is the extent of forehead baldness? From the crown sloping forwards to the region facing the hair above. Forehead baldness slopes forward from the crown, meaning it is the front of the head.", + "Scalp baldness and forehead baldness cannot be combined, nor is spreading from one to the other effective. Rabbi Judah says: if there is hair between them they cannot be combined, but if there is none they must be combined. If there is a nega on the scalp that is half the size of a split bean and it is adjacent to a nega on the forehead also the size of half a split bean, they do not combine. Nor does spreading from one region to the other count as spreading. Rabbi Judah says that if a row of hair separates the scalp from the forehead, and then the hair falls out, then they can be combined or spread from one to the other. But as long as the hair separates them, they cannot be combined or spread from one to the other." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nUp until now the Mishnah has been dealing with negaim that appear on the body. Chapter eleven deals with negaim that occur in clothing. This is addressed in Leviticus 13:47-59.", + "All garments can contract the uncleanness of negaim except those of non-Jews. The laws of negaim, including the laws concerning the negaim that appear on garments, apply only to Jews. However, they do apply to all Jews, women, men and children.", + "One who buys garments [with signs of negaim] from non-Jews they must be inspected as if the signs had then first appeared. If one buys a garment from a non-Jew, it now becomes a garment owned by a Jew (duh!). A nega that is already in it is treated as if it just appeared, and it must be inspected as would be any nega at the outset of its appearance.", + "The hides [of animals] of the sea do not contract the uncleanness of negaim. Leviticus 13:47-8 states: \"When an eruptive affection occurs in a cloth of wool or linen fabric, in the warp or in the woof of the linen or the wool, or in a skin or in anything made of skin.\" Cloth (wool), linen and skin (animal) garments are clearly susceptible to negaim. Just as wool, linen and skins come from things grown on the land, so too anything \"grown\" on the land is susceptible to negaim. But hides made of animals of the sea, such as whale or dolphin, are not susceptible to negaim.", + "If one joined to them anything which grows on land, even if it is only a thread or a cord, as long as it is something that is susceptible to uncleanness, they also become susceptible to uncleanness. If one connected a piece of wool or linen that is susceptible to impurity, meaning it is large enough to be subject to the laws of impurity, the entire composite piece of clothing becomes susceptible. For instance, if I made a garment out of dolphin skin, but then I wanted to put a lining of wool in it, the entire garment would become susceptible to negaim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with cases where two types of wool or two flax and hemp have been hackled together to make one garment.", + "Camel's wool and sheep's wool that have been hackled together: If the majority is camel's hair, they are not susceptible to negaim; But if the majority is sheep's wool they are susceptible to negaim. If it is half and half they are susceptible to negaim. Camel's wool is not susceptible to negaim impurity because the \"wool\" mentioned in Leviticus is considered to be only sheep's wool. Therefore, if the majority of the garment is made of sheep's wool, or if even half of the garment is made of sheep's wool, it is susceptible to negaim. But if it is mostly camel's wool, it is not susceptible. We should note that in this case the camel and sheep's wool have been joined together so well that it is impossible to recognize which is which. This is what distinguishes this case from yesterday's mishnah, where a garment of wool or linen was attached to a garment made of skins of sea animals. In that case, since the garment of wool or linen was recognizable on its own, the entire garment became susceptible to impurity.", + "And the same law applies also to linen and hemp that have been hackled together. Linen (made from flax) and hemp are closely related, but only the former is susceptible to negaim (because it is mentioned specifically by the Torah). Therefore, the rules here are the same as above." + ], + [ + "Colored hides and garments are not susceptible to negaim. Houses whether they are colored or not colored, are susceptible to negaim, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, hides and garments must be uncolored for them to be susceptible to negaim. Even if their color is natural, such as the hide of a tiger or some other colorful animal, clothing made of them is not susceptible to impurity. Houses (we shall learn about house impurity in the next chapter) on the other hand are different. They are susceptible whether they have been colored or not.", + "Rabbi Judah says: hides are like houses. Rabbi Judah says hides and houses are treated the same both are susceptible whether they are colored are not.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: those that are naturally [colored] are susceptible to uncleanness but those that are artificially [dyed] are not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Shimon says that hides are susceptible if they are naturally colored, but they are not susceptible if their color is artificial, meaning they have been dyed. While the theoretical basis of this dispute is not explained, perhaps we could surmise that there is an issue of \"nature\" here. Wool and linen are naturally white (or dirty white). Therefore, if they are colored, they are removed from the realm of the natural and no longer susceptible to impurity. Human skin too is \"natural\" and therefore it is susceptible to impurity. In other words, human skin is the paradigm for the other types of negaim. In contrast to wool and linen, there is less of a \"natural\" color to houses, and therefore, they are susceptible to impurity even if they have been dyed or the material is naturally colored. In other words, nature plays no role here because they are far removed from nature anyway. The debate is over hides Rabbi Judah says that hides have no natural color, therefore they are like houses and are always susceptible. Rabbi Shimon says that if the hide has a natural color, then it is of course \"natural\" and is susceptible. But if it has been artificially dyed, it is not susceptible, just like wool and cloth." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe beginning of this mishnah continues to deal with garments that are colored, or at least partly colored.\nThe second half deals with the spread of the nega within the garment.", + "A garment whose warp was colored and whose woof was white, or whose woof was colored and whose warp was white, all depends on what is most visible. The warp threads are those that are attached to the loom and run lengthwise. The yarn that is inserted is the woof. Whether or not the garment is considered to be \"colored\" does not depend specifically on which one is colored, but rather on whether or not the color is most visible. Albeck explains that when it comes to clothing, the woof is most noticeable, but when it comes to pillows, sheets and blankets, the warp is most visible.", + "Garments contract uncleanness if they are an intense green or an intense red. Leviticus 13:49 reads: \"If the affection in the cloth or the skin, in the warp or the woof, or in any article of skin, is streaky green or red, it is an eruptive affection. It shall be shown to the priest.\" The rabbis interpret \"streaky green or red\" to be intense colors. For the nega found in the garment to be considered impure, it must be intensely red or green.", + "If [the nega] was green and it spread out red, or if it was red and it spread out green, it is unclean. Garment negaim are like skin negaim. At the outset they are isolated and if the nega spreads they are pronounced unclean. If the original color was red or green and the color of the spreading was different, it counts as spreading and it is unclean.", + "If its color changed and then it spread, or if it changed and it did not spread, it is regarded as if it had not changed. Rabbi Judah says: let it be inspected as if it then appeared for the first time. If the color of the nega changed before it spread, we regard it is as if it didn't change. Therefore, if it spread it is impure and the garment must be burned. If it didn't spread, the garment should be laundered and then isolated for another week to see if it spreads. Rabbi Judah says that if the color changes it is treated as if it was a new nega. Therefore, it would have to be laundered and isolated to see if it subsequently spreads." + ], + [ + "[A nega] that remained unchanged during the first week must be washed and isolated. This halakhah is stated explicitly in Leviticus 13:53-54: \"But if the priest sees that the affection in the cloth whether in warp or in woof, or in any article of skin has not spread, the priest shall order the affected article washed, and he shall isolate it for another seven days.\"", + "One that remains unchanged during the second week must be burned. If it is still there after the second week, the garment must be burned, as is stated in verse 55: \"And if, after the affected article has been washed, the priest sees that the affection has not changed color and that it has not spread, it is unclean. It shall be consumed in fire; it is a fret, whether on its inner side or on its outer side.\"", + "One that spread during the first or the second week must be burned. If it spreads during either week, it is impure and must be burned, as it says: \"If the affection has spread in the cloth whether in the warp or the woof, or in the skin, for whatever purpose the skin may be used the affection is a malignant eruption; it is unclean. The cloth whether warp or woof in wool or linen, or any article of skin in which the affection is found, shall be burned, for it is a malignant eruption; it shall be consumed in fire.\"", + "If it becomes dimmer in the beginning: Rabbi Ishmael says: it should be washed and isolated. But the sages say: he is not required [to do so]. According to Rabbi Ishmael, if it becomes dimmer before it is even brought to the priest, it is treated as if it became dimmer at the end of the first week. In such a case he must wash the garment and isolate it for another week. But the sages say that since the color is already weaker than the required strong green or red, it need not even be isolated. It is pure.", + "If the nega became dimmer during the first week it must be washed and isolated. If it becomes dimmer during the first week of isolation, it should be washed and set aside for another week.", + "If it became dimmer during the second week it must be torn out, and that which is torn out must be burnt, and it is necessary for a patch to be put on. Rabbi Nehemiah says: a patch is not necessary. Leviticus 13:56 states, \" But if the priest sees that the affected part, after it has been washed, is faded, he shall tear it out from the cloth or skin, whether in the warp or in the woof.\" According to the sages, if the spot fades during the second week, the faded spot must be torn out and then replaced by a patch. This way we can see if it appears again in the same place. Rabbi Nehemiah says that he need not put on a patch." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the reappearance of a nega in a patch that was put on a garment after the nega faded or the reappearance of the nega in the garment itself. The relevant verses are Leviticus 13:56-57:\n56 But if the priest sees that the affected part, after it has been washed, is faded, he shall tear it out from the cloth or skin, whether in the warp or in the woof; 57 and if it occurs again in the cloth whether in warp or in woof or in any article of skin, it is a wild growth; the affected article shall be consumed in fire.", + "If the nega reappears on the garment, the patch is protected. If the nega returns to the garment, the garment itself must be burned. This is stated explicitly in verse 57. However, the patch that was placed on the garment need not be burned.", + "If it reappears on the patch the garment must be burned. If the nega reappears on the patch, then the entire garment, including the patch, must be burned.", + "One who makes a patch from a garment that was isolated and then pronounced pure, and then the nega reappeared on the garment, the patch must be burned. In this case, a person makes a patch using cloth from a garment that had already been isolated because of another nega, and then had been declared pure. If the nega returns to the garment, the patch must also be burned. Just as one burns a garment if a nega returns to it after it has already been isolated, so too here one must burn the patch and the garment after the nega returns to it.", + "If it reappeared on the patch, the first garment must be burned, and the patch serves the second garment while the two signs are under observation. This section addresses the same situation as in section three, except here the nega returns to the patch and not the garment. The first garment, the one from which the patch had been taken, must be burned. Even though the nega returned to a piece of the garment that had already been removed, since the patch came from the original garment, the whole original garment must be burned. As far as the second garment goes, it will be isolated as if this was the first appearance of a nega in the garment. They will now wait to see if signs of impurity appear in the second garment. If they do, then the whole garment will be burned. If they do not, the garment is pure, although the patch must be burned in any case." + ], + [ + "A screen that had colored and white stripes, a nega may effectively spread from one to the other. The screen has stripes that are white and colored. If the nega appears on the white stripe and then spreads to the colored stripe, the entire screen is impure. This is true even though colored garments are not susceptible to impurity.", + "They asked Rabbi Eliezer: But the white stripe is separate? He replied: I have heard no ruling on this question. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him: Shall I derive the answer? He replied: If this would confirm the words of the sages, then yes! He said back: It is possible that it would remain on it in an unchanged condition for two weeks, and that which remains unchanged on garments for two weeks is unclean. He said to him: You are a great sage, for you have confirmed the words of the sages. We now have a discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Judah ben Batera. Rabbi Eliezer, as is well-known, is the arch-conservative, never wishing to say anything that he hadn't already heard from his teachers. He accepts the halakhah found in section one, but he doesn't really understand it. After all, the white stripe stands on its own, separate from the colored stripe. So how can spreading into the colored stripe cause the white stripe to be impure? Rabbi Eliezer gives Rabbi Judah permission to answer his question, but only if his answer supports the halakhah found in section one. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that the garment is impure not because of the spreading to the colored stripe but rather because the whole garment could be impure if the nega stays on the white stripe for two weeks. When the sages said \"it effectively spread from one to the other\" they did not mean literally that it can spread. Rather, it spreads in the sense that if the white stripe is impure because the nega remained there for two weeks, the whole garment becomes impure, even the colored stripes. Rabbi Eliezer accepts the answer because it confirms that which the sages said, even though it effectively provides a different reason for why the garment is impure.", + "A spreading that is close [to the original nega is effective] however small it may be. One that is distant [is effective only] if it is of the size of a split bean. And one that reappears [is effective only if it is] of the size of a split bean. This section deals with how large the \"spreading\" must be. If the spreading is right next to the original nega, it can be any size and it will cause the garment to be impure. If the spreading is slightly removed, then the spreading must be the size of a split bean. And if a nega returns to a garment that has already been declared pure must be the size of a split bean for the garment to be made impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses at what point threads become susceptible to negaim.", + "The warp and the woof can contract the uncleanness of negaim immediately. Rabbi Judah says: the warp, only after it has been boiled, but the woof immediately. Because Leviticus 13:48 states, \"in the warp or in the woof of the linen or the wool,\" the rabbis rule that the threads of the warp and woof are susceptible to impurity as soon as they have been woven. Rabbi Judah says that the warp which consists of thinner strands, must be boiled before it is susceptible to negaim. The boiling was done to whiten the threads. The warp is susceptible immediately.", + "And bundles of flax after they have been bleached. After they would remove the flax from where it had been soaking to soften it, they would put it in the oven so that it would become white. Only then is the flax susceptible to negaim.", + "How much must there be in a coil for it to be capable of contracting the uncleanness of negaim? Enough to weave from it a piece of three fingerbreadths square, either warp or woof, even if it is all warp or all woof. For the coil of strings to be susceptible to negaim there must be enough thread to make a garment that is three fingerbreadths square. Even if all of the threads are either warp or woof, as long as there is enough to make three fingerbreadths of cloth, it is susceptible.", + "If it consisted of broken threads it does not contract the uncleanness of negaim. Rabbi Judah says: even if the thread was broken only in one place, and he knotted together, it does not contract the uncleanness of negaim. If the bundle was made of broken threads, then it is not susceptible, assumedly because these are not so usable. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient. Even if the thread was broken in only one place, and then it was tied back together, it is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "One who winds [a thread] from one coil to another, or from one spool to another, or from the upper beam to the lower beam, and so also in the case of the two sides of a shirt, if a nega appears on the one, the other remains clean. If one winds a thread from one coil to another, and a nega appears on one coil, the other is still clean. The same is true if a thread connects two spools or the upper and lower beams of a loom. Shirts were made by sewing together two sides. If a thread connects the two sides, and one side is impure through a nega, the other side remains clean. In other words, in all of these cases, a thread does not serve to connect the two items at hand.", + "If it appears on the shedded woof or on the standing warp, they become susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim immediately. Rabbi Shimon says: the warp may contract uncleanness only if it is closely ordered. The \"shedded woof\" refers to the woof threads that have already been woven into the warp but have not yet been straightened and tightened together. The \"standing warp\" are the threads that lie on the loom and wait for the woof. According to the first opinion, these threads are now susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says that the threads must be closely ordered before they are susceptible to uncleanness." + ], + [ + "[If a nega] appeared on the standing warp, the already woven cloth remains clean. If it appeared on the already woven cloth, the standing warp remains clean. The standing warp refers to the threads that are still on the loom. If the nega appears there, only they are impure the cloth that has already been woven remains pure. The same is true in the opposite scenario if the nega appears on the cloth, the warp that is on the loom remains pure.", + "If it appeared on a sheet, he must also burn the fringes. If it appeared on the fringes the sheet remains clean. The fringes are the strings that protrude from the sheet. If the nega appears on the sheet, the fringes must be burned along with the sheet. However, the opposite is not true if the nega appears on the fringes, the sheet remains clean.", + "A shirt on which a nega appeared affords protection to its hems, even though they are of purple wool. If a shirt is impure because of a nega, the hems that are around the shirt remain clean, even if they are made of purple wool which is susceptible to impurity (although only because it is wool as we learned earlier, dyed clothing is not susceptible)." + ], + [ + "Any object that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, though not susceptible to midras uncleanness, is still susceptible to negaim uncleanness. There are objects that are susceptible to corpse uncleanness, but not to midras uncleanness (the type of uncleanness conveyed by sitting, leaning or laying upon an object). For an item to be susceptible to nega uncleanness it need not be susceptible to midras uncleanness, meaning it need not be something that is meant to be sat, laid or leaned upon. It is sufficient for it to be susceptible to corpse uncleanness. Of course, this only refers to items made of wool or linen.", + "For instance: the sail of a ship, a curtain, the forehead band of a hair-net, the wrappings of scrolls, a coiled belt, the straps of a shoe or sandal that are at least as wide as a split bean, Behold these are susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim. This is a list of objects that are not subject to midras uncleanness and yet are subject to corpse uncleanness and therefore are also subject to nega uncleanness.", + "A thick cloak on which a nega appeared: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: unless it appears on the texture and on the stuffing. The thick cloak referred to here is made of wool and its inside is full of used pieces of cloth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that for it to be unclean it must have a nega on both the inside stuffing and the outside.", + "A skin bottle or a shepherd's leather wallet are inspected in the position in which they are used, and a nega may effectively spread from its inner side to its outer side and from its outer side to its inner side. One can inspect both a skin bottle (used to carry wine or water) and a shepherd's leather wallet (also used to carry water, see Kelim 24:1) without undoing the stitching. This is what it means that they are \"inspected in the position in which they are used.\" And a nega that is originally found either inside or outside can effectively spread to the opposite side." + ], + [ + "If a garment that had been isolated was mixed up with others, all are clean.
If it was cut up and made into shreds, it is clean, and benefit may be derived from it.
But if a garment that had been certified unclean was mixed up with others, all are unclean.
If it was cut up and made into shreds it also remains unclean and it is forbidden to have any benefit from it.
Today's mishnah, the last mishnah about garment-negaim, deals with some differences in the status between a garment that has been isolated to see if an impure nega develops, and a garment that has already been declared impure.
Section one: The garment that was isolated is considered to be \"doubtfully impure.\" And since we don't know which of the garments was the one that was isolated, they are all \"doubly doubtful.\" And in cases of \"double doubts\" the law is lenient therefore all of the garments are pure. [We should note that the rabbis loved to talk about this subject cases where the status of something was doubtful].
Section two: The garment that was isolated was then cut up into small pieces. These pieces are too small to become impure, therefore they are pure and benefit may be derived from them.
Sections three and four: In these cases, the garment was certainly impure. Therefore, the law is the opposite. All of the mixed up garments are unclean and it would be forbidden to derive benefit from any of them." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter Twelve deals with negaim that are found in houses. This is referred to in Leviticus 14:33-53.\nThe first mishnah of the chapter deals with which types of houses are susceptible to negaim. It is similar to the first mishnah of chapter eleven.", + "All houses may contract negaim uncleanness, except those of non-Jews. As was the case with garment-negaim, only houses owned by Jews are susceptible to negaim.", + "If one bought houses from non-Jews, any it must be inspected as if they had then first appeared. If a Jew buys a house from a non-Jew and it has a nega, the inspection procedure begins anew, as it would if the nega had just appeared.", + "A round house, a triangular house, or a house built on a ship, on a raft or on four beams, is not susceptible to negaim uncleanness. Only square houses that are built on the ground are susceptible to impurity. A \"house built on beams\" refers to a house that is built on beams that jut out from another building. Such a house does not directly rest on the ground and therefore is not susceptible to impurity.", + "But if it was four-sided, even if it was built on four pillars, it is susceptible to uncleanness. However, four-sided houses are susceptible even if they are built on pillars that come out of the ground. In other words, the house does not have to be built directly on the ground. It can be built on another structure (but not a building) that comes out of the ground." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last line of this mishnah is the key to understanding it for a house to be susceptible to impurity it must have stones, wood and earth. Based on partially on that principle, the mishnah lists what material must be in houses for it to be susceptible to nega impurity.", + "A house, one of whose walls was covered with marble, with rock, with bricks or with earth, is pure. The only building material that is susceptible to house negaim is: wood, stones (formed from rocks) and clumps of earth used to cement the parts together. Marble, rocks and bricks are not susceptible, and therefore even if only one of the walls is made from such material, the whole house is not susceptible.", + "A house that did not have in it stones, wood or earth, and a nega appeared in it and afterwards stones, wood and earth were brought into it, it remains clean. If even one of the four walls of the house was originally made of material that was not susceptible to impurity and then a nega appeared, and then the susceptible material was added to the wall, the house remains pure. In other words, if the nega appeared in a house that was not susceptible, and then the house became susceptible, it remains pure.", + "So also a garment in which there was no woven part that was three fingerbreadths square and a nega appeared in it and afterwards there was woven into it a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square, it remains clean. This is the same rule but in connection with a garment. A garment must be at least three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths to be susceptible to impurity. So if the nega appeared in the garment before it was large enough to be susceptible, it remains pure even if its size is increased. We should note that negaim are the one type of impurity that remain in/on something. All other impurity is contracted by some sort of contact with something from the outside world.", + "A house does is not susceptible to negaim uncleanness unless there are in it stones, wood and earth. This section is included here as an introduction to tomorrow's mishnah. So stay tuned!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how large the nega must be for it to be a sign of impurity.", + "And how many stones must there be in it [for it to be susceptible to negaim]? Rabbi Ishmael says: four. Rabbi Akiva says: eight. Rabbi Ishmael says that there must be four stones in the house, at least one for each wall, in order for the house to be susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Akiva says that there must be two stones in each wall.", + "For Rabbi Ishmael used to say: a nega is not a cause of uncleanness unless it appeared in the size of two split beans on two stones or on one stone. Rabbi Ishmael says that the nega must be at least the size of two split beans, but it need not be in two stones. Since it is sufficient for the nega to be on one stone, each wall has to have only one stone for the house to be susceptible.", + "Rabbi Akiva say: unless it appears in the size of two split beans on two stones, and not on one stone. Rabbi Akiva says that the nega must appear on two stones. Therefore, there needs to be two stones in each wall.", + "Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says: unless it appears in the size of two split beans, on two stones, on two walls in a corner, Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says that the nega must appear on two stones, but each of the two stones must be on a different wall, such that the nega appears in the corner. If the nega appears on one stone on one wall, the house is still pure.", + "Its length being that of two split beans and its breadth that of one split bean. This section is everyone's opinion. All sages agree that the nega must be at least the length of two split beans (which according to my math, makes one full bean!) but that its breadth need only be one split bean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how much wood and earth must be in the wall for it to be susceptible to impurity.", + "[And how much] wood [must be in the wall for it to susceptible]? Enough to be set under the lintel. Rabbi Judah says: it must suffice to make the support at the back of the lintel. According to the first opinion, there needs to be enough wood on each house to be used under the lintel. The Rambam explains that this wood is used to support the stone lintel while it is being built. Rabbi Judah says that there must be enough to support the back of the lintel. This was used to keep the lintel straight.", + "[And how much] earth [must be in the wall for it to susceptible]? Such as would suffice to fill up the space between one row of stones and another. There also must be enough earth to fill up the space between two rows of stones.", + "The walls of a cattle-trough or the walls of a partition are not susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim. The walls must be of living quarters for them to be susceptible to impurity. The walls of a cattle-trough used to feed cattle are not susceptible to negaim. Similarly, walls used to partition off rooms of a house are not susceptible.", + "A house in Jerusalem or in any place outside the land of Israel is not susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim. Leviticus 14:34 states, \"In the land of your possession.\" According to the rabbis, this means that houses in Jerusalem, which was not part of any tribe's possession, are not susceptible. Houses outside the land of Israel are also not susceptible because they too are not part of Israel's ancestral possession." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOstensibly, this mishnah deals with the procedure in which a house is inspected for negaim. However, most of the mishnah actually inteprets a few biblical verses that discuss this procedure.", + "What is the procedure for the inspection of a house? \"The owner of the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, \"Something like a plague has appeared upon my house\" (Leviticus 14:35). Even if he is a learned sage and knows that it is definitely a nega, he may not speak with certainty saying, \"A plague has appeared upon my house,\" but rather, \"Something like a plague has appeared upon my house.\" Leviticus 14:35 contains a curious phrase \"Something like a plague\" as opposed to simply \"a plague.\" The mishnah emphasizes that this phrase must be recited. Even if the resident is a sage, and knows that what has appeared in his house is indeed a nega, he must still come to the priest and say \"something like a plague.\"", + "\"The priest shall order the house cleared before the priest enters to examine the plague, so that nothing in the house may become unclean; after that the priest shall enter to examine the house.\" Even bundles of wood and even bundles of reeds [must be removed], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon said: clearing keeps him occupied. The Torah dictates that everything must be cleared from the house before the priest examines it. This prevents anything in the house from becoming unclean. Rabbi Judah interprets since the Torah says that \"everything\" must be removed, even things that are not susceptible to impurity, like bundles of wood and reeds, must be cleared from the house. Rabbi Shimon says that there is no real reason to clear out bundles of wood and reeds from the house since they can't become impure. The purpose is not to protect their purity. Rather it is to keep the owner busy clearing out his house, for perhaps the nega will disappear while he is in the process of doing so. We can see here that the rabbis pick up on the cues that the Torah itself gives it is desirable to preserve the purity of the items in the house as much as possible.", + "Rabbi Meir said: But which [of his goods] could become unclean? If you were to say, his articles of wood, of cloth or of metal, he could immerse them and they will become clean. What is it that the Torah has spared? His earthenware, even his cruse and his bucket. If the Torah thus spared a man's humble possessions, how much more so would it spare his cherished possessions! If for his material possessions, how much more so for the life of his sons and daughters! If for the possessions of a wicked man, how much more so for the possessions of a righteous one! Rabbi Meir again asks what items is the Torah referring to when it says that everything must be cleared from the house? If it is anything made of wood, cloth or metal, even if it becomes impure, it can be cleansed by immersion in a mikveh. So what exactly is it that the Torah is protecting? The answer is that it is protecting earthenware vessels, which are the cheapest, most dispensable type of vessels. Now, if the Torah goes so far out of its way to protect such small, not particularly valuable items, all the more so the Torah is concerned with protecting a person from larger financial loss. And if the Torah is concerned with financial loss, all the more so it is concerned with the loss of life, which is obviously much more valuable. And according to the rabbis, negaim are a result of \"lashon hara\" the evil tongue. Negaim, according to rabbinic thought, afflict those who are morally corrupt. Nevertheless, the Torah offers protection to the afflicted person's possessions. And if the Torah protects the possessions of a wicked person, all the more so it will protect the possessions of a righteous person." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with the procedure of inspecting and declaring impure a house in which a nega has been found.", + "[The priest] must not go into his own house to isolate it, nor may he stand within the house in which there is a nega. Rather, he must stand at the door of the house in which is there is a nega, and isolate it from there, as it is said, \"The priest shall come out of the house to the entrance of the house, and close up the house for seven days\" (Leviticus 14:38). The priest's pronunciation that the house should be isolated to see if the nega spreads is done from outside the house. This is stated quite clearly in Leviticus 14:38.", + "He comes again at the end of the week and inspects the sign to see if it spread. After the first week of isolation, the priest comes back to see if the nega spread or disappeared.", + "\"The priest shall order the stones with the plague in them to be pulled out and cast outside the city into an unclean place\" (v. 40). If the nega has spread, the priest orders the stones that have the plague on them to be removed and cast out of the city.", + "\"They shall take other stones and replace those stones with them, and take other dirt and plaster the house\" (v. 42). He must not take stones from the one side and bring them to the other; nor earth from the one side and bring it to the other; nor lime from anywhere. He must not bring one stone to replace two, nor two to replace one. But he can bring two to replace two or to replace three or to replace four. Then they replace the stones and plaster the house. The mishnah explains that these other stones must be from outside the house. Furthermore, since the Torah says that he should take \"dirt\" he may not use plaster in coating the house. He also can't bring one large stone to replace two, nor two smaller stones to replace one. However, he can bring two stones to replace three.", + "From here they have said: Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor. Both must take out the stones, both must scrape the walls, and both must bring the new stones. The Torah's verbs and nouns in this section are mostly in the plural. From here the rabbis learn that if a shared wall is contaminated with a nega, the neighbor on the opposite side of the wall must also remove the stones from his side of the wall, even though that side was not affected. There is also a moral lesson to be derived here. Since the rabbis believe that negaim come as a punishment for the evil tongue, they can add \"woe to the neighbor\" of such a person. Slander and gossip negatively affect one's community, and this is ritually symbolized by the requirement that the neighbor of a person affected by a nega must also remove his stones.", + "He alone, however, brings the earth, as it is said, \"And he shall take other coating and plaster the house.\" His neighbor need not join with him in the plastering. The verb for plastering the house is in the singular. Therefore, when it comes to that action, only the person whose house has been directly affected performs it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last mishnah of chapter twelve concludes the discussion of the procedure of declaring a house unclean due to a nega.", + "He comes again at the end of the week and inspects the nega. After the end of the second week, the priest returns to the house to see if the nega has returned. Remember, the affected stones were removed at the end of the first week.", + "If it has returned, \"He shall break down the house, its stones, and its timber, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them out of the city into an unclean place\" (Leviticus 14:45). If the nega has returned, then the whole house is condemned.", + "A spreading that adjoins [the original nega] is effective however small it may be; One that is distant must be no less than the size of a split bean. If at the end of the first week of isolation the nega has spread, the priest removes only the affected stones, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. Here we learn that if it spread adjacent to the original nega, the spreading does not have to be of any minimum size. Any spreading is sufficient to mandate the removal of the stones. However, if the nega appears elsewhere in the house, the spreading must be the size of a split bean.", + "And a nega that returns in houses must be no less than the size of two split beans. If after the originally affected stones are removed the nega returns (in the second week), the renewed nega must be the size of two split beans for there to be a requirement to tear down the entire house." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nI bet you are excited to learn that chapter thirteen continues to discuss negaim that afflict houses!", + "This mishnah goes through the entire procedure of inspecting houses for a nega and categorizes them into ten different situations.", + "There are ten [laws concerning the negaim in] houses:
(1 + 2) If during the first week a nega became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and is then clean. These are the first two laws concerning affected houses. If the nega grows fainter or disappears entirely during the first week, then all he must do is scrape the place where the nega was and the house is clean.", + "(3 + 4) If during the second week it became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and the owner must bring the birds. If it grows faint or disappears after the second week, he needs to scrape the stones, but in this case he also has to bring bird sacrifice (see Leviticus 14:49).", + "If it spread during the first week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. (5) If it then returned the entire house must be pulled down; (6)If it did not return, the birds must be brought. If it spread during the first week, he must remove the affected stones as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. If the nega returns, then the house must be torn down. This is situation 5. If it doesn't return, then he must still bring the bird sacrifices (situation 6).", + "If it remained unchanged during the first week but spread during the second week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. (7) If it then returned, the house must be pulled down; (8) If it did not return the birds must be brought. This section addresses a scenario we have not yet talked about. If the nega doesn't spread during the first week, then he doesn't need to scrape the stones clean at the end of that week. The isolation continues and then it spreads during the second week. In this case, another week is given. Otherwise, this is the same as section three. We are now through 8 types.", + "If it remained unchanged in both weeks, the stones must be taken out, and the wall scraped and plastered, and a week must be allowed. (9) If it then returned the house must be pulled down; (10) If it did not return, the birds must be brought. Now we learn the rule if the nega remains unchanged through two full weeks. Although it did not spread, since it still remained, the affected stones are removed. Following this, the procedure is the same as above. If it returns, the house is torn down, if not only sacrificial birds must be brought.", + "If before cleanness was attained through the birds a new nega appeared, the house must be pulled down; But if it appeared after cleanness through the birds had been attained, it must be inspected as if it had appeared for the first time. If the house is clean but before sacrificial birds are brought a new nega appears, it counts as a return of the old nega and the house must be torn down. If however, the birds are sacrificed and then the nega appears, it counts as a new nega, and the whole procedure begins again." + ], + [ + "In the case of a stone in a corner, when the stone is taken out it, he must take it all out; But when [the house is] torn down he tears down his own [part] and leaves that which belongs to his neighbor. Thus it follows that there is a greater stringency for taking out than for tearing down. The stone at the corner of a wall is a large stone shared by two houses. If one side is afflicted with a nega and he has to remove that stone only, he takes out both sides of the stone, even though the side that is in his neighbor's house does not have a nega. However, if the law mandates that his whole house be torn down, then he need not remove both sides of the stone. An explanation for this would seem to be that when the Torah mandates the removal of the stone, the whole stone must be removed. But if it mandates tearing down the house, only the house must be torn down. The side that is on his neighbor's side need not be torn down. We should note that this same rule applies to other stones shared by both houses. It only uses the example of the cornerstone because this would have been common.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: if a house is built of rows of head stones and small stones, and a nega appears on a head stone, all of it must be taken out; but if it appeared on the small stones, he takes out his stones and leaves the others. Albeck explains that the walls of their houses would have stones with \"heads\" that jut out on both sides of the wall. Between the \"head stones\" would be other stones that are also visible from both sides of the house. However, these stones would go into the wall and be subsumed inside the head stones. If the nega appears on the head stones, all of the stone must be removed. Similarly, if he has to tear down the house, all of the head stone must be torn down. However, if it occurs on one of the small stones, he only needs to remove his own side; the stone on the other person's side need not be removed." + ], + [ + "A house in which a nega appeared if it had an upper chamber above it, the beams are considered part of the upper chamber. The beams referred to hold up the ceiling of the bottom floor, which is the floor of the upper story. If the nega appears in the lower story, he need not tear down these beams. Rather, he can leave them and prop them up temporarily in order to use them to rebuild the house.", + "If the nega appeared in the upper chamber the beams are considered part of the lower room. If the nega appeared in the upper chamber, he can consider the beams as part of the bottom story and leave them there. We see that the rule is lenient in both cases.", + "If there was no upper chamber above it, its stones and wood and earth must be torn down with it. He may save the frames and the window lattices. Rabbi Judah says: a frame that is built over the house must be torn down with it. This is the standard rule with regard to tearing down the house. He must tear down all of the stone, woods and earth parts of the house, even if they were not afflicted with a nega. In this case, because there is no upper chamber, the beams used as part of the ceiling can only be considered part of the house, therefore they too must be torn down. He may save the frames of the doors and the windows and the window lattices. Assumedly, he can use these in rebuilding the house. Rabbi Judah says that if there is a square frame that is built over the house, it is considered part of the house and it too must be torn down.", + "Its stones and wood and earth convey uncleanness if they are of the minimum size of an olive. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: whatever their size. The stone, wood and earth that have been removed from the house are ritually unclean. They convey uncleanness if there is a minimum amount the size of an olive, the typical amount required to convey ritual uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma rules more stringently. It doesn't matter how little there is it ritually defiles even if there is the smallest amount." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the impurity of the afflicted house.", + "A house that has been isolated conveys uncleanness from its inside; Someone who touches the inside of a house that has been isolated is impure, even if he doesn't go into the house. However, if he touches the outside, he remains pure.", + "And one that has been certified unclean, both from its inside and from its outside. A house which is certified unclean also conveys uncleanness from its outside.", + "Both convey uncleanness if one enters in. In both cases, if one enters the house he is unclean, even if he doesn't touch the walls of the house (see Leviticus 14:46)." + ], + [ + "If one who builds in cleanliness with stones from a house that was isolated and the nega returned to the [former] house, the stones must be taken out. The stones were taken out of a house that was isolated and then used to build a clean house elsewhere. If the nega returns to the former house, the stones in the new house are still considered part of the afflicted house and therefore they must be removed from the new house and discarded.", + "If it returned to the stones, the first house must be torn down, and the stones serve the second house while the signs are under observation. If the nega reappears in the stones themselves, then the first house must still be torn down, as if the nega returned to the house itself. The second house now begins the process of a house afflicted by a nega. The stones remain in the house and they serve as the basis to see if the nega spreads at the end of the second week." + ], + [ + "If a house overshadowed a house with a nega and so also if a tree overshadowed a house with a nega, anyone who enters the outer [of the two] remains clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. This mishnah discusses a house that overshadows another house with a nega or a tree that overshadows a house with a nega. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah one who enters the outer house or goes under the tree, meaning the structure that overshadows, is not impure.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said: if one stone of it causes uncleanness by entering, should not the house itself cause uncleanness by entering? Rabbi Eliezer disagrees, drawing a sort of \"a fortiori\" argument. If the impurity of an afflicted house is strong enough that if one enters the house he is impure, then all the more so it should cause one who enters an \"ohel,\" an overshadowing structure, to be impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah we discussed the topic of \"overhanging (ohel)\" in connection with a house that has a nega. Today's mishnah deals with impurity conveyed by overhanging in connection with a person that has a nega.", + "If an unclean person stood under a tree and a clean person passed by, the latter becomes unclean. The unclean person has a nega and has either been isolated or declared unclean. He stands under a tree and a clean person passes under the tree without stopping. Despite the fact that he didn't stop, the clean person is defiled.", + "If a clean person stood under a tree and an unclean one passed by, the former remains clean. However, if a clean person stands and the unclean person passes under the tree without stopping, the clean person remains clean. This is a special rule with regard to those who have a nega he only conveys impurity if he stops or sits under the ohel (the tree). See next section.", + "If the latter stood still, the former becomes unclean. As stated above, if the unclean person stands under the tree and the clean person is standing there at the same time, the uncleanness is conveyed to the clean person by the overshadowing tree. This halakhah is derived from Leviticus 13:46 which states, \"Outside of the camp shall be his sitting place\" according to rabbinici interpretation he must \"sit\" or at least stop moving, for him to convey uncleanness through overshadowing.", + "Similarly in the case of a leprous stone he remains clean. But if it was set down he becomes unclean. The same rules as above apply to a stone that has been removed from a building because it has a nega in it. If the stone is carried by a person who is moving, it does not convey uncleanness. But once it has been set down, it does convey uncleanness." + ], + [ + "If a person who was clean put his head and the greater part of his body inside an unclean house, he becomes unclean. For the clean person to become unclean by entering a house afflicted with a nega he must enter his head and the greater part of his body.", + "And if an unclean man put his head and the greater part of his body inside a clean house he causes it to be unclean. Similarly, for an unclean person to defile the contents of a house through overshadowing, he must enter his head and the greater part of his body.", + "If he put three fingerbreadths square of a clean cloak into an unclean house, the cloak becomes unclean; A piece of cloth smaller than three by three fingerbreadths is not susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if he puts at least this much of a cloak into an impure house, it becomes impure.", + "And if he put even the size of an olive of an unclean [cloak] into a clean house, the house becomes unclean. However, to convey impurity the piece of cloth need not be three by three fingerbreadths a piece the size of an olive is sufficient. Therefore, all he has to do is put a piece of the impure cloak the size of an olive into the house and it will defile the contents through overhanging." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that with regard to the time it take to become defiled there is a distinction between clothes carried into a house afflicted with a nega and clothes worn into such a house.", + "If a person entered a house afflicted with a nega, carrying his clothes upon his shoulders, and his sandals and rings in his hands, both he and they become unclean immediately. In this case, since he wasn't wearing the clothes, shoes or jewelry, they are considered to be vessels which are brought into a house. They become impure immediately upon entrance to the house.", + "If, however, he was wearing his clothes and had his sandals on his feet and his rings on his hands, he becomes unclean immediately, but they remain clean, unless he stayed as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf of wheat bread and not of barley bread, while in a reclining posture and eating with some condiment. However, if he is wearing his clothes, shoes or jewelry, they must be in the house for as long as it would take to eat half a loaf of wheat bread with some sort of condiment/dip, and while reclining (concerning this amount see Eruvin 8:2). This is derived from Leviticus 14:47 which states: \"Whoever sleeps in the house must wash his clothes, and whoever eats in the house must wash his clothes.\" For his clothes to be impure he need not actually eat or sleep in the house. Rather he must be there long enough so that he could eat a minimum measure of a meal, which is considered to be half a loaf of bread." + ], + [ + "If he was standing inside, and he stretched his hands outside, with his rings on his hands, if he stayed [inside] as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf, they become unclean.
If he was standing outside, stretching his hands inside, with his rings on his hands: Rabbi Judah says that they are unclean immediately, But the sages say: only after he leaves them there as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf.
They said to Rabbi Judah: if when all his body is unclean he does not render that which is on him unclean unless he stayed there long enough to eat half a loaf, when all of his body is not unclean, is it not logical that he should not render that which is on him unclean unless he stayed there long enough to eat half a loaf?
Today's mishnah continues yesterday's topic: how long does it take for things which he wears to become impure in a house afflicted by a nega.
Section one: The person himself is impure immediately upon entering the house afflicted by the nega. The rings on his hands become impure even though they are outside the house. This is because his hands are part of his body and it is as if they are inside the house. However, the rings don't become impure until he stays in the house the amount of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. This is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah.
Section two: In this case he stands outside and remains pure (because his head and body didn't enter the house see mishnah 8), but he stretches his hands inside while wearing his rings. Rabbi Judah says that this is like the situation of simply bringing rings into a house. As we saw in yesterday's mishnah, in such a case, the rings are impure immediately.
The other rabbis hold that the rings must stay in the house for at least the length of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. They argue that in section one, where his entire body was impure, the rings had to stay on his fingers (although they were outside of the house) for at least that amount of time. All the more so, if his body remains pure, the rings must be in the house for at least the amount of time it takes to eat half of a loaf of bread." + ], + [ + "If a metzora entered a house all the vessels in it, even up to the roof beams, become unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: only up to a height of four cubits. A \"metzora\" is a person who has a nega. If he/she should enter a house, all of the vessels in the house are defiled. According to the first opinion, this includes even vessels that are placed high in the house, close to the roof beams. Rabbi Shimon says that the impurity only reaches as high as the height of an average person when he stretches his hands up. This is estimated to be 4 cubits (about 2 meters high). Above that is another domain and therefore any vessels found close to the roof beams remain pure.", + "Vessels become unclean immediately. Rabbi Judah says: only if the metzora stayed there as much time as is required for the lighting of a lamp. According to the first opinion, as soon as a metzora enters a house, he immediately defiles all of the vessels therein. Rabbi Judah says that he must remain there the time that it takes to light a lamp. According to the Tosefta this only refers to a metzora who enters his friend's house without permission. In such a case, the vessels there are impure only if he stays long enough to light a lamp (at which point his friend, if he was there could tell him to leave?). But if a metzora enters his own house, or someone else's with permission, the vessels are defiled immediately." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter thirteen continues to deal with the status of vessels in a house into which a metzora has entered.", + "If he enters a synagogue, a partition ten handbreadths high and four cubits wide must be made for him. If a metzora enters a synagogue, they must make for him a partition (a mehitzah) ten handbreadths high to keep him from defiling the other people in the synagogue. It is interesting how lenient this law is. The Torah states that a metzora should be sent out of the camp (see Leviticus 13). In contrast, the rabbis assume that a metzora could enter a synagogue and the only thing that needs to be done is for a partition to be made for him. Perhaps we can sense here some hesitance on the part of the rabbis to isolate a metzora from their community (even if these rules are only theoretical).", + "He should enter first and come out last. He should go in to the synagogue first so that he doesn't defile anybody before he arrives at his partitioned off spot. He should also go out last so that he doesn't defile anyone when leaving that spot.", + "Any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection by a tightly fitting cover in the house of one afflicted by a nega, And whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega, the words of Rabbi Meir. In Tractate Kelim we learned that there are vessels that protect their contents from becoming impure when found in a tent with a corpse if they have a tightly-fitting cover (see 10:1). According to Rabbi Meir these same vessels protect their contents from becoming impure in a metzora's house, as long as they have a tightly-fitting lid. And there are some cases where something needs only to be covered for it to protect its contents. It does not need a tightly-fitting lid. According to Rabbi Meir if something is protected by being covered in a tent of corpse, it is also protected by being covered in the house of a metzora. In short, the same rules that apply in the tent of a corpse apply in the house of a metzora.", + "Rabbi Yose says: any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega; and whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse remains clean even when uncovered in a leprous house. Rabbi Yose rules more leniently. If a vessel's contents are protected by a tightly-fitting lid in the tent of a corpse, they only need to be covered to afford protection in the house of a metzora. And if a vessel's contents are protected with any type of cover in the tent of corpse, then the vessel doesn't need to be covered at all for its contents to be protected in the house of a metzora. In other words, each rule is slightly more lenient in the house of a metzora than it is the tent of a corpse." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe final chapter of Negaim deals with the purification of the metzora.\nToday's mishnah is basically a summary of Leviticus 14:1-7:\n1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 This shall be the ritual for a leper at the time that he is to be cleansed. When it has been reported to the priest, 3 the priest shall go outside the camp. If the priest sees that the leper has been healed of his scaly affection, 4 the priest shall order two live clean birds, cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop to be brought for him who is to be cleansed. 5 The priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered over fresh water in an earthen vessel; 6 and he shall take the live bird, along with the cedar wood, the crimson stuff, and the hyssop, and dip them together with the live bird in the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the fresh water. 7 He shall then sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the eruption and cleanse him; and he shall set the live bird free in the open country.", + "How would they purify a metzora?
A new earthenware flask and a quarter of a log of living water was put in it. The new vessel was used to ensure its purity.", + "Two undomesticated birds are also brought. The birds referred to in v. 4 must be wild birds.", + "One of these was slaughtered over the earthenware vessel and over the living water. See v. 5.", + "A hole was dug and it was buried in his presence. The bird was buried so that no one would eat it and no one would think that someone had eaten it. It is forbidden to derive benefit from this bird (see Temurah 7:4).", + "Cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were taken and bound together with the remaining ends of the strip of wool. Near to these were brought the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the second bird. All were dipped together, and sprinkled upon the back of the metzora's hand seven times. Some say that the sprinkling was done upon his forehead. See v. 6. According to the rabbis, the live bird is not bound with the cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool. Rather, it is placed next to them. Then they are all dipped together into the blood of the live bird and sprinkled onto the metzora (v. 7). There is a dispute about whether the blood is sprinkled onto the back of his hand or onto his forehead.", + "In the same manner one would sprinkle on the lintel of a house from the outside. The same process is done for a house that has a nega (see Leviticus 14:51)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues with the purification process. It explains the verses from Leviticus where yesterday's mishnah left off (Leviticus 14:7-8).\n7 He shall then sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the eruption and cleanse him; and he shall set the live bird free in the open field. 8 The one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe in water; then he shall be clean. After that he may enter the camp, but he must remain outside his tent seven days.", + "He now comes to set free the living bird. He does not turn his face towards the sea or towards the city or towards the wilderness, for it is said, \"But he shall let the living bird go out of the city into the open field\" (Leviticus 14:53). Leviticus 14:7 (quoted above) says only that the live bird should be set free in the open field. But 14:53, in connection with the purification of a house, states that the bird should be let out of the city into the open field. The rabbis take this to mean that the priest releasing the bird should look out into an open field, and not into a city, sea or wilderness (desert).", + "He now comes to shave off the hair of the metzora. He passes a razor over the whole of his skin, and he [the metzora] washes his clothes and immerses himself. See v. 8.", + "He is then clean so far as to not convey uncleanness by entrance, but he still conveys uncleanness as does a sheretz. The mishnah clarifies the level of his purity achieved at this point by the metzora. He no longer defiles in the same way that a metzora does by entering a building (see 13:7). However, he still defiles in a lesser way, by contact, as does one who has been defiled by contact with a sheretz (a creepy-crawly thing. See Kelim 1:1). He will achieve complete purity later on, as we shall see.", + "He may enter within the walls [of Jerusalem], but must keep away from his house for seven days, and he is forbidden to have intercourse. The \"camp\" referred to in Leviticus 14:8 is interpreted to be the walls of Jerusalem. He can now enter the \"camp\" but he cannot yet enter his own tent. The rabbis read the word \"tent\" in two ways: 1) he can't enter his home; 2) he can't have relations with his wife. This is not the only case in which the rabbis interpret \"tent\" to refer to a husband's sexual relations with his wife." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah describes the end of the purification process for the metzora. It explicates the following verses:\n9 On the seventh day he shall shave off all his hair of head, beard, and eyebrows. When he has shaved off all his hair, he shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water; then he shall be clean. 10 On the eighth day he shall take two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb in its first year without blemish, three-tenths of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in for a meal offering, and one log of oil. 11 These shall be presented before the Lord, with the man to be cleansed, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, by the priest who performs the cleansing. 12 The priest shall take one of the male lambs and offer it with the log of oil as a guilt offering, and he shall elevate them as an elevation offering before the Lord. 13 The lamb shall be slaughtered at the spot in the sacred area where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered. For the guilt offering, like the sin offering, goes to the priest; it is most holy. 14 The priest shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering, and the priest shall put it on the ridge of the right ear of him who is being cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. 15 The priest shall then take some of the log of oil and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. 16 And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in the palm of his left hand and sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. 17 Some of the oil left in his palm shall be put by the priest on the ridge of the right ear of the one being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot over the blood of the guilt offering. 18 The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed. Thus the priest shall make expiation for him before the Lord. 19 The priest shall then offer the sin offering and make expiation for the one being cleansed of his uncleanness. Last, the burnt offering shall be slaughtered, 20 and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meal offering on the altar, and the priest shall make expiation for him. Then he shall be clean.", + "On the seventh day he shaves off his hair a second time in the manner of the first shaving, he washes his garments and immerses himself. As stated in verse 9.", + "He is clean in so far as not to convey uncleanness as a sheretz, but he was still like a tevul yom. He has now rid himself of impurity. His status is that of a \"tevul yom.\" This is a person who has immersed in a mikveh but the sun has not yet set. While he doesn't defile anything, if he touches terumah or holy things (sacrifices) he disqualifies them (see Kelim 1:5).", + "He may eat second tithe. He may now eat second tithe. Note that anyone can eat first tithe, even one who is completely impure.", + "After sunset he may eat terumah. After the sun sets, he can eat terumah.", + "After he had brought his offering of atonement, he may also eat sacred things. After he brings his sacrifices (described at length in the Torah) he is now fully clean. This is stated in v. 20. He can now eat even sacrifices.", + "Thus there are three grades in the purification of a metzora and three grades in the purification of a woman after child birth. We have now seen three stages of purity: 1) At the beginning of his purification process (mishnah 2), 2) after the second immersion (section two) and 3) after bringing his sacrifices. A woman after childbirth also has three stages of purification. The first is 7 days after the birth of a boy and 14 after the birth of a girl, the second is 40 days after the birth of a boy and 80 after a girl, and once she brings her sacrifices she is completely pure. See Leviticus 12:2-8." + ], + [ + "There are three who must shave their hair, and their shaving of it is a commandment: the nazirite, the metzora, and the Levites. The Torah commands three categories of people to shave their hair. The metzora, whom we have been discussing in the previous mishnayot. The Nazirite at the end of his term of naziriteship. See Numbers 6:18 and Mishnah Nazir 6:7. The Levites when they were first dedicated to service. See Numbers 8:7.", + "If any of these cut their hair but not with a razor, or if they left even two remaining hairs, their act is of no validity. They must all shave their hair with a razor and not cut it with scissors. And if even two hairs are left behind, they have not fulfilled the mitzvah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the two birds that are brought by the metzora. One is slaughtered and its blood is spilled into a bucket and then sprinkled onto the metzora. The other is eventually set free.", + "With regard to the two birds: the commandment is that they be alike in appearance, in size and in price; and they must be purchased at the same time. But even if they are not alike they are valid; And if one was purchased on one day and the other the next they are also valid. Ab initio the two birds must be the same in appearance, size and price and they must be purchased at the same time. However, if the birds are different or not bought on the same day, they are still valid.", + "If after one of the birds had been slaughtered it was found that it was not wild, a partner must be purchased for the second, and the first may be eaten. The birds are supposed to be wild. If after one has been slaughtered it turns out that it was not wild, he can buy a second bird to pair it up with the remaining bird. In other words although one of the birds was not valid, the second bird is still usable. Since the first bird was slaughtered in a kosher manner, it may be eaten.", + "If after it had been slaughtered it was found to terefah, a partner must be purchased for the second and the first may be made use of. Similarly, if the slaughtered bird was found to be a terefah, an animal with a physical flaw such that it is not kosher, they can still buy another bird to go along with the remaining bird. The bird that was already slaughtered can't be eaten because it's not kosher. But use can be made of it, as is always the case with regard to a terefah. In both of these cases, the second bird is still valid because it is retroactively determined that the first bird was not its proper pair. It is as if no first bird had yet even been bought.", + "If the blood had been spilled out, the bird that was to be let go must be left to die. If the one that was to be let go died, the blood must be spilled out. If the blood of the slaughtered bird spilled out and didn't go into the earthenware vessel, the second bird cannot be used. This is because the first bird was a proper pair, its blood just wasn't dealt with correctly. The second bird must be left to die, because no benefit may be derived from it. Similarly, if the second bird dies after the first bird has already been slaughtered, the blood of the first bird cannot be used. It must be spilled out." + ], + [ + "The mitzvah of the cedarwood is for it to be one cubit in length, and in thickness a quarter of that of the leg of a bed, when one leg is divided into two halves and these two into four. The piece of cedarwood used in sprinkling the blood on the metzora must be one cubit long. It must be as thick as a quarter of the leg of a bed. It seems that people would know approximately how thick the leg of a bed is. The mishnah even describes actually dividing the leg of a bed into four parts in order to determine how thick the cedarwood can be.", + "The mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should be neither ezovyon ( nor blue hyssop nor Roman hyssop nor wild hyssop nor any kind of hyssop that has an accompanying name. The hyssop must be plain old hyssop (zatar in Arabic and by extension, modern Hebrew). Any hyssop that has an accompanying or modifying name should not be used." + ], + [ + "On the eighth day he would bring three beasts: a sin-offering, a guilt-offering and a whole burnt-offering. These are the sacrifices clearly outlined in Leviticus 14:10ff. The first section refers to the standard offering. A person who is not poor would bring two lambs and one ewe.", + "And a poor man would bring a sin-offering of a bird and a burnt-offering of a bird. The Torah states that a poor person can bring a sin-offering and a burnt-offering of a bird. The guilt-offering must still be a lamb." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to describe the process of the metzora bringing his offerings.", + "He comes to the guilt-offering and he puts his two hands on it. The metzora first comes to his guilt-offering and lays his hands on it, as is done with most sacrifices. The guilt-offering is located at Nikanor's gate, as we will see in section six.", + "He then slaughters it. Either a priest or an Israelite can slaughter the offering.", + "Two priests receive its blood, one in a vessel and the other in his hand. He who received it in the vessel proceeded to sprinkle it on the wall of the altar. The one who received it in his hand would approach the metzora. The blood would then be drained out into two vessels held by priests (Israelites can't do this). The blood in one vessel is sprinkled onto the altar, which is the typical action with a guilt offering. The blood of the other vessel will be put onto the metzora, so the priest goes to the area where the metzora was standing.", + "The metzora had in the meantime immersed himself in the chamber of the metzoraim. He would come and stand at the Nikanor gate. Rabbi Judah says: he did not require immersion. While the sacrifice was being slaughtered and then its blood being received, the metzora would immerse himself in the chamber designated for the metzoraim. This was located in the Women's Court (see Middot 2:5). He would then come and stand at the Nikanor Gate which was on the eastern side of the Women's Court (see Middot 1:4). Tomorrow's mishnah will pick up with the continuing action. Rabbi Judah notes that he does not need to immerse because he immersed the previous evening (see mishnah three)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe blood of the guilt offering is now applied to the metzora's ear, thumb and big toe. However there is a problem the metzora can't enter the Israelite's court for someone who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices can't enter there (see Kelim 1:8). And the blood can't be brought out of the court. So how can the blood be applied to the metzora? Our mishnah answer this puzzle!", + "[The metzora] put in his head inside and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the tip of his ear; [He put in] his hand and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the thumb of his hand. [He put in] his foot and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the big toe of his foot. Rabbi Judah says: he put in all three at the same time. You put your ear in, you get the blood on [and you shake it all about]. Sorry, I couldn't help that one. Basically, the mishnah resolves the problem by saying that he can put parts of his body into the Temple courtyard without transgressing the prohibition of entering. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient. He can put his ear, hand and foot in at the same time. Sounds a bit tough to me, but I guess it would save some time.", + "If he had no thumb on his hand or no big toe on his foot or no right ear he could never become clean. Rabbi Eliezer says: [the blood] is applied to the place where they were. Rabbi Shimon says: if he applied it to the left side, the obligation has been fulfilled. There are three opinions as to what to do if he is missing any of these appendages. According to the first opinion, he simply cannot perform the mitzvah and therefore he can never become fully clean. As unfair as this sounds, the author of this opinion would simply answer that the Torah demands that the conditions be fulfilled. If they cannot, then there is no way to cleanse the metzora. Rabbi Eliezer finds a solution in applying the blood to the place on the body where the ear, thumb or toe was (or at least should be). I don't know how this would work for a person whose entire arm or leg had been amputated. Rabbi Shimon says that he can apply the blood to the left side. This would only be a solution if the person had a left ear, thumb or big toe. It's unclear how Rabbi Shimon would rule if these were missing as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah explains the following verses from Leviticus 14:\n26 The priest shall then pour some of the oil into the palm of the priest's left hand, 27 and with the finger of his right hand the priest shall sprinkle some of the oil that is in the palm of his left hand seven times before the Lord. 28 Some of the oil in his palm shall be put by the priest on the ridge of the right ear of the one being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord.", + "[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. Verse 26 seems to imply that the priest should pour some oil onto another priest's hand. That is why the verse says \"into the palm of the priest's left hand.\" The Torah would not repeat the word \"priest\" if it didn't mean another priest. However, since the word \"priest\" may refer to the original priest, the mishnah states that if he pours it into his own hand, he has fulfilled the obligation (this also seems to be the simple interpretation of the verse).", + "He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. The mishnah clarifies that every time he sprinkles the oil, he dips his finger in his palm again.", + "He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, \"Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord.\" (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he \"put upon,\" he has made atonement, but if he did not \"put upon,\" he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he \"put upon\" or did not \"put upon,\" atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. See verse 28.", + "If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew. The end of verse 29 reads, \"to make expiation for him before the Lord.\" According to Rabbi Akiva this means that if he doesn't put the oil on the meztora's head he has not fulfilled the mitzvah and the metzora has not achieved atonement. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri points to the word \"and what is left\" with which the sentence begins. Putting the oil on the metzora's head is only the \"leftover\" part of the mitzvah and atonement can be achieved even without doing so. However, if he doesn't fulfill this \"remainder\" part of the mitzvah, the verse treats him as if he didn't achieve atonement at all. In other words, he should put it on the metzora's head, but if he doesn't the metzora is atoned for.", + "The priest takes from the log (a measure of oil) and pours it into his hand and then applies it to the metzora. The rabbis ask the question: up until what point must there be a full log of oil in the flask? According to Rabbi Akiva, as long as there is a full log before he pours it into his hand, he has fulfilled the mitzvah. If there is less after this point, he need not fill up the measure. Rabbi Shimon says that the full log must be there until he puts the oil onto the metzora. If the measure is diminished after this point, it need not be filled up." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe type of animal that the metzora brings for his guilt and whole burnt offering depend on whether he is rich or poor. If he is rich he brings lambs and if he is poor he can bring birds. Our mishnah discusses a situation where a person goes from being rich to poor or vice versa.", + "If a metzora brought his sacrifice as a poor man and he became rich, or as a rich man and he became poor, all depends on the sin-offering, the words of Rabbi Shimon. According to Rabbi Shimon, a person's status is determined at the time he offers to sin offering. If he was poor when he offered the bird as a sin offering and he gets rich, he can still bring a bird as the burnt offering. However, if he is rich when he offers the sin offering and then he becomes poor, he must still offer the lamb as his whole burnt offering.", + "Rabbi Judah says: all depends on the guilt-offering. The guilt offering must be a lamb, even if the metzora is poor. It is also the first of the offerings to be sacrificed. The status of the metzora is determined at this point if he is rich at this point, he must bring lambs and if he is poor he can bring birds." + ], + [ + "A poor metzora who brought the sacrifice of a rich man has fulfilled his duty; But a rich metzora that brought the sacrifice of a poor man has not fulfilled his duty. A poor person can bring a rich person's sacrifices, should he so desire, but a rich person cannot bring a poor person's sacrifice. In other words, the Torah allows one to bring birds if he can't afford to bring lambs. But the lambs are always acceptable.", + "A man may bring a poor man's sacrifice for his son, his daughter, his slave or his female, and thereby enable them to eat of the offerings. A householder can bring sacrifices on behalf of the members of his household, and thereby allow them to eat other offerings. A person can eat sacrificial offerings only once his proper sacrifices have been brought (i.e. those that end his status as metzora).", + "Rabbi Judah says: for his wife also he must bring the sacrifice of a rich man; and the same applies to any other sacrifice to which she is liable. Rabbi Judah notes that if a rich man brings sacrifices for his wife, he must bring the sacrifices of a rich man. This is true whether she needs to bring the sacrifices of a metzora, or other such sacrifices such as those a woman brings after childbirth." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Negaim deals with one of the rabbis' favorite subjects what happens when different things of different categories are mixed up.", + "If the sacrifices of two metzoraim were mixed up and after the sacrifice of one of them had been offered one of the metzoraim died: this is what the men of Alexandria asked of Rabbi Joshua. Two rich metzoraim bring their sacrifices and one of them is offered. After this point one of the metzoraim dies. At some point the sacrifices get mixed up. If both metzoraim were alive we could sacrifice all of the animals and just declare that each sacrifice was on behalf of the one who brought it. But if one is dead, the animals of the person who died cannot be offered, because it is always prohibited to offer the sin-offering of someone who has died. The live metzora also can't simply bring new sacrifices because the sacrifice that was already offered may have been his own. In such a case, were he to bring a new sacrifice it would count as bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple Court, which is prohibited. The men of Alexandria asked Rabbi Joshua what to do in this situation.", + "He answered them: let him assign his possessions to another person, and bring the poor man's sacrifice. Rabbi Joshua said that what he should do is get rid of all of his property so that he becomes a poor man (hopefully the person he gives it to will give him his money back later). Now he can bring a new sin-offering, because he is a new person and he can bring a new offering. The sin-offering is brought as a doubtful offering, so it is not considered to be a non-sacred animal brought into the Temple Court. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Negaim! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For me learning Negaim helped sort out those chapters in Leviticus that I've never understood all that well. What has fascinated me about Negaim is how much attention the rabbis pay to a subject that was not only not observed in their own time (this is true for large portions of Kodashim and Toharot) but may not have even been observed during the entire Second Temple period. The entire tractate did not contain even one historical memory of a person who actually had a nega. This just goes to show us that the rabbis main topic of interest is Torah and if something is covered extensively in the Torah, they will pay great attention to it, even if it had no practical implications upon their lives. Tomorrow our learning continues with Tractate Parah. Good luck to everyone and congratulations on your amazing commitment to learning." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה נגעים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11e38eb43d0ce83cd32ebc96c47f72f1d60f7b9e --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,743 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Negaim", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Leviticus 13-14 contains lengthy description of some sort of scaly disease that can inflict a person's skin, clothes or a home. Our tractate is an extended commentary, explanation and clarification of these laws. This is not the place for a critical commentary on these laws, why they occupy such an important place in the Torah, their parallels in other ancient cultures, and other such topics. For that I refer the reader to the JPS Commentary on Leviticus, or for more detailed reading, to the Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus. I strongly suggest reading these chapters carefully before beginning to learn the mishnaic material. ", + "A note on my translation: many scholars doubt whether the Torah refers to the disease now known as leprosy. In my translation I have tried to use the transliterated terms as much as possible. This way the description the rabbis provide will speak for itself, rather than knowledge from the outside determining the meaning of these terms. Thus I will use the word \"nega\" or \"negaim\" to mean some sort of skin, clothing or house infliction. The Torah and the rabbis frequently use the word \"baheret\" or \"se'et\" to refer to these \"plagues.\" I will occasionally use these terms as well, but \"baheret\" will usually be translated as white spot. This will, I hope, increase our familiarity with the Hebrew original as well.", + "Let me just give a brief intro to how the \"nega\" process works. A nega is a white spot found on a person's skin. In order for the nega to be impure it must have one of three signs: 1) white hairs; 2) quick flesh, which means that there is some live flesh within the nega; 3) the spreading of the nega. If the nega doesn't have one of these signs, the person is isolated for a week. If after the first week he still doesn't have one of these signs he is isolated again. If after two weeks he doesn't have one of the signs, he is pronounced pure. If he is declared impure at any time, he must burn his clothes and he is sent away from the camp. ", + "The mishnah also talks about other skin problems, namely the boil (shekhin) and the burn (mikhvah). It also discusses negaim that occur on the head or beard, for they have their own rules and regulations. ", + "For the rabbis, since there are so many verses in the Torah on the topic, it is one that will quite obviously occupy them (and there are fourteen chapters in this tractate). What I am trying to say (in a bit of a roundabout manner) is that even if negaim (scale disease) was not familiar to them, and was of no practical concern, it is \"real\" to them because the Torah pays so much attention to it. Chapter 13 1 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: 2 When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling, a rash, or a discoloration, and it develops into a scaly affection on the skin of his body, it shall be reported to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests. 3 The priest shall examine the affection on the skin of his body: if hair in the affected patch has turned white and the affection appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a leprous affection; when the priest sees it, he shall pronounce him unclean. 4 But if it is a white discoloration on the skin of his body which does not appear to be deeper than the skin and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest shall isolate the affected person for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him, and if the affection has remained unchanged in color and the disease has not spread on the skin, the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. 6 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him again: if the affection has faded and has not spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean. It is a rash; he shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. 7 But if the rash should spread on the skin after he has presented himself to the priest and been pronounced clean, he shall present himself again to the priest. 8 And if the priest sees that the rash has spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is leprosy. 9 When a person has a scaly affection, it shall be reported to the priest. 10 If the priest finds on the skin a white swelling which has turned some hair white, with a patch of undiscolored flesh in the swelling, 11 it is chronic leprosy on the skin of his body, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he need not isolate him, for he is unclean. 12 If the eruption spreads out over the skin so that it covers all the skin of the affected person from head to foot, wherever the priest can see — 13 if the priest sees that the eruption has covered the whole body — he shall pronounce the affected person clean; he is clean, for he has turned all white. 14 But as soon as undiscolored flesh appears in it, he shall be unclean; 15 when the priest sees the undiscolored flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The undiscolored flesh is unclean; it is leprosy. 16 But if the undiscolored flesh again turns white, he shall come to the priest, 17 and the priest shall examine him: if the affection has turned white, the priest shall pronounce the affected person clean; he is clean. 18 When an inflammation appears on the skin of one's body and it heals, 19 and a white swelling or a white discoloration streaked with red develops where the inflammation was, he shall present himself to the priest. 20 If the priest finds that it appears lower than the rest of the skin and that the hair in it has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous affection that has broken out in the inflammation. 21 But if the priest finds that there is no white hair in it and it is not lower than the rest of the skin, and it is faded, the priest shall isolate him for seven days. 22 If it should spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an affection. 23 But if the discoloration remains stationary, not having spread, it is the scar of the inflammation; the priest shall pronounce him clean. 24 When the skin of one's body sustains a burn by fire, and the patch from the burn is a discoloration, either white streaked with red, or white, 25 the priest shall examine it. If some hair has turned white in the discoloration, which itself appears to go deeper than the skin, it is leprosy that has broken out in the burn. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous affection. 26 But if the priest finds that there is no white hair in the discoloration, and that it is not lower than the rest of the skin, and it is faded, the priest shall isolate him for seven days. 27 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him: if it has spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous affection. 28 But if the discoloration has remained stationary, not having spread on the skin, and it is faded, it is the swelling from the burn. The priest shall pronounce him clean, for it is the scar of the burn. 29 If a man or a woman has an affection on the head or in the beard, 30 the priest shall examine the affection. If it appears to go deeper than the skin and there is thin yellow hair in it, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a scall, a scaly eruption in the hair or beard. 31 But if the priest finds that the scall affection does not appear to go deeper than the skin, yet there is no black hair in it, the priest shall isolate the person with the scall affection for seven days. 32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection. If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it, and the scall does not appear to go deeper than the skin, 33 the person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall; the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. 34 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the scall. If the scall has not spread on the skin, and does not appear to go deeper than the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; he shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. 35 If, however, the scall should spread on the skin after he has been pronounced clean, 36 the priest shall examine him. If the scall has spread on the skin, the priest need not look for yellow hair: he is unclean. 37 But if the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it, the scall is healed; he is clean. The priest shall pronounce him clean. 38 If a man or a woman has the skin of the body streaked with white discolorations, 39 and the priest sees that the discolorations on the skin of the body are of a dull white, it is a tetter broken out on the skin; he is clean. 40 If a man loses the hair of his head and becomes bald, he is clean. 41 If he loses the hair on the front part of his head and becomes bald at the forehead, he is clean. 42 But if a white affection streaked with red appears on the bald part in the front or at the back of the head, it is a scaly eruption that is spreading over the bald part in the front or at the back of the head. 43 The priest shall examine him: if the swollen affection on the bald part in the front or at the back of his head is white streaked with red, like the leprosy of body skin in appearance, 44 the man is leprous; he is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; he has the affection on his head. 45 As for the person with a leprous affection, his clothes shall be rent, his head shall be left bare, and he shall cover over his upper lip; and he shall call out, \"Unclean! Unclean!\" 46 He shall be unclean as long as the disease is on him. Being unclean, he shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall be outside the camp. 47 When an eruptive affection occurs in a cloth of wool or linen fabric, 48 in the warp or in the woof of the linen or the wool, or in a skin or in anything made of skin; 49 if the affection in the cloth or the skin, in the warp or the woof, or in any article of skin, is streaky green or red, it is an eruptive affection. It shall be shown to the priest; 50 and the priest, after examining the affection, shall isolate the affected article for seven days. 51 On the seventh day he shall examine the affection: if the affection has spread in the cloth — whether in the warp or the woof, or in the skin, for whatever purpose the skin may be used — the affection is a malignant eruption; it is unclean. 52 The cloth — whether warp or woof in wool or linen, or any article of skin — in which the affection is found, shall be burned, for it is a malignant eruption; it shall be consumed in fire. 53 But if the priest sees that the affection in the cloth — whether in warp or in woof, or in any article of skin — has not spread, 54 the priest shall order the affected article washed, and he shall isolate it for another seven days. 55 And if, after the affected article has been washed, the priest sees that the affection has not changed color and that it has not spread, it is unclean. It shall be consumed in fire; it is a fret, whether on its inner side or on its outer side. 56 But if the priest sees that the affected part, after it has been washed, is faded, he shall tear it out from the cloth or skin, whether in the warp or in the woof; 57 and if it occurs again in the cloth — whether in warp or in woof — or in any article of skin, it is a wild growth; the affected article shall be consumed in fire. 58 If, however, the affection disappears from the cloth — warp or woof — or from any article of skin that has been washed, it shall be washed again, and it shall be clean. 59 Such is the procedure for eruptive affections of cloth, woolen or linen, in warp or in woof, or of any article of skin, for pronouncing it clean or unclean. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins to discuss the signs of \"negaim\" that appear on the skin, meaning what counts as a \"nega\" and what does not. These are all various shades of white. The two mains signs are called \"baheret\" and \"se'et,\" both terms found in Leviticus 13:2.", + "The signs of negaim are two which, in fact, are four. One might be familiar with this literary style for it is the same style used to open tractates Shabbat and Bava Kamma. Here it means that there are two types of negaim mentioned in the Torah baheret and se'et. Both of these have arch-categories and derived categories. The rabbis say that the \"derived categories\" are the \"sapachat\" referred to in Leviticus 13:2. \"Sapach\" can mean \"appended to\" these signs are \"appended to the main signs.", + "The bright spot ( is bright white like snow; secondary to it is the sign as white as the lime of the Temple. Baheret is bright white, like snow. The notion that these plagues were white like snow comes from Exodus 4:6, where Moses is afflicted with leprosy that is white as snow. Similarly, Miriam (Numbers 12:10) and Gehazi (II Kings 5:27) are afflicted with leprosy that is white as snow. Secondary to it is an affliction that is as white as the lime plaster found on the foundations of the Temple (see Middot 3:4).", + "The rising (se' is as white of the skin of an egg; secondary to it is the like white wool, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the rising (se' is white wool and secondary to it is like the white of the skin of an egg. According to Rabbi Meir, se'et is like the white of the peel of an egg, and secondary to it is bleached wool. The Talmud explains that this is the white of the wool of a newborn lamb. The other sages reverse which is the main type of nega and which is secondary." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nLeviticus 19:12-13 states:\n18 When an inflammation appears on the skin of one's body and it heals, 19 and a white swelling or a white discoloration streaked with red develops where the inflammation was, he shall present himself to the priest.\nOur mishnah deals with the color of this red, called the patukh, which is translated as \"variegation.\" Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to the color of this variegation.", + "The variegation of the snow-like whiteness is like wine mixed with snow. The variegation of the lime-like whiteness is like blood mixed with milk, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. The \"snow-like whiteness\" refers to the archetype of the baheret mentioned in yesterday's mishnah. If the red is found in such a nega, it must be the color of wine mixed with snow. But if it is found in the duller white spot, the one that is the color of the lime plaster in the Temple, it must be like the color of blood mixed with milk, which I would assume is brighter.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: the reddishness in either of them is like wine mixed with water, only that in the snow-like whiteness the color is bright while in that of lime-like whiteness it is duller. Rabbi Akiva says that in both cases, that of the snow-white baheret, and the lime-white baheret, the variegation must be noticeable, like the color of wine mixed with water. The only difference is that in the case of the snow-white baheret the color must be bright, whereas in the lime-white baheret it can be duller." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nFor a nega to be impure it must be the size of a barleycorn. Our mishnah teaches that negaim of different colors, for instance, part is white like snow and part is like the skin of an egg, can join together to achieve the requisite barleycorn.", + "These four colors combine with each other to declare free [from uncleanness], to certify or to shut up. These are the four colors mentioned in yesterday's mishnah, two shades of white and two shades of red. They can combine in three different ways, as the mishnah will now proceed to explain.", + "\"To shut up\" one who is at the end of the first week; \"To shut up\" refers to putting a person who has shown some signs of having a nega into a sort of limbo status. If the nega doesn't get worse, then he is not impure, and if it gets worse then he is declared as having a nega. Here are the relevant verses: 4 But if it is a white discoloration on the skin of his body which does not appear to be deeper than the skin and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest shall isolate the affected person for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him, and if the affection has remained unchanged in color and the disease has not spread on the skin, the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. Our mishnah teaches that if a person has nega of one color at the beginning of this process and is then \"isolated\" for a week and then is re-examined and the nega is one of the other colors then he is isolated for a second week. We don’t consider it to be a new nega which would make the process start all over again.", + "\"To declare free [from uncleanness]\", one who is at the end of the second week. If at the end of the first week of isolation there was a nega the size of a barleycorn that was the color of snow (or any other color), and at the end of the second week it has not spread but it is a different color, we treat it as if it is the same nega. Since the nega did not spread, the priest can declare him pure.", + "\"To certify\", one in which a discoloration or white hair arose, by the end of the first week, by the end of the second week or after it had been declared free [from uncleanness]. If half of the nega is one color and half is another color and there is discoloration or a white hair (see Leviticus 13:10) then the person is certified as impure. This is true whether the discoloration or white hair is present at the outset, when the first examination takes place, or at the end of the first week, after one week of isolation, or at the end of the second week, at the end of the second week of isolation.", + "\"To certify\", when a spreading arose in it by the end of the first week, by the end of the second week or after it had been declared free [from uncleanness]. If the nega spread, the person is declared impure even if the color of the spreading is different from the original color. This is true no matter when the spreading occurred; at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or even later on, after the person has been declared pure.", + "\"To certify\", when all one's skin turned white after it had been declared free from uncleanness; If after the person has been declared clean, the scaly affection erupts in the entire nega, the person is impure, even if it is a different color.", + "\"To declare free from uncleanness’, when all one's skin turned white after the sign had been certified unclean or after it had been shut up. But if the same thing happens after the person has been either isolated or certified unclean, then he is declared pure (see 13:13).", + "These are the colors of signs of negaim upon which depend all decisions concerning negaim. This concludes the first three mishnayot." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Hanina, the vice-chief of priests, says: the colors of negaim are sixteen. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: the colors of negaim are thirty-six. Akaviah ben Mahalalel says: seventy-two. The three rabbis in this mishnah sub-divide the four colors of negaim into either sixteen, thirty-six or seventy-two different colors. The same rules would apply as we learned in mishnah three. Evidently, these rabbis were simply more attuned to color than the other rabbis.", + "Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of priests says: negaim may not be inspected for the first time at the end of Shabbat, since the end of that week will fall on Shabbat; Nor on a Monday, since the end of the second week will fall on Shabbat; Nor on a Tuesday, in the case of houses, since the end of the third week will fall on Shabbat. If a priest examines a nega on Sunday (here called the end of Shabbat), then the end of that week, when it will be determined whether or not the person should be isolated, will fall on Shabbat, and it is forbidden to examine negaim on Shabbat. The same problem will occur if one examines the nega on Monday. The end of the first week will be on Sunday, and Sunday will count as both the end of the first week and the first day of the next week. Therefore, the end of the second week will fall on Shabbat. When it comes to the negaim that infect houses, there are three weeks of isolating. If the house is first examined on Tuesday, then the second week will begin on Monday and end on Sunday, and the third week will end on Shabbat.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: they may be inspected at all times, and if the time for the second inspection falls on Shabbat it is postponed to after Shabbat; and this procedure leads sometimes to a leniency and sometimes to a stringency. Rabbi Akiva agrees that a priest cannot examine negaim on Shabbat. However, he disagrees as to whether this means that we need to adjust the original exam. Rabbi Akiva prefers to conduct the original exam on the day upon which the person/house is brought to the attention of the priest. If the seventh day falls on Shabbat, we simply delay the examination until after Shabbat. Sometimes this will lead to a leniency and sometimes to a stringency. The following two mishnayot will explain what these leniencies/stringencies are." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah explains Rabbi Akiva's position from the end of yesterday's mishnah. There he claimed that sometimes delaying the examination of a nega can lead to a leniency. Our mishnah explains when this is so. The mishnah goes over numerous (and I'm not exaggerating) cases in which a nega would be declared impure had it been seen on Shabbat, but then changes to something that is not impure. Therefore, not seeing a nega Shabbat caused a leniency.\nWhat we now need to do is explain all of these scenarios.", + "How does it lead to a leniency?
If the nega had two white hairs and one white hair disappeared. If there were two white hairs and they turned black. If one hair was white and the other black and both turned black. If they were long and then they became short. If one was long and the other short and both became short. On Shabbat, the person had two white hairs on his nega. Had the priest examined him that day, he would have certified him as impure. By the next day, there is only one white hair. If this was the end of the first week, the priest would isolate him for a second week and as long as the appearance stays the same, at the end of the second week he would be pure. Note that had the priest declared him impure, he would have had to bring a sacrifice and shaved the hair of his body. The mishnah now brings up various other scenarios in which on Shabbat there is a nega that would make him impure but then something happens to one of the hairs such that they are now no longer sufficient to make him impure. Only white hairs are impure and the hairs must be of sufficient length.", + "If a boil adjoined both hairs or one of them. If the boil surrounded both hairs or one of them. Or if they were separated from each other by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, or the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf. For the hairs to be a sign of impurity, they must be inside a discoloration, swelling or rash. If they are in a boil they are not a sign of impurity. If they were in some type of discoloration on Shabbat and then they were either adjoined by a boil or surrounded by a boil, they are pure. The final piece here is a parenthetical remark regarding the boil mentioned above. Such a boil can either be a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn or the quick flesh of a burn, or \"white scurf.\" Now if you don’t know what \"white scurf\" is don't worry. Albeck explains that it is some kind of whitish discoloration that is not considered impure. Note that if you google-image this, you will get many pictures of a white scarf. Pretty, but not very helpful.", + "If it had undiscolored flesh and this undiscolored flesh disappeared. Leviticus 13:10 says, 10 If the priest finds on the skin a white swelling which has turned some hair white, with a patch of undiscolored flesh in the swelling, 11 it is chronic leprosy on the skin of his body, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he need not isolate him, for he is unclean.\" If it had such undiscolored flesh on Shabbat and then it disappeared, he is pure.", + "If it was square and then became round or elongated. For the undiscolored flesh to be impure it must be square. If it was square and then became round or elongated it is no longer impure.", + "If it was encompassed and then moved to the side. If it was united and then it was dispersed. Or a boil appeared and made its way into it. If it was encompassed, parted or lessened by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf; If the discoloration is encompassed by the nega it is impure. Such was the case on Shabbat, but by the time Shabbat was over, it was not encompassed and it was pure. Alternatively, the discoloration was all in one place in Shabbat and then spread apart such that it is not impure. Or a boil entered the area of the discoloration and now the discoloration is now inside a boil. Or if any other way the boil or burn, or quick flesh of such, disrupted the discoloration then it is no longer impure.", + "If it had a spreading and then the spreading disappeared; Or the first sign itself disappeared or was so lessened that both are less than the size of a split bean; Or if a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf, formed a division between the first sign and the spreading Behold these lead to a leniency in the law. If on Shabbat the nega had spread sufficiently for it to be impure, but then by after Shabbat the part that had spread had disappeared, it is pure. Or if the original nega completely disappeared, or if the original or spreading part had been diminished from the required amount (we will learn more about this later), then the nega is not impure.", + "If a boil, burn or quick flesh divide the nega into two, it is pure. In all of these cases we have learned that there is a fine line between a pure and impure nega. Something that is impure one day can be pure the next. As we shall see in tomorrow's mishnah, this can also lead to a stringency for something that is pure one day (Shabbat) can be impure the next." + ], + [ + "How does it lead to a stringency?
If it had no white hairs and then white hairs appeared; If they were black and then turned white; If one hair was black and the other white and both turned white; If they were short and they became long; If one was short and the other long and both became long.
If a boil adjoined both hairs or one of them, if a boil encompassed both hairs or one of them or if they were parted from one another by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, or the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf, and then [one of these things] disappeared.
If it had no quick flesh and then quick flesh appeared.
If it was round or long and then became four sided; If it was at the side and then it became encompassed. If it was dispersed and then it became united or a boil appeared and made its way into it. If it was encompassed, parted or lessened by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn or white scurf, and then they disappeared;
If it had no spreading and then a spreading appeared;
If a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf formed a division between the first sign and the spreading and then they disappeared. Behold all of these lead to a stringency.
Today's mishnah is basically the opposite of yesterday's. It deals with scenarios in which the nega was pure on Shabbat, but then by Sunday, when it was examined it had become impure. We shall explain how this leads to a stringency.
Section one: On Shabbat there were no white hairs in the nega but since there were white hairs by the time he saw him after Shabbat, he is impure. This creates a stringency.
We should note that had the priest seen him on Shabbat, he would have put him into isolation and then when the white hairs appeared (or any other case mentioned below), he would have had to declare him impure. Therefore, we might ask why this is considered a stringency. The answer is that the extra week might have afforded him time to heal, and by the time the priest saw him a second time, he may have healed and never became impure.
The rest of the mishnah is just a reversal of the order found in yesterday's mishnah. To understand what is going on, refer back there. I will make a few comments that will help here.
Section two: On Shabbat there were signs that would prevent the nega from being impure. However, by the time Sunday rolled around those signs were gone. Similarly, in the cases below, the mitigating signs disappear right after Shabbat, before he is examined.
Section three: The quick flesh causes it to be impure.
Sections 4-6: See yesterday's mishnah." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the problem that the color of negaim appear differently depending upon the skin color of the person being examined. This could undermine the objectivity of the examination", + "The bright spot in a German appears as dull white, and the dull white spot in an Ethiopian appears as bright white. A \"bright spot\" is impure, but on a pale German (I assume this means anyone from northern Europe) it will look dull. This would mean that he will be declared pure, even though he should not be. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a dull spot, which should not be impure, will look bright on an Ethiopian's skin. This will cause him to be isolated and then, if it remains, to be declared impure. The question is how do we deal with this situation?", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: the children of Israel (may I be atonement for them!) are like boxwood, neither black nor white but of an intermediate shade. Rabbi Ishmael says that we use the skin of Israelites, which is dark but not black, as the barometer. This is because the laws of negaim were stated with regard to Israelites. As an aside, Rabbi Ishmael offers to take upon himself vicarious atonement for Israel's sins.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: painters have materials with which they portray figures in black, in white, and in an intermediate shade; let, therefore a paint of an intermediate shade be brought and applied around the outside of the nega, and it will then appear as on skin of intermediate shade. Rabbi Akiva says that we actually paint the person's skin, at least around the nega. This way we can get an unbiased portrait of what shade the nega really is.", + "Rabbi Judah says: in determining the colors of negaim the law is to be lenient and not stringent; let,therefore, the negaim of the German be inspected on the color of his own body so that the law is lenient, and let that of the Ethiopian be inspected as if it were on the intermediate shade so that the law is also lenient. Rabbi Judah says that we always rule leniently. Therefore, if the spot looks dull on the German, he is pure. And if it looks bright on the Ethiopian, we estimate how it would look on a person of average skin color.", + "The sages say: both are to be treated as if the nega was on the intermediate shade. The sages disagree and say that all negaim are judged based on an average background. This opinion seems to agree with Rabbi Akiva." + ], + [ + "Negaim may not be inspected in the early morning or in the evening, nor in a house, nor on a cloudy day, because then the dull white appears like bright white; nor may they be inspected at noon, because then the bright white appears like dull white. If the nega is inspected in weak light or in too strong light it will be difficult to assess its true color.", + "When are they to be inspected? During the third, fourth, fifth, eighth or ninth hour, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah ruled: during the fourth, fifth, eighth or ninth hour. Therefore it must be inspected in either the early part of the day or the later part of the day, but not at dawn or dusk. The day was divided into twelve hours. Roughly speaking, Rabbi Meir would say that the nega must be examined during the third, fourth and fifth hours of the day, and then later, from the eighth and ninth hours. Rabbi Judah says three is too early." + ], + [ + "A priest who is blind in one eye or the light of whose eyes is dim should not inspect negaim; for it says, \"Wherever the priest's eyes can see\" (Leviticus 13:12). The priest must have two fully functioning eyes in order to examine negaim.", + "In a dark house one may not open up windows in order to inspect his nega. A \"dark house\" is a house that doesn't have any windows. One should not open up new windows in such a house in order to examine a nega. However, Albeck notes that if a house already has windows, they may be opened to examine the nega." + ], + [ + "Introduction Our mishnah deals with how a person is to be positioned when examined for a nega, such that his modesty is [at least to a certain extent] preserved. The verse we used in yesterday's mishnah \"wherever the priest's eyes can see\" also serves as the basis for today's mishnah. The priest's eyes should not examine parts of the body that should not be seen due to modesty. The exact parts will differ for men and women.", + "What is [the posture] of examining negaim?
A man is inspected in the posture of one that hoes or one that gathers olives. If the nega is in between a man's legs, when being inspected he must stand as one who is hoeing would stand. He spreads his legs a bit and the priest can see the nega. But the priest doesn't have to look at the parts between his legs that he can't see when one is hoeing. I'm assuming that he is wearing some sort of cloak, but clearly not pants. The other private part that is dealt with here is under the armpits. The person would lift up his arms as if he is picking olives, and any part that still can't be seen need not be inspected.", + "And a woman [is inspected in the posture] of one who is arranging dough and one who nurses her child, and one that weaves at an upright loom if the nega was in the right armpit. If a woman has a nega in between her legs, she is inspected while in the posture of a woman who is arranging dough to go into the oven. This seems to require a very minimal amount of leg-spreading. If the nega is under her breast, any flesh that can be seen while nursing must be examined. I suppose that this implies that a woman would only uncover part of her breasts in order to nurse. When it comes to a nega found under the arm, if it is on her right arm, whatever part of her arm that she exposes while weaving on a loom is inspected by the priest. The rest is considered private.", + "Rabbi Judah says: also in the posture of one that spins flax if it was within the left armpit. Rabbi Judah says that when it comes to the left armpit, whatever she exposes when spinning flax is inspected. We should note that the mishnah ascribes to men and women work that each typically performed. Men typically worked in the field and women typically baked bread, took care of their children and made clothing. Their posture when examined is determined by their typical posture at work.", + "Just as [is the posture] for examining for the nega, so too [is the posture] for shaving hair. A metzora (one who had a nega) must shave his/her body when completing the period of impurity (see Leviticus 14:9). The parts of the body that must be shaved are the same as those that are inspected in the first place. In other words, private parts need not be shaved (sigh of relief!)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that a person is not allowed to rule on a situation that effects his own status or possessions.", + "All negaim may be examined by a person, except his own. Rabbi Meir ruled: not even the negaim of his relatives. According to the first opinion, a priest can examine all negaim except his own. Rabbi Meir adds that he may also not inspect his relatives' negaim. Since being determined to have a nega would entail becoming impure for a potentially long period of time, allowing one to rule on his own negaim or those of his family would create a serious conflict of interest.", + "All vows may be released by a person, except his own. Rabbi Judah says: not even those vows of his wife that affect relationships between her and others. A sage has the ability to release others from their vows. However, he cannot release his own vows. Rabbi Judah says that he can't release his wife's vows either, unless they are concerning matters that would affect their relationship. This is a topic that is discussed at length in Tractate Nedarim.", + "All firstlings may be examined by a person, except his own firstlings. First-born animals are examined to see if they have a blemish. If they do, they may be slaughtered and eaten as if they were non-sacred animals. One may not examine his own first-born animals because this is an obvious conflict of interest." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien. The laws of negaim apply to all Jews, even to minors and even to slaves. They do not apply to non-Jews or to the \"resident alien (ger toshav).\" According to one, common, definition of this category is that it refers to a non-Jew who has accepted upon himself to observe the seven Noahide laws.", + "All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, \"Say: 'unclean,'\" and he repeats \"unclean,\" or \"Say: 'clean,'\" and he repeats \"clean.\" In light of the Torah, we would think that only a priest is qualified to examine a nega. However, the rabbis say that while the priest must declare whether the person has a nega or not, anyone can determine whether it is a nega or not. The mishnah goes on to describe a priest being told by a sage whether to pronounce the nega clean or unclean. This seems to be part of the general rabbinic tendency to make the priests subservient to the sage. We need the priest, but the priest does not have the learning (according to the rabbis) to know when a discoloration of some sort is the type of nega referred to in the Torah.", + "Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second. One is not supposed to examine two negaim at the same time, whether both negaim are on the same person or on two different people.", + "One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean. If someone has been isolated already, and then he gets another nega, he is not isolated again based on the second nega. Neither can one who is already declared impure be declared impure for a second nega. Similarly, one who is already isolated cannot be declared impure, nor can one who is impure be isolated. Basically, if one already has one status, isolated/impure, he cannot be changed to the other status based on a second nega.", + "But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean. However, if the second nega appears before he is isolated for the first nega, or it appears at the end of the first week of isolation for the first nega before he is isolated for a second week or determined unclean or declared pure, then the priest can isolate or determine him unclean/clean for both negaim at the same time. Or he can isolate or determine him unclean for one nega, and declare him clean from the other. Basically, since the first week is up or has not yet even begun, he can determine the status of two negaim at the same time." + ], + [ + "A bridegroom on whom a nega has appeared is given the seven days of the marriage feast [in which he is not examined]; [This grace period is given to] him, and to his house and to his clothing. A priest should not examine a bridegroom, or a bridegroom's house or clothing, for a nega for the entire period of the seven day marriage feast.", + "Similarly during a festival, one is granted exemption from inspection during all the days of the festival. Similarly, nobody should be examined during a festival. In both occasions we fear that the nega would be pronounced impure and the person would have to be sent away in the midst of his marriage feast, or a festival and he would not get to rejoice with the community. This mishnah is testimony to the great significance the rabbis lent to the joyous occasion of a wedding or a festival. These celebrations override the biblical concern for a nega, so much so that we can ignore the nega for a week. We can also see from here that the issue with negaim is not one of health, for if it were, then we could hardly imagine delaying its treatment for a week." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe remaining mishnayot of chapter three all deal with various types of negaim, what their signs are and how long their period of impurity lasts. The Mishnah will go into greater detail concerning these negaim later on in the tractate. These are just introductory mishnayot. The pattern and meaning of these mishnayot is quite repetitive so I will comment more on the first few examples and then reference those comments as we proceed.", + "The skin of the flesh becomes unclean for two weeks and by one of three signs: by white hair or by quick flesh or by a spreading. A person can be isolated and then declared impure within a period of two weeks based on a nega seen on his skin. Such a nega is determined by one of three signs: by a white hair, by some quick flesh, or by some sort of spreading. One of these signs will cause him to be declared impure.", + "\"By white hair or by quick flesh\" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after it had been pronounced clean. A white hair or quick flesh will cause him to be declared impure whether seen during the first examination, after the first week of isolation, after the second week of isolation or even after he has been declared pure. In other words, these two signs will always cause him to be impure.", + "\"Or by a spreading,\" at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after it had been pronounced clean. In contrast, the spreading of the nega will cause him to be declared impure only if it is seen after the first week, after the second week or after he has been declared clean. If the nega has spread before he was even isolated, he is still pure.", + "It becomes unclean for two weeks which are thirteen days. The impurity lasts for thirteen days, and not the full two weeks because the last day of the first isolation count towards the first week and to the second week, as we learned in1:4." + ], + [ + "A boil or a burn becomes unclean for one week and by one of the following two tokens: by white hair or by a spreading.
By white hair, in the beginning, at the end of the week, or after it has been pronounced clean.
\"Or by a spreading:\" At the end of the week, or after it had been declared clean. They become unclean for a week which is seven days.
Section one: The Torah mentions a nega found in a boil or a burn (Leviticus 13: 18, 25). But it does not mention a two week period of isolation in connection with such a nega. Therefore, a person can become impure after only one week of isolation. Also, quick flesh is not a sign here, as it was for a nega found on regular skin.
Sections two and three: These are the same as yesterday's mishnah, except there are only two signs and the uncleanness happens after one week, not two." + ], + [ + "Head or beard ( negaim become unclean for two weeks and by one of the following two signs: by yellow thin hair or by a spreading. Today's mishnah deals with negaim that are found on the head or beard. This topic is dealt with directly in Leviticus 13:29. Such negaim are identified by a thin yellow hair (Leviticus 13:30) or by spreading.", + "\"By yellow thin hair\" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean. The yellow thin hair can serve as an identifying mark at the beginning of the examination period, or at the end of any of the weeks of isolation.", + "\"Or by a spreading,\" at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week or after they have been pronounced clean. The spreading must occur at the end of at least one of the weeks.", + "They become unclean for two weeks which are only thirteen days. Same as mishnah three." + ], + [ + "Scalp baldness or forehead baldness [negaim] become unclean for two weeks and by one of the following two signs: by quick flesh or by a spreading.
\"By quick flesh,\" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean.
\"Or by a spreading,\" at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean.
They become unclean for two weeks which are only thirteen days.
Section one: Today's mishnah outlines the signs and length of impurity for negaim that appear on a bald head or a scalp (Leviticus 13:40).
The remainder of this mishnah has already been explained above in mishnayot 2-5." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to Leviticus 13 clothes and houses can also contract negaim. Our mishnah deals with the signs of negaim for clothes (Leviticus 13:47ff).", + "Garments become unclean for two weeks and by one of three signs: by a greenish color, by a reddish color or by a spreading. The sign of a nega in a garment is a greenish or reddish color, or the spread of the nega later on in its development.", + "\"By a greenish colour or by a reddish color,\" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean. When the garment is brought to the priest and it has a reddish or greenish nega, the priest will isolate it for one week. If the nega remains, he will isolate it for a second week. If it remains after two weeks, he will pronounce it unclean and burn the clothing.", + "\"Or by a spreading,\" at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean. Similarly, if it spreads, he will burn the clothing.", + "They become unclean for two weeks which are but thirteen days. Same as in previous mishnayot." + ], + [ + "Houses become unclean for three weeks and by one of the following three signs: by a greenish color or by a reddish color or by a spreading.
\"By a greenish color or by a reddish color,\" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, at the end of the third week, or after they have been pronounced clean.
\"Or by a spreading,\" at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, at the end of the third week, or after they have been pronounced clean.
They become unclean for three weeks which are nineteen days.
None of the leprosy signs is for less than a week or for more than three weeks.
Section one: A house has a three week period of impurity and not two like most human negaim and negaim found in clothes (see Leviticus 14:35ff). House impurity will be discussed in chapter twelve.
The signs of a house nega are green or red colored spots, or a spreading after the initial nega has been identified.
Sections two-four: Same as in previous mishnayot.
Section five: This is a summary of all of the laws in most of this chapter. The shortest period is for the nega found in a boil or burn (mishnah four) and the longest period is for negaim found in a house." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first three mishnayot of this chapter compare the laws that apply to different signs of negaim and it demonstrates how each nega has different rules and regulations.\nOur mishnah begins by covering the sign of the white hair with the sign of the spreading of the nega.", + "There are [laws] that apply to the white hair that do not apply to the spreading, while others apply to the spreading and do not apply to the white hair. This sets up the comparison that shall be fleshed out (pun intended) below.", + "That white hair causes uncleanness at the beginning, it causes uncleanness whatever the state of its whiteness, and it is never a sign of cleanness. As we learned in 3:3, a white hair is a sign of a nega when it is first examined by the priest, even before any period of isolation. In contrast, spreading can be a sign only after the afflicted person has been isolated for a week. A white hair is a sign of uncleanness even if its white is duller than any of the shades listed in mishnah 1:1. However, for the spreading to be a sign of uncleanness it must be one of these shades. Even if the whole body became full of white hairs, it is not a sign that the person is clean. In contrast, if the nega spreads to the whole body, the person is deemed clean (see Leviticus 13:13).", + "There are laws that apply to the spreading, for the spreading causes uncleanness however small its extent, it causes uncleanness for all negaim and even when it is outside the nega, and these laws do not apply to the white hair. Even the smallest spread of the nega will cause him to be unclean. In contrast, there must be two at least white hairs for them to be unclean. The spreading applies to all negaim, whereas the white hair only applies to skin, boils and burns. The spreading is a sign of impurity when it extends beyond the nega, whereas white hairs are a sign of impurity only within the nega." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah compares the rules regarding the sign of \"quick flesh\" with the sign of spreading.", + "There are [laws] that apply to the quick flesh that do not apply to the spreading, while other restrictions apply to the spreading and do not apply to the quick flesh. An introductory statement.", + "That quick flesh causes uncleanness at the beginning, it causes uncleanness whatever its color, and it is never a sign of cleanness. Quick flesh can be an initial sign of a nega. The color can be any color, even black. And even if the entire body is covered with quick flesh, he is still impure, whereas if the spreading covers the whole body, he is pure (see yesterday's mishnah).", + "There are [laws] that apply to the spreading, for the spreading causes uncleanness however small its extent, it causes uncleanness in all forms of negaim and also where it is outside the leprosy sign, and these laws do not apply to the quick flesh. For quick flesh to be a sign of impurity it must be at least the size of a lentil, whereas the spreading can be even to the smallest extent. Quick flesh is a sign of impurity only in skin negaim and those found on the bald head or forehead. Finally, quick flesh is a sign only if it appears in the nega. Appearance of quick flesh elsewhere on the body is not a sign of a nega." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter comparing white hair and quick flesh to spreading, the Mishnah now compares them to each other.", + "There are [laws] that apply to white hair that do not apply to quick flesh, while others apply to quick flesh and not to white hair. The introductory statement.", + "White hair causes uncleanness in a boil and in a burn, whether growing together or dispersed, and whether encompassed or unencompassed. White hair is a sign of a nega when it is in a burn or boil (see 3:4). The two requisite white hairs can be on opposite sides of the nega, whereas the quick flesh must all be in the same spot. The white hairs can either be surrounded by the nega, or not. In either case they are a sign of impurity. In contrast, the quick flesh must be surrounded by the nega for it to be a sign of impurity.", + "There are [laws] that apply to quick flesh, for quick flesh causes uncleanness in scalp baldness and in forehead baldness, whether it was turned or was not turned, it prevents the cleanness of one who is turned all white, and causes uncleanness whatever its color, and these do not apply to white hair. Quick flesh is a sign of uncleanness in scalp or forehead baldness (see 3:6) whereas white hairs are not (he wouldn't really be bald if there were white hairs there, would he?). \"Turned\" and \"not turned\" refer to the nega and quick flesh appearing in a certain order. Quick flesh is a sign of impurity whether the nega pre-existed the quick flesh, meaning part of the nega turned into quick flesh, or the quick flesh existed before the nega, meaning the nega arose near the quick flesh. In contrast, the nega must appear before the white hairs for them to be a sign of impurity. If a person turns all white and he is purified but then some quick flesh appears, he is impure (see Leviticus 13:14). But if he turns all white and is purified and then some white hairs appear, he is still pure. Quick flesh can be any color, whereas the white hairs must be white (duh!)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with various rules concerning the two white hairs that appear in a nega.", + "If the two hairs were black at the root and white at the tip he is clean. If they were white at the root and black at the tip he is unclean. Only white hairs are a sign of impurity; black hairs are not. The color of the hair is determined by the color at the root. Thus if the tips are white, he is clean but if the roots are white he is not.", + "How much whiteness must there be? Rabbi Meir says: any amount. Rabbi Shimon says: enough to be cut with a pair of scissors. How much of the tips must be white for them to be a sign of uncleanness? Rabbi Meir says that even the smallest amount is a sign of uncleanness, whereas Rabbi Shimon says that there must be enough for it to be cut by a pair of scissors.", + "If it was single at the root but split at the tip, and it looks like two hairs, he is clean. One hair that is split still counts as one, even if it looks like there are two.", + "If a bright spot had [two] white hairs or black hair he is unclean, for we are not concerned that the place of the black hair lessened the space of the bright spot, since the former is of no consequence. If there is a bright spot (a type of nega, called a baheret) and it is the minimum size of a barleycorn and there are many white hairs there, we do not consider them as reducing the size of the bright spot to less than the barleycorn. Since there are white hairs, he is impure. The same is true for black hairs inside a bright spot. These black hairs mean that he is to be isolated. We do not consider them as reducing the size of the nega such that he need not even be isolated. Another interpretation of this line is that if black hairs are mixed in with the white hairs in the nega (the bright spot), we don't consider the black hairs as reducing the overall size of the nega, for the black hairs are of no consequence." + ], + [ + "If a bright spot was of the size of a split bean and a string extended from it, if it was two hairs in breadth, it is subject to the restrictions in respect of white hair and spreading, but not to that in respect of its quick flesh. The mishnah discusses a nega (a bright spot or baheret in Hebrew) from which a line of some sort extends. If this line is thick enough, then the line is considered part of the nega in that if a white hair comes out of the line or if the line spreads, it is a sign of impurity. However, if quick flesh appears in the line it is not a sign of impurity unless the quick flesh itself is the size of a split bean.", + "If there were two bright spots and a streak extended from one to the other, if it was two hairs in breadth, it combines them; but if not, it does not combine them. A line (a streak) between two negaim serves to join them if it is wide enough. In such a case they are treated as one nega, and if a white hair or spreading appears in one, both are judged to be impure." + ], + [ + "If a bright spot the size of a split bean had within it quick flesh the size of a lentil and there was white hair within the quick flesh: if the quick flesh disappeared the spot is unclean on account of the white hair; if the white hair disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon makes it clean, since it was not the bright spot that caused it [the hair] to turn [white]. There is a bright spot which is large enough to be impure and inside it there is quick flesh, itself large enough to be a sign of impurity, and white hair, one (the quick flesh or white hair) of which is necessary to cause the bright spot to be impure. If one of these two signs disappears, the bright spot is still impure on account of the second sign. Rabbi Shimon disagrees if the quick flesh disappears because it is not the bright spot (the actual nega) that caused the hair to turn white but rather the quick flesh. In other words, the white hair must be caused by the nega and not by the sign that the nega is impure.", + "If a bright spot together with the quick flesh in it was of the size of a split bean and there was white hair within the spot: if the quick flesh disappeared the bright spot is unclean on account of the white hair; if the white hair disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean, since it was not a bright spot the size of a split bean that caused the hair to turn [white]. In this case the bright spot is not large enough to be impure on its own. Rather together with the enclosed quick flesh the entire region adds up to a split bean. There is also white hair. If the quick flesh disappears and the bright spot fills its place it is impure because the bright spot is now the size of a split bean. If the white hair disappears it is also impure because the bright spot is large enough with the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon says that if the quick flesh disappears it is not impure because the hair didn't appear in a bright spot that was itself the size of a split bean.", + "He agrees that if where the white hair was, was the size of a split bean, that it is impure. Rabbi Shimon agrees that if the bright spot is the size of a split bean and it has in it quick flesh the size of a lentil but the white hair is in the bright spot (and not in the quick flesh) that the nega is impure if the quick flesh disappears. This is because the bright spot itself caused the hair to turn white, whereas in the other cases the white hair was found in the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon holds that the bright spot must cause the hair to turn white and not something else. He derives this from a close reading of Leviticus 13:4, \"and its hair did not turn white\" \"its\" refers to the bright spot and not the quick flesh." + ], + [ + "A bright spot which had quick flesh and a spreading: if the quick flesh disappeared it is unclean on account of the spreading; if the spreading disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. The mishnah refers to a person who has a bright spot (a nega) and then was isolated. When examined again it had quick flesh and a spreading and the priest pronounced him impure. If one of these signs disappears, he is still impure because of the presence of the second sign.", + "So also in the case of white hair and a spreading. The same thing is true if one of the signs is a white hair and one is spreading.", + "If it [the bright spot] disappeared and appeared again at the end of the week, it is regarded as though it had remained as it was. The person was isolated at the beginning of the week because of the appearance of a nega. During the week of isolation, the nega disappeared and then reappeared. We treat this as if the nega had never disappeared. If he is at the end of the first week, the priest will isolate him for another week. If he is at the end of the second week, then he will be pronounced pure.", + "If it reappeared after it had been pronounced clean, it must be inspected as a new one. If the nega disappeared and he was pronounced pure, and then it reappeared, it is treated as if it was a new nega. He will need two periods of isolation before he can be pronounced pure again.", + "If it had been bright white but was now dull white, or if it had been dull white but was now bright white, it is regarded as though it had remained as it was, provided that it does not become less white than the four principal colors. If the nega changes color it is still treated as the same nega as long as it is still one of the four requisite shades mentioned in 1:1.", + "If it contracted and then spread, or if it spread and then contracted: Rabbi Akiva rules that it is unclean; But the sages rule that it is clean. There are two situations described here. In the first the nega is large enough to be impure and then it becomes smaller than a barleycorn and then it spreads back to its original size. Rabbi Akiva counts this as \"spreading\" and therefore declares it impure. The sages say that this does not count as spreading, so he is not impure. If he is at the end of the second week of isolation, he is pure. The second situation is opposite. It spread and then contracted back to its original size. Rabbi Akiva says that this is a new nega and he must go back to a new period of isolation. The rabbis say again that this doesn't count as spreading and he is pure (if he has already been isolated for two weeks)." + ], + [ + "A bright spot the size of a split bean, and it spreads to the extent of half a split bean, while of the original spot there disappeared as much as half a split bean: Rabbi Akiba says: it must be inspected as a new one, But the sages say: it is clean. At the outset, the bright spot (the nega) is the requisite size, the size of a split bean. It then spreads, but the original spot contracts an equal amount. It is almost as if the nega shifted a bit. Rabbi Akiva says that this is considered a new nega. This means that he will have to be isolated, as at the outset. The other sages say that since the nega remained the same size as it was in the beginning, it is treated as if it didn't grow and he is pronounced clean (because it didn't spread), if he is at the end of the second week of isolation. If he is at the end of the first week of isolation, he will be isolated for a second week. We should note that others explain that since there is less than the size of a split bean left of the original nega, it is pure. The part that remains does not join together with the spreading to make it impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with cases that are similar to that found in yesterday's mishnah a bright spot both spread (a sign of impurity) and contracted during the same period of isolation. The question is: does this count as spreading?", + "A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of half a split bean and a little more, while as much as half the size of a split bean disappeared from the original spot: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. In this case the bright spot spread more than the amount that disappeared. In other words, it had a net gain in size. Rabbi Akiva says that this counts as spreading. The rabbis say that since that since it did not spread sufficiently, the spreading is not enough to count it as pure. If he is at the end of the second week of isolation, he will be pronounced pure.", + "A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of a split bean and a little more, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says that is it unclean, But the sages say: it should be inspected as a new one. In this case, the original spot disappeared altogether. The spreading is large enough to be itself a nega. Rabbi Akiva is consistent in his opinion this counts as spreading and not as a new nega. Therefore, he is impure. The other sages say that since the old nega has completely disappeared, this counts as a new nega and it must be inspected as such. He will begin a new period of isolation." + ], + [ + "A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. This is the last of the debates between Rabbi Akiva and the sages on this subject. The nega starts out the size of a split bean and then spreads again the size of a split bean. In the spreading there appears quick flesh or white hair. Had these appeared in the original nega, they would be a sign of impurity. However, the original spot also disappears. Rabbi Akiva is again consistent and holds that we consider this spreading to be part of the original nega, and therefore he says that he is impure. The other sages say that since the original nega is gone, he must begin the process over again. We should note that in this case, since there is a white hair or quick flesh in the nega, he will immediately be pronounced impure by the priest.", + "A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. The original bright spot is smaller than a split bean and does not have a white hair in it. Then a second bright spot appears with a white hair. We now have one full bright spot the size of a split bean, but since there is only one hair, the person is isolated and not deemed impure.", + "A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. In order for the white hair to be a sign of impurity, it must come out of a bright spot the size of a split bean. Although there are two white hairs in this bright spot, each came out of a bright spot less than the size of a split bean. Therefore, the two white hairs don't count as signs of impurity.", + "A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated. In this case, there are two white hairs in one bright spot, but it is only the size of half a split bean. As we saw before, for the white hairs to be a sign of impurity, they must come out of a bright spot the size of a split bean." + ], + [ + "A bright spot the size of a split bean and there was nothing else, and then there appeared a bright spot of the size of half a split bean having two hairs, this one is declared unclean. Originally there was a nega (the bright spot) the size of half a split bean without any white hairs. Then another bright spot appeared next to it, but it too was not large enough itself to be a nega. However, it did have two hairs. When we combine the two bright spots we now have a nega the size of a split bean, which is enough to count as a nega. And because half of the nega came before the white hairs, this is considered a case of the nega preceding the white hairs. Therefore he is declared impure.", + "Because they said: if the bright spot preceded the white hair he is unclean; if the white hair preceded the bright spot he is clean; and if it is doubtful he is unclean. This is the general rule the nega must precede the white hairs for him to be unclean. However, if it is doubtful which came first, he is considered unclean.", + "Rabbi Joshua regards this as unsolvable. Rabbi Joshua wasn't so certain what to do in the above case. He basically deemed it unsolvable because he wasn't sure if this was a case of the nega coming first since only half of it existed before the white hairs. According to most commentators, he also disagreed with the ruling that \"if it is doubtful he is unclean\" for he reasoned that in cases of doubt we should be lenient. I thought it might be interesting to bring a Talmudic story related to this mishnah. It appears in Bava Metzia 86a: There was a dispute in the heavenly college: if the bright spot comes before the white hairs, he is impure. And if the white hairs come before the bright spot, he is pure. If it is doubtful [what is the law]? And it was decided that Rabbah bar Nahmani should decide the case, for Rabbah bar Nahmani used to say that he was the only one who knew the law of Negaim and the only one who knew the law of Ohalot. They sent a messenger for him and the angel of death could not touch him, for he did not stop studying for one moment. In the meantime a wind blew and made noise with the trees of the forest, and Rabbah thought that a legion of soldiers was after him and he said: It is better for me to die through the angel of death than to be taken by the Government. When he was dying, he said \"he is pure, he is pure.\" Then a heavenly voice came forth, saying: Happy are you, Rabbah bar Nahmani, for your body is pure, and your soul left you body while you were saying \"pure.\" There are many interesting things about this story, but one of the tidbits I really find interesting is that only Rabbah bar Nahmani knew the laws of Ohalot and Negaim well enough to make decisions on these matters. It is difficult material so hard even the rabbis themselves had trouble with it!" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Any doubtful nega is regarded as clean, except this case and one other. In general, in a doubtful case concerning a nega, meaning it is unclear whether it is or is not a nega, the affected person is considered clean. However, there are two exceptions. The first is the case we saw in yesterday's mishnah (4:11) and the second case is in this mishnah.", + "Which is that? If he had a bright spot of the size of a split bean and he was isolated, and by the end of the week it was as big as a sela, and it is doubtful whether it is the original one or whether another came in its place, he must be regarded as unclean. Originally, the nega was the size of a split bean. This is large enough to cause him to be isolated for a week to see if it spreads or if white hairs appear. By the end of the first week, the nega is the size of a sela, a coin which is much larger than a split bean. It is unclear whether this is the original nega and it just spread or if it is a new nega. If it is a new nega, he would start a new period of isolation. However, in this case the halakhah is strict and we consider the original nega to have spread, causing him to be impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn all of the cases in this mishnah, there were signs of impurity in the nega and the person was declared impure. And then those signs disappeared and new signs arose. The question is: does this count as a new nega or does he continue in his earlier state of impurity?", + "If one had been certified unclean on account of white hair, and the white hair disappeared and other white hair appeared, And so also in the case of quick flesh or a spreading, Whether this occurred in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after he had been released from uncleanness, he is regarded as being in the same position as before. In the first example, the sign of impurity was the white hairs. After having been declared impure, the original white hairs disappeared and either new white hairs came in their place, or quick flesh or the spreading of the original nega, both of which are also signs of impurity. No matter when this \"replacement\" occurred, he continues in his earlier state of impurity. In other words, if he was deemed impure immediately, without any weeks of isolation, or if he was deemed impure after a week or two weeks of isolation, or even if he was declared pure after the isolation, if the original signs disappear and new signs, he retains (or regains) his original impurity.", + "If he had been certified unclean on account of quick flesh, and the quick flesh disappeared and other quick flesh appeared, And so also in the case of white hair and spreading, Whether this occurred in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after the man had been released from uncleanness, he is regarded as being in the same position as before. This section is the same as section one, except the original sign is quick flesh and not white hairs.", + "If he had been certified unclean on account of a spreading, and the spreading disappeared and another spreading appeared, And so also in the case of white hair, Whether this occurred at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after the man had been released from uncleanness, he is in the same position as before. Here the original sign is the spreading. \"Spreading\" cannot be a sign of impurity at the outset, therefore this section does not read \"in the beginning.\"" + ], + [ + "Deposited hair: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it is unclean. But the sages hold it to be clean. This is an introductory section. A fuller version appears in section two.", + "What is \"deposited hair\"? If one had a bright spot with white hair in it, and the bright spot disappeared leaving the white hair in position and then it reappeared: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it to be unclean, But the sages hold it to be clean. According to Akaviah ben Mahalel, since the bright spot left white hair behind when it disappeared, we treat it as if the bright spot had stayed there the whole time. In other words, the white hair is a sign that the nega really never disappeared and therefore he remains impure. The word \"deposited\" means that the nega \"left\" the white hairs as a \"deposit\" to hold its place till it returned. The other sages say that it is a new bright spot. Therefore, this is a case where the white hairs came before the bright spot, which means that the nega is pure, as we learned in 4:11.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: in this case I agree that he is clean; But what is \"deposited hair\"? If one had a bright spot of the size of a split bean with two hairs in it, and a part the size of a half a split bean disappeared leaving the white hair in the place of the white spot and then it reappeared. They said to him: just as they rejected the ruling of Akaviah so is there no validity in your ruling. Rabbi Akiva agrees with the sages that in such a case, the person is clean. However, he has a different definition altogether of what \"deposited hair\" is, and in this case he agrees with Akaviah ben Mahalel. The difference is that in this case, the bright spot didn't completely disappear, it only partly disappeared. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva agrees that this is not a case of the white hairs coming before the nega, and he is impure. The other sages reject Rabbi Akiva because he holds like Akaviah ben Mahalel and the latter is a rejected sage. For more information see Eduyot 5:6. It is interesting that this attack seems to be more \"ad hominem\" then logically based. The rabbis reject Rabbi Akiva not because they don't agree with him, but because he agrees with the wrong person." + ], + [ + "Any doubt in negaim in the beginning is regarded as clean before uncleanness has been established, but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean. In the first mishnah of this chapter we learned that if there is a doubt concerning a nega, it is considered pure. Today's and tomorrow's mishnah clarify that this is only before any impurity has been established. Once some impurity has been established, doubtful cases are impure.", + "How is this so? If two men came to a priest one having a bright spot the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela, and at the end of the week each had one the size of a sela, and it is not known on which of them the spreading had occurred, Whether this occurred with one man or with two men, each is clean. The mishnah first explains cases where the doubt comes before the purity is established and therefore he is pure. Two men come to a priest (yes, this does sound like the beginning of a joke) and both have a bright spot. One has a nega the size of a split bean and another has a nega that is larger, the size of a sela. Both are isolated for a week, and at the end of the week one person's nega has spread to be the size of a sela, and the other's has not spread. The problem is that the priest can't remember who had one the size of a sela and whose was the size of a split bean, meaning he doesn't know which spread and which did not. Since no impurity has yet been established, both are considered pure. The rabbis add that this is true even if both negaim are on one man. Although we know that one nega spread, we don't know which, and therefore he cannot be deemed impure.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: if one man is involved he is unclean, but if two men are involved each is clean. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this latter statement. If both negaim are on one person, then he is unclean because we can be certain that one of his negaim spread." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah clarifies when cases of doubt are deemed unclean.", + "\"But after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean.\" This is a quote from mishnah four.", + "How so? If two men came to a priest, one having a bright spot of the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela and at the end of the week each was of the size of a sela and a little more, both are unclean; The difference between this mishnah and yesterday's mishnah is that in this case, both negaim spread. One began at the size of a split bean and spread to be a bit larger than a sela, and one started as a sela and spread just a little bit. Nevertheless, since both spread both are impure.", + "And even though both returned to be the size of a sela both are unclean, and remain unclean until they return to the size of a split split bean. They remain impure even if both return to be the size of a sela. This is the \"doubt.\" One of these has returned to its original size, and since the \"spreading\" is gone, that one should be pure. But since they were already pronounced unclean, they both remain impure until the spreading has certainly disappeared from both.", + "They is what they meant when they said, \"but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean.\" A summary of what was taught above." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The minimum size of a bright spot must be that of a Cilician split bean squared.
The space covered by a split bean equals that of nine lentils.
The space covered by a lentil equals that of four hairs;
It turns out that the size of a bright spot must be no less than that of thirty-six hairs.
Today's mishnah deals with how large a nega/bright spot must be for it to be impure.
Section one: The bright spot must be the size of a squared Cicilian split bean. Cicilia is an area in Asia Minor.
Sections two-four: 9 x 4 is 36, so you can fit 36 hairs into a Cicilian bean. Either those are some big beans, or those are some hairy people!" + ], + [ + "If a bright spot was of the size of a split bean and in it there was quick flesh of the size of a lentil: The bright spot is large enough to be impure and inside it there is quick flesh, which is one of the signs of impurity. The quick flesh is the size of a lentil, which is also the minimum size it needs to be in order to be impure.", + "If the bright spot grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller it is clean. It is obvious that if the bright spot grew larger, it is unclean. It was already unclean due to the quick flesh. This line is here because of the second half. If the bright spot grew smaller, it is pure because it is now less than the size of a split bean.", + "If the quick flesh grew larger it is unclean, and if it grew smaller it is clean. If the quick flesh grew larger, the nega is still impure, as long as it is still surrounded by the nega itself. However, if the quick flesh grew to be smaller than a lentil, the nega is pure, because that is the minimum size for the quick flesh." + ], + [ + "A bright spot the size of a split bean and in it there was quick flesh less than the size of a lentil: In this case, the nega is large enough to be impure, but the quick flesh is too small.", + "If the bright spot grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller it is clean. This section is obvious. It is only here to be contrasted with the other sections.", + "If the quick flesh grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller, Rabbi Meir rules that it is unclean; But the sages rule that it is clean, since a nega cannot spread within itself. If the quick flesh grows larger it is obviously unclean. However, if it grows smaller that would mean that the nega (the bright spot) itself had spread into the place where the quick flesh used to be. Rabbi Meir says that since the nega spread, it is impure because spreading is a sign of impurity. But the other sages say that the nega must spread out beyond its previous borders in order to be impure. Spreading into itself does not count as \"spreading.\"" + ], + [ + "If a bright spot was larger in size than a split bean and in it there was quick flesh larger than a lentil, irrespective of whether they increased or decreased, they are unclean, provided that they do not decrease to less than the prescribed minimum. This case is quite straightforward both the nega and the quick flesh are larger than the required size for them to be impure. Therefore, they are immediately impure and it doesn't matter whether they increase or decrease. They will only become pure if they decrease to smaller than the prescribed size." + ], + [ + "If a bright spot was the size of a split bean and quick flesh the size of a lentil encompassed it, and outside the quick flesh there was another bright spot, the inner one must be isolated and the outer one must be certified unclean. Rabbi Yose says: the quick flesh is not a sign of uncleanness for the outer one, since the inner bright spot is within it. There are three levels inside this nega. An inner bright spot which is large enough to be impure, surrounded by quick flesh, surrounded by another bright spot. The outer bright spot has quick flesh in it, so it is impure. But the inner one does not have quick flesh in it, so it is only isolated (and if this is at the end of two weeks, it is pure). Rabbi Yose says that since the quick flesh has a bright spot within it, it is considered a divided piece of quick flesh, which is not a sign of impurity, even for the outer nega. Even it is not impure.", + "If it decreased or disappeared: Rabban Gamaliel says: if its destruction was on its inner side it is a sign of spreading of the inner bright spot while the outer one is clean, but if its destruction was on its outer side, the outer one is clean while the inner one must be isolated. Rabbi Akiva says: in either case it is clean. The mishnah now deals with a case where the quick flesh disappears or becomes smaller than a lentil. Rabban Gamaliel says that if the inner bright spot took over the quick flesh, then we consider the inner one as having spread and it is unclean. The outer one is pure because its quick flesh either disappeared or grew too small to be a sign of impurity. If the outer bright spot spread into the quick flesh, the outer one is also pure because its quick flesh disappeared or grew too small. The fact that the inner bright spot is now part of the outer one is not considered to be \"spreading.\" The inner one has not changed so it still requires isolation, as in section one. Rabbi Akiva says that even if the inner one takes over the quick flesh (the quick flesh was destroyed to the inside), the nega is not considered to have spread and it is clean because a nega can't spread into another nega. The Tosefta adds that if this occurs after the first week of isolation, he would be isolated again based on the inner nega because it is still present. He is only pure if it doesn't spread after two weeks." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday's mishnah discussed a case where there is a bright spot which is inside some quick flesh which is in a larger bright spot. Rabbi Akiva says that if the inner bright spot spreads into the quick flesh it is pure, because a nega that spreads into another nega is not considered as having \"spread.\" In today's mishnah Rabbi Shimon qualifies Rabbi Akiva's statement.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: when is this the case? When the quick flesh was exactly the size of a lentil. But if it was larger than a lentil, the excess is a sign of spreading of the inner one, and the outer one is unclean. Rabbi Akiva's rule that if the inner nega spreads into the quick flesh both the inner and outer nega are pure is true if the quick flesh was exactly the size of a lentil. Once the quick flesh is smaller than a lentil, it is no longer a sign of impurity. However, if the quick flesh was larger than a lentil but then the inner nega (the bright spot) spread into it but the quick flesh remained at least the size of a lentil, the inside nega is impure. This is because the excess part of the quick flesh is not considered part of the nega but rather flesh. Therefore the inner nega spread into flesh and not into quick flesh and any time a nega spreads into flesh, it is impure. The outer nega is also impure because the quick flesh is large enough to be a sign of impurity. To summarize: the excess part of the quick flesh is not considered \"nega,\" and thus the inner nega is considered to have spread. But since a lentil's worth of quick flesh remains, the outer one is also impure.", + "If there was white scurf less that the size of a lentil, it is a sign of the spreading of the inner bright spot but it is not a sign of spreading of the outer one. In this case instead of quick flesh being in between the inner and outer nega (bright spot) there is white scurf (mentioned in 1:5-6; it is a darker shade of white than that required for a nega). White scurf need not be the size of a lentil. If the inner nega spreads into the white scurf it is considered to have spread because white scurf is not a nega (it is not a sign of impurity, see 1:5), rather it is flesh. Thus even Rabbi Akiva would agree that the inner nega is impure. However, if the outer nega takes over the white scurf it is not considered to have spread, for spreading towards the inside of itself is not considered spreading (see above, mishnah three and five)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to the rabbis, for a nega to be impure, it must be on a place on the body that it can be seen entirely at once. Therefore, if the nega is found on the tip of a limb with two sides (such as a finger) such that if one were to look at half the nega, the other half wouldn't be seen, the nega is not impure. Our mishnah lists which \"tips of limbs\" do not become unclean even if there is a nega on them.", + "There are twenty-four tips of limbs in the human body that do not become unclean on account of quick flesh: the tips of the fingers and the toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the penis; and also the nipples of a woman. The twenty-four tips of limbs include the tips of all the fingers and toes, the tips of the ears, nose and penis. That equals twenty four. Added to that on a woman are the tips of her nipples.", + "Rabbi Judah says: also those of a man. Rabbi Judah adds the nipples of men. [I know this might be a bit funny, and I could make some comments, but I will refrain].", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: also warts and warts with thin necks do not become unclean on account of quick flesh. Rabbi Eliezer adds in various types of warts. Albeck explains that \"warts with thin necks\" are warts that appear on a limb that has been partially severed from a person. Does not sound pleasant." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah lists other parts of a man's body which cannot become impure even if they have a nega. There are different reasons for some of these places. Some of them are not considered \"flesh.\" And others are considered to be in \"hidden\" spots, and a nega must be in a visible area for it to be a sign of impurity.", + "The following places in a person do not become unclean on account of a bright spot: the inside of the eye, the inside of the ear, the inside of the nose and the inside of the mouth, wrinkles, wrinkles in the neck, under the breast and the armpit, the sole of the foot, the nails, the head and the beard; and a boil, a burn and a blister that are festering. Most of these are self-explanatory. If a nega appears on the head or the beard it is not a sign of impurity. There are special rules governing these two areas, as we shall see below. With regard to a boil Leviticus 13 says, \"18 When an inflammation (a boil) appears on the skin of one's body and it heals, 19 and a white swelling or a white spot streaked with red develops where the inflammation was, he shall present himself to the priest.\" The boil is only a sign of impurity when it is has healed. If it is still festering it is not. When it comes to the burn verse 24 states, \"When the skin of one's body sustains a burn by fire, and the quick flesh (healed flesh) from the burn is a white spot, either white streaked with red, or white.\" Again, the burn must first heal. The same is true in the case of a blister. As long as they have not healed, they are not susceptible to negaim.", + "All these: Do not become unclean on account of negaim Do not combine with other negaim, A nega is not considered to spread into them, Do not become unclean on account of quick flesh, And they do not act to prevent a person from being considered to have turned completely white. The mishnah now goes over all of the special rules that apply to these areas of the body. A) If a nega appears on them, it is not a sign of impurity. B) If a nega on an adjacent piece of flesh is less than the size of a split bean and there is a nega on this piece of flesh as well, they do not combine with the other nega to make it large enough to be impure. C) If a nega is on a piece of adjacent flesh and it spreads into one of these areas, it is not considered to have spread. D) If one of these areas is inside a larger nega, and it turns into quick flesh, the larger nega is not impure. E) If a person has turned completely white except for one of these areas, the absence of whiteness in these areas does not prevent him from being pure (one who has turned completely white is pure). In short, these areas are not considered to be flesh when it comes to the laws of negaim.", + "If subsequently a bald spot arose in the head or beard, or if a boil, a burn or a blister formed a scar: They may become unclean by negaim, But they do not combine with other negaim, A nega is not considered to spread into them, And they do not become unclean on account of quick flesh. But they do act to prevent a person from being considered to have all turned white. A bald head or beard is subject to certain laws of negaim (this will be discussed in chapter ten). Similarly, a boil, burn or blister that has scarred over is considered flesh and is subject to some of the laws of negaim. The mishnah now discusses what laws apply in these situations. A) If a nega appears in one of these regions it is a sign of impurity. B) Nevertheless, a nega that appears on a bald head or beard or on a boil, burn or blister that have not healed, does not join with a nega on regular skin to create the requisite split bean needed to be impure. C) Similarly, if a nega from an adjacent piece of flesh spreads into one of these areas, it is not considered to have spread. D) Same as section D above. E) But since negaim can be formed in these areas, if a person is completely white except for one of these areas, he is not considered to be completely white and he will be impure. We could summarize that these areas are susceptible to negaim, but they don't join with others because they are considered to be separate from other areas.", + "The head and the beard before they have grown hair, and warts with thin necks on the head or the beard, are treated as the skin of the flesh. A bald baby's head or face is susceptible to negaim impurity until hair begins to grow. These areas are only differentiated once hair appears. Warts that are sort of falling from a person's face (ok, this is yukky) count as flesh as well." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah lists negaim that are clean because when they were formed they couldn't count as negaim.", + "The following bright spots are clean:
Those that one had before the Torah was given, Those that a non-Jew had when he converted; Or a child when it was born, The halakhot concerning negaim were in effect only after the Torah was given. If an Israelite had a nega before the Torah was given the nega is not considered impure. The same is true if an individual had a nega before the Torah was given to him/her as an individual. This would include a non-Jew who converted and a child who was born. Since they were not governed by the laws of negaim when the nega formed, the nega is not impure even when they becomes subject to these laws.", + "Or those that were in a crease and were subsequently uncovered. We learned in 6:8 that if there is a nega in a crease in one's skin, it is not impure. This is true even if the nega becomes uncovered.", + "If they were on the head or the beard, on a boil, a burn or a blister that is festering, and subsequently the head or the beard became bald, and the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, they are clean. This section also refers to yesterday's mishnah. As we learned there, if negaim appear on the head or beard, or in a boil, burn or blister which are still festering, they are not impure. Our mishnah adds that even if these areas become susceptible to negaim by losing their hair or by healing, the nega that appeared when they were not susceptible is not a sign of impurity.", + "If they were on the head or the beard before they grew hair, and they then grew hair and subsequently became bald, or if they were on the body before the boil, burn or blister before they were festering and then these formed a scar or were healed: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said that they are unclean since at the beginning and at the end they were unclean, But the sages say: they are clean. In these cases the nega was first formed in a place that was susceptible to negaim (before hair grew or before the boil, burn or blister was festering or perhaps had even formed) and then the place became unsusceptible, and then it returned to being susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says it is impure because it began in a place susceptible to impurity and ended in a place susceptible to impurity. The other sages say that since in between those two moments it was in a place that was at the time unsusceptible, the nega remains forever unsusceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's. It discusses a case where the nega was not impure because the person or part of body was not subject to negaim when it first appeared. Then when the person or area of body became subject to the laws of negaim the nega changed color. For instance, a non-Jew had a nega of a certain color and then once he converted, the nega turned into a different color. The question at hand is whether or not this must be treated as a new nega.", + "If their color changed, whether to be lenient or stringent: How is it \"to be lenient\"? If it was white like snow and it became white like the lime of the Temple, or like wool or like the skin of an egg, or [as white] as the second shade of a rising or the second shade of bright white. How is it \"to be stringent\"? If it was the color of the skin of an egg and it became like white wool, the lime of the Temple or like snow. There are two ways for the color to change. A whiter color can get darker (this is \"to be lenient\") and a darker color can become whiter (this is \"to be strict\"). These various colors are mentioned in 1:1.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah rules that they are clean. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that even if the color changes, it is still the same nega and since it started in a case of purity, it remains pure.", + "Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: if the change was to be lenient it is clean, but if it was one to be stringent it must be inspected as if it were a new one. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma distinguishes between white spots that get darker and darker white spots that get lighter. If the spot gets darker, the rule is lenient and it remains clean. But if it gets darker, we have to treat it as a new nega, and it must be examined afresh by the priest.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: whether the change was to be lenient or to be strict it must be inspected as if it were a new one. Rabbi Akiva says in either case it must be examined, for any change causes it to be considered a new nega." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses what happens if while pronouncing whether a given nega is clean or unclean, there are changes in the nega.", + "A bright spot in which there were no signs of uncleanness: At the beginning, or at the end of the first week, he is isolated; At the end of the second week or after it had been pronounced clean, he is pronounced clean. If while the priest was about to isolate him or to pronounce him clean, signs of uncleanness appeared in it, he certifies him as unclean. If the bright spot has no signs of uncleanness (white hairs or quick flesh) he is isolated for one week and then for another, if the nega doesn't change. If at the end of two weeks no signs have developed, he is pronounced pure. This is all information we know and it is only here because of the next line. The mishnah adds that if while the priest is pronouncing him pure, signs of impurity appear, he must be certified as unclean.", + "A bright spot in which there are signs of uncleanness, he certifies him as unclean. If while the priest was about to certify it as unclean the signs of uncleanness disappeared: If at the beginning, or at the end of the first week, he isolates him; But if at the end of the second week or after the spot had been pronounced clean, he is pronounced clean. In this case the bright spot was already examined and certified unclean. This is obvious (like in section one). While pronouncing him unclean the signs of impurity disappear but the nega remains. If this occurs in the beginning or at the end of the first week, he is isolated as he would be with any nega that doesn't have one of the signs of impurity. However, if this occurs after the second week ,or after he has been pronounced clean the signs return to the nega and then while pronouncing him unclean they disappear again, he is pronounced clean. To summarize this mishnah: if the status of the nega changes while the priest is making his proclamation, the change must be taken into account, whether this causes a stringency (section one) or a leniency (section two)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a person who removes the white hairs from a nega or burns the quick flesh in a nega. In other words, he tries to remove the signs of uncleanness.", + "One who plucks out signs of uncleanness or burns quick flesh transgresses a negative commandment. Deuteronomy 24:8 states, \"In cases of skin affection be most careful to do exactly as the levitical priests instruct you.\" The rabbis read this as a prohibition against removing the signs of impurity.", + "And as regards cleanness: If they were plucked out before he came to the priest, he is clean; But if after he had been certified as unclean, he remains unclean. The mishnah now deals with the consequences of one who transgresses and removes the signs of impurity. In other words, even though he should not have done what he did, the signs are gone and therefore we must determine whether he is pure or not. If he did so before the priest examined him, he remains clean. However, if he removes them after he is already impure, his removal doesn't help and he remains impure.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua while they were on the way to Narbata, \"What is the ruling if the plucking occurred while he was isolated?\" They said to me, \"We did not hear anything [about this case], but we have heard that if they were plucked before he came to the priest he is clean, and if after he had been certified as unclean he remains unclean.\" I began to bring them proofs: whether the man stands before the priest or whether he is isolated, he is clean unless the priest had pronounced him unclean. This is a fascinating glimpse of how the sages discussed these matters with each other. Rabbi Akiva, the young intellect, catches Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua while they are making their way to Narbata, which is on the eastern side of Caesarea. He seems to have used the opportunity to ask them a question which was troubling him. He asks them about a case where the man plucked the signs out of the nega after he had been isolated but before he had been pronounced unclean. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua respond conservatively they never heard any answer to this question. All they know is what happens if he plucks the signs before the priest saw the nega or after he pronounced it unclean, the two situations presented in section two. These sages refuse to answer a question if they don't have a tradition concerning the answer. Not so the young whippersnapper of a rabbi, Rabbi Akiva. He presents them with proofs that as long as the person has not been pronounced unclean, he is pure. The mishnah does not present what the argument that Rabbi Akiva makes is. Such an argument is presented by the Tosefta and there we learn that the other sages agree with him.", + "When does he attain cleanness [after he has been certified unclean]? Rabbi Eliezer says: after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness after it. But the sages says: only after another nega has spread over his whole body or after his bright spot has been reduced to less than the size of a split bean. This section deals with a difficult problem. Normally, when one is pronounced impure because of a nega, he becomes pure when the signs disappear. However, this person removed the signs himself and therefore this can't be the sign of impurity. Rabbi Eliezer says that he is not pure until he gets another nega and then it becomes pure. It seems that the purification from this second nega is an opportunity to purify him from the first nega as well. The other sages say that this doesn't work. He has to have the nega spread to his entire body at which time he would become pure even if the signs of impurity were still there. The other way for him to become pure is for the nega itself to disappear. This would make him pure even if the white hair or quick flesh was still there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a nega (the bright spot) that is cut off intentionally or unintentionally.", + "If one had a bright spot and it was cut off, he becomes clean; If the bright spot was cut off unintentionally we treat it as if it just disappeared and he is pure.", + "If he cut it off intentionally: Rabbi Eliezer says: [he is clean] only after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness after it. But the sages say: only after it has spread over all his body. If he cut it off intentionally after he was already impure, he is in the same situation as described in yesterday's mishnah. Rabbi Eliezer says he must wait until another nega appears and he is purified from that nega. The sages say that he must wait until the nega spreads over his whole body. Until then he is impure. Note that this mishnah can't say \"until the nega becomes smaller than a bean\" because it has already disappeared.", + "If it was on the tip of one's foreskin, he should be circumcised. Circumcision is a positive commandment. It overrides the prohibition not to cut off a nega. Therefore if a nega appears on the tip of the foreskin that is about to be circumcised, the circumcision is still performed." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe following verses from Leviticus 13 teach that if the nega (leprosy) breaks out completely over the person's entire body, he is clean.\n12 If the eruption spreads out over the skin so that it covers all the skin of the affected person from head to foot, wherever the priest can see 13 if the priest sees that the eruption has covered the whole body he shall pronounce the affected person clean; he is clean, for he has turned all white. 14 But as soon as undiscolored flesh appears in it, he shall be unclean; 15 when the priest sees the undiscolored flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The undiscolored flesh is unclean; it is leprosy.\nChapter eight deals with the details of these laws.", + "If a nega broke out completely upon one who was unclean, he becomes clean; If the ends of his limbs reappeared, he becomes unclean until the bright spot is reduced to less than the size of a split bean. If the person was already declared unclean, and then his entire body turned white, meaning the nega spread to his entire body, he is clean. This is the simple interpretation of the biblical verses sited above. If any part of his body, even the ends of his limbs, returns to not being white, he becomes unclean. This is an interpretation of verse 14 above. He will remain impure until the size of the nega is reduced to less than the size of a split bean, the minimum size for an impure nega.", + "[If it broke out completely upon him] when he was clean, he becomes unclean; If the ends of his limbs reappeared, he remains unclean until his bright spot resumes its former size. In this case, the nega spreads to his entire body after he has been pronounced clean by the priest, probably because the nega had not spread. In this case, the spread of the nega is a sign of uncleanness. He remains impure if the nega retracts and parts of his limbs return to their natural color. Note that a person with a nega over part of his body is impure this is no different from any other situation. However, if the nega (bright spot) returns to its original proportion, then its \"spreading\" has disappeared. At this point he becomes pure again." + ], + [ + "A bright spot the size of a split bean in which there was quick flesh the size of a lentil and then it broke out covering a person's entire skin and then the quick flesh disappeared, or if the quick flesh disappeared and then the bright spot broke out covering all his skin, he is clean. At the outset, this person had a bright spot (nega) with quick flesh and the priest declared him impure. Then the nega spread to his entire body, except for the quick flesh (where there is no nega) and then the nega spread to the area of the quick flesh as well. Since the nega now covers his entire body, he is pure. The mishnah teaches that the nega does not need to cover his entire body in one stage. The same is true if the quick flesh first disappears and then the nega spreads to the entire body, including the area that had previously been quick flesh. Since it covers his entire body, he is pure.", + "If quick flesh arose [subsequently], he is unclean. If quick flesh appears in the midst of a nega that covers his entire body, he is impure because the nega no longer covers his entire body. See Leviticus 13:14.", + "If white hair grew [subsequently]: Rabbi Joshua rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean. The mishnah now discusses what happens if white hair appears in the midst of the nega that covers his entire body. Leviticus 13:14 says that if quick flesh (undiscolored flesh) appears in the body-covering nega he is impure. Rabbi Joshua reasons that just as quick flesh is a sign of impurity so too is white hair, which is also usually a sign of impurity. The sages read the Torah more literally. Since the Torah mentions quick flesh and not white hairs, it means to say that quick flesh and not white hairs is a sign of impurity in a body-covering nega." + ], + [ + "A bright spot in which there was white hair and then it broke out covering his entire skin, even though the white hair remained in its place, he is clean. Even though the white hair remains, the fact that the bright spot spread to cover his entire body means that he is pure. In this case even Rabbi Joshua, who holds that if a white hair appeared in a body-covering nega he is impure, agrees that since the white hair was there before the nega covered his entire body, he is pure. The rule that we learned in mishnah one applies here if a person is declared impure and then a nega breaks out and covers his entire body, he is pure.", + "A bright spot in which there was a spreading and then it broke out covering his entire skin, he is clean. Again, if a nega breaks out and covers the entire body after one has been declared impure (here because the nega had already spread), he is pure.", + "But in all of these cases if [even] the ends of the his limbs reappeared [in their natural color], he is unclean. If it broke out covering a part of his skin he is unclean; If it broke out covering all his skin he is clean. If even the ends of his limbs return to their natural color, he becomes impure again. This halakhah is the same as that found in mishnah one. The last two lines of this mishnah are a type of explanation for section three. Since he is unclean if the nega spreads to only part of his body, he is unclean if the ends of his limbs reappear in their natural color. He is clean only if the nega covers his entire body." + ], + [ + "In all cases of breaking out and covering the ends of the limbs whereby the unclean have been pronounced clean, if they reappeared they become unclean again. In any case where a nega covered a person's entire body and even the ends of his limbs and he was pronounced clean, and then the ends reappeared in their natural color he is unclean. This is as we learned in mishnah one: if a nega covers a person's entire body and he was previously impure, he is pure. If the nega retracts, he becomes impure again.", + "In all cases of reappearance of the ends of the limbs whereby the clean have been pronounced unclean, if they were covered again these become clean again. If the ends of the limbs are first uncovered (meaning the nega disappears) and then they are covered again by the nega, the person goes back to being pure. This is another case of a nega covering an impure person's entire body.", + "If subsequently they become uncovered these are unclean, even if this occurs a hundred times. This process can continue without end. In other words, the rule that if a nega spreads to one's entire body and that person was previously impure that he becomes pure remains no matter how many times the process occurs." + ], + [ + "Any part [of the body] that can be subject to the uncleanness of a bright spot nega can prevent the effectiveness of the breaking out [over the entire body], and any part that cannot be subject to the uncleanness of a bright spot nega does not prevent the effectiveness of the breaking out abroad. In 6:8 we learned that there are some parts of a person's body that are not susceptible to negaim under certain circumstances (a head or beard with hair, a festering boil, burn or blister). This means that if a nega appears there he is not impure. Since these spots are not susceptible to negaim, they also do not prevent a nega from being considered as having spread to one's entire body. He is pure even if the nega doesn't spread there. Simply put these parts (under certain circumstances) are not relevant to the laws of negaim. However, any part that is subject to negaim, does prevent the nega from being considered to have spread to his entire body, if the nega does not spread there.", + "How so? If it broke out covering all of his skin, but not on the head or the beard, or on a festering boil, burn or blister, and then the head or the beard became bald, or the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, he is clean. The mishnah now illustrates this principle. At first the nega spreads to his entire body, except to parts that are not susceptible to negaim (for an explanation of these parts see 6:8). Subsequently, these parts changed so that they have become susceptible to negaim. Despite the fact that the nega is now not found on parts that are susceptible to negaim, he is still pure since when the nega spread to his entire body these parts were not susceptible. In other words, if the person is pure because the nega covered all susceptible parts of his body, he remains pure even if other parts later become susceptible.", + "If it broke out covering all of his skin, except a spot of the size of half a lentil near the head or beard, or near a boil, burn or blister, and then the head or the beard became bald, or the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, even though the place of the quick flesh became a bright spot, he is unclean unless it breaks out covering all his body. In this case the nega spread to his entire body, except to one tiny part. He is now impure because the nega did not actually spread to his entire body. This part was adjacent to a part of the body that was not susceptible to negaim. Subsequently, two things happen. The nega spreads to the small spot that it had not previously spread to. And the parts that were not susceptible become susceptible. In this case he is impure because at the time when the nega spread to his entire body, the head, beard and previously festering spots had already become susceptible to negaim. He will be impure until the nega spreads to these spots as well." + ], + [ + "If there were two bright spots, one unclean and the other clean, and they broke out from one to the other, and then [a nega] broke out covering all of his skin, he is clean. In this case a person has two white spots (negaim) one of which has been pronounced clean and one of which has been pronounced unclean. The nega then spreads from one to the other and then breaks out over his entire body. He is deemed to be pure because the nega has spread to his entire body. We don't consider this to be a case where the nega covered his entire body \"from a point of purity\" because we consider the spreading over his body to have come from the impure nega and not from the pure bright spot.", + "[If the bright spots] were on his upper lip and lower lip, or on two of his fingers, or on his two eyelids, even though they cleave together and appear as one, he is clean. In this case, the two bright spots, one pure and one impure, are from two adjoining parts of his body that can be put together to look like one. We might have thought that the nega spread over his whole body from a pure bright spot, in which case he is impure. However, the mishnah says that since these are actually separate bright spots and one is impure, the situation is the same as in section one and he is ruled pure.", + "If it broke out covering all his skin except white scurf, he is unclean. White scurf is a white spot that is darker than the color of any of the four shades of white required of a nega (see 1:1). If the nega covers his whole body but the white scurf remains, he is still impure because the nega is not considered to have covered his entire body.", + "If the ends of his limbs reappeared in the color of white scurf, he is clean. Although white scurf can prevent the nega from being considered to have spread over his whole body, if white scurf appears on a person who already had a nega cover his whole body, it is not considered to be the normal color of flesh and he remains pure. The Torah says that if undiscolored flesh appears on the person covered with the nega, he is impure. But white scurf is not undiscolored flesh, so this person stays pure.", + "If the ends of his limbs reappeared to the extent of less than a lentil: Rabbi Meir rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that a piece of white scurf less in size than a lentil, is a sign of uncleanness in the beginning, but it is not a sign of uncleanness at the end. According to Rabbi Meir if any part of his limbs returns to its natural color, even if it is less than the size of a lentil, he becomes impure again. The rabbis disagree. They address two cases here: white scurf and quick flesh less than the size of a lentil. In both of these cases, if the nega does not spread there at the outset he is still impure. So if any flesh is not covered by the nega, he is still impure. However, when it comes to retracting from a nega that covered the entire body, these are not signs of a return to impurity. If a piece of white scurf emerges or quick flesh returns to a spot smaller than the size of a lentil, he remains pure" + ], + [ + "One who came [in front of the priest] with all his body white is isolated. Someone who comes in front of a priest and is already completely covered by a nega is to be isolated, just as if he had come in front of the priest with a bright spot the size of a split bean. He isn't pure, because a nega covering the whole body is a sign of purity only if he was already impure.", + "If white hair grew, he is certified unclean. If both hairs or one of them turned black, If both or one of them became short, If a boil adjoined both or one of them, If a boil surrounded both or one of them, Or if a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf divided them [he is pure]. If white hair grew at the end of the first or second week, then he will be certified unclean. The remainder of this section are all circumstances that makes the person pure. The mishnah listed these things and I explained them in 1:5.", + "If quick flesh or white hair arose, he is unclean; But if neither quick flesh nor white hair arose he is clean. This goes back to referring to the person who came to the priest totally covered by a nega. Quick flesh and white hair are both signs of impurity and therefore if they develop after the first or second week he is impure. And if either of these signs does not appear, then he is pure.", + "In all these cases if the ends of his limbs reappeared he remains as he was before. Whether or not quick flesh or white hair appeared or whether it appeared and then disappeared, if the ends of his limbs return to their natural color, he stays pure. This is not like a normal case where the natural color returns to a person who had been fully covered by a nega, since in this case he was not made pure by having become fully covered. In other words, this person is treated as if he simply came in front of the priest with a nega. If signs appear, he is impure. If signs don't appear or appear and then disappear, he is pure, even if the nega begins to leave parts of his body.", + "If the nega broke out, covering a part of him, he is unclean. If it broke out covering all of them, he is clean. If after the natural color returns to the ends of his limbs the nega begins to spread again, he is impure because spreading is a sign of impurity. If it then spreads and covers his entire body he is pure, for this is a case of spreading over the entire body of one who is impure." + ], + [ + "If it broke out covering all of his skin all at once: If this originated in a condition of cleanness, he is unclean; But if it originated in a condition of uncleanness, he is clean. As we have learned, sometimes if a nega breaks out and covers someone's whole body he is impure. For instance, if he comes in front of a priest already covered in a nega, he is isolated. And then, the natural color returns to the ends of his limbs and then the nega spreads back to cover his entire body, he becomes impure. However, if someone comes in front of the priest when he is totally covered and a sign of impurity comes up (white hair or quick flesh) he is impure. When the ends of the limbs reappear he stays impure. If the nega now spreads to his whole body, he becomes pure.", + "One who becomes clean after having been isolated is exempt from the uncovering his head and rending his clothes, from shaving his hair and from bringing the birds. If he becomes clean after he had been certified unclean, he is liable to all these. Both convey uncleanness by entering. The end of this mishnah compares a person who becomes clean after having been isolated with one who becomes clean after having been declared unclean. The former is not liable to uncover his hair or rend his clothes (see Leviticus 13:45), nor is he liable to shave his body or bring bird sacrifices (see Leviticus 14:1-9). Only one who was certified unclean is liable to do so. However, both a metzora (one who had a nega) who had been isolated and one who had been declared unclean convey uncleanness by entering a house. This is a topic to which we will return in chapter 13 (so stay tuned!)." + ], + [ + "If one came with his whole body white, and on it there was quick flesh to the extent of a lentil, and then the nega spread out covering all his skin, and then the ends of his limbs reappeared: I will chart out the stages in this scenario one by one: Stage one: His whole body was covered with a nega except for a spot with quick flesh. This means he is impure. Stage two: The nega then spreads over the quick flesh. He is now pure. Stage three: The ends of his limbs reappear.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: this is the same as when the ends of the limbs reappear in that of a large bright spot. Rabbi Ishmael says that this is similar to a case we learned about in mishnah seven. A person comes in front of a priest with a nega already covering his whole body and then signs of impurity appear (he is impure) and then they disappear (he is pure). If the ends of his limbs reappear, he remains pure as he was before. So too here when the nega spread to his whole body we consider it as if he is beginning with a large bright spot, one that covers his whole body. The reappearance of natural color in his limbs is not a sign of impurity.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah ruled: as when the ends of the limbs reappeared in a small bright spot. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says that since at the outset there was some quick flesh in his nega (the one that covered the rest of his body) this person is not considered to be like someone who was totally covered at the outset. Rather this person is like someone who had a nega that made him impure, and then it spread to his whole body, thereby making him pure. When his limbs reappear he returns to being impure." + ], + [ + "There is one who shows his nega [to the priest] and thereby gains advantage, while there is one who shows and loses. The mishnah notes the paradox that sometimes a person can benefit by showing his nega to a priest and sometimes he loses out.", + "How so? If one was certified unclean and the signs of his uncleanness disappeared, and before he could show it to the priest the nega broke out covering all his skin, he is clean; whereas if he had shown it to the priest he would have been unclean. He benefits in the following situation. He was already certified unclean and then the signs of his uncleanness (white hair, quick flesh or spreading) disappeared. Had he gone to see the priest now the priest would have declared him pure. The nega then spreads to his whole body. Since he did not go to the priest to be purified, this is a case of a nega covering a person who is already unclean. He is now clean. Had he gone to the priest, then this would be a case of a nega covering a clean person, in which case he would be impure.", + "If he had a bright spot in which there was nothing else, and before he could show it to the priest it broke out covering all his skin, he is unclean; whereas if he had shown it to the priest he would have been clean. He has a bright spot with no sign of impurity. Had he gone to the priest he would have isolated him. But before he can go to the priest it spreads over his whole body. He now requires isolation, as we learned in mishnah seven. Had he gone to see the priest when the bright spot first appeared, he would have been isolated and then when the nega spread he would have been declared pure, because a nega that spreads over a person who has been isolated causes him to be declared pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter nine deals with a nega that forms in a boil or a burn. This is dealt with in Leviticus 13:18-28.", + "A boil or a burn may become unclean in a week and by two signs: by white hair or by a spreading. As we learned in 3:4, when it comes to a nega in a boil or burn, only white hair and spreading are signs of impurity. Quick flesh is not. And there is only one week of isolation, not two as there are with other negaim.", + "What is a \"boil\"? An injury received from wood, stone, peat, or the waters of Tiberias, of from any other object whose heat is not due to fire is a boil. What I have translated as \"boil\" is really an inflammation due to contact with something hot other than fire. \"Peat\" is the refuse from the pressing of olives and it can be very hot when removed from the press. The waters of Tiberias are hot springs.", + "What exactly is a \"burn\"? A burn caused by a live coal, hot embers, or any object whose heat is due to fire is a burning. A burn is from contact with something that had contact with fire." + ], + [ + "A boil and a burn do not combine, nor do they spread from one to the other, nor do they spread from there to the skin of the flesh, nor does [a nega] on the skin of the flesh spread to them. If there is a boil the size of a half a split bean and a burn the size of half a split bean, they do not combine to form a nega the size of a split bean. Also, if a boil and a burn are right next to each other and the nega spreads from one to the other, it is not considered as having spread and it is pure. If the nega spreads from the boil or burn to other skin, or if a nega from other skin spreads into the burn or boil, it is not considered to have spread. Rather, the nega must spread within the boil or burn. Put simply: the burn and boil nega are considered completely separately from an adjacent nega.", + "If they were festering they are clean. If the boil or burn is still festering, it is pure. This was explained in 6:8.", + "If they formed a scale as thick as garlic peel, such is the scar of the boil that is spoken of in the Torah. Leviticus 13:23 states, \"But if the boil (inflammation) remains stationary, not having spread, it is the scar of the boil (inflammation); the priest shall pronounce him clean.\" The rabbis explain that this doesn't refer to a boil (or burn in v. 28) that have healed completely. Rather, a little bit of a scab seems to have formed on it. Since the bright spot didn't spread (see the verse) he is not isolated for a second week, as he would be for other negaim. Rather he is pronounced clean.", + "If they were subsequently healed, even though there was a mark in their place, they are regarded as the skin of the flesh. If the boil or burn completely heals, it is treated like regular skin, even if a mark remains. If a new nega appears there, the nega is treated like a regular nega, and not one that formed in a boil or burn." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a fascinating discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and the other sages, which reveals Rabbi Eliezer's personality as the arch-conservative sage.", + "They asked R. Eliezer: \"[What is the ruling concerning] one who had a bright spot the size of a sela form on the inside of his hand and it covered up the scar of a boil?\" The sages ask Rabbi Eliezer about someone who had a nega form on the palm of his hand and it covered up a smaller boil that had already scarred over.", + "He replied: \"He should be isolated.\" Rabbi Eliezer answers that he should be isolated to see if it will develop a sign of impurity.", + "They said to him: \"Why? Since it is neither capable of growing white hair nor can it effectively spread nor does quick flesh cause it to be unclean?\" The other sages point out that this is problematic. Hair does not grow on the palm of one's hand so he can't become impure for that reason. It cannot be considered to have spread for a nega formed in a boil or burn must spread into the area of the burn or boil, and in this case it already fully covers the burn or boil. Nor is quick flesh a sign of impurity inside a burn or boil. Therefore it seems that there is no reason to isolate this person for he cannot become impure.", + "He replied, \"It is possible that it will contract and then spread again.\" Rabbi Eliezer says it is possible that after the first week the nega will retract a bit and then the priest will declare him pure. If the nega would then spread back into the burn or boil, he would be impure.", + "They said to him, \"But what about when its only the size of a split bean?' The problem with Rabbi Eliezer's answer is that it only works if the burn/boil underneath the nega was originally the size of a sela, which is larger than a split bean. If the burn/boil was the size of a split bean then when the nega retracts and then spreads it will still spread into regular skin, which doesn't count as spreading. And if the nega retracts to being smaller than a split bean, the nega is considered to have disappeared. The priest will pronounce him pure and if it spreads again, this is not considered \"spreading\" but rather a new nega.", + "He said to them: I have not heard anything. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him, \"Can I teach something about this?\" He replied, \"If you would thereby confirm the ruling of the sages, go ahead.\" He said, \"Lest another boil would arise outside it and spread into it. He replied: \"You are a great scholar for you have confirmed the words of the sages.\" To this Rabbi Eliezer has no answer. He knows that the sages said that he should be isolated, but he doesn't know why. Rabbi Judah ben Batera asks permission to give an answer. Fascinatingly, Rabbi Eliezer says that he can give an answer but only if it explains the sages' opinion that he should be isolated. He is not allowed to disagree with this reason. Here we see Rabbi Eliezer's conservative tendencies. He allows a new explanation, but only if it upholds the older halakhah. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says he is isolated lest another boil appears outside of the first boil, and then the latter nega spreads into the former. A nega from one boil can spread into a nega from another boil. Rabbi Eliezer seems to be overjoyed at his student's answer, not for its inherent wisdom, but because it explains the words of the sages." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter ten deals with negaim that appear on one's head or beard. These negaim are called \"scalls\" or \"netek/netakim\". According to the rabbis the scall appears on a place on the beard or head from which regular hair has already fallen out. First the hair falls out and then the scall appears. At this point, the priest is to determine whether it is impure or not, as he does in other cases of negaim. The following are the relevant verses from Leviticus 13 that deal with the scall.\n29 If a man or a woman has an affection on the head or in the beard, 30 the priest shall examine the affection. If it appears to go deeper than the skin and there is thin yellow hair in it, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a scall, a scaly eruption in the hair or beard. 31 But if the priest finds that the scall affection does not appear to go deeper than the skin, yet there is no black hair in it, the priest shall isolate the person with the scall affection for seven days. 32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection. If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it, and the scall does not appear to go deeper than the skin, 33 the person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall; the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. 34 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the scall. If the scall has not spread on the skin, and does not appear to go deeper than the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; he shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. 35 If, however, the scall should spread on the skin after he has been pronounced clean, 36 the priest shall examine him. If the scall has spread on the skin, the priest need not look for yellow hair: he is unclean. 37 But if the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it, the scall is healed; he is clean. The priest shall pronounce him clean.", + "Scalls may become unclean for two weeks and by two signs: by thin yellow hair and by spreading. This section was found above in 3:5. Negaim of the beard or head have a two week period in which their impurity is examined, as do the other negaim we have discussed up until now. They are impure if yellow hair appears, or if they spread.", + "By thin yellow hair: means stunted and short, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: even though it is long. The rest of the mishnah discusses what the Torah means by \"thin yellow hair\" (Leviticus 13:30). Specifically, there is a debate whether the hair must be short as well as thin. Rabbi Akiva says that it must be both \"stunted\" which means that it is thin, or poor in quality. And it must also be short. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri argues that it is a sign of impurity even if it is long.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: what is the meaning of the expression when people say, \"This stick is thin,\" or \"This reed is thin\"? Does \"thin\" imply that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long? Rabbi Akiva replied: before we learn from the reed let us learn from hair, [for they say] \"So and so's hair is thin\": \"thin\" means that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long. The mishnah now records a fascinating argument between these two rabbis, each defending his own position. Both argue that they can interpret the meaning of \"thin\" from the way in which people commonly speak. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri points out that when people say \"thin\" as in \"this stick is thin\" or \"this reed is thin\" they mean that it is thin but they don't necessarily mean that it is short and thin. The adjective \"thin\" implies nothing when it comes to length. Rabbi Akiva says that the word \"thin\" does imply \"short\" when it comes to hair, which is after all the subject at hand. People will call hair \"thin\" and what they really mean is thin and short. As someone who used to have \"thinning\" hair, I'm going to have to side with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. Some of those lone hairs left on my head were indeed quite long, even if they were few and far in-between!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today's mishnah two sages argue whether the thin yellow hair that is a sign of impurity in a scall must appear only after the scall has already appeared or whether it can precede the scall.", + "Yellow thin hair causes uncleanness whether it is clustered together or dispersed, whether it is encompassed or unencompassed, or whether it came after the scall or before it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: it causes uncleanness only when it came after the scall. The two yellow hairs that cause a scall to be unclean can either be clustered together, i.e. right next to each other, or they can be at opposite ends of the scall. They can be encompassed completely by the scall or they can be unencompassed, at its edges. According to Rabbi Judah, it doesn't matter whether they come before or after the scall. In all cases they are a sign of impurity. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that the hairs must appear after the scall.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: Is it not logical: if white hair, against which other hair affords no protection, causes uncleanness only when it comes after the nega, how much more should yellow thin hair, against which other hair does afford protection, cause uncleanness only when it comes after the scall? Rabbi Shimon now explains his logic. When it comes to the white hairs that are a sign of impurity in a regular nega, one that appears on the body, they cause uncleanness only if they appear after the nega. For these hairs the rule is more stringent no other hair will \"afford protection\" for them. This means that if black hairs are also there, the nega is still impure, as long as there are at least two white hairs. The rule with regard to yellow hairs is more lenient other hairs of other colors \"afford protection\" such that if there are two yellow hairs and two black hairs, the nega is pure. Therefore, the rule with regard to which comes first should also be lenient only if the scall precedes the yellow hairs should they be a sign of impurity.", + "Rabbi Judah says: Whenever it was necessary to say, \"it turns\" Scripture says, \"it turns.\" But the scall, since about it Scripture says, \"there is no yellow hair in it,\" it causes uncleanness whether it came before or after it. Rabbi Judah prefers a more literal reading of the verse. Leviticus 13:3 says, \"and the hair in the nega turned white.\" Clearly, the nega precedes the white hairs. When it comes to the scall, the Torah doesn't use the word \"turned yellow\" rather it states, \"and there is no yellow hair in it.\" This means that it doesn't matter whether the yellow hair came before or after the scall. We should note that these are two different ways of deriving halakhah. Rabbi Shimon employs a rabbinic type of argument. We know the halakhah in one situation (white hairs in a nega) and we compare them with yellow hairs in a scall. Rabbi Judah employs a more literal reading of the Torah. Indeed, this is typical of Rabbi Judah who is more often known as the literalist." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with Leviticus 13:37 which states, \"But if the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it, the scall is healed; he is clean.\"", + "[Black hair] that sprouts up affords protection against yellow hair and against a spreading, whether it was clustered together or dispersed, whether it was encompassed or unencompassed. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if a black hair grows in the scall, he is pure. According to the rabbis this is true even if there is yellow hair or the scall spreads. This is true whether the black hairs were clustered together or dispersed, or whether they were totally encompassed by the scall or they were unencompassed and found at the edge of the scall. In all cases, if black hairs sprout up in the scall, he is pure.", + "And that which is left [over from before the scall] affords protection against yellow hair and against a spreading, whether it is clustered together or dispersed, and also when encompassed, but it affords no protection where it is at the side unless it is distant from the standing hair by the place of two hairs. This section deals with hairs that appear after the scall has already formed. These hairs were there and then remained when the rest of the hair on the head or beard fell out. Basically, the same laws that applied in section one apply here. This is implied explicitly Leviticus 13:31. The one difference between the two situations is when the two black hairs appear at the side. In this case they afford protection only if they are two hairs distance away from the hairs that already exist in the netek (the scall).", + "If one hair was yellow and the other black, or if one was yellow and the other white, they afford no protection. In order to afford protection from impurity there need to be two black hairs. If one hair is black and one is yellow, the scall is impure if there is a spreading or another yellow hair." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with yellow hair that exists before the scall.", + "Yellow hair that preceded a scall is clean. This opinion matches Rabbi Shimon's opinion in mishnah two. For the yellow hair to be a sign of uncleanness it must turn yellow or grow after the scall already exists. If it is there before, it is clean.", + "Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. This matches Rabbi Judah's opinion in mishnah two. As long as there is yellow hair in the scall, it is a sign of impurity.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: it neither causes uncleanness nor does it afford protection. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that while yellow hairs that precede the scall are not a sign of uncleanness, they do not afford protection. This means that if two yellow hairs sprout after the formation of the scall, the two that existed before the scall do not protect it from being impure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: anything in a scall that is not a sign of uncleanness is a sign of cleanness. Rabbi Shimon agrees with the opinion in section one, and disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Since yellow hairs that precede the scall are not a sign of impurity, they do afford protection. If there are yellow hairs before the formation of the scall, the scall is pure even if subsequently other yellow hairs sprout." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first part of our mishnah deals with the obligation to shave the head or beard due to a scall. After a week of isolation, if no signs of impurity appear the person with the scall shaves his head and beard except for the place of the scall. This is stated in Leviticus 13:32-33:\n32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection. If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it, and the scall does not appear to go deeper than the skin, 33 the person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall; the priest shall isolate him for another seven days.\nAs a reminder, the scall was located on a place from where the hairs had fallen out.", + "How does one shave who has a scall? He shaves outside it and leaves next to it two hairs in order to determine whether it spreads. When shaving at the end of the first week of isolation, he shaves around the scall and leaves the space of two hairs unshaven. If these two hairs fall out, it is a sign of spreading and he is impure.", + "If he was certified unclean on account of yellow hair, and then the yellow hair disappeared and other yellow hair appeared, and so also if there was a spreading, irrespective of whether the certification took place at the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week or after his release from uncleanness, behold he remains as he was before. In this case the person is certified unclean because of yellow hair. Then the yellow hair falls out and other yellow hair appears or the scall spreads. No matter when he was certified unclean at the outset or at any other time, once the new sign appears he becomes impure again without the priest declaring him impure again. This halakhah was taught with regard to a bright spot in 5:2.", + "If he was certified unclean on account of a spreading, and the spreading disappeared and then reappeared, and so also if there was yellow hair, irrespective of whether the certification took place at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week or after his release from uncleanness, he remains as he was before. Here he is declared unclean because the scall spread. This section is basically the same as section two, except since spreading is not a sign of impurity at the outset, he cannot be declared impure at the outset. See also 5:2." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with two scalls that are next to each other, with a line of hair separating the two of them. The mishnah is concerned with determining how to tell if one of the scalls has spread.", + "Two scalls side by side and a line of hair separating between them: If a gap opened up in one place he is unclean, But if it opened up in two places he is clean. If one gap opens up between the two scalls then we can say that one of the scalls spread and he is impure. However, if two gaps open up between them then we look at both scalls as having joined together. Since there are black hairs now within the scall, they prevent the person from being considered impure.", + "How big should the gap be? The space of two hairs. The gap that opens up in the line of hair must be the size of two hairs for the two scalls to be considered as one.", + "If there was a gap in one place, even though it is as big as a split bean, he is unclean. This section is superfluous for we have already learned that if there is only one gap he is unclean. The section is here because of it is opposite of the last section in mishnah seven which we will learn tomorrow." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday's mishnah dealt with two scalls next to each other but separated by a line of hair. Today's mishnah deals with two scalls where one surrounds the other, and there is a line of hair separating the inside one from the outside one.", + "Two scalls one within the other and a line of hair separating between them: If there appeared a gap in one place the inner one is unclean, But if in two places it is clean. If one gap opens up between the two scalls then the inner one is unclean because it is considered to have spread. The line of hairs adjacent to it does not afford protection because it is at the side of the inner scall. But the outer scall is not impure because there are two hairs which it surrounds. To reiterate: hairs which exist prior to the scall must be inside in order to afford protection (see mishnah three). If, however, there are two gaps, then both scalls are considered one and the black hairs afford protection", + "How big must the gap be? The space of two hairs. Same as yesterday's mishnah.", + "If there was a gap in one place of the size of a split bean he is clean. If there is only one gap between them and the outer scall encompasses the inner one, then if the gap is the size of a split bean it causes the two scalls to be considered as one. The black hairs inside the scall mean that it is pure." + ], + [ + "One who has a scall with yellow hair within it is unclean. If one has a scall with a yellow hair in it, whether that yellow hair preceded the scall or developed after the scall, he is impure.", + "If subsequently black hair grew in it, he is clean; even if the black hair disappeared again he remains clean. Even if the black hair subsequently disappears, once he is pronounced clean he stays clean.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: any scall that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah formulates a general principle that reflects what he believes the previous opinion had stated. Any scall that was unclean, whether because it had spread or because it had a yellow hair, and then became clean because the spreading disappeared or because the yellow hair disappeared, the scall can never become unclean again.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: any yellow hair that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean. Rabbi Shimon himself gives a more limited general rule. If the yellow hair was pronounced clean because of the black hair, that yellow hair can itself never serve as a sign of impurity. However, if yellow hair forms and then disappears, and then other yellow hair forms or the scall spreads, then the scall can again become impure." + ], + [ + "If one had a scall the size of a split bean and it spread over all his head he becomes clean. Just as a body nega (a bright spot) that spreads over one's entire body becomes pure (see 8:1) so too a scall that spread all over one's head causes him to be pure.", + "The head and the beard do not prevent [one another], the words of Rabbi Judah. According to Rabbi Judah, if the scall spreads all over his head but not his beard, or all over his beard but not his head, he is pure. This is the meaning of \"do not prevent\" one doesn't need the scall to spread all over the other for him to be pure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: they do prevent. Rabbi Shimon said: Is there not a logical inference: if the skin of the face and the skin of the body, between which something intervenes, do prevent [one another], the head and the beard, between which nothing intervenes, should they not also prevent [one another]? Rabbi Shimon holds that they do prevent one another from becoming pure. He now argues this out using a logical inference. The skin of the face and the skin of the body are separated by the head and beard. Nevertheless, if one has a nega on his entire body and it doesn't cover his face, or vice versa, he is still impure. This means that they do \"prevent one another\" they do prevent the other from causing him to be clean. All the more so, the head and the beard, two parts of the body with nothing in between them, should \"prevent one another\" from becoming pure if one and not the other is covered with a scall.", + "The head and the beard do not combine, nor is a spreading from one to the other effective. If there is a scall half the size of a split bean on the beard and an adjacent scall half the size of a split bean on the head, the two half-sized scalls do not combine to form one scall large enough to be impure. Similarly, if there is a scall on the beard and it spreads to the head or vice versa, this is not considered spreading and the person is not impure.", + "What exactly counts as the beard? From the joint of the jaw to the thyroid cartilage. This section gives the dimensions of what is considered the beard and what is considered the head. Obviously, to be able to determine the halakhah in the scenarios in sections 1-4 we would need to know exactly where the beard and head begin and end." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah Ten deals with negaim that appear in scalp or forehead baldness, mentioned in Leviticus 13:40-44:\n40 If a man loses the hair of his head and becomes bald, he is clean. 41 If he loses the hair on the front part of his head and becomes bald at the forehead, he is clean. 42 But if a white affection streaked with red appears on the bald part in the front or at the back of the head, it is a scaly eruption that is spreading over the bald part in the front or at the back of the head. 43 The priest shall examine him: if the swollen affection on the bald part in the front or at the back of his head is white streaked with red, like the leprosy of body skin in appearance, 44 the man is leprous; he is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; he has the affection on his head.\nThese negaim appear in a place from which hair has already fallen out completely, whereas the scalls we have been talking about up until now appear in places with hair.", + "Scalp baldness ( or forehead baldness ( may become unclean in two weeks and by two signs: by quick flesh or by spreading. Scalp and forehead baldness have some of the same rules as negaim on the body. There is a two week period of isolation in which it is determined whether he is impure. The two signs of impurity are quick flesh and spreading. Yellow hair is not a sign of impurity because there is no hair in bald spots at all.", + "What constitutes baldness? If one ate neshem or smeared himself with neshem or had a wound from which hair can no longer grow. The mishnah asks what type of baldness is referred to here. In other words, what caused the hair on his scalp or forehead to fall out? The baldness is not natural baldness but baldness caused either by a drug (neshem) or by a wound.", + "What is the extent of scalp baldness? From the crown sloping backwards to the protruding cartilage of the neck. Scalp baldness is baldness on the back of the head. It begins at the crown of the head and slopes back to the neck.", + "What is the extent of forehead baldness? From the crown sloping forwards to the region facing the hair above. Forehead baldness slopes forward from the crown, meaning it is the front of the head.", + "Scalp baldness and forehead baldness cannot be combined, nor is spreading from one to the other effective. Rabbi Judah says: if there is hair between them they cannot be combined, but if there is none they must be combined. If there is a nega on the scalp that is half the size of a split bean and it is adjacent to a nega on the forehead also the size of half a split bean, they do not combine. Nor does spreading from one region to the other count as spreading. Rabbi Judah says that if a row of hair separates the scalp from the forehead, and then the hair falls out, then they can be combined or spread from one to the other. But as long as the hair separates them, they cannot be combined or spread from one to the other." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nUp until now the Mishnah has been dealing with negaim that appear on the body. Chapter eleven deals with negaim that occur in clothing. This is addressed in Leviticus 13:47-59.", + "All garments can contract the uncleanness of negaim except those of non-Jews. The laws of negaim, including the laws concerning the negaim that appear on garments, apply only to Jews. However, they do apply to all Jews, women, men and children.", + "One who buys garments [with signs of negaim] from non-Jews they must be inspected as if the signs had then first appeared. If one buys a garment from a non-Jew, it now becomes a garment owned by a Jew (duh!). A nega that is already in it is treated as if it just appeared, and it must be inspected as would be any nega at the outset of its appearance.", + "The hides [of animals] of the sea do not contract the uncleanness of negaim. Leviticus 13:47-8 states: \"When an eruptive affection occurs in a cloth of wool or linen fabric, in the warp or in the woof of the linen or the wool, or in a skin or in anything made of skin.\" Cloth (wool), linen and skin (animal) garments are clearly susceptible to negaim. Just as wool, linen and skins come from things grown on the land, so too anything \"grown\" on the land is susceptible to negaim. But hides made of animals of the sea, such as whale or dolphin, are not susceptible to negaim.", + "If one joined to them anything which grows on land, even if it is only a thread or a cord, as long as it is something that is susceptible to uncleanness, they also become susceptible to uncleanness. If one connected a piece of wool or linen that is susceptible to impurity, meaning it is large enough to be subject to the laws of impurity, the entire composite piece of clothing becomes susceptible. For instance, if I made a garment out of dolphin skin, but then I wanted to put a lining of wool in it, the entire garment would become susceptible to negaim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with cases where two types of wool or two flax and hemp have been hackled together to make one garment.", + "Camel's wool and sheep's wool that have been hackled together: If the majority is camel's hair, they are not susceptible to negaim; But if the majority is sheep's wool they are susceptible to negaim. If it is half and half they are susceptible to negaim. Camel's wool is not susceptible to negaim impurity because the \"wool\" mentioned in Leviticus is considered to be only sheep's wool. Therefore, if the majority of the garment is made of sheep's wool, or if even half of the garment is made of sheep's wool, it is susceptible to negaim. But if it is mostly camel's wool, it is not susceptible. We should note that in this case the camel and sheep's wool have been joined together so well that it is impossible to recognize which is which. This is what distinguishes this case from yesterday's mishnah, where a garment of wool or linen was attached to a garment made of skins of sea animals. In that case, since the garment of wool or linen was recognizable on its own, the entire garment became susceptible to impurity.", + "And the same law applies also to linen and hemp that have been hackled together. Linen (made from flax) and hemp are closely related, but only the former is susceptible to negaim (because it is mentioned specifically by the Torah). Therefore, the rules here are the same as above." + ], + [ + "Colored hides and garments are not susceptible to negaim. Houses whether they are colored or not colored, are susceptible to negaim, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, hides and garments must be uncolored for them to be susceptible to negaim. Even if their color is natural, such as the hide of a tiger or some other colorful animal, clothing made of them is not susceptible to impurity. Houses (we shall learn about house impurity in the next chapter) on the other hand are different. They are susceptible whether they have been colored or not.", + "Rabbi Judah says: hides are like houses. Rabbi Judah says hides and houses are treated the same both are susceptible whether they are colored are not.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: those that are naturally [colored] are susceptible to uncleanness but those that are artificially [dyed] are not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Shimon says that hides are susceptible if they are naturally colored, but they are not susceptible if their color is artificial, meaning they have been dyed. While the theoretical basis of this dispute is not explained, perhaps we could surmise that there is an issue of \"nature\" here. Wool and linen are naturally white (or dirty white). Therefore, if they are colored, they are removed from the realm of the natural and no longer susceptible to impurity. Human skin too is \"natural\" and therefore it is susceptible to impurity. In other words, human skin is the paradigm for the other types of negaim. In contrast to wool and linen, there is less of a \"natural\" color to houses, and therefore, they are susceptible to impurity even if they have been dyed or the material is naturally colored. In other words, nature plays no role here because they are far removed from nature anyway. The debate is over hides Rabbi Judah says that hides have no natural color, therefore they are like houses and are always susceptible. Rabbi Shimon says that if the hide has a natural color, then it is of course \"natural\" and is susceptible. But if it has been artificially dyed, it is not susceptible, just like wool and cloth." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe beginning of this mishnah continues to deal with garments that are colored, or at least partly colored.\nThe second half deals with the spread of the nega within the garment.", + "A garment whose warp was colored and whose woof was white, or whose woof was colored and whose warp was white, all depends on what is most visible. The warp threads are those that are attached to the loom and run lengthwise. The yarn that is inserted is the woof. Whether or not the garment is considered to be \"colored\" does not depend specifically on which one is colored, but rather on whether or not the color is most visible. Albeck explains that when it comes to clothing, the woof is most noticeable, but when it comes to pillows, sheets and blankets, the warp is most visible.", + "Garments contract uncleanness if they are an intense green or an intense red. Leviticus 13:49 reads: \"If the affection in the cloth or the skin, in the warp or the woof, or in any article of skin, is streaky green or red, it is an eruptive affection. It shall be shown to the priest.\" The rabbis interpret \"streaky green or red\" to be intense colors. For the nega found in the garment to be considered impure, it must be intensely red or green.", + "If [the nega] was green and it spread out red, or if it was red and it spread out green, it is unclean. Garment negaim are like skin negaim. At the outset they are isolated and if the nega spreads they are pronounced unclean. If the original color was red or green and the color of the spreading was different, it counts as spreading and it is unclean.", + "If its color changed and then it spread, or if it changed and it did not spread, it is regarded as if it had not changed. Rabbi Judah says: let it be inspected as if it then appeared for the first time. If the color of the nega changed before it spread, we regard it is as if it didn't change. Therefore, if it spread it is impure and the garment must be burned. If it didn't spread, the garment should be laundered and then isolated for another week to see if it spreads. Rabbi Judah says that if the color changes it is treated as if it was a new nega. Therefore, it would have to be laundered and isolated to see if it subsequently spreads." + ], + [ + "[A nega] that remained unchanged during the first week must be washed and isolated. This halakhah is stated explicitly in Leviticus 13:53-54: \"But if the priest sees that the affection in the cloth whether in warp or in woof, or in any article of skin has not spread, the priest shall order the affected article washed, and he shall isolate it for another seven days.\"", + "One that remains unchanged during the second week must be burned. If it is still there after the second week, the garment must be burned, as is stated in verse 55: \"And if, after the affected article has been washed, the priest sees that the affection has not changed color and that it has not spread, it is unclean. It shall be consumed in fire; it is a fret, whether on its inner side or on its outer side.\"", + "One that spread during the first or the second week must be burned. If it spreads during either week, it is impure and must be burned, as it says: \"If the affection has spread in the cloth whether in the warp or the woof, or in the skin, for whatever purpose the skin may be used the affection is a malignant eruption; it is unclean. The cloth whether warp or woof in wool or linen, or any article of skin in which the affection is found, shall be burned, for it is a malignant eruption; it shall be consumed in fire.\"", + "If it becomes dimmer in the beginning: Rabbi Ishmael says: it should be washed and isolated. But the sages say: he is not required [to do so]. According to Rabbi Ishmael, if it becomes dimmer before it is even brought to the priest, it is treated as if it became dimmer at the end of the first week. In such a case he must wash the garment and isolate it for another week. But the sages say that since the color is already weaker than the required strong green or red, it need not even be isolated. It is pure.", + "If the nega became dimmer during the first week it must be washed and isolated. If it becomes dimmer during the first week of isolation, it should be washed and set aside for another week.", + "If it became dimmer during the second week it must be torn out, and that which is torn out must be burnt, and it is necessary for a patch to be put on. Rabbi Nehemiah says: a patch is not necessary. Leviticus 13:56 states, \" But if the priest sees that the affected part, after it has been washed, is faded, he shall tear it out from the cloth or skin, whether in the warp or in the woof.\" According to the sages, if the spot fades during the second week, the faded spot must be torn out and then replaced by a patch. This way we can see if it appears again in the same place. Rabbi Nehemiah says that he need not put on a patch." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the reappearance of a nega in a patch that was put on a garment after the nega faded or the reappearance of the nega in the garment itself. The relevant verses are Leviticus 13:56-57:\n56 But if the priest sees that the affected part, after it has been washed, is faded, he shall tear it out from the cloth or skin, whether in the warp or in the woof; 57 and if it occurs again in the cloth whether in warp or in woof or in any article of skin, it is a wild growth; the affected article shall be consumed in fire.", + "If the nega reappears on the garment, the patch is protected. If the nega returns to the garment, the garment itself must be burned. This is stated explicitly in verse 57. However, the patch that was placed on the garment need not be burned.", + "If it reappears on the patch the garment must be burned. If the nega reappears on the patch, then the entire garment, including the patch, must be burned.", + "One who makes a patch from a garment that was isolated and then pronounced pure, and then the nega reappeared on the garment, the patch must be burned. In this case, a person makes a patch using cloth from a garment that had already been isolated because of another nega, and then had been declared pure. If the nega returns to the garment, the patch must also be burned. Just as one burns a garment if a nega returns to it after it has already been isolated, so too here one must burn the patch and the garment after the nega returns to it.", + "If it reappeared on the patch, the first garment must be burned, and the patch serves the second garment while the two signs are under observation. This section addresses the same situation as in section three, except here the nega returns to the patch and not the garment. The first garment, the one from which the patch had been taken, must be burned. Even though the nega returned to a piece of the garment that had already been removed, since the patch came from the original garment, the whole original garment must be burned. As far as the second garment goes, it will be isolated as if this was the first appearance of a nega in the garment. They will now wait to see if signs of impurity appear in the second garment. If they do, then the whole garment will be burned. If they do not, the garment is pure, although the patch must be burned in any case." + ], + [ + "A screen that had colored and white stripes, a nega may effectively spread from one to the other. The screen has stripes that are white and colored. If the nega appears on the white stripe and then spreads to the colored stripe, the entire screen is impure. This is true even though colored garments are not susceptible to impurity.", + "They asked Rabbi Eliezer: But the white stripe is separate? He replied: I have heard no ruling on this question. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him: Shall I derive the answer? He replied: If this would confirm the words of the sages, then yes! He said back: It is possible that it would remain on it in an unchanged condition for two weeks, and that which remains unchanged on garments for two weeks is unclean. He said to him: You are a great sage, for you have confirmed the words of the sages. We now have a discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Judah ben Batera. Rabbi Eliezer, as is well-known, is the arch-conservative, never wishing to say anything that he hadn't already heard from his teachers. He accepts the halakhah found in section one, but he doesn't really understand it. After all, the white stripe stands on its own, separate from the colored stripe. So how can spreading into the colored stripe cause the white stripe to be impure? Rabbi Eliezer gives Rabbi Judah permission to answer his question, but only if his answer supports the halakhah found in section one. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that the garment is impure not because of the spreading to the colored stripe but rather because the whole garment could be impure if the nega stays on the white stripe for two weeks. When the sages said \"it effectively spread from one to the other\" they did not mean literally that it can spread. Rather, it spreads in the sense that if the white stripe is impure because the nega remained there for two weeks, the whole garment becomes impure, even the colored stripes. Rabbi Eliezer accepts the answer because it confirms that which the sages said, even though it effectively provides a different reason for why the garment is impure.", + "A spreading that is close [to the original nega is effective] however small it may be. One that is distant [is effective only] if it is of the size of a split bean. And one that reappears [is effective only if it is] of the size of a split bean. This section deals with how large the \"spreading\" must be. If the spreading is right next to the original nega, it can be any size and it will cause the garment to be impure. If the spreading is slightly removed, then the spreading must be the size of a split bean. And if a nega returns to a garment that has already been declared pure must be the size of a split bean for the garment to be made impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses at what point threads become susceptible to negaim.", + "The warp and the woof can contract the uncleanness of negaim immediately. Rabbi Judah says: the warp, only after it has been boiled, but the woof immediately. Because Leviticus 13:48 states, \"in the warp or in the woof of the linen or the wool,\" the rabbis rule that the threads of the warp and woof are susceptible to impurity as soon as they have been woven. Rabbi Judah says that the warp which consists of thinner strands, must be boiled before it is susceptible to negaim. The boiling was done to whiten the threads. The warp is susceptible immediately.", + "And bundles of flax after they have been bleached. After they would remove the flax from where it had been soaking to soften it, they would put it in the oven so that it would become white. Only then is the flax susceptible to negaim.", + "How much must there be in a coil for it to be capable of contracting the uncleanness of negaim? Enough to weave from it a piece of three fingerbreadths square, either warp or woof, even if it is all warp or all woof. For the coil of strings to be susceptible to negaim there must be enough thread to make a garment that is three fingerbreadths square. Even if all of the threads are either warp or woof, as long as there is enough to make three fingerbreadths of cloth, it is susceptible.", + "If it consisted of broken threads it does not contract the uncleanness of negaim. Rabbi Judah says: even if the thread was broken only in one place, and he knotted together, it does not contract the uncleanness of negaim. If the bundle was made of broken threads, then it is not susceptible, assumedly because these are not so usable. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient. Even if the thread was broken in only one place, and then it was tied back together, it is not susceptible." + ], + [ + "One who winds [a thread] from one coil to another, or from one spool to another, or from the upper beam to the lower beam, and so also in the case of the two sides of a shirt, if a nega appears on the one, the other remains clean. If one winds a thread from one coil to another, and a nega appears on one coil, the other is still clean. The same is true if a thread connects two spools or the upper and lower beams of a loom. Shirts were made by sewing together two sides. If a thread connects the two sides, and one side is impure through a nega, the other side remains clean. In other words, in all of these cases, a thread does not serve to connect the two items at hand.", + "If it appears on the shedded woof or on the standing warp, they become susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim immediately. Rabbi Shimon says: the warp may contract uncleanness only if it is closely ordered. The \"shedded woof\" refers to the woof threads that have already been woven into the warp but have not yet been straightened and tightened together. The \"standing warp\" are the threads that lie on the loom and wait for the woof. According to the first opinion, these threads are now susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says that the threads must be closely ordered before they are susceptible to uncleanness." + ], + [ + "[If a nega] appeared on the standing warp, the already woven cloth remains clean. If it appeared on the already woven cloth, the standing warp remains clean. The standing warp refers to the threads that are still on the loom. If the nega appears there, only they are impure the cloth that has already been woven remains pure. The same is true in the opposite scenario if the nega appears on the cloth, the warp that is on the loom remains pure.", + "If it appeared on a sheet, he must also burn the fringes. If it appeared on the fringes the sheet remains clean. The fringes are the strings that protrude from the sheet. If the nega appears on the sheet, the fringes must be burned along with the sheet. However, the opposite is not true if the nega appears on the fringes, the sheet remains clean.", + "A shirt on which a nega appeared affords protection to its hems, even though they are of purple wool. If a shirt is impure because of a nega, the hems that are around the shirt remain clean, even if they are made of purple wool which is susceptible to impurity (although only because it is wool as we learned earlier, dyed clothing is not susceptible)." + ], + [ + "Any object that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, though not susceptible to midras uncleanness, is still susceptible to negaim uncleanness. There are objects that are susceptible to corpse uncleanness, but not to midras uncleanness (the type of uncleanness conveyed by sitting, leaning or laying upon an object). For an item to be susceptible to nega uncleanness it need not be susceptible to midras uncleanness, meaning it need not be something that is meant to be sat, laid or leaned upon. It is sufficient for it to be susceptible to corpse uncleanness. Of course, this only refers to items made of wool or linen.", + "For instance: the sail of a ship, a curtain, the forehead band of a hair-net, the wrappings of scrolls, a coiled belt, the straps of a shoe or sandal that are at least as wide as a split bean, Behold these are susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim. This is a list of objects that are not subject to midras uncleanness and yet are subject to corpse uncleanness and therefore are also subject to nega uncleanness.", + "A thick cloak on which a nega appeared: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: unless it appears on the texture and on the stuffing. The thick cloak referred to here is made of wool and its inside is full of used pieces of cloth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that for it to be unclean it must have a nega on both the inside stuffing and the outside.", + "A skin bottle or a shepherd's leather wallet are inspected in the position in which they are used, and a nega may effectively spread from its inner side to its outer side and from its outer side to its inner side. One can inspect both a skin bottle (used to carry wine or water) and a shepherd's leather wallet (also used to carry water, see Kelim 24:1) without undoing the stitching. This is what it means that they are \"inspected in the position in which they are used.\" And a nega that is originally found either inside or outside can effectively spread to the opposite side." + ], + [ + "If a garment that had been isolated was mixed up with others, all are clean.
If it was cut up and made into shreds, it is clean, and benefit may be derived from it.
But if a garment that had been certified unclean was mixed up with others, all are unclean.
If it was cut up and made into shreds it also remains unclean and it is forbidden to have any benefit from it.
Today's mishnah, the last mishnah about garment-negaim, deals with some differences in the status between a garment that has been isolated to see if an impure nega develops, and a garment that has already been declared impure.
Section one: The garment that was isolated is considered to be \"doubtfully impure.\" And since we don't know which of the garments was the one that was isolated, they are all \"doubly doubtful.\" And in cases of \"double doubts\" the law is lenient therefore all of the garments are pure. [We should note that the rabbis loved to talk about this subject cases where the status of something was doubtful].
Section two: The garment that was isolated was then cut up into small pieces. These pieces are too small to become impure, therefore they are pure and benefit may be derived from them.
Sections three and four: In these cases, the garment was certainly impure. Therefore, the law is the opposite. All of the mixed up garments are unclean and it would be forbidden to derive benefit from any of them." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter Twelve deals with negaim that are found in houses. This is referred to in Leviticus 14:33-53.\nThe first mishnah of the chapter deals with which types of houses are susceptible to negaim. It is similar to the first mishnah of chapter eleven.", + "All houses may contract negaim uncleanness, except those of non-Jews. As was the case with garment-negaim, only houses owned by Jews are susceptible to negaim.", + "If one bought houses from non-Jews, any it must be inspected as if they had then first appeared. If a Jew buys a house from a non-Jew and it has a nega, the inspection procedure begins anew, as it would if the nega had just appeared.", + "A round house, a triangular house, or a house built on a ship, on a raft or on four beams, is not susceptible to negaim uncleanness. Only square houses that are built on the ground are susceptible to impurity. A \"house built on beams\" refers to a house that is built on beams that jut out from another building. Such a house does not directly rest on the ground and therefore is not susceptible to impurity.", + "But if it was four-sided, even if it was built on four pillars, it is susceptible to uncleanness. However, four-sided houses are susceptible even if they are built on pillars that come out of the ground. In other words, the house does not have to be built directly on the ground. It can be built on another structure (but not a building) that comes out of the ground." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last line of this mishnah is the key to understanding it for a house to be susceptible to impurity it must have stones, wood and earth. Based on partially on that principle, the mishnah lists what material must be in houses for it to be susceptible to nega impurity.", + "A house, one of whose walls was covered with marble, with rock, with bricks or with earth, is pure. The only building material that is susceptible to house negaim is: wood, stones (formed from rocks) and clumps of earth used to cement the parts together. Marble, rocks and bricks are not susceptible, and therefore even if only one of the walls is made from such material, the whole house is not susceptible.", + "A house that did not have in it stones, wood or earth, and a nega appeared in it and afterwards stones, wood and earth were brought into it, it remains clean. If even one of the four walls of the house was originally made of material that was not susceptible to impurity and then a nega appeared, and then the susceptible material was added to the wall, the house remains pure. In other words, if the nega appeared in a house that was not susceptible, and then the house became susceptible, it remains pure.", + "So also a garment in which there was no woven part that was three fingerbreadths square and a nega appeared in it and afterwards there was woven into it a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square, it remains clean. This is the same rule but in connection with a garment. A garment must be at least three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths to be susceptible to impurity. So if the nega appeared in the garment before it was large enough to be susceptible, it remains pure even if its size is increased. We should note that negaim are the one type of impurity that remain in/on something. All other impurity is contracted by some sort of contact with something from the outside world.", + "A house does is not susceptible to negaim uncleanness unless there are in it stones, wood and earth. This section is included here as an introduction to tomorrow's mishnah. So stay tuned!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how large the nega must be for it to be a sign of impurity.", + "And how many stones must there be in it [for it to be susceptible to negaim]? Rabbi Ishmael says: four. Rabbi Akiva says: eight. Rabbi Ishmael says that there must be four stones in the house, at least one for each wall, in order for the house to be susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Akiva says that there must be two stones in each wall.", + "For Rabbi Ishmael used to say: a nega is not a cause of uncleanness unless it appeared in the size of two split beans on two stones or on one stone. Rabbi Ishmael says that the nega must be at least the size of two split beans, but it need not be in two stones. Since it is sufficient for the nega to be on one stone, each wall has to have only one stone for the house to be susceptible.", + "Rabbi Akiva say: unless it appears in the size of two split beans on two stones, and not on one stone. Rabbi Akiva says that the nega must appear on two stones. Therefore, there needs to be two stones in each wall.", + "Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says: unless it appears in the size of two split beans, on two stones, on two walls in a corner, Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says that the nega must appear on two stones, but each of the two stones must be on a different wall, such that the nega appears in the corner. If the nega appears on one stone on one wall, the house is still pure.", + "Its length being that of two split beans and its breadth that of one split bean. This section is everyone's opinion. All sages agree that the nega must be at least the length of two split beans (which according to my math, makes one full bean!) but that its breadth need only be one split bean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how much wood and earth must be in the wall for it to be susceptible to impurity.", + "[And how much] wood [must be in the wall for it to susceptible]? Enough to be set under the lintel. Rabbi Judah says: it must suffice to make the support at the back of the lintel. According to the first opinion, there needs to be enough wood on each house to be used under the lintel. The Rambam explains that this wood is used to support the stone lintel while it is being built. Rabbi Judah says that there must be enough to support the back of the lintel. This was used to keep the lintel straight.", + "[And how much] earth [must be in the wall for it to susceptible]? Such as would suffice to fill up the space between one row of stones and another. There also must be enough earth to fill up the space between two rows of stones.", + "The walls of a cattle-trough or the walls of a partition are not susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim. The walls must be of living quarters for them to be susceptible to impurity. The walls of a cattle-trough used to feed cattle are not susceptible to negaim. Similarly, walls used to partition off rooms of a house are not susceptible.", + "A house in Jerusalem or in any place outside the land of Israel is not susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim. Leviticus 14:34 states, \"In the land of your possession.\" According to the rabbis, this means that houses in Jerusalem, which was not part of any tribe's possession, are not susceptible. Houses outside the land of Israel are also not susceptible because they too are not part of Israel's ancestral possession." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOstensibly, this mishnah deals with the procedure in which a house is inspected for negaim. However, most of the mishnah actually inteprets a few biblical verses that discuss this procedure.", + "What is the procedure for the inspection of a house? \"The owner of the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, \"Something like a plague has appeared upon my house\" (Leviticus 14:35). Even if he is a learned sage and knows that it is definitely a nega, he may not speak with certainty saying, \"A plague has appeared upon my house,\" but rather, \"Something like a plague has appeared upon my house.\" Leviticus 14:35 contains a curious phrase \"Something like a plague\" as opposed to simply \"a plague.\" The mishnah emphasizes that this phrase must be recited. Even if the resident is a sage, and knows that what has appeared in his house is indeed a nega, he must still come to the priest and say \"something like a plague.\"", + "\"The priest shall order the house cleared before the priest enters to examine the plague, so that nothing in the house may become unclean; after that the priest shall enter to examine the house.\" Even bundles of wood and even bundles of reeds [must be removed], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon said: clearing keeps him occupied. The Torah dictates that everything must be cleared from the house before the priest examines it. This prevents anything in the house from becoming unclean. Rabbi Judah interprets since the Torah says that \"everything\" must be removed, even things that are not susceptible to impurity, like bundles of wood and reeds, must be cleared from the house. Rabbi Shimon says that there is no real reason to clear out bundles of wood and reeds from the house since they can't become impure. The purpose is not to protect their purity. Rather it is to keep the owner busy clearing out his house, for perhaps the nega will disappear while he is in the process of doing so. We can see here that the rabbis pick up on the cues that the Torah itself gives it is desirable to preserve the purity of the items in the house as much as possible.", + "Rabbi Meir said: But which [of his goods] could become unclean? If you were to say, his articles of wood, of cloth or of metal, he could immerse them and they will become clean. What is it that the Torah has spared? His earthenware, even his cruse and his bucket. If the Torah thus spared a man's humble possessions, how much more so would it spare his cherished possessions! If for his material possessions, how much more so for the life of his sons and daughters! If for the possessions of a wicked man, how much more so for the possessions of a righteous one! Rabbi Meir again asks what items is the Torah referring to when it says that everything must be cleared from the house? If it is anything made of wood, cloth or metal, even if it becomes impure, it can be cleansed by immersion in a mikveh. So what exactly is it that the Torah is protecting? The answer is that it is protecting earthenware vessels, which are the cheapest, most dispensable type of vessels. Now, if the Torah goes so far out of its way to protect such small, not particularly valuable items, all the more so the Torah is concerned with protecting a person from larger financial loss. And if the Torah is concerned with financial loss, all the more so it is concerned with the loss of life, which is obviously much more valuable. And according to the rabbis, negaim are a result of \"lashon hara\" the evil tongue. Negaim, according to rabbinic thought, afflict those who are morally corrupt. Nevertheless, the Torah offers protection to the afflicted person's possessions. And if the Torah protects the possessions of a wicked person, all the more so it will protect the possessions of a righteous person." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with the procedure of inspecting and declaring impure a house in which a nega has been found.", + "[The priest] must not go into his own house to isolate it, nor may he stand within the house in which there is a nega. Rather, he must stand at the door of the house in which is there is a nega, and isolate it from there, as it is said, \"The priest shall come out of the house to the entrance of the house, and close up the house for seven days\" (Leviticus 14:38). The priest's pronunciation that the house should be isolated to see if the nega spreads is done from outside the house. This is stated quite clearly in Leviticus 14:38.", + "He comes again at the end of the week and inspects the sign to see if it spread. After the first week of isolation, the priest comes back to see if the nega spread or disappeared.", + "\"The priest shall order the stones with the plague in them to be pulled out and cast outside the city into an unclean place\" (v. 40). If the nega has spread, the priest orders the stones that have the plague on them to be removed and cast out of the city.", + "\"They shall take other stones and replace those stones with them, and take other dirt and plaster the house\" (v. 42). He must not take stones from the one side and bring them to the other; nor earth from the one side and bring it to the other; nor lime from anywhere. He must not bring one stone to replace two, nor two to replace one. But he can bring two to replace two or to replace three or to replace four. Then they replace the stones and plaster the house. The mishnah explains that these other stones must be from outside the house. Furthermore, since the Torah says that he should take \"dirt\" he may not use plaster in coating the house. He also can't bring one large stone to replace two, nor two smaller stones to replace one. However, he can bring two stones to replace three.", + "From here they have said: Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor. Both must take out the stones, both must scrape the walls, and both must bring the new stones. The Torah's verbs and nouns in this section are mostly in the plural. From here the rabbis learn that if a shared wall is contaminated with a nega, the neighbor on the opposite side of the wall must also remove the stones from his side of the wall, even though that side was not affected. There is also a moral lesson to be derived here. Since the rabbis believe that negaim come as a punishment for the evil tongue, they can add \"woe to the neighbor\" of such a person. Slander and gossip negatively affect one's community, and this is ritually symbolized by the requirement that the neighbor of a person affected by a nega must also remove his stones.", + "He alone, however, brings the earth, as it is said, \"And he shall take other coating and plaster the house.\" His neighbor need not join with him in the plastering. The verb for plastering the house is in the singular. Therefore, when it comes to that action, only the person whose house has been directly affected performs it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last mishnah of chapter twelve concludes the discussion of the procedure of declaring a house unclean due to a nega.", + "He comes again at the end of the week and inspects the nega. After the end of the second week, the priest returns to the house to see if the nega has returned. Remember, the affected stones were removed at the end of the first week.", + "If it has returned, \"He shall break down the house, its stones, and its timber, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them out of the city into an unclean place\" (Leviticus 14:45). If the nega has returned, then the whole house is condemned.", + "A spreading that adjoins [the original nega] is effective however small it may be; One that is distant must be no less than the size of a split bean. If at the end of the first week of isolation the nega has spread, the priest removes only the affected stones, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. Here we learn that if it spread adjacent to the original nega, the spreading does not have to be of any minimum size. Any spreading is sufficient to mandate the removal of the stones. However, if the nega appears elsewhere in the house, the spreading must be the size of a split bean.", + "And a nega that returns in houses must be no less than the size of two split beans. If after the originally affected stones are removed the nega returns (in the second week), the renewed nega must be the size of two split beans for there to be a requirement to tear down the entire house." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nI bet you are excited to learn that chapter thirteen continues to discuss negaim that afflict houses!", + "This mishnah goes through the entire procedure of inspecting houses for a nega and categorizes them into ten different situations.", + "There are ten [laws concerning the negaim in] houses:
(1 + 2) If during the first week a nega became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and is then clean. These are the first two laws concerning affected houses. If the nega grows fainter or disappears entirely during the first week, then all he must do is scrape the place where the nega was and the house is clean.", + "(3 + 4) If during the second week it became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and the owner must bring the birds. If it grows faint or disappears after the second week, he needs to scrape the stones, but in this case he also has to bring bird sacrifice (see Leviticus 14:49).", + "If it spread during the first week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. (5) If it then returned the entire house must be pulled down; (6)If it did not return, the birds must be brought. If it spread during the first week, he must remove the affected stones as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. If the nega returns, then the house must be torn down. This is situation 5. If it doesn't return, then he must still bring the bird sacrifices (situation 6).", + "If it remained unchanged during the first week but spread during the second week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. (7) If it then returned, the house must be pulled down; (8) If it did not return the birds must be brought. This section addresses a scenario we have not yet talked about. If the nega doesn't spread during the first week, then he doesn't need to scrape the stones clean at the end of that week. The isolation continues and then it spreads during the second week. In this case, another week is given. Otherwise, this is the same as section three. We are now through 8 types.", + "If it remained unchanged in both weeks, the stones must be taken out, and the wall scraped and plastered, and a week must be allowed. (9) If it then returned the house must be pulled down; (10) If it did not return, the birds must be brought. Now we learn the rule if the nega remains unchanged through two full weeks. Although it did not spread, since it still remained, the affected stones are removed. Following this, the procedure is the same as above. If it returns, the house is torn down, if not only sacrificial birds must be brought.", + "If before cleanness was attained through the birds a new nega appeared, the house must be pulled down; But if it appeared after cleanness through the birds had been attained, it must be inspected as if it had appeared for the first time. If the house is clean but before sacrificial birds are brought a new nega appears, it counts as a return of the old nega and the house must be torn down. If however, the birds are sacrificed and then the nega appears, it counts as a new nega, and the whole procedure begins again." + ], + [ + "In the case of a stone in a corner, when the stone is taken out it, he must take it all out; But when [the house is] torn down he tears down his own [part] and leaves that which belongs to his neighbor. Thus it follows that there is a greater stringency for taking out than for tearing down. The stone at the corner of a wall is a large stone shared by two houses. If one side is afflicted with a nega and he has to remove that stone only, he takes out both sides of the stone, even though the side that is in his neighbor's house does not have a nega. However, if the law mandates that his whole house be torn down, then he need not remove both sides of the stone. An explanation for this would seem to be that when the Torah mandates the removal of the stone, the whole stone must be removed. But if it mandates tearing down the house, only the house must be torn down. The side that is on his neighbor's side need not be torn down. We should note that this same rule applies to other stones shared by both houses. It only uses the example of the cornerstone because this would have been common.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: if a house is built of rows of head stones and small stones, and a nega appears on a head stone, all of it must be taken out; but if it appeared on the small stones, he takes out his stones and leaves the others. Albeck explains that the walls of their houses would have stones with \"heads\" that jut out on both sides of the wall. Between the \"head stones\" would be other stones that are also visible from both sides of the house. However, these stones would go into the wall and be subsumed inside the head stones. If the nega appears on the head stones, all of the stone must be removed. Similarly, if he has to tear down the house, all of the head stone must be torn down. However, if it occurs on one of the small stones, he only needs to remove his own side; the stone on the other person's side need not be removed." + ], + [ + "A house in which a nega appeared if it had an upper chamber above it, the beams are considered part of the upper chamber. The beams referred to hold up the ceiling of the bottom floor, which is the floor of the upper story. If the nega appears in the lower story, he need not tear down these beams. Rather, he can leave them and prop them up temporarily in order to use them to rebuild the house.", + "If the nega appeared in the upper chamber the beams are considered part of the lower room. If the nega appeared in the upper chamber, he can consider the beams as part of the bottom story and leave them there. We see that the rule is lenient in both cases.", + "If there was no upper chamber above it, its stones and wood and earth must be torn down with it. He may save the frames and the window lattices. Rabbi Judah says: a frame that is built over the house must be torn down with it. This is the standard rule with regard to tearing down the house. He must tear down all of the stone, woods and earth parts of the house, even if they were not afflicted with a nega. In this case, because there is no upper chamber, the beams used as part of the ceiling can only be considered part of the house, therefore they too must be torn down. He may save the frames of the doors and the windows and the window lattices. Assumedly, he can use these in rebuilding the house. Rabbi Judah says that if there is a square frame that is built over the house, it is considered part of the house and it too must be torn down.", + "Its stones and wood and earth convey uncleanness if they are of the minimum size of an olive. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: whatever their size. The stone, wood and earth that have been removed from the house are ritually unclean. They convey uncleanness if there is a minimum amount the size of an olive, the typical amount required to convey ritual uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma rules more stringently. It doesn't matter how little there is it ritually defiles even if there is the smallest amount." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the impurity of the afflicted house.", + "A house that has been isolated conveys uncleanness from its inside; Someone who touches the inside of a house that has been isolated is impure, even if he doesn't go into the house. However, if he touches the outside, he remains pure.", + "And one that has been certified unclean, both from its inside and from its outside. A house which is certified unclean also conveys uncleanness from its outside.", + "Both convey uncleanness if one enters in. In both cases, if one enters the house he is unclean, even if he doesn't touch the walls of the house (see Leviticus 14:46)." + ], + [ + "If one who builds in cleanliness with stones from a house that was isolated and the nega returned to the [former] house, the stones must be taken out. The stones were taken out of a house that was isolated and then used to build a clean house elsewhere. If the nega returns to the former house, the stones in the new house are still considered part of the afflicted house and therefore they must be removed from the new house and discarded.", + "If it returned to the stones, the first house must be torn down, and the stones serve the second house while the signs are under observation. If the nega reappears in the stones themselves, then the first house must still be torn down, as if the nega returned to the house itself. The second house now begins the process of a house afflicted by a nega. The stones remain in the house and they serve as the basis to see if the nega spreads at the end of the second week." + ], + [ + "If a house overshadowed a house with a nega and so also if a tree overshadowed a house with a nega, anyone who enters the outer [of the two] remains clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. This mishnah discusses a house that overshadows another house with a nega or a tree that overshadows a house with a nega. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah one who enters the outer house or goes under the tree, meaning the structure that overshadows, is not impure.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said: if one stone of it causes uncleanness by entering, should not the house itself cause uncleanness by entering? Rabbi Eliezer disagrees, drawing a sort of \"a fortiori\" argument. If the impurity of an afflicted house is strong enough that if one enters the house he is impure, then all the more so it should cause one who enters an \"ohel,\" an overshadowing structure, to be impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah we discussed the topic of \"overhanging (ohel)\" in connection with a house that has a nega. Today's mishnah deals with impurity conveyed by overhanging in connection with a person that has a nega.", + "If an unclean person stood under a tree and a clean person passed by, the latter becomes unclean. The unclean person has a nega and has either been isolated or declared unclean. He stands under a tree and a clean person passes under the tree without stopping. Despite the fact that he didn't stop, the clean person is defiled.", + "If a clean person stood under a tree and an unclean one passed by, the former remains clean. However, if a clean person stands and the unclean person passes under the tree without stopping, the clean person remains clean. This is a special rule with regard to those who have a nega he only conveys impurity if he stops or sits under the ohel (the tree). See next section.", + "If the latter stood still, the former becomes unclean. As stated above, if the unclean person stands under the tree and the clean person is standing there at the same time, the uncleanness is conveyed to the clean person by the overshadowing tree. This halakhah is derived from Leviticus 13:46 which states, \"Outside of the camp shall be his sitting place\" according to rabbinici interpretation he must \"sit\" or at least stop moving, for him to convey uncleanness through overshadowing.", + "Similarly in the case of a leprous stone he remains clean. But if it was set down he becomes unclean. The same rules as above apply to a stone that has been removed from a building because it has a nega in it. If the stone is carried by a person who is moving, it does not convey uncleanness. But once it has been set down, it does convey uncleanness." + ], + [ + "If a person who was clean put his head and the greater part of his body inside an unclean house, he becomes unclean. For the clean person to become unclean by entering a house afflicted with a nega he must enter his head and the greater part of his body.", + "And if an unclean man put his head and the greater part of his body inside a clean house he causes it to be unclean. Similarly, for an unclean person to defile the contents of a house through overshadowing, he must enter his head and the greater part of his body.", + "If he put three fingerbreadths square of a clean cloak into an unclean house, the cloak becomes unclean; A piece of cloth smaller than three by three fingerbreadths is not susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if he puts at least this much of a cloak into an impure house, it becomes impure.", + "And if he put even the size of an olive of an unclean [cloak] into a clean house, the house becomes unclean. However, to convey impurity the piece of cloth need not be three by three fingerbreadths a piece the size of an olive is sufficient. Therefore, all he has to do is put a piece of the impure cloak the size of an olive into the house and it will defile the contents through overhanging." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that with regard to the time it take to become defiled there is a distinction between clothes carried into a house afflicted with a nega and clothes worn into such a house.", + "If a person entered a house afflicted with a nega, carrying his clothes upon his shoulders, and his sandals and rings in his hands, both he and they become unclean immediately. In this case, since he wasn't wearing the clothes, shoes or jewelry, they are considered to be vessels which are brought into a house. They become impure immediately upon entrance to the house.", + "If, however, he was wearing his clothes and had his sandals on his feet and his rings on his hands, he becomes unclean immediately, but they remain clean, unless he stayed as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf of wheat bread and not of barley bread, while in a reclining posture and eating with some condiment. However, if he is wearing his clothes, shoes or jewelry, they must be in the house for as long as it would take to eat half a loaf of wheat bread with some sort of condiment/dip, and while reclining (concerning this amount see Eruvin 8:2). This is derived from Leviticus 14:47 which states: \"Whoever sleeps in the house must wash his clothes, and whoever eats in the house must wash his clothes.\" For his clothes to be impure he need not actually eat or sleep in the house. Rather he must be there long enough so that he could eat a minimum measure of a meal, which is considered to be half a loaf of bread." + ], + [ + "If he was standing inside, and he stretched his hands outside, with his rings on his hands, if he stayed [inside] as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf, they become unclean.
If he was standing outside, stretching his hands inside, with his rings on his hands: Rabbi Judah says that they are unclean immediately, But the sages say: only after he leaves them there as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf.
They said to Rabbi Judah: if when all his body is unclean he does not render that which is on him unclean unless he stayed there long enough to eat half a loaf, when all of his body is not unclean, is it not logical that he should not render that which is on him unclean unless he stayed there long enough to eat half a loaf?
Today's mishnah continues yesterday's topic: how long does it take for things which he wears to become impure in a house afflicted by a nega.
Section one: The person himself is impure immediately upon entering the house afflicted by the nega. The rings on his hands become impure even though they are outside the house. This is because his hands are part of his body and it is as if they are inside the house. However, the rings don't become impure until he stays in the house the amount of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. This is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah.
Section two: In this case he stands outside and remains pure (because his head and body didn't enter the house see mishnah 8), but he stretches his hands inside while wearing his rings. Rabbi Judah says that this is like the situation of simply bringing rings into a house. As we saw in yesterday's mishnah, in such a case, the rings are impure immediately.
The other rabbis hold that the rings must stay in the house for at least the length of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. They argue that in section one, where his entire body was impure, the rings had to stay on his fingers (although they were outside of the house) for at least that amount of time. All the more so, if his body remains pure, the rings must be in the house for at least the amount of time it takes to eat half of a loaf of bread." + ], + [ + "If a metzora entered a house all the vessels in it, even up to the roof beams, become unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: only up to a height of four cubits. A \"metzora\" is a person who has a nega. If he/she should enter a house, all of the vessels in the house are defiled. According to the first opinion, this includes even vessels that are placed high in the house, close to the roof beams. Rabbi Shimon says that the impurity only reaches as high as the height of an average person when he stretches his hands up. This is estimated to be 4 cubits (about 2 meters high). Above that is another domain and therefore any vessels found close to the roof beams remain pure.", + "Vessels become unclean immediately. Rabbi Judah says: only if the metzora stayed there as much time as is required for the lighting of a lamp. According to the first opinion, as soon as a metzora enters a house, he immediately defiles all of the vessels therein. Rabbi Judah says that he must remain there the time that it takes to light a lamp. According to the Tosefta this only refers to a metzora who enters his friend's house without permission. In such a case, the vessels there are impure only if he stays long enough to light a lamp (at which point his friend, if he was there could tell him to leave?). But if a metzora enters his own house, or someone else's with permission, the vessels are defiled immediately." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter thirteen continues to deal with the status of vessels in a house into which a metzora has entered.", + "If he enters a synagogue, a partition ten handbreadths high and four cubits wide must be made for him. If a metzora enters a synagogue, they must make for him a partition (a mehitzah) ten handbreadths high to keep him from defiling the other people in the synagogue. It is interesting how lenient this law is. The Torah states that a metzora should be sent out of the camp (see Leviticus 13). In contrast, the rabbis assume that a metzora could enter a synagogue and the only thing that needs to be done is for a partition to be made for him. Perhaps we can sense here some hesitance on the part of the rabbis to isolate a metzora from their community (even if these rules are only theoretical).", + "He should enter first and come out last. He should go in to the synagogue first so that he doesn't defile anybody before he arrives at his partitioned off spot. He should also go out last so that he doesn't defile anyone when leaving that spot.", + "Any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection by a tightly fitting cover in the house of one afflicted by a nega, And whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega, the words of Rabbi Meir. In Tractate Kelim we learned that there are vessels that protect their contents from becoming impure when found in a tent with a corpse if they have a tightly-fitting cover (see 10:1). According to Rabbi Meir these same vessels protect their contents from becoming impure in a metzora's house, as long as they have a tightly-fitting lid. And there are some cases where something needs only to be covered for it to protect its contents. It does not need a tightly-fitting lid. According to Rabbi Meir if something is protected by being covered in a tent of corpse, it is also protected by being covered in the house of a metzora. In short, the same rules that apply in the tent of a corpse apply in the house of a metzora.", + "Rabbi Yose says: any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega; and whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse remains clean even when uncovered in a leprous house. Rabbi Yose rules more leniently. If a vessel's contents are protected by a tightly-fitting lid in the tent of a corpse, they only need to be covered to afford protection in the house of a metzora. And if a vessel's contents are protected with any type of cover in the tent of corpse, then the vessel doesn't need to be covered at all for its contents to be protected in the house of a metzora. In other words, each rule is slightly more lenient in the house of a metzora than it is the tent of a corpse." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe final chapter of Negaim deals with the purification of the metzora.\nToday's mishnah is basically a summary of Leviticus 14:1-7:\n1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 This shall be the ritual for a leper at the time that he is to be cleansed. When it has been reported to the priest, 3 the priest shall go outside the camp. If the priest sees that the leper has been healed of his scaly affection, 4 the priest shall order two live clean birds, cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop to be brought for him who is to be cleansed. 5 The priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered over fresh water in an earthen vessel; 6 and he shall take the live bird, along with the cedar wood, the crimson stuff, and the hyssop, and dip them together with the live bird in the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the fresh water. 7 He shall then sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the eruption and cleanse him; and he shall set the live bird free in the open country.", + "How would they purify a metzora?
A new earthenware flask and a quarter of a log of living water was put in it. The new vessel was used to ensure its purity.", + "Two undomesticated birds are also brought. The birds referred to in v. 4 must be wild birds.", + "One of these was slaughtered over the earthenware vessel and over the living water. See v. 5.", + "A hole was dug and it was buried in his presence. The bird was buried so that no one would eat it and no one would think that someone had eaten it. It is forbidden to derive benefit from this bird (see Temurah 7:4).", + "Cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were taken and bound together with the remaining ends of the strip of wool. Near to these were brought the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the second bird. All were dipped together, and sprinkled upon the back of the metzora's hand seven times. Some say that the sprinkling was done upon his forehead. See v. 6. According to the rabbis, the live bird is not bound with the cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool. Rather, it is placed next to them. Then they are all dipped together into the blood of the live bird and sprinkled onto the metzora (v. 7). There is a dispute about whether the blood is sprinkled onto the back of his hand or onto his forehead.", + "In the same manner one would sprinkle on the lintel of a house from the outside. The same process is done for a house that has a nega (see Leviticus 14:51)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues with the purification process. It explains the verses from Leviticus where yesterday's mishnah left off (Leviticus 14:7-8).\n7 He shall then sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the eruption and cleanse him; and he shall set the live bird free in the open field. 8 The one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe in water; then he shall be clean. After that he may enter the camp, but he must remain outside his tent seven days.", + "He now comes to set free the living bird. He does not turn his face towards the sea or towards the city or towards the wilderness, for it is said, \"But he shall let the living bird go out of the city into the open field\" (Leviticus 14:53). Leviticus 14:7 (quoted above) says only that the live bird should be set free in the open field. But 14:53, in connection with the purification of a house, states that the bird should be let out of the city into the open field. The rabbis take this to mean that the priest releasing the bird should look out into an open field, and not into a city, sea or wilderness (desert).", + "He now comes to shave off the hair of the metzora. He passes a razor over the whole of his skin, and he [the metzora] washes his clothes and immerses himself. See v. 8.", + "He is then clean so far as to not convey uncleanness by entrance, but he still conveys uncleanness as does a sheretz. The mishnah clarifies the level of his purity achieved at this point by the metzora. He no longer defiles in the same way that a metzora does by entering a building (see 13:7). However, he still defiles in a lesser way, by contact, as does one who has been defiled by contact with a sheretz (a creepy-crawly thing. See Kelim 1:1). He will achieve complete purity later on, as we shall see.", + "He may enter within the walls [of Jerusalem], but must keep away from his house for seven days, and he is forbidden to have intercourse. The \"camp\" referred to in Leviticus 14:8 is interpreted to be the walls of Jerusalem. He can now enter the \"camp\" but he cannot yet enter his own tent. The rabbis read the word \"tent\" in two ways: 1) he can't enter his home; 2) he can't have relations with his wife. This is not the only case in which the rabbis interpret \"tent\" to refer to a husband's sexual relations with his wife." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah describes the end of the purification process for the metzora. It explicates the following verses:\n9 On the seventh day he shall shave off all his hair of head, beard, and eyebrows. When he has shaved off all his hair, he shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water; then he shall be clean. 10 On the eighth day he shall take two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb in its first year without blemish, three-tenths of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in for a meal offering, and one log of oil. 11 These shall be presented before the Lord, with the man to be cleansed, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, by the priest who performs the cleansing. 12 The priest shall take one of the male lambs and offer it with the log of oil as a guilt offering, and he shall elevate them as an elevation offering before the Lord. 13 The lamb shall be slaughtered at the spot in the sacred area where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered. For the guilt offering, like the sin offering, goes to the priest; it is most holy. 14 The priest shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering, and the priest shall put it on the ridge of the right ear of him who is being cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. 15 The priest shall then take some of the log of oil and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. 16 And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in the palm of his left hand and sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. 17 Some of the oil left in his palm shall be put by the priest on the ridge of the right ear of the one being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot over the blood of the guilt offering. 18 The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed. Thus the priest shall make expiation for him before the Lord. 19 The priest shall then offer the sin offering and make expiation for the one being cleansed of his uncleanness. Last, the burnt offering shall be slaughtered, 20 and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meal offering on the altar, and the priest shall make expiation for him. Then he shall be clean.", + "On the seventh day he shaves off his hair a second time in the manner of the first shaving, he washes his garments and immerses himself. As stated in verse 9.", + "He is clean in so far as not to convey uncleanness as a sheretz, but he was still like a tevul yom. He has now rid himself of impurity. His status is that of a \"tevul yom.\" This is a person who has immersed in a mikveh but the sun has not yet set. While he doesn't defile anything, if he touches terumah or holy things (sacrifices) he disqualifies them (see Kelim 1:5).", + "He may eat second tithe. He may now eat second tithe. Note that anyone can eat first tithe, even one who is completely impure.", + "After sunset he may eat terumah. After the sun sets, he can eat terumah.", + "After he had brought his offering of atonement, he may also eat sacred things. After he brings his sacrifices (described at length in the Torah) he is now fully clean. This is stated in v. 20. He can now eat even sacrifices.", + "Thus there are three grades in the purification of a metzora and three grades in the purification of a woman after child birth. We have now seen three stages of purity: 1) At the beginning of his purification process (mishnah 2), 2) after the second immersion (section two) and 3) after bringing his sacrifices. A woman after childbirth also has three stages of purification. The first is 7 days after the birth of a boy and 14 after the birth of a girl, the second is 40 days after the birth of a boy and 80 after a girl, and once she brings her sacrifices she is completely pure. See Leviticus 12:2-8." + ], + [ + "There are three who must shave their hair, and their shaving of it is a commandment: the nazirite, the metzora, and the Levites. The Torah commands three categories of people to shave their hair. The metzora, whom we have been discussing in the previous mishnayot. The Nazirite at the end of his term of naziriteship. See Numbers 6:18 and Mishnah Nazir 6:7. The Levites when they were first dedicated to service. See Numbers 8:7.", + "If any of these cut their hair but not with a razor, or if they left even two remaining hairs, their act is of no validity. They must all shave their hair with a razor and not cut it with scissors. And if even two hairs are left behind, they have not fulfilled the mitzvah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the two birds that are brought by the metzora. One is slaughtered and its blood is spilled into a bucket and then sprinkled onto the metzora. The other is eventually set free.", + "With regard to the two birds: the commandment is that they be alike in appearance, in size and in price; and they must be purchased at the same time. But even if they are not alike they are valid; And if one was purchased on one day and the other the next they are also valid. Ab initio the two birds must be the same in appearance, size and price and they must be purchased at the same time. However, if the birds are different or not bought on the same day, they are still valid.", + "If after one of the birds had been slaughtered it was found that it was not wild, a partner must be purchased for the second, and the first may be eaten. The birds are supposed to be wild. If after one has been slaughtered it turns out that it was not wild, he can buy a second bird to pair it up with the remaining bird. In other words although one of the birds was not valid, the second bird is still usable. Since the first bird was slaughtered in a kosher manner, it may be eaten.", + "If after it had been slaughtered it was found to terefah, a partner must be purchased for the second and the first may be made use of. Similarly, if the slaughtered bird was found to be a terefah, an animal with a physical flaw such that it is not kosher, they can still buy another bird to go along with the remaining bird. The bird that was already slaughtered can't be eaten because it's not kosher. But use can be made of it, as is always the case with regard to a terefah. In both of these cases, the second bird is still valid because it is retroactively determined that the first bird was not its proper pair. It is as if no first bird had yet even been bought.", + "If the blood had been spilled out, the bird that was to be let go must be left to die. If the one that was to be let go died, the blood must be spilled out. If the blood of the slaughtered bird spilled out and didn't go into the earthenware vessel, the second bird cannot be used. This is because the first bird was a proper pair, its blood just wasn't dealt with correctly. The second bird must be left to die, because no benefit may be derived from it. Similarly, if the second bird dies after the first bird has already been slaughtered, the blood of the first bird cannot be used. It must be spilled out." + ], + [ + "The mitzvah of the cedarwood is for it to be one cubit in length, and in thickness a quarter of that of the leg of a bed, when one leg is divided into two halves and these two into four. The piece of cedarwood used in sprinkling the blood on the metzora must be one cubit long. It must be as thick as a quarter of the leg of a bed. It seems that people would know approximately how thick the leg of a bed is. The mishnah even describes actually dividing the leg of a bed into four parts in order to determine how thick the cedarwood can be.", + "The mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should be neither ezovyon ( nor blue hyssop nor Roman hyssop nor wild hyssop nor any kind of hyssop that has an accompanying name. The hyssop must be plain old hyssop (zatar in Arabic and by extension, modern Hebrew). Any hyssop that has an accompanying or modifying name should not be used." + ], + [ + "On the eighth day he would bring three beasts: a sin-offering, a guilt-offering and a whole burnt-offering. These are the sacrifices clearly outlined in Leviticus 14:10ff. The first section refers to the standard offering. A person who is not poor would bring two lambs and one ewe.", + "And a poor man would bring a sin-offering of a bird and a burnt-offering of a bird. The Torah states that a poor person can bring a sin-offering and a burnt-offering of a bird. The guilt-offering must still be a lamb." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to describe the process of the metzora bringing his offerings.", + "He comes to the guilt-offering and he puts his two hands on it. The metzora first comes to his guilt-offering and lays his hands on it, as is done with most sacrifices. The guilt-offering is located at Nikanor's gate, as we will see in section six.", + "He then slaughters it. Either a priest or an Israelite can slaughter the offering.", + "Two priests receive its blood, one in a vessel and the other in his hand. He who received it in the vessel proceeded to sprinkle it on the wall of the altar. The one who received it in his hand would approach the metzora. The blood would then be drained out into two vessels held by priests (Israelites can't do this). The blood in one vessel is sprinkled onto the altar, which is the typical action with a guilt offering. The blood of the other vessel will be put onto the metzora, so the priest goes to the area where the metzora was standing.", + "The metzora had in the meantime immersed himself in the chamber of the metzoraim. He would come and stand at the Nikanor gate. Rabbi Judah says: he did not require immersion. While the sacrifice was being slaughtered and then its blood being received, the metzora would immerse himself in the chamber designated for the metzoraim. This was located in the Women's Court (see Middot 2:5). He would then come and stand at the Nikanor Gate which was on the eastern side of the Women's Court (see Middot 1:4). Tomorrow's mishnah will pick up with the continuing action. Rabbi Judah notes that he does not need to immerse because he immersed the previous evening (see mishnah three)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe blood of the guilt offering is now applied to the metzora's ear, thumb and big toe. However there is a problem the metzora can't enter the Israelite's court for someone who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices can't enter there (see Kelim 1:8). And the blood can't be brought out of the court. So how can the blood be applied to the metzora? Our mishnah answer this puzzle!", + "[The metzora] put in his head inside and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the tip of his ear; [He put in] his hand and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the thumb of his hand. [He put in] his foot and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the big toe of his foot. Rabbi Judah says: he put in all three at the same time. You put your ear in, you get the blood on [and you shake it all about]. Sorry, I couldn't help that one. Basically, the mishnah resolves the problem by saying that he can put parts of his body into the Temple courtyard without transgressing the prohibition of entering. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient. He can put his ear, hand and foot in at the same time. Sounds a bit tough to me, but I guess it would save some time.", + "If he had no thumb on his hand or no big toe on his foot or no right ear he could never become clean. Rabbi Eliezer says: [the blood] is applied to the place where they were. Rabbi Shimon says: if he applied it to the left side, the obligation has been fulfilled. There are three opinions as to what to do if he is missing any of these appendages. According to the first opinion, he simply cannot perform the mitzvah and therefore he can never become fully clean. As unfair as this sounds, the author of this opinion would simply answer that the Torah demands that the conditions be fulfilled. If they cannot, then there is no way to cleanse the metzora. Rabbi Eliezer finds a solution in applying the blood to the place on the body where the ear, thumb or toe was (or at least should be). I don't know how this would work for a person whose entire arm or leg had been amputated. Rabbi Shimon says that he can apply the blood to the left side. This would only be a solution if the person had a left ear, thumb or big toe. It's unclear how Rabbi Shimon would rule if these were missing as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah explains the following verses from Leviticus 14:\n26 The priest shall then pour some of the oil into the palm of the priest's left hand, 27 and with the finger of his right hand the priest shall sprinkle some of the oil that is in the palm of his left hand seven times before the Lord. 28 Some of the oil in his palm shall be put by the priest on the ridge of the right ear of the one being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord.", + "[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. Verse 26 seems to imply that the priest should pour some oil onto another priest's hand. That is why the verse says \"into the palm of the priest's left hand.\" The Torah would not repeat the word \"priest\" if it didn't mean another priest. However, since the word \"priest\" may refer to the original priest, the mishnah states that if he pours it into his own hand, he has fulfilled the obligation (this also seems to be the simple interpretation of the verse).", + "He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. The mishnah clarifies that every time he sprinkles the oil, he dips his finger in his palm again.", + "He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, \"Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord.\" (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he \"put upon,\" he has made atonement, but if he did not \"put upon,\" he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he \"put upon\" or did not \"put upon,\" atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. See verse 28.", + "If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew. The end of verse 29 reads, \"to make expiation for him before the Lord.\" According to Rabbi Akiva this means that if he doesn't put the oil on the meztora's head he has not fulfilled the mitzvah and the metzora has not achieved atonement. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri points to the word \"and what is left\" with which the sentence begins. Putting the oil on the metzora's head is only the \"leftover\" part of the mitzvah and atonement can be achieved even without doing so. However, if he doesn't fulfill this \"remainder\" part of the mitzvah, the verse treats him as if he didn't achieve atonement at all. In other words, he should put it on the metzora's head, but if he doesn't the metzora is atoned for.", + "The priest takes from the log (a measure of oil) and pours it into his hand and then applies it to the metzora. The rabbis ask the question: up until what point must there be a full log of oil in the flask? According to Rabbi Akiva, as long as there is a full log before he pours it into his hand, he has fulfilled the mitzvah. If there is less after this point, he need not fill up the measure. Rabbi Shimon says that the full log must be there until he puts the oil onto the metzora. If the measure is diminished after this point, it need not be filled up." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe type of animal that the metzora brings for his guilt and whole burnt offering depend on whether he is rich or poor. If he is rich he brings lambs and if he is poor he can bring birds. Our mishnah discusses a situation where a person goes from being rich to poor or vice versa.", + "If a metzora brought his sacrifice as a poor man and he became rich, or as a rich man and he became poor, all depends on the sin-offering, the words of Rabbi Shimon. According to Rabbi Shimon, a person's status is determined at the time he offers to sin offering. If he was poor when he offered the bird as a sin offering and he gets rich, he can still bring a bird as the burnt offering. However, if he is rich when he offers the sin offering and then he becomes poor, he must still offer the lamb as his whole burnt offering.", + "Rabbi Judah says: all depends on the guilt-offering. The guilt offering must be a lamb, even if the metzora is poor. It is also the first of the offerings to be sacrificed. The status of the metzora is determined at this point if he is rich at this point, he must bring lambs and if he is poor he can bring birds." + ], + [ + "A poor metzora who brought the sacrifice of a rich man has fulfilled his duty; But a rich metzora that brought the sacrifice of a poor man has not fulfilled his duty. A poor person can bring a rich person's sacrifices, should he so desire, but a rich person cannot bring a poor person's sacrifice. In other words, the Torah allows one to bring birds if he can't afford to bring lambs. But the lambs are always acceptable.", + "A man may bring a poor man's sacrifice for his son, his daughter, his slave or his female, and thereby enable them to eat of the offerings. A householder can bring sacrifices on behalf of the members of his household, and thereby allow them to eat other offerings. A person can eat sacrificial offerings only once his proper sacrifices have been brought (i.e. those that end his status as metzora).", + "Rabbi Judah says: for his wife also he must bring the sacrifice of a rich man; and the same applies to any other sacrifice to which she is liable. Rabbi Judah notes that if a rich man brings sacrifices for his wife, he must bring the sacrifices of a rich man. This is true whether she needs to bring the sacrifices of a metzora, or other such sacrifices such as those a woman brings after childbirth." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Negaim deals with one of the rabbis' favorite subjects what happens when different things of different categories are mixed up.", + "If the sacrifices of two metzoraim were mixed up and after the sacrifice of one of them had been offered one of the metzoraim died: this is what the men of Alexandria asked of Rabbi Joshua. Two rich metzoraim bring their sacrifices and one of them is offered. After this point one of the metzoraim dies. At some point the sacrifices get mixed up. If both metzoraim were alive we could sacrifice all of the animals and just declare that each sacrifice was on behalf of the one who brought it. But if one is dead, the animals of the person who died cannot be offered, because it is always prohibited to offer the sin-offering of someone who has died. The live metzora also can't simply bring new sacrifices because the sacrifice that was already offered may have been his own. In such a case, were he to bring a new sacrifice it would count as bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple Court, which is prohibited. The men of Alexandria asked Rabbi Joshua what to do in this situation.", + "He answered them: let him assign his possessions to another person, and bring the poor man's sacrifice. Rabbi Joshua said that what he should do is get rid of all of his property so that he becomes a poor man (hopefully the person he gives it to will give him his money back later). Now he can bring a new sin-offering, because he is a new person and he can bring a new offering. The sin-offering is brought as a doubtful offering, so it is not considered to be a non-sacred animal brought into the Temple Court. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Negaim! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For me learning Negaim helped sort out those chapters in Leviticus that I've never understood all that well. What has fascinated me about Negaim is how much attention the rabbis pay to a subject that was not only not observed in their own time (this is true for large portions of Kodashim and Toharot) but may not have even been observed during the entire Second Temple period. The entire tractate did not contain even one historical memory of a person who actually had a nega. This just goes to show us that the rabbis main topic of interest is Torah and if something is covered extensively in the Torah, they will pay great attention to it, even if it had no practical implications upon their lives. Tomorrow our learning continues with Tractate Parah. Good luck to everyone and congratulations on your amazing commitment to learning." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה נגעים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה נגעים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eab10feab516ed8e1e00c666bde34a6aa2639b0e --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,488 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה נדה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Leviticus 15 (text is found below) distinguishes between a woman who discharges blood during her menstrual period (vs. 19-24) and a woman who discharges blood not during her menstrual period (vs. 25-30). There are rules (these will get a bit more complicated) that distinguish between the two. Here they are briefly: When a woman first establishes her menstrual cycle, the blood is considered to be menstrual blood. She is now impure for seven days, no matter how many days she menstruates. As long as she stops bleeding by the seventh day she goes to the mikveh at the end of the seventh day and she is pure (actual practice differs, as we shall discuss later). After seven days she now enters what are called \"the days of zivah\" meaning non-menstrual blood. If she bleeds on one of these days, she at first will observe one day of purity for every day of blood. So if she bleeds on the eighth day, she will go to the mikveh on the ninth day and observe purity for that day and then if she sees no more blood, she will be pure in the evening. The same is true if she sees blood on the ninth day as well. She will go to the mikveh on the tenth day and is pure at night. However, if she sees blood for three days in a row then she will need to go through \"seven clean days\" where she does not discharge blood. After seven clean days she goes to the mikveh and then brings a sacrifice and she is pure. According to rabbinic calculation there are eleven days of \"zivah\" between a woman's menstrual period and her next period. During these eleven days, if she discharges blood it is considered \"zivah\" (non-menstrual blood) and she observes one day of purity for each day or seven days if she bleeds three straight days. After these eleven days are completed, she begins a seven day period during which any blood is considered menstrual blood. This pattern will then repeat itself. The above rules are according to the Torah's rules. Late in the tannaitic period some Jews began to act more stringently and treat all blood as if it was zivah. Functionally what this means is that a woman will always observe seven clean days after the end of her menstrual period. So, according to Torah law if a woman has menstrual blood for five days she would be clean after the seventh day. But according to post-talmudic practice, she will need to wait seven more days and will be clean only on the 12th day. Tractate Niddah will also deal with the blood discharged by a woman after childbirth. An important issue to remember while learning this tractate is that the practical significance of the laws of niddah was much broader than it is today. The mishnah portrays a world in which people observe the full array of purity laws. A woman who was unclean due to menstruation would defile terumah and hallah and other holy foods. Today, we think of these laws as limited to the permissibility of sexual relations between a man and a woman. While this was certainly an issue in mishnaic times as well, it is important to remember that it wasn't the only issue. Finally, a note on my treatment of this material. A woman's menstruation can be a sensitive and personal issue. I will try to keep a \"clinical\" tone throughout my commentary, avoiding both apologetics and criticism. I believe that it is important for people to understand the technicalities of this system, before they attempt to delve into any greater socio-religious meaning. I also think that the rabbinic discussion of the material is in itself clinical, or perhaps mathematical. The rabbis are intensely interested in the intricacies of halakhah and spend little time discussing how such issues would affect a woman's life. This is simply the nature of the discussion. Below are most of the verses relevant to the subject of menstrual and non-menstrual blood. We will make frequent reference to them throughout the commentary. ", + "Leviticus Chapter 12 1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Speak to the Israelite people thus: When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be unclean seven days; she shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity. — 3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. — 4 She shall remain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days: she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until her period of purification is completed. 5 If she bears a female, she shall be unclean two weeks as during her menstruation, and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for sixty-six days.", + "Leviticus Chapter 15 6 On the completion of her period of purification, for either son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer it before the Lord and make expiation on her behalf; she shall then be clean from her flow of blood. Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child, male or female. 8 If, however, her means do not suffice for a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. The priest shall make expiation on her behalf, and she shall be clean. 19 When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body, she shall remain in her impurity seven days; whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. 20 Anything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; and anything that she sits on shall be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bedding shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; 22 and anyone who touches any object on which she has sat shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 23 Be it the bedding or be it the object on which she has sat, on touching it he shall be unclean until evening. 24 And if a man lies with her, her impurity is communicated to him; he shall be unclean seven days, and any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean. 25 When a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or when she has a discharge beyond her period of impurity, she shall be unclean, as though at the time of her impurity, as long as her discharge lasts. 26 Any bedding on which she lies while her discharge lasts shall be for her like bedding during her impurity; and any object on which she sits shall become unclean, as it does during her impurity: 27 whoever touches them shall be unclean; he shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 28 When she becomes clean of her discharge, she shall count off seven days, and after that she shall be clean. 29 On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, and bring them to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest shall offer the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering; and the priest shall make expiation on her behalf, for her unclean discharge, before the Lord." + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a woman who discovers that she has had her menstrual period but is not sure when it began. The question is at what point does she have to assume that she was already impure such that the things that she touched must be considered impure?", + "Shammai says: for all women it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from their time [of discovering the flow]. Hillel ruled: [their period of uncleanness is to be reckoned retroactively] from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, even if this was many days. The sages say: [the law is] not like the words of these or the words of those, but [the women are deemed to have been unclean] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. There are three different opinions as to how far back a woman (who does not have a regular menstrual cycle) must assume she was impure after she has discovered her period. Shammai is most lenient. She is considered impure only from the moment in which she discovers that she has had her period. If, for instance, she discovered her period in the afternoon, the pure things that she touched in the morning remain pure. Hillel rules most strictly. She is reckoned impure from the last time that she checked herself, even if it has been many days. Hillel is concerned that immediately after her last clean check (when she didn't find that she was bleeding) she began to bleed and just didn't notice it. Therefore, anything she has touched since the last clean check must be considered defiled. The sages' opinion falls somewhere in between the two. There are two time periods that play into account twenty-four hours and the last clean examination. A woman cannot be retroactively considered unclean for more than 24 hours. She also is clean from the last time she had a clean examination. She is therefore considered unclean from whatever is the lesser of the two. If she examined herself in the morning and found herself clean and then discovered her period in the evening, anything she touched after the clean examination is unclean. But if she examined herself on Sunday morning and then found herself unclean on Monday evening, only the things that she touched over the last 24 hours are considered impure.", + "For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. All of the above refers only to a woman who has not established a regular menstrual cycle. If she has a regular cycle, she defiles things only from the time in which she discovered that she was menstruating.", + "And if a woman uses rags when she has marital intercourse, this is like an examination which lessens either the period of the [past] twenty-four hours or the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination. A woman who cleans herself with rags after sexual intercourse is considered to have examined herself. If she doesn't find blood on the rags, and then sees blood later, she defiles only the things that she has touched since she cleaned herself with these rags. In other words, although the purpose of these rags is not for self-examination, since blood would be noticed, it counts as an examination." + ], + [ + "How [does the rule that] it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow work? This refers to a woman that has a regular menstrual cycle. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, she is considered to be impure only from the moment in which she observes a blood flow. She doesn’t retroactively defile anything.", + "If she was sitting on a bed and was occupied with ritually clean objects and then she leaves [the bed] and then sees [blood flow] she is unclean but the objects are clean. Although in this case it is exceedingly likely that the blood flow started while she was still in bed, since she has a regular cycle, only the things that she touched after she discovered the blood flow are impure. The bed and any other pure things she touched earlier remain pure. This seems to be a case in which the rabbis rule created an intentional leniency, one that might even be seen as ignoring what likely happened.", + "Even though they have said that she conveys uncleanness for a period of twenty-four hours [retroactively] she counts [the seven days of her menstruation] only from the time she observed the flow. This section addresses a woman who does not have a regular menstrual cycle and therefore retroactively defiles anything she touched in the 24 hour period before she discovered that she was bleeding. Nevertheless, when it comes to counting the days of her menstruation during which she is impure, she does not count from the earlier time period. She counts from when she noticed that she was bleeding. This is because the 24 hour period is a stringency she may have been bleeding as early at that period therefore anything she touched must be considered impure. But since she only knows that she began menstruating at a later time, she counts her days only from then." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Eliezer says: there are four types of women for whom it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from] the time [of their discovering the flow]. A virgin, A pregnant woman, A nursing woman; And an old woman. According to Rabbi Eliezer, there are four types of women who, since it is not common for them to menstruate, need not be concerned lest their menstrual flow started earlier than they discovered it. They defile only the things they touch after they discovered that they were bleeding. The following mishnayot will elaborate more on each of these women.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: I have only heard [the ruling applied to] a virgin, but the halakhah is in agreement with Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua initially seems to adopt a traditional approach here. He restricts the halakhah to the tradition that he received this law applies only to a virgin. We should note that it is usually Rabbi Eliezer who acts as a traditionalist. However, if the last sentence of the mishnah is also the words of Rabbi Joshua, then he too admits that even though he only heard a limited ruling, the halakhah is in accord with the expanded version put forth by Rabbi Eliezer. We might surmise that if the original tradition referred only to a virgin (as R. Joshua claims), the expanded version (which includes all four categories) reasoned that if it is sufficient to reckon the uncleanness of a virgin from the time of discovery because she does not regularly menstruate, the same would be true of other women who don't regularly menstruate. And if you are surprised that a \"virgin\" doesn't regularly menstruate, the rabbinic definition will be in tomorrow's mishnah. Stay tuned." + ], + [ + "Who is regarded as \"virgin\"? Any woman who has never yet observed a blood flow, even if she is married. A virgin, at least in this mishnah, is a woman who has not yet begun menstruating. It does not refer to a woman who has never had sexual intercourse. According to this definition of a \"virgin\" which probably should be translated as \"young girl\", even a married woman could be a virgin.", + "\"A woman in pregnancy\"? One whose fetus is notice. A woman is considered \"pregnant\" only when the fetus begins to be noticed.", + "\"A nursing woman\"? Until she has weaned her child. The standard period for nursing is 24 months. A woman is considered to be nursing only during this period. Even if she continues to actually nurse after 24 months, she is no longer in this category.", + "If she gave her child to a nursing woman, if she weaned him, or if he died: Rabbi Meir says: she conveys uncleanness retroactively for twenty-four hours; But the sages say: it suffices for her [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observation of the flow]. The mishnah now deals with the opposite case where for various reasons the woman is no longer nursing her son. According to Rabbi Meir, since she is no longer nursing, she is no longer in the category of a woman who does not need to be retroactively concerned that she defiled things. When she discovers that she is bleeding, everything that touched in the previous 24 hours is impure. The sages disagree and consider this woman to still be in the category of a nursing woman. It seems that they think that she probably won't resume menstruating for this period." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah defines whom is considered an old woman, that need not be concerned that she retroactively defiled things.\nThe mishnah uses the world \"onah\" (in plural \"onot\"). An \"onah\" is the period in which she is supposed to have been menstruating. Generally, an \"onah\" is 30 days, although obviously this may vary from woman to woman.", + "Who is regarded as \"an old woman\"? Any woman over whom three \"onot\" have passed near the time of her old age. A woman who has missed her period three times in a row, roughly 90 days, and is close to old age (so this is not because she is pregnant or sick or some other reason) is now considered \"an old woman.\" Obviously, this makes sense in this context. A woman who has stopped menstruating due to menopause is old for the issue discussed in this mishnah what type of woman does not regularly menstruate.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: for any woman over whom have passed three onot it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observing a flow]. Rabbi Eliezer says that any woman who has missed three periods for any reason, even if she is not old, needs only reckon her period of impurity from the time she sees blood.", + "Rabbi Yose says: for a woman in pregnancy and a nursing woman over whom three onot have passed it suffices [to reckon their period of uncleanness from] the time of their [observation of the flow]. According to mishnah four, as soon as a woman's pregnancy is noticeable, or as soon as she begins to nurse her child, she would only count her period of impurity from the time blood flows. According to Rabbi Yose, she must first go through three periods without menstruating." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah offers a qualification to the rule that the women mentioned in mishnayot 3-5 defile only the things that they touched after they noticed that they had their period.", + "And of what did they speak when they said that \"it suffices [for them to reckon] their period of uncleanness from the time [of their discovering of the flow]\"? [This refers to] the first observation, but after a second observation she defiles retroactively for a period of twenty-four hours. The first time one of these women (virgin, nursing woman, pregnant woman or old woman) sees a blood flow, she doesn't retroactively defile anything. But the second time she does, she reverts to the law found in mishnah one of this chapter. Everything she has touched during the previous twenty four hours, or since the last time she examined herself, is considered defiled.", + "If she saw the first flow on account of an accident even it suffices for her even a subsequent observation [to reckon her uncleanness from] the time of her [observing of the flow]. However, if her blood began to flow through some sort of unusual accident (Albeck mentions jumping or out of fright), then the second time she sees blood flow (assumedly not due to an accident) she doesn't retroactively defile things. In other words, since the first occurrence was \"accidental\" the second blood flow is treated as if it was the first." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that although women who have regular menstrual cycle do not retroactively defile things (see mishnah one), they should examine themselves at certain prescribed time regularly to make sure that they has not begun to menstruate.", + "Although though they said [that for a woman who has a regular period] it suffices to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she observes a flow, she should nevertheless examine herself [regularly], except for a menstruant or one who is sitting over pure blood. Even a woman who has a regular menstrual cycle should still examine herself regularly to make sure she has not begun to menstruate. I should note here that most women might find this strange don't women know when they are menstruating, even without checking? Truthfully, I think this is a legitimate complaint against the rabbis, but if I were to offer a defense I might say two things. First of all, the rabbis were men who obviously knew nothing about what it might feel like to be menstruating. Second, women had frequent contact with the food and the instruments whose purity should be preserved. Therefore, a woman who was impure and didn't know that she was could defile a lot of terumah or vessels used with terumah. To avoid this serious problem, the rabbis mandated that all women examine themselves regularly. There are two types of women who don't need to examine themselves regularly. The first is obviously a woman who is already menstruating. The second is a woman who has recently given birth. Leviticus 12:4-5 prescribes 33 days following a seven day period of impurity for a boy or 66 days following a 14 day impurity period for a girl in which a woman's blood flow is pure. Since any such blood is considered pure, there would be no practical reason for her to examine herself.", + "She should also use testing-rags when she has marital intercourse except when she is sitting over pure blood or when she is a virgin whose blood is clean. Generally, a woman should examine herself using examination rags both before and after sexual intercourse. Before intercourse she should examine herself because it is prohibited to have intercourse when she is menstruating. Afterwards she should examine herself to make sure that she has not defiled her husband. Obviously, a \"virgin\" referred to in this mishnah is not a woman who has never had sex. Rather, it is a woman who has not yet begun to menstruate, as we learned in mishnah four. A woman who is married before she begins to menstruate need not check herself.", + "And twice [daily] she should examine herself: in the morning and at the [evening] twilight, and also when she is about to have sexual relations. This section refers to a woman who must examine herself because she doesn't have a regular period (or for some other reason). Without an examination, , she will defile everything which she had contact with during the previous twenty-four hours. Such a woman should examine herself in the morning to make sure that any pure things that she worked with at night were not defiled. She should also examine herself in the evening to make sure that the stuff that she worked with during the day was not defiled.", + "Priestly women are subject to an additional restriction [for they should examine themselves] when they are going to eat terumah. Rabbi Judah said: [these must examine themselves] also after they have concluded eating terumah. Priestly women (either daughters of priests or wives of priests) who are regularly occupying themselves with terumah should examine themselves even more regularly. According to the first opinion, they should examine themselves before they eat terumah so that they do not defile the terumah that they are about to eat. Rabbi Judah says that they should examine themselves after eating as well. If she is found to be pure, then even the leftover crumbs are pure. In contrast, had she not checked herself afterward and then later that day (or night) found that she had begun to menstruate, the leftover terumah that she had touched would have to be considered impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a woman examining oneself to see if she had begun to menstruate.", + "Every hand that makes frequent examination: In the case of women is praiseworthy, But in the case of men it ought to be cut off. The rabbis consider it praiseworthy for a woman to frequently examine herself to see if she has begun to menstruate. Such frequent examinations would ensure that she didn't defile vessels and food and it would make sure that she didn't have intercourse while menstruating. However, the rabbis took quite a strict stance against male masturbation. \"Spilling the seed\" was a grave sin according to rabbinic halakhah. The rabbis feared that a man who frequently checked to see if he had ejaculated would cause himself (either intentionally or unintentionally) to ejaculate. Therefore, men should not frequently examine themselves.", + "In the case of a deaf, an person not of sound senses, a blind or an insane woman, if other women of sound senses are available they attend to her, and they may eat terumah. The categories of women listed in this mishnah are not considered to have \"da'at\" which I usually translate as awareness. Here it seems to mean that they are not able to be responsible for themselves to determine when they are menstruating. If they have other women attending to them, they may eat terumah, which may only be done by a pure person.", + "It is the custom of the daughters of Israel to have intercourse using two testing-rags, one for the man and the other for herself. Virtuous women prepare also a third rag to prepare the \"house\" [before intercourse]. According to the mishnah, Jewish women have the custom of checking themselves by using two testing rags one to test herself and the other to give to her husband to see if blood was found on him. This blood would be a sign that she is menstruating. \"Virtuous\" (alt. \"modest\") women examine themselves not only after intercourse but before as well to make sure that she is pure. The mishnah refers to a woman's vagina as \"the house.\" This same phrase is used in Mikvaot 8:4. I'm guessing that nicknames for a person's genitals is a cultural universal." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with what happens if blood is found on one of the testing-rags after a couple have intercourse.", + "If [blood] is found on his rag they are both unclean and they are liable to bring a sacrifice. If any blood is found on the rag which the man uses to check himself then we can be sure that it came from the woman. They are both unclean for seven days as is the rule for a menstruant and the man who has relations with her (see Leviticus 15:24). In addition, they must both bring a sin-offering, which is the rule for any unintentional transgression which when done intentionally carries with it the penalty of \"karet.\"", + "If any blood is found on her rag immediately after their intercourse, they are both unclean and must bring a sacrifice. If [blood] is found on her rag after a time, they are unclean due to doubt but they are exempt from a sacrifice. If blood is found on her rag and it is found immediately after intercourse, then we can be assured that it is menstrual blood that was there during intercourse. Both are impure and liable for a sacrifice. However, if it is found later on, since she didn't clean herself immediately, then we can't be sure that it was there during intercourse. Perhaps she only began to bleed later. In such a case the man is \"doubtfully\" impure, which means that if he touched terumah it can't be eaten but it also is not burned because we are not sure he is impure. She is impure in any case. They are exempt from bringing a sin-offering because sin-offerings are not brought unless one is certain of a transgression, and it is not certain that she was menstruating when they had intercourse." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is related to yesterday's mishnah where we learned that if the woman sees blood some time after having had intercourse she only defiles her husband from \"doubt.\" The mishnah explains how long is considered \"after time.\"", + "What is meant by \"after a time\"? As long as it takes to get down from the bed and wash her \"face.\" \"After a time\" is considered to be as long as it would take the woman to get down from the bed and wash her \"face.\" The word \"face\" here is another euphemism for the woman's vagina.", + "[If blood was found some time] after she causes uncleanness retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours but she does not cause the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. Rabbi Akiva says: she also causes the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. If she finds blood after this time, then she is still impure in the usual way. Everything she has touched in the last 24 hour period (or less if she examined herself during this period) is impure. However, she does not cause her husband to be defiled. In other words there are three time periods. If she finds blood immediately, he is certainly impure. If she finds it \"after a time\" meaning during the time period in which she could get off the bed and clean herself, he is doubtfully impure. If she finds it later, he is not impure. Rabbi Akiva says that he is impure. Evidently, Rabbi Akiva does not believe that there is much doubt here that she was already menstruating when they had intercourse.", + "And the sages agree with Rabbi Akiva that one who saw a bloodstain defiles the man who had intercourse with her. The sages agree with Rabbi Akiva in a case where she finds a bloodstain on her clothing or on the sheet. This bloodstain is a more certain sign that she was menstruating when they had intercourse. Therefore the rabbis rule stringently." + ], + [ + "All women are in the presumption of being pure for their husband. What this means is that men do not need to ask their wives before they have intercourse if they are menstruating. Men can assume that their wives are ritually pure and that if they were menstruating, they would let them know.", + "For those who return from a journey, their wives are in the presumption of being pure. One might have thought that when a man is away from the house, his wife might not be careful about her own ritual purity. After all, she is not supposed to be having sex while he is away, so why should she care about being ritually pure? The mishnah teaches that even so, when he returns home, he can assume that his wife is pure, for if she was not, she would tell him.", + "Bet Shammai says: a woman needs two testing-rags for every time she has intercourse, or she must have relations in the light of a lamp. Bet Hillel says: two testing-rags suffice her for the whole night. If a woman has sexual relations with her husband multiple times during the night, the mishnah says that she needs two testing-rags for each time, one for her and one for him. In the morning, when it is light outside, she can look at them to see if any rag has blood on it. Alternatively, she should check the rags by light after each intercourse to make sure there is no blood on it from the previous time before she uses it to check on herself again. There are two explanations for Bet Hillel's position. Either they can simply use two testing rags one time at the end of the night, after the last time they have intercourse. Alternatively, this might mean that they can simply use the same rags to check themselves repeatedly throughout the night." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah distinguishes between pure and impure blood that flow from various sources in a woman's body.", + "The sages spoke of a woman through a metaphor: A chamber, a vestibule and an upper chamber. The blood of the chamber is unclean, If blood is found in the vestibule, and there arises a doubt about its character, it is deemed unclean, because it is presumed to have come from the source. Building upon their analogy of a woman as a \"house\" (see mishnah one) the rabbis use a \"house\" metaphor to describe a woman's anatomy. There are many disagreements as to what parts of the anatomy these actually refer to. I will use Maimonides interpretation.", + "There are three parts to a house and to the woman's anatomy. The \"chamber\" is equivalent to her uterus. The \"vestibule\" is the vagina. And the upper chamber is the cavity that contains the ovaries and fallopian tubes.", + "Blood that comes from the chamber is unclean. This is the source of menstrual blood. The implication in this mishnah is that if the blood comes from the upper chamber, it is clean. I am not entirely sure how it could be determined if the blood came from the upper chamber.", + "If blood is found on the vagina, and it is unclear whether it came from the uterus or not, the blood must be treated as unclean because it must be presumed to come from the \"source\" which is another word for the uterus. The practical implication of this is that if the woman touches terumah, the terumah is unclean and may not be eaten, but it is not burned. Only certainly impure terumah is burned." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe rabbis distinguished pure blood (blood that is not considered to have come from the uterus) from impure blood (uterine blood) by virtue of its color. In our mishnah the rabbis list which colors are pure and which are not.", + "Five kinds of blood in a woman are unclean: red, black, like bright crocus, like earthy water, or like diluted wine. All of these shades are considered to be menstrual blood and are impure. Tomorrow's mishnah will further describe these shades and what real world things actually look like them.", + "Bet Shammai says: also like fenugreek water or the juice of roasted meat. But Bet Hillel declares these clean. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagree as to whether blood the color or fenugreek water or the juice of roasted meat is impure. This is likely a very weak red color.", + "One that is yellow: Akavia ben Mahalalel declares unclean And the sages declare clean. We should note that the word that I have translated here as yellow is actually green. The truth is that in the ancient world the two colors were often identified as one. Indeed the words for yellow and green don't even appear that often in the Mishnah (mostly in Tractate Negaim). Since blood is usually red, it is likely that the word \"green\" here means a pale color, such as that of an etrog. In any case, the status of this blood is also disputed.", + "Rabbi Meir said: even if it does not convey uncleanness as a bloodstain it conveys uncleanness as a liquid. Rabbi Yose says: it does neither the one nor the other. Referring to this yellow blood, Rabbi Meir says that while he agrees with Rabbi Akiva that this blood does not count as a menstrual stain, the blood is still impure because it is a liquid that comes from a menstruant. As we will learn in 4:3, urine and spit that come from a menstruant (and some other categories of impure people) are impure. Rabbi Yose disagrees with Rabbi Meir and says that according to those sages who say that such blood is not menstrual blood, it is also not impure due to liquid impurity. Only spit and urine are impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah explains the colors found in section one of yesterday's mishnah.", + "What is considered red? Like the red of a wound. Red is simply like the color of blood that flows from a wound.", + "Black: Like ink-sediment. Darker than this is impure. Lighter than this is pure. Black refers to the black ink used to dye shoes. If it is darker than this black, it is impure. But if it is a lighter shade of black, it is pure.", + "Like bright crocus: like the clearest shade in it. The color of the blood that matches the crocus flower must be like the brightest shade of the crocus.", + "Like earthy water: from the Bet Kerem valley, when water floats over it. To determine the color of the earthy water, one should bring earth from the Bet Kerem valley, which Albeck says is in the north. Then water should be floated above this earth. The color of the water is the color of the red described in the mishnah.", + "Like diluted wine: two parts water, one part wine, from wine of the Sharon. As we have learned on many occasions, in the Greco-Roman world, wine was drunk diluted with water. Typically, this consisted of two parts water, one part wine. Thus, this is the color of the diluted wine used as a reference point in the previous mishnah. The wine should be the wine from the Sharon, which is also in the northern part of Israel." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter three deals with a woman who had a miscarriage. There are two issues here: 1) Is she impure due to having given birth? This is a subject we covered a long time ago in Bekhorot chapter 8 and Keritot chapter 1. 2) Is she impure due to menstrual blood?", + "A woman who aborted a shapeless object: If there was blood with it, she is unclean, If not, she is clean. A shapeless object does not count as a miscarried birth. Therefore, she is impure only if blood accompanies the miscarriage. Such blood counts as menstrual blood.", + "Rabbi Judah says: in either case she is unclean. Rabbi Judah agrees that the shapeless object does not count as a miscarriage. However, he considers the object to be congealed blood. Therefore, even if there is not any other blood, she is impure as a menstruant." + ], + [ + "If a woman miscarried an object that was like a rind, like a hair, like earth, like red flies, let her put it in water: If it dissolves she is unclean, But if it does not she is clean. None of these objects count as a miscarried birth, therefore she is not impure as if she had given birth. The only issue is whether or not it is considered to be blood. The test is to put that which she miscarried in water and see if it dissolves. If it does, then it counts as blood and she must consider herself to be impure.", + "If she miscarried an object in the shape of fishes, locusts, or any forbidden things or creeping things: If there was blood with them she is unclean, If not, she is clean. These shapes also don't count as births (see Bekhorot 8:1, Keritot 1:5). Therefore, the only question is again whether she is a menstruant. If there is blood, then she is. If not, she is clean.", + "If she miscarried an object in the shape of a beast, a wild animal or a bird, whether clean or unclean: If it was a male she sits in uncleanness as she would for a male; And if it was a female she sits in uncleanness as she would for a female. But if the sex is unknown she sits in uncleanness for both male and female, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, these animal shapes do count as human births. If the object seems to have been male, then she must be unclean as she would be had she given birth to a male. This means that she is unclean for seven days and then the following 33 days any blood she discharges is pure (see Leviticus 12: 2, 4). If female, she is impure for 14 days and then the following 66 days any blood is pure (v. 5). If it is unclear whether it is a boy or girl, then the rule is stringent. She is impure for two weeks, as if she had given birth to a girl, but subsequent blood is pure for only 33 days, as if she had given birth to a boy.", + "The sages say: anything that has not the shape of a human being cannot be regarded as a human child. The other rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir. If the miscarriage doesn't have the shape of a human being, it doesn't count as a human being and she does not count as having given birth." + ], + [ + "If a woman aborted a sac full of water, full of blood, or full of pieces of flesh, she need not be concerned that it was a birth. These sacs do not count as births (see Bekhorot 8:1). We don't assume that there was a fetus in them.", + "But if its limbs were fashioned she must sit for both male and female. If limbs are noticeable in the shape within the sac, then we must be concerned that this was actually a fetus. Assuming that the gender is unknown, the woman must act stringently in both directions, as we explained in yesterday's mishnah." + ], + [ + "If she aborted a sandal or a placenta she sits in uncleanness for both male and female.
If a placenta is in a house, the house is unclean, not because a placenta is a fetus but because generally there can be no placenta without a fetus.
Rabbi Shimon says: the child might have been mashed before it came out.
Section one: A \"sandal\" is a fetus whose face has not yet been formed. This counts as a human miscarriage and if the sex cannot be determined, then she must observe the impurity rituals for having both a male and a female (see mishnah two).
While a placenta is not a fetus, it is a sign that there was a fetus. Therefore, since we can't determine the sex of the fetus, she must act as if she had both a boy and a girl.
Section two: If a placenta is found in a house, we can assume that a dead fetus was in the house as well. This makes the house into an \"ohel\" (a tent) which conveys impurity to all of the contents of the house. (We learned plenty about this in Tractate Ohalot).
Rabbi Shimon notes that the presence of a placenta is not a certain sign that she gave birth to a fetus. It is possible that the fetus could have been dissolved or mashed up (I realize that this is not pleasant) before it came out of the woman. In such a case, the fetus does not have the status of a dead body and doesn't defile as does a dead body. The house and its contents will remain pure." + ], + [ + "If a woman aborted a tumtum or an androginos, she must sit for a male and a female. A tumtum is one who has no recognizable signs of gender. An androginos has both male and female signs. If a woman gives birth to either of these, she must act stringently and be impure for both a male and female (see mishnah two). Again, what this means is that she is impure for as long as she would be if she gave birth to a female and pure only for as long as she would be had she given birth to a female.", + "[If she gave birth] to a tumtum and a male, or to an androginos and a male, she must sit for a male and a female. In this case, she gave birth to a child of doubtful status and a certain male. Therefore, she must sit for both a male and female (in case the tumtum or andrigonos is female).", + "[If she gave birth] to a tumtum and a female or an androginos and a female, she must sit only for a female. Here we know she gave birth to a female. Therefore, she is impure for the longer period (14 days). And as far as the days of purity, she certainly is pure for the 66 day period, even if the tumtum or andrigonos was a male.", + "If the embryo came out in pieces or in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part come out. The final two sections deal with the question of when a birth has been determined to have taken place. Some of the ramifications of this include when it is allowed to abort the pregnancy to save the woman's life and at what point does she become impure. If it comes out in pieces or legs first, the birth is determined as occurring once most of the body has come out.", + "If it came out in the normal way [it is not deemed born] until the greater part of its head came out. And what is meant by the \"greater part of its head\"? Once the forehead comes out. If the birth occurs in a normal way, head first, then the birth is considered to have taken place once the forehead is out. This is the definition of \"most of the head.\"" + ], + [ + "If a woman miscarried and it is unknown what it was, she sits for both a male child and a female child. This is the same rule we have learned in previous mishnayot.", + "If it is unknown whether it was a child or not, she sits for both a male and a female and as a menstruant. In this case, she isn't even sure if she miscarried or whether she menstruated. The rule is a bit more complicated here because she must also observe the laws of menstrual purity. This means that there will be no days of pure blood, as there would be if she had given birth to either a male or female. The first 14 days after the event, she will be impure as if she had given birth to a female. If she sees blood immediately after that, it is considered menstrual blood, because this is more than 11 days after her previous blood. If she sees blood on the 34th day, the rule is a bit complicated, for in this case we must be concerned that she had given birth to a male. If she sees blood on the 34th day and then again on the 41st day, if we considered her as a niddah at the outset, then at the time of the blood on the 41st she would not be in niddah, because it is within 11 days of the previous blood (on the 34th day), and she would observe only one day of impurity for every day she sees blood (up to three days). If she had given birth to a girl, then she would pure throughout the whole period (she would be pure from days 15-80). However, if she gave birth to a male, then the blood on the 34th day would be pure because it was within the 33 days of purity after the week of impurity. The blood on the 41st day would be menstrual blood because it was more than 11 days after he previous menstrual blood. Therefore, in this case she must be concerned that the blood is menstrual and she would have to observe the rules of menstrual impurity." + ], + [ + "If a woman miscarried on the fortieth day, she need not be concerned that it was a valid childbirth. The rabbis believed that it took forty days for a fetus to form. We should note that this was a common belief in the ancient world, one that I believe was shared by Aristotle as well. [It also had implications for the laws concerning abortion. For instance Philo, an early Jewish philosopher, stated that abortion was permitted up till the fortieth day, because that is when the fetus is formed.] If she miscarries before the fortieth day, the rabbis believe that it could not be a fetus.", + "On the forty-first day, she sits as for both a male and a female and as for a menstruant. If she miscarries on the 41st day, and it is not clear if it was a miscarriage or blood, she must be concerned lest it was a male, lest it was a female and lest it was menstruation. This situation was explained in yesterday's mishnah.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: [if she miscarried on] the forty-first day she sits as for a male and as for a menstruant, But if on the eighty-first day she sits as for a male and a female and a menstruant, because a male is fully fashioned on the forty-first day and a female on the eighty-first day. Rabbi Ishmael seems to believe that males are formed on the 41st day after conception and females on the 81st day. Therefore, if she miscarries between the 41st and 80th days, she need not be concerned lest it was female. [What he is saying is that females begin as males and only turn into females on day 81. Interesting, although obviously incorrect]. This means that she will be impure for seven days. If blood appears after this time, she is again a niddah. The blood is not pure because we are not sure if she gave birth.", + "But the sages say: the fashioning of the male and the fashioning of the female both take forty-one days. The sages espouse a more egalitarian view both males and females are formed on the 41st day. If she miscarries after this, she must be concerned lest it was a male, female or menstruation, as we explained above." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first three mishnayot of chapter four deal with the menstrual impurity of women from three groups that were considered outside of the Jewish fold, as determined by the rabbis: Samaritans, Sadducees and Gentiles.", + "The daughters of the Samaritans are regarded as menstruants from their cradle. The Samaritans separated from the other Jewish communities (those whose center of worship was Jerusalem, the Samaritan center of worship was in Shechem) at a pretty early period in history, probably sometime during the first Temple period. As we shall see in section two, they did observe the laws of menstruation, but not according to rabbinic interpretation. One thing they did not believe was that young girls could become menstruants (we shall see in chapter five that the rabbis believed that they could). Therefore, all Samaritan girls had to be considered menstruants from the time they were born.", + "And Samaritans impart uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above, since they have intercourse with menstruants, because [their wives] sit [unclean for seven days] on account of any blood. The problem with Samaritan practice is not that they ignore the laws of niddah. They just observe them in the wrong way. Samaritan women treat all blood as if it were menstrual blood and they sit seven unclean days for any blood flow. If the blood that flowed on the first day was not actually menstrual and then the woman bled blood a subsequent day, she would treat that blood as if it was the continuation of her menstruation and she would go to the mikveh after seven days [Remember, according to the Torah one is impure for seven days after menstruation begins, even if it continues for several days]. According to rabbinic law, she should have begun the count only when actual menstrual blood began. Going to the mikveh too early will be ineffective (according to rabbinic law). Thus, Samaritan women will always be unclean. The men who have relations with them are also unclean and they will always defile any number of cushions upon which they sit, which is the rule concerning one who has relations with a menstruant (see Kelim 1:3). We should note that by declaring all Samaritans impure from birth, the rabbis were able to distance themselves from them. This in my opinion is probably a strong part of the reason for the laws of this mishnah. The rabbis are using the laws of niddah to distance Samaritans from mingling with their community. However, we should also note that simultaneously the Mishnah defines Samaritans as Jews, at least in a genetic sense. Mishnah three deals with Gentiles, and Samaritans are not considered Gentiles.", + "However, on account of their [uncleanness] no obligation is incurred for entrance into the Temple nor is terumah burned on their account, since their uncleanness is only of a doubtful nature. However, it is not certain that all Samirtan women (and men) are unclean, since the women do go to the mikveh. It is theoretically possible that they went to the mikveh on the correct day. Therefore, they only defile due to doubt. If a rabbinic Jew is defiled by contact with a Samaritan, and then he enters the Temple, he is not liable for entering the Temple while impure. If he touches terumah, the terumah is not burned (although it may not be eaten). These two rules always apply in cases of doubtful terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with Sadducean women. The Sadducees were one of the main factions during the Second Temple period. They were the rivals of the Pharisees, the group that the rabbis considered themselves to be the descendents of. Truth be told, we don't know a lot about the Sadducees because they left no historical record. The only information we know about them was written either by Josephus, the New Testament or the rabbis. In addition, many scholars believe that the Dead Sea Sect Jews were a splinter Sadducean group, although this is far from certain.", + "The daughters of the Sadducees, so long as they are accustomed to walking in the paths of their fathers, are to be regarded as Samaritan women. If they left those paths to walk in the paths of Israel, they are to be regarded as Israelite women. The mishnah basically accepts Sadducean women but disqualifies their ancestry. If Sadducean women observe Sadducean halakhah then they must always be regarded as niddot (menstruants), just as are Samaritan women. They will always defile the things that they touch and it will always be prohibited for Jewish men to have relations with them. However, the mishnah gives them more of an opportunity to join the remainder (meaning Pharisaic/rabbinic) Jews than it did for Samaritan women. All they must do is leave the path of their ancestors and \"walk in the paths of Israel\" and they are to be considered as regular Israelite women. Clearly this means that they must observe halakhah as the rabbis determine it. We should note that in this mishnah \"Samaritan\" has become a code word for a genetic Jew who does not observe rabbinic halakhah. A Sadducean woman cannot be a Gentile because she is genetically Jewish. But when the mishnah wants to say that she is outside the rabbinic fold, it calls her a Samaritan.", + "Rabbi Yose says: they are always regarded as Israelite women unless they leave the paths of Israel to walk in the paths of their fathers. Rabbi Yose says that the a priori assumption about Sadducean women is that they have left the path of their fathers and act like (rabbinic) Jews. This is probably testimony to the weakness of the Sadducean faction after the destruction of the Temple. The Sadducees were more of a Temple-based group than the Pharisees and they don’t seem to have coped very well with the destruction of the Temple. In Rabbi Yose's time, a woman of Sadducean descent can be assumed to be observing rabbinic halakhah." + ], + [ + "The blood of a Gentile and the clean blood of a metzoraat (a woman with scale: Bet Shammai declares clean. And Bet Hillel holds that it is like her spittle or her urine. The menstrual blood (or zivah blood, blood that flows when a woman is not supposed to be menstruating) of a Gentile is, according to Bet Shammai, pure. This is because the chapters in Leviticus that discuss this issue are addressed to \"the children of Israel\" (Leviticus 15:2). \"Clean blood\" is the blood that flows from a woman during the period after childbirth following her time of impurity. For a boy, she is impure for a week and then pure for 33 days and double that amount of time for a girl. According to Bet Shammai, even if the woman is a metzoraat, who is impure, her blood is pure during this period, just as the blood of any woman is pure during this period. Bet Hillel disagrees on both of these issues. Concerning the blood of Gentile women, while Bet Hillel agrees that it is not impure by virtue of Torah law, they hold that the rabbis declared it impure (it would be impure derabanan). Just as they declared that other fluids that come from a Gentile's body are impure, urine and spittle, so too is their menstrual blood. This means that it defiles when moist, but not when dry, as do urine and spittle. Similarly, the rabbis hold that the \"clean blood\" of a metzoraat defiles like her spittle and urine when wet and not when dry. We could summarize the debate in the following way: Bet Shammai considers this blood not to be like the other fluids that come from the body, urine and spittle. Therefore, for both of these women, their urine and spittle can be impure while their blood is pure. Bet Hillel groups the blood with the other fluids, and just as urine and spittle are impure, so too is blood.", + "The blood of a woman after childbirth who did not immerse [in a mikveh]: Bet Shammai says it is like her spittle or her urine, But Bet Hillel says: it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry. Seven days after the birth of a boy and 14 days after the birth of a girl a woman is supposed to go to the mikveh, and subsequent blood will be pure. If she does not go to the mikveh, Bet Shammai says that this blood is like other liquids in her body it will defile when wet and not when dry. This is because she is still unclean, even though her blood is clean (i.e. the blood doesn't defile because it is blood, but rather because it is bodily fluid). Bet Hillel says that the blood is like menstrual blood i.e. it defiles because it is blood and not just because it is a fluid. This means that it will defile even when dry.", + "They agree that if she gave birth while in zivah, it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry. Both houses agree that if she gave birth while in a state of zivah, meaning while she was impure due to non-menstrual blood, her blood defiles as would menstrual blood, until she goes to the mikveh, after seven days for a boy and 14 days for a girl. In other words, the fact that this is supposed to be \"clean blood\" does not get her out of the fact that she had unclean blood before she even gave birth." + ], + [ + "A woman who is having difficult labor is regarded as a menstruant. A woman who is having difficult, protracted labor and is bleeding, is considered to be a niddah. This seems a bit strange to us after all, a pregnant woman can't menstruate. But it is in reality a leniency that this blood is not considered to be blood of zivah (non-menstrual blood). If it were non-menstrual blood she would have to wait seven days in which she doesn't bleed to become clean. Since it is considered menstrual blood, she will be clean seven days after giving birth (for a boy, 14 for a girl).", + "If she had difficult labor for three days of the eleven days and she ceased having pains for twenty-four hours and then gave birth, she is regarded as having given birth in zivah, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: a night and a day, as the night and the day of Shabbat. The eleven days referred to here are the eleven days between menstrual periods in which any blood flow is considered to be zivah. This woman had difficult labor for three days, meaning she bled during a period of three days. Normally, this blood would be considered zivah, because it came not during the time when blood is considered menstrual. However, because she was in labor, we considered the blood to be menstrual blood, as we saw in section one. But then she ceased having pains. When she gives birth, we now can consider the blood to be zivah blood. In other words, since the pains stopped, the blood is considered to be zivah after all and not from the birth itself. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cessation of pain must be for 24 hours. Rabbi Joshua says that the cessation must be for a whole day like Shabbat, from night through the entire next day. A simple 24 hour cessation is not enough.", + "That she ceased from having pain, but not from bleeding. This section explains that the cessation is only from the pains of labor. The bleeding continues. If she were to stop bleeding as well and then give birth, she would not even be considered as having given birth from zivah. The blood that comes at childbirth would be from childbirth and she would be impure 7/14 as is always the case after childbirth." + ], + [ + "How long can protracted labor [be considered] as lasting? Today's mishnah asks how long we can consider a woman to be in protracted labor such that any blood flow is considered niddah and not zivah. Remember, this is a leniency, for if it were considered zivah, she would need to have seven clean days to become pure. The question is not empirical how long could a woman actually have protracted labor. The question is legal how long can we legally attribute the blood to being from labor and not blood of zivah?", + "Rabbi Meir says: even forty or fifty days. Rabbi Meir says even forty, fifty days, which might mean that there is no limit whatsoever. Any time she has protracted labor, the blood is considered menstrual, as long as she didn't stop having the labor pains.", + "Rabbi Judah say: the [ninth] month suffices for her. Rabbi Judah says that blood during the entire ninth month of her pregnancy is considered menstrual and not zivah, as long as she is having labor pains along with it.", + "Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon says: protracted labor is not for more than two weeks [before birth]. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that she can be considered to be in protracted labor only for the two weeks before birth. Blood before this period must be considered zivah blood." + ], + [ + "If a woman was in hard labor during the eighty days prescribed for the birth of a female, all kinds of blood that she may observe are clean, until the fetus is born. But Rabbi Eliezer holds them to be unclean. This mishnah discusses an unlikely scenario, but one that the rabbis found interesting (in a legal sort of way) and therefore, worthy of discussion. [This is frequently the case in rabbinic literature. The rabbis wish to discuss legally complex cases, not ones that actually happen most frequently]. A woman gave birth to a girl and then was impure for 14 days. After this time she went to the mikveh and then had relations with her husband (I know, a bit quick, but possible). She became pregnant and was already having pain and blood during the 66 day period in which the blood is considered pure. Note that she knows that this blood is from the new pregnancy, and not the old one. The rabbis hold that this blood is clean until she gives birth again. At this point, if we are sure it is a birth, then she will again be impure with birth uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer says that since we know that this blood is not from the previous birth, in which case it would be clean, but rather from the difficult labor due to the subsequent birth, we must consider this blood to be unclean. She will have the uncleanness of a menstruant, as was the case in yesterday's mishnah.", + "They said to Rabbi Eliezer: if in a case where the law was stringent in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain, it was nevertheless lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor, in a case where it was lenient in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain is there not even more reason to be lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor? The rabbis now argue out their position. A woman who is pregnant and discharges blood but doesn't have any labor pains is considered a zavah. Her blood is not considered menstrual rather the greater stringency of zivah applies. Nevertheless, if she was in hard labor at the time, the blood would be considered birth blood, which would give her the status of a niddah and not a zavah. Therefore, in a case where the law is generally lenient, during the days of her purity (the 80 days after the birth of a girl), when all her blood is considered pure, so too we should be lenient with regard to blood that comes from labor pains. She should be a niddah and not a zavah.", + "He replied: it is enough for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred. For in what way were you lenient upon her? From the uncleanness of a zivah, but she does have the uncleanness of a niddah. Rabbi Eliezer responds that this doesn't make sense. The leniency during pregnancy was that she was not a zavah she was only a niddah. So when we derive a law from this situation, we don't need to say that she is pure. It is enough to say that the derived status is the same as that from which it derived. Just as her blood had the status of niddah during her pregnancy, so too during the 80 days of purity, blood due to hard labor has the status of niddah." + ], + [ + "Throughout all the eleven days a woman is in a presumption of cleanness. If she did not examine herself if this was unwittingly, under duress or intentionally, she is clean. Between one period and the next there are eleven days during which a woman can presume that she will not menstruate (according to the rabbis don't take this as gynecological advice). During this period there is a legal presumption that she is clean. If she doesn't examine herself for any reason, even intentionally, she is still clean.", + "If the time of her regular period arrived and she did not examine herself she is unclean. When her period is supposed to arrive, she loses her presumption of cleanness. She must examine herself, and if she does not, she is considered impure.", + "Rabbi Meir says: if a woman was in a hiding place when the time of her regular period arrived and she didn't examine herself she is clean, because fear suspends the flow of blood. Rabbi Meir holds that fear will suspend the onset of a woman's period. Therefore, if a woman is in hiding, perhaps due to war, and the time of her period arrives, she remains pure because we can assume that she did not have her period.", + "But during the days prescribed for a zav or a zavah or for one who waits day against day, these are presumed to be unclean. A woman who has three consecutive days of blood discharge not during the time of her period is a zavah. A man who has non-seminal genital discharge for three straight days is a zav. Both of them must check themselves every day. Every day that they do not, they are under the presumption of being impure. \"One who waits day against day\" refers to a man or woman who had a genital discharge that is not menstrual or semen for one or two days (on the third day they would become a zav/zavah). They too must check themselves every day to see if more discharge had occurred. If they do not check themselves, they are presumed unclean. To sum up the entire mishnah if there is some sign that would make us assume that she/he would menstruate or have impure discharge, then there is no presumption of cleanness. Without checking, she/he is impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "For a fetus born from its mother's side, she does not sit the prescribed days of uncleanness nor the days of cleanness, nor does one incur on its account the obligation to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon says: it is regarded as a regular birth. A fetus born from its mother's side is one born through a caesarean section. I am not sure how frequently a mother would even live through such an operation in the ancient world, but if she did, she is not impure (1 week for a male or two weeks for a female) nor does she have any days in which discharged blood is pure. Basically, if the child is not born in the normal way, it is not considered a birth and the purity rules relevant to childbirth do not apply. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that a caesarean section is considered a normal birth.", + "All women are subject to uncleanness [as soon as the blood appears] in the outer chamber, as it says, \"her discharge being blood in her body\" (Leviticus 15:19). But a zav and one who emitted semen convey no uncleanness unless the discharge came out of the body. A woman (niddah or zavah) is impure as soon as the blood reaches the outer chamber, which I assume means the vagina. The blood need not flow out for her to be impure. This is midrashically read into the word \"in her body.\" In contrast, men are impure only when the semen or other discharge has left the penis." + ], + [ + "If he was eating terumah when he felt that his limbs shook, he should take hold of his member and swallow the terumah. If a man is eating terumah and he feels himself about to ejaculate (his limbs are shaking) he should squeeze his penis so that he doesn't ejaculate quite yet and then swallow the terumah. If he ejaculates while terumah is still in his mouth, the terumah will become impure. [I realize, this is a bit strange and I'm not sure if it's realistic. It would also take a large degree of control to accomplish this, but I guess anything's possible.]", + "And it conveys uncleanness however small the quantity, even if it is only of the size of a mustard seed or less. Any amount of genital discharge (zivah, menstrual blood and semen), even an amount smaller than a mustard seed, defiles." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe remainder of this chapter goes through developmental stages of children and notes when they are obligated or subject to various laws.", + "A girl one day old defiles due to menstruation. If for some reason a baby girl begins to menstruate, the blood can count as menstrual blood which defiles. I realize that this is highly unlikely, but what the rabbis are in essence saying is that there is no age at which we could consider menstrual blood to be something else.", + "A girl ten days old defiles due to zivah. However, she must be ten days old for any bloody discharge to possibly count as zivah, non-menstrual blood. This is because if she bled for the first seven days of her life, it would count as niddah. Then to become a zavah, she must bleed three straight days not during the time of her period. So in order for her to become a zavah she would have to be 10 days old.", + "A boy one day old defiles due to zivah, and defiles due to scale disease and due to corpse uncleanness; A boy on the other hand can't be a niddah (obviously). Therefore, if he has bloody discharge from his penis, he can be a zav immediately. Similarly, other types of defilement need not wait until he is older. If he has scale disease (negaim) he is impure and he conveys impurity; the same is true if he dies his corpse defiles.", + "He subjects [his deceased brother's widow] to yibbum [levirate marriage]; If he has a brother who dies childless, his brother's wife is subject to yibbum with him. She will have to wait until he is old enough to perform yibbum or halitzah.", + "He exempts [his mother] from yibbum, If a man dies and he has a child who is even one day old, his wife is not subject to yibbum.", + "He enables her to eat terumah If the father was a kohen and he dies, his wife can continue eating terumah by virtue of her son.", + "And he disqualifies her from eating terumah; If the father was not a kohen and the wife was, and the father dies, because she has a son she does not go back to her father's home to continue to eat terumah. Her one day old son disqualifies her from eating terumah.", + "He inherits and transmits inheritance; If a woman dies on the day her son is born, the son inherits his mother's estate. If the son dies on the same day he can transmit his mother's inheritance to his paternal brother. In this way, the mother's estate can shift to her husband's child from another wife, all within one day.", + "He who kills him is guilty of murder, A one-day old is fully alive therefore one who kills him is liable for murder.", + "And he counts to his father, to his mother and to all his relatives as a fully grown man. This is basically just a summary of the entire mishnah a one day old child is a full living human being. We might add that there may be a polemic here against the common Greco-Roman tolerance of infanticide. As is well-known, Greek thought allowed for the killing of unwanted babies. The rabbis did not tolerate such a position. At the moment of birth a child is a full human being." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that in a legal sense, sexual relations with a girl over the age of three counts as sexual relations.\nI should emphasize that this mishnah in no way condones such an act (which is certainly rape) it just teaches that this counts as an act of intercourse. At the core of this notion is their understanding of the physical consequences of intercourse for the first time namely the breaking of the woman's hymen. As we can see at the end of the mishnah, if a girl has intercourse (i.e. is raped) before the age of three her hymen will repair itself. After the age of three, it will not. This, to the rabbis, means that after the age of three, intercourse \"counts\" in a legal sense. Before the age of three, it does not.\nHaving taught this mishnah (and others like it) many times, I realize that this is a very sensitive issue. To talk about sex with young girls is very troubling. I certainly don't want people to read this and think that the rabbis thought that it was okay for men to have relations with little girls. As usual, the mishnah uses a clinical, emotionally distant tone. That's just the way the rabbis composed much of the mishnah.", + "A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse and if a yavam had intercourse with her, he acquires her thereby. As stated above, intercourse with a girl over the age of three years counts as intercourse. Therefore, since betrothal may be performed by intercourse, she may also be betrothed in this way. If she is liable for yibbum (meaning her previous husband died without any offspring) and the yavam (her dead husband's brother) had intercourse with her, she becomes his wife. Again, this means that intercourse with her creates legal obligations and a legal relationship.", + "One can be liable for adultery with her; If her father marries her off to someone (this can be done even before three years old) and then another man has intercourse with her, he is liable for adultery and he would get the death penalty.", + "And she defiles the one who had intercourse with her so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. If she is a niddah, she defiles one who has intercourse with her such that he would defile any number of couches or cushions upon which he sat. This was explained in 4:1.", + "If she was married to a priest, she may eat terumah. An Israelite woman married to a priest can eat terumah. Since this marriage counts, she can eat terumah.", + "If any of the disqualified men have relations with her he disqualifies her from the priesthood. If someone who is disqualified from the priesthood, such as a halal (a disqualified priest) or a non-Jew, has relations with her, he disqualifies her from subsequently marrying a priest. This is true of all women.", + "If any of the forbidden relatives found in the Torah had relations with her he is to be executed on her account, but she is exempt [from the penalty]. If a man forbidden to her because of incest has relations with her, he gets the death penalty (as long as the incest was punishable by death). She, of course, is not punished because little children cannot be held accountable for their actions. Obviously, this was an act of rape.", + "If she was younger than this age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye. This is the concept I mentioned in the introduction. If one pokes someone in the eye, the eye tears up but returns to normal. So too, the rabbis believed that if one had intercourse with a girl younger than three, her hymen would repair itself. She would remain a \"virgin\" and therefore there are no legal consequences to relations with her." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that for a boy to be legally capable of intercourse, he must be 9 years old. Again, I should stress that this is a legal definition. The mishnah is not sanctioning boys having sex at that age. Indeed, I'm sure this was quite uncommon, if not completely unheard of. All they are saying is that a boy under that age is not legally capable of doing having sex.\nWhile a boy nine years of age can have legally consequential sex, he is not old enough to enter into verbal contracts. We shall see that this creates some interesting ramifications.", + "If a boy the age of nine years and one day had relations with his yevamah, he acquires her thereby; A yevamah, a woman whose husband has died without children, is acquired by the yavam, the brother of the dead husband, through sexual intercourse. What this means is that marriage with a yevam is done not through the money of kiddushin and then huppah, but through intercourse. Since a boy's intercourse at nine years counts, he can acquire his yevamah at that age. Note, he cannot marry a regular woman until he is of majority age.", + "But he cannot divorce her until he is of majority age. However, divorce is done through a written document and boys of this age do not have the legal ability to execute such documents. Therefore, he couldn't divorce her until he is of majority age.", + "He contracts uncleanness through intercourse with a menstruant so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. Since his intercourse counts, if he has relations with a niddah, he takes on the according level of impurity. This impurity was explained in 4:1.", + "He disqualifies a woman from the priesthood. If he is disqualified from being a priest, for instance he is a halal (a disqualified priest) or a mamzer, and he has relations with a woman, he disqualifies her from eating terumah.", + "But he doesn't give her the right to eat terumah. Since he can't legally marry a woman, he can't confer upon her the right to eat terumah if he is a priest. This is true even if the woman is his yevamah.", + "He renders a beast invalid for the altar, and it is stoned on his account. If he has sex with an animal (I know, this is a bit sick), the sex disqualifies use of the animal as a sacrifice. The animal with which he had sex is stoned on his account. Both of these rules are the usual rules for an animal that had sex with a human.", + "If he had intercourse with any of the forbidden relations mentioned in the Torah, she is to be executed on his account, but he is exempt from punishment. If he has intercourse with a woman prohibited to him by the Torah (adultery or incest) she is punished with the death penalty. He cannot, however, be punished until he is of majority age. To sum up this mishnah, it teaches that boys' physical ability precedes their legal liabilities, which are based on their mental capacities. While some of the details of this mishnah might be revolting and troubling, the essence seems to me quite prescient." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the age at which a child's vows are considered valid. This is an intellectual capacity and not a physical capacity as was the case in the first five mishnayot of the chapter.\nThe vows discussed directly in this mishnah are biblical types of vows a vow to bring something to the Temple. However, the same laws apply to other types of vows as well.\nWe should also note that the ages in this mishnah reflect what in modern times is known as the \"bar/bat mitzvah.\" A celebration of this age did not occur in mishnaic/talmudic times, but the significance of the age was noted.", + "A girl of the age of eleven years and one day, her vows must be examined. A girl of the age of twelve years and one day, her vows are valid; And they examine them throughout the whole twelfth year. During a girls' twelfth year it is possible, although not certain, that she knows the meaning of her vows. Therefore if she makes a vow someone would have to ascertain that she understands its meaning. If she does, it is valid. Upon completing twelve years, meaning on her twelfth birthday (actually the day after), her vows are valid automatically.", + "A boy the age of twelve years and one day, his vows must be examined. A boy the age of thirteen years and one day, is vow are valid. And they examine them throughout the whole thirteenth year. Boys mature one year slower than girls (personally, I think it takes a lot longer than this, but that's based on personal experience). Therefore, they are checked during their thirteenth year and a day after their thirteenth birthday their vows are automatically valid.", + "Prior to this age, even though they said, \"We know to whom we have made our vow\" or \"to whom we have made our dedication,\" their vow is not a valid vow and their dedication is not a valid dedication. Subsequent to this age, even though they said, \"We do not know to whom we have made our vow\" or \"to whom we have made our vow,\" their vow is a valid vow and their dedication is a valid dedication. Prior to these ages, a child's vows don't count, even if they know the meaning of them. And subsequent to this age, the vows count, even if they don't know their meaning. The only age in which the matter is dependent upon their knowledge, is the twelfth year for the girl and the thirteenth year for the boy." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that a girl has three stages of physical development, each with their own legal ramifications. These ages are: 1) ketanah, a minor; 2) naarah, a girl beginning to mature; 3) a bogeret, a mature girl. The father's rights over his daughter are limited to the first two stages.\nWe should note that this was a significant step in giving a far greater degree of independence to young girls. In the Bible, a father's rights over his daughter probably extended until she was married. The rabbis significantly curtailed this, ending his rights over his daughter at the extremely young age of 12. It is unlikely that in reality a father stopped exerting his decision making authority over his daughters at such a young age even today father's authority over their children extends well past this age. However, even if in reality fathers had significant power over their daughters for a far longer time, the fact is that the rabbis did limit their legal power, thereby creating more room for the girl's independence. .", + "The sages spoke of [the physical development of] a woman in a parable: an unripe fig, a fig in its early ripening stage and a ripe fig. The rabbis used the analogy of a fig to delineate the three stages of the physical development of a girl. This is clearly an allusion to her sexual development. A fig is somewhat of a sensuous fruit, and reminds us of the Garden of Eden. Sex and eating are often compared, so it seems that this mishnah is saying that a young girl is not ready for sex but that by 12 she is. [Again, I realize that this strikes as an extremely early age. However, we should probably realize that this is an issue that is determined by culture and that in many cultures girls are considered to be sexually ready at far younger ages than they are in our society.]", + "\"An unripe fig\": while she is yet a child; A child here is one who has not developed any signs of sexual development.", + "\"A fig in its early ripening stage\": when she is in her youth (. Naarut is when a girl begins to show signs of physical development. Her breasts are beginning to grow. Tomorrow's mishnah will go into greater detail.", + "In both ages her father is entitled to anything she finds and to her handiwork and to the right of invalidating her vows. A father has full rights over his ketanah and naarah daughter. Anything she finds and anything she makes belongs to him, and if she makes a vow he has the right to invalidate it (see Ketubot 4:4).", + "\"A ripe fig\" as soon as she becomes of majority age (, her father has no longer any right over her. Once she is of majority age, he no longer has any legal rights over her." + ], + [ + "What are the signs [of a bogeret]?
Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: the appearance of the wrinkle beneath the breast.
Rabbi Akiva says: from when the breasts hang down.
Ben Azzai says: the darkening of the ring around the nipple.
Rabbi Yose says: [the development of the breast to a stage] when one's hand is put on the nipple it sinks and only slowly rises again.
Today's mishnah contains several opinions as to what constitutes the physical development of a girl such that she is considered a bogeret. All four of these opinions relate to the development of the girl's breasts.
I think that the translation of these four opinions is sufficient to understand them, therefore there is no commentary below." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a male or female who never show signs of hitting puberty. A female in this category is called an aylonit, which probably comes from the word \"ayil\" ram. And a male is called a \"saris\" which is the Hebrew word for eunuch. The laws of this mishnah can also partly be found in Yevamot 8:5.", + "If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. If a woman turns twenty and has not yet hit puberty, meaning she has no pubic hair, and can prove that she is twenty, then she is an aylonit, a woman who is unable to procreate. If she is married and her husband dies without offspring she is not subject to the laws of levirate marriage halitzah or yibbum. This is because she is unable to procreate.", + "If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed as a saris and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel. The same rules apply to a man who reaches age twenty. If his brother dies without children, he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum with the widow. If there are no other brothers, then the widow does not require halitzah or yibbum at all. It is as if her husband died without a brother.", + "Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen. Bet Shammai disagrees with regard to the age at which we assume that the female is an aylonit and the male a saris. They hold that this assumption kicks in at 18, not 20 as held Bet Hillel.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man. Rabbi Eliezer offers a compromise position. Since girls reach maturity earlier than do boys, the age for them is 18, as said Bet Shammai. For boys, Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Bet Hillel." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is really a continuation of the topic from last chapter. It discusses what counts as a sign of having reached puberty the development of pubic hair (the lower sign) or the development of breasts (the upper sign).", + "If the lower sign appears before the upper sign, she can perform halitzah or yibbum. The appearance of the lower sign (pubic hair) counts as having reached puberty, even if the upper sign (breast development) had not yet appeared. Therefore, she is fully subject to the laws of halitzah and yibbum, for she is certainly of majority age.", + "If the upper sign appears before the lower sign, even though this is impossible: Rabbi Meir says: she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. And the sages say: she can perform halitzah or yibbum. For they have said: it is possible for the lower sign to appear before the upper sign, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign. Both Rabbi Meir and the other sages agree that the upper sign cannot appear before the lower sign. However, Rabbi Meir still thinks that if such a thing does appear to happen, we must be concerned lest it did happen. In such a case, she couldn't do halitzah or yibbum because she is still a minor. So if she was married and her husband died without children, she would have to wait till she hits majority age to perform either halitzah or yibbum. Note, however, that this is according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that a minor girl cannot do yibbum, lest it eventually turns out the she is an \"aylonit,\" one who never becomes sexually mature. The other sages (see 5:4) hold that we are not concerned with such an eventuality. Even a minor girl could perform yibbum, but not halitzah. In any case, the other sages say that if the upper sign appears then the lower sign must have appeared. She is considered to have reached majority age, and she can even do halitzah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next 9 mishnayot have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Rather, they are all formulated in the same format as yesterday's mishnah it is possible for x without y, but it is not possible for y without x.", + "Similarly, any [hole in] an earthen vessel that lets in a liquid will let it out, but there may be one that will let liquid out and will not let it in. An earthenware vessel that has a hole large enough that it lets liquid in is pure because it is no longer usable (see Kelim 3:1, 8:2). Any vessel that has a hole large enough to let in liquid will also let it out. However, there may be a vessel that lets liquid out but doesn't let it in. Such a vessel is still considered usable and is therefore still impure.", + "Any limb that grows a nail also has a bone in it, but there may be one that has a bone in it but does not grow a nail. A limb from a corpse that has a nail is impure, even if the limb is very small (see Ohalot 1:7). Any limb that grows a nail will also grow a bone, but there can be a limb that has a bone without a nail. The Talmud explains that an extra finger (or toe) that doesn't have a nail does defile through contact and by being carried but it doesn't convey impurity in an ohel (a tent) as would a limb with a nail." + ], + [ + "Whatever is susceptible to midras uncleanness is also susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. For an item to be susceptible to midras uncleanness, which is transmitted by sitting, laying down or leaning upon something, the item must have been made to be sat upon or laid upon, for instance a mattress or a chair. Therefore, not all items are susceptible to midras uncleanness (for instance, my shirt is not susceptible). However, all vessels (this includes almost anything of practical use made by a human being) are susceptible to corpse uncleanness. So if an item, such as a sofa, is susceptible to midras uncleanness, it must also be susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "But there are things that are susceptible to corpse uncleanness but not to midras-uncleanness. Such as my shirt, or my cereal bowl (or your dress and serving platter, if you like)." + ], + [ + "Anyone who is fit to try capital cases is also fit to try monetary cases. But there are those who are fit to try monetary suits and and unfit to try capital cases. The laws regarding who may adjudicate a capital case are more stringent than those for monetary cases. For instance, a convert or a mamzer cannot judge capital cases (see Sanhedrin 4:2).", + "Anyone who is eligible to act as judge is eligible to serve as a witness. But there may be one who is eligible to act as witness and not as judge. Similarly, the laws regarding who can serve as a judge are stricter than those for a witness. For instance, an unlearned person can serve as witness, but not as a judge." + ], + [ + "Whatsoever is subject to tithes is susceptible to food-uncleanness. Only food is subject to tithes and terumah. Therefore, anything that is subject to tithes must be a food.", + "But there are foods that are to food-uncleanness and not subject to tithes. However, not all food is subject to tithes and terumah, for instance things that don't grow from the ground (see Maasrot 1:1). Therefore, there can be food that is subject to impurity but not liable for tithes and terumah." + ], + [ + "Whatever is subject to peah is also subject to tithes. But there is [produce] which is subject to tithes and is not subject to peah. The category of produce that is subject to peah (leaving the corner of one's fields) is narrower than that liable for tithes. For produce to be liable for peah it has to be a type that ripens and is harvested all at the same time. Thus, figs, which ripen gradually, are not liable to peah. The produce also has to be able to be stored for a long time, so vegetables are not liable to peah (see Peah 1:4). However, anything that is liable for peah is in the category of liable for tithes." + ], + [ + "Whatever [beast] is subject to the laws of the first of the fleece is also subject to that of the priestly gifts.
But there may be [a beast] that is subject to the law of the priestly gifts and not to that of the first of the fleece.
There are two mitzvot mentioned in this mishnah: the \"first of the fleece\" and \"priestly gifts.\" A person must give the first of the fleece that he shears to the priest. When he offers a sacrifice that doesn't entirely go to the priest, he gives the priest the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach the \"priestly gifts.\" Only female sheep are liable to the first of the fleece, but all beasts offered as a sacrifice are liable for the priestly gifts." + ], + [ + "Whatever is subject to the law of removal is also subject to the sabbatical year.
But there is [a kind or produce] that is subject to the sabbatical year and is not subject to the law of removal.
Again, there are two laws mentioned in this mishnah. The first is \"the law of removal.\" Produce grown during the sabbatical year can be gathered into one's house and stored, but as soon as it ceases to grow in the field such that animals can eat it, it must be removed from storage in one's house.
\"Subject to the sabbatical year\" means that one cannot do business with it i.e. bring it to the marketplace and sell it there. Furthermore, any produce that grows in one's field must be made ownerless.
All produce is \"subject to the sabbatical year.\" However, if the produce grows in the field all year round, and is always available for animal consumption, then it need not be removed from one's house. Sheviit 7:2 gives some examples." + ], + [ + "Whatever has scales has fins, But there are fish that have fins and no scales. For fish to be kosher they need fins and scales. Some fish have fins but no scales, but if a fish has scales, for sure it has fins (see Hullin 3:7).", + "Whatever has horns has [split] hooves; But there are animals that have [split] hooves and no horns. Animals need split hooves to be kosher. Any animal with horns must have split hooves. However, there are animal that have split hooves, such as a pig, but do not have horns." + ], + [ + "Whatever requires a blessing after it requires one before it;
But there are things that require a blessing before them and not after them.
One must recite a blessing before eating anything, even of the smallest amount. One also must recite a blessing before the performance of a mitzvah. But in both of these cases, there is no blessing recited after.
However, anything that one blesses after it, such as a sufficient portion of food, one would certainly have to bless before it as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah returns to the main subject of the chapter at what stage of physical development a child becomes obligated in the commandments.", + "If a girl has grown two pubic hairs she may perform either halitzah or contract levirate marriage, and she is obligated in all the commandments in the Torah. So too if a boy has grown two pubic hairs, he is obligated in all of the commandments in the Torah. Once the \"lower sign\" two pubic hairs have appeared on a boy or girl, they become fully obligated in all of the mitzvot in the Torah. In addition, for a girl this means that she is liable for halitzah or yibbum; if her husband died without offspring, she must perform either halitzah or yibbum with her dead husband's brother.", + "He is fit to become a wayward and rebellious son from the time he has grown two hairs until the time when his beard forms a circle. This refers to the lower, and not to the upper one, but the sages spoke using a euphemism. For a boy to be subject to the laws of being a wayward and rebellious son (see Sanhedrin 8) he must have reached majority age, but not be so old that he is no longer subject to his parents' authority. This is translated physically to mean that he has already grown two pubic hairs but he is not yet fully physically matured (meaning more pubic hair is left to grow). The beard referred to here is indeed the \"lower\" beard, but the rabbis used a euphemism (I'm trying to do this too, but it's not easy and to remain understood).", + "A girl who has grown two hairs may no longer refuse the marriage. Rabbi Judah says: [she may refuse] until the black [hairs] predominate. A minor girl who is married off by her brother or mother because her father is no longer alive has the right to refuse the marriage until she becomes of majority age. In Hebrew, this is called \"meun,\" and it is annulment, not divorce. Once she hits puberty and doesn't refuse the marriage, it is as if she has accepted it and she can no longer refuse. Rabbi Judah extends her right to refuse the marriage till the time when she has enough pubic hair that the region looks mostly black." + ], + [ + "The two hairs spoken of in regard to the red heifer and in regard to leprosy as well as those spoken of anywhere else must be long enough for their tips to be bent to their roots, the words of Rabbi Ishmael.
Rabbi Eliezer says: long enough to be grasped by a finger-nail.
Rabbi Akiva says: long enough to be taken off with scissors.
Today's mishnah clarifies how long a hair must be for it to count as a hair.
Section one: Besides the context of our chapter hairs that are a sign of human puberty there are several other \"halakhic hairs.\" The first is that black or white hairs can disqualify a red heifer from being used in the purification ritual (see Parah 2:5). The second is that two hairs are a sign of impurity in a leprous spot (see Negaim 4:4, 10:2-3). The issue of hair also comes up in the commandment that a nazirite shave all of his hairs at the end of his naziriteship, and that a metzora (a person with skin disease) shave when becoming pure. If either of them leaves two hairs, the shaving doesn't count.
In all of these cases, Rabbi Ishmael holds that the hair must be long enough that one could take the tip and bend it back to the root.
Rabbi Eliezer says that it need only be possible to grasp the nail with one's finger nail. Rabbi Akiva says that it must be long enough that one could cut it with scissors. According to commentators, this is the smallest measure." + ], + [ + "A woman who found a blood-stain is in a spoiled condition and must take into consideration the possibility that it was due to zivah, the words of Rabbi Meir.
If a woman makes a mistake in her reckoning there is no re-opening for her [of the niddah count] earlier than seven, nor later than after seventeen days.
But the sages say: in the case of blood-stains there is no [need to consider the possibility of their being] due to zivah. Section five: This somewhat complicated halakhah has to do with counting a woman’s menstrual cycle, in order to know the difference between menstrual blood (which causes a woman to be impure for 7 days, even if she continued to bleed all the way through the seventh and non-menstrual blood (which causes a woman to be impure for one day, unless she sees blood for three straight days, in which case she is impure for 7 full days after she stops seeing. The rabbis instituted an 18 day cycle to calculate when blood was menstrual and when it is non-menstrual. When a woman first sees blood she considers it to be menstrual blood and she is impure for seven days, from the time she saw the first blood. After these seven days, any blood seen over the next 11 days is considered to be zivah (non-menstrual. After these eleven days are over, she returns to counting seven days, during which any blood is considered to be menstrual blood. Our mishnah deals with a situation where a woman made a mistake in counting these days (i.e. she didn’t know whether she was in the seven days or in the and she saw blood. She doesn’t know whether the blood she saw is to be considered menstrual, in which case she is impure for seven days, or zivah, in which case she is impure for only one day, or a full seven days if she sees zivah for three straight days. Our mishnah teaches that the beginning of her days of menstrual blood cannot be less then seven days after she doesn’t see any more blood, nor more than seventeen days, all counted from the time she first saw blood. How this works out is a bit complicated, but I shall try to explain very briefly. Let’s say she saw blood for one day, if these were “days of niddah” she could begin to count her next days of niddah after seventeen days, which is the maximum amount. This would mirror the normal situation. However, if she sees blood for several straight days, it may be possible that she only has to wait seven more days after not seeing blood to begin counting her menstrual blood days. Let’s say she sees blood for three straight days, she can then begin counting her menstrual days after seven days without seeing blood, because it doesn’t matter if the blood she saw was menstrual or not, seven days are sufficient to begin counting again. I realize that this is all very complicated, and indeed entire books exist dedicated to these complicated calculations. We will learn much more about this subject when we learn Tractate Niddah.
Section one: According to Rabbi Meir, if a woman finds a blood stain on her clothing she is in a \"spoiled condition.\" What this means is that since she doesn't know when the blood stain got there she doesn't know when to begin counting the eleven days of \"zivah\" the eleven days in which blood is considered zivah and not menstruation. This is a complicated system of calculation that I explained in Arakhin 2:1. For your benefit I have put the explanation of this clause below.
Furthermore, if she sees the stain three days into her wearing the garment during the \"days of zivah,\" and the stain is large enough that it could contain three days of blood flow (this is not such a large amount, three split-beans worth of blood) she must be concerned that she had blood flow for three days and therefore she is a zavah. In other words, this is a pretty lousy situation.
Section two: The other sages say that if a woman sees a stain on her clothing, she does not have to treat it as if it is potentially zivah." + ], + [ + "If a woman observed [a discharge of blood] on the eleventh day at twilight, at the beginning of a menstruation period and at the end of a menstruation period, at the beginning of a zivah period and at the end of a zivah period; Albeck explains this section according to the Talmud which reads it as if it says, \"at the beginning of a menstruation period and at the end of a zivah period or at the end of a menstruation period and at the end of a zivah period.\" In other words, a woman sees a discharge of blood at twilight at the end of the eleventh day of her zivah period which could also be considered the beginning of her menstrual period. If it is zivah, she is impure for one day for every day she saw blood; if it is menstrual blood then she is impure for seven days. The same doubt occurs if she sees blood on the seventh day at twilight of her menstrual days she cannot be sure if it is menstrual blood or zivah blood.", + "On the fortieth day after the birth of a male or on the eightieth day after the birth of a female, If she saw blood at twilight on the fortieth day after the birth of a male or the 80th day after the birth of a female, we are not sure if the blood is pure because for 40/80 days after the birth a male or female child a woman's blood is pure, or it is impure blood.", + "At twilight in all these cases, behold these women have made a mistake [in their reckoning]. In all of these cases we must consider the woman as having lost her count. The women must act as if they were zavot and if they had blood for two more days after the first discharge, they must bring the appropriate hatat (sin-offering) sacrifice at the end of their period of impurity. However, since we are not sure whether or not they are actually liable for the hatat, it may not be eaten.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: before you fix the situation for the women who lack intelligence, come and fix the situation for the wise ones. According to Albeck, Rabbi Joshua's comment refers to Mishnah 2:1, where we learned that intelligent women could help supervise women who are not considered to have halakhic intelligence. He says to the sages who composed that mishnah instead of worrying about those woman who lack the intelligence to keep track of their own cycles, you should worry about the intelligent women, who theoretically are able to keep track of these things, but because of the complications of this system, cannot do so." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches which substances defile when both dry and wet and which defile only while still wet or moist.", + "The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. There are two substances which are treated strictly and defile whether moist or dry the blood of a menstruant and the flesh from a corpse.", + "But the discharge [of a zav], and the phlegm [of a zav] and the spittle [of a zav], a dead sheretz, a nevelah and semen convey uncleanness when wet but not when dry. In contrast, the substances that come from the body of a zav (a man who had an abnormal genital discharge) are impure only while still moist. The same is true for a dead sheretz (creepy crawly thing), a nevelah (an animal not slaughtered in the proper manner) and semen.", + "If they can be soaked and then revert to their original condition they convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. And how long must they be soaked? In lukewarm water for a period of twenty four hours. However, if one can soak these substances in lukewarm water for a period of up to 24 hours and they return to being moist as they were previously, then they are still impure. In other words, for something to be considered all dried up and therefore pure, it must be irrevocably dried up.", + "Rabbi Yose says: If the flesh of a corpse is dry, and it cannot be soaked and brought back to its original condition, it is clean. Rabbi Yose says that the flesh of a corpse is also pure if it becomes irrevocably dry." + ], + [ + "If a dead sheretz was found in an alley it causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can say, \"I examined this alley and there was no sheretz in it,\" or to such time as it was last swept. A dead sheretz defiles anything that touches it. If a sheretz is found in an alley, everything pure in the alley must be considered impure lest it was touched by the sheretz. This retroactive impurity covers everything that was in the alley until we can be sure that the sheretz wasn't there. We can be sure of this either by someone testifying that he examined the alley or by the alley having been cleaned.", + "So also a bloodstain found on a garment causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can say, \"I examined this shirt and there was no stain on it\" or to such time as it was last washed. Similarly, if one finds a bloodstain on a garment, any clean things that touched the cloak are impure until such a point when we can ascertain that the stain wasn't there.", + "And it conveys uncleanness whether it is wet or dry. Rabbi Shimon says: if it is dry it causes uncleanness retrospectively, but if it is wet it causes uncleanness only to a time when it could still have been wet. This section connects this mishnah to the topic of yesterday's mishnah whether defiling substances need to be moist to defile. According to the first opinion, the sheretz and blood stain defile even if they are found dry, because they might have been moist when they defiled the clean things. Rabbi Shimon says that we can use the fact that only moist things defile to limit the retroactive impurity. If for instance we know that the stain or sheretz could not have been moist three days ago because it is really dry now, then it doesn't defile things it might have touched in the past three days. But if something might have touched it when it was wet, it is impure." + ], + [ + "All bloodstains that come from Rekem are clean.
Rabbi Judah declares them unclean, because the people who live there are proselytes though misguided.
Those that come from non-Jews are clean.
Those that come from Israelites or from Samaritans: Rabbi Meir declares them unclean, But the sages declare them clean because they are not suspected in regard to their stains.
Today's mishnah deals with clothing that is found with a bloodstain on it. The question is do we have to be concerned that the blood is impure and the clothing defiles?
Section one: Rekem is on the eastern border of the land of Israel (see Gittin 1:1-2). Its residents, according to the first opinion, are considered to be non-Jews. Since non-Jews don't defile, their bloodstained clothing is also not considered to be defiling.
Rabbi Judah says that the people of Rekem are actually converts.
It is interesting that in this mishnah we have an argument over the status of these people the first opinion holds that their conversion was not valid, whereas Rabbi Judah holds that their conversion was valid. We can sense, perhaps, that the laws of conversion were still in flux.
Despite their conversion, Rabbi Judah holds that they do not properly observe the laws of menstrual purity and therefore their stains are impure. As we shall see below, the sages hold that bloodstained cloaks of Israelites do not defile. These people converted but didn't learn the laws all that well. That is likely why the other rabbis consider them not to be Jewish.
Section two: As stated above, non-Israelites do not defile, at least not through their menstrual blood. Therefore, it is obvious that their bloodstained clothing is not impure.
Section three: Israelites and Samaritans are both subject to the laws of menstrual purity meaning their menstrual blood is impure. According to Rabbi Meir, if one finds a cloak from an Israelite or Samaritan with a bloodstain on it, one must be concerned that it is menstrual blood. Therefore, it defiles.
The other sages say that Israelites and Samaritans are not suspected of simply giving clothing stained with menstrual blood to others. In other words, they are cautious about the laws of menstrual purity. Therefore, if we find blood on their clothing we can assume that it is not menstrual blood. The clothing is pure." + ], + [ + "All bloodstains, wherever they are found are clean except those that are found in rooms or in a house for unclean women.
A house for unclean Samaritan women conveys uncleanness by overshadowing because they bury miscarriages there.
Rabbi Judah says: they did not bury them but threw them away and the wild beasts dragged them off.
Section one: As stated in yesterday's mishnah, bloodstains found on clothing are considered pure, because we can generally assume that they do not come from menstrual blood. Jewish women do not simply cast aside the clothing that has menstrual blood stains on it.
However, we can't assume that the bloodstain is not menstrual if the clothing is found in a private room, for in such a place a woman might place clothing that has a menstrual stain on it.
Similarly, if bloodstained clothing is found in a house set aside from menstruating women, we must treat the stain as if it were menstrual blood.
We should note that this is virtually the only evidence in rabbinic literature that menstruating women were sent to a \"red tent\" a house for menstruants. It is unclear how widespread this practice might have been, but in my opinion, the existence of this mishnah proves that it did exist, at least in some places in some times.
Section two: Houses set aside for unclean Samaritan women defile to a greater extent because we fear there may be dead bodies in such houses, and dead bodies defile through overshadowing. The fear is that in such houses women occasionally miscarriage, and that Samaritan women do not bring their miscarriages to burial grounds. Rather they bury them right in the house.
Rabbi Judah says that they don't even bother burying them. They just leave them on the side and wild animals come and drag them off. Paradoxically, the aspersion he casts on Samaritan women (they don't even bother burying their miscarriages) serves to purify their homes, at least from corpse impurity. Since the miscarriages are no longer there, the houses do not defile by overshadowing." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with when we believe the testimony of a Samaritan.", + "They are believed when they say, \"we buried miscarriages there,\" or \"we did not bury them.\" If a Samaritan states that they either did or did not bury a miscarriage in a certain place they are believed. Although they are suspected of casting aside miscarriages, they generally observe the laws of impurity, so they are believed in this matter.", + "They are believed when they say concerning a beast whether it had given birth to a firstling or had not given birth to one. Since they observe the laws of the firstborn animal (that it must be given to the priests and that it is sacred) they are trusted if they say that a certain animal had already given birth or had not.", + "They are believed when giving information on the marking of graves. Samaritans are cautious concerning the impurity of graves. Therefore, they are trusted to say that a marker does or does not signify the presence of a grave.", + "But they are not believed either in regard to overhanging branches, or protruding stones or a bet ha-peras. However, there are aspects of the laws of impurity in which their behavior and interpretation differ from the rabbis. The rabbis hold that an overhanging tree or a protruding stone can serve as an \"ohel,\" a tent which will convey impurity from one thing underneath it to another (we learned a lot about this in Ohalot). The Samaritans evidently don't follow these rules. Therefore, they are not believed to say that such and such a place is pure. A \"bet ha-peras\" is a place that used to be a graveyard but has been plowed over such that it is difficult to tell what it used to be. The Samaritans evidently are not concerned with the impurity of a \"bet ha-peras\" and therefore are not believed if they say that a certain place was not plowed over.", + "This is the general rule: in any matter in which they are under suspicion they are not believed. This is the general rule that underlies when a Samaritan is believed and when she/he is not. We should note what this implies about our trust of Samaritans. When Samaritans observe a certain law, we trust that they will tell us (rabbinic Jews) the truth about it. They won't just lie because they don't like us. However, they don't like the cases in which our laws disagree with their way of treating things. In those cases, we fear that they will intentionally lie to us so that we can't observe the system of purity as we understand it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a woman who finds a bloodstain on her body or her clothing. Does she have to be concerned that it is menstrual blood and therefore she (and the cloak) is impure?", + "If a woman observed a bloodstain on her body: If it was opposite her genital area she is unclean; But if it was not near the genital are she remains clean. If she finds the stain on her body close to her genital region or opposite this area, it is likely to be menstrual and she is impure. If the stain is not near there, then she might still be impure, but it will depend on where it is found, as we shall see now.", + "If it was on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, she is unclean. This section explains what is also considered opposite her genital area. Her heels and the tips of her large toe are both opposite the genitals because she might sit cross-legged with her heels under her body.", + "On her thigh or on her feet: If on the inner side, she is unclean; If on their outer side, she remains clean. And if on the front and back sides she remains clean. If on the inner sides of her feet or thighs, it is possible that the blood is menstrual. Therefore, she is impure. However, if it is on the outer sides or on the front or back, it can be assumed to be from elsewhere and she is clean.", + "If she observed it on her garment: Below the belt, she is unclean, But if above the belt, she remains clean. The rest of the mishnah is concerned with blood found on her garment. If it is below the belt, then it is possibly menstrual blood and she is unclean. But if above the belt, she is clean.", + "If she observed it on the sleeve of her shirt: If it can reach as low as her genital area, she is unclean, But if it cannot, she remains clean. If the blood was on the sleeve, we are concerned that it is menstrual only if the sleeve can reach down past her waist.", + "If she takes it off and covers herself with it in the night, she is unclean wherever the stain is found, since it can turn about. If she uses the cloak as a covering at night, then no matter where the blood is found, she must be considered impure because at night the cloak won't stay in one place. Even if she only put it around her head, it is possible she tossed and turned and that it ended up near her groin.", + "And the same law applies to a pallium. The same rules apply to a Roman type of garment called a \"pallium\" or a \"pallios\" in other versions. This was a type of jacket." + ], + [ + "[A woman] may attribute [a bloodstain] to any [external] cause to which she can possibly attribute it.
If [for instance] she had slaughtered a beast, a wild animal or a bird,
Or if she was handling bloodstains or if she sat beside those who handled them.
Or if she killed a louse, she may attribute the bloodstain to it. How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one up to the size of a split bean; And even if she did not kill it.
She may also attribute it to her son or to her husband.
If she herself had a wound that could open again and bleed she may attribute it to it.
Section one: If a woman sees a bloodstain on her body or on her cloak in a place where she must suspect that it could be menstrual blood but there is some external circumstance to which she could attribute it, she may attribute it to this source and remain pure. It is interesting that along with all of the stringencies the rabbis initiated when it comes to menstrual blood, they also instituted many leniencies, including those we see in this mishnah.
Sections 2-3: The mishnah now gives some examples of possible things she may have been doing that would allow her to attribute her bloodstain to another source.
Section four: Here we can see just to what extent the rabbis ruled leniently. Even if all a woman is doing is killing lice, which probably don't usually bleed that much, she may attribute a stain up to the size of a split bean to a louse. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus disagrees with the first opinion and holds that even if she is not the one killing them, she may attribute the bloodstain to the blood of the louse.
Section five: She can also attribute the stain to her husband or son for instance if they slaughtered an animal or did something else connected to blood.
Section six: Finally, she can also attribute the blood to her own wound, even if it was already scabbed over. As long as it is possible for the wound to open and bleed she can attribute her bloodstain to a wound. Note that this is so even if it doesn't look like the blood came from that wound." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this remarkable mishnah, Rabbi Akiva demonstrates just how lenient he can be in matters of doubtful impurity.", + "It happened that a woman came in front of Rabbi Akiva and said. She said to him: I have seen a bloodstain. He said to her: Perhaps you had a wound? She said to him: Yes, but it has healed. He said to her: Perhaps it could have opened again and let out some blood.\" She said to him: Yes. And Rabbi Akiva declared her clean. In this story a woman comes in front of Rabbi Akiva, presumably to ask him if the blood that she found somewhere on her body or clothing would make her into a menstruant. Rabbi Akiva searches for a reason to be lenient and finds one she had a wound and it might have opened (see yesterday's mishnah). He then rules that she is clean. This story is typical of Rabbi Akiva's lenient approach to halakhah he wishes to make halakhah lenient so that the woman can prevent being considered unclean.", + "He saw his disciples looked at each other in astonishment. He said to them: Why do you find this difficult, for the sages did not say this rule in order to be stringent but rather to be lenient, for it is said, \"And if a woman have issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood\" blood but not a bloodstain. Interestingly, his students are astonished by this approach. Instead of searching for a leniency, they feel that Rabbi Akiva should have ruled strictly. Indeed, it is not that likely that the blood came from a wound that had already healed. Rabbi Akiva responds to them that from the Torah, only an actual blood flow can make a woman impure. The fact that a blood stain counts as a sign of impurity is a ruling of the rabbis. In such a case, we can, and indeed should be, lenient. The blood stain is a sign of impurity only if it is certain that it is menstrual blood." + ], + [ + "A testing rag that was placed under a pillow and some blood was found: If it is round it is clean If it is elongated it is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok. The testing rag is what a woman uses after sexual intercourse to see if she was menstruating. The woman placed it under her pillow so she could look at it in the morning. According to Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok, if she finds on it a round blood stain, then she can assume that it came from a louse and she is pure. However, if she finds an elongated blood stain then it was likely to be from when she checked herself and she is impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A woman who was attending to her needs and observed an issue of blood: Rabbi Meir says: if she was standing she is unclean but if she was sitting she remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: in either case she is clean. A woman is urinating and sees blood while urinating. Rabbi Meir says that if she is standing it is possible that the blood is a result of forceful urinating. According to Rabbi Meir, when a woman urinates while standing she must make an extra effort, and that effort might cause her to bleed. Rabbi Yose says that in both cases we can assume that the blood comes from some sort of wound and that it is not menstrual." + ], + [ + "A man and a woman did their needs in the same bowl and blood was found on the water:
Rabbi Yose says it is clean,
Rabbi Shimon says that it was unclean, since it is not usual for a man to discharge blood, but nevertheless the presumption is that blood is from the woman.
A man and woman both urinated into the same chamber pot, and it is unclear whether the blood was from the woman or the man. Rabbi Yose, remaining consistent with his opinion from yesterday's mishnah, says that the woman is clean. After all, even if we know the blood is from her, Rabbi Yose considers her clean.
Rabbi Shimon says that it is extremely unusual for a man to discharge blood while urinating. While it may be unusual for a woman to do so, we nevertheless must presume that it is her blood and therefore it is unclean." + ], + [ + "If she lent her shirt to a non-Jewish woman or to a menstruant she may attribute a stain to either. A woman didn't check her shirt for stains before she lent it out to another woman. She then got it back with a blood stain on it (yeah, bad manners, but that is not the issue in this mishnah). Alternatively, she did check it before she lent it out, but when she got it back she wore it for a while without checking it. In both cases, she doesn't know if the stain is from her or from the other woman. The mishnah rules that if the woman was non-Jewish or a menstruant who are both considered impure, then she can assume that the stain is from them. It seems that the mishnah is saying that they won't be so particular about a blood stain found on a shirt. However, if the shirt was loaned out to a pure Jewish woman, the lender can't assume that the stain was from the borrower because the borrower would be assumed to be clean and would be cautious about such matters.", + "If three women had worn the same shirt or had sat on the same wooden bench and subsequently blood was found on it, all are regarded as unclean. In this case, there is no reason to attribute the blood stain to any one woman more than to another and therefore they all must be considered unclean.", + "If they had sat on a stone bench or on the projection within the colonnade of a bath House: Rabbi Nehemiah says that they are clean, for Rabbi Nehemiah says: anything that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains. Stone objects are not susceptible to impurity. The projection from the colonnade is probably not made of stone but since it is attached to the ground, it too cannot become impure because any object attached to the ground cannot become impure. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, the rabbis decided that stains are a sign of impurity only if they appear on other things that are susceptible to impurity. If they appear on objects that are not susceptible, then the woman remains pure. Note that this again seems to be an intentional leniency designed to allow a greater percentage of women to remain pure." + ], + [ + "Three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was found under one of them, they are all unclean. This is similar to yesterday's mishnah. Since we do not know whom the discharge is from, we must consider all of them to be impure.", + "If one of them examined herself and was found to be unclean, she alone is unclean while the two others are clean, [for] they may attribute the blood to one another. If one of the three examined herself and found that she was menstruating, the other women can consider themselves to be pure. Similarly, if one of the women was the type of womn not considered likely to menstruate, a young woman, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman or an old woman (see 1:3) then she can attribute the blood to the other women. They will be impure and she will be pure.", + "And if they were [all] not likely to observe blood, they must be regarded as though they were likely to observe one. If all three women were of the category of women who are unlikely to menstruate, then obviously we must attribute the blood to one of them. Since there is no reason to attribute it to one any more than the other, all three must be considered impure, as is the case in section one." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMost of this rather long mishnah is a more complicated version of yesterday's mishnah, concerning three women who were sleeping in one bed and a stain was found under one of them.", + "If three women slept in one bed, and blood was found under the middle one, they are all unclean. If it was found under the inner one, the two inner ones are unclean while the outer one is clean. If it was found under the outer one, the two outer ones are unclean while the inner one is clean. The bed is up against the wall and there are three women sleeping in the bed. The simple principle is that the woman under whom the stain was found and the women sleeping right next to her are impure. The idea seems to be that the women might shift a bit at night, but not so much that they could get all the way to the position of a woman two over. We should note that this mishnah seems to disagree with mishnah four, for mishnah four stated that if the blood was found under any one of them, they are all impure.", + "Rabbi Judah said: when is this so? When they passed by way of the foot of the bed, but if they passed across it, they are all unclean. Rabbi Judah points out that this is true only if the women got into the bed from the feet of the bed. However, if they crossed over each other from the outside part of the bed, then all are impure because the blood flow could have occurred while they were entering the bed. Rabbi Judah could attribute yesterday's mishnah to a case where they were crossing over each other to get into bed.", + "If one of them examined herself and was found clean, she remains clean while the two others are unclean. If two examined themselves and were found to be clean they remain clean while the third is unclean. If the three examined themselves and were found to be clean, they are all unclean. This is similar to yesterday's mishnah.", + "To what may this be compared? To an unclean heap that was mixed up with two clean heaps: If they examined one of them and found it to be clean, it is clean while the two others are unclean; If they examined two of the heaps and found them to be clean, they are clean while the third one is unclean; And if they examined the three and they were all found to be clean, they are all unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir, The mishnah analogizes the previous scenario with a case in which there are three heaps of stones and we know that under one of them is a piece of corpse but we don't know under which. According to Rabbi Meir if they examine all three heaps and don't find the piece of corpse under any of them, they are all impure. Even though the source was never found, since we know it is there, they are all impure.", + "For Rabbi Meir used to say: any object that is presumed to be unclean remains unclean until it is known to you where the uncleanness is. But the sages say: one continues the examination of the heap until one reaches bedrock or virgin soil. This accords with Rabbi Meir's general principle of impurity. Once something is under the presumption of impurity, it stays impure until we are sure where the source of uncleanness is. However, the rabbis say that in situations such as the heaps where the source of impurity has not been found, we can assume it is gone and all of the heaps are pure. However, in the case of the women, one of them is certainly the source of the blood and they are all still here in front of us. Therefore, they are all impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next two mishnayot deal with substances that could be used to remove stains, but not bloodstains, from garments.", + "Seven substances should be applied to a stain: tasteless spittle, the liquid of crushed beans, urine, lye, soapwort, cimolian earth, and potash. These seven substances are considered to be some form of ancient detergent. They are strong enough to remove a bloodstain, but not strong enough to remove dye.", + "If one immersed it and then handled clean things on it, and then applied to it the seven substances and the stain did not fade away it must be a dye, and the clean things remain clean and there is no need to immerse it again. A woman had a garment with a stain on it and then immersed it to make it clean. Then she handled clean objects and only after that she decided she better test the object to see if the stain was blood or dye. If she applied all seven substances to the stain and it remained, then it is clearly dye. The impure things that she touched remain pure and she need not immerse the garment again.", + "If the stain faded away or grew fainter, it must be a bloodstain and the clean things are unclean and it is necessary to perform immersion again. However, if the stain faded or disappeared due to the application of the seven substances, then it is to be considered blood. The pure things she handled are considered impure and she must immerse the garment again." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah relates to the seven substances used as detergents to remove stains from clothing.", + "What is meant by tasteless spittle? From one who had eaten nothing [that day]. The \"tasteless spittle\" refers to the saliva excreted by a person who had not yet eaten that day.", + "The liquid of crushed beans? The chewing of split beans, ready to be swallowed. The \"liquid of crushed beans\" refers to beans that have been very well chewed in a person's mouth, so chewed up that the person is ready to swallow them.", + "Urine? That has fermented. According to the Tosefta, it takes three days for urine to ferment. Ymm!", + "One must scour the stain three times with each of the substances. If he applied them out of the prescribed order, or if he applied the seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing. Each of the substances must be applied to the garment three times in the order of the appearance of the substance on the list. If they are not applied three times in the correct order then the stain must be considered blood, even if it didn't disappear." + ], + [ + "For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow.
And these are the signs of a regular period: [if the woman] yawns, sneezes, feels pain at the top of her stomach or the bottom of her bowels, discharges mucus, or is seized by a kind of shivering, or any other similar symptoms.
Any woman who established for herself [one of the symptoms] three times behold this is a regular period.
The next three mishnayot return to the subject of a woman who has a regular menstrual period. To recall from the first chapter, if a woman is able to establish a regular period, then she does not retroactively defile the things she touches.
Section one: This section is found in 1:1. As I explained there, if a woman has a regular cycle, she defiles things only from the time in which she discovered that she was menstruating.
Sections two and three: In addition to a period that comes at a fixed time period, there are other signs that if followed by menstruation would allow a woman to establish a regular period. In other words, if a woman experiences one of these symptoms and then begins to menstruate closely thereafter, and this occurs three times (see section three) then she can use this sign to establish her cycle. The third time she yawns, for instance, and then has her period close thereafter, she will be able to reckon her uncleanness from the time she discovered the flow. She will not retroactively defile things that she touched during the last twenty-four hour period or the since the last time that she examined herself." + ], + [ + "If a woman usually observed her menstrual discharge at the onset of the symptoms of her regular periods, all clean things that she handled while the symptoms were in progress are unclean. But if she regularly observed them at the end of the symptoms, all clean things that she handled while the symptoms lasted remain clean. The symptoms mentioned in yesterday's mishnah can last for a while. Our mishnah questions the purity status of the pure things she handled while the symptoms were occurring but before she saw blood flow. If usually she sees blood flow at the onset of these symptoms, then we must assume that the same thing occurred in this case. The things she touched while she experienced these symptoms are impure. But if she usually sees blood only at the end of her experience of these symptoms, then the things she touched while experiencing the symptoms remain pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even days and hours may determine regular periods: if she regularly observed blood flow at sunrise she is forbidden intercourse at sunrise only. If a woman has established a pattern of only seeing blood at certain times or on certain days, then those too can be used to keep anything she touched earlier pure and to allow sexual relations before this time period. For instance, if she usually begins to menstruate at sunrise and not before, then it becomes forbidden to have relations only at sunrise on the day that she expects to see blood flow. In other words, if they're up for a little early morning love, then they have the rabbis' permission!", + "Rabbi Judah says: all that day is hers. Rabbi Judah disagrees with Rabbi Yose and holds that there is no such thing as a regular time period with regard to hours. If she expects to begin to menstruate on a particular day, she is forbidden to have relations that entire day." + ], + [ + "If a woman regularly observed [menstrual blood] on the fifteenth of the month, and then she changed and observed it on the twentieth both become prohibited. If she changed twice and observed it on the twentieth both [are still] prohibited. If a woman regularly menstruates on the fifteenth, and then for one or two months doesn't menstruate on the fifteenth but rather on the twentieth, she is prohibited to have sexual relations on both the fifteenth and the twentieth. The fifteenth remains prohibited because that is the day of her regular cycle, and the twentieth is prohibited because we are concerned that that date has now become her regular cycle.", + "If she changed it three times to observe it on the twentieth then the fifteenth becomes permitted and the twentieth is set [as her regular day], for a woman does not establish a regular cycle until she sets it three times, and she doesn't lose her regular cycle until she is free from it three times. If she changes it three times, then she now has established a new menstrual cycle. She will now be prohibited from having relations only on the twentieth, but she will be permitted to have relations on the fifteenth. As the mishnah explains, it takes three times to establish a cycle and three times to undo the old cycle." + ], + [ + "Women in regard to their virginity are like vines:
One vine may have red wine, while another has black wine.
One vine may yield much wine while another yields little.
Rabbi Judah stated: every vine yields wine, and one that yields no wine is but a dorketi.
This mishnah and the next mishnah (10:1) really refer back to 1:7 which teaches that blood of virginity is pure. Today's mishnah compares women to wine, that just as wine has different colors, so too does blood of virginity.
Section one: The mishnah notes that the color of virginal blood and menstrual blood can be either red or black. Either can be pure, if we think it is virginal blood, and either could be impure, if we think it is menstrual blood.
Section two: Similarly, some women bleed a lot, just like some vines yield a lot of wine. And some bleed little, just like some vines yield little wine.
Section three: Rabbi Judah adds that vines that don't yield wine are \"dorketi\" which is a Greek word for barren. A woman who does not menstruate will not be able to have children." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction Today's mishnah continues to deal with the topic of distinguishing between virginal blood and menstrual blood the former is pure and the latter is impure. The specific issue in this mishnah is whether or not one can be sure that the blood that is seen on the wedding night is virginal blood or menstrual blood.", + "If a young girl, whose age of menstruation has not arrived, married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed four nights; And Bet Hillel says: until the wound is healed. This section describes a girl who gets married before she is old enough to menstruate, meaning before puberty. While such marriages may have been discouraged and may have been rare, they could and probably did occur. According to Bet Shammai, for the first four nights after the wedding, one can assume that any blood is still virginal. The assumption is that virginal blood could last for four days, and therefore all of this blood is pure. If she continues to bleed after four days, we must assume that she has begun to menstruate. According to Bet Hillel until the wound that was caused by her first sexual intercourse heals, all blood is pure. In other words, Bet Hillel thinks that virginity blood can last even longer than four days.", + "If the age of her menstruation has arrived and she married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed the first night; And Bet Hillel says: four nights, until after Shabbat. This girl has hit puberty but has not yet begun to menstruate. It is more likely, but not at all certain, that any blood she sees could be menstrual blood. Therefore, Bet Shammai says that only for one night do we say that the blood is virginal. If there is blood the second night, we must assume that it is menstrual. Bet Hillel says that we give her four nights. Since a virgin is married on Wednesday (see Ketubot 1:1) that means that through Saturday night the blood is considered virginal. After that, if she bleeds she will not be able to have relations.", + "If she had observed blood while she was still in her father's house: Bet Shammai ruled: she is only allowed the obligatory marital intercourse, And Bet Hillel says: all that night. If the girl has already begun to menstruate, then the possibility that the blood that is issued on her wedding night is menstrual is even greater. This is the rule that would govern any woman, assuming she marries after she begins to menstruate. Bet Shammai says that she is allowed to have intercourse one time, and that's it. The first blood is considered virginal but any blood after that is suspected of being menstrual. Bet Hillel says that the husband and wife can have intercourse as many times as they want that night. Any blood seen on the following night would be suspected of being menstrual blood." + ], + [ + "If a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself to be clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [from impurity], and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is in a presumptive state of cleanness. This woman examines herself on the seventh day of her menstruation and sees that she has stopped bleeding. That night she can go to the mikveh and become pure. However, she doesn't check again that night to make sure that she is really not bleeding. Instead she just goes to the mikveh. Some days later she sees that she is menstruating again. The question is was she menstruating between the last examination and the day that she notices that she is menstruating? The ruling in this case is that we assume that she was pure during those intermediary days. Since she examined herself and found herself to be pure, there is no reason to assume that she wasn't. Any pure thing she might have touched in the meanwhile remains pure.", + "If she examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was unclean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [impurity], and after a time she examined herself and found that she was clean, she is in a presumptive state of uncleanness. In this case, she examines herself in the morning of the seventh and finds that she is still bleeding. She goes to the mikveh that night, simply assuming that she had stopped bleeding. Then a few days later she notices she is menstruating. Since she never saw that she wasn't bleeding, we have to assume that she was impure all along. Any pure thing she might have touched in the meanwhile is assumed to be impure.", + "[But] she conveys uncleanness for twenty-four hours retrospectively or during the time between the last and the previous examination. But if she had a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. This section refers to section one. Although she is presumed to have been pure in the intermediary days, she still has the same rule that governs any other woman who finds herself to be impure (see 1:1). She retroactively defiles anything she touched within the last twenty-four hours, or since the last time she examined herself. If, however, she had a regular period and she saw that she was menstruating on the same day that she normally does, then she doesn’t defile anything retroactively.", + "Rabbi Judah says: Any woman who did not ascertain her separation [from impurity] is regarded as being in a presumptive state of uncleanness. But the sages say: even if she examined herself on the second day of her menstruation and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation, and after a time she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is regarded as being in a presumptive state of cleanness. Rabbi Judah disagrees with section one. According to Rabbi Judah any woman who doesn't check herself right before she goes to the mikveh is considered to be impure. The other rabbis, however, are even more lenient. Even if she only examines herself as early as the second day and finds that she is not menstruating, and then goes to the mikveh after the seventh day, she is still considered pure. The assumption seems to be that if she saw the blood flow stop at some point during her period, it didn't start flowing again." + ], + [ + "If a zav or a zavah examined themselves on the first day and found themselves clean and on the seventh day and found themselves clean, but did not examine themselves during the other intervening, days: A zav or a zavah (people who have experienced unnatural genital discharge, i.e. not semen or menstrual blood) need to be free of discharge for seven days before they become pure. They are supposed to examine themselves every day. However, instead of checking themselves every day, they checked themselves only on the first and last day of their impurity.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: they are in a presumptive condition of cleanness. Rabbi Eliezer rules the most leniently. Since they checked at the beginning and at the end of their impurity, they are assumed to be clean during the intermediary days.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: they are entitled [to count as clean] only the first day and the seventh day. Rabbi Joshua says that only the first and last days count as days of purity. They need to count five more pure days. This seems to be some sort of penalty because if they had truly been impure during the intermediary days, the first day would not have counted towards the seven.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: they are entitled to reckon as clean the seventh day alone. Rabbi Akiva says exactly this they can only count the last day because they may have been impure for all of the intermediary days. In other words, the fact that they were pure for the first day counts for nothing." + ], + [ + "If a zav, a zavah, a niddah, a woman after childbirth or a metzora have died [their corpses] they convey uncleanness by being carried until the flesh has decayed. When alive these categories of people defile while being carried, even without contact. This continues when they are dead, as long as the flesh has not yet decayed. In other words, it is the flesh that defiles, not the spirit or life force, and therefore as long as the flesh is still there, the body still defiles in the same way.", + "If a non-Jew has died he does not convey uncleanness. While alive, the impurity of a non-Jew is likened to that of a zav (see 4:3). However, this is just a stringency from Torah law a non-Jew does not defile at all. Therefore, when he/she dies, the body no longer defiles in the same way it did before.", + "Bet Shammai says: all women die as niddot. But Bet Hillel says: a woman is not regarded as a niddah unless she died while she was in menstruation. According to Bet Shammai, all women are presumed to have died while menstruating. This is a stringency, not a declaration of fact. This would mean that all women defile by carrying when they are dead until the flesh decays. Bet Hillel rules more leniently only women who actually died while niddot defile through carrying." + ], + [ + "If a woman died and a quarter of a log of blood comes out of her, it conveys uncleanness as a bloodstain and it also conveys uncleanness in a tent. Rabbi Judah says: it does not convey uncleanness as a stain, since it was detached after she had died. If the blood came out of the woman while she had been alive, it would have counted as menstrual blood. It would defile by carrying and by contact, and it would not need to be a quarter of a log in order to defile. The blood of a dead body, on the other hand, doesn't defile by carrying but does defile if found in a tent (i.e. if it is overshadowed by something it defiles other things that are also overshadowed by the same thing). And it must be a quarter of a log in quantity to defile. The first opinion in the mishnah rules stringently this quarter of a log of blood defiles as if it was menstrual blood and it defiles as if it came from a dead body. Rabbi Judah disagrees this blood is not considered menstrual because it left the body after death. It will only defile in a tent or by contact, and there needs to be 1/4 of a log.", + "Rabbi Judah agrees that when a woman was sitting on the birthing stool and died and a quarter of a log of blood issued from her, it conveys uncleanness as a bloodstain. Rabbi Yose says: therefore it does not convey uncleanness in a tent. However, Rabbi Judah agrees that if a woman is about to die and at that very moment blood comes forth, this blood counts as menstrual, since it came out before she died. Rabbi Yose adds that since it is considered menstrual, it does not defile by overshadowing. Only blood from a dead body defiles in this manner" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah talks about the purity of a woman during the period where she is \"dwelling in clean blood.\" Such a woman gave birth and went to the mikveh either 7 days after the birth of a boy or 14 days after the birth of a girl. For a boy, she now has pure blood for the following 33 days and for a girl for 66 days. During this period her purity status is like that of a \"t'vul yom\" a person who has been to the mikveh but has not yet had the sun set. Such a person has a secondary form of impurity.", + "In earlier times they used to say: a woman who is dwelling in clean blood may pour out water for [washing] the pesah sacrifice. Originally, they used to say that such a woman can pour water out of a vessel to wash off a pesah sacrifice. A person who has secondary impurity does not defile the vessel in which the water is held. She shouldn't touch the water itself, for the rabbis considered it disgraceful that the pesach sacrifice should be in contact with water touched by a t'vul yom. However, they didn't worry lest she touch the waters, because even if she did, non-sacred water cannot be defiled by a t'vul yom.", + "They changed their minds and said: in respect of consecrated food she is like one who came in contact with a person that was subject to corpse uncleanness, this is according to the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: even as one who is subject to corpse uncleanness. That was the original opinion. Afterwards, assumedly by the time of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai (1st century C.E.) they changed her status to be like a person who had contact with another person who had corpse impurity. Such a person has first degree impurity, and if she were to touch the water, she would defile it and the water would defile the pesah sacrifice. Bet Shammai rules even more strictly she is treated as if she herself touched a corpse. She would be a \"father of impurity\" and she would even defile the vessel she touches." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with the purity status of a woman following the one week or two weeks after childbirth.", + "But they agree that she may eat second tithe. Just as a tvul yom (see yesterday's mishnah) can eat second tithe, so too the woman who gave birth.", + "And she may set aside her hallah, bring it near to the dough and call it by its name. She will defile challah, the portion of bread separated and given to the priest. Therefore, we need to find a way for her to bake bread without defiling the challah. What she does is first separate the piece of dough that will be challah without yet calling it challah. It will not be defiled by her because it is not yet challah. She then puts the future challah in a vessel near the other dough because it is a mitzvah to take challah from adjacent dough. Then she can call it challah and no longer touch it.", + "And if any of her spit or her pure blood fell on a loaf of terumah it remains clean. Fluid that comes out of a tvul yom is pure. Thus if the childbearing woman's spit or blood falls on a loaf of terumah, the terumah remains pure.", + "Bet Shammai says: she requires immersion at the end [of her days of purification], Bet Hillel says: she does not require immersion at the end. The two houses disagree whether a woman requires an additional immersion after the 33 or 66 days of \"pure blood\" that follow childbirth (she would have gone to the mikveh after 7 or 14 days). Bet Shammai seems to feel uncomfortable that a woman should go from a state of any level of impurity to a state of full purity without immersion in a mikveh. They also might hold that the main immersion of a childbearing woman comes at the end of the full period, and not the first part of it (7 days for a boy, 14 for a girl). Therefore, she requires another immersion. Bet Hillel seems to hold that since the Torah doesn't require her to go to a mikveh, she is not required." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs background to this mishnah, we should remember that the rabbis count two periods in a woman's cycle: a seven day period in which blood she sees counts as menstrual which is followed by an 11 day period in which blood she sees counts as zivah, unnatural bloody discharge.", + "If a woman observed a discharge on the eleventh day and immersed in the evening and then had marital intercourse: Bet Shammai say: they defile a couch and a seat and they are liable to a sacrifice But Bet Hillel says: they are exempt from the sacrifice. A woman observes a blood discharge on the eleventh day after her menstruation. This is still the period of \"zivah\" when she should observe a day of purity for each discharge. If she instead goes to the mikveh that night and then has intercourse, Bet Shammai says that both she and her husband defile as do men and women who had relations while she was a zavah. This means they defile things they sit or lay on, even if they don't directly have contact. Bet Hillel says that they are exempt from a sacrifice, although they do defile, at least derabanan (rabbinically). The reason is that the eleventh day cannot be counted as part of a three day period of zivah, the amount necessary for her to become a \"zavah gedolah.\" For if she had discharge on the 11th, 12th and 13th day, she would not become a zavah gedolah (who is impure for seven days and has to bring a sacrifice) because the latter two days are part of the days of niddah, in the next cycle. Bet Hillel says that she shouldn't bring a sacrifice, because it is forbidden to bring non-sacrificial animals into the Temple. However, they still defile, because this is something she should not have been doing.", + "If she immersed on the next day and then had marital intercourse and after that observed a discharge: Bet Shammai say: they convey uncleanness5 to couch and seat6 and are exempt from the sacrifice, But Bet Hillel says: such a person is a glutton. This woman didn't observe a full day of purity because she immersed during the day and not at night as she should have. Bet Shammai says that since she observed part of the day, she and her husband do not need to bring a sacrifice. However, they still defile, at least according to rabbinic law. Bet Hillel clearly condemns this behavior she is gluttonous, for she put her desire for sex over the laws of purity. However, they don't defile because she did go to the mivkveh before having relations.", + "They agree that if a woman observed a discharge during the eleven days and immersed in the evening and then had intercourse that both (she and defile couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice. Bet Hillel agrees that if she sees a blood discharge during the eleven days and then goes straight to the mikveh instead of observing one day, that the mikveh does not cleanse her. She and her husband defile and must bring a sin-offering to atone for their transgression.", + "If she immersed on the next day and then had intercourse, such an act is improper conduct, but the uncleanness of their contact and their liability to a sacrifice on account of their intercourse are in suspense. This woman saw a discharge during the eleven days and then went to the mivkeh the next day. If she doesn't see blood again, then it will turn out that although what she did was wrong, she and her husband don't defile and are not liable for a sacrifice. However, if she sees blood again the next night, they will defile and be liable for a sacrifice, for she would be considered a zavah. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Niddah! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Niddah was not an easy journey, I'll admit. A lot of discussion about private matters in a very graphic way. If there's one larger point I would like to make it is that in biblical and temple times the impurity of a niddah was just one of many forms of impurity, one part of a much larger system. Today, this is virtually the only part of the system that remains (because of the sex prohibition), and it might seem at time that women are being targeted for being women. I don't believe that this is the case and when one learns all of Seder Toharot, and if you've been following along, you're not very far from being one of those people, one can see that impurity occurs in many different ways. That's my two cents. In any case, as always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Makhshirin." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה נדה", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b42b087f62143ab1b728ab6145957e1dcef1141 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,485 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Niddah", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Leviticus 15 (text is found below) distinguishes between a woman who discharges blood during her menstrual period (vs. 19-24) and a woman who discharges blood not during her menstrual period (vs. 25-30). There are rules (these will get a bit more complicated) that distinguish between the two. Here they are briefly: When a woman first establishes her menstrual cycle, the blood is considered to be menstrual blood. She is now impure for seven days, no matter how many days she menstruates. As long as she stops bleeding by the seventh day she goes to the mikveh at the end of the seventh day and she is pure (actual practice differs, as we shall discuss later). After seven days she now enters what are called \"the days of zivah\" meaning non-menstrual blood. If she bleeds on one of these days, she at first will observe one day of purity for every day of blood. So if she bleeds on the eighth day, she will go to the mikveh on the ninth day and observe purity for that day and then if she sees no more blood, she will be pure in the evening. The same is true if she sees blood on the ninth day as well. She will go to the mikveh on the tenth day and is pure at night. However, if she sees blood for three days in a row then she will need to go through \"seven clean days\" where she does not discharge blood. After seven clean days she goes to the mikveh and then brings a sacrifice and she is pure. According to rabbinic calculation there are eleven days of \"zivah\" between a woman's menstrual period and her next period. During these eleven days, if she discharges blood it is considered \"zivah\" (non-menstrual blood) and she observes one day of purity for each day or seven days if she bleeds three straight days. After these eleven days are completed, she begins a seven day period during which any blood is considered menstrual blood. This pattern will then repeat itself. The above rules are according to the Torah's rules. Late in the tannaitic period some Jews began to act more stringently and treat all blood as if it was zivah. Functionally what this means is that a woman will always observe seven clean days after the end of her menstrual period. So, according to Torah law if a woman has menstrual blood for five days she would be clean after the seventh day. But according to post-talmudic practice, she will need to wait seven more days and will be clean only on the 12th day. Tractate Niddah will also deal with the blood discharged by a woman after childbirth. An important issue to remember while learning this tractate is that the practical significance of the laws of niddah was much broader than it is today. The mishnah portrays a world in which people observe the full array of purity laws. A woman who was unclean due to menstruation would defile terumah and hallah and other holy foods. Today, we think of these laws as limited to the permissibility of sexual relations between a man and a woman. While this was certainly an issue in mishnaic times as well, it is important to remember that it wasn't the only issue. Finally, a note on my treatment of this material. A woman's menstruation can be a sensitive and personal issue. I will try to keep a \"clinical\" tone throughout my commentary, avoiding both apologetics and criticism. I believe that it is important for people to understand the technicalities of this system, before they attempt to delve into any greater socio-religious meaning. I also think that the rabbinic discussion of the material is in itself clinical, or perhaps mathematical. The rabbis are intensely interested in the intricacies of halakhah and spend little time discussing how such issues would affect a woman's life. This is simply the nature of the discussion. Below are most of the verses relevant to the subject of menstrual and non-menstrual blood. We will make frequent reference to them throughout the commentary. ", + "Leviticus Chapter 12 1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Speak to the Israelite people thus: When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be unclean seven days; she shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity. — 3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. — 4 She shall remain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days: she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until her period of purification is completed. 5 If she bears a female, she shall be unclean two weeks as during her menstruation, and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for sixty-six days.", + "Leviticus Chapter 15 6 On the completion of her period of purification, for either son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer it before the Lord and make expiation on her behalf; she shall then be clean from her flow of blood. Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child, male or female. 8 If, however, her means do not suffice for a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. The priest shall make expiation on her behalf, and she shall be clean. 19 When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body, she shall remain in her impurity seven days; whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. 20 Anything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; and anything that she sits on shall be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bedding shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; 22 and anyone who touches any object on which she has sat shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 23 Be it the bedding or be it the object on which she has sat, on touching it he shall be unclean until evening. 24 And if a man lies with her, her impurity is communicated to him; he shall be unclean seven days, and any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean. 25 When a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or when she has a discharge beyond her period of impurity, she shall be unclean, as though at the time of her impurity, as long as her discharge lasts. 26 Any bedding on which she lies while her discharge lasts shall be for her like bedding during her impurity; and any object on which she sits shall become unclean, as it does during her impurity: 27 whoever touches them shall be unclean; he shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 28 When she becomes clean of her discharge, she shall count off seven days, and after that she shall be clean. 29 On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, and bring them to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest shall offer the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering; and the priest shall make expiation on her behalf, for her unclean discharge, before the Lord." + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a woman who discovers that she has had her menstrual period but is not sure when it began. The question is at what point does she have to assume that she was already impure such that the things that she touched must be considered impure?", + "Shammai says: for all women it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from their time [of discovering the flow]. Hillel ruled: [their period of uncleanness is to be reckoned retroactively] from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, even if this was many days. The sages say: [the law is] not like the words of these or the words of those, but [the women are deemed to have been unclean] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. There are three different opinions as to how far back a woman (who does not have a regular menstrual cycle) must assume she was impure after she has discovered her period. Shammai is most lenient. She is considered impure only from the moment in which she discovers that she has had her period. If, for instance, she discovered her period in the afternoon, the pure things that she touched in the morning remain pure. Hillel rules most strictly. She is reckoned impure from the last time that she checked herself, even if it has been many days. Hillel is concerned that immediately after her last clean check (when she didn't find that she was bleeding) she began to bleed and just didn't notice it. Therefore, anything she has touched since the last clean check must be considered defiled. The sages' opinion falls somewhere in between the two. There are two time periods that play into account twenty-four hours and the last clean examination. A woman cannot be retroactively considered unclean for more than 24 hours. She also is clean from the last time she had a clean examination. She is therefore considered unclean from whatever is the lesser of the two. If she examined herself in the morning and found herself clean and then discovered her period in the evening, anything she touched after the clean examination is unclean. But if she examined herself on Sunday morning and then found herself unclean on Monday evening, only the things that she touched over the last 24 hours are considered impure.", + "For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. All of the above refers only to a woman who has not established a regular menstrual cycle. If she has a regular cycle, she defiles things only from the time in which she discovered that she was menstruating.", + "And if a woman uses rags when she has marital intercourse, this is like an examination which lessens either the period of the [past] twenty-four hours or the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination. A woman who cleans herself with rags after sexual intercourse is considered to have examined herself. If she doesn't find blood on the rags, and then sees blood later, she defiles only the things that she has touched since she cleaned herself with these rags. In other words, although the purpose of these rags is not for self-examination, since blood would be noticed, it counts as an examination." + ], + [ + "How [does the rule that] it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow work? This refers to a woman that has a regular menstrual cycle. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, she is considered to be impure only from the moment in which she observes a blood flow. She doesn’t retroactively defile anything.", + "If she was sitting on a bed and was occupied with ritually clean objects and then she leaves [the bed] and then sees [blood flow] she is unclean but the objects are clean. Although in this case it is exceedingly likely that the blood flow started while she was still in bed, since she has a regular cycle, only the things that she touched after she discovered the blood flow are impure. The bed and any other pure things she touched earlier remain pure. This seems to be a case in which the rabbis rule created an intentional leniency, one that might even be seen as ignoring what likely happened.", + "Even though they have said that she conveys uncleanness for a period of twenty-four hours [retroactively] she counts [the seven days of her menstruation] only from the time she observed the flow. This section addresses a woman who does not have a regular menstrual cycle and therefore retroactively defiles anything she touched in the 24 hour period before she discovered that she was bleeding. Nevertheless, when it comes to counting the days of her menstruation during which she is impure, she does not count from the earlier time period. She counts from when she noticed that she was bleeding. This is because the 24 hour period is a stringency she may have been bleeding as early at that period therefore anything she touched must be considered impure. But since she only knows that she began menstruating at a later time, she counts her days only from then." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Eliezer says: there are four types of women for whom it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from] the time [of their discovering the flow]. A virgin, A pregnant woman, A nursing woman; And an old woman. According to Rabbi Eliezer, there are four types of women who, since it is not common for them to menstruate, need not be concerned lest their menstrual flow started earlier than they discovered it. They defile only the things they touch after they discovered that they were bleeding. The following mishnayot will elaborate more on each of these women.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: I have only heard [the ruling applied to] a virgin, but the halakhah is in agreement with Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua initially seems to adopt a traditional approach here. He restricts the halakhah to the tradition that he received this law applies only to a virgin. We should note that it is usually Rabbi Eliezer who acts as a traditionalist. However, if the last sentence of the mishnah is also the words of Rabbi Joshua, then he too admits that even though he only heard a limited ruling, the halakhah is in accord with the expanded version put forth by Rabbi Eliezer. We might surmise that if the original tradition referred only to a virgin (as R. Joshua claims), the expanded version (which includes all four categories) reasoned that if it is sufficient to reckon the uncleanness of a virgin from the time of discovery because she does not regularly menstruate, the same would be true of other women who don't regularly menstruate. And if you are surprised that a \"virgin\" doesn't regularly menstruate, the rabbinic definition will be in tomorrow's mishnah. Stay tuned." + ], + [ + "Who is regarded as \"virgin\"? Any woman who has never yet observed a blood flow, even if she is married. A virgin, at least in this mishnah, is a woman who has not yet begun menstruating. It does not refer to a woman who has never had sexual intercourse. According to this definition of a \"virgin\" which probably should be translated as \"young girl\", even a married woman could be a virgin.", + "\"A woman in pregnancy\"? One whose fetus is notice. A woman is considered \"pregnant\" only when the fetus begins to be noticed.", + "\"A nursing woman\"? Until she has weaned her child. The standard period for nursing is 24 months. A woman is considered to be nursing only during this period. Even if she continues to actually nurse after 24 months, she is no longer in this category.", + "If she gave her child to a nursing woman, if she weaned him, or if he died: Rabbi Meir says: she conveys uncleanness retroactively for twenty-four hours; But the sages say: it suffices for her [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observation of the flow]. The mishnah now deals with the opposite case where for various reasons the woman is no longer nursing her son. According to Rabbi Meir, since she is no longer nursing, she is no longer in the category of a woman who does not need to be retroactively concerned that she defiled things. When she discovers that she is bleeding, everything that touched in the previous 24 hours is impure. The sages disagree and consider this woman to still be in the category of a nursing woman. It seems that they think that she probably won't resume menstruating for this period." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah defines whom is considered an old woman, that need not be concerned that she retroactively defiled things.\nThe mishnah uses the world \"onah\" (in plural \"onot\"). An \"onah\" is the period in which she is supposed to have been menstruating. Generally, an \"onah\" is 30 days, although obviously this may vary from woman to woman.", + "Who is regarded as \"an old woman\"? Any woman over whom three \"onot\" have passed near the time of her old age. A woman who has missed her period three times in a row, roughly 90 days, and is close to old age (so this is not because she is pregnant or sick or some other reason) is now considered \"an old woman.\" Obviously, this makes sense in this context. A woman who has stopped menstruating due to menopause is old for the issue discussed in this mishnah what type of woman does not regularly menstruate.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: for any woman over whom have passed three onot it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observing a flow]. Rabbi Eliezer says that any woman who has missed three periods for any reason, even if she is not old, needs only reckon her period of impurity from the time she sees blood.", + "Rabbi Yose says: for a woman in pregnancy and a nursing woman over whom three onot have passed it suffices [to reckon their period of uncleanness from] the time of their [observation of the flow]. According to mishnah four, as soon as a woman's pregnancy is noticeable, or as soon as she begins to nurse her child, she would only count her period of impurity from the time blood flows. According to Rabbi Yose, she must first go through three periods without menstruating." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah offers a qualification to the rule that the women mentioned in mishnayot 3-5 defile only the things that they touched after they noticed that they had their period.", + "And of what did they speak when they said that \"it suffices [for them to reckon] their period of uncleanness from the time [of their discovering of the flow]\"? [This refers to] the first observation, but after a second observation she defiles retroactively for a period of twenty-four hours. The first time one of these women (virgin, nursing woman, pregnant woman or old woman) sees a blood flow, she doesn't retroactively defile anything. But the second time she does, she reverts to the law found in mishnah one of this chapter. Everything she has touched during the previous twenty four hours, or since the last time she examined herself, is considered defiled.", + "If she saw the first flow on account of an accident even it suffices for her even a subsequent observation [to reckon her uncleanness from] the time of her [observing of the flow]. However, if her blood began to flow through some sort of unusual accident (Albeck mentions jumping or out of fright), then the second time she sees blood flow (assumedly not due to an accident) she doesn't retroactively defile things. In other words, since the first occurrence was \"accidental\" the second blood flow is treated as if it was the first." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that although women who have regular menstrual cycle do not retroactively defile things (see mishnah one), they should examine themselves at certain prescribed time regularly to make sure that they has not begun to menstruate.", + "Although though they said [that for a woman who has a regular period] it suffices to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she observes a flow, she should nevertheless examine herself [regularly], except for a menstruant or one who is sitting over pure blood. Even a woman who has a regular menstrual cycle should still examine herself regularly to make sure she has not begun to menstruate. I should note here that most women might find this strange don't women know when they are menstruating, even without checking? Truthfully, I think this is a legitimate complaint against the rabbis, but if I were to offer a defense I might say two things. First of all, the rabbis were men who obviously knew nothing about what it might feel like to be menstruating. Second, women had frequent contact with the food and the instruments whose purity should be preserved. Therefore, a woman who was impure and didn't know that she was could defile a lot of terumah or vessels used with terumah. To avoid this serious problem, the rabbis mandated that all women examine themselves regularly. There are two types of women who don't need to examine themselves regularly. The first is obviously a woman who is already menstruating. The second is a woman who has recently given birth. Leviticus 12:4-5 prescribes 33 days following a seven day period of impurity for a boy or 66 days following a 14 day impurity period for a girl in which a woman's blood flow is pure. Since any such blood is considered pure, there would be no practical reason for her to examine herself.", + "She should also use testing-rags when she has marital intercourse except when she is sitting over pure blood or when she is a virgin whose blood is clean. Generally, a woman should examine herself using examination rags both before and after sexual intercourse. Before intercourse she should examine herself because it is prohibited to have intercourse when she is menstruating. Afterwards she should examine herself to make sure that she has not defiled her husband. Obviously, a \"virgin\" referred to in this mishnah is not a woman who has never had sex. Rather, it is a woman who has not yet begun to menstruate, as we learned in mishnah four. A woman who is married before she begins to menstruate need not check herself.", + "And twice [daily] she should examine herself: in the morning and at the [evening] twilight, and also when she is about to have sexual relations. This section refers to a woman who must examine herself because she doesn't have a regular period (or for some other reason). Without an examination, , she will defile everything which she had contact with during the previous twenty-four hours. Such a woman should examine herself in the morning to make sure that any pure things that she worked with at night were not defiled. She should also examine herself in the evening to make sure that the stuff that she worked with during the day was not defiled.", + "Priestly women are subject to an additional restriction [for they should examine themselves] when they are going to eat terumah. Rabbi Judah said: [these must examine themselves] also after they have concluded eating terumah. Priestly women (either daughters of priests or wives of priests) who are regularly occupying themselves with terumah should examine themselves even more regularly. According to the first opinion, they should examine themselves before they eat terumah so that they do not defile the terumah that they are about to eat. Rabbi Judah says that they should examine themselves after eating as well. If she is found to be pure, then even the leftover crumbs are pure. In contrast, had she not checked herself afterward and then later that day (or night) found that she had begun to menstruate, the leftover terumah that she had touched would have to be considered impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a woman examining oneself to see if she had begun to menstruate.", + "Every hand that makes frequent examination: In the case of women is praiseworthy, But in the case of men it ought to be cut off. The rabbis consider it praiseworthy for a woman to frequently examine herself to see if she has begun to menstruate. Such frequent examinations would ensure that she didn't defile vessels and food and it would make sure that she didn't have intercourse while menstruating. However, the rabbis took quite a strict stance against male masturbation. \"Spilling the seed\" was a grave sin according to rabbinic halakhah. The rabbis feared that a man who frequently checked to see if he had ejaculated would cause himself (either intentionally or unintentionally) to ejaculate. Therefore, men should not frequently examine themselves.", + "In the case of a deaf, an person not of sound senses, a blind or an insane woman, if other women of sound senses are available they attend to her, and they may eat terumah. The categories of women listed in this mishnah are not considered to have \"da'at\" which I usually translate as awareness. Here it seems to mean that they are not able to be responsible for themselves to determine when they are menstruating. If they have other women attending to them, they may eat terumah, which may only be done by a pure person.", + "It is the custom of the daughters of Israel to have intercourse using two testing-rags, one for the man and the other for herself. Virtuous women prepare also a third rag to prepare the \"house\" [before intercourse]. According to the mishnah, Jewish women have the custom of checking themselves by using two testing rags one to test herself and the other to give to her husband to see if blood was found on him. This blood would be a sign that she is menstruating. \"Virtuous\" (alt. \"modest\") women examine themselves not only after intercourse but before as well to make sure that she is pure. The mishnah refers to a woman's vagina as \"the house.\" This same phrase is used in Mikvaot 8:4. I'm guessing that nicknames for a person's genitals is a cultural universal." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with what happens if blood is found on one of the testing-rags after a couple have intercourse.", + "If [blood] is found on his rag they are both unclean and they are liable to bring a sacrifice. If any blood is found on the rag which the man uses to check himself then we can be sure that it came from the woman. They are both unclean for seven days as is the rule for a menstruant and the man who has relations with her (see Leviticus 15:24). In addition, they must both bring a sin-offering, which is the rule for any unintentional transgression which when done intentionally carries with it the penalty of \"karet.\"", + "If any blood is found on her rag immediately after their intercourse, they are both unclean and must bring a sacrifice. If [blood] is found on her rag after a time, they are unclean due to doubt but they are exempt from a sacrifice. If blood is found on her rag and it is found immediately after intercourse, then we can be assured that it is menstrual blood that was there during intercourse. Both are impure and liable for a sacrifice. However, if it is found later on, since she didn't clean herself immediately, then we can't be sure that it was there during intercourse. Perhaps she only began to bleed later. In such a case the man is \"doubtfully\" impure, which means that if he touched terumah it can't be eaten but it also is not burned because we are not sure he is impure. She is impure in any case. They are exempt from bringing a sin-offering because sin-offerings are not brought unless one is certain of a transgression, and it is not certain that she was menstruating when they had intercourse." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is related to yesterday's mishnah where we learned that if the woman sees blood some time after having had intercourse she only defiles her husband from \"doubt.\" The mishnah explains how long is considered \"after time.\"", + "What is meant by \"after a time\"? As long as it takes to get down from the bed and wash her \"face.\" \"After a time\" is considered to be as long as it would take the woman to get down from the bed and wash her \"face.\" The word \"face\" here is another euphemism for the woman's vagina.", + "[If blood was found some time] after she causes uncleanness retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours but she does not cause the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. Rabbi Akiva says: she also causes the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. If she finds blood after this time, then she is still impure in the usual way. Everything she has touched in the last 24 hour period (or less if she examined herself during this period) is impure. However, she does not cause her husband to be defiled. In other words there are three time periods. If she finds blood immediately, he is certainly impure. If she finds it \"after a time\" meaning during the time period in which she could get off the bed and clean herself, he is doubtfully impure. If she finds it later, he is not impure. Rabbi Akiva says that he is impure. Evidently, Rabbi Akiva does not believe that there is much doubt here that she was already menstruating when they had intercourse.", + "And the sages agree with Rabbi Akiva that one who saw a bloodstain defiles the man who had intercourse with her. The sages agree with Rabbi Akiva in a case where she finds a bloodstain on her clothing or on the sheet. This bloodstain is a more certain sign that she was menstruating when they had intercourse. Therefore the rabbis rule stringently." + ], + [ + "All women are in the presumption of being pure for their husband. What this means is that men do not need to ask their wives before they have intercourse if they are menstruating. Men can assume that their wives are ritually pure and that if they were menstruating, they would let them know.", + "For those who return from a journey, their wives are in the presumption of being pure. One might have thought that when a man is away from the house, his wife might not be careful about her own ritual purity. After all, she is not supposed to be having sex while he is away, so why should she care about being ritually pure? The mishnah teaches that even so, when he returns home, he can assume that his wife is pure, for if she was not, she would tell him.", + "Bet Shammai says: a woman needs two testing-rags for every time she has intercourse, or she must have relations in the light of a lamp. Bet Hillel says: two testing-rags suffice her for the whole night. If a woman has sexual relations with her husband multiple times during the night, the mishnah says that she needs two testing-rags for each time, one for her and one for him. In the morning, when it is light outside, she can look at them to see if any rag has blood on it. Alternatively, she should check the rags by light after each intercourse to make sure there is no blood on it from the previous time before she uses it to check on herself again. There are two explanations for Bet Hillel's position. Either they can simply use two testing rags one time at the end of the night, after the last time they have intercourse. Alternatively, this might mean that they can simply use the same rags to check themselves repeatedly throughout the night." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah distinguishes between pure and impure blood that flow from various sources in a woman's body.", + "The sages spoke of a woman through a metaphor: A chamber, a vestibule and an upper chamber. The blood of the chamber is unclean, If blood is found in the vestibule, and there arises a doubt about its character, it is deemed unclean, because it is presumed to have come from the source. Building upon their analogy of a woman as a \"house\" (see mishnah one) the rabbis use a \"house\" metaphor to describe a woman's anatomy. There are many disagreements as to what parts of the anatomy these actually refer to. I will use Maimonides interpretation.", + "There are three parts to a house and to the woman's anatomy. The \"chamber\" is equivalent to her uterus. The \"vestibule\" is the vagina. And the upper chamber is the cavity that contains the ovaries and fallopian tubes.", + "Blood that comes from the chamber is unclean. This is the source of menstrual blood. The implication in this mishnah is that if the blood comes from the upper chamber, it is clean. I am not entirely sure how it could be determined if the blood came from the upper chamber.", + "If blood is found on the vagina, and it is unclear whether it came from the uterus or not, the blood must be treated as unclean because it must be presumed to come from the \"source\" which is another word for the uterus. The practical implication of this is that if the woman touches terumah, the terumah is unclean and may not be eaten, but it is not burned. Only certainly impure terumah is burned." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe rabbis distinguished pure blood (blood that is not considered to have come from the uterus) from impure blood (uterine blood) by virtue of its color. In our mishnah the rabbis list which colors are pure and which are not.", + "Five kinds of blood in a woman are unclean: red, black, like bright crocus, like earthy water, or like diluted wine. All of these shades are considered to be menstrual blood and are impure. Tomorrow's mishnah will further describe these shades and what real world things actually look like them.", + "Bet Shammai says: also like fenugreek water or the juice of roasted meat. But Bet Hillel declares these clean. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagree as to whether blood the color or fenugreek water or the juice of roasted meat is impure. This is likely a very weak red color.", + "One that is yellow: Akavia ben Mahalalel declares unclean And the sages declare clean. We should note that the word that I have translated here as yellow is actually green. The truth is that in the ancient world the two colors were often identified as one. Indeed the words for yellow and green don't even appear that often in the Mishnah (mostly in Tractate Negaim). Since blood is usually red, it is likely that the word \"green\" here means a pale color, such as that of an etrog. In any case, the status of this blood is also disputed.", + "Rabbi Meir said: even if it does not convey uncleanness as a bloodstain it conveys uncleanness as a liquid. Rabbi Yose says: it does neither the one nor the other. Referring to this yellow blood, Rabbi Meir says that while he agrees with Rabbi Akiva that this blood does not count as a menstrual stain, the blood is still impure because it is a liquid that comes from a menstruant. As we will learn in 4:3, urine and spit that come from a menstruant (and some other categories of impure people) are impure. Rabbi Yose disagrees with Rabbi Meir and says that according to those sages who say that such blood is not menstrual blood, it is also not impure due to liquid impurity. Only spit and urine are impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah explains the colors found in section one of yesterday's mishnah.", + "What is considered red? Like the red of a wound. Red is simply like the color of blood that flows from a wound.", + "Black: Like ink-sediment. Darker than this is impure. Lighter than this is pure. Black refers to the black ink used to dye shoes. If it is darker than this black, it is impure. But if it is a lighter shade of black, it is pure.", + "Like bright crocus: like the clearest shade in it. The color of the blood that matches the crocus flower must be like the brightest shade of the crocus.", + "Like earthy water: from the Bet Kerem valley, when water floats over it. To determine the color of the earthy water, one should bring earth from the Bet Kerem valley, which Albeck says is in the north. Then water should be floated above this earth. The color of the water is the color of the red described in the mishnah.", + "Like diluted wine: two parts water, one part wine, from wine of the Sharon. As we have learned on many occasions, in the Greco-Roman world, wine was drunk diluted with water. Typically, this consisted of two parts water, one part wine. Thus, this is the color of the diluted wine used as a reference point in the previous mishnah. The wine should be the wine from the Sharon, which is also in the northern part of Israel." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter three deals with a woman who had a miscarriage. There are two issues here: 1) Is she impure due to having given birth? This is a subject we covered a long time ago in Bekhorot chapter 8 and Keritot chapter 1. 2) Is she impure due to menstrual blood?", + "A woman who aborted a shapeless object: If there was blood with it, she is unclean, If not, she is clean. A shapeless object does not count as a miscarried birth. Therefore, she is impure only if blood accompanies the miscarriage. Such blood counts as menstrual blood.", + "Rabbi Judah says: in either case she is unclean. Rabbi Judah agrees that the shapeless object does not count as a miscarriage. However, he considers the object to be congealed blood. Therefore, even if there is not any other blood, she is impure as a menstruant." + ], + [ + "If a woman miscarried an object that was like a rind, like a hair, like earth, like red flies, let her put it in water: If it dissolves she is unclean, But if it does not she is clean. None of these objects count as a miscarried birth, therefore she is not impure as if she had given birth. The only issue is whether or not it is considered to be blood. The test is to put that which she miscarried in water and see if it dissolves. If it does, then it counts as blood and she must consider herself to be impure.", + "If she miscarried an object in the shape of fishes, locusts, or any forbidden things or creeping things: If there was blood with them she is unclean, If not, she is clean. These shapes also don't count as births (see Bekhorot 8:1, Keritot 1:5). Therefore, the only question is again whether she is a menstruant. If there is blood, then she is. If not, she is clean.", + "If she miscarried an object in the shape of a beast, a wild animal or a bird, whether clean or unclean: If it was a male she sits in uncleanness as she would for a male; And if it was a female she sits in uncleanness as she would for a female. But if the sex is unknown she sits in uncleanness for both male and female, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, these animal shapes do count as human births. If the object seems to have been male, then she must be unclean as she would be had she given birth to a male. This means that she is unclean for seven days and then the following 33 days any blood she discharges is pure (see Leviticus 12: 2, 4). If female, she is impure for 14 days and then the following 66 days any blood is pure (v. 5). If it is unclear whether it is a boy or girl, then the rule is stringent. She is impure for two weeks, as if she had given birth to a girl, but subsequent blood is pure for only 33 days, as if she had given birth to a boy.", + "The sages say: anything that has not the shape of a human being cannot be regarded as a human child. The other rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir. If the miscarriage doesn't have the shape of a human being, it doesn't count as a human being and she does not count as having given birth." + ], + [ + "If a woman aborted a sac full of water, full of blood, or full of pieces of flesh, she need not be concerned that it was a birth. These sacs do not count as births (see Bekhorot 8:1). We don't assume that there was a fetus in them.", + "But if its limbs were fashioned she must sit for both male and female. If limbs are noticeable in the shape within the sac, then we must be concerned that this was actually a fetus. Assuming that the gender is unknown, the woman must act stringently in both directions, as we explained in yesterday's mishnah." + ], + [ + "If she aborted a sandal or a placenta she sits in uncleanness for both male and female.
If a placenta is in a house, the house is unclean, not because a placenta is a fetus but because generally there can be no placenta without a fetus.
Rabbi Shimon says: the child might have been mashed before it came out.
Section one: A \"sandal\" is a fetus whose face has not yet been formed. This counts as a human miscarriage and if the sex cannot be determined, then she must observe the impurity rituals for having both a male and a female (see mishnah two).
While a placenta is not a fetus, it is a sign that there was a fetus. Therefore, since we can't determine the sex of the fetus, she must act as if she had both a boy and a girl.
Section two: If a placenta is found in a house, we can assume that a dead fetus was in the house as well. This makes the house into an \"ohel\" (a tent) which conveys impurity to all of the contents of the house. (We learned plenty about this in Tractate Ohalot).
Rabbi Shimon notes that the presence of a placenta is not a certain sign that she gave birth to a fetus. It is possible that the fetus could have been dissolved or mashed up (I realize that this is not pleasant) before it came out of the woman. In such a case, the fetus does not have the status of a dead body and doesn't defile as does a dead body. The house and its contents will remain pure." + ], + [ + "If a woman aborted a tumtum or an androginos, she must sit for a male and a female. A tumtum is one who has no recognizable signs of gender. An androginos has both male and female signs. If a woman gives birth to either of these, she must act stringently and be impure for both a male and female (see mishnah two). Again, what this means is that she is impure for as long as she would be if she gave birth to a female and pure only for as long as she would be had she given birth to a female.", + "[If she gave birth] to a tumtum and a male, or to an androginos and a male, she must sit for a male and a female. In this case, she gave birth to a child of doubtful status and a certain male. Therefore, she must sit for both a male and female (in case the tumtum or andrigonos is female).", + "[If she gave birth] to a tumtum and a female or an androginos and a female, she must sit only for a female. Here we know she gave birth to a female. Therefore, she is impure for the longer period (14 days). And as far as the days of purity, she certainly is pure for the 66 day period, even if the tumtum or andrigonos was a male.", + "If the embryo came out in pieces or in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part come out. The final two sections deal with the question of when a birth has been determined to have taken place. Some of the ramifications of this include when it is allowed to abort the pregnancy to save the woman's life and at what point does she become impure. If it comes out in pieces or legs first, the birth is determined as occurring once most of the body has come out.", + "If it came out in the normal way [it is not deemed born] until the greater part of its head came out. And what is meant by the \"greater part of its head\"? Once the forehead comes out. If the birth occurs in a normal way, head first, then the birth is considered to have taken place once the forehead is out. This is the definition of \"most of the head.\"" + ], + [ + "If a woman miscarried and it is unknown what it was, she sits for both a male child and a female child. This is the same rule we have learned in previous mishnayot.", + "If it is unknown whether it was a child or not, she sits for both a male and a female and as a menstruant. In this case, she isn't even sure if she miscarried or whether she menstruated. The rule is a bit more complicated here because she must also observe the laws of menstrual purity. This means that there will be no days of pure blood, as there would be if she had given birth to either a male or female. The first 14 days after the event, she will be impure as if she had given birth to a female. If she sees blood immediately after that, it is considered menstrual blood, because this is more than 11 days after her previous blood. If she sees blood on the 34th day, the rule is a bit complicated, for in this case we must be concerned that she had given birth to a male. If she sees blood on the 34th day and then again on the 41st day, if we considered her as a niddah at the outset, then at the time of the blood on the 41st she would not be in niddah, because it is within 11 days of the previous blood (on the 34th day), and she would observe only one day of impurity for every day she sees blood (up to three days). If she had given birth to a girl, then she would pure throughout the whole period (she would be pure from days 15-80). However, if she gave birth to a male, then the blood on the 34th day would be pure because it was within the 33 days of purity after the week of impurity. The blood on the 41st day would be menstrual blood because it was more than 11 days after he previous menstrual blood. Therefore, in this case she must be concerned that the blood is menstrual and she would have to observe the rules of menstrual impurity." + ], + [ + "If a woman miscarried on the fortieth day, she need not be concerned that it was a valid childbirth. The rabbis believed that it took forty days for a fetus to form. We should note that this was a common belief in the ancient world, one that I believe was shared by Aristotle as well. [It also had implications for the laws concerning abortion. For instance Philo, an early Jewish philosopher, stated that abortion was permitted up till the fortieth day, because that is when the fetus is formed.] If she miscarries before the fortieth day, the rabbis believe that it could not be a fetus.", + "On the forty-first day, she sits as for both a male and a female and as for a menstruant. If she miscarries on the 41st day, and it is not clear if it was a miscarriage or blood, she must be concerned lest it was a male, lest it was a female and lest it was menstruation. This situation was explained in yesterday's mishnah.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: [if she miscarried on] the forty-first day she sits as for a male and as for a menstruant, But if on the eighty-first day she sits as for a male and a female and a menstruant, because a male is fully fashioned on the forty-first day and a female on the eighty-first day. Rabbi Ishmael seems to believe that males are formed on the 41st day after conception and females on the 81st day. Therefore, if she miscarries between the 41st and 80th days, she need not be concerned lest it was female. [What he is saying is that females begin as males and only turn into females on day 81. Interesting, although obviously incorrect]. This means that she will be impure for seven days. If blood appears after this time, she is again a niddah. The blood is not pure because we are not sure if she gave birth.", + "But the sages say: the fashioning of the male and the fashioning of the female both take forty-one days. The sages espouse a more egalitarian view both males and females are formed on the 41st day. If she miscarries after this, she must be concerned lest it was a male, female or menstruation, as we explained above." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first three mishnayot of chapter four deal with the menstrual impurity of women from three groups that were considered outside of the Jewish fold, as determined by the rabbis: Samaritans, Sadducees and Gentiles.", + "The daughters of the Samaritans are regarded as menstruants from their cradle. The Samaritans separated from the other Jewish communities (those whose center of worship was Jerusalem, the Samaritan center of worship was in Shechem) at a pretty early period in history, probably sometime during the first Temple period. As we shall see in section two, they did observe the laws of menstruation, but not according to rabbinic interpretation. One thing they did not believe was that young girls could become menstruants (we shall see in chapter five that the rabbis believed that they could). Therefore, all Samaritan girls had to be considered menstruants from the time they were born.", + "And Samaritans impart uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above, since they have intercourse with menstruants, because [their wives] sit [unclean for seven days] on account of any blood. The problem with Samaritan practice is not that they ignore the laws of niddah. They just observe them in the wrong way. Samaritan women treat all blood as if it were menstrual blood and they sit seven unclean days for any blood flow. If the blood that flowed on the first day was not actually menstrual and then the woman bled blood a subsequent day, she would treat that blood as if it was the continuation of her menstruation and she would go to the mikveh after seven days [Remember, according to the Torah one is impure for seven days after menstruation begins, even if it continues for several days]. According to rabbinic law, she should have begun the count only when actual menstrual blood began. Going to the mikveh too early will be ineffective (according to rabbinic law). Thus, Samaritan women will always be unclean. The men who have relations with them are also unclean and they will always defile any number of cushions upon which they sit, which is the rule concerning one who has relations with a menstruant (see Kelim 1:3). We should note that by declaring all Samaritans impure from birth, the rabbis were able to distance themselves from them. This in my opinion is probably a strong part of the reason for the laws of this mishnah. The rabbis are using the laws of niddah to distance Samaritans from mingling with their community. However, we should also note that simultaneously the Mishnah defines Samaritans as Jews, at least in a genetic sense. Mishnah three deals with Gentiles, and Samaritans are not considered Gentiles.", + "However, on account of their [uncleanness] no obligation is incurred for entrance into the Temple nor is terumah burned on their account, since their uncleanness is only of a doubtful nature. However, it is not certain that all Samirtan women (and men) are unclean, since the women do go to the mikveh. It is theoretically possible that they went to the mikveh on the correct day. Therefore, they only defile due to doubt. If a rabbinic Jew is defiled by contact with a Samaritan, and then he enters the Temple, he is not liable for entering the Temple while impure. If he touches terumah, the terumah is not burned (although it may not be eaten). These two rules always apply in cases of doubtful terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with Sadducean women. The Sadducees were one of the main factions during the Second Temple period. They were the rivals of the Pharisees, the group that the rabbis considered themselves to be the descendents of. Truth be told, we don't know a lot about the Sadducees because they left no historical record. The only information we know about them was written either by Josephus, the New Testament or the rabbis. In addition, many scholars believe that the Dead Sea Sect Jews were a splinter Sadducean group, although this is far from certain.", + "The daughters of the Sadducees, so long as they are accustomed to walking in the paths of their fathers, are to be regarded as Samaritan women. If they left those paths to walk in the paths of Israel, they are to be regarded as Israelite women. The mishnah basically accepts Sadducean women but disqualifies their ancestry. If Sadducean women observe Sadducean halakhah then they must always be regarded as niddot (menstruants), just as are Samaritan women. They will always defile the things that they touch and it will always be prohibited for Jewish men to have relations with them. However, the mishnah gives them more of an opportunity to join the remainder (meaning Pharisaic/rabbinic) Jews than it did for Samaritan women. All they must do is leave the path of their ancestors and \"walk in the paths of Israel\" and they are to be considered as regular Israelite women. Clearly this means that they must observe halakhah as the rabbis determine it. We should note that in this mishnah \"Samaritan\" has become a code word for a genetic Jew who does not observe rabbinic halakhah. A Sadducean woman cannot be a Gentile because she is genetically Jewish. But when the mishnah wants to say that she is outside the rabbinic fold, it calls her a Samaritan.", + "Rabbi Yose says: they are always regarded as Israelite women unless they leave the paths of Israel to walk in the paths of their fathers. Rabbi Yose says that the a priori assumption about Sadducean women is that they have left the path of their fathers and act like (rabbinic) Jews. This is probably testimony to the weakness of the Sadducean faction after the destruction of the Temple. The Sadducees were more of a Temple-based group than the Pharisees and they don’t seem to have coped very well with the destruction of the Temple. In Rabbi Yose's time, a woman of Sadducean descent can be assumed to be observing rabbinic halakhah." + ], + [ + "The blood of a Gentile and the clean blood of a metzoraat (a woman with scale: Bet Shammai declares clean. And Bet Hillel holds that it is like her spittle or her urine. The menstrual blood (or zivah blood, blood that flows when a woman is not supposed to be menstruating) of a Gentile is, according to Bet Shammai, pure. This is because the chapters in Leviticus that discuss this issue are addressed to \"the children of Israel\" (Leviticus 15:2). \"Clean blood\" is the blood that flows from a woman during the period after childbirth following her time of impurity. For a boy, she is impure for a week and then pure for 33 days and double that amount of time for a girl. According to Bet Shammai, even if the woman is a metzoraat, who is impure, her blood is pure during this period, just as the blood of any woman is pure during this period. Bet Hillel disagrees on both of these issues. Concerning the blood of Gentile women, while Bet Hillel agrees that it is not impure by virtue of Torah law, they hold that the rabbis declared it impure (it would be impure derabanan). Just as they declared that other fluids that come from a Gentile's body are impure, urine and spittle, so too is their menstrual blood. This means that it defiles when moist, but not when dry, as do urine and spittle. Similarly, the rabbis hold that the \"clean blood\" of a metzoraat defiles like her spittle and urine when wet and not when dry. We could summarize the debate in the following way: Bet Shammai considers this blood not to be like the other fluids that come from the body, urine and spittle. Therefore, for both of these women, their urine and spittle can be impure while their blood is pure. Bet Hillel groups the blood with the other fluids, and just as urine and spittle are impure, so too is blood.", + "The blood of a woman after childbirth who did not immerse [in a mikveh]: Bet Shammai says it is like her spittle or her urine, But Bet Hillel says: it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry. Seven days after the birth of a boy and 14 days after the birth of a girl a woman is supposed to go to the mikveh, and subsequent blood will be pure. If she does not go to the mikveh, Bet Shammai says that this blood is like other liquids in her body it will defile when wet and not when dry. This is because she is still unclean, even though her blood is clean (i.e. the blood doesn't defile because it is blood, but rather because it is bodily fluid). Bet Hillel says that the blood is like menstrual blood i.e. it defiles because it is blood and not just because it is a fluid. This means that it will defile even when dry.", + "They agree that if she gave birth while in zivah, it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry. Both houses agree that if she gave birth while in a state of zivah, meaning while she was impure due to non-menstrual blood, her blood defiles as would menstrual blood, until she goes to the mikveh, after seven days for a boy and 14 days for a girl. In other words, the fact that this is supposed to be \"clean blood\" does not get her out of the fact that she had unclean blood before she even gave birth." + ], + [ + "A woman who is having difficult labor is regarded as a menstruant. A woman who is having difficult, protracted labor and is bleeding, is considered to be a niddah. This seems a bit strange to us after all, a pregnant woman can't menstruate. But it is in reality a leniency that this blood is not considered to be blood of zivah (non-menstrual blood). If it were non-menstrual blood she would have to wait seven days in which she doesn't bleed to become clean. Since it is considered menstrual blood, she will be clean seven days after giving birth (for a boy, 14 for a girl).", + "If she had difficult labor for three days of the eleven days and she ceased having pains for twenty-four hours and then gave birth, she is regarded as having given birth in zivah, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: a night and a day, as the night and the day of Shabbat. The eleven days referred to here are the eleven days between menstrual periods in which any blood flow is considered to be zivah. This woman had difficult labor for three days, meaning she bled during a period of three days. Normally, this blood would be considered zivah, because it came not during the time when blood is considered menstrual. However, because she was in labor, we considered the blood to be menstrual blood, as we saw in section one. But then she ceased having pains. When she gives birth, we now can consider the blood to be zivah blood. In other words, since the pains stopped, the blood is considered to be zivah after all and not from the birth itself. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cessation of pain must be for 24 hours. Rabbi Joshua says that the cessation must be for a whole day like Shabbat, from night through the entire next day. A simple 24 hour cessation is not enough.", + "That she ceased from having pain, but not from bleeding. This section explains that the cessation is only from the pains of labor. The bleeding continues. If she were to stop bleeding as well and then give birth, she would not even be considered as having given birth from zivah. The blood that comes at childbirth would be from childbirth and she would be impure 7/14 as is always the case after childbirth." + ], + [ + "How long can protracted labor [be considered] as lasting? Today's mishnah asks how long we can consider a woman to be in protracted labor such that any blood flow is considered niddah and not zivah. Remember, this is a leniency, for if it were considered zivah, she would need to have seven clean days to become pure. The question is not empirical how long could a woman actually have protracted labor. The question is legal how long can we legally attribute the blood to being from labor and not blood of zivah?", + "Rabbi Meir says: even forty or fifty days. Rabbi Meir says even forty, fifty days, which might mean that there is no limit whatsoever. Any time she has protracted labor, the blood is considered menstrual, as long as she didn't stop having the labor pains.", + "Rabbi Judah say: the [ninth] month suffices for her. Rabbi Judah says that blood during the entire ninth month of her pregnancy is considered menstrual and not zivah, as long as she is having labor pains along with it.", + "Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon says: protracted labor is not for more than two weeks [before birth]. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that she can be considered to be in protracted labor only for the two weeks before birth. Blood before this period must be considered zivah blood." + ], + [ + "If a woman was in hard labor during the eighty days prescribed for the birth of a female, all kinds of blood that she may observe are clean, until the fetus is born. But Rabbi Eliezer holds them to be unclean. This mishnah discusses an unlikely scenario, but one that the rabbis found interesting (in a legal sort of way) and therefore, worthy of discussion. [This is frequently the case in rabbinic literature. The rabbis wish to discuss legally complex cases, not ones that actually happen most frequently]. A woman gave birth to a girl and then was impure for 14 days. After this time she went to the mikveh and then had relations with her husband (I know, a bit quick, but possible). She became pregnant and was already having pain and blood during the 66 day period in which the blood is considered pure. Note that she knows that this blood is from the new pregnancy, and not the old one. The rabbis hold that this blood is clean until she gives birth again. At this point, if we are sure it is a birth, then she will again be impure with birth uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer says that since we know that this blood is not from the previous birth, in which case it would be clean, but rather from the difficult labor due to the subsequent birth, we must consider this blood to be unclean. She will have the uncleanness of a menstruant, as was the case in yesterday's mishnah.", + "They said to Rabbi Eliezer: if in a case where the law was stringent in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain, it was nevertheless lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor, in a case where it was lenient in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain is there not even more reason to be lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor? The rabbis now argue out their position. A woman who is pregnant and discharges blood but doesn't have any labor pains is considered a zavah. Her blood is not considered menstrual rather the greater stringency of zivah applies. Nevertheless, if she was in hard labor at the time, the blood would be considered birth blood, which would give her the status of a niddah and not a zavah. Therefore, in a case where the law is generally lenient, during the days of her purity (the 80 days after the birth of a girl), when all her blood is considered pure, so too we should be lenient with regard to blood that comes from labor pains. She should be a niddah and not a zavah.", + "He replied: it is enough for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred. For in what way were you lenient upon her? From the uncleanness of a zivah, but she does have the uncleanness of a niddah. Rabbi Eliezer responds that this doesn't make sense. The leniency during pregnancy was that she was not a zavah she was only a niddah. So when we derive a law from this situation, we don't need to say that she is pure. It is enough to say that the derived status is the same as that from which it derived. Just as her blood had the status of niddah during her pregnancy, so too during the 80 days of purity, blood due to hard labor has the status of niddah." + ], + [ + "Throughout all the eleven days a woman is in a presumption of cleanness. If she did not examine herself if this was unwittingly, under duress or intentionally, she is clean. Between one period and the next there are eleven days during which a woman can presume that she will not menstruate (according to the rabbis don't take this as gynecological advice). During this period there is a legal presumption that she is clean. If she doesn't examine herself for any reason, even intentionally, she is still clean.", + "If the time of her regular period arrived and she did not examine herself she is unclean. When her period is supposed to arrive, she loses her presumption of cleanness. She must examine herself, and if she does not, she is considered impure.", + "Rabbi Meir says: if a woman was in a hiding place when the time of her regular period arrived and she didn't examine herself she is clean, because fear suspends the flow of blood. Rabbi Meir holds that fear will suspend the onset of a woman's period. Therefore, if a woman is in hiding, perhaps due to war, and the time of her period arrives, she remains pure because we can assume that she did not have her period.", + "But during the days prescribed for a zav or a zavah or for one who waits day against day, these are presumed to be unclean. A woman who has three consecutive days of blood discharge not during the time of her period is a zavah. A man who has non-seminal genital discharge for three straight days is a zav. Both of them must check themselves every day. Every day that they do not, they are under the presumption of being impure. \"One who waits day against day\" refers to a man or woman who had a genital discharge that is not menstrual or semen for one or two days (on the third day they would become a zav/zavah). They too must check themselves every day to see if more discharge had occurred. If they do not check themselves, they are presumed unclean. To sum up the entire mishnah if there is some sign that would make us assume that she/he would menstruate or have impure discharge, then there is no presumption of cleanness. Without checking, she/he is impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "For a fetus born from its mother's side, she does not sit the prescribed days of uncleanness nor the days of cleanness, nor does one incur on its account the obligation to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon says: it is regarded as a regular birth. A fetus born from its mother's side is one born through a caesarean section. I am not sure how frequently a mother would even live through such an operation in the ancient world, but if she did, she is not impure (1 week for a male or two weeks for a female) nor does she have any days in which discharged blood is pure. Basically, if the child is not born in the normal way, it is not considered a birth and the purity rules relevant to childbirth do not apply. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that a caesarean section is considered a normal birth.", + "All women are subject to uncleanness [as soon as the blood appears] in the outer chamber, as it says, \"her discharge being blood in her body\" (Leviticus 15:19). But a zav and one who emitted semen convey no uncleanness unless the discharge came out of the body. A woman (niddah or zavah) is impure as soon as the blood reaches the outer chamber, which I assume means the vagina. The blood need not flow out for her to be impure. This is midrashically read into the word \"in her body.\" In contrast, men are impure only when the semen or other discharge has left the penis." + ], + [ + "If he was eating terumah when he felt that his limbs shook, he should take hold of his member and swallow the terumah. If a man is eating terumah and he feels himself about to ejaculate (his limbs are shaking) he should squeeze his penis so that he doesn't ejaculate quite yet and then swallow the terumah. If he ejaculates while terumah is still in his mouth, the terumah will become impure. [I realize, this is a bit strange and I'm not sure if it's realistic. It would also take a large degree of control to accomplish this, but I guess anything's possible.]", + "And it conveys uncleanness however small the quantity, even if it is only of the size of a mustard seed or less. Any amount of genital discharge (zivah, menstrual blood and semen), even an amount smaller than a mustard seed, defiles." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe remainder of this chapter goes through developmental stages of children and notes when they are obligated or subject to various laws.", + "A girl one day old defiles due to menstruation. If for some reason a baby girl begins to menstruate, the blood can count as menstrual blood which defiles. I realize that this is highly unlikely, but what the rabbis are in essence saying is that there is no age at which we could consider menstrual blood to be something else.", + "A girl ten days old defiles due to zivah. However, she must be ten days old for any bloody discharge to possibly count as zivah, non-menstrual blood. This is because if she bled for the first seven days of her life, it would count as niddah. Then to become a zavah, she must bleed three straight days not during the time of her period. So in order for her to become a zavah she would have to be 10 days old.", + "A boy one day old defiles due to zivah, and defiles due to scale disease and due to corpse uncleanness; A boy on the other hand can't be a niddah (obviously). Therefore, if he has bloody discharge from his penis, he can be a zav immediately. Similarly, other types of defilement need not wait until he is older. If he has scale disease (negaim) he is impure and he conveys impurity; the same is true if he dies his corpse defiles.", + "He subjects [his deceased brother's widow] to yibbum [levirate marriage]; If he has a brother who dies childless, his brother's wife is subject to yibbum with him. She will have to wait until he is old enough to perform yibbum or halitzah.", + "He exempts [his mother] from yibbum, If a man dies and he has a child who is even one day old, his wife is not subject to yibbum.", + "He enables her to eat terumah If the father was a kohen and he dies, his wife can continue eating terumah by virtue of her son.", + "And he disqualifies her from eating terumah; If the father was not a kohen and the wife was, and the father dies, because she has a son she does not go back to her father's home to continue to eat terumah. Her one day old son disqualifies her from eating terumah.", + "He inherits and transmits inheritance; If a woman dies on the day her son is born, the son inherits his mother's estate. If the son dies on the same day he can transmit his mother's inheritance to his paternal brother. In this way, the mother's estate can shift to her husband's child from another wife, all within one day.", + "He who kills him is guilty of murder, A one-day old is fully alive therefore one who kills him is liable for murder.", + "And he counts to his father, to his mother and to all his relatives as a fully grown man. This is basically just a summary of the entire mishnah a one day old child is a full living human being. We might add that there may be a polemic here against the common Greco-Roman tolerance of infanticide. As is well-known, Greek thought allowed for the killing of unwanted babies. The rabbis did not tolerate such a position. At the moment of birth a child is a full human being." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that in a legal sense, sexual relations with a girl over the age of three counts as sexual relations.\nI should emphasize that this mishnah in no way condones such an act (which is certainly rape) it just teaches that this counts as an act of intercourse. At the core of this notion is their understanding of the physical consequences of intercourse for the first time namely the breaking of the woman's hymen. As we can see at the end of the mishnah, if a girl has intercourse (i.e. is raped) before the age of three her hymen will repair itself. After the age of three, it will not. This, to the rabbis, means that after the age of three, intercourse \"counts\" in a legal sense. Before the age of three, it does not.\nHaving taught this mishnah (and others like it) many times, I realize that this is a very sensitive issue. To talk about sex with young girls is very troubling. I certainly don't want people to read this and think that the rabbis thought that it was okay for men to have relations with little girls. As usual, the mishnah uses a clinical, emotionally distant tone. That's just the way the rabbis composed much of the mishnah.", + "A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse and if a yavam had intercourse with her, he acquires her thereby. As stated above, intercourse with a girl over the age of three years counts as intercourse. Therefore, since betrothal may be performed by intercourse, she may also be betrothed in this way. If she is liable for yibbum (meaning her previous husband died without any offspring) and the yavam (her dead husband's brother) had intercourse with her, she becomes his wife. Again, this means that intercourse with her creates legal obligations and a legal relationship.", + "One can be liable for adultery with her; If her father marries her off to someone (this can be done even before three years old) and then another man has intercourse with her, he is liable for adultery and he would get the death penalty.", + "And she defiles the one who had intercourse with her so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. If she is a niddah, she defiles one who has intercourse with her such that he would defile any number of couches or cushions upon which he sat. This was explained in 4:1.", + "If she was married to a priest, she may eat terumah. An Israelite woman married to a priest can eat terumah. Since this marriage counts, she can eat terumah.", + "If any of the disqualified men have relations with her he disqualifies her from the priesthood. If someone who is disqualified from the priesthood, such as a halal (a disqualified priest) or a non-Jew, has relations with her, he disqualifies her from subsequently marrying a priest. This is true of all women.", + "If any of the forbidden relatives found in the Torah had relations with her he is to be executed on her account, but she is exempt [from the penalty]. If a man forbidden to her because of incest has relations with her, he gets the death penalty (as long as the incest was punishable by death). She, of course, is not punished because little children cannot be held accountable for their actions. Obviously, this was an act of rape.", + "If she was younger than this age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye. This is the concept I mentioned in the introduction. If one pokes someone in the eye, the eye tears up but returns to normal. So too, the rabbis believed that if one had intercourse with a girl younger than three, her hymen would repair itself. She would remain a \"virgin\" and therefore there are no legal consequences to relations with her." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that for a boy to be legally capable of intercourse, he must be 9 years old. Again, I should stress that this is a legal definition. The mishnah is not sanctioning boys having sex at that age. Indeed, I'm sure this was quite uncommon, if not completely unheard of. All they are saying is that a boy under that age is not legally capable of doing having sex.\nWhile a boy nine years of age can have legally consequential sex, he is not old enough to enter into verbal contracts. We shall see that this creates some interesting ramifications.", + "If a boy the age of nine years and one day had relations with his yevamah, he acquires her thereby; A yevamah, a woman whose husband has died without children, is acquired by the yavam, the brother of the dead husband, through sexual intercourse. What this means is that marriage with a yevam is done not through the money of kiddushin and then huppah, but through intercourse. Since a boy's intercourse at nine years counts, he can acquire his yevamah at that age. Note, he cannot marry a regular woman until he is of majority age.", + "But he cannot divorce her until he is of majority age. However, divorce is done through a written document and boys of this age do not have the legal ability to execute such documents. Therefore, he couldn't divorce her until he is of majority age.", + "He contracts uncleanness through intercourse with a menstruant so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. Since his intercourse counts, if he has relations with a niddah, he takes on the according level of impurity. This impurity was explained in 4:1.", + "He disqualifies a woman from the priesthood. If he is disqualified from being a priest, for instance he is a halal (a disqualified priest) or a mamzer, and he has relations with a woman, he disqualifies her from eating terumah.", + "But he doesn't give her the right to eat terumah. Since he can't legally marry a woman, he can't confer upon her the right to eat terumah if he is a priest. This is true even if the woman is his yevamah.", + "He renders a beast invalid for the altar, and it is stoned on his account. If he has sex with an animal (I know, this is a bit sick), the sex disqualifies use of the animal as a sacrifice. The animal with which he had sex is stoned on his account. Both of these rules are the usual rules for an animal that had sex with a human.", + "If he had intercourse with any of the forbidden relations mentioned in the Torah, she is to be executed on his account, but he is exempt from punishment. If he has intercourse with a woman prohibited to him by the Torah (adultery or incest) she is punished with the death penalty. He cannot, however, be punished until he is of majority age. To sum up this mishnah, it teaches that boys' physical ability precedes their legal liabilities, which are based on their mental capacities. While some of the details of this mishnah might be revolting and troubling, the essence seems to me quite prescient." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the age at which a child's vows are considered valid. This is an intellectual capacity and not a physical capacity as was the case in the first five mishnayot of the chapter.\nThe vows discussed directly in this mishnah are biblical types of vows a vow to bring something to the Temple. However, the same laws apply to other types of vows as well.\nWe should also note that the ages in this mishnah reflect what in modern times is known as the \"bar/bat mitzvah.\" A celebration of this age did not occur in mishnaic/talmudic times, but the significance of the age was noted.", + "A girl of the age of eleven years and one day, her vows must be examined. A girl of the age of twelve years and one day, her vows are valid; And they examine them throughout the whole twelfth year. During a girls' twelfth year it is possible, although not certain, that she knows the meaning of her vows. Therefore if she makes a vow someone would have to ascertain that she understands its meaning. If she does, it is valid. Upon completing twelve years, meaning on her twelfth birthday (actually the day after), her vows are valid automatically.", + "A boy the age of twelve years and one day, his vows must be examined. A boy the age of thirteen years and one day, is vow are valid. And they examine them throughout the whole thirteenth year. Boys mature one year slower than girls (personally, I think it takes a lot longer than this, but that's based on personal experience). Therefore, they are checked during their thirteenth year and a day after their thirteenth birthday their vows are automatically valid.", + "Prior to this age, even though they said, \"We know to whom we have made our vow\" or \"to whom we have made our dedication,\" their vow is not a valid vow and their dedication is not a valid dedication. Subsequent to this age, even though they said, \"We do not know to whom we have made our vow\" or \"to whom we have made our vow,\" their vow is a valid vow and their dedication is a valid dedication. Prior to these ages, a child's vows don't count, even if they know the meaning of them. And subsequent to this age, the vows count, even if they don't know their meaning. The only age in which the matter is dependent upon their knowledge, is the twelfth year for the girl and the thirteenth year for the boy." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that a girl has three stages of physical development, each with their own legal ramifications. These ages are: 1) ketanah, a minor; 2) naarah, a girl beginning to mature; 3) a bogeret, a mature girl. The father's rights over his daughter are limited to the first two stages.\nWe should note that this was a significant step in giving a far greater degree of independence to young girls. In the Bible, a father's rights over his daughter probably extended until she was married. The rabbis significantly curtailed this, ending his rights over his daughter at the extremely young age of 12. It is unlikely that in reality a father stopped exerting his decision making authority over his daughters at such a young age even today father's authority over their children extends well past this age. However, even if in reality fathers had significant power over their daughters for a far longer time, the fact is that the rabbis did limit their legal power, thereby creating more room for the girl's independence. .", + "The sages spoke of [the physical development of] a woman in a parable: an unripe fig, a fig in its early ripening stage and a ripe fig. The rabbis used the analogy of a fig to delineate the three stages of the physical development of a girl. This is clearly an allusion to her sexual development. A fig is somewhat of a sensuous fruit, and reminds us of the Garden of Eden. Sex and eating are often compared, so it seems that this mishnah is saying that a young girl is not ready for sex but that by 12 she is. [Again, I realize that this strikes as an extremely early age. However, we should probably realize that this is an issue that is determined by culture and that in many cultures girls are considered to be sexually ready at far younger ages than they are in our society.]", + "\"An unripe fig\": while she is yet a child; A child here is one who has not developed any signs of sexual development.", + "\"A fig in its early ripening stage\": when she is in her youth (. Naarut is when a girl begins to show signs of physical development. Her breasts are beginning to grow. Tomorrow's mishnah will go into greater detail.", + "In both ages her father is entitled to anything she finds and to her handiwork and to the right of invalidating her vows. A father has full rights over his ketanah and naarah daughter. Anything she finds and anything she makes belongs to him, and if she makes a vow he has the right to invalidate it (see Ketubot 4:4).", + "\"A ripe fig\" as soon as she becomes of majority age (, her father has no longer any right over her. Once she is of majority age, he no longer has any legal rights over her." + ], + [ + "What are the signs [of a bogeret]?
Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: the appearance of the wrinkle beneath the breast.
Rabbi Akiva says: from when the breasts hang down.
Ben Azzai says: the darkening of the ring around the nipple.
Rabbi Yose says: [the development of the breast to a stage] when one's hand is put on the nipple it sinks and only slowly rises again.
Today's mishnah contains several opinions as to what constitutes the physical development of a girl such that she is considered a bogeret. All four of these opinions relate to the development of the girl's breasts.
I think that the translation of these four opinions is sufficient to understand them, therefore there is no commentary below." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a male or female who never show signs of hitting puberty. A female in this category is called an aylonit, which probably comes from the word \"ayil\" ram. And a male is called a \"saris\" which is the Hebrew word for eunuch. The laws of this mishnah can also partly be found in Yevamot 8:5.", + "If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. If a woman turns twenty and has not yet hit puberty, meaning she has no pubic hair, and can prove that she is twenty, then she is an aylonit, a woman who is unable to procreate. If she is married and her husband dies without offspring she is not subject to the laws of levirate marriage halitzah or yibbum. This is because she is unable to procreate.", + "If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed as a saris and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel. The same rules apply to a man who reaches age twenty. If his brother dies without children, he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum with the widow. If there are no other brothers, then the widow does not require halitzah or yibbum at all. It is as if her husband died without a brother.", + "Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen. Bet Shammai disagrees with regard to the age at which we assume that the female is an aylonit and the male a saris. They hold that this assumption kicks in at 18, not 20 as held Bet Hillel.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man. Rabbi Eliezer offers a compromise position. Since girls reach maturity earlier than do boys, the age for them is 18, as said Bet Shammai. For boys, Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Bet Hillel." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is really a continuation of the topic from last chapter. It discusses what counts as a sign of having reached puberty the development of pubic hair (the lower sign) or the development of breasts (the upper sign).", + "If the lower sign appears before the upper sign, she can perform halitzah or yibbum. The appearance of the lower sign (pubic hair) counts as having reached puberty, even if the upper sign (breast development) had not yet appeared. Therefore, she is fully subject to the laws of halitzah and yibbum, for she is certainly of majority age.", + "If the upper sign appears before the lower sign, even though this is impossible: Rabbi Meir says: she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. And the sages say: she can perform halitzah or yibbum. For they have said: it is possible for the lower sign to appear before the upper sign, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign. Both Rabbi Meir and the other sages agree that the upper sign cannot appear before the lower sign. However, Rabbi Meir still thinks that if such a thing does appear to happen, we must be concerned lest it did happen. In such a case, she couldn't do halitzah or yibbum because she is still a minor. So if she was married and her husband died without children, she would have to wait till she hits majority age to perform either halitzah or yibbum. Note, however, that this is according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that a minor girl cannot do yibbum, lest it eventually turns out the she is an \"aylonit,\" one who never becomes sexually mature. The other sages (see 5:4) hold that we are not concerned with such an eventuality. Even a minor girl could perform yibbum, but not halitzah. In any case, the other sages say that if the upper sign appears then the lower sign must have appeared. She is considered to have reached majority age, and she can even do halitzah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next 9 mishnayot have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Rather, they are all formulated in the same format as yesterday's mishnah it is possible for x without y, but it is not possible for y without x.", + "Similarly, any [hole in] an earthen vessel that lets in a liquid will let it out, but there may be one that will let liquid out and will not let it in. An earthenware vessel that has a hole large enough that it lets liquid in is pure because it is no longer usable (see Kelim 3:1, 8:2). Any vessel that has a hole large enough to let in liquid will also let it out. However, there may be a vessel that lets liquid out but doesn't let it in. Such a vessel is still considered usable and is therefore still impure.", + "Any limb that grows a nail also has a bone in it, but there may be one that has a bone in it but does not grow a nail. A limb from a corpse that has a nail is impure, even if the limb is very small (see Ohalot 1:7). Any limb that grows a nail will also grow a bone, but there can be a limb that has a bone without a nail. The Talmud explains that an extra finger (or toe) that doesn't have a nail does defile through contact and by being carried but it doesn't convey impurity in an ohel (a tent) as would a limb with a nail." + ], + [ + "Whatever is susceptible to midras uncleanness is also susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. For an item to be susceptible to midras uncleanness, which is transmitted by sitting, laying down or leaning upon something, the item must have been made to be sat upon or laid upon, for instance a mattress or a chair. Therefore, not all items are susceptible to midras uncleanness (for instance, my shirt is not susceptible). However, all vessels (this includes almost anything of practical use made by a human being) are susceptible to corpse uncleanness. So if an item, such as a sofa, is susceptible to midras uncleanness, it must also be susceptible to corpse uncleanness.", + "But there are things that are susceptible to corpse uncleanness but not to midras-uncleanness. Such as my shirt, or my cereal bowl (or your dress and serving platter, if you like)." + ], + [ + "Anyone who is fit to try capital cases is also fit to try monetary cases. But there are those who are fit to try monetary suits and and unfit to try capital cases. The laws regarding who may adjudicate a capital case are more stringent than those for monetary cases. For instance, a convert or a mamzer cannot judge capital cases (see Sanhedrin 4:2).", + "Anyone who is eligible to act as judge is eligible to serve as a witness. But there may be one who is eligible to act as witness and not as judge. Similarly, the laws regarding who can serve as a judge are stricter than those for a witness. For instance, an unlearned person can serve as witness, but not as a judge." + ], + [ + "Whatsoever is subject to tithes is susceptible to food-uncleanness. Only food is subject to tithes and terumah. Therefore, anything that is subject to tithes must be a food.", + "But there are foods that are to food-uncleanness and not subject to tithes. However, not all food is subject to tithes and terumah, for instance things that don't grow from the ground (see Maasrot 1:1). Therefore, there can be food that is subject to impurity but not liable for tithes and terumah." + ], + [ + "Whatever is subject to peah is also subject to tithes. But there is [produce] which is subject to tithes and is not subject to peah. The category of produce that is subject to peah (leaving the corner of one's fields) is narrower than that liable for tithes. For produce to be liable for peah it has to be a type that ripens and is harvested all at the same time. Thus, figs, which ripen gradually, are not liable to peah. The produce also has to be able to be stored for a long time, so vegetables are not liable to peah (see Peah 1:4). However, anything that is liable for peah is in the category of liable for tithes." + ], + [ + "Whatever [beast] is subject to the laws of the first of the fleece is also subject to that of the priestly gifts.
But there may be [a beast] that is subject to the law of the priestly gifts and not to that of the first of the fleece.
There are two mitzvot mentioned in this mishnah: the \"first of the fleece\" and \"priestly gifts.\" A person must give the first of the fleece that he shears to the priest. When he offers a sacrifice that doesn't entirely go to the priest, he gives the priest the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach the \"priestly gifts.\" Only female sheep are liable to the first of the fleece, but all beasts offered as a sacrifice are liable for the priestly gifts." + ], + [ + "Whatever is subject to the law of removal is also subject to the sabbatical year.
But there is [a kind or produce] that is subject to the sabbatical year and is not subject to the law of removal.
Again, there are two laws mentioned in this mishnah. The first is \"the law of removal.\" Produce grown during the sabbatical year can be gathered into one's house and stored, but as soon as it ceases to grow in the field such that animals can eat it, it must be removed from storage in one's house.
\"Subject to the sabbatical year\" means that one cannot do business with it i.e. bring it to the marketplace and sell it there. Furthermore, any produce that grows in one's field must be made ownerless.
All produce is \"subject to the sabbatical year.\" However, if the produce grows in the field all year round, and is always available for animal consumption, then it need not be removed from one's house. Sheviit 7:2 gives some examples." + ], + [ + "Whatever has scales has fins, But there are fish that have fins and no scales. For fish to be kosher they need fins and scales. Some fish have fins but no scales, but if a fish has scales, for sure it has fins (see Hullin 3:7).", + "Whatever has horns has [split] hooves; But there are animals that have [split] hooves and no horns. Animals need split hooves to be kosher. Any animal with horns must have split hooves. However, there are animal that have split hooves, such as a pig, but do not have horns." + ], + [ + "Whatever requires a blessing after it requires one before it;
But there are things that require a blessing before them and not after them.
One must recite a blessing before eating anything, even of the smallest amount. One also must recite a blessing before the performance of a mitzvah. But in both of these cases, there is no blessing recited after.
However, anything that one blesses after it, such as a sufficient portion of food, one would certainly have to bless before it as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah returns to the main subject of the chapter at what stage of physical development a child becomes obligated in the commandments.", + "If a girl has grown two pubic hairs she may perform either halitzah or contract levirate marriage, and she is obligated in all the commandments in the Torah. So too if a boy has grown two pubic hairs, he is obligated in all of the commandments in the Torah. Once the \"lower sign\" two pubic hairs have appeared on a boy or girl, they become fully obligated in all of the mitzvot in the Torah. In addition, for a girl this means that she is liable for halitzah or yibbum; if her husband died without offspring, she must perform either halitzah or yibbum with her dead husband's brother.", + "He is fit to become a wayward and rebellious son from the time he has grown two hairs until the time when his beard forms a circle. This refers to the lower, and not to the upper one, but the sages spoke using a euphemism. For a boy to be subject to the laws of being a wayward and rebellious son (see Sanhedrin 8) he must have reached majority age, but not be so old that he is no longer subject to his parents' authority. This is translated physically to mean that he has already grown two pubic hairs but he is not yet fully physically matured (meaning more pubic hair is left to grow). The beard referred to here is indeed the \"lower\" beard, but the rabbis used a euphemism (I'm trying to do this too, but it's not easy and to remain understood).", + "A girl who has grown two hairs may no longer refuse the marriage. Rabbi Judah says: [she may refuse] until the black [hairs] predominate. A minor girl who is married off by her brother or mother because her father is no longer alive has the right to refuse the marriage until she becomes of majority age. In Hebrew, this is called \"meun,\" and it is annulment, not divorce. Once she hits puberty and doesn't refuse the marriage, it is as if she has accepted it and she can no longer refuse. Rabbi Judah extends her right to refuse the marriage till the time when she has enough pubic hair that the region looks mostly black." + ], + [ + "The two hairs spoken of in regard to the red heifer and in regard to leprosy as well as those spoken of anywhere else must be long enough for their tips to be bent to their roots, the words of Rabbi Ishmael.
Rabbi Eliezer says: long enough to be grasped by a finger-nail.
Rabbi Akiva says: long enough to be taken off with scissors.
Today's mishnah clarifies how long a hair must be for it to count as a hair.
Section one: Besides the context of our chapter hairs that are a sign of human puberty there are several other \"halakhic hairs.\" The first is that black or white hairs can disqualify a red heifer from being used in the purification ritual (see Parah 2:5). The second is that two hairs are a sign of impurity in a leprous spot (see Negaim 4:4, 10:2-3). The issue of hair also comes up in the commandment that a nazirite shave all of his hairs at the end of his naziriteship, and that a metzora (a person with skin disease) shave when becoming pure. If either of them leaves two hairs, the shaving doesn't count.
In all of these cases, Rabbi Ishmael holds that the hair must be long enough that one could take the tip and bend it back to the root.
Rabbi Eliezer says that it need only be possible to grasp the nail with one's finger nail. Rabbi Akiva says that it must be long enough that one could cut it with scissors. According to commentators, this is the smallest measure." + ], + [ + "A woman who found a blood-stain is in a spoiled condition and must take into consideration the possibility that it was due to zivah, the words of Rabbi Meir.
If a woman makes a mistake in her reckoning there is no re-opening for her [of the niddah count] earlier than seven, nor later than after seventeen days.
But the sages say: in the case of blood-stains there is no [need to consider the possibility of their being] due to zivah. Section five: This somewhat complicated halakhah has to do with counting a woman’s menstrual cycle, in order to know the difference between menstrual blood (which causes a woman to be impure for 7 days, even if she continued to bleed all the way through the seventh and non-menstrual blood (which causes a woman to be impure for one day, unless she sees blood for three straight days, in which case she is impure for 7 full days after she stops seeing. The rabbis instituted an 18 day cycle to calculate when blood was menstrual and when it is non-menstrual. When a woman first sees blood she considers it to be menstrual blood and she is impure for seven days, from the time she saw the first blood. After these seven days, any blood seen over the next 11 days is considered to be zivah (non-menstrual. After these eleven days are over, she returns to counting seven days, during which any blood is considered to be menstrual blood. Our mishnah deals with a situation where a woman made a mistake in counting these days (i.e. she didn’t know whether she was in the seven days or in the and she saw blood. She doesn’t know whether the blood she saw is to be considered menstrual, in which case she is impure for seven days, or zivah, in which case she is impure for only one day, or a full seven days if she sees zivah for three straight days. Our mishnah teaches that the beginning of her days of menstrual blood cannot be less then seven days after she doesn’t see any more blood, nor more than seventeen days, all counted from the time she first saw blood. How this works out is a bit complicated, but I shall try to explain very briefly. Let’s say she saw blood for one day, if these were “days of niddah” she could begin to count her next days of niddah after seventeen days, which is the maximum amount. This would mirror the normal situation. However, if she sees blood for several straight days, it may be possible that she only has to wait seven more days after not seeing blood to begin counting her menstrual blood days. Let’s say she sees blood for three straight days, she can then begin counting her menstrual days after seven days without seeing blood, because it doesn’t matter if the blood she saw was menstrual or not, seven days are sufficient to begin counting again. I realize that this is all very complicated, and indeed entire books exist dedicated to these complicated calculations. We will learn much more about this subject when we learn Tractate Niddah.
Section one: According to Rabbi Meir, if a woman finds a blood stain on her clothing she is in a \"spoiled condition.\" What this means is that since she doesn't know when the blood stain got there she doesn't know when to begin counting the eleven days of \"zivah\" the eleven days in which blood is considered zivah and not menstruation. This is a complicated system of calculation that I explained in Arakhin 2:1. For your benefit I have put the explanation of this clause below.
Furthermore, if she sees the stain three days into her wearing the garment during the \"days of zivah,\" and the stain is large enough that it could contain three days of blood flow (this is not such a large amount, three split-beans worth of blood) she must be concerned that she had blood flow for three days and therefore she is a zavah. In other words, this is a pretty lousy situation.
Section two: The other sages say that if a woman sees a stain on her clothing, she does not have to treat it as if it is potentially zivah." + ], + [ + "If a woman observed [a discharge of blood] on the eleventh day at twilight, at the beginning of a menstruation period and at the end of a menstruation period, at the beginning of a zivah period and at the end of a zivah period; Albeck explains this section according to the Talmud which reads it as if it says, \"at the beginning of a menstruation period and at the end of a zivah period or at the end of a menstruation period and at the end of a zivah period.\" In other words, a woman sees a discharge of blood at twilight at the end of the eleventh day of her zivah period which could also be considered the beginning of her menstrual period. If it is zivah, she is impure for one day for every day she saw blood; if it is menstrual blood then she is impure for seven days. The same doubt occurs if she sees blood on the seventh day at twilight of her menstrual days she cannot be sure if it is menstrual blood or zivah blood.", + "On the fortieth day after the birth of a male or on the eightieth day after the birth of a female, If she saw blood at twilight on the fortieth day after the birth of a male or the 80th day after the birth of a female, we are not sure if the blood is pure because for 40/80 days after the birth a male or female child a woman's blood is pure, or it is impure blood.", + "At twilight in all these cases, behold these women have made a mistake [in their reckoning]. In all of these cases we must consider the woman as having lost her count. The women must act as if they were zavot and if they had blood for two more days after the first discharge, they must bring the appropriate hatat (sin-offering) sacrifice at the end of their period of impurity. However, since we are not sure whether or not they are actually liable for the hatat, it may not be eaten.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: before you fix the situation for the women who lack intelligence, come and fix the situation for the wise ones. According to Albeck, Rabbi Joshua's comment refers to Mishnah 2:1, where we learned that intelligent women could help supervise women who are not considered to have halakhic intelligence. He says to the sages who composed that mishnah instead of worrying about those woman who lack the intelligence to keep track of their own cycles, you should worry about the intelligent women, who theoretically are able to keep track of these things, but because of the complications of this system, cannot do so." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches which substances defile when both dry and wet and which defile only while still wet or moist.", + "The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. There are two substances which are treated strictly and defile whether moist or dry the blood of a menstruant and the flesh from a corpse.", + "But the discharge [of a zav], and the phlegm [of a zav] and the spittle [of a zav], a dead sheretz, a nevelah and semen convey uncleanness when wet but not when dry. In contrast, the substances that come from the body of a zav (a man who had an abnormal genital discharge) are impure only while still moist. The same is true for a dead sheretz (creepy crawly thing), a nevelah (an animal not slaughtered in the proper manner) and semen.", + "If they can be soaked and then revert to their original condition they convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. And how long must they be soaked? In lukewarm water for a period of twenty four hours. However, if one can soak these substances in lukewarm water for a period of up to 24 hours and they return to being moist as they were previously, then they are still impure. In other words, for something to be considered all dried up and therefore pure, it must be irrevocably dried up.", + "Rabbi Yose says: If the flesh of a corpse is dry, and it cannot be soaked and brought back to its original condition, it is clean. Rabbi Yose says that the flesh of a corpse is also pure if it becomes irrevocably dry." + ], + [ + "If a dead sheretz was found in an alley it causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can say, \"I examined this alley and there was no sheretz in it,\" or to such time as it was last swept. A dead sheretz defiles anything that touches it. If a sheretz is found in an alley, everything pure in the alley must be considered impure lest it was touched by the sheretz. This retroactive impurity covers everything that was in the alley until we can be sure that the sheretz wasn't there. We can be sure of this either by someone testifying that he examined the alley or by the alley having been cleaned.", + "So also a bloodstain found on a garment causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can say, \"I examined this shirt and there was no stain on it\" or to such time as it was last washed. Similarly, if one finds a bloodstain on a garment, any clean things that touched the cloak are impure until such a point when we can ascertain that the stain wasn't there.", + "And it conveys uncleanness whether it is wet or dry. Rabbi Shimon says: if it is dry it causes uncleanness retrospectively, but if it is wet it causes uncleanness only to a time when it could still have been wet. This section connects this mishnah to the topic of yesterday's mishnah whether defiling substances need to be moist to defile. According to the first opinion, the sheretz and blood stain defile even if they are found dry, because they might have been moist when they defiled the clean things. Rabbi Shimon says that we can use the fact that only moist things defile to limit the retroactive impurity. If for instance we know that the stain or sheretz could not have been moist three days ago because it is really dry now, then it doesn't defile things it might have touched in the past three days. But if something might have touched it when it was wet, it is impure." + ], + [ + "All bloodstains that come from Rekem are clean.
Rabbi Judah declares them unclean, because the people who live there are proselytes though misguided.
Those that come from non-Jews are clean.
Those that come from Israelites or from Samaritans: Rabbi Meir declares them unclean, But the sages declare them clean because they are not suspected in regard to their stains.
Today's mishnah deals with clothing that is found with a bloodstain on it. The question is do we have to be concerned that the blood is impure and the clothing defiles?
Section one: Rekem is on the eastern border of the land of Israel (see Gittin 1:1-2). Its residents, according to the first opinion, are considered to be non-Jews. Since non-Jews don't defile, their bloodstained clothing is also not considered to be defiling.
Rabbi Judah says that the people of Rekem are actually converts.
It is interesting that in this mishnah we have an argument over the status of these people the first opinion holds that their conversion was not valid, whereas Rabbi Judah holds that their conversion was valid. We can sense, perhaps, that the laws of conversion were still in flux.
Despite their conversion, Rabbi Judah holds that they do not properly observe the laws of menstrual purity and therefore their stains are impure. As we shall see below, the sages hold that bloodstained cloaks of Israelites do not defile. These people converted but didn't learn the laws all that well. That is likely why the other rabbis consider them not to be Jewish.
Section two: As stated above, non-Israelites do not defile, at least not through their menstrual blood. Therefore, it is obvious that their bloodstained clothing is not impure.
Section three: Israelites and Samaritans are both subject to the laws of menstrual purity meaning their menstrual blood is impure. According to Rabbi Meir, if one finds a cloak from an Israelite or Samaritan with a bloodstain on it, one must be concerned that it is menstrual blood. Therefore, it defiles.
The other sages say that Israelites and Samaritans are not suspected of simply giving clothing stained with menstrual blood to others. In other words, they are cautious about the laws of menstrual purity. Therefore, if we find blood on their clothing we can assume that it is not menstrual blood. The clothing is pure." + ], + [ + "All bloodstains, wherever they are found are clean except those that are found in rooms or in a house for unclean women.
A house for unclean Samaritan women conveys uncleanness by overshadowing because they bury miscarriages there.
Rabbi Judah says: they did not bury them but threw them away and the wild beasts dragged them off.
Section one: As stated in yesterday's mishnah, bloodstains found on clothing are considered pure, because we can generally assume that they do not come from menstrual blood. Jewish women do not simply cast aside the clothing that has menstrual blood stains on it.
However, we can't assume that the bloodstain is not menstrual if the clothing is found in a private room, for in such a place a woman might place clothing that has a menstrual stain on it.
Similarly, if bloodstained clothing is found in a house set aside from menstruating women, we must treat the stain as if it were menstrual blood.
We should note that this is virtually the only evidence in rabbinic literature that menstruating women were sent to a \"red tent\" a house for menstruants. It is unclear how widespread this practice might have been, but in my opinion, the existence of this mishnah proves that it did exist, at least in some places in some times.
Section two: Houses set aside for unclean Samaritan women defile to a greater extent because we fear there may be dead bodies in such houses, and dead bodies defile through overshadowing. The fear is that in such houses women occasionally miscarriage, and that Samaritan women do not bring their miscarriages to burial grounds. Rather they bury them right in the house.
Rabbi Judah says that they don't even bother burying them. They just leave them on the side and wild animals come and drag them off. Paradoxically, the aspersion he casts on Samaritan women (they don't even bother burying their miscarriages) serves to purify their homes, at least from corpse impurity. Since the miscarriages are no longer there, the houses do not defile by overshadowing." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with when we believe the testimony of a Samaritan.", + "They are believed when they say, \"we buried miscarriages there,\" or \"we did not bury them.\" If a Samaritan states that they either did or did not bury a miscarriage in a certain place they are believed. Although they are suspected of casting aside miscarriages, they generally observe the laws of impurity, so they are believed in this matter.", + "They are believed when they say concerning a beast whether it had given birth to a firstling or had not given birth to one. Since they observe the laws of the firstborn animal (that it must be given to the priests and that it is sacred) they are trusted if they say that a certain animal had already given birth or had not.", + "They are believed when giving information on the marking of graves. Samaritans are cautious concerning the impurity of graves. Therefore, they are trusted to say that a marker does or does not signify the presence of a grave.", + "But they are not believed either in regard to overhanging branches, or protruding stones or a bet ha-peras. However, there are aspects of the laws of impurity in which their behavior and interpretation differ from the rabbis. The rabbis hold that an overhanging tree or a protruding stone can serve as an \"ohel,\" a tent which will convey impurity from one thing underneath it to another (we learned a lot about this in Ohalot). The Samaritans evidently don't follow these rules. Therefore, they are not believed to say that such and such a place is pure. A \"bet ha-peras\" is a place that used to be a graveyard but has been plowed over such that it is difficult to tell what it used to be. The Samaritans evidently are not concerned with the impurity of a \"bet ha-peras\" and therefore are not believed if they say that a certain place was not plowed over.", + "This is the general rule: in any matter in which they are under suspicion they are not believed. This is the general rule that underlies when a Samaritan is believed and when she/he is not. We should note what this implies about our trust of Samaritans. When Samaritans observe a certain law, we trust that they will tell us (rabbinic Jews) the truth about it. They won't just lie because they don't like us. However, they don't like the cases in which our laws disagree with their way of treating things. In those cases, we fear that they will intentionally lie to us so that we can't observe the system of purity as we understand it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a woman who finds a bloodstain on her body or her clothing. Does she have to be concerned that it is menstrual blood and therefore she (and the cloak) is impure?", + "If a woman observed a bloodstain on her body: If it was opposite her genital area she is unclean; But if it was not near the genital are she remains clean. If she finds the stain on her body close to her genital region or opposite this area, it is likely to be menstrual and she is impure. If the stain is not near there, then she might still be impure, but it will depend on where it is found, as we shall see now.", + "If it was on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, she is unclean. This section explains what is also considered opposite her genital area. Her heels and the tips of her large toe are both opposite the genitals because she might sit cross-legged with her heels under her body.", + "On her thigh or on her feet: If on the inner side, she is unclean; If on their outer side, she remains clean. And if on the front and back sides she remains clean. If on the inner sides of her feet or thighs, it is possible that the blood is menstrual. Therefore, she is impure. However, if it is on the outer sides or on the front or back, it can be assumed to be from elsewhere and she is clean.", + "If she observed it on her garment: Below the belt, she is unclean, But if above the belt, she remains clean. The rest of the mishnah is concerned with blood found on her garment. If it is below the belt, then it is possibly menstrual blood and she is unclean. But if above the belt, she is clean.", + "If she observed it on the sleeve of her shirt: If it can reach as low as her genital area, she is unclean, But if it cannot, she remains clean. If the blood was on the sleeve, we are concerned that it is menstrual only if the sleeve can reach down past her waist.", + "If she takes it off and covers herself with it in the night, she is unclean wherever the stain is found, since it can turn about. If she uses the cloak as a covering at night, then no matter where the blood is found, she must be considered impure because at night the cloak won't stay in one place. Even if she only put it around her head, it is possible she tossed and turned and that it ended up near her groin.", + "And the same law applies to a pallium. The same rules apply to a Roman type of garment called a \"pallium\" or a \"pallios\" in other versions. This was a type of jacket." + ], + [ + "[A woman] may attribute [a bloodstain] to any [external] cause to which she can possibly attribute it.
If [for instance] she had slaughtered a beast, a wild animal or a bird,
Or if she was handling bloodstains or if she sat beside those who handled them.
Or if she killed a louse, she may attribute the bloodstain to it. How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one up to the size of a split bean; And even if she did not kill it.
She may also attribute it to her son or to her husband.
If she herself had a wound that could open again and bleed she may attribute it to it.
Section one: If a woman sees a bloodstain on her body or on her cloak in a place where she must suspect that it could be menstrual blood but there is some external circumstance to which she could attribute it, she may attribute it to this source and remain pure. It is interesting that along with all of the stringencies the rabbis initiated when it comes to menstrual blood, they also instituted many leniencies, including those we see in this mishnah.
Sections 2-3: The mishnah now gives some examples of possible things she may have been doing that would allow her to attribute her bloodstain to another source.
Section four: Here we can see just to what extent the rabbis ruled leniently. Even if all a woman is doing is killing lice, which probably don't usually bleed that much, she may attribute a stain up to the size of a split bean to a louse. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus disagrees with the first opinion and holds that even if she is not the one killing them, she may attribute the bloodstain to the blood of the louse.
Section five: She can also attribute the stain to her husband or son for instance if they slaughtered an animal or did something else connected to blood.
Section six: Finally, she can also attribute the blood to her own wound, even if it was already scabbed over. As long as it is possible for the wound to open and bleed she can attribute her bloodstain to a wound. Note that this is so even if it doesn't look like the blood came from that wound." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this remarkable mishnah, Rabbi Akiva demonstrates just how lenient he can be in matters of doubtful impurity.", + "It happened that a woman came in front of Rabbi Akiva and said. She said to him: I have seen a bloodstain. He said to her: Perhaps you had a wound? She said to him: Yes, but it has healed. He said to her: Perhaps it could have opened again and let out some blood.\" She said to him: Yes. And Rabbi Akiva declared her clean. In this story a woman comes in front of Rabbi Akiva, presumably to ask him if the blood that she found somewhere on her body or clothing would make her into a menstruant. Rabbi Akiva searches for a reason to be lenient and finds one she had a wound and it might have opened (see yesterday's mishnah). He then rules that she is clean. This story is typical of Rabbi Akiva's lenient approach to halakhah he wishes to make halakhah lenient so that the woman can prevent being considered unclean.", + "He saw his disciples looked at each other in astonishment. He said to them: Why do you find this difficult, for the sages did not say this rule in order to be stringent but rather to be lenient, for it is said, \"And if a woman have issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood\" blood but not a bloodstain. Interestingly, his students are astonished by this approach. Instead of searching for a leniency, they feel that Rabbi Akiva should have ruled strictly. Indeed, it is not that likely that the blood came from a wound that had already healed. Rabbi Akiva responds to them that from the Torah, only an actual blood flow can make a woman impure. The fact that a blood stain counts as a sign of impurity is a ruling of the rabbis. In such a case, we can, and indeed should be, lenient. The blood stain is a sign of impurity only if it is certain that it is menstrual blood." + ], + [ + "A testing rag that was placed under a pillow and some blood was found: If it is round it is clean If it is elongated it is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok. The testing rag is what a woman uses after sexual intercourse to see if she was menstruating. The woman placed it under her pillow so she could look at it in the morning. According to Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok, if she finds on it a round blood stain, then she can assume that it came from a louse and she is pure. However, if she finds an elongated blood stain then it was likely to be from when she checked herself and she is impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A woman who was attending to her needs and observed an issue of blood: Rabbi Meir says: if she was standing she is unclean but if she was sitting she remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: in either case she is clean. A woman is urinating and sees blood while urinating. Rabbi Meir says that if she is standing it is possible that the blood is a result of forceful urinating. According to Rabbi Meir, when a woman urinates while standing she must make an extra effort, and that effort might cause her to bleed. Rabbi Yose says that in both cases we can assume that the blood comes from some sort of wound and that it is not menstrual." + ], + [ + "A man and a woman did their needs in the same bowl and blood was found on the water:
Rabbi Yose says it is clean,
Rabbi Shimon says that it was unclean, since it is not usual for a man to discharge blood, but nevertheless the presumption is that blood is from the woman.
A man and woman both urinated into the same chamber pot, and it is unclear whether the blood was from the woman or the man. Rabbi Yose, remaining consistent with his opinion from yesterday's mishnah, says that the woman is clean. After all, even if we know the blood is from her, Rabbi Yose considers her clean.
Rabbi Shimon says that it is extremely unusual for a man to discharge blood while urinating. While it may be unusual for a woman to do so, we nevertheless must presume that it is her blood and therefore it is unclean." + ], + [ + "If she lent her shirt to a non-Jewish woman or to a menstruant she may attribute a stain to either. A woman didn't check her shirt for stains before she lent it out to another woman. She then got it back with a blood stain on it (yeah, bad manners, but that is not the issue in this mishnah). Alternatively, she did check it before she lent it out, but when she got it back she wore it for a while without checking it. In both cases, she doesn't know if the stain is from her or from the other woman. The mishnah rules that if the woman was non-Jewish or a menstruant who are both considered impure, then she can assume that the stain is from them. It seems that the mishnah is saying that they won't be so particular about a blood stain found on a shirt. However, if the shirt was loaned out to a pure Jewish woman, the lender can't assume that the stain was from the borrower because the borrower would be assumed to be clean and would be cautious about such matters.", + "If three women had worn the same shirt or had sat on the same wooden bench and subsequently blood was found on it, all are regarded as unclean. In this case, there is no reason to attribute the blood stain to any one woman more than to another and therefore they all must be considered unclean.", + "If they had sat on a stone bench or on the projection within the colonnade of a bath House: Rabbi Nehemiah says that they are clean, for Rabbi Nehemiah says: anything that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains. Stone objects are not susceptible to impurity. The projection from the colonnade is probably not made of stone but since it is attached to the ground, it too cannot become impure because any object attached to the ground cannot become impure. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, the rabbis decided that stains are a sign of impurity only if they appear on other things that are susceptible to impurity. If they appear on objects that are not susceptible, then the woman remains pure. Note that this again seems to be an intentional leniency designed to allow a greater percentage of women to remain pure." + ], + [ + "Three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was found under one of them, they are all unclean. This is similar to yesterday's mishnah. Since we do not know whom the discharge is from, we must consider all of them to be impure.", + "If one of them examined herself and was found to be unclean, she alone is unclean while the two others are clean, [for] they may attribute the blood to one another. If one of the three examined herself and found that she was menstruating, the other women can consider themselves to be pure. Similarly, if one of the women was the type of womn not considered likely to menstruate, a young woman, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman or an old woman (see 1:3) then she can attribute the blood to the other women. They will be impure and she will be pure.", + "And if they were [all] not likely to observe blood, they must be regarded as though they were likely to observe one. If all three women were of the category of women who are unlikely to menstruate, then obviously we must attribute the blood to one of them. Since there is no reason to attribute it to one any more than the other, all three must be considered impure, as is the case in section one." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMost of this rather long mishnah is a more complicated version of yesterday's mishnah, concerning three women who were sleeping in one bed and a stain was found under one of them.", + "If three women slept in one bed, and blood was found under the middle one, they are all unclean. If it was found under the inner one, the two inner ones are unclean while the outer one is clean. If it was found under the outer one, the two outer ones are unclean while the inner one is clean. The bed is up against the wall and there are three women sleeping in the bed. The simple principle is that the woman under whom the stain was found and the women sleeping right next to her are impure. The idea seems to be that the women might shift a bit at night, but not so much that they could get all the way to the position of a woman two over. We should note that this mishnah seems to disagree with mishnah four, for mishnah four stated that if the blood was found under any one of them, they are all impure.", + "Rabbi Judah said: when is this so? When they passed by way of the foot of the bed, but if they passed across it, they are all unclean. Rabbi Judah points out that this is true only if the women got into the bed from the feet of the bed. However, if they crossed over each other from the outside part of the bed, then all are impure because the blood flow could have occurred while they were entering the bed. Rabbi Judah could attribute yesterday's mishnah to a case where they were crossing over each other to get into bed.", + "If one of them examined herself and was found clean, she remains clean while the two others are unclean. If two examined themselves and were found to be clean they remain clean while the third is unclean. If the three examined themselves and were found to be clean, they are all unclean. This is similar to yesterday's mishnah.", + "To what may this be compared? To an unclean heap that was mixed up with two clean heaps: If they examined one of them and found it to be clean, it is clean while the two others are unclean; If they examined two of the heaps and found them to be clean, they are clean while the third one is unclean; And if they examined the three and they were all found to be clean, they are all unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir, The mishnah analogizes the previous scenario with a case in which there are three heaps of stones and we know that under one of them is a piece of corpse but we don't know under which. According to Rabbi Meir if they examine all three heaps and don't find the piece of corpse under any of them, they are all impure. Even though the source was never found, since we know it is there, they are all impure.", + "For Rabbi Meir used to say: any object that is presumed to be unclean remains unclean until it is known to you where the uncleanness is. But the sages say: one continues the examination of the heap until one reaches bedrock or virgin soil. This accords with Rabbi Meir's general principle of impurity. Once something is under the presumption of impurity, it stays impure until we are sure where the source of uncleanness is. However, the rabbis say that in situations such as the heaps where the source of impurity has not been found, we can assume it is gone and all of the heaps are pure. However, in the case of the women, one of them is certainly the source of the blood and they are all still here in front of us. Therefore, they are all impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next two mishnayot deal with substances that could be used to remove stains, but not bloodstains, from garments.", + "Seven substances should be applied to a stain: tasteless spittle, the liquid of crushed beans, urine, lye, soapwort, cimolian earth, and potash. These seven substances are considered to be some form of ancient detergent. They are strong enough to remove a bloodstain, but not strong enough to remove dye.", + "If one immersed it and then handled clean things on it, and then applied to it the seven substances and the stain did not fade away it must be a dye, and the clean things remain clean and there is no need to immerse it again. A woman had a garment with a stain on it and then immersed it to make it clean. Then she handled clean objects and only after that she decided she better test the object to see if the stain was blood or dye. If she applied all seven substances to the stain and it remained, then it is clearly dye. The impure things that she touched remain pure and she need not immerse the garment again.", + "If the stain faded away or grew fainter, it must be a bloodstain and the clean things are unclean and it is necessary to perform immersion again. However, if the stain faded or disappeared due to the application of the seven substances, then it is to be considered blood. The pure things she handled are considered impure and she must immerse the garment again." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah relates to the seven substances used as detergents to remove stains from clothing.", + "What is meant by tasteless spittle? From one who had eaten nothing [that day]. The \"tasteless spittle\" refers to the saliva excreted by a person who had not yet eaten that day.", + "The liquid of crushed beans? The chewing of split beans, ready to be swallowed. The \"liquid of crushed beans\" refers to beans that have been very well chewed in a person's mouth, so chewed up that the person is ready to swallow them.", + "Urine? That has fermented. According to the Tosefta, it takes three days for urine to ferment. Ymm!", + "One must scour the stain three times with each of the substances. If he applied them out of the prescribed order, or if he applied the seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing. Each of the substances must be applied to the garment three times in the order of the appearance of the substance on the list. If they are not applied three times in the correct order then the stain must be considered blood, even if it didn't disappear." + ], + [ + "For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow.
And these are the signs of a regular period: [if the woman] yawns, sneezes, feels pain at the top of her stomach or the bottom of her bowels, discharges mucus, or is seized by a kind of shivering, or any other similar symptoms.
Any woman who established for herself [one of the symptoms] three times behold this is a regular period.
The next three mishnayot return to the subject of a woman who has a regular menstrual period. To recall from the first chapter, if a woman is able to establish a regular period, then she does not retroactively defile the things she touches.
Section one: This section is found in 1:1. As I explained there, if a woman has a regular cycle, she defiles things only from the time in which she discovered that she was menstruating.
Sections two and three: In addition to a period that comes at a fixed time period, there are other signs that if followed by menstruation would allow a woman to establish a regular period. In other words, if a woman experiences one of these symptoms and then begins to menstruate closely thereafter, and this occurs three times (see section three) then she can use this sign to establish her cycle. The third time she yawns, for instance, and then has her period close thereafter, she will be able to reckon her uncleanness from the time she discovered the flow. She will not retroactively defile things that she touched during the last twenty-four hour period or the since the last time that she examined herself." + ], + [ + "If a woman usually observed her menstrual discharge at the onset of the symptoms of her regular periods, all clean things that she handled while the symptoms were in progress are unclean. But if she regularly observed them at the end of the symptoms, all clean things that she handled while the symptoms lasted remain clean. The symptoms mentioned in yesterday's mishnah can last for a while. Our mishnah questions the purity status of the pure things she handled while the symptoms were occurring but before she saw blood flow. If usually she sees blood flow at the onset of these symptoms, then we must assume that the same thing occurred in this case. The things she touched while she experienced these symptoms are impure. But if she usually sees blood only at the end of her experience of these symptoms, then the things she touched while experiencing the symptoms remain pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even days and hours may determine regular periods: if she regularly observed blood flow at sunrise she is forbidden intercourse at sunrise only. If a woman has established a pattern of only seeing blood at certain times or on certain days, then those too can be used to keep anything she touched earlier pure and to allow sexual relations before this time period. For instance, if she usually begins to menstruate at sunrise and not before, then it becomes forbidden to have relations only at sunrise on the day that she expects to see blood flow. In other words, if they're up for a little early morning love, then they have the rabbis' permission!", + "Rabbi Judah says: all that day is hers. Rabbi Judah disagrees with Rabbi Yose and holds that there is no such thing as a regular time period with regard to hours. If she expects to begin to menstruate on a particular day, she is forbidden to have relations that entire day." + ], + [ + "If a woman regularly observed [menstrual blood] on the fifteenth of the month, and then she changed and observed it on the twentieth both become prohibited. If she changed twice and observed it on the twentieth both [are still] prohibited. If a woman regularly menstruates on the fifteenth, and then for one or two months doesn't menstruate on the fifteenth but rather on the twentieth, she is prohibited to have sexual relations on both the fifteenth and the twentieth. The fifteenth remains prohibited because that is the day of her regular cycle, and the twentieth is prohibited because we are concerned that that date has now become her regular cycle.", + "If she changed it three times to observe it on the twentieth then the fifteenth becomes permitted and the twentieth is set [as her regular day], for a woman does not establish a regular cycle until she sets it three times, and she doesn't lose her regular cycle until she is free from it three times. If she changes it three times, then she now has established a new menstrual cycle. She will now be prohibited from having relations only on the twentieth, but she will be permitted to have relations on the fifteenth. As the mishnah explains, it takes three times to establish a cycle and three times to undo the old cycle." + ], + [ + "Women in regard to their virginity are like vines:
One vine may have red wine, while another has black wine.
One vine may yield much wine while another yields little.
Rabbi Judah stated: every vine yields wine, and one that yields no wine is but a dorketi.
This mishnah and the next mishnah (10:1) really refer back to 1:7 which teaches that blood of virginity is pure. Today's mishnah compares women to wine, that just as wine has different colors, so too does blood of virginity.
Section one: The mishnah notes that the color of virginal blood and menstrual blood can be either red or black. Either can be pure, if we think it is virginal blood, and either could be impure, if we think it is menstrual blood.
Section two: Similarly, some women bleed a lot, just like some vines yield a lot of wine. And some bleed little, just like some vines yield little wine.
Section three: Rabbi Judah adds that vines that don't yield wine are \"dorketi\" which is a Greek word for barren. A woman who does not menstruate will not be able to have children." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction Today's mishnah continues to deal with the topic of distinguishing between virginal blood and menstrual blood the former is pure and the latter is impure. The specific issue in this mishnah is whether or not one can be sure that the blood that is seen on the wedding night is virginal blood or menstrual blood.", + "If a young girl, whose age of menstruation has not arrived, married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed four nights; And Bet Hillel says: until the wound is healed. This section describes a girl who gets married before she is old enough to menstruate, meaning before puberty. While such marriages may have been discouraged and may have been rare, they could and probably did occur. According to Bet Shammai, for the first four nights after the wedding, one can assume that any blood is still virginal. The assumption is that virginal blood could last for four days, and therefore all of this blood is pure. If she continues to bleed after four days, we must assume that she has begun to menstruate. According to Bet Hillel until the wound that was caused by her first sexual intercourse heals, all blood is pure. In other words, Bet Hillel thinks that virginity blood can last even longer than four days.", + "If the age of her menstruation has arrived and she married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed the first night; And Bet Hillel says: four nights, until after Shabbat. This girl has hit puberty but has not yet begun to menstruate. It is more likely, but not at all certain, that any blood she sees could be menstrual blood. Therefore, Bet Shammai says that only for one night do we say that the blood is virginal. If there is blood the second night, we must assume that it is menstrual. Bet Hillel says that we give her four nights. Since a virgin is married on Wednesday (see Ketubot 1:1) that means that through Saturday night the blood is considered virginal. After that, if she bleeds she will not be able to have relations.", + "If she had observed blood while she was still in her father's house: Bet Shammai ruled: she is only allowed the obligatory marital intercourse, And Bet Hillel says: all that night. If the girl has already begun to menstruate, then the possibility that the blood that is issued on her wedding night is menstrual is even greater. This is the rule that would govern any woman, assuming she marries after she begins to menstruate. Bet Shammai says that she is allowed to have intercourse one time, and that's it. The first blood is considered virginal but any blood after that is suspected of being menstrual. Bet Hillel says that the husband and wife can have intercourse as many times as they want that night. Any blood seen on the following night would be suspected of being menstrual blood." + ], + [ + "If a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself to be clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [from impurity], and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is in a presumptive state of cleanness. This woman examines herself on the seventh day of her menstruation and sees that she has stopped bleeding. That night she can go to the mikveh and become pure. However, she doesn't check again that night to make sure that she is really not bleeding. Instead she just goes to the mikveh. Some days later she sees that she is menstruating again. The question is was she menstruating between the last examination and the day that she notices that she is menstruating? The ruling in this case is that we assume that she was pure during those intermediary days. Since she examined herself and found herself to be pure, there is no reason to assume that she wasn't. Any pure thing she might have touched in the meanwhile remains pure.", + "If she examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was unclean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [impurity], and after a time she examined herself and found that she was clean, she is in a presumptive state of uncleanness. In this case, she examines herself in the morning of the seventh and finds that she is still bleeding. She goes to the mikveh that night, simply assuming that she had stopped bleeding. Then a few days later she notices she is menstruating. Since she never saw that she wasn't bleeding, we have to assume that she was impure all along. Any pure thing she might have touched in the meanwhile is assumed to be impure.", + "[But] she conveys uncleanness for twenty-four hours retrospectively or during the time between the last and the previous examination. But if she had a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. This section refers to section one. Although she is presumed to have been pure in the intermediary days, she still has the same rule that governs any other woman who finds herself to be impure (see 1:1). She retroactively defiles anything she touched within the last twenty-four hours, or since the last time she examined herself. If, however, she had a regular period and she saw that she was menstruating on the same day that she normally does, then she doesn’t defile anything retroactively.", + "Rabbi Judah says: Any woman who did not ascertain her separation [from impurity] is regarded as being in a presumptive state of uncleanness. But the sages say: even if she examined herself on the second day of her menstruation and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation, and after a time she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is regarded as being in a presumptive state of cleanness. Rabbi Judah disagrees with section one. According to Rabbi Judah any woman who doesn't check herself right before she goes to the mikveh is considered to be impure. The other rabbis, however, are even more lenient. Even if she only examines herself as early as the second day and finds that she is not menstruating, and then goes to the mikveh after the seventh day, she is still considered pure. The assumption seems to be that if she saw the blood flow stop at some point during her period, it didn't start flowing again." + ], + [ + "If a zav or a zavah examined themselves on the first day and found themselves clean and on the seventh day and found themselves clean, but did not examine themselves during the other intervening, days: A zav or a zavah (people who have experienced unnatural genital discharge, i.e. not semen or menstrual blood) need to be free of discharge for seven days before they become pure. They are supposed to examine themselves every day. However, instead of checking themselves every day, they checked themselves only on the first and last day of their impurity.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: they are in a presumptive condition of cleanness. Rabbi Eliezer rules the most leniently. Since they checked at the beginning and at the end of their impurity, they are assumed to be clean during the intermediary days.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: they are entitled [to count as clean] only the first day and the seventh day. Rabbi Joshua says that only the first and last days count as days of purity. They need to count five more pure days. This seems to be some sort of penalty because if they had truly been impure during the intermediary days, the first day would not have counted towards the seven.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: they are entitled to reckon as clean the seventh day alone. Rabbi Akiva says exactly this they can only count the last day because they may have been impure for all of the intermediary days. In other words, the fact that they were pure for the first day counts for nothing." + ], + [ + "If a zav, a zavah, a niddah, a woman after childbirth or a metzora have died [their corpses] they convey uncleanness by being carried until the flesh has decayed. When alive these categories of people defile while being carried, even without contact. This continues when they are dead, as long as the flesh has not yet decayed. In other words, it is the flesh that defiles, not the spirit or life force, and therefore as long as the flesh is still there, the body still defiles in the same way.", + "If a non-Jew has died he does not convey uncleanness. While alive, the impurity of a non-Jew is likened to that of a zav (see 4:3). However, this is just a stringency from Torah law a non-Jew does not defile at all. Therefore, when he/she dies, the body no longer defiles in the same way it did before.", + "Bet Shammai says: all women die as niddot. But Bet Hillel says: a woman is not regarded as a niddah unless she died while she was in menstruation. According to Bet Shammai, all women are presumed to have died while menstruating. This is a stringency, not a declaration of fact. This would mean that all women defile by carrying when they are dead until the flesh decays. Bet Hillel rules more leniently only women who actually died while niddot defile through carrying." + ], + [ + "If a woman died and a quarter of a log of blood comes out of her, it conveys uncleanness as a bloodstain and it also conveys uncleanness in a tent. Rabbi Judah says: it does not convey uncleanness as a stain, since it was detached after she had died. If the blood came out of the woman while she had been alive, it would have counted as menstrual blood. It would defile by carrying and by contact, and it would not need to be a quarter of a log in order to defile. The blood of a dead body, on the other hand, doesn't defile by carrying but does defile if found in a tent (i.e. if it is overshadowed by something it defiles other things that are also overshadowed by the same thing). And it must be a quarter of a log in quantity to defile. The first opinion in the mishnah rules stringently this quarter of a log of blood defiles as if it was menstrual blood and it defiles as if it came from a dead body. Rabbi Judah disagrees this blood is not considered menstrual because it left the body after death. It will only defile in a tent or by contact, and there needs to be 1/4 of a log.", + "Rabbi Judah agrees that when a woman was sitting on the birthing stool and died and a quarter of a log of blood issued from her, it conveys uncleanness as a bloodstain. Rabbi Yose says: therefore it does not convey uncleanness in a tent. However, Rabbi Judah agrees that if a woman is about to die and at that very moment blood comes forth, this blood counts as menstrual, since it came out before she died. Rabbi Yose adds that since it is considered menstrual, it does not defile by overshadowing. Only blood from a dead body defiles in this manner" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah talks about the purity of a woman during the period where she is \"dwelling in clean blood.\" Such a woman gave birth and went to the mikveh either 7 days after the birth of a boy or 14 days after the birth of a girl. For a boy, she now has pure blood for the following 33 days and for a girl for 66 days. During this period her purity status is like that of a \"t'vul yom\" a person who has been to the mikveh but has not yet had the sun set. Such a person has a secondary form of impurity.", + "In earlier times they used to say: a woman who is dwelling in clean blood may pour out water for [washing] the pesah sacrifice. Originally, they used to say that such a woman can pour water out of a vessel to wash off a pesah sacrifice. A person who has secondary impurity does not defile the vessel in which the water is held. She shouldn't touch the water itself, for the rabbis considered it disgraceful that the pesach sacrifice should be in contact with water touched by a t'vul yom. However, they didn't worry lest she touch the waters, because even if she did, non-sacred water cannot be defiled by a t'vul yom.", + "They changed their minds and said: in respect of consecrated food she is like one who came in contact with a person that was subject to corpse uncleanness, this is according to the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: even as one who is subject to corpse uncleanness. That was the original opinion. Afterwards, assumedly by the time of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai (1st century C.E.) they changed her status to be like a person who had contact with another person who had corpse impurity. Such a person has first degree impurity, and if she were to touch the water, she would defile it and the water would defile the pesah sacrifice. Bet Shammai rules even more strictly she is treated as if she herself touched a corpse. She would be a \"father of impurity\" and she would even defile the vessel she touches." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with the purity status of a woman following the one week or two weeks after childbirth.", + "But they agree that she may eat second tithe. Just as a tvul yom (see yesterday's mishnah) can eat second tithe, so too the woman who gave birth.", + "And she may set aside her hallah, bring it near to the dough and call it by its name. She will defile challah, the portion of bread separated and given to the priest. Therefore, we need to find a way for her to bake bread without defiling the challah. What she does is first separate the piece of dough that will be challah without yet calling it challah. It will not be defiled by her because it is not yet challah. She then puts the future challah in a vessel near the other dough because it is a mitzvah to take challah from adjacent dough. Then she can call it challah and no longer touch it.", + "And if any of her spit or her pure blood fell on a loaf of terumah it remains clean. Fluid that comes out of a tvul yom is pure. Thus if the childbearing woman's spit or blood falls on a loaf of terumah, the terumah remains pure.", + "Bet Shammai says: she requires immersion at the end [of her days of purification], Bet Hillel says: she does not require immersion at the end. The two houses disagree whether a woman requires an additional immersion after the 33 or 66 days of \"pure blood\" that follow childbirth (she would have gone to the mikveh after 7 or 14 days). Bet Shammai seems to feel uncomfortable that a woman should go from a state of any level of impurity to a state of full purity without immersion in a mikveh. They also might hold that the main immersion of a childbearing woman comes at the end of the full period, and not the first part of it (7 days for a boy, 14 for a girl). Therefore, she requires another immersion. Bet Hillel seems to hold that since the Torah doesn't require her to go to a mikveh, she is not required." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs background to this mishnah, we should remember that the rabbis count two periods in a woman's cycle: a seven day period in which blood she sees counts as menstrual which is followed by an 11 day period in which blood she sees counts as zivah, unnatural bloody discharge.", + "If a woman observed a discharge on the eleventh day and immersed in the evening and then had marital intercourse: Bet Shammai say: they defile a couch and a seat and they are liable to a sacrifice But Bet Hillel says: they are exempt from the sacrifice. A woman observes a blood discharge on the eleventh day after her menstruation. This is still the period of \"zivah\" when she should observe a day of purity for each discharge. If she instead goes to the mikveh that night and then has intercourse, Bet Shammai says that both she and her husband defile as do men and women who had relations while she was a zavah. This means they defile things they sit or lay on, even if they don't directly have contact. Bet Hillel says that they are exempt from a sacrifice, although they do defile, at least derabanan (rabbinically). The reason is that the eleventh day cannot be counted as part of a three day period of zivah, the amount necessary for her to become a \"zavah gedolah.\" For if she had discharge on the 11th, 12th and 13th day, she would not become a zavah gedolah (who is impure for seven days and has to bring a sacrifice) because the latter two days are part of the days of niddah, in the next cycle. Bet Hillel says that she shouldn't bring a sacrifice, because it is forbidden to bring non-sacrificial animals into the Temple. However, they still defile, because this is something she should not have been doing.", + "If she immersed on the next day and then had marital intercourse and after that observed a discharge: Bet Shammai say: they convey uncleanness5 to couch and seat6 and are exempt from the sacrifice, But Bet Hillel says: such a person is a glutton. This woman didn't observe a full day of purity because she immersed during the day and not at night as she should have. Bet Shammai says that since she observed part of the day, she and her husband do not need to bring a sacrifice. However, they still defile, at least according to rabbinic law. Bet Hillel clearly condemns this behavior she is gluttonous, for she put her desire for sex over the laws of purity. However, they don't defile because she did go to the mivkveh before having relations.", + "They agree that if a woman observed a discharge during the eleven days and immersed in the evening and then had intercourse that both (she and defile couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice. Bet Hillel agrees that if she sees a blood discharge during the eleven days and then goes straight to the mikveh instead of observing one day, that the mikveh does not cleanse her. She and her husband defile and must bring a sin-offering to atone for their transgression.", + "If she immersed on the next day and then had intercourse, such an act is improper conduct, but the uncleanness of their contact and their liability to a sacrifice on account of their intercourse are in suspense. This woman saw a discharge during the eleven days and then went to the mivkeh the next day. If she doesn't see blood again, then it will turn out that although what she did was wrong, she and her husband don't defile and are not liable for a sacrifice. However, if she sees blood again the next night, they will defile and be liable for a sacrifice, for she would be considered a zavah. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Niddah! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Niddah was not an easy journey, I'll admit. A lot of discussion about private matters in a very graphic way. If there's one larger point I would like to make it is that in biblical and temple times the impurity of a niddah was just one of many forms of impurity, one part of a much larger system. Today, this is virtually the only part of the system that remains (because of the sex prohibition), and it might seem at time that women are being targeted for being women. I don't believe that this is the case and when one learns all of Seder Toharot, and if you've been following along, you're not very far from being one of those people, one can see that impurity occurs in many different ways. That's my two cents. In any case, as always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Makhshirin." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה נדה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה נדה", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..245aef4019cb21b935093facff578bf49e487a82 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,819 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה אהלות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "The word \"Ohalot\" means \"tents\" and it refers to the halakhah found in Numbers 19 (quoted below) according to which a person or vessel found in a tent with a dead body is impure even without direct contact with the body. In other words, the tent causes the defilement of the corpse to spread throughout the tent and defile everything in the tent. The rabbis define \"tent\" in a very broad manner. Basically, any covering that hangs over a corpse (or piece thereof) can convey the impurity to anything else which it overhangs. Basically, the only requirement is that this \"overhanging\" or \"tent\" be at least one handbreadth long, one handbreadth wide and one handbreadth in height. And just as a \"tent\" (I will try to use the term \"ohel\" as well) conveys the impurity to that which is found beneath it, it also prevents the impurity from spreading to that which is above the tent. In other words it conveys and confines at the same time. If a corpse is above the ohel, that which is below the ohel is not defiled. ", + "Tractate Ohalot also deals with other issues concerning the impurity of a corpse. The Torah specifically states that anyone that has contact with a corpse is impure for seven days. The rabbis add that carrying a corpse also defiles, even without contact. The Torah also states that a person who had contact with a dead body defiles others and vessels, but only for a period of one day. Thus the dead body itself is the \"father of the fathers of impurity\" and the person (or vessel) who had contact with a dead body is a \"father of impurity.\" ", + "Tractates Ohalot and Negaim, the next tractate, were already famous in the Talmudic period for their difficulty. In a passage which I happened to have just taught a few days ago (Bavli Pesahim 50a) R. Yohanan says that these two tractates are difficult in this world, but will be easier in the world to come. In Bavli Hagigah 14a, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya scolds Rabbi Akiva for dealing in matters of aggadah and tells him to go study Ohalot and Negaim. He chooses these two tractates due to their depth and difficulty. We are a bit luckier than Rabbi Akiva for we have many commentaries on which to base our study, including a relatively recent modern commentary by Professor Abraham Goldberg (whose son-in-law is a colleague of mine at the Conservative Yeshiva). These laws will be difficult, but perhaps by making them a bit easier than they were at first, we too can have a small taste of the world to come. Below are the verses most relevant to our tractate. Good luck!" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah serves as an introduction to the next several mishnayot. As is frequently the case in the beginning of a tractate, the mishnah is based on numbers (see for instance the beginning of Shabbat and Shevuot). It discusses the different levels of impurity that have their source in a corpse.", + "Two are defiled through a corpse, one being defiled with seven days' defilement and one being defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening. This will be explained below in section four.", + "Three are defiled through a corpse, two being defiled with seven days’ defilement and one with a defilement lasting until the evening. This will be explained in mishnah two.", + "Four are defiled through a corpse, three being defiled with seven days’ defilement and one with a defilement lasting until the evening. This will be explained in mishnah three.", + "What [is the case of] two? A person who touches a corpse is defiled with seven days’ defilement and a person who touches him is defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening. Numbers 19:11 explicitly states that one who has contact with a corpse is defiled for seven days. Verse 22 states, \"and the person who touches him shall be unclean until evening.\" \"Him\" refers to the person who came into contact with the corpse." + ], + [ + "What [is the case of] three? Vessels touching a corpse and [other] vessels [touching these] vessels are defiled with seven days’ defilement. A vessel that comes into contact with a dead body is unclean for seven days. These vessels are \"fathers of impurity.\" The same is true for vessels that come into contact with these vessels. These too are \"fathers of impurity\" and are unclean for seven days.", + "The third: whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening. But the \"third\" link in the chain, a person or vessel who comes into contact with a vessel that had contact with another vessel that was in contact with a corpse, has a lower degree of impurity. He or it is impure only until the evening with \"first degree impurity.\"" + ], + [ + "What is the case of four? Vessels touching a corpse, a person [touching these] vessels, and [other] vessels [touching this] person, are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fourth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. When vessels come into contact with a corpse, they are defiled for seven days (as in yesterday's mishnah). If a person touches these vessels, he is impure for seven days, for they also are a \"father of impurity.\" And the person too is a \"father of impurity\" and if other vessels touch him, they are impure for seven days.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: I have a fifth, [if] a peg was fixed in a tent, the tent, the peg, a person touching the peg and vessels [touching] the person are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fifth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. They said to him: the tent does not count. However, when it comes to the fourth in the chain, the level of impurity is reduced. So if a person or a vessel has contact with the aforementioned vessel, he or it is impure only until the evening.", + "Rabbi Akiva is getting ambitious! He wants to find a series with five elements. A peg is fixed into the ground next to a tent but it is not part of the tent and there is a corpse in the tent. According to Rabbi Akiva, the peg and the tent count as two separate items. The tent overshadows the peg causing it to be impure and Rabbi Akiva counts it like a vessel that overshadows a dead body or touches it. The person who touches the peg is impure and becomes a father of impurity. Any vessels that touch the person are all impure with seven day's impurity. That's four. The person or vessel that touches the aforementioned vessels is impure but only until the evening. The other sages respond that the tent itself does not count. Both the tent and the peg are impure for they are considered to have shadowed over the corpse, and the peg is not impure because of the tent. Therefore, we don't begin the count from the tent, but rather from the peg, in which case there are only four, not five, in this chain." + ], + [ + "[Both] persons and vessels can be defiled through a corpse. While both people and vessels are defiled through a corpse, there are stringencies that apply to one that don't apply to others.", + "A greater stringency applies to persons than to vessels and to vessels than to persons. For with vessels [there can be] three [series of defilements], whereas with persons [there can be only] two. There can be a series of three defilements involving only vessels, as we saw in mishnah two. Vessel one touches the corpse, vessel two touches vessel one, and vessel three touches vessel two (but it is impure only until the evening). However, when it comes to people, the second person has only \"first degree impurity\" and the person who touches him is pure, as we learned in mishnah one.", + "A greater stringency applies to persons, for whenever they are in the middle of a [series] there can be four [in the series], whereas when they are not in the middle of a [series] there can be [only] three. This refers to the situation in mishnah three. A vessel touches a corpse, a person touches the vessel and the vessel touches that person and all three are impure for seven days. The fourth, whether person or vessel, is also impure. But if the second element is a vessel, then the third element is impure only until the evening and the fourth element is pure, as is the case in mishnah two." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is similar to yesterday's mishnah in that it compares the stringency relating to an impure person with the stringency relating to vessels, in this case clothing. The topic of our mishnah is not the impurity caused by a dead body, but rather the impurity caused by a zav, a person who has had an abnormal genital emission.", + "Persons and garments can be defiled by a zav. Both human beings and clothing are defiled by contact with a zav, although as we shall see, there are cases in which the law is stricter with regard to the human and other cases in which the law is stricter with regard to the clothing.", + "A greater stringency applies to persons than to garments and a greater stringency applies to garments than to persons. This is the customary introduction to the next section.", + "For a person who touches a zav can defile garments, whereas garments that touch a zav cannot defile [other] garments. A person who has been in contact with a zav defiles clothing. This is explicit in Leviticus 15:7. However, clothing that come into contact with a zav has first degree impurity. This impure clothing will not subsequently convey impurity to other clothing, for clothing is susceptible to impurity only through contact with a father of impurity.", + "A greater stringency applies to garments, for garments which form the support of a zav can defile persons, whereas a person who forms the support of a zav cannot defile [other] persons. Something upon which a zav lays or reclines or sits is impure, even if the zav doesn't touch it (see Leviticus 15:5). This includes clothing. This clothing will subsequently defile other people. However, if a zav lays or reclines on a person (without touching that person) that person does not defile other people. We will learn more about this topic in general when we learn Tractate Zavim (yes, there is a whole tractate devoted to this subject!)." + ], + [ + "A person does not defile [as a corpse] until he dies. A living person, even an almost dead person, does not defile until he is actually dead.", + "Even he is cut up or even if he is about to die, he [still] makes levirate marriage obligatory and exempts from levirate marriage, he feeds [his mother] terumah and disqualifies [his mother] from eating terumah. If he is about to die, he is still considered alive. The mishnah lists some consequences (besides his still being pure) for the fact that he still counts as being alive. If his brother died without offspring, the wife is liable for levirate marriage (yibbum) as long as he is alive. If his father died, his father's wife is exempt from yibbum as long as he was alive when his father died. If he is a kohen and his mother is an Israelite who was widowed from his father (also a kohen), his mother eats terumah as long as he is alive (assuming no other offspring). In other words, since he is alive, her status can still follow that of her offspring. If he is an Israelite and his mother is a daughter of a kohen widowed from his father (an Israelite) his mother cannot eat terumah as long as he is alive.", + "Similarly in the case of cattle or wild animals, they do not defile until they die. The carcasses of cattle or wild animals that were not slaughtered defile (nevelah). The same is true of animals categorized as \"sheratzim.\" As is the case of human beings, they do not defile until they are dead.", + "If their heads have been cut off, even though they are moving convulsively, they are unclean, like a lizard's tail, which moves convulsively. Dead animals can at times move, even if their heads have been cut off. Despite this movement, they are still considered dead. After all, once the head is off, they're not coming back to life. This is similar to the case of a lizard's tail, which might keep moving, even after it has been cut off." + ], + [ + "Whole limbs [of the body] have no [restriction as to] size: even less than an olive-sized portion of a corpse or less than an olive-sized portion of nevelah (carrion), or less than a lentil-sized portion of a sheretz can defile, [each in the manner of] their respective defilements. Whole limbs that are separated from either a corpse, or the carrion of an animal, or from a sheretz, always defile even if they don't meet the minimums for size. These minimums are usually: an olive's worth for a human corpse, the same size for nevelah (animal carrion), or a lentil-sized piece from a sheretz. The minimum sizes are only relevant when there are pieces that are no full limbs. But if there is a limb that is smaller than that size, it defiles in all cases." + ], + [ + "There are two hundred and forty-eight limbs in a human body: Thirty in the foot, six for every toe, Ten in the ankle, Two in the shin, Five in the knee, One in the thigh, Three in the hip, Eleven ribs, Thirty in the hand, [that is] six to every finger, Two in the fore-arm, Two in the elbow, One in the upper arm and Four in the shoulder, [For a total of] one hundred and one on the one side [of the body] and one hundred and one on the other. Eighteen vertebrae in the spine, Nine in the head, Eight in the neck, Six in the key of the heart, And five around the genitals.
Each one [of these] can defile by contact, carriage or overshadowing.
When is this so? When they have upon them the appropriate amount of flesh, But if they do not have the appropriate amount flesh upon them, they can defile by contact and carriage but cannot defile by overshadowing.
Today's mishnah defines \"limbs.\" Obviously, the modern use of the word limb is not the same as the rabbinic use of the term. The word \"limb\" mostly seems to refer to bones, as we shall see.
Section one: The count of 248 likely refers to bones and perhaps a few sinews and ligaments as well, and not what we would call limbs. It does not include the teeth. When I googled how many bones are in the human body, most answers seemed to be 206. The rabbinic answer seems to include some parts that modern anatomists do not consider bones. In any case, the count is not that far off.
Section two: Each of these \"limbs\" can cause defilement in any of the three ways that a dead body causes defilement: by contact, by being carried (even without contact) and by overshadowing (ohel). However, for it to defile as a \"limb\" it must have enough flesh such that if it was attached to the body it could heal.
If it does not have this amount of flesh, it still defiles by contact and carriage, but it doesn't defile through overhanging. We shall see more concerning this is 2:3." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah lists what things cause impurity through overshadowing (an ohel). These things defile even if they are not touched or are not carried.\nBelow I have explained only terms that are not clear through translation.", + "c) Nezel refers to flesh from a corpse that has begun to decompose. It can also refer to liquid that was emitted from the dead body that has begun to congeal. Hope you're not reading this while eating! d) Corpse-mold is a later stage of decomposition. The amount required to defile is greater than that for regular flesh or nezel. e) The spine or the skull causes impurity even if there is no flesh on it. g + h) Bones can cause impurity even without the flesh on them as long as one of two requirements is met. 1) There is a quarter kav (about half of a liter) of bones collected from the structural or numerical majority of the body. The \"structural majority\" refers to the large leg bones, the ribs and the spine. In other words, it doesn't include most of the smaller bones. 2) The structural or numerical majority is actually present, even if there is not a quantity of a quarter of a kav of bones.", + "How many [bones] form the numerical majority? One hundred and twenty-five. The mishnah assumes you're not too good at math, so it lets you know that a majority of 248 is 125. Thanks!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to list substances that defile through overshadowing.", + "[The following likewise defile:]
A quarter [of a log] of blood, A quarter of a log is about 1/8 of a liter. Less than half a can of coke, for those of you who drink the stuff (coke, not blood).", + "A quarter [of a log] of mixed blood from one corpse. Rabbi Akiva says: [even] from two corpses. Mixed blood is a mixture of blood from a corpse with blood from a living person (that doesn't defile). If there is a quarter of a log of such blood, it too defiles. Rabbi Akiva says that even blood that comes from two different corpses defiles, if there is a minimum mixture.", + "[With regard to] the blood of a child that has completely flowed forth: Rabbi Akiva says: [it defiles] in even the smallest quantity, But the sages say: [there must be] a quarter [of a log]. A small child does not have nearly as much blood as an adult. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva says that even the smallest quantity of blood will cause impurity. However, the other rabbis do not make such a distinction. There must always be a quarter of a log for it to cause impurity through an ohel.", + "[With regard to] an olive-sized [portion] of [corpse] worms whether alive or dead: Rabbi Eliezer declares [it] unclean, like the flesh, But the sages declare [it] clean. You're going to love this one. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the worms that come and out of a corpse are treated as if they were part of the corpse itself and if there is the minimum amount, they convey impurity like the corpse. The other rabbis say that these worms are clean (but you might still want to wash your hands after handling them).", + "[With regard to] the ashes of burnt persons: Rabbi Eliezer says: the [minimum] quantity [for defilement is] a quarter [of a kav]. But the sages declare [them to be] clean. Rabbi Eliezer holds that even the ashes of human remains can defile, if there is the same minimum amount as there is of flesh. But the other rabbis disagree. They seem to hold that burning the body obliterates the source of impurity. Perhaps we could even extend this opinion and explain that according to the rabbis burning destroys any of the once-alive spirit that remains in the body (perhaps this is also at least one of the reasons that cremation is prohibited.) We should also note that Rabbi Eliezer seems to hold what we have deemed elsewhere a \"realistic\" position. The corpse is found in the worms, therefore they defile. The ashes contain the corpse, therefore they too defile. The rabbis hold more of a \"nominalistic\" position. The worms are not considered by definition to be a corpse, nor are ashes.", + "A ladleful and [a little] more of grave-dust is unclean. Rabbi Shimon declares [it to be] clean. In yesterday's mishnah we learned that a ladleful of corpse mold transmits impurity. According to Rabbi Shimon, a ladleful plus a little more of earth taken from under a corpse will contain a ladleful of corpse. Therefore, it transmits impurity.", + "A ladleful of corpse-mold mixed with water is not [regarded as] joined [into one mass] for [the purposes of] defilement. This section contains a special rule concerning a ladleful of corpse mold. The pieces of corpse in such mold are considered to be separate from each other, even if they have been mixed in with water. Therefore, if one touches such mold he is not impure, because he has touched a piece of corpse that is less than an olive's worth. However, the ladleful still transmits impurity through overshadowing and carrying because there is a total amount of corpse sufficient to transmit impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with elements of a corpse that have a lower degree of impurity, and can only defile through contact and carriage but not through overshadowing.", + "a) A single bone does not defile by overshadowing, but as long as there is the size of a barleycorn, it does defile by contact and carriage. b) According to tradition, Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yohanan, two Second Temple sages decreed that foreign lands defile. Our mishnah teaches that even dust from a foreign land defiles, although not through overshadowing. c) A bet peras is a cemetery that has been plowed over. We will learn more about the bet peras in chapter seventeen. d) A spine or a skull that are complete defile through overshadowing. If they are deficient, they still defile through contact and carriage.", + "How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argue about how much of a spine or skull has to be deficient for it to no longer defile in an ohel. In both cases Bet Hillel is more lenient (meaning the amount they require for the defiency is less).", + "And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. According to Bet Shammai if there is a hole in a skull the size of a drill, the skull no longer defiles in an ohel. The type of drill of which they are speaking will be explained in section four. Bet Hillel holds that if the hole is large enough such that the person would die, then the skull is deficient.", + "Of what drill did they speak? Of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber. It is interesting to note that in this section, the sages and Rabbi Meir disagree concerning the proper interpretation of Bet Shammai's opinion. It is possible that in this case, both hold that the halakhah is according to Bet Shammai. Rabbi Meir says that the drill is the one used by a physician. [I don't think I would want to be on the receiving end of that drill]. The other rabbis say that the drill is the drill used in the Temple. The size of this drill is explained in Kelim 17:12." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnaic times burials were often done in caves. Our mishnah discusses the stones used to cover up the graves.", + "The covering stone and the buttressing stone [of a grave] defile by contact and overshadowing but not by carriage. Rabbi Eliezer says: they do defile by carriage. Rabbi Joshua says: if there is grave dust beneath them, they defile by carriage, but if not they do not defile by carriage. The covering stone is the stone rolled over the grave to seal it up. It transmits impurity by overshadowing and contact but not by carriage, probably because it is not something that is generally carried. Note that impurity by contact is stated explicitly in Numbers 19:16. However, Rabbi Eliezer says it does defile by carriage. Rabbi Joshua notes that if there is grave dust underneath them, then they do defile by carriage because the grave dust is assumed to contain dust that originates with the dead body. But if there is no grave dust, the stones themselves do not transmit impurity through carriage.", + "What is the buttressing stone? That upon which the covering stone is supported. But the stone that serves as buttress to the buttressing stone is clean. The buttressing stone is that upon which the covering stone rests. Some explain that there were two such stones, one on each side. These stones themselves are governed by the same rule that governs the actual covering stone. But the stones that support the supporting stones are clean. They are far enough removed from the grave that they don't count as the grave itself." + ], + [ + "These are clean if they are deficient:
An olive-sized [portion] of a corpse;
An olive-sized [portion] of nezel,
A ladleful of corpse-mold,
A quarter [of a log] of blood,
A bone of the size of a barley-corn,
And a limb [severed] from a living person, the bone of which [limb] is deficient.
Our mishnah refers to some of the defiling agents that have been mentioned in other mishnayot in this chapter and notes that if these things do not have the prescribed measure, they are not impure at all. This is different from the skull and vertebrae that are still impure, even if they are not intact (see mishnah three).
Most of the mishnah is self-explanatory, so I have only commented where necessary.
Section two: On the meaning of \"nezel\" see 2:1.
Section six: If a limb is separated from a living person, and part of the bone itself is missing, the bone is pure, no matter the size. However, if part of the flesh is missing, it is still impure (see mishnah three).
And if the limb came from a dead body, the bone is impure as long as there is an amount the size of a barley-corn, as we learn here and in mishnah three." + ], + [ + "A backbone or a skull [made up from the bones] of two corpses,
A quarter [of a log] of blood from two corpses,
A quarter [of a kav] of bones from two corpses,
A limb of a corpse from two corpses,
And a limb [severed] from a living person, [such a limb being made up] from two persons,
Rabbi Akiva declares [the all] unclean
But the sages declare them clean.
In mishnah two we learned that Rabbi Akiva holds that a quarter of a log of blood mixed from two corpses is impure, even though there is not the requisite amount of blood from one corpse.
In all of these cases we have the amount of corpse stuff required to transmit impurity, but it is composed (or should I say, decomposed) of material from two different corpses. To be honest, I don't know how one puts together a limb that comes from two different people, whether it has to be attached or not. It seems like the two limbs are placed together such that they look as if they are attached.
Rabbi Akiva says that in all of these case, the limb, blood or bones defiles in the same way that a limb, blood or bones from one corpse does by contact, carriage and overshadowing.
The other rabbis say that these things are clean. What this means is that they do not defile through overshadowing. However, they do defile through contact and carriage, for even a bone the size of a barley-corn defiles in these manners." + ], + [ + "A bone the size of a barley-corn that is divided into two: Rabbi Akiva declares it unclean But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares it clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: they did not say 'bones’ the size of a barley-corn, but ‘bone’ the size of a barley-corn. For a bone to convey impurity in an ohel it must be the size of a barley-corn. Rabbi Akiva says that even two bones can combine together to add up to this size. This is consistent with his opinion in yesterday's mishnah. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees. From the statement in mishnah three that \"a bone the size of a barley-corn\" conveys impurity he derives that there must be a single bone that size. The rabbis said \"a bone\" and not \"bones.\" Therefore, one bone must be the size of a barley-corn.", + "A quarter [of a kav] of bones crushed fine, and there is not a single [bone] the size of a barley-corn: Rabbi Shimon declares it clean But the sages unclean. In this case bones have been crushed up and there is no single bone the size of a barley-corn. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. Even though there is a quarter of a kav, \\the minimum measure in which multiple bones convey impurity, since they are crushed up they no longer defile. The other sages disagree and hold that they do convey impurity since there is a quarter kav.", + "A limb [severed] from a living person which has been divided into two is clean. Rabbi Yose declares [it] unclean; But he agrees that if it is taken from a living person by halves it is clean. A whole limb severed from a living person is unclean. Rabbi Yose says that if it is divided in two, it still defiles. The other sages disagree and are consistent with their opinion concerning the bone in section one. Rabbi Yose agrees that if the limb is removed from the person in halves, then it is clean because it was never a \"full limb from a living person.\"" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "All objects that defile by overshadowing which were divided and then brought into a house: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares clean. But the sages declare [it] unclean. According to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, if two of the defiling agents listed in 2:1 are found in an ohel but there is only half of a measure of each, they do not join together to create the necessary amount to defile. The other sages disagree and say that they do join together to defile.", + "What is the case? One who touches two pieces of nevelah, each the size of half an olive, or carries them, Or, in the case of a corpse, if he touches a piece the size of half an olive and overshadows [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him, Or if he overshadows two [pieces, each] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean, And the sages declare him unclean. This section now explains in what exact case Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the sages disagree. We should note that according to the opinion voiced here the debate exists not only in connection with defiling in a tent, but carrying and touching as well. A) He touches or carries two pieces of nevelah (the meat of an animal that was not slaughtered in a kosher fashion). Nevelah does not defile through overshadowing. B) One hand has contact with half of a measure of a piece of corpse and the other hand overshadows half of a measure. C) One hand has contact, and the other piece of corpse is stuck, for instance, in a wall, and it overshadows him. D) He overshadows two pieces of half of an olive's size of corpse. E) He overshadows one piece, and another piece overshadows him. In all of these cases, the sages and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas disagree.", + "But if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, he is clean. According to the first opinion, the sages agree in the following two cases that the person is pure. In the first case, he touches a half of an olive's size piece of corpse and at the same time something overshadows him and another half of a piece of corpse. In the second case, he overshadows half of a piece of corpse, and something overshadows him and another half of a piece of corpse. The rabbis say that he is pure in these cases. The rabbis hold that when one overshadows a piece of corpse or a piece of corpse overshadows him it is as if he had touched the piece, because the impurity travels up or down within an ohel. This means that in these two cases touching and overshadowing are in the same category or cause of impurity. However, if something overshadows him and a piece of corpse, it is not the same as contact with the corpse, and therefore there are two different causes of impurity overshadowing and contact. As we learn below, two different causes do not join together to add up to a full measure of impurity.", + "Rabbi Meir says: Even here Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean and the sages declare him unclean. Every [case] is unclean except [a case of] contact [combined] with carriage or of carriage [combined] with overshadowing. Rabbi Meir says that in these cases too, the rabbis hold that the two types of impurity can be joined. Ohel impurity can always be joined with contact impurity because they are essentially the same cause. The only types of impurity that cannot be joined are contact with carriage and carriage with ohel. Put simply, there are two general types of impurity: 1) contact/ohel; 2) carriage.", + "This is the general principle: every object [whose defilement] proceeds from one cause is unclean, from two causes is clean. The general rule that governs the sages' opinion is that two different causes of impurity cannot be joined, but two of the same category can be joined. The anonymous mishnah in section three and Rabbi Meir disagree as to how we define different \"causes of impurity\" but they agree with this general principle." + ], + [ + "If a ladleful of corpse-mold was scattered about in a house, the house is unclean But Rabbi Shimon declares it clean. In 2:1we learned that a ladleful of corpse mold causes impurity in an ohel. The sages say that even though the mold was mixed in with the dust and dirt of the house, as long as the requisite quantity of corpse is found, the house is unclean. Rabbi Shimon, however, holds that since there is a mixture of corpse-mold and dust, the house is clean.", + "If a quarter [of a log] of blood was absorbed in [the ground] of a house, the house is clean. The sages agree that if blood is mixed in with the ground of the house, the house is clean. As we shall learn in section three, if blood is absorbed in something from which it cannot be expelled, the blood no longer transmits impurity.", + "If it was absorbed by a garment: if the garment is washed and a quarter [of a log] of blood emerges from it, it is unclean, if not, it is clean, since anything absorbed that cannot emerge is clean. The purity of the garment into which the blood has been absorbed depends on whether the blood can be removed from the garment. If it can be removed by laundering the garment, then the garment does not defile in an ohel. However, the garment itself is impure because it came into contact with a quarter of a log of blood. As far as how one can test if a quarter of a log of blood came out of the garment, one would take a measured amount of water and launder the garment in it. Then he would bring the same measure of water, less a quarter of a log, and put in that water a quarter of a log of blood. If the water looks the same, then a quarter of a log emerged. If the water that was used for laundering has less of a red color, then the garment with the blood does not defile in an ohel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with blood that is poured out and then lands on the ground and someone or something overshadows it.", + "[Blood] which was poured out in the air: If the place [where it fell] was an incline and [a person or vessel] overshadowed part of it, he [remains] clean. If it was a cavity, or if the blood congealed, he [becomes] unclean. In this case the blood is poured out outside of a house. If it lands on an inclined space, and a person or vessel overshadows part of this blood, he/it is not considered to have overshadowed the entire quarter of a log. While the blood flows down the incline, each part is not considered to be connected to the other part and so he has overshadowed only part of the blood. However, if the blood falls into a cavity (a depression in the ground) or if it congeals then because the blood has stopped flowing when one overshadows part of the blood he is considered as having overshadowed all of it and he/it is impure.", + "If it was poured out on a threshold: If it inclined either inwards or outwards and the house overshadowed it [that which is in the house] is clean. If there was a cavity, or if it congealed, [that which is in the house becomes] unclean. In this case the blood is poured out onto the threshold outside of the house, and the house (or part of it) overshadows part of the blood. If the blood is on an incline and is still flowing (either towards or away from the house), then again the blood is not considered to be connected to its other parts and the people or vessels in the house are pure. In other words, we don't consider the house to be overshadowing the entire quarter of a log of blood. However, if the blood falls into a cavity or it congeals such that it is no longer flowing, the blood is connected to itself and the house conveys the impurity.", + "When teeth, hair and nails are separate from a corpse they are not impure as is the flesh and blood. However, when they are joined to the corpse, they are as impure as is everything else. Tomorrow's mishnah will continue to deal with this topic." + ], + [ + "How so? If the corpse was outside and its hair inside, the house is unclean. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if the hair is connected to the corpse, it is impure like the corpse. The ramification of this is that if a corpse is found outside of a house, and the hair is in the house, the house (meaning its contents) is impure because the house overshadows the corpse.", + "[With regard to] a bone which had upon it an olive-sized portion of flesh, if one brought part of it within so that the house was overshadowing it, [the house] is unclean. This section deals with a bone that in and of itself does not convey impurity in an ohel (see 2:3) but has enough flesh on it to do so. If he brings part of the bone into the house, the house is impure, even if the flesh is outside of the house because the bone serves as a connective for the flesh. It is as if the flesh is in the house.", + "[With regard to] two bones which had upon them two pieces of flesh, [each] the size of half an olive, if one brought part of them within so that the house was overshadowing them, [the house] is unclean. Similarly, two bones, each with half of an olive's worth of flesh, serve to connect the flesh that is found on them to the part of the bone that is in the house. Again, the contents of the house are impure.", + "But if [the pieces of flesh] were set into [the bone] by a person, the house is clean since connections created by human agency are not [regarded as] connections. In the previous two sections we learned that the bone serves as a connective for the flesh found on it, such that as long as part of the bone is in the house, the house is considered to overshadow the flesh that is out of the house. However, this is true only of flesh that grew on the bone and was naturally found there. If a person puts some flesh onto a bone, the bone does not connect the flesh, for \"connections\" in the case of the corpse must be natural. If the \"human\" world gets involved in this process, the connections created do not have ramifications on the purity status." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah 2:2 stated that a quarter of a log of \"mixed blood\" defiles in an ohel. Our mishnah discusses what \"mixed blood\" is. To understand this mishnah we must remember that only the blood of a corpse defiles. Blood that comes out from a person during his lifetime does not defile.", + "What is ‘mixed blood? The blood of a corpse of which an eighth [of a log] came out during his lifetime and an eighth after death, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: a quarter [of a log] during his lifetime and a quarter after death. Both Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael agree that \"mixed blood\" is an amount of blood, part of which came from a living person and part of which came from a corpse. Rabbi Akiva rules strictly even if only half of the requisite quarter log came from a corpse, 1/8 of a log, and then was mixed with another 1/8 of a log of pure blood from a living body, the mixture defiles. Rabbi Ishmael says that \"mixed blood\" is a case where there originally was a quarter of a log of blood from a corpse and the same amount from a living body. Then from this amount, which clearly does defile, one takes a quarter of a log. Since there was originally the requisite amount of impure blood, the quarter of a log removed still defiles. However, if originally there was only 1/8 of a log of impure blood mixed with the same amount of pure blood it would not defile.", + "[If] a quarter [of a log] is taken from both of these: Rabbi Elazar bar Judah says: both of these are as water. What then is ‘mixed blood’? It is that of a crucified person whose blood is streaming forth and under whom is found a quarter [of a log] of blood it is unclean. However a corpse whose blood drips forth and under whom is found a quarter [of a log] of blood, [the blood] is clean. Rabbi Judah says: not so, but that which streams forth is clean and that which drips forth is unclean. Rabbi Elazar bar Judah is even more lenient. He responds to Rabbi Ishmael by saying that a quarter of a log of blood that is taken out of a mixture of a quarter log of impure blood and a quarter log of pure blood has the purity status of water. This is an emphatic way of saying it is pure. Still, Rabbi Elazar must define \"mixed blood.\" He defines it as blood that is streaming forth from a living person. This is the blood that has the \"life force\" in it, for its loss causes the person to die. However, if the blood drips from him it is clean. Even though its loss eventually causes him to die, the earlier drops don't join together with the later drops (which do cause him to die) to create the requisite quarter of a log. Rabbi Judah says that the blood that streams forth is pure because the life force does not come out with this blood (this is the Rambam's explanation). But when the last drop of blood comes out of him, his life will definitely have come out and therefore this blood defiles. [I should note that there are some difficulties in interpreting this mishnah and even in determining who says what, and the relationship of each section to each other.]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWhen we get to 7:3 we will learn that if there is a dead body in a house, all of the openings are impure, even though the dead body will only go out through one of them. [Note that the opening is considered separate from the house]. Our mishnah teaches that if a person decides to take the dead body, or a piece thereof, out through one of the openings, the other openings, as long as they are locked, are pure. However, the opening must be large enough so that the corpse or piece thereof could go out of it. If it is not, then all of the openings remain impure.", + "For an olive-sized portion of a corpse, an opening [in the room in which it is found] of one handbreadth [square], and for a [whole] corpse, an opening of four handbreadths [square, is enough] to prevent the uncleanness from [spreading to the other] openings; If one intends to take an olive size portion of a corpse out of the house through an opening that is one handbreadths square, that opening is unclean, even if it is locked. Anything found in the opening, under the lintel, is unclean. But all of the other locked openings remain pure. However, if the opening is not even the size of a handbreadth, then all of the openings, even though they are locked, are impure, because in the end, the piece of corpse may be taken out through one of them. When it comes to a full corpse, the opening must be four handbreadths square to protect the other openings. If it is less, then the other openings are impure because the body might go out through one of them.", + "But for allowing the uncleanness to go out, an opening of one handbreadth [square is enough]. If the opening is not locked, then the impurity escapes as long as the opening is a one handbreadth square. This is true even if a complete corpse is in the house.", + "[A portion] greater than the size of an olive is as a [whole] corpse. Section one dealt with an olive-sized portion of corpse and a full corpse. But what about something in between? The answer is that anything greater than an olive-sized piece is treated as a full corpse. This means that the opening must be four square handbreadths in order to protect the other openings from being unclean.", + "Rabbi Yose says: [only] the spine and the skull are as a [whole] corpse. Rabbi Yose says that the spine and the skull, even if only the size of an olive remains, are treated like a full corpse. This means that the opening must be four handbreadths to protect the other openings from being impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches a basic law concerning the ohel. If there is an object that is at least a handbreadth wide and long and a handbreadth high, it can act as an ohel. It conveys impurity that is found beneath it, and it prevents impurity from traveling above or below it. Our mishnah illustrates this with the case of a covered drain found beneath a house. In addition, the mishnah discusses the concept of impurity escaping through openings.", + "[An object] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high conveys uncleanness and blocks uncleanness. This was explained in the introduction.", + "How does it [block uncleanness]? In the case of a covered drain beneath a house, if it has a space a handbreadth wide and its outlet was a handbreadth wide, and there is uncleanness inside it, the house remains clean; And when there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the drain] remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. In this case the drain has the required dimensions 1 x 1 x 1 handbreadths and there is a one handbreadth opening at its end, which spills into the courtyard. The impurity that is in the drain will escape out into the courtyard, and therefore that which is in the house will remain pure. The mishnah's line \"for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in\" is not exactly appropriate here, for obviously the uncleanness will not simply enter the house. As we shall see, its proper place is below and in other mishnayot (4:1-3; 9:9-10). In addition, if there is impurity in the house it will not enter the drain because the drain is large enough to block the impurity.", + "If it had a space one handbreadth wide but its outlet was not one handbreadth wide, when there is uncleanness in it, the house becomes unclean; But when there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within it remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. In this case, the drain does not have an outlet large enough to allow the impurity out through it. Therefore, the impurity found in the drain will go up into the house and defile whatever is found there. However, impurity in the house will not enter the drain for there is a barrier (the drain itself) between the two.", + "If it did not have a space one handbreadth wide and its outlet was not one handbreadth wide, when there is uncleanness within it, the house becomes unclean; And when there is uncleanness in the house, it [also] becomes unclean. But if the drain is not even of the proper dimensions, then the impurity found in either space will go to the other. The drain is treated simply like the ground under the house and the impurity in the house spreads there as well.", + "It makes no difference if the cavity was carved out by water or by a sheretz or if it had been eaten out by salt. Any hole, no matter how it is made, if it has the features outlined above, is treated just like the drain. It will stop the impurity found in it from entering the structure above, and it will prevent the impurity found above from entering into it.", + "And similarly [if it is in] a row of stones or a pile of beams. Similarly, any structure, no matter how it is made, can serve as an ohel. If there are spaces that are one handbreadths wide, long and tall between the different parts, then the part on top is treated separately from the part below.", + "Rabbi Judah says: any \"tent\" not made by a person is not considered a tent’. But he agrees that crevices and crags [can be considered as ‘tents’]. Rabbi Judah says that only human-made structures can serve as an ohel. However, he agrees that crags and crevices, structures that might form a cave, are treated like an ohel because people often use them in such a manner. We should note that this opinion of Rabbi Judah matches his general tendency to remain close to the simple meaning of the biblical text. An ohel means a tent that is a humanly made structure. While Rabbi Judah is not a true literalist the law does not apply just to tents, he still holds that it only applies to things that are somewhat like tents. In contrast, the other sages seem to be thinking about how impurity is conveyed. If impurity is conveyed in an ohel, why shouldn't, they seem to say, it be conveyed by other types of structures." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A cupboard standing in the open air: If there is uncleanness within it, vessels in the [niches in the] thickness [of its walls] remain clean. If there is uncleanness in [the niches in] its thickness, vessels inside [the cupboard] remain clean. Rabbi Yose says: half and half.
When it is standing inside a house: If there is uncleanness inside [the cupboard], the house is unclean; If there is uncleanness in the house that which is within [the cupboard] remains clean, for the manner of uncleanness is to go out and not to go in.
Vessels which are between [the cupboard] and the ground, or between it and the wall, or between it and the roof-beams: If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth there, they become unclean. If not they remain clean.
If there is uncleanness there, the house becomes unclean.
Section one: The cupboard in our mishnah is large enough such that it doesn't receive impurity in itself. The cupboard is outside in the open air and not in the house.
If there is a source of impurity in the cupboard, and there are vessels in niches in the thickness of its walls, these vessels remain pure. These niches are not considered to be in the space of the cupboard. Similarly, if there is a source of impurity within the niches, the vessels inside the cupboard are pure.
Rabbi Yose disagrees. He divides these niches in half and says that the inner half is considered to be like the cupboard and the outer half is considered to be like the space outside the cupboard.
Section two: If the cupboard is within a house, then the impurity can escape the cupboard and go into the house (even if the cupboard is locked), but impurity from the house does not enter the cupboard (as long as the cupboard is closed). This is because of the rule that impurity escapes but does not enter.
Section three: This section describes a situation in which vessels are found in between the cupboard and the walls, floor or roof of the house, and there is a source of impurity in the house or in the cupboard. If there is a space that is at least 1 x 1 x 1 handbreadths, then the impurity goes in there through the fact that the house acts as an ohel. But if the space is smaller, the impurity does not enter, for impurity does not enter such small spaces.
However, if there is impurity in that space, then the house is impure because the impurity is inside the house. The cupboard is impure because impurity goes out but does not enter." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a drawer of the cupboard, which is one cubic handbreadth, but whose outlet is not a square handbreadth, if there is uncleanness inside it, the house becomes unclean; The mishnah now discusses a drawer inside the cupboard. The drawer is one handbreadth cubed, meaning that it is large enough to be considered an ohel. However, its opening is less than a handbreadth's in size. Nevertheless, if there is a piece of corpse (or other corpse type uncleanness) in the drawer it escapes the drawer and defiles everything in the house. This is the same principle we learned in 3:7 impurity can escape an inner ohel and go into a larger ohel (the house).", + "But if there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the drawer] remains clean, for the manner of uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. However, impurity does not go into a smaller ohel (the drawer) from the larger ohel. Therefore, if there is impurity in the house it does not defile things that are in the drawer.", + "Rabbi Yose declares [the house] clean, since he can remove [the uncleanness] by halves or burn it where it stands. Rabbi Yose says that even things in the house are pure, in a case where there is a source of impurity in the drawer. He holds that impurity escapes holes smaller than a handbreadth only if it is inevitable that the source of impurity will at some point have to leave its current place (the drawer). In other words, he would state that the contents of the larger ohel are impure only if we can anticipate that the impurity will leave its current ohel and actually enter the larger. However, in this case, it is not inevitable that the impurity will actually enter the house, or at least that an olive's worth of it will. One could either burn the impurity while it's still in the drawer, or he could remove it in pieces smaller than an olive. Since the impurity may not enter the house, the contents of the house are not defiled." + ], + [ + "[In the case where] the cupboard is standing in the doorway and is opened outward, if there is uncleanness inside it, the house remains clean. The impurity escapes from the cupboard to the outside and therefore the contents of the house remain pure.", + "If there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the cupboard] becomes unclean, for the manner of uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. The impurity escapes from the house through the cupboard, thereby defiling all that is in the cupboard.", + "If its wheeled base protruded three fingerbreadths behind it and there was uncleanness inside it under the roof-beams, the house remains clean. The cupboard is sitting in the doorway on a wheeled base. The wheeled base is in the house, but only by three fingerbreadths, less than a handbreadth. The wheeled base has something unclean (piece of corpse) on it and it sits underneath the roof-beams of the house. Since the wheeled base is within three fingerbreadths of the cupboard, it is treated like the cupboard itself and the impurity on the wheeled base does not go into the house, even though it is under the beams of the house.", + "When does this ruling apply? When there is a space of one cubic handbreadth, when it is not easily detachable, and when the cupboard is of the stipulated size. The rule in section three is true only if the following three conditions are met: 1) The wheelbase has the dimensions of an ohel a square handbreadth. With these dimensions it can prevent the impurity from escaping into the house. 2) The wheelbase is firmly attached to the cupboard, thereby allowing it to be treated as part of the cupboard. 3) The cupboard is large enough to hold 40 seahs of liquid/60 seah of dry goods, which is the size the cupboard needs to be for it not to be impure. If the cupboard is smaller, it does not prevent impurity from escaping or entering (we will return to this subject in 8:1)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "[With regard to] an oven which stood in a house, with its outlet curved to the outside [of the house], and those burying a corpse overshadowed it: The mishnah describes an oven that is inside a house, but whose outlet curves and opens to the outside of the house. The outlet is the hole in the bottom of the oven that lets air in and ashes out. It seems that a pipe has been affixed to the hole to lead it outside. Outside of the house, people carrying a corpse for burial overshadow (create an ohel) the pipe.", + "Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Shammai says that everything that is in the house becomes impure. The impurity is considered as entering the oven and since the oven is in the house, the contents of the house are impure.", + "Bet Hillel says: the oven becomes unclean, but the house remains clean. Bet Hillel limits the impurity to the oven itself, because they hold that the impurity does not escape from the oven into the house.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: even the oven remains clean. Rabbi Akiva is even more lenient. Even the oven is impure because they overshadowed the pipe and not the oven itself." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a hatch between the house and the upper story, if there was a pot placed over it and it was perforated [by a hole of sufficient size] to admit liquid: The opening between the house and the upper story has an earthenware pot placed over it. The pot cannot itself become impure because it is of earthenware. However, the pot has a hole in it large enough to let in a liquid and therefore the pot does not offer protection to the pure things in it, even if it is tightly sealed (see Kelim end of chapter 9). Just as we had three opinions in yesterday's mishnah with regard to the oven, today we have three opinions as to whether impurity in the house goes up through the pot into the upper story.", + "Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Shammai holds that since the pot is perforated it does not prevent the impurity from going up to the second story. The contents of both stories are impure.", + "Bet Hillel says: the pot becomes unclean but the upper story remains clean. Bet Hillel says that since the pot has a hole large enough to admit liquids, it cannot protect its contents from becoming impure. However, for the impurity to go up to the second story the hole must be a handbreadth wide. Since this hole is much smaller, the contents of the second story remain clean.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: all remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says that the pot is considered to be in the second story and not in the first. Therefore, even the contents of the pot remain clean. As was the case in yesterday's mishnah, Rabbi Akiva seems to make a conscious attempt to rule leniently." + ], + [ + "If [the pot] was whole:
Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness].
A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel.
Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels.
But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.”
Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.
Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?”
Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].”
Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?”
Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.”
Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.
Section one: In this scenario instead of the pot having a hole in it, as it did in yesterday's mishnah, it is whole. According to Bet Hillel (at least at first) the pot protects the contents of the upper story from becoming impure.
Section two: Bet Shammai holds that the pot only protects things that cannot be purified in a mikveh, such as food, drink or earthenware vessels. Things that can be purified in a mikveh are not protected. The reason for this is a bit complicated and is explained more thoroughly in Eduyot 1:14. Below, to aid in understanding today's mishnah, I have replicated that mishnah in its entirety and I have also replicated my commentary (which I wrote over 8 years ago!). Note that in both mishnayot Bet Hillel changes their opinion and rules like Bet Shammai.
According to Numbers 19:15, a clay vessel that is covered with a lid prevents impurity from entering inside of it. If this vessel is found in a room with a dead body, which would normally cause everything in the room to be impure, the clay vessel and all that is inside of it does not contract the impurity. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel argue about what types of things which may be inside the clay vessels are not impure. According to Beth Hillel any object inside the vessel is pure. Beth Shammai holds that only food, liquids and other clay vessels remain pure; non-clay vessels would be impure.
Beth Shammai explains that we can assume that the clay vessel has been touched by an ignoramus (am haaretz), a person who does not strictly know or observe the laws of ritual purity. It is assumed that the am haaretz makes the vessel impure. Since an impure vessel does not prevent the impurity from entering, the things inside of it are impure.
Beth Hillel responds to Beth Shammai by pointing out that they did indeed accept that the food and liquids inside the vessel were pure. If the clay vessel does not prevent impurity from entering, why should anything inside of it remain pure?
To this question Beth Shammai responds that when they stated that the food and liquids were pure they meant for the am haaretz himself and not for the haver (a person who scrupulously observes the laws of purity and indeed eats only pure food). Beth Shammai assumes that a haver will not borrow any of these things from an am haaretz, since they cannot be made pure (a clay vessel cannot be cleansed of its impurity). Therefore Beth Shammai can pronounce these things clean, knowing that they will never come into the hands of a haver. However, when Beth Hillel pronounced everything inside pure, they were in essence declaring it pure for both the am haaretz and the haver. Beth Hillel had implied that even metal vessels, inside the clay vessel, remained pure. A haver might borrow metal vessels from an am haaretz, with the intent of immersing them to cleanse them of their impurities. However, this immersion will only cleanse them from light impurities and not from impurity contracted from a dead body. Therefore, a haver might borrow them thinking that he could cleanse them and in reality he could not. Due to this problem, Beth Hillel retracted their opinion and taught like Beth Shammai." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a flagon that is full of pure liquid, the flagon is defiled with seven days' impurity but the liquid remains clean. But if one poured it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. In this scenario there is a flagon (a small jar) made of metal or wood that is found in the upper story of a house where a pot is blocking the hatch and there is a source of corpse impurity in the lower story. Our mishnah rules like Bet Shammai (and like Bet Hillel after they too began to rule like Bet Shammai). Since this flagon can be purified in a mikveh, it is defiled by the corpse impurity found in the bottom floor. The liquid remains clean. However, if he pours the liquid out into another vessel that is found in the upper story, the liquid is defiled by contact with the other vessel.", + "If a woman was kneading [in the upper story] at a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean with seven days impurity, but the dough remains clean But if one turned it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. In this scenario, a woman is found kneading in the upper story. The woman and the kneading trough are impure because they can be cleansed in a mikveh. However, the dough cannot be cleansed in a mikveh so it is pure. Again, if he moves the dough to another vessel, it too is unclean.", + "Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel would have originally opposed the above halakhot, but they changed their mind and ruled like Bet Hillel, just as they did in yesterday's mishnah." + ], + [ + "If [lying over the hatch] there were vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, everything [in the upper story] remains clean. Vessels made of dung, stone or unbaked earth cannot become impure. Such vessels protect everything from becoming impure, even things that can be purified in a mikveh. Therefore, everything in the upper story is pure.", + "If it was a vessel known to be clean for holy things or for [the water of] purification, everything remains clean, since everyone is trusted with [regard to matters of] purification. Even amei haaretz (people who are not generally scrupulous concerning matters of purity) are trustworthy if they claim that the purity of a certain vessel was preserved in order to use it for something holy or for the waters of purification. In other words, the assumption is that these people were not careful about matters of purity when it came to daily life; but in regards to the Temple, they were careful. Since we can assume that these vessels are pure, they protect everything in the upper story from being defiled.", + "For clean vessels and earthenware vessels that are [known to be] clean protect with the walls of ‘tents'. The language of this section is a bit awkward. Albeck explains it in the following manner. Just as vessels that cannot become impure and have a tightly covered lid prevent impurity from entering, because they are like earthenware vessels (called \"pure\" because they cannot be defiled from the outside) which protect their contents when they have a tightly covered lid, so too all pure vessels protect against impurity together with the walls of the houses (\"tents\") in cases where the vessels are on top of the hatch." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAt the end of yesterday's mishnah we learned that pure vessels protect against impurity together with the walls of an ohel. Today's mishnah illustrates how this rule works.", + "How so? If there was a cistern or a cellar in a house and a large basket was placed over it, [the contents of the cistern or cellar] remain clean. The basket described here is not susceptible to impurity. If there is a source of corpse impurity in the house, the basket protects the contents of the cistern or cellar from becoming impure.", + "But if it was a well [with its upper edge] level [with the ground] or a deficient beehive upon which the basket was placed, [the contents] become unclean. As we shall learn in section four, for the basket to stop the impurity it must have walls and join with the walls of the house/ohel. If the well is even with the ground then it has no walls and therefore the basket does not offer a barrier to the impurity. In this case there are no \"walls of an ohel\" with which the walls of the basket can join. The second case is that of a basket placed over a beehive. The beehive may look like an ohel, because it is not stopped up (this is one explanation of the word \"deficient\"). However, the beehive is not actually treated like an \"ohel\" but rather like a vessel. Therefore, there are no \"walls of an ohel\" with which the basket can join in order to prevent the impurity from entering.", + "If it was a smooth board or netting without rims, [the contents] remain clean. A smooth board or a piece of netting that has no rims/solid sides is not considered to be a vessel. They are not susceptible to impurity. If one of these items is placed on top of a well or a cellar it protects the contents of the well or cellar from being defiled by the impurity in the house.", + "For vessels cannot protect along with walls of an ohel unless they themselves have walls. As we learned in section two above, the ohel must have walls for the vessel to protect from impurity.", + "How much must the wall be? A handbreadth. If there was half a handbreadth on one side and half a handbreadth on the other, it is not [considered] a wall, as there must be a whole handbreadth on one object. The walls must be at least a handbreadth high. It does not count if one side is half a handbreadth and the other side is also half a handbreadth. There must be at least one handbreadth in one place for it to count as the wall of an ohel." + ], + [ + "Just as they protect inside so they protect outside. In the previous mishnayot we learned that vessels can prevent the spread of uncleanness when they join together with the walls of the ohel. In today's mishnah we learn that sometimes they can protect outside of an ohel as well.", + "How so? In the case of a large basket supported on pegs on the outside [of an ohel], If there was uncleanness beneath it, vessels in the basket remain clean. But if it was [next to] the wall of a courtyard or of a garden, it does not protect. Here the basket is outside of the ohel and it is supported in the air on pegs alongside a tent (or other tent-like structure). The basket protects its contents from the impurity that is beneath it as long as the wall of the ohel is at least one handbreadth high. However, this is true only if the wall was made as part of an ohel, meaning a roofed structure, such as a house. If the wall was part of a courtyard or garden, a non-roofed structure, the wall does not count as part of an ohel. And the basket itself is not sufficient to prevent the impurity from entering from below because vessels do not count as an \"ohel\" to prevent impurity from entering from below. Therefore, the contents of the basket are unclean.", + "[In the case of] a beam placed across from one wall to an other, with a pot hanging from it, if there was uncleanness beneath it, Rabbi Akiva declares the vessels inside it to be clean, But the sages declare them unclean. According to the interpretation of this dispute found in the Tosefta, the pot is one handbreadth from the beam. In such a case, Rabbi Akiva holds that the beam serves to seal the pot because the pot is open less than a handbreadth. The other sages say that since the pot is open, it does not protect its contents. However, all agree that if the pot is further than a handbreadth away, its contents are impure and all agree that if the pot is right up against the beam, that its contents are pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Both persons and vessels can form ‘tents’ to bring uncleanness, but not to [protect objects so that they] remain clean. If a person or a vessel overshadows a dead body and a pure thing, or they carry an ohel which overshadows a dead body or a pure thing, the pure thing is defiled. However, if vessels which are not susceptible to impurity overshadow a dead body and a pure thing, or a person or vessel carry a vessel which overshadows a dead body and a pure thing, this type of ohel does not protect the things that are above it.", + "How so? There are four people carrying a chest: If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it become unclean. If there is uncleanness upon it, vessels beneath it become unclean. Rabbi Eliezer declares them clean. The mishnah now illustrates cases where something that overshadows does not offer a barrier to protect against impurity because it is held up by a person or a vessel. The chest described in this section was made of stone and was carried with poles. It was possible to place a dead body or the bones from a dead body either above the chest or below it (carried somehow, but not sure). In the first scenario, four people carry the chest. The chest does not prevent impurity from defiling the things that are above it, if there is something impure below, nor does it prevent the things that are below it from becoming impure if there is something impure above. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees for he holds that if an ohel is carried by a person it does offer a barrier.", + "[If the chest] is placed upon four vessels, even if they are vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the chest], vessels upon it become unclean. If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it become unclean. Since the chest is held up by vessels, the chest does not offer a barrier. This is true even if the vessels are of the type that cannot become impure.", + "[If the chest] is placed on four stones or on any living creature, If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it remain clean. If there is uncleanness upon it vessels beneath it remain clean. In this case the chest is not held up by a person or by a vessel. Therefore, the chest does act as an ohel and it does serve as a barrier to protect the things above from being defiled by that which is below and the things below from being defiled by that which is above." + ], + [ + "If corpse-bearers were passing along a portico and one of them shut a door and locked it with a key, If the door can remain in its position on its own,[the contents of the house] remain clean, But if not, they become unclean. The corpse-bearers were walking along a portico (a structure with pillars and a roof) and one of them locked the door to the house before the dead body was brought into the portico. Subsequently, the corpse was brought into the portico. If the door can stand in place on its own, without relying on the lock, then the contents of the house are pure. However, if the door cannot stand in place without the lock, then the contents of the house become unclean. This is similar to the rule we found in yesterday's mishnah. Something that serves as a barrier to impurity, in this case the door, must be able to stand on its own without relying on a person or a vessel (the lock) to hold it up. If it cannot stand on its own, it does not serve as a barrier.", + "Similarly [in the case of] a barrel of dried figs or a basket of straw placed in a window, If the dried figs or the straw can remain in their position on their own, [the contents of the room] remain clean, But if not they become unclean. This is the same rule except instead of a door serving as a barrier to impurity we have a barrel or a basket. Inside one room is a dead body. The barrel or basket themselves are susceptible to impurity and therefore they do not serve as a barrier (the barrel would serve as a barrier if its back was towards the room with the dead body). The dried figs or straw are not susceptible to impurity. If they can stand on their own, they serve as a barrier. But if they cannot, the impurity will defile the contents of the other room.", + "[In the case of] a house partitioned off by wine-jars, which had been plastered with clay, If the clay can remain in its position on its own, [the space partitioned off] remains clean, But if not, it becomes unclean. In this situation the wine-jars themselves do not provide a barrier because their mouths are open to the impure side. If the clay can remain in place without the wine-jars then it will provide a barrier. But if it does not, there is no barrier and the impurity will spread from one side to the other." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a case where corpse impurity is found inside a wall. The question is does the impurity defile the house which is towards the inside of the wall? Also, does it defile a person standing on top of the wall?", + "A wall serving a house is treated as if it was separate halves. The wall that serves a house is treated as if it was two separate halves. The inner half of the wall is part of the house and the outer half of the wall is not part of the house.", + "How so? A wall serving an open space, that has uncleanness within it: If it is in the inward half, the house is unclean, But what is above [the wall] remains clean. If the source of uncleanness is in the inside half of the wall, then it defiles the contents of the house. However, someone who is above the wall remains clean as if he were standing on the roof of a house (who is clean if there is uncleanness in the house, because the ceiling is a barrier to the impurity).", + "If it is in the outward half, the house remains clean, But what is above [the wall] becomes unclean. If the source of uncleanness is in the outer half of the wall, then we don't consider it to be in the house and the contents of the house are unclean. What is above the wall is unclean for the impurity in the wall goes up without anything to stop it.", + "If it is exactly in the middle, the house becomes unclean, And as for what is above, Rabbi Meir declares it unclean, But the sages declare it clean. If the source of uncleanness is right in the middle of the wall, the mishnah rules stringently with regard to the contents of the house, and says that they are unclean. With regard to what is above the house, Rabbi Meir again rules stringently. However, the sages are consistent with opinion found in section one. If the contents of the house are unclean, then it means that we look at the uncleanness as if it was in the house. In that case, the person standing above the wall is pure.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the whole of the wall belongs to the house. Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion in section one. He holds that if the uncleanness is found anywhere in the wall it is considered to be in the house. The contents of the house are unclean but a person standing above the wall is clean because the impurity is in the house." + ], + [ + "[In the case of] a wall between two houses and there is uncleanness within it, The house nearer to the uncleanness is unclean, And the house nearer to the clean part is clean. If [the uncleanness] is in the middle, both are unclean. In this section the wall serves to divide two houses, and not one house from the outside (as was the case in yesterday's mishnah). The rule is quite simple whatever house is closest to the source of impurity is impure and the other house is clean. If the impurity is right smack in the middle, the rule is strict and both houses are impure.", + "If there is uncleanness in one of the [houses] and there are vessels in [the thickness of] the wall: Those in the half nearer the uncleanness are unclean, Those in the half nearer the clean [house] are clean, And those in the middle are unclean. In this case, the source of impurity is in one of the houses and there are vessels in the wall. Again, the rule is simple. If the vessels are in the half of the wall nearer to the house with the uncleanness in it, the vessels are impure. If they are in the other side, they are clean. And if they are in the middle, they are clean.", + "[With regard to the] plaster-work between the house and the upper story, and there is uncleanness in it: If it is in the lower half, the house [below] is unclean and the upper story is clean If it is in the upper half, the upper story is unclean and the house is clean: If it is in the middle, both are unclean. Between the upper story and the bottom floor is a plaster ceiling (placed over wooden beams) and there is a source of corpse impurity in it. If it is in the lower half of the ceiling, then it is considered to be in bottom floor and the contents of the upper story are clean. If it is in the upper half, the upper story is unclean but the house is clean. And again, if it is in the middle, the rule is strict.", + "If there is uncleanness in either [the house or the upper story] and there are vessels inside the plaster-work, Those in the half nearer the uncleanness are unclean, And those in the half nearer the clean [space] are clean. If they are in the middle, they are unclean. Again, the mishnah reverses the situation and this time the uncleanness is in either the upper story or house and the vessels are in the ceiling. The rule is the same as it has been in the other sections.", + "Rabbi Judah says: all the plaster-work is considered as part of the upper story. Just as Rabbi Judah said that the wall is considered to belong to the house (in yesterday's mishnah), here he says that the plaster-work is considered part of the upper story. Even if the uncleanness is in the lower half of the plaster-work, it defiles the upper story and not the house." + ], + [ + "[In the case of] uncleanness among the roof-beams, [with a covering] beneath it thin as thin as garlic-skin, In this case the source of impurity is within the roof-beams, and not within the plastering or the walls. Therefore, the impurity is not part of the building. Separating the impurity from the house is a thin partition, even as thin as the skin of a piece of garlic.", + "If there is a space within of a cubic handbreadth, everything becomes unclean. If the source of impurity is found in a space that has the dimensions of a cubic handbreadth, then it spreads to the rest of the house and to the upper story as well. As we shall see, this is a general principle when it comes to the space in which a piece of impurity is found. If the corpse impurity is in a space that has an opening the size of a cubic handbreadth, then it spreads up and down (and all around). But if it is sealed up, the impurity does not spread, at least not as easily.", + "If there is not a space of a cubic handbreadth, the uncleanness is considered plugged up. As stated, if the impurity is found in a space that is smaller than a cubic handbreadth, then it does not spread to both the house and the upper story. Rather, in this case it would be considered part of the upper story, and only the contents of the upper story will be impure.", + "If the uncleanness was visible within the house, in either case the house becomes unclean. If the garlic thin separation is not sufficient to hide the source of impurity from being seen in the house, then it doesn't matter whether the space in which the impurity is found. The contents of the house are defiled in both cases, as if the impurity was in the house itself." + ], + [ + "A house serving a wall is subject to the principle of garlic-skin. Today's mishnah deals with a case where some sort of natural wall, such as a wall of rocks in the ground, existed before the building of the house adjacent to it. This is different from a case in which a wall was built in order to serve a house, a case discussed in mishnah three.", + "How so? [In the case of] a wall between two tomb-niches or two caverns, The wall described here exists between two structures hewn in the ground, either two tomb-niches, places in which people used to bury the dead, or two caverns.", + "If there is uncleanness in them and vessels in the walls, and there is a covering thin as garlic-skin over them, they remain clean. If there is a source of uncleanness in one of these places, and there are vessels in the wall, even a covering as thin as the skin of garlic will protect them from becoming unclean. Note that if this was a wall built to be part of a house, the vessels would be impure. Since this wall was not built to be part of the house, as long as it is separate, the contents found inside the wall are not actually part of the house.", + "If the uncleanness is in the wall and the vessels are in them, and there is a covering thin as garlic-skin over the uncleanness, they remain clean. The same is true in the opposite case, when the source of impurity is found in the wall and the vessels are in the tomb-niches or in the caverns.", + "If there is uncleanness beneath a pillar, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If there is a source of uncleanness beneath a pillar it spreads up and down so that anything inside the pillar or on top of it or buried further beneath it is impure. However, it does not defile things found on the side because the pillar is not like a wall serving to close in another structure." + ], + [ + "Vessels beneath the flowerlike top [of a pillar] remain clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them unclean. The first half of today's mishnah continues to deal with the pillar. On top of a pillar there was typically an ornament that looked like a flower and it would extend to the sides of the pillar. If there are vessels in this space, which is not directly above the source of impurity found below the pillar, they remain pure. In other words, the purity goes directly up and misses the vessels found on the side of the pillar. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri considers them to be unclean because the ornament is part of the pillar, even if it is not directly over the source of impurity.", + "[In the case of] the uncleanness and the vessels being [together] beneath the flowerlike top [of a pillar]: If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth there, [the vessels] become unclean; If not, they remain clean. There is a source of uncleanness in this ornament itself and there are vessels on the ground beneath this part of the pillar. If the uncleanness is found in an empty space that is one cubic handbreadth within the ornament, then the impurity will go up and down and defile the vessels below. However, if there is not such a space, the impurity remains trapped inside the ornament.", + "[In the case of] two wall-cupboards, one beside the other, or one above the other, if one of them was opened, both it and the house become unclean, but its companion remains clean. The mishnah now discusses some rules concerning cupboards that are built into the walls of a house. If one cupboard has a source of impurity in it and it is opened, anything in the house or in that cupboard is unclean. However, anything in the closed cupboard is pure because it has a space the size of cubit handbreadth, making it into an ohel, and an ohel prevents impurity from entering.", + "The wall-cupboard is considered as if it is plugged up, and it is subject to the principle of halves for conveying uncleanness into the house. The wall-cupboard is seen to be a plugged up part of the wall that serves the house. If the source of impurity is in the half of the wall that is closer to the house, the wall-cupboard is reckoned as part of the wall when considering the width of the wall. For instance, if the thickness of the wall is two handbreadths and it contains a wall-cupboard that is one handbreadth thick, we don't consider the wall to be only one handbreadth thick. That would mean that the impurity would have to be half a handbreadth from the inside of the wall for it to defile the contents of the house. Rather, as long as the impurity is within a handbreadth, it is considered to be to the side of the house." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nWe have learned on several occasions that if a source of corpse impurity is found in a space that has one cubic handbreadth of open air, it is as if the impurity is trapped in a grave and it spreads upward and downward, defiling anything above it or below it. It also spreads to the sides. However, if it is trapped in a smaller space, the impurity does not spread to the sides and can only travel directly above and below.", + "If there is uncleanness in a wall, in a space of one cubic handbreadth, all upper stories above it, even if there are ten of them, are unclean. If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth in a wall that serves multiple stories of a house, then the impurity found in it will rise and spread and it will defile everything found in all of the stories. However, if the space was less than a cubic handbreadth, the impurity rises and descends but only directly above or below it. It will not defile the entire contents of all of the upper stories, because the impurity will not spread to the sides.", + "If there was a single upper story [built] over two houses, that one becomes unclean but all upper stories above it remain clean. In this case, the wall was built to support one large upper story that was built over two houses, which are also separated by the wall. Above that upper story are more stories. In this case, the impurity defiles the contents of the large story that is directly above the wall. However the ceiling of the first upper story blocks the impurity from continuing to defile the stories above.", + "[In a] beach- wall, uncleanness cleaves upwards and downward. The word that I have translated as \"beach-wall\" is obscure and Albeck even goes so far as to state that we don't really know what it means. Some commentators interpret it to mean \"beach-wall\" which is a wall of sand brought up by the sea. The impurity found in this wall cleaves upward and downward, but it doesn't spread to the sides since it is sealed into a space less than one cubic handbreadth.", + "[With regard to] a solid tomb monument, a person who touches it from the side remains clean, since [its] uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. But if there was a [free] space of a cubic handbreadth in the place where the uncleanness was, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, because it is like a closed grave. The solid tomb monument is placed over a sealed grave. Since there is no free space in the monument, it seals up the impurity and it doesn't spread to the sides. It only spreads upwards and downwards. However, if there is a free space of a cubic handbreadth, then it is like the situation where the impurity is found in a closed grave. In such a situation the person need not be directly above the impurity to be defiled.", + "If he supported sukkot on [the monument] they become unclean. Rabbi Judah declares them clean. This section refers back to the situation in the beginning of section four, where the monument was solid. According to the sages, if one uses this monument to support sukkot (booths, not necessarily for the Festival of Sukkot) then the booths are impure because they are like an ohel over the monument. Rabbi Judah says that since one who touches the monument from the side is pure, these sukkot are also pure." + ], + [ + "All sloping [parts] of ‘tents’ are reckoned like ‘tents.' When it comes to determining the laws of when something defiles in a tent, the sloping parts of tents are counted just as the straight and flat parts.", + "A ‘tent’ [whose sides] sloped downwards and finished off one fingerbreadth [from the ground]: If there is uncleanness in the ‘tent’, vessels beneath the slope become unclean. If there is uncleanness beneath the slope, vessels in the ‘tent’ become unclean. The tent here as a sloping part and then finishes off one fingerbreadth away from the ground, such that the sides of the tent are only one fingerbreadth high. There is also a one fingerbreadth section that serves as a flat \"roof.\" If there is a source of impurity under the flat roof part, it spreads to the vessels that are under the slope, even though there is only one cubic fingerbreadth in the space where the impurity is found. The same is true in the opposite situation if there is impurity in the sloping part it will defile anything that might be in the \"roofed\" part.", + "If there is uncleanness within, a person who touches [the tent] from the inside acquires a seven [days’] defilement, but from the outside, a defilement [lasting till] evening. If there is impurity within a tent, and someone touches the inside of the tent, then the person is defiled for seven days, as he would be if he touched any vessel that was within the tent. However, the impurity conveyed by the outside of the tent is lesser and he will be impure for only one day, until the evening.", + "If there had been uncleanness outside, a person who touches the ‘tent’ from the outside acquires a seven [days’] defilement, but from the inside, a defilement [lasting till] evening. If there is impurity outside of a tent such that it defiles the tent, then one who touches the outside of the tent is impure for seven days. Again, this is similar to one who touches any vessel that has come into contact with the dead. But if he touches it from the inside, he is only impure until the evening.", + "If there was [a portion of uncleanness] the size of half an olive [touching it] from inside and half an olive from the outside, a person who touches [the ‘tent’] either from within or without acquires a defilement [lasting till] evening. There isn't a full-sized piece of impurity touching the tent on any one side, but rather there is half of a piece on each side. These two half-olive portions join to defile the tent, but there is a leniency, and no matter which side a person touches, he is impure only until the evening.", + "If a part [of the ‘tent’ side] trailed along the ground, when there is uncleanness beneath or above [this part], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If the sides of the tent drag on the ground and the impurity is found below this part of the tent, it doesn't spread to the sides, but only goes up and down. In other words, it is not inside the tent. If it is above the tent, it will only go up and down because there is nothing to block it. But it won't go to the sides because it is not inside a tent.", + "[In the case of] a ‘tent’ erected in an upper story, with a portion [of its side] trailing over the hatch between the house and the upper story: Rabbi Yose says it does protect. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not protect unless it put up in the usual manner of erecting tents. The tent is in the upper story and it slopes down and part of it drags over the hatch between the bottom floor and upper story. Rabbi Yose says that it serves as a barrier to prevent the impurity from entering the upper story. Rabbi Shimon says that since the tent is not set up properly, it does not offer protection. The impurity will break through and defile the contents of the upper story." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA dead body that is found in a house will eventually be removed, and when it is it will defile the exit through which it is removed. The rabbis move this defilement up and consider any potential exit for the dead body to already be impure, even before the body is removed. However, there are cases in which the exit is not impure because the dead body will not be taken out through there.", + "If a corpse is in a house in which there are many doors, they all become unclean. Since the corpse may be removed through any of the doors of the house, even if they are all locked, the area of the entrance of all of them is defiled immediately. Practically this means that if any vessels are in that space, they are defiled.", + "If one of them was opened, that one becomes unclean but all the rest remain clean. If there are several doors, and one of them is open and the others are locked, then only that entrance is impure because the corpse will almost certainly be taken out that way.", + "If he intended to carry out the corpse through one of them or through a window of four hand breadths square, he protects all the other doors. Bet Shammai says: the intention must have been formed before the person died. Bet Hillel say: even after he died. If he intends to take the corpse out through one of the doorways, the other doors are not defiled. There is an interesting debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning this intention that protects the other doors from being defiled. Bet Shammai says that one must have the intention before the person dies. Once the person dies and he has not yet decided which doorway to use to remove the body, all of the entrances are automatically defiled. Bet Hillel seems to say that even if he decides to take the dead body out through one of the doorways after the person dies, the other doorways are saved from being defiled.", + "If [a door] was blocked up and it was decided to open it: Bet Shammai says: [it is effective] as soon he opens a [a space] four handbreadths square. Bet Hillel says: as soon as [the process] has begun. In this case one of the doorways is blocked up with stones and the others are locked. It is not sufficient just to think about taking the body out of one of the doorways, as it was if the doors were merely locked. Since this doorway is blocked up with stones, he must actually do something to the entrance for it to protect the other entrances from being defiled. Bet Shammai says that he must open up a hole that is at least four square handbreadths. Such a hole seems to be large enough to remove a (rather small) corpse. Bet Hillel is more lenient. Once he begins to cut out a hole, he has revealed his intention to remove the body through that door, and all of the other doors are pure.", + "They agree, however, that when making an opening for the first time, four handbreadths must be opened up. If there was no door there in the first place, and one is making a new hole in a house through which to take out a corpse, Bet Hillel agrees with Bet Shammai that he must open up four handbreadths for it to protect the other doors. Since this is a new door, he must exhibit a greater demonstration of intention for it to be clear that he will take the corpse out through the new exit and not through one of the other doors." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a woman who gives birth to a stillborn, but while doing so moves from house to house. The question is: when do we consider her womb to have opened such that the fetus would defile the contents of the house?", + "If a woman was having great difficulty giving birth and they carried her out from one house to another, the first house is doubtfully unclean and the second is certainly unclean. The first house is only doubtfully impure, because we don't know if the woman's womb \"opened up\" there such that the stillborn could defile the house. The second house is certainly impure because that is where she gave birth.", + "Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When she is carried out [supported] by the armpits, but if she was able to walk, the first house remains clean, for after the \"tomb\" has been opened there is no possibility of walking, Rabbi Judah says that if she was able to walk out of the first house on her own, then the first house is certainly not impure because a woman whose womb has opened up cannot walk on her own. The first house is impure only if she was helped out by being carried by the armpits. The mishnah calls the womb a \"tomb\" probably because in this case, the fetus died there.", + "For stillborn children are not [deemed to have] opened the \"tomb\" until they present a head rounded like a spindle-knob. This section is usually explained as the continuation of Rabbi Judah's words. When he said that once the womb (tomb) has been opened a woman cannot walk, that is only the case if the head is round like a spindle-knob. But if the head is smaller, then a woman might be able to walk around even after the womb-tomb has been opened. In such a case, even if she walked from one house to the other, we would have to be concerned lest the first house is also defiled." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a woman who gives birth to twins, one alive and one a stillborn. The question is: does the stillborn defile the live child?", + "If [at the birth of twins] the first came out dead and the second came out alive, the [live one] is clean. If a woman gives birth to twins and the first comes out dead, the second is pure because before the womb was opened, the dead fetus does not convey impurity. The live child was not made impure in the womb. [Note that they would have had to remove the stillborn from the house before the second child was born, otherwise the live child would be defiled by being in the same house as the dead child.]", + "If the first was alive and the second dead, the [live child] is unclean. If the first was alive, and then the dead child was born, the live child is impure because once the womb has been opened, the dead child defiles things outside of the womb. Thus as soon as the first child is born, it is immediately defiled.", + "Rabbi Meir says: if they were in one sac, [the live child] is unclean, but if there were two sacs, it remains clean. Rabbi Meir qualifies the halakhah in section two. It is only correct if both children were in one sac, because in that case, when the womb for the live child has opened, the womb for the stillborn has also opened. But if the two children are in different sacs, then the first child remains clean because the dead child is still sealed in the womb when the first child is born alive." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis (very well-known) mishnah discusses whether it is permissible to abort a fetus in order to save the life of the mother.\nI should note that this mishnah is the foundation for all Jewish discussion of abortion. Since this is such a controversial and complex issue, I do not think that this is the right forum for a comprehensive discussion (there are many teshuvot on the topic, many of which can be found on the web). We shall stick with the simple meaning of the mishnah.", + "If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child]. While still in the womb, the fetus's life does not take precedence over the mother's. Indeed, one might not even go so far as to call it a \"life.\" Therefore, the doctors/midwives may cut the fetus up in order to save the life of the mother.", + "But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person's life for that of another. However, once most of the child has emerged, it is forbidden to do anything to harm the child because it is forbidden to take one life in order to save another. The child is considered to be a \"life\" once most of it has emerged from the womb." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah introduces the theme of the entire chapter: what things can act as tents to bring uncleanness from a corpse (or part thereof) to other vessels also found underneath and what objects can prevent impurity from spreading by acting as a barrier.", + "Some things bring forth uncleanness and [also] a protect [against it]; [Some things] bring forth uncleanness but do not protect against it; [Some things] protect but do not bring forth; [Some things] do not bring forth nor do they protect. The following bring forth and protect against [impurity]: This whole section is a typical introduction to the laws that will be taught in several mishnayot.", + "A chest, a box, a cupboard, a beehive of straw, a beehive of reeds, or the water-tank of an Alexandrian ship, such of which [objects] have [flat] bottoms and can contain [at least] forty seahs liquid measure or two kors dry measure. The objects in this section are large containers. If they are large enough such that they themselves cannot become impure (see Kelim 15:1) then they can both bring forth impurity, if a piece of corpse is found inside and other vessels as well, and act as a barrier to impurity (if vessels are found inside, they are not defiled by impurity outside).", + "[Also] a curtain, a leather apron, a leather bedspread, a sheet, a matting underlay or a mat when made into tents. This section refers to hanging things that are used to form a tent. Even though these items are susceptible to impurity, they also form a barrier against impurity. Obviously, if a corpse (or piece thereof) is found underneath, they will cause the impurity to travel to clean vessels also found underneath.", + "A herd of cattle, unclean or clean, packs of wild animals or birds, a resting bird, a [shady] place that [a woman] makes for her son among the ears of corn; A herd of domesticated animals or a pack of wild animals or birds can serve as an ohel both to bring impurity and protect against it. This would mean that if a source of corpse impurity is found under one animal and that animal is tightly packed into a herd with other animals, the vessels found underneath another animal will be impure. Also if there is impurity below one of these animals, the vessels above are protected. The same is also true with regard to a tent of shade that a woman might make for her son among ears of corn.", + "The iris, the ivy, squitting cucumber, Greek gourds and clean foodstuffs. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri did not agree with regard to clean foodstuffs except in the case of a cake of dried figs. This section lists some leafy plants that can form ohalot both to bring and protect against impurity. There is a debate with regard to clean food, whether it brings and forms a barrier against impurity. According to the first opinion, all clean food can perform this function. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that this is true only with regard to cakes of dried figs. Since it was customary to sit underneath such cakes (for shade) they bring impurity and form a barrier to it. But other foodstuffs do not act in this way because it is not customary to sit underneath them." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to list things that both serve as a barrier against impurity and bring impurity.", + "Projections from a wall, balconies, dovecotes, crevices and crags, grottoes, [overhanging] pinnacles, interlaced boughs and protruding stones as long as they are cable of sustaining thin plasterwork, the words of Rabbi Meir. These are mostly naturally formed protrusions that either jut out from walls or are carved into them.", + "But the sages say a medium plasterwork. According to Rabbi Meir, for the interlaced boughs and protruding stones to both bring impurity and protect against it, they must be close enough together such that if thin plaster was poured on top it would not drip through. Other commentators interpret Rabbi Meir differently. Rabbi Meir holds that as long as the boughs and stones are strong enough to hold a thin layer of plasterwork, they can bring impurity and protect against it.", + "What are interlaced boughs? A tree which casts shade over the ground. Protruding stones? [Stones] that project from a wall. Just as there were two interpretations of Rabbi Meir, there are two interpretations of the sages who disagree with him. According to the first interpretation, as long as the boughs and stones can prevent plaster-work of medium thickness from dripping through, they bring impurity and protect against it. According to the second interpretation, the stones and boughs must be strong enough to hold a medium layer of plasterwork to bring and protect against impurity.", + "This section defines what interlaced boughs and protruding stones are." + ], + [ + "The following bring [impurity] but do not protect against it: Today's mishnah deals with objects that bring impurity but do not serve as a barrier against it.", + "A chest, a box, a cupboard, a beehive of straw, a beehive of reeds, or the water tank of an Alexandrian ship, such of which [objects] have [flat] bottoms but cannot contain forty se'ahs of liquid measure or two kors dry measure. This is the same as the list in mishnah one except the boxes are smaller. Since they cannot contain forty seahs of liquid or two kors of dry goods, they are susceptible to impurity. Things that are susceptible to impurity do not act as barriers to impurity.", + "A curtain, a leather apron, a leather undercover, a sheet, a matting underlay or a mat when not made into tents. This is also the same list as in mishnah one except here the curtains are are laying flat over the hatch between an upper story and a bottom floor and they are not set up as a tent. As we learned in 7:2, in such a situation these things can bring impurity, but they do not act as a barrier against it.", + "Cattle or wild animals when they are dead, and foodstuffs that are [liable to become] unclean. Since these animals or foods are unclean, they do not protect against impurity.", + "In addition to these, a human-powered mill. Hand-mills which can be carried from place to place are susceptible to impurity, and therefore cannot act as a barrier. In contrast, mills operated by animals are heavy and immovable. Therefore they can act as a barrier against impurity." + ], + [ + "The following protect [against impurity] but do not bring it: A loom [with the woof] spread out, the ropes of a bed, waste baskets, and window-lattices. The items listed in this mishnah can act as a barrier against. For instance if one of them covers the hatch between a bottom floor and an upper story, the contents of the upper story are protected. But they don't bring impurity if they overshadow both a piece of corpse and vessels. The loom has the warp spread out over it, but it can't act as an ohel till it is fully woven. The ropes of a bed are tied tight to support the mattress. The waste baskets have small holes in them, enough so that they can't act as an ohel." + ], + [ + "Today's mishnah discusses things that act neither to bring uncleanness nor as a barrier for it, even if they are found in a position of overshadowing.", + "The following neither bring [impurity] nor protect against it:
Seeds, plants [still] attached to the ground, except for the plants mentioned above, Plants (this doesn't include trees) attached to the ground generally do not act as ohalot to bring impurity or protect against it. The exceptions were the very leafy plants mentioned in 8:1. We should note that this is all in reference to plants attached to the ground. Once detached from the ground plants can, under certain circumstances, act as an ohel.", + "A lump of hail, snow, frost, ice and salt. All of these items cannot act as an ohel because they melt. The salt will crumble when rained upon.", + "[Anything] that hops from one place to another, or leaps from one place to another, a flying bird. Animals or people that are moving do not form an ohel. To \"overshadow\" the living thing must be stationary.", + "A loosely-flapping garment, or a ship floating [freely] on the water. A ship or garment that is moving around also does not act as an ohel.", + "If the ship were tied with something that can keep it steady, or a stone were [placed so as] to hold down the garment, it can bring uncleanness. Once the ship is tied down so that it doesn't move around, or the garment is held down by a stone, it can again act as an ohel.", + "Rabbi Yose says: a house on a ship cannot bring uncleanness. Although relative to the ship the house is stationary, it does not act as an ohel if the ship is moving. Another interpretation is that Rabbi Yose is referring to a make shift sort of house, one that will be uprooted by a common wind. Since such a house will not last long, it does not act as an ohel." + ], + [ + "Two [earthenware] jars in which there are two pieces of corpse the size of half an olive, sealed with tightly fitting lids, lying in a house, they remain clean, but the house becomes unclean. I bet you read this situation and said to yourself, yes, that's happened to me. Two tightly sealed jars, with two pieces of corpse less than the size of an olive in each, sure, common situation ☺. In all seriousness, the tightly sealed jar does not prevent impurity from coming out in an ohel. Since between the two jars there is the necessary olive's worth of corpse, the house is unclean. However, each jar remains clean because a tightly sealed lid prevents impurity from defiling an earthenware jar.", + "If one of them was opened, that [jar] and the house become unclean, but the other remains clean. If one jar was opened, that jar is unclean by virtue of being in the house. However, the other jar remains pure. The house is unclean as it was in section one.", + "A similarly with to two rooms that open into a house. If there is half of an olive's worth of corpse in each room, and the doors to the house are both locked, they join together to defile the house, because eventually these pieces of corpse will be brought out through the house. However, the rooms themselves remain pure because there is less than an olive's worth in each." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter nine deals with an empty beehive (or something shaped like it) that has impurity either in it, above it or below it and is found either in a house, in the doorway to a house or outside of a house. The beehive itself is one that is not susceptible to impurity. Within each scenario, the mishnah discusses various possibilities as to the exact position of the hive vis a vis the impurity. We should conceive of this chapter as not dealing with a practical/actual problem but as a kind of theoretical exercise of what happens when a smaller structure (the hive) is found within a larger structure (the house). We could even think of these mishnayot as an extended geometrical/scientific word problem; we know how impurity travels and we know how an ohel works. Now we just have to work out the results in various scenarios.", + "The mishnah describes a beehive that is lying in the doorway to a house, open to the outside of the house. The beehive itself is one that is not susceptible to impurity. There will now be three different scenarios as to where the source of impurity is located with three different halakhot as to what is impure.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within the house, nothing becomes unclean except that which is within the house. The piece of corpse is either above or below the hive, and is outside of the house. Everything that is above and below that piece of corpse is impure for vessels do not act as barriers to impurity (see 6:1). However, the impurity does not spread to the sides. Thus anything that is not directly above or below the piece of corpse remains clean. Anything in the hive is clean because the impurity cannot enter the hive since it does not receive impurity. Anything in the house is also pure.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within [the hive] everything becomes unclean. If the impurity is in the house, the house is of course impure. The contents of the hive are pure because its opening is to the outside.", + "If the uncleanness is within the hive everything is impure, meaning anything found in the hive, on top or below the hive or in the house. The hive does not act as an ohel to block the impurity but it does bring the impurity. This was stated explicitly in 8:3, where the mishnah listed things that bring impurity but do not block against it." + ], + [ + "[In the case of the hive] being one handbreadth high off the ground, If the hive is one handbreadth high off the ground, then it will form an ohel over a piece of impurity that is found below it. This will cause the impurity to spread to the sides.", + "If there is uncleanness below it or in the house or above it, everything becomes unclean except that which is within [the hive]. Thus if there is uncleanness underneath the hive, it will defile everything else underneath it and anything above it. Similarly, if there is impurity above the tent, the impurity will spread below for there is no barrier, and from there it will spread to the sides. It will even enter the house, as there is nothing sealing the house off. The only thing that will remain clean is the inside of the hive, as was the case in yesterday's mishnah.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within the hive everything becomes unclean. If there is a space of one handbreadth underneath the hive and there is impurity in the hive, everything is unclean, which is the same halakhah as in yesterday's mishnah." + ], + [ + "When do these rules apply? When the hive is a vessel and it is loosely placed in the door. The rules in the above two mishnayot apply only if the hive is a complete and unbroken vessel and it is loosely placed into the doorway.", + "If it is defective, although [it may be] stopped up with straw or it is stuck to the side of the door What is \"stuck? Anything which has no opening of one handbreadth : If the hive is defective, meaning a piece is missing, or it is stuck tightly into the door, then the rules are different. The rest of the mishnah outlines how the impurity spreads if these conditions hold.", + "Then, if an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed below it, [everything] directly [below the portion] to the depths becomes unclean; If there is impurity below, the impurity will defile all the way down to the depths, but it will not defile above. Since the hive is not a vessel, it acts as a barrier against the impurity.", + "[If placed] above [the hive everything] directly above to the sky becomes unclean. The same is true if the impurity is above the hive. It will defile anything above it, but the hive acts as a barrier and things that are below are pure.", + "[If the uncleanness is] in the house, nothing becomes unclean except the house. This is the same rule as in mishnah one.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within [the hive] nothing becomes unclean except that which is within [the hive]. Since the hive offers a barrier, anything above or below is pure. Only that which is found in the hive is impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to discuss the hive that is either defective or stuck firmly into the doorway of the house. Similar to mishnah two, it adds in the scenario of the hive being slightly above ground level.", + "[In the case of such a hive] being [placed] one handbreadth high off the ground:
If there is uncleanness below it or in the house, [the space] below it and the house become unclean, but [the space] above and within remains clean. Since there is the space of a handbreadth beneath the hive, the hive acts as an ohel and conveys the impurity to the sides and it also enters the house. However, the inside of the hive and the space above it remain pure because the ohel acts as a barrier to impurity.", + "[If the uncleanness is] in the hive, nothing is unclean except what is within; If the impurity is within the hive, only the inside is unclean (as in mishnah three).", + "If above [the hive] what is directly above up to the sky becomes unclean. As in yesterday's mishnah, if the impurity is above the hive, the impurity travels up but not down." + ], + [ + "When do these rules apply? When the mouth [of the hive is pointing] outwards If the mouth is [pointing] inwards [towards the house]: Our mishnah changes the scenario that we have been examining from mishnayot 1-4 so that the mouth of the hive is open inwards towards the house instead of to the outside. The mishnah now goes through all of the scenarios that we have already seen in the first four mishnayot. Instead of referring the reader to these mishnayot, for ease of reference, when the rules are the same, I have copied the commentary from there.", + "If an olive-sized portion of the corpse is placed below or above [that part of the hive which is] outside, everything directly below or above that olive-sized portion becomes unclean, and everything not directly [below or above it] and whatever is within [the hive] and the house, remains clean. The hive is totally blocking the house, with the opening of the hive facing inward. If impurity is found above or below, it will defile anything that is directly above or below it, but it won't spread to the sides because it is not in an ohel. It also does not defile inside the hive because the hive is not susceptible to impurity (see mishnah one).", + "[If the uncleanness is] within the hive or the house, everything becomes unclean. If the uncleanness is within the hive everything is impure, meaning anything found in the hive, on top or below the hive or in the house. While the hive does not act as an ohel to block the impurity but it does bring the impurity. This was stated explicitly in 8:3, where the mishnah listed things that bring impurity but do not block against it." + ], + [ + "[In the case of the hive] being one handbreadth high off the ground, If there is uncleanness below it or in the house or above it, everything becomes unclean . If the hive is one handbreadth high off the ground, then no matter where the uncleanness is, it will defile everything. If there is uncleanness underneath the hive, it will defile everything else underneath it and anything above it. Similarly, if there is impurity above it, the impurity will spread below for there is no barrier, and from there it will spread to the sides and into the house, as there is nothing sealing the house off. The same is true if the impurity is inside the hive. And unlike the case in mishnah two, here no matter where it is, the impurity will enter the hive itself since the hive's mouth is open to the house and when the house is defiled, the inside of the hive is defiled. In other words, the interior of the hive is reckoned like the house." + ], + [ + "When do these rules apply? When the hive is a vessel and it is loosely placed in the door. The rules in the above two mishnayot apply only if the hive is a complete and unbroken vessel and it is loosely placed into the doorway.", + "If it is defective, although [it may be] stopped up with straw or it is stuck to the side of the door What is \"stuck? Anything which has no opening of one handbreadth : If the hive is defective, meaning a piece is missing, or it is stuck tightly into the door, then the rules are different. The rest of the mishnah outlines how the impurity spreads if these conditions hold.", + "Then, if an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed below it, [everything] directly [below the portion] to the depths becomes unclean; If there is impurity below, the impurity will defile all the way down to the depths, but it will not defile above. Since the hive is not a vessel, it acts as a barrier against the impurity.", + "[If placed] above [the hive everything] directly above to the sky becomes unclean. The same is true if the impurity is above the hive. It will defile anything above it, but the hive acts as a barrier and things that are below are pure.", + "[If the uncleanness is] in the house or in the hive, whatever is in the house or hive becomes unclean. This is where the rule differs from mishnah three. Since the hive is opened to the inside, if there is uncleanness inside the hive or inside the house, it defiles whatever is in either place. Above and below are pure for a broken hive acts as an ohel and prevents the impurity from spreading above and below." + ], + [ + "[In the case of such a hive] being [placed] one handbreadth high off the ground:
If there is uncleanness below it, in the house or inside the hive everything is impure except for above it. The difference between this case and the case in mishnah four is if the mouth is open inward toward the house, then if the uncleanness is in the hive, it also spreads everywhere except for above the hive (and outside the house).", + "If above [the hive] what is directly above up to the sky becomes unclean. This is the same as mishnah four." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah now explores other possible spatial relationships between the house and the hive. Today's mishnah discusses what happens if the hive is entirely within the house.", + "[In the case when the hive] was entirely within the house and there is not a space of a handbreadth between it and the roof beams, if there is uncleanness within [the hive], the house becomes unclean. The hive is fully inside the house and its opening is less than one handbreadth's from the ceiling. If there is uncleanness is in the hive, then it will leave the hive and go out and defile the contents of the house.", + "But if there is uncleanness in the house, what is within [the hive] remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. However, the uncleanness will not enter the smaller space of the hive if it is found in the house. This accords with the principle we learned in mishnah 4:1, that impurity goes out to the outer space, but does not travel in to the inner space.", + "[Whether [the hive] is standing upright, or lying on its side, whether there is one [hive] or two. The same is true if the hive is lying on its side, with its mouth up against the wall. It is similarly true if there are two hives, one on top of the other and there is less than a handbreadth between the two hives, and less than a handbreadth between the top hive and the ceiling." + ], + [ + "If it was standing upright in the doorway and there was not a space of one handbreadth between it and the lintel: In this scenario, the hive is standing upright in the doorway, and there is no significant space between the lintel and the opening of the hive.", + "If there is uncleanness within it, the house remains clean. If there is uncleanness inside the hive, it protects it from going out and defiling the contents of the house.", + "But if there is uncleanness in the house, what is within [the hive] becomes unclean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. However, if there is uncleanness inside the house, it will go out the door and travel through the hive on its way. Therefore, the contents of the hive will be defiled. This is similar to the situation in 4:3 see there for a comparison." + ], + [ + "If it was lying on its side in the open air: In this scenario, our beloved hive is outside of the house, so the contents of the house need not worry about being defiled.", + "If an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse was placed below it or above it, everything directly below or above the olive-sized [portion] becomes unclean; but everything that is not directly below or above, and what is within [the hive] remains clean. The rules here are exactly the same as in 1-4. If the impurity is above or below the hive, it goes down to the depths and up to the heavens, but it doesn't spread to the side because it is not found in any sort of ohel. See mishnah one.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within [the hive] everything becomes unclean. But if the impurity is inside the hive, it spreads the impurity around inside, but it doesn't act as an ohel to prevent it from spreading above and below. Thus everything inside, above and below the entire hive will be impure." + ], + [ + "[In the case where the hive is in the open air] and is one handbreadth high off the ground, if there is uncleanness below it or above it, everything becomes unclean except the inside. [If the uncleanness is] within, everything becomes unclean.
When do these rules apply? When [the hive is] a vessel.
If it is defective, although [it may be] stopped up with straw or according to the sages, it contains forty seahs
Then if an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed below it, [everything] directly [below] to the depths becomes unclean;
[If placed] above, [everything] directly above to the sky becomes unclean.
[If the uncleanness is] is within [the hive] nothing is unclean except that which is within.
[If] it was one handbreadth high off the ground, if there was uncleanness below it, what is below becomes unclean;
[If the uncleanness] was within it, what is within becomes unclean;
Above it, [everything] directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean.
This mishnah continues to deal with the various possibilities of where the impurity will be found vis a vis a hive that is found in the open air (not in the house).
Section one: The hive acts as a tent to spread the impurity to the sides, both above and below the vessel. The inside remains pure because it is protected by the hive (because it is not susceptible to impurity).
If the uncleanness is within the hive, then it acts as an ohel to spread the impurity to the sides above and below.
Section two: Similar to mishnah two and seven, but here, since there is no house, it is not relevant to discuss it being jammed into a door.
Section three: If it can hold forty seahs then it counts as an ohel to provide a barrier for impurity.
Sections four-six: See mishnah seven.
Section seven: The hive acts as a barrier to the impurity and limits it to below.
Section eight: The hive acts as an ohel to keep the impurity inside.
Section nine: The impurity is not found in an ohel, and therefore the impurity does not spread. It is limited to defiling things directly above it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses cases where a complete hive is outside of the house but instead of lying on its side, it is standing straight up, either right side up or upside down.", + "If it was resting on its bottom and it [retained the status of] a vessel: If there is uncleanness below it, within it or above it, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If the hive is standing right side up and it is a vessel, meaning it is not defective, nor is it attached to the ground with mortar, the no matter where the impurity is located, it will only travel up and down and not to the sides. Since the hive is open, there is nothing to form a barrier against the impurity, no matter where it is found. If found within the hive, it is not trapped there, because the hive is open.", + "[In the case where] it was one handbreadth high off the ground or covered or inverted [so as to stand] upon its mouth, if there is uncleanness below it, within it or above it, everything becomes unclean. There are three situations here: 1) the hive is one handbreadth off the ground; 2) it is covered but not with a tightly fitting lid; 3) it is inverted so that the mouth is on the ground. Situations two and three are similar. When the impurity goes up or down it will enter an empty space that is over one cubic handbreadth. Once this happens, the impurity will spread to the entire empty space and then from there it will defile anything above or below the empty space. The same is true if the hive is above the ground by more than a handbreadth. The space below is a cubic handbreadth; once it gets there the impurity will spread to the entire area of the hive, and from there it will defile anything above or below the hive." + ], + [ + "When do these rules apply? When [the hive retains the status of] a vessel. As we have done throughout, the mishnah now discusses the case where the hive is not a vessel or it can contain forty seahs, which makes it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "[In the case of its] being defective, although [the deficiency may be] stopped up with straw, or according to the sages, [in the case of it] containing forty se'ahs, If the uncleanness is below it, within it or above it, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: uncleanness can neither ascend into [the defective hive] nor descend from it. According to the first opinion, the rules here are the same as they were in mishnah thirteen, for this is an \"open ohel\" and an open ohel does not form a barrier. Therefore, no matter where the impurity is found, it will only go directly up and down. For the first time in this chapter we now hear of a debate. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon hold that an \"open ohel\" can form a barrier. Therefore, if the impurity is found below, it stops at the bottom of the hive. If the impurity is found within or above, the bottom of the hive protects the space underneath the hive from becoming impure.", + "If the hive is above the ground and it is not a vessel or it is not susceptible to impurity (because it can contain forty seahs), then the hive acts as a barrier. If there is impurity below, it remains there, although it does spread there to the sides. If there is impurity inside the hive or above it, since the hive is open, it doesn't spread to the sides. It defiles only that which is directly above or below. It also does not defile that which is below." + ], + [ + "Finally a mishnah that discusses something besides this mysterious hive. Today's mishnah discusses a coffins of various shapes.
A coffin which is broad below and narrow above, and has a corpse within it: A person touching it below remains clean; But above becomes unclean. The first coffin described is broad below and narrow above. Above the narrow section is the cover of the coffin. The rabbis held that if one touched any portion that is directly below the opening, he is impure. So if he touches it below, on the sides of the broad portion, he is not touching anything that is directly below the opening. Therefore, he remains pure. But if he touches the walls of the narrow section he is impure for they are directly below the opening.", + "If it is broad above and narrow below, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. In this case the cover above is broader than the remainder of the coffin. Therefore, no matter where he touches the coffin it is below the cover and he is impure.", + "If it was the same [above and below], a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Joshua says: a handbreadth and more below is clean, but from that handbreadth upwards is unclean. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate the case of a straight coffin. According to Rabbi Eliezer, since the entire coffin is below the covering, no matter where a person touches it he is impure. Rabbi Joshua holds that the dead body would be at least one handbreadth above the bottom of the coffin. Therefore, if a person touches from that point of the wall and below, he remains pure. If he touches above the one handbreadth mark, he is impure.", + "If it was made like a clothes-chest, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. A clothes chest opens to the top. On a coffin built in such a way, everything is below the opening. Therefore, no matter where he touches, he is impure.", + "If it was made like a case, a person touching it anywhere remains clean, except at the place where it opens. A \"case\" has its opening on the side. None of the coffin is below the opening. Therefore, he is impure only if he touches it on the side that opens." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of our chapter deals with an earthenware jar which cannot be defiled from the outside.", + "A jar resting on its bottom in the open air: The jar discussed in the beginning of the mishnah is pure, it is open and it is standing on its bottom. The jar is pear-shaped, i.e. it has walls that expand in the middle, as jars often did (and still do).", + "If an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed beneath it or within it directly [above] its bottom, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards, and the jar becomes unclean. There is a source of impurity within the jar or directly below the jar, opposite the bottom of the jar and not opposite the protruding walls. In all of these cases the impurity goes directly up and down, but not to the sides. The inside of the jar is also impure because earthenware jars receive impurity through their airspace. Thus even if the impurity is not within the jar, since it enters the jar through the jar's mouth, anything in the jar is impure.", + "[If the uncleanness is] outside below a [protruding] side, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards, but the jar remains clean. In this case, the impurity is outside the jar, above or below one of the jar's protruding sides. The impurity goes directly up and down, but it doesn't defile the inside of the jar because earthenware jars are not defiled from the outside and the impurity does not enter the jar rather it goes around the protruding wall.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within [the jar] and underneath the protruding sides, If there is within the [cavity of] the side a space of a cubic handbreadth everything [within the cavity] becomes unclean, but what lies directly [below] the mouth remains clean. If there is not [a space of a cubic handbreadth] the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. Here the impurity is inside the jar, but not directly below the opening. Rather it is inside one of the protruding walls. If the space formed by the protruding wall is a cubic handbreadth, then it is an ohel. Anything in this space is impure and the impurity spreads above and below as well. The jar is also impure. However, anything that is not directly above or below the sides remains clean. If the space is less than a cubic handbreadth, then it is not found in an ohel. In such a case the impurity goes up and down but it does not spread to the sides.", + "When do these rules apply? When the jar is clean. The above rules apply only if the jar is clean.", + "If it was unclean, or if it was one handbreadth high off the ground, or covered, or inverted [so as to stand] on its mouth, if there is uncleanness beneath it, within it or above it, everything becomes unclean. There are several situations listed here: 1) the jar is unclean before the piece of corpse is found in its proximity. In this case, it does not prevent impurity from entering and even if the impurity is beneath the protruding wall, it is as if it is beneath the jar itself. 2) If the jar is one handbreadth above the ground, then the same rules that we saw in mishnah thirteen apply. 3) If the jar is covered or inverted it becomes an ohel. Even if the impurity is below one of the walls, since the top is covered, there is no difference between the protruding walls and the body of the jar. In all of these cases, no matter where the impurity is found, everything, the contents of the jar, below and above the jar, is impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter ten discusses cases where there is a hatchway in a house leading to the roof. The mishnah will discuss various scenarios with regard to how large the hatchway is, and whether or not something covers it.", + "A hatchway in a house, which has an opening of a [square] handbreadth, The first mishnah deals with a hatchway that is a square handbreadth. Tomorrow, we will deal with a smaller hatchway (I bet you can't wait). In this case, the place directly below the hatchway is not an ohel.", + "If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchway remains clean. The part underneath the hatchway is not in the ohel (house). Therefore, whatever is there remains clean.", + "If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, the house remains clean. If there is uncleanness right below the hatchway it is not in a tent. The impurity travels straight up and the other things in the house remain clean.", + "If the uncleanness is either in the house or directly [below] the hatchway, and a person placed his foot above [the hatchway] he has combined [with the roof to bring] uncleanness. In this case, a person put his leg over the hatchway and thereby reduced the hatchway to less than a square handbreadth. The entire house is now one tent. Therefore, no matter where the impurity is found, the contents of the entire house are impure. Furthermore, the person himself is impure.", + "If part of the uncleanness is in the room and part of it directly [below] the hatchway, the house becomes unclean and what is directly [above] the uncleanness becomes unclean. If part of the source of uncleanness is under the house and part is under the hatchway, then the house becomes unclean as if the entire source of uncleanness was in the house. Anything found directly above the part of the impurity that was in the hatchway is impure. But things found opposite the hatchway but not directly above or below the source of impurity remain pure." + ], + [ + "If the hatchway does not have an opening of a square handbreadth: Our mishnah discusses a case where the hatchway is less than a handbreadth square.", + "If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchway remains clean. Even though the hatchway is less than one handbreadth, we do not consider the house to be closed and for the tent and the hatchway to be one ohel. Rather the same rule that applied in yesterday's mishnah applies here what is below the hatchway remains clean.", + "If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, the house remains clean. Again, although the hatchway is less than one handbreadth, we don't consider the house to be one ohel. If the impurity is below the hatchway, what is in the house remains clean.", + "When the uncleanness is in the house, if he placed his leg above [the hatchway], he remains clean. The person who put his leg above the hatchway remains pure because the impurity is trapped in the ohel that he created below. This is because the opening is less than one handbreadth. However, since the house and hatchway are one tent, whatever is found below is impure.", + "[When] the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, if he placed his leg above it, Rabbi Meir declares [him] unclean, But the sages say: if the uncleanness was [in position] before his leg, he becomes unclean, but if his leg was [in position] before the uncleanness, he remains clean. According to Rabbi Meir since the person overshadowed the source of corpse impurity, he is impure. The sages say it depends on what comes first. If the source of impurity is there first then he is impure because he put his leg over the hatchway before he made the house into one ohel. However, if his leg was there first, then when the impurity got there, the house was already one ohel and impurity does not escape from an ohel through a hole of less than one handbreadth.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: [in the case where] two [men's] legs, one above the other, were [in position] before the uncleanness, if the first person withdrew his leg and the other person's leg was still there, [the second] remains clean, because the first person's leg was [in position] before the uncleanness. Rabbi Shimon complicates the above scenario a little bit. The sages said that if the impurity was there before the person's leg was there, then the person is impure. Here, two people's legs were there, one on top of the other. When the first person removed his leg, the second person's leg now went over impurity that was there first. Nevertheless, since the house was an ohel by virtue of the first person's leg, the second person is pure." + ], + [ + "If part of the uncleanness is in the house and part directly [below] the hatchway, the house becomes unclean, and what is directly [above] the uncleanness becomes unclean, the words of Meir. In today's mishnah there is a source of impurity that is partially underneath the house and partially under a hatchway which is less than one square handbreadth (as in yesterday's mishnah). According to Rabbi Meir, the house is impure and anything above the impurity is also impure. Rabbi Meir says that the part of the impurity that is in the house joins with the part that is under the hatchway as if all of the impurity was under the hatchway. Therefore, anything that overshadows this impurity is defiled.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the house becomes unclean but what is directly [above] the uncleanness remains clean. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that the piece in the house does not join with the piece under the hatchway, for impurity in an ohel (the part in the house) does not join with impurity found under a hole (the hatchway) that is less than one handbreadth.", + "Rabbi Yose says: if there is sufficient of the uncleanness for it to be divided so that [one part] defiles the house and [the other part] defiles what is directly [above] the uncleanness, [both spaces] become unclean; if not, the house becomes unclean but what is directly [above] the uncleanness remains clean. Rabbi Yose seems to mediate between the first two opinions. If there is enough impurity to defile both the house and the space under the hatchway, then both are defiled even if there is not enough impurity under each one to defile it. For instance, if there is a piece of impurity the size of two olives (double the amount necessary) and 1 1/2 of it is found under the house and 1/2 under the hatchway, both are defiled. But if there is not sufficient to defile both, the house is still unclean but the hatchway is clean." + ], + [ + "If there are multiple hatchways, one above the other, and they each have an opening of one handbreadth [square], if there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchways remains clean. Our mishnah deals with a multi-story building, with hatchways one over the other, all of them one handbreadth wide. If the uncleanness is in the house (bottom floor), it remains in the house. The space below the hatchways remains clean.", + "If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchways, the house remains clean. If the uncleanness is below the hatchways, it doesn't enter the house.", + "[In the case] where the uncleanness is either in the house or directly [below] the hatchways, if something susceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or the lower [hatchway], everything becomes unclean. The mishnah now discusses what happens if something that is susceptible to impurity blocks up one of the hatchways, be it the upper or lower one. In this case no matter where the impurity is, under the house or under the hatchways, everything is impure. Seemingly, if the blockage was on the bottom hatchway, the contents of the upper stories should be pure, because the impurity would remain down there. However, since the article is susceptible to impurity, it doesn't block the impurity. It does, though, turn the bottom floor into one ohel, so that even if the impurity is under the hatchway, the whole floor is impure. Furthermore, the sages said that just as the bottom floor is impure, so too all of the floors are impure, even if the article is below the hatchway and would seem to escape through the upper hatchways. We look at all of the floors as if they were all closed up.", + "If the article is insusceptible to uncleanness, what is below becomes unclean, but what is above remains clean. If the article is not susceptible to uncleanness, then it blocks the impurity from spreading to the upper floors. Only the bottom floor is impure." + ], + [ + "In a case where the hatchways do not have an opening of a square handbreadth:
If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchways remains clean.
If there is uncleanness directly [below] the hatchways, the house remains clean.
[In the case] where the uncleanness is in the house, if an article whether susceptible to uncleanness or insusceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or the lower [hatchway], nothing becomes unclean except the lower story.
[In the case] where the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchways, if an article susceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or lower [hatchway], everything becomes unclean.
If the article is insusceptible to uncleanness, whether [it is placed] in the upper or lower [hatchway], nothing becomes unclean except the lower story.
Today's mishnah continues to deal with a house with hatchways between multiple stories. The hatchways in today's mishnah are less than one square handbreadth.
Sections one and two: These are the same laws as seen in mishnah two, concerning a house that has only one story.
Section three: In this case it will not matter what type of article that was used to block up one of the hatchways, nor does it matter which hatchway is blocked up. The impurity is found below in the house and the mishnah rules that it spreads to the entire bottom floor, including the space directly below the hatchway. However, the impurity does not leave the bottom floor to defile the upper floors because the hatchway is less than a handbreadth wide. And even if the covering was placed on the uppermost hatchway, the middle stories do not become impure because we look at the covering as if it was below, on the bottom floor where the impurity is found, and that it serves to stop up the impurity there in the house.
Section four: If the impurity is found directly below one of the hatchways, then the halakhah is the same as it was in mishnah four. If the article is susceptible to impurity, it does not block the impurity below and all of the stories are impure (see yesterday's mishnah).
Section five: And if the article is not susceptible to impurity, then wherever it is placed, only the lower story is impure. Something not susceptible to impurity can prevent impurity from spreading. And even if the article is placed on the upper hatchway, we look at it as if it was placed below, and only the lower story is impure (just as we did in section three)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah (and tomorrow's) deal with cases where a pot is placed below the hatchway. The mishnah will discuss various scenarios as to where the pot is, and where the source of impurity is and how that effects what becomes impure.", + "In the case of a hatchway in a house with a pot placed below it that, if it was raised, its rims would not touch the [edges of the] hatchway: The pot is placed directly below the hatchway, such that if the pot was raised it would not close up the entire hatchway. The pot is not as broad as the hatchway.", + "If there is uncleanness below, within or above [the pot], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If there is impurity below the pot, it is in a space that is not one handbreadth cubed. As we have learned, such impurity travels up and down but not to the sides. Below and above the pot is impure, but the remainder of the house is pure.", + "In the case where [the pot] was one handbreadth high off the ground, if there is uncleanness below it or in the house, what is below it and in the house becomes unclean, but what is within [the pot] or above it, remains clean. If the pot is one handbreadth high off the ground, then it is in a (mini-) ohel. If there is a source of impurity either in the house or below the pot, the house and below the pot are defiled. The impurity spreads from under the pot and defiles the house. However, when it comes to the contents of the pot and what is above, we look at the pot as if it was placed above at the hatchway. Since an earthenware pot is not susceptible to impurity from the outside, it forms a barrier with the walls of the house, so that impurity does not enter inside. What is above the hatchway is also protected. However, if the pot was the same size as the hatchway and it couldn't fit in there, it does not offer a barrier and it is looked at as simply a vessel and vessels cannot become an ohel to protect against impurity (see 6:1).", + "[If the uncleanness is] within or above [the pot], everything becomes unclean. If the uncleanness is inside the pot or above it, then everything, the inside of the pot, above the pot and the entire house are impure. This is because the pot is defiled by the impurity that is within it or above it and an impure vessel does not offer a barrier to impurity. This means that the impurity will go below the pot, and from there spread to the entire house." + ], + [ + "[In the case where the pot was] placed on the side of the threshold [of the house] such that if it was raised it would touch the lintel over a [space of a square] handbreadth: Today's mishnah deals with a pot that is placed on its side outside of a house, on the threshold of the house. The pot is placed such that if it was lifted up, at least one handbreadth square of the pot would touch the lintel.", + "If there is uncleanness below, within or above [the pot], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. In this case, no matter where the impurity is, it goes only up and down. If it is below the pot, then it is not in an ohel that is one cubic handbreadth in size. If it is in the pot or on its side, then the house remains pure because the impurity is not within the lintel (which would place it in the house).", + "[In the case] where it was one handbreadth high off the ground: As the mishnah always seems to do, it now discusses what happens if the pot is a one handbreadth off the ground.", + "If there is uncleanness below it or in the house, what is below it and in the house becomes unclean. In this case there is an ohel (under the pot) that is immediately connected to the house (because there is no space between it and the house). The wall of the pot, if lifted, would connect at the length of a handbreadth with the lintel of the house. Therefore, if the impurity is either under the pot or in the house, it spreads from one to the other and both are unclean.", + "If the uncleanness is within or above [the pot], everything becomes unclean. If the uncleanness is within or above the pot, then the pot is defiled and it doesn't form a barrier to protect the house (see mishnah six).", + "[In the case where the pot] if raised would not touch the lintel over a [space of a square] handbreadth, or is joined to the lintel, if there is uncleanness below it, nothing is unclean except what is below [the pot]. In this case, the pot is again one handbreadth off the ground. In this case, if it were lifted, it would not touch a space of one square handbreadth of the lintel. Alternatively, the pot is raised all the way to the lintel, but it comes into contact with less than one handbreadth of the lintel. In these cases, if impurity is below it, it remains there. The pot does form an ohel over the impurity and therefore the entire area below the pot is impure. However, the house is pure since the pot touches the lintel for a space less than one handbreadth. In order for two ohels to be connected to convey impurity the contact must be at least a handbreadth. The inside of the pot and above the pot are pure for the pot joins with the walls of the house to serve as a barrier, even though it is connected at a point of less than a handbreadth." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A house, which has been split [into two]: Our mishnah deals with a house that has been split entirely into two.", + "If there is uncleanness in the outer [part], vessels in the inner [part] remain clean. If there is impurity in the outer part of the house, in the part that is closest to the doorway, it doesn't travel in and defile the vessels that are in the inner part of the house. This is because of the rule that impurity goes out but does not come in.", + "If the uncleanness is in the inner [part], vessels in the outer [are clean]: Bet Shammai says: when the split is four handbreadths wide; But Bet Hillel says: [when the split is of] any size. Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Hillel: [when it is] one handbreadth wide. If the impurity is in the inner part of the house, the two houses debate how large the split must be for it to escape and not defile the vessels that are in the outer part. Beth Shammai says that the opening must be at least four handbreadths wide for impurity to escape. Bet Hillel says that the split can be of any size. Rabbi Yose presents a different version of Bet Hillel's opinion the split must be at least a handbreadth. Smaller than that and the impurity will travel through the outer part of the house and defile the vessels there as well." + ], + [ + "A portico which has been split [into two]:
If there is uncleanness on the one side, vessels on the other side remain clean.
If a person placed his leg or a reed above [the split], he has combined [with the roof to bring the] uncleanness.
If he placed the reed on the ground, it does not form a passage for the uncleanness until it is one handbreadth off the ground.
Today's mishnah deals with a portico, a structure made of columns supporting a roof that stands in front of a house.
Section one: Since the portico's roof is split, impurity found on one side does not travel to the other. And in this case there is no difference between vessels that are found in the inner half and those found in the outer half (as there was with the house) because the portico is open from three sides. Thus the impurity can escape to the sides.
Section two: If a person put his leg over the crack, then he has made the two halves of the portico into one tent. Thus impurity that is found on one side of the tent will travel to the other.
Section four: If a person places a reed on the ground it does not serve to join the two sides of the portico into one tent. However, if he raises it by one handbreadth then the tent that it forms joins the two tents above and everything is considered to be one tent." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with the portico that had a split in it. The mishnah discusses various objects placed below that either do or do not close the split such that impurity on one side can travel to the other.", + "A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground. Despite the fact that these items are one handbreadth thick, they are not considered to be an ohel such that there is an ohel directly beneath the split in the roof of the portico. For something to be an ohel it must also have an empty space.", + "If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground. If there are a few garments folded one on another, they bring uncleanness when placed underneath the split if the bottom part of the upper garment is at least one handbreadth off the ground. In other words, the entire upper garment must be one handbreadth above the ground in order for it to form an ohel over the other garments. We might have thought that since the presence of the lower garments does not prevent an ohel from being formed, then the lower folds of the upper garment also wouldn't prevent an ohel from being formed. The mishnah teaches that there is a difference between the lower and upper garments. The lower garments are in the ohel and the upper garment forms the ohel.", + "If a person were placed there [under the split in the portico]: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: a person is hollow and his uppermost side brings the uncleanness. Bet Shammai says that a person's body cannot be considered an ohel. Bet Hillel looks at a person's abdomen as being hollow. The upper side is the top of the ohel and therefore a person closes the split in the portico." + ], + [ + "If a person was looking out of a window and overshadowed a funeral procession: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness. The positions stated by Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in this mishnah follow their opinions in yesterday's mishnah. According to Bet Shammai, if a person leans out the window and overshadows a dead body, there is no \"ohel\" to bring the uncleanness into the house. The person's body is right up against the bottom of the window, so there is no way for the impurity to get into an ohel and then into the house. Bet Hillel says we look at his abdomen as if it was an empty cavity. The top part is the ohel, and through the cavity formed underneath, the impurity is able to enter into the house.", + "They agree that if he was dressed in his clothes or if there were two persons, one above the other, they bring the uncleanness. Bet Shammai agrees that if a person has his clothes on (bet you didn't realize he was hanging out the window naked in section one!), his clothes they can be considered the upper part of the ohel for they at least a handbreadth above the bottom of the window. The same is true if there is a person above the first person. The top person is at least a handbreadth above the bottom of the window, and therefore he can count as an ohel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to discuss whether a person overshadowed by a funeral procession brings uncleanness into the house.", + "If a person was lying on the threshold and the funeral procession overshadowed him: Bet Shammai says: he does bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness. The person is lying with part of his body on the threshold, outside of the door, and the rest of his body is in the house. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel are consistent with the positions they held in the previous mishnayot. Bet Shammai says that the person is not an ohel through which the impurity could be conveyed into the house. Bet Hillel says that a person's body is considered to be hollow. Therefore, the impurity gets into the ohel formed by his body and from there it enters the house." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is the final one in the series of debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning a person acting as an ohel.", + "[In the case] where the uncleanness was in the house and clean persons overshadowed him: Bet Shammai declares them clean, But Bet Hillel declares them unclean. As was the case in yesterday's mishnah, the person is again lying on the threshold. In this case, the impurity is in the house and then clean people overshadow him. Since Bet Shammai thinks that the person does not form an ohel to bring the impurity out of the house; they remain clean. Bet Hillel again holds that the person is hollow and that he brings the impurity out of the house, thereby defiling those who overshadow him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a dog who ate the flesh of a corpse and then died on the threshold of a house. His neck is in the house and his stomach, where the piece of flesh is being digested, is outside of the house. The question is: does the impurity enter the house in order to defile all of the contents of the house?\nWe should note that if the dog was still alive there is no question that a source of impurity found inside him does not defile outside.", + "A dog which had eaten the flesh of a corpse and then died and was lying over the threshold:
Rabbi Meir says: if its neck has a thickness of one handbreadth it can bring the uncleanness, but if not, it does not bring the uncleanness. Rabbi Meir says that the purity of the house depends on whether the neck is large enough to serve as an ohel. If it is an ohel, then the impurity enters the ohel of the neck and from there spreads to the body. But if the neck is too small to serve as an ohel, the impurity remains in the dog.", + "Rabbi Yose says: we [examine to] see where the uncleanness is. If it is beneath the lintel and inwards, the house becomes unclean; if from the lintel and outwards, the house remains clean. Rabbi Yose says that the size of the neck doesn't matter. Rather we check to see where in the dog's body the impurity is found. If it is found inside a part of the body that is in the house, then the house is impure. But if the impurity remains outside of the house, the house is pure.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: if its mouth [points] inwards, the house remains clean; if its mouth [points] outwards, the house becomes unclean, since the uncleanness goes out through its hind. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in either case the house becomes unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says that the impurity escapes through the dog's rear end. Therefore, if the rear end is in the house, the house is impure. But if the mouth is in the house, the house is pure. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that the impurity can also escape through the dog's mouth. Therefore, it does not matter which end is in the house, the house is impure.", + "How long can [the uncleanness] remain in its entrails? Three whole days. The piece of corpse is assumed to be present in the dog's guts for three whole days. After that it will have been fully digested.", + "[If in the entrails] of fishes or birds, as long as [it takes for the uncleanness] to fall in the fire and be consumed, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in the case of fishes or birds, twenty-four hours. Flesh eaten by fish or birds does not remain in their (smaller) guts as long as it does for dogs. According to Rabbi Simon, it will remain there only as long as it would take to burn the flesh in a fire. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that it stays there longer, for an entire day." + ], + [ + "A cellar in a house with a candlestick in it, whose calyx protrudes and an olive-basket is placed such that if the candlestick was taken away the olive-basket would still remain over the mouth of the cellar: Bet Shammai says: the cellar remains clean but the candlestick becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the candlestick also remains clean. The source of corpse uncleanness is found in the house. The cellar has a candlestick protruding from it, and the calyx (a flower-shaped receptacle on the candlestick) is supporting a basket that covers the opening to the cellar. The basket is of a type that is not susceptible to impurity. If the basket can remain in place without the support of the candlestick, then it joins the walls of the cellar to prevent impurity from going below. However, Bet Shammai holds that since part of the candlestick protrudes from the cellar, the candlestick is impure. The basket covering it does not protect it from contracting impurity. Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that the basket protects the candlestick as well.", + "But they agree that if the olive-basket would fall [into the cellar] if the candlestick was removed, all would become unclean. If the olive-basket is supported by the candlestick and would collapse without it, it does not protect the impurity from going down below. This is because the candlestick is a vessel and vessels do not act as an ohel to prevent spread of impurity." + ], + [ + "Vessels [that are] between the rims of the olive-basket and the rims of the cellar, even to the depths, remain clean. In this case, the olive-basket is placed over the cellar such that it wouldn't fall into the cellar. In other words, it covers the entire opening. There are vessels placed between the rims of the olive-basket and the rims of the cellar. These vessels are pure as if they were actually in the cellar, because they are protected by the olive-basket. This is true no matter how deep in the cellar the vessels are.", + "If there is uncleanness in the cellar, the house becomes unclean. If the uncleanness is in the cellar, the olive-basket does not protect the house and the contents of the house are impure. This is because the impurity will be eventually removed through the house.", + "If there is uncleanness in the house, vessels in the walls of the cellar remain clean, if the place where they are has a content of one cubic handbreadth; if not, they become unclean. In this case, there is no basket placed over the opening to the cellar. If there are vessels in the walls of the cellars, and the space in which they are found has the capacity to hold a cubic handbreadth, then the vessels are protected. They are in an \"ohel\" and vessels in an ohel are not defiled by what is outside of the ohel. However, if this space is smaller than is needed to form an ohel, they are impure.", + "If the walls of the cellar are wider [apart] than those of the house, in either case the vessels remain clean. If the walls of the cellar are wider than the house, then the vessels in the walls are not considered to be part of the house and they are pure even if they are in a space less than a cubic handbreadth." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A board placed over the mouth of a new oven, overlapping it on all sides to the extent of a handbreadth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the board], vessels above it remain clean; If there is uncleanness above it, vessels beneath it remain clean. The oven referred to here is new and its manufacturing has not been completed. Therefore it is not susceptible to impurity (see Kelim 5:1). The board on top of it overshadows a source of impurity. However, the board acts as an ohel and prevents the impurity from going above or, if the source of impurity is above, from going below.", + "In the case of an old oven, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean. If the oven is one that has been used, it is susceptible to impurity. In this case the vessels above and below are impure. This is because the board is supported by a vessel that can become impure and in such cases an ohel is not formed (see 4:1). The oven is also impure. According to the Tosefta Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the oven is pure, but he agrees that the vessels above and below the board are unclean.", + "[If the board] is placed over the mouth of two ovens, if there is uncleanness between them, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean. In this case one board is placed over the top of two ovens. There is a source of uncleanness in between them. Even if the ovens are new, they are impure because we don't look at the walls of the oven as being the outsides of the ovens. Rather we look at them as being the walls of a tent which do become impure. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri still holds that the ovens are pure. Evidently, he does look at the walls of the ovens as being the outsides of the ovens and since the oven does not become impure by contact with impurity on its outside, the ovens are pure." + ], + [ + "Netting placed over the mouth of an oven, [so that it is] closed with a sealed lid: If there is uncleanness below [the netting] or above it, everything becomes unclean; But what is directly [above] the air-space of the oven remains clean. The oven referred to here is assumedly a used oven, one which is susceptible to impurity. The netting placed over it is also attached to the oven such that it forms a tightly sealed lid. This means that the inside of the oven cannot become impure. The netting goes beyond the sides of the oven by a handbreadth, as was the case with the board in yesterday's mishnah. As was the case there, the netting is considered to form an ohel over anything below it. If there is a source of impurity below or above the netting, everything found below or above the netting is impure because the netting is an ohel. However, the inside of the sealed oven is not defiled and therefore, anything found above the air-space of the oven is pure. This is the main difference between this and yesterday's case. In yesterday's mishnah even the oven, and anything in it, was impure.", + "If there is uncleanness directly [above] the air-space of the oven, everything directly above it even to the sky becomes unclean. If the uncleanness is above the oven, directly above its air-space, it travels only upwards. Anything underneath the netting or underneath the oven will remain pure." + ], + [ + "[In a case where] the board is placed over the mouth of an old oven projects from either [end] to the extent of one handbreadth but not from the sides: If there is uncleanness under one end [of the board], vessels [under] the other end remain clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean. In this case the board extends over the oven in one direction, for instance, north-south, but not east-west. The first opinion holds that this is not sufficient to convey impurity from one side to the other. The impurity would have to travel through the oven and since the oven cannot become impure from the outside it blocks the impurity from going to the other side. In mishnah one the board hung over the oven from all sides, and therefore the impurity could travel from one side to the other. Rabbi Yose holds that the door does not prevent the impurity from traveling from one side to the other.", + "A betach does not bring uncleanness. A betach is some sort of projection that juts out from a window both inside and out. Maimonides interprets it as something used to climb on. The mishnah says that it doesn't bring uncleanness from the outside into the house because the wall found in between forms a break.", + "If there was a projection ( in it: Rabbi Eliezer says: it [still] does not bring uncleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: we look at the betach as if it is not there, and the projection above brings uncleanness. In this case there is another type of projection sticking out from the house that is found on top of the betach (in Hebrew this is called a ziz). The impurity is found underneath the betach and the question is does the ziz convey impurity into the house?. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the betach separates the impurity from the ziz and therefore the ziz doesn't convey impurity into the house. Rabbi Joshua holds that we look at the situation as if the betach wasn't there. Therefore, the ziz is found to form an ohel over the impurity. The house to which the ziz is attached will also be impure." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] the shoe of a cradle, for which a hole had been made [in the ceiling to bring it] into the house [below], To hold a baby's cradle in place they would make a sort of shoe for the cradle and then attach the shoe to the ground. In this case the cradle is on the upper floor of a house and the bottom of the shoe can be seen in the bottom floor. In other words, they made a hole in the ceiling (of the bottom floor) to attach the cradle to the floor (of the upper story). There is a source of impurity below in the house.", + "If [the hole] is one handbreadth square, everything becomes unclean; If the hole is at least one handbreadth square then the contents of the upper floor are impure because the impurity can enter through a hole of that size.", + "But if it was not [one handbreadth square] its [uncleanness] is reckoned as one reckons with [cases of contact with] a corpse. However, if the hole is less than one handbreadth then the shoe that hangs over the corpse impurity has the same impurity level as the dead body itself. It defiles the crib and the baby, and we reckon impurity as we normally do. Anything that touches the shoe is a \"father of impurity\" and anything that touches it has first degree impurity and so on." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a house that has two stories, but is not completed. There are roof beams going across each ceiling, but there are gaps in between each beam that have not yet been filled in with the plaster.", + "[With regard to] the roof beams of a house and of the upper story which have no plaster ceiling upon them and are in a line, [the upper ones exactly above the lower]: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, all beneath that one becomes unclean. If it is between a lower and an upper [beam] what is between them becomes unclean. If it is above the upper [roof beams], what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean. In the first scenario, the upper roof beams are precisely above the lower ones. If there is uncleanness beneath one of the beams of the house, anything below it is impure because it forms an ohel. However, the beam also prevents the impurity from spreading to the area above it. And the impurity doesn't spread to anywhere else in the house because there is nothing overshadowing the spaces in between the beams. If the impurity is on top of the lower beam and below the upper beam, it remains in this area. If it is above one of the upper beam then the impurity only travels upwards.", + "[In the case] where the upper [roof beams] were [over the gaps] between the lower [roof beams]: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, what is beneath all of them becomes unclean; If above them, what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean. In this case the upper and lower roof beams are not lined up. Rather the upper beams are spaced right in between the lower beams. If there is impurity underneath one of them, then it spreads to the area underneath all of them, as if there was only one roof. In other words, we look at the bottom beams as if they had been raised to a level equal to the lower beams. If the impurity is found above any of the beams, it is not in any ohel, and therefore it only defiles that which is found directly above it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses a beam that goes from one wall to another. It also deals with the rabbinic calculation of circumference, so prepare for some math!", + "[With regard to] a beam which is placed across from one wall to another and which has uncleanness beneath it: If it is one handbreadth wide, it conveys uncleanness to everything beneath it; If it is not [one handbreadth wide], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If the beam is one handbreadth wide, it forms an ohel and the impurity spreads to everything below the beam. However, if the beam is less than one handbreadth, then it is not sufficiently wide to form an ohel. The impurity goes up and down, but does not spread to the sides.", + "How much must its circumference be so that its width should be one handbreadth? If it is round, its circumference must be three handbreadths; If square, four handbreadths, since a square has a [circumference] one quarter greater than [that of] a circle. The general rule for determining the diameter of a circle for the rabbis is three times the circumference (we know that 3 should really be Pi, but they were close). So as long as the circumference is at least 3 handbreadths, the diameter is one handbreadth. If the beam is square, then its circumference must be four handbreadths for it to have a diameter (in this case, side) that is one handbreadth. A circle whose diameter is one handbreadth can fit into a square whose sides are each a handbreadth. The circumference of this square will be four." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a pillar that has fallen onto its side. There is going to be a space on each side of the pillar under which something could lie, because the pillar is round. For this space to be an ohel, the space must be one handbreadth square. Our mishnah calculates how large the pillar must be for the space to be a handbreadth.", + "[With regard to] a pillar lying [on its side] in the open air, If its circumference is twenty-four handbreadths, it brings uncleanness to everything under its side; But if it is not, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. Okay, ready for some math? If the circumference of the circle is 24, then according to rabbinic math, the diameter is 8. You could then put a square around this diameter where each side is 8 handbreadths. The diagonal line drawn from one end of this square to another would be 8 + 16/5. This is according to the rule that every handbreadth on the side of a square is equivalent to 1 1/5 handbreadths (we know that the real length is the square root of 128, according to the formula a2 + b2=c2. Still, they were pretty close) At the corners of this square with the circle in it would be a smaller square whose diagonal is 8/5 of a handbreadth (half of the extra 16/5). This is the area which would form the ohel over the uncleanness. Since it is more than a handbreadth, it brings uncleanness to the entire pillar. If the pillar is smaller than that, then the overhanging part will be less than a handbreadth and it will not convey impurity." + ], + [ + "If an olive-sized portion of a corpse is stuck to the threshold: Rabbi Eliezer declares the house unclean. Rabbi Joshua declares it clean. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the threshold is part of the house. Therefore, if a source of uncleanness is found on the threshold, the house is impure. Rabbi Joshua holds that the threshold is not part of the house. Therefore, if the impurity is found on the threshold, the house is clean.", + "If it was placed beneath the threshold, the [case] is judged by the half [in which the uncleanness is found]. If it is found underneath the threshold, then whether it is considered to be in the house depends on whether it is under the inner half of the threshold or the outer half. The house is impure if the impurity is in the inner half.", + "If it is stuck to the lintel, the house becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose declares it clean. The impurity is stuck to the outer section of the lintel. Most sages consider the lintel to be included in the house. Rabbi Yose considers the outer side of the lintel to be outside the house.", + "If it was in the house, a person touching the lintel becomes unclean. As a corollary, if the impurity is inside the house and a person touches the lintel, he is defiled.", + "[As for] a person touching the threshold: Rabbi Eliezer declares him unclean. Rabbi Joshua says: [if he touches it at a point] below a handbreadth [from the surface] he remains clean; above that handbreadth he becomes unclean. Rabbi Eliezer is consistent with his opinion above. Since he considers the threshold to be part of the house, if someone touches the threshold (when the impurity is in the house) he is impure. Rabbi Joshua says that he is impure only if he touches a space on the threshold that is at least one handbreadth above the ground. If it is less than a handbreadth above the ground, then he is pure because less than a handbreadth is considered part of the ground (see 9:15 where Rabbi Joshua says the same thing concerning a coffin). Rabbi Joshua's opinions seem to be inconsistent. In section one he holds that the threshold is not part of the house, but here he holds that it is, at least one handbreadth over the ground. One explanation is that since in this case the impurity is found in the house, the impurity goes out through the threshold and thereby defiles it. In other words, it is not that the threshold is part of the house, rather that the impurity goes out through the threshold and thereby defiles it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter thirteen deals with the size that a hole in a building must be in order for corpse impurity found in a tent to travel to the other side.", + "One who makes a new light hole, its minimum size is that of a hole made by the large drill of the Temple chamber. When one makes a new light-hole in a house, in order for it to bring impurity to something on the other side, it must be the size of a hole made by the large drill used in the Temple chamber. This drill is referred to also in Kelim 17:12.", + "The remains of a light-hole [the size is] two fingerbreadths high by a thumb-breadth broad. The following is considered the remains of a light-hole: a window that a person had blocked up but had not been able to finish [being blocked up]. The \"remains of a light hole\" is a light hole that they began to close up but they didn't finish closing it up. It needs only be two finger-breadths by a thumb-breadth. The concept behind this halakhah is that once something enters a certain category, it is harder to leave that category than it was to get there in the first place.", + "[A hole] that was bored by water, or by reptiles or eaten away by salt: the minimum size is that of a fist. If he intended to use it, its minimum size is one handbreadth square; For lighting its minimum size is that of a hole made by the drill. A hole made by a natural cause must be at least the size of a fist. This is larger than the hole made by the drill. See Kelim 17:12. However, if he intended to use the hole that was created by a natural cause, it takes on the halakhic requirements of a handmade hole, and it depends on what he wants to use it for. If he intends to use it to put his things there, then it must be one handbreadth square. If he intends to use it for lighting, then the size is smaller the size made by the drill (section one).", + "The holes in grating or lattice-work may be joined together to form [an opening] the size of a hole made by the drill, according to the opinion of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: unless there is a hole of the size made by the drill in one place. Bet Shammai holds that the small holes made in grating or in lattice-work join together to create the required sized hole to bring impurity from one side to the other side. Bet Hillel says that there must be one hole that is at least the size of the drill. In other words, the smaller holes are not combined.", + "[The above applies] for purposes of allowing the uncleanness to come in or to go out. Rabbi Shimon says: only for allowing the uncleanness to come in; but for allowing the uncleanness to go out [the minimum size] is one handbreadth square. According to the first opinion, the measure of the size of a drill was stated both to allow impurity to enter a house from an adjacent ohel or to allow the impurity to escape from the house to an adjacent ohel. Rabbi Shimon says that the earlier halakhah concerning a hole the size of the Temple drill was stated only with regard to allowing impurity to enter. When it comes to allowing impurity to escape, there is a different requirement the hole must be one square handbreadth. This halakhah is also found in 3:6." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a window made for letting in air, its minimum size is that of a hole made by the drill. If a window was made for letting in air, then it must have been made on the outside of a building. It will also let in light. Therefore, it allows impurity in and out according to the smaller measure, that of a hole made by a drill (see yesterday's mishnah). If the hole was between two rooms, it would need to be at least a handbreadth in order to allow impurity through.", + "If a house was built outside it, its minimum size becomes one handbreadth square. When the window was in the outermost wall of the house, it needed to be only the size of the drill-hole. But now that someone builds a house next to it, it needs to be larger, a full square handbreadth, to allow impurity to travel through.", + "If a roof was placed at the height of the middle of the window, the minimum size of the lower part is one handbreadth square and of the upper part that of a hole made by the drill. In this case, a roof was built right next to the window, assumedly because the city is on a hill. Now the top of the window faces outside and the bottom of the window opens into the adjacent building. The mishnah looks at this as two different windows. The top part needs to be only as large as the drill but the bottom part must be a handbreadth." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how large an opening in a door must be to allow in and out impurity.", + "[With regard to] a hole in the door: Its minimum size is that of a fist, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: one handbreadth square. Rabbi Akiva holds that since these holes in the door were not made intentionally, they should be compared with the naturally forming holes referred to in mishnah one. For impurity to travel through such a hole, it must be the size of a fist. Rabbi Tarfon says that it needs only be a handbreadth square (slightly smaller than a fist) for these holes are meant for human use (see mishnah one).", + "If the carpenter had left a space at the bottom or the top [of the door] or if one had shut [the door] but not closed it tightly, or if the wind blew it open, the minimum size is that of a fist. There are three spaces in a door referred to here: 1) the carpenter didn't make the door as large as it was supposed to be; 2) the door wasn't tightly closed; 3) the wind blew the door slightly open. All of these are openings that were probably not intentionally formed, nor are they holes that are used by human. Therefore, the measure to allow through impurity is that of a fist, which is larger than a handbreadth." + ], + [ + "One who makes a place for a rod, for tongs, or a lamp, the minimum size is whatever is needful, according to the word of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: one handbreadth square. According to Bet Shammai, if one makes a hole in the wall to store a specific item, that hole needs to be large enough to actually store the item for it to allow impurity from one side to the other. Bet Hillel imposes a standard size one handbreadth square. This is the measure we saw above in mishnah one.", + "[If it was made] for a peep-hole, for speaking through to his fellow, or for [human] use, the minimum size is one handbreadth square. If one makes a hole to look through (what we might call a peep-hole, ignoring the connotations of this word) or a hole to talk through or for any human use, the hole must be the size of a handbreadth." + ], + [ + "The following [objects serve to] reduce [the area of a square] handbreadth:
[A portion] of less than an olive-size of flesh [of a corpse] reduces [the opening for uncleanness that is] caused by a quarter of a kav of bones [from a corpse];
[A portion] of less than a barley-corn size of bone reduces [the opening for uncleanness that is] caused by an olive-sized portion of flesh;
Less than an olive-sized portion of a corpse,
Less than an olive-sized portion of carrion,
Less than a lentil-sized portion of sheretz;
Less than an egg-sized portion of food;
Produce growing next to the window,
A cobweb having substance;
The carcass of a clean bird that he did not intend to eat,
And the carcass of an unclean bird that had been intended [for food] that had not been rendered susceptible [to uncleanness], or which had been rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] but had not been intended [for food].
Our mishnah deals with a window between two rooms that is a square handbreadth and therefore will allow impurity to travel between one room and the other. However, if there is placed in the window something that is not susceptible to impurity, it reduces the size of the window and blocks the impurity from traveling through. The mishnah lists some of the things that cause the window to be reduced in size. Tomorrow's mishnah will list things that do not block the impurity.
Section one: In one room there is a quarter kav of bones, an amount which causes impurity in an ohel. There is a window that is a handbreadth square that would allow the impurity to travel to the adjacent room. However, in the window there is a piece of flesh of corpse that is less than the size of an olive. In this case, the window size is considered reduced and the impurity is confined to the room in which the bones are found. However, if the impurity came from an olive sized portion of flesh and there was less than an olive sized portion of flesh in the window, the flesh in the window would be reckoned together with the flesh in the room, and the impurity would travel to the next room. In other words, like substances (flesh) join together whereas unlike substances (flesh and bone) do not.
Section two: This is the opposite scenario. In the room there is an olive-sized portion of flesh, sufficient to cause impurity in an ohel. In the window there is a barley-corn size piece of bone, which is not sufficient to cause impurity. Again, the piece of bone in the window reduces its size and the impurity doesn't go to the other room. However, in this case if there was a quarter kav of bones in the room and a small piece of bone in the window, the size of the window would not be reduced.
Section three: The less than olive-sized portion of flesh is mentioned here again because it is the opposite of the olive-sized portion of flesh which does not reduce the window, as we will learn in mishnah six.
Sections four-six: These substances do not transmit impurity. Furthermore, since they are of a different substance than bones or flesh, they reduce the size of the window no matter what is in the house: bones or flesh.
Section seven: The produce reduces the size of the window if it began to grow near the window and then spread into the window.
Section eight: For the cobweb to reduce the window it must have substance.
Section nine: The carcass of a clean bird that one did not intend to eat (even had it been slaughtered properly) does not cause impurity. Therefore, it reduces the size of the window.
Section ten: The opposite is true for the carcass of an unclean bird. It causes impurity only if one intended to eat the bird and it was rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with water after it died. If he intended to eat it, or it wasn't rendered susceptible to impurity, it is not susceptible to impurity and it does reduce the size of the window." + ], + [ + "The following do not reduce [the area of the window]: Bone does not reduce [the area] for [other] bones; Nor [corpse] flesh for [other] flesh;
Nor an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse;
Nor an olive-sized portion of carrion;
Nor a lentil-sized portion of reptile;
Nor an egg-sized portion of food;
Nor produce growing in the windows;
Nor a cobweb having no substance;
Nor the carcass of a clean bird which had been intended [for food];
Nor the carcass of an unclean bird which had been intended [for food] and had been rendered susceptible to uncleanness;
Nor warp and woof threads that have negaim;
Nor a brick from a bet haperas, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the brick can reduce, because the dust [of the bet haperas] is clean.
This is the general rule: what is clean reduces [the area], and what is unclean does not reduce it.
Today's mishnah refers mostly to cases that are opposite of those found in yesterday's mishnah. It lists things that do not reduce the area of the window.
Section one: Since the substance found in the window is the same as is found in the house, they don't reduce the area of the window.
Sections two-five: All of these are simply the opposite cases of those taught in mishnah five. There is a sufficient amount that it is susceptible to impurity.
Section six: In this case the produce grows directly out of the window and not just adjacent to the window, as it did in yesterday's mishnah. Since one does not want to keep such produce, it doesn't reduce the size of the window.
Sections seven-nine: The opposite of those cases found in yesterday's mishnah.
Section ten: Negaim are what we might call \"plagues\" or some type of disease that infects cloth. There will be an entire tractate devoted to this subject. If the cloth has negaim, then it is impure and anything impure does not reduce the area of the window.
Section eleven: A bet haperas is a field that used to be used as a cemetery but was plowed over. The brick was made from the ground of such a field. According to Rabbi Meir, such a brick is impure and therefore it does not reduce the window. The other sages disagree because they hold that dust that comes from a bet haperas is clean.
Section twelve: This is the general rule that explains all of mishnayoth 5-6." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A projection brings uncleanness, whatever width it may be;
But a balcony or rounded balcony when they are one handbreadth wide.
What is a projection? That [projection] whose surface slopes downwards,
And a balcony's surface slopes upwards.
In what [circumstances] did they say that a projection brings uncleanness whatever width it may be? With regard to a projection which is three rows of stones, or twelve handbreadths, above the doorway. When higher than that, it brings uncleanness only if it is one handbreadth wide.
Cornices and carvings bring uncleanness when they are one handbreadth wide.
Chapter fourteen deals with various projections that jut out above the entrance to a house and with whether they form an ohel to allow the impurity to enter the house.
Sections one and three: As will be explained in section three, the \"projection\" referred to here seems to be some sort of canopy that slopes downward and is used to protect the entrance to the house from rain and sun. Since this canopy is really part of the house, it joins the house to bring impurity in. Therefore, it itself does not need to be a handbreadth, the generally required size of an ohel. If a source of corpse impurity is found under this projection, the house will be impure.
Sections two and four: In contrast, a balcony's surface slopes upward so that it can be used by those living on the upper floor. It does not join the entrance to the house below to bring impurity into the house unless it is itself the size of an ohel, meaning one handbreadth.
Section five: For a projection to join with the opening of a house to allow impurity into the house it cannot be more than twelve handbreadths (equivalent to three rows of stones) above the doorway. Up to such a height and the canopy-projection can conceivably protect the entrance. But above this height it will need to be a handbreadth in order to form a tent to bring impurity in.
Section six: Anything made for aesthetic purposes was not designed to protect the entrance. Therefore, it does not join with the entrance" + ], + [ + "A projection that is above a doorway forms a passage for the uncleanness when it is one handbreadth wide; In yesterday's mishnah, we learned that a projection above a doorway brings in impurity no matter how big the projection is. Today's mishnah teaches that the doorway must be at least one handbreadth wide to allow the impurity to enter the house.", + "If above a window two fingerbreadths high or the size of a hole made by a drill, when of any width whatsoever. Rabbi Yose says: when of equal size [to the particular window]. If the projection is above the type of window that needs to only be two fingerbreadths high to allow in impurity (this is the remnant of a light-hole, see 13:1) or one that needs to be only the size of a drill (see also 13:1), it (the projection) brings in the impurity no matter how small it is. According to this opinion, the projection will offer protection to such a small window, even if the projection is of very small size. Rabbi Yose says that the projection must be as large as the window that it protects. So if it protects a two fingerbreadths size window, the projection must be two fingerbreadths in order to bring impurity into the house." + ], + [ + "A rod above a doorway, even if one hundred cubits higher, forms a passage for the uncleanness no matter its width, the words of Rabbi Joshua. The mishnah deals with a rod that was placed above a doorway, assumedly also to serve as some sort of protection for the entrance. The difference between the rod and the projection discussed in yesterday's mishnah is that the projection is fixed into the wall of the house, whereas the rod can be moved. Therefore, according to Rabbi Joshua, it doesn't matter how high the rod is, it always serves to bring impurity into the house. Rabbi Joshua holds that since it can be moved to within twelve handbreadths of the house (see mishnah one) we treat it as if it is within twelve handbreadths of the house.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: don't be more stringent than the case of a projection. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that the rule governing the rod should be no stricter than the rule governing the projection. Therefore, if the rod is more than twelve handbreadths high, it must be at least one handbreadth wide in order to bring impurity." + ], + [ + "[In the case of] a projection which goes all round the house, occupying space above the doorway to the extent of three fingerbreadths, if there is uncleanness in the house, vessels beneath [the projection] become unclean. In this mishnah the projection surrounds the whole house, and therefore it is not treated like the projection that covers the entrance or a window. At the point of the doorway, it is only three fingerbreadths in width, which is less than the handbreadth (a handbreadth is equivalent to three fingerbreadths) usually required for impurity to enter the house when under a projection. If the uncleanness is in the house, then any vessels underneath the projection are impure for the way of impurity is to go out.", + "If the uncleanness is beneath [the projection]: Rabbi Eliezer declares the house unclean, But Rabbi Joshua declares it clean. If the source of impurity is underneath the projection, Rabbi Eliezer says that even though the projection is not a full handbreadth, the impurity enters the house and defiles anything that is in the house. Since the projection surrounds the whole house, it is looked at as part of the house, even though it is not the usually required width. Rabbi Joshua says that since the projection is not a handbreadth wide, it does not cause the impurity to enter the house.", + "A similar [rule applies] to a courtyard surrounded by a portico. The same rules apply in a case where a portico (a roofed area with pillars) lies outside a courtyard. If the roof of the portico is at least three fingerbreadths, but not a full handbreadth, then impurity in the house will defile vessels under the portico, but if impurity is in the portico, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate. If the portico is more than a handbreadth, then all agree that impurity found there will enter the house." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a case where there are two projections overhanging the entrance to the house. The mishnah will walk us through various scenarios concerning the size of these two projections and where the source of impurity is found.", + "[With regard to] two projections, one [directly] above the other, each having a width of one handbreadth and a space of one handbreadth between them: If there is uncleanness beneath them, what is beneath them becomes unclean; If it is between them, what is between them becomes unclean; Above them, everything directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean. In the first scenario, the projections are each at least one handbreadth in width and there is a handbreadth in between the two. Obviously, the lower projection is at least one handbreadth above the ground. This means that there is a full ohel below each projection. If the impurity is below the bottom projection, then the impurity is confined to this area. The lower projection blocks the impurity from going higher. If the impurity is between them, then the impurity is also confined to this area. The lower projection blocks the impurity from going below, and the upper projection blocks it from going above. If the impurity is above the upper projection, it doesn't go below. It defiles only anything that is directly above it.", + "If the upper [projection] overlapped the lower to the extent of one handbreadth: If there is uncleanness beneath or between them, what is beneath and between them becomes unclean; If it is above them, what is directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean. In this case, the upper projection juts out one handbreadth more than the bottom projection. If the impurity is either below the bottom one or below the top one, it will spread to the entire area below the top projection. This is because the broader upper projection will bring the impurity to the entire area below it. If the impurity is above the top projection, it defiles only things above it.", + "If the upper [projection] overlapped the lower to an extent of less than a handbreadth: If there is uncleanness beneath them, what is beneath and between them becomes unclean; If it is between them or beneath the overlapping [part]: Rabbi Eliezer says: what is beneath them and between them becomes unclean. Rabbi Joshua says: what is between them and beneath the overlapping [part] becomes unclean, but what is beneath [the lower one] remains clean. In this case, the upper projection is broader than the bottom one, but by less than a handbreadth. If the impurity is below the lower projection, it spreads to the area in between, again because the upper projection brings it above. If the impurity is between the two, or is below the upper projection but not below the lower projection, in other words, it's below the extension of the upper projection, Rabbi Eliezer says that the entire area beneath the upper projection is impure. In contrast, Rabbi Joshua says that the area beneath the lower projection remains pure. The upper projection which is less than a handbreadth wider than the bottom projection does not bring the impurity to the area below the lower projection. This is similar to his opinion in mishnah four." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah, concerning two projections, one above the other.", + "If they had a width of a handbreadth but there was not a space of a handbreadth between them: If there is uncleanness beneath them, what is beneath becomes unclean; If it is between them or above them, everything directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean. Since there is not a handbreadth in between the two projections, there is not an ohel in this area. However, there is still an ohel below the bottom projection. If the uncleanness is found beneath both projections, then it is confined to this area. The lower projection forms an ohel and prevents the impurity from spreading above. However, if the uncleanness is between them, it does not spread throughout an ohel. It only defiles that which is directly above it, just as it does if it is found above the top projection. The upper projection does not prevent the impurity from going above because it is not an ohel, but the bottom projection does prevent the impurity from going below." + ], + [ + "If they did not have a width of a handbreadth, whether there is a space of a handbreadth between them or whether there is not, if there is uncleanness beneath, between or above them, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If neither projection is a handbreadth wide, then no ohel is formed. Therefore, no matter where the impurity is found, it only travels upwards and downwards, but it does not spread to the sides.", + "A similar [rule applies] to two curtains, [the lower one of which is] one handbreadth high off the ground. The final clause of this chapter notes that the same scenario described in mishnayot 5-7 can occur if two curtains are placed one above the other, and the bottom one is at least one handbreadth above the other." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first two sections of today's mishnah are found word for word in 11:3. I have copied my explanation from there.", + "A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground. Despite the fact that these items are one handbreadth thick, they are not considered to be an ohel such that there is an ohel directly beneath the split in the roof of the portico. For something to be an ohel it must also have an empty space.", + "If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground. If there are a few garments folded one on another, they bring uncleanness when placed underneath the split if the bottom part of the upper garment is at least one handbreadth off the ground. In other words, the entire upper garment must be one handbreadth above the ground in order for it to form an ohel over the other garments. We might have thought that since the presence of the lower garments does not prevent an ohel from being formed, then the lower folds of the upper garment also wouldn't prevent an ohel from being formed. The mishnah teaches that there is a difference between the lower and upper garments. The lower garments are in the ohel and the upper garment forms the ohel.", + "Tablets of wood [placed] one above the other do not bring uncleanness unless the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground; When it comes to pieces of wood, the upper piece is considered an ohel if it is at least a handbreadth over the ground.", + "But if they were of marble, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. The slabs of marble placed one on top of another are treated as if they were all one tablet. Therefore, no matter how high the upper tablet is, it does not form an ohel. In other words, marble is treated as one piece (like the coats in section one) whereas the pieces of wood are considered separate." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] wooden tablets which touch each other at their corners, and are one handbreadth high off the ground: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, [a person] touching the second [tablet] becomes defiled with seven-day defilement. Vessels under the first [tablet] become unclean; but those under the second remain clean. This section describes two wooden tablets that touch each other only at one corner. The part that is touching is less than one handbreadth. The two tablets are one handbreadth off the ground, the required amount to be an ohel. Although they are touching only at their corners, in some ways they are considered to be one ohel. Therefore, if there is uncleanness beneath one of them, a person who touches the other one is impure as if he had been in contact with a dead body. This is where it gets a bit tricky. If there are vessels underneath the tablets, those under the one where the corpse uncleanness is found are defiled, but those under the other one are not. This seems to contradict the previous line. Albeck explains that since the impurity is not under the second tablet and the second tablet is not touching the first tablet by an amount the size of a handbreadth, the impurity doesn't spread beneath it. However, we do look at the tablet as if it was overhanging the impurity and one who touches it is impure.", + "A table does not bring uncleanness unless it contains a square of at least one handbreadth. Tables were often expanded by adding squares, one next to the other, in order to allow more guests (like the leafs we add to our tables). If there is no single square that is at least one handbreadth square, meaning one square to serve as the base of the table, then none of the squares join to form an ohel. This is not considered to be a sustainable ohel (for this concept see 8:5)." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] jars standing on their bottoms or lying on their sides in the open air and touching one another to the extent of a handbreadth: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. The jars mentioned referred to here are made of earthenware and therefore cannot be defiled from the outside (only if a source of impurity enters their airspace are they impure). The jars are found outside, not in a house or other type of ohel. They are standing on their bottoms or on their sides such that there is not a handbreadth of space beneath them. These jars do not form an ohel. Therefore, even if they are touching each other by the length of a handbreadth, impurity doesn't spread from one to the other. Even within one jar it doesn't spread because it is not in an ohel. It only travels up and down.", + "When does this rule apply? When the [jars] are clean. But in the case where they were unclean or one handbreadth high off the ground, if there is uncleanness beneath one of them, what is beneath all becomes unclean. The above is true only if the jars are clean. If they are unclean they do not prevent the impurity from entering within. Once within, it is as if the impurity is found in an ohel and it spreads from one jar to the other. Similarly, if the jars are at least a handbreadth off the ground, they form an ohel and the impurity will spread from one jar to the other because the contact point is at least a handbreadth long." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a house, sectioned off by boards or curtains from the sides or from the roof beams: If there is uncleanness in the house, vessels beyond the partition remain clean. If there is uncleanness beyond the partition, vessels in the house become unclean. [With regard to] the vessels beyond the partition: The house has been sectioned into two parts such that what was one room is now two. Alternatively, some sort of loft was added such that the house is now separate from the roof beams. The mishnah now discusses what happens if the source of impurity is found in various parts of the house and its partitions. If the source of impurity is in the house then the vessels that are in the partitioned off inner room, or in the newly sectioned off upper room, remain pure. However, if the uncleanness is in the inner room or in the upper chamber, it goes out and defiles the vessels in the house because, as we have learned, impurity goes out of a confined space and defiles things that are in its space.", + "If there is a space of a [cubic] handbreadth there, they become unclean, But if not, they are clean. As far as the petitioned off areas themselves, if they are at least a cubic handbreadth in dimension, then they are an ohel and they are impure. However, if they are less than a cubic handbreadh, then the impurity within would only go up and down and it wouldn't defile any vessels found on the sides of such a space." + ], + [ + "[In the case where] it was partitioned off from the floor: If there is uncleanness beneath the partition, vessels in the house become unclean. In this mishnah, they build a new floor, thereby separating the house from its old floor. If the source of impurity is below the partition, it travels up and defiles the contents of the house because the way of impurity is to escape from confined spaces. See also 3:7 for a somewhat similar situation.", + "[In the case where] the uncleanness is in the house, vessels beneath the partition, If there is a space there of one cubic hand breadth, remain clean; But if not, they become unclean, since the floor of the house is reckoned as the house even to the nethermost deep. If the uncleanness is in the house, then the purity of any vessels found below the partition depends on whether there is a cubit handbreadth in the area below. If there is such a space, then the impurity is found in an ohel and it is blocked from entering the house. However, if there is not an ohel below, then the vessels are considered as if they are inside the house. This is because the floor of a house is always considered part of the house, no matter how deep." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a house that has basically been filled in, in this case with straw. It is treated similarly to the case in yesterday's mishnah, where a partition was built above the floor.", + "[With regard to] a house filled with straw, without a space of a handbreadth [being left] between [the straw] and the roof beams: If there is uncleanness within [the straw], vessels at the exit become unclean. In this case the uncleanness is within the straw, which is similar to the situation in yesterday's mishnah were the uncleanness was below the partition placed above the floor. Any vessels that are at the exit, meaning they are in the area that is not filled in with straw, will be defiled because the impurity escapes through that area.", + "[In the case where] the uncleanness was outside [the area of the straw], with regard to the vessels within: If they are in a space of a cubic handbreadth, they remain clean, But if not they become unclean. If there is a space of a handbreadth between the straw and the roof beams, in either case the vessels become unclean. If the uncleanness is outside the area of the straw and the vessels are within the straw and within an empty space that is one cubic handbreadth, they are protected by being in an ohel. If they are in a space that is less than a cubic handbreadth, then it is as if they are in the floor of the house and they are impure (as was the case in yesterday's mishnah). If there is a space of a handbreadth above, in the place where the impurity is found, then the straw is not considered a barrier to the impurity, even if the empty space is a cubic handbreadth. The vessels in the straw are impure in both cases." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a house filled with earth or pebbles which he [decided] to leave there, or similarly a heap of produce or a mound of pebbles even such as Akhan's mound, and even if the uncleanness is by the side of the vessels, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. The mishnah discusses three situations: 1) Someone's house is full of pebbles or earth and he decided not to remove them. 2) A heap of produce that is found outside of a house. 3) A mound of stones, even if it is like the stones that were put on top of Akhan when he was executed (see Joshua 7:26). In all of these cases there is a source of impurity within the mound (or house) but it is not touching the vessels. The mishnah rules that the impurity goes up and down but does not defile the vessels. In other words, the impurity is not found in an ohel, and therefore it doesn't spread to the sides." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] the courtyard of a tomb: A person standing in it remains clean as long as there is a space of four cubits square, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: four handbreadths. The courtyard described here is at the entrance to a tomb. According to Bet Shammai, the courtyard must be at least four cubits square to be considered its own space. If it is this size, a person standing there will not be defiled by the tomb because he is not considered to be in the \"tomb\". Bet Hillel provides a smaller measure. If the courtyard is at least four handbreadths square, it is its own space.", + "[With regard to] a roof beam which had been used as a covering stone for a tomb, whether it is standing upright or lying on its side, nothing becomes unclean except what [touches] opposite the opening of the grave. A roof beam was used to close up a burial grave. Typically, this was done with a stone. A person who touches the part of the beam that is opposite the stone is impure; but if he touches it elsewhere, he is pure.", + "If the end [of the beam] were made the covering stone of a grave, only [that part] up to four handbreadths [from the grave] becomes unclean. In this case he puts the end of the beam up against the cave, with the beam extending out from the grave. The first four handbreadths of the beam are considered to be covering the grave and are impure and defile one who touches them. After that, the beam is pure.", + "[This applies] when [the beam] is going to be cut. Rabbi Judah says: all the beam is connected. The above is true if he intends to cut off the beam and leave only the four handbreadths that cover the grave. If he intends to leave the entire beam there, it all defiles. Rabbi Judah rules more strictly. The whole beam is connected to the part that covers the grave and therefore, even if he intends to cut it off, it is still impure." + ], + [ + "A jar full of clean liquid and sealed with a tightly fitting lid, which had been made the covering stone of a tomb, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness but the jar and the liquid remain clean. The jar used to cover the tomb conveys impurity to one who touches it, just as does a stone. However, an earthenware jar is not defiled on its outside, as long as it is covered with a tightly fitting lid (see Kelim 9:2). Therefore, the jar and its contents remain pure.", + "An animal that had been used as a covering stone, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness. Similarly, if a person uses an animal to temporarily cover a tomb, it too conveys impurity. Note that like the jar, the animal is not impure. It merely conveys impurity to one who touches it. See also Eruvin 1:7.", + "Rabbi Meir says: anything possessing the breath of life does convey uncleanness on account of [its being used as] a covering stone. Rabbi Meir says that anything that is alive does not convey uncleanness if used to cover a tomb. This would mean that he disagrees with the halakhah in section two, although not with the halakhah in section one." + ], + [ + "One who touches a corpse and touches vessels, one who overshadows a corpse and touches vessels, they [the vessels] are unclean. A person who has become unclean through a corpse, whether by contact or by overshadowing, now defiles vessels by contact (see 1:1-4).", + "One who overshadows a corpse and overshadows vessels, one who touches a corpse and overshadows vessels, they [the vessels] are clean. However, a person who has been defiled by contact with a corpse or by overshadowing a corpse does not defile vessels by overshadowing.", + "If his hands are a handbreadth wide, they are unclean. If one hand is overshadowing or touching a dead body and the other hand is simultaneously overshadowing vessels, it is possible to convey the impurity from the corpse to the vessels, as long as each hand is a handbreadth, such that it can form an ohel. If the hands are smaller than a handbreadth, they do not convey the impurity.", + "Two houses, and in each there is a half an olive's worth of corpse and he puts one hand into each house: If his hands are a handbreadth wide, he brings uncleanness; But if not, he does not bring uncleanness. The mishnah now brings up a similar circumstance where a person can convey impurity if each of his hands is a handbreadth. There are two houses adjacent to one another and their doors or windows are opposite each other. There is less than an olive's worth of impurity in each house and a person puts his hands into both houses simultaneously. If his hands are each a handbreadth, then they successfully bring the impurity from each into the other, and all vessels found in either house are impure. If his hands are not one handbreadth, then they don't join the two half olives, and all remains pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how thick vessels need to be for them to convey uncleanness from a corpse to other vessels which they overshadow.", + "All movable things convey uncleanness when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad. In this section we learn of an older tradition according to which a vessel needs to be only as thick as an ox-goad in order to convey uncleanness. This means that if one end overshadows a source of corpse impurity and the other end overshadows vessels, it conveys impurity from the corpse to the vessels. An ox-goad has a circumference of one handbreadth, but it does not have a width of one handbreadth. This is stated directly in Kelim 17:8.", + "Rabbi Tarfon said: May I [see the] demise of my sons if this is [not] a demised halakhah which someone heard and misunderstood. For a farmer was passing by and over his shoulder was an ox-goad, and one end overshadowed a grave. He was declared unclean on account of vessels that were overshadowing a corpse. Rabbi Tarfon bitterly objects to this halakhah, claiming that it is the result of a misunderstood story. A person heard that someone carrying an ox-goad which overshadows a dead body conveys impurity to the person carrying it, but he didn't properly understand the reason. The story goes as follows. A farmer was carrying an ox-goad and one end of the ox-goad overshadowed a grave. When he came in front of some sages, they declared him impure. However, this is not because a vessel that is less than a handbreadth conveys impurity to another vessel that it overshadows. Rather, the ox-goad itself was made impure by overshadowing a corpse. For this to happen, the ox-goad does not need to be a handbreadth. The farmer touched the ox-goad and was defiled because a vessel that has corpse impurity defiles a person (see 1:3). The person who heard that the farmer was impure thought that it was because the ox-goad overshadowed the person and therefore he said that a vessel need only be as thick as an ox-goad to convey impurity.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: I can fix [the halakhah] so that the words of the sages can exist [as they are]: All movable things convey uncleanness to come upon a person carrying them, when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad; Upon themselves when they are of whatever thickness; And upon other men or vessels [which they overshadow] when they are one handbreadth wide. Rabbi Akiva acts as the traditionalist and a type of peace maker. He wishes to preserve the accuracy of the statement transmitted in section one, without changing the halakhah that for a vessel to convey uncleanness it must be a handbreadth wide. He now proceeds to outline three halakhot. If someone is carrying a vessel that is as thick as an ox-goad (less than a handbreadth) and the vessel overshadows a corpse, even though the person didn't actually touch the vessel and it only touched his clothes, and the person should only be impure until the evening as is the rule when a person touches a vessel that touched another vessel that had contact with a corpse (see 1:2), nevertheless the sages declared that such a person is impure for seven days due to the uncleanness of an ohel. In other words, Rabbi Akiva says that when the rabbis stated the halakhah in section one, it was a stringency related only to that situation. When it comes to the impurity of the vessel itself, a vessel that overshadows a corpse is impure even if it is less than a handbreadth in width. Finally, for the vessel to convey uncleanness from the source of corpse impurity to other vessels it overshadows, it must be at least a handbreadth in width. This shows clearly that there is no debate between him and Rabbi Tarfon." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe beginning of the mishnah illustrates the general rules listed in the end of yesterday's mishnah.", + "How so? A spindle stuck into the wall, with [a portion of corpse] of half an olive-size above it and [a portion of corpse] of half an olive-size below it. Even though one [portion] is not directly [above] the other, [the spindle] becomes unclean. Hence it is found that [a movable object] conveys uncleanness to come upon itself whatever its thickness. The mishnah illustrates the principle that a vessel can convey uncleanness to itself through overshadowing even if it is of minimal thickness. The mishnah describes a small spindle that is stuck into the wall (perhaps for storage) and there is half an olive size of corpse above it and half an olive size below. In other words, the spindle overshadows half and half overshadows it. Even if the two portions of corpse are not one on top of each other, the spindle overshadows one and is overshadowed by the other and therefore serves to join them into one olive and the spindle is impure.", + "A pot seller passes by a grave with a yoke over his shoulder, one end of which overshadows a grave, vessels on the other side remain clean. If the yoke is one handbreadth wide, they become unclean. This section illustrates the principle that vessels don't convey impurity to other vessels which they overshadow unless they are a handbreadth wide. If the yoke is one handbreadth wide, then it conveys the impurity to the other vessels. If it is not a handbreadth wide then the vessels remain clean.", + "Mounds which are near to a city or to a road, whether they are new or old, are unclean. [As for those that are] far away, new ones are clean but old ones are unclean. What counts as near? Fifty cubits. And old? Sixty years old, the words of Rabbi Meir. R. Judah says: Near means there is none nearer than it, and old means that no one remembers [when it was made]. This section deals with mounds that are found outside a city. It seems that women would bury their miscarried fetuses in these mounds, and lepers would bury their lost limbs. These fetuses and limbs are impure and therefore the mounds, under certain circumstances, must be treated as impure. The impurity of the mound depends on two factors: its proximity to the city and its age. The closer it is to the city, the more likely it is that people buried fetuses or limbs there. And the older it is, the more likely that people forgot whether or not anything was buried there. A mound that is close to the city whether or not it is old is impure; but if it is far from the city it is impure only if it is old. Rabbi Meir provides objective numbers for \"near\" and \"old.\" For a mound to be near, it must be within fifty cubits. And for it to be \"old\" it must be sixty years old, which probably is the upper end of how long a person might live during that period. Rabbi Judah provides relative numbers. A mound is close if it is the closest mound to the city, for people will be likely to bury their fetuses and limbs there. So if there is one mound that is 25 cubits away and another that is 35, only the one 25 cubits away is impure. Likewise, if the closest mound is 100 cubits away, it is impure. And \"old\" means that no one remembers when the mound was made. There is no way of giving an objective age." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with how one would know whether he has come across an isolated dead body which he must bring to burial in a proper cemetary, or a burial ground, in which case it is forbidden", + "If one finds a corpse unexpectedly lying in its natural position, he may remove it along with the [blood-] saturated earth around it. The person finds a corpse buried in the ground in a place that wasn't identified as a burial ground. He is allowed to move this corpse into a proper cemetery. He can assume that the body was put there temporarily until a more proper place was found. He should also take the blood-soaked ground around the corpse, for as we have seen, the blood has the status of the corpse and must be brought to burial.", + "If he finds two, he may remove them along with the [blood-] saturated earth around it. The same is true if he finds two corpses. He still does not need to worry lest he has stumbled upon a burial ground.", + "If he finds three, if there is a space of from four to eight cubits between the first and the last, that is, the space of a bier and its bearers, then it must be accounted a graveyard. However, if he finds three corpses and they are between four to eight cubits between each body, he must consider the land to be a burial ground, in which case it is forbidden to move the bodies.", + "He must search [the ground] for twenty cubits from that point. If he found [another corpse] at the end of those twenty cubits, he must search for a further twenty cubits from that place, since there are already grounds for belief [that this is a graveyard], in spite of the fact that if he had found this [lone grave] in the first case, he could have removed it with the [blood-] saturated earth around it. He now must search the area for other bodies so that he can determine the size of the burial ground. He should search twenty cubits from the outer body on each side. And if he finds another body he must continue to search twenty cubits from the furthest body. This is true despite the fact that had he found this body as a lone grave, he would not have had to search for other bodies in the area. Once it has been established that there might be a burial ground in the area, he must treat each body as evidence of such." + ], + [ + "One who searches, must search over a square cubit and then leave a cubit, [digging down] until he reaches rock or virgin soil. This section refers to the person in yesterday's mishnah who had found three corpses buried in the ground and was searching to determine how far the burial ground extended. He need not search every cubit of earth. Rather, he can check a cubit and then leave a cubit, because it was customary to leave a cubit between each body buried in the ground. When checking, he must dig down in the ground until he either reaches rock or soil that clearly has never been dug up before.", + "[A priest] carrying out earth from a place of uncleanness may eat his terumah mixed with hullin. This section concerns a priest who is removing earth from a place that has some impurity in it, such as the burial ground referred to in mishnah three. If this person is a priest he may eat terumah that has become mixed in with hullin (non-sacred produce). This is because the earth that he is carrying is not certainly impure, and the terumah that he is eating is also not certainly terumah. Since there is a \"double doubt\" he may eat the terumah.", + "But one who is clearing away a heap of stones, may not eat his terumah mixed with hullin. However, if one is clearing away a heap of stones that fell on a person and might have killed him, he may not eat such terumah. The problem is that if he finds a corpse, he will certainly be impure. In other words, although there is some doubt in this case as well, it is of a different nature from the doubt in the previous case. In the previous case, the terumah mixed in with hullin will always remain of doubtful status. There is simply no way to determine whether it is terumah or hullin because it is all mixed up. However, in this case, the doubt can be clarified. If he sees that there is a corpse under the stones then the priest is definitely impure. Therefore, he cannot eat the terumah." + ], + [ + "If he was searching and came to a river bed, or a pool or a public road, he may end [his search]. If one is searching an area of twenty cubits (mishnah three) to see if there are any more dead bodies, and he gets to a river bed, a pool of water or a public road, he can use that landmark as the end of his search because it is obvious that people don't build a cemetery through or in a river bed, a pool or a public road.", + "A field in which men have been slain, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean. The mishnah now deals with cases where a person need not remove the earth with the bones that he finds. If he finds a field in which people were killed, he can remove just the bones and the area will be clean. He need not remove the earth.", + "One who removes a grave from his field, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean. A person may remove a grave from his field if originally there was a grave outside of his field and the grave broke open into his field. In this case he can also remove the bones without removing the ground.", + "A pit into which they throw fetuses or people that had been slain, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean. Similarly, if one is clearing out a pit into which either fetuses (miscarriages) or dead bodies had been thrown, he need not remove the ground. From all of this we can see that the rule concerning the removal of the ground applies only if the area was originally designated a burial ground.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if it had been prepared as a grave in the first place, there is [blood-] saturated earth. This is confirmed by Rabbi Shimon who says that if the pit was originally designated to be a burial ground, then when he removes it, he must remove the ground as well." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the formation of a \"bet haperas.\" A bet haperas is the term for a field in which the sages suspect corpse impurity to be found. In our case, the bet haperas is formed by a person plowing a field in which a corpse was buried. The fear is that by plowing the person brought bones to other sections of the field.", + "One who plows a grave [into a field], behold he makes it a bet haperas. If a person plows over a field in which a grave is found, he makes it into a bet peras.", + "To what extent does he make it [a bet haperas]? For the length of a furrow of a hundred cubits, a space in which four se'ahs [can grow]. Rabbi Yose says: an area of five [se'ahs]. The mishnah now discusses how far the bet haperas extends. According to the first opinion, the plow might move the bones through a space in which four seahs of seed can be sewn. This is an area of 100 cubits by 100 cubits (about 50 meters by 50 meters, which is about 2/3 of an acre). Rabbi Yose says that the area is the space in which five seahs can be sewn. This is 111.75 cubits by 111.75 cubits.", + "But when on an upward or downward slope: he puts a quarter [of a kav] of vetch seed on the knee of the plough, and the space where [the last] three vetches grow next to each other is a bet peras. The above applies only when the field is flat. There is a different measure when the field is on an upward or downward slope. To find out how far is a bet haperas he does a test with vetch (animal food) seed. He places a quarter of a kav of seed on a piece of wood of the plough and he starts plowing. Due to the movement of the plow, the seeds will begin to fall off. At first many will fall but eventually there will be little left. When he gets to a point at which only three seeds fall at a time, such that three vetch plants will grow at that spot, he knows that he has reached the edge of the bet haperas. This is because the plow will shake so much until this point, that beyond it, it will no longer drag pieces of bone.", + "Rabbi Yose says: [a bet haperas is only made by a plough going] downwards but not upwards. Rabbi Yose holds that when one plows upward he doesn't make a bet haperas. Assumedly, he thinks that gravity will prevent the bones from being pulled upward." + ], + [ + "If a person was plowing and struck against a rock or a fence, or if he shook the plowshare, he only makes a bet peras up until that spot. If a person comes up against an obstacle when plowing, the obstacle will shake any bones off of the plow. The same is true if he shakes out the plowshare. Therefore, even if he has only plowed a little bit, he will not make a bet peras at any point further than this.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: one bet peras can form another bet peras. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if one plows a bet peras and then continues on, even well beyond a hundred cubits from where the original grave was located, the second field is also a bet peras. In other words, just as plowing a burial ground makes a bet peras, so too plowing a bet peras can make a new bet peras.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: sometimes it can, but at other times it cannot. How so? If he plowed for half a furrow's length and then returned and plowed a [further] half, or similarly [if he plowed] to the side, he makes a bet peras. If he plowed a full furrow's length and then returned and plowed from that point beyond, he does not make this a bet peras. Rabbi Joshua says that sometimes plowing a bet peras makes a new one, but sometimes it does not. It all depends on whether the second field is more than fifty cubits beyond the first. In the first set of cases he plows for less than the 100 cubits and then goes back and plows that area again, either in a different direction or in the same direction but further than his first plowing. Since in his first plowing he didn't reach the 100 cubit limit in which a bet peras is formed, he makes a new bet peras. However, if he plows a full 100 cubits and then continues to plow from that point and onward, he doesn't make a new bet peras." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah lists cases in which it would very much seem that a person has made a bet peras and yet the mishnah rules that he has not. We will see that there is something \"dogmatic\" or \"traditional\" about the formation of a bet peras. Even though there are clearly bones spread around in this field, it is not considered a bet peras because it doesn't fulfill the dictionary/sages' definition of bet peras. To couch this in other terms the sages said that a bet peras is created under certain circumstances. Even though other circumstances may be very similar, since they are not part of the original tradition, a bet peras is not created.", + "If a person plows from a pit full of bones, or from a heap of bones, According to commentators, the sages declared that when a person plows a grave he creates a bet peras, because this is something that is likely to happen. It is likely that a person will want to plow a field next to a grave, and therefore the sages decreed that one who does so creates a bet peras. But it is not common for a person to want to plow over a pit full of bones or a heap of bones and therefore by doing so, he does not create a bet peras.", + "Or from a field in which a grave had been lost, In this case there is a double doubt. We don't know if he plowed over the grave, and even if he did plow over the grave, we cannot be sure that his plowing moved bones. Therefore, the mishnah rules leniently.", + "Or in which a grave was subsequently found, The formation of a bet peras is a penalty for one who plows a grave. Since he didn't know that there was a grave in the field, he is not penalized.", + "Or if he plows a field which was not his own, The penalty for plowing a grave is only meted out to one who plows his own property.", + "Or if a non-Jew plowed, he does not make a bet peras. For the rule of bet peras does not apply [even] to Samaritans. The rule of the bet peras applies only to Jews, who are penalized for plowing over a grave. If a grave is plowed by Samaritans it is not a bet peras. All the more so, if a non-Jew plows a field, he does not make it into a bet peras." + ], + [ + "[In the case where] there was a bet peras above a pure field, if rain washed down soil from the bet peras to the pure field, even where this was reddish and the [other soil] turned it white, or where this was white and the other turned it red, this does not make it a bet peras. The mishnah refers to a case where one field is on a step above another field. If the upper field is a bet peras and some of its soil washes in to the lower field, it does not make the lower field a bet peras. This is true even if the fields are of a different color and one can see the color of the earth from the original bet peras." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a field in which a grave had been lost, and upon which a house had been built with an upper story above it: If the entrance of the upper room was directly above the entrance of the house, the upper story remains clean; But if not the upper story becomes unclean. If the two doors, one of the bottom floor and the one of the top floor, are one on top of the other, the upper story is clean, even though the bottom floor is unclean do to the possibility that it is on top of the grave. If the grave was directly below the house, the ceiling would stop the impurity from entering the upper story. And if the grave was below the outer half of a wall of the house, even the house would be impure (see 6:3). And even if the grave was under the entrance to the house, and we might have thought that the canopy over the entrance to the upper story would form an ohel and bring the impurity into the upper story, the canopy of the bottom floor forms a barrier and doesn't allow the impurity to go above it. It turns out that no matter where the grave actually is, the upper story is pure. However, if the entrance to the upper story is not directly above the entrance to the bottom floor, the upper story must also be treated as impure because it is possible that the grave is beneath the canopy covering the entrance to the upper story. Since there is nothing above it to block it, the impurity would enter the upper story and defile anything therein.", + "[With regard to] soil from a bet peras, or soil from a foreign country that came in with vegetables, the pieces of the soil combine together [to transmit impurity if they form a portion] the size of a packing-bag seal, the words of Rabbi Eliezer; But the sages say: there must be one portion of the size of a packing-bag seal. Soil from a bet peras and soil that comes from outside the land of Israel both defile when carried (see 2:3). Rabbi Eliezer rules that loose pieces of dirt can combine together to form the minimum amount necessary to defile. This minimum amount is defined as the size of the seal placed on a packing-bag. The other sages say that for the soil to defile there must be at least one piece that is as large as the seal on a packing bag.", + "Rabbi Judah says: It happened once that letters came from overseas for the sons of the high priests and they had on them about a se'ah or two se'ahs of seals [of dirt], but the sages were not concerned on account of uncleanness. Rabbi Judah brings proof that there must be at least one piece of dirt that is the size of the packing-bag seal. He knows of a tradition in which letters came from abroad for \"the sons of the high priests\" which seems to be some elite group in Jerusalem. Since there was no one piece of dirt that was the size of the packing-bag seal, the sages were not concerned about the purity of the dirt." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how a person can harvest grapes that grow in a bet peras without allowing the grapes to become impure.", + "How does one harvest the grapes of a bet peras? They sprinkle [hatat water] on the harvesters and the vessels [once] and then a second time. Then they harvest the grapes and take them out of the bet peras. Others then receive [the grapes] and take them to the winepress. If the latter set [of persons] came into contact with the former, they become unclean, This is according to the words of Bet Hillel. The first section contains the opinion of Bet Hillel as to how one can harvest the grapes and bring them to the winepress without them becoming impure. The first step is to purify the person harvesting and his vessels. Seven days before the harvesting he goes through the purification process of having hatat water (those containing the ashes of the red heifer) sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh day. Generally this is done only for someone who has corpse impurity, but here it is done even if the person does not actually have corpse impurity. The point of the procedure is to demonstrate that the impurity of the bet peras is being taken with grave consideration (pun intended). After this, the person harvests the grapes and brings them out of the bet peras. It would seem that the grapes should be defiled by the person and the vessels for these are defiled once they are in the bet peras. However, since there is no other way to get the grapes out of the field, the rabbis didn't declare that they would impure. In other words, since the impurity of the bet peras is of rabbinic origin (and not from the Torah), the rabbis have room to dispense with this impurity when they feel the situation requires. The harvesters then give the grapes to pure people who had not gone into the field. Those who have received the grapes can take them to the winepress and press the grapes while they are pure. The harvesters should not because it is possible to pass the grapes on to people that were not in a winepress. Those people receiving the grapes should not have any contact with those people who were in the field, and if they do, they become impure, as would the grapes.", + "Bet Shammai say: [the gatherer] holds the sickle with sinew-rope, or harvests the grapes with a sharp flint, lets [the grapes fall] into a basket, and then he takes [them] to the winepress. Rabbi Yose said: When do these rules apply? [Only] in the case of a vineyard which subsequently became a bet peras; but a person who plants [vines] in a bet peras must sell [the grapes] in the market. Bet Shammai provides an entirely different solution to the problem. The harvester should harvest the grapes using vessels that cannot become impure. He doesn't touch the sickle, because he wraps it with a type of rope that cannot become impure. Alternatively, he harvests using stone, which is never susceptible to impurity. He then lets the grapes fall into a type of basket that cannot become impure. Since he never touches the grapes and the vessels are not impure, the grapes do not become impure. Then he can take the grapes himself directly to the winepress.", + "Rabbi Yose says that all of the above refers only to a case where the vineyard existed prior to its becoming a bet peras. In these situations, the sages gave a solution whereby the person could find a way to harvest without defiling the grapes. However, if the person simply planted a vineyard in a bet peras, the rabbis did not allow him to bring the grapes to the winepress while preserving their purity. His only option in this case would be to sell the grapes in the marketplace. These grapes have not become susceptible to impurity since they weren't harvested to be crushed." + ], + [ + "There are three [kinds of] bet peras:
A field in which a grave was plowed may be planted with any kind of plant,
But must not be sown with any kind of seed, except with seed [yielding produce] which is reaped.
If [such produce] were plucked, the threshing-floor must be piled up in [the field] itself, and the [grain] sifted through two sieves, the words of Rabbi Meir.
But the sages say: grain [must be sifted] through two sieves, but pulse through three sieves.
And he must burn the stubble and the stalks.
[Such a field] conveys uncleanness by contact and carriage but does not convey uncleanness by overshadowing.
The next three mishnayot introduce three different types of bet peras: one in which a grave has been plowed, one in which a grave's location was lost (mishnah three), and a \"kochin field\" (explained mishnah four). Each of these different types of fields has different rules which govern it.
Section two: Plants such as trees can be planted in a field in which a grave was plowed because harvesting the fruit of these trees won't uproot the earth. In yesterday's mishnah we learned that Rabbi Yose forbade planting a vineyard, but the other sages seem to allow any type of plant to be planted.
Section three: It is permitted to sow seeds which yield produce that is reaped, meaning cut down.
Section four: However, it is problematic to plant seeds which yield produce that is plucked, meaning torn out of the ground. The fear is that a bone will get stuck to the bottom of the plant and the harvester will bring it into his house and thereby transmit impurity to other places. To remedy this problem he must pile up the produce in the field itself and not bring it to other places. In the field, Rabbi Meir says he must sift through the produce twice to clean off the dirt and any bones. The other sages say he needs to sift pulse (legumes) three times because more dirt is mixed in with it.
Section six: He must burn the stubble and stalks while they are still in the field, again because we are afraid that there is some bone mixed in with them.
Section seven: The field and pieces of dirt from the field convey impurity if one comes into contact with them or if one carries them. But the dirt of the field cannot cause impurity by overshadowing (an ohel) because a bone the size of a lentil does not transmit impurity by overshadowing." + ], + [ + "A field in which a grave has been lost may be sown with any kind of seed, But must not be planted with any kind of plant; Nor may any trees be permitted to remain there except shade-trees which do not produce fruit. Today's mishnah deals with a field in which a grave has been lost. Such a field may be planted with seed even if the produce will be plucked. We are not concerned lest a piece of bone get stuck to a plant when it is uprooted and that he will bring it into his home (as we were concerned in yesterday's mishnah) because in such a field the bones were not spread around by plowing. The roots of these types of plants will not reach down to where the body was buried, and therefore there is no concern that when they are uprooted, bones will be uprooted as well. However, one cannot plant trees there because their roots do reach down to the grave. It is even forbidden to leave fruit trees there because their roots receive nourishment from the grave. The only type of tree that can be left there is a tree that is meant just for shade and does not yield fruit.", + "[Such a field] conveys uncleanness by contact, carriage and overshadowing. Since there is an unplowed grave in this field, it conveys impurity in all three ways contact, carriage and overshadowing. In other words, this field is treated more strictly than a field that had a grave but was plowed over." + ], + [ + "A kokhin field may neither be planted nor sown, but its earth is regarded as clean and ovens may be made of it for holy use. The final type of bet peras is called a \"kochin field.\" There are two main explanations for this, one based on a text which reads \"bokhin\" instead of \"kokhin.\" \"Bokhin\" means to cry or wail. According to this reading, this type of field was on the way to the cemetery and people would stop there, put the biers down and wail over the dead. The fear is that a limb of the body might have fallen out onto the field (oops, there goes an arm!). The other interpretation (supported by the Tosefta) is based on the word \"kokhin\". The Tosefta asks: \"What is a kokhin field? Any field in which they dig in the ground and moved kokhin to the sides.\" Kokhin are burial niches. So a kokhin field is one in which the burial niches were moved to the sides of the fields. The fear is that they missed one of the kokhin. According to the first explanation, one cannot plant or sow seeds in such a field because the field was designated to be used as a \"mourner's field.\" According to the second explanation, even though the kokhin were removed, it retains the status of a burial ground and therefore it cannot be used for planting or sowing seed. However, earth taken out of the field is considered pure. The earth in the field is only impure because of a doubt, whether there was a grave there. Therefore the sages decreed that one who entered the field is impure. But they didn't decree that earth taken out of the field should be impure. Therefore, one can take earth out of the bet peras and use it to make a pure oven.", + "Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that it [a bet peras in which a grave was plowed over] is examined for one who wished to perform the pesah sacrifice,but is not examined for one who wants to eat terumah. Both houses agree that if a person walked through a bet peras which had been plowed over and then wanted to go offer his pesah sacrifice, which can only be done in a state of purity, that they can have the field checked to find out if there really is a bone the size of a barleycorn in it. If such a bone is found, he will be declared impure and he won't be allowed to offer the sacrifice, but if not, he can go on his merry way to Jerusalem. They also agree that the field is not checked if all that the person wants to do is eat terumah. The difference between the pesah sacrifice and the terumah seems to be that the sacrificing and eating the pesah on Pesah is a mitzvah and therefore they should do anything possible to allow him to do so. In contrast, eating terumah is not a mitzvah, it's just allowed to the kohanim. If he doesn't eat terumah, he can eat regular produce.", + "And as for a nazirite: Bet Shammai say: it is examined, But Bet Hillel say: it is not examined. However, the two houses disagree with regard to the Nazirite that walks through a bet peras. According to Bet Shammai they do check the field on his behalf and if no bone is found, the Nazirite remains pure. Bet Hillel says that they do not check the field. The Nazirite is considered impure and he must be purified on the third and seventh days. The days in which he is impure will not count towards his term of naziriteship (see Nazir 7:3).", + "How does he examine it? He brings earth that he can move, and places it into a sieve with fine meshes, and crumbles. If a bone of barley-corn size is found there [the person passing through the field] is deemed unclean. To check the earth they would bring any of it that they could carry and they would check it with a sieve. If a bone the size of a barleycorn was found, the man who went through the field was declared impure, lest he had contact with that bone." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with various ways that a bet peras can be purified.", + "How is a bet haperas purified? They remove [soil to a depth of] three handbreadths, or [soil to a height of] three handbreadths is placed upon it. Basically, the way to purify a bet peras is to either remove the top soil or to add new top soil. Each of these must be done to a depth of three handbreadths, which is the depth of soil that a typical plow overturns.", + "If they removed [soil from a depth of] three handbreadths from one half [and upon the other half they placed three hand breadths [of soil], it becomes clean. It is possible to purify half the field by adding topsoil and half the field by removing topsoil.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: even they removed one handbreadth and a half and placed upon it one handbreadth and a half from another place, it becomes clean. Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient. It is possible to remove 1.5 handbreadths of topsoil and then add 1.5 handbreadths of new topsoil. Note that in reality, when he plows he will plow into the old topsoil because the plow goes to a depth of three handbreadths. In other words, Rabbi Shimon's rule is basically a legal fiction. As long as the adding/removing totals up to a sum of 3 handbreadths, it purifies the field.", + "One who paves a bet peras with stones that cannot [easily] be moved, it becomes clean. If one paves a bet peras with stones, the soil underneath will not be easily moved. Therefore, the field which was a bet peras can be considered pure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: even if one digs up [the soil of] a bet peras [and doesn’t find any bones] it becomes clean. According to Rabbi Shimon if one digs up a bet peras and finds no bones, the field is pure, for this is considered the best kind of check possible." + ], + [ + "A person who walks through a bet peras on stones that cannot [easily] be moved, or [who rides] on a man or beast whose strength is great, remains clean. [But if he walks] on stones that can [easily] be moved, or [rides] upon a man or beast whose strength is lousy, he becomes unclean. If a person walks through a bet peras but steps only on stones that cannot be moved, or if he gets a ride through a bet peras on the back of another strong person or strong animal, he remains pure. This is because by walking through the bet peras he doesn't move any soil underneath that might contain bones. In the case of the stones, since the stones cannot be moved, he won't move anything that is underneath. And in the case of the person/beast, even though the carrier will move the soil that he treads upon, the person being carried does not move the person carrying him (because he is strong), and therefore he remains pure. However, if he walks on stones that can be moved or on the back of a weak person or animal, he becomes impure because he is considered as moving the soil underfoot. If the carrier moves a bone underneath, then the person carrying is considered as having moved the bones as well.", + "A person who travels in the land of the gentiles over mountains or rocks, becomes unclean; But if [he travels] by the sea or along the strand, he remains clean. What is [meant by] ‘the strand’? Any place to which the sea rises when it is stormy. In 2:3 we learned that the land outside of Israel is considered to be impure. One who walks there is defiled. Our mishnah teaches that this includes even the mountains and rocks. We might have thought that since the dead are not buried there, that these places are pure. Therefore the mishnah teaches that the rabbinic decree that the land of the Gentiles is impure includes even places such as these. However, it doesn't include the sea or the strand close to the sea. It seems that these places are not considered to be \"land\" and therefore they were not included in the rabbinic decree." + ], + [ + "If one buys a field in Syria near to the land of Israel:
If he can enter it in cleanness, it is deemed clean and is subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce];
But he cannot enter it in cleanness, it [is deemed] unclean, but it is still subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce].
The dwelling-places of non-Jews are unclean. How long must [the non-Jew] have dwelt in [the dwelling-places] for them to require examination? Forty days, even if there was no woman with him. If, however, a slave or [an Israelite] woman watched over [the dwelling-place], it does not require examination.
Section one: The land of Syria (this is not the same as modern day Syria, but the general area is probably close) is impure as are all lands outside of Israel.
If one buys a field in Syria that lies right next to the border with Israel, and he can enter there in cleanness, meaning that there is no cemetery on the Israeli side, then the field on the Syrian side is considered clean. In other words, even though this land is not technically in Israel, since it was bought by a Jew and he can enter there without otherwise being defiled, it counts as part of the land of Israel (definitely not getting into any political implications of this mishnah).
Any produce grown on the land is liable for tithes and is subject to the laws of sheviit (the sabbatical year).
Section two: However, if he cannot enter there while maintaining his purity because he would have to go through a cemetery, then the field itself is unclean. It is still subject to the laws of tithes and sheviit, because the land of Syria is always subject to these laws.
Section three: The rabbis believed that non-Jews would bury their miscarriages inside their houses. I don't know if this is historically true, but it is clear that the rabbis believed this. Therefore, any home owned by a non-Jew, even inside the land of Israel, needed to be examined to see if the non-Jew had buried a fetus there, provided that the non-Jew lived there for at least 40 days. The house needs to be examined even if he doesn't seem to be living with his wife, lest he brought another woman into his house.
If an Israelite, even a slave or a woman, was watching over the house so that he wouldn't bury a miscarriage inside the house, then the house is pure. In other words, the non-Jew doesn't inherently defile the house by his presence. For the house to be defiled there must be the possibility that he buried a miscarriage there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah we learned that a Jew wishing to buy a home from a non-Jew must examine the home to make sure that the non-Jew had not buried there a miscarried fetus. Today's mishnah discusses where they must check.\nWarning: there is a strong \"yucky\" factor to this mishnah.", + "What do they examine? Deep drains and foul-smelling waters. The first opinion seems to imply that the fetus might be cast into drains and other types of drainage ditches.", + "Bet Shammai say: even garbage dumps and crumbled earth. Bet Shammai adds garbage dumps and soft crumbled earth. Note that both opinions agree that the non-Jew would not actually bury the fetus in the floor of the house, for digging up such a floor would not be easy.", + "Bet Hillel say: any place where a pig or a weasel can go requires no examination. Bet Hillel adds a leniency that doesn't seem to disagree with the above opinion (this is unusual). The Jew need not check any place where a pig or weasel might go, because if the fetus had been buried there we could assume that a pig or weasel either ate it or dragged it somewhere else [I told you this was yucky]." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with impurity of Gentile dwelling places and even gets into some specifics as to which cities are impure.", + "Colonnades are not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling places. Collonades are roofed but open areas with many columns to support the roofs. Since non-Jews don't bury their miscarriages there, they are pure.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a non-Jewish city that has been destroyed is not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling-places. Wild animals will circulate around in destroyed cities. Therefore, even if miscarriages were once buried there, the wild animals will eat them.", + "The east [side] of Caesaron and the west [side] of Caesaron are graveyards. Caesoron, also known as Caesarea Philippa is near the Jordan springs. Both sides of this ciry were used by non-Jews as graveyards and therefore they are impure.", + "The east [side] of Acre was doubtful, but the sages declared it clean. The sages weren't sure if there was a graveyard on the east side of Acre, but they declared it clean anyway. Very generous of them.", + "Rabbi and his law court voted [to decide] about Keni and declared it clean. Keni is on the southern edge of Israel, according to Albeck, near modern Eilat. Rabbi Judah Hanasi and his court actually had a vote about its purity, and they declared it clean." + ], + [ + "Ten places are not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling-places:
Arabs’ tents,
Field-huts (,
Triangular field-huts,
Fruit-shelters,
Summer shelters,
A gate-house,
The open spaces of a courtyard,
A bath-house,
An armory,
And the place where the legions [camp].
Our mishnah, the final in the tractate (have we really reached the end?), lists places owned by non-Jews that are not considered impure. These places are all for temporary dwelling and therefore there is no assumption that fetuses would have been buried there." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה אהלות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c5f66ba6d2c8c6a5a4000574c21521bd76ad954 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,816 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Oholot", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "The word \"Ohalot\" means \"tents\" and it refers to the halakhah found in Numbers 19 (quoted below) according to which a person or vessel found in a tent with a dead body is impure even without direct contact with the body. In other words, the tent causes the defilement of the corpse to spread throughout the tent and defile everything in the tent. The rabbis define \"tent\" in a very broad manner. Basically, any covering that hangs over a corpse (or piece thereof) can convey the impurity to anything else which it overhangs. Basically, the only requirement is that this \"overhanging\" or \"tent\" be at least one handbreadth long, one handbreadth wide and one handbreadth in height. And just as a \"tent\" (I will try to use the term \"ohel\" as well) conveys the impurity to that which is found beneath it, it also prevents the impurity from spreading to that which is above the tent. In other words it conveys and confines at the same time. If a corpse is above the ohel, that which is below the ohel is not defiled. ", + "Tractate Ohalot also deals with other issues concerning the impurity of a corpse. The Torah specifically states that anyone that has contact with a corpse is impure for seven days. The rabbis add that carrying a corpse also defiles, even without contact. The Torah also states that a person who had contact with a dead body defiles others and vessels, but only for a period of one day. Thus the dead body itself is the \"father of the fathers of impurity\" and the person (or vessel) who had contact with a dead body is a \"father of impurity.\" ", + "Tractates Ohalot and Negaim, the next tractate, were already famous in the Talmudic period for their difficulty. In a passage which I happened to have just taught a few days ago (Bavli Pesahim 50a) R. Yohanan says that these two tractates are difficult in this world, but will be easier in the world to come. In Bavli Hagigah 14a, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya scolds Rabbi Akiva for dealing in matters of aggadah and tells him to go study Ohalot and Negaim. He chooses these two tractates due to their depth and difficulty. We are a bit luckier than Rabbi Akiva for we have many commentaries on which to base our study, including a relatively recent modern commentary by Professor Abraham Goldberg (whose son-in-law is a colleague of mine at the Conservative Yeshiva). These laws will be difficult, but perhaps by making them a bit easier than they were at first, we too can have a small taste of the world to come. Below are the verses most relevant to our tractate. Good luck!" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah serves as an introduction to the next several mishnayot. As is frequently the case in the beginning of a tractate, the mishnah is based on numbers (see for instance the beginning of Shabbat and Shevuot). It discusses the different levels of impurity that have their source in a corpse.", + "Two are defiled through a corpse, one being defiled with seven days' defilement and one being defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening. This will be explained below in section four.", + "Three are defiled through a corpse, two being defiled with seven days’ defilement and one with a defilement lasting until the evening. This will be explained in mishnah two.", + "Four are defiled through a corpse, three being defiled with seven days’ defilement and one with a defilement lasting until the evening. This will be explained in mishnah three.", + "What [is the case of] two? A person who touches a corpse is defiled with seven days’ defilement and a person who touches him is defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening. Numbers 19:11 explicitly states that one who has contact with a corpse is defiled for seven days. Verse 22 states, \"and the person who touches him shall be unclean until evening.\" \"Him\" refers to the person who came into contact with the corpse." + ], + [ + "What [is the case of] three? Vessels touching a corpse and [other] vessels [touching these] vessels are defiled with seven days’ defilement. A vessel that comes into contact with a dead body is unclean for seven days. These vessels are \"fathers of impurity.\" The same is true for vessels that come into contact with these vessels. These too are \"fathers of impurity\" and are unclean for seven days.", + "The third: whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening. But the \"third\" link in the chain, a person or vessel who comes into contact with a vessel that had contact with another vessel that was in contact with a corpse, has a lower degree of impurity. He or it is impure only until the evening with \"first degree impurity.\"" + ], + [ + "What is the case of four? Vessels touching a corpse, a person [touching these] vessels, and [other] vessels [touching this] person, are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fourth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. When vessels come into contact with a corpse, they are defiled for seven days (as in yesterday's mishnah). If a person touches these vessels, he is impure for seven days, for they also are a \"father of impurity.\" And the person too is a \"father of impurity\" and if other vessels touch him, they are impure for seven days.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: I have a fifth, [if] a peg was fixed in a tent, the tent, the peg, a person touching the peg and vessels [touching] the person are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fifth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. They said to him: the tent does not count. However, when it comes to the fourth in the chain, the level of impurity is reduced. So if a person or a vessel has contact with the aforementioned vessel, he or it is impure only until the evening.", + "Rabbi Akiva is getting ambitious! He wants to find a series with five elements. A peg is fixed into the ground next to a tent but it is not part of the tent and there is a corpse in the tent. According to Rabbi Akiva, the peg and the tent count as two separate items. The tent overshadows the peg causing it to be impure and Rabbi Akiva counts it like a vessel that overshadows a dead body or touches it. The person who touches the peg is impure and becomes a father of impurity. Any vessels that touch the person are all impure with seven day's impurity. That's four. The person or vessel that touches the aforementioned vessels is impure but only until the evening. The other sages respond that the tent itself does not count. Both the tent and the peg are impure for they are considered to have shadowed over the corpse, and the peg is not impure because of the tent. Therefore, we don't begin the count from the tent, but rather from the peg, in which case there are only four, not five, in this chain." + ], + [ + "[Both] persons and vessels can be defiled through a corpse. While both people and vessels are defiled through a corpse, there are stringencies that apply to one that don't apply to others.", + "A greater stringency applies to persons than to vessels and to vessels than to persons. For with vessels [there can be] three [series of defilements], whereas with persons [there can be only] two. There can be a series of three defilements involving only vessels, as we saw in mishnah two. Vessel one touches the corpse, vessel two touches vessel one, and vessel three touches vessel two (but it is impure only until the evening). However, when it comes to people, the second person has only \"first degree impurity\" and the person who touches him is pure, as we learned in mishnah one.", + "A greater stringency applies to persons, for whenever they are in the middle of a [series] there can be four [in the series], whereas when they are not in the middle of a [series] there can be [only] three. This refers to the situation in mishnah three. A vessel touches a corpse, a person touches the vessel and the vessel touches that person and all three are impure for seven days. The fourth, whether person or vessel, is also impure. But if the second element is a vessel, then the third element is impure only until the evening and the fourth element is pure, as is the case in mishnah two." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is similar to yesterday's mishnah in that it compares the stringency relating to an impure person with the stringency relating to vessels, in this case clothing. The topic of our mishnah is not the impurity caused by a dead body, but rather the impurity caused by a zav, a person who has had an abnormal genital emission.", + "Persons and garments can be defiled by a zav. Both human beings and clothing are defiled by contact with a zav, although as we shall see, there are cases in which the law is stricter with regard to the human and other cases in which the law is stricter with regard to the clothing.", + "A greater stringency applies to persons than to garments and a greater stringency applies to garments than to persons. This is the customary introduction to the next section.", + "For a person who touches a zav can defile garments, whereas garments that touch a zav cannot defile [other] garments. A person who has been in contact with a zav defiles clothing. This is explicit in Leviticus 15:7. However, clothing that come into contact with a zav has first degree impurity. This impure clothing will not subsequently convey impurity to other clothing, for clothing is susceptible to impurity only through contact with a father of impurity.", + "A greater stringency applies to garments, for garments which form the support of a zav can defile persons, whereas a person who forms the support of a zav cannot defile [other] persons. Something upon which a zav lays or reclines or sits is impure, even if the zav doesn't touch it (see Leviticus 15:5). This includes clothing. This clothing will subsequently defile other people. However, if a zav lays or reclines on a person (without touching that person) that person does not defile other people. We will learn more about this topic in general when we learn Tractate Zavim (yes, there is a whole tractate devoted to this subject!)." + ], + [ + "A person does not defile [as a corpse] until he dies. A living person, even an almost dead person, does not defile until he is actually dead.", + "Even he is cut up or even if he is about to die, he [still] makes levirate marriage obligatory and exempts from levirate marriage, he feeds [his mother] terumah and disqualifies [his mother] from eating terumah. If he is about to die, he is still considered alive. The mishnah lists some consequences (besides his still being pure) for the fact that he still counts as being alive. If his brother died without offspring, the wife is liable for levirate marriage (yibbum) as long as he is alive. If his father died, his father's wife is exempt from yibbum as long as he was alive when his father died. If he is a kohen and his mother is an Israelite who was widowed from his father (also a kohen), his mother eats terumah as long as he is alive (assuming no other offspring). In other words, since he is alive, her status can still follow that of her offspring. If he is an Israelite and his mother is a daughter of a kohen widowed from his father (an Israelite) his mother cannot eat terumah as long as he is alive.", + "Similarly in the case of cattle or wild animals, they do not defile until they die. The carcasses of cattle or wild animals that were not slaughtered defile (nevelah). The same is true of animals categorized as \"sheratzim.\" As is the case of human beings, they do not defile until they are dead.", + "If their heads have been cut off, even though they are moving convulsively, they are unclean, like a lizard's tail, which moves convulsively. Dead animals can at times move, even if their heads have been cut off. Despite this movement, they are still considered dead. After all, once the head is off, they're not coming back to life. This is similar to the case of a lizard's tail, which might keep moving, even after it has been cut off." + ], + [ + "Whole limbs [of the body] have no [restriction as to] size: even less than an olive-sized portion of a corpse or less than an olive-sized portion of nevelah (carrion), or less than a lentil-sized portion of a sheretz can defile, [each in the manner of] their respective defilements. Whole limbs that are separated from either a corpse, or the carrion of an animal, or from a sheretz, always defile even if they don't meet the minimums for size. These minimums are usually: an olive's worth for a human corpse, the same size for nevelah (animal carrion), or a lentil-sized piece from a sheretz. The minimum sizes are only relevant when there are pieces that are no full limbs. But if there is a limb that is smaller than that size, it defiles in all cases." + ], + [ + "There are two hundred and forty-eight limbs in a human body: Thirty in the foot, six for every toe, Ten in the ankle, Two in the shin, Five in the knee, One in the thigh, Three in the hip, Eleven ribs, Thirty in the hand, [that is] six to every finger, Two in the fore-arm, Two in the elbow, One in the upper arm and Four in the shoulder, [For a total of] one hundred and one on the one side [of the body] and one hundred and one on the other. Eighteen vertebrae in the spine, Nine in the head, Eight in the neck, Six in the key of the heart, And five around the genitals.
Each one [of these] can defile by contact, carriage or overshadowing.
When is this so? When they have upon them the appropriate amount of flesh, But if they do not have the appropriate amount flesh upon them, they can defile by contact and carriage but cannot defile by overshadowing.
Today's mishnah defines \"limbs.\" Obviously, the modern use of the word limb is not the same as the rabbinic use of the term. The word \"limb\" mostly seems to refer to bones, as we shall see.
Section one: The count of 248 likely refers to bones and perhaps a few sinews and ligaments as well, and not what we would call limbs. It does not include the teeth. When I googled how many bones are in the human body, most answers seemed to be 206. The rabbinic answer seems to include some parts that modern anatomists do not consider bones. In any case, the count is not that far off.
Section two: Each of these \"limbs\" can cause defilement in any of the three ways that a dead body causes defilement: by contact, by being carried (even without contact) and by overshadowing (ohel). However, for it to defile as a \"limb\" it must have enough flesh such that if it was attached to the body it could heal.
If it does not have this amount of flesh, it still defiles by contact and carriage, but it doesn't defile through overhanging. We shall see more concerning this is 2:3." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah lists what things cause impurity through overshadowing (an ohel). These things defile even if they are not touched or are not carried.\nBelow I have explained only terms that are not clear through translation.", + "c) Nezel refers to flesh from a corpse that has begun to decompose. It can also refer to liquid that was emitted from the dead body that has begun to congeal. Hope you're not reading this while eating! d) Corpse-mold is a later stage of decomposition. The amount required to defile is greater than that for regular flesh or nezel. e) The spine or the skull causes impurity even if there is no flesh on it. g + h) Bones can cause impurity even without the flesh on them as long as one of two requirements is met. 1) There is a quarter kav (about half of a liter) of bones collected from the structural or numerical majority of the body. The \"structural majority\" refers to the large leg bones, the ribs and the spine. In other words, it doesn't include most of the smaller bones. 2) The structural or numerical majority is actually present, even if there is not a quantity of a quarter of a kav of bones.", + "How many [bones] form the numerical majority? One hundred and twenty-five. The mishnah assumes you're not too good at math, so it lets you know that a majority of 248 is 125. Thanks!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to list substances that defile through overshadowing.", + "[The following likewise defile:]
A quarter [of a log] of blood, A quarter of a log is about 1/8 of a liter. Less than half a can of coke, for those of you who drink the stuff (coke, not blood).", + "A quarter [of a log] of mixed blood from one corpse. Rabbi Akiva says: [even] from two corpses. Mixed blood is a mixture of blood from a corpse with blood from a living person (that doesn't defile). If there is a quarter of a log of such blood, it too defiles. Rabbi Akiva says that even blood that comes from two different corpses defiles, if there is a minimum mixture.", + "[With regard to] the blood of a child that has completely flowed forth: Rabbi Akiva says: [it defiles] in even the smallest quantity, But the sages say: [there must be] a quarter [of a log]. A small child does not have nearly as much blood as an adult. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva says that even the smallest quantity of blood will cause impurity. However, the other rabbis do not make such a distinction. There must always be a quarter of a log for it to cause impurity through an ohel.", + "[With regard to] an olive-sized [portion] of [corpse] worms whether alive or dead: Rabbi Eliezer declares [it] unclean, like the flesh, But the sages declare [it] clean. You're going to love this one. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the worms that come and out of a corpse are treated as if they were part of the corpse itself and if there is the minimum amount, they convey impurity like the corpse. The other rabbis say that these worms are clean (but you might still want to wash your hands after handling them).", + "[With regard to] the ashes of burnt persons: Rabbi Eliezer says: the [minimum] quantity [for defilement is] a quarter [of a kav]. But the sages declare [them to be] clean. Rabbi Eliezer holds that even the ashes of human remains can defile, if there is the same minimum amount as there is of flesh. But the other rabbis disagree. They seem to hold that burning the body obliterates the source of impurity. Perhaps we could even extend this opinion and explain that according to the rabbis burning destroys any of the once-alive spirit that remains in the body (perhaps this is also at least one of the reasons that cremation is prohibited.) We should also note that Rabbi Eliezer seems to hold what we have deemed elsewhere a \"realistic\" position. The corpse is found in the worms, therefore they defile. The ashes contain the corpse, therefore they too defile. The rabbis hold more of a \"nominalistic\" position. The worms are not considered by definition to be a corpse, nor are ashes.", + "A ladleful and [a little] more of grave-dust is unclean. Rabbi Shimon declares [it to be] clean. In yesterday's mishnah we learned that a ladleful of corpse mold transmits impurity. According to Rabbi Shimon, a ladleful plus a little more of earth taken from under a corpse will contain a ladleful of corpse. Therefore, it transmits impurity.", + "A ladleful of corpse-mold mixed with water is not [regarded as] joined [into one mass] for [the purposes of] defilement. This section contains a special rule concerning a ladleful of corpse mold. The pieces of corpse in such mold are considered to be separate from each other, even if they have been mixed in with water. Therefore, if one touches such mold he is not impure, because he has touched a piece of corpse that is less than an olive's worth. However, the ladleful still transmits impurity through overshadowing and carrying because there is a total amount of corpse sufficient to transmit impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with elements of a corpse that have a lower degree of impurity, and can only defile through contact and carriage but not through overshadowing.", + "a) A single bone does not defile by overshadowing, but as long as there is the size of a barleycorn, it does defile by contact and carriage. b) According to tradition, Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yohanan, two Second Temple sages decreed that foreign lands defile. Our mishnah teaches that even dust from a foreign land defiles, although not through overshadowing. c) A bet peras is a cemetery that has been plowed over. We will learn more about the bet peras in chapter seventeen. d) A spine or a skull that are complete defile through overshadowing. If they are deficient, they still defile through contact and carriage.", + "How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argue about how much of a spine or skull has to be deficient for it to no longer defile in an ohel. In both cases Bet Hillel is more lenient (meaning the amount they require for the defiency is less).", + "And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. According to Bet Shammai if there is a hole in a skull the size of a drill, the skull no longer defiles in an ohel. The type of drill of which they are speaking will be explained in section four. Bet Hillel holds that if the hole is large enough such that the person would die, then the skull is deficient.", + "Of what drill did they speak? Of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber. It is interesting to note that in this section, the sages and Rabbi Meir disagree concerning the proper interpretation of Bet Shammai's opinion. It is possible that in this case, both hold that the halakhah is according to Bet Shammai. Rabbi Meir says that the drill is the one used by a physician. [I don't think I would want to be on the receiving end of that drill]. The other rabbis say that the drill is the drill used in the Temple. The size of this drill is explained in Kelim 17:12." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnaic times burials were often done in caves. Our mishnah discusses the stones used to cover up the graves.", + "The covering stone and the buttressing stone [of a grave] defile by contact and overshadowing but not by carriage. Rabbi Eliezer says: they do defile by carriage. Rabbi Joshua says: if there is grave dust beneath them, they defile by carriage, but if not they do not defile by carriage. The covering stone is the stone rolled over the grave to seal it up. It transmits impurity by overshadowing and contact but not by carriage, probably because it is not something that is generally carried. Note that impurity by contact is stated explicitly in Numbers 19:16. However, Rabbi Eliezer says it does defile by carriage. Rabbi Joshua notes that if there is grave dust underneath them, then they do defile by carriage because the grave dust is assumed to contain dust that originates with the dead body. But if there is no grave dust, the stones themselves do not transmit impurity through carriage.", + "What is the buttressing stone? That upon which the covering stone is supported. But the stone that serves as buttress to the buttressing stone is clean. The buttressing stone is that upon which the covering stone rests. Some explain that there were two such stones, one on each side. These stones themselves are governed by the same rule that governs the actual covering stone. But the stones that support the supporting stones are clean. They are far enough removed from the grave that they don't count as the grave itself." + ], + [ + "These are clean if they are deficient:
An olive-sized [portion] of a corpse;
An olive-sized [portion] of nezel,
A ladleful of corpse-mold,
A quarter [of a log] of blood,
A bone of the size of a barley-corn,
And a limb [severed] from a living person, the bone of which [limb] is deficient.
Our mishnah refers to some of the defiling agents that have been mentioned in other mishnayot in this chapter and notes that if these things do not have the prescribed measure, they are not impure at all. This is different from the skull and vertebrae that are still impure, even if they are not intact (see mishnah three).
Most of the mishnah is self-explanatory, so I have only commented where necessary.
Section two: On the meaning of \"nezel\" see 2:1.
Section six: If a limb is separated from a living person, and part of the bone itself is missing, the bone is pure, no matter the size. However, if part of the flesh is missing, it is still impure (see mishnah three).
And if the limb came from a dead body, the bone is impure as long as there is an amount the size of a barley-corn, as we learn here and in mishnah three." + ], + [ + "A backbone or a skull [made up from the bones] of two corpses,
A quarter [of a log] of blood from two corpses,
A quarter [of a kav] of bones from two corpses,
A limb of a corpse from two corpses,
And a limb [severed] from a living person, [such a limb being made up] from two persons,
Rabbi Akiva declares [the all] unclean
But the sages declare them clean.
In mishnah two we learned that Rabbi Akiva holds that a quarter of a log of blood mixed from two corpses is impure, even though there is not the requisite amount of blood from one corpse.
In all of these cases we have the amount of corpse stuff required to transmit impurity, but it is composed (or should I say, decomposed) of material from two different corpses. To be honest, I don't know how one puts together a limb that comes from two different people, whether it has to be attached or not. It seems like the two limbs are placed together such that they look as if they are attached.
Rabbi Akiva says that in all of these case, the limb, blood or bones defiles in the same way that a limb, blood or bones from one corpse does by contact, carriage and overshadowing.
The other rabbis say that these things are clean. What this means is that they do not defile through overshadowing. However, they do defile through contact and carriage, for even a bone the size of a barley-corn defiles in these manners." + ], + [ + "A bone the size of a barley-corn that is divided into two: Rabbi Akiva declares it unclean But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares it clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: they did not say 'bones’ the size of a barley-corn, but ‘bone’ the size of a barley-corn. For a bone to convey impurity in an ohel it must be the size of a barley-corn. Rabbi Akiva says that even two bones can combine together to add up to this size. This is consistent with his opinion in yesterday's mishnah. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees. From the statement in mishnah three that \"a bone the size of a barley-corn\" conveys impurity he derives that there must be a single bone that size. The rabbis said \"a bone\" and not \"bones.\" Therefore, one bone must be the size of a barley-corn.", + "A quarter [of a kav] of bones crushed fine, and there is not a single [bone] the size of a barley-corn: Rabbi Shimon declares it clean But the sages unclean. In this case bones have been crushed up and there is no single bone the size of a barley-corn. Rabbi Shimon says that they are clean. Even though there is a quarter of a kav, \\the minimum measure in which multiple bones convey impurity, since they are crushed up they no longer defile. The other sages disagree and hold that they do convey impurity since there is a quarter kav.", + "A limb [severed] from a living person which has been divided into two is clean. Rabbi Yose declares [it] unclean; But he agrees that if it is taken from a living person by halves it is clean. A whole limb severed from a living person is unclean. Rabbi Yose says that if it is divided in two, it still defiles. The other sages disagree and are consistent with their opinion concerning the bone in section one. Rabbi Yose agrees that if the limb is removed from the person in halves, then it is clean because it was never a \"full limb from a living person.\"" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "All objects that defile by overshadowing which were divided and then brought into a house: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares clean. But the sages declare [it] unclean. According to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, if two of the defiling agents listed in 2:1 are found in an ohel but there is only half of a measure of each, they do not join together to create the necessary amount to defile. The other sages disagree and say that they do join together to defile.", + "What is the case? One who touches two pieces of nevelah, each the size of half an olive, or carries them, Or, in the case of a corpse, if he touches a piece the size of half an olive and overshadows [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him, Or if he overshadows two [pieces, each] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean, And the sages declare him unclean. This section now explains in what exact case Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the sages disagree. We should note that according to the opinion voiced here the debate exists not only in connection with defiling in a tent, but carrying and touching as well. A) He touches or carries two pieces of nevelah (the meat of an animal that was not slaughtered in a kosher fashion). Nevelah does not defile through overshadowing. B) One hand has contact with half of a measure of a piece of corpse and the other hand overshadows half of a measure. C) One hand has contact, and the other piece of corpse is stuck, for instance, in a wall, and it overshadows him. D) He overshadows two pieces of half of an olive's size of corpse. E) He overshadows one piece, and another piece overshadows him. In all of these cases, the sages and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas disagree.", + "But if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, he is clean. According to the first opinion, the sages agree in the following two cases that the person is pure. In the first case, he touches a half of an olive's size piece of corpse and at the same time something overshadows him and another half of a piece of corpse. In the second case, he overshadows half of a piece of corpse, and something overshadows him and another half of a piece of corpse. The rabbis say that he is pure in these cases. The rabbis hold that when one overshadows a piece of corpse or a piece of corpse overshadows him it is as if he had touched the piece, because the impurity travels up or down within an ohel. This means that in these two cases touching and overshadowing are in the same category or cause of impurity. However, if something overshadows him and a piece of corpse, it is not the same as contact with the corpse, and therefore there are two different causes of impurity overshadowing and contact. As we learn below, two different causes do not join together to add up to a full measure of impurity.", + "Rabbi Meir says: Even here Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean and the sages declare him unclean. Every [case] is unclean except [a case of] contact [combined] with carriage or of carriage [combined] with overshadowing. Rabbi Meir says that in these cases too, the rabbis hold that the two types of impurity can be joined. Ohel impurity can always be joined with contact impurity because they are essentially the same cause. The only types of impurity that cannot be joined are contact with carriage and carriage with ohel. Put simply, there are two general types of impurity: 1) contact/ohel; 2) carriage.", + "This is the general principle: every object [whose defilement] proceeds from one cause is unclean, from two causes is clean. The general rule that governs the sages' opinion is that two different causes of impurity cannot be joined, but two of the same category can be joined. The anonymous mishnah in section three and Rabbi Meir disagree as to how we define different \"causes of impurity\" but they agree with this general principle." + ], + [ + "If a ladleful of corpse-mold was scattered about in a house, the house is unclean But Rabbi Shimon declares it clean. In 2:1we learned that a ladleful of corpse mold causes impurity in an ohel. The sages say that even though the mold was mixed in with the dust and dirt of the house, as long as the requisite quantity of corpse is found, the house is unclean. Rabbi Shimon, however, holds that since there is a mixture of corpse-mold and dust, the house is clean.", + "If a quarter [of a log] of blood was absorbed in [the ground] of a house, the house is clean. The sages agree that if blood is mixed in with the ground of the house, the house is clean. As we shall learn in section three, if blood is absorbed in something from which it cannot be expelled, the blood no longer transmits impurity.", + "If it was absorbed by a garment: if the garment is washed and a quarter [of a log] of blood emerges from it, it is unclean, if not, it is clean, since anything absorbed that cannot emerge is clean. The purity of the garment into which the blood has been absorbed depends on whether the blood can be removed from the garment. If it can be removed by laundering the garment, then the garment does not defile in an ohel. However, the garment itself is impure because it came into contact with a quarter of a log of blood. As far as how one can test if a quarter of a log of blood came out of the garment, one would take a measured amount of water and launder the garment in it. Then he would bring the same measure of water, less a quarter of a log, and put in that water a quarter of a log of blood. If the water looks the same, then a quarter of a log emerged. If the water that was used for laundering has less of a red color, then the garment with the blood does not defile in an ohel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with blood that is poured out and then lands on the ground and someone or something overshadows it.", + "[Blood] which was poured out in the air: If the place [where it fell] was an incline and [a person or vessel] overshadowed part of it, he [remains] clean. If it was a cavity, or if the blood congealed, he [becomes] unclean. In this case the blood is poured out outside of a house. If it lands on an inclined space, and a person or vessel overshadows part of this blood, he/it is not considered to have overshadowed the entire quarter of a log. While the blood flows down the incline, each part is not considered to be connected to the other part and so he has overshadowed only part of the blood. However, if the blood falls into a cavity (a depression in the ground) or if it congeals then because the blood has stopped flowing when one overshadows part of the blood he is considered as having overshadowed all of it and he/it is impure.", + "If it was poured out on a threshold: If it inclined either inwards or outwards and the house overshadowed it [that which is in the house] is clean. If there was a cavity, or if it congealed, [that which is in the house becomes] unclean. In this case the blood is poured out onto the threshold outside of the house, and the house (or part of it) overshadows part of the blood. If the blood is on an incline and is still flowing (either towards or away from the house), then again the blood is not considered to be connected to its other parts and the people or vessels in the house are pure. In other words, we don't consider the house to be overshadowing the entire quarter of a log of blood. However, if the blood falls into a cavity or it congeals such that it is no longer flowing, the blood is connected to itself and the house conveys the impurity.", + "When teeth, hair and nails are separate from a corpse they are not impure as is the flesh and blood. However, when they are joined to the corpse, they are as impure as is everything else. Tomorrow's mishnah will continue to deal with this topic." + ], + [ + "How so? If the corpse was outside and its hair inside, the house is unclean. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if the hair is connected to the corpse, it is impure like the corpse. The ramification of this is that if a corpse is found outside of a house, and the hair is in the house, the house (meaning its contents) is impure because the house overshadows the corpse.", + "[With regard to] a bone which had upon it an olive-sized portion of flesh, if one brought part of it within so that the house was overshadowing it, [the house] is unclean. This section deals with a bone that in and of itself does not convey impurity in an ohel (see 2:3) but has enough flesh on it to do so. If he brings part of the bone into the house, the house is impure, even if the flesh is outside of the house because the bone serves as a connective for the flesh. It is as if the flesh is in the house.", + "[With regard to] two bones which had upon them two pieces of flesh, [each] the size of half an olive, if one brought part of them within so that the house was overshadowing them, [the house] is unclean. Similarly, two bones, each with half of an olive's worth of flesh, serve to connect the flesh that is found on them to the part of the bone that is in the house. Again, the contents of the house are impure.", + "But if [the pieces of flesh] were set into [the bone] by a person, the house is clean since connections created by human agency are not [regarded as] connections. In the previous two sections we learned that the bone serves as a connective for the flesh found on it, such that as long as part of the bone is in the house, the house is considered to overshadow the flesh that is out of the house. However, this is true only of flesh that grew on the bone and was naturally found there. If a person puts some flesh onto a bone, the bone does not connect the flesh, for \"connections\" in the case of the corpse must be natural. If the \"human\" world gets involved in this process, the connections created do not have ramifications on the purity status." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMishnah 2:2 stated that a quarter of a log of \"mixed blood\" defiles in an ohel. Our mishnah discusses what \"mixed blood\" is. To understand this mishnah we must remember that only the blood of a corpse defiles. Blood that comes out from a person during his lifetime does not defile.", + "What is ‘mixed blood? The blood of a corpse of which an eighth [of a log] came out during his lifetime and an eighth after death, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: a quarter [of a log] during his lifetime and a quarter after death. Both Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael agree that \"mixed blood\" is an amount of blood, part of which came from a living person and part of which came from a corpse. Rabbi Akiva rules strictly even if only half of the requisite quarter log came from a corpse, 1/8 of a log, and then was mixed with another 1/8 of a log of pure blood from a living body, the mixture defiles. Rabbi Ishmael says that \"mixed blood\" is a case where there originally was a quarter of a log of blood from a corpse and the same amount from a living body. Then from this amount, which clearly does defile, one takes a quarter of a log. Since there was originally the requisite amount of impure blood, the quarter of a log removed still defiles. However, if originally there was only 1/8 of a log of impure blood mixed with the same amount of pure blood it would not defile.", + "[If] a quarter [of a log] is taken from both of these: Rabbi Elazar bar Judah says: both of these are as water. What then is ‘mixed blood’? It is that of a crucified person whose blood is streaming forth and under whom is found a quarter [of a log] of blood it is unclean. However a corpse whose blood drips forth and under whom is found a quarter [of a log] of blood, [the blood] is clean. Rabbi Judah says: not so, but that which streams forth is clean and that which drips forth is unclean. Rabbi Elazar bar Judah is even more lenient. He responds to Rabbi Ishmael by saying that a quarter of a log of blood that is taken out of a mixture of a quarter log of impure blood and a quarter log of pure blood has the purity status of water. This is an emphatic way of saying it is pure. Still, Rabbi Elazar must define \"mixed blood.\" He defines it as blood that is streaming forth from a living person. This is the blood that has the \"life force\" in it, for its loss causes the person to die. However, if the blood drips from him it is clean. Even though its loss eventually causes him to die, the earlier drops don't join together with the later drops (which do cause him to die) to create the requisite quarter of a log. Rabbi Judah says that the blood that streams forth is pure because the life force does not come out with this blood (this is the Rambam's explanation). But when the last drop of blood comes out of him, his life will definitely have come out and therefore this blood defiles. [I should note that there are some difficulties in interpreting this mishnah and even in determining who says what, and the relationship of each section to each other.]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWhen we get to 7:3 we will learn that if there is a dead body in a house, all of the openings are impure, even though the dead body will only go out through one of them. [Note that the opening is considered separate from the house]. Our mishnah teaches that if a person decides to take the dead body, or a piece thereof, out through one of the openings, the other openings, as long as they are locked, are pure. However, the opening must be large enough so that the corpse or piece thereof could go out of it. If it is not, then all of the openings remain impure.", + "For an olive-sized portion of a corpse, an opening [in the room in which it is found] of one handbreadth [square], and for a [whole] corpse, an opening of four handbreadths [square, is enough] to prevent the uncleanness from [spreading to the other] openings; If one intends to take an olive size portion of a corpse out of the house through an opening that is one handbreadths square, that opening is unclean, even if it is locked. Anything found in the opening, under the lintel, is unclean. But all of the other locked openings remain pure. However, if the opening is not even the size of a handbreadth, then all of the openings, even though they are locked, are impure, because in the end, the piece of corpse may be taken out through one of them. When it comes to a full corpse, the opening must be four handbreadths square to protect the other openings. If it is less, then the other openings are impure because the body might go out through one of them.", + "But for allowing the uncleanness to go out, an opening of one handbreadth [square is enough]. If the opening is not locked, then the impurity escapes as long as the opening is a one handbreadth square. This is true even if a complete corpse is in the house.", + "[A portion] greater than the size of an olive is as a [whole] corpse. Section one dealt with an olive-sized portion of corpse and a full corpse. But what about something in between? The answer is that anything greater than an olive-sized piece is treated as a full corpse. This means that the opening must be four square handbreadths in order to protect the other openings from being unclean.", + "Rabbi Yose says: [only] the spine and the skull are as a [whole] corpse. Rabbi Yose says that the spine and the skull, even if only the size of an olive remains, are treated like a full corpse. This means that the opening must be four handbreadths to protect the other openings from being impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches a basic law concerning the ohel. If there is an object that is at least a handbreadth wide and long and a handbreadth high, it can act as an ohel. It conveys impurity that is found beneath it, and it prevents impurity from traveling above or below it. Our mishnah illustrates this with the case of a covered drain found beneath a house. In addition, the mishnah discusses the concept of impurity escaping through openings.", + "[An object] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high conveys uncleanness and blocks uncleanness. This was explained in the introduction.", + "How does it [block uncleanness]? In the case of a covered drain beneath a house, if it has a space a handbreadth wide and its outlet was a handbreadth wide, and there is uncleanness inside it, the house remains clean; And when there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the drain] remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. In this case the drain has the required dimensions 1 x 1 x 1 handbreadths and there is a one handbreadth opening at its end, which spills into the courtyard. The impurity that is in the drain will escape out into the courtyard, and therefore that which is in the house will remain pure. The mishnah's line \"for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in\" is not exactly appropriate here, for obviously the uncleanness will not simply enter the house. As we shall see, its proper place is below and in other mishnayot (4:1-3; 9:9-10). In addition, if there is impurity in the house it will not enter the drain because the drain is large enough to block the impurity.", + "If it had a space one handbreadth wide but its outlet was not one handbreadth wide, when there is uncleanness in it, the house becomes unclean; But when there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within it remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. In this case, the drain does not have an outlet large enough to allow the impurity out through it. Therefore, the impurity found in the drain will go up into the house and defile whatever is found there. However, impurity in the house will not enter the drain for there is a barrier (the drain itself) between the two.", + "If it did not have a space one handbreadth wide and its outlet was not one handbreadth wide, when there is uncleanness within it, the house becomes unclean; And when there is uncleanness in the house, it [also] becomes unclean. But if the drain is not even of the proper dimensions, then the impurity found in either space will go to the other. The drain is treated simply like the ground under the house and the impurity in the house spreads there as well.", + "It makes no difference if the cavity was carved out by water or by a sheretz or if it had been eaten out by salt. Any hole, no matter how it is made, if it has the features outlined above, is treated just like the drain. It will stop the impurity found in it from entering the structure above, and it will prevent the impurity found above from entering into it.", + "And similarly [if it is in] a row of stones or a pile of beams. Similarly, any structure, no matter how it is made, can serve as an ohel. If there are spaces that are one handbreadths wide, long and tall between the different parts, then the part on top is treated separately from the part below.", + "Rabbi Judah says: any \"tent\" not made by a person is not considered a tent’. But he agrees that crevices and crags [can be considered as ‘tents’]. Rabbi Judah says that only human-made structures can serve as an ohel. However, he agrees that crags and crevices, structures that might form a cave, are treated like an ohel because people often use them in such a manner. We should note that this opinion of Rabbi Judah matches his general tendency to remain close to the simple meaning of the biblical text. An ohel means a tent that is a humanly made structure. While Rabbi Judah is not a true literalist the law does not apply just to tents, he still holds that it only applies to things that are somewhat like tents. In contrast, the other sages seem to be thinking about how impurity is conveyed. If impurity is conveyed in an ohel, why shouldn't, they seem to say, it be conveyed by other types of structures." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A cupboard standing in the open air: If there is uncleanness within it, vessels in the [niches in the] thickness [of its walls] remain clean. If there is uncleanness in [the niches in] its thickness, vessels inside [the cupboard] remain clean. Rabbi Yose says: half and half.
When it is standing inside a house: If there is uncleanness inside [the cupboard], the house is unclean; If there is uncleanness in the house that which is within [the cupboard] remains clean, for the manner of uncleanness is to go out and not to go in.
Vessels which are between [the cupboard] and the ground, or between it and the wall, or between it and the roof-beams: If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth there, they become unclean. If not they remain clean.
If there is uncleanness there, the house becomes unclean.
Section one: The cupboard in our mishnah is large enough such that it doesn't receive impurity in itself. The cupboard is outside in the open air and not in the house.
If there is a source of impurity in the cupboard, and there are vessels in niches in the thickness of its walls, these vessels remain pure. These niches are not considered to be in the space of the cupboard. Similarly, if there is a source of impurity within the niches, the vessels inside the cupboard are pure.
Rabbi Yose disagrees. He divides these niches in half and says that the inner half is considered to be like the cupboard and the outer half is considered to be like the space outside the cupboard.
Section two: If the cupboard is within a house, then the impurity can escape the cupboard and go into the house (even if the cupboard is locked), but impurity from the house does not enter the cupboard (as long as the cupboard is closed). This is because of the rule that impurity escapes but does not enter.
Section three: This section describes a situation in which vessels are found in between the cupboard and the walls, floor or roof of the house, and there is a source of impurity in the house or in the cupboard. If there is a space that is at least 1 x 1 x 1 handbreadths, then the impurity goes in there through the fact that the house acts as an ohel. But if the space is smaller, the impurity does not enter, for impurity does not enter such small spaces.
However, if there is impurity in that space, then the house is impure because the impurity is inside the house. The cupboard is impure because impurity goes out but does not enter." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a drawer of the cupboard, which is one cubic handbreadth, but whose outlet is not a square handbreadth, if there is uncleanness inside it, the house becomes unclean; The mishnah now discusses a drawer inside the cupboard. The drawer is one handbreadth cubed, meaning that it is large enough to be considered an ohel. However, its opening is less than a handbreadth's in size. Nevertheless, if there is a piece of corpse (or other corpse type uncleanness) in the drawer it escapes the drawer and defiles everything in the house. This is the same principle we learned in 3:7 impurity can escape an inner ohel and go into a larger ohel (the house).", + "But if there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the drawer] remains clean, for the manner of uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. However, impurity does not go into a smaller ohel (the drawer) from the larger ohel. Therefore, if there is impurity in the house it does not defile things that are in the drawer.", + "Rabbi Yose declares [the house] clean, since he can remove [the uncleanness] by halves or burn it where it stands. Rabbi Yose says that even things in the house are pure, in a case where there is a source of impurity in the drawer. He holds that impurity escapes holes smaller than a handbreadth only if it is inevitable that the source of impurity will at some point have to leave its current place (the drawer). In other words, he would state that the contents of the larger ohel are impure only if we can anticipate that the impurity will leave its current ohel and actually enter the larger. However, in this case, it is not inevitable that the impurity will actually enter the house, or at least that an olive's worth of it will. One could either burn the impurity while it's still in the drawer, or he could remove it in pieces smaller than an olive. Since the impurity may not enter the house, the contents of the house are not defiled." + ], + [ + "[In the case where] the cupboard is standing in the doorway and is opened outward, if there is uncleanness inside it, the house remains clean. The impurity escapes from the cupboard to the outside and therefore the contents of the house remain pure.", + "If there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the cupboard] becomes unclean, for the manner of uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. The impurity escapes from the house through the cupboard, thereby defiling all that is in the cupboard.", + "If its wheeled base protruded three fingerbreadths behind it and there was uncleanness inside it under the roof-beams, the house remains clean. The cupboard is sitting in the doorway on a wheeled base. The wheeled base is in the house, but only by three fingerbreadths, less than a handbreadth. The wheeled base has something unclean (piece of corpse) on it and it sits underneath the roof-beams of the house. Since the wheeled base is within three fingerbreadths of the cupboard, it is treated like the cupboard itself and the impurity on the wheeled base does not go into the house, even though it is under the beams of the house.", + "When does this ruling apply? When there is a space of one cubic handbreadth, when it is not easily detachable, and when the cupboard is of the stipulated size. The rule in section three is true only if the following three conditions are met: 1) The wheelbase has the dimensions of an ohel a square handbreadth. With these dimensions it can prevent the impurity from escaping into the house. 2) The wheelbase is firmly attached to the cupboard, thereby allowing it to be treated as part of the cupboard. 3) The cupboard is large enough to hold 40 seahs of liquid/60 seah of dry goods, which is the size the cupboard needs to be for it not to be impure. If the cupboard is smaller, it does not prevent impurity from escaping or entering (we will return to this subject in 8:1)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "[With regard to] an oven which stood in a house, with its outlet curved to the outside [of the house], and those burying a corpse overshadowed it: The mishnah describes an oven that is inside a house, but whose outlet curves and opens to the outside of the house. The outlet is the hole in the bottom of the oven that lets air in and ashes out. It seems that a pipe has been affixed to the hole to lead it outside. Outside of the house, people carrying a corpse for burial overshadow (create an ohel) the pipe.", + "Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Shammai says that everything that is in the house becomes impure. The impurity is considered as entering the oven and since the oven is in the house, the contents of the house are impure.", + "Bet Hillel says: the oven becomes unclean, but the house remains clean. Bet Hillel limits the impurity to the oven itself, because they hold that the impurity does not escape from the oven into the house.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: even the oven remains clean. Rabbi Akiva is even more lenient. Even the oven is impure because they overshadowed the pipe and not the oven itself." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a hatch between the house and the upper story, if there was a pot placed over it and it was perforated [by a hole of sufficient size] to admit liquid: The opening between the house and the upper story has an earthenware pot placed over it. The pot cannot itself become impure because it is of earthenware. However, the pot has a hole in it large enough to let in a liquid and therefore the pot does not offer protection to the pure things in it, even if it is tightly sealed (see Kelim end of chapter 9). Just as we had three opinions in yesterday's mishnah with regard to the oven, today we have three opinions as to whether impurity in the house goes up through the pot into the upper story.", + "Bet Shammai says: all becomes unclean. Bet Shammai holds that since the pot is perforated it does not prevent the impurity from going up to the second story. The contents of both stories are impure.", + "Bet Hillel says: the pot becomes unclean but the upper story remains clean. Bet Hillel says that since the pot has a hole large enough to admit liquids, it cannot protect its contents from becoming impure. However, for the impurity to go up to the second story the hole must be a handbreadth wide. Since this hole is much smaller, the contents of the second story remain clean.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: all remains clean. Rabbi Akiva says that the pot is considered to be in the second story and not in the first. Therefore, even the contents of the pot remain clean. As was the case in yesterday's mishnah, Rabbi Akiva seems to make a conscious attempt to rule leniently." + ], + [ + "If [the pot] was whole:
Bet Hillel says: it protects all [from uncleanness].
A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel.
Bet Shammai says: it protects only food, drink and earthenware vessels.
But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.”
Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.
Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?”
Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].”
Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?”
Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.”
Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.
Section one: In this scenario instead of the pot having a hole in it, as it did in yesterday's mishnah, it is whole. According to Bet Hillel (at least at first) the pot protects the contents of the upper story from becoming impure.
Section two: Bet Shammai holds that the pot only protects things that cannot be purified in a mikveh, such as food, drink or earthenware vessels. Things that can be purified in a mikveh are not protected. The reason for this is a bit complicated and is explained more thoroughly in Eduyot 1:14. Below, to aid in understanding today's mishnah, I have replicated that mishnah in its entirety and I have also replicated my commentary (which I wrote over 8 years ago!). Note that in both mishnayot Bet Hillel changes their opinion and rules like Bet Shammai.
According to Numbers 19:15, a clay vessel that is covered with a lid prevents impurity from entering inside of it. If this vessel is found in a room with a dead body, which would normally cause everything in the room to be impure, the clay vessel and all that is inside of it does not contract the impurity. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel argue about what types of things which may be inside the clay vessels are not impure. According to Beth Hillel any object inside the vessel is pure. Beth Shammai holds that only food, liquids and other clay vessels remain pure; non-clay vessels would be impure.
Beth Shammai explains that we can assume that the clay vessel has been touched by an ignoramus (am haaretz), a person who does not strictly know or observe the laws of ritual purity. It is assumed that the am haaretz makes the vessel impure. Since an impure vessel does not prevent the impurity from entering, the things inside of it are impure.
Beth Hillel responds to Beth Shammai by pointing out that they did indeed accept that the food and liquids inside the vessel were pure. If the clay vessel does not prevent impurity from entering, why should anything inside of it remain pure?
To this question Beth Shammai responds that when they stated that the food and liquids were pure they meant for the am haaretz himself and not for the haver (a person who scrupulously observes the laws of purity and indeed eats only pure food). Beth Shammai assumes that a haver will not borrow any of these things from an am haaretz, since they cannot be made pure (a clay vessel cannot be cleansed of its impurity). Therefore Beth Shammai can pronounce these things clean, knowing that they will never come into the hands of a haver. However, when Beth Hillel pronounced everything inside pure, they were in essence declaring it pure for both the am haaretz and the haver. Beth Hillel had implied that even metal vessels, inside the clay vessel, remained pure. A haver might borrow metal vessels from an am haaretz, with the intent of immersing them to cleanse them of their impurities. However, this immersion will only cleanse them from light impurities and not from impurity contracted from a dead body. Therefore, a haver might borrow them thinking that he could cleanse them and in reality he could not. Due to this problem, Beth Hillel retracted their opinion and taught like Beth Shammai." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a flagon that is full of pure liquid, the flagon is defiled with seven days' impurity but the liquid remains clean. But if one poured it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. In this scenario there is a flagon (a small jar) made of metal or wood that is found in the upper story of a house where a pot is blocking the hatch and there is a source of corpse impurity in the lower story. Our mishnah rules like Bet Shammai (and like Bet Hillel after they too began to rule like Bet Shammai). Since this flagon can be purified in a mikveh, it is defiled by the corpse impurity found in the bottom floor. The liquid remains clean. However, if he pours the liquid out into another vessel that is found in the upper story, the liquid is defiled by contact with the other vessel.", + "If a woman was kneading [in the upper story] at a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean with seven days impurity, but the dough remains clean But if one turned it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. In this scenario, a woman is found kneading in the upper story. The woman and the kneading trough are impure because they can be cleansed in a mikveh. However, the dough cannot be cleansed in a mikveh so it is pure. Again, if he moves the dough to another vessel, it too is unclean.", + "Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel would have originally opposed the above halakhot, but they changed their mind and ruled like Bet Hillel, just as they did in yesterday's mishnah." + ], + [ + "If [lying over the hatch] there were vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, everything [in the upper story] remains clean. Vessels made of dung, stone or unbaked earth cannot become impure. Such vessels protect everything from becoming impure, even things that can be purified in a mikveh. Therefore, everything in the upper story is pure.", + "If it was a vessel known to be clean for holy things or for [the water of] purification, everything remains clean, since everyone is trusted with [regard to matters of] purification. Even amei haaretz (people who are not generally scrupulous concerning matters of purity) are trustworthy if they claim that the purity of a certain vessel was preserved in order to use it for something holy or for the waters of purification. In other words, the assumption is that these people were not careful about matters of purity when it came to daily life; but in regards to the Temple, they were careful. Since we can assume that these vessels are pure, they protect everything in the upper story from being defiled.", + "For clean vessels and earthenware vessels that are [known to be] clean protect with the walls of ‘tents'. The language of this section is a bit awkward. Albeck explains it in the following manner. Just as vessels that cannot become impure and have a tightly covered lid prevent impurity from entering, because they are like earthenware vessels (called \"pure\" because they cannot be defiled from the outside) which protect their contents when they have a tightly covered lid, so too all pure vessels protect against impurity together with the walls of the houses (\"tents\") in cases where the vessels are on top of the hatch." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAt the end of yesterday's mishnah we learned that pure vessels protect against impurity together with the walls of an ohel. Today's mishnah illustrates how this rule works.", + "How so? If there was a cistern or a cellar in a house and a large basket was placed over it, [the contents of the cistern or cellar] remain clean. The basket described here is not susceptible to impurity. If there is a source of corpse impurity in the house, the basket protects the contents of the cistern or cellar from becoming impure.", + "But if it was a well [with its upper edge] level [with the ground] or a deficient beehive upon which the basket was placed, [the contents] become unclean. As we shall learn in section four, for the basket to stop the impurity it must have walls and join with the walls of the house/ohel. If the well is even with the ground then it has no walls and therefore the basket does not offer a barrier to the impurity. In this case there are no \"walls of an ohel\" with which the walls of the basket can join. The second case is that of a basket placed over a beehive. The beehive may look like an ohel, because it is not stopped up (this is one explanation of the word \"deficient\"). However, the beehive is not actually treated like an \"ohel\" but rather like a vessel. Therefore, there are no \"walls of an ohel\" with which the basket can join in order to prevent the impurity from entering.", + "If it was a smooth board or netting without rims, [the contents] remain clean. A smooth board or a piece of netting that has no rims/solid sides is not considered to be a vessel. They are not susceptible to impurity. If one of these items is placed on top of a well or a cellar it protects the contents of the well or cellar from being defiled by the impurity in the house.", + "For vessels cannot protect along with walls of an ohel unless they themselves have walls. As we learned in section two above, the ohel must have walls for the vessel to protect from impurity.", + "How much must the wall be? A handbreadth. If there was half a handbreadth on one side and half a handbreadth on the other, it is not [considered] a wall, as there must be a whole handbreadth on one object. The walls must be at least a handbreadth high. It does not count if one side is half a handbreadth and the other side is also half a handbreadth. There must be at least one handbreadth in one place for it to count as the wall of an ohel." + ], + [ + "Just as they protect inside so they protect outside. In the previous mishnayot we learned that vessels can prevent the spread of uncleanness when they join together with the walls of the ohel. In today's mishnah we learn that sometimes they can protect outside of an ohel as well.", + "How so? In the case of a large basket supported on pegs on the outside [of an ohel], If there was uncleanness beneath it, vessels in the basket remain clean. But if it was [next to] the wall of a courtyard or of a garden, it does not protect. Here the basket is outside of the ohel and it is supported in the air on pegs alongside a tent (or other tent-like structure). The basket protects its contents from the impurity that is beneath it as long as the wall of the ohel is at least one handbreadth high. However, this is true only if the wall was made as part of an ohel, meaning a roofed structure, such as a house. If the wall was part of a courtyard or garden, a non-roofed structure, the wall does not count as part of an ohel. And the basket itself is not sufficient to prevent the impurity from entering from below because vessels do not count as an \"ohel\" to prevent impurity from entering from below. Therefore, the contents of the basket are unclean.", + "[In the case of] a beam placed across from one wall to an other, with a pot hanging from it, if there was uncleanness beneath it, Rabbi Akiva declares the vessels inside it to be clean, But the sages declare them unclean. According to the interpretation of this dispute found in the Tosefta, the pot is one handbreadth from the beam. In such a case, Rabbi Akiva holds that the beam serves to seal the pot because the pot is open less than a handbreadth. The other sages say that since the pot is open, it does not protect its contents. However, all agree that if the pot is further than a handbreadth away, its contents are impure and all agree that if the pot is right up against the beam, that its contents are pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Both persons and vessels can form ‘tents’ to bring uncleanness, but not to [protect objects so that they] remain clean. If a person or a vessel overshadows a dead body and a pure thing, or they carry an ohel which overshadows a dead body or a pure thing, the pure thing is defiled. However, if vessels which are not susceptible to impurity overshadow a dead body and a pure thing, or a person or vessel carry a vessel which overshadows a dead body and a pure thing, this type of ohel does not protect the things that are above it.", + "How so? There are four people carrying a chest: If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it become unclean. If there is uncleanness upon it, vessels beneath it become unclean. Rabbi Eliezer declares them clean. The mishnah now illustrates cases where something that overshadows does not offer a barrier to protect against impurity because it is held up by a person or a vessel. The chest described in this section was made of stone and was carried with poles. It was possible to place a dead body or the bones from a dead body either above the chest or below it (carried somehow, but not sure). In the first scenario, four people carry the chest. The chest does not prevent impurity from defiling the things that are above it, if there is something impure below, nor does it prevent the things that are below it from becoming impure if there is something impure above. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees for he holds that if an ohel is carried by a person it does offer a barrier.", + "[If the chest] is placed upon four vessels, even if they are vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the chest], vessels upon it become unclean. If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it become unclean. Since the chest is held up by vessels, the chest does not offer a barrier. This is true even if the vessels are of the type that cannot become impure.", + "[If the chest] is placed on four stones or on any living creature, If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it remain clean. If there is uncleanness upon it vessels beneath it remain clean. In this case the chest is not held up by a person or by a vessel. Therefore, the chest does act as an ohel and it does serve as a barrier to protect the things above from being defiled by that which is below and the things below from being defiled by that which is above." + ], + [ + "If corpse-bearers were passing along a portico and one of them shut a door and locked it with a key, If the door can remain in its position on its own,[the contents of the house] remain clean, But if not, they become unclean. The corpse-bearers were walking along a portico (a structure with pillars and a roof) and one of them locked the door to the house before the dead body was brought into the portico. Subsequently, the corpse was brought into the portico. If the door can stand in place on its own, without relying on the lock, then the contents of the house are pure. However, if the door cannot stand in place without the lock, then the contents of the house become unclean. This is similar to the rule we found in yesterday's mishnah. Something that serves as a barrier to impurity, in this case the door, must be able to stand on its own without relying on a person or a vessel (the lock) to hold it up. If it cannot stand on its own, it does not serve as a barrier.", + "Similarly [in the case of] a barrel of dried figs or a basket of straw placed in a window, If the dried figs or the straw can remain in their position on their own, [the contents of the room] remain clean, But if not they become unclean. This is the same rule except instead of a door serving as a barrier to impurity we have a barrel or a basket. Inside one room is a dead body. The barrel or basket themselves are susceptible to impurity and therefore they do not serve as a barrier (the barrel would serve as a barrier if its back was towards the room with the dead body). The dried figs or straw are not susceptible to impurity. If they can stand on their own, they serve as a barrier. But if they cannot, the impurity will defile the contents of the other room.", + "[In the case of] a house partitioned off by wine-jars, which had been plastered with clay, If the clay can remain in its position on its own, [the space partitioned off] remains clean, But if not, it becomes unclean. In this situation the wine-jars themselves do not provide a barrier because their mouths are open to the impure side. If the clay can remain in place without the wine-jars then it will provide a barrier. But if it does not, there is no barrier and the impurity will spread from one side to the other." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a case where corpse impurity is found inside a wall. The question is does the impurity defile the house which is towards the inside of the wall? Also, does it defile a person standing on top of the wall?", + "A wall serving a house is treated as if it was separate halves. The wall that serves a house is treated as if it was two separate halves. The inner half of the wall is part of the house and the outer half of the wall is not part of the house.", + "How so? A wall serving an open space, that has uncleanness within it: If it is in the inward half, the house is unclean, But what is above [the wall] remains clean. If the source of uncleanness is in the inside half of the wall, then it defiles the contents of the house. However, someone who is above the wall remains clean as if he were standing on the roof of a house (who is clean if there is uncleanness in the house, because the ceiling is a barrier to the impurity).", + "If it is in the outward half, the house remains clean, But what is above [the wall] becomes unclean. If the source of uncleanness is in the outer half of the wall, then we don't consider it to be in the house and the contents of the house are unclean. What is above the wall is unclean for the impurity in the wall goes up without anything to stop it.", + "If it is exactly in the middle, the house becomes unclean, And as for what is above, Rabbi Meir declares it unclean, But the sages declare it clean. If the source of uncleanness is right in the middle of the wall, the mishnah rules stringently with regard to the contents of the house, and says that they are unclean. With regard to what is above the house, Rabbi Meir again rules stringently. However, the sages are consistent with opinion found in section one. If the contents of the house are unclean, then it means that we look at the uncleanness as if it was in the house. In that case, the person standing above the wall is pure.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the whole of the wall belongs to the house. Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion in section one. He holds that if the uncleanness is found anywhere in the wall it is considered to be in the house. The contents of the house are unclean but a person standing above the wall is clean because the impurity is in the house." + ], + [ + "[In the case of] a wall between two houses and there is uncleanness within it, The house nearer to the uncleanness is unclean, And the house nearer to the clean part is clean. If [the uncleanness] is in the middle, both are unclean. In this section the wall serves to divide two houses, and not one house from the outside (as was the case in yesterday's mishnah). The rule is quite simple whatever house is closest to the source of impurity is impure and the other house is clean. If the impurity is right smack in the middle, the rule is strict and both houses are impure.", + "If there is uncleanness in one of the [houses] and there are vessels in [the thickness of] the wall: Those in the half nearer the uncleanness are unclean, Those in the half nearer the clean [house] are clean, And those in the middle are unclean. In this case, the source of impurity is in one of the houses and there are vessels in the wall. Again, the rule is simple. If the vessels are in the half of the wall nearer to the house with the uncleanness in it, the vessels are impure. If they are in the other side, they are clean. And if they are in the middle, they are clean.", + "[With regard to the] plaster-work between the house and the upper story, and there is uncleanness in it: If it is in the lower half, the house [below] is unclean and the upper story is clean If it is in the upper half, the upper story is unclean and the house is clean: If it is in the middle, both are unclean. Between the upper story and the bottom floor is a plaster ceiling (placed over wooden beams) and there is a source of corpse impurity in it. If it is in the lower half of the ceiling, then it is considered to be in bottom floor and the contents of the upper story are clean. If it is in the upper half, the upper story is unclean but the house is clean. And again, if it is in the middle, the rule is strict.", + "If there is uncleanness in either [the house or the upper story] and there are vessels inside the plaster-work, Those in the half nearer the uncleanness are unclean, And those in the half nearer the clean [space] are clean. If they are in the middle, they are unclean. Again, the mishnah reverses the situation and this time the uncleanness is in either the upper story or house and the vessels are in the ceiling. The rule is the same as it has been in the other sections.", + "Rabbi Judah says: all the plaster-work is considered as part of the upper story. Just as Rabbi Judah said that the wall is considered to belong to the house (in yesterday's mishnah), here he says that the plaster-work is considered part of the upper story. Even if the uncleanness is in the lower half of the plaster-work, it defiles the upper story and not the house." + ], + [ + "[In the case of] uncleanness among the roof-beams, [with a covering] beneath it thin as thin as garlic-skin, In this case the source of impurity is within the roof-beams, and not within the plastering or the walls. Therefore, the impurity is not part of the building. Separating the impurity from the house is a thin partition, even as thin as the skin of a piece of garlic.", + "If there is a space within of a cubic handbreadth, everything becomes unclean. If the source of impurity is found in a space that has the dimensions of a cubic handbreadth, then it spreads to the rest of the house and to the upper story as well. As we shall see, this is a general principle when it comes to the space in which a piece of impurity is found. If the corpse impurity is in a space that has an opening the size of a cubic handbreadth, then it spreads up and down (and all around). But if it is sealed up, the impurity does not spread, at least not as easily.", + "If there is not a space of a cubic handbreadth, the uncleanness is considered plugged up. As stated, if the impurity is found in a space that is smaller than a cubic handbreadth, then it does not spread to both the house and the upper story. Rather, in this case it would be considered part of the upper story, and only the contents of the upper story will be impure.", + "If the uncleanness was visible within the house, in either case the house becomes unclean. If the garlic thin separation is not sufficient to hide the source of impurity from being seen in the house, then it doesn't matter whether the space in which the impurity is found. The contents of the house are defiled in both cases, as if the impurity was in the house itself." + ], + [ + "A house serving a wall is subject to the principle of garlic-skin. Today's mishnah deals with a case where some sort of natural wall, such as a wall of rocks in the ground, existed before the building of the house adjacent to it. This is different from a case in which a wall was built in order to serve a house, a case discussed in mishnah three.", + "How so? [In the case of] a wall between two tomb-niches or two caverns, The wall described here exists between two structures hewn in the ground, either two tomb-niches, places in which people used to bury the dead, or two caverns.", + "If there is uncleanness in them and vessels in the walls, and there is a covering thin as garlic-skin over them, they remain clean. If there is a source of uncleanness in one of these places, and there are vessels in the wall, even a covering as thin as the skin of garlic will protect them from becoming unclean. Note that if this was a wall built to be part of a house, the vessels would be impure. Since this wall was not built to be part of the house, as long as it is separate, the contents found inside the wall are not actually part of the house.", + "If the uncleanness is in the wall and the vessels are in them, and there is a covering thin as garlic-skin over the uncleanness, they remain clean. The same is true in the opposite case, when the source of impurity is found in the wall and the vessels are in the tomb-niches or in the caverns.", + "If there is uncleanness beneath a pillar, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If there is a source of uncleanness beneath a pillar it spreads up and down so that anything inside the pillar or on top of it or buried further beneath it is impure. However, it does not defile things found on the side because the pillar is not like a wall serving to close in another structure." + ], + [ + "Vessels beneath the flowerlike top [of a pillar] remain clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them unclean. The first half of today's mishnah continues to deal with the pillar. On top of a pillar there was typically an ornament that looked like a flower and it would extend to the sides of the pillar. If there are vessels in this space, which is not directly above the source of impurity found below the pillar, they remain pure. In other words, the purity goes directly up and misses the vessels found on the side of the pillar. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri considers them to be unclean because the ornament is part of the pillar, even if it is not directly over the source of impurity.", + "[In the case of] the uncleanness and the vessels being [together] beneath the flowerlike top [of a pillar]: If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth there, [the vessels] become unclean; If not, they remain clean. There is a source of uncleanness in this ornament itself and there are vessels on the ground beneath this part of the pillar. If the uncleanness is found in an empty space that is one cubic handbreadth within the ornament, then the impurity will go up and down and defile the vessels below. However, if there is not such a space, the impurity remains trapped inside the ornament.", + "[In the case of] two wall-cupboards, one beside the other, or one above the other, if one of them was opened, both it and the house become unclean, but its companion remains clean. The mishnah now discusses some rules concerning cupboards that are built into the walls of a house. If one cupboard has a source of impurity in it and it is opened, anything in the house or in that cupboard is unclean. However, anything in the closed cupboard is pure because it has a space the size of cubit handbreadth, making it into an ohel, and an ohel prevents impurity from entering.", + "The wall-cupboard is considered as if it is plugged up, and it is subject to the principle of halves for conveying uncleanness into the house. The wall-cupboard is seen to be a plugged up part of the wall that serves the house. If the source of impurity is in the half of the wall that is closer to the house, the wall-cupboard is reckoned as part of the wall when considering the width of the wall. For instance, if the thickness of the wall is two handbreadths and it contains a wall-cupboard that is one handbreadth thick, we don't consider the wall to be only one handbreadth thick. That would mean that the impurity would have to be half a handbreadth from the inside of the wall for it to defile the contents of the house. Rather, as long as the impurity is within a handbreadth, it is considered to be to the side of the house." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nWe have learned on several occasions that if a source of corpse impurity is found in a space that has one cubic handbreadth of open air, it is as if the impurity is trapped in a grave and it spreads upward and downward, defiling anything above it or below it. It also spreads to the sides. However, if it is trapped in a smaller space, the impurity does not spread to the sides and can only travel directly above and below.", + "If there is uncleanness in a wall, in a space of one cubic handbreadth, all upper stories above it, even if there are ten of them, are unclean. If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth in a wall that serves multiple stories of a house, then the impurity found in it will rise and spread and it will defile everything found in all of the stories. However, if the space was less than a cubic handbreadth, the impurity rises and descends but only directly above or below it. It will not defile the entire contents of all of the upper stories, because the impurity will not spread to the sides.", + "If there was a single upper story [built] over two houses, that one becomes unclean but all upper stories above it remain clean. In this case, the wall was built to support one large upper story that was built over two houses, which are also separated by the wall. Above that upper story are more stories. In this case, the impurity defiles the contents of the large story that is directly above the wall. However the ceiling of the first upper story blocks the impurity from continuing to defile the stories above.", + "[In a] beach- wall, uncleanness cleaves upwards and downward. The word that I have translated as \"beach-wall\" is obscure and Albeck even goes so far as to state that we don't really know what it means. Some commentators interpret it to mean \"beach-wall\" which is a wall of sand brought up by the sea. The impurity found in this wall cleaves upward and downward, but it doesn't spread to the sides since it is sealed into a space less than one cubic handbreadth.", + "[With regard to] a solid tomb monument, a person who touches it from the side remains clean, since [its] uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. But if there was a [free] space of a cubic handbreadth in the place where the uncleanness was, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, because it is like a closed grave. The solid tomb monument is placed over a sealed grave. Since there is no free space in the monument, it seals up the impurity and it doesn't spread to the sides. It only spreads upwards and downwards. However, if there is a free space of a cubic handbreadth, then it is like the situation where the impurity is found in a closed grave. In such a situation the person need not be directly above the impurity to be defiled.", + "If he supported sukkot on [the monument] they become unclean. Rabbi Judah declares them clean. This section refers back to the situation in the beginning of section four, where the monument was solid. According to the sages, if one uses this monument to support sukkot (booths, not necessarily for the Festival of Sukkot) then the booths are impure because they are like an ohel over the monument. Rabbi Judah says that since one who touches the monument from the side is pure, these sukkot are also pure." + ], + [ + "All sloping [parts] of ‘tents’ are reckoned like ‘tents.' When it comes to determining the laws of when something defiles in a tent, the sloping parts of tents are counted just as the straight and flat parts.", + "A ‘tent’ [whose sides] sloped downwards and finished off one fingerbreadth [from the ground]: If there is uncleanness in the ‘tent’, vessels beneath the slope become unclean. If there is uncleanness beneath the slope, vessels in the ‘tent’ become unclean. The tent here as a sloping part and then finishes off one fingerbreadth away from the ground, such that the sides of the tent are only one fingerbreadth high. There is also a one fingerbreadth section that serves as a flat \"roof.\" If there is a source of impurity under the flat roof part, it spreads to the vessels that are under the slope, even though there is only one cubic fingerbreadth in the space where the impurity is found. The same is true in the opposite situation if there is impurity in the sloping part it will defile anything that might be in the \"roofed\" part.", + "If there is uncleanness within, a person who touches [the tent] from the inside acquires a seven [days’] defilement, but from the outside, a defilement [lasting till] evening. If there is impurity within a tent, and someone touches the inside of the tent, then the person is defiled for seven days, as he would be if he touched any vessel that was within the tent. However, the impurity conveyed by the outside of the tent is lesser and he will be impure for only one day, until the evening.", + "If there had been uncleanness outside, a person who touches the ‘tent’ from the outside acquires a seven [days’] defilement, but from the inside, a defilement [lasting till] evening. If there is impurity outside of a tent such that it defiles the tent, then one who touches the outside of the tent is impure for seven days. Again, this is similar to one who touches any vessel that has come into contact with the dead. But if he touches it from the inside, he is only impure until the evening.", + "If there was [a portion of uncleanness] the size of half an olive [touching it] from inside and half an olive from the outside, a person who touches [the ‘tent’] either from within or without acquires a defilement [lasting till] evening. There isn't a full-sized piece of impurity touching the tent on any one side, but rather there is half of a piece on each side. These two half-olive portions join to defile the tent, but there is a leniency, and no matter which side a person touches, he is impure only until the evening.", + "If a part [of the ‘tent’ side] trailed along the ground, when there is uncleanness beneath or above [this part], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If the sides of the tent drag on the ground and the impurity is found below this part of the tent, it doesn't spread to the sides, but only goes up and down. In other words, it is not inside the tent. If it is above the tent, it will only go up and down because there is nothing to block it. But it won't go to the sides because it is not inside a tent.", + "[In the case of] a ‘tent’ erected in an upper story, with a portion [of its side] trailing over the hatch between the house and the upper story: Rabbi Yose says it does protect. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not protect unless it put up in the usual manner of erecting tents. The tent is in the upper story and it slopes down and part of it drags over the hatch between the bottom floor and upper story. Rabbi Yose says that it serves as a barrier to prevent the impurity from entering the upper story. Rabbi Shimon says that since the tent is not set up properly, it does not offer protection. The impurity will break through and defile the contents of the upper story." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA dead body that is found in a house will eventually be removed, and when it is it will defile the exit through which it is removed. The rabbis move this defilement up and consider any potential exit for the dead body to already be impure, even before the body is removed. However, there are cases in which the exit is not impure because the dead body will not be taken out through there.", + "If a corpse is in a house in which there are many doors, they all become unclean. Since the corpse may be removed through any of the doors of the house, even if they are all locked, the area of the entrance of all of them is defiled immediately. Practically this means that if any vessels are in that space, they are defiled.", + "If one of them was opened, that one becomes unclean but all the rest remain clean. If there are several doors, and one of them is open and the others are locked, then only that entrance is impure because the corpse will almost certainly be taken out that way.", + "If he intended to carry out the corpse through one of them or through a window of four hand breadths square, he protects all the other doors. Bet Shammai says: the intention must have been formed before the person died. Bet Hillel say: even after he died. If he intends to take the corpse out through one of the doorways, the other doors are not defiled. There is an interesting debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning this intention that protects the other doors from being defiled. Bet Shammai says that one must have the intention before the person dies. Once the person dies and he has not yet decided which doorway to use to remove the body, all of the entrances are automatically defiled. Bet Hillel seems to say that even if he decides to take the dead body out through one of the doorways after the person dies, the other doorways are saved from being defiled.", + "If [a door] was blocked up and it was decided to open it: Bet Shammai says: [it is effective] as soon he opens a [a space] four handbreadths square. Bet Hillel says: as soon as [the process] has begun. In this case one of the doorways is blocked up with stones and the others are locked. It is not sufficient just to think about taking the body out of one of the doorways, as it was if the doors were merely locked. Since this doorway is blocked up with stones, he must actually do something to the entrance for it to protect the other entrances from being defiled. Bet Shammai says that he must open up a hole that is at least four square handbreadths. Such a hole seems to be large enough to remove a (rather small) corpse. Bet Hillel is more lenient. Once he begins to cut out a hole, he has revealed his intention to remove the body through that door, and all of the other doors are pure.", + "They agree, however, that when making an opening for the first time, four handbreadths must be opened up. If there was no door there in the first place, and one is making a new hole in a house through which to take out a corpse, Bet Hillel agrees with Bet Shammai that he must open up four handbreadths for it to protect the other doors. Since this is a new door, he must exhibit a greater demonstration of intention for it to be clear that he will take the corpse out through the new exit and not through one of the other doors." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a woman who gives birth to a stillborn, but while doing so moves from house to house. The question is: when do we consider her womb to have opened such that the fetus would defile the contents of the house?", + "If a woman was having great difficulty giving birth and they carried her out from one house to another, the first house is doubtfully unclean and the second is certainly unclean. The first house is only doubtfully impure, because we don't know if the woman's womb \"opened up\" there such that the stillborn could defile the house. The second house is certainly impure because that is where she gave birth.", + "Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When she is carried out [supported] by the armpits, but if she was able to walk, the first house remains clean, for after the \"tomb\" has been opened there is no possibility of walking, Rabbi Judah says that if she was able to walk out of the first house on her own, then the first house is certainly not impure because a woman whose womb has opened up cannot walk on her own. The first house is impure only if she was helped out by being carried by the armpits. The mishnah calls the womb a \"tomb\" probably because in this case, the fetus died there.", + "For stillborn children are not [deemed to have] opened the \"tomb\" until they present a head rounded like a spindle-knob. This section is usually explained as the continuation of Rabbi Judah's words. When he said that once the womb (tomb) has been opened a woman cannot walk, that is only the case if the head is round like a spindle-knob. But if the head is smaller, then a woman might be able to walk around even after the womb-tomb has been opened. In such a case, even if she walked from one house to the other, we would have to be concerned lest the first house is also defiled." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a woman who gives birth to twins, one alive and one a stillborn. The question is: does the stillborn defile the live child?", + "If [at the birth of twins] the first came out dead and the second came out alive, the [live one] is clean. If a woman gives birth to twins and the first comes out dead, the second is pure because before the womb was opened, the dead fetus does not convey impurity. The live child was not made impure in the womb. [Note that they would have had to remove the stillborn from the house before the second child was born, otherwise the live child would be defiled by being in the same house as the dead child.]", + "If the first was alive and the second dead, the [live child] is unclean. If the first was alive, and then the dead child was born, the live child is impure because once the womb has been opened, the dead child defiles things outside of the womb. Thus as soon as the first child is born, it is immediately defiled.", + "Rabbi Meir says: if they were in one sac, [the live child] is unclean, but if there were two sacs, it remains clean. Rabbi Meir qualifies the halakhah in section two. It is only correct if both children were in one sac, because in that case, when the womb for the live child has opened, the womb for the stillborn has also opened. But if the two children are in different sacs, then the first child remains clean because the dead child is still sealed in the womb when the first child is born alive." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis (very well-known) mishnah discusses whether it is permissible to abort a fetus in order to save the life of the mother.\nI should note that this mishnah is the foundation for all Jewish discussion of abortion. Since this is such a controversial and complex issue, I do not think that this is the right forum for a comprehensive discussion (there are many teshuvot on the topic, many of which can be found on the web). We shall stick with the simple meaning of the mishnah.", + "If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child]. While still in the womb, the fetus's life does not take precedence over the mother's. Indeed, one might not even go so far as to call it a \"life.\" Therefore, the doctors/midwives may cut the fetus up in order to save the life of the mother.", + "But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person's life for that of another. However, once most of the child has emerged, it is forbidden to do anything to harm the child because it is forbidden to take one life in order to save another. The child is considered to be a \"life\" once most of it has emerged from the womb." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah introduces the theme of the entire chapter: what things can act as tents to bring uncleanness from a corpse (or part thereof) to other vessels also found underneath and what objects can prevent impurity from spreading by acting as a barrier.", + "Some things bring forth uncleanness and [also] a protect [against it]; [Some things] bring forth uncleanness but do not protect against it; [Some things] protect but do not bring forth; [Some things] do not bring forth nor do they protect. The following bring forth and protect against [impurity]: This whole section is a typical introduction to the laws that will be taught in several mishnayot.", + "A chest, a box, a cupboard, a beehive of straw, a beehive of reeds, or the water-tank of an Alexandrian ship, such of which [objects] have [flat] bottoms and can contain [at least] forty seahs liquid measure or two kors dry measure. The objects in this section are large containers. If they are large enough such that they themselves cannot become impure (see Kelim 15:1) then they can both bring forth impurity, if a piece of corpse is found inside and other vessels as well, and act as a barrier to impurity (if vessels are found inside, they are not defiled by impurity outside).", + "[Also] a curtain, a leather apron, a leather bedspread, a sheet, a matting underlay or a mat when made into tents. This section refers to hanging things that are used to form a tent. Even though these items are susceptible to impurity, they also form a barrier against impurity. Obviously, if a corpse (or piece thereof) is found underneath, they will cause the impurity to travel to clean vessels also found underneath.", + "A herd of cattle, unclean or clean, packs of wild animals or birds, a resting bird, a [shady] place that [a woman] makes for her son among the ears of corn; A herd of domesticated animals or a pack of wild animals or birds can serve as an ohel both to bring impurity and protect against it. This would mean that if a source of corpse impurity is found under one animal and that animal is tightly packed into a herd with other animals, the vessels found underneath another animal will be impure. Also if there is impurity below one of these animals, the vessels above are protected. The same is also true with regard to a tent of shade that a woman might make for her son among ears of corn.", + "The iris, the ivy, squitting cucumber, Greek gourds and clean foodstuffs. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri did not agree with regard to clean foodstuffs except in the case of a cake of dried figs. This section lists some leafy plants that can form ohalot both to bring and protect against impurity. There is a debate with regard to clean food, whether it brings and forms a barrier against impurity. According to the first opinion, all clean food can perform this function. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that this is true only with regard to cakes of dried figs. Since it was customary to sit underneath such cakes (for shade) they bring impurity and form a barrier to it. But other foodstuffs do not act in this way because it is not customary to sit underneath them." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to list things that both serve as a barrier against impurity and bring impurity.", + "Projections from a wall, balconies, dovecotes, crevices and crags, grottoes, [overhanging] pinnacles, interlaced boughs and protruding stones as long as they are cable of sustaining thin plasterwork, the words of Rabbi Meir. These are mostly naturally formed protrusions that either jut out from walls or are carved into them.", + "But the sages say a medium plasterwork. According to Rabbi Meir, for the interlaced boughs and protruding stones to both bring impurity and protect against it, they must be close enough together such that if thin plaster was poured on top it would not drip through. Other commentators interpret Rabbi Meir differently. Rabbi Meir holds that as long as the boughs and stones are strong enough to hold a thin layer of plasterwork, they can bring impurity and protect against it.", + "What are interlaced boughs? A tree which casts shade over the ground. Protruding stones? [Stones] that project from a wall. Just as there were two interpretations of Rabbi Meir, there are two interpretations of the sages who disagree with him. According to the first interpretation, as long as the boughs and stones can prevent plaster-work of medium thickness from dripping through, they bring impurity and protect against it. According to the second interpretation, the stones and boughs must be strong enough to hold a medium layer of plasterwork to bring and protect against impurity.", + "This section defines what interlaced boughs and protruding stones are." + ], + [ + "The following bring [impurity] but do not protect against it: Today's mishnah deals with objects that bring impurity but do not serve as a barrier against it.", + "A chest, a box, a cupboard, a beehive of straw, a beehive of reeds, or the water tank of an Alexandrian ship, such of which [objects] have [flat] bottoms but cannot contain forty se'ahs of liquid measure or two kors dry measure. This is the same as the list in mishnah one except the boxes are smaller. Since they cannot contain forty seahs of liquid or two kors of dry goods, they are susceptible to impurity. Things that are susceptible to impurity do not act as barriers to impurity.", + "A curtain, a leather apron, a leather undercover, a sheet, a matting underlay or a mat when not made into tents. This is also the same list as in mishnah one except here the curtains are are laying flat over the hatch between an upper story and a bottom floor and they are not set up as a tent. As we learned in 7:2, in such a situation these things can bring impurity, but they do not act as a barrier against it.", + "Cattle or wild animals when they are dead, and foodstuffs that are [liable to become] unclean. Since these animals or foods are unclean, they do not protect against impurity.", + "In addition to these, a human-powered mill. Hand-mills which can be carried from place to place are susceptible to impurity, and therefore cannot act as a barrier. In contrast, mills operated by animals are heavy and immovable. Therefore they can act as a barrier against impurity." + ], + [ + "The following protect [against impurity] but do not bring it: A loom [with the woof] spread out, the ropes of a bed, waste baskets, and window-lattices. The items listed in this mishnah can act as a barrier against. For instance if one of them covers the hatch between a bottom floor and an upper story, the contents of the upper story are protected. But they don't bring impurity if they overshadow both a piece of corpse and vessels. The loom has the warp spread out over it, but it can't act as an ohel till it is fully woven. The ropes of a bed are tied tight to support the mattress. The waste baskets have small holes in them, enough so that they can't act as an ohel." + ], + [ + "Today's mishnah discusses things that act neither to bring uncleanness nor as a barrier for it, even if they are found in a position of overshadowing.", + "The following neither bring [impurity] nor protect against it:
Seeds, plants [still] attached to the ground, except for the plants mentioned above, Plants (this doesn't include trees) attached to the ground generally do not act as ohalot to bring impurity or protect against it. The exceptions were the very leafy plants mentioned in 8:1. We should note that this is all in reference to plants attached to the ground. Once detached from the ground plants can, under certain circumstances, act as an ohel.", + "A lump of hail, snow, frost, ice and salt. All of these items cannot act as an ohel because they melt. The salt will crumble when rained upon.", + "[Anything] that hops from one place to another, or leaps from one place to another, a flying bird. Animals or people that are moving do not form an ohel. To \"overshadow\" the living thing must be stationary.", + "A loosely-flapping garment, or a ship floating [freely] on the water. A ship or garment that is moving around also does not act as an ohel.", + "If the ship were tied with something that can keep it steady, or a stone were [placed so as] to hold down the garment, it can bring uncleanness. Once the ship is tied down so that it doesn't move around, or the garment is held down by a stone, it can again act as an ohel.", + "Rabbi Yose says: a house on a ship cannot bring uncleanness. Although relative to the ship the house is stationary, it does not act as an ohel if the ship is moving. Another interpretation is that Rabbi Yose is referring to a make shift sort of house, one that will be uprooted by a common wind. Since such a house will not last long, it does not act as an ohel." + ], + [ + "Two [earthenware] jars in which there are two pieces of corpse the size of half an olive, sealed with tightly fitting lids, lying in a house, they remain clean, but the house becomes unclean. I bet you read this situation and said to yourself, yes, that's happened to me. Two tightly sealed jars, with two pieces of corpse less than the size of an olive in each, sure, common situation ☺. In all seriousness, the tightly sealed jar does not prevent impurity from coming out in an ohel. Since between the two jars there is the necessary olive's worth of corpse, the house is unclean. However, each jar remains clean because a tightly sealed lid prevents impurity from defiling an earthenware jar.", + "If one of them was opened, that [jar] and the house become unclean, but the other remains clean. If one jar was opened, that jar is unclean by virtue of being in the house. However, the other jar remains pure. The house is unclean as it was in section one.", + "A similarly with to two rooms that open into a house. If there is half of an olive's worth of corpse in each room, and the doors to the house are both locked, they join together to defile the house, because eventually these pieces of corpse will be brought out through the house. However, the rooms themselves remain pure because there is less than an olive's worth in each." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter nine deals with an empty beehive (or something shaped like it) that has impurity either in it, above it or below it and is found either in a house, in the doorway to a house or outside of a house. The beehive itself is one that is not susceptible to impurity. Within each scenario, the mishnah discusses various possibilities as to the exact position of the hive vis a vis the impurity. We should conceive of this chapter as not dealing with a practical/actual problem but as a kind of theoretical exercise of what happens when a smaller structure (the hive) is found within a larger structure (the house). We could even think of these mishnayot as an extended geometrical/scientific word problem; we know how impurity travels and we know how an ohel works. Now we just have to work out the results in various scenarios.", + "The mishnah describes a beehive that is lying in the doorway to a house, open to the outside of the house. The beehive itself is one that is not susceptible to impurity. There will now be three different scenarios as to where the source of impurity is located with three different halakhot as to what is impure.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within the house, nothing becomes unclean except that which is within the house. The piece of corpse is either above or below the hive, and is outside of the house. Everything that is above and below that piece of corpse is impure for vessels do not act as barriers to impurity (see 6:1). However, the impurity does not spread to the sides. Thus anything that is not directly above or below the piece of corpse remains clean. Anything in the hive is clean because the impurity cannot enter the hive since it does not receive impurity. Anything in the house is also pure.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within [the hive] everything becomes unclean. If the impurity is in the house, the house is of course impure. The contents of the hive are pure because its opening is to the outside.", + "If the uncleanness is within the hive everything is impure, meaning anything found in the hive, on top or below the hive or in the house. The hive does not act as an ohel to block the impurity but it does bring the impurity. This was stated explicitly in 8:3, where the mishnah listed things that bring impurity but do not block against it." + ], + [ + "[In the case of the hive] being one handbreadth high off the ground, If the hive is one handbreadth high off the ground, then it will form an ohel over a piece of impurity that is found below it. This will cause the impurity to spread to the sides.", + "If there is uncleanness below it or in the house or above it, everything becomes unclean except that which is within [the hive]. Thus if there is uncleanness underneath the hive, it will defile everything else underneath it and anything above it. Similarly, if there is impurity above the tent, the impurity will spread below for there is no barrier, and from there it will spread to the sides. It will even enter the house, as there is nothing sealing the house off. The only thing that will remain clean is the inside of the hive, as was the case in yesterday's mishnah.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within the hive everything becomes unclean. If there is a space of one handbreadth underneath the hive and there is impurity in the hive, everything is unclean, which is the same halakhah as in yesterday's mishnah." + ], + [ + "When do these rules apply? When the hive is a vessel and it is loosely placed in the door. The rules in the above two mishnayot apply only if the hive is a complete and unbroken vessel and it is loosely placed into the doorway.", + "If it is defective, although [it may be] stopped up with straw or it is stuck to the side of the door What is \"stuck? Anything which has no opening of one handbreadth : If the hive is defective, meaning a piece is missing, or it is stuck tightly into the door, then the rules are different. The rest of the mishnah outlines how the impurity spreads if these conditions hold.", + "Then, if an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed below it, [everything] directly [below the portion] to the depths becomes unclean; If there is impurity below, the impurity will defile all the way down to the depths, but it will not defile above. Since the hive is not a vessel, it acts as a barrier against the impurity.", + "[If placed] above [the hive everything] directly above to the sky becomes unclean. The same is true if the impurity is above the hive. It will defile anything above it, but the hive acts as a barrier and things that are below are pure.", + "[If the uncleanness is] in the house, nothing becomes unclean except the house. This is the same rule as in mishnah one.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within [the hive] nothing becomes unclean except that which is within [the hive]. Since the hive offers a barrier, anything above or below is pure. Only that which is found in the hive is impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to discuss the hive that is either defective or stuck firmly into the doorway of the house. Similar to mishnah two, it adds in the scenario of the hive being slightly above ground level.", + "[In the case of such a hive] being [placed] one handbreadth high off the ground:
If there is uncleanness below it or in the house, [the space] below it and the house become unclean, but [the space] above and within remains clean. Since there is the space of a handbreadth beneath the hive, the hive acts as an ohel and conveys the impurity to the sides and it also enters the house. However, the inside of the hive and the space above it remain pure because the ohel acts as a barrier to impurity.", + "[If the uncleanness is] in the hive, nothing is unclean except what is within; If the impurity is within the hive, only the inside is unclean (as in mishnah three).", + "If above [the hive] what is directly above up to the sky becomes unclean. As in yesterday's mishnah, if the impurity is above the hive, the impurity travels up but not down." + ], + [ + "When do these rules apply? When the mouth [of the hive is pointing] outwards If the mouth is [pointing] inwards [towards the house]: Our mishnah changes the scenario that we have been examining from mishnayot 1-4 so that the mouth of the hive is open inwards towards the house instead of to the outside. The mishnah now goes through all of the scenarios that we have already seen in the first four mishnayot. Instead of referring the reader to these mishnayot, for ease of reference, when the rules are the same, I have copied the commentary from there.", + "If an olive-sized portion of the corpse is placed below or above [that part of the hive which is] outside, everything directly below or above that olive-sized portion becomes unclean, and everything not directly [below or above it] and whatever is within [the hive] and the house, remains clean. The hive is totally blocking the house, with the opening of the hive facing inward. If impurity is found above or below, it will defile anything that is directly above or below it, but it won't spread to the sides because it is not in an ohel. It also does not defile inside the hive because the hive is not susceptible to impurity (see mishnah one).", + "[If the uncleanness is] within the hive or the house, everything becomes unclean. If the uncleanness is within the hive everything is impure, meaning anything found in the hive, on top or below the hive or in the house. While the hive does not act as an ohel to block the impurity but it does bring the impurity. This was stated explicitly in 8:3, where the mishnah listed things that bring impurity but do not block against it." + ], + [ + "[In the case of the hive] being one handbreadth high off the ground, If there is uncleanness below it or in the house or above it, everything becomes unclean . If the hive is one handbreadth high off the ground, then no matter where the uncleanness is, it will defile everything. If there is uncleanness underneath the hive, it will defile everything else underneath it and anything above it. Similarly, if there is impurity above it, the impurity will spread below for there is no barrier, and from there it will spread to the sides and into the house, as there is nothing sealing the house off. The same is true if the impurity is inside the hive. And unlike the case in mishnah two, here no matter where it is, the impurity will enter the hive itself since the hive's mouth is open to the house and when the house is defiled, the inside of the hive is defiled. In other words, the interior of the hive is reckoned like the house." + ], + [ + "When do these rules apply? When the hive is a vessel and it is loosely placed in the door. The rules in the above two mishnayot apply only if the hive is a complete and unbroken vessel and it is loosely placed into the doorway.", + "If it is defective, although [it may be] stopped up with straw or it is stuck to the side of the door What is \"stuck? Anything which has no opening of one handbreadth : If the hive is defective, meaning a piece is missing, or it is stuck tightly into the door, then the rules are different. The rest of the mishnah outlines how the impurity spreads if these conditions hold.", + "Then, if an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed below it, [everything] directly [below the portion] to the depths becomes unclean; If there is impurity below, the impurity will defile all the way down to the depths, but it will not defile above. Since the hive is not a vessel, it acts as a barrier against the impurity.", + "[If placed] above [the hive everything] directly above to the sky becomes unclean. The same is true if the impurity is above the hive. It will defile anything above it, but the hive acts as a barrier and things that are below are pure.", + "[If the uncleanness is] in the house or in the hive, whatever is in the house or hive becomes unclean. This is where the rule differs from mishnah three. Since the hive is opened to the inside, if there is uncleanness inside the hive or inside the house, it defiles whatever is in either place. Above and below are pure for a broken hive acts as an ohel and prevents the impurity from spreading above and below." + ], + [ + "[In the case of such a hive] being [placed] one handbreadth high off the ground:
If there is uncleanness below it, in the house or inside the hive everything is impure except for above it. The difference between this case and the case in mishnah four is if the mouth is open inward toward the house, then if the uncleanness is in the hive, it also spreads everywhere except for above the hive (and outside the house).", + "If above [the hive] what is directly above up to the sky becomes unclean. This is the same as mishnah four." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah now explores other possible spatial relationships between the house and the hive. Today's mishnah discusses what happens if the hive is entirely within the house.", + "[In the case when the hive] was entirely within the house and there is not a space of a handbreadth between it and the roof beams, if there is uncleanness within [the hive], the house becomes unclean. The hive is fully inside the house and its opening is less than one handbreadth's from the ceiling. If there is uncleanness is in the hive, then it will leave the hive and go out and defile the contents of the house.", + "But if there is uncleanness in the house, what is within [the hive] remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. However, the uncleanness will not enter the smaller space of the hive if it is found in the house. This accords with the principle we learned in mishnah 4:1, that impurity goes out to the outer space, but does not travel in to the inner space.", + "[Whether [the hive] is standing upright, or lying on its side, whether there is one [hive] or two. The same is true if the hive is lying on its side, with its mouth up against the wall. It is similarly true if there are two hives, one on top of the other and there is less than a handbreadth between the two hives, and less than a handbreadth between the top hive and the ceiling." + ], + [ + "If it was standing upright in the doorway and there was not a space of one handbreadth between it and the lintel: In this scenario, the hive is standing upright in the doorway, and there is no significant space between the lintel and the opening of the hive.", + "If there is uncleanness within it, the house remains clean. If there is uncleanness inside the hive, it protects it from going out and defiling the contents of the house.", + "But if there is uncleanness in the house, what is within [the hive] becomes unclean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. However, if there is uncleanness inside the house, it will go out the door and travel through the hive on its way. Therefore, the contents of the hive will be defiled. This is similar to the situation in 4:3 see there for a comparison." + ], + [ + "If it was lying on its side in the open air: In this scenario, our beloved hive is outside of the house, so the contents of the house need not worry about being defiled.", + "If an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse was placed below it or above it, everything directly below or above the olive-sized [portion] becomes unclean; but everything that is not directly below or above, and what is within [the hive] remains clean. The rules here are exactly the same as in 1-4. If the impurity is above or below the hive, it goes down to the depths and up to the heavens, but it doesn't spread to the side because it is not found in any sort of ohel. See mishnah one.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within [the hive] everything becomes unclean. But if the impurity is inside the hive, it spreads the impurity around inside, but it doesn't act as an ohel to prevent it from spreading above and below. Thus everything inside, above and below the entire hive will be impure." + ], + [ + "[In the case where the hive is in the open air] and is one handbreadth high off the ground, if there is uncleanness below it or above it, everything becomes unclean except the inside. [If the uncleanness is] within, everything becomes unclean.
When do these rules apply? When [the hive is] a vessel.
If it is defective, although [it may be] stopped up with straw or according to the sages, it contains forty seahs
Then if an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed below it, [everything] directly [below] to the depths becomes unclean;
[If placed] above, [everything] directly above to the sky becomes unclean.
[If the uncleanness is] is within [the hive] nothing is unclean except that which is within.
[If] it was one handbreadth high off the ground, if there was uncleanness below it, what is below becomes unclean;
[If the uncleanness] was within it, what is within becomes unclean;
Above it, [everything] directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean.
This mishnah continues to deal with the various possibilities of where the impurity will be found vis a vis a hive that is found in the open air (not in the house).
Section one: The hive acts as a tent to spread the impurity to the sides, both above and below the vessel. The inside remains pure because it is protected by the hive (because it is not susceptible to impurity).
If the uncleanness is within the hive, then it acts as an ohel to spread the impurity to the sides above and below.
Section two: Similar to mishnah two and seven, but here, since there is no house, it is not relevant to discuss it being jammed into a door.
Section three: If it can hold forty seahs then it counts as an ohel to provide a barrier for impurity.
Sections four-six: See mishnah seven.
Section seven: The hive acts as a barrier to the impurity and limits it to below.
Section eight: The hive acts as an ohel to keep the impurity inside.
Section nine: The impurity is not found in an ohel, and therefore the impurity does not spread. It is limited to defiling things directly above it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses cases where a complete hive is outside of the house but instead of lying on its side, it is standing straight up, either right side up or upside down.", + "If it was resting on its bottom and it [retained the status of] a vessel: If there is uncleanness below it, within it or above it, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If the hive is standing right side up and it is a vessel, meaning it is not defective, nor is it attached to the ground with mortar, the no matter where the impurity is located, it will only travel up and down and not to the sides. Since the hive is open, there is nothing to form a barrier against the impurity, no matter where it is found. If found within the hive, it is not trapped there, because the hive is open.", + "[In the case where] it was one handbreadth high off the ground or covered or inverted [so as to stand] upon its mouth, if there is uncleanness below it, within it or above it, everything becomes unclean. There are three situations here: 1) the hive is one handbreadth off the ground; 2) it is covered but not with a tightly fitting lid; 3) it is inverted so that the mouth is on the ground. Situations two and three are similar. When the impurity goes up or down it will enter an empty space that is over one cubic handbreadth. Once this happens, the impurity will spread to the entire empty space and then from there it will defile anything above or below the empty space. The same is true if the hive is above the ground by more than a handbreadth. The space below is a cubic handbreadth; once it gets there the impurity will spread to the entire area of the hive, and from there it will defile anything above or below the hive." + ], + [ + "When do these rules apply? When [the hive retains the status of] a vessel. As we have done throughout, the mishnah now discusses the case where the hive is not a vessel or it can contain forty seahs, which makes it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "[In the case of its] being defective, although [the deficiency may be] stopped up with straw, or according to the sages, [in the case of it] containing forty se'ahs, If the uncleanness is below it, within it or above it, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: uncleanness can neither ascend into [the defective hive] nor descend from it. According to the first opinion, the rules here are the same as they were in mishnah thirteen, for this is an \"open ohel\" and an open ohel does not form a barrier. Therefore, no matter where the impurity is found, it will only go directly up and down. For the first time in this chapter we now hear of a debate. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon hold that an \"open ohel\" can form a barrier. Therefore, if the impurity is found below, it stops at the bottom of the hive. If the impurity is found within or above, the bottom of the hive protects the space underneath the hive from becoming impure.", + "If the hive is above the ground and it is not a vessel or it is not susceptible to impurity (because it can contain forty seahs), then the hive acts as a barrier. If there is impurity below, it remains there, although it does spread there to the sides. If there is impurity inside the hive or above it, since the hive is open, it doesn't spread to the sides. It defiles only that which is directly above or below. It also does not defile that which is below." + ], + [ + "Finally a mishnah that discusses something besides this mysterious hive. Today's mishnah discusses a coffins of various shapes.
A coffin which is broad below and narrow above, and has a corpse within it: A person touching it below remains clean; But above becomes unclean. The first coffin described is broad below and narrow above. Above the narrow section is the cover of the coffin. The rabbis held that if one touched any portion that is directly below the opening, he is impure. So if he touches it below, on the sides of the broad portion, he is not touching anything that is directly below the opening. Therefore, he remains pure. But if he touches the walls of the narrow section he is impure for they are directly below the opening.", + "If it is broad above and narrow below, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. In this case the cover above is broader than the remainder of the coffin. Therefore, no matter where he touches the coffin it is below the cover and he is impure.", + "If it was the same [above and below], a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Joshua says: a handbreadth and more below is clean, but from that handbreadth upwards is unclean. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate the case of a straight coffin. According to Rabbi Eliezer, since the entire coffin is below the covering, no matter where a person touches it he is impure. Rabbi Joshua holds that the dead body would be at least one handbreadth above the bottom of the coffin. Therefore, if a person touches from that point of the wall and below, he remains pure. If he touches above the one handbreadth mark, he is impure.", + "If it was made like a clothes-chest, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. A clothes chest opens to the top. On a coffin built in such a way, everything is below the opening. Therefore, no matter where he touches, he is impure.", + "If it was made like a case, a person touching it anywhere remains clean, except at the place where it opens. A \"case\" has its opening on the side. None of the coffin is below the opening. Therefore, he is impure only if he touches it on the side that opens." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of our chapter deals with an earthenware jar which cannot be defiled from the outside.", + "A jar resting on its bottom in the open air: The jar discussed in the beginning of the mishnah is pure, it is open and it is standing on its bottom. The jar is pear-shaped, i.e. it has walls that expand in the middle, as jars often did (and still do).", + "If an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse is placed beneath it or within it directly [above] its bottom, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards, and the jar becomes unclean. There is a source of impurity within the jar or directly below the jar, opposite the bottom of the jar and not opposite the protruding walls. In all of these cases the impurity goes directly up and down, but not to the sides. The inside of the jar is also impure because earthenware jars receive impurity through their airspace. Thus even if the impurity is not within the jar, since it enters the jar through the jar's mouth, anything in the jar is impure.", + "[If the uncleanness is] outside below a [protruding] side, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards, but the jar remains clean. In this case, the impurity is outside the jar, above or below one of the jar's protruding sides. The impurity goes directly up and down, but it doesn't defile the inside of the jar because earthenware jars are not defiled from the outside and the impurity does not enter the jar rather it goes around the protruding wall.", + "[If the uncleanness is] within [the jar] and underneath the protruding sides, If there is within the [cavity of] the side a space of a cubic handbreadth everything [within the cavity] becomes unclean, but what lies directly [below] the mouth remains clean. If there is not [a space of a cubic handbreadth] the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. Here the impurity is inside the jar, but not directly below the opening. Rather it is inside one of the protruding walls. If the space formed by the protruding wall is a cubic handbreadth, then it is an ohel. Anything in this space is impure and the impurity spreads above and below as well. The jar is also impure. However, anything that is not directly above or below the sides remains clean. If the space is less than a cubic handbreadth, then it is not found in an ohel. In such a case the impurity goes up and down but it does not spread to the sides.", + "When do these rules apply? When the jar is clean. The above rules apply only if the jar is clean.", + "If it was unclean, or if it was one handbreadth high off the ground, or covered, or inverted [so as to stand] on its mouth, if there is uncleanness beneath it, within it or above it, everything becomes unclean. There are several situations listed here: 1) the jar is unclean before the piece of corpse is found in its proximity. In this case, it does not prevent impurity from entering and even if the impurity is beneath the protruding wall, it is as if it is beneath the jar itself. 2) If the jar is one handbreadth above the ground, then the same rules that we saw in mishnah thirteen apply. 3) If the jar is covered or inverted it becomes an ohel. Even if the impurity is below one of the walls, since the top is covered, there is no difference between the protruding walls and the body of the jar. In all of these cases, no matter where the impurity is found, everything, the contents of the jar, below and above the jar, is impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter ten discusses cases where there is a hatchway in a house leading to the roof. The mishnah will discuss various scenarios with regard to how large the hatchway is, and whether or not something covers it.", + "A hatchway in a house, which has an opening of a [square] handbreadth, The first mishnah deals with a hatchway that is a square handbreadth. Tomorrow, we will deal with a smaller hatchway (I bet you can't wait). In this case, the place directly below the hatchway is not an ohel.", + "If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchway remains clean. The part underneath the hatchway is not in the ohel (house). Therefore, whatever is there remains clean.", + "If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, the house remains clean. If there is uncleanness right below the hatchway it is not in a tent. The impurity travels straight up and the other things in the house remain clean.", + "If the uncleanness is either in the house or directly [below] the hatchway, and a person placed his foot above [the hatchway] he has combined [with the roof to bring] uncleanness. In this case, a person put his leg over the hatchway and thereby reduced the hatchway to less than a square handbreadth. The entire house is now one tent. Therefore, no matter where the impurity is found, the contents of the entire house are impure. Furthermore, the person himself is impure.", + "If part of the uncleanness is in the room and part of it directly [below] the hatchway, the house becomes unclean and what is directly [above] the uncleanness becomes unclean. If part of the source of uncleanness is under the house and part is under the hatchway, then the house becomes unclean as if the entire source of uncleanness was in the house. Anything found directly above the part of the impurity that was in the hatchway is impure. But things found opposite the hatchway but not directly above or below the source of impurity remain pure." + ], + [ + "If the hatchway does not have an opening of a square handbreadth: Our mishnah discusses a case where the hatchway is less than a handbreadth square.", + "If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchway remains clean. Even though the hatchway is less than one handbreadth, we do not consider the house to be closed and for the tent and the hatchway to be one ohel. Rather the same rule that applied in yesterday's mishnah applies here what is below the hatchway remains clean.", + "If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, the house remains clean. Again, although the hatchway is less than one handbreadth, we don't consider the house to be one ohel. If the impurity is below the hatchway, what is in the house remains clean.", + "When the uncleanness is in the house, if he placed his leg above [the hatchway], he remains clean. The person who put his leg above the hatchway remains pure because the impurity is trapped in the ohel that he created below. This is because the opening is less than one handbreadth. However, since the house and hatchway are one tent, whatever is found below is impure.", + "[When] the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchway, if he placed his leg above it, Rabbi Meir declares [him] unclean, But the sages say: if the uncleanness was [in position] before his leg, he becomes unclean, but if his leg was [in position] before the uncleanness, he remains clean. According to Rabbi Meir since the person overshadowed the source of corpse impurity, he is impure. The sages say it depends on what comes first. If the source of impurity is there first then he is impure because he put his leg over the hatchway before he made the house into one ohel. However, if his leg was there first, then when the impurity got there, the house was already one ohel and impurity does not escape from an ohel through a hole of less than one handbreadth.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: [in the case where] two [men's] legs, one above the other, were [in position] before the uncleanness, if the first person withdrew his leg and the other person's leg was still there, [the second] remains clean, because the first person's leg was [in position] before the uncleanness. Rabbi Shimon complicates the above scenario a little bit. The sages said that if the impurity was there before the person's leg was there, then the person is impure. Here, two people's legs were there, one on top of the other. When the first person removed his leg, the second person's leg now went over impurity that was there first. Nevertheless, since the house was an ohel by virtue of the first person's leg, the second person is pure." + ], + [ + "If part of the uncleanness is in the house and part directly [below] the hatchway, the house becomes unclean, and what is directly [above] the uncleanness becomes unclean, the words of Meir. In today's mishnah there is a source of impurity that is partially underneath the house and partially under a hatchway which is less than one square handbreadth (as in yesterday's mishnah). According to Rabbi Meir, the house is impure and anything above the impurity is also impure. Rabbi Meir says that the part of the impurity that is in the house joins with the part that is under the hatchway as if all of the impurity was under the hatchway. Therefore, anything that overshadows this impurity is defiled.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the house becomes unclean but what is directly [above] the uncleanness remains clean. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that the piece in the house does not join with the piece under the hatchway, for impurity in an ohel (the part in the house) does not join with impurity found under a hole (the hatchway) that is less than one handbreadth.", + "Rabbi Yose says: if there is sufficient of the uncleanness for it to be divided so that [one part] defiles the house and [the other part] defiles what is directly [above] the uncleanness, [both spaces] become unclean; if not, the house becomes unclean but what is directly [above] the uncleanness remains clean. Rabbi Yose seems to mediate between the first two opinions. If there is enough impurity to defile both the house and the space under the hatchway, then both are defiled even if there is not enough impurity under each one to defile it. For instance, if there is a piece of impurity the size of two olives (double the amount necessary) and 1 1/2 of it is found under the house and 1/2 under the hatchway, both are defiled. But if there is not sufficient to defile both, the house is still unclean but the hatchway is clean." + ], + [ + "If there are multiple hatchways, one above the other, and they each have an opening of one handbreadth [square], if there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchways remains clean. Our mishnah deals with a multi-story building, with hatchways one over the other, all of them one handbreadth wide. If the uncleanness is in the house (bottom floor), it remains in the house. The space below the hatchways remains clean.", + "If the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchways, the house remains clean. If the uncleanness is below the hatchways, it doesn't enter the house.", + "[In the case] where the uncleanness is either in the house or directly [below] the hatchways, if something susceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or the lower [hatchway], everything becomes unclean. The mishnah now discusses what happens if something that is susceptible to impurity blocks up one of the hatchways, be it the upper or lower one. In this case no matter where the impurity is, under the house or under the hatchways, everything is impure. Seemingly, if the blockage was on the bottom hatchway, the contents of the upper stories should be pure, because the impurity would remain down there. However, since the article is susceptible to impurity, it doesn't block the impurity. It does, though, turn the bottom floor into one ohel, so that even if the impurity is under the hatchway, the whole floor is impure. Furthermore, the sages said that just as the bottom floor is impure, so too all of the floors are impure, even if the article is below the hatchway and would seem to escape through the upper hatchways. We look at all of the floors as if they were all closed up.", + "If the article is insusceptible to uncleanness, what is below becomes unclean, but what is above remains clean. If the article is not susceptible to uncleanness, then it blocks the impurity from spreading to the upper floors. Only the bottom floor is impure." + ], + [ + "In a case where the hatchways do not have an opening of a square handbreadth:
If there is uncleanness in the house, what is directly [below] the hatchways remains clean.
If there is uncleanness directly [below] the hatchways, the house remains clean.
[In the case] where the uncleanness is in the house, if an article whether susceptible to uncleanness or insusceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or the lower [hatchway], nothing becomes unclean except the lower story.
[In the case] where the uncleanness is directly [below] the hatchways, if an article susceptible to uncleanness was placed either in the upper or lower [hatchway], everything becomes unclean.
If the article is insusceptible to uncleanness, whether [it is placed] in the upper or lower [hatchway], nothing becomes unclean except the lower story.
Today's mishnah continues to deal with a house with hatchways between multiple stories. The hatchways in today's mishnah are less than one square handbreadth.
Sections one and two: These are the same laws as seen in mishnah two, concerning a house that has only one story.
Section three: In this case it will not matter what type of article that was used to block up one of the hatchways, nor does it matter which hatchway is blocked up. The impurity is found below in the house and the mishnah rules that it spreads to the entire bottom floor, including the space directly below the hatchway. However, the impurity does not leave the bottom floor to defile the upper floors because the hatchway is less than a handbreadth wide. And even if the covering was placed on the uppermost hatchway, the middle stories do not become impure because we look at the covering as if it was below, on the bottom floor where the impurity is found, and that it serves to stop up the impurity there in the house.
Section four: If the impurity is found directly below one of the hatchways, then the halakhah is the same as it was in mishnah four. If the article is susceptible to impurity, it does not block the impurity below and all of the stories are impure (see yesterday's mishnah).
Section five: And if the article is not susceptible to impurity, then wherever it is placed, only the lower story is impure. Something not susceptible to impurity can prevent impurity from spreading. And even if the article is placed on the upper hatchway, we look at it as if it was placed below, and only the lower story is impure (just as we did in section three)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah (and tomorrow's) deal with cases where a pot is placed below the hatchway. The mishnah will discuss various scenarios as to where the pot is, and where the source of impurity is and how that effects what becomes impure.", + "In the case of a hatchway in a house with a pot placed below it that, if it was raised, its rims would not touch the [edges of the] hatchway: The pot is placed directly below the hatchway, such that if the pot was raised it would not close up the entire hatchway. The pot is not as broad as the hatchway.", + "If there is uncleanness below, within or above [the pot], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If there is impurity below the pot, it is in a space that is not one handbreadth cubed. As we have learned, such impurity travels up and down but not to the sides. Below and above the pot is impure, but the remainder of the house is pure.", + "In the case where [the pot] was one handbreadth high off the ground, if there is uncleanness below it or in the house, what is below it and in the house becomes unclean, but what is within [the pot] or above it, remains clean. If the pot is one handbreadth high off the ground, then it is in a (mini-) ohel. If there is a source of impurity either in the house or below the pot, the house and below the pot are defiled. The impurity spreads from under the pot and defiles the house. However, when it comes to the contents of the pot and what is above, we look at the pot as if it was placed above at the hatchway. Since an earthenware pot is not susceptible to impurity from the outside, it forms a barrier with the walls of the house, so that impurity does not enter inside. What is above the hatchway is also protected. However, if the pot was the same size as the hatchway and it couldn't fit in there, it does not offer a barrier and it is looked at as simply a vessel and vessels cannot become an ohel to protect against impurity (see 6:1).", + "[If the uncleanness is] within or above [the pot], everything becomes unclean. If the uncleanness is inside the pot or above it, then everything, the inside of the pot, above the pot and the entire house are impure. This is because the pot is defiled by the impurity that is within it or above it and an impure vessel does not offer a barrier to impurity. This means that the impurity will go below the pot, and from there spread to the entire house." + ], + [ + "[In the case where the pot was] placed on the side of the threshold [of the house] such that if it was raised it would touch the lintel over a [space of a square] handbreadth: Today's mishnah deals with a pot that is placed on its side outside of a house, on the threshold of the house. The pot is placed such that if it was lifted up, at least one handbreadth square of the pot would touch the lintel.", + "If there is uncleanness below, within or above [the pot], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. In this case, no matter where the impurity is, it goes only up and down. If it is below the pot, then it is not in an ohel that is one cubic handbreadth in size. If it is in the pot or on its side, then the house remains pure because the impurity is not within the lintel (which would place it in the house).", + "[In the case] where it was one handbreadth high off the ground: As the mishnah always seems to do, it now discusses what happens if the pot is a one handbreadth off the ground.", + "If there is uncleanness below it or in the house, what is below it and in the house becomes unclean. In this case there is an ohel (under the pot) that is immediately connected to the house (because there is no space between it and the house). The wall of the pot, if lifted, would connect at the length of a handbreadth with the lintel of the house. Therefore, if the impurity is either under the pot or in the house, it spreads from one to the other and both are unclean.", + "If the uncleanness is within or above [the pot], everything becomes unclean. If the uncleanness is within or above the pot, then the pot is defiled and it doesn't form a barrier to protect the house (see mishnah six).", + "[In the case where the pot] if raised would not touch the lintel over a [space of a square] handbreadth, or is joined to the lintel, if there is uncleanness below it, nothing is unclean except what is below [the pot]. In this case, the pot is again one handbreadth off the ground. In this case, if it were lifted, it would not touch a space of one square handbreadth of the lintel. Alternatively, the pot is raised all the way to the lintel, but it comes into contact with less than one handbreadth of the lintel. In these cases, if impurity is below it, it remains there. The pot does form an ohel over the impurity and therefore the entire area below the pot is impure. However, the house is pure since the pot touches the lintel for a space less than one handbreadth. In order for two ohels to be connected to convey impurity the contact must be at least a handbreadth. The inside of the pot and above the pot are pure for the pot joins with the walls of the house to serve as a barrier, even though it is connected at a point of less than a handbreadth." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A house, which has been split [into two]: Our mishnah deals with a house that has been split entirely into two.", + "If there is uncleanness in the outer [part], vessels in the inner [part] remain clean. If there is impurity in the outer part of the house, in the part that is closest to the doorway, it doesn't travel in and defile the vessels that are in the inner part of the house. This is because of the rule that impurity goes out but does not come in.", + "If the uncleanness is in the inner [part], vessels in the outer [are clean]: Bet Shammai says: when the split is four handbreadths wide; But Bet Hillel says: [when the split is of] any size. Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Hillel: [when it is] one handbreadth wide. If the impurity is in the inner part of the house, the two houses debate how large the split must be for it to escape and not defile the vessels that are in the outer part. Beth Shammai says that the opening must be at least four handbreadths wide for impurity to escape. Bet Hillel says that the split can be of any size. Rabbi Yose presents a different version of Bet Hillel's opinion the split must be at least a handbreadth. Smaller than that and the impurity will travel through the outer part of the house and defile the vessels there as well." + ], + [ + "A portico which has been split [into two]:
If there is uncleanness on the one side, vessels on the other side remain clean.
If a person placed his leg or a reed above [the split], he has combined [with the roof to bring the] uncleanness.
If he placed the reed on the ground, it does not form a passage for the uncleanness until it is one handbreadth off the ground.
Today's mishnah deals with a portico, a structure made of columns supporting a roof that stands in front of a house.
Section one: Since the portico's roof is split, impurity found on one side does not travel to the other. And in this case there is no difference between vessels that are found in the inner half and those found in the outer half (as there was with the house) because the portico is open from three sides. Thus the impurity can escape to the sides.
Section two: If a person put his leg over the crack, then he has made the two halves of the portico into one tent. Thus impurity that is found on one side of the tent will travel to the other.
Section four: If a person places a reed on the ground it does not serve to join the two sides of the portico into one tent. However, if he raises it by one handbreadth then the tent that it forms joins the two tents above and everything is considered to be one tent." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with the portico that had a split in it. The mishnah discusses various objects placed below that either do or do not close the split such that impurity on one side can travel to the other.", + "A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground. Despite the fact that these items are one handbreadth thick, they are not considered to be an ohel such that there is an ohel directly beneath the split in the roof of the portico. For something to be an ohel it must also have an empty space.", + "If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground. If there are a few garments folded one on another, they bring uncleanness when placed underneath the split if the bottom part of the upper garment is at least one handbreadth off the ground. In other words, the entire upper garment must be one handbreadth above the ground in order for it to form an ohel over the other garments. We might have thought that since the presence of the lower garments does not prevent an ohel from being formed, then the lower folds of the upper garment also wouldn't prevent an ohel from being formed. The mishnah teaches that there is a difference between the lower and upper garments. The lower garments are in the ohel and the upper garment forms the ohel.", + "If a person were placed there [under the split in the portico]: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: a person is hollow and his uppermost side brings the uncleanness. Bet Shammai says that a person's body cannot be considered an ohel. Bet Hillel looks at a person's abdomen as being hollow. The upper side is the top of the ohel and therefore a person closes the split in the portico." + ], + [ + "If a person was looking out of a window and overshadowed a funeral procession: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness. The positions stated by Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in this mishnah follow their opinions in yesterday's mishnah. According to Bet Shammai, if a person leans out the window and overshadows a dead body, there is no \"ohel\" to bring the uncleanness into the house. The person's body is right up against the bottom of the window, so there is no way for the impurity to get into an ohel and then into the house. Bet Hillel says we look at his abdomen as if it was an empty cavity. The top part is the ohel, and through the cavity formed underneath, the impurity is able to enter into the house.", + "They agree that if he was dressed in his clothes or if there were two persons, one above the other, they bring the uncleanness. Bet Shammai agrees that if a person has his clothes on (bet you didn't realize he was hanging out the window naked in section one!), his clothes they can be considered the upper part of the ohel for they at least a handbreadth above the bottom of the window. The same is true if there is a person above the first person. The top person is at least a handbreadth above the bottom of the window, and therefore he can count as an ohel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to discuss whether a person overshadowed by a funeral procession brings uncleanness into the house.", + "If a person was lying on the threshold and the funeral procession overshadowed him: Bet Shammai says: he does bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: he does bring the uncleanness. The person is lying with part of his body on the threshold, outside of the door, and the rest of his body is in the house. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel are consistent with the positions they held in the previous mishnayot. Bet Shammai says that the person is not an ohel through which the impurity could be conveyed into the house. Bet Hillel says that a person's body is considered to be hollow. Therefore, the impurity gets into the ohel formed by his body and from there it enters the house." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is the final one in the series of debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning a person acting as an ohel.", + "[In the case] where the uncleanness was in the house and clean persons overshadowed him: Bet Shammai declares them clean, But Bet Hillel declares them unclean. As was the case in yesterday's mishnah, the person is again lying on the threshold. In this case, the impurity is in the house and then clean people overshadow him. Since Bet Shammai thinks that the person does not form an ohel to bring the impurity out of the house; they remain clean. Bet Hillel again holds that the person is hollow and that he brings the impurity out of the house, thereby defiling those who overshadow him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a dog who ate the flesh of a corpse and then died on the threshold of a house. His neck is in the house and his stomach, where the piece of flesh is being digested, is outside of the house. The question is: does the impurity enter the house in order to defile all of the contents of the house?\nWe should note that if the dog was still alive there is no question that a source of impurity found inside him does not defile outside.", + "A dog which had eaten the flesh of a corpse and then died and was lying over the threshold:
Rabbi Meir says: if its neck has a thickness of one handbreadth it can bring the uncleanness, but if not, it does not bring the uncleanness. Rabbi Meir says that the purity of the house depends on whether the neck is large enough to serve as an ohel. If it is an ohel, then the impurity enters the ohel of the neck and from there spreads to the body. But if the neck is too small to serve as an ohel, the impurity remains in the dog.", + "Rabbi Yose says: we [examine to] see where the uncleanness is. If it is beneath the lintel and inwards, the house becomes unclean; if from the lintel and outwards, the house remains clean. Rabbi Yose says that the size of the neck doesn't matter. Rather we check to see where in the dog's body the impurity is found. If it is found inside a part of the body that is in the house, then the house is impure. But if the impurity remains outside of the house, the house is pure.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: if its mouth [points] inwards, the house remains clean; if its mouth [points] outwards, the house becomes unclean, since the uncleanness goes out through its hind. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in either case the house becomes unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says that the impurity escapes through the dog's rear end. Therefore, if the rear end is in the house, the house is impure. But if the mouth is in the house, the house is pure. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that the impurity can also escape through the dog's mouth. Therefore, it does not matter which end is in the house, the house is impure.", + "How long can [the uncleanness] remain in its entrails? Three whole days. The piece of corpse is assumed to be present in the dog's guts for three whole days. After that it will have been fully digested.", + "[If in the entrails] of fishes or birds, as long as [it takes for the uncleanness] to fall in the fire and be consumed, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: in the case of fishes or birds, twenty-four hours. Flesh eaten by fish or birds does not remain in their (smaller) guts as long as it does for dogs. According to Rabbi Simon, it will remain there only as long as it would take to burn the flesh in a fire. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that it stays there longer, for an entire day." + ], + [ + "A cellar in a house with a candlestick in it, whose calyx protrudes and an olive-basket is placed such that if the candlestick was taken away the olive-basket would still remain over the mouth of the cellar: Bet Shammai says: the cellar remains clean but the candlestick becomes unclean. Bet Hillel says: the candlestick also remains clean. The source of corpse uncleanness is found in the house. The cellar has a candlestick protruding from it, and the calyx (a flower-shaped receptacle on the candlestick) is supporting a basket that covers the opening to the cellar. The basket is of a type that is not susceptible to impurity. If the basket can remain in place without the support of the candlestick, then it joins the walls of the cellar to prevent impurity from going below. However, Bet Shammai holds that since part of the candlestick protrudes from the cellar, the candlestick is impure. The basket covering it does not protect it from contracting impurity. Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that the basket protects the candlestick as well.", + "But they agree that if the olive-basket would fall [into the cellar] if the candlestick was removed, all would become unclean. If the olive-basket is supported by the candlestick and would collapse without it, it does not protect the impurity from going down below. This is because the candlestick is a vessel and vessels do not act as an ohel to prevent spread of impurity." + ], + [ + "Vessels [that are] between the rims of the olive-basket and the rims of the cellar, even to the depths, remain clean. In this case, the olive-basket is placed over the cellar such that it wouldn't fall into the cellar. In other words, it covers the entire opening. There are vessels placed between the rims of the olive-basket and the rims of the cellar. These vessels are pure as if they were actually in the cellar, because they are protected by the olive-basket. This is true no matter how deep in the cellar the vessels are.", + "If there is uncleanness in the cellar, the house becomes unclean. If the uncleanness is in the cellar, the olive-basket does not protect the house and the contents of the house are impure. This is because the impurity will be eventually removed through the house.", + "If there is uncleanness in the house, vessels in the walls of the cellar remain clean, if the place where they are has a content of one cubic handbreadth; if not, they become unclean. In this case, there is no basket placed over the opening to the cellar. If there are vessels in the walls of the cellars, and the space in which they are found has the capacity to hold a cubic handbreadth, then the vessels are protected. They are in an \"ohel\" and vessels in an ohel are not defiled by what is outside of the ohel. However, if this space is smaller than is needed to form an ohel, they are impure.", + "If the walls of the cellar are wider [apart] than those of the house, in either case the vessels remain clean. If the walls of the cellar are wider than the house, then the vessels in the walls are not considered to be part of the house and they are pure even if they are in a space less than a cubic handbreadth." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A board placed over the mouth of a new oven, overlapping it on all sides to the extent of a handbreadth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the board], vessels above it remain clean; If there is uncleanness above it, vessels beneath it remain clean. The oven referred to here is new and its manufacturing has not been completed. Therefore it is not susceptible to impurity (see Kelim 5:1). The board on top of it overshadows a source of impurity. However, the board acts as an ohel and prevents the impurity from going above or, if the source of impurity is above, from going below.", + "In the case of an old oven, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean. If the oven is one that has been used, it is susceptible to impurity. In this case the vessels above and below are impure. This is because the board is supported by a vessel that can become impure and in such cases an ohel is not formed (see 4:1). The oven is also impure. According to the Tosefta Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the oven is pure, but he agrees that the vessels above and below the board are unclean.", + "[If the board] is placed over the mouth of two ovens, if there is uncleanness between them, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean. In this case one board is placed over the top of two ovens. There is a source of uncleanness in between them. Even if the ovens are new, they are impure because we don't look at the walls of the oven as being the outsides of the ovens. Rather we look at them as being the walls of a tent which do become impure. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri still holds that the ovens are pure. Evidently, he does look at the walls of the ovens as being the outsides of the ovens and since the oven does not become impure by contact with impurity on its outside, the ovens are pure." + ], + [ + "Netting placed over the mouth of an oven, [so that it is] closed with a sealed lid: If there is uncleanness below [the netting] or above it, everything becomes unclean; But what is directly [above] the air-space of the oven remains clean. The oven referred to here is assumedly a used oven, one which is susceptible to impurity. The netting placed over it is also attached to the oven such that it forms a tightly sealed lid. This means that the inside of the oven cannot become impure. The netting goes beyond the sides of the oven by a handbreadth, as was the case with the board in yesterday's mishnah. As was the case there, the netting is considered to form an ohel over anything below it. If there is a source of impurity below or above the netting, everything found below or above the netting is impure because the netting is an ohel. However, the inside of the sealed oven is not defiled and therefore, anything found above the air-space of the oven is pure. This is the main difference between this and yesterday's case. In yesterday's mishnah even the oven, and anything in it, was impure.", + "If there is uncleanness directly [above] the air-space of the oven, everything directly above it even to the sky becomes unclean. If the uncleanness is above the oven, directly above its air-space, it travels only upwards. Anything underneath the netting or underneath the oven will remain pure." + ], + [ + "[In a case where] the board is placed over the mouth of an old oven projects from either [end] to the extent of one handbreadth but not from the sides: If there is uncleanness under one end [of the board], vessels [under] the other end remain clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean. In this case the board extends over the oven in one direction, for instance, north-south, but not east-west. The first opinion holds that this is not sufficient to convey impurity from one side to the other. The impurity would have to travel through the oven and since the oven cannot become impure from the outside it blocks the impurity from going to the other side. In mishnah one the board hung over the oven from all sides, and therefore the impurity could travel from one side to the other. Rabbi Yose holds that the door does not prevent the impurity from traveling from one side to the other.", + "A betach does not bring uncleanness. A betach is some sort of projection that juts out from a window both inside and out. Maimonides interprets it as something used to climb on. The mishnah says that it doesn't bring uncleanness from the outside into the house because the wall found in between forms a break.", + "If there was a projection ( in it: Rabbi Eliezer says: it [still] does not bring uncleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: we look at the betach as if it is not there, and the projection above brings uncleanness. In this case there is another type of projection sticking out from the house that is found on top of the betach (in Hebrew this is called a ziz). The impurity is found underneath the betach and the question is does the ziz convey impurity into the house?. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the betach separates the impurity from the ziz and therefore the ziz doesn't convey impurity into the house. Rabbi Joshua holds that we look at the situation as if the betach wasn't there. Therefore, the ziz is found to form an ohel over the impurity. The house to which the ziz is attached will also be impure." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] the shoe of a cradle, for which a hole had been made [in the ceiling to bring it] into the house [below], To hold a baby's cradle in place they would make a sort of shoe for the cradle and then attach the shoe to the ground. In this case the cradle is on the upper floor of a house and the bottom of the shoe can be seen in the bottom floor. In other words, they made a hole in the ceiling (of the bottom floor) to attach the cradle to the floor (of the upper story). There is a source of impurity below in the house.", + "If [the hole] is one handbreadth square, everything becomes unclean; If the hole is at least one handbreadth square then the contents of the upper floor are impure because the impurity can enter through a hole of that size.", + "But if it was not [one handbreadth square] its [uncleanness] is reckoned as one reckons with [cases of contact with] a corpse. However, if the hole is less than one handbreadth then the shoe that hangs over the corpse impurity has the same impurity level as the dead body itself. It defiles the crib and the baby, and we reckon impurity as we normally do. Anything that touches the shoe is a \"father of impurity\" and anything that touches it has first degree impurity and so on." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a house that has two stories, but is not completed. There are roof beams going across each ceiling, but there are gaps in between each beam that have not yet been filled in with the plaster.", + "[With regard to] the roof beams of a house and of the upper story which have no plaster ceiling upon them and are in a line, [the upper ones exactly above the lower]: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, all beneath that one becomes unclean. If it is between a lower and an upper [beam] what is between them becomes unclean. If it is above the upper [roof beams], what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean. In the first scenario, the upper roof beams are precisely above the lower ones. If there is uncleanness beneath one of the beams of the house, anything below it is impure because it forms an ohel. However, the beam also prevents the impurity from spreading to the area above it. And the impurity doesn't spread to anywhere else in the house because there is nothing overshadowing the spaces in between the beams. If the impurity is on top of the lower beam and below the upper beam, it remains in this area. If it is above one of the upper beam then the impurity only travels upwards.", + "[In the case] where the upper [roof beams] were [over the gaps] between the lower [roof beams]: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, what is beneath all of them becomes unclean; If above them, what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean. In this case the upper and lower roof beams are not lined up. Rather the upper beams are spaced right in between the lower beams. If there is impurity underneath one of them, then it spreads to the area underneath all of them, as if there was only one roof. In other words, we look at the bottom beams as if they had been raised to a level equal to the lower beams. If the impurity is found above any of the beams, it is not in any ohel, and therefore it only defiles that which is found directly above it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses a beam that goes from one wall to another. It also deals with the rabbinic calculation of circumference, so prepare for some math!", + "[With regard to] a beam which is placed across from one wall to another and which has uncleanness beneath it: If it is one handbreadth wide, it conveys uncleanness to everything beneath it; If it is not [one handbreadth wide], the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If the beam is one handbreadth wide, it forms an ohel and the impurity spreads to everything below the beam. However, if the beam is less than one handbreadth, then it is not sufficiently wide to form an ohel. The impurity goes up and down, but does not spread to the sides.", + "How much must its circumference be so that its width should be one handbreadth? If it is round, its circumference must be three handbreadths; If square, four handbreadths, since a square has a [circumference] one quarter greater than [that of] a circle. The general rule for determining the diameter of a circle for the rabbis is three times the circumference (we know that 3 should really be Pi, but they were close). So as long as the circumference is at least 3 handbreadths, the diameter is one handbreadth. If the beam is square, then its circumference must be four handbreadths for it to have a diameter (in this case, side) that is one handbreadth. A circle whose diameter is one handbreadth can fit into a square whose sides are each a handbreadth. The circumference of this square will be four." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a pillar that has fallen onto its side. There is going to be a space on each side of the pillar under which something could lie, because the pillar is round. For this space to be an ohel, the space must be one handbreadth square. Our mishnah calculates how large the pillar must be for the space to be a handbreadth.", + "[With regard to] a pillar lying [on its side] in the open air, If its circumference is twenty-four handbreadths, it brings uncleanness to everything under its side; But if it is not, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. Okay, ready for some math? If the circumference of the circle is 24, then according to rabbinic math, the diameter is 8. You could then put a square around this diameter where each side is 8 handbreadths. The diagonal line drawn from one end of this square to another would be 8 + 16/5. This is according to the rule that every handbreadth on the side of a square is equivalent to 1 1/5 handbreadths (we know that the real length is the square root of 128, according to the formula a2 + b2=c2. Still, they were pretty close) At the corners of this square with the circle in it would be a smaller square whose diagonal is 8/5 of a handbreadth (half of the extra 16/5). This is the area which would form the ohel over the uncleanness. Since it is more than a handbreadth, it brings uncleanness to the entire pillar. If the pillar is smaller than that, then the overhanging part will be less than a handbreadth and it will not convey impurity." + ], + [ + "If an olive-sized portion of a corpse is stuck to the threshold: Rabbi Eliezer declares the house unclean. Rabbi Joshua declares it clean. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the threshold is part of the house. Therefore, if a source of uncleanness is found on the threshold, the house is impure. Rabbi Joshua holds that the threshold is not part of the house. Therefore, if the impurity is found on the threshold, the house is clean.", + "If it was placed beneath the threshold, the [case] is judged by the half [in which the uncleanness is found]. If it is found underneath the threshold, then whether it is considered to be in the house depends on whether it is under the inner half of the threshold or the outer half. The house is impure if the impurity is in the inner half.", + "If it is stuck to the lintel, the house becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose declares it clean. The impurity is stuck to the outer section of the lintel. Most sages consider the lintel to be included in the house. Rabbi Yose considers the outer side of the lintel to be outside the house.", + "If it was in the house, a person touching the lintel becomes unclean. As a corollary, if the impurity is inside the house and a person touches the lintel, he is defiled.", + "[As for] a person touching the threshold: Rabbi Eliezer declares him unclean. Rabbi Joshua says: [if he touches it at a point] below a handbreadth [from the surface] he remains clean; above that handbreadth he becomes unclean. Rabbi Eliezer is consistent with his opinion above. Since he considers the threshold to be part of the house, if someone touches the threshold (when the impurity is in the house) he is impure. Rabbi Joshua says that he is impure only if he touches a space on the threshold that is at least one handbreadth above the ground. If it is less than a handbreadth above the ground, then he is pure because less than a handbreadth is considered part of the ground (see 9:15 where Rabbi Joshua says the same thing concerning a coffin). Rabbi Joshua's opinions seem to be inconsistent. In section one he holds that the threshold is not part of the house, but here he holds that it is, at least one handbreadth over the ground. One explanation is that since in this case the impurity is found in the house, the impurity goes out through the threshold and thereby defiles it. In other words, it is not that the threshold is part of the house, rather that the impurity goes out through the threshold and thereby defiles it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter thirteen deals with the size that a hole in a building must be in order for corpse impurity found in a tent to travel to the other side.", + "One who makes a new light hole, its minimum size is that of a hole made by the large drill of the Temple chamber. When one makes a new light-hole in a house, in order for it to bring impurity to something on the other side, it must be the size of a hole made by the large drill used in the Temple chamber. This drill is referred to also in Kelim 17:12.", + "The remains of a light-hole [the size is] two fingerbreadths high by a thumb-breadth broad. The following is considered the remains of a light-hole: a window that a person had blocked up but had not been able to finish [being blocked up]. The \"remains of a light hole\" is a light hole that they began to close up but they didn't finish closing it up. It needs only be two finger-breadths by a thumb-breadth. The concept behind this halakhah is that once something enters a certain category, it is harder to leave that category than it was to get there in the first place.", + "[A hole] that was bored by water, or by reptiles or eaten away by salt: the minimum size is that of a fist. If he intended to use it, its minimum size is one handbreadth square; For lighting its minimum size is that of a hole made by the drill. A hole made by a natural cause must be at least the size of a fist. This is larger than the hole made by the drill. See Kelim 17:12. However, if he intended to use the hole that was created by a natural cause, it takes on the halakhic requirements of a handmade hole, and it depends on what he wants to use it for. If he intends to use it to put his things there, then it must be one handbreadth square. If he intends to use it for lighting, then the size is smaller the size made by the drill (section one).", + "The holes in grating or lattice-work may be joined together to form [an opening] the size of a hole made by the drill, according to the opinion of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: unless there is a hole of the size made by the drill in one place. Bet Shammai holds that the small holes made in grating or in lattice-work join together to create the required sized hole to bring impurity from one side to the other side. Bet Hillel says that there must be one hole that is at least the size of the drill. In other words, the smaller holes are not combined.", + "[The above applies] for purposes of allowing the uncleanness to come in or to go out. Rabbi Shimon says: only for allowing the uncleanness to come in; but for allowing the uncleanness to go out [the minimum size] is one handbreadth square. According to the first opinion, the measure of the size of a drill was stated both to allow impurity to enter a house from an adjacent ohel or to allow the impurity to escape from the house to an adjacent ohel. Rabbi Shimon says that the earlier halakhah concerning a hole the size of the Temple drill was stated only with regard to allowing impurity to enter. When it comes to allowing impurity to escape, there is a different requirement the hole must be one square handbreadth. This halakhah is also found in 3:6." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a window made for letting in air, its minimum size is that of a hole made by the drill. If a window was made for letting in air, then it must have been made on the outside of a building. It will also let in light. Therefore, it allows impurity in and out according to the smaller measure, that of a hole made by a drill (see yesterday's mishnah). If the hole was between two rooms, it would need to be at least a handbreadth in order to allow impurity through.", + "If a house was built outside it, its minimum size becomes one handbreadth square. When the window was in the outermost wall of the house, it needed to be only the size of the drill-hole. But now that someone builds a house next to it, it needs to be larger, a full square handbreadth, to allow impurity to travel through.", + "If a roof was placed at the height of the middle of the window, the minimum size of the lower part is one handbreadth square and of the upper part that of a hole made by the drill. In this case, a roof was built right next to the window, assumedly because the city is on a hill. Now the top of the window faces outside and the bottom of the window opens into the adjacent building. The mishnah looks at this as two different windows. The top part needs to be only as large as the drill but the bottom part must be a handbreadth." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how large an opening in a door must be to allow in and out impurity.", + "[With regard to] a hole in the door: Its minimum size is that of a fist, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: one handbreadth square. Rabbi Akiva holds that since these holes in the door were not made intentionally, they should be compared with the naturally forming holes referred to in mishnah one. For impurity to travel through such a hole, it must be the size of a fist. Rabbi Tarfon says that it needs only be a handbreadth square (slightly smaller than a fist) for these holes are meant for human use (see mishnah one).", + "If the carpenter had left a space at the bottom or the top [of the door] or if one had shut [the door] but not closed it tightly, or if the wind blew it open, the minimum size is that of a fist. There are three spaces in a door referred to here: 1) the carpenter didn't make the door as large as it was supposed to be; 2) the door wasn't tightly closed; 3) the wind blew the door slightly open. All of these are openings that were probably not intentionally formed, nor are they holes that are used by human. Therefore, the measure to allow through impurity is that of a fist, which is larger than a handbreadth." + ], + [ + "One who makes a place for a rod, for tongs, or a lamp, the minimum size is whatever is needful, according to the word of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: one handbreadth square. According to Bet Shammai, if one makes a hole in the wall to store a specific item, that hole needs to be large enough to actually store the item for it to allow impurity from one side to the other. Bet Hillel imposes a standard size one handbreadth square. This is the measure we saw above in mishnah one.", + "[If it was made] for a peep-hole, for speaking through to his fellow, or for [human] use, the minimum size is one handbreadth square. If one makes a hole to look through (what we might call a peep-hole, ignoring the connotations of this word) or a hole to talk through or for any human use, the hole must be the size of a handbreadth." + ], + [ + "The following [objects serve to] reduce [the area of a square] handbreadth:
[A portion] of less than an olive-size of flesh [of a corpse] reduces [the opening for uncleanness that is] caused by a quarter of a kav of bones [from a corpse];
[A portion] of less than a barley-corn size of bone reduces [the opening for uncleanness that is] caused by an olive-sized portion of flesh;
Less than an olive-sized portion of a corpse,
Less than an olive-sized portion of carrion,
Less than a lentil-sized portion of sheretz;
Less than an egg-sized portion of food;
Produce growing next to the window,
A cobweb having substance;
The carcass of a clean bird that he did not intend to eat,
And the carcass of an unclean bird that had been intended [for food] that had not been rendered susceptible [to uncleanness], or which had been rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] but had not been intended [for food].
Our mishnah deals with a window between two rooms that is a square handbreadth and therefore will allow impurity to travel between one room and the other. However, if there is placed in the window something that is not susceptible to impurity, it reduces the size of the window and blocks the impurity from traveling through. The mishnah lists some of the things that cause the window to be reduced in size. Tomorrow's mishnah will list things that do not block the impurity.
Section one: In one room there is a quarter kav of bones, an amount which causes impurity in an ohel. There is a window that is a handbreadth square that would allow the impurity to travel to the adjacent room. However, in the window there is a piece of flesh of corpse that is less than the size of an olive. In this case, the window size is considered reduced and the impurity is confined to the room in which the bones are found. However, if the impurity came from an olive sized portion of flesh and there was less than an olive sized portion of flesh in the window, the flesh in the window would be reckoned together with the flesh in the room, and the impurity would travel to the next room. In other words, like substances (flesh) join together whereas unlike substances (flesh and bone) do not.
Section two: This is the opposite scenario. In the room there is an olive-sized portion of flesh, sufficient to cause impurity in an ohel. In the window there is a barley-corn size piece of bone, which is not sufficient to cause impurity. Again, the piece of bone in the window reduces its size and the impurity doesn't go to the other room. However, in this case if there was a quarter kav of bones in the room and a small piece of bone in the window, the size of the window would not be reduced.
Section three: The less than olive-sized portion of flesh is mentioned here again because it is the opposite of the olive-sized portion of flesh which does not reduce the window, as we will learn in mishnah six.
Sections four-six: These substances do not transmit impurity. Furthermore, since they are of a different substance than bones or flesh, they reduce the size of the window no matter what is in the house: bones or flesh.
Section seven: The produce reduces the size of the window if it began to grow near the window and then spread into the window.
Section eight: For the cobweb to reduce the window it must have substance.
Section nine: The carcass of a clean bird that one did not intend to eat (even had it been slaughtered properly) does not cause impurity. Therefore, it reduces the size of the window.
Section ten: The opposite is true for the carcass of an unclean bird. It causes impurity only if one intended to eat the bird and it was rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with water after it died. If he intended to eat it, or it wasn't rendered susceptible to impurity, it is not susceptible to impurity and it does reduce the size of the window." + ], + [ + "The following do not reduce [the area of the window]: Bone does not reduce [the area] for [other] bones; Nor [corpse] flesh for [other] flesh;
Nor an olive-sized [portion] of a corpse;
Nor an olive-sized portion of carrion;
Nor a lentil-sized portion of reptile;
Nor an egg-sized portion of food;
Nor produce growing in the windows;
Nor a cobweb having no substance;
Nor the carcass of a clean bird which had been intended [for food];
Nor the carcass of an unclean bird which had been intended [for food] and had been rendered susceptible to uncleanness;
Nor warp and woof threads that have negaim;
Nor a brick from a bet haperas, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the brick can reduce, because the dust [of the bet haperas] is clean.
This is the general rule: what is clean reduces [the area], and what is unclean does not reduce it.
Today's mishnah refers mostly to cases that are opposite of those found in yesterday's mishnah. It lists things that do not reduce the area of the window.
Section one: Since the substance found in the window is the same as is found in the house, they don't reduce the area of the window.
Sections two-five: All of these are simply the opposite cases of those taught in mishnah five. There is a sufficient amount that it is susceptible to impurity.
Section six: In this case the produce grows directly out of the window and not just adjacent to the window, as it did in yesterday's mishnah. Since one does not want to keep such produce, it doesn't reduce the size of the window.
Sections seven-nine: The opposite of those cases found in yesterday's mishnah.
Section ten: Negaim are what we might call \"plagues\" or some type of disease that infects cloth. There will be an entire tractate devoted to this subject. If the cloth has negaim, then it is impure and anything impure does not reduce the area of the window.
Section eleven: A bet haperas is a field that used to be used as a cemetery but was plowed over. The brick was made from the ground of such a field. According to Rabbi Meir, such a brick is impure and therefore it does not reduce the window. The other sages disagree because they hold that dust that comes from a bet haperas is clean.
Section twelve: This is the general rule that explains all of mishnayoth 5-6." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A projection brings uncleanness, whatever width it may be;
But a balcony or rounded balcony when they are one handbreadth wide.
What is a projection? That [projection] whose surface slopes downwards,
And a balcony's surface slopes upwards.
In what [circumstances] did they say that a projection brings uncleanness whatever width it may be? With regard to a projection which is three rows of stones, or twelve handbreadths, above the doorway. When higher than that, it brings uncleanness only if it is one handbreadth wide.
Cornices and carvings bring uncleanness when they are one handbreadth wide.
Chapter fourteen deals with various projections that jut out above the entrance to a house and with whether they form an ohel to allow the impurity to enter the house.
Sections one and three: As will be explained in section three, the \"projection\" referred to here seems to be some sort of canopy that slopes downward and is used to protect the entrance to the house from rain and sun. Since this canopy is really part of the house, it joins the house to bring impurity in. Therefore, it itself does not need to be a handbreadth, the generally required size of an ohel. If a source of corpse impurity is found under this projection, the house will be impure.
Sections two and four: In contrast, a balcony's surface slopes upward so that it can be used by those living on the upper floor. It does not join the entrance to the house below to bring impurity into the house unless it is itself the size of an ohel, meaning one handbreadth.
Section five: For a projection to join with the opening of a house to allow impurity into the house it cannot be more than twelve handbreadths (equivalent to three rows of stones) above the doorway. Up to such a height and the canopy-projection can conceivably protect the entrance. But above this height it will need to be a handbreadth in order to form a tent to bring impurity in.
Section six: Anything made for aesthetic purposes was not designed to protect the entrance. Therefore, it does not join with the entrance" + ], + [ + "A projection that is above a doorway forms a passage for the uncleanness when it is one handbreadth wide; In yesterday's mishnah, we learned that a projection above a doorway brings in impurity no matter how big the projection is. Today's mishnah teaches that the doorway must be at least one handbreadth wide to allow the impurity to enter the house.", + "If above a window two fingerbreadths high or the size of a hole made by a drill, when of any width whatsoever. Rabbi Yose says: when of equal size [to the particular window]. If the projection is above the type of window that needs to only be two fingerbreadths high to allow in impurity (this is the remnant of a light-hole, see 13:1) or one that needs to be only the size of a drill (see also 13:1), it (the projection) brings in the impurity no matter how small it is. According to this opinion, the projection will offer protection to such a small window, even if the projection is of very small size. Rabbi Yose says that the projection must be as large as the window that it protects. So if it protects a two fingerbreadths size window, the projection must be two fingerbreadths in order to bring impurity into the house." + ], + [ + "A rod above a doorway, even if one hundred cubits higher, forms a passage for the uncleanness no matter its width, the words of Rabbi Joshua. The mishnah deals with a rod that was placed above a doorway, assumedly also to serve as some sort of protection for the entrance. The difference between the rod and the projection discussed in yesterday's mishnah is that the projection is fixed into the wall of the house, whereas the rod can be moved. Therefore, according to Rabbi Joshua, it doesn't matter how high the rod is, it always serves to bring impurity into the house. Rabbi Joshua holds that since it can be moved to within twelve handbreadths of the house (see mishnah one) we treat it as if it is within twelve handbreadths of the house.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: don't be more stringent than the case of a projection. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that the rule governing the rod should be no stricter than the rule governing the projection. Therefore, if the rod is more than twelve handbreadths high, it must be at least one handbreadth wide in order to bring impurity." + ], + [ + "[In the case of] a projection which goes all round the house, occupying space above the doorway to the extent of three fingerbreadths, if there is uncleanness in the house, vessels beneath [the projection] become unclean. In this mishnah the projection surrounds the whole house, and therefore it is not treated like the projection that covers the entrance or a window. At the point of the doorway, it is only three fingerbreadths in width, which is less than the handbreadth (a handbreadth is equivalent to three fingerbreadths) usually required for impurity to enter the house when under a projection. If the uncleanness is in the house, then any vessels underneath the projection are impure for the way of impurity is to go out.", + "If the uncleanness is beneath [the projection]: Rabbi Eliezer declares the house unclean, But Rabbi Joshua declares it clean. If the source of impurity is underneath the projection, Rabbi Eliezer says that even though the projection is not a full handbreadth, the impurity enters the house and defiles anything that is in the house. Since the projection surrounds the whole house, it is looked at as part of the house, even though it is not the usually required width. Rabbi Joshua says that since the projection is not a handbreadth wide, it does not cause the impurity to enter the house.", + "A similar [rule applies] to a courtyard surrounded by a portico. The same rules apply in a case where a portico (a roofed area with pillars) lies outside a courtyard. If the roof of the portico is at least three fingerbreadths, but not a full handbreadth, then impurity in the house will defile vessels under the portico, but if impurity is in the portico, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate. If the portico is more than a handbreadth, then all agree that impurity found there will enter the house." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a case where there are two projections overhanging the entrance to the house. The mishnah will walk us through various scenarios concerning the size of these two projections and where the source of impurity is found.", + "[With regard to] two projections, one [directly] above the other, each having a width of one handbreadth and a space of one handbreadth between them: If there is uncleanness beneath them, what is beneath them becomes unclean; If it is between them, what is between them becomes unclean; Above them, everything directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean. In the first scenario, the projections are each at least one handbreadth in width and there is a handbreadth in between the two. Obviously, the lower projection is at least one handbreadth above the ground. This means that there is a full ohel below each projection. If the impurity is below the bottom projection, then the impurity is confined to this area. The lower projection blocks the impurity from going higher. If the impurity is between them, then the impurity is also confined to this area. The lower projection blocks the impurity from going below, and the upper projection blocks it from going above. If the impurity is above the upper projection, it doesn't go below. It defiles only anything that is directly above it.", + "If the upper [projection] overlapped the lower to the extent of one handbreadth: If there is uncleanness beneath or between them, what is beneath and between them becomes unclean; If it is above them, what is directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean. In this case, the upper projection juts out one handbreadth more than the bottom projection. If the impurity is either below the bottom one or below the top one, it will spread to the entire area below the top projection. This is because the broader upper projection will bring the impurity to the entire area below it. If the impurity is above the top projection, it defiles only things above it.", + "If the upper [projection] overlapped the lower to an extent of less than a handbreadth: If there is uncleanness beneath them, what is beneath and between them becomes unclean; If it is between them or beneath the overlapping [part]: Rabbi Eliezer says: what is beneath them and between them becomes unclean. Rabbi Joshua says: what is between them and beneath the overlapping [part] becomes unclean, but what is beneath [the lower one] remains clean. In this case, the upper projection is broader than the bottom one, but by less than a handbreadth. If the impurity is below the lower projection, it spreads to the area in between, again because the upper projection brings it above. If the impurity is between the two, or is below the upper projection but not below the lower projection, in other words, it's below the extension of the upper projection, Rabbi Eliezer says that the entire area beneath the upper projection is impure. In contrast, Rabbi Joshua says that the area beneath the lower projection remains pure. The upper projection which is less than a handbreadth wider than the bottom projection does not bring the impurity to the area below the lower projection. This is similar to his opinion in mishnah four." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah, concerning two projections, one above the other.", + "If they had a width of a handbreadth but there was not a space of a handbreadth between them: If there is uncleanness beneath them, what is beneath becomes unclean; If it is between them or above them, everything directly [above] to the sky becomes unclean. Since there is not a handbreadth in between the two projections, there is not an ohel in this area. However, there is still an ohel below the bottom projection. If the uncleanness is found beneath both projections, then it is confined to this area. The lower projection forms an ohel and prevents the impurity from spreading above. However, if the uncleanness is between them, it does not spread throughout an ohel. It only defiles that which is directly above it, just as it does if it is found above the top projection. The upper projection does not prevent the impurity from going above because it is not an ohel, but the bottom projection does prevent the impurity from going below." + ], + [ + "If they did not have a width of a handbreadth, whether there is a space of a handbreadth between them or whether there is not, if there is uncleanness beneath, between or above them, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. If neither projection is a handbreadth wide, then no ohel is formed. Therefore, no matter where the impurity is found, it only travels upwards and downwards, but it does not spread to the sides.", + "A similar [rule applies] to two curtains, [the lower one of which is] one handbreadth high off the ground. The final clause of this chapter notes that the same scenario described in mishnayot 5-7 can occur if two curtains are placed one above the other, and the bottom one is at least one handbreadth above the other." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first two sections of today's mishnah are found word for word in 11:3. I have copied my explanation from there.", + "A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground. Despite the fact that these items are one handbreadth thick, they are not considered to be an ohel such that there is an ohel directly beneath the split in the roof of the portico. For something to be an ohel it must also have an empty space.", + "If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground. If there are a few garments folded one on another, they bring uncleanness when placed underneath the split if the bottom part of the upper garment is at least one handbreadth off the ground. In other words, the entire upper garment must be one handbreadth above the ground in order for it to form an ohel over the other garments. We might have thought that since the presence of the lower garments does not prevent an ohel from being formed, then the lower folds of the upper garment also wouldn't prevent an ohel from being formed. The mishnah teaches that there is a difference between the lower and upper garments. The lower garments are in the ohel and the upper garment forms the ohel.", + "Tablets of wood [placed] one above the other do not bring uncleanness unless the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground; When it comes to pieces of wood, the upper piece is considered an ohel if it is at least a handbreadth over the ground.", + "But if they were of marble, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. The slabs of marble placed one on top of another are treated as if they were all one tablet. Therefore, no matter how high the upper tablet is, it does not form an ohel. In other words, marble is treated as one piece (like the coats in section one) whereas the pieces of wood are considered separate." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] wooden tablets which touch each other at their corners, and are one handbreadth high off the ground: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, [a person] touching the second [tablet] becomes defiled with seven-day defilement. Vessels under the first [tablet] become unclean; but those under the second remain clean. This section describes two wooden tablets that touch each other only at one corner. The part that is touching is less than one handbreadth. The two tablets are one handbreadth off the ground, the required amount to be an ohel. Although they are touching only at their corners, in some ways they are considered to be one ohel. Therefore, if there is uncleanness beneath one of them, a person who touches the other one is impure as if he had been in contact with a dead body. This is where it gets a bit tricky. If there are vessels underneath the tablets, those under the one where the corpse uncleanness is found are defiled, but those under the other one are not. This seems to contradict the previous line. Albeck explains that since the impurity is not under the second tablet and the second tablet is not touching the first tablet by an amount the size of a handbreadth, the impurity doesn't spread beneath it. However, we do look at the tablet as if it was overhanging the impurity and one who touches it is impure.", + "A table does not bring uncleanness unless it contains a square of at least one handbreadth. Tables were often expanded by adding squares, one next to the other, in order to allow more guests (like the leafs we add to our tables). If there is no single square that is at least one handbreadth square, meaning one square to serve as the base of the table, then none of the squares join to form an ohel. This is not considered to be a sustainable ohel (for this concept see 8:5)." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] jars standing on their bottoms or lying on their sides in the open air and touching one another to the extent of a handbreadth: If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. The jars mentioned referred to here are made of earthenware and therefore cannot be defiled from the outside (only if a source of impurity enters their airspace are they impure). The jars are found outside, not in a house or other type of ohel. They are standing on their bottoms or on their sides such that there is not a handbreadth of space beneath them. These jars do not form an ohel. Therefore, even if they are touching each other by the length of a handbreadth, impurity doesn't spread from one to the other. Even within one jar it doesn't spread because it is not in an ohel. It only travels up and down.", + "When does this rule apply? When the [jars] are clean. But in the case where they were unclean or one handbreadth high off the ground, if there is uncleanness beneath one of them, what is beneath all becomes unclean. The above is true only if the jars are clean. If they are unclean they do not prevent the impurity from entering within. Once within, it is as if the impurity is found in an ohel and it spreads from one jar to the other. Similarly, if the jars are at least a handbreadth off the ground, they form an ohel and the impurity will spread from one jar to the other because the contact point is at least a handbreadth long." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a house, sectioned off by boards or curtains from the sides or from the roof beams: If there is uncleanness in the house, vessels beyond the partition remain clean. If there is uncleanness beyond the partition, vessels in the house become unclean. [With regard to] the vessels beyond the partition: The house has been sectioned into two parts such that what was one room is now two. Alternatively, some sort of loft was added such that the house is now separate from the roof beams. The mishnah now discusses what happens if the source of impurity is found in various parts of the house and its partitions. If the source of impurity is in the house then the vessels that are in the partitioned off inner room, or in the newly sectioned off upper room, remain pure. However, if the uncleanness is in the inner room or in the upper chamber, it goes out and defiles the vessels in the house because, as we have learned, impurity goes out of a confined space and defiles things that are in its space.", + "If there is a space of a [cubic] handbreadth there, they become unclean, But if not, they are clean. As far as the petitioned off areas themselves, if they are at least a cubic handbreadth in dimension, then they are an ohel and they are impure. However, if they are less than a cubic handbreadh, then the impurity within would only go up and down and it wouldn't defile any vessels found on the sides of such a space." + ], + [ + "[In the case where] it was partitioned off from the floor: If there is uncleanness beneath the partition, vessels in the house become unclean. In this mishnah, they build a new floor, thereby separating the house from its old floor. If the source of impurity is below the partition, it travels up and defiles the contents of the house because the way of impurity is to escape from confined spaces. See also 3:7 for a somewhat similar situation.", + "[In the case where] the uncleanness is in the house, vessels beneath the partition, If there is a space there of one cubic hand breadth, remain clean; But if not, they become unclean, since the floor of the house is reckoned as the house even to the nethermost deep. If the uncleanness is in the house, then the purity of any vessels found below the partition depends on whether there is a cubit handbreadth in the area below. If there is such a space, then the impurity is found in an ohel and it is blocked from entering the house. However, if there is not an ohel below, then the vessels are considered as if they are inside the house. This is because the floor of a house is always considered part of the house, no matter how deep." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a house that has basically been filled in, in this case with straw. It is treated similarly to the case in yesterday's mishnah, where a partition was built above the floor.", + "[With regard to] a house filled with straw, without a space of a handbreadth [being left] between [the straw] and the roof beams: If there is uncleanness within [the straw], vessels at the exit become unclean. In this case the uncleanness is within the straw, which is similar to the situation in yesterday's mishnah were the uncleanness was below the partition placed above the floor. Any vessels that are at the exit, meaning they are in the area that is not filled in with straw, will be defiled because the impurity escapes through that area.", + "[In the case where] the uncleanness was outside [the area of the straw], with regard to the vessels within: If they are in a space of a cubic handbreadth, they remain clean, But if not they become unclean. If there is a space of a handbreadth between the straw and the roof beams, in either case the vessels become unclean. If the uncleanness is outside the area of the straw and the vessels are within the straw and within an empty space that is one cubic handbreadth, they are protected by being in an ohel. If they are in a space that is less than a cubic handbreadth, then it is as if they are in the floor of the house and they are impure (as was the case in yesterday's mishnah). If there is a space of a handbreadth above, in the place where the impurity is found, then the straw is not considered a barrier to the impurity, even if the empty space is a cubic handbreadth. The vessels in the straw are impure in both cases." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a house filled with earth or pebbles which he [decided] to leave there, or similarly a heap of produce or a mound of pebbles even such as Akhan's mound, and even if the uncleanness is by the side of the vessels, the uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. The mishnah discusses three situations: 1) Someone's house is full of pebbles or earth and he decided not to remove them. 2) A heap of produce that is found outside of a house. 3) A mound of stones, even if it is like the stones that were put on top of Akhan when he was executed (see Joshua 7:26). In all of these cases there is a source of impurity within the mound (or house) but it is not touching the vessels. The mishnah rules that the impurity goes up and down but does not defile the vessels. In other words, the impurity is not found in an ohel, and therefore it doesn't spread to the sides." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] the courtyard of a tomb: A person standing in it remains clean as long as there is a space of four cubits square, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: four handbreadths. The courtyard described here is at the entrance to a tomb. According to Bet Shammai, the courtyard must be at least four cubits square to be considered its own space. If it is this size, a person standing there will not be defiled by the tomb because he is not considered to be in the \"tomb\". Bet Hillel provides a smaller measure. If the courtyard is at least four handbreadths square, it is its own space.", + "[With regard to] a roof beam which had been used as a covering stone for a tomb, whether it is standing upright or lying on its side, nothing becomes unclean except what [touches] opposite the opening of the grave. A roof beam was used to close up a burial grave. Typically, this was done with a stone. A person who touches the part of the beam that is opposite the stone is impure; but if he touches it elsewhere, he is pure.", + "If the end [of the beam] were made the covering stone of a grave, only [that part] up to four handbreadths [from the grave] becomes unclean. In this case he puts the end of the beam up against the cave, with the beam extending out from the grave. The first four handbreadths of the beam are considered to be covering the grave and are impure and defile one who touches them. After that, the beam is pure.", + "[This applies] when [the beam] is going to be cut. Rabbi Judah says: all the beam is connected. The above is true if he intends to cut off the beam and leave only the four handbreadths that cover the grave. If he intends to leave the entire beam there, it all defiles. Rabbi Judah rules more strictly. The whole beam is connected to the part that covers the grave and therefore, even if he intends to cut it off, it is still impure." + ], + [ + "A jar full of clean liquid and sealed with a tightly fitting lid, which had been made the covering stone of a tomb, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness but the jar and the liquid remain clean. The jar used to cover the tomb conveys impurity to one who touches it, just as does a stone. However, an earthenware jar is not defiled on its outside, as long as it is covered with a tightly fitting lid (see Kelim 9:2). Therefore, the jar and its contents remain pure.", + "An animal that had been used as a covering stone, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness. Similarly, if a person uses an animal to temporarily cover a tomb, it too conveys impurity. Note that like the jar, the animal is not impure. It merely conveys impurity to one who touches it. See also Eruvin 1:7.", + "Rabbi Meir says: anything possessing the breath of life does convey uncleanness on account of [its being used as] a covering stone. Rabbi Meir says that anything that is alive does not convey uncleanness if used to cover a tomb. This would mean that he disagrees with the halakhah in section two, although not with the halakhah in section one." + ], + [ + "One who touches a corpse and touches vessels, one who overshadows a corpse and touches vessels, they [the vessels] are unclean. A person who has become unclean through a corpse, whether by contact or by overshadowing, now defiles vessels by contact (see 1:1-4).", + "One who overshadows a corpse and overshadows vessels, one who touches a corpse and overshadows vessels, they [the vessels] are clean. However, a person who has been defiled by contact with a corpse or by overshadowing a corpse does not defile vessels by overshadowing.", + "If his hands are a handbreadth wide, they are unclean. If one hand is overshadowing or touching a dead body and the other hand is simultaneously overshadowing vessels, it is possible to convey the impurity from the corpse to the vessels, as long as each hand is a handbreadth, such that it can form an ohel. If the hands are smaller than a handbreadth, they do not convey the impurity.", + "Two houses, and in each there is a half an olive's worth of corpse and he puts one hand into each house: If his hands are a handbreadth wide, he brings uncleanness; But if not, he does not bring uncleanness. The mishnah now brings up a similar circumstance where a person can convey impurity if each of his hands is a handbreadth. There are two houses adjacent to one another and their doors or windows are opposite each other. There is less than an olive's worth of impurity in each house and a person puts his hands into both houses simultaneously. If his hands are each a handbreadth, then they successfully bring the impurity from each into the other, and all vessels found in either house are impure. If his hands are not one handbreadth, then they don't join the two half olives, and all remains pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how thick vessels need to be for them to convey uncleanness from a corpse to other vessels which they overshadow.", + "All movable things convey uncleanness when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad. In this section we learn of an older tradition according to which a vessel needs to be only as thick as an ox-goad in order to convey uncleanness. This means that if one end overshadows a source of corpse impurity and the other end overshadows vessels, it conveys impurity from the corpse to the vessels. An ox-goad has a circumference of one handbreadth, but it does not have a width of one handbreadth. This is stated directly in Kelim 17:8.", + "Rabbi Tarfon said: May I [see the] demise of my sons if this is [not] a demised halakhah which someone heard and misunderstood. For a farmer was passing by and over his shoulder was an ox-goad, and one end overshadowed a grave. He was declared unclean on account of vessels that were overshadowing a corpse. Rabbi Tarfon bitterly objects to this halakhah, claiming that it is the result of a misunderstood story. A person heard that someone carrying an ox-goad which overshadows a dead body conveys impurity to the person carrying it, but he didn't properly understand the reason. The story goes as follows. A farmer was carrying an ox-goad and one end of the ox-goad overshadowed a grave. When he came in front of some sages, they declared him impure. However, this is not because a vessel that is less than a handbreadth conveys impurity to another vessel that it overshadows. Rather, the ox-goad itself was made impure by overshadowing a corpse. For this to happen, the ox-goad does not need to be a handbreadth. The farmer touched the ox-goad and was defiled because a vessel that has corpse impurity defiles a person (see 1:3). The person who heard that the farmer was impure thought that it was because the ox-goad overshadowed the person and therefore he said that a vessel need only be as thick as an ox-goad to convey impurity.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: I can fix [the halakhah] so that the words of the sages can exist [as they are]: All movable things convey uncleanness to come upon a person carrying them, when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad; Upon themselves when they are of whatever thickness; And upon other men or vessels [which they overshadow] when they are one handbreadth wide. Rabbi Akiva acts as the traditionalist and a type of peace maker. He wishes to preserve the accuracy of the statement transmitted in section one, without changing the halakhah that for a vessel to convey uncleanness it must be a handbreadth wide. He now proceeds to outline three halakhot. If someone is carrying a vessel that is as thick as an ox-goad (less than a handbreadth) and the vessel overshadows a corpse, even though the person didn't actually touch the vessel and it only touched his clothes, and the person should only be impure until the evening as is the rule when a person touches a vessel that touched another vessel that had contact with a corpse (see 1:2), nevertheless the sages declared that such a person is impure for seven days due to the uncleanness of an ohel. In other words, Rabbi Akiva says that when the rabbis stated the halakhah in section one, it was a stringency related only to that situation. When it comes to the impurity of the vessel itself, a vessel that overshadows a corpse is impure even if it is less than a handbreadth in width. Finally, for the vessel to convey uncleanness from the source of corpse impurity to other vessels it overshadows, it must be at least a handbreadth in width. This shows clearly that there is no debate between him and Rabbi Tarfon." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe beginning of the mishnah illustrates the general rules listed in the end of yesterday's mishnah.", + "How so? A spindle stuck into the wall, with [a portion of corpse] of half an olive-size above it and [a portion of corpse] of half an olive-size below it. Even though one [portion] is not directly [above] the other, [the spindle] becomes unclean. Hence it is found that [a movable object] conveys uncleanness to come upon itself whatever its thickness. The mishnah illustrates the principle that a vessel can convey uncleanness to itself through overshadowing even if it is of minimal thickness. The mishnah describes a small spindle that is stuck into the wall (perhaps for storage) and there is half an olive size of corpse above it and half an olive size below. In other words, the spindle overshadows half and half overshadows it. Even if the two portions of corpse are not one on top of each other, the spindle overshadows one and is overshadowed by the other and therefore serves to join them into one olive and the spindle is impure.", + "A pot seller passes by a grave with a yoke over his shoulder, one end of which overshadows a grave, vessels on the other side remain clean. If the yoke is one handbreadth wide, they become unclean. This section illustrates the principle that vessels don't convey impurity to other vessels which they overshadow unless they are a handbreadth wide. If the yoke is one handbreadth wide, then it conveys the impurity to the other vessels. If it is not a handbreadth wide then the vessels remain clean.", + "Mounds which are near to a city or to a road, whether they are new or old, are unclean. [As for those that are] far away, new ones are clean but old ones are unclean. What counts as near? Fifty cubits. And old? Sixty years old, the words of Rabbi Meir. R. Judah says: Near means there is none nearer than it, and old means that no one remembers [when it was made]. This section deals with mounds that are found outside a city. It seems that women would bury their miscarried fetuses in these mounds, and lepers would bury their lost limbs. These fetuses and limbs are impure and therefore the mounds, under certain circumstances, must be treated as impure. The impurity of the mound depends on two factors: its proximity to the city and its age. The closer it is to the city, the more likely it is that people buried fetuses or limbs there. And the older it is, the more likely that people forgot whether or not anything was buried there. A mound that is close to the city whether or not it is old is impure; but if it is far from the city it is impure only if it is old. Rabbi Meir provides objective numbers for \"near\" and \"old.\" For a mound to be near, it must be within fifty cubits. And for it to be \"old\" it must be sixty years old, which probably is the upper end of how long a person might live during that period. Rabbi Judah provides relative numbers. A mound is close if it is the closest mound to the city, for people will be likely to bury their fetuses and limbs there. So if there is one mound that is 25 cubits away and another that is 35, only the one 25 cubits away is impure. Likewise, if the closest mound is 100 cubits away, it is impure. And \"old\" means that no one remembers when the mound was made. There is no way of giving an objective age." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with how one would know whether he has come across an isolated dead body which he must bring to burial in a proper cemetary, or a burial ground, in which case it is forbidden", + "If one finds a corpse unexpectedly lying in its natural position, he may remove it along with the [blood-] saturated earth around it. The person finds a corpse buried in the ground in a place that wasn't identified as a burial ground. He is allowed to move this corpse into a proper cemetery. He can assume that the body was put there temporarily until a more proper place was found. He should also take the blood-soaked ground around the corpse, for as we have seen, the blood has the status of the corpse and must be brought to burial.", + "If he finds two, he may remove them along with the [blood-] saturated earth around it. The same is true if he finds two corpses. He still does not need to worry lest he has stumbled upon a burial ground.", + "If he finds three, if there is a space of from four to eight cubits between the first and the last, that is, the space of a bier and its bearers, then it must be accounted a graveyard. However, if he finds three corpses and they are between four to eight cubits between each body, he must consider the land to be a burial ground, in which case it is forbidden to move the bodies.", + "He must search [the ground] for twenty cubits from that point. If he found [another corpse] at the end of those twenty cubits, he must search for a further twenty cubits from that place, since there are already grounds for belief [that this is a graveyard], in spite of the fact that if he had found this [lone grave] in the first case, he could have removed it with the [blood-] saturated earth around it. He now must search the area for other bodies so that he can determine the size of the burial ground. He should search twenty cubits from the outer body on each side. And if he finds another body he must continue to search twenty cubits from the furthest body. This is true despite the fact that had he found this body as a lone grave, he would not have had to search for other bodies in the area. Once it has been established that there might be a burial ground in the area, he must treat each body as evidence of such." + ], + [ + "One who searches, must search over a square cubit and then leave a cubit, [digging down] until he reaches rock or virgin soil. This section refers to the person in yesterday's mishnah who had found three corpses buried in the ground and was searching to determine how far the burial ground extended. He need not search every cubit of earth. Rather, he can check a cubit and then leave a cubit, because it was customary to leave a cubit between each body buried in the ground. When checking, he must dig down in the ground until he either reaches rock or soil that clearly has never been dug up before.", + "[A priest] carrying out earth from a place of uncleanness may eat his terumah mixed with hullin. This section concerns a priest who is removing earth from a place that has some impurity in it, such as the burial ground referred to in mishnah three. If this person is a priest he may eat terumah that has become mixed in with hullin (non-sacred produce). This is because the earth that he is carrying is not certainly impure, and the terumah that he is eating is also not certainly terumah. Since there is a \"double doubt\" he may eat the terumah.", + "But one who is clearing away a heap of stones, may not eat his terumah mixed with hullin. However, if one is clearing away a heap of stones that fell on a person and might have killed him, he may not eat such terumah. The problem is that if he finds a corpse, he will certainly be impure. In other words, although there is some doubt in this case as well, it is of a different nature from the doubt in the previous case. In the previous case, the terumah mixed in with hullin will always remain of doubtful status. There is simply no way to determine whether it is terumah or hullin because it is all mixed up. However, in this case, the doubt can be clarified. If he sees that there is a corpse under the stones then the priest is definitely impure. Therefore, he cannot eat the terumah." + ], + [ + "If he was searching and came to a river bed, or a pool or a public road, he may end [his search]. If one is searching an area of twenty cubits (mishnah three) to see if there are any more dead bodies, and he gets to a river bed, a pool of water or a public road, he can use that landmark as the end of his search because it is obvious that people don't build a cemetery through or in a river bed, a pool or a public road.", + "A field in which men have been slain, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean. The mishnah now deals with cases where a person need not remove the earth with the bones that he finds. If he finds a field in which people were killed, he can remove just the bones and the area will be clean. He need not remove the earth.", + "One who removes a grave from his field, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean. A person may remove a grave from his field if originally there was a grave outside of his field and the grave broke open into his field. In this case he can also remove the bones without removing the ground.", + "A pit into which they throw fetuses or people that had been slain, he may gather the bones one by one, and all [the area] may be accounted clean. Similarly, if one is clearing out a pit into which either fetuses (miscarriages) or dead bodies had been thrown, he need not remove the ground. From all of this we can see that the rule concerning the removal of the ground applies only if the area was originally designated a burial ground.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if it had been prepared as a grave in the first place, there is [blood-] saturated earth. This is confirmed by Rabbi Shimon who says that if the pit was originally designated to be a burial ground, then when he removes it, he must remove the ground as well." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the formation of a \"bet haperas.\" A bet haperas is the term for a field in which the sages suspect corpse impurity to be found. In our case, the bet haperas is formed by a person plowing a field in which a corpse was buried. The fear is that by plowing the person brought bones to other sections of the field.", + "One who plows a grave [into a field], behold he makes it a bet haperas. If a person plows over a field in which a grave is found, he makes it into a bet peras.", + "To what extent does he make it [a bet haperas]? For the length of a furrow of a hundred cubits, a space in which four se'ahs [can grow]. Rabbi Yose says: an area of five [se'ahs]. The mishnah now discusses how far the bet haperas extends. According to the first opinion, the plow might move the bones through a space in which four seahs of seed can be sewn. This is an area of 100 cubits by 100 cubits (about 50 meters by 50 meters, which is about 2/3 of an acre). Rabbi Yose says that the area is the space in which five seahs can be sewn. This is 111.75 cubits by 111.75 cubits.", + "But when on an upward or downward slope: he puts a quarter [of a kav] of vetch seed on the knee of the plough, and the space where [the last] three vetches grow next to each other is a bet peras. The above applies only when the field is flat. There is a different measure when the field is on an upward or downward slope. To find out how far is a bet haperas he does a test with vetch (animal food) seed. He places a quarter of a kav of seed on a piece of wood of the plough and he starts plowing. Due to the movement of the plow, the seeds will begin to fall off. At first many will fall but eventually there will be little left. When he gets to a point at which only three seeds fall at a time, such that three vetch plants will grow at that spot, he knows that he has reached the edge of the bet haperas. This is because the plow will shake so much until this point, that beyond it, it will no longer drag pieces of bone.", + "Rabbi Yose says: [a bet haperas is only made by a plough going] downwards but not upwards. Rabbi Yose holds that when one plows upward he doesn't make a bet haperas. Assumedly, he thinks that gravity will prevent the bones from being pulled upward." + ], + [ + "If a person was plowing and struck against a rock or a fence, or if he shook the plowshare, he only makes a bet peras up until that spot. If a person comes up against an obstacle when plowing, the obstacle will shake any bones off of the plow. The same is true if he shakes out the plowshare. Therefore, even if he has only plowed a little bit, he will not make a bet peras at any point further than this.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: one bet peras can form another bet peras. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if one plows a bet peras and then continues on, even well beyond a hundred cubits from where the original grave was located, the second field is also a bet peras. In other words, just as plowing a burial ground makes a bet peras, so too plowing a bet peras can make a new bet peras.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: sometimes it can, but at other times it cannot. How so? If he plowed for half a furrow's length and then returned and plowed a [further] half, or similarly [if he plowed] to the side, he makes a bet peras. If he plowed a full furrow's length and then returned and plowed from that point beyond, he does not make this a bet peras. Rabbi Joshua says that sometimes plowing a bet peras makes a new one, but sometimes it does not. It all depends on whether the second field is more than fifty cubits beyond the first. In the first set of cases he plows for less than the 100 cubits and then goes back and plows that area again, either in a different direction or in the same direction but further than his first plowing. Since in his first plowing he didn't reach the 100 cubit limit in which a bet peras is formed, he makes a new bet peras. However, if he plows a full 100 cubits and then continues to plow from that point and onward, he doesn't make a new bet peras." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah lists cases in which it would very much seem that a person has made a bet peras and yet the mishnah rules that he has not. We will see that there is something \"dogmatic\" or \"traditional\" about the formation of a bet peras. Even though there are clearly bones spread around in this field, it is not considered a bet peras because it doesn't fulfill the dictionary/sages' definition of bet peras. To couch this in other terms the sages said that a bet peras is created under certain circumstances. Even though other circumstances may be very similar, since they are not part of the original tradition, a bet peras is not created.", + "If a person plows from a pit full of bones, or from a heap of bones, According to commentators, the sages declared that when a person plows a grave he creates a bet peras, because this is something that is likely to happen. It is likely that a person will want to plow a field next to a grave, and therefore the sages decreed that one who does so creates a bet peras. But it is not common for a person to want to plow over a pit full of bones or a heap of bones and therefore by doing so, he does not create a bet peras.", + "Or from a field in which a grave had been lost, In this case there is a double doubt. We don't know if he plowed over the grave, and even if he did plow over the grave, we cannot be sure that his plowing moved bones. Therefore, the mishnah rules leniently.", + "Or in which a grave was subsequently found, The formation of a bet peras is a penalty for one who plows a grave. Since he didn't know that there was a grave in the field, he is not penalized.", + "Or if he plows a field which was not his own, The penalty for plowing a grave is only meted out to one who plows his own property.", + "Or if a non-Jew plowed, he does not make a bet peras. For the rule of bet peras does not apply [even] to Samaritans. The rule of the bet peras applies only to Jews, who are penalized for plowing over a grave. If a grave is plowed by Samaritans it is not a bet peras. All the more so, if a non-Jew plows a field, he does not make it into a bet peras." + ], + [ + "[In the case where] there was a bet peras above a pure field, if rain washed down soil from the bet peras to the pure field, even where this was reddish and the [other soil] turned it white, or where this was white and the other turned it red, this does not make it a bet peras. The mishnah refers to a case where one field is on a step above another field. If the upper field is a bet peras and some of its soil washes in to the lower field, it does not make the lower field a bet peras. This is true even if the fields are of a different color and one can see the color of the earth from the original bet peras." + ], + [ + "[With regard to] a field in which a grave had been lost, and upon which a house had been built with an upper story above it: If the entrance of the upper room was directly above the entrance of the house, the upper story remains clean; But if not the upper story becomes unclean. If the two doors, one of the bottom floor and the one of the top floor, are one on top of the other, the upper story is clean, even though the bottom floor is unclean do to the possibility that it is on top of the grave. If the grave was directly below the house, the ceiling would stop the impurity from entering the upper story. And if the grave was below the outer half of a wall of the house, even the house would be impure (see 6:3). And even if the grave was under the entrance to the house, and we might have thought that the canopy over the entrance to the upper story would form an ohel and bring the impurity into the upper story, the canopy of the bottom floor forms a barrier and doesn't allow the impurity to go above it. It turns out that no matter where the grave actually is, the upper story is pure. However, if the entrance to the upper story is not directly above the entrance to the bottom floor, the upper story must also be treated as impure because it is possible that the grave is beneath the canopy covering the entrance to the upper story. Since there is nothing above it to block it, the impurity would enter the upper story and defile anything therein.", + "[With regard to] soil from a bet peras, or soil from a foreign country that came in with vegetables, the pieces of the soil combine together [to transmit impurity if they form a portion] the size of a packing-bag seal, the words of Rabbi Eliezer; But the sages say: there must be one portion of the size of a packing-bag seal. Soil from a bet peras and soil that comes from outside the land of Israel both defile when carried (see 2:3). Rabbi Eliezer rules that loose pieces of dirt can combine together to form the minimum amount necessary to defile. This minimum amount is defined as the size of the seal placed on a packing-bag. The other sages say that for the soil to defile there must be at least one piece that is as large as the seal on a packing bag.", + "Rabbi Judah says: It happened once that letters came from overseas for the sons of the high priests and they had on them about a se'ah or two se'ahs of seals [of dirt], but the sages were not concerned on account of uncleanness. Rabbi Judah brings proof that there must be at least one piece of dirt that is the size of the packing-bag seal. He knows of a tradition in which letters came from abroad for \"the sons of the high priests\" which seems to be some elite group in Jerusalem. Since there was no one piece of dirt that was the size of the packing-bag seal, the sages were not concerned about the purity of the dirt." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how a person can harvest grapes that grow in a bet peras without allowing the grapes to become impure.", + "How does one harvest the grapes of a bet peras? They sprinkle [hatat water] on the harvesters and the vessels [once] and then a second time. Then they harvest the grapes and take them out of the bet peras. Others then receive [the grapes] and take them to the winepress. If the latter set [of persons] came into contact with the former, they become unclean, This is according to the words of Bet Hillel. The first section contains the opinion of Bet Hillel as to how one can harvest the grapes and bring them to the winepress without them becoming impure. The first step is to purify the person harvesting and his vessels. Seven days before the harvesting he goes through the purification process of having hatat water (those containing the ashes of the red heifer) sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh day. Generally this is done only for someone who has corpse impurity, but here it is done even if the person does not actually have corpse impurity. The point of the procedure is to demonstrate that the impurity of the bet peras is being taken with grave consideration (pun intended). After this, the person harvests the grapes and brings them out of the bet peras. It would seem that the grapes should be defiled by the person and the vessels for these are defiled once they are in the bet peras. However, since there is no other way to get the grapes out of the field, the rabbis didn't declare that they would impure. In other words, since the impurity of the bet peras is of rabbinic origin (and not from the Torah), the rabbis have room to dispense with this impurity when they feel the situation requires. The harvesters then give the grapes to pure people who had not gone into the field. Those who have received the grapes can take them to the winepress and press the grapes while they are pure. The harvesters should not because it is possible to pass the grapes on to people that were not in a winepress. Those people receiving the grapes should not have any contact with those people who were in the field, and if they do, they become impure, as would the grapes.", + "Bet Shammai say: [the gatherer] holds the sickle with sinew-rope, or harvests the grapes with a sharp flint, lets [the grapes fall] into a basket, and then he takes [them] to the winepress. Rabbi Yose said: When do these rules apply? [Only] in the case of a vineyard which subsequently became a bet peras; but a person who plants [vines] in a bet peras must sell [the grapes] in the market. Bet Shammai provides an entirely different solution to the problem. The harvester should harvest the grapes using vessels that cannot become impure. He doesn't touch the sickle, because he wraps it with a type of rope that cannot become impure. Alternatively, he harvests using stone, which is never susceptible to impurity. He then lets the grapes fall into a type of basket that cannot become impure. Since he never touches the grapes and the vessels are not impure, the grapes do not become impure. Then he can take the grapes himself directly to the winepress.", + "Rabbi Yose says that all of the above refers only to a case where the vineyard existed prior to its becoming a bet peras. In these situations, the sages gave a solution whereby the person could find a way to harvest without defiling the grapes. However, if the person simply planted a vineyard in a bet peras, the rabbis did not allow him to bring the grapes to the winepress while preserving their purity. His only option in this case would be to sell the grapes in the marketplace. These grapes have not become susceptible to impurity since they weren't harvested to be crushed." + ], + [ + "There are three [kinds of] bet peras:
A field in which a grave was plowed may be planted with any kind of plant,
But must not be sown with any kind of seed, except with seed [yielding produce] which is reaped.
If [such produce] were plucked, the threshing-floor must be piled up in [the field] itself, and the [grain] sifted through two sieves, the words of Rabbi Meir.
But the sages say: grain [must be sifted] through two sieves, but pulse through three sieves.
And he must burn the stubble and the stalks.
[Such a field] conveys uncleanness by contact and carriage but does not convey uncleanness by overshadowing.
The next three mishnayot introduce three different types of bet peras: one in which a grave has been plowed, one in which a grave's location was lost (mishnah three), and a \"kochin field\" (explained mishnah four). Each of these different types of fields has different rules which govern it.
Section two: Plants such as trees can be planted in a field in which a grave was plowed because harvesting the fruit of these trees won't uproot the earth. In yesterday's mishnah we learned that Rabbi Yose forbade planting a vineyard, but the other sages seem to allow any type of plant to be planted.
Section three: It is permitted to sow seeds which yield produce that is reaped, meaning cut down.
Section four: However, it is problematic to plant seeds which yield produce that is plucked, meaning torn out of the ground. The fear is that a bone will get stuck to the bottom of the plant and the harvester will bring it into his house and thereby transmit impurity to other places. To remedy this problem he must pile up the produce in the field itself and not bring it to other places. In the field, Rabbi Meir says he must sift through the produce twice to clean off the dirt and any bones. The other sages say he needs to sift pulse (legumes) three times because more dirt is mixed in with it.
Section six: He must burn the stubble and stalks while they are still in the field, again because we are afraid that there is some bone mixed in with them.
Section seven: The field and pieces of dirt from the field convey impurity if one comes into contact with them or if one carries them. But the dirt of the field cannot cause impurity by overshadowing (an ohel) because a bone the size of a lentil does not transmit impurity by overshadowing." + ], + [ + "A field in which a grave has been lost may be sown with any kind of seed, But must not be planted with any kind of plant; Nor may any trees be permitted to remain there except shade-trees which do not produce fruit. Today's mishnah deals with a field in which a grave has been lost. Such a field may be planted with seed even if the produce will be plucked. We are not concerned lest a piece of bone get stuck to a plant when it is uprooted and that he will bring it into his home (as we were concerned in yesterday's mishnah) because in such a field the bones were not spread around by plowing. The roots of these types of plants will not reach down to where the body was buried, and therefore there is no concern that when they are uprooted, bones will be uprooted as well. However, one cannot plant trees there because their roots do reach down to the grave. It is even forbidden to leave fruit trees there because their roots receive nourishment from the grave. The only type of tree that can be left there is a tree that is meant just for shade and does not yield fruit.", + "[Such a field] conveys uncleanness by contact, carriage and overshadowing. Since there is an unplowed grave in this field, it conveys impurity in all three ways contact, carriage and overshadowing. In other words, this field is treated more strictly than a field that had a grave but was plowed over." + ], + [ + "A kokhin field may neither be planted nor sown, but its earth is regarded as clean and ovens may be made of it for holy use. The final type of bet peras is called a \"kochin field.\" There are two main explanations for this, one based on a text which reads \"bokhin\" instead of \"kokhin.\" \"Bokhin\" means to cry or wail. According to this reading, this type of field was on the way to the cemetery and people would stop there, put the biers down and wail over the dead. The fear is that a limb of the body might have fallen out onto the field (oops, there goes an arm!). The other interpretation (supported by the Tosefta) is based on the word \"kokhin\". The Tosefta asks: \"What is a kokhin field? Any field in which they dig in the ground and moved kokhin to the sides.\" Kokhin are burial niches. So a kokhin field is one in which the burial niches were moved to the sides of the fields. The fear is that they missed one of the kokhin. According to the first explanation, one cannot plant or sow seeds in such a field because the field was designated to be used as a \"mourner's field.\" According to the second explanation, even though the kokhin were removed, it retains the status of a burial ground and therefore it cannot be used for planting or sowing seed. However, earth taken out of the field is considered pure. The earth in the field is only impure because of a doubt, whether there was a grave there. Therefore the sages decreed that one who entered the field is impure. But they didn't decree that earth taken out of the field should be impure. Therefore, one can take earth out of the bet peras and use it to make a pure oven.", + "Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that it [a bet peras in which a grave was plowed over] is examined for one who wished to perform the pesah sacrifice,but is not examined for one who wants to eat terumah. Both houses agree that if a person walked through a bet peras which had been plowed over and then wanted to go offer his pesah sacrifice, which can only be done in a state of purity, that they can have the field checked to find out if there really is a bone the size of a barleycorn in it. If such a bone is found, he will be declared impure and he won't be allowed to offer the sacrifice, but if not, he can go on his merry way to Jerusalem. They also agree that the field is not checked if all that the person wants to do is eat terumah. The difference between the pesah sacrifice and the terumah seems to be that the sacrificing and eating the pesah on Pesah is a mitzvah and therefore they should do anything possible to allow him to do so. In contrast, eating terumah is not a mitzvah, it's just allowed to the kohanim. If he doesn't eat terumah, he can eat regular produce.", + "And as for a nazirite: Bet Shammai say: it is examined, But Bet Hillel say: it is not examined. However, the two houses disagree with regard to the Nazirite that walks through a bet peras. According to Bet Shammai they do check the field on his behalf and if no bone is found, the Nazirite remains pure. Bet Hillel says that they do not check the field. The Nazirite is considered impure and he must be purified on the third and seventh days. The days in which he is impure will not count towards his term of naziriteship (see Nazir 7:3).", + "How does he examine it? He brings earth that he can move, and places it into a sieve with fine meshes, and crumbles. If a bone of barley-corn size is found there [the person passing through the field] is deemed unclean. To check the earth they would bring any of it that they could carry and they would check it with a sieve. If a bone the size of a barleycorn was found, the man who went through the field was declared impure, lest he had contact with that bone." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with various ways that a bet peras can be purified.", + "How is a bet haperas purified? They remove [soil to a depth of] three handbreadths, or [soil to a height of] three handbreadths is placed upon it. Basically, the way to purify a bet peras is to either remove the top soil or to add new top soil. Each of these must be done to a depth of three handbreadths, which is the depth of soil that a typical plow overturns.", + "If they removed [soil from a depth of] three handbreadths from one half [and upon the other half they placed three hand breadths [of soil], it becomes clean. It is possible to purify half the field by adding topsoil and half the field by removing topsoil.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: even they removed one handbreadth and a half and placed upon it one handbreadth and a half from another place, it becomes clean. Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient. It is possible to remove 1.5 handbreadths of topsoil and then add 1.5 handbreadths of new topsoil. Note that in reality, when he plows he will plow into the old topsoil because the plow goes to a depth of three handbreadths. In other words, Rabbi Shimon's rule is basically a legal fiction. As long as the adding/removing totals up to a sum of 3 handbreadths, it purifies the field.", + "One who paves a bet peras with stones that cannot [easily] be moved, it becomes clean. If one paves a bet peras with stones, the soil underneath will not be easily moved. Therefore, the field which was a bet peras can be considered pure.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: even if one digs up [the soil of] a bet peras [and doesn’t find any bones] it becomes clean. According to Rabbi Shimon if one digs up a bet peras and finds no bones, the field is pure, for this is considered the best kind of check possible." + ], + [ + "A person who walks through a bet peras on stones that cannot [easily] be moved, or [who rides] on a man or beast whose strength is great, remains clean. [But if he walks] on stones that can [easily] be moved, or [rides] upon a man or beast whose strength is lousy, he becomes unclean. If a person walks through a bet peras but steps only on stones that cannot be moved, or if he gets a ride through a bet peras on the back of another strong person or strong animal, he remains pure. This is because by walking through the bet peras he doesn't move any soil underneath that might contain bones. In the case of the stones, since the stones cannot be moved, he won't move anything that is underneath. And in the case of the person/beast, even though the carrier will move the soil that he treads upon, the person being carried does not move the person carrying him (because he is strong), and therefore he remains pure. However, if he walks on stones that can be moved or on the back of a weak person or animal, he becomes impure because he is considered as moving the soil underfoot. If the carrier moves a bone underneath, then the person carrying is considered as having moved the bones as well.", + "A person who travels in the land of the gentiles over mountains or rocks, becomes unclean; But if [he travels] by the sea or along the strand, he remains clean. What is [meant by] ‘the strand’? Any place to which the sea rises when it is stormy. In 2:3 we learned that the land outside of Israel is considered to be impure. One who walks there is defiled. Our mishnah teaches that this includes even the mountains and rocks. We might have thought that since the dead are not buried there, that these places are pure. Therefore the mishnah teaches that the rabbinic decree that the land of the Gentiles is impure includes even places such as these. However, it doesn't include the sea or the strand close to the sea. It seems that these places are not considered to be \"land\" and therefore they were not included in the rabbinic decree." + ], + [ + "If one buys a field in Syria near to the land of Israel:
If he can enter it in cleanness, it is deemed clean and is subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce];
But he cannot enter it in cleanness, it [is deemed] unclean, but it is still subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce].
The dwelling-places of non-Jews are unclean. How long must [the non-Jew] have dwelt in [the dwelling-places] for them to require examination? Forty days, even if there was no woman with him. If, however, a slave or [an Israelite] woman watched over [the dwelling-place], it does not require examination.
Section one: The land of Syria (this is not the same as modern day Syria, but the general area is probably close) is impure as are all lands outside of Israel.
If one buys a field in Syria that lies right next to the border with Israel, and he can enter there in cleanness, meaning that there is no cemetery on the Israeli side, then the field on the Syrian side is considered clean. In other words, even though this land is not technically in Israel, since it was bought by a Jew and he can enter there without otherwise being defiled, it counts as part of the land of Israel (definitely not getting into any political implications of this mishnah).
Any produce grown on the land is liable for tithes and is subject to the laws of sheviit (the sabbatical year).
Section two: However, if he cannot enter there while maintaining his purity because he would have to go through a cemetery, then the field itself is unclean. It is still subject to the laws of tithes and sheviit, because the land of Syria is always subject to these laws.
Section three: The rabbis believed that non-Jews would bury their miscarriages inside their houses. I don't know if this is historically true, but it is clear that the rabbis believed this. Therefore, any home owned by a non-Jew, even inside the land of Israel, needed to be examined to see if the non-Jew had buried a fetus there, provided that the non-Jew lived there for at least 40 days. The house needs to be examined even if he doesn't seem to be living with his wife, lest he brought another woman into his house.
If an Israelite, even a slave or a woman, was watching over the house so that he wouldn't bury a miscarriage inside the house, then the house is pure. In other words, the non-Jew doesn't inherently defile the house by his presence. For the house to be defiled there must be the possibility that he buried a miscarriage there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah we learned that a Jew wishing to buy a home from a non-Jew must examine the home to make sure that the non-Jew had not buried there a miscarried fetus. Today's mishnah discusses where they must check.\nWarning: there is a strong \"yucky\" factor to this mishnah.", + "What do they examine? Deep drains and foul-smelling waters. The first opinion seems to imply that the fetus might be cast into drains and other types of drainage ditches.", + "Bet Shammai say: even garbage dumps and crumbled earth. Bet Shammai adds garbage dumps and soft crumbled earth. Note that both opinions agree that the non-Jew would not actually bury the fetus in the floor of the house, for digging up such a floor would not be easy.", + "Bet Hillel say: any place where a pig or a weasel can go requires no examination. Bet Hillel adds a leniency that doesn't seem to disagree with the above opinion (this is unusual). The Jew need not check any place where a pig or weasel might go, because if the fetus had been buried there we could assume that a pig or weasel either ate it or dragged it somewhere else [I told you this was yucky]." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with impurity of Gentile dwelling places and even gets into some specifics as to which cities are impure.", + "Colonnades are not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling places. Collonades are roofed but open areas with many columns to support the roofs. Since non-Jews don't bury their miscarriages there, they are pure.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a non-Jewish city that has been destroyed is not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling-places. Wild animals will circulate around in destroyed cities. Therefore, even if miscarriages were once buried there, the wild animals will eat them.", + "The east [side] of Caesaron and the west [side] of Caesaron are graveyards. Caesoron, also known as Caesarea Philippa is near the Jordan springs. Both sides of this ciry were used by non-Jews as graveyards and therefore they are impure.", + "The east [side] of Acre was doubtful, but the sages declared it clean. The sages weren't sure if there was a graveyard on the east side of Acre, but they declared it clean anyway. Very generous of them.", + "Rabbi and his law court voted [to decide] about Keni and declared it clean. Keni is on the southern edge of Israel, according to Albeck, near modern Eilat. Rabbi Judah Hanasi and his court actually had a vote about its purity, and they declared it clean." + ], + [ + "Ten places are not [subject to the laws] of non-Jewish dwelling-places:
Arabs’ tents,
Field-huts (,
Triangular field-huts,
Fruit-shelters,
Summer shelters,
A gate-house,
The open spaces of a courtyard,
A bath-house,
An armory,
And the place where the legions [camp].
Our mishnah, the final in the tractate (have we really reached the end?), lists places owned by non-Jews that are not considered impure. These places are all for temporary dwelling and therefore there is no assumption that fetuses would have been buried there." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה אהלות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה אהלות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oholot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..98f7d2ffecef1d1408eb98319307d139a3d18e14 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,195 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עוקצים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "The final tractate of Seder Toharot and indeed of the entire mishnah deals with things that are \"stems\" to food. The question is when is something considered to be attached to food such that if one part becomes impure the whole is impure and when are they independent?", + "This tractate does not really contain a lot of new information. Rather, most of it has been taught elsewhere. At times these mishnayot add information to the earlier ones and at times they are only repetitive. I think the best reason why these halakhot are found in two places is that the Mishnah's editors thought that these halakhot could belong in two places.", + "There is some evidence that already in Talmudic times Tractate Oktzim wasn't all that well learned. For instance there is a story in the Bavli (Horayot 13b) that some students wanted to belittle Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel so they asked him to teach Oktzim, which he didn't know. So consider yourselves lucky to be learning this Tractate—you can learn material that even the greatest of rabbis didn't get to learn all that well.", + "Good luck in learning the tractate. It's our last one, so I hope you treasure it. \n" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "That which serves as a handle but does not protect, both contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness; but it is not included. If the stem of a piece of produce serves as a handle by which to hold the produce, but it doesn't protect the produce from spoiling, then it is considered part of the produce for issues of impurity. If the stem is defiled so is the produce and vice versa, if the produce is defiled so is the stem. However, when determining the size of the piece of produce, this stem doesn't count. So if the produce is less than the size of an egg, it cannot be defiled (see Toharot 2:1).", + "If it protects but is not a handle, it contracts and conveys uncleanness and is included. If it protects the produce even if it doesn't serve as a stem, then it counts as part of it for all matters, even to be including in reckoning its size.", + "If it neither protects nor serves as a handle, it neither contracts nor conveys uncleanness. If it neither serves as a handle nor protects the produce, then it is not part of it for any issue of impurity." + ], + [ + "Roots of garlic, onions or leeks that are still moist, or their top-parts, whether they are moist or dry, also the central stalk that is within the edible part, the roots of lettuce, the radish and the turnip, the words of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Judah says: only the large roots of the radish are included, but its fibrous roots are not included.
The roots of the mint, rue, wild herbs and garden herbs that have been uprooted in order to be planted elsewhere, and the spine of an ear of grain, and its husk.
Rabbi Elazar says: also the earth covering of roots;
All these things contract and convey impurity and are included.
Today's mishnah discusses what parts of certain types of produce are considered to be part of the plant.
Sections one through four: In these four sections, various tannaim determine what parts of certain types of produce, specifically the roots and the spines/stalks of root vegetables, count as being part of the produce. In general roots are part of the plant if they will either be eaten or if they will be used for replanting. Inedible roots are not part of the produce. So too other parts of the produce, and even the dirt accompanying the produce according to Rabbi Elazar, count with the produce if they are necessary to it. I think that most of these are fairly clear from the translation, so I won't explain each one on its own.
Section five: All of the parts of produce that are listed above do three things: they contract impurity if the rest of the piece of produce was defiled. If they are defiled they convey their impurity to the other part. Finally, they are reckoned with the remainder of the produce to constitute the requisite amount to become impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah lists part of produce that are considered part of the produce for matters of defiling and being defiled. If they are defiled, the rest is defiled and vice versa. But they do not join together to make up the requisite minimum because they are not food.", + "The following are both defiled and defile, but do not join together [together with the rest]: Roots of garlic, onions or leeks when they are dry, the stalk that is not within the edible part, the twig of a vine a handbreadth long on either side, the stem of the cluster whatsoever be its length, the tail of the cluster bereft of grapes, the stem of the ‘broom’ of the palm-tree to a length of four handbreadths, the stalk of the ear [of grain] to a length of three handbreadths, and the stalk of all things that are cut, to the length of three handbreadths. Most of the items listed here can be used to hold the produce but are not edible. Thus they are considered \"handles\" to food but are not \"food\". They are defiled and defile but since they are not \"food\" they are not reckoned to reach the requisite minimum needed to be susceptible to impurity. I will explain just a few of these things that are unclear: The \"broom of the palm-tree\" is the part of the tree that has the dates on its end. It is a \"handle\" for the dates. Stalks are not eaten but are used to handle grains. It's only necessary to have about three handbreadths so only three handbreadths counts as a handle. Beyond that, the stalk is impervious to impurity and doesn't convey impurity.", + "In the case of those things not usually cut, their stalks and roots of any size whatsoever. If produce is generally not \"cut,\" meaning it is not harvested with something like a scythe, then any sized stalk or root could be used as a handle. Since these parts will not usually be attached, if he leaves them attached then he must have intended them to be used as a handle.", + "As for the outer husks of grains, they defile and are defiled, but do not join together. The outer husks of grains are not edible but they are \"handles.\"" + ], + [ + "The following neither defile nor can they be defiled and they do not join together:
The roots of cabbage-stalks,
Young shoots of beet growing out of the root, and [similar] such turnip-heads,
[And produce whose roots] that are ordinarily cut off but in this case were pulled up [with their roots].
Rabbi Yose declares them all susceptible to contract uncleanness, but he declares insusceptible cabbage-stalks and turnip-heads.
Today's mishnah lists parts of produce that are neither edible nor used as a handle. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity nor do they count as part of the volume. Most of the mishnah should be self-explanatory, so I have only explained some sections.
Section two: Cabbages are held by the cabbage itself. The roots are neither eaten nor used to hold the cabbage.
Section three: These parts too are not eaten nor used as handles.
Section four: If it is typical to cut off the vegetable and leave the roots in the ground, but for some reason in this case, he uprooted the roots with the vegetable, the roots are not part of the vegetable.
Section five: Rabbi Yose says that all of the above are indeed handles to the vegetable, the only exceptions being the roots cabbage-stalks and turnip heads." + ], + [ + "Stalks of all foods that have been threshed on the threshing-floor are clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean. Once produce has been threshed, the edible part has been detached from the stalk. Therefore the stalks no longer serve as handles and they are clean meaning they are not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that they are still susceptible.", + "A sprig of a vine when stripped of its grapes is clean, but if one grape alone is left on it, it is unclean. A twig of a date-tree stripped of its dates is clean, but if one date remains on it, it is unclean. Similarly, with beans, if the pods were stripped from the stem it is clean, but if even one pod alone remains, it is unclean. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah declares [the stalk] of the broad bean clean, but declares unclean the stalk of other beans, since it is of use when [the pulse] is handled. There are three sections here that all basically teach the same thing. Once a grape, date or bean has been removed from that which was holding it, the handle is no longer a handle and it is pure. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah agrees with most of these scenarios but disagrees with regard to the stalk of most types of pulse since these are used when the pulse is picked up." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is that which gives our tractate its name it deals with stems (oktzim).", + "Stems of figs and dried figs, kelusim, and carobs are both defiled and defile, and they join together. Rabbi Yose says: also the stalks of the gourd. The stems of these fruits can be eaten. Therefore they are fully considered part of the fruit. Rabbi Yose says that the stem of the gourd is edible, but the other sages hold that while it is a handle, it is not edible.", + "The stems of pears and krutumelin pears, quinces, and crab-apples, the stalks of the gourd and the artichoke [to the length of] one handbreadth. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: two handbreadths; [All] these are defiled and defile; but do not join together. These stems are used as handles but they are not edible. Therefore, they defile and can be defiled but since they are not food they don't add to the requisite amount.", + "As for other stems, they are neither defiled nor do they defile. The stems of other types of produce are not used as handles nor are they eaten. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Leaves of olives pickled together with the olives remain clean, for their pickling was only for the sake of appearances. Leaves of olives are not edible. Even if one pickled them with olives, he did so only for appearance sake. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity.", + "The fibrous substance on a zucchini and the flower-like substance on it are clean. Rabbi Judah says: that as long as it is still before the merchant, it is unclean. These substances that are on a zucchini are neither edible nor are they handles. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah holds that since a merchant wants to sell the zucchini (these are not necessarily identical to modern varieties) in as great of a volume as possible, as long as these are with the merchant, these parts are susceptible to impurity. However, once they are sold they are useless so they are no longer susceptible." + ], + [ + "All kinds of pits can be defiled and defile but do not join together. Pits are part of the fruit in which they are found and therefore they defile and can be defiled. But since they fall out and are not really attached to the fruit, they do not join together to make the requisite amount.", + "The pits of fresh dates, even when detached [from the edible part], do join together; but those of dried dates do not join together. People suck on the pits of fresh dates. Therefore, they count fully as part of the date. But dried dates are like other pits, they are not counted with the date.", + "Accordingly, the stems of dried dates do join together, but that of fresh dates do not join together. The stem of a dried date is considered to be something that protects the pit from falling out. Therefore, it is fully considered part of the date. But a person doesn't care if the pit of a fresh date falls out, because it's part of the date. Therefore, the stem does not \"guard\" the fruit and the stem doesn't count.", + "If only part of a pit is detached, then only that part near the edible portion joins together. If part of a fresh date pit has become detached, only the part next to the date still counts. I really can't imagine how one could actually determine how big the date is, but theoretically it makes sense.", + "[Similarly] with a bone on which there is flesh, only that part that is close to the edible part joins together. The same thing is true when determining the volume of meat. The bone is part of the meat, but only the part of the bone on which there is still some flesh.", + "[If a bone] has flesh only upon one of its sides: Rabbi Ishmael says: we take it as though [the flesh] encompasses it like a ring; But the sages say: [only] that part close to the edible part is included [as is the case] for example with savory, hyssop and thyme. The sages debate a case in which there is meat on only one side of the bone. Rabbi Ishmael says that we look at the flesh as if it was a string and if there is enough to go around the bone, it joins together. This would mean even the part of the bone that is not under the flesh would join together. The sages disagree and say that only the part of the bone that has flesh on it joins with the flesh. The other part does not. This is like these three spices that have thin stalks and the spices are on only one side. Whatever has spices on it joins together and whatever does not have spices on it, does not count." + ], + [ + "If a pomegranate or melon has rotted in part, [what is rotten] does not join together. The rotted part of the fruit does not join together to equal the requisite amount.", + "And if [the fruit] is sound at either end but has rotted in the middle, [what is rotten] does not join together. Even if both ends are okay and only the middle part is rotten, it still is not counted as part of the fruit.", + "The stem of a pomegranate does join together, but the fibrous substance in it does not join together. Rabbi Elazar says: also the comb is not susceptible to uncleanness. The stem of the pomegranate is treated like other stems and it joins together with the fruit. But the little hairs inside the stem do not. Albeck describes the \"comb\" as being a sort of \"cup\" around the fibrous substance whose edge looks like a comb. This part is clean meaning it doesn't join together and according to the Tosefta it is not even considered part of the fruit such that it could be defiled." + ], + [ + "All kinds of peels defile and are defiled, and join together. Peels generally protect the fruit that's what they're there for. So they count as part of the fruit, they defile and can be defiled and they join together to add up to the minimal amount.", + "Rabbi Judah says: an onion has three skins: the innermost one whether it is in its entire state or whether it be pierced with holes joins together; the middle one when it is in a whole state joins together, but when it is pierced with holes does not join together; the outermost skin is in either case insusceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Judah distinguishes between the different layers of an onion. The inner part is always considered part of the onion. It's probably edible so why shouldn't it be. The middle part is part of the onion when it is whole. But if it has holes, meaning it's not complete, it is not part of the onion. [This is probably the part I always try to keep because I don't like to waste, but sometimes I can't peel the outer part without taking this off as well]. The outer peel is not part of the onion because the onion is protected even without it." + ], + [ + "If one chops up [fruit] for cooking, even if [the chopping had] not been completely finished, it is not regarded as connected. Once one begins to chop up produce in order to cook it, the pieces are no longer considered connected to one another.", + "If his intention had been to pickle or to boil it, or to set it on the table, then it is regarded as connected. However, if he intends to either pickle, boil or set aside the pieces, then they are considered connected to one another. If one is defiled, then they are all defiled. It is a bit difficult to understand why or how section two differs from section one. According to Albeck, section two presents cases in which he wants the pieces to stay together until he does something else with them, such as pickle them, put them in a pot or put them in front of those eating. Therefore, they are considered connected. However, in section one he doesn't care if they stay connected, perhaps because he will cook them separately.", + "If he began to take [the pieces] apart, [only] that part of the food which he began to take apart is not considered connected. This refers to section two. Once he begins to take the pieces of the fruit apart from the pile that they were in, the stuff he has taken apart is no longer considered connected. But the parts he has not yet taken apart remain connected.", + "Nuts that had been strung together, or onions that had been piled together, count as connected. If he began to take the nuts apart, or to strip the onions, they are not connected. Nuts or onions strung together, perhaps to bring them to market, count as connected. But once he begins to take them apart, they are not connected.", + "[Shells of] nuts and almonds are considered connected [with the edible part] until they are crushed. Shells of nuts are connected until they are smashed to get the nuts out. Once they are smashed, they are not considered connected even if he has not yet removed the shells. This is because they no longer protect the nut." + ], + [ + "[The shell of] a roasted egg [is considered connected] until it is cracked. That of a hard-boiled egg [is considered connected] until it is entirely broken up. The shell of a roasted, soft-boiled egg is considered connected to the egg until the egg is cracked so that someone could scoop out or suck out the egg itself. If the egg was hard-boiled, then the shell is connected until it's all broken up. At this point it no longer guards the eggs. But it is already not considered connected even though it hasn't been removed.", + "A marrow-bone serves as connected until it is wholly crushed. Until he crushes the bone to get out the marrow, the whole bone is considered connected.", + "A pomegranate that has been divided into sections is connected until it has been knocked with a stick. It seems that they would remove the seeds of the pomegranate by hitting it with a stick. This is a trick that I would like to learn. In any case, until he knocks on the pomegranate to separate the seeds, it is considered connected.", + "Similarly, loose stitches of laundrymen or a garment that had been stitched together with threads of kilayim, are connected until one begins to loosen them. If a laundrymen or clothier sold strung garments together with string that are \"kilayim\" with each other meaning the garment is wool and the string is linen or vice versa then they are connected and therefore forbidden from use until he begins to loosen them." + ], + [ + "The [outer] leaves of vegetables: if they are green they join together, but if they have whitened they not join together. If the outer leaves are green, they are still edible and therefore they are included as part of the vegetable. Once they have whitened, they are no longer part and are not included.", + "Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: the white leaves of cabbage join together because they are edible. White outer leaves of cabbage are still edible so they join together.", + "So also those of lettuces, because they preserve the edible part. While the outer leaves of lettuce may not be eaten, they join together because they protect the inner part." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with foods that have an empty space in them, or that might have an empty space. Does the empty space count as part of the volume of the food?", + "Onion leaves or the offshoots of onions, if there is moisture in them they are to be measured as they are; if there is empty space within them, it must be squeezed tightly together. \"Onion leaves\" probably refers to leaks. \"Offshoots of onions\" are small onions that sprout from larger onions. In either case, if they are still moist, then they are measured for matters of impurity as they currently are. However, if they have dried out and the inner part is not full of moisture, then we squeeze the air out of them before measuring them.", + "Spongy bread is measured as it is, but if there is empty space within it, it must be pressed firmly. The same is true for spongy bread. If it is moist, it is measured as it is, but if there is an empty space in it, the empty space is squeezed before it is measured.", + "The flesh of a calf which had swollen, or the flesh of an old [beast] that has shrunken in size, are measured in the condition they are in. The swelling or shrinking of this meat is after cooking. The mishnah basically teaches that if meat either expands or shrinks when cooked, its volume is measured as it is, and not as it was." + ], + [ + "A cucumber planted in a pot which grew until it was out of the pot is pure. The mishnah refers to a plant growing in a non-perforated pot. Such a plant is treated as if it is no longer attached to the ground and it is susceptible to impurity. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, if the plant grows out of the pot is now considered to be attached to the ground below it. Plants that grow from the ground are not susceptible to impurity and therefore this plant is now pure. Note that the whole plant is pure, not just the parts growing out of the plant.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: what is its nature to make it clean? Rather, that which has already become unclean remains unclean, and only that which is pure can be eaten. Rabbi Shimon questions how something that was impure can all of a sudden become pure. He rejects the tanna kamma and holds that once something is unclean it remains unclean. The part of the plant that remains in the pot is impure; only the part of the plant that grows out of the pot is pure." + ], + [ + "Vessels made of cattle dung or of earth through which the roots can penetrate, do not render the seeds susceptible. If a pot is made of cattle dung or earth and the pot has been perforated so that roots can penetrate to the ground do not allow the seeds inside to become susceptible to impurity. This means that if rain water falls into this pot, the seeds are not susceptible to impurity.", + "A perforated plant-pot does not render seeds susceptible; but if it has no hole, the seeds do become susceptible. What should be the hole's dimension? Such that a small root can push its way through. Produce growing in perforated pots is considered to be attached to the ground. Therefore, anything in it is not susceptible to impurity. But pots without holes are treated as if they are not \"ground\" and produce growing in there is susceptible. To be considered \"perforated\" the hole must be at least wide enough for a small root to push through.", + "If it was filled with earth to its brim, it is deemed as a frame without an edge. If the pot was completely filled up, all the way to the brim, then it is treated like a \"frame without an edge\" (see Kelim 2:3). This means that there is no \"inside\" to the frame or in this case the pot. So anything that grows in such a pot is not susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Some things need to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] but they do not need intention,
[Other things need] intention and to be rendered susceptible.
[Other things] need intention, but do not need to be rendered susceptible,
[And other things] need neither to be rendered susceptible nor intention.
Any food that is meant for people need to be rendered susceptible, but does not need intention.
The first four sections of this mishnah divide foods into four categories depending on two factors. First of all, whether they need to have been in contact with water in order to be susceptible to impurity (the topic of Makhshirin). Second, whether a person needs to be think about using them for human food in order for them to be susceptible. Our mishnah introduces these issues and then subsequent mishnayot explain and illustrate them. Sections 1-4 are the introduction, section five is explained below.
Section five: This illustrates the rule in section one. Foods that are clearly intended for human use, let's say expensive fruits, need to have been in contact with water to be susceptible. But since they are clearly meant for human consumption, they do not need intention. One doesn't need to actively decide that the food will be used by a human for it to be susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists things that are not human food and therefore are not susceptible to impurity unless someone decides that they are going to eat them (some of these are a bit gross, so beware). They also require contact with water to become susceptible.", + "That which has been severed from a human, beast, wild animal, bird, or from the carrion of an unclean bird, and the fat in villages. Pieces of flesh cut off of a living human, beast, wild animal or bird are not impure. If one decides to eat them (this is not allowed, but someone might do it) and they come into contact with water, they become susceptible to impurity. The carrion of an unclean bird is not impure (see Toharot 1:3). Therefore, a piece of flesh cut off from it has the same status as the other meat.", + "And all kinds of wild vegetables, except for truffles and mushrooms; Rabbi Judah says, except for field-leeks, purslane and ornithagolum. And Rabbi Shimon says: except for cynara sycaria. Rabbi Yose says: except for muscari comusum. Wild vegetables generally are not eaten. There are however some exceptions. The first opinion and various other rabbis cite some exceptions. I don't know what some of these are and the translations are mostly from Albeck. Suffice it to say that these are wild grown vegetables that seem to have been eaten.", + "Behold all these need both intention and to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness]. This is the summary of category two from yesterday's mishnah. In order to be susceptible to impurity these things need to come into contact with liquids and one needs to actively decide that they are going to be eaten." + ], + [ + "The carrion of an unclean beast at all places, and of a clean bird in villages, need intention but do not need to be rendered susceptible. The foods listed in this section are not generally eaten, at least according the first opinion. Therefore, to defile one would need to think about them as food. However, since they are already impure they don't need to be rendered susceptible to impurity. Carrion of an unclean beast, for instance horse carrion, defiles. This mishnah really didn't need to teach this, because it is stated clearly in the Torah. In order to find an innovation in the mishnah the talmud notes that generally less than an olive's worth does not defile because it is too small of an amount. The mishnah is understood as innovating that if 1/2 of an olive's worth of carrion from an unclean beast joins together with a 1/2 of an olive's worth of other unclean food, the two halves join together to defile in the same was as would impure food. If one doesn't think about eating this carrion, it's not considered food because most people don't consider unclean beasts to be food. The carrion of a clean bird is forbidden to eat but it doesn't defile except when in the gullet (see Toharot 1:1). In the villages where there aren't a lot of people evidently most people wouldn't bother eating bird carrion. Therefore, one would specifically have to think about eating it for it to defile.", + "The carrion of a clean beast in all places, and that of a clean bird and also fat in the market places, require neither intention nor to be rendered susceptible. Carrion of a clean beast is forbidden but since most people do eat such animals, it causes food impurity even if one doesn't specifically think about using it for food. It also doesn't need to be made susceptible because carrion is already impure. In market places people will be found to buy carrion of clean birds and forbidden fat. Therefore, they don't need to be thought of as food to defile. And since they are already impure, they don't need contact with liquid to become susceptible.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: also [the carrion of] the camel, rabbit, hare or pig. Rabbi Shiomon says that people eat camel, hare, rabbit and pig. Therefore, the same rules that apply to carrion of clean meat (cow, sheep, goats) apply to them." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses what constitutes food such that if it was originally terumah it is still considered terumah and it would still be subject to the laws of food impurity.\nWe should note that the identity of some of these spices is speculative. Nevertheless, the principles are clear.", + "The aneth stalk after having given its taste to a dish is no longer subject to the laws of terumah, and also no longer imparts food uncleanness. Once a stalk of aneth has given away its taste into a dish, it is no longer considered to be food. It's just a stalk. Therefore, if it was terumah, the stalk can now be eaten by a non-priest. And it is no longer subject to the laws of food impurity.", + "The young sprouts of hawthorn, of lapidum, or leaves of the wild arum, do not impart food uncleanness until they are sweetened. These sprouts or other agricultural products are not considered human food in their raw form. They are \"food\" only once they've been \"sweetened\" by soaking them in wine, vinegar or salt water, sort of pickling them. There are many foods we eat today that would probably have the same rule for instance raw coffee or chocolate. These are inedible in their raw form and wouldn't be considered food until they've been processed.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: also [the leaves of] the colocynth are like them. Some say that the vegetable referred to here is a type of wild vine while some say it is a wild melon. In any case, the leaves are not edible until sweetened." + ], + [ + "Costus, amomum, principal spices, [roots of] crowfoot, asafoetida, pepper and lozenges made of saffron may be bought with tithe money, but they do not convey food uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Akiva these spices and other plant derivatives (some of them are also mentioned in Tevul Yom 1:5) are considered food in that one can use second tithe money to purchase them. As a reminder, second tithe money is supposed to be brought to Jerusalem and used to buy food there (see Deuteronomy 14:26). However, they do not convey food uncleanness, so in this aspect they are considered food. Evidently the reasoning is that these foods aren't foods but they do improve the taste of other foods. Since they improve taste, one can use second tithe money to buy them. But since they are not eaten on their own, they cannot convey food impurity.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri to him: if they may be bought with [second] tithe money, then why should they not impart food uncleanness? And if they do not impart food uncleanness, then they should also not be bought with [second] tithe money? Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri doesn't like this inconsistency. In his opinion, a plant is either considered a food, in which case it can be bought with second tithe money and it would convey food uncleanness. Or it is not a food in which case it can't be bought with second tithe money and it doesn't convey uncleanness." + ], + [ + "Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. According to Rabbi Akiva, although they are not yet ready to eat, unripe grapes and figs are already considered food and therefore they convey food uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that this is so only when they become liable to tithes. Their liability to tithes is discussed in Sheviit 4:7-8.", + "Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. The mishnah now moves to the opposite scenario olives and grapes that have hardened. Bet Shammai says that they are nevertheless still considered food. Bet Hillel says that since they are generally no longer eaten, they are no longer considered food.", + "Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Bet Shammai says that black cumin which is not eaten but just put on the top of bread is not considered food and therefore is not susceptible to impurity. Bet Hillel says that since it is eaten, it is considered food.", + "Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes. The same dispute occurs with regard to tithing black cumin. Bet Shammai says it is not food and therefore need not be tithed. Bet Hillel says it is liable for tithes because it is food." + ], + [ + "The heart of a palm is like wood in every respect, except that it may be bought for [second] tithe money. Heart of palm is not generally considered food and therefore it is not susceptible to food impurity. This is probably because often it wouldn't be eaten, since the palm grew before the heart could be harvested. However, since it is edible when the palm is still young, one can use second tithe money to buy it.", + "Unripened dates are considered food, but are exempt from tithes. Unripened dates are almost an opposite case. Whereas the heart of palm begins as food but then becomes inedible, unripened dates are currently inedible but will become edible later. They are considered food as far as impurity goes, but if one eats them before they are ripe, he need not tithe them." + ], + [ + "When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness? Bet Shammai say: after they have been caught. Bet Hillel say: only after they are dead. Rabbi Akiva says: if they can still live. Fish can be eaten without first being slaughtered. Indeed, theoretically one could catch a fish from the sea and immediately eat it even while it's still alive (there definitely are cultures that do this). Therefore, Bet Shammai says that fish are immediately susceptible to impurity, once they have been caught, for they are immediately considered food. Bet Hillel says they are not food until they are dead, because that's when they are generally eaten. Rabbi Akiva takes a position somewhere between the two houses. If the fish is still currently alive but will die even if it were thrown back into the water, then it is already considered food and is susceptible to impurity. But if the fish has been caught but could still be thrown back into the water and live, then it is not susceptible.", + "If a branch of a fig tree was broken off, but it was still attached by its bark: Rabbi Judah says: [the fruit] is still not susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages say: [it all depends] whether they could still live. A similar case is brought with regard to branches that have been cut off a tree but are still hanging by their bark. Fruit on a tree is not susceptible to impurity but once it has been cut off it is. Rabbi Judah says that as long as the fruit is hanging by its bark, meaning it is still attached, it is not susceptible. The other sages say that it all depends on whether the fruit is attached enough such that it could live. Like the fish, if the fruit could still live, it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "Grain that had been uprooted, but is still attached to the soil even by the smallest of roots, is not susceptible to uncleanness. Grain is not susceptible to impurity until it has completely been severed from the soil" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah returns to the topic of whether a food needs to first be made susceptible to impurity or whether it needs \"intention\" in order to be considered food.", + "The fat [of the carcass] of a clean beast is not regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it must first be made susceptible. \"Helev,\" a certain type of fat, from a clean animal, cow, goat or sheep, that died without being properly slaughtered, is not impure. Only the \"helev\" of an unclean animal (camel, rabbit, pig, etc.) is impure (as is the whole animal, after it has died). So if one has \"helev\" from an clean animal it must first come into contact with water to be even susceptible to impurity. We should note that such fat is forbidden to eat, even if the animal was properly slaughtered.", + "The fat of an unclean beast, however, is regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it need not be made at first susceptible. As stated above, \"helev\" from an unclean animal is already impure. Indeed, the entire animal is impure (see mishnah three). Therefore, even the helev need not come into contact with water for it to be impure.", + "As for unclean fish and unclean locusts, intention is required in villages. In the villages people don't seem to eat unclean fish and locusts. Therefore, in such places, for the fish or locust to be susceptible to food impurity the person must have the intention to eat it. In contrast, in larger marketplaces people will eat such food. If this food is sold there, it will not require intention for it to be susceptible to impurity. In all places, the fish and locusts are not susceptible to impurity until they have had contact with liquids." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the halakhic status of a bee-hive. Specifically, the sages debate whether it is considered to have the status of land because it is attached to the land.", + "A bee-hive: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is treated as if it were land; and one can write a prozbul on it security, it is also not susceptible to uncleanness as long as it remains in its own place, and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to a sin-offering. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the beehive has the status of land. The mishnah lists three consequences to this determination. a) If the debtor owns a beehive, a prozbul may be written using just the beehive as security, even though he owns no actual land. This is a topic that we covered in yesterday’s mishnah. A prozbul was a document written by the creditor to avoid loan remission in the Sabbatical year (see chapter 10 of Tractate Sheviit). In order to write a prozbul one must own land (see Sheviit 10:6-7). b) Land and anything that is considered attached to it (such as plants or houses) is not susceptible to impurity. Thus, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the beehive cannot become impure. However, this is only true while it remains in its place. If the beehive was picked up and moved elsewhere, it can become susceptible to impurity. c) One who plucks something from the land is liable for having transgressed Shabbat. Hence, according to Rabbi Eliezer, one who removes honey from a beehive on Shabbat is liable.", + "But the sages say: it is not to be treated as if it were land, and one many not write a prozbul on its security; it is susceptible even if it remains in its own place; and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is exempt [from a sin-offering]. The rabbis do not consider the beehive to be “land” and therefore, in all three of these halakhot, they rule opposite of Rabbi Eliezer." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nHoney is one of the seven liquids that causes food to become susceptible to impurity (see Makhshirin 6:4). Today's mishnah discusses when honey from a honeycomb begins to count as honey.", + "When do honeycombs become susceptible to uncleanness on account of their being regarded as liquids? As long as the honey is still totally connected to the honeycombs it is still part of its source and liquids that are still part of their source do not cause susceptibility to impurity. Therefore the mishnah asks at what point the honey begins to be considered a \"liquid\" such that it would cause susceptibility.", + "Bet Shammai says: from the moment he begins to smoke the bees out. Bet Shammai says that as soon as someone begins to smoke the bees out of the honeycomb, the honey counts as liquid. Once the bees are gone, the honey can be eaten.", + "But Bet Hillel says: once he breaks up the honeycomb. Bet Hillel says he has to actually break up the honeycomb to get the honey out." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last mishnah in the entire Mishnah is actually not originally a mishnah! It was a late addition to the Mishnah so that the book could end with a word of peace.", + "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the world to come the Holy One, Blessed be He, will make each righteous person inherit three hundred and ten worlds, for it is written: \"That I may cause those that love me to inherit yesh (numerical value of 310); and that I may fill their treasuries\" (Proverbs 8:2. The first derashah is based on the word \"yesh\" which in Hebrew has the gematria (numerical) value of 310 (yod is 10, shin is 300). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi understands the word \"yesh\" to mean that tzadikim, the righteous, will inherit 310 worlds. I hope they're good ones!", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta said: the Holy One, Blessed be He, found no vessel that could contain blessing for Israel save that of peace, as it is written: \"The Lord will give strength unto his people; the Lord will bless his people with peace.\" Shalom, peace, wellbeing, or perhaps completeness, is the vehicle by which God brings berakhah into the world. It is the reason that the last berakhah of the Amidah is \"peace\" and it is the reason that the Mishnah, which has been one of the greatest berakhot the Jews have ever created or received, ends with the same word. Completeness is also an appropriate way of completing the Mishnah, which after more than 12 years, you and I have now done. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Oktzim, Seder Toharot and the Entire Mishnah!! Usually I write, \"It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.\" But today, I think I might need to write a bit more. For the past 12 years I have been writing my commentary on the Mishnah and you have been reading and studying it. And now, we've actually reached that moment. We've finished learning the whole Mishnah. So grab yourself a beer, a glass of wine, a shot of whiskey, raise a l'haim, say a berakhah (shehakol over beer and whiskey, hagafen over wine) and drink up. It's been a true privilege to serve as your teacher and it's been an amazing opportunity for me as well. I should say that my feeling is one of utter humility. My commentary was based on the work of others, whose work was based on their predecessors, going all the way back to the Talmud. I hope I have brought to you just a small taste of the amazing rabbinic tradition. The Mishnah is, after all, one of the shortest of rabbinic works. There is much learning to be done, and shortly we will begin Daf Shevui. But for now, one moment of congratulations is in order. I will be reciting the Hebrew siyyum (words of completion) on Sunday at the Conservative Yeshiva. Hopefully, it will be on the internet so that you can see it as well. Congratulations on an amazing amount of learning. And finally thank you to all of the people who've made this possible. Thanks to all of you who have donated money to subsidize the project. Thanks to the many people at USCJ in New York, Dr. Morton Siegel and Rabbi Paul Drazen, and others over the years who've made sure the Mishnah was properly sent out. Thanks to the people at the Conservative Yeshiva, including Rabbi Gail Diamond, who took over the project in recent years. And \"aharon aharon haviv\" I want to extend my warmest gratitude to Rabbi Jerome Epstein who approached me about 12 years ago and asked whether I would be interested and willing to start this project. Without Rabbi Epstein's commitment Mishnah Yomit would never have begun and it would not have been completed. For twelve years he has been my most consistent learner, and without his careful eye, the text would have been full of even more typos than there probably are. I have benefited tremendously from his dedication and I hope it continues for many years." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עוקצים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a352f25c49e3dfbf2ccb8d14136bf68465b9f5f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Oktzin", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "The final tractate of Seder Toharot and indeed of the entire mishnah deals with things that are \"stems\" to food. The question is when is something considered to be attached to food such that if one part becomes impure the whole is impure and when are they independent?", + "This tractate does not really contain a lot of new information. Rather, most of it has been taught elsewhere. At times these mishnayot add information to the earlier ones and at times they are only repetitive. I think the best reason why these halakhot are found in two places is that the Mishnah's editors thought that these halakhot could belong in two places.", + "There is some evidence that already in Talmudic times Tractate Oktzim wasn't all that well learned. For instance there is a story in the Bavli (Horayot 13b) that some students wanted to belittle Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel so they asked him to teach Oktzim, which he didn't know. So consider yourselves lucky to be learning this Tractate—you can learn material that even the greatest of rabbis didn't get to learn all that well.", + "Good luck in learning the tractate. It's our last one, so I hope you treasure it. \n" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "That which serves as a handle but does not protect, both contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness; but it is not included. If the stem of a piece of produce serves as a handle by which to hold the produce, but it doesn't protect the produce from spoiling, then it is considered part of the produce for issues of impurity. If the stem is defiled so is the produce and vice versa, if the produce is defiled so is the stem. However, when determining the size of the piece of produce, this stem doesn't count. So if the produce is less than the size of an egg, it cannot be defiled (see Toharot 2:1).", + "If it protects but is not a handle, it contracts and conveys uncleanness and is included. If it protects the produce even if it doesn't serve as a stem, then it counts as part of it for all matters, even to be including in reckoning its size.", + "If it neither protects nor serves as a handle, it neither contracts nor conveys uncleanness. If it neither serves as a handle nor protects the produce, then it is not part of it for any issue of impurity." + ], + [ + "Roots of garlic, onions or leeks that are still moist, or their top-parts, whether they are moist or dry, also the central stalk that is within the edible part, the roots of lettuce, the radish and the turnip, the words of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Judah says: only the large roots of the radish are included, but its fibrous roots are not included.
The roots of the mint, rue, wild herbs and garden herbs that have been uprooted in order to be planted elsewhere, and the spine of an ear of grain, and its husk.
Rabbi Elazar says: also the earth covering of roots;
All these things contract and convey impurity and are included.
Today's mishnah discusses what parts of certain types of produce are considered to be part of the plant.
Sections one through four: In these four sections, various tannaim determine what parts of certain types of produce, specifically the roots and the spines/stalks of root vegetables, count as being part of the produce. In general roots are part of the plant if they will either be eaten or if they will be used for replanting. Inedible roots are not part of the produce. So too other parts of the produce, and even the dirt accompanying the produce according to Rabbi Elazar, count with the produce if they are necessary to it. I think that most of these are fairly clear from the translation, so I won't explain each one on its own.
Section five: All of the parts of produce that are listed above do three things: they contract impurity if the rest of the piece of produce was defiled. If they are defiled they convey their impurity to the other part. Finally, they are reckoned with the remainder of the produce to constitute the requisite amount to become impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah lists part of produce that are considered part of the produce for matters of defiling and being defiled. If they are defiled, the rest is defiled and vice versa. But they do not join together to make up the requisite minimum because they are not food.", + "The following are both defiled and defile, but do not join together [together with the rest]: Roots of garlic, onions or leeks when they are dry, the stalk that is not within the edible part, the twig of a vine a handbreadth long on either side, the stem of the cluster whatsoever be its length, the tail of the cluster bereft of grapes, the stem of the ‘broom’ of the palm-tree to a length of four handbreadths, the stalk of the ear [of grain] to a length of three handbreadths, and the stalk of all things that are cut, to the length of three handbreadths. Most of the items listed here can be used to hold the produce but are not edible. Thus they are considered \"handles\" to food but are not \"food\". They are defiled and defile but since they are not \"food\" they are not reckoned to reach the requisite minimum needed to be susceptible to impurity. I will explain just a few of these things that are unclear: The \"broom of the palm-tree\" is the part of the tree that has the dates on its end. It is a \"handle\" for the dates. Stalks are not eaten but are used to handle grains. It's only necessary to have about three handbreadths so only three handbreadths counts as a handle. Beyond that, the stalk is impervious to impurity and doesn't convey impurity.", + "In the case of those things not usually cut, their stalks and roots of any size whatsoever. If produce is generally not \"cut,\" meaning it is not harvested with something like a scythe, then any sized stalk or root could be used as a handle. Since these parts will not usually be attached, if he leaves them attached then he must have intended them to be used as a handle.", + "As for the outer husks of grains, they defile and are defiled, but do not join together. The outer husks of grains are not edible but they are \"handles.\"" + ], + [ + "The following neither defile nor can they be defiled and they do not join together:
The roots of cabbage-stalks,
Young shoots of beet growing out of the root, and [similar] such turnip-heads,
[And produce whose roots] that are ordinarily cut off but in this case were pulled up [with their roots].
Rabbi Yose declares them all susceptible to contract uncleanness, but he declares insusceptible cabbage-stalks and turnip-heads.
Today's mishnah lists parts of produce that are neither edible nor used as a handle. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity nor do they count as part of the volume. Most of the mishnah should be self-explanatory, so I have only explained some sections.
Section two: Cabbages are held by the cabbage itself. The roots are neither eaten nor used to hold the cabbage.
Section three: These parts too are not eaten nor used as handles.
Section four: If it is typical to cut off the vegetable and leave the roots in the ground, but for some reason in this case, he uprooted the roots with the vegetable, the roots are not part of the vegetable.
Section five: Rabbi Yose says that all of the above are indeed handles to the vegetable, the only exceptions being the roots cabbage-stalks and turnip heads." + ], + [ + "Stalks of all foods that have been threshed on the threshing-floor are clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean. Once produce has been threshed, the edible part has been detached from the stalk. Therefore the stalks no longer serve as handles and they are clean meaning they are not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that they are still susceptible.", + "A sprig of a vine when stripped of its grapes is clean, but if one grape alone is left on it, it is unclean. A twig of a date-tree stripped of its dates is clean, but if one date remains on it, it is unclean. Similarly, with beans, if the pods were stripped from the stem it is clean, but if even one pod alone remains, it is unclean. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah declares [the stalk] of the broad bean clean, but declares unclean the stalk of other beans, since it is of use when [the pulse] is handled. There are three sections here that all basically teach the same thing. Once a grape, date or bean has been removed from that which was holding it, the handle is no longer a handle and it is pure. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah agrees with most of these scenarios but disagrees with regard to the stalk of most types of pulse since these are used when the pulse is picked up." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is that which gives our tractate its name it deals with stems (oktzim).", + "Stems of figs and dried figs, kelusim, and carobs are both defiled and defile, and they join together. Rabbi Yose says: also the stalks of the gourd. The stems of these fruits can be eaten. Therefore they are fully considered part of the fruit. Rabbi Yose says that the stem of the gourd is edible, but the other sages hold that while it is a handle, it is not edible.", + "The stems of pears and krutumelin pears, quinces, and crab-apples, the stalks of the gourd and the artichoke [to the length of] one handbreadth. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: two handbreadths; [All] these are defiled and defile; but do not join together. These stems are used as handles but they are not edible. Therefore, they defile and can be defiled but since they are not food they don't add to the requisite amount.", + "As for other stems, they are neither defiled nor do they defile. The stems of other types of produce are not used as handles nor are they eaten. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Leaves of olives pickled together with the olives remain clean, for their pickling was only for the sake of appearances. Leaves of olives are not edible. Even if one pickled them with olives, he did so only for appearance sake. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity.", + "The fibrous substance on a zucchini and the flower-like substance on it are clean. Rabbi Judah says: that as long as it is still before the merchant, it is unclean. These substances that are on a zucchini are neither edible nor are they handles. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah holds that since a merchant wants to sell the zucchini (these are not necessarily identical to modern varieties) in as great of a volume as possible, as long as these are with the merchant, these parts are susceptible to impurity. However, once they are sold they are useless so they are no longer susceptible." + ], + [ + "All kinds of pits can be defiled and defile but do not join together. Pits are part of the fruit in which they are found and therefore they defile and can be defiled. But since they fall out and are not really attached to the fruit, they do not join together to make the requisite amount.", + "The pits of fresh dates, even when detached [from the edible part], do join together; but those of dried dates do not join together. People suck on the pits of fresh dates. Therefore, they count fully as part of the date. But dried dates are like other pits, they are not counted with the date.", + "Accordingly, the stems of dried dates do join together, but that of fresh dates do not join together. The stem of a dried date is considered to be something that protects the pit from falling out. Therefore, it is fully considered part of the date. But a person doesn't care if the pit of a fresh date falls out, because it's part of the date. Therefore, the stem does not \"guard\" the fruit and the stem doesn't count.", + "If only part of a pit is detached, then only that part near the edible portion joins together. If part of a fresh date pit has become detached, only the part next to the date still counts. I really can't imagine how one could actually determine how big the date is, but theoretically it makes sense.", + "[Similarly] with a bone on which there is flesh, only that part that is close to the edible part joins together. The same thing is true when determining the volume of meat. The bone is part of the meat, but only the part of the bone on which there is still some flesh.", + "[If a bone] has flesh only upon one of its sides: Rabbi Ishmael says: we take it as though [the flesh] encompasses it like a ring; But the sages say: [only] that part close to the edible part is included [as is the case] for example with savory, hyssop and thyme. The sages debate a case in which there is meat on only one side of the bone. Rabbi Ishmael says that we look at the flesh as if it was a string and if there is enough to go around the bone, it joins together. This would mean even the part of the bone that is not under the flesh would join together. The sages disagree and say that only the part of the bone that has flesh on it joins with the flesh. The other part does not. This is like these three spices that have thin stalks and the spices are on only one side. Whatever has spices on it joins together and whatever does not have spices on it, does not count." + ], + [ + "If a pomegranate or melon has rotted in part, [what is rotten] does not join together. The rotted part of the fruit does not join together to equal the requisite amount.", + "And if [the fruit] is sound at either end but has rotted in the middle, [what is rotten] does not join together. Even if both ends are okay and only the middle part is rotten, it still is not counted as part of the fruit.", + "The stem of a pomegranate does join together, but the fibrous substance in it does not join together. Rabbi Elazar says: also the comb is not susceptible to uncleanness. The stem of the pomegranate is treated like other stems and it joins together with the fruit. But the little hairs inside the stem do not. Albeck describes the \"comb\" as being a sort of \"cup\" around the fibrous substance whose edge looks like a comb. This part is clean meaning it doesn't join together and according to the Tosefta it is not even considered part of the fruit such that it could be defiled." + ], + [ + "All kinds of peels defile and are defiled, and join together. Peels generally protect the fruit that's what they're there for. So they count as part of the fruit, they defile and can be defiled and they join together to add up to the minimal amount.", + "Rabbi Judah says: an onion has three skins: the innermost one whether it is in its entire state or whether it be pierced with holes joins together; the middle one when it is in a whole state joins together, but when it is pierced with holes does not join together; the outermost skin is in either case insusceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Judah distinguishes between the different layers of an onion. The inner part is always considered part of the onion. It's probably edible so why shouldn't it be. The middle part is part of the onion when it is whole. But if it has holes, meaning it's not complete, it is not part of the onion. [This is probably the part I always try to keep because I don't like to waste, but sometimes I can't peel the outer part without taking this off as well]. The outer peel is not part of the onion because the onion is protected even without it." + ], + [ + "If one chops up [fruit] for cooking, even if [the chopping had] not been completely finished, it is not regarded as connected. Once one begins to chop up produce in order to cook it, the pieces are no longer considered connected to one another.", + "If his intention had been to pickle or to boil it, or to set it on the table, then it is regarded as connected. However, if he intends to either pickle, boil or set aside the pieces, then they are considered connected to one another. If one is defiled, then they are all defiled. It is a bit difficult to understand why or how section two differs from section one. According to Albeck, section two presents cases in which he wants the pieces to stay together until he does something else with them, such as pickle them, put them in a pot or put them in front of those eating. Therefore, they are considered connected. However, in section one he doesn't care if they stay connected, perhaps because he will cook them separately.", + "If he began to take [the pieces] apart, [only] that part of the food which he began to take apart is not considered connected. This refers to section two. Once he begins to take the pieces of the fruit apart from the pile that they were in, the stuff he has taken apart is no longer considered connected. But the parts he has not yet taken apart remain connected.", + "Nuts that had been strung together, or onions that had been piled together, count as connected. If he began to take the nuts apart, or to strip the onions, they are not connected. Nuts or onions strung together, perhaps to bring them to market, count as connected. But once he begins to take them apart, they are not connected.", + "[Shells of] nuts and almonds are considered connected [with the edible part] until they are crushed. Shells of nuts are connected until they are smashed to get the nuts out. Once they are smashed, they are not considered connected even if he has not yet removed the shells. This is because they no longer protect the nut." + ], + [ + "[The shell of] a roasted egg [is considered connected] until it is cracked. That of a hard-boiled egg [is considered connected] until it is entirely broken up. The shell of a roasted, soft-boiled egg is considered connected to the egg until the egg is cracked so that someone could scoop out or suck out the egg itself. If the egg was hard-boiled, then the shell is connected until it's all broken up. At this point it no longer guards the eggs. But it is already not considered connected even though it hasn't been removed.", + "A marrow-bone serves as connected until it is wholly crushed. Until he crushes the bone to get out the marrow, the whole bone is considered connected.", + "A pomegranate that has been divided into sections is connected until it has been knocked with a stick. It seems that they would remove the seeds of the pomegranate by hitting it with a stick. This is a trick that I would like to learn. In any case, until he knocks on the pomegranate to separate the seeds, it is considered connected.", + "Similarly, loose stitches of laundrymen or a garment that had been stitched together with threads of kilayim, are connected until one begins to loosen them. If a laundrymen or clothier sold strung garments together with string that are \"kilayim\" with each other meaning the garment is wool and the string is linen or vice versa then they are connected and therefore forbidden from use until he begins to loosen them." + ], + [ + "The [outer] leaves of vegetables: if they are green they join together, but if they have whitened they not join together. If the outer leaves are green, they are still edible and therefore they are included as part of the vegetable. Once they have whitened, they are no longer part and are not included.", + "Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: the white leaves of cabbage join together because they are edible. White outer leaves of cabbage are still edible so they join together.", + "So also those of lettuces, because they preserve the edible part. While the outer leaves of lettuce may not be eaten, they join together because they protect the inner part." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with foods that have an empty space in them, or that might have an empty space. Does the empty space count as part of the volume of the food?", + "Onion leaves or the offshoots of onions, if there is moisture in them they are to be measured as they are; if there is empty space within them, it must be squeezed tightly together. \"Onion leaves\" probably refers to leaks. \"Offshoots of onions\" are small onions that sprout from larger onions. In either case, if they are still moist, then they are measured for matters of impurity as they currently are. However, if they have dried out and the inner part is not full of moisture, then we squeeze the air out of them before measuring them.", + "Spongy bread is measured as it is, but if there is empty space within it, it must be pressed firmly. The same is true for spongy bread. If it is moist, it is measured as it is, but if there is an empty space in it, the empty space is squeezed before it is measured.", + "The flesh of a calf which had swollen, or the flesh of an old [beast] that has shrunken in size, are measured in the condition they are in. The swelling or shrinking of this meat is after cooking. The mishnah basically teaches that if meat either expands or shrinks when cooked, its volume is measured as it is, and not as it was." + ], + [ + "A cucumber planted in a pot which grew until it was out of the pot is pure. The mishnah refers to a plant growing in a non-perforated pot. Such a plant is treated as if it is no longer attached to the ground and it is susceptible to impurity. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, if the plant grows out of the pot is now considered to be attached to the ground below it. Plants that grow from the ground are not susceptible to impurity and therefore this plant is now pure. Note that the whole plant is pure, not just the parts growing out of the plant.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: what is its nature to make it clean? Rather, that which has already become unclean remains unclean, and only that which is pure can be eaten. Rabbi Shimon questions how something that was impure can all of a sudden become pure. He rejects the tanna kamma and holds that once something is unclean it remains unclean. The part of the plant that remains in the pot is impure; only the part of the plant that grows out of the pot is pure." + ], + [ + "Vessels made of cattle dung or of earth through which the roots can penetrate, do not render the seeds susceptible. If a pot is made of cattle dung or earth and the pot has been perforated so that roots can penetrate to the ground do not allow the seeds inside to become susceptible to impurity. This means that if rain water falls into this pot, the seeds are not susceptible to impurity.", + "A perforated plant-pot does not render seeds susceptible; but if it has no hole, the seeds do become susceptible. What should be the hole's dimension? Such that a small root can push its way through. Produce growing in perforated pots is considered to be attached to the ground. Therefore, anything in it is not susceptible to impurity. But pots without holes are treated as if they are not \"ground\" and produce growing in there is susceptible. To be considered \"perforated\" the hole must be at least wide enough for a small root to push through.", + "If it was filled with earth to its brim, it is deemed as a frame without an edge. If the pot was completely filled up, all the way to the brim, then it is treated like a \"frame without an edge\" (see Kelim 2:3). This means that there is no \"inside\" to the frame or in this case the pot. So anything that grows in such a pot is not susceptible to impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Some things need to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] but they do not need intention,
[Other things need] intention and to be rendered susceptible.
[Other things] need intention, but do not need to be rendered susceptible,
[And other things] need neither to be rendered susceptible nor intention.
Any food that is meant for people need to be rendered susceptible, but does not need intention.
The first four sections of this mishnah divide foods into four categories depending on two factors. First of all, whether they need to have been in contact with water in order to be susceptible to impurity (the topic of Makhshirin). Second, whether a person needs to be think about using them for human food in order for them to be susceptible. Our mishnah introduces these issues and then subsequent mishnayot explain and illustrate them. Sections 1-4 are the introduction, section five is explained below.
Section five: This illustrates the rule in section one. Foods that are clearly intended for human use, let's say expensive fruits, need to have been in contact with water to be susceptible. But since they are clearly meant for human consumption, they do not need intention. One doesn't need to actively decide that the food will be used by a human for it to be susceptible." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists things that are not human food and therefore are not susceptible to impurity unless someone decides that they are going to eat them (some of these are a bit gross, so beware). They also require contact with water to become susceptible.", + "That which has been severed from a human, beast, wild animal, bird, or from the carrion of an unclean bird, and the fat in villages. Pieces of flesh cut off of a living human, beast, wild animal or bird are not impure. If one decides to eat them (this is not allowed, but someone might do it) and they come into contact with water, they become susceptible to impurity. The carrion of an unclean bird is not impure (see Toharot 1:3). Therefore, a piece of flesh cut off from it has the same status as the other meat.", + "And all kinds of wild vegetables, except for truffles and mushrooms; Rabbi Judah says, except for field-leeks, purslane and ornithagolum. And Rabbi Shimon says: except for cynara sycaria. Rabbi Yose says: except for muscari comusum. Wild vegetables generally are not eaten. There are however some exceptions. The first opinion and various other rabbis cite some exceptions. I don't know what some of these are and the translations are mostly from Albeck. Suffice it to say that these are wild grown vegetables that seem to have been eaten.", + "Behold all these need both intention and to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness]. This is the summary of category two from yesterday's mishnah. In order to be susceptible to impurity these things need to come into contact with liquids and one needs to actively decide that they are going to be eaten." + ], + [ + "The carrion of an unclean beast at all places, and of a clean bird in villages, need intention but do not need to be rendered susceptible. The foods listed in this section are not generally eaten, at least according the first opinion. Therefore, to defile one would need to think about them as food. However, since they are already impure they don't need to be rendered susceptible to impurity. Carrion of an unclean beast, for instance horse carrion, defiles. This mishnah really didn't need to teach this, because it is stated clearly in the Torah. In order to find an innovation in the mishnah the talmud notes that generally less than an olive's worth does not defile because it is too small of an amount. The mishnah is understood as innovating that if 1/2 of an olive's worth of carrion from an unclean beast joins together with a 1/2 of an olive's worth of other unclean food, the two halves join together to defile in the same was as would impure food. If one doesn't think about eating this carrion, it's not considered food because most people don't consider unclean beasts to be food. The carrion of a clean bird is forbidden to eat but it doesn't defile except when in the gullet (see Toharot 1:1). In the villages where there aren't a lot of people evidently most people wouldn't bother eating bird carrion. Therefore, one would specifically have to think about eating it for it to defile.", + "The carrion of a clean beast in all places, and that of a clean bird and also fat in the market places, require neither intention nor to be rendered susceptible. Carrion of a clean beast is forbidden but since most people do eat such animals, it causes food impurity even if one doesn't specifically think about using it for food. It also doesn't need to be made susceptible because carrion is already impure. In market places people will be found to buy carrion of clean birds and forbidden fat. Therefore, they don't need to be thought of as food to defile. And since they are already impure, they don't need contact with liquid to become susceptible.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: also [the carrion of] the camel, rabbit, hare or pig. Rabbi Shiomon says that people eat camel, hare, rabbit and pig. Therefore, the same rules that apply to carrion of clean meat (cow, sheep, goats) apply to them." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses what constitutes food such that if it was originally terumah it is still considered terumah and it would still be subject to the laws of food impurity.\nWe should note that the identity of some of these spices is speculative. Nevertheless, the principles are clear.", + "The aneth stalk after having given its taste to a dish is no longer subject to the laws of terumah, and also no longer imparts food uncleanness. Once a stalk of aneth has given away its taste into a dish, it is no longer considered to be food. It's just a stalk. Therefore, if it was terumah, the stalk can now be eaten by a non-priest. And it is no longer subject to the laws of food impurity.", + "The young sprouts of hawthorn, of lapidum, or leaves of the wild arum, do not impart food uncleanness until they are sweetened. These sprouts or other agricultural products are not considered human food in their raw form. They are \"food\" only once they've been \"sweetened\" by soaking them in wine, vinegar or salt water, sort of pickling them. There are many foods we eat today that would probably have the same rule for instance raw coffee or chocolate. These are inedible in their raw form and wouldn't be considered food until they've been processed.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: also [the leaves of] the colocynth are like them. Some say that the vegetable referred to here is a type of wild vine while some say it is a wild melon. In any case, the leaves are not edible until sweetened." + ], + [ + "Costus, amomum, principal spices, [roots of] crowfoot, asafoetida, pepper and lozenges made of saffron may be bought with tithe money, but they do not convey food uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Akiva these spices and other plant derivatives (some of them are also mentioned in Tevul Yom 1:5) are considered food in that one can use second tithe money to purchase them. As a reminder, second tithe money is supposed to be brought to Jerusalem and used to buy food there (see Deuteronomy 14:26). However, they do not convey food uncleanness, so in this aspect they are considered food. Evidently the reasoning is that these foods aren't foods but they do improve the taste of other foods. Since they improve taste, one can use second tithe money to buy them. But since they are not eaten on their own, they cannot convey food impurity.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri to him: if they may be bought with [second] tithe money, then why should they not impart food uncleanness? And if they do not impart food uncleanness, then they should also not be bought with [second] tithe money? Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri doesn't like this inconsistency. In his opinion, a plant is either considered a food, in which case it can be bought with second tithe money and it would convey food uncleanness. Or it is not a food in which case it can't be bought with second tithe money and it doesn't convey uncleanness." + ], + [ + "Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. According to Rabbi Akiva, although they are not yet ready to eat, unripe grapes and figs are already considered food and therefore they convey food uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that this is so only when they become liable to tithes. Their liability to tithes is discussed in Sheviit 4:7-8.", + "Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. The mishnah now moves to the opposite scenario olives and grapes that have hardened. Bet Shammai says that they are nevertheless still considered food. Bet Hillel says that since they are generally no longer eaten, they are no longer considered food.", + "Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Bet Shammai says that black cumin which is not eaten but just put on the top of bread is not considered food and therefore is not susceptible to impurity. Bet Hillel says that since it is eaten, it is considered food.", + "Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes. The same dispute occurs with regard to tithing black cumin. Bet Shammai says it is not food and therefore need not be tithed. Bet Hillel says it is liable for tithes because it is food." + ], + [ + "The heart of a palm is like wood in every respect, except that it may be bought for [second] tithe money. Heart of palm is not generally considered food and therefore it is not susceptible to food impurity. This is probably because often it wouldn't be eaten, since the palm grew before the heart could be harvested. However, since it is edible when the palm is still young, one can use second tithe money to buy it.", + "Unripened dates are considered food, but are exempt from tithes. Unripened dates are almost an opposite case. Whereas the heart of palm begins as food but then becomes inedible, unripened dates are currently inedible but will become edible later. They are considered food as far as impurity goes, but if one eats them before they are ripe, he need not tithe them." + ], + [ + "When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness? Bet Shammai say: after they have been caught. Bet Hillel say: only after they are dead. Rabbi Akiva says: if they can still live. Fish can be eaten without first being slaughtered. Indeed, theoretically one could catch a fish from the sea and immediately eat it even while it's still alive (there definitely are cultures that do this). Therefore, Bet Shammai says that fish are immediately susceptible to impurity, once they have been caught, for they are immediately considered food. Bet Hillel says they are not food until they are dead, because that's when they are generally eaten. Rabbi Akiva takes a position somewhere between the two houses. If the fish is still currently alive but will die even if it were thrown back into the water, then it is already considered food and is susceptible to impurity. But if the fish has been caught but could still be thrown back into the water and live, then it is not susceptible.", + "If a branch of a fig tree was broken off, but it was still attached by its bark: Rabbi Judah says: [the fruit] is still not susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages say: [it all depends] whether they could still live. A similar case is brought with regard to branches that have been cut off a tree but are still hanging by their bark. Fruit on a tree is not susceptible to impurity but once it has been cut off it is. Rabbi Judah says that as long as the fruit is hanging by its bark, meaning it is still attached, it is not susceptible. The other sages say that it all depends on whether the fruit is attached enough such that it could live. Like the fish, if the fruit could still live, it is not susceptible to impurity.", + "Grain that had been uprooted, but is still attached to the soil even by the smallest of roots, is not susceptible to uncleanness. Grain is not susceptible to impurity until it has completely been severed from the soil" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah returns to the topic of whether a food needs to first be made susceptible to impurity or whether it needs \"intention\" in order to be considered food.", + "The fat [of the carcass] of a clean beast is not regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it must first be made susceptible. \"Helev,\" a certain type of fat, from a clean animal, cow, goat or sheep, that died without being properly slaughtered, is not impure. Only the \"helev\" of an unclean animal (camel, rabbit, pig, etc.) is impure (as is the whole animal, after it has died). So if one has \"helev\" from an clean animal it must first come into contact with water to be even susceptible to impurity. We should note that such fat is forbidden to eat, even if the animal was properly slaughtered.", + "The fat of an unclean beast, however, is regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it need not be made at first susceptible. As stated above, \"helev\" from an unclean animal is already impure. Indeed, the entire animal is impure (see mishnah three). Therefore, even the helev need not come into contact with water for it to be impure.", + "As for unclean fish and unclean locusts, intention is required in villages. In the villages people don't seem to eat unclean fish and locusts. Therefore, in such places, for the fish or locust to be susceptible to food impurity the person must have the intention to eat it. In contrast, in larger marketplaces people will eat such food. If this food is sold there, it will not require intention for it to be susceptible to impurity. In all places, the fish and locusts are not susceptible to impurity until they have had contact with liquids." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the halakhic status of a bee-hive. Specifically, the sages debate whether it is considered to have the status of land because it is attached to the land.", + "A bee-hive: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is treated as if it were land; and one can write a prozbul on it security, it is also not susceptible to uncleanness as long as it remains in its own place, and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to a sin-offering. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the beehive has the status of land. The mishnah lists three consequences to this determination. a) If the debtor owns a beehive, a prozbul may be written using just the beehive as security, even though he owns no actual land. This is a topic that we covered in yesterday’s mishnah. A prozbul was a document written by the creditor to avoid loan remission in the Sabbatical year (see chapter 10 of Tractate Sheviit). In order to write a prozbul one must own land (see Sheviit 10:6-7). b) Land and anything that is considered attached to it (such as plants or houses) is not susceptible to impurity. Thus, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the beehive cannot become impure. However, this is only true while it remains in its place. If the beehive was picked up and moved elsewhere, it can become susceptible to impurity. c) One who plucks something from the land is liable for having transgressed Shabbat. Hence, according to Rabbi Eliezer, one who removes honey from a beehive on Shabbat is liable.", + "But the sages say: it is not to be treated as if it were land, and one many not write a prozbul on its security; it is susceptible even if it remains in its own place; and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is exempt [from a sin-offering]. The rabbis do not consider the beehive to be “land” and therefore, in all three of these halakhot, they rule opposite of Rabbi Eliezer." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nHoney is one of the seven liquids that causes food to become susceptible to impurity (see Makhshirin 6:4). Today's mishnah discusses when honey from a honeycomb begins to count as honey.", + "When do honeycombs become susceptible to uncleanness on account of their being regarded as liquids? As long as the honey is still totally connected to the honeycombs it is still part of its source and liquids that are still part of their source do not cause susceptibility to impurity. Therefore the mishnah asks at what point the honey begins to be considered a \"liquid\" such that it would cause susceptibility.", + "Bet Shammai says: from the moment he begins to smoke the bees out. Bet Shammai says that as soon as someone begins to smoke the bees out of the honeycomb, the honey counts as liquid. Once the bees are gone, the honey can be eaten.", + "But Bet Hillel says: once he breaks up the honeycomb. Bet Hillel says he has to actually break up the honeycomb to get the honey out." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last mishnah in the entire Mishnah is actually not originally a mishnah! It was a late addition to the Mishnah so that the book could end with a word of peace.", + "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the world to come the Holy One, Blessed be He, will make each righteous person inherit three hundred and ten worlds, for it is written: \"That I may cause those that love me to inherit yesh (numerical value of 310); and that I may fill their treasuries\" (Proverbs 8:2. The first derashah is based on the word \"yesh\" which in Hebrew has the gematria (numerical) value of 310 (yod is 10, shin is 300). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi understands the word \"yesh\" to mean that tzadikim, the righteous, will inherit 310 worlds. I hope they're good ones!", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta said: the Holy One, Blessed be He, found no vessel that could contain blessing for Israel save that of peace, as it is written: \"The Lord will give strength unto his people; the Lord will bless his people with peace.\" Shalom, peace, wellbeing, or perhaps completeness, is the vehicle by which God brings berakhah into the world. It is the reason that the last berakhah of the Amidah is \"peace\" and it is the reason that the Mishnah, which has been one of the greatest berakhot the Jews have ever created or received, ends with the same word. Completeness is also an appropriate way of completing the Mishnah, which after more than 12 years, you and I have now done. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Oktzim, Seder Toharot and the Entire Mishnah!! Usually I write, \"It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.\" But today, I think I might need to write a bit more. For the past 12 years I have been writing my commentary on the Mishnah and you have been reading and studying it. And now, we've actually reached that moment. We've finished learning the whole Mishnah. So grab yourself a beer, a glass of wine, a shot of whiskey, raise a l'haim, say a berakhah (shehakol over beer and whiskey, hagafen over wine) and drink up. It's been a true privilege to serve as your teacher and it's been an amazing opportunity for me as well. I should say that my feeling is one of utter humility. My commentary was based on the work of others, whose work was based on their predecessors, going all the way back to the Talmud. I hope I have brought to you just a small taste of the amazing rabbinic tradition. The Mishnah is, after all, one of the shortest of rabbinic works. There is much learning to be done, and shortly we will begin Daf Shevui. But for now, one moment of congratulations is in order. I will be reciting the Hebrew siyyum (words of completion) on Sunday at the Conservative Yeshiva. Hopefully, it will be on the internet so that you can see it as well. Congratulations on an amazing amount of learning. And finally thank you to all of the people who've made this possible. Thanks to all of you who have donated money to subsidize the project. Thanks to the many people at USCJ in New York, Dr. Morton Siegel and Rabbi Paul Drazen, and others over the years who've made sure the Mishnah was properly sent out. Thanks to the people at the Conservative Yeshiva, including Rabbi Gail Diamond, who took over the project in recent years. And \"aharon aharon haviv\" I want to extend my warmest gratitude to Rabbi Jerome Epstein who approached me about 12 years ago and asked whether I would be interested and willing to start this project. Without Rabbi Epstein's commitment Mishnah Yomit would never have begun and it would not have been completed. For twelve years he has been my most consistent learner, and without his careful eye, the text would have been full of even more typos than there probably are. I have benefited tremendously from his dedication and I hope it continues for many years." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עוקצים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עוקצים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Parah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Parah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..558d02f5f83360ee10974a1fc2dbffa941e46c83 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Parah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,599 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Parah", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה פרה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Get ready to learn a tractate that is literally called \"Cow\"! The cow referred to here is the red cow (often called the red heifer) whose ashes were used to purify a person that had contracted corpse impurity. The cow is often called \"hatat\" or \"sin-offering\" by the rabbis and the water into which the cow's ashes were put is called \"hatat waters.\" So too the ashes are called \"hatat ash.\" The putting of the ash into the water is called \"kiddush\" or sanctification and sometimes the waters are called \"holy waters.\" The ritual of the red cow is described in chapter 19 of Numbers, which I have brought from the JPS translation below. It would probably be helpful to read through these verses before you begin to study the Tractate. We shall make reference to them quite frequently, much as we did throughout our study of Negaim. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses how old a \"heifer\" can be before it becomes a cow. This is relevant to two laws. In Deuteronomy 21 we read that in order to expiate for an unsolved murder a ritual with a \"heifer\" must be performed. In order to perform the ritual correctly, we must determine how old a heifer is. And determining how old a \"cow\" is relevant to the issue of our tractate the red cow.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: the heifer is no more than one year old and the cow no more than two years old. But the sages ruled: the heifer may be even two years old and the red cow even three or four years old. Rabbi Meir says: even five years old, though she is old. But they did not wait with it so long since it might in the meantime grow some black hairs and [thus] become invalid. According to Rabbi Eliezer the heifer whose neck is broken according to Deuteronomy 21 must be less than one year old. The cow must be less than 2 years old. The other sages add a year to both of these numbers. Rabbi Meir rules that a cow can even be 5 years old and still be valid to be used in the red cow ritual. However, if a red cow was born (a highly unusual event) they wouldn't wait five years to use it because if any of its hairs turn black, it becomes invalid.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: I only heard of [a cow] that was three years old [shelashit]. They said to him: What does \"shelashit\" mean? He replied: thus have I heard it without any explanation. Ben Azzai said: I will explain: if you say \"shelishit\" the meaning is ‘the third’ in number to others, but when you say \"shelashit\" the meaning is one that is three years old. The mishnah now begins a series of discussion in which Rabbi Joshua and Ben Azzai participate and which hinge on the precise pronunciation of various words. The first of these discussions is pertinent to the issue of the red cow. Rabbi Joshua asserts that he heard that the cow must be \"shelashit.\" This seems to be an unusual spelling of the Hebrew word for the ordinal number of three third. The other sages ask him why did you say \"shelashit.\" Rabbi Joshua, interestingly, does not know why he pronounced the word in this unusual manner. He just heard \"shelashit\" and repeated what he was taught. Ben Azzai, the younger student, however, has an explanation. Had Rabbi Joshua said \"shelishit,\" the typical pronunciation of the ordinal number, we would have thought that the cow would have to be the third born to its mother. Now that he pronounced the word \"shelashit\" we learn that the cow must be three years old.", + "Similarly they said a vineyard that is \"revai.\" They said to him: what does \"revai\" mean? He replied: thus have I heard it without any explanation. Ben Azzai said: I will explain: if you say \"revii\" the meaning is the fourth in number to others, but when you say \"revai\" the meaning is one that is four years old. The same argument now occurs with regard to a vineyard in its fourth year. This topic is covered in Maaser Sheni 5:1-5. The produce of such a vineyard must be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. The word for fourth year as pronounced by Rabbi Joshua is \"revai\" instead of the more typical \"revii.\" Again, the other sages ask Rabbi Joshua why he pronounces it this way and he doesn't know how to respond. Ben Azzai explains that had he pronounced it \"revii\" we might have thought that it was fourth in number. This could mean that it is the fourth vineyard owned by the owners or that it is the fourth vineyard planted in this field. Now that it is pronounced \"revai\" we learn that the these laws refer to a vineyard planted in its fourth year.", + "Similarly it was ruled: if a man ate in an afflicted house half a loaf, three of which can be made from a kav, he becomes unclean. They said to him: say rather \"eighteen of which are made of a se'ah.\" He replied: thus have I heard it without any explanation. Ben Azzai said: I will explain: when you say, three of which are made of a kav it would not contain hallah, but if you say, eighteen of which are made of a se'ah, it has been reduced by its hallah. The final issue has to deal with a halakhah that came up in the last tractate we learned Negaim. If a person goes into a house afflicted with some sort of scaly plague and stays there long enough to eat half of a loaf of bread, when three loaves are made of a kav of flour, becomes impure. The rabbis ask why he expresses the amount as \"three loaves in a kav\" instead of \"eighteen loaves in a seah.\" A seah is 6 kavs, so the ratio stays the same. Ben Azzai explains that had one made 18 loaves he would actually have to give some as \"hallah,\" dough offering, to the priest. This would reduce (by a small amount) the size of each loaf. But three loaves of bread is too small of an amount to be liable for hallah. Therefore, the amount of the loaf is precise." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are many occasions when the Torah mandates sacrificing a \"par\" or a bull. In today's mishnah there are three opinions as to how old the bull must be.", + "Rabbi Yose the Galilean said: bulls must be no more than two years old, for it is said, \"And the second bull you shall take for a sin-offering\" (Numbers 8:8). Rabbi Yose the Galilean bases his halakhah on a midrash on Numbers 8:8. The verse says that one should take the \"second bull.\" Since the Torah states elsewhere said to take two bulls and one has already been sacrificed why does it need to say \"second.\" From this \"extraneous\" word Rabbi Yose the Galilean concludes that the word \"second\" refers to how old the bull must be two years.", + "But the sages say: they may be even three years old. The sages say that the bull can even be three years old. There are some versions that don't include the word \"even.\" According to this, the rabbis hold that it must be three years old.", + "Rabbi Meir says: even those that are four or five years old are valid, but old animals are not brought out of respect. Rabbi Meir again provides a much higher limit for the age of the animal being discussed (as he did in yesterday's mishnah). However, despite the fact that one can bring a relatively old animal, it is not respectful to do so because it looks as if he is offering this animal only because it will die soon anyway." + ], + [ + "Lambs no more than one year old, And rams no more than two years old. When the Torah mandates bringing a lamb-offering, it must be within its first year. This is explicit in the Torah, see for instance Numbers 7:17. Rams adult sheep must be at least within their second year.", + "And all these years are reckoned from day to day. When counting the age of any of the animals listed in the first three mishnayot of this tractate, we count from the day the animal was born. We don't count from the beginning of the year, as we do for other matters. So a lamb born in the beginning of Elul is not considered to be one year old until the following Elul.", + "One that is thirteen months old is not valid, neither as a ram nor as a lamb. Rabbi Tarfon called it palges. Ben Azzai called it noked. Rabbi Ishmael called it parakhrigma. A 13 month old sheep cannot be considered a lamb or a ram. It is too old to be a lamb and a sheep is not a ram until it is 30 days past its first birthday. The 30 days is likely to be a vestige of the notion that the life of anything born is considered precarious until it has reached thirty days old. It's almost as if we count the animal's days only from one month and on (although this is only in cases in which the rule is stringent when it comes to the limit of a lamb, it is one year, and not 13 months). The sages all have a special name for this 13 month old sheep. Palges is a Greek word which refers to something that is no longer a child but has not reached maturity (kind of like a teenager). Noked is a type of inferior sheep. And parakhrigma is a Greek word used to refer to a coin with a king's image that has been invalidated by the new king. The 13 month old has been disqualified from being a \"lamb\" but has not yet been validated as a \"ram.\"", + "If a man offered it he must bring for it the libation of a ram, but it is not counted as his offering. If a person sacrifices a 13 month old sheep he must bring the libations that are brought for a ram. This means 2 tenths of an ephah of flour, a third of a hin of oil and a third of a hin of wine (see Numbers 15:6-7). However, offering this animal doesn't count as fulfilling his obligation. So if he vowed to bring a ram or a lamb, the thirteen month old doesn't count and he still has to bring another one.", + "One that is thirteen months old behold it is a ram. Once it reaches 13 months and one day it is a ram." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how old various animals must be before they can sacrificed.", + "The sin-offerings of the congregation and their burnt-offerings, the sin-offering of an individual, the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a metzora are valid from the thirtieth day onwards, and also on the thirtieth day. If they were offered on the eighth day they are valid. The sin-offerings of the congregation are the goats that are brought on Rosh Hodesh and other holidays. These must be within their first year. The burnt-offerings are lambs (see Numbers 28). The sin-offering of an individual can be a lamb or goat (Leviticus 4:28ff). The guilt offering of a nazirite (Numbers 6:12) and the guilt offering of a metzora (Leviticus 14:12) are both lambs. Since all of these are mandatory offerings, it is mandated that one let them grow a little bit before they are brought. Although they are valid from the 8th day and onwards, they should not be brought until they are at least 30 days old. No animal can be slaughtered or sacrificed before the 8th day, as is stated explicitly in Leviticus 22:27.", + "Vow-offerings and freewill-offerings, firstlings and the tithe of cattle and the pesach are valid from the eighth day onwards, and also on the eighth day. Vow offerings and freewill offerings are voluntary, therefore they can be offered on the eighth day and onwards. Since people are not mandated to bring them, we don't make them wait until the 30th day to do so. As far as the firstling (the first-born animal to its mother) goes, the Torah specifically says that that on the 8th day you should give it to the Lord (Exodus 22:29). The cattle tithe and the pesah are both compared to the firstling (see Zevahim 5:8). Therefore they too can be offered from the 8th day and onwards." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Rabbi Eliezer says: a [red] cow for the hatat that is pregnant is valid, But the sages say: it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says that a pregnant red cow is still valid for the red cow ritual (the hatat is the sin offering, which is how the rabbis refer to the red cow). In mishnah four of this chapter we shall see a dispute as to whether a cow that has mated with a bull is valid. In contrast, the sages say that a pregnant cow is akin to two cows, which means it is not valid for the red cow hatat.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: it may not be bought from non-Jews, But the sages say: it is valid. Rabbi Eliezer says that a cow bought from non-Jews cannot be used lest they used it for work, which would render it invalid. The other sages say that unless we know that it has been used for work, it is valid.", + "And not only this, but all sacrifices of the congregation or the individual may be brought from the land of Israel and from outside the land, from new produce and from the old; Except the omer and the two loaves, which may be brought only from new produce and from within the land. This expands the sages' view found in section two. All sacrifices, both public and private may be brought from animals raised outside the land of Israel, even if they are bought from non-Jews. The remainder of this mishnah is brought here from Menahot 8:1. My commentary here is the same as there. All menahot (grain offerings) can come from grain grown either in or outside the land of Israel. They can also come from new produce or aged produce. There are two exceptions: the omer barley offering brought on the second day of Pesah and the two loaves brought on Shavuot. With regard to the omer it is stated in Leviticus 23:10, “When you come into the land…you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest.” With regard to the two loaves it states there in verses 16-17, “And you shall offer a new minhah to the Lord, from your dwelling places you shall bring it.” Both of these verses teach that the omer and the two loaves must come from the new harvest and from grain grown in the land of Israel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with various bodily issues that could potentially disqualify the red cow.", + "If the horns or the hoofs of the [red] cow are black they are chopped off. The red cow must have only red hairs. If it has black hairs, they cannot be removed to make it valid. However, if it has black non-hair parts, parts that can be removed without killing or maiming the animal, they may be removed. These include the horns and hoofs.", + "The eye ball, the teeth and the tongue cause do not invalidate the [red] cow. Some parts need not even be removed if they are black. These include the eye ball, the teeth and the tongue. Removing these \"live\" parts of the cow would severely damage the cow and therefore this is not done.", + "One that is dwarf-like is valid. In Bekhorot 7:6 we learned that dwarf-like animals are not disqualified from sacrifices. Here we learn that this includes the red hatat cow.", + "If there was on it an extra digit and it was cut off: Rabbi Judah says that it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says: wherever, if removed, no red hair grows in its place is it invalid. Bekhorot 7:6 teaches that if a priest had an extra finger and he cut it off, he can't serve on the altar. Rabbi Judah applies this to the red hatat cow as well. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon says that the cow is invalid only if no red hair grows in its place. If red hair takes its place, it is valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMost of today's mishnah deals with Numbers 19:2 which states, \"Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a red cow without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which no yoke has been laid.\"", + "One that is born from the side, the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid, as it says, \"You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God,\" (Deuteronomy 23:19) and this was not brought into the house. Deuteronomy 23:19 forbids one from bringing as a sacrifice an animal that was used to pay a harlot or an animal that was sold to buy a dog. The first opinion in the mishnah states that if a red cow was used for either of these purposes, it too is invalid as a hatat cow. However, Rabbi Eliezer says that the verse only prohibits actually sacrifices to be brought from such animals. The red cow is not brought into the Temple and thus if used for either of these purposes, it is valid. In addition, there is a debate concerning a red cow that is born through a caesarean section literally in Hebrew one that is born from the side of its mother. In Bekhorot 7:7 we learned that an animal born through caesarean section cannot be sacrificed. Here we learn that it can also not be used as a red cow hatat, according to the sages. Again, Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid.", + "All blemishes that cause consecrated animals to be invalid cause also the [red] cow to be invalid. The Torah explicitly states that the red cow must have no blemish. The list of what constitutes a blemish can be found in Bekhorot chapter 6.", + "If one had ridden on it, leaned on it, hung on its tail, crossed a river by its help, doubled up its leading rope, or put one's cloak on it, it is invalid. These are all considered making use of the animal and therefore disqualify it from being used as a red cow. \"Doubled up its leading rope\" seems to mean that one doubled up the rope and laid it on the cow as a place to put it. This too is considered making use of the animal.", + "But if one had only tied it up by its leading rope or made for it a sandal to prevent it from slipping or spread one's cloak on it because of flies, it is valid. In contrast, in these cases the person doesn't make use of the animal, rather does something for the animal's sake. These do not fall under the category of \"on which no yoke has been laid\" and therefore the animal is still valid.", + "This is the general rule: wherever anything is done for its own sake, it remains valid; but if for the sake of another, it becomes invalid. This is the general rule that summarizes the distinction drawn between the cases in section three and those in section four." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that if something rests upon the red cow it only disqualifies it from use as a hatat if it is done according to the owners wishes.", + "If a bird rested on it, it remains valid. A bird sitting on the red cow does not disqualify it from use as a hatat. This does not count as the bird having performed work for it was not something that the owners wanted to happen.", + "If a male beast mounted it, it becomes invalid. Rabbi Judah says: if the male was made to mount, it becomes invalid; but if it did so of itself, it remains valid. According to the first opinion, if a male animal mounts the red cow to mate with it the red cow has been invalidated because this is something that the owners would want to happen. And although they would not want it to happen to that particular cow, for this would invalidate it for use as a red cow hatat (worth lots of cash), since they would want it to happen to their other cows, this counts as something that was done with the consent of the owners. Rabbi Judah distinguishes between a case where the owners caused the male to mount the red cow and cases where the bull mounted on its own. For this act to be considered something done according to the owners' wishes, they must take an active part in the act. If they do not, then we cannot consider it an act that disqualifies the red cow." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how many non-red hairs, and the placement of such hairs, will disqualify a red cow from being used as a hatat.", + "If it had two black or white hairs growing within one follicle, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah said: within one kos; if they grew within two kosot that were adjacent to one another, it is invalid. According to the first opinion, if two black or white hairs grow within one follicle they disqualify the cow from use as a hatat. Rabbi Judah says \"within one kos.\" According to Albeck, kos is another word for follicle, in which case, Rabbi Judah does not disagree with the first opinion, he just uses different language (the word used for follicle was \"guma.\") In addition, Rabbi Judah says that if two white or black hairs grow in two adjacent follicles (kosot) and the hairs are directed to one another, then they disqualify the cow.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: even if there were four or five but they were dispersed, they may be plucked out. Rabbi Eliezer says: even as many as fifty. Rabbi Akiva is more lenient. As long as the hairs are not adjacent, they don't disqualify the cow. However, he must remove the white or black hairs before the cow can be used. Rabbi Eliezer has a similar opinion, except it is not clear if he requires the hairs to be removed. If he does require removal, then he has virtually the same opinion as Rabbi Akiva, he just words it slightly differently.", + "Rabbi Joshua ben Batera says: even if it had but one on its head and one on its tail, it is invalid. Rabbi Joshua ben Batera rules strictly even two white or black hairs on opposite sides of the body will disqualify the cow.", + "If it had two hairs with their roots black and their tips red or with their roots red and their tips black, everything goes according to what is visible, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: by the root. According to Rabbi Meir, we judge the color according to the tip the more visible part. But the sages say we judge by the root if the roots are white or black, the cow is not considered red. [This sort of reminds me of someone who has colored their hair and has let it grow out a bit.]" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter three describes the ritual of how the red cow was burned into ash. This is covered in Numbers 19:3-6:\n3 You shall give it to Eleazar the priest. It shall be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence. 4 Eleazar the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting. 5 The cow shall be burned in his sight its hide, flesh, and blood shall be burned, its dung included 6 and the priest shall take cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson stuff, and throw them into the fire consuming the cow.", + "Seven days before the burning of the [red] cow they would separate the priest who was to burn the cow from his house to a chamber that was facing the north-eastern corner of the birah, and which was called the Stone Chamber. The idea of setting aside the priest who would burn the red cow seems to be derived from the setting aside of the high priest before the Yom Kippur worship (see Yoma 1:1). And both ideas are learned from the setting aside of Aaron and his sons for seven days before the original sanctification of the altar in Leviticus 8:33-34. Part of the reason that the priest had to leave his house was to prevent him from being with his wife and thereby becoming ritually defiled. There are two opinions as to what \"Birah\" is. One holds that this is another name for the Temple, while another holds that this is a tower that was on the Temple Mount. See also Pesahim 7:5.", + "They would sprinkle upon him throughout the seven days with [a mixture of] all the sin-offerings that were there. Rabbi Yose said: they sprinkled upon him only on the third and the seventh days. Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests said: on the priest that was to burn the cow they sprinkled all the seven days, but on the one that was to perform the service on Yom Kippur they sprinkled on the third and the seventh days only. During the seven days that he was separated, they would sprinkle him with the hatat purificatory waters. These waters were made using the combined ashes of all of the red cows that had been burned since the time of Moses (we shall return to this in mishnah five). Sprinkling the ashes on him for all seven days seems to be some sort of extra stringency lest the priest had become defiled before the seven day waiting period by contact with a dead body. Rabbi Yose says that they sprinkled the purificatory waters on him only on the third and seventh days. These are the days in which a person who had contact with the dead requires purification. Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests distinguishes between the priest who was to burn the red cow, who does require sprinkling every day, and the priest who performed the Yom Kippur service, who requires sprinkling only on the third and seventh day. It seems to me that this opinion may be a way of highlighting just how significant the burning of the red cow was in their eyes. The rules governing it are even stricter than those governing the most central act of worship in the Temple during the year the entrance into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses how they would preserve the purity of the children of priests so that they could perform the red cow ritual without ever having become impure. This was an extra stringency due to the high degree of gravity with which they took the red cow ceremony.", + "Courtyards were built in Jerusalem over rock, and beneath them there was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. They would not build the courtyards directly over the ground just in case there was a grave deep in the ground, and the dead body's impurity would rise and defile the priests above. The hollow between the rock and the building platform would serve to capture the impurity and prevent it from rising. This was a concept we learned much about in Tractate Ohalot a space the size of one handbreadth by one handbreadth prevents impurity from rising up above the space.", + "And they used to bring there pregnant women, and there they gave birth to their children and there they raised them. They would bring pregnant women there to give birth and raise their children there so that the children would never become impure. Again, this is not strictly necessary but it demonstrates the extra degree of severity with which they treated this purity ritual.", + "And they brought oxen, upon whose backs were placed doors, and the children sat upon them with stone cups in their hands. The following two sections describe how they would draw water from the Shiloah spring without possibly coming into contact with a source of impurity. The children would ride oxen down to the spring. The doors on the oxen's backs would prevent the children from overshadowing (making an ohel over) any source of impurity. They used stone cups because stone cannot become impure.", + "When they reached the Shiloah spring they got down and filled the cups with water and then they ascended and sat again on the doors. Rabbi Yose said: each child used to let down his cup and fill it from his place. They filled their cups from the Shiloah spring which is on the southern side of Jerusalem (also called the Silwan). Rabbi Yose says that they didn't even get off the backs of their oxen to do so. Again, this was an extra stringency to make sure they did not become impure." + ], + [ + "They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down. The children now proceed back up to the Temple Mount and then get off their oxen.", + "Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. As was the case with the courtyards in which these children were raised, there was a space below the Temple Mount and the courtyards that would protect them from the impurity of a potential grave.", + "And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings. At the eastern entrance of the women's courtyard there was a stone jar in which the ashes of the burned red cow could be found.", + "They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards. They didn't simply have one of the kids take the ashes out of the jar and put them in the water drawn from the Shiloah for fear that somehow the child had become impure and he would defile the ashes. Rather, they would tie some sort of stick or twig to a sheep and put the stick or twig into the ashes and then hit the sheep so that he would get moving. Thus they could remove the ashes without ever touching the jar or even directly causing the jar to move. Again, this is another stringency done in the red cow ceremony.", + "And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water. Once the ashes had been removed, a child could come and take them and put them into the stone jar of water that he had collected. He would put enough ashes in so that they would be noticeable in the water.", + "Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it. Rabbi Yose seems to fear that the Sadducees would ridicule a priest who would perform the ritual in this manner, that is by removing the ashes by using a sheep. Such ridicule could help the Sadducees to gain an upper hand over the Pharisees. To prevent such ridicule, he says that a child should just remove it himself. It is interesting to me that Rabbi Yose perceives Pharisaic rule in the Temple to be contingent upon their image in the eyes of others. Someone would see the strange ceremony and then somehow cause the Pharisees to lose control. After having put the ashes into the water, the children would sprinkle it onto the priest who was going to burn the next red cow, as we learned in mishnah one." + ], + [ + "One may not bring a sin-offering by virtue of [the purifications made for] another sin-offering, nor one child by virtue of [the preparations made for] another. If they begin to make preparations to burn one red cow and somehow that red cow becomes disqualified (for instance, someone performs work with it, or it grows some black hairs) they have to start the preparations all over again. The preparations for the burning of a red cow, in other words, must be done with that red cow in mind. So too, if one child begins to perform the preparations and then for whatever reason doesn't complete them, they can't bring another child to finish the process. They must start anew.", + "The children had to be sprinkle on each other, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: they did not need to sprinkle. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, the children need to sprinkle the water on each other, before they sprinkle it onto the priest who will burn the cow. Rabbi Akiva says that this is not necessary." + ], + [ + "Introduction In mishnah one we learned that they sprinkled the priest with the ashes from all of the red cows that had ever been burned. Our mishnah reflects a legend (I think) according to which there had been seven burned red cows in Jewish history.", + "If they did not find the residue of the ashes of the seven [red cows] they performed the sprinkling with those of six, of five, of four, of three, of two or of one. If they didn't have the residue of all seven red cows, then they could use as many as they found.", + "And who prepared these? Moses prepared the first, Ezra prepared the second, and five were prepared from the time of Ezra, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir two of the cows were prepared by two central biblical figures. Moses burned one while in the desert and Ezra burned the second when he founded the Second Temple. The remaining five were burned after the time of Ezra.", + "But the sages say: seven from the time of Ezra. And who prepared them? Shimon the Just and Yohanan the high priest prepared two each; Elihoenai the son of Ha-Kof and Hanamel the Egyptian and Ishmael the son of Piabi prepared one each. The sages say that all seven were burned from the time of Ezra and onward. They even name all seven high priests that burned them. Shimon the Just is a well-known figure in rabbinic literature. Scholars identify him as being either of two High Priests (grandfather and grandson) that served early in the Second Temple period, before the Hasmonean revolt. Part of the confusion as to which Shimon this is stems from the fact that Onias was the name of the father of both of them. Yohanan the high priest was a member of the Hasmonean family (Judah's nephew). The other three are harder to identify. There is a priest by the name of Elihoenai that appears in Ezra 8:4. Hanamel seems to be called Ananelos by Josephus (Wars of the Jews 15.40). He served during Herod's time. Ishmael son of Piabi seems to have been a high priest after Hanamel. He is described as being close to the Sadduceans. Nevertheless, he is portrayed positively in rabbinic literature." + ], + [ + "They made a ramp from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, being constructed of arches above arches, each arch placed directly above each foundation [of the arch below] as a protection against a grave in the depths, whereby the priest who was to burn the cow, the cow itself and all who aided in its preparation went forth to the Mount of olives. Our mishnah describes a special ramp that was made leading from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives. The ramp was constructed with a series of arches in its walkway with an empty space underneath each archway. Furthermore, the ramp was multi-layered such that each archway was above the foundation of the archway below. This way the priest, the cow and all of the assistants would always be walking over an empty space. This would protect against that all pervasive fear of the \"grave in the depths.\" [This is beginning to sound a bit like some sort of horror film!]" + ], + [ + "If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, \"They slaughtered a black cow\" nor another red [cow] lest people say, \"They slaughtered two.\" Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said \"And he shall bring her out\" by herself. Normally, if a cow refuses to go somewhere, its owners would find a more obedient cow to go with it. However, in the case of the red cow, this is not allowed lest the people seeing the second cow, be it black or red, think that they either slaughtered two red cows or that they are going to slaughter a black cow. Rabbi Yose says that the reason for this prohibition is that the Torah implies that they should bring out the red cow alone.", + "The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The elders would go to the Mount of Olives by foot. They would not ride on animals to show how enthusiastic they were to see the performance of this mitzvah.", + "The priest that was to burn the cow was ( made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, \"It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set.\" This section introduces a big debate between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Concerning a person who has had contact with a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) Leviticus 22:7 states, \"And the sun will set and he will be pure.\" This seems to imply that a person is not pure until he has immersed in the mikveh and then the sun has subsequently set. However, the Pharisees/rabbis believed that once a priest immersed in the mikveh he is pure enough to perform the red cow ceremony. To demonstrate that this is true, they would intentionally defile the priest (with a one-day form of impurity) and then have him immerse. He would now be in the category of \"tvul yom\" a person who has immersed but has not yet had the sun set for him. This was a demonstrative act against the Sadducees who abhorred such a practice. One interpretation of this debate that makes sense to me is that the Pharisees wanted to diminish the power of the sun in matters of ritual purity due to the fact that other Jews of the time used a solar calendar. By making purity depend upon the setting of the sun, it was as if they gave purifying power to the sun itself. In response, the Pharisees limited this notion, and created the category of the tvul yom." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues the description of the ritual of the burning of the cow.", + "They laid their hands upon him and said, \"My Lord the high priest, perform immersion once.\" The elders lay their hands on the high priest, telling him to go immerse to prepare for the burning of the red cow. Two notes are in order. 1) This is again similar to the Yom Kippur ritual (see 1:3). 2) This ceremony need not be performed by the high priest. It seems that by according it to him, the ceremony received greater prominence.", + "He went down and immersed himself and came up and dried himself. He needed to immerse because they had intentionally defiled him.", + "Different kinds of wood were set in order there: cedar wood, pine, spruce and the wood of smooth fig trees. They made it in the shape of a tower and opened air holes in it; and its foreside was turned towards the west. The wood was set to burn the cow. It was made into a tower with air holes so that it would burn more effectively. The wood was set up facing the Temple (which was to the west), meaning it was in rows going from west to east, with the front of the wood towards the west." + ], + [ + "They bound it with a rope of reed and placed it on the pile with its head towards the south and its face towards the west. The cow is now bound up and placed on the pile of wood. Its head is facing south and its face is to be turned to the west, towards the Temple.", + "The priest stood in the east with his face towards the west. He slaughtered with his right hand and received the blood with his left. Rabbi Judah said: he received the blood with his right hand and put it in his left hand. The priest stands on the eastern side of the cow, facing the Temple as well. He slaughters the animal with his right hand and then receives the blood into a vessel held in his left. Rabbi Judah says he receives the blood with his right hand and then puts the vessel into his left. This seems to be a preference for doing the important actions, which include the receiving of the blood, with his right hand.", + "He sprinkled with his right. Seven times he dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it towards the Holy of Holies, dipping once again for each sprinkling. He sprinkles the blood 7 times towards the Holy of Holies. This is stated explicitly in Numbers 19:4.", + "When he finished the sprinkling he wiped his hand on the body of the cow, came down and kindled the fire with wood chips. Rabbi Akiva said: with dry branches of palm-trees. He needs to clean off his bloody hand on the cow itself so that the blood can be burned with the fire. Numbers 19:5 specifically states that the blood must be burned." + ], + [ + "It burst and he stood outside its pit and he took the cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool. Once the cow burst due to the heat of the fire, the priest would take the cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool into his hand so that he could throw them into the fire (see Numbers 19:6).", + "He said to them, \"Is this cedarwood? Is this cedarwood?\" \"Is this hyssop? Is this hyssop?\" \"Is this scarlet wool? Is this scarlet wool?\" Three times he repeated each question and they answered him \"Yes, yes\" three times to each question. The thrice-repeated formula is meant to give great publicity to the ceremony, as is done with the Omer (barley offering) according to Menahot 10:3. In my opinion this is part of the polemic against the Sadducees (see mishnah 7). The Pharisees/rabbis have to prove that they take this ceremony with utmost gravity in order to balance out their leniency that the red cow ritual can be performed by a priest who is a \"tvul yom\" someone who has been to the mikveh but has not waited till sundown to become pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of this chapter concludes the description of the burning of the red cow.", + "He then wrapped them together with the remains of the strip of wool and cast them into the fire. After demonstrably ensuring that the cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were what they were supposed to be (see yesterday's mishnah), the priest would use the extra wool to bind them up and cast them into the fire (see Numbers 19:6).", + "When it was burnt up they would beat it with sticks and then sift it with sieves. Rabbi Ishmael says: this was done with stone hammers and stone sieves. The next steps taken ensured that everything that was in the fire was actually burned. They would beat the fire with sticks and then sift through it to make sure the ashes were fine. Rabbi Ishmael says that this was done with stone instruments which are not susceptible to impurity.", + "If there was a black coal on which there were some ashes they would crush it but if there were no [ashes] they would leave it. A bone was crushed in either case. Coals that had ashes remaining on them were crushed up so that the ashes would be part of the final product. Bones were crushed up even if they didn't have ashes remaining on them.", + "It was then divided into three parts: one part was deposited on the hel, one on the Mount of Olives, and one was divided among the priestly watches. The ashes of the red cow (and the other materials) were then split and divided into three places. The first is the \"hel\" an area right outside the courtyard where the ashes were placed into the water to purify the priest who was to burn the next cow (see mishnah three). The second part was placed on the Mount of Olives. This part was not used (at least not on a regular basis). The third part was given out to the priestly watches who would use it to purify any Israelite who needed this type of purification." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah describes various conditions that must be fulfilled for the red cow ceremony to be validly performed.", + "If a hatat cow was slaughtered not for its own name, or if its blood was received or sprinkled not for its own name, or if this was done for its own name and for some other name, or for some other name and for its name, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules it valid. The hatat cow must be slaughtered and its blood must be received and sprinkled with the intent of this being for a hatat cow (the one used for the red cow ritual). If any part of these three actions are done for the sake of another type of sacrifice then it is invalid. This is true of all sacrifices, as we learned in the first chapter of Zevahim. Rabbi Eliezer says that the hatat cow is not treated like a regular sacrifice because its ritual is performed outside of the Temple.", + "If [the service] was performed by one whose hands or feet were unwashed, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is valid. All sacrifices must be performed by those who have washed their hands and feet (see Zevahim 2:1). Again, the sages say that the red cow is like other sacrifices and if the ritual is performed by someone who has not washed their hands and feet, it is invalid. And again, Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is valid.", + "If it was performed by one who was not the high priest, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah rules that it is valid. The sages say that the red cow must be performed by the high priest himself, whereas Rabbi Judah disagrees.", + "If it was performed by one who was not wearing all the prescribed garments, it is invalid. And in white garments it was to be prepared. There are four pieces of clothing that all priests must wear when performing a sacrificial service: a cloak, pants, a headdress, and sash. Even if the high priest performs the ceremony, he performs it with the white garments worn by a regular priest and not with the eight garments worn by the high priest (see Yoma 7:5)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to list things that can disqualify the validity of the burning of the red cow.", + "If it was burnt outside its pit, or in two pits, or if two cows were burnt in the same pit, it is invalid. In 3:10 we learned that they would make a pit in which to burn the red cow. If it was burned outside of this pit, or if they made two pits, it is invalid. Similarly, they can't make two red cows in one pit. This is similar to the prohibition of not using one cow to prod out another in 3:7.", + "If [the blood] was sprinkled but not in the direction of the entrance of the Holy of Holies, it is invalid. The blood must be sprinkled in the correct direction for it to be valid (see 3:9).", + "If he made the seventh sprinkling out of the sixth and then sprinkled again a seventh time, it is invalid. If the priest dips his finger into the blood and sprinkles a sixth time, and then with the remaining blood sprinkles a seventh time, it is invalid, even if he goes back and sprinkles another \"seventh\" time. The problem is that he sprinkled once without dipping and we learned in 3:9 that for every sprinkle he needs to redip his finger.", + "If he sprinkled an eighth time out of the seventh and then sprinkled again an eighth time, it is valid. In this case he sprinkled correctly seven times and then with the remains of the seventh sprinkle he performed an eighth sprinkling and then again dippied his finger and did another eighth sprinkling. Since he did seven proper sprinklings, the fact that he added more does not invalidate the act." + ], + [ + "If he burned it without wood, or with any kind of wood, and even if only with straw or stubble, it is valid. Although the type of wood that should be used to burn the red cow is listed in 3:8, if he uses other wood, or even no wood at all, the act is still valid. It seems that the wood is not part of the mitzvah, but just something that enables the mitzvah and therefore using different material does not invalidate the mitzvah.", + "If he flayed it and cut up, it is valid. The act is valid even if the cow is flayed and cut up before being burned. Of course, all of the cow must be burned.", + "If he slaughtered it with the intention of eating its flesh or drinking its blood, it is valid. Rabbi Eliezer rules: no intention can invalidate the red cow. The printed version reads \"valid\" but this seems to be an erroneous reading. Manuscripts and testimony from medieval commentaries read \"invalid\" which makes more sense. If he slaughters the red cow with the intention of eating its flesh or drinking its blood, he has invalidated it. Rabbi Eliezer is consistent with his position in mishnah one wrong intentions do not invalidate the red cow ritual since it is not considered to be a sacrifice." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nNumbers 19:7-10 states, \"The priest shall wash his garments and bathe his body in water; after that the priest may reenter the camp, but he shall be unclean until evening. 8 He who performed the burning shall also wash his garments in water, bathe his body in water, and be unclean until evening. 9 A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place, to be kept for water of lustration for the Israelite community. It is for cleansing. 10 He who gathers up the ashes of the cow shall also wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.\"\nMost of our mishnah deals with who must wash their clothing.", + "All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. The mishnah rules that anyone who performs any aspect of the red cow service has defiled their clothing. They also render the red cow invalid if they do some other type of work while occupying themselves with the red cow. No multi-tasking while burning the red cow (so put away your cellphones ☺).", + "If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If the cow turns out to be invalid while it is being slaughtered (for instance the slaughtering is not done correctly) then it doesn't count as a red cow ritual and the person's clothes will not be made impure.", + "If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. The basic principle here is that if the person is occupied with the red cow ritual after it is already invalid, his clothes are not defiled. But if he was occupied with it after it was slaughtered but before it was invalidated, his clothes are defiled because the cow did count, at least for a time, as a red cow because it had been slaughtered properly. The result is that the stringency (the red cow has been invalidated) turns into a leniency (the clothes are not defiled).", + "It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. \"Trespassing\" is the illicit use of a sacred property. Any use of the red cow is considered trespassing, no matter when it is done.", + "Wood may be added to the fire. It is permitted to add wood to the fire to help it burn. However, this is true only before it has become ash. If one adds wood after the cow has been turned to ash, he invalidates the ash.", + "The service must be performed by day and by a priest. The entire service must be performed during the day and by a priest.", + "Work renders it invalid. Work renders it invalid as we learned above in section one.", + "[All of this is only] until it becomes ashes These words relate to everything that was taught in sections four through seven. Those rules apply only until it has been turned into ash. After it has been turned into ash, the rules of trespassing do not apply: one cannot add wood and the service does not need to be performed during the day or by a priest.", + "And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it. Doing work with the water set aside for the sprinkling ritual renders it invalid, but only until the ash has been added." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah talks about measures taken to ensure the purity of the vessel into which the ashes and water were mixed.", + "He who brings the earthen vessel for the hatat must immerse, and spend the night by the furnace. Rabbi Judah says: he may also bring it from the house and it is valid, for all are deemed trustworthy in regard to the hatat. The person who is going to bring the earthenware vessel to be used for the hatat (the red cow) must first immerse himself in a mikveh. When doing so, he must have the specific intent that he will be occupied with the hatat (see Hagigah 2:6). He must sleep next to the furnace in which the vessel is being made to make sure that it is not touched by someone impure. Rabbi Judah rules much more leniently for he believes that people can be trusted to preserve the purity of anything to do with the hatat. People recognize the sanctity of the red cow and would not claim that a vessel was pure if it was not. Therefore, he can even bring it directly from the house in which it was made, without sleeping next to the furnace (might not be so comfortable in the summer).", + "In the case of terumah one may open the furnace and take out [the vessel]. Rabbi Shimon says: from the second row. Rabbi Yose says: from the third row. When it comes to a vessel made for holding terumah, one need not sleep next to the furnace. However, he should go to the furnace, open it up and take it out himself. He should be able to tell by looking at the vessel whether it had yet been touched. He should not trust the potter's purity. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yose rule more strictly saying that he should take from either the second row of vessels in the furnace or the third row, for it is more likely that these rows have not been touched and therefore have not been defiled." + ], + [ + "If one immersed a vessel for the hatat in water that is not fit for the mixing he must dry it; If in water that is fit for the mixing he need not dry it. The water used to mix in the ashes must be fresh water (see 19:17), water that has not been previously collected. If he takes a vessel that can be purified in a mikveh to use it for mixing in the hatat ash and he immerses it in a mikveh, he must make sure that it is completely dry before he puts in the water for the ritual. But if he immersed it in fresh water, he doesn't need to dry it because that water is fit in any case.", + "But if [he intended] to collect in it water that was already mixed with the ashes, he must dry it in either case. If he immersed the vessel to gather water in which the ashes had already been mixed, then he needs to dry it no matter where he immersed it. This is because he needs to prevent water that has not been sanctified with the hatat (the water in which he immerses) with the water that has already been mixed." + ], + [ + "If a pumpkin shell was immersed in water that was not fit for the mixing, it is permissible to mix in it the ashes with the water, as long as it had not been defiled. If one designs a dried out pumpkin shell to be a vessel for holding water, then he can immerse it even in a regular mikveh (water not fit for mixing) and he doesn't need to dry it off before mixing in the water to be used with the ashes. This is because the water that remains after the immersion will be absorbed into the pumpkin shell. We are not concerned lest it expel some of this water (which cannot be used with the ashes) into water that will be used for the ashes.", + "If it has been defiled, one cannot mix in it the ashes with the water. However, if the pumpkin shell had previously been defiled then it can't be used ever to hold the water and ashes because we are concerned that it will expel some impure water that had been held in its absorbent walls, thereby invalidating the hatat waters.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: if one is allowed to mix in it the ashes and water at the beginning, one should also be allowed to do so at the end; and if one is not allowed to do this at the end one should not be allowed to do it at the beginning. In either case it is not permissible to collect in it water that has already had ashes mixed in. Rabbi Joshua points out the obvious inconsistency with the previous opinion. In section one (at the beginning, before it had been defiled) we were not concerned lest it expel any water that it had absorbed. But in section two (at the end, after it had been defiled) we are concerned that it will do so. The inconsistency does not make sense. It seems that this leads Rabbi Joshua to rule strictly. Even if the pumpkin has never been defiled, he still can't use it for fear that it will expel unusable water into the living waters needed for the hatat ritual.", + "Whether or not the pumpkin has ever been defiled, it cannot be used to collect water that has already had ashes mixed in. This is because we fear that it will expel water that had not had the ashes in it, into the water that did (see the end of yesterday's mishnah). We should note that there is some disagreement among the commentators whether this last line belongs to Rabbi Joshua or to the sages." + ], + [ + "A reed pipe that was cut [for use as a container] for the hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it must be immersed immediately. Rabbi Joshua ruled: he defiles it and then immerses it. A reed pipe was cut and made into a vessel usable for holding water (on reed pipes as vessels see Kelim 17, the end of the chapter). Rabbi Eliezer says that it is to be immersed immediately for the sake of a hatat. Rabbi Joshua says that it should first be intentionally defiled and then it can be immersed and used immediately. This way the reed pipe will have the status of \"tvul yom\" something that is clean but has not yet waited for the sun set. As we saw in 3:7, the rabbis wanted the red cow ritual to be performed by a tvul yom as part of their polemic against the Sadducees who believed that a person was not pure until after the sun had set.", + "All are eligible to prepare the mixture, except a deaf mute, an imbecile and a minor. Rabbi Judah says a minor is eligible, but disqualifies a woman and a hermaphrodite. Anyone, even a non-priest and even a woman, can take the ashes and put them in the water. Numbers 19:9 says that a pure person must collect the ash. The rabbis take this to mean that the person needs to be pure, but that it can be done by anyone. However, he must have \"awareness\" meaning the ability to comprehend what he is doing. As we have seen many times throughout the Mishnah, the rabbis considered the deaf mute, the imbecile and the minor to be incapable of such awareness. Rabbi Judah says that a minor is capable of putting the ash into the water, but a woman is not allowed to do so. Similarly, a hermaphrodite who is part man/part woman, cannot perform the mixing of the ash and water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with what vessels can used for making the hatat waters.", + "They can make the mixture in all kinds of vessels, even in vessels made of cattle dung, of stone or of earth. All vessels can be used for mixing in the water and ashes, even vessels that cannot become impure, such as those made of dung, stone or earth. We might have thought that something that cannot become impure wouldn't count as a \"vessel\" and the Torah states that the water must be put into a vessel. Our mishnah counters that notion.[Hard to imagine them actually using vessels made of dung for this ritual, but theoretically, it's possible].", + "The mixture may also be prepared in a boat. So too a boat cannot become impure. Nevertheless, one can, at least theoretically, put the ashes and water in there.", + "It may not be prepared in the walls of vessels, or in the sides of a large jug, or in the stopper of a jar, or in one's cupped hands, for one does not fill up, or mix in, or sprinkle the hatat with anything but a vessel. However, there are things that can hold water that don't count as vessels. The first is the wall of a broken vessel, or the side of a large broken jug. Even though these pieces of earthenware can hold water, they cannot be used because they are not considered vessels. The stopper of a jar cannot be used even if it has a receptacle (see 9:1) because it is not considered a vessel. Finally, one's hands do not count as a vessel.", + "Only on a vessel does tightly fitting cover afford protection, for only in vessels is protection afforded against uncleanness within an earthen vessel. Earthenware vessels that have a tightly fitting lid protect their contents from impurity. For instance, if a vessel with food in it is in an oven with an impure thing such as a sheretz, the food remains pure (see Kelim 8:3). However, this only applies if the food is in a vessel. Non-vessels do not protect their contents in the same way." + ], + [ + "A potters’ egg is fit [as a vessel]. Rabbi Yose rules that it is unfit. A \"potters' egg\" is an egg shaped piece of plaster made by the potter and from which he will form a vessel. It has a receptacle. The first opinion holds that this egg is usable for mixing the ashes and water and to sprinkle from it for it is already considered a vessel. Rabbi Yose says that it is not yet a vessel and therefore cannot be used.", + "A hen's egg: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah rule it is fit [as a vessel]; But the sages rule that it is unfit. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah hold that even a hen's egg is considered a vessel and therefore can be used. However, the other sages (understandably, in my opinion) disagree." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a receptacle carved into a rock into which water from a spring would flow. Can this water be used for the red cow ritual?", + "It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid. The reason that this receptacle cannot be used is that it is not considered a vessel, and as we have seen, only vessels can be used for to mix the water and for the sprinkling. Similarly, if it is found in a tent (or tent-like structure) with a dead body (or part thereof) it does not need a tightly fitting lid to protect its contents from impurity. It is sufficient for it to be merely covered. If water from it flows into a mikveh, it doesn't render the mikveh invalid, as it would if the water came from a vessel. Water that flows into a mikveh from a vessel does render the mikveh invalid. The bottom-line it doesn't count as a vessel.", + "If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid. If one made a vessel out of stone and then attached it with lime to the ground next to the spring, it does count as a vessel. In such a case, he can use it for the hatat ritual, it needs a tightly fitting cover to protect its contents when in a tent with a corpse and if water flows from there into a mikveh it renders the mikveh's contents invalid.", + "If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel. This relates to the situation in section two. If there is a hole in that vessel and then he stops it up with a rag, the water cannot be used for the red cow ritual. The reason is not entirely clear and my translation hides the difficulty in the Hebrew. It seems that when the hole is at the bottom the water is drawn toward the hole and the rabbis don't consider the water as being contained by the vessel. To put it another way, the hole below nullifies it from being a vessel. But if the hole was on the upper side of the vessel and there are full walls surrounding it, then the water is considered to be surrounded by the vessel and it can be used for the red cow ritual.", + "If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid. This again relates to the situation in which there is a vessel put into the rock. If he made a rim of clay around the top of the vessel and the water rose to that level, the water cannot be used because the clay around the top is not considered to be a vessel. However, if he attaches the clay in such a manner that it would be moved with the vessel, then it is part of the vessel and the water is valid." + ], + [ + "If there were two troughs in one stone and the mixture was prepared in one of them, the water in the other is not prepared. In this situation there are two troughs set into the stone, neither of which are attached to the ground and therefore both can count as vessels (see yesterday's mishnah). If the mixture of red cow ashes and water is prepared in one, the water in the other is not considered to have been prepared because the two troughs are not connected.", + "If a hole of the size of the spout of a water skin passed from one to the other, or if the water overflowed both, even if only [to a depth of] the thickness of garlic peel, and the mixture was prepared in one of them, the water in the other is also prepared. However, if there is a connection between the two, either through a hole or by causing the water to overflow from one into the other, then as soon as one is prepared, the other is prepared as well." + ], + [ + "If one placed two stones close to one another and made them into a trough, and so also in the case of two kneading troughs, and so also in the case of a trough that was split, the water between them is not deemed to be prepared. Someone takes two stones and sets them up next to each other such that there is a receptacle in between. Or he does the same thing with two kneading troughs or he takes one trough set into a stone and divides it in two. In all three of these cases the water between the two vessels, or in the crack between the split trough, is not considered to be in a vessel and therefore cannot be used for the red cow ritual. In other words, if one takes two vessels and puts them next to each other such that a container is formed in between them, the container is not considered to be a vessel.", + "If they were joined together with lime or gypsum and they can be moved together, the water between them is deemed to have been prepared. However, if he joins the two troughs together such that they can be moved together, then the container formed in between them counts as a vessel and water in it can be used for the red cow ritual." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with various situations in which some of the ashes fall out of the hand of the person who is about to mix them in with the water.", + "If one was about to mix the ashes with the water and the ashes fell upon his hand or upon the side of the trough and then fell into the trough, the mixture is invalid. In all of these cases the mixture is invalid because the ashes must be put by a person directly into the water. The fact that there is something intervening (his hand or the side of the trough) renders the mixture invalid.", + "If they fell from the tube into the trough, the mixture is invalid. The ashes were put into a tube for storage (see 5:4). If they fall directly from the tube into the water, the mixture is invalid.", + "If he took the ashes from the tube and then covered it, or shut a door, the ashes remain valid but the water becomes invalid. Here he takes some ashes from the tube. He then covers up the tube or closes a door before he puts the ashes into the water. The ashes remain valid and can be put into some other water. But the fact that he did \"work\" while occupied with the red cow ritual renders the water invalid, as we learned in 4:4. He will now have to get new water to put the ashes in.", + "If he put it up erect on the ground, the water becomes invalid. If in his hand, the water is valid, since it is impossible [otherwise] Similarly, if he stands the tube up on the ground, this counts as work and the water is invalid. However, if he simply stands the tube up in his hand so that the ashes don't fall out, the water is still valid because he has no choice but to do this, or something like this. This is considered \"work necessary for the mixing\" and such work does not render the water invalid." + ], + [ + "If the ashes floated on the water: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may take some of them and use them in another preparation; But the sages say: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared from them. According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon if there are some ashes that are floating on the water after he has mixed them in, one can take those ashes and reuse them with other water to make more hatat waters. Think of it as red cow recycling. The other sages say that after the process has been performed once with some ashes, it cannot be performed again with the same ashes.", + "If he emptied out the water and some ashes were found at the bottom: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may dry them and then use them for another preparation; But the sages rule: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared. This is basically the same dispute as in section one, except here ashes have settled to the bottom of the vessel into which they were mixed." + ], + [ + "One who mixes the water in a trough while a bucket was in it, even though its neck was narrow as can be, the waters in it are prepared. If there is a bucket in the trough when he adds in the hatat ashes, the water in the bucket is also prepared for the sake of sprinkling. The bucket is a vessel and the water in it is considered to be connected to the rest of the water in the trough.", + "If there was a sponge in the trough, the water in it is invalid. However, if there is a sponge in the trough, the water in the sponge is not valid for use because the sponge is not a vessel. Furthermore, the water in it is not considered to be connected to the water in the trough. This prevents the rest of the water in the trough from being immediately invalidated.", + "What should he do? He should empty out the water until he gets to the sponge. This section explains how he should avoid the problem of invalid water from the sponge spilling into the valid water that remains in the trough. What he should do is pour all of the water into another container, thereby preserving its validity. He can then remove the sponge.", + "If one touched the sponge, however much the water that washes over it, the water becomes invalid. However, if he touches the sponge at all, we must be concerned lest some got squeezed out into the other water and therefore all of the water would be invalid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that if one causes water to pass from a spring into a jar by using a conduit that is receptive to impurity, the water is invalid. The water must either be filled straight into the jar, or at least go through or over something that does not receive impurity.", + "If he placed his hand or his foot or leaves of vegetables in such a manner as to enable the water to run into a jar, the water is invalid. Hands, feet and leaves of vegetables are susceptible to impurity. Therefore, the water that has passed over them has been invalidated.", + "If he used leaves of reeds or leaves of nuts the water is valid. However, leaves of reeds or nuts are not susceptible to impurity, therefore, the water remains valid for use.", + "This is the general rule: [water passing over] that which is susceptible to uncleanness is invalid, but [water passing over] that which is not susceptible to uncleanness is valid. This is the general rule that explains the distinction between section one and two." + ], + [ + "One who diverts a spring into a wine vat or into pools, the water is invalid for zavim and metzoraim. In this situation, a person diverts water from a spring into a wine vat or into some pools and after the vat or pools are full, he stops the connection with the spring such that the water is no longer connected to its source. Zavim people with abnormal genital discharge, cannot use this water because they need living water. For metzoraim, people with skin afflictions, they slaughter a bird above living water and sprinkle him with the water. This also requires living water.", + "And also for the preparation of the hatat water. It is also not valid for the preparation of hatat water.", + "Because it was not drawn into a vessel. This is the reason why this water cannot be used for any of these three rituals. The water in the vat or pools is no longer live water as it was when it was in the spring. And, the water is also not considered to be in a vessel for vats and pools are not vessels. Therefore, this water is invalid for any ritual requiring \"living waters.\"" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who draws water multiple times from a live source of water and either wants to use all five jars for one mixture or for five different mixtures. The potential problem that he could encounter is the prohibition of doing \"work\" while preparing the hatat water.", + "If five men filled five jars to prepare with them five mixtures, and then they changed their minds to prepare one mixture from all of them, or if they filled the jars to prepare with them one mixture and then they changed their minds to prepare with them five mixtures, all the water remains valid. There are two scenarios here. In the first, five different people draw five different jars of water with which to make five different mixtures of hatat water and then they change their mind and decide to make one mixture. Alternatively, five different men want to make one mixture and then they change their mind and decide to make five different mixtures. In both cases, all of the water is valid. As stated in the introduction, the potential problem is that one person would be preparing hatat water and at the same time doing something else, even preparing a separate mixture of hatat water. In these cases, that did not happen, because there were five different men, and each was occupied with preparing his own jar of hatat water.", + "If one man filled five jars intending to prepare five [separate] mixtures, [even though] he changed his mind to prepare one mixture from all of them, only the last is valid. Here, one man wanted to make five different jars but then changed his mind and decided to prepare one jar of hatat water. The problem is that after he filled each jar, he then went and filled another jar and this is considered \"work\" which disqualifies the validity of the hatat water. Only the last jar's water is valid because he didn't occupy himself with anything else after filling that jar.", + "If he intended to prepare one mixture from all of them and then he changed his mind to prepare five separate mixtures, only the water in the one that was mixed first is valid. At the outset, he intended to make one large mixture of hatat water and then he changed his mind and decided to make the water that he had drawn into five separate mixtures. The first drawing remains valid. But the latter four drawings of water are all invalid because the first mixing was considered work done in between their drawing and their mixing.", + "If he said to another man, \"Prepare mixtures from these for yourself,\" only the first is valid; In this case a person fills up five jars and then says to another, \"Prepare them for yourself.\" The preparer now takes possession of the water, thereby taking the place of the drawer. And just as only the first was valid in section three, so too here, only the first is valid because work was done in between their drawing their mixing.", + "But if he said, \"Prepare a mixture from these for me,\" all are valid. In this case, the drawer says to the one who will mix the water and ashes, \"Prepare them for me.\" Here, the preparer does not take the place of the drawer, for he hasn't given possession of the water over to him. It turns out that the owner of the water (the one who drew it) didn't do any labor in between the drawing and the mixing. Therefore, all of the mixtures are valid." + ], + [ + "One who filled the water with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, or filled the water for himself and for another man, or filled two jars at the same time, the water of both is invalid, for work causes invalidity whether one acts for oneself or for another person. In all of these cases a person is engaged in some sort of work while he is occupied with filling water for the red cow ritual. Either he works with one hand while filling with the other, or fills for himself and another person at the same time, or fills two at the same time. In all cases, all of the water is invalid for as we have learned, one can't perform work and fill the water at the same time. The general rule is that when one is filling the water and he at the same time does work, the water is invalid not just for him, but even if he is doing it on behalf of another person. This is not true when it comes to mixing, as we saw in mishnah one." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah describes situations where a person prepares the mixture of hatat ash and water and at the same time performs another act, and yet the mixture is still valid.", + "One who prepared the mixture with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, the mixture is invalid if he prepared it for himself, but if he prepared it for another man, it is valid. Performing work while mixing the ash and water doesn't disqualify the mixture if the preparation is being made for another person, as we saw in mishnah one. However, if he makes it for himself, it is invalid.", + "If he prepared a mixture both for himself and for another man, his is invalid and that of the other man is valid. The same principle is operative here he invalidates his own mixture because he is engaged in some other work, but he doesn't invalidate that of the other person.", + "If he prepares mixtures for two men simultaneously, both are valid. Since none of the preparations were being made for himself, both are valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nBeware! This mishnah might be a bit confusing, but it should all work out in the end. A classic example of rabbinic conundrums!", + "[If one said to another] \"Prepare the mixture for me and I will prepare the one for you,\" the first is valid. Two people drew water to use it for that hatat. Then one said to the other, \"You mix the ashes for me and I will mix for you.\" The first mixture is valid but the second mixture is not because the second person was occupied with mixing the first person's ash and water between his filling his water and its being mixed with ash.", + "[If he said,] \"Fill the water for me and I will fill the water for you,\" that of the latter is valid. The second filling is valid, but the first filling is invalid for the owner of the water was occupied with filling the other person's water between his own water being filled and their mixing.", + "[If he said,] \"Prepare the mixture for me and I will draw the water for you,\" both mixtures are valid. The first mixture is valid for the owner didn't draw the water for the second person until his mixture was already prepared. And the drawing of water for the second guy only began after the first mixture was already prepared, so it too is valid.", + "[If he said,] \"Fill the water for me and I will prepare the mixture for you’, both mixtures are invalid. In this case both are invalid. The first mixture is invalid for the owner of the first water prepared the second person's mixture between the filling of his own water and their mixture. The second mixture is invalid for the second person was occupied with drawing water for the first person between the drawing of his own water and their mixture." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who wants to draw water for a hatat mixture and at the same time draw some water for himself. How can he do it without invalidating the hatat water?", + "One who is drawing water for his own use and for the mixture of the hatat, he must draw for himself first and fasten [the bucket] to the carrying pole and then he can draw the water for the hatat. If he drew first the water for the hatat and then he drew the water for himself, it is invalid. First he must draw his own water and then attach it to the pole that he uses to carry the water, and then he can draw the water for the hatat. If he drew water first for the hatat and then drew for himself, the hatat water will be invalid because he performed work in between drawing the hatat water and mixing it with the ashes.", + "He must put his own behind him and that for the hatat before him, and if he put that for the hatat behind him it is invalid. The hatat waters have to go in front of him where they can be better watched. This is derived from the word, \"for a watch\" found in Numbers 19:9.", + "If both were for the hatat, he may put one before him and one behind him and both are valid, since it is impossible to do otherwise. If he has two jars of hatat water that he needs to carry then he has no choice but to carry one behind him. Both remain valid." + ], + [ + "One who carries the rope in his hand, If in his usual manner, the mixture is valid; But if not in his usual manner, it is invalid. If after filling the water into a jar that was hanging from a rope he returned in his usual way and didn't go out of the way to return the rope somewhere else, the mixture remains valid. But if he went out of his way to carry the rope somewhere else, the mixture is invalid because this is considered work.", + "The question was sent on to Yavneh on three festivals and on the third festival, it was ruled that the mixture was valid, as a temporary measure. The question about walking the rope out of its way and was asked (according to the Tosefta by pilgrims from Asia Minor) for three consecutive festivals in the yeshiva in Yavneh and finally on the third festival they gave an answer. The answer was that as a temporary measure they will validate cases in which this was done in the past, but in the future if one carries the rope out of its way, it will invalidate the water. As an aside, this mishnah is, according to some scholars (notably Gedaliah Alon), evidence that there was a center of rabbinic learning in Yavneh before the destruction of the Temple. Yavneh's ascent as a famous and legendary rabbinic academy seems to have largely occurred after the destruction (this was where R. Yohanan ben Zakkai went after the destruction) but it seems that there were some sages there even before the destruction and that some Jews turned to those sages with questions on their way to the Temple in Jerusalem. However, beyond these scant details, there is little we really know." + ], + [ + "If a man coils the rope around his hand little by little, [the mixture] is valid; If when the person draws the full bucket out of the water he wraps the rope around his hand one coil at a time as he is lifting up, the mixture is still valid. This is not considered to be work.", + "But if he coiled it afterwards, it is invalid. However, if he coils it up completely after he has already raised up the basket, then it counts as work and the mixture is invalid.", + "Rabbi Yose said: this also had been ruled to be valid as a temporary measure. Rabbi Yose says that as a temporary measure, they validated the water in a case where someone coiled the rope up after the water had been drawn. It is interesting that the term \"as a temporary measure\" appears in today's mishnah and yesterday's mishnah and nowhere else in the Mishnah (it does appear one additional time in the Tosefta). Perhaps the rabbis are setting up a system here where actions are on the one hand considered to be work and therefore should invalidate the mixture and yet on the other hand they don't want to actually claim that the mixture is invalid. So they set up a situation where the stringency is the rule but as a \"temporary measure\" validity is bequeathed. However we interpret the appearance of this phrase here, it is curious that it appears basically only in Parah." + ], + [ + "One who puts the jar away in order that it shall not be broken, or if he inverted it in order to dry it, [If he did one of these things] so that he might draw more water with it, [the water he had already drawn] is valid; But if he intended to carry in it the ashes, it is invalid. There are two actions described here, each that can invalidate the water if they were done with a certain intention, but won't invalidate the water if done with another intention. The actions are both done for the sake of the jar either to protect it or to dry it and they are both done between the emptying of the water into a trough and the mixing of the water with the ashes. If he did one of these things with the intention to draw more water for the same mixture, then this is not \"work\" done in between filling and mixing and the water remains valid for use. However, if he is protecting or drying the jar to use it for any other purpose, even a purpose connected to the mixing of the ashes, such as carrying in it the ashes, the water is invalid.", + "One who cleared potsherds from a trough: If in order that it may hold more water, the water is valid; But if he intended that they should not hinder him when he pours out the water, it is invalid. The idea of this section is similar to that above. Someone clears potsherds from the trough into which he has put the water to use it for mixing the ashes. If he clears them in order to make more room in the trough, the water is valid. However, if he is removing them because he doesn't want them to bother him when he pours the mixture from the trough into a flask (from which he will sprinkle) then this action counts as work and it invalidates the mixture. Again, although this is done for the sake of the mixture, it still invalidates it." + ], + [ + "One was carrying his water on his shoulder and he ruled in a matter of law, or showed others the way, or killed a snake or a scorpion, or picked up food in order to store it, it [the water] is invalid; But [if he picked up] food to eat, it is valid. [And if he killed] a snake or a scorpion that hindered him, it remains valid.
Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: If the act was is in the nature of work, the mixture is invalid whether the man stopped or not, If it was not in the nature of work: If he stopped, it is invalid;
But if he did not stop it remains valid.
Section one: In all of these cases, the action is considered work and it invalidates the water that he is carrying from being used for the red cow ritual. However, the mishnah goes on to list circumstances in which said action doesn't invalidate the water.
When it comes to picking up food, it depends what his purpose is. If he picked it up to store it away, it counts as work and the water is invalid. However, if he picked it up in order to eat it, it doesn't count as work. Eating, in other words, is not work.
If he killed the snake or scorpion because it was hindering his progress, the water remains valid. Actions he needs to do in order to simply progress on his way do not invalidate the water.
Section two: Rabbi Judah sets up a general principle that relates to these types of situation, and show that issuing a ruling or giving someone directions also do not always disqualify the water. If an action was done in the nature of work, meaning it is something that is generally considered to be work, then it doesn't matter whether he stopped on the path or not, it disqualifies the water he is carrying. In other words, the mere action itself is disqualifying.
However, if it is not a matter of work, such as issuing a ruling or showing someone the way, then it depends on whether he stopped or not. If he stopped, then this stoppage to perform another action can invalidate the water. But if he did not stop, then the water remains valid." + ], + [ + "If one gave over his water to someone who was unclean, it is invalid. But if to a clean one it is valid. If a person gives over the water he is watching to an unclean person to watch, the water is invalid because we can't trust that it remained pure. However, if he gives it to a clean person the water remains valid. In addition, the clean person can perform work while watching the water since it is not his water.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: even if it was entrusted to an unclean man it is valid, provided the owner did no other work in the meantime. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if he gives the water to an unclean person, the water remains valid, for we consider the water to have stayed in the possession of the owner. However, this leniency is accompanied by a stringency. Since the water is still in the possession of the owner, if he does work before the mixing, he renders it invalid. In contrast, if he gave it to a clean person, the clean person assumes possession and if the owner does work, it does not render it invalid." + ], + [ + "Two men who were drawing water for the hatat and one assisted the other to raise it or one pulled out a thorn for the other: For one mixture, it is valid; For two mixtures, it is invalid. Two men help each other in drawing the water for the hatat red cow ritual. They help each either in raising the buckets or in pulling thorns out of each other's hands while the other raises the bucket. If they are making one mixture, then the water is valid because these \"labors\" are both for the mixture being prepared. Neither man does any work to draw water that will not be used in the mixture he is preparing. However, if they are making two separate mixtures then each man's helping the other is considered an interruption and the water is invalid.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even if there are to be two mixtures it is valid if they had made a mutual agreement between them. Rabbi Yose says that if they made a prior arrangement to help each other then both drawings are valid. This is because when A helps B he is really helping to get help in return. It turns out that his help of A was really for his own drawing, and in such a case the water remains valid." + ], + [ + "One who broke down a fence [even] with the intention of putting it up again, the water remains valid; But if he put a fence up, the water becomes invalid. The person broke down a fence to get to where he needed to go after filling up the water. Breaking down the fence obviously does not invalidate the water for it was done in order to put up the fence. The mishnah goes a bit further. Even if he intends to put up the fence again, the water is still valid. Although we might have thought that tearing something down in order to rebuild it does count as work, since he needed to tear down the fence, the water is still valid. However, if he went even a step further and actually built the fence, this certainly counts as work and the water is invalid.", + "If he ate figs intending to store some of them, the water is valid; But if he stored figs it is invalid. If someone eats someone else's figs in between filling and mixing the water, and he intends to repay that person by preparing the other figs for storage (this involves cutting them in order to dry them or press them into a cake) the water is still valid, for eating is considered something done for the mixture itself. The quid pro quo arrangement eating figs in return for drying them, does not count as work. However, if he actually went ahead and stored some figs in between drawing and mixing, the water is invalid.", + "If he was eating figs and, leaving some over, threw what was in his hand under the fig tree or among drying figs in order that it shall not be wasted, the water is invalid. In this case he is eating and storing them away for later at the same time. Although eating doesn't invalidate the figs, the storing does." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Two men were guarding a trough: If one of them became unclean, the water remains valid, since it is in the domain of the other. If the first became clean and the other became unclean the water is still valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both became unclean simultaneously the water becomes invalid.
If one of them did some work, the water remains valid since it is in the domain of the second. If the first stopped doing work and the other did some work, the water still remains valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both did some work at the same time the water becomes invalid.
This quite simple mishnah teaches that if two men are guarding a trough with water to be used for the red cow ritual, and one of them becomes impure or does work we can consider the water to be under the protection of the other guard, and the water remains valid. It is invalidated only if both of them are impure or do work at the same time.
The mishnah is very straightforward so there is no commentary below." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nBoth halves of this mishnah teach that the hatat waters defile garments and shoes but they do not directly defile the person who is preparing the mixture of water and cow ash.", + "One who prepares the mixture of the hatat should not wear his sandals, for were some of the liquid to fall on his sandal it would become unclean and [the sandal] would defile him. Behold he would say [to the sandal], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.\" When filling the trough with water to get ready to make the mixture water will spill to the ground. The one preparing the mixture will therefore be standing in water while mixing. This water is pure but it is considered impure vis a vis the preparation of the hatat mixture. Impure water defiles vessels on contact, so it will defile the sandal. The sandal will then defile him because vessels that have become impure due to contact with liquids defile a person with regard to preparing the hatat waters. However, the water does not directly defile him. We should note that there are two stringencies here that are related only to the hatat. 1) Even though the water is pure, it defiles the sandal. 2) The sandal defiles the person. Both of these measures are not true with regard to general matters of purity. We shall return to stringencies in purity for the hatat when we learn chapter ten. The section ends with a cute discussion between the man and his sandal. He points accusingly at the sandal, noting with some iron that that which defiled you (the water) didn't defile me, but you, sneaky little sandal, did defile me.", + "If some of the liquid fell on his skin he remains clean. This was noted above.", + "If it fell on his garment it becomes unclean and defiles him. Behold he would say [to the garment], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.\" This is the same scenario as above, only with a garment instead of clothing. The only difference is that it is obviously not prohibited to wear a garment when mixing the water!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah the person spoke to his sandal/garment saying, \"That which defiled you, did not defile me, but you did defile me.\"Today the garment provides his comeback.", + "The one who burns the red cow or bulls and he that leads away the scapegoat, defile garments. The Torah specifically states that the clothes of the one who burns the red cow are defiled (Numbers 19:8). The same is true with regard to a person who burns the bulls or goats on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:28) or other cases of animals that are burned and of the one who leads the scapegoat to Azazel (the wilderness) on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:26). All of these must wash their garments because they themselves defile their own garments.", + "The red cow and the bulls and the scapegoat do not themselves defile garments. Despite the fact that the person who performs these rituals is defiled, the animals themselves to do not defile garments.", + "Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me. This leads again to the personification of the garment it says to the person, that the cow, bull or goat that defiled you, didn't defile me. But you, Mr., did defile me!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next four mishnayot have nothing to do with the red cow. They are all here because they contain the line, \"Behold, that which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.\"", + "One that eats of the carrion of a clean bird, while it is yet in his throat, causes garments to be unclean; One who eats carrion (an animal that wasn't slaughtered properly) of a clean bird (like a chicken) is impure. This is stated in Leviticus 17:15. The impurity occurs as soon as the bite he took reaches his throat. We will learn more of the details concerning this law in Tractate Toharot.", + "But the carrion itself does not cause garments to be unclean. The carrion itself does not cause impurity.", + "Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me. This is the same personification we have seen in the other mishnayot." + ], + [ + "Any derived uncleanness does not defile vessels, but [it does defile] a liquid. A derived uncleanness is one that is of either first or second degree uncleanness, meaning it had contact with something that was either a father of uncleanness or had first degree uncleanness. This level of uncleanness defiles liquids but not vessels.", + "If a liquid became unclean it defiles them. The liquid will then defile the vessel, because liquids convey uncleanness to vessels.", + "Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me. This again creates the paradox. The derived uncleanness was not strong enough to defile the vessel, but that which it defiled (the liquid) was strong enough to do so. The vessel is not happy with that liquid, and it lets it know!" + ], + [ + "An earthenware vessel does not defile another such vessel, but [it does defile] a liquid. This mishnah is nearly the same as yesterday's mishnah, but with a slightly different subject. An impure earthenware vessel does not convey impurity to another earthenware vessel.", + "And when the liquid becomes unclean it defile the vessel. However, it does convey impurity to a liquid, which will in turn defile the other vessel.", + "Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.\" This time the vessel is talking. Kind of like Beauty and the Beast!" + ], + [ + "Whatever causes terumah to be invalid causes liquid to become unclean in the first grade so that it can convey uncleanness at one remove, and render unfit at one other remove, except for a tevul yom. Something that has second degree impurity, meaning it came into contact with something that had first degree impurity, invalidates terumah such that the terumah cannot be consumed. If such a substance comes into contact with liquid, it conveys to the liquid first degree impurity. As we have seen before, liquid amplifies the power of impurity. If such liquid comes into contact with food it gives second degree impurity to the food. This is \"one remove.\" And if the food comes into contact with terumah it renders the terumah unfit, although it does not render it impure. The one exception is the \"tevul yom\" a person who has immersed in the mikveh to cleanse his impurity but hasn't waited for the sun to set. Such a person disqualifies terumah, but does not convey first degree impurity to liquids.", + "Behold [the food] would say [to the liquid], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.\" The food now says to the liquid. That which defiled you (that which had second degree impurity) could not defile me (things with second degree impurity only defile liquids). But you (liquid) did defile me (because liquid can defile food)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah returns to the topic of the preparation of the red cow. It discusses whether the seas can be used as the \"living water\" required for this and other purification rituals.", + "All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (, for it is said, \"And the gathering ( of the waters He called the seas\" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir the seas are considered to be like a mikveh and not like a flowing spring, which can be used for the red cow, for zavim (those with unusual genital discharge) and for metzoraim (those with scale disease), all of whom require \"living waters.\" In contrast to the rules governing a spring, for a mikveh to purify the water must be gathered into one place and it cannot be running. The seas are treated like a mikveh and therefore its waters purify only when they are gathered in one place. Rabbi Meir learns this from a midrash on the word \"gathering\" which is in Hebrew, mikveh. Genesis calls the seas a mikveh and therefore they are subject to the same rules as a mikveh and not to the rules of a live spring.", + "Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says \"seas\" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. In contrast, Rabbi Judah limits this to the ocean, which in his case is the Mediterranean. Other seas are treated like springs and purify even when they are running. He explains that Genesis states \"seas\" not because it refers to all seas as a mikveh. Rather the Mediterranean is \"seas\" because it contains many different seas. One interpretation of this is that a fish that is caught in Akko does not have the same taste as a fish that is caught in Sidon!", + "Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose says that all seas can purify when they are running none have the same restrictions as do a mikveh. However, the seas are not considered to be \"living waters\" as would be a spring. Therefore, none of the seas can be used for any of the rituals that requires \"living waters\" the red cow, zavim and metzoraim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to discuss what water does not count as \"living waters\" and therefore cannot be used for the red cow ritual, or the other rituals that require living waters.", + "Spoiled waters are unfit. The following are spoiled waters: those that are salty or lukewarm. Salty water or water that comes from warm ponds or such type of places does not count as \"living water\" because it is not drinkable.", + "Waters that disappoint are unfit. The following are waters that disappoint: those that disappoint even once in a seven year cycle. Those that disappoint only in times of war or in years of drought are fit. Rabbi Judah says: they are unfit. Waters that \"disappoint\" are waters from springs or rivers that dry up periodically. If the river dries up even once every seven years, it still counts as \"disappointing\" and cannot be used. If the waters fail only in times of war, due to overdrawing by soldiers, or only in times of drought, they do not, according to the first opinion, count as \"waters that disappoint\" and they can be counted as \"living waters.\" Rabbi Judah dissents and says that these too cannot be used." + ], + [ + "The waters of the Karmiyon and the waters of Pugah are unfit, because they are marsh waters. According to Albeck, who bases his interpretation on a medieval Talmudic dictionary (the Arukh), the Karmiyon and the Pugah are the same rivers as the Amanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, mentioned in II Kings 5:12. The mishnah rules that these rivers are too marshy to be considered \"living waters.\"", + "The waters of the Jordan and the waters of the Yarmuk are unfit, because they are mixed waters. And the following are mixed waters: a fit kind and an unfit kind that were mixed together. The Jordan and the Yarmuk are mixtures of valid living waters and marshy waters, therefore they cannot be used in the red cow or other rituals.", + "If two kinds that are fit were mixed together both remain fit: Rabbi Judah says that they are unfit. If two rivers both of which contain \"living waters\" mix together their water can be used. Rabbi Judah disagrees because he holds that \"mixed waters\" are always invalid. It seems that Rabbi Judah here sticks to some received tradition. He received the tradition that mixed waters are invalid, and he says that this tradition is true even if the mixture was made by two rivers of living waters. In other words, he remains true to the received tradition even if it doesn't really make any rational sense." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the final mishnah that clarifies what counts as \"living waters.\"", + "Ahab's well and the pool in Banias cave are fit. The Ahab is the name of a river. The Banias is one of the rivers that feed into the Jordan. This well and pool are considered \"living waters\" and therefore can be used for the red cow ritual.", + "Water that has changed its color and the change arose from itself, remains fit. If the color of the water changes not because another river fed into it, but due to some cause that came from the river itself, its waters remain valid.", + "A water channel that comes from a distance is fit, as long as it is watched so that no one cuts it off. Rabbi Judah says: the presumption is that it is permitted. A water channel whose source is far removed counts as \"living waters.\" However, according to the first opinion, he must watch it to make sure that someone doesn't cut it off to water his fields. If it is cut off from its source, it no longer counts as \"living waters.\" Rabbi Judah says that we can always presume that the water channel is attached to its source. It need not be watched, for unless we know that it has been cut off, it remains valid.", + "If some clay or earth fell into a well, one must wait until it becomes clear, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: he need not wait. If the water of a living well becomes temporarily murky because some clay or earth fell into it, Rabbi Ishmael says that he must wait until the normal color returns to use it for the red cow ritual. Rabbi Akiva says that this is not necessary." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nWater that has not been drawn from a source of living water cannot be used for the red cow ritual. Our mishnah discusses what happens if invalid water falls into the flask that has the valid water.", + "If the smallest amount of water fell into a flask: Rabbi Eliezer says: the sprinkling must be done twice; But the sages say that the mixture is invalid. A drop of invalid water falls into the flask. According to Rabbi Eliezer this can be remedied by sprinkling twice onto the person who requires sprinkling. If only one drop was invalid, then with two sprinklings he has definitely been sprinkled once with valid water. The sages disagree and say that even the smallest amount of water disqualifies the mixture.", + "If dew dropped into it: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it be put out in the sun and the dew will rise. But the sages say that the mixture is invalid. Dew also disqualifies the mixture because it has not been drawn from a source of living waters. Rabbi Eliezer again offers a simple remedy. Leave the water out in the hot sun for a while and the dew will steam up and rise out. It seems that Rabbi Eliezer assumes that the dew doesn't mix up the rest of the water and stays on top so that it will evaporate first. The other sages again say that there is nothing that can be done and the entire flask is invalid.", + "If a liquid or fruit juice fell into it, all the contents must be poured away and it is also necessary to dry the flask. If any of these materials fall into the flask, the entire contents must be thrown away. In addition, he must dry out the flask to make sure nothing remains (see also 5:2).", + "If ink, gum or sulphate of copper, or anything that leaves a mark, fell into it, the contents must be poured away but it is not necessary to dry the flask. In contrast, these materials leave their mark. Therefore, while they do invalidate the contents of the flask, if they were left over inside, they could be seen (the flask seems to have been made of glass). Therefore, he need not dry out the flask." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah addresses what the rule is if insects fall into the mixture.", + "If insects or creeping things fell into it, and they burst apart or the color [of the water] changed, the contents become invalid. If the insects or creepy crawly things burst apart or somehow make the color of the water change, then the water is invalid (and yucky). However, if they just fall in, they can be fished out and the water remains valid.", + "A beetle causes invalidity in any case, because it is like a tube. According to rabbinic entomology, a beetle is shaped like a tube. Therefore the water in the flask will enter it, mix with the beetle's own emissions and be reemitted back into the water, thereby disqualifying the mixture. This does not occur, evidently, with other types of insects.", + "Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob ruled: a maggot or a weevil of the grain causes no invalidity, because they contain no moisture. These two sages hold that if a grain maggot or weevil falls into the water, it does not disqualify the water even if it bursts. These insects are dry and therefore will not discharge anything into the water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIf a living creature drinks from the red cow waters we must be concerned lest the creature backwashed into the water, thereby disqualifying it. Our mishnah deals with which animals backwash and which sip without doing so.", + "If a domesticated beast or a wild animal drank from it, it becomes invalid. Domesticated beasts (cows, goats and sheep) and wild animals are all considered to be backwashers. So if they drink from the red cow waters, the waters can't be used because they are now mixed with the animal's spittle.", + "All birds cause invalidity, except the dove since it only sucks up the water. Birds are also backwashers, except for the dove, whose spit doesn't go into the water. Remind me next time I want to share a drink, to only do so with doves!", + "All creeping things do not cause invalidity, except the weasel since it laps up the water. Rabban Gamaliel ruled: the snake also because it vomits. Rabbi Eliezer ruled: the mouse also. Creeping things don't generally backwash when drinking. The weasel, however, laps up the water and therefore if it drinks from the red cow waters, they are invalidated. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer add the mouse and snake to the list." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIf one intends to drink the red cow waters, he invalidates them. Our mishnah discusses at what point they become invalid.", + "If one intended to drink the hatat water: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid. Rabbi Joshua says: only when one tips the flask. According to Rabbi Eliezer, intent alone disqualifies the water. So if one intends to drink it, it is already invalid. Rabbi Joshua says that while one does not have to actually drink the water to disqualify it, one must at least perform some action. Tipping the flask to take a drink is sufficient of an action to disqualify the water.", + "Rabbi Yose said: To what does this apply? To water that had not yet been prepared, But in the case of water that had been prepared: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid [only] when one tips the flask; And Rabbi Joshua says: [only] when one drinks. Rabbi Yose limits this to water that has not yet been prepared, meaning the ashes have not yet been mixed in. If the ashes have been mixed in, then each sage rules slightly more leniently. Rabbi Eliezer says he must tip the water to disqualify it, whereas Rabbi Joshua says that intent alone does not disqualify waters that have already been prepared. They are disqualified only if he actually drinks them.", + "And if it was poured directly into one's throat, it remains valid. If someone else pours the water directly into a another person's mouth then the waters remain valid (those that have not been drunk, of course). This is because no one had any intent to drink the water and no spit went in, because the water was poured down his throat. Therefore, there is no reason to invalidate the water." + ], + [ + "Hatat water that became invalid, it may not be mixed into the mud since it might become a snare for others. Rabbi Judah says: it becomes neutralized. Hatat water causes someone who comes into contact with it to become impure, even after the water has been disqualified from use. So if one takes disqualified hatat waters and mixes them in mud (to use them, I assume) anyone who touches the mud will be impure but he won't know that he is. Then he might go eat terumah while impure, which is forbidden. Rabbi Judah says that the hatat waters are neutralized by being in the mud. They no longer convey impurity, so he may mix them up.", + "A cow that drank of the hatat water, its flesh becomes unclean for twenty-four hours. Rabbi Judah says: it becomes neutralized in its bowels. The assumption is that the water remains in the cow for 24 hours. So if the cow is slaughtered within that time period, its flesh is impure. If he slaughters it afterwards, the flesh is pure. Again, Rabbi Judah says that the waters are neutralized when they are absorbed into something larger. The flesh does not convey impurity, even if the animal is slaughtered immediately." + ], + [ + "Hatat waters and hatat ashes one may not carry them across a river on a ship, nor may one float them upon the water, nor may one stand on the bank on one side and throw them across to the other side. According to traditional explanations of the prohibition in this section (which are based on the Bavli) it occurred one time that a person was transporting hatat waters and hatat ashes on a boat to cross the Jordan River. A piece of corpse was found on the bottom of the boat, and that caused the waters and ashes to be defiled and thereby disqualified. At that time the sages decreed that one should not carry hatat waters or ashes over water in a boat, nor transport them over a river in other similar ways. I must admit that I find these types of explanations somewhat intellectually dissatisfying. Just because an accident happens once doesn't mean it is any more likely to occur again. In my opinion, when the Talmud explains laws in this ways, it is in essence admitting that the law is irrational. It is as if they are saying, we have no real explanation for this, so it must be that the law was simply created when such a case actually occurred.", + "One may, however, cross over with the water up to his neck. However, it is permitted to carry the water across by hand, even if he is up to his neck in water. This was not considered similar enough to sailing on a ship for the rabbis to have prohibited it due to the incident described above.", + "He that is clean for the hatat may [sail] across [a river] carrying in his hands an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat or water that has not yet been prepared. A person who is ritually clean enough to prepare the hatat waters can travel on a ship while holding a vessel that will be used for the mixture and with water into which the ashes have not yet been mixed. The incident that triggered the prohibition occurred with waters that had already been mixed and with hatat ashes therefore that is the only case that they prohibited." + ], + [ + "If valid ashes were mixed up with wood ashes, we follow the majority with regard to uncleanness, but [the mixture] may not be prepared with it. The wood ashes are regular wood ashes that were not burned with the red cow. If the valid red cow ashes are mixed up with them, then when it comes to the ability of these ashes to convey impurity, we follow a majority principle. If a majority is red cow ash, it conveys impurity. However, the first opinion of the mishnah holds that this mixture cannot be used for the red cow ritual.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: the mixture may be prepared with all of them. Rabbi Eliezer is lenient, as he was in mishnah one. Since we know that there is some red cow ash in the entire mixture, it can be used in the ritual." + ], + [ + "Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. Hatat waters that have been invalidated (for instance, because the person did some sort of work after preparing them) still convey some degree of impurity. They defile a person who has immersed in a mikveh with the intent of eating terumah, either by contact with his hands or by contact with his body. However, they don't defile someone with regards to non-sacred produce; meaning one who wants to eat non-sacred produce and has had contact with disqualified hatat waters does not defile the produce. Note that regular hatat waters do convey impurity. If someone is ritually clean enough to perform the red cow ritual, then disqualified hatat waters don't defile him at all. He can still perform the ritual even after contact with him.", + "If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body. Hatat waters that have been defiled convey impurity to one who is pure enough to eat terumah in the same way as do disqualified hatat waters. The one difference between disqualified and impure hatat waters is that the latter do defile a person clean enough to perform the red cow ritual by virtue of contact with his hands. However, if they have contact with his body, he remains pure." + ], + [ + "If valid ashes were put on water that was unfit for the preparation, [the latter] defiles one that is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body, Since the water was unfit for use in the red cow ritual (assumedly because it is not living waters) it cannot be used for the sprinkling. Nevertheless the water does defile one who has purified himself in order to eat terumah. This is the same rule as we saw in yesterday's mishnah with regard to disqualified hatat waters.", + "But to one who is clean for the hatat it conveys uncleanness neither [by contact] with his hands nor with his body. This is also the same as the rule we saw in yesterday's mishnah." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with some stringencies that apply to the ritual purity of vessels and people involved in the hatat water ritual. The mishnah refers to a type of impurity called \"madaf impurity.\" This is a light form of impurity that only has relevance in the preparation of the hatat.\nThe mishnah also refers to \"midras impurity.\" Midras impurity is impurity conveyed by leaning upon or moving an object.\nMishnah Hagigah 2:7 taught: \"The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification.\" What this means is that all garments, even those which have been cleansed enough so that they could be used with holy things, still convey midras impurity to anyone who wishes to perform an action in connection with the red cow ritual. This is an extra stringency taken with regard to the hatat ashes and waters. Our mishnah teaches that the same is true with regard to other objects and with regard to people. If they have not been immersed for the sake of the red cow ritual, they are impure.", + "Any object that is susceptible to midras uncleanness is for the purpose of the hatat waters deemed to have madaf uncleanness, whether it was otherwise unclean or clean. Any object that is susceptible to midras uncleanness, for instance an object that is made to sit upon or to lie upon, has \"madaf uncleanness\" vis a vis the hatat waters. This is true even if the object is pure with regards to terumah and other holy things. Thus if a person has contact with any object that is subject to midras uncleanness, he will have to immerse himself again before performing any part of the red cow ritual.", + "A person too is subject to the same rule. The same is true with regard to a person. This means that a person who has not immersed himself in order to be occupied with the red cow ritual will defile another person who wishes to perform the ritual. This is true even if the first person is pure enough to eat terumah or other holy things.", + "Any object that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, whether it is otherwise unclean or clean: Rabbi Eliezer says: it does not have madaf uncleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: it has madaf uncleanness; And the sages say: that which was unclean has madaf uncleanness, and that which was clean does not have madaf uncleanness. This section deals with a more general classification of objects those that are subject to corpse uncleanness but are not subject to midras uncleanness. (See chapter twenty-four of Kelim for a list of such objects). There are three opinions as to whether such an object defiles people who wish to prepare the hatat waters. Rabbi Eliezer says that they do not. Rabbi Joshua says that they always do. If such an object is lifted or moved by the person he will not be able to perform the ritual. The sages take an in-between position. If the object actually became impure through contact with a corpse, then it will defile a person who wishes to occupy himself with the red cow rituals if the person carries it or moves it. But if the object is clean, it does not defile through midras. Nevertheless, it still defiles through contact." + ], + [ + "One who was clean for the hatat waters who touched something that has madaf uncleannes, he becomes unclean. This section is a consequence of what we learned in mishnah one. Something that has madaf uncleanness (see there for an explanation of this type of uncleanness) conveys uncleanness to a person who wants to perform the red cow ritual. The mishnah states that this is true if the person touches the object, but it is also true if he moves or carries the object.", + "A flask that was designated for the hatat waters that touched something that has madaf uncleanness, it becomes unclean. If the flask which was meant to be used for the red cow ritual touches something that has madaf uncleanness, it is impure vis a vis the red cow (it is still pure for other things). In this case the flask must actually touch the other object. Putting the object with madaf on top of the flask (without touching) will not defile it.", + "One who was clean for the hatat waters who touched food or liquids with his hand, he becomes unclean, but if he did it with his foot he remains clean. Food and liquids defile one's hands, and once one's hands are defiled, the rest of one's body is also considered to be defiled. When it comes to the preparation of the hatat, all food and liquid defile (as we saw in yesterday's mishnah). So if one's hands touch food or liquid, he is impure vis a vis the hatat ritual. But if one's foot touches the food or liquid, the body and even the foot remain pure.", + "If he moved them with his hand: Rabbi Joshua says that he becomes unclean, And the sages say that he remains clean. Rabbi Joshua holds that if he moves the food, even without touching it, it is as if he touched it with his hand and he is impure (vis a vis the hatat). The other sages disagree and hold that he is impure only if he touches the food or liquid with his hand. Moving it is not sufficient to convey impurity." + ], + [ + "A jar of hatat waters that touched a [dead] sheretz, remains clean. The jar referred to here is made of a material that is not susceptible to impurity, such as stone (see 3:3). The hatat waters are protected from the impurity of the sheretz (a creeping thing) by the stone and therefore they remain pure.", + "If the jar was put on it: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it remains clean, And the sages rule that it becomes unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says that even if the jar is put on top of a sheretz the hatat waters remain pure, since the jar is pure. The other sages say that the jar has not been put in a \"clean place\" and therefore it is impure. Numbers 19:9 states, \"A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place.\" Putting the jar on top of a sheretz does not count as putting it in a clean place.", + "If the jar touched foods or liquids or the Holy Scriptures, it remains clean. As we have seen in the previous two mishnayot, food and liquids convey madaf uncleanness. The Holy Scriptures disqualify terumah if they come into contact with it. Nevertheless, since the jar is made of stone, the contents are protected.", + "If it was put on them: Rabbi Yose rules that it remains clean; And the sages say that it becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose holds that even if the jar is put on top of food, liquids or the Holy Scriptures it remains pure. He also holds that the sages that ruled in section two that the jar was impure, would agree in this case because the impurity conveyed by food, liquids and the Holy Scriptures is only of rabbinic origin. In contrast, the impurity conveyed by a sheretz is of toraitic origin. The other sages disagree with Rabbi Yose and hold that putting it on top of one of these things still doesn't count as putting it in a pure place." + ], + [ + "One who was clean for the hatat waters and then touched an oven: With his hand becomes unclean, With his foot he remains clean. An oven is susceptible to midras impurity. However, it is not susceptible to corpse impurity and does not become a \"father of impurity\"which would cause it to defile people and vessels (see Kelim 8:6). Since the purity rules regarding an oven are different from other vessels, it does not have \"madaf impurity\" as do other vessels (see mishnah one). It is treated like food and liquids. If a person touches it with his hand, he is disqualified from performing the hatat ritual, but if with his foot, he is still qualified.", + "If he stood on an oven and put out his hand beyond the oven with the flask in his hand, And so also in the case of a carrying-yoke which was placed over the oven and from which two jars were suspended one at either end: Rabbi Akiva says that they remain clean; But the sages say that they are unclean. In both of these cases, the person is standing on the oven but the flasks that contain the hatat waters are not directly over the oven. Rabbi Akiva holds that since they are not over the oven, they remain pure. The other sages treat the flasks as if they were directly over the oven. This puts them in an \"impure place\" and as we have seen elsewhere, if the ashes are in an impure place, they are defiled, even if technically the defilement should not have reached them." + ], + [ + "If he was standing outside an oven and he stretched out his hand to a window and he took a flask and passed it over the oven: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, And the sages say that it is clean. Rabbi Akiva says that since the flask passed over the oven, it is unclean. This is a corollary to his opinion in yesterday's mishnah. There the flask was not directly over the oven, so it remained clean. Here it is directly over the oven, so it becomes unclean. The sages' opinion is also a corollary of their opinion in yesterday's mishnah. Since he is not standing on the oven, the flask remains pure.", + "But he who was clean for the hatat waters may stand over an oven while holding in his hand an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat waters or one filled with water that has not yet been mixed [with the ashes of the red cow]. As long as the flask/vessel is not one which contains the mixture of ashes and water, it remains pure when placed over the oven." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe principle that underlies the following mishnah is that the purity required for a vessel holding the hatat waters is greater than the purity required for that holding consecrated foods or terumah. Therefore, if something that is pure enough to hold terumah or other consecrated foods touches something that holds or is meant to hold the hatat waters, the latter vessel becomes impure.", + "A flask containing hatat waters that touched [a vessel] containing consecrated food or terumah: that containing the hatat waters becomes unclean, but the one containing the consecrated food or the terumah remains clean. The flask containing the hatat waters is impure because it touched the vessel that has a lower degree of impurity. But the vessel containing terumah or other consecrated foods remains pure because it touched something that has a higher degree of impurity.", + "If he held the two vessels one in each of his two hands, both become unclean. When the person who is pure enough to perform the hatat ritual touches the vessel that is only pure enough for terumah, he becomes impure. Then when he touches the flask of hatat waters, he defiles them. The impure hatat waters defile a person who is impure vis a vis the hatat waters (see 9:8) and then he defiles the vessel with terumah because he is holding it. This concept can also be found in Kelim 1:2.", + "If they were both wrapped in separate papers, they remain clean. If the flask and vessel are covered with paper, then he is not defiled by contact with the terumah vessel. Therefore both the flask and vessel remain pure.", + "If the vessel of the hatat waters was wrapped in a paper while that of the terumah was held in his hand, both become unclean. The person is defiled through contact with the terumah vessel. He then defiles the hatat vessel because he is carrying it, even though he does not have contact with it. Once he is defiled, he now defiles the uncovered terumah vessel, as was the case in section three.", + "If the one containing the terumah was wrapped up in paper while that containing the hatat waters was held in his hand, both remain clean. Rabbi Joshua says: that containing the hatat waters becomes unclean. According to the first opinion, since the terumah vessel was wrapped in paper, it doesn't defile him. He remains pure and doesn't defile the hatat vessel so both remain pure. According to Rabbi Joshua (in mishnah one of this chapter) a vessel that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness conveys madaf uncleanness and therefore defiles even without contact, through being carried or shifted. Therefore, the terumah vessel defiles the person who is carrying it, even though he didn't touch it. He now defiles the hatat vessel, even if it was covered in paper. However, he doesn't defile the terumah vessel since it is covered with paper. In other words the terumah vessel defiles him with madaf uncleanness, but it itself is not defiled because he doesn’t actually touch it.", + "If both were placed on the ground and he touched them, that of the hatat waters becomes unclean but that of the consecrated food or terumah remains clean. Both vessels are on the ground and he simultaneously touches both, one hand on each. He is defiled by contact with the terumah vessel and he now defiles the hatat vessel. However, because he is not carrying the terumah vessel, he doesn't go back and defile it.", + "If he shifted it [without touching it]: Rabbi Joshua says that it is unclean, And the sages rule that it is clean. In this case he shifts the vessels without touching them. Rabbi Joshua says that because he shifted the terumah vessel, he becomes impure, even without contact. He now defiles the hatat vessel. The terumah vessel remains pure because he didn't actually touch it. The other sages say that contact is necessary and therefore both vessels remain pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A flask that one has left uncovered and on returning found it to be covered, is invalid. If he left the flask uncovered and he came back and found it covered, the water is invalid, lest the person who covered it was not pure in order to perform the hatat ritual.", + "If one left it covered and on returning found it to be uncovered, it is invalid if a weasel could have drunk from it or, according to the words of Rabban Gamaliel, a snake, or if it was possible for dew to fall into it in the night. If he left it covered and then found it uncovered, it is invalid if there is any possibility that a weasel or snake (according to Rabban Gamaliel) drank from it. As we saw in 9:3, these animals backwash into the water, thereby invalidating them. The water is also invalid if there is a chance that dew fell in (see 9:1).", + "The hatat waters are not protected by a tightly fitting cover; But water that had not yet been mixed with the ashes is protected by a tightly fitting cover. This section refers to an earthenware jar of hatat waters left in a tent with a corpse in it. Generally speaking if the jar has a tightly fitting lid, it protects its contents from impurity. However, we have seen a special law with regard to the hatat waters they must be in a place of purity. Since he put them in a place of \"impurity\" the waters are invalid, even if they are pure. However, if the jar contains water that has not yet been mixed with the ashes, it is protected from impurity (see also 10:5). The prohibition against leaving in an impure place refers only to the mixed waters." + ], + [ + "Anything that is doubtfully pure in the case of terumah is regarded as clean in the case of the hatat waters. There are cases in which terumah is doubtfully pure/impure (we shall learn of these in Toharot (next tractate) 4:2. In these cases the terumah must be burned. If the same type of doubt occurs with regard to hatat waters, they remain pure.", + "Anything that is \"suspended\" where terumah is concerned, the hatat waters are poured out. If clean things were handled on account of it, they must be \"suspended.\" There are cases in which the terumah is \"suspended\" meaning it is neither burned nor eaten. If the same type of issue occurs with hatat waters, the waters must be poured out. If these hatat waters that were supposed to be poured out were used to purify a person, and then he touched clean food, this too must be \"suspended.\" The food cannot be eaten or burned, as if it was terumah.", + "Wooden lattice work is clean in respect of holy food, terumah, and the hatat waters. Wooden lattice work is not considered to be a vessel, nor is it made for sitting or lying upon. Therefore, it is not considered impure with regard to matters of holy food, terumah or hatat waters.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: Loosely connected wood is unclean in respect of hatat waters. According to Rabbi Eliezer, occasionally a person will sit on a configuration of loosely connected wood. Since people sit on this wood work, one who does is impure with regard to the preparation of hatat waters. That is to say, a person who touches this wood will be invalid, even if the wood has not been defiled. There are other interpretations of what \"loosely connected wood\" is. Albeck explains that it is the same thing referred to in section three, and that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with that opinion" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with terumah figs that fall into hatat waters. There are two issues here: 1) is the water unclean by virtue of having contact with terumah figs? 2) What happens to one who eats the figs? Does he incur the normal penalty for eating impure figs death by the hands of heaven (meaning that a court does not carry out this death penalty)?", + "Pressed figs of terumah which fell into hatat waters and were taken out and eaten: If the amount is the size of an egg, whether [the figs] were clean or unclean the water becomes unclean, and he who eats the figs is liable for death; If their size is less than the size of an egg, the water remains clean but he who eats them is liable for death. Rabbi Yose says: if they were clean the water remains clean. If the size of the pressed figs is greater than an egg, they defile the hatat waters, for terumah is not pure vis a vis hatat waters. The hatat waters then defile the figs. When the person takes the figs out, he becomes impure by virtue of contact with the hatat waters (because he was not pure enough before to have had contact with hatat waters). Finally, an impure person who eats terumah is liable for the death penalty. If there is less than the amount of an egg, then the figs do not defile the water. Nevertheless, when he has contact with the hatat waters, he becomes impure and an impure person who eats terumah is liable for the death penalty. The first opinion in the mishnah holds that all of the above is true whether the figs were pure or impure before they fell into the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose holds that pure terumah does not defile hatat waters. Therefore, if the figs are pure, they do not defile the waters.", + "If one who was clean for the hatat waters puts his head and the greater part of his body into the hatat waters, he becomes unclean. Hatat waters are waters that have been drawn from their source. The rabbis decreed that a person who puts drawn water on himself is impure (we shall discuss why when we learn Tractate Zavim 5:12). Our mishnah teaches that since hatat waters are also drawn waters, they too defile the person who puts his head and most of his body into them." + ], + [ + "All that require immersion in water according to the rulings of the Torah defile consecrated things, terumah, unconsecrated food, and [second] tithe; And he is forbidden to enter the sanctuary. A person who has been defiled by a \"father of impurity\" requires immersion in a mikveh. See for instance Leviticus 11:32 with regard to one who has had contact with a sheretz. Such a person defiles any food with which he has had contact, be it consecrated food (kodesh), terumah, unconsecrated food (hullin) or second tithe. He is also forbidden from entering the sanctuary (the Temple.)", + "After immersion [but before the sun sets] he defiles holy things and invalidates terumah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages ruled: he invalidates consecrated things and terumah. But he is permitted to unconsecrated food and [second] tithe. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs guilt. According to Rabbi Meir, after he has immersed in the mikveh, the person has the status of \"second degree defilement.\" He causes terumah to have third decree impurity, which causes it to be invalid but not impure. And he causes holy things to have fourth degree impurity. The other sages say that since he has immersed in the mikveh he does not defile even holy things. He merely invalidates both holy things and terumah. After having immersed in the mikveh, he causes no defilement or invalidation to common food or to second tithe. However, when it comes to entering the sanctuary, he is prohibited even after going to the mikveh. He can't enter the sanctuary until he has immersed in the mikveh and the sun has set." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah we learned some purity rules concerning a person whom the Torah mandated to immerse in mikveh. Today's mishnah contrasts this with a person whom the sages required to immerse in a mikveh. This would include a person who ate impure foods or drank impure liquids [we will learn more about this category in Tractate Zavim].", + "All that require immersion in water according to the words of the scribes defile consecrated things and invalidate terumah to be unfit, but they are permitted to unconsecrated food and second tithe, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages forbid second tithe. As was the case in yesterday's mishnah, he still defiles holy food and invalidates terumah, even though he was required only by rabbinic law to immerse in the mikveh. But there are no restrictions with regard to hullin (unconsecrated food) and second tithe. The other sages slightly disagree. They hold that he is still forbidden to eat second tithe, although he doesn't cause it to become impure.", + "After immersion [but before the sun sets] he is permitted to all these. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs no guilt. There are no restrictions after he has immersed. Since he was only required by rabbinic law (\"the words of the scribes\") to enter a mikveh, he need not wait for the sun to set to become completely pure and permitted to eat and touch anything. In addition, he is not liable at all if he enters the sanctuary." + ], + [ + "All that require immersion in water, whether according to the words of the Torah or according to the words of the scribes, defile hatat waters, hatat ashes, and the one who sprinkled the hatat waters, either through contact or through carrying. As we have seen throughout this tractate, the purity regulations for anything that concerns the red cow ritual are more stringent. Therefore, the mishnah teaches that a person who is required to immerse defiles the hatat waters, the hatat ashes or another person who is prepared to sprinkle the waters. This is true whether the person is required by biblical law to immerse or whether he is only required by rabbinic law. Furthermore, he conveys impurity both by contact and by carrying (without contact).", + "And [they defile] hyssop that has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness, and water that had not yet been prepared, and an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat through contact and carrying, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: only by contact but not by carrying. This section deals with material used in the hatat ritual but that is not the ashes. This includes three items. The first is the hyssop that is used for sprinkling. The hyssop needs to have been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by coming into contact with water (vegetation is never susceptible to impurity until it becomes wet). In this case the water must have been pure for the hatat ritual, otherwise the hyssop would have already been impure. The other two items referred to are water that was drawn to be used for the hatat ritual but has not yet been mixed and the empty vessel. If a person who has to immerse (whether because of biblical or rabbinic law) has contact or even carries one of these things, Rabbi Meir says it is defiled. The other sages rule slightly more leniently. One defiles these things (the hyssop, the unmixed waters and the empty vessel) only if he has direct contact with them. He doesn't defile them through carrying." + ], + [ + "Introduction After discussing the purity of hyssop in yesterday's mishnah, today's mishnah continues to discuss laws with regard to the type of hyssop used to sprinkle the hatat waters.", + "Any hyssop that has an accompanying name is invalid. \"This\" hyssop is valid. Ezovyon ( hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid. The hyssop must be plain old hyssop (zatar in Arabic and by extension, modern Hebrew). Any hyssop that has an accompanying or modifying name should not be used (see Mishnah Negaim 14:6). \"This\" hyssop refers to any hyssop that a person points to and says \"this is hyssop.\"", + "That of unclean terumah is invalid. That of clean terumah should not be used for sprinkling, but if one had used it for sprinkling it is valid. Obviously, unclean terumah cannot be used since anything that is unclean cannot be used because it will defile the hatat waters. The mishnah only mentions unclean terumah because it wants to discuss clean terumah. Clean terumah, meaning terumah whose purity was preserved in order to use it for the hatat ritual, should also not be used because it is prohibited to invalidate pure terumah and the hatat ritual carries a risk that the terumah will be invalidated. However, if he uses clean terumah hyssop for the sprinkling, the person who has been sprinkled upon is pure. In other words, this is a case where one shouldn't use something, but if he does, it is valid.", + "The sprinkling must not be done either with the young shoots or with the berries. He is not liable [after the sprinkling had been done] with young shoots for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer says: also not if it was done with the berries. The sprinkling should be done with the leafy parts of the hyssop, not with the berries or with young shoots. However, if the sprinkling was done with the shoots and then he entered the sanctuary, he is not liable for being impure and entering the sanctuary. Usually someone who does this (unintentionally) must bring a sin-offering as atonement. Our mishnah teaches that while the sprinkling shouldn't be done with young shoots, if it is done, it is still valid. Rabbi Eliezer says that the same is true with regard to the berries.", + "The following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened. The mishnah defines the meaning of young shoots." + ], + [ + "The hyssop that was used for sprinkling [the hatat waters] is also fit for cleansing the metzora. As we stated in yesterday's mishnah, hyssop was used in other purification rituals, including the purification of the metzora. If it had already been used for the hatat ritual, it may be used later for the purification of the metzora.", + "If it was gathered for firewood, and liquid fell upon it, it may be dried and it becomes fit. Hyssop was gathered for firewood and it got wet. Because he gathered it for firewood, the liquid that came into contact with it does not cause it to be receptive to impurity. If one wants to use it for sprinkling he still can. He must first dry it off so that invalid waters don't mix with the valid waters drawn for the sprinkling.", + "If it was gathered for food, and liquid fell upon it, even though it was dried, it is invalid. On the other hand, if he gathers it for food, it is susceptible to impurity when it becomes wet. This is a general rule with regard to food when food becomes wet, it becomes susceptible to impurity. Even if he dries it off, he will not be able to use it for sprinkling.", + "If it was gathered for [the sprinkling of the waters of] the hatat, it is subject to the same law as if it were gathered for food, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon ruled: as if it were gathered for firewood. The sages disagree with regard to the case where the hyssop was gathered specifically to be used with the hatat waters. Rabbi Meir says that in this case any liquid will cause it to be receptive to impurity and thereby invalidate it. The other rabbis (three of them note this is unusual) say that as long as he dries it off, he can still use it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur chapter concludes with a mishnah as to how much hyssop was needed to sprinkle the water.", + "The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Judah says: each stalk should have three buds. Each stalk of hyssop should have at least one budding flower. I would suggest googling \"hyssop\" to see what this looks like. Rabbi Judah says that each of the three stalks should have three budding flowers.", + "Hyssop that consists of a growth of three stalks should be cut apart and then bound together. If the stalks were cut apart but were not bound together, or if they were bound together but were not cut apart, or if they were neither cut apart nor bound together, they are nevertheless valid. The hyssop stalks are separated at their base and then bound together. We should note that Numbers 19:18, the verse that prescribes hyssop for sprinkling the hatat waters, does not mention that the hyssop should be bound. However, Exodus 12:22, the verse that describes applying the blood to the doorposts in Egypt, does refer to bound hyssop. It seems that our mishnah applies the notion of binding in that context to our context. In order to bind something, it would first have to be separated. Thus the hyssop should first be separated and then bound. However, if either or even neither of these steps is taken, the sprinkling is still valid.", + "Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size. Rabbi Yose agrees with the opinion in section one. He adds that if one of the stalks fell away, even two are valid. Finally, if all that is left of the stalks or buds is even the smallest measure, it is still valid." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the use of hyssop that is too short to dip into the flask with the hatat waters.", + "Hyssop that is too short may be lengthened with a thread and a spindle-reed. It is permitted to lengthen the hyssop by attaching or a spindle-reed onto the end of the hyssop.", + "He then dips it and brings it up again. He can then dip it by holding onto the string and dipping it into the waters.", + "He grasps the hyssop itself and sprinkles with it. However, when he sprinkles onto the impure person, he must grasp the hyssop and not the string.", + "Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: just as the sprinkling must be done with the hyssop itself so to must the dipping be done with the hyssop itself. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon disagree with the notion that one can extend the length of the hyssop. He must hold the hyssop itself when dipping it into the flask, just as he must hold it when sprinkling." + ], + [ + "If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If the sprinkling was done from the hyssop buds, it is valid; but if it came from the thread or spindle, it is invalid (see yesterday's mishnah). Since there is a doubt whether it was performed correctly, the sprinkling is invalid.", + "If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. Both vessels look wet, but it is unclear whether he sprinkled on both or whether he sprinkled directly onto one and from there it dripped onto the other. Again, since there is a doubt, the sprinkling is invalid.", + "If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. Similar to the situation in section two, here we again have a doubt whether he sprinkled directly onto the needle which would purify it, or onto the earthenware and from there onto the needle, which would not purify the needle. Since we don't know what happened, the needle is still impure.", + "A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. This section refers to a flask with a narrow opening. When the hyssop is pulled out, we might have thought that some of its liquids would be squeezed out and fall back into the water. This would cause the water to be a mixture of hyssop juice and hatat waters, which would make it invalid. The first opinion in the mishnah is not concerned with this possibility and therefore lets one use this flask in a normal manner. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that such a flask can be used only one time. The second dipping might contain some hyssop resin and therefore is invalid.", + "Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If there is not a lot of water left in the flask, it is still allowed to dip the hyssop back in to absorb whatever water is left. However, he shouldn't scrape the sides of the flask with the hyssop to pick up any extra moisture.", + "If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. For the sprinkling to be valid, he must sprinkle in the direction in which he intended. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him, and it landed to the sides but still in front of him, the sprinkling is still valid, because this still counts as \"in front.\"", + "It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. One does not require the person's consent to sprinkle on him and purify him.", + "It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them. It is possible to sprinkle on multiple vessels and people at the same time, as long as water reaches each of them directly." + ], + [ + "If he intended to sprinkle upon a thing that is susceptible to uncleanness and he sprinkled upon something that is not susceptible to uncleanness, if any of the water still remained on the hyssop he should not sprinkle with it again.
[If he intended to sprinkle] upon a thing that is not susceptible to uncleanness and he sprinkled on that which is susceptible to uncleanness, even though there was still some water on the hyssop, he can sprinkle with it again.
[If he intended to sprinkle] upon a man and he sprinkled upon a beast, if any of the water remained on the hyssop he should not sprinkle with it again;
But [if he intended to sprinkle] upon a beast and he sprinkled upon a man, even though there was still some water on the hyssop, he can sprinkle with it again.
The water that drips off is valid, and therefore it conveys uncleanness as the usual hatat waters.
Section one: He intended to sprinkle upon something that is susceptible to impurity, such as a person (as in section three). Unintentionally, he sprinkled upon an animal (which is not susceptible to impurity). If there is still water left on the hyssop he shouldn't sprinkle with it again. Since the water that was sprinkled upon the animal has been made invalid for sprinkling, the water that remains on the hyssop is also invalid for sprinkling.
Section two: This is the opposite case. Since he sprinkled on something that is susceptible to uncleanness (such as an animal), meaning something that does require sprinkling, the water has not been disqualified. Therefore he can use the remaining water to sprinkle and cleanse something else.
Sections three and four: These two sections explain sections one and two.
Section five: Water that simply drips off the hyssop is still valid for sprinkling. Therefore, it continues to convey uncleanness as do hatat waters in general, which defile one who carries them or touches them. This water is not treated as hatat waters that have already been sprinkled which do not defile (see below in mishnah four)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah refers to a window from which they would sprinkle the hatat waters on impure people.", + "If one was sprinkling from a window in a public domain and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is exempt; A person was sprinkled upon (with hatat waters, of course) from a window in the public domain. He then entered the Temple, assuming that he was pure. It later turns out that the water used to sprinkle upon him was impure. Nevertheless, the person is exempt from bringing a sacrifice to atone for entering the sanctuary while impure. The reason is that since this water was used to purify the public, there would be no reason he should have suspected that it was invalid. This is not an accidental sin (in Hebrew, shogeg). Rather it is something even less, called in Hebrew \"anoos\" which means he wasn't even negligent. Something totally anticipated happened. We can see from here that if something is being done by many people, one can assume that it is being done correctly.", + "But if the sprinkling was done from a private window and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is liable. However, if the sprinkling was done from a private window, he should have checked to make sure that the water was valid. Since he did not, he is liable for having gone into the sanctuary while impure. He will have to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin.", + "A high priest, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high priest is never liable for entering the sanctuary. A high priest is never liable for entering the Temple while impure (see Horayot 3:7).", + "[The people] used to slip before a certain window in a public domain, and [nevertheless] they trod [on that spot] and did not refrain [from entering the sanctuary], because they said that hatat waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile. The mishnah describes a puddle that formed underneath the window from which they would sprinkle upon people who wanted to enter the Temple. The floor got so wet that people would slip on it (Jerusalem can be slippery!). Nevertheless, people didn't refrain from stepping in this water, because they knew that once hatat waters have been used to perform their mitzvah, the purification, they no longer convey impurity. As an aside, this is one of the few places, perhaps the only place, in Parah that describes some realistic scene concerning the sprinkling of the hatat waters." + ], + [ + "A clean person may hold in the corner of his garment an unclean axe and sprinkle upon it; And even though there is on it enough water for a sprinkling he remains clean. It is possible for a person to hold an axe in his garment, for the axe to be sprinkled upon and for him not to become impure by contact or by carrying the hatat waters. Even though there is enough water to perform the sprinkling, he remains pure because once these waters have purified the axe, their mitzvah has been performed and they no longer defile.", + "How much water is necessary for sprinkling? Sufficient for the tops of the buds to be dipped and for the sprinkling to be performed. Rabbi Judah ruled: they are regarded as though they were on a hyssop of brass. The question is: how much water is necessary to defile one who carries it? According to the first opinion, as long as there is enough water to dip the top buds of the hyssop into the water and to sprinkle some of the water off of them onto the person or thing being sprinkled upon. This quantity of water will defile one who carries it. In other words, there must be enough so that besides that which is absorbed by the hyssop, other water will be sprinkled off. Rabbi Judah rules more stringently. We look at the buds as if they were on hyssop made of brass which doesn't absorb water. As long as there is enough to sprinkle some off of the brass, it is of a sufficient amount to defile. This will be a lower amount than the first opinion." + ], + [ + "One who sprinkles with unclean hyssop: if [the hyssop] was the amount of an egg the water becomes invalid, and the sprinkling is invalid. If it was less than the amount of an egg, the water remains valid but the sprinkling is invalid. The hyssop needs to be the volume of an egg in order to convey impurity (see 11:3). If one dips the unclean hyssop into the water it defiles the remaining water and the sprinkling is invalid. However, if there is less than an egg in volume, the water remains valid because less than an egg is insufficient to convey impurity. However, the sprinkling is still invalid because the hyssop was not pure.", + "It also defiles other hyssop, and that other hyssop to other, even if they be a hundred. If there is an egg's worth of hyssop it defiles other hyssop by contact such that the other hyssop also cannot be used for the hatat ritual. Similarly, the newly defiled hyssop will defile any hyssop with which it has contact and it too will not be valid for the hatat ritual. The reason is that when it comes to the hatat ritual, there is no such thing as \"first degree impurity\" \"second degree impurity\" etc, as there is with other matters of purity. Rather, the level of impurity is never reduced." + ], + [ + "If the hands of a man who was clean for the hatat waters became unclean, his body also becomes unclean, and he conveys uncleanness to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, even if they be a hundred. If the hands of a person who is pure enough to perform the hatat ritual become unclean, the uncleanness spreads to his whole body. This is not true with other levels of purity restrictions. In other cases, a person's hands can become impure without the rest of his body also becoming impure. Furthermore, as we saw in yesterday's mishnah, the chain of impurity vis a vis the hatat continues down the line. So if he touches a person and that person touches another person, etc., the impurity is continually transmitted and anyone who is in the chain will not be allowed to perform the hatat ritual. This too is not true in other cases, where eventually the impurity is lessened sufficiently such that it no longer defiles at all. Again, we can see that the rules regarding the hatat are stricter than the normal rules with regard to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nExcept for section one of our mishnah (which teaches another stringency with regard to the purity laws of the hatat waters), the rest of the mishnah discusses what parts of various vessels are considered \"connected\" to other parts. With regard to Parah, the implication of parts being \"connected\" is that if the water is sprinkled on one part, the other part is pure.", + "A flask for hatat waters whose outer part has become unclean, its inner part also becomes unclean, and it conveys uncleanness to another flask, and the other to another, even if they are a hundred. If the outside of a vessel becomes impure, the inside remains pure such that it can be used with pure food or liquid items (see Kelim 25: 1, 6). This is not true when it comes to using the flask to hold hatat waters. If the outside is unclean, the inside is unclean as well.", + "A bell and a clapper are regarded as connected. If one sprinkles the hatat waters on the bell or on its clapper, the other is pure because they are regarded as connected.", + "In the case of a spindle stick used for coarse material, one should not sprinkle on its stick or ring, but if he sprinkled on one, both are regarded as having been sprinkled upon. A spindle stick used for flax they are regarded as connected. The spindle stick referred to here is used to weave the coarse material for the production of reed mats. The mishnah says that he should sprinkle on the spindle itself. But if he does sprinkle upon one of the other parts, they are all clean. When it comes to a spindle used to weave flax, all the parts are considered connected and therefore he can sprinkle on one and thereby purify the other.", + "If a leather cover of a crib is fastened to its knobs, both are regarded as connected. The base is not regarded as connected either in respect of uncleanness or cleanness. The leather is attached to knobs on the edges of a crib. The leather is considered connected to the crib and therefore if one sprinkles on one, the other is clean. The base of the crib (or other type of bed) is put in the frame and upon it one places the sheets and blankets.", + "All drilled handles of utensils are regarded as connected. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: also those that are wedged into holes in the utensils. Drilled handles of utensils are handles that are drilled out so that the metal part can be inserted. An example would be a knife. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri adds that the same is true for handles that are inserted into holes made into the vessels themselves such that the handles cannot be easily removed. These too are considered to be attached." + ], + [ + "The baskets of a pack-saddle, the bed of a barrow, the iron corner of a bier, the [drinking] horns of travelers, a key chain, the loose stitches of washermen, and a garment stitched together with kilayim are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in that of sprinkling. There are many items mentioned in this mishnah. I shall attempt to explain them one at a time, based on Albeck's interpretation. The baskets of a pack-saddle: A saddle made of wood placed on a donkey. There are baskets attached to both sides. The bed of a barrow: a vessel used for threshing produce. The corner of a bier: The head of a long bier for carrying a body or some sort of seat. The [drinking] horns of travelers: A vessel used by travelers to draw and store water. A key chain: Same thing you and I still use to this day! The loose stitches of laundry men: Washers loosely stitch clothing together while washing so that it doesn't get lost. And a garment stitched together with kilayim: Kilayim are mixed kinds. Someone stitched together a garment of flax using wool or vice versa. These stitches will have to be removed. All of these vessels are regarded as connected when it comes to the regular laws of purity. If one part is defiled, the other part is defiled as well. However, the laws of sprinkling are more stringent. These things are not considered to be connected. Therefore, if one sprinkles on one, the other part is not yet clean." + ], + [ + "The lid of a kettle which is joined to a chain: Bet Shammai say: these are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Bet Hillel say: if he sprinkled on the kettle, it is the same as if the lid also was sprinkled upon; but if he sprinkled on the lid only it is not the same as if the kettle also was sprinkled upon. The chain is attached to the lid of the kettle. According to Bet Shammai we rule stringently in this case. If either the chain or the lid becomes impure, the other is impure as well. However, to purify them he must sprinkle on both.", + "Bet Hillel rules that the lid is primary to the chain. Therefore, if he sprinkles on the lid, the chain is made clean. However, if he sprinkles only on the chain, the lid remains unclean.", + "All are eligible to sprinkle, except a tumtum, a hermaphrodite, a woman, and a child that is without understanding. Numbers 19:18 says, “18A person (איש) who is clean shall take hyssop, dip it in the water, and sprinkle on the tent and on all the vessels and people who were there.” The rabbis take the word for person “ish” to mean that anyone who is an “ish” can perform this ritual. It is not limited to priests. However it does limit the following people who do not fall under the rabbinic classification of “ish.” A tumtum is a person who lacks the signs of either gender. A hermaphrodite has both male and female organs. A woman is excluded, according to the rabbis, from the category of “ish.” A child who is too young to intend to perform the sprinkling is also not considered an “ish.”", + "A woman may assist [a man] while he sprinkles, and hold the water for him while he dips and sprinkles. If she held his hand, even if only at the time of sprinkling, it is invalid. A woman can aid the man while he sprinkles, but she can’t actually hold his hand, neither while dipping the hyssop nor while sprinkling." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Parah teaches that the dipping of the hyssop and the sprinkling of the waters must be done during the day. This is derived from the word \"day\" which is repeated in Numbers 19:19, \"The clean person shall sprinkle it upon the unclean person on the third day and on the seventh day, thus cleansing him by the seventh day.\"", + "If he dipped the hyssop during the day and he sprinkled during the day, it is valid. This is the proper way for the mitzvah to be performed both actions done during the day.", + "If he dipped it during the day and sprinkled at night, or dipped at night and sprinkled on the following day, it is invalid. If even one of the actions is performed during the night, the sprinkling is invalid.", + "But he himself may immerse at night and then sprinkle on the following day, for sprinkling is not allowed until the sun is risen. While the dipping of the hyssop into the waters and the sprinkling cannot be done at night, the person who is going to perform these rituals can immerse himself at night. This immersion is done in preparation for the hatat ritual.", + "And if any of these was done as early as the rise of dawn it is valid. The dipping and sprinkling should be done during the day, meaning once the sun has risen. But if one did it at first light, at the rise of dawn, it is still valid. This is common to many mitzvoth they should be done after the sun has risen, but if they are done right after dawn, they are valid. See Megillah 2:4. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Parah! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Parah is all about one of the strangest rituals in the Torah. Indeed the rabbis categorize this as the quintessential \"hok\" a law that cannot be interpreted rationally. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we may not really be able to understand the rationale behind this cleansing ritual, I hope that by learning the Mishnah, we are at least able to understand how the rabbis imagined it being performed. Interestingly, qualitatively this tractate doesn't seem to be all that different from many other tractates. The rabbis take some passages in the Torah, interpret their details while using certain principles and explain mostly when something has been performed in a valid manner and when it has been performed in an invalid manner. Perhaps we could say in summary that Tractate Parah takes the admittedly irrational and makes it rational. Tomorrow our learning continues with Tractate Toharot. Good luck to everyone and congratulations on your amazing commitment to learning." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה פרה", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Parah", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Parah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Parah/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Parah/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5a825edb4e061ac47a4a9c85c63c4b21fadddcf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Parah/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,596 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Parah", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Parah", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Get ready to learn a tractate that is literally called \"Cow\"! The cow referred to here is the red cow (often called the red heifer) whose ashes were used to purify a person that had contracted corpse impurity. The cow is often called \"hatat\" or \"sin-offering\" by the rabbis and the water into which the cow's ashes were put is called \"hatat waters.\" So too the ashes are called \"hatat ash.\" The putting of the ash into the water is called \"kiddush\" or sanctification and sometimes the waters are called \"holy waters.\" The ritual of the red cow is described in chapter 19 of Numbers, which I have brought from the JPS translation below. It would probably be helpful to read through these verses before you begin to study the Tractate. We shall make reference to them quite frequently, much as we did throughout our study of Negaim. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses how old a \"heifer\" can be before it becomes a cow. This is relevant to two laws. In Deuteronomy 21 we read that in order to expiate for an unsolved murder a ritual with a \"heifer\" must be performed. In order to perform the ritual correctly, we must determine how old a heifer is. And determining how old a \"cow\" is relevant to the issue of our tractate the red cow.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: the heifer is no more than one year old and the cow no more than two years old. But the sages ruled: the heifer may be even two years old and the red cow even three or four years old. Rabbi Meir says: even five years old, though she is old. But they did not wait with it so long since it might in the meantime grow some black hairs and [thus] become invalid. According to Rabbi Eliezer the heifer whose neck is broken according to Deuteronomy 21 must be less than one year old. The cow must be less than 2 years old. The other sages add a year to both of these numbers. Rabbi Meir rules that a cow can even be 5 years old and still be valid to be used in the red cow ritual. However, if a red cow was born (a highly unusual event) they wouldn't wait five years to use it because if any of its hairs turn black, it becomes invalid.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: I only heard of [a cow] that was three years old [shelashit]. They said to him: What does \"shelashit\" mean? He replied: thus have I heard it without any explanation. Ben Azzai said: I will explain: if you say \"shelishit\" the meaning is ‘the third’ in number to others, but when you say \"shelashit\" the meaning is one that is three years old. The mishnah now begins a series of discussion in which Rabbi Joshua and Ben Azzai participate and which hinge on the precise pronunciation of various words. The first of these discussions is pertinent to the issue of the red cow. Rabbi Joshua asserts that he heard that the cow must be \"shelashit.\" This seems to be an unusual spelling of the Hebrew word for the ordinal number of three third. The other sages ask him why did you say \"shelashit.\" Rabbi Joshua, interestingly, does not know why he pronounced the word in this unusual manner. He just heard \"shelashit\" and repeated what he was taught. Ben Azzai, the younger student, however, has an explanation. Had Rabbi Joshua said \"shelishit,\" the typical pronunciation of the ordinal number, we would have thought that the cow would have to be the third born to its mother. Now that he pronounced the word \"shelashit\" we learn that the cow must be three years old.", + "Similarly they said a vineyard that is \"revai.\" They said to him: what does \"revai\" mean? He replied: thus have I heard it without any explanation. Ben Azzai said: I will explain: if you say \"revii\" the meaning is the fourth in number to others, but when you say \"revai\" the meaning is one that is four years old. The same argument now occurs with regard to a vineyard in its fourth year. This topic is covered in Maaser Sheni 5:1-5. The produce of such a vineyard must be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. The word for fourth year as pronounced by Rabbi Joshua is \"revai\" instead of the more typical \"revii.\" Again, the other sages ask Rabbi Joshua why he pronounces it this way and he doesn't know how to respond. Ben Azzai explains that had he pronounced it \"revii\" we might have thought that it was fourth in number. This could mean that it is the fourth vineyard owned by the owners or that it is the fourth vineyard planted in this field. Now that it is pronounced \"revai\" we learn that the these laws refer to a vineyard planted in its fourth year.", + "Similarly it was ruled: if a man ate in an afflicted house half a loaf, three of which can be made from a kav, he becomes unclean. They said to him: say rather \"eighteen of which are made of a se'ah.\" He replied: thus have I heard it without any explanation. Ben Azzai said: I will explain: when you say, three of which are made of a kav it would not contain hallah, but if you say, eighteen of which are made of a se'ah, it has been reduced by its hallah. The final issue has to deal with a halakhah that came up in the last tractate we learned Negaim. If a person goes into a house afflicted with some sort of scaly plague and stays there long enough to eat half of a loaf of bread, when three loaves are made of a kav of flour, becomes impure. The rabbis ask why he expresses the amount as \"three loaves in a kav\" instead of \"eighteen loaves in a seah.\" A seah is 6 kavs, so the ratio stays the same. Ben Azzai explains that had one made 18 loaves he would actually have to give some as \"hallah,\" dough offering, to the priest. This would reduce (by a small amount) the size of each loaf. But three loaves of bread is too small of an amount to be liable for hallah. Therefore, the amount of the loaf is precise." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are many occasions when the Torah mandates sacrificing a \"par\" or a bull. In today's mishnah there are three opinions as to how old the bull must be.", + "Rabbi Yose the Galilean said: bulls must be no more than two years old, for it is said, \"And the second bull you shall take for a sin-offering\" (Numbers 8:8). Rabbi Yose the Galilean bases his halakhah on a midrash on Numbers 8:8. The verse says that one should take the \"second bull.\" Since the Torah states elsewhere said to take two bulls and one has already been sacrificed why does it need to say \"second.\" From this \"extraneous\" word Rabbi Yose the Galilean concludes that the word \"second\" refers to how old the bull must be two years.", + "But the sages say: they may be even three years old. The sages say that the bull can even be three years old. There are some versions that don't include the word \"even.\" According to this, the rabbis hold that it must be three years old.", + "Rabbi Meir says: even those that are four or five years old are valid, but old animals are not brought out of respect. Rabbi Meir again provides a much higher limit for the age of the animal being discussed (as he did in yesterday's mishnah). However, despite the fact that one can bring a relatively old animal, it is not respectful to do so because it looks as if he is offering this animal only because it will die soon anyway." + ], + [ + "Lambs no more than one year old, And rams no more than two years old. When the Torah mandates bringing a lamb-offering, it must be within its first year. This is explicit in the Torah, see for instance Numbers 7:17. Rams adult sheep must be at least within their second year.", + "And all these years are reckoned from day to day. When counting the age of any of the animals listed in the first three mishnayot of this tractate, we count from the day the animal was born. We don't count from the beginning of the year, as we do for other matters. So a lamb born in the beginning of Elul is not considered to be one year old until the following Elul.", + "One that is thirteen months old is not valid, neither as a ram nor as a lamb. Rabbi Tarfon called it palges. Ben Azzai called it noked. Rabbi Ishmael called it parakhrigma. A 13 month old sheep cannot be considered a lamb or a ram. It is too old to be a lamb and a sheep is not a ram until it is 30 days past its first birthday. The 30 days is likely to be a vestige of the notion that the life of anything born is considered precarious until it has reached thirty days old. It's almost as if we count the animal's days only from one month and on (although this is only in cases in which the rule is stringent when it comes to the limit of a lamb, it is one year, and not 13 months). The sages all have a special name for this 13 month old sheep. Palges is a Greek word which refers to something that is no longer a child but has not reached maturity (kind of like a teenager). Noked is a type of inferior sheep. And parakhrigma is a Greek word used to refer to a coin with a king's image that has been invalidated by the new king. The 13 month old has been disqualified from being a \"lamb\" but has not yet been validated as a \"ram.\"", + "If a man offered it he must bring for it the libation of a ram, but it is not counted as his offering. If a person sacrifices a 13 month old sheep he must bring the libations that are brought for a ram. This means 2 tenths of an ephah of flour, a third of a hin of oil and a third of a hin of wine (see Numbers 15:6-7). However, offering this animal doesn't count as fulfilling his obligation. So if he vowed to bring a ram or a lamb, the thirteen month old doesn't count and he still has to bring another one.", + "One that is thirteen months old behold it is a ram. Once it reaches 13 months and one day it is a ram." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how old various animals must be before they can sacrificed.", + "The sin-offerings of the congregation and their burnt-offerings, the sin-offering of an individual, the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a metzora are valid from the thirtieth day onwards, and also on the thirtieth day. If they were offered on the eighth day they are valid. The sin-offerings of the congregation are the goats that are brought on Rosh Hodesh and other holidays. These must be within their first year. The burnt-offerings are lambs (see Numbers 28). The sin-offering of an individual can be a lamb or goat (Leviticus 4:28ff). The guilt offering of a nazirite (Numbers 6:12) and the guilt offering of a metzora (Leviticus 14:12) are both lambs. Since all of these are mandatory offerings, it is mandated that one let them grow a little bit before they are brought. Although they are valid from the 8th day and onwards, they should not be brought until they are at least 30 days old. No animal can be slaughtered or sacrificed before the 8th day, as is stated explicitly in Leviticus 22:27.", + "Vow-offerings and freewill-offerings, firstlings and the tithe of cattle and the pesach are valid from the eighth day onwards, and also on the eighth day. Vow offerings and freewill offerings are voluntary, therefore they can be offered on the eighth day and onwards. Since people are not mandated to bring them, we don't make them wait until the 30th day to do so. As far as the firstling (the first-born animal to its mother) goes, the Torah specifically says that that on the 8th day you should give it to the Lord (Exodus 22:29). The cattle tithe and the pesah are both compared to the firstling (see Zevahim 5:8). Therefore they too can be offered from the 8th day and onwards." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Rabbi Eliezer says: a [red] cow for the hatat that is pregnant is valid, But the sages say: it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says that a pregnant red cow is still valid for the red cow ritual (the hatat is the sin offering, which is how the rabbis refer to the red cow). In mishnah four of this chapter we shall see a dispute as to whether a cow that has mated with a bull is valid. In contrast, the sages say that a pregnant cow is akin to two cows, which means it is not valid for the red cow hatat.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: it may not be bought from non-Jews, But the sages say: it is valid. Rabbi Eliezer says that a cow bought from non-Jews cannot be used lest they used it for work, which would render it invalid. The other sages say that unless we know that it has been used for work, it is valid.", + "And not only this, but all sacrifices of the congregation or the individual may be brought from the land of Israel and from outside the land, from new produce and from the old; Except the omer and the two loaves, which may be brought only from new produce and from within the land. This expands the sages' view found in section two. All sacrifices, both public and private may be brought from animals raised outside the land of Israel, even if they are bought from non-Jews. The remainder of this mishnah is brought here from Menahot 8:1. My commentary here is the same as there. All menahot (grain offerings) can come from grain grown either in or outside the land of Israel. They can also come from new produce or aged produce. There are two exceptions: the omer barley offering brought on the second day of Pesah and the two loaves brought on Shavuot. With regard to the omer it is stated in Leviticus 23:10, “When you come into the land…you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest.” With regard to the two loaves it states there in verses 16-17, “And you shall offer a new minhah to the Lord, from your dwelling places you shall bring it.” Both of these verses teach that the omer and the two loaves must come from the new harvest and from grain grown in the land of Israel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with various bodily issues that could potentially disqualify the red cow.", + "If the horns or the hoofs of the [red] cow are black they are chopped off. The red cow must have only red hairs. If it has black hairs, they cannot be removed to make it valid. However, if it has black non-hair parts, parts that can be removed without killing or maiming the animal, they may be removed. These include the horns and hoofs.", + "The eye ball, the teeth and the tongue cause do not invalidate the [red] cow. Some parts need not even be removed if they are black. These include the eye ball, the teeth and the tongue. Removing these \"live\" parts of the cow would severely damage the cow and therefore this is not done.", + "One that is dwarf-like is valid. In Bekhorot 7:6 we learned that dwarf-like animals are not disqualified from sacrifices. Here we learn that this includes the red hatat cow.", + "If there was on it an extra digit and it was cut off: Rabbi Judah says that it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says: wherever, if removed, no red hair grows in its place is it invalid. Bekhorot 7:6 teaches that if a priest had an extra finger and he cut it off, he can't serve on the altar. Rabbi Judah applies this to the red hatat cow as well. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon says that the cow is invalid only if no red hair grows in its place. If red hair takes its place, it is valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMost of today's mishnah deals with Numbers 19:2 which states, \"Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a red cow without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which no yoke has been laid.\"", + "One that is born from the side, the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid, as it says, \"You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God,\" (Deuteronomy 23:19) and this was not brought into the house. Deuteronomy 23:19 forbids one from bringing as a sacrifice an animal that was used to pay a harlot or an animal that was sold to buy a dog. The first opinion in the mishnah states that if a red cow was used for either of these purposes, it too is invalid as a hatat cow. However, Rabbi Eliezer says that the verse only prohibits actually sacrifices to be brought from such animals. The red cow is not brought into the Temple and thus if used for either of these purposes, it is valid. In addition, there is a debate concerning a red cow that is born through a caesarean section literally in Hebrew one that is born from the side of its mother. In Bekhorot 7:7 we learned that an animal born through caesarean section cannot be sacrificed. Here we learn that it can also not be used as a red cow hatat, according to the sages. Again, Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid.", + "All blemishes that cause consecrated animals to be invalid cause also the [red] cow to be invalid. The Torah explicitly states that the red cow must have no blemish. The list of what constitutes a blemish can be found in Bekhorot chapter 6.", + "If one had ridden on it, leaned on it, hung on its tail, crossed a river by its help, doubled up its leading rope, or put one's cloak on it, it is invalid. These are all considered making use of the animal and therefore disqualify it from being used as a red cow. \"Doubled up its leading rope\" seems to mean that one doubled up the rope and laid it on the cow as a place to put it. This too is considered making use of the animal.", + "But if one had only tied it up by its leading rope or made for it a sandal to prevent it from slipping or spread one's cloak on it because of flies, it is valid. In contrast, in these cases the person doesn't make use of the animal, rather does something for the animal's sake. These do not fall under the category of \"on which no yoke has been laid\" and therefore the animal is still valid.", + "This is the general rule: wherever anything is done for its own sake, it remains valid; but if for the sake of another, it becomes invalid. This is the general rule that summarizes the distinction drawn between the cases in section three and those in section four." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah teaches that if something rests upon the red cow it only disqualifies it from use as a hatat if it is done according to the owners wishes.", + "If a bird rested on it, it remains valid. A bird sitting on the red cow does not disqualify it from use as a hatat. This does not count as the bird having performed work for it was not something that the owners wanted to happen.", + "If a male beast mounted it, it becomes invalid. Rabbi Judah says: if the male was made to mount, it becomes invalid; but if it did so of itself, it remains valid. According to the first opinion, if a male animal mounts the red cow to mate with it the red cow has been invalidated because this is something that the owners would want to happen. And although they would not want it to happen to that particular cow, for this would invalidate it for use as a red cow hatat (worth lots of cash), since they would want it to happen to their other cows, this counts as something that was done with the consent of the owners. Rabbi Judah distinguishes between a case where the owners caused the male to mount the red cow and cases where the bull mounted on its own. For this act to be considered something done according to the owners' wishes, they must take an active part in the act. If they do not, then we cannot consider it an act that disqualifies the red cow." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how many non-red hairs, and the placement of such hairs, will disqualify a red cow from being used as a hatat.", + "If it had two black or white hairs growing within one follicle, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah said: within one kos; if they grew within two kosot that were adjacent to one another, it is invalid. According to the first opinion, if two black or white hairs grow within one follicle they disqualify the cow from use as a hatat. Rabbi Judah says \"within one kos.\" According to Albeck, kos is another word for follicle, in which case, Rabbi Judah does not disagree with the first opinion, he just uses different language (the word used for follicle was \"guma.\") In addition, Rabbi Judah says that if two white or black hairs grow in two adjacent follicles (kosot) and the hairs are directed to one another, then they disqualify the cow.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: even if there were four or five but they were dispersed, they may be plucked out. Rabbi Eliezer says: even as many as fifty. Rabbi Akiva is more lenient. As long as the hairs are not adjacent, they don't disqualify the cow. However, he must remove the white or black hairs before the cow can be used. Rabbi Eliezer has a similar opinion, except it is not clear if he requires the hairs to be removed. If he does require removal, then he has virtually the same opinion as Rabbi Akiva, he just words it slightly differently.", + "Rabbi Joshua ben Batera says: even if it had but one on its head and one on its tail, it is invalid. Rabbi Joshua ben Batera rules strictly even two white or black hairs on opposite sides of the body will disqualify the cow.", + "If it had two hairs with their roots black and their tips red or with their roots red and their tips black, everything goes according to what is visible, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: by the root. According to Rabbi Meir, we judge the color according to the tip the more visible part. But the sages say we judge by the root if the roots are white or black, the cow is not considered red. [This sort of reminds me of someone who has colored their hair and has let it grow out a bit.]" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter three describes the ritual of how the red cow was burned into ash. This is covered in Numbers 19:3-6:\n3 You shall give it to Eleazar the priest. It shall be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence. 4 Eleazar the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting. 5 The cow shall be burned in his sight its hide, flesh, and blood shall be burned, its dung included 6 and the priest shall take cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson stuff, and throw them into the fire consuming the cow.", + "Seven days before the burning of the [red] cow they would separate the priest who was to burn the cow from his house to a chamber that was facing the north-eastern corner of the birah, and which was called the Stone Chamber. The idea of setting aside the priest who would burn the red cow seems to be derived from the setting aside of the high priest before the Yom Kippur worship (see Yoma 1:1). And both ideas are learned from the setting aside of Aaron and his sons for seven days before the original sanctification of the altar in Leviticus 8:33-34. Part of the reason that the priest had to leave his house was to prevent him from being with his wife and thereby becoming ritually defiled. There are two opinions as to what \"Birah\" is. One holds that this is another name for the Temple, while another holds that this is a tower that was on the Temple Mount. See also Pesahim 7:5.", + "They would sprinkle upon him throughout the seven days with [a mixture of] all the sin-offerings that were there. Rabbi Yose said: they sprinkled upon him only on the third and the seventh days. Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests said: on the priest that was to burn the cow they sprinkled all the seven days, but on the one that was to perform the service on Yom Kippur they sprinkled on the third and the seventh days only. During the seven days that he was separated, they would sprinkle him with the hatat purificatory waters. These waters were made using the combined ashes of all of the red cows that had been burned since the time of Moses (we shall return to this in mishnah five). Sprinkling the ashes on him for all seven days seems to be some sort of extra stringency lest the priest had become defiled before the seven day waiting period by contact with a dead body. Rabbi Yose says that they sprinkled the purificatory waters on him only on the third and seventh days. These are the days in which a person who had contact with the dead requires purification. Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests distinguishes between the priest who was to burn the red cow, who does require sprinkling every day, and the priest who performed the Yom Kippur service, who requires sprinkling only on the third and seventh day. It seems to me that this opinion may be a way of highlighting just how significant the burning of the red cow was in their eyes. The rules governing it are even stricter than those governing the most central act of worship in the Temple during the year the entrance into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses how they would preserve the purity of the children of priests so that they could perform the red cow ritual without ever having become impure. This was an extra stringency due to the high degree of gravity with which they took the red cow ceremony.", + "Courtyards were built in Jerusalem over rock, and beneath them there was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. They would not build the courtyards directly over the ground just in case there was a grave deep in the ground, and the dead body's impurity would rise and defile the priests above. The hollow between the rock and the building platform would serve to capture the impurity and prevent it from rising. This was a concept we learned much about in Tractate Ohalot a space the size of one handbreadth by one handbreadth prevents impurity from rising up above the space.", + "And they used to bring there pregnant women, and there they gave birth to their children and there they raised them. They would bring pregnant women there to give birth and raise their children there so that the children would never become impure. Again, this is not strictly necessary but it demonstrates the extra degree of severity with which they treated this purity ritual.", + "And they brought oxen, upon whose backs were placed doors, and the children sat upon them with stone cups in their hands. The following two sections describe how they would draw water from the Shiloah spring without possibly coming into contact with a source of impurity. The children would ride oxen down to the spring. The doors on the oxen's backs would prevent the children from overshadowing (making an ohel over) any source of impurity. They used stone cups because stone cannot become impure.", + "When they reached the Shiloah spring they got down and filled the cups with water and then they ascended and sat again on the doors. Rabbi Yose said: each child used to let down his cup and fill it from his place. They filled their cups from the Shiloah spring which is on the southern side of Jerusalem (also called the Silwan). Rabbi Yose says that they didn't even get off the backs of their oxen to do so. Again, this was an extra stringency to make sure they did not become impure." + ], + [ + "They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down. The children now proceed back up to the Temple Mount and then get off their oxen.", + "Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. As was the case with the courtyards in which these children were raised, there was a space below the Temple Mount and the courtyards that would protect them from the impurity of a potential grave.", + "And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings. At the eastern entrance of the women's courtyard there was a stone jar in which the ashes of the burned red cow could be found.", + "They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards. They didn't simply have one of the kids take the ashes out of the jar and put them in the water drawn from the Shiloah for fear that somehow the child had become impure and he would defile the ashes. Rather, they would tie some sort of stick or twig to a sheep and put the stick or twig into the ashes and then hit the sheep so that he would get moving. Thus they could remove the ashes without ever touching the jar or even directly causing the jar to move. Again, this is another stringency done in the red cow ceremony.", + "And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water. Once the ashes had been removed, a child could come and take them and put them into the stone jar of water that he had collected. He would put enough ashes in so that they would be noticeable in the water.", + "Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it. Rabbi Yose seems to fear that the Sadducees would ridicule a priest who would perform the ritual in this manner, that is by removing the ashes by using a sheep. Such ridicule could help the Sadducees to gain an upper hand over the Pharisees. To prevent such ridicule, he says that a child should just remove it himself. It is interesting to me that Rabbi Yose perceives Pharisaic rule in the Temple to be contingent upon their image in the eyes of others. Someone would see the strange ceremony and then somehow cause the Pharisees to lose control. After having put the ashes into the water, the children would sprinkle it onto the priest who was going to burn the next red cow, as we learned in mishnah one." + ], + [ + "One may not bring a sin-offering by virtue of [the purifications made for] another sin-offering, nor one child by virtue of [the preparations made for] another. If they begin to make preparations to burn one red cow and somehow that red cow becomes disqualified (for instance, someone performs work with it, or it grows some black hairs) they have to start the preparations all over again. The preparations for the burning of a red cow, in other words, must be done with that red cow in mind. So too, if one child begins to perform the preparations and then for whatever reason doesn't complete them, they can't bring another child to finish the process. They must start anew.", + "The children had to be sprinkle on each other, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: they did not need to sprinkle. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, the children need to sprinkle the water on each other, before they sprinkle it onto the priest who will burn the cow. Rabbi Akiva says that this is not necessary." + ], + [ + "Introduction In mishnah one we learned that they sprinkled the priest with the ashes from all of the red cows that had ever been burned. Our mishnah reflects a legend (I think) according to which there had been seven burned red cows in Jewish history.", + "If they did not find the residue of the ashes of the seven [red cows] they performed the sprinkling with those of six, of five, of four, of three, of two or of one. If they didn't have the residue of all seven red cows, then they could use as many as they found.", + "And who prepared these? Moses prepared the first, Ezra prepared the second, and five were prepared from the time of Ezra, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir two of the cows were prepared by two central biblical figures. Moses burned one while in the desert and Ezra burned the second when he founded the Second Temple. The remaining five were burned after the time of Ezra.", + "But the sages say: seven from the time of Ezra. And who prepared them? Shimon the Just and Yohanan the high priest prepared two each; Elihoenai the son of Ha-Kof and Hanamel the Egyptian and Ishmael the son of Piabi prepared one each. The sages say that all seven were burned from the time of Ezra and onward. They even name all seven high priests that burned them. Shimon the Just is a well-known figure in rabbinic literature. Scholars identify him as being either of two High Priests (grandfather and grandson) that served early in the Second Temple period, before the Hasmonean revolt. Part of the confusion as to which Shimon this is stems from the fact that Onias was the name of the father of both of them. Yohanan the high priest was a member of the Hasmonean family (Judah's nephew). The other three are harder to identify. There is a priest by the name of Elihoenai that appears in Ezra 8:4. Hanamel seems to be called Ananelos by Josephus (Wars of the Jews 15.40). He served during Herod's time. Ishmael son of Piabi seems to have been a high priest after Hanamel. He is described as being close to the Sadduceans. Nevertheless, he is portrayed positively in rabbinic literature." + ], + [ + "They made a ramp from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, being constructed of arches above arches, each arch placed directly above each foundation [of the arch below] as a protection against a grave in the depths, whereby the priest who was to burn the cow, the cow itself and all who aided in its preparation went forth to the Mount of olives. Our mishnah describes a special ramp that was made leading from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives. The ramp was constructed with a series of arches in its walkway with an empty space underneath each archway. Furthermore, the ramp was multi-layered such that each archway was above the foundation of the archway below. This way the priest, the cow and all of the assistants would always be walking over an empty space. This would protect against that all pervasive fear of the \"grave in the depths.\" [This is beginning to sound a bit like some sort of horror film!]" + ], + [ + "If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, \"They slaughtered a black cow\" nor another red [cow] lest people say, \"They slaughtered two.\" Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said \"And he shall bring her out\" by herself. Normally, if a cow refuses to go somewhere, its owners would find a more obedient cow to go with it. However, in the case of the red cow, this is not allowed lest the people seeing the second cow, be it black or red, think that they either slaughtered two red cows or that they are going to slaughter a black cow. Rabbi Yose says that the reason for this prohibition is that the Torah implies that they should bring out the red cow alone.", + "The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The elders would go to the Mount of Olives by foot. They would not ride on animals to show how enthusiastic they were to see the performance of this mitzvah.", + "The priest that was to burn the cow was ( made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, \"It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set.\" This section introduces a big debate between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Concerning a person who has had contact with a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) Leviticus 22:7 states, \"And the sun will set and he will be pure.\" This seems to imply that a person is not pure until he has immersed in the mikveh and then the sun has subsequently set. However, the Pharisees/rabbis believed that once a priest immersed in the mikveh he is pure enough to perform the red cow ceremony. To demonstrate that this is true, they would intentionally defile the priest (with a one-day form of impurity) and then have him immerse. He would now be in the category of \"tvul yom\" a person who has immersed but has not yet had the sun set for him. This was a demonstrative act against the Sadducees who abhorred such a practice. One interpretation of this debate that makes sense to me is that the Pharisees wanted to diminish the power of the sun in matters of ritual purity due to the fact that other Jews of the time used a solar calendar. By making purity depend upon the setting of the sun, it was as if they gave purifying power to the sun itself. In response, the Pharisees limited this notion, and created the category of the tvul yom." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues the description of the ritual of the burning of the cow.", + "They laid their hands upon him and said, \"My Lord the high priest, perform immersion once.\" The elders lay their hands on the high priest, telling him to go immerse to prepare for the burning of the red cow. Two notes are in order. 1) This is again similar to the Yom Kippur ritual (see 1:3). 2) This ceremony need not be performed by the high priest. It seems that by according it to him, the ceremony received greater prominence.", + "He went down and immersed himself and came up and dried himself. He needed to immerse because they had intentionally defiled him.", + "Different kinds of wood were set in order there: cedar wood, pine, spruce and the wood of smooth fig trees. They made it in the shape of a tower and opened air holes in it; and its foreside was turned towards the west. The wood was set to burn the cow. It was made into a tower with air holes so that it would burn more effectively. The wood was set up facing the Temple (which was to the west), meaning it was in rows going from west to east, with the front of the wood towards the west." + ], + [ + "They bound it with a rope of reed and placed it on the pile with its head towards the south and its face towards the west. The cow is now bound up and placed on the pile of wood. Its head is facing south and its face is to be turned to the west, towards the Temple.", + "The priest stood in the east with his face towards the west. He slaughtered with his right hand and received the blood with his left. Rabbi Judah said: he received the blood with his right hand and put it in his left hand. The priest stands on the eastern side of the cow, facing the Temple as well. He slaughters the animal with his right hand and then receives the blood into a vessel held in his left. Rabbi Judah says he receives the blood with his right hand and then puts the vessel into his left. This seems to be a preference for doing the important actions, which include the receiving of the blood, with his right hand.", + "He sprinkled with his right. Seven times he dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it towards the Holy of Holies, dipping once again for each sprinkling. He sprinkles the blood 7 times towards the Holy of Holies. This is stated explicitly in Numbers 19:4.", + "When he finished the sprinkling he wiped his hand on the body of the cow, came down and kindled the fire with wood chips. Rabbi Akiva said: with dry branches of palm-trees. He needs to clean off his bloody hand on the cow itself so that the blood can be burned with the fire. Numbers 19:5 specifically states that the blood must be burned." + ], + [ + "It burst and he stood outside its pit and he took the cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool. Once the cow burst due to the heat of the fire, the priest would take the cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool into his hand so that he could throw them into the fire (see Numbers 19:6).", + "He said to them, \"Is this cedarwood? Is this cedarwood?\" \"Is this hyssop? Is this hyssop?\" \"Is this scarlet wool? Is this scarlet wool?\" Three times he repeated each question and they answered him \"Yes, yes\" three times to each question. The thrice-repeated formula is meant to give great publicity to the ceremony, as is done with the Omer (barley offering) according to Menahot 10:3. In my opinion this is part of the polemic against the Sadducees (see mishnah 7). The Pharisees/rabbis have to prove that they take this ceremony with utmost gravity in order to balance out their leniency that the red cow ritual can be performed by a priest who is a \"tvul yom\" someone who has been to the mikveh but has not waited till sundown to become pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of this chapter concludes the description of the burning of the red cow.", + "He then wrapped them together with the remains of the strip of wool and cast them into the fire. After demonstrably ensuring that the cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were what they were supposed to be (see yesterday's mishnah), the priest would use the extra wool to bind them up and cast them into the fire (see Numbers 19:6).", + "When it was burnt up they would beat it with sticks and then sift it with sieves. Rabbi Ishmael says: this was done with stone hammers and stone sieves. The next steps taken ensured that everything that was in the fire was actually burned. They would beat the fire with sticks and then sift through it to make sure the ashes were fine. Rabbi Ishmael says that this was done with stone instruments which are not susceptible to impurity.", + "If there was a black coal on which there were some ashes they would crush it but if there were no [ashes] they would leave it. A bone was crushed in either case. Coals that had ashes remaining on them were crushed up so that the ashes would be part of the final product. Bones were crushed up even if they didn't have ashes remaining on them.", + "It was then divided into three parts: one part was deposited on the hel, one on the Mount of Olives, and one was divided among the priestly watches. The ashes of the red cow (and the other materials) were then split and divided into three places. The first is the \"hel\" an area right outside the courtyard where the ashes were placed into the water to purify the priest who was to burn the next cow (see mishnah three). The second part was placed on the Mount of Olives. This part was not used (at least not on a regular basis). The third part was given out to the priestly watches who would use it to purify any Israelite who needed this type of purification." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah describes various conditions that must be fulfilled for the red cow ceremony to be validly performed.", + "If a hatat cow was slaughtered not for its own name, or if its blood was received or sprinkled not for its own name, or if this was done for its own name and for some other name, or for some other name and for its name, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules it valid. The hatat cow must be slaughtered and its blood must be received and sprinkled with the intent of this being for a hatat cow (the one used for the red cow ritual). If any part of these three actions are done for the sake of another type of sacrifice then it is invalid. This is true of all sacrifices, as we learned in the first chapter of Zevahim. Rabbi Eliezer says that the hatat cow is not treated like a regular sacrifice because its ritual is performed outside of the Temple.", + "If [the service] was performed by one whose hands or feet were unwashed, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is valid. All sacrifices must be performed by those who have washed their hands and feet (see Zevahim 2:1). Again, the sages say that the red cow is like other sacrifices and if the ritual is performed by someone who has not washed their hands and feet, it is invalid. And again, Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is valid.", + "If it was performed by one who was not the high priest, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah rules that it is valid. The sages say that the red cow must be performed by the high priest himself, whereas Rabbi Judah disagrees.", + "If it was performed by one who was not wearing all the prescribed garments, it is invalid. And in white garments it was to be prepared. There are four pieces of clothing that all priests must wear when performing a sacrificial service: a cloak, pants, a headdress, and sash. Even if the high priest performs the ceremony, he performs it with the white garments worn by a regular priest and not with the eight garments worn by the high priest (see Yoma 7:5)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to list things that can disqualify the validity of the burning of the red cow.", + "If it was burnt outside its pit, or in two pits, or if two cows were burnt in the same pit, it is invalid. In 3:10 we learned that they would make a pit in which to burn the red cow. If it was burned outside of this pit, or if they made two pits, it is invalid. Similarly, they can't make two red cows in one pit. This is similar to the prohibition of not using one cow to prod out another in 3:7.", + "If [the blood] was sprinkled but not in the direction of the entrance of the Holy of Holies, it is invalid. The blood must be sprinkled in the correct direction for it to be valid (see 3:9).", + "If he made the seventh sprinkling out of the sixth and then sprinkled again a seventh time, it is invalid. If the priest dips his finger into the blood and sprinkles a sixth time, and then with the remaining blood sprinkles a seventh time, it is invalid, even if he goes back and sprinkles another \"seventh\" time. The problem is that he sprinkled once without dipping and we learned in 3:9 that for every sprinkle he needs to redip his finger.", + "If he sprinkled an eighth time out of the seventh and then sprinkled again an eighth time, it is valid. In this case he sprinkled correctly seven times and then with the remains of the seventh sprinkle he performed an eighth sprinkling and then again dippied his finger and did another eighth sprinkling. Since he did seven proper sprinklings, the fact that he added more does not invalidate the act." + ], + [ + "If he burned it without wood, or with any kind of wood, and even if only with straw or stubble, it is valid. Although the type of wood that should be used to burn the red cow is listed in 3:8, if he uses other wood, or even no wood at all, the act is still valid. It seems that the wood is not part of the mitzvah, but just something that enables the mitzvah and therefore using different material does not invalidate the mitzvah.", + "If he flayed it and cut up, it is valid. The act is valid even if the cow is flayed and cut up before being burned. Of course, all of the cow must be burned.", + "If he slaughtered it with the intention of eating its flesh or drinking its blood, it is valid. Rabbi Eliezer rules: no intention can invalidate the red cow. The printed version reads \"valid\" but this seems to be an erroneous reading. Manuscripts and testimony from medieval commentaries read \"invalid\" which makes more sense. If he slaughters the red cow with the intention of eating its flesh or drinking its blood, he has invalidated it. Rabbi Eliezer is consistent with his position in mishnah one wrong intentions do not invalidate the red cow ritual since it is not considered to be a sacrifice." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nNumbers 19:7-10 states, \"The priest shall wash his garments and bathe his body in water; after that the priest may reenter the camp, but he shall be unclean until evening. 8 He who performed the burning shall also wash his garments in water, bathe his body in water, and be unclean until evening. 9 A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place, to be kept for water of lustration for the Israelite community. It is for cleansing. 10 He who gathers up the ashes of the cow shall also wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.\"\nMost of our mishnah deals with who must wash their clothing.", + "All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. The mishnah rules that anyone who performs any aspect of the red cow service has defiled their clothing. They also render the red cow invalid if they do some other type of work while occupying themselves with the red cow. No multi-tasking while burning the red cow (so put away your cellphones ☺).", + "If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If the cow turns out to be invalid while it is being slaughtered (for instance the slaughtering is not done correctly) then it doesn't count as a red cow ritual and the person's clothes will not be made impure.", + "If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. The basic principle here is that if the person is occupied with the red cow ritual after it is already invalid, his clothes are not defiled. But if he was occupied with it after it was slaughtered but before it was invalidated, his clothes are defiled because the cow did count, at least for a time, as a red cow because it had been slaughtered properly. The result is that the stringency (the red cow has been invalidated) turns into a leniency (the clothes are not defiled).", + "It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. \"Trespassing\" is the illicit use of a sacred property. Any use of the red cow is considered trespassing, no matter when it is done.", + "Wood may be added to the fire. It is permitted to add wood to the fire to help it burn. However, this is true only before it has become ash. If one adds wood after the cow has been turned to ash, he invalidates the ash.", + "The service must be performed by day and by a priest. The entire service must be performed during the day and by a priest.", + "Work renders it invalid. Work renders it invalid as we learned above in section one.", + "[All of this is only] until it becomes ashes These words relate to everything that was taught in sections four through seven. Those rules apply only until it has been turned into ash. After it has been turned into ash, the rules of trespassing do not apply: one cannot add wood and the service does not need to be performed during the day or by a priest.", + "And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it. Doing work with the water set aside for the sprinkling ritual renders it invalid, but only until the ash has been added." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah talks about measures taken to ensure the purity of the vessel into which the ashes and water were mixed.", + "He who brings the earthen vessel for the hatat must immerse, and spend the night by the furnace. Rabbi Judah says: he may also bring it from the house and it is valid, for all are deemed trustworthy in regard to the hatat. The person who is going to bring the earthenware vessel to be used for the hatat (the red cow) must first immerse himself in a mikveh. When doing so, he must have the specific intent that he will be occupied with the hatat (see Hagigah 2:6). He must sleep next to the furnace in which the vessel is being made to make sure that it is not touched by someone impure. Rabbi Judah rules much more leniently for he believes that people can be trusted to preserve the purity of anything to do with the hatat. People recognize the sanctity of the red cow and would not claim that a vessel was pure if it was not. Therefore, he can even bring it directly from the house in which it was made, without sleeping next to the furnace (might not be so comfortable in the summer).", + "In the case of terumah one may open the furnace and take out [the vessel]. Rabbi Shimon says: from the second row. Rabbi Yose says: from the third row. When it comes to a vessel made for holding terumah, one need not sleep next to the furnace. However, he should go to the furnace, open it up and take it out himself. He should be able to tell by looking at the vessel whether it had yet been touched. He should not trust the potter's purity. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yose rule more strictly saying that he should take from either the second row of vessels in the furnace or the third row, for it is more likely that these rows have not been touched and therefore have not been defiled." + ], + [ + "If one immersed a vessel for the hatat in water that is not fit for the mixing he must dry it; If in water that is fit for the mixing he need not dry it. The water used to mix in the ashes must be fresh water (see 19:17), water that has not been previously collected. If he takes a vessel that can be purified in a mikveh to use it for mixing in the hatat ash and he immerses it in a mikveh, he must make sure that it is completely dry before he puts in the water for the ritual. But if he immersed it in fresh water, he doesn't need to dry it because that water is fit in any case.", + "But if [he intended] to collect in it water that was already mixed with the ashes, he must dry it in either case. If he immersed the vessel to gather water in which the ashes had already been mixed, then he needs to dry it no matter where he immersed it. This is because he needs to prevent water that has not been sanctified with the hatat (the water in which he immerses) with the water that has already been mixed." + ], + [ + "If a pumpkin shell was immersed in water that was not fit for the mixing, it is permissible to mix in it the ashes with the water, as long as it had not been defiled. If one designs a dried out pumpkin shell to be a vessel for holding water, then he can immerse it even in a regular mikveh (water not fit for mixing) and he doesn't need to dry it off before mixing in the water to be used with the ashes. This is because the water that remains after the immersion will be absorbed into the pumpkin shell. We are not concerned lest it expel some of this water (which cannot be used with the ashes) into water that will be used for the ashes.", + "If it has been defiled, one cannot mix in it the ashes with the water. However, if the pumpkin shell had previously been defiled then it can't be used ever to hold the water and ashes because we are concerned that it will expel some impure water that had been held in its absorbent walls, thereby invalidating the hatat waters.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: if one is allowed to mix in it the ashes and water at the beginning, one should also be allowed to do so at the end; and if one is not allowed to do this at the end one should not be allowed to do it at the beginning. In either case it is not permissible to collect in it water that has already had ashes mixed in. Rabbi Joshua points out the obvious inconsistency with the previous opinion. In section one (at the beginning, before it had been defiled) we were not concerned lest it expel any water that it had absorbed. But in section two (at the end, after it had been defiled) we are concerned that it will do so. The inconsistency does not make sense. It seems that this leads Rabbi Joshua to rule strictly. Even if the pumpkin has never been defiled, he still can't use it for fear that it will expel unusable water into the living waters needed for the hatat ritual.", + "Whether or not the pumpkin has ever been defiled, it cannot be used to collect water that has already had ashes mixed in. This is because we fear that it will expel water that had not had the ashes in it, into the water that did (see the end of yesterday's mishnah). We should note that there is some disagreement among the commentators whether this last line belongs to Rabbi Joshua or to the sages." + ], + [ + "A reed pipe that was cut [for use as a container] for the hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it must be immersed immediately. Rabbi Joshua ruled: he defiles it and then immerses it. A reed pipe was cut and made into a vessel usable for holding water (on reed pipes as vessels see Kelim 17, the end of the chapter). Rabbi Eliezer says that it is to be immersed immediately for the sake of a hatat. Rabbi Joshua says that it should first be intentionally defiled and then it can be immersed and used immediately. This way the reed pipe will have the status of \"tvul yom\" something that is clean but has not yet waited for the sun set. As we saw in 3:7, the rabbis wanted the red cow ritual to be performed by a tvul yom as part of their polemic against the Sadducees who believed that a person was not pure until after the sun had set.", + "All are eligible to prepare the mixture, except a deaf mute, an imbecile and a minor. Rabbi Judah says a minor is eligible, but disqualifies a woman and a hermaphrodite. Anyone, even a non-priest and even a woman, can take the ashes and put them in the water. Numbers 19:9 says that a pure person must collect the ash. The rabbis take this to mean that the person needs to be pure, but that it can be done by anyone. However, he must have \"awareness\" meaning the ability to comprehend what he is doing. As we have seen many times throughout the Mishnah, the rabbis considered the deaf mute, the imbecile and the minor to be incapable of such awareness. Rabbi Judah says that a minor is capable of putting the ash into the water, but a woman is not allowed to do so. Similarly, a hermaphrodite who is part man/part woman, cannot perform the mixing of the ash and water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with what vessels can used for making the hatat waters.", + "They can make the mixture in all kinds of vessels, even in vessels made of cattle dung, of stone or of earth. All vessels can be used for mixing in the water and ashes, even vessels that cannot become impure, such as those made of dung, stone or earth. We might have thought that something that cannot become impure wouldn't count as a \"vessel\" and the Torah states that the water must be put into a vessel. Our mishnah counters that notion.[Hard to imagine them actually using vessels made of dung for this ritual, but theoretically, it's possible].", + "The mixture may also be prepared in a boat. So too a boat cannot become impure. Nevertheless, one can, at least theoretically, put the ashes and water in there.", + "It may not be prepared in the walls of vessels, or in the sides of a large jug, or in the stopper of a jar, or in one's cupped hands, for one does not fill up, or mix in, or sprinkle the hatat with anything but a vessel. However, there are things that can hold water that don't count as vessels. The first is the wall of a broken vessel, or the side of a large broken jug. Even though these pieces of earthenware can hold water, they cannot be used because they are not considered vessels. The stopper of a jar cannot be used even if it has a receptacle (see 9:1) because it is not considered a vessel. Finally, one's hands do not count as a vessel.", + "Only on a vessel does tightly fitting cover afford protection, for only in vessels is protection afforded against uncleanness within an earthen vessel. Earthenware vessels that have a tightly fitting lid protect their contents from impurity. For instance, if a vessel with food in it is in an oven with an impure thing such as a sheretz, the food remains pure (see Kelim 8:3). However, this only applies if the food is in a vessel. Non-vessels do not protect their contents in the same way." + ], + [ + "A potters’ egg is fit [as a vessel]. Rabbi Yose rules that it is unfit. A \"potters' egg\" is an egg shaped piece of plaster made by the potter and from which he will form a vessel. It has a receptacle. The first opinion holds that this egg is usable for mixing the ashes and water and to sprinkle from it for it is already considered a vessel. Rabbi Yose says that it is not yet a vessel and therefore cannot be used.", + "A hen's egg: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah rule it is fit [as a vessel]; But the sages rule that it is unfit. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah hold that even a hen's egg is considered a vessel and therefore can be used. However, the other sages (understandably, in my opinion) disagree." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a receptacle carved into a rock into which water from a spring would flow. Can this water be used for the red cow ritual?", + "It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid. The reason that this receptacle cannot be used is that it is not considered a vessel, and as we have seen, only vessels can be used for to mix the water and for the sprinkling. Similarly, if it is found in a tent (or tent-like structure) with a dead body (or part thereof) it does not need a tightly fitting lid to protect its contents from impurity. It is sufficient for it to be merely covered. If water from it flows into a mikveh, it doesn't render the mikveh invalid, as it would if the water came from a vessel. Water that flows into a mikveh from a vessel does render the mikveh invalid. The bottom-line it doesn't count as a vessel.", + "If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid. If one made a vessel out of stone and then attached it with lime to the ground next to the spring, it does count as a vessel. In such a case, he can use it for the hatat ritual, it needs a tightly fitting cover to protect its contents when in a tent with a corpse and if water flows from there into a mikveh it renders the mikveh's contents invalid.", + "If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel. This relates to the situation in section two. If there is a hole in that vessel and then he stops it up with a rag, the water cannot be used for the red cow ritual. The reason is not entirely clear and my translation hides the difficulty in the Hebrew. It seems that when the hole is at the bottom the water is drawn toward the hole and the rabbis don't consider the water as being contained by the vessel. To put it another way, the hole below nullifies it from being a vessel. But if the hole was on the upper side of the vessel and there are full walls surrounding it, then the water is considered to be surrounded by the vessel and it can be used for the red cow ritual.", + "If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid. This again relates to the situation in which there is a vessel put into the rock. If he made a rim of clay around the top of the vessel and the water rose to that level, the water cannot be used because the clay around the top is not considered to be a vessel. However, if he attaches the clay in such a manner that it would be moved with the vessel, then it is part of the vessel and the water is valid." + ], + [ + "If there were two troughs in one stone and the mixture was prepared in one of them, the water in the other is not prepared. In this situation there are two troughs set into the stone, neither of which are attached to the ground and therefore both can count as vessels (see yesterday's mishnah). If the mixture of red cow ashes and water is prepared in one, the water in the other is not considered to have been prepared because the two troughs are not connected.", + "If a hole of the size of the spout of a water skin passed from one to the other, or if the water overflowed both, even if only [to a depth of] the thickness of garlic peel, and the mixture was prepared in one of them, the water in the other is also prepared. However, if there is a connection between the two, either through a hole or by causing the water to overflow from one into the other, then as soon as one is prepared, the other is prepared as well." + ], + [ + "If one placed two stones close to one another and made them into a trough, and so also in the case of two kneading troughs, and so also in the case of a trough that was split, the water between them is not deemed to be prepared. Someone takes two stones and sets them up next to each other such that there is a receptacle in between. Or he does the same thing with two kneading troughs or he takes one trough set into a stone and divides it in two. In all three of these cases the water between the two vessels, or in the crack between the split trough, is not considered to be in a vessel and therefore cannot be used for the red cow ritual. In other words, if one takes two vessels and puts them next to each other such that a container is formed in between them, the container is not considered to be a vessel.", + "If they were joined together with lime or gypsum and they can be moved together, the water between them is deemed to have been prepared. However, if he joins the two troughs together such that they can be moved together, then the container formed in between them counts as a vessel and water in it can be used for the red cow ritual." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with various situations in which some of the ashes fall out of the hand of the person who is about to mix them in with the water.", + "If one was about to mix the ashes with the water and the ashes fell upon his hand or upon the side of the trough and then fell into the trough, the mixture is invalid. In all of these cases the mixture is invalid because the ashes must be put by a person directly into the water. The fact that there is something intervening (his hand or the side of the trough) renders the mixture invalid.", + "If they fell from the tube into the trough, the mixture is invalid. The ashes were put into a tube for storage (see 5:4). If they fall directly from the tube into the water, the mixture is invalid.", + "If he took the ashes from the tube and then covered it, or shut a door, the ashes remain valid but the water becomes invalid. Here he takes some ashes from the tube. He then covers up the tube or closes a door before he puts the ashes into the water. The ashes remain valid and can be put into some other water. But the fact that he did \"work\" while occupied with the red cow ritual renders the water invalid, as we learned in 4:4. He will now have to get new water to put the ashes in.", + "If he put it up erect on the ground, the water becomes invalid. If in his hand, the water is valid, since it is impossible [otherwise] Similarly, if he stands the tube up on the ground, this counts as work and the water is invalid. However, if he simply stands the tube up in his hand so that the ashes don't fall out, the water is still valid because he has no choice but to do this, or something like this. This is considered \"work necessary for the mixing\" and such work does not render the water invalid." + ], + [ + "If the ashes floated on the water: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may take some of them and use them in another preparation; But the sages say: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared from them. According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon if there are some ashes that are floating on the water after he has mixed them in, one can take those ashes and reuse them with other water to make more hatat waters. Think of it as red cow recycling. The other sages say that after the process has been performed once with some ashes, it cannot be performed again with the same ashes.", + "If he emptied out the water and some ashes were found at the bottom: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon rule: one may dry them and then use them for another preparation; But the sages rule: with any ashes that have touched water no other mixture may be prepared. This is basically the same dispute as in section one, except here ashes have settled to the bottom of the vessel into which they were mixed." + ], + [ + "One who mixes the water in a trough while a bucket was in it, even though its neck was narrow as can be, the waters in it are prepared. If there is a bucket in the trough when he adds in the hatat ashes, the water in the bucket is also prepared for the sake of sprinkling. The bucket is a vessel and the water in it is considered to be connected to the rest of the water in the trough.", + "If there was a sponge in the trough, the water in it is invalid. However, if there is a sponge in the trough, the water in the sponge is not valid for use because the sponge is not a vessel. Furthermore, the water in it is not considered to be connected to the water in the trough. This prevents the rest of the water in the trough from being immediately invalidated.", + "What should he do? He should empty out the water until he gets to the sponge. This section explains how he should avoid the problem of invalid water from the sponge spilling into the valid water that remains in the trough. What he should do is pour all of the water into another container, thereby preserving its validity. He can then remove the sponge.", + "If one touched the sponge, however much the water that washes over it, the water becomes invalid. However, if he touches the sponge at all, we must be concerned lest some got squeezed out into the other water and therefore all of the water would be invalid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that if one causes water to pass from a spring into a jar by using a conduit that is receptive to impurity, the water is invalid. The water must either be filled straight into the jar, or at least go through or over something that does not receive impurity.", + "If he placed his hand or his foot or leaves of vegetables in such a manner as to enable the water to run into a jar, the water is invalid. Hands, feet and leaves of vegetables are susceptible to impurity. Therefore, the water that has passed over them has been invalidated.", + "If he used leaves of reeds or leaves of nuts the water is valid. However, leaves of reeds or nuts are not susceptible to impurity, therefore, the water remains valid for use.", + "This is the general rule: [water passing over] that which is susceptible to uncleanness is invalid, but [water passing over] that which is not susceptible to uncleanness is valid. This is the general rule that explains the distinction between section one and two." + ], + [ + "One who diverts a spring into a wine vat or into pools, the water is invalid for zavim and metzoraim. In this situation, a person diverts water from a spring into a wine vat or into some pools and after the vat or pools are full, he stops the connection with the spring such that the water is no longer connected to its source. Zavim people with abnormal genital discharge, cannot use this water because they need living water. For metzoraim, people with skin afflictions, they slaughter a bird above living water and sprinkle him with the water. This also requires living water.", + "And also for the preparation of the hatat water. It is also not valid for the preparation of hatat water.", + "Because it was not drawn into a vessel. This is the reason why this water cannot be used for any of these three rituals. The water in the vat or pools is no longer live water as it was when it was in the spring. And, the water is also not considered to be in a vessel for vats and pools are not vessels. Therefore, this water is invalid for any ritual requiring \"living waters.\"" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who draws water multiple times from a live source of water and either wants to use all five jars for one mixture or for five different mixtures. The potential problem that he could encounter is the prohibition of doing \"work\" while preparing the hatat water.", + "If five men filled five jars to prepare with them five mixtures, and then they changed their minds to prepare one mixture from all of them, or if they filled the jars to prepare with them one mixture and then they changed their minds to prepare with them five mixtures, all the water remains valid. There are two scenarios here. In the first, five different people draw five different jars of water with which to make five different mixtures of hatat water and then they change their mind and decide to make one mixture. Alternatively, five different men want to make one mixture and then they change their mind and decide to make five different mixtures. In both cases, all of the water is valid. As stated in the introduction, the potential problem is that one person would be preparing hatat water and at the same time doing something else, even preparing a separate mixture of hatat water. In these cases, that did not happen, because there were five different men, and each was occupied with preparing his own jar of hatat water.", + "If one man filled five jars intending to prepare five [separate] mixtures, [even though] he changed his mind to prepare one mixture from all of them, only the last is valid. Here, one man wanted to make five different jars but then changed his mind and decided to prepare one jar of hatat water. The problem is that after he filled each jar, he then went and filled another jar and this is considered \"work\" which disqualifies the validity of the hatat water. Only the last jar's water is valid because he didn't occupy himself with anything else after filling that jar.", + "If he intended to prepare one mixture from all of them and then he changed his mind to prepare five separate mixtures, only the water in the one that was mixed first is valid. At the outset, he intended to make one large mixture of hatat water and then he changed his mind and decided to make the water that he had drawn into five separate mixtures. The first drawing remains valid. But the latter four drawings of water are all invalid because the first mixing was considered work done in between their drawing and their mixing.", + "If he said to another man, \"Prepare mixtures from these for yourself,\" only the first is valid; In this case a person fills up five jars and then says to another, \"Prepare them for yourself.\" The preparer now takes possession of the water, thereby taking the place of the drawer. And just as only the first was valid in section three, so too here, only the first is valid because work was done in between their drawing their mixing.", + "But if he said, \"Prepare a mixture from these for me,\" all are valid. In this case, the drawer says to the one who will mix the water and ashes, \"Prepare them for me.\" Here, the preparer does not take the place of the drawer, for he hasn't given possession of the water over to him. It turns out that the owner of the water (the one who drew it) didn't do any labor in between the drawing and the mixing. Therefore, all of the mixtures are valid." + ], + [ + "One who filled the water with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, or filled the water for himself and for another man, or filled two jars at the same time, the water of both is invalid, for work causes invalidity whether one acts for oneself or for another person. In all of these cases a person is engaged in some sort of work while he is occupied with filling water for the red cow ritual. Either he works with one hand while filling with the other, or fills for himself and another person at the same time, or fills two at the same time. In all cases, all of the water is invalid for as we have learned, one can't perform work and fill the water at the same time. The general rule is that when one is filling the water and he at the same time does work, the water is invalid not just for him, but even if he is doing it on behalf of another person. This is not true when it comes to mixing, as we saw in mishnah one." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah describes situations where a person prepares the mixture of hatat ash and water and at the same time performs another act, and yet the mixture is still valid.", + "One who prepared the mixture with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, the mixture is invalid if he prepared it for himself, but if he prepared it for another man, it is valid. Performing work while mixing the ash and water doesn't disqualify the mixture if the preparation is being made for another person, as we saw in mishnah one. However, if he makes it for himself, it is invalid.", + "If he prepared a mixture both for himself and for another man, his is invalid and that of the other man is valid. The same principle is operative here he invalidates his own mixture because he is engaged in some other work, but he doesn't invalidate that of the other person.", + "If he prepares mixtures for two men simultaneously, both are valid. Since none of the preparations were being made for himself, both are valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nBeware! This mishnah might be a bit confusing, but it should all work out in the end. A classic example of rabbinic conundrums!", + "[If one said to another] \"Prepare the mixture for me and I will prepare the one for you,\" the first is valid. Two people drew water to use it for that hatat. Then one said to the other, \"You mix the ashes for me and I will mix for you.\" The first mixture is valid but the second mixture is not because the second person was occupied with mixing the first person's ash and water between his filling his water and its being mixed with ash.", + "[If he said,] \"Fill the water for me and I will fill the water for you,\" that of the latter is valid. The second filling is valid, but the first filling is invalid for the owner of the water was occupied with filling the other person's water between his own water being filled and their mixing.", + "[If he said,] \"Prepare the mixture for me and I will draw the water for you,\" both mixtures are valid. The first mixture is valid for the owner didn't draw the water for the second person until his mixture was already prepared. And the drawing of water for the second guy only began after the first mixture was already prepared, so it too is valid.", + "[If he said,] \"Fill the water for me and I will prepare the mixture for you’, both mixtures are invalid. In this case both are invalid. The first mixture is invalid for the owner of the first water prepared the second person's mixture between the filling of his own water and their mixture. The second mixture is invalid for the second person was occupied with drawing water for the first person between the drawing of his own water and their mixture." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who wants to draw water for a hatat mixture and at the same time draw some water for himself. How can he do it without invalidating the hatat water?", + "One who is drawing water for his own use and for the mixture of the hatat, he must draw for himself first and fasten [the bucket] to the carrying pole and then he can draw the water for the hatat. If he drew first the water for the hatat and then he drew the water for himself, it is invalid. First he must draw his own water and then attach it to the pole that he uses to carry the water, and then he can draw the water for the hatat. If he drew water first for the hatat and then drew for himself, the hatat water will be invalid because he performed work in between drawing the hatat water and mixing it with the ashes.", + "He must put his own behind him and that for the hatat before him, and if he put that for the hatat behind him it is invalid. The hatat waters have to go in front of him where they can be better watched. This is derived from the word, \"for a watch\" found in Numbers 19:9.", + "If both were for the hatat, he may put one before him and one behind him and both are valid, since it is impossible to do otherwise. If he has two jars of hatat water that he needs to carry then he has no choice but to carry one behind him. Both remain valid." + ], + [ + "One who carries the rope in his hand, If in his usual manner, the mixture is valid; But if not in his usual manner, it is invalid. If after filling the water into a jar that was hanging from a rope he returned in his usual way and didn't go out of the way to return the rope somewhere else, the mixture remains valid. But if he went out of his way to carry the rope somewhere else, the mixture is invalid because this is considered work.", + "The question was sent on to Yavneh on three festivals and on the third festival, it was ruled that the mixture was valid, as a temporary measure. The question about walking the rope out of its way and was asked (according to the Tosefta by pilgrims from Asia Minor) for three consecutive festivals in the yeshiva in Yavneh and finally on the third festival they gave an answer. The answer was that as a temporary measure they will validate cases in which this was done in the past, but in the future if one carries the rope out of its way, it will invalidate the water. As an aside, this mishnah is, according to some scholars (notably Gedaliah Alon), evidence that there was a center of rabbinic learning in Yavneh before the destruction of the Temple. Yavneh's ascent as a famous and legendary rabbinic academy seems to have largely occurred after the destruction (this was where R. Yohanan ben Zakkai went after the destruction) but it seems that there were some sages there even before the destruction and that some Jews turned to those sages with questions on their way to the Temple in Jerusalem. However, beyond these scant details, there is little we really know." + ], + [ + "If a man coils the rope around his hand little by little, [the mixture] is valid; If when the person draws the full bucket out of the water he wraps the rope around his hand one coil at a time as he is lifting up, the mixture is still valid. This is not considered to be work.", + "But if he coiled it afterwards, it is invalid. However, if he coils it up completely after he has already raised up the basket, then it counts as work and the mixture is invalid.", + "Rabbi Yose said: this also had been ruled to be valid as a temporary measure. Rabbi Yose says that as a temporary measure, they validated the water in a case where someone coiled the rope up after the water had been drawn. It is interesting that the term \"as a temporary measure\" appears in today's mishnah and yesterday's mishnah and nowhere else in the Mishnah (it does appear one additional time in the Tosefta). Perhaps the rabbis are setting up a system here where actions are on the one hand considered to be work and therefore should invalidate the mixture and yet on the other hand they don't want to actually claim that the mixture is invalid. So they set up a situation where the stringency is the rule but as a \"temporary measure\" validity is bequeathed. However we interpret the appearance of this phrase here, it is curious that it appears basically only in Parah." + ], + [ + "One who puts the jar away in order that it shall not be broken, or if he inverted it in order to dry it, [If he did one of these things] so that he might draw more water with it, [the water he had already drawn] is valid; But if he intended to carry in it the ashes, it is invalid. There are two actions described here, each that can invalidate the water if they were done with a certain intention, but won't invalidate the water if done with another intention. The actions are both done for the sake of the jar either to protect it or to dry it and they are both done between the emptying of the water into a trough and the mixing of the water with the ashes. If he did one of these things with the intention to draw more water for the same mixture, then this is not \"work\" done in between filling and mixing and the water remains valid for use. However, if he is protecting or drying the jar to use it for any other purpose, even a purpose connected to the mixing of the ashes, such as carrying in it the ashes, the water is invalid.", + "One who cleared potsherds from a trough: If in order that it may hold more water, the water is valid; But if he intended that they should not hinder him when he pours out the water, it is invalid. The idea of this section is similar to that above. Someone clears potsherds from the trough into which he has put the water to use it for mixing the ashes. If he clears them in order to make more room in the trough, the water is valid. However, if he is removing them because he doesn't want them to bother him when he pours the mixture from the trough into a flask (from which he will sprinkle) then this action counts as work and it invalidates the mixture. Again, although this is done for the sake of the mixture, it still invalidates it." + ], + [ + "One was carrying his water on his shoulder and he ruled in a matter of law, or showed others the way, or killed a snake or a scorpion, or picked up food in order to store it, it [the water] is invalid; But [if he picked up] food to eat, it is valid. [And if he killed] a snake or a scorpion that hindered him, it remains valid.
Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: If the act was is in the nature of work, the mixture is invalid whether the man stopped or not, If it was not in the nature of work: If he stopped, it is invalid;
But if he did not stop it remains valid.
Section one: In all of these cases, the action is considered work and it invalidates the water that he is carrying from being used for the red cow ritual. However, the mishnah goes on to list circumstances in which said action doesn't invalidate the water.
When it comes to picking up food, it depends what his purpose is. If he picked it up to store it away, it counts as work and the water is invalid. However, if he picked it up in order to eat it, it doesn't count as work. Eating, in other words, is not work.
If he killed the snake or scorpion because it was hindering his progress, the water remains valid. Actions he needs to do in order to simply progress on his way do not invalidate the water.
Section two: Rabbi Judah sets up a general principle that relates to these types of situation, and show that issuing a ruling or giving someone directions also do not always disqualify the water. If an action was done in the nature of work, meaning it is something that is generally considered to be work, then it doesn't matter whether he stopped on the path or not, it disqualifies the water he is carrying. In other words, the mere action itself is disqualifying.
However, if it is not a matter of work, such as issuing a ruling or showing someone the way, then it depends on whether he stopped or not. If he stopped, then this stoppage to perform another action can invalidate the water. But if he did not stop, then the water remains valid." + ], + [ + "If one gave over his water to someone who was unclean, it is invalid. But if to a clean one it is valid. If a person gives over the water he is watching to an unclean person to watch, the water is invalid because we can't trust that it remained pure. However, if he gives it to a clean person the water remains valid. In addition, the clean person can perform work while watching the water since it is not his water.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: even if it was entrusted to an unclean man it is valid, provided the owner did no other work in the meantime. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if he gives the water to an unclean person, the water remains valid, for we consider the water to have stayed in the possession of the owner. However, this leniency is accompanied by a stringency. Since the water is still in the possession of the owner, if he does work before the mixing, he renders it invalid. In contrast, if he gave it to a clean person, the clean person assumes possession and if the owner does work, it does not render it invalid." + ], + [ + "Two men who were drawing water for the hatat and one assisted the other to raise it or one pulled out a thorn for the other: For one mixture, it is valid; For two mixtures, it is invalid. Two men help each other in drawing the water for the hatat red cow ritual. They help each either in raising the buckets or in pulling thorns out of each other's hands while the other raises the bucket. If they are making one mixture, then the water is valid because these \"labors\" are both for the mixture being prepared. Neither man does any work to draw water that will not be used in the mixture he is preparing. However, if they are making two separate mixtures then each man's helping the other is considered an interruption and the water is invalid.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even if there are to be two mixtures it is valid if they had made a mutual agreement between them. Rabbi Yose says that if they made a prior arrangement to help each other then both drawings are valid. This is because when A helps B he is really helping to get help in return. It turns out that his help of A was really for his own drawing, and in such a case the water remains valid." + ], + [ + "One who broke down a fence [even] with the intention of putting it up again, the water remains valid; But if he put a fence up, the water becomes invalid. The person broke down a fence to get to where he needed to go after filling up the water. Breaking down the fence obviously does not invalidate the water for it was done in order to put up the fence. The mishnah goes a bit further. Even if he intends to put up the fence again, the water is still valid. Although we might have thought that tearing something down in order to rebuild it does count as work, since he needed to tear down the fence, the water is still valid. However, if he went even a step further and actually built the fence, this certainly counts as work and the water is invalid.", + "If he ate figs intending to store some of them, the water is valid; But if he stored figs it is invalid. If someone eats someone else's figs in between filling and mixing the water, and he intends to repay that person by preparing the other figs for storage (this involves cutting them in order to dry them or press them into a cake) the water is still valid, for eating is considered something done for the mixture itself. The quid pro quo arrangement eating figs in return for drying them, does not count as work. However, if he actually went ahead and stored some figs in between drawing and mixing, the water is invalid.", + "If he was eating figs and, leaving some over, threw what was in his hand under the fig tree or among drying figs in order that it shall not be wasted, the water is invalid. In this case he is eating and storing them away for later at the same time. Although eating doesn't invalidate the figs, the storing does." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Two men were guarding a trough: If one of them became unclean, the water remains valid, since it is in the domain of the other. If the first became clean and the other became unclean the water is still valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both became unclean simultaneously the water becomes invalid.
If one of them did some work, the water remains valid since it is in the domain of the second. If the first stopped doing work and the other did some work, the water still remains valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both did some work at the same time the water becomes invalid.
This quite simple mishnah teaches that if two men are guarding a trough with water to be used for the red cow ritual, and one of them becomes impure or does work we can consider the water to be under the protection of the other guard, and the water remains valid. It is invalidated only if both of them are impure or do work at the same time.
The mishnah is very straightforward so there is no commentary below." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nBoth halves of this mishnah teach that the hatat waters defile garments and shoes but they do not directly defile the person who is preparing the mixture of water and cow ash.", + "One who prepares the mixture of the hatat should not wear his sandals, for were some of the liquid to fall on his sandal it would become unclean and [the sandal] would defile him. Behold he would say [to the sandal], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.\" When filling the trough with water to get ready to make the mixture water will spill to the ground. The one preparing the mixture will therefore be standing in water while mixing. This water is pure but it is considered impure vis a vis the preparation of the hatat mixture. Impure water defiles vessels on contact, so it will defile the sandal. The sandal will then defile him because vessels that have become impure due to contact with liquids defile a person with regard to preparing the hatat waters. However, the water does not directly defile him. We should note that there are two stringencies here that are related only to the hatat. 1) Even though the water is pure, it defiles the sandal. 2) The sandal defiles the person. Both of these measures are not true with regard to general matters of purity. We shall return to stringencies in purity for the hatat when we learn chapter ten. The section ends with a cute discussion between the man and his sandal. He points accusingly at the sandal, noting with some iron that that which defiled you (the water) didn't defile me, but you, sneaky little sandal, did defile me.", + "If some of the liquid fell on his skin he remains clean. This was noted above.", + "If it fell on his garment it becomes unclean and defiles him. Behold he would say [to the garment], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.\" This is the same scenario as above, only with a garment instead of clothing. The only difference is that it is obviously not prohibited to wear a garment when mixing the water!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah the person spoke to his sandal/garment saying, \"That which defiled you, did not defile me, but you did defile me.\"Today the garment provides his comeback.", + "The one who burns the red cow or bulls and he that leads away the scapegoat, defile garments. The Torah specifically states that the clothes of the one who burns the red cow are defiled (Numbers 19:8). The same is true with regard to a person who burns the bulls or goats on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:28) or other cases of animals that are burned and of the one who leads the scapegoat to Azazel (the wilderness) on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:26). All of these must wash their garments because they themselves defile their own garments.", + "The red cow and the bulls and the scapegoat do not themselves defile garments. Despite the fact that the person who performs these rituals is defiled, the animals themselves to do not defile garments.", + "Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me. This leads again to the personification of the garment it says to the person, that the cow, bull or goat that defiled you, didn't defile me. But you, Mr., did defile me!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next four mishnayot have nothing to do with the red cow. They are all here because they contain the line, \"Behold, that which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.\"", + "One that eats of the carrion of a clean bird, while it is yet in his throat, causes garments to be unclean; One who eats carrion (an animal that wasn't slaughtered properly) of a clean bird (like a chicken) is impure. This is stated in Leviticus 17:15. The impurity occurs as soon as the bite he took reaches his throat. We will learn more of the details concerning this law in Tractate Toharot.", + "But the carrion itself does not cause garments to be unclean. The carrion itself does not cause impurity.", + "Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me. This is the same personification we have seen in the other mishnayot." + ], + [ + "Any derived uncleanness does not defile vessels, but [it does defile] a liquid. A derived uncleanness is one that is of either first or second degree uncleanness, meaning it had contact with something that was either a father of uncleanness or had first degree uncleanness. This level of uncleanness defiles liquids but not vessels.", + "If a liquid became unclean it defiles them. The liquid will then defile the vessel, because liquids convey uncleanness to vessels.", + "Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me. This again creates the paradox. The derived uncleanness was not strong enough to defile the vessel, but that which it defiled (the liquid) was strong enough to do so. The vessel is not happy with that liquid, and it lets it know!" + ], + [ + "An earthenware vessel does not defile another such vessel, but [it does defile] a liquid. This mishnah is nearly the same as yesterday's mishnah, but with a slightly different subject. An impure earthenware vessel does not convey impurity to another earthenware vessel.", + "And when the liquid becomes unclean it defile the vessel. However, it does convey impurity to a liquid, which will in turn defile the other vessel.", + "Behold [the vessel] would say [to the liquid], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.\" This time the vessel is talking. Kind of like Beauty and the Beast!" + ], + [ + "Whatever causes terumah to be invalid causes liquid to become unclean in the first grade so that it can convey uncleanness at one remove, and render unfit at one other remove, except for a tevul yom. Something that has second degree impurity, meaning it came into contact with something that had first degree impurity, invalidates terumah such that the terumah cannot be consumed. If such a substance comes into contact with liquid, it conveys to the liquid first degree impurity. As we have seen before, liquid amplifies the power of impurity. If such liquid comes into contact with food it gives second degree impurity to the food. This is \"one remove.\" And if the food comes into contact with terumah it renders the terumah unfit, although it does not render it impure. The one exception is the \"tevul yom\" a person who has immersed in the mikveh to cleanse his impurity but hasn't waited for the sun to set. Such a person disqualifies terumah, but does not convey first degree impurity to liquids.", + "Behold [the food] would say [to the liquid], \"That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.\" The food now says to the liquid. That which defiled you (that which had second degree impurity) could not defile me (things with second degree impurity only defile liquids). But you (liquid) did defile me (because liquid can defile food)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah returns to the topic of the preparation of the red cow. It discusses whether the seas can be used as the \"living water\" required for this and other purification rituals.", + "All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (, for it is said, \"And the gathering ( of the waters He called the seas\" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir the seas are considered to be like a mikveh and not like a flowing spring, which can be used for the red cow, for zavim (those with unusual genital discharge) and for metzoraim (those with scale disease), all of whom require \"living waters.\" In contrast to the rules governing a spring, for a mikveh to purify the water must be gathered into one place and it cannot be running. The seas are treated like a mikveh and therefore its waters purify only when they are gathered in one place. Rabbi Meir learns this from a midrash on the word \"gathering\" which is in Hebrew, mikveh. Genesis calls the seas a mikveh and therefore they are subject to the same rules as a mikveh and not to the rules of a live spring.", + "Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says \"seas\" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. In contrast, Rabbi Judah limits this to the ocean, which in his case is the Mediterranean. Other seas are treated like springs and purify even when they are running. He explains that Genesis states \"seas\" not because it refers to all seas as a mikveh. Rather the Mediterranean is \"seas\" because it contains many different seas. One interpretation of this is that a fish that is caught in Akko does not have the same taste as a fish that is caught in Sidon!", + "Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose says that all seas can purify when they are running none have the same restrictions as do a mikveh. However, the seas are not considered to be \"living waters\" as would be a spring. Therefore, none of the seas can be used for any of the rituals that requires \"living waters\" the red cow, zavim and metzoraim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to discuss what water does not count as \"living waters\" and therefore cannot be used for the red cow ritual, or the other rituals that require living waters.", + "Spoiled waters are unfit. The following are spoiled waters: those that are salty or lukewarm. Salty water or water that comes from warm ponds or such type of places does not count as \"living water\" because it is not drinkable.", + "Waters that disappoint are unfit. The following are waters that disappoint: those that disappoint even once in a seven year cycle. Those that disappoint only in times of war or in years of drought are fit. Rabbi Judah says: they are unfit. Waters that \"disappoint\" are waters from springs or rivers that dry up periodically. If the river dries up even once every seven years, it still counts as \"disappointing\" and cannot be used. If the waters fail only in times of war, due to overdrawing by soldiers, or only in times of drought, they do not, according to the first opinion, count as \"waters that disappoint\" and they can be counted as \"living waters.\" Rabbi Judah dissents and says that these too cannot be used." + ], + [ + "The waters of the Karmiyon and the waters of Pugah are unfit, because they are marsh waters. According to Albeck, who bases his interpretation on a medieval Talmudic dictionary (the Arukh), the Karmiyon and the Pugah are the same rivers as the Amanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, mentioned in II Kings 5:12. The mishnah rules that these rivers are too marshy to be considered \"living waters.\"", + "The waters of the Jordan and the waters of the Yarmuk are unfit, because they are mixed waters. And the following are mixed waters: a fit kind and an unfit kind that were mixed together. The Jordan and the Yarmuk are mixtures of valid living waters and marshy waters, therefore they cannot be used in the red cow or other rituals.", + "If two kinds that are fit were mixed together both remain fit: Rabbi Judah says that they are unfit. If two rivers both of which contain \"living waters\" mix together their water can be used. Rabbi Judah disagrees because he holds that \"mixed waters\" are always invalid. It seems that Rabbi Judah here sticks to some received tradition. He received the tradition that mixed waters are invalid, and he says that this tradition is true even if the mixture was made by two rivers of living waters. In other words, he remains true to the received tradition even if it doesn't really make any rational sense." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the final mishnah that clarifies what counts as \"living waters.\"", + "Ahab's well and the pool in Banias cave are fit. The Ahab is the name of a river. The Banias is one of the rivers that feed into the Jordan. This well and pool are considered \"living waters\" and therefore can be used for the red cow ritual.", + "Water that has changed its color and the change arose from itself, remains fit. If the color of the water changes not because another river fed into it, but due to some cause that came from the river itself, its waters remain valid.", + "A water channel that comes from a distance is fit, as long as it is watched so that no one cuts it off. Rabbi Judah says: the presumption is that it is permitted. A water channel whose source is far removed counts as \"living waters.\" However, according to the first opinion, he must watch it to make sure that someone doesn't cut it off to water his fields. If it is cut off from its source, it no longer counts as \"living waters.\" Rabbi Judah says that we can always presume that the water channel is attached to its source. It need not be watched, for unless we know that it has been cut off, it remains valid.", + "If some clay or earth fell into a well, one must wait until it becomes clear, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: he need not wait. If the water of a living well becomes temporarily murky because some clay or earth fell into it, Rabbi Ishmael says that he must wait until the normal color returns to use it for the red cow ritual. Rabbi Akiva says that this is not necessary." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nWater that has not been drawn from a source of living water cannot be used for the red cow ritual. Our mishnah discusses what happens if invalid water falls into the flask that has the valid water.", + "If the smallest amount of water fell into a flask: Rabbi Eliezer says: the sprinkling must be done twice; But the sages say that the mixture is invalid. A drop of invalid water falls into the flask. According to Rabbi Eliezer this can be remedied by sprinkling twice onto the person who requires sprinkling. If only one drop was invalid, then with two sprinklings he has definitely been sprinkled once with valid water. The sages disagree and say that even the smallest amount of water disqualifies the mixture.", + "If dew dropped into it: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it be put out in the sun and the dew will rise. But the sages say that the mixture is invalid. Dew also disqualifies the mixture because it has not been drawn from a source of living waters. Rabbi Eliezer again offers a simple remedy. Leave the water out in the hot sun for a while and the dew will steam up and rise out. It seems that Rabbi Eliezer assumes that the dew doesn't mix up the rest of the water and stays on top so that it will evaporate first. The other sages again say that there is nothing that can be done and the entire flask is invalid.", + "If a liquid or fruit juice fell into it, all the contents must be poured away and it is also necessary to dry the flask. If any of these materials fall into the flask, the entire contents must be thrown away. In addition, he must dry out the flask to make sure nothing remains (see also 5:2).", + "If ink, gum or sulphate of copper, or anything that leaves a mark, fell into it, the contents must be poured away but it is not necessary to dry the flask. In contrast, these materials leave their mark. Therefore, while they do invalidate the contents of the flask, if they were left over inside, they could be seen (the flask seems to have been made of glass). Therefore, he need not dry out the flask." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah addresses what the rule is if insects fall into the mixture.", + "If insects or creeping things fell into it, and they burst apart or the color [of the water] changed, the contents become invalid. If the insects or creepy crawly things burst apart or somehow make the color of the water change, then the water is invalid (and yucky). However, if they just fall in, they can be fished out and the water remains valid.", + "A beetle causes invalidity in any case, because it is like a tube. According to rabbinic entomology, a beetle is shaped like a tube. Therefore the water in the flask will enter it, mix with the beetle's own emissions and be reemitted back into the water, thereby disqualifying the mixture. This does not occur, evidently, with other types of insects.", + "Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob ruled: a maggot or a weevil of the grain causes no invalidity, because they contain no moisture. These two sages hold that if a grain maggot or weevil falls into the water, it does not disqualify the water even if it bursts. These insects are dry and therefore will not discharge anything into the water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIf a living creature drinks from the red cow waters we must be concerned lest the creature backwashed into the water, thereby disqualifying it. Our mishnah deals with which animals backwash and which sip without doing so.", + "If a domesticated beast or a wild animal drank from it, it becomes invalid. Domesticated beasts (cows, goats and sheep) and wild animals are all considered to be backwashers. So if they drink from the red cow waters, the waters can't be used because they are now mixed with the animal's spittle.", + "All birds cause invalidity, except the dove since it only sucks up the water. Birds are also backwashers, except for the dove, whose spit doesn't go into the water. Remind me next time I want to share a drink, to only do so with doves!", + "All creeping things do not cause invalidity, except the weasel since it laps up the water. Rabban Gamaliel ruled: the snake also because it vomits. Rabbi Eliezer ruled: the mouse also. Creeping things don't generally backwash when drinking. The weasel, however, laps up the water and therefore if it drinks from the red cow waters, they are invalidated. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer add the mouse and snake to the list." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIf one intends to drink the red cow waters, he invalidates them. Our mishnah discusses at what point they become invalid.", + "If one intended to drink the hatat water: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid. Rabbi Joshua says: only when one tips the flask. According to Rabbi Eliezer, intent alone disqualifies the water. So if one intends to drink it, it is already invalid. Rabbi Joshua says that while one does not have to actually drink the water to disqualify it, one must at least perform some action. Tipping the flask to take a drink is sufficient of an action to disqualify the water.", + "Rabbi Yose said: To what does this apply? To water that had not yet been prepared, But in the case of water that had been prepared: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid [only] when one tips the flask; And Rabbi Joshua says: [only] when one drinks. Rabbi Yose limits this to water that has not yet been prepared, meaning the ashes have not yet been mixed in. If the ashes have been mixed in, then each sage rules slightly more leniently. Rabbi Eliezer says he must tip the water to disqualify it, whereas Rabbi Joshua says that intent alone does not disqualify waters that have already been prepared. They are disqualified only if he actually drinks them.", + "And if it was poured directly into one's throat, it remains valid. If someone else pours the water directly into a another person's mouth then the waters remain valid (those that have not been drunk, of course). This is because no one had any intent to drink the water and no spit went in, because the water was poured down his throat. Therefore, there is no reason to invalidate the water." + ], + [ + "Hatat water that became invalid, it may not be mixed into the mud since it might become a snare for others. Rabbi Judah says: it becomes neutralized. Hatat water causes someone who comes into contact with it to become impure, even after the water has been disqualified from use. So if one takes disqualified hatat waters and mixes them in mud (to use them, I assume) anyone who touches the mud will be impure but he won't know that he is. Then he might go eat terumah while impure, which is forbidden. Rabbi Judah says that the hatat waters are neutralized by being in the mud. They no longer convey impurity, so he may mix them up.", + "A cow that drank of the hatat water, its flesh becomes unclean for twenty-four hours. Rabbi Judah says: it becomes neutralized in its bowels. The assumption is that the water remains in the cow for 24 hours. So if the cow is slaughtered within that time period, its flesh is impure. If he slaughters it afterwards, the flesh is pure. Again, Rabbi Judah says that the waters are neutralized when they are absorbed into something larger. The flesh does not convey impurity, even if the animal is slaughtered immediately." + ], + [ + "Hatat waters and hatat ashes one may not carry them across a river on a ship, nor may one float them upon the water, nor may one stand on the bank on one side and throw them across to the other side. According to traditional explanations of the prohibition in this section (which are based on the Bavli) it occurred one time that a person was transporting hatat waters and hatat ashes on a boat to cross the Jordan River. A piece of corpse was found on the bottom of the boat, and that caused the waters and ashes to be defiled and thereby disqualified. At that time the sages decreed that one should not carry hatat waters or ashes over water in a boat, nor transport them over a river in other similar ways. I must admit that I find these types of explanations somewhat intellectually dissatisfying. Just because an accident happens once doesn't mean it is any more likely to occur again. In my opinion, when the Talmud explains laws in this ways, it is in essence admitting that the law is irrational. It is as if they are saying, we have no real explanation for this, so it must be that the law was simply created when such a case actually occurred.", + "One may, however, cross over with the water up to his neck. However, it is permitted to carry the water across by hand, even if he is up to his neck in water. This was not considered similar enough to sailing on a ship for the rabbis to have prohibited it due to the incident described above.", + "He that is clean for the hatat may [sail] across [a river] carrying in his hands an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat or water that has not yet been prepared. A person who is ritually clean enough to prepare the hatat waters can travel on a ship while holding a vessel that will be used for the mixture and with water into which the ashes have not yet been mixed. The incident that triggered the prohibition occurred with waters that had already been mixed and with hatat ashes therefore that is the only case that they prohibited." + ], + [ + "If valid ashes were mixed up with wood ashes, we follow the majority with regard to uncleanness, but [the mixture] may not be prepared with it. The wood ashes are regular wood ashes that were not burned with the red cow. If the valid red cow ashes are mixed up with them, then when it comes to the ability of these ashes to convey impurity, we follow a majority principle. If a majority is red cow ash, it conveys impurity. However, the first opinion of the mishnah holds that this mixture cannot be used for the red cow ritual.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: the mixture may be prepared with all of them. Rabbi Eliezer is lenient, as he was in mishnah one. Since we know that there is some red cow ash in the entire mixture, it can be used in the ritual." + ], + [ + "Hatat waters that have been invalidated [still] defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body. And one who is clean for the hatat they defile neither [by contact] with his hands nor [by contact] with his body. Hatat waters that have been invalidated (for instance, because the person did some sort of work after preparing them) still convey some degree of impurity. They defile a person who has immersed in a mikveh with the intent of eating terumah, either by contact with his hands or by contact with his body. However, they don't defile someone with regards to non-sacred produce; meaning one who wants to eat non-sacred produce and has had contact with disqualified hatat waters does not defile the produce. Note that regular hatat waters do convey impurity. If someone is ritually clean enough to perform the red cow ritual, then disqualified hatat waters don't defile him at all. He can still perform the ritual even after contact with him.", + "If they become unclean, they defile one who is clean for terumah [by contact either] with his hands or with his body, And one who is clean for the hatat they defile [by contact] with his hands but not [by contact] with his body. Hatat waters that have been defiled convey impurity to one who is pure enough to eat terumah in the same way as do disqualified hatat waters. The one difference between disqualified and impure hatat waters is that the latter do defile a person clean enough to perform the red cow ritual by virtue of contact with his hands. However, if they have contact with his body, he remains pure." + ], + [ + "If valid ashes were put on water that was unfit for the preparation, [the latter] defiles one that is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body, Since the water was unfit for use in the red cow ritual (assumedly because it is not living waters) it cannot be used for the sprinkling. Nevertheless the water does defile one who has purified himself in order to eat terumah. This is the same rule as we saw in yesterday's mishnah with regard to disqualified hatat waters.", + "But to one who is clean for the hatat it conveys uncleanness neither [by contact] with his hands nor with his body. This is also the same as the rule we saw in yesterday's mishnah." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with some stringencies that apply to the ritual purity of vessels and people involved in the hatat water ritual. The mishnah refers to a type of impurity called \"madaf impurity.\" This is a light form of impurity that only has relevance in the preparation of the hatat.\nThe mishnah also refers to \"midras impurity.\" Midras impurity is impurity conveyed by leaning upon or moving an object.\nMishnah Hagigah 2:7 taught: \"The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification.\" What this means is that all garments, even those which have been cleansed enough so that they could be used with holy things, still convey midras impurity to anyone who wishes to perform an action in connection with the red cow ritual. This is an extra stringency taken with regard to the hatat ashes and waters. Our mishnah teaches that the same is true with regard to other objects and with regard to people. If they have not been immersed for the sake of the red cow ritual, they are impure.", + "Any object that is susceptible to midras uncleanness is for the purpose of the hatat waters deemed to have madaf uncleanness, whether it was otherwise unclean or clean. Any object that is susceptible to midras uncleanness, for instance an object that is made to sit upon or to lie upon, has \"madaf uncleanness\" vis a vis the hatat waters. This is true even if the object is pure with regards to terumah and other holy things. Thus if a person has contact with any object that is subject to midras uncleanness, he will have to immerse himself again before performing any part of the red cow ritual.", + "A person too is subject to the same rule. The same is true with regard to a person. This means that a person who has not immersed himself in order to be occupied with the red cow ritual will defile another person who wishes to perform the ritual. This is true even if the first person is pure enough to eat terumah or other holy things.", + "Any object that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, whether it is otherwise unclean or clean: Rabbi Eliezer says: it does not have madaf uncleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: it has madaf uncleanness; And the sages say: that which was unclean has madaf uncleanness, and that which was clean does not have madaf uncleanness. This section deals with a more general classification of objects those that are subject to corpse uncleanness but are not subject to midras uncleanness. (See chapter twenty-four of Kelim for a list of such objects). There are three opinions as to whether such an object defiles people who wish to prepare the hatat waters. Rabbi Eliezer says that they do not. Rabbi Joshua says that they always do. If such an object is lifted or moved by the person he will not be able to perform the ritual. The sages take an in-between position. If the object actually became impure through contact with a corpse, then it will defile a person who wishes to occupy himself with the red cow rituals if the person carries it or moves it. But if the object is clean, it does not defile through midras. Nevertheless, it still defiles through contact." + ], + [ + "One who was clean for the hatat waters who touched something that has madaf uncleannes, he becomes unclean. This section is a consequence of what we learned in mishnah one. Something that has madaf uncleanness (see there for an explanation of this type of uncleanness) conveys uncleanness to a person who wants to perform the red cow ritual. The mishnah states that this is true if the person touches the object, but it is also true if he moves or carries the object.", + "A flask that was designated for the hatat waters that touched something that has madaf uncleanness, it becomes unclean. If the flask which was meant to be used for the red cow ritual touches something that has madaf uncleanness, it is impure vis a vis the red cow (it is still pure for other things). In this case the flask must actually touch the other object. Putting the object with madaf on top of the flask (without touching) will not defile it.", + "One who was clean for the hatat waters who touched food or liquids with his hand, he becomes unclean, but if he did it with his foot he remains clean. Food and liquids defile one's hands, and once one's hands are defiled, the rest of one's body is also considered to be defiled. When it comes to the preparation of the hatat, all food and liquid defile (as we saw in yesterday's mishnah). So if one's hands touch food or liquid, he is impure vis a vis the hatat ritual. But if one's foot touches the food or liquid, the body and even the foot remain pure.", + "If he moved them with his hand: Rabbi Joshua says that he becomes unclean, And the sages say that he remains clean. Rabbi Joshua holds that if he moves the food, even without touching it, it is as if he touched it with his hand and he is impure (vis a vis the hatat). The other sages disagree and hold that he is impure only if he touches the food or liquid with his hand. Moving it is not sufficient to convey impurity." + ], + [ + "A jar of hatat waters that touched a [dead] sheretz, remains clean. The jar referred to here is made of a material that is not susceptible to impurity, such as stone (see 3:3). The hatat waters are protected from the impurity of the sheretz (a creeping thing) by the stone and therefore they remain pure.", + "If the jar was put on it: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it remains clean, And the sages rule that it becomes unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says that even if the jar is put on top of a sheretz the hatat waters remain pure, since the jar is pure. The other sages say that the jar has not been put in a \"clean place\" and therefore it is impure. Numbers 19:9 states, \"A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place.\" Putting the jar on top of a sheretz does not count as putting it in a clean place.", + "If the jar touched foods or liquids or the Holy Scriptures, it remains clean. As we have seen in the previous two mishnayot, food and liquids convey madaf uncleanness. The Holy Scriptures disqualify terumah if they come into contact with it. Nevertheless, since the jar is made of stone, the contents are protected.", + "If it was put on them: Rabbi Yose rules that it remains clean; And the sages say that it becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose holds that even if the jar is put on top of food, liquids or the Holy Scriptures it remains pure. He also holds that the sages that ruled in section two that the jar was impure, would agree in this case because the impurity conveyed by food, liquids and the Holy Scriptures is only of rabbinic origin. In contrast, the impurity conveyed by a sheretz is of toraitic origin. The other sages disagree with Rabbi Yose and hold that putting it on top of one of these things still doesn't count as putting it in a pure place." + ], + [ + "One who was clean for the hatat waters and then touched an oven: With his hand becomes unclean, With his foot he remains clean. An oven is susceptible to midras impurity. However, it is not susceptible to corpse impurity and does not become a \"father of impurity\"which would cause it to defile people and vessels (see Kelim 8:6). Since the purity rules regarding an oven are different from other vessels, it does not have \"madaf impurity\" as do other vessels (see mishnah one). It is treated like food and liquids. If a person touches it with his hand, he is disqualified from performing the hatat ritual, but if with his foot, he is still qualified.", + "If he stood on an oven and put out his hand beyond the oven with the flask in his hand, And so also in the case of a carrying-yoke which was placed over the oven and from which two jars were suspended one at either end: Rabbi Akiva says that they remain clean; But the sages say that they are unclean. In both of these cases, the person is standing on the oven but the flasks that contain the hatat waters are not directly over the oven. Rabbi Akiva holds that since they are not over the oven, they remain pure. The other sages treat the flasks as if they were directly over the oven. This puts them in an \"impure place\" and as we have seen elsewhere, if the ashes are in an impure place, they are defiled, even if technically the defilement should not have reached them." + ], + [ + "If he was standing outside an oven and he stretched out his hand to a window and he took a flask and passed it over the oven: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, And the sages say that it is clean. Rabbi Akiva says that since the flask passed over the oven, it is unclean. This is a corollary to his opinion in yesterday's mishnah. There the flask was not directly over the oven, so it remained clean. Here it is directly over the oven, so it becomes unclean. The sages' opinion is also a corollary of their opinion in yesterday's mishnah. Since he is not standing on the oven, the flask remains pure.", + "But he who was clean for the hatat waters may stand over an oven while holding in his hand an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat waters or one filled with water that has not yet been mixed [with the ashes of the red cow]. As long as the flask/vessel is not one which contains the mixture of ashes and water, it remains pure when placed over the oven." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe principle that underlies the following mishnah is that the purity required for a vessel holding the hatat waters is greater than the purity required for that holding consecrated foods or terumah. Therefore, if something that is pure enough to hold terumah or other consecrated foods touches something that holds or is meant to hold the hatat waters, the latter vessel becomes impure.", + "A flask containing hatat waters that touched [a vessel] containing consecrated food or terumah: that containing the hatat waters becomes unclean, but the one containing the consecrated food or the terumah remains clean. The flask containing the hatat waters is impure because it touched the vessel that has a lower degree of impurity. But the vessel containing terumah or other consecrated foods remains pure because it touched something that has a higher degree of impurity.", + "If he held the two vessels one in each of his two hands, both become unclean. When the person who is pure enough to perform the hatat ritual touches the vessel that is only pure enough for terumah, he becomes impure. Then when he touches the flask of hatat waters, he defiles them. The impure hatat waters defile a person who is impure vis a vis the hatat waters (see 9:8) and then he defiles the vessel with terumah because he is holding it. This concept can also be found in Kelim 1:2.", + "If they were both wrapped in separate papers, they remain clean. If the flask and vessel are covered with paper, then he is not defiled by contact with the terumah vessel. Therefore both the flask and vessel remain pure.", + "If the vessel of the hatat waters was wrapped in a paper while that of the terumah was held in his hand, both become unclean. The person is defiled through contact with the terumah vessel. He then defiles the hatat vessel because he is carrying it, even though he does not have contact with it. Once he is defiled, he now defiles the uncovered terumah vessel, as was the case in section three.", + "If the one containing the terumah was wrapped up in paper while that containing the hatat waters was held in his hand, both remain clean. Rabbi Joshua says: that containing the hatat waters becomes unclean. According to the first opinion, since the terumah vessel was wrapped in paper, it doesn't defile him. He remains pure and doesn't defile the hatat vessel so both remain pure. According to Rabbi Joshua (in mishnah one of this chapter) a vessel that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness conveys madaf uncleanness and therefore defiles even without contact, through being carried or shifted. Therefore, the terumah vessel defiles the person who is carrying it, even though he didn't touch it. He now defiles the hatat vessel, even if it was covered in paper. However, he doesn't defile the terumah vessel since it is covered with paper. In other words the terumah vessel defiles him with madaf uncleanness, but it itself is not defiled because he doesn’t actually touch it.", + "If both were placed on the ground and he touched them, that of the hatat waters becomes unclean but that of the consecrated food or terumah remains clean. Both vessels are on the ground and he simultaneously touches both, one hand on each. He is defiled by contact with the terumah vessel and he now defiles the hatat vessel. However, because he is not carrying the terumah vessel, he doesn't go back and defile it.", + "If he shifted it [without touching it]: Rabbi Joshua says that it is unclean, And the sages rule that it is clean. In this case he shifts the vessels without touching them. Rabbi Joshua says that because he shifted the terumah vessel, he becomes impure, even without contact. He now defiles the hatat vessel. The terumah vessel remains pure because he didn't actually touch it. The other sages say that contact is necessary and therefore both vessels remain pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A flask that one has left uncovered and on returning found it to be covered, is invalid. If he left the flask uncovered and he came back and found it covered, the water is invalid, lest the person who covered it was not pure in order to perform the hatat ritual.", + "If one left it covered and on returning found it to be uncovered, it is invalid if a weasel could have drunk from it or, according to the words of Rabban Gamaliel, a snake, or if it was possible for dew to fall into it in the night. If he left it covered and then found it uncovered, it is invalid if there is any possibility that a weasel or snake (according to Rabban Gamaliel) drank from it. As we saw in 9:3, these animals backwash into the water, thereby invalidating them. The water is also invalid if there is a chance that dew fell in (see 9:1).", + "The hatat waters are not protected by a tightly fitting cover; But water that had not yet been mixed with the ashes is protected by a tightly fitting cover. This section refers to an earthenware jar of hatat waters left in a tent with a corpse in it. Generally speaking if the jar has a tightly fitting lid, it protects its contents from impurity. However, we have seen a special law with regard to the hatat waters they must be in a place of purity. Since he put them in a place of \"impurity\" the waters are invalid, even if they are pure. However, if the jar contains water that has not yet been mixed with the ashes, it is protected from impurity (see also 10:5). The prohibition against leaving in an impure place refers only to the mixed waters." + ], + [ + "Anything that is doubtfully pure in the case of terumah is regarded as clean in the case of the hatat waters. There are cases in which terumah is doubtfully pure/impure (we shall learn of these in Toharot (next tractate) 4:2. In these cases the terumah must be burned. If the same type of doubt occurs with regard to hatat waters, they remain pure.", + "Anything that is \"suspended\" where terumah is concerned, the hatat waters are poured out. If clean things were handled on account of it, they must be \"suspended.\" There are cases in which the terumah is \"suspended\" meaning it is neither burned nor eaten. If the same type of issue occurs with hatat waters, the waters must be poured out. If these hatat waters that were supposed to be poured out were used to purify a person, and then he touched clean food, this too must be \"suspended.\" The food cannot be eaten or burned, as if it was terumah.", + "Wooden lattice work is clean in respect of holy food, terumah, and the hatat waters. Wooden lattice work is not considered to be a vessel, nor is it made for sitting or lying upon. Therefore, it is not considered impure with regard to matters of holy food, terumah or hatat waters.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: Loosely connected wood is unclean in respect of hatat waters. According to Rabbi Eliezer, occasionally a person will sit on a configuration of loosely connected wood. Since people sit on this wood work, one who does is impure with regard to the preparation of hatat waters. That is to say, a person who touches this wood will be invalid, even if the wood has not been defiled. There are other interpretations of what \"loosely connected wood\" is. Albeck explains that it is the same thing referred to in section three, and that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with that opinion" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with terumah figs that fall into hatat waters. There are two issues here: 1) is the water unclean by virtue of having contact with terumah figs? 2) What happens to one who eats the figs? Does he incur the normal penalty for eating impure figs death by the hands of heaven (meaning that a court does not carry out this death penalty)?", + "Pressed figs of terumah which fell into hatat waters and were taken out and eaten: If the amount is the size of an egg, whether [the figs] were clean or unclean the water becomes unclean, and he who eats the figs is liable for death; If their size is less than the size of an egg, the water remains clean but he who eats them is liable for death. Rabbi Yose says: if they were clean the water remains clean. If the size of the pressed figs is greater than an egg, they defile the hatat waters, for terumah is not pure vis a vis hatat waters. The hatat waters then defile the figs. When the person takes the figs out, he becomes impure by virtue of contact with the hatat waters (because he was not pure enough before to have had contact with hatat waters). Finally, an impure person who eats terumah is liable for the death penalty. If there is less than the amount of an egg, then the figs do not defile the water. Nevertheless, when he has contact with the hatat waters, he becomes impure and an impure person who eats terumah is liable for the death penalty. The first opinion in the mishnah holds that all of the above is true whether the figs were pure or impure before they fell into the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose holds that pure terumah does not defile hatat waters. Therefore, if the figs are pure, they do not defile the waters.", + "If one who was clean for the hatat waters puts his head and the greater part of his body into the hatat waters, he becomes unclean. Hatat waters are waters that have been drawn from their source. The rabbis decreed that a person who puts drawn water on himself is impure (we shall discuss why when we learn Tractate Zavim 5:12). Our mishnah teaches that since hatat waters are also drawn waters, they too defile the person who puts his head and most of his body into them." + ], + [ + "All that require immersion in water according to the rulings of the Torah defile consecrated things, terumah, unconsecrated food, and [second] tithe; And he is forbidden to enter the sanctuary. A person who has been defiled by a \"father of impurity\" requires immersion in a mikveh. See for instance Leviticus 11:32 with regard to one who has had contact with a sheretz. Such a person defiles any food with which he has had contact, be it consecrated food (kodesh), terumah, unconsecrated food (hullin) or second tithe. He is also forbidden from entering the sanctuary (the Temple.)", + "After immersion [but before the sun sets] he defiles holy things and invalidates terumah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages ruled: he invalidates consecrated things and terumah. But he is permitted to unconsecrated food and [second] tithe. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs guilt. According to Rabbi Meir, after he has immersed in the mikveh, the person has the status of \"second degree defilement.\" He causes terumah to have third decree impurity, which causes it to be invalid but not impure. And he causes holy things to have fourth degree impurity. The other sages say that since he has immersed in the mikveh he does not defile even holy things. He merely invalidates both holy things and terumah. After having immersed in the mikveh, he causes no defilement or invalidation to common food or to second tithe. However, when it comes to entering the sanctuary, he is prohibited even after going to the mikveh. He can't enter the sanctuary until he has immersed in the mikveh and the sun has set." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday's mishnah we learned some purity rules concerning a person whom the Torah mandated to immerse in mikveh. Today's mishnah contrasts this with a person whom the sages required to immerse in a mikveh. This would include a person who ate impure foods or drank impure liquids [we will learn more about this category in Tractate Zavim].", + "All that require immersion in water according to the words of the scribes defile consecrated things and invalidate terumah to be unfit, but they are permitted to unconsecrated food and second tithe, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages forbid second tithe. As was the case in yesterday's mishnah, he still defiles holy food and invalidates terumah, even though he was required only by rabbinic law to immerse in the mikveh. But there are no restrictions with regard to hullin (unconsecrated food) and second tithe. The other sages slightly disagree. They hold that he is still forbidden to eat second tithe, although he doesn't cause it to become impure.", + "After immersion [but before the sun sets] he is permitted to all these. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs no guilt. There are no restrictions after he has immersed. Since he was only required by rabbinic law (\"the words of the scribes\") to enter a mikveh, he need not wait for the sun to set to become completely pure and permitted to eat and touch anything. In addition, he is not liable at all if he enters the sanctuary." + ], + [ + "All that require immersion in water, whether according to the words of the Torah or according to the words of the scribes, defile hatat waters, hatat ashes, and the one who sprinkled the hatat waters, either through contact or through carrying. As we have seen throughout this tractate, the purity regulations for anything that concerns the red cow ritual are more stringent. Therefore, the mishnah teaches that a person who is required to immerse defiles the hatat waters, the hatat ashes or another person who is prepared to sprinkle the waters. This is true whether the person is required by biblical law to immerse or whether he is only required by rabbinic law. Furthermore, he conveys impurity both by contact and by carrying (without contact).", + "And [they defile] hyssop that has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness, and water that had not yet been prepared, and an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat through contact and carrying, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: only by contact but not by carrying. This section deals with material used in the hatat ritual but that is not the ashes. This includes three items. The first is the hyssop that is used for sprinkling. The hyssop needs to have been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by coming into contact with water (vegetation is never susceptible to impurity until it becomes wet). In this case the water must have been pure for the hatat ritual, otherwise the hyssop would have already been impure. The other two items referred to are water that was drawn to be used for the hatat ritual but has not yet been mixed and the empty vessel. If a person who has to immerse (whether because of biblical or rabbinic law) has contact or even carries one of these things, Rabbi Meir says it is defiled. The other sages rule slightly more leniently. One defiles these things (the hyssop, the unmixed waters and the empty vessel) only if he has direct contact with them. He doesn't defile them through carrying." + ], + [ + "Introduction After discussing the purity of hyssop in yesterday's mishnah, today's mishnah continues to discuss laws with regard to the type of hyssop used to sprinkle the hatat waters.", + "Any hyssop that has an accompanying name is invalid. \"This\" hyssop is valid. Ezovyon ( hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid. The hyssop must be plain old hyssop (zatar in Arabic and by extension, modern Hebrew). Any hyssop that has an accompanying or modifying name should not be used (see Mishnah Negaim 14:6). \"This\" hyssop refers to any hyssop that a person points to and says \"this is hyssop.\"", + "That of unclean terumah is invalid. That of clean terumah should not be used for sprinkling, but if one had used it for sprinkling it is valid. Obviously, unclean terumah cannot be used since anything that is unclean cannot be used because it will defile the hatat waters. The mishnah only mentions unclean terumah because it wants to discuss clean terumah. Clean terumah, meaning terumah whose purity was preserved in order to use it for the hatat ritual, should also not be used because it is prohibited to invalidate pure terumah and the hatat ritual carries a risk that the terumah will be invalidated. However, if he uses clean terumah hyssop for the sprinkling, the person who has been sprinkled upon is pure. In other words, this is a case where one shouldn't use something, but if he does, it is valid.", + "The sprinkling must not be done either with the young shoots or with the berries. He is not liable [after the sprinkling had been done] with young shoots for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer says: also not if it was done with the berries. The sprinkling should be done with the leafy parts of the hyssop, not with the berries or with young shoots. However, if the sprinkling was done with the shoots and then he entered the sanctuary, he is not liable for being impure and entering the sanctuary. Usually someone who does this (unintentionally) must bring a sin-offering as atonement. Our mishnah teaches that while the sprinkling shouldn't be done with young shoots, if it is done, it is still valid. Rabbi Eliezer says that the same is true with regard to the berries.", + "The following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened. The mishnah defines the meaning of young shoots." + ], + [ + "The hyssop that was used for sprinkling [the hatat waters] is also fit for cleansing the metzora. As we stated in yesterday's mishnah, hyssop was used in other purification rituals, including the purification of the metzora. If it had already been used for the hatat ritual, it may be used later for the purification of the metzora.", + "If it was gathered for firewood, and liquid fell upon it, it may be dried and it becomes fit. Hyssop was gathered for firewood and it got wet. Because he gathered it for firewood, the liquid that came into contact with it does not cause it to be receptive to impurity. If one wants to use it for sprinkling he still can. He must first dry it off so that invalid waters don't mix with the valid waters drawn for the sprinkling.", + "If it was gathered for food, and liquid fell upon it, even though it was dried, it is invalid. On the other hand, if he gathers it for food, it is susceptible to impurity when it becomes wet. This is a general rule with regard to food when food becomes wet, it becomes susceptible to impurity. Even if he dries it off, he will not be able to use it for sprinkling.", + "If it was gathered for [the sprinkling of the waters of] the hatat, it is subject to the same law as if it were gathered for food, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon ruled: as if it were gathered for firewood. The sages disagree with regard to the case where the hyssop was gathered specifically to be used with the hatat waters. Rabbi Meir says that in this case any liquid will cause it to be receptive to impurity and thereby invalidate it. The other rabbis (three of them note this is unusual) say that as long as he dries it off, he can still use it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur chapter concludes with a mishnah as to how much hyssop was needed to sprinkle the water.", + "The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Judah says: each stalk should have three buds. Each stalk of hyssop should have at least one budding flower. I would suggest googling \"hyssop\" to see what this looks like. Rabbi Judah says that each of the three stalks should have three budding flowers.", + "Hyssop that consists of a growth of three stalks should be cut apart and then bound together. If the stalks were cut apart but were not bound together, or if they were bound together but were not cut apart, or if they were neither cut apart nor bound together, they are nevertheless valid. The hyssop stalks are separated at their base and then bound together. We should note that Numbers 19:18, the verse that prescribes hyssop for sprinkling the hatat waters, does not mention that the hyssop should be bound. However, Exodus 12:22, the verse that describes applying the blood to the doorposts in Egypt, does refer to bound hyssop. It seems that our mishnah applies the notion of binding in that context to our context. In order to bind something, it would first have to be separated. Thus the hyssop should first be separated and then bound. However, if either or even neither of these steps is taken, the sprinkling is still valid.", + "Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size. Rabbi Yose agrees with the opinion in section one. He adds that if one of the stalks fell away, even two are valid. Finally, if all that is left of the stalks or buds is even the smallest measure, it is still valid." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with the use of hyssop that is too short to dip into the flask with the hatat waters.", + "Hyssop that is too short may be lengthened with a thread and a spindle-reed. It is permitted to lengthen the hyssop by attaching or a spindle-reed onto the end of the hyssop.", + "He then dips it and brings it up again. He can then dip it by holding onto the string and dipping it into the waters.", + "He grasps the hyssop itself and sprinkles with it. However, when he sprinkles onto the impure person, he must grasp the hyssop and not the string.", + "Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: just as the sprinkling must be done with the hyssop itself so to must the dipping be done with the hyssop itself. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon disagree with the notion that one can extend the length of the hyssop. He must hold the hyssop itself when dipping it into the flask, just as he must hold it when sprinkling." + ], + [ + "If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If the sprinkling was done from the hyssop buds, it is valid; but if it came from the thread or spindle, it is invalid (see yesterday's mishnah). Since there is a doubt whether it was performed correctly, the sprinkling is invalid.", + "If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. Both vessels look wet, but it is unclear whether he sprinkled on both or whether he sprinkled directly onto one and from there it dripped onto the other. Again, since there is a doubt, the sprinkling is invalid.", + "If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. Similar to the situation in section two, here we again have a doubt whether he sprinkled directly onto the needle which would purify it, or onto the earthenware and from there onto the needle, which would not purify the needle. Since we don't know what happened, the needle is still impure.", + "A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. This section refers to a flask with a narrow opening. When the hyssop is pulled out, we might have thought that some of its liquids would be squeezed out and fall back into the water. This would cause the water to be a mixture of hyssop juice and hatat waters, which would make it invalid. The first opinion in the mishnah is not concerned with this possibility and therefore lets one use this flask in a normal manner. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that such a flask can be used only one time. The second dipping might contain some hyssop resin and therefore is invalid.", + "Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If there is not a lot of water left in the flask, it is still allowed to dip the hyssop back in to absorb whatever water is left. However, he shouldn't scrape the sides of the flask with the hyssop to pick up any extra moisture.", + "If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. For the sprinkling to be valid, he must sprinkle in the direction in which he intended. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him, and it landed to the sides but still in front of him, the sprinkling is still valid, because this still counts as \"in front.\"", + "It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. One does not require the person's consent to sprinkle on him and purify him.", + "It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them. It is possible to sprinkle on multiple vessels and people at the same time, as long as water reaches each of them directly." + ], + [ + "If he intended to sprinkle upon a thing that is susceptible to uncleanness and he sprinkled upon something that is not susceptible to uncleanness, if any of the water still remained on the hyssop he should not sprinkle with it again.
[If he intended to sprinkle] upon a thing that is not susceptible to uncleanness and he sprinkled on that which is susceptible to uncleanness, even though there was still some water on the hyssop, he can sprinkle with it again.
[If he intended to sprinkle] upon a man and he sprinkled upon a beast, if any of the water remained on the hyssop he should not sprinkle with it again;
But [if he intended to sprinkle] upon a beast and he sprinkled upon a man, even though there was still some water on the hyssop, he can sprinkle with it again.
The water that drips off is valid, and therefore it conveys uncleanness as the usual hatat waters.
Section one: He intended to sprinkle upon something that is susceptible to impurity, such as a person (as in section three). Unintentionally, he sprinkled upon an animal (which is not susceptible to impurity). If there is still water left on the hyssop he shouldn't sprinkle with it again. Since the water that was sprinkled upon the animal has been made invalid for sprinkling, the water that remains on the hyssop is also invalid for sprinkling.
Section two: This is the opposite case. Since he sprinkled on something that is susceptible to uncleanness (such as an animal), meaning something that does require sprinkling, the water has not been disqualified. Therefore he can use the remaining water to sprinkle and cleanse something else.
Sections three and four: These two sections explain sections one and two.
Section five: Water that simply drips off the hyssop is still valid for sprinkling. Therefore, it continues to convey uncleanness as do hatat waters in general, which defile one who carries them or touches them. This water is not treated as hatat waters that have already been sprinkled which do not defile (see below in mishnah four)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah refers to a window from which they would sprinkle the hatat waters on impure people.", + "If one was sprinkling from a window in a public domain and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is exempt; A person was sprinkled upon (with hatat waters, of course) from a window in the public domain. He then entered the Temple, assuming that he was pure. It later turns out that the water used to sprinkle upon him was impure. Nevertheless, the person is exempt from bringing a sacrifice to atone for entering the sanctuary while impure. The reason is that since this water was used to purify the public, there would be no reason he should have suspected that it was invalid. This is not an accidental sin (in Hebrew, shogeg). Rather it is something even less, called in Hebrew \"anoos\" which means he wasn't even negligent. Something totally anticipated happened. We can see from here that if something is being done by many people, one can assume that it is being done correctly.", + "But if the sprinkling was done from a private window and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is liable. However, if the sprinkling was done from a private window, he should have checked to make sure that the water was valid. Since he did not, he is liable for having gone into the sanctuary while impure. He will have to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin.", + "A high priest, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high priest is never liable for entering the sanctuary. A high priest is never liable for entering the Temple while impure (see Horayot 3:7).", + "[The people] used to slip before a certain window in a public domain, and [nevertheless] they trod [on that spot] and did not refrain [from entering the sanctuary], because they said that hatat waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile. The mishnah describes a puddle that formed underneath the window from which they would sprinkle upon people who wanted to enter the Temple. The floor got so wet that people would slip on it (Jerusalem can be slippery!). Nevertheless, people didn't refrain from stepping in this water, because they knew that once hatat waters have been used to perform their mitzvah, the purification, they no longer convey impurity. As an aside, this is one of the few places, perhaps the only place, in Parah that describes some realistic scene concerning the sprinkling of the hatat waters." + ], + [ + "A clean person may hold in the corner of his garment an unclean axe and sprinkle upon it; And even though there is on it enough water for a sprinkling he remains clean. It is possible for a person to hold an axe in his garment, for the axe to be sprinkled upon and for him not to become impure by contact or by carrying the hatat waters. Even though there is enough water to perform the sprinkling, he remains pure because once these waters have purified the axe, their mitzvah has been performed and they no longer defile.", + "How much water is necessary for sprinkling? Sufficient for the tops of the buds to be dipped and for the sprinkling to be performed. Rabbi Judah ruled: they are regarded as though they were on a hyssop of brass. The question is: how much water is necessary to defile one who carries it? According to the first opinion, as long as there is enough water to dip the top buds of the hyssop into the water and to sprinkle some of the water off of them onto the person or thing being sprinkled upon. This quantity of water will defile one who carries it. In other words, there must be enough so that besides that which is absorbed by the hyssop, other water will be sprinkled off. Rabbi Judah rules more stringently. We look at the buds as if they were on hyssop made of brass which doesn't absorb water. As long as there is enough to sprinkle some off of the brass, it is of a sufficient amount to defile. This will be a lower amount than the first opinion." + ], + [ + "One who sprinkles with unclean hyssop: if [the hyssop] was the amount of an egg the water becomes invalid, and the sprinkling is invalid. If it was less than the amount of an egg, the water remains valid but the sprinkling is invalid. The hyssop needs to be the volume of an egg in order to convey impurity (see 11:3). If one dips the unclean hyssop into the water it defiles the remaining water and the sprinkling is invalid. However, if there is less than an egg in volume, the water remains valid because less than an egg is insufficient to convey impurity. However, the sprinkling is still invalid because the hyssop was not pure.", + "It also defiles other hyssop, and that other hyssop to other, even if they be a hundred. If there is an egg's worth of hyssop it defiles other hyssop by contact such that the other hyssop also cannot be used for the hatat ritual. Similarly, the newly defiled hyssop will defile any hyssop with which it has contact and it too will not be valid for the hatat ritual. The reason is that when it comes to the hatat ritual, there is no such thing as \"first degree impurity\" \"second degree impurity\" etc, as there is with other matters of purity. Rather, the level of impurity is never reduced." + ], + [ + "If the hands of a man who was clean for the hatat waters became unclean, his body also becomes unclean, and he conveys uncleanness to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, even if they be a hundred. If the hands of a person who is pure enough to perform the hatat ritual become unclean, the uncleanness spreads to his whole body. This is not true with other levels of purity restrictions. In other cases, a person's hands can become impure without the rest of his body also becoming impure. Furthermore, as we saw in yesterday's mishnah, the chain of impurity vis a vis the hatat continues down the line. So if he touches a person and that person touches another person, etc., the impurity is continually transmitted and anyone who is in the chain will not be allowed to perform the hatat ritual. This too is not true in other cases, where eventually the impurity is lessened sufficiently such that it no longer defiles at all. Again, we can see that the rules regarding the hatat are stricter than the normal rules with regard to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nExcept for section one of our mishnah (which teaches another stringency with regard to the purity laws of the hatat waters), the rest of the mishnah discusses what parts of various vessels are considered \"connected\" to other parts. With regard to Parah, the implication of parts being \"connected\" is that if the water is sprinkled on one part, the other part is pure.", + "A flask for hatat waters whose outer part has become unclean, its inner part also becomes unclean, and it conveys uncleanness to another flask, and the other to another, even if they are a hundred. If the outside of a vessel becomes impure, the inside remains pure such that it can be used with pure food or liquid items (see Kelim 25: 1, 6). This is not true when it comes to using the flask to hold hatat waters. If the outside is unclean, the inside is unclean as well.", + "A bell and a clapper are regarded as connected. If one sprinkles the hatat waters on the bell or on its clapper, the other is pure because they are regarded as connected.", + "In the case of a spindle stick used for coarse material, one should not sprinkle on its stick or ring, but if he sprinkled on one, both are regarded as having been sprinkled upon. A spindle stick used for flax they are regarded as connected. The spindle stick referred to here is used to weave the coarse material for the production of reed mats. The mishnah says that he should sprinkle on the spindle itself. But if he does sprinkle upon one of the other parts, they are all clean. When it comes to a spindle used to weave flax, all the parts are considered connected and therefore he can sprinkle on one and thereby purify the other.", + "If a leather cover of a crib is fastened to its knobs, both are regarded as connected. The base is not regarded as connected either in respect of uncleanness or cleanness. The leather is attached to knobs on the edges of a crib. The leather is considered connected to the crib and therefore if one sprinkles on one, the other is clean. The base of the crib (or other type of bed) is put in the frame and upon it one places the sheets and blankets.", + "All drilled handles of utensils are regarded as connected. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: also those that are wedged into holes in the utensils. Drilled handles of utensils are handles that are drilled out so that the metal part can be inserted. An example would be a knife. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri adds that the same is true for handles that are inserted into holes made into the vessels themselves such that the handles cannot be easily removed. These too are considered to be attached." + ], + [ + "The baskets of a pack-saddle, the bed of a barrow, the iron corner of a bier, the [drinking] horns of travelers, a key chain, the loose stitches of washermen, and a garment stitched together with kilayim are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in that of sprinkling. There are many items mentioned in this mishnah. I shall attempt to explain them one at a time, based on Albeck's interpretation. The baskets of a pack-saddle: A saddle made of wood placed on a donkey. There are baskets attached to both sides. The bed of a barrow: a vessel used for threshing produce. The corner of a bier: The head of a long bier for carrying a body or some sort of seat. The [drinking] horns of travelers: A vessel used by travelers to draw and store water. A key chain: Same thing you and I still use to this day! The loose stitches of laundry men: Washers loosely stitch clothing together while washing so that it doesn't get lost. And a garment stitched together with kilayim: Kilayim are mixed kinds. Someone stitched together a garment of flax using wool or vice versa. These stitches will have to be removed. All of these vessels are regarded as connected when it comes to the regular laws of purity. If one part is defiled, the other part is defiled as well. However, the laws of sprinkling are more stringent. These things are not considered to be connected. Therefore, if one sprinkles on one, the other part is not yet clean." + ], + [ + "The lid of a kettle which is joined to a chain: Bet Shammai say: these are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Bet Hillel say: if he sprinkled on the kettle, it is the same as if the lid also was sprinkled upon; but if he sprinkled on the lid only it is not the same as if the kettle also was sprinkled upon. The chain is attached to the lid of the kettle. According to Bet Shammai we rule stringently in this case. If either the chain or the lid becomes impure, the other is impure as well. However, to purify them he must sprinkle on both.", + "Bet Hillel rules that the lid is primary to the chain. Therefore, if he sprinkles on the lid, the chain is made clean. However, if he sprinkles only on the chain, the lid remains unclean.", + "All are eligible to sprinkle, except a tumtum, a hermaphrodite, a woman, and a child that is without understanding. Numbers 19:18 says, “18A person (איש) who is clean shall take hyssop, dip it in the water, and sprinkle on the tent and on all the vessels and people who were there.” The rabbis take the word for person “ish” to mean that anyone who is an “ish” can perform this ritual. It is not limited to priests. However it does limit the following people who do not fall under the rabbinic classification of “ish.” A tumtum is a person who lacks the signs of either gender. A hermaphrodite has both male and female organs. A woman is excluded, according to the rabbis, from the category of “ish.” A child who is too young to intend to perform the sprinkling is also not considered an “ish.”", + "A woman may assist [a man] while he sprinkles, and hold the water for him while he dips and sprinkles. If she held his hand, even if only at the time of sprinkling, it is invalid. A woman can aid the man while he sprinkles, but she can’t actually hold his hand, neither while dipping the hyssop nor while sprinkling." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Parah teaches that the dipping of the hyssop and the sprinkling of the waters must be done during the day. This is derived from the word \"day\" which is repeated in Numbers 19:19, \"The clean person shall sprinkle it upon the unclean person on the third day and on the seventh day, thus cleansing him by the seventh day.\"", + "If he dipped the hyssop during the day and he sprinkled during the day, it is valid. This is the proper way for the mitzvah to be performed both actions done during the day.", + "If he dipped it during the day and sprinkled at night, or dipped at night and sprinkled on the following day, it is invalid. If even one of the actions is performed during the night, the sprinkling is invalid.", + "But he himself may immerse at night and then sprinkle on the following day, for sprinkling is not allowed until the sun is risen. While the dipping of the hyssop into the waters and the sprinkling cannot be done at night, the person who is going to perform these rituals can immerse himself at night. This immersion is done in preparation for the hatat ritual.", + "And if any of these was done as early as the rise of dawn it is valid. The dipping and sprinkling should be done during the day, meaning once the sun has risen. But if one did it at first light, at the rise of dawn, it is still valid. This is common to many mitzvoth they should be done after the sun has risen, but if they are done right after dawn, they are valid. See Megillah 2:4. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Parah! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Parah is all about one of the strangest rituals in the Torah. Indeed the rabbis categorize this as the quintessential \"hok\" a law that cannot be interpreted rationally. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we may not really be able to understand the rationale behind this cleansing ritual, I hope that by learning the Mishnah, we are at least able to understand how the rabbis imagined it being performed. Interestingly, qualitatively this tractate doesn't seem to be all that different from many other tractates. The rabbis take some passages in the Torah, interpret their details while using certain principles and explain mostly when something has been performed in a valid manner and when it has been performed in an invalid manner. Perhaps we could say in summary that Tractate Parah takes the admittedly irrational and makes it rational. Tomorrow our learning continues with Tractate Toharot. Good luck to everyone and congratulations on your amazing commitment to learning." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה פרה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה פרה", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Parah", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Parah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29852e0755699134955351bf2bf13d1262ba278a --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,550 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טהרות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Toharot means purity. Indeed this tractate has the same name is the entire Seder. There are three topics discussed in Tractate Toharot. ", + "1) The purity of food and liquids. The Torah explicitly states that food and drink can be susceptible to impurity. For instance Leviticus 11:34 reads, \"As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become unclean if it came into contact with water; as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become unclean if it was inside any vessel.\" The rabbis hold that the impurity of liquids is greater than that of food. This is expressed in several differences between how these materials convey impurity. Food conveys impurity to other food and liquids but it doesn't convey impurity to vessels. In contrast, impure liquids convey impurity to vessels as well as other food and liquid. Another stringency is that a liquid gets first degree impurity whether it came into contact with a \"father of impurity\" or a derivative thereof. If it now comes into contact with another liquid the second liquid also gets first degree impurity. This continues on no matter how many subsequent liquids are touched (see Parah 8:5-7). The third stringency is that the smallest amount of liquid conveys impurity, whereas food must be the size of an egg in order to defile something else.", + "2) Doubtful impurity in the private and public domain. The tractate deals with the category of \"doubtful impurity\" meaning cases where something may or may not have been impure in either the public or private domain. From the laws concerning the Sotah (the doubtfully adulterous woman) the sages derived that all cases of doubtful impurity arising in the private domain are deemed as impure. The Sotah woman is prohibited to her husband because she may have been defiled by adultery. This doubtful impurity occurred in the private domain (where she may have hid from her paramour). Just as the doubtful impurity that occurs with the Sotah happens in the private domain, so too all cases of doubtful impurity that occur in the private domain are deemed impure. ", + "3) The impurity of the am haaretz. In the Mishnah, an am haaretz is a person who is not scrupulous about the observance of certain laws, including the purity laws and the tithing laws (see Tractate Demai). The rabbis decreed that he conveys impurity as does a zav, but they limited this to things with which he has contact. He does not convey impurity by carrying or by shifting (without touching)." + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with purity rules that govern the carrion of a clean bird. Leviticus 17:15 states, \"Any person, whether citizen or stranger, who eats what has died or has been torn by beasts shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening, then he shall be clean.\" The rabbis interpret this verse as referring to clean birds, meaning birds that can be eaten if slaughtered in a valid manner. This distinguishes the impurity of the carrion of a bird from the carrion of a beast which is referred to in Leviticus 11:39-40.\nThere are thirteen rules with regard to the carrion of a clean bird. They are outlined in today's mishnah and in tomorrow's.", + "Thirteen rulings govern the carrion of a clean bird:
There must be intention; For the carrion of the clean bird to be impure he must have thought about using it for food. For instance, he might have thought about giving it to a non-Jew. In contrast, regular food that is permitted to a Jew need not have been intended to be eaten for it to be susceptible to impurity.", + "It need not be rendered susceptible; The carrion need not be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid for it to defile. This is because it itself is impure, unlike other foods that are merely susceptible to impurity. The bird carrion is treated like impure food even though it did not come into contact with anything impure.", + "It conveys food uncleanness if its minimum bulk is that of an egg; If clean food comes into contact with a piece of bird carrion the size of an egg, the clean food becomes defiled with second degree impurity.", + "And it conveys uncleanness when in one's gullet if its minimum bulk is that of an olive; If a person eats of this carrion (it is forbidden to do so, but he does so anyway) as long as the carrion is in his gullet he is a \"father of impurity.\" During this period he will defile clothes and vessels which he is contact with. This is how the rabbis interpreted the verse quoted in the introduction above.", + "He that eats of it must wait until sunset [to be clean]; The person who eats the carrion remains impure until the evening. He is not purified just by immersing in the mikveh. This is stated explicitly in the verse above.", + "Guilt is incurred on account of it for entering the sanctuary; If one eats the carrion and then unwittingly enters the Temple while still impure, he is liable for entering the Temple while impure. He will need to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin.", + "Terumah is burned on account of it; If the carrion touches terumah it defiles it and the terumah must be burned. Similarly, if a person eats the carrion and then touches terumah, it must be burned.", + "He who eats a limb of it while it is alive suffers forty lashes; If one eats a limb torn from a living clean bird he is liable for eating a limb torn from a living animal. Elsewhere we learn that other sages say that this law is applicable only to limbs torn from beasts. The punishment for this is forty lashes, the same punishment that is, at least theoretically, applicable to one who transgresses any negative commandment.", + "Slaughtering it or nipping [off its neck] cleanses it even if it is terefah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: they do not cleanse it. Rabbi Yose says: the slaughtering does cleanse it but nipping does not. A terefah is a bird/animal that has been found to have a defect that would have caused it to die (for a list of such defects see chapter three of Hullin). A bird that is a terefah defiles, as does carrion. According to Rabbi Meir, if one slaughters a bird correctly, or if it is a sacrificial bird one nips off the head at the neck (this is how birds were sacrificed), and then it turns out that the bird is a terefah, the bird is not impure. In other words, since the bird was properly slaughtered, it doesn't defile, even if in the end, it was not edible. Rabbi Judah says that since the bird is after all inedible, it still defiles. Rabbi Yose argues that melikah (nipping off the head of a bird sacrifice) does not cause it to be pure, if it is found to be a terefah. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose argue out their logic in Zevahim 7:6, see there for more information." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of the list of 13 rules regarding the carrion of a clean bird.", + "The large feathers and the down contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness but do not combine [with the flesh to constitute the prescribed minimum]. Rabbi Ishmael says: the down does combine [with the flesh]. When it comes to matters of purity and impurity, the large feathers and the downy feathers both count as part of the bird. Therefore, they can both be defiled and defile other things. However, when it comes to making up enough to have a minimum measure to defile (the amount of an egg if the issue is food defilement, or the amount of an olive if the issue is the defilement caused in the gullet) the feathers do not join together with the flesh of the bird. In other words, let's say one has 3/4 of an egg's worth of bird flesh and 1/4 of an egg's worth of feathers, the total amount if impure does not convey impurity because it is not sufficient. You would need a sufficient amount of flesh or feathers alone. The reason seems to be that the feathers and flesh are both part of the bird but they are off different categories. Therefore, they don't join together. Rabbi Yishmael says that the downy feathers are like the flesh and therefore they do join together to convey impurity.", + "The beak and the claws contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and also combine [with the flesh to constitute the prescribed minimum]. The beak and the claws are considered to be part of the bird for all purposes. They even join with the flesh to constitute a minimum measure. Perhaps this is because, unlike feathers which can't be eaten, the beak and claws could either be eaten (I'm pretty sure that I read a story about how claws were a delicacy in China) or at least put into some kind of soup.", + "Rabbi Yose says: also the ends of the wings and the end of the tail combine [with the flesh to constitute the minimum] since they are left unplucked on fattened birds. Rabbi Yose adds that the tips of the wings and tip of the tail are left on fattened birds and eaten with them. Therefore, they too join with the rest of the flesh to convey impurity and to become impure." + ], + [ + "The carrion of an unclean bird requires intention; and it must be rendered susceptible;
It conveys food uncleanness if its minimum bulk is that of an egg;
The consumption of a half of half a loaf's bulk of it renders one's person unfit to eat terumah;
There is no rule that an olive's worth defiles in the gullet;
He who eats of it need not wait for sunset;
No guilt is incurred on account of it for entering the sanctuary;
But on account of it terumah must be burnt.
He who eats a limb of it while it is alive is not subject to the penalty of forty stripes;
Slaughtering it does not render it fit.
The large feathers and the down contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and combine with the flesh to constitute the prescribed minimum.
The beak and the claws contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and combine [with the flesh to make up the prescribed minimum].
The mishnah now proceeds to talk about the purity rules governing the carrion of an unclean bird, one that is not \"kosher.\" As we will see, some of these rules are the same as those we saw with regard to the carrion of a clean bird, but some are different.
Section one: The carrion of an unclean bird (a bird that one is not allowed to eat) is not unclean in a ritual purity sense, in and of itself. In order for it to become unclean, first one would have to have the intention to eat it and then it would have to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid. If these two things happen, and then it comes into contact with a source of impurity, it is impure. This differs from the carrion of a clean (edible) bird, which is a source of defilement in and of itself.
Section two: If it becomes impure, it now conveys impurity if there is the minimum size of an egg.
Section three: If a person eats an amount of carrion of unclean bird that is equivalent to the size of two eggs (half of the size of half of a loaf of bread) he cannot eat terumah until he immerses in a mikveh. This is the usual amount to cause a person to become impure through eating something impure.
Section four: Unlike the carrion of a clean bird, there is no special rule concerning one who swallows the amount of an olive. Such a person remains pure.
Section five: One who eats an amount the size of half of a half of a loaf of bread is impure, but he is pure immediately after he goes to the mikveh. He need not wait for the sun to set.
Section six: The defilement caused by eating this amount is only rabbinic. Therefore, if someone enters the sanctuary after having done so, he is not liable for transgressing a biblical commandment.
Section seven: Nevertheless, if this person touches terumah, the terumah must be burned. This is because terumah can be burned even if the level of the impurity is only rabbinic.
Section eight: The biblical prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal refers only to clean animals (and birds). Therefore, one who eats the limb of a living unclean bird is not liable for transgressing the biblical commandment. [Please understand this doesn't mean that one can do so, just that one who has done so is not liable for transgressing that particular negative commandment. He has transgressed another.]
Section nine: Obviously, slaughtering it does not render the unclean bird fit for consumption. This type of bird is unclean and forbidden for eating in all cases. The truth is that this clause is overly obvious. It is only here because it contrasts with the case of the clean bird.
Sections ten and eleven: When it comes to the unclean bird, since it is never permitted to be eaten, the edible and inedible parts combine to convey uncleanness." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis entire mishnah, save for the first word, can be found in Hullin 9:1. After having explained the rules governing the purity/impurity of the carrion of clean and unclean birds, the mishnah discusses cattle, meaning large herd animals (sheep, goats and cows).", + "The hide, meat juice, sediment, dried-up meat, bones, sinews, horns and hooves join together [to make up the minimum quantity in order] to convey food-uncleanness, but not to [make up the minimum quantity in order to] convey nevelah-uncleanness. These are all parts of the animal that are not generally or ever eaten. However, these parts, joing together with the generally edible parts of the animal to create a minimum volume the size of an egg to convey uncleanness to other foods if the animal was rendered unclean. The reason is that all although these parts are not eaten on their own, they are sometimes eaten with other parts of the meat. Alternatively, some of these things protect the meat of the animal, even if they themselves are not eaten. Therefore, they join with the meat in adding up to this minimum value. However, these things do not join together with the rest of the meat to cause nevelah-uncleanness, which requires the minimum volume of an olive.", + "Similarly, if a man slaughtered an unclean animal for a Gentile and it still has convulsions, it can convey food-uncleanness, but it conveys nevelah-uncleanness only after it is dead, or its head has been chopped off. This animal cannot be eaten by a Jew or by a Gentile. It can’t be eaten by a Jew because it is an unclean animal, for instance a camel. It can’t be eaten by a Gentile because it is still convulsing and is therefore prohibited under the Noahide prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal. Nevertheless, this animal is considered food because just as when a Jew slaughters a kosher (clean) animal he causes it to be able to receive impurity, so too when he slaughters a non-kosher animal, he causes it to be able to receive impurity. However, it is not considered a nevelah in order to convey nevelah uncleanness until it is truly dead or has its head cut off. If its head is cut off, it is considered dead even if it is still convulsing.", + "[Scripture] has [thus] made more cases that convey food-uncleanness than those that convey nevelah-uncleanness. The mishnah closes by noting there are more cases where something conveys food-uncleanness than nevelah uncleanness." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with food that has become unclean and how much of it needs to be gathered together to convey uncleanness.", + "Food that contracted uncleanness from a \"father of uncleanness\" and one that contracted uncleanness from a derived uncleanness may be combined together to convey uncleanness according to the lighter grade of the two. Food that has become unclean by contact with a \"father of uncleanness\" such as a sheretz, has first degree impurity. If it had contact with derived uncleanness, then it has second degree impurity. The mishnah now will illustrate how 1/2 of an egg's worth of food with one level of impurity can combine with another half of an egg's worth of food with another level of impurity to create the requisite amount to convey impurity.", + "How so? If the amount of half an egg of food that has first grade uncleanness and the amount of half an egg of food that has second grade uncleanness were mixed together, the two are regarded having second grade uncleanness. The two half eggs that are mixed are considered only to have second degree impurity. This is the lighter form of impurity. If this piece of food comes into contact with terumah it will render the terumah invalid.", + "And if the amount of half of an egg of food that has second grade uncleanness and the amount of half an egg of food that has third grade uncleanness were mixed together, the two are regarded as having third grade of uncleanness. The piece of food with third degree uncleanness will render sacred things (such as sacrifices) invalid, but it will not disqualify terumah.", + "If the amount of an egg of food having first grade uncleanness and the amount of an egg of food having second grade uncleanness were mixed together, both are regarded as having first grade uncleanness; But if they were then divided, each part is regarded as having second grade uncleanness. If each part separately fell on a loaf of terumah, they cause it to become unfit. But if the two fell together they cause it to have second grade uncleanness. In this case, both pieces of food are the size of an egg. Here, both are treated more stringently, as if both have first degree uncleanness. If after they were mixed together he separated them, then both are treated as if they have only second degree uncleanness, because both pieces now have less than an egg's worth of the original piece that had first degree uncleanness. If each of these pieces now falls separately on a piece of terumah, both are treated as if they have second degree impurity and they render the terumah invalid. They do not, however, cause it to be impure. However, if they both fall on one piece of terumah, then we know that an egg's worth of food that has first degree impurity fell on the terumah and the terumah now has second degree impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues yesterday's mishnah which discussed quantities of food that have different levels of impurity that were mixed together.", + "An egg's worth of food that has second degree uncleanness and an egg's worth of food that has third decree uncleanness that were mixed together are regarded as having second degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is regarded as having only third degree uncleanness. If each part separately fell on a loaf of terumah they do not render it invalid. But if the two fell together they convey to it third degree uncleanness. This section is the same as the last section in yesterday's mishnah, only here the two pieces of food have second and third degree impurity. Food with third degree impurity does not invalidate terumah. But food with second degree impurity does invalidate terumah, although it doesn't defile it.", + "An egg's worth of food that has first degree uncleanness and an egg's worth of food that has third degree uncleanness that were mixed together are regarded as having first degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is regarded as having only second grade uncleanness, for even the third grade that touched the first has become only a second grade. In this case one piece has first degree and one piece has third degree. When the piece with third degree touches the piece with first degree, it now has second degree impurity. This now becomes a case of one piece with first degree and one piece with second degree, the same case as we had in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If two eggs worth of food that have first degree uncleanness and two eggs worth of food that have second degree uncleanness were mixed together they are regarded as having first degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is still regarded as having first degree uncleanness. But if they were divided into three or four parts, each is regarded as having second grade. Here there are two eggs with first degree and two eggs with second degree. The difference between this situation and the previous ones is that even when the piece is divided into two, it still has first degree impurity because there is still an egg's worth that has the higher degree. The pieces go down to the lower degree of impurity only if they are further divided up into three or four pieces.", + "If two eggs worth of food having second degree uncleanness and two eggs worth of food having third degree uncleanness were mixed together, they are regarded as having second degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is still regarded as having second degree uncleanness. But if they were divided into three or four parts, each is regarded as having only third degree uncleanness. The same situation as in section three only the two pieces have second and third degree impurity and not first and second." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with loaves or pieces of dough that are stuck together. The principle is that if one loaf or piece of bread is defiled, they are all regarded as defiled. They retain this impurity even if they are later separated.", + "Pieces of dough which are stuck to each other or loaves stuck to each other, if one of them was defiled from a sheretz, they all become unclean in the first degree; If they were then separated they are still regarded as having first degree uncleanness. All of the loaves have first degree impurity because one had contact with the sheretz. They retain this even when they are separated.", + "If one of them was defiled by a liquid they all have second degree uncleanness; If they were then separated they are still regarded as have second degree uncleanness. Impure liquids always have first degree impurity. Therefore, the loaves or dough has second degree impurity.", + "If one of them was defiled from the hands, they all become have third degree uncleanness; If they were then separated they are still regarded as having third degree of uncleanness. Hands are considered to have second degree impurity. If the loaves are of terumah, they will be invalidated but not made impure. If the loaves were holy, then they are impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with pieces of dough that have different levels of impurity and then become stuck together.", + "A piece of dough that had first degree uncleanness, and then others became stuck to it, they all become unclean in the first degree. If they were separated, it still remains unclean in the first degree but all the others are have only second degree uncleanness. The pieces of dough that are stuck to the original piece of dough are considered to become part of the original piece. Therefore they too have impurity in the first degree. If they are subsequently separated, the original piece retains its first degree impurity. The other pieces have second degree impurity because they came into contact with the piece that had first degree impurity.", + "If [the original piece] had second degree uncleanness and then others became stuck to it, they all become unclean in the second degree; If they were separated, it still remains unclean in the second degree but all the others are only unclean in the third degree. The same situation as in section one, just the original piece has second degree impurity. [This tractate seems to enjoy doing this repeating the same scenarios over and over again with foods that have different levels of impurity.]", + "If [the original piece] had third degree uncleanness, and then other became stuck to it, it remains unclean in the third degree but all the others remain clean, whether they were subsequently separated from it or whether they were not separated. Something that has only third degree impurity does not defile other things, even if the other thing is attached to it. It only invalidates holy food and the bread referred to here is probably terumah." + ], + [ + "Holy loaves in whose hollows there was holy water, if one contracted uncleanness from a sheretz, they all become unclean. The holy loaves are for instance the showbread or the two loaves brought on Shavuot. There is holy water, meaning water whose purity was preserved in order to be used with sacrifices, in the hollows within the loaves. This water, as we shall see, can act as conveyor of impurity. The first loaf has contact with a sheretz, which causes it to have first degree impurity. The next loaf has second degree impurity and the third loaf has third degree impurity. The third loaf defiles the water in its hollows such that the water has first degree impurity. The reason for this is that anything that defiles holy food, meaning even something with third degree impurity, causes holy water to have first degree impurity. The water then ups the level of defilement within that very loaf causing it to have second degree impurity, which will then defile the next loaf. Thus all the touching loaves will be defiled, if all of them are holy loaves.", + "In the case of loaves of terumah, uncleanness is conveyed to two loaves and one is invalidated. If the loaves are terumah, the process is arrested quicker. The first loaf has first degree impurity and the loaf that touches it has second degree impurity. The third loaf is invalid, although not impure. It doesn't convey impurity to the fourth loaf. It also doesn't defile the water in its hollows. This is because this loaf, or anything with third degree impurity in cases of terumah, doesn't cause water to become impure.", + "If there was dripping liquid between them, even in the case of terumah all become unclean. In this case the liquid is dripping, meaning that if one puts one's hand on it, it will become moist. The first loaf has first degree impurity and every subsequent loaf has second degree impurity. This is because since there is a greater quantity of water it becomes defiled with first degree impurity. It then causes the loaf that touches it have second degree impurity and on and on, no matter how many loaves there are. In sum, we can see that water is a great conduit for impurity and that things that are really moist are even better conduits of impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nWhen learning this mishnah it is important to remember that produce is not susceptible to impurity until it has been made wet.", + "A woman who was preserving vegetables in a pot and touched a leaf outside the pot on a dry spot, even though the leaf had an egg's bulk of volume, it alone becomes unclean while all the rest remains clean. The woman is preserving some vegetables that are either terumah or are regular vegetables whose purity she wishes to preserve as if they had the sanctity of terumah. She is preserving the vegetables in either vinegar or salt. Note that the only reason a woman and not a man is mentioned is that it seems that women were more likely to do this work than men. The same laws would apply to men. Before the pickling, the vegetables had not come into contact with liquid to make them susceptible to impurity. The vegetables and the leaf sticking out of the pot did become susceptible when she poured liquid on them to begin the preserving process. If she touches the leaf at a dry spot the leaf becomes impure with third degree impurity because hands have second degree impurity. In this case it doesn't matter how big the leaf is, only the leaf will be impure. The leaf doesn't convey impurity to the attached vegetables because things with third degree impurity don't defile terumah.", + "If she touched it at a wet spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean. If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. If it is returned into the pot, everything becomes unclean. In this case the leaf was wet when she touched it. If the leaf is the size of an egg, then it will convey its impurity to other things. The liquid on it now has first degree impurity, and it conveys second degree impurity back to the leaf. The leaf will convey third degree impurity to the vegetables in the pot. However, if the leaf is smaller than the size of an egg, while it is impure because there is no minimum size for produce to receive impurity, it will not convey uncleanness because food needs to be the size of an egg to convey impurity. If the leaf goes back into the pot, then the liquid on the leaf will convey its impurity to the liquid in the pot and everything will be impure. There is no minimum amount for liquids for them to convey impurity.", + "If the woman was unclean due to contact with one who had corpse uncleanness, and she touched the leaf either at a wet spot or at a dry spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean; If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. In the previous two sections the woman's hands had second degree impurity, as do all hands unless they have been ritually cleansed. In this section, she had contact with something (either a person or a vessel) that had been defiled by a corpse. The woman has first degree uncleanness. The difference here is that the leaf will have second degree uncleanness even if it is not wet. Again, if it is large enough it will convey its impurity back into the pot.", + "If a woman who was a tevulat yom emptied out the pot with unwashed hands, and she observed some liquid on her hands, and it is uncertain whether it was splashed from the pot or whether a stalk had touched her hands, the vegetables are invalid but the pot remains clean. A \"tevulat yom\" is one who has been to the mikveh but has not yet had the sun set. She has second degree impurity. She pours out the pot while her hands also have second degree impurity. While doing so she notices that some water has gotten onto her hands. If the water sprayed out of the pot, then it doesn't affect the contents of the pot. But if her hand touched the stalk of one of the vegetables in the pot, then the liquid on it would be impure and it would convey impurity back into the pot. The rule is that in cases of doubt with regard to a tevul yom, they do disqualify terumah. Therefore, the vegetable(s) itself is impure and if it is terumah will not be able to be eaten. However, the pot itself remains pure for a tevul yom does not defile liquids causing them to have first degree impurity (see Parah 8:7)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe rabbis decreed that a person who eats unclean food becomes unclean. In our mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua disagree with regard to his level of uncleanness.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; [He who eats food with] second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness contracts] third [degree uncleanness]. Rabbi Eliezer's system is simple. A person takes on the level of impurity of the food he ate. Literally, you are what you eat.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first [degree] or with second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness, he contracts] second [degree uncleanness] in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah. According to Rabbi Joshua, if one eats food that has either first or second degree impurity, he gets second degree impurity. This will mean that he will defile terumah. The reasoning is explained by analogy to food. Food with second degree impurity can give other food second degree impurity, if the second food is wet. The food with second degree impurity defiles the liquid, which takes on first degree impurity. The liquid can then defile the other food, giving it second degree impurity. But there are no cases where food with first degree impurity can give other food first degree impurity. Therefore, argues Rabbi Joshua, the same is true with human beings. According to Rabbi Joshua if he eats food with third degree impurity, he gets second degree impurity vis a vis holy things. This means he will defile holy things such as sacrifices. However, he will not defile or even invalidate terumah, because vis a vis terumah he does not have second degree impurity. The mishnah concludes by noting that the previous clause refers not only to terumah, meaning one who ate terumah that had third degree impurity, but even to common food that was prepared with the intent of it being eaten with the sanctity of terumah. This refers to the practice of some pious Jews, including perhaps the Pharisees, who strived to preserve the purity of all of the food that they ate, not just terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah provides some basic rules as to the implications of the levels of impurity in common food, meaning non-sacred food, neither terumah nor sacrifices.", + "First [degree uncleanness] in common food is unclean and conveys uncleanness; Hullin (regular or common food) that has first degree uncleanness can defile other foods, giving them second degree uncleanness.", + "Second [degree uncleanness] invalidates but does not convey uncleanness. Hullin that has second degree uncleanness invalidates other food. If the other food is terumah, the terumah is invalid. If the other food is hullin which the person wishes to eat with the sanctity of terumah, then it is invalid. But it doesn't give other food third degree impurity.", + "And third [degree uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish mixed with terumah. Basically, there is no such thing as hullin with third degree impurity. If food came into contact with other hullin food with second degree impurity, that food can be eaten in a dish with terumah because it is not all impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is the same pattern as yesterday's mishnah, except it deals with terumah. As we shall see, the rules governing terumah are one degree stricter than those governing common food.", + "First [degree] and second [degree uncleanness] in terumah are unclean and convey uncleanness; When it comes to terumah, even something with second degree uncleanness can defile other terumah.", + "Third [degree uncleanness] causes invalidity but does not convey uncleanness. Terumah with third degree impurity is invalid but it does not convey uncleanness to other terumah with which it comes into contact.", + "And fourth [degree uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish containing holy food. Basically, there is no such thing as fourth degree uncleanness when it comes to terumah. Something that has been in contact with third degree uncleanness can be eaten in a dish with holy food." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is the same as the previous two mishnayot except it discusses holy food, such as sacrifices. Again, the purity rules are one degree stricter.", + "First, second and third [degrees of uncleanness] in holy foods are unclean and convey uncleanness; When it comes to holy food, even food with third degree uncleanness can convey impurity.", + "Fourth [degree of uncleanness] is invalid and causes no uncleanness; Food with fourth degree uncleanness is invalid but doesn't convey uncleanness onward.", + "And fifth [degree of uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish containing holy food. There is no such thing as fifth degree uncleanness. Such food can be eaten together with other holy food." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah builds on the three previous mishnayot but adds in the factor of liquids, which as we have seen on many occasions, amplify impurity.", + "Second [degree uncleanness] in common food conveys uncleanness to unconsecrated liquids and causes invalidity to terumah food. We learned before that food with second degree impurity invalidates terumah. This mishnah teaches a rule: anything that invalidates terumah also conveys impurity to non-sacred liquids, even if the food wouldn't defile common food. So common food (hullin) with second degree impurity defiles all liquids, but when it comes to food, it only disqualifies terumah.", + "Third [degree of uncleanness] in terumah conveys uncleanness to consecrated liquids and causes invalidity to holy food that was prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to holy food; But if it was only prepared under conditions of cleanness appropriate to terumah, it conveys uncleanness at a first and at a second remove, and causes invalidity to holy food at one additional remove. The same is true with terumah food that has third degree uncleanness. It conveys first degree impurity to holy liquids, because terumah with third degree uncleanness does invalidate holy food. The mishnah now adds a caveat to this previous rule. If the terumah food was prepared in order to have the sanctity of holy food, then if it has third degree impurity it disqualifies holy food but doesn't cause it to be defiled. But if it was prepared under the conditions of purity appropriate to terumah, it is not considered to have been guarded for the purpose of being used with holy food. Therefore, it is treated as if it has first degree impurity. It will defile the first thing it touches, and that will defile something else, giving it third degree impurity. The third thing will invalidate holy food." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today's mishnah Rabbi Eliezer presents his version of exactly how defilement works. The disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the other sages is brought at the end of this mishnah.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: the three of them are equivalent.
The first degree of uncleanness in holy food, in terumah or in common food: conveys uncleanness at two removes and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of terumah; and causes invalidity in common food. Food that has first degree impurity, no matter what it is (hullin, terumah or holy food), conveys impurity in the same way. This will now be explained. If any food with first degree impurity comes into contact with holy food it conveys uncleanness in two removes. What this means is that if it touches something it gives it second degree impurity and the second degree food conveys third degree. The third degree only invalidates the holy food this food will not convey any other impurity down the line. In the case of terumah it conveys second degree impurity and the second degree invalidates the terumah that it touches. And if it touches common food it invalidates it (in reality it gives it second degree impurity) but such food will not convey any impurity onward.", + "The second [degree of uncleanness] in the case of all of them: conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; it conveys uncleanness to common liquids and causes invalidity of terumah food. Food that has second degree impurity cause holy food to have third degree impurity and this holy food will invalidate other holy food that it touches. It will defile common liquids, giving them first degree impurity. Note that it will not defile common food, just liquid. And it will invalidate terumah food.", + "The third degree of uncleanness in the case of all them: conveys uncleanness to holy liquids and causes invalidity to holy food. Something that has third degree impurity will not defile anything common or terumah. But it will cause holy liquids, such as sanctified wine or oil, to have first degree impurity and it will invalidate holy food. This is where Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the other sages. He holds that terumah that has third degree impurity does not convey uncleanness at two removes and invalidity at one extra remove, as does the opinion in mishnah six. Furthermore, he holds that even common food that has third degree impurity can defile holy food, whereas the previous opinion said it needed to have second degree impurity to do so." + ], + [ + "If one eats food with second [degree uncleanness he must not work in an olive-press. A person who eats food with second degree uncleanness gets second degree uncleanness, as we learned in mishnah two. Therefore, he shouldn't work in an olive press because when he touches the olive oil, he will convey to it first degree uncleanness, because it is a liquid.", + "Common food that was prepared under conditions proper to the cleanness of consecrated food is still regarded as common food. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: it is regarded as terumah to convey uncleanness at two removes and to render terumah invalid at one additional remove. The mishnah again makes reference to common food (hullin) that was prepared under the conditions of purity that are normally used for holy food. Such food is still considered to be hullin, and therefore there is no such thing as third degree impurity. Food that had contact with such food that had second degree impurity can still be eaten. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that it is like terumah. First and second degree are impure, third degree is invalid but doesn't convey impurity onward. In other words, by treating this common food as if it was holy, it does attain added holiness." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nWe have learned previously that impure liquids always have impurity in the first degree. Only food can have second and third degree impurity. Our mishnah deals with liquids that then become solids.", + "Sauce, bean-mash and milk, when in a condition of fluidity, are unclean in the first degree. While they are in their liquid state, these liquids, if they are defiled, have first degree impurity.", + "If they turned solid they become unclean in the second degree. When they turn into solids, they lose their first degree impurity but they still retain second degree impurity. This is because as it solidified, the solid part was touching the liquid part and the liquid conveyed second degree impurity to the solid.", + "If they again melted: If their bulk was exactly that of an egg, they are clean. But if it was more than the bulk of an egg they remain unclean, for as soon as the first drop issued forth it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If they melt again, they are now no longer food, but they have lost their original liquid impurity. If there is exactly an egg's worth then it is pure. This is because as soon as one drop melted the solid part was less than an egg, and food needs to be the size of an egg to convey impurity. So the drop remains pure, as does the rest. However, if there is more than an egg, then when the first drop melts it is defiled by the solid part. That drop will subsequently defile all the following drops and the whole thing will be impure." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Meir says: oil always remains unclean in the first degree. And the sages say: honey also. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: also wine. Rabbi Meir says that unclean oil retains its first degree of impurity even if it becomes solid and then melts again and there is exactly the volume of an egg (see yesterday's mishnah, which discussed sauce, barley-mash, and milk). This is because when it became solid it was neither a liquid nor was it considered food. Therefore, when it turned back into a liquid, it is considered as never having lost its status as liquid. The sages add that the same is true of honey. This refers to honey directly flowing from the hive. R. Shimon Shezuri adds in wine as well.", + "A mass of olives that fell into an oven that was heated: If [the olives] were exactly the size of an egg it [the oven] remains pure; But if it was more than that of an egg the oven becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If the olives were separated even if there was a se'ah of them, it remains clean. A mass of olives that are stuck together and are impure falls into a hot oven. As food, the olives do not defile the oven because food does not defile vessels. But if liquid comes out of the olives and is impure it will defile the oven because liquid can defile vessels. If the olive mass is only exactly the amount of an egg, it won't defile the oven. Even if liquid begins to flow from the mass when it hits the oven, the remainder of the mass is less than an olive, so it doesn't defile. But if it was more than an egg, then as soon as the first drop comes out, the food will defile the liquid and the liquid will then defile the oven. If the olives fall separately into the oven, then each is less than the size of an egg, and even if liquid comes out of the olive, the oven will remain pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with cases where one drop comes out of something, becomes impure through contact with the food from which it came and then conveys uncleanness back to the food.", + "A man who had corpse uncleanness who pressed olives or grapes: If its bulk was exactly that of an egg, the juice remains clean provided he does not touch the place on which the liquid is; But [if the bulk was] more than that of an egg, the juice becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out, it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. The impure person is pressing olives or grapes, and we need to know whether he conveys his impurity to the grape juice or olive oil. If the amount of juice or oil is exactly the volume of an egg, then the juice or oil remains pure, for the same reason we learned in the first two mishnayot of our chapter. Once the first drop is removed, there is less than an egg's worth of food and less than an egg's worth of food is not susceptible to impurity. However, the mishnah notes, if the person with corpse impurity touches the liquid then the liquid is impure and all subsequent drops will be impure as well. But if there is more than an egg's worth of liquid then all of the juice (or oil) will be unclean because the first drop is defiled by contact with the impure olives or grapes.", + "If the person was a zav or a zavah [the juice] becomes unclean even if only one berry [was pressed out], for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by carrying. The difference between a zav (person with abnormal genital discharge) and a person who has corpse impurity is that a zav or zavah defiles through carrying, even if they don't touch that which they are carrying. So in this case, it doesn't matter how many berries (of grapes or olives, both are called \"berries\") the juice will be impure by virtue of its being carried by a zav or zavah.", + "If a zav milked a goat, the milk becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop comes out it becomes unclean by carrying. Similarly, if a zav milks a goat (notice, goat and not cow) the milk will immediately be defiled even if the zav doesn't touch it because a zav conveys impurity by carrying." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with food that originally was large enough to be impure (or to have some other rule apply to it) and then became smaller because it was left out in the sun.", + "If an egg's bulk of food was left in the sun and it was lessened, and so also in the case of an olive's bulk of corpse, an olive's bulk of carrion, a lentil's bulk of a sheretz, an olive's bulk of piggul, an olive's bulk of notar, or an olive's bulk of forbidden fat they become clean; In all of these cases something was the requisite size to convey impurity or to be impure. It was then left in the sun and it dried out and thereby lost the requisite size. Since the object is no longer large enough, it becomes clean. I will explain what each of these items is: Food: needs to be the size of an egg to become impure. Pieces of corpse, carrion (an animal that was not properly slaughtered) and a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing): needs to the size of an olive to transmit impurity. Piggul: is sacrificial meat slaughtered by a priest who had the intent to eat the meat in the wrong place or at a time when it couldn't be eaten. Notar: sacrificial meat left over beyond the time when it should have been eaten. Forbidden fat: helev, the forbidden fat of a permitted animal.", + "Nor is one liable on account of these for transgressing the law of piggul, notar or forbidden fat. Just as the piggul, notar and forbidden fat do not convey impurity if their bulk becomes less than an olive, so too one who eats them is not liable for karet, which is the usual punishment for eating one of these substances.", + "If they were then left out in the rain and they swelled, they become unclean and guilt is incurred on account of them for transgressing the law of piggul, notar or forbidden fat. If any of these substances is left out in the rain, it returns to its original impurity and if one eats one of the latter substances (piggul, notar or forbidden fat) he is liable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah begins a new subject which will be discussed until the end of chapter six cases of doubtful impurity.\nOur mishnah deals with a doubt concerning when something became impure or became susceptible or unsusceptible to impurity.", + "All cases of uncleanness are determined according to their appearance at the time they are found: If they were then unclean they are assumed to have been unclean [all the time]; And if clean they are assumed to have been clean [all the time]. This clause means that if a substance is found and it currently is large enough to convey impurity or to be impure, then it is assumed to have been unclean at an earlier time as well. For instance, if the food has an egg's bulk then any food that is known to have touched it earlier is assumed to be impure (if this is a case in which the food would convey impurity, such as to a liquid). The opposite is true as well. If the food is currently too small to be impure, we assume that it was always too small to be impure.", + "If they were then covered they are assumed to have been covered [all the time]; And if uncovered they are assumed to have been uncovered [all the time]. If a piece of corpse impurity is found in a tent (an ohel) that is covered in a way that would prevent the impurity from escaping, we do not have to be concerned lest the impurity was once uncovered and has defiled the vessels that were above or below it. If the corpse impurity is not covered, we must assume that vessels which had been above it or below it were defiled even if they are not there now.", + "If a needle was found full of rust or broken it is clean, for all doubtful cases of uncleanness are determined according to their appearance at the time they are found. A needle is now found in an unusable state and therefore it is pure. Again, anything that touched it earlier is assumed to be pure because we judge doubtful cases as they are currently found, and not as they might have been earlier." + ], + [ + "If a deaf-mute, a person not of sound senses, or a minor was found in an alley way that contained something that was unclean, he is presumed to be clean. An alleyway is considered to be a private domain. In this alleyway there is something that is impure, but we are not sure if the person came into contact with it. The rule in section three will state that if someone or something cannot be asked if they came into contact with something impure, they are ruled to be pure. A deaf-mute, and a person not of sound senses and a minor are all considered to lack what we might call awareness or intelligence. One cannot legally ask them if they came into contact with the impure thing. Therefore, they are pure.", + "But any one of sound senses is presumed to be unclean. The person of sound senses can be asked, but in this case he doesn't know if he had contact with the impure thing. Therefore, he is impure.", + "And anyone/anything that lacks understanding to be inquired of is in a case of doubtful uncleanness presumed to be clean. This is the general rule that explains section one." + ], + [ + "A child who was found at the side of a graveyard with lilies in his hand, and the lilies grew only in a place of uncleanness, he is nevertheless clean, for I could say that another person gathered them and gave them to him. Although it seems quite likely that the child picked the lilies from a place that was unclean, and therefore the child is unclean, since the rule is that if a person cannot be asked if he touched an impurity he is pure, even this child is still considered pure. We can see here just how lenient the sages could be in matters of doubtful impurity.", + "So also a donkey that was in a graveyard, his harness remains clean. Since you can't ask the donkey if he went over the graves (unless the donkey happens to be from Shrek), his harness or any other vessels that are on him, remains clean." + ], + [ + "A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. A child can be assumed to have had contact with unclean things, such as a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) or something else that was unclean (children play with yucky stuff). If a child is found playing next to some dough and he has some dough in his hands, we would think that it is nearly certain that the dough came from there. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir rules leniently he says that it is possible that a pure person gave the dough to the kid. The other sages are not so lenient. They say that even if the child is not holding on to the dough, it is impure because children like to play with dough. Sort of like ancient play-doh!", + "Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. The rest of the mishnah deals with dough that bears traces of an animal having pecked or licked it. Near the dough there is some liquid. We need to now figure out how likely it is that the animal licked the liquid and then brought it over to the dough before the dough dried. If the marking was made by a hen, then the dough is pure if the liquid is far enough away such that the hen could have dried its mouth on the ground. Evidently, hens do this. Who knew?", + "And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. If the mark was made by a dog or cow, then they must have had enough time for their tongue to dry out. Dogs and cows lick their lips this I knew.", + "And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. If it was made by any other animal, there must have been enough time for the liquid to dry off their mouths or tongues. In all of these cases, if the liquid can be assumed to have dried, the dough is pure.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob appreciates that dogs are not stupid. Since there are water and food in the area, the dog would not be foolish enough to go for the water and not the food. Therefore the dough remains pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn the cases in this mishnah a clean loaf of bread is thrown among an unclean pile of keys, or an unclean key is thrown among a pile of clean loaves of bread. The question is: are the loaves or loaf made impure.", + "One who throws an unclean object from one place to another: [for instance] a loaf among keys or a key among loaves, [that which was clean remains] clean. According to the first opinion we can assume that the clean loaf did not touch the unclean keys, and therefore it remains pure. According to this opinion it doesn't matter which was thrown and which remained stationary. In either case, the loaf remains pure.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if a loaf was thrown among keys the former becomes unclean, but if a key was thrown among loaves the latter remain clean. Rabbi Judah holds that in cases where something pure is thrown and we don't know if it became impure, it is deemed impure. This is because the source of impurity is stationary. But in cases where something impure is thrown and we don't know whether it defiled something else, the other thing remains pure for the impurity was moving." + ], + [ + "A dead sheretz that was held in the mouth of a weasel that was passing over loaves of terumah and it is doubtful whether the sheret did or did not touch them, in such condition of doubt [the loaves] are clean. As in yesterday's mishnah, today's mishnah describes a case of moving doubtful impurity. The dead sheretz, a source of impurity, is moving for it is in the mouth of a weasel. Since the sheretz is moving and we don't know for sure if it touched the loaves, the loaves remain pure. However, you might just want to think twice before you eat them…" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is based on the distinction that we have seen several times already if the source of impurity was moving, and we are not sure if it defiled someone or something, the doubt remains pure. But if the source of impurity was considered to be stationary, the doubt is impure.", + "A weasel that had in its mouth a [dead] sheretz or a dog that had carrion in its mouth and they passed between clean [persons] or if clean persons passed between them, their condition of doubt is deemed clean, since the uncleanness , had no resting place. A dead sheretz and carrion both defile. But since they were moving by being held by the weasel or dog, the people among whom these things moved are clean.", + "If they were picking at them while these lay on the ground, and a person stated, \"I went to that place but I do not know whether I did or did not touch it,\" his condition of doubt is deemed unclean, since the uncleanness had a resting place. In case two, the dog or weasel are picking at the sheretz or carrion and dragging them on the ground. Despite the fact that the sources of defilement are indeed moving, the mishnah considers anything on the ground to be stationary. Therefore, they do defile the people who might have walked among them." + ], + [ + "An olive's bulk of corpse was held in a raven's mouth and it is doubtful whether it overshadowed a person or vessels in a private domain: The person's condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean But the vessels’ condition of doubt is deemed clean. There are two reasons why the person is unclean. First of all, a person has the ability to be asked (see mishnah 3:6) and any time someone can be asked, the doubtful case is deemed impure. Second, although the impurity is moving, there is a special rule with regard to impurity transmitted through overshadowing (ohel) it defiles in cases of doubt even though it is moving. The vessels remain pure because they don't have intelligence such that they can be asked.", + "One who drew water in ten buckets and a dead sheretz was found in one of them, it alone is deemed unclean but all the others remain clean. The dead sheretz found in one bucket clearly defiles that bucket. We might have thought that the other buckets should also be impure because they may have had contact with the dead sheretz while it was in the cistern. The mishnah teaches that the other buckets are pure for if we know that impurity is in one place (the bucket in which it is found) we do not assume that it might have been in another place. Furthermore, the sheretz doesn't defile the water, for water that is still connected to its source in the ground (the well or cistern) is not susceptible to impurity.", + "If one poured out from one vessel into another and a dead sheretz was found in the lower vessel, the upper one remains clean. If one is pouring from one vessel to another and a dead sheretz is found in the lower vessel, only the lower vessel is impure. We don't assume that the sheretz was originally in the upper vessel, for the same reason that we said in section two impurity found in one place is not assumed to have been in another." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with six cases where a person touched something of doubtful impurity and then touched terumah. In these six cases the terumah must be burned, as if we were certain that the terumah had been defiled. Note that this is the mishnah's way of saying that something is to be treated as if it was certainly defiled, for one would not burn terumah unless he had no other choice. It is prohibited to burn terumah unless one is certain that it is impure.", + "Section one: 1. A bet ha-peras is a place where there used to be a grave but was plowed over. The ground defiles because it might have bones in it. 2. The rabbis say that land from outside the land of Israel is impure (see Ohalot 2:3). The origin of the dirt referred to here is unclear. 3. The garments of an am haaretz, one who is not observant of the strictures of the purity laws, defile. These clothes may have come from such a person. 4. Vessels that were simply found might be impure. Therefore, they have to be treated as such. 5. Spit that is simply found (yuck) might have come from a zav or from a niddah, and the spit of both such people defiles (we will learn more about this in the future). 6. Human urine defiles if it comes from an impure person. Albeck explains that in mishnaic times they would use urine as a cleaning agent. They would usually gather human urine and animal urine separately. The person in this section therefore knows that the urine he touched is human urine. What he does not know is if this human urine was impure.", + "On account of a certainty of having touched these which causes the doubtful uncleanness, terumah is burned. In all of these cases the person knows that he had contact with one of these things, he just doesn't know whether they were unclean. If he didn't know whether he had even touched them, then he is pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says: also on account of their doubtful contact in a private domain; But the sages say: in a private domain the terumah is only held in suspense and in a public domain it is deemed clean. Section one referred to things found in the public domain. Doubtful impurity is more likely to be deemed impure in the private domain. Rabbi Yose says if this occurred in the private domain then even if he is not sure if he had contact with the item he is impure. The sages are more lenient. In the private domain if he is not sure if he had contact with it, the terumah is \"held in suspense.\" This means that it is not treated as pure, but neither is it burned. However, in the public domain the person is impure only if he is certain that he had contact with the item." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with spittle that is found and whether or not one must treat it as impure lest it have come from a zav or a nidah, both of whose spit is impure.", + "Two kinds spittle, one of which was [possibly] unclean and the other was definitely clean: [Terumah] is to be held in suspense if [touched by one who] touched or carried or shifted [one of the two kinds of spittle] while they were in a private domain; Or who touched one of them in a public domain while it was still moist; Or who carried it whether it was moist or dry. In this section there are two kinds of spittle, meaning that they came from two different people. The first kind of spittle was simply found; we don't know who it came from. The second kind of spittle was definitely clean. The mishnah now goes on to describe various scenarios where a person might have been defiled by the unknown spittle. If a person touched, carried or shifted one of them while in a private domain, but he is not sure which spittle it was, then if he subsequently touched terumah, the terumah is \"suspended.\" As we have seen, this means that it is not burned, as it would be if it was impure, but neither can it be eaten. This matches the opinion of the sages in yesterday's mishnah, that in cases of doubtful impurity in the private domain terumah is suspended. Terumah is also suspended if the person touched the spittle in the public domain and it stuck to his body because the spittle was still moist. The sages considered a person's body to be like a private domain and the spittle attached to him is treated as doubtful impurity found in the private domain. Similarly, if the person carries it, the spittle is considered to be in the private domain because a person treated like a private domain.", + "If there was but one [kind of possibly] unclean spittle and a person touched, carried or shifted it in a public domain, terumah is burned on account of it; And one does not even need to say that this is the case if it was in a private domain. However, if there is only one kind of spittle and he is sure that he had contact with it, or carried it or shifted it, then the rule reverts to the general principle found in mishnah five. The terumah is burned even if this occurs in the public domain, all the more so if it occurs in the private domain, where the rule is stricter." + ], + [ + "These are the cases of doubtful uncleanness that the sages declared to be clean:
A doubt concerning drawn water for a mikveh,
A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon the water.
A doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean, but if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed it is deemed clean.
A doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean.
A doubt that arose in a public domain;
A doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes;
A doubt concerning non-sacred food;
A doubt concerning a sheretz;
A doubt concerning negaim;
A doubt concerning a nazirite vow;
A doubt concerning a first-born;
A doubt concerning sacrifices.
This mishnah introduces all sorts of cases of doubt where the sages ruled that something was clean. Except for the first case, the remainder of the list is explained from mishnah eight until the end of the chapter. Therefore, we will not explain these sections here.
Section one: If drawn water falls into a mikveh, the mikveh is disqualified. If there is a doubt whether this occurred, the mikveh remains valid.
Sections 2-12: These are explained in the following mishnayot. Stay tuned!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah begins to explain cases of doubtful uncleanness that the rabbis rule pure.", + "\"A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon water:\" There is an unclean object floating on some water and there is doubt as to whether a person touched it. Since the object of impurity does not \"have a set place,\" the person who might have touched it is pure. We have seen this principle before in mishnah three.", + "[It is clean] whether the water was in vessels or in the ground. Rabbi Shimon says: if in vessels he is deemed unclean but if in the ground he is deemed clean. The first opinion holds that it does not matter whether the object was floating in water on the ground, let's say in a pond, or in water in a vessel. In both cases it is considered to not have a fixed place. Rabbi Shimon says that if the water is in a vessel then we consider the impure thing to have a place, because the vessel is set in a specific place.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if the doubt arose when the man went down into the water he is deemed unclean, but if when he came up he is deemed clean. Rabbi Judah notes that when a person gets into water and there is something floating in the water, it is normal for the thing to come closer and even touch the person. Thus, if the doubt arose when he was getting into the water, he is impure. But when someone gets out of water, it is normal for things to move away from him. Thus in this case the person is pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even if there is only enough room for a man and the uncleanness the former remains clean. Rabbi Yose rules that even if there is only enough room in the water for the person and the object, thereby making it quite likely that the person touched the object, the person remains clean. Note that he seems to simply apply the rule cases of doubtful uncleanness where the impurity is moving are pure. This is a legal truth even if it doesn't seem to be realistic." + ], + [ + "\"In the case of a doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean:\" How so? If an unclean person stretched his foot between clean liquids and there is doubt whether he touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. If a man had an unclean loaf in his hand and he stretched it out between clean liquids, and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. This section deals with cases where something might have touched an unclean liquid and it is ruled impure. Since liquids are susceptible to impurity according to toraitic law, these liquids are impure.", + "\"But if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed, it is deemed clean.\" How so? If a man had in his hand a stick on the end of which there was an unclean liquid and he threw it among clean loaves and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. Liquids do not convey impurity according to toraitic law only through rabbinic decree. Therefore, in these cases the loaf remains pure. Note that although the source of uncleanness seems to be moving, the sages say that since it is stationary on the stick, it is not moving. Were it moving it would obviously not convey impurity in cases of doubt, as we have learned previously." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with cases of doubtful impurity involving liquids.", + "Rabbi Yose says: a condition of doubt in the case of liquids is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels. Rabbi Yose holds that if there is a case of doubt involving impure liquids that might have defiled food, the food is impure. But if the doubt involves vessels, the vessels remain pure. He illustrates this in section two.", + "How so? If there were two jars, the one unclean and the other clean, and he made dough with the contents of one of them and a doubt arose as to whether he prepared it with the contents of the unclean, or of the clean one, such is \"a condition of doubt in the case of liquids [which] is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels.\" In this case, the dough is impure because it might have been made with the water from the impure jar. But the trough in which the dough was kneaded remains pure." + ], + [ + "\"If there is doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean.\" This section is just a quote of mishnah seven without any expansion. It is explained in Yadayim 2:4 (a whole tractate about the impurity of hands!). For now it is enough to note that any case of doubt involving the impurity of hands is ruled leniently.", + "\"Any doubt that arose in a public domain is deemed clean. This clause will be explicated in chapters five and six.", + "\"A condition of doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes\": [For instance, he is uncertain whether] he ate unclean food or drank unclean liquids, whether he immersed his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or whether there fell on his head and the greater part of his body three log of drawn water, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. But if a condition of doubt arose concerning a father of uncleanness even though it was only rabbinical, it is deemed unclean. If there is a doubt and the impurity is only of rabbinic ordinance (derabanan) then the doubt is ruled clean. The mishnah gives a couple of examples of this. The first is when a person ate or drank something and is not sure if it is unclean. A person is only impure \"derabanan\" if he eats or drinks something impure. The second is concerning drawn water. The rabbis decreed that drawn water defiles if a person immerses his head and most of his body in them or if three log of drawn water falls on him (we shall learn more about this in Tractate Mikvaot). In both of these cases, the doubt is deemed pure. But if the doubt involved a \"father of uncleanness\" whose provenance is derabanan, then the doubt is unclean. For example, \"mixed blood\" which is blood that came out of a person, some when he was alive (doesn't defile) and some after his death (does defile). Such blood is a \"derabanan father of uncleanness.\" In this case, although the doubt is only derabanan, it defiles." + ], + [ + "\"A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food\"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees. The Pharisees are known, at least in rabbinic literature, to have eaten regular non-sacred food in a state of purity. Nevertheless, the mishnah notes that they ruled leniently if a doubt occurred as to the purity of the food. In this case, the doubt is ruled pure. The leniency is because the law does not actually require non-sacred food to be eaten in a state of purity.", + "\"A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz\" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found. This is a general principle that we learned in 3:5 all cases of impurity are judged by what we can see when they are found. The mishnah will return to the case of the sheretz, the creepy crawly thing which is a father of impurity, at the end of chapter 9. We should note that the mishnah uses \"sheretz\" merely as an example. The same would be true of any \"father of impurity.\" All cases are judged by the time at which they are found.", + "\"A condition of doubt concerning negaim\" it is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. We learned this in Negaim 5:4-5. Briefly if a doubt arises concerning a nega, a sign of scale disease, and the person has not yet been deemed impure, then the doubt is ruled clean. But if it occurs after the person was deemed impure, then the doubtful case is deemed unclean.", + "\"A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow\" [in such a condition of doubt he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. Here a doubt occurs as to whether a person is a nazirite or not. For instance, he said, \"I am a nazirite if my wife gives birth to a child.\" His wife then has a baby who dies and it is unknown whether the child was viable and something just happened that caused it to die, in which case he is a nazirite, or the child was never viable, which means he is not a nazirite, because he never had a child. In such a case, he is deemed not to be a nazirite.", + "\"A condition of doubt concerning first-borns\" whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof. In this case there is some doubt whether a human or an animal is a first-born. If the human was a first-born the father must redeem the boy by giving five selas to the priest. If a clean animal was the first-born the animal itself must be given to the priest. If it was a donkey, an impure animal, then the owner must give a sheep to the priest (see Bekhorot for more info on all of this). In all of these cases we invoke the rule that the one who wishes to extract something from his fellow must bring proof. Since the priest cannot prove that the animal was a first-born, the owner or father need not give anything to the priest." + ], + [ + "\"And a condition of doubt concerning sacrifices\" if a woman has experienced five doubtful cases of miscarriage or five discharges of doubtful zivah she brings only one sacrifice and may then eat other sacrifices, she being under no obligation to bring the remainder. The final mishnah of our chapter explains the last case of leniency with regard to doubt. The entire mishnah is found in Keritot 1:7. Below is my explanation from there: There are two situations that are described here. 1) A woman had genital discharge for three consecutive days once a month for five months and she doesn’t know if these occurred during her menstrual cycle, in which case she was not a “zavah” and does not need to bring a sacrifice, or not during her menstrual cycle and she is a zavah and does need to bring a sacrifice. 2) She had five miscarriages and she doesn’t know whether what she miscarried counts as a birth and she must bring a sacrifice or doesn’t count as a birth and she does not bring a sacrifice. In both of these cases, the woman might be liable for as many as five sacrifices (each consisting of an olah and a hatat) or she might not be liable at all. The rule in this case is that she needs to bring only one sacrifice and then she can eat any sacrificial meat, as is always the case when a woman brings a sacrifice for being a zavah or for giving birth. While she can, if she wants, bring four more sacrifices, she need not do so." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A [dead] sheretz and a [dead] frog in a public domain,
And so also [if there was there] an olive's bulk of a corpse and an olive's bulk of carrion,
A bone of a corpse and a bone of carrion;
A clod of clean earth and a clod from a doubtful grave area
A clod of clean earth and a clod from the land of the Gentiles,
Or if there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked through one of them but it is not known which,
Or if overshadowed one of them but it is not known which, or he shifted one of them but it is not known which:
Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.
Today's mishnah brings up a series of cases in which one of two possible things occurred one which would have caused him to be impure and one in which he was not impure. In the end of the mishnah we can see that the rabbis and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to whether or not the person is pure or impure.
Section one: A dead sheretz causes impurity but a dead frog does not because it is not one of the defiling creepy crawly things listed in Leviticus 11:29.
Section two: Flesh from a corpse defiles in all ways, but flesh from carrion of an animal defiles only by touch and by carrying, not by overshadowing.
Section three: Bone of carrion is pure. Bone from a corpse defiles through contact and carrying.
Sections four and five: Earth from an area that might have been a graveyard defiles through contact and carrying, as does dirt from outside of the land of Israel.
Section seven: This section refers to all of the sections above.
Section eight: Rabbi Akiva says that doubtful cases of impurity in the public domain are pure only if the person didn't perform any action. But in the cases listed here the person moved, carried or overshadowed one of the objects that might have been impure, and therefore he is impure.
The other sages disagree doubtful cases of impurity are always pure in the public domain." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday's mishnah, in which a person was not sure if he had been defiled in the public domain.", + "One who said, \"I touched an object but I do not know whether it was unclean or clean,\" or \"I touched one but I do not know which of the two I touched\": Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean. This section refers to the frog and sheretz (dead creepy crawly thing) case from section one in yesterday's mishnah. The person knows that he touched one of the two, but isn't sure which one he touched. Some commentators point out that a turtle, which does count as a sheretz, might be considered to look a little like a frog. This might be especially true when they are dead, which is when the sheretz defiles. The positions of the sages and R. Akiva are the same as they were above Rabbi Akiva says that he is impure and the sages say that he is pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says that he is unclean in every case and clean only in that of the path, since it is the usual custom for people to walk but it is not their usual practice to touch. Rabbi Yose distinguishes between the person who walked down the path but doesn't know whether it was the pure or impure path and the other cases. Walking down a path is a normal activity. Therefore, we can assume he might not remember which path he walked down. But randomly touching things (like bones or dead flesh!) is not normal. He could live without touching these things. Therefore, he is considered impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah goes back to the case of the two paths, one pure and one impure. The case discussed here is one where he walks down both paths.", + "If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and one walked on one of them and then prepared clean foods which were then eaten and, then he was sprinkled upon once and a second time and he performed immersion and became clean, then he walked on the second path and then prepared clean foods, the latter are clean. This case is a bit complicated. The man walks down one of the paths and doesn't know which one he walked down. After walking down the first path, he goes and prepares food, probably terumah. After having prepared the food, he realizes that he might have become unclean so he cleanses himself by having the hatat waters sprinkled on him and by going to the mikveh. He is now certainly clean. Then he goes down the second path (seems to have forgotten that this was not a wise thing to do). And then he prepares food again. The first food was originally deemed clean because of the sages' opinion in mishnah one. The second is also deemed clean because we also don't know if it was impure, since he was purified after having walked down the first path. In other words, each set of food is judged on its own, as if the other case didn't even happen.", + "If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. However, if both sets of food are still in existence, then we can't look at each set individually. In this case, we must consider both of them as potentially impure. If they are terumah, both are \"suspended.\" This means that they are not burned, because they might not be impure, but neither can they be eaten because it is forbidden to eat impure terumah.", + "If he had not become clean in the meantime, the first is held in suspense and the second must be burnt. If he didn't become clean in the meanwhile then we know that the second set of food must be impure because by this point he has walked down both paths. If the first set of food is still in existence, it is suspended, as it was in section two." + ], + [ + "If there was a sheretz and a frog in a public domain and a man touched one of them and then prepared clean foods which were subsequently consumed; and then he immersed, and then he touched the other and then prepared clean foods, the latter are deemed clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he did not immerse in the meanwhile, the first are held in suspense and the second must be burnt .
This mishnah is basically the same mishnah as yesterday's mishnah, except the doubt about whether the person was impure is slightly different. In today's mishnah the person is not sure whether he touched a frog, in which case he is pure, or a sheretz, a dead creepy crawly thing, in which case he is impure. The mishnah teaches that the rule here is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah concerning one who walked down two paths, one of which was impure. For an explanation, see yesterday's mishnah." + ], + [ + "If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked by one of them and then prepared clean food, and subsequently another man came and walked by the second path and then prepared clean foods: The difference between this case and that in the previous two mishnayot is that here we have two people, one of whom is definitely impure. The food prepared by one of them must be impure, although the other food must be pure.", + "Rabbi Judah rules: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean. But if they asked for a ruling simultaneously, both are to be declared unclean. Rabbi Judah says that if each asked a sage for a ruling individually, then each is considered separately and all of the food is pure. This is because we invoke the normal rule, that cases of doubtful impurity are pure. However, if both ask together then we must treat this as if one person walked down both paths without immersing in between. One must be impure, and therefore both are regarded as impure.", + "Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean. Rabbi Yose rules more stringently and says that since one is definitely unclean, both must be treated as unclean." + ], + [ + "If there were two loaves, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man ate one of them and then prepared clean food, and afterwards another man came and ate the second loaf and then prepared clean food:
Rabbi Judah ruled: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean, but if they asked simultaneously both are to be declared unclean.
Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean.
This mishnah contains the same ruling as yesterday's mishnah, it just refers to a different case of doubtful impurity. Whereas yesterday's case discussed a situation in which we are not sure which of two men walked down an impure path, today's mishnah discusses a case where we are not sure which of two men ate an impure loaf of bread. Other than that, the mishnah is the same, so look at yesterday's mishnah for an explanation." + ], + [ + "If a man sat in a public domain and someone came and trod on his clothes, or spat and he touched his spit, on account of the spit terumah must be burnt, but on account of the clothes the majority principle is followed. Spit of undetermined origin found in the public domain is considered impure (see 4:5). Therefore, if the person who was spit upon (yuck) then touched terumah, the terumah must be burned lest it is impure. However, when it comes to this person's clothes we follow a majority principle. If a majority of the people who were walking past him were pure, then the clothes that one of them touched are pure. If the majority is impure (for instance the person finds himself in a zav colony), then the clothes are impure.", + "If a man slept in the public domain, when he rises his clothes have midras uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say that they are clean. If a person slept out in the public domain then it is likely that many people have stepped on his clothes. If any one of them was a zav, he would have imparted midras impurity, the type of impurity that is transmitted by pressing on something (leaning, sitting, standing etc.), to the clothes. Rabbi Meir rules strictly and says that the clothes are impure. The other sages retain the rule that cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are pure.", + "If a man touched someone in the night and it is not known whether it was one who was alive or dead, but in the morning when he got up he found him to be dead: Rabbi Meir says that he is clean. But the sages rule that he is unclean, since all doubtful cases of uncleanness are [determined] in accordance with [their appearance at] the time they are discovered. In this case, Rabbi Meir follows the rule that cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are pure. But the sages say that in this case we must follow the rule that was found in 3:5 we always judge cases of doubtful impurity according to how they appear at the time they are discovered. Since the person was dead when he was discovered, and we are not sure if he was alive when the person touched him, we must consider the person to be impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe spit of a woman who is a menstruant is impure. Women who are menstruating are expected not to go around spitting in the public domain. Our mishnah deals with a town in which there are women who may not observe this i.e. they go around spitting. Glad this doesn't seem to happen as much anymore.", + "If there was in the town one who was not of sound sense, a Gentile, or a Samaritan woman, all spit encountered in the town is deemed unclean. The woman who is not of sound senses is not assumed to refrain from spitting when she is menstruating. Gentile and Samaritan women also don't refrain from spitting because they don't know or perhaps don't care that their spit defiles (when menstruating). Therefore, if there is one such woman in the city, all found spit is impure. Note that according to rabbinic understanding of the Torah, only Jews transmit impurity. However, the rabbis decreed that Gentiles too can transmit impurity. Thus a Gentile menstruant's spit is impure. Samaritans are sometimes considered as Jews, and sometimes not. The rabbis said that a Samaritan woman is considered as a menstruant from birth. See Nidah 4:1 (we will learn this in a few months).", + "If a woman trod on a man's clothes or sat with him in a boat: If she knew that he was one who eats terumah, his clothes remain clean: But if not, he must ask her. A zavah or a menstruant impart midras impurity by pressing on clothing. This includes sitting on something, leaning on it or standing upon something. If a woman stepped on a man's clothing or sat close to her on a boat, he needs to know whether she is impure if he wants to eat terumah. So if the woman knew that he ate terumah, for instance, if she knew that he was a priest, then we can assume that she would have been careful and his clothes are clean. However, if she didn't know him, he must ask her if she is indeed a menstruant or zavah. You can imagine that this would have been awkward. Probably not a good way to start a conversation, especially on the tight quarters of a boat." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter five deals with cases where witness testify as to whether a person had been defiled.", + "If one witness says, \"You have become unclean,\" but he says, \"I have not become unclean,\" he is regarded as clean. His own testimony outweighs that of the witness, and therefore he is considered clean.", + "If two witnesses say, \"You have become unclean,\" and he says, \"I have not become unclean,\" Rabbi Meir says: he is unclean. But the sages say: he may be believed on his own evidence. Rabbi Meir says that the two witnesses outweigh the person's own statement that he is pure. Two witnesses are always believed. Therefore, he must accept that he is impure. The other sages say that since he claims to know with certainty that he is pure, he may continue to act upon his own words.", + "If one witness says, \"You have become unclean,\" and two witnesses say, \"He has not become unclean,\" whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is regarded as clean. Since two witnesses say he is clean, he is not considered unclean no matter where the defilement purportedly occurred.", + "If two witnesses say, \"He has become unclean’, and one witness says, ‘\"He has not become unclean,\" whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is regarded as unclean. The opposite case: since two witnesses say he is unclean, he is considered unclean no matter where it occurred.", + "If one witness says, \"He has become unclean,\" and another says, \"He has not become unclean,\" or if one woman says, \"He has become unclean’, and another woman says, \"He has not become unclean,\" he is regarded as unclean if in the private domain, but if in a public domain he is regarded as clean. In this case there is contradictory testimony between two men or two women, one saying he is unclean and one saying he is clean. If this occurred in the public domain, he is clean because cases of doubtful impurity are clean in the public domain. However, if the defilement supposedly occurred in the private domain, he must be considered unclean. Women are generally not allowed to testify in rabbinic law. However, this mishnah teaches that one woman's testimony with regard to matters of impurity is sufficient to create suspicion that he might be impure. Were the opposing witness a man, the mishnah would have said that the man's testimony outweighs her testimony. But since the opposing witness was also a woman, the person in question must be considered impure, if it occurred in the private domain." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A place that was a private domain and then became a public domain and then was turned again into a private domain: while it is a private domain any condition of doubt arising in it is unclean but while it is a public domain any condition of doubt arising in it is deemed clean. The mishnah discusses a place that was essentially a private domain and then many people passed through it, causing it to become a public domain temporarily. Basically, if a situation of doubtful impurity arises, the place is judged as it is at the moment when the doubt arises. If the doubt arises when it is a private domain, the rule is strict, as it always is in a private domain. But there is room to be lenient if the doubt arises in a public domain.", + "If a man who was dangerously ill in a private domain was taken out into a public domain and then brought back into a private domain, while he is in the private domain any condition of doubt arising through him is deemed unclean but while he is in the public domain any condition of doubt arising through him is deemed clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the public domain causes a break. This is a similar rule with regard to a person who is dangerously ill and about to die. He begins in a private domain, others then take him out, assumedly on a stretcher and he passes through a public domain and then he goes back into a private domain. If he is found dead in the public domain, then only the things that are with him in the public domain are impure. We don't assume that he died in the first private domain because when a doubt occurs in a public domain, the doubt remains pure. However, if he is found dead in the second private domain then anything that was with him in the first private domain is also considered impure. This is because we apply the normal rule any case of doubt that arises in the private domain is impure. The doubt here is whether he was dead when he went through the first private domain. Rabbi Shimon rules that the public domain interrupts because we can't say he was dead in the first private domain, alive in the public domain and then dead again in the second private domain. Since we treat the things that were with him in the public domain as pure, then we are in essence saying he must have died in the second private domain. Only the things found there are impure." + ], + [ + "There are four cases of doubt which Rabbi Joshua ruled are unclean and the sages rule are clean.
How so? If an unclean man stood and a clean man passed by or the clean man stood and the unclean one passed by; or if an unclean object was in a private domain and a clean one in the public domain or the clean object was in the private domain and the unclean one in the public domain, and there is doubt whether there was contact or not, or whether there was overshadowing or not, or whether there was shifting or not: Rabbi Joshua rules that the clean becomes unclean, But the sages rule that the clean remains clean.
There are four cases here:
1) An unclean man is standing and a clean man passes by him and he may have been defiled by contact, overshadowing or shifting.
2) The same situation but the clean man is standing and the unclean one is moving.
3) There is an unclean object in the private domain and an clean one in the public domain and the clean one may have had contact with the unclean one.
4) The same situation but the positions are reversed.
Rabbi Joshua says that since at least one of the elements was in the private domain, the doubt is impure.
The other sages say that for impurity to occur both elements have to be in the same situation within the private domain both must be moving or both must be standing. Since in all of these cases one element is either not in the private domain or one element is moving and the other standing, there is no impurity." + ], + [ + "If a tree standing in a public domain had within it an object of uncleanness and a man climbed to the top of it, and a doubt arose as to whether he did or did not touch the object of uncleanness, such a condition of doubt is unclean. The top of the tree is considered a private domain and therefore a case of doubtful impurity that occurs there is ruled unclean.", + "If one put his hand into a hole [in the wall] in which there was an object of uncleanness and there is doubt whether he did or did not touch it, such a condition of doubt is unclean. Similarly, the hole is considered to be a private domain.", + "If a shop that was unclean was open toward a public domain and there is doubt whether a man did or did not enter it, such a condition of doubt is clean. Although the shop is a private domain, the doubt actually arose in the public domain we don't Therefore, he is pure.", + "If there is doubt whether he did or did not touch anything, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. Same as section three, except here he may have touched something impure in the store.", + "If there were two shops, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man entered into one of them, and a doubt arose as to whether he entered the unclean, or the clean one, such a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. In this case he knows he went into one of the stores, both of which are private domains. Therefore, the doubt is which private domain he went into. Since the doubt occurred in a private domain, he is impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah demonstrates that the general rule that conditions of doubt in the private domain are unclean and in the public domain are clean remains stable, no matter how many doubts about the uncleanness there are.", + "However many doubts and doubts about doubts that you can multiply, a condition of doubt in a private domain is unclean, and in a public domain it is deemed clean. This is the general principle that will be illustrated in the continuation of the mishnah.", + "How so? If a man entered an alley and an unclean object was in the courtyard, and a doubt arose as to whether he entered or did not enter [the courtyard]; Or if an object of uncleanness was in a house and there is doubt whether he entered or not; This is the first doubt he is not sure if he even went into the courtyard, or he is not sure whether he entered the house.", + "Or even if he entered, there is doubt whether the uncleanness was there or not; This is the second level of doubt even if he entered he is not sure if the potential source uncleanness was even there.", + "Or even if it was there, there is doubt whether it consisted of the prescribed minimum or not; Third level of doubt even if it was there, he is not sure if it was large enough to defile.", + "Or even if it consisted of the prescribed minimum, there is doubt whether it was unclean or clean; Fourth doubt even if it was there, and it was large enough, he is not sure if it was even unclean.", + "Or even if it was unclean, there is doubt whether he touched it or not; Fifth doubt even if he went in, he is not sure if he touched it.", + "Any such condition of doubt is deemed unclean. In all of these cases, despite the fact that there is a multiplicity of doubts, since the doubt occurred in the private domain, he is unclean.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: if there is a doubt whether he entered, he is clean, but if there is a doubt whether he touched it, he is unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says if he is not sure whether he even went in, then he is clean. Evidently, Rabbi Eliezer does not consider this to be a case of doubtful impurity in the private domain, because he is not sure if he even entered the private domain. However, if he knows he went in but is just not sure if he touched the source of impurity, then he is impure because this is a case of doubtful impurity in the private domain." + ], + [ + "If a man entered a valley in the rainy season and there was an uncleanness in a certain field, and he stated, \"I went into that place but I do not know whether I entered that field or not: Rabbi Eliezer rules that he is clean; But the sages rule that he is unclean. In mishnah seven below, we will learn that during the rainy months, a field in the valley is a private domain. Therefore, we again have a case where a person is not sure whether he entered a private domain. Rabbi Eliezer considers this a case of doubtful entrance, and as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, in such cases Rabbi Eliezer rules that he is clean. The other sages rule more strictly and deem him to be unclean." + ], + [ + "A condition of doubt in a private domain is unclean unless he says, \"I did not touch the unclean thing.\" A condition of doubt in a public domain is clean unless he can say, \"I did touch the unclean thing.\" In the private domain there is a presumption of uncleanness. To override that he must be able to say with certainty that he did not touch the source of uncleanness. Similarly, in the public domain there is a presumption of cleanness. He is unclean only if he knows for certain that he touched the source of uncleanness.", + "What is regarded as a public domain? The paths of Bet Gilgul and similar places are regarded as a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat, and a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer says: they only mentioned the paths of Bet Gilgul because they are regarded as a private domain in both respects. The location of Bet Gilgul is uncertain. However, the Babylonian Talmud says that the paths there are narrow and sharply angled such that even a single person would have trouble running there with a pack on. The first opinion in our mishnah says that paths like this are considered to be private domains when it comes to Shabbat. This is relevant to the issue of carrying. We shold note that many commentators say that this is not a true private domain rather it is what is called a \"karmelit.\" A \"karmelit\" is a zone that is not public because to be a public domain for Shabbat it must truly be a public thoroughfare. However, it is not truly a private domain. When it comes to issues of uncleanness, the area is considered a public domain, which will also result in a leniency. We can see that this opinion is in essence lenient in both directions. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the reason that the paths of Bet Gilgul were even mentioned in the earlier tradition. The earlier sages sited these paths to say that they were considered a private domain for both counts. We can see here that the background to our mishnah was some earlier halakhah that mentioned these paths. The sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed as to what was special about these paths.", + "Paths that open out towards cisterns, pits, caverns or wine-presses are regarded as a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat and as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness. Paths that end on one side with a cistern, pit, cave or winepress are deemed as private domains with regard to the rules of Shabbat. However, when it comes to the rules of uncleanness, they are a public domain." + ], + [ + "A valley: in summer time is a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat, but as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness; In the summer there are more people in the valley working the fields. Therefore, for matters of uncleanness it is considered a public domain. When it comes to Shabbat it is still a private domain, or, as we explained in yesterday's mishnah, at least not a public domain.", + "And in the rainy season it is regarded as a private domain in both respects. In the rainy season people can't work the land in the valleys. Therefore, it is not considered a public domain for either purpose." + ], + [ + "A basilica: is a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat but as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness. A basilica is a large building through which many people pass. Probably something akin to city hall in our day. When it comes to Shabbat it is still a building and therefore it is considered a private domain. However, when it comes to the laws of uncleanness since so many people pass through and it is a public building, it is considered a public domain.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if one is standing at one door can see those that enter and leave at the other door, it is regarded as a private domain in both respects; otherwise it is regarded as a private domain in respect of Shabbat and as a public domain in respect of uncleanness. Rabbi Judah adds a criterion to the definition of when a basilica is a public or private domain. If it is small enough so that one standing at one door can see the other door, then it is a private domain. If it is larger than that, he agrees with the previous opinion." + ], + [ + "A covered forum:: is a private domain in respect of Shabbat and a public domain in respect of the laws of uncleanness; I have translated the term that begins this mishnah, in Hebrew \"paran,\" in accordance with most commentators explanation, who say it is similar to a basilica. The forum is considered a private domain for Shabbat, but since many people have access to it, it is a public domain for matters of uncleanness.", + "And so too the sides. Rabbi Meir says: the sides are regarded as a private domain in both respects. The sides of the forum are, according to the first opinion, treated the same way as is the forum itself. However, Rabbi Meir says that since people are not found as much on the sides, it is considered a private domain even for matters of impurity.", + "And so too the sides. Rabbi Meir says: the sides are regarded as a private domain in both respects. The \"colonnades\" referred to here is a hall that is supported by columns and is open on multiple ends.", + "Colonnades: are a private domain in respect of Shabbat and a public domain in respect of the laws of uncleanness. A courtyard typically has one main entrance and would not be considered a public domain for any matter. But if people go in one door and then go out another door, it has become a public thoroughfare. In such a case it is not a public domain for the matter of Shabbat, but it is a public domain for matters of impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A potter who left his pots and went down to drink: the innermost pots remain clean but the outer ones are unclean. A potter who wished to preserve the purity of his pots, left them for a few moments in the public domain unguarded. When he returns he must regard the outer ones as defiled lest an am haaretz, a Jew who does not preserve his purity, touched them with his cloaks which are considered impure. Note that the am haaretz might have done so accidentally for when the potter left his pots in the public domain, the path became a bit narrower. However, the inner pots are pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says: When is this so? When they are not tied together, but when they are tied together, all the pots are clean. Albeck explains that Rabbi Yose thinks that the concern is that the am haaretz picked up one of the pots to inspect it. If the pots are tied together, then he could not have done so and they remain pure.", + "One who gave over his key to an \"am haaretz\" the house remains clean, since he only gave him the guarding of the key. A person who preserves the purity of the objects in his house who has given over his key for guarding to a person who does not observe the laws of purity need not worry that the am haaretz went into his house and defiled the things there. Just as is the case today, when one gives his key to his neighbor the understanding is that he is only giving him the key. He does not expect him to enter the house." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with an am haaretz who was left in the house of a person who wished to preserve the purity of the objects in his house. The question is whether we have to be concerned lest he touched anything in the house and thereby defiled it.", + "If he left an am haaretz in his house awake and found him awake, or asleep and found him asleep, or awake and found him asleep, the house remains clean. If he left him awake and found him awake in the same place where he left him, then the owner need not worry that the am haaretz has moved around and touched other objects. According to the mishnah, an am haaretz is concerned lest the owner of the house come back suddenly and catch him touching his stuff. If he left him asleep and found him asleep, he need not be concerned lest he woke up in the meanwhile and touched something. Similarly, if he left him awake and he fell asleep he need not be concerned that his stuff was touched.", + "If he left him asleep and found him awake, the house is unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where he can stretch out his hand and touch it. However, if the owner left him asleep and when he came back the am haaretz was awake, Rabbi Meir says that all of the vessels in the house are considered defiled. According to Rabbi Meir, the am haaretz reasons that since the owner left him asleep he will think that he is still asleep and he won't come back to make sure that he doesn't touch any of his stuff. Since the am haaretz is not afraid of getting caught, he won't hesitate to make himself feel at home. The sages say that only things that can be touched by the am haaretz while stretching out his hand are unclean. It is interesting sociologically to note that the mishnah does anticipate a rabbi (or someone else who is cautious about the purity laws) leaving an am haaretz alone in his house. However, it is equally interesting to note that the mishnah does not afford the am haaretz a full degree of trust." + ], + [ + "One who left craftsmen in his house, the house is unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir. The craftsmen that he left in his home are amei haaretz (plural of am haaretz). Just as he held in yesterday's mishnah, so too here Rabbi Meir holds that all of the items in the house are considered defiled. The owner of the house does not sit there and guard them to make sure they don't touch anything.", + "But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where they can stretch out their hand and touch it. This is the same as their opinion in yesterday's mishnah. Only the things that they can reach out and touch from the place where they are doing their work are impure." + ], + [ + "If the wife of a haver left the wife of an am haaretz grinding grain in her house, if the handmill stopped turning, the house is unclean. But if the handmill did not stop turning, that part of the house which she can stretch out her hand and touch is unclean. A haver is a term used to describe the opposite of an am haaretz. The wife of a haver has the status of a haver. She leaves the wife of an am haaretz, who also has the status of am haaretz, grinding a handmill in her home. If the am haaretz stops turning the mill, we must suspect that she will walk around the house and touch things. Therefore, all of the objects in the house are suspected of being impure. But if she kept milling the whole time, we need only be concerned about the things that are close enough for her to reach out and touch.", + "If there were two women, the house is unclean in either case, since while the one is grinding, the other can go about touching, the words of Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where she can stretch out her hand and touch it. If there were two women in the house taking turns at grinding (this is hard work), then Rabbi Meir is consistent with his position from mishnayot two and three, the whole house is impure. The other sages are also consistent. We need only be concerned lest she touched things that are within hand's reach. ." + ], + [ + "One who left am haaretz in his house to guard him, if he can see those that enter and leave, only food and liquids and uncovered earthenware are unclean, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. The owner of the house left an am haaretz in his house for the am haaretz to be guarded there. If the owner can see whoever comes in and comes out then only food, liquid and uncovered earthenware vessels are impure. Couches and seats are impure because the sages did not decree that an am haaretz defiles place that he sits that they should become \"fathers of impurity.\" Similarly, earthenware vessels with tightly fitting lids are not impure because a male am haaretz does not defile such vessels just by shifting them, and they can't be defiled by touch.", + "And if he cannot see either those who enter or those who leave, even though the am haaretz has to be led and even though he was bound, all is unclean. However, if the owner cannot see who is going in or out, then we must be concerned lest someone else came in and defiled the vessels in the house. Thus everything is deemed impure, even if we can be sure that the am haaretz himself didn't touch anything because he was tied up." + ], + [ + "If tax collectors entered a house, the house is unclean. The tax collectors are amei haaretz and since they enter the house to collect something in lieu of taxes we must be concerned that they touched the things in the house and therefore everything is impure.", + "If a Gentile was with them they are believed if they say, \"we did not enter\" but they are not believed if they say \"we didn't touch anything.\" I have explained this section according to Albeck's preferred version. If a Gentile boss is with the tax collectors they are only believed to say that we didn't go into a certain house or room. But they are not believed to say that they didn't touch something in certain room into which we know they entered because the Gentile would have instructed them to touch whatever he felt was necessary. However, if no Gentile is with them then they are even believed if they say that they didn’t touch anything, since they came with a specific purpose in mind.", + "If thieves entered a house, only that part in which the feet of the thieves have stepped is unclean. Thieves who come into a house will only defile the places where we know they walked. We can assume that thieves are going to want to be in and out as quickly as possible, therefore we need not fear that they walked elsewhere and touched other things.", + "And what do they cause to be unclean? Food and liquids and open earthenware, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. This is the same as in mishnah five above.", + "If a Gentile or a woman was with them, all is unclean. A Gentile and a female am haaretz both defile by sitting on something or by shifting earthenware vessels. Therefore, everything in the house is impure." + ], + [ + "One who left his clothes in the cubbies of the bath house attendants: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that they are clean, But the sages say: [they are not clean] unless he gives him the key or the seal or unless he left some sign on them. The mishnah describes bath house attendants to whom one gives his clothes to watch over while bathing. The bath house attendant would put the clothes in the cubby. The fear is that someone else might have touched the clothes and thereby defiled them. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules leniently the clothes are assumed to have been watched over and they are pure. The other sages rule more strictly. The clothes are pure only if the owner takes some precaution to make sure no one else touches them. If the attendant gives him the key they are pure. If he gives him a seal to make sure no one opens the cubby, they are also pure. Finally, if he puts a sign on the clothes so that he could tell if they were touched, then they are pure.", + "One who left his clothes from one wine-pressing to the next, his clothes remain clean. This refers to a priest who wants to make sure that the wine he presses is pure. Therefore he has special clothes that he uses just for wine pressing. If he leaves them from one wine pressing to the next, they can stay pure.", + "If he left them with an Israelite [the clothes are unclean] unless he says, \"I have watched over them carefully.\" However, if he gives them to a regular Israelite to watch over, the Israelite must be able to declare that he watched over them carefully. If he is not sure, then the clothes must be treated as potentially having been defiled." + ], + [ + "One who was clean and had given up the thought of eating [pure food]: Rabbi Judah says that it remains clean, since it is usual for unclean persons to keep away from it. But the sages say that it is deemed unclean. The person described here is someone who usually eats his food while the food is pure (as he is). Then he decides to no longer eat in a state of purity. Rabbi Judah says that the food remains pure because people have grown accustomed to staying away from his food because they know that he wants it to be pure. The other sages disagree and say that once he decides to no longer eat pure food, we can't be sure that he preserved the purity of this food and it must be assumed to be impure.", + "If his hands were clean and he had given up the thought of eating [pure food], even though he says, \"I know that my hands have not become unclean,\" his hands are unclean, since the hands are always busy. Once the person decides to no longer eat his food in a state of purity, he can't really be trusted to keep his hands pure. Hands are \"busy\" they constantly touch things. Therefore, even if he thinks he preserved their purity, his hands are unclean." + ], + [ + "A woman entered her house to bring out some bread for a poor man and when she came out she found him standing at the side of loaves of terumah; Similarly a woman went out and found her friend raking out coals under a cooking pot of terumah: Rabbi Akiva says that they are unclean, But the sages say that they are clean. There are two situations in this section. In both a woman leaves an am haaretz near some terumah food. In both Rabbi Akiva says that the food must be reckoned unclean lest the am haaretz touched the food and the rabbis say that the food remains clean.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila: but why does Rabbi Akiva rule that they are unclean and the sages rule that they are clean? Because women are gluttonous and each may be suspected of uncovering her neighbor's cooking pot to get to know what she is cooking. While it looks like Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila is explaining the dispute, he is really explaining Rabbi Akiva's position, specifically why should he rule so strictly that even the cooked dish is defiled? We might assume that the woman won't touch the inside of a hot dish and earthenware vessels are not susceptible to impurity from the outside. It would seem that the food should be safe from impurity. Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila answers that women are gluttonous, which really means that they are exceedingly curious about what is being cooked in the pot. The woman will inevitably uncover the pot to see what's cooking. Once she touches it, the food is defiled. Perhaps this is the source for the phrase she is always sticking her nose in other people's pots?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter eight continues to deal with a person cautious about matters of purity who lives in close proximity to an am haaretz, one who does not observe the laws of purity.", + "One who dwells in a courtyard with an am haaretz and forgot some vessels in the courtyard, even though they were jars with tightly fitting lids, or an oven with a tightly fitting cover, they are unclean. All of the vessels that he leaves in the courtyard are impure lest they were defiled by the am haaretz. Earthenware jars with tightly fitting lids cannot be defiled by touch, but if a niddah (a menstruating woman) shifts them, they are impure. Since this might have occurred, the mishnah says these too must be regarded as impure. The first opinion does not differentiate between ovens and other vessels with tightly fitting covers.", + "Rabbi Judah says that an oven is clean if it has a tightly fitting lid. Rabbi Judah says that the oven can be regarded as clean because it is impossible to shift it, since it is attached to the ground.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even an oven is unclean unless he made for it a partition ten handbreadths high. Rabbi Yose rules that even the oven is unclean for we are concerned that the am haaretz may have opened the lid to use the oven. Therefore, to preserve the purity of the oven he must keep the am haaretz away by making a partition at least ten handbreadths high. As a side note, it is again interesting that the mishnah assumes such a high degree of contact between the \"haver\" (the opposite of the am haaretz) and the \"am haaretz.\" People of complete opposite religious inclinations and observances may end up living even in the same courtyard, and if so, the haver will simply have to be more cautious about the purity of his vessels." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is about a person who deposits vessels with an am haaretz. What kind of impurity do we assume that these vessels have contracted?", + "One who deposited vessels with an am haaretz they are unclean with corpse uncleanness and with midras uncleanness. The person who gave over his vessels (this term can include clothes and other items) to an am haaretz must suspect that they have become defiled with corpse uncleanness, which would make them unclean for seven days. He must also treat the clothes as if they have midras uncleanness, which is the uncleanness caused when a zav, zavah or niddah sit or apply pressure on a vessel. Something that has midras uncleanness defiles another person even if it is carried and not touched. Thus the law is stringent in both the length of the impurity and the manner in which the object defiles.", + "If he knew that he eats terumah, they are free from corpse uncleanness but are unclean with midras uncleanness. If the am haaretz knows that the person who deposited the clothes (or other vessels with him) is one who eats terumah, then we can assume that the am haaretz would be careful not to contract corpse impurity. However, his wife might have sat on the vessel or clothes while she was a niddah (a menstruant) and therefore the vessels have to be treated as if they have midras impurity. Thus we can assume that he was diligent, but not that his wife was. We should also note that once she has menstruated she will be considered a niddah until she goes to the mikveh. So if she never went to the mikveh, she wills always count as a niddah.", + "Rabbi Yose says: if he deposited with him a chest full of clothes, they are deemed to be unclean with midras when they are tightly packed, but if they are not tightly packed they are only unclean with madaf uncleanness, even though the key is in the possession of the owner. Rabbi Yose deals with a situation in which the depositor gives the am haaretz a chest full of clothes. If the chest is tightly packed then it is likely that someone sat on it, including the am haaretz's wife, while she was a niddah. Therefore, in this case it has to be treated as if it has midras impurity. However, if it is not full then it only has the lightest form of impurity, which is called madaf impurity. The chest and clothes will only defile food and liquids, but not other vessels or people. The clothes are defiled even if the owner retained possession of the keys to the chest. The problem is that if a niddah shifts the chest, she defiles it, even without touching the clothes. Therefore, the fact that the am haaretz and his wife could not touch the clothes does not mean that they are free of defilement." + ], + [ + "One who loses something during the day and finds it on the same day it remains clean. If it was lost during the daytime and found in the night, or if it was lost in the night and found during the day or if it was lost on one day and found on the next day, it is unclean. This is the general rule: if the night or part of the night has passed over it, it is unclean. If one loses an object during the day and finds it the same day, he can be sure that no one impure had touched it, for had someone stumbled over it, he would have picked it up and taken it. However, at night someone might have stumbled over it without seeing it. Therefore, if night passes over it, it must be assumed to be impure.", + "One who spreads out his clothes: If in a public domain, they remain clean; But if in a private domain they are unclean. If he kept watch over them, they remain clean. If they fell down and he went to bring them, they are unclean. The person here spreads out his clothes in a high place in order for them to dry. If he does this in the public domain, then we have a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain and the clothes are pure. But if he does so in the private domain and there is a chance that someone impure touched the clothes, they have to be assumed impure. If he watches over them, they are pure. If they fall down from the high place in which they were, then someone might have stepped on them. Therefore, even if they are on the ground only for a very short while, they must be treated as impure.", + "If one's bucket fell into the cistern of an ‘am ha-arez and he went to bring something to draw it up with, it is unclean, since it was left for a time in the domain of an am haaretz. The person left his bucket in the domain of the am haaretz while he went to get a rope to bring it up. Even though it is unlikely that the am haaretz touched the bucket, he must treat it as if it is impure." + ], + [ + "One who left his house open and found it open, or locked and found it locked, or open and found it locked, it remains clean. One doesn't assume that someone had broken into one's house and defiled the things in there without some sign of breaking and entering. So if he left the house open or locked and returned and found it in the same state, the house and its contents remain pure. Even if he left it open and found it locked, we don't assume that someone came in and locked the door when he went out.", + "But if he left it closed and found it open: Rabbi Meir says that it is unclean; But the sages say that it remains clean, since, though thieves had been there, they may have changed their mind and gone away. If he left it closed and found it open and then looked around and even it didn't look like anyone had been there, Rabbi Meir says that he must assume that impure thieves touched the objects in the house. Therefore, all of the contents must be regarded as defiled. Obviously, if he could see that people had touched the stuff, he would have to treat it as impure. The other sages say that there is a possibility that no one touched the contents of the house, and therefore the contents remain pure. After all, if thieves had really touched the stuff, one might ask why they didn't steal it." + ], + [ + "If the wife of an am haaretz entered a haver's house to take out his son or his daughter or his cattle, the house remains clean, since she had entered it without permission. The assumption in this mishnah is that the wife of the am haaretz does not stay in the house. She goes in to take out one the child or animal of the haver (a person who is strict about the purity laws, the opposite of the am haaeretz) and she immediately leaves. \"Without permission\" does not mean that she entered the house without permission. It means that she didn't have permission to stay. Therefore, the things in the house remain pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses how spoiled food can be for it no longer to count as food such that it would be susceptible to uncleanness.", + "They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. If food is meant to be human food it stays susceptible to uncleanness until it becomes so despoiled that even a dog won't eat it. However, if the food was meant to be animal food, it is not susceptible to impurity until someone changes his mind and designates it for human consumption. In other words, even if it is fit for human consumption it remains pure unless someone actually decides to eat it.", + "How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. A pigeon living in a pigeon cote above a winepress dies and falls into the winepress (yuck!). When it was alive, the pigeon would have been fit for human consumption (yes, people often ate pigeons back then). However, once it dies and falls into the wine it is no longer considered fit for human consumption. If the owner decides to give it to a Gentile it is impure. This is bird carrion and as we learned in the first mishnah of this tractate, the carrion of pure birds is impure. However, if he decides to give it to a dog, the pigeon is considered animal food and it is pure. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the pigeon is impure for pure bird carrion does not need to be considered food for it to defile.", + "If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence. The three people in this section do not have legal consequences to their intention. They are considered to lack \"da'at\" which I translate as awareness. Therefore, if they intend to eat the food it still is not considered food. However, their actions do have legal consequences. When they pick the food up to eat it, it becomes human food and it is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "The outer parts of vessels that have contracted uncleanness from liquids: Rabbi Eliezer says: they defile liquids but they do not disqualify foods. Rabbi Joshua says: they defile liquids and also disqualify foods. The outsides of these vessels are impure through contact with impure liquids but the inside remains pure. This is a light form of impurity, and the sages will now debate just how light it is. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the backs of the vessels defile liquids, even non-sacred liquids. They don't defile regular food and neither does it disqualify terumah. Rabbi Joshua says that it even disqualifies terumah food. This is because the liquids that defiled the vessel cause the vessel to have second degree impurity. Second degree impurity defiles liquids and disqualifies terumah.", + "Shimon the brother of Azariah says: neither this nor that. Rather, liquids that were defiled from the outer parts of vessels defile at one remove and disqualify at a second remove. It is as if it say, \"that which defiled you did not defile me but you have defiled me.\" According to Albeck, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua were arguing about an older halakhah. Shimon brother of Azariah responds that both of them are incorrect for neither recited the ancient halakhah correctly. Rather, the earlier sages had said that if liquid is defiled by the outer portion of a vessel it has first degree impurity. It will defile terumah and give it second degree impurity. If this terumah that has second degree impurity has contact with other food, it will disqualify it. The final line of the mishnah is a personification of the food (such personifications were found in Parah 8:2-7). The food says to the liquid that which defiled you, the outside of the vessel, was not sufficient to defile me. For the outside of vessels can only defile liquids. But you, Mr. Defiled Liquid, you did defile me!" + ], + [ + "If a kneading trough was sloping downwards and there was dough in the higher part and dripping moisture in the lower part, then three pieces that jointly make up the bulk of an egg cannot be combined together, but two are combined. There is a kneading trough with a sloping side. On the top of the slope, stuck to the sides, are pieces of impure dough. Below them and beneath each piece is some moist liquid. If the dough defiles the moist liquid, then the liquid will defile the trough as well. According to the first opinion, if the dough is in three pieces and together they make up the minimum amount to cause defilement (the bulk of an egg), then they do not join together to defile the liquid. This is because there is not an egg's worth of dough touching any portion of liquid, for each part of the liquid only touches 2/3 of the volume of an egg. However, if there are only two pieces that add up to the volume of an egg, then the pieces do defile the liquid between them because the liquid touches the entire volume of an egg.", + "Rabbi Yose says: the two also cannot be combined unless they compress liquid between them. Rabbi Yose says that for the two pieces of dough to combine they must be pressing the liquid in between them. This means that the liquid is not simply below the pieces of dough, it is right between them, and the dough holds the liquid up, preventing it from flowing to the bottom of the trough.", + "If the liquid was level, even though the piece was the size of a mustard seed they are combined together. If there is liquid simply standing at the bottom of the trough and there is a lot of it, not just moistness on the sides as there is in sections one and two, then even if the pieces are in small crumbs the size of a piece of mustard, they defile the liquid which defiles the trough.", + "Rabbi Dosa says: crumbled food cannot be combined together. Rabbi Dosa says that crumbs don't add up to the requisite amount to transmit impurity. He disagrees only with the opinion in section three, not those in sections one and two." + ], + [ + "If a stick is completely covered with unclean liquid, as soon as it has touched the [water in the] mikveh, it becomes clean, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: only when the whole of it is immersed. According to Rabbi Joshua as soon as any part of the stick covered with impure liquids is put in the mikveh, it is pure. The water of the mikveh \"flows\" through the impure liquids on the stick and purifies them, even before it actually touches them. The sages rule more strictly. The entire stick must be immersed for it to be pure.", + "A flow from one vessel to the other or a slope of dripping moisture does not serve as a connective either for uncleanness or for cleanness. A pool of water serves as a connective in respect both of uncleanness and cleanness. \"Flow\" refers to liquid that is being poured from an upper vessel to a lower vessel. The slope is the sides of the vessel, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. In both of these cases we do not consider the lower liquid to be attached to the upper liquid. As an aside, the purity of \"flow\" was a big debate among ancient Jews. In one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, called Miktzat Maase Torah, the author complains that \"you\" (this refers to the other Jews with whom he doesn't agree) say that a \"flow\" is pure. The fact that in our Mishnah the rabbis do indeed say that the \"flow\" is pure, has been a major proof for scholars who wish to say that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls opposed the Pharisees (with whom the rabbis certainly did identify). While the sloping or flowing liquid does not serve as a connective, a standing pool of water does. If one side is impure, the entire body is pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter nine deals with olives that were pressed in an olive press in which an am haaretz was working. For olives (or any produce) to become susceptible to impurity they must have had contact with one of seven liquids (water, dew, oil, wine, milk, blood or date honey). The secondary requirement is that the produce became wet with the approval of the owners meaning they were not opposed to the produce getting wet. We will learn more about this when we get to tractate Makhshirin, a whole tractate about this subject!\nOur mishnah deals with the liquid that comes out of the oil and whether that is sufficient for the olives to be susceptible to impurity.", + "At what stage do olives become susceptible to uncleanness?
When they exude the moisture [produced] by [their lying in] the vat but not the one [produced while they are still] in the basket, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Rabbi Shimon says: the minimum time prescribed for proper exudation is three days. There are three opinions as to when olives have exuded moisture that makes them susceptible to impurity. Bet Shammai holds that the moisture they exude must occur in the vat into which they are placed to \"warm up.\" This is before they are pressed. The moisture that might have been exuded in the basket in which they were first placed does not count. However, Bet Shammai seems to hold that any moisture that comes out in the vat is to the \"approval\" of the owners and therefore it makes them susceptible. Rabbi Shimon modifies Bet Shammai's opinion. The moisture that comes out during the first three days does not count. They must be in the vat for three days and then if they remain there, the moisture makes them susceptible to impurity.", + "Bet Hillel says: as soon as three olives stick together. Bet Hillel rules more leniently. The olives must become so soft that three of them will stick together.", + "Rabban Gamaliel says: as soon as their preparation is finished, and the sages agree with his view. Rabban Gamaliel rules even more leniently. The olives are not susceptible to impurity until he has completed their preparation in the vat. Once he decides to bring them to the press, they are susceptible. The sages agree with this opinion." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is a continuation of Rabban Gamaliel and the sages' opinion from yesterday's mishnah, that the olives are not susceptible to impurity until he has decided to take them to the olive press.", + "If he finished the gathering but intended to buy some more, or if he had finished buying but intended to borrow some more, or if a time of mourning, a wedding feast or some other hindrance befell him then even if zavim and zavot trampled over them they remain clean. In all of these cases, the owner of the olives does not want more liquid to flow from the olives because he either intends to add more olives later, or he is going to be delayed from pressing due to some unforeseen circumstance (a relative died, he was invited to a wedding or something of that nature). In these cases the olives are not susceptible to impurity. So if a zav or a zavah (people with abnormal genital discharge) trample over the olives, they do not become impure.", + "If any unclean liquids fell upon them, only the place where it touched them becomes unclean. Unclean liquids that fall on produce cause it to become susceptible to impurity and impure simultaneously. If some unclean liquid falls on these olives, only the part upon which the liquid fell is impure. The remaining olives are still clean.", + "Any liquid that comes out of them is clean. Any liquid that comes out of the olives whose processing has not been completed is clean. This rule is obvious and is already stated in section one. It is only here to be contrasted with the cases we will learn tomorrow in mishnah three. So stay tuned!" + ], + [ + "When their preparation is finished behold they are susceptible to uncleanness. If an unclean liquid fell upon them they become unclean. Once the preparation of the olives has been completed, they are susceptible to impurity for they have had contact with the sap that flows out of them. What this means is that if unclean liquid falls on them, it renders all of the olives impure, not just the place it touched. This is because the independent olives have now become one lump of olives, all connected to one another.", + "The sap that issues from them: Rabbi Eliezer says it is clean, But the sages say that it is unclean. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the opinion in section one. The sap that issues from the olives does not render them susceptible to impurity. It is not yet considered oil. The sages agree with section one. This sap renders them susceptible and once they are impure it will also defile other olives.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: they did not dispute the ruling that sap that issues from olives is clean. But about what did they dispute? About that which comes from the vat: That Rabbi Eliezer says is clean And the sages say is unclean. Rabbi Shimon gives another version of the debate found in sections one and two. According to Rabbi Shimon, all of the sages agree that the sap that comes forth from the olives does not render them susceptible. They disagree about the liquid that comes out of the vat. The olives are placed in this vat after they have been crushed and before they are to be squeezed. This sap contains some oil and therefore the sages say it makes them susceptible to impurity. But the sap that flows before they have been placed in the vat is not \"oil\" and does not make them susceptible." + ], + [ + "One who had finished [the gathering of his olives] and put aside one basketful, let him put it [in the container] in front of a priest, the words of Rabbi Meir. The mishnah refers to an am haaretz who has crushed all of his olives in the crushing container but left over one container so that the olives would not become susceptible to impurity. From these olives he intended to separate terumah. Note that an am haaretz does seem to separate terumah and to respect the purity of the terumah so that a priest could make use of it. However, he doesn't separate tithes, nor does he preserve the purity of his common food. The question that the sages ask is what must he do to make sure that the olives remain pure? Rabbi Meir says that he should put the olives in the container in which they are crushed in front of the priest. This way the priest can make sure they stay pure.", + "Rabbi Judah says: he must hand him over the key immediately. Rabbi Shimon says: within twenty-four hours. Rabbi Judah says that the am haaretz must immediately give over to the priest the key to the container. Evidently, he affords little trust to the am haaretz. Rabbi Shimon gives him a little leeway he has twenty-four hours in which to give over the key." + ], + [ + "One who put his olives in a basket that they might be softened so that they will be easy to press, they become susceptible to uncleanness; The olives put into this basket to be softened so that they can be crushed will expel some sap. The sap causes them to be susceptible to impurity. This is because the person wants them to expel some of their juices, for in the end he is going to crush them to make olive oil in any case.", + "[If he put them in a basket] to be softened so that they may be salted: Bet Shammai says: they become susceptible. Bet Hillel says: they do not become susceptible. In contrast, if he puts them in a basket to soften so that they can be salted, Bet Hillel holds that they are not susceptible to impurity. This is because he doesn't really want them to expel their liquid. Bet Shammai holds that they are susceptible to impurity even in this case. It is possible that Bet Shammai simply holds that susceptibility to impurity is not dependent upon a person's intention whether the person wants the liquid to have contacted the produce or not. This is typical of a Shammaite system of halakhah the halakhah is less determined by intention and more determined by reality, i.e. what actually happened.", + "One who splits his olives with unwashed hands, he causes them to be unclean. Here he clearly intends for the liquid to come out and therefore even Bet Hillel agrees that the liquid causes them to be susceptible. Since his hands have not been washed, we assume that they are impure and the olives are impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to explore the distinction between cases where one wants the olives to sweat and cases where he does not.", + "If one put his olives on a roof to dry, even though they are piled up to the height of a cubit, they do not become susceptible to uncleanness. If he put them on the roof to dry they are not susceptible to impurity because he does not want them to sweat. This is true even if they are piled high enough that the bottom ones definitely will sweat. Again, the issue is not whether they sweat, but whether he wants them to.", + "If he put them in the house to putrify, even though he intends to take them up on the roof, or if he put them on the roof so that they might open so that they could be salted, they become susceptible to uncleanness. In these cases, he put them somewhere for them to start to soften or go bad so that he could crush them and make oil. Or he put them on the roof so that they would split open so he could salt them. In all of these cases, he wants them to sweat. Therefore, the liquid that they emit makes them susceptible to impurity.", + "If he put them in the house while he secured his roof or until he could take them elsewhere, they do not become susceptible to uncleanness. In this case he put them in his house temporarily, just until he could bring them somewhere else to soften them. Even though he does want the olives to be softened, they are not susceptible because he doesn't really want them to start this process in the house, where he is currently storing them." + ], + [ + "Introduction Our mishnah deals with a person who wants to take some olives that are in a condition that doesn't make them susceptible to impurity and bring them to the olive press to press them into oil. In other words, he has changed his mind about what to do with the olives. At first he didn't want them to sweat because he wasn't using them for oil, but now he changed his mind.", + "If one wants to take from them [a quantity sufficient for] one pressing or for two pressings:
Bet Shammai says: he may scrape off [what he requires] in a condition of uncleanness, but he must cover up [what he takes] in a condition of cleanness. According to Bet Shammai when he goes to scrape off some of the olives he doesn't need to do so in a state of purity. Since the olives have not yet been made susceptible to impurity, they will not become impure even if he is impure. However, after he takes those olives out, they are immediately susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if he wishes to cover the olives so that they can be pressed he must do so in a state of purity, otherwise they will become impure. In other words, Bet Shammai holds that the sweat that they exuded previously now causes them to be susceptible.", + "Bet Hillel says: he may also cover it up in a condition of uncleanness. Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that he can even cover them up in a state of uncleanness. The sweat they exuded before does not make them susceptible to impurity. However, Bet Hillel agrees that if he takes the entire lot of olives, he has changed their status and made them all susceptible to impurity. In this case, he will have to cover them in a state of purity.", + "Rabbi Yose says: he may also cover it up in a condition of uncleanness. Rabbi Yose rules even more leniently. He can even take metal axes and remove all of the olives that were set aside in a state in which they were not susceptible. They are still not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a dead sheretz found among the olives of the olive press.", + "If a [dead] sheretz was found in the milling stones, only the place that it has touched becomes unclean. But if moisture was running, all become unclean. If a dead sheretz, which causes impurity, is found in the milling stones which are used to crush the olives before they are pressed, only the olives that the sheretz touches is impure. The rest of the olives that touch these olives remain pure because each olive is not the size of an egg such that it could transmit impurity to the other olives. Furthermore, each olive is considered to be a separate entity. However, if the moisture is running over all the mill stones it transmits purity to everything and all of the olives are impure. This is because all of the olives are considered one lump.", + "If it was found on the leaves, the olive-press men shall be asked whether they can say, \"we did not touch it.\" In this case the sheretz is found on the leaves that cover the olives. These leaves are not food and they are not susceptible to impurity. Therefore, they themselves are not the problem. The problem is that the leaves were put there by somebody. We must ask the men who work at the olive press whether they touched the sheretz. If they admit that they did not, then the olives are pure. In other words, these men are trusted.", + "If it touched the mass [of olives], even by as little as the bulk of a barley grain, [the mass becomes] unclean. However, if the sheretz touched the mass of olives that are all stuck together, then all of the olives are considered unclean. This is because they are all considered to be connected." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah concerning the sheretz found among the olives.", + "If it was found on broken off pieces but it touched as much as an egg's bulk, [the entire mass] becomes unclean. In this case the sheretz is found on broken off pieces of olives that are resting on top of the olive mass. If these pieces are as much as the bulk of an egg, then they join the mass and all of the olives are impure. However, if they are smaller than the size of an egg, which means they themselves can't defile other things, then they are not considered part of the mass.", + "If it was found on broken off pieces that lay upon other broken off pieces, even though it touched as much as an egg's bulk, only the place it touched becomes unclean. In this case, the sheretz is found on top of pieces of olives that are themselves on tops of other pieces of olives. The mass that is underneath does not join them all together, even if they are the size of an olive. The only part that is impure is the part that touches the sheretz, for this is always impure, no matter how small it is.", + "If it was found between the wall and the olives, they remain clean. In this case we find the sheretz next to the wall, not touching the olives. We don't suspect that the sheretz touched the olives.", + "If it was found [on olives that were lying] on the roof, [the olives in] the vat remain clean. There were some olives in the vat and then a person took some up to the roof to dry out. A sheretz is found among the olives on the roof. The olives in the vat remain pure, for we do not suspect that the sheretz was brought up to the roof with the olives.", + "If it was found in the vat, [the olives on] the roof are [also] regarded as unclean. In contrast, if it is found in the vat, we do suspect that it defiled the olives that were later taken up to the roof. Therefore, they too are impure.", + "If it was found burnt upon the olives, and so also in the case of a rag that was completely worn out, [the olives remain] clean, because all cases of uncleanness are determined in accordance with their appearance at the time they are found. As we learned in 3:5, when it comes to matters of purity, we judge according to the way in which things are found. A burnt sheretz or a completely worn out rag no longer defiles. If either of these is found on the olives, the olives are pure. We don't suspect that they were there before they were burned or became worn out." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter ten continues to deal with purity laws related to the pressing of olives.\nToday's mishnah deals with the owner of an olive press who locks the workers in the olive press so that they won't go out and become impure. [Not very nice to the workers, but I guess they'll be okay].", + "If one locked in olive-workers in the olive-press and there were objects in there that had midras uncleanness: The owner first purified the olive-workers and then locked them in the olive press. Unfortunately for his sake, there were objects inside the olive-press that had become impure through contact with a zav. This gives them \"midras impurity\" which means that they defile a person who has contact with them, who carries them or who shifts them (even without touching them).", + "Rabbi Meir says: the olive-press is deemed to be unclean. Rabbi Meir says that we must be concerned lest the olive-workers became defiled through contact with the objects and therefore the entire olive-press is unclean.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the olive-press remains clean. Rabbi Judah rules leniently. Since the owner went through the process of purifying the workers, they know that they must be careful. Assuming that they know that the objects are impure, they will be careful and not have contact with them.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if they regard them as clean, the olive-press is deemed unclean; but if they regard them as unclean,the olive-press remains clean. Rabbi Shimon says that it depends on what the am haaretz thinks about the objects. If he mistakenly thinks that they are pure, then he won't be careful about touching them, and the rest of the olive press is impure. However, if he thinks they are impure, then he won't touch other things and the olive press is pure. It is interesting to note that Rabbi Shimon assumes that the am haaretz will try to preserve the purity of the olive press. He just doesn't always know what objects are pure and what are not. In other words, he is trustworthy, but ignorant.", + "Rabbi Yose: why are they unclean? Only because the am haaretz is not an expert in the laws of hesset. Rabbi Yose says that the am haaretz doesn't know that shifting causes impurity. Therefore, even if he thinks that the stuff is impure and he refrains from touching it, he will not know not to shift the objects and he will be defiled. Therefore, he agrees that everything in the olive press is considered unclean." + ], + [ + "If the olive-workers in an olive-press went in and out, and in the olive-press there was unclean liquid, if there is space enough [on the ground] between the liquid and the olives for their feet to be dried on the ground, the olive workers remain clean. This section deals with clean olive-press workers. There is unclean liquid on the floor inside the olive press. The workers tread on the liquid with their bare feet. This does not cause them to be impure because impure liquid does not defile people. But, if this liquid comes into contact with the olives, it will defile it. If there is space enough for them to walk on the ground and have their feet dried off before they get to the olives, then the olives are clean.", + "If something unclean was found in front of olive-workers in the olive-press or grape harvesters, they are believed to say, \"We have not touched it.\" And the same law applies also to the young children among them. In general, olive workers and grape-harvesters are believed to say that they didn't touch something unclean. Similarly, they are believed to say that the grapes or olives that they are working with were not touched by any children who are categorically assumed to be impure.", + "They may go outside the door of the olive-press and relieve themselves behind the wall, and still be deemed clean. How far may they go and still be deemed clean? As far as they can be seen. The olive-workers can go outside of the olive-press in order to \"go to the bathroom\" (this is how we like to say this, but obviously there was no bathroom back then). They are not assumed to be impure unless they go further away than they can be seen. [The consequences of this would of course be that the area surrounding the olive press might get a bit dirty. Something you might want to keep in mind next time you order Israeli olive oil!]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with taking the olive or grape workers to a mikveh for them to immerse themselves and the vessels with which they will be working.", + "If the olive-workers or the grape harvesters were only brought within the domain of the cavern, it is sufficient, the words of Rabbi Meir. The mikveh in which they are immersing happens to be found in a cavern, as mikvaot probably often were in this period. According to Rabbi Meir it is sufficient for the employer who wants to preserve the purity of his grapes or olives to bring the workers to the cave. Once he sees that they have entered, he can trust that they will immerse themselves and the vessels. [This kind of reminds me of telling your kid to get in the shower. Do you need to make sure that he soaps and shampoos? I'm sure you know what I'm talking about].", + "Rabbi Yose says: he should stand over them until they immerse. Rabbi Yose does not trust that the workers will immerse without supervision.", + "Rabbi Shimon say: if they regard the vessels as clean, one must stand over them until they immerse; but if they regard them as unclean, it is not necessary to stand over them until they immerse. This is similar to Rabbi Shimon's opinion in mishnah one. The workers can be trusted if they think that the vessels or their bodies are unclean. However, if they think they and the vessels are clean, he must make sure they immerse them and themselves." + ], + [ + "One who puts his grapes [into the wine-press] from the baskets or from what was spread out on the ground: Bet Shammai says: he must put them in with clean hands, and if he puts them in with unclean hands he defiles them. Bet Hillel says: he may put them in with unclean hands and then he may set aside his terumah in a condition of cleanness. Someone wants to take grapes out of either a basket or from the ground and putting them into the wine press. According to Bet Shammai, he must first purify his hands, for if he touches the liquid that is exuded from the grapes with unclean hands, he will defile them. Bet Hillel says that the liquid that comes out at this point does not render the grapes susceptible because this liquid is not something he wishes to preserve. The baskets and the ground will just let the liquid seep through. Therefore, the grapes are not susceptible to impurity. When he goes to separate terumah from the wine in the winepress, only then must be make sure he is pure.", + "[If they are taken] from the grape-pot or from what was spread out on leaves, all agree that they must be put in with clean hands, and if they are put in with unclean hands they become unclean. Both houses agree that if he takes the grapes out of a special pot made to hold grapes or off of leaves on the ground, that he must be pure. In this case, the liquid is preserved (the leaves serve to prevent the liquid for being wasted into the ground), and therefore this is liquid that he wants. In this case, the liquid makes the grapes susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "One who eats grapes out of the baskets or from what is spread out on the ground, even though they burst and dripped into the wine-press, the wine-press remains clean. The person who is acting in this mishnah is assumed to be impure, for most people are assumed not to preserve their purity. In the first case, since the liquid that comes out of the grapes is not something he desires, it does not render the grapes susceptible to impurity. Even if some of this liquid should burst out and go into the winepress, the other grapes in the winepress remain pure. This accords with Bet Hillel's opinion in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If he eats the grapes out of a grape-basket or from what was spread out on leaves, and a single berry dropped into the vat: If it has a seal all in the vat remains clean; But if it has no seal, all in the vat becomes unclean. In this case he takes the grape from a place where if liquid had oozed out, the liquid would render it susceptible to impurity. One grape then falls into the vat. If the grape had a \"seal\" meaning that the stem from which the grape was plucked from the cluster remained in the grape (this happens to me all the time then I end up spitting it out), then the other grapes remain pure because we can assume that no liquid came out. When the man touched the grape it was not susceptible to impurity. However, if it had no seal, then we can assume that some liquid had come out and the grape was impure. It would defile the rest of the grapes in the vat.", + "If he dropped some of the grapes and trod upon them in an empty part of the wine-press: If the bulk of the grapes was exactly that of an egg, the contents remain clean; But if it was more than the bulk of an egg, the contents become unclean, for so soon as the first drop came out it contracted uncleanness from the remainder whose bulk is that of an egg. In this case, a cluster of grapes falls in a part of the vat that is empty. Then he steps on the grapes. If there is exactly an egg's volume of grapes then the vat remains pure. When the first drop comes out of the grapes, the cluster now has less than the volume of an egg and food that is less than the volume of an egg does not defile liquid. Even though he defiled the food, the liquid is pure. However, if there is even a little bit more than the volume of an egg, the liquid that is emitted becomes impure by virtue of contact with the impure egg. Then the liquid will defile the winepress, for liquid can defile vessels. This is a similar situation to that found in Toharot 3:1." + ], + [ + "One who was standing and speaking by the edge of the cistern and some spittle squirted from his mouth, and there arises the doubt whether it reached the cistern or not, the condition of doubt is regarded as clean. If the spit went into the vat and reached the wine, the wine would be impure. However, the Tosefta explains that the Mishnah rules that the wine is pure because the spit may have been absorbed into the walls of the vat and it may not have reached the wine. Therefore, the vat is pure." + ], + [ + "If one is emptying out the cistern [into jars] and a [dead] sheretz was found in the first jar, all the other jars are deemed unclean; but if it was found in the last, only that one is unclean but all the others remain clean. A person is emptying out the wine from a cistern and placing it into jars. He finds a dead sheretz which will defile the wine (and make it a bit gross, but that's another matter). If he finds it in the first jar, we must assume that all of the wine put into all of the jars is impure, for the sheretz might have been in the cistern and then got into the first jar. Alternatively, if the sheretz was in the first jar (and not in the cistern) when he dipped that jar into the cistern, the rest of the wine in the cistern was defiled. However, if he finds it in the last jar, then we can assume that the sheretz was originally in the last jar. Only the contents of that jar are impure.", + "When does this apply? When the wine was drawn directly with each jar, but if it was drawn with a ladle and a [dead] creeping thing was found in one of the jars, it alone is unclean. If he draws with a ladle and pours that wine into each jar, and a dead sheretz is found in one of the jars, then only that jar's wine is impure. This is because it is possible that the sheretz was originally in that jar and never was in the cistern.", + "When does this apply? Only when the man examined [the jars] but did not cover them up or covered them up but did not examine them; The leniencies in the previous two sections can only occur if he wasn't cautious with the jars. If he didn't cover the jars up, it is possible that a sheretz got in directly to the jar. If he didn't check the jars before he filled them then it is possible that the sheretz was there before he filled them (from the ladle). In any of these cases, it is possible to isolate the impurity to one jar.", + "But if he both examined them and covered them up and a [dead] creeping thing was found: If in one jar, all the contents of the cistern are deemed unclean. If it was found in the cistern, all its contents are deemed unclean And if it was found in the ladle all the contents of the cistern are deemed unclean. However, if he checked and covered the jars, then it is clear that the sheretz came from the cistern. Therefore, no matter where the sheretz is found, all of the wine in all of the containers is unclean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nLast mishnah in Toharot!", + "[The space] between the rollers and grape skins is regarded as a public domain. The rollers are used to press the grapeskins to try to get more juice out of them after the grapes have already been trodden upon. The area between the rollers and the grapeskins is considered a public domain, such that if a case of doubtful impurity is found there, the doubt is ruled pure. It is considered a public domain because many people are found in this area.", + "A vineyard in front of the grape harvesters is deemed to be a private domain and one which is behind the harvesters is deemed to be a public domain. The part of the vineyard that the grape harvesters still have not harvested is considered a private domain. This is because people are not allowed into that area, since the grapes are still on the vines. Once the grape harvesters have been through a section of the vineyard, it is considered a public domain.", + "When is this so? When the public enter at one end and go out at the other. However, it is only considered a public domain if people will go in one side and out the other. If there is only one way to go in and out, then it seems less people will go there and it can be considered a private domain.", + "The vessels of the olive-press, the wine-press and the basket-press, if they are of wood, need only be dried and they become clean; But if they are of reed grass they must be left unused for twelve months, or they must be scalded in hot water. Rabbi Yose says: if he put them in the current of the river, it is sufficient. The mishnah now discusses what must be done to vessels used in presses in order to purify them. If these vessels are of wood, all one needs to do is dry them off from the liquid that defiled them and they are pure. This is because the wood is not assumed to have absorbed the liquid. However, the vessels are more absorbent if they are made of reed grass. In this case they either need to be scalded in hot water in order to get the impure liquid out. Or they can be left unused for 12 months (this is probably impractical). Rabbi Yose says that he can put them in the river and (according to the Tosefta) leave them there for 12 hours. The current will wash them out and they will be pure. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Toharot! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Toharot was not easy. It contains somewhat of a random assortment of purity laws, which are in general difficult for us to relate to. I thought that there were two very interesting parts. The first was what to do with cases of doubtful impurity. In a world in which people were very concerned with these laws, it is certain that these situations would have arisen quite frequently. The second interesting part were the laws governing interaction between the \"haver\" (one who is careful about the laws of purity) and the am haaretz, who does not observe many of these laws. I found these laws interesting because we can see how people of different religious inclinations and practices can live together. As always, a hearty yasher koach on completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Mikvaot." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טהרות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e0cc02c01a1f232852e5f68c9e38dc958bc81b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,547 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Tahorot", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Toharot means purity. Indeed this tractate has the same name is the entire Seder. There are three topics discussed in Tractate Toharot. ", + "1) The purity of food and liquids. The Torah explicitly states that food and drink can be susceptible to impurity. For instance Leviticus 11:34 reads, \"As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become unclean if it came into contact with water; as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become unclean if it was inside any vessel.\" The rabbis hold that the impurity of liquids is greater than that of food. This is expressed in several differences between how these materials convey impurity. Food conveys impurity to other food and liquids but it doesn't convey impurity to vessels. In contrast, impure liquids convey impurity to vessels as well as other food and liquid. Another stringency is that a liquid gets first degree impurity whether it came into contact with a \"father of impurity\" or a derivative thereof. If it now comes into contact with another liquid the second liquid also gets first degree impurity. This continues on no matter how many subsequent liquids are touched (see Parah 8:5-7). The third stringency is that the smallest amount of liquid conveys impurity, whereas food must be the size of an egg in order to defile something else.", + "2) Doubtful impurity in the private and public domain. The tractate deals with the category of \"doubtful impurity\" meaning cases where something may or may not have been impure in either the public or private domain. From the laws concerning the Sotah (the doubtfully adulterous woman) the sages derived that all cases of doubtful impurity arising in the private domain are deemed as impure. The Sotah woman is prohibited to her husband because she may have been defiled by adultery. This doubtful impurity occurred in the private domain (where she may have hid from her paramour). Just as the doubtful impurity that occurs with the Sotah happens in the private domain, so too all cases of doubtful impurity that occur in the private domain are deemed impure. ", + "3) The impurity of the am haaretz. In the Mishnah, an am haaretz is a person who is not scrupulous about the observance of certain laws, including the purity laws and the tithing laws (see Tractate Demai). The rabbis decreed that he conveys impurity as does a zav, but they limited this to things with which he has contact. He does not convey impurity by carrying or by shifting (without touching)." + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with purity rules that govern the carrion of a clean bird. Leviticus 17:15 states, \"Any person, whether citizen or stranger, who eats what has died or has been torn by beasts shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening, then he shall be clean.\" The rabbis interpret this verse as referring to clean birds, meaning birds that can be eaten if slaughtered in a valid manner. This distinguishes the impurity of the carrion of a bird from the carrion of a beast which is referred to in Leviticus 11:39-40.\nThere are thirteen rules with regard to the carrion of a clean bird. They are outlined in today's mishnah and in tomorrow's.", + "Thirteen rulings govern the carrion of a clean bird:
There must be intention; For the carrion of the clean bird to be impure he must have thought about using it for food. For instance, he might have thought about giving it to a non-Jew. In contrast, regular food that is permitted to a Jew need not have been intended to be eaten for it to be susceptible to impurity.", + "It need not be rendered susceptible; The carrion need not be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid for it to defile. This is because it itself is impure, unlike other foods that are merely susceptible to impurity. The bird carrion is treated like impure food even though it did not come into contact with anything impure.", + "It conveys food uncleanness if its minimum bulk is that of an egg; If clean food comes into contact with a piece of bird carrion the size of an egg, the clean food becomes defiled with second degree impurity.", + "And it conveys uncleanness when in one's gullet if its minimum bulk is that of an olive; If a person eats of this carrion (it is forbidden to do so, but he does so anyway) as long as the carrion is in his gullet he is a \"father of impurity.\" During this period he will defile clothes and vessels which he is contact with. This is how the rabbis interpreted the verse quoted in the introduction above.", + "He that eats of it must wait until sunset [to be clean]; The person who eats the carrion remains impure until the evening. He is not purified just by immersing in the mikveh. This is stated explicitly in the verse above.", + "Guilt is incurred on account of it for entering the sanctuary; If one eats the carrion and then unwittingly enters the Temple while still impure, he is liable for entering the Temple while impure. He will need to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin.", + "Terumah is burned on account of it; If the carrion touches terumah it defiles it and the terumah must be burned. Similarly, if a person eats the carrion and then touches terumah, it must be burned.", + "He who eats a limb of it while it is alive suffers forty lashes; If one eats a limb torn from a living clean bird he is liable for eating a limb torn from a living animal. Elsewhere we learn that other sages say that this law is applicable only to limbs torn from beasts. The punishment for this is forty lashes, the same punishment that is, at least theoretically, applicable to one who transgresses any negative commandment.", + "Slaughtering it or nipping [off its neck] cleanses it even if it is terefah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: they do not cleanse it. Rabbi Yose says: the slaughtering does cleanse it but nipping does not. A terefah is a bird/animal that has been found to have a defect that would have caused it to die (for a list of such defects see chapter three of Hullin). A bird that is a terefah defiles, as does carrion. According to Rabbi Meir, if one slaughters a bird correctly, or if it is a sacrificial bird one nips off the head at the neck (this is how birds were sacrificed), and then it turns out that the bird is a terefah, the bird is not impure. In other words, since the bird was properly slaughtered, it doesn't defile, even if in the end, it was not edible. Rabbi Judah says that since the bird is after all inedible, it still defiles. Rabbi Yose argues that melikah (nipping off the head of a bird sacrifice) does not cause it to be pure, if it is found to be a terefah. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose argue out their logic in Zevahim 7:6, see there for more information." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of the list of 13 rules regarding the carrion of a clean bird.", + "The large feathers and the down contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness but do not combine [with the flesh to constitute the prescribed minimum]. Rabbi Ishmael says: the down does combine [with the flesh]. When it comes to matters of purity and impurity, the large feathers and the downy feathers both count as part of the bird. Therefore, they can both be defiled and defile other things. However, when it comes to making up enough to have a minimum measure to defile (the amount of an egg if the issue is food defilement, or the amount of an olive if the issue is the defilement caused in the gullet) the feathers do not join together with the flesh of the bird. In other words, let's say one has 3/4 of an egg's worth of bird flesh and 1/4 of an egg's worth of feathers, the total amount if impure does not convey impurity because it is not sufficient. You would need a sufficient amount of flesh or feathers alone. The reason seems to be that the feathers and flesh are both part of the bird but they are off different categories. Therefore, they don't join together. Rabbi Yishmael says that the downy feathers are like the flesh and therefore they do join together to convey impurity.", + "The beak and the claws contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and also combine [with the flesh to constitute the prescribed minimum]. The beak and the claws are considered to be part of the bird for all purposes. They even join with the flesh to constitute a minimum measure. Perhaps this is because, unlike feathers which can't be eaten, the beak and claws could either be eaten (I'm pretty sure that I read a story about how claws were a delicacy in China) or at least put into some kind of soup.", + "Rabbi Yose says: also the ends of the wings and the end of the tail combine [with the flesh to constitute the minimum] since they are left unplucked on fattened birds. Rabbi Yose adds that the tips of the wings and tip of the tail are left on fattened birds and eaten with them. Therefore, they too join with the rest of the flesh to convey impurity and to become impure." + ], + [ + "The carrion of an unclean bird requires intention; and it must be rendered susceptible;
It conveys food uncleanness if its minimum bulk is that of an egg;
The consumption of a half of half a loaf's bulk of it renders one's person unfit to eat terumah;
There is no rule that an olive's worth defiles in the gullet;
He who eats of it need not wait for sunset;
No guilt is incurred on account of it for entering the sanctuary;
But on account of it terumah must be burnt.
He who eats a limb of it while it is alive is not subject to the penalty of forty stripes;
Slaughtering it does not render it fit.
The large feathers and the down contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and combine with the flesh to constitute the prescribed minimum.
The beak and the claws contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and combine [with the flesh to make up the prescribed minimum].
The mishnah now proceeds to talk about the purity rules governing the carrion of an unclean bird, one that is not \"kosher.\" As we will see, some of these rules are the same as those we saw with regard to the carrion of a clean bird, but some are different.
Section one: The carrion of an unclean bird (a bird that one is not allowed to eat) is not unclean in a ritual purity sense, in and of itself. In order for it to become unclean, first one would have to have the intention to eat it and then it would have to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid. If these two things happen, and then it comes into contact with a source of impurity, it is impure. This differs from the carrion of a clean (edible) bird, which is a source of defilement in and of itself.
Section two: If it becomes impure, it now conveys impurity if there is the minimum size of an egg.
Section three: If a person eats an amount of carrion of unclean bird that is equivalent to the size of two eggs (half of the size of half of a loaf of bread) he cannot eat terumah until he immerses in a mikveh. This is the usual amount to cause a person to become impure through eating something impure.
Section four: Unlike the carrion of a clean bird, there is no special rule concerning one who swallows the amount of an olive. Such a person remains pure.
Section five: One who eats an amount the size of half of a half of a loaf of bread is impure, but he is pure immediately after he goes to the mikveh. He need not wait for the sun to set.
Section six: The defilement caused by eating this amount is only rabbinic. Therefore, if someone enters the sanctuary after having done so, he is not liable for transgressing a biblical commandment.
Section seven: Nevertheless, if this person touches terumah, the terumah must be burned. This is because terumah can be burned even if the level of the impurity is only rabbinic.
Section eight: The biblical prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal refers only to clean animals (and birds). Therefore, one who eats the limb of a living unclean bird is not liable for transgressing the biblical commandment. [Please understand this doesn't mean that one can do so, just that one who has done so is not liable for transgressing that particular negative commandment. He has transgressed another.]
Section nine: Obviously, slaughtering it does not render the unclean bird fit for consumption. This type of bird is unclean and forbidden for eating in all cases. The truth is that this clause is overly obvious. It is only here because it contrasts with the case of the clean bird.
Sections ten and eleven: When it comes to the unclean bird, since it is never permitted to be eaten, the edible and inedible parts combine to convey uncleanness." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis entire mishnah, save for the first word, can be found in Hullin 9:1. After having explained the rules governing the purity/impurity of the carrion of clean and unclean birds, the mishnah discusses cattle, meaning large herd animals (sheep, goats and cows).", + "The hide, meat juice, sediment, dried-up meat, bones, sinews, horns and hooves join together [to make up the minimum quantity in order] to convey food-uncleanness, but not to [make up the minimum quantity in order to] convey nevelah-uncleanness. These are all parts of the animal that are not generally or ever eaten. However, these parts, joing together with the generally edible parts of the animal to create a minimum volume the size of an egg to convey uncleanness to other foods if the animal was rendered unclean. The reason is that all although these parts are not eaten on their own, they are sometimes eaten with other parts of the meat. Alternatively, some of these things protect the meat of the animal, even if they themselves are not eaten. Therefore, they join with the meat in adding up to this minimum value. However, these things do not join together with the rest of the meat to cause nevelah-uncleanness, which requires the minimum volume of an olive.", + "Similarly, if a man slaughtered an unclean animal for a Gentile and it still has convulsions, it can convey food-uncleanness, but it conveys nevelah-uncleanness only after it is dead, or its head has been chopped off. This animal cannot be eaten by a Jew or by a Gentile. It can’t be eaten by a Jew because it is an unclean animal, for instance a camel. It can’t be eaten by a Gentile because it is still convulsing and is therefore prohibited under the Noahide prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal. Nevertheless, this animal is considered food because just as when a Jew slaughters a kosher (clean) animal he causes it to be able to receive impurity, so too when he slaughters a non-kosher animal, he causes it to be able to receive impurity. However, it is not considered a nevelah in order to convey nevelah uncleanness until it is truly dead or has its head cut off. If its head is cut off, it is considered dead even if it is still convulsing.", + "[Scripture] has [thus] made more cases that convey food-uncleanness than those that convey nevelah-uncleanness. The mishnah closes by noting there are more cases where something conveys food-uncleanness than nevelah uncleanness." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with food that has become unclean and how much of it needs to be gathered together to convey uncleanness.", + "Food that contracted uncleanness from a \"father of uncleanness\" and one that contracted uncleanness from a derived uncleanness may be combined together to convey uncleanness according to the lighter grade of the two. Food that has become unclean by contact with a \"father of uncleanness\" such as a sheretz, has first degree impurity. If it had contact with derived uncleanness, then it has second degree impurity. The mishnah now will illustrate how 1/2 of an egg's worth of food with one level of impurity can combine with another half of an egg's worth of food with another level of impurity to create the requisite amount to convey impurity.", + "How so? If the amount of half an egg of food that has first grade uncleanness and the amount of half an egg of food that has second grade uncleanness were mixed together, the two are regarded having second grade uncleanness. The two half eggs that are mixed are considered only to have second degree impurity. This is the lighter form of impurity. If this piece of food comes into contact with terumah it will render the terumah invalid.", + "And if the amount of half of an egg of food that has second grade uncleanness and the amount of half an egg of food that has third grade uncleanness were mixed together, the two are regarded as having third grade of uncleanness. The piece of food with third degree uncleanness will render sacred things (such as sacrifices) invalid, but it will not disqualify terumah.", + "If the amount of an egg of food having first grade uncleanness and the amount of an egg of food having second grade uncleanness were mixed together, both are regarded as having first grade uncleanness; But if they were then divided, each part is regarded as having second grade uncleanness. If each part separately fell on a loaf of terumah, they cause it to become unfit. But if the two fell together they cause it to have second grade uncleanness. In this case, both pieces of food are the size of an egg. Here, both are treated more stringently, as if both have first degree uncleanness. If after they were mixed together he separated them, then both are treated as if they have only second degree uncleanness, because both pieces now have less than an egg's worth of the original piece that had first degree uncleanness. If each of these pieces now falls separately on a piece of terumah, both are treated as if they have second degree impurity and they render the terumah invalid. They do not, however, cause it to be impure. However, if they both fall on one piece of terumah, then we know that an egg's worth of food that has first degree impurity fell on the terumah and the terumah now has second degree impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues yesterday's mishnah which discussed quantities of food that have different levels of impurity that were mixed together.", + "An egg's worth of food that has second degree uncleanness and an egg's worth of food that has third decree uncleanness that were mixed together are regarded as having second degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is regarded as having only third degree uncleanness. If each part separately fell on a loaf of terumah they do not render it invalid. But if the two fell together they convey to it third degree uncleanness. This section is the same as the last section in yesterday's mishnah, only here the two pieces of food have second and third degree impurity. Food with third degree impurity does not invalidate terumah. But food with second degree impurity does invalidate terumah, although it doesn't defile it.", + "An egg's worth of food that has first degree uncleanness and an egg's worth of food that has third degree uncleanness that were mixed together are regarded as having first degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is regarded as having only second grade uncleanness, for even the third grade that touched the first has become only a second grade. In this case one piece has first degree and one piece has third degree. When the piece with third degree touches the piece with first degree, it now has second degree impurity. This now becomes a case of one piece with first degree and one piece with second degree, the same case as we had in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If two eggs worth of food that have first degree uncleanness and two eggs worth of food that have second degree uncleanness were mixed together they are regarded as having first degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is still regarded as having first degree uncleanness. But if they were divided into three or four parts, each is regarded as having second grade. Here there are two eggs with first degree and two eggs with second degree. The difference between this situation and the previous ones is that even when the piece is divided into two, it still has first degree impurity because there is still an egg's worth that has the higher degree. The pieces go down to the lower degree of impurity only if they are further divided up into three or four pieces.", + "If two eggs worth of food having second degree uncleanness and two eggs worth of food having third degree uncleanness were mixed together, they are regarded as having second degree uncleanness. If they were then divided, each part is still regarded as having second degree uncleanness. But if they were divided into three or four parts, each is regarded as having only third degree uncleanness. The same situation as in section three only the two pieces have second and third degree impurity and not first and second." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with loaves or pieces of dough that are stuck together. The principle is that if one loaf or piece of bread is defiled, they are all regarded as defiled. They retain this impurity even if they are later separated.", + "Pieces of dough which are stuck to each other or loaves stuck to each other, if one of them was defiled from a sheretz, they all become unclean in the first degree; If they were then separated they are still regarded as having first degree uncleanness. All of the loaves have first degree impurity because one had contact with the sheretz. They retain this even when they are separated.", + "If one of them was defiled by a liquid they all have second degree uncleanness; If they were then separated they are still regarded as have second degree uncleanness. Impure liquids always have first degree impurity. Therefore, the loaves or dough has second degree impurity.", + "If one of them was defiled from the hands, they all become have third degree uncleanness; If they were then separated they are still regarded as having third degree of uncleanness. Hands are considered to have second degree impurity. If the loaves are of terumah, they will be invalidated but not made impure. If the loaves were holy, then they are impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with pieces of dough that have different levels of impurity and then become stuck together.", + "A piece of dough that had first degree uncleanness, and then others became stuck to it, they all become unclean in the first degree. If they were separated, it still remains unclean in the first degree but all the others are have only second degree uncleanness. The pieces of dough that are stuck to the original piece of dough are considered to become part of the original piece. Therefore they too have impurity in the first degree. If they are subsequently separated, the original piece retains its first degree impurity. The other pieces have second degree impurity because they came into contact with the piece that had first degree impurity.", + "If [the original piece] had second degree uncleanness and then others became stuck to it, they all become unclean in the second degree; If they were separated, it still remains unclean in the second degree but all the others are only unclean in the third degree. The same situation as in section one, just the original piece has second degree impurity. [This tractate seems to enjoy doing this repeating the same scenarios over and over again with foods that have different levels of impurity.]", + "If [the original piece] had third degree uncleanness, and then other became stuck to it, it remains unclean in the third degree but all the others remain clean, whether they were subsequently separated from it or whether they were not separated. Something that has only third degree impurity does not defile other things, even if the other thing is attached to it. It only invalidates holy food and the bread referred to here is probably terumah." + ], + [ + "Holy loaves in whose hollows there was holy water, if one contracted uncleanness from a sheretz, they all become unclean. The holy loaves are for instance the showbread or the two loaves brought on Shavuot. There is holy water, meaning water whose purity was preserved in order to be used with sacrifices, in the hollows within the loaves. This water, as we shall see, can act as conveyor of impurity. The first loaf has contact with a sheretz, which causes it to have first degree impurity. The next loaf has second degree impurity and the third loaf has third degree impurity. The third loaf defiles the water in its hollows such that the water has first degree impurity. The reason for this is that anything that defiles holy food, meaning even something with third degree impurity, causes holy water to have first degree impurity. The water then ups the level of defilement within that very loaf causing it to have second degree impurity, which will then defile the next loaf. Thus all the touching loaves will be defiled, if all of them are holy loaves.", + "In the case of loaves of terumah, uncleanness is conveyed to two loaves and one is invalidated. If the loaves are terumah, the process is arrested quicker. The first loaf has first degree impurity and the loaf that touches it has second degree impurity. The third loaf is invalid, although not impure. It doesn't convey impurity to the fourth loaf. It also doesn't defile the water in its hollows. This is because this loaf, or anything with third degree impurity in cases of terumah, doesn't cause water to become impure.", + "If there was dripping liquid between them, even in the case of terumah all become unclean. In this case the liquid is dripping, meaning that if one puts one's hand on it, it will become moist. The first loaf has first degree impurity and every subsequent loaf has second degree impurity. This is because since there is a greater quantity of water it becomes defiled with first degree impurity. It then causes the loaf that touches it have second degree impurity and on and on, no matter how many loaves there are. In sum, we can see that water is a great conduit for impurity and that things that are really moist are even better conduits of impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nWhen learning this mishnah it is important to remember that produce is not susceptible to impurity until it has been made wet.", + "A woman who was preserving vegetables in a pot and touched a leaf outside the pot on a dry spot, even though the leaf had an egg's bulk of volume, it alone becomes unclean while all the rest remains clean. The woman is preserving some vegetables that are either terumah or are regular vegetables whose purity she wishes to preserve as if they had the sanctity of terumah. She is preserving the vegetables in either vinegar or salt. Note that the only reason a woman and not a man is mentioned is that it seems that women were more likely to do this work than men. The same laws would apply to men. Before the pickling, the vegetables had not come into contact with liquid to make them susceptible to impurity. The vegetables and the leaf sticking out of the pot did become susceptible when she poured liquid on them to begin the preserving process. If she touches the leaf at a dry spot the leaf becomes impure with third degree impurity because hands have second degree impurity. In this case it doesn't matter how big the leaf is, only the leaf will be impure. The leaf doesn't convey impurity to the attached vegetables because things with third degree impurity don't defile terumah.", + "If she touched it at a wet spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean. If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. If it is returned into the pot, everything becomes unclean. In this case the leaf was wet when she touched it. If the leaf is the size of an egg, then it will convey its impurity to other things. The liquid on it now has first degree impurity, and it conveys second degree impurity back to the leaf. The leaf will convey third degree impurity to the vegetables in the pot. However, if the leaf is smaller than the size of an egg, while it is impure because there is no minimum size for produce to receive impurity, it will not convey uncleanness because food needs to be the size of an egg to convey impurity. If the leaf goes back into the pot, then the liquid on the leaf will convey its impurity to the liquid in the pot and everything will be impure. There is no minimum amount for liquids for them to convey impurity.", + "If the woman was unclean due to contact with one who had corpse uncleanness, and she touched the leaf either at a wet spot or at a dry spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean; If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. In the previous two sections the woman's hands had second degree impurity, as do all hands unless they have been ritually cleansed. In this section, she had contact with something (either a person or a vessel) that had been defiled by a corpse. The woman has first degree uncleanness. The difference here is that the leaf will have second degree uncleanness even if it is not wet. Again, if it is large enough it will convey its impurity back into the pot.", + "If a woman who was a tevulat yom emptied out the pot with unwashed hands, and she observed some liquid on her hands, and it is uncertain whether it was splashed from the pot or whether a stalk had touched her hands, the vegetables are invalid but the pot remains clean. A \"tevulat yom\" is one who has been to the mikveh but has not yet had the sun set. She has second degree impurity. She pours out the pot while her hands also have second degree impurity. While doing so she notices that some water has gotten onto her hands. If the water sprayed out of the pot, then it doesn't affect the contents of the pot. But if her hand touched the stalk of one of the vegetables in the pot, then the liquid on it would be impure and it would convey impurity back into the pot. The rule is that in cases of doubt with regard to a tevul yom, they do disqualify terumah. Therefore, the vegetable(s) itself is impure and if it is terumah will not be able to be eaten. However, the pot itself remains pure for a tevul yom does not defile liquids causing them to have first degree impurity (see Parah 8:7)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe rabbis decreed that a person who eats unclean food becomes unclean. In our mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua disagree with regard to his level of uncleanness.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; [He who eats food with] second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness contracts] third [degree uncleanness]. Rabbi Eliezer's system is simple. A person takes on the level of impurity of the food he ate. Literally, you are what you eat.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first [degree] or with second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness, he contracts] second [degree uncleanness] in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah. According to Rabbi Joshua, if one eats food that has either first or second degree impurity, he gets second degree impurity. This will mean that he will defile terumah. The reasoning is explained by analogy to food. Food with second degree impurity can give other food second degree impurity, if the second food is wet. The food with second degree impurity defiles the liquid, which takes on first degree impurity. The liquid can then defile the other food, giving it second degree impurity. But there are no cases where food with first degree impurity can give other food first degree impurity. Therefore, argues Rabbi Joshua, the same is true with human beings. According to Rabbi Joshua if he eats food with third degree impurity, he gets second degree impurity vis a vis holy things. This means he will defile holy things such as sacrifices. However, he will not defile or even invalidate terumah, because vis a vis terumah he does not have second degree impurity. The mishnah concludes by noting that the previous clause refers not only to terumah, meaning one who ate terumah that had third degree impurity, but even to common food that was prepared with the intent of it being eaten with the sanctity of terumah. This refers to the practice of some pious Jews, including perhaps the Pharisees, who strived to preserve the purity of all of the food that they ate, not just terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah provides some basic rules as to the implications of the levels of impurity in common food, meaning non-sacred food, neither terumah nor sacrifices.", + "First [degree uncleanness] in common food is unclean and conveys uncleanness; Hullin (regular or common food) that has first degree uncleanness can defile other foods, giving them second degree uncleanness.", + "Second [degree uncleanness] invalidates but does not convey uncleanness. Hullin that has second degree uncleanness invalidates other food. If the other food is terumah, the terumah is invalid. If the other food is hullin which the person wishes to eat with the sanctity of terumah, then it is invalid. But it doesn't give other food third degree impurity.", + "And third [degree uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish mixed with terumah. Basically, there is no such thing as hullin with third degree impurity. If food came into contact with other hullin food with second degree impurity, that food can be eaten in a dish with terumah because it is not all impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is the same pattern as yesterday's mishnah, except it deals with terumah. As we shall see, the rules governing terumah are one degree stricter than those governing common food.", + "First [degree] and second [degree uncleanness] in terumah are unclean and convey uncleanness; When it comes to terumah, even something with second degree uncleanness can defile other terumah.", + "Third [degree uncleanness] causes invalidity but does not convey uncleanness. Terumah with third degree impurity is invalid but it does not convey uncleanness to other terumah with which it comes into contact.", + "And fourth [degree uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish containing holy food. Basically, there is no such thing as fourth degree uncleanness when it comes to terumah. Something that has been in contact with third degree uncleanness can be eaten in a dish with holy food." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is the same as the previous two mishnayot except it discusses holy food, such as sacrifices. Again, the purity rules are one degree stricter.", + "First, second and third [degrees of uncleanness] in holy foods are unclean and convey uncleanness; When it comes to holy food, even food with third degree uncleanness can convey impurity.", + "Fourth [degree of uncleanness] is invalid and causes no uncleanness; Food with fourth degree uncleanness is invalid but doesn't convey uncleanness onward.", + "And fifth [degree of uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish containing holy food. There is no such thing as fifth degree uncleanness. Such food can be eaten together with other holy food." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah builds on the three previous mishnayot but adds in the factor of liquids, which as we have seen on many occasions, amplify impurity.", + "Second [degree uncleanness] in common food conveys uncleanness to unconsecrated liquids and causes invalidity to terumah food. We learned before that food with second degree impurity invalidates terumah. This mishnah teaches a rule: anything that invalidates terumah also conveys impurity to non-sacred liquids, even if the food wouldn't defile common food. So common food (hullin) with second degree impurity defiles all liquids, but when it comes to food, it only disqualifies terumah.", + "Third [degree of uncleanness] in terumah conveys uncleanness to consecrated liquids and causes invalidity to holy food that was prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to holy food; But if it was only prepared under conditions of cleanness appropriate to terumah, it conveys uncleanness at a first and at a second remove, and causes invalidity to holy food at one additional remove. The same is true with terumah food that has third degree uncleanness. It conveys first degree impurity to holy liquids, because terumah with third degree uncleanness does invalidate holy food. The mishnah now adds a caveat to this previous rule. If the terumah food was prepared in order to have the sanctity of holy food, then if it has third degree impurity it disqualifies holy food but doesn't cause it to be defiled. But if it was prepared under the conditions of purity appropriate to terumah, it is not considered to have been guarded for the purpose of being used with holy food. Therefore, it is treated as if it has first degree impurity. It will defile the first thing it touches, and that will defile something else, giving it third degree impurity. The third thing will invalidate holy food." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today's mishnah Rabbi Eliezer presents his version of exactly how defilement works. The disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the other sages is brought at the end of this mishnah.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: the three of them are equivalent.
The first degree of uncleanness in holy food, in terumah or in common food: conveys uncleanness at two removes and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of terumah; and causes invalidity in common food. Food that has first degree impurity, no matter what it is (hullin, terumah or holy food), conveys impurity in the same way. This will now be explained. If any food with first degree impurity comes into contact with holy food it conveys uncleanness in two removes. What this means is that if it touches something it gives it second degree impurity and the second degree food conveys third degree. The third degree only invalidates the holy food this food will not convey any other impurity down the line. In the case of terumah it conveys second degree impurity and the second degree invalidates the terumah that it touches. And if it touches common food it invalidates it (in reality it gives it second degree impurity) but such food will not convey any impurity onward.", + "The second [degree of uncleanness] in the case of all of them: conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; it conveys uncleanness to common liquids and causes invalidity of terumah food. Food that has second degree impurity cause holy food to have third degree impurity and this holy food will invalidate other holy food that it touches. It will defile common liquids, giving them first degree impurity. Note that it will not defile common food, just liquid. And it will invalidate terumah food.", + "The third degree of uncleanness in the case of all them: conveys uncleanness to holy liquids and causes invalidity to holy food. Something that has third degree impurity will not defile anything common or terumah. But it will cause holy liquids, such as sanctified wine or oil, to have first degree impurity and it will invalidate holy food. This is where Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the other sages. He holds that terumah that has third degree impurity does not convey uncleanness at two removes and invalidity at one extra remove, as does the opinion in mishnah six. Furthermore, he holds that even common food that has third degree impurity can defile holy food, whereas the previous opinion said it needed to have second degree impurity to do so." + ], + [ + "If one eats food with second [degree uncleanness he must not work in an olive-press. A person who eats food with second degree uncleanness gets second degree uncleanness, as we learned in mishnah two. Therefore, he shouldn't work in an olive press because when he touches the olive oil, he will convey to it first degree uncleanness, because it is a liquid.", + "Common food that was prepared under conditions proper to the cleanness of consecrated food is still regarded as common food. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: it is regarded as terumah to convey uncleanness at two removes and to render terumah invalid at one additional remove. The mishnah again makes reference to common food (hullin) that was prepared under the conditions of purity that are normally used for holy food. Such food is still considered to be hullin, and therefore there is no such thing as third degree impurity. Food that had contact with such food that had second degree impurity can still be eaten. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that it is like terumah. First and second degree are impure, third degree is invalid but doesn't convey impurity onward. In other words, by treating this common food as if it was holy, it does attain added holiness." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nWe have learned previously that impure liquids always have impurity in the first degree. Only food can have second and third degree impurity. Our mishnah deals with liquids that then become solids.", + "Sauce, bean-mash and milk, when in a condition of fluidity, are unclean in the first degree. While they are in their liquid state, these liquids, if they are defiled, have first degree impurity.", + "If they turned solid they become unclean in the second degree. When they turn into solids, they lose their first degree impurity but they still retain second degree impurity. This is because as it solidified, the solid part was touching the liquid part and the liquid conveyed second degree impurity to the solid.", + "If they again melted: If their bulk was exactly that of an egg, they are clean. But if it was more than the bulk of an egg they remain unclean, for as soon as the first drop issued forth it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If they melt again, they are now no longer food, but they have lost their original liquid impurity. If there is exactly an egg's worth then it is pure. This is because as soon as one drop melted the solid part was less than an egg, and food needs to be the size of an egg to convey impurity. So the drop remains pure, as does the rest. However, if there is more than an egg, then when the first drop melts it is defiled by the solid part. That drop will subsequently defile all the following drops and the whole thing will be impure." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Meir says: oil always remains unclean in the first degree. And the sages say: honey also. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: also wine. Rabbi Meir says that unclean oil retains its first degree of impurity even if it becomes solid and then melts again and there is exactly the volume of an egg (see yesterday's mishnah, which discussed sauce, barley-mash, and milk). This is because when it became solid it was neither a liquid nor was it considered food. Therefore, when it turned back into a liquid, it is considered as never having lost its status as liquid. The sages add that the same is true of honey. This refers to honey directly flowing from the hive. R. Shimon Shezuri adds in wine as well.", + "A mass of olives that fell into an oven that was heated: If [the olives] were exactly the size of an egg it [the oven] remains pure; But if it was more than that of an egg the oven becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If the olives were separated even if there was a se'ah of them, it remains clean. A mass of olives that are stuck together and are impure falls into a hot oven. As food, the olives do not defile the oven because food does not defile vessels. But if liquid comes out of the olives and is impure it will defile the oven because liquid can defile vessels. If the olive mass is only exactly the amount of an egg, it won't defile the oven. Even if liquid begins to flow from the mass when it hits the oven, the remainder of the mass is less than an olive, so it doesn't defile. But if it was more than an egg, then as soon as the first drop comes out, the food will defile the liquid and the liquid will then defile the oven. If the olives fall separately into the oven, then each is less than the size of an egg, and even if liquid comes out of the olive, the oven will remain pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah continues to deal with cases where one drop comes out of something, becomes impure through contact with the food from which it came and then conveys uncleanness back to the food.", + "A man who had corpse uncleanness who pressed olives or grapes: If its bulk was exactly that of an egg, the juice remains clean provided he does not touch the place on which the liquid is; But [if the bulk was] more than that of an egg, the juice becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out, it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. The impure person is pressing olives or grapes, and we need to know whether he conveys his impurity to the grape juice or olive oil. If the amount of juice or oil is exactly the volume of an egg, then the juice or oil remains pure, for the same reason we learned in the first two mishnayot of our chapter. Once the first drop is removed, there is less than an egg's worth of food and less than an egg's worth of food is not susceptible to impurity. However, the mishnah notes, if the person with corpse impurity touches the liquid then the liquid is impure and all subsequent drops will be impure as well. But if there is more than an egg's worth of liquid then all of the juice (or oil) will be unclean because the first drop is defiled by contact with the impure olives or grapes.", + "If the person was a zav or a zavah [the juice] becomes unclean even if only one berry [was pressed out], for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by carrying. The difference between a zav (person with abnormal genital discharge) and a person who has corpse impurity is that a zav or zavah defiles through carrying, even if they don't touch that which they are carrying. So in this case, it doesn't matter how many berries (of grapes or olives, both are called \"berries\") the juice will be impure by virtue of its being carried by a zav or zavah.", + "If a zav milked a goat, the milk becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop comes out it becomes unclean by carrying. Similarly, if a zav milks a goat (notice, goat and not cow) the milk will immediately be defiled even if the zav doesn't touch it because a zav conveys impurity by carrying." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with food that originally was large enough to be impure (or to have some other rule apply to it) and then became smaller because it was left out in the sun.", + "If an egg's bulk of food was left in the sun and it was lessened, and so also in the case of an olive's bulk of corpse, an olive's bulk of carrion, a lentil's bulk of a sheretz, an olive's bulk of piggul, an olive's bulk of notar, or an olive's bulk of forbidden fat they become clean; In all of these cases something was the requisite size to convey impurity or to be impure. It was then left in the sun and it dried out and thereby lost the requisite size. Since the object is no longer large enough, it becomes clean. I will explain what each of these items is: Food: needs to be the size of an egg to become impure. Pieces of corpse, carrion (an animal that was not properly slaughtered) and a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing): needs to the size of an olive to transmit impurity. Piggul: is sacrificial meat slaughtered by a priest who had the intent to eat the meat in the wrong place or at a time when it couldn't be eaten. Notar: sacrificial meat left over beyond the time when it should have been eaten. Forbidden fat: helev, the forbidden fat of a permitted animal.", + "Nor is one liable on account of these for transgressing the law of piggul, notar or forbidden fat. Just as the piggul, notar and forbidden fat do not convey impurity if their bulk becomes less than an olive, so too one who eats them is not liable for karet, which is the usual punishment for eating one of these substances.", + "If they were then left out in the rain and they swelled, they become unclean and guilt is incurred on account of them for transgressing the law of piggul, notar or forbidden fat. If any of these substances is left out in the rain, it returns to its original impurity and if one eats one of the latter substances (piggul, notar or forbidden fat) he is liable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah begins a new subject which will be discussed until the end of chapter six cases of doubtful impurity.\nOur mishnah deals with a doubt concerning when something became impure or became susceptible or unsusceptible to impurity.", + "All cases of uncleanness are determined according to their appearance at the time they are found: If they were then unclean they are assumed to have been unclean [all the time]; And if clean they are assumed to have been clean [all the time]. This clause means that if a substance is found and it currently is large enough to convey impurity or to be impure, then it is assumed to have been unclean at an earlier time as well. For instance, if the food has an egg's bulk then any food that is known to have touched it earlier is assumed to be impure (if this is a case in which the food would convey impurity, such as to a liquid). The opposite is true as well. If the food is currently too small to be impure, we assume that it was always too small to be impure.", + "If they were then covered they are assumed to have been covered [all the time]; And if uncovered they are assumed to have been uncovered [all the time]. If a piece of corpse impurity is found in a tent (an ohel) that is covered in a way that would prevent the impurity from escaping, we do not have to be concerned lest the impurity was once uncovered and has defiled the vessels that were above or below it. If the corpse impurity is not covered, we must assume that vessels which had been above it or below it were defiled even if they are not there now.", + "If a needle was found full of rust or broken it is clean, for all doubtful cases of uncleanness are determined according to their appearance at the time they are found. A needle is now found in an unusable state and therefore it is pure. Again, anything that touched it earlier is assumed to be pure because we judge doubtful cases as they are currently found, and not as they might have been earlier." + ], + [ + "If a deaf-mute, a person not of sound senses, or a minor was found in an alley way that contained something that was unclean, he is presumed to be clean. An alleyway is considered to be a private domain. In this alleyway there is something that is impure, but we are not sure if the person came into contact with it. The rule in section three will state that if someone or something cannot be asked if they came into contact with something impure, they are ruled to be pure. A deaf-mute, and a person not of sound senses and a minor are all considered to lack what we might call awareness or intelligence. One cannot legally ask them if they came into contact with the impure thing. Therefore, they are pure.", + "But any one of sound senses is presumed to be unclean. The person of sound senses can be asked, but in this case he doesn't know if he had contact with the impure thing. Therefore, he is impure.", + "And anyone/anything that lacks understanding to be inquired of is in a case of doubtful uncleanness presumed to be clean. This is the general rule that explains section one." + ], + [ + "A child who was found at the side of a graveyard with lilies in his hand, and the lilies grew only in a place of uncleanness, he is nevertheless clean, for I could say that another person gathered them and gave them to him. Although it seems quite likely that the child picked the lilies from a place that was unclean, and therefore the child is unclean, since the rule is that if a person cannot be asked if he touched an impurity he is pure, even this child is still considered pure. We can see here just how lenient the sages could be in matters of doubtful impurity.", + "So also a donkey that was in a graveyard, his harness remains clean. Since you can't ask the donkey if he went over the graves (unless the donkey happens to be from Shrek), his harness or any other vessels that are on him, remains clean." + ], + [ + "A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. A child can be assumed to have had contact with unclean things, such as a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) or something else that was unclean (children play with yucky stuff). If a child is found playing next to some dough and he has some dough in his hands, we would think that it is nearly certain that the dough came from there. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir rules leniently he says that it is possible that a pure person gave the dough to the kid. The other sages are not so lenient. They say that even if the child is not holding on to the dough, it is impure because children like to play with dough. Sort of like ancient play-doh!", + "Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. The rest of the mishnah deals with dough that bears traces of an animal having pecked or licked it. Near the dough there is some liquid. We need to now figure out how likely it is that the animal licked the liquid and then brought it over to the dough before the dough dried. If the marking was made by a hen, then the dough is pure if the liquid is far enough away such that the hen could have dried its mouth on the ground. Evidently, hens do this. Who knew?", + "And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. If the mark was made by a dog or cow, then they must have had enough time for their tongue to dry out. Dogs and cows lick their lips this I knew.", + "And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. If it was made by any other animal, there must have been enough time for the liquid to dry off their mouths or tongues. In all of these cases, if the liquid can be assumed to have dried, the dough is pure.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob appreciates that dogs are not stupid. Since there are water and food in the area, the dog would not be foolish enough to go for the water and not the food. Therefore the dough remains pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn the cases in this mishnah a clean loaf of bread is thrown among an unclean pile of keys, or an unclean key is thrown among a pile of clean loaves of bread. The question is: are the loaves or loaf made impure.", + "One who throws an unclean object from one place to another: [for instance] a loaf among keys or a key among loaves, [that which was clean remains] clean. According to the first opinion we can assume that the clean loaf did not touch the unclean keys, and therefore it remains pure. According to this opinion it doesn't matter which was thrown and which remained stationary. In either case, the loaf remains pure.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if a loaf was thrown among keys the former becomes unclean, but if a key was thrown among loaves the latter remain clean. Rabbi Judah holds that in cases where something pure is thrown and we don't know if it became impure, it is deemed impure. This is because the source of impurity is stationary. But in cases where something impure is thrown and we don't know whether it defiled something else, the other thing remains pure for the impurity was moving." + ], + [ + "A dead sheretz that was held in the mouth of a weasel that was passing over loaves of terumah and it is doubtful whether the sheret did or did not touch them, in such condition of doubt [the loaves] are clean. As in yesterday's mishnah, today's mishnah describes a case of moving doubtful impurity. The dead sheretz, a source of impurity, is moving for it is in the mouth of a weasel. Since the sheretz is moving and we don't know for sure if it touched the loaves, the loaves remain pure. However, you might just want to think twice before you eat them…" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is based on the distinction that we have seen several times already if the source of impurity was moving, and we are not sure if it defiled someone or something, the doubt remains pure. But if the source of impurity was considered to be stationary, the doubt is impure.", + "A weasel that had in its mouth a [dead] sheretz or a dog that had carrion in its mouth and they passed between clean [persons] or if clean persons passed between them, their condition of doubt is deemed clean, since the uncleanness , had no resting place. A dead sheretz and carrion both defile. But since they were moving by being held by the weasel or dog, the people among whom these things moved are clean.", + "If they were picking at them while these lay on the ground, and a person stated, \"I went to that place but I do not know whether I did or did not touch it,\" his condition of doubt is deemed unclean, since the uncleanness had a resting place. In case two, the dog or weasel are picking at the sheretz or carrion and dragging them on the ground. Despite the fact that the sources of defilement are indeed moving, the mishnah considers anything on the ground to be stationary. Therefore, they do defile the people who might have walked among them." + ], + [ + "An olive's bulk of corpse was held in a raven's mouth and it is doubtful whether it overshadowed a person or vessels in a private domain: The person's condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean But the vessels’ condition of doubt is deemed clean. There are two reasons why the person is unclean. First of all, a person has the ability to be asked (see mishnah 3:6) and any time someone can be asked, the doubtful case is deemed impure. Second, although the impurity is moving, there is a special rule with regard to impurity transmitted through overshadowing (ohel) it defiles in cases of doubt even though it is moving. The vessels remain pure because they don't have intelligence such that they can be asked.", + "One who drew water in ten buckets and a dead sheretz was found in one of them, it alone is deemed unclean but all the others remain clean. The dead sheretz found in one bucket clearly defiles that bucket. We might have thought that the other buckets should also be impure because they may have had contact with the dead sheretz while it was in the cistern. The mishnah teaches that the other buckets are pure for if we know that impurity is in one place (the bucket in which it is found) we do not assume that it might have been in another place. Furthermore, the sheretz doesn't defile the water, for water that is still connected to its source in the ground (the well or cistern) is not susceptible to impurity.", + "If one poured out from one vessel into another and a dead sheretz was found in the lower vessel, the upper one remains clean. If one is pouring from one vessel to another and a dead sheretz is found in the lower vessel, only the lower vessel is impure. We don't assume that the sheretz was originally in the upper vessel, for the same reason that we said in section two impurity found in one place is not assumed to have been in another." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with six cases where a person touched something of doubtful impurity and then touched terumah. In these six cases the terumah must be burned, as if we were certain that the terumah had been defiled. Note that this is the mishnah's way of saying that something is to be treated as if it was certainly defiled, for one would not burn terumah unless he had no other choice. It is prohibited to burn terumah unless one is certain that it is impure.", + "Section one: 1. A bet ha-peras is a place where there used to be a grave but was plowed over. The ground defiles because it might have bones in it. 2. The rabbis say that land from outside the land of Israel is impure (see Ohalot 2:3). The origin of the dirt referred to here is unclear. 3. The garments of an am haaretz, one who is not observant of the strictures of the purity laws, defile. These clothes may have come from such a person. 4. Vessels that were simply found might be impure. Therefore, they have to be treated as such. 5. Spit that is simply found (yuck) might have come from a zav or from a niddah, and the spit of both such people defiles (we will learn more about this in the future). 6. Human urine defiles if it comes from an impure person. Albeck explains that in mishnaic times they would use urine as a cleaning agent. They would usually gather human urine and animal urine separately. The person in this section therefore knows that the urine he touched is human urine. What he does not know is if this human urine was impure.", + "On account of a certainty of having touched these which causes the doubtful uncleanness, terumah is burned. In all of these cases the person knows that he had contact with one of these things, he just doesn't know whether they were unclean. If he didn't know whether he had even touched them, then he is pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says: also on account of their doubtful contact in a private domain; But the sages say: in a private domain the terumah is only held in suspense and in a public domain it is deemed clean. Section one referred to things found in the public domain. Doubtful impurity is more likely to be deemed impure in the private domain. Rabbi Yose says if this occurred in the private domain then even if he is not sure if he had contact with the item he is impure. The sages are more lenient. In the private domain if he is not sure if he had contact with it, the terumah is \"held in suspense.\" This means that it is not treated as pure, but neither is it burned. However, in the public domain the person is impure only if he is certain that he had contact with the item." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with spittle that is found and whether or not one must treat it as impure lest it have come from a zav or a nidah, both of whose spit is impure.", + "Two kinds spittle, one of which was [possibly] unclean and the other was definitely clean: [Terumah] is to be held in suspense if [touched by one who] touched or carried or shifted [one of the two kinds of spittle] while they were in a private domain; Or who touched one of them in a public domain while it was still moist; Or who carried it whether it was moist or dry. In this section there are two kinds of spittle, meaning that they came from two different people. The first kind of spittle was simply found; we don't know who it came from. The second kind of spittle was definitely clean. The mishnah now goes on to describe various scenarios where a person might have been defiled by the unknown spittle. If a person touched, carried or shifted one of them while in a private domain, but he is not sure which spittle it was, then if he subsequently touched terumah, the terumah is \"suspended.\" As we have seen, this means that it is not burned, as it would be if it was impure, but neither can it be eaten. This matches the opinion of the sages in yesterday's mishnah, that in cases of doubtful impurity in the private domain terumah is suspended. Terumah is also suspended if the person touched the spittle in the public domain and it stuck to his body because the spittle was still moist. The sages considered a person's body to be like a private domain and the spittle attached to him is treated as doubtful impurity found in the private domain. Similarly, if the person carries it, the spittle is considered to be in the private domain because a person treated like a private domain.", + "If there was but one [kind of possibly] unclean spittle and a person touched, carried or shifted it in a public domain, terumah is burned on account of it; And one does not even need to say that this is the case if it was in a private domain. However, if there is only one kind of spittle and he is sure that he had contact with it, or carried it or shifted it, then the rule reverts to the general principle found in mishnah five. The terumah is burned even if this occurs in the public domain, all the more so if it occurs in the private domain, where the rule is stricter." + ], + [ + "These are the cases of doubtful uncleanness that the sages declared to be clean:
A doubt concerning drawn water for a mikveh,
A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon the water.
A doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean, but if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed it is deemed clean.
A doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean.
A doubt that arose in a public domain;
A doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes;
A doubt concerning non-sacred food;
A doubt concerning a sheretz;
A doubt concerning negaim;
A doubt concerning a nazirite vow;
A doubt concerning a first-born;
A doubt concerning sacrifices.
This mishnah introduces all sorts of cases of doubt where the sages ruled that something was clean. Except for the first case, the remainder of the list is explained from mishnah eight until the end of the chapter. Therefore, we will not explain these sections here.
Section one: If drawn water falls into a mikveh, the mikveh is disqualified. If there is a doubt whether this occurred, the mikveh remains valid.
Sections 2-12: These are explained in the following mishnayot. Stay tuned!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah begins to explain cases of doubtful uncleanness that the rabbis rule pure.", + "\"A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon water:\" There is an unclean object floating on some water and there is doubt as to whether a person touched it. Since the object of impurity does not \"have a set place,\" the person who might have touched it is pure. We have seen this principle before in mishnah three.", + "[It is clean] whether the water was in vessels or in the ground. Rabbi Shimon says: if in vessels he is deemed unclean but if in the ground he is deemed clean. The first opinion holds that it does not matter whether the object was floating in water on the ground, let's say in a pond, or in water in a vessel. In both cases it is considered to not have a fixed place. Rabbi Shimon says that if the water is in a vessel then we consider the impure thing to have a place, because the vessel is set in a specific place.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if the doubt arose when the man went down into the water he is deemed unclean, but if when he came up he is deemed clean. Rabbi Judah notes that when a person gets into water and there is something floating in the water, it is normal for the thing to come closer and even touch the person. Thus, if the doubt arose when he was getting into the water, he is impure. But when someone gets out of water, it is normal for things to move away from him. Thus in this case the person is pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even if there is only enough room for a man and the uncleanness the former remains clean. Rabbi Yose rules that even if there is only enough room in the water for the person and the object, thereby making it quite likely that the person touched the object, the person remains clean. Note that he seems to simply apply the rule cases of doubtful uncleanness where the impurity is moving are pure. This is a legal truth even if it doesn't seem to be realistic." + ], + [ + "\"In the case of a doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean:\" How so? If an unclean person stretched his foot between clean liquids and there is doubt whether he touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. If a man had an unclean loaf in his hand and he stretched it out between clean liquids, and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. This section deals with cases where something might have touched an unclean liquid and it is ruled impure. Since liquids are susceptible to impurity according to toraitic law, these liquids are impure.", + "\"But if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed, it is deemed clean.\" How so? If a man had in his hand a stick on the end of which there was an unclean liquid and he threw it among clean loaves and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. Liquids do not convey impurity according to toraitic law only through rabbinic decree. Therefore, in these cases the loaf remains pure. Note that although the source of uncleanness seems to be moving, the sages say that since it is stationary on the stick, it is not moving. Were it moving it would obviously not convey impurity in cases of doubt, as we have learned previously." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with cases of doubtful impurity involving liquids.", + "Rabbi Yose says: a condition of doubt in the case of liquids is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels. Rabbi Yose holds that if there is a case of doubt involving impure liquids that might have defiled food, the food is impure. But if the doubt involves vessels, the vessels remain pure. He illustrates this in section two.", + "How so? If there were two jars, the one unclean and the other clean, and he made dough with the contents of one of them and a doubt arose as to whether he prepared it with the contents of the unclean, or of the clean one, such is \"a condition of doubt in the case of liquids [which] is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels.\" In this case, the dough is impure because it might have been made with the water from the impure jar. But the trough in which the dough was kneaded remains pure." + ], + [ + "\"If there is doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean.\" This section is just a quote of mishnah seven without any expansion. It is explained in Yadayim 2:4 (a whole tractate about the impurity of hands!). For now it is enough to note that any case of doubt involving the impurity of hands is ruled leniently.", + "\"Any doubt that arose in a public domain is deemed clean. This clause will be explicated in chapters five and six.", + "\"A condition of doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes\": [For instance, he is uncertain whether] he ate unclean food or drank unclean liquids, whether he immersed his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or whether there fell on his head and the greater part of his body three log of drawn water, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. But if a condition of doubt arose concerning a father of uncleanness even though it was only rabbinical, it is deemed unclean. If there is a doubt and the impurity is only of rabbinic ordinance (derabanan) then the doubt is ruled clean. The mishnah gives a couple of examples of this. The first is when a person ate or drank something and is not sure if it is unclean. A person is only impure \"derabanan\" if he eats or drinks something impure. The second is concerning drawn water. The rabbis decreed that drawn water defiles if a person immerses his head and most of his body in them or if three log of drawn water falls on him (we shall learn more about this in Tractate Mikvaot). In both of these cases, the doubt is deemed pure. But if the doubt involved a \"father of uncleanness\" whose provenance is derabanan, then the doubt is unclean. For example, \"mixed blood\" which is blood that came out of a person, some when he was alive (doesn't defile) and some after his death (does defile). Such blood is a \"derabanan father of uncleanness.\" In this case, although the doubt is only derabanan, it defiles." + ], + [ + "\"A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food\"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees. The Pharisees are known, at least in rabbinic literature, to have eaten regular non-sacred food in a state of purity. Nevertheless, the mishnah notes that they ruled leniently if a doubt occurred as to the purity of the food. In this case, the doubt is ruled pure. The leniency is because the law does not actually require non-sacred food to be eaten in a state of purity.", + "\"A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz\" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found. This is a general principle that we learned in 3:5 all cases of impurity are judged by what we can see when they are found. The mishnah will return to the case of the sheretz, the creepy crawly thing which is a father of impurity, at the end of chapter 9. We should note that the mishnah uses \"sheretz\" merely as an example. The same would be true of any \"father of impurity.\" All cases are judged by the time at which they are found.", + "\"A condition of doubt concerning negaim\" it is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. We learned this in Negaim 5:4-5. Briefly if a doubt arises concerning a nega, a sign of scale disease, and the person has not yet been deemed impure, then the doubt is ruled clean. But if it occurs after the person was deemed impure, then the doubtful case is deemed unclean.", + "\"A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow\" [in such a condition of doubt he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. Here a doubt occurs as to whether a person is a nazirite or not. For instance, he said, \"I am a nazirite if my wife gives birth to a child.\" His wife then has a baby who dies and it is unknown whether the child was viable and something just happened that caused it to die, in which case he is a nazirite, or the child was never viable, which means he is not a nazirite, because he never had a child. In such a case, he is deemed not to be a nazirite.", + "\"A condition of doubt concerning first-borns\" whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof. In this case there is some doubt whether a human or an animal is a first-born. If the human was a first-born the father must redeem the boy by giving five selas to the priest. If a clean animal was the first-born the animal itself must be given to the priest. If it was a donkey, an impure animal, then the owner must give a sheep to the priest (see Bekhorot for more info on all of this). In all of these cases we invoke the rule that the one who wishes to extract something from his fellow must bring proof. Since the priest cannot prove that the animal was a first-born, the owner or father need not give anything to the priest." + ], + [ + "\"And a condition of doubt concerning sacrifices\" if a woman has experienced five doubtful cases of miscarriage or five discharges of doubtful zivah she brings only one sacrifice and may then eat other sacrifices, she being under no obligation to bring the remainder. The final mishnah of our chapter explains the last case of leniency with regard to doubt. The entire mishnah is found in Keritot 1:7. Below is my explanation from there: There are two situations that are described here. 1) A woman had genital discharge for three consecutive days once a month for five months and she doesn’t know if these occurred during her menstrual cycle, in which case she was not a “zavah” and does not need to bring a sacrifice, or not during her menstrual cycle and she is a zavah and does need to bring a sacrifice. 2) She had five miscarriages and she doesn’t know whether what she miscarried counts as a birth and she must bring a sacrifice or doesn’t count as a birth and she does not bring a sacrifice. In both of these cases, the woman might be liable for as many as five sacrifices (each consisting of an olah and a hatat) or she might not be liable at all. The rule in this case is that she needs to bring only one sacrifice and then she can eat any sacrificial meat, as is always the case when a woman brings a sacrifice for being a zavah or for giving birth. While she can, if she wants, bring four more sacrifices, she need not do so." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A [dead] sheretz and a [dead] frog in a public domain,
And so also [if there was there] an olive's bulk of a corpse and an olive's bulk of carrion,
A bone of a corpse and a bone of carrion;
A clod of clean earth and a clod from a doubtful grave area
A clod of clean earth and a clod from the land of the Gentiles,
Or if there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked through one of them but it is not known which,
Or if overshadowed one of them but it is not known which, or he shifted one of them but it is not known which:
Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.
Today's mishnah brings up a series of cases in which one of two possible things occurred one which would have caused him to be impure and one in which he was not impure. In the end of the mishnah we can see that the rabbis and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to whether or not the person is pure or impure.
Section one: A dead sheretz causes impurity but a dead frog does not because it is not one of the defiling creepy crawly things listed in Leviticus 11:29.
Section two: Flesh from a corpse defiles in all ways, but flesh from carrion of an animal defiles only by touch and by carrying, not by overshadowing.
Section three: Bone of carrion is pure. Bone from a corpse defiles through contact and carrying.
Sections four and five: Earth from an area that might have been a graveyard defiles through contact and carrying, as does dirt from outside of the land of Israel.
Section seven: This section refers to all of the sections above.
Section eight: Rabbi Akiva says that doubtful cases of impurity in the public domain are pure only if the person didn't perform any action. But in the cases listed here the person moved, carried or overshadowed one of the objects that might have been impure, and therefore he is impure.
The other sages disagree doubtful cases of impurity are always pure in the public domain." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday's mishnah, in which a person was not sure if he had been defiled in the public domain.", + "One who said, \"I touched an object but I do not know whether it was unclean or clean,\" or \"I touched one but I do not know which of the two I touched\": Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean. This section refers to the frog and sheretz (dead creepy crawly thing) case from section one in yesterday's mishnah. The person knows that he touched one of the two, but isn't sure which one he touched. Some commentators point out that a turtle, which does count as a sheretz, might be considered to look a little like a frog. This might be especially true when they are dead, which is when the sheretz defiles. The positions of the sages and R. Akiva are the same as they were above Rabbi Akiva says that he is impure and the sages say that he is pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says that he is unclean in every case and clean only in that of the path, since it is the usual custom for people to walk but it is not their usual practice to touch. Rabbi Yose distinguishes between the person who walked down the path but doesn't know whether it was the pure or impure path and the other cases. Walking down a path is a normal activity. Therefore, we can assume he might not remember which path he walked down. But randomly touching things (like bones or dead flesh!) is not normal. He could live without touching these things. Therefore, he is considered impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah goes back to the case of the two paths, one pure and one impure. The case discussed here is one where he walks down both paths.", + "If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and one walked on one of them and then prepared clean foods which were then eaten and, then he was sprinkled upon once and a second time and he performed immersion and became clean, then he walked on the second path and then prepared clean foods, the latter are clean. This case is a bit complicated. The man walks down one of the paths and doesn't know which one he walked down. After walking down the first path, he goes and prepares food, probably terumah. After having prepared the food, he realizes that he might have become unclean so he cleanses himself by having the hatat waters sprinkled on him and by going to the mikveh. He is now certainly clean. Then he goes down the second path (seems to have forgotten that this was not a wise thing to do). And then he prepares food again. The first food was originally deemed clean because of the sages' opinion in mishnah one. The second is also deemed clean because we also don't know if it was impure, since he was purified after having walked down the first path. In other words, each set of food is judged on its own, as if the other case didn't even happen.", + "If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. However, if both sets of food are still in existence, then we can't look at each set individually. In this case, we must consider both of them as potentially impure. If they are terumah, both are \"suspended.\" This means that they are not burned, because they might not be impure, but neither can they be eaten because it is forbidden to eat impure terumah.", + "If he had not become clean in the meantime, the first is held in suspense and the second must be burnt. If he didn't become clean in the meanwhile then we know that the second set of food must be impure because by this point he has walked down both paths. If the first set of food is still in existence, it is suspended, as it was in section two." + ], + [ + "If there was a sheretz and a frog in a public domain and a man touched one of them and then prepared clean foods which were subsequently consumed; and then he immersed, and then he touched the other and then prepared clean foods, the latter are deemed clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he did not immerse in the meanwhile, the first are held in suspense and the second must be burnt .
This mishnah is basically the same mishnah as yesterday's mishnah, except the doubt about whether the person was impure is slightly different. In today's mishnah the person is not sure whether he touched a frog, in which case he is pure, or a sheretz, a dead creepy crawly thing, in which case he is impure. The mishnah teaches that the rule here is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah concerning one who walked down two paths, one of which was impure. For an explanation, see yesterday's mishnah." + ], + [ + "If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked by one of them and then prepared clean food, and subsequently another man came and walked by the second path and then prepared clean foods: The difference between this case and that in the previous two mishnayot is that here we have two people, one of whom is definitely impure. The food prepared by one of them must be impure, although the other food must be pure.", + "Rabbi Judah rules: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean. But if they asked for a ruling simultaneously, both are to be declared unclean. Rabbi Judah says that if each asked a sage for a ruling individually, then each is considered separately and all of the food is pure. This is because we invoke the normal rule, that cases of doubtful impurity are pure. However, if both ask together then we must treat this as if one person walked down both paths without immersing in between. One must be impure, and therefore both are regarded as impure.", + "Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean. Rabbi Yose rules more stringently and says that since one is definitely unclean, both must be treated as unclean." + ], + [ + "If there were two loaves, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man ate one of them and then prepared clean food, and afterwards another man came and ate the second loaf and then prepared clean food:
Rabbi Judah ruled: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean, but if they asked simultaneously both are to be declared unclean.
Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean.
This mishnah contains the same ruling as yesterday's mishnah, it just refers to a different case of doubtful impurity. Whereas yesterday's case discussed a situation in which we are not sure which of two men walked down an impure path, today's mishnah discusses a case where we are not sure which of two men ate an impure loaf of bread. Other than that, the mishnah is the same, so look at yesterday's mishnah for an explanation." + ], + [ + "If a man sat in a public domain and someone came and trod on his clothes, or spat and he touched his spit, on account of the spit terumah must be burnt, but on account of the clothes the majority principle is followed. Spit of undetermined origin found in the public domain is considered impure (see 4:5). Therefore, if the person who was spit upon (yuck) then touched terumah, the terumah must be burned lest it is impure. However, when it comes to this person's clothes we follow a majority principle. If a majority of the people who were walking past him were pure, then the clothes that one of them touched are pure. If the majority is impure (for instance the person finds himself in a zav colony), then the clothes are impure.", + "If a man slept in the public domain, when he rises his clothes have midras uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say that they are clean. If a person slept out in the public domain then it is likely that many people have stepped on his clothes. If any one of them was a zav, he would have imparted midras impurity, the type of impurity that is transmitted by pressing on something (leaning, sitting, standing etc.), to the clothes. Rabbi Meir rules strictly and says that the clothes are impure. The other sages retain the rule that cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are pure.", + "If a man touched someone in the night and it is not known whether it was one who was alive or dead, but in the morning when he got up he found him to be dead: Rabbi Meir says that he is clean. But the sages rule that he is unclean, since all doubtful cases of uncleanness are [determined] in accordance with [their appearance at] the time they are discovered. In this case, Rabbi Meir follows the rule that cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are pure. But the sages say that in this case we must follow the rule that was found in 3:5 we always judge cases of doubtful impurity according to how they appear at the time they are discovered. Since the person was dead when he was discovered, and we are not sure if he was alive when the person touched him, we must consider the person to be impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe spit of a woman who is a menstruant is impure. Women who are menstruating are expected not to go around spitting in the public domain. Our mishnah deals with a town in which there are women who may not observe this i.e. they go around spitting. Glad this doesn't seem to happen as much anymore.", + "If there was in the town one who was not of sound sense, a Gentile, or a Samaritan woman, all spit encountered in the town is deemed unclean. The woman who is not of sound senses is not assumed to refrain from spitting when she is menstruating. Gentile and Samaritan women also don't refrain from spitting because they don't know or perhaps don't care that their spit defiles (when menstruating). Therefore, if there is one such woman in the city, all found spit is impure. Note that according to rabbinic understanding of the Torah, only Jews transmit impurity. However, the rabbis decreed that Gentiles too can transmit impurity. Thus a Gentile menstruant's spit is impure. Samaritans are sometimes considered as Jews, and sometimes not. The rabbis said that a Samaritan woman is considered as a menstruant from birth. See Nidah 4:1 (we will learn this in a few months).", + "If a woman trod on a man's clothes or sat with him in a boat: If she knew that he was one who eats terumah, his clothes remain clean: But if not, he must ask her. A zavah or a menstruant impart midras impurity by pressing on clothing. This includes sitting on something, leaning on it or standing upon something. If a woman stepped on a man's clothing or sat close to her on a boat, he needs to know whether she is impure if he wants to eat terumah. So if the woman knew that he ate terumah, for instance, if she knew that he was a priest, then we can assume that she would have been careful and his clothes are clean. However, if she didn't know him, he must ask her if she is indeed a menstruant or zavah. You can imagine that this would have been awkward. Probably not a good way to start a conversation, especially on the tight quarters of a boat." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter five deals with cases where witness testify as to whether a person had been defiled.", + "If one witness says, \"You have become unclean,\" but he says, \"I have not become unclean,\" he is regarded as clean. His own testimony outweighs that of the witness, and therefore he is considered clean.", + "If two witnesses say, \"You have become unclean,\" and he says, \"I have not become unclean,\" Rabbi Meir says: he is unclean. But the sages say: he may be believed on his own evidence. Rabbi Meir says that the two witnesses outweigh the person's own statement that he is pure. Two witnesses are always believed. Therefore, he must accept that he is impure. The other sages say that since he claims to know with certainty that he is pure, he may continue to act upon his own words.", + "If one witness says, \"You have become unclean,\" and two witnesses say, \"He has not become unclean,\" whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is regarded as clean. Since two witnesses say he is clean, he is not considered unclean no matter where the defilement purportedly occurred.", + "If two witnesses say, \"He has become unclean’, and one witness says, ‘\"He has not become unclean,\" whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is regarded as unclean. The opposite case: since two witnesses say he is unclean, he is considered unclean no matter where it occurred.", + "If one witness says, \"He has become unclean,\" and another says, \"He has not become unclean,\" or if one woman says, \"He has become unclean’, and another woman says, \"He has not become unclean,\" he is regarded as unclean if in the private domain, but if in a public domain he is regarded as clean. In this case there is contradictory testimony between two men or two women, one saying he is unclean and one saying he is clean. If this occurred in the public domain, he is clean because cases of doubtful impurity are clean in the public domain. However, if the defilement supposedly occurred in the private domain, he must be considered unclean. Women are generally not allowed to testify in rabbinic law. However, this mishnah teaches that one woman's testimony with regard to matters of impurity is sufficient to create suspicion that he might be impure. Were the opposing witness a man, the mishnah would have said that the man's testimony outweighs her testimony. But since the opposing witness was also a woman, the person in question must be considered impure, if it occurred in the private domain." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A place that was a private domain and then became a public domain and then was turned again into a private domain: while it is a private domain any condition of doubt arising in it is unclean but while it is a public domain any condition of doubt arising in it is deemed clean. The mishnah discusses a place that was essentially a private domain and then many people passed through it, causing it to become a public domain temporarily. Basically, if a situation of doubtful impurity arises, the place is judged as it is at the moment when the doubt arises. If the doubt arises when it is a private domain, the rule is strict, as it always is in a private domain. But there is room to be lenient if the doubt arises in a public domain.", + "If a man who was dangerously ill in a private domain was taken out into a public domain and then brought back into a private domain, while he is in the private domain any condition of doubt arising through him is deemed unclean but while he is in the public domain any condition of doubt arising through him is deemed clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the public domain causes a break. This is a similar rule with regard to a person who is dangerously ill and about to die. He begins in a private domain, others then take him out, assumedly on a stretcher and he passes through a public domain and then he goes back into a private domain. If he is found dead in the public domain, then only the things that are with him in the public domain are impure. We don't assume that he died in the first private domain because when a doubt occurs in a public domain, the doubt remains pure. However, if he is found dead in the second private domain then anything that was with him in the first private domain is also considered impure. This is because we apply the normal rule any case of doubt that arises in the private domain is impure. The doubt here is whether he was dead when he went through the first private domain. Rabbi Shimon rules that the public domain interrupts because we can't say he was dead in the first private domain, alive in the public domain and then dead again in the second private domain. Since we treat the things that were with him in the public domain as pure, then we are in essence saying he must have died in the second private domain. Only the things found there are impure." + ], + [ + "There are four cases of doubt which Rabbi Joshua ruled are unclean and the sages rule are clean.
How so? If an unclean man stood and a clean man passed by or the clean man stood and the unclean one passed by; or if an unclean object was in a private domain and a clean one in the public domain or the clean object was in the private domain and the unclean one in the public domain, and there is doubt whether there was contact or not, or whether there was overshadowing or not, or whether there was shifting or not: Rabbi Joshua rules that the clean becomes unclean, But the sages rule that the clean remains clean.
There are four cases here:
1) An unclean man is standing and a clean man passes by him and he may have been defiled by contact, overshadowing or shifting.
2) The same situation but the clean man is standing and the unclean one is moving.
3) There is an unclean object in the private domain and an clean one in the public domain and the clean one may have had contact with the unclean one.
4) The same situation but the positions are reversed.
Rabbi Joshua says that since at least one of the elements was in the private domain, the doubt is impure.
The other sages say that for impurity to occur both elements have to be in the same situation within the private domain both must be moving or both must be standing. Since in all of these cases one element is either not in the private domain or one element is moving and the other standing, there is no impurity." + ], + [ + "If a tree standing in a public domain had within it an object of uncleanness and a man climbed to the top of it, and a doubt arose as to whether he did or did not touch the object of uncleanness, such a condition of doubt is unclean. The top of the tree is considered a private domain and therefore a case of doubtful impurity that occurs there is ruled unclean.", + "If one put his hand into a hole [in the wall] in which there was an object of uncleanness and there is doubt whether he did or did not touch it, such a condition of doubt is unclean. Similarly, the hole is considered to be a private domain.", + "If a shop that was unclean was open toward a public domain and there is doubt whether a man did or did not enter it, such a condition of doubt is clean. Although the shop is a private domain, the doubt actually arose in the public domain we don't Therefore, he is pure.", + "If there is doubt whether he did or did not touch anything, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. Same as section three, except here he may have touched something impure in the store.", + "If there were two shops, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man entered into one of them, and a doubt arose as to whether he entered the unclean, or the clean one, such a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. In this case he knows he went into one of the stores, both of which are private domains. Therefore, the doubt is which private domain he went into. Since the doubt occurred in a private domain, he is impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah demonstrates that the general rule that conditions of doubt in the private domain are unclean and in the public domain are clean remains stable, no matter how many doubts about the uncleanness there are.", + "However many doubts and doubts about doubts that you can multiply, a condition of doubt in a private domain is unclean, and in a public domain it is deemed clean. This is the general principle that will be illustrated in the continuation of the mishnah.", + "How so? If a man entered an alley and an unclean object was in the courtyard, and a doubt arose as to whether he entered or did not enter [the courtyard]; Or if an object of uncleanness was in a house and there is doubt whether he entered or not; This is the first doubt he is not sure if he even went into the courtyard, or he is not sure whether he entered the house.", + "Or even if he entered, there is doubt whether the uncleanness was there or not; This is the second level of doubt even if he entered he is not sure if the potential source uncleanness was even there.", + "Or even if it was there, there is doubt whether it consisted of the prescribed minimum or not; Third level of doubt even if it was there, he is not sure if it was large enough to defile.", + "Or even if it consisted of the prescribed minimum, there is doubt whether it was unclean or clean; Fourth doubt even if it was there, and it was large enough, he is not sure if it was even unclean.", + "Or even if it was unclean, there is doubt whether he touched it or not; Fifth doubt even if he went in, he is not sure if he touched it.", + "Any such condition of doubt is deemed unclean. In all of these cases, despite the fact that there is a multiplicity of doubts, since the doubt occurred in the private domain, he is unclean.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: if there is a doubt whether he entered, he is clean, but if there is a doubt whether he touched it, he is unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says if he is not sure whether he even went in, then he is clean. Evidently, Rabbi Eliezer does not consider this to be a case of doubtful impurity in the private domain, because he is not sure if he even entered the private domain. However, if he knows he went in but is just not sure if he touched the source of impurity, then he is impure because this is a case of doubtful impurity in the private domain." + ], + [ + "If a man entered a valley in the rainy season and there was an uncleanness in a certain field, and he stated, \"I went into that place but I do not know whether I entered that field or not: Rabbi Eliezer rules that he is clean; But the sages rule that he is unclean. In mishnah seven below, we will learn that during the rainy months, a field in the valley is a private domain. Therefore, we again have a case where a person is not sure whether he entered a private domain. Rabbi Eliezer considers this a case of doubtful entrance, and as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, in such cases Rabbi Eliezer rules that he is clean. The other sages rule more strictly and deem him to be unclean." + ], + [ + "A condition of doubt in a private domain is unclean unless he says, \"I did not touch the unclean thing.\" A condition of doubt in a public domain is clean unless he can say, \"I did touch the unclean thing.\" In the private domain there is a presumption of uncleanness. To override that he must be able to say with certainty that he did not touch the source of uncleanness. Similarly, in the public domain there is a presumption of cleanness. He is unclean only if he knows for certain that he touched the source of uncleanness.", + "What is regarded as a public domain? The paths of Bet Gilgul and similar places are regarded as a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat, and a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer says: they only mentioned the paths of Bet Gilgul because they are regarded as a private domain in both respects. The location of Bet Gilgul is uncertain. However, the Babylonian Talmud says that the paths there are narrow and sharply angled such that even a single person would have trouble running there with a pack on. The first opinion in our mishnah says that paths like this are considered to be private domains when it comes to Shabbat. This is relevant to the issue of carrying. We shold note that many commentators say that this is not a true private domain rather it is what is called a \"karmelit.\" A \"karmelit\" is a zone that is not public because to be a public domain for Shabbat it must truly be a public thoroughfare. However, it is not truly a private domain. When it comes to issues of uncleanness, the area is considered a public domain, which will also result in a leniency. We can see that this opinion is in essence lenient in both directions. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the reason that the paths of Bet Gilgul were even mentioned in the earlier tradition. The earlier sages sited these paths to say that they were considered a private domain for both counts. We can see here that the background to our mishnah was some earlier halakhah that mentioned these paths. The sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed as to what was special about these paths.", + "Paths that open out towards cisterns, pits, caverns or wine-presses are regarded as a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat and as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness. Paths that end on one side with a cistern, pit, cave or winepress are deemed as private domains with regard to the rules of Shabbat. However, when it comes to the rules of uncleanness, they are a public domain." + ], + [ + "A valley: in summer time is a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat, but as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness; In the summer there are more people in the valley working the fields. Therefore, for matters of uncleanness it is considered a public domain. When it comes to Shabbat it is still a private domain, or, as we explained in yesterday's mishnah, at least not a public domain.", + "And in the rainy season it is regarded as a private domain in both respects. In the rainy season people can't work the land in the valleys. Therefore, it is not considered a public domain for either purpose." + ], + [ + "A basilica: is a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat but as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness. A basilica is a large building through which many people pass. Probably something akin to city hall in our day. When it comes to Shabbat it is still a building and therefore it is considered a private domain. However, when it comes to the laws of uncleanness since so many people pass through and it is a public building, it is considered a public domain.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if one is standing at one door can see those that enter and leave at the other door, it is regarded as a private domain in both respects; otherwise it is regarded as a private domain in respect of Shabbat and as a public domain in respect of uncleanness. Rabbi Judah adds a criterion to the definition of when a basilica is a public or private domain. If it is small enough so that one standing at one door can see the other door, then it is a private domain. If it is larger than that, he agrees with the previous opinion." + ], + [ + "A covered forum:: is a private domain in respect of Shabbat and a public domain in respect of the laws of uncleanness; I have translated the term that begins this mishnah, in Hebrew \"paran,\" in accordance with most commentators explanation, who say it is similar to a basilica. The forum is considered a private domain for Shabbat, but since many people have access to it, it is a public domain for matters of uncleanness.", + "And so too the sides. Rabbi Meir says: the sides are regarded as a private domain in both respects. The sides of the forum are, according to the first opinion, treated the same way as is the forum itself. However, Rabbi Meir says that since people are not found as much on the sides, it is considered a private domain even for matters of impurity.", + "And so too the sides. Rabbi Meir says: the sides are regarded as a private domain in both respects. The \"colonnades\" referred to here is a hall that is supported by columns and is open on multiple ends.", + "Colonnades: are a private domain in respect of Shabbat and a public domain in respect of the laws of uncleanness. A courtyard typically has one main entrance and would not be considered a public domain for any matter. But if people go in one door and then go out another door, it has become a public thoroughfare. In such a case it is not a public domain for the matter of Shabbat, but it is a public domain for matters of impurity." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A potter who left his pots and went down to drink: the innermost pots remain clean but the outer ones are unclean. A potter who wished to preserve the purity of his pots, left them for a few moments in the public domain unguarded. When he returns he must regard the outer ones as defiled lest an am haaretz, a Jew who does not preserve his purity, touched them with his cloaks which are considered impure. Note that the am haaretz might have done so accidentally for when the potter left his pots in the public domain, the path became a bit narrower. However, the inner pots are pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says: When is this so? When they are not tied together, but when they are tied together, all the pots are clean. Albeck explains that Rabbi Yose thinks that the concern is that the am haaretz picked up one of the pots to inspect it. If the pots are tied together, then he could not have done so and they remain pure.", + "One who gave over his key to an \"am haaretz\" the house remains clean, since he only gave him the guarding of the key. A person who preserves the purity of the objects in his house who has given over his key for guarding to a person who does not observe the laws of purity need not worry that the am haaretz went into his house and defiled the things there. Just as is the case today, when one gives his key to his neighbor the understanding is that he is only giving him the key. He does not expect him to enter the house." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with an am haaretz who was left in the house of a person who wished to preserve the purity of the objects in his house. The question is whether we have to be concerned lest he touched anything in the house and thereby defiled it.", + "If he left an am haaretz in his house awake and found him awake, or asleep and found him asleep, or awake and found him asleep, the house remains clean. If he left him awake and found him awake in the same place where he left him, then the owner need not worry that the am haaretz has moved around and touched other objects. According to the mishnah, an am haaretz is concerned lest the owner of the house come back suddenly and catch him touching his stuff. If he left him asleep and found him asleep, he need not be concerned lest he woke up in the meanwhile and touched something. Similarly, if he left him awake and he fell asleep he need not be concerned that his stuff was touched.", + "If he left him asleep and found him awake, the house is unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where he can stretch out his hand and touch it. However, if the owner left him asleep and when he came back the am haaretz was awake, Rabbi Meir says that all of the vessels in the house are considered defiled. According to Rabbi Meir, the am haaretz reasons that since the owner left him asleep he will think that he is still asleep and he won't come back to make sure that he doesn't touch any of his stuff. Since the am haaretz is not afraid of getting caught, he won't hesitate to make himself feel at home. The sages say that only things that can be touched by the am haaretz while stretching out his hand are unclean. It is interesting sociologically to note that the mishnah does anticipate a rabbi (or someone else who is cautious about the purity laws) leaving an am haaretz alone in his house. However, it is equally interesting to note that the mishnah does not afford the am haaretz a full degree of trust." + ], + [ + "One who left craftsmen in his house, the house is unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir. The craftsmen that he left in his home are amei haaretz (plural of am haaretz). Just as he held in yesterday's mishnah, so too here Rabbi Meir holds that all of the items in the house are considered defiled. The owner of the house does not sit there and guard them to make sure they don't touch anything.", + "But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where they can stretch out their hand and touch it. This is the same as their opinion in yesterday's mishnah. Only the things that they can reach out and touch from the place where they are doing their work are impure." + ], + [ + "If the wife of a haver left the wife of an am haaretz grinding grain in her house, if the handmill stopped turning, the house is unclean. But if the handmill did not stop turning, that part of the house which she can stretch out her hand and touch is unclean. A haver is a term used to describe the opposite of an am haaretz. The wife of a haver has the status of a haver. She leaves the wife of an am haaretz, who also has the status of am haaretz, grinding a handmill in her home. If the am haaretz stops turning the mill, we must suspect that she will walk around the house and touch things. Therefore, all of the objects in the house are suspected of being impure. But if she kept milling the whole time, we need only be concerned about the things that are close enough for her to reach out and touch.", + "If there were two women, the house is unclean in either case, since while the one is grinding, the other can go about touching, the words of Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where she can stretch out her hand and touch it. If there were two women in the house taking turns at grinding (this is hard work), then Rabbi Meir is consistent with his position from mishnayot two and three, the whole house is impure. The other sages are also consistent. We need only be concerned lest she touched things that are within hand's reach. ." + ], + [ + "One who left am haaretz in his house to guard him, if he can see those that enter and leave, only food and liquids and uncovered earthenware are unclean, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. The owner of the house left an am haaretz in his house for the am haaretz to be guarded there. If the owner can see whoever comes in and comes out then only food, liquid and uncovered earthenware vessels are impure. Couches and seats are impure because the sages did not decree that an am haaretz defiles place that he sits that they should become \"fathers of impurity.\" Similarly, earthenware vessels with tightly fitting lids are not impure because a male am haaretz does not defile such vessels just by shifting them, and they can't be defiled by touch.", + "And if he cannot see either those who enter or those who leave, even though the am haaretz has to be led and even though he was bound, all is unclean. However, if the owner cannot see who is going in or out, then we must be concerned lest someone else came in and defiled the vessels in the house. Thus everything is deemed impure, even if we can be sure that the am haaretz himself didn't touch anything because he was tied up." + ], + [ + "If tax collectors entered a house, the house is unclean. The tax collectors are amei haaretz and since they enter the house to collect something in lieu of taxes we must be concerned that they touched the things in the house and therefore everything is impure.", + "If a Gentile was with them they are believed if they say, \"we did not enter\" but they are not believed if they say \"we didn't touch anything.\" I have explained this section according to Albeck's preferred version. If a Gentile boss is with the tax collectors they are only believed to say that we didn't go into a certain house or room. But they are not believed to say that they didn't touch something in certain room into which we know they entered because the Gentile would have instructed them to touch whatever he felt was necessary. However, if no Gentile is with them then they are even believed if they say that they didn’t touch anything, since they came with a specific purpose in mind.", + "If thieves entered a house, only that part in which the feet of the thieves have stepped is unclean. Thieves who come into a house will only defile the places where we know they walked. We can assume that thieves are going to want to be in and out as quickly as possible, therefore we need not fear that they walked elsewhere and touched other things.", + "And what do they cause to be unclean? Food and liquids and open earthenware, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. This is the same as in mishnah five above.", + "If a Gentile or a woman was with them, all is unclean. A Gentile and a female am haaretz both defile by sitting on something or by shifting earthenware vessels. Therefore, everything in the house is impure." + ], + [ + "One who left his clothes in the cubbies of the bath house attendants: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that they are clean, But the sages say: [they are not clean] unless he gives him the key or the seal or unless he left some sign on them. The mishnah describes bath house attendants to whom one gives his clothes to watch over while bathing. The bath house attendant would put the clothes in the cubby. The fear is that someone else might have touched the clothes and thereby defiled them. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules leniently the clothes are assumed to have been watched over and they are pure. The other sages rule more strictly. The clothes are pure only if the owner takes some precaution to make sure no one else touches them. If the attendant gives him the key they are pure. If he gives him a seal to make sure no one opens the cubby, they are also pure. Finally, if he puts a sign on the clothes so that he could tell if they were touched, then they are pure.", + "One who left his clothes from one wine-pressing to the next, his clothes remain clean. This refers to a priest who wants to make sure that the wine he presses is pure. Therefore he has special clothes that he uses just for wine pressing. If he leaves them from one wine pressing to the next, they can stay pure.", + "If he left them with an Israelite [the clothes are unclean] unless he says, \"I have watched over them carefully.\" However, if he gives them to a regular Israelite to watch over, the Israelite must be able to declare that he watched over them carefully. If he is not sure, then the clothes must be treated as potentially having been defiled." + ], + [ + "One who was clean and had given up the thought of eating [pure food]: Rabbi Judah says that it remains clean, since it is usual for unclean persons to keep away from it. But the sages say that it is deemed unclean. The person described here is someone who usually eats his food while the food is pure (as he is). Then he decides to no longer eat in a state of purity. Rabbi Judah says that the food remains pure because people have grown accustomed to staying away from his food because they know that he wants it to be pure. The other sages disagree and say that once he decides to no longer eat pure food, we can't be sure that he preserved the purity of this food and it must be assumed to be impure.", + "If his hands were clean and he had given up the thought of eating [pure food], even though he says, \"I know that my hands have not become unclean,\" his hands are unclean, since the hands are always busy. Once the person decides to no longer eat his food in a state of purity, he can't really be trusted to keep his hands pure. Hands are \"busy\" they constantly touch things. Therefore, even if he thinks he preserved their purity, his hands are unclean." + ], + [ + "A woman entered her house to bring out some bread for a poor man and when she came out she found him standing at the side of loaves of terumah; Similarly a woman went out and found her friend raking out coals under a cooking pot of terumah: Rabbi Akiva says that they are unclean, But the sages say that they are clean. There are two situations in this section. In both a woman leaves an am haaretz near some terumah food. In both Rabbi Akiva says that the food must be reckoned unclean lest the am haaretz touched the food and the rabbis say that the food remains clean.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila: but why does Rabbi Akiva rule that they are unclean and the sages rule that they are clean? Because women are gluttonous and each may be suspected of uncovering her neighbor's cooking pot to get to know what she is cooking. While it looks like Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila is explaining the dispute, he is really explaining Rabbi Akiva's position, specifically why should he rule so strictly that even the cooked dish is defiled? We might assume that the woman won't touch the inside of a hot dish and earthenware vessels are not susceptible to impurity from the outside. It would seem that the food should be safe from impurity. Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila answers that women are gluttonous, which really means that they are exceedingly curious about what is being cooked in the pot. The woman will inevitably uncover the pot to see what's cooking. Once she touches it, the food is defiled. Perhaps this is the source for the phrase she is always sticking her nose in other people's pots?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter eight continues to deal with a person cautious about matters of purity who lives in close proximity to an am haaretz, one who does not observe the laws of purity.", + "One who dwells in a courtyard with an am haaretz and forgot some vessels in the courtyard, even though they were jars with tightly fitting lids, or an oven with a tightly fitting cover, they are unclean. All of the vessels that he leaves in the courtyard are impure lest they were defiled by the am haaretz. Earthenware jars with tightly fitting lids cannot be defiled by touch, but if a niddah (a menstruating woman) shifts them, they are impure. Since this might have occurred, the mishnah says these too must be regarded as impure. The first opinion does not differentiate between ovens and other vessels with tightly fitting covers.", + "Rabbi Judah says that an oven is clean if it has a tightly fitting lid. Rabbi Judah says that the oven can be regarded as clean because it is impossible to shift it, since it is attached to the ground.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even an oven is unclean unless he made for it a partition ten handbreadths high. Rabbi Yose rules that even the oven is unclean for we are concerned that the am haaretz may have opened the lid to use the oven. Therefore, to preserve the purity of the oven he must keep the am haaretz away by making a partition at least ten handbreadths high. As a side note, it is again interesting that the mishnah assumes such a high degree of contact between the \"haver\" (the opposite of the am haaretz) and the \"am haaretz.\" People of complete opposite religious inclinations and observances may end up living even in the same courtyard, and if so, the haver will simply have to be more cautious about the purity of his vessels." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is about a person who deposits vessels with an am haaretz. What kind of impurity do we assume that these vessels have contracted?", + "One who deposited vessels with an am haaretz they are unclean with corpse uncleanness and with midras uncleanness. The person who gave over his vessels (this term can include clothes and other items) to an am haaretz must suspect that they have become defiled with corpse uncleanness, which would make them unclean for seven days. He must also treat the clothes as if they have midras uncleanness, which is the uncleanness caused when a zav, zavah or niddah sit or apply pressure on a vessel. Something that has midras uncleanness defiles another person even if it is carried and not touched. Thus the law is stringent in both the length of the impurity and the manner in which the object defiles.", + "If he knew that he eats terumah, they are free from corpse uncleanness but are unclean with midras uncleanness. If the am haaretz knows that the person who deposited the clothes (or other vessels with him) is one who eats terumah, then we can assume that the am haaretz would be careful not to contract corpse impurity. However, his wife might have sat on the vessel or clothes while she was a niddah (a menstruant) and therefore the vessels have to be treated as if they have midras impurity. Thus we can assume that he was diligent, but not that his wife was. We should also note that once she has menstruated she will be considered a niddah until she goes to the mikveh. So if she never went to the mikveh, she wills always count as a niddah.", + "Rabbi Yose says: if he deposited with him a chest full of clothes, they are deemed to be unclean with midras when they are tightly packed, but if they are not tightly packed they are only unclean with madaf uncleanness, even though the key is in the possession of the owner. Rabbi Yose deals with a situation in which the depositor gives the am haaretz a chest full of clothes. If the chest is tightly packed then it is likely that someone sat on it, including the am haaretz's wife, while she was a niddah. Therefore, in this case it has to be treated as if it has midras impurity. However, if it is not full then it only has the lightest form of impurity, which is called madaf impurity. The chest and clothes will only defile food and liquids, but not other vessels or people. The clothes are defiled even if the owner retained possession of the keys to the chest. The problem is that if a niddah shifts the chest, she defiles it, even without touching the clothes. Therefore, the fact that the am haaretz and his wife could not touch the clothes does not mean that they are free of defilement." + ], + [ + "One who loses something during the day and finds it on the same day it remains clean. If it was lost during the daytime and found in the night, or if it was lost in the night and found during the day or if it was lost on one day and found on the next day, it is unclean. This is the general rule: if the night or part of the night has passed over it, it is unclean. If one loses an object during the day and finds it the same day, he can be sure that no one impure had touched it, for had someone stumbled over it, he would have picked it up and taken it. However, at night someone might have stumbled over it without seeing it. Therefore, if night passes over it, it must be assumed to be impure.", + "One who spreads out his clothes: If in a public domain, they remain clean; But if in a private domain they are unclean. If he kept watch over them, they remain clean. If they fell down and he went to bring them, they are unclean. The person here spreads out his clothes in a high place in order for them to dry. If he does this in the public domain, then we have a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain and the clothes are pure. But if he does so in the private domain and there is a chance that someone impure touched the clothes, they have to be assumed impure. If he watches over them, they are pure. If they fall down from the high place in which they were, then someone might have stepped on them. Therefore, even if they are on the ground only for a very short while, they must be treated as impure.", + "If one's bucket fell into the cistern of an ‘am ha-arez and he went to bring something to draw it up with, it is unclean, since it was left for a time in the domain of an am haaretz. The person left his bucket in the domain of the am haaretz while he went to get a rope to bring it up. Even though it is unlikely that the am haaretz touched the bucket, he must treat it as if it is impure." + ], + [ + "One who left his house open and found it open, or locked and found it locked, or open and found it locked, it remains clean. One doesn't assume that someone had broken into one's house and defiled the things in there without some sign of breaking and entering. So if he left the house open or locked and returned and found it in the same state, the house and its contents remain pure. Even if he left it open and found it locked, we don't assume that someone came in and locked the door when he went out.", + "But if he left it closed and found it open: Rabbi Meir says that it is unclean; But the sages say that it remains clean, since, though thieves had been there, they may have changed their mind and gone away. If he left it closed and found it open and then looked around and even it didn't look like anyone had been there, Rabbi Meir says that he must assume that impure thieves touched the objects in the house. Therefore, all of the contents must be regarded as defiled. Obviously, if he could see that people had touched the stuff, he would have to treat it as impure. The other sages say that there is a possibility that no one touched the contents of the house, and therefore the contents remain pure. After all, if thieves had really touched the stuff, one might ask why they didn't steal it." + ], + [ + "If the wife of an am haaretz entered a haver's house to take out his son or his daughter or his cattle, the house remains clean, since she had entered it without permission. The assumption in this mishnah is that the wife of the am haaretz does not stay in the house. She goes in to take out one the child or animal of the haver (a person who is strict about the purity laws, the opposite of the am haaeretz) and she immediately leaves. \"Without permission\" does not mean that she entered the house without permission. It means that she didn't have permission to stay. Therefore, the things in the house remain pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses how spoiled food can be for it no longer to count as food such that it would be susceptible to uncleanness.", + "They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. If food is meant to be human food it stays susceptible to uncleanness until it becomes so despoiled that even a dog won't eat it. However, if the food was meant to be animal food, it is not susceptible to impurity until someone changes his mind and designates it for human consumption. In other words, even if it is fit for human consumption it remains pure unless someone actually decides to eat it.", + "How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. A pigeon living in a pigeon cote above a winepress dies and falls into the winepress (yuck!). When it was alive, the pigeon would have been fit for human consumption (yes, people often ate pigeons back then). However, once it dies and falls into the wine it is no longer considered fit for human consumption. If the owner decides to give it to a Gentile it is impure. This is bird carrion and as we learned in the first mishnah of this tractate, the carrion of pure birds is impure. However, if he decides to give it to a dog, the pigeon is considered animal food and it is pure. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the pigeon is impure for pure bird carrion does not need to be considered food for it to defile.", + "If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence. The three people in this section do not have legal consequences to their intention. They are considered to lack \"da'at\" which I translate as awareness. Therefore, if they intend to eat the food it still is not considered food. However, their actions do have legal consequences. When they pick the food up to eat it, it becomes human food and it is susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "The outer parts of vessels that have contracted uncleanness from liquids: Rabbi Eliezer says: they defile liquids but they do not disqualify foods. Rabbi Joshua says: they defile liquids and also disqualify foods. The outsides of these vessels are impure through contact with impure liquids but the inside remains pure. This is a light form of impurity, and the sages will now debate just how light it is. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the backs of the vessels defile liquids, even non-sacred liquids. They don't defile regular food and neither does it disqualify terumah. Rabbi Joshua says that it even disqualifies terumah food. This is because the liquids that defiled the vessel cause the vessel to have second degree impurity. Second degree impurity defiles liquids and disqualifies terumah.", + "Shimon the brother of Azariah says: neither this nor that. Rather, liquids that were defiled from the outer parts of vessels defile at one remove and disqualify at a second remove. It is as if it say, \"that which defiled you did not defile me but you have defiled me.\" According to Albeck, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua were arguing about an older halakhah. Shimon brother of Azariah responds that both of them are incorrect for neither recited the ancient halakhah correctly. Rather, the earlier sages had said that if liquid is defiled by the outer portion of a vessel it has first degree impurity. It will defile terumah and give it second degree impurity. If this terumah that has second degree impurity has contact with other food, it will disqualify it. The final line of the mishnah is a personification of the food (such personifications were found in Parah 8:2-7). The food says to the liquid that which defiled you, the outside of the vessel, was not sufficient to defile me. For the outside of vessels can only defile liquids. But you, Mr. Defiled Liquid, you did defile me!" + ], + [ + "If a kneading trough was sloping downwards and there was dough in the higher part and dripping moisture in the lower part, then three pieces that jointly make up the bulk of an egg cannot be combined together, but two are combined. There is a kneading trough with a sloping side. On the top of the slope, stuck to the sides, are pieces of impure dough. Below them and beneath each piece is some moist liquid. If the dough defiles the moist liquid, then the liquid will defile the trough as well. According to the first opinion, if the dough is in three pieces and together they make up the minimum amount to cause defilement (the bulk of an egg), then they do not join together to defile the liquid. This is because there is not an egg's worth of dough touching any portion of liquid, for each part of the liquid only touches 2/3 of the volume of an egg. However, if there are only two pieces that add up to the volume of an egg, then the pieces do defile the liquid between them because the liquid touches the entire volume of an egg.", + "Rabbi Yose says: the two also cannot be combined unless they compress liquid between them. Rabbi Yose says that for the two pieces of dough to combine they must be pressing the liquid in between them. This means that the liquid is not simply below the pieces of dough, it is right between them, and the dough holds the liquid up, preventing it from flowing to the bottom of the trough.", + "If the liquid was level, even though the piece was the size of a mustard seed they are combined together. If there is liquid simply standing at the bottom of the trough and there is a lot of it, not just moistness on the sides as there is in sections one and two, then even if the pieces are in small crumbs the size of a piece of mustard, they defile the liquid which defiles the trough.", + "Rabbi Dosa says: crumbled food cannot be combined together. Rabbi Dosa says that crumbs don't add up to the requisite amount to transmit impurity. He disagrees only with the opinion in section three, not those in sections one and two." + ], + [ + "If a stick is completely covered with unclean liquid, as soon as it has touched the [water in the] mikveh, it becomes clean, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: only when the whole of it is immersed. According to Rabbi Joshua as soon as any part of the stick covered with impure liquids is put in the mikveh, it is pure. The water of the mikveh \"flows\" through the impure liquids on the stick and purifies them, even before it actually touches them. The sages rule more strictly. The entire stick must be immersed for it to be pure.", + "A flow from one vessel to the other or a slope of dripping moisture does not serve as a connective either for uncleanness or for cleanness. A pool of water serves as a connective in respect both of uncleanness and cleanness. \"Flow\" refers to liquid that is being poured from an upper vessel to a lower vessel. The slope is the sides of the vessel, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. In both of these cases we do not consider the lower liquid to be attached to the upper liquid. As an aside, the purity of \"flow\" was a big debate among ancient Jews. In one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, called Miktzat Maase Torah, the author complains that \"you\" (this refers to the other Jews with whom he doesn't agree) say that a \"flow\" is pure. The fact that in our Mishnah the rabbis do indeed say that the \"flow\" is pure, has been a major proof for scholars who wish to say that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls opposed the Pharisees (with whom the rabbis certainly did identify). While the sloping or flowing liquid does not serve as a connective, a standing pool of water does. If one side is impure, the entire body is pure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter nine deals with olives that were pressed in an olive press in which an am haaretz was working. For olives (or any produce) to become susceptible to impurity they must have had contact with one of seven liquids (water, dew, oil, wine, milk, blood or date honey). The secondary requirement is that the produce became wet with the approval of the owners meaning they were not opposed to the produce getting wet. We will learn more about this when we get to tractate Makhshirin, a whole tractate about this subject!\nOur mishnah deals with the liquid that comes out of the oil and whether that is sufficient for the olives to be susceptible to impurity.", + "At what stage do olives become susceptible to uncleanness?
When they exude the moisture [produced] by [their lying in] the vat but not the one [produced while they are still] in the basket, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Rabbi Shimon says: the minimum time prescribed for proper exudation is three days. There are three opinions as to when olives have exuded moisture that makes them susceptible to impurity. Bet Shammai holds that the moisture they exude must occur in the vat into which they are placed to \"warm up.\" This is before they are pressed. The moisture that might have been exuded in the basket in which they were first placed does not count. However, Bet Shammai seems to hold that any moisture that comes out in the vat is to the \"approval\" of the owners and therefore it makes them susceptible. Rabbi Shimon modifies Bet Shammai's opinion. The moisture that comes out during the first three days does not count. They must be in the vat for three days and then if they remain there, the moisture makes them susceptible to impurity.", + "Bet Hillel says: as soon as three olives stick together. Bet Hillel rules more leniently. The olives must become so soft that three of them will stick together.", + "Rabban Gamaliel says: as soon as their preparation is finished, and the sages agree with his view. Rabban Gamaliel rules even more leniently. The olives are not susceptible to impurity until he has completed their preparation in the vat. Once he decides to bring them to the press, they are susceptible. The sages agree with this opinion." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is a continuation of Rabban Gamaliel and the sages' opinion from yesterday's mishnah, that the olives are not susceptible to impurity until he has decided to take them to the olive press.", + "If he finished the gathering but intended to buy some more, or if he had finished buying but intended to borrow some more, or if a time of mourning, a wedding feast or some other hindrance befell him then even if zavim and zavot trampled over them they remain clean. In all of these cases, the owner of the olives does not want more liquid to flow from the olives because he either intends to add more olives later, or he is going to be delayed from pressing due to some unforeseen circumstance (a relative died, he was invited to a wedding or something of that nature). In these cases the olives are not susceptible to impurity. So if a zav or a zavah (people with abnormal genital discharge) trample over the olives, they do not become impure.", + "If any unclean liquids fell upon them, only the place where it touched them becomes unclean. Unclean liquids that fall on produce cause it to become susceptible to impurity and impure simultaneously. If some unclean liquid falls on these olives, only the part upon which the liquid fell is impure. The remaining olives are still clean.", + "Any liquid that comes out of them is clean. Any liquid that comes out of the olives whose processing has not been completed is clean. This rule is obvious and is already stated in section one. It is only here to be contrasted with the cases we will learn tomorrow in mishnah three. So stay tuned!" + ], + [ + "When their preparation is finished behold they are susceptible to uncleanness. If an unclean liquid fell upon them they become unclean. Once the preparation of the olives has been completed, they are susceptible to impurity for they have had contact with the sap that flows out of them. What this means is that if unclean liquid falls on them, it renders all of the olives impure, not just the place it touched. This is because the independent olives have now become one lump of olives, all connected to one another.", + "The sap that issues from them: Rabbi Eliezer says it is clean, But the sages say that it is unclean. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the opinion in section one. The sap that issues from the olives does not render them susceptible to impurity. It is not yet considered oil. The sages agree with section one. This sap renders them susceptible and once they are impure it will also defile other olives.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: they did not dispute the ruling that sap that issues from olives is clean. But about what did they dispute? About that which comes from the vat: That Rabbi Eliezer says is clean And the sages say is unclean. Rabbi Shimon gives another version of the debate found in sections one and two. According to Rabbi Shimon, all of the sages agree that the sap that comes forth from the olives does not render them susceptible. They disagree about the liquid that comes out of the vat. The olives are placed in this vat after they have been crushed and before they are to be squeezed. This sap contains some oil and therefore the sages say it makes them susceptible to impurity. But the sap that flows before they have been placed in the vat is not \"oil\" and does not make them susceptible." + ], + [ + "One who had finished [the gathering of his olives] and put aside one basketful, let him put it [in the container] in front of a priest, the words of Rabbi Meir. The mishnah refers to an am haaretz who has crushed all of his olives in the crushing container but left over one container so that the olives would not become susceptible to impurity. From these olives he intended to separate terumah. Note that an am haaretz does seem to separate terumah and to respect the purity of the terumah so that a priest could make use of it. However, he doesn't separate tithes, nor does he preserve the purity of his common food. The question that the sages ask is what must he do to make sure that the olives remain pure? Rabbi Meir says that he should put the olives in the container in which they are crushed in front of the priest. This way the priest can make sure they stay pure.", + "Rabbi Judah says: he must hand him over the key immediately. Rabbi Shimon says: within twenty-four hours. Rabbi Judah says that the am haaretz must immediately give over to the priest the key to the container. Evidently, he affords little trust to the am haaretz. Rabbi Shimon gives him a little leeway he has twenty-four hours in which to give over the key." + ], + [ + "One who put his olives in a basket that they might be softened so that they will be easy to press, they become susceptible to uncleanness; The olives put into this basket to be softened so that they can be crushed will expel some sap. The sap causes them to be susceptible to impurity. This is because the person wants them to expel some of their juices, for in the end he is going to crush them to make olive oil in any case.", + "[If he put them in a basket] to be softened so that they may be salted: Bet Shammai says: they become susceptible. Bet Hillel says: they do not become susceptible. In contrast, if he puts them in a basket to soften so that they can be salted, Bet Hillel holds that they are not susceptible to impurity. This is because he doesn't really want them to expel their liquid. Bet Shammai holds that they are susceptible to impurity even in this case. It is possible that Bet Shammai simply holds that susceptibility to impurity is not dependent upon a person's intention whether the person wants the liquid to have contacted the produce or not. This is typical of a Shammaite system of halakhah the halakhah is less determined by intention and more determined by reality, i.e. what actually happened.", + "One who splits his olives with unwashed hands, he causes them to be unclean. Here he clearly intends for the liquid to come out and therefore even Bet Hillel agrees that the liquid causes them to be susceptible. Since his hands have not been washed, we assume that they are impure and the olives are impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to explore the distinction between cases where one wants the olives to sweat and cases where he does not.", + "If one put his olives on a roof to dry, even though they are piled up to the height of a cubit, they do not become susceptible to uncleanness. If he put them on the roof to dry they are not susceptible to impurity because he does not want them to sweat. This is true even if they are piled high enough that the bottom ones definitely will sweat. Again, the issue is not whether they sweat, but whether he wants them to.", + "If he put them in the house to putrify, even though he intends to take them up on the roof, or if he put them on the roof so that they might open so that they could be salted, they become susceptible to uncleanness. In these cases, he put them somewhere for them to start to soften or go bad so that he could crush them and make oil. Or he put them on the roof so that they would split open so he could salt them. In all of these cases, he wants them to sweat. Therefore, the liquid that they emit makes them susceptible to impurity.", + "If he put them in the house while he secured his roof or until he could take them elsewhere, they do not become susceptible to uncleanness. In this case he put them in his house temporarily, just until he could bring them somewhere else to soften them. Even though he does want the olives to be softened, they are not susceptible because he doesn't really want them to start this process in the house, where he is currently storing them." + ], + [ + "Introduction Our mishnah deals with a person who wants to take some olives that are in a condition that doesn't make them susceptible to impurity and bring them to the olive press to press them into oil. In other words, he has changed his mind about what to do with the olives. At first he didn't want them to sweat because he wasn't using them for oil, but now he changed his mind.", + "If one wants to take from them [a quantity sufficient for] one pressing or for two pressings:
Bet Shammai says: he may scrape off [what he requires] in a condition of uncleanness, but he must cover up [what he takes] in a condition of cleanness. According to Bet Shammai when he goes to scrape off some of the olives he doesn't need to do so in a state of purity. Since the olives have not yet been made susceptible to impurity, they will not become impure even if he is impure. However, after he takes those olives out, they are immediately susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if he wishes to cover the olives so that they can be pressed he must do so in a state of purity, otherwise they will become impure. In other words, Bet Shammai holds that the sweat that they exuded previously now causes them to be susceptible.", + "Bet Hillel says: he may also cover it up in a condition of uncleanness. Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that he can even cover them up in a state of uncleanness. The sweat they exuded before does not make them susceptible to impurity. However, Bet Hillel agrees that if he takes the entire lot of olives, he has changed their status and made them all susceptible to impurity. In this case, he will have to cover them in a state of purity.", + "Rabbi Yose says: he may also cover it up in a condition of uncleanness. Rabbi Yose rules even more leniently. He can even take metal axes and remove all of the olives that were set aside in a state in which they were not susceptible. They are still not susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a dead sheretz found among the olives of the olive press.", + "If a [dead] sheretz was found in the milling stones, only the place that it has touched becomes unclean. But if moisture was running, all become unclean. If a dead sheretz, which causes impurity, is found in the milling stones which are used to crush the olives before they are pressed, only the olives that the sheretz touches is impure. The rest of the olives that touch these olives remain pure because each olive is not the size of an egg such that it could transmit impurity to the other olives. Furthermore, each olive is considered to be a separate entity. However, if the moisture is running over all the mill stones it transmits purity to everything and all of the olives are impure. This is because all of the olives are considered one lump.", + "If it was found on the leaves, the olive-press men shall be asked whether they can say, \"we did not touch it.\" In this case the sheretz is found on the leaves that cover the olives. These leaves are not food and they are not susceptible to impurity. Therefore, they themselves are not the problem. The problem is that the leaves were put there by somebody. We must ask the men who work at the olive press whether they touched the sheretz. If they admit that they did not, then the olives are pure. In other words, these men are trusted.", + "If it touched the mass [of olives], even by as little as the bulk of a barley grain, [the mass becomes] unclean. However, if the sheretz touched the mass of olives that are all stuck together, then all of the olives are considered unclean. This is because they are all considered to be connected." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah concerning the sheretz found among the olives.", + "If it was found on broken off pieces but it touched as much as an egg's bulk, [the entire mass] becomes unclean. In this case the sheretz is found on broken off pieces of olives that are resting on top of the olive mass. If these pieces are as much as the bulk of an egg, then they join the mass and all of the olives are impure. However, if they are smaller than the size of an egg, which means they themselves can't defile other things, then they are not considered part of the mass.", + "If it was found on broken off pieces that lay upon other broken off pieces, even though it touched as much as an egg's bulk, only the place it touched becomes unclean. In this case, the sheretz is found on top of pieces of olives that are themselves on tops of other pieces of olives. The mass that is underneath does not join them all together, even if they are the size of an olive. The only part that is impure is the part that touches the sheretz, for this is always impure, no matter how small it is.", + "If it was found between the wall and the olives, they remain clean. In this case we find the sheretz next to the wall, not touching the olives. We don't suspect that the sheretz touched the olives.", + "If it was found [on olives that were lying] on the roof, [the olives in] the vat remain clean. There were some olives in the vat and then a person took some up to the roof to dry out. A sheretz is found among the olives on the roof. The olives in the vat remain pure, for we do not suspect that the sheretz was brought up to the roof with the olives.", + "If it was found in the vat, [the olives on] the roof are [also] regarded as unclean. In contrast, if it is found in the vat, we do suspect that it defiled the olives that were later taken up to the roof. Therefore, they too are impure.", + "If it was found burnt upon the olives, and so also in the case of a rag that was completely worn out, [the olives remain] clean, because all cases of uncleanness are determined in accordance with their appearance at the time they are found. As we learned in 3:5, when it comes to matters of purity, we judge according to the way in which things are found. A burnt sheretz or a completely worn out rag no longer defiles. If either of these is found on the olives, the olives are pure. We don't suspect that they were there before they were burned or became worn out." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter ten continues to deal with purity laws related to the pressing of olives.\nToday's mishnah deals with the owner of an olive press who locks the workers in the olive press so that they won't go out and become impure. [Not very nice to the workers, but I guess they'll be okay].", + "If one locked in olive-workers in the olive-press and there were objects in there that had midras uncleanness: The owner first purified the olive-workers and then locked them in the olive press. Unfortunately for his sake, there were objects inside the olive-press that had become impure through contact with a zav. This gives them \"midras impurity\" which means that they defile a person who has contact with them, who carries them or who shifts them (even without touching them).", + "Rabbi Meir says: the olive-press is deemed to be unclean. Rabbi Meir says that we must be concerned lest the olive-workers became defiled through contact with the objects and therefore the entire olive-press is unclean.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the olive-press remains clean. Rabbi Judah rules leniently. Since the owner went through the process of purifying the workers, they know that they must be careful. Assuming that they know that the objects are impure, they will be careful and not have contact with them.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if they regard them as clean, the olive-press is deemed unclean; but if they regard them as unclean,the olive-press remains clean. Rabbi Shimon says that it depends on what the am haaretz thinks about the objects. If he mistakenly thinks that they are pure, then he won't be careful about touching them, and the rest of the olive press is impure. However, if he thinks they are impure, then he won't touch other things and the olive press is pure. It is interesting to note that Rabbi Shimon assumes that the am haaretz will try to preserve the purity of the olive press. He just doesn't always know what objects are pure and what are not. In other words, he is trustworthy, but ignorant.", + "Rabbi Yose: why are they unclean? Only because the am haaretz is not an expert in the laws of hesset. Rabbi Yose says that the am haaretz doesn't know that shifting causes impurity. Therefore, even if he thinks that the stuff is impure and he refrains from touching it, he will not know not to shift the objects and he will be defiled. Therefore, he agrees that everything in the olive press is considered unclean." + ], + [ + "If the olive-workers in an olive-press went in and out, and in the olive-press there was unclean liquid, if there is space enough [on the ground] between the liquid and the olives for their feet to be dried on the ground, the olive workers remain clean. This section deals with clean olive-press workers. There is unclean liquid on the floor inside the olive press. The workers tread on the liquid with their bare feet. This does not cause them to be impure because impure liquid does not defile people. But, if this liquid comes into contact with the olives, it will defile it. If there is space enough for them to walk on the ground and have their feet dried off before they get to the olives, then the olives are clean.", + "If something unclean was found in front of olive-workers in the olive-press or grape harvesters, they are believed to say, \"We have not touched it.\" And the same law applies also to the young children among them. In general, olive workers and grape-harvesters are believed to say that they didn't touch something unclean. Similarly, they are believed to say that the grapes or olives that they are working with were not touched by any children who are categorically assumed to be impure.", + "They may go outside the door of the olive-press and relieve themselves behind the wall, and still be deemed clean. How far may they go and still be deemed clean? As far as they can be seen. The olive-workers can go outside of the olive-press in order to \"go to the bathroom\" (this is how we like to say this, but obviously there was no bathroom back then). They are not assumed to be impure unless they go further away than they can be seen. [The consequences of this would of course be that the area surrounding the olive press might get a bit dirty. Something you might want to keep in mind next time you order Israeli olive oil!]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with taking the olive or grape workers to a mikveh for them to immerse themselves and the vessels with which they will be working.", + "If the olive-workers or the grape harvesters were only brought within the domain of the cavern, it is sufficient, the words of Rabbi Meir. The mikveh in which they are immersing happens to be found in a cavern, as mikvaot probably often were in this period. According to Rabbi Meir it is sufficient for the employer who wants to preserve the purity of his grapes or olives to bring the workers to the cave. Once he sees that they have entered, he can trust that they will immerse themselves and the vessels. [This kind of reminds me of telling your kid to get in the shower. Do you need to make sure that he soaps and shampoos? I'm sure you know what I'm talking about].", + "Rabbi Yose says: he should stand over them until they immerse. Rabbi Yose does not trust that the workers will immerse without supervision.", + "Rabbi Shimon say: if they regard the vessels as clean, one must stand over them until they immerse; but if they regard them as unclean, it is not necessary to stand over them until they immerse. This is similar to Rabbi Shimon's opinion in mishnah one. The workers can be trusted if they think that the vessels or their bodies are unclean. However, if they think they and the vessels are clean, he must make sure they immerse them and themselves." + ], + [ + "One who puts his grapes [into the wine-press] from the baskets or from what was spread out on the ground: Bet Shammai says: he must put them in with clean hands, and if he puts them in with unclean hands he defiles them. Bet Hillel says: he may put them in with unclean hands and then he may set aside his terumah in a condition of cleanness. Someone wants to take grapes out of either a basket or from the ground and putting them into the wine press. According to Bet Shammai, he must first purify his hands, for if he touches the liquid that is exuded from the grapes with unclean hands, he will defile them. Bet Hillel says that the liquid that comes out at this point does not render the grapes susceptible because this liquid is not something he wishes to preserve. The baskets and the ground will just let the liquid seep through. Therefore, the grapes are not susceptible to impurity. When he goes to separate terumah from the wine in the winepress, only then must be make sure he is pure.", + "[If they are taken] from the grape-pot or from what was spread out on leaves, all agree that they must be put in with clean hands, and if they are put in with unclean hands they become unclean. Both houses agree that if he takes the grapes out of a special pot made to hold grapes or off of leaves on the ground, that he must be pure. In this case, the liquid is preserved (the leaves serve to prevent the liquid for being wasted into the ground), and therefore this is liquid that he wants. In this case, the liquid makes the grapes susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "One who eats grapes out of the baskets or from what is spread out on the ground, even though they burst and dripped into the wine-press, the wine-press remains clean. The person who is acting in this mishnah is assumed to be impure, for most people are assumed not to preserve their purity. In the first case, since the liquid that comes out of the grapes is not something he desires, it does not render the grapes susceptible to impurity. Even if some of this liquid should burst out and go into the winepress, the other grapes in the winepress remain pure. This accords with Bet Hillel's opinion in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If he eats the grapes out of a grape-basket or from what was spread out on leaves, and a single berry dropped into the vat: If it has a seal all in the vat remains clean; But if it has no seal, all in the vat becomes unclean. In this case he takes the grape from a place where if liquid had oozed out, the liquid would render it susceptible to impurity. One grape then falls into the vat. If the grape had a \"seal\" meaning that the stem from which the grape was plucked from the cluster remained in the grape (this happens to me all the time then I end up spitting it out), then the other grapes remain pure because we can assume that no liquid came out. When the man touched the grape it was not susceptible to impurity. However, if it had no seal, then we can assume that some liquid had come out and the grape was impure. It would defile the rest of the grapes in the vat.", + "If he dropped some of the grapes and trod upon them in an empty part of the wine-press: If the bulk of the grapes was exactly that of an egg, the contents remain clean; But if it was more than the bulk of an egg, the contents become unclean, for so soon as the first drop came out it contracted uncleanness from the remainder whose bulk is that of an egg. In this case, a cluster of grapes falls in a part of the vat that is empty. Then he steps on the grapes. If there is exactly an egg's volume of grapes then the vat remains pure. When the first drop comes out of the grapes, the cluster now has less than the volume of an egg and food that is less than the volume of an egg does not defile liquid. Even though he defiled the food, the liquid is pure. However, if there is even a little bit more than the volume of an egg, the liquid that is emitted becomes impure by virtue of contact with the impure egg. Then the liquid will defile the winepress, for liquid can defile vessels. This is a similar situation to that found in Toharot 3:1." + ], + [ + "One who was standing and speaking by the edge of the cistern and some spittle squirted from his mouth, and there arises the doubt whether it reached the cistern or not, the condition of doubt is regarded as clean. If the spit went into the vat and reached the wine, the wine would be impure. However, the Tosefta explains that the Mishnah rules that the wine is pure because the spit may have been absorbed into the walls of the vat and it may not have reached the wine. Therefore, the vat is pure." + ], + [ + "If one is emptying out the cistern [into jars] and a [dead] sheretz was found in the first jar, all the other jars are deemed unclean; but if it was found in the last, only that one is unclean but all the others remain clean. A person is emptying out the wine from a cistern and placing it into jars. He finds a dead sheretz which will defile the wine (and make it a bit gross, but that's another matter). If he finds it in the first jar, we must assume that all of the wine put into all of the jars is impure, for the sheretz might have been in the cistern and then got into the first jar. Alternatively, if the sheretz was in the first jar (and not in the cistern) when he dipped that jar into the cistern, the rest of the wine in the cistern was defiled. However, if he finds it in the last jar, then we can assume that the sheretz was originally in the last jar. Only the contents of that jar are impure.", + "When does this apply? When the wine was drawn directly with each jar, but if it was drawn with a ladle and a [dead] creeping thing was found in one of the jars, it alone is unclean. If he draws with a ladle and pours that wine into each jar, and a dead sheretz is found in one of the jars, then only that jar's wine is impure. This is because it is possible that the sheretz was originally in that jar and never was in the cistern.", + "When does this apply? Only when the man examined [the jars] but did not cover them up or covered them up but did not examine them; The leniencies in the previous two sections can only occur if he wasn't cautious with the jars. If he didn't cover the jars up, it is possible that a sheretz got in directly to the jar. If he didn't check the jars before he filled them then it is possible that the sheretz was there before he filled them (from the ladle). In any of these cases, it is possible to isolate the impurity to one jar.", + "But if he both examined them and covered them up and a [dead] creeping thing was found: If in one jar, all the contents of the cistern are deemed unclean. If it was found in the cistern, all its contents are deemed unclean And if it was found in the ladle all the contents of the cistern are deemed unclean. However, if he checked and covered the jars, then it is clear that the sheretz came from the cistern. Therefore, no matter where the sheretz is found, all of the wine in all of the containers is unclean." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nLast mishnah in Toharot!", + "[The space] between the rollers and grape skins is regarded as a public domain. The rollers are used to press the grapeskins to try to get more juice out of them after the grapes have already been trodden upon. The area between the rollers and the grapeskins is considered a public domain, such that if a case of doubtful impurity is found there, the doubt is ruled pure. It is considered a public domain because many people are found in this area.", + "A vineyard in front of the grape harvesters is deemed to be a private domain and one which is behind the harvesters is deemed to be a public domain. The part of the vineyard that the grape harvesters still have not harvested is considered a private domain. This is because people are not allowed into that area, since the grapes are still on the vines. Once the grape harvesters have been through a section of the vineyard, it is considered a public domain.", + "When is this so? When the public enter at one end and go out at the other. However, it is only considered a public domain if people will go in one side and out the other. If there is only one way to go in and out, then it seems less people will go there and it can be considered a private domain.", + "The vessels of the olive-press, the wine-press and the basket-press, if they are of wood, need only be dried and they become clean; But if they are of reed grass they must be left unused for twelve months, or they must be scalded in hot water. Rabbi Yose says: if he put them in the current of the river, it is sufficient. The mishnah now discusses what must be done to vessels used in presses in order to purify them. If these vessels are of wood, all one needs to do is dry them off from the liquid that defiled them and they are pure. This is because the wood is not assumed to have absorbed the liquid. However, the vessels are more absorbent if they are made of reed grass. In this case they either need to be scalded in hot water in order to get the impure liquid out. Or they can be left unused for 12 months (this is probably impractical). Rabbi Yose says that he can put them in the river and (according to the Tosefta) leave them there for 12 hours. The current will wash them out and they will be pure. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Toharot! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Toharot was not easy. It contains somewhat of a random assortment of purity laws, which are in general difficult for us to relate to. I thought that there were two very interesting parts. The first was what to do with cases of doubtful impurity. In a world in which people were very concerned with these laws, it is certain that these situations would have arisen quite frequently. The second interesting part were the laws governing interaction between the \"haver\" (one who is careful about the laws of purity) and the am haaretz, who does not observe many of these laws. I found these laws interesting because we can see how people of different religious inclinations and practices can live together. As always, a hearty yasher koach on completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Mikvaot." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טהרות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טהרות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9c3ea752b65506ad7b550948e74211038f05e62c --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טבול יום", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "The word \"tevul yom\" refers to a person who has immersed in a mikveh but will not become pure until the evening. The concept is derived by the rabbis from the following two verses:", + "Leviticus 11:32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. ", + "Leviticus 22:6-7 6 The person who touches such shall be unclean until evening and shall not eat of the sacred donations unless he has washed his body in water. 7 As soon as the sun sets, he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the sacred donations, for they are his food. 8 He shall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts, thereby becoming unclean: I am the Lord. ", + "According to rabbinic law, a kohen goes to the mikveh before the sun sets but cannot eat terumah until after the sun has set. This is the meaning of Leviticus 22:7. So too a vessel which has become impure through a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) is immersed in a mikveh and then can be used with terumah in the evening, when the sun has set. Until the sun has set, both the person and the vessel are called a \"tevul yom.\"", + "A \"tevul yom\" is not actually impure. Once he or the vessel has been in the mikveh, he or the vessel is pure. If a tevul yom touches terumah he disqualifies the terumah from being eaten, but it is not impure. Indeed, there is a special leniency with terumah that has been disqualified because it was touched by a tevul yom. Generally, disqualified terumah will disqualify sacred food it touches. But in this case, the terumah does not disqualify sacred food.", + "This tractate is highly technical, dealing with the nitty-gritties of impurity law. But by now, those of you who have been following along are real experts in these laws, so it shouldn't be difficult at all ☺. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah in Tevul Yom deals with the issue of whether things that are loosely connected to each other are considered to be one thing, such that if a tevul yom touches one side the whole thing is impure, or many independent things, such that the other side is pure. The issue of \"connectives\" is something we saw several other times in the Mishnah, including chapters 18-21 of Kelim.", + "If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. A priest collects pieces of hallah that he has been given by other people. He intends to keep them separate and bake them separately. However, they end up getting stuck together. According to Bet Shammai, since they are stuck together, if one of them is touched by a tevul yom, then they are all impure. Bet Shammai looks at the situation purely by what is going on physically. Since the pieces of hallah are touching each other, they count as one piece of dough. If the tevul yom touches one of them, they are all disqualified. Bet Hillel, in contrast, takes the person's intention into account. Since he intended to bake them separately, the fact that they temporarily made contact with each other does not mean they count as being connected. Only the piece that the tevul yom actually touched is impure.", + "Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. In all of the cases described here there are two or more things that could be looked at as connected or not. In all of these cases, the substance is of terumah and the question is if part was touched by the tevul yom, is it all impure? Some of these require a bit more explanation: Or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven: This person will definitely separate the cakes because they will form a crust better when they are separate. Or if there was froth on the water that was bubbling: This refers to a case of a watery dish which is boiling and has bubbles rising from it. Since the dish is watery, the bubbles don't count as being attached to the dish, at least according to Bet Hillel. Or the first froth that rises when boiling groats of beans: the beans were crushed and made into groats. When they are boiled for the first time, a froth comes up. Rabbi Judah says: also that of rice: Boiled terumah rice. In all of these cases Bet Shammai says that all of the parts are considered to be connected. If a tevul yom touches one part, for instance the froth, the whole thing is disqualified. Bet Hillel says that they are considered separate and therefore the part that wasn't touched remains valid terumah.", + "They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades. The disagreement between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel is with regard to the tevul yom. As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis (at least Bet Hillel) treated a tevul yom somewhat leniently, since he had already been to the mikveh. However, when it comes to other forms of impurity, both serious and lenient forms, all of the things listed in this mishnah are considered to be connected. Bet Hillel was lenient only with regard to the tevul yom." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah contains mostly the opposite scenarios of yesterday's mishnah objects that are considered to be connected, such that if the tevul yom touches one of them, they are all defiled.", + "If one had collected pieces of hallah without the intention of separating them afterwards, Since he didn't intend to separate them, they count as connected.", + "or a batter-cake that had been baked on another after a crust had formed in the oven, Since the crust had already formed he won't separate them so that they bake better.", + "or froth had appeared in the water prior to its bubbling up, Prior to boiling the froth is considered connected to the water.", + "or the second scum that appeared in the boiling of groats of beans, The second scum that rises on the surface of boiling groats is connected to the dish.", + "or the scum of old wine, The scum on top of old wine is considered connected only the new scum was considered separate.", + "or that of oil of all kinds, The scum that emerges on the top of boiling oil is always considered connected to the oil.", + "or of lentils, Rabbi Judah says: also that of beans; The same is true with lentils and beans, according to Rabbi Judah.", + "All these are defiled when touched by a tevul yom. And there is no need to say, [this is the case if touched] by other sources of uncleanness. A tevul yom, and all the more so a truly impure person, who touches any of these things defiles the whole thing because all of the parts are considered to be connected." + ], + [ + "The nail shaped knob on the back of the loaf, or the small globule of salt, or the burnt crust less than a finger's breadth: Rabbi Yose says: whatever is eaten with the loaf becomes unclean [when touched by the tevul yom]. If there is a lump of bread on the back of a loaf of terumah bread, or a small globule of salt or a small burnt piece on the crust, they are all considered as being part of the loaf, because when one goes to eat the loaf, she will eat these parts too. If the tevul yom touches one of these parts, the entire loaf of terumah is disqualified.", + "And one doesn't need to say, this is so [when touched] by other unclean things. If the law is stringent with regard to the tevul yom, who is really pure, all the more so the law will be stringent with regard to other defiling things. If they touch such parts of the loaf, the entire loaf is impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is the opposite of yesterday's mishnah. It describes things that are attached to the loaf but are not considered connected to it for matters of impurity.", + "A pebble in a loaf or a large globule of salt, or a lupine, or a burnt crust larger than a finger's breadth Rabbi Yose says: whatever is not eaten with the loaf remains clean even when touched by a father of impurity; A person eating a loaf of bread would pick these things out before eating the loaf. A \"lupine\" is a type of bean. One would not generally eat a lupine stuck onto his loaf of bread. If the piece of burnt crust is too big, he wouldn't eat that either. He wouldn't eat a pebble or a big lump of salt. Therefore, if even a \"father of impurity,\" meaning one with a very high level of impurity, touches this part of the loaf of terumah, the remainder stays pure. It is not considered connected to the loaf.", + "And it isn't even necessary to say [is this so when touched] by a tevul yom. All the more so, if a tevul yom touches this part of the loaf, the rest stays pure. Note how this mishnah is the opposite structure of yesterday's mishnah. Today, since the loaf stays pure, the relationship of the clauses shifts the tevul yom is less defiling than a father of impurity." + ], + [ + "Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silrhium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. This section lists pieces of grains or other foods that are not considered to be part of loaf of bread if found mixed up in there. If the loaf is terumah, and a tevul yom or a person with another type of impurity touches them but not the loaf, the loaf remains pure. In other words, these things won't be eaten with the loaf so they are not part of the loaf. I admit that I don't know what some of these things are. But from what we can learn from this mishnah, they are not food commonly consumed. The other sages are lenient when it comes to a tevul yom, for he is not truly impure. However, they rule stringently when it comes to people who are actually impure. If such a person touches these things, he defiles the entire loaf of terumah.", + "Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity. This list contrasts with that in section one. These foods will be eaten with the loaf. Therefore if even a tevul yom touches them, the rest of the loaf is defiled. We can see that these foods were considered more edible shelled barley or spelt, wheat, spices. Interesting that Rabbi Judah thinks black beans are less edible than white beans. Bean racism?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Liquids that come out of a tevul yom are like those which he has touched: neither of them causes defilement. Liquids that come out of a person include one's spit and one's urine. Our mishnah deals with the defiling power of such liquids. For a tevul yom, a person who has been to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, those liquids are pure. They are like liquids that he touches and a tevul yom does not defile liquid such in order to give it first degree impurity. We should note that while a tevul yom would disqualify terumah that he has touched, as we saw in yesterday's chapter, he does not defile non-sacred produce.", + "With regard to all others that are unclean, be they of minor or major [degree], the liquids that come out of them are like those they touch; both have first degree impurity. In contrast, other people who are actually unclean, do defile liquids to give them first degree impurity and the liquids that come out of their body have first degree impurity. It doesn't matter whether these people have high or low levels of impurity. The liquids that they touch or that come out of their body would defile food and vessels but they wouldn't defile people.", + "Except for liquid that is a \"father of impurity.\" The exception to this rule are the few cases where liquids that come out of a person are themselves considered to be \"fathers of impurity.\" This would include the spit or urine of a zav (see Zavim 5:7). Such liquids would even defile people and things." + ], + [ + "A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. As we have learned, a tevul yom disqualifies liquids but he does not cause them to be defiled. So a tevul yom who touches liquid in a pot, the liquids themselves are disqualified (if they are terumah), but they don't have the power to defile the pot. And if the liquids are not terumah, then all is clean, because as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, a tevul yom does not defile non-sacred liquids.", + "If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. In contrast, defiled hands (the topic of the next tractate) do defile liquids. These liquids will now in turn defile the pot in which they are in.", + "This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean. The mishnah now compares the halakhot governing defiled liquids with those governing defiled hands. In the above matter defiled hands were treated more stringently than the tevul yom. However, there is another halakhah in which tevul yom is treated more stringently than defiled hands. Any case of doubt regarding the tevul yom is treated stringently. For instance, if we are not sure if a tevul yom touched something of terumah, the terumah cannot be eaten. However, if a person has unclean hands and we are not sure if he touched something, the thing remains pure." + ], + [ + "If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing; There is a thick soup, a porridge, made of terumah that has in it hullin (non-sacred) garlic and oil. If a tevul yom touches part of the garlic or oil, all of it is disqualified because the porridge is the main thing. We look at the porridge as if it was all one dish of terumah and the whole thing is disqualified.", + "But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched. However, if the porridge itself is of hullin and the garlic and oil are terumah, then the garlic or oil are looked at is if they are not connected. If a tevul yom touches part of the garlic or oil, only the part he touches is disqualified.", + "If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority. If there is more garlic than oil, then we look at the oil as if it is secondary to the garlic. If he touches the garlic, the oil will also be disqualified.", + "Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered. Rabbi Judah says we follow the majority of the garlic or oil only if the garlic has not been mashed and it sticks to the oil and becomes one lump. However, if the garlic has been mashed up and scattered in the pot, then the garlic pieces are not connected to the other pieces. The part of the garlic he touches is impure, but the rest remains clean.", + "[Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. This section is a bit confusing. According to Albeck two different versions of this mishnah have been combined. I will explain according to his commentary. The first version should read thusly: But with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids or those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. The explanation is that if there was a food that people don't usually mash up with liquids but he nevertheless did mash it up with liquid or if there was a food which is normally mashed up with liquids but he didn't mash it up with liquids, even if they form one cohesive lump in the pot, they are treated like a cake of preserved figs. Only the part he touched is impure. The other version should read: [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. The explanation is that other mashed foods that he mashed with liquids are also treated like garlic mashed with oil. If they make a cohesive mass, they are treated as connected. But if they are normally mashed with liquids and he mashed them without liquids, even if they form a cohesive mass, they are not treated as if they are connected." + ], + [ + "If the porridge and batter-cake were of hullin and oil of terumah was floating above them, and a tevul yom touched the oil, he disqualifies only the oil. Since the oil is floating on top of the porridge or batter-cake it doesn't count as being part of the larger base. This is similar to the case in yesterday's mishnah. So if he touches the oil, the rest can be eaten.", + "If he stirred it altogether, all the places where the oil goes are disqualified. If he mixes the oil into the porridge or batter-cake, then any part of the larger dish that contains the terumah oil is disqualified." + ], + [ + "Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective the one with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other. Sanctified meat, meaning meat that was part of a sacrifice, has been cooked in a pot with some porridge. The porridge crusts over the meat. According to the first opinion, the meat is not considered part of the crust. Thus if a tevul yom touches the crust, the meat is still permitted. It has not been disqualified. However, if he touches the meat itself, the meat and any part of the crust that would be lifted out of the dish with the meat is disqualified. The other parts of the porridge can still be eaten. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that the entire porridge and meat is considered connected. Thus if he touches any part of the porridge, the meat is disqualified.", + "Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread. The same rule as in section one applies to a case where beans have been cooked in a pot with some bread made of terumah.", + "Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted. Having mentioned beans, the mishnah now discusses general cases of beans or other foods cooked in a pot. If the pieces of the food are still separate from one another, they don't count as connected. But a solid mass is connected and if he touches one part of the mass, it is all disqualified. If there are several solid masses, then the one he touches has first degree impurity. The mass that is next to it and touching it, has second degree impurity and the third mass will be disqualified if it is of terumah. When the mishnah says \"counted\" it means that the usual process of counting impurity begins from the mass he touched.", + "If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other. This is similar to the case in yesterday's mishnah. If the oil floats on the wine, only the oil is disqualified. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri again disagrees and holds that the substances are considered to be connected." + ], + [ + "A jug which sunk into a cistern containing wine, and a tevul yom touched it: If [he touched it] from the rim and inwards, it serves as a connective; If from the rim and outwards, it does not serve as a connective. Our mishnah describes an open jug of terumah wine that sinks into a cistern containing hullin (non-sacred) wine. If the tevul yom touches the wine that is inside the rim of the jug, even if this wine came from the cistern, all of the wine in the jug is connected. The terumah wine will all be disqualified. However, if he touches outside of the rim of the jug, then the wine is not connected to the wine in the jug, even if it is the same height as the jug and may indeed be intermingling. The jug in the wine remains pure and can be used as terumah wine.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even though [the level of wine in the cistern] is the height of a man [above the sunken jar], and he touched [the wine] directly above the mouth of the jar, it serves as a connective. Again, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules strictly concerning connectives. Even if there is a tremendous amount of wine in the cistern above the jug of terumah, the entire height of a man, and the tevul yom touched the wine directly above the jug, the wine above the jug and the wine in the jug are disqualified. Basically, this would seem to mean that the entire contents of the cistern are disqualified. If he touched the wine in the cistern on the sides of the jug, the jug's content would not be disqualified." + ], + [ + "If a jug had a hole either at its neck, bottom or sides, and a tevul yom touched it [at the hole], it becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the hole is at its neck or bottom it becomes unclean; but if on its sides, on this side or on that, it remains clean. The jug has in it terumah wine and is sealed from above, but there is a hole elsewhere on the jug. According to the first opinion, no matter where that hole is, if a tevul yom touches the hole, all of the contents are disqualified. Rabbi Judah says that the contents are disqualified only if he touches either the hole on the top, at its neck, or the whole at the bottom. If he touches the hole at the top, all of the wine below is a base for the upper wine, so it is all considered connected. And if he touches the hole on the bottom of the jug then all of the wine will flow out of the hole below, so all of the wine is connected. But if he touches on one of the sides, the rest of the wine remains pure. Only the wine on the side he touches is disqualified. However, if there is a ratio of 100 parts pure wine to 1 part disqualified wine, then the disqualified wine is nullified and it is all pure, as we will learn in section two.", + "If one poured [liquid] from one vessel into another, and a tevul yom touched the stream, and there was something within the vessel, then [whatsoever he touches] is neutralized in a hundred and one. If the tevul yom touches the stream flowing from one vessel to the other, he only disqualifies that part that he touches. If there is a 100 to 1 ratio of pure to disqualified liquid, then the part he touched is nullified and it is all pure. This is a similar situation to that in section one." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses a jug that has a bubble in the clay on the side. The bubble is pierced such that there is a passageway from the inside of the jar to the outside. The question is whether or not impurity can come from the outside and get in.", + "A bubble on a jug which was pierced with holes on its inner side and on its outer side, whether above or below: This section describes the scenario.", + "If [the holes are] opposite one another, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a \"father of uncleanness\" and it becomes unclean if it is in a tent in which there is a corpse. If the two holes are opposite one another, then the entire contents are susceptible to impurity. If a \"father of uncleanness\" touches the liquids at the hole, then the entire contents of the jug are impure. And if the jug is found in a tent in which there is a corpse, the contents are unclean even if the jug is tightly sealed up top. Since there is an opening, the jug is considered to be open and not protected from impurity.", + "If the inner hole is below and the outer above, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a \"father of uncleanness,\" and it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse. The same is true if the inner hole is below and the outer hole is above. This is because the liquid the father of uncleanness touches on the outside would go down and defile all of the liquid on the inside.", + "If the inner hole is above and the outer below, it remains clean if touched by a \"father of uncleanness,\" but it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse. However, if the inner hole is above and the outer hole is below, the liquid he touches will not go up and defile the inner liquid. Therefore, the contents remain pure. But in all cases since the jug is open through both sides, the contents are defiled by being in a tent with a corpse." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a \"father of uncleanness,\" also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. The mishnah refers here to food that is picked up by using a \"handle,\" a piece of the food. We will explain this more when we learn Tractate Oktzin 1:3. If this part is touched by a \"father of uncleanness\" the entire piece of food is defiled. Similarly, if the food was touched by a tevul yom, the entire thing is defiled.", + "If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. The mishnah now begins to discuss pieces of food that have been broken into two, and yet are still slightly connected. The question is if one touches part of the disconnected piece, is the entire thing defiled? Rabbi Meir says that for the two parts to be connected all that must occur is that the smaller part would be picked up with the larger part. This would mean that it would be quite to consider the two parts connected. Rabbi Judah rules more leniently. Unless the larger part can be lifted with the smaller part, then the two are not considered connected.", + "Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. Rabbi Nehemiah and the sages say that it doesn't matter which part is large or small, what matters is which part was pure and which part was impure. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, we examine the part not touched by the tevul yom. If a person picks up the pure part and the impure part that was touched by the tevul yom comes up with it, it is considered connected. . According to the sages, we examine the part that was touched by the tevul yom. If when one picks up the impure part the pure part comes up with it, then it too is impure.", + "In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk. For other types of food, such as vegetables and fruit, the test is performed by holding the part usually held. If the vegetable/fruit is usually held by the leaf then if he picks it up by the leaf and the vegetable/fruit is lifted up as well, then it is all connected. The same is true if the fruit is usually held by the stalk." + ], + [ + "If a beaten egg was on top of vegetables of terumah, and a tevul yom touches the egg, then he disqualifies only that stalk [of the vegetables] that is opposite the part [of the egg] he touched. Rabbi Yose says: the entire upper layer. The mishnah discusses an egg that was fried and put on top of some terumah vegetables. If the tevul yom touches the egg, he doesn't disqualify all of the vegetables just the stalk that was directly below the part of the egg he touched. Rabbi Yose says that he disqualifies the entire upper layer of vegetables which touch the egg.", + "But if it was arranged like a cap it does not serve as a connective. If the egg was arranged like a hat over the vegetables, and the egg did not touch them, then touching the egg doesn’t count as touching the vegetable. They remain pure. I think I'm going to go make myself an egg (I'm writing this on Pesah, and there really isn't much else to eat)." + ], + [ + "The streak of an egg that had become congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touched it: If within the rim [of the pan] it serves as a connective; But if outside the rim, it does not serve as a connective. The streak of an egg is the white of an egg that trailed behind when cracking the egg. It is congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touches it. If he touches the streak that is in the pot, then all of the contents in the pot are disqualified (if they are of terumah). But if the streak is outside the pot, the contents of the pot remain pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says that the streak and the part that can be peeled away with it [serves as a connective]. Rabbi Yose says that if the tevul yom touched the streak within the pot, only the parts of the dish that would be picked up with the streak are disqualified. The rest is not considered connected. And if the tevul yom touches the streak outside of the pot, it is never considered connected.", + "The same applies to beans that had congealed on the rim of the pot. Beans congealed on the rim of the pot have the same rule as does the streak of egg." + ], + [ + "Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. This section refers to hullin dough (non-sacred dough) that had been mixed up with some terumah dough or terumah yeast (starter dough). According to the first opinion, this dough is treated as if it were hullin dough and it is not disqualified if a tevul yom touches it. This is another leniency with regard to the rules governing a tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that since there is terumah mixed in with this dough, it is disqualified.", + "Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Barthotha says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched. The dough was originally made susceptible to impurity by contact with a liquid. Then the dough was kneaded together with fruit juice, which does not cause produce susceptible to impurity. The question is: is all of the dough considered to be connected? According to Rabbi Joshua, this dough is all considered connected and if the tevul yom touches one part, it is all disqualified. Rabbi Akiva disagrees. He holds that just as fruit juice does not cause produce to be susceptible to impurity, it does not cause the dough to be connected. The only part that tevul yom disqualifies is the actual part that he touches." + ], + [ + "Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched. This is a very similar mishnah to yesterday's similar debate, similar people arguing. Rabbi Elazar holds that since the oil spread onto each vegetable, they are all disqualified. The vegetables, covered with the oil, now have the status of the oil. Rabbi Akiva says that terumah oil that comes into contact with hullin vegetables does not give the vegetables the status of terumah. However, contact with the tevul yom does disqualify the vegetable that he touches because he might have touched oil. In other words, the oil and vegetables are not considered to have the same status but we do have to be concerned lest he actually touched terumah oil." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a person who is chewing food and the food falls out of his mouth. First it falls onto his clothes and then onto a terumah loaf of bread (and then my poor meatball, it rolled out the door!). The question is does the moisture on the food cause the loaf of terumah to be susceptible to impurity.", + "A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. The person did not want this food to end up on his clothes. Therefore, this is considered a case of liquids that are \"not to his liking.\" For liquid to make food susceptible to impurity it generally has to be that he wanted the liquids to come into contact with his food (see introduction to Makhshirin). We should note that the mishnah describes a terumah loaf even though the same halakhah is true even if the loaf is hullin. As far as liquid causing susceptibility to impurity, it makes no difference whether the food is terumah or hullin. The reason the mishnah mentions a terumah loaf is that in section four the tevul yom is discussed and a tevul yom disqualifies terumah.", + "If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. In this case he gathered up a lot of spit in his mouth in order to get the pit out of the olives or dates. Thus the spit was originally something he wanted. Even though later he didn't want the food to fall on his clothes, since originally he did want this spit, it causes the loaf to be susceptible.", + "If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. In this case, the dates or olives were dry and he didn't want to (or perhaps couldn't) suck out the pit. Since he didn't need the liquid of his own spittle it does not cause the loaf to be susceptible to impurity.", + "This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person. According to the first opinion, the above halakhot are true even if the person was a tevul yom. A tevul yom is not treated as if he were impure as we see in the sages' response to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir says that a tevul yom is considered like an impure person, and an impure person who causes liquids to come into contact with produce causes the produce to be susceptible (and impure) regardless of whether it was to his liking. This halakhah was taught in Makshirin 1:1. While this debate is about one particular and obscure case, we see here a broad dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that a tevul yom, a person who went to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, is treated as if he was impure. The sages disagree." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If food that was tithe had been rendered susceptible to impurity by a liquid, and a tevul yom or one with unwashed hands touched it, terumah of tithe may still be removed from it in purity, since it only has third degree uncleanness, and third degree uncleanness counts as clean in hullin. A tevul yom or one who has unwashed hands touches tithe. Both of these people are considered as having second degree impurity. They will cause the food to have third degree impurity. However, third degree impurity counts as clean if the food is hullin non sacred. It only disqualifies terumah. Since tithe is considered hullin, the produce remains pure. Therefore, one may remove the terumah from this tithe, as is always done. In other words, although we will separate terumah from it in the future, right now it does not have the status of terumah. Hence it is not disqualified." + ], + [ + "A woman who is a tevulat yom may knead dough, cut off the hallah, and set it apart, and she should arrange it on an Egyptian basket, or on a tray, and then bring it near and call it by its name. For it [the dough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin. The woman is a tevulat yom (the feminine form of tevul yom). When she touches the dough, it will have third degree uncleanness, which is not unclean when it comes to hullin. The problem is that if she touches the hallah, the part of the dough that is removed and given to the priest, she will disqualify it. Hallah is holy and therefore a tevul yom touching it would defile it and a priest couldn't eat it. To prevent the hallah from being defiled she first separates it but doesn't yet call it hallah. Then she puts it on a type of tray that cannot receive impurity or an Egyptian basket which also cannot become impure. Then she has to bring the other dough near and then, without touching it, she can call the hallah by its name Hallah! This way she can give pure terumah to the thankful priest. Pretty cool, huh?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the third mishnah in which we learn that something that has third degree impurity does not defile hullin.", + "A trough which is a tevulat yom, one may knead dough in it and cut off the portion for hallah and bring it near and call it by name [as hallah]; for it [the trough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin. The kneading trough itself is a \"tevulat yom\" it was immersed in the mikveh to cleanse it, but the sun had not yet set. The person taking the hallah is pure, so she can simply remove the hallah, bring it near the dough without allowing it to touch the trough and call it by its name. Since the person is pure she doesn't need to first arrange it on a vessel that cannot receive impurity. And as we have learned before, since the trough has third degree impurity, it doesn't defile the dough itself, which is hullin." + ], + [ + "A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken: There is a cask of tithe of some sort of produce. The terumah which must be taken from tithes has not yet been removed from the produce. They then filled up a flagon which was a tevul yom (it had been immersed but the sun had not yet set). The question is how to separate terumah without defiling it by contact with the tevul yom flagon?", + "If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe. The solution is for the person to say that the terumah of tithe will only come into being after nightfall. In such a way the terumah will remain pure because by then the flagon will be pure.", + "But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing. In this section, the person wants to use the contents of the flagon as his eruv, the shared meal that will allow him to carry in a courtyard. The problem is that the eruv must be placed before the sun sets and before the sun sets this produce is still tithe from which terumah has not been removed, which cannot be used for an eruv (see Eruvin 3:2). Therefore, if he tries to use this as his eruv, it doesn't work.", + "If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If either the cask or the flagon breaks before the sun sets, before the statement he made in section two has had time to become operative, then the contents of the other container remain tithe that has not had terumah removed. In other words, until the sun sets his statement doesn't succeed in separating terumah from the tithe." + ], + [ + "Originally they said: one may redeem [second tithe] for the produce of an am ha-arez. Later they reconsidered and said: also for money of his.
Originally they said that if a man was being led out to execution and said, “Write a get for my wife”, they may write a get and give [it to her]. Later they reconsidered and said, even if he were leaving on a sea voyage or on a caravan journey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if he were dangerously ill. Originally they said that a \"haver\" a person who observes the tithing and purity laws can take produce from an am haaretz and redeem the second tithe that is in it. Second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. To make this easier, one is allowed to redeem the second tithe for money and then use that money to buy food in Jerusalem. In this way the produce becomes desacralized. The mishnah describes an am haaretz, one who doesn't observe these laws, who then gives his produce to a haver so that the haver can redeem the second tithe. The haver can then take out the second tithe and redeem it for money. He need not be concerned that all of the produce that the am haaretz gave him was tithe from which second tithe cannot be redeemed.", + "They then were more lenient and said that even if the am haaretz gave him money to redeem, meaning instead of giving him the produce the am haaretz gave him the money so that the haver could turn it into maaser sheni (second tithe) the haver could still do this. We are not concerned that the money the am haaretz gave him was already second tithe money, which could not be used to redeem produce. Besides the particulars of this mishnah, which are always interesting, I think it is interesting that the mishnah portrays an am haaretz coming to the haver to receive help in separating second tithe. While I can't promise that this is historically accurate, it at least shows that the rabbis imagined themselves as providing religious services for the general, uneducated populace.", + "This section is found word for word in Gittin 6:5. My commentary here is the same as there. Usually a husband must state that he wishes the get (the divorce document) to be written and given to the woman. However, in extenuating circumstances where the husband seems to have been facing immanent death, it is highly unlikely that when he instructed someone to write a get, he wanted the get to be written but not given to his wife. After all, why else would he want to write a get at this point? Therefore, one who hears the husband says “Write a get for my wife” may write it and even give it to her. At first the category of people facing immanent death included only a person being led out to execution. Later, they expanded the category to include one leaving for a sea voyage or a caravan journey. These men would have wanted to write out a get that would go into effect should they not return, not an unlikely scenario. This would prevent their wives from being left as “agunot” a woman who doesn’t know if her husband is alive or dead and therefore cannot remarry. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri added that an agent who hears such a statement from a dangerously ill person may also write and give the get. This man may want to divorce his wife in order to exempt her from levirate marriage (if he was to do childless and with a brother she would have to undergo yibbum or halitzah). Again, it is very unlikely that a dying man would want to write a get but not give it to his wife, and therefore we are not concerned with such a possibility." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is the same as Kelim 13:7. It deals with vessels that are basically wooden, but have one part made of metal.\nThe reason that this mishnah is placed here is Rabbi Joshua's comments found at the end. According to Albeck, this comment refers to all of the cases in which the sages were lenient in this chapter, and therefore his words are appropriate here. In other words, sections one and two belong in Kelim, which talks about the purity of vessels. And section three belongs more here. Somehow they were paired together and that's why both sections appear in both places.\nMy commentary below is the same as it is there in Kelim.", + "If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity. Since the hooks are the main parts of the grappling-irons, as long as they remain, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. Furthermore, although the vessel is made of wood, since its hooks are of metal, it is susceptible.", + "If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity. These are all tools with teeth. Most of the tool is made of wood, but one of the missing wooden teeth was replaced with metal. This one metal tooth gives the entire vessel the status of a metal vessel and it is therefore susceptible to impurity.", + "And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer. Rabbi Joshua adds here a fascinating note, one which I don't believe we have encountered elsewhere in the Mishnah. In all of the above cases, since the basic vessel was of wood, and it was a simple vessel without a receptacle, the vessel should not have been susceptible to impurity. The innovation that the earlier scribes innovated was that although only one part was of metal, the entire vessel is susceptible. Rabbi Joshua accepts this innovation, but nevertheless admits that he does not understand it. We can see here his deference to tradition, and yet his striving to understand it, and his sense of frustration when he cannot. This is an attitude that I believe is very typical among rabbis. They have a strong sense of respect for tradition, and yet they do not simply accept all that they have received. Rather, they constantly attempt to understand the early halakhot, to make sense out of them, and to use the principles that they perceive as underlying these halakhot to derive further halakhot." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Tevul Yom deals with a tevul yom who is separating terumah from a cistern.", + "If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: \"Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely,\" [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. The person was taking terumah from a cistern of wine. He wanted to dip a jug into the cistern, declare the contents of the jug terumah and then have the remainder of the cistern become drinkable. He stipulated that it would be terumah only if the jug came up \"safely.\" The question is what does \"safely\" mean. The first opinion holds that \"safely\" means that the jug didn't break or its contents spill. If the jug did break and the wine fell back into the cistern, it wouldn't give the contents of the cistern the status of terumah and hullin mixed together. However, if he accidentally disqualified the terumah wine (because he was a tevul yom) then his terumah is terumah and it will be disqualified (what the mishnah calls made impure). Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently. His intention of saying \"safely\" was that even if the contents should be defiled, the separation of terumah wouldn't count. If he brought up the jug and accidentally defiled the wine, the jug would not be terumah.", + "If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. If the jug broke and the contents fell back into the cistern, then the contents of the cistern are not considered to have terumah in them. That is they don't have the rules of doubtful terumah due to the jug's contents, because the jug wasn't terumah.", + "How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. The question now is for how long does this stipulation last? In other words, how far away from the cistern can the jug go and still not be considered terumah if it is broken. The mishnah rules that if the jug breaks when it is still close enough to the cistern that it could roll back there in one push, then the terumah is not terumah. But if he takes it further away, and then it breaks, the terumah does count as terumah. If some of it falls into the cistern, the contents of the cistern will have to be considered doubtful terumah.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court. Finally, the mishnah rules that even if he didn't specifically stipulate that the contents had to come up safely for them to be terumah, the stipulation is still valid. This is because it is a \"court stipulation\" it is something that the court dictates is understood even if not stated explicitly. A person, after all, would only benefit from making such a statement. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Tevul Yom! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. One thing that you might have been wonder about while studying this tractate was what made the sages so interested in this category. Of course you probably know by the now that the answer will not be practical i.e. this was a commonly occurring issue. Rather, I think this is another example of the sort of topic that really interested the rabbis in-between or marginal cases. The tevul yom is sort of pure, for s/he has already been to the mikveh. But s/he is also impure because the sun hasn't set. This type of category seems to have immensely interested the sages, and although we tend to prefer to see practical ramifications for everything the rabbis said, the truth is that much of rabbinic literature, and especially the Mishnah, is interested in the theoretical and not the practical. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Yadayim." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טבול יום", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..22e2ac7a37ec54221fac62697a37baa5ab27cba6 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Tevul_Yom", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "The word \"tevul yom\" refers to a person who has immersed in a mikveh but will not become pure until the evening. The concept is derived by the rabbis from the following two verses:", + "Leviticus 11:32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. ", + "Leviticus 22:6-7 6 The person who touches such shall be unclean until evening and shall not eat of the sacred donations unless he has washed his body in water. 7 As soon as the sun sets, he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the sacred donations, for they are his food. 8 He shall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts, thereby becoming unclean: I am the Lord. ", + "According to rabbinic law, a kohen goes to the mikveh before the sun sets but cannot eat terumah until after the sun has set. This is the meaning of Leviticus 22:7. So too a vessel which has become impure through a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) is immersed in a mikveh and then can be used with terumah in the evening, when the sun has set. Until the sun has set, both the person and the vessel are called a \"tevul yom.\"", + "A \"tevul yom\" is not actually impure. Once he or the vessel has been in the mikveh, he or the vessel is pure. If a tevul yom touches terumah he disqualifies the terumah from being eaten, but it is not impure. Indeed, there is a special leniency with terumah that has been disqualified because it was touched by a tevul yom. Generally, disqualified terumah will disqualify sacred food it touches. But in this case, the terumah does not disqualify sacred food.", + "This tractate is highly technical, dealing with the nitty-gritties of impurity law. But by now, those of you who have been following along are real experts in these laws, so it shouldn't be difficult at all ☺. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah in Tevul Yom deals with the issue of whether things that are loosely connected to each other are considered to be one thing, such that if a tevul yom touches one side the whole thing is impure, or many independent things, such that the other side is pure. The issue of \"connectives\" is something we saw several other times in the Mishnah, including chapters 18-21 of Kelim.", + "If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. A priest collects pieces of hallah that he has been given by other people. He intends to keep them separate and bake them separately. However, they end up getting stuck together. According to Bet Shammai, since they are stuck together, if one of them is touched by a tevul yom, then they are all impure. Bet Shammai looks at the situation purely by what is going on physically. Since the pieces of hallah are touching each other, they count as one piece of dough. If the tevul yom touches one of them, they are all disqualified. Bet Hillel, in contrast, takes the person's intention into account. Since he intended to bake them separately, the fact that they temporarily made contact with each other does not mean they count as being connected. Only the piece that the tevul yom actually touched is impure.", + "Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. In all of the cases described here there are two or more things that could be looked at as connected or not. In all of these cases, the substance is of terumah and the question is if part was touched by the tevul yom, is it all impure? Some of these require a bit more explanation: Or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven: This person will definitely separate the cakes because they will form a crust better when they are separate. Or if there was froth on the water that was bubbling: This refers to a case of a watery dish which is boiling and has bubbles rising from it. Since the dish is watery, the bubbles don't count as being attached to the dish, at least according to Bet Hillel. Or the first froth that rises when boiling groats of beans: the beans were crushed and made into groats. When they are boiled for the first time, a froth comes up. Rabbi Judah says: also that of rice: Boiled terumah rice. In all of these cases Bet Shammai says that all of the parts are considered to be connected. If a tevul yom touches one part, for instance the froth, the whole thing is disqualified. Bet Hillel says that they are considered separate and therefore the part that wasn't touched remains valid terumah.", + "They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades. The disagreement between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel is with regard to the tevul yom. As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis (at least Bet Hillel) treated a tevul yom somewhat leniently, since he had already been to the mikveh. However, when it comes to other forms of impurity, both serious and lenient forms, all of the things listed in this mishnah are considered to be connected. Bet Hillel was lenient only with regard to the tevul yom." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah contains mostly the opposite scenarios of yesterday's mishnah objects that are considered to be connected, such that if the tevul yom touches one of them, they are all defiled.", + "If one had collected pieces of hallah without the intention of separating them afterwards, Since he didn't intend to separate them, they count as connected.", + "or a batter-cake that had been baked on another after a crust had formed in the oven, Since the crust had already formed he won't separate them so that they bake better.", + "or froth had appeared in the water prior to its bubbling up, Prior to boiling the froth is considered connected to the water.", + "or the second scum that appeared in the boiling of groats of beans, The second scum that rises on the surface of boiling groats is connected to the dish.", + "or the scum of old wine, The scum on top of old wine is considered connected only the new scum was considered separate.", + "or that of oil of all kinds, The scum that emerges on the top of boiling oil is always considered connected to the oil.", + "or of lentils, Rabbi Judah says: also that of beans; The same is true with lentils and beans, according to Rabbi Judah.", + "All these are defiled when touched by a tevul yom. And there is no need to say, [this is the case if touched] by other sources of uncleanness. A tevul yom, and all the more so a truly impure person, who touches any of these things defiles the whole thing because all of the parts are considered to be connected." + ], + [ + "The nail shaped knob on the back of the loaf, or the small globule of salt, or the burnt crust less than a finger's breadth: Rabbi Yose says: whatever is eaten with the loaf becomes unclean [when touched by the tevul yom]. If there is a lump of bread on the back of a loaf of terumah bread, or a small globule of salt or a small burnt piece on the crust, they are all considered as being part of the loaf, because when one goes to eat the loaf, she will eat these parts too. If the tevul yom touches one of these parts, the entire loaf of terumah is disqualified.", + "And one doesn't need to say, this is so [when touched] by other unclean things. If the law is stringent with regard to the tevul yom, who is really pure, all the more so the law will be stringent with regard to other defiling things. If they touch such parts of the loaf, the entire loaf is impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah is the opposite of yesterday's mishnah. It describes things that are attached to the loaf but are not considered connected to it for matters of impurity.", + "A pebble in a loaf or a large globule of salt, or a lupine, or a burnt crust larger than a finger's breadth Rabbi Yose says: whatever is not eaten with the loaf remains clean even when touched by a father of impurity; A person eating a loaf of bread would pick these things out before eating the loaf. A \"lupine\" is a type of bean. One would not generally eat a lupine stuck onto his loaf of bread. If the piece of burnt crust is too big, he wouldn't eat that either. He wouldn't eat a pebble or a big lump of salt. Therefore, if even a \"father of impurity,\" meaning one with a very high level of impurity, touches this part of the loaf of terumah, the remainder stays pure. It is not considered connected to the loaf.", + "And it isn't even necessary to say [is this so when touched] by a tevul yom. All the more so, if a tevul yom touches this part of the loaf, the rest stays pure. Note how this mishnah is the opposite structure of yesterday's mishnah. Today, since the loaf stays pure, the relationship of the clauses shifts the tevul yom is less defiling than a father of impurity." + ], + [ + "Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silrhium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. This section lists pieces of grains or other foods that are not considered to be part of loaf of bread if found mixed up in there. If the loaf is terumah, and a tevul yom or a person with another type of impurity touches them but not the loaf, the loaf remains pure. In other words, these things won't be eaten with the loaf so they are not part of the loaf. I admit that I don't know what some of these things are. But from what we can learn from this mishnah, they are not food commonly consumed. The other sages are lenient when it comes to a tevul yom, for he is not truly impure. However, they rule stringently when it comes to people who are actually impure. If such a person touches these things, he defiles the entire loaf of terumah.", + "Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity. This list contrasts with that in section one. These foods will be eaten with the loaf. Therefore if even a tevul yom touches them, the rest of the loaf is defiled. We can see that these foods were considered more edible shelled barley or spelt, wheat, spices. Interesting that Rabbi Judah thinks black beans are less edible than white beans. Bean racism?" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Liquids that come out of a tevul yom are like those which he has touched: neither of them causes defilement. Liquids that come out of a person include one's spit and one's urine. Our mishnah deals with the defiling power of such liquids. For a tevul yom, a person who has been to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, those liquids are pure. They are like liquids that he touches and a tevul yom does not defile liquid such in order to give it first degree impurity. We should note that while a tevul yom would disqualify terumah that he has touched, as we saw in yesterday's chapter, he does not defile non-sacred produce.", + "With regard to all others that are unclean, be they of minor or major [degree], the liquids that come out of them are like those they touch; both have first degree impurity. In contrast, other people who are actually unclean, do defile liquids to give them first degree impurity and the liquids that come out of their body have first degree impurity. It doesn't matter whether these people have high or low levels of impurity. The liquids that they touch or that come out of their body would defile food and vessels but they wouldn't defile people.", + "Except for liquid that is a \"father of impurity.\" The exception to this rule are the few cases where liquids that come out of a person are themselves considered to be \"fathers of impurity.\" This would include the spit or urine of a zav (see Zavim 5:7). Such liquids would even defile people and things." + ], + [ + "A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. As we have learned, a tevul yom disqualifies liquids but he does not cause them to be defiled. So a tevul yom who touches liquid in a pot, the liquids themselves are disqualified (if they are terumah), but they don't have the power to defile the pot. And if the liquids are not terumah, then all is clean, because as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, a tevul yom does not defile non-sacred liquids.", + "If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. In contrast, defiled hands (the topic of the next tractate) do defile liquids. These liquids will now in turn defile the pot in which they are in.", + "This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean. The mishnah now compares the halakhot governing defiled liquids with those governing defiled hands. In the above matter defiled hands were treated more stringently than the tevul yom. However, there is another halakhah in which tevul yom is treated more stringently than defiled hands. Any case of doubt regarding the tevul yom is treated stringently. For instance, if we are not sure if a tevul yom touched something of terumah, the terumah cannot be eaten. However, if a person has unclean hands and we are not sure if he touched something, the thing remains pure." + ], + [ + "If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing; There is a thick soup, a porridge, made of terumah that has in it hullin (non-sacred) garlic and oil. If a tevul yom touches part of the garlic or oil, all of it is disqualified because the porridge is the main thing. We look at the porridge as if it was all one dish of terumah and the whole thing is disqualified.", + "But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched. However, if the porridge itself is of hullin and the garlic and oil are terumah, then the garlic or oil are looked at is if they are not connected. If a tevul yom touches part of the garlic or oil, only the part he touches is disqualified.", + "If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority. If there is more garlic than oil, then we look at the oil as if it is secondary to the garlic. If he touches the garlic, the oil will also be disqualified.", + "Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered. Rabbi Judah says we follow the majority of the garlic or oil only if the garlic has not been mashed and it sticks to the oil and becomes one lump. However, if the garlic has been mashed up and scattered in the pot, then the garlic pieces are not connected to the other pieces. The part of the garlic he touches is impure, but the rest remains clean.", + "[Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. This section is a bit confusing. According to Albeck two different versions of this mishnah have been combined. I will explain according to his commentary. The first version should read thusly: But with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids or those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. The explanation is that if there was a food that people don't usually mash up with liquids but he nevertheless did mash it up with liquid or if there was a food which is normally mashed up with liquids but he didn't mash it up with liquids, even if they form one cohesive lump in the pot, they are treated like a cake of preserved figs. Only the part he touched is impure. The other version should read: [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. The explanation is that other mashed foods that he mashed with liquids are also treated like garlic mashed with oil. If they make a cohesive mass, they are treated as connected. But if they are normally mashed with liquids and he mashed them without liquids, even if they form a cohesive mass, they are not treated as if they are connected." + ], + [ + "If the porridge and batter-cake were of hullin and oil of terumah was floating above them, and a tevul yom touched the oil, he disqualifies only the oil. Since the oil is floating on top of the porridge or batter-cake it doesn't count as being part of the larger base. This is similar to the case in yesterday's mishnah. So if he touches the oil, the rest can be eaten.", + "If he stirred it altogether, all the places where the oil goes are disqualified. If he mixes the oil into the porridge or batter-cake, then any part of the larger dish that contains the terumah oil is disqualified." + ], + [ + "Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective the one with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other. Sanctified meat, meaning meat that was part of a sacrifice, has been cooked in a pot with some porridge. The porridge crusts over the meat. According to the first opinion, the meat is not considered part of the crust. Thus if a tevul yom touches the crust, the meat is still permitted. It has not been disqualified. However, if he touches the meat itself, the meat and any part of the crust that would be lifted out of the dish with the meat is disqualified. The other parts of the porridge can still be eaten. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that the entire porridge and meat is considered connected. Thus if he touches any part of the porridge, the meat is disqualified.", + "Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread. The same rule as in section one applies to a case where beans have been cooked in a pot with some bread made of terumah.", + "Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted. Having mentioned beans, the mishnah now discusses general cases of beans or other foods cooked in a pot. If the pieces of the food are still separate from one another, they don't count as connected. But a solid mass is connected and if he touches one part of the mass, it is all disqualified. If there are several solid masses, then the one he touches has first degree impurity. The mass that is next to it and touching it, has second degree impurity and the third mass will be disqualified if it is of terumah. When the mishnah says \"counted\" it means that the usual process of counting impurity begins from the mass he touched.", + "If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other. This is similar to the case in yesterday's mishnah. If the oil floats on the wine, only the oil is disqualified. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri again disagrees and holds that the substances are considered to be connected." + ], + [ + "A jug which sunk into a cistern containing wine, and a tevul yom touched it: If [he touched it] from the rim and inwards, it serves as a connective; If from the rim and outwards, it does not serve as a connective. Our mishnah describes an open jug of terumah wine that sinks into a cistern containing hullin (non-sacred) wine. If the tevul yom touches the wine that is inside the rim of the jug, even if this wine came from the cistern, all of the wine in the jug is connected. The terumah wine will all be disqualified. However, if he touches outside of the rim of the jug, then the wine is not connected to the wine in the jug, even if it is the same height as the jug and may indeed be intermingling. The jug in the wine remains pure and can be used as terumah wine.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even though [the level of wine in the cistern] is the height of a man [above the sunken jar], and he touched [the wine] directly above the mouth of the jar, it serves as a connective. Again, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules strictly concerning connectives. Even if there is a tremendous amount of wine in the cistern above the jug of terumah, the entire height of a man, and the tevul yom touched the wine directly above the jug, the wine above the jug and the wine in the jug are disqualified. Basically, this would seem to mean that the entire contents of the cistern are disqualified. If he touched the wine in the cistern on the sides of the jug, the jug's content would not be disqualified." + ], + [ + "If a jug had a hole either at its neck, bottom or sides, and a tevul yom touched it [at the hole], it becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the hole is at its neck or bottom it becomes unclean; but if on its sides, on this side or on that, it remains clean. The jug has in it terumah wine and is sealed from above, but there is a hole elsewhere on the jug. According to the first opinion, no matter where that hole is, if a tevul yom touches the hole, all of the contents are disqualified. Rabbi Judah says that the contents are disqualified only if he touches either the hole on the top, at its neck, or the whole at the bottom. If he touches the hole at the top, all of the wine below is a base for the upper wine, so it is all considered connected. And if he touches the hole on the bottom of the jug then all of the wine will flow out of the hole below, so all of the wine is connected. But if he touches on one of the sides, the rest of the wine remains pure. Only the wine on the side he touches is disqualified. However, if there is a ratio of 100 parts pure wine to 1 part disqualified wine, then the disqualified wine is nullified and it is all pure, as we will learn in section two.", + "If one poured [liquid] from one vessel into another, and a tevul yom touched the stream, and there was something within the vessel, then [whatsoever he touches] is neutralized in a hundred and one. If the tevul yom touches the stream flowing from one vessel to the other, he only disqualifies that part that he touches. If there is a 100 to 1 ratio of pure to disqualified liquid, then the part he touched is nullified and it is all pure. This is a similar situation to that in section one." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah discusses a jug that has a bubble in the clay on the side. The bubble is pierced such that there is a passageway from the inside of the jar to the outside. The question is whether or not impurity can come from the outside and get in.", + "A bubble on a jug which was pierced with holes on its inner side and on its outer side, whether above or below: This section describes the scenario.", + "If [the holes are] opposite one another, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a \"father of uncleanness\" and it becomes unclean if it is in a tent in which there is a corpse. If the two holes are opposite one another, then the entire contents are susceptible to impurity. If a \"father of uncleanness\" touches the liquids at the hole, then the entire contents of the jug are impure. And if the jug is found in a tent in which there is a corpse, the contents are unclean even if the jug is tightly sealed up top. Since there is an opening, the jug is considered to be open and not protected from impurity.", + "If the inner hole is below and the outer above, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a \"father of uncleanness,\" and it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse. The same is true if the inner hole is below and the outer hole is above. This is because the liquid the father of uncleanness touches on the outside would go down and defile all of the liquid on the inside.", + "If the inner hole is above and the outer below, it remains clean if touched by a \"father of uncleanness,\" but it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse. However, if the inner hole is above and the outer hole is below, the liquid he touches will not go up and defile the inner liquid. Therefore, the contents remain pure. But in all cases since the jug is open through both sides, the contents are defiled by being in a tent with a corpse." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a \"father of uncleanness,\" also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. The mishnah refers here to food that is picked up by using a \"handle,\" a piece of the food. We will explain this more when we learn Tractate Oktzin 1:3. If this part is touched by a \"father of uncleanness\" the entire piece of food is defiled. Similarly, if the food was touched by a tevul yom, the entire thing is defiled.", + "If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. The mishnah now begins to discuss pieces of food that have been broken into two, and yet are still slightly connected. The question is if one touches part of the disconnected piece, is the entire thing defiled? Rabbi Meir says that for the two parts to be connected all that must occur is that the smaller part would be picked up with the larger part. This would mean that it would be quite to consider the two parts connected. Rabbi Judah rules more leniently. Unless the larger part can be lifted with the smaller part, then the two are not considered connected.", + "Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. Rabbi Nehemiah and the sages say that it doesn't matter which part is large or small, what matters is which part was pure and which part was impure. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, we examine the part not touched by the tevul yom. If a person picks up the pure part and the impure part that was touched by the tevul yom comes up with it, it is considered connected. . According to the sages, we examine the part that was touched by the tevul yom. If when one picks up the impure part the pure part comes up with it, then it too is impure.", + "In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk. For other types of food, such as vegetables and fruit, the test is performed by holding the part usually held. If the vegetable/fruit is usually held by the leaf then if he picks it up by the leaf and the vegetable/fruit is lifted up as well, then it is all connected. The same is true if the fruit is usually held by the stalk." + ], + [ + "If a beaten egg was on top of vegetables of terumah, and a tevul yom touches the egg, then he disqualifies only that stalk [of the vegetables] that is opposite the part [of the egg] he touched. Rabbi Yose says: the entire upper layer. The mishnah discusses an egg that was fried and put on top of some terumah vegetables. If the tevul yom touches the egg, he doesn't disqualify all of the vegetables just the stalk that was directly below the part of the egg he touched. Rabbi Yose says that he disqualifies the entire upper layer of vegetables which touch the egg.", + "But if it was arranged like a cap it does not serve as a connective. If the egg was arranged like a hat over the vegetables, and the egg did not touch them, then touching the egg doesn’t count as touching the vegetable. They remain pure. I think I'm going to go make myself an egg (I'm writing this on Pesah, and there really isn't much else to eat)." + ], + [ + "The streak of an egg that had become congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touched it: If within the rim [of the pan] it serves as a connective; But if outside the rim, it does not serve as a connective. The streak of an egg is the white of an egg that trailed behind when cracking the egg. It is congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touches it. If he touches the streak that is in the pot, then all of the contents in the pot are disqualified (if they are of terumah). But if the streak is outside the pot, the contents of the pot remain pure.", + "Rabbi Yose says that the streak and the part that can be peeled away with it [serves as a connective]. Rabbi Yose says that if the tevul yom touched the streak within the pot, only the parts of the dish that would be picked up with the streak are disqualified. The rest is not considered connected. And if the tevul yom touches the streak outside of the pot, it is never considered connected.", + "The same applies to beans that had congealed on the rim of the pot. Beans congealed on the rim of the pot have the same rule as does the streak of egg." + ], + [ + "Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. This section refers to hullin dough (non-sacred dough) that had been mixed up with some terumah dough or terumah yeast (starter dough). According to the first opinion, this dough is treated as if it were hullin dough and it is not disqualified if a tevul yom touches it. This is another leniency with regard to the rules governing a tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that since there is terumah mixed in with this dough, it is disqualified.", + "Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Barthotha says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched. The dough was originally made susceptible to impurity by contact with a liquid. Then the dough was kneaded together with fruit juice, which does not cause produce susceptible to impurity. The question is: is all of the dough considered to be connected? According to Rabbi Joshua, this dough is all considered connected and if the tevul yom touches one part, it is all disqualified. Rabbi Akiva disagrees. He holds that just as fruit juice does not cause produce to be susceptible to impurity, it does not cause the dough to be connected. The only part that tevul yom disqualifies is the actual part that he touches." + ], + [ + "Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched. This is a very similar mishnah to yesterday's similar debate, similar people arguing. Rabbi Elazar holds that since the oil spread onto each vegetable, they are all disqualified. The vegetables, covered with the oil, now have the status of the oil. Rabbi Akiva says that terumah oil that comes into contact with hullin vegetables does not give the vegetables the status of terumah. However, contact with the tevul yom does disqualify the vegetable that he touches because he might have touched oil. In other words, the oil and vegetables are not considered to have the same status but we do have to be concerned lest he actually touched terumah oil." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a person who is chewing food and the food falls out of his mouth. First it falls onto his clothes and then onto a terumah loaf of bread (and then my poor meatball, it rolled out the door!). The question is does the moisture on the food cause the loaf of terumah to be susceptible to impurity.", + "A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. The person did not want this food to end up on his clothes. Therefore, this is considered a case of liquids that are \"not to his liking.\" For liquid to make food susceptible to impurity it generally has to be that he wanted the liquids to come into contact with his food (see introduction to Makhshirin). We should note that the mishnah describes a terumah loaf even though the same halakhah is true even if the loaf is hullin. As far as liquid causing susceptibility to impurity, it makes no difference whether the food is terumah or hullin. The reason the mishnah mentions a terumah loaf is that in section four the tevul yom is discussed and a tevul yom disqualifies terumah.", + "If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. In this case he gathered up a lot of spit in his mouth in order to get the pit out of the olives or dates. Thus the spit was originally something he wanted. Even though later he didn't want the food to fall on his clothes, since originally he did want this spit, it causes the loaf to be susceptible.", + "If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. In this case, the dates or olives were dry and he didn't want to (or perhaps couldn't) suck out the pit. Since he didn't need the liquid of his own spittle it does not cause the loaf to be susceptible to impurity.", + "This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person. According to the first opinion, the above halakhot are true even if the person was a tevul yom. A tevul yom is not treated as if he were impure as we see in the sages' response to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir says that a tevul yom is considered like an impure person, and an impure person who causes liquids to come into contact with produce causes the produce to be susceptible (and impure) regardless of whether it was to his liking. This halakhah was taught in Makshirin 1:1. While this debate is about one particular and obscure case, we see here a broad dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that a tevul yom, a person who went to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, is treated as if he was impure. The sages disagree." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If food that was tithe had been rendered susceptible to impurity by a liquid, and a tevul yom or one with unwashed hands touched it, terumah of tithe may still be removed from it in purity, since it only has third degree uncleanness, and third degree uncleanness counts as clean in hullin. A tevul yom or one who has unwashed hands touches tithe. Both of these people are considered as having second degree impurity. They will cause the food to have third degree impurity. However, third degree impurity counts as clean if the food is hullin non sacred. It only disqualifies terumah. Since tithe is considered hullin, the produce remains pure. Therefore, one may remove the terumah from this tithe, as is always done. In other words, although we will separate terumah from it in the future, right now it does not have the status of terumah. Hence it is not disqualified." + ], + [ + "A woman who is a tevulat yom may knead dough, cut off the hallah, and set it apart, and she should arrange it on an Egyptian basket, or on a tray, and then bring it near and call it by its name. For it [the dough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin. The woman is a tevulat yom (the feminine form of tevul yom). When she touches the dough, it will have third degree uncleanness, which is not unclean when it comes to hullin. The problem is that if she touches the hallah, the part of the dough that is removed and given to the priest, she will disqualify it. Hallah is holy and therefore a tevul yom touching it would defile it and a priest couldn't eat it. To prevent the hallah from being defiled she first separates it but doesn't yet call it hallah. Then she puts it on a type of tray that cannot receive impurity or an Egyptian basket which also cannot become impure. Then she has to bring the other dough near and then, without touching it, she can call the hallah by its name Hallah! This way she can give pure terumah to the thankful priest. Pretty cool, huh?" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the third mishnah in which we learn that something that has third degree impurity does not defile hullin.", + "A trough which is a tevulat yom, one may knead dough in it and cut off the portion for hallah and bring it near and call it by name [as hallah]; for it [the trough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin. The kneading trough itself is a \"tevulat yom\" it was immersed in the mikveh to cleanse it, but the sun had not yet set. The person taking the hallah is pure, so she can simply remove the hallah, bring it near the dough without allowing it to touch the trough and call it by its name. Since the person is pure she doesn't need to first arrange it on a vessel that cannot receive impurity. And as we have learned before, since the trough has third degree impurity, it doesn't defile the dough itself, which is hullin." + ], + [ + "A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken: There is a cask of tithe of some sort of produce. The terumah which must be taken from tithes has not yet been removed from the produce. They then filled up a flagon which was a tevul yom (it had been immersed but the sun had not yet set). The question is how to separate terumah without defiling it by contact with the tevul yom flagon?", + "If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe. The solution is for the person to say that the terumah of tithe will only come into being after nightfall. In such a way the terumah will remain pure because by then the flagon will be pure.", + "But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing. In this section, the person wants to use the contents of the flagon as his eruv, the shared meal that will allow him to carry in a courtyard. The problem is that the eruv must be placed before the sun sets and before the sun sets this produce is still tithe from which terumah has not been removed, which cannot be used for an eruv (see Eruvin 3:2). Therefore, if he tries to use this as his eruv, it doesn't work.", + "If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If either the cask or the flagon breaks before the sun sets, before the statement he made in section two has had time to become operative, then the contents of the other container remain tithe that has not had terumah removed. In other words, until the sun sets his statement doesn't succeed in separating terumah from the tithe." + ], + [ + "Originally they said: one may redeem [second tithe] for the produce of an am ha-arez. Later they reconsidered and said: also for money of his.
Originally they said that if a man was being led out to execution and said, “Write a get for my wife”, they may write a get and give [it to her]. Later they reconsidered and said, even if he were leaving on a sea voyage or on a caravan journey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if he were dangerously ill. Originally they said that a \"haver\" a person who observes the tithing and purity laws can take produce from an am haaretz and redeem the second tithe that is in it. Second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. To make this easier, one is allowed to redeem the second tithe for money and then use that money to buy food in Jerusalem. In this way the produce becomes desacralized. The mishnah describes an am haaretz, one who doesn't observe these laws, who then gives his produce to a haver so that the haver can redeem the second tithe. The haver can then take out the second tithe and redeem it for money. He need not be concerned that all of the produce that the am haaretz gave him was tithe from which second tithe cannot be redeemed.", + "They then were more lenient and said that even if the am haaretz gave him money to redeem, meaning instead of giving him the produce the am haaretz gave him the money so that the haver could turn it into maaser sheni (second tithe) the haver could still do this. We are not concerned that the money the am haaretz gave him was already second tithe money, which could not be used to redeem produce. Besides the particulars of this mishnah, which are always interesting, I think it is interesting that the mishnah portrays an am haaretz coming to the haver to receive help in separating second tithe. While I can't promise that this is historically accurate, it at least shows that the rabbis imagined themselves as providing religious services for the general, uneducated populace.", + "This section is found word for word in Gittin 6:5. My commentary here is the same as there. Usually a husband must state that he wishes the get (the divorce document) to be written and given to the woman. However, in extenuating circumstances where the husband seems to have been facing immanent death, it is highly unlikely that when he instructed someone to write a get, he wanted the get to be written but not given to his wife. After all, why else would he want to write a get at this point? Therefore, one who hears the husband says “Write a get for my wife” may write it and even give it to her. At first the category of people facing immanent death included only a person being led out to execution. Later, they expanded the category to include one leaving for a sea voyage or a caravan journey. These men would have wanted to write out a get that would go into effect should they not return, not an unlikely scenario. This would prevent their wives from being left as “agunot” a woman who doesn’t know if her husband is alive or dead and therefore cannot remarry. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri added that an agent who hears such a statement from a dangerously ill person may also write and give the get. This man may want to divorce his wife in order to exempt her from levirate marriage (if he was to do childless and with a brother she would have to undergo yibbum or halitzah). Again, it is very unlikely that a dying man would want to write a get but not give it to his wife, and therefore we are not concerned with such a possibility." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is the same as Kelim 13:7. It deals with vessels that are basically wooden, but have one part made of metal.\nThe reason that this mishnah is placed here is Rabbi Joshua's comments found at the end. According to Albeck, this comment refers to all of the cases in which the sages were lenient in this chapter, and therefore his words are appropriate here. In other words, sections one and two belong in Kelim, which talks about the purity of vessels. And section three belongs more here. Somehow they were paired together and that's why both sections appear in both places.\nMy commentary below is the same as it is there in Kelim.", + "If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity. Since the hooks are the main parts of the grappling-irons, as long as they remain, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. Furthermore, although the vessel is made of wood, since its hooks are of metal, it is susceptible.", + "If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity. These are all tools with teeth. Most of the tool is made of wood, but one of the missing wooden teeth was replaced with metal. This one metal tooth gives the entire vessel the status of a metal vessel and it is therefore susceptible to impurity.", + "And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer. Rabbi Joshua adds here a fascinating note, one which I don't believe we have encountered elsewhere in the Mishnah. In all of the above cases, since the basic vessel was of wood, and it was a simple vessel without a receptacle, the vessel should not have been susceptible to impurity. The innovation that the earlier scribes innovated was that although only one part was of metal, the entire vessel is susceptible. Rabbi Joshua accepts this innovation, but nevertheless admits that he does not understand it. We can see here his deference to tradition, and yet his striving to understand it, and his sense of frustration when he cannot. This is an attitude that I believe is very typical among rabbis. They have a strong sense of respect for tradition, and yet they do not simply accept all that they have received. Rather, they constantly attempt to understand the early halakhot, to make sense out of them, and to use the principles that they perceive as underlying these halakhot to derive further halakhot." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Tevul Yom deals with a tevul yom who is separating terumah from a cistern.", + "If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: \"Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely,\" [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. The person was taking terumah from a cistern of wine. He wanted to dip a jug into the cistern, declare the contents of the jug terumah and then have the remainder of the cistern become drinkable. He stipulated that it would be terumah only if the jug came up \"safely.\" The question is what does \"safely\" mean. The first opinion holds that \"safely\" means that the jug didn't break or its contents spill. If the jug did break and the wine fell back into the cistern, it wouldn't give the contents of the cistern the status of terumah and hullin mixed together. However, if he accidentally disqualified the terumah wine (because he was a tevul yom) then his terumah is terumah and it will be disqualified (what the mishnah calls made impure). Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently. His intention of saying \"safely\" was that even if the contents should be defiled, the separation of terumah wouldn't count. If he brought up the jug and accidentally defiled the wine, the jug would not be terumah.", + "If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. If the jug broke and the contents fell back into the cistern, then the contents of the cistern are not considered to have terumah in them. That is they don't have the rules of doubtful terumah due to the jug's contents, because the jug wasn't terumah.", + "How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. The question now is for how long does this stipulation last? In other words, how far away from the cistern can the jug go and still not be considered terumah if it is broken. The mishnah rules that if the jug breaks when it is still close enough to the cistern that it could roll back there in one push, then the terumah is not terumah. But if he takes it further away, and then it breaks, the terumah does count as terumah. If some of it falls into the cistern, the contents of the cistern will have to be considered doubtful terumah.", + "Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court. Finally, the mishnah rules that even if he didn't specifically stipulate that the contents had to come up safely for them to be terumah, the stipulation is still valid. This is because it is a \"court stipulation\" it is something that the court dictates is understood even if not stated explicitly. A person, after all, would only benefit from making such a statement. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Tevul Yom! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. One thing that you might have been wonder about while studying this tractate was what made the sages so interested in this category. Of course you probably know by the now that the answer will not be practical i.e. this was a commonly occurring issue. Rather, I think this is another example of the sort of topic that really interested the rabbis in-between or marginal cases. The tevul yom is sort of pure, for s/he has already been to the mikveh. But s/he is also impure because the sun hasn't set. This type of category seems to have immensely interested the sages, and although we tend to prefer to see practical ramifications for everything the rabbis said, the truth is that much of rabbinic literature, and especially the Mishnah, is interested in the theoretical and not the practical. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Yadayim." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טבול יום", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טבול יום", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46536bfe48befb24e47a95be6e092b34fd13954a --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ידים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "According to Torah law a person becomes impure only through contact with a \"father of uncleanness\" and not through contact with something that only has first degree or lesser uncleanness. However, the rabbis decreed that if a person touches something with first degree uncleanness his hands become defiled with second degree uncleanness. If he then goes and touches terumah he disqualifies it such that a kohen could not eat it. At a later period in history, the rabbis added to this and stated that even if one is not sure if he touched something that was impure, his hands are impure. People tend to touch many things (in Hebrew this is phrased—hands are busy) and it would be virtually impossible to prevent one's hands from ever touching something that was impure. To remedy this problem the rabbis decreed that one should always wash one's hands before eating any food. This is the source of the custom that remains to this day to ritually wash one's hands before eating. Today we only do this before eating bread, but originally they would have washed their hands ritually before eating any food.", + "The issue of washing hands was quite contentious in the ancient world and there are even some passages in the New Testament in which the Pharisees object to the fact that Jesus's student don't wash their hands before eating (see Mark 7 and Matthew 15). Furthermore, people were often meticulous about washing their hands without any ritual connection—it was done purely out of cleanliness. Thus there are many theories as to how the rabbis came up with the idea of ritual hand-washing and the possibility that hands could be purified or defiled as if they were not a part of the body. It is a fascinating topic, one which I partially addressed in my book, The Schechter Haggadah. In my commentary on this tractate we will not explore the origins of ritual hand-washing. Rather we will focus on how these rules manifest themselves in the Mishnah itself." + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah of Yadayim is about how much water is necessary for the ritual washing of one's hands. A log is about 1/2 a liter of water. So the basic amount of 1/4 log works out to about 100 grams of water, a third of a can of Coke for those who drink that stuff.\nWe should note that the Mishnah expresses washing one's hands by referring to a servant doing the work. The servant literally gives water to the diner's hands. This is expressive of the setting of a formal banquet. In other words the Hebrew phrase \"netilat yadayim\" or \"notnim leyadim\" used in this Mishnah are translations of common Greek words. It shows how much influence eating customs had on the Jews of the period.", + "[A minimum of] a quarter [of a log] of water must be poured over the hands for one [person] and even for two. For two people it is sufficient to have one quarter log of water. Although there won't be this amount left for the second person who has water put over his hands, since the second pouring comes from an amount that was originally sufficient, and the original amount was used to purify, the lesser amount of water still remaining is effective. We should note that 1/4 of a log is really a very little amount of water. It would not be effective to truly clean one's hands. It seems to have ritual function only.", + "A minimum of half a log must be poured over the hands for three or four persons. For three or four persons they must double the amount to half a log.", + "A minimum of one log [is sufficient] for five, ten, or one hundred persons. According to this opinion, once we get to a higher number, even 100, one log is sufficient. There need not be 1/4 of a log per person.", + "Rabbi Yose says: as long as there is not less than a quarter of a log left for the last person among them. Rabbi Yose disagrees with the previous three sections. There must always be 1/4 of a log left over for each person. Many people could wash from the same washing cup (or whatever they used) but there has to be 1/4 of a log for each and every one.", + "More [water] may be added to the second water, but more may not be added to the first water. When one pours water over one's hands their need to be 2 pourings. For the first pouring the water must go up to the joint, which is interpreted either as the second joint of the fingers or the joint attaching the fingers to the hand (we will see this in 2:3). The problem is that his fingers now defile the water that is on them. To fix this problem he then washes off the water with more water. We will learn more about this process in chapter two. If the first washing didn't reach all the way to the joint, he is not allowed to pour the second pouring in a place where the first one didn't reach. Rather, he would have to redo the whole thing. But if the second pouring didn't reach the joint, he can just add water to the spots he missed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with what kind of vessel can be used to pour water over one's hands.", + "Water may be poured over the hands out of any kind of vessel, even out of vessels made of animal dung, out of vessels made of stone or out of vessels made of clay. Any kind of vessel can be used for the ritual washing of hands, even vessels that are not susceptible to impurity such as vessels made of dung or stone (see Kelim 10:1). In other words, one might have thought that since these vessels are not susceptible to impurity they do not count as vessels, therefore the mishnah teaches that they do count as vessels and can be used for handwashing.", + "Water may not be poured from the sides of [broken] vessels or from the bottom of a ladle or from the stopper of a jar. All of these objects do not count as \"vessels\" and therefore cannot be used for handwashing.", + "Nor may one pour [water] over the hands of his fellow out of his cupped hands. Cupped hands are also no good (I'll fess up I've tried this a few times when I couldn't find a cup).", + "Because one may not draw, nor sanctify, nor sprinkle the water of purification, nor pour water over the hands except in a vessel. The mishnah now lists water rituals that require a vessel. Most of these involve the purification ritual of the red heifer ashes. The first is drawing water from a live spring to be used in the red heifer ritual. The second is putting the ashes into the water this must be done in a vessel. The third is sprinkling the waters of purification (the water which has the ashes of the red heifer) on the impure person. The fourth is handwashing.", + "And only vessels closely covered with a lid protect [their contents from uncleanness]. If an earthenware vessel with a tight-fitting lid is found in a tent with a corpse in it, the vessels contents are not defiled (neither is the vessel). However, only a real vessel acts in this manner.", + "And only vessels protect [their contents from uncleanness] inside earthenware vessels. Furthermore, if there is a vessel with food in it and it is in an earthenware vessel in which there is also a sheretz (a creepy crawly defiling thing) the vessel protects the food inside it from becoming impure (see Kelim 8:3). But this protection is only if the inside vessel is really a vessel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next three mishnayot deal with the water used for netilat yadayim.", + "Water which had become so unfit that it could not be drunk by a beast: If it was in a vessel it is invalid, But if it was in the ground it is valid. If the water that he wants to use for netilat yadayim was so dirty that even a cow or other beast wouldn't drink it, it can't be used if the water has been put in a vessel. Note that this water would have to be pretty dirty, or at least it seems so to me. But if the water is still pooled on the ground, he can use it to immerse his hands for this pool has the status of a mikveh. If he could immerse his whole body in such a pool, all the more so he can immerse his hands.", + "If there fell into [the water], dye, or gum or sulphate of copper and its color changed, it is invalid. If any inks or dyes fall into the water and thereby change its color, the water can no longer be used.", + "If a person did any work with it or soaked his bread in it, it is invalid. Water that has used for work (perhaps as a weight on a balance) or for soaking bread, is no longer considered water and cannot be used for netilat yadayim.", + "Shimon of Teman says: even if he intended to soak his bread in one water and it fell into another water the water is valid. Shimon of Teman (Yemen) holds that the water is disqualified for use only if he intentionally soaked his bread in it. His statement implies that it is obvious that if he didn't intend to soak his bread in the water and the bread simply fell in, the water is still valid for use. He goes one step further. Even if he did intend to use water to soak the bread, but he intended to put the bread in one vessel and it went into another vessel, the vessel with the bread in it can still be used. The water is disqualified only if the bread goes directly into the vessel into which he intended to put it." + ], + [ + "If he cleansed vessels with the water or scrubbed measures with it, [the water] is invalid. If he used the water to clean vessels or scrub measures the water is invalid. This is because the water is considered \"waste water\" which shouldn't be used to ritually clean hands. Furthermore, he has used the water for work, and therefore it can't be used.", + "If he rinsed with it vessels which had already been rinsed or new vessels, it is valid. Rabbi Yose declares [the water] invalid if they were new vessels. If the vessels didn't need to be washed or scrubbed because they were either clean or new, then the water remains valid because it didn't need to be used. Rabbi Yose says that if the water was used to wash new vessels it is still disqualified since it is customary to wash off new vessels. In other words, something that is customary to do is considered work, even if it is isn't strictly speaking necessary." + ], + [ + "Water in which the baker dips his loaves is invalid; But if he moistened his hands in the water it is valid. If the baker dipped his loaves into the water, the water is invalid. This is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah. Today's mishnah adds that if the baker just uses the water to moisten his hands, and then from his hands he puts the water onto the loaves, the water remains valid because he didn't put the loaves directly into the water.", + "All are fit to pour water over the hands, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. After having discussed rules concerning the vessel and the water the mishnah now turns its attention to the person or power that pours the water over the hands. As we shall see, the requirement is that some power should cause the water to be poured over the hands. Water which flows on its own, for instance rainwater coming out of a drainage pipe, cannot be used for netilat yadayim. There is no requirement for intention (kavvanah) for netilat yadayim. Therefore, even people who legally are not considered to have kavanah can pour the water.", + "A person may place the jug between his knees and pour out the water Or he may turn the jug on its side and pour it out. A person puts a jug with water in it between his legs and then tilts it to the side. This is a valid way of performing netilat yadayim because his legs count as having caused the water to be poured onto his hands. He can even tilt the jug on its side and then put his hands under the water pouring out. Even though the water is currently (no pun intended) coming out of the jug on its own, since he tilted the jug on its side, it counts as an outside power.", + "A monkey may pour water over the hands. Even a monkey could pour water over someone's hands. In other words, there must be an outside power, but that power need not be human.", + "Rabbi Yose declares these [latter] two cases invalid. Rabbi Yose says that the final two cases are invalid because the water needs to be poured by a force initiated by a person. So if the water flows from the barrel on its own or a monkey pours the water, the hand-washing is invalid." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If he poured water over one of his hands with a single rinsing his hand becomes clean. The person poured water over only one hand, because he intended to eat with only one hand. He also only poured one pouring, and not two. His hand is pure even if he didn't pour the full 1/4 log because the water comes from a vessel with a pure 1/4 log. However, if the water came from a vessel with a lesser amount, his hand would not be pure.", + "If over both his hands with a single rinsing: Rabbi Meir declares them to be unclean until he pours a minimum of a quarter of a log of water over them. If he tries to do this with both hands, meaning pour water over them only once, there must be at least 1/4 of a log poured over the two hands. Rabbi Meir holds that if one uses the full 1/4 log, he doesn't need to wash off the first water that he poured onto his hands. However, if he pours water twice over his hands, then his hands are pure even if he didn't pour a full 1/4 log as long as they came from a vessel with at least 1/4 of a log in it.", + "If a loaf of terumah fell on the water the loaf is clean. Rabbi Yose declares it to be unclean. If a loaf of terumah falls on the water that he used to wash his hand, the first opinion holds that the loaf is still clean. According to this opinion the water is clean. Rabbi Yose holds that the water purified the hands, but it itself has become impure." + ], + [ + "If he poured the first water over his hands [while standing] in one place, and the second water over his hands [while standing] in another place, and a loaf of terumah fell on the first water, the loaf becomes unclean. But if it fell on the second water it remains clean. The first water that pours off his hands is impure. Therefore, if a pure loaf of terumah falls onto this water, it is impure. But the second water is pure and purifies the water on his hands. Therefore if the loaf falls onto this water, it is pure.", + "If he poured the first and the second water [while standing] in one place, and a loaf of terumah fell onto the water, the loaf becomes unclean. In this case, both the first and second water fall onto the same place on the ground. If a loaf falls into this water, it is defiled because the second water cleanses only the water that is on his hands. It does not cleanse the water that is on the ground.", + "If he poured the first water over his hands and a splinter or a piece of gravel is found on his hands, [his hands] remain unclean, because the latter water only makes the first water on the hands clean. In this case there is something on his hands when he washes them. The second washing purifies only the water that is on his hands, not the water that is on something else, such as a splinter or piece of gravel. This water remains impure and it would go back and defile his hands.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if any creature from the water [was on the hands while they are being cleaned] they are clean. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel seems to think that creatures that are from the water, like a little worm, count as if they were water. So if one finds a worm on his hand after washing, the water that's on the worm doesn't go back and defile his hands. It might be a bit yucky though." + ], + [ + "Hands become unclean and are made clean as far as the joint. For matters of purity, the hand goes up to the \"joint.\" There are two explanations of this. The first is the middle joint of the fingers and the second is the joint where the fingers join the hand. Below, I will simply use the word \"joint.\"", + "How so? If he poured the first water over the hands as far as the joint and poured the second water over the hands beyond the joint and the latter flowed back to the hands, the hands are clean. The mishnah now explains some ramifications of this ruling. If he pours water the first time over his hands as far as the joint and then the second time beyond the joint, and the second water goes back onto his hand, his hands are pure. This is because beyond the joint the hand is not impure. So the second water was not made impure by going beyond the joint.", + "If he poured the first and the second water over the hands beyond the joint and they flowed back to the hands, the hands remain unclean. In this case he pours both beyond the joint and then the water flows back onto his hands. His hands remain impure because the first water that went beyond the joint wasn't purified by the second water that was also beyond the joint, because this water is only purified when it is on the hand. When the water goes back it defiles his hand again.", + "If he poured the first water over one of his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over both his hands, they are unclean. The mishnah now deals with a different subject one who changes his mind about how many hands to wash. If the first time he washes, he washes only one hand and then the second time he washes both hands and the water from the second hand goes on to the first hand, the first hand is defiled. This is because the water that went on the second hand was only there for the first time.", + "If he poured the first water over both his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over one of his hands, his one hand becomes clean. However, in the opposite case, where he first washed both hands and then only one, the one hand that was washed twice is pure.", + "If he poured water over one of his hands and rubbed it on the other hand it remains unclean. If he washes one hand (even twice) and then rubs it on the other, the water becomes impure on the second hand. This water then goes back and defiles the first hand.", + "If he rubbed it on his head or on the wall it is clean. However, if he rubs his hands on his head or the wall, the water is not defiled. The water that then goes back onto his hands does not defile them again.", + "Water may be poured over the hands of four or five persons, each hand being by the side of the other, or being one above the other, provided that the hands are held loosely so that the water flows between them. One can pour water over several people's hands at once and we are not concerned that one person's hands would defile another person's. The only important rule is that the hands shouldn't be tightly clenched with one another. Water must be allowed to flow in-between." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis long mishnah is about cases of doubtful impurity involving hands. While the mishnah is quite long, it is not actually too difficult.", + "If there was a doubt whether any work has been done with the water or not, A doubt whether the water contains the requisite quantity or not, A doubt whether it is unclean or clean, In these cases the doubt is considered to be clean because they have said in a case of doubt concerning hands as to whether they have become unclean or have conveyed uncleanness or have become clean, they are considered to be clean. Rabbi Yose says: in a case [of doubt as to] whether they have become clean they are considered to be unclean. There are three types of \"doubts\" that could cause the water not to have purified his hands. As we learned in 1:3, if work was done with the water it cannot be used to wash his hands. There must be a quarter of a log (1:1) and the water must be pure. In all of these cases, if there is a doubt as to whether his hands were purified, the law is lenient and we treat them as pure. Below the mishnah will explain the meaning of \"become unclean\" and \"convey uncleanness.\" To become pure means that if he isn't sure whether he effectively purified his hands, they are considered pure. This refers to the cases in the beginning of the mishnah cases where there was a doubt whether the water he used could purify his hands. Rabbi Yose disagrees with the ruling concerning doubt over whether his hands have become pure. Because his hands are presumed to be impure, they cannot be considered pure unless we are sure that they have been purified. The status quo remains.", + "How so? If his hands were clean and there were two unclean loaves before him and there was a doubt whether he touched them or not; Or if his hands were unclean and there were two clean loaves before him and there was a doubt whether he touched them or not; Or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean and there were two clean loaves before him and he touched one of them and there was a doubt whether he touched it with the unclean hand or with the clean hand; Or if his hands were clean and there were two loaves before him one of which was unclean and the other clean and he touched one of them and there was a doubt whether he touched the unclean one or the clean one; Or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean and there were two loaves before him one of which was unclean and the other clean, and he touched both of them, and there is a doubt whether the unclean hand touched the unclean loaf or whether the clean hand touched the clean loaf or whether the clean hand touched the unclean loaf or whether the unclean hand touched the clean loaf The hands remain in the same state as they were before and the loaves remain in the same state as they were before. The mishnah now goes through a long list of cases in which an impure hand might have touched a pure loaf of terumah or vice versa. Note that this is a different type of doubt than in section one. In section one, the doubt was whether his hands had been purified. Here the doubt is whether he defiled a loaf of terumah. The mishnah rules that in all of these cases his hands and the loaves remain in their previously assumed state. The hand or hands that were pure remain pure and the loaf or loaves that were pure remain pure. In other words, in cases of doubt the status quo remains." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness.
Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness.
They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness].
Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, \"My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel.\" He said to her: \"My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?\" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.
Section one: In Tractate Negaim we learned about the house that has some sort of scale disease. Rabbi Akiva says that if someone puts just his hands into such a house, the hands have first degree uncleanness. The other sages say that his hands only have second degree uncleanness.
Second two: There is a similar dispute concerning a person who defiles garments. This is a about whom the Torah says that he must wash his clothes: for instance one who touches a zav or one who touches something a zav lied upon, or who touches a zavah or a menstruant. According to Rabbi Akiva when such a person is touching the source of uncleanness, another person who touches him will get first degree uncleanness in his hands. The other sages say that he will get second degree uncleanness.
Section three: The other sages now argue with Rabbi Akiva, asking him where we find that hands can have first degree impurity.
Rabbi Akiva responds that in essence they are right. Hands can only have first degree impurity if the whole body also has first degree impurity. However, these cases in sections one and two are exceptions for in these cases the body wasn't defiled at all. Only in these cases can someone's hands have first degree impurity while the rest of his body remains pure.
Section four: We find a similar dispute regarding foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids. These foods now have second degree impurity (see Zavim 5:12). According to Rabbi Joshua they defile hands such that the hands have second degree impurity. The other rabbis say that only foods or vessels that were defiled by a father of uncleanness and thereby have first degree impurity can defile hands. But if foods have only second degree impurity, they don't defile hands at all.
Section five: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel now cites a story about a woman who came in front of Rabban Gamaliel, his father. The woman's hands had gone into the air-space of an impure earthenware vessel. Such vessels convey impurity through their air-space. Rabban Gamaliel asks her if the vessel had received its impurity from contact with a father of uncleanness or whether the vessel was defiled by something with first degree uncleanness? Unfortunately, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel never heard the response (those kids, they're never listening!).
The sages say that their halakhah from section four is applicable here. If the earthenware vessel had received impurity from a father of uncleanness then her hands would have second degree uncleanness. But if the vessel had been defiled by something with first degree uncleanness, her hands would be pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues with a dispute between Rabbi Joshua and the sages. As part of their argument they mention the concept that the Holy Scriptures, meaning the Tanakh or Bible, defile the hands. This is a topic that will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. There are two explanations for this halakhah. The traditional explanation is a bit strange and convoluted but it goes like this. People used to store their terumah near the same place that they stored holy scrolls (the Tanakh). Mice would come to eat the terumah and would also eat through the scrolls. To prevent this, the rabbis declared that the scrolls would defile the terumah. This would discourage people from storing terumah near their scrolls. One can clearly sense that this simply does not seem likely to have been the origins of this idea.\nRecently, academic scholars have explained that according to some laws in the Torah holiness can \"rub off\" on an item with which it has contact. This rubbing off on the item works a little bit like impurity, except the terminology is not that the item becomes \"impure\" rather it becomes \"holy.\" The rabbis inherited the concept that scrolls of Scripture were so holy that anything they touched would become \"holy\" as well. Since this was the only such situation that the rabbis encountered, they used the normal term for such \"rubbing off\" which is impurity. In other words, what really seems to happen is that the hands become holy by virtue of contact with the scrolls. Nevertheless, by the time of the Mishnah these laws are part of the general purity system.", + "Anything which disqualifies terumah defiles hands with a second degree of uncleanness. Anything that has even second degree uncleanness will defile the hands so that they too have second degree uncleanness. This accords with Rabbi Joshua's opinion in yesterday's mishnah. The other rabbis disagree.", + "One [unwashed] hand defiles the other hand, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has second degree of uncleanness cannot convey second degree of uncleanness. An unwashed hand has second degree uncleanness and therefore it disqualifies terumah. According to Rabbi Joshua this means that if one hand is unwashed and it touches a washed hand it will defile it. The sages reject his opinion, as they did in yesterday's mishnah, holding that something that has second degree impurity cannot convey impurity to anything else. All it can do is disqualify terumah.", + "He said to them: But do not the Holy Scriptures which have second degree of uncleanness defile the hands? They said to him: the laws of the Torah may not be argued from the laws of the scribes, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from the laws of the Torah, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from [other] laws of the scribes. Rabbi Joshua uses the concept of the Holy Scriptures defiling the hands as proof for his opinion that anything with second degree uncleanness conveys uncleanness to hands. According to the rabbis, the Tanakh has second degree uncleanness and it defiles the hands. Therefore, everything that has second degree uncleanness should similarly defile the hands. The other rabbis reject learning from one category of rabbinic law to another. The idea that the Tanakh defiles the hands is a \"law of the scribes\" it is of rabbinic origin. Similarly, the halakhah that unwashed hands defile terumah is also of rabbinic origin (see the introduction). One cannot use one halakhah of rabbinic origin to prove another halakhah." + ], + [ + "The straps of the tefillin [when connected] with the tefillin [boxes] defile the hands. Tefillin boxes have scrolls of Scripture in them. Therefore, they clearly would defile the hands. According to the first opinion, the straps do as well, as long as they are tied to the tefillin boxes.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: the straps of the tefillin do not defile the hands. Rabbi Shimon says that the straps do not defile the hands, since they are only connected to the boxes they don't have the scrolls in them." + ], + [ + "The margin on a scroll which is above or below or at the beginning or at the end defiles the hands. Although there is nothing written in the margins of the Tanakh scrolls, they still defile the hands because they are part of the scroll.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the margin at the end does not render unclean [the hands] until a handle is fastened to it. Rabbi Judah says that the margin at the end of the scroll doesn't defile because it could always be cut off. It only defiles once they have used that extra piece of scroll to attach a handle. Once a handle has been attached the end margin has become a necessary part of the scroll and it too defiles." + ], + [ + "A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\", defiles the hands.
All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.
The Song of Songs and Kohelet ( defile the hands.
Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet.
Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs.
Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel.
Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands.
Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet.
Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.
Today's mishnah contains a fascinating argument over whether two books from the Tanakh, Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and the Song of Songs (Shir Hashirim) defile the hands. This is basically an argument over whether these books should be included in the Biblical canon. We cannot be certain why there was an argument over these specific books. Probably the content of these books caused certain sages to wish to cut them out of the canon. Kohelet is a deeply skeptical work, one which frequently questions whether the world works justly. One central message of the book is that the righteous and the evil receive the same lot in this world. Sometimes life is even worse for the righteous than it is for the evil. Song of Songs seems to be a love song between a man and a woman. What place does such literature have, some rabbis asked, in the biblical canon? In the end, both books were accepted into the canon and have been found in Jewish (and non-Jewish) bibles ever since.
Section one: The smallest \"parsha\" in the Torah is Numbers 11:35-36. These two verses, which contain 85 letters, are set off as a \"parsha\" in the traditional writing of the Torah. The mishnah uses this number as a paradigm for what constitutes a \"scroll\" such that it would defile the hands. There either have to remain 85 letters from a scroll that used to have more, or a new scroll has to already have 85 letters. Less than 85 letters and the scroll will not defile the hands.
Sections 2-9: The remainder of the mishnah is an extended discussion/argument over whether two books, Kohelet and Shir Hashirim (Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs) defile the hands (i.e. are they part of the canon).
Ultimately, we know that both of these books were accepted into the Jewish Bible, and indeed were rich sources for rabbinic midrashim. There are probably several reasons why they were accepted. First and foremost, Shir Hashirim is explicitly attributed to King Solomon and Kohelet is ascribed to a king in Jerusalem, traditionally understood as King Solomon. While modern scholars do not accept the historical accuracy of these ascriptions, rabbis certainly didn't doubt them. Being ascribed to an ancient king certainly helps if you want to be part of the Bible!
Secondly, Shir Hashirim merited a metaphorical interpretation. The love story was not between a man and a woman but rather between the people of Israel and God. It is this metaphorical, mystical and at times erotic poetry between God and Israel that causes Rabbi Akiva to call it the holiest book.
And while Kohelet does express deep skepticism concerning justice in the world, it ultimately ends with the famous verse, \"The sum of the matter, when all is said and done: Revere God and observe His commandments! For this applies to all mankind.\" The rabbis too certainly would have ascribed to this directive." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday's mishnah ended with the statement that the sages voted on whether to include Kohelet and Shir Hashirim in the canon. This is taken as referring to a vote that occurred in the academy in Yavneh on a momentous day in history. Today's mishnah continues with other momentous issues they voted on on that famous day.", + "On that day the votes were counted and they decided that a footbath holding from two logs to nine kavs which was cracked could contract midras uncleanness. You just have to love this transition. In yesterday's mishnah we hear of a vote over whether a book should be part of the Bible. It's hard to think of a more fateful issue than this if the vote had turned the other way, these two books might have been lost, or at least cut out of the Jewish tradition. The second issue was over the purity of a cracked footbath and whether it can still receive midras uncleanness. Since it can no longer hold liquids, it doesn't count as a vessel for bathing. But since people could still sit in it, it is still susceptible to \"midras\" uncleanness, the kind of impurity that is given to items that are meant to be sat or laid upon.", + "Because Rabbi Akiva said a footbath [must be considered] according to its designation. Rabbi Akiva holds that anything that is called \"a footbath,\" even if it can hold more than nine kavs, is still susceptible to midras impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMost of this mishnah is found word for word in Zevahim 1:1 and 1:3. Most of my commentary here is the same as that there. It is brought here as well because according to this mishnah, those halakhot from Zevahim originated on that same famous day.", + "On that day they said: all animal sacrifices which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering are [nevertheless] valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. For most sacrifices, if the priest offering them thinks that he is offering a different sacrifice than he is really supposed to be offering, the sacrifice is still valid. This means that its blood can be spilled on the altar and the sacrifice can be eaten by those who would have been able to eat it had it been offered properly. However, the sacrifice does not count as far as fulfilling the obligation of its owner. Thus if the owner was obligated to bring an olah, for instance, and it was sacrificed with the intent of it being another sacrifice, the owner must bring another olah in its place. The exception to this is the pesah and the hatat. If either of these two sacrifices is offered with the intent of its being a different type of sacrifices, not only does it not count for the owner who brought it, it is completely disqualified. Its blood cannot be spilled on the altar, nor can it be eaten.", + "[This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time. The pesah is only disqualified if it is slaughtered with the wrong intent at the time that it is supposed to be slaughtered, on second half of the day on the fourteenth of Nissan. If it is slaughtered on the wrong day, for the wrong purpose, then paradoxically, it is valid, although it would obviously not count for its owner. Its as if the mishnah is saying that in this case, two negatives can make a positive. When it comes to the hatat, there is no specific time in which it must be offered. Therefore, no matter when it is offered, if the intention is for the wrong sacrifice, it is disqualified.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: [with the exception] also of the guilt-offering; [so that this refers to] the pesah in its correct time and to the sin- and guilt-offerings at any time. Rabbi Eliezer argues that the same rule that applies to the hatat applies to the asham, also a sacrifice brought to atone for sin. If it is slaughtered for the sake of it being a different sacrifice, it is disqualified.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the college that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name are nevertheless valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering, but the sages did not agree with him. This section is found in Zevahim 1:3. My commentary here is the same as it is there.", + "[This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time. In section two we learned that the two exceptional sacrifices that are disqualified if offered with the wrong intent are the pesah and the hatat. All other sacrifices are valid if slaughtered with the intent of their being different sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai quotes this tradition as being true only for sacrifices that are eaten. This would not include the olah, which is wholly burnt. According to ben Azzai’s tradition, the olah is disqualified if it is slaughtered with the intent of it being a different sacrifice. The final line of the mishnah notes that ben Azzai added the olah to the pesah and hatat, but that the sages (whose opinion is found in mishnah one) did not agree with this tradition. Rabbi Shimon Ben Azzai states that he received this tradition on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed a member of the yeshiva (academy). This seems to be a famous day in rabbinic recollection and there is a significant amount of aggadah concerning the background to this appointment. The most expansive version of this aggadah is found in Bavli Berakhot 27b, where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is appointed head of the academy after Rabban Gamaliel is deposed. The historical accuracy of that legendary account is a bit suspect, but here in the Mishnah we can see that although we might not know exactly what happened that day, it was a memorable day, one which later rabbis used as a reference point." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today's extraordinarily long mishnah there is a dispute concerning what tithes are given from produce grown in the land of Ammon and Moab on the sabbatical year. Inside the land of Israel seventh year produce is ownerless and no tithes are separated. Ammon and Moab are borderline lands. The sabbatical year is not operative in them but the rabbis did decree that one has to separate tithes from produce grown there. This creates the question of what type of tithes must be separated in the sabbatical year.\nAs further background, we should remember that there are two tithes. First tithes are given to the Levites. This tithe would be separated in Ammon and Moab during the sabbatical year. The other tithe alternates between second tithe, which is taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owners and the poor tithe which is given to the poor. Second tithe is taken out in the 1, 2, 4 and 5 years of the seven year cycle and poor tithe on the 3 and 6 year. This is the tithe that is debated in our mishnah.\nAlong with the particular content discussion, the argument in this mishnah reveals an unusual amount concerning rabbinic discourse. It offers us a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of the early rabbinic academy.", + "On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Tarfon rules that in these two lands they should separate poor tithes on the sabbatical year, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules that they should separate second tithe.", + "Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Yishmael seems to act as a sort of moderator for the dispute. He tells Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah that the burden of proof is upon him, for he rules strictly. The reason that his opinion is considered \"strict\" is that second tithe is treated as holy, whereas poor tithe is not holy. As far as how much is given, there is no difference both are tithes.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds that the burden of proof should be upon Rabbi Tarfon, and not upon him. In the third and sixth years one gives poor tithes. The year that immediately follows is second tithe (at least in the fourth year). Therefore, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah has not deviated from the normal order of second tithe always following after a year of poor tithe. So Rabbi Tarfon must first give proof for why we should deviate from the normal order. [This section kind of reminds me of the coin flip at the beginning of a football game arguing over who starts.]", + "Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Having lost the coin flip, Rabbi Tarfon kicks off. He compares Ammon and Moab with Egypt. Just as Egypt gives poor tithes in the seventh year, so should Ammon and Moab. Later in the Mishnah we shall see that everyone agrees that the earlier sages decreed that Egypt should give poor tithe.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds by saying that the laws outside of Israel are not all the same. Babylon is also outside of Israel and there they separate second tithe during the seventh year, not poor tithe. So if you're going to compare Ammon and Moab to something, compare them to Babylon!", + "Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. The fight is truly getting brutal my friends! Rabbi Tarfon now explains why he compared Ammon and Moab to Egypt and not Babylon. Ammon, Moab and Egypt are both close to the land of Israel. Therefore the sages declared that they should give poor tithes so that the poor of Israel could benefit. In other words, Rabbi Tarfon feels that the sages adjusted the halakhah so that it would most benefit the poor.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, \"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings\" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah counterattacks. Giving tithes to the poor might provide them with some temporary relief. But if people should really be giving second tithe then they in the end will be causing destruction and death. For the verses from Malakhi state that people have cheated God by not bringing tithes. As a punishment, God will stop the rains and dew (this is made even more explicit in v. 10, not quoted in the Mishnah). Thus, perverting tithe laws in order to give to the poor ultimately will cause drought.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. Rabbi Joshua now jumps into the debate. He defends Rabbi Tarfon but using different reasoning. That Egypt should give poor tithe is a \"new act,\" decreed by the sages of the Second Temple period, when Egypt again flourished as a center for Judaism. That Babylon should give second tithe is an \"old act,\" decreed by the prophets. Since Ammon and Moab are both new acts, they should be like the other \"new act\" and give poor tithe. A related factor is that Egypt is a \"decree of the sages,\" whereas Babylon is a \"decree of the prophets.\" Since Ammon and Moab will obviously be a decree of the sages, they should be like the other decree of the sages and give poor tithe.", + "The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. After all of the arguments have been made, the sages take a vote and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Tarfon win.", + "And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: \"The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it\" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. There is a fascinating epitaph to this story. Rabbi Eliezer was evidently not there when this vote was taken. According to later legends he was excommunicated. Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit, an otherwise unknown sage, goes to Rabbi Eliezer to report to him about what happened in the academy. Rabbi Eliezer agrees with the content of the vote, but vehemently seems to disagree with the process. Rabbi Eliezer is saying I don't need your vote because I have a tradition that goes all the way back to Sinai that Ammon and Moab give poor tithe on the sabbatical year. The argument here is between Rabbi Eliezer's way of determining halakhah and that of the other rabbis. The other rabbis, at whose forefront stands Rabbi Joshua, hold that whenever a new situation arises sages must argue about it, present opposing points of view, and then bring the matter up for a vote. There are indeed innovations in halakhah and they are arrived upon through a process of dispute and voting. Rabbi Eliezer is the arch-conservative. Even obviously new situations such as this, Jews living in the lands of Ammon and Moab, were addressed at Sinai. There is no need for a vote and no need for argumentation. Everything that ever will be was already there in the original revelation." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nDeuteronomy 23:4 states that an Ammonite or Moabite \"cannot enter the assembly of the Lord.\" The rabbis interpret this to mean that even if an Ammonite or Moabite convert, they still cannot marry a regular Israelite.\nOur mishnah, whose discussion also occurred \"on that day,\" deals with an Ammonite convert who comes before the sages asking if he is part of this prohibition. It sounds like the story was probably placed in this chapter because the previous mishnah also discussed Ammon and Moab.", + "On that day Judah, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the house of study. He said to them: Do I have the right to enter into the assembly? Rabban Gamaliel said to him: you are forbidden. Rabbi Joshua said to him: you are permitted. Judah the Ammonite, who seems to have already converted to Judaism, comes in front of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua asking to be allowed to marry an Israelite woman (not another Ammonite convert).", + "Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord: even to the tenth generation\" (Deuteronomy 23:4). Rabban Gamaliel refuses to allow him to do so based on the verse from Deuteronomy. This would seem to be an open and shut case. Deuteronomy prohibits Ammonites from marrying into the assembly, so Judah should have to go marry someone else.", + "R. Joshua said to him: But are the Ammonites and Moabites still in their own territory? Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, has long since come up and mingled all the nations, as it is said: \"In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants\" (Isaiah 10:1. However, Rabbi Joshua responds by saying that those who identify today (i.e. in his day) as Ammonites are no longer the same Ammonites of yore. King Sanheriv, the same Assyrian king who destroyed the northern kingdom, came and mixed up all of the peoples, forcibly transferring them from one place to another, as he did with the 10 northern tribes. Therefore, the rules of the Torah that applied to the Ammonites back then, no longer apply now.", + "Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon,\" (Jeremiah 49:6) they have already returned. Rabban Gamaliel actually accepts Rabbi Joshua's argument but responds that there is another verse that shows that God brought back the Ammonites from their exile. According to Rabban Gamaliel the verse from Jeremiah does not refer to the \"end of days\" as do the verses regarding the Moabites (Jeremiah 48:47) and Elam (49:39). Rather, God has already restored the Ammonites, so the prohibition from Deuteronomy applies again.", + "Rabbi Joshua said to him: [another] verse says, \"I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah\" (Amos 9:14). Yet they have not yet returned. The argument now turns on the meaning of a verse that says, \"And I have returned\" a certain people to their place. The prophet Amos uses the same language with regard to Israel and nevertheless Israel has not returned to its homeland, at least not all of Israel. So too, when it comes to Ammon, just because someone is currently an \"Ammonite\" does not mean that they are prohibited by the verse in Deuternomy.", + "So they permitted him to enter the assembly. The mishnah concludes with good news for our friend Judah. He is allowed into the community, meaning he can go find himself a good Yiddishe mamma! Sign the boy up for JDate!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah returns to the subject of scrolls defiling the hands.", + "The Aramaic sections in Ezra and Daniel defile the hands. If an Aramaic section was written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew section was written in Aramaic, or [Hebrew which was written with] Hebrew script, it does not defile the hands. It never defiles the hands until it is written in the Assyrian script, on parchment, and in ink. There are some portions of the book of Ezra and the book of Daniel that are in Aramaic, not Hebrew. These sections defile the hands just as do other portions of the Bible. The fact that they are in Aramaic does not make them less holy.", + "This section seems to teach that Aramaic and Hebrew are not inherently holy languages such that they should defile the hands. If a portion of the Bible that is in Hebrew was translated into Aramaic (targum) it doesn't defile the hands. Neither do Hebrew translations of the Aramaic parts of the Bible. The Hebrew script we use is called Assyrian script. The older script is called by scholars \"Phoenician script\" and is called by the rabbis \"Hebrew script.\" According to the Talmud, Ezra switched the script from the ancient Hebrew to the Assyrian. If a scroll of the Tanakh was written in this ancient script, it does not defile the hands.", + "Only Tanakh scrolls written with the proper script, Assyrian, on parchment (made from the hides of an animal) and with ink are valid as ritual objects. Therefore, only these scrolls defile the hands." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final three mishnayot of the tractate contain disputes between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Our knowledge of these groups is quite vague. We know that the rabbis sided with the Pharisees, although the rabbis don't exactly see themselves as Pharisees. Assumedly this is because this division mostly ceased after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Josephus, the first century historian, divides the Jews into three \"philosophies\" Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. The New Testament mentions both the Pharisees and Sadducees. And there is a bitter argument over who the Dead Sea Sect was some believe they were Sadducees, but this is not generally accepted.\nIn these mishnayot the Sadducees complain against various halakhot of the Pharisees. There is an echo of this in a text called \"The Halakhic Letter\" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this letter, the Jews living in Qumran write of their halakhic disagreements with those Jews running the show in Jerusalem. There is some affinity between the halakhot of the writers living in Qumran and the Sadducees as presented in rabbinic literature. Rather than conclude that this means that these Jews were \"Sadducees\" I think it is more appropriate to say that these Jews had a halakhic system similar to the Sadducees. They may indeed have been Essenes (this is the general consensus); the differences between Essenes and Sadducees may be based on other issues besides halakhah.\nIn any case, these three mishnayot are fascinating because they afford us a glimpse into what kinds of things Second Temple religious leaders were arguing about.", + "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. The reason these complaints against the Pharisees are found in tractate Yadayim is that the first of the Sadducees' complaints is the subject at hand (pun intended). The Sadducees seem to know of two types of books, the works of Homer (not Simpson) and the Holy Scriptures. Clearly the latter are holy while the former are not. So why then do the Pharisees say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands whereas the works of Homer do not?", + "Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yohanan the high priest are unclean. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai explains by playing devil's advocate. All agree that the bones of a donkey do not defile. Only the flesh of a dead impure animal defiles, not the bones (see Toharot 1:4). Interestingly, Rabbi Yohanan seems to mention the \"donkey\" because in Hebrew \"donkey\" is \"hamor\" which sounds like Homer pun intended! In any case, a donkey's bones do not defile but human bones, even those of one's parents do. Why should this be, he rhetorically asks?", + "They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. Rabbi Yohanan's words force the Sadducees to admit to a principle. Defilement is a way to force people not to make profane use out of a beloved object. If human bones were ritually clean, people might make spoons out of the bones of their parents (okay, I admit this sounds strange would people really do such a thing?).", + "He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai now uses that very principle to respond to the Sadducees. Homer's works are not beloved and therefore they don't defile the hands. But clearly the Holy Scriptures are beloved and therefore they do. This is similar to how I explained the prohibition at the outset of this issue (3:2)." + ], + [ + "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees complain that the Pharisees declare that an uninterrupted flow is clean. What this means is that if one pours from a clean vessel into an unclean vessel what remains in the clean vessel is still clean (see Makhshirin 5:9). Interestingly, this very issue is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Pharisees respond with a precedent showing that water connected to a source of impurity does not necessarily become impure. Water that flows out of a cemetery is pure, even though it is still attached to the source. So too with the flow from one vessel to the other, even though the water is attached to something unclean, the upper vessel is still clean.", + "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? The second argument in this mishnah compares damages or injury done by one's animals with injury or damage done by one's slaves. According to rabbinic law, a master is liable for damages done by his animals but not his slaves (see Bava Kamma 8:4). The Sadducees complain that this is illogical, for one is not liable to make sure that his animals perform mitzvoth, whereas one is liable to make sure that his slaves perform mitzvoth, such as brit milah (see Genesis 17:12) and eating the pesah sacrifice (Exodus 12:44).", + "They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution? The Pharisees respond that a master's liability for his animals is only because animals have no intelligence/understanding. Since an animal has no intelligence, at least legally speaking, his master is usually liable for damages performed by the animal. In contrast, a slave may be owned by his/her master, but the slave has intelligence and independent will. Even if one angers his slave and the slave damages some property, the owner is not liable. We should note that this Pharisaic law was probably unusual and perhaps even their own invention. Most law systems of the time, including other ancient near eastern laws, would have held a master liable for damages done by a slave. But for the rabbis, the operative principle in many matters of law is \"legal awareness\" or \"understanding.\" Since slaves have such capacity, they are independent and liable for damages they perform." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah the argument is no longer with a Sadducee but a Galilean \"min.\" The word \"min\" is found in manuscripts of this mishnah, although in printed editions it says \"Sadducee.\" A \"min\" is somewhat akin to heretic. The \"min\" is clearly a Jew, but is part of a group that is opposed to the rabbis/Pharisees. In later literature it could be used to refer to a Christian but it clearly does not refer to a Christian here. Nevertheless, Christian censors in the Middle Ages did not like this word and therefore they forced the Jews to change it.", + "A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The \"min\" complains against the Pharisees that they write the name of Moses and the current Roman ruler together in the divorce document, the get. What this means is that they would date the document by referring to the year of the ruling of the current king (see Gittin 8:5) and at the end, they would write, \"as is the religion of Moses Israel.\" This \"min\" seems to be attacking the Pharisees for accommodating themselves to Roman rule. Interestingly, this \"min\" is found in the Galilee, where the rabbis seemed to have lived in harmony with the Romans after the destruction of the Temple.", + "The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27). The Pharisees offer a cynical response. In Torah scrolls not only is the name of God and the name of Pharaoh written on the same page, but the name of Pharaoh comes first. Obviously, this is unavoidable, as can be shown from the verse in Exodus 5:2. So too, it is not a problem to write Moses's name in the same document as the Roman ruler's name. Our mishnah concludes with another verse \"The Lord is righteous.\" This verse is brought here so that the tractate does not conclude with a verse that says, \"Who is God.\" It is missing in some manuscripts. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Yadayim! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Yadayim was interesting, wasn't it? Among all of the issues in Seder Toharot this may have been the most practical. In addition, this last chapter was simply fascinating (and I think I'm going to teach it in my Mishnah class tomorrow!). The issue of hand-washing and the impurity of scrolls were both innovations of the sages or their predecessors, the Pharisees. So we get to learn some Second Temple halakhic history on the side. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Oktzin the last tractate of the Mishnah!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ידים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1eca9be3438b94f345ffb933a54c9068c2d1fc6d --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Yadayim", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "According to Torah law a person becomes impure only through contact with a \"father of uncleanness\" and not through contact with something that only has first degree or lesser uncleanness. However, the rabbis decreed that if a person touches something with first degree uncleanness his hands become defiled with second degree uncleanness. If he then goes and touches terumah he disqualifies it such that a kohen could not eat it. At a later period in history, the rabbis added to this and stated that even if one is not sure if he touched something that was impure, his hands are impure. People tend to touch many things (in Hebrew this is phrased—hands are busy) and it would be virtually impossible to prevent one's hands from ever touching something that was impure. To remedy this problem the rabbis decreed that one should always wash one's hands before eating any food. This is the source of the custom that remains to this day to ritually wash one's hands before eating. Today we only do this before eating bread, but originally they would have washed their hands ritually before eating any food.", + "The issue of washing hands was quite contentious in the ancient world and there are even some passages in the New Testament in which the Pharisees object to the fact that Jesus's student don't wash their hands before eating (see Mark 7 and Matthew 15). Furthermore, people were often meticulous about washing their hands without any ritual connection—it was done purely out of cleanliness. Thus there are many theories as to how the rabbis came up with the idea of ritual hand-washing and the possibility that hands could be purified or defiled as if they were not a part of the body. It is a fascinating topic, one which I partially addressed in my book, The Schechter Haggadah. In my commentary on this tractate we will not explore the origins of ritual hand-washing. Rather we will focus on how these rules manifest themselves in the Mishnah itself." + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first mishnah of Yadayim is about how much water is necessary for the ritual washing of one's hands. A log is about 1/2 a liter of water. So the basic amount of 1/4 log works out to about 100 grams of water, a third of a can of Coke for those who drink that stuff.\nWe should note that the Mishnah expresses washing one's hands by referring to a servant doing the work. The servant literally gives water to the diner's hands. This is expressive of the setting of a formal banquet. In other words the Hebrew phrase \"netilat yadayim\" or \"notnim leyadim\" used in this Mishnah are translations of common Greek words. It shows how much influence eating customs had on the Jews of the period.", + "[A minimum of] a quarter [of a log] of water must be poured over the hands for one [person] and even for two. For two people it is sufficient to have one quarter log of water. Although there won't be this amount left for the second person who has water put over his hands, since the second pouring comes from an amount that was originally sufficient, and the original amount was used to purify, the lesser amount of water still remaining is effective. We should note that 1/4 of a log is really a very little amount of water. It would not be effective to truly clean one's hands. It seems to have ritual function only.", + "A minimum of half a log must be poured over the hands for three or four persons. For three or four persons they must double the amount to half a log.", + "A minimum of one log [is sufficient] for five, ten, or one hundred persons. According to this opinion, once we get to a higher number, even 100, one log is sufficient. There need not be 1/4 of a log per person.", + "Rabbi Yose says: as long as there is not less than a quarter of a log left for the last person among them. Rabbi Yose disagrees with the previous three sections. There must always be 1/4 of a log left over for each person. Many people could wash from the same washing cup (or whatever they used) but there has to be 1/4 of a log for each and every one.", + "More [water] may be added to the second water, but more may not be added to the first water. When one pours water over one's hands their need to be 2 pourings. For the first pouring the water must go up to the joint, which is interpreted either as the second joint of the fingers or the joint attaching the fingers to the hand (we will see this in 2:3). The problem is that his fingers now defile the water that is on them. To fix this problem he then washes off the water with more water. We will learn more about this process in chapter two. If the first washing didn't reach all the way to the joint, he is not allowed to pour the second pouring in a place where the first one didn't reach. Rather, he would have to redo the whole thing. But if the second pouring didn't reach the joint, he can just add water to the spots he missed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with what kind of vessel can be used to pour water over one's hands.", + "Water may be poured over the hands out of any kind of vessel, even out of vessels made of animal dung, out of vessels made of stone or out of vessels made of clay. Any kind of vessel can be used for the ritual washing of hands, even vessels that are not susceptible to impurity such as vessels made of dung or stone (see Kelim 10:1). In other words, one might have thought that since these vessels are not susceptible to impurity they do not count as vessels, therefore the mishnah teaches that they do count as vessels and can be used for handwashing.", + "Water may not be poured from the sides of [broken] vessels or from the bottom of a ladle or from the stopper of a jar. All of these objects do not count as \"vessels\" and therefore cannot be used for handwashing.", + "Nor may one pour [water] over the hands of his fellow out of his cupped hands. Cupped hands are also no good (I'll fess up I've tried this a few times when I couldn't find a cup).", + "Because one may not draw, nor sanctify, nor sprinkle the water of purification, nor pour water over the hands except in a vessel. The mishnah now lists water rituals that require a vessel. Most of these involve the purification ritual of the red heifer ashes. The first is drawing water from a live spring to be used in the red heifer ritual. The second is putting the ashes into the water this must be done in a vessel. The third is sprinkling the waters of purification (the water which has the ashes of the red heifer) on the impure person. The fourth is handwashing.", + "And only vessels closely covered with a lid protect [their contents from uncleanness]. If an earthenware vessel with a tight-fitting lid is found in a tent with a corpse in it, the vessels contents are not defiled (neither is the vessel). However, only a real vessel acts in this manner.", + "And only vessels protect [their contents from uncleanness] inside earthenware vessels. Furthermore, if there is a vessel with food in it and it is in an earthenware vessel in which there is also a sheretz (a creepy crawly defiling thing) the vessel protects the food inside it from becoming impure (see Kelim 8:3). But this protection is only if the inside vessel is really a vessel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next three mishnayot deal with the water used for netilat yadayim.", + "Water which had become so unfit that it could not be drunk by a beast: If it was in a vessel it is invalid, But if it was in the ground it is valid. If the water that he wants to use for netilat yadayim was so dirty that even a cow or other beast wouldn't drink it, it can't be used if the water has been put in a vessel. Note that this water would have to be pretty dirty, or at least it seems so to me. But if the water is still pooled on the ground, he can use it to immerse his hands for this pool has the status of a mikveh. If he could immerse his whole body in such a pool, all the more so he can immerse his hands.", + "If there fell into [the water], dye, or gum or sulphate of copper and its color changed, it is invalid. If any inks or dyes fall into the water and thereby change its color, the water can no longer be used.", + "If a person did any work with it or soaked his bread in it, it is invalid. Water that has used for work (perhaps as a weight on a balance) or for soaking bread, is no longer considered water and cannot be used for netilat yadayim.", + "Shimon of Teman says: even if he intended to soak his bread in one water and it fell into another water the water is valid. Shimon of Teman (Yemen) holds that the water is disqualified for use only if he intentionally soaked his bread in it. His statement implies that it is obvious that if he didn't intend to soak his bread in the water and the bread simply fell in, the water is still valid for use. He goes one step further. Even if he did intend to use water to soak the bread, but he intended to put the bread in one vessel and it went into another vessel, the vessel with the bread in it can still be used. The water is disqualified only if the bread goes directly into the vessel into which he intended to put it." + ], + [ + "If he cleansed vessels with the water or scrubbed measures with it, [the water] is invalid. If he used the water to clean vessels or scrub measures the water is invalid. This is because the water is considered \"waste water\" which shouldn't be used to ritually clean hands. Furthermore, he has used the water for work, and therefore it can't be used.", + "If he rinsed with it vessels which had already been rinsed or new vessels, it is valid. Rabbi Yose declares [the water] invalid if they were new vessels. If the vessels didn't need to be washed or scrubbed because they were either clean or new, then the water remains valid because it didn't need to be used. Rabbi Yose says that if the water was used to wash new vessels it is still disqualified since it is customary to wash off new vessels. In other words, something that is customary to do is considered work, even if it is isn't strictly speaking necessary." + ], + [ + "Water in which the baker dips his loaves is invalid; But if he moistened his hands in the water it is valid. If the baker dipped his loaves into the water, the water is invalid. This is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah. Today's mishnah adds that if the baker just uses the water to moisten his hands, and then from his hands he puts the water onto the loaves, the water remains valid because he didn't put the loaves directly into the water.", + "All are fit to pour water over the hands, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. After having discussed rules concerning the vessel and the water the mishnah now turns its attention to the person or power that pours the water over the hands. As we shall see, the requirement is that some power should cause the water to be poured over the hands. Water which flows on its own, for instance rainwater coming out of a drainage pipe, cannot be used for netilat yadayim. There is no requirement for intention (kavvanah) for netilat yadayim. Therefore, even people who legally are not considered to have kavanah can pour the water.", + "A person may place the jug between his knees and pour out the water Or he may turn the jug on its side and pour it out. A person puts a jug with water in it between his legs and then tilts it to the side. This is a valid way of performing netilat yadayim because his legs count as having caused the water to be poured onto his hands. He can even tilt the jug on its side and then put his hands under the water pouring out. Even though the water is currently (no pun intended) coming out of the jug on its own, since he tilted the jug on its side, it counts as an outside power.", + "A monkey may pour water over the hands. Even a monkey could pour water over someone's hands. In other words, there must be an outside power, but that power need not be human.", + "Rabbi Yose declares these [latter] two cases invalid. Rabbi Yose says that the final two cases are invalid because the water needs to be poured by a force initiated by a person. So if the water flows from the barrel on its own or a monkey pours the water, the hand-washing is invalid." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If he poured water over one of his hands with a single rinsing his hand becomes clean. The person poured water over only one hand, because he intended to eat with only one hand. He also only poured one pouring, and not two. His hand is pure even if he didn't pour the full 1/4 log because the water comes from a vessel with a pure 1/4 log. However, if the water came from a vessel with a lesser amount, his hand would not be pure.", + "If over both his hands with a single rinsing: Rabbi Meir declares them to be unclean until he pours a minimum of a quarter of a log of water over them. If he tries to do this with both hands, meaning pour water over them only once, there must be at least 1/4 of a log poured over the two hands. Rabbi Meir holds that if one uses the full 1/4 log, he doesn't need to wash off the first water that he poured onto his hands. However, if he pours water twice over his hands, then his hands are pure even if he didn't pour a full 1/4 log as long as they came from a vessel with at least 1/4 of a log in it.", + "If a loaf of terumah fell on the water the loaf is clean. Rabbi Yose declares it to be unclean. If a loaf of terumah falls on the water that he used to wash his hand, the first opinion holds that the loaf is still clean. According to this opinion the water is clean. Rabbi Yose holds that the water purified the hands, but it itself has become impure." + ], + [ + "If he poured the first water over his hands [while standing] in one place, and the second water over his hands [while standing] in another place, and a loaf of terumah fell on the first water, the loaf becomes unclean. But if it fell on the second water it remains clean. The first water that pours off his hands is impure. Therefore, if a pure loaf of terumah falls onto this water, it is impure. But the second water is pure and purifies the water on his hands. Therefore if the loaf falls onto this water, it is pure.", + "If he poured the first and the second water [while standing] in one place, and a loaf of terumah fell onto the water, the loaf becomes unclean. In this case, both the first and second water fall onto the same place on the ground. If a loaf falls into this water, it is defiled because the second water cleanses only the water that is on his hands. It does not cleanse the water that is on the ground.", + "If he poured the first water over his hands and a splinter or a piece of gravel is found on his hands, [his hands] remain unclean, because the latter water only makes the first water on the hands clean. In this case there is something on his hands when he washes them. The second washing purifies only the water that is on his hands, not the water that is on something else, such as a splinter or piece of gravel. This water remains impure and it would go back and defile his hands.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if any creature from the water [was on the hands while they are being cleaned] they are clean. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel seems to think that creatures that are from the water, like a little worm, count as if they were water. So if one finds a worm on his hand after washing, the water that's on the worm doesn't go back and defile his hands. It might be a bit yucky though." + ], + [ + "Hands become unclean and are made clean as far as the joint. For matters of purity, the hand goes up to the \"joint.\" There are two explanations of this. The first is the middle joint of the fingers and the second is the joint where the fingers join the hand. Below, I will simply use the word \"joint.\"", + "How so? If he poured the first water over the hands as far as the joint and poured the second water over the hands beyond the joint and the latter flowed back to the hands, the hands are clean. The mishnah now explains some ramifications of this ruling. If he pours water the first time over his hands as far as the joint and then the second time beyond the joint, and the second water goes back onto his hand, his hands are pure. This is because beyond the joint the hand is not impure. So the second water was not made impure by going beyond the joint.", + "If he poured the first and the second water over the hands beyond the joint and they flowed back to the hands, the hands remain unclean. In this case he pours both beyond the joint and then the water flows back onto his hands. His hands remain impure because the first water that went beyond the joint wasn't purified by the second water that was also beyond the joint, because this water is only purified when it is on the hand. When the water goes back it defiles his hand again.", + "If he poured the first water over one of his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over both his hands, they are unclean. The mishnah now deals with a different subject one who changes his mind about how many hands to wash. If the first time he washes, he washes only one hand and then the second time he washes both hands and the water from the second hand goes on to the first hand, the first hand is defiled. This is because the water that went on the second hand was only there for the first time.", + "If he poured the first water over both his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over one of his hands, his one hand becomes clean. However, in the opposite case, where he first washed both hands and then only one, the one hand that was washed twice is pure.", + "If he poured water over one of his hands and rubbed it on the other hand it remains unclean. If he washes one hand (even twice) and then rubs it on the other, the water becomes impure on the second hand. This water then goes back and defiles the first hand.", + "If he rubbed it on his head or on the wall it is clean. However, if he rubs his hands on his head or the wall, the water is not defiled. The water that then goes back onto his hands does not defile them again.", + "Water may be poured over the hands of four or five persons, each hand being by the side of the other, or being one above the other, provided that the hands are held loosely so that the water flows between them. One can pour water over several people's hands at once and we are not concerned that one person's hands would defile another person's. The only important rule is that the hands shouldn't be tightly clenched with one another. Water must be allowed to flow in-between." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis long mishnah is about cases of doubtful impurity involving hands. While the mishnah is quite long, it is not actually too difficult.", + "If there was a doubt whether any work has been done with the water or not, A doubt whether the water contains the requisite quantity or not, A doubt whether it is unclean or clean, In these cases the doubt is considered to be clean because they have said in a case of doubt concerning hands as to whether they have become unclean or have conveyed uncleanness or have become clean, they are considered to be clean. Rabbi Yose says: in a case [of doubt as to] whether they have become clean they are considered to be unclean. There are three types of \"doubts\" that could cause the water not to have purified his hands. As we learned in 1:3, if work was done with the water it cannot be used to wash his hands. There must be a quarter of a log (1:1) and the water must be pure. In all of these cases, if there is a doubt as to whether his hands were purified, the law is lenient and we treat them as pure. Below the mishnah will explain the meaning of \"become unclean\" and \"convey uncleanness.\" To become pure means that if he isn't sure whether he effectively purified his hands, they are considered pure. This refers to the cases in the beginning of the mishnah cases where there was a doubt whether the water he used could purify his hands. Rabbi Yose disagrees with the ruling concerning doubt over whether his hands have become pure. Because his hands are presumed to be impure, they cannot be considered pure unless we are sure that they have been purified. The status quo remains.", + "How so? If his hands were clean and there were two unclean loaves before him and there was a doubt whether he touched them or not; Or if his hands were unclean and there were two clean loaves before him and there was a doubt whether he touched them or not; Or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean and there were two clean loaves before him and he touched one of them and there was a doubt whether he touched it with the unclean hand or with the clean hand; Or if his hands were clean and there were two loaves before him one of which was unclean and the other clean and he touched one of them and there was a doubt whether he touched the unclean one or the clean one; Or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean and there were two loaves before him one of which was unclean and the other clean, and he touched both of them, and there is a doubt whether the unclean hand touched the unclean loaf or whether the clean hand touched the clean loaf or whether the clean hand touched the unclean loaf or whether the unclean hand touched the clean loaf The hands remain in the same state as they were before and the loaves remain in the same state as they were before. The mishnah now goes through a long list of cases in which an impure hand might have touched a pure loaf of terumah or vice versa. Note that this is a different type of doubt than in section one. In section one, the doubt was whether his hands had been purified. Here the doubt is whether he defiled a loaf of terumah. The mishnah rules that in all of these cases his hands and the loaves remain in their previously assumed state. The hand or hands that were pure remain pure and the loaf or loaves that were pure remain pure. In other words, in cases of doubt the status quo remains." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness.
Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness.
They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness].
Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, \"My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel.\" He said to her: \"My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?\" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.
Section one: In Tractate Negaim we learned about the house that has some sort of scale disease. Rabbi Akiva says that if someone puts just his hands into such a house, the hands have first degree uncleanness. The other sages say that his hands only have second degree uncleanness.
Second two: There is a similar dispute concerning a person who defiles garments. This is a about whom the Torah says that he must wash his clothes: for instance one who touches a zav or one who touches something a zav lied upon, or who touches a zavah or a menstruant. According to Rabbi Akiva when such a person is touching the source of uncleanness, another person who touches him will get first degree uncleanness in his hands. The other sages say that he will get second degree uncleanness.
Section three: The other sages now argue with Rabbi Akiva, asking him where we find that hands can have first degree impurity.
Rabbi Akiva responds that in essence they are right. Hands can only have first degree impurity if the whole body also has first degree impurity. However, these cases in sections one and two are exceptions for in these cases the body wasn't defiled at all. Only in these cases can someone's hands have first degree impurity while the rest of his body remains pure.
Section four: We find a similar dispute regarding foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids. These foods now have second degree impurity (see Zavim 5:12). According to Rabbi Joshua they defile hands such that the hands have second degree impurity. The other rabbis say that only foods or vessels that were defiled by a father of uncleanness and thereby have first degree impurity can defile hands. But if foods have only second degree impurity, they don't defile hands at all.
Section five: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel now cites a story about a woman who came in front of Rabban Gamaliel, his father. The woman's hands had gone into the air-space of an impure earthenware vessel. Such vessels convey impurity through their air-space. Rabban Gamaliel asks her if the vessel had received its impurity from contact with a father of uncleanness or whether the vessel was defiled by something with first degree uncleanness? Unfortunately, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel never heard the response (those kids, they're never listening!).
The sages say that their halakhah from section four is applicable here. If the earthenware vessel had received impurity from a father of uncleanness then her hands would have second degree uncleanness. But if the vessel had been defiled by something with first degree uncleanness, her hands would be pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues with a dispute between Rabbi Joshua and the sages. As part of their argument they mention the concept that the Holy Scriptures, meaning the Tanakh or Bible, defile the hands. This is a topic that will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. There are two explanations for this halakhah. The traditional explanation is a bit strange and convoluted but it goes like this. People used to store their terumah near the same place that they stored holy scrolls (the Tanakh). Mice would come to eat the terumah and would also eat through the scrolls. To prevent this, the rabbis declared that the scrolls would defile the terumah. This would discourage people from storing terumah near their scrolls. One can clearly sense that this simply does not seem likely to have been the origins of this idea.\nRecently, academic scholars have explained that according to some laws in the Torah holiness can \"rub off\" on an item with which it has contact. This rubbing off on the item works a little bit like impurity, except the terminology is not that the item becomes \"impure\" rather it becomes \"holy.\" The rabbis inherited the concept that scrolls of Scripture were so holy that anything they touched would become \"holy\" as well. Since this was the only such situation that the rabbis encountered, they used the normal term for such \"rubbing off\" which is impurity. In other words, what really seems to happen is that the hands become holy by virtue of contact with the scrolls. Nevertheless, by the time of the Mishnah these laws are part of the general purity system.", + "Anything which disqualifies terumah defiles hands with a second degree of uncleanness. Anything that has even second degree uncleanness will defile the hands so that they too have second degree uncleanness. This accords with Rabbi Joshua's opinion in yesterday's mishnah. The other rabbis disagree.", + "One [unwashed] hand defiles the other hand, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has second degree of uncleanness cannot convey second degree of uncleanness. An unwashed hand has second degree uncleanness and therefore it disqualifies terumah. According to Rabbi Joshua this means that if one hand is unwashed and it touches a washed hand it will defile it. The sages reject his opinion, as they did in yesterday's mishnah, holding that something that has second degree impurity cannot convey impurity to anything else. All it can do is disqualify terumah.", + "He said to them: But do not the Holy Scriptures which have second degree of uncleanness defile the hands? They said to him: the laws of the Torah may not be argued from the laws of the scribes, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from the laws of the Torah, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from [other] laws of the scribes. Rabbi Joshua uses the concept of the Holy Scriptures defiling the hands as proof for his opinion that anything with second degree uncleanness conveys uncleanness to hands. According to the rabbis, the Tanakh has second degree uncleanness and it defiles the hands. Therefore, everything that has second degree uncleanness should similarly defile the hands. The other rabbis reject learning from one category of rabbinic law to another. The idea that the Tanakh defiles the hands is a \"law of the scribes\" it is of rabbinic origin. Similarly, the halakhah that unwashed hands defile terumah is also of rabbinic origin (see the introduction). One cannot use one halakhah of rabbinic origin to prove another halakhah." + ], + [ + "The straps of the tefillin [when connected] with the tefillin [boxes] defile the hands. Tefillin boxes have scrolls of Scripture in them. Therefore, they clearly would defile the hands. According to the first opinion, the straps do as well, as long as they are tied to the tefillin boxes.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: the straps of the tefillin do not defile the hands. Rabbi Shimon says that the straps do not defile the hands, since they are only connected to the boxes they don't have the scrolls in them." + ], + [ + "The margin on a scroll which is above or below or at the beginning or at the end defiles the hands. Although there is nothing written in the margins of the Tanakh scrolls, they still defile the hands because they are part of the scroll.", + "Rabbi Judah says: the margin at the end does not render unclean [the hands] until a handle is fastened to it. Rabbi Judah says that the margin at the end of the scroll doesn't defile because it could always be cut off. It only defiles once they have used that extra piece of scroll to attach a handle. Once a handle has been attached the end margin has become a necessary part of the scroll and it too defiles." + ], + [ + "A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\", defiles the hands.
All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.
The Song of Songs and Kohelet ( defile the hands.
Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet.
Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs.
Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel.
Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands.
Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet.
Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.
Today's mishnah contains a fascinating argument over whether two books from the Tanakh, Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and the Song of Songs (Shir Hashirim) defile the hands. This is basically an argument over whether these books should be included in the Biblical canon. We cannot be certain why there was an argument over these specific books. Probably the content of these books caused certain sages to wish to cut them out of the canon. Kohelet is a deeply skeptical work, one which frequently questions whether the world works justly. One central message of the book is that the righteous and the evil receive the same lot in this world. Sometimes life is even worse for the righteous than it is for the evil. Song of Songs seems to be a love song between a man and a woman. What place does such literature have, some rabbis asked, in the biblical canon? In the end, both books were accepted into the canon and have been found in Jewish (and non-Jewish) bibles ever since.
Section one: The smallest \"parsha\" in the Torah is Numbers 11:35-36. These two verses, which contain 85 letters, are set off as a \"parsha\" in the traditional writing of the Torah. The mishnah uses this number as a paradigm for what constitutes a \"scroll\" such that it would defile the hands. There either have to remain 85 letters from a scroll that used to have more, or a new scroll has to already have 85 letters. Less than 85 letters and the scroll will not defile the hands.
Sections 2-9: The remainder of the mishnah is an extended discussion/argument over whether two books, Kohelet and Shir Hashirim (Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs) defile the hands (i.e. are they part of the canon).
Ultimately, we know that both of these books were accepted into the Jewish Bible, and indeed were rich sources for rabbinic midrashim. There are probably several reasons why they were accepted. First and foremost, Shir Hashirim is explicitly attributed to King Solomon and Kohelet is ascribed to a king in Jerusalem, traditionally understood as King Solomon. While modern scholars do not accept the historical accuracy of these ascriptions, rabbis certainly didn't doubt them. Being ascribed to an ancient king certainly helps if you want to be part of the Bible!
Secondly, Shir Hashirim merited a metaphorical interpretation. The love story was not between a man and a woman but rather between the people of Israel and God. It is this metaphorical, mystical and at times erotic poetry between God and Israel that causes Rabbi Akiva to call it the holiest book.
And while Kohelet does express deep skepticism concerning justice in the world, it ultimately ends with the famous verse, \"The sum of the matter, when all is said and done: Revere God and observe His commandments! For this applies to all mankind.\" The rabbis too certainly would have ascribed to this directive." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday's mishnah ended with the statement that the sages voted on whether to include Kohelet and Shir Hashirim in the canon. This is taken as referring to a vote that occurred in the academy in Yavneh on a momentous day in history. Today's mishnah continues with other momentous issues they voted on on that famous day.", + "On that day the votes were counted and they decided that a footbath holding from two logs to nine kavs which was cracked could contract midras uncleanness. You just have to love this transition. In yesterday's mishnah we hear of a vote over whether a book should be part of the Bible. It's hard to think of a more fateful issue than this if the vote had turned the other way, these two books might have been lost, or at least cut out of the Jewish tradition. The second issue was over the purity of a cracked footbath and whether it can still receive midras uncleanness. Since it can no longer hold liquids, it doesn't count as a vessel for bathing. But since people could still sit in it, it is still susceptible to \"midras\" uncleanness, the kind of impurity that is given to items that are meant to be sat or laid upon.", + "Because Rabbi Akiva said a footbath [must be considered] according to its designation. Rabbi Akiva holds that anything that is called \"a footbath,\" even if it can hold more than nine kavs, is still susceptible to midras impurity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMost of this mishnah is found word for word in Zevahim 1:1 and 1:3. Most of my commentary here is the same as that there. It is brought here as well because according to this mishnah, those halakhot from Zevahim originated on that same famous day.", + "On that day they said: all animal sacrifices which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering are [nevertheless] valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. For most sacrifices, if the priest offering them thinks that he is offering a different sacrifice than he is really supposed to be offering, the sacrifice is still valid. This means that its blood can be spilled on the altar and the sacrifice can be eaten by those who would have been able to eat it had it been offered properly. However, the sacrifice does not count as far as fulfilling the obligation of its owner. Thus if the owner was obligated to bring an olah, for instance, and it was sacrificed with the intent of it being another sacrifice, the owner must bring another olah in its place. The exception to this is the pesah and the hatat. If either of these two sacrifices is offered with the intent of its being a different type of sacrifices, not only does it not count for the owner who brought it, it is completely disqualified. Its blood cannot be spilled on the altar, nor can it be eaten.", + "[This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time. The pesah is only disqualified if it is slaughtered with the wrong intent at the time that it is supposed to be slaughtered, on second half of the day on the fourteenth of Nissan. If it is slaughtered on the wrong day, for the wrong purpose, then paradoxically, it is valid, although it would obviously not count for its owner. Its as if the mishnah is saying that in this case, two negatives can make a positive. When it comes to the hatat, there is no specific time in which it must be offered. Therefore, no matter when it is offered, if the intention is for the wrong sacrifice, it is disqualified.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: [with the exception] also of the guilt-offering; [so that this refers to] the pesah in its correct time and to the sin- and guilt-offerings at any time. Rabbi Eliezer argues that the same rule that applies to the hatat applies to the asham, also a sacrifice brought to atone for sin. If it is slaughtered for the sake of it being a different sacrifice, it is disqualified.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the college that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name are nevertheless valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering, but the sages did not agree with him. This section is found in Zevahim 1:3. My commentary here is the same as it is there.", + "[This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time. In section two we learned that the two exceptional sacrifices that are disqualified if offered with the wrong intent are the pesah and the hatat. All other sacrifices are valid if slaughtered with the intent of their being different sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai quotes this tradition as being true only for sacrifices that are eaten. This would not include the olah, which is wholly burnt. According to ben Azzai’s tradition, the olah is disqualified if it is slaughtered with the intent of it being a different sacrifice. The final line of the mishnah notes that ben Azzai added the olah to the pesah and hatat, but that the sages (whose opinion is found in mishnah one) did not agree with this tradition. Rabbi Shimon Ben Azzai states that he received this tradition on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed a member of the yeshiva (academy). This seems to be a famous day in rabbinic recollection and there is a significant amount of aggadah concerning the background to this appointment. The most expansive version of this aggadah is found in Bavli Berakhot 27b, where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is appointed head of the academy after Rabban Gamaliel is deposed. The historical accuracy of that legendary account is a bit suspect, but here in the Mishnah we can see that although we might not know exactly what happened that day, it was a memorable day, one which later rabbis used as a reference point." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today's extraordinarily long mishnah there is a dispute concerning what tithes are given from produce grown in the land of Ammon and Moab on the sabbatical year. Inside the land of Israel seventh year produce is ownerless and no tithes are separated. Ammon and Moab are borderline lands. The sabbatical year is not operative in them but the rabbis did decree that one has to separate tithes from produce grown there. This creates the question of what type of tithes must be separated in the sabbatical year.\nAs further background, we should remember that there are two tithes. First tithes are given to the Levites. This tithe would be separated in Ammon and Moab during the sabbatical year. The other tithe alternates between second tithe, which is taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owners and the poor tithe which is given to the poor. Second tithe is taken out in the 1, 2, 4 and 5 years of the seven year cycle and poor tithe on the 3 and 6 year. This is the tithe that is debated in our mishnah.\nAlong with the particular content discussion, the argument in this mishnah reveals an unusual amount concerning rabbinic discourse. It offers us a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of the early rabbinic academy.", + "On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Tarfon rules that in these two lands they should separate poor tithes on the sabbatical year, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules that they should separate second tithe.", + "Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Yishmael seems to act as a sort of moderator for the dispute. He tells Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah that the burden of proof is upon him, for he rules strictly. The reason that his opinion is considered \"strict\" is that second tithe is treated as holy, whereas poor tithe is not holy. As far as how much is given, there is no difference both are tithes.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds that the burden of proof should be upon Rabbi Tarfon, and not upon him. In the third and sixth years one gives poor tithes. The year that immediately follows is second tithe (at least in the fourth year). Therefore, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah has not deviated from the normal order of second tithe always following after a year of poor tithe. So Rabbi Tarfon must first give proof for why we should deviate from the normal order. [This section kind of reminds me of the coin flip at the beginning of a football game arguing over who starts.]", + "Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Having lost the coin flip, Rabbi Tarfon kicks off. He compares Ammon and Moab with Egypt. Just as Egypt gives poor tithes in the seventh year, so should Ammon and Moab. Later in the Mishnah we shall see that everyone agrees that the earlier sages decreed that Egypt should give poor tithe.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds by saying that the laws outside of Israel are not all the same. Babylon is also outside of Israel and there they separate second tithe during the seventh year, not poor tithe. So if you're going to compare Ammon and Moab to something, compare them to Babylon!", + "Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. The fight is truly getting brutal my friends! Rabbi Tarfon now explains why he compared Ammon and Moab to Egypt and not Babylon. Ammon, Moab and Egypt are both close to the land of Israel. Therefore the sages declared that they should give poor tithes so that the poor of Israel could benefit. In other words, Rabbi Tarfon feels that the sages adjusted the halakhah so that it would most benefit the poor.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, \"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings\" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah counterattacks. Giving tithes to the poor might provide them with some temporary relief. But if people should really be giving second tithe then they in the end will be causing destruction and death. For the verses from Malakhi state that people have cheated God by not bringing tithes. As a punishment, God will stop the rains and dew (this is made even more explicit in v. 10, not quoted in the Mishnah). Thus, perverting tithe laws in order to give to the poor ultimately will cause drought.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. Rabbi Joshua now jumps into the debate. He defends Rabbi Tarfon but using different reasoning. That Egypt should give poor tithe is a \"new act,\" decreed by the sages of the Second Temple period, when Egypt again flourished as a center for Judaism. That Babylon should give second tithe is an \"old act,\" decreed by the prophets. Since Ammon and Moab are both new acts, they should be like the other \"new act\" and give poor tithe. A related factor is that Egypt is a \"decree of the sages,\" whereas Babylon is a \"decree of the prophets.\" Since Ammon and Moab will obviously be a decree of the sages, they should be like the other decree of the sages and give poor tithe.", + "The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. After all of the arguments have been made, the sages take a vote and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Tarfon win.", + "And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: \"The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it\" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. There is a fascinating epitaph to this story. Rabbi Eliezer was evidently not there when this vote was taken. According to later legends he was excommunicated. Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit, an otherwise unknown sage, goes to Rabbi Eliezer to report to him about what happened in the academy. Rabbi Eliezer agrees with the content of the vote, but vehemently seems to disagree with the process. Rabbi Eliezer is saying I don't need your vote because I have a tradition that goes all the way back to Sinai that Ammon and Moab give poor tithe on the sabbatical year. The argument here is between Rabbi Eliezer's way of determining halakhah and that of the other rabbis. The other rabbis, at whose forefront stands Rabbi Joshua, hold that whenever a new situation arises sages must argue about it, present opposing points of view, and then bring the matter up for a vote. There are indeed innovations in halakhah and they are arrived upon through a process of dispute and voting. Rabbi Eliezer is the arch-conservative. Even obviously new situations such as this, Jews living in the lands of Ammon and Moab, were addressed at Sinai. There is no need for a vote and no need for argumentation. Everything that ever will be was already there in the original revelation." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nDeuteronomy 23:4 states that an Ammonite or Moabite \"cannot enter the assembly of the Lord.\" The rabbis interpret this to mean that even if an Ammonite or Moabite convert, they still cannot marry a regular Israelite.\nOur mishnah, whose discussion also occurred \"on that day,\" deals with an Ammonite convert who comes before the sages asking if he is part of this prohibition. It sounds like the story was probably placed in this chapter because the previous mishnah also discussed Ammon and Moab.", + "On that day Judah, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the house of study. He said to them: Do I have the right to enter into the assembly? Rabban Gamaliel said to him: you are forbidden. Rabbi Joshua said to him: you are permitted. Judah the Ammonite, who seems to have already converted to Judaism, comes in front of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua asking to be allowed to marry an Israelite woman (not another Ammonite convert).", + "Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord: even to the tenth generation\" (Deuteronomy 23:4). Rabban Gamaliel refuses to allow him to do so based on the verse from Deuteronomy. This would seem to be an open and shut case. Deuteronomy prohibits Ammonites from marrying into the assembly, so Judah should have to go marry someone else.", + "R. Joshua said to him: But are the Ammonites and Moabites still in their own territory? Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, has long since come up and mingled all the nations, as it is said: \"In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants\" (Isaiah 10:1. However, Rabbi Joshua responds by saying that those who identify today (i.e. in his day) as Ammonites are no longer the same Ammonites of yore. King Sanheriv, the same Assyrian king who destroyed the northern kingdom, came and mixed up all of the peoples, forcibly transferring them from one place to another, as he did with the 10 northern tribes. Therefore, the rules of the Torah that applied to the Ammonites back then, no longer apply now.", + "Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon,\" (Jeremiah 49:6) they have already returned. Rabban Gamaliel actually accepts Rabbi Joshua's argument but responds that there is another verse that shows that God brought back the Ammonites from their exile. According to Rabban Gamaliel the verse from Jeremiah does not refer to the \"end of days\" as do the verses regarding the Moabites (Jeremiah 48:47) and Elam (49:39). Rather, God has already restored the Ammonites, so the prohibition from Deuteronomy applies again.", + "Rabbi Joshua said to him: [another] verse says, \"I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah\" (Amos 9:14). Yet they have not yet returned. The argument now turns on the meaning of a verse that says, \"And I have returned\" a certain people to their place. The prophet Amos uses the same language with regard to Israel and nevertheless Israel has not returned to its homeland, at least not all of Israel. So too, when it comes to Ammon, just because someone is currently an \"Ammonite\" does not mean that they are prohibited by the verse in Deuternomy.", + "So they permitted him to enter the assembly. The mishnah concludes with good news for our friend Judah. He is allowed into the community, meaning he can go find himself a good Yiddishe mamma! Sign the boy up for JDate!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah returns to the subject of scrolls defiling the hands.", + "The Aramaic sections in Ezra and Daniel defile the hands. If an Aramaic section was written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew section was written in Aramaic, or [Hebrew which was written with] Hebrew script, it does not defile the hands. It never defiles the hands until it is written in the Assyrian script, on parchment, and in ink. There are some portions of the book of Ezra and the book of Daniel that are in Aramaic, not Hebrew. These sections defile the hands just as do other portions of the Bible. The fact that they are in Aramaic does not make them less holy.", + "This section seems to teach that Aramaic and Hebrew are not inherently holy languages such that they should defile the hands. If a portion of the Bible that is in Hebrew was translated into Aramaic (targum) it doesn't defile the hands. Neither do Hebrew translations of the Aramaic parts of the Bible. The Hebrew script we use is called Assyrian script. The older script is called by scholars \"Phoenician script\" and is called by the rabbis \"Hebrew script.\" According to the Talmud, Ezra switched the script from the ancient Hebrew to the Assyrian. If a scroll of the Tanakh was written in this ancient script, it does not defile the hands.", + "Only Tanakh scrolls written with the proper script, Assyrian, on parchment (made from the hides of an animal) and with ink are valid as ritual objects. Therefore, only these scrolls defile the hands." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final three mishnayot of the tractate contain disputes between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Our knowledge of these groups is quite vague. We know that the rabbis sided with the Pharisees, although the rabbis don't exactly see themselves as Pharisees. Assumedly this is because this division mostly ceased after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Josephus, the first century historian, divides the Jews into three \"philosophies\" Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. The New Testament mentions both the Pharisees and Sadducees. And there is a bitter argument over who the Dead Sea Sect was some believe they were Sadducees, but this is not generally accepted.\nIn these mishnayot the Sadducees complain against various halakhot of the Pharisees. There is an echo of this in a text called \"The Halakhic Letter\" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this letter, the Jews living in Qumran write of their halakhic disagreements with those Jews running the show in Jerusalem. There is some affinity between the halakhot of the writers living in Qumran and the Sadducees as presented in rabbinic literature. Rather than conclude that this means that these Jews were \"Sadducees\" I think it is more appropriate to say that these Jews had a halakhic system similar to the Sadducees. They may indeed have been Essenes (this is the general consensus); the differences between Essenes and Sadducees may be based on other issues besides halakhah.\nIn any case, these three mishnayot are fascinating because they afford us a glimpse into what kinds of things Second Temple religious leaders were arguing about.", + "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. The reason these complaints against the Pharisees are found in tractate Yadayim is that the first of the Sadducees' complaints is the subject at hand (pun intended). The Sadducees seem to know of two types of books, the works of Homer (not Simpson) and the Holy Scriptures. Clearly the latter are holy while the former are not. So why then do the Pharisees say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands whereas the works of Homer do not?", + "Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yohanan the high priest are unclean. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai explains by playing devil's advocate. All agree that the bones of a donkey do not defile. Only the flesh of a dead impure animal defiles, not the bones (see Toharot 1:4). Interestingly, Rabbi Yohanan seems to mention the \"donkey\" because in Hebrew \"donkey\" is \"hamor\" which sounds like Homer pun intended! In any case, a donkey's bones do not defile but human bones, even those of one's parents do. Why should this be, he rhetorically asks?", + "They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. Rabbi Yohanan's words force the Sadducees to admit to a principle. Defilement is a way to force people not to make profane use out of a beloved object. If human bones were ritually clean, people might make spoons out of the bones of their parents (okay, I admit this sounds strange would people really do such a thing?).", + "He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai now uses that very principle to respond to the Sadducees. Homer's works are not beloved and therefore they don't defile the hands. But clearly the Holy Scriptures are beloved and therefore they do. This is similar to how I explained the prohibition at the outset of this issue (3:2)." + ], + [ + "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees complain that the Pharisees declare that an uninterrupted flow is clean. What this means is that if one pours from a clean vessel into an unclean vessel what remains in the clean vessel is still clean (see Makhshirin 5:9). Interestingly, this very issue is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Pharisees respond with a precedent showing that water connected to a source of impurity does not necessarily become impure. Water that flows out of a cemetery is pure, even though it is still attached to the source. So too with the flow from one vessel to the other, even though the water is attached to something unclean, the upper vessel is still clean.", + "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? The second argument in this mishnah compares damages or injury done by one's animals with injury or damage done by one's slaves. According to rabbinic law, a master is liable for damages done by his animals but not his slaves (see Bava Kamma 8:4). The Sadducees complain that this is illogical, for one is not liable to make sure that his animals perform mitzvoth, whereas one is liable to make sure that his slaves perform mitzvoth, such as brit milah (see Genesis 17:12) and eating the pesah sacrifice (Exodus 12:44).", + "They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution? The Pharisees respond that a master's liability for his animals is only because animals have no intelligence/understanding. Since an animal has no intelligence, at least legally speaking, his master is usually liable for damages performed by the animal. In contrast, a slave may be owned by his/her master, but the slave has intelligence and independent will. Even if one angers his slave and the slave damages some property, the owner is not liable. We should note that this Pharisaic law was probably unusual and perhaps even their own invention. Most law systems of the time, including other ancient near eastern laws, would have held a master liable for damages done by a slave. But for the rabbis, the operative principle in many matters of law is \"legal awareness\" or \"understanding.\" Since slaves have such capacity, they are independent and liable for damages they perform." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah the argument is no longer with a Sadducee but a Galilean \"min.\" The word \"min\" is found in manuscripts of this mishnah, although in printed editions it says \"Sadducee.\" A \"min\" is somewhat akin to heretic. The \"min\" is clearly a Jew, but is part of a group that is opposed to the rabbis/Pharisees. In later literature it could be used to refer to a Christian but it clearly does not refer to a Christian here. Nevertheless, Christian censors in the Middle Ages did not like this word and therefore they forced the Jews to change it.", + "A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The \"min\" complains against the Pharisees that they write the name of Moses and the current Roman ruler together in the divorce document, the get. What this means is that they would date the document by referring to the year of the ruling of the current king (see Gittin 8:5) and at the end, they would write, \"as is the religion of Moses Israel.\" This \"min\" seems to be attacking the Pharisees for accommodating themselves to Roman rule. Interestingly, this \"min\" is found in the Galilee, where the rabbis seemed to have lived in harmony with the Romans after the destruction of the Temple.", + "The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27). The Pharisees offer a cynical response. In Torah scrolls not only is the name of God and the name of Pharaoh written on the same page, but the name of Pharaoh comes first. Obviously, this is unavoidable, as can be shown from the verse in Exodus 5:2. So too, it is not a problem to write Moses's name in the same document as the Roman ruler's name. Our mishnah concludes with another verse \"The Lord is righteous.\" This verse is brought here so that the tractate does not conclude with a verse that says, \"Who is God.\" It is missing in some manuscripts. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Yadayim! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Yadayim was interesting, wasn't it? Among all of the issues in Seder Toharot this may have been the most practical. In addition, this last chapter was simply fascinating (and I think I'm going to teach it in my Mishnah class tomorrow!). The issue of hand-washing and the impurity of scrolls were both innovations of the sages or their predecessors, the Pharisees. So we get to learn some Second Temple halakhic history on the side. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Oktzin the last tractate of the Mishnah!" + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ידים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ידים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..030e0ea381dc76306e67fd9bad444a7ecd2e312e --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json @@ -0,0 +1,237 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה זבים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "A \"zav\" is a man who had a non-seminal genital discharge, assumedly do to some illness. When a man has two such discharges, he must count seven days before he can go to the mikveh and become pure, however he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice unless he sees three times in one day or for three days straight. A zav and a zavah (a woman who had non-menstrual blood), a niddah and a woman who gave birth defile things by contact, by carrying and by shifting. This is true whether the pure person carries or shifts the impure person without contact or vice versa, the impure person carries or shifts the pure person. This is unique to the category of zavim for in other cases of impurity, the impurity is conveyed only if the pure person carries the impure. The following words will consistently be written in transliteration: 1) Zav—male with non-seminal genital discharge. 2) Zavah—female with non-menstrual blood. 3) Zivah—the discharge itself. 4) Zov—same as zivah. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes day a for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. The two houses disagree in this mishnah concerning a man who had one emission of discharge of zov (see intro for all terms). According to Bet Shammai his status is like a woman who had an emission of zivah one time. Such a woman must wait a day and if she is pure that day, she will be pure at the end of the day. If she sees zivah for three straight days then she will be a full zavah. So too a man who saw one issue of zov must wait a day to see if he sees another issue. If he does, he is a zav and he will retroactively defile everything he touched, laid upon or sat upon from the time he saw the first issue. One who shifts the zov itself is also defiled. Bet Hillel says that a man who has had one issue of zov has the same status as one who has had a seminal emission. He does not defile things by laying on them or sitting on them and one who shifts the semen is not defiled. If he sees a second time, then he is a zav, but only from that point and onward.", + "Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. As we learned in the introduction, a full zav is one who saw three issues in one day or one issue for three straight days. The two houses here debate concerning a man who saw three issues, but not in one day or in three straight days. According to Bet Shammai this person is considered a full zav, for the first sighting of zov counts with the second two. Not only is he impure and must immerse in living water, but he is also liable to bring a sacrifice. Bet Hillel says that the discharge on the first day does not count together with the discharges that came two days later. Therefore, he is considered as if he had seen discharge only twice. He defiles through lying or sitting and he must immerse in living waters (a live spring, not a mikveh), as must a zav, but he is not liable for a sacrifice.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah disagrees with the version of this dispute contained in section two. According to him since he only saw zov once and then had a day in which he was pure, the sightings on the third day do not join the sighting on the first day.", + "What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah says that the disagreement is concerning a slightly different situation. He saw zov twice on the first day, or one discharge that counted as twice. Now he is clearly a zav, although he is not yet liable for a sacrifice. If he sees discharge again on the third day, Bet Shammai says that since he is already a zav, this sighting joins with the first two and he is a full zav. Bet Hillel maintains their opinion that unless he sees for three straight days or three times on one day, he is not a full zav." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA zav must wait for seven clean days to become pure. Our mishnah deals with a man who during those seven days in which he is supposed to be clean sees a discharge of semen.", + "If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Bet Shammai holds that if he has a seminal discharge on the third day of waiting to become clean from his zov, the first two days of cleanness are undone. He must now start his count over again. Bet Hillel says it only undoes the day on which he experienced the discharge. After that day he may resume his count.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. Rabbi Ishmael says that even Bet Hillel agrees that if one sees a seminal discharge on the second day, it undoes the first day. He must have two days of cleanness for them not to be undone.", + "But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael and maintains that according to Bet Hillel it doesn't matter whether the seminal discharge occurred on the third or second day; in both cases Bet Hillel holds that it causes only that day not to count.", + "But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. The two houses agree that if he counted three full days of cleanness, they are not undone by seeing a seminal discharge. This is because three days is the amount of time it takes one to become a zav in the first place.", + "This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded. However, this is only true if he had a discharge of semen. The two houses argue whether and when a discharge of semen undoes the clean period for a zav. But if he sees another issue of zov, clearly this undoes the entire clean period and he must start the count all over again." + ], + [ + "If he saw one issue on one day and two on the next day, or two on one day and one on the next day, or three on three [consecutive] days, or three nights, he is a full zav. This mishnah lays out the bottom line rule with regard to what is required for a person to become a full zav. If he has a three discharges on up to three days or nights straight, no matter what the combo, he is a full zav. He must bring a sacrifice at the end of his period of cleanness. We should note that this is different from a zavah. For a woman to become a zavah she must have non-menstrual blood flow on three consecutive days. Three times on one day does not make her a zavah." + ], + [ + "If he saw one [issue] and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he saw two issues, or one as copious as two;
Or if he saw two [issues] or one as copious as two, and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he again saw an issue, he is a full zav.
This mishnah deals with the question of how to determine if one discharge should be divided into two. In other words, how long must there be between discharges for them to count as two?
The answer in both of these cases is that if the flow stops long enough for him to have immersed and then dried off, the second flow is considered to be new." + ], + [ + "If he saw one issue which was as copious as three, lasting as long [as it takes to go] from Gad-Yav to Shiloah, which is the time it would take to bathe and dry twice, he becomes a full zav. The mishnah now mentions the possibility that a man could have one issue of zov (discharge) and it would be sufficient to count as all three issues necessary to become a full zav. The discharge would have to last long enough to bathe and dry twice, once in between each issue, had they been separate. In addition, the mishnah defines this as the time it would take to walk from a place called Gad Yavan to the Shiloah spring in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, we don't know where \"Gad Yavan\" is. But assumedly it is near the Shiloah spring, the source of water for the ancient city of Jerusalem.", + "If he saw one issue which was as copious as two, he defiles [objects] on which he lies or sits and he must immerse in running water, but he is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. One issue can count as two to make a man into a zav, but not a full zav. The difference between a full zav and a zav is that a full zav must bring a sacrifice at the end of his period of cleanness.", + "Rabbi Yose said: they have not spoken of \"one issue as copious\" unless there was sufficient to make up three. Rabbi Yose said that there is no legal consequences to seeing one issue of zov that is as copious as two. Either the issue was as copious as three, in which case he would be a full zav, or it would count as only one. This means that Rabbi Yose would disagree with most of the mishnayot that we have seen so far in this chapter." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a man who has an issue at twilight. The question is does the change of day divide one issue into two issues?", + "If he saw one issue during the day and another at twilight, or one at twilight and the other the next day: If he knew that part of the issue occurred at day-time and part the next day, he is certain with regard to a sacrifice and uncleanness. But if it is in doubt whether part [of the issue] occurred at day-time and part on the next day he is certain with regard to uncleanness, but in one of doubt in with regard a sacrifice. In this case a person had an issue of zov during the day and then another at twilight, a time which is not easy to determine as either night or day. Or he had an issue at twilight and then another the following day. We need to determine whether the issue he had at twilight counts as two issues, such that he is now a full zav. Or does it count as only one, such that he is a zav, but not a full zav? If he knew that part of the issue that happened at twilight occurred during one day and part the next, then he would certainly be impure and he would certainly be liable for a sacrifice. We learn here that a new day causes one issue to be legally considered two. [We should note that I'm not sure if it's all that possible to know whether it occurred during one day or the next day. The mishnah wants to teach the principle, the turn of a day separates one sighting from another]. However, if he is not certain whether one occurred one day and the other the next, then there is doubt as to whether he has seen three issues or two. Since in any case he has seen two issues, he is certainly unclean for seven days, as is always the case with a person who saw two issues. However, since it is uncertain whether he has seen two issues or three, he is not liable to bring a sacrifice.", + "If he had seen issues on two separate days at twilight, he is in doubt both with regard to defilement and with regard to a sacrifice. In this case, he saw an issue for two days straight at twilight. It is possible therefore that an entire day interrupted between the first issue and the second. In such a case he wouldn't even be impure. His purity status is therefore doubtful. On the other hand, he might have seen three issues, one of them being divided by the turn of the day into two. Therefore, he might be liable for a sacrifice. His status vis a vis a sacrifice is therefore also doubtful.", + "If [he had seen only] one issue at twilight, he is in doubt [also] with regard to [his] defilement. One issue seen at twilight is enough to create a doubt with regard to his purity status, for the turn of the day could divide the issue into being considered two issues. However, there is no possibility to consider this to be three sightings. Clearly, he is not liable for a sacrifice." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "All persons become unclean through zivah, even converts, even slaves whether freed or not, a deaf-mute, a person of unsound senses, and a minor, a eunuch whether [he had been castrated] by man, or was a eunuch from [the time of seeing] the sun. The laws of becoming unclean through seeing zivah (zov) apply to any Jew of any status, including converts, freed and non-freed slaves and people who legally are considered as lacking awareness. They apply to all males, even those who have been castrated, either by another human being or were born as eunuchs.", + "With regard to a tumtum and an androgynous [person], they place upon him the stringencies for a man and the stringencies for a woman: they defile through blood like a woman, and through eggy [substance] like a man. Their uncleanness still remains in doubt. The laws of being a zav apply only to a man and the laws of being a zavah apply only to a woman. They also work differently. Our mishnah asks what to do with two categories of people who exist somewhere in between, neither male nor female? A tumtum does not have signs of being either male or female whereas an androgynous person has both (according to the rabbinic definition). The rule with regard to the stringencies that apply to either sex apply to them. So if they have blood flow, it defiles as it does for a woman. And if they have zov discharge (eggy substance) then they defile as it does for a man. However, the status of their defilement is doubtful. For if they see blood, they might be a male for whom blood does not defile. And if they see a discharge of zov, they might be female for whom such discharge does not defile. Therefore, in either case they only doubtfully defile." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nZivah comes only from a genital disease or dysfunction. The rabbis considered it to be in a sense diseased semen (I know, this sounds a bit humorous). It has a different color from semen. If the rabbis could establish that the zivah came from another cause besides some genital disease, then they didn't consider it be zivah. Our mishnah talks about what else we could attribute the zivah to.", + "There are seven ways in which a zav is examined as long as he had not become subject to zivah: When a person sees zivah, he can come to an expert and the expert could tell him that the appearance of the zivah is due to some other cause, not actual genital disease. If they find another reason as to why it occurred, they can keep him from becoming pure. However, this only works before he has become a zav, as we shall see at the end of this mishnah. Once he has already been declared a zav, the zivah can't be attributed to anything else.", + "With regard to food, drink, as [to what] he had carried, whether he had jumped, whether he had been ill, what he had seen, or what he had thought. There are seven other things to which the rabbis attribute the appearance of zivah. Most of these are self-explanatory. Seeing refers to seeing a woman and having some sexual thoughts about her. \"What he had thought\" refers to having sexual thoughts about a woman. The rabbis also thought that the zivah could have been a result of eating some food, drink or carrying something, perhaps heavy.", + "[It doesn't matter] whether he had thoughts before seeing [a woman], or whether he had seen [a woman] before his thoughts. It doesn't matter whether he had the sexual thoughts before or after he saw the woman in both cases, we can attribute the appearance of zivah to his sexual thoughts and not to genital disease.", + "Rabbi Judah says: even if he had watched beasts, wild animals or birds having intercourse with each other, and even when he had seen a woman's dyed garments. Evidently, Rabbi Judah assumes that a man might be sexually aroused by seeing animals have sex or by seeing colored women's clothing. Therefore, if he saw any of these and then saw zivah, we can attribute it to sexual arousal and not disease.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: even if he had eaten any kind of food, be it good or bad, or had drunk any kind of liquid. They said to him: Then there will be no zavim in the world!’ He replied to them: you are not held responsible for the existence of zavim!’ Rabbi Akiva is willing to attribute the appearance of zivah to anything whatsoever. As his students note, this will make it so there will never be any more zavim in the world. Remarkably, Rabbi Akiva responds that if his definition of zivah and why it occurs should make it such that there are no more zavim, then so be it. To me, this is the ultimate statement of Rabbi Akiva's belief that law trumps reality. If he, the rabbi, dictates that we can attribute zivah to eating or drinking anything and it results in there never being any more zavim, then so be it.", + "Once he had become subject to zivah, no further examination takes place. If he has already seen zivah twice, then there is no more room to attribute it to anything else. In other words, these questions must be asked immediately, not after he is already considered a zav.", + "[Zov] resulting from an accident, or that was at all doubtful, or an issue of semen, these are unclean, since there are grounds for the assumption [that it is zivah]. If he has a seminal emission at the outset and a little bit of zivah also comes out, this zivah is not impure for one who has an emission does not defile through zivah for a 24 hour period. In other words, until he is decidedly impure the semen purifies the zivah, which is considered to have been an \"accident.\" However, after he has already seen zivah, a seminal emission does not purify the zivah, for we can't assume that the zivah was a result of the semen. Therefore, in this case it counts as seeing zivah.", + "If he had at a first [issue] they examine him; On the second [issue] they examine him, but on the third [issue] they don't examine him. Rabbi Eliezer says: even on the third [issue] they examine him because of the sacrifice. If he saw zivah one time, they examine him as we explained above. If he saw it again, they can examine him again to see if they can attribute it to something else. But if he saw it a third time (without having been examined the first two times), they don't examine him, for after the second time he was already a zav. Rabbi Eliezer says they even examine him after the third time to ascertain that he is truly liable for a sacrifice. If he experienced the third issue for some other reason, then he is not liable for the sacrifice, even though he is a zav." + ], + [ + "One who had [a discharge of] semen does not defile due to zivah for a period of twenty-four hours. Rabbi Yose says: [only] that day. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if a man has a seminal emission, for the next twenty-four hours any zivah is attributed to the semen; he does not defile as does a zav. Rabbi Yose says that this \"grace\" period is just during that day, the day on which he had a seminal emission. If the following day he has a flow of zov, he is impure, even if this is less than 24 hours after the seminal emission.", + "A non-Jew who had a discharge of semen and then converted, he immediately becomes unclean due to zivah. When a non-Jew converts, all of the things that happened to him as a non-Jew no longer count towards his status. So if he had a seminal emission before he converted, and then he converted, the seminal emission does not purify the zivah that he sees after he has converted (welcome to Judaism!). This is summed up by the saying that \"a person who converts is like a newborn child.\" He starts afresh and seminal emissions that he had as a non-Jew no longer count (bet you never knew that one before!).", + "[A woman] who had [an issue] of blood, or had experienced difficulty [in childbirth], [the time prescribed] is twenty-four hours. A woman who sees menstrual blood defiles things that she has had contact with in the past 24 hours. This is a halakhah we saw throughout tractate Niddah. A woman who has labor pains cannot be a zavah even if she has seen zivah. However, if there are 24 hours in which she doesn't have pains and then she sees zivah, then she can be considered a woman who has childbirth while she is a zavah (there are special rules concerning this scenario, see Niddah 4:4).", + "One who strikes his slave, the \"day or two\" is twenty-four hours. The next two sections are here only because they deal with other cases in which a 24 hour waiting period is relevant. If a person strikes his slave and the slave is okay for 24 hours, and then he dies, the owner is exempt (Exodus 21:21). The rabbis understand \"a day or two\" to be a 24 hour waiting period.", + "A dog that eats a corpse's flesh, for three days from one time of day to the same time of day, it is considered to be in its natural state. If a dog eats the flesh of a human corpse, the flesh continues to defile as human flesh for three days, from the time of day in which it was eaten. After that, it no longer defiles because it is no longer considered to be human flesh." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how a zav defiles things.", + "A zav defiles the objects that are lain upon (or sat in five ways, so that they defile people and garments: by standing, sitting, lying, hanging or leaning. A zav can defile things that are lain upon or sat upon (such as chairs and couches) even though he hasn't touched them. The things that he defiles will then defile other people and clothing (see Leviticus 15:5-6). The five ways are: standing (he stands on the object, even if he doesn't touch it. Sitting and lying (even without touching). \"Hanging\" refers to a case where the zav is hanging because of the couch or chair. For instance, the chair is on one end of a balance and the zav on the other. If the zav is lifted up by the heavier chair, the chair is now impure. These five things are called \"midras hazav.\" The chair or couch is now a \"father of impurity\" and it will defile other people and garments. Note that simply touching something is not sufficient he must do one of these five things.", + "What he lies upon defiles a person in seven ways, so that he [in turn] defiles garments: by standing, sitting, lying, hanging, or leaning upon it, or by touching or carrying it. The couch or chair (or other such instrument) upon which he lied or sat (or one of the other ways of conveying impurity listed above) will defile people such that they in turn defile garments. Note that if it defiles garments, these garments do not defile people. The couch or chair defiles by standing on a person, by sitting or lying on a person, by being hanged by a person (see previous section) or by leaning on a person. These five are the same as those above. In addition, it also defiles by touching or by being carried by a pure person." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A zav and a clean person who sat together in a boat, or on a raft, or rode together on a beast, even though their garments did not touch, behold they are impure through midras. In this case the zav and a clean person are traveling together on a boat, raft or animal. The clothes of the pure person are defiled by the zav even if they didn't touch. There are two possible explanations for why. First of all, since these things are all moving, it is possible and even likely that the zav did indeed lean upon the clean person's clothing. Alternatively, the clean person could have caused the ship, raft or animal to lean in his direction which would cause the zav to go up. This is \"hanging\" explained in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If they sat together on a plank, on a bench or on a bed-frame, or on a beam, when these were not fixed tightly, [Or] if they had both climbed a weak tree, or [were swaying] on a weak branch of a strong tree; Or if they were both [climbing] on an Egyptian ladder which was not secured by a nail; Or if they sat together on a bridge, rafter or door, not secured by clay, they are unclean. Rabbi Judah says that they are clean. In all of these cases, the zav and the clean person sit on something loose. Since the zav's moving would cause the clean person to move as well, the clean person is defiled. This is called defilement through shifting. An alternative explanation is that this is the same as the case in section one. The clean person might cause the zav to go up and this is considered \"hanging.\"" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a series of cases in which a zav and a clean person are jointly performing some action. In each case, there is one opinion that holds that the clean person has been defiled, or might have been defiled, and there is one opinion that holds that only if the act was done under specific conditions is he considered defiled.", + "If they were both closing or opening [a door], [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: [he is not unclean] unless one was shutting and the other opening [it]. According to the first opinion, if they were both either opening or closing a door then the zav has shifted the clean person by applying pressure to the door. The clean person and his clothes are defiled. The sages hold that this is true only if they are pushing against each other. In such a case, it is likely that one has moved the other. But if both are opening or closing, then it is more likely that neither has moved the other, so the clean person remains pure.", + "If one was lifting the other out of a pit [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Judah says: only if the clean person was pulling out the unclean one. According to the first opinion, if the zav and pure person are helping each other climb out of a pit, then it is likely that the zav has lifted or shifted in some way the pure person. Therefore, he is defiled. Rabbi Judah says that the pure person is defiled only if the pure person is helping the zav get out of the pit. In such a case, the zav may have leaned on the pure person and defiled him. But if the zav is helping the pure person out of the pit, he is not defiled. Evidently, Rabbi Judah is lenient and holds that the zav must lean on the pure person to defile him. Simply moving him does not cause defilement. Note that Rabbi Judah was also lenient in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If they were twisting ropes together [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: unless the one pulled one way and the other pulled the other way. Again, the first opinion holds that by twisting ropes together the zav may have leaned upon or shifted the clean person and thereby defiled him. The sages rule that they have to be pulling in opposite directions, as was the case with the door in section one.", + "If they were both weaving together, whether they were standing or sitting, or grinding wheat, [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Shimon says [the clean person] in every case is pure, except where they [both] were grinding with a hand-mill. The first opinion holds that weaving or grinding together causes the zav to defile the clean person, either because he leans on him or he shifts him. Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently. The only case of defilement is when they grind together with a hand-mill.", + "If they [both] were unloading or loading a donkey, they are unclean if the load was heavy, but clean if the load was light. If they are both unloading a donkey and the load is heavy, then the zav would likely have leaned on the pure person and defiled him. But if the load is light, they could both unload independently and one has not leaned on the other.", + "In all cases, however, they are clean for members of the synagogue, but are unclean for terumah. In all of these cases, we can't be certain that the pure person is defiled. Therefore, he can sit with other members of the synagogue who are eating their non-sacred food in a state of purity. Since this behavior is only a stringency, and is not required by law, we can be lenient and let him eat with them. However, the Torah prohibits eating defiled terumah. Therefore, he cannot eat terumah. This last clause basically serves to clarify that in all of these cases the status of his impurity is doubtful, not certain." + ], + [ + "If the zav and the clean person sat together in a large boat: (what is considered a large boat? Rabbi Judah said: one that does not sway with a man's, or if they sat on a plank, bench, bed-frame, or beam when these were firmly secured; Or if they both climbed a strong tree, a firm branch, or a Tyrian ladder, or an Egyptian ladder fixed by a nail; Or if they sat on a bridge, rafter or door, when these were fastened with clay, even if only at one end, they remain clean. In all of these cases, since the things upon which the zav and clean person sat were stable, the zav has not moved the clean person. Therefore, the clean person remains clean. Note that most of this list is simply the opposite of those things listed in mishnah one. Either they were firmly secured, they were fixed by a nail or they were fastened in place by clay. In mishnah one, the opposite was always the case the various items were loose. Therefore the pure person became defiled.", + "If the clean one struck the unclean one, he still remains clean. But if the unclean one struck the clean one, he is impure; for [in that case] if the clean one drew back, the unclean one would have fallen. A clean person who strikes a zav remains clean because the zav has not moved the clean person. While it is possible that when hitting him the clean person leaned on the zav, since this is not certain, he remains clean. However, if the zav strikes the clean person he is in a sense leaning on the clean person, for if the clean person moves when the zav strikes him, the zav would fall down (and be embarrassed). Leaning on the clean person defiles him." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Rabbi Joshua said: if a menstruant sat in a bed with a clean woman, [even] the cap on her head contracts midras uncleanness. And if she sat in a boat, the vessels on the top of the mast [also] contract midras uncleanness. A niddah defiles in the same way that a zav and a zavah do. According to the rabbis in 3:1, when a niddah (or a zav) sits in the same bed (or boat or carriage) as does a pure person she defiles the other person's clothes because she might have stepped on them. Rabbi Joshua says that even the cap on the other person's head is defiled, even though the niddah definitely didn't step on the other woman's head. Similarly, if she sits in a boat, even the vessels on the top of the mast are unclean, even though she clearly didn't step on them. Rabbi Joshua rules more strictly than do the other sages.", + "If there was [on the boat] a tub full of clothes: If their weight was heavy, they become unclean, But if their weight was light, they remain clean. This section is also part of Rabbi Joshua's opinion. I have explained the section according to Albeck. If the clothes were heavy, then there is a possibility that they pushed the boat down on one side and therefore lifted up the niddah who was on the other side. As we learned in 2:4, if a zav (or zavah or niddah) is \"hung\" by something, the other thing becomes impure. However, if the tub of clothes is light, they remain pure because they wouldn't have caused the boat to shift. Note that Rabbi Judah does not automatically make the clothes impure, as he did in section one. Albeck explains that Rabbi Judah rules strictly only with regard to single pieces of clothing. When it comes to a tub of clothing, he rules more in line with the other sages.", + "If a zav knocked against a balcony and thereby caused a loaf of terumah to fall down, it remains clean. Although it seems that the zav caused the loaf of terumah to fall and thereby defiled it, the rabbis don't think that the zav really could have caused the stone balcony to shift. Rather, it must have been some movement in the ground that caused the loaf to fall. Therefore, it remains pure." + ], + [ + "If he knocked against a strong beam, a window-frame, water-pipe, a shelf, even though it was fixed with ropes, or an oven, a flour container, the lower mill-stone, the base of a hand-mill, or the se'ah measure of an olive-grinder, [the loaf remains clean]. In all of these cases there was a loaf of terumah bread sitting on one of these large items. A zav knocked against one of them and the loaf fell down. Since all of these items are set in their place we can attribute the loaf falling down to some force other than the zav. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, we can assume that the ground shifted.", + "Rabbi Yose adds: also [if he knocks] against the beam of the bath-keeper, it remains clean. Rabbi Yose adds that the same halakhah applies to the \"beam of a bath-keeper.\" This is the beam upon which it was customary for the bath-keeper to sit." + ], + [ + "If he knocked against a door, doorbolt, lock, oar, mill basket, or against a weak tree, or weak branch of a strong tree, or against an Egyptian ladder unsecured by nails, or against a bridge, beam or door, not made secure with clay, they become unclean. In all of these cases the zav knocks against something and thereby causes an object to fall off of it. Since these things are loose or weak, we can assume that the zav caused the object to fall and therefore the object becomes unclean. Many of these items were mentioned in mishnah 3:1 (and their opposites in 3:3). [Note that door seems to have crept into this mishnah twice. Clearly a mistake it probably belongs in the first half and not the second].", + "[If he knocked] against a chest, box or cupboard, they become unclean. Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon declare them clean in these cases. According to the first opinion these objects are not so sturdy and therefore it is likely that the zav caused them to fall. Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon believe that they are sturdy and therefore if something falls off of them, it probably was not due to the zav." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA zav who lies on something makes it unclean. Our mishnah deals with cases where a zav lies on multiple items do they all become impure, or can we isolate which one(s) he really laid upon?", + "A zav who lays across five benches, or five money-belts: If lengthwise, he [makes them] unclean; But breadthwise, they are clean. If the zav lies across the length of five benches or money-belts it is possible that at any one time most of his weight was on one of the benches or belts. Therefore, they are all impure. However, if he lies on them across their breadth then his weight is distributed equally among them all. Since he didn't lie on any one of them, they all remain pure.", + "If he slept [on them], and it was doubful that he had turned over onto them, they are unclean. If he slept on the benches or the money-belts then they are impure even if he slept across their breadth because we don't know if he turned around a lot while sleeping. Since he might have put all of his weight on one, they are all impure.", + "If he was lying on six seats, with two hands on two [seats], two feet on another two, his head on one, with his body on another one, only that one on which his body lay is rendered unclean. Since the majority of his mass was on one of the seats, only that seat is unclean.", + "If [a zav] stood on two seats: Rabbi Shimon says: if these were distant one from the other, they remain clean. If the two seats are far apart from the other, then the zav would need both of them to stand on. Take one away and he would fall down. Since neither would support the full weight of the zav each remains pure. But if they were close together, at times the zav could shift all of his weight to one and then it would be defiled." + ], + [ + "Ten cloaks one on top of the other, if he sat on the uppermost one, all are unclean. When a zav sits (other versions read sleeps) on a pile of something, all of the things upon which he sat become impure, even though he only touched the upper most one.", + "A zav who was one one scale of a balance and in the other scale opposite there were objects fit to sit or lie upon: If the zav pushed them up, they are clean. But if they pushed him up, they are unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: if there was one object it becomes unclean, but if there were many they remain clean, since none of them had borne the greater part [of the zav's weight]. In mishnah 2:4 we learned that if another object causes a zav to be lifted up, that object becomes impure. So imagine a huge balance (maybe a seesaw?!) with a zav on one side and on the other side are things that one lies or sits upon. If he lifts them up they do not have midras impurity, because he didn't \"lean\" on them. However, since he did carry them they do have some impurity, just a lesser degree. If they push him up then he is considered as having leaned upon them, and they are impure. Rabbi Shimon says that if there are multiple objects on the opposite side of the scale, then they have all divided up his weight equally. Since none of them bear the majority of his weight they all remain pure." + ], + [ + "If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean. The food or liquids that are on the other side of the scale are lifted up by the weight of the zav. However, they do not have midras impurity, even if they are heavy enough to lift up the (lightweight) zav because midras impurity is only conveyed to objects that are designed to be sat or laid upon. Food and liquid are never susceptible to midras impurity. However, they are impure with first degree impurity, which is lighter than midras impurity.", + "In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man. The mishnah now begins to compare impurity conveyed by a dead body with the impurity conveyed by a zav. When a dead body is on one side of a balance and something else is on the other side, whatever is on the other side is not defiled because a dead body does not defile by sitting, laying or shifting without contact.", + "This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav. This is the general statement that sums up this mishnah sometimes the rules are stricter for a zav and sometimes they are stricter for a corpse. This is typical of the Mishnah it loves to compare laws governing different yet similar cases.", + "For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed. There are two types of uncleanness conveyed by a zav that are not conveyed by a corpse. The first is that a zav conveys uncleanness by sitting or lying on things, such that those items now convey uncleanness even to people and clothing. Furthermore, a zav defiles things that are placed on top of him even if he doesn’t touch them. This impurity is called \"madaf\" and it probably comes from the word for \"shelf\" madaf in Hebrew. This impurity is relatively light for these items defile other food and liquids but they wouldn't defile clothing and people. Again, a dead body wouldn't defile in this way.", + "Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed. A dead body does defile by overhanging (an ohel). We learned about this extensively in Tractate Ohalot. This means that if something hangs over both a corpse and a clean object the impurity of the corpse goes to the clean object. A zav doesn't defile in this way." + ], + [ + "If he sat on a bed and there were four cloaks under the four legs of the bed, all become unclean, since the bed cannot stand on three legs; But Rabbi Shimon declares them clean. Since the bed can't stand without all four legs, we have to look at each leg of the bed as if it carries the full weight of the zav. Therefore, all four cloaks are impure because he sat on all four of them. Rabbi Shimon says that all four of the cloaks are clean. This is because none of them bears the zav's full weight. Since his weight is evenly distributed among the four legs, they all remain pure.", + "If he rode on a beast and there were four cloaks under the legs of the beast, they are clean, since the beast can stand upon three legs. In contrast to a table, an animal can stand on three legs, so any one leg is not necessary for bearing the weight of the zav.", + "If there was one cloak under its two forelegs or its two hindlegs, or under a foreleg and a hindleg, it becomes unclean. But a beast cannot stand on two legs. Therefore, if the cloak is underneath any of the two legs, then it is considered to bear the full weight of the zav and it is unclean.", + "Rabbi Yose says: a horse conveys uncleanness through its hindlegs and a donkey through its forelegs, since a horse leans upon its hindlegs and a donkey upon its forelegs. According to Rabbi Yose a horse bears its weight on its hindlegs and a donkey's weight is borne on its forelegs. Therefore, if the cloak is under the horse's hindlegs or the donkey's forelegs it is impure. But if not, it remains pure.", + "If he sat on a beam of an olive-press, the vessels in the olive-press receptacle are unclean. Since the zav presses down on the olive press, the olives are impure.", + "[If he sat] on a clothing press, the garments beneath it are clean. Rabbi Nehemiah declares them unclean. Unlike an olive press, a clothing press is already closed tight. When the zav sits on the clothing press, he doesn't really press down on the garments. Therefore, they remain clean. Rabbi Nehemiah holds that the zav does press down on the clothing press and the clothing inside and therefore they are defiled." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One who touches a zav, or whom a zav touches, who moves a zav or whom a zav moves, defiles by contact food and liquids and vessels that are rinsed, but not by carrying. A zav defiles through contact or through moving something or being moved by something. This mishnah discusses the level of impurity of the person whom he defiled. Such a person defiles food, liquids and vessels that \"are rinsed\" meaning vessels that can be purified by being put in a mikvah. This would include basically all vessels except earthenware, which can't become pure in a mikveh. The person defiled by a zav defiles only through actual contact she/he does not defile through carrying. She also does not defile other people just food and things.", + "A general principle was stated by Rabbi Joshua: anyone that defile garments while still in contact [with their source of uncleanness] also defiles foods and liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade; but they do not defile people or earthenware vessels. Rabbi Joshua formulates a general principle meant to aid in determining the level of impurity of certain people mentioned in the Torah. The Torah says about certain people, for instance one touched by a zav, that he must wash his clothes (see for instance Leviticus 15:5-11, 21-22, 27). When he is actually touching the zav or something the zav laid upon, his level of impurity is relatively high. He defiles food and liquids so that they have first degree impurity. And if he touches the hands of another person he gives them second degree impurity (we will return to the topic of hand impurity in the next tractate). However, he doesn't defile people or earthenware vessels, as was stated in section one.", + "After they separated from their source of uncleanness they defile liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and food and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade, but they do not defile garments. This is a continuation of Rabbi Joshua's general principle. Once the person has separated from the source of impurity, his ability to defile is lowered. He still defiles liquids so that they have first degree impurity. This is because liquids have a higher degree of susceptibility to impurity. However, he only defiles food and hands so that they have second degree impurity. This means that the food is only affected if it is terumah. If it is regular produce, it is unaffected. These people do not defile garments or any other vessels for they are treated as if they have first degree impurity and people with first degree impurity do not defile vessels or people." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah provides some general rules as to how a zav defiles things that are either above him or below him that he does not touch.", + "They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. This section describes the general rule. Anything above a zav is defiled but things that are below him are defiled only if they were meant for sitting or lying upon, except for a person who carries a zav who is also defiled. The rest of the mishnah will illustrate this principle.", + "How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. The mishnah now begins to demonstrate how this defilement is conveyed. A zav has his finger underneath a row of stones (ouch!) and on top of the row of stones is a pure person. The pure person is considered to be carried by the zav. The pure person now becomes a \"father of impurity.\" Anything he touches will have first degree impurity and anything touched by it will have second degree impurity. If the object with second degree impurity touches terumah the terumah is disqualified (see Kelim 19:4). This is in general a description of the defiling power of one who is considered to be a father of impurity. If the pure person moves away from the row of stones or the zav removes his hand then the pure person will only have first degree impurity. Anything he touches will have second degree impurity and any terumah that it touches will be disqualified.", + "If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. The same rules apply if the zav was on top of the row of stones and the finger of the pure person was below.", + "If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If the zav is below and something that is meant to be sat upon or food or any article (called in Hebrew a madaf) was above, he defiles them with only first degree impurity. This doesn't change if the source of impurity is removed. [I should note that I have explained this according to most commentators, but they printed editions of the Mishnah have a different reading].", + "All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean. However, if the zav is above and something meant to be sat or lied upon is below him, he defiles them such that they become fathers of impurity. Even if the source of impurity is removed, they remain fathers of impurity. However, he only conveys impurity to things that are meant to be sat or lied upon. If below him are foods, liquids or other articles not meant to be sat upon, they remain pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah compares how three objects, (1) something that a zav has sat or laid upon, (2) carrion and (3) a piece of a human corpse, defile without contact.", + "Whatever carries or is carried by objects on which one sits or lies upon remain clean, except for a person. Anything that carries an object that was laid upon by a zav without touching it or is carried by it, meaning it was above and the thing the zav laid or sat upon was below, remains clean. The only exception is a person. If a person carries or is carried by something upon which a zav sat or laid, the person is impure, even if he didn't touch it.", + "Whatever carries or is carried by carrion is clean, except for one that shifts it. Rabbi Eliezer says: also one that carries it. The mishnah compares this situation with that of carrion meat from an animal that had not been slaughtered properly. Whatever carries or is carried upon carrion (no pun intended, I promise) remains pure (as long as he didn't touch it). The only exception is a person who shifts the carrion. He is impure, even if he doesn't touch it. Rabbi Eliezer says that also one who carries carrion is impure, even if he didn't move it.", + "Whatever carries or is carried upon a corpse remains clean, except for one that overshadows, or a person when he shifts it. A corpse or piece thereof also doesn't convey impurity to someone through carrying or being carried. But it does convey impurity through overshadowing or through shifting even if the corpse has not been touched." + ], + [ + "If part of an unclean person rests upon a clean person, or part of a clean person upon an unclean person, or if things connected to an unclean person [rest] upon a clean person, or if things connected to a clean person upon one unclean, he becomes unclean. If part of a zav, such as his finger, rests upon a clean person, or vice versa, the clean person is defiled. \"Things connected\" to a person refer to his hair, teeth or fingernails. They are not flesh, but they are part of a person. The mishnah teaches that even if one of these parts rests upon another person, impurity is conveyed.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if part of an unclean person is upon a clean person, he is unclean; but if part of a clean person is upon one that is unclean, he is clean. Rabbi Shimon rules that impurity is conveyed only if part of the unclean person, the zav, is on the clean person. This is because this is the typical way that impurity is conveyed by a zav by him sitting or lying or resting upon something. But the opposite is not true. If a clean person rests a part of his body on a zav, he remains clean." + ], + [ + "If an unclean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, or a clean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, it becomes unclean. There are two situations referred to here. In the first case most of the zav (the unclean person) is resting on part of a clean object that is fit to lie upon. In the second case, most of the clean person is resting upon part of an object fit to lie upon that has been defiled by a zav. In both cases the impurity is conveyed, either to the object in case one or the person in case two. The mishnah will explain below in section three that the impurity of the zav can enter the entire object through the small part of the object upon which the zav lies. It can also go out of the object through the small part of the object upon which the pure person lies.", + "If part of an unclean person rests on an object fit to lie upon, or part of a clean person rests upon an object fit to lie upon, it remains clean. But if only a small part of the unclean person is on the object or only part of the clean person is on the unclean object, then he remains pure, because the object is only defiled if it bears most of the weight of the zav (see 4:4). Similarly, the pure person is not defiled unless the impure object bears most of his weight.", + "Thus we find that impurity enters it and goes out of it by its lesser part. This section provides the rule that explains section one impurity can go in and out of the object fit to lie upon even threw a small part of that object.", + "Similarly, if a loaf of terumah was placed upon an object fit to lie upon [that was unclean] and there paper in between, whether it was above or below, it remains clean. The word \"similarly\" does not really belong here. It is missing in some versions of the Mishnah. In mishnah 3 we learned that impurity through \"carriage\" being carried without touching is conveyed only to a human being by an object upon which a zav has lain. So if a loaf of terumah is either on top of an object which a zav lied upon or that object is on top of it, and there is a piece of paper separating them so that they don't touch, the loaf of terumah remains pure. The loaf of terumah is impure only if it touches the object.", + "Similarly, in the case of a stone with scale disease it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon pronounced such a case unclean. The same is true if the loaf of terumah is on top of a stone that has contracted a \"nega\" scale disease. As long as the paper prevents contact, the loaf is pure. Rabbi Shimon says that in this case the loaf of terumah is impure. A stone with a nega conveys impurity through being in an ohel overshadowing. Since the stone overshadows the loaf or vice versa, the loaf is impure." + ], + [ + "He who touches a zav, or a zavah, a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, or any object on which these had been sitting or lying, conveys uncleanness at two [removes] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. The person who touches one of these five people (a metzora is one with skin disease, see Negaim) or something that sat or laid upon is a \"father of impurity.\" Anything he touches has first degree impurity and anything it touches has second degree impurity. Terumah that touches something with second degree impurity is disqualified.", + "If he separated, he still conveys uncleanness at one [remove], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. When he separates from the source of impurity his level of impurity is lowered to first degree impurity. He conveys impurity at one only remove and disqualifies terumah at two removes.", + "This is true whether he had touched, or had shifted, or had carried, or was carried. The above is true no matter how he contacted the impurity. He need not actually touch the source of impurity." + ], + [ + "If one touches the discharge of a zav, his spittle, semen or urine, or the blood of a menstruant, he conveys uncleanness at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; Liquids from a zav's body, including his genital discharge, his spit, his semen and his urine defile as does the zav himself. They make one who touches or moves them into a \"father of impurity.\"", + "If he separated, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. Once he separates from the source of impurity, he has first degree impurity.", + "This is the case whether he had touched or moved it. Rabbi Eliezer said: also if he had carried it. These substances defile only through contact and shifting. They do not, according to the first opinion, defile by carrying or by being carried. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that they do defile one who carries them. This was the same dispute that Rabbi Eliezer had with the sages in mishnah three." + ], + [ + "If he carried something which was ridden upon, or if he was carried on it, or he had shifted it, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated [from the uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. A person who carries or is carried by something upon which a zav rode upon becomes a \"father of impurity.\" This is because it is written in the Torah that he must wash his clothes (Leviticus 15:10; see 5:1). Therefore he defiles at two removes and disqualifies terumah at one more remove. Once he separates from the source of impurity, he has only first degree impurity. Note that if he touches something rode upon by a zav, he only has first degree impurity.", + "If he carried nevelah (, or the hatat waters sufficient for a sprinkling, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated, ,he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. The same is true for one who carries (actually shifts, see mishnah 3) nevelah (an animal slaughtered in a non-kosher manner) or one who carries the \"hatat waters\" (the waters into which the ashes of the red heifer had been mixed). This last rule is also found in Parah 12:5." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah talks about a person who eats the nevelah (carrion) of a clean bird. In Toharot 1:1 we learned that this carrion defiles him once it is in his gullet. There are more details about the laws governing the carrion of a clean bird in that mishnah, for those of you who are very interested.", + "He who ate nevelah of a clean bird, and it still is in his gullet, defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. When the nevelah of the clean bird is in his gullet, he is a father of impurity.", + "If he put his head within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean. Despite the fact that he is a father of impurity, if he puts his head into the air-space of an oven, he doesn't defile the oven. This is because a person who is defiled such that he must wash his clothes does not defile earthenware vessels. Note that the oven can generally be defiled by something impure entering its air space. Furthermore, once the carrion is in the gullet of the person, it only defiles the person. Because it's inside him it doesn't go out of him and defile the oven.", + "But if he vomited or swallowed it, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] unfit at one [more remove]. The nevelah only makes him into a father of impurity when in it is in his gullet. If he expels it, or swallows it, he goes down a notch in impurity to having only first degree impurity.", + "But as long as it is still in his mouth, until he swallows it, he remains clean. When it's just in his mouth, he is clean. It only begins to defile him once it has entered his gullet." + ], + [ + "He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting, or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling, or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. All of these substances are \"fathers of impurity.\" One who touches one of them contracts first degree impurity. This same list was mostly found in Kelim 1:1, so one can find a more detailed explanation there. They also defile only by contact and not by carrying. Finally, none of these says that the person must wash his clothes.", + "This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a \"father of uncleanness\" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human. The only exception to this general rule is one who touches a dead body. Such a person is a \"father of impurity\" and therefore defiles at two removes and disqualifies terumah at one additional remove.", + "If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove]. In all of these cases, once he separates from the source of impurity he has \"first degree impurity.\" This is true even if the source of impurity was a dead body. Since he has separated from it, his impurity is reduced." + ], + [ + "He who has had a seminal emission is like one who has touched a dead sheretz. This mishnah compares the impurity levels of various people. A man who has had a seminal emission has the same rules of impurity as one who touched a dead sheretz. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, such a person has first degree impurity.", + "And one who has had sex with a menstruant is like one who has suffered corpse uncleanness. But a person who has had sex with a niddah, a woman while menstruating, has a higher degree of impurity he is a father of impurity. Note that all of these laws are learned from midrashim on the Torah. They are in no way value statements, saying that having a seminal emission is akin to touching a dead sheretz or that having sex with a menstruant is worse (although it is forbidden). The mishnah is only interested in comparing levels of impurity.", + "But one who has had sex with a menstruant is more stringent in that he conveys minor grades of uncleanness to what he lies or sits upon, so as to make foods and liquids unclean. A man who has sex with a menstruant has certain purity stringencies related to him that do not relate to a person who has corpse impurity. The former conveys a light form of impurity to anything he sits or lies upon in order for it to defile food or liquids (see Kelim 1:3). A person with corpse impurity does not defile in this manner, unless he touches that which he sits or lies upon." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of this tractate (I'm sure you're sad we're done) discusses what things disqualify terumah. These things don't actually defile the terumah. Rather, the rabbis added a layer of stringency with regard to their impurity such that they would render terumah unfit for use.", + "The following disqualify terumah:
One who eats foods with first degree uncleanness; Or one who eats food with second degree uncleanness; And who drinks unclean liquids. From Torah law (deorayta) food and liquid cannot defile a person. Nevertheless, the rabbis decreed that one who eats impure food or drinks impure liquids should be defiled enough such that he would disqualify terumah. This seems to be a way to discourage people who want to eat terumah (kohanim) from eating or drinking impure foods and liquids.", + "And the one who has immersed his head and the greater part of him in drawn water; And a clean person upon whose head and greater part of him there fell three logs of drawn water; In order to distinguish between the purity imparted by the waters of the mikveh (which cannot be drawn), and waters that are drawn, the rabbis decreed that a person who either immersed in drawn waters or upon whom drawn waters fell would disqualify terumah. For more information on this see Toharot 4:11.", + "And a scroll [of Holy Scriptures], And [unwashed] hands; We will learn more about these two categories when we learn Tractate Yadayim (after Tevul Yom, which we start learning tomorrow).", + "And one that has had immersion that same day; Luckily, the very next tractate is about this category of person, so stay tuned.", + "And foods and vessels which have become defiled by liquids. Liquids have greater power to defile than do solids. So if clean food or a vessel has contact with an unclean liquid, the clean food or vessel remains clean but it disqualifies terumah. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Zavim! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Zavim was not easy, that's for sure, perhaps one of the most obscure and strange topics we've talked about yet. To be honest, I'm not even sure what the larger lessons are that I would draw from the tractate as a whole. Perhaps I might end with some speculation as to why the Torah states that abnormal genital discharge (zivah) defiles. Much has been written about the subject of impurity, and there are many conflicting theories that attempt to explain why things are impure and others are not. In my opinion, the most cogent theory is that impurity seems to be connected largely to moments of birth and death. Birth and death are natural processes in life, but they are fraught with danger and power. Abnormal genital discharge is almost like death or at least as the Torah may have perceived it to be so. The material was supposed to have the power to create life (semen) but something went wrong. It is also likely that impurity marks transitions. Impurity is neither good nor bad there is nothing wrong with being impure. But being impure has symbolic significance, and at times, impurity is especially powerful when something is out of place. While this may not explain all forms of impurity, it does explain some of them. For further reading I would suggest looking at the works of Mary Douglas, Jacob Milgrom or Jonathan Klawans. Impurity can be a much more interesting subject than you might have thought. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Tevul Yom." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה זבים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a76632a8806ae39b4a28cccc8aba7c118f6a17cc --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,234 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Zavim", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "A \"zav\" is a man who had a non-seminal genital discharge, assumedly do to some illness. When a man has two such discharges, he must count seven days before he can go to the mikveh and become pure, however he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice unless he sees three times in one day or for three days straight. A zav and a zavah (a woman who had non-menstrual blood), a niddah and a woman who gave birth defile things by contact, by carrying and by shifting. This is true whether the pure person carries or shifts the impure person without contact or vice versa, the impure person carries or shifts the pure person. This is unique to the category of zavim for in other cases of impurity, the impurity is conveyed only if the pure person carries the impure. The following words will consistently be written in transliteration: 1) Zav—male with non-seminal genital discharge. 2) Zavah—female with non-menstrual blood. 3) Zivah—the discharge itself. 4) Zov—same as zivah. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes day a for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. The two houses disagree in this mishnah concerning a man who had one emission of discharge of zov (see intro for all terms). According to Bet Shammai his status is like a woman who had an emission of zivah one time. Such a woman must wait a day and if she is pure that day, she will be pure at the end of the day. If she sees zivah for three straight days then she will be a full zavah. So too a man who saw one issue of zov must wait a day to see if he sees another issue. If he does, he is a zav and he will retroactively defile everything he touched, laid upon or sat upon from the time he saw the first issue. One who shifts the zov itself is also defiled. Bet Hillel says that a man who has had one issue of zov has the same status as one who has had a seminal emission. He does not defile things by laying on them or sitting on them and one who shifts the semen is not defiled. If he sees a second time, then he is a zav, but only from that point and onward.", + "Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. As we learned in the introduction, a full zav is one who saw three issues in one day or one issue for three straight days. The two houses here debate concerning a man who saw three issues, but not in one day or in three straight days. According to Bet Shammai this person is considered a full zav, for the first sighting of zov counts with the second two. Not only is he impure and must immerse in living water, but he is also liable to bring a sacrifice. Bet Hillel says that the discharge on the first day does not count together with the discharges that came two days later. Therefore, he is considered as if he had seen discharge only twice. He defiles through lying or sitting and he must immerse in living waters (a live spring, not a mikveh), as must a zav, but he is not liable for a sacrifice.", + "Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah disagrees with the version of this dispute contained in section two. According to him since he only saw zov once and then had a day in which he was pure, the sightings on the third day do not join the sighting on the first day.", + "What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah says that the disagreement is concerning a slightly different situation. He saw zov twice on the first day, or one discharge that counted as twice. Now he is clearly a zav, although he is not yet liable for a sacrifice. If he sees discharge again on the third day, Bet Shammai says that since he is already a zav, this sighting joins with the first two and he is a full zav. Bet Hillel maintains their opinion that unless he sees for three straight days or three times on one day, he is not a full zav." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA zav must wait for seven clean days to become pure. Our mishnah deals with a man who during those seven days in which he is supposed to be clean sees a discharge of semen.", + "If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Bet Shammai holds that if he has a seminal discharge on the third day of waiting to become clean from his zov, the first two days of cleanness are undone. He must now start his count over again. Bet Hillel says it only undoes the day on which he experienced the discharge. After that day he may resume his count.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. Rabbi Ishmael says that even Bet Hillel agrees that if one sees a seminal discharge on the second day, it undoes the first day. He must have two days of cleanness for them not to be undone.", + "But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael and maintains that according to Bet Hillel it doesn't matter whether the seminal discharge occurred on the third or second day; in both cases Bet Hillel holds that it causes only that day not to count.", + "But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. The two houses agree that if he counted three full days of cleanness, they are not undone by seeing a seminal discharge. This is because three days is the amount of time it takes one to become a zav in the first place.", + "This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded. However, this is only true if he had a discharge of semen. The two houses argue whether and when a discharge of semen undoes the clean period for a zav. But if he sees another issue of zov, clearly this undoes the entire clean period and he must start the count all over again." + ], + [ + "If he saw one issue on one day and two on the next day, or two on one day and one on the next day, or three on three [consecutive] days, or three nights, he is a full zav. This mishnah lays out the bottom line rule with regard to what is required for a person to become a full zav. If he has a three discharges on up to three days or nights straight, no matter what the combo, he is a full zav. He must bring a sacrifice at the end of his period of cleanness. We should note that this is different from a zavah. For a woman to become a zavah she must have non-menstrual blood flow on three consecutive days. Three times on one day does not make her a zavah." + ], + [ + "If he saw one [issue] and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he saw two issues, or one as copious as two;
Or if he saw two [issues] or one as copious as two, and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he again saw an issue, he is a full zav.
This mishnah deals with the question of how to determine if one discharge should be divided into two. In other words, how long must there be between discharges for them to count as two?
The answer in both of these cases is that if the flow stops long enough for him to have immersed and then dried off, the second flow is considered to be new." + ], + [ + "If he saw one issue which was as copious as three, lasting as long [as it takes to go] from Gad-Yav to Shiloah, which is the time it would take to bathe and dry twice, he becomes a full zav. The mishnah now mentions the possibility that a man could have one issue of zov (discharge) and it would be sufficient to count as all three issues necessary to become a full zav. The discharge would have to last long enough to bathe and dry twice, once in between each issue, had they been separate. In addition, the mishnah defines this as the time it would take to walk from a place called Gad Yavan to the Shiloah spring in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, we don't know where \"Gad Yavan\" is. But assumedly it is near the Shiloah spring, the source of water for the ancient city of Jerusalem.", + "If he saw one issue which was as copious as two, he defiles [objects] on which he lies or sits and he must immerse in running water, but he is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. One issue can count as two to make a man into a zav, but not a full zav. The difference between a full zav and a zav is that a full zav must bring a sacrifice at the end of his period of cleanness.", + "Rabbi Yose said: they have not spoken of \"one issue as copious\" unless there was sufficient to make up three. Rabbi Yose said that there is no legal consequences to seeing one issue of zov that is as copious as two. Either the issue was as copious as three, in which case he would be a full zav, or it would count as only one. This means that Rabbi Yose would disagree with most of the mishnayot that we have seen so far in this chapter." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a man who has an issue at twilight. The question is does the change of day divide one issue into two issues?", + "If he saw one issue during the day and another at twilight, or one at twilight and the other the next day: If he knew that part of the issue occurred at day-time and part the next day, he is certain with regard to a sacrifice and uncleanness. But if it is in doubt whether part [of the issue] occurred at day-time and part on the next day he is certain with regard to uncleanness, but in one of doubt in with regard a sacrifice. In this case a person had an issue of zov during the day and then another at twilight, a time which is not easy to determine as either night or day. Or he had an issue at twilight and then another the following day. We need to determine whether the issue he had at twilight counts as two issues, such that he is now a full zav. Or does it count as only one, such that he is a zav, but not a full zav? If he knew that part of the issue that happened at twilight occurred during one day and part the next, then he would certainly be impure and he would certainly be liable for a sacrifice. We learn here that a new day causes one issue to be legally considered two. [We should note that I'm not sure if it's all that possible to know whether it occurred during one day or the next day. The mishnah wants to teach the principle, the turn of a day separates one sighting from another]. However, if he is not certain whether one occurred one day and the other the next, then there is doubt as to whether he has seen three issues or two. Since in any case he has seen two issues, he is certainly unclean for seven days, as is always the case with a person who saw two issues. However, since it is uncertain whether he has seen two issues or three, he is not liable to bring a sacrifice.", + "If he had seen issues on two separate days at twilight, he is in doubt both with regard to defilement and with regard to a sacrifice. In this case, he saw an issue for two days straight at twilight. It is possible therefore that an entire day interrupted between the first issue and the second. In such a case he wouldn't even be impure. His purity status is therefore doubtful. On the other hand, he might have seen three issues, one of them being divided by the turn of the day into two. Therefore, he might be liable for a sacrifice. His status vis a vis a sacrifice is therefore also doubtful.", + "If [he had seen only] one issue at twilight, he is in doubt [also] with regard to [his] defilement. One issue seen at twilight is enough to create a doubt with regard to his purity status, for the turn of the day could divide the issue into being considered two issues. However, there is no possibility to consider this to be three sightings. Clearly, he is not liable for a sacrifice." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "All persons become unclean through zivah, even converts, even slaves whether freed or not, a deaf-mute, a person of unsound senses, and a minor, a eunuch whether [he had been castrated] by man, or was a eunuch from [the time of seeing] the sun. The laws of becoming unclean through seeing zivah (zov) apply to any Jew of any status, including converts, freed and non-freed slaves and people who legally are considered as lacking awareness. They apply to all males, even those who have been castrated, either by another human being or were born as eunuchs.", + "With regard to a tumtum and an androgynous [person], they place upon him the stringencies for a man and the stringencies for a woman: they defile through blood like a woman, and through eggy [substance] like a man. Their uncleanness still remains in doubt. The laws of being a zav apply only to a man and the laws of being a zavah apply only to a woman. They also work differently. Our mishnah asks what to do with two categories of people who exist somewhere in between, neither male nor female? A tumtum does not have signs of being either male or female whereas an androgynous person has both (according to the rabbinic definition). The rule with regard to the stringencies that apply to either sex apply to them. So if they have blood flow, it defiles as it does for a woman. And if they have zov discharge (eggy substance) then they defile as it does for a man. However, the status of their defilement is doubtful. For if they see blood, they might be a male for whom blood does not defile. And if they see a discharge of zov, they might be female for whom such discharge does not defile. Therefore, in either case they only doubtfully defile." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nZivah comes only from a genital disease or dysfunction. The rabbis considered it to be in a sense diseased semen (I know, this sounds a bit humorous). It has a different color from semen. If the rabbis could establish that the zivah came from another cause besides some genital disease, then they didn't consider it be zivah. Our mishnah talks about what else we could attribute the zivah to.", + "There are seven ways in which a zav is examined as long as he had not become subject to zivah: When a person sees zivah, he can come to an expert and the expert could tell him that the appearance of the zivah is due to some other cause, not actual genital disease. If they find another reason as to why it occurred, they can keep him from becoming pure. However, this only works before he has become a zav, as we shall see at the end of this mishnah. Once he has already been declared a zav, the zivah can't be attributed to anything else.", + "With regard to food, drink, as [to what] he had carried, whether he had jumped, whether he had been ill, what he had seen, or what he had thought. There are seven other things to which the rabbis attribute the appearance of zivah. Most of these are self-explanatory. Seeing refers to seeing a woman and having some sexual thoughts about her. \"What he had thought\" refers to having sexual thoughts about a woman. The rabbis also thought that the zivah could have been a result of eating some food, drink or carrying something, perhaps heavy.", + "[It doesn't matter] whether he had thoughts before seeing [a woman], or whether he had seen [a woman] before his thoughts. It doesn't matter whether he had the sexual thoughts before or after he saw the woman in both cases, we can attribute the appearance of zivah to his sexual thoughts and not to genital disease.", + "Rabbi Judah says: even if he had watched beasts, wild animals or birds having intercourse with each other, and even when he had seen a woman's dyed garments. Evidently, Rabbi Judah assumes that a man might be sexually aroused by seeing animals have sex or by seeing colored women's clothing. Therefore, if he saw any of these and then saw zivah, we can attribute it to sexual arousal and not disease.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: even if he had eaten any kind of food, be it good or bad, or had drunk any kind of liquid. They said to him: Then there will be no zavim in the world!’ He replied to them: you are not held responsible for the existence of zavim!’ Rabbi Akiva is willing to attribute the appearance of zivah to anything whatsoever. As his students note, this will make it so there will never be any more zavim in the world. Remarkably, Rabbi Akiva responds that if his definition of zivah and why it occurs should make it such that there are no more zavim, then so be it. To me, this is the ultimate statement of Rabbi Akiva's belief that law trumps reality. If he, the rabbi, dictates that we can attribute zivah to eating or drinking anything and it results in there never being any more zavim, then so be it.", + "Once he had become subject to zivah, no further examination takes place. If he has already seen zivah twice, then there is no more room to attribute it to anything else. In other words, these questions must be asked immediately, not after he is already considered a zav.", + "[Zov] resulting from an accident, or that was at all doubtful, or an issue of semen, these are unclean, since there are grounds for the assumption [that it is zivah]. If he has a seminal emission at the outset and a little bit of zivah also comes out, this zivah is not impure for one who has an emission does not defile through zivah for a 24 hour period. In other words, until he is decidedly impure the semen purifies the zivah, which is considered to have been an \"accident.\" However, after he has already seen zivah, a seminal emission does not purify the zivah, for we can't assume that the zivah was a result of the semen. Therefore, in this case it counts as seeing zivah.", + "If he had at a first [issue] they examine him; On the second [issue] they examine him, but on the third [issue] they don't examine him. Rabbi Eliezer says: even on the third [issue] they examine him because of the sacrifice. If he saw zivah one time, they examine him as we explained above. If he saw it again, they can examine him again to see if they can attribute it to something else. But if he saw it a third time (without having been examined the first two times), they don't examine him, for after the second time he was already a zav. Rabbi Eliezer says they even examine him after the third time to ascertain that he is truly liable for a sacrifice. If he experienced the third issue for some other reason, then he is not liable for the sacrifice, even though he is a zav." + ], + [ + "One who had [a discharge of] semen does not defile due to zivah for a period of twenty-four hours. Rabbi Yose says: [only] that day. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if a man has a seminal emission, for the next twenty-four hours any zivah is attributed to the semen; he does not defile as does a zav. Rabbi Yose says that this \"grace\" period is just during that day, the day on which he had a seminal emission. If the following day he has a flow of zov, he is impure, even if this is less than 24 hours after the seminal emission.", + "A non-Jew who had a discharge of semen and then converted, he immediately becomes unclean due to zivah. When a non-Jew converts, all of the things that happened to him as a non-Jew no longer count towards his status. So if he had a seminal emission before he converted, and then he converted, the seminal emission does not purify the zivah that he sees after he has converted (welcome to Judaism!). This is summed up by the saying that \"a person who converts is like a newborn child.\" He starts afresh and seminal emissions that he had as a non-Jew no longer count (bet you never knew that one before!).", + "[A woman] who had [an issue] of blood, or had experienced difficulty [in childbirth], [the time prescribed] is twenty-four hours. A woman who sees menstrual blood defiles things that she has had contact with in the past 24 hours. This is a halakhah we saw throughout tractate Niddah. A woman who has labor pains cannot be a zavah even if she has seen zivah. However, if there are 24 hours in which she doesn't have pains and then she sees zivah, then she can be considered a woman who has childbirth while she is a zavah (there are special rules concerning this scenario, see Niddah 4:4).", + "One who strikes his slave, the \"day or two\" is twenty-four hours. The next two sections are here only because they deal with other cases in which a 24 hour waiting period is relevant. If a person strikes his slave and the slave is okay for 24 hours, and then he dies, the owner is exempt (Exodus 21:21). The rabbis understand \"a day or two\" to be a 24 hour waiting period.", + "A dog that eats a corpse's flesh, for three days from one time of day to the same time of day, it is considered to be in its natural state. If a dog eats the flesh of a human corpse, the flesh continues to defile as human flesh for three days, from the time of day in which it was eaten. After that, it no longer defiles because it is no longer considered to be human flesh." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with how a zav defiles things.", + "A zav defiles the objects that are lain upon (or sat in five ways, so that they defile people and garments: by standing, sitting, lying, hanging or leaning. A zav can defile things that are lain upon or sat upon (such as chairs and couches) even though he hasn't touched them. The things that he defiles will then defile other people and clothing (see Leviticus 15:5-6). The five ways are: standing (he stands on the object, even if he doesn't touch it. Sitting and lying (even without touching). \"Hanging\" refers to a case where the zav is hanging because of the couch or chair. For instance, the chair is on one end of a balance and the zav on the other. If the zav is lifted up by the heavier chair, the chair is now impure. These five things are called \"midras hazav.\" The chair or couch is now a \"father of impurity\" and it will defile other people and garments. Note that simply touching something is not sufficient he must do one of these five things.", + "What he lies upon defiles a person in seven ways, so that he [in turn] defiles garments: by standing, sitting, lying, hanging, or leaning upon it, or by touching or carrying it. The couch or chair (or other such instrument) upon which he lied or sat (or one of the other ways of conveying impurity listed above) will defile people such that they in turn defile garments. Note that if it defiles garments, these garments do not defile people. The couch or chair defiles by standing on a person, by sitting or lying on a person, by being hanged by a person (see previous section) or by leaning on a person. These five are the same as those above. In addition, it also defiles by touching or by being carried by a pure person." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A zav and a clean person who sat together in a boat, or on a raft, or rode together on a beast, even though their garments did not touch, behold they are impure through midras. In this case the zav and a clean person are traveling together on a boat, raft or animal. The clothes of the pure person are defiled by the zav even if they didn't touch. There are two possible explanations for why. First of all, since these things are all moving, it is possible and even likely that the zav did indeed lean upon the clean person's clothing. Alternatively, the clean person could have caused the ship, raft or animal to lean in his direction which would cause the zav to go up. This is \"hanging\" explained in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If they sat together on a plank, on a bench or on a bed-frame, or on a beam, when these were not fixed tightly, [Or] if they had both climbed a weak tree, or [were swaying] on a weak branch of a strong tree; Or if they were both [climbing] on an Egyptian ladder which was not secured by a nail; Or if they sat together on a bridge, rafter or door, not secured by clay, they are unclean. Rabbi Judah says that they are clean. In all of these cases, the zav and the clean person sit on something loose. Since the zav's moving would cause the clean person to move as well, the clean person is defiled. This is called defilement through shifting. An alternative explanation is that this is the same as the case in section one. The clean person might cause the zav to go up and this is considered \"hanging.\"" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah deals with a series of cases in which a zav and a clean person are jointly performing some action. In each case, there is one opinion that holds that the clean person has been defiled, or might have been defiled, and there is one opinion that holds that only if the act was done under specific conditions is he considered defiled.", + "If they were both closing or opening [a door], [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: [he is not unclean] unless one was shutting and the other opening [it]. According to the first opinion, if they were both either opening or closing a door then the zav has shifted the clean person by applying pressure to the door. The clean person and his clothes are defiled. The sages hold that this is true only if they are pushing against each other. In such a case, it is likely that one has moved the other. But if both are opening or closing, then it is more likely that neither has moved the other, so the clean person remains pure.", + "If one was lifting the other out of a pit [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Judah says: only if the clean person was pulling out the unclean one. According to the first opinion, if the zav and pure person are helping each other climb out of a pit, then it is likely that the zav has lifted or shifted in some way the pure person. Therefore, he is defiled. Rabbi Judah says that the pure person is defiled only if the pure person is helping the zav get out of the pit. In such a case, the zav may have leaned on the pure person and defiled him. But if the zav is helping the pure person out of the pit, he is not defiled. Evidently, Rabbi Judah is lenient and holds that the zav must lean on the pure person to defile him. Simply moving him does not cause defilement. Note that Rabbi Judah was also lenient in yesterday's mishnah.", + "If they were twisting ropes together [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: unless the one pulled one way and the other pulled the other way. Again, the first opinion holds that by twisting ropes together the zav may have leaned upon or shifted the clean person and thereby defiled him. The sages rule that they have to be pulling in opposite directions, as was the case with the door in section one.", + "If they were both weaving together, whether they were standing or sitting, or grinding wheat, [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Shimon says [the clean person] in every case is pure, except where they [both] were grinding with a hand-mill. The first opinion holds that weaving or grinding together causes the zav to defile the clean person, either because he leans on him or he shifts him. Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently. The only case of defilement is when they grind together with a hand-mill.", + "If they [both] were unloading or loading a donkey, they are unclean if the load was heavy, but clean if the load was light. If they are both unloading a donkey and the load is heavy, then the zav would likely have leaned on the pure person and defiled him. But if the load is light, they could both unload independently and one has not leaned on the other.", + "In all cases, however, they are clean for members of the synagogue, but are unclean for terumah. In all of these cases, we can't be certain that the pure person is defiled. Therefore, he can sit with other members of the synagogue who are eating their non-sacred food in a state of purity. Since this behavior is only a stringency, and is not required by law, we can be lenient and let him eat with them. However, the Torah prohibits eating defiled terumah. Therefore, he cannot eat terumah. This last clause basically serves to clarify that in all of these cases the status of his impurity is doubtful, not certain." + ], + [ + "If the zav and the clean person sat together in a large boat: (what is considered a large boat? Rabbi Judah said: one that does not sway with a man's, or if they sat on a plank, bench, bed-frame, or beam when these were firmly secured; Or if they both climbed a strong tree, a firm branch, or a Tyrian ladder, or an Egyptian ladder fixed by a nail; Or if they sat on a bridge, rafter or door, when these were fastened with clay, even if only at one end, they remain clean. In all of these cases, since the things upon which the zav and clean person sat were stable, the zav has not moved the clean person. Therefore, the clean person remains clean. Note that most of this list is simply the opposite of those things listed in mishnah one. Either they were firmly secured, they were fixed by a nail or they were fastened in place by clay. In mishnah one, the opposite was always the case the various items were loose. Therefore the pure person became defiled.", + "If the clean one struck the unclean one, he still remains clean. But if the unclean one struck the clean one, he is impure; for [in that case] if the clean one drew back, the unclean one would have fallen. A clean person who strikes a zav remains clean because the zav has not moved the clean person. While it is possible that when hitting him the clean person leaned on the zav, since this is not certain, he remains clean. However, if the zav strikes the clean person he is in a sense leaning on the clean person, for if the clean person moves when the zav strikes him, the zav would fall down (and be embarrassed). Leaning on the clean person defiles him." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Rabbi Joshua said: if a menstruant sat in a bed with a clean woman, [even] the cap on her head contracts midras uncleanness. And if she sat in a boat, the vessels on the top of the mast [also] contract midras uncleanness. A niddah defiles in the same way that a zav and a zavah do. According to the rabbis in 3:1, when a niddah (or a zav) sits in the same bed (or boat or carriage) as does a pure person she defiles the other person's clothes because she might have stepped on them. Rabbi Joshua says that even the cap on the other person's head is defiled, even though the niddah definitely didn't step on the other woman's head. Similarly, if she sits in a boat, even the vessels on the top of the mast are unclean, even though she clearly didn't step on them. Rabbi Joshua rules more strictly than do the other sages.", + "If there was [on the boat] a tub full of clothes: If their weight was heavy, they become unclean, But if their weight was light, they remain clean. This section is also part of Rabbi Joshua's opinion. I have explained the section according to Albeck. If the clothes were heavy, then there is a possibility that they pushed the boat down on one side and therefore lifted up the niddah who was on the other side. As we learned in 2:4, if a zav (or zavah or niddah) is \"hung\" by something, the other thing becomes impure. However, if the tub of clothes is light, they remain pure because they wouldn't have caused the boat to shift. Note that Rabbi Judah does not automatically make the clothes impure, as he did in section one. Albeck explains that Rabbi Judah rules strictly only with regard to single pieces of clothing. When it comes to a tub of clothing, he rules more in line with the other sages.", + "If a zav knocked against a balcony and thereby caused a loaf of terumah to fall down, it remains clean. Although it seems that the zav caused the loaf of terumah to fall and thereby defiled it, the rabbis don't think that the zav really could have caused the stone balcony to shift. Rather, it must have been some movement in the ground that caused the loaf to fall. Therefore, it remains pure." + ], + [ + "If he knocked against a strong beam, a window-frame, water-pipe, a shelf, even though it was fixed with ropes, or an oven, a flour container, the lower mill-stone, the base of a hand-mill, or the se'ah measure of an olive-grinder, [the loaf remains clean]. In all of these cases there was a loaf of terumah bread sitting on one of these large items. A zav knocked against one of them and the loaf fell down. Since all of these items are set in their place we can attribute the loaf falling down to some force other than the zav. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, we can assume that the ground shifted.", + "Rabbi Yose adds: also [if he knocks] against the beam of the bath-keeper, it remains clean. Rabbi Yose adds that the same halakhah applies to the \"beam of a bath-keeper.\" This is the beam upon which it was customary for the bath-keeper to sit." + ], + [ + "If he knocked against a door, doorbolt, lock, oar, mill basket, or against a weak tree, or weak branch of a strong tree, or against an Egyptian ladder unsecured by nails, or against a bridge, beam or door, not made secure with clay, they become unclean. In all of these cases the zav knocks against something and thereby causes an object to fall off of it. Since these things are loose or weak, we can assume that the zav caused the object to fall and therefore the object becomes unclean. Many of these items were mentioned in mishnah 3:1 (and their opposites in 3:3). [Note that door seems to have crept into this mishnah twice. Clearly a mistake it probably belongs in the first half and not the second].", + "[If he knocked] against a chest, box or cupboard, they become unclean. Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon declare them clean in these cases. According to the first opinion these objects are not so sturdy and therefore it is likely that the zav caused them to fall. Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon believe that they are sturdy and therefore if something falls off of them, it probably was not due to the zav." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA zav who lies on something makes it unclean. Our mishnah deals with cases where a zav lies on multiple items do they all become impure, or can we isolate which one(s) he really laid upon?", + "A zav who lays across five benches, or five money-belts: If lengthwise, he [makes them] unclean; But breadthwise, they are clean. If the zav lies across the length of five benches or money-belts it is possible that at any one time most of his weight was on one of the benches or belts. Therefore, they are all impure. However, if he lies on them across their breadth then his weight is distributed equally among them all. Since he didn't lie on any one of them, they all remain pure.", + "If he slept [on them], and it was doubful that he had turned over onto them, they are unclean. If he slept on the benches or the money-belts then they are impure even if he slept across their breadth because we don't know if he turned around a lot while sleeping. Since he might have put all of his weight on one, they are all impure.", + "If he was lying on six seats, with two hands on two [seats], two feet on another two, his head on one, with his body on another one, only that one on which his body lay is rendered unclean. Since the majority of his mass was on one of the seats, only that seat is unclean.", + "If [a zav] stood on two seats: Rabbi Shimon says: if these were distant one from the other, they remain clean. If the two seats are far apart from the other, then the zav would need both of them to stand on. Take one away and he would fall down. Since neither would support the full weight of the zav each remains pure. But if they were close together, at times the zav could shift all of his weight to one and then it would be defiled." + ], + [ + "Ten cloaks one on top of the other, if he sat on the uppermost one, all are unclean. When a zav sits (other versions read sleeps) on a pile of something, all of the things upon which he sat become impure, even though he only touched the upper most one.", + "A zav who was one one scale of a balance and in the other scale opposite there were objects fit to sit or lie upon: If the zav pushed them up, they are clean. But if they pushed him up, they are unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: if there was one object it becomes unclean, but if there were many they remain clean, since none of them had borne the greater part [of the zav's weight]. In mishnah 2:4 we learned that if another object causes a zav to be lifted up, that object becomes impure. So imagine a huge balance (maybe a seesaw?!) with a zav on one side and on the other side are things that one lies or sits upon. If he lifts them up they do not have midras impurity, because he didn't \"lean\" on them. However, since he did carry them they do have some impurity, just a lesser degree. If they push him up then he is considered as having leaned upon them, and they are impure. Rabbi Shimon says that if there are multiple objects on the opposite side of the scale, then they have all divided up his weight equally. Since none of them bear the majority of his weight they all remain pure." + ], + [ + "If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean. The food or liquids that are on the other side of the scale are lifted up by the weight of the zav. However, they do not have midras impurity, even if they are heavy enough to lift up the (lightweight) zav because midras impurity is only conveyed to objects that are designed to be sat or laid upon. Food and liquid are never susceptible to midras impurity. However, they are impure with first degree impurity, which is lighter than midras impurity.", + "In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man. The mishnah now begins to compare impurity conveyed by a dead body with the impurity conveyed by a zav. When a dead body is on one side of a balance and something else is on the other side, whatever is on the other side is not defiled because a dead body does not defile by sitting, laying or shifting without contact.", + "This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav. This is the general statement that sums up this mishnah sometimes the rules are stricter for a zav and sometimes they are stricter for a corpse. This is typical of the Mishnah it loves to compare laws governing different yet similar cases.", + "For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed. There are two types of uncleanness conveyed by a zav that are not conveyed by a corpse. The first is that a zav conveys uncleanness by sitting or lying on things, such that those items now convey uncleanness even to people and clothing. Furthermore, a zav defiles things that are placed on top of him even if he doesn’t touch them. This impurity is called \"madaf\" and it probably comes from the word for \"shelf\" madaf in Hebrew. This impurity is relatively light for these items defile other food and liquids but they wouldn't defile clothing and people. Again, a dead body wouldn't defile in this way.", + "Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed. A dead body does defile by overhanging (an ohel). We learned about this extensively in Tractate Ohalot. This means that if something hangs over both a corpse and a clean object the impurity of the corpse goes to the clean object. A zav doesn't defile in this way." + ], + [ + "If he sat on a bed and there were four cloaks under the four legs of the bed, all become unclean, since the bed cannot stand on three legs; But Rabbi Shimon declares them clean. Since the bed can't stand without all four legs, we have to look at each leg of the bed as if it carries the full weight of the zav. Therefore, all four cloaks are impure because he sat on all four of them. Rabbi Shimon says that all four of the cloaks are clean. This is because none of them bears the zav's full weight. Since his weight is evenly distributed among the four legs, they all remain pure.", + "If he rode on a beast and there were four cloaks under the legs of the beast, they are clean, since the beast can stand upon three legs. In contrast to a table, an animal can stand on three legs, so any one leg is not necessary for bearing the weight of the zav.", + "If there was one cloak under its two forelegs or its two hindlegs, or under a foreleg and a hindleg, it becomes unclean. But a beast cannot stand on two legs. Therefore, if the cloak is underneath any of the two legs, then it is considered to bear the full weight of the zav and it is unclean.", + "Rabbi Yose says: a horse conveys uncleanness through its hindlegs and a donkey through its forelegs, since a horse leans upon its hindlegs and a donkey upon its forelegs. According to Rabbi Yose a horse bears its weight on its hindlegs and a donkey's weight is borne on its forelegs. Therefore, if the cloak is under the horse's hindlegs or the donkey's forelegs it is impure. But if not, it remains pure.", + "If he sat on a beam of an olive-press, the vessels in the olive-press receptacle are unclean. Since the zav presses down on the olive press, the olives are impure.", + "[If he sat] on a clothing press, the garments beneath it are clean. Rabbi Nehemiah declares them unclean. Unlike an olive press, a clothing press is already closed tight. When the zav sits on the clothing press, he doesn't really press down on the garments. Therefore, they remain clean. Rabbi Nehemiah holds that the zav does press down on the clothing press and the clothing inside and therefore they are defiled." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One who touches a zav, or whom a zav touches, who moves a zav or whom a zav moves, defiles by contact food and liquids and vessels that are rinsed, but not by carrying. A zav defiles through contact or through moving something or being moved by something. This mishnah discusses the level of impurity of the person whom he defiled. Such a person defiles food, liquids and vessels that \"are rinsed\" meaning vessels that can be purified by being put in a mikvah. This would include basically all vessels except earthenware, which can't become pure in a mikveh. The person defiled by a zav defiles only through actual contact she/he does not defile through carrying. She also does not defile other people just food and things.", + "A general principle was stated by Rabbi Joshua: anyone that defile garments while still in contact [with their source of uncleanness] also defiles foods and liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade; but they do not defile people or earthenware vessels. Rabbi Joshua formulates a general principle meant to aid in determining the level of impurity of certain people mentioned in the Torah. The Torah says about certain people, for instance one touched by a zav, that he must wash his clothes (see for instance Leviticus 15:5-11, 21-22, 27). When he is actually touching the zav or something the zav laid upon, his level of impurity is relatively high. He defiles food and liquids so that they have first degree impurity. And if he touches the hands of another person he gives them second degree impurity (we will return to the topic of hand impurity in the next tractate). However, he doesn't defile people or earthenware vessels, as was stated in section one.", + "After they separated from their source of uncleanness they defile liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and food and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade, but they do not defile garments. This is a continuation of Rabbi Joshua's general principle. Once the person has separated from the source of impurity, his ability to defile is lowered. He still defiles liquids so that they have first degree impurity. This is because liquids have a higher degree of susceptibility to impurity. However, he only defiles food and hands so that they have second degree impurity. This means that the food is only affected if it is terumah. If it is regular produce, it is unaffected. These people do not defile garments or any other vessels for they are treated as if they have first degree impurity and people with first degree impurity do not defile vessels or people." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah provides some general rules as to how a zav defiles things that are either above him or below him that he does not touch.", + "They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. This section describes the general rule. Anything above a zav is defiled but things that are below him are defiled only if they were meant for sitting or lying upon, except for a person who carries a zav who is also defiled. The rest of the mishnah will illustrate this principle.", + "How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. The mishnah now begins to demonstrate how this defilement is conveyed. A zav has his finger underneath a row of stones (ouch!) and on top of the row of stones is a pure person. The pure person is considered to be carried by the zav. The pure person now becomes a \"father of impurity.\" Anything he touches will have first degree impurity and anything touched by it will have second degree impurity. If the object with second degree impurity touches terumah the terumah is disqualified (see Kelim 19:4). This is in general a description of the defiling power of one who is considered to be a father of impurity. If the pure person moves away from the row of stones or the zav removes his hand then the pure person will only have first degree impurity. Anything he touches will have second degree impurity and any terumah that it touches will be disqualified.", + "If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. The same rules apply if the zav was on top of the row of stones and the finger of the pure person was below.", + "If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If the zav is below and something that is meant to be sat upon or food or any article (called in Hebrew a madaf) was above, he defiles them with only first degree impurity. This doesn't change if the source of impurity is removed. [I should note that I have explained this according to most commentators, but they printed editions of the Mishnah have a different reading].", + "All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean. However, if the zav is above and something meant to be sat or lied upon is below him, he defiles them such that they become fathers of impurity. Even if the source of impurity is removed, they remain fathers of impurity. However, he only conveys impurity to things that are meant to be sat or lied upon. If below him are foods, liquids or other articles not meant to be sat upon, they remain pure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah compares how three objects, (1) something that a zav has sat or laid upon, (2) carrion and (3) a piece of a human corpse, defile without contact.", + "Whatever carries or is carried by objects on which one sits or lies upon remain clean, except for a person. Anything that carries an object that was laid upon by a zav without touching it or is carried by it, meaning it was above and the thing the zav laid or sat upon was below, remains clean. The only exception is a person. If a person carries or is carried by something upon which a zav sat or laid, the person is impure, even if he didn't touch it.", + "Whatever carries or is carried by carrion is clean, except for one that shifts it. Rabbi Eliezer says: also one that carries it. The mishnah compares this situation with that of carrion meat from an animal that had not been slaughtered properly. Whatever carries or is carried upon carrion (no pun intended, I promise) remains pure (as long as he didn't touch it). The only exception is a person who shifts the carrion. He is impure, even if he doesn't touch it. Rabbi Eliezer says that also one who carries carrion is impure, even if he didn't move it.", + "Whatever carries or is carried upon a corpse remains clean, except for one that overshadows, or a person when he shifts it. A corpse or piece thereof also doesn't convey impurity to someone through carrying or being carried. But it does convey impurity through overshadowing or through shifting even if the corpse has not been touched." + ], + [ + "If part of an unclean person rests upon a clean person, or part of a clean person upon an unclean person, or if things connected to an unclean person [rest] upon a clean person, or if things connected to a clean person upon one unclean, he becomes unclean. If part of a zav, such as his finger, rests upon a clean person, or vice versa, the clean person is defiled. \"Things connected\" to a person refer to his hair, teeth or fingernails. They are not flesh, but they are part of a person. The mishnah teaches that even if one of these parts rests upon another person, impurity is conveyed.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if part of an unclean person is upon a clean person, he is unclean; but if part of a clean person is upon one that is unclean, he is clean. Rabbi Shimon rules that impurity is conveyed only if part of the unclean person, the zav, is on the clean person. This is because this is the typical way that impurity is conveyed by a zav by him sitting or lying or resting upon something. But the opposite is not true. If a clean person rests a part of his body on a zav, he remains clean." + ], + [ + "If an unclean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, or a clean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, it becomes unclean. There are two situations referred to here. In the first case most of the zav (the unclean person) is resting on part of a clean object that is fit to lie upon. In the second case, most of the clean person is resting upon part of an object fit to lie upon that has been defiled by a zav. In both cases the impurity is conveyed, either to the object in case one or the person in case two. The mishnah will explain below in section three that the impurity of the zav can enter the entire object through the small part of the object upon which the zav lies. It can also go out of the object through the small part of the object upon which the pure person lies.", + "If part of an unclean person rests on an object fit to lie upon, or part of a clean person rests upon an object fit to lie upon, it remains clean. But if only a small part of the unclean person is on the object or only part of the clean person is on the unclean object, then he remains pure, because the object is only defiled if it bears most of the weight of the zav (see 4:4). Similarly, the pure person is not defiled unless the impure object bears most of his weight.", + "Thus we find that impurity enters it and goes out of it by its lesser part. This section provides the rule that explains section one impurity can go in and out of the object fit to lie upon even threw a small part of that object.", + "Similarly, if a loaf of terumah was placed upon an object fit to lie upon [that was unclean] and there paper in between, whether it was above or below, it remains clean. The word \"similarly\" does not really belong here. It is missing in some versions of the Mishnah. In mishnah 3 we learned that impurity through \"carriage\" being carried without touching is conveyed only to a human being by an object upon which a zav has lain. So if a loaf of terumah is either on top of an object which a zav lied upon or that object is on top of it, and there is a piece of paper separating them so that they don't touch, the loaf of terumah remains pure. The loaf of terumah is impure only if it touches the object.", + "Similarly, in the case of a stone with scale disease it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon pronounced such a case unclean. The same is true if the loaf of terumah is on top of a stone that has contracted a \"nega\" scale disease. As long as the paper prevents contact, the loaf is pure. Rabbi Shimon says that in this case the loaf of terumah is impure. A stone with a nega conveys impurity through being in an ohel overshadowing. Since the stone overshadows the loaf or vice versa, the loaf is impure." + ], + [ + "He who touches a zav, or a zavah, a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, or any object on which these had been sitting or lying, conveys uncleanness at two [removes] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. The person who touches one of these five people (a metzora is one with skin disease, see Negaim) or something that sat or laid upon is a \"father of impurity.\" Anything he touches has first degree impurity and anything it touches has second degree impurity. Terumah that touches something with second degree impurity is disqualified.", + "If he separated, he still conveys uncleanness at one [remove], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. When he separates from the source of impurity his level of impurity is lowered to first degree impurity. He conveys impurity at one only remove and disqualifies terumah at two removes.", + "This is true whether he had touched, or had shifted, or had carried, or was carried. The above is true no matter how he contacted the impurity. He need not actually touch the source of impurity." + ], + [ + "If one touches the discharge of a zav, his spittle, semen or urine, or the blood of a menstruant, he conveys uncleanness at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; Liquids from a zav's body, including his genital discharge, his spit, his semen and his urine defile as does the zav himself. They make one who touches or moves them into a \"father of impurity.\"", + "If he separated, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. Once he separates from the source of impurity, he has first degree impurity.", + "This is the case whether he had touched or moved it. Rabbi Eliezer said: also if he had carried it. These substances defile only through contact and shifting. They do not, according to the first opinion, defile by carrying or by being carried. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that they do defile one who carries them. This was the same dispute that Rabbi Eliezer had with the sages in mishnah three." + ], + [ + "If he carried something which was ridden upon, or if he was carried on it, or he had shifted it, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated [from the uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. A person who carries or is carried by something upon which a zav rode upon becomes a \"father of impurity.\" This is because it is written in the Torah that he must wash his clothes (Leviticus 15:10; see 5:1). Therefore he defiles at two removes and disqualifies terumah at one more remove. Once he separates from the source of impurity, he has only first degree impurity. Note that if he touches something rode upon by a zav, he only has first degree impurity.", + "If he carried nevelah (, or the hatat waters sufficient for a sprinkling, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated, ,he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. The same is true for one who carries (actually shifts, see mishnah 3) nevelah (an animal slaughtered in a non-kosher manner) or one who carries the \"hatat waters\" (the waters into which the ashes of the red heifer had been mixed). This last rule is also found in Parah 12:5." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday's mishnah talks about a person who eats the nevelah (carrion) of a clean bird. In Toharot 1:1 we learned that this carrion defiles him once it is in his gullet. There are more details about the laws governing the carrion of a clean bird in that mishnah, for those of you who are very interested.", + "He who ate nevelah of a clean bird, and it still is in his gullet, defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. When the nevelah of the clean bird is in his gullet, he is a father of impurity.", + "If he put his head within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean. Despite the fact that he is a father of impurity, if he puts his head into the air-space of an oven, he doesn't defile the oven. This is because a person who is defiled such that he must wash his clothes does not defile earthenware vessels. Note that the oven can generally be defiled by something impure entering its air space. Furthermore, once the carrion is in the gullet of the person, it only defiles the person. Because it's inside him it doesn't go out of him and defile the oven.", + "But if he vomited or swallowed it, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] unfit at one [more remove]. The nevelah only makes him into a father of impurity when in it is in his gullet. If he expels it, or swallows it, he goes down a notch in impurity to having only first degree impurity.", + "But as long as it is still in his mouth, until he swallows it, he remains clean. When it's just in his mouth, he is clean. It only begins to defile him once it has entered his gullet." + ], + [ + "He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting, or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling, or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. All of these substances are \"fathers of impurity.\" One who touches one of them contracts first degree impurity. This same list was mostly found in Kelim 1:1, so one can find a more detailed explanation there. They also defile only by contact and not by carrying. Finally, none of these says that the person must wash his clothes.", + "This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a \"father of uncleanness\" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human. The only exception to this general rule is one who touches a dead body. Such a person is a \"father of impurity\" and therefore defiles at two removes and disqualifies terumah at one additional remove.", + "If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove]. In all of these cases, once he separates from the source of impurity he has \"first degree impurity.\" This is true even if the source of impurity was a dead body. Since he has separated from it, his impurity is reduced." + ], + [ + "He who has had a seminal emission is like one who has touched a dead sheretz. This mishnah compares the impurity levels of various people. A man who has had a seminal emission has the same rules of impurity as one who touched a dead sheretz. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, such a person has first degree impurity.", + "And one who has had sex with a menstruant is like one who has suffered corpse uncleanness. But a person who has had sex with a niddah, a woman while menstruating, has a higher degree of impurity he is a father of impurity. Note that all of these laws are learned from midrashim on the Torah. They are in no way value statements, saying that having a seminal emission is akin to touching a dead sheretz or that having sex with a menstruant is worse (although it is forbidden). The mishnah is only interested in comparing levels of impurity.", + "But one who has had sex with a menstruant is more stringent in that he conveys minor grades of uncleanness to what he lies or sits upon, so as to make foods and liquids unclean. A man who has sex with a menstruant has certain purity stringencies related to him that do not relate to a person who has corpse impurity. The former conveys a light form of impurity to anything he sits or lies upon in order for it to defile food or liquids (see Kelim 1:3). A person with corpse impurity does not defile in this manner, unless he touches that which he sits or lies upon." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of this tractate (I'm sure you're sad we're done) discusses what things disqualify terumah. These things don't actually defile the terumah. Rather, the rabbis added a layer of stringency with regard to their impurity such that they would render terumah unfit for use.", + "The following disqualify terumah:
One who eats foods with first degree uncleanness; Or one who eats food with second degree uncleanness; And who drinks unclean liquids. From Torah law (deorayta) food and liquid cannot defile a person. Nevertheless, the rabbis decreed that one who eats impure food or drinks impure liquids should be defiled enough such that he would disqualify terumah. This seems to be a way to discourage people who want to eat terumah (kohanim) from eating or drinking impure foods and liquids.", + "And the one who has immersed his head and the greater part of him in drawn water; And a clean person upon whose head and greater part of him there fell three logs of drawn water; In order to distinguish between the purity imparted by the waters of the mikveh (which cannot be drawn), and waters that are drawn, the rabbis decreed that a person who either immersed in drawn waters or upon whom drawn waters fell would disqualify terumah. For more information on this see Toharot 4:11.", + "And a scroll [of Holy Scriptures], And [unwashed] hands; We will learn more about these two categories when we learn Tractate Yadayim (after Tevul Yom, which we start learning tomorrow).", + "And one that has had immersion that same day; Luckily, the very next tractate is about this category of person, so stay tuned.", + "And foods and vessels which have become defiled by liquids. Liquids have greater power to defile than do solids. So if clean food or a vessel has contact with an unclean liquid, the clean food or vessel remains clean but it disqualifies terumah. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Zavim! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Zavim was not easy, that's for sure, perhaps one of the most obscure and strange topics we've talked about yet. To be honest, I'm not even sure what the larger lessons are that I would draw from the tractate as a whole. Perhaps I might end with some speculation as to why the Torah states that abnormal genital discharge (zivah) defiles. Much has been written about the subject of impurity, and there are many conflicting theories that attempt to explain why things are impure and others are not. In my opinion, the most cogent theory is that impurity seems to be connected largely to moments of birth and death. Birth and death are natural processes in life, but they are fraught with danger and power. Abnormal genital discharge is almost like death or at least as the Torah may have perceived it to be so. The material was supposed to have the power to create life (semen) but something went wrong. It is also likely that impurity marks transitions. Impurity is neither good nor bad there is nothing wrong with being impure. But being impure has symbolic significance, and at times, impurity is especially powerful when something is out of place. While this may not explain all forms of impurity, it does explain some of them. For further reading I would suggest looking at the works of Mary Douglas, Jacob Milgrom or Jonathan Klawans. Impurity can be a much more interesting subject than you might have thought. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Tevul Yom." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה זבים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Tahorot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה זבים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Zeraim/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah/Hebrew/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Seder Zeraim, Tel Aviv, 2008-2016.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Zeraim/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah/Hebrew/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Seder Zeraim, Tel Aviv, 2008-2016.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..39b189dd8423e984aedf2dd666d5ff6210bf4ac1 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Zeraim/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah/Hebrew/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Seder Zeraim, Tel Aviv, 2008-2016.json @@ -0,0 +1,1160 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002609942/NLI", + "versionTitle": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Seder Zeraim, Tel Aviv, 2008-2016", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "סדר זרעים, מאת שמואל ספראי וזאב ספראי, תל אביב. תשס\"ח-תשע\"ו", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://www.biupress.co.il/files/catalog/item/thumbsrc/110-20229.jpg", + "purchaseInformationURL": "https://www.biupress.co.il/index.php?dir=site&page=catalog&op=item&cs=1773", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה חלה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael", + "Seder Zeraim" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "פירוש מסכת חלה מסדר זרעים המונח לפני הקורא ללימוד ולעיון הוא המשך הסדרה של פירוש המשניות במסגרת פרויקט משנת ארץ ישראל. המסכתות הללו מסיימות את סדר זרעים והקדמנון מסיבות טכניות שונות. את תולדות הפרויקט ורשימת התודות סקרנו בכרכים הקודמים ולא נחזור על כל הפרטים. ", + "חובה נעימה היא לציין את עזרתם של תלמידים-חברים שעזרו בעיקר באיסוף האיורים, ד\"ר בועז זיסו, פרופ' חנן אשל ז\"ל, אליקים איטלי, בנותיי עדי ואסנת, מרדכי בר דרומא, ולאשתי דינה שהפכה לצלמת הבית וגם למפיקה של הפרויקט. לאחרונה הצטרף לצוות תלמיד-חבר נוסף, ד\"ר יואל פיקסלר, שתרומתו לגיוון האיורים רבה עד מאוד. על עיצוב העטיפה אנו מודים לנחמה שפילמן ולמיכל אלטמן מ\"עדי עיצובים\" שבביתי, בקבוצת יבנה. גברת רחל גרוסמן העתיקה עבורנו מכתב ידו של אבא את החלקים שכתב, ובעיקר את המשנה מדפוס נפולי, ועל העתקתה הנקייה היא ראויה לשבחים מיוחדים. חברתנו איילה אפרתי הגיהה שנית את העתקת הדפוס. לפרופ' שאול שטמפפר אני מודה על הגהה נוספת של הביבליוגרפיה שעזרה לניכוש עוד מעט מהשגיאות שנפלו במהלך שנות העבודה. תודה מסוג אחר אני חב לד\"ר דוד יסלזון שבזכותו הבנתי את חשיבות העיצוב החיצוני של הספר. ואכן כבר במסכת עירובין, ועוד יותר במסכתות הבאות, שקדנו על שיפור צורתו החיצונית של החיבור ועל נגישותו לציבור.", + "הסדרה עברה להוצאת אוניברסיטת ברֿֿ־אילן ואני אסיר תודה למערכת המדעית שהסכימה להיכנס לעול ובעיקר לאנשי ההפקה בבית ההוצאה. ", + "בתחום הכספי נעזרנו ב\"קרן הזיכרון לתרבות יהודית\" שסייעה לנו בשני מענקים, בקרנות המחקר שליד המחלקה ללימודי ארץ ישראל וארכיאולוגיה על שם מרטין זוס באוניברסיטת בר-אילן, בקרן קושיצקי ובקרן לחקר ארץ ישראל בגבולותיה ההיסטוריים על שם א' וצ' מוסקוביץ. מה טוב שאנו יכולים לגמול להם בתודה. אני חב תודה למרכז דוד וימימה יסלזון לחקר תולדות ישראל לאור האפיגרפיה באוניברסיטת בר-אילן ולפרופ' חנן אשל ז\"ל שעמד בראשו עד ימיו האחרונים על סיועם לעיצוב החיצוני של החיבור, ולד\"ר אסתי אשל הממלאת את התפקיד עתה. ברצוני להביע תודה מיוחדת ונוספת לדוד וימימה יסלזון שהגדילו את סיועם. אחרונים חביבים הם בני ובנותיי, שכולם עזרו לי בדרכם ובמקומם במתן \"רוח גבית אוהבת\" ופה ושם בהעתקות, צילומים והגהות, ובעיקר לאשתי שעמלה רבות גם בתחום הארגוני וגם בהכנת האיורים לדפוס. יבואו כולם על הטובה ועל הברכה.", + "אסיר תודה אני לשלושת הבתים שאני חי בהם. הראשון הוא ביתי המדעי באוניברסיטת בר-אילן, שחרתה על דגלה את שילוב התורה והמדע; אני מקווה שהכרך המונח לפני הקוראים ייחשב בעיניהם כביטוי הולם של השילוב בין העולמות הנתפסים לעתים כסותרים. תודה מסוג אחר היא לביתי בקבוצת יבנה. החיים בקיבוץ דתי המתחבט כקהילה בבעיות של שמירת מצוות ושל גיבוש הסכמה חברתית ללא אמצעי אכיפה, ציבור המתמודד גם הוא בשאלות של ניסוח משפטי של רעיונות מופשטים וניסוחם המרומם בלשון של חוק ונוהל, כל אלה חידדו את הבנת הרקע החברתי שבו פעלו חכמים. במקביל לחכמים של אז, גם כיום אנו מתחבטים כיצד לנסח בצורה משפטית הסכמות חברתיות, הסכמות שניסוחן קשה ומעורפל אבל הן מובנות ללא מילים, והמילים רק מגמדות את הרעיון הגדול. אורח החיים בקיבוץ דתי, ובחברה הדתית הכללית בת זמננו, העניק לנו מבט נוסף על תהליך עיצוב ההלכה, מבט שבו ניסינו לשתף את הקוראים. ", + "ועל כולם יתברך ויתפאר שמו. זכות מיוחדת שזכיתי לה מהחונן לאדם דעת היא שעבודתי היא לי אורח חיים. את יום העבודה אני מתחיל ומסיים בשירת \"מה אהבתי תורתך כל היום היא שיחתי\", ואשריי שזכיתי לכך.", + "זאב ספראי", + "ראש חודש שבט תשע\"ה" + ], + "Preface": [ + [ + "מקראות", + "במדבר טו יז-כא", + "(יז) וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר:", + "(יח) דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם בבאכם אל הארץ אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה:", + "(יט) והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ תרימו תרומה לה':", + "(כ) ראשית ערִסֹתֵכם חלה תרימו תרומה כתרומת גֹרן כן תרימו אתה:", + "(כא) מראשית ערִסֹתיכם תתנו לה' תרומה לדֹרֹתיכם:", + "יחזקאל כ מ", + "כי בהר קדשי בהר מרום ישראל נאם אדני ה' שם יעבדֻני כל בית ישראל כֻלֹה בארץ שם ארצם ושם אדרוש את תרומתיכם ואת ראשית משאותיכם בכל קדשיכם:", + "יחזקאל מד ל", + "וראשית כל בכורי כל וכל תרומת כל מכל תרומֹתיכם לכהנים יהיה וראשית עריסותיכם תתנו לכהן להניח ברכה אל ביתך:", + "נחמיה י לה-מ", + "(לה) והגורלות הפלנו על קרבן העצים הכהנים הלוים והעם להביא לבית אלהינו לבית אבתינו לעתים מזֻמנים שנה בשנה לבער על מזבח ה' אלהינו ככתוב בתורה:", + "(לו) ולהביא את בכורי אדמתנו ובכורי כל פרי כל עץ שנה בשנה לבית ה':", + "(לז) ואת בכֹרות בנינו ובהמתינו ככתוב בתורה ואת בכורי בקרינו וצאנינו להביא לבית אלהינו לכהנים המשרתים בבית אלהינו:", + "(לח) ואת ראשית עריסֹתינו ותרומֹתינו ופרי כל עץ תירוש ויצהר נביא לכהנים אל לשכות בית אלהינו ומעשר אדמתנו ללוים והם הלוים המעשרים בכל ערי עבֹדתנו:", + "(לט) והיה הכהן בן אהרן עם הלוים בעשר הלוים והלוים יעלו את מעשר המעשר לבית אלהינו אל הלשכות לבית האוצר:", + "(מ) כי אל הלשכות יביאו בני ישראל ובני הלוי את תרומת הדגן התירוש והיצהר ושם כלי המקדש והכהנים המשרתים והשוערים והמשֹררים ולא נעזב את בית אלהינו:" + ], + [ + "מבוא", + "פרשת חלה מנויה בין מצוות הכהונה ומכונה \"ראשית עריסתיכם\". המונח התפרש כחובה להפריש מהבצק המיועד ללחם. בבמדבר טו יט-כ מדובר במפורש על לחם וחלה, ומכאן הסיקו חכמים שהחובה חלה רק על מאפה שהוא לחם וכעין לחם, כלומר כשחומר הגלם הוא דגנים והמאפה הוא לחם רגיל, ולא על לחמים שהם כעין עוגה (פ\"א מ\"ג), ומצד שני נפטרו מיני מאפה שלא נועדו לאכילה כלחם. התורה מצווה לתת את ה\"ראשית\" לכוהנים, וגם בספר יחזקאל מד מודגשת הנתינה לכוהנים, ואפשר להבין שמדובר בכוהנים הפזורים ברחבי הארץ. ברם, ביחזקאל כ מוסבת המצווה לנתינה לבית ה' בירושלים: \"כי בהר קדשי בהר מרום ישראל... ושם אדרוש את תרומתיכם\". גם בספר נחמיה מופיעה מצוות ראשית העריסה בהקשר לתמיכה בכוהני ירושלים. מבחינה מעשית אם מדובר בהפרשה מהבצק או מהלחם האפוי הרי שאי אפשר להגביל את הנתינה לירושלים בלבד, שכן יש לתת את החלה לכוהן סמוך לזמן האפייה, אחרת תאבד את ערכה. נמצאנו למדים שגם בספר יחזקאל וגם ספר נחמיה מדברים לקהל ירושלים, או שמצוות חלה נגררת אגב מצוות הכוהנים האחרות. ", + "פילון (על החוקים 131) מציג את מצוות חלה (πέμμα – pemma) כמצווה הראשונה מבין מתנות הכוהנים, וגם הוא מדגיש שמדובר בהפרשת חלק מהלחם הפשוט, ומשמע מדבריו שהנתינה היא של אוכל מוכן. לעומת זאת יוספוס (קד', ד 151) מתנסח באופן כללי יותר שהמצווה מוטלת על האופים תבואה.", + "מספר במדבר אפשר היה להסיק שהמצווה חלה רק על תבואות הארץ, והיא מצטרפת, אפוא, למצוות התלויות בארץ. אפשר היה ללמוד זאת מכך שנאמר \"בבאכם אל הארץ אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה, והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ...\", אלא שכפי שראינו בנספח למסכת שביעית הגדרה זו \"בבֹאכם אל הארץ\" פורשה או נדרשה בדרכים שונות, ולא רק כהגדרה של חלות המצווה. בספרות החיצונית איננו שומעים שהמצווה חלה דווקא בארץ, וגם בכך עסקנו בנספח למסכת שביעית. מספרות חז\"ל משתמע בפשטות שגם במצוות חלה חייבים רק בארץ, ועם זאת שונה מצווה זו מיתר המצוות התלויות בארץ. ", + "בפ\"ב מ\"א יש מחלוקת בין תנאי דור יבנה, ונסכם אותה בטבלה:", + "מחלוקת זו מבטאת את התפיסה שהמרכיב העיקרי הוא מקום האפייה (האכילה), ואם האפייה בארץ חייבים בחלה, ואילו מעמדם של פרות הארץ הנאכלים בחוץ לארץ שנוי במחלוקת. ברם, במקביל אנו שומעים מדור אחד מאוחר יותר על חלוקה אחרת, בין ארץ ישראל לבין סוריה. רבן גמליאל סבור שבסוריה חייבים להפריש פעמיים חלה, ורבי אליעזר מדבר על חלה אחת1לאמִתו של דבר, עמדת רבן גמליאל עצמו שנויה במחלוקת: \"וכן היה רבי לעזר בי רבי צדוק אומר לא היה רבן גמליאל מחייב בסוריא אלא חלה אחת בלבד\" (תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ה), ראו פירושנו למשנה פ\"ב מ\"ז. . אם כן, העיקרון שהרמת חלה היא בארץ בלבד תלוי במחלוקת, אבל גם משתמע שלכל הדעות אפיית חוץ לארץ פטורה מחלה (פ\"ד מ\"ז). במשנה הבאה שם אנו שומעים על הלכה נוספת של רבן גמליאל וממנה משתמע שגם אפיית חוץ לארץ חייבת בחלה, אלא שבגלל חובת הטהרה אי אפשר להרים חלה כהלכה ולכן חייבים להרים חלה פעמיים. שאלה זו עולה עוד בסוף משנת חלה (פ\"ד מ\"י), שם מדובר ב\"ביתר\", אולי בתחום החורן שאסור להרים בו חלה אפילו אם מצאו דרך להתגבר על שאלת הטהרה. מעשים אלו ניתן לפרש כהתנגדות להרמת חלה, או כאישור להרמת חלה בחוץ לארץ (או ב\"סוריה\"), אבל החלה טמאה.", + "בספרי זוטא חוזרת העמדה ה\"קלאסית\" שאין חובת הרמת חלה בחוץ לארץ: \"יכול כיון שבאו לארץ יהו חייבין להפריש חלה שבחוצה לארץ אמרת לא אמרתי אלא אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה אתם חייבין להפריש חלה ולא בחוצה לארץ\" (ספרי זוטא, טו יז, עמ' 283). ", + "ניתן, אפוא, לנסח את העמדות התנאיות כמעין מחלוקת על תחולת המצווה בחוץ לארץ כשם שמצינו מחלוקות על ערלה, כלאיים, חדש ומצוות דומות. ברם, הרמת חלה חריגה, שכן אין אח ורע להרמת חלה פעמיים. לא שמענו על הרמת תרומה פעמיים או מעשר פעמיים. האם לפנינו מחלוקת? נראה שלא, אלא שהפער הוא בין ההלכה העקרונית (המשפטית) לבין הנוהג המעשי. במקביל מצינו סדרת עמדות כיצד צריך אדם לנהוג כאשר הוא בטומאה ואינו יכול להרים חלה בטהרה. הפתרונות השונים משתלבים בפתרון זה של הרמת שתי חלות, שגם היא הצעת פתרון למצב של טומאה.", + "במקורות האמוראיים הארץ-ישראליים חוזרת חובת הרמת חלה פעמיים, וציטטנו את האמירות השונות. במקורות בבל מצינו צמצום של חובה זו, בניגוד מה למשנה (פ\"ד מ\"ח). ברם, גם שמענו על הפרשת חלה בטהרה ואכילתה בטהרה חלקית (בכורות כז ע\"א). גישה דומה עולה גם מהירושלמי: \"רבי זעירא רב יהודה בשם שמואל, חלת חוץ לארץ, ותרומת חוץ לארץ, אוכל ואחר כך מפריש...\" (פ\"ד ה\"י, ס ע\"א). אם כן יש להרים חלה, אך ניתן לבצע זאת בסיום האכילה.", + "הבבלי מגדיר את הרמת החלה בזמן הזה (כלומר בחוץ לארץ) כמצווה מדבריהם. ספק אם זו הגדרה מודעת. הפתרון עולה במהלך סוגיה בעלת אופי מאוחר, אגב ברייתא שבכל המקבילות מצוות חלה לא נזכרת בה כלל (בבלי, כתובות כה ע\"א)2אותה הגדרה גם בבבלי, נידה מז ע\"א, אבל הבדל ניכר בין שתי הסוגיות, ולמעשה הן מסורות מוחלפות. המשותף לשתי הסוגיות הוא האיחור והאופי הדיאלקטי. . הגאונים פתרו את הבעיה בכך שהגדירו את הרמת חלה בחוץ לארץ כמצווה מדבריהם3תשובות רב נטרונאי, יורה דעה רכז; תשובות גאונים חדשות (עמנואל), קיג. . עם זאת, אין הם מזכירים את הסוגיות שהן כאילו עדות ברורה לשיטתם. באירופה היו מנהגים שונים4ראו המבוא למסכת תרומות. ששימרו את מצוות חלה, בצורה סמלית אך לא כמשנָה5תשובות הגאונים החדשות (עמנואל, ו). התשובה מלמדת על נוהג מיוחד של הרמת חלה בערב פסח. הפוסק מתנגד לכך, שהרי אין הבדל בין פסח ליום רגיל. ברם, הנוהג משמר נוהגים קדומים בימי מועד רגיל, ומלמד על ימי עבר שבהם נהגה מצווה זו. ראו עוד בבלי, פסחים מח ע\"ב על נוהגי האפייה של נשות בבל ערב פסח שהידרו שלא להתחייב בהפרשת חלה. .", + "אם כן, מצוות חלה שונה מיתר המצוות התלויות בארץ. גם במצוות אחרות מצינו דעות מחמירות שהרחיבו את המצווה לחוץ לארץ (או התנגדו לצמצומה לארץ ישראל), אבל ההסדר של שתי חלות הוא חריג. מעבר לכך, דומה שעולה ממנו הכרה שמצווה זו חלה בחוץ לארץ בהיקף מלא, ואינה שייכת כלל למצוות התלויות בארץ. מי שהגדיר שהחובה חלה על החיטים המצויות בארץ בזמן האפייה, גם הוא ראה בחלה מצווה שאינה שייכת לכלל המצוות התלויות בארץ. ", + "היבט אחר לייחודה של הרמת חלה הוא המאמץ לקיים את המצווה בתנאי טומאה. לא מצינו מאמצים דומים לגבי הרמת תרומה. אמנם נעשו מאמצים להרמת תרומה בטהרה, והיו שהפקידו את הדבר בידי הכוהנים. איסוף התרומה על הגורן אִפשר להקל בדבר. את החלה, לעומת זאת, הרימו בבית, בדרך כלל בתנאי טומאה, ואף על פי כן אנו שומעים על הסדרים שונים להרמת חלה בטהרה (פ\"ב מ\"ג ומ\"ה, וראו פירושנו להן; פ\"ד מ\"ו). בפירוש אף הבאנו סיפורי אמוראים על דרישות הלכה למעשה לשמירה על הקפדות אלו.", + "כמו בתרומות גם בהרמת חלה מצינו פתרון נוסף, והוא הפקדה של הרמת החלה בידי כוהנות: \"אמר רבי יוחנן, ממה שלימדו את הכהנות. הדא אמרה אין הלכה כרבי לעזר בן ערך. מה למדו את הכהונות? הרי זה חלה על העיסה הזאת, ועל שאור המתערב בה, ועל הקמח שנשתייר בה, ועל הקרץ שניתן תחתיה, לכשתעלה כולה גוש אחד, הוקדש זה שבידי לשם חלה חוץ מן הטמא שבה\" (ירו', פ\"ג ה\"א, נט ע\"א). מכאן שהכוהנות הרימו חלה לאחרות או שהקפידו הקפדת יתר על מצווה זו. כן מספר הירושלמי על נוסחה מיוחדת וטובה להפרשת חלה שלימדו את הכוהנות6הכוהנות כאן מופיעות כמקפידות על הרמת חלה, או כמומחיות שאותן הזמינו לבתי עמי הארץ כדי שיפרישו עבורם חלה בטהרה. לומר. הנוסחה כוללת את המשפט: \"הרי זה חלה על העיסה הזאת... ועל הקמח שנשתייר בה...\" (שם).", + "עוד אנו שומעים על הכנת מעין \"בנק\" של חלה טהורה שהיא מופרשת על אפיות אחרות שנעשו בטומאה (ראו תוס', פ\"א ה\"י; משנה, פ\"ג מ\"ח). הסדר דומה לגבי תרומה שנוי במחלוקת; בית שמאי מתירים ובית הלל אוסרים (תרומות פרקים א-ב, כפי שפירשנום להלן פ\"ב מ\"ח). לגבי חלה דעת בית שמאי נזכרת בסתם (פ\"ד מ\"ו), במשנה אחרת היא מיוחסת לרבי אליעזר (פ\"ב מ\"ח), אבל במשנה נוספת (פ\"א מ\"ט) שנויה דעת בית הלל בסתם. מדברי רבי ישמעאל בתוספתא משמע שזה חידוש של אחד מחכמי הדרום7על הקשר בין חכמי בית שמאי וחכמי אדום עמדו אפשטיין ובן שלום, וראו הסברנו לפ\"א מ\"ט. .", + "לכאורה הייתה מצוות הרמת חלה צפויה להיעלם בקלות רבה יותר מאשר הרמת תרומה. הרמת תרומה נעשית בפומבי, בשעת הגורן, חשופה ללחץ חברתי ובשעה שנדיבות הלב מאפיינת אותה. לא כן הרמת חלה שהיא נעשית בבית האדם ותמיד ניתן להיפטר ממנה על ידי אפייה בכמות מועטת (להלן). אף על פי כן ראינו שהקפידו על הרמת חלה יותר ממצוות דומות. הלכה למעשה אנו שומעים גם על הרמת חלה, והמעשים להלן (פ\"ד מ\"י) הם עדות לכך. מדוע היה גורלה של מצוות חלה שונה מזה של מצוות אחרות בתחום מתנות הכהונה? על דרך ההשערה ניתן להציע שהדבר נובע מכך שהייתה זו מצוות נשים. הנשים הן שאפו, ועליהן הוטלה בפועל חובה זו. בכל רחבי העולם מקובל שנשים מתאפיינות ב\"צדיקות\" רבה יותר מגברים. ברם, בחברה היהודית הודרו נשים מחלקים מרכזיים של העולם הדתי; מה שנמסר להן, נשמר אפוא בקפדנות יתר. ", + "ראינו שבתחום חלה שררה יותר הלכת בית שמאי שאין בה אבחנות משפטיות מדוקדקות. גם לגבי זמן הרמת חלה מצינו דעות שונות. האם ייתכן שבתחום זה נטתה ההלכה לפשטות יתר, בעקבות העובדה שהמצווה הזאת הייתה למעשה בידי נשים8בעל אור זרוע חש באופי השונה של הלכות חלה, ומתמקד בהסבר אחר: \"שהחמירו בחלה יותר משום דחלה שייכא בכל אדם המגלגל עיסתו... אבל תרומה אין רגילה אלא בבעלי קרקעות וממרים תבואתם\" (אור זרוע, רנ). הסבר זה מתאים לזמנו שרק מעטים היו בו חקלאים, אך איננו מתאים לחברה היהודית בארץ ישראל הקדומה. ? מצד שני מצינו החמרות שחכמים התנגדו להן (פ\"ב מ\"ה). אפשר שגם החמרת היתר היא תוצאה של מעורבות הנשים במצווה.", + "מכל מקום, מצוות חלה אכן נקשרה בנשים: \"על שלש עבירות נשים מתות בשעת לידתן: על שאינן זהירות לא בנדה ולא בחלה ולא בהדלקת הנר. מפני מה מסרו מצות נדה לאשה ולא מסרו אותה לאיש? אלא שהיה אדם הראשון דמו של הקב\"ה באת חוה ושפכתו, לפיכך מסרו [לה] מצות נדה כדי שיתכפר על הדם ששפכה. מפני מה מסרו מצות חלה לאשה ולא לאיש. אלא שהיה (הקב\"ה) [אדה\"ר] חלתו של הקב\"ה טהורה וטמאתו לפיכך מסרו לה מצות חלה כדי שיתכפר על החלה שטמאתו. מפני מה מסרו מצות הנר לאשה ולא לאיש. אלא שהיה אדה\"ר נרו של הקב\"ה היה מאיר בו לכל באי עולם וכיבתו לפיכך מסרו לה מצות הנר ונתחייבה [בנר] כדי שיתכפר על הנר שכיבתה: אדם דמו של עולם היה בשביל שגרמה לו (לישראל) לשפך לפיכך נתחייבה בנדה. אדם חלתו של עולם היה בשביל שגרמה [לו] שיטמא לפיכך נתחייבה בחלה. אדם נרו של עולם היה בשביל שגרמה לו שיכבה לפיכך נתחייבה בהדלקת הנר. מכאן אמרו חכמים על שלש עבירות נשים מתות בשעת לידתן על שאינן זהירות לא בנדה לא בחלה ולא בהדלקת הנר\" (אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"ב פ\"ט, עמ' יג). ואכן, בכל הקשר של קיום המצווה למעשה נזכרות דווקא הנשים: \"האשה יושבת וקוצה חלתה\" (פ\"ב מ\"ג), \"נשים שנתנו לנחתום\" (פ\"א מ\"ז), ועוד הרבה.", + "בכך חש כבר בעל אור זרוע: \"וברוב המקומות מזכיר ושונה נשים אצל מצוות חלה כגון...\" (הלכות חלה, רכה). הוא מזכיר משניות הנאמרות בלשון זכר ומסכם: \"מיהו מצות הפרשת חלה על האשה רמיא. הלכך אף על פי שהעסה של בעלה היא משויא שליח להפריש חלה\".", + "באופן טבעי האישה היא שעסקה באפייה, וממילא היא גם שהרימה את החלה. הבישול והאפייה היו כמובן באחריותה הבלעדית של האישה, כפי שיוצא מרשימת מלאכות המוטלות עליה (משנה, כתובות פ\"ה מ\"ה) וממקורות רבים נוספים. כך, למשל, כאשר הירושלמי מברר את דיני בישול בשבת הוא מדגים זאת במינוח: \"הדא איתתא...\" (ירו', שבת פ\"ז ה\"ב, י ע\"א), ופרט מסוים בהלכות אלו מנומק: \"זריזות הן הנשים בפת יותר מן התבשיל\" (ירו', שבת פ\"א ה\"י, ד ע\"ב), וכן: \"לא תמלא אשה קדרה ותרמוסין ועססיות ותתן לתוך התנור\" (תוס', שבת פ\"ג [ד] ה\"א); \"האשה שלשה בעריבה...\" (תוס', אהלות פ\"ה הי\"א, עמ' 602), וכמוהן עדויות רבות נוספות9כגון אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פכ\"ג, עמ' 76; משנה, דמאי פ\"ג מ\"ו; ויקרא רבה, יז ב, עמ' שעג; תוס', נדה פ\"ז ה\"ג; תנא דבי אליהו, פט, עמ' 51: \"נתנן אדם לאשה...\", ועוד. . במדרש מתואר כיצד הבעל, השולט כמובן בביתו, איננו יכול לקבוע את התפריט שכן האישה היא המבשלת: \"מנהג שבעולם אדם מבקש לאכול עדשים ואשתו מבקשת לאכול אפונים. יכול הוא לכופה? לא מה דהיא בעיא היא עבדה?\" (לא מה שהיא רוצה היא עושה?!)10אסתר רבה, ד יב, והשוו שיר השירים רבה, א מד. . מקור אחרון זה מעיד כי מקובל היה שהאישה היא המנהלת של מגזר פעילות זה, ולא רק עובדת נטולת סמכויות.", + "את החלה הפרישו בזמן האפייה (איור 1). מחלוקת תנאים היא מתי הזמן הקובע, לישת העיסה במים או הקרימה בתנור (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ב מ\"ח; פ\"ג מ\"א ומ\"ו-מ\"ז). ראינו שיש בנושא מחלוקת רבי עקיבא ורבי יוחנן בן נורי, ולרבי אליעזר דעה עצמאית שאפשר להרים בזמן שרוצים. בפירושנו לפ\"ג מ\"א עוד שתי דעות. עמדת בית שמאי (רבי אליעזר) איננה מפתיעה, שכן הם מצדדים בביצוע פשוט של המצוות ללא הגבלות יתר על דרכי הביצוע (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"ב).", + "על הכמות של החיטים החייבות בחלה שנינו מחלוקת תנאים: \"שמאי אומר מקב לחלה והלל אומר מקביים, וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא קב ומחצה חייבים בחלה. ומשהגדילו המדות אמרו חמשת רבעים חייבין, רבי יוסי אומר חמשה פטורין חמשה ועוד חייבין\" (משנה, עדיות פ\"א מ\"ב). הלכה למעשה המשנה משתמשת בדרך כלל בשיעור של חמישה רבעים, אם כי ניתן לפרשה לעתים גם כדעת בית הלל (פ\"ב מ\"ו; פ\"ד מ\"א).", + "עמי הארץ הקלו בכל המצוות התלויות בארץ. כך בטהרה, בהרמת מעשרות וכיוצא באלו. לא מצינו שעמי הארץ הקלו בהרמת חלה, ופשוט להסביר שדין חלה כתרומה. העובדה שהתרומה נאסרה לאכילה, והאוכלה חייב מיתה, הרתיעה מלעבור על המצווה. העובדה שעלותן של שתי המצוות שולית חיזקה מגמה זו." + ], + [ + "חכמי המסכת", + "כמעט כל החכמים הנזכרים במסכת ובתוספתא הם חכמי דור יבנה לכל המאוחר (כולל בית הלל ובית שמאי הקדומים יותר). דומה שהלכות חלה עוצבו כבר בדור זה. עם זאת עריכת המסכת היא מאוחרת, והדבר בולט בפרק א (להלן)." + ], + [ + "סדר המסכת", + "פרק א עוסק בסדרת כללים, וכפי שנָראה הוא מאוחר מטיבו. רוב הפרק כולל כללים המופיעים במקבילות, ומשנתנו מלקטת כנראה את החומר ממשניות אחרות (מנחות, פסחים, שביעית וכו'). הפרק עוסק בכללים הבסיסיים: מתי מפרישים חלה, מהי עיסה החייבת ומה דיני החלה שהופרשה. פרק א מגובש; נושאיו אמנם שונים, אבל כל המשניות הן עקרוניות ועוסקות בכללים. ", + "ליתר המסכת אין סדר הנראה לעין. יש בה רצף של הלכות סביב דיני חלה וכמעט אין בה נושאים אחרים11אבל ראו פ\"ג מ\"ד; פ\"ג מ\"ט, ועוד. , אבל הנושאים השונים פזורים. כך, למשל, הלכות חוץ לארץ מצויות בפ\"ב מ\"א-מ\"ב ובפ\"ד מ\"ז-מי\"א; הלכות הרמת חלה ממין על שאינו מינו מצויות בפ\"ב מ\"ח, בפ\"ג מ\"ז-מ\"י ובפ\"ד מ\"ו. עם זאת, ניכרים כמה גושי הלכות:", + "פ\"ב מ\"ד עד מ\"ז – הלכות הקשורות לשיעורים שונים של חלה;", + "פ\"ג מ\"א עד מ\"ט – הרמת חלה לפני התהוות הבצק;", + "פ\"ג מ\"י עד פ\"ד מ\"ו – דיני עירוב של בצקים שונים.", + "פ\"ב מ\"ח דומה בתוכנו לפ\"א מ\"ט, אבל הוא מעריכה אחרת. ", + "סדרת משניות היא כרבי יוחנן בן נורי (פ\"א מ\"א; פ\"ג מ\"א-מ\"ה, ומשניות רבות בפרק ב)." + ], + [ + "כתבי היד", + "כמו בכל מסכתות זרעים השתמשנו במשנת זרעים מהדורת הש\"ס השלם. רשימת כתבי היד מצויה שם, ובסוף המבוא לביכורים." + ] + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "פִרקנו כולל משניות משני סוגים. האחד הוא משניות מסכמות המציגות תמונה כוללת (משניות א, ב, ג, ד, ט). גוש המשניות שבאמצע, ה-ח, עוסק בחובת חלה בסוגי עיסה שונים.", + "חמשה דברים – המשנה פותחת בפתיחה מספרית, כלל מספרי שאחריו יבוא הפירוט. פרקים רבים מתחילים בפתיחות מספריות, וכן משניות רבות12מסכתות שבת (ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"א שם), פאה, בבא קמא, שבועות; תרומות פ\"א מ\"א ועוד, וראו במבוא. . הפתיחה המספרית הייתה חשובה לקדמונינו, משום שהם זכרו את המשניות בעל פה והמספרים היו כלי עזר חשוב ביותר לזיכרון. ייתכן גם שהייתה פעם משנה קדומה שרבות ממשניותיה היו סדורות בצורה מספרית, או לחילופין הייתה זו שיטת עריכה, אולי של בית מדרש מסוים, אך לאו דווקא שיטת עריכה קדומה. ואכן, למשניות המספריות אופי מסכם של כלל, ועל כן סביר יותר שזו שיטה מאוחרת. אנו בחנו את שאלת המשניות הספורות בכלל (והמשניות הספורות שבראשי פרקים בפרט) פעמים מספר. ראינו שבדרך כלל הן תוספת מאוחרת, אם כי במשנת נגעים המניין הוא קדום והיה במסורת כבר לפני רבי עקיבא (נגעים פ\"א מ\"א). במקרה זה, כפי שנראה בהמשך, המשפט הפותח \"חמשה דברים חייבין בחלה\" הוא נטע זר במשנה. מי שניסח את המשנה לא נזקק לפתיחה זו. זו ראיה נוספת לשיטת העריכה של המשנה. העורך ליקט את המשנה ממקור כלשהו והוסיף לה כותרת שהיא פתיחה מספרית. ייתכן שנותרו במשנה עקבות נוספים לאותו מקור. במשנת מנחות מנויה הרשימה וחלק מההלכות שבמשנתנו, באותו סגנון, אך ללא הפתיחה \"חמשה...\" (פ\"י מ\"ז), וכן במסכתות כלאים (פ\"א מ\"א) ופסחים (פ\"ב מ\"ו). ייתכן, אפוא, שזו אותה משנה קדומה, או שלפחות משנת מנחות העתיקה אותה ללא שינוי. מכל מקום, במשנת מנחות נמנות ההלכות הקשורות לעומר ובמשנת פסחים (פ\"ב מ\"ה, וראו להלן מ\"ב ומ\"ג) ההלכות הקשורות לחמשת המינים הללו בפסח (דין חמץ ומצה), ומשנתנו היא סיכום כולל. ייתכן גם שמשנתנו היא סיכום מאוחר של כל המשניות הפזורות הללו, ולכן גם ניתנה לה הכותרת המסכמת \"חמשה...\". כפי שנראה בפירושנו להלן בסוף המשנה הזאת, פירוש זה פותר שאלה נוספת בדבר המבנה והסגנון של המשנה.", + "חייבין בחלה – אלו הם חמישה סוגי הדגנים העיקריים שהכירו חכמים (איור 2).", + "בפירושנו למסכת כלאים התחבטנו מה היה מקורה של הרשימה: האם כללה רק דגנים, לעניין הלכתי זה או אחר, או שמא הייתה זו רשימה ארוכה יותר של צמחי מאכל שעורכי פסחים, מנחות וחלה הביאו ממנה רק את סוגי הדגנים. לצורך הבנת המשנה השאלה היא משנית, ברם היא חשובה מבחינה תרבותית. האם בתקופת חז\"ל רווחו רשימות של צמחים שהיו חלק מהעולם התרבותי של קדמונינו, וחלקים מהן שובצו על ידי בעלי המשניות בהקשרים הלכתיים שונים, או שמא כל התרבות הקדומה נהגתה ונערכה עריכה ראשונית בהקשר ההלכתי של המשניות הקדומות? להערכתנו יש די ראיות לכך שהיו רשימות חוץ-הלכתיות (שנערכו לראשונה לא בהקשר של הלימוד ולא בבית המדרש) ועסקו בצמחים, בכלים ואולי גם במאורעות, ורק חלקן הקטן שוקע במשנה. הנושא מחייב בירור יסודי, ויש לו השלכה על שאלת אופייה התרבותי של החברה היהודית בתקופה.", + "אמרנו שמשנתנו מנוסחת ככלל, אך מבחינת ההתפתחות המחשבתית היא שלב ביניים בין המקרה הבודד והכלל. אין בה ניסוח של עיקרון, אלא צירוף הדוגמאות. כמו במקרים אחרים במשנה אין המניין בא להוציא מקרים נוספים. יש אולי עוד דוגמאות, והתנא הוא בבחינת \"תנא ושייר\".", + "החיטין והשערים והכסמים ושבולת שועל ושיפון – רשימה זו חוזרת, כאמור, במקורות רבים ופורשה בפירושנו לכלאים פ\"א מ\"א, וזו רשימת הדגנים העיקריים שהכירו קדמונינו13משנה, פסחים פ\"א מ\"ה; כלאים פ\"א מ\"א-מ\"ב. . שמונה סוגי דגנים נזכרים במקורות התלמודיים. חמישה אלו מתוארים כחמישה סוגי הדגנים העיקריים, ברם ברור שחיטים היו גידול הדגנים החשוב ביותר בארץ ישראל. המשנה בכתובות המציגה את לוח המזון המקובל ברחוב היהודי מזכירה חיטים בצד שעורים, אך מוסיפה: \"אמר רבי יוסי (180-140 למניינם) לא פסק לה שעורים אלא רבי ישמעאל (132-100 למניינם) שהיה סמוך לאדום\" (פ\"ה מ\"ח). אם כן, רק רבי ישמעאל צירף את השעורים ללוח המזון. הדרום הוא שחון, וכמויות הגשם בו אינן יציבות. עד היום מהווים השעורים גידול מרכזי באזור, משום שאין בו תנאים נאותים ובטוחים לגידול חיטה. רק חכם הגר באזור זה עשוי היה לכלול שעורים בלוח המזון המקובל, ועל כל פנים כך מעריך את הדברים רבי יוסי, וכן יוצא מראיות נוספות14ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 109; ראו גם פירושנו לכלאים שם. . ", + "שעורים נחשבו למאכל הראוי לאסירים או לבהמות, ואף זו עדות לערכם הפחות בלוח המזון המשפחתי הרגיל, שכן אדם רגיל אכל בדרך כלל חיטים. החיטים נזכרות לעתים קרובות כדוגמה לאוכל סתמי או לפֵרות, ואף זו ראיה לכך שהן נחשבו למאכל הרגיל15כגון משנה, דמאי פ\"ג מ\"ד; מעשרות פ\"ד מ\"ה; בבא מציעא פ\"ה מ\"א; שם פ\"ה מ\"ח, ומקורות רבים נוספים. .", + "רוב המקורות התלמודיים חוברו בגליל, ועל כן מוצגת החיטה במקורות אלה כגידול העיקרי. יש להניח כי לו היו בידינו מקורות שנערכו במחוז יהודה וב\"דרום\" הייתה מוצגת תמונה שונה. ואכן, במצבור דגנים שנחשף באזור מהימים של שלהי מרד בר כוכבא המרכיב העיקרי הוא שעורים16כסלו, מצודת יתיר. . ", + "שוויין של השעורים היה כחצי שוויין של חיטים17שפרבר, מחירים, עמ' 113-112. . אף ערכן התזונתי היה פחות מזה של חיטים (משנה, פאה פ\"ח מ\"ה; כתובות פ\"ה מ\"ח ועוד). הן אמנם נחשבו לגידול המתיש פחות את הקרקע (משנה, בבא מציעא פ\"ט מ\"ח), אך ברור שערכו הכלכלי של גידול השעורים נפל הרבה מזה של חיטים.", + "בחפירות ארכאולוגיות מתגלים בעיקר זרעי חיטים ושעורים, ונראה שאלו היו הגידולים העיקריים במשק הארץ בתקופה הרומית. יתר המינים נדירים יותר אך תדירים למדי, ובזיהוים המדויק דנו בפירושנו לכלאים (איור 3).", + "בתוספתא נזכר מין נוסף של דגנים, ה\"קרמית\" או \"קרומית\"18תוס', פסחים פ\"א הכ\"ט (מהדורת ליברמן פ\"ב הי\"ז); ירו', נז ע\"א; בירושלמי פסחים (פ\"ב ה\"א, כט ע\"ב) ובבבלי שם (לה ע\"א) יש מחלוקת על דינה של הקרמית. זיהויה שנוי במחלוקת, ראו אור זרוע, סימן רטו ועוד, ולא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך. . במסורות תנאיות, משמו של רבי יוחנן בן נורי, נוסף לרשימת הדגנים גם האורז19בבלי, פסחים לה ע\"א. בירושלמי למשנתנו (נז ע\"א) אומר רבי יוחנן את דברו רק על קרמית. . האורז היה גידול שחדר לארץ רק בסוף ימי התנאים, ולכן טרם התגבשה תפיסה אחידה בדבר מעמדו בדיני ברכות וחמץ20פליקס, האורז. . הבבלי מסיק שמשנתנו אינה כרבי יוחנן בן נורי, ברם אין צורך לקבוע זאת בצורה מוחלטת. המשנה מונה את מיני החמץ המקובלים והידועים, אבל אולי היו עוד מיני חמץ נפוצים פחות, והאורז הוא אחד מהם.", + "הירושלמי (נז ע\"א) מסביר שמחלוקת רבי יוחנן בן נורי וחכמים היא על המציאות; נעשה ניסוי ונחלקו חכמים אם מינים אלו או גם הקרמית21ראו בבלי וירושלמי שם שם. מחמיצים. מסתבר שהמין לא היה תדיר, אחרת היו מכריעים במחלוקת מציאותית זו.", + "הרי אלו חייבין בחלה – כל המשפט שנוי גם במנחות (פ\"י מ\"ז) אך כנראה הועבר ממשנתנו, שכן דין הצטרפות הנזכר להלן חשוב להלכות חלה וחמץ אך לא להלכות מקדש. בחלה חייבת עיסה הנעשית מקמח רגיל. המשפט מיותר, שכן כבר במשפט הפתיחה נאמר \"חמשה... חייבין בחלה\". לפי דרכנו ההסבר ברור. גרעין המקור הקדום כלל את המשפט \"החיטים השעורים וכו' חייבין בחלה\"; העורך הוסיף את משפט הסיכום \"חמשה דברים...\" כדי להעניק למשנה אופי של סיכום, ופתיחה לפרק (ולמסכת), וכך נוצרה כפילות.", + "ומיצטרפין זה עם זה – כדי להוות יחד שיעור של חמץ או של עיסה החייבת בחלה. משפט זה במשנה עומד בניגוד למשנת כלאים (פ\"א מ\"א) ולמשנה להלן (פ\"ד מ\"ב), שם הוטלו מגבלות על הצטרפות המינים. על הסתירה עמדו רבים22ראו אור זרוע, סימן ריד ועוד. , ונבררה להלן (פ\"ד מ\"ב). מכל מקום, כאן נעיר שאין חובה לפרש את המשנה שכל המינים מצטרפים זה עם זה, אלא שיש מהם שמצטרפים צירופים שונים. המשנה לא באה לפרט, שכן הפירוט יבוא להלן בפרק ד, אלא לקבוע שיש אפשרות לצירופים הדדיים מסוימים23הרא\"ש בפירושו על אתר אומר שכך גם פירש רש\"י למשנה במנחות (פ\"י מ\"ה). בפירוש רש\"י שבידינו לא נאמר כך, אם כי אפשר אולי ללמוד זאת מפירושו לגמרא (ע ע\"א ד\"ה \"כוסמין\"). יהא האומר אשר יהא, פירוש זה הוא פשט המשנה לאמִתה, ומעיד עד כמה הניסוח של המשנה אינו ניסוח משפטי קפדני, וכל משנה היא קטע ממסכת רחבה יותר. אלא שהעורכים של המשנה קטעו לעתים, אגב הליקוט, את הרצף של המשניות. מכאן מודעה רבה ואזהרה ללומד כל משנה בפני עצמה, ובמקרה זה שנה העורך את המשפט כמעין כותרת ומבוא להמשך. .", + "ואסורין בחדש מלפני הפסח – אין לאכול מן התבואה החדשה עד יום שני של פסח. אז מביאים את קרבן החדש (העומר) והחיטה מותרת באכילה. באופן ממשי, אם אי אפשר לקצור את החיטה לפני פסח אי אפשר גם לקצרה עד לאחר הקרבת קרבן פסח, שכן אי אפשר לקצור בחג ואף לא ביום הנף עד ההקרבה.", + "ומלקצור מלפני העומר – כאמור שוב \"לפני העומר\" משמעו לאחר הפסח. עם זאת חילוף הלשון מוזר, שהרי פתח בפסח וסיים בעומר. בשני עדי נוסח (מ, ץ) הסדר הפוך: \"אסורין בחדש לפני העמר ומלקצור לפני הפסח\", ועדיין הכפילות עומדת אלא שבסדר הפוך, ובכך נעסוק להלן. כידוע מצווים בני ישראל להביא ביום השני של פסח את קרבן העומר. את העומר קצרו במעמד חגיגי שעליו מסופר במפורט במנחות פרק י. מן התורה אסור לאכול לפני הקרבת הקרבן, אבל חכמים דרשו שלא לקצור לפני זמן זה כדי לעשות סייג למצווה (משנה, מנחות פ\"י מ\"ה). זו דעתו של רבי מאיר, ורבי יהודה חולק. הציבור שמר באופן כללי על האיסור, אבל בפועל היו רבים שהחלו בקציר כבר בבוקר שבו הוקרב הקרבן, ולא המתינו עד זמן ההקרבה. מכל מקום, תנאים מספרים שלאחר הקרבת הקרבן כבר היו שוקי ירושלים מלאים בחיטים מן הקציר החדש, והמשנה במסכת מנחות קובעת: \"קוצרים בית השלחים שבעמקים אבל לא גודשין. אנשי יריחו קוצרין ברצון חכמים וגודשין שלא ברצון חכמים, ולא מיחו בידם חכמים\" (פ\"י מ\"ח, וראו תוס', שם פ\"י הי\"א). מנהגם המיוחד של אנשי יריחו נדון גם במשנת פסחים24ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ד מ\"ח. , ואינו עניין לכאן. ברם המנהג המיוחד שלהם, שלא ברצון חכמים, מלמד על הכלל המנוסח גם במשנתנו. עם זאת, כאמור, יש לכלל זה חריגים.", + "אם השרישו קודם לעומר העומר מתיר[י]ן – גם הלכה זו חוזרת במשנת מנחות שהזכרנו לעיל. ההלכה עצמה פשוטה. אם זרע חיטה או מין אחר מחמשת המינים, והצמח הבשיל אחרי חצי שנה או עשרה חודשים – הוא מותר, שכבר עבר עליו העומר והוא בבחינת יבול ישן, אף על פי שבזמן קרבן החדש היה הצמח נבט בלבד. הירושלמי (נז ע\"ג) שואל האם מותר להביא מצמח כזה את העומר, ומדובר בשאלה תאורטית, שהרי צמח כזה שנזרע שלושה ימים או אפילו חודש לפני הפסח אין בו עדיין גרעין שניתן להוציא ממנו קמח.", + "ואם לאו אסורין עד שיבוא העומר הבא – אבל אם זרע קרוב יותר לעומר הוא נחשב כמי שטרם נבט, ואין לאכול מהתבואה עד לאחר קרבן העומר הבא, ועד אז היבול נחשב לחדש.", + "המשנה עוסקת בזריעת קיץ. בארץ ישראל זורעים בדרך כלל בתחילת החורף, אבל יש תנאים מיוחדים שבהם זורעים תבואות קיץ. אלו הם אזורים רוויי מים, בעמקים או בשטחי ביצה שבקרקעם לחות רבה בסוף החורף. לעתים הגשמים מאחרים מאוד ומתחילים רק באדר; החקלאים איבדו כבר כל תקווה שחיטת החורף תניב יבול של ממש, ומנצלים את הגשמים המאוחרים לזריעה חוזרת. ההלכה חוזרת במסכת שמחות, אבל במקום \"עומר\" כמו במשנתנו ובמשנת מנחות מופיע המינוח \"פסח\", כמו ברישא.", + "בתלמוד הבבלי (מנחות עא ע\"א) מסופר על רבי אלעזר שאמר לרבי יאשיה \"דדריה\" (בן דורו וזמנו, להוציא את רבי יאשיה התנא): \"לא תיתב אכרעיך עד דמפרשת ליה\" (“לא תשב על רגליך עד שתפרש לי...\"), ורבי יאשיה מוצא להלכה דרשה כאסמכתא. בירושלמי למשנתנו יש מחלוקת מהו \"העומר\" לצורך ההלכה האחרונה במשנה: זמן הקצירה או זמן ההבאה (נז ע\"ג). כידוע, בזמן הבית היה זמן ההקרבה זמן העומר. לאחר החורבן תיקן רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיום הנף כולו אסור (משנה, ראש השנה פ\"ד מ\"ד; סוכה פ\"ג מי\"ב), אבל לדעת האמורא רבי יוסי בכל הנוגע להשרשה זמן הקצירה הוא הקובע.", + "הסברנו במשנתנו ש\"פסח\" ו”עומר\" הם למעשה מושגים חופפים. במציאות, ובעיקר במציאות של ימי הבית, היה ברור ש\"עומר\" הוא זמן ההקרבה, ו\"פסח\" הוא הגדרה דומה. בפועל אין הבדל משמעותי בין שתי ההגדרות. יש כמובן משניות נוספות כאלה, כגון המשנה הידועה המתחילה \"המניח את הכד\" ומסיימת \"בעל החבית חייב בנזקו\" (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ג מ\"א). המילים כד וחבית משמען דומה ולכן הוחלפו (בבלי, שם כז ע\"א). כמו כן במשנת מעשר שני (פ\"ג מי\"א), מתחיל בחבית ומסיים בקנקן. עם כל זאת, לכאורה תמוה מדוע פתחה המשנה בפסח וסיימה בעומר. אולי אין הבדל מעשי בין שני המינוחים, אך הבדל סגנוני יש ויש, וגם מבחינה משפטית ההבדל פותח פתח לדקדוקים שבהם יימצא הבדל בין שני המינוחים. הירושלמי אומר ש\"אית תניי תני מלפני הפסח, אית תניי תני מלפני העומר\" (נז ע\"ב). לפי פירוש המונח \"אית תניי תני\" בדרך כלל הפירוש כאן הוא שיש תנאים הגורסים \"עומר\" ויש הגורסים \"פסח\", ומשנתנו היא מעין שילוב של הנוסחאות הללו. אפשטיין עסק בנושא והגיע למסקנה כי היו כאן הבדלי נוסח בין משנת הירושלמי ומשנת הבבלי. הירושלמי למשנתנו גרס בכל המשנה \"פסח\" אבל הכיר גם נוסח תנאי אחר, זאת משום שתמיד ב\"אית תניי תני\" הראשון מוצג הנוסח הקיים. אבל הבבלי למנחות (סח ע\"ב, וכן אולי שם עא ע\"א) גרס \"עומר\". מכל מקום, גם בעל ספרי זוטא גורס כבמשנתנו, תחילה פסח ואחר כך עומר (ספרי זוטא, שלח, טו יט, עמ' 283).", + "להערכתנו התהווה הנוסח בצורה שונה. לעיל הצענו שמשנתנו מסכמת את ההלכות הקשורות לפסח ולהבאת העומר ומלקטת את החומרים שלה ממשנת פסחים וממשנת מנחות (או ממשניות קדומות שהיוו את המקור למשניות בפסחים ובמנחות). משניות פסחים משתמשות באופן טבעי במונח \"פסח\" ומשנת מנחות במונח \"עומר\". משנתנו ליקטה חומרים משתי המשניות הללו וסיכמה אותם בצורה כללית, מבלי לפגוע בגרעיני המידע ובסגנון המיוחד לכל אחת מהן. ", + "בהלכה האחרונה במשנה (דין השרשה) יש הבדל הלכתי בין שלושה ימים לפני פסח ובין שלושה ימים לפני העומר. את העומר קוצרים במוצאי פסח, כלומר בט\"ז בניסן. לפי האמורא רבי יוסי שלושה ימים יהיו לפני ט\"ז ניסן, כלומר י\"ג בניסן בלילה, ולמעשה י\"ב בניסן, שהרי אין זורעים בלילה, ולפי רבי יונה זמן הקצירה קובע, כלומר י\"ג בניסן בבוקר או בערב. גם הבדל זה הוא כמובן יותר משפטי ממעשי (תמונה 1)." + ], + [ + "האוכל מהן כזית מצה בפסח יצא ידי חובתו – כאמור, במשנת פסחים מינים אלו נחשבים ללחם על כן ניתן לייצר מהם מצה, כזית חמץ חייב בהיכרת – והאוכל מהם כזית חמץ חייב כרת.", + "ניתערב אחד מהן בכל המיניין הרי זה עובר בפסח25ראו ספרי זוטא, שלח, טו יט, עמ' 283; ספרי במדבר, קמו, עמ' 193; בבלי, פסחים לה ע\"ב. – אם נוצרה תערובת שיש בה אחד מהמינים הללו עם משהו אחר הרי שיש להעבירו, כלומר להשמידו כאילו הוא ספק חמץ. המינוח \"להעביר\" בהקשר של חמץ חוזר במקורות. פרק ג בפסחים מתחיל במילים \"אלו עוברין בפסח\", והוא מונה את המינים שיש בהם תערובת חמץ. נראה, אפוא, שהביטוי במשנתנו רומז למשנת פסחים, שם מדובר במאכלים שיש בהם תערובת חמץ, וכאן מוסבר ש\"חמץ\" זה הוא אחד מחמשת המינים שבמשנה.", + "הביטוי \"עובר\" במשמעות זו הוא נדיר, אך מופיע במקורותינו26ראו בבלי, פסחים מה ע\"ב, ועוד. . הביטוי \"עובר בטל\" קרוב במשמעותו ל\"עובר\" שבמשנתנו, ומשמעו נגמר או מסתיים. המשנה מונה מאכלים או חפצים שיש בהם חמץ ולכן חייבים לבערם, אך אין הם לחם או חמץ גלוי, ולכן יש למנותם. יתרה מזו, כל אחד מבין שיש לבער לחם, והחמץ הרגיל ביותר בבית רגיל היה כמובן הלחם. נוסף על לחם היו רק מאכלים או חפצים מעטים שיש בהם חמץ. המשנה בפסחים שם מונה את סוגי תערובת החמץ הרווחים ואשר אותם צריך היה לבער. כיום מבערים את כל מוצרי הקמח, אך בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד המשיכו לאפות בפסח, והסתפקו באמצעי הזהירות שנקטו כדי שהקמח לא יחמיץ במהלך האפייה או הבישול. אצל הפרשנים למסכת פסחים מצינו גם פירושים אחרים, ומשנתנו מוכיחה את הפירוש שהצענו27ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ג מ\"א. .", + "עם זאת, המינוח \"עובר\" הנו חריג ומיוחד. אם הוא מועבר ממשנת פסחים מובן מדוע השתמשו בו, אבל עדיין נשאלת השאלה מדוע השתמשה משנת פסחים דווקא במונח זה. במשנתנו יש לביטוי משמעות נוספת של משחק מילים. המשנה מדברת על תערובת: אם \"נתערב\" הרי זה עובר. אם כך, יש מקום להשערה שהביטוי שובץ במשנתנו בגלל משחק המילים, וממנה הועבר למשנת פסחים. מכל מקום, משנתנו ומשנת פסחים מקורן מאותה יחידה ספרותית, עוסקות באותו דין ומשתמשות באותו מינוח. להלן נראה שרוב משניות הפרק מועברות ממסכת אחרת, ולפיכך יש להבין שגם משנתנו מועברת מפסחים, ומשחק הלשון הוא התוספת של העורך של משנתנו.", + "המשנה אינה קובעת מהי התערובת. האם הכוונה ליחס של חצי-חצי, או שתערובת חמץ אינה בטלה אף באחד לאלף. הירושלמי (נז ע\"ג) דן בנושא, אבל המשנה אינה עוסקת בכך. דין תערובת נלמד במקומות אחרים, וכאן המשנה מתייחסת רק לכך שכל אחד מהמינים הללו יוצר תערובת. כמות התערובת שווה בכל המקרים, ואינה נידונה או נרמזת במשנה. ", + "הנודר מן הפת ומן התבואה אסור בהן דברי רבי מאיר – זו משנה במסכת נדרים (פ\"ז מ\"ב) שנביאה להלן. המדובר בשני מקרים, הנודר מפת והנודר מתבואה, ולדעת רבי מאיר בשני המקרים הכוונה לכל חמשת המינים, וחכמים אומרים הנודר מן הדגן אינו אסור אלא מהן – לדעת חכמים \"דגן\" הוא כל חמשת המינים, ואין במשנה פירוט של דעת חכמים על הנודר מן התבואה. רבי יוחנן אומר ש\"שוין בתבואה\" (בבלי, נדרים נה ע\"א), אלא שעדיין אין נוסח המשנה מאוזן. חכמים כאילו חולקים על רבי מאיר, אך לפי הנוסח הם מדברים על מקרים שונים, כפי שעולה מהטבלה.", + "הנודר מפת, דגן ותבואה (משנת חלה)", + "(באותיות מוטות ההלכות שאינן במפורש במשנה)", + " מותר28לדעת הרמב”ם דגן ותבואה שווים אצל חכמים, בניגוד לדברי רבי יוחנן למשנת נדרים כפי שיובאו להלן. ", + "נראה שחוסר האיזון נובע מכך שמשנתנו תלויה במשנת נדרים ומסכמת אותה (או את המשנה הקדומה שמשנת נדרים לוקטה ממנה), וזו לשונה: \"הנודר מן הדגן אסור בפול המצרי יבש, דברי רבי מאיר, וחכמים אומרים אינו אסור אלא בחמשת המינין. רבי מאיר אומר הנודר מן התבואה אינו אסור אלא מחמשת המינין, אבל הנודר מן הדגן אסור בכל, ומותר בפירות האילן ובירק\" (פ\"ז מ\"ב). מבחינה סגנונית משנתנו היא בבירור סיכום של משנת נדרים; אין היא ציטוט מדויק שלה אלא סיכום מקוצר שכל עניין הפול המצרי הושמט ממנו. הטבלה להלן מסכמת את המשנה בנדרים לפי הסברו של רבי יוחנן שבתבואה אין כלל מחלוקת (בבלי, נדרים נה ע\"א):", + "הנודר מדגן ותבואה (משנת נדרים)", + "משנתנו מוסיפה את דין הפת, שהוא כנראה כדין דגן, כפי שגם התוספתא למשנת נדרים מציגה דין זה (פ\"ד ה\"ג). תוספת זו חשובה לעורך המשנה בגלל ההקשר של הפרק במסכת חלה. המשנה הקודמת עסקה בפת, והיא נושא הדיון כאן. לכן נוספה חוליה זו, ודין פת כדין דגן.", + "העמדנו את המשנה כך שנוצרת מחלוקת בין חכמים לרבי מאיר, שהרי גם במשנתנו וגם במשנת נדרים הדברים מוצגים כמחלוקת. אבל יש ראשונים המפרשים שאין כלל מחלוקת בין התנאים; זה מדבר על דגן ואלו על תבואה29כך המאירי. .", + "וחייבין בחלה ובמעשרות – כבר נאמר לעיל (פעמיים) שחמישה מינים אלו חייבים בחלה. אלבק מפרש בפשטות שהמשפט בא ממקור אחר. ברם, הבעיה אינה רק בכפילות אלא בתוכן המשפט. פטור מחלה או חובה בה נדוֹן במשנה זו (משנה ב), ואילו חובת מעשרות מאן דכר שמיה? יתר על כן, וכי יש ספק בכך שחמשת המינים חייבים במעשרות? וכי למה שייפטרו מהם? לפי דרכנו המשנה היא לקט סיכומי של הלכות ממשניות אחרות, והמשפט נחוץ לחיבור למשנה הבאה (חייבים בחלה ופטורים ממעשר)." + ], + [ + "במשנת פסחים המקבילה למשנה א (ואולי שימשה מקור לה) מנויה כמעט כל הרשימה דלהלן כרשימת המוצרים שניתן לעשות מהם מצה. במשנת תרומות (פ\"א מ\"ה) יש מקבילה מלאה למשנה.", + "אלו חייבין בחלה ופטורין מן המעשרות – בניגוד למשנה הקודמת שעסקה במוצרי מזון החייבים בחלה ובמעשרות, הלקט והשכחה והפיאה וההבקר – כולם הם הפקר, ואין המלקט חייב במעשרות על הפקר. לכאורה ניתן להסתפק בהסבר שלקט, שכחה ופאה פטורים ממעשרות משום שאין \"כפל תשלומים\", כלומר אין הפרשה (מתנה) אחת חייבת במתנות נוספות. אמנם זו סיבה מספקת, אבל למשנתנו סיבה כללית יותר: לקט, שכחה ופאה הם הפקר, ואין הפקר חייב במעשרות30ראו פירושנו לפאה פ\"א מ\"ו; ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' קיד. .", + "ומעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו ומעשר שני והקדש שניפדו – רשימה זו חוזרת במקורות אחדים31משנה, ברכות פ\"ז מ\"א; עירובין פ\"ג מ\"ב; שבת פי\"ח מ\"א. והיא כוללת את כל הסוגים ההלכתיים ששימושם בעייתי, אלא שבכל המקבילות הללו נזכר גם \"הדמאי\". דמאי הוא פרות שלא ברור אם הופרשו מהם מעשרות. רוב עמי הארץ, אף שהפרישו בדרך כלל תרומה, נחשדו באי הפרשת מעשרות. מכיוון שהם היו רוב האוכלוסייה נחשבו סתם פרות לדמאי, והפרישו מהם מעשרות מספק. מכיוון שמעמדם היה מסופק נחלקו אבות עולם, בית שמאי ובית הלל, אם מותר לחלקם לעניים32בבלי, סוכה לה ע\"ב; לו ע\"ב. ניסוח זה הוא כנראה מסקנת הגמרא ממשנת דמאי פ\"ג מ\"א. הבבלי מסביר שבשעת הדחק סומכים על כך שרוב עמי הארץ מעשרים, והמאירי מסביר שלעניין צדקה מקלים באיסור דרבנן. אך מכל הסוגיות בנושא עמי הארץ ברור שאלו לא עישרו, והם היו רוב האוכלוסייה. מהמשנה שם לא ברור האם לדעת בית שמאי אסור לתת לעניים דמאי, או שמא רק צריך להשתדל להימנע מכך. ברם, מהבבלי סוכה שם משמע שבית שמאי אוסרים לחלק דמאי לעניים עמי הארץ ומשנת דמאי מדברת אפוא בחברים, ואז היא לדעת הכול, או גם בעניים עמי הארץ ואז היא לדעת בית הלל בלבד, וראו פירושנו לסוכה פ\"ג מ\"ה. , אף שיש ספק אם יקפידו על הפרשת מעשרות מדמאי. מכל מקום, אף שהדמאי חייב במעשרות הכירו חכמים בכך שחיובו בא מספק, ומי שלא הפריש מעשרות לא עבר על דבר תורה, ולכן ניתן לצאת ידי חובה במצת דמאי אף שמן הדין היא חייבת במעשרות33התלמוד הבבלי פירש בדרך שונה, שהמצה ראויה לאכילה לעניים, ברם אמנם מותר לתת דמאי לעניים אולם הם חייבים בהפרשת מעשרות, וראו בהרחבה בפירושנו לסוכה שם. על כן נראה שהבבלי במקורו התכוון להסבר שהבאנו והביא את המשנה שמאכילים לעניים דמאי כדי להראות שחכמים מאפשרים לקיים מצוות בפרות דמאי, ובמקרה זה מדובר במצוות צדקה, וכך הם כאילו מתעלמים לשעה מחובת הפרשת המעשרות. חכמים לא ויתרו על חובת הפרשת מעשרות מדמאי, אך לא כרכו אותה במצוות מעשרות. למדיניות החברתית ראו בהרחבת מה בפירושנו לסוכה. ראשונים פירשו ש\"יוצאין\" משמע רק בדיעבד אך לא לכתחילה (תוספות הרא\"ש, ר\"ש משאנץ ועוד), ברם במשנתנו ההלכה בדבר דמאי משובצת יחד עם סוגי דגנים שבוודאי יוצאים בהם ידי חובה לכתחילה. . מותר לזמן על מזון דמאי (משנה, ברכות פ\"ז מ\"א), לערב בדמאי (משנה, עירובין פ\"ג מ\"ב) ולהציל מזון משרפה (משנה, שבת פי\"ח מ\"א), ולדעת בית הלל אף לקיים מצוות נטילת לולב (לפחות בדיעבד) מדמאי (ראו פירושנו לסוכה פ\"ג מ\"ו). את כל ההלכות הללו הסברנו ברצונם של חכמים שלא להדיר את הציבור הרחב (שרובו היו עמי הארץ) מכלל מצוות.", + "המשנה מונה את החייבים בחלה ופטורים ממעשרות. הדמאי אולי חייב בחלה, אך ודאי שחייב במעשרות. אם כן, אין המשנה מביעה את דעתה על הדמאי, והוא אכן חייב בתרומה, אך אין הוא נכלל ברשימת הסוגים שבמשנה. אלא שהסבר זה אינו מספק. כפי שנראה להלן אין הרשימה שבמשנה מתאימה לכותרת גם במקרים נוספים (אי אפשר לומר שמעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו חייב במעשרות). אין זאת אלא שהמשנה מביאה רשימה שהיא תבנית ספרותית קבועה, אף שלא כל פרטיה מתאימים לכותרת. כאמור, למשנתנו מקבילה גם במסכת תרומות העוסקת בדין מוצרים הפטורים מתרומה. גם שם אין הדמאי נזכר, שכן התרומה ניתנת עוד לפני חובת הפרשת המעשרות, וסתם \"דמאי\" הוא פרות שהופרשה מהם כבר תרומה. ייתכן, אפוא, שמשנתנו מעבירה את הרשימה ממסכת תרומות ולכן הדמאי נעדר. כך או כך, במכלול הגדול של משניות א-ג נזכרים סוגים רבים והדמאי אינו נזכר, ולא ברורה עמדת המשנה לגביו.", + "מכל מקום, אין ספק שלחם דמאי חייב בחלה. אם מעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו חייב בחלה, קל וחומר בדמאי שהוא קמח שמעשר ראשון לא ניטל ממנו. כן יוצא מהתוספתא (פ\"א ה\"ח), אם כי התירו להפריש רק חצי מהכמות הרגילה (להלן פ\"ב מ\"ז).", + "לא נאמר מדוע כל אלו חייבים בחלה. נראה שההסבר תלוי במועד ההתחייבות. מעשרות חייבים בזמן גמר מלאכה, והלקט והשכחה היו אז במצב של הפקר, אבל בזמן עשיית העיסה הם שייכים לאדם מסוים (לעני). הסבר זה מתאים מאוד להמשך (למותר העומר), ופחות ללקט, שכחה ופאה, שכן בזמן ההתחייבות במעשרות כבר שייכים היו הפרות לעני שליקט אותם. בספרי מובאת לכך דרשה מיוחדת התולה את הדברים בגזרת הכתוב (ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 114). בירושלמי (נז ע\"ג) מובאת דרשה אחרת, קשה לא פחות. ברם, קשה לקבל כי אכן חכמים למדו את הדין מן הפסוק, ועדיין יש לחפש נימוק הלכתי. נראה שההסבר חוזר לעקרון ההפקר. הפקר פטור ממעשרות, אבל חייב בחלה. בעל השדה אמור להפריש מעשרות ולפרות אלו אין בעלים, אבל חלה צריך להפריש האופה או האוכל ויש לפרות אלו אוכלים. ", + "ומעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו – קמח שהופרש על ידי הבעלים כמעשר. את המעשר יש לתת ללוי, והוא חייב להפריש ממנו לכוהן מעשר מן המעשר המכונה \"תרומת מעשר\". כאשר חז\"ל מדברים על מעשר הם מדברים על המעשר שהופרשה ממנו התרומה. מעשר זה אינו קדוש, ואין מגבלות על אכילתו. הבעלים חייב לשלם את חובו ללוי, אך זהו חוב רגיל ולפיכך הקמח ראוי לאכילה, אף שעדיין נותר בעינו החוב הכספי ללוי. הלוי מנוע מלתבוע את חובו שכן אין לבעלים חוב ללוי ספציפי אלא לכלל הלוויים, ועל כן תשלום החוב תלוי בלעדית ברצונו של הבעלים, כמו רוב החובות הדתיים. הירושלמי (נז ע\"ג) שואל: הרי מעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו הוא כחולין, וכיצד זה ניתן לומר שהוא פטור ממעשרות מצד אחד, ומצד שני מה החידוש בכך שחייב בחלה? תשובת התלמוד היא \"שהקדימו בשבלים\", כלומר המעשר ניתן שלא כהלכה. ההסבר דחוק ביותר, שהרי לא באה המשנה ללמדנו דין נתינת מעשרות. אין זאת אלא שהרשימה היא בתבנית הקבועה ומועברת ממשניות אחרות (ממשנת תרומה), ולא הקפידה המשנה שכל אחד ממרכיבי הרשימה יתאים לכותרת34וראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ה, ושם חילופי נוסח למשנה שאינם אצלנו. .", + "ומעשר שני והקדש שניפדו – מעשר שני מפרישים במשך ארבע שנים מתוך מחזור של שבע שנות השמיטה (בשנים הראשונה, השנייה, הרביעית והחמישית). את המעשר יש לאכול בירושלים בטהרה, אך במקרים מסוימים ניתן לפדות אותו, כלומר המגדל יכול למכרו לעצמו במחיר הקרן וחומש. הלכות אלו נקבעו בזמן הבית, אך באופן כללי נותרו על כנן גם לאחר החורבן. הציבור היהודי המשיך להפריש מעשר שני, אך פסק לחלוטין הנוהג להעלותו לירושלים. כל זאת אף על פי שלא הייתה כל מניעה לכך. מבחינה הלכתית עדיין ניתן היה להעלות את הפרות ולאכלם בטהרה. אך חכמים הבינו שהאכילה בירושלים תלויה במקדש, על כן קבעה ההלכה שיש לשמור את הכסף עד שייבנה המקדש. נראה שמכל מקום רוב הציבור פדה את פרות המעשר השני, ופרות שנפדו הם כחולין לכל דבר35ראו המבוא למסכת מעשר שני. .", + "הקדש – הוא פרות או כספים שהובטחו למקדש. גם אותם ניתן לפדות. לאחר ימי הבית התמעט הנוהג להקדיש פרות למקדש, אך ייתכן שעדיין לא בטל לחלוטין. יתר על כן, קבוצה זו של דמאי, מעשר ראשון וכו' היא קבוצה קבועה החוזרת במקורותינו, אף שאולי חלק מהמקרים בה הפכו לרווחים פחות בחיי היום-יום. ", + "מותר העומר – מותר העומר אינו נזכר במקבילות שנמנו. דין מותר העומר נקבע במשנה אחרת: \"והשאר נפדה ונאכל לכל אדם וחייב בחלה ופטור מן המעשרות. רבי עקיבא מחייב בחלה ובמעשרות\" (משנה, מנחות פ\"י מ\"ד; תוס', פ\"י הכ\"ד)36ראו בבלי, סו ע\"א. בתלמוד הבבלי פרק י שבמשנה הוא פרק ו. . הפטור ממעשרות נובע מכך שבזמן הקציר והגורן היו הפרות פטורים ממעשר כיוון שנועדו לשולחן עליון, זאת אף על פי שבהמשך התברר שהחיטים לא הגיעו לשולחן עליון. אבל בחלה התחייבו רק בזמן עריכת הבצק, ואז כבר היו אלו פרות חולין. רבי עקיבא חולק על התנא קמא של משנת מנחות ועל משנתנו.", + "והתבואה שלא הביאה שליש – תבואה שלא הביאה שליש פטורה ממעשרות (משנה, מעשרות פ\"א ה\"ג, וכיוצא בה שביעית פ\"ד מ\"ט, ועוד).", + "רבי אלעזר אומר תבואה שלא הביאה שליש פטורה מן החלה – כפי שמסביר הירושלמי (נז ע\"ד), לדעת רבי אליעזר תבואה שלא הביאה שליש אינה מחמיצה. חכמים סבורים שהיא מחמיצה, ומכל מקום היא ממיני הדגן. הירושלמי מביא גם לימוד מדרשי כטיעון בוויכוח, וכנראה לא שבע נחת מההסבר המעמיד את המחלוקת כמחלוקת במציאות." + ], + [ + "אלו חייבין במעשרות ופטורין מן החלה – המשנה היא הניגוד של משנה א. נמנים בה פרות הקרובים לדגנים, ואופים מהם מאפה שהוא דמוי פת, אך אין הם בין חמשת המינים ולכן אין הם חייבים בחלה. הקביעה ש\"חייבין במעשרות\" היא דבר פשוט ונאמרת כאן רק כדי ליצור איזון בין המשניות: חייבים בחלה ומעשרות (מ\"א-מ\"ב), חייבים בחלה ופטורים ממעשרות (מ\"ג), פטורים מחלה וחייבים במעשרות (מ\"ד). כפי שראינו כבר, מבנה סכמטי זה והשימוש בתבניות הספרותיות הקבועות יצרו חוסר איזון במשנה וכמה היגדים שהם פשוטים ומיותרים. גם משנתנו מונה רשימה שהיא תבנית ספרותית ידועה. במשנת שביעית נמנית הרשימה (שביעית פ\"ב מ\"ז), וכפי שהסברנו שם אכן במשנת שביעית ארבעת המרכיבים הראשונים שברשימה הגיוניים. מדובר שם על גידולי קיץ שהשרישו לפני ראש השנה. לעומת זאת במשנתנו הרשימה מאולצת. אורז ודוחן עשויים להיחשב כדגן שממנו ניתן לאפות פת, ברם אי אפשר לאפות מאכל דמוי פת משומשמין. ברור, אפוא, שחלק זה של הרשימה מועבר ממסכת שבת. החלק השני (“והסיפגנין” ואילך) אינו מוכר כרשימה ספרותית ממקור אחר37הרמב\"ם פירש שהכותרת ברישא חלה רק על חלק מהרשימה, והסיכום \"ופטורים מן החלה\" חל רק על הסופגנים והמשך המשנה. אין זה סגנון המשנה; וכי אלו אינם חייבים במעשר?! .", + "האורז והדוחן הפרגין והשמשמים – כאמור אלו ארבעה גידולי הקיץ, האורז – הוא הגידול הידוע גם כיום בשם אורז וגדל במים. מפרשים אחדים שחיו באירופה ולא הכירו גידול זה מקרוב התחבטו בזיהויו ופירשו בדרך שפירשו, אך אין ספק כי האורז הוא oryza ביוונית וברומית, ובסורית וערבית רוז. זיהוי זה תואם מבחינה לשונית ומתיאור דרך גידולו במים את משנת שביעית: \"ממרסין באורז בשביעית\" (פ\"ב מ\"י), ורבינו יצחק בן מלכי צדק לועזו: \"אורז – ריזי\"38חכמי אשכנז התחבטו בזיהוי כנראה מתוך שהיה נדיר באזורם, ראו שמש, צמחים. . הדוחן אף הוא ידוע בשמו בימינו, ובאנגלית millet. כן לועזו רבינו יצחק בן מלכי צדק: \"והדוחן – מילייו\", וכיוצא בו אף רש\"י בראש השנה (יג ע\"ב) והרמב\"ם בפירושו. בימי המשנה יש ששימש לאפיית לחם (חלה פ\"א מ\"ד). בימינו הוא מאכל לעופות.", + "והפרגין – אין אלו הפרג שבימינו, שהרי הפרג שבימינו אינו משמש אלא כתבלין, ואי אפשר להכין ממנו לחם או מצה כפי שעולה ממקורות תנאיים נוספים (ספרי במדבר, פיסקא קי, עמ' 113; שם, פיסקא קמו, עמ' 193). חוקרים בימינו העלו כי \"פרגה\" בסורית מציינת מין דוחן או דורה39לאו, פלורה א, עמ' 743; פליקס בפירושו, עמ' 129. . כך מזהה רבי נתן אב הישיבה: \"פרגין – דורה\".", + "והשמשמים – הוא השומשום הידוע בימינו. זיהויו ברור ומקובל אצל מפרשי המשנה, והוא הסומסום בערבית. הוא גידול קיץ, ומשמש להכנת מיני מאפה ולשמן (שבת פ\"ב מ\"ב)40שמן שומשומין היה השמן המשובח ביותר בבבל, ראו בבלי, שבת כג ע\"א. שם נאמר ש\"כל השמנים כולן יפין לנר [חנוכה], ושמן זית מן המובחר\", ואביי הבבלי העדיף שמן שומשומין. ההיגד \"שמן זית מן המובחר\" מייצג את המצב בארץ ישראל, כמובן. בארץ ישראל היה ייצור שמן השומשום מצומצם, אך ברור שבמקביל גידלו שומשומים גם בארץ ישראל, כפי שעולה ממשנתנו ומתוספתא תרומות (פ\"י הט\"ו) העוסקת בהפרשת תרומות מצמח זה. .", + "בכל עדי הנוסח האחרים, חוץ מכתב יד קופמן, משפט נוסף: \"ופחות מחמשת רבעים\", וקרוב להניח שנשמט מכתב היד, שכן אחריו מתחילה רשימה אחרת של מוצרים מסוג מיוחד. הכלל עצמו ידוע וברור שעיסה בכמות קטנה מחמישה רבעים של קב פטורה מחלה, כפי שהעלינו במבוא ולהלן פ\"ב מ\"ו.", + "והסיפגנין – בעדי הנוסח הבדלים זעירים: סופגנים (סופגנין) או ספגנים (ספגנין). בכל אלה השורש הוא ספ\"ג. הירושלמי (נז ע\"ד) מסביר \"טריקטא\", והכוונה למונח הלטיני Tracta שמשמעו דבר הניטל ביד או שנעשה ביד41סוקולוף, מילון, עמ' 232, תרגם dough שמשמעו בצק. . קראוס מפרש על פי הלטינית: דבר הנמתח ביד. הכוונה לעוגייה קטנה, אבל ספק אם זו הסיבה היחידה לכך שהסופגן פטור מחלה, הרי גם אם זו עוגייה קטנה הבצק חייב בחלה אם הוא בכמות מספקת. אין זאת אלא שהירושלמי מכוון את דבריו לסוג מסוים של עוגייה קטנה הפטורה מחלה בגלל סוג הבצק. כל יתר הדוגמאות להלן הן סוגי מזון שהרכבם דומה לפת אלא שהם מתוקים או שאינם נאפים בצורה רגילה (להלן). בדרך זו יש לחפש גם את משמעותו של הסופגן. בספרי שנינו: \"רבי יוסי אומר חמשת רבעים מתוקין לפטור. 'מלחם' ולא כל לחם, פרט למבושל, והסופגנין, והדובשנין, והאיסקריטין, וחלת המסרית והמדומע [שפטורים מן החלה]\"42ספרי זוטא, טו יט, עמ' 283; כעין הלכה זו בתוס', פסחים פ\"ב הי\"ט-ה\"כ. . גם כאן חוזרים שני הנימוקים, מה שאינו אפוי ומה שהוא מתוק.", + "במסכת כלים נאמר שתנור מקבל טומאה (שנגמרה מלאכתו) \"משיסיקנו כדי לאפות בו סופגנין\" (משנה, כלים פ\"ה מ\"א). על כך מפרש בעל פירוש הגאונים: \"עיסה שלשוה ועשאוה כמין ספוג... ודומין להלין דלאביה\"43אפשטיין, פירוש הגאונים, עמ' 15. . במסכת עוקצין מדובר על פת סופגנים ושם יוצא שיש לה חלל, כלומר מדובר במוצר שניתן למעוך. שם פירש בעל אותו פירוש \"פת שנעשה מן בצק שהחמיצה כל צורכה ודומה לספוג שיש בו נקבים נקבים\"44שם, עמ' 143, וראו ערוך ערך ספג, כרך ו, עמ' 100. . אפשטיין מצטט את מילונו הסורי של בן מהלול המפרש \"מן לישא דגלוסקא ומשחה ומתפלגה למנתה\" (מלישה של גלוסקה [בצק מתוק] ושמן ומתחלקת למנות)45אפשטיין, שם, עמ' 15. . כך מאחד המילונאי הסורי את שתי העדויות השונות. הכוונה, אפוא, לעוגיות הנעשות מבצק שתפח עד למאוד והן מתוקות. ייתכן גם שהן מטוגנות בשמן (כסופגניות של ימינו).", + "בירושלמי יש מחלוקת בין רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש האם טריקטא היא לחם או לא (נז ע\"ד). אם היא לחם היא חייבת בחלה, ואפשר שיוצאים בה ידי חובת מצה. מסתבר ששני אמוראים אלו לא סברו שסופגן הוא טריקטא, או שלא היססו לחלוק בפשטות על המשנה. מסתבר, אפוא, שסופגן איננו בדיוק טריקטא, אם כי אולי דומה לו במצבו. לא ייתכן שיהא חכם שיגיד שמאפה (או תבשיל) מבצק שתפח היטב יוצאים בו ידי חובת מצה. אין זאת אלא שסופגן הוא עוגייה מתוקה מבצק שתפח ובושלה במים או טוגנה בשמן, וטריקטא היא מאפה דמוי מצה שלא תפח (לא החמיץ) אך הוא מתוק, ומוגש כעוגיות. מן הסתם מחלוקת האמוראים היא על בצק מעין זה שייחודו הוא בכך שהוא מתוק ונהוג להכינו כעוגיות, והסופגן שונה, כפי שאמרנו.", + "פעמים מספר נזכר בתנ\"ך המונח \"רקיק\". בתרגומים הארמיים הוא מתורגם אספוג (אספוגין, ספוגין וכו') או \"עריך\"46בתרגום השבעים: Legana או Leganon. באונקלוס תמיד בשורש ספ\"ג; בניאופיטי \"עריך\" ובתרגום יונתן פעם כך ופעם כך, בשינויי כתיב. ראו שמות כט ב; כט כג; ויקרא ב ד ועוד. לזיהוי ה”לגנון” ראו להלן. . הרקיק דומה למצה, שהרי חוזר לגביו המינוח המקראי \"רקיקי מצות\", וגם הוא מחמיץ, שכן משתמשים בו בפסח למצה (אם אינו שרוי או מבושל – משנה, פסחים פ\"ב מ\"ה). אם כן, הזיהוי המוחלט בין סופגן ורקיק הוא בעייתי. מכל מקום הרקיק הוא לחם שלא החמיץ, שהרי הוא כשר למצה (בבלי, פסחים לה ע\"ב), (איור 4). ", + "אם כן, לפנינו שני קווי מחשבה או סוגי עדויות. האחד מצביע על כך שהסופגן עשוי מבצק", + "תופח והוא מתוק ואינו מתאים לשמש כמצה או רקיק, והאחר שהוא דומה לרקיק (ולמצה) ויוצאים בו ידי חובה (בטריקטא שהיא סופגן) בפסח. במשנה הבאה נראה שסופגן ולחם עשויים מאותו חומר, וברור שייחודו ההלכתי הוא שהסופגן נעשה כעוגיות קטנות. ניתן היה לאפות את הסופגן מבצק שהחמיץ או מבצק שלא החמיץ, ואולי גם בדרך כלל עירבו בו מיני מתיקה (או שמן רב יותר), אבל ניתן היה גם להכין סופגן יבש ופשוט יותר. ייחודו הוא בחלוקה למנות קטנות בלבד, מעין עוגיות של ימינו. הרקיקים היו מלבניים (מנחות פי\"א מ\"ד-מ\"ה), כלומר דומים למצות שלנו. הם נמכרו בשוק גם כמאכל חולין (בבלי, לה ע\"ב), והוכנו בשתי צורות: אפויים בתנור או מטוגנים במחבת או במרחשת. ", + "כאמור תרגום השבעים מתרגם רקיקים כ\"לגאנה\" (λαγάνα), וכך תרגם גם יוספוס. הלגאנה מוכרת בספרות היוונית. מילונו של הסיכיוס מגדיר Laganon כסוג של עוגה ", + "קטנה, יבשה, שנעשית מן הקמח הטוב ביותר ומטוגנת במחבת בשמן זית47הסיכיוס, מילון, ערך λεγανον. . כפי שראינו, אחת השיטות להכנת הרקיקים הייתה טיגונם במחבת. אתינאיוס מגדיר את ה\"לגנון\" כלחם דק וקל. יש שני סוגים, האחד רך מן האחר ושניהם נאפים ככל הנראה על גחלים48אתינאיוס, סעודה, כרך ג 110. . הוא הציע מתכון ללגאנה מתובלת, ולא נרחיב בו, ולדבריו הוא קרוב למה שהרומאים קוראים לה \"טרקטה\"49שם, כרך ג 113. לפרשה כולה ראו דיקשטיין, המטבח. . צלזיוס (Celsus) הרופא המליץ על lagana כמזון מוצק ראשון לאחר הבראה מלסת שבורה. סביר להניח שהוא לא התכוון למזון קשה ויבש, אלא למאכל רך ועדין.", + "לגאנה קיימת עד היום בשמה זה בפולחן הנוצרי-יווני, ואף בחנויות הלחם ביוון כיום. הלגאנה מעוצבת כמלבן בעל פינות מעוגלות, ולאחר שעוצבה מושחים אותה בשמן ומפזרים עליה סומסום. מקור השם הוא רצועות רחבות של אטריות50דיקשטיין, שם. . הלגנון שינה אפוא את אופיו, והרקיק הנזכר במשנה הוא מצה מלבנית נוקשה, אך המונחים של הלחמים השונים השתנו.", + "והדיבשנים – הירושלמי מפרש: \"מלי גאלה\" (נז ע\"ד). מלי היא המילה הלטינית mali שמשמעה מתוק ויוחדה לדבש, וגלי הוא Galla שמשמעו סוג של אגוז. אם כן, זו עוגה עם מילוי של דבש ואגוזים. מכיוון שהיא מתוקה אין היא נחשבת ללחם.", + "והאיסקריטים – הירושלמי מסביר: \"חליטין דשוק\" (שם). חלוט הוא מאכל קמח, \"הנותן קמח לתוך חמין\" (תוס', פ\"א ה\"א), כפי שנבאר בפירושנו להלן מ\"ו. אם כן, איסקריטין הם חליטה הנעשית בשוק, כנראה כחטיף לעוברי האורח בשוק. שוב אין בכך כדי להסביר לנו את המונח, אף שקדמונים ודאי הכירו היטב עוגה זו. רמז מסוים יש בהמשך הירושלמי המסביר ש\"חלת מסרת\" הנזכרת להלן במשנה היא \"חליטין דמיי\", כלומר חליטה במים, על כן ניתן לפרש שאיסקריטין הם חליטה בשמן, כלומר עוגיות הנעשות על ידי הכנסת בצק לשמן רותח. בתרגום השבעים (לשמואל ב ו יט) מופיע המונח כתרגום ל\"אשפר\". במדרש מבואר הפסוק \"וטעמו כצפיחית בדבש, רבי יהושע אומר כלפס וכעין איסקריטי. רבי אליעזר אומר כסלת זו שצפה על גבי נפה ונלושה בדבש וחמאה\" (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, בשלח, מסכתא דויסע, ה, עמ' 171). הווה אומר, היו אלו עוגיות מתוקות שדבש היה מרכיב מרכזי בהן.", + "חלות מסרת – כאמור מסרת או משרת מפורשת בירושלמי כ\"חליטין דמיי\" (שם). בשמואל ב יג ו מסופר על אמנון שדרש מתמר שתלבב לו לביבות; הפועל מתורגם בארמית של תרגום יונתן \"תחלוט לעיני תרתין חליטתא\", ובהמשך נאמר \"ותקח את המשרת51התרגום היווני מתרגם τόν πεγάνον שמשמעו שהמסרת היא סוג של נוזל, כנראה בישול במים. בסורית משתמש המחבר במונח \"לביבות\" גם בפסוק זה, ללא תרגום למונח. ותצֹק לפניו\" (שם ט). זו אפוא המשרת של המשנה. סדר הבישול שם הוא: \"ותקח את הבצק ותלש ותלבב לעיניו ותבשל את הלבבות. ותקח את המשרת ותצֹק לפניו\". אם כן בשלב ראשון הוכן הבצק, בשלב שני המבשלת שופכת מים רותחים על הבצק וכנראה אופה או מבשלת את המאכל. המאכל מוגש כשהוא נוזלי, כמעין ריבה או פודינג.", + "בתלמוד הבבלי מתנהל דיון על משנתנו ויש בו עניין רב: \"מאי חלת המסרת? אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: זה חלוט של בעלי בתים. אמר ריש לקיש: הללו מעשה אילפס הן. ורבי יוחנן אמר: מעשה אילפס חייבין, והללו שעשאן בחמה. מיתיבי: הסופגנין והדובשנין והאיסקריטין, עשאן באילפס – חייבין, בחמה – פטורין. תיובתיה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש! אמר עולא, אמר לך רבי שמעון בן לקיש: הכא במאי עסקינן? שהרתיח ולבסוף הדביק, אבל הדביק ולבסוף הרתיח מאי?\" (פסחים לז ע\"א). אם כן, במקום \"חליטין דמיי\" נקבע שמסרת היא חליטין של בעלי בתים; יש להניח שהיגד זה בא בניגוד ל\"חליטין דשוק\" שהם האיסקריטין, ומסתבר שהבבלי העניק פירוש משלו לדברי האמורא הארץ-ישראלי. מדברי ריש לקיש משמע שהתבשיל מוכן באלפס, שהיא קדרת הבישול. בשלב ראשון מבשלים ובשלב שני מייבשים את התבשיל על ידי הדבקה, כלומר הטחת התבשיל על דפנות התנור כדי שיתייבש וייאפה. מדברי רבי יוחנן אנו שומעים שיש גם דרך להכין את התבשיל לא בסיר ואחר כך בתנור האפייה אלא בחמה, כלומר בייבוש בשמש. תבשיל כזה שיובש בשמש או בתנור אי אפשר ליצוק כפי שמסופר בתנ\"ך. הדעת נוטה שאלו הסברים שונים המבטאים שינוי בדרך ההכנה של המאכל. מכל מקום לתבשיל זה צורה של חלה (חלת או חלות המסרת), כלומר כיכר עגולה, מכאן שגם תנאי ארץ ישראל לא סברו שהכוונה לתבשיל נוזלי אלא לשלב נוסף שבו הוא מיובש ומיטגן קלות בתנור או בשמש, מעין חביתיות.", + "על רקע זה מובנת דרשת הירושלמי ש\"לחם עוני\" משמעו מצה ולא חלת מסרת או אשישה (פסחים פ\"ג ה\"ב, כט ע\"ב52במקבילה בספרי דברים, קל, עמ' 187, ובבבלי, פסחים לו ע\"ב, חסר האזכור של חלת מסרת. ). המסרת דקה כמצה ואינה מחמיצה אלא נחלטת ומבושלת, אבל היא מתוקה ועשירה ולכן אינה לחם עוני. ", + "והמדומע – מדומע הוא תערובת שיש בה חלק של תרומה והחולין אינם מרובים כך שהם יבטלו את התרומה. דינה של התערובת כתרומה, אף שחלקה הגדול (לעתים רוב גדול) הוא חולין. לכאורה יש צורך להפריש חלה מהתערובת, שהרי רובה חולין, אך כיוון שהוחלט שדינה כתרומה היא פטורה מן החלה, כשם שכל תרומה פטורה מחלה. בספרות הראשונים53ראו אור זרוע על אתר, מלאכת שלמה ועוד. מתנהלים דיונים ארוכים האם חלה בזמן המשנה היא מדאורייתא או מדרבנן, וחלק מהם נקשרו למשנתנו, שהרי לכאורה ספק הדימוע שהוא מדרבנן בא לעקור מצווה מדאורייתא. הרחבנו על כך במבוא למסכת תרומות, וכאמור איננו מוצאים שתנאים התחבטו בשאלה זו. לפי פשוטם של דברים חכמים מגדירים מהי תרומה ומהם חולין, ורק כתוצאה מהגדרת המציאות יחול, בשלב מאוחר יותר, דין חלה.", + "פטורין מן החלה – ההיגד מיותר, שהרי כבר נאמר בתחילת המשנה, ברם זה סגנונו המיוחד של פרק זה שהוא פותח בהצהרה הלכתית ומסיים בחזרה על הצהרה זו. הסברנו שהדבר נובע מדרך הרכבת המסורות ומהרצון ליצור משנה הכתובה כסיכום כללי." + ], + [ + "עיסה שתחילתה סיפגנים וסופה סיפגנים – בכל יתר כתבי היד ובדפוסים משפט נוסף: \"פטורה מן החלה תחילתה עיסה תחילה עיסה וסופה ספגנין תחילתה סיפגנים וסופה עיסה חייבת בחלה\" – אם כן, אם העיסה נועדה להיות חלה רגילה בשלב כלשהו (בתחילה או בסוף) היא חייבת בחלה, רק עיסה שתוכננה להיות סופגנים וסופה סופגנים פטורה מחלה. נמצאנו למדים שלחם רגיל (החייב בחלה) וסופגנים עשויים לעתים מאותו חומר. ההבדל הוא שהלחם נועד להיות לחם (כיכר או חלה) והסופגנים מתחלקים למנות קטנות כעוגיות. סביר שהסופגן גם מתוק יותר, אבל לא בכך ייחודו ההלכתי. בכך נדחות כל האבחנות שהצענו במשנה הקודמת. ", + "וכן הקנובקאות חייבות – וכן בירושלמי (נז ע\"ד) ובספרי זוטא (שלח טו יט, עמ' 283), והרי זה מאפה נוסף שחייב בחלה. הירושלמי מסביר: \"רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר קרמביטס חנניה בר עגול בשם חזקיה אמר בוקלטה שלא תאמר הואיל והוא עתיד להחזירה לסולתה תהא פטורה מן החלה\"54כך בירו', נז ע\"ד בכתב יד ליידן, בכתב יד רומי ובקטע שפרסם אפשטיין (מחקרים ב, עמ' 268). הקטע נשמט בדפוס ועמד על כך כבר רטנר, אהבת ציון, חלה, עמ' 111. . סולת היא קמח לבן מנופה ככל האפשר (משנה, מנחות פ\"ו מ\"ז; ראו פירושנו לתרומות פי\"א מ\"ה). קרמביטס היא Krambitas בלטינית שמקורה יוונית, ומשמעה צנימים. בוקליטה היא המילה הלטינית המקורית לצנימים, Buccellaum, אם כן שני הפירושים זהים, האחד הביא את השם שמקורו יווני והאחר שם לטיני55עד כאן אלו דברי אפשטיין, מחקרים ב, עמ' 844-843. . המשך הירושלמי מסביר את סוג המזון ואת הבעיה ההלכתית. נראה שהמדובר במזון שהוכן מסולת, כלומר מקמח מנופה, והכינו ממנו צנימים, בשלב שני טחנו אותם והכינו פירורי לחם, ואותם שילבו במזונות שונים56הרא\"ש מפרש שנועדו לאכילת \"יונקי שדים\". . השיקול ההלכתי לפטור מחלה הוא שמא יחזיר את הפירורים לתבשיל והוא לא ייאכל כלחם. דומה שבלי הנמקה זו העיקר חסר מן הספר, וממילא הקרמביטס-בוקליטה נועד בעיקר לשמש כפירורי לחם. בדרך זו אף פירש הרמב\"ם: \"קלי נילוש בשמן ואחר אפיתו מחזירים אותו קמח\"57וכעין זה אצל ראשונים נוספים. אלו אינם מביאים ראיה לדבריהם, ונראה שזו הייתה מסורת הלימוד, ראו למשל המאירי על אתר. אור זרוע (ריט) מסביר שבטחינה מחדש ה\"קנובקאות\" נעשים סולת. .", + "עד לגילוי כתבי היד רווחו בין הראשונים גרסאות מוטעות כגון \"שקילטא\", \"בן קלטא\" וכיוצא באלו58ראו אהבת ציון, שם. , אך לאור המידע שבידינו כל מרכיבי ההסבר משתלבים יחדיו. ", + "במהלך פירושנו ראינו שאמוראים הציעו פירושים למאכלים שבמשנה. בדרך כלל פירושים מעין אלו הם בארמית, ובמסכתות ככלאים או תרומות ניתנים פירושים רבים כאלו לשמות צמחים. במשנתנו חלק מהפירושים ביוונית וחלקם בלטינית. השימוש בלטינית בחברה היהודית בארץ ישראל היה מועט ביותר. בכלל הייתה הלטינית במזרח רק שפת השלטונות, וההמון מיעט להשתמש בה. גם שמות פרטיים בלטינית בארץ ישראל הם נדירים. נראה שלפנינו תחום מיוחד שבו השימוש ביוונית היה רב יחסית ואף השימוש בלטינית היה רב. המדובר בתחום האפייה של מאכלים מיוחדים. המון העם ראה מאכלים אלו רק לעתים נדירות, וב\"מטבח\" היהודי הם היו נדירים ביותר. דוגמה לכך יש במקורות מקבילים הקושרים את מאכלי הפאר לפוליס הגדולה והמיוונת בלבד59ראו על כך במבוא. . על רקע זה יובן ריבוי השמות הלטיניים והיווניים. עם זאת המשנה עוסקת במאכלים אלו, וכנראה גם בציבור היהודי היה מי שהשתמש בידע קולינרי זה." + ], + [ + "המעיסה – שני מונחים במשנתנו, \"מעיסה\" ו\"חליטה\". התוספתא מסבירה: \"רבי ישמעאל בי רבי יוסה אומר משם אביו אי זהו חלוט הנותן קמח לתוך חמין. המעיסה חמין לתוך קמח\" (פ\"א ה\"א-ה\"ב60החלוקה להלכות כאן קוטעת את דברי ההסבר, והיא מוטעית. ). אם כן, המעיסה היא מאכל ששופכים בו קמח לתוך מים או שמן רותח ומתקבלות מעין קציצות של בצק. חליטה היא תהליך הפוך שבו מכינים את הבצק או התבשיל על ידי שפיכת מים חמים על הקמח. שני התהליכים דומים מבחינת התוצאה61ערוך השלם, ערך מאס, כרך ה, עמ' 206; ערך חלט, כרך ג, עמ' 401. ראו בבלי, פסחים לז ע\"ב. .", + "בית שמי פוטרין ובית הלל מחייבין – בית שמאי מקלים, בניגוד למקרים רבים שבהם בית שמאי מחמירים.", + "החליטה – כאן הדעות הפוכות, בית שמי מחייבין [ו]בית הלל פוטרין – הדעות הפוכות מאלו שברישא ואי אפשר לבאר חילוף כזה של דעות. בתוספתא: \"וחכמים אומרים אחד זו ואחד זו, הנעשת באלפס ובקדרה פטורה, הנעשת בתנור חייבת\" (פ\"א ה\"ב). אם כן אין הבדל בין חליטה למעיסה, ואולי אף אין הבדל בין בית שמאי לבית הלל. בכל מקרה, תבשיל הנעשה באלפס (סיר הבישול) פטור מחלה, ואם העיסה נאפית בתנור היא חייבת. עד כאן ניתן להבין שחכמים חולקים על בית שמאי ובית הלל. גם הם מכירים את הנוסחה במשנה, שכן הם אומרים \"אחד זו (מעיסה) ואחד זו (חליטה)\". אלא שכנראה דברי חכמים הם מסורת אחרת לחלוטין למשנה. בירושלמי אומר רבי חייא בר הושעיה: \"שני תלמידים שנו אותה\", וכן מוסר חכם אחר ששמע זאת מרבי הושעיה הגדול, ואחר כך נוספה דעתם של חכמים (נח ע\"א). כן אומר הבבלי: \"מי ששנה זה לא שנה זה\" (פסחים לז ע\"ב). אם כן, מסורת אחת היא שבית שמאי פוטרים בשניהם ובית הלל מחייבים בשניהם, ומסורת אחרת שהדעות הפוכות. שתי המסורות נוסחו בצורה שונה, האחת אמרה בלשון \"המעיסה...\" והאחרת בלשון \"החולט...\". לפנינו, אפוא, שתי מסורות הנחלקות ביניהן בדין (חילופי שמות של החולקים), ואשר נערכו בצורה שונה זו מזו. האחת עסקה במעיסה, והאחרת בחליטה. העורך ליקט את שתיהן ולא חש שאמר דבר והיפוכו62ברש\"ס מצוטט הירושלמי כאילו כתוב בו \"תניא איזו היא מעיסה... רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משום אביו זה וזה לפטור\". נוסח זה נראה כתיקון שנועד לפטור את שאלת הסתירה הפנימית במשנה. בהערה הבאה נעמוד על כך שרבי יוסי הוא התנא הראשון במשנה. עורך המשנה לא חשש אף לסתום את משנתנו כדעת בית שמאי, ואכן משניות רבות נסתמו כדעת בית שמאי, או שדעת בית שמאי השפיעה על סגנונן ותוכנן. לרשימה חלקית ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי. . זה מקרה נדיר בהחלט שבו הסתפק העורך בליקוט יבש ולא חשש להעמיד שתי דעות מנוגדות כאילו היו דעה אחת. כפי שאמרנו, פרקנו בולט בכך שיש לו אופי סיכומי ויש בו ליקוט של משניות (משניות ממסכתות אחרות ו/או משניות קדומות). גם ראינו לעיל ליקוט של דעות או ניסוחים שונים ויציקתם לחטיבה אחת. במקרה זה המרכיב של הליקוט גדול עוד יותר.", + "בתוספתא ובירושלמי מובאת דעה נוספת שאין מחלוקת בין שני הבתים, אלא הכלל הוא שמה שנאפה חייב בחלה ומה שמתבשל בסיר פטור ממנה. כך גם לגבי מעיסה וחליטה. אם המזון מטופל רק באחת משתי דרכים אלו הוא פטור מחלה, ואם הוא נאפה לבסוף הוא חייב בה. ייתכן שחכמים מהלכים בשיטת בית הלל הפוטרים, ורק מוסיפים שאם התבשיל נאפה בסוף התהליך הוא חייב בחלה.", + "במשנת עדיות (פ\"ה מ\"ד) שנויה משנתנו בין המחלוקות שהן מקולי בית שמאי, והיא מיוחסת לרבי יוסי. מכאן שהתנא הראשון במשנתנו הוא רבי יוסי63אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 3-2, מוסיף וטוען שבעדיות פ\"ד רשימה אחרת של קולי בית שמאי ושם משנתנו נעדרת, ומכאן שהתנא של פרק ד שם הוא התנא השני במשנתנו. ברם, בהחלט ייתכן שהרשימה בפרק ד אינה מלאה, ואי אפשר לקבוע מה עמדתו של אותו תנא במקרה שלפנינו. .", + "בתלמוד הבבלי נוסף: \"רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משום אביו: זה וזה לפטור, ואמרי לה: זה וזה לחיוב\" (פסחים לז ע\"ב). בעל מלאכת שלמה למשנתנו מזכיר משפט זה וטוען כי הוא מצוי גם בירושלמי. מכל מקום, המשפט \"זה וזה לפטור ואמרי לה זה וזה לחיוב\" מופיע רק בבבלי ובעוד סוגיה המופיעה בשני מקומות, ומיוחס לאותו חכם (חולין כה ע\"ב; עירובין כח ע\"ב). לא מן הנמנע שהוא העברה אגב שגרה מהסוגיה בעירובין ובחולין.", + "חלות תודה – חלות תודה הן חלות שאדם התחייב להביא למקדש כתודה לקב\"ה. זהו קרבן נדבה, שהאדם מחליט עליו, אך משהחליט על כך התחייב בכך כחוב למקדש. מובן שיש להביאן למקדש, ולפיכך הן אסורות באכילה אלא במסגרת אכילת הקרבן.", + "ורקיקי נזיר – נזיר המסיים את ימי נזרו חייב בהבאת שני רקיקים (מיני מאפה), וכמובן אסור לאכלם אלא יש להביאם למקדש. מה שאינו לאכילת אדם פטור מחלה. משנת פסחים (פ\"ב מ\"ה) מקבילה למשנתנו ושם נקבע אותו עיקרון ביחס ליציאה ידי חובה של מצוות מצה: \"חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר, עשאן לעצמו אין יוצאין בהן, למכור בשוק יוצאין בהן\". הפרשת חלה מקבילה להיתר לאכול אותם ולצאת בהם ידי חובת מצה. ", + "עשאן לעצמו פטור – מחלה משום שהוא מתכנן להעלותם לקרבן, למכור בשוק חייב – אבל אם אפה אדם חלות תודה או רקיקי נזיר כדי: למכור בשוק – חייב בחלה ובמקביל יוצא בהם ידי חובת מצה. משנה זו פותחת צוהר לחיי היום-יום סביב המקדש. רבבות עולי רגל הגיעו לחג ואלו חייבים היו קרבנות רבים, נוסף על כך הגיעו עולים שהביאו עמם קרבנות נדבה ובאו למלא התחייבויות שנטלו על עצמם במשך השנה. התחייבויות אלו אינן חלק ממעשה העלייה לרגל, אך באופן טבעי ניצלו עולי הרגל את ההזדמנות ופרעו את נדריהם בזמן העלייה לרגל. אנשי ירושלים ניצלו את ההזדמנות הכספית ומכרו לעולים את צורכיהם, סתם אוכל, ואף קרבנות. המשנה מלמדת על אנשים שהכינו חלות תודה או רקיקי נזיר והעמידום למכירה לעולים. לפי ההלכה מאכלים אלו טרם נחשבו להקדש; אמנם הם יועדו למקדש, אך טרם הוקדשו לאדם ספציפי, ולכן הם חייבים בחלה. התלמוד הירושלמי מסביר: \"לא בדעתו הדבר תלוי\" (נח ע\"א), שכן הקונה יכול להחליט לאכלם אכילת חולין. ההלכה במשניות פסחים וחלה היא פרי התפתחות של הדיאלקטיקה התנאית, מסורות מורחבות יותר נמסרות בתוספתא.", + "\t\t\t\t אמר רבי אלעאי שאלתי את רבי אליעזר ", + "\t\t\t\t מהו שיצא אדם בחלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר? ", + "\t\t\t\t אמר לי לא שמעתי. באתי ושאלתי לפני ", + "\t\t\t\t רבי יהושע, אמר לי הרי אמרו חלות תודה ", + "\t\t\t\t ורקיקי נזיר שעשאן לעצמו אין אדם יוצא ", + "\t\t\t\t בהן, למכור בשוק יוצא בהן. וכשבאתי", + "\t\t\t\t והרציתי דברים לפני רבי אליעזר אמר לי: ", + "\t\t\t\t ברית! הן הן הדברים שנאמרו לו למשה בסיני64בבבלי נוסף “איכא דאמרי”, כלומר מסורת שונה. בנוסח הדפוס טושטש ההבדל, אך הוא השתמר בתשובת גאונים, שבנוסח הראשון נאמר “והרציתי את הדברים לפני רבי אליעזר ואמרי לה לפני רבי אלעזר בן עזריה”, ובנוסח השני “והרציתי את הדברים לפני רבי אלעאי” (כנראה צריך להיות רבי אלע’ = אלעזר, וההמשך קטוע. מסתבר שבנוסח השני נאמר “והרציתי הדברים לפני רבי אלעזר בן עזריה”, כמו בנוסח שבתוספתא חלה. תוספת זו של “איכא דאמרי” אינה בכתבי היד המסומנים רב, רג. שינויי נוסח נוספים בסוגיית הבבלי לא נרשמו, שכן אינם חשובים לענייננו. .", + "התוספתא והבבלי מוסרים אותה מסורת בשינויים. בבבלי פסחים נדונה השאלה של מצה, ובתוספתא חלה שאלת הפרשת חלה. איננו יודעים באיזה הקשר נאמרו הדברים, אך ברור שכל עורך הסב אותם לעניינו. הסבה זו היא הגיונית, שכן כאמור יש זיקה בין הנושאים ומה שחייב חלה גם יוצאים בו ידי חובת מצה בפסח. הבדל נוסף יש במסורת עצמה. בתוספתא הנשאל הוא רבי יהושע והעונה רבי אליעזר, ובבבלי להפך. נוסח הבבלי סביר יותר, שכן רבי אלעאי היה תלמידו המובהק של רבי אליעזר. המשפט \"לא שמעתי\" הולם את דרכו של רבי אליעזר בהלכה, וההבחנה המתוחכמת בין עשאן לעצמו לבין עשאן למכור מתאימה יותר לדרכו ההלכתית של רבי יהושע, תלמידם של בית הלל.", + "כך או כך, ברור מהמסורת שהמשניות במסכתות חלה ופסחים מוסרות את המחלוקות כפי שסיכמן רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, ואינן מסגירות את השתלשלות הדעות שהביאה לניסוח זה. יתר על כן, מתברר שנית שהביטוי \"הברית! אילו דברים נאמרו מהר חורב\" אינו מבטא היגד היסטורי, שכן קשה להניח שלרבי אלעזר בן עזריה הייתה מסורת שרבותיו לא שמעו עליה והם אולי אף מתנגדים לה. הביטוי הוא ספרותי ונועד לקבוע כי הסברה אמִתית ללא ספק, יש בה אמת דתית, ולא ניסיון לשחזור היסטורי65כבר עמד על כך ספראי, הלכה למשה מסיני. .", + "סוגיית חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר היא דוגמה מובהקת להשתלשלות המסורת. החומרים התנאיים הקדומים נמסרים בהמשך תקופת התנאים ובתקופת האמוראים, אך הם אינם נמסרים כלשונם ובהקשרם המקורי. תנאים מאוחרים או אמוראים עשויים לשנות את ההקשר המקורי, ובמהלך המסירה משתנים פרטים, מסוכמות המסקנות וחלים שינויים נוספים בפרטים." + ], + [ + "נחתום שעשה סאור לחלק – הרקע הרֵאלי להלכה הוסבר במבוא למסכת. את הלחם אפו הנשים בביתן, ולעתים נזקקו לקנות לחם מהנחתום. בכל כפר היה נחתום, כולל כפרים קטנים. הנחתום אפה בדרך כלל לחם, אך גם מכר שאור מוכן לבעלות הבתים לשימושן הפרטי. השאור הוא בצק שהחמיץ כל צורכו. בצק מחמיץ באופן אופטימלי בסביבה שיש בה לחות וחום, וניצלו את חום התנור לחמם בו את הבצק. גם הנחתום עשה כן, ולכן העדיפו לקנות ממנו שאור מוכן ולא להכינו בבית.", + "חייב בחלה – הנחתום מכין בצק בכמויות גדולות ומתכונן למכור אותו, על כן הוא חייב בחלה. אמנם הבצק נמכר בכמויות קטנות והוא דומה מבחינה זו לסופגנין שנדונו במשניות ד-ה, לפי פירושנו, ברם כאן מדובר בהכנת מנות קטנות למזון שיעורבב בתוך בצק רגיל. בעלות הבית אינן מכינות, בדרך כלל, בצק בכמות החייבת בחלה, ולכן ייתכן שחתיכת השאור תישאר ולא תופרש ממנה חלה, על כן חייב הנחתום להפריש ממנה חלה. הירושלמי (נח ע\"א) מנמק שאין הדבר תלוי בדעת הנחתום. הוא הכין שאור, אבל אם לא ימצא לקוחות הוא עשוי להפוך את חתיכות הבצק ללחם ולאפות אותו כרגיל. ניתן להסיק מההסבר שהשאור הוא בצק רגיל המונח להתפחה, ואם לא יימצאו לו לקוחות יושלך מידית לתנור וייאפה. זו הסיבה לכך שהמשנה אינה קובעת שהבצק חייב בחלה רק לכשיוכן כלחם.", + "הנימוק \"נחתום לא בדעתו הדבר תלוי\" מהווה את ציר הקשר למשנה הקודמת (איור 5).", + "ונשים שנתנו לנחתום לעשות להם סאור – זו כנראה שיטה שנייה. הנשים נותנות לנחתום מעט בצק שיתחמם ויתפח ליד התנור. אין הן קונות ממנו את הבצק, שכן חבל להן על ההוצאה, אם אין בשל אחת מהן כשיעור פטורה מן החלה – אם כל חתיכה קטנה משיעור חלה (וזה המצב כמעט תמיד) אין היא חייבת בחלה, זאת אף שכל חתיכות השאור מצויות זו ליד זו ונראות כלחם אחד.", + "בעל אור זרוע פירש שהנחתום אינו רשאי לתרום חלה משום שהוא כפועל, וכל הפועלים אין להם רשות לתרום. הכלל נאמר על הרמת תרומה רגילה (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"ג מ\"ד). ניתן להניח שהוא הדין בהרמת חלה. ברם, המשנה מדגישה שהדבר תלוי בשיעור. אם אחת נתנה לו בצק בכמות החייבת בחלה – הוא חייב להרים חלה. מכאן שהמשנה אינה עוסקת בבעיית הרשות של הפועל להרים חלה, אלא רק בשאלה של כמות גדולה של בצק השייכת לשותפים רבים ועומדת להתחלק. כמו כן, אין במשנה שאלה האם מותר לו להרים את החלה, אלא האם הבצק חייב בחלה." + ], + [ + "עיסת הכלבים – עיסת הכלבים אינה נזכרת עוד במקורות אלא בהקשר זה של מתן חלה. לפי שמה היא מאפה דגן העשוי במיוחד לכלבים. הירושלמי מסביר ש\"עירב בה מורסן\" (נח ע\"א). המורסן הוא קליפת גרעין החיטה, ובדרך כלל ניפו אותו מהקמח. ככל שהקמח היה מנופה טוב יותר כן נחשב למעולה יותר. הסולת היא החיטה לאחר ניפוי החול, הקש והוצאת המורסן66למורסן ראו להלן מ\"ו. , אך ללא ניפוי נוסף. בלשוננו “קמח מלא”. את הקליפה עצמה ניצלו רק למאכל בהמות וכמאפה לכלבים. אלא שנראה שלא היה זה ההבדל היחיד בין עיסת הכלבים לעיסה של לחם רגיל. רבי יהודה אומר: \"עיסת כלבים מעצמה נכרת. עשאה ככרין חייבת, עשאה לימודין פטורה\" (תוס', פ\"א ה\"ז; ירו', נח ע\"א). למילה \"ככרין\" חילופי נוסח רבים: בכתב יד ערפורט אלו \"כעכין\", ובירושלמי \"כעכין\", \"ביכואין\", \"כובעין\", \"כיפאין\", \"כינאין\" או \"כסאין\"67אפשטיין, מחקרים ב, עמ' 270. . הירושלמי שם ממשיך ומסביר: \"אפילו עשאה קלוסקין\", ומבהיר שלעתים הרועים אוכלים אותה, ולעתים היא כל כך נחותה עד שאין הרועים אוכלים אותה. מההסבר משמע שההבדל הוא בטיב העיסה, ואולי גם במידת הרגישות של הרועים באותו מקום ובאותו זמן.", + "נראה ששלושה סוגי המאפה הנזכרים הם כולם צורה חיצונית של המאפה. \"לימודין\" היא האות היוונית למדה68ראו ערוך השלם, ערך למד 3, כרך ה, עמ' 43. אור זרוע, רטו, מסביר שהם כעמודים ארוכים, כלומר לחמניות בלשון ימינו. לדעתו זהו לחם שאינו ראוי, ובכך גילה האופה דעתו שלא התכוון לאפות את האוכל כלחם אלא כעין עוגה, וצריך עיון. שצורתה Λ. כן נאמר במקום אחר שמי שמת לו מת ויש לו יין בבור “רבי יהודה אומר עושה לו לימודים” (משנה, מועד קטן פ”ב מ”ב, וראו פירושנו לה), וכלשונו של רש”י שם: “מכסהו עראי ולא כדרכו69קופפער, רש”י, עמ’ 37. . מפרשי משנה, ראשונים ואחרונים, פירשו את המילה “לימודים” - נסרים או קרשים של עץ. אולם לימודים הנזכרים בספרות התנאית הם לעולם חיבור וקישור של חרס, והוא כלי או פס מעץ או מחרס בצורת משולש70ראו ברנד, כלי חרס, עמ’ קנד, שכד, תקנא, תקנה, תקסה, תקצח; אפשטיין, פירוש הגאונים לטהרות, עמ’ 151. . רבי יהודה מתיר רק לכסותו בכיסוי ארעי, ואין לגוף את חביות היין כדרכו בחול. כן שניו במסכת כלים: “תנור שבא מחותך מבית האומן ועשה בו למודין ונותנן עליו והוא טהור. נטמא וסילק את למודיו טהור, החזירן לו טהור, מרחו בטיט מקבל טומאה“ (פ”ה מ”ט ומקבילות). התנור הגיע בצורה של טבעות או פסים, ובבית מחברים לעתים את החלקים בעזרת פסי מתכת והופכים את השברים לכלי עבודה (תמונה 2).", + "השברים טהורים, והתנור המורכב נחשב לכלי. דומה שמקור המילה הוא אותו חלק המכונה “לימודים” שבו מדביקים את חלקי התנור, והוא עשוי כצורת האות היוונית. לוקחים טיט ומדביקים על שפת הכלי כך שחלקי הטיט יתפסו את שני השברים מלמעלה. בשימוש משני המונח משמש לתיאור מכסה זמני, כאותה ששנינו: “ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בערב שבת. משלשלין את הפסח לתנור עם חשיכה, ועושה לו למודין. ונותנן עליו מערב שבת, נותן על גביו כסוי ונוטלו בשבת” (תוס’, פסחים פ”ז ה”א)71בפירוש המיוחס לרב סעדיה גאון מתורגם \"לימודים\" כ\"חלק\", ופירוש זה אינו מקדם את הבירור שכן לא זכינו להבינו. ראו אוצר הגאונים לפסחים, 112. ערוך השלם, ערך כעך, כרך ד, עמ' 281, אומר שכעכים הם כיכרות הנאפות בנפרד. .", + "נראה שמקובל היה להכין את אוכל הכלבים בצורת האות היוונית, והיה זה סימן מוסכם, “מעצמה ניכרת”. המונח מופיע בצורה דומה במקור אחר: “יכול יהו מהלקטין תורמסין לתרנוגלים, ועושין לימודים לכלבים, תלמוד לומר לכם <לכם> ולא לגוים לכם ולא לכלבים” (מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, יב טז, עמ’ 21). בהלכה עצמה נדון להלן, אך עולה שסתם עוגת כלבים היא “לימודים”.", + "צמד המונחים “כעכים” ו”לימודים” מופיע בסוגיית הבבלי הדנה בכותח, שגם היא “מעשיה מוכיחין עליה, עשאן כעבין – חייבין, כלמודין – פטורים” (ברכות לז ע”ב - לח ע”א). הגרסה המקורית היא כנראה “כעכין”. בסוגיה אחרת של הבבלי עולה שכיכרות רגילות “נושכות זו מזו”, כלומר נדבקות בתנור זו לזו, אבל כעכים אינם נדבקים. גם הלכה זו תוזכר להלן בהקשר אחר (בבלי, פסחים מח ע”ב), ומשמע שהכעך גדול וגס ואופים אותו לחוד בתנור, ולא כמו שאופים לחמים רבים בו בזמן בתנור. מפירוש גאון משמע שכעכים הם “גריצות גדולות כל אחד עשויה כמין כיפה ועדיין הערבים קוראים אותה כעך”72מביאו ליברמן (ראבי\"ה תכב, חלק ב, עמ' 52). ראו אוצר הגאונים לפסחים, עמ' 147. . גריצות הן הצמות שמהן קולעים חלה (ראו פירושנו לביצה פ”ב מ”ו), ובדרך כלל הכוונה לחלה עבה (שם, שם), בניגוד לרקיק שהוא דק וכנראה גם אינו עגול (תוס’, פסחים פ”ב הט”ו). על כן נראה שכעך הוא חלה העשויה מצמה אחת שמסובבים אותה סביב עצמה. כיכרות כאלה אפו לחוד ובאופן גס במיוחד לכלבים.", + "הירושלמי מזכיר סוג נוסף של עיסת כלבים והוא ה”קלוסקין”. הקלוסקין או הגלוסקין משמעו עוגה, כלומר לחם עגול, והוא מופיע כמונח לכיכר תקנית, אם כי מטיב מעולה, כפי שעולה מכמה מקורות, כגון “האוכלים למעדנים – רבי חנינא בר פפא אמר גלוסקין וחמר עתיק” (איכה רבה, פ”ב ה, עמ’ 145), וכן: “מעשה בשר ודם הם נאים משל הקב”ה, הביאו לי שבולים וגלוסקאות, אמר לו אלו מעשה הקב”ה, ואלו מעשה בשר ודם. אין אלו נאים...?” (תנחומא, תזריע, ז). כמו כן: “אמר רבי אליעזר בן עזריה למה הדבר דומה למלך שנטל סאה של חטים ונתנה לנחתום, ואמר לו: הוצא ממנו כך וכך סולת, כך וכך סובין, כך וכך מורסן, וסלית לי מתוכה גלוסקא אחת יפה מנופה ומעולה” (תנחומא, תצוה ה). ", + "אם כן, גלוסקין הוא כיכר עגולה רגילה הנעשית מצמה מגולגלת; כעך הוא כיכר גדולה במיוחד מגולגלת בצורת כובע, ולימודין היא עוגה או לחם בצורת האות למדה, כלומר כמשולש Λ. האמורא אומר שאפילו עשה עיסת כלבים בצורה של גלוסקין אין היא חייבת בחלה; לא צורת המאפה קובעת אלא טיב החומר שבה. ", + "גידול כלבים", + "יחסם של החברה היהודית ושל חז”ל, לכלב, היה מורכב. מצד אחד נחשב הכלב לחיית פרא מסוכנת, מצד אחר נעזרו בו לשמירה ולהגנה. הכלב נזכר בעיקר בהקשר של סְפר ומרעה73ראו שוורץ, כלבים. , וגם במשנתנו הבעלים של הכלב הוא הרועה. חשוב להעיר שממשנתנו יוצא בבירור שהייתה תרבות של גידול כלבים הכוללת אפייה מיוחדת לצורכיהם, ואפילו מונחים קבועים וצורות חיצוניות קבועות של ה”בונזו” הקדום.", + "בזמן שהרועים אוכלים ממנה – אם הרועים אוכלים מן המאפה הרי הוא כלחם לכל דבר. להלן מונה המשנה מה משמעותה של קביעה זו (איור 6).", + "חייבת בחלה – ככל לחם אחר העיסה חייבת בחלה, ומערבים בה – אפשר להניח בה עירוב תחומים, ומשתתפין בה – אפשר להשתמש בה להנחת עירוב חצרות ותחומים, שבהם משתתפים כל בני החצר או המבוי. את דיני העירוב למדנו במשנת עירובין פרק ג. במשנה א של אותה מסכת מופיע המונח “מערבין ומשתתפין”. כפשוטו שם עירוב הוא מונח כללי לכל התקנה של עירוב בכל דרך שהיא (מחיצה, הכנת אוכל, עירוב ברגליים74על כך ראו פירושנו לעירובין פ\"ד מ\"ז-מ\"ט. או בכל צורה שהיא), ואילו “משתתפים” הוא הכנת האוכל המשותף הנדרש לעירובי חצרות ומבואות. אבל בעירוב תחומין אין כל השתתפות. הירושלמי אומר ש”מערבים” זה בעירובי חצרות, ו”משתתפים – בין בחצירות בין בתחומין” (עירובין פ”ג ה”א, כ ע”ג). פירוש זה של הירושלמי בעירובין מוכח ממשנתנו. ניתן לערב ולהשתתף בכל מזון שהוא75ראו פירושנו לעירובין פ\"ג מ\"א. , אם כי העדיפו לערב דווקא בפת (כגון בבלי, עירובין נא ע”ב), ובפועל זה היה הנוהג המקובל. עיסת הרועים נחשבת, אפוא, כפת, ומברכין עליה ומזמנין עליה – ברכת המזון כמו על לחם. גם כאן מברכים על כל מזון, אך הכוונה לברכת המזון המלאה שאומרים רק על לחם.", + "ונעשת76ב- ס גרס \"ונאפית\", וראו הערותיו של זק\"ש, משנה, על אתר. בעל מלאכת שלמה ניסה לתלות את הנוסח במחלוקת רבי עקיבא ורבי יוחנן בן נורי על מועד הפרשת חלה (להלן פ\"ו מ\"ג וסוף פ\"ב, וראו פירושנו שם ושם), ברם דומה שהמילה \"נעשית\" היא כללית וזהה ל\"נאפית\", ואין בניסוח כל התייחסות למועד הרמת החלה. ביום טוב – ביום טוב מותר לאפות לחם לצורך החג, ולדעת חלק מהחכמים מותר גם לאפות כמות גדולה יותר אשר תספיק גם לצורך יום חול. כידוע, ביום טוב התירו להכין ולאפות רק אוכל נפש, ונחלקו חכמים מה היקפה של הגדרת אוכל נפש, האם היא כוללת בהמות, ואם כן האם כלבים בכלל. מצינו לכך שתי הגדרות. האחת כוללנית, האם בהמה היא בכלל אוכל נפש או לא: “ ‘אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש’ וגו’ – שומע אני אף נפשות בהמה ונפשות אחרים במשמע? תלמוד לומר לכם. לכם ולא לבהמה, לכם ולא לאחרים דברי רבי ישמעאל, רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר: ‘אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש’ אף נפשות בהמה במשמע? ...משמע מביא נפשות בהמה, ומביא נפשות אחרים, תלמוד לומר ‘אך’ חלק. רבי עקיבא אומר: ‘אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש’ אף נפש בהמה במשמע. משמע מביא נפש בהמה, ומביא נפשות אחרים? תלמוד לומר ‘לכם’ – לכם ולא לאחרים. מה ראית לחלוק. שאתה מוזהר על הבהמה ואי אתה מוזהר על הגוי” (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, מסכתא דפסחא, בא, פ”ט, עמ’ 32). המחלוקת נידונה גם בתלמודים (ירו’, ביצה פ”א ה”י, סא ע”א; בבלי, שם כא ע”א). אם כן, לפי רבי יוסי הגלילי האכלת בהמה נאסרה, לפי רבי עקיבא הותרה, אך ההיתר אינו כולל מלאכה לצורך אכילת נכרי.", + "האכלת כלבים עוררה מחלוקת נוספת: “אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש שומע אני אף נפשות בהמה שהיא קרויה נפש כעינין שנאמר ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה (ויקרא כד ח)? יכול יהו מהלקטין תורמסין לתרנוגלים ועושין לימודים לכלבים? תלמוד לומר ‘לכם’ – לכם ולא לגוים לכם ולא לכלבים” (מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, פרק יב ט”ז, עמ’ 21). בהמשך שם מובאים דברי רבי עקיבא ש”לכל נפש” כולל גם בהמה. ברם, בפ”ג מ”א הדיון כוללני פחות, והמשנה מבחינה בין בהמות שמזונותיהן עליך לבין חיות עצמאיות שאין מזונן על אדם. אשר לכלבים, למרות הדרשות לעיל רבי טרפון מתיר להאכיל כלבים, כנראה מאותה סיבה (ראו פירושנו לביצה פ”ג מ”ה; פ”ד מ”ב; שבת פכ”ד מ”ד). במקרה זה של האכלת בהמה, ייתכן שלאיסור לאפות עיסת כלבים מצטרף חשש נוסף שהכמות גדולה מדי, וממילא מספיקה ליותר מהנדרש ליום טוב, זאת לאור פירושנו שכעך הוא כיכר גדולה וגסה. זאת ועוד; כלב אינו סתם בהמה. אמנם מצד אחד הוא פחות תלוי באדם, אבל מצד אחר “הואיל ואפשר לפייסן בנבלה” (בבלי, ביצה כא ע”א), אפשר לתת לכלב לאכול נבלה והכנתה של זו אינה כרוכה באיסורי מלאכה ביום טוב. הווה אומר, גם מי שמתיר לאפות בשביל להאכיל בהמה יודה שאין להתיר אפייה לכלב, כי ניתן לספק את מזונו בדרכים מותרות יותר. מציאות הלכתית וחברתית זו נדונה בפירושנו למסכת שבת פכ”ד מ”ד.", + "ויוציא בה אדם ידי חובתו בפסח – אם היא נאפתה כך שלא החמיצה הרי היא כמצה.", + "אם אין הרועים אוכלין ממנה – אם זו עיסת לימודים ואין הרועים מוכנים לאכלה אין היא נחשבת ללחם על כל המשמעויות שלו, ואף אינה נחשבת לאוכל כלל.", + "אינה חייבת בחלה [ואין מערבין בה] – הנתון בסוגריים נוסף על ידי מעתיק מאוחר בין השורות, ואין משתתפין בה – כאמור מותר לערב ולהשתתף בכל אוכל, ואמנם העדיפו פת אך עיסת הכלבים אינה אוכל כלל, ואין מברכין עליה – שכן אינה בבחינת אוכל, ואין מזמנין עליה ואינה נעשת ביום טוב – תפיסת משנתנו היא שאין להכין אוכל לכלב ביום טוב. כאמור, ייתכן שהתנא סבור שנאסרה כל הכנת אוכל לבהמה, או שנאסרה רק הכנת אוכל לכלב, או שמותר אף להכין אוכל לכלב, אך לא במקרה זה הואיל והמלאכה אסורה בתכלית, ובמקביל את צורכי הכלב ניתן לספק בדרך מותרת יותר.", + "ואין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח.", + "בין כך ובין כך מטמא טומאת אכלין – גם אם אינה מאכל אדם היא מאכל בהמה (כלב), ומאכל בהמה מטמא טומאת אוכלין. טומאת אוכלין היא הגדרה הלכתית למזון שאם הוא אוכל הוא מוכשר לקבל טומאה (משנה, טהרות פ”א מ”א ועוד). אוכל לצורך הגדרה זו הוא כל הראוי למאכל, אף אם אין נהוג לאכלו. טומאת אוכלין היא טומאה קלה (ולד הטומאה), אפילו אם האוכל נגע במת אינו אלא טמא ברמה של “ולד הטומאה”, ואינה מטמאה את הנוגע בה (לא אדם ולא כלים). " + ], + [ + "החלה והתרומה חייבין עליהן מיתה77הרשימה מצויה בספרי זוטא, טו יט, עמ' 283, ונוסף \"וניקחת בכסף מעשר שני\". – האוכלם במזיד חייב מיתה בידי שמים (משנה, תרומות פ”ז מ”א). הדגש במשנה הוא על הלכות שבהן חלה כתרומה. היא נחשבת כקודש לכל דבר.", + "וחומש – מי שאכל בשוגג חייב להשיב לכוהן את דמיה בתוספת חומש, כדין אוכל תרומה (משנה, תרומות פ”ו מ”א), ואסורין לזרים – המשפט מיותר, שהרי אם אוכלם חייב ודאי שהם אסורים, אלא שהמשנה רוצה לכנס תחת גג אחד את כל ההלכות והניסוחים המצויים בהלכות הקדומות.", + "והן ניכסי כהן – המונח נראה מיותר, שהרי הדבר ברור וחוזר על הנאמר לפניו. במשנה אחרת שנינו: “התרומה והבכורים חייבים עליהן מיתה וחומש ואסורים לזרים והם נכסי כהן ועולין באחד ומאה וטעונין רחיצת ידים” (בכורים פ”ב מ”א). שם המשפט נחוץ על מנת להבהיר שהביכורים אינם קרבן למזבח, אלא ניתנים לכוהנים. ברור שמשנתנו מנוסחת כהמשך למשנת ביכורים. כפי שאמרנו, הפרק כולו הוא ניסוח מאוחר שיש בו לקט או תגובה למשניות אחרות, ומשנה זו מנוסחת אף היא על בסיס משנת ביכורים.", + "ועולין באחד ומאה – אם נפלו לחולין ובחולין פי מאה – התרומה מתבטלת. דין זה מנוסח באופן כללי בלבד, והניסוח המדויק נדון בפירושנו למשנת תרומות (פ”ד מ”ז).", + "וטעונים רחיצת ידיים – יש ליטול ידיים לפני אכילתם, אף אם האדם טבל כפי שנדרש להלן. המונח המקובל הוא “נטילת ידים”, ברם במקורות ארץ ישראל ובבל מופיע גם המונח “רחיצת ידים”78משנה, בכורים פ\"ב מ\"א; עירובין פ\"א ה\"י; ירו', חגיגה פ\"ב ה\"ה, עח ע\"ב; בבלי, יבמות עג ע\"א; בבא מציעא נג ע\"א, ועוד. . החלוקה היא שבמשנה מופיע לרוב המונח “רחיצת ידים” ובתוספתא ובמדרשי ההלכה “נטילת ידים” (או “נוטלים לידים”). ההבדל הוא שאדם רוחץ לעצמו ואבל נוטלים לו אחרים, ונדון בכך, אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת, במסכת ידים. מאוחר יותר, בתקופת הגאונים, היה ויכוח על נוסח הברכה, האם יש לברך “על נטילת ידים”, וכך פסקו גאוני בבל, או “על רחיצת ידים”, כפי שפסקו גאוני ארץ ישראל. הוויכוח התגלע במלוא חריפותו בליל הסדר. בהגדות ארץ ישראל משובצת הנוסחה “על רחיצת ידים”, וגאוני בבל תוקפים נוסחה זו בזעם. מסתבר שהנוסחה הקדומה נותרה בליל הסדר גם אחרי שבני ארץ ישראל קיבלו את הנוסח “על נטילת ידים”, זאת משום שבליל הסדר החגיגי השתמרו נוסחאות קדומות, וכן משום שנטלו בו ידיים שלוש פעמים (לטיבול ראשון, לארוחה ולמים אחרונים בסוף הסעודה), והייתה נטייה לגוון בברכות79ספראי וספראי, הגדת חז\"ל, עמ' 63-61; אוצר הגאונים לפסחים, עמ' 122-121. . מכל מקום, גם בספרות קומראן אין המונח “טבילה” נזכר, ובמקומו נעשה שימוש בשורש רח”ץ.", + "והערב שמש – האוכל תרומה וחלה חייב לטבול בערב, אף אם אינו יודע שנטמא. טבילה זו נזכרת במקורות מקבילים (ראו פירושנו לברכות פ”א מ”א) והיא מיוחדת במינה. היא לא נועדה לטהר אדם מטומאתו, שהרי חייבים בה גם מי שלא נטמאו, אלא זו טבילה להוספת קדושה וטהרה.", + "משנתנו ומקבילתה במסכת ביכורים (פ”ב מ”א) מניחה בפשטות שנטילת ידיים היא רק לתרומה ולמעשר שני, אבל במשנת חגיגה שנינו: “נוטלין לידים לחולין ולמעשר ולתרומה” (פ”ב מ”ה). במשנת עדויות (פ”ה מ”ו) מסופר על אליעזר בן חנוך (אולי חכם) “שפקפק בטהרת ידים” ונודה על כך. אולם מקורות פנימיים וחיצוניים מסוף ימי הבית מעידים כי נטילת ידיים לפני האוכל הייתה נוהג שכל היהודים נהגו בו והייתה סימן היכר לזהות יהודית80ירו', נח ע\"ג; ברכות פ\"ח ה\"א, יב ע\"א; בבלי, חולין קו ע\"א; מרקוס ז 5-1. . עסקנו בכך מעט בפירוש לברכות פ”ח, ואם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת נרחיב בכך במבוא למסכת ידים, ונראה שאכן שתי דעות היו בשאלה זו ומשנתנו נוקטת אחת הדעות.", + "ברוב עדי הנוסח נכתב רק “רחיצת ידים”, אבל ב- ל’, הוא כתב יד ליידן, נוסף “ורגלים”. גם במשנת בכורים המקבילה מוסיף כתב יד ץ’ האשכנזי מילה זו. בפירושנו לעירובין פ”י מ”י עמדנו על כך בהרחבה והראינו כי כנראה היה זרם בבתי המדרש שתבע לצרף לנטילת הידיים גם טבילת רגליים. במקביל נתגלו מקוואות המתאימים רק לנטילת רגליים ואינם מתאימים לטבילת כל הגוף. אין הם מתאימים גם לנטילת ידיים האמורה להיעשות בכלי, ואף אין הם מתאימים לכך מבחינה פונקציונלית.", + "ואינן ניטלים מן הטהור על הטמא81בעל מלאכת שלמה מעיר על היסוס מסוים לגבי משפט זה, \"מן הטהור על הטמא\". מי שמחק כן עשה זאת בגלל דברי רבי אליעזר (להלן פ\"ב מ\"ט) שבהם העניין חוזר, ושם רבי אליעזר חולק. ברם את מחלוקת התנאים בנושא אי אפשר לטשטש, כפי שאמרנו. – זו הלכה הנשנית במפורש לעניין תרומות (משנה, תרומות פ”ב מ”א). בפירושנו לה82הנושא נדון בסדרת משניות במסכת תרומות (פ\"א מ\"ד ואילך עד פ\"ב מ\"א). המשנה תמיד כדעת בית הלל, ודעת המתנגדים מצויה במקבילות. ראינו שההלכה המשנאית אסרה תרומה של כל מין על מין אחר, ובין השאר גם תרומה של טהור על הטמא. אבל זו דעת בית הלל בלבד, ובית שמאי התירו לתרום מן הטהור על הטמא, ואף מהגמור על שאינו גמור. נוסף על “בית שמאי” נזכרו בהקשר זה גם רבי אליעזר, שכידוע היה מאחרוני בית שמאי, תלמידו רבי אלעאי ובן תלמידו רבי יהודה בן אלעאי. כן נאמר בתוספתא למשנתנו: “רבי ליעזר אומר חלה ניטלת מן הטהור על הטמא. אמרו לפני רבי ישמעאל והלא פלוני יש בדרום והיה מורה בהוראה הזאת. אמר להם לבוש שלבש בו אבא, וציץ שנתן בין עיניו83הברייתא מאמצת את המסורת שרבי ישמעאל היה מזרע כהונה גדולה. , אם לא אלמד בו לכל מורה הוראות. אמרו לו משם רבי ליעזר! אמר להם אף הוא יש לו במה יתלה” (פ”א ה”י). הניסוח בתוספתא ממעיט כאילו אמר רבי אליעזר את דבריו רק לעניין חלה, אך כאמור זו שיטתו ושיטת בית שמאי. רבי ישמעאל חולק. כאשר מספרים לו שיש פלוני זקן בדרום המורה הלכה כבית שמאי84תוספתא זו מצטרפת לרמזים בדבר בית שמאי ואזור אדום, ואין דרום כאן אלא דרום יהודה שהוא אדום. הקשר בין האדומיים ובית שמאי נזכר בהלכה אחת (ראו בן שלום, בית שמאי, עמ' 237-235), והברייתא שלנו מצטרפת לתמונה זו. עם זאת, אין ללמוד מכאן אלא על כך שלבית שמאי נודעה השפעה על בני חבל אדום, ואין להפריז במשמעותה של העדות. קשה לראות בכך עיקרון מנחה בפעילותם של בית שמאי. הוא נשבע בתוקף שעליו לשרש דעה זו. אבל כאשר הוא שומע שזו דעת רבי אליעזר הוא נסוג מעט מתקיפותו, אך לא מעמדתו העקרונית. מעניין שרבי ישמעאל אינו מתייחס למחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, ומתנהג כאילו דעת בית שמאי אינה קיימת. רבי ישמעאל עצמו חי בדרום, בכפר עזיז, ולא היה כה מרוחק מאותו זקן פלוני (איור 7). ", + "להלן, פ”ד מ”ו, תתיר המשנה הסדר המבוסס על הרמת חלה מהטמא על הטהור, וזה כדעת בית שמאי.", + "אלא מן המוקף – העיקרון שנקבע בפרק א במסכת תרומות הוא שאין לתרום מערֵמה אחת על אחרת אלא אם הן נמצאות יחד באותו כלי. בדרך זו אף ניתן לתרום את “העיגול של דבילה שנטמא מקצתו תורם מן הטהור שיש בו על הטמא שיש בו” (משנה, תרומות פ”ב מ”א). ההגבלה “אלא מן המוקף” מוסבת לא רק על נתינת חלה (או תרומה) מן הטמא על הטהור אלא על כל אפשרות של הרמת מתנה מזה על זה. במקרה של תרומה מתעוררת בכך בעיה נוספת, הרי הטמא מטמא את הטהור, ולכך הוצעו הצעות שונות במקורות. המשנה להלן, פ”ב מ”ח, מציעה פתרון אחד ומשנת תרומות (שם) מציעה פתרון אחר, ואף אנו הצענו פתרונות נוספים85ראו פירושנו להלן, פ\"ב מ\"ח. ההלכה העקרונית חוזרת בתוס', ביכורים פ\"א ה\"ו; טבול יום פ\"ב הט\"ז, עמ' 686. .", + "ומן הדבר הגמור – זו נוסחה עמומה שבאה להכליל את החלה ואת התרומה86והמאירי פירש שהכוונה לתרומה בלבד. . התרומה ניתנת מפרי שנגמרה מלאכתו87משנה, מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ה-מ\"ח; תוס', פ\"ב מ\"ב ועוד. מועד הפרשת תרומה הוא מועד הפרשת כל המעשרות. בפועל הקדימו את מתן התרומה, כפי שהראינו במבוא למסכת תרומה. , ואילו חלה מעיסה שהסתיימה אפייתה. המשנה להלן קובעת: “אוכלין עריי מן העיסה עד שתיגלגל בחטים ותטמטם בשעורין. גילגלה בחטים וטמטמה בשעורין האוכל ממנה חייב מיתה, כיוון שהיא נותנת את המים מגבהת חלתה ובלבד...” (פ”ג מ”א). כאן מועד החיוב בחלה הוא מעת שהאישה מטילה מים לבצק; “תיגלגל” שבמשנה הוא המונח להטלת המים, כפי שנראה בפירושנו למשנה. כמו כן במדרש: “ראשית עריסתכם – למה נאמר? לפי שהוא אומר ‘והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ’ שומע אני אף הקמחים במשמע? תלמוד לומר ‘ראשית עריסתכם’, משתתערס. מיכן אמרו אוכלים עראי מן העיסה עד שתתגלגל בחיטים ותיטמטם בשעורים. גלגלה בחטים וטמטמה בשעורים, האוכל ממנה חייב מיתה, כיון שנותנת מים מגבהת חלתה. ובלבד... שאין מפרישים חלה מן הקמח (ראו להלן, פ”ב מ”ה). איזו היא גמר מלאכתה? קרימתה בתנור, דברי רבי עקיבא, רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר משתגלגל בחיטים ותטמטם בשעורים” (ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ’ 114). המדרש מצטט את המשנה מפרק ג ורומז למשנה אחרת מפרק ב, אך מוסיף שלמעשה ניסוח זה הוא של רבי יוחנן בן נורי. אבל רבי עקיבא מפרש את המונח “גמר מלאכה” באופן אחר. לדעת רבי עקיבא “מן המוגמר” הוא גמר האפייה, כלומר התקרמות החלק של הלחם הפונה אל האש (כמו בשבת פ”א מ”י), ולרבי יוחנן בן נורי המועד שבו תחול חובת הפרשת החלה הוא תחילת לישת הבצק. דומה שמשנתנו מנוסחת לשיטת רבי עקיבא בלבד. השאלה של המדרש “איזו היא גמר מלאכתה?” היא לשיטת רבי עקיבא בלבד. המדרש מכיל, כאמור, משניות רבות, ואף השאלה “איזו היא גמר מלאכתה” לקוטה ממקור כלשהו. הרי המונח “גמר מלאכתה” לא נזכר כלל בראשית המדרש, אדרבה, נאמר שמועד הרמת החלה הוא נתינת המים בעיסה. אין זאת אלא שהשאלה לקוטה ממקור אחר, ומוסברת על ניסוח אחר של ההלכה. כך תוסבר הכפילות במדרש. גמר מלאכה הוא המועד הטבעי לחלות של מצוות. כך, למשל, אין חפץ מקבל טומאה עד שתיגמר מלאכתו, בשבת גמר מלאכה הוא בבחינת אב מלאכה בפני עצמו וכיוצא באלו הגדרות.", + "המחלוקת של שני התנאים (רבי יוחנן בן נורי ורבי עקיבא) היא מהותית, האם החלה ניתנת מבצק (עריסה) או מלחם. הכוהן מעדיף כמובן לקבל לחם מוכן, אך הוא גם רוצה לחם שלם ולא חתיכת לחם שנפרסה מכיכר. דומה שביטויי היום-יום שחכמים משתמשים בהם מעידים כי בדרך כלל ניתנה החלה מהבצק, בעת הכנתו, ולא לאחר האפייה88ראו, למשל, להלן פ\"ב מ\"ג. . ", + "אמנם נתינת המים אינה גמר מלאכה, אך המדרש שציטטנו קורא לה כך, וכנראה גם המשנה שלנו. ייתכן שמונח זה נקבע לשיטת רבי עקיבא בלבד, אך גם ייתכן שנתינת המים תכונה “גמר” משום שבכך מתחיל שלב הגמר של הכנת בצק.", + "ההלכות הראשונות במשנה שנויות גם במשנת ביכורים (פ”ב מ”ב). כפי שנראה בדיוננו שם, משנת ביכורים נלקטה מתוך משנה קדומה וערוכה שנערכה בסגנון עריכה שונה מרוב המשנה. הסגנון של עריכה זו הוא השוואתי: השוואת תרומה לביכורים, תרומה למעשר שני, תרומה לחלה, כוי לבהמה או לחיה וכן הלאה. עורך המשנה שיבץ במסכת ביכורים כמה משניות מאותה חטיבה קדומה, ועורך משנתנו שיבץ לתוכה משנה אחת.", + "האומר כל גרני תרומה וכל עיסתי חלה לא אמר כלום עד שישייר מקצת – הלכה זו שנינו גם בדיני תרומה. מן התורה אין קִצבה לא לתרומה ולא לחלה, אבל חכמים נתנו להן קצבה. עם זאת, נותרה האפשרות שירא השמים ייתן יותר תרומה ממה שנדרש. חכמים תבעו שתהא זו “הפרשת” תרומה, דהיינו שבידי הבעלים יישאר מעט מהפרי או מהלחם (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ”ד מ”ה, ולהלן). כמובן הוא רשאי לתת את כולו לכוהן, אך כמתנה ולא כדין תרומה או חלה, “מראשית עריסותיכם מקצתה ולא כולה” (ספרי, במדבר קי, עמ’ 114). הדין של תרומה מרובה נדון בפירוט במסכת תרומות (פ”ד מ”ה), ושם יש מחלוקת תנאים האם מקסימום התרומה הוא 10% (רבי אליעזר), 50% (רבי ישמעאל) או “עד שישייר שם חולין”, כדעת רבי עקיבא. הדרשה מופיעה גם במדרשים אחרים: “רבי עקיבא אומר בא הכתוב ללמדך שאם בא לעשות כל גורנו תרומה רשאי ובלבד שישייר מקצת” (ספרי במדבר, ה, עמ’ 8; מדרש תנאים לדברים, יח ד, עמ’ 108). בשני המקרים זו דרשתו של רבי עקיבא בלבד. רבי ישמעאל חולק ומציע דרשה אחרת, וכנראה לא רק משמעות דורשים ביניהם אלא גם הבדל הלכתי של ממש. מכל מקום, משנתנו מהלכת בשיטת רבי עקיבא (איור 8).", + "לא ברור האם התנאים האחרים חולקים רק בתרומה, או שיחלקו גם בחלה. למרות הדמיון ההלכתי, הבדל גדול יש בין תרומה לבין הפרשת חלה. המפריש חלה מרובה מפסיד משלו, אבל הנותן תרומה מרובה מצמצם את חלקו של הלוי במעשר לוי, את שיעור המעשר השני (או מעשר עני) וגם את שיעור החלה שיש להפריש מאותו יבול. על כן אין להקיש בין שני המקרים. מכל מקום, משנתנו כרבי עקיבא. גם הדרשה בספרי (במדבר קי) שציטטנו לגבי חלה נאמרת כסתם, ולא נאמר שהיא דווקא דעתו של רבי עקיבא.", + "המשנה מרכזת, אפוא, את קווי הדמיון בין חלה לתרומה. ראינו כי היא מבוססת על משניות אחרות, וכי מה שמוצג כסיכום הלכתי הוא הצגה של דעה אחת מאלו המצויות כמעט בכל אחד מהנושאים שבמשנה." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "פירות חוצה לארץ שניכנסו לארץ חייבין בחלה89ב- ט גורס \"ובמעשרות\". יש לגרסה זו תימוכין קלים; ראו זק\"ש, משנה, על אתר, ומלאכת שלמה. עם זאת, אין ספק שזו תוספת מאוחרת. לפנינו הלכה מיוחדת לחלה, כפי שהראינו במבוא. – התפיסה העקרונית של משנתנו היא שמצוות חלה נובעת מהבעלות של היהודי על הגרעינים, ולא מכך שגדלו בארץ ישראל (להלן פ\"ג מ\"ה).", + "יצאו מיכן לשם – מארץ ישראל לחוץ לארץ, רבי אליעזר מחייב רבי עקיבה פוטר – לדעת רבי אליעזר תבואה זו היא תבואת הארץ, אף שכרגע היא מחוצה לה. לדעת רבי עקיבא היא תבואת חוץ לארץ. המחלוקת היא עקרונית, ממתי חייבת התבואה במצוות חלה. לדעת רבי אליעזר הגרעינים נושאים עמם את חובת החלה, אף שעוד לא הגיע זמן ביצוע המצווה. לדעת רבי עקיבא האפייה מחייבת, וזו נעשתה בחוץ לארץ. במדרש יש מחלוקת דומה, והדעות הפוכות (ספרי קי, עמ' 113; ירו', נח ע\"ב, והנוסח שם בעייתי). מהירושלמי ברור שמשנתנו היא לשיטת רבי מאיר, ורבי יהודה הופך את שמות המוסרים כך שרבי אליעזר הוא המקל. מצב זה של היפוך בדעות החולקים תדיר במקורותינו. אמנם חז\"ל עשו מאמצים גדולים לשמור על שושלת המסירה ולדייק בה, אבל בפועל נוצרו טעויות וחז\"ל עצמם היו ערים לכך. עסקנו בכך במבוא הכללי, ושם כתבנו: \"חז\"ל ראו במסירת שמו של בעל המימרה חלק בלתי נפרד מיחסי תלמיד-רב (ספרי במדבר קנז, עמ' 213); הם היו ערים לשיבושים בשמות המוסרים, וראו בכך את הצעד הראשון לקראת שכחה. מי שלא שינן היטב עלול לשכוח את שמות המוסרים ולהחליפם. הדבר מוצג כשיבוש אפשרי, אך שיבוש לכל דבר: 'מנין למחליף דברי רבי אליעזר בדברי רבי יהושע ודברי רבי יהושע בדברי רבי אליעזר, ולאומר על טמא טהור ועל טהור טמא, שהוא עובר בלא תעשה, תלמוד לומר לא תסיג גבול רעך'90ספרי, דברים קפח, עמ' 227; מדרש הגדול לדברים, יט יד; מדרש תנאים לדברים, עמ' 115. , וכן: 'הוא היה אומר יכול אדם ללמוד תורה בעשר שנה ולשכחה בשתי שנים. כיצד, שאם יושב אדם ששה חדשים ואינו חוזר בה נמצא אומר על טמא טהור ועל טהור טמא. י\"ב חודש ואינו חוזר בה נמצא מחליף חכמים זה בזה. י\"ח חודש ואינו חוזר בה נמצא משכח ראשי פרקים. כ\"ד חודש ואינו חוזר בה נמצא משכח ראשי מסכתותיו. ומתוך שאומר על טמא טהור ועל טהור טמא ומחליף חכמים זה בזה ומשכח ראשי פרקים וראשי מסכתותיו סוף שיושב ודומם, ועליו אמר שלמה...' \"91אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פכ\"ד; תנא דבי אליהו זוטא, פי\"ז, עמ' 8, וראו המקבילה בספרי דברים, מח, עמ' 109-108. .", + "מלשון המשנה משמע בבירור שתבואת חוץ לארץ פטורה מחלה. רק דגן שנכנס לארץ חייב בה, או אולי גם פרות מהארץ שיצאו לחו\"ל, אך לא תבואה שגדלה בחוץ לארץ ונאכלת שם. בשאלה זו של חיוב חלה בחוץ לארץ נעסוק במפורט בפירושנו להלן, פ\"ד מ\"ח.", + "המשנה אינה עוסקת בהפרשת חלה מתבואה שבאה מסוריה אלא מרחוק יותר, מחוץ לארץ. ייבוא של פרות בכלל, ודגן בפרט, לא היה נושא הלכתי פשוט. האיסיים אסרו ייבוא דגן של נכרים באופן כללי, ויהושע בן פרחיה שגזר טומאה על ארץ העמים ניסה גם להנהיג שחיטים הבאות מאלכסנדריה תהיינה טמאות (תוס', מכשירין פ\"ג מ\"ד, עמ' 675). חכמים התנגדו לחומרה זו בתוקף רב. הסיבות לכך היו הלכתיות טכניות92אמנם החיטים נרטבו, אך הרטבה זו הייתה לפני גמר מלאכה, והחיטים עדיין לא היו מסוגלות לקבל טומאה. , ברם דומה שיש בהלכה גם ביטוי למצבו הכלכלי של משק הארץ. ייבוא החיטים לארץ בתקופת התנאים היה נדיר, והארץ סיפקה את צרכיה בדגנים. כל זאת בניגוד לתקופת האמוראים שבה הפך ייבוא דגנים לתופעה קבועה ומוכרת93ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 111-110. . אבל בשנות בצורת הייתה ארץ ישראל תלויה בייבוא החיטים ממצרים. שנות בצורת אינן תופעה נדירה בארץ, ואף לא מקרה בלתי מתוכנן, בבחינת הפתעה רעה. כל שלוש שנים בערך מתחוללת בצורת, ולעתים הבצרות רצופות, ואז הרעב הופך למכת מדינה. על כן היה משק הארץ תלוי בייבוא ממצרים, ומצב זה משתקף גם במשנה שלנו העוסקת בייבוא חיטים דווקא מחוץ לארץ ולא מ\"סוריה\".", + "במבוא עסקנו בשאלת הזיקה של מצוות חלה לטריטוריה הקדושה של ארץ ישראל. ", + "משנתנו עוסקת בפֵרות (תבואה) שקשורים לארץ ישראל, והמחלוקת היא מה קובע את מעמדם, מקום הבישול (האפייה) או מקום הגידול. מן הסתם מקום האפייה הוא גם מקום האכילה.", + "אמנם לא נאמר מה הדין במקרה הרביעי, אך מסתבר שעיסת חוץ לארץ שאין לה כל קשר לארץ פטורה ממצוות חלה, אחרת היו רבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא נחלקים כבר במקרה זה. " + ], + [ + "עפר חוצה לארץ שבא בספינה לארץ – הלכה זו עוסקת בעיקר בעציצים הבאים בספינה (איור 9). אמנם התלמודים מבחינים בין עציצים לספינה94ירו', נח ע\"ג; בבלי, ביצה כא ע\"א, ועיינו שם. , אך אין כוונתם אלא שעציץ שאינו נקוב יש לו דין אחר. אבל אין להסיק מהם שהמשנה מדברת דווקא על עפר הבא בתפזורת. דומה שהלכה זו היא תאורטית; כמובן ייתכן שמעט עפר התפזר על קרקעית הספינה וגדלו בו מעט חיטים, אבל קשה להניח שזה היה ייבוא תדיר ומשמעותי מבחינה כלכלית.", + "חייב במעשרות ובשביעית אמר רבי יהודה אמתי – המונח \"אימתי\" מוסבר בספרות התלמודית כביטוי המסביר את דברי הקודמים. מסתבר שרבי יהודה אינו חלוק, אלא מפרש את דברי חכמים. הבבלי מציג את השאלה כשאלה סגנונית כללית, לפחות על מימרותיו של רבי יהודה: \"והאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: כל מקום שאמר רבי יהודה אימתי ובמה במשנתנו – אינו אלא לפרש דברי חכמים\" (עירובין פא ע\"ב; פב ע\"א). המקבילה בסנהדרין (כה ע\"א) מוסיפה: \"רבי יוחנן אמר: אימתי – לפרש, ובמה – לחלוק\". במהלך פירושנו עסקנו במונחים אלו במשניות השונות וראינו כי יש שהם מתארים מחלוקת ויש שהם בוודאי פרשנות (כגון פאה פ\"ז מ\"א), או שינוי הלכתי מוסכם (כגון משנת מגילה פ\"א מ\"ג), ולעתים הם מחלוקת. כך, למשל, במשנת שבועות פ\"ז מ\"ו יש מחלוקת במשנה. בתוספתא שם (פ\"ו ה\"ד) מנוסחים דברי רבי יהודה בלשון \"במה דברים אמורים\" ובתלמודים בלשון \"אימתי\" (ירו', שבועות פ\"ז ה\"ו, לח ע\"א; בבלי, שם מח ע\"א), וברור שזו מחלוקת לכל דבר. הוא הדין במשנת עירובין (פ\"ז מי\"א) ש\"במה דברים אמורים\" בא לציין מחלוקת. במקומות אחרים שבהם המשפטים משובצים לעתים עדיף לפרשם כמחלוקת ולעתים הם באמת פירוש. לא מצינו הבדל שיטתי בין משמעות שימוש המונח בדברי רבי יהודה ובין שימושו בפי חכמים אחרים.", + "מכל מקום, הבבלי מדגיש את שימושו של רבי יהודה במונחים אלו, ואכן המונח \"אימתי\" מופיע במשנה כ- 55 פעמים, שליש מהן קשור לרבי יהודה. הווה אומר, חכם זה הרבה להשתמש במונח, אם כי הוא לא ייחודי לו. לעומת זאת, המונח \"במה (במי) דברים אמורים\" מופיע מספר פעמים קרוב, אך רק פעמיים בשמו של רבי יהודה, ודומה שאין זה מונח ייחודי לו. ", + "מכל מקום, במקרה שלנו זו אכן פרשנות בלבד. ", + "בזמן שהספינה גוששת – ספינה גוששת היא ספינה שלא העמיקה בים כך שקרקעיתה לא התרוממה מעל עשרה טפחים מפני הקרקע. הירושלמי כאן (נח ע\"ב) מפרש שספינה כזאת לא יצאה מתחומי ארץ ישראל, והיא נתפסת כשוהה בִסְפר הארץ. על כן הצמחים שצמחו על עפר זה צמחו בארץ וחייבים בחלה, ושוב דגן בחוץ לארץ פטור מחלה.", + "ההלכה כולה משפטית בלבד, אך הספינה הגוששת אינה יצור תאורטי אלא צורת מסחר מקובלת. חלק מהספנות הארץ-ישראלית הייתה ספנות חופים שבה הפליגו ספינות מנמל אחד למשנהו, והסוחרים היו מעין רוכלים שנעו משוק לשוק ושיווקו מוצרים מקומיים. כך אנו שומעים על בני אחד הכפרים שעל חוף הים הסוחרים מצור לצידון (ירו', שבת פ\"א ה\"ז, ד ע\"א; בבלי, שם יט ע\"א) או מעכו ליפו (משנה, נדרים פ\"ג מ\"ו), וכל הסחורות הנמצאות בנמל קיסריה נחשבות כסחורות שבאו מתחומי ארץ ישראל (תוס', דמאי פ\"א הי\"א). כן יוצא מהלכות וממעשים נוספים95ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 290. . ", + "עיסה שנילושה במי פירות חייבת בחלה – לחם כזה הוא לחם לכל דבר, משום שרק לחם שהוא ממש עוגה נחשב למזון שאינו חייב במצוות חלה (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ה), ונאכלת בידיים מוסאבות – מותר לאכלו ללא נטילת ידיים משום שמי פֵרות אינם מכשירים לקבל טומאה, וזו הלכה ידועה ביותר (משנה, תרומות פ\"ה מ\"א-מ\"ג; כלים פ\"י מ\"ב, ועוד). כפי שראינו בפירושנו לתרומות רבי יהושע סבור שמי פרות הם חיבור לעניין טומאה, ומשנתנו אינה סבורה כמותו (ירו', נח ע\"ג)96עדיין יש לברר אם דין הכשר טומאה הוא כדין חיבור לטומאה, ולא כאן המקום לבירור זה. ראו, למשל, אור זרוע רכה המספר על עמדות חכמי דורו בנושא, וכאמור בירושלמי מועלית הצעה דחוקה במקצת המבדילה בין שני מושגים קרובים אלו. . בירושלמי מועלית גם הצעה דחוקה יותר שמשנתנו היא כדעת הכול, ואין דין חיבור לטומאה כדין הכשר לקבל טומאה." + ], + [ + "האשה יושבת וקוצה חלתה ערומה – הרמת החלה היא כמובן מצווה. לפי ההלכה שהמשנה מבוססת עליה אין לקיים מצווה ללא בגדים. כן אנו שומעים ממשנת כלים (פ\"ח מי\"א) על מצב שבו נוטף מדדי האישה חלב לתוך תנור הבישול. אילו הייתה לבושה באופן מינימלי, היה החלב נספג והבעיה ההלכתית לא הייתה עולה. אמנם הדיון הוא תאורטי, אך כאמור משקף התנהגות חברתית אפשרית. כמו כן: \"המושבת אפרוחין ואמרה איני מושבתן אלא בבתולה, איני מושבתן אלא ערומה, איני מושבתן אלא בשמאל... הרי זה מדרכי האמורי\" (תוס', שבת פ\"ו הי\"ז). העירום כאן מבטא את הפריון ונתפס כשלילי, אבל לא מחמת דיני צניעות אלא משום שיש בכך אבק כשפים.", + "תפישת הצניעות", + "לצורך זה הבחינו חכמים בין שתי הגדרות. האחת היא דיני צניעות ביחיד ובפומבי, אלו היו דינים מחמירים. \"קול באשה ערוה\", \"טפח באישה ערוה\" או אפילו (אבות פ\"א מ\"ה) \"ואל תרבה שיחה עם האשה [ובאשתו אמרו קל וחומר באשת חבירו97תוספת זאת איננה מצוטטת באבות דרבי נתן, וניכר שהיא תוספת. ראו אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פ\"ז, יח ע\"א; נו\"ב פט\"ו, יז ע\"ב. מטיב ההסבר באבות דרבי נתן מתברר שהדרשן הבין שמדובר באשתו של החכם, אבל אין זה גדר צניעות אלא שגילוי סודות לאישה יוביל לפרסומם בחוץ. יש כאן הבעת דעה מגדרית, אך לא בתחום הצניעות. ]\", וכן \"כל המרבה שיחה עם האשה [כשהיא נידה98שתי המילים המוקפות סוגריים חסרות בסדרת עדי נוסח, והן בבירור תוספת מעתיק. ]\". סיום זה מיסב את שני המשפטים לעניין צניעות: \"דתני המסתכל בעקיבה שלאשה כמסתכל בבית הרחם, והמסתכל בבית הרחם כילו בא עליה\" (ירו', נח ע\"ג) וכיוצא באלו99ירו', נח ע\"ג; בבלי, ברכות כד ע\"א; קידושין ע ע\"א. כל המימרות הללו מיוחסות לשמואל הבבלי. שיער באישה וטפח באישה נזכרים רק בבבלי ברכות, ואינם במקבילות. . היו גם נשים שהקפידו שאפילו בביתן לא תיראנה שערותיהן (ירו', יומא פ\"א ה\"א, לח ע\"ד; בבלי, מז ע\"א ומקבילות רבות). במקביל חלו גם דיני צניעות על הגבר: אסור לו להראות את איברי המין ואף להביט בעצמו באיברים אלו שלו, כך גם ראוי לאדם שלא להביט במילתו, והמדרש משבח צדיקים שנהגו כן (ירו', מגילה פ\"א הי\"ג, עב ע\"א; סנהדרין פ\"י ה\"ב, כט ע\"ג ומקבילות רבות). צנועים אף החמירו, ואחד מהם מתפאר בכך, שקורות ביתו לא ראו את אימרי חלוקו (איור 10), כלומר את הבגד התחתון שלו (בבלי, שבת קיח ע\"ב). דרישות אלו היו, כמובן, מופרזות, ובאו לבטא מגמה של צניעות ולא הנחיה בפועל. המרחב השני הוא ההלכות שנדרשו ונהגו בפועל. כך נהגו גברים למרות דינים אלו להגיע לבית מרחץ ולהתרחץ במשותף בעירום. אישה הגונה לא הלכה, כמובן, למרחץ של גברים, אך כאמור האיסור הוא גם על חברה חד-מינית. חז\"ל אפילו משבחים את מי שנכנס למרחץ, ראה את מילתו והתפעל מן המצווה: \"נכנס למרחץ ראה את עצמו ערום אמר אוי לי שאני ערום מן המצות כיון שהביט במילה שלו התחיל לקלס להקב\"ה למנצח על השמינית מזמור לדוד\" (ירו', ברכות פ\"ט ה\"ה, יד ע\"ד). אין במדרש זה ביטוי לכך שהבטה במילה היא עברה לגופה.", + "דרישות אלו הן במסגרת דיני צניעות. חלקן נתפסו כהלכה לכל דבר, וחלקן כהנחיה כללית על מה שראוי, אך לא כתביעה בעלת אופי משפטי.", + "ברם, במשנתנו תפיסת צניעות שונה, והירושלמי מסביר: \"הדא אמרה עגבות אין בהן משום ערוה הדא דאת אמרה לברכה אבל להביט אפילו כל שהוא אסור\" (נח ע\"ג100כך יש גם להבין את הכלל הזהה (שעגבות אינן ערווה) בבבלי ברכות כד ע\"א. ). כל הדין במשנה הוא רק להיתר אמירת ברכה. במסגרת דין זה אפילו עגבות אינן נחשבות ערווה101המאירי מדגיש שלעניין חלה האישה יושבת על הקרקע וכך עגבותיה אינן נראות. , כלומר מותר לברך בעגבות חשופות102עגבות הן, כנראה, אותו איבר אחורי המשמש (גם) לישיבה, כפי שאומר המדרש המשווה את העולם לאדם: לשניהם גבעות, ו\"גבעות באדם, זה עגבותיו של אדם\" (אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פל\"א, עמ' 92). . המהלך ועגבותיו חשופות עובר כמובן על כל דיני צניעות, ואולי אף נאסר להלך בתוך הבית חשוף בצורה זו, אך מותר לברך. בכל המקורות העוסקים בשאלה זו של צניעות מניחים בפשטות שאין לקיים מצוות כשהוא עירום. המשניות קובעות שאין להפריש תרומות, אך מותר להפריש דמאי עירום (תרומות פ\"א מ\"ו; דמאי פ\"א מ\"ד). ", + "התוספתא לתרומות והירושלמי שם מסבירים שאת הדמאי מותר להפריש משום שאין מברכים על ההפרשה, אבל אם מברכים – אי אפשר לעשות זאת עירום103תוס', תרומות פ\"ג ה\"ב; ירו', דמאי פ\"א ה\"ד, כב ע\"ב בשם ברייתא: \"תנא רבי חלפתא בן שאול\", וכן בבלי, שבת כג ע\"א. . זו דרכם של התלמוד ושל תנאים מאוחרים למצוא הנמקות משפטיות פורמליות. ברם, ברכת המצוות לא נוצרה לפני דור יבנה, וניתן להבין את ההלכה גם ללא זיקה לברכה. אין מפרישים מעשר עירום משום שאין זה כבוד המצווה104על האיסור לתרום עירום ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ו; חלה פ\"ב מ\"ג. , אבל הפרשת דמאי היא מספק, ולא רחשו כבוד למעמד. כן קובעת התוספתא: \"הרי שהיה עומד בשדה ערום, או שהיה עושה מלאכתו, הרי זה מכסה את עצמו בתבן, ובקש, ובכל דבר, וקורא. אף על פי שאמרו אין שבחו של אדם להיות עומד ערום, שכשברא הקב\"ה אדם לא בראו ערום! שנאמר 'בשומי ענן לבושו וערפל חתלתו'. 'בשומי ענן לבושו' – זה השפיר, 'וערפל חתלתו' – זה שליא. הרי שהיתה מטפחת של בגד ושל עור חגורה על מתניו, הרי זה קורא. בין כך ובין כך לא יתפלל עד שיכסה את לבו\" (תוס', ברכות פ\"ב הי\"ד; תרומות פ\"ג ה\"ב). \"אין שבחו של אדם להיות עומד ערום\" היא ההגדרה של נורמות הצניעות, אבל מותר להתפלל בכיסוי מזערי. בכל מצב צריך אדם לכסות את לבו. הבבלי מסביר זאת כדי שלבו לא יראה את ערוותו, ויש גם האומרים שם שלא יראו פניו את ערוותו (בבלי, ברכות כד ע\"ב; כה ע\"ב)105ראו עוד פסיקתא רבתי, כב, קיב ע\"א. . כן עולה ממקורות רבים שאין לקיים מצוות (או לברך) כשהוא עירום. הדרישה שלבו לא יראה את ערוותו מופיעה בתלמוד הבבלי בלבד.", + "הירושלמי שואל: \"רבי ירמיה בעי, היה יושב בתוך ביתו ערום, מהו שיעשה ביתו כמו מלבוש ויוציא ראשו חוץ לחלון ויברך? היה יושב במגדל ערום, מגדל מהו שיעשה לו כמין מלבוש ויוציא ראשו חוץ לחלון ויברך?\" (ברכות פ\"ט ה\"ב, יג ע\"ג). בירושלמי השאלה נותרת ללא תשובה, אבל בבבלי התשובה השלילית ברורה ומידית (סוכה י ע\"ב). משנתנו מניחה כנראה שאף שמפריש החלה יושב בביתו, אסור לו לקיים את המצווה עירום. בניגוד לירושלמי שציטטנו, השאלה כמובן אינה על המשנה אלא על התלמודים שאינם מזכירים את משנתנו בדיונם, שהרי ממשנתנו ניתן להוכיח שאסור להפריש חלה עירום בבית, ולא נזכרת אפשרות היתר של הוצאת הראש מהחלון. ואולי הם הבינו שאת החלה מפרישים במקום העבודה, וברגיל לישת הבצק היא ליד התנור בחצר המשותפת שבה ניצבו התנור ומתקני המלאכה. ", + "עם זאת, מן הראוי להדגיש שלעתים \"עירום\" אין משמעו עירום לגמרי אלא ללא בגדים נאותים, כגון הסיפור על אדם שראה את גרושתו \"ערומה ובצרה גדולה נתמלא עליה רחמים ונתן לה106צדקה. , על שום 'ומבשרך לא תתעלם' \" (ויקרא רבה, לד יד, עמ' תתז). אבל מכל הדיונים שהעלינו לעיל מסתבר שהפרשת חלה או הפרשת הדמאי בעירום היא בעירום מלא.", + "מפני שהיא יכולה לכסות [את] עצמה – האישה יכולה לכסות את ערוותה במעט חול, או אולי אפילו ברגלה, אבל לא האיש – האיש אינו יכול לכסות את ערוותו. התלמוד הבבלי מסביר: \"האשה יושבת וקוצה לה חלתה ערומה, מפני שיכולה לכסות פניה107\"פניה\" היא לשון נקייה לערוותה. בבראשית רבה, יח ב, עמ' 163, מופיע מדרש המסביר את הצניעות הטבעית של אישה, ונראה שהתכוון ליכולת זאת לכסות את ערוותה אף כשהיא עירומה. בקרקע. אבל לא האיש. תרגמה רב נחמן בר יצחק: כגון שהיו פניה טוחות בקרקע\" (ברכות כד ע\"א). המשנה מניחה שאת החלה מפרישים בעת לישת הבצק והאדם או האישה יושבים ב\"ישיבה מזרחית\". כל זאת לפי דעתו של רבי יוחנן בן נורי שהפרשת החלה היא בזמן הלישה ולא בסוף האפייה. בסוף האפייה אדם עומד, ודין אישה הוא כדין גבר. אבל בישיבה מזרחית יכולה האישה לגרוף מעט עפר ולכסות את ערוותה, ואילו לאיש הדבר קשה הרבה יותר. אין כאן, אפוא, יחס מתירני כלפי העירום של אישה, אלא הבדל מעשי באפשרויות הכיסוי108העירום של אישה נחשב ל\"מסוכן\" יותר לחברה מעירום הגבר, ולא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך. . ", + "ציטטנו מקורות מספר הדנים באיסור לקיים מצווה ולברך כשהוא עירום. משנתנו מיוחדת בכך שהיא מזכירה במיוחד את האישה, ולמעשה מקלה על האישה. מן המשנה ניתן לכאורה להבין שלאישה מותר להפריש חלה עירומה, אך לפי פירוש הבבלי, הנראה כפשט, גם לה הדבר אסור ועליה לכסות את ערוותה, אלא שדי בכיסוי בגופה או במעט קרקע. למעשה ההבדל בין אישה ואיש אינו בהלכה עצמה, או ביחס השונה אל העירום הנשי, אלא הבדל מעשי באפשרויות לכסות את הערווה. עם זאת, המיוחד הוא בעצם העלאת האפשרות שהאישה מקיימת מצווה, ויש לבחון את שאלת קיום המצווה בעירום. זו דוגמה נוספת לכך שהאישה נתפסה כעוסקת במצוות חלה, בניגוד להפרשת תרומות ומעשרות או קיומן של מצוות אחרות.", + "מי שאינו יכול לעשות עיסתו בטהרה – הוא טמא, וברגע שיערבב את המים בעיסה גם העיסה תיטמא109כמו ששנינו במשנה, שביעית פ\"ה מ\"ט; גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ט, וראו פירושנו לשביעית שם. . מצד שני אי אפשר להפריש חלה לפני התחלת הלישה, כלומר לפני הטלת המים, ובכך תדון המשנה הבאה. רוב בני האדם נחשבו לעמי הארץ והיו בחזקת טומאה, על כן השאלה העומדת לפני המשנה היא יום-יומית ותדירה, כיצד יכול הציבור הרחב לקיים את מצוות חלה. חכמים נחלקים בין שני פתרונות. הפתרון הראשון הוא: יעשינה קבין ואל יעשינה בטומאה – עליו לאפות את הבצק בכמויות קטנות, כך שלא יתחייב בחלה. להפרשת חלה נדרשת כמות של חמשת רבעי קב (להלן מ\"ו). בעלת הבית יכולה להכין את הבצק בכמה מנות, וכך תיפטר ממצוות חלה.", + "רבי עקיבה אומר יעשינה בטומאה לא יעשינה קבים – האפשרות השנייה היא להפריש את החלה בטומאה, ואז לכוהן אין כל רווח ממנה, והבעל צריך לשרוף את החלה או לאבדה בדרך אחרת.", + "המחלוקת בין התנאים היא על סדר העדיפות, לקיים את המצווה בטומאה או לעקוף את ההתחייבות בדרך המותרת מבחינה הלכתית. המשנה ממשיכה ומנמקת את דעתו של רבי עקיבא: שכשם שהוא קורא לטהרה כך הוא קורא לטמאה – דרך קיום הפרשת חלה בטומאה היא כדרך הפרשתה בטהרה; לזו – במסגרת הפרשת חלה טהורה: קורא חלה – הוא אומר שזו חלה לשם ה', [לזו קורא חלה] – שלוש מילים אלו נכתבו בטעות ונמחקו בידי המעתיק המקורי, בשם – ראו להלן, ולזו – בהפרשת החלה הטמאה, קורא חלה בשם – כמו בהפרשת חלה טהורה.", + "אבל קבים – אם העיסה תחולק למנות קטנות בגודל קב כל אחת, אין בהם חלק לשם – אין הפרשה כלל, וכאילו אין לה' חלק בעיסה. ", + "הסברנו כאילו כתוב היה לה' או לשם, והכוונה לשם ה'. אבל ניתן גם לפרש \"בשם\" בשם חלה, כמו המינוח המקובל \"קורא לה שם\" או \"קורא בשם\" (משנה, דמאי פ\"ג מ\"ד). כלומר, מצהיר על חלק מסוים שהוא חלה או כל מתנה אחרת. גם בתוספתא (פ\"א ה\"ט) הנוסח הוא \"חלק לשם\", ו\"שם\" כאן הוא כינוי מקוצר לשמו של ריבון עולמים שהס מלהזכיר את שמו110על הזכרת שם ה' ראו פירושנו ליומא פ\"ג מ\"ח; פ\"ו מ\"א. .", + "קיים פתרון נוסף והוא ללוש את העיסה במי פֵרות, אבל חכמים לא הטריחו אדם לאפות מה שאין לבו חפץ. יש לזכור שבעיית הטומאה הייתה יום-יומית, שהרי רוב האנשים היו עמי הארץ וטמאים, כך שכל דרישה מעין זאת הייתה מרחיקה את הציבור כולו מכלל המצווה. ", + "המחלוקת בין התנאים היא עקרונית ובעלת חשיבות רבה. לפי תנא קמא העדיפות היא למצוות טהרה. אם אי אפשר לקיים את המצווה בטהרה, עדיף להתחמק ממצוות חלה ולא לקיימה, כמובן במסגרת הנורמות ההלכתיות. התנא אף סובר שקיום מעשה מצווה שאינו מגיע לידי הכוהן הוא ללא תועלת וללא ערך. לעומת זאת רבי עקיבא סבור שיש חשיבות לעצם קיום המצווה, גם אם המעשה עקר ואינו שלם. יש חשיבות רבה לעצם הרמת חלה לשם ה', אף שהחלה טמאה, ואי אפשר להפוך את המצווה לבעלת ערך כספי. ברם ההקדשה עצמה היא משמעותית, ושרפת החלה הטמאה היא ביטוי לקדושה, אם כי לא הביטוי הראוי מלכתחילה. התוספתא מוסיפה נימוק נגד רבי עקיבא: \"אמרו לפני רבי עקיבא אין אומרים לו לאדם עמוד וחטא בשביל שתזכה, עמוד וקלקל בשביל שתתקן\" (פ\"א ה\"ט). אין טעם להורות לאדם לחטוא (לטמא חלה) בשביל שיזכה במצווה או לעמוד ולקלקל את החלה בשביל שיתקן מצווה. המצווה אינה ראויה אם אינה בטהרה. הטהרה היא תנאי הכרחי, ובלעדיה אין במצווה תועלת. אבל לרבי עקיבא המצווה היא עיקר כשלעצמה. גם אם אינה שלמה הרי היא לה', ויש לה ערך רב. הטהרה היא תנאי נוסף, אך לא בה תלויה המצווה.", + "בירושלמי ניתנת הגדרה הלכתית שאדם חייב ללכת ארבעה מיל ולהיטהר, מעבר לכך הוא בבחינת מי שמותר לו להפריש חלה בטומאה. יש בכך החמרה ניכרת, שכן המשנה מתירה להפריש מטומאה ללא כל הגבלה. יתר על כן, מהמשנה משמע שיש איזו השלמה עם הטומאה, וכלל לא נזכר הצו לנסות ולהיטהר. זאת ועוד. לא תמיד הטומאה היא טומאה קלה שדי לטבול ולהיטהר ממנה. לעתים קרובות הטומאה היא טומאת מת, ויש להמתין שבעה ימים ולטבול ביום השלישי וביום השביעי. קשה לדרוש מאישה וממשפחה להמתין עד שהאישה תיטהר. מן הראוי להעיר שאדם (אישה) היכול להיטהר בטבילה אחת הוא טמא בוולד הטומאה, ואדם כזה אינו מטמא את החלה. המדובר, אפוא, באישה שנטמאה וכבר המתינה שבעה ימים, וכבר טבלה ביום השלישי ונותרה לה עוד רק טבילה אחת מסיימת.", + "בירושלמי (נח ע\"ג) מובאים שני מעשים. בראשון מסופר על בני קיסריה, הנחשבת כחוץ לארץ (ולכן טמאה בטומאת ארץ העמים), שחייבו אותם להפריש חלה בטהרה. הסיפור השני הוא על בני כפר שימי שהורו להם להפריש חלה בטומאה (כדעת רבי עקיבא). הגמרא שואלת: הרי המרחק מהכפר אל \"ארץ ישראל\" הוא פחות מארבעה מיל, ועונה שהנהר מפריד ולכן לא חייבו אותם להגיע ארץ ישראל, שכן המרחק הממשי הוא יותר מזמן הליכה של ארבעה מיל. כפר שימי הוא כנראה שוני, מזרחית לקיסריה ולמרגלות הכרמל, ולדרומו עובר נחל תנינים (איור 11).", + "הדיון בגמרא מותיר את הלומד תמה. ראשית יש בו חומרה גדולה. לא די שאדם נדרש ללכת ארבעה מיל כדי להיטהר, אלא שהוא נדרש ללכת ארבעה מיל להכין את העיסה במקום טהור ולחזור לביתו. זו חומרה גדולה שביצועה קשה ביותר. זאת ועוד, תושבי קיסריה טמאים טומאת ארץ העמים111משנה, אהלות פי\"ח מ\"ח; תוס', פי\"ח הי\"ג. לגבולות הארץ באזור קיסריה ראו ספראי, קיסריה. , שהיא טומאת מת, ומה יועיל אם יהלכו לארץ ישראל, הרי הם טמאים שבעת ימים! מכל מקום, הנימוק לפטור של אנשי כפר שימי נראה מלאכותי112איננו מעירים על דברי ראשונים שאינם נוגעים לפשט דיוננו. מכל מקום, יש להעיר על דברי הרש\"ס כאן הגורס \"רבי אימי\" ושואל כיצד זה שומרים על טהרה בימיו, הרי כבר לא הייתה אפשרות לשחוט פרה אדומה. תהיה הגרסה של שם החכם אשר תהיה (רבי ינאי או רבי אמי), בימי האמוראים עדיין שמרו על דיני טהרה וממילא יש להניח שהיה להם אפר פרה אדומה, ולא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך. . דומה שהנימוק העיקרי היה התחושה שזו חומרה רבה ובלתי סבירה, והנהר היווה נתיב של תירוץ בלבד. מכל מקום, בתקופת התלמוד עברו רוב מי הנהר במנהרה תת קרקעית ועל הנחל עצמו היו גשרים, אחד מהם לא רחוק משוני עצמה (איור 12, תמונה 3). " + ], + [ + "העושה עיסתו קבים – האדם (או האישה) אופים את לחמם כ\"קבים\", כלומר כל בצק הוא פחות מכשיעור. חז\"ל משתמשים במונח \"קבים\" משום שקב הוא פחות מהשיעור שיידון להלן במשנה ו. כיכר רגילה הייתה של חצי קב113ראו פירושנו למסכת פאה פ\"ח מ\"ו, ובמבוא למסכת. . במקרה זה האישה אופה כמות גדולה של כיכרות מכמה וכמה עיסות. התנור הביתי לא הכיל מקום לכיכרות רבות, אך ניתן היה להכניס בתוכו 6-5 כיכרות שהם למעלה משיעור חלה. המשנה עוסקת במקרה של מי שנהג כתנא קמא או במי שבמקרה אפה את לחמו מבצקים קטנים. כמובן ייתכן שבמקרה זה בעלת הבית רוצה לפטור עצמה מחובת חלה. חכמים אינם מביעים את דעתם על עצם ההחלטה לאפות \"קבים\"; אין זה משום שאין להם מה לומר על כך, אלא משום שדעתם נדונה לעיל, ועתה הם עוסקים בבעיה הלכתית אחרת. ", + "ונגעו זה בזה פטורים מן החלה עד שישוכו – שולי הכיכרות נוגעים מעט זה בזה, אך עדיין הם נחשבים לאפייה נפרדת. אבל אם \"נשכו\" זה את זה, כלומר נדבקו יחדיו, \"ואיזו הוא הנושך? והתולש ממנו כל שהוא אבל אם היו ממעכין זה את זה, כגון הדבלה והתמרים... הרי אלו אינן חבור\" (תוס', טהרות פ\"א ה\"ב, עמ' 661)114היחיד של \"נשכו\" שם אינו \"נשך\"' אלא \"השיך\". , וכאשר מפרידים את הכיכרות זו מזו נוצרים חורים, הווה אומר שמעט מכיכר זו הצטרף לכיכר האחרת, הרי שיש בכך צירוף של הכיכרות והן חייבות בחלה. הירושלמי (נח ע\"ג) מדגיש \"והן שנשכו\", כלומר לא הקרבה מצרפת אלא נשיכה של ממש.", + "רבי אליעזר אומר אף הרודה ונותן לסל הסל מצרפו לחלה – הרדייה היא הוצאת הכיכרות מהתנור בעזרת מרדה. המרדה היא כלי עץ או מתכת שיש לו ידית ארוכה וכף שטוחה וגדולה שניתן להרים בה את הכיכרות מהתנור. אם בתהליך הרדייה מניחים את כל הכיכרות בסל אחד, הסל מצרפן לחלה והן חייבות בחלה. המילה \"אף\" אינה בכל הנוסחאות; היא מופיעה בכל עדי הנוסח חוץ מר\"ש סירליאו (ס), וכן מופיעה בכמה מציטוטי הראשונים, וחסרה בחלק מהם115ראו הערותיו של זק\"ש, משנה על אתר; אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 1008. בעל אור זרוע, למשל, שקל למחקה, ונמנע מכך בגלל עדות הספרים שהיו בידו: \"קשה לשבש הספרים ולמחוק 'אף' \". . למעשה, אין כל חשיבות לאיסוף הנוסחאות השונות. המילית \"אף\" היא מילית שנוספה ונקטעה בידי מעתיקים, ואפשטיין ריכז עשרות רבות של דוגמאות לכך116אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 1032-1007. . מעתה, בכל מקום שהיא מופיעה היא חשודה וניתן לצפות להופעתה, לפחות בחלק מעדי הנוסח, כמעט בכל מחלוקת. במקרה זה יש למילית משמעות: לפי גרסתנו (\"אף הרודה\") מודה רבי אליעזר שהתנור מצרף, ומוסיף שגם הסל מצרף, ואם אין גורסים את המילית \"אף\" הרי שרבי אליעזר אומר רק שהסל מצרף, ומשמע שהוא חולק על תנא קמא וסבור שהתנור אינו מצרף, כפי שהצגנו בטבלה (איור 13).", + "תנור וסל מצרפים או לא?", + " “אף הרודה” לסל מצרף117בעל מלאכת שלמה פירש שלא די בנשיכה אלא צריך גם צירוף בסל. אנו פירשנו שלא רק תנור מצרף אלא גם הסל. ", + "ההיגיון מחייב שמי שסבור שהנחת הכיכרות בסל כבר מהווה צירוף ודאי יודה שאם נשכו זה מזה בתנור הצטרפו, כלומר יש לגרוס את המילית \"אף\". אבל בירושלמי מוצגות שתי הגרסאות: \"אית תניי תני הסל מצרף ואין התנור מצרף (דעת רבי אליעזר אם אין גורסים \"אף\"), ואית תניי תני התנור מצרף ואין הסל מצרף (דעת רבנן אם גורסים את המילית \"אף\" או אם אין גורסים אותה). אמר רבי יוחנן איתיתיה118כנראה המילה היא \"אית\", יש המחליפים. מדחילפיי נשכו כאן וכאן מצרף לא נשכו כאן וכאן אינו מצרף\" (ירו', נח ע\"ג). זו דעה שלישית, שגם תנור וגם סל מצרפים אבל התנאי הוא הנשיכה ההדדית. בפועל הסיכוי שהכיכרות בסל תצטרפנה ותנשוכנה זו את זו נדיר יותר, אך אפשרי בכיכרות חמות וטריות.", + "הירושלמי מסביר את המשנה או את דבריו של רבי יוחנן: \"מתניתא כגון אילין ריפתא דבבל\" (כגון הכיכרות של בבל – נח ע\"ג). ריפתא היא המונח התדיר לכיכר לחם בתלמוד ", + "הבבלי, והשאלה היא מה ייחודה. נראה שהמשפט \"כגון הריפתא של בבל\" הוא פירוש לדברי רבי יוחנן. רבי יוחנן הוא זה שאומר שהלחמים נושכים זה את זה בסל. דבר זה יכול להתרחש בכל תנור, אך בסל הוא יכול להתרחש רק בריפתא של בבל. בתלמוד הבבלי מובא טיעון זה כהסבר ישיר למשנה: \"ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: הלכה כרבי אליעזר. אמר ליה: והא איתמר עלה, אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: לא שנו אלא ככרות של בבל, שנושכות זו מזו, אבל כעכין – לא!\" (פסחים מח ע\"ב). הכעכים כאן מצטיירים כמאפה שאין סיכוי ש\"ינשכו זה את זה\", כלומר הם נאפים כל אחד בתבנית נפרדת, ומכל מקום ההגבלה היא על הדין של רבי אליעזר שהסל מצרף. ", + "כפשוטם של דברים ברור שרבי אליעזר וחכמים מסתפקים בנגיעה של הכיכרות בתנור או (אף) בסל, ואינם תובעים שהכיכרות תנשוכנה זו את זו. קשה להניח שכיכרות, אפילו לחות, המצויות באותו סל נושכות זו את זו. לדעתם די בנגיעה כדי לצרף, וזו אף דעתו של רבי אליעזר להלן (מ\"ט, וראו פירושנו לה). ברם, אמוראים הכירו את התביעה של נשיכה הדדית, ולכן פירשו את משנתנו בשנשכו הכיכרות זו את זו. להלן, בסוף הפרק, נציע שתביעה לנשיכה היא כשיטת בית הלל, ואילו בית שמאי מסתפקים בנגיעה.", + "הריפתא היא, כאמור, הלחם הרגיל בתלמוד הבבלי. מידתו כסעודה: \"וכמה מזון שתי סעודות? אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: תרתי ריפתא איכרייתא. רב אדא בר אהבה אמר: תרתי ריפתא נהר פפיתא\" (בבלי, עירובין פב ע\"ב). מזון שתי סעודות הוא חצי קב, שהוא כיכר ארץ-ישראלית, ושתי ריפתות של איכרים (או הריפתות הנהוגות בנהר פפיתא). הביטוי הרגיל בתלמוד הבבלי הוא \"כרכו ריפתא\" (בבלי, ברכות מה ע\"ב; נ ע\"ב ועוד), מכאן שהריפתא היא מעין פיתה של ימינו שניתן לכרוך אותה סביב האוכל. בבבל נהגו לאפות לחם כל בוקר ולאכלו טרי, על כן נראה שהריפתא היא מעין פיתה עבה שנאפתה והוגשה חמה, וכנראה שמרה על גמישותה וטריותה. האופה הניח את הפיתות הטריות והחמות בסל זו על זו וכנראה היה חשש או אפשרות שתידבקנה זו לזו, מעין הפיתות ה\"בדואיות\" או ה\"דרוזיות\" של ימינו, אלא שהיו עבות בהרבה ושקלו קרוב לארבע מאות גרם כל אחת." + ], + [ + "המפריש חלתו קמח אינה חלה – את החלה מפרישים בשעת הלישה או בסוף האפייה, כפי שראינו לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ט). לכן אם הפריש לפני הזמן אין ההפרשה מועילה כלל.", + "וגזל ביד כהן – כוהן שלוקח חלה כזאת, שהופרשה לפני הזמן, אינה חלה והיא גזל בידיו. הביטוי מוקצן ואינו מאוזן. בכל מקרה הכוהן אינו נוטל את החלה בעצמו, ואין לו זכות \"להחרים\" את החלה לבד. הוא אמור לקבל אותה מהאופה, על כן גם כאן החלה שהורמה ניתנה לכוהן. אמנם היא ניתנה בטעות (לפני הזמן), אך קשה עדיין להגדיר את הכוהן כגזלן, שהרי בעל הבית רשאי לתת לו כרצונו. מטרת המשפט החריף להורות לכוהן כיצד לנהוג ולדרוש ממנו להסביר לעמי הארץ כיצד לנהוג, אף על פי שבכך יש חשש שהוא יפסיד מבחינה כספית (החלה תיטמא בבית עם הארץ). זאת ועוד, עליו להחזיר את החלה שהגיעה בטעות ולדרוש חלה אחרת (גם אם היא אסורה עליו באכילה). ", + "העיסה עצמה חייבת בחלה – יש להפריש מהעיסה חלה בשנית משום שההפרשה הראשונה אינה מועילה כלל, והקמח – שהופרש כאילו לחלה, אך בפועל אינו חלה, אם יש בו כשיעור חייב בחלה – אם הכוהן יאפה מהקמח שהופרש יהיה חייב בחלה, וכמובן הוא גם מצטרף לכל קמח אחר להוות כשיעור להפרשת חלה, ואסורה לזרים דברי רבי יהושע – לפי כל הנאמר לעיל החלה שהופרשה בטעות (לפני הזמן) אינה חלה ועל כן היא חולין לחלוטין, אבל בכל זאת סובר רבי יהושע שהיא אסורה לזרים, כלומר חלים עליה דיני חלה. הווה אומר, ההפרשה אינה מועילה לפטור את העיסה אבל היא בבחינת \"חלתו חלה, ויחזור ויפריש חלה נוספת\". דין כזה שנינו גם לגבי תרומה שניתנה שלא כהלכה (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ח; פ\"ג מ\"א). ההלכה שמציע רבי יהושע היא בבחינת סתירה פנימית. אם היא גזל ביד כוהן – מדוע אינה מותרת לזרים? אין זה אלא עוד אחד מהגילויים של הלכה שאינה שיטתית מבחינה משפטית. ", + "אמרו לו – חכמים או התלמידים לרבי יהושע, מעשה וקפשה זקן זר – חכם (המכונה זקן) שאינו כוהן לקח את הקמח. \"קפש\" משמעו לפי ההקשר נטילה בכוח119בירו', מועד קטן פ\"ג ה\"ח, פג ע\"ד, מופיעה המילה במשמעות של קריעה חלקית. המאירי מפרש ש\"קפשה\" הוא כמו \"כבשה\" בחילוף אותיות. . הזקן רצה להורות בפומבי שההלכה אינה כרבי יהושע אלא החלה שהופרשה מהקמח אינה חלה ומותרת לזרים. דומה שמי שניסח את הרישא פסק בעצם כאותו זקן. זה גם ההסבר לסגנון הנמרץ של המשנה \"גזל ביד כהן\". המשנה מלמדת על מגמות החמרה להרים את החלה לפני המועד ההלכתי, ועל התנגדות בוטה של חכמים לכך.", + "אמר להן אף הוא קילקל לעצמו – שנטל ואכל קמח שבעצם אסור לזרים, ותיקן לאחרים – הזקן עשה מעשה המבהיר לכול שההפרשה מקמח אינה חלה. דומה ששיטתו של רבי יהושע כוללת מרכיב של ספק או של חומרה יתרה מחשש שמא בכל זאת ההפרשה מועילה. ", + "המשנה מניחה שאת החלה אין להפריש לפני הזמן. בספרות התנאית הלכות רבות הקובעות מתי יש להפריש כל אחת ממתנות הכהונה, ואם לא עשה כהלכה אינו יכול להתוודות (ראו פירושנו למעשר שני פ\"ה מי\"א), או שאף אינו יוצא ידי חובה. אין להפריש מעשרות לפני הזמן, והלכות דומות (מעשרות פ\"א, וראו פירושנו שם משנה א). עם זאת, בפועל נהגו אנשים לתת את התרומות בזמנים שונים, וריכזנו את המידע במבוא למסכת תרומות." + ], + [ + "חמשת רבעים קמח חייבין בחלה – בספרות חז\"ל \"רבע\" הוא כמעט תמיד רבע קב. הקב הוא שישית הסאה, ורבע קב הוא אפוא אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה של סאה. חמישה רבעים הם קב ורבע. הסאה היא 10-12 ליטר, כפי שהראינו בנספח למסכת פסחים. הווה אומר, הרבע הוא חצי ליטר או מעט פחות, כ- 400 גרם קמח. חמשת הרבעים הם, אפוא, שני ק\"ג לערך. המנה היומית כדי כלכלת אדם רגיל ליום היא חצי קב (ראו פירושנו לפאה פ\"ח מ\"ה). אם כן, חובת חלה היא על כמות שהיא יותר ממאכל אדם ליום וכדי מאכל של ארבע נפשות (משפחה גרעינית) לסעודה אחת120החישוב הוא שאדם צורך רבע קב לסעודה, שהרי ביום יש שתי סעודות. ראו על כך בפירושנו לפאה פ\"ח מ\"ה. . כפי שאמרנו במבוא, בבבל אפו לחם כל בוקר ואפייה משפחתית, למשפחה גרעינית, הייתה אפוא פי שניים מחובת חלה. בארץ ישראל אפו פעם בשבוע, ואפייה משפחתית היא הרבה יותר מחובת חלה. חמישה רבעים אף אינם הולמים את צריכת הלחם של אדם בשבוע, שהיא לפי חישוב זה שלושה קבים וחצי. נמצאנו למדים שהמידה של חמישה רבעים אינה קשורה למדד של הערכה מציאותית של כמות אפייה, ויש לחפש את שורשיה במקום אחר. המדרש אומר ששבעה רבעים הם בערך עומר. העומר הוא עשירית האיפה, ועשירית האיפה היא שלוש סאים. כלומר, עומר הוא שלוש שביעיות של סאה. כפי שנראה להלן חמשת הרבעים הנזכרים הם, לפי חז\"ל, שבע רביעיות של הסאה המקראית: \"שנאמר ראשית עריסותיכם חלה כדי עיסתכם וכמה עיסתכם כדי עיסת מדבר וכמה עיסת מדבר כעומר שנאמר והעומר עשירית האיפה\" (תוס', עדיות פ\"א ה\"א, עמ' 454; מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, ויסע בשלח ה, עמ' 173). נמצאנו למדים שחובת חלה היא על העומר. המדרש אינו קושר במפורש את החלה אל העומר, והקישור מבוסס רק על המידות הזהות, וזאת בהנחה שהוא נקבע בזמן שאכן דובר על שבעה רבעים. ", + "הסבר אחר שנוי במדרש ספרי: \"תתנו לה' תרומה – עד שיהא בה כדי מתנה לכהן\"121ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 173; כן נרמז העיקרון בתוספתא, פ\"א ה\"ז, וראו פירושנו למשנה הבאה. . עיקרון זה של \"כדי מתנה\" חוזר גם בראשית הגז, שהיא מתנת כהונה אחרת (משנה, חולין פי\"א מ\"ב; ספרי דברים, קסז, עמ' 216), והוא מובן כשלעצמו. המתנה לכוהן צריכה להיות משמעותית, אחרת אין לה ערך כלכלי עבור הכוהן. אמנם המתנה היא החלק לשם ה', כפי שראינו לעיל במשנה ג, אבל יש לה גם משמעות כלכלית. צמר של ראשית הגז צריך לתת \"כדי לעשות ממנו בגד קטן\" (משנה, בכורות פי\"א מ\"ב), ואילו חלה יש להפריש אחד חלקי 24 של העיסה, כלומר לפחות אחד חלקי 256 של סאה, 40-47 גרם לערך, שהם בערך משקלה של פרוסה בת זמננו. חכמים סברו, אפוא, ששילוב של גודל הסאה וכמות החלה מפיקים \"כדי מתנה\". קשה לדעת האם שתי המידות נקבעו במשותף, או שמא אחת מהן קדמה והשנייה הותאמה לה. ", + "הן ושאורן ומורסנן חמשת רבעים חייבין – מידה זו היא מידת ברוטו, לפני ניפוי הקמח הנקי. בקמח הגס שלושה מרכיבים: הגרעין שנטחן וממנו הופק הקמח, קליפות הגרעין (המורסן) שמנפים בתהליך האפייה, והשאור, חתיכת בצק ישנה שמצרפים לעיסה כדי לזרז את ההחמצה. אפילו מעט בצק זה נחשב כחלק מהמדידה, אף שייתכן שמבצק זה כבר הפרישו בעבר חלה. בכתב יד קופמן כתוב רק \"ומורסנן\", וכן ברוב כתבי היד רק \"מורסם\", \"מורסן\" או \"מורסנן\", אבל בדפוסים ובעדי נוסח משניים: \"וסובן ומורסנן\", וכן לא גרס רבי יהוסף אשכנזי מילה זו \"בכל הספרים\" שלפניו.", + "המורסן והסובין הם שני הכינויים לקליפות החיטים, אלא שהסובין הם קליפות דקות ומורסן הוא הקליפות העבות יותר. בתהליך הטחינה נשברת הקליפה ונטחנת מעט. חתיכות הקליפה הדקות הן הסובין, והעבות הן המורסן. ברוב העדויות שני סוגי הקליפות מופיעים יחד (משנה, שבת פ\"ח מ\"ב והמקורות שלהלן). אבל ההבדל ביניהם ברור. במשנה שנינו: \"גרעיני תרומה, בזמן שהוא מכנסן אסורות, ואם השליכן מותרות. וכן עצמות הקדשים, בזמן שהוא מכנסן אסורין, ואם השליכן מותרין. המורסן מותר, סובין של חדשות אסורות ושל ישנות מותרות\" (תרומות פי\"א מ\"ה). אם כן, המורסן אינו נחשב לאוכל ולכן המורסן של גרעיני תרומה אינו תרומה, והסובין נחשבים לאוכל, חוץ מסובין ישנים. במקומות מספר הסובין נזכרים כתוצר הגרוע, אך התקני, של החיטים. הקמח הדק הוא הסולת וחלקו הגס הוא הסובין. פת סובין היא פת לכל דבר, אלא שטיבה נחות122תוס', מנחות פ\"ח הי\"ד, עמ' 524; בבלי, שם עו ע\"ב; ספרי, דברים מח, עמ' 110; מדרש תנאים לדברים, יא כב, עמ' 42. . המורסן, לעומת זאת, הוא מאכל בהמה בלבד123לעיל פ\"א מ\"ח; שבת פכ\"ד מ\"ג; בבלי, קנה ע\"ב ומקבילות; משנה, פסחים פ\"ב מ\"ז; תוס', שבת פ\"ח ה\"ח, ועוד. . אמנם מורסן וסובין מופיעים בדרך כלל יחדיו, אבל במקרה זה צירוף הסובין לכדי שיעור הוא בבחינת \"פשיטא\", שהרי יש האופים ממנו לחם, והוא כקמח לכל דבר. אבל צירוף המורסן לשיעור הוא משמעותי.", + "ניטל מורסנן מתוכן וחזר לתוכן הרי אלו פטורים – אם נטל האופה את המורסן החוצה והתמעט הבצק ממידתו הוא פטור מחלה, גם אם נוסף אחר כך. דומה שתוספת מורסן לאחר האפייה היא טכניקת אפייה מקובלת, ואולי הוסיפו את המורסן לאחר הלישה כקישוט על קרום החלה. בתוספתא (פ\"א הי\"א) ובירושלמי (נח ע\"ד) מובאת דעתו של רבן שמעון בן גמליאל \"עד שיהא בדגן כשיעור\", כלומר כמות הקמח הנדרשת היא הכמות של הדגן נטו, ללא התוספות. ", + "הכלל במשנה נשנה בסתם כמוסכמה מקובלת, אבל ממקור מקביל ברור שהוא פרי התחבטות ותהליך ממושך. כן שנינו: \"שמאי אומר מקב לחלה, והלל אומר מקביים, וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה, אלא קב ומחצה חייבים בחלה. ומשהגדילו המדות אמרו חמשת רבעים חייבין. רבי יוסי אומר חמשה פטורין, חמשה ועוד חייבין\" (משנה, עדיות פ\"א מ\"ב). אם כן, בשלב ראשון הייתה מחלוקת: שמאי אומר שעיסה בכמות של קב חייבת בחלה; הלל מסתפק בכמות גדולה פי שניים, וכמות של קב פטורה מחלה. חכמים נקטו עמדת ביניים ותבעו כמות מינימלית של קב וחצי, שהם שישה רבעים. עד כאן זו מחלוקת רגילה שכמוה רבות במסכת עדיות. שמאי והלל, או בית שמאי ובית הלל, נחלקו על שיעורים שונים, ונראה שבזמנם נקבעה השיטה ההלכתית של קביעת שיעורי מינימום ומקסימום למצוות. חכמים נוקטים עמדת ביניים, ואף זו דרך רגילה124עדיות פ\"א מ\"א-מ\"ג; נדה פ\"א מ\"א; מועד קטן פ\"ג מ\"ו, ומקורות נוספים. . דומה ש\"חכמים\" כאן מבטאים רצון שלא להכריע במחלוקת של אבות העולם הקדמונים ולנקוט עמדת ביניים. חכמים אלו באו מאוחר יותר, והיססו מלפסוק כאחד הצדדים. אמנם בדרך כלל נקבעה הלכה כבית הלל, ברם ראינו כי פעמים רבות נקבעה הלכה כבית שמאי, ובימי הבית נהגו (פסקו) לעתים קרובות כבית שמאי. זאת ועוד; מרכיבים מדעת בית שמאי חדרו לפסק ההלכה. משנתנו מצטרפת, אפוא, למקרים שבהם לא הכריעו כבית הלל. ייתכן גם שההכרעה לנקוט עמדת ביניים קדמה לתהליך שהתחולל בדור יבנה של פסיקה כבית הלל. מכל מקום לא הייתה הכרעה חד-משמעית כבית הלל, בניגוד לדימוי האגדי כאילו יצאה בת קול וקבעה שהלכה כבית הלל125ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי. .", + "שינוי המידות", + "המשנה מספרת עוד שהשתנו המידות ושישה רבעים של המשנה בעדיות הם חמישה רבעים \"שלנו\", כלומר המקובלים בימי חז\"ל. התוספתא שם מפרטת: \"שיערו חכמים שבעה רבעים ועוד מדברות שהן חמש רבעים בציפורן שהן קב ומחצה ירושלמית\" (עדיות פ\"א ה\"ב, עמ' 454; ספרי זוטא, טו יט, עמ' 283). משתמע שהיו שלוש מידות והמידות גדלו, כלומר הסאה של המדבר קטנה יותר מסאה של ציפורי, וסאה של ציפורי גדולה יותר מסאה ירושלמית. היחסים הם: שבע רביעיות של הסאה המדברית הקדומה הן שש רביעיות של הסאה הירושלמית (של ימי בית שני), וחמש רביעיות של הסאה הנוכחית של ימי חכמים (סאה של ציפורי). מסורת דומה חוזרת לעניין כמות העומר: \"התודה היתה באה חמש סאין ירושלמיות, שהן שש מדבריות\" (משנה, מנחות פ\"ז מ\"א). אין כמובן ביטוי לסאה הציפורית, שכן זו לא נהגה בירושלים אלא בגליל, ומן הסתם נקבעה רק לאחר ימי בית שני. התוספתא שם מבהירה: \"נמצאת ירושלמית יתירה על מדבריות שתות\" (מנחות פ\"ח הט\"ז, עמ' 524). שתות (שישית) זו היא בהשוואה למדברית, כמה נוסף לה. ", + "שינוי המידות", + "עצם השינוי אינו מפתיע. המידות של סאה, קב או אמה חוזרות בצורה זו או אחרת בכל האזורים במזרח, אבל בכל מקום ניתנו להן ערכים כמותיים שונים במקצת. ביטוי לכך יש בספרו של אפיפניוס \"על המידות\". שם הוא מקדיש חיבור שלם למידות ולמשקלות ומונה הבדלים רבים בין ערים, כך שלאותו מונח תרגום כמותי שונה (איור 14).", + "להבדל בין המידות לא היה ביטוי מספרי מדויק. הבבלי מנסה להגדיר את הפערים, וכנראה היה קושי בהגדרה המדויקת שלהם. \"תנו רבנן: סאה ירושלמית יתירה על מדברית שתות, ושל ציפורית יתירה על ירושלמית שתות, נמצאת של ציפורית יתירה על מדברית שליש\" (בבלי, עירובין פג ע\"א; מנחות עז ע\"א). למרות הקביעה הברורה הבבלי מראה שפערים אלו אינם מדויקים, שכן שתי השישיות הן מעט פחות משליש, כפי שעולה מהטבלה. אבל המספרים קרובים ביותר, והקושי של הסוגיה אינו מהותי. יתר על כן, ההבדל בין המידה המדברית לציפורית הוא כשתי שביעיות, אבל המספרים קרובים.", + "המסורת על חילוף המידות חוזרת, אפוא, בכמה מקורות, וכל המסורות זהות. עם זאת אנו שומעים גם על מסורת שונה המשקפת שינוי של המידות: \"אמר רבי חנינה, לוגא דאוריתא תומנתא עתיקתא דמורייסא דציפרין. אמר רבי יונה, חכים אנא לה, דבית רבי ינאי הוון מכילין בה דבש. תני חצי שמינית טברנית הישנה, אמר רבי יוחנן, הדא דידן הוות, ולמה לא אמר עתיקתא? בגין דהוות ביומוי. אית דאמרין דהוות זעירא, ורבת וזערת, ולא זערת כמה דהוות\" (לוג של התורה שמינית עתיקה של מורייס של ציפורי [או של המידה הישנה של ציפורי]. אמר רבי יונה, מכיר אני אותה, ובית רבי ינאי היו מודדים בה דבש. תני חצי שמינית טבריינית הישנה. אמר רבי יוחנן, זו שלנו הייתה, ולמה לא קרא לה הישנה? מפני שהייתה בימיו. יש אומרים שהייתה קטנה, וגדלה ואחר כך קטנה [בשנית], ולא קטנה למה שהייתה – ירו', שבת פ\"ח ה\"א, יא ע\"א). נפתח בסופה של המסורת. מתברר שהייתה מידה ישנה, ומן הסתם גם מידה אחרת חדשה. במונח \"מידה\" הכוונה לכלי מדידה רשמי, כמקובל בשווקים פורמליים בערי פוליס יווניות. כלי מידה זה היה בטבריה. כפשוטו הכלי עצמו היה עתיק, ורבי יוחנן מסביר שזו המידה הנוהגת בימיו. אבל התלמוד הבין שהמידה עצמה עתיקה ומציע שהיא גדלה וקטנה שנית, אבל היה שוני בין המידה הקטנה הקיימת ובין המידה העתיקה. אם אכן זו מסורת ולא פרשנות תאורטית יש בה כדי להראות עד כמה היה תהליך זה של גידול ושינוי המידות רגיל.", + "החלק החשוב לענייננו הוא שלוג של התורה, שהוא רבע קב, שווה לשמינית. שמינית זו היא מן הסתם שמינית קב, וזו עדות לשינוי של חמישים אחוז, יותר מזה שעליו מדברים המקורות התנאיים. אפשר גם ש\"שמינית\" אינה שמינית קב אלא שמינית מנה או ליברה, אבל אלו משקלות ולא מידות נפח; מעבר לכך, שמינית ליברה היא 40 גרם לערך ואינה יכולה להיות זהה ללוג (הזהה לרביעית קב, כחצי ליטר). ייתכן שחלק מהפער בין הלוג של התורה והשמינית של חכמים הוא בהבדל בין מידת נפח למשקל, שכן המדובר על מדידת דבש. עם כל זאת, קשה להלום את המסורת האמוראית עם המסורת התנאית שהובאה לעיל.", + "יש להניח שהמסורת על חילוף המשקלות בין הסאה הציפורית לסאה הירושלמית היא עדות היסטורית רֵאלית, אחרת קשה להבין מהיכן נשאבה. המסורת לגבי המידה המדברית מסופקת יותר. האם אכן הייתה לחז\"ל מסורת רֵאלית על המידות הקדומות? ייתכן שמידה זו נהגה גם בימי בית שני, וכך זכרוה חכמים. ייתכן גם שהמידה של שבעה רבעים היא קונסטרוקציה ספרותית רעיונית של חכמים שבאה להשוות את העומר לחמשת הרבעים של מצוות חלה. אין בידנו להכריע בשאלה על סמך עדויות חיצוניות, וכל שבידנו הוא רק לשער השערות כלליות על מידת האמינות של הזיכרון ההיסטורי של חכמים, ולנחש כמה ממנו היה מבוסס וכמה פרי יצירה אגדית. מכל מקום, אין כל עדות שתפריך את השחזור ההיסטורי של חכמים. ברם, כאמור, לפנינו זיכרונות שונים ואיננו יודעים לתאם ביניהם.", + "משנתנו מדברת על חמישה רבעים של קב, וכן סתם משנת עדיות. אבל שם נוסף: \"רבי יוסי אומר חמשה פטורין, חמשה ועוד חייבין\" (פ\"א מ\"ב). כלומר, החיוב הוא רק על יותר מחמישה רבעים126הר\"ש סירליאו גורס במשנתנו \"ועוד\", וראו מלאכת שלמה. . שיטה זו של קביעת מידה \"ועוד\" חוזרת גם בכלאיים, בתרומות ובמידת תחום שבת שהוא שבעים אמה \"ושיריים\" (ראו פירושנו לכלאים פ\"ו מ\"ו; תרומות פ\"ד מ\"ז; עירובין פ\"ב מ\"ה). במקורות מתנהל גם דיון כמה הוא אותו \"ועוד\". מן הראוי להעיר שלעתים נוקטות משניות במידה הכללית ואינן מזכירות את ה\"ועוד\". כך, למשל, הם קובעים שתרומה עולה באחד ומאה, אף שהיא עולה רק באחד ומאה ועוד קצת (ראו פירושנו לתרומות שם שם). על כן ייתכן היה לפרש שגם משנתנו נוקטת במידה הכללית. אבל במקבילה במשנת עדיות מופיעה בבירור מחלוקת. \"שיעורו\" של \"ועוד\" נקבע ברובד מאוחר יותר של ספרות התנאים, ושיעורו לעניין חלה הוא אחד חלקי עשרים של קב, \"אחד מחמישה ברביע\" (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, בשלח, ויסע ה, עמ' 173; מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, טו לה, עמ' 117). ", + "בתלמוד הבבלי אנו שומעים על מידות שונות במקצת: \"וכמה שיעור עיסה? רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר: בחיטין – קבין, ובשעורין – שלשת קבין. רבי נתן אומר משום רבי אליעזר: חילוף הדברים. והתניא, רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר: בחטין – שלשת קבין, ובשעורין – ארבעה קבין! לא קשיא; הא – בחסיכתא, הא – במעלייתא... אמר רב: קבא מלוגנאה לפיסחא, וכן לחלה\" (פסחים מח ע\"א). אם כן מצינו שלוש דעות, ואפשר שהשיעורים שבסוגיה הם רק בבבל שבה הקלו במצווה, כפי שסיכמנו במבוא. מכל מקום, סוגיית הבבלי מעלה שהשיעור שבמשנה לא נחשב לסופי ומחייב." + ], + [ + "שיעור החלה אחד מעשרים וארבעה – בתורה אין למצוות חלה שיעור, כמו לתרומה או לפאה, אבל כמו בשתי הלכות אלו גם לחלה ניתן שיעור. במשנה הקודמת עמדנו על כך שהשיעור נועד לגרום לכך שההענקה לכוהן תהיה משמעותית, לפחות כפרוסת לחם127הר\"ש סירליאו מצא למספר זה רמזים בפסוקים שונים. יש להניח כי אלו רעיונות שבאו בעקבות ההלכה, ואינם הסיבה לה. .", + "העושה עיסה לעצמו [ו]העושה משתה לבנו אחד מעשרים וארבעה – את המשנה יש להבין שדין אחד לאופה לעצמו כמות קטנה יחסית (אבל יותר מחמישה רבעים) ולאופה כמות גדולה. הדוגמה לכך היא: \"משתה לבנו\" או \"משתה בנו\", כמו בכל יתר עדי הנוסח, הוא יום החתונה של הבן128באזכורים אחרים מופיע גם בכתב יד קופמן \"משתה בנו\", כמו בשביעית פ\"ז מ\"ד; כריתות פ\"ג מ\"ז. בעבודה זרה פ\"א מ\"ג במשנתנו \"משתה בנו\", אבל בכתב יד קופמן כל הצירוף חסר. . המינוח הרגיל במקורות הוא \"משתה בנו\", והוא מופיע במקורות חז\"ל ואף בכתובת129נוה, על פסיפס, עמ' 115. . משתה הבן מופיע כהזדמנות מיוחדת שבה האדם מכין מזון בכמות גדולה. בעת ההכנות למשתה כזה מתפקד היחיד, מבחינה כמותית, כאילו היה נחתום. כך גם מתואר היחיד האופה בכמות מסחרית לאחר הפסח (תוס', פסחים פ\"א הי\"ג). זו גם ההזדמנות שאדם רגיל קונה ומכין בה בשר (משנה, כריתות פ\"ג מ\"ז; שביעית פ\"ז מ\"ד, ועוד). מכל מקום, למרות הכמות הגדולה של לחם שבעל הבית מכין הוא מפריש רק אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה.", + "נחתום שהוא עושה למכור בשוק וכן האשה שהיא עושה למכור בשוק – שני אלה מכינים עיסה בכמות מסחרית. מעניינת התמונה החברתית של אישה שאינה נחתום מקצועי אבל מכינה לחם למכירה בכמות גדולה. זהו מסחר ברמה מקומית וראשונית ביותר, ועדות לכך שסחר הלחם טרם הפך להיות מסחרי לחלוטין. ייצור ברמה כזאת אופייני למערכת שהמסחר בה מוגבל.", + "אחד מארבעים ושמונה – שוב לא ברור למה נקבעה דווקא מידה זו, ומן הסתם היא פי שניים מהכמות הקודמת. בתוספתא מוסיף רבי שמעון שאפילו נתן אחד לשישים יצא (פ\"א ה\"ח); אמנם המדובר בחלת דמאי (חלה המופרשת ממעשר שהורם מתוך ספק), אך ברור שלדעתו די בשיעור קטן זה כדי לצאת ידי חובה.", + "במקורות ניתנים כמה הסברים להבדל בין בעל הבית לנחתום: \"אמר רבי יהודה מפני מה אמרו בעל הבית אחד מעשרים וארבע, מפני שעינו יפה בעיסתו. נחתום אחד מארבעים ושמונה, מפני שעינו צרה בעיסתו. וחכמים אומרים לא מן השם הוא זה, אלא בעל הבית עיסתו מעוטה ואין בה כדי מתנה לכהן, נחתום עיסתו מרובה ויש בה כדי מתנה לכהן\" (תוס', פ\"א ה\"ז; ירו', נח ע\"ד; בבלי, שבת טו ע\"א). לדעת חכמים הסיבה המרכזית היא הרצון לתת לכוהן מתנה משמעותית. לכן בעל הבית שאופה מעט ייתן יותר, כדי שלכוהן תהיה טובת הנאה משמעותית, אבל הנחתום האופה בכמות גדולה רשאי לתת מנה מועטת וגם בה יהיה כדי מתנה. כפי שאמרנו לעיל, אכן גם חישוב כמות הבצק החייבת בחלה מבוסס כנראה על שיקול זה. רבי יהודה טוען שהסיבה אחרת. בעל הבית הוא נדיב לב, ואילו הנחתום צריך או רוצה לחסוך. הדבר לא נאמר, אך ייתכן שהסיבה היא שעבור הנחתום כמות של אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה מהבצק (מעט פחות מ- 2%) היא כמות נומינלית גדולה, ועבור בעל הבית מתנה של 4% היא עדיין מתנה שולית. ", + "בספרי יש סדרת היגדים הקשורים לענייננו: \"תתנו לה' תרומה – למה נאמר לפי שהוא אומר חלה תרימו תרומה, אבל לא שמענו שיעור חלה, תלמוד לומר 'תתנו לה' תרומה', עד שיהא בה כדי מתנה לכהן. מיכן אתה אומר שיעור חלה של בעל הבית אחד מעשרים וארבעה ושל נחתום אחד מארבעים ושמונה. [אמר רבי יהודה מפני מה אמרו חלה של בעל הבית אחד מעשרים וארבעה ושל נחתום אחד מארבעים ושמונה]? לפי שהאיש עינו יפה והאשה עינה רעה, וכשתפחות לא תפחות מארבעים ושמונה. לכך נאמר 'תתנו לה' תרומה' עד שיהא בזה כדי מתנה לכהן ובזה כדי מתנה לכהן. מיכן אמרו בעל הבית שעושה משתה לבנו אחד מעשרים וארבעה, והאשה שהיא עושה ומוכרת בשוק אחד מארבעים ושמונה. נטמאת עיסתה שוגגת או אנוסה אחד מארבעים ושמונה. נטמאת מזידה נוטלת אחד מעשרים וארבעה, כדי שלא יהיה חוטא נשכר. רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר אפילו לא עלה בידו אלא אחד מששים יצא ובלבד שלא יתכוין\" (ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 115).", + "המדרש מתייחס ישירות למשנתנו ומצטט אותה. הוא גם מביא את דברי הברייתא שבתוספתא (בנוסח מקורב) ואינו רואה בשני ההסברים מחלוקת אלא הסברים משלימים. ההסבר של רבי יהודה מוצג בצורה מעודנת פחות. על האישה מטילים חובה גבוהה יותר, כי עינה רעה (היא קמצנית) ותקצץ מהמכסה, וחכמים רצו לגרום לכך שלפחות תיתן אחד מארבעים ושמונה. אבל הנחתום אינו קמצן, וייתן כנדרש. מה שבתוספתא הוא הבדל בין אפייה פרטית לאפייה מסחרית הופך במדרש להיגד אנטי-פמיניסטי. זו דרכם של מקורות, לעשות שימוש מבוקר במקורות קודמים ולהציגם תוך הטיית מה המבטאת את השקפת עולמו של העורך המאוחר. ניתן אף להגדיר את דברי הספרי כמדרש לתוספתא, מדרש העושה שימוש חלקי בתוספתא ומיסב את הרעיון שבה לעולם אחר.", + "עוד נוספו בספרי שתי הנחיות חשובות. האחת שיש לתת את החלה באומדן וגם אם טעה, טעות כנה, ונתן אחד משישים – מתנתו מתנה. אחד משישים הוא כדי נתינה של תרומה. הכלל השני במדרש קשור להמשך המשנה, ונדון בו להלן.", + "המשנה מבחינה בין אישה הרגילה לאפות לשוק לבין אישה הרגילה לאפות לביתה ופעם אחת אפתה כמות גדולה. אבחנה זו מחודדת בירושלמי: \"אמר רבי מתניתא בלימודת להיות מפרשת אחד מארבעים ושמנה, אבל בלימודת להיות מפרשת אחד מעשרים וארבעה ניתני כדי שלא יהא החוטא נשכר\" (נח ע\"ד). דינה של כל אישה תלוי בהרגליה. אם היא רגילה לאפות לשוק – מפרישה מעט, ואם רגילה לאפות לבית – מפרישה יותר. דומה שהחכם מעניק למשנה נופך נוסף. מטרתו שלא לבלבל את האיש ועליה לתת כפי שהיא רגילה, ולא כל פעם בהתאם לסוג האפייה שלה.", + "ניטמאת עיסתה שוגגת או אנוסה אחד מארבעים שמונה – אם האישה נטמאת החלה פסולה, יש להרים אותה ולהשמידה, והכוהן אינו רשאי לאכלה, על כן התירו חכמים להפריש כמות מעטה יותר.", + "ניטמאת מזידה אחד מעשרים וארבעה כדי שלא יהא חוטא ניסכר – עיקרון זה מופיע בכמה הלכות ומטרתו שמי שחטא (במזיד) לא יימצא מרוויח, אחרת הפיתוי לחטוא בכוונה יהיה גדול הרבה יותר. כזכור נחלקו תנאים אם האופה בטומאה עדיף שיפריש חלה בטומאה, או שיחלקנה לקבים (לעיל מ\"ג). כאן נבחר הפתרון הראשון, אך אין בכך כדי הבעת עמדה בשאלה העקרונית אלא הכרעה מקרית של פרט זה או אחר. ייתכן שעדיף היה שתחלק את העיסה למנות קטנות, אך לא כך נהגה אישה זו. יתר על כן, מדובר על: \"ניטמאת עיסתה\", ומשמע שנטמאה בתהליך האפייה, אולי לאחר שהייתה כבר עיסה והתחייבה בחלה.", + "מכל מקום, לדעת המשנה אם החלה טמאה יש להפריש רק אחד חלקי ארבעים ושמונה. זאת בניגוד לפסיקה מימי הביניים שבזמן הזה יש להפריש \"כלשהו\" בלבד. פסיקה זו מבוססת על מסקנת הבבלי שדין חלה חל בחוץ לארץ, אך החלה היא טמאה ולכן החובה היא להפריש משהו. הפרשת חלה בטומאה היא בכמות מינימלית שכן היא ניתנת בטומאה, ואין להרבות טומאה. כמו כן המפריש תרומה דמאי חייב רק באחד משישים, וכן התורם תרומה טמאה חייב רק באחד משישים (תוס', תרומות פ\"ה ה\"ו). דין זה מקביל להלכה שבמשנתנו. אם כן, ההלכה שהמפריש חלה טמאה או תרומה די לו במשהו אינה מעוגנת במקורות התנאיים. עם זאת, יש לזכור שלפחות לפי חלק מהתנאים דין תרומה מהתורה הוא שחיטה אחת פוטרת את כל הכרי130ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"ד מ\"ג. זו גם דעתו של שמואל הבבלי, והצענו שדעתו מושפעת מכך שמדובר בהפרשת תרומה טמאה בבבל. . אין לנו הלכה מקבילה לחלה, אך מן התורה אכן אין כל קִצבה לכמות של הפרשת חלה. " + ], + [ + "רבי אליעזר אומר ניטלת מן הטהור על הטמא – דברי רבי אליעזר חוזרים למשנה ט בפרק הקודם. לכאורה היה מקום לטעון שבמשנה הקדומה הייתה משנתנו המשך של משנה ט בפרק הקודם. פרק ב הושתל לתוך הרצף הזה, כנראה כיחידה אחת מגובשת שיש בה דינים מנושאים שונים במסגרת דיני חלה, אך ללא סדר נראה לעין, כאילו היה זה מעין לקט של הלכות שונות ללא מבנה ברור. ברם, כפי שנראה בפירושנו להלן, משנתנו אינה מתייחסת למשנה בפרק הקודם. היא אמנם זהה בתוכנה אך באה ממסגרת עריכה נפרדת, שכן היא חוזרת על דברי חכמים. על כן נראה שסדר העריכה היה שונה. במשנה הקדומה בא פרק ב לאחר פרק א, ואילו משנתנו מהווה יחידה נפרדת ממקור אחר, יחידה שיש בה דמיון מצד התוכן אך היא מעריכה שונה. משנתנו הובאה אגב משנה ט בפרק הקודם, אבל המלקט רצה לסיים תחילה את כל היחידה הקודמת, על כל פרטיה.", + "ההלכה של רבי אליעזר נדונה במפורט שם (פ\"ב מ\"ט), וראינו כי זו דעתם של בית שמאי המתירים להפריש חלה ותרומה מהטהור על הטמא.", + "כיצד – השאלה היא איך מפרישים מהטהור על הטמא מבלי לטמא את הטהור. ההנחה היא שמפרישים מפרי אחד על אחר (או מבצק אחד על אחר) רק ב\"מוקף\" (שם), כלומר כששני הבצקים בכלי אחד. אם הטהור ייגע בטמא הרי הוא יטמא אותו.", + "עיסה טהורה ועיסה טמאה – בשלב זה שתי העיסות נפרדות וטרם הופרשה מהן חלה131רבי יהוסף אשכנזי (הובא במלאכת שלמה) מסביר שהכוונה בין עיסה טמאה ובין עיסה טהורה, נוטל... פירוש זה יפה ואפשרי, אך אינו הכרחי. .", + "נוטל כדי חלה מעיסה שלא הורמה חלתה ונותן פחות מכביצה באמצע כדי שיטול מן המוקף – האופה מניחה את שני הבצקים זה ליד זה, מבלי שייגעו זה בזה, ומניחה חתיכת בצק טהורה שתחבר ביניהם. חתיכה זו היא פחות מכביצה וממילא אינה מקבלת טומאה, שכן על חפץ (מזון) זעיר כזה טומאה אינה חלה. במסכת תרומות נזכר עיגול דבלה שחלקו טמא וחלקו טהור, והתלמוד שם מסביר שהעיגול נלוש במי פרות שאינם מהווים חיבור לטומאה. עוד מוצע שם: \"תני, רבי לעאיי אומר משום רבי ליעזר, 'תורמין מן הטהור על הטמא בלח' כיצד? כבש זיתים בטומאה והוא רוצה לתורמן בטהרה, מביא משפך שאין בפיו כביצה וממלא אותו ביצים ונותנו על פי חבית, ונמצא תורם מן המוקף\" (ירו', תרומות פ\"ב ה\"א, מא ע\"ב). ברייתא זו היא ההמשך או הפיתוח של משנתנו. היא עוסקת בחיבור של נוזלים, ומשנתנו בחיבור של מוצקים. למעשה ניתן למצוא פתרונות אחרים, כגון שהטמא טמא בשלישי לטומאה ואינו מטמא את הנוגע בו132ראשון לטומאה הוא מי שנגע במת והוא מטמא אחרים להיות שני בטומאה. שני בטומאה מטמא, לעתים, את הנוגע בו להיות שלישי לטומאה. שלישי לטומאה אינו מטמא אחרים. דין הנוגע בשני לטומאה תלוי בנסיבות, ולא נרחיב בכך. .", + "הסברנו את סדר הפעולות לפי היגיון פנימי, קודם חיבור העיסות ואחר כך נטילת החלה. ברם, סדר המשנה הוא קודם נטילת חלה ואחר כך חיבור העיסות. ראשונים התחבטו מדוע בחרה המשנה דווקא בסדר זה. ברם, לדעתנו התיאור במשנה אינו לפי סדר הפעולות, והא ראיה שהרמת החלה מהעיסה הטמאה אינה נזכרת כלל. הרי לו היה נשמר סדר הפעולות במשנה צריך היה לומר שנוטל חלה מהעיסה הטהורה, מחבר את העיסות בעזרת \"פחות מכביצה\" ומרים חלה מהעיסה הטהורה בשביל העיסה הטמאה. אין זאת אלא שסדר הפעולות אינו מוצג במדויק, וקודם מחברים את העיסות ואחר כך מרימים חלה מהכול יחד133ראו אלבק, פירוש, עמ' 108. .", + "וחכמים אוסרין – חכמים אוסרים לתרום מהטהור על הטמא. ברור שמשנתנו אינה מתייחסת למשנה ט בפרק הקודם, שכן שם שנינו את דברי חכמים במפורט ואין טעם לחזור עליהם. משנה זו באה, אפוא, ממקור אחר. ", + "לפי המשנה התנאי של \"מוקף\" מחייב ששתי העיסות תיגענה זו בזו, כדי שתהווינה בצק אחד. בפרק הבא יתברר שיש מחלוקת בשאלה האם הפרשת הבצק היא מבצק או מהלחם האפוי, וברור שההלכה של המשנה היא בהנחה שהחלה היא מהעיסה, כרבי יוחנן בן נורי (להלן מ\"ו ומ\"ז ולעיל פ\"א מ\"ט). אבל לעיל מ\"ד ולהלן בפרק ד (מ\"א ומ\"ד) קבעה המשנה שהתנאי להצטרפות הוא \"נשיכה הדדית\", כלומר שבצק אחד יידבק בשני, כך שבזמן ההפרדה תצטרפנה חתיכות מזה לזה. אם כן, לא די בנגיעה ויש צורך בנשיכה. גם כלל זה מתאים יותר לבצק מאשר ללחם, אך אפשרי בדוחק גם בלחם, במיוחד בתחילת האפייה כדעת רבי עקיבא. אבל לעיל במשנה ד קבע רבי אליעזר שאפילו הנחת הלחמים יחד בכלי מצרפת, וכאמור לא ברור מה דעתו על צירוף על ידי \"נשיכה בתנור\". רבי אליעזר מהלך כאן בשיטת רבי עקיבא שהרמת החלה היא מהלחם האפוי (שקרם בתנור), שהרי אם הרמת החלה היא מהבצק הרי בזמן הרמת החלה היו בצקים אלו פטורים מחלה134להלן נוכיח ממשנת טבול יום שאכן לאחר הקרימה אין כבר חיבור בין הכיכרות, אם כי שם מדובר בחיבור לטומאה. .", + "הצגת רצף העדויות מצביעה על שתי תופעות. האחת היא באשר למחלוקת רבי עקיבא ורבי יוחנן בן נורי סביב השאלה מתי מרימים חלה, והאחרת סביב השאלה מהו צירוף. לגבי השאלה הראשונה רוב המשניות מהלכות בדעת רבי יוחנן בן נורי ומיעוטן בשיטת רבי עקיבא, וכן: \"ספינה שהיא באה מחוצה לארץ לארץ והיתה בה עיסה, עד שלא קרמו פניה חייבת. משקרמו פניה פטורה\" (תוס', חלה פ\"ב הי\"ב). כמו כן אומר המדרש כבדרך אגב \"רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר: הרי שגזל סאה של חטין, טחנה, לשה ואפאה והפריש ממנה חלה...\" (בבלי, בבא קמא צד ע\"א; סנהדרין פ\"ו ע\"ב; עבודה זרה נד ע\"ב). אבל במדרש מצוטט המשפט ושם, בחלק מהנוסחאות, חסרה המילה \"ואפאה\" (מדרש תהלים, י ד, עמ' 94). דעה זו של רבי עקיבא היא המופיעה גם במסכת מנחות (פ\"ז מ\"ג) ביחס לשאלה מתי מתקדשת חלה שנאפתה למקדש. במנחות לא מצינו את העמדות האחרות, ונדון בכך, אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת, בפירושנו למנחות. ", + "רבי אליעזר כאילו סותר את עצמו, שכן לעיל במשנה ד הוא הילך בשיטת רבי עקיבא, ובמשנה ט הוא נותן דוגמה לשיטת רבי יוחנן בן נורי. ייתכן שאלו שתי מסורות חולקות על שיטתו של רבי אליעזר, אך גם ייתכן להציע פתרון אחר. רבי אליעזר משקף דעה שלישית שניתן להפריש חלה באיזה שלב שרוצים, או מהבצק או מהלחם האפוי. הד לדעה זו יש במדרש האומר שיש להרים חלה מהעיסה, אך אם לא הרים רשאי להרים מהלחם (ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 114). להלן (פ\"ד מ\"ה) נציע שגם רבי עקיבא שאמר שהפרשת החלה היא מהקרימה בתנור מסכים שמותר להרים חלה כבר מהבצק. יתר על כן, מעמדו של הבצק כחייב או פטור מחלה נקבע בשלב נתינת המים, אך מועד ההפרשה הוא בקרימה בתנור. ההבדל הוא שרבי עקיבא קובע כזמן המאוחר ביותר את האפייה בתנור (\"קרימה\") ואילו רבי אליעזר מאפשר להרים חלה גם מאוחר יותר, אחרי הרדייה מהתנור.", + "עמדה זו, שהרמת חלה נעשית במשך זמן ממושך, עומדת בניגוד לדעת המשנה בפ\"ג מ\"ב-מ\"ה. שם נקבע שהטלת המים היא הרגע הקובע בלעדית לכל ענייני הרמת חלה. מה שלא היה חייב אז בחלה – לא יתחייב לכך גם בהמשך. כאמור, זו דעת רבי יוחנן בן נורי החולק על רבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא. ניתן ליישב בין המדרש ובין המשניות בפרק ג ולומר שמלכתחילה יש להרים מהבצק ורק בדיעבד ניתן להרים את החלה גם מאוחר יותר, אבל מועד החיוב הוא מהטלת המים. ברם, אי אפשר ליישב בדרך זו את הסתירה בין פ\"ב מ\"ד לבין המשניות בפרק ג. שם מדובר על כך שהכנת הבצק קובעת את מועד החיוב וחלותו, ואילו במשנה ד בפרק ב מדובר בשני בצקים שלא היו חייבים בחלה והתחייבו בחלה בזמן האפייה או לאחריה, ואף על פי כן החיוב המאוחר חל. ", + "אם כן, רבי אליעזר והתנא הסתמי החולק עליו (פ\"ב מ\"ד) סבורים שניתן להרים חלה או מהבצק או מהלחם הקרום, בזמן שהבעלים בוחר. אם מסקנה זו נכונה הרי שיש בכך כדי להטיל אור על דרך עיצוב ההלכה. בראשית דור יבנה הייתה מקובלת הדעה שניתן להרים חלה בזמן שרוצים, כפי שבתורה נאמר גם \"ראשית ערִסֹתֵכם\" וגם \"באכלכם מלחם הארץ\"135טיעון זה מופיע בספרי שציטטנו, וכאמור הוא מפרש שהראשון לכתחילה והשני בדיעבד. . אבל בהמשך דור יבנה התגבשה הדעה שיש צורך לקבוע מועד אחד להרמת החלה, וחכמי הדור נחלקו מהו אותו זמן קבוע.", + "אשר לשאלה השנייה, של הגדרת המוקף (נגיעה או נשיכה), היו ראשונים (מאירי לפ\"ב מ\"ט) שפירשו שיש הבדל בין מוקף לצורך הפרשה מזה על זה לבין מוקף לצורך הצטרפות לכדי שיעור. נראה בעינינו שהסבר זה מאולץ וקשה לקבלו, ודומה שיש לשקול מחדש את הנתונים. המשנה הראשונה בפרק ד תובעת שהבצקים (או הכיכרות) ייגעו זה בזה. רק הירושלמי פירש שנגיעה משמעה נשיכה. במשנה ד שם מדובר על נשיכה, אבל שם מדובר על צירוף מינים שונים (חדש וישן). כידוע יש מחלוקת עקרונית על הרמת תרומה מפרי אחד על פרי אחר, שבית שמאי מקלים ומאפשרים לתרום מהפרי האחד על האחר. באופן ספציפי במשנה ד בפרק ד מדובר על קב חדש וקב ישן. שם נתבע שרק אם נשכו זה את זה ניתן להרים חלה מהאמצע (לדעת רבי ישמעאל), ואילו בתרומות (פ\"א מ\"ה) נחלקים בית שמאי ובית הלל האם מותר לתרום מחדש על ישן. לדעת בית הלל הדבר אסור, ובית שמאי מתירים (ראו פירושנו שם). אם כן, רבי ישמעאל מהלך בשיטת בית הלל ואומר שאם העיסות (או הכיכרות) נגעו זו בזו חל האיסור להרים מהחדש על הישן, אבל אם נשכו זו בזו הרי שיש בכך עירוב ודאי ומותר להרים משני הבצקים חלה אחת. לדעתם של חכמים עדיין אין האיסור על הצירוף חל, והצענו אף הצעה אחרת לפירוש דבריהם. אבל לדעת בית שמאי, ורבי אליעזר שהוא ממשיך דרכם136בפירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ה ופ\"ב מ\"א ראינו כי אכן בנושא זה רבי אליעזר מהלך בשיטת בית שמאי. , מותר לתרום מחדש על ישן, וממילא גם שם די בנגיעה של הבצקים ואין צורך בנשיכה. אם כן, לפי דרכנו למדנו כי יש מחלוקת תנאים אם די בנגיעה או שיש צורך בנשיכה, ואולי מחלוקת זו היא מעין המשך למחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל: בית הלל קובעים שרק נשיכה מהווה חיבור ובית שמאי (רבי אליעזר) די להם בנגיעה137בעל אור זרוע, הלכות חלה רכו, הרא\"ש לחלה פ\"ב מ\"ד וראשונים אחרים מקשים מהירושלמי (נח ע\"ד) ששם מדובר על \"הבית מצרף\", ובתנאי שזה דבר שאין מקפיד על תערובתו, כלומר כשהתערובת היא לרצון בעל הבית. רוח הסוגיה שם אמנם שונה. ברם, להערכתנו הסוגיה מועברת מירושלמי פסחים ובמקורה דנה רק בעניין צירוף של שני חצאי זיתים להוות יחד כזית לעניין חמץ. ראו ירו', פסחים פ\"ג ה\"ב, ל ע\"א. גם האור זרוע מחלק בין העניין שם לבין סוגייתנו, אך דומה שכל הדמיון בין הנושאים (צירוף לעניין חמץ וצירוף לעניין חלה וטומאה) איננו קיים, והסוגיה הועברה למסכת חלה על ידי סופר שוגג. כך גם צירוף לעניין טהרה וטומאה שונה מהצירוף לעניין חלה, כפי שנראה בסוף דיוננו. . ", + "עד כאן הפירוש אם אנו מניחים שמשנה א בפרק ד מסתפקת בנגיעה. אבל, כאמור, הירושלמי פירש שגם משנה א מדברת בכגון שנשכו הבצקים זה את זה. הירושלמי הבין, אפוא, שלדעת חכמים יש צורך בנשיכה של ממש, ואילו רבי אליעזר מסתפק בנגיעה. אין זו סתם מחלוקת, אלא המשך למחלוקת העקרונית של בית שמאי ובית הלל על תרומה (והרמת חלה) של פרי אחד על פרי אחר138פעם נוספת אנו רואים עד כמה חדרה שיטת בית שמאי להלכה התנאית. גם משנתנו, גם משנה ד לעיל וגם המשניות להלן (פ\"ד מ\"א ומ\"ד) מושפעות מדעת בית שמאי, או שאף מהלכות בה. ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי. .", + "מתוך החומרים שהבאנו שחזרנו את מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל. מעתה יש לשוב למשנה שבה שנויה המחלוקת במפורש: \"1. המכנס חלות על מנת להפריש ונשכו, בית שמאי אומרים חבור בטבול יום ובית הלל אומרים אינו חבור. 2. מקרצות נושכות זו בזו, 3. וככרות נושכות זו בזו, 4. האופה חמיטה על גב חמיטה, עד שלא קרמו בתנור... בית שמאי אומרים חבור בטבול יום, בית הילל אומרים אינו חבור\" (משנה, טבול יום פ\"א מ\"א)139לשאלת החיבור בטומאות אחרות ראו משנה, טהרות פ\"א ה\"ז. . משנת טבול יום עוסקת בחיבור לעניין טומאה, ולא בהרמת חלה. ברור מניסוח המשנה שאין חיבור אחרי קרימת הכיכר140מקרצות הן צמות הבצק, ראו להלן פ\"ג מ\"א. לדעת רבי יהודה בן בתירא זהו השלב שבו העיסה מתחייבת בחלה. . הרישא במשנה מדברת על מי שמצרף כיכרות ונשכו; לא ברור אם הנשיכה נעשתה במכוון, כיוון שהיא תנאי כדי להתחייב בחלה, והמחלוקת היא אם נשיכה המועילה לחיבור לחלה מועילה גם לחיבור לטומאה, או שמא כינס אותן בסל (או בתנור) וכינוס זה בלבד כבר מהווה חיבור לעניין חלה. אלא שחיבור כזה ודאי אינו חיבור לטומאה, ואם גם התחוללה נשיכה אזי היא אולי חיבור לטומאה. המשנה תואמת, אפוא, את משנה ד לעיל (\"העושה עיסתו קבים ונגעו זה בזה...\"). הפירוש הראשון שהצענו הוא דעת רבי אליעזר, שדי בהנחת החלות זו ליד זו, והפירוש השני הוא לדעת חכמים שם שרק נשיכה מהווה חיבור.", + "מכל מקום, עולה שחיבור לטומאה צריך להיות משמעותי יותר מחיבור לחלה. עוד עולה שלפחות לגבי חיבור לטומאה בית שמאי מאפשרים את החיבור בקלות רבה יותר מבית הלל. אין במשנת טבול יום דיון בחיבור לעניין יצירת שיעור חלה, אבל מן הסתם שתי הדעות קרובות. כלומר, בית שמאי מאפשרים לצרף חלה בקלות רבה יותר מבית הלל. הם מסתפקים בנגיעה ובית הלל דורשים לפחות נשיכה, ולעתים אפילו נשיכה אינה מספיקה." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ט) קבעה המשנה שמרימים חלה מהגמור, והזכרנו שתנאים נחלקו אם הכוונה לבצק גמור או ללחם אפוי. המשנה מהלכת לפי הדעה הראשונה, היא שיטתו של רבי יוחנן בן נורי. רבי עקיבא אומר שזמן חלה הוא סיום האפייה141ראו להלן מ\"ו ופירושנו לפסחים פ\"ג מ\"ג, ושם הצענו שגם רבי אליעזר מהלך בשיטה זו. והתהוות הקרום (להלן מ\"ו). בתוספתא מובאת דעה נוספת: \"גר שנתגייר והיתה לו עיסה נעשית עד שלא קרמו פניה חייבת, משקרמו פניה פטורה, דברי רבי עקיבא. רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר עד שלא תגלגל בחטים ותטמטם בשעורין חייבת, גלגלה בחטים וטמטמה בשעורין פטורה. משם רבי יהודה [בן בתירא] אמרו משתעשה מקרצות\" (תוס', פ\"א הי\"ב; ירו', נט ע\"ד). להלן (מ\"ו) נבחן אם הלכה זו, שנאמרה על הגר, חלה על כל דיני חלה או על חלת גר בלבד, וכפשוטה היא חלה על הכול. ברור ש\"מקרצות\" הוא שלב בהכנת הבצק או המאפה עוד לפני האפייה. במשנת ביצה (פ\"ב מ\"ו) נזכרת פת גריצין שהיא פת עבה, בניגוד לרקיק הדק. נראה שפת גריצין עשויה ממקרצות. המשנה אומרת: \"מקרצות נושכות142\"נושכות\" הוא המצב שבו גוש בצק אחד נדבק לגוש אחר ומעט מהבצק עובר מזה לזה. זו בזו, וככרים נושכין זה בזה\" (טהרות פ\"א מ\"ז). הערוך, בעקבות פירוש הגאונים לטהרות, מפרש שקרץ משמעו עיגול143ערוך השלם, ערך קרץ ג; אפשטיין, פירוש הגאונים לטהרות, עמ' 17. . ליברמן מפרש שקרץ הוא חתך144ליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה לחלה, פ\"א הי\"ב, עמ' 803. , ומקבל את פירוש הערוך והגאונים. אבל מהמשנה ברור שקריצות אינן כיכרות, ואין לצורה העגולה קשר לחיתוך; זו נוצרת ממתיחת הבצק ולא מחיתוך. אכן קרץ קשור לחיתוך, אך משמעותו שונה: \"שנאמר 'קרץ מצפון בא בא' (ירמיה מו כ). מהו קרץ? רבי אלעזר אמר נכוסה. דבר אחר קרץ, כסוחה, הכמה דתנינן מקרצות נושכות זו לזו145כן שנינו: \"רבי שמעון אומר מפני מה סוור של נחתומין הפרוס טמא מפני שהוא קורץ ומוליך עליו מקרצות לתנור\" (תוס', כלים בבא מציעא פ\"ה ה\"ד, עמ' 583; משנה, טבול יום פ\"א ה\"א; ספרי זוטא, יט יא, עמ' 306). \" (דברים רבתי, כא, עמ' 21; ירו', להלן). \"כסוחה\" היא מלשון חיתוך ו\"נכוסה\" מלשון ייצור, כפי שמסביר הירושלמי את הדרשה (יומא פ\"ג ה\"ד, מ ע\"ג). אפשר גם שכסוחה משמעה מכוסה146וראו פירושנו לשבת פ\"ב מ\"ה. . פעם אחת קרץ מקביל ממש לשחט (משנה, יומא פ\"ג מ\"ד), ובמשנה אחרת מקביל לקטף, חתך מהעץ (פאה פ\"ז מ\"ד, וראו פירושנו לה), וכן יוצא ממקורות נוספים147משנה, נגעים פ\"ד מ\"ז; נידה פ\"ו מי\"ב, ועוד. . בברייתא אחת מדובר על הקורץ מן הבצק חתיכה (תוס', טהרות פי\"א ה\"ב, עמ' 672). מכל המשמעויות השונות ברור שפת גריצין היא לחם עבה שעושים מחתיכות, ושמונח זה הוא גם שלב בהכנת הבצק. על כן סביר שהכוונה לחלה שקולעים מחתיכות בצק מגולגלות, והחלה עשויה כמעין צמה. מקרצות הוא, אפוא, השלב שבו הכינו את הבצק המגולגל כצמה שממנה קולעים את החלה. ייתכן גם שרבי יהודה מתכוון ש\"משתעשה מקרצות\" היינו כשהבצק הגיע לשלב שבו ניתן לחתוך ממנו חתיכה.", + "אם כן, רבי יהודה בן בתירא סבור שמועד הפרשת החלה הוא שלב הסיום של הכנת הבצק, הרבה לאחר שגובש הבצק אך לפני תחילת האפייה. בירושלמי מובאת דעה נוספת על מועד הרמת החלה: \"רבי לעזר בשם רבי הושעיה משתעשה גבלולין גבלולין. מה ופליג? כאן להלכה כאן לדבר תורה\" (נט ע\"א). זמן הרמת החלה הוא כשהבצק הפך לערמה עגולה, מעין גבלול. על כך שואלת הגמרא האם הוא חולק על המשנה, ואומרת שמדין תורה יש להפריש מאוחר יותר (כדעת רבי עקיבא משיקרמו פניה), או כדעת רבי יהודה בן בתירא (משתיעשה מקרצות), אבל ההלכה דורשת להקדים את מועד ההפרשה ל\"משתעשה גבלול\". אפשר גם לפרש את הירושלמי אחרת, אבל יש להניח ש\"ההלכה\" תמיד מחמירה מדבר תורה ולא מקלה, על כן פירשנו כפי שפירשנו.", + "אוכלין עריי מן העיסה – סעודה שאינה סעודת קבע. המדובר במי שנוטל מעט מהעיסה ואוכלה עוד בטרם נאפתה, או אולי גם במי שמטיל חתיכת בצק לתנור ואוכלה. מכל מקום, מדובר באכילת עראי. לעומת זאת האוכל קבע, כלומר לחם אפוי, גם אם מדובר בחתיכה קטנה שפטורה מצד עצמה מחלה, חייב בחלה שכן החתיכה היא חלק מבצק גדול, והרי זה כבצק שחילקוהו למנות קטנות. כך פירשו בירושלמי (נט ע\"א), והדברים פשוטים. אלא שיש שם גם מי מהאמוראים הסבור שגם אכילת קבע במקרה מעין זה פטורה, \"אפילו שהוא נוטל ממנה שתים שלש מקרצות\" אין זו גמר מלאכה. מקרצה היא, כאמור, הצמה שממנה קולעים את החלה. כלומר, אם נוטל כמות גדולה של קמח כדי שלוש מקרצות, ואוכל אותה לפני לישת הבצק, הרי זו אכילה שלפני גמר מלאכה. כפשוטה עמדה זו חולקת על המשנה.", + "עד שתיתגלגל בחיטים – השורש גלג\"ל משמעו, ללא ספק, הטלת המים לעיסה, כפי שברור מההמשך \"נותנת את המים\". את שורש המילה \"לגלגל\" ניתן היה להסביר כערבוב הבצק, אך דומה שלשורש גלג\"ל יש קשר עם השקאה או הרטבה. כן שנינו \"אין מגלגלין בטופח\" (משנה, פאה פ\"ה מ\"ג), ושם פירשנו את המילה כקשורה לגלגל שהוא הכלי שבו שואבים את המים מהבור או הבאר. נראה שמכאן התגלגלה המילה לכל הרטבה, ואולי נגזרה המילה מהמים המתגלגלים והולכים148תוס', מעילה פ\"א הט\"ז, עמ' 558, וראו גם תוס', סוטה פ\"ג ה\"ט. .", + "ותטמטם בשעורין – לפי ההקשר גם כאן מדובר על הלישה של בצק השעורים. השורש טמט\"ם משמעו כנראה כמו סת\"ם. עם נתינת המים נוצרים בקמח מעין חורים זעירים, ובתהליך הלישה הם נסתמים. מהירושלמי (נט ע\"ד) משמע שגלגול אינו מקביל לטמטום אלא קודם לו, על כן דן התלמוד מה דינו של מי שלש דגנים אחרים. אבל המשנה לא עסקה בדגנים אחרים, שכן שעורים וחיטים הם הדגנים הרגילים והשאר היו נדירים הרבה יותר.", + "גילגלה בחיטים וטימטמה בשעורין – אם וכאשר החלה האישה בלישה, האוכל ממנה חייב מיתה – אז הבצק חייב בחלה והאוכל ממנו התחייב במיתה בידי שמים, כפי שנאמר לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ט).", + "כיוון שהיא נותנת את המים מגבהת חלתה – המשנה חוזרת ומסכמת. המשפט מיותר למעשה, שכן הוא חוזר על שנאמר לעיל במילים אחרות. אין זאת אלא שהמשפט בא ממקור אחר ויש בו סיכום של כל ההלכה, ממתי חייבים בחלה, ועל איזו כמות, וזה סיכום לשתי המשניות האחרונות.", + "ובלבד שיהא – כך גם בעדי נוסח רבים149ג5, ו, כ, ל, נ, פ, ץ, ש, ת3. וכן בספרי (קי, עמ' 114) ובראשונים רבים150ראו זק\"ש, משנה, על אתר. , אבל בכמה עדי נוסח אחרים, ואף בכמה ראשונים, \"שלא יהא\", שם חמשת רבעים קמח – לפי כתב יד קופמן חובת חלה קיימת רק אם יש בכמות הקמח הכוללת כשיעור, \"בשיש בנילוש כדי חלה\" (מאירי). כלומר, חובת חלה מותנית בשני תנאים: חמשת רבעי קמח ותחילת נתינת מים, ואילו יתר הנוסחאות מתפרשות שאם בכמות הכללית יש לפחות חמישה רבעים קמח הרי שחובת חלה קיימת מרגע שאין חמישה רבעים יבשים, כלומר זמן מה לאחר נתינת המים. המשנה באה לסכם את כל דיני חלה, כפי שפירשנו. לפי נוסח הדפוסים ויתר עדי הנוסח הכוונה שאם נותר קמח כדי חמישה רבעים שטרם התערבבו בו המים כל הקמח טרם התחייב בחלה. הווה אומר, חובת חלה היא ברגע שכל כמות הקמח עורבבה במים. דומה שנוסח זה של כתבי היד והדפוסים קשה. יש בו חידוש הלכתי משמעותי, שאם הוא נכון צריך היה להיאמר במפורש ולא כבדרך אגב. דומה שנוסח זה בא לענות על שאלה שהתחבטו בה המעתיקים מדוע חוזרת המשנה על הדין שסוכם בסוף הפרק הקודם. אבל כפי שראינו אין מנוס מלתלות את המשפט האחרון במקור אחר. בכל מצב, לפי כל הפירושים יש בו חזרה על הנאמר לעיל, על כן הפירוש שגם המשפט \"...חמשת רבעים...\" הוא חזרה על הנאמר לעיל אינו רק סביר, אלא הכרחי.", + "בתוספתא יש הלכה מקבילה למשנה, ושם נאמר: \"אין חייבת בחלה עד שיהא בדגן כשיעור\" (פ\"א הי\"א). גם שם משמעות הדברים היא ששני תנאים לחלה, גלגול במים ושיעור, וזו אפוא מקבילה מלאה למשנה המוכיחה גם את פרשנות המשנה ככתב יד קופמן. זאת ועוד, דין הקמח שנשאר מופיע בתוספתא אבל בהקשר אחר: \"אשה ששיירה קמח בעיסתה, הקרץ והשאור מצטרפין לחמשת רבעים לאסר את העיסה\" (פ\"א ה\"ז). אם כן, הקמח שנשאר מצטרף לעיסה ואין מקום לשאול כמה הוא עצמו.", + "אבל בירושלמי הבינו כנראה כמאן דגרס \"עד שיהא שם\". הירושלמי מספר על נוסחה מיוחדת וטובה להפרשת חלה שלימדו את הכוהנות151הכוהנות כאן מופיעות כמקפידות על הרמת חלה, או כמומחיות שאותן הזמינו לבתי עמי הארץ כדי שתפרשנה עבורם חלה בטהרה, וראו על כך במבוא. לומר. הנוסחה כוללת את המשפט: \"הרי זה חלה על העיסה הזאת... ועל הקמח שנשתייר בה...\" (נט ע\"א). על כך שואל התלמוד \"למה לי ובלבד שלא יהא שם חמשת רבעים קמח? אמר רבי מתניתא קודם עד שלא למדו את הכהנות\". אם כן, הבעיה היא אכן הקמח שנותר מחוץ לבצק, ועד שלא לימדו את הנוסחה לא נכללו שאריות הקמח שלא נבללו לעיסה בהרמת החלה, וממילא אם הן בכמות גדולה יש להפריש עליהן חלה לחוד. אבל לאחר שנאמרה הנוסחה, הקמח שנותר מצטרף לבצק. דומה, אפוא, שכבר התלמוד הירושלמי הבין שהמשנה עוסקת בשאלה זו של הקמח הנשאר. מכל מקום, בתוספתא הבינו שהקמח שנשאר מצטרף תמיד לעיסה, והירושלמי מספר על תנאי מיוחד שרק בגלל אמירתו הוא מצטרף לעיסה. דומה, אפוא, שבירושלמי ובתוספתא דעות שונות לגבי הקמח.", + "עם כל זאת, דומה שפשט המשנה הוא כפי שפירשנו, שהרי שאלת הקמח הנשאר אינה נזכרת במשנה. אין גם טעם להעלות אותה בהקשר לשאלת האוכל עראי מהעיסה. שאלה זו של הקמח הנשאר היא שאלה בפני עצמה. לפיכך, יש להעדיף את המשתמע מהתוספתא ולראות בהסבר התלמוד תיקון נוסח של המשנה, תיקון קדום שבא לענות על שאלת ההכפלה שעמדנו עליה. ", + "לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ט) ראינו שחכמים דרשו שהחלה תינתן מהגמור, ברם למעשה אין זו הגמירה שמחייבת בחלה אלא להפך, התחלת הכנת הבצק או תחילת סוף האפייה. על כן יש להבין מה ראו חכמים לתבוע את הפרשת החלה בשלב מוקדם כזה. דומה שחברו כאן שני גורמים. האחד הוא הפסוק המדגיש \"מראשית ערִסֹתיכם\"; מילה זו (\"ראשית\") מופיעה גם בדין ביכורים והיא המכתיבה את המועד המוקדם של איסוף הביכורים152ראו במבוא למסכת ביכורים. . המרכיב השני של ההסבר הוא מעשי. חכמים חששו שאדם יקדים לאכול מהבצק טרם האפייה כאכילת עראי כדי להשביע את רעבונו, על כן הקדימו את מועד הפרשת החלה ככל האפשר. הירושלמי מוסיף הסבר: \"תקנה תיקנו בה שיפרישנה תחילה שלא תיטמא העיסה\" (ביצה פ\"א ה\"ח, ס ע\"ד; פסחים פ\"ג ה\"ג, ל ע\"א).", + "חמישה רבעים הם המינימום לחובת חלה, כך דברי חכמים במשנה, עדיות פ\"א מ\"ב, ועסקנו בכך במבוא." + ], + [ + "נידמעה עיסתה – \"דמוע\" הוא מה שהתערב בו איסור והיתר, והאיסור אינו בטל (שהוא יותר מאחד ומאה). במקרה זה המדובר בעיסה שנפלה בתוכה עיסת תרומה, והעיסה כולה נחשבת עתה לתרומה. המשך המשנה עוסק בכוהן הרשאי לאכול מדומע, או נכון יותר באשת כוהן.", + "עד שלא גילגלה פטורה שהמדומע פטור – העירוב נעשה בשלב הקמח, והקמח פטור מחלה. משנתחייב הבצק בחלה היה זה בצק מדומע, והוא תרומה ואינו חלה, משגילגלה חייבת – כבר בתחילת הגלגול התחייבה העיסה בחלה, הדימוע היה מאוחר יותר, ואין הוא מבטל את החיוב הראשון.", + "בתוספתא נאמר: \"עיסה שנדמעה או שנתחמצה בשאור של תרומה חייבת בחלה, אינו נפסלת בטבול יום, דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה. ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון פוסלין\" (טבול יום פ\"ב ה\"ז, עמ' 685). אפשר שרבי יהודה מצטרף לרבי יוסי או לרבי מאיר. מקרה זה מופיע גם במשנה תמורה (פ\"ג מ\"ד), אלא שבה אין התייחסות לחובת החלה. במשנה תמורה החולקים הם בני דור יבנה ובתוספתא החולקים הם בני דור אושא, והם מוסיפים את דין החלה. ", + "נוסחת התוספתא מופיעה גם בבבלי (נדה מו ע\"א), אבל בירושלמי מבחינים בין גדיש שנדמע, שחייב בחלה, לבין עיסה שנדמעה, שפטורה (פ\"א ה\"ג, נז ע\"ד). גדיש התחייב במעשרות מרגע הגדיש, והעובדה שהפך לתרומה מאוחר יותר אינה פוטרת אותו מההתחייבות הקודמת. אבל העיסה חייבת בחלה רק משלב הלישה או הקרימה בתנור153ראו על כך במבוא למסכתנו. . עם זאת, במשנה יש מחלוקת בין רבי מאיר, המחייב בחלה, לבין רבי יוסי, הפוטר ממנה, נמצאנו למדים שמחלוקת התלמודים היא מחלוקת התנאים שבמשנת תמורה. התוספתא כרבי מאיר, והמשנה איננה עוסקת בנושא ואולי נמנעת בכוונה מלדון בשאלה המעוררת מחלוקת שלא כאן עניינה. משנתנו, לעומת זאת, כתוספתא תמורה, אבל בתוספתא אין ההבחנה מתי העיסה נדמעה, הבחנה המצויה במשנת חלה ובירושלמי. התוספתא ", + "משקפת להערכתנו שלב מאוחר יחסית בעיצוב ההלכה, שלב שבו נוספו דקדוקי הלכה שאינם מעניינה של המשנה (בתמורה), ואין בהם ההבחנה הקפדנית שבמשנת חלה. ", + "נולד לה ספק טומאה – אפשר להבין שהספק נולד לאישה, שהיא ספק נטמאה, או שהספק נולד בחלה, כגון שאולי נגע בה שרץ. הבבלי (נידה ו ע\"ב) והירושלמי (נט ע\"א) פירשו שהספק נולד לאישה.", + "עד שלא גילגלה תעשה בטומאה – תפריש חלה בטומאה. האישה רשאית להמשיך במלאכה גם אם היא נטמאה, שהרי העיסה טרם התחייבה בחלה ולפיכך אין בה מרכיב של חלה. מותר, אפוא, לאישה להמשיך ולהכין את הבצק בטומאה, וכאשר תיווצר חובת חלה תהיה החלה כמובן טמאה. הירושלמי שואל מדוע אין המשנה מציעה את הפתרון שתיעשה קבין, כלומר שהבצק יחולק למנות קטנות, ומתרצת שהסוגיה מהלכת בשיטת רבי עקיבא154אבל ההלכה בדבר מועד חיוב חלה היא לפי שיטת רבי יוחנן בן נורי החולק על רבי עקיבא. כלומר, המשנה היא של תנא שלישי המסכים עם רבי עקיבא בדבר אחד וחולק עליו בשני. (לעיל פ\"ב מ\"ג) המעדיף הכנת חלה בטומאה על פני חלוקה למנות קטנות. כפשוטה אין משנתנו דנה כלל בשאלה זו. עניינה רק בשאלה האם מותר לטמא חלה שהיא טמאה מספק, ואפשרויות הפתרון המקבילות אינן נזכרות.", + "משגילגלה תעשה בטהרה – אם הטומאה נפלה לאחר שגלגלה הרי שחלה עליה חובת חלה עוד לפני שניטמאה העיסה. אם כן, את החלה הזאת אסור להעלות בדרגת הטומאה ולכן יש לעשות את העיסה בטהרה, אף שהחלה תהיה לבסוף טמאה.", + "ההבדל בין הרישא והסיפא (לפני גלגול ואחריו) אינו מוסבר, וההבדל נראה מאולץ ודחוק. ייתכן, אפוא, לפרש בפשטות: עד הגלגול מותר לאישה להמשיך ולהכין את הקמח בטומאה, אבל ברגע שהטילה מים הבצק מקבל טומאה ולכן אסור לה להמשיך לעבוד אלא אם היא טהורה. מעין הלכה זו שנינו במסכת שביעית שמותר לאשת חבר לסייע לאשת עם הארץ באפייה עד לרגע הטלת המים (משנה, שביעית פ\"ה מ\"ט; גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ט).", + "בתוספתא מובאת המשנה ומוסבר: \"באי זה ספק אמרו, בדבר הספק לחלה\" (פ\"א הי\"א). לפי המשך התוספתא ברור שהכוונה היא שהספק הוא מסוג הדברים שגורמים לספק טומאה של חלה, שכן יש הבדל בין דין ספק טומאה לחלה לבין דין ספק טומאה לתרומה (משנה, זבים פ\"ג מ\"ב). אפשר להבין שגם התוספתא הבינה שהספק אירע לחלה עצמה, אך גם ייתכן שהספק הוא לאישה המטפלת בחלה." + ], + [ + "1.", + "היקדישה עיסתה עד שלא גילגילה ופדייתה – בצק של הקדש פטור ממצוות חלה (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ג). גם במקרה זה המועד הקובע הוא נתינת המים, ה\"גלגול\". אם הבצק שייך היה להקדש בזמן הגלגול הבצק פטור מחלה.", + "חייבת – במקרה זה העיסה חייבת, משום שהאישה הקדישה את העיסה לפני מועד החיוב ופדתה אותה לפני אותו מועד, ובזמן שגלגלה הייתה העיסה רכוש פרטי. 2.", + "משגילגלה ופדייתה חייבת – העיסה נפדתה ואחר כך גולגלה וחייבת, כי ברגע הגלגול הייתה רכוש פרטי. העיקרון ההלכתי ברור, אבל לשון המשנה מתאימה יותר למסקנה שפטורה, שכן פשוט יותר לפרש שהאישה הקדישה את הקמח ופדתה רק \"משגילגלה\", כלומר לאחר הגלגול, ואז פטורה כי בשעת הגלגול היה הבצק רכוש הקדש. במשנה הבאה, שהיא מקבילה לזו שלנו, אכן במקרה זה פטורה. על כן יש לתקן אולי את משנתנו, אך קשה לתקן נגד כל עדי הנוסח. 3.", + "הקדישתה עד שלא גילגילה גילגילה הגיזבר ואחר כך פדייתה פטורה – האישה שהקדישה את הקמח, בזמן הגלגול הייתה בידי הגזבר ואחר כך פדתה את העיסה פטורה, כי בזמן הגלגול הייתה העיסה רכוש המקדש, שבשעת חובתה – שעת החובה היא שעת הגלגול, היתה פטורה – כי הייתה רכוש הקדש.", + "המשנה מניחה בפשטות שהאישה הקדישה את עיסתה וממשיכה לטפל בה. ההקדשה היא על מנת לפדותה, לעתים מיד לאחר ההקדש. מבחינה משפטית כל רכוש האישה שייך לבעלה, והדבר חל במיוחד על מזון שהיא מכינה למשק הבית. עם זאת, בעשרות עדויות המשנה מניחה בפשטות שהאישה שולטת על רכוש, שליטה בפועל או גם מבחינה משפטית. משנתנו מצטרפת לרשימה זו של עדויות155ראו פירושנו לעירובין פ\"ו מ\"ו. ." + ], + [ + "כיוצא בו – אותו דין חל על המקדיש פֵרותיו. אם בשעת עונת המעשרות, כלומר גמר המלאכה של הפרי, היו הפרות בידי הקדש – הפרות פטורים ממעשרות, ואם בעונת החיוב היו רכוש פרטי הם חייבים156וכן הדין העקרוני בספרי במדבר, ה, עמ' 8; מדרש תנאים לדברים, יח ד, עמ' 108; משנה, פאה פ\"א מ\"ו, ועוד. . המשנה מקבילה למשנה הקודמת וההסבר זהה ולא נחזור עליו, להוציא שינוי במקרה השני. עונת המעשרות נידונה בהרחבה בפרק הראשון של מסכת מעשרות. 1.", + "המקדיש פירותיו עד שלא באו לעונת המעשרות ופדיין חייבין. 2.", + "משבאו לעונת המעשרות ופדיין פטורין – רק בכתב יד קופמן נכתב כך וביתר עדי נוסח \"חייבין\", כמו במשנה הקודמת, כן תיקן מעתיק מאוחר בשולי כתב היד וכן משמע ממקבילות157וכן ממקבילה חלקית בתוס', מעשרות פ\"א ה\"ז; בבלי, מנחות סז ע\"א; ציטוטי ראשונים רבים, ועוד. מספר. במשנת פאה מקבילה מדויקת למשנתנו (פ\"ד מ\"ח), ושם בכמה כתבי יד \"פטורים\" או \"פטורין\"158ג3, ו, נ, ל. . כפי שאמרנו בפירושנו להלכה המקבילה במשנה הקודמת (2) לנוסח זה עדיפות מבחינת משמעות המילים, אך רק במשנת פאה הוא מתועד בצורה טובה גם בכתבי היד. 3.", + "היקדישן עד שלא נגמרו גמרן הגיזבר ואחר כך פדיין פטורין שבשעת חובתן היו פטורין – כפי שהסברנו לעיל." + ], + [ + "נוכרי שנתן לישראל לעשות לו עיסה פטורה מן החלה – המשנה מניחה בפשטות שעיסת הגוי פטורה מחלה. בספרות האמוראים, ואחר כך בספרות הפוסקים, יש מחלוקת בשאלה האם פרות הגוי חייבים במצוות התלויות בארץ, והם מייחסים לשניים או שלושה תנאים את הדעה שאין לגוי קניין לפטור את פרותיו ממעשרות (וחלה). ברם, לדעתנו לדעה זו אין ראיה ממקורות תנאיים (ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ה מ\"ט). כל המקורות התנאיים מניחים שפרות הגוי חייבים במעשרות, אך כנראה פטורים מחלה. משנתנו מהלכת, אפוא, בנתיב דרך המלך של ספרות התנאים. ההבדל בין מצוות חלה לבין יתר המצוות התלויות בארץ עולה גם מהמשנה לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"א), ודנו בכך במבוא.", + "אמנם הישראל מכין את העיסה, אך היא שייכת לגוי ולכן פטורה ממעשרות.", + "נתנה לו מתנה עד שלא ניתגלגל חייב – אם הגוי נתן את החיטים ליהודי עוד לפני הגלגול הרי שבעת עונת החיוב הם היו פרות של ישראל וחייבים בחלה. חובת החלה אינה צמודה, אפוא, למקור הגידול של החיטים אלא רק לבעלות עליהן בשעת חיובן בחלה. עיקרון זה למדנו גם לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"א).", + "משגילגל פטור – אם הגוי נתן את הקמח במתנה לישראל, אבל רק לאחר הטלת המים בו, העיסה פטורה, משום שבשעת הגלגול הייתה רכושו של הנכרי.", + "העושה עיסה עם הנכרי – הגוי והיהודי עובדים יחדיו, כל אחד מביא מרכושו ומכינים את הבצק יחדיו, אם אין בשלישראל כשיעור פטור מן החלה – הקמח של היהודי חייב כמובן בחלה והקמח של הגוי פטור, ואף אינו מצטרף להוות עמו יחדיו שיעור חלה. ", + "במקורות רבים אנו שומעים על תופעה של הכנת בצק בצוותא. הרקע לכך הוא הווי החצר המשותפת (איורים 15, 16, תמונה 4 חצר השותפים). במכלול הבית (\"חצר\" בלשון המקורות) התגוררו יחדיו דיירים רבים. יש להניח ששיטת דיור זו צמחה בתקופת בית שני מתוך צרכיה של משפחה מורחבת שגדלה במשך השנים וצרכיה רבו והתגוונו. אבל בתקופת המשנה התגוררו בחלק גדול מהחצרות שותפים שכבר לא היה להם קשר משפחתי. גם המבנה המשפחתי השתנה, והחברה הייתה מבוססת על משפחות גרעיניות או בתי אב קטנים. דיירי החצר היו שותפים, והבעיות המשפטיות הכרוכות בשותפות זו מעסיקות משניות רבות. כך, למשל, הפרקים הראשונים במסכת בבא בתרא עוסקים בחצר זאת ודנים בשאלות מגוונות. נרחיב בכך, אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת, בפירושנו למסכת בבא בתרא.", + "החצר כללה חדרי מגורים, \"בית\" בלשון המקורות, וחצר פתוחה (שגם היא כונתה \"חצר\"). החצר הייתה שטח משותף, אם כי קרה שהשותפים החליטו לחלקה בעקבות דרישה של אחד מהם או עקב סכסוך (משנה, בבא בתרא פ\"א מ\"א ומ\"ג). בחצר המשותפת ניצבו התנור והכיריים, ואף בה היה השטח מצומצם למדי. מתקני הבישול היו לעתים משותפים. יש להניח שלא פעם בישלו הנשים, ובעיקר אפו לחם, בצוותא. הצוותא הייתה נחוצה כדי לחסוך בחום התנור. זאת ועוד. כפי שאמרנו במבוא אפו לחם פעם בשבוע, כתוצאה מכך צריך היה תנור גדול דיו שניתן לאפות בו כ- 28 כיכרות159החישוב הוא של כיכרות של חצי קב, שהוא מזון אדם ליום (שתי סעודות), ולפי משפחה גרעינית של ארבע נפשות. . תנור רגיל אינו מכיל כמות כה גדולה של כיכרות, אך ניתן היה לאפות אותם בשניים או בשלושה סבבים. התנור צריך היה להיות, אפוא, גדול למדי. ביתר ימות השבוע השתמשו בתנור רק באופן חלקי ביותר, שכן להכנת סעודה רגילה אין צורך בתנור כה גדול. נתונים אלו גרמו לכך שהתנור הגדול היה, מן הסתם, משותף. הסקתו הייתה יקרה, והאפייה המשותפת חסכה בהוצאות ההסקה בצורה ניכרת. על כן אנו שומעים מהמקורות על עבודה משותפת בהכנת הבצק ובאפייה. הכנה משותפת זו עוררה, כמובן, שאלות הלכתיות, כגון השאלה כיצד יכולה אשת החבר (המקפידה על דיני טהרה) להכין מאפה יחד עם אשת עם הארץ הטמאה (משנה, שביעית פ\"ה מ\"ט; גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ט). כמו כן אנו שומעים על שלוש נשים המכינות בצק יחדיו, אופות בתנור אחד וממתינות האחת אחר חברתה לתורן (משנה, פסחים פ\"ג מ\"ד)." + ], + [ + "אותו עיקרון חל על גר שהתגייר. כל זמן שטרם התגייר הוא כגוי ועיסתו פטורה מחלה, ומשנתגייר הוא חייב בכל המצוות, כולל מצוות חלה.", + "גר שניתגייר והיתה לו עיסה נעשת עד שלא ניתגייר פטור – כי העיסה באה לעונת החיוב בחלה כאשר היה גוי, משניתגייר חייב – אם נתגייר לפני שהוטלו המים בעיסה חייב בחלה, אם ספק חייב – הספק הוא מתי בדיוק התגייר, ואין חייבין עליה חומש – אם אכלו בשוגג ללא חלה אין חייבים בתשלום קנס של חומש, כדין כל ספק.", + "הספק כאן נפסק בפשטות לחומרה. אבל במשנת חולין (פ\"י מ\"ד) מובא מעשה בספק דומה שנוצר כתוצאה מכך שאין ידוע מתי התגייר הגר, ושם נפסק לקולה. בתלמוד הבבלי שם (קלד ע\"א) רשימה של שמונה ספקות וברייתא הקובעת שארבעה מהם נפסקו לקולה וארבעה לחומרה. אבל במסכת גרים הארץ-ישראלית חוזר בפשטות המקרה של משנתנו, ושם נפסק להיתר (פ\"א ה\"ז, עמ' ע). דומה, אפוא, שהייתה מחלוקת עקרונית על ספק גר, משנתנו החמירה ומשנת חולין ומסכת גרים הקלו. הברייתא בתלמוד הבבלי היא ניסיון להרמוניזציה, כאילו חלק מהספקות לאיסור וחלקם להיתר. מכל מקום אין לחלוקה זו שבבבלי הנמקה, ודומה שהיא ניסיון לפשרה בין גישות שונות. פשרה זו מוכיחה, פעם נוספת, שההלכה שנקבעה לא בחרה תמיד בדרך שיטתית ואחידה מבחינה משפטית וההכרעות נטו פעם לכאן ופעם לכאן.", + "הדיון במשנה הוא במידה רבה תאורטי, אך אינו מנותק כליל מהמציאות. תנועת הגיור בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד הייתה משמעותית למדי. במקורות מתנהלים דיונים רבים על הגרים ומעמדם, אלא שדומה שאין בכך עדות לכמות הגיור בפועל אלא לבעייתיות שיצר המעבר מסטטוס הלכתי אחד לסטטוס הלכתי אחר. למרות פקפוק זה אין ספק שהגיור אכן היה תופעה רווחת. הגיור היה פשוט. כדי להתגייר צריך היה הגר לבצע הליכים מספר, למול את עצמו ולטבול, אך רובם נעשו בינו לבין עצמו. הדרישה שהגיור יתבצע בבית דין (של שלושה) מופיעה רק בימי האמוראים (יבמות מו ע\"ב). לא ברור מתי התחילו לחייב טבילה עם הגיור. יתר על כן, גם מהמשנה לא ברור אם הטבילה היא תנאי לגיור או שמא הגיור חל בלעדיה, אלא שהמתגייר טמא, על כן אם רצונו לאכול מקרבן פסח עליו לטבול160ראו פסחים פ\"ח מ\"ח ופירושנו לה. . הוא הדין בשאלת המילה. את המילה ניתן להגדיר כתנאי לגיור, או אולי היא פשוט מצווה שהצטווה הגר ועליו לבצע אותה מיד עם כניסתו לחיק היהדות. מרכיב נוסף בתהליך הגיור הוא קבלת המצוות, אלא שקבלה זאת הייתה בעיקרה תהליך פנימי שעובר אדם עם עצמו. התביעה שהגיור יהיה בפני שלושה שהם בית דין, או ששני תלמידי חכמים ילמדוהו את המצוות, מופיעה במפורש רק בדברי אמוראים (בבליים), וקשה לברר מתי עוצבה161בבלי, יבמות מו ע\"ב ומז ע\"ב בשם תנאים ובשם אמוראי ארץ ישראל, וראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ח מ\"ח. עם כל זאת, כבר במקורות התנאיים מדובר על כך שלמעשה גיור מתבצע בפני אנשים המתדיינים עם הגר ומסבירים לו, כך שכנראה הנוהג שגר לא התגייר רק בפני עצמו קדם להלכה הברורה בנושא. . הגיור היה, אפוא, פשוט הרבה יותר. משנתנו מסתברת במקרה שהגר עבר תהליך גיור, ובחצרו המשיכו עבדיו או פועליו בהכנת צורכי הסעודה.", + "רבי עקיבה אומר הכל הולך אחר הקרימה בתנור – דברי רבי עקיבא מתייחסים לכל המשניות שבפרק (רמב\"ם). לדעתו חובת חלה מתחילה רק בתחילת סיום האפייה. כל מקום שנאמר בו לעיל \"גלגל\" צריכה להיות בו קרימת הקרום, וכפי שפירשנו במשנה הראשונה. בפירושנו לפסחים פ\"ג מ\"ג הצענו שגם רבי אליעזר מהלך בשיטה קרובה. המשפט האחרון שייך למעשה למשנה הראשונה שבפרק, אחרי דברי התנא הבאים בסתם, אלא שבין המשפטים הוכנסה סדרה ארוכה של מקרים שהם אליבא דתנא קמא (שהוא רבי יוחנן בן נורי). סידור כזה אינו שגרתי במשנה; בדרך כלל מובאת המחלוקת במלואה ואחר כך מקרים המבטאים את אחת הדעות.", + "רוב העדויות במשנה הן לשיטת רבי יוחנן בן נורי שגלגול המים בעיסה טובל אותה לחלה. מיעוטן כרבי עקיבא, ואספנו כמה מהעדויות בפירושנו לסוף פ\"ב. ", + "הסברנו שרבי עקיבא חולק על הכלל של מועד הרמת החלה. אבל יש מפרשים המפרשים שרבי עקיבא דן רק בעיסת הגר וסבור שרק \"בגלגול העכו\"ם אינו פוטר אלא אם הקרימו פני העיסה\"162אור זרוע על אתר, ועוד. . פירוש זה יוצא מדברי הירושלמי: \"חברייא בשם רבי לעזר: מודה רבי עקיבה לחכמים בעיסת הדיוט שגילגולה טיבולה\" (נט ע\"ב). אלא שבהמשך הירושלמי מתברר שכהנא פירש אחרת את המשנה והוא חולק על רבי לעזר. יתר על כן, כפשוטם דברי רבי עקיבא אינם המשך לדין הגר אלא עניין בפני עצמו; במקורות יש ביטויים נוספים לדעתו של רבי עקיבא שהקרימה בתנור היא זמן הרמת החלה והבאנום כאן ולעיל (בסוף פ\"ב ובפרק זה מ\"א). כך, למשל, בספרי שנויים הדברים במפורש כמחלוקת. קשה, אפוא, לפרש שרבי עקיבא אינו חולק על רבי יוחנן בן נורי. זאת ועוד; קשה גם להבין מה בין גלגול הגוי לגלגול יהודי. דומה שהתלמוד מנסה לצמצם את המחלוקת ואת דברי רבי עקיבא. התלמוד מכיר, כנראה, את הנוהג הרווח בימיו כרבי יוחנן בן נורי, ומנסה לפרש כך שרבי עקיבא לא יחלוק על הנוהג הרווח. הפירוש שייך, אפוא, לקבוצה של פירושים המנסה לעמעם מחלוקות ודעות שהן בבחינת \"חריגות\". בתוספתא שנביא להלן המחלוקת חוזרת, והיא עוסקת במפורש בעיסה של גר שהתגייר. אפשר, אפוא, לראות בתוספתא את המקור לפירוש המצמצם את המחלוקת לעיסה כזאת בלבד, ואילו בעיסה רגילה יודה רבי עקיבא לרבי יוחנן. ברם, אין הכרח להבין כך את התוספתא. התוספתא עוסקת בעיסת גוי משום שבכך היה מעשה, או משום שרק במקרה כזה יש \"נפקא מינה להלכתא\" בין שתי הדעות. אבל כפי שהעלינו משלל המקורות המחלוקת עצמה עקרונית.", + "בתוספתא מוצגת עמדה נוספת: \"גר שנתגייר והיתה לו עיסה נעשית, עד שלא קרמו פניה חייבת משקרמו פניה פטורה, דברי רבי עקיבא. רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר עד שלא תגלגל בחטים ותטמטם בשעורין חייבת, גלגלה בחטים וטמטמה בשעורין פטורה. משם רבי יהודה [בן בתירא] אמר משתעשה מקרצות\" (פ\"א הי\"ב). לדעת רבי יהודה בן בתירא זה זמן הפרשת חלה (סוף הכנת הבצק ולפני האפייה)163לביאור המונח \"מקרצות\" ראו לעיל, פירושנו למ\"א. . לדעת מי שסבור שכל המשנה עוסקת רק בדין רכוש הגר, הרי שגם דברי רבי יהודה בן בתירא חלים רק על מקרה זה. " + ], + [ + "העושה עיסה מן החיטים ומן האורז – העיסה מעורבת במזון החייב בחלה, ומאפה הפטור ממנה. האורז הוא דוגמה למזון כזה הפטור מחלה (פ\"א מ\"ד).", + "אם יש בה טעם דגן חייבת בחלה – המשנה מציעה קריטריון אחד ופשוט, והוא הטעם. אם הטעם הוא של לחם – המאפה חייב בחלה, ויוצא בה אדם ידי חובתו בפסח – אם נאפית כמצה היא מצה כשרה, וכיוצא בה הלכות אחרות המבטאות את המצב שמאפה זה הוא לחם, כגון ברכת המוציא וברכת המזון, אם אין בה טעם דגן אינה חייבת בחלה ואין אדם יוצא – בכתב יד קופמן נכפל כאן משפט ומתקן מחקו בקו, בה ידי חובתו בפסח – יש להניח שיש צורך שתהא במאפה כמות חיטים הנדרשת להרמת חלה (חמישה רבעים ועוד), והאורז אינו מצטרף להשלמת הכמות. המשנה אינה אומרת זאת במפורש, אך בתוספתא מוסיף רבן שמעון בן גמליאל: \"העושה עיסה מן החטים ומן האורז, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל [אומר] אין חייבת בחלה עד שיהא בדגן כשיעור, אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח עד שיהא בה כשיעור\" (פ\"ב ה\"א). ניתן לקרוא את המשפטים הללו בשתי צורות: האחת לראות בהם המשך והתייחסות פרשנית למשנה, והאחרת לפרשם כחולקים עליה. המשנה קבעה קריטריון אחד של טעם התערובת, ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל מציע קריטריון אחר של כמות כשיעור. הירושלמי אומר: \"מתניתא כדרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לעולם אינה חייבת עד שיהא בה דגן כשיעור. רבי יעקב בר אידי בשם רבי שמעון בן לקיש: הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל\" (נט ע\"ב). לכאורה שני המשפטים סותרים. אין אומרים \"הלכה כ...\" אלא אם כן יש מחלוקת; אם המשנה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, אז מי הוא החולק על דבריו? ברם, קבוצה גדולה של ראשונים גורסת כאן \"מתניתא דלא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל\"164ראו ליברמן לתוספתא, על אתר; אהבת ציון וירושלים, עמ' 140 (וראו למשל אור זרוע, חלק א סימן רלט). . כלומר, התוספתא חולקת על משנתנו.", + "התלמודים דנים בשאלה אם המשנה דורשת גם שהחיטים תהיינה רוב במאפה המשותף (ירו', נט ע\"ב; בבלי, זבחים עח ע\"א-ע\"ב). שאלה זו מתבקשת לאור העובדה שלמעשה הדין במשנה הוא דין של תערובת. דין תערובת חוזר ונדון רבות במקורות, ותמיד השאלה היא של רוב וביטול. ברם, לשאלה זו של רוב אין זכר במקורות התנאיים. דומה שהמשנה והתוספתא אינן רואות בשאלה מצב של רוב מותר ומיעוט אסור (או ההפך), אלא מצב אחר של תערובת מלכתחילה. אין איסור לערב חיטים באורז ומותר לאפות מאפה כזה, ממילא אין כאן שאלה של ביטול. ממשנה י להלן ברור שאותו דין חל גם על עירוב מעט מבצק החיטה בעיסת אורז, על כן יש להגיע למסקנה כי שאלת הרוב היא שכלול משפטי של תקופת האמוראים בהשראת דיני התערובת הרגילים. אבל בהלכה התנאית לא נחשב מרכיב זה למשמעותי, בשונה מדיני טבל. כך גם יוצא מהמשנה הבאה שבה מדובר בתערובת שיש בה רק מעט עיסה שלא הורמה חלתה.", + "גם בספרי זוטא חוזרת הקביעה העקרונית: \"וכל שנתערב בו אחד מחמשתן165חמישה סוגי הדגנים הנמנים במשנתנו פ\"א מ\"א. הרי זה עובר בפסח ובלבד שיהא בו מראה פת וטעם פת\" (טו יט, עמ' 283). להלן, בסוף משנה י, נחזור לבאר את המשנה לאור הרקע הכללי של דיני תערובת." + ], + [ + "הנוטל שאור מעיסה שלא הורמה חלתה – השאור הוא, כמובן, בצק רגיל, רק ישן יותר ומוחמץ יותר, ונותן לתוך עיסה שהורמה חלתה – כך נוצרת תערובת, חלקה של בצק החייב בחלה וחלקה של בצק הפטור ממנה. גם שאלה זו תיתכן רק לשיטת רבי יוחנן בן נורי (ורבי יהודה בן בתירא), שכן לשיטת רבי עקיבא חיוב חלה הוא באמצע האפייה ואז אי אפשר לערב יותר את הבצקים השונים.", + "אם יש לו פרנסה ממקום אחר – כלומר אם הוא יכול להרים חלה מהבצק הקודם שהוא כשיעור או לצרף אליו בצק נוסף. פתרון זה נדיר למדי שהרי הוא מחייב שהבצק שממנו הורם השאור עדיין קיים, ואם לא היה בו כשיעור ובזמנו נפטר מחלה, ניתן להגדילו ולהפריש ממנו חלה גם על העישור. להלן, במשנה י, נברר פתרון אחר המיוחס לרבי אלעזר בן ערך.", + "מוציא לפי חשבון – מוציא כמות חלה כך שתהווה הפרשה נאותה לבצק שממנו טרם הופרשה חלה, ואם לאו מוציא חלה אחת על הכל – מוציא חלה פעם נוספת על כל הבצק, ולמעשה נמצא מרים חלה פעמיים על אותה עיסה. הלכה זו נובעת מדיני תערובת. למעשה התערובת כוללת מעין טבל ובצק שממנו הפרישו חלה. במקרה רגיל הבצק האסור בטל באחד למאה או ברוב אחר; כל זה בתערובת רגילה שאסור לעשות בה כן לכתחילה. אבל כאן אין מדובר בתערובת רגילה, אלא בדרך אפייה המותרת לכול. על כן אין המשנה מתלבטת כלל בשאלה אם השאור בטל או לא, ואינה מוגבלת למצב שבו השאור הוא יותר מאחד למאה, אלא נקבע דין אחר המתאים למקרה זה של תערובת בהיתר.", + "ההלכה שבמשנה חוזרת בתוספתא בניסוח אחר: \"הנוטל שאר מעיסה שלא הורמה חלתה הרי זה מביא קמח ממקום אחר ומצרפו לחמשת רבעים לחייב עליו לפי חשבון\" (פ\"ב ה\"ב).", + "כפי שאמרנו במבוא, שיטה זו של עירוב בצק ישן כשאור, כדי לזרז את ההחמצה, הייתה דרך המלך של האפייה, וחכמים הקלו בפרטיה כדי לאפשר אפייה רגילה ונוחה166למגמה דומה ראו ההיתר להשתמש בחמץ שעבר עליו הפסח ברשות גויים, תוס', פסחים פ\"א הי\"ג. שם מדובר במי שמתיר לעצמו להשתמש בשאור גויים למרות האיסור על פת גויים, ונראה שחכמים אף שאינם מתירים זאת בגלוי מתעלמים מהאיסור על פת גויים. . להלן, בסוף משנה י, נחזור לבאר את המשנה לאור הרקע הכללי של דיני תערובת." + ], + [ + "כיוצא בו – אותו דין של תערובת חל על המקרה הבא: זיתי מסיק שניתערבו עם זיתי ניקוף – זיתי מסיק הם זיתים רגילים החייבים במעשרות ותרומות. זיתי ניקוף הם הזיתים שקוטפים העניים לאחר שנשכחו על הארץ במסגרת מצוות \"שכחה\". הביטוי בא מדברי הנביא: \"ונשאר בו עולֵלות כנֹקף זית, שנים שלשה גרגרים בראש אמיר, ארבעה חמשה בִסְעִפֶיהָ\" (ישעיה יז ו), וכך מופיע גם הביטוי \"עני המנקף בראש הזית\" (משנה, גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ח). זיתים שנקטפו בדרך זו מכונים \"זיתי ניקוף\" (ראו פירושנו לפאה פ\"ח מ\"ג). פעולת הניקוף היא חבטה במקל על ענפי הזית כדי להשיר את הגרגרים. כל מה שליקט העני במסגרת שכחה או לקט פטור ממעשרות (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ג ומקבילותיה, כפי שפירשנו), וכן: עינבי בציר – ענבים רגילים החייבים במעשר, שניתערבו עם ענבי עוללות – ענבים שנקטפו על ידי עניים כעוללות הפטורים ממעשר, אם יש לו פרנסה ממקום אחר מוציא לפי חשבון ואם לאו מוציא תרומה ותרומת מעשר על הכל – יש בכך כמובן הפרשה כפולה, כמו במשנה הקודמת, והשאר – יתר ההפרשות, שהן: המעשר ומעשר שיני לפי חשבון – מעשר ראשון ושני אין דורשים ממנו להפריש פעם נוספת, מעשר משום שהפרות אינם אסורים באכילה ואין כאן חשש של אכילת מזון אסור, ומעשר שני משום שניתן לפדותו, וכך אפשר להתנות שהמעשר השני יהיה רק על היין או השמן החייבים במעשר. " + ], + [ + "הנוטל סאור מעיסת חיטים ונותן לתוך עיסת האורז – גם במשנה זו מדובר על תערובת חיטה, החייבת בחלה, עם אורז, הפטור ממנה. אך ברור שהחיטה היא מיעוט, שכן השאור אינו רב והוא תמיד מיעוט בעיסה.", + "אם יש בה טעם דגן חייבת בחלה ואם לאו פטורה – טעם הדגן הוא הקובע. ההלכה היא כמו במשנה ז, וברור שתנאים לא חששו לכך שהחיטה היא מיעוט עיסה. כפי שראינו במשנה ז אמוראי ארץ ישראל ובבל הוסיפו מרכיב זה, והוא בבחינת פיתוח אמוראי בלבד.", + "אם כן למה אמרו הטבל אוסר כל שהוא – המשנה מקשה, הרי לכאורה ההלכה הקודמת סותרת הלכה קדומה אחרת. \"למה אמרו\" הוא בדרך כלל ציטוט מהלכה קדומה או ממשנה אחרת. במקרה זה החלק השני (\"מין במינו...\") השתמר ואילו החלק הראשון לא השתמר במשניות שבידינו, אך נראה שהיה כלל הלכתי ידוע.", + "מין במינו שלא במינו בנותן טעם – כאמור, כלל זה שנוי בסדרת משניות וברייתות לעניינים שונים כשביעית (משנה, שביעית פ\"ד מ\"ז), ערלה (משנה, ערלה פ\"ב מ\"ו; בבלי, חולין צט ע\"ב ועוד), תוספת ביכורים (משנה, בכורים פ\"ג מ\"י ומקבילות), עבודה זרה (משנה, עבודה זרה פ\"ה מ\"ח) ובדינים שונים במסגרת דיני מנחות וזבחים (תוס', תרומות פ\"ח ה\"ב; בבלי, מנחות כב ע\"א; זבחים עח ע\"ב, ועוד).", + "הכלל עצמו פשוט למדי. מה שהוא מין במינו אסור בכל שהוא, כלומר, אם נתערב פרי מותר בפרי אסור אפילו מעט מהפרי האסור אוסר את התערובת. אבל אם נתערב מין בשאינו מינו, כגון חיטים באורז, אם יש בו בנותן טעם התערובת אסורה ואם אין בו בנותן טעם התערובת מותרת. הכלל אינו מדבר על העלאת האיסור. ממקורות אחרים אנו שומעים שהפרי האסור \"עולה\" (מתבטל) באחד למאה או יותר (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"ד מ\"ז), אך בכך אין הכלל עוסק. הבבלי מנסה לבחון את עניין הביטול ולהכניסו לתוך הסיכום של המשנה (מנחות צט ע\"ב), אך הניסיון מאולץ, ולמעשה הבבלי דוחה אפשרות זו. ניסיונו של הבבלי בא מתוך הרצון להבין את הכלל במשנה ככלל המקיף את כל האפשרויות, אך כאמור הכלל הוא חלקי ועוסק רק באיסור תערובת ולא בדין ביטול. עם זאת, יש לכלל נגיעה גם לדין ביטול. מין בשאינו מינו ושאינו נותן טעם בטל (\"מותר\" בטבלה להלן) אפילו אין בו אחד למאה. אבל בכל יתר המקרים אסור (ראו בטבלה להלן), אם כי בכמה מקרים האיסור עשוי לעלות (להתבטל) באחד למאה או ברוב אחר. יש גם מקרים שבהם אין האיסור בטל באחד למאה. אחד מהם הוא יין נסך שבו החליטו חכמים להחמיר (משנה, עבודה זרה פ\"ה מ\"י)167פירוש זה מפשט את סוגיית הבבלי שם עג ע\"ב. , ואף על כך יש דעות שונות, ולא נרחיב בנושא.", + "את הדין עצמו ניתן לסכם בטבלה:", + "דין תערובת", + "אין בַכלל ביטוי לשאלה אם צריך להוציא את האיסור מתוך ההיתר. לא תמיד אפשרות זו רלוונטית. כך, למשל, במשנתנו אי אפשר להוציא את השאור מעיסת האורז ואף אין צורך בכך, שכן אין בו כשלעצמו איסור. במקרים אחרים של עירוב דגנים אולי הדבר אפשרי, ואז מן הסתם הוא נחוץ ביותר.", + "ברוב המקבילות חוזרת ההלכה כמו במשנתנו, אבל בכמה מהן יש תוספות ושינויים חשובים: ", + "הבבלי מביא מחלוקת אמוראים. אמוראי בבל (רב ושמואל) אומרים שהכלל חל על כל האיסורים שבתורה, אבל אמוראי ארץ ישראל (רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש) אומרים: \"כל האיסורים שבתורה בין במינן בין שלא במינן בנותן טעם חוץ מטבל ויין נסך במנין במשהו ושלא במנין בנותן טעם\" (עבודה זרה עג ע\"ב). את דברי אמוראי ארץ ישראל ניתן להציג בטבלה להלן, והמחלוקת היא רק במין במינו בשאינו נותן טעם.", + "דין תערובת", + "(מין במינו – נותן טעם)", + "באותיות מוטות נוספה דעת רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש", + "לדעת רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש הדין שבטבלה נכון בכל האיסורים, כולל חלה, אך בטבל ויין נסך החמירו, וכאן הם מסכימים עם הטבלה הראשונה שהצגנו (בטבלה האחרונה מוצגת עמדה זו באותיות נטויות). ביין נסך החמירו מפני חומרתו, אך לא ברור מדוע החמירו בטבל168דן בכך ליברמן בפירושו לתוספתא, תרומות פ\"ה הט\"ו, עמ' 376-375. . לפי פשוטם של דברים החמירו כאן חכמים משום השכיחות והחשש מפני עמי הארץ שאינם נזהרים מספיק, ולבל יתירו לעצמם להתעלם מחובת הרמת תרומות.", + "כן שנינו: \"חתיכה של חטאת טמיאה שנתערבה במאה חתיכות של חטאת טהורה, וכן פרוסה של לחם הפנים טמא שנתערבה במאה פרוסות של לחם הפנים טהור, הרי אילו יעלו. רבי יהודה אומר לא יעלו. וכן במנחות, וכן בחלות תודה. הטבל ויין נסך, מין במינו כל שהוא, ושלא במינו בנותן טעם, ושאר כל האסורין בין במינן בין שלא במינן בנותן טעם\" (תוס', תרומות פ\"ח הכ\"ב). הרישא היא דעתו של רבי יהודה שחתיכה שלמה אינה בטלה, ובברייתות הקודמות שבאותו פרק בתוספתא ביטויים נוספים לדעה זו. ההמשך הוא כשיטת רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש, והבבלי מצטט כנראה ברייתא זו כהוכחה לשיטתו. נמצאנו למדים שאמוראי ארץ ישראל אינם חולקים על משנתנו אלא מכירים דעה תנאית אחרת ופוסקים כמותה. ", + "פתרון אחר מוצע בתוספתא וחוזר בברייתות נוספות בתלמוד: ", + "\"1. הטבל שנתערב בחולין: הרי זה אוסר כל שהוא. אם יש לו פרנסה ממקום אחר, מוציא לפי חשבון. 1א. ואם לאו, רבי ליעזר ורבי לעזר בן ערך אומרים קורא שם לתרומת מעשר שבו, ועולה באחד ומאה. 2. וכן מעשר: מעשר טבל שנתערב בחולין, הרי זה אוסר כל שהוא. אם יש לו פרנסה ממקום אחר, מוציא לפי חשבון. ואם לאו, רבי אלעזר בן ערך אומר קורא שם על תרומת מעשר שבו ועולה באחד ומאה. 3. ואם היה טבל מעשר ראשון ומעשר שני הרי זה אסור, שלא התירו ספק מדומע אלא לדבר שיש לו מתירין. 4. רבי שמעון אומר כל דבר שיש לו מתירין, כגון טבל, מעשר שני והקדש והחדש, ולא נתנו להם חכמים שיעור. [וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין כגון ערלה, וכלאי הכרם, נתנו חכמים להם שיעור. 4א. אמרו לו והלא שביעית אין לה מתירין ולא נתנו לה חכמים שיעור]? אמר להם שביעית אינה אוסרת כל שהוא אלא לביעור, אבל לאכילה אינה אוסרת אלא בנותן טעם\" (תוס', תרומות פ\"ה הט\"ו).", + "הפתרון הראשון הוא \"פרנסה ממקום אחר\", כלומר הטבל הזה הרי היה שייך לערמת פרות כלשהי, ואולי ניתן להפריש שם תרומות על הכול, כולל פרי הטבל שנעלם בתערובת. בברייתות האחרות אין מציעים פתרון זה, ואולי הוא מוסכם על הכול אלא שהמקורות האחרים מדברים על מקרה שאין לו פרנסה ממקום אחר. בחלה, למשל, פתרון זה נדיר יותר, כפי שפירשנו גם לעיל במשנה ח169הירושלמי לעיל, נט ע\"א, מניח בפשטות שדברי רבי אלעזר חלים גם על חלה, ואכן אין כל סיבה לערער על הרחבה זו, אף שרבי אלעזר לא אמרה במפורש. . לרבי אלעזר בן ערך פתרון אחר, לקרוא שם לתרומת המעשר שבו אף שלא ברור היכן מונח הטבל. רבי אלעזר בן ערך אינו חושש לכך שיתרום מפרות שתרומתם הורמה, אינו חושש לכך שאין לתרום ממה שתרום על מה שאינו תרום ואף אינו חושש שיש להפריש מפרות מוגדרים ומסוימים אלא די בכך שברור שיש בערמה זו מרכיב מסוים של טבל. זו דעה מרחיקת לכת המבטלת את כל ההתחבטות בעניין תערובת של טבל בחולין, תרומה בחולין או חלה בחולין, אך אין היא פותרת את הבעיה של תערובת איסורים.", + "עמדה חריגה זו מיוחסת לרבי אליעזר ולרבי אלעזר בן ערך, אם כי בדפוס ובכתב יד ערפורט, וכן במקבילות, היא מיוחסת רק לרבי אלעזר בן ערך. כידוע פרש רבי אלעזר בן ערך מחבורת החכמים וחי לעצמו באמעוס. מתאים שלו תיוחס עמדה החורגת מעמדתם הכללית של חכמים. עם זאת גם לרבי אליעזר עמדה באותו כיוון, אם כי לא באותה עצמה וחריפות. עסקנו בכך בפירושנו לתרומה (פ\"ד מ\"ה), ושם ראינו כי דעה זו מיוחסת לבית שמאי. שם מדובר על מגמה כללית שבה כל קריאת שם לתרומה, אפילו אם הגדרת מקום התרומה מעורפלת, הרי זו תרומה. אמנם אין לנו הציטוט המלא של בית שמאי בברייתא, אך התלמוד הכיר ברייתא כזאת אף שלא ציטטה. אם אכן גם כאן רבי אליעזר בן הורקנוס מופיע כשותף לרבי אלעזר בן ערך, הרי שהדברים עולים בקנה אחד ולפנינו ביטוי לעמדת בית שמאי שאין צורך בהגדרת מקום התרומה כלל. הירושלמי מייחס גישה דומה גם לרבי שמעון, אם כי אין הוא מסיק מכך את מלוא המסקנה כמו רבי אלעזר בן ערך (ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ז מ\"ה; ירו', שם סו ע\"ג). בזהירות מה נראה לנו לשער שבית שמאי קבעו רק עמדה עקרונית ורבי אלעזר בן ערך הסיק ממנה מסקנות מפליגות, ורבי אליעזר בן הורקנוס מהלך בנתיב זה, אך ספק אם היה כה החלטי כמו רבי אלעזר בן ערך. רבי שמעון גם הוא הפנים חלק מתורת בית שמאי, אך שוב לא באותה מידת החלטיות כקודמיו. כפי שנראה להלן, אכן רבי שמעון אינו מתיר את התערובת כמו בית שמאי.", + "בתפיסה זו מהלך גם בעל פנקס הלכה ארץ-ישראלי משלהי התקופה הביזנטית: \"ואם נפל מעשר לתוך חולין מביא תרומת מעשר ממקום אחר על תרומת המעשר שנתערבה\"170מרגליות, הלכות ארץ-ישראל, עמ' פה. . ההלכה הזו של רבי אלעזר בן ערך לא נותרה מחוץ לבית המדרש, ונמצאו לה תומכין גם מאוחר הרבה יותר. ", + "בפירושנו למסכת תרומות עסקנו בקבוצה של שלוש משניות (תרומות פ\"ז מ\"ה-מ\"ז) שבהן אותה גישה מקלה המתירה להניח באופן שרירותי שהקודש מצוי באחת הפינות. להערכתנו, עמדתו של רבי אלעזר בן ערך כאן קרובה לתפיסה ההלכתית החריגה שם. במשניות שם הלכות המיוחסות לרבי יוסי ולרבי מאיר, על כן ברור שאין הן משנתו של רבי אלעזר בן ערך בן דור יבנה. אבל דבריו כאן והמשניות שם הם מאותו בית מדרש, אולי של תלמידי רבי אלעזר בן ערך. ", + "נשוב לברייתא שבתוספתא. דעתו של רבי אלעזר בן ערך היא דעה חריגה; במקבילה בתוספתא דמאי (פ\"ה הי\"ב) אין דעתו מופיעה, וכבר העיר ליברמן171תוספתא כפשוטה, עמ' 374. שהתוספתא שם חולקת על רבי אלעזר בן ערך. ואכן, כאמור, דעתו של רבי אלעזר שונה ממשנתנו וממקבילותיה כפי שציטטנו. המשך הברייתא הוא עניין עצמאי ונגרר לתוספתא172כך ליברמן, שם, עמ' 375. . ייתכן שזה משפט המצמצם את דברי רבי אלעזר בן ערך למקרה של ספק, וכך מגבילה המסורת את החידוש הרב שבדברי רבי אלעזר בן ערך. ", + "המשפט הרביעי בתוספתא הוא גישה אחרת השונה מקודמותיה והיא מיוחסת לרבי שמעון. אם יש לדבר מתירין, כלומר יש אפשרות להתיר את הפרות האסורים שהתערבו, אין חכמים מתירים לבטלם באחד למאה. כך, למשל, פרות מעשר שני ניתן לפדות, על כן אם נפלו לחולין יש לפדות אותם ולא להעלותם ברוב. כל הלכות הביטול באחד למאה או בשאינו נותן טעם הם רק בדבר שאין לו מתירין. גם כאן יש קִרבה לדברי רבי אלעזר בן ערך, אלא שרבי אלעזר מאפשר התרה בצורה מרחיקת לכת שרבי שמעון אינו מסכים עמה. ", + "דברי רבי שמעון מצוטטים בירושלמי מברייתא: \"דתני זה הכלל שהיה רבי שמעון אומר משום רבי יהושע. כל דבר שיש לו מתירין כגון טבל ומעשר שיני והקדש וחדש לא נתנו להן חכמים שיעור. אלא מין במינו בכל שהוא ושאינו במינו בנותן טעם. וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין כגון תרומה, וחלה, וערלה וכלאים נתנו להן חכמים שיעור מין במינו ושלא במינו בנותן טעם\" (ירו', שביעית פ\"ו ה\"ג, לו ע\"ד; נדרים פ\"ו ה\"ח, לט ע\"ד). לעיל הצגנו שתי הצעות בטבלה; הראשונה היא פסיקתם של אמוראי בבל כהמשך לסדרת משניות ובשנייה דעת אמוראי ארץ ישראל המבוססת על תוספתא תרומות. לדעת הברייתא, כפי שצוטטה בירושלמי (ואין לה מקור תנאי עצמאי), אין זו מחלוקת אלא אבחנה בין דבר שיש לו מתירין לדבר שאין לו מתירין. דומה שהברייתא היא ניסיון להרמוניזציה בין המקורות.", + "לסיכום, הבחנו בארבע או בחמש שיטות הלכתיות. הראשונה והחריגה שבהן היא שיטת רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמותר להרים מתנות כהונה גם שלא מן המוגדר, ולכן כמעט כל תערובת מותרת. שתי השיטות האחרות מבחינות בין מין במינו ומין בשאינו מינו, ובין נותן טעם ללא נותן טעם, והצגנו אותן בטבלה לעיל. השיטה הרביעית היא שיטת רבי שמעון שדבר שיש לו מתירין אין להעלותו ברוב, ודבר שאין לו מתירין ניתן להעלותו. רבי שמעון אינו קובע כיצד מעלים ומותיר את השאלה פתוחה. למעשה, שיטה זו אינה חולקת על מי מבין שתי השיטות הקודמות, אלא רק מגבילה את שתיהן. השיטה החמישית מופיעה רק בתלמוד הירושלמי והיא מנסה לפשר בין שלוש השיטות האחרונות. היא משתמשת באבחנה של רבי שמעון כדי לקבוע מתי יש לקבל את השיטה השלישית ומתי את הרביעית. ", + "נסיים פרשה סבוכה זו בהערה נוספת. במשנת תרומות כמה משניות המקלות מאוד בהלכות תערובת. עסקנו בכך בפירושנו לתרומות (פ\"ז מ\"ה ומ\"ו, ושם הערנו לרמזים נוספים לשיטה זו). באותן משניות מוצגת דעה שניתן להפריש תרומה מתערובת של איסור והיתר ולהניח, באופן שרירותי, שהחולין באחת הקופות ולא באחרת. אין הדברים זהים, אך ניתן לזהות קרבה מסוימת לדעת רבי אלעזר בן ערך כאן. על כן דומה שהמשניות שם קרובות לשיטתו, ואולי גם לשיטת בית שמאי. הקרבה בין בית שמאי ורבי אלעזר בן ערך מאפשרת תובנות חדשות לסיבה מדוע נשכח חכם מופלא זה. המקורות תולים, כידוע, את הדבר בכך שעזב את חבריו ורצה להמשיך בלימודיו באופן עצמאי ללא זיקה לחבורה שהתגבשה ביבנה. האם ייתכן שתמיכתו בבית שמאי היא סיבה נוספת לדחיקתו, או אולי סיבה לכך שלא רצה להמשיך ולפעול במסגרת בית המדרש ביבנה? ", + "משנה ז עוסקת בתערובת של מין בשאינו מינו שאם הוא נותן טעם חייב בחלה ונחשב למצה, ואם הדגן אינו נותן טעם אין התערובת נחשבת ללחם. זו, כאמור, העמדה המקובלת כפי שנפסקה על ידי אמוראי בבל (שיטה 2). התביעה \"שיהא בה כשיעור\" היא תביעה נוספת. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל התובע זאת חולק, אפוא, על כל המשניות המציגות שיטה זו. עם זאת, מחלוקתו היא רק על עניין חלה. משנה ח גם היא מהלכת באותה שיטה ועוסקת בתערובת של מין במינו בנותן טעם שנחשב כלחם לפי כל השיטות.", + "נותר עוד לברר מה ההגדרה של \"אסור\" ו\"מותר\" וכיצד מתיישבת הגדרה זו עם הגדרת הביטול באחד למאה או ברוב רגיל. כפי שאמרנו אין משנתנו דנה בכך, וכאילו אלו מערכות נפרדות. משנת ערלה, לעומת זאת, דנה בכך (פ\"ב מ\"ו)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "הרקע הרֵאלי למשנה זו ולמשניות הבאות הוא שוב האפייה המשותפת בחצר השייכת לכמה דיירים. הנשים אפו יחדיו. הלישה הייתה משותפת על אותו משטח עבודה מצומצם, והאפייה משותפת באותו תנור. בצק נגע בבצק, ומאפה במאפה (איור 17). ", + "שתי נשים שעשו שני קבים – כל אחת בפני עצמה פטורה מחלה משום שאפתה פחות משיעור חלה173המשנה מניחה שקב אחד הוא פחות מכשיעור, ושני קבים הם כשיעור, זאת מבלי להיכנס למחלוקת במשנת עדיות (פ\"א מ\"ב) על שיעור חלה. עם זאת, משנתנו דוחה את דעת בית שמאי שם שמפרישים גם מקב, וראו להלן משנה ד. , ונגעו זה בזה – שני הבצקים נגעו זה בזה ובתהליך התפיחה \"נשכו זה את זה\", כלומר נדבקו ומעט מהאחד עבר אל האחר. הסברנו את המשנה לשיטת רבי יוחנן בן נורי (לעיל פ\"ג מ\"א) שנותנים את החלה מהבצק. לשיטת רבי עקיבא שנותנים את החלה מלחם לאחר אפייתו (שם מ\"ו) המגע היה בעת האפייה בתנור. הירושלמי מסביר שהנגיעה כאן היא נשיכה, דנו בכך בסוף פ\"ב וראינו כי לפירוש זה יתרונות וחסרונות. יש בכך הסבר לסתירה עם משנה ד להלן, אך פירוש זה סותר משניות לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ד ומ\"ט). לדעתנו זו מחלוקת עקרונית, האם די בנגיעה, כשיטת בית שמאי ורבי אליעזר, או שיש צורך בנשיכה, כדעת בית הלל. הירושלמי רצה להעמיד את משנתנו כבית הלל, אך לא הסביר את שיקוליו במפורש. אבל לגופו של עניין, די להעמידה כבית שמאי174משניות רבות נסתמו כבית שמאי. לרשימה חלקית ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי. .", + "אפילו הן ממין אחד פטורין – אמנם שני לחמים נדבקו, אך שתי השותפות אינן מעוניינות בכך ולכן אין הדבר נחשב לאפייה אחת. דומה שהגורם הקובע כאן הוא רצונן של הנשים האופות. אם ההדבקה היא לרצונן – זו נחשבת להדבקה. עיקרון דומה חל על הרטבת פרות חיים. פרי חי נחשב לשלם, ולמקבל טומאה, כאשר נרטב, ובתנאי שההרטבה היא לרצונו של בעל הפרות, בזמן שהן של אשה אחת מין במינו חייב – ההנחה היא שלאישה לא אכפת שהלחמים השונים נוגעים ונדבקים זה בזה, ואולי אף רוצה בכך, ושלא במינו פטור – אבל אם הלחמים ממינים שונים, מן הסתם אין האישה רוצה שיידבקו ולכן אין הנגיעה (נשיכה) מועילה להפיכת שני הבצקים ללחם אחד (ירו', נט ע\"ד). מכאן גם מסקנת הירושלמי שאם האישה מקפידה להפריד בין הלחמים אין הם נחשבים לבצק אחד אפילו אם שניהם מאותו המין, ורבי יונה מסביר שהיא אופה אותם זה ליד זה משום שאין לה מקום ללוש אותם בנפרד לגמרי. אגב, ניכר שרבי יונה מסביר את המציאות לפי דעתו ההלכתית של רבי יוחנן בן נורי שחובת חלה היא בתחילת הלישה. ", + "הרמב\"ם וראשונים נוספים מפרשים שמשנתנו כבית הלל במסכת עדיות ששיעור חלה הוא שני קבים (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ב מ\"ו). ברם, דומה שאזכור שני הקבים כאן הוא מקרי. חשוב למשנה לציין שלכל אחת מהנשים פחות מקב, שהוא פחות מכשיעור, והסך הכולל אינו חשוב כלל. ראיה לכך יש במשנה ב. שם הסך הכולל הוא שלושה קבים ואף הוא אינו חשוב, כל שחשוב הוא שכל אחת מהעיסות היא קב. כפי שאמור במשנת עדיות לדעת בית שמאי די בקב אחד כדי לחייב בחלה, וודאי שהמשנה אינה כדעת בית שמאי, שכן לפי בית שמאי כל קב לחוד חייב בחלה, וסתמה כחכמים שיש צורך בחמישה רבעים של קב. " + ], + [ + "אי זה הוא מין במינו – משנתנו מסבירה את המשנה הקודמת ומניחה אותה כנתון. זו משנה שהיא בסגנון התוספתא, המסבירה את המשנה המונחת לפניה. מכאן גם שמשנה ב מאוחרת למשנה א.", + "החיטים אינן מיצטרפות עם הכל – \"הכל\" אלו חמשת המינים של הדגנים (לעיל פ\"א מ\"א). עיסה הנעשית מאחד מהם חייבת בחלה, אך אין הם מצטרפים עם החיטים להוות כשיעור, אלא עם הכוסמים – החיטים והכוסמים הם מינים קרובים. שאלת הצירוף מופיעה בשלושה הקשרים: בכלאים (פ\"א מ\"א), האם מותר לזרוע אחד מהם ליד המין האחר, בתרומות (פ\"ב מ\"ו), האם מותר להפריש מהאחד על האחר, ולעניין חלה, האם בצקים ממינים שונים עשויים להצטרף175ראו דיונו המלא של בעל אור זרוע, סימן ריד. . לעניין כלאיים נמנו חמשת המינים בזוגות זוגות ונאמר שאלו אינם כלאיים זה בזה. בפירושנו למשנה נדונה גם התחבטות הגמרא אם כל מיני הדגנים אינם כלאיים זה בזה, או שרק הזוגות המנויים אינם כלאיים זה בזה. הירושלמי גם מדגיש ש\"כלאים\" הוא לעניין כלאיים בלבד, \"תמן למעשרות וכאן לכלאים\" (כלאים פ\"א ה\"א, כו ע\"ד)176בעל מלאכת שלמה מעניק נופך מיוחד להבדל בין כלאיים וחלה. שם מדובר בצירוף לחול (אם מותר לזרעם זה ליד זה) ובחלה בצירוף לקודש. הרי אם יש חיוב חלה באחד עלול צירופו לגרום למצב שבו לא יפריש חלה מאותו המין אלא רק מהמין האחר. , על כן אין להקשות ממשנת כלאים על משנתנו. אמנם המשנה בתרומות אמרה \"כל שהוא כלאים בחברו לא יתרום מזה על זה\" (פ\"ב מ\"ו), אך אין להסיק מכאן שבכל מה שאינו כלאיים יתרום מזה על זה. אדרבה, המשנה גם ממשיכה ואומרת שבמה שאינו כלאיים לא יתרום מהרע על היפה, וכיוצא באלו כללים. זאת ועוד, אפילו אין להשוות בין איסור תרומה מזה על זה לאיסור הצטרפות לחלה. בתרומה מדובר על פרות שאפילו אם הם קרובים הם עדיין פרות שונים, ואילו בחלה מדובר בקמח ולעתים קרובות מינים שונים נותנים קמח דומה (הרא\"ש לפ\"א מ\"א). הראשונים השקיעו מאמץ רב בבירור מערכת היחסים בין חלה, תרומה וכלאיים, ודומה שהמשניות מפרידות ביניהם ומערכת הקשרים, כפי שמתבטאת במשנת תרומות, היא חלקית. ", + "למשנתנו אין קשר למשנת כלאים, אבל חלק מהזוגות להלן עשויים להצטרף למעשרות (ולתרומות), כלומר להפריש מעשר מזה על זה. בכל מה שהוא כלאיים לא יתרום מזה על זה (משנה, תרומות פ\"ב מ\"ו וראו פירושנו לה), ולעתים גם במה שאינו כלאיים אין לתרום מזה על זה. בהקשר לכך אנו שומעים שאין תורמים מ\"זונין\" על אוכל, כפי שהבאנו לעיל (משנה, כלאים פ\"א מ\"א). \"הצטרפות\" אחרת היא לעניין חלה, ואף להצטרפות זו דינים משלה שאינם זהים לדיני כלאיים.", + "השעורים מיצטרפות עם הכל חוץ מן החיטים – שעורים, כוסמין, שיבולת שועל ושיפון נחשבים לצורך האפייה כמין אחד, לא בגלל הדמיון הבוטני אלא בגלל הדמיון בבצק. ניכר מהמשנה שאמנם יש חמישה מיני דגנים, אך שעורים וחיטים הם המינים העיקריים, והאחרים מצטרפים או אינם מצטרפים אליהם. ייתכן שהגדרת ההצטרפות הייתה תפקודית. בצק החיטים היה בצק טוב, וכוסמין נחשבו לתוסף טבעי ורגיל לחיטה. לעומת זאת השעורים נחשבו למאפה מרמה נחותה יותר177ראו הראיות לכך בפירושנו לכלאים פ\"א מ\"א, ובמבוא לכלאים. , וכן כל שאר שלושת מיני הדגנים (כוסמין, שיפון ושיבולת שועל), על כן היו שנהגו לצרף את כל המינים הנחותים למאפה אחד.", + "רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר שאר המינים מיצטרפין זה עם זה – לפי מבנה המשנה רבי יוחנן בן נורי חולק על הרישא. אם כך אזי יש לפרש שלפי דעתו השעורים אינן מצטרפות עם הכול (אבל אולי מצטרפות עם הכוסמין?), ורק שאר שלושת המינים מצטרפים זה עם זה. ייתכן גם שרבי יוחנן אינו חולק אלא מוסיף שלא רק ששלושת המינים מצטרפים לשעורים אלא גם שמצטרפים לעצמם זה עם זה.", + "בירושלמי מופיעה גרסה נוספת למשנה בלשון \"אית תניי תני: כל המינין מצטרפין\" (נט ע\"ד), כלומר לדעת רבי יוחנן בן נורי כל חמשת המינים נחשבים למין במינו. הירושלמי מסביר שמשנה א המדברת על מין במינו מתכוונת לכל הדגנים, ומין שאינו במינו הוא בצק דגנים שנשך בצק של אורז או חומר אחר. אמנם בכך עוסקת המשנה בפרק הקודם (פ\"ג מ\"ז), אך הגמרא מוצאת הבדל הלכתי בין תערובת חיטים ואורז, למשל, ובין נשיכת כיכרות. הסבר זה מאולץ, וכפשוטה הרישא מנוסחת לפי דעת חכמים ורבי יוחנן בן נורי חולק על ניסוח זה. לדעתו היה צריך לנסח את משנה א \"שתי נשים שעשו שתי קבין אפילו הם מין בשאינו מינו מצטרפין\", אם כן משנה א מנוסחת לפי דעת תנא קמא בניגוד לרבי יוחנן בן נורי, זאת אף שהיא מהלכת בשיטתו לגבי מועד הרמת החלה. בפירושנו למשנה הבאה נמצא חיזוק מה לגרסה זו שבמשנה.", + "במשנה הראשונה במסכת שנינו במפורש שחמשת המינים \"מיצטרפין זה עם זה\", וזאת בניגוד למשנתנו. הירושלמי מתרץ: \"תמן בנשוך וכאן בבלול\" (נז ע\"ב). משנתנו עוסקת בשתי כיכרות הנושכות מעט זו מזו, ולכן רק מינים קרובים מצטרפים, אבל משנה א בפרק א עוסקת בבלול ואז כל המינים מצטרפים. הסבר זה למדני, אך ספק אם הוא פשוטו של כתוב. המשנה שם אינה מגבילה את ההצטרפות, וסביר יותר ששתי המשניות חולקות זו על זו והן ממקורות שונים178אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 101. . לכאורה פשוט הוא שמשנת פרק א היא כרבי יוחנן בן נורי, וזאת לפי הגרסה \"כל המינים\". אלא שעולה מהסוגיה בתלמוד שהאמוראים לא גרסו בדברי רבי יוחנן בן נורי \"כל המינים\" אלא \"שאר המינים\", אחרת לא היו מקשים על הסתירה בין המשניות ולא היו מתרצים בדרך שתירצו. נמצאנו למדים שהגרסה שהכיר הירושלמי במשנתנו הייתה \"שאר המינים מצטרפין\"179אפשטיין הקדיש למונח \"אית תניי\" דיון ארוך (מבוא, עמ' 137-89), ולדעתו תמיד ה\"אית תניי\" הראשון הוא הנוסח של המשנה וה\"אית תניי\" השני הוא נוסח אחר או תיקון, ראו למשל שם, עמ' 90. סוגייתנו היא ראיה לדבריו. , אלא שהייתה לו גם גרסה אחרת.", + "לפי דרכנו, במקורות התנאיים שתי גישות (מחלוקת): משנה א מציגה את הגישה שכל המינים מצטרפים ומשנתנו את הגישה שרק חלק מהם מצטרפים. קשה במקצת לפרש שלרבי יוחנן בן נורי דעה שלישית, אבל הדבר אפשרי. מכל מקום, בתוספתא יש ביטוי לדעה שכל המינים מצטרפים: \"קב חטין וקב שעורין וקב כוסמין הרי אילו מצטרפין\" (פ\"ב ה\"ד), וכן: \"חצי קב חטין וחצי קב שעורין וחצי קב כוסמין נוטל מן הכוסמין\" (שם ה\"ה). אם כן, ודאי שהם מצטרפים, ואפילו מותר להרים מהיפה פחות על היפה יותר. אבל בהלכה אחרת נקבע בפשטות שקב שעורים רק מצרף ומשמע שאינו מצטרף (ה\"ב)180לביטוי \"מצטרף\" ראו משנה ד להלן. , כדעת סתם המשנה כאן. ", + "לעיל בפירושנו למשנה א עמדנו על כך ש\"מצטרפין\" אין משמעו בהכרח שכל המינים מצטרפים זה עם זה, אלא שיש מהם שמצטרפים, והתנא השאיר את הפירוט למקום אחר. משנתנו מציגה את הפרטים השונים, ואין בכך כדי לנגד את הכלל הבסיסי שייתכנו מקרים שונים של צירופים. " + ], + [ + "שני קבים וקב אורז – או שני קבים, וקב תרומה באמצע אינן מיצטרפות – שני קבים של אישה אחת וקב אחר הפטור מחלה אינם מצטרפים, אף אם נשכו זה את זה. האורז פטור מחלה, וכן בצק דגנים של תרומה.", + "דבר שניטלה חלתו באמצע מצטרפין שכבר נתחייב בחלה – אם הקב האמצעי הוא מבצק שהורמה חלתו קודם הוא מצטרף, שכן הוא שייך בחלה. המשנה מביאה דין חדש שהוא המשך למשנה א. לא נאמר מה קורה אם אלו שני קבים של חיטים וקב כוסמין באמצע, ודומה שאלו מצטרפים, ואילו שני קבי חיטים וקב שעורים באמצע אינם מצטרפים. אבל לרבי יוחנן בן נורי, ולפי הגרסה \"כל המינים מצטרפין\", הרי גם במקרה זה הם מצטרפים. המשנה נקטה, אפוא, דוגמה של אורז כדי להיות כדעת הכול ולא להיכנס למחלוקת התנאים שבמשנה ב. כל זאת לפי הגרסה \"כל המינים מצטרפין\". אבל אם הגרסה המקורית במשנה ב היא \"שאר המינים\", קשה מדוע ננקטה הדוגמה של אורז ולא דוגמה של דגן ממין אחר שיש בה יותר חידוש. לפי דרכנו זו ראיה מסוימת לגרסה \"כל המינים\".", + "ההלכה במשנה אינה עקבית, שהרי מה הבדל יש בין קב תרומה לקמח שניטלה חלתו. בתוספתא (פ\"ה ה\"ג וה\"ד) ההלכה עקבית יותר אך שונה, כפי שעולה מהטבלה.", + "הצטרפות דבר שניטלה חלתו לדבר שטרם ניטלה חלתו", + "התוספתא מספרת כיצד עוצבה ההלכה שלב אחרי שלב. בשלב ראשון החליטו רק שקמח שניטלה חלתו אינו מצטרף, ובשלב שני \"הוסיפו עליהן\" את שני הדינים האחרים. המשנה מייצגת, אפוא, את השלב הקדום לפני שהחליטו שקב אורז וקב תרומה אינם מצטרפים, ואילו התוספתא את השלב המאוחר. בשלב של המשנה נקבע איסור על צירוף בצק שניטלה חלתו, ולא גזרו על צירופים אחרים. בשלב שני \"יישרו את הקב\" וקבעו דין אחיד. זו דוגמה נדירה להתהוות ההלכה בשיטת התקדימים. ההלכות נקבעו שלב אחר שלב, פרט אחר פרט, ובשלב הראשון לא נקבעה מדיניות אחידה. ההחלטה הייתה על המקרה הבודד מבלי לקבל החלטות שיטתיות. בשלב שני איחדו את ההחלטות לקראת מערכת שיטתית181בדרך פירושנו אנו מציעים שחזור דומה של הלכות רבות. ברם, בדרך כלל אין הדברים יוצאים מגדר טענה או הנחת יסוד. במקרים ספורים שימרו לנו המקורות את העדות על התהליך כמו במשנתנו. דנו בכך, בקיצור נמרץ, במבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות. ." + ], + [ + "קב חדש וקב ישן שנישכו זה בזה – שני הבצקים שייכים לאישה אחת ויש להרים מהם חלה, שכן הם מצטרפים182הנחת המשנה היא שקב אחד פטור מחלה, ויותר מכן חייב בחלה. . השאלה היא מאיזו חלה ירימו את החלה, שכן בצק אחד הוא מהישן והאחר מהחדש. \"חדש\" כאן משמעו החיטה של העונה החדשה, ואין לאכלה לפני פסח, ואילו את הבצק הנעשה מה\"ישן\" מותר לאכול בכל עת. המשנה עוסקת בערב פסח, כאשר בשוק קיים קמח מהחדש אך הוא אסור באכילה. לפי ההלכה אין לקצור חיטים מן החדש לפני פסח, וודאי שלא לאפות ממנו. אבל אנו יודעים שנהגו לקצור את החיטים לפני הזמן: \"משקרב העומר יוצאין ומוצאין שוק ירושלים שהוא מלא קמח וקלי שלא ברצון חכמים, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר: ברצון חכמים היו עושים\" (משנה, מנחות פ\"י מ\"ה, וראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ד מ\"ח). המשנה כאן אינה עוסקת בדיני חדש, היא אינה מפרטת את הדיון על המותר והאסור בהכנת בצק זה לפני פסח, ומדברת רק על ההיבט המצומצם של מצוות חלה. למעשה, השאלה שבמשנה תישאל גם על תערובת מתוכננת של כיכרות של חדש וישן, אך המשנה צמודה לשאלה הבסיסית המחברת את כל המשניות של תערובת על ידי נשיכה של כיכרות. בפירושנו לעיל (סוף משנה ב) עמדנו על כך שבמקרה זה תובע רבי ישמעאל נשיכה, ואינו מסתפק בנגיעה של שני הבצקים, משום שיש כאן עירוב חדש וישן.", + "רבי ישמעאל אומר יטול מן האמצע – הבעל רשאי להרים את החלה מהאמצע. באמצעי יש תערובת בצק מהחדש והישן, ואת התערובת מותר יהיה לכוהן לאכול רק לאחר הפסח. מהדברים משמע שלדעת רבי ישמעאל קב חדש מצטרף לקב הישן, והשאלה היא רק מאיזה קב יש להרים את החלה, וחכמים אוסרין – לא ברור מה תובעים חכמים. האם הם מחייבים לתת מהחדש או מהישן או שהם מתירים לתת ממה שירצה, ובלבד שהכוהן יאכל את הבצק בזמן. ואולי הם דורשים לתת מכל קב לחוד, כדי לא לערב חדש וישן (מאירי ואחרים), כשם שאסור לתרום מהחדש על הישן (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ה). בתוספתא נאמר שקב של חדש כמו גם קב של שעורים מצרפים. המדובר במקרה של קב מכאן וקב מכאן וקב חדש או קב שעורים באמצע (תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ב). הקב באמצע מצרף את שני הקבים ליחידה אחת. מן הדברים משמע שהקב החדש רק מצרף את הקבים שבצדדים, אבל אינו מצטרף עמם, שכן אם היה מצטרף הרי המשנה מיותרת ושלושת הקבים הם בבחינת \"מין במינו\". אם כן, לדעת התוספתא קב חדש אינו מצטרף וכנראה זו דעת חכמים שקב חדש אינו מצטרף, אם כי הוא מצרף קבים אחרים ליחידת לחם אחת. במסכת תרומות הועמדה שאלה זו וראינו כי בית שמאי ובית הלל נחלקים אם מותר לצרף חדש וישן183ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ה ולעיל סוף פ\"ב. . חכמים אוסרים זאת כשיטת בית הלל, ורבי ישמעאל נוקט שיטת ביניים ומתיר תרומת חדש על ישן אם הייתה נשיכה הדדית ממש, או שמא הוא מהלך בשיטת בית שמאי ומתיר צירוף שתי העיסות לעיסה אחת.", + "הנוטל חלה מן הקב – מי שמחמיר ונוטל חלה מכמות שאינה חייבת בחלה. כפי שראינו לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ו) בית שמאי אומרים שקב בצק חייב בחלה, אך המעשה הנדון במשנה אינו דווקא לבית שמאי. \"קב\" כאן אינו דעת בית שמאי, אלא כינוי כללי למי שמחמיר על עצמו ונותן חלה מפחות מ\"כשיעור\", שהוא קב ורבע.", + "רבי עקיבה אומר חלה – אמנם החמיר על עצמו, אך מתנתו מתנה, וחכמים אומרים אינה חלה – כפי שראינו יש מחלוקת דומה לגבי המפריש חלתו מקמח (לעיל פ\"ב מ\"ה), גם שם נדונה השאלה של הנותן חלה טרם הזמן, והמחלוקת היא אם בדיעבד החלה חלה או שהיא חולין לחלוטין. שם לא היה מי שאמר שהחלה כשרה לחלוטין, אלא שיש בה צד של חלה ויתרום שנית, בבחינת \"תרומתו תרומה ויחזור ויתרום\"184כגון משנה, תרומות פ\"א מ\"ח. .", + "השאלה הנדונה היא עקרונית ונוגעת למצוות רבות, והיא מה דינו של המקיים מצווה כאשר הוא פטור ממנה. בתוספתא מוצגים שני דימויים המעידים על התפיסות ההלכתיות השונות: \"אמר רבי אליעזר בן יעקב: הנוטל חלה מן הקב למה הוא דומה? לתורם תבואה שלא הביאה שליש, שאין תרומתו תרומה, וחכמים אומרים: לתורם פירות שלא נגמרה מלאכתן, שאין תרומתו תרומה. חזרו לומר לא כך ולא כך, שהרי הקב הזה מצטרף הוא עם אחרים\" (פ\"ב ה\"ה). שתי הדעות הן הסברים לשיטת חכמים שהחלה אינה חלה אף בדיעבד. התורם פרות שלא הביאו שליש ותורם ממה שאינו ראוי ואינו שלם תרומתו פסולה משום שאכילת פרי לפני שהביא שליש היא למעשה השחתה של הפרי, על כן חז\"ל מתנגדים לאכילה מעין זו. כך, למשל, אסור לאכול פרות שביעית שלא הביאו שליש185ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ד מ\"ז; פירושנו למעשרות פ\"ה מ\"ו; השוו תרומות פ\"ט מ\"א; מנחות פ\"י מ\"ח. . \"הבאת שליש\" כאן היא מינוח כללי לתרומת פרי שאינו שלם. הגדרת הזמן המדויק שניתן לתרום בו מפרות נידונה במקום אחר186שביעית ומעשרות שם שם. . לדעת חכמים הרמת חלה מכמות קטנה דומה לתרומת פרות שלא נגמרה מלאכתם. הפרות ראויים לאכילה והם שלמים, אלא שטרם נגמר עיבודם, ולכן טרם התחייבו במעשרות, אבל אין בהם פגם. כך גם נתינת חלה מכמות קטנה היא קיום מצווה טרם הזמן, אך התרומה עצמה ראויה. לדעת חכמים נתינת חלה מקב היא מעשה ראוי אם כי אין בו חובה, אולי בבחינת צדיקות יתר. לדעת רבי אליעזר בן יעקב היא מעשה פסול ממש. מסקנת התוספתא היא ששתי ההשוואות פסולות, משום שכאשר תורם פרות לפני הזמן הפרות עצמם אינם ראויים לתרומה, ואילו כשתורם חלה מכמות קטנה הקמח עצמו ראוי לתרומה.", + "התוספתא מניחה בפשטות שהתורם מפרות שלא נגמרה מלאכתם תרומתו אינה תרומה, ולהלן נראה שהנחה זו אינה מוסכמת על הכול.", + "בירושלמי מובא הסבר אחר שהוא בבחינת עיבוד להסבר הראשון: \"רבי עקיבה מדמי לה לפירות שלא נגמרו מלאכתן. עבר והפריש מהן תרומה הרי זו תרומה. ורבנין מדמין לה לתבואה שלא הביאה שליש. עבר והפריש ממנה חלה אינה חלה. חזרו לומר אינן דומין לא לפירות שלא נגמרה מלאכתן ולא לתבואה שלא הביאה שליש. אלא רבי עקיבה מדמי לה לומֵר הרי זו תרומה על הפרות האילו לכשיתלשו, ונתלשו, ורבנין מדמין לה לומֵר הרי זו תרומה על הפרות האילו לכשיתלשו\" (נט ע\"ד). ברור שהירושלמי הכיר מקור קדום שהיו בו חומרים הקרובים לתוספתא בסגנונם, אבל הטיעונים עצמם שונים. ההסברים הם לשיטת רבי עקיבא ולשיטתם של חכמים החולקים. לדעת רבי עקיבא התורם חלה מכמות קטנה (קב) הוא כתורם מפרות שלא נגמרה מלאכתם, והתורם כך תרומתו תרומה. זאת בניגוד לתוספתא המניחה שהתורם מפרות כאלו אין תרומתו תרומה. הנימוק השני הוא לדעת חכמים שהתורם חלה מקב הוא כתורם מפרות שלא הביאו שליש, שתרומתו פסולה כפי שהסברנו לעיל. לאחר מכן חוזרים בהם חכמים משני הדימויים כמו בתוספתא.", + "עוד מובא בירושלמי דיון האם רבי עקיבא רואה בהיתר היתר מלא או היתר בדיעבד: \"הוון בעי מימר (היו שואלים לאמור:) מה דאמר רבי עקיבה: 'ניטל חלה מקב' חלה187מילה זו מיותרת. מהלכה, הא מדבר תורה לא. מן מה דתנינן: 'רבי עקיבה פוטר וחכמים מחייבין' הדא אמרה אפילו מדבר תורה\" (נט ע\"ד). את המשנה ניתן להעמיד כהעמדה של דיעבד: ראוי שלא יתרום מקב, ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה. אבל מהניסוח המקביל בברייתא משמע שרבי עקיבא פוטר, כלומר מותר לכתחילה להרים תרומה מהקב, ואם אחר כך הצטרף הקב לכמות גדולה יותר הרמת החלה הראשונה פוטרת אותו. אם כן, אכן מותר לתרום חלה מקב; הבעל אמנם פטור, אך רשאי לחייב את עצמו188וכן לא יתרום מפרות שלא נגמרה מלאכתם, ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה. ראו משנה, תרומות פ\"א מ\"י. בפירושנו שם נראה שלעתים בית הלל מחמירים במקרים כאלה, וסוברים שאין תרומתו תרומה. .", + "רבי אליעזר בן יעקב הנזכר בתוספתא מחייב הרחבת מה לבירור זמנו ומקומו. רבי אליעזר בן יעקב הוא החכם העיקרי המוסר על הבית השני, מבנהו וסדריו. חכמים אחרים המוסרים על סדרי הבית הם רבי חנינה סגן הכוהנים, אבא שאול, יוסי בן חנן ושמעון איש המצפה. כולם היו מזקני דור יבנה שראו עוד את הבית. לעומת זאת חכמים מאוחרים יותר כרבי טרפון, רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע שעדיין חיו ופעלו בימי הבית אינם מוסרים רבות על סדריו ואינם מעידים, עדות אישית, על סדריו. על כן יש להניח שאכן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב היה מזקני דור יבנה. הוא גם מספר עדות אישית על דודו ששירת כלוי במקדש (משנה, מידות פ\"א מ\"ב). לכך ניתן להוסיף שרבי אלעאי מוסר משמו (תוס', טהרות פ\"ג הי\"ג, עמ' 663). רבי אלעאי היה מוותיקי תלמידיו של רבי אליעזר בן הורקנוס, מחכמי החצי הראשון של דור יבנה. אם כן, רבי אליעזר בן יעקב זה היה מחכמי דור יבנה. מצד שני, אין ספק שהיה חכם בשם זהה שהיה מתלמידי חנניה בן חכינאי, מתלמידיו הוותיקים של רבי עקיבא (משנה, כלאים פ\"ד מ\"ח ועוד). הוא דרש בהלכות פרה בטבריה, ורבי מאיר ורבי אלעזר בן שמוע שמעו את הדרשה (ספרי זוטא, יט י, עמ' 305), והוא שואל את יונתן בן המשולם ורבי יהושע בן ממל (ספרי זוטא, ל יד, 328). רבי יהושע זה היה מרבותיו של רבי מאיר (תוס', נזיר פ\"ה ה\"א). עדויות אלו ואחרות189כגון אבות פ\"ד מ\"י, שם הוא נמנה בשרשרת החכמים של דור אושא, וכן אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פי\"ח, עמ' 68, שם הוא מתואר במסגרת סדרת חכמים מדור אושא. לעתים הוא נמנה עם תלמידי רבי עקיבא, אך לא בכל הרשימות ועדויות נוספות, ואין צורך להרבות ולהוכיח את הברור מאליו. מוכיחות שהמדובר בחכם מחכמי דור אושא, ואולי אף היו שני חכמים כאלו, האחד מראשית דור אושא והאחר בסופו. נמצאנו למדים שאכן היו שני חכמים בשם רבי אליעזר בן יעקב, ואין לפקפק בעצם קיומם.", + "מעתה יש לשאול מיהו אותו רבי אליעזר בן יעקב שבתוספתא. האם הנימוקים למשנה הם קדומים, מפיו של רבי אליעזר בן יעקב הראשון, או שהם נימוקיו של רבי אליעזר בן יעקב המאוחר? קשה להכריע בדבר, אך ניתן להעיר, בזהירות מסוימת, שאין אף דבר הלכה שניתן לייחס בוודאות לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב הראשון. דומה שכל מה שיש ממנו הוא עדויות על המקדש, ועל כן קרוב לוודאי שגם כאן בתוספתא הדברים הם תגובה והשלמה לדברי רבי עקיבא במשנה. עם זאת, יש היגדים רבים המיוחסים לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב שאי אפשר לדעת מתי נאמרו (כמו בתוספתא שבה אנו עוסקים). על כן ייתכן שגם רבי אליעזר בן יעקב הראשון עסק בדברי הלכה, והנימוק שהוא מוסר קדם לדברי רבי עקיבא והוא זה שעיצב אותם." + ], + [ + "שני קבים שניטלה חלתן של זה בפני עצמו ולזה בפני עצמו חזר ועשאן עיסה אחת רבי עקיבה פוטר – לדעת רבי עקיבא כבר הורמה חלה מכל חלק בנפרד. זאת לדעת רבי עקיבא שהחלה שהורמה מכמות קטנה היא חלה לכל דבר, וחכמים מחייבין – משום שלדעתם החלה שהורמה מהקבים הבודדים אינה חלה, לא חלים עליה דיני חלה ואף אין הם פוטרים את העיסה מחלה אם נוצרה כמות גדולה מספיק כדי \"שיעור\" (חמש רביעיות הקב).", + "נימצא חומרו קולו – הגישה של רבי עקיבא מחמירה בתחילה (שהחלה שהורמה מקב היא חלה לכל דבר) ונמצאת גורמת בסופו של דבר להקלה, ואילו ההקלה של חכמים בהתחלה (שהחלה היא חולין לכל דבר) גורמת חומרה, שיש להפריש חלה על הכול. במשנתנו \"חומרו קולו\", והוא לפי דעת רבי עקיבא. אבל בירושלמי בשם \"אית תנויי תני: קולו חומרו\" (נט ע\"ד), כלומר לדעת חכמים. גם בחלק מעדי הנוסח שבספרות הראשונים190ראו זק\"ש, משנה, על אתר, הערה 38. ראו גם אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 102. גם כאן האית תניי הראשון הוא הנוסח שבכל כתבי היד, ונראה כמקורי יותר. נמצא \"קולו חומרו\". נראה שזה תיקון של ראשונים שהניחו שהמשך המשנה צריך להיות כהלכה, וההלכה היא כחכמים נגד התנא הבודד.", + "דרכו של רבי עקיבא במשנתנו מעוררת שאלה באשר למועד הרמת החלה. מהדברים משמע שהרמת החלה לא הייתה ברגע קצר כלשהו, אלא מועד הרמת החלה הוא זמן ממושך. בפרק ג (מ\"א-מ\"ו) מופיעה סדרת הלכות שמשתמע מהן שיש מועד קצר וקבוע להרמת חלה; מה שלא היה חייב בחלה אז פטור גם אם בהמשך יתחייב בחלה, ומאידך גיסא מה שהתחייב בחלה לא ייפטר גם אם בעתיד ייווצרו שינויים הפוטרים את הבצק מחלה. רבי יוחנן בן נורי קבע שזמן הרמת חלה הוא \"גלגולה\", כלומר נתינת המים, ורבי עקיבא אמר זמן הקרימה בתנור, כלומר סוף האפייה. ממשנתנו משמע שגם רבי עקיבא מדבר על הרמת חלה מבצק, שהרי לאחר הקרימה בתנור אי אפשר כבר ששני קבין יחזרו להיות עיסה אחת, ובכלל לפני הקרימה הם היו פטורים מחלה, וכיצד זה הופרשה מהם חלה? ממילא אין כאן שתי עיסות שהפכו לאחת, אלא סתם עיסה אחת. דין שתי עיסות שצורפו נידון כל צורכו לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ד), והוא אינו הנושא כאן. אפשר היה להבין שרבי עקיבא סבור ששינוי שנעשה במועד מאוחר אינו משמעותי ואין לו כל מעמד הלכתי, ולכן הצירוף של העיסות אינו משנה לעניין חלה. אבל ברור שלא כך מציגה משנתנו את דבריו אלא היא קושרת בין הקלתו זו ובין חומרתו שגם קב חייב בחלה.", + "מאידך גיסא, גם דעת חכמים קשה. אם הם סבורים שמועד הרמת החלה הוא הקרימה בתנור, הרי שדעתם קשה כשם שדעתו של רבי עקיבא קשה. אבל אם הם סבורים כרבי יוחנן בן נורי הרי ניתן לשחזר שבשלב הגלגול היו אלו שתי עיסות נפרדות, ואחר כך גלגלן מחדש, עם מים נוספים, כדי להפכן לבצק אחד, ולכן התחייבו בחלה. ", + "אין זאת אלא שלשיטת רבי עקיבא זמן הרמת חלה הוא מהגלגול ועד הקרימה. לעיל (סוף פרק ב) הצענו כי זו גם דעתו של רבי אליעזר." + ], + [ + "אחת הבעיות הקשות בהפרשת חלה הייתה העובדה שרוב הציבור היה בבחינת \"עמי הארץ\" שלא שמרו על טהרה, או שלפחות חז\"ל ייחסו להם אי-הקפדה על מצווה זו. על כן הייתה החלה טמאה, שהרי היא מורמת לכל המוקדם בשלב שהעיסה הופכת בו למזון המקבל טומאה. משנתנו מציגה את אחד הפתרונות לבעיה זו.", + "נוטל אדם כדי חלה מעיסה שלא הורמה חלתה לעשותה בטהרה – הוא לוקח כמות של בצק אשר תספיק להפרשת חלות רבות. את הבצק הזה הוא מכין בטהרה בעצמו, או אולי בסיועו של שכן שהוא חבר, להיות מפריש עליה והולך חלת דמי – בהמשך הימים יכין האיש בצקים נוספים ויפריש מהם כחלה את הבצק הזה שהכין בטהרה. בצק זה הופך למעין \"בנק\" של חלה טהורה. היתרון הוא שהחלה תופרש בטהרה. החיסרון של הפתרון הוא שנמצא מפריש מבצק אחד על השני ומן הטהור על בצק טמא. לכן באה ההגבלה שמותר לעשות כן רק על חלת דמאי191חלת דמאי היא חלה שאין ידוע אם הפרישו ממנה את החלה. אבל אין לפרש שזו חלה מבצק שלא ידוע אם הפרישו ממנו מעשרות, שכן מבצק כזה יש להפריש חלה בכל מצב, שהרי גם ממעשר ראשון יש להפריש חלה כמות ששנינו בפ\"א מ\"ג. ברם, היו ראשונים שהתחבטו בשאלה. .", + "עד שתיסרח – מותר להשתמש ב\"בנק\" החלה עד שאותו בצק יסרח וייפסל לאכילת אדם, שחלת[ה] דמיי ניטלת מן הטהור על הטמא – המשנה מניחה שאין להפריש מהטהור על הטמא, אך הדבר מותר בחלת דמאי, ושלא מן המוקף – המשנה גם מניחה שאין להפריש אלא מן המוקף, מבצק הנוגע בחברו או אולי גם משני בצקים הנעשים יחדיו, גם ללא נגיעה ישירה בכל אחד. ההנחה שאין להרים חלה אלא מן המוקף אכן מקובלת על הכול (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ט; פ\"ב מ\"ח), אבל ההנחה שאין לתרום מן הטהור על הטמא שנויה במחלוקת. רבי אליעזר מהלך בשיטת בית שמאי וחולק על כך (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"א מ\"ט; פ\"ב מ\"ח). משנתנו היא, אפוא, כשיטת בית הלל. מן הראוי להעיר שניתן לעקוף את שאלת הרמת החלה \"מן המוקף\" ", + "וניתן ליצור היקף מלאכותי שלא יגרום לטמא את הבצק (לעיל פ\"ב מ\"ח). לעיל פ\"א מ\"ט ראינו שבנושא של המשנה יש מחלוקת בין בית שמאי לבית הלל, ומשנתנו כבית שמאי192ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי, וראו במבוא. .", + "המשנה גם מניחה שהפרשת חלה היא מהבצק, כדעת רבי יוחנן בן נורי (ראו פירושנו לעיל, פ\"ג מ\"א), על כן יש להשאיר את הבצק המשמש כחלה כבצק עד שיסרח. אבל לשיטת רבי עקיבא מפרישים חלה מלחם אפוי ואפשר להשאיר את הלחם המיועד לחלה עד שיעלה עובש; לחם שלם אינו מסריח אלא הופך לניקודים, עובש ושאר נזקים דומים. ", + "כאמור, משנתנו היא פתרון לעמי הארץ הרוצים להפריש חלה בטהרה. אלא שפתרון זה הוא רק לחלת דמאי, כלומר לכיכר שאין ידוע אם הורמה חלתה. אבל לשיטת בית שמאי זהו פתרון לכל הרמת חלה בתנאי טומאה. לא מן הנמנע שבראשיתו של דבר הוצע הפתרון לכול, כשיטת בית שמאי, ורק בשלב שני צומצם למקרה נדיר של חלת דמאי, כדי שיתאים גם לבית הלל.", + "היו מפרשים, כבעל מלאכת שלמה ואחרים, שהסבירו שחלת דמאי היא חלה שעם הארץ אפה אותה ועמי הארץ חשודים על החלה. פירוש זה בא מתוך ההיקש לפרות דמאי באופן כללי, שהם פרות בידי עם הארץ וספק אם הופרשו מהם מעשרות. ברם, כפי שראינו במבוא, מעולם לא נחשד עם הארץ על דמאי. אבל מן הסתם אירעו מקרים של ספק, וזו חלת הדמאי הנדונה כאן." + ], + [ + "ישראל שהיו אריסים לגוים בסורייה – מעמדה של סוריה נידון במפורט במסכת שביעית193ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"א. . באופן כללי, \"סוריה\" היא מונח הלכתי לתחום ארץ הסמוך לתחומי ארץ ישראל. על אזור זה חלות חלק מהמצוות התלויות בארץ. סוריה אינה נחשבת כארץ ישראל, אך אדמות היהודים בסוריה נחשבות כחלק מהארץ, או על כל פנים חייבות במעשרות. כן שנינו: \"ישראל שקנה שדה בסוריא, הרי הוא כקונה בפרוד שבירושלם\" (תוס', תרומות פ\"ב ה\"י). פרוורי ירושלים חייבים במעשרות כמו כל ארץ ישראל, אך הלשון היא לשון גוזמה שאינה הלכתית, והכוונה שאדמות יהודים בסוריה הן כארץ ישראל. כמו כן: \"הקונה שדה בסוריא סמוכה לארץ ישראל, אם יכול להכנס לה בטהרה, טהורה וחייבת במעשרות ובשביעית. ואם אינו יכול להכנס לה בטהרה, טמאה וחייבת במעשרות ובשביעית\" (משנה, אהלות פי\"ח מ\"ז). אם כן, אדמות ישראל בסוריה חייבות במעשרות ותרומות אפילו אם אין רצף טריטוריאלי של אדמות יהודיות. כפי שראינו לעיל194ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ה מ\"ט. , בתקופת התנאים נחשבו פרות הגוי לחייבים במצוות התלויות בארץ (מעשרות ותרומה), אך פרותיו בסוריה פטורים. השטח עצמו נחשב כחו\"ל, והקניין הפרטי אינו מועיל להפכו לאדמת הארץ. בכתובת רחוב הכלל מנוסח בצורה חד-משמעית פחות: \"ואם יש מקום שקנו אותו ישראל חוששין לו רבותינו\"195זוסמן, כתובת, שורה 26, עמ' 135, ושורה 12, עמ' 127. זוסמן קושר את הדברים למימרתו של רבי מנא בירושלמי, אך בירושלמי אין מדובר בקניין פרטי אלא בעיירה של יהודים, ולא נרחיב בכך. . בכתובת מדובר בשטח בתוך ארץ ישראל שהוצא מחוץ לתחומי הארץ בגלל היעדר יישוב יהודי באזור, ועם כל זאת הניסוח אינו מנוסח כהלכה אלא בסגנון רך יותר.", + "מכל מקום, סתם פרות בסוריה פטורים ממעשרות ומתרומות, שהרי מן הסתם גדלו בשדות גויים, אבל אם גדלו בשדות יהודים הם חייבים במעשרות. דין מעשרות ותרומות הוא כדין חלה. אמנם חיוב החלה מעט רחב יותר (ראו לעיל פירושנו לפ\"ב מ\"א), אך עדיין אדמות ישראל בסוריה חייבות בחלה ואדמות גויים פטורות ממנה. במשנתנו מדובר באדמות השייכות מבחינה משפטית לנכרי, אך הפרות גדלים בבעלות של יהודים והשאלה היא מה מעמדה של הקרקע, כשל יהודים או כשל נכרים. המשנה מניחה הנחה סמויה נוספת, שאדמות נכרים בארץ ישראל חייבות במצוות התלויות בארץ, כולל כמובן בהפרשת חלה. בספרות האמוראים יש מחלוקת בנושא, ויש דעה שלגוי יש קניין להפקיע ממצוות התלויות בארץ. בתלמודים מפרשים כך את דברי התנאים. ברם, ראינו כי את דברי התנאים עדיף לפרש ללא כל זיקה למחלוקת על פרות נכרים196ראו על כך בהרחבה בפירושנו לדמאי פ\"ה מ\"ט. . בכל המקורות התנאיים לא הוטל כל ספק בכך שפרות הגוי חייבים במעשרות ובחלה. כך גם מניחה משנתנו. על כן המשנה עוסקת באריסים בסוריה, אבל אריסים בארץ ישראל חייבים בחלה, שהרי ממה נפשך: אם אדמתם כאדמת ישראל או כאדמת הגוי בכל מקרה הם חייבים בחלה.", + "רבי אליעזר מחייב פירותיהם במעשרות ובשביעית – אדמת האריס נחשבת כרכושו של האריס, ואדמות ישראל בסוריה חייבות במעשר, שביעית וחלה.", + "רבן גמליאל פוטר – לדעתו אדמת אריס שייכת לבעל השדה. שדה נכרי בסוריה פטור ממצוות התלויות בארץ. השאלה המרכזית בהבנת המשנה היא באיזה אריס מדובר. האם דין זה נכון לגבי כל אריס שהוא? ומה דינו של חוכר? בנספח למסכת דמאי עסקנו בשאלת הסדרי האריסות באריכות. ראינו כי היו כמה סוגי הסדרים:", + "1. חכירה שבה החוכר משלם לבעל סכום קבוע של כסף. ", + "2. אריסות רגילה שבה האריס משלם לבעל אחוז מהיבול.", + "3. אריסות או חכירות עולם (חכירי בתי אבות). התשלום היה בגובה המקובל באריסות או בחכירה, אבל לאריס (חוכר) היו כנגד זה זכויות בקרקע. אריסותו עברה בתוקף ההסדר המשפטי בירושה, ולמעשה הפך האריס או החוכר לבעל הקרקע בפועל, אם כי הבעלות המשפטית והכוח החברתי היו בידי האדון. תלותו של האריס בבעל הקרקע התבטאה בתשלום (גבוה). זאת ועוד; שיערנו, בין השאר על סמך משנתנו, שבהסדר אריסות עולם נהוג היה לעבד את התוצרת במשותף. טענה זו תתברר להלן.", + "את המשנה ניתן היה לפרש בכל סוגי האריסות והחכירה, או אולי אף באריסות רגילה ולא בחכירה. אבל לא כך פירשו בתוספתא ובירושלמי, ומן הדין לפתוח בהסבר המפורט יותר שבירושלמי: \"רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוחנן. לא חייב רבי ליעזר אלא בחכירי אבות, כגון מהלל דבית רבי197אור זרוע, סימן רנ, גורס \"מהלין דבי רבי ינאי\". . תני רבי חלפתא בן שאול קנס קנסו רבי ליעזר. מה נפק מביניהון? אריס לשעה. מאן דאמר קנס חייב, מאן דאמר בחכירי בתי אבות פטור\" (ס ע\"א). לפי ההסבר הראשון חייב רבי אליעזר במעשרות רק בחכירי אבות שלהם בעלות על הקרקע יותר מלאריס רגיל. לפי ההסבר השני \"קנס קנסו\", כלומר לאיסור אין סיבה משפטית. אכן אריס אינו נחשב לבעל הקרקע, אך כאן החליטו חכמים להחמיר, כקנס. כפי שהעלינו במבוא דין חלה כדין תרומה, אבל בפועל נהגו בציבור להחמיר ביחס למצוות חלה, ונראה שהחמרה זו באה לידי ביטוי בדברי רבי אליעזר. התלמוד עצמו מצהיר שלפי רבי אבהו אריס לשעה, שהוא אריס רגיל, פטור מחלה, ורק אריסי (חכירי) בתי אבות חייבים בה. הסברנו את הקנס כחל על חלה בלבד, ובכך גם הסברנו מדוע הלכה זו שנויה במסכת חלה. ברם, עדיין ניתן לפרש גם אחרת. המשנה העוסקת באריס אינה מזכירה את החלה אלא את שביעית ומעשרות, על כן ייתכן שאין בה עניין מיוחד לחלה, והיא הובאה רק בגלל ההמשך. הרישא עוסקת בסוריה באופן כללי, והסיפא בדין חלה בסוריה. אם כן, הקנס הוא על כל אריס כדי שיימנע מקבלת אריסות בסוריה. יש להניח שבשנת שביעית התפתה היהודי תושב אזור הגבול בגליל לחכור או לארס אדמות בסוריה הפטורות משביעית. כפי שנראה להלן בתוספתא אסר רבן גמליאל \"לערס\", ורבי אליעזר צעד צעד נוסף והחמיר והטיל חובת שביעית על אריס כזה. זאת ברוח ההחמרות של דור יבנה בכל הלכות שביעית198ראו על כך במבוא למסכת שביעית. .", + "לדעתנו התוספתא מציעה הסבר דומה: \"...ובלבד שלא יהא הוא מלקט, והן אוגדין על ידו; הוא בוצר, והן דורכין על ידו; הוא מוסק, והן עוטנין על ידו. אלא הן מלקטין, והוא אוגד על ידיהן; הן בוצרין, והוא דורך על ידיהן; הן מוסקין, והוא עוטן על ידן\" (תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ה). רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק199על חכם זה ראו בהמשך המשנה. מסביר שרבן גמליאל מתייחס למקרה שבעל הקרקע הוא יהודי והגוי אריסו. רבן גמליאל פוטר, ובלבד שעבודות השדה במחובר לקרקע מתנהלות על ידי הגויים והבעל מבצע רק עבודות משניות, בתלוש. כפי שהסברנו בנספח למסכת דמאי אכן הסבר התוספתא מקביל לירושלמי. בשיטת חכירי בית אבות נהוג היה שהקציר ועיבוד הפרי נעשו בהנהגתו של העשיר. באריסות רגילה ביצע האריס את הקציר (תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ט הי\"ג) ואף את העיבוד הראשוני של התוצרת (שם, הי\"ט-הכ\"א), אבל בשיטת אריסי בתי אבות עיבדו הבעל ואריסיו יחד את הקרקע. חכירי מהלל דבית רבי הם אריסיו של רבי בנהלל, וכנראה נהג שם מבנה זה של עיבוד תוצרת במשותף. מהלל זו אינה בסוריה אלא בעמק יזרעאל (\"נהלל\" של היום משמרת את השם הקדום). ואכן, במורדות תל שמרון ליד נהלל נתגלתה מערכת גתות קטנות למדי, ואלו סדורות בשתי שורות ישרות, ושיערנו כי אלו מעידות על עיבוד פרטי של תוצרת משותפת כנדרש בשיטת חכירת בתי אבות (להלן איור 25). (ראיות נוספות לקיומה של האחוזה נדונו בנספח למעשרות).", + "התוספתא מדברת על מצב שבו בעל הקרקע הוא יהודי ופטור גם בשיטת אריסי בתי אבות, בתנאי שהאריסים יבצעו את העבודות המחוברות לקרקע. הירושלמי גם הוא מדבר על פטור בשיטה זו. עם זאת, הבדל גדול בין הירושלמי לתוספתא. בתוספתא נאמר שרבן גמליאל פוטר את פרות העריסים כשהיהודי הוא בעל הקרקע, ואילו במשנה ובירושלמי מדובר על מצב הפוך שבו בעל הקרקע הוא הגוי. אם כן, לפנינו מחלוקת במשנה במצב שבו האריס הוא יהודי, והיפוך הדעה בתוספתא, אלא שבתוספתא אין הד ברור למי שחולק על רבן גמליאל. ברם, יש לזכור שהתוספתא שלנו אינה יצירה עצמאית; לא מובאים בה כלל דברי רבן גמליאל עצמם, והיא מוסבת כהסבר למשנה קדומה אחרת, אולי אף למשנה שלנו, אם כי בנוסח שונה והפוך מהמשנה שבידינו. בדרך השערה ניתן אולי להציע שבתוספתא חל שיבוש נוסח, ויש להפכה כך שבעל הקרקע יהיה הגוי. לפי הצעה זו יש לגרוס: \"...ובלבד שיהא הוא מלקט, והן אוגדין על ידו; הוא בוצר, והן דורכין על ידו; הוא מוסק, והן עוטנין על ידו. ולא הן מלקטין, והוא אוגד על ידיהן; הן בוצרין, והוא דורך על ידיהן; הן מוסקין, והוא עוטן על ידן\". השינוי זעיר, ובכך ייושרו כל ההידורים.", + "התוספתא מוסיפה: \"אמר רבי לעזר בי רבי צדוק, אף על פי שהיה רבן גמליאל פוטר את עריסיותיו בסוריא, היה אוסר מלערס. אם ערס הרי זה פטור\" (פ\"ב ה\"ה). לבעל קרקע יהודי אסור למסור אדמה לגוי באריסות (אפילו בסוריה). לא נאמר האם חל איסור דומה על יהודי הרוצה לחכור קרקע בסוריה, והדבר תלוי בהצעת התיקון שהצענו. ליברמן מסביר שגזרה זו חלה על בעל קרקעות יהודי בשביעית בלבד, וכל הברייתא מועברת ממסכת שביעית.", + "כאמור, המחלוקת במשנה היא אם האריס נחשב לבעל הקרקע. מחלוקת זו היא עקרונית, בדבר מעמדו וזכויות הבעלות של האריס. מחלוקת זו עולה בהקשרים אחרים, אחד מהם הוא הבאת ביכורים. לפי המשנה האריס מביא ביכורים ואינו קורא משום שאינו יכול לומר שהביא את היבול של אדמתו (משנה, ביכורים פ\"א מ\"ב). בתוספתא למסכת תרומות נקבע במפורש שאדמתם של אריסים, חכורות ובתי אבות פטורה ממעשר ושביעית (פ\"ב הי\"א). משנה זו היא לדעת רבי חלפתא בן שאול, שכך הדין במעשר ושביעית, ולפי רבי אליעזר קנס קנסו במיוחד בחלה, כמו שפירשנו. ", + "רבן גמליאל אומר שתי חלות בסורייה – הקטע עוסק בדין חלה בסוריה באופן כללי, ללא קשר לאריס. המשנה מניחה שבסוריה חייבים בחלה, אבל טמאים משום טומאת ארץ העמים. בכך חוזרת המשנה למשנה ו לעיל. שם דובר על פתרון אחד להפרשת חלה בטומאה, ועתה נידון מצב אחר שיש בו צורך להפריש חלה בטומאה. אותה בעיה נידונה עוד פעם לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ג), ובתלמוד הירושלמי הזכירו במסגרת זאת מעשים מתחום קיסריה. שם הדיון היה על חלוקת העיסה לקבים (כמויות קטנות מכדי \"שיעור\" חלה), או אפשרות של עשייתה בטומאה. בסוריה נקבעה גזרה אחרת. לפי רבן גמליאל יש להפריש שתי חלות, שתיהן בטומאה; אחת מהן היא חלה טמאה, ואותה יש לשרוף, והאחרת אינה חלה ממש ויש לתת אותה לכוהן שיאכל אותה בטומאה, כדין חולין. כך נמצאנו שומרים על דין חלה מחד גיסא, והכוהן מקבל את מתנתו למרות דיני הטהרה מאידך גיסא. זו המצווה היחידה שבה דאגו חכמים ל\"פיצוי\" לכוהן שלא ייפגע עקב אי שמירת דיני הטהרה על ידי הציבור. בתרומה, למשל, לא דאגו חכמים להסדר כזה ותרומה שנטמאה אסורה באכילה, ולמעשה הכהן מפסיד.", + "רבי אליעזר אומר חלה אחת – יש להפריש רק חלה אחת בטומאה. דינו של רבן גמליאל מהווה חומרה שאינה מקובלת. לא שמענו על דין דומה בתרומה או במתנות אחרות. לדעת שני התנאים בסוריה חייבים להרים חלה, וכנראה בחוץ לארץ חובה זו עמומה יותר, כמו שראינו לעיל פ\"א מ\"א.", + "בתוספתא מובאת מסורת אחרת: \"וכן היה רבי לעזר בי רבי צדוק אומר לא היה רבן גמליאל מחייב בסוריא אלא חלה אחת בלבד\" (פ\"ב ה\"ה). אם כן, גם רבן גמליאל מחייב רק חלה אחת. עם זאת, מכמה מקורות מקבילים ברור שאכן היה נוהג ידוע להרים בסוריה שתי חלות: \"מי גרם לי להיות נוטר את הכרמים? על שם כרמי שלי לא נטרתי. מי גרם לי להיות משמרת שני ימים בסוריא? על שלא שמרתי יום אחד בארץ. סבורה הייתי שאני מקבלת שכר על שנים, ואיני מקבלת שכר אלא על אחת. מי גרם לי להפריש שתי חלות בסוריא? על שלא הפרשתי חלה אחת בארץ. סבורה הייתי שאני מקבלת שכר על שתים, ואיני מקבלת שכר אלא על אחת. רבי יוחנן קרי עליהון: גם אני נתתי להם חוקים לא טובים\"200ירו', עירובין פ\"ג ה\"ח, כא ע\"ג; שיר השירים רבה, א ו; פסיקתא דרב כהנא, יד, עמ' 244. . זו דרשה להלכות שונות. ההלכה קובעת שיש לשמור יום טוב במשך יומיים מסיבות טכניות, וחכמים רואים בכך עונש. הוא הדין בשתי החלות. הן נקבעו מסיבות טכניות, אך נתפסות כעונש. שתי ההלכות הללו הן ביטוי לעונש הגלות ולדלות שבאה על העם עקב חטאים שונים. אלו הם החוקים שאינם טובים, כפי שמגדיר אותם רבי יוחנן. ", + "רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק חי בחצרו של רבן גמליאל ומוסר רבות על מעשיו ונוהגיו. משום מה מסורות אלו עומדות לעתים קרובות בניגוד לסתם המשנה201תוס', ביצה פ\"ב הי\"ג; בבלי, כב ע\"ב; פירושנו לביצה פ\"ב מ\"ו; דמאי פ\"ב מ\"ד; כלאים פ\"ז מ\"ב; תוס', ברכות פ\"ב ה\"ו, ועוד. .", + "אחזו קולו של רבן גמליאל מקולו – כך רק בכתב יד קופמן, ביתר עדי הנוסח: \"קולו\" או \"וקולו\", של רבי אליעזר – הציבור הקל. אריסים נהגו שלא להפריש מעשרות (וחלה?), וכן לא להפריש שתי חלות. שיטה זו של פסיקה לפי המקל נחשבה בעיני חז\"ל למגונה: \"לעולם הלכה כדברי בית הלל... התופס קולי בית שמיי וקולי בית הלל רשע, אלא אם כדברי בית שמיי כקוליהן וכחומריהן אם כדברי בית הלל כקוליהן וכחומריהן\"202תוס', סוכה פ\"ב ה\"ג; יבמות פ\"א הי\"ג; בבלי, עירובין ו ע\"ב; ראש השנה יד ע\"ב, ועוד. כן מפרש בעל אור זרוע, הלכות חלה סימן רנ. . ", + "חזרו לנהוג כדברי רבן גמליאל בשתי דרכים – כאמור, זו התביעה של חכמים שהיחיד או הציבור יהלכו לפי שיטתו של אחד החולקים בצורה עקבית ולא ילכו אחר הקולות או אחר החומרות. חכמים אינם מזכירים אפשרות נוספת, שהיחיד ינהג לפי שיקול דעתו בכל מקרה ומקרה לגופו203לתרבות המחלוקת וההכרעה של חז\"ל ראו בנספח למסכת ביצה. . המשנה מהלכת, כמובן, שלא לשיטת רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק, וכן המשנה הבאה. " + ], + [ + "רבן גמליאל אומר שלוש ארצות לחלה – לפי שיטתו של רבן גמליאל העולם מתחלק לשלוש ארצות לעניין חלה: ארץ ישראל, סוריה וחוץ לארץ. אבל לפי רבי אליעזר סוריה היא כארץ ישראל לעניין חלה, וגם לעניין אריסות (לדיני שביעית ומעשרות). עם זאת, גם רבי אליעזר מודה בהבדל שבין סוריה לארץ ישראל לעניין טומאה, סוריה טמאה וארץ ישראל טהורה, אך לעניין חובת חלה דינן זהה. קיימים הבדלים נוספים בין סוריה לארץ ישראל ומן הסתם רבי אליעזר מודה גם בהם, כפי ששנינו במשנת שביעית (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"ב). החלוקה הגאוגרפית המוצעת במשנתנו היא זו המוצעת גם לדיני שביעית, ושם היא כדעת הכול.", + "ארץ ישראל עד גזיב – הנוסח \"גזיב\" הוא בכתב יד קופמן ובעדים אחדים נוספים204ג2, ג5, ז, ל, פ. , וביתר עדי הנוסח \"כזיב\". חילופים דומים מצאנו בנוסח שבמשנת שביעית (פ\"ו מ\"ב) ודמאי (פ\"א מ\"ג). הנוסח \"כזיב\" מבוסס על הכתיב המקראי \"אכזיב\", ויש להניח ש\"גזיב\" הוא ההגייה המקובלת באותה תקופה לשם המקום. השם היווני היה אקדיפה (Έκδιππα – Ecdippa)205צפריר ואחרים, טבולה, עמ' 115. . נראה שלפנינו מעתק, נדיר יחסית, של כ-ג. מכל מקום, \"כזיב\" או \"גזיב\" היא האתר מצפון לעכו, ליד קיבוץ גשר הזיו של ימינו (איור 18).", + "השאלה עד היכן משתרעים גבולותיה של ארץ ישראל עומדת במרכזן של הלכות רבות. יש לה משמעות הלכתית נכבדת בתחומי מעשרות, תרומה, שביעית וכיוצא באלו, בתחומי טהרה ובסדרת תחומים נוספים. התיאור המפורט ביותר של גבולות הארץ מופיע בברייתת התחומין. זו רשימה בארמית של יישובי הגבול והיא מופיעה בתוספתא ובירושלמי למשנתנו (תוס', פ\"ד ה\"י; ירו', לו ע\"ג), בספרי (ספרי דברים, עקב נא, עמ' 117) ובכתובת רחוב206זוסמן, כתובת; זוסמן, ברייתת התחומים. עסקו בה רבים, ראו פליקס, כתובת רחוב, עמ' 47-31, ובעמ' 33 הערה 100 רשימת ספרות. הדיונים האחרונים משקפים כבר את השימוש בכתובת רחוב, ראו פרנקל ופינקלשטיין, מקצוע; ספראי, תחומים. . זמנה עורר מחלוקת במחקר. קליין טען כי היא מימי הורדוס, ברם ספראי הראה כי אין להקדימה בהרבה לימי דור אושא, שכן החומר שבה מתאים לתקופה זו. הברייתא מתמקדת בעיקר בגליל, והדבר מבטא את ריכוז היישוב היהודי בגליל לאחר מרד בר כוכבא, על כן יש להעריך שהיא נערכה בדור אושא לכל המוקדם. אבל ייתכן שמי שערך אותה באותו דור ביטא את מצב היישוב כפי שהכיר גם מהעבר. מי שערך את החומר לא עדכן בהכרח את ממצאיו עד לזמנו, כך שאולי הברייתא משקפת גם את זיכרונותיו. מעבר לכך, אין בידינו ברייתות מימי בית שני, וקשה להניח כי אלו נשמרו, על כן יש להעדיף את התיארוך המאוחר.", + "נוסף על הברייתא בידינו רשימה ארוכה של דיונים על אזורים מסוימים וגבולותיהם. בירושלמי למשנתנו מרוכז חלק מהדיונים. חלק גדול מההלכות נאסף בכתובת רחוב. תושבי רחוב, כפר קטן בעמק בית שאן, חשבו כי חשוב שכל המידע על גבולות הארץ והאזורים האסורים והמותרים ירוכז בכתובת. הם חרטו את הכתובת על טיח קיר בית הכנסת, ושבריה התגלו. בנוסף לכך, כאשר תיקנו את בית הכנסת הציבו העתק שלה על רצפת מסדרון הכניסה של בית הכנסת. כתובת זו היא מהארוכות בארץ, ומכילה אפוא חומר הלכתי רב. נראה שלעותק זה של הכתובת צירפו קטע מעודכן מימיהם העוסק ברשימת הכפרים המותרים בתחום שומרון207זוסמן, כתובת. הכתובת על הטיח טרם פורסמה. זמנה של הכתובת והפרשנות הגאוגרפית לה מחייבים דיון בפני עצמו. . ", + "כזיב מופיעה כגבול ארץ ישראל גם במקורות מקבילים. במשנת דמאי ובמשנת שביעית היא מופיעה כגבול ארץ ישראל, ואלו משניות המקבילות בתוכנן למשנתנו208משנה, דמאי פ\"א מ\"ג וראו פירושנו לה; חלה פ\"ד מ\"ח, ומקבילות רבות שחלק מהן תובאנה להלן. . כן נקבע שם שכזיב עצמה היא חלק מארץ ישראל209תוס', דמאי פ\"א ה\"י, וכן יוצא מתוס', מעשר שני פ\"ג הי\"ח המתארת הפרשת מעשרות על ידי בעל בית אחד מכזיב. המעשה שם הוא מדור אושא. . משנת חלה מיוחסת לרבן גמליאל, והגבול משקף, אפוא, את תפיסת בני דורו. מעניין הוא סיפורו של רבי יהודה על שגביון, ראש בית הכנסת מכזיב, שלקח כרם רבעי מגוי בסוריה, ובא דינו לפני רבן גמליאל (תוס', תרומות פ\"ב הי\"ג)210סיפור אחר על ביקורו של רבן גמליאל בכזיב מופיע בתוס', פסחים פ\"ב הט\"ו. . רבן גמליאל הכיר, אפוא, את המקום ובדורו הוא מתואר כיישוב ספר, על הגבול עם סוריה. במונח \"סוריה\" עצמו נדון במשנה הבאה. ", + "התוספתא מגדירה את הגבול מעט אחרת: \"ואי זו היא ארץ ישראל, מנהר דרומה של כזיב והלך. סמוך לעמון ומואב ארץ מצרים שתי ארצות הן, או נאכל ונעבד או לא נאכל ולא נעבד\" (תוס', שביעית פ\"ד ה\"ו). אם כן, הגבול הוא מנהר דרומה של כזיב. נראה שהכוונה לנחל כזיב הנשפך מצפון לכזיב, כך שכזיב עצמה היא בתחומי הארץ. את המשפט בתוספתא יש להבין \"מהנהר של כזיב דרומה\", וכן יש להבין את המקבילה בתוספתא חלה (פ\"ב ה\"ו). מכל מקום, אי אפשר לפרש שהכוונה לנחל געתון שמדרום לכזיב, משום שאז כזיב עצמה תימצא בחוץ לארץ.", + "בתוספתא אהלות יש תיאור מדויק יותר של הגבול: \"ההולך מעכו לכזיב מימינו למזרח הדרך טהור משום ארץ העמים וחייב במעשר ובשביעית, עד שתיודע שהיא פטורה. משמאל למערב הדרך טמאה משום ארץ העמים, ופטורה מן המעשרות ומן השביעית, עד שתיודע שהיא חייבת. עד כזיב רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משם אביו עד לכלאבי\" (פי\"ח הי\"ד, עמ' 617). אם כן, שתי נקודות המפנה הן עכו וכזיב. כל השטח עד עכו הוא ארץ ישראל לכל דבר (ראו להלן), ומעכו לכזיב משתרע תחום מעבר. הדרך הנזכרת היא כביש החוף הרומי שעבר 1-3 ק\"מ ממזרח לחוף, ושרידיו נתגלו. ממערב לדרך רוב השטח הוא חוץ לארץ, וממזרח הוא יהודי עד כזיב. ", + "אותה ברייתא מצוטטת גם בתלמוד הבבלי, אבל בצורה הפוכה: \"היה מהלך מעכו לכזיב, מימינו למזרח – הדרך טמאה משום ארץ העמים, ופטורה מן המעשר ומן השביעית, עד שיודע לך שהיא חייבת. משמאלו למערב – הדרך טהורה משום ארץ העמים, וחייבת במעשר ובשביעית, עד שיודע לך שהיא פטורה. עד היכן? עד כזיב, רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משום אביו: עד לבלבו\" (גיטין ז ע\"ב). פרשנים התחבטו בסתירה שבין שתי הברייתות, והרמב\"ם תירץ תירוץ מחוכם כאילו היו שני כבישים לאורך החוף211ראו פליקס, שביעית ח\"ב, עמ' 26. . אבל אין צורך כאן בתירוץ מחוכם. ברור שלפנינו אותה ברייתא שנמסרה בצורות שונות. ברור גם שהטעות היא טעות של העתקה, וכל שנותר הוא לברר איזה נוסח עדיף. דומה שמבחינה גאוגרפית לנוסח של התוספתא עדיפות גדולה, שהרי הגליל שממזרח לכביש היה יהודי, ואילו רצועת החוף נכרית יותר. ", + "כאמור, רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי מציע נקודת גבול אחרת, לכלאבי או לבלבו, שם של מקום שנמסר בצורות שונות וזיהויו מסופק. מכל מקום, רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי שחי בדור רבי מכיר את קו הגבול של כזיב, ומציע תיקון. ייתכן שתיקון זה משקף שינוי יישובי שחל באיזור, כפי שנציע להלן.", + "על קו הגבול המדויק בגזרה זו של עמק עכו אנו יודעים מסדרת מקורות, וממבט ראשון התמונה נראית כסותרת את עצמה.", + "העדויות הן:", + "1. עכו היא הגבול, ועכו עצמה כארץ ישראל. עכו כגבול מופיעה בברייתא של התחומים (להלן). החוקרים נחלקים על זמנה של ברייתא זו (להלן), מכל מקום הקטע העוסק בעכו מוכר היה לרבי יהודה ולרבי מאיר, שניהם מדור אושא, ונראה שקדם להם במעט212משנה, גיטין פ\"א מ\"ב; תוס', פ\"א ה\"ג. לדיון על כך ראו הדיונים על זמנה של ברייתת התחומים, להלן. . עכו כנקודת גבול נזכרת גם בשני מעשים מימיו של רבי יהודה הנשיא, ובכמה מימרות אמוראיות213ירו', לו ע\"ב; פ\"ד ה\"ט, לה ע\"ג; בבלי, כתובות סז ע\"א; גיטין עו ע\"ב; ראו עוד תוס', גיטין פ\"ז ה\"ז. . דומה, אפוא, שעכו שימשה כגבול ארץ ישראל במשך תקופה ממושכת ובכל תקופת התנאים, לפחות מדור יבנה ואילך. עם זאת, ממשנת אוהלות אנו שומעים שהיה ספק בדבר מעמדו של השטח מזרחית לעכו, והוחלט שהוא חוץ לארץ (משנה, אהלות פי\"ח מ\"ט). לא נאמר ממתי מקור זה, אך הוא נכלל במסגרת סדרת היתרים מדור רבי (להלן).", + "2. מעכו ממשיך הגבול בכיוון צפון מערב, כך מתואר הגבול בברייתא של התחומים.", + "3. הגבול ממשיך מעכו צפונה עד כזיב, כך יוצא ממשנתנו ומקבילותיה כפי שהובאו. ", + "4. באזור שבין עכו לראש הנקרה, בתחום צור, יש סדרת יישובים המוגדרים כיישובים אסורים, כלומר האזור נכרי ויש בו יישובים יהודיים. היישובים היהודיים מוגדרים כ\"אסורים\", כלומר על פרותיהם חלות המצוות התלויות בארץ. דומה שעדות זו מתאימה לתיאור לעיל, כל מקום ממזרח לכביש טהור (שייך לארץ ישראל) עד שייוודע לך שהוא אסור. כלומר, רוב היישוב נכרי, אך יש יישובים יהודיים214הרשימה מופיעה בתוס', פ\"ד ה\"ט; ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ד, ובכתובת רחוב. ראו זוסמן, כתובת. לזיהוי השמות ראו ספראי, פרקי גליל, עמ' 212-206. .", + "כל העדויות מעידות על מצב סטטי כמעט של יישוב יהודי רצוף עד עכו, ויישוב מעורב מצפון לו. אולי ניתן להצביע על התפתחות מסוימת והתחזקות היישוב היהודי בימי רבי. התפתחות זו באה לידי ביטוי ברשימת העיירות האסורות בתחום צור, ובדברי רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי.", + "עם זאת, דומה שאין במקורות אלו כדי להעלות את כל התמונה. מן העדות הארכאולוגית עולה בבירור שבכל האזור מהר מירון ועד לגבעות שממזרח למישור החוף לא היה יישוב יהודי. יוספוס לא בנה שם מבצרים, משמרות כהונה לא ישבו שם, אין שם שרידים של בתי כנסת (בניגוד למזרח הגליל, מזרחית לרכס הר מירון), ומעט מאוד שרידים יהודיים אחרים. לעומת זאת יש שם שרידים רבים של כנסיות ושל יישוב נוצרי215פרנקל ואחרים, גליל עליון. . לכאורה קל לפרש שברייתת התחומים קדומה, מימי בית שני. אז השתרע היישוב היהודי גם במערב הגליל העליון, לאחר מכן נסוג היישוב היהודי לחלקו המזרחי של הגליל. ברם, כפי שראינו, תיארוך מוקדם כזה לברייתת התחומים קשה ומעורר תמיהות.", + "על כן נראה לפרש שעד למאה השלישית היה היישוב במערב הגליל העליון דל ביותר, ורק בעמק עכו שגשגו יישובים רבים. זאת בגלל תנאי הקרקע ההרריים והאקולוגיים הקשים באזור. על כן לא בנה שם יוספוס מבצרים, ומשמרות כהונה לא הגיעו לשם. במאה השלישית התחזק והתמסד היישוב במערב הגליל העליון, אבל אז כבר התחזק גם היישוב הנכרי, והיהודים היו בו מיעוט. במאה השנייה היה בעמק עכו יישוב מעורב, על כן מציגה ברייתת התחומים כאילו היישוב היהודי מגיע עד עמק עכו וכוללת בתחום היישוב היהודי את מערב הגליל, הנטוש ברובו. מאוחר יותר התחזק היישוב הנכרי בהר, אך לכך אין ביטוי במקורות שבידינו.", + "חלה אחת – בכל ארץ ישראל מפרישים חלה אחת, כרגיל, מגזיב [ו]עד הנהר [ו]עד אמנם – גם במסכת שביעית גרס כתב יד קופמן \"מגזיב עד הנהר עד אמנם\". המגיה תיקן כך שמתקבל כאילו אמנה היא מקום נוסף, \"ועד הנהר ועד אמנם\", וכן בהרבה עדי נוסח כאן ובמסכת שביעית. כתב יד קופמן נוטה לעתים קרובות להשמיט את וי\"ו החיבור, והיעדרה אינו מעיד על תוכן המשפט. שם המקום הוא \"אמנם\"216כך ב- ג2, ג5, ז, ל, מ, פ. ב- ס, ץ – \"אמנום\". , ובעדי נוסח אחרים – \"אמנה\"217ראו גם פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"ב. . ברור ששם המקום הוא \"אמנה\", אך לא ברור האם הכוונה לנהר אמנה או שאלו שני מקומות: נהר ואמנה. בירושלמי: \"כיני מתניתא מגזיב ועד הנהר, מגזיב ועד אמנם (או אמנס)\" (שביעית פ\"ו ה\"א, לו ע\"ד), אם כן, שני מקומות הם. לזיהוי הנהר הועלו חמש הצעות, חלקן בלתי הגיוניות בעליל: א. נהר פרת, ב. נחל מצרים, ג. הירדן, ד. נהר אמנה, ה. הליטני. מכל אלו רק הליטני הוא גבול הגיוני מבחינה גאוגרפית, שהרי לא ייתכן שאזור רחוק יותר ייחשב כאילו היה ארץ ישראל, ולו גם כארץ ישראל מבחינה חלקית. נהר אמנה אינו בא בחשבון, משום שכאמור אמנה והנהר שני מקומות הם. לזיהוי אמנה הועלו שתי הצעות, האחת טוורוס אמנוס, הוא ההר המפריד בין סוריה ואסיה הקטנה, והאחרת נהר אמנה הזורם דרך דמשק לים התיכון. שוב! אילו היה הגבול רֵאלי הרי שטוורוס אמנוס רחוק מדי. עוד אפשרות היא שאמנה היא הר החרמון או הרכס שמול החרמון, כדברי הפסוק: \"תשורי מראש אמנה מראש שניר וחרמון\" (שיר השירים ד ח). אם כן, אמנה הוא ההר שמול רכס החרמון, ואם הנהר הוא ליטני נוצר משולש כזיב, נהר ליטני, החרמון, והוא תחום סוריה. להלן נשוב לשאלת הזיהוי, ומשמעותו של קו הגבול.", + "ולפנים – כך בכל כתבי היד, ויש פרשנים הגורסים \"ולחוץ\"218בעל מלאכת שלמה וגם בעל אור זרוע על אתר דנים בכך, ועוד. , וכן במסכת שביעית. ברור שמבחינה גאוגרפית הכוונה מאמנה והלאה, כלפי חוץ לארץ, ולפיכך תיקנו את הנוסח. ברם, הכותב כתב מבחינתו של מי שחי בחוץ לארץ ו\"לפנים\" פירושו הלאה, צפונה מארץ ישראל, לפנים חוץ לארץ.", + "שתי חלות – זו הרחבה של ההלכה במשנה הקודמת, ויש בה פירוט יתר.", + "אחת לאור – כי היא חלה טמאה, ואחת לכהן – חלה זו נתפסת כחולין ולכן הכוהן הטמא רשאי לאכלה בטומאה, שלאור יש לה שיעור – כי היא חלה לכל דבר. שיעור הרמת חלה טמאה לא נקבע במשנה, ושלכהן אין לה שיעור – זו אינה חלה ממש ולכן רשאי לתת כמה שלבו חפץ, ונשוב לכך בסוף פירושנו למשנה. הלכה זו מפרשת את חובת שתי החלות הנזכרת במשנה הקודמת, עם זאת מבחינה ספרותית היא מלוקטת ממקור אחר, שכן יש בה הכפלה. לו היו המשניות ערוכות כגוש אחד צריך היה ההסבר לבוא במשנה הקודמת, או ששתי המשניות היו מאוחדות.", + "מהנהר [ו]מאמנה ולפנים – כל השטח מעבר לגבולות אלו הוא חוץ לארץ, שתי חלות אחת לאור ואחת לכהן – המשנה מניחה שיש להרים חלה גם בחוץ לארץ. בכך שונה דין חלה מדין שביעית שאינו חל בחוץ לארץ, שלאור אין לה שיעור – זו חלה טמאה והיא נתפסת כמעין גזרה מיוחדת של חכמים, שכן מן הדין היה שעיסת חוץ לארץ תהיה פטורה ממצוות חלה ולכן אין לה שיעור, ושלכהן יש לה שיעור – חכמים מקפידים שהכוהן יקבל את חלקו אף על פי שההרמה אינה חלה ממש, והא ראיה שאין חייבים לאכלה בטהרה. לא ברור למה בסוריה אין לה שיעור ואילו בחוץ לארץ יש לה שיעור. נשוב לכך בסוף פירושנו למשנה. מכל מקום, אין חובה להפריש פעמיים חלה כשיעור, שכן זו החמרה על בעל הבית. בסוריה נדרש שהחלה הראשונה תהיה כשיעור שכן היא חלה ממש, אך בחוץ לארץ החלה הראשונה היא סמלית, ולכן השנייה היא כשיעור. השיקול הוא, אפוא, לא רק טובת הכוהן, או טובת בעל הבית, אלא בעיקר שיקול פורמלי, מתי החלה היא אכן ביטוי ממשי של מצוות חלה עצמה.", + "וטבול יום אוכלה – את החלה שאינה חלה ממש רשאי לאכול גם מי שטמא במידת מה. טבול יום הוא מי שטבל וממתין לרדת הערב (\"הערב שמש\"), ואז יהיה טהור. כל המערך הוא סמלי ואינו משפטי. השוהה בחוץ לארץ הוא טמא טומאת מת וממילא צריך להמתין שבעה ימים בתנאי טהרה, לטבול בימים השלישי והשביעי ולהזות מי חטאת. כל עניין טבילת הערב שמש הוא אפוא במישור הסמלי בלבד, שכן גם אחריה הטובל איננו טהור. החלה אינה חלה ממש, אבל גם לא התירו לאכלה בטומאה מלאה. מבחינה הלכתית אין מצב של \"טהרה חלקית\", אך במישור הסמלי דרשו חכמים שהכוהן ייטהר באופן חלקי כדי לבטא את קדושת החלה. לכאורה כל המשנה היא תימא, הרי אין טהרה בחוץ לארץ ולא בסוריה. ברם, בנספח למסכת שביעית ראינו שהלכות טהרה נשמרו בחלקן גם בחוץ לארץ.", + "רבי יוסה219בכתב יד ליידן של הירושלמי: רבי יהודה, ואף בעל אור זרוע, הלכות חלה רנא, הכיר גרסה זו. אומר אינו צריך טבילה – רבי יוסי חולק וסובר שהחלה היא חולין לחלוטין ואפילו טבילה אינו צריך, ואסורה לזבים ולזבות ולנידות וליולדות – שתי אפשרויות לפרש את המשפט: או שהמשנה חוזרת לדעת חכמים וקובעת שרק טבול יום אוכל מהחלה ולא טמאים ממש, או שכאן רבי יוסי מודה. מי שטמא טומאת הערב שמש רשאי לאכול מהחלה ללא טבילה, אך הטמאים טומאה כבדה כזבים ונידות אינם רשאים לאכול מהחלה.", + "התלמוד מנמק את המיוחד בטומאת נידה וזיבה שהן \"טומאה יוצאה מגופו\" (ירו', ס ע\"א). נימוק דומה לעניינים אחרים מופיע פעמים מספר גם בתלמוד הבבלי: \"טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו\"220בבלי, פסחים סז ע\"א; בכורות לג ע\"א; זבחים יד ע\"ב, ומקבילות נוספות. . ההלכה עצמה אינה מבחינה בעצם ברמת הטומאה. יש מספר סוגי טומאה וההבדל ביניהם הוא במשך הטומאה (שבעה ימים או יום אחד) ובשאלה האם הטמא מטמא חפצים אחרים, אבל לכאורה לכל החפצים (או האנשים) הטמאים דין אחד בכל הנוגע לאיסורים החלים עליהם עד שייטהרו. ברם, במקורות מופיעה סדרה של טומאות חמורות והיא חוזרת כסדרה ספרותית: \"זבים וזבות, נדות ויולדות\". רק אלו אינם רשאים לעלות להר הבית (משנה, כלים פ\"א מ\"ח; ספרי זוטא, ה, עמ' 228). אם הפסח נאכל בטומאה, כאשר כל העם טמא, ההיתר חל על כל הטמאים, אך לא על קבוצה זו (תוס', פסחים פ\"ח הי\"ט, ומקבילות והלכות דומות). כך גם נקבע שבכור שנפל בו מום בית שמאי אומרים שנידה אינה רשאית לאכול ממנו ובית הלל מתירים (תוס', בכורות פ\"ג הט\"ז, עמ' 538). הבבלי מאחד את כל המימרות הללו ומנמק את כולן בנימוק של התלמוד הירושלמי כאן, שכל אלו חריגים משום שזו \"טומאה יוצאה מגופו\". ", + "כבר בשלב זה ניתן להסיק שהקבוצה של \"זבים וזבות, נדות ויולדות\" היא קבוצה מיוחדת שהיחס אליה חמור במיוחד כבר בתקופת התנאים. עם זאת, הנימוק \"טומאה יוצאה מגופו\" הוא ניסוח אמוראי בלבד. אם ההלכה שאין מאכילים את הבכור לנידה נובעת מאותו נימוק הרי שעיקרון זה הוא דעת בית שמאי, ובית הלל חולקים עליו. אם כן, כל המקורות התומכים בגישה זו קרובים לבית שמאי או מושפעים ממנו. אין בכך כל תימה, שהרי מצינו הלכות רבות שהן כבית שמאי, או שדעת בית שמאי נדחתה להלכה אבל מרכיבים ממנה חדרו להלכה221ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי. . עם זאת, ספק אם אכן כל המקרים דומים לחלוטין זה לזה. אין בהלכה כל הגדרה ברורה מה הייחוד ההלכתי של אלו שטומאה יוצאת מגופם; מעמדם חמור יותר, אך לא נקבע בדיוק במה. הרמב\"ם חש בכך ומסביר בפירושו למשנתנו: \"והוא היקש וסברה אמיתית שדמה אותה בזו\". היקש וסברה הם מונחים הבאים לומר שאין כאן הוכחה רגילה אלא סברה של התנא.", + "דומה שהנימוק \"טומאה היוצאה מגופו\" הוא לבוש משפטי לתחושה אחרת. בשתי טומאות אלו הנהיגו ההלכה והציבור היהודי סדרת החמרות. אלו מבטאות את אופיין המיוחד של טומאות אלו, שאינן רק טומאה רגילה אלא גם קשורה לשאלות של מגע בין שני המינים, טומאה הקשורה גם לאיברי המין. הבולטת בקבוצה זו היא טומאת בעל קרי שהונהגו בו חומרות וקולות מיוחדות. חלק מהן הועברו בספרות האמוראית והבתר אמוראית גם על טומאת נידה (ויולדת)222ראו פירושנו לברכות פ\"ג מ\"ד. .", + "[ו]נאכלת עם הזר על השלחן – המשנה מניחה הלכה או נוהג שאינו מוכר ממקורות אחרים. נראה שנהגו כוהנים שלא לאכול עם \"זר\", כלומר עם ישראל טהור, על אותו שולחן. איננו מפרשים שהישראל טמא שכן ההלכה שטהור לא ישב על ספסל או שולחן אחד עם טמא היא כללית יותר, ואז היה צריך לנסחה \"עם הטמא\" ולא \"עם הזר\". ההלכה מעידה על נוהגי התבדלות של הכוהנים ותחושת העיליתיות שלהם ואינה נדרשת בהלכה הפורמלית. עם זאת, כפי שנראה כאן חכמים מקבלים נוהג מקפיד זה ומקלים בחוץ לארץ וסוריה223הבבלי, חולין קד ע\"א, לומד מכאן שאין גוזרים גזרה לגזרה, שהרי הפרשת חלה בחוץ לארץ היא גזרה ואיסור האכילה עם הזר הוא גזרה נוספת. הכלל כולו אינו מוכר במקורות תנאיים ואמוראי ארץ ישראל חלקו עליו, ראו פירושנו לשבת פ\"ב מ\"ב; פכ\"ד מ\"ד. . מעניין לציין שהמשנה רומזת להלכה או לנוהג של התבדלות שאין לו מקור אחר. אף על פי כן אין המפרשים עומדים על כך שלפנינו הלכה מחודשת. הם מסבירים אותה על בורייה כמובן, אך אינם עוסקים במשמעות החברתית של החידוש.", + "וניתנת לכל כהן – בדרך כלל הקפידו שלא לתת תרומה לכוהן שאינו מקפיד על דיני טהרה (ראו במשנה הבאה). אך תרומה בחוץ לארץ ובסוריה, שהיא בעצם טמאה ואינה חלה ממש, ניתן לתת גם לכוהן כזה שאולי לא יקפיד על הלכותיה.", + "ההלכות המיוחדות מוסברות בחשש של \"מה יבינו הרואים כיצד נוהגים בחלה זו\": \"שלאור יש לה שיעור, שהוא דבר תורה. שלכהן אין לה שיעור, שהיא מדבריהן. ויפריש לאור ולא יפריש לכהן? שלא יהו אומרים ראינו תרומה טהורה נשרפת. ויפריש לכהן ולא יפריש לאור? שלא יהו אומרים ראינו תרומה טמיאה נאכלת. מתוך שהוא מפריש שתיהן לכשהוא בא לכאן הוא נשאל. וזו וזו מדבריהן הוא. מוטב לרבות בנאכלת ולא לרבות בנשרפת\" (ירו', ס ע\"א). למרות ההסבר דומה שהסיבה העיקרית היא הרצון לשמור על מסגרת של נתינה אמִתית גם בחוץ לארץ. אם הכוהן לא יקבל חלה של ממש תהפוך המצווה לכלי ריק מתוכן, על כך צריכה להישמר מסגרת הנתינה הכפולה שבה יקבל הכוהן משהו ממשי לידיו.", + "בסיום המשנה עלינו לחזור לשאלת הפרשת חלה בחוץ לארץ. מצוות חלה נתפסת באופן טבעי כאחת המצוות התלויות בארץ. כפי שאמרנו במבוא למסכת תרומות, למונח \"תלויות בארץ\" כמה משמעויות אפשריות: או שהמצווה תלויה בפסוק הקושר אותן לארץ, או שהיא קשורה מטבעה לפרי הארץ. מצוות חלה עומדת בשני קריטריונים אלו. נאמר עליה במפורש: \"בבאכם אל הארץ אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה, והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ...\" (במדבר טו יז-יט). מצד שני היא גם נעשית בפרי שהוא תוצרת הארץ, כמעשרות וכפאה.", + "בכל המקורות התנאיים ברור שחלה היא מהמצוות התלויות בארץ. גם במשנת קידושין (פ\"א מ\"ט) המונה את המצוות הללו נאמר רק שערלה, כלאיים ואולי גם מצוות חדש נוהגות בחוץ לארץ, אך ברור שחלה נוהגת רק בארץ. לעיל ראינו כי זאת גם הנחת המשנה (פ\"א מ\"א), אם כי המשנה מציגה תפיסה חריגה. פרות חוץ לארץ פטורים מחלה אך אם נכנסו לארץ חייבים בה, ופרות הארץ שיצאו לחוץ לארץ פטורים לדעת רבי עקיבא ממצוות חלה. התפיסה שם היא שפרות הארץ לצורך מצוות חלה אינם רק אלו שגדלו בה, אלא אלו הנמצאים בה בשעת הפרשת חלה. עם כל זאת, בספרותנו יש רמזים לכך שבני ישראל התחייבו במצוות חלה, באופן זמני, כבר במדבר: \"בבאכם אל הארץ – קבל עליך עד שלא תבא אל הארץ. כשתבוא אל הארץ להפריש חלה, בזכות שתקבל עליך אתה בא אל הארץ. יכול כיון שבאו לארץ יהו חייבין להפריש חלה שבחוצה לארץ? אמרת לא אמרתי אלא 'אשר אני מביא אתכם' – שמה אתם חייבין להפריש חלה ולא בחוצה לארץ\" (ספרי זוטא, טו יז, עמ' 283; ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 113). מכל מקום, מסקנת המדרש היא שמצוות חלה חלה רק בארץ, והרחבנו על כך במבוא.", + "ממשנתנו משמע בפשטות שחובת חלה היא גם בחוץ לארץ. מפשט המשנה ניתן להבין כך, אם כי הפרשת החלה בחוץ לארץ היא הפרשה מטומאה ועל כן חלים עליה דינים מיוחדים. הפרשת חלה בחוץ לארץ נעשית אחרת מכפי שהיא נעשית בסוריה. גם סוריה טמאה בטומאת ארץ העמים, ואף על פי כן דיני חלה בה שונים מאלו שבחוץ לארץ. נמצאנו למדים שהמשנה מניחה בפשטות שחוץ לארץ שונה מסוריה, והפרשת החלה בה היא ברמה אחרת מזו שבארץ.", + "הירושלמי מגדיר זאת שהפרשת החלה בחוץ לארץ היא \"מדבריהם\". הגדרה זו אינה במקורות התנאיים, אבל היא בהחלט משתמעת מהמשנה. ייתכן שההגדרה האמוראית היא הגדרה משפטית של מגמה תנאית, אבל גם במשנה ברור למדי שיש לקיים את מצוות חלה בחוץ לארץ, אך היא שונה מכפי שהיא מתקיימת בארץ. עם זאת, את המשנה אפשר לפרש גם שהרמת חלה בחוץ לארץ אינה חובה (\"מדבריהם\", או \"גזרה\") אלא תלויה ברצונו של אדם. כך משמע מההקשר של משנה י (להלן).", + "בתלמוד הבבלי נקבע שיש להפריש חלה גם בחוץ לארץ \"כי היכי דלא תשתכח חובת חלה\" (בבלי, בכורות כז ע\"א). הנימוק עצמו מופיע בתלמוד הבבלי גם בהקשרים אחרים (בכורות יח ע\"א; עירובין ע ע\"א; סוכה לא ע\"ב). סוגיית התלמוד במסכת בכורות עוסקת למעשה בכל הפרשת תרומות בחוץ לארץ, ושם מובאות הטענות שיש להפריש תרומות בחו\"ל, וההפרשה היא כתרומה לכל דבר. בנספח למסכת שביעית הרחבנו בנושא וראינו כי אכן בין אמוראי בבל רווחה דעה כזאת. חכמי הארץ התייחסו לכך בהסתייגות מסוימת. המשפט המצוטט עוסק כאילו רק בחלה, אך ההקשר הוא, כאמור, כללי יותר. גם חכמי בבל לא חשבו שהפרשת תרומות בחוץ לארץ היא מצווה ממש אלא ששאפו להחמיר על עצמם. כך, למשל, הסוגיה הסתמית מסיקה שאי אפשר לפרש הלכה מסוימת בחוץ לארץ, משום שאין בה הפרשת מעשר וחלה (בבלי, בבא מציעא פט ע\"א, וראו תוספות שם ד\"ה \"אי הכי\").", + "הבדל גדול יש בין משנתנו לחובת חלה בחוץ לארץ כפי שהיא משתקפת בתלמוד הבבלי. במשנתנו מדובר בשתי חלות, וזו \"של אור\" היא בשיעור הרגיל. לכל היותר ניתן לפרש שחלה \"של אור\" יש להפריש אחד חלקי ארבעים ושמונה, כשם שתרומה טמאה מפרישים בשיעור הנמוך של אחד משישים (תוס', תרומות פ\"ה ה\"ו). אבל הבבלי מדבר על הפרשה של חלה אחת, ואינו אומר האם יש להפריש כשיעור. מפרשי הבבלי והפוסקים הבינו כולם שחלה בחוץ לארץ יש להפריש כלשהו ולא כשיעור. הבבלי מתעלם, אפוא, ממשנתנו, כפי שהוא אינו מעניק משקל מכריע גם למשניות אחרות מסדר זרעים. מן הראוי להעיר שראשונים אשר חיפשו מקור לנוהג של ימיהם להקפיד, הקפדה יתרה, על הפרשת חלה בחוץ לארץ השעינו דבריהם על סוגיית הבבלי ולא על משנתנו, אם כי היו גם שהזכירו בהקשר זה את משנתנו, כגון הרא\"ש לחולין (קד ע\"א). לעיל הזכרנו מקורות מדרשיים המזכירים את חובת הפרשת שתי החלות בסוריה כנוהג רגיל224ירו', עירובין פ\"ג ה\"ט, כא ע\"א; שיר השירים רבה, א ו; פסיקתא דרב כהנא, יד, עמ' 244. . מעניין שכולם מדברים על סוריה בהקשר זה, ולא על חוץ לארץ, וכאילו חובה זו אינה חלה על חוץ לארץ, כפי שגם משמע מהתלמוד הבבלי. המדרשים מציגים, אפוא, את דברי התלמוד הבבלי כנוהג המקובל ולא את המשנה. המדובר בירושלמי עירובין ובפסיקתא דרב כהנא, המשקפים את תורת ארץ ישראל, וכן בשיר השירים רבה שניכרת בו גם השפעה בבלית. זאת ועוד; המקורות הללו, במקביל לחובת שתי חלות, מדברים גם על חובת שני ימים של יום טוב. בירושלמי ובפסיקתא דרב כהנא מדובר על שני ימים טובים בחו\"ל. כידוע, חובת שני ימים טובים היא בכל הגלויות. המדרשים נגררו, אפוא, אחרי המקובל להפריש שתי חלות רק בסוריה, ואגב גררה דיברו על שני ימים של יום טוב בסוריה225רק בשיר השירים נשמרת האבחנה: שני ימים טובים בחו\"ל ושתי חלות בסוריה. . מכאן משמע שהמדרשים הכירו מציאות של הפרשת שתי חלות רק בסוריה ולא בחו\"ל. בחוץ לארץ נהגו, אפוא, כפי שנקבע בתלמוד הבבלי. קשה, כמובן, לדעת האם הדברים משקפים את הנוהג בבבל בלבד (בבל היא הביטוי המעשי של חוץ לארץ), או שמא המסורת המדרשית משקפת גם את הנוהג בסוריה להפריש רק חלה אחת.", + "הלכה לדורות נקבע שאין מפרישים תרומות בחוץ לארץ, אך חובת הפרשת חלה נקבעה כהלכה לכל דבר. הפוסקים ניסחו, אמנם, את הדבר בזהירות כחובה מדרבנן או מדברי סופרים בלבד (רמב\"ם, הלכות ביכורים פ\"ה הי\"ב; ספר יראים, קמח, וכיוצא באלו רבים), עם זאת בתודעת העם נקבעה החובה להפריש חלה כהלכה לכל דבר. הקלו מעט בפרטיה, וכמובן החלה שהורמה הושמדה ולא ניתנה לכוהן, אך בתודעה העממית זו נתפסה כחובה חמורה. דוגמה נוספת למיוחדותה של המצווה יש בכך שרבנו המאירי, למשל, אף שלא פירש את משניות זרעים (להוציא את מסכת ברכות כמובן), הקדיש פירוש קצר למסכת חלה ומספר כיצד מקובל היה לשנותה לאחר מסכת פסחים226ראו במבוא למסכתנו. . במבוא עסקנו בשאלה זו ותלינו את גורלה המיוחד של המצווה במקומה במטבח ובמעורבות העמוקה של הנשים במצווה זו דווקא." + ], + [ + "אלו ניתנין לכל כהן – משנה זו מציגה את המערך הכולל שתוצאה שלו נרמזה במשנה הקודמת. כוהן שאינו שומר על דיני טהרה קשה למסור לו תרומות ומעשרות, שהרי חל עליו הדין הידוע שאין למסור טהרות לעם הארץ. עם זאת, כפי שנראה בסיכום המשנה הדינים בנושא אינם רק תוצאה מעין טכנית של אי ההקפדה על מצוות טהרה. ", + "החרמים – החרם שנמסר למקדש מגיע לכוהנים, כמו גם חרמי כוהנים. הביטוי \"חרם\" נזכר במקרא (ויקרא כז כא). הביטוי \"חרם\" הוא כמובן עמום. מי בפועל רשאי לעבד את אדמת החרם? מי הוא המייצג הארצי של קודש הקודשים? גם חז\"ל התחבטו בשאלה: יש אומרים כי הקרקע תינתן לכוהן, ולדעת רבי יהודה בן בתירא תוקדש הקרקע לבדק הבית, אך לא ברור האם היא נמכרת או מוחזקת כרכוש המקדש (ספרא בחוקותי, פרק יב ד-ה; ספרי במדבר, קיז, עמ' 137). לדעת רבי שמעון נמסר הכסף או הקרקע ל\"שמים\", ושוב לא ברור מי מייצג את השמים לצורך עניין זה. במדרש אחר נקבע בפשטות שהחרם נמסר לכוהנים (ספרי זוטא לבמדבר, יח יד, עמ' 295). אגב, באותו קטע בספרא מסתייג רבי אלעזר בן עזריה וקובע שאסור לאדם להחרים את כל שדה אחוזתו, אלא רק חלק ממנו. בדברים אלה יש ביטוי ברור להסתייגות מעצם ההחרמה. בפסוק אחר נאמר: \"כל חרם בישראל לך יהיה\" (במדבר יח יד, והשווה יחזקאל מד כט). אם כן, החרם ניתן במפורש לכוהן. לא נקבע כיצד החרמים מתחלקים בין הכוהנים. מכל מקום, על החרם לא חלים כל דיני טהרה ולכן אין מניעה שכל כוהן, גם אם הוא עם הארץ, יקבל חרמים.", + "והבכורות – הבכור מובא למקדש כקרבן ונשחט ובשרו ניתן לכוהנים, אבל הוא כחולין, כפי שאומרת המשנה: \"הבכור והמעשר והפסח קדשים קלים, שחיטתן בכל מקום בעזרה, ודמן טעון מתנה אחת... הבכור נאכל לכהנים והמעשר לכל אדם ונאכלין בכל העיר לכל אדם\" (זבחים פ\"ה מ\"ח), ופידיון הבן – לפי ההלכה המקראית את הבן הבכור פודים תמורת חמישה שקלים הניתנים לכוהן. הכוהן רשאי לעשות בהם כרצונו, ופידיון פטר חמור – בכור חמור אינו מוקרב, שהרי הוא בהמה טמאה, [ו]הזרוע והלחיים והקיבה – זו המתנה הניתנת לכוהן עם אכילת בשר \"תאוה\", כלומר בשר רגיל שאדם שוחט לשבעו שלא במסגרת הקרבן (דברים יח ג-ד), וראשית הגז – הכוונה למצווה להפריש לכוהן מעט מגז הרחלים, ושמן שריפה – שמן תרומה שנטמא. תרומה שנטמאת מותרת בהנאה. בדרך כלל ההנאה ממזון כזה מצומצמת, אבל בשמן הוא ראוי לשרפה והדלקת הנר. מכיוון שמדובר במוצר טמא מותר למסרו לכוהן שאינו מקפיד על טהרה, [ו]קודשי המזבח [וקדשי] המקדש – בכל יתר עדי הנוסח \"המקדש\" או \"מקדש\", ואין הבדל בין הנוסחאות מבחינת התוכן. הכוונה למתנות הכהונה הניתנות לכוהנים מהקרבנות. הכול נאמנים על טהרת הקודש בירושלים, ועל אחת כמה וכמה הכוהנים. כאן נוצר מצב אבסורדי, לכאורה. סתם כוהן שאינו \"חבר\" חשוד על אי שמירה של טהרת תרומה, אבל בירושלים הכוהנים נאמנים על טהרת הקודש. על גישה זו עמדנו בפירושנו למסכת חגיגה227ראו המבוא למסכת חגיגה, ופירושנו שם לפ\"ג מ\"ד ואילך. . הסיבה לכך כפולה. מצד אחד, כל הציבור הקפיד ככל יכולתו על טהרת הקודש ואיש לא התיר לעצמו לזלזל בה, ובמקביל הקפידו חכמים שלא להרחיק את העם מהמקדש והעניקו לו את מתת האמון. בלי אמון זה אי אפשר היה למשוך את המוני העם אל המקדש ולקרבם לעבודתו, והביכורים רבי יהודה אוסר בבכורים – כפי שהירושלמי מסביר, המחלוקת היא האם הכוהן חייב לאכול את הביכורים בטהרה או גם בטומאה: \"רבי יודה אוסר בביכורים. רבי יודה כדעתיה דו רבי (שרבי) יודה אמר 'אין נותנין אותן אלא לחבר בטובה'. אמר רבי יונה רבי עקיבה כדעתיה דו רבי עקיבה אמר כל מעשיהן בטומאה\" (ירו', ס ע\"ב). בדרך כלל סתם המשנה מניחה שביכורים ניתנים לכוהנים ונאכלים בטהרה, כתרומה. לכאורה יש להבין ממשנתנו שתנא קמא סבור שביכורים נאכלים בטומאה, והירושלמי מייחס את דעתו לרבי עקיבא ואינו מביא סמך לדבריו. ברם, הציטוט \"כל מעשיהן בטומאה\" חל על כרשיני תרומה בלבד (להלן). דברי רבי יונה באים, אפוא, לפרש את ההמשך של המשנה ולא פִסקה זו. נמצאנו למדים כי גם תנא קמא אינו סבור שמותר לאכול ביכורים בטומאה, אלא להפך, שהם קודש וניתנים לכל כוהן כשם שניתנים לו קודשי מזבח. במשנת ביכורים מוצאים להם שני ההסברים ביטוי: \"למה אמרו הבכורים כנכסי כהן228זו הפניה לפרק ב משנה א, וראו פירושנו לשתי המשניות הללו. , שהוא קונה מהם עבדים וקרקעות ובהמה טמאה, ובעל חוב נוטלן בחובו והאשה בכתובתה כספר תורה. ורבי יהודה אומר אין נותנים אותם אלא לחבר בטובה. וחכמים אומרים נותנין אותם לאנשי משמר, והם מחלקין ביניהם כקדשי המקדש\" (משנה, ביכורים פ\"ג מי\"ב). אם כן, ביכורים הם קודש אך הכוהן רשאי למכרם, ואולי משום כך מותר לתת אותם לכל כוהן. המשך המשנה מבסס את ההסבר השני. רבי יהודה מורה לתת את הביכורים לכוהן חבר אשר שומר על דיני טהרה, והוא רשאי להוציאם מחוץ לירושלים, כמו שפירשנו. אולם חכמים מורים לתת את הביכורים לכוהני המשמר דווקא, כקודשים, ואם כן על פרות הביכורים חלים דיני קודשים והכול נאמנים עליהם.", + "כרשני תרומה רבי עקיבה מתיר וחכמים אוסרין – כרישינים הם מאכל בהמה, ומאכל אדם רק בשעת הדחק. על כן נחלקים חכמים אם יש לשמור עליהם בטהרה, או שתרומת הכרשינים אינה תרומה. המחלוקת היא: \"כרשיני תרומה – בית שמאי אומרים שורין ושפין בטהרה ומאכילין בטומאה, בית הלל אומרים שורין בטהרה ושפין ומאכילין בטומאה. שמאי אומר יאכלו צריד, רבי עקיבא אומר כל מעשיהם בטומאה\" (משנה, עדיות פ\"א מ\"ח). במקביל שנינו דין זה גם במשנת מעשר שני (פ\"ב ה\"ד). המשנה במעשר שני מדברת על כרשיני מעשר שני, ואילו משנת עדיות על כרשיני תרומה, ומשנתנו מצטטת את משנת עדיות, שכן היא עוסקת במה שניתן לכוהן. האמורא רבי יוסי מציע לנתק בין משנתנו למחלוקת שציטטנו. לדעתו: \"אמר רבי יוסי אפילו תימא מחלפא שיטתיה שנייה היא שאין אדם מצוי לטמא אוכלי בהמתו\" (ירו', ס ע\"ב – אפילו תאמר שמוחלפת השיטה שונה היא...). כלומר, אפילו מי שסבור שכרשיני תרומה נעשים בטהרה הרי שכל כוהן אינו חשוד לטמא את אוכלי בהמתו. הנחתו הבסיסית היא שהכוהן טהור, ולכל היותר אינו מקפיד על נטילת ידיים, ובכך אין כדי לטמא את אוכלי הבהמה.", + "דין כרשיני תרומה נדון במפורט בפירושנו לתרומות (פי\"א מ\"ה) ולמעשר שני (פ\"ב מ\"ז). התוספתא למשנתנו (פ\"ב ה\"ז ואילך) מונה את כל מתנות הכהונה. ברייתא זו שובצה בחלק מכתבי היד למשנתנו (להלן מי\"ב ואילך), ואנו נדון בה להלן כאילו הייתה משנה.", + "המשנה אינה עוסקת בפרטי חלוקת מתנות הכהונה. חלק מהן ניתנות לכוהנים בגבולים, וממילא ניתנות לכל כוהן שבעל הבית בוחר בו. חלק מהן ניתנות לאנשי המשמר, כלומר לכוהנים במקדש העובדים באותו שבוע (ירו', ס ע\"א). ממקורות אחרים אנו שומעים שהם ניתנים לבית האב, כלומר לכוהנים העובדים באותו יום, ובמקביל התנהלו מאבקים על המתנות הרווחיות בין כוהני המשמר והכוהנים הגדולים (סגל הקבע הבכיר של המקדש). עסקנו בכך בקצרה בפירושנו לפאה פ\"א מ\"ו.", + "המשנה עדיין מניחה שכמעט כל כוהן זכאי לקבל את מתנות הכהונה. הכוהנים נהגו להקפיד על דיני טהרה, ואף נהגו סלסול בעצמם והחמירו אף יותר משדרשו חכמים בתחומים רבים. מאוחר יותר נוסחו הלכות שבאו להדיר את הכוהנים שאינם תלמידי חכמים. מהלך זו הוא חלק מעימות סמוי בין חכמים וכוהנים על ההנהגה הדתית, וחכמים מדגישים שאמנם הכהונה היא \"משאב כוח\" ומקור לסמכות דתית, אך לימוד התורה הוא חשוב יותר, ומהווה למעשה תנאי לכהונת אמת.", + "מתן התרומות הותנה בכך שהכוהן יהא חבר וישמור על דיני טהרה. הנימוק בעיקרו טכני, שכן אין למסור תרומה למי שחשוד על אכילתה שלא בטהרה: \"מה אהרן חבר אף בניו חברים. מיכן אמרו: אין נותנים מתנות אלא לחבר\"229ספרי במדבר, קכא, עמ' 148; תוס', פאה פ\"ד ה\"ז ומקבילות רבות. . \"חבר\" בהקשר זה אינו בהכרח לומד תורה. בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד היו למונח זה שתי משמעויות: \"חבר\" השומר על טהרה מחד גיסא, וחבר אחר הוא מי ששייך למעגל לומדי התורה, אף אם איננו חכם או תלמיד. יש להניח שקיימת הייתה זיקת קרבה חברתית בין שני המובנים, ובדרך כלל מי שהיה חבר לעניין טהרות היה גם מקורב ללומדי תורה230לדיון מפורט ראו ביכלר, עם הארץ; אופנהיימר, עם הארץ. . במקרה שלפנינו מדובר בכוהן, וכוהנים הקפידו, כאמור, על טהרתם ללא זיקה לעולמם של חכמים. מותר לנו, אפוא, להסיק שחכמים תבעו להפנות את התרומות לכוהנים \"חברים\", כלומר לאלו הקרובים לחברת החכמים.", + "בדרך דומה יש להבין עדויות מספר שלפיהן זכה אהרן להתמנות לכוהן בזכות תורתו: \"אהרן לא זכה לכהונה אלא בזכות התורה, שנאמר: כי שפתי כוהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו\"231אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"ב מח, עמ' 131. המדרש קשור למושג \"שלושה הכתרים\" אשר נדון במפורט על ידי כהן, שלושה כתרים. , והוא הדין בדרשות נוספות שכבר עסקנו בהן. אין זו תביעה הלכה למעשה, אך יש כאן בבחינת אווירה ורקע עקרוני לעולם ההלכתי.", + "במקורות אחרים הדברים מפורשים יותר: \"את מוצא שתי תרומות בחר הקדוש ברוך הוא, אחד למשכן ואחד לכוהנים, תרומת כוהנים, על מנת שיהיו בני תורה. אמר רבי ינאי: כל כוהן שאינו בן תורה, מותר לאכול על קברו תרומה... אמר רבי יצחק בשם רבי יוחנן... כיון שאינו בן תורה, אינו יודע להבדיל בין קודש לחול ובין הטמא לטהור. אומר: 'קדשי בזית ואת שבתותי חללת'. למה מבזה את הקדשים? שאינו יודע לשמור שבת. ראה כמה חביבה תרומת כוהנים שניתנה לכוהנים בני תורה...\" (תנחומא, תרומה א). רבי יוחנן מנמק את דבריו בחוסר הידיעה של הכוהן בכל הנוגע לדיני טומאה וטהרה, אך הוא מרחיב מיניה וביה את היריעה לידיעת הלכה כללית. יתר על כן, התביעה שכוהן יהיה בן תורה מופלגת בהרבה. רוב היהודים ידעו לשמור על דיני שבת, והדרישה שהכוהן יהיה \"בן תורה\" היא נרחבת מעבר לידיעת ההלכות, ויש בה היבט חברתי מובהק. מכוחם של נימוקים טכניים הלכתיים אלו מרחיבים החכמים, ובעיקר האמוראים, את המדרש התנאי ומחילים אותו על דיני תרומה. כמו כן: \" 'כי מלאך ה' צבאות הוא', אמר רבי יהודה: מכאן אמרו: כל כוהן שהוא אוכל בתרומה ואינו בן תורה אינו כוהן לעתיד לבוא, אלא נמאס מג' דברים... אבל אם היה בן תורה הוא כמלאך\" (שמות רבה, לח ג). הפסוק ומדרשו הופכים את הרעיון הפולמוסי המופשט לתביעה הלכתית משמעותית העשויה לנשל את רוב הכוהנים, שאינם חכמים, מנכסיהם הכלכליים232עדויות נוספות לזיקה שבין תלמוד תורה והפרשת התרומות מצויות במדרשים נוספים, כגון בראשית רבה, ד א, עמ' 950; ירו', סנהדרין פ\"ב ה\"ו, כ ע\"ד, ועוד. ברם, במקורות אלו חסרה ההתניה שכל מי שאינו בן תורה אינו זכאי למעשרות. . ברוח דומה מרחיב גם התלמוד הבבלי את המדרש התנאי: \"דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא: לאהרן מאהרן, מה אהרן חבר – אף בניו חברים. אמר רב שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יוחנן: מניין שאין נותנין תרומה לכוהן עם הארץ, שנאמר: ויאמר לעם ליושבי ירושלים לתת מנת הכהנים הלוים למען יחזקו בתורת ה' – כל המחזיק בתורת ה' יש לו מנת, ושאינו מחזיק בתורת ה' אין לו מנת. אמר רב אחא בר אדא אמר רב יהודה: כל הנותן תרומה לכהן עם הארץ כאילו נותנה לפני ארי... רבי יוחנן אמר: אף גורם לו מיתה... דבי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב תנא: אף משיאו עון אשמה...\" (בבלי, סנהדרין צ ע\"ב; חולין קל ע\"ב). יש להניח שהדרשות בתלמוד הבבלי מושפעות לא מעט מרוחו המיוחדת של תלמוד זה, אך רוח הדברים מצויה כבר במדרשי ארץ ישראל.", + "במסורת אמוראית אחת מסופר על רבי אחא בר עולא שקיבל מעשרות לא משום שהוא כוהן אלא משום שעסק בתורה (ירו', מעשר שני פ\"ה ה\"ד, נו ע\"ב), ברם ייתכן שחכם זה היה כוהן או לוי, והמעשר ניתן לו לא רק ככוהן אלא ככוהן שהוא גם חכם.", + "כל זאת בקשר למעשרות המתחייבים מדבר תורה. מעשר כספים, לעומת זאת, אשר נקבע על ידי החכמים, הוסב בתקופת האמוראים ישירות לחכמים: \"רמז לפרגמטוטין ולמפרשי ימים שהיו מוציאין אחד מעשרה לעמילי תורה\" (פסיקתא דרב כהנא, עשר תעשר, עמ' 172). נוהג זה אין להקדימו לימי התנאים, שכן רק במאה השלישית החלה להישמע תביעה נוקבת לסייע במתן צדקה לתלמידי חכמים. קודם לכן נמנעו רוב החכמים מתגמול כספי כלשהו233עמד על כך כבר בן שלום, חכמי יבנה, אך התמונה קיצונית עוד יותר מכפי שתיאר בדיונו שם. ראו עוד בר, תורה; בר, יששכר. חוקר זה אסף את החומר, אך הבחין בתופעה רק באופן חלקי. . בתרגום שיר השירים, שהוא תרגום מאוחר, אולי אף מבבל234תרגום שיר השירים משתמש במונחים בבליים מובהקים, כישיבה – \"מתיבתא\" (תרגום שיר השירים, ד א; ז ג; ח יג, ועוד); הכוהנים עולים בו לדוכן, מונח בבלי מובהק (תרגום ל- ד ז, וראו ספראי, דוכן), וסימני איחור נוספים. , מדובר במפורש על מתן תרומות ומעשרות לתלמידי חכמים (תרגום שיר השירים, ז ד).", + "נמצאנו למדים שחכמים חייבו מתן תרומות לכוהנים, ואף עודדו את הציבור לכך, אך התרומות לא ניתנו לכוהנים ככוהנים אלא לכוהנים שנמנו עם שכבת החכמים. זכויות היתר והרווחים החברתיים לא היו של כוהנים, אלא של אותו חלק בשכבת החכמים שהיה גם כוהן. בתוך שכבת החכמים היה מעמד ייחודי לכוהנים, בכבוד (לעלות ראשון לתורה, לברך ראשון וכו') ובהכנסה כלכלית (תרומות, ואולי גם מעשרות)235ראו בהרחבה בנספח למסכת שקלים. . ", + "ה\"משנה\" האחרונה שבפרק, שכאמור לעיל אינה משנה כלל, חוזרת לעיקרון זה שאין לתת מתנות כהונה למי שאינו בקי. זהו נוסח אחר של ההלכה שבמשנה, אלא שהוא מדגיש יותר את הידע ופחות את העובדה שהכוהן אינו \"חבר\". אך שתי ההלכות לדבר אחד התכוונו." + ], + [ + "המשנה חוזרת למה שנאמר במשנה ח. שם דובר על הפרשת חלה בחוץ לארץ, ועתה מספרת המשנה על כמה ממנהיגי יהדות התפוצות שהעלו לארץ, מרצונם הטוב, מעשרות או מתנות כהונה אחרות. חכמים מקבלים או אינם מקבלים מנהגי חסידות אלו, ונסכם את הדברים בסוף פירושנו. המשנה אינה אומרת זאת במפורש, אבל אפשר להסיק ממנה שגם חלה היא הפרשה דומה התלויה ברצונו של התורם ואינה חובה הלכתית.", + "ניתיי איש תקוע – ידוע לנו על שני מקומות בשם \"תקוע\" בארץ ישראל. האחד ביהודה, שם נולד הנביא עמוס, והאחר בגליל, אם כי זיהויו המדויק בעייתי236ראו נספח ג למסכת עירובין. . הצורה \"ניתיי\" כתובה בכתיב ארץ-ישראלי (וכן ב-ז, ל, פ); ברוב עדי הנוסח \"נתאי\", ובדפוסים \"ניתאי\".", + "הביא חלות מביתור237כך הגרסה ב- ב, ג2, ט, ת3; ב- כ, ל, נ, פ, ץ, ש, ת3 – \"בייתור\"; ב- ו – \"ביתיר\"; ב- ן, ת, ת2 – בשתי מילים, \"בית תור\", וב- ס – \"בתור\". – כנראה הכוונה למושבה של בני ביתריס, השבט שעליו מספר יוספוס שהתיישב בגולן. ראש השבט מכונה \"זמאריס\". בני השבט הועברו על ידי הנציב הרומי ממדבר סוריה לאזור החולה, והוא הטיל על הורדוס למצוא להם פתרון התיישבותי. עבור הורדוס הם היו גורם בעייתי ומסוכן. במקביל היו הגולן והטרכון נתונים תחת איומי שוד וביזה מצדו של זינונדורוס, שליט היטורים, על כן נתן הורדוס לבני ביתריס אדמות בגולן ובטרכון. הם חסמו את היטורים ובכך השקיט הורדוס את שני השבטים, ואף הפך אזור נטוש ברובו לאזור התיישבות חקלאית משגשג238אפלבאום, קשתי זמאריס; כהן, קשתי זמאריס. . פרשת ההתיישבות של שבט זה ומניעיה שנויים במחלוקת שלא כאן המקום לבררה. מכל מקום, הכפר המרכזי שלהם מכונה \"ביתירא\" (קד, יז 24). סביר להניח שבשם זה טמון רמז לשמו הקדום של הטרכון שהיה חלק מממלכת היטורים. מעשה זה התחולל בשנת 10 לפני הספירה לערך, אם כי התאריך המדויק אינו נהיר. מסתבר שלניתאי איש תקוע היו אדמות באזור, או שהוא עצמו היה מתושבי ביתירא והתגורר בתקוע, ומן הסתם הכוונה לתקוע הגלילית. מכל מקום, אדמתו נחשבה לחוץ לארץ, ולא קיבלו ממנו – אמנם המשנה קבעה שיש להפריש חלות בסוריה ובחוץ לארץ, אבל החלה טמאה בגלל טומאת ארץ העמים, ולכן לא קיבלו ממנו. הסבר זה קשה, שהרי אם כך אין משמעות לכך ש\"לא קבלו ממנו\", הרי החלה טמאה, ומה ניתן לעשות בה? אין גם להסביר שהביא גרעינים והכין את העיסה בארץ, שהרי פרות חוץ לארץ שנכנסו לארץ חייבים בחלה (לעיל פ\"ב מ\"א). אין זאת אלא שהוא הביא חלה נוספת, לפי ההלכה שמפרישים שתי חלות, וניסה לתת אותה לכוהן. אמנם חלה זו אינה חלה מבחינה הלכתית ולא חלים עליה דיני חלה, אך הם סירבו לקבל אותה ממנו כהפגנה למען יהא ברור שאין כאן קיומה של מצווה. זו החמרה מבחינה הלכתית, אך מובנת מבחינה ציבורית, שכן יש במחווה כדי לבטא שהחלה שמפרישים בחוץ לארץ היא זכר למצווה ולא מצווה של ממש, וכן פירש הרא\"ש. בירושלמי שנינו: \"אמר רבי יונה ואפילו למאן דאמר חובה, שנייא היא שהדבר מסויים, שמא יקבע הדבר חובה. לא כן סברנן מימר, קודם לשתי חלות לא יביא ואם הביא כשר, שנייא היא שהדבר מסויים, שמא יקבע הדבר חובה. ולא כן תנינן, אם באו תמימין יקרבו, שנייא היא שהדבר מסויים, שמא יקבע הדבר חובה\" (ס ע\"ב). הנימוק החוזר בירושלמי הוא שבמקום ש\"הדבר מסויים\" יש חשש שייקבע לחובה. בייתור קרובה לארץ ישראל, ונראה שניתאי זה היה איש חשוב ביותר והיה חשש שהמעשה ייקבע לדורות. עוד יש בירושלמי רמז לכך שיש מחלוקת האם צריך להפריש חלות בחוץ לארץ, ונראה שהכוונה למשנה ז לעיל. שם המחלוקת היא רק על החלה השנייה, ורבי אליעזר מסתפק בחלה אחת שהיא מיועדת לשרפה. אפילו לרבן גמליאל אין להביא את החלות לארץ ישראל. רמז נוסף הוא שאולי המעשה בניתאי התחולל \"קודם לשתי חלות\", כלומר לפני שהחליטו שחייבים להביא שתי חלות. לרמז זה נשוב להלן.", + "אנשי אלכסנד[ר]יה [הביאו חלותיהן מאלכסנדרייא] ולא קיבלו מהן – בימי בית שני הייתה אלכסנדריה המרכז היהודי החשוב ביותר בחוץ לארץ. הקשר הישיר בין מצרים וארץ ישראל אִפשר העברת מצרכים בדרך הים, וכך ניתן היה אף להתגבר על בעיית טומאת ארץ העמים. מכל מקום, גם תושבי אלכסנדריה הביאו חלות ולא קיבלו מהם. ", + "עד עתה דובר על מצוות חלה, ולא ברור מתי התחולל המעשה, בימי הבית או אחריו. המעשה בניתאי עשוי להיות בכל תקופה שהיא. המעשה בבני אלכסנדריה התחולל, מן הסתם, לפני מרד התפוצות בשנים 117-114. במרד זה נפגעה יהדות אלכסנדריה באופן קשה ביותר, וחדלה מלהוות מרכז יהודי למשך יותר ממאה שנה. כל המעשים במשנה הם מימי הבית, ולכן דומה שגם המעשה בניתאי הוא מימי הבית השני. הדבר יסביר את הרמז של רבי יונה בירושלמי לעיל שקל יותר לפרש את המעשה \"קודם לשתי חלות\". יתר על כן, ייתכן שאכן פסק ההלכה בנושא ניתאי סותר את המשנה לעיל הדנה בחובת חלה על פרות חוץ לארץ שהובאו לארץ. לא מן הנמנע שלמרות ההכרעה שלא לקבל ממנו את החלות התקבל נוהג להביא חיטים מחוץ לארץ ולהפריש עבורן חלה. חכמים חששו שבגלל הסיטואציה (\"הדבר מסוים\") ייקבע הדבר כחובה לדורות, ואכן חשש זה התממש. אמנם הדבר לא נקבע כחובה, אבל בהחלט התקבל כנוהג לדורות. עדות נוספת לכך יש במעשים המסופרים בירושלמי על אנשי קיסריה וכפר שימי. הם בחוץ לארץ, אך מצפים מהם לעבור לארץ ישראל ולהפריש חלה מפרותיהם. זאת אף שהם נחשבים כתושבי חוץ לארץ או תושבי סוריה שאדמתם טמאה (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"ב מ\"ג, וירו', נח ע\"ג).", + "הירושלמי עוד מקצין את התיאור ומספר: \"גזרו עליהם והחזירום\" (ס ע\"ב). קשה לדעת אם זו פרשנות למצב המוזר שנוצר, או זיכרון היסטורי. קשה גם לדעת מי הם אלו שגזרו. הרי בתקופה זו פעלו בנוסף לפרושים גם כתות אחרות, וקשה לברר מי הם אלו שהוציאו את ההנחיה.", + "אנשי הר צבעים – הר צבעים, או הר צבועים כמו בכל יתר עדי הנוסח, הוא כנראה ההר שמעל אזור יריחו. לפי התיאור במשנה הבשילו הפרות בהר צבועים מוקדם מהרגיל, והדבר מתאים לתנאים הטופוגרפיים בבקעת הירדן. חז\"ל היו מודעים לתנאים אלו, וכפי שהמדרש אומר: \"בבקר יאכל עד, זה יריחו שמוקדמת, ולערב יחלק שלל, זה בית אל שמאחרת\" (תוס', שביעית פ\"ז הי\"ב). אחד הוואדיות היורדים לבקעת יריחו נקרא בפי תושבי הסביבה ואדי א' דאבע, שמשמעו נחל הצבועים, והוא משמר כנראה את השם הקדום.", + "הביאו ביכוריהם קודם לעצרת ולא קיבלו מהן מפני שהכתוב שבתורה וחג הקציר ביכורי מעשיך אשר תזרע בשדה – המשנה מופיעה שנית במסכת ביכורים (פ\"א מ\"ג), ושם נשנה גם הדין שאין להביא ביכורים לפני עצרת (פ\"ג מ\"ח). במסכת מנחות נקבע שאין להביא ביכורים קודם לעומר, כלומר ליום השני של פסח, \"ואם הביא פסול, קדם לשתי הלחם לא יביא ואם הביא כשר\" (משנה, מנחות פ\"י מ\"ו). אם כן, לפני פסח אם הביא פסול, ואחרי פסח ולפני שבועות אם עבר והביא כשר, בניגוד למשנתנו. ניתן כמובן להעמיד את משנתנו שבני הר צבועים הביאו ביכורים לפני פסח, אך הדבר קשה, שהרי כתוב רק \"לפני עצרת\". בתוספתא ביכורים יש דעה שלישית: \"אין מביאין ביכורים קודם לעצרת, ואם הביא ימתין עד שתבוא עצרת ויקרא עליהן\" (פ\"א ה\"א). ראשונים הבינו את המימרה כך שהפֵרות ימתינו בעזרה עד שבועות ולא יתחלקו לכוהנים, וכמובן גם לא יחזרו לבעלים239כך הרמב\"ם, הלכות תמידים פ\"ז הי\"ז; ליברמן בפירושו לתוספתא ואלבק, משנה, עמ' 410, הקדישו לשאלה דיון ארוך ומלומד. . הסבר זה אפשרי מבחינה טקסטואלית, אבל קשה מצדו הרֵאלי. ראשית, קשה להניח שהיו מתירים להשהות בעזרה פרות לזמן ממושך. זאת ועוד, לאחר כמה ימים הפרות יירקבו240אלא אם כן המדובר בתמרים יבשים. וקשה להניח שאז הם יוכשרו לביכורים. אין זאת אלא שכוונת התוספתא היא שבדיעבד הביכורים מתקבלים (ומתחלקים לכוהנים), אלא שאת קריאת פרשת ביכורים ישהה עד למועד. ", + "את התוספתא ואת משנת ביכורים ניתן ליישב בדוחק, אבל קשה ליישב את שתיהן עם משנתנו. אלבק פירש לפי הירושלמי שהאיסור במשנה היה רק ב\"דבר מסוים\", באיש חשוב, והיה חשש שייקבע הדבר לדורות. ברם, גם פירוש זה קשה; אפשר להבין שחכמים פעלו כדי להחזיר חלה במקרה מפורסם כזה, ובמקרים אחרים של פשוטי עם לא שמעו כלל על המקרה, אבל קשה להניח כי אכן מה שהותר לציבור נאסר על אנשים של צורה.", + "דומה, אפוא, שמשנתנו מייצגת את ההלכה הקדומה שנהגה בימי הבית. מאוחר יותר, כאשר כל השאלה הפכה לתאורטית, הקלו. התנאים התמודדו עם מקרים רבים של הפרשת מעשרות לפני גמר מלאכה, ובדרך כלל נטו לראות בכך הרמת תרומה לפחות בדיעבד, ובלבד שהפרי יהיה שווה משהו241ראו פירושנו למעשרות פ\"א ובמבוא למסכת מעשרות. . על כן יש לראות במשניות השונות גישות שונות, ומשנתנו מייצגת את ההלכה הקדומה242ראו אלבק, עמ' 410, שהאריך בניסיונות חריפים לביאור הסתירה. . כפשוטן אלו אכן גישות שונות כלפי השאלה של חיוב מצוות התלויות בארץ בחוץ לארץ. דנו בכך במבוא למסכת מעשרות, וראינו כי אכן לא הייתה בנושא עמדה אחידה.", + "כאמור, הסיפור שבמשנתנו ובמסכת ביכורים (פ\"א מ\"ג) מופיע בסדרת מעשים על בני חוץ לארץ שהרימו מעשרות ותרומות. ההקשר מאפשר להבין שהר צבועים הוא בחוץ לארץ, או לפחות בעבר הירדן. ברם, תיאור המעשה והפסוק המובא בו קושר את המעשה להקדמת הבאת הביכורים. אם כן, איש אינו מטיל ספק בכך שמביאים ביכורים מהר צבועים. כפי שהסברנו, ייתכן שהר צבועים הוא הרכס מערבית ליריחו, והוא בוודאי בתחום ארץ ישראל. אפשר גם שהוא בעבר הירדן, והמשנה מהלכת בשיטה שמביאים ביכורים מעבר הירדן.243ראו פירושנו לביכורים פ\"א מ\"ט. המעשה הועבר ממשנת ביכורים (פ\"א מ\"ג), העוסקת בהקדמת הבאת הביכורים, למשנתנו, ואצלנו הוא אכן מצוי שלא בהקשרו." + ], + [ + "בן אטיטס – בכמה עדי נוסח מאוחרים \"אנטינוס\", אבל ברוב עדי הנוסח אין נ' כלל. במדרש תנאים לדברים244מדרש התנאים לדברים, יד כב, עמ' 77. מדרש התנאים משוחזר ממדרש הגדול, ועל כן ספק אם זו מסורת תנאית או עיבוד מאוחר. הוא מכונה חזקיה בן אטינוס. שם גם נאמר שהחליטו את אשר החליטו \"אף על פי שאדם של צורה היה\". כאמור, הירושלמי רואה בכך סיבה דווקא להחמיר שמא מעשהו יהפוך למודל לחיקוי.", + "העלה בכורות מבבל ולא קיבלו ממנו – זו עדות קדומה, מימי הבית, למנהגם של חסידים מבני בבל לשמור על מצוות בכורות, ומן הסתם גם על מצוות אחרות התלויות בארץ. כאן ברור ש\"לא קיבלו\" הם מנהיגי המקדש.", + "במשנת תמורה מתנהל דיון בשאלה זו של העלאת קרבנות מחוץ לארץ. לדעת המשנה שם (פ\"ג מ\"ה) אין להעלות קרבנות מחוץ לארץ, וכמובן גם לא בכורות ומעשר בהמה. אבל אם הקדיש קרבן בחוץ לארץ יעלהו, ובכור ומעשר: \"אם באו תמימים יקרבו ואם בעלי מומין יאכלו במומן לבעליהם\". אם כן, שתי רמות של בדיעבד הן, אבל הבכור (ומעשר בהמה) בדיעבד יוקרב. גם כאן ניתן לתרץ לפי הירושלמי שמשנתנו ב\"דבר מסוים\", כך מפרש אלבק והצבענו על הקושי שבהצעה זו. הבבלי אף הוא מתרץ ששתי המשניות חלוקות, ואף קושר את הדבר למחלוקת רבי ישמעאל ורבי עקיבא (תמורה כא ע\"א).", + "הצורה \"בן פלוני\" נפוצה בתקופה. אחד החוקרים כינה אישים אלו \"אנשים ללא שם\", שכן שמם הפרטי עלום245נוה, אנשים ללא שם. .", + "יוסף הכהן הביא ביכוריו יין ושמן ו[לא] – המילה נוספה בידי מעתיק שני מעל השורה עם ניקוד, קיבלו ממנו – יוסף הכהן הוא דמות עלומה, אך בספרות חז\"ל השתמרו ממנו מעשים מספר. לא ברור היכן חי ופעל, אך נראה שהתגורר בחוץ לארץ וביקר בארץ לעתים קרובות. את ביכוריו לא קיבלו משום שביכורים יש להפריש רק בארץ. הסברנו זאת כפשט המשנה שהדיון הוא על ביכורי חוץ לארץ, ואין המשנה מעלה את השאלה של הבאת ביכורים כיין ושמן246כך פירשו רבים, ראו מאירי ומלאכת שלמה. . פירוש זה בא משום שכל ההקשר הוא על הבאת מתנות כהונה מחוץ לארץ, ועל כן השאלה של הבאת יין ושמן כביכורים אינה עולה ואינה תופסת מקום מרכזי במשנה. פרשנות זו עולה מתוך ההקשר הספרותי של המשנה, ואנו רואים בכך שיקול מכריע. זאת אף שלו היה המשפט במשנה מופיע לבד ניתן היה לפרש שלא קיבלו את הביכורים משום שהם במצב נוזלי.", + "שאלה זו של הבאת ביכורים כנוזלים נדונה בפירושנו לתרומות (פי\"א מ\"ג), וראינו כי במקורות יש שתי גישות מרכזיות (מחלוקת רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע). האחת מגדירה את היוצא מהפרי כפרי לכל דבר, והאחרת שוללת הרחבה זו. שתי עמדות אלו הן מחלוקת עקרונית, ומצינו גם עמדות פשרה המנסות להכליל מרכיבים משתי הדעות. ברם, אין לעמעם את המחלוקת היסודית בנושא. על כן פשוט לפרש שמשנתנו כרבי אליעזר שמותר להביא כביכורים יין ושמן, ואולי גם נוזלים אחרים, אלא שבכך אין המשנה עוסקת.", + "מעתה עלינו לבחון כיצד הסבירו התלמודים את השאלה. הירושלמי מקשה ממשנת תרומות על משנתנו ומתרץ שמשנת תרומות אוסרת הבאת משקין, אך הם מותרים אם מלכתחילה ליקטם לשם כך. להערכתנו זו עמדת פשרה המנסה להביא להרמוניזציה בין המקורות. מכל מקום, את הביכורים החזירו לא משום שהם נוזלים אלא משום שהם מחוץ לארץ. אם כן, משנתנו עוסקת רק בשאלת הבאת ביכורים מחוץ לארץ. אין בה הבעת דעה באשר להבאת יין ושמן כביכורים. ייתכן שאילו הביא יוסף יין ושמן מהארץ הייתה מתנתו רצויה, וייתכן שהייתה נחשבת לפסולה. אין במשנתנו הבעת עמדה בנושא.", + "אשר להבאת ביכורים מחוץ לארץ, הלכה פשוטה היא שאין מביאים משם ביכורים, ולא מצינו מי שחלק בכך247משנה, ביכורים פ\"ד מי\"א; ספרי דברים, רצט, עמ' 318; שם שא, עמ' 319; מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, פסחא יז, עמ' 63; מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, יג ה, עמ' 39; ספרי זוטא לדברים, כז ב, עמ' 402, ועוד. .", + "אף הוא העלה בניו ובני ביתו לעשות פסח קטן בירושלם והחזירוהו שלא יקבע הדבר חובה – במקורות יש מחלוקת לגבי מידת השתתפותן של נשים בפסח ראשון ובפסח שני. המשנה (פסחים פ\"ח מ\"א) מניחה בפשטות שהאישה משתתפת בקרבן פסח, אף שהיא פטורה ממנו. הירושלמי מסביר: \"פיסחן שלנשים רשות ודוחין עליו את השבת\" (פסחים פ\"ח ה\"א, לה ע\"ד). המימרה מופיעה פעמיים, פעם אחת היא כוללת עבדים ופעם אחת עוסקת רק בנשים. כמו בסוגיות רבות אחרות \"רשות\" משמעה מצווה קטנה, מצווה שאינה ממש חובה248ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ו מ\"ב, ועוד. . רק כך אפשר להבין מדוע קרבן פסח של נשים דוחה את השבת. לו היה המעשה נעדר ערך הלכתי לא היה דוחה את השבת. מכל מקום, גם אם קרבן האישה אינו חובה, חלות עליו כל ההלכות של השחיטה והחבורה. דעה אחרת בירושלמי שם היא שנשים חייבות בקרבן פסח. הנימוק לכך הוא מדרשי, שכן קרבן פסח צמוד לאיסור חמץ שהוא לאו ובו נשים חייבות. מאוחר יותר תיקבע ההלכה האמוראית שנשים חייבות בליל הסדר. הנימוק לכך הוא \"שאף הן היו באותו הנס\"249בבלי, פסחים קח ע\"ב. ראו ספראי וספראי, הגדת חז\"ל, עמ' 47-46. . לו היה נימוק זה מקובל מראשיתו, לא היה מקום להגדרת קרבן פסח של נשים \"רשות\" אלא הייתה זו חובה ככל מצווה.", + "בספרות הראשונים מתנהלים דיונים ארוכים האם אישה רשאית לחייב את עצמה במצוות שהיא פטורה מהן, האם היא רשאית לברך עליהן והאם היא יכולה להוציא ידי חובה את הגברים250ראו בקצרה פירושנו לראש השנה פ\"ד מ\"ח, והספרות ההלכתית בנושא רבה. השאלה תופסת מקום מרכזי בשיח ההלכתי המודרני, ומוזר שמשנתנו אינה תופסת מקום מרכזי בדיונים אף שיש בה היגד כה משמעותי. . אין בספרות המשנה והתלמוד עמדה אחידה בנושא251ראו מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, מסכתא דפסחא פי\"א, עמ' 39, וירושלמי למשנתנו להלן. . לא כאן המקום לדיון מפורט, מכל מקום דומה שלנוהג החברתי היה תפקיד מכריע בגיבוש ההלכה בתחום זה. מצוות שנשים נטלו על עצמן זכו בהן, ולעתים אף התחייבו בהן252ראו ספראי, נשים במצוות עשה, והסיכום שלנו בנספח למסכת חגיגה. . ודאי שלמעשה השתתפו הנשים בזבח הפסח, אם כבנות בבית אביהן ואם כנשים בבית בעליהן. הלכות רבות מניחות כעובדה מובנת מאליה שהנשים שעלו לרגל נמנות ומשתתפות בסעודת זבח הפסח, מחליטות עם מי הן מעדיפות לאכול את הפסח או מצפות לסיום ימי טומאתן כדי שאפשר יהיה לשחוט עליהן את הפסח ולמנות אותן בין האנשים שעליהם שוחטים את הזבח. מצינו אף דיונים האם נשים יכולות לעשות חבורה לעצמן ולשחוט לעצמן את קרבן הפסח253משנה, פסחים פ\"ח מ\"א; שם מ\"ה-מ\"ו; תוס', שם פ\"ז הי\"א; פ\"ח ה\"ו, וראו דיונה של ספראי, נשים במקדש. . אין ספק, אפוא, שבפועל השתתפו נשים בקרבן פסח; השאלה הייתה האם זו חובה או רשות, רשות במובן של מצווה קלה254ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ח מ\"א. . מבחינה הלכתית הצטמצמה הבעיה לשאלה האם שוחטים קרבן פסח על נשים, או שמא הן רשאיות רק להיות \"טפילה לאחרים\" (ירו', ס ע\"ב; פסחים ח ע\"א, לה ע\"ד; בבלי, שם צא ע\"א, ועוד) ולהימנות עם חבורה שיש בה גברים.", + "המשנה קובעת שבפסח ראשון מחויבותן גדולה יותר (פסחים פ\"ט מ\"ג, ראו פירושנו לה), אך בפרטי ההבדלים שלוש עמדות של תנאים מדור אושא255ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ח מ\"ב והמבוא למסכת פסחים. . אשר לפסח שני, יש הסוברים ששוחטים לנשים בפני עצמן, ויש שמתירים לשחוט רק לחבורת גברים והנשים רק עושות \"טפילה\", כלומר יכולות להצטרף ולהימנות בחבורה. ניתן לסדר את דברי התנאים בטבלה הבאה (תוס', פסחים פ\"ח ה\"י; ירו', ס ע\"ב):", + "אישה בפסח שני", + " רבי יהודה256בירושלמי: רבי מאיר. ", + "ממשנתנו אנו שומעים על יוסף הכוהן שהעלה את אשתו לעשות פסח שני והחזירוהו חכמים. כך או כך, ברור שאף מי שסבור שנשים חייבות גם בפסח שני מסכים שחובתן פחותה מזו של הגברים. התנאים נחלקו האם החזירוהו כי אין לשחוט פסח שני על נשים (רבי יהודה ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון), או משום שלא רצו שהדבר ייקבע כחובה. בירושלמי למשנתנו מוצג בפשטות ההסבר השני (ס ע\"ב), ומנומק בכך שיוסף זה הוא בבחינת \"דבר מסוים\". הסבר זה חוזר בכל פסקאות הירושלמי; יש לחשוש שמא הוא מועבר מפסקה לפסקה וביתר הפסקאות סירבו לקבל את החריגה ההלכתית (למעשה ההתנדבות) אף על פי שהתורם היה אדם רגיל, וההלכה נובעת מהאיסור להתנדב למצוות גם ללא החשש שייהפך הדבר לנורמה.", + "הסיפור על יוסף הכוהן מלמד כי המחלוקת על מעמד הנשים, והרגישות סביבה, החלו כבר בימי בית שני. למחלוקת על השתתפות נשים בפסח בכלל, ובקרבן פסח שני בפרט, השלכות על בירור השאלה העקרונית בדבר זכותה של האישה לחייב את עצמה במצוות שנפטרה מהן.", + "על יוסף הכוהן בידינו סיפורים מספר על ויכוחים-עימותים עם חכמים. לא ברור האם היה חכם או שמא נמנה עם חוגי הכוהנים והוויכוח הוא בין חכמים לכוהנים, מכל מקום ודאי שהיה אמיד ושהתגורר בחוץ לארץ, אך לאו דווקא בבבל257ספרא, אמור פרשתא א הי\"ב; בבלי, מועד קטן כג ע\"א; שמחות פ\"ד ה\"ו, עמ' 117. . בנוסח הדפוס הוא מכונה יוסף הבבלי, וזו פרשנות למשנת חלה שאנו עוסקים בה, אם כי גם בה לא נאמר שיוסף זה היה מבבל (ראו המעשה הקודם במשנה [בבן אטיטס] העוסק ביהודי בבלי). היה גם תנא בשם יוסף הבבלי (בבלי, פסחים קיג ע\"א), והבלבול האפשרי בין השניים מסביר כיצד נדד התואר \"בבלי\" ליוסף שבמשנתנו. במשנתנו הוא מתואר כמי שהשתתף בעליות לרגל והביא את אשתו במיוחד לפסח שני. יוסף נזכר עוד כאיש אמיד ומקפיד. יוסף הכוהן סירב להיטמא כאשר מתה אשתו באחת העליות לרגל, וחכמים טימאוהו בכוח (תוס', שבת פי\"ג [יד] הי\"א); במשנה אחרת מסופר על חפץ מיוחד שלו שהותקן כך שניתן יהא לטהרו (משנה, מקוואות פ\"י מ\"א). על כן מסתבר שהיה מקורב לחוגי חכמים, שכן לא היו מטמאים כל אדם שלא נהג כהלכתם. אחד מתלמידי רבן יוחנן בן זכאי היה רבי יוסי הכוהן, אך נראה שאינו יוסף הכוהן. \"יוסי\" היה אחד השמות הנפוצים ביותר בסוף ימי בית שני, תקופה הידועה בריבוי השמות החוזרים בה, ללא קשר משפחתי. תלמידו של רבן יוחנן בן זכאי מכונה תמיד \"רבי\" יוסי, תואר שהתחדש רק בדור יבנה, וגם מבחינה כרונולוגית אין הוא מתאים לסיפורים על יוסף הכוהן. בסדרת מקורות נזכר יוסף הכוהן כמי שיצא לחו\"ל ללמוד אצל רבי יוסי258תוס', עבודה זרה פ\"א ה\"ח, עמ' 461; בבלי, שם יג ע\"א; ירו', ברכות פ\"ג ה\"א, ו ע\"א. ; לכאורה זה אדם אחר שחי בדור אושא. ברם, במקבילות ברור שמדובר בסיפור מן העבר ורבי יוסי רק מוסר אותו, ולא שהוא היה הרב259בבלי, עירובין מז ע\"ב; עבודה זרה יג ע\"א; ירו', ברכות פ\"ג ה\"א, ו ע\"א; נזיר פ\"ז ה\"א, נו ע\"א. . במקרה זה המסורות המאוחרות הן המדויקות, ולא התוספתא. מהסיפור ברור שהוא היה תושב הארץ שירד לציידן (צידון שבדרום סוריה) רק ללמוד תורה, ואולי השתקע שם. במקבילה במסכת שמחות הוא מכונה \"יוסף הבבלי\" (שמחות פ\"ד הי\"ד, עמ' 122). ייתכן גם שהיה חכם נוסף ממוצא כוהני המכונה יוסף הבבלי, ועליו מספר רבי יהודה הנשיא260בבלי, מנחות יא ע\"א, וראו עוד פסחים קיג ע\"א; יומא נב ע\"ב. .", + "אריסטון הביא ביכוריו מא[יס]פמייא – בכל עדי נוסח \"מאפמיא\", וגם בכתב יד קופמן תוקן הנוסח לכך, וקיבלו ממנו מפני שאמרו הקונה בסורייה כקונה בפרוור שבירושלם – אפמיא זו היא העיר אפמיאה שבצפון סוריה של היום. אריסטון עלה לרגל מסוריה והביא עמו ביכורים. סוריה נחשבת כארץ ישראל במובן זה שאדמות יהודים בה חייבות במצוות התלויות בארץ (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"א), ולכן הקונה בה אדמה כקונה בפרוורי ירושלים. מבחינה הלכתית פרוורי ירושלים הם כמו כל מקום אחר בארץ, והשימוש במינוח זה הוא למליצה בלבד. המינוח \"שאמרו\" מעיד על מקור הלכתי אחר שהמשנה מצטטת ממנו, הלכה קדומה או משנה קדומה. מקורה של המימרה בלתי ידוע.", + "\"פרוור\" הוא כנראה המונח המקובל לתחום המיושב שמחוץ לעיר הבנויה ממש. בעיר עצמה לא היו שטחים חקלאיים והיא מיושבת בצפיפות, לא כן הפרוור שיש בו בתים פזורים וסביבם שטחים חקלאיים. כמה מבנים מעין אלו נחפרו ליד משמר העמק באזור שהוא הפרוור של העיר גבע פרשים261ספראי ולין, גבע. . המונח \"פרוור\" מופיע בתרגומים כתרגום למונח המקראי \"מגרש\", כלומר שטח ביניים בין העיר ובין השטח החקלאי המשמש לשירותים ולמתקני צאן. כך העתיקו המתרגמים מונח מקראי שונה למציאות חייהם בערים הגדולות של זמנם. ", + "קברו של אריסטון התגלה ליד ירושלים. זהו קבר מהודר למדי ונמצאה בו סדרת כתובות דו-לשוניות (איור 19). לפי הכתובות נקברו במקום אריסטון מאפמיאה ויהודה הגר, וכן שלמציון, בתו של אריסטון, וגברת נוספת כוהנת. לא ברור מה המכנה המשותף של כל הנקברים. קשה לתאר את אריסטון, כוהנת וגר כמשפחה אחת, אם כי אין כל הלכה האוסרת זאת. ייתכן שזה קבר של בני גולה אחת שעלו לירושלים. מכל מקום, אריסטון זה מכונה במפורש \"ארסטון אפמי\", ואין טעם לנסות ולפקפק בזיהוי שלו עם אריסטון מהמשנה262ראו אילן, אריסטון. מפרסמת הכתובות מתקשה בזיהוי ומטילה בו ספק, ואין לספק כל בסיס. .", + "נמצאנו למדים שבמשנה נמנית סדרה של שישה מעשים שבכולם מנעו חכמים מאישים \"של צורה\" להקריב במקדש כרצונם. בחינה של המעשים הראתה שההרחקה אינה מבוססת, מבחינה הלכתית, באף אחד מהם. בהבאת חלה מחוץ לארץ אין איסור (מעשים 2-1); לפי חלק מהדעות מותר להביא ביכורים לפני הזמן (מעשה 3); יש הטוענים שמותר להעלות בכורות מבבל (מעשה 4); אין מי שמתיר להעלות ביכורים מבבל, אך כנגד זה המעשה מעורר מחלוקת נוספת הנוגעת להיתר (או איסור) להעלות יין ושמן כביכורים. אפילו האיסור להעלות את האישה לפסח שני אינו מבוסס; השתתפותה בפסח שני שנויה במחלוקת, וודאי שאין בכך איסור. הירושלמי הסביר את כל המעשים הללו כפסיקה הפגנתית שנועדה למנוע השתרשות המעשה כהלכה. מכל מקום, לפנינו גילוי של הנוהג הקדום לפני שעודן על ידי המערכת המשפטית המאחדת. ייתכן גם שלפנינו הדים להלכה קדומה, אולי הלכה כיתתית, והמרחיקים לא היו חכמים אלא דווקא מנהיגי הכתות האחרות, או לחילופין שחכמים רצו למנוע השתרשות תפיסות כיתתיות.", + "הסברנו כל מעשה לחוד, וטעמו ונימוקו עמו. אבל דומה שעדיף לפרש את המשנה כגוש כללי אחד. בכל המקרים מדובר על יחידים שהחמירו על עצמם, נתנו מתנות כהונה בחוץ לארץ והביאון לארץ ישראל ולמקדש. חכמים התנגדו להעלאת מתנות כהונה לארץ. ביטוי לכך יש במשנה: \"אין מביאין תרומה מחוצה לארץ לארץ, אמר רבי שמעון שמעתי בפירוש שמביאין מסוריא ואין מביאין מחוצה לארץ\" (שביעית פ\"ו מ\"ו). באופן כללי, אין מפרישים תרומה בחוץ לארץ. ברם, כפי שראינו במבוא למסכת זו ובמבוא למסכת תרומות, היו שהחמירו על עצמם והפרישו תרומות ומעשרות בחו\"ל. זאת ועוד, בסוריה מפרישים מעשרות ותרומות וממילא ניתן להביאם לארץ. ייבוא תרומה לארץ הוא כמעט האפשרות היחידה לאכול את התרומה, שכן תרומה יש לאכול בטהרה ואילו ארץ העמים, שגם סוריה היא חלק ממנה, נחשבה לטמאה. אמנם, כפי שהעלינו בפירושנו263ראו המבוא למסכת תרומות. , היו שהתירו לאכול את תרומת חוץ לארץ בטומאה, שכן אין היא תרומה ממש אלא מעין מנהג חסידות, אבל מן הסתם העדיפו לאכלה בטהרה. ", + "בתוספתא חוזרת ההלכה שבמשנה ונוסף שם: \"אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אני ראיתי שמעון בר כהנא שהיה שותה יין של תרומה בעכו, ואמר זה בא בידי מקלקיא, וגזרו עליו שישתהו בספינה\" (שביעית פ\"ה ה\"ב). קלקיא (קיליקיה) היא בדרום אסיה הקטנה, מעבר לטוורוס אמנוס; לכל הדעות אין להביא ממנה תרומה, ודעת חכמים כאן היא כדעת הכול. דומה שחכמים אוסרים להשמיד את היין משום שיש עליו שם קודש, בדומה לפרי תרומה, אך הם גם אוסרים, באופן הפגנתי, את העלאתו לארץ.", + "ליברמן264בפירושו לתוספתא שביעית פ\"ה ה\"ב. שואל כיצד ניתן להביא את התרומה בטהרה, ומוצא דרך טכנית לכך. ברם, ניתן להביא את הפרי בטרם נגמרה מלאכתו, כענבים, ולסחוט ממנו שמן באנייה עצמה. מעבר לכך, היו שהתירו לאכול תרומת חוץ לארץ בטומאה, שהרי אין זו תרומה ממש. מאידך גיסא, עדיין היו ששאפו להעלות את התרומה לארץ כדי לתת אותה לכוהני הארץ שיאכלוה בטהרה, כאילו הייתה זו תרומה אמִתית. במבוא הרחבנו בשאלה זו והדיון המלא הוא בנספח למסכת שביעית, וראינו כי אכן הייתה גם גישה הלכתית שיש להרים תרומות ולאכלן בטהרה גם בחוץ לארץ. ", + "במשנה לא הוסבר מדוע חכמים מתנגדים להבאת תרומה לארץ. הירושלמי מנמק זאת בחשש: \"אף הן מרדפין אחריה לשם\" (שביעית פ\"ו ה\"ו, לז ע\"א). אם יותר לייבא תרומה ייסעו הכוהנים לחוץ לארץ כדי להביא משם תרומה, וישתקעו שם. הנימוק מעורר קושי, הרי החשש הגדול יותר הוא שהכוהנים ירדו לחוץ לארץ כדי להתפרנס שם מתרומה. יתר על כן, האם באמת עדיף לוותר על מקור הכנסה זה? לא מן הנמנע שזהו נימוק נוסף, ובעיקרו של דבר מבטאת ההלכה התנגדות עקרונית להפרשת תרומות בחוץ לארץ. הפרשת תרומות נתפסת כזכות של ארץ הקודש, ואין להחילה על אדמה טמאה וזרה.", + "משנה יב ", + "המשניות הבאות נמצאות בכמה כתבי יד265ק (קופמן), מ, פ, ג2. , אך לא בכל יתר עדי הנוסח266ראו זק\"ש, משנה, על אתר; ליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה, עמ' 811. . זו כנראה ברייתא שהועברה מהתוספתא כאן או מאחד מציטוטיה בתלמוד. הרשימה מופיעה בהלכות רבות ומסכמת את הלכות מתנות כוהנים. הירושלמי מביא אותה כברייתא למשנה ט, וברור שלא הייתה לפניו במשנה. גם הבבלי מצטט אותה בלשון \"תניא\", שהיא המינוח להבאת ברייתא (חולין קלג ע\"ב). כאמור, הברייתא עצמה מצוטטת בתוספתא ובתלמודים ונרמזת במקורות אחרים267תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ז-הי\"א; ספרי במדבר, קיט, עמ' 143-142; בבלי, בבא קמא קי ע\"ב; ירו', כאן, ס ע\"ב; כמו כן נרמזת בספרי, במדבר קלא, עמ' 173; בבלי, חולין קלב ע\"ב; משנה, אבות פ\"ו מ\"ה (פרק זה אינו משנה וכנראה גם אינו תנאי), ומדרשים נוספים. . המשפט \"עשרים וארבע מתנות כהונה\" הפך למטבע לשון והברייתא מוסכמת כמעט על הכול, להוציא נוסח שונה במקצת בספרי (במדבר קיט, עמ' 143-142). הברייתא מצוטטת ומבוארת בהרחבה בתשובת רב חנינאי ריש מתיבתא שבהלכות גדולות268הלכות גדולות דפוס ורשא, קלח ע\"א ואילך; מהדורת הילדסהיימר ח\"ג, עמ' 289-279. , ואף בהלכות ארץ ישראל מן הגניזה269מרגליות, הלכות ארץ-ישראל, עמ' נג, ועוד ראשונים רבים. .", + "עשרים וארבע מתנות ניתנו לכהנים – החלוקה לעשרים וארבע היא ספרותית. ניתן היה לרכז את הרשימה ולהגיע גם למספר אחר. כך, למשל, ניתן היה לפרט את המונח \"מתנות\" (זרוע, לחיים וקיבה) או לאחד את סוגי האשם, אך לעורך הברייתא חשוב היה המספר הסמלי \"עשרים וארבע\", אולי כנגד כתבי הקודש ומשמרות הכהונה.", + "עשר במקדש וארבע בירושלם ועשר בגבולים – החלוקה סכמטית ומשוכללת. בספרי יש חלוקה לשתי קבוצות של שתים עשרה; אין ברשימה מתנות שניתנות דווקא בירושלים; חצי מהמתנות ניתנות דווקא במקדש וחצי ניתנות בגבולים. מבין ארבע המתנות שביתר המקורות המיוחסות לירושלים עברו בכורות וביכורים לגבולים, והשאר מצויות בחלק של המקדש. לכל חלוקה היגיון משלה ויופי ספרותי משלה.", + "אלו עשר שבמקדש חטאת וחטאת העוף ואשם וודיי ואשם תלויי וזבחי שלמי ציבור ולוג שמן שלמצורע ומותר העומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים ושירי מנחות – כולם הם קרבנות בשר או מנחה הניתנים לכוהנים. מותר העומר הוא מה שנותר מקציר העומר לאחר הקרבת קרבן החדש. ", + "משנה יג ", + "אילו ארבע שבירושלם – כל אלה ניתנים לכוהנים בזכות המקדש, והם מובאים למקדש, אבל הכוהנים רשאים למכור אותם וכך להוציאם מירושלים. כפי שאמרנו, בספרי קטגוריה זו אינה קיימת.", + "הבכורות – אלו מובאים למקדש וניתנים לכוהנים והם רשאים למכרם, והביכורים – לעיל (מ\"ט) ראינו כי קיימת מחלוקת באיזו מידה נחשבים הבכורות כקודש או כתרומה, ומשנתנו קרובה יותר לדברי חכמים, והמורם מתודה ואיל נזיר – אלו חלקי הבשר שמקבל הכוהן מקרבנות אלו, ועורות הקדשים – עור הקודשים (העולה) ניתן לכוהנים, ועורות השלמים לבעלים. העורות הללו היו מחולקים לכוהני המשמר ונחשבו לרכוש יקר. מאוחר יותר התפתח מאבק כלכלי בין הכוהנים לבין הנהגת המקדש על הבעלות על העורות, ולבסוף הוקדשו אלו למקדש ונמסרו לבדק הבית (תוס', מנחות פי\"ג הי\"ח-הכ\"א, עמ' 533). המשנה עוסקת, אפוא, בכלל ההלכתי ולא בהתפתחויות השונות שהתחוללו.", + "משנה יד ", + "אלו עשר שבגבולים – ברחבי הארץ: תרומה ותרומת מעשר וחלה וראשית הגז והמתנות ופדיון הבן ופדיון פטר חמור ושדה אחוזה ושדה החרמים – שדה אחוזה ושדה חרמים ניתנים בפועל ברחבי הארץ. אבל למעשה הם ניתנים לכוהנים של המקדש, לבני אותה משמרת שבה הוקדשו (תוס', מנחות פי\"ג הי\"ז, עמ' 533). זו דעת חכמים, אבל לדעת רבי יהודה בן בתירא סתם חרמים לבדק הבית (משנה, ערכין פ\"ח מ\"ו), ולדעת רבי אליעזר אין הכוהנים נכנסים לשדה אחוזה (משנה, שם פ\"ז מ\"ד).", + "וגזל הגר – גזל הגר הוא מודל למי שגזל ואינו יכול להשיב את הגזלה: הגר מת ואין לו יורשים. גזל הגר יינתן לכוהן שהגזלן יבחר (תוס', שם שם). ", + "כל כהן שאין בקי בהן אין נותנין לו מתנה – משפט כללי זה מתקשר לדברי המשנה שיש מתנות הניתנות לכל כוהן, אבל אם אינו בקי אין לתת לו מהמתנות270ליברמן מפנה לתוס', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"ו, שם מדובר בכוהן שקיבל עליו את כל העבודות חוץ מאחת, וראו דבריו כאן ושם. כרגיל הערתו למדנית ומפורטת, ברם אין לה עניין למשנתנו. שם מדובר בכוהן הנחשד בכפירה, וכאן בבור או בעם הארץ. . באבות דרבי נתן מובא סיפור על כוהן אחד שהיה גם חסיד ולא היה בקי בהלכות טהרה271אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"ב פכ\"ז, עמ' 57. בנוסח א פי\"ב המדובר בחסיד ולא בכוהן. . הסיפור בא להדגים שרק בוגרי בית המדרש בקיאים בהלכה; חסידות או כהונה אינן מבטיחות את הידע הדרוש. לעיל, בפירושנו למשנה ט, עסקנו בכך בהרחבה." + ] + ] + ], + "Appendix 1": [ + "נספח", + "החקלאות ומשק העזר בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד", + "הקדמה", + "מחקר החקלאות והמשק הכפרי בארץ ישראל הרומית מפותח ביותר. אף שהוא נישא על כתפיהם של חוקרים לא רבים, התפרסמו מחקרים מפורטים על ענפים שונים כגון דגנים, עצי פרי, אורז, בשמים, יונים, יין ושמן, פשתן, דבש ועוד רבים אחרים1פליקס, דגנים; פליקס, עצי פרי; פליקס, האורז; פליקס, בשמים; טפר, יונים; פרנקל ואחרים, בתי בד; ספראי, פשתן; ספראי, דבש, ועוד. . כן התפרסמו סקירות כלליות חשובות2פליקס, החקלאות; ספראי, הכלכלה – עיקר הספר מוקדש למעשה לחקלאות, וכן לאו, פלורה, העוסק בצמחייה בכלל. . במסגרת נספח זה בכוונתנו לסקור את ענפי החקלאות ומשק העזר אך להתמקד בכמה שאלות מחקר עיקריות:", + "1. באיזו מידה היה המשק פתוח וכיצד הותאמה החקלאות המקומית למבנה המשק. ", + "2. השפעתו של המבנה האגררי על המגוון החקלאי. ", + " (המבנה האגררי עצמו נדון בנספח למסכת דמאי). ", + "3. האם הושפעה החקלאות בארץ מדתם המיוחדת של תושביה היהודיים. ", + "4. באיזו מידה היה המשק החקלאי בארץ שונה מזה שבפרובינציות סמוכות. ", + "המקורות", + "מקורות ספרותיים", + "מחקר החקלאות הארץ-ישראלית בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד נהנה ממקורות שאינם עומדים לרשות מחקרים דומים בארצות אחרות. המקור הראשון הוא ספרות חז\"ל. ספרות חז\"ל הקדומה נערכה בין המאה השנייה לרביעית ועיקרה ספרות חוק ומוסר, אבל היא התחברה ונערכה בידי אישים שמרבית עולמם היה המשק החקלאי. אגב דיוני ההלכה אנו שומעים על גידולים שונים, על צורות אריזה, על דרכי שיווק ועל דרכי טיפול בגידולים שונים, וכיוצא באלו פרטים רבים. ספרות חז\"ל שונה מהספרות החקלאית הרומית בכך שמצד אחד אין בה דיונים שיטתיים בענפים, ומצד שני היא נכתבה בידי החקלאים הזעירים עצמם מתוך קרבה לנשוא הכתיבה, ותוך שיקוף מתמיד של הווי היום-יום, כולל התרבות החקלאית. יתר המקורות הספרותיים בני התקופה תורמים רק מעט מאוד מידע. כך, למשל, בברית החדשה או בכתבי יוספוס מצוי רק מידע מועט ביותר ומקרי. ", + "מידת האמינות שיש לייחס למקורות ספרותיים ומשפטיים אלו נדונה במחקר באינטנסיביות רבה, ברם הוויכוח אינו נוגע לעיון בפרטי הפרטים של חיי היום-יום כפי שהם משתקפים בספרות. כל המעיין בהם ייווכח שאלפי הפרטים הנזכרים כבדרך אגב, או אלו המהווים את הרקע לפסיקה או לסיפור, הם רֵאליים. כך, למשל, נאסרו עבודות חקלאיות בשנת השביעית. ייתכן שהציבור ברובו לא שמר על מצוות שמיטה, אבל רשימת העבודות וחלוקתן למותרות ואסורות היא הגיונית ואמינה. רק לעתים רחוקות אנו נתקלים במסורת שאיננה רֵאלית והיא מעין \"פולקלור של חקלאים\". עם זאת פרשנות המקורות לעתים קשה, והנגישות אליהם בעייתית. יתר על כן, בעיות הפרשנות והזיהוי מקשות על ניצול יעיל. כך, למשל, המקורות היהודיים משתמשים במידת הנפח היסודית \"סאה\"; שיעורה שנוי במחלוקת במחקר (13-10 ליטר)3בכל הנתונים להלן נשתמש במידה הנמוכה של 10 ליטר, ראו הנספח למסכת פסחים. , והיו הבדלים אזוריים בדבר נפח הסאה.", + "במקביל למקורות הייחודיים לארץ עומדים לרשות חוקרי ארץ ישראל אותם מקורות שיש לחוקריה של כל פרובינציה, והם כתבי הספרות החקלאית הרומית (פליניוס, קטו, וורו וקולמלה), וכן הפפירוסים ממצרים המשקפים פן אחר של החקלאות המעשית.", + "המידע הארכאולוגי", + "חקר הכפר בארץ ישראל מפותח ביותר. עד היום נחפרו אלפי אתרים חקלאיים בתחום הארץ המצומצם יחסית, ביניהם רובעים שלמים של כפרים (כפר נחום, עין גדי, סוסיא וכיוצא באלו), מאות מתקנים שונים כבתי בד, גתות, תעלות לשריית פשתן (איור 20) וכיוצא באלו, וכן עשרות רבות של מבנים בודדים. במקביל נחפרו עשרות בתי חווה (אחוזות), ונסקרו כפרים שלמים כאום ריחן, בוראק, חורבת לבד, חורבת כרך וכפרים נוספים4לסקירה ראו הירשפלד, הכפר; ספראי, הכפר. . נבדקו מצבורי מזון5כסלו, מצבור; כסלו, יתיר, ועוד. , ומחקרים נקודתיים רבים נוספים. כנגד זה, מספר הכתובות המשקפות רקע חקלאי קטן, וציורי הפסיפס דלי נתונים חקלאיים יחסית לפסיפסים בצפון אפריקה או אפילו בסוריה.", + "המידע האתנו-ארכאולוגי", + "הכפר הערבי המסורתי משמר פרטים רבים על הנוהגים ודרכי העבודה הקדומים שהיו באזור. תולדות המחקר ההשוואתי בין הכפר המסורתי לבין המידע ההיסטורי והארכאולוגי הם פרשה מרתקת המשקפת לא רק מחקר טהור, אלא בעיקר את מערכת היחסים הקשה בין היישוב היהודי שממנו באו רוב החוקרים לבין התושבים של הכפרים המסורתיים. לכאורה היה המפגש צריך להיות יעיל ופשוט. בראשית המאה העשרים, ובשנות השישים והשבעים של אותה מאה, היה המחקר הארכאולוגי-היסטורי בפריחתו, ובמקביל פעלו עדיין כפרים מסורתיים שאורחות חייהם הושפעו מהתרבות המודרנית רק באופן שולי. ברם, מחקר הכפר המסורתי נתקל בקשיים הנובעים מפערי שפה, תרבות ופוליטיקה, וכן מעוינות של ממש. חוקרים שונים היו מודעים ברמה זו או אחרת לנתונים העולים מהכפר המסורתי, אבל המחקר השיטתי הוא מצומצם ביותר. בין החיבורים הבולטים נציין את דלמן, טכנולוגיה, ואת אביצור, אטלס (איור 21).", + "נתוני הקרקע והכשרתה", + "אקלים וטופוגרפיה", + "לא נדון במפורט בנתוני האקלים והקרקע, ונסתפק כאן בסקירה קצרה של הפרטים הנוגעים ישירות להבנת הנספח. רובה של ארץ ישראל מתאים מאוד לחקלאות, וכמות המשקעים בה היא למעלה מ-500 מ\"מ בשנה. לשם השוואה, 200 מ\"מ גשם בשנה נחשבים כיום כגבול הבצורת בחקלאות השלחין. עם זאת, בעיות הכשרת הקרקע מגוונות ומורכבות. באזורי המישור היו שטחי ביצות (בשרון הצפוני והדרומי), ואלו נוקזו כנראה במהלך התקופה הרומית במפעל שרק האימפריה יכולה הייתה להוציאו לפועל (איור 22, תמונה 5). כנגד זה, הבקעות הפוריות בגליל התחתון כנראה לא נוקזו ובאזורי ההרים היה צורך בבניית מדרגות ובסיקול מתמיד של הקרקע (איור 22א-ב). המדרגות הן תופעה דומיננטית בנופה ההררי של הארץ. החקלאים הקדומים סברו, כנראה, כי זו הדרך היחידה למנוע סחיפת קרקע. בניית מדרגות מוכרת גם בפרובינציות הרריות נוספות (קפריסין, פניקיה, יוון ואיטליה), אבל אף על פי שטרם נערכה בדיקה כמותית ניתן לקבוע בוודאות שצפיפות המדרגות בארץ ישראל גבוהה בהרבה מזו שבארצות האחרות שהוזכרו. יתר על כן, ניכר שבארץ היה זה מפעל ציבורי מתואם, בעוד שבאזורים אחרים היו אלו קטעי מפעלים פרטיים, ואין תיאום בין מערכת המדרגות של חקלאי אחד למשנהו. לעומת כל זאת בחבל יתיר, למשל, כמעט לא נבנו מדרגות, ונראה שניצולו היה מועט. המדרגות הן מפעל רב-דורי. ראשיתה של המערכת בתקופת הברזל, אך רוב המדרגות שנבדקו בחפירות מקוטעות שונות נבנו בתקופה הרומית והביזנטית. המשק הערבי המסורתי המשיך לנצלן עד היום (תמונה 6).", + "סיכון", + "מערך הגשמים בארץ הוא בלתי בטוח. כמות הגשמים מספקת בממוצע, אך היא מרוכזת בחודשי החורף (נובמבר-מרץ) ובלתי אחידה. יתר על כן, אין בארץ מעיינות רבים, וניתן להעריך שכמות שטחי השלחין לא עלתה על 5% מהפוטנציאל החקלאי. שנות בצורת הן תופעה רגילה (אחת לשלוש שנים בממוצע), ואלו היוו גורם סיכון ראשון במעלה בתקופות הקדומות, ועד לראשית התקופה הרומית. כך בכל העולם הרומי6גלנט, סיכון. , ובפרובינציית יהודה עוד יותר בשל התנאים הספציפיים שלה. הפתרון העיקרי לסיכון בחקלאות בארץ היה התארגנות במשפחות מורחבות ובכפרים מכונסים. הדבר חייב את החקלאים לעזרה הדדית ולארגון קהילתי וסוציאלי; חכמים מרבים לדבר בשבחו, לטפחו ולהטיף לו. בהמשך התקופה הרומית עולה חלקן של האחוזות (להלן), ואלו מהוות פתרון אחר לשאלת הסיכון, שכן נטל הסיכון עובר מהחקלאי הזעיר והדל אל העשיר החזק יותר. פתרון אחר היה פיתוח של שיטת הפטרונז'7שיטת הפטרונז' הייתה הסדר בלתי פורמלי שבו האיכר הזעיר, שהיה עצמאי מבחינה משפטית, היה כפוף לפטרון. הפטרון, שהיה עשיר הכפר, היה מסייע לאיכר העני, אבל העני היה נתון למרותו, ואף העלה לו מעין מסים (מתנות) בשנים רגילות. הפטרון גם העניק גיבוי פוליטי לכפריים. . השיטה נהגה בכל העולם היווני-רומי8וולס-הדריל, פטרונז'. שיטת הפטרונז' רווחה יותר במזרח בתקופה המאוחרת יחסית, מהמאה השלישית ואילך. ועדויות לה גם בארץ ישראל, והדבר ניכר בתכנון הפיזי של בתי האחוזה ובמעט מקורות ספרותיים יהודיים, אם כי קשה להעריך את היקפה.", + "קיטוע חלקות (פרגמנטציה)", + "לא תמיד הייתה נחלתו של החקלאי הקדום, וודאי לא זו של החקלאי האמיד, מרוכזת בהכרח במקום מסוים. לעתים קרובות היו לו חלקות מספר מפוזרות על פני שטח נרחב. שפרבר אסף עדויות מספר לכך9שפרבר, הקרקע, עמ' 203-187. . באופן טבעי המסורות שהוא מעלה מספרות בעיקר על בעלי קרקע עשירים; יש להניח שבהמון הרחב הייתה בעלות על חלקות מספר תופעה נדירה יותר, אך עדיין קיימת. ", + "במצרים הפך פיצול הנחלות לאסטרטגיה כללית; לכל אדם היו חלקות רבות, וגם לאריסים או לחוכרים עניים ביותר היו כמה חכירות זעירות10רוולנדסון, בעלי קרקע, עמ' 131-124. . קיטוע חלקות הנו נתון חברתי ראשון במעלה עבור בעלי קרקע פרטית. יש בו יתרונות וחסרונות. החיסרון העיקרי הוא שעלות העיבוד של חלקה קטנה יקרה יותר, ולחקלאי קל יותר לעבד שטחים נרחבים. כאן החריש והקציר קלים יותר, וההשגחה על שדה אחד קלה יותר מן ההשגחה על שדות מרובים. חיסרון נוסף הוא הבזבוז בזמן הנדרש כדי להגיע לשדה, והדברים ברורים. סופרי החקלאות הרומיים מתדיינים במפורש על ערכו הכלכלי של מרכיב זה (ראה למשל קטו, חקלאות 9 VIII; פליניוס, מכתבים 319, ועוד). עם זאת, בתנאי ימי קדם יש ליתרון הגודל משמעות מוגבלת, ומעבר לגודל מסוים הוא מאבד מערכו. בתנאי החקלאות המודרנית חבל להביא לשטח מצומצם כלי מכני כבד ומסורבל, אך בתנאים שבהם עבד החקלאי הקדום הייתה לכך חשיבות שולית. ביטוי מה לחישוב של שטח מינימום יש בהלכה האוסרת על פיצול מוגזם של חלקות. המדובר בשותפים (שני יורשים) שאחד מהם תובע חלוקת השותפות; תביעתו מתקבלת אם יש בשטח \"כדי חלוקה\". המידות שנוקבים בהן חכמים הן צנועות ביותר: \"ולא את השדה עד שיהא בה תשעה קבין לזה ותשעה קבין לזה, רבי יהודה אומר עד שיהא בה תשעה חצאי קבין לזה ותשעה חצאי קבין לזה, ולא את הגנה עד שיהא בה חצי קב לזה וחצי קב לזה, רבי עקיבא אומר בית רובע\" (משנה, בבא בתרא פ\"א מ\"ו). אם כן, השטח המזערי לחלוקה של שדה הוא 18 קבים, כחצי בית סאה (פחות מארבע מאות מ\"ר), ובגינה – קב מרובע (קצת יותר מעשרים מ\"ר). מעבר לכך עדיין יש לגודל יתרון, אך הוא כבר לא נחשב קריטי. ביטוי אחר ליתרון הגודל יש בדין הקובע שאם אדם מוכר את שדהו יש לִשכנו מה שמכונה כיום \"זכות הסירוב הראשונה\".", + "ריבוי חלקות היה מן הסתם תוצאה של דורות רבים של חלוקות, ירושה, מכירה וקנייה. במסמכי מדבר יהודה ניתן לראות כיצד התופעה מתחילה. תופעת ריבוי החלקות הייתה כנראה מקובלת, אם כי פחות במגזרים החלשים של החקלאות הקדומה (איור 23, תמונה 7).", + "המצב האגררי", + "יהודה שלפני המרד החשמונאי הייתה מבוססת בעיקרה על חקלאים זעירים ועצמאיים בצד מעט עשירים, ואף מספר בלתי ידוע של אחוזות ממלכה. במזרח עמק יזרעאל, למשל, השתרעה אחוזה ממלכתית גדולה. על אחוזות נוספות אנו שומעים מפפירוסי זנון11צ'ריקובר, פפירוסי זנון. . את היקפן של אחוזות הממלכה איננו יכולים לאמוד, אך אין סיבה להניח כי אלו תפסו חלק גדול מאדמת הארץ. לפי ההלכה היהודית היו רק מעט אפשרויות לכך שהמקדש ישלוט על שטחי קרקע נרחבים (בניגוד למקדשים הפגניים בעולם הקדום). עם זאת נראה שהיו למקדש אדמות, אם כי לא בהיקף גדול, ועסקנו בכך במבוא למסכת שקלים. המרד החשמונאי והתפתחות האימפריה החשמונאית שימשו רקע אידֵאלי לשינויים אגרריים. השליטים החדשים ירשו את אדמות המלכים הסלבקיים, והכיבושים יצרו שפע הזדמנויות להפקעות קרקע. הגידול הדמוגרפי ביהודה גרם להיווצרות חסר קרקע גדול בירושלים, והתחולל תהליך פיתוח וגידול מסיבי ביותר. ירושלים הקדם-חשמונאית הייתה עיירה קטנה, והיא הפכה למטרופולין סואן. חלק מהגידול הדמוגרפי נספג בירושלים, הווה אומר שלעיר זרם המון של מחוסרי קרקע שהתפרנסו מאספקת שירותים לעשירי העיר ומעבודה בבניין העיר, בעיקר בבניין המקדש. סוף ימי בית שני מתאפיין בחילופי שלטון, כל חילוף גרר בעקבותיו תהליך של החלפת עיליתות ומן הסתם גם הפקעות קרקע של בני השכבה השלטת הקודמת. מצפון לירושלים נחפרו כמה מבני חווה שננטשו בזמנים שונים במהלך סוף ימי בית שני, וייתכן שזו העדות לתהליך זה של חילוף העיליתות.", + "יש חוקרים הסבורים שהמתח האגררי והריבוד הסוציאלי שנגרמו בעטיו היו הסיבות העיקריות למרד הגדול מחד גיסא, כמו גם לתופעות חברתיות אחרות (הכיתתיות, המשיחיות וכיוצא באלו) מאידך גיסא. אין לכך עדויות ישירות, אם כי ברור שבתקופה זו התחוללו שינויים אגרריים12אפלבאום, שאלת הקרקע; אפלבאום, הרקע, וכנגדו מור, מרד איכרים. , ושינויים כאלו הם רקע טבעי למהומות, מרידות ומתחים.", + "במהלך התקופה הרומית לא חל שינוי גדול במשפט האגררי. אותם סוגים של בעלות על הקרקע המשיכו גם בתקופה זו, ברם התחוללו כנראה שינויים בכמות הקרקע שהייתה שייכת לכל סוג של בעלות. ההתפתחות לא הייתה משפטית אלא כלכלית-חברתית. מרד החורבן ומרד בר כוכבא סיפקו לשלטונות הרומיים הזדמנות חוקית להחרמת קרקעות גדולה. אף שהדבר ניתן היה מבחינה משפטית, לא הפקיעו הרומאים את כל האדמות, אך אין ספק שאדמות רבות הופקעו. בתקופה זו מתחדשים ומתפשטים המונחים \"אריס\" ו\"חוכר\", וזו עדות ברורה להתרחבותה של תופעת האריסות. נראה כי חל מפנה של ממש במבנה האגררי בארץ. מסתמן תהליך ממושך של הצטמצמות החקלאות הפרטית. התהליך שהחל בסוף ימי בית שני התעצם בראשית התקופה הביזנטית – סוף ימי האמוראים (במאה הרביעית) – והפך לקריטי בשלהי התקופה הביזנטית. בשנת 380 הוחל בארץ חוק הקלונטיוס ולפיו הפכו החקלאי ואדמתו ליחידת מס אחת. לפי החוק נאסר על האריסים לנטוש את שדותיהם או לעבור לרשותו של אדון אחר. החוק נחקק באימפריה כבר בראשית המאה הרביעית, אך רק אז הוחל גם על פלשתינה13ג'ונס, קולונט. . החוק מעיד על התרחבות תופעת האריסות ומקבע אותה. להלן נשוב לתהליך זה (תמונה 8, בית אחוזה מפואר, איור 24 חלוקת קרקעות ליד חורבת כספא, איור 25 בתי גתות).", + "ענפי החקלאות בארץ", + "החקלאות הייתה ענף הייצור העיקרי ומקור ההכנסות והתעסוקה של מרבית תושבי הארץ. בספרות התלמודית נזכרו למעלה מ-500 גידולים, מתוכם זוהו קרוב ל-150 גידולי תרבות: 8 סוגי דגנים, 20 סוגי קטניות, 24 סוגי ירקות וצמחי מקשה, קרוב ל-30 עצי פרי, כ-20 צמחי תבלין ועצי סרק רבים. שלושת הגידולים המרכזיים היו ללא ספק החיטה, הזית והגפן. שלושה מינים אלו נזכרים במאות הלכות ועדויות תלמודיות, הרבה יותר מכל גידול אחר14פליקס, החקלאות, עמ' 427-424. . ", + "בלוח המזון נכללו שלושה מרכיבים עיקריים: לחם העשוי מחיטים (כ-600 גרם ליום), ולעתים רחוקות יותר משעורים, שמן זית ותאנים. היין אינו נזכר אלא בחלק מהמקורות, שכן שתייתו הייתה נדירה יותר (להלן), ונשים מוצגות כמי שאינן שותות יין, להוציא נשות עשירים (משנה, פאה פ\"ח מ\"ה; פ\"ח מ\"ז; עירובין פ\"ח מ\"ב; כתובות פ\"ה מ\"ח). סעודת האדם הרגיל כללה בבוקר לחם עם טיבול כלשהו, חומץ או שמן ובערב לחם עם דייסת עדשים וביצה, או תחליף אחר. בסעודות החג ובסעודות חגיגיות הוגשו גם דגים, ובשר לעתים נדירות יותר. העשירים סעדו מכל הבא ליד בסעודות הסבה, כמקובל15ראו המבואות לברכות ולפסחים. . לוח מזון שבועי לאישה רגילה לששת ימי השבוע מתואר במשנת כתובות:", + "המשרה אשתו על ידי שליש לא יפחות לה משני קבין חטין או מארבעה קבין שעורים... ונותן לה חצי קב קטנית וחצי לוג שמן וקב גרוגרות או מנה דבילה, ואם אין לו פוסק לעומתן פירות ממקום אחר, ונותן לה מטה, מפץ ומחצלת, ונותן לה כפה לראשה וחגור למתניה ומנעל ממועד למועד וכלים של חמשים זוז משנה לשנה... נותן לה מעה כסף לצורכה ואוכלת עמו מלילי שבת ללילי שבת (פ\"ה מ\"ח-מ\"ט).", + "סל המזון כולל, אפוא, כ-2400 גרם חיטים או 4800 גרם שעורים, 600 גרם קטניות, 0.4 ליטר שמן16מקור אחר מציע במקום הקטניות 720 גרם ירקות, ומוסיף 3600 גרם פשתן ו-300 גרם אורז (ספרי זוטא לדברים, יד כט). ו-600 גרם תאנים17ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 107-105; ראו פירושנו לפאה פ\"ח מ\"ה. . ", + "מקורות רבים נוספים מונים את הזית והגפן כשני גידולי המטעים העיקריים. כך, למשל, אסרו חכמים על שימוש בענפי עצים אלה להסקה במקדש משום יישוב ארץ ישראל (משנה, תמיד פ\"ב מ\"ג). לעומת זאת נעשה שימוש בענפיהם של עצי פרי אחרים, ובעיקר היו רגילים להעלות אש על המזבח בענפי תאנה ואגוז (שם שם), משום שחשיבותם החקלאית הייתה קטנה יותר. שני כפרים בשומרון נבדקו בידי ש' דר: בכפר בורק היוו הדגנים 26.4% מהנחלה, ענבים 20.2% וזיתים 12.9%. 5% מהשטח הוגדרו כשטחי שלחין ושימשו להערכתנו בעיקר לירקות. בכפר קרוות בני חסן הוקצו 52% מהשטח לדגנים, 22.2% לענבים ו-24.8% לזיתים18דר, שומרון, עמ' 74. . חישוב זה הוא משוער. שטחי הגפנים ניתנים לאבחון ולהגדרה בזכות המגדלים הקשורים בדרך כלל לגידול זה19דר, שומרון, עמ' 125-88; דר ואחרים, אום ריחן, עמ' 118-57. . לעומת זאת, אבחון שטחי הזיתים והגדרת הייעוד המדויק של שטחי הדגנים מבוססים על תנאי השטח בלבד.", + "דגנים וקטניות", + "דגנים ", + "שמונה סוגי דגנים נזכרים במקורות התלמודיים. חמישה מהם מתוארים כחמישה סוגי הדגנים העיקריים, ברם ברור שחיטים היו גידול הדגנים החשוב ביותר בארץ ישראל. אכילת שעורים רווחה בדרום הר חברון ובאזורי ספר אחרים, אך הרבה פחות מחיטים. כך לפי המקורות היהודיים (משנה, כתובות שם; נדרים פ\"ח מ\"ד; ירו', שם מא ע\"ד). במצבור מזון אחד שנבדק בדרום הארץ נמצאו גם חיטים וגם שעורים20כסלו, יתיר. . בשני מצבורים במערות המפלט בהר חברון נמצאו יותר שעורים מחיטים. במערת הרומח ובמערות נחל ערוגות נמצאו הרבה דגנים21שמחוני וכסלו, מזון; כסלו ושמחוני, עדות. , בעיקר שעורים (וכוסמים), ובמערת הר ישי מעט דגנים, ומיעוטם מבטא את הרעב, ואין בממצא מדגם סטטיסטי מספיק22כסלו ושמחוני, מזון. . ממצאים אלו אינם משקפים תנאים רגילים אלא שנים של עיבוד חלקי בלבד. ברם, לאור ממצאי המזון העתידים להתגלות באזורי יישוב יהא צורך לבחון את הקביעות המוצעות פעם נוספת. שעורים נחשבו למאכל הראוי לאסירים או לבהמות, ואף זו עדות לערכן הפחות בלוח המזון המשפחתי הרגיל. את הדגנים גידלו במחזור דו-שנתי, שנת מזרע ושנת בור. בשנת הבור ניתן היה לנצל את הקרקע לגידולים בעלי חשיבות משנית. הדגנים נועדו בעיקר לתצרוכת עצמית; היבול הממוצע לדונם איננו ידוע. פליקס הציע שהוא היה 300-150 ק\"ג לדונם23פליקס, דגנים, עמ' 146-140. . החישוב מבוסס על ניתוח מפולפל של סוגיית הבבלי (בבא מציעא קה ע\"ב) למשניות אחדות. לדעתנו הפירוש המוצע איננו הולם את המשנה, וההסתמכות על פרשנות של התלמוד הבבלי איננה משמשת בסיס איתן לשחזור חקלאות בארץ. לפיכך, אין לנו נתונים על כמות היבול השנתית. יבול ממוצע במצרים היה כ-10 ארטבות לארורה (400 ליטר ל-27 דונם, כלומר כ-15 ק\"ג לדונם בשטח מישורי ומושקה24רוולנדסון, בעלי קרקע, עמ' 249-247. ). עם זאת, יש לזכור שקיים קושי רב להעריך יבול לפי מסמכים כתובים, והמידע הוא סטרֵאוטיפי וחשוד. הערכות יבול מאזורים אחרים באימפריה אינן מוכחות דיין, שכן הן מבוססות על מקורות ספרותיים החשודים באי דיוק מחד גיסא, ועל מקורות מאוחרים מאידך גיסא25אבנס, כלכלה; שפור, דגנים, עמ' 88-82. . במשק הערבי המסורתי יבול של כ-100 ק\"ג לדונם היה תוצאה סבירה; על בסיס ההנחה שהיבול הממוצע בשנת המזרע היה 150 ק\"ג (יותר מהכפר הערבי המסורתי שהיה בלתי מפותח) הרי שלכלכלת משפחה של 4 נפשות נדרשו בממוצע גס כ-10 דונם.", + "יבוא חיטים לארץ ישראל", + "אין ספק שבארץ רווח גידול החיטה. גידול זה היה אחד הנפוצים, ואולי הנפוץ ביותר בתקופה הנדונה. מרכזי גידול החיטים בארץ היו מישור החוף (לוד, יבנה), ובקעות הגליל באיזור צפורי ובקעת יבנאל. כן נזכר גידול חיטה בעמק בית שאן. בימי הבית השני ובתקופת התנאים אין עדויות לייבוא משמעותי בשנים רגילות של חיטים לארץ. לעומת כל זאת, בידינו עדויות מספר מזמן האמוראים (התקופה הביזנטית) לייבוא מסיבי של חיטים (ירו', שקלים פ\"ח ה\"א, נא ע\"א ומקבילות). לפחות בתקופה זו חדלה הארץ מלספק את צרכיה בתחום זה, ונשענה על יבוא שהיקפו בלתי ניתן להערכה. מספר דגנים נזכרים במקורות התלמודיים כשיבולת שועל, כוסמין ושיפון. חשיבותם הייתה שולית, ומספר האזכורים העוסקים בהם מועט (נראה שיש לזהותם כמיני משנה של מה שנקרא היום חיטים ושעורים, ראו פירושנו לחלה פ\"א מ\"א).", + "אורז", + "האורז היה, כנראה, גידול חדש במרחב הארץ-ישראלי. ארץ ישראל סיפקה את צרכיה באורז, שכן הוא מנוי בין הגידולים שהקונה אותם בכל מקום בארץ חייב במעשרות (משנה, דמאי פ\"ב מ\"א). אין בידינו נתונים על צריכת האורז בשווקי הארץ, אך ברור שהיה זה גידול רווחי, וארץ ישראל לא רק סיפקה את רוב צרכיה באורז אלא אף ייצאה כמות מסוימת לחוץ לארץ. ", + "קטניות", + "קטניות היו מרכיב קבע בלוח המזון (לעיל). דייסת קטניות נחשבה לבישול רגיל. אין בידינו עדויות רבות על גידול הקטניות, ונראה ששטחי הקרקע שיועדו לקטניות היו מצומצמים. העדשים היו מאכל אופייני להמוני העם, ואילו בשכבה האמידה הייתה אכילתם נדירה יותר. אף שאין לכך ראיות ישירות, מסתבר שקטניות היוו ניצול של הקרקע בשדות הדגנים בהפסקה שבין שנת מזרע חיטים אחת לשנייה; הדבר הולם את מחזור הזרעים והוא אף מוכר בחקלאות הרומית. ", + "מטעים", + "זיתים ", + "המזרח התיכון הוא מולדת הזית. באופן כללי, הזית אינו מצליח במקומות שחורפם קר מאוד ובמקומות שקיצם יבש וחם מאוד, כפי שמעיד יוסף בן מתתיהו במלחמות (ג, 517): \"זיתים יפה להם האויר הממוזג\". לפי זה הוא מתאים את עצמו לאזורים רבים מאוד בכל רחבי ארץ ישראל. במקורותינו מודגשים כמה אזורים שהיו עתירי זיתים במיוחד (כגון הגליל בכלל והגליל העליון בפרט), אך בתי בד נתגלו כמעט בכל אתר ואתר שנבדק ולו בדיקה שטחית. נראה שכמעט בכל אזורי הארץ, להוציא אלו שהם בעלי מזג אוויר קיצוני, היה הזית גידול מרכזי ביותר. כפי שראינו לעיל נמנה הזית עם שלושת הגידולים המרכזיים, וחשיבותו הכלכלית הייתה רבה עד מאוד (איור 26 תמונות 10-9).", + "שמן", + "הזית שימש בעיקר לייצור שמן ויש לכך ביטוי בהלכות רבות, למשל \"מאימתי תורמין את הזתים, משיטענו. רבי שמעון אומר: משייטחנו\" (תוס', תרומות פ\"ג הי\"ג). המדובר במחלוקת בדבר מועד גמר מלאכה של זיתים, וחכמים מתדיינים בשאלה: איזה שלב בתהליך הבדידה (הבאת הזיתים לבית הבד) נחשב ל\"גמר מלאכה\" לצורך הפרשת תרומות ומעשרות. מדיון זה עולה שסתם זית נתפס כ\"מועמד\" לתעשיית השמן, ואין כלל דיון באפשרות ייעודו למטרה אחרת. מסקנה דומה עולה מהלכות רבות אחרות. זיתי מאכל נזכרים בהלכות שונות, אך ברור שהם בטלים כלפי זיתי השמן (עיקר השימוש בשמן היה לטבילת הפת ומיעוטו לבישול. צורכי התאורה של ההמון הרחב היו מועטים משום שרובם הקדימו לישון, ורק בשבת הקפידו על תאורת הבית בעת ארוחת הערב החגיגית). ", + "חשיבותו של השמן בלוח המזון הנזכר לעיל הייתה רבה. שמן הזית היה למעשה הספק העיקרי של שמנים הדרושים לגוף (בארץ ישראל קשה לשמר שומן מן החי לתקופות ארוכות, בשל האקלים). ספק רב אם קדמונינו היו מודעים לחלוקה שבין אבות המזון השונים, אך הם היו מודעים היטב לעובדה הפשוטה שהשמן שימש כטיבול העיקרי לארוחותיהם. צריכת השמן הוערכה לעיל (0.4 ליטר ליחיד לשבוע – 21 ליטר לשנה). כן נזכרת כמות של 75 ליטר לשמן למשפחה (גרעינית?) לשנה (משנה, שביעית פ\"ה מ\"ז), ושני הנתונים הולמים.", + "הזיתים נמסקו בשיטות שונות והועברו לבית הבד, שם הופק מהם השמן בתהליך שיש לו שרידים ארכאולוגיים רבים מכל התקופות26פרנקל ואחרים, בתי בד. .", + "זיתי מאכל ", + "למרות כל הנאמר לעיל על ערכו המזוני וחשיבותו הכלכלית של השמן מצאנו במקורות גם זיתי מאכל: כבושים, שלוקים, מגולגלים ומלוחים. במשנה שנינו: \"ותורמין זיתי שמן על זיתי כבש ולא זיתי כבש על זיתי שמן... זה הכלל... תורם מן היפה על הרע אבל לא מן הרע על היפה\" (תרומות פ\"ב מ\"ו). אם כן, יש סוג מיוחד של זיתים לכבישה, אך אלה נחשבים למין גרוע בהשוואה לזיתי השמן (וכן שם פ\"א מ\"ט). כן אנו שומעים על זיתי קלופסין (תוס', תרומות פ\"ד ה\"ג); זיתי גלוסקא או קלוסקאות, שהם זיתים ללא גרעינים (משנה, עבודה זרה פ\"ב מ\"ז; תוס', ברכות פ\"ו ה\"ז ועוד) וזיתים סופסים (מלוחים – תוס', טהרות פ\"י הי\"א, עמ' 671; בבלי, שבת קמה ע\"א). כן נזכר במקורות מוסף היורה (תנור) של שולקי זיתים (משנה, כלים פ\"ה מ\"ה; עדויות פ\"ז מ\"ח; תוס', פ\"ג הייא, עמ’ 459; עוקצין פ\"ב ה\"י, עמ' 687), ומכאן שגם בישלו (שלקו) זיתים. ברם, ייתכן שיורה (תנור) זו שימשה לחימום הגפת כדי להפיק את מעט השמן שנותר בה. קצת יותר ברור האזכור: \"גרעיני זיתים וגרעיני תמרים ששלקן\" (תוס', עוקצין שם), ובמקרה זה מדובר ככל הנראה על ניסיון להפיק את שרידי השמן מגרעינים אלו.", + "זיתי מאכל סתם נזכרים בכמה מקורות נוספים, כגון הדיון במי שאוכל זית וצנון או זית ובצל (בבלי, ברכות מ\"א ע\"א; תוס', חגיגה פ\"ג הי\"ב). היו גם שאכלו את הזית הטרי (לעיל, וכן משנה, מעשרות פ\"ג מ\"ג; ירו', שם פ\"א ה\"ה, מ\"ט ע\"ב). מקורות אלה מייצגים את מיעוט המקרים הנזכרים במקורות. יש להזכיר את הנאמר בראשית הדברים – רוב ייצור הזיתים הופנה לתעשיית השמן.", + "מן המפורסמות הוא שבתקופות קדומות היה ענף הזית מרכזי ביותר, וחשיבותו הכלכלית הייתה רבה עד מאוד (איור 27). במקומות אחרים נעשו ניסיונות מספר להעריך את משקלו הכלכלי27ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 124-123. . אין ספק שביישובים רבים ייצרו שמן הרבה יותר מצורכי היישוב28ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 127. , והשמן נועד למכירה מחוץ לתחומי הפרובינציה. במקורות נזכר ייצוא השמן לסוריה ולמצרים, ולנתון האחרון גם אישור פפירולוגי. בתקופה הביזנטית הייתה הפרובינציה יצואן שמן (ויין) חשוב ביותר, וכלים מתוצרת אזור עזה ואשקלון נמצאו באחוזים גבוהים יחסית (3%-10%) בנמלי המזרח התיכון29קינגסלי, שמן; מאירסון, עזה. .", + "עיבוד הזית", + "את הזיתים נטעו במרחק ממוצע של 12-11 עצים לדונם, והיבול הממוצע הנזכר במקורות הוא 20-12 ק\"ג לעץ). קטו מדווח על יבול נמוך יותר, כ-80 ק\"ג לדונם (פרק י). עץ הזית מניב פרי בסירוגיות, אך יבולו יציב ומושפע מעט משינויי אקלים.", + "גידול הגפן", + "הגפן הוא השלישי בשלושת הגידולים הבולטים והחשובים במשק הקדום בארץ יהודה30ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 136-126. . נראה שזה היה הגידול הרווחי מבין שלושת הענפים שהוזכרו, וכך נאמר בספר החוקים הסורי-רומי31חיבור זה מהמאה החמישית משקף את התחיקה המקומית בסוריה. לפי ספר החוקים הסורי-רומי, כמו בספרות חז\"ל, שדות הדגנים מתחלקים לשלושה: עידית, בינונית וזיבורית. נתון זה, ונתונים דומים, מצדיקים את השימוש בחוק הסורי-רומי כמקור לתולדות החקלאות בפרובינציית יהודה. זאת אף שרוב העדויות האפיגרפיות על חלוקת הקרקעות שביצע דיוקליטינוס במסגרת רפורמה זו הן מהגולן ומהחורן, ורק שתיים או שלוש כתובות באות מפרובינציית יהודה. ראו בן דוד, גולן, עמ' 224-223. : ", + "\"בימי דיוקלטיינוס המלך נמדדו הקרקעות. 5 יוגרים שהם 10 פלתרין (125 ד') כרם, יחשבו ליוגון (יחידת מס) אחת. 20 יוגרים (50 ד') שדה זרע, שהם ארבעים פלתרין, יחשבו יוגון אחד. 225 עצי זית מובחרים יחשבו יוגון אחד\"32ברונס וזכאו, ספר החוקים, 51 ו-151; וובוס, חוק, עמ' 60-59. . ", + "225 עצים ניטעו ב-20-18 דונם בערך (לפי 10 עצים לבית סאה). לפיכך, ניתן לקבוע שכרם ענבים שגודלו 125 דונם שווה בערכו למטע זיתים שגודלו 20-18 דונם, והגפן רווחית פי 16 בערך מן הזיתים. הגפן וגם הזית רווחיים מחיטה. גם המדרש קובע בפשטות: \"הגפן הזאת שרביט אחד יוצא ממנה ושולט בכל האילנות\" (ויקרא רבה, לו ב, עמ' תתלח). למסקנה דומה הגיעו גם החקלאים הרומיים בקבעם שהגפן היא מלכת החקלאות, והמגדל אינו יכול שלא להרוויח מענף זה. בניגוד למוכר בספרות החקלאית הרומית אין במקורותינו ביטוי למשתלה של גפנים, וגם ההדליה הייתה מועטת ונחשבה לטיפול מיוחד. בתחום זה ניכר \"פיגור\" של הפרובינציה, יחסית לאיטליה המתמחה בייצור יין (תמונות 10-9). ", + "צריכת היין", + "צריכת דגנים היא במידה רבה נתון קשיח. הצרכים המינימליים הם קבועים למדי, וגם יכולת האכילה המקסימלית איננה בלתי מוגבלת. לא כן צריכת יין. משנת שביעית מעריכה שגברי המשפחה הגרעינית הסתפקו ב-15 כדי יין לשנה (פ\"ה מ\"ז). הכדים הממוצעים היו של 15 ליטר, כלומר כמות של 225 ליטר יין הספיקה למשפחה גרעינית (לגבר). רק גרגרנים שתו יין \"חי\", כלומר נקי, ובני אדם רגילים שתו יין \"מזוג\" במים. כמויות המים היו שונות, ברם בדרך כלל שתו אותו מהול ביחס של 2:1, כלומר שתי כוסות מים לכוס יין (משנה, נידה פ\"ב מ\"ז; בבלי, שבת עז ע\"ב; במדבר רבה, ד א; השוו מקבים ב, טו 38). כמות יין של 225 ליטר לשנה מספיקה לשתיית 675 ליטר יין מזוג בשנה, כ-1.8 ליטר יין מזוג ליום לגבר בודד. בכמות זו של יין השתתפו מעט גם הילדים ומעט גם הנשים.", + "כמות היין ששתו אבותינו לא הייתה רבה, אך חשיבותו של המאכל נמדדת לא רק בערכו הקלורי אלא בטעם ובגוון שלו. היין והענבים היוו את המקור העיקרי ל\"טעם החיים\", הן כמקור לסוכרים והן לגיוון הארוחה. המשפט \"אין שמחה אלא ביין\" (מדרש תנאים לדברים, טז יד, והשווה בן סירא, לט 26) אומר רבות. קדמונינו כמעט לא הכירו משקאות אחרים, למעט מים, ויין נשתה, כאמור, כשהוא מהול במים כמשקה קל למחצה. היין היה משקה חגיגי, מרכיב מרכזי וחיוני בכל סעודת חג, משקה שהיה גם הבסיס למסיבות רעות, ולא תיתכן שמחה או אירוע חברתי בלעדיו. בארוחת חג נפתחת הסעודה ביין, ולעתים אף מסתיימת בשתיית יין. במקורות מוזכרים סוגים רבים של יינות, וכל זה מעיד על מקומו החברתי של היין. סיכום המקורות, גיוונם וכמותם, מלמד על גידול יין בהיקף נרחב ביותר. כל הנתונים שרוכזו לעיל מלמדים שהיין שהופק בארץ בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד נועד במידה רבה לייצוא. ואכן, המקורות שבידינו מלמדים על ייצוא משמעותי של יין, לארצות חוץ ובעיקר למצרים. ", + "תוצרת הכרם נועדה בראש ובראשונה ליין, על כן נחשבת עשיית היין לגמר מלאכה בענבים (כגון משנה, מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ז; תוס', תרומות פ\"ג הי\"ג), והענבים כמו הזיתים \"דלאו גני גורן נינהו\" (בבלי, בבא מציעא פח ע\"ב), כלומר – אינם נאספים לגורן כפֵרות עצמאיים. אף על פי כן השתמשו ביבול גם בצורות אחרות. לענבים טריים היה ביקוש מועט, מצומצם ומוגבל לתקופת הבציר, שהרי לאחר זמן קצר הם מתקלקלים. לפיכך אירע שאדם בצר את כרמו והוביל את הפרות לשוק; אם לא הצליח למכרם החזירם לגתו (כגון תוס', מעשרות פ\"ב ה\"ד; טהרות פי\"א ה\"ז, עמ' 672). אפשרות אחרת, רווחית פחות כנראה, הייתה ייבוש הענבים לצימוקים (תוס', ביצה פ\"ד ה\"א; בבלי, שבת מה ע\"א, ועוד). הצימוקים נזכרים לעתים, אך נראה שלא היה זה מוצר תדיר. כאשר הובאה כמות גדולה של צימוקים לשוק הניחו שהם צימוקי יבוא (ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ד; נדרים פ\"ח ה\"א, מא ע\"א). את הצימוקים ניתן היה להשרות במים, ולהכין יין מסוג אחר. יין שהתקלקל נועד כמובן לחומץ. בסוגי יין נוספים הנזכרים במקורות לא נעסוק כאן. עם זאת, יש להעיר שעשיר כהורדוס ייבא יין לחצרו, ואלו היו יינות מיוחדים בטיבם (איור 28א).", + "תפוצתו של גידול הגפן ", + "במקורות חז\"ל מוצג היין כגידול אופייני ליהודה. ברם, אין להסיק מכאן שבגליל לא ייצרו יין כלל. אנו שומעים על סוג של יין שעובד בציפורי ובטבריה (ירו', מגילה פ\"א הי\"ב, עב ע\"ד), ועל בני הגליל הבוצרים כרמיהם מאוחר מן הרגיל אחרי סוכות (ירו', גיטין פ\"ג ה\"ח, מה ע\"ב; בבא בתרא פ\"ו ה\"א, טו ע\"ג). אף אנטונינוס מרטיר (מאה ו) מוסר על גידול גפן בגליל. בסקרים ובסיורים נמצאו גתות רבות בגליל, וברור שהיה זה ענף חשוב, אבל חשוב פחות מגידול הזית. בגולן הגבוה כמעט לא נמצאו גתות. ביהודה ובאזור לוד רווח כאמור גידול היין, אם כי מצויים גם ביהודה אזורים שבהם כמות הגתות שנמצאה בסקרים קטנה. דוגמה לכך היא שפלת בית גוברין. מכל מקום, המקורות מדגישים שהיין הוא גידול מובהק של יהודה, ואילו הזיתים גידול מובהק של הגליל (כגון מדרש תנאים, כו יג, עמ' 176; ירו', פ\"ה ה\"ד, נו ע\"ג, ומקבילות)33אבחנה זו יוצאת כבר מברכת יעקב לשבטים, ראו דברים מט יא לעומת מט כ. ברם, התיאורים של חז\"ל במקרה זה עצמאיים ואינם קשורים לפסוקים. אדרבה, הפסוקים עמומים במקצת והמדרשים מסבירים אותם לאור האבחנה החקלאית. ראו התרגומים לפסוקים אלו, בראשית רבה, צח ט, עמ' 1259; צז כ, עמ' 1223, ועוד. . ", + "הגפנים ניטעו בצפיפות רבה יותר מעצים רגילים, אך לא נמסרו נתונים על צפיפות הנטיעה, ועל היבול הממוצע. הנתונים הכמותיים שמוסרים קטו וקולמלה גבוהים מאוד (עד כ-3000 ליטר לדונם – קטו 111; קולמלה 32). במשק הערבי המסורתי היה היבול כ-600 ק\"ג ענבים לדונם, שהם 360 ליטר לדונם בלבד. מספר זה הוא נתון כללי בלבד.", + "תאנים", + "התאנה הייתה גידול חשוב ביותר34פליקס, עצי פרי, עמ' 197-83. , עם זאת בגלל מתיקותו הרבה אי-אפשר שפרי זה יהיה מרכיב מרכזי בסעודה, והוא עשוי להשתלב כתוספת בלבד. במקביל אין אנו שומעים על מטע תאנים, אלא על עץ בודד בשדה הזוכה לטיפול מיוחד. בדרך כלל סיפקה הארץ את כל צרכיה בתאנים. התאנה נזכרת יחד עם פרות אחרים כפרי המצוי בכל שוק ויש להפריש ממנו מעשרות: \"ואלו דברים מתעשרין דמאי בכל מקום\". הרשימה הנזכרת במשנה מונה: \"הדבילה, והתמרים, והחרובים, האורז והכמון\" (דמאי פ\"ב מ\"א), מכאן שהפרות הללו גדלו כמעט תמיד בתחומי הארץ. ", + "התלמוד הירושלמי מזכיר אמנם דבלה שהובאה מבוצרה שבעבר הירדן (דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ב), אך צורתה הייתה שונה. עדות אחרת לייבוא גרוגרות מצויה מדור יבנה (120-90 לערך). מצד שני נזכר ייצוא של תאנים לרומא35פליניוס, היסטוריה של הטבע, יג 51, ועוד. , והיקפו של ייצוא זה בלתי ידוע. משנה אחת מונה יבול ממוצע של 34 ק\"ג לעץ (שביעית פ\"ז מ\"ב); אין בידינו נתונים להשוואה מארצות סמוכות.", + "תמרים", + "תמרים היו גידול חשוב ביותר באזורי המדבר ובבקעת הירדן36לאו, פלורה ב, עמ' 362-320; פליקס, עצי פרי, עמ' 130-113. . מרכזי הגידול היו באופן טבעי בעין גדי, בעמק בית שאן, מעט באזור טבריה, ובעיקר ביריחו המכונה במקרא \"עיר התמרים\" (דברים לד ג ומקבילות). התומר זקוק לחום רב ולמים, על כן מצטמצם גידולו לאזורים של מזג אוויר טרופי. התומר אינו מופיע בלוחות המזון משום שאלו מייצגים את הנעשה בכלל הארץ, ואילו התמרים היו גידול אזורי מובהק; לנזירי המדבר אף היווה תחליף ללחם37פלדיוס, היסטוריה, פרק נב. . בלוחות המזון של פליטי מדבר יהודה, למשל, התמרים תופסים מקום חשוב38שמחוני וכסלו, מזון; כסלו ושמחוני, מזון; כסלו ושמחוני, עדות. .", + "מטעי התמרים של הארץ זכו לתהילה רבה, וסופרים זרים המתארים בקצרה או בהרחבה את הארץ מזכירים לשבח את תמריה, ואת תמרי יריחו בפרט39פליניוס, היסטוריה, יג 49-26; תיאור ערי העולם, 31, ועוד. . הארץ סיפקה את צרכיה בתמרים (משנה, דמאי פ\"ב מ\"א), אם כי נזכרים תמרי יבוא ממצרים (ירו', שם פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ב). התמרים באזור קיסריה, למשל, הובאו מאזורי היישוב היהודי בארץ ועל כן חויבו במצוות התלויות בארץ אפילו בקיסריה אף ששוחררה ממצוות אלו (ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ב), וכן נזכר הדבר בכתובת רחוב40זוסמן, כתובת, עמ' 131. .", + "החקלאים בארץ ישראל גילו את סוד התמר המיובש, וגילוי זה אפשר ייצוא תמרים למרחוק. ואכן אנו שומעים על ייצוא תמרים לרומא מהמקורות הרומיים שהובאו לעיל, וכן בזכות שאלה הלכתית שהופנתה לרבי חילפיי בר קירויא (ירו', מעשר שני פ\"ד ה\"א, נד ע\"ד) על פדיון מעשר שני בתמרים מקומיים שהגיעו לרומא, ושם היה מחירם יקר מאוד. בעיני הרומאים הפך התמר למייצג של ארץ יהודה (איור 29 מטבע יהודה השבויה), אף שבסל המזונות המקומי הוא לא היה הפרי המוביל.", + "פרות נוספים ", + "למעלה מעשרים סוגים של עצי פרי נזכרים במקורות, בנוסף לשלושת הסוגים אשר בהם דנו לעיל, כגון אגס, אפרסק, תפוח וכיוצא באלו. רובם נזקקים לאקלים חורפי-אירופאי ורווחו בעיקר בגליל העליון, אך בסך הכול דומה שערכם היה מצומצם. כן נזכר החרוב המופיע לעתים כגידול חשוב (משנה, מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ו ועוד), ובדרך כלל – כמאכל עניים ובהמות (משנה, שבת פכ\"ד מ\"ב; מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ב; כלאים פ\"א מ\"ד ומקבילות; עוקצין פ\"א מ\"ו ועוד הרבה).", + "ירקות וצמחי מקשה", + "במקורות נזכרים כ- 24 מיני ירקות. עם זאת, רוב הירקות העולים תדיר על שולחננו לא היו בידי הקדמונים. לדוגמה, עגבנייה, מלפפון ירוק ופלפל לא הוכרו כלל. מבין תפוחי האדמה הכירו קדמונינו רק בולבוסין – תפוחי האדמה המתוקים. רוב הירקות תרמו רק מעט לתזונת האדם. עם זאת היו הירקות מרכיב של קבע על השולחן הקדום, ירק נאכל תדיר לסעודות הבוקר והערב, כגיוון וכתוספת לאבות המזון. הירקות תלויים בהשקאה, או לפחות בהשקאת עזר, זאת בניגוד ליתר הגידולים אשר היו רובם גידולי בעל, על כן גודלו הירקות ב\"גינה\", המינוח המקובל לשטח המעובד באינטנסיביות ובהשקאה41ראו הנספח למסכת עירובין. . הצורך בהשקאה גרם לצמצום שטחי הירקות.", + "הירקות מתוארים כגידולים שאינם נשמרים במחסן ויש להם \"חיי מדף\" קצרים: \"הירק אף על פי שלקיטתו כאחד (כל היבול נאסף בבת אחת) אין מכניסו לקיום\" (תוס', פאה פ\"א ה\"ז). מרובות במקורות העדויות על מכירת ירקות בשוק משום שאת רובם לא ניתן לאחסן זמן רב. בצלים ושומים ניתן היה לאחסן זמן רב, אך לא כן ירקות אחרים.", + "בדרך כלל נועדו הירקות לצריכה עצמית ולשוק המקומי, אך לעתים שווקו למרחקים, כמו למשל בולבוסין ששווקו לקיסריה מ\"הר המלך\" (צפון יהודה – ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"ב, כב ע\"ג; וכן בכתובת רחוב). כן נמסר על ייבוא ירקות ממרחקים לבית שאן42זוסמן, כתובת, עמ' 132; ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"ב, כב ע\"ג. . כמו כן ידוע, למשל, על הבצל מאשקלון שנמכר למרחקים וכנראה יוצא לחו\"ל43סטרבון, גאוגרפיה, טז 229. .", + "צמחי תבלין ", + "למעלה מ-15 צמחי תבלין נזכרים במקורותינו. הבולטים שבהם: חרדל, כוסבר, כמון, צלף וקפריסין, ועולה על כולם הפלפל. הפלפל הוא צמח טרופי, והתאמתו לתנאי הארץ קשה. חכמים התפארו שבארץ גדל גם הפלפל (קהלת רבה, ב ב), ואת חכמתו של שלמה המלך המקראי העצימו והדגימו בכך שידע היכן כדאי לנטוע פלפל. הפלפל היה גידול רווחי ביותר, אך לא היה ענף חשוב בארץ ומשמעותו אזורית בלבד.", + "צמחי בושם", + "בין צמחי הבושם בולטים כמה גידולים מפורסמים אשר שמם הביא את תהילתה של הארץ אל כל רחבי העולם הרומי. הבולטים שבהם היו האפרסמון והמור. סופרים יווניים רבים מזכירים לשבח בשמים אלו, ובעיקר את האפרסמון שהפך לגידול מייצג של הארץ44פליקס, בשמים, עמ' 61-37; ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 154-147, ועוד. . האפרסמון היה בושם חשוב ביותר, ויובא לאימפריה הרומית מערביה. ערכו הרב, וקווי התחבורה הארוכים שבהם הובל, גרמו לכך שמחירו של בושם זה בשווקי האימפריה היה יקר ביותר. האזור היחיד שגדלו בו האפרסמון והמור בתחומי האימפריה היה עמק הירדן, ועל כן הייתה חשיבותם הכלכלית של מטעים אלו רבה עד מאוד. לאחר המאה הראשונה מתמעטות הידיעות על האפרסמון, וחלק מאלו המזכירים את גידולו משתמשים במידע קדום, ואינם משקפים ידיעות רֵאליות. מכלל העדויות ניתן להסיק שמטעי האפרסמון ביריחו נהרסו או צומצמו עד מאוד, כלל האזור נפגע אך לא ננטש כליל, ושטחי החקלאות הצטמצמו לסביבות הנביעות (יריחו, נערן וכיוצא באלו).", + "צמחי תעשייה", + "פשתן", + "הפשתן היה אחד מחומרי הגלם החשובים לבגדים באימפריה. הפשתן, \"כיתנא\" בארמית, נזכר רבות בספרות של תקופת המשנה והתלמוד45ספראי, פשתן; וילד, טקסטיל; הרשברג, חיי התרבות. . המקורות המתארים את כלכלת ארץ ישראל בימי הבית השני אינם מזכירים כלל את גידול הפשתן, ונראה שלא היה זה ענף רווחי בארץ. אמנם נמצאו אריגי פשתן בחפירות ארכאולוגיות כבר מן התקופה הנאוליתית ומימי מרד בר כוכבא, אך עדיין היה זה ענף שולי. לעומת זאת, במקורות מן המאה השנייה נזכר הפשתן לעתים קרובות כענף חקלאי ותעשייתי מרכזי בארץ, וכאחד ממוצרי הייצוא העיקריים שלה. אב הכנסייה הנוצרי קלמנס מאלכסנדריה, המאשים את נשות מצרים בחיי הוללות, טוען שהן משתמשות באריגי פשתן מארץ העברים. פאוזניאס46סופר יווני שתיאר בגאווה את יוון, בן המאה השנייה לספירה. מרמז אף הוא על טיבם המעולה של אריגי הפשתן מן הארץ, וכן יוצא ממקורות נוספים, רומיים ויהודיים כאחד (בראשית רבה, יט א, עמ' 170; כ יב, עמ' 196; ירו', כתובות פ\"ז ה\"ז, לא ע\"ה, ומקבילות; עבודה זרה פ\"א ה\"ד, לט ע\"ג)47פאוזניאס, יון, ה 5. 2; תיאור ערי העולם 31; אדיקט המחירים של דיוקלטינוס, פרק 26; קודקס תיאודוסינוס, פרק י, 20. 8. . במקורות התלמודיים מרובות העדויות שבהן נזכר הפשתן כגידול אופייני לגליל (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"י ה\"ט; תוס', כתובות פ\"ד ה\"ה; ירו', שם פ\"ד ה\"ה, ל ע\"א; בבלי, שם סא ע\"ב, ועוד).", + "תולדות גידול הפשתן ", + "כאמור, הפשתן נזכר במקורותינו כענף נפוץ רק החל מסוף דור יבנה, ובעיקר מלאחר מרד בר כוכבא. פאוזניאס ביקר בארץ בערך ב-175 לספירה, ובזמנו הייתה כבר תוצרת הפשתן של הארץ שם דבר במזרח כולו. גם קלמנס מאלכסנדריה המזכיר את הבגדים הבאים מארץ העברים חי בין השנים 216-150 לספירה. המתקנים לשריית פשתן שנמצאו ליד תל שוש, היא גבע פרשים, ראשיתם במאה השלישית48ספראי ולין, גבע. ראו גם איור 20. (איור 30). לאחרונה דווח על מתקנים דומים באותו אזור, אך המידע טרם פורסם. \t", + "הפשתן מופיע כגידול אופייני לגליל, בניגוד לצמר שהוא תוצר אופייני ליהודה. המקום הידוע ביותר לפי המקורות הרומיים מהתקופה הביזנטית שגידלו ועיבדו בו פשתן הוא העיר בית שאן. כן נזכרת במדרש בית שאן כמקום לייצור פשתן מעולה, וארבל כמקום ייצור של אריגי פשתן גסים (בראשית רבה, יט א, עמ' 170 ומקבילות). מרכזים נוספים לייצור פשתן היו טבריה ואגן הכנרת (בבלי, מועד קטן יח ע\"ב). בטבריה הייתה אגודת אורגים49שובה, כתובות, עמ' 181. , ומכיוון שהוכח ריבוי הפשתן באזור יש להניח שהכוונה לאורגי פשתן. כן משמע ממקורות נוספים50ירו', פאה פ\"א ה\"א, טז ע\"א; בבא מציעא פ\"ד ה\"ז, ט ע\"ד; פ\"ה ה\"ו, ט ע\"ג, ועוד. . עוד במאה השביעית אנו שומעים על סוחר פשתן משכם השוהה בטבריה51ברוק, מעשה, עמ' 315-314. . כאמור, מתקנים רבים לשריית פשתן נתגלו ונחפרו במשמר העמק, בשולי עמק יזרעאל, לפחות חלק מהם ניטש במהלך המאה השישית, ועל גביהם הוקמו בתי בד. הדבר מעיד על צמצום שטחי הפשתן לטובת גידול הזיתים, וייתכן שגידול זה אף חוסל לחלוטין, לפחות באזור זה. כל שטח המתקנים ניטש במאה השביעית עם הכיבוש המוסלמי, או אולי כבר עם הכיבוש הפרסי (614 לספירה).", + "מקומו של הפשתן במשק הלאומי ", + "גידול הפשתן היה רווחי הרבה יותר מגידול החיטה, כך ניתן ללמוד מרשימת המחירים שפרסם הקיסר דיוקלטינוס, לפיכך יש להניח שהחקלאי ניצל את מלוא הפוטנציאל של גידול הפשתן שעמד לרשותו. זאת בהתאם למגבלות מחזור הזרעים (פשתן פעם בשש שנים), כלומר שישית או רבע משטחו נוצל בממוצע רב-שנתי לגידול פשתן. היתרון הגדול של גידול הפשתן אינו רק ברווחיותו. אחת מבעיות היסוד של חקלאי הארץ הייתה כיצד לנצל את העונה החקלאית המתה. כושר הייצור של החקלאי נקבע לפי צורכי העבודה בעונת שיא העבודה. ברם, תנאי הארץ גורמים לכך שחודשים רבים העבודה היא מועטת, והחקלאי צמא לעבודה נוספת שתשמש מקור הכנסה. עונת שיא העבודה של גידול הפשתן משתלבת יפה במשק עבודה המבוסס על גידול דגנים, זיתים וגפנים. יתר על כן, הפשתן מספק עבודה רבה בעיבודו, וכך עשוי היה החקלאי למצוא מקור עבודה ופרנסה בעונות שסיפקו עד עתה הכנסה שולית בלבד. חלק מן הרווחים הגיעו, כמובן, לידי השלטונות בצורת מס, או באמצעות הפעלת בתי האריגה הממלכתיים, ברם רוב ההכנסה הגיעה לחקלאי המגדל ולשכניו שהפכו לבעלי מלאכה לכל דבר, וכך העשירו את כלכלתה של הפרובינציה כולה.", + "משי ", + "המשי לסוגיו השונים (\"שיראים\", \"סירקין\", \"הינדואין\", \"מטכסא\" ועוד סוגים שונים) נזכר רבות בספרות חז\"ל, אך הוא מופיע בעיקר כמוצר יבוא52הרשברג, חיי התרבות, עמ' 55-46. . עם זאת, אין ספק שיהודה הייתה שותפה במסחר הבינלאומי במשי, אך הגידול העצמי היה מועט ויוצא דופן (קהלת רבה, ב יא).", + "מרעה", + "מבנה משק המרעה ", + "מקורותינו מבחינים בשלושה טיפוסים של משק מרעה הצאן: ", + "א. צאן הרועה במדבר במשך כל ימות השנה. בעדרים אלה טיפלו נודדים שהיו בעלי העדר. ", + "ב. צאן הרועה בקיץ (מפסח ועד לימי הגשם) במדבר או בספר היישוב, ובחורף עת המרעה רב יחסית חוזרים בני הצאן ליישוב. עם זאת, אין עדות לתנועות הגירה גדולות בעקבות בני הצאן כמו אלו המוכרות מאיטליה. ", + "ג. בני הצאן הרועים בסביבת היישוב עצמו53משנה, ביצה פ\"ה מ\"ז; תוס', שם פ\"ה הי\"א; ירו', שם פ\"ה ה\"ז, סג ע\"ב; בבלי, שם מ ע\"א, ומקבילות. .", + "הטיפוס השני אופייני למשק מעורב של חקלאות ומרעה שהמרעה תופס בו מקום כלכלי חשוב ביותר. נדידה עונתית של הצאן מחייבת היערכות יישובית בעלת אופי מיוחד, והיא מוכרת היטב מאיטליה54פריין, חקלאות; וויטקר, מרעה; איזגר וסקידגרד, חקלאות, עמ' 101-99. . בארץ נסקר יישוב רועים מעין זה בענב א-כביר (איור 31), וסביב היישוב נמצאו מכלאות צאן המורכבות בדרך כלל מחדר מגורים ומחצרות למרבץ הצאן. מכלאות אלו דומות במידת מה למכלאות צאן קדומות באנגליה ובצפון אפריקה55ספראי, ענב אל כביר. (איור 32).", + "הטיפוס השלישי הוא של משק שבו הצאן הנו ענף עזר בלבד. שטחי הקרקע סביב היישוב עצמו לא אפשרו פיתוח משמעותי של ענף הצאן, משום שנוצלו ברובם לחקלאות אינטנסיבית. ממילא גרם הדבר לצמצום ענף המרעה.", + "ממקורות רבים עולה תמונה שבה יש לחקלאי בן צאן אחד או שניים, כענף עזר במשק החקלאי. לא כל חקלאי רעה את צאנו, אלא מקובל היה למסור את הצאן לרועה שכיר56משנה, ביצה פ\"ה מ\"ג; ירו', שם סג ע\"ב; בבלי, שם לז ע\"ד; עבודה זרה כב ע\"ב; משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ו מ\"ב, ומקורות רבים נוספים. . במקביל אנו שומעים על חקלאי אשר ברשותו צאן רב והוא רועה אותו בעצמו (משנה, שביעית פ\"ג מ\"ד). ", + "לאבחנה בין שני טיפוסי משק אלה יש גם משמעות אזורית. מרבית בני הצאן היו מרוכזים באזור יהודה, בגליל לעומת זאת היה ענף המרעה שולי, שכן רוב השטח נוצל לחקלאות אינטנסיבית. ", + "ההלכה אסרה גידול בהמה דקה (צאן) בארץ ישראל57גולאק, רועים; אלון, מחקרים א, עמ' 360-355. . ההלכה נקבעה כנראה בראשית המאה השנייה, והיא אופיינית בעיקר לגליל. ואכן, נאמר במפורש שמותר לגדל צאן במדבריות שביהודה ובשטחים זנוחים בשולי היישוב, ב\"חורשים\" (שטחי החורש הבלתי מעובדים) וב\"מדבריות\" (תוס', בבא קמא פ\"ח ה\"י).", + "צריכת הבשר במשק החקלאי ואצל המוני העם הייתה מצומצמת ביותר. לפי ההלכה בן הזולל תרטימר בשר (180-150 גרם), או מנה (600-500 גרם), נחשב כבר לבן \"זולל וסובא\" אשר מותר להענישו חמורות אם עשה זאת שלא ברצון הוריו (משנה, סנהדרין פ\"ח מ\"ב ומקבילות, וכן יוצא ממקורות נוספים). אכילת בשר הייתה מקובלת רק בימי חג ואירועים מיוחדים (משנה, חולין פ\"א מ\"ד ומקבילות), ורק על שולחן העשירים עלה הבשר לעתים קרובות. עצמות בעלי חיים נמצאו בכל החפירות, והן מעידות כי בשר שימש לאכילה, אך אין הן מעניקות בינתיים נתון כמותי שיאפשר הערכה של כמות הבשר שצרכו קדמונים. בזהירות אפשר להעריך שרוב העצמות שנתגלו הן של בעלי חיים מבוגרים. כלומר, הבהמות נוצלו למרעה ונאכלו רק לעת זקנתן. ברם, בדיקות אלו רק החלו להיערך ועדיין אין בידינו מידע מסכם בהיקף נרחב.", + "במקורותינו חוזרת הנוסחה שסתם עז נועדה לייצור חלב, והרחלות לגיזות וולדות. כן שנינו: \"שמין את העזים מפני שהן חולבות ואת הרחלים מפני שהן גוזזות\" (תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ה ה\"ד). כמו כן: \"ההולך לחלוב את עזיו ולגזוז את רחליו\" (בבלי, בבא מציעא סד ע\"א), וכן סתם: \"עז לחלבה ורחל לגיזתה\" (בבלי, שבת יט ע\"ב ומקורות רבים נוספים). כן נקבע במפורש: \"ראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא ברחלות\" (משנה, חולין פי\"א ה\"א ומקבילות רבות). ענף המרעה שימש, אפוא, כמקור לבשר המועט שנאכל, לחלב ומוצריו ובעיקר לצמר. ", + "משק העזר", + "\"משק העזר\" הוא מינוח כללי לסדרת ענפים חקלאיים שלא היו גידולי התמחות אלא פעילות שולית המתנהלת בחצר הבית. בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד רווחו כמה טיפוסי מבנים, והבנתם חשובה להבנת אפשרויות הפעולה במסגרת משק העזר. בימי בית שני רווחו שתי צורות התיישבות. האחת היא חוות בודדות שבכל אחת התגוררה משפחה מורחבת במבנה פשוט אך גדול ממדים, ששטחו לעתים למעלה מדונם (איור 33). במקביל היו גם כפרים מכונסים שבהם היו מבני המגורים קטנים הרבה יותר (להלן). בנוסף היו בתי אחוזה גדולים מדגם ה- Villa Rostika הרומית. אמנם ביהודה לא נמצאו מבנים מפוארים מאוד מסוג זה, אך נמצאו אחוזות בינוניות (איור 34). בהמשך התקופה הרומית התרבו הכפרים המכונסים ומספר מבני החווה הפשוטים התמעט, אך לא נעלם. במבנה חווה ובבית אחוזה יש מקום רב למשק עזר, לא כן בכפרים המכונסים. כאן התגוררו משפחות בבתים פשוטים, או במבני חצר שהיו בהם שותפים רבים. ספרות חז\"ל מתייחסת ברובה ל\"חצר השותפים\" שיש בה דיירים רבים, אבל בחפירות ארכאולוגיות נמצאו טיפוסים רבים של מבנים, החל מקומפלקס גדול ובו חדרים רבים המזוהה עם אותה חצר שותפים, וכלה בבתים פשוטים שיש בהם 3-2 חדרי מגורים ובהם גרה משפחה גרעינית, משפחה מורחבת, או אף שותפים מספר58הירשפלד, הבית. בית כזה נראה בעינינו כיום דמיוני; וכי כיצד זה מסתדרות משפחות מספר בבית מגורים אחד?! ברם, אם תורשה לי (ז\"ס) הערה אישית, בית כזה ראיתי וחוויתי במו עיניי בילדותי. תושביו לא חשו עצמם כעניים, ולא כמסכנים, אף שממבט בן ימינו כך נראים הדברים. . מכל מקום, בספרות חז\"ל חוזרת ההנחה שבפועל יש למשפחה גרעינית \"רגילה\" חדר מגורים אחד. בספרות חז\"ל אין מונח ל\"דירה\" הכוללת חדרים מספר ושייכת לאדם אחד59במקרא מופיע המונח \"בית\" ובו \"חדרים\", אבל בספרות חז\"ל \"בית\" הוא חדר בלבד, ו\"חדר\" הוא לא יותר מכוך קטן בתוך הבית. . החצר הייתה משותפת, ובה התנהלו רוב חיי היום יום. כאן בישלו ואפו, כאן אחסנו פֵרות, וכאן היה המרחב למשק העזר שיתואר. מרחב מגורים נוסף היה הגג ששימש לארוחות, לגידול יונים ולאחסון, אך יתר המרכיבים של משק העזר לא יכולים היו להתבסס במרחב זה. בתנאים אלו לא יכול היה משק העזר להיות מפותח מאוד.", + "תרנגולים", + "גידול תרנגולים היה מרכיב משמעותי במשק העזר בחברה היהודית, ומן הסתם גם בחברה הלא-יהודית. התרנגולת הפיקה בעיקר ביצים, ואלו שימשו להעשרת סל המזון הפשוט למדי של החקלאי הרגיל. התרנגולות שוטטו בחצר ומחוצה לה באופן חופשי, בדרך כלל הן שוטטו כשלרגליהן חוטים לסימן בעלות, שכן התרנגולות שונות בהחלט זו מזו אך הדמיון לעתים רב, והחשש היה שמא יתבלבלו ולא ידעו למי שייכת התרנגולת (שבת פ\"ה מ\"ד).", + "התרנגולים שוטטו בחצר וכמובן הזיקו לא מעט, הפכו חפצים ושברו, ועל כן מקיימים המקורות סדרת דיונים על נזקי התרנגול, כגון \"כיצד הרגל מועדת לשבר בדרך הלוכה? ...התרנגולים מועדין להלך כדרכן ולשבר, היה דליל קשור ברגליו, או שהיה מהדס ומשבר את הכלים משלם חצי נזק\" (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ב מ\"א), וכן: \"תרנוגלין שהידסו את העיסה, ואת הפירות, או שניקירו, משלמין חצי נזק. הידסו עפר על גבי עיסה, ועל גבי פירות, משלמין נזק שלם. היו מחטחטין בחבלו של דלי, נפל ונשבר משלם נזק שלם. נפל ונשבר ושיבר כלי אחר, על הראשון משלמין נזק שלם, ועל האחרון משלמין חצי נזק. תרנגלין שירדו לגינה ושיברו את החליפין, וקיטמו את הירק, משלמין נזק שלם... תרנגול שהיה פורח ממקום למקום והזיק בגופו, משלם נזק שלם. ברוח שבכנפיו חצי נזק. סימכוס אומר נזק שלם\" (תוס', בבא קמא פ\"ב ה\"א; בבלי, בבא קמא יז ע\"א; יז ע\"ב). ברשימה זו מפורט \"קטלוג\" של 16 נזקים אפשריים, ומן הסתם גם זה קטלוג חלקי בלבד. ההבדל אם משלם נזק שלם או חצי נזק הוא האם הנזק צפוי ואז משלם נזק שלם, או שמא הוא בלתי צפוי.", + "במקביל גם ניקרו התרנגולים בכל העומד בדרכם, כולל מזונות (משנה, טהרות פ\"ג מ\"ח), וזו הסיבה לכך שהיו שפקפקו אם מותר לגדל תרנגולים בכל מקום בארץ (לאחר שבירושלים בוודאי הדבר אסור [תוס', יבמות פ\"ג ה\"א; יומא סו ע\"ב]). התרנגולים אכלו מכל המזדמן להם. במשך היום שוטטו בחצר ומחוצה לה, וניקרו באשפתות ובשיירי המזון של בני הבית (בבלי, יומא עה ע\"א; בראשית רבה, עה א, עמ' 878; שיר השירים רבה, ד ח; ויקרא רבה, יב א; אסתר רבה, ה א). רק לעת ההטלה ניסו להושיב את התרנגולת במקום קבוע, והשליטה בתנאים אלו הייתה קשה.", + "אף על פי שהתרנגולים ניקרו מזון מכל הבא לפיהם, בפועל הייתה בעלת הבית אחראית למעשה על הטיפול בתרנגולים ועליה היה להאביסם בצורה מסודרת (תוס', שבת פ\"ו ה\"ד). בעלת הבית החליטה האם לאסוף ביצים אחדות ולהושיב את התרנגולת לדגור עליהן כדי לגדל אפרוחים, או להשתמש בביצים לאכילה. הטיפול בתרנגולת הוא מעבודות האישה. כך, למשל, חכמים מתירים לקנות מהאישה ביצים או תרנגולות משום שנהוג שאדם מאפשר לאשתו מסחר זעיר זה. כך שנינו: \"אבל לוקחין מן הנשים כלי צמר ביהודה, וכלי פשתן בגליל, ועגלים בשרון. וכולן שאמרו להטמין אסור. ולוקחין ביצים ותרנגולים מכל מקום\" (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"י מ\"ט). \"מכל מקום\", כלומר בכל חבלי הארץ, שכן בכל מקום נהוג שהאישה עוסקת בכך. כך גם נזכרת עסקה רגילה בין שתי נשים, שתרנגולת אחת תדגור על ביצים של שתי נשים, או הסדרי שותפות דומים (משנה, בבא מציעא פ\"ה מ\"ד; תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ד הכ\"ד; שם הכ\"ה). ברור שהמטפלות בעסקאות כאלה הן הנשים, וכן עולה מעדויות נוספות. אחוז הפריון של הביצים תלוי בטיב התרנגולת ובתנאי התזונה של העולם הקדום. ודאי שהאחוז היה נמוך יחסית, וכן מדגים המדרש: \"למה הדבר דומה לאשה שהיא מושבת תרנגולת על הביצים, מתוך הרבה היא (מוציא) [מוציאה] מעט, ומתוך מעט אינה מוציאה כלום\" (אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"ב פ\"ד). גם כאן כמובן האישה היא המושיבה את התרנגולת.", + "יונים", + "גידול יונים היה שולי ותפס מקום חשוב רק בשפלת יהודה בסוף ימי בית שני60טפר, יונים; ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 179-172. . ספק רב אם גידול זה היה חקלאי, או שמא נועדו היונים למטרות פולחניות במקדש בירושלים או במקדשים פגניים באידומיאה, מכל מקום ענף ייצור זה התמוטט באופן פתאומי אי שם במאה הראשונה לפני הספירה. לאחר מכן נזכר גידול היונים רק בצורה ספורדית כחלק ממשק העזר שליד הבית (איור 35). ", + "צאן ובקר", + "במבנה משק הבקר עסקנו בפירושנו לביצה פ\"ה מ\"ז, ולכן נקצר. באזורי היישוב היו לחקלאים בני צאן בודדים, וגם אלו נכללו במשק העזר. לבעל בית רגיל היה חמור להובלות, ופרה כדי לחרוש עמה. החריש עצמו התבצע בעזרת צמד פרות, אך לעתים השאילו את הפרות זה לזה, כמו ששנינו: \"תחרוש פרתי עמך [היום ושלך עמי למחר...]\" (תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ו הי\"ד). לא לכל איכר היה שור ויש להניח ששור אחד שימש להרבעת פרות רבות, ובכפר היו שוורים לכמה מהתושבים. הוא הדין באיל ששימש להרבעת כבשים. המקורות מזכירים יחס של זכר אחד לעשרים כבשים או עזים, אך מספר זה משקף עדרים גדולים ולא משק עזר (בראשית רבה, לב ז, עמ' 904). אזור השרון נזכר כמקום גידול לעגלים, ואזי שוב האישה היא שמטפלת בהם כמו בכבשים ובפרות הבית (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"י מ\"ט). ", + "גידול חזירים?", + "ברוב ארצות העולם נחשב גידול החזיר לאחד המרכיבים העיקריים של משק החי. לא כן בארץ ישראל בכלל, ובארץ ישראל היהודית בפרט. אכילת החזיר נחשבה לאיסור חמור, ולאחד הסמלים הבולטים המייחדים את היהודים. האירוע המפורסם שישו מעביר בו את השד לעדר חזירים עשוי להתפרש בעדר השייך לנכרי, או בעדר חזירי בר, שכן המעשה אירע באזור מזרח הכנרת שהיה מעובד רק בצורה חלקית. מכל מקום אין זה אלא סיפור אגדה, והבחירה בחזיר אינה משקפת רק מציאות אלא היא ספרותית. בחפירות ארכאולוגיות בכפרים יהודיים אכן התגלו רק מעט מאוד עצמות חזירים (כך למשל בעין גדי61שדה, זואוארכאולוגיה. , סומקה ורקית).", + "מן התורה נאסרה רק אכילת החזיר, אך גידולו ומכירתו לגויים נאסרו רק על ידי חכמים: \"אין מגדלין חזירים בכל מקום\"62משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ז מ\"ז; בבלי, שם פב ע\"א; סוטה מא ע\"ב; מנחות סד ע\"ב. . עם זאת, מן המקורות עולה שהחזיר היה מוכר היטב לחכמים והם ידעו פרטים רבים על אופיו וצורתו. המשנה בעוקצין קובעת בפשטות שנבלת חזיר נמכרת לגויים, והמקורות עוסקים בבעיות הקשורות בנזקים הנגרמים על ידי חזיר63תוס', בבא קמא פ\"א ה\"ח; ירו', שם פ\"א ה\"א, ב ע\"ב; בבלי, שם יז ע\"ב; יט ע\"ב ועוד. . עם זאת, אין ספק שבמשק היהודי היה החזיר נדיר והוא נזכר בעיקר כמצוי בידי גויים64כגון ירו', עבודה זרה פ\"ב ה\"ט, מב ע\"א; בבלי, שם לט ע\"ב. . יש להניח שגידול החזירים תפס מקום חשוב במשק הנכרי בארץ, אך אין לכך ראיות מסייעות, זאת בגלל מיעוט המידע על הקהילות הלא-יהודיות בארץ. ", + "משק העזר היה, אפוא, מצומצם בהיקפו והתרכז בחצר הצפופה, ובאופן טבעי עסקה בו בעיקר האישה. לעומת זאת, כל עבודות החקלאות שמחוץ לחצר קשורות לגברים; מכיוון שרוב האוכלוסייה בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד התגוררה בכפרים מכונסים, הרי שהשדות היו רחוקים מעט (עד טווח של 2-1.5 ק\"מ בממוצע), והאישה לא הרחיקה מביתה לעבודות כאלה אלא לצורך עבודות המוניות כקציר או מסיק (משנה, יבמות פט\"ו מ\"א). כן שמענו במשנת אהלות על אישה המכינה מקום לבנה בין השיבולים (פ\"ח מ\"א); משנה אחרת מתארת מצב שבו הבעל יוצא לעבודה עם בניו ואשתו וקובע את תנאי עבודתם, כולל ויתור על זכותם לאכול מהיבול תוך כדי העבודה65ספראי, פרקי גליל, עמ' 106-105. . ההיתר לאכול מהיבול בזמן העבודה חל בדרך כלל על עבודות איסוף (בציר, מסיק וכיוצא באלו), נמצאנו למדים ששתי העדויות המשיחות לפי תומן על יציאת האישה לשדה לעבודה מתייחסות לעבודות אסיף שהן בדרך כלל עבודות המוניות. היישוב הכפרי הקדום בארץ היה מבוסס בדרך כלל על עבודה עצמית, ופועלים שכירים רווחו בעיקר ב\"עונה הבוערת\". בסך הכול, מספר העדויות לעבודת האישה בשדה מעטות ביותר, ובמקרים שבהם נזכר הדבר מדובר על עבודה עם הבעל. ", + "עיבוד התוצרת", + "רוב התוצרת החקלאית לא נצרכה כפרות טריים, אלא עובּדה. העיבוד נעשה בשדה (סחיטת הענבים ליין) או במרכזים בכפר, כגון בית בד לסחיטת שמן או עיבוד הפשתן שנעשה ברובו בבית הפרטי66עיבוד הפשתן הוא עבודת נשים מובהקת, ובגליל היה זה ענף כלכלי חשוב שהעניק איכות מיוחדת לעבודת האישה. ראו פירושנו לכתובות פ\"ה מ\"ה. . ", + "לעיבוד התוצרת החקלאית היו שלוש מטרות עיקריות: ", + "1. השקעת עבודה על מנת להעלות את מחיר התוצרת, וזאת בשל הקושי שבהפקת רווחים מעבודה חקלאית בלבד (עודף ידיים עובדות ומחסור בקרקע). ", + "2. שימור הפרי על מנת לאפשר את שיווקו למרחקים, ושמירה על איכותו לאורך ימים. ", + "3. הקטנת נפח התוצרת והקלה על דרך השיווק (שמן הוא 20%-25% מן הזית ויין – 60% מפרי הגפן). ", + "מהספרות התלמודית והארכאולוגית אנו לומדים למעשה על שלושה סוגי מתקנים: הגת לעיבוד יין – מצויה בשדה, בית הבד לעיבוד שמן – מצוי במרכז חקלאי או בעיר, והטחנה לטחינת קמח – מתקן השייך לצריכת הדגנים ואיננו בתחום עיסוקנו. בסיורים בשטחי מתקנים בארץ ניתן לגלות לעתים סוגים נוספים של מתקנים, בנוסף לגת, לבית הבד ולטחנה, אך הללו נפוצים פחות וידועים פחות. אין צורך לומר שהדבר קשור לעובדה שהגידולים הללו היו נפוצים פחות. ממילא כאשר מתגלה סוג חדש של מתקן מתפתח ויכוח על טיבו. כך, למשל, המתקנים במשמר העמק זוהו כמתקני פשתן (לעיל איורים 20, 30), והסבר זה עדיין אינו מקובל על הכול, אף שטרם הוצע הסבר חילופי.", + "מהמקורות שנידונו לעיל עולה בבירור כי בעיירות ובכפרי הבת עובדה התוצרת הראשונית, זיתים כשמן וגפנים כיין, יותר מכל הענפים האחרים שהיו נדירים הרבה יותר. אין כל עדות לשלב נוסף של עיבוד התוצרת במקום ריכוז אזורי, ואפילו הבשמים שגדלו באזור יריחו ועין גדי עובדו במקום.", + "אופייה של החקלאות הארץ-ישראלית", + "החקלאות הארץ-ישראלית הייתה בעיקרה חקלאות מעורבת, וברוב אזורי הארץ גידלו מגוון גידולים. זאת להוציא את המדבר ששימש למרעה בלבד, ואת בקעת יריחו שבה התמקדו בגידולים ייחודיים (תמרים ואפרסמון). בכפר כולו גידלו גידולים רבים, וכל חקלאי השתדל לגוון את עיסוקו. חז\"ל ממליצים \"שיהו נכסיך משולשין: שליש בתבואה שליש בזיתים ושליש בגפנים\" (בבלי, בבא מציעא קז ע\"א)67המימרה אמנם מצויה בתלמוד הבבלי בשמו של חכם ארץ-ישראלי, אך רקעה איננו מתאים לבבל שכן בה לא גידלו לא זיתים ולא גפנים. המדיניות בבבל הייתה של התרכזות בגידול אחד. ראו בבלי, בבא בתרא קכב ע\"א. . בדברים יש ביטוי גם ", + "לאוטופיה הכלכלית שלפיה המשק הפרטי צריך להיות אוטרקי, אך יש בה גם התבוננות רֵאלית הלוקחת בחשבון חלוקת סיכונים ופיזור העבודה החקלאית על פני כל השנה. ", + "הלכות כלאיים הגבילו מעט את האפשרות לגידולים שונים. איננו יודעים עד כמה הן נשמרו, אבל עדיין נותרה אפשרות לזרוע בין העצים במרחקים מתקבלים על הדעת ולקיים מטע בתוך שדה מזרע. במאה השלישית אנו מוצאים מחלוקת האם \"דרך בני אדם\" לזרוע דגנים בין האילנות (ירו', פאה פ\"ג ה\"א, יז ע\"ב). במשק הערבי הייתה זו תופעה נפוצה ביותר. בניסיון להרוויח כביכול שטח, קיימו שדות מעורבים. מבחינה חקלאית זו גישה מוטעית, וניצול השטח עולה באבדן פוריות. ואכן, בספרות הרומית מדברים על מטעים רצופים או על שדות דגנים רצופים, אם כי האחוזה כולה קיימה משק מעורב. החקלאות שחז\"ל הכירו הייתה אפוא נבונה, עיקרה עוסק בשדות רצופים, אך יש בה גם ביטוי לתופעת השדה המעורב.", + "הידע החקלאי היה מתקדם למדי, ומעיד על התבוננות בגידולי התרבות. אין עדות להכרה של ספרות החקלאות הרומית, אך בהחלט להתבוננות בטבע. רק לעתים רחוקות נמצא קביעות דמיוניות ופולקלוריסטיות.", + "לפי העולה ממקורות חז\"ל היה המשק החקלאי בעיקרו משק אינטנסיבי ביותר, פרטי וזעיר, ומבוסס על עבודה עצמית. החקלאי ניצל כל פיסת קרקע, כולל פינות סלעיות שניתנות לעיבוד ידני בלבד ודורשות סיקול מאומץ של השטח. במקביל היו גם אחוזות גדולות של עשירים (\"עיר\" בלשון חכמים), ואחוזות ממלכתיות. לדעתנו במבנה זה חל שינוי הדרגתי, בכיוון של ריבוד כלכלי גובר והולך, ובתקופה הביזנטית הפכה רוב החקלאות לחקלאות של אחוזות ואריסים (איורים 37-36, תמונה 8). זאת הסיבה לגידול הניכר במטמונים ובהם מטבעות זהב שעליה עמד ג'ירוס במזרח כולו68ג'ירוס, מטמונים; וינר וספראי, מטמונים. , ובעיקר במצרים, ועליה עמדו וינר וספראי בארץ ישראל. שאלה זו כבר חורגת מתחום דיוננו, אך בכל הקשור לחקלאות – המעבר ממשק זעיר למשק של בעלים נעדרים משפיע לטובה על כושר ההשקעה, אך משפיע לרעה על רמת ההתמחות והאינטנסיביות.", + "משק פתוח או סגור", + "בתקופת בית שני היה המשק החקלאי בעיקרו משק סגור, והפרובינציה (ארץ יהודה) סיפקה את רוב צרכיה בעצמה. בתקופה הרומית והביזנטית התחולל בארץ תהליך הדרגתי של גידול דמוגרפי; אין אנו יכולים לקבוע את מספר תושבי הארץ ולא את אחוז הגידול, וגם לא את תחומיו הכרונולוגיים המדויקים, אך עצם הגידול הדמוגרפי ברור. תהליך של גידול דמוגרפי חייב להיות מלווה בצמיחה כלכלית הולמת. תהליך דומה התרחש גם במדינות מתפתחות בעידן המודרני69בוסרוף, פיתוח. , והוא התרחש בארץ ישראל. התהליך ועדויותיו נבדקו במקום אחר70ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 430-415. . נראה שהמשק בארץ הפך במידה רבה למשק פתוח. החקלאות הפכה ברוב אזורי הארץ להתמחותית; שמן ויין גודלו בעיקר לייצוא, והארץ ייצאה גם פשתן ומעט פרות נוספים. כנגד זה ייבאה הארץ דגנים ופרות מיוחדים, מתכות ומוצרים נוספים. ", + "החקלאים נאלצו למצות את מלוא הפוטנציאל החקלאי. כך מובן מדוע נוצלו אדמות בעלות איכות ירודה, ומדוע וכיצד אנו עדים לתהליך של גידול מסיבי בכפרי-בת. במקביל פותחו ענפים נוספים שנועדו לאפשר צמיחה דמוגרפית. דיון מלא בנושא מצוי מחוץ לתחום דיוננו, ולא באנו אלא להעיר על ההשפעה שיש לתהליך על החקלאות עצמה. ", + "אם כן, כלכלת הפרובינציה מגלה סימנים מובהקים של משק פתוח, ברם קשה להגדיר את רמת הפתיחות של המשק. ברור שהמשק המודרני פתוח עוד יותר, וקשה לקבוע ולכמת את שהיה בעבר. בצד סימנים למשק פתוח מצינו גם עדויות למשק סגור ובלתי מפותח. בקרב חוקרי האימפריה הרומית נחלקו הדעות באיזו מידה היה המשק הכפרי פתוח. התמונה המתקבלת מיהודה הרומית היא של משק פתוח, יותר מכפי שמצטייר במחקרים על פרובינציות כפריות אחרות. ", + "פנים הבית (תמונה 11)", + "בית המגורים עצמו היה מבנה פשוט. גם אם המבנה עצמו היה קומפלקס מורחב הרי שלרשות כל משפחה עמד שטח מגורים מצומצם. בימי בית שני הייתה החברה היהודית מאורגנת בבתי אב גדולים, לאחר החורבן התפשט בהדרגה המבנה של משפחה גרעינית, ושתי השיטות שררו במקביל. החברה המשתקפת בחוק הסורי-רומי ובמצרים, כמו גם החברה הרומית, היו מבוססות על משפחה גרעינית. במגזר החקלאי היה פנים הבית פשוט, והריהוט היה מצומצם. בבתי עשירים ניתן היה למצוא את כל הריהוט המוכר בעולם הרומי, החל ממיטות מורכבות, מיטות הסבה, שולחנות אבן מפוארים וכיוצא באלו (תמונה 14). אבל בבית של ההמון הפשוט היו אלו נדירים. בני המשפחה ישנו בלילה על מצעות, ואותם גלגלו לעת בוקר ופינו את החדר. את הסעודות סעדו בישיבה על מחצלאות, ושולחנות הגשה היו נדירים. כלי מתכת וזכוכית אף הם היו נדירים, ורוב הכלים נעשו מחרס. תרבות כלי החרס הייתה מפותחת ביותר. מהמקורות ידועים לנו 111 מונחים לכלי חרס (תמונות 13-12), חלקם קרובים ביותר זה לזה. במקרים אחדים המקורות אומרים לנו ששני כלים הם זהים, כגון כד וחבית (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ג מ\"א, וכהסבר הבבלי, שם כז ע\"א). ההבדל ביניהם היה בגודל ובדרכי השימוש בלבד. הכלים היו זולים, ורובם יוצרו בבתי המלאכה האזוריים שאחדים מוכרים לנו היטב. רוב בתי המלאכה הללו היו במגזר הכפרי בצמוד לקרקעות מתאימים, כגון כפר חנניה בגליל (תמונה 13) ובית נטיף שביהודה. כלי היבוא היו באופן טבעי נדירים יותר, מסיבות כלכליות והלכתיות כאחת. ניתן לראות כיצד ירד השימוש בכלי היבוא עם חותמות רודיות לאחר מרד החשמונאים71פינקלשטיין, חותמות. ועד מרד החורבן. צריכת כלי חרס מיובאים הייתה נדירה יחסית72ברלין, כלי חרס. . לאחר החורבן התרבו כלי היבוא, והם תופעה תדירה בכל יישובי הגליל היהודי והלא-יהודי כאחד. קשה להכריע האם מיעוט כלי יבוא נובע ממצב כלכלי, ממדיניות דתית או מתחושה לאומית. להערכתנו המרחק בין \"תחושה לאומית\" (ההסבר שנתנה ברלין לתופעה) לבין מדיניות דתית איננו גדול. ההלכה נוסחה מאותם טעמים לאומיים, והיא איננה אלא שפה ודרך לנסח את התחושה בכלים משפטיים, ובהתאם לשיח הדתי. אבחנות אלו מחייבות דיון רחב יותר שאיננו מתחומו של דיון זה. ", + "סיכום ומסקנות", + "ניסינו לתאר את אופייה של החקלאות בפרובינציית יהודה. להערכתנו לא הייתה החקלאות ביהודה שונה באופן כללי מזו של ארצות הסביבה, אם כי ניצול הקרקע היה אינטנסיבי יותר, רמת החקלאות והידע החקלאי היו גבוהים והחקלאות הייתה אינטנסיבית, זעירה, חקלאות בעל ומבוססת על עבודה עצמית. ההלכה היהודית משקפת את תנאי החקלאות, אך רק לעתים רחוקות מעצבת אותה. זיהינו השפעות דתיות מעטות בדיני כלאיים, וקצת יותר במניעת גידול חזירים, אבל באופן כללי איננו רואים הבדלים בין החקלאות במחוזות היהודיים (גליל) לבין אלו שבמחוז שומרון, או במחוז יהודה שהפך נכרי במאה השנייה. הלכות שבת השפיעו רק מעט, שכן החקלאות בארץ ישראל איננה סובלת ממחסור בימי עבודה (בכפר הערבי המסורתי עבד חקלאי כ-180 ימים בשנה). שנת השמיטה גרמה לקשיים כלכליים, אך לא השפיעה על מבנה המשק והיא גם לא נשמרה בקפדנות. ", + "החקלאות הייתה בעיקרה עיסוק גברי, ונשים עבדו בעיקר במשק העזר שהיה חשוב (בעיקר עיבוד הטקסטיל) ומעט עם הבעל בעבודות המוניות. " + ], + "Bibliography": [ + "ביבליוגרפיה וקיצורים", + "אבות דרבי נתן, מהדורת שכטר, ש\"ז, וינה, 1887.", + "אבי יונה, גיאוגרפיה היסטורית – אבי יונה, מ', תשכ\"ג, גיאוגרפיה היסטורית, ירושלים.", + "אביצור, אטלס – Avitsur, A., 1976, Man and his Work, Historical Atlas of Tools and Workshops in the Holy Land, Jerusalem.", + "אבנס, כלכלה – Evans, J.K., 1981, \"Wheat Production and its Social Consequences in the Roman World\", Catholic Quarterly 31, pp. 428-442.", + "אגדת בראשית, מהדורת ווארשה, תרל\"ו.", + "אגרת רב שרירא גאון, מהדורת לוין, ב\"מ, חיפה, תרפ\"א.", + "אדיקט המחירים של דיוקלטינוס – Lauffer, S., 1971, Diokletians Preisedikt, Berlin.", + "אדן, רוכלים – אדן ביוביץ, ד', תשמ\"ה, \"הרוכל בארץ-ישראל: המאה ה-2 עד המאה ה-4 לספירה\", בתוך: גרוס, נ' (עורך), יהודים בכלכלה, ירושלים, עמ' 85-67‬.", + "אהבת ציון וירושלים, ראטנער, ד', וילנא, תרס\"א-תרע\"ג. ", + "אהל דוד – Sasson, D.S., 1932, Ohel David I-II, London.", + "אולסון, אתינאיוס – Olson, S.D. (ed. and tr.), 2006, Athenaeus of Naucratis, The Learned", + "\t.Banqueters, Cambridge, Mass.", + "אופנהיימר, הפרשת מעשרות – אופנהיימר, א', תשל\"ח, \"הפרשת מעשר ראשון במציאות שלאחר חורבן בית שני\", סיני פג, עמ' רסז-רפז.", + "אופנהיימר, מעשרות – אופנהיימר, א', תשכ\"ט, \"הפרשת מעשר ראשון הלכה למעשה בתקופת בית שני\", בתוך: מלמד, ע\"צ (עורך), ספר זכרון לדה-פריס, ירושלים, עמ' 83-70. ", + "אופנהיימר, עם הארץ – Oppenheimer, A., 1977, The Am Haaretz, A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, Leiden.", + "אוצר הגאונים, מהדורת לוין, ב\"מ, חיפה וירושלים, תרפ\"ח-תש\"ג; מהדורת צילום, ירושלים, תשמ\"ד.", + "אור זרוע, רבי יצחק ברבי משה נ\"ע מווינה, מהדורת זיטאמיר, תרכ\"ב.", + "אור שמח, רבי מאיר שמחה הכהן, ירושלים, תשמ\"ב.", + "אורבך, גיור – אורבך, א\"א, תשל\"א, \"בחירה וגיור\", בתוך: חז\"ל פרקי אמונות ודעות, ירושלים, עמ' 494-480.", + "אורבך, סופרים – אורבך, א\"א, תשי\"ח, \"הדרשה כיסוד ההלכה ובעית הסופרים\", ספר היובל לג' שלום, ירושלים, עמ' מ-נו.", + "איזגר וסקידסגרד, חקלאות – Isager, S. and Skydsgaard, J.E., 1992, Ancient Greek Agriculture, London.", + "איילון, בית בד קטור – איילון, א', תשנ\"ח, \"בית-הבד הקטור של מערב השומרון\",‫ מחקרי יהודה ושומרון ח, עמ' 126-115‬.", + "איכה רבה, מהדורת באבער, ש', וילנא, תרנ\"ט.", + "אילן, אריסטון – Ilan, T., 1991-2, \"New Ossuary Inscription from Jerusalem\", Scripta Classica Israelica 11, pp. 139-148.", + "אלבק, מבוא – אלבק, ח', תשי\"ט, מבוא למשנה, ירושלים - תל אביב.", + "אלבק, עריכת המשנה – Albeck, Ch., 1936, Untersuchungen Ueber Die Redaction der Mischna, Berlin.", + "אלבק, פירוש – אלבק, ח', תשי\"ב, פירוש לשישה סדרי משנה, ירושלים - תל אביב.", + "אלון, מחקרים – אלון, ג', תשי\"ז-תשי\"ח, מחקרים בתולדות ישראל בימי בית שני ובתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, א-ב, ירושלים.", + "אלון, תולדות – אלון, ג', תשט\"ו, תולדות היהודים בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, תל אביב.", + "אסתר רבה, קושטא, רע\"ד או ר\"פ.", + "אפטוביצר, תדב\"ר – Aptowitzer, A., 1955, \"Seder Elia\", Jewish Studies in Memory of George Alexander Kohut, New York, pp. 5-59.", + "אפלבאום, הרקע – אפלבאום, ש', תשמ\"ג, \"הרקע והגורמים למרד בר-כוכבא\", בתוך: רפפורט, א' (עורך), יהודה ורומא, ירושלים, עמ' 218-211.", + "אפלבאום, קשתי זמאריס – Applebaum, S., 1989, \"The Troopers of Zamaris\", in: Idem, Judaea in Hallenistic and Roman Times, Leiden, pp. 47-65.", + "אפלבאום, שאלת הקרקע – אפלבאום, ש', תשכ\"ז, \"שאלת הקרקע ומרד בר-כוכבא\", ארץ ישראל ח, עמ' 287-283.", + "אפשטיין, מבוא – אפשטיין, י\"נ, תש\"ח, מבוא לנוסח המשנה, ירושלים.", + "אפשטיין, מבואות – אפשטיין, י\"נ, תשי\"ז, מבואות לספרות התנאים, ירושלים - תל אביב.", + "אפשטיין, מחקרים – אפשטיין, י\"נ, תשמ\"ד-תשנ\"א, מחקרים בספרות התלמוד ובלשנות שמית, א-ד, ירושלים.", + "ארבעה טורים, רבי יעקב ברבי אשר, מהדורת וארשה, תרמ\"ב.", + "ארליך, כל עצמותי – ארליך, א', תשנ\"ט, כל עצמתי תאמרנה, ירושלים.", + "בוסרוף, פיתוח – Boserup, E., 1965, The Conditions of Agriculture Growth, London.", + "בזק, סודות עריכה – בזק, י', תשכ\"ב, \"סוד נוסף מסודות עריכת המשנה\", סיני עה, עמ' מס-ס.", + "ביכלר, בית שמאי – ביכלר, א', 1905, \"הלכות למעשה כבית שמאי בזמן הבית ואחר החורבן\", בתוך: Krausz, S. and Weisz, M. (eds.), 1905, Emlékkönyv Bloch Mózes tiszteletére életének kilencvenedik évfordulója alkalmából kiadják tanitványai, Sefer ha Yovel Mosheh Aryeh Bloch, Budapest, pp. 21-30.", + "ביכלר, הכוהנים – ביכלר, א', תשכ\"ו, הכוהנים ועבודתם במקדש ירושלים בעשור השנים האחרון שלפני חורבן בית שני, ירושלים. ", + "ביכלר, עם הארץ – ביכלר, א', תשכ\"ד, עם הארץ הגלילי, ירושלים.", + "ביכלר, תנאים – Buechler, A., 1912, The Economic Conditions of Judaea after the Destruction of the Second Temple, London.", + "בלידשטיין, יחס לגר – בלידשטיין, י', תשמ\"ח, \"למעמדו של גר תושב במשנת הרמב\"ם: שתי הערות להלכות מלכים י, יא\"‫, סיני קא, עמ' מד-נב. ‬", + "בן דוד, בתי בד – בן דוד, ח', תשנ\"ח, \"בתי בד וייצור שמן זית ביישובי הגולן בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", עתיקות 34, עמ' 61-1.", + "בן דוד, גולן – בן דוד, ח', תשס\"ו, הישוב היהודי בגולן, קצרין.", + "בן שלום, בית שמאי – בן שלום, י', תשנ\"ד, בית שמאי ומאבק הקנאים נגד רומי, ירושלים.", + "בעל המאור על הרי\"ף, הודפס בתלמוד ש\"ס וילנא.", + "בר, יששכר – בר, מ', תשכ\"ח, \"יששכר וזבולון\", ברֿֿ־אילן ו, עמ' 180-167.", + "בר, תורה – בר, מ', תשכ\"ד, \"תורה ודרך ארץ\", ברֿֿ־אילן ב, עמ' 162-124.", + "בראודה, גיור – Braude, W.G., 1940, Jewish Proselytizing in the First Five Centuries of the Common Era. The Age of the Tannaim and Amoraim, Providence.", + "בראשית רבה, מהדורת טהעאדאר-אלבק, הוצאת צילום, ירושלים, 1965.", + "ברודי, רב נטרונאי – ראו תשובות רב נטרונאי בר הילאי גאון.", + "ברונס וזכאו, ספר החוקים – Bruns, K.G. and Sachau, E., 1880, Syrisch-Römisches Rechtsbuch aus dem Fuenften Jahrhundert, Leipzig.", + "ברוק, מעשה – Brock, S., 1973, \"An Early Syriac Document of the Life of Maximus the Confessor\", Analecta Bodeliana 91, pp. 314-315.", + "ברושי, מזון – Broshi, M., 1986, \"The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period: Introductory Notes\", Israel Museum Journal 5, pp. 41-56.", + "ברלין, כלי חרס – Berlin, A.M., 2002, \"Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee\", The First Jewish Revolt, London, pp. 57-73.", + "ברנד, בית בד – ברנד, י', תש\"ב, \"בית הבד\", סיני ו, עמ' 325-303. ", + "ברנד, כלי חרס – ברנד, י', תשי\"ג, כלי החרס בספרות התלמודית, ירושלים.", + "גודבלאט, גיור – Goodblatt, D.M., 2006, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism, Cambridge.", + "גולאק, דיני קרקעות – גולאק, א', תרפ\"ט, לחקר תולדות המשפט העברי – דיני קרקעות, ירושלים.", + "גולאק, משפט – גולאק, א', תרפ\"ב, יסודי המשפט העברי, ברלין.", + "גולאק, רועים – גולאק, א', תשמ\"א, \"על הרועים ומגדלי בהמה דקה\", תרביץ יב, עמ' 189-181.", + "גולדברג, שבת – גולדברג, א', תשל\"ו, פירוש למשנה מסכת שבת, ירושלים.", + "ג'ונס, קולונט – Jones, A.H.M., 1958, \"The Roman Colonate\", Past and Present 13, pp. 1-13.", + "גיאוניקה – (Ginzberg, L., 1968, Geonica, New york (Second Edition.", + "גיל, והרומאי אז בארץ – גיל, מ', 2008, והרומאי אז בארץ: אחד עשר פרקים בהיסטוריה של ארץ ישראל, תל אביב.", + "גינצבורג, פירושים – גינצבורג, י\"ל, תשכ\"א, פירושים וחדושים בירושלמי, א-ד, ניוארק.", + "גינצבורג, שרידי ירושלמי – גינצבורג, י\"ל, תרס\"ט, שרידי הירושלמי, נויארק.", + "ג'ירוס, היסטוריה אגררית – Jairus, B., 1999, \"Agrarian History and the Labor Organization of Byzantine Large Estates\", in: Bowman, A.K. and Rugan, E. (eds.), Agriculture in Egypt from Pharaonic to Modern Times, Oxford, pp. 193-216.", + "ג'ירוס, מטמונים – Jairus, B., 1992, Rural Communities in the Late Empire A.D. 300-700, Monetary and Economy Aspects, Ph.D. thesis, Oxford.", + "גלנט, סיכון – Gallant, T.W., 1991, Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy, Stanford.", + "גרוסמן וספראי, כפר תלת – Grossman, D. and Safrai, Z., 1980, \"Satellite Settlement in Western Samaria\", Geographical Review, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 446-461.", + "דיקשטיין, מטבח – דיקשטיין, ט', 2012, המטבח היהודי בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, עבודת דוקטור, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת־גן.", + "דלמן, טכנולוגיה – Dalman, G., 1928-1942, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina, 7 vols., Gütersloh.", + "דקדוקי סופרים – ראו רבינוביץ.", + "דר, שומרון – Dar, S., 1986, Landscape and Pattern, An Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 B.C.E. – 636 C.E., Oxford.", + "דר ואחרים, אום ריחן – דר, ש' ואחרים, תשמ\"ו, אום ריחן – עיירה מתקופת המשנה, תל אביב.", + "הודקינס, מרעה – Hodkins, S., 1988, \"Animal Husbandry in the Greek Polis\", in: Whittaker, C.B. (ed.), Pastoral Economics in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge.", + "הון עשיר, רבי עמנואל חי ריקי, אמשטרדם, תצ\"א.", + "היכלהיים, כלכלה – Heichelheim, F.M., 1938, Roman Syria, in: Frank, T. (ed.), An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 4, Baltimore.", + "הירונימוס, חיי הילריון – Hieronimus (Jerome), 1800-1875, \"Vita Hilariones\", Patroloigia Latina 23 (ed. J.P. Migne), Turnholti.", + "הירשפלד, הבית – הירשפלד, ז', תשמ\"ז, בית המגורים הארץ-ישראלי, ירושלים. ", + "הירשפלד, הכפר – Hirschfeld, Y., 1997, \"Farms and Villages in Byzantine Palestine\", Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51, pp. 33-72.", + "הלכות גדולות, מהדורת הילדסהיימר, ע', ירושלים, תשל\"ב.", + "הלכות פסוקות מן הגאונים, מהדורת מילר, י', קראקא, תרנ\"ג.", + "הלכות קצובות, מהדורת מרגליות, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ך.", + "הנשקה, קדושת ירושלים – הנשקה, ד', תשנ\"ח, \"קדושת ירושלים: בין חז\"ל להלכה הכתתית\", תרביץ סז, עמ' 28-5.", + "הסיכיוס, מילון – Hesychius of Milena, 1874-1875, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (ed. C. Müller), Paris, vol. iv, pp. 145-177.", + "וובוס, חוק – Vööbus, A. (ed.), 1982, The Syro-Roman Lawbook, Stockholm.", + "וויטקר, מרעה – Whittaker, C.R. (ed.), 1988, Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge.", + "וולס-הדריל, פטרונז' – Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.), 1990, Patronage in Ancient Society, London.", + "וילד, טקסטיל – Wild, J.P., 1970, Textile Manufacture in the Northern Roman Provinces, Cambridge.", + "וינר וספראי, מטמונים – Waner, M. and Safrai, Z., 2001, \"Shelf Life of Coins in Palestine Hoards during the Roman and Byzantine Periods\", Liber Annuus 51, pp. 305-336.", + "וינר וספראי, מטמונים ומרידות – וינר, מ' וספראי, ז', תשס\"ב, \"מטמונים ומרידות – התפלגות מועדי ההטמנה של מטמוני המטבעות בארץ ישראל בתקופה הרומית-ביזנטית\", קתדרה 101, עמ' 90-71.", + "זוסמן, ברייתת התחומים – זוסמן, י', תשל\"ו, \"ברייתא דתחומי ארץ ישראל\", תרביץ מה, עמ' 257-213.", + "זוסמן, כתובת – זוסמן, י', תשל\"ד, \"כתובת הלכתית מעמק בית שאן – סקירה מוקדמת\", תרביץ מג, עמ' 158-88.", + "זיסו וגנור, חורבת עתרי – זיסו, ב' וגנור, א', 2001, חפירות ארכיאולוגיות בחורבת עתרי, ירושלים.", + "זק\"ש, משנה – זק\"ש, נ' (עורך), תשל\"ב, משנה זרעים (עם שינויי נוסחאות), ירושלים.", + "חדושי הר\"ן על מסכתות מגילה ומועד קטן, ירושלים, תשכ\"ו. ", + "חילופי מנהגים – מהדורת ב\"מ לוין, אוצר חילוף מנהגים בין בני ארץ ישראל ובני בבל, בני ברק, תשמ\"ז; מהדורת מרגליות, החילוקים שבין אנשי ארץ-ישראל ואנשי בבל, ירושלים, תרצ\"ח. ", + "חמדה גנוזה, מהדורת שניאורזאהן, ש\"ז, ירושלים, תרכ\"ג.", + "חסדי דוד, ר' דוד פארדו, ליוורנו, 1776.", + "טור שלחן ערוך – ראו ארבעה טורים.", + "טפר, יונים – טפר, י', תשמ\"ו, \"עלייתו ושקיעתו של ענף גידול היונים בארץ\", בתוך: אופנהיימר, א' ואחרים (עורכים), אדם ואדמה בארץ-ישראל הקדומה, ירושלים, עמ' 196-170.", + "טפר ושחר, שם טוב – טפר, י' ושחר, י', 1987, \"המסתור בשם טוב\", בתוך: קלונר, ע' וטפר, י' (עורכים), מערכות המסתור בשפלת יהודה, תל אביב, עמ' 236-226.", + "יוסף בן אפרים קרו – בית יוסף, בתוך: ארבעה טורים. ", + "ילקוט המכירי, ישעיהו משלי, מהדורת כהנא שפירא, י\"ז, ירושלים, תשכ\"ד.", + "ילקוט המכירי, תהילים, מהדורת בובר, ש', ירושלים, תשכ\"ד.", + "ילקוט המכירי, תרי עשר, מהדורת גראינוף, א', לונדון, 1909.", + "ילקוט שמעוני, מהדורת שילוני, י', ירושלים, תשל\"ג ואילך.", + "ירדני, תעודות – ירדני, ע', 2000, אוסף תעודות ארמיות, עבריות ונבטיות ממדבר יהודה וחומר קרוב, ירושלים.", + "יתרון האור, פערלמן, ר' יי\"ל, הודפס במשניות מהדורת וילנא.", + "כהן, גיור – Cohen, S.J.D., 1990, \"The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony\", JJS 41, pp. 177-203.", + "כהן, קשתי זמאריס – Cohen, G.M., 1972, \"The Hellenistic Military Colony: A Herodian Example\", TAPA 103, pp. 93-96.", + "כהן, שלושה כתרים – Cohen, S.A., 1990, The Three Crowns: Structures of Communal Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry, Cambridge.", + "כהנא, ספרי זוטא – כהנא, מ\"י, תשס\"ג, ספרי זוטא דברים, מובאות ממדרש תנאי חדש, ירושלים.", + "כסלו, יתיר – Kislev, M.A., 1986, \"A Barley Store of the Bar-Kochba Rebels (Roman Period)\", Israel Journal of Botany 35, pp. 183-196.", + "כסלו, כוי – כסלו, מ\"א, תשנ\"ז, \"כשרותו של בעל-חיים מיובא\", תחומין יז, עמ' 432-415.", + "כסלו, מערת אביאור – Kislev, M.A., 1992, \"Vegetal Food of Bar Kokhba Rebels at Abi’or Cave near Jericho\", Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73, pp. 153-160.", + "כסלו, מצבור – Kislev, M.A., 2003, \"Cereals and Fruits from a Collapsed Cave South of Khirbet Qumran\", Israel Exploration Journal 53, pp. 74-77.", + " כסלו, מצודת יתיר – כסלו, מ', 1987, \"מצבור של שעורים מאתר נחל-יתיר\", בתוך: קלונר, ע' וטפר, י' (עורכים), מערכות-המסתור בשפלת יהודה, תל אביב, עמ' 394-283. ", + "כסלו, שחמתית – כסלו, מ', תשל\"ט, \"לזיהוי 'חטה שחמתית' ו'חטה לבנה' בדברי חז\"ל\", סיני פד, עמ' רמא-רמד.", + "כסלו, שיבולת השועל – כסלו, מ', תשנ\"ג, \"לזיהוי שיבולת השועל\", בתוך: ורהפטיג, א' (עורך), ספר היובל מנחה לאי\"ש (אברהם ישעיהו דולגין), ירושלים, עמ' 170-155; 185-179.", + "כסלו ומרמורשטיין, רקית – Kislev, M.A. and Marmorstein, M., 2004, \"Seed and Fruit Remains from Hurvat Raqit\", in: Dar, S. (ed.), Raqit: Marinus’s Estate on the Carmel, Israel, Oxford, pp. 299-302.", + "כסלו ושמחוני, מזון – כסלו, מ' ושמחוני, א', תש\"ע, \"מזונם של שוכני מערת הר-ישי\", בתוך: אשל, ח' ופורת, ר' (עורכים), מערות המפלט מתקופת מרד בר-כוכבא, ירושלים, עמ' 253-129.", + "כסלו ושמחוני, עדות – כסלו, מ' ושמחוני, א', תש\"ע, \"עדות בוטנית להגעתם של פליטים מיהודה למערות המפלט בנחל ערוגות בסתיו של שנת 135 לספירה\", בתוך: אשל, ח' ופורת, ר' (עורכים), מערות המפלט מתקופת מרד בר-כוכבא, ירושלים, עמ' 306-298.", + "לאו, פלורה – Löw, I., 1967, Die Flora der Juden, 4 vols., Hildesheim.", + "לוי, מילון – Levy, J., 1924, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, Vienna.", + "לחם שמים, רבנו יעב\"ץ, מהדורת קליין, י\"ד, ירושלים, תשי\"ח.", + "ליברמן, יוונית ויוונות – ליברמן, ש', תשכ\"ג (תשמ\"ד), יוונית ויוונות בארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "ליברמן, ירושלמי – ליברמן, ש', תשנ\"ה, ירושלמי כפשוטו, ניו יורק - ירושלים.", + "ליברמן, מחקרים – ליברמן, ש', תשנ\"א, מחקרים בתורת ארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "ליברמן, תוספת ראשונים – ליברמן, ש', תשנ\"ט, תוספת ראשונים, ירושלים וניו יורק.", + "ליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה – ליברמן, ש', תשט\"ו-תשמ\"ח, תוספתא כפשוטה, ניוארק.", + "ליכטנשטיין, מגילת תענית – Lichtenstein, H., 1931-2, \"Die Fastenrolle Eine Untersuchung zur Judisch-Hellenistechen Geschichte\", HUCA VIII-IX, pp. 257-351.", + "לפין, חקלאות – Lapin, H., 2001, Economy, Geography and Provincial History in Later Roman Palestine, Tuebingen.", + "לקוטי הרמב\"ן למסכת תענית לתלמיד מתלמידי הרמב\"ן, שאלוניקי, תק\"ל.", + "מאירסון, עזה – Mayerson, P., 1992, \"The Gaza 'Wine' Jar (Gazition) and the 'Lost' Ashkelon Jar (Askalônion)\", Israel Exploration Journal 42, pp. 76-80.", + "מגיד משנה, הודפס על גיליון משנה תורה לרמב\"ם, מהדורת תל אביב, 1959.", + "מגילות מדבר יהודה – DJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert, 1953-2010, in: Balliet, M. et al. (eds.), Oxford.", + "מגילת המקדש – ידין, י', תשל\"ז, מגילת המקדש, ירושלים.", + "מגילת תענית – ראו ליכטנשטיין, מגילת תענית; נעם, מגילת תענית.", + "מגן ואחרים, ארץ בנימין – Magen, Y. et al., 1995, The Land of Benjamin, Jerusalem.", + "מדרש משלי, בתוך: מדרש שוחר טוב, מהדורת כהן, י', ירושלים, תשכ\"ח.", + "מדרש שמואל, בתוך: מדרש שוחר טוב, מהדורת כהן, י', ירושלים, תשכ\"ח.", + "מדרש תהילים (שוחר טוב), מהדורת בובר, ש', וילנא, תרנ\"א.", + "מדרש תנאים לדברים, מהדורת הופמן, ד\"צ, ברלין, 1909-1908.", + "מדרש תנחומא, קושטא, רפ\"ב ומנטובה, שכ\"ג.", + "מדרש תנחומא-בובר, מהדורת בובר, ש', וילנא, תרמ\"ה.", + "מור, מרד איכרים – מור, מ', תשמ\"ו, \"מרד בר-כוכבא – האם היה מרד איכרים\", בתוך: אופנהיימר, א' ואחרים (עורכים), אדם ואדמה בארץ-ישראל הקדומה, ירושלים, עמ' 116-95.", + "מזר, דבורים – מזר, ע', תשס\"ט, \"המכוורת מתקופת הברזל בתל רחוב: התגלית ומשמעותה\",‫ קדמוניות 136, עמ' 90-83.‬", + "מזר, הרקם – מזר, ב', תשי\"א, \"הרקם והחגר\", תרביץ כ, עמ' 319-316.", + "מחזור ויטרי לרבנו שמחה, הורביץ, ש', נירנברג, תרפ\"ג; ד\"צ, ניו יורק, תש\"ך.", + "מטינגלי, בית הבד – Mattingly, D.J., 1985, \"Olive Oil Production in Roman Tripolitania\", in: Idem, Town and Country in Roman Tripolitania, pp. 27-46.", + "מילון בן יהודה – בן יהודה, א', 1959, מילון הלשון העברית, ירושלים - תל אביב. ", + "מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, מהדורת האראוויטץ, ח\"ש ורבין, י\"א, ירושלים, תש\"ל.", + "מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, מהדורת אפשטיין, י\"נ ומלמד, ע\"צ, ירושלים, תשט\"ו. ", + "מלאכת שלמה, פירוש למשנה לר' שלמה עדני, הודפס בתוך משניות יכין ובועז, ירושלים, תשט\"ז.", + "מלחמות היהודים, יוספוס פלביוס, מהדורת שליט, א', ירושלים - תל אביב, תשכ\"ז.", + "מסכת כלה, מהדורת היגער, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ל.", + "מסכת סופרים, מהדורת היגער, מ', ניו יורק, תרצ\"ד.", + "מסכתות זעירות, מהדורת היגער, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ל.", + "מרגליות, החילוקים – מרגליות, מ', תרצ\"ח, החילוקים שבין אנשי ארץ-ישראל ואנשי בבל, ירושלים. ", + "מרגליות, הלכות ארץ-ישראל – מרגליות, מ', תשל\"ד, הלכות ארץ-ישראל מן הגניזה, ירושלים.", + "משנה שלמה, מהדורת ורטהימר, ש\"א, ירושלים, תשנ\"ב.", + "נוה, אנשים ללא שם – נוה, י', תשמ\"ט, \"אנשים ללא שמות?\", ציון נד, עמ' 16-1.", + "נוה, על פסיפס – נוה, א', תשל\"ח, על פסיפס ואבן, תל אביב.", + "ניב, פגעים – ניב, ד', תשנ\"ב, פגעים בגידולים חקלאיים והדברתם בארץ-ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, עבודת דוקטור, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת־גן. ", + "ניומן, מעשים – ניומן, ה', תשמ\"ז, המעשים לבני ארץ-ישראל ורקעם ההיסטורי, עבודה לתואר שני, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים. ", + "נעם, מגילת תענית – נעם, ו', תשס\"ד, מגילת תענית – הנוסחים, פשרם ותולדותיהם, ירושלים.", + "סדר עולם רבה, מהדורת רטנר, ב', ניו יורק, תשכ\"ו.", + "סדר רב עמרם גאון, מהדורת גולדשמידט, ד', ירושלים, תשל\"ב.", + "סוזומנוס, היסטוריה כנסייתית – Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 1891, Hartranft, C.D. (tr.), in: Wace, H. and Shaff, P. (eds.), A Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, New Series, 2, Oxford; Idem, 1960, Historia Ecclesiastica, Bidez, J. and Hanson, G.C. (eds.), Gr. Schr. 50. ", + "סוקולוף, מילון – Sokoloff, M., 1990, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Ramat Gan.", + "סטרבון, גאוגרפיה – Strabo, 1959-1961, The Geography of Strabo, Jones, H.L. (tr.), (Loeb), London.", + "סירליאון (שירליאון, סיריליאו) רבינו שלמה, תלמוד ירושלמי סדר זרעים, מהדורת הלוי, ח\"י, ירושלים, תשי\"ד-תשכ\"ז.", + "ספר האשכול, מהדורת אלבק, ח', ירושלים, תשד\"ם; מהדורת אויערבך, צ\"ב, האלברשטאט, תרכ\"ו. ", + "ספר הישר, רבנו תם, מהדורת דן, י', מבוססת על הדפוס הראשון, ונציה, שפ\"ה, ירושלים, תשמ\"ו; מהדורת ראזענטהאל, ש\"פ, ד\"צ, ירושלים, תשנ\"ג.", + "ספר המקצועות, מהדורת אסף, ש', ירושלים, תש\"ז.", + "ספר העתים, יהודה בן ברזילי הברצלוני, מהדורת זלוטניק, י\"ל, ירושלים, תש\"ה.", + "ספר הפרדס, מהדורת עהרענרייך, ח\"י, ניו יורק, תשי\"ט.", + "ספר הרוקח, ר' אליעזר מגרמייזא, קרימונה, שי\"ז.", + "ספר יראים השלם, רבי אליעזר ממיץ, מהדורת גולדבלום-שיף, וילנא, תרנ\"ב-תרס\"ב; ד\"צ, ירושלים, תשנ\"ה. ", + "ספר ערוגת הבושם, ר' אברהם ב\"ר עזריאל, מהדורת אורבך, א\"א, ירושלים, תרצ\"ח ואילך.", + "ספר פתרון תורה, (המחבר אינו ידוע), מהדורת אורבך, א\"א, ירושלים, תשל\"ח.", + "ספר ראבי\"ה, ר' אליעזר בר' יואל הלוי, מהדורת אפטוביצר, א', ירושלים, תשכ\"ד.", + "ספר שני לוחות הברית, ר' ישעיה הורוויץ, פיורדא, תקכ\"ד.", + "ספראי, בימי הבית – ספראי, ש', תשנ\"ד, בימי הבית ובימי המשנה, א-ב, ירושלים.", + "ספראי, דבש – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ח, \"גידול דבורים ותעשית הדבש בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", ישראל עם וארץ ד, עמ' 224-211.", + "ספראי, הכלכלה – Safrai, Z., 1994, The Economy of Roman Palestine, London.", + "ספראי, הכפר – ספראי, ז', תשנ\"ז, \"הכפר ביהודה\", בתוך: דר, ש' וספראי, ז' (עורכים), הכפר הקדום בארץ-ישראל, תל אביב, עמ' 74-11.", + "ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל – ספראי, ש', תשנ\"ד, \"הכרעה כבית הלל\", בתוך: ספראי, בימי הבית, א, עמ' 405-382.", + "ספראי, הלכה למשה מסיני – ספראי, ש', תש\"ן, \"הלכה למשה מסיני, היסטוריה או תיאולוגיה?\", בתוך: זוסמן, י' ורוזנטל, ד' (עורכים), מחקרי תלמוד, ירושלים, עמ' 38-11 (= בימי הבית, עמ' 578-548).", + "ספראי, המאה שנעלמה – Safrai, Z., 1998, The Missing Century, Leuven.", + "ספראי, המבנה האגררי – Safrai, Z., 2003, \"The Agrarian Structure in the Time of the Second Temple, Mishnah, and Talmud\", in: Maeir, A.M., Dar, S. and Safrai, Z. (eds.), The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, Oxford, pp.105-126.", + "ספראי, העליה לרגל – ספראי, ש', תשכ\"ה, העליה לרגל בימי הבית השני, ירושלים.", + "ספראי, הקהילה – ספראי, ז', תשנ\"ה, הקהילה היהודית ומוסדותיה, ירושלים.", + "ספראי, יוספוס – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ג, \"תיאור ארץ ישראל לפי יוסף בן מתתיהו\", בתוך: רפפורט, א' (עורך), יוסף בן מתתיהו, ירושלים, עמ' 116-91.", + "ספראי, מבני השדה – ספראי, ז', תשנ\"ט, \"מבני השדה הקדומים – הכפר בארץ-ישראל הרומית\", קתדרה 89, עמ' 40-7.", + "ספראי, נשים בבית המקדש – Safrai, C., 1991, Women and Temple, Dissertation, KTU, Amsterdam.", + "ספראי, נשים במצוות עשה – ספראי, ש', תשנ\"ה, \"מחויבותן של נשים במצוות במשנתם של תנאים\", בתוך: שטיינפלד, צ\"א (עורך), בר-אילן כה-כו, עמ' 237-227.", + "ספראי, סיקריקון – ספראי, ש', תשנ\"ד, \"סיקריקון\", בתוך: ספראי, בימי הבית, א, עמ' 267-259.", + "ספראי, ענב אל כביר – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ה-תשמ\"ו, \"ענב א-כביר – חקלאות ומרעה בסביבות הכפר בתקופה הרומית ביזאנטית\", ישראל – עם וארץ ב-ג, עמ' 128-119.", + "ספראי, פרקי גליל – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ה, פרקי גליל, ירושלים. ", + "ספראי, פשתן – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ח, \"תעשיית הפשתן בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", בתוך: בונימוביץ, ש' ואחרים (עורכים), ישובים, אוכלוסיה וכלכלה בארץ ישראל בעת העתיקה, תל אביב, עמ' 241-205.", + "ספראי, קדושת ירושלים – ספראי, ז', תשנ\"ט, קדושת ירושלים החרבה, רמת־גן (סדרת פרסומי מרכז רננרט).", + "ספראי, שפלת השומרון – ספראי, ז', 1995, \"שפלת השומרון בתקופה הביזאנטית\", מחקרי יהודה ושומרון, דברי הכנס הרביעי תשנ\"ד 1994, עמ' 208-189.", + "ספראי ולין, גבע א – ספראי, ז' ולין, מ', תשמ\"ח, \"המבנה הכלכלי של גבע\", בתוך: מזר, ב' (עורך), גבע – חפירות במשמר העמק, ירושלים, עמ' 166-120.", + "ספראי ולין, גבע ב – ספראי, ז' ולין, מ', תשמ\"ח, \"חפירות וסקרים באיזור משמר העמק\", בתוך: מזר, ב' (עורך), גבע – חפירות במשמר העמק, ירושלים, עמ' 214-167.", + "ספראי וספראי, בית ענת – ספראי, ש' וספראי, ז', תשל\"ו, \"בית ענת\", סיני עח, עמ' יח-לח.", + "ספראי וספראי, הגדת חז\"ל – ספראי, ש' וספראי, ז', תשנ\"ח, הגדת חז\"ל, ירושלים. ", + "ספרי במדבר, מהדורת האראוויטץ, ח\"ש, לייפציג, תרע\"ז.", + "ספרי דברים, מהדורת פינקלשטין, א\"א, ברלין, ת\"ש. ", + "ספרי זוטא, מהדורת האראוויטץ, ח\"ש, לייפציג, תרע\"ז.", + "ספרים חיצוניים, מהדורת כהנא, א', ירושלים, תש\"ל. ", + "עיטם, בורגול – עיטם, ד', תשנ\"ו, \" 'רחים של גרוסות' – מתקן לייצור גריסים מהתקופות הרומית והביזנטית בארץ-ישראל\", ‫ מחקרי יהודה ושומרון ו, עמ' 202-191.", + "עמית, מפעלי מים – עמית, ד', 1988, \"מפעלי מים קדומים בדרום השפלה\", בתוך: אורמן, ד' ושטרן, א' (עורכים), אדם וסביבה בדרום השפלה, מחקרים בגיאוגרפיה והיסטוריה אזורית, תל אביב, עמ' 186-180.", + "ערוך השלם, רבי נתן ברבי יחיאל מרומי, מהדורת קאהוט, ח\"י, תל אביב, תש\"ל. ", + "פאוזניאס, יון – Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio, 1977, Jones, W.H.S. (rtr.), (Loeb), London.", + "פורבס, אתנוארכאולוגיה – Forbs, H., 1992, \"Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Ancient Greek Agriculture: Olive Cultivation as a Case Study\" in: Wells, B. (ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece, Stockholm, pp. 87-104.", + "פורת, לשון חכמים – פורת, א', תש\"ל, לשון חכמים: לפי מסורות שבכתבי יד ישנים, ירושלים.", + "פטרוס האיברי – Raabe, R., 1895, Petrus der Iberer, Leipzig.", + "פינקלשטיין, חותמות – Finkielsztejn, G., 1999, \"Hellenistic Jerusalem: The Evidence of the Rhodian Amphora Stamps\", New Studies on Jerusalem 5, pp. 21-36.", + "פינקלשטין, הגיור – פינקלשטין, מ', תשנ\"ד, הגיור – הלכה ומעשה, רמת־גן. ", + "פירוש הגאונים לסדר טהרות, מהדורת אפשטיין, י\"נ, ברלין, תרפ\"א-תרפ\"ד.", + "פירוש רבינו עובדיה מברטנורא, נדפס במשניות דפוס וילנא, דפוס צילום, תשל\"ד. ", + "פלדיוס, היסטוריה – Palladius, 1904, The Lausiac History, Butler, C. (ed.), Cambridge.", + "פליניוס, היסטוריה של הטבע – Plinii, 1969, Naturalis Historia, Rackham, H. (ed.), London.", + "פליקס, דגנים – פליקס, י', תש\"ן, החקלאות בארץ-ישראל בימי המקרא המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים.", + "פליקס, האורז – פליקס, י', תשכ\"ג, \"האורז בספרות חז\"ל\", בר-אילן א, עמ' 189-177.", + "פליקס, החי והצומח – פליקס, י', תשמ\"ג, החי והצומח במשנה, ירושלים.", + "פליקס, החקלאות – פליקס, י', תש\"ן, החקלאות בארץ-ישראל בימי המקרא המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים.", + "פליקס, הצומח – פליקס, י', 1968, עולם הצומח המקראי, רמת־גן.", + "פליקס, זרעים – פליקס, י', תשל\"ד, \"פרק זרעים\", בתוך: מרגליות, מ' (עורך), הלכות ארץ ישראל, ירושלים, עמ' קצא-קצח. ", + "פליקס, כלאים – פליקס, י', תשכ\"ז, כלאי זרעים והרכבה, תל אביב. ", + "פליקס, מעשרות – פליקס, י', תשס\"ו, תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת מעשרות, רמת־גן.", + "פליקס, עולם הצומח – פליקס, י', 1976, עולם הצומח המקראי, רמת־גן.", + "פליקס, עצי בשמים – פליקס, י', תשנ\"ז, עצי בשמים יער ונוי – צמחי התנ\"ך וחז\"ל, ירושלים. ", + "פליקס, עצי פרי – פליקס, י', תשנ\"ד, עצי פרי למיניהם, ירושלים.", + "פליקס, שביעית – פליקס, י', תש\"מ-תשמ\"ז, תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת שביעית א-ב, ירושלים.", + "פסטור, קרקע – Pastor, J., 1997, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine, London.", + "פסיקתא דרב כהנא, מהדורת מנדלבוים, ד', ניו יורק, תשכ\"ב.", + "פסיקתא זוטרתי (לקח טוב), מהדורת בובר, ש', וילנא, תרמ\"ד. ", + "פסיקתא רבתי, מהדורת איש שלום, מ', וינה, תר\"מ.", + "פריין, חקלאות – Frayn, J.M., 1979, Subsistence Farming in Roman Italy, London.", + "פריס וניקסון, טרסות – Price, S. and Nixon, L., 2005, \"Ancient Agricultural Terraces: Evidence from Texts and Archaeological Survey\", American Journal of Archaeology 109, pp. 694-665.", + "פרנקל, בתי בד – פרנקל, ר', 1984, ההיסטוריה של עיבוד יין ושמן בגליל בתקופת המקרא המשנה והתלמוד, עבודת דוקטור, אוניברסיטת תל אביב, תל אביב. ", + "פרנקל, מכבש היין – פרנקל, ר', תשנ\"ז, \"מכבש היין של ארץ-ישראל וסביבותיה בתקופה הביזנטית\", בתוך: דר, ש' וספראי, ז' (עורכים), הכפר הקדום בארץ ישראל, תל אביב, עמ' 207-193.", + "פרנקל ואחרים, גליל עליון – Frankel, R. et al., 2001, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee, IAA 14, Jerusalem.", + "פרנקל ואחרים, יין ושמן – Frankel, R., Avitsur, S. and Ayalon, A., 1994, History and Technology of Olive Oil in the Holy Land, Tel Aviv.", + "פרנקל ופינקלשטיין, מקצוע – פרנקל, ר' ופינקלשטיין, י', תשמ\"א, \"מקצוע צפונית מערבית של ארץ-ישראל בברייתא התחומין\", קתדרה 10, עמ' 10-3.", + "פרקר, ציבענים – פרקר, ר', תשנ\"ג, ציבענים מהצומח ומתקני תעשיה לצביעת אריגים באגן המזרחי של הים התיכון בתקופה ההלניסטית, הרומית והביזנטית, עבודה לתואר שני, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת־גן.", + "צוקר, רב סעדיה גאון – צוקר, מ', תשי\"ט, על תרגום רס\"ג לתורה: פרשנות, הלכה ופולמיקה בתרגום התורה של ר' סעדיה גאון, ניו יורק.", + "צ'יזהולם, כפר חקלאי – Chisholm, A., 1979, Rural Settlement and Land Use, London.", + "צפריר ואחרים, טבולה – Tsafrir, Y. et al., 1994, Tabula Imperii Romani Iudaea-Palestina: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods; Maps and Gazetteer, Jerusalem.", + "צ'ריקובר, פפירוסי זנון – צ'ריקובר, א', תרצ\"ג, \"ארץ ישראל לאור הפפירוסים של זנון\", תרביץ ד, עמ' 82-33.", + "קדמוניות היהודים, יוספוס פלביוס, מהדורת שליט, א', ירושלים - תל אביב, תשכ\"ז.", + "קדמוניות המקרא, הספרים החיצוניים, מהדורת הרטום, א\"ש, תל אביב, תשכ\"ט.", + "קודקס תיאודוסינוס – Pharr, C., 1969, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sir-mondain Constitutions, New York.", + "קול הרמ\"ז, פירוש הרמ\"ז על המשניות (ר' משה זכותא), ירושלים, תשנ\"ט. ", + "קינגסלי, שמן – Kingsley, S.A., 1999, Specialized Production and Long-Distance Trade in Byzantine Palestine, Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University.", + "קליין, חלוקה – קליין, ש', תרפ\"ג, \"חלוקת יהודה והגליל\", ספר השנה של ארץ ישראל, א, עמ' 41-24.", + "קליין, ספר הישוב – קליין, ש', תרצ\"ט, ספר הישוב, תל אביב.", + "קליין, תיאור – קליין, ש', תרצ\"ח, \"פרק בחקירת ארץ ישראל\", בתוך: אפשטיין, י\"נ ואחרים (עורכים), ספר מגנס – קובץ מחקרים מאת אנשי האוניברסיטה, ירושלים, עמ' 223-216.", + "רבינוביץ, דקדוקי סופרים – רבינוביץ, רנ\"נ, תש\"כ, דקדוקי סופרים, ירושלים.", + "רבינוביץ, שערי תורת ארץ ישראל – רבינוביץ, ז\"ו, ת\"ש, שערי תורת ארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "רבינוביץ, שערי תורת בבל – רבינוביץ, ז\"ו, תשכ\"א, שערי תורת בבל, ירושלים.", + "רבן, סקר נהלל – רבן, א', תשמ\"ג, סקר ארכיאולוגי של ישראל, מפת נהלל (28), ירושלים.", + "רגב, צדוקים – רגב, א', תשס\"ה, הצדוקים והלכתם על דת וחברה בימי בית שני, ירושלים.", + "רוולנדסון, בעלי קרקע – Rowlandson, J., 1996, Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt, The Social Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome, Oxford.", + "רות רבה, מהדורת לרנר, מ\"ב, תשל\"א, עבודת דוקטור, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים.", + "ריטב\"א, חדושים למסכת שבת, מהדורת גולדשטיין, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ן.", + "ר\"ן בפירושו לרי\"ף, הודפס בתלמוד ש\"ס וילנא.", + "רשב\"א, חדושים למסכת מגילה, מהדורת דימיטרובסקי, ח\"ז, נויארק, תשט\"ז.", + "שאגת אריה, שו\"ת אריה בן אשר ממץ, ירושלים, תש\"ך.", + "שאילתות דרב אחאי גאון, מהדורת מירסקי, א', ירושלים, תשכ\"א-תשל\"ז.", + "שבלי הלקט, מהדורת באבר, ש', וילנא, תרמ\"ו.", + "שגיא וזוהר, גיור – שגיא, א' וזהר, צ', 1997, גיור וזהות יהודית: עיון ביסודות ההלכה, ירושלים.", + "שגיב, עבר הירדן – שגיב, נ', תשס\"ד, היישוב היהודי בעבר הירדן בתקופות ההלניסטית והרומית: הנתונים ההסטוריים והממצא הארכיאולוגי, עבודת דוקטור, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת־גן.", + "שדה, זואוארכאולוגיה – Sadeh, M., 2007, \"Archaeozoological Finds from En-Gedi\", in: Hirschfeld, Y. (ed.), En-Gedi Excavations II, Final Report (1996-2002), Jerusalem, pp. 604-612.", + "שובה, כתובות – שובה, מ', 1967, \"טבריה לאור הכתובות\", בתוך: הירשברג, ח\"ש (עורך), כל ארץ נפתלי, ירושלים, עמ' 191-180.", + "שוורץ, יהודה – שוורץ, י', תשמ\"ו, היישוב היהודי ביהודה מלאחר מרד בר-כוכבא ועד הכיבוש הערבי, ירושלים.", + "שוורץ, כלבים – Schwartz, J.J., 2000, \"Dogs and Cats in Jewish Society in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods\", WCJS 12, pp. 25-34 (הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות).", + "שטינפלד, פת גויים – שטינפלד, צ\"א, תשנ\"ה, \"להיתר פת של גויים\", בר-אילן כו-כז, עמ' 341-321.", + "שיפמן, ירושלים – Schiffman, L.H., 1996, \"Jerusalem in the Dead Sea Scrolls\", in: Poorthuis, M. and Safrai, CH. (eds.), The Centrality of Jerusalem, Den Haag, pp. 73-86.", + "שכטר, קטעי גניזה – Schechter, S., 1898, \"Genizah Fragments\", JQR X, p. 636.", + "שמש, צמחים – שמש, א\"א, תשנ\"ט, ברכות הנהנים על הצומח ומוצריו בהלכה ובמנהג מהמאה ה-16 ועד לזמננו, עבודת דוקטור, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת־גן.", + "שעפטיל, ערך מלין – שעפטיל, ח\"י, תרס\"ז, ערך מלין, ברדיטשוב.", + "שערי צדק, מהדורת מודעי, נ', שאלוניקי, תקנ\"ב.", + "שערי תשובה, מהדורת הירש, י\"מ, לייפציג, תרפ\"ח. ", + "שפור, דגנים – Spurr, M.S., 1986, \"Arable Cultivation in Roman Italy, C. 200 BC – C. AD 100\", Journal of Roman Studies Monograph 3, London.", + "שפנייר וששון, סיד – שפנייר, י' וששון, א', תשס\"א, כבשני סיד בארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "שפרבר, הקרקע – Sperber, D., 1978, Roman Palestine 200-400: The Land, Crisis and Change in Agrarian Society as Reflected in Rabbinic Sources, Ramat Gan.", + "שפרבר, מחירים – Sperber, D., 1974, Roman Palestine 200-400: Money and Prices, Ramat Gan.", + "שרידי ירושלמי – ראו גינצבורג, שרידי ירושלמי.", + "תוספות יום טוב, נדפס במשניות דפוס וילנא, ד\"צ תשל\"ד, ובמהדורות רבות נוספות.", + "תוספות רי\"ד, מהדורת נטאנאהן, יש\"ה, ירושלים, תשל\"ד. ", + "תורתן של ראשונים, מהדורת הורוויץ, ח\"מ, פראנקפורט ע\"מ, תרמ\"ב.", + "תיאור ערי העולם – Rouge, J. (ed.), 1966, Expositio Totius Mundi et Gentium, Paris.", + "תנא דבי אליהו, מהדורת איש שלום, מ', וינה, 1904.", + "תניא רבתי, מהדורת הורביץ, ש', וארשה, 1879.", + "תרגום השבעים – Rahlfs, H. (ed.), Septuaginta, 1935, Stuttgart.", + "תרגום יונתן לנביאים, מהדורת רידר, מ', ירושלים, תשמ\"ד; מהדורת גינזבורגר, מ', ברלין, תרס\"ב. ", + "תרגום יונתן לנביאים, מהדורת שפרבר, א', ליידן, 1959 ואילך; לנביאים וכתובים: כתבי הקדש בארמית, ליידן.", + "תרגום ניאופיטי – Diez-Macho, A., 1968-1979, Targum Palestinese I-IV, Madrid.", + "תשובות אנשי ארץ-ישראל – בתוך: לוין, ב\"מ (עורך), תר\"צ, גנזי קדם, מאסף מדעי לתקופת הגאונים וספרותם, ד, חיפה, עמ' 50.", + "תשובות גאונים מזרח ומערב, מילר, י', ברלין, תרמ\"ח.", + "תשובות גאונים קדמונים, קאסעל, ד', ברלין, תר\"ח.", + "תשובות הגאונים אסף – אסף, ש', תרפ\"ט, תשובות הגאונים, ירושלים.", + "תשובות הגאונים החדשות – עמנואל, ש', תשנ\"ה, תשובות הגאונים החדשות, ירושלים.", + "תשובות הגאונים הקצרות – רבינוביץ, מ\"א, תש\"כ, שאלות ותשובות הגאונים, ירושלים.", + "תשובות הגאונים הרכבי – הרכבי, א\"א, תרמ\"ז, זכרון לראשונים וגם לאחרונים, ברלין.", + "תשובות הגאונים מוסאפיה – מוסאפיה, י', תרכ\"ד, תשובות הגאונים, ליק.", + "תשובות הגאונים קורונל – קורונל, נ\"נ, תרל\"א, תשובות הגאונים, וויען.", + "תשובות הגאונים שערי צדק – ראו שערי צדק.", + "תשובות הרמב\"ם, מהדורת בלאו, י', א-ד, ירושלים, תשי\"ח-תשמ\"ו.", + "תשובות מהרי\"ץ גיאת, הוצאת באמבערגער, פירטה, תרכ\"א-תרכ\"ה.", + "תשובות רב נטרונאי בר הילאי גאון, מהדורת ברודי, י', ירושלים, תשנ\"ד.", + "תשובות רב שר שלום, מהדורת וינברג, ר\"ש, ירושלים, תשל\"ו." + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה חלה", + "enTitle": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah", + "key": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "מבוא", + "enTitle": "Preface" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + }, + { + "heTitle": "נספח א", + "enTitle": "Appendix 1" + }, + { + "heTitle": "ביבליוגרפיה", + "enTitle": "Bibliography" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Zeraim/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Zeraim/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..acdfc2af16ed31ec44b3fa8cba662fedcf0f95fd --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Zeraim/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,1155 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnat_Eretz_Yisrael_on_Mishnah_Challah", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "פירוש מסכת חלה מסדר זרעים המונח לפני הקורא ללימוד ולעיון הוא המשך הסדרה של פירוש המשניות במסגרת פרויקט משנת ארץ ישראל. המסכתות הללו מסיימות את סדר זרעים והקדמנון מסיבות טכניות שונות. את תולדות הפרויקט ורשימת התודות סקרנו בכרכים הקודמים ולא נחזור על כל הפרטים. ", + "חובה נעימה היא לציין את עזרתם של תלמידים-חברים שעזרו בעיקר באיסוף האיורים, ד\"ר בועז זיסו, פרופ' חנן אשל ז\"ל, אליקים איטלי, בנותיי עדי ואסנת, מרדכי בר דרומא, ולאשתי דינה שהפכה לצלמת הבית וגם למפיקה של הפרויקט. לאחרונה הצטרף לצוות תלמיד-חבר נוסף, ד\"ר יואל פיקסלר, שתרומתו לגיוון האיורים רבה עד מאוד. על עיצוב העטיפה אנו מודים לנחמה שפילמן ולמיכל אלטמן מ\"עדי עיצובים\" שבביתי, בקבוצת יבנה. גברת רחל גרוסמן העתיקה עבורנו מכתב ידו של אבא את החלקים שכתב, ובעיקר את המשנה מדפוס נפולי, ועל העתקתה הנקייה היא ראויה לשבחים מיוחדים. חברתנו איילה אפרתי הגיהה שנית את העתקת הדפוס. לפרופ' שאול שטמפפר אני מודה על הגהה נוספת של הביבליוגרפיה שעזרה לניכוש עוד מעט מהשגיאות שנפלו במהלך שנות העבודה. תודה מסוג אחר אני חב לד\"ר דוד יסלזון שבזכותו הבנתי את חשיבות העיצוב החיצוני של הספר. ואכן כבר במסכת עירובין, ועוד יותר במסכתות הבאות, שקדנו על שיפור צורתו החיצונית של החיבור ועל נגישותו לציבור.", + "הסדרה עברה להוצאת אוניברסיטת ברֿֿ־אילן ואני אסיר תודה למערכת המדעית שהסכימה להיכנס לעול ובעיקר לאנשי ההפקה בבית ההוצאה. ", + "בתחום הכספי נעזרנו ב\"קרן הזיכרון לתרבות יהודית\" שסייעה לנו בשני מענקים, בקרנות המחקר שליד המחלקה ללימודי ארץ ישראל וארכיאולוגיה על שם מרטין זוס באוניברסיטת בר-אילן, בקרן קושיצקי ובקרן לחקר ארץ ישראל בגבולותיה ההיסטוריים על שם א' וצ' מוסקוביץ. מה טוב שאנו יכולים לגמול להם בתודה. אני חב תודה למרכז דוד וימימה יסלזון לחקר תולדות ישראל לאור האפיגרפיה באוניברסיטת בר-אילן ולפרופ' חנן אשל ז\"ל שעמד בראשו עד ימיו האחרונים על סיועם לעיצוב החיצוני של החיבור, ולד\"ר אסתי אשל הממלאת את התפקיד עתה. ברצוני להביע תודה מיוחדת ונוספת לדוד וימימה יסלזון שהגדילו את סיועם. אחרונים חביבים הם בני ובנותיי, שכולם עזרו לי בדרכם ובמקומם במתן \"רוח גבית אוהבת\" ופה ושם בהעתקות, צילומים והגהות, ובעיקר לאשתי שעמלה רבות גם בתחום הארגוני וגם בהכנת האיורים לדפוס. יבואו כולם על הטובה ועל הברכה.", + "אסיר תודה אני לשלושת הבתים שאני חי בהם. הראשון הוא ביתי המדעי באוניברסיטת בר-אילן, שחרתה על דגלה את שילוב התורה והמדע; אני מקווה שהכרך המונח לפני הקוראים ייחשב בעיניהם כביטוי הולם של השילוב בין העולמות הנתפסים לעתים כסותרים. תודה מסוג אחר היא לביתי בקבוצת יבנה. החיים בקיבוץ דתי המתחבט כקהילה בבעיות של שמירת מצוות ושל גיבוש הסכמה חברתית ללא אמצעי אכיפה, ציבור המתמודד גם הוא בשאלות של ניסוח משפטי של רעיונות מופשטים וניסוחם המרומם בלשון של חוק ונוהל, כל אלה חידדו את הבנת הרקע החברתי שבו פעלו חכמים. במקביל לחכמים של אז, גם כיום אנו מתחבטים כיצד לנסח בצורה משפטית הסכמות חברתיות, הסכמות שניסוחן קשה ומעורפל אבל הן מובנות ללא מילים, והמילים רק מגמדות את הרעיון הגדול. אורח החיים בקיבוץ דתי, ובחברה הדתית הכללית בת זמננו, העניק לנו מבט נוסף על תהליך עיצוב ההלכה, מבט שבו ניסינו לשתף את הקוראים. ", + "ועל כולם יתברך ויתפאר שמו. זכות מיוחדת שזכיתי לה מהחונן לאדם דעת היא שעבודתי היא לי אורח חיים. את יום העבודה אני מתחיל ומסיים בשירת \"מה אהבתי תורתך כל היום היא שיחתי\", ואשריי שזכיתי לכך.", + "זאב ספראי", + "ראש חודש שבט תשע\"ה" + ], + "Preface": [ + [ + "מקראות", + "במדבר טו יז-כא", + "(יז) וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר:", + "(יח) דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם בבאכם אל הארץ אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה:", + "(יט) והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ תרימו תרומה לה':", + "(כ) ראשית ערִסֹתֵכם חלה תרימו תרומה כתרומת גֹרן כן תרימו אתה:", + "(כא) מראשית ערִסֹתיכם תתנו לה' תרומה לדֹרֹתיכם:", + "יחזקאל כ מ", + "כי בהר קדשי בהר מרום ישראל נאם אדני ה' שם יעבדֻני כל בית ישראל כֻלֹה בארץ שם ארצם ושם אדרוש את תרומתיכם ואת ראשית משאותיכם בכל קדשיכם:", + "יחזקאל מד ל", + "וראשית כל בכורי כל וכל תרומת כל מכל תרומֹתיכם לכהנים יהיה וראשית עריסותיכם תתנו לכהן להניח ברכה אל ביתך:", + "נחמיה י לה-מ", + "(לה) והגורלות הפלנו על קרבן העצים הכהנים הלוים והעם להביא לבית אלהינו לבית אבתינו לעתים מזֻמנים שנה בשנה לבער על מזבח ה' אלהינו ככתוב בתורה:", + "(לו) ולהביא את בכורי אדמתנו ובכורי כל פרי כל עץ שנה בשנה לבית ה':", + "(לז) ואת בכֹרות בנינו ובהמתינו ככתוב בתורה ואת בכורי בקרינו וצאנינו להביא לבית אלהינו לכהנים המשרתים בבית אלהינו:", + "(לח) ואת ראשית עריסֹתינו ותרומֹתינו ופרי כל עץ תירוש ויצהר נביא לכהנים אל לשכות בית אלהינו ומעשר אדמתנו ללוים והם הלוים המעשרים בכל ערי עבֹדתנו:", + "(לט) והיה הכהן בן אהרן עם הלוים בעשר הלוים והלוים יעלו את מעשר המעשר לבית אלהינו אל הלשכות לבית האוצר:", + "(מ) כי אל הלשכות יביאו בני ישראל ובני הלוי את תרומת הדגן התירוש והיצהר ושם כלי המקדש והכהנים המשרתים והשוערים והמשֹררים ולא נעזב את בית אלהינו:" + ], + [ + "מבוא", + "פרשת חלה מנויה בין מצוות הכהונה ומכונה \"ראשית עריסתיכם\". המונח התפרש כחובה להפריש מהבצק המיועד ללחם. בבמדבר טו יט-כ מדובר במפורש על לחם וחלה, ומכאן הסיקו חכמים שהחובה חלה רק על מאפה שהוא לחם וכעין לחם, כלומר כשחומר הגלם הוא דגנים והמאפה הוא לחם רגיל, ולא על לחמים שהם כעין עוגה (פ\"א מ\"ג), ומצד שני נפטרו מיני מאפה שלא נועדו לאכילה כלחם. התורה מצווה לתת את ה\"ראשית\" לכוהנים, וגם בספר יחזקאל מד מודגשת הנתינה לכוהנים, ואפשר להבין שמדובר בכוהנים הפזורים ברחבי הארץ. ברם, ביחזקאל כ מוסבת המצווה לנתינה לבית ה' בירושלים: \"כי בהר קדשי בהר מרום ישראל... ושם אדרוש את תרומתיכם\". גם בספר נחמיה מופיעה מצוות ראשית העריסה בהקשר לתמיכה בכוהני ירושלים. מבחינה מעשית אם מדובר בהפרשה מהבצק או מהלחם האפוי הרי שאי אפשר להגביל את הנתינה לירושלים בלבד, שכן יש לתת את החלה לכוהן סמוך לזמן האפייה, אחרת תאבד את ערכה. נמצאנו למדים שגם בספר יחזקאל וגם ספר נחמיה מדברים לקהל ירושלים, או שמצוות חלה נגררת אגב מצוות הכוהנים האחרות. ", + "פילון (על החוקים 131) מציג את מצוות חלה (πέμμα – pemma) כמצווה הראשונה מבין מתנות הכוהנים, וגם הוא מדגיש שמדובר בהפרשת חלק מהלחם הפשוט, ומשמע מדבריו שהנתינה היא של אוכל מוכן. לעומת זאת יוספוס (קד', ד 151) מתנסח באופן כללי יותר שהמצווה מוטלת על האופים תבואה.", + "מספר במדבר אפשר היה להסיק שהמצווה חלה רק על תבואות הארץ, והיא מצטרפת, אפוא, למצוות התלויות בארץ. אפשר היה ללמוד זאת מכך שנאמר \"בבאכם אל הארץ אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה, והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ...\", אלא שכפי שראינו בנספח למסכת שביעית הגדרה זו \"בבֹאכם אל הארץ\" פורשה או נדרשה בדרכים שונות, ולא רק כהגדרה של חלות המצווה. בספרות החיצונית איננו שומעים שהמצווה חלה דווקא בארץ, וגם בכך עסקנו בנספח למסכת שביעית. מספרות חז\"ל משתמע בפשטות שגם במצוות חלה חייבים רק בארץ, ועם זאת שונה מצווה זו מיתר המצוות התלויות בארץ. ", + "בפ\"ב מ\"א יש מחלוקת בין תנאי דור יבנה, ונסכם אותה בטבלה:", + "מחלוקת זו מבטאת את התפיסה שהמרכיב העיקרי הוא מקום האפייה (האכילה), ואם האפייה בארץ חייבים בחלה, ואילו מעמדם של פרות הארץ הנאכלים בחוץ לארץ שנוי במחלוקת. ברם, במקביל אנו שומעים מדור אחד מאוחר יותר על חלוקה אחרת, בין ארץ ישראל לבין סוריה. רבן גמליאל סבור שבסוריה חייבים להפריש פעמיים חלה, ורבי אליעזר מדבר על חלה אחת1לאמִתו של דבר, עמדת רבן גמליאל עצמו שנויה במחלוקת: \"וכן היה רבי לעזר בי רבי צדוק אומר לא היה רבן גמליאל מחייב בסוריא אלא חלה אחת בלבד\" (תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ה), ראו פירושנו למשנה פ\"ב מ\"ז. . אם כן, העיקרון שהרמת חלה היא בארץ בלבד תלוי במחלוקת, אבל גם משתמע שלכל הדעות אפיית חוץ לארץ פטורה מחלה (פ\"ד מ\"ז). במשנה הבאה שם אנו שומעים על הלכה נוספת של רבן גמליאל וממנה משתמע שגם אפיית חוץ לארץ חייבת בחלה, אלא שבגלל חובת הטהרה אי אפשר להרים חלה כהלכה ולכן חייבים להרים חלה פעמיים. שאלה זו עולה עוד בסוף משנת חלה (פ\"ד מ\"י), שם מדובר ב\"ביתר\", אולי בתחום החורן שאסור להרים בו חלה אפילו אם מצאו דרך להתגבר על שאלת הטהרה. מעשים אלו ניתן לפרש כהתנגדות להרמת חלה, או כאישור להרמת חלה בחוץ לארץ (או ב\"סוריה\"), אבל החלה טמאה.", + "בספרי זוטא חוזרת העמדה ה\"קלאסית\" שאין חובת הרמת חלה בחוץ לארץ: \"יכול כיון שבאו לארץ יהו חייבין להפריש חלה שבחוצה לארץ אמרת לא אמרתי אלא אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה אתם חייבין להפריש חלה ולא בחוצה לארץ\" (ספרי זוטא, טו יז, עמ' 283). ", + "ניתן, אפוא, לנסח את העמדות התנאיות כמעין מחלוקת על תחולת המצווה בחוץ לארץ כשם שמצינו מחלוקות על ערלה, כלאיים, חדש ומצוות דומות. ברם, הרמת חלה חריגה, שכן אין אח ורע להרמת חלה פעמיים. לא שמענו על הרמת תרומה פעמיים או מעשר פעמיים. האם לפנינו מחלוקת? נראה שלא, אלא שהפער הוא בין ההלכה העקרונית (המשפטית) לבין הנוהג המעשי. במקביל מצינו סדרת עמדות כיצד צריך אדם לנהוג כאשר הוא בטומאה ואינו יכול להרים חלה בטהרה. הפתרונות השונים משתלבים בפתרון זה של הרמת שתי חלות, שגם היא הצעת פתרון למצב של טומאה.", + "במקורות האמוראיים הארץ-ישראליים חוזרת חובת הרמת חלה פעמיים, וציטטנו את האמירות השונות. במקורות בבל מצינו צמצום של חובה זו, בניגוד מה למשנה (פ\"ד מ\"ח). ברם, גם שמענו על הפרשת חלה בטהרה ואכילתה בטהרה חלקית (בכורות כז ע\"א). גישה דומה עולה גם מהירושלמי: \"רבי זעירא רב יהודה בשם שמואל, חלת חוץ לארץ, ותרומת חוץ לארץ, אוכל ואחר כך מפריש...\" (פ\"ד ה\"י, ס ע\"א). אם כן יש להרים חלה, אך ניתן לבצע זאת בסיום האכילה.", + "הבבלי מגדיר את הרמת החלה בזמן הזה (כלומר בחוץ לארץ) כמצווה מדבריהם. ספק אם זו הגדרה מודעת. הפתרון עולה במהלך סוגיה בעלת אופי מאוחר, אגב ברייתא שבכל המקבילות מצוות חלה לא נזכרת בה כלל (בבלי, כתובות כה ע\"א)2אותה הגדרה גם בבבלי, נידה מז ע\"א, אבל הבדל ניכר בין שתי הסוגיות, ולמעשה הן מסורות מוחלפות. המשותף לשתי הסוגיות הוא האיחור והאופי הדיאלקטי. . הגאונים פתרו את הבעיה בכך שהגדירו את הרמת חלה בחוץ לארץ כמצווה מדבריהם3תשובות רב נטרונאי, יורה דעה רכז; תשובות גאונים חדשות (עמנואל), קיג. . עם זאת, אין הם מזכירים את הסוגיות שהן כאילו עדות ברורה לשיטתם. באירופה היו מנהגים שונים4ראו המבוא למסכת תרומות. ששימרו את מצוות חלה, בצורה סמלית אך לא כמשנָה5תשובות הגאונים החדשות (עמנואל, ו). התשובה מלמדת על נוהג מיוחד של הרמת חלה בערב פסח. הפוסק מתנגד לכך, שהרי אין הבדל בין פסח ליום רגיל. ברם, הנוהג משמר נוהגים קדומים בימי מועד רגיל, ומלמד על ימי עבר שבהם נהגה מצווה זו. ראו עוד בבלי, פסחים מח ע\"ב על נוהגי האפייה של נשות בבל ערב פסח שהידרו שלא להתחייב בהפרשת חלה. .", + "אם כן, מצוות חלה שונה מיתר המצוות התלויות בארץ. גם במצוות אחרות מצינו דעות מחמירות שהרחיבו את המצווה לחוץ לארץ (או התנגדו לצמצומה לארץ ישראל), אבל ההסדר של שתי חלות הוא חריג. מעבר לכך, דומה שעולה ממנו הכרה שמצווה זו חלה בחוץ לארץ בהיקף מלא, ואינה שייכת כלל למצוות התלויות בארץ. מי שהגדיר שהחובה חלה על החיטים המצויות בארץ בזמן האפייה, גם הוא ראה בחלה מצווה שאינה שייכת לכלל המצוות התלויות בארץ. ", + "היבט אחר לייחודה של הרמת חלה הוא המאמץ לקיים את המצווה בתנאי טומאה. לא מצינו מאמצים דומים לגבי הרמת תרומה. אמנם נעשו מאמצים להרמת תרומה בטהרה, והיו שהפקידו את הדבר בידי הכוהנים. איסוף התרומה על הגורן אִפשר להקל בדבר. את החלה, לעומת זאת, הרימו בבית, בדרך כלל בתנאי טומאה, ואף על פי כן אנו שומעים על הסדרים שונים להרמת חלה בטהרה (פ\"ב מ\"ג ומ\"ה, וראו פירושנו להן; פ\"ד מ\"ו). בפירוש אף הבאנו סיפורי אמוראים על דרישות הלכה למעשה לשמירה על הקפדות אלו.", + "כמו בתרומות גם בהרמת חלה מצינו פתרון נוסף, והוא הפקדה של הרמת החלה בידי כוהנות: \"אמר רבי יוחנן, ממה שלימדו את הכהנות. הדא אמרה אין הלכה כרבי לעזר בן ערך. מה למדו את הכהונות? הרי זה חלה על העיסה הזאת, ועל שאור המתערב בה, ועל הקמח שנשתייר בה, ועל הקרץ שניתן תחתיה, לכשתעלה כולה גוש אחד, הוקדש זה שבידי לשם חלה חוץ מן הטמא שבה\" (ירו', פ\"ג ה\"א, נט ע\"א). מכאן שהכוהנות הרימו חלה לאחרות או שהקפידו הקפדת יתר על מצווה זו. כן מספר הירושלמי על נוסחה מיוחדת וטובה להפרשת חלה שלימדו את הכוהנות6הכוהנות כאן מופיעות כמקפידות על הרמת חלה, או כמומחיות שאותן הזמינו לבתי עמי הארץ כדי שיפרישו עבורם חלה בטהרה. לומר. הנוסחה כוללת את המשפט: \"הרי זה חלה על העיסה הזאת... ועל הקמח שנשתייר בה...\" (שם).", + "עוד אנו שומעים על הכנת מעין \"בנק\" של חלה טהורה שהיא מופרשת על אפיות אחרות שנעשו בטומאה (ראו תוס', פ\"א ה\"י; משנה, פ\"ג מ\"ח). הסדר דומה לגבי תרומה שנוי במחלוקת; בית שמאי מתירים ובית הלל אוסרים (תרומות פרקים א-ב, כפי שפירשנום להלן פ\"ב מ\"ח). לגבי חלה דעת בית שמאי נזכרת בסתם (פ\"ד מ\"ו), במשנה אחרת היא מיוחסת לרבי אליעזר (פ\"ב מ\"ח), אבל במשנה נוספת (פ\"א מ\"ט) שנויה דעת בית הלל בסתם. מדברי רבי ישמעאל בתוספתא משמע שזה חידוש של אחד מחכמי הדרום7על הקשר בין חכמי בית שמאי וחכמי אדום עמדו אפשטיין ובן שלום, וראו הסברנו לפ\"א מ\"ט. .", + "לכאורה הייתה מצוות הרמת חלה צפויה להיעלם בקלות רבה יותר מאשר הרמת תרומה. הרמת תרומה נעשית בפומבי, בשעת הגורן, חשופה ללחץ חברתי ובשעה שנדיבות הלב מאפיינת אותה. לא כן הרמת חלה שהיא נעשית בבית האדם ותמיד ניתן להיפטר ממנה על ידי אפייה בכמות מועטת (להלן). אף על פי כן ראינו שהקפידו על הרמת חלה יותר ממצוות דומות. הלכה למעשה אנו שומעים גם על הרמת חלה, והמעשים להלן (פ\"ד מ\"י) הם עדות לכך. מדוע היה גורלה של מצוות חלה שונה מזה של מצוות אחרות בתחום מתנות הכהונה? על דרך ההשערה ניתן להציע שהדבר נובע מכך שהייתה זו מצוות נשים. הנשים הן שאפו, ועליהן הוטלה בפועל חובה זו. בכל רחבי העולם מקובל שנשים מתאפיינות ב\"צדיקות\" רבה יותר מגברים. ברם, בחברה היהודית הודרו נשים מחלקים מרכזיים של העולם הדתי; מה שנמסר להן, נשמר אפוא בקפדנות יתר. ", + "ראינו שבתחום חלה שררה יותר הלכת בית שמאי שאין בה אבחנות משפטיות מדוקדקות. גם לגבי זמן הרמת חלה מצינו דעות שונות. האם ייתכן שבתחום זה נטתה ההלכה לפשטות יתר, בעקבות העובדה שהמצווה הזאת הייתה למעשה בידי נשים8בעל אור זרוע חש באופי השונה של הלכות חלה, ומתמקד בהסבר אחר: \"שהחמירו בחלה יותר משום דחלה שייכא בכל אדם המגלגל עיסתו... אבל תרומה אין רגילה אלא בבעלי קרקעות וממרים תבואתם\" (אור זרוע, רנ). הסבר זה מתאים לזמנו שרק מעטים היו בו חקלאים, אך איננו מתאים לחברה היהודית בארץ ישראל הקדומה. ? מצד שני מצינו החמרות שחכמים התנגדו להן (פ\"ב מ\"ה). אפשר שגם החמרת היתר היא תוצאה של מעורבות הנשים במצווה.", + "מכל מקום, מצוות חלה אכן נקשרה בנשים: \"על שלש עבירות נשים מתות בשעת לידתן: על שאינן זהירות לא בנדה ולא בחלה ולא בהדלקת הנר. מפני מה מסרו מצות נדה לאשה ולא מסרו אותה לאיש? אלא שהיה אדם הראשון דמו של הקב\"ה באת חוה ושפכתו, לפיכך מסרו [לה] מצות נדה כדי שיתכפר על הדם ששפכה. מפני מה מסרו מצות חלה לאשה ולא לאיש. אלא שהיה (הקב\"ה) [אדה\"ר] חלתו של הקב\"ה טהורה וטמאתו לפיכך מסרו לה מצות חלה כדי שיתכפר על החלה שטמאתו. מפני מה מסרו מצות הנר לאשה ולא לאיש. אלא שהיה אדה\"ר נרו של הקב\"ה היה מאיר בו לכל באי עולם וכיבתו לפיכך מסרו לה מצות הנר ונתחייבה [בנר] כדי שיתכפר על הנר שכיבתה: אדם דמו של עולם היה בשביל שגרמה לו (לישראל) לשפך לפיכך נתחייבה בנדה. אדם חלתו של עולם היה בשביל שגרמה [לו] שיטמא לפיכך נתחייבה בחלה. אדם נרו של עולם היה בשביל שגרמה לו שיכבה לפיכך נתחייבה בהדלקת הנר. מכאן אמרו חכמים על שלש עבירות נשים מתות בשעת לידתן על שאינן זהירות לא בנדה לא בחלה ולא בהדלקת הנר\" (אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"ב פ\"ט, עמ' יג). ואכן, בכל הקשר של קיום המצווה למעשה נזכרות דווקא הנשים: \"האשה יושבת וקוצה חלתה\" (פ\"ב מ\"ג), \"נשים שנתנו לנחתום\" (פ\"א מ\"ז), ועוד הרבה.", + "בכך חש כבר בעל אור זרוע: \"וברוב המקומות מזכיר ושונה נשים אצל מצוות חלה כגון...\" (הלכות חלה, רכה). הוא מזכיר משניות הנאמרות בלשון זכר ומסכם: \"מיהו מצות הפרשת חלה על האשה רמיא. הלכך אף על פי שהעסה של בעלה היא משויא שליח להפריש חלה\".", + "באופן טבעי האישה היא שעסקה באפייה, וממילא היא גם שהרימה את החלה. הבישול והאפייה היו כמובן באחריותה הבלעדית של האישה, כפי שיוצא מרשימת מלאכות המוטלות עליה (משנה, כתובות פ\"ה מ\"ה) וממקורות רבים נוספים. כך, למשל, כאשר הירושלמי מברר את דיני בישול בשבת הוא מדגים זאת במינוח: \"הדא איתתא...\" (ירו', שבת פ\"ז ה\"ב, י ע\"א), ופרט מסוים בהלכות אלו מנומק: \"זריזות הן הנשים בפת יותר מן התבשיל\" (ירו', שבת פ\"א ה\"י, ד ע\"ב), וכן: \"לא תמלא אשה קדרה ותרמוסין ועססיות ותתן לתוך התנור\" (תוס', שבת פ\"ג [ד] ה\"א); \"האשה שלשה בעריבה...\" (תוס', אהלות פ\"ה הי\"א, עמ' 602), וכמוהן עדויות רבות נוספות9כגון אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פכ\"ג, עמ' 76; משנה, דמאי פ\"ג מ\"ו; ויקרא רבה, יז ב, עמ' שעג; תוס', נדה פ\"ז ה\"ג; תנא דבי אליהו, פט, עמ' 51: \"נתנן אדם לאשה...\", ועוד. . במדרש מתואר כיצד הבעל, השולט כמובן בביתו, איננו יכול לקבוע את התפריט שכן האישה היא המבשלת: \"מנהג שבעולם אדם מבקש לאכול עדשים ואשתו מבקשת לאכול אפונים. יכול הוא לכופה? לא מה דהיא בעיא היא עבדה?\" (לא מה שהיא רוצה היא עושה?!)10אסתר רבה, ד יב, והשוו שיר השירים רבה, א מד. . מקור אחרון זה מעיד כי מקובל היה שהאישה היא המנהלת של מגזר פעילות זה, ולא רק עובדת נטולת סמכויות.", + "את החלה הפרישו בזמן האפייה (איור 1). מחלוקת תנאים היא מתי הזמן הקובע, לישת העיסה במים או הקרימה בתנור (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ב מ\"ח; פ\"ג מ\"א ומ\"ו-מ\"ז). ראינו שיש בנושא מחלוקת רבי עקיבא ורבי יוחנן בן נורי, ולרבי אליעזר דעה עצמאית שאפשר להרים בזמן שרוצים. בפירושנו לפ\"ג מ\"א עוד שתי דעות. עמדת בית שמאי (רבי אליעזר) איננה מפתיעה, שכן הם מצדדים בביצוע פשוט של המצוות ללא הגבלות יתר על דרכי הביצוע (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"ב).", + "על הכמות של החיטים החייבות בחלה שנינו מחלוקת תנאים: \"שמאי אומר מקב לחלה והלל אומר מקביים, וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא קב ומחצה חייבים בחלה. ומשהגדילו המדות אמרו חמשת רבעים חייבין, רבי יוסי אומר חמשה פטורין חמשה ועוד חייבין\" (משנה, עדיות פ\"א מ\"ב). הלכה למעשה המשנה משתמשת בדרך כלל בשיעור של חמישה רבעים, אם כי ניתן לפרשה לעתים גם כדעת בית הלל (פ\"ב מ\"ו; פ\"ד מ\"א).", + "עמי הארץ הקלו בכל המצוות התלויות בארץ. כך בטהרה, בהרמת מעשרות וכיוצא באלו. לא מצינו שעמי הארץ הקלו בהרמת חלה, ופשוט להסביר שדין חלה כתרומה. העובדה שהתרומה נאסרה לאכילה, והאוכלה חייב מיתה, הרתיעה מלעבור על המצווה. העובדה שעלותן של שתי המצוות שולית חיזקה מגמה זו." + ], + [ + "חכמי המסכת", + "כמעט כל החכמים הנזכרים במסכת ובתוספתא הם חכמי דור יבנה לכל המאוחר (כולל בית הלל ובית שמאי הקדומים יותר). דומה שהלכות חלה עוצבו כבר בדור זה. עם זאת עריכת המסכת היא מאוחרת, והדבר בולט בפרק א (להלן)." + ], + [ + "סדר המסכת", + "פרק א עוסק בסדרת כללים, וכפי שנָראה הוא מאוחר מטיבו. רוב הפרק כולל כללים המופיעים במקבילות, ומשנתנו מלקטת כנראה את החומר ממשניות אחרות (מנחות, פסחים, שביעית וכו'). הפרק עוסק בכללים הבסיסיים: מתי מפרישים חלה, מהי עיסה החייבת ומה דיני החלה שהופרשה. פרק א מגובש; נושאיו אמנם שונים, אבל כל המשניות הן עקרוניות ועוסקות בכללים. ", + "ליתר המסכת אין סדר הנראה לעין. יש בה רצף של הלכות סביב דיני חלה וכמעט אין בה נושאים אחרים11אבל ראו פ\"ג מ\"ד; פ\"ג מ\"ט, ועוד. , אבל הנושאים השונים פזורים. כך, למשל, הלכות חוץ לארץ מצויות בפ\"ב מ\"א-מ\"ב ובפ\"ד מ\"ז-מי\"א; הלכות הרמת חלה ממין על שאינו מינו מצויות בפ\"ב מ\"ח, בפ\"ג מ\"ז-מ\"י ובפ\"ד מ\"ו. עם זאת, ניכרים כמה גושי הלכות:", + "פ\"ב מ\"ד עד מ\"ז – הלכות הקשורות לשיעורים שונים של חלה;", + "פ\"ג מ\"א עד מ\"ט – הרמת חלה לפני התהוות הבצק;", + "פ\"ג מ\"י עד פ\"ד מ\"ו – דיני עירוב של בצקים שונים.", + "פ\"ב מ\"ח דומה בתוכנו לפ\"א מ\"ט, אבל הוא מעריכה אחרת. ", + "סדרת משניות היא כרבי יוחנן בן נורי (פ\"א מ\"א; פ\"ג מ\"א-מ\"ה, ומשניות רבות בפרק ב)." + ], + [ + "כתבי היד", + "כמו בכל מסכתות זרעים השתמשנו במשנת זרעים מהדורת הש\"ס השלם. רשימת כתבי היד מצויה שם, ובסוף המבוא לביכורים." + ] + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "פִרקנו כולל משניות משני סוגים. האחד הוא משניות מסכמות המציגות תמונה כוללת (משניות א, ב, ג, ד, ט). גוש המשניות שבאמצע, ה-ח, עוסק בחובת חלה בסוגי עיסה שונים.", + "חמשה דברים – המשנה פותחת בפתיחה מספרית, כלל מספרי שאחריו יבוא הפירוט. פרקים רבים מתחילים בפתיחות מספריות, וכן משניות רבות12מסכתות שבת (ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"א שם), פאה, בבא קמא, שבועות; תרומות פ\"א מ\"א ועוד, וראו במבוא. . הפתיחה המספרית הייתה חשובה לקדמונינו, משום שהם זכרו את המשניות בעל פה והמספרים היו כלי עזר חשוב ביותר לזיכרון. ייתכן גם שהייתה פעם משנה קדומה שרבות ממשניותיה היו סדורות בצורה מספרית, או לחילופין הייתה זו שיטת עריכה, אולי של בית מדרש מסוים, אך לאו דווקא שיטת עריכה קדומה. ואכן, למשניות המספריות אופי מסכם של כלל, ועל כן סביר יותר שזו שיטה מאוחרת. אנו בחנו את שאלת המשניות הספורות בכלל (והמשניות הספורות שבראשי פרקים בפרט) פעמים מספר. ראינו שבדרך כלל הן תוספת מאוחרת, אם כי במשנת נגעים המניין הוא קדום והיה במסורת כבר לפני רבי עקיבא (נגעים פ\"א מ\"א). במקרה זה, כפי שנראה בהמשך, המשפט הפותח \"חמשה דברים חייבין בחלה\" הוא נטע זר במשנה. מי שניסח את המשנה לא נזקק לפתיחה זו. זו ראיה נוספת לשיטת העריכה של המשנה. העורך ליקט את המשנה ממקור כלשהו והוסיף לה כותרת שהיא פתיחה מספרית. ייתכן שנותרו במשנה עקבות נוספים לאותו מקור. במשנת מנחות מנויה הרשימה וחלק מההלכות שבמשנתנו, באותו סגנון, אך ללא הפתיחה \"חמשה...\" (פ\"י מ\"ז), וכן במסכתות כלאים (פ\"א מ\"א) ופסחים (פ\"ב מ\"ו). ייתכן, אפוא, שזו אותה משנה קדומה, או שלפחות משנת מנחות העתיקה אותה ללא שינוי. מכל מקום, במשנת מנחות נמנות ההלכות הקשורות לעומר ובמשנת פסחים (פ\"ב מ\"ה, וראו להלן מ\"ב ומ\"ג) ההלכות הקשורות לחמשת המינים הללו בפסח (דין חמץ ומצה), ומשנתנו היא סיכום כולל. ייתכן גם שמשנתנו היא סיכום מאוחר של כל המשניות הפזורות הללו, ולכן גם ניתנה לה הכותרת המסכמת \"חמשה...\". כפי שנראה בפירושנו להלן בסוף המשנה הזאת, פירוש זה פותר שאלה נוספת בדבר המבנה והסגנון של המשנה.", + "חייבין בחלה – אלו הם חמישה סוגי הדגנים העיקריים שהכירו חכמים (איור 2).", + "בפירושנו למסכת כלאים התחבטנו מה היה מקורה של הרשימה: האם כללה רק דגנים, לעניין הלכתי זה או אחר, או שמא הייתה זו רשימה ארוכה יותר של צמחי מאכל שעורכי פסחים, מנחות וחלה הביאו ממנה רק את סוגי הדגנים. לצורך הבנת המשנה השאלה היא משנית, ברם היא חשובה מבחינה תרבותית. האם בתקופת חז\"ל רווחו רשימות של צמחים שהיו חלק מהעולם התרבותי של קדמונינו, וחלקים מהן שובצו על ידי בעלי המשניות בהקשרים הלכתיים שונים, או שמא כל התרבות הקדומה נהגתה ונערכה עריכה ראשונית בהקשר ההלכתי של המשניות הקדומות? להערכתנו יש די ראיות לכך שהיו רשימות חוץ-הלכתיות (שנערכו לראשונה לא בהקשר של הלימוד ולא בבית המדרש) ועסקו בצמחים, בכלים ואולי גם במאורעות, ורק חלקן הקטן שוקע במשנה. הנושא מחייב בירור יסודי, ויש לו השלכה על שאלת אופייה התרבותי של החברה היהודית בתקופה.", + "אמרנו שמשנתנו מנוסחת ככלל, אך מבחינת ההתפתחות המחשבתית היא שלב ביניים בין המקרה הבודד והכלל. אין בה ניסוח של עיקרון, אלא צירוף הדוגמאות. כמו במקרים אחרים במשנה אין המניין בא להוציא מקרים נוספים. יש אולי עוד דוגמאות, והתנא הוא בבחינת \"תנא ושייר\".", + "החיטין והשערים והכסמים ושבולת שועל ושיפון – רשימה זו חוזרת, כאמור, במקורות רבים ופורשה בפירושנו לכלאים פ\"א מ\"א, וזו רשימת הדגנים העיקריים שהכירו קדמונינו13משנה, פסחים פ\"א מ\"ה; כלאים פ\"א מ\"א-מ\"ב. . שמונה סוגי דגנים נזכרים במקורות התלמודיים. חמישה אלו מתוארים כחמישה סוגי הדגנים העיקריים, ברם ברור שחיטים היו גידול הדגנים החשוב ביותר בארץ ישראל. המשנה בכתובות המציגה את לוח המזון המקובל ברחוב היהודי מזכירה חיטים בצד שעורים, אך מוסיפה: \"אמר רבי יוסי (180-140 למניינם) לא פסק לה שעורים אלא רבי ישמעאל (132-100 למניינם) שהיה סמוך לאדום\" (פ\"ה מ\"ח). אם כן, רק רבי ישמעאל צירף את השעורים ללוח המזון. הדרום הוא שחון, וכמויות הגשם בו אינן יציבות. עד היום מהווים השעורים גידול מרכזי באזור, משום שאין בו תנאים נאותים ובטוחים לגידול חיטה. רק חכם הגר באזור זה עשוי היה לכלול שעורים בלוח המזון המקובל, ועל כל פנים כך מעריך את הדברים רבי יוסי, וכן יוצא מראיות נוספות14ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 109; ראו גם פירושנו לכלאים שם. . ", + "שעורים נחשבו למאכל הראוי לאסירים או לבהמות, ואף זו עדות לערכם הפחות בלוח המזון המשפחתי הרגיל, שכן אדם רגיל אכל בדרך כלל חיטים. החיטים נזכרות לעתים קרובות כדוגמה לאוכל סתמי או לפֵרות, ואף זו ראיה לכך שהן נחשבו למאכל הרגיל15כגון משנה, דמאי פ\"ג מ\"ד; מעשרות פ\"ד מ\"ה; בבא מציעא פ\"ה מ\"א; שם פ\"ה מ\"ח, ומקורות רבים נוספים. .", + "רוב המקורות התלמודיים חוברו בגליל, ועל כן מוצגת החיטה במקורות אלה כגידול העיקרי. יש להניח כי לו היו בידינו מקורות שנערכו במחוז יהודה וב\"דרום\" הייתה מוצגת תמונה שונה. ואכן, במצבור דגנים שנחשף באזור מהימים של שלהי מרד בר כוכבא המרכיב העיקרי הוא שעורים16כסלו, מצודת יתיר. . ", + "שוויין של השעורים היה כחצי שוויין של חיטים17שפרבר, מחירים, עמ' 113-112. . אף ערכן התזונתי היה פחות מזה של חיטים (משנה, פאה פ\"ח מ\"ה; כתובות פ\"ה מ\"ח ועוד). הן אמנם נחשבו לגידול המתיש פחות את הקרקע (משנה, בבא מציעא פ\"ט מ\"ח), אך ברור שערכו הכלכלי של גידול השעורים נפל הרבה מזה של חיטים.", + "בחפירות ארכאולוגיות מתגלים בעיקר זרעי חיטים ושעורים, ונראה שאלו היו הגידולים העיקריים במשק הארץ בתקופה הרומית. יתר המינים נדירים יותר אך תדירים למדי, ובזיהוים המדויק דנו בפירושנו לכלאים (איור 3).", + "בתוספתא נזכר מין נוסף של דגנים, ה\"קרמית\" או \"קרומית\"18תוס', פסחים פ\"א הכ\"ט (מהדורת ליברמן פ\"ב הי\"ז); ירו', נז ע\"א; בירושלמי פסחים (פ\"ב ה\"א, כט ע\"ב) ובבבלי שם (לה ע\"א) יש מחלוקת על דינה של הקרמית. זיהויה שנוי במחלוקת, ראו אור זרוע, סימן רטו ועוד, ולא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך. . במסורות תנאיות, משמו של רבי יוחנן בן נורי, נוסף לרשימת הדגנים גם האורז19בבלי, פסחים לה ע\"א. בירושלמי למשנתנו (נז ע\"א) אומר רבי יוחנן את דברו רק על קרמית. . האורז היה גידול שחדר לארץ רק בסוף ימי התנאים, ולכן טרם התגבשה תפיסה אחידה בדבר מעמדו בדיני ברכות וחמץ20פליקס, האורז. . הבבלי מסיק שמשנתנו אינה כרבי יוחנן בן נורי, ברם אין צורך לקבוע זאת בצורה מוחלטת. המשנה מונה את מיני החמץ המקובלים והידועים, אבל אולי היו עוד מיני חמץ נפוצים פחות, והאורז הוא אחד מהם.", + "הירושלמי (נז ע\"א) מסביר שמחלוקת רבי יוחנן בן נורי וחכמים היא על המציאות; נעשה ניסוי ונחלקו חכמים אם מינים אלו או גם הקרמית21ראו בבלי וירושלמי שם שם. מחמיצים. מסתבר שהמין לא היה תדיר, אחרת היו מכריעים במחלוקת מציאותית זו.", + "הרי אלו חייבין בחלה – כל המשפט שנוי גם במנחות (פ\"י מ\"ז) אך כנראה הועבר ממשנתנו, שכן דין הצטרפות הנזכר להלן חשוב להלכות חלה וחמץ אך לא להלכות מקדש. בחלה חייבת עיסה הנעשית מקמח רגיל. המשפט מיותר, שכן כבר במשפט הפתיחה נאמר \"חמשה... חייבין בחלה\". לפי דרכנו ההסבר ברור. גרעין המקור הקדום כלל את המשפט \"החיטים השעורים וכו' חייבין בחלה\"; העורך הוסיף את משפט הסיכום \"חמשה דברים...\" כדי להעניק למשנה אופי של סיכום, ופתיחה לפרק (ולמסכת), וכך נוצרה כפילות.", + "ומיצטרפין זה עם זה – כדי להוות יחד שיעור של חמץ או של עיסה החייבת בחלה. משפט זה במשנה עומד בניגוד למשנת כלאים (פ\"א מ\"א) ולמשנה להלן (פ\"ד מ\"ב), שם הוטלו מגבלות על הצטרפות המינים. על הסתירה עמדו רבים22ראו אור זרוע, סימן ריד ועוד. , ונבררה להלן (פ\"ד מ\"ב). מכל מקום, כאן נעיר שאין חובה לפרש את המשנה שכל המינים מצטרפים זה עם זה, אלא שיש מהם שמצטרפים צירופים שונים. המשנה לא באה לפרט, שכן הפירוט יבוא להלן בפרק ד, אלא לקבוע שיש אפשרות לצירופים הדדיים מסוימים23הרא\"ש בפירושו על אתר אומר שכך גם פירש רש\"י למשנה במנחות (פ\"י מ\"ה). בפירוש רש\"י שבידינו לא נאמר כך, אם כי אפשר אולי ללמוד זאת מפירושו לגמרא (ע ע\"א ד\"ה \"כוסמין\"). יהא האומר אשר יהא, פירוש זה הוא פשט המשנה לאמִתה, ומעיד עד כמה הניסוח של המשנה אינו ניסוח משפטי קפדני, וכל משנה היא קטע ממסכת רחבה יותר. אלא שהעורכים של המשנה קטעו לעתים, אגב הליקוט, את הרצף של המשניות. מכאן מודעה רבה ואזהרה ללומד כל משנה בפני עצמה, ובמקרה זה שנה העורך את המשפט כמעין כותרת ומבוא להמשך. .", + "ואסורין בחדש מלפני הפסח – אין לאכול מן התבואה החדשה עד יום שני של פסח. אז מביאים את קרבן החדש (העומר) והחיטה מותרת באכילה. באופן ממשי, אם אי אפשר לקצור את החיטה לפני פסח אי אפשר גם לקצרה עד לאחר הקרבת קרבן פסח, שכן אי אפשר לקצור בחג ואף לא ביום הנף עד ההקרבה.", + "ומלקצור מלפני העומר – כאמור שוב \"לפני העומר\" משמעו לאחר הפסח. עם זאת חילוף הלשון מוזר, שהרי פתח בפסח וסיים בעומר. בשני עדי נוסח (מ, ץ) הסדר הפוך: \"אסורין בחדש לפני העמר ומלקצור לפני הפסח\", ועדיין הכפילות עומדת אלא שבסדר הפוך, ובכך נעסוק להלן. כידוע מצווים בני ישראל להביא ביום השני של פסח את קרבן העומר. את העומר קצרו במעמד חגיגי שעליו מסופר במפורט במנחות פרק י. מן התורה אסור לאכול לפני הקרבת הקרבן, אבל חכמים דרשו שלא לקצור לפני זמן זה כדי לעשות סייג למצווה (משנה, מנחות פ\"י מ\"ה). זו דעתו של רבי מאיר, ורבי יהודה חולק. הציבור שמר באופן כללי על האיסור, אבל בפועל היו רבים שהחלו בקציר כבר בבוקר שבו הוקרב הקרבן, ולא המתינו עד זמן ההקרבה. מכל מקום, תנאים מספרים שלאחר הקרבת הקרבן כבר היו שוקי ירושלים מלאים בחיטים מן הקציר החדש, והמשנה במסכת מנחות קובעת: \"קוצרים בית השלחים שבעמקים אבל לא גודשין. אנשי יריחו קוצרין ברצון חכמים וגודשין שלא ברצון חכמים, ולא מיחו בידם חכמים\" (פ\"י מ\"ח, וראו תוס', שם פ\"י הי\"א). מנהגם המיוחד של אנשי יריחו נדון גם במשנת פסחים24ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ד מ\"ח. , ואינו עניין לכאן. ברם המנהג המיוחד שלהם, שלא ברצון חכמים, מלמד על הכלל המנוסח גם במשנתנו. עם זאת, כאמור, יש לכלל זה חריגים.", + "אם השרישו קודם לעומר העומר מתיר[י]ן – גם הלכה זו חוזרת במשנת מנחות שהזכרנו לעיל. ההלכה עצמה פשוטה. אם זרע חיטה או מין אחר מחמשת המינים, והצמח הבשיל אחרי חצי שנה או עשרה חודשים – הוא מותר, שכבר עבר עליו העומר והוא בבחינת יבול ישן, אף על פי שבזמן קרבן החדש היה הצמח נבט בלבד. הירושלמי (נז ע\"ג) שואל האם מותר להביא מצמח כזה את העומר, ומדובר בשאלה תאורטית, שהרי צמח כזה שנזרע שלושה ימים או אפילו חודש לפני הפסח אין בו עדיין גרעין שניתן להוציא ממנו קמח.", + "ואם לאו אסורין עד שיבוא העומר הבא – אבל אם זרע קרוב יותר לעומר הוא נחשב כמי שטרם נבט, ואין לאכול מהתבואה עד לאחר קרבן העומר הבא, ועד אז היבול נחשב לחדש.", + "המשנה עוסקת בזריעת קיץ. בארץ ישראל זורעים בדרך כלל בתחילת החורף, אבל יש תנאים מיוחדים שבהם זורעים תבואות קיץ. אלו הם אזורים רוויי מים, בעמקים או בשטחי ביצה שבקרקעם לחות רבה בסוף החורף. לעתים הגשמים מאחרים מאוד ומתחילים רק באדר; החקלאים איבדו כבר כל תקווה שחיטת החורף תניב יבול של ממש, ומנצלים את הגשמים המאוחרים לזריעה חוזרת. ההלכה חוזרת במסכת שמחות, אבל במקום \"עומר\" כמו במשנתנו ובמשנת מנחות מופיע המינוח \"פסח\", כמו ברישא.", + "בתלמוד הבבלי (מנחות עא ע\"א) מסופר על רבי אלעזר שאמר לרבי יאשיה \"דדריה\" (בן דורו וזמנו, להוציא את רבי יאשיה התנא): \"לא תיתב אכרעיך עד דמפרשת ליה\" (“לא תשב על רגליך עד שתפרש לי...\"), ורבי יאשיה מוצא להלכה דרשה כאסמכתא. בירושלמי למשנתנו יש מחלוקת מהו \"העומר\" לצורך ההלכה האחרונה במשנה: זמן הקצירה או זמן ההבאה (נז ע\"ג). כידוע, בזמן הבית היה זמן ההקרבה זמן העומר. לאחר החורבן תיקן רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיום הנף כולו אסור (משנה, ראש השנה פ\"ד מ\"ד; סוכה פ\"ג מי\"ב), אבל לדעת האמורא רבי יוסי בכל הנוגע להשרשה זמן הקצירה הוא הקובע.", + "הסברנו במשנתנו ש\"פסח\" ו”עומר\" הם למעשה מושגים חופפים. במציאות, ובעיקר במציאות של ימי הבית, היה ברור ש\"עומר\" הוא זמן ההקרבה, ו\"פסח\" הוא הגדרה דומה. בפועל אין הבדל משמעותי בין שתי ההגדרות. יש כמובן משניות נוספות כאלה, כגון המשנה הידועה המתחילה \"המניח את הכד\" ומסיימת \"בעל החבית חייב בנזקו\" (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ג מ\"א). המילים כד וחבית משמען דומה ולכן הוחלפו (בבלי, שם כז ע\"א). כמו כן במשנת מעשר שני (פ\"ג מי\"א), מתחיל בחבית ומסיים בקנקן. עם כל זאת, לכאורה תמוה מדוע פתחה המשנה בפסח וסיימה בעומר. אולי אין הבדל מעשי בין שני המינוחים, אך הבדל סגנוני יש ויש, וגם מבחינה משפטית ההבדל פותח פתח לדקדוקים שבהם יימצא הבדל בין שני המינוחים. הירושלמי אומר ש\"אית תניי תני מלפני הפסח, אית תניי תני מלפני העומר\" (נז ע\"ב). לפי פירוש המונח \"אית תניי תני\" בדרך כלל הפירוש כאן הוא שיש תנאים הגורסים \"עומר\" ויש הגורסים \"פסח\", ומשנתנו היא מעין שילוב של הנוסחאות הללו. אפשטיין עסק בנושא והגיע למסקנה כי היו כאן הבדלי נוסח בין משנת הירושלמי ומשנת הבבלי. הירושלמי למשנתנו גרס בכל המשנה \"פסח\" אבל הכיר גם נוסח תנאי אחר, זאת משום שתמיד ב\"אית תניי תני\" הראשון מוצג הנוסח הקיים. אבל הבבלי למנחות (סח ע\"ב, וכן אולי שם עא ע\"א) גרס \"עומר\". מכל מקום, גם בעל ספרי זוטא גורס כבמשנתנו, תחילה פסח ואחר כך עומר (ספרי זוטא, שלח, טו יט, עמ' 283).", + "להערכתנו התהווה הנוסח בצורה שונה. לעיל הצענו שמשנתנו מסכמת את ההלכות הקשורות לפסח ולהבאת העומר ומלקטת את החומרים שלה ממשנת פסחים וממשנת מנחות (או ממשניות קדומות שהיוו את המקור למשניות בפסחים ובמנחות). משניות פסחים משתמשות באופן טבעי במונח \"פסח\" ומשנת מנחות במונח \"עומר\". משנתנו ליקטה חומרים משתי המשניות הללו וסיכמה אותם בצורה כללית, מבלי לפגוע בגרעיני המידע ובסגנון המיוחד לכל אחת מהן. ", + "בהלכה האחרונה במשנה (דין השרשה) יש הבדל הלכתי בין שלושה ימים לפני פסח ובין שלושה ימים לפני העומר. את העומר קוצרים במוצאי פסח, כלומר בט\"ז בניסן. לפי האמורא רבי יוסי שלושה ימים יהיו לפני ט\"ז ניסן, כלומר י\"ג בניסן בלילה, ולמעשה י\"ב בניסן, שהרי אין זורעים בלילה, ולפי רבי יונה זמן הקצירה קובע, כלומר י\"ג בניסן בבוקר או בערב. גם הבדל זה הוא כמובן יותר משפטי ממעשי (תמונה 1)." + ], + [ + "האוכל מהן כזית מצה בפסח יצא ידי חובתו – כאמור, במשנת פסחים מינים אלו נחשבים ללחם על כן ניתן לייצר מהם מצה, כזית חמץ חייב בהיכרת – והאוכל מהם כזית חמץ חייב כרת.", + "ניתערב אחד מהן בכל המיניין הרי זה עובר בפסח25ראו ספרי זוטא, שלח, טו יט, עמ' 283; ספרי במדבר, קמו, עמ' 193; בבלי, פסחים לה ע\"ב. – אם נוצרה תערובת שיש בה אחד מהמינים הללו עם משהו אחר הרי שיש להעבירו, כלומר להשמידו כאילו הוא ספק חמץ. המינוח \"להעביר\" בהקשר של חמץ חוזר במקורות. פרק ג בפסחים מתחיל במילים \"אלו עוברין בפסח\", והוא מונה את המינים שיש בהם תערובת חמץ. נראה, אפוא, שהביטוי במשנתנו רומז למשנת פסחים, שם מדובר במאכלים שיש בהם תערובת חמץ, וכאן מוסבר ש\"חמץ\" זה הוא אחד מחמשת המינים שבמשנה.", + "הביטוי \"עובר\" במשמעות זו הוא נדיר, אך מופיע במקורותינו26ראו בבלי, פסחים מה ע\"ב, ועוד. . הביטוי \"עובר בטל\" קרוב במשמעותו ל\"עובר\" שבמשנתנו, ומשמעו נגמר או מסתיים. המשנה מונה מאכלים או חפצים שיש בהם חמץ ולכן חייבים לבערם, אך אין הם לחם או חמץ גלוי, ולכן יש למנותם. יתרה מזו, כל אחד מבין שיש לבער לחם, והחמץ הרגיל ביותר בבית רגיל היה כמובן הלחם. נוסף על לחם היו רק מאכלים או חפצים מעטים שיש בהם חמץ. המשנה בפסחים שם מונה את סוגי תערובת החמץ הרווחים ואשר אותם צריך היה לבער. כיום מבערים את כל מוצרי הקמח, אך בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד המשיכו לאפות בפסח, והסתפקו באמצעי הזהירות שנקטו כדי שהקמח לא יחמיץ במהלך האפייה או הבישול. אצל הפרשנים למסכת פסחים מצינו גם פירושים אחרים, ומשנתנו מוכיחה את הפירוש שהצענו27ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ג מ\"א. .", + "עם זאת, המינוח \"עובר\" הנו חריג ומיוחד. אם הוא מועבר ממשנת פסחים מובן מדוע השתמשו בו, אבל עדיין נשאלת השאלה מדוע השתמשה משנת פסחים דווקא במונח זה. במשנתנו יש לביטוי משמעות נוספת של משחק מילים. המשנה מדברת על תערובת: אם \"נתערב\" הרי זה עובר. אם כך, יש מקום להשערה שהביטוי שובץ במשנתנו בגלל משחק המילים, וממנה הועבר למשנת פסחים. מכל מקום, משנתנו ומשנת פסחים מקורן מאותה יחידה ספרותית, עוסקות באותו דין ומשתמשות באותו מינוח. להלן נראה שרוב משניות הפרק מועברות ממסכת אחרת, ולפיכך יש להבין שגם משנתנו מועברת מפסחים, ומשחק הלשון הוא התוספת של העורך של משנתנו.", + "המשנה אינה קובעת מהי התערובת. האם הכוונה ליחס של חצי-חצי, או שתערובת חמץ אינה בטלה אף באחד לאלף. הירושלמי (נז ע\"ג) דן בנושא, אבל המשנה אינה עוסקת בכך. דין תערובת נלמד במקומות אחרים, וכאן המשנה מתייחסת רק לכך שכל אחד מהמינים הללו יוצר תערובת. כמות התערובת שווה בכל המקרים, ואינה נידונה או נרמזת במשנה. ", + "הנודר מן הפת ומן התבואה אסור בהן דברי רבי מאיר – זו משנה במסכת נדרים (פ\"ז מ\"ב) שנביאה להלן. המדובר בשני מקרים, הנודר מפת והנודר מתבואה, ולדעת רבי מאיר בשני המקרים הכוונה לכל חמשת המינים, וחכמים אומרים הנודר מן הדגן אינו אסור אלא מהן – לדעת חכמים \"דגן\" הוא כל חמשת המינים, ואין במשנה פירוט של דעת חכמים על הנודר מן התבואה. רבי יוחנן אומר ש\"שוין בתבואה\" (בבלי, נדרים נה ע\"א), אלא שעדיין אין נוסח המשנה מאוזן. חכמים כאילו חולקים על רבי מאיר, אך לפי הנוסח הם מדברים על מקרים שונים, כפי שעולה מהטבלה.", + "הנודר מפת, דגן ותבואה (משנת חלה)", + "(באותיות מוטות ההלכות שאינן במפורש במשנה)", + " מותר28לדעת הרמב”ם דגן ותבואה שווים אצל חכמים, בניגוד לדברי רבי יוחנן למשנת נדרים כפי שיובאו להלן. ", + "נראה שחוסר האיזון נובע מכך שמשנתנו תלויה במשנת נדרים ומסכמת אותה (או את המשנה הקדומה שמשנת נדרים לוקטה ממנה), וזו לשונה: \"הנודר מן הדגן אסור בפול המצרי יבש, דברי רבי מאיר, וחכמים אומרים אינו אסור אלא בחמשת המינין. רבי מאיר אומר הנודר מן התבואה אינו אסור אלא מחמשת המינין, אבל הנודר מן הדגן אסור בכל, ומותר בפירות האילן ובירק\" (פ\"ז מ\"ב). מבחינה סגנונית משנתנו היא בבירור סיכום של משנת נדרים; אין היא ציטוט מדויק שלה אלא סיכום מקוצר שכל עניין הפול המצרי הושמט ממנו. הטבלה להלן מסכמת את המשנה בנדרים לפי הסברו של רבי יוחנן שבתבואה אין כלל מחלוקת (בבלי, נדרים נה ע\"א):", + "הנודר מדגן ותבואה (משנת נדרים)", + "משנתנו מוסיפה את דין הפת, שהוא כנראה כדין דגן, כפי שגם התוספתא למשנת נדרים מציגה דין זה (פ\"ד ה\"ג). תוספת זו חשובה לעורך המשנה בגלל ההקשר של הפרק במסכת חלה. המשנה הקודמת עסקה בפת, והיא נושא הדיון כאן. לכן נוספה חוליה זו, ודין פת כדין דגן.", + "העמדנו את המשנה כך שנוצרת מחלוקת בין חכמים לרבי מאיר, שהרי גם במשנתנו וגם במשנת נדרים הדברים מוצגים כמחלוקת. אבל יש ראשונים המפרשים שאין כלל מחלוקת בין התנאים; זה מדבר על דגן ואלו על תבואה29כך המאירי. .", + "וחייבין בחלה ובמעשרות – כבר נאמר לעיל (פעמיים) שחמישה מינים אלו חייבים בחלה. אלבק מפרש בפשטות שהמשפט בא ממקור אחר. ברם, הבעיה אינה רק בכפילות אלא בתוכן המשפט. פטור מחלה או חובה בה נדוֹן במשנה זו (משנה ב), ואילו חובת מעשרות מאן דכר שמיה? יתר על כן, וכי יש ספק בכך שחמשת המינים חייבים במעשרות? וכי למה שייפטרו מהם? לפי דרכנו המשנה היא לקט סיכומי של הלכות ממשניות אחרות, והמשפט נחוץ לחיבור למשנה הבאה (חייבים בחלה ופטורים ממעשר)." + ], + [ + "במשנת פסחים המקבילה למשנה א (ואולי שימשה מקור לה) מנויה כמעט כל הרשימה דלהלן כרשימת המוצרים שניתן לעשות מהם מצה. במשנת תרומות (פ\"א מ\"ה) יש מקבילה מלאה למשנה.", + "אלו חייבין בחלה ופטורין מן המעשרות – בניגוד למשנה הקודמת שעסקה במוצרי מזון החייבים בחלה ובמעשרות, הלקט והשכחה והפיאה וההבקר – כולם הם הפקר, ואין המלקט חייב במעשרות על הפקר. לכאורה ניתן להסתפק בהסבר שלקט, שכחה ופאה פטורים ממעשרות משום שאין \"כפל תשלומים\", כלומר אין הפרשה (מתנה) אחת חייבת במתנות נוספות. אמנם זו סיבה מספקת, אבל למשנתנו סיבה כללית יותר: לקט, שכחה ופאה הם הפקר, ואין הפקר חייב במעשרות30ראו פירושנו לפאה פ\"א מ\"ו; ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' קיד. .", + "ומעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו ומעשר שני והקדש שניפדו – רשימה זו חוזרת במקורות אחדים31משנה, ברכות פ\"ז מ\"א; עירובין פ\"ג מ\"ב; שבת פי\"ח מ\"א. והיא כוללת את כל הסוגים ההלכתיים ששימושם בעייתי, אלא שבכל המקבילות הללו נזכר גם \"הדמאי\". דמאי הוא פרות שלא ברור אם הופרשו מהם מעשרות. רוב עמי הארץ, אף שהפרישו בדרך כלל תרומה, נחשדו באי הפרשת מעשרות. מכיוון שהם היו רוב האוכלוסייה נחשבו סתם פרות לדמאי, והפרישו מהם מעשרות מספק. מכיוון שמעמדם היה מסופק נחלקו אבות עולם, בית שמאי ובית הלל, אם מותר לחלקם לעניים32בבלי, סוכה לה ע\"ב; לו ע\"ב. ניסוח זה הוא כנראה מסקנת הגמרא ממשנת דמאי פ\"ג מ\"א. הבבלי מסביר שבשעת הדחק סומכים על כך שרוב עמי הארץ מעשרים, והמאירי מסביר שלעניין צדקה מקלים באיסור דרבנן. אך מכל הסוגיות בנושא עמי הארץ ברור שאלו לא עישרו, והם היו רוב האוכלוסייה. מהמשנה שם לא ברור האם לדעת בית שמאי אסור לתת לעניים דמאי, או שמא רק צריך להשתדל להימנע מכך. ברם, מהבבלי סוכה שם משמע שבית שמאי אוסרים לחלק דמאי לעניים עמי הארץ ומשנת דמאי מדברת אפוא בחברים, ואז היא לדעת הכול, או גם בעניים עמי הארץ ואז היא לדעת בית הלל בלבד, וראו פירושנו לסוכה פ\"ג מ\"ה. , אף שיש ספק אם יקפידו על הפרשת מעשרות מדמאי. מכל מקום, אף שהדמאי חייב במעשרות הכירו חכמים בכך שחיובו בא מספק, ומי שלא הפריש מעשרות לא עבר על דבר תורה, ולכן ניתן לצאת ידי חובה במצת דמאי אף שמן הדין היא חייבת במעשרות33התלמוד הבבלי פירש בדרך שונה, שהמצה ראויה לאכילה לעניים, ברם אמנם מותר לתת דמאי לעניים אולם הם חייבים בהפרשת מעשרות, וראו בהרחבה בפירושנו לסוכה שם. על כן נראה שהבבלי במקורו התכוון להסבר שהבאנו והביא את המשנה שמאכילים לעניים דמאי כדי להראות שחכמים מאפשרים לקיים מצוות בפרות דמאי, ובמקרה זה מדובר במצוות צדקה, וכך הם כאילו מתעלמים לשעה מחובת הפרשת המעשרות. חכמים לא ויתרו על חובת הפרשת מעשרות מדמאי, אך לא כרכו אותה במצוות מעשרות. למדיניות החברתית ראו בהרחבת מה בפירושנו לסוכה. ראשונים פירשו ש\"יוצאין\" משמע רק בדיעבד אך לא לכתחילה (תוספות הרא\"ש, ר\"ש משאנץ ועוד), ברם במשנתנו ההלכה בדבר דמאי משובצת יחד עם סוגי דגנים שבוודאי יוצאים בהם ידי חובה לכתחילה. . מותר לזמן על מזון דמאי (משנה, ברכות פ\"ז מ\"א), לערב בדמאי (משנה, עירובין פ\"ג מ\"ב) ולהציל מזון משרפה (משנה, שבת פי\"ח מ\"א), ולדעת בית הלל אף לקיים מצוות נטילת לולב (לפחות בדיעבד) מדמאי (ראו פירושנו לסוכה פ\"ג מ\"ו). את כל ההלכות הללו הסברנו ברצונם של חכמים שלא להדיר את הציבור הרחב (שרובו היו עמי הארץ) מכלל מצוות.", + "המשנה מונה את החייבים בחלה ופטורים ממעשרות. הדמאי אולי חייב בחלה, אך ודאי שחייב במעשרות. אם כן, אין המשנה מביעה את דעתה על הדמאי, והוא אכן חייב בתרומה, אך אין הוא נכלל ברשימת הסוגים שבמשנה. אלא שהסבר זה אינו מספק. כפי שנראה להלן אין הרשימה שבמשנה מתאימה לכותרת גם במקרים נוספים (אי אפשר לומר שמעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו חייב במעשרות). אין זאת אלא שהמשנה מביאה רשימה שהיא תבנית ספרותית קבועה, אף שלא כל פרטיה מתאימים לכותרת. כאמור, למשנתנו מקבילה גם במסכת תרומות העוסקת בדין מוצרים הפטורים מתרומה. גם שם אין הדמאי נזכר, שכן התרומה ניתנת עוד לפני חובת הפרשת המעשרות, וסתם \"דמאי\" הוא פרות שהופרשה מהם כבר תרומה. ייתכן, אפוא, שמשנתנו מעבירה את הרשימה ממסכת תרומות ולכן הדמאי נעדר. כך או כך, במכלול הגדול של משניות א-ג נזכרים סוגים רבים והדמאי אינו נזכר, ולא ברורה עמדת המשנה לגביו.", + "מכל מקום, אין ספק שלחם דמאי חייב בחלה. אם מעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו חייב בחלה, קל וחומר בדמאי שהוא קמח שמעשר ראשון לא ניטל ממנו. כן יוצא מהתוספתא (פ\"א ה\"ח), אם כי התירו להפריש רק חצי מהכמות הרגילה (להלן פ\"ב מ\"ז).", + "לא נאמר מדוע כל אלו חייבים בחלה. נראה שההסבר תלוי במועד ההתחייבות. מעשרות חייבים בזמן גמר מלאכה, והלקט והשכחה היו אז במצב של הפקר, אבל בזמן עשיית העיסה הם שייכים לאדם מסוים (לעני). הסבר זה מתאים מאוד להמשך (למותר העומר), ופחות ללקט, שכחה ופאה, שכן בזמן ההתחייבות במעשרות כבר שייכים היו הפרות לעני שליקט אותם. בספרי מובאת לכך דרשה מיוחדת התולה את הדברים בגזרת הכתוב (ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 114). בירושלמי (נז ע\"ג) מובאת דרשה אחרת, קשה לא פחות. ברם, קשה לקבל כי אכן חכמים למדו את הדין מן הפסוק, ועדיין יש לחפש נימוק הלכתי. נראה שההסבר חוזר לעקרון ההפקר. הפקר פטור ממעשרות, אבל חייב בחלה. בעל השדה אמור להפריש מעשרות ולפרות אלו אין בעלים, אבל חלה צריך להפריש האופה או האוכל ויש לפרות אלו אוכלים. ", + "ומעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו – קמח שהופרש על ידי הבעלים כמעשר. את המעשר יש לתת ללוי, והוא חייב להפריש ממנו לכוהן מעשר מן המעשר המכונה \"תרומת מעשר\". כאשר חז\"ל מדברים על מעשר הם מדברים על המעשר שהופרשה ממנו התרומה. מעשר זה אינו קדוש, ואין מגבלות על אכילתו. הבעלים חייב לשלם את חובו ללוי, אך זהו חוב רגיל ולפיכך הקמח ראוי לאכילה, אף שעדיין נותר בעינו החוב הכספי ללוי. הלוי מנוע מלתבוע את חובו שכן אין לבעלים חוב ללוי ספציפי אלא לכלל הלוויים, ועל כן תשלום החוב תלוי בלעדית ברצונו של הבעלים, כמו רוב החובות הדתיים. הירושלמי (נז ע\"ג) שואל: הרי מעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו הוא כחולין, וכיצד זה ניתן לומר שהוא פטור ממעשרות מצד אחד, ומצד שני מה החידוש בכך שחייב בחלה? תשובת התלמוד היא \"שהקדימו בשבלים\", כלומר המעשר ניתן שלא כהלכה. ההסבר דחוק ביותר, שהרי לא באה המשנה ללמדנו דין נתינת מעשרות. אין זאת אלא שהרשימה היא בתבנית הקבועה ומועברת ממשניות אחרות (ממשנת תרומה), ולא הקפידה המשנה שכל אחד ממרכיבי הרשימה יתאים לכותרת34וראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ה, ושם חילופי נוסח למשנה שאינם אצלנו. .", + "ומעשר שני והקדש שניפדו – מעשר שני מפרישים במשך ארבע שנים מתוך מחזור של שבע שנות השמיטה (בשנים הראשונה, השנייה, הרביעית והחמישית). את המעשר יש לאכול בירושלים בטהרה, אך במקרים מסוימים ניתן לפדות אותו, כלומר המגדל יכול למכרו לעצמו במחיר הקרן וחומש. הלכות אלו נקבעו בזמן הבית, אך באופן כללי נותרו על כנן גם לאחר החורבן. הציבור היהודי המשיך להפריש מעשר שני, אך פסק לחלוטין הנוהג להעלותו לירושלים. כל זאת אף על פי שלא הייתה כל מניעה לכך. מבחינה הלכתית עדיין ניתן היה להעלות את הפרות ולאכלם בטהרה. אך חכמים הבינו שהאכילה בירושלים תלויה במקדש, על כן קבעה ההלכה שיש לשמור את הכסף עד שייבנה המקדש. נראה שמכל מקום רוב הציבור פדה את פרות המעשר השני, ופרות שנפדו הם כחולין לכל דבר35ראו המבוא למסכת מעשר שני. .", + "הקדש – הוא פרות או כספים שהובטחו למקדש. גם אותם ניתן לפדות. לאחר ימי הבית התמעט הנוהג להקדיש פרות למקדש, אך ייתכן שעדיין לא בטל לחלוטין. יתר על כן, קבוצה זו של דמאי, מעשר ראשון וכו' היא קבוצה קבועה החוזרת במקורותינו, אף שאולי חלק מהמקרים בה הפכו לרווחים פחות בחיי היום-יום. ", + "מותר העומר – מותר העומר אינו נזכר במקבילות שנמנו. דין מותר העומר נקבע במשנה אחרת: \"והשאר נפדה ונאכל לכל אדם וחייב בחלה ופטור מן המעשרות. רבי עקיבא מחייב בחלה ובמעשרות\" (משנה, מנחות פ\"י מ\"ד; תוס', פ\"י הכ\"ד)36ראו בבלי, סו ע\"א. בתלמוד הבבלי פרק י שבמשנה הוא פרק ו. . הפטור ממעשרות נובע מכך שבזמן הקציר והגורן היו הפרות פטורים ממעשר כיוון שנועדו לשולחן עליון, זאת אף על פי שבהמשך התברר שהחיטים לא הגיעו לשולחן עליון. אבל בחלה התחייבו רק בזמן עריכת הבצק, ואז כבר היו אלו פרות חולין. רבי עקיבא חולק על התנא קמא של משנת מנחות ועל משנתנו.", + "והתבואה שלא הביאה שליש – תבואה שלא הביאה שליש פטורה ממעשרות (משנה, מעשרות פ\"א ה\"ג, וכיוצא בה שביעית פ\"ד מ\"ט, ועוד).", + "רבי אלעזר אומר תבואה שלא הביאה שליש פטורה מן החלה – כפי שמסביר הירושלמי (נז ע\"ד), לדעת רבי אליעזר תבואה שלא הביאה שליש אינה מחמיצה. חכמים סבורים שהיא מחמיצה, ומכל מקום היא ממיני הדגן. הירושלמי מביא גם לימוד מדרשי כטיעון בוויכוח, וכנראה לא שבע נחת מההסבר המעמיד את המחלוקת כמחלוקת במציאות." + ], + [ + "אלו חייבין במעשרות ופטורין מן החלה – המשנה היא הניגוד של משנה א. נמנים בה פרות הקרובים לדגנים, ואופים מהם מאפה שהוא דמוי פת, אך אין הם בין חמשת המינים ולכן אין הם חייבים בחלה. הקביעה ש\"חייבין במעשרות\" היא דבר פשוט ונאמרת כאן רק כדי ליצור איזון בין המשניות: חייבים בחלה ומעשרות (מ\"א-מ\"ב), חייבים בחלה ופטורים ממעשרות (מ\"ג), פטורים מחלה וחייבים במעשרות (מ\"ד). כפי שראינו כבר, מבנה סכמטי זה והשימוש בתבניות הספרותיות הקבועות יצרו חוסר איזון במשנה וכמה היגדים שהם פשוטים ומיותרים. גם משנתנו מונה רשימה שהיא תבנית ספרותית ידועה. במשנת שביעית נמנית הרשימה (שביעית פ\"ב מ\"ז), וכפי שהסברנו שם אכן במשנת שביעית ארבעת המרכיבים הראשונים שברשימה הגיוניים. מדובר שם על גידולי קיץ שהשרישו לפני ראש השנה. לעומת זאת במשנתנו הרשימה מאולצת. אורז ודוחן עשויים להיחשב כדגן שממנו ניתן לאפות פת, ברם אי אפשר לאפות מאכל דמוי פת משומשמין. ברור, אפוא, שחלק זה של הרשימה מועבר ממסכת שבת. החלק השני (“והסיפגנין” ואילך) אינו מוכר כרשימה ספרותית ממקור אחר37הרמב\"ם פירש שהכותרת ברישא חלה רק על חלק מהרשימה, והסיכום \"ופטורים מן החלה\" חל רק על הסופגנים והמשך המשנה. אין זה סגנון המשנה; וכי אלו אינם חייבים במעשר?! .", + "האורז והדוחן הפרגין והשמשמים – כאמור אלו ארבעה גידולי הקיץ, האורז – הוא הגידול הידוע גם כיום בשם אורז וגדל במים. מפרשים אחדים שחיו באירופה ולא הכירו גידול זה מקרוב התחבטו בזיהויו ופירשו בדרך שפירשו, אך אין ספק כי האורז הוא oryza ביוונית וברומית, ובסורית וערבית רוז. זיהוי זה תואם מבחינה לשונית ומתיאור דרך גידולו במים את משנת שביעית: \"ממרסין באורז בשביעית\" (פ\"ב מ\"י), ורבינו יצחק בן מלכי צדק לועזו: \"אורז – ריזי\"38חכמי אשכנז התחבטו בזיהוי כנראה מתוך שהיה נדיר באזורם, ראו שמש, צמחים. . הדוחן אף הוא ידוע בשמו בימינו, ובאנגלית millet. כן לועזו רבינו יצחק בן מלכי צדק: \"והדוחן – מילייו\", וכיוצא בו אף רש\"י בראש השנה (יג ע\"ב) והרמב\"ם בפירושו. בימי המשנה יש ששימש לאפיית לחם (חלה פ\"א מ\"ד). בימינו הוא מאכל לעופות.", + "והפרגין – אין אלו הפרג שבימינו, שהרי הפרג שבימינו אינו משמש אלא כתבלין, ואי אפשר להכין ממנו לחם או מצה כפי שעולה ממקורות תנאיים נוספים (ספרי במדבר, פיסקא קי, עמ' 113; שם, פיסקא קמו, עמ' 193). חוקרים בימינו העלו כי \"פרגה\" בסורית מציינת מין דוחן או דורה39לאו, פלורה א, עמ' 743; פליקס בפירושו, עמ' 129. . כך מזהה רבי נתן אב הישיבה: \"פרגין – דורה\".", + "והשמשמים – הוא השומשום הידוע בימינו. זיהויו ברור ומקובל אצל מפרשי המשנה, והוא הסומסום בערבית. הוא גידול קיץ, ומשמש להכנת מיני מאפה ולשמן (שבת פ\"ב מ\"ב)40שמן שומשומין היה השמן המשובח ביותר בבבל, ראו בבלי, שבת כג ע\"א. שם נאמר ש\"כל השמנים כולן יפין לנר [חנוכה], ושמן זית מן המובחר\", ואביי הבבלי העדיף שמן שומשומין. ההיגד \"שמן זית מן המובחר\" מייצג את המצב בארץ ישראל, כמובן. בארץ ישראל היה ייצור שמן השומשום מצומצם, אך ברור שבמקביל גידלו שומשומים גם בארץ ישראל, כפי שעולה ממשנתנו ומתוספתא תרומות (פ\"י הט\"ו) העוסקת בהפרשת תרומות מצמח זה. .", + "בכל עדי הנוסח האחרים, חוץ מכתב יד קופמן, משפט נוסף: \"ופחות מחמשת רבעים\", וקרוב להניח שנשמט מכתב היד, שכן אחריו מתחילה רשימה אחרת של מוצרים מסוג מיוחד. הכלל עצמו ידוע וברור שעיסה בכמות קטנה מחמישה רבעים של קב פטורה מחלה, כפי שהעלינו במבוא ולהלן פ\"ב מ\"ו.", + "והסיפגנין – בעדי הנוסח הבדלים זעירים: סופגנים (סופגנין) או ספגנים (ספגנין). בכל אלה השורש הוא ספ\"ג. הירושלמי (נז ע\"ד) מסביר \"טריקטא\", והכוונה למונח הלטיני Tracta שמשמעו דבר הניטל ביד או שנעשה ביד41סוקולוף, מילון, עמ' 232, תרגם dough שמשמעו בצק. . קראוס מפרש על פי הלטינית: דבר הנמתח ביד. הכוונה לעוגייה קטנה, אבל ספק אם זו הסיבה היחידה לכך שהסופגן פטור מחלה, הרי גם אם זו עוגייה קטנה הבצק חייב בחלה אם הוא בכמות מספקת. אין זאת אלא שהירושלמי מכוון את דבריו לסוג מסוים של עוגייה קטנה הפטורה מחלה בגלל סוג הבצק. כל יתר הדוגמאות להלן הן סוגי מזון שהרכבם דומה לפת אלא שהם מתוקים או שאינם נאפים בצורה רגילה (להלן). בדרך זו יש לחפש גם את משמעותו של הסופגן. בספרי שנינו: \"רבי יוסי אומר חמשת רבעים מתוקין לפטור. 'מלחם' ולא כל לחם, פרט למבושל, והסופגנין, והדובשנין, והאיסקריטין, וחלת המסרית והמדומע [שפטורים מן החלה]\"42ספרי זוטא, טו יט, עמ' 283; כעין הלכה זו בתוס', פסחים פ\"ב הי\"ט-ה\"כ. . גם כאן חוזרים שני הנימוקים, מה שאינו אפוי ומה שהוא מתוק.", + "במסכת כלים נאמר שתנור מקבל טומאה (שנגמרה מלאכתו) \"משיסיקנו כדי לאפות בו סופגנין\" (משנה, כלים פ\"ה מ\"א). על כך מפרש בעל פירוש הגאונים: \"עיסה שלשוה ועשאוה כמין ספוג... ודומין להלין דלאביה\"43אפשטיין, פירוש הגאונים, עמ' 15. . במסכת עוקצין מדובר על פת סופגנים ושם יוצא שיש לה חלל, כלומר מדובר במוצר שניתן למעוך. שם פירש בעל אותו פירוש \"פת שנעשה מן בצק שהחמיצה כל צורכה ודומה לספוג שיש בו נקבים נקבים\"44שם, עמ' 143, וראו ערוך ערך ספג, כרך ו, עמ' 100. . אפשטיין מצטט את מילונו הסורי של בן מהלול המפרש \"מן לישא דגלוסקא ומשחה ומתפלגה למנתה\" (מלישה של גלוסקה [בצק מתוק] ושמן ומתחלקת למנות)45אפשטיין, שם, עמ' 15. . כך מאחד המילונאי הסורי את שתי העדויות השונות. הכוונה, אפוא, לעוגיות הנעשות מבצק שתפח עד למאוד והן מתוקות. ייתכן גם שהן מטוגנות בשמן (כסופגניות של ימינו).", + "בירושלמי יש מחלוקת בין רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש האם טריקטא היא לחם או לא (נז ע\"ד). אם היא לחם היא חייבת בחלה, ואפשר שיוצאים בה ידי חובת מצה. מסתבר ששני אמוראים אלו לא סברו שסופגן הוא טריקטא, או שלא היססו לחלוק בפשטות על המשנה. מסתבר, אפוא, שסופגן איננו בדיוק טריקטא, אם כי אולי דומה לו במצבו. לא ייתכן שיהא חכם שיגיד שמאפה (או תבשיל) מבצק שתפח היטב יוצאים בו ידי חובת מצה. אין זאת אלא שסופגן הוא עוגייה מתוקה מבצק שתפח ובושלה במים או טוגנה בשמן, וטריקטא היא מאפה דמוי מצה שלא תפח (לא החמיץ) אך הוא מתוק, ומוגש כעוגיות. מן הסתם מחלוקת האמוראים היא על בצק מעין זה שייחודו הוא בכך שהוא מתוק ונהוג להכינו כעוגיות, והסופגן שונה, כפי שאמרנו.", + "פעמים מספר נזכר בתנ\"ך המונח \"רקיק\". בתרגומים הארמיים הוא מתורגם אספוג (אספוגין, ספוגין וכו') או \"עריך\"46בתרגום השבעים: Legana או Leganon. באונקלוס תמיד בשורש ספ\"ג; בניאופיטי \"עריך\" ובתרגום יונתן פעם כך ופעם כך, בשינויי כתיב. ראו שמות כט ב; כט כג; ויקרא ב ד ועוד. לזיהוי ה”לגנון” ראו להלן. . הרקיק דומה למצה, שהרי חוזר לגביו המינוח המקראי \"רקיקי מצות\", וגם הוא מחמיץ, שכן משתמשים בו בפסח למצה (אם אינו שרוי או מבושל – משנה, פסחים פ\"ב מ\"ה). אם כן, הזיהוי המוחלט בין סופגן ורקיק הוא בעייתי. מכל מקום הרקיק הוא לחם שלא החמיץ, שהרי הוא כשר למצה (בבלי, פסחים לה ע\"ב), (איור 4). ", + "אם כן, לפנינו שני קווי מחשבה או סוגי עדויות. האחד מצביע על כך שהסופגן עשוי מבצק", + "תופח והוא מתוק ואינו מתאים לשמש כמצה או רקיק, והאחר שהוא דומה לרקיק (ולמצה) ויוצאים בו ידי חובה (בטריקטא שהיא סופגן) בפסח. במשנה הבאה נראה שסופגן ולחם עשויים מאותו חומר, וברור שייחודו ההלכתי הוא שהסופגן נעשה כעוגיות קטנות. ניתן היה לאפות את הסופגן מבצק שהחמיץ או מבצק שלא החמיץ, ואולי גם בדרך כלל עירבו בו מיני מתיקה (או שמן רב יותר), אבל ניתן היה גם להכין סופגן יבש ופשוט יותר. ייחודו הוא בחלוקה למנות קטנות בלבד, מעין עוגיות של ימינו. הרקיקים היו מלבניים (מנחות פי\"א מ\"ד-מ\"ה), כלומר דומים למצות שלנו. הם נמכרו בשוק גם כמאכל חולין (בבלי, לה ע\"ב), והוכנו בשתי צורות: אפויים בתנור או מטוגנים במחבת או במרחשת. ", + "כאמור תרגום השבעים מתרגם רקיקים כ\"לגאנה\" (λαγάνα), וכך תרגם גם יוספוס. הלגאנה מוכרת בספרות היוונית. מילונו של הסיכיוס מגדיר Laganon כסוג של עוגה ", + "קטנה, יבשה, שנעשית מן הקמח הטוב ביותר ומטוגנת במחבת בשמן זית47הסיכיוס, מילון, ערך λεγανον. . כפי שראינו, אחת השיטות להכנת הרקיקים הייתה טיגונם במחבת. אתינאיוס מגדיר את ה\"לגנון\" כלחם דק וקל. יש שני סוגים, האחד רך מן האחר ושניהם נאפים ככל הנראה על גחלים48אתינאיוס, סעודה, כרך ג 110. . הוא הציע מתכון ללגאנה מתובלת, ולא נרחיב בו, ולדבריו הוא קרוב למה שהרומאים קוראים לה \"טרקטה\"49שם, כרך ג 113. לפרשה כולה ראו דיקשטיין, המטבח. . צלזיוס (Celsus) הרופא המליץ על lagana כמזון מוצק ראשון לאחר הבראה מלסת שבורה. סביר להניח שהוא לא התכוון למזון קשה ויבש, אלא למאכל רך ועדין.", + "לגאנה קיימת עד היום בשמה זה בפולחן הנוצרי-יווני, ואף בחנויות הלחם ביוון כיום. הלגאנה מעוצבת כמלבן בעל פינות מעוגלות, ולאחר שעוצבה מושחים אותה בשמן ומפזרים עליה סומסום. מקור השם הוא רצועות רחבות של אטריות50דיקשטיין, שם. . הלגנון שינה אפוא את אופיו, והרקיק הנזכר במשנה הוא מצה מלבנית נוקשה, אך המונחים של הלחמים השונים השתנו.", + "והדיבשנים – הירושלמי מפרש: \"מלי גאלה\" (נז ע\"ד). מלי היא המילה הלטינית mali שמשמעה מתוק ויוחדה לדבש, וגלי הוא Galla שמשמעו סוג של אגוז. אם כן, זו עוגה עם מילוי של דבש ואגוזים. מכיוון שהיא מתוקה אין היא נחשבת ללחם.", + "והאיסקריטים – הירושלמי מסביר: \"חליטין דשוק\" (שם). חלוט הוא מאכל קמח, \"הנותן קמח לתוך חמין\" (תוס', פ\"א ה\"א), כפי שנבאר בפירושנו להלן מ\"ו. אם כן, איסקריטין הם חליטה הנעשית בשוק, כנראה כחטיף לעוברי האורח בשוק. שוב אין בכך כדי להסביר לנו את המונח, אף שקדמונים ודאי הכירו היטב עוגה זו. רמז מסוים יש בהמשך הירושלמי המסביר ש\"חלת מסרת\" הנזכרת להלן במשנה היא \"חליטין דמיי\", כלומר חליטה במים, על כן ניתן לפרש שאיסקריטין הם חליטה בשמן, כלומר עוגיות הנעשות על ידי הכנסת בצק לשמן רותח. בתרגום השבעים (לשמואל ב ו יט) מופיע המונח כתרגום ל\"אשפר\". במדרש מבואר הפסוק \"וטעמו כצפיחית בדבש, רבי יהושע אומר כלפס וכעין איסקריטי. רבי אליעזר אומר כסלת זו שצפה על גבי נפה ונלושה בדבש וחמאה\" (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, בשלח, מסכתא דויסע, ה, עמ' 171). הווה אומר, היו אלו עוגיות מתוקות שדבש היה מרכיב מרכזי בהן.", + "חלות מסרת – כאמור מסרת או משרת מפורשת בירושלמי כ\"חליטין דמיי\" (שם). בשמואל ב יג ו מסופר על אמנון שדרש מתמר שתלבב לו לביבות; הפועל מתורגם בארמית של תרגום יונתן \"תחלוט לעיני תרתין חליטתא\", ובהמשך נאמר \"ותקח את המשרת51התרגום היווני מתרגם τόν πεγάνον שמשמעו שהמסרת היא סוג של נוזל, כנראה בישול במים. בסורית משתמש המחבר במונח \"לביבות\" גם בפסוק זה, ללא תרגום למונח. ותצֹק לפניו\" (שם ט). זו אפוא המשרת של המשנה. סדר הבישול שם הוא: \"ותקח את הבצק ותלש ותלבב לעיניו ותבשל את הלבבות. ותקח את המשרת ותצֹק לפניו\". אם כן בשלב ראשון הוכן הבצק, בשלב שני המבשלת שופכת מים רותחים על הבצק וכנראה אופה או מבשלת את המאכל. המאכל מוגש כשהוא נוזלי, כמעין ריבה או פודינג.", + "בתלמוד הבבלי מתנהל דיון על משנתנו ויש בו עניין רב: \"מאי חלת המסרת? אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: זה חלוט של בעלי בתים. אמר ריש לקיש: הללו מעשה אילפס הן. ורבי יוחנן אמר: מעשה אילפס חייבין, והללו שעשאן בחמה. מיתיבי: הסופגנין והדובשנין והאיסקריטין, עשאן באילפס – חייבין, בחמה – פטורין. תיובתיה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש! אמר עולא, אמר לך רבי שמעון בן לקיש: הכא במאי עסקינן? שהרתיח ולבסוף הדביק, אבל הדביק ולבסוף הרתיח מאי?\" (פסחים לז ע\"א). אם כן, במקום \"חליטין דמיי\" נקבע שמסרת היא חליטין של בעלי בתים; יש להניח שהיגד זה בא בניגוד ל\"חליטין דשוק\" שהם האיסקריטין, ומסתבר שהבבלי העניק פירוש משלו לדברי האמורא הארץ-ישראלי. מדברי ריש לקיש משמע שהתבשיל מוכן באלפס, שהיא קדרת הבישול. בשלב ראשון מבשלים ובשלב שני מייבשים את התבשיל על ידי הדבקה, כלומר הטחת התבשיל על דפנות התנור כדי שיתייבש וייאפה. מדברי רבי יוחנן אנו שומעים שיש גם דרך להכין את התבשיל לא בסיר ואחר כך בתנור האפייה אלא בחמה, כלומר בייבוש בשמש. תבשיל כזה שיובש בשמש או בתנור אי אפשר ליצוק כפי שמסופר בתנ\"ך. הדעת נוטה שאלו הסברים שונים המבטאים שינוי בדרך ההכנה של המאכל. מכל מקום לתבשיל זה צורה של חלה (חלת או חלות המסרת), כלומר כיכר עגולה, מכאן שגם תנאי ארץ ישראל לא סברו שהכוונה לתבשיל נוזלי אלא לשלב נוסף שבו הוא מיובש ומיטגן קלות בתנור או בשמש, מעין חביתיות.", + "על רקע זה מובנת דרשת הירושלמי ש\"לחם עוני\" משמעו מצה ולא חלת מסרת או אשישה (פסחים פ\"ג ה\"ב, כט ע\"ב52במקבילה בספרי דברים, קל, עמ' 187, ובבבלי, פסחים לו ע\"ב, חסר האזכור של חלת מסרת. ). המסרת דקה כמצה ואינה מחמיצה אלא נחלטת ומבושלת, אבל היא מתוקה ועשירה ולכן אינה לחם עוני. ", + "והמדומע – מדומע הוא תערובת שיש בה חלק של תרומה והחולין אינם מרובים כך שהם יבטלו את התרומה. דינה של התערובת כתרומה, אף שחלקה הגדול (לעתים רוב גדול) הוא חולין. לכאורה יש צורך להפריש חלה מהתערובת, שהרי רובה חולין, אך כיוון שהוחלט שדינה כתרומה היא פטורה מן החלה, כשם שכל תרומה פטורה מחלה. בספרות הראשונים53ראו אור זרוע על אתר, מלאכת שלמה ועוד. מתנהלים דיונים ארוכים האם חלה בזמן המשנה היא מדאורייתא או מדרבנן, וחלק מהם נקשרו למשנתנו, שהרי לכאורה ספק הדימוע שהוא מדרבנן בא לעקור מצווה מדאורייתא. הרחבנו על כך במבוא למסכת תרומות, וכאמור איננו מוצאים שתנאים התחבטו בשאלה זו. לפי פשוטם של דברים חכמים מגדירים מהי תרומה ומהם חולין, ורק כתוצאה מהגדרת המציאות יחול, בשלב מאוחר יותר, דין חלה.", + "פטורין מן החלה – ההיגד מיותר, שהרי כבר נאמר בתחילת המשנה, ברם זה סגנונו המיוחד של פרק זה שהוא פותח בהצהרה הלכתית ומסיים בחזרה על הצהרה זו. הסברנו שהדבר נובע מדרך הרכבת המסורות ומהרצון ליצור משנה הכתובה כסיכום כללי." + ], + [ + "עיסה שתחילתה סיפגנים וסופה סיפגנים – בכל יתר כתבי היד ובדפוסים משפט נוסף: \"פטורה מן החלה תחילתה עיסה תחילה עיסה וסופה ספגנין תחילתה סיפגנים וסופה עיסה חייבת בחלה\" – אם כן, אם העיסה נועדה להיות חלה רגילה בשלב כלשהו (בתחילה או בסוף) היא חייבת בחלה, רק עיסה שתוכננה להיות סופגנים וסופה סופגנים פטורה מחלה. נמצאנו למדים שלחם רגיל (החייב בחלה) וסופגנים עשויים לעתים מאותו חומר. ההבדל הוא שהלחם נועד להיות לחם (כיכר או חלה) והסופגנים מתחלקים למנות קטנות כעוגיות. סביר שהסופגן גם מתוק יותר, אבל לא בכך ייחודו ההלכתי. בכך נדחות כל האבחנות שהצענו במשנה הקודמת. ", + "וכן הקנובקאות חייבות – וכן בירושלמי (נז ע\"ד) ובספרי זוטא (שלח טו יט, עמ' 283), והרי זה מאפה נוסף שחייב בחלה. הירושלמי מסביר: \"רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר קרמביטס חנניה בר עגול בשם חזקיה אמר בוקלטה שלא תאמר הואיל והוא עתיד להחזירה לסולתה תהא פטורה מן החלה\"54כך בירו', נז ע\"ד בכתב יד ליידן, בכתב יד רומי ובקטע שפרסם אפשטיין (מחקרים ב, עמ' 268). הקטע נשמט בדפוס ועמד על כך כבר רטנר, אהבת ציון, חלה, עמ' 111. . סולת היא קמח לבן מנופה ככל האפשר (משנה, מנחות פ\"ו מ\"ז; ראו פירושנו לתרומות פי\"א מ\"ה). קרמביטס היא Krambitas בלטינית שמקורה יוונית, ומשמעה צנימים. בוקליטה היא המילה הלטינית המקורית לצנימים, Buccellaum, אם כן שני הפירושים זהים, האחד הביא את השם שמקורו יווני והאחר שם לטיני55עד כאן אלו דברי אפשטיין, מחקרים ב, עמ' 844-843. . המשך הירושלמי מסביר את סוג המזון ואת הבעיה ההלכתית. נראה שהמדובר במזון שהוכן מסולת, כלומר מקמח מנופה, והכינו ממנו צנימים, בשלב שני טחנו אותם והכינו פירורי לחם, ואותם שילבו במזונות שונים56הרא\"ש מפרש שנועדו לאכילת \"יונקי שדים\". . השיקול ההלכתי לפטור מחלה הוא שמא יחזיר את הפירורים לתבשיל והוא לא ייאכל כלחם. דומה שבלי הנמקה זו העיקר חסר מן הספר, וממילא הקרמביטס-בוקליטה נועד בעיקר לשמש כפירורי לחם. בדרך זו אף פירש הרמב\"ם: \"קלי נילוש בשמן ואחר אפיתו מחזירים אותו קמח\"57וכעין זה אצל ראשונים נוספים. אלו אינם מביאים ראיה לדבריהם, ונראה שזו הייתה מסורת הלימוד, ראו למשל המאירי על אתר. אור זרוע (ריט) מסביר שבטחינה מחדש ה\"קנובקאות\" נעשים סולת. .", + "עד לגילוי כתבי היד רווחו בין הראשונים גרסאות מוטעות כגון \"שקילטא\", \"בן קלטא\" וכיוצא באלו58ראו אהבת ציון, שם. , אך לאור המידע שבידינו כל מרכיבי ההסבר משתלבים יחדיו. ", + "במהלך פירושנו ראינו שאמוראים הציעו פירושים למאכלים שבמשנה. בדרך כלל פירושים מעין אלו הם בארמית, ובמסכתות ככלאים או תרומות ניתנים פירושים רבים כאלו לשמות צמחים. במשנתנו חלק מהפירושים ביוונית וחלקם בלטינית. השימוש בלטינית בחברה היהודית בארץ ישראל היה מועט ביותר. בכלל הייתה הלטינית במזרח רק שפת השלטונות, וההמון מיעט להשתמש בה. גם שמות פרטיים בלטינית בארץ ישראל הם נדירים. נראה שלפנינו תחום מיוחד שבו השימוש ביוונית היה רב יחסית ואף השימוש בלטינית היה רב. המדובר בתחום האפייה של מאכלים מיוחדים. המון העם ראה מאכלים אלו רק לעתים נדירות, וב\"מטבח\" היהודי הם היו נדירים ביותר. דוגמה לכך יש במקורות מקבילים הקושרים את מאכלי הפאר לפוליס הגדולה והמיוונת בלבד59ראו על כך במבוא. . על רקע זה יובן ריבוי השמות הלטיניים והיווניים. עם זאת המשנה עוסקת במאכלים אלו, וכנראה גם בציבור היהודי היה מי שהשתמש בידע קולינרי זה." + ], + [ + "המעיסה – שני מונחים במשנתנו, \"מעיסה\" ו\"חליטה\". התוספתא מסבירה: \"רבי ישמעאל בי רבי יוסה אומר משם אביו אי זהו חלוט הנותן קמח לתוך חמין. המעיסה חמין לתוך קמח\" (פ\"א ה\"א-ה\"ב60החלוקה להלכות כאן קוטעת את דברי ההסבר, והיא מוטעית. ). אם כן, המעיסה היא מאכל ששופכים בו קמח לתוך מים או שמן רותח ומתקבלות מעין קציצות של בצק. חליטה היא תהליך הפוך שבו מכינים את הבצק או התבשיל על ידי שפיכת מים חמים על הקמח. שני התהליכים דומים מבחינת התוצאה61ערוך השלם, ערך מאס, כרך ה, עמ' 206; ערך חלט, כרך ג, עמ' 401. ראו בבלי, פסחים לז ע\"ב. .", + "בית שמי פוטרין ובית הלל מחייבין – בית שמאי מקלים, בניגוד למקרים רבים שבהם בית שמאי מחמירים.", + "החליטה – כאן הדעות הפוכות, בית שמי מחייבין [ו]בית הלל פוטרין – הדעות הפוכות מאלו שברישא ואי אפשר לבאר חילוף כזה של דעות. בתוספתא: \"וחכמים אומרים אחד זו ואחד זו, הנעשת באלפס ובקדרה פטורה, הנעשת בתנור חייבת\" (פ\"א ה\"ב). אם כן אין הבדל בין חליטה למעיסה, ואולי אף אין הבדל בין בית שמאי לבית הלל. בכל מקרה, תבשיל הנעשה באלפס (סיר הבישול) פטור מחלה, ואם העיסה נאפית בתנור היא חייבת. עד כאן ניתן להבין שחכמים חולקים על בית שמאי ובית הלל. גם הם מכירים את הנוסחה במשנה, שכן הם אומרים \"אחד זו (מעיסה) ואחד זו (חליטה)\". אלא שכנראה דברי חכמים הם מסורת אחרת לחלוטין למשנה. בירושלמי אומר רבי חייא בר הושעיה: \"שני תלמידים שנו אותה\", וכן מוסר חכם אחר ששמע זאת מרבי הושעיה הגדול, ואחר כך נוספה דעתם של חכמים (נח ע\"א). כן אומר הבבלי: \"מי ששנה זה לא שנה זה\" (פסחים לז ע\"ב). אם כן, מסורת אחת היא שבית שמאי פוטרים בשניהם ובית הלל מחייבים בשניהם, ומסורת אחרת שהדעות הפוכות. שתי המסורות נוסחו בצורה שונה, האחת אמרה בלשון \"המעיסה...\" והאחרת בלשון \"החולט...\". לפנינו, אפוא, שתי מסורות הנחלקות ביניהן בדין (חילופי שמות של החולקים), ואשר נערכו בצורה שונה זו מזו. האחת עסקה במעיסה, והאחרת בחליטה. העורך ליקט את שתיהן ולא חש שאמר דבר והיפוכו62ברש\"ס מצוטט הירושלמי כאילו כתוב בו \"תניא איזו היא מעיסה... רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משום אביו זה וזה לפטור\". נוסח זה נראה כתיקון שנועד לפטור את שאלת הסתירה הפנימית במשנה. בהערה הבאה נעמוד על כך שרבי יוסי הוא התנא הראשון במשנה. עורך המשנה לא חשש אף לסתום את משנתנו כדעת בית שמאי, ואכן משניות רבות נסתמו כדעת בית שמאי, או שדעת בית שמאי השפיעה על סגנונן ותוכנן. לרשימה חלקית ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי. . זה מקרה נדיר בהחלט שבו הסתפק העורך בליקוט יבש ולא חשש להעמיד שתי דעות מנוגדות כאילו היו דעה אחת. כפי שאמרנו, פרקנו בולט בכך שיש לו אופי סיכומי ויש בו ליקוט של משניות (משניות ממסכתות אחרות ו/או משניות קדומות). גם ראינו לעיל ליקוט של דעות או ניסוחים שונים ויציקתם לחטיבה אחת. במקרה זה המרכיב של הליקוט גדול עוד יותר.", + "בתוספתא ובירושלמי מובאת דעה נוספת שאין מחלוקת בין שני הבתים, אלא הכלל הוא שמה שנאפה חייב בחלה ומה שמתבשל בסיר פטור ממנה. כך גם לגבי מעיסה וחליטה. אם המזון מטופל רק באחת משתי דרכים אלו הוא פטור מחלה, ואם הוא נאפה לבסוף הוא חייב בה. ייתכן שחכמים מהלכים בשיטת בית הלל הפוטרים, ורק מוסיפים שאם התבשיל נאפה בסוף התהליך הוא חייב בחלה.", + "במשנת עדיות (פ\"ה מ\"ד) שנויה משנתנו בין המחלוקות שהן מקולי בית שמאי, והיא מיוחסת לרבי יוסי. מכאן שהתנא הראשון במשנתנו הוא רבי יוסי63אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 3-2, מוסיף וטוען שבעדיות פ\"ד רשימה אחרת של קולי בית שמאי ושם משנתנו נעדרת, ומכאן שהתנא של פרק ד שם הוא התנא השני במשנתנו. ברם, בהחלט ייתכן שהרשימה בפרק ד אינה מלאה, ואי אפשר לקבוע מה עמדתו של אותו תנא במקרה שלפנינו. .", + "בתלמוד הבבלי נוסף: \"רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משום אביו: זה וזה לפטור, ואמרי לה: זה וזה לחיוב\" (פסחים לז ע\"ב). בעל מלאכת שלמה למשנתנו מזכיר משפט זה וטוען כי הוא מצוי גם בירושלמי. מכל מקום, המשפט \"זה וזה לפטור ואמרי לה זה וזה לחיוב\" מופיע רק בבבלי ובעוד סוגיה המופיעה בשני מקומות, ומיוחס לאותו חכם (חולין כה ע\"ב; עירובין כח ע\"ב). לא מן הנמנע שהוא העברה אגב שגרה מהסוגיה בעירובין ובחולין.", + "חלות תודה – חלות תודה הן חלות שאדם התחייב להביא למקדש כתודה לקב\"ה. זהו קרבן נדבה, שהאדם מחליט עליו, אך משהחליט על כך התחייב בכך כחוב למקדש. מובן שיש להביאן למקדש, ולפיכך הן אסורות באכילה אלא במסגרת אכילת הקרבן.", + "ורקיקי נזיר – נזיר המסיים את ימי נזרו חייב בהבאת שני רקיקים (מיני מאפה), וכמובן אסור לאכלם אלא יש להביאם למקדש. מה שאינו לאכילת אדם פטור מחלה. משנת פסחים (פ\"ב מ\"ה) מקבילה למשנתנו ושם נקבע אותו עיקרון ביחס ליציאה ידי חובה של מצוות מצה: \"חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר, עשאן לעצמו אין יוצאין בהן, למכור בשוק יוצאין בהן\". הפרשת חלה מקבילה להיתר לאכול אותם ולצאת בהם ידי חובת מצה. ", + "עשאן לעצמו פטור – מחלה משום שהוא מתכנן להעלותם לקרבן, למכור בשוק חייב – אבל אם אפה אדם חלות תודה או רקיקי נזיר כדי: למכור בשוק – חייב בחלה ובמקביל יוצא בהם ידי חובת מצה. משנה זו פותחת צוהר לחיי היום-יום סביב המקדש. רבבות עולי רגל הגיעו לחג ואלו חייבים היו קרבנות רבים, נוסף על כך הגיעו עולים שהביאו עמם קרבנות נדבה ובאו למלא התחייבויות שנטלו על עצמם במשך השנה. התחייבויות אלו אינן חלק ממעשה העלייה לרגל, אך באופן טבעי ניצלו עולי הרגל את ההזדמנות ופרעו את נדריהם בזמן העלייה לרגל. אנשי ירושלים ניצלו את ההזדמנות הכספית ומכרו לעולים את צורכיהם, סתם אוכל, ואף קרבנות. המשנה מלמדת על אנשים שהכינו חלות תודה או רקיקי נזיר והעמידום למכירה לעולים. לפי ההלכה מאכלים אלו טרם נחשבו להקדש; אמנם הם יועדו למקדש, אך טרם הוקדשו לאדם ספציפי, ולכן הם חייבים בחלה. התלמוד הירושלמי מסביר: \"לא בדעתו הדבר תלוי\" (נח ע\"א), שכן הקונה יכול להחליט לאכלם אכילת חולין. ההלכה במשניות פסחים וחלה היא פרי התפתחות של הדיאלקטיקה התנאית, מסורות מורחבות יותר נמסרות בתוספתא.", + "\t\t\t\t אמר רבי אלעאי שאלתי את רבי אליעזר ", + "\t\t\t\t מהו שיצא אדם בחלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר? ", + "\t\t\t\t אמר לי לא שמעתי. באתי ושאלתי לפני ", + "\t\t\t\t רבי יהושע, אמר לי הרי אמרו חלות תודה ", + "\t\t\t\t ורקיקי נזיר שעשאן לעצמו אין אדם יוצא ", + "\t\t\t\t בהן, למכור בשוק יוצא בהן. וכשבאתי", + "\t\t\t\t והרציתי דברים לפני רבי אליעזר אמר לי: ", + "\t\t\t\t ברית! הן הן הדברים שנאמרו לו למשה בסיני64בבבלי נוסף “איכא דאמרי”, כלומר מסורת שונה. בנוסח הדפוס טושטש ההבדל, אך הוא השתמר בתשובת גאונים, שבנוסח הראשון נאמר “והרציתי את הדברים לפני רבי אליעזר ואמרי לה לפני רבי אלעזר בן עזריה”, ובנוסח השני “והרציתי את הדברים לפני רבי אלעאי” (כנראה צריך להיות רבי אלע’ = אלעזר, וההמשך קטוע. מסתבר שבנוסח השני נאמר “והרציתי הדברים לפני רבי אלעזר בן עזריה”, כמו בנוסח שבתוספתא חלה. תוספת זו של “איכא דאמרי” אינה בכתבי היד המסומנים רב, רג. שינויי נוסח נוספים בסוגיית הבבלי לא נרשמו, שכן אינם חשובים לענייננו. .", + "התוספתא והבבלי מוסרים אותה מסורת בשינויים. בבבלי פסחים נדונה השאלה של מצה, ובתוספתא חלה שאלת הפרשת חלה. איננו יודעים באיזה הקשר נאמרו הדברים, אך ברור שכל עורך הסב אותם לעניינו. הסבה זו היא הגיונית, שכן כאמור יש זיקה בין הנושאים ומה שחייב חלה גם יוצאים בו ידי חובת מצה בפסח. הבדל נוסף יש במסורת עצמה. בתוספתא הנשאל הוא רבי יהושע והעונה רבי אליעזר, ובבבלי להפך. נוסח הבבלי סביר יותר, שכן רבי אלעאי היה תלמידו המובהק של רבי אליעזר. המשפט \"לא שמעתי\" הולם את דרכו של רבי אליעזר בהלכה, וההבחנה המתוחכמת בין עשאן לעצמו לבין עשאן למכור מתאימה יותר לדרכו ההלכתית של רבי יהושע, תלמידם של בית הלל.", + "כך או כך, ברור מהמסורת שהמשניות במסכתות חלה ופסחים מוסרות את המחלוקות כפי שסיכמן רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, ואינן מסגירות את השתלשלות הדעות שהביאה לניסוח זה. יתר על כן, מתברר שנית שהביטוי \"הברית! אילו דברים נאמרו מהר חורב\" אינו מבטא היגד היסטורי, שכן קשה להניח שלרבי אלעזר בן עזריה הייתה מסורת שרבותיו לא שמעו עליה והם אולי אף מתנגדים לה. הביטוי הוא ספרותי ונועד לקבוע כי הסברה אמִתית ללא ספק, יש בה אמת דתית, ולא ניסיון לשחזור היסטורי65כבר עמד על כך ספראי, הלכה למשה מסיני. .", + "סוגיית חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר היא דוגמה מובהקת להשתלשלות המסורת. החומרים התנאיים הקדומים נמסרים בהמשך תקופת התנאים ובתקופת האמוראים, אך הם אינם נמסרים כלשונם ובהקשרם המקורי. תנאים מאוחרים או אמוראים עשויים לשנות את ההקשר המקורי, ובמהלך המסירה משתנים פרטים, מסוכמות המסקנות וחלים שינויים נוספים בפרטים." + ], + [ + "נחתום שעשה סאור לחלק – הרקע הרֵאלי להלכה הוסבר במבוא למסכת. את הלחם אפו הנשים בביתן, ולעתים נזקקו לקנות לחם מהנחתום. בכל כפר היה נחתום, כולל כפרים קטנים. הנחתום אפה בדרך כלל לחם, אך גם מכר שאור מוכן לבעלות הבתים לשימושן הפרטי. השאור הוא בצק שהחמיץ כל צורכו. בצק מחמיץ באופן אופטימלי בסביבה שיש בה לחות וחום, וניצלו את חום התנור לחמם בו את הבצק. גם הנחתום עשה כן, ולכן העדיפו לקנות ממנו שאור מוכן ולא להכינו בבית.", + "חייב בחלה – הנחתום מכין בצק בכמויות גדולות ומתכונן למכור אותו, על כן הוא חייב בחלה. אמנם הבצק נמכר בכמויות קטנות והוא דומה מבחינה זו לסופגנין שנדונו במשניות ד-ה, לפי פירושנו, ברם כאן מדובר בהכנת מנות קטנות למזון שיעורבב בתוך בצק רגיל. בעלות הבית אינן מכינות, בדרך כלל, בצק בכמות החייבת בחלה, ולכן ייתכן שחתיכת השאור תישאר ולא תופרש ממנה חלה, על כן חייב הנחתום להפריש ממנה חלה. הירושלמי (נח ע\"א) מנמק שאין הדבר תלוי בדעת הנחתום. הוא הכין שאור, אבל אם לא ימצא לקוחות הוא עשוי להפוך את חתיכות הבצק ללחם ולאפות אותו כרגיל. ניתן להסיק מההסבר שהשאור הוא בצק רגיל המונח להתפחה, ואם לא יימצאו לו לקוחות יושלך מידית לתנור וייאפה. זו הסיבה לכך שהמשנה אינה קובעת שהבצק חייב בחלה רק לכשיוכן כלחם.", + "הנימוק \"נחתום לא בדעתו הדבר תלוי\" מהווה את ציר הקשר למשנה הקודמת (איור 5).", + "ונשים שנתנו לנחתום לעשות להם סאור – זו כנראה שיטה שנייה. הנשים נותנות לנחתום מעט בצק שיתחמם ויתפח ליד התנור. אין הן קונות ממנו את הבצק, שכן חבל להן על ההוצאה, אם אין בשל אחת מהן כשיעור פטורה מן החלה – אם כל חתיכה קטנה משיעור חלה (וזה המצב כמעט תמיד) אין היא חייבת בחלה, זאת אף שכל חתיכות השאור מצויות זו ליד זו ונראות כלחם אחד.", + "בעל אור זרוע פירש שהנחתום אינו רשאי לתרום חלה משום שהוא כפועל, וכל הפועלים אין להם רשות לתרום. הכלל נאמר על הרמת תרומה רגילה (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"ג מ\"ד). ניתן להניח שהוא הדין בהרמת חלה. ברם, המשנה מדגישה שהדבר תלוי בשיעור. אם אחת נתנה לו בצק בכמות החייבת בחלה – הוא חייב להרים חלה. מכאן שהמשנה אינה עוסקת בבעיית הרשות של הפועל להרים חלה, אלא רק בשאלה של כמות גדולה של בצק השייכת לשותפים רבים ועומדת להתחלק. כמו כן, אין במשנה שאלה האם מותר לו להרים את החלה, אלא האם הבצק חייב בחלה." + ], + [ + "עיסת הכלבים – עיסת הכלבים אינה נזכרת עוד במקורות אלא בהקשר זה של מתן חלה. לפי שמה היא מאפה דגן העשוי במיוחד לכלבים. הירושלמי מסביר ש\"עירב בה מורסן\" (נח ע\"א). המורסן הוא קליפת גרעין החיטה, ובדרך כלל ניפו אותו מהקמח. ככל שהקמח היה מנופה טוב יותר כן נחשב למעולה יותר. הסולת היא החיטה לאחר ניפוי החול, הקש והוצאת המורסן66למורסן ראו להלן מ\"ו. , אך ללא ניפוי נוסף. בלשוננו “קמח מלא”. את הקליפה עצמה ניצלו רק למאכל בהמות וכמאפה לכלבים. אלא שנראה שלא היה זה ההבדל היחיד בין עיסת הכלבים לעיסה של לחם רגיל. רבי יהודה אומר: \"עיסת כלבים מעצמה נכרת. עשאה ככרין חייבת, עשאה לימודין פטורה\" (תוס', פ\"א ה\"ז; ירו', נח ע\"א). למילה \"ככרין\" חילופי נוסח רבים: בכתב יד ערפורט אלו \"כעכין\", ובירושלמי \"כעכין\", \"ביכואין\", \"כובעין\", \"כיפאין\", \"כינאין\" או \"כסאין\"67אפשטיין, מחקרים ב, עמ' 270. . הירושלמי שם ממשיך ומסביר: \"אפילו עשאה קלוסקין\", ומבהיר שלעתים הרועים אוכלים אותה, ולעתים היא כל כך נחותה עד שאין הרועים אוכלים אותה. מההסבר משמע שההבדל הוא בטיב העיסה, ואולי גם במידת הרגישות של הרועים באותו מקום ובאותו זמן.", + "נראה ששלושה סוגי המאפה הנזכרים הם כולם צורה חיצונית של המאפה. \"לימודין\" היא האות היוונית למדה68ראו ערוך השלם, ערך למד 3, כרך ה, עמ' 43. אור זרוע, רטו, מסביר שהם כעמודים ארוכים, כלומר לחמניות בלשון ימינו. לדעתו זהו לחם שאינו ראוי, ובכך גילה האופה דעתו שלא התכוון לאפות את האוכל כלחם אלא כעין עוגה, וצריך עיון. שצורתה Λ. כן נאמר במקום אחר שמי שמת לו מת ויש לו יין בבור “רבי יהודה אומר עושה לו לימודים” (משנה, מועד קטן פ”ב מ”ב, וראו פירושנו לה), וכלשונו של רש”י שם: “מכסהו עראי ולא כדרכו69קופפער, רש”י, עמ’ 37. . מפרשי משנה, ראשונים ואחרונים, פירשו את המילה “לימודים” - נסרים או קרשים של עץ. אולם לימודים הנזכרים בספרות התנאית הם לעולם חיבור וקישור של חרס, והוא כלי או פס מעץ או מחרס בצורת משולש70ראו ברנד, כלי חרס, עמ’ קנד, שכד, תקנא, תקנה, תקסה, תקצח; אפשטיין, פירוש הגאונים לטהרות, עמ’ 151. . רבי יהודה מתיר רק לכסותו בכיסוי ארעי, ואין לגוף את חביות היין כדרכו בחול. כן שניו במסכת כלים: “תנור שבא מחותך מבית האומן ועשה בו למודין ונותנן עליו והוא טהור. נטמא וסילק את למודיו טהור, החזירן לו טהור, מרחו בטיט מקבל טומאה“ (פ”ה מ”ט ומקבילות). התנור הגיע בצורה של טבעות או פסים, ובבית מחברים לעתים את החלקים בעזרת פסי מתכת והופכים את השברים לכלי עבודה (תמונה 2).", + "השברים טהורים, והתנור המורכב נחשב לכלי. דומה שמקור המילה הוא אותו חלק המכונה “לימודים” שבו מדביקים את חלקי התנור, והוא עשוי כצורת האות היוונית. לוקחים טיט ומדביקים על שפת הכלי כך שחלקי הטיט יתפסו את שני השברים מלמעלה. בשימוש משני המונח משמש לתיאור מכסה זמני, כאותה ששנינו: “ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בערב שבת. משלשלין את הפסח לתנור עם חשיכה, ועושה לו למודין. ונותנן עליו מערב שבת, נותן על גביו כסוי ונוטלו בשבת” (תוס’, פסחים פ”ז ה”א)71בפירוש המיוחס לרב סעדיה גאון מתורגם \"לימודים\" כ\"חלק\", ופירוש זה אינו מקדם את הבירור שכן לא זכינו להבינו. ראו אוצר הגאונים לפסחים, 112. ערוך השלם, ערך כעך, כרך ד, עמ' 281, אומר שכעכים הם כיכרות הנאפות בנפרד. .", + "נראה שמקובל היה להכין את אוכל הכלבים בצורת האות היוונית, והיה זה סימן מוסכם, “מעצמה ניכרת”. המונח מופיע בצורה דומה במקור אחר: “יכול יהו מהלקטין תורמסין לתרנוגלים, ועושין לימודים לכלבים, תלמוד לומר לכם <לכם> ולא לגוים לכם ולא לכלבים” (מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, יב טז, עמ’ 21). בהלכה עצמה נדון להלן, אך עולה שסתם עוגת כלבים היא “לימודים”.", + "צמד המונחים “כעכים” ו”לימודים” מופיע בסוגיית הבבלי הדנה בכותח, שגם היא “מעשיה מוכיחין עליה, עשאן כעבין – חייבין, כלמודין – פטורים” (ברכות לז ע”ב - לח ע”א). הגרסה המקורית היא כנראה “כעכין”. בסוגיה אחרת של הבבלי עולה שכיכרות רגילות “נושכות זו מזו”, כלומר נדבקות בתנור זו לזו, אבל כעכים אינם נדבקים. גם הלכה זו תוזכר להלן בהקשר אחר (בבלי, פסחים מח ע”ב), ומשמע שהכעך גדול וגס ואופים אותו לחוד בתנור, ולא כמו שאופים לחמים רבים בו בזמן בתנור. מפירוש גאון משמע שכעכים הם “גריצות גדולות כל אחד עשויה כמין כיפה ועדיין הערבים קוראים אותה כעך”72מביאו ליברמן (ראבי\"ה תכב, חלק ב, עמ' 52). ראו אוצר הגאונים לפסחים, עמ' 147. . גריצות הן הצמות שמהן קולעים חלה (ראו פירושנו לביצה פ”ב מ”ו), ובדרך כלל הכוונה לחלה עבה (שם, שם), בניגוד לרקיק שהוא דק וכנראה גם אינו עגול (תוס’, פסחים פ”ב הט”ו). על כן נראה שכעך הוא חלה העשויה מצמה אחת שמסובבים אותה סביב עצמה. כיכרות כאלה אפו לחוד ובאופן גס במיוחד לכלבים.", + "הירושלמי מזכיר סוג נוסף של עיסת כלבים והוא ה”קלוסקין”. הקלוסקין או הגלוסקין משמעו עוגה, כלומר לחם עגול, והוא מופיע כמונח לכיכר תקנית, אם כי מטיב מעולה, כפי שעולה מכמה מקורות, כגון “האוכלים למעדנים – רבי חנינא בר פפא אמר גלוסקין וחמר עתיק” (איכה רבה, פ”ב ה, עמ’ 145), וכן: “מעשה בשר ודם הם נאים משל הקב”ה, הביאו לי שבולים וגלוסקאות, אמר לו אלו מעשה הקב”ה, ואלו מעשה בשר ודם. אין אלו נאים...?” (תנחומא, תזריע, ז). כמו כן: “אמר רבי אליעזר בן עזריה למה הדבר דומה למלך שנטל סאה של חטים ונתנה לנחתום, ואמר לו: הוצא ממנו כך וכך סולת, כך וכך סובין, כך וכך מורסן, וסלית לי מתוכה גלוסקא אחת יפה מנופה ומעולה” (תנחומא, תצוה ה). ", + "אם כן, גלוסקין הוא כיכר עגולה רגילה הנעשית מצמה מגולגלת; כעך הוא כיכר גדולה במיוחד מגולגלת בצורת כובע, ולימודין היא עוגה או לחם בצורת האות למדה, כלומר כמשולש Λ. האמורא אומר שאפילו עשה עיסת כלבים בצורה של גלוסקין אין היא חייבת בחלה; לא צורת המאפה קובעת אלא טיב החומר שבה. ", + "גידול כלבים", + "יחסם של החברה היהודית ושל חז”ל, לכלב, היה מורכב. מצד אחד נחשב הכלב לחיית פרא מסוכנת, מצד אחר נעזרו בו לשמירה ולהגנה. הכלב נזכר בעיקר בהקשר של סְפר ומרעה73ראו שוורץ, כלבים. , וגם במשנתנו הבעלים של הכלב הוא הרועה. חשוב להעיר שממשנתנו יוצא בבירור שהייתה תרבות של גידול כלבים הכוללת אפייה מיוחדת לצורכיהם, ואפילו מונחים קבועים וצורות חיצוניות קבועות של ה”בונזו” הקדום.", + "בזמן שהרועים אוכלים ממנה – אם הרועים אוכלים מן המאפה הרי הוא כלחם לכל דבר. להלן מונה המשנה מה משמעותה של קביעה זו (איור 6).", + "חייבת בחלה – ככל לחם אחר העיסה חייבת בחלה, ומערבים בה – אפשר להניח בה עירוב תחומים, ומשתתפין בה – אפשר להשתמש בה להנחת עירוב חצרות ותחומים, שבהם משתתפים כל בני החצר או המבוי. את דיני העירוב למדנו במשנת עירובין פרק ג. במשנה א של אותה מסכת מופיע המונח “מערבין ומשתתפין”. כפשוטו שם עירוב הוא מונח כללי לכל התקנה של עירוב בכל דרך שהיא (מחיצה, הכנת אוכל, עירוב ברגליים74על כך ראו פירושנו לעירובין פ\"ד מ\"ז-מ\"ט. או בכל צורה שהיא), ואילו “משתתפים” הוא הכנת האוכל המשותף הנדרש לעירובי חצרות ומבואות. אבל בעירוב תחומין אין כל השתתפות. הירושלמי אומר ש”מערבים” זה בעירובי חצרות, ו”משתתפים – בין בחצירות בין בתחומין” (עירובין פ”ג ה”א, כ ע”ג). פירוש זה של הירושלמי בעירובין מוכח ממשנתנו. ניתן לערב ולהשתתף בכל מזון שהוא75ראו פירושנו לעירובין פ\"ג מ\"א. , אם כי העדיפו לערב דווקא בפת (כגון בבלי, עירובין נא ע”ב), ובפועל זה היה הנוהג המקובל. עיסת הרועים נחשבת, אפוא, כפת, ומברכין עליה ומזמנין עליה – ברכת המזון כמו על לחם. גם כאן מברכים על כל מזון, אך הכוונה לברכת המזון המלאה שאומרים רק על לחם.", + "ונעשת76ב- ס גרס \"ונאפית\", וראו הערותיו של זק\"ש, משנה, על אתר. בעל מלאכת שלמה ניסה לתלות את הנוסח במחלוקת רבי עקיבא ורבי יוחנן בן נורי על מועד הפרשת חלה (להלן פ\"ו מ\"ג וסוף פ\"ב, וראו פירושנו שם ושם), ברם דומה שהמילה \"נעשית\" היא כללית וזהה ל\"נאפית\", ואין בניסוח כל התייחסות למועד הרמת החלה. ביום טוב – ביום טוב מותר לאפות לחם לצורך החג, ולדעת חלק מהחכמים מותר גם לאפות כמות גדולה יותר אשר תספיק גם לצורך יום חול. כידוע, ביום טוב התירו להכין ולאפות רק אוכל נפש, ונחלקו חכמים מה היקפה של הגדרת אוכל נפש, האם היא כוללת בהמות, ואם כן האם כלבים בכלל. מצינו לכך שתי הגדרות. האחת כוללנית, האם בהמה היא בכלל אוכל נפש או לא: “ ‘אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש’ וגו’ – שומע אני אף נפשות בהמה ונפשות אחרים במשמע? תלמוד לומר לכם. לכם ולא לבהמה, לכם ולא לאחרים דברי רבי ישמעאל, רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר: ‘אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש’ אף נפשות בהמה במשמע? ...משמע מביא נפשות בהמה, ומביא נפשות אחרים, תלמוד לומר ‘אך’ חלק. רבי עקיבא אומר: ‘אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש’ אף נפש בהמה במשמע. משמע מביא נפש בהמה, ומביא נפשות אחרים? תלמוד לומר ‘לכם’ – לכם ולא לאחרים. מה ראית לחלוק. שאתה מוזהר על הבהמה ואי אתה מוזהר על הגוי” (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, מסכתא דפסחא, בא, פ”ט, עמ’ 32). המחלוקת נידונה גם בתלמודים (ירו’, ביצה פ”א ה”י, סא ע”א; בבלי, שם כא ע”א). אם כן, לפי רבי יוסי הגלילי האכלת בהמה נאסרה, לפי רבי עקיבא הותרה, אך ההיתר אינו כולל מלאכה לצורך אכילת נכרי.", + "האכלת כלבים עוררה מחלוקת נוספת: “אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש שומע אני אף נפשות בהמה שהיא קרויה נפש כעינין שנאמר ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה (ויקרא כד ח)? יכול יהו מהלקטין תורמסין לתרנוגלים ועושין לימודים לכלבים? תלמוד לומר ‘לכם’ – לכם ולא לגוים לכם ולא לכלבים” (מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, פרק יב ט”ז, עמ’ 21). בהמשך שם מובאים דברי רבי עקיבא ש”לכל נפש” כולל גם בהמה. ברם, בפ”ג מ”א הדיון כוללני פחות, והמשנה מבחינה בין בהמות שמזונותיהן עליך לבין חיות עצמאיות שאין מזונן על אדם. אשר לכלבים, למרות הדרשות לעיל רבי טרפון מתיר להאכיל כלבים, כנראה מאותה סיבה (ראו פירושנו לביצה פ”ג מ”ה; פ”ד מ”ב; שבת פכ”ד מ”ד). במקרה זה של האכלת בהמה, ייתכן שלאיסור לאפות עיסת כלבים מצטרף חשש נוסף שהכמות גדולה מדי, וממילא מספיקה ליותר מהנדרש ליום טוב, זאת לאור פירושנו שכעך הוא כיכר גדולה וגסה. זאת ועוד; כלב אינו סתם בהמה. אמנם מצד אחד הוא פחות תלוי באדם, אבל מצד אחר “הואיל ואפשר לפייסן בנבלה” (בבלי, ביצה כא ע”א), אפשר לתת לכלב לאכול נבלה והכנתה של זו אינה כרוכה באיסורי מלאכה ביום טוב. הווה אומר, גם מי שמתיר לאפות בשביל להאכיל בהמה יודה שאין להתיר אפייה לכלב, כי ניתן לספק את מזונו בדרכים מותרות יותר. מציאות הלכתית וחברתית זו נדונה בפירושנו למסכת שבת פכ”ד מ”ד.", + "ויוציא בה אדם ידי חובתו בפסח – אם היא נאפתה כך שלא החמיצה הרי היא כמצה.", + "אם אין הרועים אוכלין ממנה – אם זו עיסת לימודים ואין הרועים מוכנים לאכלה אין היא נחשבת ללחם על כל המשמעויות שלו, ואף אינה נחשבת לאוכל כלל.", + "אינה חייבת בחלה [ואין מערבין בה] – הנתון בסוגריים נוסף על ידי מעתיק מאוחר בין השורות, ואין משתתפין בה – כאמור מותר לערב ולהשתתף בכל אוכל, ואמנם העדיפו פת אך עיסת הכלבים אינה אוכל כלל, ואין מברכין עליה – שכן אינה בבחינת אוכל, ואין מזמנין עליה ואינה נעשת ביום טוב – תפיסת משנתנו היא שאין להכין אוכל לכלב ביום טוב. כאמור, ייתכן שהתנא סבור שנאסרה כל הכנת אוכל לבהמה, או שנאסרה רק הכנת אוכל לכלב, או שמותר אף להכין אוכל לכלב, אך לא במקרה זה הואיל והמלאכה אסורה בתכלית, ובמקביל את צורכי הכלב ניתן לספק בדרך מותרת יותר.", + "ואין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח.", + "בין כך ובין כך מטמא טומאת אכלין – גם אם אינה מאכל אדם היא מאכל בהמה (כלב), ומאכל בהמה מטמא טומאת אוכלין. טומאת אוכלין היא הגדרה הלכתית למזון שאם הוא אוכל הוא מוכשר לקבל טומאה (משנה, טהרות פ”א מ”א ועוד). אוכל לצורך הגדרה זו הוא כל הראוי למאכל, אף אם אין נהוג לאכלו. טומאת אוכלין היא טומאה קלה (ולד הטומאה), אפילו אם האוכל נגע במת אינו אלא טמא ברמה של “ולד הטומאה”, ואינה מטמאה את הנוגע בה (לא אדם ולא כלים). " + ], + [ + "החלה והתרומה חייבין עליהן מיתה77הרשימה מצויה בספרי זוטא, טו יט, עמ' 283, ונוסף \"וניקחת בכסף מעשר שני\". – האוכלם במזיד חייב מיתה בידי שמים (משנה, תרומות פ”ז מ”א). הדגש במשנה הוא על הלכות שבהן חלה כתרומה. היא נחשבת כקודש לכל דבר.", + "וחומש – מי שאכל בשוגג חייב להשיב לכוהן את דמיה בתוספת חומש, כדין אוכל תרומה (משנה, תרומות פ”ו מ”א), ואסורין לזרים – המשפט מיותר, שהרי אם אוכלם חייב ודאי שהם אסורים, אלא שהמשנה רוצה לכנס תחת גג אחד את כל ההלכות והניסוחים המצויים בהלכות הקדומות.", + "והן ניכסי כהן – המונח נראה מיותר, שהרי הדבר ברור וחוזר על הנאמר לפניו. במשנה אחרת שנינו: “התרומה והבכורים חייבים עליהן מיתה וחומש ואסורים לזרים והם נכסי כהן ועולין באחד ומאה וטעונין רחיצת ידים” (בכורים פ”ב מ”א). שם המשפט נחוץ על מנת להבהיר שהביכורים אינם קרבן למזבח, אלא ניתנים לכוהנים. ברור שמשנתנו מנוסחת כהמשך למשנת ביכורים. כפי שאמרנו, הפרק כולו הוא ניסוח מאוחר שיש בו לקט או תגובה למשניות אחרות, ומשנה זו מנוסחת אף היא על בסיס משנת ביכורים.", + "ועולין באחד ומאה – אם נפלו לחולין ובחולין פי מאה – התרומה מתבטלת. דין זה מנוסח באופן כללי בלבד, והניסוח המדויק נדון בפירושנו למשנת תרומות (פ”ד מ”ז).", + "וטעונים רחיצת ידיים – יש ליטול ידיים לפני אכילתם, אף אם האדם טבל כפי שנדרש להלן. המונח המקובל הוא “נטילת ידים”, ברם במקורות ארץ ישראל ובבל מופיע גם המונח “רחיצת ידים”78משנה, בכורים פ\"ב מ\"א; עירובין פ\"א ה\"י; ירו', חגיגה פ\"ב ה\"ה, עח ע\"ב; בבלי, יבמות עג ע\"א; בבא מציעא נג ע\"א, ועוד. . החלוקה היא שבמשנה מופיע לרוב המונח “רחיצת ידים” ובתוספתא ובמדרשי ההלכה “נטילת ידים” (או “נוטלים לידים”). ההבדל הוא שאדם רוחץ לעצמו ואבל נוטלים לו אחרים, ונדון בכך, אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת, במסכת ידים. מאוחר יותר, בתקופת הגאונים, היה ויכוח על נוסח הברכה, האם יש לברך “על נטילת ידים”, וכך פסקו גאוני בבל, או “על רחיצת ידים”, כפי שפסקו גאוני ארץ ישראל. הוויכוח התגלע במלוא חריפותו בליל הסדר. בהגדות ארץ ישראל משובצת הנוסחה “על רחיצת ידים”, וגאוני בבל תוקפים נוסחה זו בזעם. מסתבר שהנוסחה הקדומה נותרה בליל הסדר גם אחרי שבני ארץ ישראל קיבלו את הנוסח “על נטילת ידים”, זאת משום שבליל הסדר החגיגי השתמרו נוסחאות קדומות, וכן משום שנטלו בו ידיים שלוש פעמים (לטיבול ראשון, לארוחה ולמים אחרונים בסוף הסעודה), והייתה נטייה לגוון בברכות79ספראי וספראי, הגדת חז\"ל, עמ' 63-61; אוצר הגאונים לפסחים, עמ' 122-121. . מכל מקום, גם בספרות קומראן אין המונח “טבילה” נזכר, ובמקומו נעשה שימוש בשורש רח”ץ.", + "והערב שמש – האוכל תרומה וחלה חייב לטבול בערב, אף אם אינו יודע שנטמא. טבילה זו נזכרת במקורות מקבילים (ראו פירושנו לברכות פ”א מ”א) והיא מיוחדת במינה. היא לא נועדה לטהר אדם מטומאתו, שהרי חייבים בה גם מי שלא נטמאו, אלא זו טבילה להוספת קדושה וטהרה.", + "משנתנו ומקבילתה במסכת ביכורים (פ”ב מ”א) מניחה בפשטות שנטילת ידיים היא רק לתרומה ולמעשר שני, אבל במשנת חגיגה שנינו: “נוטלין לידים לחולין ולמעשר ולתרומה” (פ”ב מ”ה). במשנת עדויות (פ”ה מ”ו) מסופר על אליעזר בן חנוך (אולי חכם) “שפקפק בטהרת ידים” ונודה על כך. אולם מקורות פנימיים וחיצוניים מסוף ימי הבית מעידים כי נטילת ידיים לפני האוכל הייתה נוהג שכל היהודים נהגו בו והייתה סימן היכר לזהות יהודית80ירו', נח ע\"ג; ברכות פ\"ח ה\"א, יב ע\"א; בבלי, חולין קו ע\"א; מרקוס ז 5-1. . עסקנו בכך מעט בפירוש לברכות פ”ח, ואם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת נרחיב בכך במבוא למסכת ידים, ונראה שאכן שתי דעות היו בשאלה זו ומשנתנו נוקטת אחת הדעות.", + "ברוב עדי הנוסח נכתב רק “רחיצת ידים”, אבל ב- ל’, הוא כתב יד ליידן, נוסף “ורגלים”. גם במשנת בכורים המקבילה מוסיף כתב יד ץ’ האשכנזי מילה זו. בפירושנו לעירובין פ”י מ”י עמדנו על כך בהרחבה והראינו כי כנראה היה זרם בבתי המדרש שתבע לצרף לנטילת הידיים גם טבילת רגליים. במקביל נתגלו מקוואות המתאימים רק לנטילת רגליים ואינם מתאימים לטבילת כל הגוף. אין הם מתאימים גם לנטילת ידיים האמורה להיעשות בכלי, ואף אין הם מתאימים לכך מבחינה פונקציונלית.", + "ואינן ניטלים מן הטהור על הטמא81בעל מלאכת שלמה מעיר על היסוס מסוים לגבי משפט זה, \"מן הטהור על הטמא\". מי שמחק כן עשה זאת בגלל דברי רבי אליעזר (להלן פ\"ב מ\"ט) שבהם העניין חוזר, ושם רבי אליעזר חולק. ברם את מחלוקת התנאים בנושא אי אפשר לטשטש, כפי שאמרנו. – זו הלכה הנשנית במפורש לעניין תרומות (משנה, תרומות פ”ב מ”א). בפירושנו לה82הנושא נדון בסדרת משניות במסכת תרומות (פ\"א מ\"ד ואילך עד פ\"ב מ\"א). המשנה תמיד כדעת בית הלל, ודעת המתנגדים מצויה במקבילות. ראינו שההלכה המשנאית אסרה תרומה של כל מין על מין אחר, ובין השאר גם תרומה של טהור על הטמא. אבל זו דעת בית הלל בלבד, ובית שמאי התירו לתרום מן הטהור על הטמא, ואף מהגמור על שאינו גמור. נוסף על “בית שמאי” נזכרו בהקשר זה גם רבי אליעזר, שכידוע היה מאחרוני בית שמאי, תלמידו רבי אלעאי ובן תלמידו רבי יהודה בן אלעאי. כן נאמר בתוספתא למשנתנו: “רבי ליעזר אומר חלה ניטלת מן הטהור על הטמא. אמרו לפני רבי ישמעאל והלא פלוני יש בדרום והיה מורה בהוראה הזאת. אמר להם לבוש שלבש בו אבא, וציץ שנתן בין עיניו83הברייתא מאמצת את המסורת שרבי ישמעאל היה מזרע כהונה גדולה. , אם לא אלמד בו לכל מורה הוראות. אמרו לו משם רבי ליעזר! אמר להם אף הוא יש לו במה יתלה” (פ”א ה”י). הניסוח בתוספתא ממעיט כאילו אמר רבי אליעזר את דבריו רק לעניין חלה, אך כאמור זו שיטתו ושיטת בית שמאי. רבי ישמעאל חולק. כאשר מספרים לו שיש פלוני זקן בדרום המורה הלכה כבית שמאי84תוספתא זו מצטרפת לרמזים בדבר בית שמאי ואזור אדום, ואין דרום כאן אלא דרום יהודה שהוא אדום. הקשר בין האדומיים ובית שמאי נזכר בהלכה אחת (ראו בן שלום, בית שמאי, עמ' 237-235), והברייתא שלנו מצטרפת לתמונה זו. עם זאת, אין ללמוד מכאן אלא על כך שלבית שמאי נודעה השפעה על בני חבל אדום, ואין להפריז במשמעותה של העדות. קשה לראות בכך עיקרון מנחה בפעילותם של בית שמאי. הוא נשבע בתוקף שעליו לשרש דעה זו. אבל כאשר הוא שומע שזו דעת רבי אליעזר הוא נסוג מעט מתקיפותו, אך לא מעמדתו העקרונית. מעניין שרבי ישמעאל אינו מתייחס למחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, ומתנהג כאילו דעת בית שמאי אינה קיימת. רבי ישמעאל עצמו חי בדרום, בכפר עזיז, ולא היה כה מרוחק מאותו זקן פלוני (איור 7). ", + "להלן, פ”ד מ”ו, תתיר המשנה הסדר המבוסס על הרמת חלה מהטמא על הטהור, וזה כדעת בית שמאי.", + "אלא מן המוקף – העיקרון שנקבע בפרק א במסכת תרומות הוא שאין לתרום מערֵמה אחת על אחרת אלא אם הן נמצאות יחד באותו כלי. בדרך זו אף ניתן לתרום את “העיגול של דבילה שנטמא מקצתו תורם מן הטהור שיש בו על הטמא שיש בו” (משנה, תרומות פ”ב מ”א). ההגבלה “אלא מן המוקף” מוסבת לא רק על נתינת חלה (או תרומה) מן הטמא על הטהור אלא על כל אפשרות של הרמת מתנה מזה על זה. במקרה של תרומה מתעוררת בכך בעיה נוספת, הרי הטמא מטמא את הטהור, ולכך הוצעו הצעות שונות במקורות. המשנה להלן, פ”ב מ”ח, מציעה פתרון אחד ומשנת תרומות (שם) מציעה פתרון אחר, ואף אנו הצענו פתרונות נוספים85ראו פירושנו להלן, פ\"ב מ\"ח. ההלכה העקרונית חוזרת בתוס', ביכורים פ\"א ה\"ו; טבול יום פ\"ב הט\"ז, עמ' 686. .", + "ומן הדבר הגמור – זו נוסחה עמומה שבאה להכליל את החלה ואת התרומה86והמאירי פירש שהכוונה לתרומה בלבד. . התרומה ניתנת מפרי שנגמרה מלאכתו87משנה, מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ה-מ\"ח; תוס', פ\"ב מ\"ב ועוד. מועד הפרשת תרומה הוא מועד הפרשת כל המעשרות. בפועל הקדימו את מתן התרומה, כפי שהראינו במבוא למסכת תרומה. , ואילו חלה מעיסה שהסתיימה אפייתה. המשנה להלן קובעת: “אוכלין עריי מן העיסה עד שתיגלגל בחטים ותטמטם בשעורין. גילגלה בחטים וטמטמה בשעורין האוכל ממנה חייב מיתה, כיוון שהיא נותנת את המים מגבהת חלתה ובלבד...” (פ”ג מ”א). כאן מועד החיוב בחלה הוא מעת שהאישה מטילה מים לבצק; “תיגלגל” שבמשנה הוא המונח להטלת המים, כפי שנראה בפירושנו למשנה. כמו כן במדרש: “ראשית עריסתכם – למה נאמר? לפי שהוא אומר ‘והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ’ שומע אני אף הקמחים במשמע? תלמוד לומר ‘ראשית עריסתכם’, משתתערס. מיכן אמרו אוכלים עראי מן העיסה עד שתתגלגל בחיטים ותיטמטם בשעורים. גלגלה בחטים וטמטמה בשעורים, האוכל ממנה חייב מיתה, כיון שנותנת מים מגבהת חלתה. ובלבד... שאין מפרישים חלה מן הקמח (ראו להלן, פ”ב מ”ה). איזו היא גמר מלאכתה? קרימתה בתנור, דברי רבי עקיבא, רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר משתגלגל בחיטים ותטמטם בשעורים” (ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ’ 114). המדרש מצטט את המשנה מפרק ג ורומז למשנה אחרת מפרק ב, אך מוסיף שלמעשה ניסוח זה הוא של רבי יוחנן בן נורי. אבל רבי עקיבא מפרש את המונח “גמר מלאכה” באופן אחר. לדעת רבי עקיבא “מן המוגמר” הוא גמר האפייה, כלומר התקרמות החלק של הלחם הפונה אל האש (כמו בשבת פ”א מ”י), ולרבי יוחנן בן נורי המועד שבו תחול חובת הפרשת החלה הוא תחילת לישת הבצק. דומה שמשנתנו מנוסחת לשיטת רבי עקיבא בלבד. השאלה של המדרש “איזו היא גמר מלאכתה?” היא לשיטת רבי עקיבא בלבד. המדרש מכיל, כאמור, משניות רבות, ואף השאלה “איזו היא גמר מלאכתה” לקוטה ממקור כלשהו. הרי המונח “גמר מלאכתה” לא נזכר כלל בראשית המדרש, אדרבה, נאמר שמועד הרמת החלה הוא נתינת המים בעיסה. אין זאת אלא שהשאלה לקוטה ממקור אחר, ומוסברת על ניסוח אחר של ההלכה. כך תוסבר הכפילות במדרש. גמר מלאכה הוא המועד הטבעי לחלות של מצוות. כך, למשל, אין חפץ מקבל טומאה עד שתיגמר מלאכתו, בשבת גמר מלאכה הוא בבחינת אב מלאכה בפני עצמו וכיוצא באלו הגדרות.", + "המחלוקת של שני התנאים (רבי יוחנן בן נורי ורבי עקיבא) היא מהותית, האם החלה ניתנת מבצק (עריסה) או מלחם. הכוהן מעדיף כמובן לקבל לחם מוכן, אך הוא גם רוצה לחם שלם ולא חתיכת לחם שנפרסה מכיכר. דומה שביטויי היום-יום שחכמים משתמשים בהם מעידים כי בדרך כלל ניתנה החלה מהבצק, בעת הכנתו, ולא לאחר האפייה88ראו, למשל, להלן פ\"ב מ\"ג. . ", + "אמנם נתינת המים אינה גמר מלאכה, אך המדרש שציטטנו קורא לה כך, וכנראה גם המשנה שלנו. ייתכן שמונח זה נקבע לשיטת רבי עקיבא בלבד, אך גם ייתכן שנתינת המים תכונה “גמר” משום שבכך מתחיל שלב הגמר של הכנת בצק.", + "ההלכות הראשונות במשנה שנויות גם במשנת ביכורים (פ”ב מ”ב). כפי שנראה בדיוננו שם, משנת ביכורים נלקטה מתוך משנה קדומה וערוכה שנערכה בסגנון עריכה שונה מרוב המשנה. הסגנון של עריכה זו הוא השוואתי: השוואת תרומה לביכורים, תרומה למעשר שני, תרומה לחלה, כוי לבהמה או לחיה וכן הלאה. עורך המשנה שיבץ במסכת ביכורים כמה משניות מאותה חטיבה קדומה, ועורך משנתנו שיבץ לתוכה משנה אחת.", + "האומר כל גרני תרומה וכל עיסתי חלה לא אמר כלום עד שישייר מקצת – הלכה זו שנינו גם בדיני תרומה. מן התורה אין קִצבה לא לתרומה ולא לחלה, אבל חכמים נתנו להן קצבה. עם זאת, נותרה האפשרות שירא השמים ייתן יותר תרומה ממה שנדרש. חכמים תבעו שתהא זו “הפרשת” תרומה, דהיינו שבידי הבעלים יישאר מעט מהפרי או מהלחם (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ”ד מ”ה, ולהלן). כמובן הוא רשאי לתת את כולו לכוהן, אך כמתנה ולא כדין תרומה או חלה, “מראשית עריסותיכם מקצתה ולא כולה” (ספרי, במדבר קי, עמ’ 114). הדין של תרומה מרובה נדון בפירוט במסכת תרומות (פ”ד מ”ה), ושם יש מחלוקת תנאים האם מקסימום התרומה הוא 10% (רבי אליעזר), 50% (רבי ישמעאל) או “עד שישייר שם חולין”, כדעת רבי עקיבא. הדרשה מופיעה גם במדרשים אחרים: “רבי עקיבא אומר בא הכתוב ללמדך שאם בא לעשות כל גורנו תרומה רשאי ובלבד שישייר מקצת” (ספרי במדבר, ה, עמ’ 8; מדרש תנאים לדברים, יח ד, עמ’ 108). בשני המקרים זו דרשתו של רבי עקיבא בלבד. רבי ישמעאל חולק ומציע דרשה אחרת, וכנראה לא רק משמעות דורשים ביניהם אלא גם הבדל הלכתי של ממש. מכל מקום, משנתנו מהלכת בשיטת רבי עקיבא (איור 8).", + "לא ברור האם התנאים האחרים חולקים רק בתרומה, או שיחלקו גם בחלה. למרות הדמיון ההלכתי, הבדל גדול יש בין תרומה לבין הפרשת חלה. המפריש חלה מרובה מפסיד משלו, אבל הנותן תרומה מרובה מצמצם את חלקו של הלוי במעשר לוי, את שיעור המעשר השני (או מעשר עני) וגם את שיעור החלה שיש להפריש מאותו יבול. על כן אין להקיש בין שני המקרים. מכל מקום, משנתנו כרבי עקיבא. גם הדרשה בספרי (במדבר קי) שציטטנו לגבי חלה נאמרת כסתם, ולא נאמר שהיא דווקא דעתו של רבי עקיבא.", + "המשנה מרכזת, אפוא, את קווי הדמיון בין חלה לתרומה. ראינו כי היא מבוססת על משניות אחרות, וכי מה שמוצג כסיכום הלכתי הוא הצגה של דעה אחת מאלו המצויות כמעט בכל אחד מהנושאים שבמשנה." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "פירות חוצה לארץ שניכנסו לארץ חייבין בחלה89ב- ט גורס \"ובמעשרות\". יש לגרסה זו תימוכין קלים; ראו זק\"ש, משנה, על אתר, ומלאכת שלמה. עם זאת, אין ספק שזו תוספת מאוחרת. לפנינו הלכה מיוחדת לחלה, כפי שהראינו במבוא. – התפיסה העקרונית של משנתנו היא שמצוות חלה נובעת מהבעלות של היהודי על הגרעינים, ולא מכך שגדלו בארץ ישראל (להלן פ\"ג מ\"ה).", + "יצאו מיכן לשם – מארץ ישראל לחוץ לארץ, רבי אליעזר מחייב רבי עקיבה פוטר – לדעת רבי אליעזר תבואה זו היא תבואת הארץ, אף שכרגע היא מחוצה לה. לדעת רבי עקיבא היא תבואת חוץ לארץ. המחלוקת היא עקרונית, ממתי חייבת התבואה במצוות חלה. לדעת רבי אליעזר הגרעינים נושאים עמם את חובת החלה, אף שעוד לא הגיע זמן ביצוע המצווה. לדעת רבי עקיבא האפייה מחייבת, וזו נעשתה בחוץ לארץ. במדרש יש מחלוקת דומה, והדעות הפוכות (ספרי קי, עמ' 113; ירו', נח ע\"ב, והנוסח שם בעייתי). מהירושלמי ברור שמשנתנו היא לשיטת רבי מאיר, ורבי יהודה הופך את שמות המוסרים כך שרבי אליעזר הוא המקל. מצב זה של היפוך בדעות החולקים תדיר במקורותינו. אמנם חז\"ל עשו מאמצים גדולים לשמור על שושלת המסירה ולדייק בה, אבל בפועל נוצרו טעויות וחז\"ל עצמם היו ערים לכך. עסקנו בכך במבוא הכללי, ושם כתבנו: \"חז\"ל ראו במסירת שמו של בעל המימרה חלק בלתי נפרד מיחסי תלמיד-רב (ספרי במדבר קנז, עמ' 213); הם היו ערים לשיבושים בשמות המוסרים, וראו בכך את הצעד הראשון לקראת שכחה. מי שלא שינן היטב עלול לשכוח את שמות המוסרים ולהחליפם. הדבר מוצג כשיבוש אפשרי, אך שיבוש לכל דבר: 'מנין למחליף דברי רבי אליעזר בדברי רבי יהושע ודברי רבי יהושע בדברי רבי אליעזר, ולאומר על טמא טהור ועל טהור טמא, שהוא עובר בלא תעשה, תלמוד לומר לא תסיג גבול רעך'90ספרי, דברים קפח, עמ' 227; מדרש הגדול לדברים, יט יד; מדרש תנאים לדברים, עמ' 115. , וכן: 'הוא היה אומר יכול אדם ללמוד תורה בעשר שנה ולשכחה בשתי שנים. כיצד, שאם יושב אדם ששה חדשים ואינו חוזר בה נמצא אומר על טמא טהור ועל טהור טמא. י\"ב חודש ואינו חוזר בה נמצא מחליף חכמים זה בזה. י\"ח חודש ואינו חוזר בה נמצא משכח ראשי פרקים. כ\"ד חודש ואינו חוזר בה נמצא משכח ראשי מסכתותיו. ומתוך שאומר על טמא טהור ועל טהור טמא ומחליף חכמים זה בזה ומשכח ראשי פרקים וראשי מסכתותיו סוף שיושב ודומם, ועליו אמר שלמה...' \"91אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פכ\"ד; תנא דבי אליהו זוטא, פי\"ז, עמ' 8, וראו המקבילה בספרי דברים, מח, עמ' 109-108. .", + "מלשון המשנה משמע בבירור שתבואת חוץ לארץ פטורה מחלה. רק דגן שנכנס לארץ חייב בה, או אולי גם פרות מהארץ שיצאו לחו\"ל, אך לא תבואה שגדלה בחוץ לארץ ונאכלת שם. בשאלה זו של חיוב חלה בחוץ לארץ נעסוק במפורט בפירושנו להלן, פ\"ד מ\"ח.", + "המשנה אינה עוסקת בהפרשת חלה מתבואה שבאה מסוריה אלא מרחוק יותר, מחוץ לארץ. ייבוא של פרות בכלל, ודגן בפרט, לא היה נושא הלכתי פשוט. האיסיים אסרו ייבוא דגן של נכרים באופן כללי, ויהושע בן פרחיה שגזר טומאה על ארץ העמים ניסה גם להנהיג שחיטים הבאות מאלכסנדריה תהיינה טמאות (תוס', מכשירין פ\"ג מ\"ד, עמ' 675). חכמים התנגדו לחומרה זו בתוקף רב. הסיבות לכך היו הלכתיות טכניות92אמנם החיטים נרטבו, אך הרטבה זו הייתה לפני גמר מלאכה, והחיטים עדיין לא היו מסוגלות לקבל טומאה. , ברם דומה שיש בהלכה גם ביטוי למצבו הכלכלי של משק הארץ. ייבוא החיטים לארץ בתקופת התנאים היה נדיר, והארץ סיפקה את צרכיה בדגנים. כל זאת בניגוד לתקופת האמוראים שבה הפך ייבוא דגנים לתופעה קבועה ומוכרת93ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 111-110. . אבל בשנות בצורת הייתה ארץ ישראל תלויה בייבוא החיטים ממצרים. שנות בצורת אינן תופעה נדירה בארץ, ואף לא מקרה בלתי מתוכנן, בבחינת הפתעה רעה. כל שלוש שנים בערך מתחוללת בצורת, ולעתים הבצרות רצופות, ואז הרעב הופך למכת מדינה. על כן היה משק הארץ תלוי בייבוא ממצרים, ומצב זה משתקף גם במשנה שלנו העוסקת בייבוא חיטים דווקא מחוץ לארץ ולא מ\"סוריה\".", + "במבוא עסקנו בשאלת הזיקה של מצוות חלה לטריטוריה הקדושה של ארץ ישראל. ", + "משנתנו עוסקת בפֵרות (תבואה) שקשורים לארץ ישראל, והמחלוקת היא מה קובע את מעמדם, מקום הבישול (האפייה) או מקום הגידול. מן הסתם מקום האפייה הוא גם מקום האכילה.", + "אמנם לא נאמר מה הדין במקרה הרביעי, אך מסתבר שעיסת חוץ לארץ שאין לה כל קשר לארץ פטורה ממצוות חלה, אחרת היו רבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא נחלקים כבר במקרה זה. " + ], + [ + "עפר חוצה לארץ שבא בספינה לארץ – הלכה זו עוסקת בעיקר בעציצים הבאים בספינה (איור 9). אמנם התלמודים מבחינים בין עציצים לספינה94ירו', נח ע\"ג; בבלי, ביצה כא ע\"א, ועיינו שם. , אך אין כוונתם אלא שעציץ שאינו נקוב יש לו דין אחר. אבל אין להסיק מהם שהמשנה מדברת דווקא על עפר הבא בתפזורת. דומה שהלכה זו היא תאורטית; כמובן ייתכן שמעט עפר התפזר על קרקעית הספינה וגדלו בו מעט חיטים, אבל קשה להניח שזה היה ייבוא תדיר ומשמעותי מבחינה כלכלית.", + "חייב במעשרות ובשביעית אמר רבי יהודה אמתי – המונח \"אימתי\" מוסבר בספרות התלמודית כביטוי המסביר את דברי הקודמים. מסתבר שרבי יהודה אינו חלוק, אלא מפרש את דברי חכמים. הבבלי מציג את השאלה כשאלה סגנונית כללית, לפחות על מימרותיו של רבי יהודה: \"והאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: כל מקום שאמר רבי יהודה אימתי ובמה במשנתנו – אינו אלא לפרש דברי חכמים\" (עירובין פא ע\"ב; פב ע\"א). המקבילה בסנהדרין (כה ע\"א) מוסיפה: \"רבי יוחנן אמר: אימתי – לפרש, ובמה – לחלוק\". במהלך פירושנו עסקנו במונחים אלו במשניות השונות וראינו כי יש שהם מתארים מחלוקת ויש שהם בוודאי פרשנות (כגון פאה פ\"ז מ\"א), או שינוי הלכתי מוסכם (כגון משנת מגילה פ\"א מ\"ג), ולעתים הם מחלוקת. כך, למשל, במשנת שבועות פ\"ז מ\"ו יש מחלוקת במשנה. בתוספתא שם (פ\"ו ה\"ד) מנוסחים דברי רבי יהודה בלשון \"במה דברים אמורים\" ובתלמודים בלשון \"אימתי\" (ירו', שבועות פ\"ז ה\"ו, לח ע\"א; בבלי, שם מח ע\"א), וברור שזו מחלוקת לכל דבר. הוא הדין במשנת עירובין (פ\"ז מי\"א) ש\"במה דברים אמורים\" בא לציין מחלוקת. במקומות אחרים שבהם המשפטים משובצים לעתים עדיף לפרשם כמחלוקת ולעתים הם באמת פירוש. לא מצינו הבדל שיטתי בין משמעות שימוש המונח בדברי רבי יהודה ובין שימושו בפי חכמים אחרים.", + "מכל מקום, הבבלי מדגיש את שימושו של רבי יהודה במונחים אלו, ואכן המונח \"אימתי\" מופיע במשנה כ- 55 פעמים, שליש מהן קשור לרבי יהודה. הווה אומר, חכם זה הרבה להשתמש במונח, אם כי הוא לא ייחודי לו. לעומת זאת, המונח \"במה (במי) דברים אמורים\" מופיע מספר פעמים קרוב, אך רק פעמיים בשמו של רבי יהודה, ודומה שאין זה מונח ייחודי לו. ", + "מכל מקום, במקרה שלנו זו אכן פרשנות בלבד. ", + "בזמן שהספינה גוששת – ספינה גוששת היא ספינה שלא העמיקה בים כך שקרקעיתה לא התרוממה מעל עשרה טפחים מפני הקרקע. הירושלמי כאן (נח ע\"ב) מפרש שספינה כזאת לא יצאה מתחומי ארץ ישראל, והיא נתפסת כשוהה בִסְפר הארץ. על כן הצמחים שצמחו על עפר זה צמחו בארץ וחייבים בחלה, ושוב דגן בחוץ לארץ פטור מחלה.", + "ההלכה כולה משפטית בלבד, אך הספינה הגוששת אינה יצור תאורטי אלא צורת מסחר מקובלת. חלק מהספנות הארץ-ישראלית הייתה ספנות חופים שבה הפליגו ספינות מנמל אחד למשנהו, והסוחרים היו מעין רוכלים שנעו משוק לשוק ושיווקו מוצרים מקומיים. כך אנו שומעים על בני אחד הכפרים שעל חוף הים הסוחרים מצור לצידון (ירו', שבת פ\"א ה\"ז, ד ע\"א; בבלי, שם יט ע\"א) או מעכו ליפו (משנה, נדרים פ\"ג מ\"ו), וכל הסחורות הנמצאות בנמל קיסריה נחשבות כסחורות שבאו מתחומי ארץ ישראל (תוס', דמאי פ\"א הי\"א). כן יוצא מהלכות וממעשים נוספים95ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 290. . ", + "עיסה שנילושה במי פירות חייבת בחלה – לחם כזה הוא לחם לכל דבר, משום שרק לחם שהוא ממש עוגה נחשב למזון שאינו חייב במצוות חלה (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ה), ונאכלת בידיים מוסאבות – מותר לאכלו ללא נטילת ידיים משום שמי פֵרות אינם מכשירים לקבל טומאה, וזו הלכה ידועה ביותר (משנה, תרומות פ\"ה מ\"א-מ\"ג; כלים פ\"י מ\"ב, ועוד). כפי שראינו בפירושנו לתרומות רבי יהושע סבור שמי פרות הם חיבור לעניין טומאה, ומשנתנו אינה סבורה כמותו (ירו', נח ע\"ג)96עדיין יש לברר אם דין הכשר טומאה הוא כדין חיבור לטומאה, ולא כאן המקום לבירור זה. ראו, למשל, אור זרוע רכה המספר על עמדות חכמי דורו בנושא, וכאמור בירושלמי מועלית הצעה דחוקה במקצת המבדילה בין שני מושגים קרובים אלו. . בירושלמי מועלית גם הצעה דחוקה יותר שמשנתנו היא כדעת הכול, ואין דין חיבור לטומאה כדין הכשר לקבל טומאה." + ], + [ + "האשה יושבת וקוצה חלתה ערומה – הרמת החלה היא כמובן מצווה. לפי ההלכה שהמשנה מבוססת עליה אין לקיים מצווה ללא בגדים. כן אנו שומעים ממשנת כלים (פ\"ח מי\"א) על מצב שבו נוטף מדדי האישה חלב לתוך תנור הבישול. אילו הייתה לבושה באופן מינימלי, היה החלב נספג והבעיה ההלכתית לא הייתה עולה. אמנם הדיון הוא תאורטי, אך כאמור משקף התנהגות חברתית אפשרית. כמו כן: \"המושבת אפרוחין ואמרה איני מושבתן אלא בבתולה, איני מושבתן אלא ערומה, איני מושבתן אלא בשמאל... הרי זה מדרכי האמורי\" (תוס', שבת פ\"ו הי\"ז). העירום כאן מבטא את הפריון ונתפס כשלילי, אבל לא מחמת דיני צניעות אלא משום שיש בכך אבק כשפים.", + "תפישת הצניעות", + "לצורך זה הבחינו חכמים בין שתי הגדרות. האחת היא דיני צניעות ביחיד ובפומבי, אלו היו דינים מחמירים. \"קול באשה ערוה\", \"טפח באישה ערוה\" או אפילו (אבות פ\"א מ\"ה) \"ואל תרבה שיחה עם האשה [ובאשתו אמרו קל וחומר באשת חבירו97תוספת זאת איננה מצוטטת באבות דרבי נתן, וניכר שהיא תוספת. ראו אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פ\"ז, יח ע\"א; נו\"ב פט\"ו, יז ע\"ב. מטיב ההסבר באבות דרבי נתן מתברר שהדרשן הבין שמדובר באשתו של החכם, אבל אין זה גדר צניעות אלא שגילוי סודות לאישה יוביל לפרסומם בחוץ. יש כאן הבעת דעה מגדרית, אך לא בתחום הצניעות. ]\", וכן \"כל המרבה שיחה עם האשה [כשהיא נידה98שתי המילים המוקפות סוגריים חסרות בסדרת עדי נוסח, והן בבירור תוספת מעתיק. ]\". סיום זה מיסב את שני המשפטים לעניין צניעות: \"דתני המסתכל בעקיבה שלאשה כמסתכל בבית הרחם, והמסתכל בבית הרחם כילו בא עליה\" (ירו', נח ע\"ג) וכיוצא באלו99ירו', נח ע\"ג; בבלי, ברכות כד ע\"א; קידושין ע ע\"א. כל המימרות הללו מיוחסות לשמואל הבבלי. שיער באישה וטפח באישה נזכרים רק בבבלי ברכות, ואינם במקבילות. . היו גם נשים שהקפידו שאפילו בביתן לא תיראנה שערותיהן (ירו', יומא פ\"א ה\"א, לח ע\"ד; בבלי, מז ע\"א ומקבילות רבות). במקביל חלו גם דיני צניעות על הגבר: אסור לו להראות את איברי המין ואף להביט בעצמו באיברים אלו שלו, כך גם ראוי לאדם שלא להביט במילתו, והמדרש משבח צדיקים שנהגו כן (ירו', מגילה פ\"א הי\"ג, עב ע\"א; סנהדרין פ\"י ה\"ב, כט ע\"ג ומקבילות רבות). צנועים אף החמירו, ואחד מהם מתפאר בכך, שקורות ביתו לא ראו את אימרי חלוקו (איור 10), כלומר את הבגד התחתון שלו (בבלי, שבת קיח ע\"ב). דרישות אלו היו, כמובן, מופרזות, ובאו לבטא מגמה של צניעות ולא הנחיה בפועל. המרחב השני הוא ההלכות שנדרשו ונהגו בפועל. כך נהגו גברים למרות דינים אלו להגיע לבית מרחץ ולהתרחץ במשותף בעירום. אישה הגונה לא הלכה, כמובן, למרחץ של גברים, אך כאמור האיסור הוא גם על חברה חד-מינית. חז\"ל אפילו משבחים את מי שנכנס למרחץ, ראה את מילתו והתפעל מן המצווה: \"נכנס למרחץ ראה את עצמו ערום אמר אוי לי שאני ערום מן המצות כיון שהביט במילה שלו התחיל לקלס להקב\"ה למנצח על השמינית מזמור לדוד\" (ירו', ברכות פ\"ט ה\"ה, יד ע\"ד). אין במדרש זה ביטוי לכך שהבטה במילה היא עברה לגופה.", + "דרישות אלו הן במסגרת דיני צניעות. חלקן נתפסו כהלכה לכל דבר, וחלקן כהנחיה כללית על מה שראוי, אך לא כתביעה בעלת אופי משפטי.", + "ברם, במשנתנו תפיסת צניעות שונה, והירושלמי מסביר: \"הדא אמרה עגבות אין בהן משום ערוה הדא דאת אמרה לברכה אבל להביט אפילו כל שהוא אסור\" (נח ע\"ג100כך יש גם להבין את הכלל הזהה (שעגבות אינן ערווה) בבבלי ברכות כד ע\"א. ). כל הדין במשנה הוא רק להיתר אמירת ברכה. במסגרת דין זה אפילו עגבות אינן נחשבות ערווה101המאירי מדגיש שלעניין חלה האישה יושבת על הקרקע וכך עגבותיה אינן נראות. , כלומר מותר לברך בעגבות חשופות102עגבות הן, כנראה, אותו איבר אחורי המשמש (גם) לישיבה, כפי שאומר המדרש המשווה את העולם לאדם: לשניהם גבעות, ו\"גבעות באדם, זה עגבותיו של אדם\" (אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פל\"א, עמ' 92). . המהלך ועגבותיו חשופות עובר כמובן על כל דיני צניעות, ואולי אף נאסר להלך בתוך הבית חשוף בצורה זו, אך מותר לברך. בכל המקורות העוסקים בשאלה זו של צניעות מניחים בפשטות שאין לקיים מצוות כשהוא עירום. המשניות קובעות שאין להפריש תרומות, אך מותר להפריש דמאי עירום (תרומות פ\"א מ\"ו; דמאי פ\"א מ\"ד). ", + "התוספתא לתרומות והירושלמי שם מסבירים שאת הדמאי מותר להפריש משום שאין מברכים על ההפרשה, אבל אם מברכים – אי אפשר לעשות זאת עירום103תוס', תרומות פ\"ג ה\"ב; ירו', דמאי פ\"א ה\"ד, כב ע\"ב בשם ברייתא: \"תנא רבי חלפתא בן שאול\", וכן בבלי, שבת כג ע\"א. . זו דרכם של התלמוד ושל תנאים מאוחרים למצוא הנמקות משפטיות פורמליות. ברם, ברכת המצוות לא נוצרה לפני דור יבנה, וניתן להבין את ההלכה גם ללא זיקה לברכה. אין מפרישים מעשר עירום משום שאין זה כבוד המצווה104על האיסור לתרום עירום ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ו; חלה פ\"ב מ\"ג. , אבל הפרשת דמאי היא מספק, ולא רחשו כבוד למעמד. כן קובעת התוספתא: \"הרי שהיה עומד בשדה ערום, או שהיה עושה מלאכתו, הרי זה מכסה את עצמו בתבן, ובקש, ובכל דבר, וקורא. אף על פי שאמרו אין שבחו של אדם להיות עומד ערום, שכשברא הקב\"ה אדם לא בראו ערום! שנאמר 'בשומי ענן לבושו וערפל חתלתו'. 'בשומי ענן לבושו' – זה השפיר, 'וערפל חתלתו' – זה שליא. הרי שהיתה מטפחת של בגד ושל עור חגורה על מתניו, הרי זה קורא. בין כך ובין כך לא יתפלל עד שיכסה את לבו\" (תוס', ברכות פ\"ב הי\"ד; תרומות פ\"ג ה\"ב). \"אין שבחו של אדם להיות עומד ערום\" היא ההגדרה של נורמות הצניעות, אבל מותר להתפלל בכיסוי מזערי. בכל מצב צריך אדם לכסות את לבו. הבבלי מסביר זאת כדי שלבו לא יראה את ערוותו, ויש גם האומרים שם שלא יראו פניו את ערוותו (בבלי, ברכות כד ע\"ב; כה ע\"ב)105ראו עוד פסיקתא רבתי, כב, קיב ע\"א. . כן עולה ממקורות רבים שאין לקיים מצוות (או לברך) כשהוא עירום. הדרישה שלבו לא יראה את ערוותו מופיעה בתלמוד הבבלי בלבד.", + "הירושלמי שואל: \"רבי ירמיה בעי, היה יושב בתוך ביתו ערום, מהו שיעשה ביתו כמו מלבוש ויוציא ראשו חוץ לחלון ויברך? היה יושב במגדל ערום, מגדל מהו שיעשה לו כמין מלבוש ויוציא ראשו חוץ לחלון ויברך?\" (ברכות פ\"ט ה\"ב, יג ע\"ג). בירושלמי השאלה נותרת ללא תשובה, אבל בבבלי התשובה השלילית ברורה ומידית (סוכה י ע\"ב). משנתנו מניחה כנראה שאף שמפריש החלה יושב בביתו, אסור לו לקיים את המצווה עירום. בניגוד לירושלמי שציטטנו, השאלה כמובן אינה על המשנה אלא על התלמודים שאינם מזכירים את משנתנו בדיונם, שהרי ממשנתנו ניתן להוכיח שאסור להפריש חלה עירום בבית, ולא נזכרת אפשרות היתר של הוצאת הראש מהחלון. ואולי הם הבינו שאת החלה מפרישים במקום העבודה, וברגיל לישת הבצק היא ליד התנור בחצר המשותפת שבה ניצבו התנור ומתקני המלאכה. ", + "עם זאת, מן הראוי להדגיש שלעתים \"עירום\" אין משמעו עירום לגמרי אלא ללא בגדים נאותים, כגון הסיפור על אדם שראה את גרושתו \"ערומה ובצרה גדולה נתמלא עליה רחמים ונתן לה106צדקה. , על שום 'ומבשרך לא תתעלם' \" (ויקרא רבה, לד יד, עמ' תתז). אבל מכל הדיונים שהעלינו לעיל מסתבר שהפרשת חלה או הפרשת הדמאי בעירום היא בעירום מלא.", + "מפני שהיא יכולה לכסות [את] עצמה – האישה יכולה לכסות את ערוותה במעט חול, או אולי אפילו ברגלה, אבל לא האיש – האיש אינו יכול לכסות את ערוותו. התלמוד הבבלי מסביר: \"האשה יושבת וקוצה לה חלתה ערומה, מפני שיכולה לכסות פניה107\"פניה\" היא לשון נקייה לערוותה. בבראשית רבה, יח ב, עמ' 163, מופיע מדרש המסביר את הצניעות הטבעית של אישה, ונראה שהתכוון ליכולת זאת לכסות את ערוותה אף כשהיא עירומה. בקרקע. אבל לא האיש. תרגמה רב נחמן בר יצחק: כגון שהיו פניה טוחות בקרקע\" (ברכות כד ע\"א). המשנה מניחה שאת החלה מפרישים בעת לישת הבצק והאדם או האישה יושבים ב\"ישיבה מזרחית\". כל זאת לפי דעתו של רבי יוחנן בן נורי שהפרשת החלה היא בזמן הלישה ולא בסוף האפייה. בסוף האפייה אדם עומד, ודין אישה הוא כדין גבר. אבל בישיבה מזרחית יכולה האישה לגרוף מעט עפר ולכסות את ערוותה, ואילו לאיש הדבר קשה הרבה יותר. אין כאן, אפוא, יחס מתירני כלפי העירום של אישה, אלא הבדל מעשי באפשרויות הכיסוי108העירום של אישה נחשב ל\"מסוכן\" יותר לחברה מעירום הגבר, ולא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך. . ", + "ציטטנו מקורות מספר הדנים באיסור לקיים מצווה ולברך כשהוא עירום. משנתנו מיוחדת בכך שהיא מזכירה במיוחד את האישה, ולמעשה מקלה על האישה. מן המשנה ניתן לכאורה להבין שלאישה מותר להפריש חלה עירומה, אך לפי פירוש הבבלי, הנראה כפשט, גם לה הדבר אסור ועליה לכסות את ערוותה, אלא שדי בכיסוי בגופה או במעט קרקע. למעשה ההבדל בין אישה ואיש אינו בהלכה עצמה, או ביחס השונה אל העירום הנשי, אלא הבדל מעשי באפשרויות לכסות את הערווה. עם זאת, המיוחד הוא בעצם העלאת האפשרות שהאישה מקיימת מצווה, ויש לבחון את שאלת קיום המצווה בעירום. זו דוגמה נוספת לכך שהאישה נתפסה כעוסקת במצוות חלה, בניגוד להפרשת תרומות ומעשרות או קיומן של מצוות אחרות.", + "מי שאינו יכול לעשות עיסתו בטהרה – הוא טמא, וברגע שיערבב את המים בעיסה גם העיסה תיטמא109כמו ששנינו במשנה, שביעית פ\"ה מ\"ט; גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ט, וראו פירושנו לשביעית שם. . מצד שני אי אפשר להפריש חלה לפני התחלת הלישה, כלומר לפני הטלת המים, ובכך תדון המשנה הבאה. רוב בני האדם נחשבו לעמי הארץ והיו בחזקת טומאה, על כן השאלה העומדת לפני המשנה היא יום-יומית ותדירה, כיצד יכול הציבור הרחב לקיים את מצוות חלה. חכמים נחלקים בין שני פתרונות. הפתרון הראשון הוא: יעשינה קבין ואל יעשינה בטומאה – עליו לאפות את הבצק בכמויות קטנות, כך שלא יתחייב בחלה. להפרשת חלה נדרשת כמות של חמשת רבעי קב (להלן מ\"ו). בעלת הבית יכולה להכין את הבצק בכמה מנות, וכך תיפטר ממצוות חלה.", + "רבי עקיבה אומר יעשינה בטומאה לא יעשינה קבים – האפשרות השנייה היא להפריש את החלה בטומאה, ואז לכוהן אין כל רווח ממנה, והבעל צריך לשרוף את החלה או לאבדה בדרך אחרת.", + "המחלוקת בין התנאים היא על סדר העדיפות, לקיים את המצווה בטומאה או לעקוף את ההתחייבות בדרך המותרת מבחינה הלכתית. המשנה ממשיכה ומנמקת את דעתו של רבי עקיבא: שכשם שהוא קורא לטהרה כך הוא קורא לטמאה – דרך קיום הפרשת חלה בטומאה היא כדרך הפרשתה בטהרה; לזו – במסגרת הפרשת חלה טהורה: קורא חלה – הוא אומר שזו חלה לשם ה', [לזו קורא חלה] – שלוש מילים אלו נכתבו בטעות ונמחקו בידי המעתיק המקורי, בשם – ראו להלן, ולזו – בהפרשת החלה הטמאה, קורא חלה בשם – כמו בהפרשת חלה טהורה.", + "אבל קבים – אם העיסה תחולק למנות קטנות בגודל קב כל אחת, אין בהם חלק לשם – אין הפרשה כלל, וכאילו אין לה' חלק בעיסה. ", + "הסברנו כאילו כתוב היה לה' או לשם, והכוונה לשם ה'. אבל ניתן גם לפרש \"בשם\" בשם חלה, כמו המינוח המקובל \"קורא לה שם\" או \"קורא בשם\" (משנה, דמאי פ\"ג מ\"ד). כלומר, מצהיר על חלק מסוים שהוא חלה או כל מתנה אחרת. גם בתוספתא (פ\"א ה\"ט) הנוסח הוא \"חלק לשם\", ו\"שם\" כאן הוא כינוי מקוצר לשמו של ריבון עולמים שהס מלהזכיר את שמו110על הזכרת שם ה' ראו פירושנו ליומא פ\"ג מ\"ח; פ\"ו מ\"א. .", + "קיים פתרון נוסף והוא ללוש את העיסה במי פֵרות, אבל חכמים לא הטריחו אדם לאפות מה שאין לבו חפץ. יש לזכור שבעיית הטומאה הייתה יום-יומית, שהרי רוב האנשים היו עמי הארץ וטמאים, כך שכל דרישה מעין זאת הייתה מרחיקה את הציבור כולו מכלל המצווה. ", + "המחלוקת בין התנאים היא עקרונית ובעלת חשיבות רבה. לפי תנא קמא העדיפות היא למצוות טהרה. אם אי אפשר לקיים את המצווה בטהרה, עדיף להתחמק ממצוות חלה ולא לקיימה, כמובן במסגרת הנורמות ההלכתיות. התנא אף סובר שקיום מעשה מצווה שאינו מגיע לידי הכוהן הוא ללא תועלת וללא ערך. לעומת זאת רבי עקיבא סבור שיש חשיבות לעצם קיום המצווה, גם אם המעשה עקר ואינו שלם. יש חשיבות רבה לעצם הרמת חלה לשם ה', אף שהחלה טמאה, ואי אפשר להפוך את המצווה לבעלת ערך כספי. ברם ההקדשה עצמה היא משמעותית, ושרפת החלה הטמאה היא ביטוי לקדושה, אם כי לא הביטוי הראוי מלכתחילה. התוספתא מוסיפה נימוק נגד רבי עקיבא: \"אמרו לפני רבי עקיבא אין אומרים לו לאדם עמוד וחטא בשביל שתזכה, עמוד וקלקל בשביל שתתקן\" (פ\"א ה\"ט). אין טעם להורות לאדם לחטוא (לטמא חלה) בשביל שיזכה במצווה או לעמוד ולקלקל את החלה בשביל שיתקן מצווה. המצווה אינה ראויה אם אינה בטהרה. הטהרה היא תנאי הכרחי, ובלעדיה אין במצווה תועלת. אבל לרבי עקיבא המצווה היא עיקר כשלעצמה. גם אם אינה שלמה הרי היא לה', ויש לה ערך רב. הטהרה היא תנאי נוסף, אך לא בה תלויה המצווה.", + "בירושלמי ניתנת הגדרה הלכתית שאדם חייב ללכת ארבעה מיל ולהיטהר, מעבר לכך הוא בבחינת מי שמותר לו להפריש חלה בטומאה. יש בכך החמרה ניכרת, שכן המשנה מתירה להפריש מטומאה ללא כל הגבלה. יתר על כן, מהמשנה משמע שיש איזו השלמה עם הטומאה, וכלל לא נזכר הצו לנסות ולהיטהר. זאת ועוד. לא תמיד הטומאה היא טומאה קלה שדי לטבול ולהיטהר ממנה. לעתים קרובות הטומאה היא טומאת מת, ויש להמתין שבעה ימים ולטבול ביום השלישי וביום השביעי. קשה לדרוש מאישה וממשפחה להמתין עד שהאישה תיטהר. מן הראוי להעיר שאדם (אישה) היכול להיטהר בטבילה אחת הוא טמא בוולד הטומאה, ואדם כזה אינו מטמא את החלה. המדובר, אפוא, באישה שנטמאה וכבר המתינה שבעה ימים, וכבר טבלה ביום השלישי ונותרה לה עוד רק טבילה אחת מסיימת.", + "בירושלמי (נח ע\"ג) מובאים שני מעשים. בראשון מסופר על בני קיסריה, הנחשבת כחוץ לארץ (ולכן טמאה בטומאת ארץ העמים), שחייבו אותם להפריש חלה בטהרה. הסיפור השני הוא על בני כפר שימי שהורו להם להפריש חלה בטומאה (כדעת רבי עקיבא). הגמרא שואלת: הרי המרחק מהכפר אל \"ארץ ישראל\" הוא פחות מארבעה מיל, ועונה שהנהר מפריד ולכן לא חייבו אותם להגיע ארץ ישראל, שכן המרחק הממשי הוא יותר מזמן הליכה של ארבעה מיל. כפר שימי הוא כנראה שוני, מזרחית לקיסריה ולמרגלות הכרמל, ולדרומו עובר נחל תנינים (איור 11).", + "הדיון בגמרא מותיר את הלומד תמה. ראשית יש בו חומרה גדולה. לא די שאדם נדרש ללכת ארבעה מיל כדי להיטהר, אלא שהוא נדרש ללכת ארבעה מיל להכין את העיסה במקום טהור ולחזור לביתו. זו חומרה גדולה שביצועה קשה ביותר. זאת ועוד, תושבי קיסריה טמאים טומאת ארץ העמים111משנה, אהלות פי\"ח מ\"ח; תוס', פי\"ח הי\"ג. לגבולות הארץ באזור קיסריה ראו ספראי, קיסריה. , שהיא טומאת מת, ומה יועיל אם יהלכו לארץ ישראל, הרי הם טמאים שבעת ימים! מכל מקום, הנימוק לפטור של אנשי כפר שימי נראה מלאכותי112איננו מעירים על דברי ראשונים שאינם נוגעים לפשט דיוננו. מכל מקום, יש להעיר על דברי הרש\"ס כאן הגורס \"רבי אימי\" ושואל כיצד זה שומרים על טהרה בימיו, הרי כבר לא הייתה אפשרות לשחוט פרה אדומה. תהיה הגרסה של שם החכם אשר תהיה (רבי ינאי או רבי אמי), בימי האמוראים עדיין שמרו על דיני טהרה וממילא יש להניח שהיה להם אפר פרה אדומה, ולא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך. . דומה שהנימוק העיקרי היה התחושה שזו חומרה רבה ובלתי סבירה, והנהר היווה נתיב של תירוץ בלבד. מכל מקום, בתקופת התלמוד עברו רוב מי הנהר במנהרה תת קרקעית ועל הנחל עצמו היו גשרים, אחד מהם לא רחוק משוני עצמה (איור 12, תמונה 3). " + ], + [ + "העושה עיסתו קבים – האדם (או האישה) אופים את לחמם כ\"קבים\", כלומר כל בצק הוא פחות מכשיעור. חז\"ל משתמשים במונח \"קבים\" משום שקב הוא פחות מהשיעור שיידון להלן במשנה ו. כיכר רגילה הייתה של חצי קב113ראו פירושנו למסכת פאה פ\"ח מ\"ו, ובמבוא למסכת. . במקרה זה האישה אופה כמות גדולה של כיכרות מכמה וכמה עיסות. התנור הביתי לא הכיל מקום לכיכרות רבות, אך ניתן היה להכניס בתוכו 6-5 כיכרות שהם למעלה משיעור חלה. המשנה עוסקת במקרה של מי שנהג כתנא קמא או במי שבמקרה אפה את לחמו מבצקים קטנים. כמובן ייתכן שבמקרה זה בעלת הבית רוצה לפטור עצמה מחובת חלה. חכמים אינם מביעים את דעתם על עצם ההחלטה לאפות \"קבים\"; אין זה משום שאין להם מה לומר על כך, אלא משום שדעתם נדונה לעיל, ועתה הם עוסקים בבעיה הלכתית אחרת. ", + "ונגעו זה בזה פטורים מן החלה עד שישוכו – שולי הכיכרות נוגעים מעט זה בזה, אך עדיין הם נחשבים לאפייה נפרדת. אבל אם \"נשכו\" זה את זה, כלומר נדבקו יחדיו, \"ואיזו הוא הנושך? והתולש ממנו כל שהוא אבל אם היו ממעכין זה את זה, כגון הדבלה והתמרים... הרי אלו אינן חבור\" (תוס', טהרות פ\"א ה\"ב, עמ' 661)114היחיד של \"נשכו\" שם אינו \"נשך\"' אלא \"השיך\". , וכאשר מפרידים את הכיכרות זו מזו נוצרים חורים, הווה אומר שמעט מכיכר זו הצטרף לכיכר האחרת, הרי שיש בכך צירוף של הכיכרות והן חייבות בחלה. הירושלמי (נח ע\"ג) מדגיש \"והן שנשכו\", כלומר לא הקרבה מצרפת אלא נשיכה של ממש.", + "רבי אליעזר אומר אף הרודה ונותן לסל הסל מצרפו לחלה – הרדייה היא הוצאת הכיכרות מהתנור בעזרת מרדה. המרדה היא כלי עץ או מתכת שיש לו ידית ארוכה וכף שטוחה וגדולה שניתן להרים בה את הכיכרות מהתנור. אם בתהליך הרדייה מניחים את כל הכיכרות בסל אחד, הסל מצרפן לחלה והן חייבות בחלה. המילה \"אף\" אינה בכל הנוסחאות; היא מופיעה בכל עדי הנוסח חוץ מר\"ש סירליאו (ס), וכן מופיעה בכמה מציטוטי הראשונים, וחסרה בחלק מהם115ראו הערותיו של זק\"ש, משנה על אתר; אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 1008. בעל אור זרוע, למשל, שקל למחקה, ונמנע מכך בגלל עדות הספרים שהיו בידו: \"קשה לשבש הספרים ולמחוק 'אף' \". . למעשה, אין כל חשיבות לאיסוף הנוסחאות השונות. המילית \"אף\" היא מילית שנוספה ונקטעה בידי מעתיקים, ואפשטיין ריכז עשרות רבות של דוגמאות לכך116אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 1032-1007. . מעתה, בכל מקום שהיא מופיעה היא חשודה וניתן לצפות להופעתה, לפחות בחלק מעדי הנוסח, כמעט בכל מחלוקת. במקרה זה יש למילית משמעות: לפי גרסתנו (\"אף הרודה\") מודה רבי אליעזר שהתנור מצרף, ומוסיף שגם הסל מצרף, ואם אין גורסים את המילית \"אף\" הרי שרבי אליעזר אומר רק שהסל מצרף, ומשמע שהוא חולק על תנא קמא וסבור שהתנור אינו מצרף, כפי שהצגנו בטבלה (איור 13).", + "תנור וסל מצרפים או לא?", + " “אף הרודה” לסל מצרף117בעל מלאכת שלמה פירש שלא די בנשיכה אלא צריך גם צירוף בסל. אנו פירשנו שלא רק תנור מצרף אלא גם הסל. ", + "ההיגיון מחייב שמי שסבור שהנחת הכיכרות בסל כבר מהווה צירוף ודאי יודה שאם נשכו זה מזה בתנור הצטרפו, כלומר יש לגרוס את המילית \"אף\". אבל בירושלמי מוצגות שתי הגרסאות: \"אית תניי תני הסל מצרף ואין התנור מצרף (דעת רבי אליעזר אם אין גורסים \"אף\"), ואית תניי תני התנור מצרף ואין הסל מצרף (דעת רבנן אם גורסים את המילית \"אף\" או אם אין גורסים אותה). אמר רבי יוחנן איתיתיה118כנראה המילה היא \"אית\", יש המחליפים. מדחילפיי נשכו כאן וכאן מצרף לא נשכו כאן וכאן אינו מצרף\" (ירו', נח ע\"ג). זו דעה שלישית, שגם תנור וגם סל מצרפים אבל התנאי הוא הנשיכה ההדדית. בפועל הסיכוי שהכיכרות בסל תצטרפנה ותנשוכנה זו את זו נדיר יותר, אך אפשרי בכיכרות חמות וטריות.", + "הירושלמי מסביר את המשנה או את דבריו של רבי יוחנן: \"מתניתא כגון אילין ריפתא דבבל\" (כגון הכיכרות של בבל – נח ע\"ג). ריפתא היא המונח התדיר לכיכר לחם בתלמוד ", + "הבבלי, והשאלה היא מה ייחודה. נראה שהמשפט \"כגון הריפתא של בבל\" הוא פירוש לדברי רבי יוחנן. רבי יוחנן הוא זה שאומר שהלחמים נושכים זה את זה בסל. דבר זה יכול להתרחש בכל תנור, אך בסל הוא יכול להתרחש רק בריפתא של בבל. בתלמוד הבבלי מובא טיעון זה כהסבר ישיר למשנה: \"ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: הלכה כרבי אליעזר. אמר ליה: והא איתמר עלה, אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: לא שנו אלא ככרות של בבל, שנושכות זו מזו, אבל כעכין – לא!\" (פסחים מח ע\"ב). הכעכים כאן מצטיירים כמאפה שאין סיכוי ש\"ינשכו זה את זה\", כלומר הם נאפים כל אחד בתבנית נפרדת, ומכל מקום ההגבלה היא על הדין של רבי אליעזר שהסל מצרף. ", + "כפשוטם של דברים ברור שרבי אליעזר וחכמים מסתפקים בנגיעה של הכיכרות בתנור או (אף) בסל, ואינם תובעים שהכיכרות תנשוכנה זו את זו. קשה להניח שכיכרות, אפילו לחות, המצויות באותו סל נושכות זו את זו. לדעתם די בנגיעה כדי לצרף, וזו אף דעתו של רבי אליעזר להלן (מ\"ט, וראו פירושנו לה). ברם, אמוראים הכירו את התביעה של נשיכה הדדית, ולכן פירשו את משנתנו בשנשכו הכיכרות זו את זו. להלן, בסוף הפרק, נציע שתביעה לנשיכה היא כשיטת בית הלל, ואילו בית שמאי מסתפקים בנגיעה.", + "הריפתא היא, כאמור, הלחם הרגיל בתלמוד הבבלי. מידתו כסעודה: \"וכמה מזון שתי סעודות? אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: תרתי ריפתא איכרייתא. רב אדא בר אהבה אמר: תרתי ריפתא נהר פפיתא\" (בבלי, עירובין פב ע\"ב). מזון שתי סעודות הוא חצי קב, שהוא כיכר ארץ-ישראלית, ושתי ריפתות של איכרים (או הריפתות הנהוגות בנהר פפיתא). הביטוי הרגיל בתלמוד הבבלי הוא \"כרכו ריפתא\" (בבלי, ברכות מה ע\"ב; נ ע\"ב ועוד), מכאן שהריפתא היא מעין פיתה של ימינו שניתן לכרוך אותה סביב האוכל. בבבל נהגו לאפות לחם כל בוקר ולאכלו טרי, על כן נראה שהריפתא היא מעין פיתה עבה שנאפתה והוגשה חמה, וכנראה שמרה על גמישותה וטריותה. האופה הניח את הפיתות הטריות והחמות בסל זו על זו וכנראה היה חשש או אפשרות שתידבקנה זו לזו, מעין הפיתות ה\"בדואיות\" או ה\"דרוזיות\" של ימינו, אלא שהיו עבות בהרבה ושקלו קרוב לארבע מאות גרם כל אחת." + ], + [ + "המפריש חלתו קמח אינה חלה – את החלה מפרישים בשעת הלישה או בסוף האפייה, כפי שראינו לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ט). לכן אם הפריש לפני הזמן אין ההפרשה מועילה כלל.", + "וגזל ביד כהן – כוהן שלוקח חלה כזאת, שהופרשה לפני הזמן, אינה חלה והיא גזל בידיו. הביטוי מוקצן ואינו מאוזן. בכל מקרה הכוהן אינו נוטל את החלה בעצמו, ואין לו זכות \"להחרים\" את החלה לבד. הוא אמור לקבל אותה מהאופה, על כן גם כאן החלה שהורמה ניתנה לכוהן. אמנם היא ניתנה בטעות (לפני הזמן), אך קשה עדיין להגדיר את הכוהן כגזלן, שהרי בעל הבית רשאי לתת לו כרצונו. מטרת המשפט החריף להורות לכוהן כיצד לנהוג ולדרוש ממנו להסביר לעמי הארץ כיצד לנהוג, אף על פי שבכך יש חשש שהוא יפסיד מבחינה כספית (החלה תיטמא בבית עם הארץ). זאת ועוד, עליו להחזיר את החלה שהגיעה בטעות ולדרוש חלה אחרת (גם אם היא אסורה עליו באכילה). ", + "העיסה עצמה חייבת בחלה – יש להפריש מהעיסה חלה בשנית משום שההפרשה הראשונה אינה מועילה כלל, והקמח – שהופרש כאילו לחלה, אך בפועל אינו חלה, אם יש בו כשיעור חייב בחלה – אם הכוהן יאפה מהקמח שהופרש יהיה חייב בחלה, וכמובן הוא גם מצטרף לכל קמח אחר להוות כשיעור להפרשת חלה, ואסורה לזרים דברי רבי יהושע – לפי כל הנאמר לעיל החלה שהופרשה בטעות (לפני הזמן) אינה חלה ועל כן היא חולין לחלוטין, אבל בכל זאת סובר רבי יהושע שהיא אסורה לזרים, כלומר חלים עליה דיני חלה. הווה אומר, ההפרשה אינה מועילה לפטור את העיסה אבל היא בבחינת \"חלתו חלה, ויחזור ויפריש חלה נוספת\". דין כזה שנינו גם לגבי תרומה שניתנה שלא כהלכה (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ח; פ\"ג מ\"א). ההלכה שמציע רבי יהושע היא בבחינת סתירה פנימית. אם היא גזל ביד כוהן – מדוע אינה מותרת לזרים? אין זה אלא עוד אחד מהגילויים של הלכה שאינה שיטתית מבחינה משפטית. ", + "אמרו לו – חכמים או התלמידים לרבי יהושע, מעשה וקפשה זקן זר – חכם (המכונה זקן) שאינו כוהן לקח את הקמח. \"קפש\" משמעו לפי ההקשר נטילה בכוח119בירו', מועד קטן פ\"ג ה\"ח, פג ע\"ד, מופיעה המילה במשמעות של קריעה חלקית. המאירי מפרש ש\"קפשה\" הוא כמו \"כבשה\" בחילוף אותיות. . הזקן רצה להורות בפומבי שההלכה אינה כרבי יהושע אלא החלה שהופרשה מהקמח אינה חלה ומותרת לזרים. דומה שמי שניסח את הרישא פסק בעצם כאותו זקן. זה גם ההסבר לסגנון הנמרץ של המשנה \"גזל ביד כהן\". המשנה מלמדת על מגמות החמרה להרים את החלה לפני המועד ההלכתי, ועל התנגדות בוטה של חכמים לכך.", + "אמר להן אף הוא קילקל לעצמו – שנטל ואכל קמח שבעצם אסור לזרים, ותיקן לאחרים – הזקן עשה מעשה המבהיר לכול שההפרשה מקמח אינה חלה. דומה ששיטתו של רבי יהושע כוללת מרכיב של ספק או של חומרה יתרה מחשש שמא בכל זאת ההפרשה מועילה. ", + "המשנה מניחה שאת החלה אין להפריש לפני הזמן. בספרות התנאית הלכות רבות הקובעות מתי יש להפריש כל אחת ממתנות הכהונה, ואם לא עשה כהלכה אינו יכול להתוודות (ראו פירושנו למעשר שני פ\"ה מי\"א), או שאף אינו יוצא ידי חובה. אין להפריש מעשרות לפני הזמן, והלכות דומות (מעשרות פ\"א, וראו פירושנו שם משנה א). עם זאת, בפועל נהגו אנשים לתת את התרומות בזמנים שונים, וריכזנו את המידע במבוא למסכת תרומות." + ], + [ + "חמשת רבעים קמח חייבין בחלה – בספרות חז\"ל \"רבע\" הוא כמעט תמיד רבע קב. הקב הוא שישית הסאה, ורבע קב הוא אפוא אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה של סאה. חמישה רבעים הם קב ורבע. הסאה היא 10-12 ליטר, כפי שהראינו בנספח למסכת פסחים. הווה אומר, הרבע הוא חצי ליטר או מעט פחות, כ- 400 גרם קמח. חמשת הרבעים הם, אפוא, שני ק\"ג לערך. המנה היומית כדי כלכלת אדם רגיל ליום היא חצי קב (ראו פירושנו לפאה פ\"ח מ\"ה). אם כן, חובת חלה היא על כמות שהיא יותר ממאכל אדם ליום וכדי מאכל של ארבע נפשות (משפחה גרעינית) לסעודה אחת120החישוב הוא שאדם צורך רבע קב לסעודה, שהרי ביום יש שתי סעודות. ראו על כך בפירושנו לפאה פ\"ח מ\"ה. . כפי שאמרנו במבוא, בבבל אפו לחם כל בוקר ואפייה משפחתית, למשפחה גרעינית, הייתה אפוא פי שניים מחובת חלה. בארץ ישראל אפו פעם בשבוע, ואפייה משפחתית היא הרבה יותר מחובת חלה. חמישה רבעים אף אינם הולמים את צריכת הלחם של אדם בשבוע, שהיא לפי חישוב זה שלושה קבים וחצי. נמצאנו למדים שהמידה של חמישה רבעים אינה קשורה למדד של הערכה מציאותית של כמות אפייה, ויש לחפש את שורשיה במקום אחר. המדרש אומר ששבעה רבעים הם בערך עומר. העומר הוא עשירית האיפה, ועשירית האיפה היא שלוש סאים. כלומר, עומר הוא שלוש שביעיות של סאה. כפי שנראה להלן חמשת הרבעים הנזכרים הם, לפי חז\"ל, שבע רביעיות של הסאה המקראית: \"שנאמר ראשית עריסותיכם חלה כדי עיסתכם וכמה עיסתכם כדי עיסת מדבר וכמה עיסת מדבר כעומר שנאמר והעומר עשירית האיפה\" (תוס', עדיות פ\"א ה\"א, עמ' 454; מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, ויסע בשלח ה, עמ' 173). נמצאנו למדים שחובת חלה היא על העומר. המדרש אינו קושר במפורש את החלה אל העומר, והקישור מבוסס רק על המידות הזהות, וזאת בהנחה שהוא נקבע בזמן שאכן דובר על שבעה רבעים. ", + "הסבר אחר שנוי במדרש ספרי: \"תתנו לה' תרומה – עד שיהא בה כדי מתנה לכהן\"121ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 173; כן נרמז העיקרון בתוספתא, פ\"א ה\"ז, וראו פירושנו למשנה הבאה. . עיקרון זה של \"כדי מתנה\" חוזר גם בראשית הגז, שהיא מתנת כהונה אחרת (משנה, חולין פי\"א מ\"ב; ספרי דברים, קסז, עמ' 216), והוא מובן כשלעצמו. המתנה לכוהן צריכה להיות משמעותית, אחרת אין לה ערך כלכלי עבור הכוהן. אמנם המתנה היא החלק לשם ה', כפי שראינו לעיל במשנה ג, אבל יש לה גם משמעות כלכלית. צמר של ראשית הגז צריך לתת \"כדי לעשות ממנו בגד קטן\" (משנה, בכורות פי\"א מ\"ב), ואילו חלה יש להפריש אחד חלקי 24 של העיסה, כלומר לפחות אחד חלקי 256 של סאה, 40-47 גרם לערך, שהם בערך משקלה של פרוסה בת זמננו. חכמים סברו, אפוא, ששילוב של גודל הסאה וכמות החלה מפיקים \"כדי מתנה\". קשה לדעת האם שתי המידות נקבעו במשותף, או שמא אחת מהן קדמה והשנייה הותאמה לה. ", + "הן ושאורן ומורסנן חמשת רבעים חייבין – מידה זו היא מידת ברוטו, לפני ניפוי הקמח הנקי. בקמח הגס שלושה מרכיבים: הגרעין שנטחן וממנו הופק הקמח, קליפות הגרעין (המורסן) שמנפים בתהליך האפייה, והשאור, חתיכת בצק ישנה שמצרפים לעיסה כדי לזרז את ההחמצה. אפילו מעט בצק זה נחשב כחלק מהמדידה, אף שייתכן שמבצק זה כבר הפרישו בעבר חלה. בכתב יד קופמן כתוב רק \"ומורסנן\", וכן ברוב כתבי היד רק \"מורסם\", \"מורסן\" או \"מורסנן\", אבל בדפוסים ובעדי נוסח משניים: \"וסובן ומורסנן\", וכן לא גרס רבי יהוסף אשכנזי מילה זו \"בכל הספרים\" שלפניו.", + "המורסן והסובין הם שני הכינויים לקליפות החיטים, אלא שהסובין הם קליפות דקות ומורסן הוא הקליפות העבות יותר. בתהליך הטחינה נשברת הקליפה ונטחנת מעט. חתיכות הקליפה הדקות הן הסובין, והעבות הן המורסן. ברוב העדויות שני סוגי הקליפות מופיעים יחד (משנה, שבת פ\"ח מ\"ב והמקורות שלהלן). אבל ההבדל ביניהם ברור. במשנה שנינו: \"גרעיני תרומה, בזמן שהוא מכנסן אסורות, ואם השליכן מותרות. וכן עצמות הקדשים, בזמן שהוא מכנסן אסורין, ואם השליכן מותרין. המורסן מותר, סובין של חדשות אסורות ושל ישנות מותרות\" (תרומות פי\"א מ\"ה). אם כן, המורסן אינו נחשב לאוכל ולכן המורסן של גרעיני תרומה אינו תרומה, והסובין נחשבים לאוכל, חוץ מסובין ישנים. במקומות מספר הסובין נזכרים כתוצר הגרוע, אך התקני, של החיטים. הקמח הדק הוא הסולת וחלקו הגס הוא הסובין. פת סובין היא פת לכל דבר, אלא שטיבה נחות122תוס', מנחות פ\"ח הי\"ד, עמ' 524; בבלי, שם עו ע\"ב; ספרי, דברים מח, עמ' 110; מדרש תנאים לדברים, יא כב, עמ' 42. . המורסן, לעומת זאת, הוא מאכל בהמה בלבד123לעיל פ\"א מ\"ח; שבת פכ\"ד מ\"ג; בבלי, קנה ע\"ב ומקבילות; משנה, פסחים פ\"ב מ\"ז; תוס', שבת פ\"ח ה\"ח, ועוד. . אמנם מורסן וסובין מופיעים בדרך כלל יחדיו, אבל במקרה זה צירוף הסובין לכדי שיעור הוא בבחינת \"פשיטא\", שהרי יש האופים ממנו לחם, והוא כקמח לכל דבר. אבל צירוף המורסן לשיעור הוא משמעותי.", + "ניטל מורסנן מתוכן וחזר לתוכן הרי אלו פטורים – אם נטל האופה את המורסן החוצה והתמעט הבצק ממידתו הוא פטור מחלה, גם אם נוסף אחר כך. דומה שתוספת מורסן לאחר האפייה היא טכניקת אפייה מקובלת, ואולי הוסיפו את המורסן לאחר הלישה כקישוט על קרום החלה. בתוספתא (פ\"א הי\"א) ובירושלמי (נח ע\"ד) מובאת דעתו של רבן שמעון בן גמליאל \"עד שיהא בדגן כשיעור\", כלומר כמות הקמח הנדרשת היא הכמות של הדגן נטו, ללא התוספות. ", + "הכלל במשנה נשנה בסתם כמוסכמה מקובלת, אבל ממקור מקביל ברור שהוא פרי התחבטות ותהליך ממושך. כן שנינו: \"שמאי אומר מקב לחלה, והלל אומר מקביים, וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה, אלא קב ומחצה חייבים בחלה. ומשהגדילו המדות אמרו חמשת רבעים חייבין. רבי יוסי אומר חמשה פטורין, חמשה ועוד חייבין\" (משנה, עדיות פ\"א מ\"ב). אם כן, בשלב ראשון הייתה מחלוקת: שמאי אומר שעיסה בכמות של קב חייבת בחלה; הלל מסתפק בכמות גדולה פי שניים, וכמות של קב פטורה מחלה. חכמים נקטו עמדת ביניים ותבעו כמות מינימלית של קב וחצי, שהם שישה רבעים. עד כאן זו מחלוקת רגילה שכמוה רבות במסכת עדיות. שמאי והלל, או בית שמאי ובית הלל, נחלקו על שיעורים שונים, ונראה שבזמנם נקבעה השיטה ההלכתית של קביעת שיעורי מינימום ומקסימום למצוות. חכמים נוקטים עמדת ביניים, ואף זו דרך רגילה124עדיות פ\"א מ\"א-מ\"ג; נדה פ\"א מ\"א; מועד קטן פ\"ג מ\"ו, ומקורות נוספים. . דומה ש\"חכמים\" כאן מבטאים רצון שלא להכריע במחלוקת של אבות העולם הקדמונים ולנקוט עמדת ביניים. חכמים אלו באו מאוחר יותר, והיססו מלפסוק כאחד הצדדים. אמנם בדרך כלל נקבעה הלכה כבית הלל, ברם ראינו כי פעמים רבות נקבעה הלכה כבית שמאי, ובימי הבית נהגו (פסקו) לעתים קרובות כבית שמאי. זאת ועוד; מרכיבים מדעת בית שמאי חדרו לפסק ההלכה. משנתנו מצטרפת, אפוא, למקרים שבהם לא הכריעו כבית הלל. ייתכן גם שההכרעה לנקוט עמדת ביניים קדמה לתהליך שהתחולל בדור יבנה של פסיקה כבית הלל. מכל מקום לא הייתה הכרעה חד-משמעית כבית הלל, בניגוד לדימוי האגדי כאילו יצאה בת קול וקבעה שהלכה כבית הלל125ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי. .", + "שינוי המידות", + "המשנה מספרת עוד שהשתנו המידות ושישה רבעים של המשנה בעדיות הם חמישה רבעים \"שלנו\", כלומר המקובלים בימי חז\"ל. התוספתא שם מפרטת: \"שיערו חכמים שבעה רבעים ועוד מדברות שהן חמש רבעים בציפורן שהן קב ומחצה ירושלמית\" (עדיות פ\"א ה\"ב, עמ' 454; ספרי זוטא, טו יט, עמ' 283). משתמע שהיו שלוש מידות והמידות גדלו, כלומר הסאה של המדבר קטנה יותר מסאה של ציפורי, וסאה של ציפורי גדולה יותר מסאה ירושלמית. היחסים הם: שבע רביעיות של הסאה המדברית הקדומה הן שש רביעיות של הסאה הירושלמית (של ימי בית שני), וחמש רביעיות של הסאה הנוכחית של ימי חכמים (סאה של ציפורי). מסורת דומה חוזרת לעניין כמות העומר: \"התודה היתה באה חמש סאין ירושלמיות, שהן שש מדבריות\" (משנה, מנחות פ\"ז מ\"א). אין כמובן ביטוי לסאה הציפורית, שכן זו לא נהגה בירושלים אלא בגליל, ומן הסתם נקבעה רק לאחר ימי בית שני. התוספתא שם מבהירה: \"נמצאת ירושלמית יתירה על מדבריות שתות\" (מנחות פ\"ח הט\"ז, עמ' 524). שתות (שישית) זו היא בהשוואה למדברית, כמה נוסף לה. ", + "שינוי המידות", + "עצם השינוי אינו מפתיע. המידות של סאה, קב או אמה חוזרות בצורה זו או אחרת בכל האזורים במזרח, אבל בכל מקום ניתנו להן ערכים כמותיים שונים במקצת. ביטוי לכך יש בספרו של אפיפניוס \"על המידות\". שם הוא מקדיש חיבור שלם למידות ולמשקלות ומונה הבדלים רבים בין ערים, כך שלאותו מונח תרגום כמותי שונה (איור 14).", + "להבדל בין המידות לא היה ביטוי מספרי מדויק. הבבלי מנסה להגדיר את הפערים, וכנראה היה קושי בהגדרה המדויקת שלהם. \"תנו רבנן: סאה ירושלמית יתירה על מדברית שתות, ושל ציפורית יתירה על ירושלמית שתות, נמצאת של ציפורית יתירה על מדברית שליש\" (בבלי, עירובין פג ע\"א; מנחות עז ע\"א). למרות הקביעה הברורה הבבלי מראה שפערים אלו אינם מדויקים, שכן שתי השישיות הן מעט פחות משליש, כפי שעולה מהטבלה. אבל המספרים קרובים ביותר, והקושי של הסוגיה אינו מהותי. יתר על כן, ההבדל בין המידה המדברית לציפורית הוא כשתי שביעיות, אבל המספרים קרובים.", + "המסורת על חילוף המידות חוזרת, אפוא, בכמה מקורות, וכל המסורות זהות. עם זאת אנו שומעים גם על מסורת שונה המשקפת שינוי של המידות: \"אמר רבי חנינה, לוגא דאוריתא תומנתא עתיקתא דמורייסא דציפרין. אמר רבי יונה, חכים אנא לה, דבית רבי ינאי הוון מכילין בה דבש. תני חצי שמינית טברנית הישנה, אמר רבי יוחנן, הדא דידן הוות, ולמה לא אמר עתיקתא? בגין דהוות ביומוי. אית דאמרין דהוות זעירא, ורבת וזערת, ולא זערת כמה דהוות\" (לוג של התורה שמינית עתיקה של מורייס של ציפורי [או של המידה הישנה של ציפורי]. אמר רבי יונה, מכיר אני אותה, ובית רבי ינאי היו מודדים בה דבש. תני חצי שמינית טבריינית הישנה. אמר רבי יוחנן, זו שלנו הייתה, ולמה לא קרא לה הישנה? מפני שהייתה בימיו. יש אומרים שהייתה קטנה, וגדלה ואחר כך קטנה [בשנית], ולא קטנה למה שהייתה – ירו', שבת פ\"ח ה\"א, יא ע\"א). נפתח בסופה של המסורת. מתברר שהייתה מידה ישנה, ומן הסתם גם מידה אחרת חדשה. במונח \"מידה\" הכוונה לכלי מדידה רשמי, כמקובל בשווקים פורמליים בערי פוליס יווניות. כלי מידה זה היה בטבריה. כפשוטו הכלי עצמו היה עתיק, ורבי יוחנן מסביר שזו המידה הנוהגת בימיו. אבל התלמוד הבין שהמידה עצמה עתיקה ומציע שהיא גדלה וקטנה שנית, אבל היה שוני בין המידה הקטנה הקיימת ובין המידה העתיקה. אם אכן זו מסורת ולא פרשנות תאורטית יש בה כדי להראות עד כמה היה תהליך זה של גידול ושינוי המידות רגיל.", + "החלק החשוב לענייננו הוא שלוג של התורה, שהוא רבע קב, שווה לשמינית. שמינית זו היא מן הסתם שמינית קב, וזו עדות לשינוי של חמישים אחוז, יותר מזה שעליו מדברים המקורות התנאיים. אפשר גם ש\"שמינית\" אינה שמינית קב אלא שמינית מנה או ליברה, אבל אלו משקלות ולא מידות נפח; מעבר לכך, שמינית ליברה היא 40 גרם לערך ואינה יכולה להיות זהה ללוג (הזהה לרביעית קב, כחצי ליטר). ייתכן שחלק מהפער בין הלוג של התורה והשמינית של חכמים הוא בהבדל בין מידת נפח למשקל, שכן המדובר על מדידת דבש. עם כל זאת, קשה להלום את המסורת האמוראית עם המסורת התנאית שהובאה לעיל.", + "יש להניח שהמסורת על חילוף המשקלות בין הסאה הציפורית לסאה הירושלמית היא עדות היסטורית רֵאלית, אחרת קשה להבין מהיכן נשאבה. המסורת לגבי המידה המדברית מסופקת יותר. האם אכן הייתה לחז\"ל מסורת רֵאלית על המידות הקדומות? ייתכן שמידה זו נהגה גם בימי בית שני, וכך זכרוה חכמים. ייתכן גם שהמידה של שבעה רבעים היא קונסטרוקציה ספרותית רעיונית של חכמים שבאה להשוות את העומר לחמשת הרבעים של מצוות חלה. אין בידנו להכריע בשאלה על סמך עדויות חיצוניות, וכל שבידנו הוא רק לשער השערות כלליות על מידת האמינות של הזיכרון ההיסטורי של חכמים, ולנחש כמה ממנו היה מבוסס וכמה פרי יצירה אגדית. מכל מקום, אין כל עדות שתפריך את השחזור ההיסטורי של חכמים. ברם, כאמור, לפנינו זיכרונות שונים ואיננו יודעים לתאם ביניהם.", + "משנתנו מדברת על חמישה רבעים של קב, וכן סתם משנת עדיות. אבל שם נוסף: \"רבי יוסי אומר חמשה פטורין, חמשה ועוד חייבין\" (פ\"א מ\"ב). כלומר, החיוב הוא רק על יותר מחמישה רבעים126הר\"ש סירליאו גורס במשנתנו \"ועוד\", וראו מלאכת שלמה. . שיטה זו של קביעת מידה \"ועוד\" חוזרת גם בכלאיים, בתרומות ובמידת תחום שבת שהוא שבעים אמה \"ושיריים\" (ראו פירושנו לכלאים פ\"ו מ\"ו; תרומות פ\"ד מ\"ז; עירובין פ\"ב מ\"ה). במקורות מתנהל גם דיון כמה הוא אותו \"ועוד\". מן הראוי להעיר שלעתים נוקטות משניות במידה הכללית ואינן מזכירות את ה\"ועוד\". כך, למשל, הם קובעים שתרומה עולה באחד ומאה, אף שהיא עולה רק באחד ומאה ועוד קצת (ראו פירושנו לתרומות שם שם). על כן ייתכן היה לפרש שגם משנתנו נוקטת במידה הכללית. אבל במקבילה במשנת עדיות מופיעה בבירור מחלוקת. \"שיעורו\" של \"ועוד\" נקבע ברובד מאוחר יותר של ספרות התנאים, ושיעורו לעניין חלה הוא אחד חלקי עשרים של קב, \"אחד מחמישה ברביע\" (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, בשלח, ויסע ה, עמ' 173; מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, טו לה, עמ' 117). ", + "בתלמוד הבבלי אנו שומעים על מידות שונות במקצת: \"וכמה שיעור עיסה? רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר: בחיטין – קבין, ובשעורין – שלשת קבין. רבי נתן אומר משום רבי אליעזר: חילוף הדברים. והתניא, רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר: בחטין – שלשת קבין, ובשעורין – ארבעה קבין! לא קשיא; הא – בחסיכתא, הא – במעלייתא... אמר רב: קבא מלוגנאה לפיסחא, וכן לחלה\" (פסחים מח ע\"א). אם כן מצינו שלוש דעות, ואפשר שהשיעורים שבסוגיה הם רק בבבל שבה הקלו במצווה, כפי שסיכמנו במבוא. מכל מקום, סוגיית הבבלי מעלה שהשיעור שבמשנה לא נחשב לסופי ומחייב." + ], + [ + "שיעור החלה אחד מעשרים וארבעה – בתורה אין למצוות חלה שיעור, כמו לתרומה או לפאה, אבל כמו בשתי הלכות אלו גם לחלה ניתן שיעור. במשנה הקודמת עמדנו על כך שהשיעור נועד לגרום לכך שההענקה לכוהן תהיה משמעותית, לפחות כפרוסת לחם127הר\"ש סירליאו מצא למספר זה רמזים בפסוקים שונים. יש להניח כי אלו רעיונות שבאו בעקבות ההלכה, ואינם הסיבה לה. .", + "העושה עיסה לעצמו [ו]העושה משתה לבנו אחד מעשרים וארבעה – את המשנה יש להבין שדין אחד לאופה לעצמו כמות קטנה יחסית (אבל יותר מחמישה רבעים) ולאופה כמות גדולה. הדוגמה לכך היא: \"משתה לבנו\" או \"משתה בנו\", כמו בכל יתר עדי הנוסח, הוא יום החתונה של הבן128באזכורים אחרים מופיע גם בכתב יד קופמן \"משתה בנו\", כמו בשביעית פ\"ז מ\"ד; כריתות פ\"ג מ\"ז. בעבודה זרה פ\"א מ\"ג במשנתנו \"משתה בנו\", אבל בכתב יד קופמן כל הצירוף חסר. . המינוח הרגיל במקורות הוא \"משתה בנו\", והוא מופיע במקורות חז\"ל ואף בכתובת129נוה, על פסיפס, עמ' 115. . משתה הבן מופיע כהזדמנות מיוחדת שבה האדם מכין מזון בכמות גדולה. בעת ההכנות למשתה כזה מתפקד היחיד, מבחינה כמותית, כאילו היה נחתום. כך גם מתואר היחיד האופה בכמות מסחרית לאחר הפסח (תוס', פסחים פ\"א הי\"ג). זו גם ההזדמנות שאדם רגיל קונה ומכין בה בשר (משנה, כריתות פ\"ג מ\"ז; שביעית פ\"ז מ\"ד, ועוד). מכל מקום, למרות הכמות הגדולה של לחם שבעל הבית מכין הוא מפריש רק אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה.", + "נחתום שהוא עושה למכור בשוק וכן האשה שהיא עושה למכור בשוק – שני אלה מכינים עיסה בכמות מסחרית. מעניינת התמונה החברתית של אישה שאינה נחתום מקצועי אבל מכינה לחם למכירה בכמות גדולה. זהו מסחר ברמה מקומית וראשונית ביותר, ועדות לכך שסחר הלחם טרם הפך להיות מסחרי לחלוטין. ייצור ברמה כזאת אופייני למערכת שהמסחר בה מוגבל.", + "אחד מארבעים ושמונה – שוב לא ברור למה נקבעה דווקא מידה זו, ומן הסתם היא פי שניים מהכמות הקודמת. בתוספתא מוסיף רבי שמעון שאפילו נתן אחד לשישים יצא (פ\"א ה\"ח); אמנם המדובר בחלת דמאי (חלה המופרשת ממעשר שהורם מתוך ספק), אך ברור שלדעתו די בשיעור קטן זה כדי לצאת ידי חובה.", + "במקורות ניתנים כמה הסברים להבדל בין בעל הבית לנחתום: \"אמר רבי יהודה מפני מה אמרו בעל הבית אחד מעשרים וארבע, מפני שעינו יפה בעיסתו. נחתום אחד מארבעים ושמונה, מפני שעינו צרה בעיסתו. וחכמים אומרים לא מן השם הוא זה, אלא בעל הבית עיסתו מעוטה ואין בה כדי מתנה לכהן, נחתום עיסתו מרובה ויש בה כדי מתנה לכהן\" (תוס', פ\"א ה\"ז; ירו', נח ע\"ד; בבלי, שבת טו ע\"א). לדעת חכמים הסיבה המרכזית היא הרצון לתת לכוהן מתנה משמעותית. לכן בעל הבית שאופה מעט ייתן יותר, כדי שלכוהן תהיה טובת הנאה משמעותית, אבל הנחתום האופה בכמות גדולה רשאי לתת מנה מועטת וגם בה יהיה כדי מתנה. כפי שאמרנו לעיל, אכן גם חישוב כמות הבצק החייבת בחלה מבוסס כנראה על שיקול זה. רבי יהודה טוען שהסיבה אחרת. בעל הבית הוא נדיב לב, ואילו הנחתום צריך או רוצה לחסוך. הדבר לא נאמר, אך ייתכן שהסיבה היא שעבור הנחתום כמות של אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה מהבצק (מעט פחות מ- 2%) היא כמות נומינלית גדולה, ועבור בעל הבית מתנה של 4% היא עדיין מתנה שולית. ", + "בספרי יש סדרת היגדים הקשורים לענייננו: \"תתנו לה' תרומה – למה נאמר לפי שהוא אומר חלה תרימו תרומה, אבל לא שמענו שיעור חלה, תלמוד לומר 'תתנו לה' תרומה', עד שיהא בה כדי מתנה לכהן. מיכן אתה אומר שיעור חלה של בעל הבית אחד מעשרים וארבעה ושל נחתום אחד מארבעים ושמונה. [אמר רבי יהודה מפני מה אמרו חלה של בעל הבית אחד מעשרים וארבעה ושל נחתום אחד מארבעים ושמונה]? לפי שהאיש עינו יפה והאשה עינה רעה, וכשתפחות לא תפחות מארבעים ושמונה. לכך נאמר 'תתנו לה' תרומה' עד שיהא בזה כדי מתנה לכהן ובזה כדי מתנה לכהן. מיכן אמרו בעל הבית שעושה משתה לבנו אחד מעשרים וארבעה, והאשה שהיא עושה ומוכרת בשוק אחד מארבעים ושמונה. נטמאת עיסתה שוגגת או אנוסה אחד מארבעים ושמונה. נטמאת מזידה נוטלת אחד מעשרים וארבעה, כדי שלא יהיה חוטא נשכר. רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר אפילו לא עלה בידו אלא אחד מששים יצא ובלבד שלא יתכוין\" (ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 115).", + "המדרש מתייחס ישירות למשנתנו ומצטט אותה. הוא גם מביא את דברי הברייתא שבתוספתא (בנוסח מקורב) ואינו רואה בשני ההסברים מחלוקת אלא הסברים משלימים. ההסבר של רבי יהודה מוצג בצורה מעודנת פחות. על האישה מטילים חובה גבוהה יותר, כי עינה רעה (היא קמצנית) ותקצץ מהמכסה, וחכמים רצו לגרום לכך שלפחות תיתן אחד מארבעים ושמונה. אבל הנחתום אינו קמצן, וייתן כנדרש. מה שבתוספתא הוא הבדל בין אפייה פרטית לאפייה מסחרית הופך במדרש להיגד אנטי-פמיניסטי. זו דרכם של מקורות, לעשות שימוש מבוקר במקורות קודמים ולהציגם תוך הטיית מה המבטאת את השקפת עולמו של העורך המאוחר. ניתן אף להגדיר את דברי הספרי כמדרש לתוספתא, מדרש העושה שימוש חלקי בתוספתא ומיסב את הרעיון שבה לעולם אחר.", + "עוד נוספו בספרי שתי הנחיות חשובות. האחת שיש לתת את החלה באומדן וגם אם טעה, טעות כנה, ונתן אחד משישים – מתנתו מתנה. אחד משישים הוא כדי נתינה של תרומה. הכלל השני במדרש קשור להמשך המשנה, ונדון בו להלן.", + "המשנה מבחינה בין אישה הרגילה לאפות לשוק לבין אישה הרגילה לאפות לביתה ופעם אחת אפתה כמות גדולה. אבחנה זו מחודדת בירושלמי: \"אמר רבי מתניתא בלימודת להיות מפרשת אחד מארבעים ושמנה, אבל בלימודת להיות מפרשת אחד מעשרים וארבעה ניתני כדי שלא יהא החוטא נשכר\" (נח ע\"ד). דינה של כל אישה תלוי בהרגליה. אם היא רגילה לאפות לשוק – מפרישה מעט, ואם רגילה לאפות לבית – מפרישה יותר. דומה שהחכם מעניק למשנה נופך נוסף. מטרתו שלא לבלבל את האיש ועליה לתת כפי שהיא רגילה, ולא כל פעם בהתאם לסוג האפייה שלה.", + "ניטמאת עיסתה שוגגת או אנוסה אחד מארבעים שמונה – אם האישה נטמאת החלה פסולה, יש להרים אותה ולהשמידה, והכוהן אינו רשאי לאכלה, על כן התירו חכמים להפריש כמות מעטה יותר.", + "ניטמאת מזידה אחד מעשרים וארבעה כדי שלא יהא חוטא ניסכר – עיקרון זה מופיע בכמה הלכות ומטרתו שמי שחטא (במזיד) לא יימצא מרוויח, אחרת הפיתוי לחטוא בכוונה יהיה גדול הרבה יותר. כזכור נחלקו תנאים אם האופה בטומאה עדיף שיפריש חלה בטומאה, או שיחלקנה לקבים (לעיל מ\"ג). כאן נבחר הפתרון הראשון, אך אין בכך כדי הבעת עמדה בשאלה העקרונית אלא הכרעה מקרית של פרט זה או אחר. ייתכן שעדיף היה שתחלק את העיסה למנות קטנות, אך לא כך נהגה אישה זו. יתר על כן, מדובר על: \"ניטמאת עיסתה\", ומשמע שנטמאה בתהליך האפייה, אולי לאחר שהייתה כבר עיסה והתחייבה בחלה.", + "מכל מקום, לדעת המשנה אם החלה טמאה יש להפריש רק אחד חלקי ארבעים ושמונה. זאת בניגוד לפסיקה מימי הביניים שבזמן הזה יש להפריש \"כלשהו\" בלבד. פסיקה זו מבוססת על מסקנת הבבלי שדין חלה חל בחוץ לארץ, אך החלה היא טמאה ולכן החובה היא להפריש משהו. הפרשת חלה בטומאה היא בכמות מינימלית שכן היא ניתנת בטומאה, ואין להרבות טומאה. כמו כן המפריש תרומה דמאי חייב רק באחד משישים, וכן התורם תרומה טמאה חייב רק באחד משישים (תוס', תרומות פ\"ה ה\"ו). דין זה מקביל להלכה שבמשנתנו. אם כן, ההלכה שהמפריש חלה טמאה או תרומה די לו במשהו אינה מעוגנת במקורות התנאיים. עם זאת, יש לזכור שלפחות לפי חלק מהתנאים דין תרומה מהתורה הוא שחיטה אחת פוטרת את כל הכרי130ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"ד מ\"ג. זו גם דעתו של שמואל הבבלי, והצענו שדעתו מושפעת מכך שמדובר בהפרשת תרומה טמאה בבבל. . אין לנו הלכה מקבילה לחלה, אך מן התורה אכן אין כל קִצבה לכמות של הפרשת חלה. " + ], + [ + "רבי אליעזר אומר ניטלת מן הטהור על הטמא – דברי רבי אליעזר חוזרים למשנה ט בפרק הקודם. לכאורה היה מקום לטעון שבמשנה הקדומה הייתה משנתנו המשך של משנה ט בפרק הקודם. פרק ב הושתל לתוך הרצף הזה, כנראה כיחידה אחת מגובשת שיש בה דינים מנושאים שונים במסגרת דיני חלה, אך ללא סדר נראה לעין, כאילו היה זה מעין לקט של הלכות שונות ללא מבנה ברור. ברם, כפי שנראה בפירושנו להלן, משנתנו אינה מתייחסת למשנה בפרק הקודם. היא אמנם זהה בתוכנה אך באה ממסגרת עריכה נפרדת, שכן היא חוזרת על דברי חכמים. על כן נראה שסדר העריכה היה שונה. במשנה הקדומה בא פרק ב לאחר פרק א, ואילו משנתנו מהווה יחידה נפרדת ממקור אחר, יחידה שיש בה דמיון מצד התוכן אך היא מעריכה שונה. משנתנו הובאה אגב משנה ט בפרק הקודם, אבל המלקט רצה לסיים תחילה את כל היחידה הקודמת, על כל פרטיה.", + "ההלכה של רבי אליעזר נדונה במפורט שם (פ\"ב מ\"ט), וראינו כי זו דעתם של בית שמאי המתירים להפריש חלה ותרומה מהטהור על הטמא.", + "כיצד – השאלה היא איך מפרישים מהטהור על הטמא מבלי לטמא את הטהור. ההנחה היא שמפרישים מפרי אחד על אחר (או מבצק אחד על אחר) רק ב\"מוקף\" (שם), כלומר כששני הבצקים בכלי אחד. אם הטהור ייגע בטמא הרי הוא יטמא אותו.", + "עיסה טהורה ועיסה טמאה – בשלב זה שתי העיסות נפרדות וטרם הופרשה מהן חלה131רבי יהוסף אשכנזי (הובא במלאכת שלמה) מסביר שהכוונה בין עיסה טמאה ובין עיסה טהורה, נוטל... פירוש זה יפה ואפשרי, אך אינו הכרחי. .", + "נוטל כדי חלה מעיסה שלא הורמה חלתה ונותן פחות מכביצה באמצע כדי שיטול מן המוקף – האופה מניחה את שני הבצקים זה ליד זה, מבלי שייגעו זה בזה, ומניחה חתיכת בצק טהורה שתחבר ביניהם. חתיכה זו היא פחות מכביצה וממילא אינה מקבלת טומאה, שכן על חפץ (מזון) זעיר כזה טומאה אינה חלה. במסכת תרומות נזכר עיגול דבלה שחלקו טמא וחלקו טהור, והתלמוד שם מסביר שהעיגול נלוש במי פרות שאינם מהווים חיבור לטומאה. עוד מוצע שם: \"תני, רבי לעאיי אומר משום רבי ליעזר, 'תורמין מן הטהור על הטמא בלח' כיצד? כבש זיתים בטומאה והוא רוצה לתורמן בטהרה, מביא משפך שאין בפיו כביצה וממלא אותו ביצים ונותנו על פי חבית, ונמצא תורם מן המוקף\" (ירו', תרומות פ\"ב ה\"א, מא ע\"ב). ברייתא זו היא ההמשך או הפיתוח של משנתנו. היא עוסקת בחיבור של נוזלים, ומשנתנו בחיבור של מוצקים. למעשה ניתן למצוא פתרונות אחרים, כגון שהטמא טמא בשלישי לטומאה ואינו מטמא את הנוגע בו132ראשון לטומאה הוא מי שנגע במת והוא מטמא אחרים להיות שני בטומאה. שני בטומאה מטמא, לעתים, את הנוגע בו להיות שלישי לטומאה. שלישי לטומאה אינו מטמא אחרים. דין הנוגע בשני לטומאה תלוי בנסיבות, ולא נרחיב בכך. .", + "הסברנו את סדר הפעולות לפי היגיון פנימי, קודם חיבור העיסות ואחר כך נטילת החלה. ברם, סדר המשנה הוא קודם נטילת חלה ואחר כך חיבור העיסות. ראשונים התחבטו מדוע בחרה המשנה דווקא בסדר זה. ברם, לדעתנו התיאור במשנה אינו לפי סדר הפעולות, והא ראיה שהרמת החלה מהעיסה הטמאה אינה נזכרת כלל. הרי לו היה נשמר סדר הפעולות במשנה צריך היה לומר שנוטל חלה מהעיסה הטהורה, מחבר את העיסות בעזרת \"פחות מכביצה\" ומרים חלה מהעיסה הטהורה בשביל העיסה הטמאה. אין זאת אלא שסדר הפעולות אינו מוצג במדויק, וקודם מחברים את העיסות ואחר כך מרימים חלה מהכול יחד133ראו אלבק, פירוש, עמ' 108. .", + "וחכמים אוסרין – חכמים אוסרים לתרום מהטהור על הטמא. ברור שמשנתנו אינה מתייחסת למשנה ט בפרק הקודם, שכן שם שנינו את דברי חכמים במפורט ואין טעם לחזור עליהם. משנה זו באה, אפוא, ממקור אחר. ", + "לפי המשנה התנאי של \"מוקף\" מחייב ששתי העיסות תיגענה זו בזו, כדי שתהווינה בצק אחד. בפרק הבא יתברר שיש מחלוקת בשאלה האם הפרשת הבצק היא מבצק או מהלחם האפוי, וברור שההלכה של המשנה היא בהנחה שהחלה היא מהעיסה, כרבי יוחנן בן נורי (להלן מ\"ו ומ\"ז ולעיל פ\"א מ\"ט). אבל לעיל מ\"ד ולהלן בפרק ד (מ\"א ומ\"ד) קבעה המשנה שהתנאי להצטרפות הוא \"נשיכה הדדית\", כלומר שבצק אחד יידבק בשני, כך שבזמן ההפרדה תצטרפנה חתיכות מזה לזה. אם כן, לא די בנגיעה ויש צורך בנשיכה. גם כלל זה מתאים יותר לבצק מאשר ללחם, אך אפשרי בדוחק גם בלחם, במיוחד בתחילת האפייה כדעת רבי עקיבא. אבל לעיל במשנה ד קבע רבי אליעזר שאפילו הנחת הלחמים יחד בכלי מצרפת, וכאמור לא ברור מה דעתו על צירוף על ידי \"נשיכה בתנור\". רבי אליעזר מהלך כאן בשיטת רבי עקיבא שהרמת החלה היא מהלחם האפוי (שקרם בתנור), שהרי אם הרמת החלה היא מהבצק הרי בזמן הרמת החלה היו בצקים אלו פטורים מחלה134להלן נוכיח ממשנת טבול יום שאכן לאחר הקרימה אין כבר חיבור בין הכיכרות, אם כי שם מדובר בחיבור לטומאה. .", + "הצגת רצף העדויות מצביעה על שתי תופעות. האחת היא באשר למחלוקת רבי עקיבא ורבי יוחנן בן נורי סביב השאלה מתי מרימים חלה, והאחרת סביב השאלה מהו צירוף. לגבי השאלה הראשונה רוב המשניות מהלכות בדעת רבי יוחנן בן נורי ומיעוטן בשיטת רבי עקיבא, וכן: \"ספינה שהיא באה מחוצה לארץ לארץ והיתה בה עיסה, עד שלא קרמו פניה חייבת. משקרמו פניה פטורה\" (תוס', חלה פ\"ב הי\"ב). כמו כן אומר המדרש כבדרך אגב \"רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר: הרי שגזל סאה של חטין, טחנה, לשה ואפאה והפריש ממנה חלה...\" (בבלי, בבא קמא צד ע\"א; סנהדרין פ\"ו ע\"ב; עבודה זרה נד ע\"ב). אבל במדרש מצוטט המשפט ושם, בחלק מהנוסחאות, חסרה המילה \"ואפאה\" (מדרש תהלים, י ד, עמ' 94). דעה זו של רבי עקיבא היא המופיעה גם במסכת מנחות (פ\"ז מ\"ג) ביחס לשאלה מתי מתקדשת חלה שנאפתה למקדש. במנחות לא מצינו את העמדות האחרות, ונדון בכך, אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת, בפירושנו למנחות. ", + "רבי אליעזר כאילו סותר את עצמו, שכן לעיל במשנה ד הוא הילך בשיטת רבי עקיבא, ובמשנה ט הוא נותן דוגמה לשיטת רבי יוחנן בן נורי. ייתכן שאלו שתי מסורות חולקות על שיטתו של רבי אליעזר, אך גם ייתכן להציע פתרון אחר. רבי אליעזר משקף דעה שלישית שניתן להפריש חלה באיזה שלב שרוצים, או מהבצק או מהלחם האפוי. הד לדעה זו יש במדרש האומר שיש להרים חלה מהעיסה, אך אם לא הרים רשאי להרים מהלחם (ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 114). להלן (פ\"ד מ\"ה) נציע שגם רבי עקיבא שאמר שהפרשת החלה היא מהקרימה בתנור מסכים שמותר להרים חלה כבר מהבצק. יתר על כן, מעמדו של הבצק כחייב או פטור מחלה נקבע בשלב נתינת המים, אך מועד ההפרשה הוא בקרימה בתנור. ההבדל הוא שרבי עקיבא קובע כזמן המאוחר ביותר את האפייה בתנור (\"קרימה\") ואילו רבי אליעזר מאפשר להרים חלה גם מאוחר יותר, אחרי הרדייה מהתנור.", + "עמדה זו, שהרמת חלה נעשית במשך זמן ממושך, עומדת בניגוד לדעת המשנה בפ\"ג מ\"ב-מ\"ה. שם נקבע שהטלת המים היא הרגע הקובע בלעדית לכל ענייני הרמת חלה. מה שלא היה חייב אז בחלה – לא יתחייב לכך גם בהמשך. כאמור, זו דעת רבי יוחנן בן נורי החולק על רבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא. ניתן ליישב בין המדרש ובין המשניות בפרק ג ולומר שמלכתחילה יש להרים מהבצק ורק בדיעבד ניתן להרים את החלה גם מאוחר יותר, אבל מועד החיוב הוא מהטלת המים. ברם, אי אפשר ליישב בדרך זו את הסתירה בין פ\"ב מ\"ד לבין המשניות בפרק ג. שם מדובר על כך שהכנת הבצק קובעת את מועד החיוב וחלותו, ואילו במשנה ד בפרק ב מדובר בשני בצקים שלא היו חייבים בחלה והתחייבו בחלה בזמן האפייה או לאחריה, ואף על פי כן החיוב המאוחר חל. ", + "אם כן, רבי אליעזר והתנא הסתמי החולק עליו (פ\"ב מ\"ד) סבורים שניתן להרים חלה או מהבצק או מהלחם הקרום, בזמן שהבעלים בוחר. אם מסקנה זו נכונה הרי שיש בכך כדי להטיל אור על דרך עיצוב ההלכה. בראשית דור יבנה הייתה מקובלת הדעה שניתן להרים חלה בזמן שרוצים, כפי שבתורה נאמר גם \"ראשית ערִסֹתֵכם\" וגם \"באכלכם מלחם הארץ\"135טיעון זה מופיע בספרי שציטטנו, וכאמור הוא מפרש שהראשון לכתחילה והשני בדיעבד. . אבל בהמשך דור יבנה התגבשה הדעה שיש צורך לקבוע מועד אחד להרמת החלה, וחכמי הדור נחלקו מהו אותו זמן קבוע.", + "אשר לשאלה השנייה, של הגדרת המוקף (נגיעה או נשיכה), היו ראשונים (מאירי לפ\"ב מ\"ט) שפירשו שיש הבדל בין מוקף לצורך הפרשה מזה על זה לבין מוקף לצורך הצטרפות לכדי שיעור. נראה בעינינו שהסבר זה מאולץ וקשה לקבלו, ודומה שיש לשקול מחדש את הנתונים. המשנה הראשונה בפרק ד תובעת שהבצקים (או הכיכרות) ייגעו זה בזה. רק הירושלמי פירש שנגיעה משמעה נשיכה. במשנה ד שם מדובר על נשיכה, אבל שם מדובר על צירוף מינים שונים (חדש וישן). כידוע יש מחלוקת עקרונית על הרמת תרומה מפרי אחד על פרי אחר, שבית שמאי מקלים ומאפשרים לתרום מהפרי האחד על האחר. באופן ספציפי במשנה ד בפרק ד מדובר על קב חדש וקב ישן. שם נתבע שרק אם נשכו זה את זה ניתן להרים חלה מהאמצע (לדעת רבי ישמעאל), ואילו בתרומות (פ\"א מ\"ה) נחלקים בית שמאי ובית הלל האם מותר לתרום מחדש על ישן. לדעת בית הלל הדבר אסור, ובית שמאי מתירים (ראו פירושנו שם). אם כן, רבי ישמעאל מהלך בשיטת בית הלל ואומר שאם העיסות (או הכיכרות) נגעו זו בזו חל האיסור להרים מהחדש על הישן, אבל אם נשכו זו בזו הרי שיש בכך עירוב ודאי ומותר להרים משני הבצקים חלה אחת. לדעתם של חכמים עדיין אין האיסור על הצירוף חל, והצענו אף הצעה אחרת לפירוש דבריהם. אבל לדעת בית שמאי, ורבי אליעזר שהוא ממשיך דרכם136בפירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ה ופ\"ב מ\"א ראינו כי אכן בנושא זה רבי אליעזר מהלך בשיטת בית שמאי. , מותר לתרום מחדש על ישן, וממילא גם שם די בנגיעה של הבצקים ואין צורך בנשיכה. אם כן, לפי דרכנו למדנו כי יש מחלוקת תנאים אם די בנגיעה או שיש צורך בנשיכה, ואולי מחלוקת זו היא מעין המשך למחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל: בית הלל קובעים שרק נשיכה מהווה חיבור ובית שמאי (רבי אליעזר) די להם בנגיעה137בעל אור זרוע, הלכות חלה רכו, הרא\"ש לחלה פ\"ב מ\"ד וראשונים אחרים מקשים מהירושלמי (נח ע\"ד) ששם מדובר על \"הבית מצרף\", ובתנאי שזה דבר שאין מקפיד על תערובתו, כלומר כשהתערובת היא לרצון בעל הבית. רוח הסוגיה שם אמנם שונה. ברם, להערכתנו הסוגיה מועברת מירושלמי פסחים ובמקורה דנה רק בעניין צירוף של שני חצאי זיתים להוות יחד כזית לעניין חמץ. ראו ירו', פסחים פ\"ג ה\"ב, ל ע\"א. גם האור זרוע מחלק בין העניין שם לבין סוגייתנו, אך דומה שכל הדמיון בין הנושאים (צירוף לעניין חמץ וצירוף לעניין חלה וטומאה) איננו קיים, והסוגיה הועברה למסכת חלה על ידי סופר שוגג. כך גם צירוף לעניין טהרה וטומאה שונה מהצירוף לעניין חלה, כפי שנראה בסוף דיוננו. . ", + "עד כאן הפירוש אם אנו מניחים שמשנה א בפרק ד מסתפקת בנגיעה. אבל, כאמור, הירושלמי פירש שגם משנה א מדברת בכגון שנשכו הבצקים זה את זה. הירושלמי הבין, אפוא, שלדעת חכמים יש צורך בנשיכה של ממש, ואילו רבי אליעזר מסתפק בנגיעה. אין זו סתם מחלוקת, אלא המשך למחלוקת העקרונית של בית שמאי ובית הלל על תרומה (והרמת חלה) של פרי אחד על פרי אחר138פעם נוספת אנו רואים עד כמה חדרה שיטת בית שמאי להלכה התנאית. גם משנתנו, גם משנה ד לעיל וגם המשניות להלן (פ\"ד מ\"א ומ\"ד) מושפעות מדעת בית שמאי, או שאף מהלכות בה. ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי. .", + "מתוך החומרים שהבאנו שחזרנו את מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל. מעתה יש לשוב למשנה שבה שנויה המחלוקת במפורש: \"1. המכנס חלות על מנת להפריש ונשכו, בית שמאי אומרים חבור בטבול יום ובית הלל אומרים אינו חבור. 2. מקרצות נושכות זו בזו, 3. וככרות נושכות זו בזו, 4. האופה חמיטה על גב חמיטה, עד שלא קרמו בתנור... בית שמאי אומרים חבור בטבול יום, בית הילל אומרים אינו חבור\" (משנה, טבול יום פ\"א מ\"א)139לשאלת החיבור בטומאות אחרות ראו משנה, טהרות פ\"א ה\"ז. . משנת טבול יום עוסקת בחיבור לעניין טומאה, ולא בהרמת חלה. ברור מניסוח המשנה שאין חיבור אחרי קרימת הכיכר140מקרצות הן צמות הבצק, ראו להלן פ\"ג מ\"א. לדעת רבי יהודה בן בתירא זהו השלב שבו העיסה מתחייבת בחלה. . הרישא במשנה מדברת על מי שמצרף כיכרות ונשכו; לא ברור אם הנשיכה נעשתה במכוון, כיוון שהיא תנאי כדי להתחייב בחלה, והמחלוקת היא אם נשיכה המועילה לחיבור לחלה מועילה גם לחיבור לטומאה, או שמא כינס אותן בסל (או בתנור) וכינוס זה בלבד כבר מהווה חיבור לעניין חלה. אלא שחיבור כזה ודאי אינו חיבור לטומאה, ואם גם התחוללה נשיכה אזי היא אולי חיבור לטומאה. המשנה תואמת, אפוא, את משנה ד לעיל (\"העושה עיסתו קבים ונגעו זה בזה...\"). הפירוש הראשון שהצענו הוא דעת רבי אליעזר, שדי בהנחת החלות זו ליד זו, והפירוש השני הוא לדעת חכמים שם שרק נשיכה מהווה חיבור.", + "מכל מקום, עולה שחיבור לטומאה צריך להיות משמעותי יותר מחיבור לחלה. עוד עולה שלפחות לגבי חיבור לטומאה בית שמאי מאפשרים את החיבור בקלות רבה יותר מבית הלל. אין במשנת טבול יום דיון בחיבור לעניין יצירת שיעור חלה, אבל מן הסתם שתי הדעות קרובות. כלומר, בית שמאי מאפשרים לצרף חלה בקלות רבה יותר מבית הלל. הם מסתפקים בנגיעה ובית הלל דורשים לפחות נשיכה, ולעתים אפילו נשיכה אינה מספיקה." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ט) קבעה המשנה שמרימים חלה מהגמור, והזכרנו שתנאים נחלקו אם הכוונה לבצק גמור או ללחם אפוי. המשנה מהלכת לפי הדעה הראשונה, היא שיטתו של רבי יוחנן בן נורי. רבי עקיבא אומר שזמן חלה הוא סיום האפייה141ראו להלן מ\"ו ופירושנו לפסחים פ\"ג מ\"ג, ושם הצענו שגם רבי אליעזר מהלך בשיטה זו. והתהוות הקרום (להלן מ\"ו). בתוספתא מובאת דעה נוספת: \"גר שנתגייר והיתה לו עיסה נעשית עד שלא קרמו פניה חייבת, משקרמו פניה פטורה, דברי רבי עקיבא. רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר עד שלא תגלגל בחטים ותטמטם בשעורין חייבת, גלגלה בחטים וטמטמה בשעורין פטורה. משם רבי יהודה [בן בתירא] אמרו משתעשה מקרצות\" (תוס', פ\"א הי\"ב; ירו', נט ע\"ד). להלן (מ\"ו) נבחן אם הלכה זו, שנאמרה על הגר, חלה על כל דיני חלה או על חלת גר בלבד, וכפשוטה היא חלה על הכול. ברור ש\"מקרצות\" הוא שלב בהכנת הבצק או המאפה עוד לפני האפייה. במשנת ביצה (פ\"ב מ\"ו) נזכרת פת גריצין שהיא פת עבה, בניגוד לרקיק הדק. נראה שפת גריצין עשויה ממקרצות. המשנה אומרת: \"מקרצות נושכות142\"נושכות\" הוא המצב שבו גוש בצק אחד נדבק לגוש אחר ומעט מהבצק עובר מזה לזה. זו בזו, וככרים נושכין זה בזה\" (טהרות פ\"א מ\"ז). הערוך, בעקבות פירוש הגאונים לטהרות, מפרש שקרץ משמעו עיגול143ערוך השלם, ערך קרץ ג; אפשטיין, פירוש הגאונים לטהרות, עמ' 17. . ליברמן מפרש שקרץ הוא חתך144ליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה לחלה, פ\"א הי\"ב, עמ' 803. , ומקבל את פירוש הערוך והגאונים. אבל מהמשנה ברור שקריצות אינן כיכרות, ואין לצורה העגולה קשר לחיתוך; זו נוצרת ממתיחת הבצק ולא מחיתוך. אכן קרץ קשור לחיתוך, אך משמעותו שונה: \"שנאמר 'קרץ מצפון בא בא' (ירמיה מו כ). מהו קרץ? רבי אלעזר אמר נכוסה. דבר אחר קרץ, כסוחה, הכמה דתנינן מקרצות נושכות זו לזו145כן שנינו: \"רבי שמעון אומר מפני מה סוור של נחתומין הפרוס טמא מפני שהוא קורץ ומוליך עליו מקרצות לתנור\" (תוס', כלים בבא מציעא פ\"ה ה\"ד, עמ' 583; משנה, טבול יום פ\"א ה\"א; ספרי זוטא, יט יא, עמ' 306). \" (דברים רבתי, כא, עמ' 21; ירו', להלן). \"כסוחה\" היא מלשון חיתוך ו\"נכוסה\" מלשון ייצור, כפי שמסביר הירושלמי את הדרשה (יומא פ\"ג ה\"ד, מ ע\"ג). אפשר גם שכסוחה משמעה מכוסה146וראו פירושנו לשבת פ\"ב מ\"ה. . פעם אחת קרץ מקביל ממש לשחט (משנה, יומא פ\"ג מ\"ד), ובמשנה אחרת מקביל לקטף, חתך מהעץ (פאה פ\"ז מ\"ד, וראו פירושנו לה), וכן יוצא ממקורות נוספים147משנה, נגעים פ\"ד מ\"ז; נידה פ\"ו מי\"ב, ועוד. . בברייתא אחת מדובר על הקורץ מן הבצק חתיכה (תוס', טהרות פי\"א ה\"ב, עמ' 672). מכל המשמעויות השונות ברור שפת גריצין היא לחם עבה שעושים מחתיכות, ושמונח זה הוא גם שלב בהכנת הבצק. על כן סביר שהכוונה לחלה שקולעים מחתיכות בצק מגולגלות, והחלה עשויה כמעין צמה. מקרצות הוא, אפוא, השלב שבו הכינו את הבצק המגולגל כצמה שממנה קולעים את החלה. ייתכן גם שרבי יהודה מתכוון ש\"משתעשה מקרצות\" היינו כשהבצק הגיע לשלב שבו ניתן לחתוך ממנו חתיכה.", + "אם כן, רבי יהודה בן בתירא סבור שמועד הפרשת החלה הוא שלב הסיום של הכנת הבצק, הרבה לאחר שגובש הבצק אך לפני תחילת האפייה. בירושלמי מובאת דעה נוספת על מועד הרמת החלה: \"רבי לעזר בשם רבי הושעיה משתעשה גבלולין גבלולין. מה ופליג? כאן להלכה כאן לדבר תורה\" (נט ע\"א). זמן הרמת החלה הוא כשהבצק הפך לערמה עגולה, מעין גבלול. על כך שואלת הגמרא האם הוא חולק על המשנה, ואומרת שמדין תורה יש להפריש מאוחר יותר (כדעת רבי עקיבא משיקרמו פניה), או כדעת רבי יהודה בן בתירא (משתיעשה מקרצות), אבל ההלכה דורשת להקדים את מועד ההפרשה ל\"משתעשה גבלול\". אפשר גם לפרש את הירושלמי אחרת, אבל יש להניח ש\"ההלכה\" תמיד מחמירה מדבר תורה ולא מקלה, על כן פירשנו כפי שפירשנו.", + "אוכלין עריי מן העיסה – סעודה שאינה סעודת קבע. המדובר במי שנוטל מעט מהעיסה ואוכלה עוד בטרם נאפתה, או אולי גם במי שמטיל חתיכת בצק לתנור ואוכלה. מכל מקום, מדובר באכילת עראי. לעומת זאת האוכל קבע, כלומר לחם אפוי, גם אם מדובר בחתיכה קטנה שפטורה מצד עצמה מחלה, חייב בחלה שכן החתיכה היא חלק מבצק גדול, והרי זה כבצק שחילקוהו למנות קטנות. כך פירשו בירושלמי (נט ע\"א), והדברים פשוטים. אלא שיש שם גם מי מהאמוראים הסבור שגם אכילת קבע במקרה מעין זה פטורה, \"אפילו שהוא נוטל ממנה שתים שלש מקרצות\" אין זו גמר מלאכה. מקרצה היא, כאמור, הצמה שממנה קולעים את החלה. כלומר, אם נוטל כמות גדולה של קמח כדי שלוש מקרצות, ואוכל אותה לפני לישת הבצק, הרי זו אכילה שלפני גמר מלאכה. כפשוטה עמדה זו חולקת על המשנה.", + "עד שתיתגלגל בחיטים – השורש גלג\"ל משמעו, ללא ספק, הטלת המים לעיסה, כפי שברור מההמשך \"נותנת את המים\". את שורש המילה \"לגלגל\" ניתן היה להסביר כערבוב הבצק, אך דומה שלשורש גלג\"ל יש קשר עם השקאה או הרטבה. כן שנינו \"אין מגלגלין בטופח\" (משנה, פאה פ\"ה מ\"ג), ושם פירשנו את המילה כקשורה לגלגל שהוא הכלי שבו שואבים את המים מהבור או הבאר. נראה שמכאן התגלגלה המילה לכל הרטבה, ואולי נגזרה המילה מהמים המתגלגלים והולכים148תוס', מעילה פ\"א הט\"ז, עמ' 558, וראו גם תוס', סוטה פ\"ג ה\"ט. .", + "ותטמטם בשעורין – לפי ההקשר גם כאן מדובר על הלישה של בצק השעורים. השורש טמט\"ם משמעו כנראה כמו סת\"ם. עם נתינת המים נוצרים בקמח מעין חורים זעירים, ובתהליך הלישה הם נסתמים. מהירושלמי (נט ע\"ד) משמע שגלגול אינו מקביל לטמטום אלא קודם לו, על כן דן התלמוד מה דינו של מי שלש דגנים אחרים. אבל המשנה לא עסקה בדגנים אחרים, שכן שעורים וחיטים הם הדגנים הרגילים והשאר היו נדירים הרבה יותר.", + "גילגלה בחיטים וטימטמה בשעורין – אם וכאשר החלה האישה בלישה, האוכל ממנה חייב מיתה – אז הבצק חייב בחלה והאוכל ממנו התחייב במיתה בידי שמים, כפי שנאמר לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ט).", + "כיוון שהיא נותנת את המים מגבהת חלתה – המשנה חוזרת ומסכמת. המשפט מיותר למעשה, שכן הוא חוזר על שנאמר לעיל במילים אחרות. אין זאת אלא שהמשפט בא ממקור אחר ויש בו סיכום של כל ההלכה, ממתי חייבים בחלה, ועל איזו כמות, וזה סיכום לשתי המשניות האחרונות.", + "ובלבד שיהא – כך גם בעדי נוסח רבים149ג5, ו, כ, ל, נ, פ, ץ, ש, ת3. וכן בספרי (קי, עמ' 114) ובראשונים רבים150ראו זק\"ש, משנה, על אתר. , אבל בכמה עדי נוסח אחרים, ואף בכמה ראשונים, \"שלא יהא\", שם חמשת רבעים קמח – לפי כתב יד קופמן חובת חלה קיימת רק אם יש בכמות הקמח הכוללת כשיעור, \"בשיש בנילוש כדי חלה\" (מאירי). כלומר, חובת חלה מותנית בשני תנאים: חמשת רבעי קמח ותחילת נתינת מים, ואילו יתר הנוסחאות מתפרשות שאם בכמות הכללית יש לפחות חמישה רבעים קמח הרי שחובת חלה קיימת מרגע שאין חמישה רבעים יבשים, כלומר זמן מה לאחר נתינת המים. המשנה באה לסכם את כל דיני חלה, כפי שפירשנו. לפי נוסח הדפוסים ויתר עדי הנוסח הכוונה שאם נותר קמח כדי חמישה רבעים שטרם התערבבו בו המים כל הקמח טרם התחייב בחלה. הווה אומר, חובת חלה היא ברגע שכל כמות הקמח עורבבה במים. דומה שנוסח זה של כתבי היד והדפוסים קשה. יש בו חידוש הלכתי משמעותי, שאם הוא נכון צריך היה להיאמר במפורש ולא כבדרך אגב. דומה שנוסח זה בא לענות על שאלה שהתחבטו בה המעתיקים מדוע חוזרת המשנה על הדין שסוכם בסוף הפרק הקודם. אבל כפי שראינו אין מנוס מלתלות את המשפט האחרון במקור אחר. בכל מצב, לפי כל הפירושים יש בו חזרה על הנאמר לעיל, על כן הפירוש שגם המשפט \"...חמשת רבעים...\" הוא חזרה על הנאמר לעיל אינו רק סביר, אלא הכרחי.", + "בתוספתא יש הלכה מקבילה למשנה, ושם נאמר: \"אין חייבת בחלה עד שיהא בדגן כשיעור\" (פ\"א הי\"א). גם שם משמעות הדברים היא ששני תנאים לחלה, גלגול במים ושיעור, וזו אפוא מקבילה מלאה למשנה המוכיחה גם את פרשנות המשנה ככתב יד קופמן. זאת ועוד, דין הקמח שנשאר מופיע בתוספתא אבל בהקשר אחר: \"אשה ששיירה קמח בעיסתה, הקרץ והשאור מצטרפין לחמשת רבעים לאסר את העיסה\" (פ\"א ה\"ז). אם כן, הקמח שנשאר מצטרף לעיסה ואין מקום לשאול כמה הוא עצמו.", + "אבל בירושלמי הבינו כנראה כמאן דגרס \"עד שיהא שם\". הירושלמי מספר על נוסחה מיוחדת וטובה להפרשת חלה שלימדו את הכוהנות151הכוהנות כאן מופיעות כמקפידות על הרמת חלה, או כמומחיות שאותן הזמינו לבתי עמי הארץ כדי שתפרשנה עבורם חלה בטהרה, וראו על כך במבוא. לומר. הנוסחה כוללת את המשפט: \"הרי זה חלה על העיסה הזאת... ועל הקמח שנשתייר בה...\" (נט ע\"א). על כך שואל התלמוד \"למה לי ובלבד שלא יהא שם חמשת רבעים קמח? אמר רבי מתניתא קודם עד שלא למדו את הכהנות\". אם כן, הבעיה היא אכן הקמח שנותר מחוץ לבצק, ועד שלא לימדו את הנוסחה לא נכללו שאריות הקמח שלא נבללו לעיסה בהרמת החלה, וממילא אם הן בכמות גדולה יש להפריש עליהן חלה לחוד. אבל לאחר שנאמרה הנוסחה, הקמח שנותר מצטרף לבצק. דומה, אפוא, שכבר התלמוד הירושלמי הבין שהמשנה עוסקת בשאלה זו של הקמח הנשאר. מכל מקום, בתוספתא הבינו שהקמח שנשאר מצטרף תמיד לעיסה, והירושלמי מספר על תנאי מיוחד שרק בגלל אמירתו הוא מצטרף לעיסה. דומה, אפוא, שבירושלמי ובתוספתא דעות שונות לגבי הקמח.", + "עם כל זאת, דומה שפשט המשנה הוא כפי שפירשנו, שהרי שאלת הקמח הנשאר אינה נזכרת במשנה. אין גם טעם להעלות אותה בהקשר לשאלת האוכל עראי מהעיסה. שאלה זו של הקמח הנשאר היא שאלה בפני עצמה. לפיכך, יש להעדיף את המשתמע מהתוספתא ולראות בהסבר התלמוד תיקון נוסח של המשנה, תיקון קדום שבא לענות על שאלת ההכפלה שעמדנו עליה. ", + "לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ט) ראינו שחכמים דרשו שהחלה תינתן מהגמור, ברם למעשה אין זו הגמירה שמחייבת בחלה אלא להפך, התחלת הכנת הבצק או תחילת סוף האפייה. על כן יש להבין מה ראו חכמים לתבוע את הפרשת החלה בשלב מוקדם כזה. דומה שחברו כאן שני גורמים. האחד הוא הפסוק המדגיש \"מראשית ערִסֹתיכם\"; מילה זו (\"ראשית\") מופיעה גם בדין ביכורים והיא המכתיבה את המועד המוקדם של איסוף הביכורים152ראו במבוא למסכת ביכורים. . המרכיב השני של ההסבר הוא מעשי. חכמים חששו שאדם יקדים לאכול מהבצק טרם האפייה כאכילת עראי כדי להשביע את רעבונו, על כן הקדימו את מועד הפרשת החלה ככל האפשר. הירושלמי מוסיף הסבר: \"תקנה תיקנו בה שיפרישנה תחילה שלא תיטמא העיסה\" (ביצה פ\"א ה\"ח, ס ע\"ד; פסחים פ\"ג ה\"ג, ל ע\"א).", + "חמישה רבעים הם המינימום לחובת חלה, כך דברי חכמים במשנה, עדיות פ\"א מ\"ב, ועסקנו בכך במבוא." + ], + [ + "נידמעה עיסתה – \"דמוע\" הוא מה שהתערב בו איסור והיתר, והאיסור אינו בטל (שהוא יותר מאחד ומאה). במקרה זה המדובר בעיסה שנפלה בתוכה עיסת תרומה, והעיסה כולה נחשבת עתה לתרומה. המשך המשנה עוסק בכוהן הרשאי לאכול מדומע, או נכון יותר באשת כוהן.", + "עד שלא גילגלה פטורה שהמדומע פטור – העירוב נעשה בשלב הקמח, והקמח פטור מחלה. משנתחייב הבצק בחלה היה זה בצק מדומע, והוא תרומה ואינו חלה, משגילגלה חייבת – כבר בתחילת הגלגול התחייבה העיסה בחלה, הדימוע היה מאוחר יותר, ואין הוא מבטל את החיוב הראשון.", + "בתוספתא נאמר: \"עיסה שנדמעה או שנתחמצה בשאור של תרומה חייבת בחלה, אינו נפסלת בטבול יום, דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה. ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון פוסלין\" (טבול יום פ\"ב ה\"ז, עמ' 685). אפשר שרבי יהודה מצטרף לרבי יוסי או לרבי מאיר. מקרה זה מופיע גם במשנה תמורה (פ\"ג מ\"ד), אלא שבה אין התייחסות לחובת החלה. במשנה תמורה החולקים הם בני דור יבנה ובתוספתא החולקים הם בני דור אושא, והם מוסיפים את דין החלה. ", + "נוסחת התוספתא מופיעה גם בבבלי (נדה מו ע\"א), אבל בירושלמי מבחינים בין גדיש שנדמע, שחייב בחלה, לבין עיסה שנדמעה, שפטורה (פ\"א ה\"ג, נז ע\"ד). גדיש התחייב במעשרות מרגע הגדיש, והעובדה שהפך לתרומה מאוחר יותר אינה פוטרת אותו מההתחייבות הקודמת. אבל העיסה חייבת בחלה רק משלב הלישה או הקרימה בתנור153ראו על כך במבוא למסכתנו. . עם זאת, במשנה יש מחלוקת בין רבי מאיר, המחייב בחלה, לבין רבי יוסי, הפוטר ממנה, נמצאנו למדים שמחלוקת התלמודים היא מחלוקת התנאים שבמשנת תמורה. התוספתא כרבי מאיר, והמשנה איננה עוסקת בנושא ואולי נמנעת בכוונה מלדון בשאלה המעוררת מחלוקת שלא כאן עניינה. משנתנו, לעומת זאת, כתוספתא תמורה, אבל בתוספתא אין ההבחנה מתי העיסה נדמעה, הבחנה המצויה במשנת חלה ובירושלמי. התוספתא ", + "משקפת להערכתנו שלב מאוחר יחסית בעיצוב ההלכה, שלב שבו נוספו דקדוקי הלכה שאינם מעניינה של המשנה (בתמורה), ואין בהם ההבחנה הקפדנית שבמשנת חלה. ", + "נולד לה ספק טומאה – אפשר להבין שהספק נולד לאישה, שהיא ספק נטמאה, או שהספק נולד בחלה, כגון שאולי נגע בה שרץ. הבבלי (נידה ו ע\"ב) והירושלמי (נט ע\"א) פירשו שהספק נולד לאישה.", + "עד שלא גילגלה תעשה בטומאה – תפריש חלה בטומאה. האישה רשאית להמשיך במלאכה גם אם היא נטמאה, שהרי העיסה טרם התחייבה בחלה ולפיכך אין בה מרכיב של חלה. מותר, אפוא, לאישה להמשיך ולהכין את הבצק בטומאה, וכאשר תיווצר חובת חלה תהיה החלה כמובן טמאה. הירושלמי שואל מדוע אין המשנה מציעה את הפתרון שתיעשה קבין, כלומר שהבצק יחולק למנות קטנות, ומתרצת שהסוגיה מהלכת בשיטת רבי עקיבא154אבל ההלכה בדבר מועד חיוב חלה היא לפי שיטת רבי יוחנן בן נורי החולק על רבי עקיבא. כלומר, המשנה היא של תנא שלישי המסכים עם רבי עקיבא בדבר אחד וחולק עליו בשני. (לעיל פ\"ב מ\"ג) המעדיף הכנת חלה בטומאה על פני חלוקה למנות קטנות. כפשוטה אין משנתנו דנה כלל בשאלה זו. עניינה רק בשאלה האם מותר לטמא חלה שהיא טמאה מספק, ואפשרויות הפתרון המקבילות אינן נזכרות.", + "משגילגלה תעשה בטהרה – אם הטומאה נפלה לאחר שגלגלה הרי שחלה עליה חובת חלה עוד לפני שניטמאה העיסה. אם כן, את החלה הזאת אסור להעלות בדרגת הטומאה ולכן יש לעשות את העיסה בטהרה, אף שהחלה תהיה לבסוף טמאה.", + "ההבדל בין הרישא והסיפא (לפני גלגול ואחריו) אינו מוסבר, וההבדל נראה מאולץ ודחוק. ייתכן, אפוא, לפרש בפשטות: עד הגלגול מותר לאישה להמשיך ולהכין את הקמח בטומאה, אבל ברגע שהטילה מים הבצק מקבל טומאה ולכן אסור לה להמשיך לעבוד אלא אם היא טהורה. מעין הלכה זו שנינו במסכת שביעית שמותר לאשת חבר לסייע לאשת עם הארץ באפייה עד לרגע הטלת המים (משנה, שביעית פ\"ה מ\"ט; גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ט).", + "בתוספתא מובאת המשנה ומוסבר: \"באי זה ספק אמרו, בדבר הספק לחלה\" (פ\"א הי\"א). לפי המשך התוספתא ברור שהכוונה היא שהספק הוא מסוג הדברים שגורמים לספק טומאה של חלה, שכן יש הבדל בין דין ספק טומאה לחלה לבין דין ספק טומאה לתרומה (משנה, זבים פ\"ג מ\"ב). אפשר להבין שגם התוספתא הבינה שהספק אירע לחלה עצמה, אך גם ייתכן שהספק הוא לאישה המטפלת בחלה." + ], + [ + "1.", + "היקדישה עיסתה עד שלא גילגילה ופדייתה – בצק של הקדש פטור ממצוות חלה (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ג). גם במקרה זה המועד הקובע הוא נתינת המים, ה\"גלגול\". אם הבצק שייך היה להקדש בזמן הגלגול הבצק פטור מחלה.", + "חייבת – במקרה זה העיסה חייבת, משום שהאישה הקדישה את העיסה לפני מועד החיוב ופדתה אותה לפני אותו מועד, ובזמן שגלגלה הייתה העיסה רכוש פרטי. 2.", + "משגילגלה ופדייתה חייבת – העיסה נפדתה ואחר כך גולגלה וחייבת, כי ברגע הגלגול הייתה רכוש פרטי. העיקרון ההלכתי ברור, אבל לשון המשנה מתאימה יותר למסקנה שפטורה, שכן פשוט יותר לפרש שהאישה הקדישה את הקמח ופדתה רק \"משגילגלה\", כלומר לאחר הגלגול, ואז פטורה כי בשעת הגלגול היה הבצק רכוש הקדש. במשנה הבאה, שהיא מקבילה לזו שלנו, אכן במקרה זה פטורה. על כן יש לתקן אולי את משנתנו, אך קשה לתקן נגד כל עדי הנוסח. 3.", + "הקדישתה עד שלא גילגילה גילגילה הגיזבר ואחר כך פדייתה פטורה – האישה שהקדישה את הקמח, בזמן הגלגול הייתה בידי הגזבר ואחר כך פדתה את העיסה פטורה, כי בזמן הגלגול הייתה העיסה רכוש המקדש, שבשעת חובתה – שעת החובה היא שעת הגלגול, היתה פטורה – כי הייתה רכוש הקדש.", + "המשנה מניחה בפשטות שהאישה הקדישה את עיסתה וממשיכה לטפל בה. ההקדשה היא על מנת לפדותה, לעתים מיד לאחר ההקדש. מבחינה משפטית כל רכוש האישה שייך לבעלה, והדבר חל במיוחד על מזון שהיא מכינה למשק הבית. עם זאת, בעשרות עדויות המשנה מניחה בפשטות שהאישה שולטת על רכוש, שליטה בפועל או גם מבחינה משפטית. משנתנו מצטרפת לרשימה זו של עדויות155ראו פירושנו לעירובין פ\"ו מ\"ו. ." + ], + [ + "כיוצא בו – אותו דין חל על המקדיש פֵרותיו. אם בשעת עונת המעשרות, כלומר גמר המלאכה של הפרי, היו הפרות בידי הקדש – הפרות פטורים ממעשרות, ואם בעונת החיוב היו רכוש פרטי הם חייבים156וכן הדין העקרוני בספרי במדבר, ה, עמ' 8; מדרש תנאים לדברים, יח ד, עמ' 108; משנה, פאה פ\"א מ\"ו, ועוד. . המשנה מקבילה למשנה הקודמת וההסבר זהה ולא נחזור עליו, להוציא שינוי במקרה השני. עונת המעשרות נידונה בהרחבה בפרק הראשון של מסכת מעשרות. 1.", + "המקדיש פירותיו עד שלא באו לעונת המעשרות ופדיין חייבין. 2.", + "משבאו לעונת המעשרות ופדיין פטורין – רק בכתב יד קופמן נכתב כך וביתר עדי נוסח \"חייבין\", כמו במשנה הקודמת, כן תיקן מעתיק מאוחר בשולי כתב היד וכן משמע ממקבילות157וכן ממקבילה חלקית בתוס', מעשרות פ\"א ה\"ז; בבלי, מנחות סז ע\"א; ציטוטי ראשונים רבים, ועוד. מספר. במשנת פאה מקבילה מדויקת למשנתנו (פ\"ד מ\"ח), ושם בכמה כתבי יד \"פטורים\" או \"פטורין\"158ג3, ו, נ, ל. . כפי שאמרנו בפירושנו להלכה המקבילה במשנה הקודמת (2) לנוסח זה עדיפות מבחינת משמעות המילים, אך רק במשנת פאה הוא מתועד בצורה טובה גם בכתבי היד. 3.", + "היקדישן עד שלא נגמרו גמרן הגיזבר ואחר כך פדיין פטורין שבשעת חובתן היו פטורין – כפי שהסברנו לעיל." + ], + [ + "נוכרי שנתן לישראל לעשות לו עיסה פטורה מן החלה – המשנה מניחה בפשטות שעיסת הגוי פטורה מחלה. בספרות האמוראים, ואחר כך בספרות הפוסקים, יש מחלוקת בשאלה האם פרות הגוי חייבים במצוות התלויות בארץ, והם מייחסים לשניים או שלושה תנאים את הדעה שאין לגוי קניין לפטור את פרותיו ממעשרות (וחלה). ברם, לדעתנו לדעה זו אין ראיה ממקורות תנאיים (ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ה מ\"ט). כל המקורות התנאיים מניחים שפרות הגוי חייבים במעשרות, אך כנראה פטורים מחלה. משנתנו מהלכת, אפוא, בנתיב דרך המלך של ספרות התנאים. ההבדל בין מצוות חלה לבין יתר המצוות התלויות בארץ עולה גם מהמשנה לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"א), ודנו בכך במבוא.", + "אמנם הישראל מכין את העיסה, אך היא שייכת לגוי ולכן פטורה ממעשרות.", + "נתנה לו מתנה עד שלא ניתגלגל חייב – אם הגוי נתן את החיטים ליהודי עוד לפני הגלגול הרי שבעת עונת החיוב הם היו פרות של ישראל וחייבים בחלה. חובת החלה אינה צמודה, אפוא, למקור הגידול של החיטים אלא רק לבעלות עליהן בשעת חיובן בחלה. עיקרון זה למדנו גם לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"א).", + "משגילגל פטור – אם הגוי נתן את הקמח במתנה לישראל, אבל רק לאחר הטלת המים בו, העיסה פטורה, משום שבשעת הגלגול הייתה רכושו של הנכרי.", + "העושה עיסה עם הנכרי – הגוי והיהודי עובדים יחדיו, כל אחד מביא מרכושו ומכינים את הבצק יחדיו, אם אין בשלישראל כשיעור פטור מן החלה – הקמח של היהודי חייב כמובן בחלה והקמח של הגוי פטור, ואף אינו מצטרף להוות עמו יחדיו שיעור חלה. ", + "במקורות רבים אנו שומעים על תופעה של הכנת בצק בצוותא. הרקע לכך הוא הווי החצר המשותפת (איורים 15, 16, תמונה 4 חצר השותפים). במכלול הבית (\"חצר\" בלשון המקורות) התגוררו יחדיו דיירים רבים. יש להניח ששיטת דיור זו צמחה בתקופת בית שני מתוך צרכיה של משפחה מורחבת שגדלה במשך השנים וצרכיה רבו והתגוונו. אבל בתקופת המשנה התגוררו בחלק גדול מהחצרות שותפים שכבר לא היה להם קשר משפחתי. גם המבנה המשפחתי השתנה, והחברה הייתה מבוססת על משפחות גרעיניות או בתי אב קטנים. דיירי החצר היו שותפים, והבעיות המשפטיות הכרוכות בשותפות זו מעסיקות משניות רבות. כך, למשל, הפרקים הראשונים במסכת בבא בתרא עוסקים בחצר זאת ודנים בשאלות מגוונות. נרחיב בכך, אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת, בפירושנו למסכת בבא בתרא.", + "החצר כללה חדרי מגורים, \"בית\" בלשון המקורות, וחצר פתוחה (שגם היא כונתה \"חצר\"). החצר הייתה שטח משותף, אם כי קרה שהשותפים החליטו לחלקה בעקבות דרישה של אחד מהם או עקב סכסוך (משנה, בבא בתרא פ\"א מ\"א ומ\"ג). בחצר המשותפת ניצבו התנור והכיריים, ואף בה היה השטח מצומצם למדי. מתקני הבישול היו לעתים משותפים. יש להניח שלא פעם בישלו הנשים, ובעיקר אפו לחם, בצוותא. הצוותא הייתה נחוצה כדי לחסוך בחום התנור. זאת ועוד. כפי שאמרנו במבוא אפו לחם פעם בשבוע, כתוצאה מכך צריך היה תנור גדול דיו שניתן לאפות בו כ- 28 כיכרות159החישוב הוא של כיכרות של חצי קב, שהוא מזון אדם ליום (שתי סעודות), ולפי משפחה גרעינית של ארבע נפשות. . תנור רגיל אינו מכיל כמות כה גדולה של כיכרות, אך ניתן היה לאפות אותם בשניים או בשלושה סבבים. התנור צריך היה להיות, אפוא, גדול למדי. ביתר ימות השבוע השתמשו בתנור רק באופן חלקי ביותר, שכן להכנת סעודה רגילה אין צורך בתנור כה גדול. נתונים אלו גרמו לכך שהתנור הגדול היה, מן הסתם, משותף. הסקתו הייתה יקרה, והאפייה המשותפת חסכה בהוצאות ההסקה בצורה ניכרת. על כן אנו שומעים מהמקורות על עבודה משותפת בהכנת הבצק ובאפייה. הכנה משותפת זו עוררה, כמובן, שאלות הלכתיות, כגון השאלה כיצד יכולה אשת החבר (המקפידה על דיני טהרה) להכין מאפה יחד עם אשת עם הארץ הטמאה (משנה, שביעית פ\"ה מ\"ט; גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ט). כמו כן אנו שומעים על שלוש נשים המכינות בצק יחדיו, אופות בתנור אחד וממתינות האחת אחר חברתה לתורן (משנה, פסחים פ\"ג מ\"ד)." + ], + [ + "אותו עיקרון חל על גר שהתגייר. כל זמן שטרם התגייר הוא כגוי ועיסתו פטורה מחלה, ומשנתגייר הוא חייב בכל המצוות, כולל מצוות חלה.", + "גר שניתגייר והיתה לו עיסה נעשת עד שלא ניתגייר פטור – כי העיסה באה לעונת החיוב בחלה כאשר היה גוי, משניתגייר חייב – אם נתגייר לפני שהוטלו המים בעיסה חייב בחלה, אם ספק חייב – הספק הוא מתי בדיוק התגייר, ואין חייבין עליה חומש – אם אכלו בשוגג ללא חלה אין חייבים בתשלום קנס של חומש, כדין כל ספק.", + "הספק כאן נפסק בפשטות לחומרה. אבל במשנת חולין (פ\"י מ\"ד) מובא מעשה בספק דומה שנוצר כתוצאה מכך שאין ידוע מתי התגייר הגר, ושם נפסק לקולה. בתלמוד הבבלי שם (קלד ע\"א) רשימה של שמונה ספקות וברייתא הקובעת שארבעה מהם נפסקו לקולה וארבעה לחומרה. אבל במסכת גרים הארץ-ישראלית חוזר בפשטות המקרה של משנתנו, ושם נפסק להיתר (פ\"א ה\"ז, עמ' ע). דומה, אפוא, שהייתה מחלוקת עקרונית על ספק גר, משנתנו החמירה ומשנת חולין ומסכת גרים הקלו. הברייתא בתלמוד הבבלי היא ניסיון להרמוניזציה, כאילו חלק מהספקות לאיסור וחלקם להיתר. מכל מקום אין לחלוקה זו שבבבלי הנמקה, ודומה שהיא ניסיון לפשרה בין גישות שונות. פשרה זו מוכיחה, פעם נוספת, שההלכה שנקבעה לא בחרה תמיד בדרך שיטתית ואחידה מבחינה משפטית וההכרעות נטו פעם לכאן ופעם לכאן.", + "הדיון במשנה הוא במידה רבה תאורטי, אך אינו מנותק כליל מהמציאות. תנועת הגיור בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד הייתה משמעותית למדי. במקורות מתנהלים דיונים רבים על הגרים ומעמדם, אלא שדומה שאין בכך עדות לכמות הגיור בפועל אלא לבעייתיות שיצר המעבר מסטטוס הלכתי אחד לסטטוס הלכתי אחר. למרות פקפוק זה אין ספק שהגיור אכן היה תופעה רווחת. הגיור היה פשוט. כדי להתגייר צריך היה הגר לבצע הליכים מספר, למול את עצמו ולטבול, אך רובם נעשו בינו לבין עצמו. הדרישה שהגיור יתבצע בבית דין (של שלושה) מופיעה רק בימי האמוראים (יבמות מו ע\"ב). לא ברור מתי התחילו לחייב טבילה עם הגיור. יתר על כן, גם מהמשנה לא ברור אם הטבילה היא תנאי לגיור או שמא הגיור חל בלעדיה, אלא שהמתגייר טמא, על כן אם רצונו לאכול מקרבן פסח עליו לטבול160ראו פסחים פ\"ח מ\"ח ופירושנו לה. . הוא הדין בשאלת המילה. את המילה ניתן להגדיר כתנאי לגיור, או אולי היא פשוט מצווה שהצטווה הגר ועליו לבצע אותה מיד עם כניסתו לחיק היהדות. מרכיב נוסף בתהליך הגיור הוא קבלת המצוות, אלא שקבלה זאת הייתה בעיקרה תהליך פנימי שעובר אדם עם עצמו. התביעה שהגיור יהיה בפני שלושה שהם בית דין, או ששני תלמידי חכמים ילמדוהו את המצוות, מופיעה במפורש רק בדברי אמוראים (בבליים), וקשה לברר מתי עוצבה161בבלי, יבמות מו ע\"ב ומז ע\"ב בשם תנאים ובשם אמוראי ארץ ישראל, וראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ח מ\"ח. עם כל זאת, כבר במקורות התנאיים מדובר על כך שלמעשה גיור מתבצע בפני אנשים המתדיינים עם הגר ומסבירים לו, כך שכנראה הנוהג שגר לא התגייר רק בפני עצמו קדם להלכה הברורה בנושא. . הגיור היה, אפוא, פשוט הרבה יותר. משנתנו מסתברת במקרה שהגר עבר תהליך גיור, ובחצרו המשיכו עבדיו או פועליו בהכנת צורכי הסעודה.", + "רבי עקיבה אומר הכל הולך אחר הקרימה בתנור – דברי רבי עקיבא מתייחסים לכל המשניות שבפרק (רמב\"ם). לדעתו חובת חלה מתחילה רק בתחילת סיום האפייה. כל מקום שנאמר בו לעיל \"גלגל\" צריכה להיות בו קרימת הקרום, וכפי שפירשנו במשנה הראשונה. בפירושנו לפסחים פ\"ג מ\"ג הצענו שגם רבי אליעזר מהלך בשיטה קרובה. המשפט האחרון שייך למעשה למשנה הראשונה שבפרק, אחרי דברי התנא הבאים בסתם, אלא שבין המשפטים הוכנסה סדרה ארוכה של מקרים שהם אליבא דתנא קמא (שהוא רבי יוחנן בן נורי). סידור כזה אינו שגרתי במשנה; בדרך כלל מובאת המחלוקת במלואה ואחר כך מקרים המבטאים את אחת הדעות.", + "רוב העדויות במשנה הן לשיטת רבי יוחנן בן נורי שגלגול המים בעיסה טובל אותה לחלה. מיעוטן כרבי עקיבא, ואספנו כמה מהעדויות בפירושנו לסוף פ\"ב. ", + "הסברנו שרבי עקיבא חולק על הכלל של מועד הרמת החלה. אבל יש מפרשים המפרשים שרבי עקיבא דן רק בעיסת הגר וסבור שרק \"בגלגול העכו\"ם אינו פוטר אלא אם הקרימו פני העיסה\"162אור זרוע על אתר, ועוד. . פירוש זה יוצא מדברי הירושלמי: \"חברייא בשם רבי לעזר: מודה רבי עקיבה לחכמים בעיסת הדיוט שגילגולה טיבולה\" (נט ע\"ב). אלא שבהמשך הירושלמי מתברר שכהנא פירש אחרת את המשנה והוא חולק על רבי לעזר. יתר על כן, כפשוטם דברי רבי עקיבא אינם המשך לדין הגר אלא עניין בפני עצמו; במקורות יש ביטויים נוספים לדעתו של רבי עקיבא שהקרימה בתנור היא זמן הרמת החלה והבאנום כאן ולעיל (בסוף פ\"ב ובפרק זה מ\"א). כך, למשל, בספרי שנויים הדברים במפורש כמחלוקת. קשה, אפוא, לפרש שרבי עקיבא אינו חולק על רבי יוחנן בן נורי. זאת ועוד; קשה גם להבין מה בין גלגול הגוי לגלגול יהודי. דומה שהתלמוד מנסה לצמצם את המחלוקת ואת דברי רבי עקיבא. התלמוד מכיר, כנראה, את הנוהג הרווח בימיו כרבי יוחנן בן נורי, ומנסה לפרש כך שרבי עקיבא לא יחלוק על הנוהג הרווח. הפירוש שייך, אפוא, לקבוצה של פירושים המנסה לעמעם מחלוקות ודעות שהן בבחינת \"חריגות\". בתוספתא שנביא להלן המחלוקת חוזרת, והיא עוסקת במפורש בעיסה של גר שהתגייר. אפשר, אפוא, לראות בתוספתא את המקור לפירוש המצמצם את המחלוקת לעיסה כזאת בלבד, ואילו בעיסה רגילה יודה רבי עקיבא לרבי יוחנן. ברם, אין הכרח להבין כך את התוספתא. התוספתא עוסקת בעיסת גוי משום שבכך היה מעשה, או משום שרק במקרה כזה יש \"נפקא מינה להלכתא\" בין שתי הדעות. אבל כפי שהעלינו משלל המקורות המחלוקת עצמה עקרונית.", + "בתוספתא מוצגת עמדה נוספת: \"גר שנתגייר והיתה לו עיסה נעשית, עד שלא קרמו פניה חייבת משקרמו פניה פטורה, דברי רבי עקיבא. רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר עד שלא תגלגל בחטים ותטמטם בשעורין חייבת, גלגלה בחטים וטמטמה בשעורין פטורה. משם רבי יהודה [בן בתירא] אמר משתעשה מקרצות\" (פ\"א הי\"ב). לדעת רבי יהודה בן בתירא זה זמן הפרשת חלה (סוף הכנת הבצק ולפני האפייה)163לביאור המונח \"מקרצות\" ראו לעיל, פירושנו למ\"א. . לדעת מי שסבור שכל המשנה עוסקת רק בדין רכוש הגר, הרי שגם דברי רבי יהודה בן בתירא חלים רק על מקרה זה. " + ], + [ + "העושה עיסה מן החיטים ומן האורז – העיסה מעורבת במזון החייב בחלה, ומאפה הפטור ממנה. האורז הוא דוגמה למזון כזה הפטור מחלה (פ\"א מ\"ד).", + "אם יש בה טעם דגן חייבת בחלה – המשנה מציעה קריטריון אחד ופשוט, והוא הטעם. אם הטעם הוא של לחם – המאפה חייב בחלה, ויוצא בה אדם ידי חובתו בפסח – אם נאפית כמצה היא מצה כשרה, וכיוצא בה הלכות אחרות המבטאות את המצב שמאפה זה הוא לחם, כגון ברכת המוציא וברכת המזון, אם אין בה טעם דגן אינה חייבת בחלה ואין אדם יוצא – בכתב יד קופמן נכפל כאן משפט ומתקן מחקו בקו, בה ידי חובתו בפסח – יש להניח שיש צורך שתהא במאפה כמות חיטים הנדרשת להרמת חלה (חמישה רבעים ועוד), והאורז אינו מצטרף להשלמת הכמות. המשנה אינה אומרת זאת במפורש, אך בתוספתא מוסיף רבן שמעון בן גמליאל: \"העושה עיסה מן החטים ומן האורז, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל [אומר] אין חייבת בחלה עד שיהא בדגן כשיעור, אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח עד שיהא בה כשיעור\" (פ\"ב ה\"א). ניתן לקרוא את המשפטים הללו בשתי צורות: האחת לראות בהם המשך והתייחסות פרשנית למשנה, והאחרת לפרשם כחולקים עליה. המשנה קבעה קריטריון אחד של טעם התערובת, ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל מציע קריטריון אחר של כמות כשיעור. הירושלמי אומר: \"מתניתא כדרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לעולם אינה חייבת עד שיהא בה דגן כשיעור. רבי יעקב בר אידי בשם רבי שמעון בן לקיש: הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל\" (נט ע\"ב). לכאורה שני המשפטים סותרים. אין אומרים \"הלכה כ...\" אלא אם כן יש מחלוקת; אם המשנה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, אז מי הוא החולק על דבריו? ברם, קבוצה גדולה של ראשונים גורסת כאן \"מתניתא דלא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל\"164ראו ליברמן לתוספתא, על אתר; אהבת ציון וירושלים, עמ' 140 (וראו למשל אור זרוע, חלק א סימן רלט). . כלומר, התוספתא חולקת על משנתנו.", + "התלמודים דנים בשאלה אם המשנה דורשת גם שהחיטים תהיינה רוב במאפה המשותף (ירו', נט ע\"ב; בבלי, זבחים עח ע\"א-ע\"ב). שאלה זו מתבקשת לאור העובדה שלמעשה הדין במשנה הוא דין של תערובת. דין תערובת חוזר ונדון רבות במקורות, ותמיד השאלה היא של רוב וביטול. ברם, לשאלה זו של רוב אין זכר במקורות התנאיים. דומה שהמשנה והתוספתא אינן רואות בשאלה מצב של רוב מותר ומיעוט אסור (או ההפך), אלא מצב אחר של תערובת מלכתחילה. אין איסור לערב חיטים באורז ומותר לאפות מאפה כזה, ממילא אין כאן שאלה של ביטול. ממשנה י להלן ברור שאותו דין חל גם על עירוב מעט מבצק החיטה בעיסת אורז, על כן יש להגיע למסקנה כי שאלת הרוב היא שכלול משפטי של תקופת האמוראים בהשראת דיני התערובת הרגילים. אבל בהלכה התנאית לא נחשב מרכיב זה למשמעותי, בשונה מדיני טבל. כך גם יוצא מהמשנה הבאה שבה מדובר בתערובת שיש בה רק מעט עיסה שלא הורמה חלתה.", + "גם בספרי זוטא חוזרת הקביעה העקרונית: \"וכל שנתערב בו אחד מחמשתן165חמישה סוגי הדגנים הנמנים במשנתנו פ\"א מ\"א. הרי זה עובר בפסח ובלבד שיהא בו מראה פת וטעם פת\" (טו יט, עמ' 283). להלן, בסוף משנה י, נחזור לבאר את המשנה לאור הרקע הכללי של דיני תערובת." + ], + [ + "הנוטל שאור מעיסה שלא הורמה חלתה – השאור הוא, כמובן, בצק רגיל, רק ישן יותר ומוחמץ יותר, ונותן לתוך עיסה שהורמה חלתה – כך נוצרת תערובת, חלקה של בצק החייב בחלה וחלקה של בצק הפטור ממנה. גם שאלה זו תיתכן רק לשיטת רבי יוחנן בן נורי (ורבי יהודה בן בתירא), שכן לשיטת רבי עקיבא חיוב חלה הוא באמצע האפייה ואז אי אפשר לערב יותר את הבצקים השונים.", + "אם יש לו פרנסה ממקום אחר – כלומר אם הוא יכול להרים חלה מהבצק הקודם שהוא כשיעור או לצרף אליו בצק נוסף. פתרון זה נדיר למדי שהרי הוא מחייב שהבצק שממנו הורם השאור עדיין קיים, ואם לא היה בו כשיעור ובזמנו נפטר מחלה, ניתן להגדילו ולהפריש ממנו חלה גם על העישור. להלן, במשנה י, נברר פתרון אחר המיוחס לרבי אלעזר בן ערך.", + "מוציא לפי חשבון – מוציא כמות חלה כך שתהווה הפרשה נאותה לבצק שממנו טרם הופרשה חלה, ואם לאו מוציא חלה אחת על הכל – מוציא חלה פעם נוספת על כל הבצק, ולמעשה נמצא מרים חלה פעמיים על אותה עיסה. הלכה זו נובעת מדיני תערובת. למעשה התערובת כוללת מעין טבל ובצק שממנו הפרישו חלה. במקרה רגיל הבצק האסור בטל באחד למאה או ברוב אחר; כל זה בתערובת רגילה שאסור לעשות בה כן לכתחילה. אבל כאן אין מדובר בתערובת רגילה, אלא בדרך אפייה המותרת לכול. על כן אין המשנה מתלבטת כלל בשאלה אם השאור בטל או לא, ואינה מוגבלת למצב שבו השאור הוא יותר מאחד למאה, אלא נקבע דין אחר המתאים למקרה זה של תערובת בהיתר.", + "ההלכה שבמשנה חוזרת בתוספתא בניסוח אחר: \"הנוטל שאר מעיסה שלא הורמה חלתה הרי זה מביא קמח ממקום אחר ומצרפו לחמשת רבעים לחייב עליו לפי חשבון\" (פ\"ב ה\"ב).", + "כפי שאמרנו במבוא, שיטה זו של עירוב בצק ישן כשאור, כדי לזרז את ההחמצה, הייתה דרך המלך של האפייה, וחכמים הקלו בפרטיה כדי לאפשר אפייה רגילה ונוחה166למגמה דומה ראו ההיתר להשתמש בחמץ שעבר עליו הפסח ברשות גויים, תוס', פסחים פ\"א הי\"ג. שם מדובר במי שמתיר לעצמו להשתמש בשאור גויים למרות האיסור על פת גויים, ונראה שחכמים אף שאינם מתירים זאת בגלוי מתעלמים מהאיסור על פת גויים. . להלן, בסוף משנה י, נחזור לבאר את המשנה לאור הרקע הכללי של דיני תערובת." + ], + [ + "כיוצא בו – אותו דין של תערובת חל על המקרה הבא: זיתי מסיק שניתערבו עם זיתי ניקוף – זיתי מסיק הם זיתים רגילים החייבים במעשרות ותרומות. זיתי ניקוף הם הזיתים שקוטפים העניים לאחר שנשכחו על הארץ במסגרת מצוות \"שכחה\". הביטוי בא מדברי הנביא: \"ונשאר בו עולֵלות כנֹקף זית, שנים שלשה גרגרים בראש אמיר, ארבעה חמשה בִסְעִפֶיהָ\" (ישעיה יז ו), וכך מופיע גם הביטוי \"עני המנקף בראש הזית\" (משנה, גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ח). זיתים שנקטפו בדרך זו מכונים \"זיתי ניקוף\" (ראו פירושנו לפאה פ\"ח מ\"ג). פעולת הניקוף היא חבטה במקל על ענפי הזית כדי להשיר את הגרגרים. כל מה שליקט העני במסגרת שכחה או לקט פטור ממעשרות (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ג ומקבילותיה, כפי שפירשנו), וכן: עינבי בציר – ענבים רגילים החייבים במעשר, שניתערבו עם ענבי עוללות – ענבים שנקטפו על ידי עניים כעוללות הפטורים ממעשר, אם יש לו פרנסה ממקום אחר מוציא לפי חשבון ואם לאו מוציא תרומה ותרומת מעשר על הכל – יש בכך כמובן הפרשה כפולה, כמו במשנה הקודמת, והשאר – יתר ההפרשות, שהן: המעשר ומעשר שיני לפי חשבון – מעשר ראשון ושני אין דורשים ממנו להפריש פעם נוספת, מעשר משום שהפרות אינם אסורים באכילה ואין כאן חשש של אכילת מזון אסור, ומעשר שני משום שניתן לפדותו, וכך אפשר להתנות שהמעשר השני יהיה רק על היין או השמן החייבים במעשר. " + ], + [ + "הנוטל סאור מעיסת חיטים ונותן לתוך עיסת האורז – גם במשנה זו מדובר על תערובת חיטה, החייבת בחלה, עם אורז, הפטור ממנה. אך ברור שהחיטה היא מיעוט, שכן השאור אינו רב והוא תמיד מיעוט בעיסה.", + "אם יש בה טעם דגן חייבת בחלה ואם לאו פטורה – טעם הדגן הוא הקובע. ההלכה היא כמו במשנה ז, וברור שתנאים לא חששו לכך שהחיטה היא מיעוט עיסה. כפי שראינו במשנה ז אמוראי ארץ ישראל ובבל הוסיפו מרכיב זה, והוא בבחינת פיתוח אמוראי בלבד.", + "אם כן למה אמרו הטבל אוסר כל שהוא – המשנה מקשה, הרי לכאורה ההלכה הקודמת סותרת הלכה קדומה אחרת. \"למה אמרו\" הוא בדרך כלל ציטוט מהלכה קדומה או ממשנה אחרת. במקרה זה החלק השני (\"מין במינו...\") השתמר ואילו החלק הראשון לא השתמר במשניות שבידינו, אך נראה שהיה כלל הלכתי ידוע.", + "מין במינו שלא במינו בנותן טעם – כאמור, כלל זה שנוי בסדרת משניות וברייתות לעניינים שונים כשביעית (משנה, שביעית פ\"ד מ\"ז), ערלה (משנה, ערלה פ\"ב מ\"ו; בבלי, חולין צט ע\"ב ועוד), תוספת ביכורים (משנה, בכורים פ\"ג מ\"י ומקבילות), עבודה זרה (משנה, עבודה זרה פ\"ה מ\"ח) ובדינים שונים במסגרת דיני מנחות וזבחים (תוס', תרומות פ\"ח ה\"ב; בבלי, מנחות כב ע\"א; זבחים עח ע\"ב, ועוד).", + "הכלל עצמו פשוט למדי. מה שהוא מין במינו אסור בכל שהוא, כלומר, אם נתערב פרי מותר בפרי אסור אפילו מעט מהפרי האסור אוסר את התערובת. אבל אם נתערב מין בשאינו מינו, כגון חיטים באורז, אם יש בו בנותן טעם התערובת אסורה ואם אין בו בנותן טעם התערובת מותרת. הכלל אינו מדבר על העלאת האיסור. ממקורות אחרים אנו שומעים שהפרי האסור \"עולה\" (מתבטל) באחד למאה או יותר (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"ד מ\"ז), אך בכך אין הכלל עוסק. הבבלי מנסה לבחון את עניין הביטול ולהכניסו לתוך הסיכום של המשנה (מנחות צט ע\"ב), אך הניסיון מאולץ, ולמעשה הבבלי דוחה אפשרות זו. ניסיונו של הבבלי בא מתוך הרצון להבין את הכלל במשנה ככלל המקיף את כל האפשרויות, אך כאמור הכלל הוא חלקי ועוסק רק באיסור תערובת ולא בדין ביטול. עם זאת, יש לכלל נגיעה גם לדין ביטול. מין בשאינו מינו ושאינו נותן טעם בטל (\"מותר\" בטבלה להלן) אפילו אין בו אחד למאה. אבל בכל יתר המקרים אסור (ראו בטבלה להלן), אם כי בכמה מקרים האיסור עשוי לעלות (להתבטל) באחד למאה או ברוב אחר. יש גם מקרים שבהם אין האיסור בטל באחד למאה. אחד מהם הוא יין נסך שבו החליטו חכמים להחמיר (משנה, עבודה זרה פ\"ה מ\"י)167פירוש זה מפשט את סוגיית הבבלי שם עג ע\"ב. , ואף על כך יש דעות שונות, ולא נרחיב בנושא.", + "את הדין עצמו ניתן לסכם בטבלה:", + "דין תערובת", + "אין בַכלל ביטוי לשאלה אם צריך להוציא את האיסור מתוך ההיתר. לא תמיד אפשרות זו רלוונטית. כך, למשל, במשנתנו אי אפשר להוציא את השאור מעיסת האורז ואף אין צורך בכך, שכן אין בו כשלעצמו איסור. במקרים אחרים של עירוב דגנים אולי הדבר אפשרי, ואז מן הסתם הוא נחוץ ביותר.", + "ברוב המקבילות חוזרת ההלכה כמו במשנתנו, אבל בכמה מהן יש תוספות ושינויים חשובים: ", + "הבבלי מביא מחלוקת אמוראים. אמוראי בבל (רב ושמואל) אומרים שהכלל חל על כל האיסורים שבתורה, אבל אמוראי ארץ ישראל (רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש) אומרים: \"כל האיסורים שבתורה בין במינן בין שלא במינן בנותן טעם חוץ מטבל ויין נסך במנין במשהו ושלא במנין בנותן טעם\" (עבודה זרה עג ע\"ב). את דברי אמוראי ארץ ישראל ניתן להציג בטבלה להלן, והמחלוקת היא רק במין במינו בשאינו נותן טעם.", + "דין תערובת", + "(מין במינו – נותן טעם)", + "באותיות מוטות נוספה דעת רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש", + "לדעת רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש הדין שבטבלה נכון בכל האיסורים, כולל חלה, אך בטבל ויין נסך החמירו, וכאן הם מסכימים עם הטבלה הראשונה שהצגנו (בטבלה האחרונה מוצגת עמדה זו באותיות נטויות). ביין נסך החמירו מפני חומרתו, אך לא ברור מדוע החמירו בטבל168דן בכך ליברמן בפירושו לתוספתא, תרומות פ\"ה הט\"ו, עמ' 376-375. . לפי פשוטם של דברים החמירו כאן חכמים משום השכיחות והחשש מפני עמי הארץ שאינם נזהרים מספיק, ולבל יתירו לעצמם להתעלם מחובת הרמת תרומות.", + "כן שנינו: \"חתיכה של חטאת טמיאה שנתערבה במאה חתיכות של חטאת טהורה, וכן פרוסה של לחם הפנים טמא שנתערבה במאה פרוסות של לחם הפנים טהור, הרי אילו יעלו. רבי יהודה אומר לא יעלו. וכן במנחות, וכן בחלות תודה. הטבל ויין נסך, מין במינו כל שהוא, ושלא במינו בנותן טעם, ושאר כל האסורין בין במינן בין שלא במינן בנותן טעם\" (תוס', תרומות פ\"ח הכ\"ב). הרישא היא דעתו של רבי יהודה שחתיכה שלמה אינה בטלה, ובברייתות הקודמות שבאותו פרק בתוספתא ביטויים נוספים לדעה זו. ההמשך הוא כשיטת רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש, והבבלי מצטט כנראה ברייתא זו כהוכחה לשיטתו. נמצאנו למדים שאמוראי ארץ ישראל אינם חולקים על משנתנו אלא מכירים דעה תנאית אחרת ופוסקים כמותה. ", + "פתרון אחר מוצע בתוספתא וחוזר בברייתות נוספות בתלמוד: ", + "\"1. הטבל שנתערב בחולין: הרי זה אוסר כל שהוא. אם יש לו פרנסה ממקום אחר, מוציא לפי חשבון. 1א. ואם לאו, רבי ליעזר ורבי לעזר בן ערך אומרים קורא שם לתרומת מעשר שבו, ועולה באחד ומאה. 2. וכן מעשר: מעשר טבל שנתערב בחולין, הרי זה אוסר כל שהוא. אם יש לו פרנסה ממקום אחר, מוציא לפי חשבון. ואם לאו, רבי אלעזר בן ערך אומר קורא שם על תרומת מעשר שבו ועולה באחד ומאה. 3. ואם היה טבל מעשר ראשון ומעשר שני הרי זה אסור, שלא התירו ספק מדומע אלא לדבר שיש לו מתירין. 4. רבי שמעון אומר כל דבר שיש לו מתירין, כגון טבל, מעשר שני והקדש והחדש, ולא נתנו להם חכמים שיעור. [וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין כגון ערלה, וכלאי הכרם, נתנו חכמים להם שיעור. 4א. אמרו לו והלא שביעית אין לה מתירין ולא נתנו לה חכמים שיעור]? אמר להם שביעית אינה אוסרת כל שהוא אלא לביעור, אבל לאכילה אינה אוסרת אלא בנותן טעם\" (תוס', תרומות פ\"ה הט\"ו).", + "הפתרון הראשון הוא \"פרנסה ממקום אחר\", כלומר הטבל הזה הרי היה שייך לערמת פרות כלשהי, ואולי ניתן להפריש שם תרומות על הכול, כולל פרי הטבל שנעלם בתערובת. בברייתות האחרות אין מציעים פתרון זה, ואולי הוא מוסכם על הכול אלא שהמקורות האחרים מדברים על מקרה שאין לו פרנסה ממקום אחר. בחלה, למשל, פתרון זה נדיר יותר, כפי שפירשנו גם לעיל במשנה ח169הירושלמי לעיל, נט ע\"א, מניח בפשטות שדברי רבי אלעזר חלים גם על חלה, ואכן אין כל סיבה לערער על הרחבה זו, אף שרבי אלעזר לא אמרה במפורש. . לרבי אלעזר בן ערך פתרון אחר, לקרוא שם לתרומת המעשר שבו אף שלא ברור היכן מונח הטבל. רבי אלעזר בן ערך אינו חושש לכך שיתרום מפרות שתרומתם הורמה, אינו חושש לכך שאין לתרום ממה שתרום על מה שאינו תרום ואף אינו חושש שיש להפריש מפרות מוגדרים ומסוימים אלא די בכך שברור שיש בערמה זו מרכיב מסוים של טבל. זו דעה מרחיקת לכת המבטלת את כל ההתחבטות בעניין תערובת של טבל בחולין, תרומה בחולין או חלה בחולין, אך אין היא פותרת את הבעיה של תערובת איסורים.", + "עמדה חריגה זו מיוחסת לרבי אליעזר ולרבי אלעזר בן ערך, אם כי בדפוס ובכתב יד ערפורט, וכן במקבילות, היא מיוחסת רק לרבי אלעזר בן ערך. כידוע פרש רבי אלעזר בן ערך מחבורת החכמים וחי לעצמו באמעוס. מתאים שלו תיוחס עמדה החורגת מעמדתם הכללית של חכמים. עם זאת גם לרבי אליעזר עמדה באותו כיוון, אם כי לא באותה עצמה וחריפות. עסקנו בכך בפירושנו לתרומה (פ\"ד מ\"ה), ושם ראינו כי דעה זו מיוחסת לבית שמאי. שם מדובר על מגמה כללית שבה כל קריאת שם לתרומה, אפילו אם הגדרת מקום התרומה מעורפלת, הרי זו תרומה. אמנם אין לנו הציטוט המלא של בית שמאי בברייתא, אך התלמוד הכיר ברייתא כזאת אף שלא ציטטה. אם אכן גם כאן רבי אליעזר בן הורקנוס מופיע כשותף לרבי אלעזר בן ערך, הרי שהדברים עולים בקנה אחד ולפנינו ביטוי לעמדת בית שמאי שאין צורך בהגדרת מקום התרומה כלל. הירושלמי מייחס גישה דומה גם לרבי שמעון, אם כי אין הוא מסיק מכך את מלוא המסקנה כמו רבי אלעזר בן ערך (ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ז מ\"ה; ירו', שם סו ע\"ג). בזהירות מה נראה לנו לשער שבית שמאי קבעו רק עמדה עקרונית ורבי אלעזר בן ערך הסיק ממנה מסקנות מפליגות, ורבי אליעזר בן הורקנוס מהלך בנתיב זה, אך ספק אם היה כה החלטי כמו רבי אלעזר בן ערך. רבי שמעון גם הוא הפנים חלק מתורת בית שמאי, אך שוב לא באותה מידת החלטיות כקודמיו. כפי שנראה להלן, אכן רבי שמעון אינו מתיר את התערובת כמו בית שמאי.", + "בתפיסה זו מהלך גם בעל פנקס הלכה ארץ-ישראלי משלהי התקופה הביזנטית: \"ואם נפל מעשר לתוך חולין מביא תרומת מעשר ממקום אחר על תרומת המעשר שנתערבה\"170מרגליות, הלכות ארץ-ישראל, עמ' פה. . ההלכה הזו של רבי אלעזר בן ערך לא נותרה מחוץ לבית המדרש, ונמצאו לה תומכין גם מאוחר הרבה יותר. ", + "בפירושנו למסכת תרומות עסקנו בקבוצה של שלוש משניות (תרומות פ\"ז מ\"ה-מ\"ז) שבהן אותה גישה מקלה המתירה להניח באופן שרירותי שהקודש מצוי באחת הפינות. להערכתנו, עמדתו של רבי אלעזר בן ערך כאן קרובה לתפיסה ההלכתית החריגה שם. במשניות שם הלכות המיוחסות לרבי יוסי ולרבי מאיר, על כן ברור שאין הן משנתו של רבי אלעזר בן ערך בן דור יבנה. אבל דבריו כאן והמשניות שם הם מאותו בית מדרש, אולי של תלמידי רבי אלעזר בן ערך. ", + "נשוב לברייתא שבתוספתא. דעתו של רבי אלעזר בן ערך היא דעה חריגה; במקבילה בתוספתא דמאי (פ\"ה הי\"ב) אין דעתו מופיעה, וכבר העיר ליברמן171תוספתא כפשוטה, עמ' 374. שהתוספתא שם חולקת על רבי אלעזר בן ערך. ואכן, כאמור, דעתו של רבי אלעזר שונה ממשנתנו וממקבילותיה כפי שציטטנו. המשך הברייתא הוא עניין עצמאי ונגרר לתוספתא172כך ליברמן, שם, עמ' 375. . ייתכן שזה משפט המצמצם את דברי רבי אלעזר בן ערך למקרה של ספק, וכך מגבילה המסורת את החידוש הרב שבדברי רבי אלעזר בן ערך. ", + "המשפט הרביעי בתוספתא הוא גישה אחרת השונה מקודמותיה והיא מיוחסת לרבי שמעון. אם יש לדבר מתירין, כלומר יש אפשרות להתיר את הפרות האסורים שהתערבו, אין חכמים מתירים לבטלם באחד למאה. כך, למשל, פרות מעשר שני ניתן לפדות, על כן אם נפלו לחולין יש לפדות אותם ולא להעלותם ברוב. כל הלכות הביטול באחד למאה או בשאינו נותן טעם הם רק בדבר שאין לו מתירין. גם כאן יש קִרבה לדברי רבי אלעזר בן ערך, אלא שרבי אלעזר מאפשר התרה בצורה מרחיקת לכת שרבי שמעון אינו מסכים עמה. ", + "דברי רבי שמעון מצוטטים בירושלמי מברייתא: \"דתני זה הכלל שהיה רבי שמעון אומר משום רבי יהושע. כל דבר שיש לו מתירין כגון טבל ומעשר שיני והקדש וחדש לא נתנו להן חכמים שיעור. אלא מין במינו בכל שהוא ושאינו במינו בנותן טעם. וכל דבר שאין לו מתירין כגון תרומה, וחלה, וערלה וכלאים נתנו להן חכמים שיעור מין במינו ושלא במינו בנותן טעם\" (ירו', שביעית פ\"ו ה\"ג, לו ע\"ד; נדרים פ\"ו ה\"ח, לט ע\"ד). לעיל הצגנו שתי הצעות בטבלה; הראשונה היא פסיקתם של אמוראי בבל כהמשך לסדרת משניות ובשנייה דעת אמוראי ארץ ישראל המבוססת על תוספתא תרומות. לדעת הברייתא, כפי שצוטטה בירושלמי (ואין לה מקור תנאי עצמאי), אין זו מחלוקת אלא אבחנה בין דבר שיש לו מתירין לדבר שאין לו מתירין. דומה שהברייתא היא ניסיון להרמוניזציה בין המקורות.", + "לסיכום, הבחנו בארבע או בחמש שיטות הלכתיות. הראשונה והחריגה שבהן היא שיטת רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמותר להרים מתנות כהונה גם שלא מן המוגדר, ולכן כמעט כל תערובת מותרת. שתי השיטות האחרות מבחינות בין מין במינו ומין בשאינו מינו, ובין נותן טעם ללא נותן טעם, והצגנו אותן בטבלה לעיל. השיטה הרביעית היא שיטת רבי שמעון שדבר שיש לו מתירין אין להעלותו ברוב, ודבר שאין לו מתירין ניתן להעלותו. רבי שמעון אינו קובע כיצד מעלים ומותיר את השאלה פתוחה. למעשה, שיטה זו אינה חולקת על מי מבין שתי השיטות הקודמות, אלא רק מגבילה את שתיהן. השיטה החמישית מופיעה רק בתלמוד הירושלמי והיא מנסה לפשר בין שלוש השיטות האחרונות. היא משתמשת באבחנה של רבי שמעון כדי לקבוע מתי יש לקבל את השיטה השלישית ומתי את הרביעית. ", + "נסיים פרשה סבוכה זו בהערה נוספת. במשנת תרומות כמה משניות המקלות מאוד בהלכות תערובת. עסקנו בכך בפירושנו לתרומות (פ\"ז מ\"ה ומ\"ו, ושם הערנו לרמזים נוספים לשיטה זו). באותן משניות מוצגת דעה שניתן להפריש תרומה מתערובת של איסור והיתר ולהניח, באופן שרירותי, שהחולין באחת הקופות ולא באחרת. אין הדברים זהים, אך ניתן לזהות קרבה מסוימת לדעת רבי אלעזר בן ערך כאן. על כן דומה שהמשניות שם קרובות לשיטתו, ואולי גם לשיטת בית שמאי. הקרבה בין בית שמאי ורבי אלעזר בן ערך מאפשרת תובנות חדשות לסיבה מדוע נשכח חכם מופלא זה. המקורות תולים, כידוע, את הדבר בכך שעזב את חבריו ורצה להמשיך בלימודיו באופן עצמאי ללא זיקה לחבורה שהתגבשה ביבנה. האם ייתכן שתמיכתו בבית שמאי היא סיבה נוספת לדחיקתו, או אולי סיבה לכך שלא רצה להמשיך ולפעול במסגרת בית המדרש ביבנה? ", + "משנה ז עוסקת בתערובת של מין בשאינו מינו שאם הוא נותן טעם חייב בחלה ונחשב למצה, ואם הדגן אינו נותן טעם אין התערובת נחשבת ללחם. זו, כאמור, העמדה המקובלת כפי שנפסקה על ידי אמוראי בבל (שיטה 2). התביעה \"שיהא בה כשיעור\" היא תביעה נוספת. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל התובע זאת חולק, אפוא, על כל המשניות המציגות שיטה זו. עם זאת, מחלוקתו היא רק על עניין חלה. משנה ח גם היא מהלכת באותה שיטה ועוסקת בתערובת של מין במינו בנותן טעם שנחשב כלחם לפי כל השיטות.", + "נותר עוד לברר מה ההגדרה של \"אסור\" ו\"מותר\" וכיצד מתיישבת הגדרה זו עם הגדרת הביטול באחד למאה או ברוב רגיל. כפי שאמרנו אין משנתנו דנה בכך, וכאילו אלו מערכות נפרדות. משנת ערלה, לעומת זאת, דנה בכך (פ\"ב מ\"ו)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "הרקע הרֵאלי למשנה זו ולמשניות הבאות הוא שוב האפייה המשותפת בחצר השייכת לכמה דיירים. הנשים אפו יחדיו. הלישה הייתה משותפת על אותו משטח עבודה מצומצם, והאפייה משותפת באותו תנור. בצק נגע בבצק, ומאפה במאפה (איור 17). ", + "שתי נשים שעשו שני קבים – כל אחת בפני עצמה פטורה מחלה משום שאפתה פחות משיעור חלה173המשנה מניחה שקב אחד הוא פחות מכשיעור, ושני קבים הם כשיעור, זאת מבלי להיכנס למחלוקת במשנת עדיות (פ\"א מ\"ב) על שיעור חלה. עם זאת, משנתנו דוחה את דעת בית שמאי שם שמפרישים גם מקב, וראו להלן משנה ד. , ונגעו זה בזה – שני הבצקים נגעו זה בזה ובתהליך התפיחה \"נשכו זה את זה\", כלומר נדבקו ומעט מהאחד עבר אל האחר. הסברנו את המשנה לשיטת רבי יוחנן בן נורי (לעיל פ\"ג מ\"א) שנותנים את החלה מהבצק. לשיטת רבי עקיבא שנותנים את החלה מלחם לאחר אפייתו (שם מ\"ו) המגע היה בעת האפייה בתנור. הירושלמי מסביר שהנגיעה כאן היא נשיכה, דנו בכך בסוף פ\"ב וראינו כי לפירוש זה יתרונות וחסרונות. יש בכך הסבר לסתירה עם משנה ד להלן, אך פירוש זה סותר משניות לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ד ומ\"ט). לדעתנו זו מחלוקת עקרונית, האם די בנגיעה, כשיטת בית שמאי ורבי אליעזר, או שיש צורך בנשיכה, כדעת בית הלל. הירושלמי רצה להעמיד את משנתנו כבית הלל, אך לא הסביר את שיקוליו במפורש. אבל לגופו של עניין, די להעמידה כבית שמאי174משניות רבות נסתמו כבית שמאי. לרשימה חלקית ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי. .", + "אפילו הן ממין אחד פטורין – אמנם שני לחמים נדבקו, אך שתי השותפות אינן מעוניינות בכך ולכן אין הדבר נחשב לאפייה אחת. דומה שהגורם הקובע כאן הוא רצונן של הנשים האופות. אם ההדבקה היא לרצונן – זו נחשבת להדבקה. עיקרון דומה חל על הרטבת פרות חיים. פרי חי נחשב לשלם, ולמקבל טומאה, כאשר נרטב, ובתנאי שההרטבה היא לרצונו של בעל הפרות, בזמן שהן של אשה אחת מין במינו חייב – ההנחה היא שלאישה לא אכפת שהלחמים השונים נוגעים ונדבקים זה בזה, ואולי אף רוצה בכך, ושלא במינו פטור – אבל אם הלחמים ממינים שונים, מן הסתם אין האישה רוצה שיידבקו ולכן אין הנגיעה (נשיכה) מועילה להפיכת שני הבצקים ללחם אחד (ירו', נט ע\"ד). מכאן גם מסקנת הירושלמי שאם האישה מקפידה להפריד בין הלחמים אין הם נחשבים לבצק אחד אפילו אם שניהם מאותו המין, ורבי יונה מסביר שהיא אופה אותם זה ליד זה משום שאין לה מקום ללוש אותם בנפרד לגמרי. אגב, ניכר שרבי יונה מסביר את המציאות לפי דעתו ההלכתית של רבי יוחנן בן נורי שחובת חלה היא בתחילת הלישה. ", + "הרמב\"ם וראשונים נוספים מפרשים שמשנתנו כבית הלל במסכת עדיות ששיעור חלה הוא שני קבים (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ב מ\"ו). ברם, דומה שאזכור שני הקבים כאן הוא מקרי. חשוב למשנה לציין שלכל אחת מהנשים פחות מקב, שהוא פחות מכשיעור, והסך הכולל אינו חשוב כלל. ראיה לכך יש במשנה ב. שם הסך הכולל הוא שלושה קבים ואף הוא אינו חשוב, כל שחשוב הוא שכל אחת מהעיסות היא קב. כפי שאמור במשנת עדיות לדעת בית שמאי די בקב אחד כדי לחייב בחלה, וודאי שהמשנה אינה כדעת בית שמאי, שכן לפי בית שמאי כל קב לחוד חייב בחלה, וסתמה כחכמים שיש צורך בחמישה רבעים של קב. " + ], + [ + "אי זה הוא מין במינו – משנתנו מסבירה את המשנה הקודמת ומניחה אותה כנתון. זו משנה שהיא בסגנון התוספתא, המסבירה את המשנה המונחת לפניה. מכאן גם שמשנה ב מאוחרת למשנה א.", + "החיטים אינן מיצטרפות עם הכל – \"הכל\" אלו חמשת המינים של הדגנים (לעיל פ\"א מ\"א). עיסה הנעשית מאחד מהם חייבת בחלה, אך אין הם מצטרפים עם החיטים להוות כשיעור, אלא עם הכוסמים – החיטים והכוסמים הם מינים קרובים. שאלת הצירוף מופיעה בשלושה הקשרים: בכלאים (פ\"א מ\"א), האם מותר לזרוע אחד מהם ליד המין האחר, בתרומות (פ\"ב מ\"ו), האם מותר להפריש מהאחד על האחר, ולעניין חלה, האם בצקים ממינים שונים עשויים להצטרף175ראו דיונו המלא של בעל אור זרוע, סימן ריד. . לעניין כלאיים נמנו חמשת המינים בזוגות זוגות ונאמר שאלו אינם כלאיים זה בזה. בפירושנו למשנה נדונה גם התחבטות הגמרא אם כל מיני הדגנים אינם כלאיים זה בזה, או שרק הזוגות המנויים אינם כלאיים זה בזה. הירושלמי גם מדגיש ש\"כלאים\" הוא לעניין כלאיים בלבד, \"תמן למעשרות וכאן לכלאים\" (כלאים פ\"א ה\"א, כו ע\"ד)176בעל מלאכת שלמה מעניק נופך מיוחד להבדל בין כלאיים וחלה. שם מדובר בצירוף לחול (אם מותר לזרעם זה ליד זה) ובחלה בצירוף לקודש. הרי אם יש חיוב חלה באחד עלול צירופו לגרום למצב שבו לא יפריש חלה מאותו המין אלא רק מהמין האחר. , על כן אין להקשות ממשנת כלאים על משנתנו. אמנם המשנה בתרומות אמרה \"כל שהוא כלאים בחברו לא יתרום מזה על זה\" (פ\"ב מ\"ו), אך אין להסיק מכאן שבכל מה שאינו כלאיים יתרום מזה על זה. אדרבה, המשנה גם ממשיכה ואומרת שבמה שאינו כלאיים לא יתרום מהרע על היפה, וכיוצא באלו כללים. זאת ועוד, אפילו אין להשוות בין איסור תרומה מזה על זה לאיסור הצטרפות לחלה. בתרומה מדובר על פרות שאפילו אם הם קרובים הם עדיין פרות שונים, ואילו בחלה מדובר בקמח ולעתים קרובות מינים שונים נותנים קמח דומה (הרא\"ש לפ\"א מ\"א). הראשונים השקיעו מאמץ רב בבירור מערכת היחסים בין חלה, תרומה וכלאיים, ודומה שהמשניות מפרידות ביניהם ומערכת הקשרים, כפי שמתבטאת במשנת תרומות, היא חלקית. ", + "למשנתנו אין קשר למשנת כלאים, אבל חלק מהזוגות להלן עשויים להצטרף למעשרות (ולתרומות), כלומר להפריש מעשר מזה על זה. בכל מה שהוא כלאיים לא יתרום מזה על זה (משנה, תרומות פ\"ב מ\"ו וראו פירושנו לה), ולעתים גם במה שאינו כלאיים אין לתרום מזה על זה. בהקשר לכך אנו שומעים שאין תורמים מ\"זונין\" על אוכל, כפי שהבאנו לעיל (משנה, כלאים פ\"א מ\"א). \"הצטרפות\" אחרת היא לעניין חלה, ואף להצטרפות זו דינים משלה שאינם זהים לדיני כלאיים.", + "השעורים מיצטרפות עם הכל חוץ מן החיטים – שעורים, כוסמין, שיבולת שועל ושיפון נחשבים לצורך האפייה כמין אחד, לא בגלל הדמיון הבוטני אלא בגלל הדמיון בבצק. ניכר מהמשנה שאמנם יש חמישה מיני דגנים, אך שעורים וחיטים הם המינים העיקריים, והאחרים מצטרפים או אינם מצטרפים אליהם. ייתכן שהגדרת ההצטרפות הייתה תפקודית. בצק החיטים היה בצק טוב, וכוסמין נחשבו לתוסף טבעי ורגיל לחיטה. לעומת זאת השעורים נחשבו למאפה מרמה נחותה יותר177ראו הראיות לכך בפירושנו לכלאים פ\"א מ\"א, ובמבוא לכלאים. , וכן כל שאר שלושת מיני הדגנים (כוסמין, שיפון ושיבולת שועל), על כן היו שנהגו לצרף את כל המינים הנחותים למאפה אחד.", + "רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר שאר המינים מיצטרפין זה עם זה – לפי מבנה המשנה רבי יוחנן בן נורי חולק על הרישא. אם כך אזי יש לפרש שלפי דעתו השעורים אינן מצטרפות עם הכול (אבל אולי מצטרפות עם הכוסמין?), ורק שאר שלושת המינים מצטרפים זה עם זה. ייתכן גם שרבי יוחנן אינו חולק אלא מוסיף שלא רק ששלושת המינים מצטרפים לשעורים אלא גם שמצטרפים לעצמם זה עם זה.", + "בירושלמי מופיעה גרסה נוספת למשנה בלשון \"אית תניי תני: כל המינין מצטרפין\" (נט ע\"ד), כלומר לדעת רבי יוחנן בן נורי כל חמשת המינים נחשבים למין במינו. הירושלמי מסביר שמשנה א המדברת על מין במינו מתכוונת לכל הדגנים, ומין שאינו במינו הוא בצק דגנים שנשך בצק של אורז או חומר אחר. אמנם בכך עוסקת המשנה בפרק הקודם (פ\"ג מ\"ז), אך הגמרא מוצאת הבדל הלכתי בין תערובת חיטים ואורז, למשל, ובין נשיכת כיכרות. הסבר זה מאולץ, וכפשוטה הרישא מנוסחת לפי דעת חכמים ורבי יוחנן בן נורי חולק על ניסוח זה. לדעתו היה צריך לנסח את משנה א \"שתי נשים שעשו שתי קבין אפילו הם מין בשאינו מינו מצטרפין\", אם כן משנה א מנוסחת לפי דעת תנא קמא בניגוד לרבי יוחנן בן נורי, זאת אף שהיא מהלכת בשיטתו לגבי מועד הרמת החלה. בפירושנו למשנה הבאה נמצא חיזוק מה לגרסה זו שבמשנה.", + "במשנה הראשונה במסכת שנינו במפורש שחמשת המינים \"מיצטרפין זה עם זה\", וזאת בניגוד למשנתנו. הירושלמי מתרץ: \"תמן בנשוך וכאן בבלול\" (נז ע\"ב). משנתנו עוסקת בשתי כיכרות הנושכות מעט זו מזו, ולכן רק מינים קרובים מצטרפים, אבל משנה א בפרק א עוסקת בבלול ואז כל המינים מצטרפים. הסבר זה למדני, אך ספק אם הוא פשוטו של כתוב. המשנה שם אינה מגבילה את ההצטרפות, וסביר יותר ששתי המשניות חולקות זו על זו והן ממקורות שונים178אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 101. . לכאורה פשוט הוא שמשנת פרק א היא כרבי יוחנן בן נורי, וזאת לפי הגרסה \"כל המינים\". אלא שעולה מהסוגיה בתלמוד שהאמוראים לא גרסו בדברי רבי יוחנן בן נורי \"כל המינים\" אלא \"שאר המינים\", אחרת לא היו מקשים על הסתירה בין המשניות ולא היו מתרצים בדרך שתירצו. נמצאנו למדים שהגרסה שהכיר הירושלמי במשנתנו הייתה \"שאר המינים מצטרפין\"179אפשטיין הקדיש למונח \"אית תניי\" דיון ארוך (מבוא, עמ' 137-89), ולדעתו תמיד ה\"אית תניי\" הראשון הוא הנוסח של המשנה וה\"אית תניי\" השני הוא נוסח אחר או תיקון, ראו למשל שם, עמ' 90. סוגייתנו היא ראיה לדבריו. , אלא שהייתה לו גם גרסה אחרת.", + "לפי דרכנו, במקורות התנאיים שתי גישות (מחלוקת): משנה א מציגה את הגישה שכל המינים מצטרפים ומשנתנו את הגישה שרק חלק מהם מצטרפים. קשה במקצת לפרש שלרבי יוחנן בן נורי דעה שלישית, אבל הדבר אפשרי. מכל מקום, בתוספתא יש ביטוי לדעה שכל המינים מצטרפים: \"קב חטין וקב שעורין וקב כוסמין הרי אילו מצטרפין\" (פ\"ב ה\"ד), וכן: \"חצי קב חטין וחצי קב שעורין וחצי קב כוסמין נוטל מן הכוסמין\" (שם ה\"ה). אם כן, ודאי שהם מצטרפים, ואפילו מותר להרים מהיפה פחות על היפה יותר. אבל בהלכה אחרת נקבע בפשטות שקב שעורים רק מצרף ומשמע שאינו מצטרף (ה\"ב)180לביטוי \"מצטרף\" ראו משנה ד להלן. , כדעת סתם המשנה כאן. ", + "לעיל בפירושנו למשנה א עמדנו על כך ש\"מצטרפין\" אין משמעו בהכרח שכל המינים מצטרפים זה עם זה, אלא שיש מהם שמצטרפים, והתנא השאיר את הפירוט למקום אחר. משנתנו מציגה את הפרטים השונים, ואין בכך כדי לנגד את הכלל הבסיסי שייתכנו מקרים שונים של צירופים. " + ], + [ + "שני קבים וקב אורז – או שני קבים, וקב תרומה באמצע אינן מיצטרפות – שני קבים של אישה אחת וקב אחר הפטור מחלה אינם מצטרפים, אף אם נשכו זה את זה. האורז פטור מחלה, וכן בצק דגנים של תרומה.", + "דבר שניטלה חלתו באמצע מצטרפין שכבר נתחייב בחלה – אם הקב האמצעי הוא מבצק שהורמה חלתו קודם הוא מצטרף, שכן הוא שייך בחלה. המשנה מביאה דין חדש שהוא המשך למשנה א. לא נאמר מה קורה אם אלו שני קבים של חיטים וקב כוסמין באמצע, ודומה שאלו מצטרפים, ואילו שני קבי חיטים וקב שעורים באמצע אינם מצטרפים. אבל לרבי יוחנן בן נורי, ולפי הגרסה \"כל המינים מצטרפין\", הרי גם במקרה זה הם מצטרפים. המשנה נקטה, אפוא, דוגמה של אורז כדי להיות כדעת הכול ולא להיכנס למחלוקת התנאים שבמשנה ב. כל זאת לפי הגרסה \"כל המינים מצטרפין\". אבל אם הגרסה המקורית במשנה ב היא \"שאר המינים\", קשה מדוע ננקטה הדוגמה של אורז ולא דוגמה של דגן ממין אחר שיש בה יותר חידוש. לפי דרכנו זו ראיה מסוימת לגרסה \"כל המינים\".", + "ההלכה במשנה אינה עקבית, שהרי מה הבדל יש בין קב תרומה לקמח שניטלה חלתו. בתוספתא (פ\"ה ה\"ג וה\"ד) ההלכה עקבית יותר אך שונה, כפי שעולה מהטבלה.", + "הצטרפות דבר שניטלה חלתו לדבר שטרם ניטלה חלתו", + "התוספתא מספרת כיצד עוצבה ההלכה שלב אחרי שלב. בשלב ראשון החליטו רק שקמח שניטלה חלתו אינו מצטרף, ובשלב שני \"הוסיפו עליהן\" את שני הדינים האחרים. המשנה מייצגת, אפוא, את השלב הקדום לפני שהחליטו שקב אורז וקב תרומה אינם מצטרפים, ואילו התוספתא את השלב המאוחר. בשלב של המשנה נקבע איסור על צירוף בצק שניטלה חלתו, ולא גזרו על צירופים אחרים. בשלב שני \"יישרו את הקב\" וקבעו דין אחיד. זו דוגמה נדירה להתהוות ההלכה בשיטת התקדימים. ההלכות נקבעו שלב אחר שלב, פרט אחר פרט, ובשלב הראשון לא נקבעה מדיניות אחידה. ההחלטה הייתה על המקרה הבודד מבלי לקבל החלטות שיטתיות. בשלב שני איחדו את ההחלטות לקראת מערכת שיטתית181בדרך פירושנו אנו מציעים שחזור דומה של הלכות רבות. ברם, בדרך כלל אין הדברים יוצאים מגדר טענה או הנחת יסוד. במקרים ספורים שימרו לנו המקורות את העדות על התהליך כמו במשנתנו. דנו בכך, בקיצור נמרץ, במבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות. ." + ], + [ + "קב חדש וקב ישן שנישכו זה בזה – שני הבצקים שייכים לאישה אחת ויש להרים מהם חלה, שכן הם מצטרפים182הנחת המשנה היא שקב אחד פטור מחלה, ויותר מכן חייב בחלה. . השאלה היא מאיזו חלה ירימו את החלה, שכן בצק אחד הוא מהישן והאחר מהחדש. \"חדש\" כאן משמעו החיטה של העונה החדשה, ואין לאכלה לפני פסח, ואילו את הבצק הנעשה מה\"ישן\" מותר לאכול בכל עת. המשנה עוסקת בערב פסח, כאשר בשוק קיים קמח מהחדש אך הוא אסור באכילה. לפי ההלכה אין לקצור חיטים מן החדש לפני פסח, וודאי שלא לאפות ממנו. אבל אנו יודעים שנהגו לקצור את החיטים לפני הזמן: \"משקרב העומר יוצאין ומוצאין שוק ירושלים שהוא מלא קמח וקלי שלא ברצון חכמים, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר: ברצון חכמים היו עושים\" (משנה, מנחות פ\"י מ\"ה, וראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ד מ\"ח). המשנה כאן אינה עוסקת בדיני חדש, היא אינה מפרטת את הדיון על המותר והאסור בהכנת בצק זה לפני פסח, ומדברת רק על ההיבט המצומצם של מצוות חלה. למעשה, השאלה שבמשנה תישאל גם על תערובת מתוכננת של כיכרות של חדש וישן, אך המשנה צמודה לשאלה הבסיסית המחברת את כל המשניות של תערובת על ידי נשיכה של כיכרות. בפירושנו לעיל (סוף משנה ב) עמדנו על כך שבמקרה זה תובע רבי ישמעאל נשיכה, ואינו מסתפק בנגיעה של שני הבצקים, משום שיש כאן עירוב חדש וישן.", + "רבי ישמעאל אומר יטול מן האמצע – הבעל רשאי להרים את החלה מהאמצע. באמצעי יש תערובת בצק מהחדש והישן, ואת התערובת מותר יהיה לכוהן לאכול רק לאחר הפסח. מהדברים משמע שלדעת רבי ישמעאל קב חדש מצטרף לקב הישן, והשאלה היא רק מאיזה קב יש להרים את החלה, וחכמים אוסרין – לא ברור מה תובעים חכמים. האם הם מחייבים לתת מהחדש או מהישן או שהם מתירים לתת ממה שירצה, ובלבד שהכוהן יאכל את הבצק בזמן. ואולי הם דורשים לתת מכל קב לחוד, כדי לא לערב חדש וישן (מאירי ואחרים), כשם שאסור לתרום מהחדש על הישן (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ה). בתוספתא נאמר שקב של חדש כמו גם קב של שעורים מצרפים. המדובר במקרה של קב מכאן וקב מכאן וקב חדש או קב שעורים באמצע (תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ב). הקב באמצע מצרף את שני הקבים ליחידה אחת. מן הדברים משמע שהקב החדש רק מצרף את הקבים שבצדדים, אבל אינו מצטרף עמם, שכן אם היה מצטרף הרי המשנה מיותרת ושלושת הקבים הם בבחינת \"מין במינו\". אם כן, לדעת התוספתא קב חדש אינו מצטרף וכנראה זו דעת חכמים שקב חדש אינו מצטרף, אם כי הוא מצרף קבים אחרים ליחידת לחם אחת. במסכת תרומות הועמדה שאלה זו וראינו כי בית שמאי ובית הלל נחלקים אם מותר לצרף חדש וישן183ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"א מ\"ה ולעיל סוף פ\"ב. . חכמים אוסרים זאת כשיטת בית הלל, ורבי ישמעאל נוקט שיטת ביניים ומתיר תרומת חדש על ישן אם הייתה נשיכה הדדית ממש, או שמא הוא מהלך בשיטת בית שמאי ומתיר צירוף שתי העיסות לעיסה אחת.", + "הנוטל חלה מן הקב – מי שמחמיר ונוטל חלה מכמות שאינה חייבת בחלה. כפי שראינו לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ו) בית שמאי אומרים שקב בצק חייב בחלה, אך המעשה הנדון במשנה אינו דווקא לבית שמאי. \"קב\" כאן אינו דעת בית שמאי, אלא כינוי כללי למי שמחמיר על עצמו ונותן חלה מפחות מ\"כשיעור\", שהוא קב ורבע.", + "רבי עקיבה אומר חלה – אמנם החמיר על עצמו, אך מתנתו מתנה, וחכמים אומרים אינה חלה – כפי שראינו יש מחלוקת דומה לגבי המפריש חלתו מקמח (לעיל פ\"ב מ\"ה), גם שם נדונה השאלה של הנותן חלה טרם הזמן, והמחלוקת היא אם בדיעבד החלה חלה או שהיא חולין לחלוטין. שם לא היה מי שאמר שהחלה כשרה לחלוטין, אלא שיש בה צד של חלה ויתרום שנית, בבחינת \"תרומתו תרומה ויחזור ויתרום\"184כגון משנה, תרומות פ\"א מ\"ח. .", + "השאלה הנדונה היא עקרונית ונוגעת למצוות רבות, והיא מה דינו של המקיים מצווה כאשר הוא פטור ממנה. בתוספתא מוצגים שני דימויים המעידים על התפיסות ההלכתיות השונות: \"אמר רבי אליעזר בן יעקב: הנוטל חלה מן הקב למה הוא דומה? לתורם תבואה שלא הביאה שליש, שאין תרומתו תרומה, וחכמים אומרים: לתורם פירות שלא נגמרה מלאכתן, שאין תרומתו תרומה. חזרו לומר לא כך ולא כך, שהרי הקב הזה מצטרף הוא עם אחרים\" (פ\"ב ה\"ה). שתי הדעות הן הסברים לשיטת חכמים שהחלה אינה חלה אף בדיעבד. התורם פרות שלא הביאו שליש ותורם ממה שאינו ראוי ואינו שלם תרומתו פסולה משום שאכילת פרי לפני שהביא שליש היא למעשה השחתה של הפרי, על כן חז\"ל מתנגדים לאכילה מעין זו. כך, למשל, אסור לאכול פרות שביעית שלא הביאו שליש185ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ד מ\"ז; פירושנו למעשרות פ\"ה מ\"ו; השוו תרומות פ\"ט מ\"א; מנחות פ\"י מ\"ח. . \"הבאת שליש\" כאן היא מינוח כללי לתרומת פרי שאינו שלם. הגדרת הזמן המדויק שניתן לתרום בו מפרות נידונה במקום אחר186שביעית ומעשרות שם שם. . לדעת חכמים הרמת חלה מכמות קטנה דומה לתרומת פרות שלא נגמרה מלאכתם. הפרות ראויים לאכילה והם שלמים, אלא שטרם נגמר עיבודם, ולכן טרם התחייבו במעשרות, אבל אין בהם פגם. כך גם נתינת חלה מכמות קטנה היא קיום מצווה טרם הזמן, אך התרומה עצמה ראויה. לדעת חכמים נתינת חלה מקב היא מעשה ראוי אם כי אין בו חובה, אולי בבחינת צדיקות יתר. לדעת רבי אליעזר בן יעקב היא מעשה פסול ממש. מסקנת התוספתא היא ששתי ההשוואות פסולות, משום שכאשר תורם פרות לפני הזמן הפרות עצמם אינם ראויים לתרומה, ואילו כשתורם חלה מכמות קטנה הקמח עצמו ראוי לתרומה.", + "התוספתא מניחה בפשטות שהתורם מפרות שלא נגמרה מלאכתם תרומתו אינה תרומה, ולהלן נראה שהנחה זו אינה מוסכמת על הכול.", + "בירושלמי מובא הסבר אחר שהוא בבחינת עיבוד להסבר הראשון: \"רבי עקיבה מדמי לה לפירות שלא נגמרו מלאכתן. עבר והפריש מהן תרומה הרי זו תרומה. ורבנין מדמין לה לתבואה שלא הביאה שליש. עבר והפריש ממנה חלה אינה חלה. חזרו לומר אינן דומין לא לפירות שלא נגמרה מלאכתן ולא לתבואה שלא הביאה שליש. אלא רבי עקיבה מדמי לה לומֵר הרי זו תרומה על הפרות האילו לכשיתלשו, ונתלשו, ורבנין מדמין לה לומֵר הרי זו תרומה על הפרות האילו לכשיתלשו\" (נט ע\"ד). ברור שהירושלמי הכיר מקור קדום שהיו בו חומרים הקרובים לתוספתא בסגנונם, אבל הטיעונים עצמם שונים. ההסברים הם לשיטת רבי עקיבא ולשיטתם של חכמים החולקים. לדעת רבי עקיבא התורם חלה מכמות קטנה (קב) הוא כתורם מפרות שלא נגמרה מלאכתם, והתורם כך תרומתו תרומה. זאת בניגוד לתוספתא המניחה שהתורם מפרות כאלו אין תרומתו תרומה. הנימוק השני הוא לדעת חכמים שהתורם חלה מקב הוא כתורם מפרות שלא הביאו שליש, שתרומתו פסולה כפי שהסברנו לעיל. לאחר מכן חוזרים בהם חכמים משני הדימויים כמו בתוספתא.", + "עוד מובא בירושלמי דיון האם רבי עקיבא רואה בהיתר היתר מלא או היתר בדיעבד: \"הוון בעי מימר (היו שואלים לאמור:) מה דאמר רבי עקיבה: 'ניטל חלה מקב' חלה187מילה זו מיותרת. מהלכה, הא מדבר תורה לא. מן מה דתנינן: 'רבי עקיבה פוטר וחכמים מחייבין' הדא אמרה אפילו מדבר תורה\" (נט ע\"ד). את המשנה ניתן להעמיד כהעמדה של דיעבד: ראוי שלא יתרום מקב, ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה. אבל מהניסוח המקביל בברייתא משמע שרבי עקיבא פוטר, כלומר מותר לכתחילה להרים תרומה מהקב, ואם אחר כך הצטרף הקב לכמות גדולה יותר הרמת החלה הראשונה פוטרת אותו. אם כן, אכן מותר לתרום חלה מקב; הבעל אמנם פטור, אך רשאי לחייב את עצמו188וכן לא יתרום מפרות שלא נגמרה מלאכתם, ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה. ראו משנה, תרומות פ\"א מ\"י. בפירושנו שם נראה שלעתים בית הלל מחמירים במקרים כאלה, וסוברים שאין תרומתו תרומה. .", + "רבי אליעזר בן יעקב הנזכר בתוספתא מחייב הרחבת מה לבירור זמנו ומקומו. רבי אליעזר בן יעקב הוא החכם העיקרי המוסר על הבית השני, מבנהו וסדריו. חכמים אחרים המוסרים על סדרי הבית הם רבי חנינה סגן הכוהנים, אבא שאול, יוסי בן חנן ושמעון איש המצפה. כולם היו מזקני דור יבנה שראו עוד את הבית. לעומת זאת חכמים מאוחרים יותר כרבי טרפון, רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע שעדיין חיו ופעלו בימי הבית אינם מוסרים רבות על סדריו ואינם מעידים, עדות אישית, על סדריו. על כן יש להניח שאכן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב היה מזקני דור יבנה. הוא גם מספר עדות אישית על דודו ששירת כלוי במקדש (משנה, מידות פ\"א מ\"ב). לכך ניתן להוסיף שרבי אלעאי מוסר משמו (תוס', טהרות פ\"ג הי\"ג, עמ' 663). רבי אלעאי היה מוותיקי תלמידיו של רבי אליעזר בן הורקנוס, מחכמי החצי הראשון של דור יבנה. אם כן, רבי אליעזר בן יעקב זה היה מחכמי דור יבנה. מצד שני, אין ספק שהיה חכם בשם זהה שהיה מתלמידי חנניה בן חכינאי, מתלמידיו הוותיקים של רבי עקיבא (משנה, כלאים פ\"ד מ\"ח ועוד). הוא דרש בהלכות פרה בטבריה, ורבי מאיר ורבי אלעזר בן שמוע שמעו את הדרשה (ספרי זוטא, יט י, עמ' 305), והוא שואל את יונתן בן המשולם ורבי יהושע בן ממל (ספרי זוטא, ל יד, 328). רבי יהושע זה היה מרבותיו של רבי מאיר (תוס', נזיר פ\"ה ה\"א). עדויות אלו ואחרות189כגון אבות פ\"ד מ\"י, שם הוא נמנה בשרשרת החכמים של דור אושא, וכן אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פי\"ח, עמ' 68, שם הוא מתואר במסגרת סדרת חכמים מדור אושא. לעתים הוא נמנה עם תלמידי רבי עקיבא, אך לא בכל הרשימות ועדויות נוספות, ואין צורך להרבות ולהוכיח את הברור מאליו. מוכיחות שהמדובר בחכם מחכמי דור אושא, ואולי אף היו שני חכמים כאלו, האחד מראשית דור אושא והאחר בסופו. נמצאנו למדים שאכן היו שני חכמים בשם רבי אליעזר בן יעקב, ואין לפקפק בעצם קיומם.", + "מעתה יש לשאול מיהו אותו רבי אליעזר בן יעקב שבתוספתא. האם הנימוקים למשנה הם קדומים, מפיו של רבי אליעזר בן יעקב הראשון, או שהם נימוקיו של רבי אליעזר בן יעקב המאוחר? קשה להכריע בדבר, אך ניתן להעיר, בזהירות מסוימת, שאין אף דבר הלכה שניתן לייחס בוודאות לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב הראשון. דומה שכל מה שיש ממנו הוא עדויות על המקדש, ועל כן קרוב לוודאי שגם כאן בתוספתא הדברים הם תגובה והשלמה לדברי רבי עקיבא במשנה. עם זאת, יש היגדים רבים המיוחסים לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב שאי אפשר לדעת מתי נאמרו (כמו בתוספתא שבה אנו עוסקים). על כן ייתכן שגם רבי אליעזר בן יעקב הראשון עסק בדברי הלכה, והנימוק שהוא מוסר קדם לדברי רבי עקיבא והוא זה שעיצב אותם." + ], + [ + "שני קבים שניטלה חלתן של זה בפני עצמו ולזה בפני עצמו חזר ועשאן עיסה אחת רבי עקיבה פוטר – לדעת רבי עקיבא כבר הורמה חלה מכל חלק בנפרד. זאת לדעת רבי עקיבא שהחלה שהורמה מכמות קטנה היא חלה לכל דבר, וחכמים מחייבין – משום שלדעתם החלה שהורמה מהקבים הבודדים אינה חלה, לא חלים עליה דיני חלה ואף אין הם פוטרים את העיסה מחלה אם נוצרה כמות גדולה מספיק כדי \"שיעור\" (חמש רביעיות הקב).", + "נימצא חומרו קולו – הגישה של רבי עקיבא מחמירה בתחילה (שהחלה שהורמה מקב היא חלה לכל דבר) ונמצאת גורמת בסופו של דבר להקלה, ואילו ההקלה של חכמים בהתחלה (שהחלה היא חולין לכל דבר) גורמת חומרה, שיש להפריש חלה על הכול. במשנתנו \"חומרו קולו\", והוא לפי דעת רבי עקיבא. אבל בירושלמי בשם \"אית תנויי תני: קולו חומרו\" (נט ע\"ד), כלומר לדעת חכמים. גם בחלק מעדי הנוסח שבספרות הראשונים190ראו זק\"ש, משנה, על אתר, הערה 38. ראו גם אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 102. גם כאן האית תניי הראשון הוא הנוסח שבכל כתבי היד, ונראה כמקורי יותר. נמצא \"קולו חומרו\". נראה שזה תיקון של ראשונים שהניחו שהמשך המשנה צריך להיות כהלכה, וההלכה היא כחכמים נגד התנא הבודד.", + "דרכו של רבי עקיבא במשנתנו מעוררת שאלה באשר למועד הרמת החלה. מהדברים משמע שהרמת החלה לא הייתה ברגע קצר כלשהו, אלא מועד הרמת החלה הוא זמן ממושך. בפרק ג (מ\"א-מ\"ו) מופיעה סדרת הלכות שמשתמע מהן שיש מועד קצר וקבוע להרמת חלה; מה שלא היה חייב בחלה אז פטור גם אם בהמשך יתחייב בחלה, ומאידך גיסא מה שהתחייב בחלה לא ייפטר גם אם בעתיד ייווצרו שינויים הפוטרים את הבצק מחלה. רבי יוחנן בן נורי קבע שזמן הרמת חלה הוא \"גלגולה\", כלומר נתינת המים, ורבי עקיבא אמר זמן הקרימה בתנור, כלומר סוף האפייה. ממשנתנו משמע שגם רבי עקיבא מדבר על הרמת חלה מבצק, שהרי לאחר הקרימה בתנור אי אפשר כבר ששני קבין יחזרו להיות עיסה אחת, ובכלל לפני הקרימה הם היו פטורים מחלה, וכיצד זה הופרשה מהם חלה? ממילא אין כאן שתי עיסות שהפכו לאחת, אלא סתם עיסה אחת. דין שתי עיסות שצורפו נידון כל צורכו לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ד), והוא אינו הנושא כאן. אפשר היה להבין שרבי עקיבא סבור ששינוי שנעשה במועד מאוחר אינו משמעותי ואין לו כל מעמד הלכתי, ולכן הצירוף של העיסות אינו משנה לעניין חלה. אבל ברור שלא כך מציגה משנתנו את דבריו אלא היא קושרת בין הקלתו זו ובין חומרתו שגם קב חייב בחלה.", + "מאידך גיסא, גם דעת חכמים קשה. אם הם סבורים שמועד הרמת החלה הוא הקרימה בתנור, הרי שדעתם קשה כשם שדעתו של רבי עקיבא קשה. אבל אם הם סבורים כרבי יוחנן בן נורי הרי ניתן לשחזר שבשלב הגלגול היו אלו שתי עיסות נפרדות, ואחר כך גלגלן מחדש, עם מים נוספים, כדי להפכן לבצק אחד, ולכן התחייבו בחלה. ", + "אין זאת אלא שלשיטת רבי עקיבא זמן הרמת חלה הוא מהגלגול ועד הקרימה. לעיל (סוף פרק ב) הצענו כי זו גם דעתו של רבי אליעזר." + ], + [ + "אחת הבעיות הקשות בהפרשת חלה הייתה העובדה שרוב הציבור היה בבחינת \"עמי הארץ\" שלא שמרו על טהרה, או שלפחות חז\"ל ייחסו להם אי-הקפדה על מצווה זו. על כן הייתה החלה טמאה, שהרי היא מורמת לכל המוקדם בשלב שהעיסה הופכת בו למזון המקבל טומאה. משנתנו מציגה את אחד הפתרונות לבעיה זו.", + "נוטל אדם כדי חלה מעיסה שלא הורמה חלתה לעשותה בטהרה – הוא לוקח כמות של בצק אשר תספיק להפרשת חלות רבות. את הבצק הזה הוא מכין בטהרה בעצמו, או אולי בסיועו של שכן שהוא חבר, להיות מפריש עליה והולך חלת דמי – בהמשך הימים יכין האיש בצקים נוספים ויפריש מהם כחלה את הבצק הזה שהכין בטהרה. בצק זה הופך למעין \"בנק\" של חלה טהורה. היתרון הוא שהחלה תופרש בטהרה. החיסרון של הפתרון הוא שנמצא מפריש מבצק אחד על השני ומן הטהור על בצק טמא. לכן באה ההגבלה שמותר לעשות כן רק על חלת דמאי191חלת דמאי היא חלה שאין ידוע אם הפרישו ממנה את החלה. אבל אין לפרש שזו חלה מבצק שלא ידוע אם הפרישו ממנו מעשרות, שכן מבצק כזה יש להפריש חלה בכל מצב, שהרי גם ממעשר ראשון יש להפריש חלה כמות ששנינו בפ\"א מ\"ג. ברם, היו ראשונים שהתחבטו בשאלה. .", + "עד שתיסרח – מותר להשתמש ב\"בנק\" החלה עד שאותו בצק יסרח וייפסל לאכילת אדם, שחלת[ה] דמיי ניטלת מן הטהור על הטמא – המשנה מניחה שאין להפריש מהטהור על הטמא, אך הדבר מותר בחלת דמאי, ושלא מן המוקף – המשנה גם מניחה שאין להפריש אלא מן המוקף, מבצק הנוגע בחברו או אולי גם משני בצקים הנעשים יחדיו, גם ללא נגיעה ישירה בכל אחד. ההנחה שאין להרים חלה אלא מן המוקף אכן מקובלת על הכול (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ט; פ\"ב מ\"ח), אבל ההנחה שאין לתרום מן הטהור על הטמא שנויה במחלוקת. רבי אליעזר מהלך בשיטת בית שמאי וחולק על כך (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"א מ\"ט; פ\"ב מ\"ח). משנתנו היא, אפוא, כשיטת בית הלל. מן הראוי להעיר שניתן לעקוף את שאלת הרמת החלה \"מן המוקף\" ", + "וניתן ליצור היקף מלאכותי שלא יגרום לטמא את הבצק (לעיל פ\"ב מ\"ח). לעיל פ\"א מ\"ט ראינו שבנושא של המשנה יש מחלוקת בין בית שמאי לבית הלל, ומשנתנו כבית שמאי192ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי, וראו במבוא. .", + "המשנה גם מניחה שהפרשת חלה היא מהבצק, כדעת רבי יוחנן בן נורי (ראו פירושנו לעיל, פ\"ג מ\"א), על כן יש להשאיר את הבצק המשמש כחלה כבצק עד שיסרח. אבל לשיטת רבי עקיבא מפרישים חלה מלחם אפוי ואפשר להשאיר את הלחם המיועד לחלה עד שיעלה עובש; לחם שלם אינו מסריח אלא הופך לניקודים, עובש ושאר נזקים דומים. ", + "כאמור, משנתנו היא פתרון לעמי הארץ הרוצים להפריש חלה בטהרה. אלא שפתרון זה הוא רק לחלת דמאי, כלומר לכיכר שאין ידוע אם הורמה חלתה. אבל לשיטת בית שמאי זהו פתרון לכל הרמת חלה בתנאי טומאה. לא מן הנמנע שבראשיתו של דבר הוצע הפתרון לכול, כשיטת בית שמאי, ורק בשלב שני צומצם למקרה נדיר של חלת דמאי, כדי שיתאים גם לבית הלל.", + "היו מפרשים, כבעל מלאכת שלמה ואחרים, שהסבירו שחלת דמאי היא חלה שעם הארץ אפה אותה ועמי הארץ חשודים על החלה. פירוש זה בא מתוך ההיקש לפרות דמאי באופן כללי, שהם פרות בידי עם הארץ וספק אם הופרשו מהם מעשרות. ברם, כפי שראינו במבוא, מעולם לא נחשד עם הארץ על דמאי. אבל מן הסתם אירעו מקרים של ספק, וזו חלת הדמאי הנדונה כאן." + ], + [ + "ישראל שהיו אריסים לגוים בסורייה – מעמדה של סוריה נידון במפורט במסכת שביעית193ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"א. . באופן כללי, \"סוריה\" היא מונח הלכתי לתחום ארץ הסמוך לתחומי ארץ ישראל. על אזור זה חלות חלק מהמצוות התלויות בארץ. סוריה אינה נחשבת כארץ ישראל, אך אדמות היהודים בסוריה נחשבות כחלק מהארץ, או על כל פנים חייבות במעשרות. כן שנינו: \"ישראל שקנה שדה בסוריא, הרי הוא כקונה בפרוד שבירושלם\" (תוס', תרומות פ\"ב ה\"י). פרוורי ירושלים חייבים במעשרות כמו כל ארץ ישראל, אך הלשון היא לשון גוזמה שאינה הלכתית, והכוונה שאדמות יהודים בסוריה הן כארץ ישראל. כמו כן: \"הקונה שדה בסוריא סמוכה לארץ ישראל, אם יכול להכנס לה בטהרה, טהורה וחייבת במעשרות ובשביעית. ואם אינו יכול להכנס לה בטהרה, טמאה וחייבת במעשרות ובשביעית\" (משנה, אהלות פי\"ח מ\"ז). אם כן, אדמות ישראל בסוריה חייבות במעשרות ותרומות אפילו אם אין רצף טריטוריאלי של אדמות יהודיות. כפי שראינו לעיל194ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ה מ\"ט. , בתקופת התנאים נחשבו פרות הגוי לחייבים במצוות התלויות בארץ (מעשרות ותרומה), אך פרותיו בסוריה פטורים. השטח עצמו נחשב כחו\"ל, והקניין הפרטי אינו מועיל להפכו לאדמת הארץ. בכתובת רחוב הכלל מנוסח בצורה חד-משמעית פחות: \"ואם יש מקום שקנו אותו ישראל חוששין לו רבותינו\"195זוסמן, כתובת, שורה 26, עמ' 135, ושורה 12, עמ' 127. זוסמן קושר את הדברים למימרתו של רבי מנא בירושלמי, אך בירושלמי אין מדובר בקניין פרטי אלא בעיירה של יהודים, ולא נרחיב בכך. . בכתובת מדובר בשטח בתוך ארץ ישראל שהוצא מחוץ לתחומי הארץ בגלל היעדר יישוב יהודי באזור, ועם כל זאת הניסוח אינו מנוסח כהלכה אלא בסגנון רך יותר.", + "מכל מקום, סתם פרות בסוריה פטורים ממעשרות ומתרומות, שהרי מן הסתם גדלו בשדות גויים, אבל אם גדלו בשדות יהודים הם חייבים במעשרות. דין מעשרות ותרומות הוא כדין חלה. אמנם חיוב החלה מעט רחב יותר (ראו לעיל פירושנו לפ\"ב מ\"א), אך עדיין אדמות ישראל בסוריה חייבות בחלה ואדמות גויים פטורות ממנה. במשנתנו מדובר באדמות השייכות מבחינה משפטית לנכרי, אך הפרות גדלים בבעלות של יהודים והשאלה היא מה מעמדה של הקרקע, כשל יהודים או כשל נכרים. המשנה מניחה הנחה סמויה נוספת, שאדמות נכרים בארץ ישראל חייבות במצוות התלויות בארץ, כולל כמובן בהפרשת חלה. בספרות האמוראים יש מחלוקת בנושא, ויש דעה שלגוי יש קניין להפקיע ממצוות התלויות בארץ. בתלמודים מפרשים כך את דברי התנאים. ברם, ראינו כי את דברי התנאים עדיף לפרש ללא כל זיקה למחלוקת על פרות נכרים196ראו על כך בהרחבה בפירושנו לדמאי פ\"ה מ\"ט. . בכל המקורות התנאיים לא הוטל כל ספק בכך שפרות הגוי חייבים במעשרות ובחלה. כך גם מניחה משנתנו. על כן המשנה עוסקת באריסים בסוריה, אבל אריסים בארץ ישראל חייבים בחלה, שהרי ממה נפשך: אם אדמתם כאדמת ישראל או כאדמת הגוי בכל מקרה הם חייבים בחלה.", + "רבי אליעזר מחייב פירותיהם במעשרות ובשביעית – אדמת האריס נחשבת כרכושו של האריס, ואדמות ישראל בסוריה חייבות במעשר, שביעית וחלה.", + "רבן גמליאל פוטר – לדעתו אדמת אריס שייכת לבעל השדה. שדה נכרי בסוריה פטור ממצוות התלויות בארץ. השאלה המרכזית בהבנת המשנה היא באיזה אריס מדובר. האם דין זה נכון לגבי כל אריס שהוא? ומה דינו של חוכר? בנספח למסכת דמאי עסקנו בשאלת הסדרי האריסות באריכות. ראינו כי היו כמה סוגי הסדרים:", + "1. חכירה שבה החוכר משלם לבעל סכום קבוע של כסף. ", + "2. אריסות רגילה שבה האריס משלם לבעל אחוז מהיבול.", + "3. אריסות או חכירות עולם (חכירי בתי אבות). התשלום היה בגובה המקובל באריסות או בחכירה, אבל לאריס (חוכר) היו כנגד זה זכויות בקרקע. אריסותו עברה בתוקף ההסדר המשפטי בירושה, ולמעשה הפך האריס או החוכר לבעל הקרקע בפועל, אם כי הבעלות המשפטית והכוח החברתי היו בידי האדון. תלותו של האריס בבעל הקרקע התבטאה בתשלום (גבוה). זאת ועוד; שיערנו, בין השאר על סמך משנתנו, שבהסדר אריסות עולם נהוג היה לעבד את התוצרת במשותף. טענה זו תתברר להלן.", + "את המשנה ניתן היה לפרש בכל סוגי האריסות והחכירה, או אולי אף באריסות רגילה ולא בחכירה. אבל לא כך פירשו בתוספתא ובירושלמי, ומן הדין לפתוח בהסבר המפורט יותר שבירושלמי: \"רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוחנן. לא חייב רבי ליעזר אלא בחכירי אבות, כגון מהלל דבית רבי197אור זרוע, סימן רנ, גורס \"מהלין דבי רבי ינאי\". . תני רבי חלפתא בן שאול קנס קנסו רבי ליעזר. מה נפק מביניהון? אריס לשעה. מאן דאמר קנס חייב, מאן דאמר בחכירי בתי אבות פטור\" (ס ע\"א). לפי ההסבר הראשון חייב רבי אליעזר במעשרות רק בחכירי אבות שלהם בעלות על הקרקע יותר מלאריס רגיל. לפי ההסבר השני \"קנס קנסו\", כלומר לאיסור אין סיבה משפטית. אכן אריס אינו נחשב לבעל הקרקע, אך כאן החליטו חכמים להחמיר, כקנס. כפי שהעלינו במבוא דין חלה כדין תרומה, אבל בפועל נהגו בציבור להחמיר ביחס למצוות חלה, ונראה שהחמרה זו באה לידי ביטוי בדברי רבי אליעזר. התלמוד עצמו מצהיר שלפי רבי אבהו אריס לשעה, שהוא אריס רגיל, פטור מחלה, ורק אריסי (חכירי) בתי אבות חייבים בה. הסברנו את הקנס כחל על חלה בלבד, ובכך גם הסברנו מדוע הלכה זו שנויה במסכת חלה. ברם, עדיין ניתן לפרש גם אחרת. המשנה העוסקת באריס אינה מזכירה את החלה אלא את שביעית ומעשרות, על כן ייתכן שאין בה עניין מיוחד לחלה, והיא הובאה רק בגלל ההמשך. הרישא עוסקת בסוריה באופן כללי, והסיפא בדין חלה בסוריה. אם כן, הקנס הוא על כל אריס כדי שיימנע מקבלת אריסות בסוריה. יש להניח שבשנת שביעית התפתה היהודי תושב אזור הגבול בגליל לחכור או לארס אדמות בסוריה הפטורות משביעית. כפי שנראה להלן בתוספתא אסר רבן גמליאל \"לערס\", ורבי אליעזר צעד צעד נוסף והחמיר והטיל חובת שביעית על אריס כזה. זאת ברוח ההחמרות של דור יבנה בכל הלכות שביעית198ראו על כך במבוא למסכת שביעית. .", + "לדעתנו התוספתא מציעה הסבר דומה: \"...ובלבד שלא יהא הוא מלקט, והן אוגדין על ידו; הוא בוצר, והן דורכין על ידו; הוא מוסק, והן עוטנין על ידו. אלא הן מלקטין, והוא אוגד על ידיהן; הן בוצרין, והוא דורך על ידיהן; הן מוסקין, והוא עוטן על ידן\" (תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ה). רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק199על חכם זה ראו בהמשך המשנה. מסביר שרבן גמליאל מתייחס למקרה שבעל הקרקע הוא יהודי והגוי אריסו. רבן גמליאל פוטר, ובלבד שעבודות השדה במחובר לקרקע מתנהלות על ידי הגויים והבעל מבצע רק עבודות משניות, בתלוש. כפי שהסברנו בנספח למסכת דמאי אכן הסבר התוספתא מקביל לירושלמי. בשיטת חכירי בית אבות נהוג היה שהקציר ועיבוד הפרי נעשו בהנהגתו של העשיר. באריסות רגילה ביצע האריס את הקציר (תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ט הי\"ג) ואף את העיבוד הראשוני של התוצרת (שם, הי\"ט-הכ\"א), אבל בשיטת אריסי בתי אבות עיבדו הבעל ואריסיו יחד את הקרקע. חכירי מהלל דבית רבי הם אריסיו של רבי בנהלל, וכנראה נהג שם מבנה זה של עיבוד תוצרת במשותף. מהלל זו אינה בסוריה אלא בעמק יזרעאל (\"נהלל\" של היום משמרת את השם הקדום). ואכן, במורדות תל שמרון ליד נהלל נתגלתה מערכת גתות קטנות למדי, ואלו סדורות בשתי שורות ישרות, ושיערנו כי אלו מעידות על עיבוד פרטי של תוצרת משותפת כנדרש בשיטת חכירת בתי אבות (להלן איור 25). (ראיות נוספות לקיומה של האחוזה נדונו בנספח למעשרות).", + "התוספתא מדברת על מצב שבו בעל הקרקע הוא יהודי ופטור גם בשיטת אריסי בתי אבות, בתנאי שהאריסים יבצעו את העבודות המחוברות לקרקע. הירושלמי גם הוא מדבר על פטור בשיטה זו. עם זאת, הבדל גדול בין הירושלמי לתוספתא. בתוספתא נאמר שרבן גמליאל פוטר את פרות העריסים כשהיהודי הוא בעל הקרקע, ואילו במשנה ובירושלמי מדובר על מצב הפוך שבו בעל הקרקע הוא הגוי. אם כן, לפנינו מחלוקת במשנה במצב שבו האריס הוא יהודי, והיפוך הדעה בתוספתא, אלא שבתוספתא אין הד ברור למי שחולק על רבן גמליאל. ברם, יש לזכור שהתוספתא שלנו אינה יצירה עצמאית; לא מובאים בה כלל דברי רבן גמליאל עצמם, והיא מוסבת כהסבר למשנה קדומה אחרת, אולי אף למשנה שלנו, אם כי בנוסח שונה והפוך מהמשנה שבידינו. בדרך השערה ניתן אולי להציע שבתוספתא חל שיבוש נוסח, ויש להפכה כך שבעל הקרקע יהיה הגוי. לפי הצעה זו יש לגרוס: \"...ובלבד שיהא הוא מלקט, והן אוגדין על ידו; הוא בוצר, והן דורכין על ידו; הוא מוסק, והן עוטנין על ידו. ולא הן מלקטין, והוא אוגד על ידיהן; הן בוצרין, והוא דורך על ידיהן; הן מוסקין, והוא עוטן על ידן\". השינוי זעיר, ובכך ייושרו כל ההידורים.", + "התוספתא מוסיפה: \"אמר רבי לעזר בי רבי צדוק, אף על פי שהיה רבן גמליאל פוטר את עריסיותיו בסוריא, היה אוסר מלערס. אם ערס הרי זה פטור\" (פ\"ב ה\"ה). לבעל קרקע יהודי אסור למסור אדמה לגוי באריסות (אפילו בסוריה). לא נאמר האם חל איסור דומה על יהודי הרוצה לחכור קרקע בסוריה, והדבר תלוי בהצעת התיקון שהצענו. ליברמן מסביר שגזרה זו חלה על בעל קרקעות יהודי בשביעית בלבד, וכל הברייתא מועברת ממסכת שביעית.", + "כאמור, המחלוקת במשנה היא אם האריס נחשב לבעל הקרקע. מחלוקת זו היא עקרונית, בדבר מעמדו וזכויות הבעלות של האריס. מחלוקת זו עולה בהקשרים אחרים, אחד מהם הוא הבאת ביכורים. לפי המשנה האריס מביא ביכורים ואינו קורא משום שאינו יכול לומר שהביא את היבול של אדמתו (משנה, ביכורים פ\"א מ\"ב). בתוספתא למסכת תרומות נקבע במפורש שאדמתם של אריסים, חכורות ובתי אבות פטורה ממעשר ושביעית (פ\"ב הי\"א). משנה זו היא לדעת רבי חלפתא בן שאול, שכך הדין במעשר ושביעית, ולפי רבי אליעזר קנס קנסו במיוחד בחלה, כמו שפירשנו. ", + "רבן גמליאל אומר שתי חלות בסורייה – הקטע עוסק בדין חלה בסוריה באופן כללי, ללא קשר לאריס. המשנה מניחה שבסוריה חייבים בחלה, אבל טמאים משום טומאת ארץ העמים. בכך חוזרת המשנה למשנה ו לעיל. שם דובר על פתרון אחד להפרשת חלה בטומאה, ועתה נידון מצב אחר שיש בו צורך להפריש חלה בטומאה. אותה בעיה נידונה עוד פעם לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ג), ובתלמוד הירושלמי הזכירו במסגרת זאת מעשים מתחום קיסריה. שם הדיון היה על חלוקת העיסה לקבים (כמויות קטנות מכדי \"שיעור\" חלה), או אפשרות של עשייתה בטומאה. בסוריה נקבעה גזרה אחרת. לפי רבן גמליאל יש להפריש שתי חלות, שתיהן בטומאה; אחת מהן היא חלה טמאה, ואותה יש לשרוף, והאחרת אינה חלה ממש ויש לתת אותה לכוהן שיאכל אותה בטומאה, כדין חולין. כך נמצאנו שומרים על דין חלה מחד גיסא, והכוהן מקבל את מתנתו למרות דיני הטהרה מאידך גיסא. זו המצווה היחידה שבה דאגו חכמים ל\"פיצוי\" לכוהן שלא ייפגע עקב אי שמירת דיני הטהרה על ידי הציבור. בתרומה, למשל, לא דאגו חכמים להסדר כזה ותרומה שנטמאה אסורה באכילה, ולמעשה הכהן מפסיד.", + "רבי אליעזר אומר חלה אחת – יש להפריש רק חלה אחת בטומאה. דינו של רבן גמליאל מהווה חומרה שאינה מקובלת. לא שמענו על דין דומה בתרומה או במתנות אחרות. לדעת שני התנאים בסוריה חייבים להרים חלה, וכנראה בחוץ לארץ חובה זו עמומה יותר, כמו שראינו לעיל פ\"א מ\"א.", + "בתוספתא מובאת מסורת אחרת: \"וכן היה רבי לעזר בי רבי צדוק אומר לא היה רבן גמליאל מחייב בסוריא אלא חלה אחת בלבד\" (פ\"ב ה\"ה). אם כן, גם רבן גמליאל מחייב רק חלה אחת. עם זאת, מכמה מקורות מקבילים ברור שאכן היה נוהג ידוע להרים בסוריה שתי חלות: \"מי גרם לי להיות נוטר את הכרמים? על שם כרמי שלי לא נטרתי. מי גרם לי להיות משמרת שני ימים בסוריא? על שלא שמרתי יום אחד בארץ. סבורה הייתי שאני מקבלת שכר על שנים, ואיני מקבלת שכר אלא על אחת. מי גרם לי להפריש שתי חלות בסוריא? על שלא הפרשתי חלה אחת בארץ. סבורה הייתי שאני מקבלת שכר על שתים, ואיני מקבלת שכר אלא על אחת. רבי יוחנן קרי עליהון: גם אני נתתי להם חוקים לא טובים\"200ירו', עירובין פ\"ג ה\"ח, כא ע\"ג; שיר השירים רבה, א ו; פסיקתא דרב כהנא, יד, עמ' 244. . זו דרשה להלכות שונות. ההלכה קובעת שיש לשמור יום טוב במשך יומיים מסיבות טכניות, וחכמים רואים בכך עונש. הוא הדין בשתי החלות. הן נקבעו מסיבות טכניות, אך נתפסות כעונש. שתי ההלכות הללו הן ביטוי לעונש הגלות ולדלות שבאה על העם עקב חטאים שונים. אלו הם החוקים שאינם טובים, כפי שמגדיר אותם רבי יוחנן. ", + "רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק חי בחצרו של רבן גמליאל ומוסר רבות על מעשיו ונוהגיו. משום מה מסורות אלו עומדות לעתים קרובות בניגוד לסתם המשנה201תוס', ביצה פ\"ב הי\"ג; בבלי, כב ע\"ב; פירושנו לביצה פ\"ב מ\"ו; דמאי פ\"ב מ\"ד; כלאים פ\"ז מ\"ב; תוס', ברכות פ\"ב ה\"ו, ועוד. .", + "אחזו קולו של רבן גמליאל מקולו – כך רק בכתב יד קופמן, ביתר עדי הנוסח: \"קולו\" או \"וקולו\", של רבי אליעזר – הציבור הקל. אריסים נהגו שלא להפריש מעשרות (וחלה?), וכן לא להפריש שתי חלות. שיטה זו של פסיקה לפי המקל נחשבה בעיני חז\"ל למגונה: \"לעולם הלכה כדברי בית הלל... התופס קולי בית שמיי וקולי בית הלל רשע, אלא אם כדברי בית שמיי כקוליהן וכחומריהן אם כדברי בית הלל כקוליהן וכחומריהן\"202תוס', סוכה פ\"ב ה\"ג; יבמות פ\"א הי\"ג; בבלי, עירובין ו ע\"ב; ראש השנה יד ע\"ב, ועוד. כן מפרש בעל אור זרוע, הלכות חלה סימן רנ. . ", + "חזרו לנהוג כדברי רבן גמליאל בשתי דרכים – כאמור, זו התביעה של חכמים שהיחיד או הציבור יהלכו לפי שיטתו של אחד החולקים בצורה עקבית ולא ילכו אחר הקולות או אחר החומרות. חכמים אינם מזכירים אפשרות נוספת, שהיחיד ינהג לפי שיקול דעתו בכל מקרה ומקרה לגופו203לתרבות המחלוקת וההכרעה של חז\"ל ראו בנספח למסכת ביצה. . המשנה מהלכת, כמובן, שלא לשיטת רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק, וכן המשנה הבאה. " + ], + [ + "רבן גמליאל אומר שלוש ארצות לחלה – לפי שיטתו של רבן גמליאל העולם מתחלק לשלוש ארצות לעניין חלה: ארץ ישראל, סוריה וחוץ לארץ. אבל לפי רבי אליעזר סוריה היא כארץ ישראל לעניין חלה, וגם לעניין אריסות (לדיני שביעית ומעשרות). עם זאת, גם רבי אליעזר מודה בהבדל שבין סוריה לארץ ישראל לעניין טומאה, סוריה טמאה וארץ ישראל טהורה, אך לעניין חובת חלה דינן זהה. קיימים הבדלים נוספים בין סוריה לארץ ישראל ומן הסתם רבי אליעזר מודה גם בהם, כפי ששנינו במשנת שביעית (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"ב). החלוקה הגאוגרפית המוצעת במשנתנו היא זו המוצעת גם לדיני שביעית, ושם היא כדעת הכול.", + "ארץ ישראל עד גזיב – הנוסח \"גזיב\" הוא בכתב יד קופמן ובעדים אחדים נוספים204ג2, ג5, ז, ל, פ. , וביתר עדי הנוסח \"כזיב\". חילופים דומים מצאנו בנוסח שבמשנת שביעית (פ\"ו מ\"ב) ודמאי (פ\"א מ\"ג). הנוסח \"כזיב\" מבוסס על הכתיב המקראי \"אכזיב\", ויש להניח ש\"גזיב\" הוא ההגייה המקובלת באותה תקופה לשם המקום. השם היווני היה אקדיפה (Έκδιππα – Ecdippa)205צפריר ואחרים, טבולה, עמ' 115. . נראה שלפנינו מעתק, נדיר יחסית, של כ-ג. מכל מקום, \"כזיב\" או \"גזיב\" היא האתר מצפון לעכו, ליד קיבוץ גשר הזיו של ימינו (איור 18).", + "השאלה עד היכן משתרעים גבולותיה של ארץ ישראל עומדת במרכזן של הלכות רבות. יש לה משמעות הלכתית נכבדת בתחומי מעשרות, תרומה, שביעית וכיוצא באלו, בתחומי טהרה ובסדרת תחומים נוספים. התיאור המפורט ביותר של גבולות הארץ מופיע בברייתת התחומין. זו רשימה בארמית של יישובי הגבול והיא מופיעה בתוספתא ובירושלמי למשנתנו (תוס', פ\"ד ה\"י; ירו', לו ע\"ג), בספרי (ספרי דברים, עקב נא, עמ' 117) ובכתובת רחוב206זוסמן, כתובת; זוסמן, ברייתת התחומים. עסקו בה רבים, ראו פליקס, כתובת רחוב, עמ' 47-31, ובעמ' 33 הערה 100 רשימת ספרות. הדיונים האחרונים משקפים כבר את השימוש בכתובת רחוב, ראו פרנקל ופינקלשטיין, מקצוע; ספראי, תחומים. . זמנה עורר מחלוקת במחקר. קליין טען כי היא מימי הורדוס, ברם ספראי הראה כי אין להקדימה בהרבה לימי דור אושא, שכן החומר שבה מתאים לתקופה זו. הברייתא מתמקדת בעיקר בגליל, והדבר מבטא את ריכוז היישוב היהודי בגליל לאחר מרד בר כוכבא, על כן יש להעריך שהיא נערכה בדור אושא לכל המוקדם. אבל ייתכן שמי שערך אותה באותו דור ביטא את מצב היישוב כפי שהכיר גם מהעבר. מי שערך את החומר לא עדכן בהכרח את ממצאיו עד לזמנו, כך שאולי הברייתא משקפת גם את זיכרונותיו. מעבר לכך, אין בידינו ברייתות מימי בית שני, וקשה להניח כי אלו נשמרו, על כן יש להעדיף את התיארוך המאוחר.", + "נוסף על הברייתא בידינו רשימה ארוכה של דיונים על אזורים מסוימים וגבולותיהם. בירושלמי למשנתנו מרוכז חלק מהדיונים. חלק גדול מההלכות נאסף בכתובת רחוב. תושבי רחוב, כפר קטן בעמק בית שאן, חשבו כי חשוב שכל המידע על גבולות הארץ והאזורים האסורים והמותרים ירוכז בכתובת. הם חרטו את הכתובת על טיח קיר בית הכנסת, ושבריה התגלו. בנוסף לכך, כאשר תיקנו את בית הכנסת הציבו העתק שלה על רצפת מסדרון הכניסה של בית הכנסת. כתובת זו היא מהארוכות בארץ, ומכילה אפוא חומר הלכתי רב. נראה שלעותק זה של הכתובת צירפו קטע מעודכן מימיהם העוסק ברשימת הכפרים המותרים בתחום שומרון207זוסמן, כתובת. הכתובת על הטיח טרם פורסמה. זמנה של הכתובת והפרשנות הגאוגרפית לה מחייבים דיון בפני עצמו. . ", + "כזיב מופיעה כגבול ארץ ישראל גם במקורות מקבילים. במשנת דמאי ובמשנת שביעית היא מופיעה כגבול ארץ ישראל, ואלו משניות המקבילות בתוכנן למשנתנו208משנה, דמאי פ\"א מ\"ג וראו פירושנו לה; חלה פ\"ד מ\"ח, ומקבילות רבות שחלק מהן תובאנה להלן. . כן נקבע שם שכזיב עצמה היא חלק מארץ ישראל209תוס', דמאי פ\"א ה\"י, וכן יוצא מתוס', מעשר שני פ\"ג הי\"ח המתארת הפרשת מעשרות על ידי בעל בית אחד מכזיב. המעשה שם הוא מדור אושא. . משנת חלה מיוחסת לרבן גמליאל, והגבול משקף, אפוא, את תפיסת בני דורו. מעניין הוא סיפורו של רבי יהודה על שגביון, ראש בית הכנסת מכזיב, שלקח כרם רבעי מגוי בסוריה, ובא דינו לפני רבן גמליאל (תוס', תרומות פ\"ב הי\"ג)210סיפור אחר על ביקורו של רבן גמליאל בכזיב מופיע בתוס', פסחים פ\"ב הט\"ו. . רבן גמליאל הכיר, אפוא, את המקום ובדורו הוא מתואר כיישוב ספר, על הגבול עם סוריה. במונח \"סוריה\" עצמו נדון במשנה הבאה. ", + "התוספתא מגדירה את הגבול מעט אחרת: \"ואי זו היא ארץ ישראל, מנהר דרומה של כזיב והלך. סמוך לעמון ומואב ארץ מצרים שתי ארצות הן, או נאכל ונעבד או לא נאכל ולא נעבד\" (תוס', שביעית פ\"ד ה\"ו). אם כן, הגבול הוא מנהר דרומה של כזיב. נראה שהכוונה לנחל כזיב הנשפך מצפון לכזיב, כך שכזיב עצמה היא בתחומי הארץ. את המשפט בתוספתא יש להבין \"מהנהר של כזיב דרומה\", וכן יש להבין את המקבילה בתוספתא חלה (פ\"ב ה\"ו). מכל מקום, אי אפשר לפרש שהכוונה לנחל געתון שמדרום לכזיב, משום שאז כזיב עצמה תימצא בחוץ לארץ.", + "בתוספתא אהלות יש תיאור מדויק יותר של הגבול: \"ההולך מעכו לכזיב מימינו למזרח הדרך טהור משום ארץ העמים וחייב במעשר ובשביעית, עד שתיודע שהיא פטורה. משמאל למערב הדרך טמאה משום ארץ העמים, ופטורה מן המעשרות ומן השביעית, עד שתיודע שהיא חייבת. עד כזיב רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משם אביו עד לכלאבי\" (פי\"ח הי\"ד, עמ' 617). אם כן, שתי נקודות המפנה הן עכו וכזיב. כל השטח עד עכו הוא ארץ ישראל לכל דבר (ראו להלן), ומעכו לכזיב משתרע תחום מעבר. הדרך הנזכרת היא כביש החוף הרומי שעבר 1-3 ק\"מ ממזרח לחוף, ושרידיו נתגלו. ממערב לדרך רוב השטח הוא חוץ לארץ, וממזרח הוא יהודי עד כזיב. ", + "אותה ברייתא מצוטטת גם בתלמוד הבבלי, אבל בצורה הפוכה: \"היה מהלך מעכו לכזיב, מימינו למזרח – הדרך טמאה משום ארץ העמים, ופטורה מן המעשר ומן השביעית, עד שיודע לך שהיא חייבת. משמאלו למערב – הדרך טהורה משום ארץ העמים, וחייבת במעשר ובשביעית, עד שיודע לך שהיא פטורה. עד היכן? עד כזיב, רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משום אביו: עד לבלבו\" (גיטין ז ע\"ב). פרשנים התחבטו בסתירה שבין שתי הברייתות, והרמב\"ם תירץ תירוץ מחוכם כאילו היו שני כבישים לאורך החוף211ראו פליקס, שביעית ח\"ב, עמ' 26. . אבל אין צורך כאן בתירוץ מחוכם. ברור שלפנינו אותה ברייתא שנמסרה בצורות שונות. ברור גם שהטעות היא טעות של העתקה, וכל שנותר הוא לברר איזה נוסח עדיף. דומה שמבחינה גאוגרפית לנוסח של התוספתא עדיפות גדולה, שהרי הגליל שממזרח לכביש היה יהודי, ואילו רצועת החוף נכרית יותר. ", + "כאמור, רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי מציע נקודת גבול אחרת, לכלאבי או לבלבו, שם של מקום שנמסר בצורות שונות וזיהויו מסופק. מכל מקום, רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי שחי בדור רבי מכיר את קו הגבול של כזיב, ומציע תיקון. ייתכן שתיקון זה משקף שינוי יישובי שחל באיזור, כפי שנציע להלן.", + "על קו הגבול המדויק בגזרה זו של עמק עכו אנו יודעים מסדרת מקורות, וממבט ראשון התמונה נראית כסותרת את עצמה.", + "העדויות הן:", + "1. עכו היא הגבול, ועכו עצמה כארץ ישראל. עכו כגבול מופיעה בברייתא של התחומים (להלן). החוקרים נחלקים על זמנה של ברייתא זו (להלן), מכל מקום הקטע העוסק בעכו מוכר היה לרבי יהודה ולרבי מאיר, שניהם מדור אושא, ונראה שקדם להם במעט212משנה, גיטין פ\"א מ\"ב; תוס', פ\"א ה\"ג. לדיון על כך ראו הדיונים על זמנה של ברייתת התחומים, להלן. . עכו כנקודת גבול נזכרת גם בשני מעשים מימיו של רבי יהודה הנשיא, ובכמה מימרות אמוראיות213ירו', לו ע\"ב; פ\"ד ה\"ט, לה ע\"ג; בבלי, כתובות סז ע\"א; גיטין עו ע\"ב; ראו עוד תוס', גיטין פ\"ז ה\"ז. . דומה, אפוא, שעכו שימשה כגבול ארץ ישראל במשך תקופה ממושכת ובכל תקופת התנאים, לפחות מדור יבנה ואילך. עם זאת, ממשנת אוהלות אנו שומעים שהיה ספק בדבר מעמדו של השטח מזרחית לעכו, והוחלט שהוא חוץ לארץ (משנה, אהלות פי\"ח מ\"ט). לא נאמר ממתי מקור זה, אך הוא נכלל במסגרת סדרת היתרים מדור רבי (להלן).", + "2. מעכו ממשיך הגבול בכיוון צפון מערב, כך מתואר הגבול בברייתא של התחומים.", + "3. הגבול ממשיך מעכו צפונה עד כזיב, כך יוצא ממשנתנו ומקבילותיה כפי שהובאו. ", + "4. באזור שבין עכו לראש הנקרה, בתחום צור, יש סדרת יישובים המוגדרים כיישובים אסורים, כלומר האזור נכרי ויש בו יישובים יהודיים. היישובים היהודיים מוגדרים כ\"אסורים\", כלומר על פרותיהם חלות המצוות התלויות בארץ. דומה שעדות זו מתאימה לתיאור לעיל, כל מקום ממזרח לכביש טהור (שייך לארץ ישראל) עד שייוודע לך שהוא אסור. כלומר, רוב היישוב נכרי, אך יש יישובים יהודיים214הרשימה מופיעה בתוס', פ\"ד ה\"ט; ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ד, ובכתובת רחוב. ראו זוסמן, כתובת. לזיהוי השמות ראו ספראי, פרקי גליל, עמ' 212-206. .", + "כל העדויות מעידות על מצב סטטי כמעט של יישוב יהודי רצוף עד עכו, ויישוב מעורב מצפון לו. אולי ניתן להצביע על התפתחות מסוימת והתחזקות היישוב היהודי בימי רבי. התפתחות זו באה לידי ביטוי ברשימת העיירות האסורות בתחום צור, ובדברי רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי.", + "עם זאת, דומה שאין במקורות אלו כדי להעלות את כל התמונה. מן העדות הארכאולוגית עולה בבירור שבכל האזור מהר מירון ועד לגבעות שממזרח למישור החוף לא היה יישוב יהודי. יוספוס לא בנה שם מבצרים, משמרות כהונה לא ישבו שם, אין שם שרידים של בתי כנסת (בניגוד למזרח הגליל, מזרחית לרכס הר מירון), ומעט מאוד שרידים יהודיים אחרים. לעומת זאת יש שם שרידים רבים של כנסיות ושל יישוב נוצרי215פרנקל ואחרים, גליל עליון. . לכאורה קל לפרש שברייתת התחומים קדומה, מימי בית שני. אז השתרע היישוב היהודי גם במערב הגליל העליון, לאחר מכן נסוג היישוב היהודי לחלקו המזרחי של הגליל. ברם, כפי שראינו, תיארוך מוקדם כזה לברייתת התחומים קשה ומעורר תמיהות.", + "על כן נראה לפרש שעד למאה השלישית היה היישוב במערב הגליל העליון דל ביותר, ורק בעמק עכו שגשגו יישובים רבים. זאת בגלל תנאי הקרקע ההרריים והאקולוגיים הקשים באזור. על כן לא בנה שם יוספוס מבצרים, ומשמרות כהונה לא הגיעו לשם. במאה השלישית התחזק והתמסד היישוב במערב הגליל העליון, אבל אז כבר התחזק גם היישוב הנכרי, והיהודים היו בו מיעוט. במאה השנייה היה בעמק עכו יישוב מעורב, על כן מציגה ברייתת התחומים כאילו היישוב היהודי מגיע עד עמק עכו וכוללת בתחום היישוב היהודי את מערב הגליל, הנטוש ברובו. מאוחר יותר התחזק היישוב הנכרי בהר, אך לכך אין ביטוי במקורות שבידינו.", + "חלה אחת – בכל ארץ ישראל מפרישים חלה אחת, כרגיל, מגזיב [ו]עד הנהר [ו]עד אמנם – גם במסכת שביעית גרס כתב יד קופמן \"מגזיב עד הנהר עד אמנם\". המגיה תיקן כך שמתקבל כאילו אמנה היא מקום נוסף, \"ועד הנהר ועד אמנם\", וכן בהרבה עדי נוסח כאן ובמסכת שביעית. כתב יד קופמן נוטה לעתים קרובות להשמיט את וי\"ו החיבור, והיעדרה אינו מעיד על תוכן המשפט. שם המקום הוא \"אמנם\"216כך ב- ג2, ג5, ז, ל, מ, פ. ב- ס, ץ – \"אמנום\". , ובעדי נוסח אחרים – \"אמנה\"217ראו גם פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"ב. . ברור ששם המקום הוא \"אמנה\", אך לא ברור האם הכוונה לנהר אמנה או שאלו שני מקומות: נהר ואמנה. בירושלמי: \"כיני מתניתא מגזיב ועד הנהר, מגזיב ועד אמנם (או אמנס)\" (שביעית פ\"ו ה\"א, לו ע\"ד), אם כן, שני מקומות הם. לזיהוי הנהר הועלו חמש הצעות, חלקן בלתי הגיוניות בעליל: א. נהר פרת, ב. נחל מצרים, ג. הירדן, ד. נהר אמנה, ה. הליטני. מכל אלו רק הליטני הוא גבול הגיוני מבחינה גאוגרפית, שהרי לא ייתכן שאזור רחוק יותר ייחשב כאילו היה ארץ ישראל, ולו גם כארץ ישראל מבחינה חלקית. נהר אמנה אינו בא בחשבון, משום שכאמור אמנה והנהר שני מקומות הם. לזיהוי אמנה הועלו שתי הצעות, האחת טוורוס אמנוס, הוא ההר המפריד בין סוריה ואסיה הקטנה, והאחרת נהר אמנה הזורם דרך דמשק לים התיכון. שוב! אילו היה הגבול רֵאלי הרי שטוורוס אמנוס רחוק מדי. עוד אפשרות היא שאמנה היא הר החרמון או הרכס שמול החרמון, כדברי הפסוק: \"תשורי מראש אמנה מראש שניר וחרמון\" (שיר השירים ד ח). אם כן, אמנה הוא ההר שמול רכס החרמון, ואם הנהר הוא ליטני נוצר משולש כזיב, נהר ליטני, החרמון, והוא תחום סוריה. להלן נשוב לשאלת הזיהוי, ומשמעותו של קו הגבול.", + "ולפנים – כך בכל כתבי היד, ויש פרשנים הגורסים \"ולחוץ\"218בעל מלאכת שלמה וגם בעל אור זרוע על אתר דנים בכך, ועוד. , וכן במסכת שביעית. ברור שמבחינה גאוגרפית הכוונה מאמנה והלאה, כלפי חוץ לארץ, ולפיכך תיקנו את הנוסח. ברם, הכותב כתב מבחינתו של מי שחי בחוץ לארץ ו\"לפנים\" פירושו הלאה, צפונה מארץ ישראל, לפנים חוץ לארץ.", + "שתי חלות – זו הרחבה של ההלכה במשנה הקודמת, ויש בה פירוט יתר.", + "אחת לאור – כי היא חלה טמאה, ואחת לכהן – חלה זו נתפסת כחולין ולכן הכוהן הטמא רשאי לאכלה בטומאה, שלאור יש לה שיעור – כי היא חלה לכל דבר. שיעור הרמת חלה טמאה לא נקבע במשנה, ושלכהן אין לה שיעור – זו אינה חלה ממש ולכן רשאי לתת כמה שלבו חפץ, ונשוב לכך בסוף פירושנו למשנה. הלכה זו מפרשת את חובת שתי החלות הנזכרת במשנה הקודמת, עם זאת מבחינה ספרותית היא מלוקטת ממקור אחר, שכן יש בה הכפלה. לו היו המשניות ערוכות כגוש אחד צריך היה ההסבר לבוא במשנה הקודמת, או ששתי המשניות היו מאוחדות.", + "מהנהר [ו]מאמנה ולפנים – כל השטח מעבר לגבולות אלו הוא חוץ לארץ, שתי חלות אחת לאור ואחת לכהן – המשנה מניחה שיש להרים חלה גם בחוץ לארץ. בכך שונה דין חלה מדין שביעית שאינו חל בחוץ לארץ, שלאור אין לה שיעור – זו חלה טמאה והיא נתפסת כמעין גזרה מיוחדת של חכמים, שכן מן הדין היה שעיסת חוץ לארץ תהיה פטורה ממצוות חלה ולכן אין לה שיעור, ושלכהן יש לה שיעור – חכמים מקפידים שהכוהן יקבל את חלקו אף על פי שההרמה אינה חלה ממש, והא ראיה שאין חייבים לאכלה בטהרה. לא ברור למה בסוריה אין לה שיעור ואילו בחוץ לארץ יש לה שיעור. נשוב לכך בסוף פירושנו למשנה. מכל מקום, אין חובה להפריש פעמיים חלה כשיעור, שכן זו החמרה על בעל הבית. בסוריה נדרש שהחלה הראשונה תהיה כשיעור שכן היא חלה ממש, אך בחוץ לארץ החלה הראשונה היא סמלית, ולכן השנייה היא כשיעור. השיקול הוא, אפוא, לא רק טובת הכוהן, או טובת בעל הבית, אלא בעיקר שיקול פורמלי, מתי החלה היא אכן ביטוי ממשי של מצוות חלה עצמה.", + "וטבול יום אוכלה – את החלה שאינה חלה ממש רשאי לאכול גם מי שטמא במידת מה. טבול יום הוא מי שטבל וממתין לרדת הערב (\"הערב שמש\"), ואז יהיה טהור. כל המערך הוא סמלי ואינו משפטי. השוהה בחוץ לארץ הוא טמא טומאת מת וממילא צריך להמתין שבעה ימים בתנאי טהרה, לטבול בימים השלישי והשביעי ולהזות מי חטאת. כל עניין טבילת הערב שמש הוא אפוא במישור הסמלי בלבד, שכן גם אחריה הטובל איננו טהור. החלה אינה חלה ממש, אבל גם לא התירו לאכלה בטומאה מלאה. מבחינה הלכתית אין מצב של \"טהרה חלקית\", אך במישור הסמלי דרשו חכמים שהכוהן ייטהר באופן חלקי כדי לבטא את קדושת החלה. לכאורה כל המשנה היא תימא, הרי אין טהרה בחוץ לארץ ולא בסוריה. ברם, בנספח למסכת שביעית ראינו שהלכות טהרה נשמרו בחלקן גם בחוץ לארץ.", + "רבי יוסה219בכתב יד ליידן של הירושלמי: רבי יהודה, ואף בעל אור זרוע, הלכות חלה רנא, הכיר גרסה זו. אומר אינו צריך טבילה – רבי יוסי חולק וסובר שהחלה היא חולין לחלוטין ואפילו טבילה אינו צריך, ואסורה לזבים ולזבות ולנידות וליולדות – שתי אפשרויות לפרש את המשפט: או שהמשנה חוזרת לדעת חכמים וקובעת שרק טבול יום אוכל מהחלה ולא טמאים ממש, או שכאן רבי יוסי מודה. מי שטמא טומאת הערב שמש רשאי לאכול מהחלה ללא טבילה, אך הטמאים טומאה כבדה כזבים ונידות אינם רשאים לאכול מהחלה.", + "התלמוד מנמק את המיוחד בטומאת נידה וזיבה שהן \"טומאה יוצאה מגופו\" (ירו', ס ע\"א). נימוק דומה לעניינים אחרים מופיע פעמים מספר גם בתלמוד הבבלי: \"טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו\"220בבלי, פסחים סז ע\"א; בכורות לג ע\"א; זבחים יד ע\"ב, ומקבילות נוספות. . ההלכה עצמה אינה מבחינה בעצם ברמת הטומאה. יש מספר סוגי טומאה וההבדל ביניהם הוא במשך הטומאה (שבעה ימים או יום אחד) ובשאלה האם הטמא מטמא חפצים אחרים, אבל לכאורה לכל החפצים (או האנשים) הטמאים דין אחד בכל הנוגע לאיסורים החלים עליהם עד שייטהרו. ברם, במקורות מופיעה סדרה של טומאות חמורות והיא חוזרת כסדרה ספרותית: \"זבים וזבות, נדות ויולדות\". רק אלו אינם רשאים לעלות להר הבית (משנה, כלים פ\"א מ\"ח; ספרי זוטא, ה, עמ' 228). אם הפסח נאכל בטומאה, כאשר כל העם טמא, ההיתר חל על כל הטמאים, אך לא על קבוצה זו (תוס', פסחים פ\"ח הי\"ט, ומקבילות והלכות דומות). כך גם נקבע שבכור שנפל בו מום בית שמאי אומרים שנידה אינה רשאית לאכול ממנו ובית הלל מתירים (תוס', בכורות פ\"ג הט\"ז, עמ' 538). הבבלי מאחד את כל המימרות הללו ומנמק את כולן בנימוק של התלמוד הירושלמי כאן, שכל אלו חריגים משום שזו \"טומאה יוצאה מגופו\". ", + "כבר בשלב זה ניתן להסיק שהקבוצה של \"זבים וזבות, נדות ויולדות\" היא קבוצה מיוחדת שהיחס אליה חמור במיוחד כבר בתקופת התנאים. עם זאת, הנימוק \"טומאה יוצאה מגופו\" הוא ניסוח אמוראי בלבד. אם ההלכה שאין מאכילים את הבכור לנידה נובעת מאותו נימוק הרי שעיקרון זה הוא דעת בית שמאי, ובית הלל חולקים עליו. אם כן, כל המקורות התומכים בגישה זו קרובים לבית שמאי או מושפעים ממנו. אין בכך כל תימה, שהרי מצינו הלכות רבות שהן כבית שמאי, או שדעת בית שמאי נדחתה להלכה אבל מרכיבים ממנה חדרו להלכה221ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית שמאי. . עם זאת, ספק אם אכן כל המקרים דומים לחלוטין זה לזה. אין בהלכה כל הגדרה ברורה מה הייחוד ההלכתי של אלו שטומאה יוצאת מגופם; מעמדם חמור יותר, אך לא נקבע בדיוק במה. הרמב\"ם חש בכך ומסביר בפירושו למשנתנו: \"והוא היקש וסברה אמיתית שדמה אותה בזו\". היקש וסברה הם מונחים הבאים לומר שאין כאן הוכחה רגילה אלא סברה של התנא.", + "דומה שהנימוק \"טומאה היוצאה מגופו\" הוא לבוש משפטי לתחושה אחרת. בשתי טומאות אלו הנהיגו ההלכה והציבור היהודי סדרת החמרות. אלו מבטאות את אופיין המיוחד של טומאות אלו, שאינן רק טומאה רגילה אלא גם קשורה לשאלות של מגע בין שני המינים, טומאה הקשורה גם לאיברי המין. הבולטת בקבוצה זו היא טומאת בעל קרי שהונהגו בו חומרות וקולות מיוחדות. חלק מהן הועברו בספרות האמוראית והבתר אמוראית גם על טומאת נידה (ויולדת)222ראו פירושנו לברכות פ\"ג מ\"ד. .", + "[ו]נאכלת עם הזר על השלחן – המשנה מניחה הלכה או נוהג שאינו מוכר ממקורות אחרים. נראה שנהגו כוהנים שלא לאכול עם \"זר\", כלומר עם ישראל טהור, על אותו שולחן. איננו מפרשים שהישראל טמא שכן ההלכה שטהור לא ישב על ספסל או שולחן אחד עם טמא היא כללית יותר, ואז היה צריך לנסחה \"עם הטמא\" ולא \"עם הזר\". ההלכה מעידה על נוהגי התבדלות של הכוהנים ותחושת העיליתיות שלהם ואינה נדרשת בהלכה הפורמלית. עם זאת, כפי שנראה כאן חכמים מקבלים נוהג מקפיד זה ומקלים בחוץ לארץ וסוריה223הבבלי, חולין קד ע\"א, לומד מכאן שאין גוזרים גזרה לגזרה, שהרי הפרשת חלה בחוץ לארץ היא גזרה ואיסור האכילה עם הזר הוא גזרה נוספת. הכלל כולו אינו מוכר במקורות תנאיים ואמוראי ארץ ישראל חלקו עליו, ראו פירושנו לשבת פ\"ב מ\"ב; פכ\"ד מ\"ד. . מעניין לציין שהמשנה רומזת להלכה או לנוהג של התבדלות שאין לו מקור אחר. אף על פי כן אין המפרשים עומדים על כך שלפנינו הלכה מחודשת. הם מסבירים אותה על בורייה כמובן, אך אינם עוסקים במשמעות החברתית של החידוש.", + "וניתנת לכל כהן – בדרך כלל הקפידו שלא לתת תרומה לכוהן שאינו מקפיד על דיני טהרה (ראו במשנה הבאה). אך תרומה בחוץ לארץ ובסוריה, שהיא בעצם טמאה ואינה חלה ממש, ניתן לתת גם לכוהן כזה שאולי לא יקפיד על הלכותיה.", + "ההלכות המיוחדות מוסברות בחשש של \"מה יבינו הרואים כיצד נוהגים בחלה זו\": \"שלאור יש לה שיעור, שהוא דבר תורה. שלכהן אין לה שיעור, שהיא מדבריהן. ויפריש לאור ולא יפריש לכהן? שלא יהו אומרים ראינו תרומה טהורה נשרפת. ויפריש לכהן ולא יפריש לאור? שלא יהו אומרים ראינו תרומה טמיאה נאכלת. מתוך שהוא מפריש שתיהן לכשהוא בא לכאן הוא נשאל. וזו וזו מדבריהן הוא. מוטב לרבות בנאכלת ולא לרבות בנשרפת\" (ירו', ס ע\"א). למרות ההסבר דומה שהסיבה העיקרית היא הרצון לשמור על מסגרת של נתינה אמִתית גם בחוץ לארץ. אם הכוהן לא יקבל חלה של ממש תהפוך המצווה לכלי ריק מתוכן, על כך צריכה להישמר מסגרת הנתינה הכפולה שבה יקבל הכוהן משהו ממשי לידיו.", + "בסיום המשנה עלינו לחזור לשאלת הפרשת חלה בחוץ לארץ. מצוות חלה נתפסת באופן טבעי כאחת המצוות התלויות בארץ. כפי שאמרנו במבוא למסכת תרומות, למונח \"תלויות בארץ\" כמה משמעויות אפשריות: או שהמצווה תלויה בפסוק הקושר אותן לארץ, או שהיא קשורה מטבעה לפרי הארץ. מצוות חלה עומדת בשני קריטריונים אלו. נאמר עליה במפורש: \"בבאכם אל הארץ אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה, והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ...\" (במדבר טו יז-יט). מצד שני היא גם נעשית בפרי שהוא תוצרת הארץ, כמעשרות וכפאה.", + "בכל המקורות התנאיים ברור שחלה היא מהמצוות התלויות בארץ. גם במשנת קידושין (פ\"א מ\"ט) המונה את המצוות הללו נאמר רק שערלה, כלאיים ואולי גם מצוות חדש נוהגות בחוץ לארץ, אך ברור שחלה נוהגת רק בארץ. לעיל ראינו כי זאת גם הנחת המשנה (פ\"א מ\"א), אם כי המשנה מציגה תפיסה חריגה. פרות חוץ לארץ פטורים מחלה אך אם נכנסו לארץ חייבים בה, ופרות הארץ שיצאו לחוץ לארץ פטורים לדעת רבי עקיבא ממצוות חלה. התפיסה שם היא שפרות הארץ לצורך מצוות חלה אינם רק אלו שגדלו בה, אלא אלו הנמצאים בה בשעת הפרשת חלה. עם כל זאת, בספרותנו יש רמזים לכך שבני ישראל התחייבו במצוות חלה, באופן זמני, כבר במדבר: \"בבאכם אל הארץ – קבל עליך עד שלא תבא אל הארץ. כשתבוא אל הארץ להפריש חלה, בזכות שתקבל עליך אתה בא אל הארץ. יכול כיון שבאו לארץ יהו חייבין להפריש חלה שבחוצה לארץ? אמרת לא אמרתי אלא 'אשר אני מביא אתכם' – שמה אתם חייבין להפריש חלה ולא בחוצה לארץ\" (ספרי זוטא, טו יז, עמ' 283; ספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 113). מכל מקום, מסקנת המדרש היא שמצוות חלה חלה רק בארץ, והרחבנו על כך במבוא.", + "ממשנתנו משמע בפשטות שחובת חלה היא גם בחוץ לארץ. מפשט המשנה ניתן להבין כך, אם כי הפרשת החלה בחוץ לארץ היא הפרשה מטומאה ועל כן חלים עליה דינים מיוחדים. הפרשת חלה בחוץ לארץ נעשית אחרת מכפי שהיא נעשית בסוריה. גם סוריה טמאה בטומאת ארץ העמים, ואף על פי כן דיני חלה בה שונים מאלו שבחוץ לארץ. נמצאנו למדים שהמשנה מניחה בפשטות שחוץ לארץ שונה מסוריה, והפרשת החלה בה היא ברמה אחרת מזו שבארץ.", + "הירושלמי מגדיר זאת שהפרשת החלה בחוץ לארץ היא \"מדבריהם\". הגדרה זו אינה במקורות התנאיים, אבל היא בהחלט משתמעת מהמשנה. ייתכן שההגדרה האמוראית היא הגדרה משפטית של מגמה תנאית, אבל גם במשנה ברור למדי שיש לקיים את מצוות חלה בחוץ לארץ, אך היא שונה מכפי שהיא מתקיימת בארץ. עם זאת, את המשנה אפשר לפרש גם שהרמת חלה בחוץ לארץ אינה חובה (\"מדבריהם\", או \"גזרה\") אלא תלויה ברצונו של אדם. כך משמע מההקשר של משנה י (להלן).", + "בתלמוד הבבלי נקבע שיש להפריש חלה גם בחוץ לארץ \"כי היכי דלא תשתכח חובת חלה\" (בבלי, בכורות כז ע\"א). הנימוק עצמו מופיע בתלמוד הבבלי גם בהקשרים אחרים (בכורות יח ע\"א; עירובין ע ע\"א; סוכה לא ע\"ב). סוגיית התלמוד במסכת בכורות עוסקת למעשה בכל הפרשת תרומות בחוץ לארץ, ושם מובאות הטענות שיש להפריש תרומות בחו\"ל, וההפרשה היא כתרומה לכל דבר. בנספח למסכת שביעית הרחבנו בנושא וראינו כי אכן בין אמוראי בבל רווחה דעה כזאת. חכמי הארץ התייחסו לכך בהסתייגות מסוימת. המשפט המצוטט עוסק כאילו רק בחלה, אך ההקשר הוא, כאמור, כללי יותר. גם חכמי בבל לא חשבו שהפרשת תרומות בחוץ לארץ היא מצווה ממש אלא ששאפו להחמיר על עצמם. כך, למשל, הסוגיה הסתמית מסיקה שאי אפשר לפרש הלכה מסוימת בחוץ לארץ, משום שאין בה הפרשת מעשר וחלה (בבלי, בבא מציעא פט ע\"א, וראו תוספות שם ד\"ה \"אי הכי\").", + "הבדל גדול יש בין משנתנו לחובת חלה בחוץ לארץ כפי שהיא משתקפת בתלמוד הבבלי. במשנתנו מדובר בשתי חלות, וזו \"של אור\" היא בשיעור הרגיל. לכל היותר ניתן לפרש שחלה \"של אור\" יש להפריש אחד חלקי ארבעים ושמונה, כשם שתרומה טמאה מפרישים בשיעור הנמוך של אחד משישים (תוס', תרומות פ\"ה ה\"ו). אבל הבבלי מדבר על הפרשה של חלה אחת, ואינו אומר האם יש להפריש כשיעור. מפרשי הבבלי והפוסקים הבינו כולם שחלה בחוץ לארץ יש להפריש כלשהו ולא כשיעור. הבבלי מתעלם, אפוא, ממשנתנו, כפי שהוא אינו מעניק משקל מכריע גם למשניות אחרות מסדר זרעים. מן הראוי להעיר שראשונים אשר חיפשו מקור לנוהג של ימיהם להקפיד, הקפדה יתרה, על הפרשת חלה בחוץ לארץ השעינו דבריהם על סוגיית הבבלי ולא על משנתנו, אם כי היו גם שהזכירו בהקשר זה את משנתנו, כגון הרא\"ש לחולין (קד ע\"א). לעיל הזכרנו מקורות מדרשיים המזכירים את חובת הפרשת שתי החלות בסוריה כנוהג רגיל224ירו', עירובין פ\"ג ה\"ט, כא ע\"א; שיר השירים רבה, א ו; פסיקתא דרב כהנא, יד, עמ' 244. . מעניין שכולם מדברים על סוריה בהקשר זה, ולא על חוץ לארץ, וכאילו חובה זו אינה חלה על חוץ לארץ, כפי שגם משמע מהתלמוד הבבלי. המדרשים מציגים, אפוא, את דברי התלמוד הבבלי כנוהג המקובל ולא את המשנה. המדובר בירושלמי עירובין ובפסיקתא דרב כהנא, המשקפים את תורת ארץ ישראל, וכן בשיר השירים רבה שניכרת בו גם השפעה בבלית. זאת ועוד; המקורות הללו, במקביל לחובת שתי חלות, מדברים גם על חובת שני ימים של יום טוב. בירושלמי ובפסיקתא דרב כהנא מדובר על שני ימים טובים בחו\"ל. כידוע, חובת שני ימים טובים היא בכל הגלויות. המדרשים נגררו, אפוא, אחרי המקובל להפריש שתי חלות רק בסוריה, ואגב גררה דיברו על שני ימים של יום טוב בסוריה225רק בשיר השירים נשמרת האבחנה: שני ימים טובים בחו\"ל ושתי חלות בסוריה. . מכאן משמע שהמדרשים הכירו מציאות של הפרשת שתי חלות רק בסוריה ולא בחו\"ל. בחוץ לארץ נהגו, אפוא, כפי שנקבע בתלמוד הבבלי. קשה, כמובן, לדעת האם הדברים משקפים את הנוהג בבבל בלבד (בבל היא הביטוי המעשי של חוץ לארץ), או שמא המסורת המדרשית משקפת גם את הנוהג בסוריה להפריש רק חלה אחת.", + "הלכה לדורות נקבע שאין מפרישים תרומות בחוץ לארץ, אך חובת הפרשת חלה נקבעה כהלכה לכל דבר. הפוסקים ניסחו, אמנם, את הדבר בזהירות כחובה מדרבנן או מדברי סופרים בלבד (רמב\"ם, הלכות ביכורים פ\"ה הי\"ב; ספר יראים, קמח, וכיוצא באלו רבים), עם זאת בתודעת העם נקבעה החובה להפריש חלה כהלכה לכל דבר. הקלו מעט בפרטיה, וכמובן החלה שהורמה הושמדה ולא ניתנה לכוהן, אך בתודעה העממית זו נתפסה כחובה חמורה. דוגמה נוספת למיוחדותה של המצווה יש בכך שרבנו המאירי, למשל, אף שלא פירש את משניות זרעים (להוציא את מסכת ברכות כמובן), הקדיש פירוש קצר למסכת חלה ומספר כיצד מקובל היה לשנותה לאחר מסכת פסחים226ראו במבוא למסכתנו. . במבוא עסקנו בשאלה זו ותלינו את גורלה המיוחד של המצווה במקומה במטבח ובמעורבות העמוקה של הנשים במצווה זו דווקא." + ], + [ + "אלו ניתנין לכל כהן – משנה זו מציגה את המערך הכולל שתוצאה שלו נרמזה במשנה הקודמת. כוהן שאינו שומר על דיני טהרה קשה למסור לו תרומות ומעשרות, שהרי חל עליו הדין הידוע שאין למסור טהרות לעם הארץ. עם זאת, כפי שנראה בסיכום המשנה הדינים בנושא אינם רק תוצאה מעין טכנית של אי ההקפדה על מצוות טהרה. ", + "החרמים – החרם שנמסר למקדש מגיע לכוהנים, כמו גם חרמי כוהנים. הביטוי \"חרם\" נזכר במקרא (ויקרא כז כא). הביטוי \"חרם\" הוא כמובן עמום. מי בפועל רשאי לעבד את אדמת החרם? מי הוא המייצג הארצי של קודש הקודשים? גם חז\"ל התחבטו בשאלה: יש אומרים כי הקרקע תינתן לכוהן, ולדעת רבי יהודה בן בתירא תוקדש הקרקע לבדק הבית, אך לא ברור האם היא נמכרת או מוחזקת כרכוש המקדש (ספרא בחוקותי, פרק יב ד-ה; ספרי במדבר, קיז, עמ' 137). לדעת רבי שמעון נמסר הכסף או הקרקע ל\"שמים\", ושוב לא ברור מי מייצג את השמים לצורך עניין זה. במדרש אחר נקבע בפשטות שהחרם נמסר לכוהנים (ספרי זוטא לבמדבר, יח יד, עמ' 295). אגב, באותו קטע בספרא מסתייג רבי אלעזר בן עזריה וקובע שאסור לאדם להחרים את כל שדה אחוזתו, אלא רק חלק ממנו. בדברים אלה יש ביטוי ברור להסתייגות מעצם ההחרמה. בפסוק אחר נאמר: \"כל חרם בישראל לך יהיה\" (במדבר יח יד, והשווה יחזקאל מד כט). אם כן, החרם ניתן במפורש לכוהן. לא נקבע כיצד החרמים מתחלקים בין הכוהנים. מכל מקום, על החרם לא חלים כל דיני טהרה ולכן אין מניעה שכל כוהן, גם אם הוא עם הארץ, יקבל חרמים.", + "והבכורות – הבכור מובא למקדש כקרבן ונשחט ובשרו ניתן לכוהנים, אבל הוא כחולין, כפי שאומרת המשנה: \"הבכור והמעשר והפסח קדשים קלים, שחיטתן בכל מקום בעזרה, ודמן טעון מתנה אחת... הבכור נאכל לכהנים והמעשר לכל אדם ונאכלין בכל העיר לכל אדם\" (זבחים פ\"ה מ\"ח), ופידיון הבן – לפי ההלכה המקראית את הבן הבכור פודים תמורת חמישה שקלים הניתנים לכוהן. הכוהן רשאי לעשות בהם כרצונו, ופידיון פטר חמור – בכור חמור אינו מוקרב, שהרי הוא בהמה טמאה, [ו]הזרוע והלחיים והקיבה – זו המתנה הניתנת לכוהן עם אכילת בשר \"תאוה\", כלומר בשר רגיל שאדם שוחט לשבעו שלא במסגרת הקרבן (דברים יח ג-ד), וראשית הגז – הכוונה למצווה להפריש לכוהן מעט מגז הרחלים, ושמן שריפה – שמן תרומה שנטמא. תרומה שנטמאת מותרת בהנאה. בדרך כלל ההנאה ממזון כזה מצומצמת, אבל בשמן הוא ראוי לשרפה והדלקת הנר. מכיוון שמדובר במוצר טמא מותר למסרו לכוהן שאינו מקפיד על טהרה, [ו]קודשי המזבח [וקדשי] המקדש – בכל יתר עדי הנוסח \"המקדש\" או \"מקדש\", ואין הבדל בין הנוסחאות מבחינת התוכן. הכוונה למתנות הכהונה הניתנות לכוהנים מהקרבנות. הכול נאמנים על טהרת הקודש בירושלים, ועל אחת כמה וכמה הכוהנים. כאן נוצר מצב אבסורדי, לכאורה. סתם כוהן שאינו \"חבר\" חשוד על אי שמירה של טהרת תרומה, אבל בירושלים הכוהנים נאמנים על טהרת הקודש. על גישה זו עמדנו בפירושנו למסכת חגיגה227ראו המבוא למסכת חגיגה, ופירושנו שם לפ\"ג מ\"ד ואילך. . הסיבה לכך כפולה. מצד אחד, כל הציבור הקפיד ככל יכולתו על טהרת הקודש ואיש לא התיר לעצמו לזלזל בה, ובמקביל הקפידו חכמים שלא להרחיק את העם מהמקדש והעניקו לו את מתת האמון. בלי אמון זה אי אפשר היה למשוך את המוני העם אל המקדש ולקרבם לעבודתו, והביכורים רבי יהודה אוסר בבכורים – כפי שהירושלמי מסביר, המחלוקת היא האם הכוהן חייב לאכול את הביכורים בטהרה או גם בטומאה: \"רבי יודה אוסר בביכורים. רבי יודה כדעתיה דו רבי (שרבי) יודה אמר 'אין נותנין אותן אלא לחבר בטובה'. אמר רבי יונה רבי עקיבה כדעתיה דו רבי עקיבה אמר כל מעשיהן בטומאה\" (ירו', ס ע\"ב). בדרך כלל סתם המשנה מניחה שביכורים ניתנים לכוהנים ונאכלים בטהרה, כתרומה. לכאורה יש להבין ממשנתנו שתנא קמא סבור שביכורים נאכלים בטומאה, והירושלמי מייחס את דעתו לרבי עקיבא ואינו מביא סמך לדבריו. ברם, הציטוט \"כל מעשיהן בטומאה\" חל על כרשיני תרומה בלבד (להלן). דברי רבי יונה באים, אפוא, לפרש את ההמשך של המשנה ולא פִסקה זו. נמצאנו למדים כי גם תנא קמא אינו סבור שמותר לאכול ביכורים בטומאה, אלא להפך, שהם קודש וניתנים לכל כוהן כשם שניתנים לו קודשי מזבח. במשנת ביכורים מוצאים להם שני ההסברים ביטוי: \"למה אמרו הבכורים כנכסי כהן228זו הפניה לפרק ב משנה א, וראו פירושנו לשתי המשניות הללו. , שהוא קונה מהם עבדים וקרקעות ובהמה טמאה, ובעל חוב נוטלן בחובו והאשה בכתובתה כספר תורה. ורבי יהודה אומר אין נותנים אותם אלא לחבר בטובה. וחכמים אומרים נותנין אותם לאנשי משמר, והם מחלקין ביניהם כקדשי המקדש\" (משנה, ביכורים פ\"ג מי\"ב). אם כן, ביכורים הם קודש אך הכוהן רשאי למכרם, ואולי משום כך מותר לתת אותם לכל כוהן. המשך המשנה מבסס את ההסבר השני. רבי יהודה מורה לתת את הביכורים לכוהן חבר אשר שומר על דיני טהרה, והוא רשאי להוציאם מחוץ לירושלים, כמו שפירשנו. אולם חכמים מורים לתת את הביכורים לכוהני המשמר דווקא, כקודשים, ואם כן על פרות הביכורים חלים דיני קודשים והכול נאמנים עליהם.", + "כרשני תרומה רבי עקיבה מתיר וחכמים אוסרין – כרישינים הם מאכל בהמה, ומאכל אדם רק בשעת הדחק. על כן נחלקים חכמים אם יש לשמור עליהם בטהרה, או שתרומת הכרשינים אינה תרומה. המחלוקת היא: \"כרשיני תרומה – בית שמאי אומרים שורין ושפין בטהרה ומאכילין בטומאה, בית הלל אומרים שורין בטהרה ושפין ומאכילין בטומאה. שמאי אומר יאכלו צריד, רבי עקיבא אומר כל מעשיהם בטומאה\" (משנה, עדיות פ\"א מ\"ח). במקביל שנינו דין זה גם במשנת מעשר שני (פ\"ב ה\"ד). המשנה במעשר שני מדברת על כרשיני מעשר שני, ואילו משנת עדיות על כרשיני תרומה, ומשנתנו מצטטת את משנת עדיות, שכן היא עוסקת במה שניתן לכוהן. האמורא רבי יוסי מציע לנתק בין משנתנו למחלוקת שציטטנו. לדעתו: \"אמר רבי יוסי אפילו תימא מחלפא שיטתיה שנייה היא שאין אדם מצוי לטמא אוכלי בהמתו\" (ירו', ס ע\"ב – אפילו תאמר שמוחלפת השיטה שונה היא...). כלומר, אפילו מי שסבור שכרשיני תרומה נעשים בטהרה הרי שכל כוהן אינו חשוד לטמא את אוכלי בהמתו. הנחתו הבסיסית היא שהכוהן טהור, ולכל היותר אינו מקפיד על נטילת ידיים, ובכך אין כדי לטמא את אוכלי הבהמה.", + "דין כרשיני תרומה נדון במפורט בפירושנו לתרומות (פי\"א מ\"ה) ולמעשר שני (פ\"ב מ\"ז). התוספתא למשנתנו (פ\"ב ה\"ז ואילך) מונה את כל מתנות הכהונה. ברייתא זו שובצה בחלק מכתבי היד למשנתנו (להלן מי\"ב ואילך), ואנו נדון בה להלן כאילו הייתה משנה.", + "המשנה אינה עוסקת בפרטי חלוקת מתנות הכהונה. חלק מהן ניתנות לכוהנים בגבולים, וממילא ניתנות לכל כוהן שבעל הבית בוחר בו. חלק מהן ניתנות לאנשי המשמר, כלומר לכוהנים במקדש העובדים באותו שבוע (ירו', ס ע\"א). ממקורות אחרים אנו שומעים שהם ניתנים לבית האב, כלומר לכוהנים העובדים באותו יום, ובמקביל התנהלו מאבקים על המתנות הרווחיות בין כוהני המשמר והכוהנים הגדולים (סגל הקבע הבכיר של המקדש). עסקנו בכך בקצרה בפירושנו לפאה פ\"א מ\"ו.", + "המשנה עדיין מניחה שכמעט כל כוהן זכאי לקבל את מתנות הכהונה. הכוהנים נהגו להקפיד על דיני טהרה, ואף נהגו סלסול בעצמם והחמירו אף יותר משדרשו חכמים בתחומים רבים. מאוחר יותר נוסחו הלכות שבאו להדיר את הכוהנים שאינם תלמידי חכמים. מהלך זו הוא חלק מעימות סמוי בין חכמים וכוהנים על ההנהגה הדתית, וחכמים מדגישים שאמנם הכהונה היא \"משאב כוח\" ומקור לסמכות דתית, אך לימוד התורה הוא חשוב יותר, ומהווה למעשה תנאי לכהונת אמת.", + "מתן התרומות הותנה בכך שהכוהן יהא חבר וישמור על דיני טהרה. הנימוק בעיקרו טכני, שכן אין למסור תרומה למי שחשוד על אכילתה שלא בטהרה: \"מה אהרן חבר אף בניו חברים. מיכן אמרו: אין נותנים מתנות אלא לחבר\"229ספרי במדבר, קכא, עמ' 148; תוס', פאה פ\"ד ה\"ז ומקבילות רבות. . \"חבר\" בהקשר זה אינו בהכרח לומד תורה. בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד היו למונח זה שתי משמעויות: \"חבר\" השומר על טהרה מחד גיסא, וחבר אחר הוא מי ששייך למעגל לומדי התורה, אף אם איננו חכם או תלמיד. יש להניח שקיימת הייתה זיקת קרבה חברתית בין שני המובנים, ובדרך כלל מי שהיה חבר לעניין טהרות היה גם מקורב ללומדי תורה230לדיון מפורט ראו ביכלר, עם הארץ; אופנהיימר, עם הארץ. . במקרה שלפנינו מדובר בכוהן, וכוהנים הקפידו, כאמור, על טהרתם ללא זיקה לעולמם של חכמים. מותר לנו, אפוא, להסיק שחכמים תבעו להפנות את התרומות לכוהנים \"חברים\", כלומר לאלו הקרובים לחברת החכמים.", + "בדרך דומה יש להבין עדויות מספר שלפיהן זכה אהרן להתמנות לכוהן בזכות תורתו: \"אהרן לא זכה לכהונה אלא בזכות התורה, שנאמר: כי שפתי כוהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו\"231אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"ב מח, עמ' 131. המדרש קשור למושג \"שלושה הכתרים\" אשר נדון במפורט על ידי כהן, שלושה כתרים. , והוא הדין בדרשות נוספות שכבר עסקנו בהן. אין זו תביעה הלכה למעשה, אך יש כאן בבחינת אווירה ורקע עקרוני לעולם ההלכתי.", + "במקורות אחרים הדברים מפורשים יותר: \"את מוצא שתי תרומות בחר הקדוש ברוך הוא, אחד למשכן ואחד לכוהנים, תרומת כוהנים, על מנת שיהיו בני תורה. אמר רבי ינאי: כל כוהן שאינו בן תורה, מותר לאכול על קברו תרומה... אמר רבי יצחק בשם רבי יוחנן... כיון שאינו בן תורה, אינו יודע להבדיל בין קודש לחול ובין הטמא לטהור. אומר: 'קדשי בזית ואת שבתותי חללת'. למה מבזה את הקדשים? שאינו יודע לשמור שבת. ראה כמה חביבה תרומת כוהנים שניתנה לכוהנים בני תורה...\" (תנחומא, תרומה א). רבי יוחנן מנמק את דבריו בחוסר הידיעה של הכוהן בכל הנוגע לדיני טומאה וטהרה, אך הוא מרחיב מיניה וביה את היריעה לידיעת הלכה כללית. יתר על כן, התביעה שכוהן יהיה בן תורה מופלגת בהרבה. רוב היהודים ידעו לשמור על דיני שבת, והדרישה שהכוהן יהיה \"בן תורה\" היא נרחבת מעבר לידיעת ההלכות, ויש בה היבט חברתי מובהק. מכוחם של נימוקים טכניים הלכתיים אלו מרחיבים החכמים, ובעיקר האמוראים, את המדרש התנאי ומחילים אותו על דיני תרומה. כמו כן: \" 'כי מלאך ה' צבאות הוא', אמר רבי יהודה: מכאן אמרו: כל כוהן שהוא אוכל בתרומה ואינו בן תורה אינו כוהן לעתיד לבוא, אלא נמאס מג' דברים... אבל אם היה בן תורה הוא כמלאך\" (שמות רבה, לח ג). הפסוק ומדרשו הופכים את הרעיון הפולמוסי המופשט לתביעה הלכתית משמעותית העשויה לנשל את רוב הכוהנים, שאינם חכמים, מנכסיהם הכלכליים232עדויות נוספות לזיקה שבין תלמוד תורה והפרשת התרומות מצויות במדרשים נוספים, כגון בראשית רבה, ד א, עמ' 950; ירו', סנהדרין פ\"ב ה\"ו, כ ע\"ד, ועוד. ברם, במקורות אלו חסרה ההתניה שכל מי שאינו בן תורה אינו זכאי למעשרות. . ברוח דומה מרחיב גם התלמוד הבבלי את המדרש התנאי: \"דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא: לאהרן מאהרן, מה אהרן חבר – אף בניו חברים. אמר רב שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יוחנן: מניין שאין נותנין תרומה לכוהן עם הארץ, שנאמר: ויאמר לעם ליושבי ירושלים לתת מנת הכהנים הלוים למען יחזקו בתורת ה' – כל המחזיק בתורת ה' יש לו מנת, ושאינו מחזיק בתורת ה' אין לו מנת. אמר רב אחא בר אדא אמר רב יהודה: כל הנותן תרומה לכהן עם הארץ כאילו נותנה לפני ארי... רבי יוחנן אמר: אף גורם לו מיתה... דבי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב תנא: אף משיאו עון אשמה...\" (בבלי, סנהדרין צ ע\"ב; חולין קל ע\"ב). יש להניח שהדרשות בתלמוד הבבלי מושפעות לא מעט מרוחו המיוחדת של תלמוד זה, אך רוח הדברים מצויה כבר במדרשי ארץ ישראל.", + "במסורת אמוראית אחת מסופר על רבי אחא בר עולא שקיבל מעשרות לא משום שהוא כוהן אלא משום שעסק בתורה (ירו', מעשר שני פ\"ה ה\"ד, נו ע\"ב), ברם ייתכן שחכם זה היה כוהן או לוי, והמעשר ניתן לו לא רק ככוהן אלא ככוהן שהוא גם חכם.", + "כל זאת בקשר למעשרות המתחייבים מדבר תורה. מעשר כספים, לעומת זאת, אשר נקבע על ידי החכמים, הוסב בתקופת האמוראים ישירות לחכמים: \"רמז לפרגמטוטין ולמפרשי ימים שהיו מוציאין אחד מעשרה לעמילי תורה\" (פסיקתא דרב כהנא, עשר תעשר, עמ' 172). נוהג זה אין להקדימו לימי התנאים, שכן רק במאה השלישית החלה להישמע תביעה נוקבת לסייע במתן צדקה לתלמידי חכמים. קודם לכן נמנעו רוב החכמים מתגמול כספי כלשהו233עמד על כך כבר בן שלום, חכמי יבנה, אך התמונה קיצונית עוד יותר מכפי שתיאר בדיונו שם. ראו עוד בר, תורה; בר, יששכר. חוקר זה אסף את החומר, אך הבחין בתופעה רק באופן חלקי. . בתרגום שיר השירים, שהוא תרגום מאוחר, אולי אף מבבל234תרגום שיר השירים משתמש במונחים בבליים מובהקים, כישיבה – \"מתיבתא\" (תרגום שיר השירים, ד א; ז ג; ח יג, ועוד); הכוהנים עולים בו לדוכן, מונח בבלי מובהק (תרגום ל- ד ז, וראו ספראי, דוכן), וסימני איחור נוספים. , מדובר במפורש על מתן תרומות ומעשרות לתלמידי חכמים (תרגום שיר השירים, ז ד).", + "נמצאנו למדים שחכמים חייבו מתן תרומות לכוהנים, ואף עודדו את הציבור לכך, אך התרומות לא ניתנו לכוהנים ככוהנים אלא לכוהנים שנמנו עם שכבת החכמים. זכויות היתר והרווחים החברתיים לא היו של כוהנים, אלא של אותו חלק בשכבת החכמים שהיה גם כוהן. בתוך שכבת החכמים היה מעמד ייחודי לכוהנים, בכבוד (לעלות ראשון לתורה, לברך ראשון וכו') ובהכנסה כלכלית (תרומות, ואולי גם מעשרות)235ראו בהרחבה בנספח למסכת שקלים. . ", + "ה\"משנה\" האחרונה שבפרק, שכאמור לעיל אינה משנה כלל, חוזרת לעיקרון זה שאין לתת מתנות כהונה למי שאינו בקי. זהו נוסח אחר של ההלכה שבמשנה, אלא שהוא מדגיש יותר את הידע ופחות את העובדה שהכוהן אינו \"חבר\". אך שתי ההלכות לדבר אחד התכוונו." + ], + [ + "המשנה חוזרת למה שנאמר במשנה ח. שם דובר על הפרשת חלה בחוץ לארץ, ועתה מספרת המשנה על כמה ממנהיגי יהדות התפוצות שהעלו לארץ, מרצונם הטוב, מעשרות או מתנות כהונה אחרות. חכמים מקבלים או אינם מקבלים מנהגי חסידות אלו, ונסכם את הדברים בסוף פירושנו. המשנה אינה אומרת זאת במפורש, אבל אפשר להסיק ממנה שגם חלה היא הפרשה דומה התלויה ברצונו של התורם ואינה חובה הלכתית.", + "ניתיי איש תקוע – ידוע לנו על שני מקומות בשם \"תקוע\" בארץ ישראל. האחד ביהודה, שם נולד הנביא עמוס, והאחר בגליל, אם כי זיהויו המדויק בעייתי236ראו נספח ג למסכת עירובין. . הצורה \"ניתיי\" כתובה בכתיב ארץ-ישראלי (וכן ב-ז, ל, פ); ברוב עדי הנוסח \"נתאי\", ובדפוסים \"ניתאי\".", + "הביא חלות מביתור237כך הגרסה ב- ב, ג2, ט, ת3; ב- כ, ל, נ, פ, ץ, ש, ת3 – \"בייתור\"; ב- ו – \"ביתיר\"; ב- ן, ת, ת2 – בשתי מילים, \"בית תור\", וב- ס – \"בתור\". – כנראה הכוונה למושבה של בני ביתריס, השבט שעליו מספר יוספוס שהתיישב בגולן. ראש השבט מכונה \"זמאריס\". בני השבט הועברו על ידי הנציב הרומי ממדבר סוריה לאזור החולה, והוא הטיל על הורדוס למצוא להם פתרון התיישבותי. עבור הורדוס הם היו גורם בעייתי ומסוכן. במקביל היו הגולן והטרכון נתונים תחת איומי שוד וביזה מצדו של זינונדורוס, שליט היטורים, על כן נתן הורדוס לבני ביתריס אדמות בגולן ובטרכון. הם חסמו את היטורים ובכך השקיט הורדוס את שני השבטים, ואף הפך אזור נטוש ברובו לאזור התיישבות חקלאית משגשג238אפלבאום, קשתי זמאריס; כהן, קשתי זמאריס. . פרשת ההתיישבות של שבט זה ומניעיה שנויים במחלוקת שלא כאן המקום לבררה. מכל מקום, הכפר המרכזי שלהם מכונה \"ביתירא\" (קד, יז 24). סביר להניח שבשם זה טמון רמז לשמו הקדום של הטרכון שהיה חלק מממלכת היטורים. מעשה זה התחולל בשנת 10 לפני הספירה לערך, אם כי התאריך המדויק אינו נהיר. מסתבר שלניתאי איש תקוע היו אדמות באזור, או שהוא עצמו היה מתושבי ביתירא והתגורר בתקוע, ומן הסתם הכוונה לתקוע הגלילית. מכל מקום, אדמתו נחשבה לחוץ לארץ, ולא קיבלו ממנו – אמנם המשנה קבעה שיש להפריש חלות בסוריה ובחוץ לארץ, אבל החלה טמאה בגלל טומאת ארץ העמים, ולכן לא קיבלו ממנו. הסבר זה קשה, שהרי אם כך אין משמעות לכך ש\"לא קבלו ממנו\", הרי החלה טמאה, ומה ניתן לעשות בה? אין גם להסביר שהביא גרעינים והכין את העיסה בארץ, שהרי פרות חוץ לארץ שנכנסו לארץ חייבים בחלה (לעיל פ\"ב מ\"א). אין זאת אלא שהוא הביא חלה נוספת, לפי ההלכה שמפרישים שתי חלות, וניסה לתת אותה לכוהן. אמנם חלה זו אינה חלה מבחינה הלכתית ולא חלים עליה דיני חלה, אך הם סירבו לקבל אותה ממנו כהפגנה למען יהא ברור שאין כאן קיומה של מצווה. זו החמרה מבחינה הלכתית, אך מובנת מבחינה ציבורית, שכן יש במחווה כדי לבטא שהחלה שמפרישים בחוץ לארץ היא זכר למצווה ולא מצווה של ממש, וכן פירש הרא\"ש. בירושלמי שנינו: \"אמר רבי יונה ואפילו למאן דאמר חובה, שנייא היא שהדבר מסויים, שמא יקבע הדבר חובה. לא כן סברנן מימר, קודם לשתי חלות לא יביא ואם הביא כשר, שנייא היא שהדבר מסויים, שמא יקבע הדבר חובה. ולא כן תנינן, אם באו תמימין יקרבו, שנייא היא שהדבר מסויים, שמא יקבע הדבר חובה\" (ס ע\"ב). הנימוק החוזר בירושלמי הוא שבמקום ש\"הדבר מסויים\" יש חשש שייקבע לחובה. בייתור קרובה לארץ ישראל, ונראה שניתאי זה היה איש חשוב ביותר והיה חשש שהמעשה ייקבע לדורות. עוד יש בירושלמי רמז לכך שיש מחלוקת האם צריך להפריש חלות בחוץ לארץ, ונראה שהכוונה למשנה ז לעיל. שם המחלוקת היא רק על החלה השנייה, ורבי אליעזר מסתפק בחלה אחת שהיא מיועדת לשרפה. אפילו לרבן גמליאל אין להביא את החלות לארץ ישראל. רמז נוסף הוא שאולי המעשה בניתאי התחולל \"קודם לשתי חלות\", כלומר לפני שהחליטו שחייבים להביא שתי חלות. לרמז זה נשוב להלן.", + "אנשי אלכסנד[ר]יה [הביאו חלותיהן מאלכסנדרייא] ולא קיבלו מהן – בימי בית שני הייתה אלכסנדריה המרכז היהודי החשוב ביותר בחוץ לארץ. הקשר הישיר בין מצרים וארץ ישראל אִפשר העברת מצרכים בדרך הים, וכך ניתן היה אף להתגבר על בעיית טומאת ארץ העמים. מכל מקום, גם תושבי אלכסנדריה הביאו חלות ולא קיבלו מהם. ", + "עד עתה דובר על מצוות חלה, ולא ברור מתי התחולל המעשה, בימי הבית או אחריו. המעשה בניתאי עשוי להיות בכל תקופה שהיא. המעשה בבני אלכסנדריה התחולל, מן הסתם, לפני מרד התפוצות בשנים 117-114. במרד זה נפגעה יהדות אלכסנדריה באופן קשה ביותר, וחדלה מלהוות מרכז יהודי למשך יותר ממאה שנה. כל המעשים במשנה הם מימי הבית, ולכן דומה שגם המעשה בניתאי הוא מימי הבית השני. הדבר יסביר את הרמז של רבי יונה בירושלמי לעיל שקל יותר לפרש את המעשה \"קודם לשתי חלות\". יתר על כן, ייתכן שאכן פסק ההלכה בנושא ניתאי סותר את המשנה לעיל הדנה בחובת חלה על פרות חוץ לארץ שהובאו לארץ. לא מן הנמנע שלמרות ההכרעה שלא לקבל ממנו את החלות התקבל נוהג להביא חיטים מחוץ לארץ ולהפריש עבורן חלה. חכמים חששו שבגלל הסיטואציה (\"הדבר מסוים\") ייקבע הדבר כחובה לדורות, ואכן חשש זה התממש. אמנם הדבר לא נקבע כחובה, אבל בהחלט התקבל כנוהג לדורות. עדות נוספת לכך יש במעשים המסופרים בירושלמי על אנשי קיסריה וכפר שימי. הם בחוץ לארץ, אך מצפים מהם לעבור לארץ ישראל ולהפריש חלה מפרותיהם. זאת אף שהם נחשבים כתושבי חוץ לארץ או תושבי סוריה שאדמתם טמאה (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"ב מ\"ג, וירו', נח ע\"ג).", + "הירושלמי עוד מקצין את התיאור ומספר: \"גזרו עליהם והחזירום\" (ס ע\"ב). קשה לדעת אם זו פרשנות למצב המוזר שנוצר, או זיכרון היסטורי. קשה גם לדעת מי הם אלו שגזרו. הרי בתקופה זו פעלו בנוסף לפרושים גם כתות אחרות, וקשה לברר מי הם אלו שהוציאו את ההנחיה.", + "אנשי הר צבעים – הר צבעים, או הר צבועים כמו בכל יתר עדי הנוסח, הוא כנראה ההר שמעל אזור יריחו. לפי התיאור במשנה הבשילו הפרות בהר צבועים מוקדם מהרגיל, והדבר מתאים לתנאים הטופוגרפיים בבקעת הירדן. חז\"ל היו מודעים לתנאים אלו, וכפי שהמדרש אומר: \"בבקר יאכל עד, זה יריחו שמוקדמת, ולערב יחלק שלל, זה בית אל שמאחרת\" (תוס', שביעית פ\"ז הי\"ב). אחד הוואדיות היורדים לבקעת יריחו נקרא בפי תושבי הסביבה ואדי א' דאבע, שמשמעו נחל הצבועים, והוא משמר כנראה את השם הקדום.", + "הביאו ביכוריהם קודם לעצרת ולא קיבלו מהן מפני שהכתוב שבתורה וחג הקציר ביכורי מעשיך אשר תזרע בשדה – המשנה מופיעה שנית במסכת ביכורים (פ\"א מ\"ג), ושם נשנה גם הדין שאין להביא ביכורים לפני עצרת (פ\"ג מ\"ח). במסכת מנחות נקבע שאין להביא ביכורים קודם לעומר, כלומר ליום השני של פסח, \"ואם הביא פסול, קדם לשתי הלחם לא יביא ואם הביא כשר\" (משנה, מנחות פ\"י מ\"ו). אם כן, לפני פסח אם הביא פסול, ואחרי פסח ולפני שבועות אם עבר והביא כשר, בניגוד למשנתנו. ניתן כמובן להעמיד את משנתנו שבני הר צבועים הביאו ביכורים לפני פסח, אך הדבר קשה, שהרי כתוב רק \"לפני עצרת\". בתוספתא ביכורים יש דעה שלישית: \"אין מביאין ביכורים קודם לעצרת, ואם הביא ימתין עד שתבוא עצרת ויקרא עליהן\" (פ\"א ה\"א). ראשונים הבינו את המימרה כך שהפֵרות ימתינו בעזרה עד שבועות ולא יתחלקו לכוהנים, וכמובן גם לא יחזרו לבעלים239כך הרמב\"ם, הלכות תמידים פ\"ז הי\"ז; ליברמן בפירושו לתוספתא ואלבק, משנה, עמ' 410, הקדישו לשאלה דיון ארוך ומלומד. . הסבר זה אפשרי מבחינה טקסטואלית, אבל קשה מצדו הרֵאלי. ראשית, קשה להניח שהיו מתירים להשהות בעזרה פרות לזמן ממושך. זאת ועוד, לאחר כמה ימים הפרות יירקבו240אלא אם כן המדובר בתמרים יבשים. וקשה להניח שאז הם יוכשרו לביכורים. אין זאת אלא שכוונת התוספתא היא שבדיעבד הביכורים מתקבלים (ומתחלקים לכוהנים), אלא שאת קריאת פרשת ביכורים ישהה עד למועד. ", + "את התוספתא ואת משנת ביכורים ניתן ליישב בדוחק, אבל קשה ליישב את שתיהן עם משנתנו. אלבק פירש לפי הירושלמי שהאיסור במשנה היה רק ב\"דבר מסוים\", באיש חשוב, והיה חשש שייקבע הדבר לדורות. ברם, גם פירוש זה קשה; אפשר להבין שחכמים פעלו כדי להחזיר חלה במקרה מפורסם כזה, ובמקרים אחרים של פשוטי עם לא שמעו כלל על המקרה, אבל קשה להניח כי אכן מה שהותר לציבור נאסר על אנשים של צורה.", + "דומה, אפוא, שמשנתנו מייצגת את ההלכה הקדומה שנהגה בימי הבית. מאוחר יותר, כאשר כל השאלה הפכה לתאורטית, הקלו. התנאים התמודדו עם מקרים רבים של הפרשת מעשרות לפני גמר מלאכה, ובדרך כלל נטו לראות בכך הרמת תרומה לפחות בדיעבד, ובלבד שהפרי יהיה שווה משהו241ראו פירושנו למעשרות פ\"א ובמבוא למסכת מעשרות. . על כן יש לראות במשניות השונות גישות שונות, ומשנתנו מייצגת את ההלכה הקדומה242ראו אלבק, עמ' 410, שהאריך בניסיונות חריפים לביאור הסתירה. . כפשוטן אלו אכן גישות שונות כלפי השאלה של חיוב מצוות התלויות בארץ בחוץ לארץ. דנו בכך במבוא למסכת מעשרות, וראינו כי אכן לא הייתה בנושא עמדה אחידה.", + "כאמור, הסיפור שבמשנתנו ובמסכת ביכורים (פ\"א מ\"ג) מופיע בסדרת מעשים על בני חוץ לארץ שהרימו מעשרות ותרומות. ההקשר מאפשר להבין שהר צבועים הוא בחוץ לארץ, או לפחות בעבר הירדן. ברם, תיאור המעשה והפסוק המובא בו קושר את המעשה להקדמת הבאת הביכורים. אם כן, איש אינו מטיל ספק בכך שמביאים ביכורים מהר צבועים. כפי שהסברנו, ייתכן שהר צבועים הוא הרכס מערבית ליריחו, והוא בוודאי בתחום ארץ ישראל. אפשר גם שהוא בעבר הירדן, והמשנה מהלכת בשיטה שמביאים ביכורים מעבר הירדן.243ראו פירושנו לביכורים פ\"א מ\"ט. המעשה הועבר ממשנת ביכורים (פ\"א מ\"ג), העוסקת בהקדמת הבאת הביכורים, למשנתנו, ואצלנו הוא אכן מצוי שלא בהקשרו." + ], + [ + "בן אטיטס – בכמה עדי נוסח מאוחרים \"אנטינוס\", אבל ברוב עדי הנוסח אין נ' כלל. במדרש תנאים לדברים244מדרש התנאים לדברים, יד כב, עמ' 77. מדרש התנאים משוחזר ממדרש הגדול, ועל כן ספק אם זו מסורת תנאית או עיבוד מאוחר. הוא מכונה חזקיה בן אטינוס. שם גם נאמר שהחליטו את אשר החליטו \"אף על פי שאדם של צורה היה\". כאמור, הירושלמי רואה בכך סיבה דווקא להחמיר שמא מעשהו יהפוך למודל לחיקוי.", + "העלה בכורות מבבל ולא קיבלו ממנו – זו עדות קדומה, מימי הבית, למנהגם של חסידים מבני בבל לשמור על מצוות בכורות, ומן הסתם גם על מצוות אחרות התלויות בארץ. כאן ברור ש\"לא קיבלו\" הם מנהיגי המקדש.", + "במשנת תמורה מתנהל דיון בשאלה זו של העלאת קרבנות מחוץ לארץ. לדעת המשנה שם (פ\"ג מ\"ה) אין להעלות קרבנות מחוץ לארץ, וכמובן גם לא בכורות ומעשר בהמה. אבל אם הקדיש קרבן בחוץ לארץ יעלהו, ובכור ומעשר: \"אם באו תמימים יקרבו ואם בעלי מומין יאכלו במומן לבעליהם\". אם כן, שתי רמות של בדיעבד הן, אבל הבכור (ומעשר בהמה) בדיעבד יוקרב. גם כאן ניתן לתרץ לפי הירושלמי שמשנתנו ב\"דבר מסוים\", כך מפרש אלבק והצבענו על הקושי שבהצעה זו. הבבלי אף הוא מתרץ ששתי המשניות חלוקות, ואף קושר את הדבר למחלוקת רבי ישמעאל ורבי עקיבא (תמורה כא ע\"א).", + "הצורה \"בן פלוני\" נפוצה בתקופה. אחד החוקרים כינה אישים אלו \"אנשים ללא שם\", שכן שמם הפרטי עלום245נוה, אנשים ללא שם. .", + "יוסף הכהן הביא ביכוריו יין ושמן ו[לא] – המילה נוספה בידי מעתיק שני מעל השורה עם ניקוד, קיבלו ממנו – יוסף הכהן הוא דמות עלומה, אך בספרות חז\"ל השתמרו ממנו מעשים מספר. לא ברור היכן חי ופעל, אך נראה שהתגורר בחוץ לארץ וביקר בארץ לעתים קרובות. את ביכוריו לא קיבלו משום שביכורים יש להפריש רק בארץ. הסברנו זאת כפשט המשנה שהדיון הוא על ביכורי חוץ לארץ, ואין המשנה מעלה את השאלה של הבאת ביכורים כיין ושמן246כך פירשו רבים, ראו מאירי ומלאכת שלמה. . פירוש זה בא משום שכל ההקשר הוא על הבאת מתנות כהונה מחוץ לארץ, ועל כן השאלה של הבאת יין ושמן כביכורים אינה עולה ואינה תופסת מקום מרכזי במשנה. פרשנות זו עולה מתוך ההקשר הספרותי של המשנה, ואנו רואים בכך שיקול מכריע. זאת אף שלו היה המשפט במשנה מופיע לבד ניתן היה לפרש שלא קיבלו את הביכורים משום שהם במצב נוזלי.", + "שאלה זו של הבאת ביכורים כנוזלים נדונה בפירושנו לתרומות (פי\"א מ\"ג), וראינו כי במקורות יש שתי גישות מרכזיות (מחלוקת רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע). האחת מגדירה את היוצא מהפרי כפרי לכל דבר, והאחרת שוללת הרחבה זו. שתי עמדות אלו הן מחלוקת עקרונית, ומצינו גם עמדות פשרה המנסות להכליל מרכיבים משתי הדעות. ברם, אין לעמעם את המחלוקת היסודית בנושא. על כן פשוט לפרש שמשנתנו כרבי אליעזר שמותר להביא כביכורים יין ושמן, ואולי גם נוזלים אחרים, אלא שבכך אין המשנה עוסקת.", + "מעתה עלינו לבחון כיצד הסבירו התלמודים את השאלה. הירושלמי מקשה ממשנת תרומות על משנתנו ומתרץ שמשנת תרומות אוסרת הבאת משקין, אך הם מותרים אם מלכתחילה ליקטם לשם כך. להערכתנו זו עמדת פשרה המנסה להביא להרמוניזציה בין המקורות. מכל מקום, את הביכורים החזירו לא משום שהם נוזלים אלא משום שהם מחוץ לארץ. אם כן, משנתנו עוסקת רק בשאלת הבאת ביכורים מחוץ לארץ. אין בה הבעת דעה באשר להבאת יין ושמן כביכורים. ייתכן שאילו הביא יוסף יין ושמן מהארץ הייתה מתנתו רצויה, וייתכן שהייתה נחשבת לפסולה. אין במשנתנו הבעת עמדה בנושא.", + "אשר להבאת ביכורים מחוץ לארץ, הלכה פשוטה היא שאין מביאים משם ביכורים, ולא מצינו מי שחלק בכך247משנה, ביכורים פ\"ד מי\"א; ספרי דברים, רצט, עמ' 318; שם שא, עמ' 319; מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, פסחא יז, עמ' 63; מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, יג ה, עמ' 39; ספרי זוטא לדברים, כז ב, עמ' 402, ועוד. .", + "אף הוא העלה בניו ובני ביתו לעשות פסח קטן בירושלם והחזירוהו שלא יקבע הדבר חובה – במקורות יש מחלוקת לגבי מידת השתתפותן של נשים בפסח ראשון ובפסח שני. המשנה (פסחים פ\"ח מ\"א) מניחה בפשטות שהאישה משתתפת בקרבן פסח, אף שהיא פטורה ממנו. הירושלמי מסביר: \"פיסחן שלנשים רשות ודוחין עליו את השבת\" (פסחים פ\"ח ה\"א, לה ע\"ד). המימרה מופיעה פעמיים, פעם אחת היא כוללת עבדים ופעם אחת עוסקת רק בנשים. כמו בסוגיות רבות אחרות \"רשות\" משמעה מצווה קטנה, מצווה שאינה ממש חובה248ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ו מ\"ב, ועוד. . רק כך אפשר להבין מדוע קרבן פסח של נשים דוחה את השבת. לו היה המעשה נעדר ערך הלכתי לא היה דוחה את השבת. מכל מקום, גם אם קרבן האישה אינו חובה, חלות עליו כל ההלכות של השחיטה והחבורה. דעה אחרת בירושלמי שם היא שנשים חייבות בקרבן פסח. הנימוק לכך הוא מדרשי, שכן קרבן פסח צמוד לאיסור חמץ שהוא לאו ובו נשים חייבות. מאוחר יותר תיקבע ההלכה האמוראית שנשים חייבות בליל הסדר. הנימוק לכך הוא \"שאף הן היו באותו הנס\"249בבלי, פסחים קח ע\"ב. ראו ספראי וספראי, הגדת חז\"ל, עמ' 47-46. . לו היה נימוק זה מקובל מראשיתו, לא היה מקום להגדרת קרבן פסח של נשים \"רשות\" אלא הייתה זו חובה ככל מצווה.", + "בספרות הראשונים מתנהלים דיונים ארוכים האם אישה רשאית לחייב את עצמה במצוות שהיא פטורה מהן, האם היא רשאית לברך עליהן והאם היא יכולה להוציא ידי חובה את הגברים250ראו בקצרה פירושנו לראש השנה פ\"ד מ\"ח, והספרות ההלכתית בנושא רבה. השאלה תופסת מקום מרכזי בשיח ההלכתי המודרני, ומוזר שמשנתנו אינה תופסת מקום מרכזי בדיונים אף שיש בה היגד כה משמעותי. . אין בספרות המשנה והתלמוד עמדה אחידה בנושא251ראו מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, מסכתא דפסחא פי\"א, עמ' 39, וירושלמי למשנתנו להלן. . לא כאן המקום לדיון מפורט, מכל מקום דומה שלנוהג החברתי היה תפקיד מכריע בגיבוש ההלכה בתחום זה. מצוות שנשים נטלו על עצמן זכו בהן, ולעתים אף התחייבו בהן252ראו ספראי, נשים במצוות עשה, והסיכום שלנו בנספח למסכת חגיגה. . ודאי שלמעשה השתתפו הנשים בזבח הפסח, אם כבנות בבית אביהן ואם כנשים בבית בעליהן. הלכות רבות מניחות כעובדה מובנת מאליה שהנשים שעלו לרגל נמנות ומשתתפות בסעודת זבח הפסח, מחליטות עם מי הן מעדיפות לאכול את הפסח או מצפות לסיום ימי טומאתן כדי שאפשר יהיה לשחוט עליהן את הפסח ולמנות אותן בין האנשים שעליהם שוחטים את הזבח. מצינו אף דיונים האם נשים יכולות לעשות חבורה לעצמן ולשחוט לעצמן את קרבן הפסח253משנה, פסחים פ\"ח מ\"א; שם מ\"ה-מ\"ו; תוס', שם פ\"ז הי\"א; פ\"ח ה\"ו, וראו דיונה של ספראי, נשים במקדש. . אין ספק, אפוא, שבפועל השתתפו נשים בקרבן פסח; השאלה הייתה האם זו חובה או רשות, רשות במובן של מצווה קלה254ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ח מ\"א. . מבחינה הלכתית הצטמצמה הבעיה לשאלה האם שוחטים קרבן פסח על נשים, או שמא הן רשאיות רק להיות \"טפילה לאחרים\" (ירו', ס ע\"ב; פסחים ח ע\"א, לה ע\"ד; בבלי, שם צא ע\"א, ועוד) ולהימנות עם חבורה שיש בה גברים.", + "המשנה קובעת שבפסח ראשון מחויבותן גדולה יותר (פסחים פ\"ט מ\"ג, ראו פירושנו לה), אך בפרטי ההבדלים שלוש עמדות של תנאים מדור אושא255ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ח מ\"ב והמבוא למסכת פסחים. . אשר לפסח שני, יש הסוברים ששוחטים לנשים בפני עצמן, ויש שמתירים לשחוט רק לחבורת גברים והנשים רק עושות \"טפילה\", כלומר יכולות להצטרף ולהימנות בחבורה. ניתן לסדר את דברי התנאים בטבלה הבאה (תוס', פסחים פ\"ח ה\"י; ירו', ס ע\"ב):", + "אישה בפסח שני", + " רבי יהודה256בירושלמי: רבי מאיר. ", + "ממשנתנו אנו שומעים על יוסף הכוהן שהעלה את אשתו לעשות פסח שני והחזירוהו חכמים. כך או כך, ברור שאף מי שסבור שנשים חייבות גם בפסח שני מסכים שחובתן פחותה מזו של הגברים. התנאים נחלקו האם החזירוהו כי אין לשחוט פסח שני על נשים (רבי יהודה ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון), או משום שלא רצו שהדבר ייקבע כחובה. בירושלמי למשנתנו מוצג בפשטות ההסבר השני (ס ע\"ב), ומנומק בכך שיוסף זה הוא בבחינת \"דבר מסוים\". הסבר זה חוזר בכל פסקאות הירושלמי; יש לחשוש שמא הוא מועבר מפסקה לפסקה וביתר הפסקאות סירבו לקבל את החריגה ההלכתית (למעשה ההתנדבות) אף על פי שהתורם היה אדם רגיל, וההלכה נובעת מהאיסור להתנדב למצוות גם ללא החשש שייהפך הדבר לנורמה.", + "הסיפור על יוסף הכוהן מלמד כי המחלוקת על מעמד הנשים, והרגישות סביבה, החלו כבר בימי בית שני. למחלוקת על השתתפות נשים בפסח בכלל, ובקרבן פסח שני בפרט, השלכות על בירור השאלה העקרונית בדבר זכותה של האישה לחייב את עצמה במצוות שנפטרה מהן.", + "על יוסף הכוהן בידינו סיפורים מספר על ויכוחים-עימותים עם חכמים. לא ברור האם היה חכם או שמא נמנה עם חוגי הכוהנים והוויכוח הוא בין חכמים לכוהנים, מכל מקום ודאי שהיה אמיד ושהתגורר בחוץ לארץ, אך לאו דווקא בבבל257ספרא, אמור פרשתא א הי\"ב; בבלי, מועד קטן כג ע\"א; שמחות פ\"ד ה\"ו, עמ' 117. . בנוסח הדפוס הוא מכונה יוסף הבבלי, וזו פרשנות למשנת חלה שאנו עוסקים בה, אם כי גם בה לא נאמר שיוסף זה היה מבבל (ראו המעשה הקודם במשנה [בבן אטיטס] העוסק ביהודי בבלי). היה גם תנא בשם יוסף הבבלי (בבלי, פסחים קיג ע\"א), והבלבול האפשרי בין השניים מסביר כיצד נדד התואר \"בבלי\" ליוסף שבמשנתנו. במשנתנו הוא מתואר כמי שהשתתף בעליות לרגל והביא את אשתו במיוחד לפסח שני. יוסף נזכר עוד כאיש אמיד ומקפיד. יוסף הכוהן סירב להיטמא כאשר מתה אשתו באחת העליות לרגל, וחכמים טימאוהו בכוח (תוס', שבת פי\"ג [יד] הי\"א); במשנה אחרת מסופר על חפץ מיוחד שלו שהותקן כך שניתן יהא לטהרו (משנה, מקוואות פ\"י מ\"א). על כן מסתבר שהיה מקורב לחוגי חכמים, שכן לא היו מטמאים כל אדם שלא נהג כהלכתם. אחד מתלמידי רבן יוחנן בן זכאי היה רבי יוסי הכוהן, אך נראה שאינו יוסף הכוהן. \"יוסי\" היה אחד השמות הנפוצים ביותר בסוף ימי בית שני, תקופה הידועה בריבוי השמות החוזרים בה, ללא קשר משפחתי. תלמידו של רבן יוחנן בן זכאי מכונה תמיד \"רבי\" יוסי, תואר שהתחדש רק בדור יבנה, וגם מבחינה כרונולוגית אין הוא מתאים לסיפורים על יוסף הכוהן. בסדרת מקורות נזכר יוסף הכוהן כמי שיצא לחו\"ל ללמוד אצל רבי יוסי258תוס', עבודה זרה פ\"א ה\"ח, עמ' 461; בבלי, שם יג ע\"א; ירו', ברכות פ\"ג ה\"א, ו ע\"א. ; לכאורה זה אדם אחר שחי בדור אושא. ברם, במקבילות ברור שמדובר בסיפור מן העבר ורבי יוסי רק מוסר אותו, ולא שהוא היה הרב259בבלי, עירובין מז ע\"ב; עבודה זרה יג ע\"א; ירו', ברכות פ\"ג ה\"א, ו ע\"א; נזיר פ\"ז ה\"א, נו ע\"א. . במקרה זה המסורות המאוחרות הן המדויקות, ולא התוספתא. מהסיפור ברור שהוא היה תושב הארץ שירד לציידן (צידון שבדרום סוריה) רק ללמוד תורה, ואולי השתקע שם. במקבילה במסכת שמחות הוא מכונה \"יוסף הבבלי\" (שמחות פ\"ד הי\"ד, עמ' 122). ייתכן גם שהיה חכם נוסף ממוצא כוהני המכונה יוסף הבבלי, ועליו מספר רבי יהודה הנשיא260בבלי, מנחות יא ע\"א, וראו עוד פסחים קיג ע\"א; יומא נב ע\"ב. .", + "אריסטון הביא ביכוריו מא[יס]פמייא – בכל עדי נוסח \"מאפמיא\", וגם בכתב יד קופמן תוקן הנוסח לכך, וקיבלו ממנו מפני שאמרו הקונה בסורייה כקונה בפרוור שבירושלם – אפמיא זו היא העיר אפמיאה שבצפון סוריה של היום. אריסטון עלה לרגל מסוריה והביא עמו ביכורים. סוריה נחשבת כארץ ישראל במובן זה שאדמות יהודים בה חייבות במצוות התלויות בארץ (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"א), ולכן הקונה בה אדמה כקונה בפרוורי ירושלים. מבחינה הלכתית פרוורי ירושלים הם כמו כל מקום אחר בארץ, והשימוש במינוח זה הוא למליצה בלבד. המינוח \"שאמרו\" מעיד על מקור הלכתי אחר שהמשנה מצטטת ממנו, הלכה קדומה או משנה קדומה. מקורה של המימרה בלתי ידוע.", + "\"פרוור\" הוא כנראה המונח המקובל לתחום המיושב שמחוץ לעיר הבנויה ממש. בעיר עצמה לא היו שטחים חקלאיים והיא מיושבת בצפיפות, לא כן הפרוור שיש בו בתים פזורים וסביבם שטחים חקלאיים. כמה מבנים מעין אלו נחפרו ליד משמר העמק באזור שהוא הפרוור של העיר גבע פרשים261ספראי ולין, גבע. . המונח \"פרוור\" מופיע בתרגומים כתרגום למונח המקראי \"מגרש\", כלומר שטח ביניים בין העיר ובין השטח החקלאי המשמש לשירותים ולמתקני צאן. כך העתיקו המתרגמים מונח מקראי שונה למציאות חייהם בערים הגדולות של זמנם. ", + "קברו של אריסטון התגלה ליד ירושלים. זהו קבר מהודר למדי ונמצאה בו סדרת כתובות דו-לשוניות (איור 19). לפי הכתובות נקברו במקום אריסטון מאפמיאה ויהודה הגר, וכן שלמציון, בתו של אריסטון, וגברת נוספת כוהנת. לא ברור מה המכנה המשותף של כל הנקברים. קשה לתאר את אריסטון, כוהנת וגר כמשפחה אחת, אם כי אין כל הלכה האוסרת זאת. ייתכן שזה קבר של בני גולה אחת שעלו לירושלים. מכל מקום, אריסטון זה מכונה במפורש \"ארסטון אפמי\", ואין טעם לנסות ולפקפק בזיהוי שלו עם אריסטון מהמשנה262ראו אילן, אריסטון. מפרסמת הכתובות מתקשה בזיהוי ומטילה בו ספק, ואין לספק כל בסיס. .", + "נמצאנו למדים שבמשנה נמנית סדרה של שישה מעשים שבכולם מנעו חכמים מאישים \"של צורה\" להקריב במקדש כרצונם. בחינה של המעשים הראתה שההרחקה אינה מבוססת, מבחינה הלכתית, באף אחד מהם. בהבאת חלה מחוץ לארץ אין איסור (מעשים 2-1); לפי חלק מהדעות מותר להביא ביכורים לפני הזמן (מעשה 3); יש הטוענים שמותר להעלות בכורות מבבל (מעשה 4); אין מי שמתיר להעלות ביכורים מבבל, אך כנגד זה המעשה מעורר מחלוקת נוספת הנוגעת להיתר (או איסור) להעלות יין ושמן כביכורים. אפילו האיסור להעלות את האישה לפסח שני אינו מבוסס; השתתפותה בפסח שני שנויה במחלוקת, וודאי שאין בכך איסור. הירושלמי הסביר את כל המעשים הללו כפסיקה הפגנתית שנועדה למנוע השתרשות המעשה כהלכה. מכל מקום, לפנינו גילוי של הנוהג הקדום לפני שעודן על ידי המערכת המשפטית המאחדת. ייתכן גם שלפנינו הדים להלכה קדומה, אולי הלכה כיתתית, והמרחיקים לא היו חכמים אלא דווקא מנהיגי הכתות האחרות, או לחילופין שחכמים רצו למנוע השתרשות תפיסות כיתתיות.", + "הסברנו כל מעשה לחוד, וטעמו ונימוקו עמו. אבל דומה שעדיף לפרש את המשנה כגוש כללי אחד. בכל המקרים מדובר על יחידים שהחמירו על עצמם, נתנו מתנות כהונה בחוץ לארץ והביאון לארץ ישראל ולמקדש. חכמים התנגדו להעלאת מתנות כהונה לארץ. ביטוי לכך יש במשנה: \"אין מביאין תרומה מחוצה לארץ לארץ, אמר רבי שמעון שמעתי בפירוש שמביאין מסוריא ואין מביאין מחוצה לארץ\" (שביעית פ\"ו מ\"ו). באופן כללי, אין מפרישים תרומה בחוץ לארץ. ברם, כפי שראינו במבוא למסכת זו ובמבוא למסכת תרומות, היו שהחמירו על עצמם והפרישו תרומות ומעשרות בחו\"ל. זאת ועוד, בסוריה מפרישים מעשרות ותרומות וממילא ניתן להביאם לארץ. ייבוא תרומה לארץ הוא כמעט האפשרות היחידה לאכול את התרומה, שכן תרומה יש לאכול בטהרה ואילו ארץ העמים, שגם סוריה היא חלק ממנה, נחשבה לטמאה. אמנם, כפי שהעלינו בפירושנו263ראו המבוא למסכת תרומות. , היו שהתירו לאכול את תרומת חוץ לארץ בטומאה, שכן אין היא תרומה ממש אלא מעין מנהג חסידות, אבל מן הסתם העדיפו לאכלה בטהרה. ", + "בתוספתא חוזרת ההלכה שבמשנה ונוסף שם: \"אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אני ראיתי שמעון בר כהנא שהיה שותה יין של תרומה בעכו, ואמר זה בא בידי מקלקיא, וגזרו עליו שישתהו בספינה\" (שביעית פ\"ה ה\"ב). קלקיא (קיליקיה) היא בדרום אסיה הקטנה, מעבר לטוורוס אמנוס; לכל הדעות אין להביא ממנה תרומה, ודעת חכמים כאן היא כדעת הכול. דומה שחכמים אוסרים להשמיד את היין משום שיש עליו שם קודש, בדומה לפרי תרומה, אך הם גם אוסרים, באופן הפגנתי, את העלאתו לארץ.", + "ליברמן264בפירושו לתוספתא שביעית פ\"ה ה\"ב. שואל כיצד ניתן להביא את התרומה בטהרה, ומוצא דרך טכנית לכך. ברם, ניתן להביא את הפרי בטרם נגמרה מלאכתו, כענבים, ולסחוט ממנו שמן באנייה עצמה. מעבר לכך, היו שהתירו לאכול תרומת חוץ לארץ בטומאה, שהרי אין זו תרומה ממש. מאידך גיסא, עדיין היו ששאפו להעלות את התרומה לארץ כדי לתת אותה לכוהני הארץ שיאכלוה בטהרה, כאילו הייתה זו תרומה אמִתית. במבוא הרחבנו בשאלה זו והדיון המלא הוא בנספח למסכת שביעית, וראינו כי אכן הייתה גם גישה הלכתית שיש להרים תרומות ולאכלן בטהרה גם בחוץ לארץ. ", + "במשנה לא הוסבר מדוע חכמים מתנגדים להבאת תרומה לארץ. הירושלמי מנמק זאת בחשש: \"אף הן מרדפין אחריה לשם\" (שביעית פ\"ו ה\"ו, לז ע\"א). אם יותר לייבא תרומה ייסעו הכוהנים לחוץ לארץ כדי להביא משם תרומה, וישתקעו שם. הנימוק מעורר קושי, הרי החשש הגדול יותר הוא שהכוהנים ירדו לחוץ לארץ כדי להתפרנס שם מתרומה. יתר על כן, האם באמת עדיף לוותר על מקור הכנסה זה? לא מן הנמנע שזהו נימוק נוסף, ובעיקרו של דבר מבטאת ההלכה התנגדות עקרונית להפרשת תרומות בחוץ לארץ. הפרשת תרומות נתפסת כזכות של ארץ הקודש, ואין להחילה על אדמה טמאה וזרה.", + "משנה יב ", + "המשניות הבאות נמצאות בכמה כתבי יד265ק (קופמן), מ, פ, ג2. , אך לא בכל יתר עדי הנוסח266ראו זק\"ש, משנה, על אתר; ליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה, עמ' 811. . זו כנראה ברייתא שהועברה מהתוספתא כאן או מאחד מציטוטיה בתלמוד. הרשימה מופיעה בהלכות רבות ומסכמת את הלכות מתנות כוהנים. הירושלמי מביא אותה כברייתא למשנה ט, וברור שלא הייתה לפניו במשנה. גם הבבלי מצטט אותה בלשון \"תניא\", שהיא המינוח להבאת ברייתא (חולין קלג ע\"ב). כאמור, הברייתא עצמה מצוטטת בתוספתא ובתלמודים ונרמזת במקורות אחרים267תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ז-הי\"א; ספרי במדבר, קיט, עמ' 143-142; בבלי, בבא קמא קי ע\"ב; ירו', כאן, ס ע\"ב; כמו כן נרמזת בספרי, במדבר קלא, עמ' 173; בבלי, חולין קלב ע\"ב; משנה, אבות פ\"ו מ\"ה (פרק זה אינו משנה וכנראה גם אינו תנאי), ומדרשים נוספים. . המשפט \"עשרים וארבע מתנות כהונה\" הפך למטבע לשון והברייתא מוסכמת כמעט על הכול, להוציא נוסח שונה במקצת בספרי (במדבר קיט, עמ' 143-142). הברייתא מצוטטת ומבוארת בהרחבה בתשובת רב חנינאי ריש מתיבתא שבהלכות גדולות268הלכות גדולות דפוס ורשא, קלח ע\"א ואילך; מהדורת הילדסהיימר ח\"ג, עמ' 289-279. , ואף בהלכות ארץ ישראל מן הגניזה269מרגליות, הלכות ארץ-ישראל, עמ' נג, ועוד ראשונים רבים. .", + "עשרים וארבע מתנות ניתנו לכהנים – החלוקה לעשרים וארבע היא ספרותית. ניתן היה לרכז את הרשימה ולהגיע גם למספר אחר. כך, למשל, ניתן היה לפרט את המונח \"מתנות\" (זרוע, לחיים וקיבה) או לאחד את סוגי האשם, אך לעורך הברייתא חשוב היה המספר הסמלי \"עשרים וארבע\", אולי כנגד כתבי הקודש ומשמרות הכהונה.", + "עשר במקדש וארבע בירושלם ועשר בגבולים – החלוקה סכמטית ומשוכללת. בספרי יש חלוקה לשתי קבוצות של שתים עשרה; אין ברשימה מתנות שניתנות דווקא בירושלים; חצי מהמתנות ניתנות דווקא במקדש וחצי ניתנות בגבולים. מבין ארבע המתנות שביתר המקורות המיוחסות לירושלים עברו בכורות וביכורים לגבולים, והשאר מצויות בחלק של המקדש. לכל חלוקה היגיון משלה ויופי ספרותי משלה.", + "אלו עשר שבמקדש חטאת וחטאת העוף ואשם וודיי ואשם תלויי וזבחי שלמי ציבור ולוג שמן שלמצורע ומותר העומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים ושירי מנחות – כולם הם קרבנות בשר או מנחה הניתנים לכוהנים. מותר העומר הוא מה שנותר מקציר העומר לאחר הקרבת קרבן החדש. ", + "משנה יג ", + "אילו ארבע שבירושלם – כל אלה ניתנים לכוהנים בזכות המקדש, והם מובאים למקדש, אבל הכוהנים רשאים למכור אותם וכך להוציאם מירושלים. כפי שאמרנו, בספרי קטגוריה זו אינה קיימת.", + "הבכורות – אלו מובאים למקדש וניתנים לכוהנים והם רשאים למכרם, והביכורים – לעיל (מ\"ט) ראינו כי קיימת מחלוקת באיזו מידה נחשבים הבכורות כקודש או כתרומה, ומשנתנו קרובה יותר לדברי חכמים, והמורם מתודה ואיל נזיר – אלו חלקי הבשר שמקבל הכוהן מקרבנות אלו, ועורות הקדשים – עור הקודשים (העולה) ניתן לכוהנים, ועורות השלמים לבעלים. העורות הללו היו מחולקים לכוהני המשמר ונחשבו לרכוש יקר. מאוחר יותר התפתח מאבק כלכלי בין הכוהנים לבין הנהגת המקדש על הבעלות על העורות, ולבסוף הוקדשו אלו למקדש ונמסרו לבדק הבית (תוס', מנחות פי\"ג הי\"ח-הכ\"א, עמ' 533). המשנה עוסקת, אפוא, בכלל ההלכתי ולא בהתפתחויות השונות שהתחוללו.", + "משנה יד ", + "אלו עשר שבגבולים – ברחבי הארץ: תרומה ותרומת מעשר וחלה וראשית הגז והמתנות ופדיון הבן ופדיון פטר חמור ושדה אחוזה ושדה החרמים – שדה אחוזה ושדה חרמים ניתנים בפועל ברחבי הארץ. אבל למעשה הם ניתנים לכוהנים של המקדש, לבני אותה משמרת שבה הוקדשו (תוס', מנחות פי\"ג הי\"ז, עמ' 533). זו דעת חכמים, אבל לדעת רבי יהודה בן בתירא סתם חרמים לבדק הבית (משנה, ערכין פ\"ח מ\"ו), ולדעת רבי אליעזר אין הכוהנים נכנסים לשדה אחוזה (משנה, שם פ\"ז מ\"ד).", + "וגזל הגר – גזל הגר הוא מודל למי שגזל ואינו יכול להשיב את הגזלה: הגר מת ואין לו יורשים. גזל הגר יינתן לכוהן שהגזלן יבחר (תוס', שם שם). ", + "כל כהן שאין בקי בהן אין נותנין לו מתנה – משפט כללי זה מתקשר לדברי המשנה שיש מתנות הניתנות לכל כוהן, אבל אם אינו בקי אין לתת לו מהמתנות270ליברמן מפנה לתוס', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"ו, שם מדובר בכוהן שקיבל עליו את כל העבודות חוץ מאחת, וראו דבריו כאן ושם. כרגיל הערתו למדנית ומפורטת, ברם אין לה עניין למשנתנו. שם מדובר בכוהן הנחשד בכפירה, וכאן בבור או בעם הארץ. . באבות דרבי נתן מובא סיפור על כוהן אחד שהיה גם חסיד ולא היה בקי בהלכות טהרה271אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"ב פכ\"ז, עמ' 57. בנוסח א פי\"ב המדובר בחסיד ולא בכוהן. . הסיפור בא להדגים שרק בוגרי בית המדרש בקיאים בהלכה; חסידות או כהונה אינן מבטיחות את הידע הדרוש. לעיל, בפירושנו למשנה ט, עסקנו בכך בהרחבה." + ] + ] + ], + "Appendix 1": [ + "נספח", + "החקלאות ומשק העזר בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד", + "הקדמה", + "מחקר החקלאות והמשק הכפרי בארץ ישראל הרומית מפותח ביותר. אף שהוא נישא על כתפיהם של חוקרים לא רבים, התפרסמו מחקרים מפורטים על ענפים שונים כגון דגנים, עצי פרי, אורז, בשמים, יונים, יין ושמן, פשתן, דבש ועוד רבים אחרים1פליקס, דגנים; פליקס, עצי פרי; פליקס, האורז; פליקס, בשמים; טפר, יונים; פרנקל ואחרים, בתי בד; ספראי, פשתן; ספראי, דבש, ועוד. . כן התפרסמו סקירות כלליות חשובות2פליקס, החקלאות; ספראי, הכלכלה – עיקר הספר מוקדש למעשה לחקלאות, וכן לאו, פלורה, העוסק בצמחייה בכלל. . במסגרת נספח זה בכוונתנו לסקור את ענפי החקלאות ומשק העזר אך להתמקד בכמה שאלות מחקר עיקריות:", + "1. באיזו מידה היה המשק פתוח וכיצד הותאמה החקלאות המקומית למבנה המשק. ", + "2. השפעתו של המבנה האגררי על המגוון החקלאי. ", + " (המבנה האגררי עצמו נדון בנספח למסכת דמאי). ", + "3. האם הושפעה החקלאות בארץ מדתם המיוחדת של תושביה היהודיים. ", + "4. באיזו מידה היה המשק החקלאי בארץ שונה מזה שבפרובינציות סמוכות. ", + "המקורות", + "מקורות ספרותיים", + "מחקר החקלאות הארץ-ישראלית בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד נהנה ממקורות שאינם עומדים לרשות מחקרים דומים בארצות אחרות. המקור הראשון הוא ספרות חז\"ל. ספרות חז\"ל הקדומה נערכה בין המאה השנייה לרביעית ועיקרה ספרות חוק ומוסר, אבל היא התחברה ונערכה בידי אישים שמרבית עולמם היה המשק החקלאי. אגב דיוני ההלכה אנו שומעים על גידולים שונים, על צורות אריזה, על דרכי שיווק ועל דרכי טיפול בגידולים שונים, וכיוצא באלו פרטים רבים. ספרות חז\"ל שונה מהספרות החקלאית הרומית בכך שמצד אחד אין בה דיונים שיטתיים בענפים, ומצד שני היא נכתבה בידי החקלאים הזעירים עצמם מתוך קרבה לנשוא הכתיבה, ותוך שיקוף מתמיד של הווי היום-יום, כולל התרבות החקלאית. יתר המקורות הספרותיים בני התקופה תורמים רק מעט מאוד מידע. כך, למשל, בברית החדשה או בכתבי יוספוס מצוי רק מידע מועט ביותר ומקרי. ", + "מידת האמינות שיש לייחס למקורות ספרותיים ומשפטיים אלו נדונה במחקר באינטנסיביות רבה, ברם הוויכוח אינו נוגע לעיון בפרטי הפרטים של חיי היום-יום כפי שהם משתקפים בספרות. כל המעיין בהם ייווכח שאלפי הפרטים הנזכרים כבדרך אגב, או אלו המהווים את הרקע לפסיקה או לסיפור, הם רֵאליים. כך, למשל, נאסרו עבודות חקלאיות בשנת השביעית. ייתכן שהציבור ברובו לא שמר על מצוות שמיטה, אבל רשימת העבודות וחלוקתן למותרות ואסורות היא הגיונית ואמינה. רק לעתים רחוקות אנו נתקלים במסורת שאיננה רֵאלית והיא מעין \"פולקלור של חקלאים\". עם זאת פרשנות המקורות לעתים קשה, והנגישות אליהם בעייתית. יתר על כן, בעיות הפרשנות והזיהוי מקשות על ניצול יעיל. כך, למשל, המקורות היהודיים משתמשים במידת הנפח היסודית \"סאה\"; שיעורה שנוי במחלוקת במחקר (13-10 ליטר)3בכל הנתונים להלן נשתמש במידה הנמוכה של 10 ליטר, ראו הנספח למסכת פסחים. , והיו הבדלים אזוריים בדבר נפח הסאה.", + "במקביל למקורות הייחודיים לארץ עומדים לרשות חוקרי ארץ ישראל אותם מקורות שיש לחוקריה של כל פרובינציה, והם כתבי הספרות החקלאית הרומית (פליניוס, קטו, וורו וקולמלה), וכן הפפירוסים ממצרים המשקפים פן אחר של החקלאות המעשית.", + "המידע הארכאולוגי", + "חקר הכפר בארץ ישראל מפותח ביותר. עד היום נחפרו אלפי אתרים חקלאיים בתחום הארץ המצומצם יחסית, ביניהם רובעים שלמים של כפרים (כפר נחום, עין גדי, סוסיא וכיוצא באלו), מאות מתקנים שונים כבתי בד, גתות, תעלות לשריית פשתן (איור 20) וכיוצא באלו, וכן עשרות רבות של מבנים בודדים. במקביל נחפרו עשרות בתי חווה (אחוזות), ונסקרו כפרים שלמים כאום ריחן, בוראק, חורבת לבד, חורבת כרך וכפרים נוספים4לסקירה ראו הירשפלד, הכפר; ספראי, הכפר. . נבדקו מצבורי מזון5כסלו, מצבור; כסלו, יתיר, ועוד. , ומחקרים נקודתיים רבים נוספים. כנגד זה, מספר הכתובות המשקפות רקע חקלאי קטן, וציורי הפסיפס דלי נתונים חקלאיים יחסית לפסיפסים בצפון אפריקה או אפילו בסוריה.", + "המידע האתנו-ארכאולוגי", + "הכפר הערבי המסורתי משמר פרטים רבים על הנוהגים ודרכי העבודה הקדומים שהיו באזור. תולדות המחקר ההשוואתי בין הכפר המסורתי לבין המידע ההיסטורי והארכאולוגי הם פרשה מרתקת המשקפת לא רק מחקר טהור, אלא בעיקר את מערכת היחסים הקשה בין היישוב היהודי שממנו באו רוב החוקרים לבין התושבים של הכפרים המסורתיים. לכאורה היה המפגש צריך להיות יעיל ופשוט. בראשית המאה העשרים, ובשנות השישים והשבעים של אותה מאה, היה המחקר הארכאולוגי-היסטורי בפריחתו, ובמקביל פעלו עדיין כפרים מסורתיים שאורחות חייהם הושפעו מהתרבות המודרנית רק באופן שולי. ברם, מחקר הכפר המסורתי נתקל בקשיים הנובעים מפערי שפה, תרבות ופוליטיקה, וכן מעוינות של ממש. חוקרים שונים היו מודעים ברמה זו או אחרת לנתונים העולים מהכפר המסורתי, אבל המחקר השיטתי הוא מצומצם ביותר. בין החיבורים הבולטים נציין את דלמן, טכנולוגיה, ואת אביצור, אטלס (איור 21).", + "נתוני הקרקע והכשרתה", + "אקלים וטופוגרפיה", + "לא נדון במפורט בנתוני האקלים והקרקע, ונסתפק כאן בסקירה קצרה של הפרטים הנוגעים ישירות להבנת הנספח. רובה של ארץ ישראל מתאים מאוד לחקלאות, וכמות המשקעים בה היא למעלה מ-500 מ\"מ בשנה. לשם השוואה, 200 מ\"מ גשם בשנה נחשבים כיום כגבול הבצורת בחקלאות השלחין. עם זאת, בעיות הכשרת הקרקע מגוונות ומורכבות. באזורי המישור היו שטחי ביצות (בשרון הצפוני והדרומי), ואלו נוקזו כנראה במהלך התקופה הרומית במפעל שרק האימפריה יכולה הייתה להוציאו לפועל (איור 22, תמונה 5). כנגד זה, הבקעות הפוריות בגליל התחתון כנראה לא נוקזו ובאזורי ההרים היה צורך בבניית מדרגות ובסיקול מתמיד של הקרקע (איור 22א-ב). המדרגות הן תופעה דומיננטית בנופה ההררי של הארץ. החקלאים הקדומים סברו, כנראה, כי זו הדרך היחידה למנוע סחיפת קרקע. בניית מדרגות מוכרת גם בפרובינציות הרריות נוספות (קפריסין, פניקיה, יוון ואיטליה), אבל אף על פי שטרם נערכה בדיקה כמותית ניתן לקבוע בוודאות שצפיפות המדרגות בארץ ישראל גבוהה בהרבה מזו שבארצות האחרות שהוזכרו. יתר על כן, ניכר שבארץ היה זה מפעל ציבורי מתואם, בעוד שבאזורים אחרים היו אלו קטעי מפעלים פרטיים, ואין תיאום בין מערכת המדרגות של חקלאי אחד למשנהו. לעומת כל זאת בחבל יתיר, למשל, כמעט לא נבנו מדרגות, ונראה שניצולו היה מועט. המדרגות הן מפעל רב-דורי. ראשיתה של המערכת בתקופת הברזל, אך רוב המדרגות שנבדקו בחפירות מקוטעות שונות נבנו בתקופה הרומית והביזנטית. המשק הערבי המסורתי המשיך לנצלן עד היום (תמונה 6).", + "סיכון", + "מערך הגשמים בארץ הוא בלתי בטוח. כמות הגשמים מספקת בממוצע, אך היא מרוכזת בחודשי החורף (נובמבר-מרץ) ובלתי אחידה. יתר על כן, אין בארץ מעיינות רבים, וניתן להעריך שכמות שטחי השלחין לא עלתה על 5% מהפוטנציאל החקלאי. שנות בצורת הן תופעה רגילה (אחת לשלוש שנים בממוצע), ואלו היוו גורם סיכון ראשון במעלה בתקופות הקדומות, ועד לראשית התקופה הרומית. כך בכל העולם הרומי6גלנט, סיכון. , ובפרובינציית יהודה עוד יותר בשל התנאים הספציפיים שלה. הפתרון העיקרי לסיכון בחקלאות בארץ היה התארגנות במשפחות מורחבות ובכפרים מכונסים. הדבר חייב את החקלאים לעזרה הדדית ולארגון קהילתי וסוציאלי; חכמים מרבים לדבר בשבחו, לטפחו ולהטיף לו. בהמשך התקופה הרומית עולה חלקן של האחוזות (להלן), ואלו מהוות פתרון אחר לשאלת הסיכון, שכן נטל הסיכון עובר מהחקלאי הזעיר והדל אל העשיר החזק יותר. פתרון אחר היה פיתוח של שיטת הפטרונז'7שיטת הפטרונז' הייתה הסדר בלתי פורמלי שבו האיכר הזעיר, שהיה עצמאי מבחינה משפטית, היה כפוף לפטרון. הפטרון, שהיה עשיר הכפר, היה מסייע לאיכר העני, אבל העני היה נתון למרותו, ואף העלה לו מעין מסים (מתנות) בשנים רגילות. הפטרון גם העניק גיבוי פוליטי לכפריים. . השיטה נהגה בכל העולם היווני-רומי8וולס-הדריל, פטרונז'. שיטת הפטרונז' רווחה יותר במזרח בתקופה המאוחרת יחסית, מהמאה השלישית ואילך. ועדויות לה גם בארץ ישראל, והדבר ניכר בתכנון הפיזי של בתי האחוזה ובמעט מקורות ספרותיים יהודיים, אם כי קשה להעריך את היקפה.", + "קיטוע חלקות (פרגמנטציה)", + "לא תמיד הייתה נחלתו של החקלאי הקדום, וודאי לא זו של החקלאי האמיד, מרוכזת בהכרח במקום מסוים. לעתים קרובות היו לו חלקות מספר מפוזרות על פני שטח נרחב. שפרבר אסף עדויות מספר לכך9שפרבר, הקרקע, עמ' 203-187. . באופן טבעי המסורות שהוא מעלה מספרות בעיקר על בעלי קרקע עשירים; יש להניח שבהמון הרחב הייתה בעלות על חלקות מספר תופעה נדירה יותר, אך עדיין קיימת. ", + "במצרים הפך פיצול הנחלות לאסטרטגיה כללית; לכל אדם היו חלקות רבות, וגם לאריסים או לחוכרים עניים ביותר היו כמה חכירות זעירות10רוולנדסון, בעלי קרקע, עמ' 131-124. . קיטוע חלקות הנו נתון חברתי ראשון במעלה עבור בעלי קרקע פרטית. יש בו יתרונות וחסרונות. החיסרון העיקרי הוא שעלות העיבוד של חלקה קטנה יקרה יותר, ולחקלאי קל יותר לעבד שטחים נרחבים. כאן החריש והקציר קלים יותר, וההשגחה על שדה אחד קלה יותר מן ההשגחה על שדות מרובים. חיסרון נוסף הוא הבזבוז בזמן הנדרש כדי להגיע לשדה, והדברים ברורים. סופרי החקלאות הרומיים מתדיינים במפורש על ערכו הכלכלי של מרכיב זה (ראה למשל קטו, חקלאות 9 VIII; פליניוס, מכתבים 319, ועוד). עם זאת, בתנאי ימי קדם יש ליתרון הגודל משמעות מוגבלת, ומעבר לגודל מסוים הוא מאבד מערכו. בתנאי החקלאות המודרנית חבל להביא לשטח מצומצם כלי מכני כבד ומסורבל, אך בתנאים שבהם עבד החקלאי הקדום הייתה לכך חשיבות שולית. ביטוי מה לחישוב של שטח מינימום יש בהלכה האוסרת על פיצול מוגזם של חלקות. המדובר בשותפים (שני יורשים) שאחד מהם תובע חלוקת השותפות; תביעתו מתקבלת אם יש בשטח \"כדי חלוקה\". המידות שנוקבים בהן חכמים הן צנועות ביותר: \"ולא את השדה עד שיהא בה תשעה קבין לזה ותשעה קבין לזה, רבי יהודה אומר עד שיהא בה תשעה חצאי קבין לזה ותשעה חצאי קבין לזה, ולא את הגנה עד שיהא בה חצי קב לזה וחצי קב לזה, רבי עקיבא אומר בית רובע\" (משנה, בבא בתרא פ\"א מ\"ו). אם כן, השטח המזערי לחלוקה של שדה הוא 18 קבים, כחצי בית סאה (פחות מארבע מאות מ\"ר), ובגינה – קב מרובע (קצת יותר מעשרים מ\"ר). מעבר לכך עדיין יש לגודל יתרון, אך הוא כבר לא נחשב קריטי. ביטוי אחר ליתרון הגודל יש בדין הקובע שאם אדם מוכר את שדהו יש לִשכנו מה שמכונה כיום \"זכות הסירוב הראשונה\".", + "ריבוי חלקות היה מן הסתם תוצאה של דורות רבים של חלוקות, ירושה, מכירה וקנייה. במסמכי מדבר יהודה ניתן לראות כיצד התופעה מתחילה. תופעת ריבוי החלקות הייתה כנראה מקובלת, אם כי פחות במגזרים החלשים של החקלאות הקדומה (איור 23, תמונה 7).", + "המצב האגררי", + "יהודה שלפני המרד החשמונאי הייתה מבוססת בעיקרה על חקלאים זעירים ועצמאיים בצד מעט עשירים, ואף מספר בלתי ידוע של אחוזות ממלכה. במזרח עמק יזרעאל, למשל, השתרעה אחוזה ממלכתית גדולה. על אחוזות נוספות אנו שומעים מפפירוסי זנון11צ'ריקובר, פפירוסי זנון. . את היקפן של אחוזות הממלכה איננו יכולים לאמוד, אך אין סיבה להניח כי אלו תפסו חלק גדול מאדמת הארץ. לפי ההלכה היהודית היו רק מעט אפשרויות לכך שהמקדש ישלוט על שטחי קרקע נרחבים (בניגוד למקדשים הפגניים בעולם הקדום). עם זאת נראה שהיו למקדש אדמות, אם כי לא בהיקף גדול, ועסקנו בכך במבוא למסכת שקלים. המרד החשמונאי והתפתחות האימפריה החשמונאית שימשו רקע אידֵאלי לשינויים אגרריים. השליטים החדשים ירשו את אדמות המלכים הסלבקיים, והכיבושים יצרו שפע הזדמנויות להפקעות קרקע. הגידול הדמוגרפי ביהודה גרם להיווצרות חסר קרקע גדול בירושלים, והתחולל תהליך פיתוח וגידול מסיבי ביותר. ירושלים הקדם-חשמונאית הייתה עיירה קטנה, והיא הפכה למטרופולין סואן. חלק מהגידול הדמוגרפי נספג בירושלים, הווה אומר שלעיר זרם המון של מחוסרי קרקע שהתפרנסו מאספקת שירותים לעשירי העיר ומעבודה בבניין העיר, בעיקר בבניין המקדש. סוף ימי בית שני מתאפיין בחילופי שלטון, כל חילוף גרר בעקבותיו תהליך של החלפת עיליתות ומן הסתם גם הפקעות קרקע של בני השכבה השלטת הקודמת. מצפון לירושלים נחפרו כמה מבני חווה שננטשו בזמנים שונים במהלך סוף ימי בית שני, וייתכן שזו העדות לתהליך זה של חילוף העיליתות.", + "יש חוקרים הסבורים שהמתח האגררי והריבוד הסוציאלי שנגרמו בעטיו היו הסיבות העיקריות למרד הגדול מחד גיסא, כמו גם לתופעות חברתיות אחרות (הכיתתיות, המשיחיות וכיוצא באלו) מאידך גיסא. אין לכך עדויות ישירות, אם כי ברור שבתקופה זו התחוללו שינויים אגרריים12אפלבאום, שאלת הקרקע; אפלבאום, הרקע, וכנגדו מור, מרד איכרים. , ושינויים כאלו הם רקע טבעי למהומות, מרידות ומתחים.", + "במהלך התקופה הרומית לא חל שינוי גדול במשפט האגררי. אותם סוגים של בעלות על הקרקע המשיכו גם בתקופה זו, ברם התחוללו כנראה שינויים בכמות הקרקע שהייתה שייכת לכל סוג של בעלות. ההתפתחות לא הייתה משפטית אלא כלכלית-חברתית. מרד החורבן ומרד בר כוכבא סיפקו לשלטונות הרומיים הזדמנות חוקית להחרמת קרקעות גדולה. אף שהדבר ניתן היה מבחינה משפטית, לא הפקיעו הרומאים את כל האדמות, אך אין ספק שאדמות רבות הופקעו. בתקופה זו מתחדשים ומתפשטים המונחים \"אריס\" ו\"חוכר\", וזו עדות ברורה להתרחבותה של תופעת האריסות. נראה כי חל מפנה של ממש במבנה האגררי בארץ. מסתמן תהליך ממושך של הצטמצמות החקלאות הפרטית. התהליך שהחל בסוף ימי בית שני התעצם בראשית התקופה הביזנטית – סוף ימי האמוראים (במאה הרביעית) – והפך לקריטי בשלהי התקופה הביזנטית. בשנת 380 הוחל בארץ חוק הקלונטיוס ולפיו הפכו החקלאי ואדמתו ליחידת מס אחת. לפי החוק נאסר על האריסים לנטוש את שדותיהם או לעבור לרשותו של אדון אחר. החוק נחקק באימפריה כבר בראשית המאה הרביעית, אך רק אז הוחל גם על פלשתינה13ג'ונס, קולונט. . החוק מעיד על התרחבות תופעת האריסות ומקבע אותה. להלן נשוב לתהליך זה (תמונה 8, בית אחוזה מפואר, איור 24 חלוקת קרקעות ליד חורבת כספא, איור 25 בתי גתות).", + "ענפי החקלאות בארץ", + "החקלאות הייתה ענף הייצור העיקרי ומקור ההכנסות והתעסוקה של מרבית תושבי הארץ. בספרות התלמודית נזכרו למעלה מ-500 גידולים, מתוכם זוהו קרוב ל-150 גידולי תרבות: 8 סוגי דגנים, 20 סוגי קטניות, 24 סוגי ירקות וצמחי מקשה, קרוב ל-30 עצי פרי, כ-20 צמחי תבלין ועצי סרק רבים. שלושת הגידולים המרכזיים היו ללא ספק החיטה, הזית והגפן. שלושה מינים אלו נזכרים במאות הלכות ועדויות תלמודיות, הרבה יותר מכל גידול אחר14פליקס, החקלאות, עמ' 427-424. . ", + "בלוח המזון נכללו שלושה מרכיבים עיקריים: לחם העשוי מחיטים (כ-600 גרם ליום), ולעתים רחוקות יותר משעורים, שמן זית ותאנים. היין אינו נזכר אלא בחלק מהמקורות, שכן שתייתו הייתה נדירה יותר (להלן), ונשים מוצגות כמי שאינן שותות יין, להוציא נשות עשירים (משנה, פאה פ\"ח מ\"ה; פ\"ח מ\"ז; עירובין פ\"ח מ\"ב; כתובות פ\"ה מ\"ח). סעודת האדם הרגיל כללה בבוקר לחם עם טיבול כלשהו, חומץ או שמן ובערב לחם עם דייסת עדשים וביצה, או תחליף אחר. בסעודות החג ובסעודות חגיגיות הוגשו גם דגים, ובשר לעתים נדירות יותר. העשירים סעדו מכל הבא ליד בסעודות הסבה, כמקובל15ראו המבואות לברכות ולפסחים. . לוח מזון שבועי לאישה רגילה לששת ימי השבוע מתואר במשנת כתובות:", + "המשרה אשתו על ידי שליש לא יפחות לה משני קבין חטין או מארבעה קבין שעורים... ונותן לה חצי קב קטנית וחצי לוג שמן וקב גרוגרות או מנה דבילה, ואם אין לו פוסק לעומתן פירות ממקום אחר, ונותן לה מטה, מפץ ומחצלת, ונותן לה כפה לראשה וחגור למתניה ומנעל ממועד למועד וכלים של חמשים זוז משנה לשנה... נותן לה מעה כסף לצורכה ואוכלת עמו מלילי שבת ללילי שבת (פ\"ה מ\"ח-מ\"ט).", + "סל המזון כולל, אפוא, כ-2400 גרם חיטים או 4800 גרם שעורים, 600 גרם קטניות, 0.4 ליטר שמן16מקור אחר מציע במקום הקטניות 720 גרם ירקות, ומוסיף 3600 גרם פשתן ו-300 גרם אורז (ספרי זוטא לדברים, יד כט). ו-600 גרם תאנים17ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 107-105; ראו פירושנו לפאה פ\"ח מ\"ה. . ", + "מקורות רבים נוספים מונים את הזית והגפן כשני גידולי המטעים העיקריים. כך, למשל, אסרו חכמים על שימוש בענפי עצים אלה להסקה במקדש משום יישוב ארץ ישראל (משנה, תמיד פ\"ב מ\"ג). לעומת זאת נעשה שימוש בענפיהם של עצי פרי אחרים, ובעיקר היו רגילים להעלות אש על המזבח בענפי תאנה ואגוז (שם שם), משום שחשיבותם החקלאית הייתה קטנה יותר. שני כפרים בשומרון נבדקו בידי ש' דר: בכפר בורק היוו הדגנים 26.4% מהנחלה, ענבים 20.2% וזיתים 12.9%. 5% מהשטח הוגדרו כשטחי שלחין ושימשו להערכתנו בעיקר לירקות. בכפר קרוות בני חסן הוקצו 52% מהשטח לדגנים, 22.2% לענבים ו-24.8% לזיתים18דר, שומרון, עמ' 74. . חישוב זה הוא משוער. שטחי הגפנים ניתנים לאבחון ולהגדרה בזכות המגדלים הקשורים בדרך כלל לגידול זה19דר, שומרון, עמ' 125-88; דר ואחרים, אום ריחן, עמ' 118-57. . לעומת זאת, אבחון שטחי הזיתים והגדרת הייעוד המדויק של שטחי הדגנים מבוססים על תנאי השטח בלבד.", + "דגנים וקטניות", + "דגנים ", + "שמונה סוגי דגנים נזכרים במקורות התלמודיים. חמישה מהם מתוארים כחמישה סוגי הדגנים העיקריים, ברם ברור שחיטים היו גידול הדגנים החשוב ביותר בארץ ישראל. אכילת שעורים רווחה בדרום הר חברון ובאזורי ספר אחרים, אך הרבה פחות מחיטים. כך לפי המקורות היהודיים (משנה, כתובות שם; נדרים פ\"ח מ\"ד; ירו', שם מא ע\"ד). במצבור מזון אחד שנבדק בדרום הארץ נמצאו גם חיטים וגם שעורים20כסלו, יתיר. . בשני מצבורים במערות המפלט בהר חברון נמצאו יותר שעורים מחיטים. במערת הרומח ובמערות נחל ערוגות נמצאו הרבה דגנים21שמחוני וכסלו, מזון; כסלו ושמחוני, עדות. , בעיקר שעורים (וכוסמים), ובמערת הר ישי מעט דגנים, ומיעוטם מבטא את הרעב, ואין בממצא מדגם סטטיסטי מספיק22כסלו ושמחוני, מזון. . ממצאים אלו אינם משקפים תנאים רגילים אלא שנים של עיבוד חלקי בלבד. ברם, לאור ממצאי המזון העתידים להתגלות באזורי יישוב יהא צורך לבחון את הקביעות המוצעות פעם נוספת. שעורים נחשבו למאכל הראוי לאסירים או לבהמות, ואף זו עדות לערכן הפחות בלוח המזון המשפחתי הרגיל. את הדגנים גידלו במחזור דו-שנתי, שנת מזרע ושנת בור. בשנת הבור ניתן היה לנצל את הקרקע לגידולים בעלי חשיבות משנית. הדגנים נועדו בעיקר לתצרוכת עצמית; היבול הממוצע לדונם איננו ידוע. פליקס הציע שהוא היה 300-150 ק\"ג לדונם23פליקס, דגנים, עמ' 146-140. . החישוב מבוסס על ניתוח מפולפל של סוגיית הבבלי (בבא מציעא קה ע\"ב) למשניות אחדות. לדעתנו הפירוש המוצע איננו הולם את המשנה, וההסתמכות על פרשנות של התלמוד הבבלי איננה משמשת בסיס איתן לשחזור חקלאות בארץ. לפיכך, אין לנו נתונים על כמות היבול השנתית. יבול ממוצע במצרים היה כ-10 ארטבות לארורה (400 ליטר ל-27 דונם, כלומר כ-15 ק\"ג לדונם בשטח מישורי ומושקה24רוולנדסון, בעלי קרקע, עמ' 249-247. ). עם זאת, יש לזכור שקיים קושי רב להעריך יבול לפי מסמכים כתובים, והמידע הוא סטרֵאוטיפי וחשוד. הערכות יבול מאזורים אחרים באימפריה אינן מוכחות דיין, שכן הן מבוססות על מקורות ספרותיים החשודים באי דיוק מחד גיסא, ועל מקורות מאוחרים מאידך גיסא25אבנס, כלכלה; שפור, דגנים, עמ' 88-82. . במשק הערבי המסורתי יבול של כ-100 ק\"ג לדונם היה תוצאה סבירה; על בסיס ההנחה שהיבול הממוצע בשנת המזרע היה 150 ק\"ג (יותר מהכפר הערבי המסורתי שהיה בלתי מפותח) הרי שלכלכלת משפחה של 4 נפשות נדרשו בממוצע גס כ-10 דונם.", + "יבוא חיטים לארץ ישראל", + "אין ספק שבארץ רווח גידול החיטה. גידול זה היה אחד הנפוצים, ואולי הנפוץ ביותר בתקופה הנדונה. מרכזי גידול החיטים בארץ היו מישור החוף (לוד, יבנה), ובקעות הגליל באיזור צפורי ובקעת יבנאל. כן נזכר גידול חיטה בעמק בית שאן. בימי הבית השני ובתקופת התנאים אין עדויות לייבוא משמעותי בשנים רגילות של חיטים לארץ. לעומת כל זאת, בידינו עדויות מספר מזמן האמוראים (התקופה הביזנטית) לייבוא מסיבי של חיטים (ירו', שקלים פ\"ח ה\"א, נא ע\"א ומקבילות). לפחות בתקופה זו חדלה הארץ מלספק את צרכיה בתחום זה, ונשענה על יבוא שהיקפו בלתי ניתן להערכה. מספר דגנים נזכרים במקורות התלמודיים כשיבולת שועל, כוסמין ושיפון. חשיבותם הייתה שולית, ומספר האזכורים העוסקים בהם מועט (נראה שיש לזהותם כמיני משנה של מה שנקרא היום חיטים ושעורים, ראו פירושנו לחלה פ\"א מ\"א).", + "אורז", + "האורז היה, כנראה, גידול חדש במרחב הארץ-ישראלי. ארץ ישראל סיפקה את צרכיה באורז, שכן הוא מנוי בין הגידולים שהקונה אותם בכל מקום בארץ חייב במעשרות (משנה, דמאי פ\"ב מ\"א). אין בידינו נתונים על צריכת האורז בשווקי הארץ, אך ברור שהיה זה גידול רווחי, וארץ ישראל לא רק סיפקה את רוב צרכיה באורז אלא אף ייצאה כמות מסוימת לחוץ לארץ. ", + "קטניות", + "קטניות היו מרכיב קבע בלוח המזון (לעיל). דייסת קטניות נחשבה לבישול רגיל. אין בידינו עדויות רבות על גידול הקטניות, ונראה ששטחי הקרקע שיועדו לקטניות היו מצומצמים. העדשים היו מאכל אופייני להמוני העם, ואילו בשכבה האמידה הייתה אכילתם נדירה יותר. אף שאין לכך ראיות ישירות, מסתבר שקטניות היוו ניצול של הקרקע בשדות הדגנים בהפסקה שבין שנת מזרע חיטים אחת לשנייה; הדבר הולם את מחזור הזרעים והוא אף מוכר בחקלאות הרומית. ", + "מטעים", + "זיתים ", + "המזרח התיכון הוא מולדת הזית. באופן כללי, הזית אינו מצליח במקומות שחורפם קר מאוד ובמקומות שקיצם יבש וחם מאוד, כפי שמעיד יוסף בן מתתיהו במלחמות (ג, 517): \"זיתים יפה להם האויר הממוזג\". לפי זה הוא מתאים את עצמו לאזורים רבים מאוד בכל רחבי ארץ ישראל. במקורותינו מודגשים כמה אזורים שהיו עתירי זיתים במיוחד (כגון הגליל בכלל והגליל העליון בפרט), אך בתי בד נתגלו כמעט בכל אתר ואתר שנבדק ולו בדיקה שטחית. נראה שכמעט בכל אזורי הארץ, להוציא אלו שהם בעלי מזג אוויר קיצוני, היה הזית גידול מרכזי ביותר. כפי שראינו לעיל נמנה הזית עם שלושת הגידולים המרכזיים, וחשיבותו הכלכלית הייתה רבה עד מאוד (איור 26 תמונות 10-9).", + "שמן", + "הזית שימש בעיקר לייצור שמן ויש לכך ביטוי בהלכות רבות, למשל \"מאימתי תורמין את הזתים, משיטענו. רבי שמעון אומר: משייטחנו\" (תוס', תרומות פ\"ג הי\"ג). המדובר במחלוקת בדבר מועד גמר מלאכה של זיתים, וחכמים מתדיינים בשאלה: איזה שלב בתהליך הבדידה (הבאת הזיתים לבית הבד) נחשב ל\"גמר מלאכה\" לצורך הפרשת תרומות ומעשרות. מדיון זה עולה שסתם זית נתפס כ\"מועמד\" לתעשיית השמן, ואין כלל דיון באפשרות ייעודו למטרה אחרת. מסקנה דומה עולה מהלכות רבות אחרות. זיתי מאכל נזכרים בהלכות שונות, אך ברור שהם בטלים כלפי זיתי השמן (עיקר השימוש בשמן היה לטבילת הפת ומיעוטו לבישול. צורכי התאורה של ההמון הרחב היו מועטים משום שרובם הקדימו לישון, ורק בשבת הקפידו על תאורת הבית בעת ארוחת הערב החגיגית). ", + "חשיבותו של השמן בלוח המזון הנזכר לעיל הייתה רבה. שמן הזית היה למעשה הספק העיקרי של שמנים הדרושים לגוף (בארץ ישראל קשה לשמר שומן מן החי לתקופות ארוכות, בשל האקלים). ספק רב אם קדמונינו היו מודעים לחלוקה שבין אבות המזון השונים, אך הם היו מודעים היטב לעובדה הפשוטה שהשמן שימש כטיבול העיקרי לארוחותיהם. צריכת השמן הוערכה לעיל (0.4 ליטר ליחיד לשבוע – 21 ליטר לשנה). כן נזכרת כמות של 75 ליטר לשמן למשפחה (גרעינית?) לשנה (משנה, שביעית פ\"ה מ\"ז), ושני הנתונים הולמים.", + "הזיתים נמסקו בשיטות שונות והועברו לבית הבד, שם הופק מהם השמן בתהליך שיש לו שרידים ארכאולוגיים רבים מכל התקופות26פרנקל ואחרים, בתי בד. .", + "זיתי מאכל ", + "למרות כל הנאמר לעיל על ערכו המזוני וחשיבותו הכלכלית של השמן מצאנו במקורות גם זיתי מאכל: כבושים, שלוקים, מגולגלים ומלוחים. במשנה שנינו: \"ותורמין זיתי שמן על זיתי כבש ולא זיתי כבש על זיתי שמן... זה הכלל... תורם מן היפה על הרע אבל לא מן הרע על היפה\" (תרומות פ\"ב מ\"ו). אם כן, יש סוג מיוחד של זיתים לכבישה, אך אלה נחשבים למין גרוע בהשוואה לזיתי השמן (וכן שם פ\"א מ\"ט). כן אנו שומעים על זיתי קלופסין (תוס', תרומות פ\"ד ה\"ג); זיתי גלוסקא או קלוסקאות, שהם זיתים ללא גרעינים (משנה, עבודה זרה פ\"ב מ\"ז; תוס', ברכות פ\"ו ה\"ז ועוד) וזיתים סופסים (מלוחים – תוס', טהרות פ\"י הי\"א, עמ' 671; בבלי, שבת קמה ע\"א). כן נזכר במקורות מוסף היורה (תנור) של שולקי זיתים (משנה, כלים פ\"ה מ\"ה; עדויות פ\"ז מ\"ח; תוס', פ\"ג הייא, עמ’ 459; עוקצין פ\"ב ה\"י, עמ' 687), ומכאן שגם בישלו (שלקו) זיתים. ברם, ייתכן שיורה (תנור) זו שימשה לחימום הגפת כדי להפיק את מעט השמן שנותר בה. קצת יותר ברור האזכור: \"גרעיני זיתים וגרעיני תמרים ששלקן\" (תוס', עוקצין שם), ובמקרה זה מדובר ככל הנראה על ניסיון להפיק את שרידי השמן מגרעינים אלו.", + "זיתי מאכל סתם נזכרים בכמה מקורות נוספים, כגון הדיון במי שאוכל זית וצנון או זית ובצל (בבלי, ברכות מ\"א ע\"א; תוס', חגיגה פ\"ג הי\"ב). היו גם שאכלו את הזית הטרי (לעיל, וכן משנה, מעשרות פ\"ג מ\"ג; ירו', שם פ\"א ה\"ה, מ\"ט ע\"ב). מקורות אלה מייצגים את מיעוט המקרים הנזכרים במקורות. יש להזכיר את הנאמר בראשית הדברים – רוב ייצור הזיתים הופנה לתעשיית השמן.", + "מן המפורסמות הוא שבתקופות קדומות היה ענף הזית מרכזי ביותר, וחשיבותו הכלכלית הייתה רבה עד מאוד (איור 27). במקומות אחרים נעשו ניסיונות מספר להעריך את משקלו הכלכלי27ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 124-123. . אין ספק שביישובים רבים ייצרו שמן הרבה יותר מצורכי היישוב28ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 127. , והשמן נועד למכירה מחוץ לתחומי הפרובינציה. במקורות נזכר ייצוא השמן לסוריה ולמצרים, ולנתון האחרון גם אישור פפירולוגי. בתקופה הביזנטית הייתה הפרובינציה יצואן שמן (ויין) חשוב ביותר, וכלים מתוצרת אזור עזה ואשקלון נמצאו באחוזים גבוהים יחסית (3%-10%) בנמלי המזרח התיכון29קינגסלי, שמן; מאירסון, עזה. .", + "עיבוד הזית", + "את הזיתים נטעו במרחק ממוצע של 12-11 עצים לדונם, והיבול הממוצע הנזכר במקורות הוא 20-12 ק\"ג לעץ). קטו מדווח על יבול נמוך יותר, כ-80 ק\"ג לדונם (פרק י). עץ הזית מניב פרי בסירוגיות, אך יבולו יציב ומושפע מעט משינויי אקלים.", + "גידול הגפן", + "הגפן הוא השלישי בשלושת הגידולים הבולטים והחשובים במשק הקדום בארץ יהודה30ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 136-126. . נראה שזה היה הגידול הרווחי מבין שלושת הענפים שהוזכרו, וכך נאמר בספר החוקים הסורי-רומי31חיבור זה מהמאה החמישית משקף את התחיקה המקומית בסוריה. לפי ספר החוקים הסורי-רומי, כמו בספרות חז\"ל, שדות הדגנים מתחלקים לשלושה: עידית, בינונית וזיבורית. נתון זה, ונתונים דומים, מצדיקים את השימוש בחוק הסורי-רומי כמקור לתולדות החקלאות בפרובינציית יהודה. זאת אף שרוב העדויות האפיגרפיות על חלוקת הקרקעות שביצע דיוקליטינוס במסגרת רפורמה זו הן מהגולן ומהחורן, ורק שתיים או שלוש כתובות באות מפרובינציית יהודה. ראו בן דוד, גולן, עמ' 224-223. : ", + "\"בימי דיוקלטיינוס המלך נמדדו הקרקעות. 5 יוגרים שהם 10 פלתרין (125 ד') כרם, יחשבו ליוגון (יחידת מס) אחת. 20 יוגרים (50 ד') שדה זרע, שהם ארבעים פלתרין, יחשבו יוגון אחד. 225 עצי זית מובחרים יחשבו יוגון אחד\"32ברונס וזכאו, ספר החוקים, 51 ו-151; וובוס, חוק, עמ' 60-59. . ", + "225 עצים ניטעו ב-20-18 דונם בערך (לפי 10 עצים לבית סאה). לפיכך, ניתן לקבוע שכרם ענבים שגודלו 125 דונם שווה בערכו למטע זיתים שגודלו 20-18 דונם, והגפן רווחית פי 16 בערך מן הזיתים. הגפן וגם הזית רווחיים מחיטה. גם המדרש קובע בפשטות: \"הגפן הזאת שרביט אחד יוצא ממנה ושולט בכל האילנות\" (ויקרא רבה, לו ב, עמ' תתלח). למסקנה דומה הגיעו גם החקלאים הרומיים בקבעם שהגפן היא מלכת החקלאות, והמגדל אינו יכול שלא להרוויח מענף זה. בניגוד למוכר בספרות החקלאית הרומית אין במקורותינו ביטוי למשתלה של גפנים, וגם ההדליה הייתה מועטת ונחשבה לטיפול מיוחד. בתחום זה ניכר \"פיגור\" של הפרובינציה, יחסית לאיטליה המתמחה בייצור יין (תמונות 10-9). ", + "צריכת היין", + "צריכת דגנים היא במידה רבה נתון קשיח. הצרכים המינימליים הם קבועים למדי, וגם יכולת האכילה המקסימלית איננה בלתי מוגבלת. לא כן צריכת יין. משנת שביעית מעריכה שגברי המשפחה הגרעינית הסתפקו ב-15 כדי יין לשנה (פ\"ה מ\"ז). הכדים הממוצעים היו של 15 ליטר, כלומר כמות של 225 ליטר יין הספיקה למשפחה גרעינית (לגבר). רק גרגרנים שתו יין \"חי\", כלומר נקי, ובני אדם רגילים שתו יין \"מזוג\" במים. כמויות המים היו שונות, ברם בדרך כלל שתו אותו מהול ביחס של 2:1, כלומר שתי כוסות מים לכוס יין (משנה, נידה פ\"ב מ\"ז; בבלי, שבת עז ע\"ב; במדבר רבה, ד א; השוו מקבים ב, טו 38). כמות יין של 225 ליטר לשנה מספיקה לשתיית 675 ליטר יין מזוג בשנה, כ-1.8 ליטר יין מזוג ליום לגבר בודד. בכמות זו של יין השתתפו מעט גם הילדים ומעט גם הנשים.", + "כמות היין ששתו אבותינו לא הייתה רבה, אך חשיבותו של המאכל נמדדת לא רק בערכו הקלורי אלא בטעם ובגוון שלו. היין והענבים היוו את המקור העיקרי ל\"טעם החיים\", הן כמקור לסוכרים והן לגיוון הארוחה. המשפט \"אין שמחה אלא ביין\" (מדרש תנאים לדברים, טז יד, והשווה בן סירא, לט 26) אומר רבות. קדמונינו כמעט לא הכירו משקאות אחרים, למעט מים, ויין נשתה, כאמור, כשהוא מהול במים כמשקה קל למחצה. היין היה משקה חגיגי, מרכיב מרכזי וחיוני בכל סעודת חג, משקה שהיה גם הבסיס למסיבות רעות, ולא תיתכן שמחה או אירוע חברתי בלעדיו. בארוחת חג נפתחת הסעודה ביין, ולעתים אף מסתיימת בשתיית יין. במקורות מוזכרים סוגים רבים של יינות, וכל זה מעיד על מקומו החברתי של היין. סיכום המקורות, גיוונם וכמותם, מלמד על גידול יין בהיקף נרחב ביותר. כל הנתונים שרוכזו לעיל מלמדים שהיין שהופק בארץ בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד נועד במידה רבה לייצוא. ואכן, המקורות שבידינו מלמדים על ייצוא משמעותי של יין, לארצות חוץ ובעיקר למצרים. ", + "תוצרת הכרם נועדה בראש ובראשונה ליין, על כן נחשבת עשיית היין לגמר מלאכה בענבים (כגון משנה, מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ז; תוס', תרומות פ\"ג הי\"ג), והענבים כמו הזיתים \"דלאו גני גורן נינהו\" (בבלי, בבא מציעא פח ע\"ב), כלומר – אינם נאספים לגורן כפֵרות עצמאיים. אף על פי כן השתמשו ביבול גם בצורות אחרות. לענבים טריים היה ביקוש מועט, מצומצם ומוגבל לתקופת הבציר, שהרי לאחר זמן קצר הם מתקלקלים. לפיכך אירע שאדם בצר את כרמו והוביל את הפרות לשוק; אם לא הצליח למכרם החזירם לגתו (כגון תוס', מעשרות פ\"ב ה\"ד; טהרות פי\"א ה\"ז, עמ' 672). אפשרות אחרת, רווחית פחות כנראה, הייתה ייבוש הענבים לצימוקים (תוס', ביצה פ\"ד ה\"א; בבלי, שבת מה ע\"א, ועוד). הצימוקים נזכרים לעתים, אך נראה שלא היה זה מוצר תדיר. כאשר הובאה כמות גדולה של צימוקים לשוק הניחו שהם צימוקי יבוא (ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ד; נדרים פ\"ח ה\"א, מא ע\"א). את הצימוקים ניתן היה להשרות במים, ולהכין יין מסוג אחר. יין שהתקלקל נועד כמובן לחומץ. בסוגי יין נוספים הנזכרים במקורות לא נעסוק כאן. עם זאת, יש להעיר שעשיר כהורדוס ייבא יין לחצרו, ואלו היו יינות מיוחדים בטיבם (איור 28א).", + "תפוצתו של גידול הגפן ", + "במקורות חז\"ל מוצג היין כגידול אופייני ליהודה. ברם, אין להסיק מכאן שבגליל לא ייצרו יין כלל. אנו שומעים על סוג של יין שעובד בציפורי ובטבריה (ירו', מגילה פ\"א הי\"ב, עב ע\"ד), ועל בני הגליל הבוצרים כרמיהם מאוחר מן הרגיל אחרי סוכות (ירו', גיטין פ\"ג ה\"ח, מה ע\"ב; בבא בתרא פ\"ו ה\"א, טו ע\"ג). אף אנטונינוס מרטיר (מאה ו) מוסר על גידול גפן בגליל. בסקרים ובסיורים נמצאו גתות רבות בגליל, וברור שהיה זה ענף חשוב, אבל חשוב פחות מגידול הזית. בגולן הגבוה כמעט לא נמצאו גתות. ביהודה ובאזור לוד רווח כאמור גידול היין, אם כי מצויים גם ביהודה אזורים שבהם כמות הגתות שנמצאה בסקרים קטנה. דוגמה לכך היא שפלת בית גוברין. מכל מקום, המקורות מדגישים שהיין הוא גידול מובהק של יהודה, ואילו הזיתים גידול מובהק של הגליל (כגון מדרש תנאים, כו יג, עמ' 176; ירו', פ\"ה ה\"ד, נו ע\"ג, ומקבילות)33אבחנה זו יוצאת כבר מברכת יעקב לשבטים, ראו דברים מט יא לעומת מט כ. ברם, התיאורים של חז\"ל במקרה זה עצמאיים ואינם קשורים לפסוקים. אדרבה, הפסוקים עמומים במקצת והמדרשים מסבירים אותם לאור האבחנה החקלאית. ראו התרגומים לפסוקים אלו, בראשית רבה, צח ט, עמ' 1259; צז כ, עמ' 1223, ועוד. . ", + "הגפנים ניטעו בצפיפות רבה יותר מעצים רגילים, אך לא נמסרו נתונים על צפיפות הנטיעה, ועל היבול הממוצע. הנתונים הכמותיים שמוסרים קטו וקולמלה גבוהים מאוד (עד כ-3000 ליטר לדונם – קטו 111; קולמלה 32). במשק הערבי המסורתי היה היבול כ-600 ק\"ג ענבים לדונם, שהם 360 ליטר לדונם בלבד. מספר זה הוא נתון כללי בלבד.", + "תאנים", + "התאנה הייתה גידול חשוב ביותר34פליקס, עצי פרי, עמ' 197-83. , עם זאת בגלל מתיקותו הרבה אי-אפשר שפרי זה יהיה מרכיב מרכזי בסעודה, והוא עשוי להשתלב כתוספת בלבד. במקביל אין אנו שומעים על מטע תאנים, אלא על עץ בודד בשדה הזוכה לטיפול מיוחד. בדרך כלל סיפקה הארץ את כל צרכיה בתאנים. התאנה נזכרת יחד עם פרות אחרים כפרי המצוי בכל שוק ויש להפריש ממנו מעשרות: \"ואלו דברים מתעשרין דמאי בכל מקום\". הרשימה הנזכרת במשנה מונה: \"הדבילה, והתמרים, והחרובים, האורז והכמון\" (דמאי פ\"ב מ\"א), מכאן שהפרות הללו גדלו כמעט תמיד בתחומי הארץ. ", + "התלמוד הירושלמי מזכיר אמנם דבלה שהובאה מבוצרה שבעבר הירדן (דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ב), אך צורתה הייתה שונה. עדות אחרת לייבוא גרוגרות מצויה מדור יבנה (120-90 לערך). מצד שני נזכר ייצוא של תאנים לרומא35פליניוס, היסטוריה של הטבע, יג 51, ועוד. , והיקפו של ייצוא זה בלתי ידוע. משנה אחת מונה יבול ממוצע של 34 ק\"ג לעץ (שביעית פ\"ז מ\"ב); אין בידינו נתונים להשוואה מארצות סמוכות.", + "תמרים", + "תמרים היו גידול חשוב ביותר באזורי המדבר ובבקעת הירדן36לאו, פלורה ב, עמ' 362-320; פליקס, עצי פרי, עמ' 130-113. . מרכזי הגידול היו באופן טבעי בעין גדי, בעמק בית שאן, מעט באזור טבריה, ובעיקר ביריחו המכונה במקרא \"עיר התמרים\" (דברים לד ג ומקבילות). התומר זקוק לחום רב ולמים, על כן מצטמצם גידולו לאזורים של מזג אוויר טרופי. התומר אינו מופיע בלוחות המזון משום שאלו מייצגים את הנעשה בכלל הארץ, ואילו התמרים היו גידול אזורי מובהק; לנזירי המדבר אף היווה תחליף ללחם37פלדיוס, היסטוריה, פרק נב. . בלוחות המזון של פליטי מדבר יהודה, למשל, התמרים תופסים מקום חשוב38שמחוני וכסלו, מזון; כסלו ושמחוני, מזון; כסלו ושמחוני, עדות. .", + "מטעי התמרים של הארץ זכו לתהילה רבה, וסופרים זרים המתארים בקצרה או בהרחבה את הארץ מזכירים לשבח את תמריה, ואת תמרי יריחו בפרט39פליניוס, היסטוריה, יג 49-26; תיאור ערי העולם, 31, ועוד. . הארץ סיפקה את צרכיה בתמרים (משנה, דמאי פ\"ב מ\"א), אם כי נזכרים תמרי יבוא ממצרים (ירו', שם פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ב). התמרים באזור קיסריה, למשל, הובאו מאזורי היישוב היהודי בארץ ועל כן חויבו במצוות התלויות בארץ אפילו בקיסריה אף ששוחררה ממצוות אלו (ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ב), וכן נזכר הדבר בכתובת רחוב40זוסמן, כתובת, עמ' 131. .", + "החקלאים בארץ ישראל גילו את סוד התמר המיובש, וגילוי זה אפשר ייצוא תמרים למרחוק. ואכן אנו שומעים על ייצוא תמרים לרומא מהמקורות הרומיים שהובאו לעיל, וכן בזכות שאלה הלכתית שהופנתה לרבי חילפיי בר קירויא (ירו', מעשר שני פ\"ד ה\"א, נד ע\"ד) על פדיון מעשר שני בתמרים מקומיים שהגיעו לרומא, ושם היה מחירם יקר מאוד. בעיני הרומאים הפך התמר למייצג של ארץ יהודה (איור 29 מטבע יהודה השבויה), אף שבסל המזונות המקומי הוא לא היה הפרי המוביל.", + "פרות נוספים ", + "למעלה מעשרים סוגים של עצי פרי נזכרים במקורות, בנוסף לשלושת הסוגים אשר בהם דנו לעיל, כגון אגס, אפרסק, תפוח וכיוצא באלו. רובם נזקקים לאקלים חורפי-אירופאי ורווחו בעיקר בגליל העליון, אך בסך הכול דומה שערכם היה מצומצם. כן נזכר החרוב המופיע לעתים כגידול חשוב (משנה, מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ו ועוד), ובדרך כלל – כמאכל עניים ובהמות (משנה, שבת פכ\"ד מ\"ב; מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ב; כלאים פ\"א מ\"ד ומקבילות; עוקצין פ\"א מ\"ו ועוד הרבה).", + "ירקות וצמחי מקשה", + "במקורות נזכרים כ- 24 מיני ירקות. עם זאת, רוב הירקות העולים תדיר על שולחננו לא היו בידי הקדמונים. לדוגמה, עגבנייה, מלפפון ירוק ופלפל לא הוכרו כלל. מבין תפוחי האדמה הכירו קדמונינו רק בולבוסין – תפוחי האדמה המתוקים. רוב הירקות תרמו רק מעט לתזונת האדם. עם זאת היו הירקות מרכיב של קבע על השולחן הקדום, ירק נאכל תדיר לסעודות הבוקר והערב, כגיוון וכתוספת לאבות המזון. הירקות תלויים בהשקאה, או לפחות בהשקאת עזר, זאת בניגוד ליתר הגידולים אשר היו רובם גידולי בעל, על כן גודלו הירקות ב\"גינה\", המינוח המקובל לשטח המעובד באינטנסיביות ובהשקאה41ראו הנספח למסכת עירובין. . הצורך בהשקאה גרם לצמצום שטחי הירקות.", + "הירקות מתוארים כגידולים שאינם נשמרים במחסן ויש להם \"חיי מדף\" קצרים: \"הירק אף על פי שלקיטתו כאחד (כל היבול נאסף בבת אחת) אין מכניסו לקיום\" (תוס', פאה פ\"א ה\"ז). מרובות במקורות העדויות על מכירת ירקות בשוק משום שאת רובם לא ניתן לאחסן זמן רב. בצלים ושומים ניתן היה לאחסן זמן רב, אך לא כן ירקות אחרים.", + "בדרך כלל נועדו הירקות לצריכה עצמית ולשוק המקומי, אך לעתים שווקו למרחקים, כמו למשל בולבוסין ששווקו לקיסריה מ\"הר המלך\" (צפון יהודה – ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"ב, כב ע\"ג; וכן בכתובת רחוב). כן נמסר על ייבוא ירקות ממרחקים לבית שאן42זוסמן, כתובת, עמ' 132; ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"ב, כב ע\"ג. . כמו כן ידוע, למשל, על הבצל מאשקלון שנמכר למרחקים וכנראה יוצא לחו\"ל43סטרבון, גאוגרפיה, טז 229. .", + "צמחי תבלין ", + "למעלה מ-15 צמחי תבלין נזכרים במקורותינו. הבולטים שבהם: חרדל, כוסבר, כמון, צלף וקפריסין, ועולה על כולם הפלפל. הפלפל הוא צמח טרופי, והתאמתו לתנאי הארץ קשה. חכמים התפארו שבארץ גדל גם הפלפל (קהלת רבה, ב ב), ואת חכמתו של שלמה המלך המקראי העצימו והדגימו בכך שידע היכן כדאי לנטוע פלפל. הפלפל היה גידול רווחי ביותר, אך לא היה ענף חשוב בארץ ומשמעותו אזורית בלבד.", + "צמחי בושם", + "בין צמחי הבושם בולטים כמה גידולים מפורסמים אשר שמם הביא את תהילתה של הארץ אל כל רחבי העולם הרומי. הבולטים שבהם היו האפרסמון והמור. סופרים יווניים רבים מזכירים לשבח בשמים אלו, ובעיקר את האפרסמון שהפך לגידול מייצג של הארץ44פליקס, בשמים, עמ' 61-37; ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 154-147, ועוד. . האפרסמון היה בושם חשוב ביותר, ויובא לאימפריה הרומית מערביה. ערכו הרב, וקווי התחבורה הארוכים שבהם הובל, גרמו לכך שמחירו של בושם זה בשווקי האימפריה היה יקר ביותר. האזור היחיד שגדלו בו האפרסמון והמור בתחומי האימפריה היה עמק הירדן, ועל כן הייתה חשיבותם הכלכלית של מטעים אלו רבה עד מאוד. לאחר המאה הראשונה מתמעטות הידיעות על האפרסמון, וחלק מאלו המזכירים את גידולו משתמשים במידע קדום, ואינם משקפים ידיעות רֵאליות. מכלל העדויות ניתן להסיק שמטעי האפרסמון ביריחו נהרסו או צומצמו עד מאוד, כלל האזור נפגע אך לא ננטש כליל, ושטחי החקלאות הצטמצמו לסביבות הנביעות (יריחו, נערן וכיוצא באלו).", + "צמחי תעשייה", + "פשתן", + "הפשתן היה אחד מחומרי הגלם החשובים לבגדים באימפריה. הפשתן, \"כיתנא\" בארמית, נזכר רבות בספרות של תקופת המשנה והתלמוד45ספראי, פשתן; וילד, טקסטיל; הרשברג, חיי התרבות. . המקורות המתארים את כלכלת ארץ ישראל בימי הבית השני אינם מזכירים כלל את גידול הפשתן, ונראה שלא היה זה ענף רווחי בארץ. אמנם נמצאו אריגי פשתן בחפירות ארכאולוגיות כבר מן התקופה הנאוליתית ומימי מרד בר כוכבא, אך עדיין היה זה ענף שולי. לעומת זאת, במקורות מן המאה השנייה נזכר הפשתן לעתים קרובות כענף חקלאי ותעשייתי מרכזי בארץ, וכאחד ממוצרי הייצוא העיקריים שלה. אב הכנסייה הנוצרי קלמנס מאלכסנדריה, המאשים את נשות מצרים בחיי הוללות, טוען שהן משתמשות באריגי פשתן מארץ העברים. פאוזניאס46סופר יווני שתיאר בגאווה את יוון, בן המאה השנייה לספירה. מרמז אף הוא על טיבם המעולה של אריגי הפשתן מן הארץ, וכן יוצא ממקורות נוספים, רומיים ויהודיים כאחד (בראשית רבה, יט א, עמ' 170; כ יב, עמ' 196; ירו', כתובות פ\"ז ה\"ז, לא ע\"ה, ומקבילות; עבודה זרה פ\"א ה\"ד, לט ע\"ג)47פאוזניאס, יון, ה 5. 2; תיאור ערי העולם 31; אדיקט המחירים של דיוקלטינוס, פרק 26; קודקס תיאודוסינוס, פרק י, 20. 8. . במקורות התלמודיים מרובות העדויות שבהן נזכר הפשתן כגידול אופייני לגליל (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"י ה\"ט; תוס', כתובות פ\"ד ה\"ה; ירו', שם פ\"ד ה\"ה, ל ע\"א; בבלי, שם סא ע\"ב, ועוד).", + "תולדות גידול הפשתן ", + "כאמור, הפשתן נזכר במקורותינו כענף נפוץ רק החל מסוף דור יבנה, ובעיקר מלאחר מרד בר כוכבא. פאוזניאס ביקר בארץ בערך ב-175 לספירה, ובזמנו הייתה כבר תוצרת הפשתן של הארץ שם דבר במזרח כולו. גם קלמנס מאלכסנדריה המזכיר את הבגדים הבאים מארץ העברים חי בין השנים 216-150 לספירה. המתקנים לשריית פשתן שנמצאו ליד תל שוש, היא גבע פרשים, ראשיתם במאה השלישית48ספראי ולין, גבע. ראו גם איור 20. (איור 30). לאחרונה דווח על מתקנים דומים באותו אזור, אך המידע טרם פורסם. \t", + "הפשתן מופיע כגידול אופייני לגליל, בניגוד לצמר שהוא תוצר אופייני ליהודה. המקום הידוע ביותר לפי המקורות הרומיים מהתקופה הביזנטית שגידלו ועיבדו בו פשתן הוא העיר בית שאן. כן נזכרת במדרש בית שאן כמקום לייצור פשתן מעולה, וארבל כמקום ייצור של אריגי פשתן גסים (בראשית רבה, יט א, עמ' 170 ומקבילות). מרכזים נוספים לייצור פשתן היו טבריה ואגן הכנרת (בבלי, מועד קטן יח ע\"ב). בטבריה הייתה אגודת אורגים49שובה, כתובות, עמ' 181. , ומכיוון שהוכח ריבוי הפשתן באזור יש להניח שהכוונה לאורגי פשתן. כן משמע ממקורות נוספים50ירו', פאה פ\"א ה\"א, טז ע\"א; בבא מציעא פ\"ד ה\"ז, ט ע\"ד; פ\"ה ה\"ו, ט ע\"ג, ועוד. . עוד במאה השביעית אנו שומעים על סוחר פשתן משכם השוהה בטבריה51ברוק, מעשה, עמ' 315-314. . כאמור, מתקנים רבים לשריית פשתן נתגלו ונחפרו במשמר העמק, בשולי עמק יזרעאל, לפחות חלק מהם ניטש במהלך המאה השישית, ועל גביהם הוקמו בתי בד. הדבר מעיד על צמצום שטחי הפשתן לטובת גידול הזיתים, וייתכן שגידול זה אף חוסל לחלוטין, לפחות באזור זה. כל שטח המתקנים ניטש במאה השביעית עם הכיבוש המוסלמי, או אולי כבר עם הכיבוש הפרסי (614 לספירה).", + "מקומו של הפשתן במשק הלאומי ", + "גידול הפשתן היה רווחי הרבה יותר מגידול החיטה, כך ניתן ללמוד מרשימת המחירים שפרסם הקיסר דיוקלטינוס, לפיכך יש להניח שהחקלאי ניצל את מלוא הפוטנציאל של גידול הפשתן שעמד לרשותו. זאת בהתאם למגבלות מחזור הזרעים (פשתן פעם בשש שנים), כלומר שישית או רבע משטחו נוצל בממוצע רב-שנתי לגידול פשתן. היתרון הגדול של גידול הפשתן אינו רק ברווחיותו. אחת מבעיות היסוד של חקלאי הארץ הייתה כיצד לנצל את העונה החקלאית המתה. כושר הייצור של החקלאי נקבע לפי צורכי העבודה בעונת שיא העבודה. ברם, תנאי הארץ גורמים לכך שחודשים רבים העבודה היא מועטת, והחקלאי צמא לעבודה נוספת שתשמש מקור הכנסה. עונת שיא העבודה של גידול הפשתן משתלבת יפה במשק עבודה המבוסס על גידול דגנים, זיתים וגפנים. יתר על כן, הפשתן מספק עבודה רבה בעיבודו, וכך עשוי היה החקלאי למצוא מקור עבודה ופרנסה בעונות שסיפקו עד עתה הכנסה שולית בלבד. חלק מן הרווחים הגיעו, כמובן, לידי השלטונות בצורת מס, או באמצעות הפעלת בתי האריגה הממלכתיים, ברם רוב ההכנסה הגיעה לחקלאי המגדל ולשכניו שהפכו לבעלי מלאכה לכל דבר, וכך העשירו את כלכלתה של הפרובינציה כולה.", + "משי ", + "המשי לסוגיו השונים (\"שיראים\", \"סירקין\", \"הינדואין\", \"מטכסא\" ועוד סוגים שונים) נזכר רבות בספרות חז\"ל, אך הוא מופיע בעיקר כמוצר יבוא52הרשברג, חיי התרבות, עמ' 55-46. . עם זאת, אין ספק שיהודה הייתה שותפה במסחר הבינלאומי במשי, אך הגידול העצמי היה מועט ויוצא דופן (קהלת רבה, ב יא).", + "מרעה", + "מבנה משק המרעה ", + "מקורותינו מבחינים בשלושה טיפוסים של משק מרעה הצאן: ", + "א. צאן הרועה במדבר במשך כל ימות השנה. בעדרים אלה טיפלו נודדים שהיו בעלי העדר. ", + "ב. צאן הרועה בקיץ (מפסח ועד לימי הגשם) במדבר או בספר היישוב, ובחורף עת המרעה רב יחסית חוזרים בני הצאן ליישוב. עם זאת, אין עדות לתנועות הגירה גדולות בעקבות בני הצאן כמו אלו המוכרות מאיטליה. ", + "ג. בני הצאן הרועים בסביבת היישוב עצמו53משנה, ביצה פ\"ה מ\"ז; תוס', שם פ\"ה הי\"א; ירו', שם פ\"ה ה\"ז, סג ע\"ב; בבלי, שם מ ע\"א, ומקבילות. .", + "הטיפוס השני אופייני למשק מעורב של חקלאות ומרעה שהמרעה תופס בו מקום כלכלי חשוב ביותר. נדידה עונתית של הצאן מחייבת היערכות יישובית בעלת אופי מיוחד, והיא מוכרת היטב מאיטליה54פריין, חקלאות; וויטקר, מרעה; איזגר וסקידגרד, חקלאות, עמ' 101-99. . בארץ נסקר יישוב רועים מעין זה בענב א-כביר (איור 31), וסביב היישוב נמצאו מכלאות צאן המורכבות בדרך כלל מחדר מגורים ומחצרות למרבץ הצאן. מכלאות אלו דומות במידת מה למכלאות צאן קדומות באנגליה ובצפון אפריקה55ספראי, ענב אל כביר. (איור 32).", + "הטיפוס השלישי הוא של משק שבו הצאן הנו ענף עזר בלבד. שטחי הקרקע סביב היישוב עצמו לא אפשרו פיתוח משמעותי של ענף הצאן, משום שנוצלו ברובם לחקלאות אינטנסיבית. ממילא גרם הדבר לצמצום ענף המרעה.", + "ממקורות רבים עולה תמונה שבה יש לחקלאי בן צאן אחד או שניים, כענף עזר במשק החקלאי. לא כל חקלאי רעה את צאנו, אלא מקובל היה למסור את הצאן לרועה שכיר56משנה, ביצה פ\"ה מ\"ג; ירו', שם סג ע\"ב; בבלי, שם לז ע\"ד; עבודה זרה כב ע\"ב; משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ו מ\"ב, ומקורות רבים נוספים. . במקביל אנו שומעים על חקלאי אשר ברשותו צאן רב והוא רועה אותו בעצמו (משנה, שביעית פ\"ג מ\"ד). ", + "לאבחנה בין שני טיפוסי משק אלה יש גם משמעות אזורית. מרבית בני הצאן היו מרוכזים באזור יהודה, בגליל לעומת זאת היה ענף המרעה שולי, שכן רוב השטח נוצל לחקלאות אינטנסיבית. ", + "ההלכה אסרה גידול בהמה דקה (צאן) בארץ ישראל57גולאק, רועים; אלון, מחקרים א, עמ' 360-355. . ההלכה נקבעה כנראה בראשית המאה השנייה, והיא אופיינית בעיקר לגליל. ואכן, נאמר במפורש שמותר לגדל צאן במדבריות שביהודה ובשטחים זנוחים בשולי היישוב, ב\"חורשים\" (שטחי החורש הבלתי מעובדים) וב\"מדבריות\" (תוס', בבא קמא פ\"ח ה\"י).", + "צריכת הבשר במשק החקלאי ואצל המוני העם הייתה מצומצמת ביותר. לפי ההלכה בן הזולל תרטימר בשר (180-150 גרם), או מנה (600-500 גרם), נחשב כבר לבן \"זולל וסובא\" אשר מותר להענישו חמורות אם עשה זאת שלא ברצון הוריו (משנה, סנהדרין פ\"ח מ\"ב ומקבילות, וכן יוצא ממקורות נוספים). אכילת בשר הייתה מקובלת רק בימי חג ואירועים מיוחדים (משנה, חולין פ\"א מ\"ד ומקבילות), ורק על שולחן העשירים עלה הבשר לעתים קרובות. עצמות בעלי חיים נמצאו בכל החפירות, והן מעידות כי בשר שימש לאכילה, אך אין הן מעניקות בינתיים נתון כמותי שיאפשר הערכה של כמות הבשר שצרכו קדמונים. בזהירות אפשר להעריך שרוב העצמות שנתגלו הן של בעלי חיים מבוגרים. כלומר, הבהמות נוצלו למרעה ונאכלו רק לעת זקנתן. ברם, בדיקות אלו רק החלו להיערך ועדיין אין בידינו מידע מסכם בהיקף נרחב.", + "במקורותינו חוזרת הנוסחה שסתם עז נועדה לייצור חלב, והרחלות לגיזות וולדות. כן שנינו: \"שמין את העזים מפני שהן חולבות ואת הרחלים מפני שהן גוזזות\" (תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ה ה\"ד). כמו כן: \"ההולך לחלוב את עזיו ולגזוז את רחליו\" (בבלי, בבא מציעא סד ע\"א), וכן סתם: \"עז לחלבה ורחל לגיזתה\" (בבלי, שבת יט ע\"ב ומקורות רבים נוספים). כן נקבע במפורש: \"ראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא ברחלות\" (משנה, חולין פי\"א ה\"א ומקבילות רבות). ענף המרעה שימש, אפוא, כמקור לבשר המועט שנאכל, לחלב ומוצריו ובעיקר לצמר. ", + "משק העזר", + "\"משק העזר\" הוא מינוח כללי לסדרת ענפים חקלאיים שלא היו גידולי התמחות אלא פעילות שולית המתנהלת בחצר הבית. בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד רווחו כמה טיפוסי מבנים, והבנתם חשובה להבנת אפשרויות הפעולה במסגרת משק העזר. בימי בית שני רווחו שתי צורות התיישבות. האחת היא חוות בודדות שבכל אחת התגוררה משפחה מורחבת במבנה פשוט אך גדול ממדים, ששטחו לעתים למעלה מדונם (איור 33). במקביל היו גם כפרים מכונסים שבהם היו מבני המגורים קטנים הרבה יותר (להלן). בנוסף היו בתי אחוזה גדולים מדגם ה- Villa Rostika הרומית. אמנם ביהודה לא נמצאו מבנים מפוארים מאוד מסוג זה, אך נמצאו אחוזות בינוניות (איור 34). בהמשך התקופה הרומית התרבו הכפרים המכונסים ומספר מבני החווה הפשוטים התמעט, אך לא נעלם. במבנה חווה ובבית אחוזה יש מקום רב למשק עזר, לא כן בכפרים המכונסים. כאן התגוררו משפחות בבתים פשוטים, או במבני חצר שהיו בהם שותפים רבים. ספרות חז\"ל מתייחסת ברובה ל\"חצר השותפים\" שיש בה דיירים רבים, אבל בחפירות ארכאולוגיות נמצאו טיפוסים רבים של מבנים, החל מקומפלקס גדול ובו חדרים רבים המזוהה עם אותה חצר שותפים, וכלה בבתים פשוטים שיש בהם 3-2 חדרי מגורים ובהם גרה משפחה גרעינית, משפחה מורחבת, או אף שותפים מספר58הירשפלד, הבית. בית כזה נראה בעינינו כיום דמיוני; וכי כיצד זה מסתדרות משפחות מספר בבית מגורים אחד?! ברם, אם תורשה לי (ז\"ס) הערה אישית, בית כזה ראיתי וחוויתי במו עיניי בילדותי. תושביו לא חשו עצמם כעניים, ולא כמסכנים, אף שממבט בן ימינו כך נראים הדברים. . מכל מקום, בספרות חז\"ל חוזרת ההנחה שבפועל יש למשפחה גרעינית \"רגילה\" חדר מגורים אחד. בספרות חז\"ל אין מונח ל\"דירה\" הכוללת חדרים מספר ושייכת לאדם אחד59במקרא מופיע המונח \"בית\" ובו \"חדרים\", אבל בספרות חז\"ל \"בית\" הוא חדר בלבד, ו\"חדר\" הוא לא יותר מכוך קטן בתוך הבית. . החצר הייתה משותפת, ובה התנהלו רוב חיי היום יום. כאן בישלו ואפו, כאן אחסנו פֵרות, וכאן היה המרחב למשק העזר שיתואר. מרחב מגורים נוסף היה הגג ששימש לארוחות, לגידול יונים ולאחסון, אך יתר המרכיבים של משק העזר לא יכולים היו להתבסס במרחב זה. בתנאים אלו לא יכול היה משק העזר להיות מפותח מאוד.", + "תרנגולים", + "גידול תרנגולים היה מרכיב משמעותי במשק העזר בחברה היהודית, ומן הסתם גם בחברה הלא-יהודית. התרנגולת הפיקה בעיקר ביצים, ואלו שימשו להעשרת סל המזון הפשוט למדי של החקלאי הרגיל. התרנגולות שוטטו בחצר ומחוצה לה באופן חופשי, בדרך כלל הן שוטטו כשלרגליהן חוטים לסימן בעלות, שכן התרנגולות שונות בהחלט זו מזו אך הדמיון לעתים רב, והחשש היה שמא יתבלבלו ולא ידעו למי שייכת התרנגולת (שבת פ\"ה מ\"ד).", + "התרנגולים שוטטו בחצר וכמובן הזיקו לא מעט, הפכו חפצים ושברו, ועל כן מקיימים המקורות סדרת דיונים על נזקי התרנגול, כגון \"כיצד הרגל מועדת לשבר בדרך הלוכה? ...התרנגולים מועדין להלך כדרכן ולשבר, היה דליל קשור ברגליו, או שהיה מהדס ומשבר את הכלים משלם חצי נזק\" (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ב מ\"א), וכן: \"תרנוגלין שהידסו את העיסה, ואת הפירות, או שניקירו, משלמין חצי נזק. הידסו עפר על גבי עיסה, ועל גבי פירות, משלמין נזק שלם. היו מחטחטין בחבלו של דלי, נפל ונשבר משלם נזק שלם. נפל ונשבר ושיבר כלי אחר, על הראשון משלמין נזק שלם, ועל האחרון משלמין חצי נזק. תרנגלין שירדו לגינה ושיברו את החליפין, וקיטמו את הירק, משלמין נזק שלם... תרנגול שהיה פורח ממקום למקום והזיק בגופו, משלם נזק שלם. ברוח שבכנפיו חצי נזק. סימכוס אומר נזק שלם\" (תוס', בבא קמא פ\"ב ה\"א; בבלי, בבא קמא יז ע\"א; יז ע\"ב). ברשימה זו מפורט \"קטלוג\" של 16 נזקים אפשריים, ומן הסתם גם זה קטלוג חלקי בלבד. ההבדל אם משלם נזק שלם או חצי נזק הוא האם הנזק צפוי ואז משלם נזק שלם, או שמא הוא בלתי צפוי.", + "במקביל גם ניקרו התרנגולים בכל העומד בדרכם, כולל מזונות (משנה, טהרות פ\"ג מ\"ח), וזו הסיבה לכך שהיו שפקפקו אם מותר לגדל תרנגולים בכל מקום בארץ (לאחר שבירושלים בוודאי הדבר אסור [תוס', יבמות פ\"ג ה\"א; יומא סו ע\"ב]). התרנגולים אכלו מכל המזדמן להם. במשך היום שוטטו בחצר ומחוצה לה, וניקרו באשפתות ובשיירי המזון של בני הבית (בבלי, יומא עה ע\"א; בראשית רבה, עה א, עמ' 878; שיר השירים רבה, ד ח; ויקרא רבה, יב א; אסתר רבה, ה א). רק לעת ההטלה ניסו להושיב את התרנגולת במקום קבוע, והשליטה בתנאים אלו הייתה קשה.", + "אף על פי שהתרנגולים ניקרו מזון מכל הבא לפיהם, בפועל הייתה בעלת הבית אחראית למעשה על הטיפול בתרנגולים ועליה היה להאביסם בצורה מסודרת (תוס', שבת פ\"ו ה\"ד). בעלת הבית החליטה האם לאסוף ביצים אחדות ולהושיב את התרנגולת לדגור עליהן כדי לגדל אפרוחים, או להשתמש בביצים לאכילה. הטיפול בתרנגולת הוא מעבודות האישה. כך, למשל, חכמים מתירים לקנות מהאישה ביצים או תרנגולות משום שנהוג שאדם מאפשר לאשתו מסחר זעיר זה. כך שנינו: \"אבל לוקחין מן הנשים כלי צמר ביהודה, וכלי פשתן בגליל, ועגלים בשרון. וכולן שאמרו להטמין אסור. ולוקחין ביצים ותרנגולים מכל מקום\" (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"י מ\"ט). \"מכל מקום\", כלומר בכל חבלי הארץ, שכן בכל מקום נהוג שהאישה עוסקת בכך. כך גם נזכרת עסקה רגילה בין שתי נשים, שתרנגולת אחת תדגור על ביצים של שתי נשים, או הסדרי שותפות דומים (משנה, בבא מציעא פ\"ה מ\"ד; תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ד הכ\"ד; שם הכ\"ה). ברור שהמטפלות בעסקאות כאלה הן הנשים, וכן עולה מעדויות נוספות. אחוז הפריון של הביצים תלוי בטיב התרנגולת ובתנאי התזונה של העולם הקדום. ודאי שהאחוז היה נמוך יחסית, וכן מדגים המדרש: \"למה הדבר דומה לאשה שהיא מושבת תרנגולת על הביצים, מתוך הרבה היא (מוציא) [מוציאה] מעט, ומתוך מעט אינה מוציאה כלום\" (אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"ב פ\"ד). גם כאן כמובן האישה היא המושיבה את התרנגולת.", + "יונים", + "גידול יונים היה שולי ותפס מקום חשוב רק בשפלת יהודה בסוף ימי בית שני60טפר, יונים; ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 179-172. . ספק רב אם גידול זה היה חקלאי, או שמא נועדו היונים למטרות פולחניות במקדש בירושלים או במקדשים פגניים באידומיאה, מכל מקום ענף ייצור זה התמוטט באופן פתאומי אי שם במאה הראשונה לפני הספירה. לאחר מכן נזכר גידול היונים רק בצורה ספורדית כחלק ממשק העזר שליד הבית (איור 35). ", + "צאן ובקר", + "במבנה משק הבקר עסקנו בפירושנו לביצה פ\"ה מ\"ז, ולכן נקצר. באזורי היישוב היו לחקלאים בני צאן בודדים, וגם אלו נכללו במשק העזר. לבעל בית רגיל היה חמור להובלות, ופרה כדי לחרוש עמה. החריש עצמו התבצע בעזרת צמד פרות, אך לעתים השאילו את הפרות זה לזה, כמו ששנינו: \"תחרוש פרתי עמך [היום ושלך עמי למחר...]\" (תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ו הי\"ד). לא לכל איכר היה שור ויש להניח ששור אחד שימש להרבעת פרות רבות, ובכפר היו שוורים לכמה מהתושבים. הוא הדין באיל ששימש להרבעת כבשים. המקורות מזכירים יחס של זכר אחד לעשרים כבשים או עזים, אך מספר זה משקף עדרים גדולים ולא משק עזר (בראשית רבה, לב ז, עמ' 904). אזור השרון נזכר כמקום גידול לעגלים, ואזי שוב האישה היא שמטפלת בהם כמו בכבשים ובפרות הבית (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"י מ\"ט). ", + "גידול חזירים?", + "ברוב ארצות העולם נחשב גידול החזיר לאחד המרכיבים העיקריים של משק החי. לא כן בארץ ישראל בכלל, ובארץ ישראל היהודית בפרט. אכילת החזיר נחשבה לאיסור חמור, ולאחד הסמלים הבולטים המייחדים את היהודים. האירוע המפורסם שישו מעביר בו את השד לעדר חזירים עשוי להתפרש בעדר השייך לנכרי, או בעדר חזירי בר, שכן המעשה אירע באזור מזרח הכנרת שהיה מעובד רק בצורה חלקית. מכל מקום אין זה אלא סיפור אגדה, והבחירה בחזיר אינה משקפת רק מציאות אלא היא ספרותית. בחפירות ארכאולוגיות בכפרים יהודיים אכן התגלו רק מעט מאוד עצמות חזירים (כך למשל בעין גדי61שדה, זואוארכאולוגיה. , סומקה ורקית).", + "מן התורה נאסרה רק אכילת החזיר, אך גידולו ומכירתו לגויים נאסרו רק על ידי חכמים: \"אין מגדלין חזירים בכל מקום\"62משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ז מ\"ז; בבלי, שם פב ע\"א; סוטה מא ע\"ב; מנחות סד ע\"ב. . עם זאת, מן המקורות עולה שהחזיר היה מוכר היטב לחכמים והם ידעו פרטים רבים על אופיו וצורתו. המשנה בעוקצין קובעת בפשטות שנבלת חזיר נמכרת לגויים, והמקורות עוסקים בבעיות הקשורות בנזקים הנגרמים על ידי חזיר63תוס', בבא קמא פ\"א ה\"ח; ירו', שם פ\"א ה\"א, ב ע\"ב; בבלי, שם יז ע\"ב; יט ע\"ב ועוד. . עם זאת, אין ספק שבמשק היהודי היה החזיר נדיר והוא נזכר בעיקר כמצוי בידי גויים64כגון ירו', עבודה זרה פ\"ב ה\"ט, מב ע\"א; בבלי, שם לט ע\"ב. . יש להניח שגידול החזירים תפס מקום חשוב במשק הנכרי בארץ, אך אין לכך ראיות מסייעות, זאת בגלל מיעוט המידע על הקהילות הלא-יהודיות בארץ. ", + "משק העזר היה, אפוא, מצומצם בהיקפו והתרכז בחצר הצפופה, ובאופן טבעי עסקה בו בעיקר האישה. לעומת זאת, כל עבודות החקלאות שמחוץ לחצר קשורות לגברים; מכיוון שרוב האוכלוסייה בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד התגוררה בכפרים מכונסים, הרי שהשדות היו רחוקים מעט (עד טווח של 2-1.5 ק\"מ בממוצע), והאישה לא הרחיקה מביתה לעבודות כאלה אלא לצורך עבודות המוניות כקציר או מסיק (משנה, יבמות פט\"ו מ\"א). כן שמענו במשנת אהלות על אישה המכינה מקום לבנה בין השיבולים (פ\"ח מ\"א); משנה אחרת מתארת מצב שבו הבעל יוצא לעבודה עם בניו ואשתו וקובע את תנאי עבודתם, כולל ויתור על זכותם לאכול מהיבול תוך כדי העבודה65ספראי, פרקי גליל, עמ' 106-105. . ההיתר לאכול מהיבול בזמן העבודה חל בדרך כלל על עבודות איסוף (בציר, מסיק וכיוצא באלו), נמצאנו למדים ששתי העדויות המשיחות לפי תומן על יציאת האישה לשדה לעבודה מתייחסות לעבודות אסיף שהן בדרך כלל עבודות המוניות. היישוב הכפרי הקדום בארץ היה מבוסס בדרך כלל על עבודה עצמית, ופועלים שכירים רווחו בעיקר ב\"עונה הבוערת\". בסך הכול, מספר העדויות לעבודת האישה בשדה מעטות ביותר, ובמקרים שבהם נזכר הדבר מדובר על עבודה עם הבעל. ", + "עיבוד התוצרת", + "רוב התוצרת החקלאית לא נצרכה כפרות טריים, אלא עובּדה. העיבוד נעשה בשדה (סחיטת הענבים ליין) או במרכזים בכפר, כגון בית בד לסחיטת שמן או עיבוד הפשתן שנעשה ברובו בבית הפרטי66עיבוד הפשתן הוא עבודת נשים מובהקת, ובגליל היה זה ענף כלכלי חשוב שהעניק איכות מיוחדת לעבודת האישה. ראו פירושנו לכתובות פ\"ה מ\"ה. . ", + "לעיבוד התוצרת החקלאית היו שלוש מטרות עיקריות: ", + "1. השקעת עבודה על מנת להעלות את מחיר התוצרת, וזאת בשל הקושי שבהפקת רווחים מעבודה חקלאית בלבד (עודף ידיים עובדות ומחסור בקרקע). ", + "2. שימור הפרי על מנת לאפשר את שיווקו למרחקים, ושמירה על איכותו לאורך ימים. ", + "3. הקטנת נפח התוצרת והקלה על דרך השיווק (שמן הוא 20%-25% מן הזית ויין – 60% מפרי הגפן). ", + "מהספרות התלמודית והארכאולוגית אנו לומדים למעשה על שלושה סוגי מתקנים: הגת לעיבוד יין – מצויה בשדה, בית הבד לעיבוד שמן – מצוי במרכז חקלאי או בעיר, והטחנה לטחינת קמח – מתקן השייך לצריכת הדגנים ואיננו בתחום עיסוקנו. בסיורים בשטחי מתקנים בארץ ניתן לגלות לעתים סוגים נוספים של מתקנים, בנוסף לגת, לבית הבד ולטחנה, אך הללו נפוצים פחות וידועים פחות. אין צורך לומר שהדבר קשור לעובדה שהגידולים הללו היו נפוצים פחות. ממילא כאשר מתגלה סוג חדש של מתקן מתפתח ויכוח על טיבו. כך, למשל, המתקנים במשמר העמק זוהו כמתקני פשתן (לעיל איורים 20, 30), והסבר זה עדיין אינו מקובל על הכול, אף שטרם הוצע הסבר חילופי.", + "מהמקורות שנידונו לעיל עולה בבירור כי בעיירות ובכפרי הבת עובדה התוצרת הראשונית, זיתים כשמן וגפנים כיין, יותר מכל הענפים האחרים שהיו נדירים הרבה יותר. אין כל עדות לשלב נוסף של עיבוד התוצרת במקום ריכוז אזורי, ואפילו הבשמים שגדלו באזור יריחו ועין גדי עובדו במקום.", + "אופייה של החקלאות הארץ-ישראלית", + "החקלאות הארץ-ישראלית הייתה בעיקרה חקלאות מעורבת, וברוב אזורי הארץ גידלו מגוון גידולים. זאת להוציא את המדבר ששימש למרעה בלבד, ואת בקעת יריחו שבה התמקדו בגידולים ייחודיים (תמרים ואפרסמון). בכפר כולו גידלו גידולים רבים, וכל חקלאי השתדל לגוון את עיסוקו. חז\"ל ממליצים \"שיהו נכסיך משולשין: שליש בתבואה שליש בזיתים ושליש בגפנים\" (בבלי, בבא מציעא קז ע\"א)67המימרה אמנם מצויה בתלמוד הבבלי בשמו של חכם ארץ-ישראלי, אך רקעה איננו מתאים לבבל שכן בה לא גידלו לא זיתים ולא גפנים. המדיניות בבבל הייתה של התרכזות בגידול אחד. ראו בבלי, בבא בתרא קכב ע\"א. . בדברים יש ביטוי גם ", + "לאוטופיה הכלכלית שלפיה המשק הפרטי צריך להיות אוטרקי, אך יש בה גם התבוננות רֵאלית הלוקחת בחשבון חלוקת סיכונים ופיזור העבודה החקלאית על פני כל השנה. ", + "הלכות כלאיים הגבילו מעט את האפשרות לגידולים שונים. איננו יודעים עד כמה הן נשמרו, אבל עדיין נותרה אפשרות לזרוע בין העצים במרחקים מתקבלים על הדעת ולקיים מטע בתוך שדה מזרע. במאה השלישית אנו מוצאים מחלוקת האם \"דרך בני אדם\" לזרוע דגנים בין האילנות (ירו', פאה פ\"ג ה\"א, יז ע\"ב). במשק הערבי הייתה זו תופעה נפוצה ביותר. בניסיון להרוויח כביכול שטח, קיימו שדות מעורבים. מבחינה חקלאית זו גישה מוטעית, וניצול השטח עולה באבדן פוריות. ואכן, בספרות הרומית מדברים על מטעים רצופים או על שדות דגנים רצופים, אם כי האחוזה כולה קיימה משק מעורב. החקלאות שחז\"ל הכירו הייתה אפוא נבונה, עיקרה עוסק בשדות רצופים, אך יש בה גם ביטוי לתופעת השדה המעורב.", + "הידע החקלאי היה מתקדם למדי, ומעיד על התבוננות בגידולי התרבות. אין עדות להכרה של ספרות החקלאות הרומית, אך בהחלט להתבוננות בטבע. רק לעתים רחוקות נמצא קביעות דמיוניות ופולקלוריסטיות.", + "לפי העולה ממקורות חז\"ל היה המשק החקלאי בעיקרו משק אינטנסיבי ביותר, פרטי וזעיר, ומבוסס על עבודה עצמית. החקלאי ניצל כל פיסת קרקע, כולל פינות סלעיות שניתנות לעיבוד ידני בלבד ודורשות סיקול מאומץ של השטח. במקביל היו גם אחוזות גדולות של עשירים (\"עיר\" בלשון חכמים), ואחוזות ממלכתיות. לדעתנו במבנה זה חל שינוי הדרגתי, בכיוון של ריבוד כלכלי גובר והולך, ובתקופה הביזנטית הפכה רוב החקלאות לחקלאות של אחוזות ואריסים (איורים 37-36, תמונה 8). זאת הסיבה לגידול הניכר במטמונים ובהם מטבעות זהב שעליה עמד ג'ירוס במזרח כולו68ג'ירוס, מטמונים; וינר וספראי, מטמונים. , ובעיקר במצרים, ועליה עמדו וינר וספראי בארץ ישראל. שאלה זו כבר חורגת מתחום דיוננו, אך בכל הקשור לחקלאות – המעבר ממשק זעיר למשק של בעלים נעדרים משפיע לטובה על כושר ההשקעה, אך משפיע לרעה על רמת ההתמחות והאינטנסיביות.", + "משק פתוח או סגור", + "בתקופת בית שני היה המשק החקלאי בעיקרו משק סגור, והפרובינציה (ארץ יהודה) סיפקה את רוב צרכיה בעצמה. בתקופה הרומית והביזנטית התחולל בארץ תהליך הדרגתי של גידול דמוגרפי; אין אנו יכולים לקבוע את מספר תושבי הארץ ולא את אחוז הגידול, וגם לא את תחומיו הכרונולוגיים המדויקים, אך עצם הגידול הדמוגרפי ברור. תהליך של גידול דמוגרפי חייב להיות מלווה בצמיחה כלכלית הולמת. תהליך דומה התרחש גם במדינות מתפתחות בעידן המודרני69בוסרוף, פיתוח. , והוא התרחש בארץ ישראל. התהליך ועדויותיו נבדקו במקום אחר70ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 430-415. . נראה שהמשק בארץ הפך במידה רבה למשק פתוח. החקלאות הפכה ברוב אזורי הארץ להתמחותית; שמן ויין גודלו בעיקר לייצוא, והארץ ייצאה גם פשתן ומעט פרות נוספים. כנגד זה ייבאה הארץ דגנים ופרות מיוחדים, מתכות ומוצרים נוספים. ", + "החקלאים נאלצו למצות את מלוא הפוטנציאל החקלאי. כך מובן מדוע נוצלו אדמות בעלות איכות ירודה, ומדוע וכיצד אנו עדים לתהליך של גידול מסיבי בכפרי-בת. במקביל פותחו ענפים נוספים שנועדו לאפשר צמיחה דמוגרפית. דיון מלא בנושא מצוי מחוץ לתחום דיוננו, ולא באנו אלא להעיר על ההשפעה שיש לתהליך על החקלאות עצמה. ", + "אם כן, כלכלת הפרובינציה מגלה סימנים מובהקים של משק פתוח, ברם קשה להגדיר את רמת הפתיחות של המשק. ברור שהמשק המודרני פתוח עוד יותר, וקשה לקבוע ולכמת את שהיה בעבר. בצד סימנים למשק פתוח מצינו גם עדויות למשק סגור ובלתי מפותח. בקרב חוקרי האימפריה הרומית נחלקו הדעות באיזו מידה היה המשק הכפרי פתוח. התמונה המתקבלת מיהודה הרומית היא של משק פתוח, יותר מכפי שמצטייר במחקרים על פרובינציות כפריות אחרות. ", + "פנים הבית (תמונה 11)", + "בית המגורים עצמו היה מבנה פשוט. גם אם המבנה עצמו היה קומפלקס מורחב הרי שלרשות כל משפחה עמד שטח מגורים מצומצם. בימי בית שני הייתה החברה היהודית מאורגנת בבתי אב גדולים, לאחר החורבן התפשט בהדרגה המבנה של משפחה גרעינית, ושתי השיטות שררו במקביל. החברה המשתקפת בחוק הסורי-רומי ובמצרים, כמו גם החברה הרומית, היו מבוססות על משפחה גרעינית. במגזר החקלאי היה פנים הבית פשוט, והריהוט היה מצומצם. בבתי עשירים ניתן היה למצוא את כל הריהוט המוכר בעולם הרומי, החל ממיטות מורכבות, מיטות הסבה, שולחנות אבן מפוארים וכיוצא באלו (תמונה 14). אבל בבית של ההמון הפשוט היו אלו נדירים. בני המשפחה ישנו בלילה על מצעות, ואותם גלגלו לעת בוקר ופינו את החדר. את הסעודות סעדו בישיבה על מחצלאות, ושולחנות הגשה היו נדירים. כלי מתכת וזכוכית אף הם היו נדירים, ורוב הכלים נעשו מחרס. תרבות כלי החרס הייתה מפותחת ביותר. מהמקורות ידועים לנו 111 מונחים לכלי חרס (תמונות 13-12), חלקם קרובים ביותר זה לזה. במקרים אחדים המקורות אומרים לנו ששני כלים הם זהים, כגון כד וחבית (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ג מ\"א, וכהסבר הבבלי, שם כז ע\"א). ההבדל ביניהם היה בגודל ובדרכי השימוש בלבד. הכלים היו זולים, ורובם יוצרו בבתי המלאכה האזוריים שאחדים מוכרים לנו היטב. רוב בתי המלאכה הללו היו במגזר הכפרי בצמוד לקרקעות מתאימים, כגון כפר חנניה בגליל (תמונה 13) ובית נטיף שביהודה. כלי היבוא היו באופן טבעי נדירים יותר, מסיבות כלכליות והלכתיות כאחת. ניתן לראות כיצד ירד השימוש בכלי היבוא עם חותמות רודיות לאחר מרד החשמונאים71פינקלשטיין, חותמות. ועד מרד החורבן. צריכת כלי חרס מיובאים הייתה נדירה יחסית72ברלין, כלי חרס. . לאחר החורבן התרבו כלי היבוא, והם תופעה תדירה בכל יישובי הגליל היהודי והלא-יהודי כאחד. קשה להכריע האם מיעוט כלי יבוא נובע ממצב כלכלי, ממדיניות דתית או מתחושה לאומית. להערכתנו המרחק בין \"תחושה לאומית\" (ההסבר שנתנה ברלין לתופעה) לבין מדיניות דתית איננו גדול. ההלכה נוסחה מאותם טעמים לאומיים, והיא איננה אלא שפה ודרך לנסח את התחושה בכלים משפטיים, ובהתאם לשיח הדתי. אבחנות אלו מחייבות דיון רחב יותר שאיננו מתחומו של דיון זה. ", + "סיכום ומסקנות", + "ניסינו לתאר את אופייה של החקלאות בפרובינציית יהודה. להערכתנו לא הייתה החקלאות ביהודה שונה באופן כללי מזו של ארצות הסביבה, אם כי ניצול הקרקע היה אינטנסיבי יותר, רמת החקלאות והידע החקלאי היו גבוהים והחקלאות הייתה אינטנסיבית, זעירה, חקלאות בעל ומבוססת על עבודה עצמית. ההלכה היהודית משקפת את תנאי החקלאות, אך רק לעתים רחוקות מעצבת אותה. זיהינו השפעות דתיות מעטות בדיני כלאיים, וקצת יותר במניעת גידול חזירים, אבל באופן כללי איננו רואים הבדלים בין החקלאות במחוזות היהודיים (גליל) לבין אלו שבמחוז שומרון, או במחוז יהודה שהפך נכרי במאה השנייה. הלכות שבת השפיעו רק מעט, שכן החקלאות בארץ ישראל איננה סובלת ממחסור בימי עבודה (בכפר הערבי המסורתי עבד חקלאי כ-180 ימים בשנה). שנת השמיטה גרמה לקשיים כלכליים, אך לא השפיעה על מבנה המשק והיא גם לא נשמרה בקפדנות. ", + "החקלאות הייתה בעיקרה עיסוק גברי, ונשים עבדו בעיקר במשק העזר שהיה חשוב (בעיקר עיבוד הטקסטיל) ומעט עם הבעל בעבודות המוניות. " + ], + "Bibliography": [ + "ביבליוגרפיה וקיצורים", + "אבות דרבי נתן, מהדורת שכטר, ש\"ז, וינה, 1887.", + "אבי יונה, גיאוגרפיה היסטורית – אבי יונה, מ', תשכ\"ג, גיאוגרפיה היסטורית, ירושלים.", + "אביצור, אטלס – Avitsur, A., 1976, Man and his Work, Historical Atlas of Tools and Workshops in the Holy Land, Jerusalem.", + "אבנס, כלכלה – Evans, J.K., 1981, \"Wheat Production and its Social Consequences in the Roman World\", Catholic Quarterly 31, pp. 428-442.", + "אגדת בראשית, מהדורת ווארשה, תרל\"ו.", + "אגרת רב שרירא גאון, מהדורת לוין, ב\"מ, חיפה, תרפ\"א.", + "אדיקט המחירים של דיוקלטינוס – Lauffer, S., 1971, Diokletians Preisedikt, Berlin.", + "אדן, רוכלים – אדן ביוביץ, ד', תשמ\"ה, \"הרוכל בארץ-ישראל: המאה ה-2 עד המאה ה-4 לספירה\", בתוך: גרוס, נ' (עורך), יהודים בכלכלה, ירושלים, עמ' 85-67‬.", + "אהבת ציון וירושלים, ראטנער, ד', וילנא, תרס\"א-תרע\"ג. ", + "אהל דוד – Sasson, D.S., 1932, Ohel David I-II, London.", + "אולסון, אתינאיוס – Olson, S.D. (ed. and tr.), 2006, Athenaeus of Naucratis, The Learned", + "\t.Banqueters, Cambridge, Mass.", + "אופנהיימר, הפרשת מעשרות – אופנהיימר, א', תשל\"ח, \"הפרשת מעשר ראשון במציאות שלאחר חורבן בית שני\", סיני פג, עמ' רסז-רפז.", + "אופנהיימר, מעשרות – אופנהיימר, א', תשכ\"ט, \"הפרשת מעשר ראשון הלכה למעשה בתקופת בית שני\", בתוך: מלמד, ע\"צ (עורך), ספר זכרון לדה-פריס, ירושלים, עמ' 83-70. ", + "אופנהיימר, עם הארץ – Oppenheimer, A., 1977, The Am Haaretz, A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, Leiden.", + "אוצר הגאונים, מהדורת לוין, ב\"מ, חיפה וירושלים, תרפ\"ח-תש\"ג; מהדורת צילום, ירושלים, תשמ\"ד.", + "אור זרוע, רבי יצחק ברבי משה נ\"ע מווינה, מהדורת זיטאמיר, תרכ\"ב.", + "אור שמח, רבי מאיר שמחה הכהן, ירושלים, תשמ\"ב.", + "אורבך, גיור – אורבך, א\"א, תשל\"א, \"בחירה וגיור\", בתוך: חז\"ל פרקי אמונות ודעות, ירושלים, עמ' 494-480.", + "אורבך, סופרים – אורבך, א\"א, תשי\"ח, \"הדרשה כיסוד ההלכה ובעית הסופרים\", ספר היובל לג' שלום, ירושלים, עמ' מ-נו.", + "איזגר וסקידסגרד, חקלאות – Isager, S. and Skydsgaard, J.E., 1992, Ancient Greek Agriculture, London.", + "איילון, בית בד קטור – איילון, א', תשנ\"ח, \"בית-הבד הקטור של מערב השומרון\",‫ מחקרי יהודה ושומרון ח, עמ' 126-115‬.", + "איכה רבה, מהדורת באבער, ש', וילנא, תרנ\"ט.", + "אילן, אריסטון – Ilan, T., 1991-2, \"New Ossuary Inscription from Jerusalem\", Scripta Classica Israelica 11, pp. 139-148.", + "אלבק, מבוא – אלבק, ח', תשי\"ט, מבוא למשנה, ירושלים - תל אביב.", + "אלבק, עריכת המשנה – Albeck, Ch., 1936, Untersuchungen Ueber Die Redaction der Mischna, Berlin.", + "אלבק, פירוש – אלבק, ח', תשי\"ב, פירוש לשישה סדרי משנה, ירושלים - תל אביב.", + "אלון, מחקרים – אלון, ג', תשי\"ז-תשי\"ח, מחקרים בתולדות ישראל בימי בית שני ובתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, א-ב, ירושלים.", + "אלון, תולדות – אלון, ג', תשט\"ו, תולדות היהודים בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, תל אביב.", + "אסתר רבה, קושטא, רע\"ד או ר\"פ.", + "אפטוביצר, תדב\"ר – Aptowitzer, A., 1955, \"Seder Elia\", Jewish Studies in Memory of George Alexander Kohut, New York, pp. 5-59.", + "אפלבאום, הרקע – אפלבאום, ש', תשמ\"ג, \"הרקע והגורמים למרד בר-כוכבא\", בתוך: רפפורט, א' (עורך), יהודה ורומא, ירושלים, עמ' 218-211.", + "אפלבאום, קשתי זמאריס – Applebaum, S., 1989, \"The Troopers of Zamaris\", in: Idem, Judaea in Hallenistic and Roman Times, Leiden, pp. 47-65.", + "אפלבאום, שאלת הקרקע – אפלבאום, ש', תשכ\"ז, \"שאלת הקרקע ומרד בר-כוכבא\", ארץ ישראל ח, עמ' 287-283.", + "אפשטיין, מבוא – אפשטיין, י\"נ, תש\"ח, מבוא לנוסח המשנה, ירושלים.", + "אפשטיין, מבואות – אפשטיין, י\"נ, תשי\"ז, מבואות לספרות התנאים, ירושלים - תל אביב.", + "אפשטיין, מחקרים – אפשטיין, י\"נ, תשמ\"ד-תשנ\"א, מחקרים בספרות התלמוד ובלשנות שמית, א-ד, ירושלים.", + "ארבעה טורים, רבי יעקב ברבי אשר, מהדורת וארשה, תרמ\"ב.", + "ארליך, כל עצמותי – ארליך, א', תשנ\"ט, כל עצמתי תאמרנה, ירושלים.", + "בוסרוף, פיתוח – Boserup, E., 1965, The Conditions of Agriculture Growth, London.", + "בזק, סודות עריכה – בזק, י', תשכ\"ב, \"סוד נוסף מסודות עריכת המשנה\", סיני עה, עמ' מס-ס.", + "ביכלר, בית שמאי – ביכלר, א', 1905, \"הלכות למעשה כבית שמאי בזמן הבית ואחר החורבן\", בתוך: Krausz, S. and Weisz, M. (eds.), 1905, Emlékkönyv Bloch Mózes tiszteletére életének kilencvenedik évfordulója alkalmából kiadják tanitványai, Sefer ha Yovel Mosheh Aryeh Bloch, Budapest, pp. 21-30.", + "ביכלר, הכוהנים – ביכלר, א', תשכ\"ו, הכוהנים ועבודתם במקדש ירושלים בעשור השנים האחרון שלפני חורבן בית שני, ירושלים. ", + "ביכלר, עם הארץ – ביכלר, א', תשכ\"ד, עם הארץ הגלילי, ירושלים.", + "ביכלר, תנאים – Buechler, A., 1912, The Economic Conditions of Judaea after the Destruction of the Second Temple, London.", + "בלידשטיין, יחס לגר – בלידשטיין, י', תשמ\"ח, \"למעמדו של גר תושב במשנת הרמב\"ם: שתי הערות להלכות מלכים י, יא\"‫, סיני קא, עמ' מד-נב. ‬", + "בן דוד, בתי בד – בן דוד, ח', תשנ\"ח, \"בתי בד וייצור שמן זית ביישובי הגולן בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", עתיקות 34, עמ' 61-1.", + "בן דוד, גולן – בן דוד, ח', תשס\"ו, הישוב היהודי בגולן, קצרין.", + "בן שלום, בית שמאי – בן שלום, י', תשנ\"ד, בית שמאי ומאבק הקנאים נגד רומי, ירושלים.", + "בעל המאור על הרי\"ף, הודפס בתלמוד ש\"ס וילנא.", + "בר, יששכר – בר, מ', תשכ\"ח, \"יששכר וזבולון\", ברֿֿ־אילן ו, עמ' 180-167.", + "בר, תורה – בר, מ', תשכ\"ד, \"תורה ודרך ארץ\", ברֿֿ־אילן ב, עמ' 162-124.", + "בראודה, גיור – Braude, W.G., 1940, Jewish Proselytizing in the First Five Centuries of the Common Era. The Age of the Tannaim and Amoraim, Providence.", + "בראשית רבה, מהדורת טהעאדאר-אלבק, הוצאת צילום, ירושלים, 1965.", + "ברודי, רב נטרונאי – ראו תשובות רב נטרונאי בר הילאי גאון.", + "ברונס וזכאו, ספר החוקים – Bruns, K.G. and Sachau, E., 1880, Syrisch-Römisches Rechtsbuch aus dem Fuenften Jahrhundert, Leipzig.", + "ברוק, מעשה – Brock, S., 1973, \"An Early Syriac Document of the Life of Maximus the Confessor\", Analecta Bodeliana 91, pp. 314-315.", + "ברושי, מזון – Broshi, M., 1986, \"The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period: Introductory Notes\", Israel Museum Journal 5, pp. 41-56.", + "ברלין, כלי חרס – Berlin, A.M., 2002, \"Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee\", The First Jewish Revolt, London, pp. 57-73.", + "ברנד, בית בד – ברנד, י', תש\"ב, \"בית הבד\", סיני ו, עמ' 325-303. ", + "ברנד, כלי חרס – ברנד, י', תשי\"ג, כלי החרס בספרות התלמודית, ירושלים.", + "גודבלאט, גיור – Goodblatt, D.M., 2006, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism, Cambridge.", + "גולאק, דיני קרקעות – גולאק, א', תרפ\"ט, לחקר תולדות המשפט העברי – דיני קרקעות, ירושלים.", + "גולאק, משפט – גולאק, א', תרפ\"ב, יסודי המשפט העברי, ברלין.", + "גולאק, רועים – גולאק, א', תשמ\"א, \"על הרועים ומגדלי בהמה דקה\", תרביץ יב, עמ' 189-181.", + "גולדברג, שבת – גולדברג, א', תשל\"ו, פירוש למשנה מסכת שבת, ירושלים.", + "ג'ונס, קולונט – Jones, A.H.M., 1958, \"The Roman Colonate\", Past and Present 13, pp. 1-13.", + "גיאוניקה – (Ginzberg, L., 1968, Geonica, New york (Second Edition.", + "גיל, והרומאי אז בארץ – גיל, מ', 2008, והרומאי אז בארץ: אחד עשר פרקים בהיסטוריה של ארץ ישראל, תל אביב.", + "גינצבורג, פירושים – גינצבורג, י\"ל, תשכ\"א, פירושים וחדושים בירושלמי, א-ד, ניוארק.", + "גינצבורג, שרידי ירושלמי – גינצבורג, י\"ל, תרס\"ט, שרידי הירושלמי, נויארק.", + "ג'ירוס, היסטוריה אגררית – Jairus, B., 1999, \"Agrarian History and the Labor Organization of Byzantine Large Estates\", in: Bowman, A.K. and Rugan, E. (eds.), Agriculture in Egypt from Pharaonic to Modern Times, Oxford, pp. 193-216.", + "ג'ירוס, מטמונים – Jairus, B., 1992, Rural Communities in the Late Empire A.D. 300-700, Monetary and Economy Aspects, Ph.D. thesis, Oxford.", + "גלנט, סיכון – Gallant, T.W., 1991, Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy, Stanford.", + "גרוסמן וספראי, כפר תלת – Grossman, D. and Safrai, Z., 1980, \"Satellite Settlement in Western Samaria\", Geographical Review, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 446-461.", + "דיקשטיין, מטבח – דיקשטיין, ט', 2012, המטבח היהודי בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, עבודת דוקטור, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת־גן.", + "דלמן, טכנולוגיה – Dalman, G., 1928-1942, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina, 7 vols., Gütersloh.", + "דקדוקי סופרים – ראו רבינוביץ.", + "דר, שומרון – Dar, S., 1986, Landscape and Pattern, An Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 B.C.E. – 636 C.E., Oxford.", + "דר ואחרים, אום ריחן – דר, ש' ואחרים, תשמ\"ו, אום ריחן – עיירה מתקופת המשנה, תל אביב.", + "הודקינס, מרעה – Hodkins, S., 1988, \"Animal Husbandry in the Greek Polis\", in: Whittaker, C.B. (ed.), Pastoral Economics in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge.", + "הון עשיר, רבי עמנואל חי ריקי, אמשטרדם, תצ\"א.", + "היכלהיים, כלכלה – Heichelheim, F.M., 1938, Roman Syria, in: Frank, T. (ed.), An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 4, Baltimore.", + "הירונימוס, חיי הילריון – Hieronimus (Jerome), 1800-1875, \"Vita Hilariones\", Patroloigia Latina 23 (ed. J.P. Migne), Turnholti.", + "הירשפלד, הבית – הירשפלד, ז', תשמ\"ז, בית המגורים הארץ-ישראלי, ירושלים. ", + "הירשפלד, הכפר – Hirschfeld, Y., 1997, \"Farms and Villages in Byzantine Palestine\", Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51, pp. 33-72.", + "הלכות גדולות, מהדורת הילדסהיימר, ע', ירושלים, תשל\"ב.", + "הלכות פסוקות מן הגאונים, מהדורת מילר, י', קראקא, תרנ\"ג.", + "הלכות קצובות, מהדורת מרגליות, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ך.", + "הנשקה, קדושת ירושלים – הנשקה, ד', תשנ\"ח, \"קדושת ירושלים: בין חז\"ל להלכה הכתתית\", תרביץ סז, עמ' 28-5.", + "הסיכיוס, מילון – Hesychius of Milena, 1874-1875, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (ed. C. Müller), Paris, vol. iv, pp. 145-177.", + "וובוס, חוק – Vööbus, A. (ed.), 1982, The Syro-Roman Lawbook, Stockholm.", + "וויטקר, מרעה – Whittaker, C.R. (ed.), 1988, Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge.", + "וולס-הדריל, פטרונז' – Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.), 1990, Patronage in Ancient Society, London.", + "וילד, טקסטיל – Wild, J.P., 1970, Textile Manufacture in the Northern Roman Provinces, Cambridge.", + "וינר וספראי, מטמונים – Waner, M. and Safrai, Z., 2001, \"Shelf Life of Coins in Palestine Hoards during the Roman and Byzantine Periods\", Liber Annuus 51, pp. 305-336.", + "וינר וספראי, מטמונים ומרידות – וינר, מ' וספראי, ז', תשס\"ב, \"מטמונים ומרידות – התפלגות מועדי ההטמנה של מטמוני המטבעות בארץ ישראל בתקופה הרומית-ביזנטית\", קתדרה 101, עמ' 90-71.", + "זוסמן, ברייתת התחומים – זוסמן, י', תשל\"ו, \"ברייתא דתחומי ארץ ישראל\", תרביץ מה, עמ' 257-213.", + "זוסמן, כתובת – זוסמן, י', תשל\"ד, \"כתובת הלכתית מעמק בית שאן – סקירה מוקדמת\", תרביץ מג, עמ' 158-88.", + "זיסו וגנור, חורבת עתרי – זיסו, ב' וגנור, א', 2001, חפירות ארכיאולוגיות בחורבת עתרי, ירושלים.", + "זק\"ש, משנה – זק\"ש, נ' (עורך), תשל\"ב, משנה זרעים (עם שינויי נוסחאות), ירושלים.", + "חדושי הר\"ן על מסכתות מגילה ומועד קטן, ירושלים, תשכ\"ו. ", + "חילופי מנהגים – מהדורת ב\"מ לוין, אוצר חילוף מנהגים בין בני ארץ ישראל ובני בבל, בני ברק, תשמ\"ז; מהדורת מרגליות, החילוקים שבין אנשי ארץ-ישראל ואנשי בבל, ירושלים, תרצ\"ח. ", + "חמדה גנוזה, מהדורת שניאורזאהן, ש\"ז, ירושלים, תרכ\"ג.", + "חסדי דוד, ר' דוד פארדו, ליוורנו, 1776.", + "טור שלחן ערוך – ראו ארבעה טורים.", + "טפר, יונים – טפר, י', תשמ\"ו, \"עלייתו ושקיעתו של ענף גידול היונים בארץ\", בתוך: אופנהיימר, א' ואחרים (עורכים), אדם ואדמה בארץ-ישראל הקדומה, ירושלים, עמ' 196-170.", + "טפר ושחר, שם טוב – טפר, י' ושחר, י', 1987, \"המסתור בשם טוב\", בתוך: קלונר, ע' וטפר, י' (עורכים), מערכות המסתור בשפלת יהודה, תל אביב, עמ' 236-226.", + "יוסף בן אפרים קרו – בית יוסף, בתוך: ארבעה טורים. ", + "ילקוט המכירי, ישעיהו משלי, מהדורת כהנא שפירא, י\"ז, ירושלים, תשכ\"ד.", + "ילקוט המכירי, תהילים, מהדורת בובר, ש', ירושלים, תשכ\"ד.", + "ילקוט המכירי, תרי עשר, מהדורת גראינוף, א', לונדון, 1909.", + "ילקוט שמעוני, מהדורת שילוני, י', ירושלים, תשל\"ג ואילך.", + "ירדני, תעודות – ירדני, ע', 2000, אוסף תעודות ארמיות, עבריות ונבטיות ממדבר יהודה וחומר קרוב, ירושלים.", + "יתרון האור, פערלמן, ר' יי\"ל, הודפס במשניות מהדורת וילנא.", + "כהן, גיור – Cohen, S.J.D., 1990, \"The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony\", JJS 41, pp. 177-203.", + "כהן, קשתי זמאריס – Cohen, G.M., 1972, \"The Hellenistic Military Colony: A Herodian Example\", TAPA 103, pp. 93-96.", + "כהן, שלושה כתרים – Cohen, S.A., 1990, The Three Crowns: Structures of Communal Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry, Cambridge.", + "כהנא, ספרי זוטא – כהנא, מ\"י, תשס\"ג, ספרי זוטא דברים, מובאות ממדרש תנאי חדש, ירושלים.", + "כסלו, יתיר – Kislev, M.A., 1986, \"A Barley Store of the Bar-Kochba Rebels (Roman Period)\", Israel Journal of Botany 35, pp. 183-196.", + "כסלו, כוי – כסלו, מ\"א, תשנ\"ז, \"כשרותו של בעל-חיים מיובא\", תחומין יז, עמ' 432-415.", + "כסלו, מערת אביאור – Kislev, M.A., 1992, \"Vegetal Food of Bar Kokhba Rebels at Abi’or Cave near Jericho\", Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73, pp. 153-160.", + "כסלו, מצבור – Kislev, M.A., 2003, \"Cereals and Fruits from a Collapsed Cave South of Khirbet Qumran\", Israel Exploration Journal 53, pp. 74-77.", + " כסלו, מצודת יתיר – כסלו, מ', 1987, \"מצבור של שעורים מאתר נחל-יתיר\", בתוך: קלונר, ע' וטפר, י' (עורכים), מערכות-המסתור בשפלת יהודה, תל אביב, עמ' 394-283. ", + "כסלו, שחמתית – כסלו, מ', תשל\"ט, \"לזיהוי 'חטה שחמתית' ו'חטה לבנה' בדברי חז\"ל\", סיני פד, עמ' רמא-רמד.", + "כסלו, שיבולת השועל – כסלו, מ', תשנ\"ג, \"לזיהוי שיבולת השועל\", בתוך: ורהפטיג, א' (עורך), ספר היובל מנחה לאי\"ש (אברהם ישעיהו דולגין), ירושלים, עמ' 170-155; 185-179.", + "כסלו ומרמורשטיין, רקית – Kislev, M.A. and Marmorstein, M., 2004, \"Seed and Fruit Remains from Hurvat Raqit\", in: Dar, S. (ed.), Raqit: Marinus’s Estate on the Carmel, Israel, Oxford, pp. 299-302.", + "כסלו ושמחוני, מזון – כסלו, מ' ושמחוני, א', תש\"ע, \"מזונם של שוכני מערת הר-ישי\", בתוך: אשל, ח' ופורת, ר' (עורכים), מערות המפלט מתקופת מרד בר-כוכבא, ירושלים, עמ' 253-129.", + "כסלו ושמחוני, עדות – כסלו, מ' ושמחוני, א', תש\"ע, \"עדות בוטנית להגעתם של פליטים מיהודה למערות המפלט בנחל ערוגות בסתיו של שנת 135 לספירה\", בתוך: אשל, ח' ופורת, ר' (עורכים), מערות המפלט מתקופת מרד בר-כוכבא, ירושלים, עמ' 306-298.", + "לאו, פלורה – Löw, I., 1967, Die Flora der Juden, 4 vols., Hildesheim.", + "לוי, מילון – Levy, J., 1924, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, Vienna.", + "לחם שמים, רבנו יעב\"ץ, מהדורת קליין, י\"ד, ירושלים, תשי\"ח.", + "ליברמן, יוונית ויוונות – ליברמן, ש', תשכ\"ג (תשמ\"ד), יוונית ויוונות בארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "ליברמן, ירושלמי – ליברמן, ש', תשנ\"ה, ירושלמי כפשוטו, ניו יורק - ירושלים.", + "ליברמן, מחקרים – ליברמן, ש', תשנ\"א, מחקרים בתורת ארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "ליברמן, תוספת ראשונים – ליברמן, ש', תשנ\"ט, תוספת ראשונים, ירושלים וניו יורק.", + "ליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה – ליברמן, ש', תשט\"ו-תשמ\"ח, תוספתא כפשוטה, ניוארק.", + "ליכטנשטיין, מגילת תענית – Lichtenstein, H., 1931-2, \"Die Fastenrolle Eine Untersuchung zur Judisch-Hellenistechen Geschichte\", HUCA VIII-IX, pp. 257-351.", + "לפין, חקלאות – Lapin, H., 2001, Economy, Geography and Provincial History in Later Roman Palestine, Tuebingen.", + "לקוטי הרמב\"ן למסכת תענית לתלמיד מתלמידי הרמב\"ן, שאלוניקי, תק\"ל.", + "מאירסון, עזה – Mayerson, P., 1992, \"The Gaza 'Wine' Jar (Gazition) and the 'Lost' Ashkelon Jar (Askalônion)\", Israel Exploration Journal 42, pp. 76-80.", + "מגיד משנה, הודפס על גיליון משנה תורה לרמב\"ם, מהדורת תל אביב, 1959.", + "מגילות מדבר יהודה – DJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert, 1953-2010, in: Balliet, M. et al. (eds.), Oxford.", + "מגילת המקדש – ידין, י', תשל\"ז, מגילת המקדש, ירושלים.", + "מגילת תענית – ראו ליכטנשטיין, מגילת תענית; נעם, מגילת תענית.", + "מגן ואחרים, ארץ בנימין – Magen, Y. et al., 1995, The Land of Benjamin, Jerusalem.", + "מדרש משלי, בתוך: מדרש שוחר טוב, מהדורת כהן, י', ירושלים, תשכ\"ח.", + "מדרש שמואל, בתוך: מדרש שוחר טוב, מהדורת כהן, י', ירושלים, תשכ\"ח.", + "מדרש תהילים (שוחר טוב), מהדורת בובר, ש', וילנא, תרנ\"א.", + "מדרש תנאים לדברים, מהדורת הופמן, ד\"צ, ברלין, 1909-1908.", + "מדרש תנחומא, קושטא, רפ\"ב ומנטובה, שכ\"ג.", + "מדרש תנחומא-בובר, מהדורת בובר, ש', וילנא, תרמ\"ה.", + "מור, מרד איכרים – מור, מ', תשמ\"ו, \"מרד בר-כוכבא – האם היה מרד איכרים\", בתוך: אופנהיימר, א' ואחרים (עורכים), אדם ואדמה בארץ-ישראל הקדומה, ירושלים, עמ' 116-95.", + "מזר, דבורים – מזר, ע', תשס\"ט, \"המכוורת מתקופת הברזל בתל רחוב: התגלית ומשמעותה\",‫ קדמוניות 136, עמ' 90-83.‬", + "מזר, הרקם – מזר, ב', תשי\"א, \"הרקם והחגר\", תרביץ כ, עמ' 319-316.", + "מחזור ויטרי לרבנו שמחה, הורביץ, ש', נירנברג, תרפ\"ג; ד\"צ, ניו יורק, תש\"ך.", + "מטינגלי, בית הבד – Mattingly, D.J., 1985, \"Olive Oil Production in Roman Tripolitania\", in: Idem, Town and Country in Roman Tripolitania, pp. 27-46.", + "מילון בן יהודה – בן יהודה, א', 1959, מילון הלשון העברית, ירושלים - תל אביב. ", + "מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, מהדורת האראוויטץ, ח\"ש ורבין, י\"א, ירושלים, תש\"ל.", + "מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, מהדורת אפשטיין, י\"נ ומלמד, ע\"צ, ירושלים, תשט\"ו. ", + "מלאכת שלמה, פירוש למשנה לר' שלמה עדני, הודפס בתוך משניות יכין ובועז, ירושלים, תשט\"ז.", + "מלחמות היהודים, יוספוס פלביוס, מהדורת שליט, א', ירושלים - תל אביב, תשכ\"ז.", + "מסכת כלה, מהדורת היגער, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ל.", + "מסכת סופרים, מהדורת היגער, מ', ניו יורק, תרצ\"ד.", + "מסכתות זעירות, מהדורת היגער, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ל.", + "מרגליות, החילוקים – מרגליות, מ', תרצ\"ח, החילוקים שבין אנשי ארץ-ישראל ואנשי בבל, ירושלים. ", + "מרגליות, הלכות ארץ-ישראל – מרגליות, מ', תשל\"ד, הלכות ארץ-ישראל מן הגניזה, ירושלים.", + "משנה שלמה, מהדורת ורטהימר, ש\"א, ירושלים, תשנ\"ב.", + "נוה, אנשים ללא שם – נוה, י', תשמ\"ט, \"אנשים ללא שמות?\", ציון נד, עמ' 16-1.", + "נוה, על פסיפס – נוה, א', תשל\"ח, על פסיפס ואבן, תל אביב.", + "ניב, פגעים – ניב, ד', תשנ\"ב, פגעים בגידולים חקלאיים והדברתם בארץ-ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, עבודת דוקטור, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת־גן. ", + "ניומן, מעשים – ניומן, ה', תשמ\"ז, המעשים לבני ארץ-ישראל ורקעם ההיסטורי, עבודה לתואר שני, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים. ", + "נעם, מגילת תענית – נעם, ו', תשס\"ד, מגילת תענית – הנוסחים, פשרם ותולדותיהם, ירושלים.", + "סדר עולם רבה, מהדורת רטנר, ב', ניו יורק, תשכ\"ו.", + "סדר רב עמרם גאון, מהדורת גולדשמידט, ד', ירושלים, תשל\"ב.", + "סוזומנוס, היסטוריה כנסייתית – Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 1891, Hartranft, C.D. (tr.), in: Wace, H. and Shaff, P. (eds.), A Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, New Series, 2, Oxford; Idem, 1960, Historia Ecclesiastica, Bidez, J. and Hanson, G.C. (eds.), Gr. Schr. 50. ", + "סוקולוף, מילון – Sokoloff, M., 1990, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Ramat Gan.", + "סטרבון, גאוגרפיה – Strabo, 1959-1961, The Geography of Strabo, Jones, H.L. (tr.), (Loeb), London.", + "סירליאון (שירליאון, סיריליאו) רבינו שלמה, תלמוד ירושלמי סדר זרעים, מהדורת הלוי, ח\"י, ירושלים, תשי\"ד-תשכ\"ז.", + "ספר האשכול, מהדורת אלבק, ח', ירושלים, תשד\"ם; מהדורת אויערבך, צ\"ב, האלברשטאט, תרכ\"ו. ", + "ספר הישר, רבנו תם, מהדורת דן, י', מבוססת על הדפוס הראשון, ונציה, שפ\"ה, ירושלים, תשמ\"ו; מהדורת ראזענטהאל, ש\"פ, ד\"צ, ירושלים, תשנ\"ג.", + "ספר המקצועות, מהדורת אסף, ש', ירושלים, תש\"ז.", + "ספר העתים, יהודה בן ברזילי הברצלוני, מהדורת זלוטניק, י\"ל, ירושלים, תש\"ה.", + "ספר הפרדס, מהדורת עהרענרייך, ח\"י, ניו יורק, תשי\"ט.", + "ספר הרוקח, ר' אליעזר מגרמייזא, קרימונה, שי\"ז.", + "ספר יראים השלם, רבי אליעזר ממיץ, מהדורת גולדבלום-שיף, וילנא, תרנ\"ב-תרס\"ב; ד\"צ, ירושלים, תשנ\"ה. ", + "ספר ערוגת הבושם, ר' אברהם ב\"ר עזריאל, מהדורת אורבך, א\"א, ירושלים, תרצ\"ח ואילך.", + "ספר פתרון תורה, (המחבר אינו ידוע), מהדורת אורבך, א\"א, ירושלים, תשל\"ח.", + "ספר ראבי\"ה, ר' אליעזר בר' יואל הלוי, מהדורת אפטוביצר, א', ירושלים, תשכ\"ד.", + "ספר שני לוחות הברית, ר' ישעיה הורוויץ, פיורדא, תקכ\"ד.", + "ספראי, בימי הבית – ספראי, ש', תשנ\"ד, בימי הבית ובימי המשנה, א-ב, ירושלים.", + "ספראי, דבש – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ח, \"גידול דבורים ותעשית הדבש בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", ישראל עם וארץ ד, עמ' 224-211.", + "ספראי, הכלכלה – Safrai, Z., 1994, The Economy of Roman Palestine, London.", + "ספראי, הכפר – ספראי, ז', תשנ\"ז, \"הכפר ביהודה\", בתוך: דר, ש' וספראי, ז' (עורכים), הכפר הקדום בארץ-ישראל, תל אביב, עמ' 74-11.", + "ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל – ספראי, ש', תשנ\"ד, \"הכרעה כבית הלל\", בתוך: ספראי, בימי הבית, א, עמ' 405-382.", + "ספראי, הלכה למשה מסיני – ספראי, ש', תש\"ן, \"הלכה למשה מסיני, היסטוריה או תיאולוגיה?\", בתוך: זוסמן, י' ורוזנטל, ד' (עורכים), מחקרי תלמוד, ירושלים, עמ' 38-11 (= בימי הבית, עמ' 578-548).", + "ספראי, המאה שנעלמה – Safrai, Z., 1998, The Missing Century, Leuven.", + "ספראי, המבנה האגררי – Safrai, Z., 2003, \"The Agrarian Structure in the Time of the Second Temple, Mishnah, and Talmud\", in: Maeir, A.M., Dar, S. and Safrai, Z. (eds.), The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, Oxford, pp.105-126.", + "ספראי, העליה לרגל – ספראי, ש', תשכ\"ה, העליה לרגל בימי הבית השני, ירושלים.", + "ספראי, הקהילה – ספראי, ז', תשנ\"ה, הקהילה היהודית ומוסדותיה, ירושלים.", + "ספראי, יוספוס – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ג, \"תיאור ארץ ישראל לפי יוסף בן מתתיהו\", בתוך: רפפורט, א' (עורך), יוסף בן מתתיהו, ירושלים, עמ' 116-91.", + "ספראי, מבני השדה – ספראי, ז', תשנ\"ט, \"מבני השדה הקדומים – הכפר בארץ-ישראל הרומית\", קתדרה 89, עמ' 40-7.", + "ספראי, נשים בבית המקדש – Safrai, C., 1991, Women and Temple, Dissertation, KTU, Amsterdam.", + "ספראי, נשים במצוות עשה – ספראי, ש', תשנ\"ה, \"מחויבותן של נשים במצוות במשנתם של תנאים\", בתוך: שטיינפלד, צ\"א (עורך), בר-אילן כה-כו, עמ' 237-227.", + "ספראי, סיקריקון – ספראי, ש', תשנ\"ד, \"סיקריקון\", בתוך: ספראי, בימי הבית, א, עמ' 267-259.", + "ספראי, ענב אל כביר – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ה-תשמ\"ו, \"ענב א-כביר – חקלאות ומרעה בסביבות הכפר בתקופה הרומית ביזאנטית\", ישראל – עם וארץ ב-ג, עמ' 128-119.", + "ספראי, פרקי גליל – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ה, פרקי גליל, ירושלים. ", + "ספראי, פשתן – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ח, \"תעשיית הפשתן בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", בתוך: בונימוביץ, ש' ואחרים (עורכים), ישובים, אוכלוסיה וכלכלה בארץ ישראל בעת העתיקה, תל אביב, עמ' 241-205.", + "ספראי, קדושת ירושלים – ספראי, ז', תשנ\"ט, קדושת ירושלים החרבה, רמת־גן (סדרת פרסומי מרכז רננרט).", + "ספראי, שפלת השומרון – ספראי, ז', 1995, \"שפלת השומרון בתקופה הביזאנטית\", מחקרי יהודה ושומרון, דברי הכנס הרביעי תשנ\"ד 1994, עמ' 208-189.", + "ספראי ולין, גבע א – ספראי, ז' ולין, מ', תשמ\"ח, \"המבנה הכלכלי של גבע\", בתוך: מזר, ב' (עורך), גבע – חפירות במשמר העמק, ירושלים, עמ' 166-120.", + "ספראי ולין, גבע ב – ספראי, ז' ולין, מ', תשמ\"ח, \"חפירות וסקרים באיזור משמר העמק\", בתוך: מזר, ב' (עורך), גבע – חפירות במשמר העמק, ירושלים, עמ' 214-167.", + "ספראי וספראי, בית ענת – ספראי, ש' וספראי, ז', תשל\"ו, \"בית ענת\", סיני עח, עמ' יח-לח.", + "ספראי וספראי, הגדת חז\"ל – ספראי, ש' וספראי, ז', תשנ\"ח, הגדת חז\"ל, ירושלים. ", + "ספרי במדבר, מהדורת האראוויטץ, ח\"ש, לייפציג, תרע\"ז.", + "ספרי דברים, מהדורת פינקלשטין, א\"א, ברלין, ת\"ש. ", + "ספרי זוטא, מהדורת האראוויטץ, ח\"ש, לייפציג, תרע\"ז.", + "ספרים חיצוניים, מהדורת כהנא, א', ירושלים, תש\"ל. ", + "עיטם, בורגול – עיטם, ד', תשנ\"ו, \" 'רחים של גרוסות' – מתקן לייצור גריסים מהתקופות הרומית והביזנטית בארץ-ישראל\", ‫ מחקרי יהודה ושומרון ו, עמ' 202-191.", + "עמית, מפעלי מים – עמית, ד', 1988, \"מפעלי מים קדומים בדרום השפלה\", בתוך: אורמן, ד' ושטרן, א' (עורכים), אדם וסביבה בדרום השפלה, מחקרים בגיאוגרפיה והיסטוריה אזורית, תל אביב, עמ' 186-180.", + "ערוך השלם, רבי נתן ברבי יחיאל מרומי, מהדורת קאהוט, ח\"י, תל אביב, תש\"ל. ", + "פאוזניאס, יון – Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio, 1977, Jones, W.H.S. (rtr.), (Loeb), London.", + "פורבס, אתנוארכאולוגיה – Forbs, H., 1992, \"Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Ancient Greek Agriculture: Olive Cultivation as a Case Study\" in: Wells, B. (ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece, Stockholm, pp. 87-104.", + "פורת, לשון חכמים – פורת, א', תש\"ל, לשון חכמים: לפי מסורות שבכתבי יד ישנים, ירושלים.", + "פטרוס האיברי – Raabe, R., 1895, Petrus der Iberer, Leipzig.", + "פינקלשטיין, חותמות – Finkielsztejn, G., 1999, \"Hellenistic Jerusalem: The Evidence of the Rhodian Amphora Stamps\", New Studies on Jerusalem 5, pp. 21-36.", + "פינקלשטין, הגיור – פינקלשטין, מ', תשנ\"ד, הגיור – הלכה ומעשה, רמת־גן. ", + "פירוש הגאונים לסדר טהרות, מהדורת אפשטיין, י\"נ, ברלין, תרפ\"א-תרפ\"ד.", + "פירוש רבינו עובדיה מברטנורא, נדפס במשניות דפוס וילנא, דפוס צילום, תשל\"ד. ", + "פלדיוס, היסטוריה – Palladius, 1904, The Lausiac History, Butler, C. (ed.), Cambridge.", + "פליניוס, היסטוריה של הטבע – Plinii, 1969, Naturalis Historia, Rackham, H. (ed.), London.", + "פליקס, דגנים – פליקס, י', תש\"ן, החקלאות בארץ-ישראל בימי המקרא המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים.", + "פליקס, האורז – פליקס, י', תשכ\"ג, \"האורז בספרות חז\"ל\", בר-אילן א, עמ' 189-177.", + "פליקס, החי והצומח – פליקס, י', תשמ\"ג, החי והצומח במשנה, ירושלים.", + "פליקס, החקלאות – פליקס, י', תש\"ן, החקלאות בארץ-ישראל בימי המקרא המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים.", + "פליקס, הצומח – פליקס, י', 1968, עולם הצומח המקראי, רמת־גן.", + "פליקס, זרעים – פליקס, י', תשל\"ד, \"פרק זרעים\", בתוך: מרגליות, מ' (עורך), הלכות ארץ ישראל, ירושלים, עמ' קצא-קצח. ", + "פליקס, כלאים – פליקס, י', תשכ\"ז, כלאי זרעים והרכבה, תל אביב. ", + "פליקס, מעשרות – פליקס, י', תשס\"ו, תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת מעשרות, רמת־גן.", + "פליקס, עולם הצומח – פליקס, י', 1976, עולם הצומח המקראי, רמת־גן.", + "פליקס, עצי בשמים – פליקס, י', תשנ\"ז, עצי בשמים יער ונוי – צמחי התנ\"ך וחז\"ל, ירושלים. ", + "פליקס, עצי פרי – פליקס, י', תשנ\"ד, עצי פרי למיניהם, ירושלים.", + "פליקס, שביעית – פליקס, י', תש\"מ-תשמ\"ז, תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת שביעית א-ב, ירושלים.", + "פסטור, קרקע – Pastor, J., 1997, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine, London.", + "פסיקתא דרב כהנא, מהדורת מנדלבוים, ד', ניו יורק, תשכ\"ב.", + "פסיקתא זוטרתי (לקח טוב), מהדורת בובר, ש', וילנא, תרמ\"ד. ", + "פסיקתא רבתי, מהדורת איש שלום, מ', וינה, תר\"מ.", + "פריין, חקלאות – Frayn, J.M., 1979, Subsistence Farming in Roman Italy, London.", + "פריס וניקסון, טרסות – Price, S. and Nixon, L., 2005, \"Ancient Agricultural Terraces: Evidence from Texts and Archaeological Survey\", American Journal of Archaeology 109, pp. 694-665.", + "פרנקל, בתי בד – פרנקל, ר', 1984, ההיסטוריה של עיבוד יין ושמן בגליל בתקופת המקרא המשנה והתלמוד, עבודת דוקטור, אוניברסיטת תל אביב, תל אביב. ", + "פרנקל, מכבש היין – פרנקל, ר', תשנ\"ז, \"מכבש היין של ארץ-ישראל וסביבותיה בתקופה הביזנטית\", בתוך: דר, ש' וספראי, ז' (עורכים), הכפר הקדום בארץ ישראל, תל אביב, עמ' 207-193.", + "פרנקל ואחרים, גליל עליון – Frankel, R. et al., 2001, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee, IAA 14, Jerusalem.", + "פרנקל ואחרים, יין ושמן – Frankel, R., Avitsur, S. and Ayalon, A., 1994, History and Technology of Olive Oil in the Holy Land, Tel Aviv.", + "פרנקל ופינקלשטיין, מקצוע – פרנקל, ר' ופינקלשטיין, י', תשמ\"א, \"מקצוע צפונית מערבית של ארץ-ישראל בברייתא התחומין\", קתדרה 10, עמ' 10-3.", + "פרקר, ציבענים – פרקר, ר', תשנ\"ג, ציבענים מהצומח ומתקני תעשיה לצביעת אריגים באגן המזרחי של הים התיכון בתקופה ההלניסטית, הרומית והביזנטית, עבודה לתואר שני, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת־גן.", + "צוקר, רב סעדיה גאון – צוקר, מ', תשי\"ט, על תרגום רס\"ג לתורה: פרשנות, הלכה ופולמיקה בתרגום התורה של ר' סעדיה גאון, ניו יורק.", + "צ'יזהולם, כפר חקלאי – Chisholm, A., 1979, Rural Settlement and Land Use, London.", + "צפריר ואחרים, טבולה – Tsafrir, Y. et al., 1994, Tabula Imperii Romani Iudaea-Palestina: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods; Maps and Gazetteer, Jerusalem.", + "צ'ריקובר, פפירוסי זנון – צ'ריקובר, א', תרצ\"ג, \"ארץ ישראל לאור הפפירוסים של זנון\", תרביץ ד, עמ' 82-33.", + "קדמוניות היהודים, יוספוס פלביוס, מהדורת שליט, א', ירושלים - תל אביב, תשכ\"ז.", + "קדמוניות המקרא, הספרים החיצוניים, מהדורת הרטום, א\"ש, תל אביב, תשכ\"ט.", + "קודקס תיאודוסינוס – Pharr, C., 1969, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sir-mondain Constitutions, New York.", + "קול הרמ\"ז, פירוש הרמ\"ז על המשניות (ר' משה זכותא), ירושלים, תשנ\"ט. ", + "קינגסלי, שמן – Kingsley, S.A., 1999, Specialized Production and Long-Distance Trade in Byzantine Palestine, Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University.", + "קליין, חלוקה – קליין, ש', תרפ\"ג, \"חלוקת יהודה והגליל\", ספר השנה של ארץ ישראל, א, עמ' 41-24.", + "קליין, ספר הישוב – קליין, ש', תרצ\"ט, ספר הישוב, תל אביב.", + "קליין, תיאור – קליין, ש', תרצ\"ח, \"פרק בחקירת ארץ ישראל\", בתוך: אפשטיין, י\"נ ואחרים (עורכים), ספר מגנס – קובץ מחקרים מאת אנשי האוניברסיטה, ירושלים, עמ' 223-216.", + "רבינוביץ, דקדוקי סופרים – רבינוביץ, רנ\"נ, תש\"כ, דקדוקי סופרים, ירושלים.", + "רבינוביץ, שערי תורת ארץ ישראל – רבינוביץ, ז\"ו, ת\"ש, שערי תורת ארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "רבינוביץ, שערי תורת בבל – רבינוביץ, ז\"ו, תשכ\"א, שערי תורת בבל, ירושלים.", + "רבן, סקר נהלל – רבן, א', תשמ\"ג, סקר ארכיאולוגי של ישראל, מפת נהלל (28), ירושלים.", + "רגב, צדוקים – רגב, א', תשס\"ה, הצדוקים והלכתם על דת וחברה בימי בית שני, ירושלים.", + "רוולנדסון, בעלי קרקע – Rowlandson, J., 1996, Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt, The Social Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome, Oxford.", + "רות רבה, מהדורת לרנר, מ\"ב, תשל\"א, עבודת דוקטור, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים.", + "ריטב\"א, חדושים למסכת שבת, מהדורת גולדשטיין, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ן.", + "ר\"ן בפירושו לרי\"ף, הודפס בתלמוד ש\"ס וילנא.", + "רשב\"א, חדושים למסכת מגילה, מהדורת דימיטרובסקי, ח\"ז, נויארק, תשט\"ז.", + "שאגת אריה, שו\"ת אריה בן אשר ממץ, ירושלים, תש\"ך.", + "שאילתות דרב אחאי גאון, מהדורת מירסקי, א', ירושלים, תשכ\"א-תשל\"ז.", + "שבלי הלקט, מהדורת באבר, ש', וילנא, תרמ\"ו.", + "שגיא וזוהר, גיור – שגיא, א' וזהר, צ', 1997, גיור וזהות יהודית: עיון ביסודות ההלכה, ירושלים.", + "שגיב, עבר הירדן – שגיב, נ', תשס\"ד, היישוב היהודי בעבר הירדן בתקופות ההלניסטית והרומית: הנתונים ההסטוריים והממצא הארכיאולוגי, עבודת דוקטור, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת־גן.", + "שדה, זואוארכאולוגיה – Sadeh, M., 2007, \"Archaeozoological Finds from En-Gedi\", in: Hirschfeld, Y. (ed.), En-Gedi Excavations II, Final Report (1996-2002), Jerusalem, pp. 604-612.", + "שובה, כתובות – שובה, מ', 1967, \"טבריה לאור הכתובות\", בתוך: הירשברג, ח\"ש (עורך), כל ארץ נפתלי, ירושלים, עמ' 191-180.", + "שוורץ, יהודה – שוורץ, י', תשמ\"ו, היישוב היהודי ביהודה מלאחר מרד בר-כוכבא ועד הכיבוש הערבי, ירושלים.", + "שוורץ, כלבים – Schwartz, J.J., 2000, \"Dogs and Cats in Jewish Society in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods\", WCJS 12, pp. 25-34 (הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות).", + "שטינפלד, פת גויים – שטינפלד, צ\"א, תשנ\"ה, \"להיתר פת של גויים\", בר-אילן כו-כז, עמ' 341-321.", + "שיפמן, ירושלים – Schiffman, L.H., 1996, \"Jerusalem in the Dead Sea Scrolls\", in: Poorthuis, M. and Safrai, CH. (eds.), The Centrality of Jerusalem, Den Haag, pp. 73-86.", + "שכטר, קטעי גניזה – Schechter, S., 1898, \"Genizah Fragments\", JQR X, p. 636.", + "שמש, צמחים – שמש, א\"א, תשנ\"ט, ברכות הנהנים על הצומח ומוצריו בהלכה ובמנהג מהמאה ה-16 ועד לזמננו, עבודת דוקטור, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת־גן.", + "שעפטיל, ערך מלין – שעפטיל, ח\"י, תרס\"ז, ערך מלין, ברדיטשוב.", + "שערי צדק, מהדורת מודעי, נ', שאלוניקי, תקנ\"ב.", + "שערי תשובה, מהדורת הירש, י\"מ, לייפציג, תרפ\"ח. ", + "שפור, דגנים – Spurr, M.S., 1986, \"Arable Cultivation in Roman Italy, C. 200 BC – C. AD 100\", Journal of Roman Studies Monograph 3, London.", + "שפנייר וששון, סיד – שפנייר, י' וששון, א', תשס\"א, כבשני סיד בארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "שפרבר, הקרקע – Sperber, D., 1978, Roman Palestine 200-400: The Land, Crisis and Change in Agrarian Society as Reflected in Rabbinic Sources, Ramat Gan.", + "שפרבר, מחירים – Sperber, D., 1974, Roman Palestine 200-400: Money and Prices, Ramat Gan.", + "שרידי ירושלמי – ראו גינצבורג, שרידי ירושלמי.", + "תוספות יום טוב, נדפס במשניות דפוס וילנא, ד\"צ תשל\"ד, ובמהדורות רבות נוספות.", + "תוספות רי\"ד, מהדורת נטאנאהן, יש\"ה, ירושלים, תשל\"ד. ", + "תורתן של ראשונים, מהדורת הורוויץ, ח\"מ, פראנקפורט ע\"מ, תרמ\"ב.", + "תיאור ערי העולם – Rouge, J. (ed.), 1966, Expositio Totius Mundi et Gentium, Paris.", + "תנא דבי אליהו, מהדורת איש שלום, מ', וינה, 1904.", + "תניא רבתי, מהדורת הורביץ, ש', וארשה, 1879.", + "תרגום השבעים – Rahlfs, H. (ed.), Septuaginta, 1935, Stuttgart.", + "תרגום יונתן לנביאים, מהדורת רידר, מ', ירושלים, תשמ\"ד; מהדורת גינזבורגר, מ', ברלין, תרס\"ב. ", + "תרגום יונתן לנביאים, מהדורת שפרבר, א', ליידן, 1959 ואילך; לנביאים וכתובים: כתבי הקדש בארמית, ליידן.", + "תרגום ניאופיטי – Diez-Macho, A., 1968-1979, Targum Palestinese I-IV, Madrid.", + "תשובות אנשי ארץ-ישראל – בתוך: לוין, ב\"מ (עורך), תר\"צ, גנזי קדם, מאסף מדעי לתקופת הגאונים וספרותם, ד, חיפה, עמ' 50.", + "תשובות גאונים מזרח ומערב, מילר, י', ברלין, תרמ\"ח.", + "תשובות גאונים קדמונים, קאסעל, ד', ברלין, תר\"ח.", + "תשובות הגאונים אסף – אסף, ש', תרפ\"ט, תשובות הגאונים, ירושלים.", + "תשובות הגאונים החדשות – עמנואל, ש', תשנ\"ה, תשובות הגאונים החדשות, ירושלים.", + "תשובות הגאונים הקצרות – רבינוביץ, מ\"א, תש\"כ, שאלות ותשובות הגאונים, ירושלים.", + "תשובות הגאונים הרכבי – הרכבי, א\"א, תרמ\"ז, זכרון לראשונים וגם לאחרונים, ברלין.", + "תשובות הגאונים מוסאפיה – מוסאפיה, י', תרכ\"ד, תשובות הגאונים, ליק.", + "תשובות הגאונים קורונל – קורונל, נ\"נ, תרל\"א, תשובות הגאונים, וויען.", + "תשובות הגאונים שערי צדק – ראו שערי צדק.", + "תשובות הרמב\"ם, מהדורת בלאו, י', א-ד, ירושלים, תשי\"ח-תשמ\"ו.", + "תשובות מהרי\"ץ גיאת, הוצאת באמבערגער, פירטה, תרכ\"א-תרכ\"ה.", + "תשובות רב נטרונאי בר הילאי גאון, מהדורת ברודי, י', ירושלים, תשנ\"ד.", + "תשובות רב שר שלום, מהדורת וינברג, ר\"ש, ירושלים, תשל\"ו." + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Seder Zeraim, Tel Aviv, 2008-2016", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002609942/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה חלה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael", + "Seder Zeraim" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה חלה", + "enTitle": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah", + "key": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Challah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "מבוא", + "enTitle": "Preface" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + }, + { + "heTitle": "נספח א", + "enTitle": "Appendix 1" + }, + { + "heTitle": "ביבליוגרפיה", + "enTitle": "Bibliography" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Zeraim/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Terumot/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Zeraim/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Terumot/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51693ae76ad71a701cab27a7838f2f23dab0129d --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Zeraim/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Terumot/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,1784 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Terumot", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnat_Eretz_Yisrael_on_Mishnah_Terumot", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "פירוש משנת תרומות המונח לפני הקורא ללימוד ולעיון, הוא המשך הסדרה של פירוש המשניות במסגרת פרויקט משנת ארץ ישראל. את המבוא העקרוני ואת ההקדמה ימצא הקורא במסכת שבת, ותולדות המפעל והתודות שאנו חייבים לחברים רבים הופיעו בהקדמות השונות, ובעיקר בהקדמה למסכת ברכות. עם זאת איננו פטורים מהבעת תודה מסודרת לכל אלו שממשיכים ללוות אותנו גם היום.", + "תודתנו לחברים רבים שסייעו לנו למצוא את התמונות לכרכים השונים: ד\"ר בועז זיסו, פרופ' חנן אשל ז\"ל, פרופ' ארתור סגל, אליקים איטלי, מרדכי בר דרומא, בנותיי עדי ואסנת ואשתי דינה שהפכה לצלמת הבית וגם למפיקה של הפרויקט. על סריקת הספרים אחראי תלמיד-חבר נוסף, ד\"ר יואל פיקסלר, שגם מסר לי בטובו תמונות רבות שצילם, ותרומתו לגיוון האיורים רבה עד מאוד. על עיצוב העטיפה אנו מודים לנחמה שפילמן ולמיכל אלטמן מ\"עדי עיצובים\" שבביתי, בקבוצת יבנה. תודה מסוג דומה חייבים אנו לשלמה טייטלבאום, מנכ\"ל נאות קדומים. הוא מסר לנו באדיבותו את הארכיון שצילם נוגה הראובני, ועל כך תודתנו הרבה. ארכיון נאות קדומים ופרסומיו של פרופ' פליקס הם המקורות העיקריים לאיורי הצמחים. כן נעזרנו בתחום זה בידידתי-תלמידתי טובה דיקשטיין, ולעתים גם בפרופ' אבשלום דנין שפתח בפנינו לרווחה את אתר צמחי ארץ ישראל, וסיפק תמונות מאוספיו הפרטיים.", + "לפרופ' שאול שטמפפר אנו מודים על הגהה נוספת של הביבליוגרפיה שעזרה לניכוש נוסף של השגיאות שנפלו במהלך שנות העבודה. איילה אפרתי, שכנתי מקבוצת יבנה, הגיהה את דפוס נפולי בדייקנות רבה. תודה מסוג אחר אני חב לד\"ר דוד יסלזון שבזכותו הבנתי את חשיבות העיצוב החיצוני של הספר. ואכן כבר במסכת עירובין, ועוד יותר במסכתות הבאות, שקדתי על שיפור צורתו החיצונית של החיבור ועל נגישותו לציבור.", + "במסכת מועד קטן-חגיגה עברנו לחסותה הביצועית של הוצאת הספרים של אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, ברם כרך זה הוכן עוד בטרם התגבש ההסכם עם בר אילן.", + "בתחום הכספי נעזרנו ב\"קרן הזיכרון לתרבות יהודית\" שסייעה לנו בשני מענקים, בקרנות המחקר שליד המחלקה ללימודי ארץ ישראל וארכיאולוגיה על שם מרטין זוס באוניברסיטת בר-אילן, בקרן קושיצקי ובקרן לחקר ארץ ישראל בגבולותיה ההיסטוריים על שם א' וצ' מוסקוביץ. מה טוב שאנו יכולים לגמול להם בתודה. אנו חייבים תודה למרכז דוד וימימה יסלזון לחקר תולדות ישראל לאור האפיגרפיה באוניברסיטת בר-אילן ולפרופ' חנן אשל ז\"ל שעמד בראשו עד ימיו האחרונים על סיועם לעיצוב החיצוני של החיבור, ולד\"ר אסתי אשל הממלאת את התפקיד עתה. ברצוננו להביע תודה מיוחדת ונוספת לדוד וימימה יסלזון שהגדילו את סיועם. אחרונים חביבים הם בני ובנותיי, שכולם עזרו לי בדרכם ובמקומם במתן \"רוח גבית אוהבת\" ופה ושם בהעתקות, צילומים והגהות, ובעיקר לאשתי שעמלה רבות גם בתחום הארגוני וגם בהכנת האיורים לדפוס. יבואו כולם על הטובה ועל הברכה.", + "אסיר תודה אני לשלושת הבתים שאני חי בהם. הראשון הוא ביתי המדעי באוניברסיטת בר-אילן, שחרתה על דגלה את שילוב התורה והמדע; אני מקווה שהכרך המונח לפני הקוראים ייחשב בעיניהם כביטוי הולם של השילוב בין העולמות הנתפסים לעתים כסותרים. תודה מסוג אחר היא לביתי בקבוצת יבנה. החיים בקיבוץ דתי המתחבט כקהילה בבעיות של שמירת מצוות ושל גיבוש הסכמה חברתית ללא אמצעי אכיפה, ציבור המתמודד גם הוא בשאלות של ניסוח משפטי של רעיונות מופשטים ועיצובם המרומם בלשון של חוק ונוהל, כל אלה חידדו את הבנת הרקע החברתי שבו פעלו חכמים. במקביל לחכמים של אז, גם כיום אנו מתחבטים כיצד לנסח בצורה משפטית הסכמות חברתיות, הסכמות שניסוחן קשה ומעורפל אבל הן מובנות ללא מילים – והמילים רק מגמדות את הרעיון הגדול. אורח החיים בקיבוץ דתי, ובחברה הדתית הכללית בת זמננו, העניקו לנו מבט נוסף על תהליך עיצוב ההלכה, מבט שבו ניסינו לשתף את הקוראים.", + "ועל כולם יתברך ויתפאר שמו. זכות מיוחדת שזכיתי לה מהחונן לאדם דעת היא שעבודתי היא לי אורח חיים. את יום העבודה אני מתחיל ומסיים בשירת \"מה אהבתי תורתך כל היום היא שיחתי\", ואשריי שזכיתי לכך.", + "זאב ספראי", + "תשע\"ב" + ], + "Preface": [ + [ + "ויקרא כב ד-טז", + "איש איש מזרע אהרן והוא צרוע או זב בקדשים לא יאכל עד אשר יטהר והנגע בכל טמא נפש או איש אשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע. או איש אשר יגע בכל שרץ אשר יטמא לו או באדם אשר יטמא לו לכל טמאתו. נפש אשר תגע בו וטמאה עד הערב ולא יאכל מן הקדשים כי אם רחץ בשרו במים. ובא השמש וטהר ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים כי לחמו הוא. נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה אני ה'. ושמרו את משמרתי ולא ישאו עליו חטא ומתו בו כי יחללהו אני ה' מקדשם. וכל זר לא יאכל קדש תושב כהן ושכיר לא יאכל קדש. וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו הוא יאכל בו ויליד ביתו הם יאכלו בלחמו. ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר הִוא בתרומת הקדשים לא תאכל. ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה וזרע אין לה ושבה אל בית אביה כנעוריה מלחם אביה תאכל וכל זר לא יאכל בו. ואיש כי יאכל קדש בשגגה ויסף חמשיתו עליו ונתן לכהן את הקדש. ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל את אשר ירימו לה'. והשיאו אותם עון אשמה באכלם את קדשיהם כי אני ה' מקדשם.", + "במדבר יח ח", + "וידבר ה' אל אהרן ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומֹתי לכל קדשי בני ישראל לך נתתים למשחה ולבניך לחק עולם.", + "במדבר יח יא", + "וזה לך תרומת מתנם לכל תנופת בני ישראל לך נתתים ולבניך ולבנֹתיך אתך לחק עולם כל טהור בביתך יאכל אֹתו. כל חלב יצהר וכל חלב תירוש ודגן ראשיתם אשר יתנו לה' לך נתתים.", + "במדבר יח כא-לב", + "ולבני לוי הנה נתתי כל מעשר בישראל לנחלה חלף עבֹדתם אשר הם עֹבדים את עבֹדת אהל מועד. ולא יקרבו עוד בני ישראל אל אהל מועד לשאת חטא למות. ועבד הלוי הוא את עבֹדת אהל מועד והם ישאו עֲוֹנם חקת עולם לדֹרֹתיכם ובתוך בני ישראל לא ינחלו נחלה. כי את מעשר בני ישראל אשר ירימו לה' תרומה נתתי ללוים לנחלה על כן אמרתי להם בתוך בני ישראל לא ינחלו נחלה. וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר. ואל הלוים תדבר ואמרת אלהם כי תקחו מאת בני ישראל את המעשר אשר נתתי לכם מאתם בנחלתכם והרֵמֹתם ממנו תרומת ה' מעשר מן המעשר. ונחשב לכם תרומתכם כדגן מן הגרן וכמלאה מן היקב. כן תרימו גם אתם תרומת ה' מכל מעשרֹתיכם אשר תקחו מאת בני ישראל ונתתם ממנו את תרומת ה' לאהרן הכהן. מכל מתנֹתיכם תרימו את כל תרומת ה' מכל חלבו את מקדשו ממנו. ואמרת אלהם בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו ונחשב ללוים כתבואת גרן וכתבואת יקב. ואכלתם אֹתו בכל מקום אתם וביתכם כי שכר הוא לכם חלף עבֹדתכם באהל מועד. ולא תשאו עליו חטא בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו ואת קדשי בני ישראל לא תחללו ולא תמותו.", + "דברים פרק יב ה-ו", + "כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה' אלהיכם מכל שבטיכם לשום את שמו שם לשִכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה. והבאתם שמה עֹלֹתיכם וזבחיכם ואת מעשרֹתיכם ואת תרומת ידכם ונדריכם ונדבֹתיכם ובכֹרֹת בקרכם וצאנכם. ואכלתם שם לפני ה' אלהיכם ושמחתם בכל משלח ידכם אתם ובתיכם אשר ברכך ה' אלהיך.", + "מלאכי ג ח-יא", + "היקבע אדם אלהים כי אתם קֹבעים אֹתי ואמרתם במה קבענוך המעשר והתרומה. במארה אתם נֵאָרים ואֹתי אתם קֹבעים הגוי כֻלו. הביאו את כל המעשר אל בית האוצר ויהי טרף בביתי ובחנוני נא בזאת אמר ה' צבאות אם לא אפתח לכם את ארֻבות השמים והריקֹתי לכם ברכה עד בלי די. וגערתי לכם באֹכֵל ולא ישחִת לכם את פרי האדמה ולא תשכל לכם הגפן בשדה אמר ה' צבאות.", + "נחמיה י לה-מ", + "והגורלות הפלנו על קרבן העצים הכהנים הלוים והעם להביא לבית אלהינו לבית אבתינו לעתים מזֻמנים שנה בשנה לבער על מזבח ה' אלהינו ככתוב בתורה. ולהביא את בכורי אדמתנו ובכורי כל פרי כל עץ שנה בשנה לבית ה'. ואת בכֹרות בנינו ובהמתנו ככתוב בתורה ואת בכוֹרי בקרינו וצאנינו להביא לבית אלהינו לכהנים המשרתים בבית אלהינו. ואת ראשית עריסֹתינו ותרומתינו ופרי כל עץ תירוש ויצהר נביא לכהנים אל לשכות בית אלהינו ומעשר אדמתנו ללוים והם הלוים המעשרים בכל ערי עבֹדתנו. והיה הכהן בן אהרן עם הלוים בעשר הלוים והלוים יעלו את מעשר המעשר לבית אלהינו אל הלשכות לבית האוצר. כי אל הלשכות יביאו בני ישראל ובני הלוי את תרומת הדגן התירוש והיצהר ושם כלי המקדש והכהנים המשרתים והשוערים והמשֹררים ולא נעזֹב את בית אלהינו.", + "מצוות התרומה היא חלק ממצוות מעשרות, ובה נרחיב במסכת מעשרות. נפתח בהצגת המערכת ההלכתית המקובלת בספרות חז\"ל. לפי פרשנותם של חכמים, שלושה מעשרות ושתי תרומות הן:", + "תרומה גדולה – ניתנת לכוהנים, ונדון בה במבוא למסכת. שיעורה, לפי חז\"ל, אחד מארבעים או אחד חלקי שישים, אך מדין תורה שיעורה בכל שהוא.", + "מעשר ראשון – ניתן כל שנה ללוויים, חובת הבעל להרים את המעשר וחובת הלוי להרים ממנו תרומת מעשר (להלן). המעשר הוא חול (להוציא את תרומת המעשר). ממילא, אם אכל הבעל בעצמו את המעשר עבר על מצוות הרמת מעשרות, והוא חייב ללוי חובת ממון, אך לא אכל קודש. ", + "תרומת מעשר – מה שמרים הלוי, כלומר מעשר מן המעשר, ודינו קודש כתרומה.", + "פֵרות שלא הורמו מהם מתנות הם טבל, וההלכה ברורה: \"האוכל את הטבל, אפילו אינו מחוסר אלא תרומה גדולה בלבד, מעשר ראשון, ומעשר שיני, ואפילו מעשר עני, הרי זה חייב\" (תוס', מכות פ\"ד ה\"ד, עמ' 442). בפועל יש בספרות חז\"ל גם קולות המקלים בעונש, אך האיסור ברור. ", + "בספרות ימי בית שני תופסת חובת הפרשת תרומות ומעשרות מקום מרכזי. כמעט אין חיבור שאין בו אזכור למצוות אלו, וניכר שאלו היו חשובות לסופרים ולקוראים. פילון מדבר על המצוות הללו פעמים רבות1על מתנות כהונה באופן כללי ראו על החוקים, א 75-68; מעשרות – על החוקים, א 131; על המידות הטובות, 95; תרומות – על החוקים, ד 97; שביעית – על עשרת הדברות, 162; על החוקים, ב 71; על החוקים, ד 215; על המידות הטובות, 97; שמיטת כספים – על החוקים, ב 71; עומר – על עשרת הדברות, 160; על החוקים, ב 176-17; ביכורים – על עשרת הדברות, 161; חלה – על החוקים, א 131; כלאים – על החוקים, ד 211-203 (כל סוגי הכלאיים); בכורות – על החוקים, א 135. , וכן יוספוס2שביעית – קדמוניות, ג 281; יא 338; שם 343; יב 378; מלח', א 39; קד', יג 343; יד 206-202; שם 476; טו 7; מעשרות – נגד אפיון, 188; חיי יוסף, יב; חיי יוסף, טו; קד', ד 205; קד', יא 182; קד', יד 245; קד', כ 181, שם 207-206; כלאים, קד', ד 208; ערלה, קד', ד 220; כרם רבעי, קד', ד 227; כלאים, קד', ד 228; לקט ופאה, קד', ד 231; מעשר שני, קד', ד 241-240. וסופרים אחרים. בעל ספר טוביה, למשל, רוצה להדגים את צדקותו וטוען שהפריש מעשרות כהלכה (טוביה א ה-ח). ברור שבעיני המחבר הפרשת מעשרות היא מאפיין של חיי צדקות כהלכה. בנוסף לכך הוא מזכיר את הנאמנות למקדש (שהפרשת מעשרות היא ביטוי לה), ואת אכילת לחם גויים. לעומת זאת אין הוא מזכיר מרכיבים נורמטיביים אחרים כשמירת שבת, פסח או מצוות מרכזיות אחרות. כל זאת מראה שלפנינו עדות לרגישות המיוחדת של שכבת הכוהנים והמנהיגות היהודית לשאלת המעשרות. עבור הכוהנים הרמת מעשרות אינה רק מצווה אלא צורך חברתי קיומי, והמקורות, המקורבים למנהיגות הכוהנית, היו ערים במיוחד למצווה זאת. ייתכן גם שריבוי העדויות מלמד שהפרשת מעשרות לא הייתה מקובלת על הכול ורבו הנמנעים מלהרים מעשרותיהם. מצב זה יצר לחץ כלכלי שביטוי לו הן המימרות הרבות בנושא. ", + "כפי שנראה במבוא למסכת מעשרות, בספרות החיצונית מצויות עדויות רבות על הרמת מעשרות ותרומות. לכך מצטרפות העדויות הארכאולוגיות. המשנה מדברת על כלים שבהם נמצאו פֵרות ועליהם סימוני אותיות. אם כתובה עליו האות ק – הרי הוא כלי של פֵרות המוקדשים לקרבן (או לקודש), מ - הם פֵרות מעשר, ת - אלו פֵרות תרומה וכיוצא בהם (משנה, מעשר שני פ\"ד מי\"א). כלים מעין אלה נמצאו במצדה, שברי כדים שעליהם היה חרות: \" מעשר כהן\", כלומר תרומת מעשר, ת (תרומה), ט (טהור), או \"טהור לקודש\", \"טוהר לקדש\" וכיוצא בהם3ידין ונוה, מצדה I, עמ' 39-26. . חרותות אלו הן העדות האפיגרפית למשנה (איור 1).", + "מקור המילה \"תרומה\" הוא במקרא, אלא שבמקרא המונח כללי ומבטא חובת נתינה באשר היא. שורש המילה הוא \"הרם\" ומשמעו הַפרש, ובעיקר להפריש קודש4ראו מלאכת שלמה לפ\"א מ\"א שהתדיין בכך ארוכות. . \"תרומה גדולה\" היא המונח לתרומה הניתנת מכל היבול, בניגוד לתרומת מעשר הניתנת מן המעשר בלבד. בפועל, מבחינת ההלכה שתי התרומות הן קודש וחלות עליהן אותן הלכות. ", + "את התרומה יש לאכול בטהרה וכל כהן רשאי לאכלה, ובכלל זה נשים וילדים.", + "כפשוטה, מצוות תרומה היא מן התורה, כמו יתר המצוות התלויות בארץ. אבל בספרות, ובעיקר בתלמוד הבבלי, מופיעה גם טענה שהמצוות הכתובות בתורה בטלו עם הגלות וחזרו רק עם החזרה לארץ. יש גם הטוענים שחזרה זו לא הייתה מעצמה, אלא פרי מעמד שבו קיבלו אותן הציבור על עצמם, וממילא מעתה הן חלות מדרבנן בלבד. אנו נבחן שאלה זו בהרחבה במבוא למסכת מעשרות, ונראה שהטיעון מופיע רק במסגרת דיאלקטיקה פנימית, ובדרך כלל ברור לכול שחובת מעשרות היא מהתורה. הדיונים נסובים על מעשרות, ומן הסתם חלים גם על חובת התרומות. לעתים נאמר הדבר במפורש (בבלי, פסחים מד ע\"א; יבמות פב ע\"א, והשוו בבלי, פסחים קטז ע\"א). תרומה מדרבנן ממעיטה מערך המצוות ומשתלבת בתפיסה שמצוות התלויות בארץ חלות גם בחו\"ל וערכן דרמטי פחות. " + ], + [ + "הרמת התרומה בחיי היום יום ", + "כפי שראינו במבוא למסכת דמאי רבים בציבור לא הרימו מעשרות, אבל הכול הרימו את התרומה הגדולה. התרומה הגדולה היא כמות קטנה למדי. מעיקרו של דבר נראה ש\"חיטה אחת פוטרת את כל הכרי\"5ראו פירושנו לפ\"ג מ\"ג. הביטוי המצוטט מופיע רק בתלמוד הבבלי, אך הרעיון מצוי כבר במסורות ארץ \t ישראל. , והעול הכלכלי לא היה כבד. זאת ועוד. התרומה היא קודש והאוכל ממנה כאוכל קודשים, על כן חששו המוני העם לא לקיים את המצווה. בפועל לא שמענו על טענות כאילו בציבור יש רבים שאינם מרימים תרומות. חברה לכך המציאות החברתית שבה הרימו את התרומות עוד בשלב האיסוף של היבול על הגורן, כפי שנראה להלן. אשר לתרומת המעשר, כאן הדברים מורכבים יותר. כפי שראינו במבוא למסכת דמאי המעשר הוא חול, ובפועל היו רבים שלא נתנו אותו ללוי. תרומת המעשר היא חובתו של הלוי, ועד שלא הורם והוגדר הוא חלק מהיבול כולו ונתפס כחולין, על כן לא היה קיים אותו חשש קמאי מפני אכילת הקודש, או שהיה בעצמה נמוכה יותר. מן המקורות שבידינו קשה לקבל תשובה ברורה האם עמי הארץ הרימו תרומת מעשר אם לאו. מצד אחד סדרת מקורות מתארת הרמת מעשרות מדמאי ומניחה שתרומה גדולה כבר הורמה, אך את תרומת המעשר יש עדיין להרים (להלן פ\"ה מ\"א).", + "שני התלמודים מתארים את הסדר הדמאי שהם מייחסים ליוחנן כהן גדול: \"יוחנן כהן גדול שלח ובדק בכל ערי ישראל, ומצאן שלא היו מפרישין אלא תרומה גדולה בלבד. אבל מעשר ראשון ומעשר שיני מהן היו מפרישין ומהן לא היו מפרישין. אמר, הואיל ומעשר ראשון במיתה ומעשר שיני בעון טבל, יהא אדם קורא שם לתרומה ולתרומת מעשר, ונותנו לכהן, ומעשר שיני מחללו על המעות והשאר מעשר עני, שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראייה\"6ירו', מעשר שני פ\"ה ה\"ט, נו ע\"ד, וראו פירושנו למשנת מעשר שני פ\"ה מט\"ו. סביר להניח שאין זה הסבר רֵאלי לתקנתו העלומה של המנהיג הקדמון, אבל ההסדר מתאר את המציאות בזמנם של חכמים. . אם כן, מדובר בפירוש על כך שעמי הארץ ירימו את תרומת המעשר בשם הלוויים. לעומת זאת, בתלמוד הבבלי מתוארת התקנה בדרך שונה במידת מה: \"וגזר על הדמאי – לפי ששלח בכל גבול ישראל וראה שאין מפרישין אלא תרומה גדולה בלבד, ומעשר ראשון ומעשר שני מקצתן מעשרין ומקצתן אין מעשרין, אמר להם: בני, בואו ואומר לכם. כשם שתרומה גדולה יש בה עון מיתה, כך תרומת מעשר וטבל יש בהן עון מיתה. עמד והתקין להם: הלוקח פירות מעם הארץ מפריש מהן מעשר ראשון ומעשר שני. מעשר ראשון מפריש ממנה תרומת מעשר ונותנה לכהן, ומעשר שני עולה ואוכלו בירושלים. מעשר ראשון ומעשר עני – המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה\" (בבלי, סוטה מח ע\"א). הדמיון בין המסורות ברור וניכר בסגנון ובאוצר המילים, וההבדלים קטנים, אך משמעותיים. לפי הירושלמי תקנת יוחנן כהן גדול מתירה לאדם לא להרים מעשרות, ויש בה לגיטימציה למצב שבו המגדלים מרימים רק את שתי התרומות. חז\"ל התלוננו על עמי הארץ, ובמסורת זו יש מתן הכרה בנוהג של עמי הארץ, ואף הנמקה הלכתית לו (\"שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראייה\"). לעומת זאת בתלמוד הבבלי אין שום התייחסות למגדל. המגדל צריך להרים את כל המעשרות. אך אם אדם קנה דמאי, כלומר פֵרות שאין ידוע אם עושרו, הוא רשאי להניח שהתרומה הגדולה הורמה, אבל תרומת מעשר טרם הורמה ולכן עליו להרים תרומת מעשר ובפועל הוא פטור מיתר המעשרות, עליו לקרוא להם שם, אך הוא פטור מנתינתם ללוי. אם כן, לפי הירושלמי הציבור הרחב מרים תרומה גדולה ולפי הבבלי אין הוא עושה כן. ", + "אנו נדון במשנה במקומה (פ\"ה מט\"ו), ונראה שהמשנה מתארת את סופו של התהליך, את המצב הנוהג בימיהם. ברם סביר להניח שיוחנן כהן גדול לא תיקן תקנה שהיא נגד האינטרס הכוהני, אדרבה, הוא הפנה את המעשרות לכוהנים ואולי אף למקדש7ספראי, מחלוקת. . מכל מקום, המשנה ויתר מקורות חז\"ל משקפים תמונת מצב שבה לא נחשדו ישראל על אי הרמת תרומה. החיבורים מימי בית שני אף הם מעידים על הרמת תרומות. השינויים חלו לגבי מעשרות בלבד, ודנו בהם בפירושנו למסכת דמאי. ", + "מבחינה הלכתית אין הבדל בין תרומה לתרומת מעשר, שתיהן קודש. אמנם מבחינה טכנית מרכיב תרומת המעשר טרם הוגדר, ועל כן בעל הבית האוכל בעצמו את כל המעשר (ואינו נותנו ללוי) אוכל גם תרומת מעשר. אמנם מרכיב תרומת המעשר טרם הוגדר, אך מבחינה זו הוא הדין לאוכל טבל, כלומר סתם פֵרות לפני הרמת מעשרות. בשני המקרים הוא אוכל פֵרות הכוללים בתוכם תרומה שטרם הוגדרה (טרם \"קראו לה בשם\"). עם זאת, על הרמת תרומה הקפידו הכול ובהרמת המעשר היו רבים שזלזלו. הטענה המשפטית כאילו \"המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה\", כלומר הלוי אינו בעל מעמד משפטי לתבוע את המעשר, חלה על תרומה ועל מעשר כאחד. זאת ועוד. איסור האכילה חל גם על אכילת מעשר שני (מחוץ לירושלים), ולמרות העונש הצפוי זלזלו עמי הארץ גם במצווה זו.", + "אם כן, נמצאנו למדים שהאבחנה בין תרומות ליתר המעשרות אינה הלכתית, ואת ההבדל בנוהג החברתי יש לחפש במקום אחר. בכך נעסוק להלן.", + "חז\"ל דנים פעמים מספר ב\"תרומת מעשר של דמאי\"8משנה, דמאי פ\"ה מ\"ב; ירו', פ\"א ה\"ב, כא ע\"ד; חלה פ\"ד ה\"ו, ס ע\"א. . כפשוטה זו תרומת מעשר שהורמה מפֵרות דמאי, כלומר המגדל לא הרים את תרומת המעשר והחבר שקנה אותם הרים תרומת מעשר מספק (\"מדמאי\"). במקרים שבהם מדובר בהרמת מעשרות מדמאי עולה בבירור שעל המרים להפריש תרומת מעשר, אך לא תרומה9כגון משנה, דמאי פ\"ב מ\"ד; פ\"ד מ\"א; פ\"ז מ\"א; פ\"ז מ\"ג; טבול יום פ\"ד מ\"א; תוס', דמאי פ\"ח ה\"ד ועוד. כמעט לכל אחת מהעדויות מקבילות, ודנו בהן במקומן. . מכאן שעל הגורן הרימו רק תרומה גדולה, ואת תרומת המעשר הרימו רק האנשים שרצו להפריש את כל המעשרות (החברים). עמי הארץ אכלו ללא הרמת מעשרות, ואף ללא הרמת תרומת מעשר. ", + "מצד שני, בסדרת מקורות מדובר על מי שמרים תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר כאחת (משנה, תרומות פ\"ג מ\"ה), והרי זה בעל הבית עצמו, ולא הקונה שהוא פטור מהרמת תרומה, ובעל הבית מרים את שתי התרומות ואינו ממתין להרמת המעשר ולכך שהלוי ירים את חובו לכהן.", + "ייתכן שבדרך כלל אכן לא הרימו המגדלים את תרומת המעשר, עם זאת היו גם \"עמי הארץ\" שהרימו תרומת מעשר, וזו הסיבה לכלל שקבעו חכמים שאם סיפק בעל הבית לפועליו מזון שאינו מעושר חובת תרומת המעשר חלה עליו וחובת המעשרות חלה על הפועלים הרוצים בכך (תוס', דמאי פ\"ח ה\"ו).", + "מבחינה הלכתית דין מעשרות כדין תרומות, ובעת שהפרי חייב במתנות כהונה הוא חייב בכולם ואסור להרים מתנות לפני הזמן (פ\"ב מ\"ד), וגם אין לעכב את ההרמה. ברם, הנוהג החברתי הבחין בין תרומות למעשרות. ", + "את התרומה נהוג היה להרים בשעת הגורן10לחלוקת תרומה על הגורן מקורות רבים כגון משנה, כתובות פ\"ב מ\"י; תוס', דמאי פ\"ה ה\"ד. עדויות נוספות תובאנה להלן. (איור 2). הביטוי הרגיל בספרות חז\"ל לחלוקת תרומות הוא \"לחלק בגורן\". כך למשל, מתארת המשנה כוהנים כשרים: \"אוכלים בתרומה, וחולקים חלק אחד בגורן, ואינן מיטמאין למתים\" (יבמות פי\"א מ\"ה), וכן: \"שתי חזקות לכהונה בארץ ישראל, נשיאות כפים וחלוק גרנות\" (תוס', פאה פ\"ד ה\"ו ומקבילות), וכן משמע מעדויות רבות נוספות. גם יוספוס מספר על כוהנים המלקטים תרומה בגרנות או על עבדי הכוהנים הגדולים הגובים את התרומה בגרנות ומנשלים את המוני הכוהנים הפשוטים11קד', כ 181, שם 207-206. .", + "לעומת זאת, את המעשרות הרימו רק לאחר גמר המלאכה כפי שחכמים פירשו את המונח, כלומר סיום האריזה בפֵרות ששווקו, או הכנסת הפֵרות למחסן לאחסון. מועד הרמת התרומה בגורן אינו קשור אפוא לגמר המלאכה, אבל אין להרים תרומה לפני שנגמרה המלאכה בשדה. אם כן, מוכרים הרימו מעשרות לפני השיווק לשוק, והאוכלים את המזון הרימו מעשרות רק לפני האכילה. במקורות מספר אף יוצא שלעתים הרימו מעשרות לאחר הבישול, דבר שלמקבלים הייתה בו חשיבות מיוחדת. זו הסיבה לכך שאנו שומעים על אנשים שנזכרו להרים מעשרות רק לפני האוכל. אחת לשלוש שנים חל המועד המיוחד של ביעור מעשרות, ואז סיימו בעלי הבתים לשלם את חובם (משנה, מעשר שני פ\"ה מ\"ו). כך, למשל, מסופר על רבן גמליאל שרק במועד זה שילם את חובותיו ללוי, והלוי הרים מהמעשר את תרומת המעשר ונתנה לכהן (פירושנו למעשר שני פ\"ה מ\"ט).", + "עם כל זאת אנו שומעים גם על חלוקה של מעשרות על הגורן. במשנה אחת נקבע במפורש כמה נותנים לעני המלקט מעשר עני על הגורן (משנה, פאה פ\"ח מ\"ה; תוס', פ\"ד ה\"ב-ה\"ג)12המדובר במפורש בנוטל מעשר עני (כך בתוספתא), אבל יש גם סתם עניים המלקטים נדבות על הגורן כגון תוס', פאה פ\"ב הי\"ח. . זו גם דוגמה טובה להבנת ההיגיון הפנימי של דברי חכמים. ההלכה קובעת כמה יש לחלק לעני על הגורן, אבל מתוך ביתו \"נותן כל שהוא ואינו חושש\" (תוס', שם). חכמים אפילו אינם מנסים לקבוע כמה ייתן אדם מתוך ביתו, אבל על הנתינה האישית הנעשית בגורן הם שולטים, או לפחות מנסים לשלוט ולהכפיפה לתנאים ולעקרונות המקובלים עליהם. כמו כן, המשניות ביבמות פי\"א מ\"ה ומ\"ו מדברות על חלוקה על הגורן, וכפשוטן הן עוסקות בכוהנים, אבל הירושלמי מוסיף שאין חולקים לנשים על הגורן ומדבר במפורש גם על מתנות לוויה (יבמות פי\"א ה\"ה, יב ע\"א), וזו ברייתא מפורשת (תוס', פאה פ\"ד ה\"ד). העדות היא, אפוא, כפולה, מהברייתא ומהתלמוד המביא אותה כפירוש למשנה המדברת על תרומה. ", + "כמו כן: \"כהנים ולוים שהיו עומדים על הגרן...\" (תוס', פאה פ\"ד ה\"ג), או \"כהנים ולוים שהיו מסייעין בין הגרנות אין נותנין להן תרומות ומעשרות בשכרן\" (תוס', דמאי פ\"ה ה\"כ). הכוהנים והלוויים מסייעים בעבודה בחינם, וזוכים בכך בסיכוי לקבל מעשרות ותרומות. כן יוצא ממקורות רבים נוספים13כגון תוס', פ\"ד הי\"ב; דמאי פ\"ז הי\"ב ועוד. . במקביל אנו שומעים, כמובן, על מי שנותנים תרומה רק בביתם (כגון תוס', מעשר שני פ\"ג הי\"ב)14הוא הדין בפאה. לפי ההלכה יש להפרישה מהשדה במחובר לקרקע, אבל המשנה דנה במי שנותן פאה מתוך תבשילו (פאה פ\"ח מ\"ג), והירושלמי למשנה זו מעיד כי היו מקומות שזה היה בהם מנהג המקום, וראו המבוא לפאה ופירושנו למשנת פאה שם שם. . עם כל זאת, סתם חלוקה על הגורן היא חלוקת תרומה. ביטוי מסכם לכך יש בדיון הירושלמי: \"דבר שיש לו גורן, מפרישין תרומת מעשר, ואין צריך להפריש תרומה גדולה. כהדא דתני: 'מצא פירות ממורחין בשדה מכונסין אסורין משום גזל, מפוזרין מותרין משום גזל. בין כך ובין כך חייבין במעשרות, ופטורין מתרומה גדולה, שאי איפשר לגורן שתיעקר אלא אם כן נתרמה'. מעשרות מהיכן ניטלות, מן הבית או מן השדה? נישמעינה מן הדא, חבר שמת והניח מגורה מלאה פירות, אפילו בו ביום הכניסן, הרי אלו בחזקת מתוקנים. ואיפשר שלא נטרפה דעתו שעה אחת? אמר רבי בון בר חייה, תיפתר שמת מתוך יישוב. רבי חנניה בשם רבי פינחס שמע לה מן הכא: 'עישור אחר שאני עתיד למוד נתון לעקיבה בן יוסף שיזכה בו לעניים'15ראו פירושנו לפ\"ה מ\"ט, ושם דנו בסדרי הפרשת מעשרות המשתמעות מהסיפור. , הדא אמרה מן הבית. רבי חייה בר אבא שמע לה מן הכא: 'מי שהיו פירותיו במגורה ונתן סאה לבן לוי, וסאה לעני', הדא אמרה מן הבית. רבי אבא מרי שמע לה מן הכא: 'מן הבית – זו חלה', הדא אמרה מן השדה\" (מעשרות פ\"ג ה\"ג, נ ע\"ג). אם כן, שלוש משניות מדברות על הרמת תרומה מהגורן ומעשרות מהבית, אבל רבי אבא אומר שהפסוק המדבר על מתנת כהונה מן הבית עוסק רק בחלה, שכן מעשר נותנים גם מהשדה. מכל מקום, חבר לא ישהה מעשרותיו ויתנם מיד לאחר האיסום בבית.", + "יש במקורות גם עדויות על מקרים של הרמת תרומה הרבה לאחר הגורן, ואף על הרמתה מתבשיל (פ\"ד מ\"ו). במשנה אחרת (פ\"ד מ\"א) מתוארים סדרי הרמת תרומות, ושוב דומה שמדובר שם במי שמרים מתוך ביתו ומפריש תרומות ומעשרות כאחד. ", + "מקרה אחר נדון בברייתא וממנה יוצא שלעתים ניתנה התרומה אפילו לפני גמר המלאכה: \"דש תרומה ומעשר שני עובר משום בל תחסום. כיצד הוא עושה? מביא קפיפות ותולה בצוארי בהמה, ונותן לתוכה חולין מאותו המין\" (תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ח הי\"א). שם מדובר במקרה כללי יותר, שהפריש תרומה ומעשרות לפני הגורן. אשר למעשר שני, המשנה הבאה שם מציעה פתרון פשוט יותר, וראו שם.", + "כך גם היה המצב בתחום הרמת החלה. את החלה יש להרים בזמן הבישול, אבל יש שהקדימו ויש שאיחרו (חלה פ\"א מ\"ה).", + "במקורות אין הסבר מדוע נהגו להרים תרומות על הגורן, ואנו יכולים רק לשער את הסיבות לכך:", + "א. ההסדר המתואר משקף את ההערכה שהכול מפרישים תרומות, אך הרמת יתר המעשרות היא מעשה של התנדבות שלא הכול שותפים בו. על כן, את יתר המעשרות מרים אדם מביתו, בעת שלבו חפץ ובמידה שהוא רוצה בה. כך נותר בעל הבית חסוי, ואין ביקורת ציבורית על מעשיו.", + "ב. התרומה הייתה כמות קטנה למדי. מתחילה היה שיעורה \"כל שהוא\", ורק מאוחר יותר הוגדרה כאחד חלקי ארבעים עד אחד חלקי שישים. בסך הכול זו עדיין כמות קטנה. בזמן הגורן אדם מלא שמחה ויש לו תחושה של שפע ואופטימיות (בדרך כלל), כדברי הכתוב \"בֹא יבֹא ברִנה נֹשא אלֻמֹתיו\" (תהילים קכו ו). האסיף הוא עונה שבה מגיעה השנה החקלאית לסיומה, המאמץ הגדול שהושקע נגמר בהצלחה, והלב מלא תודה לאל. בזמן זה, כשהלב מלא על גדותיו, מוכן אדם להפריש גם לכוהנים ולמשרתי האל. פעמים רבות ראינו איכרים בתרבות הערבית המסורתית, או בעידן המודרני, בסיום העבודה הקשה של האסיף. קשה שלא להבחין בתחושת התרוממות הרוח והנדיבות האופיינית למועד זה. אולם הרמת המעשרות כבר כרוכה בהוצאה ניכרת, וממילא הקושי הכלכלי היה רב. מצב הרוח של השפע פינה את מקומו לאפרוריות היום-יום, והחשבון הכלכלי נראה מאיים יותר.", + "ג. היה קיים מעין פחד מיתי מהקודש שבתרומה. גם במעשר יש קודש (תרומת המעשר), אך נתינתה היא כאילו חובתו של האחר, ואילו הרמת התרומה היא חובתו של המגדל.", + "ד. נתינת התרומה על הגורן פתרה לכוהנים את בעיית השינוע. מבחינת ההלכה די אם אדם מרים תרומות (או מעשרות) ומתחייב שלא לאכלן, אבל אין עליו חובה להביאן לביתו של הכהן. כך יכולים היו הכוהנים להישאר ללא תרומות, שהרי לא כל אחד יטרח להביא את התרומה לביתו של הכהן. איסוף התרומות בגורן הקל על הכוהנים לקבל את התרומה, בצורה נוחה. ", + "ה. לאחר גמר המלאכה הפרי כבר מקבל טומאה. עמי הארץ ברובם טמאים ולכן התרומה טמאה, וממילא כמעט אי אפשר לנצלה. איסוף התרומה בשלב הגורן אִפשר לכוהנים לקבל תוצרת עוד לפני שהוכשרה לקבל טומאה. אמנם לכך היו גם פתרונות נוספים, ומצד שני לעתים לא היה פתרון זה מספיק. יש פֵרות ששלב גמר המלאכה שלהם היה מאוחר יותר, וגם לאחר הגורן טרם הוכשרו לקבל טומאה. עם כל זאת, האיסוף על הגורן העניק פתרון מסוים. לאחר שהפֵרות הגיעו לביתו של עם הארץ קשה היה לדעת אם נשמרו בטהרה, ואי אפשר היה לסמוך על דברי עם הארץ בעניין זה. מבחינה הלכתית פֵרות שניתנו כתרומה הם כנראה כפרות שנמכרו והנתינה היא גמר המלאכה, והתנאי הוא שבאמת הושלם עיבוד הפרי. כך, למשל, בתבואה גמר המלאכה הוא סיום הדיש (שיבולים אינן מקבלות טומאה), גמר מלאכה בענבי יין הוא התחלת הדריכה או סיומה (משנה, מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ז, וראו פירושנו לה), וכן בזיתים. עם כל זאת היו הסתייגויות כבדות מקבלת תרומה מעמי הארץ, ולכך נשוב בהמשך. ", + "יש קשר הדוק בין הרמת התרומה על הגורן לבין עצם העובדה שהכול הפרישו תרומות, אך לא מעשרות, והעובדה שהרימו את המעשרות על הגורן אִפשרה לקיים מעין בקרה ציבורית והיוותה לחץ חברתי שסייע להשרשת הנורמה שהכול מרימים תרומה. מעבר לכך, הכוהנים הסתובבו בין הגרנות במטרה לאסוף תרומה מתוך ידיעה שכולם מפרישים תרומה ויהיה להם מה לאסוף. הם גם אספו מעשרות16על כך ראו במבוא למסכת תרומות. , אבל מעשרות הרימו רק בודדים ועיקר היעד היה, באופן טבעי, התרומות. על כן שתי התופעות (האיסוף על הגורן ותפוצתה של הרמת התרומות) קשורות זו לזו, בבחינת \"צבת בצבת עשויה\". הרמת התרומה בגורן אִפשרה לכוהנים לחזר בגרנות, לאסוף את התרומה ולהפעיל לחץ חברתי סמוי (וגלוי) על בעלי הבתים לבל ידחו את המתנה ואף יתרמו בעין יפה.", + "בספרות חז\"ל נמצאות עדויות מספר המראות שגם עמי הארץ הרימו תרומות, ונעשה מאמץ מצדם של עמי הארץ לגרום לכך שהרמת התרומות תהיה בטהרה. כך, למשל, המשנה אוסרת על פועלים לתרום בשמו של בעל הבית, אלא אם כן מינה אותם במפורש כשליחים שלו, אבל מתירה זאת ל\"דרוכות\", הם דורכי היין (משנה, תרומות פ\"ג מ\"ד). מסתבר שנהוג היה שהדרוכות מרימים את התרומה כדי שההפרשה תהיה לפני \"גמר מלאכה\" ולפני שהפרי הוכשר לקבל טומאה. מדובר כנראה בעם הארץ, שהרי חבר לא יניח ליבול היין שלו להיטמא. כך, למשל, אחת הדרכים לשמור על טהרת התרומה הייתה על ידי מסירת התוצרת ל\"מומחה\" כדי שיפריש ממנה את התרומות בטהרה. בדרך זו יש כנראה לפרש משנה אחת (תרומות פ\"ד מ\"ד), שם מדובר על שליחו של בעל הבית התורם בשמו. כפי שראינו בפירושנו לאותה משנה, נראה כי המדובר שם בשליח מסוג מיוחד. אין הוא אדם שקיבל הוראות מפורטות כיצד לתרום, ואף לא פועל של בעל הבית, ושיערנו כי זהו מעין מומחה התורם בשמו של בעל הבית. הוא נאמן להנחיותיו, אך גם נאמן לקיום המצווה. הרמת התרומה בשעת הגורן היא, כאמור, אחת הדרכים לשמירת התוצרת בטהרה עד שלב הרמת התרומה. בפירושנו העלינו עוד כמה מקבילות לפעילות כזאת של מומחים להרמת תרומות, וכן שנינו שעם הארץ נאמן להעיד: \"פלוני כהן תיקן לי את הכרי\" (בבלי, כתובות עב ע\"א), או \"על גבי פלוני חבר נעשו בטהרה\" (מסכת גרים פ\"א ה\"ה). לשני מקורות אלו אין מקבילות17גם בחוק הסורי-רומי וגם בחוק המצרי נקבע שאסור לכהן לשתתף בחלוקה ובמדידה על הגורן (שומן, כהנים(. ייתכן שהאיסור חל על נוהג דומה לזה המתואר במקורות שלנו. . ", + "באופן כללי, עמי הארץ אינם נאמנים על טהרת תרומה. \"חומר בתרומה, שביהודה נאמנים על טהרת יין ושמן כל ימות השנה, ובשעת הגיתות והבדים אף על התרומה. עברו הגיתות והבדים, והביאו לו חבית של יין של תרומה, לא יקבלנה ממנו, אבל מניחה לגת הבאה. ואם אמר לו הפרשתי לתוכה רביעית קדש נאמן. כדי יין וכדי שמן המדומעות נאמנין עליהם בשעת הגיתות והבדים, וקודם לגיתות שבעים יום\" (משנה, חגיגה פ\"ג מ\"ד). עיקר המשנה מתמקד בכך שעמי הארץ נאמנים על טהרת הקודש, הם מכבדים טהרה זו ולא יפגעו במה שנועד למקדש, אבל על התרומה הם נאמנים רק בזמן האסיף עצמו. המשנה מדגישה את ההיבט הפורמלי, כך שאם בעל הבית (עם הארץ) ימתין שנה עם מסירת התרומה היא תיחשב לטהורה, למרות הזמן שחלף, שכן זה \"זמן הבדים\" או \"זמן הגתות\". אם כן, בעונת עשיית היין והשמן כולם שומרים על הטהרה כדי שניתן יהיה להביא את היבול למקדש; מכיוון שהוא נשמר לטהרת הקודש הוא גם טהור לתרומה. אבל במשך שאר ימות השנה, לאחר שעברה העונה, נדרש עם הארץ למאמץ לשמירת הפרי בטהרה. אנו מאמינים לו ששמר על הפֵרות בטהרת קודש, שכן הוא לא יזלזל במה שעולה ל\"שולחן גבוה\", אבל איננו מאמינים לו ששמר כהלכה על טהרת תרומה, שכן עמי הארץ נחשדו כמזלזלים בתרומה. לפי הסבר זה, בגליל אין נאמנים על טהרת תרומה וקודש כל ימות השנה. הסבר זה הולם את ההלכה שאין מקבלים תרומה מכל אדם מחשש שמא נטמאה התרומה, אבל מבחינת פשוטה של המשנה אפשר גם לפרש שבשעת הגתות והבדים נאמנים הכול על התרומה, גם ביהודה וגם בגליל (וגם לאחר החורבן), שכן גם עמי הארץ רוצים להפריש תרומה בטהרה, על כן הם מתאמצים לשמור על טהרה בזמן המסיק. אבל איננו מאמינים להם שהצליחו לשמור על טהרה גם בביתם במשך ימות השנה, שכן אין הם מכירים את ההלכות והבית טמא באופן כללי18מקורות תנאיים רבים מניחים כי כולם נהגו בהפרשת תרומה, שלא כבמעשרות שעמי הארץ זלזלו בהם: תוס', סוטה פ\"ג ה\"י; ירו', מעשר שני פ\"ח ה\"ה, נו ע\"ד; בבלי, סוטה מח ע\"א. זו ההנחה היסודית להלכות במשנה ובתוספתא דמאי. במבוא למסכת דמאי נרחיב בכך. . כלומר, בעונה החקלאית גם עם הארץ נאמן על שמירת תוצרתו כדי שיוכל להפריד תרומה על מנת להביאה לכהן, אבל על הטהרה לקודש אין נאמנים אלא ביהודה, וביהודה הם נאמנים על טהרה זו כל ימות השנה. כל זאת משום שפֵרות הגדלים ביהודה משווקים למקדש, או עשויים להיות משווקים למקדש, ועל כן מקפידים על טהרתם. יהודה שלאחר החורבן, מעמדה היה מן הסתם כגליל, לעניין זה של נאמנות. ", + "התוספתא קובעת בפשטות על בסיס משנת חגיגה: \"הביאו לו חבית יין של תרומה לא יקבלה הימנו אלא אם כן אמר לו יש לי בתוכה רביעית קודש\" (חגיגה פ\"ג הל\"ב), ובַהמשך סיפור מפורט: \"מעשה ברבי טרפון שהיה מהלך בדרך, מצאו זקן אחד, אמר לו [הזקן] מפני מה בריות מרננות אחריך, והלא כל דבריך אמת וישר הן? אלא שאתה מקבל תרומה בשאר ימות השנה מכל אדם. אמר רבי טרפון אקפח את בני אם לא הלכה בידי מרבן יוחנן בן זכיי שאמר לי מותר אתה לקבל תרומה בשאר ימות השנה מכל אדם. עכשיו בריות מרננות אחרי, גוזר אני עלי שאיני מקבל תרומה בשאר ימות השנה מכל אדם\" (שם הל\"ג)19המשך המשנה והתוספתא הוא שעמי הארץ נאמנים על טהרת תרומה אם יש בה רביעית קודש, ונוהג זה ממשיך גם לאחר החורבן, וראו פירושנו למשנה שם. על המשך שמירה על טהרת הקודש לאחר החורבן ראו במבוא למסכת חגיגה. . לפי פשוטה של הברייתא חלק רבן יוחנן בן זכאי על משנת חגיגה וסבור היה שמקבלים תרומה מכל אדם ובכל זמן, ובדרכו הלך רבי טרפון וחזר והחמיר על עצמו מפני שהבריות ריננו אחריו.", + "נמצאנו למדים שאמנם ההלכה הפורמלית הייתה שאין מקבלים תרומה מכל אדם, אבל לאמִתו של דבר היו דעות שבשעת הגורן ניתן לסמוך על עמי הארץ ולקבל את עדותם שהתרומה טהורה. כך נהג רבי טרפון, וכך הורה רבן יוחנן בן זכאי, אבל ההלכה שונתה והפכה להיות בלתי מקובלת. קבלת תרומה מעמי הארץ נתפסה כמעשה לא נאה, ובלחץ הציבורי נסוג רבי טרפון מעמדתו. כאמור ההלכה שבמשנה היא ביהודה, והתחבטנו האם היא חלה גם על הגליל. מכל מקום, יהודה שלאחר החורבן היה דינה כגליל. אגב אורחא ניתן להסיק שהתוספתא מצטרפת לעדויות שלעתים הרימו את התרומה לא \"על הגורן\" אלא מאוחר יותר. ", + "הכוהנים המחזרים על הגרנות ומעורבים בהרמת המעשרות יצרו תמונה חברתית ססגונית שהייתה לא רק חלוקה של פֵרות אלא גם מעמד מעין דתי. על כך מעיד מקור אחר: \"משל לכהן שיצא לגורן ליטול תרומה ומעשר, ובא בעל הגורן נתן לו תרומה, ולא החזיק לו טובה. נתן לו מעשר, ולא החזיק לו טובה. לאחר שנתן לו כל מה שהיה ראוי לכהן ליטול, עמד בעל הגורן והוסיף לו מדה אחת של חולין, החזיק לו טובה ונתפלל עליו. אמרו לו למה כשנתן לך בעל הגורן התרומה והמעשר לא החזקת לו טובה, ועכשיו על מעט מדה אחת של חולין החזקת לו טובה? אמר להן הראשונות התרומה והמעשר שלי הן, ושלי לקחתי. אבל אותה המדה שהוסיף לי משלו. לפיכך אני מחזיק לו טובה\" (תנחומא, ויצא ט). אם כן, הכהן מקבל תרומות ומעשרות, ודרכו של עולם היא שהוא מברך את בעלי הבתים ומתפלל עבורם ואלו גומלים לו במתנות נוספות. במדרש זה הכהן אינו השליח להפרשת התרומה, אך יש במסורת זו כדי להצטרף לתמונת המעמד הדתי ולכן הבאנו מקור זה כאן. ", + "כאמור, עם כל זאת היו הסתייגויות מקבלת תרומות מעמי הארץ שמא הוכשרו כבר הפֵרות לקבל טומאה ונטמאו: \"עברו הגתות והבדים והביאו לו חבית של יין של תרומה לא יקבלנה ממנו\" (משנה, חגיגה פ\"ג מ\"ד). זאת לפי הכלל שעמי הארץ אינם נאמנים על טהרת תרומה, אבל הם נאמנים על טהרת הקודש, כלומר נאמנים הם להעיד שהפרי נשמר ב\"טהרת הקודש\" כדי שיהא כשר להעלאה על \"שולחן גבוה\", כלומר לצורכי המקדש. הסיבה לכך נדונה בפירושנו למשנת חגיגה. עמי הארץ נחשדו להיות מזלזלים בטהרת תרומה, אך הקפידו על טהרה לצורכי המקדש, זאת אף שטהרת הקודש חמורה משל טהרת תרומה. כל זאת ביהודה, שכן חקלאי הגליל ידעו שלא יוכלו לשווק את הפֵרות למקדש ולא הקפידו על טהרתם. ", + "כמו כן נקבע במשנה שם: \"נאמנים על טהרת יין ושמן כל ימות השנה [ולא רק בעונת דריכת היין ועצירת השמן], ובשעת הגיתות והבדים אף על התרומה\" (שם, שם), והסברנו זאת לעיל. ", + "טהרת תרומה וקודש", + "כפי שהערנו, נתפסה הרמת התרומה כמעשה של קודש, והיחס אליה חרג מהיחס למצווה רגילה. ביטוי לכך יש בסדרת הלכות הנובעות לא משיקול משפטי-הלכתי אלא מתחושת הקודש. דוגמה לכך מצאנו בפרק ה משניות ד-ז. לפי ההלכה תרומה מתבטלת ברוב (אם נפלה סאה תרומה למאה סאים חול), אך היו חכמים שתבעו להרים סאה אחרת במקומה למרות הביטול. דעתם נדחתה, אך עדיין נהוג היה להרים סאה כזאת כהחמרה בעלמא (ראו פירושנו שם). מרכיב זה של חומרה שלא מתוך שיקול הלכתי עולה גם מהיחס לגידולי תרומה; אף שנתפסו כחולין החילו עליהם חומרות רבות (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ט מ\"ו ופ\"ט מ\"א). כן יוצא מהלכות אחרות (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ט מ\"ז). כך גם קבעה ההלכה שמזון בהמות פטור מתרומות, אך חסידים החמירו על עצמם ופָרותיהם לא קיבלו מזון שלא הרימו את מעשרותיו (ראו פירושנו לפי\"א מ\"ט; מעשר שני פ\"ב מ\"ד).", + "מסר זה של חרדת קודש עולה גם מהעריכה הספרותית של המשנה. המשנה מדמה טימוא של תרומות למצב של אישה שנטמאה באונס (פ\"ח מי\"ב). מעבר לבירור ההלכתי ולפרטים הטכניים הדומים, הרי שהעריכה משדרת גם את הדמיון ברמה המוסרית והרגשית, דמיון שאינו מנוסח במילים בלבד.", + "עם כל תחושת הקודש לא נקשרה התרומה למקדש. במבוא למסכת מעשרות נדון בשאלת הבאת התרומות למקדש. אמנם יש עדויות שכך נהגו בימי הבית, אך לפחות לפי ההלכה אין לתרומה קשר למקדש. יתר על כן, חורבן המקדש לא גרם לזעזוע בשמירת התרומה. אחד הביטויים לכך שתרומה אינה כקרבן יש בכך שגם לנשים זיקה לתרומה. הן אוכלות ממנה, נאמנות לומר שפֵרות אלו תרומה ואף רשאיות להרים תרומה. מעניינת הקביעה שאישה אינה רשאית לתרום, שהרי אבי המשפחה הוא הבעל ורק הבעל רשאי לתרום, או מי שמונה לכך במפורש (פ\"ד מ\"ד), אבל בפועל מותר לה לתרום את האוכל שהיא מכינה לאכילת המשפחה. לכך הבעל נתן כאילו רשות, שהרי הפקיד את האישה על הכנת האוכל (תוס', פ\"א ה\"ו).", + "עמדתם העקרונית של חכמי בית שמאי היא שבכל מקרה שתרם, אף אם חרג מעט מכללי התרומה, תרומתו תרומה (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"א מ\"ד). עמדתם זו הובילה לסדרת הקלות באפשרות לתרום מן הרע על היפה, מהטמא על הטהור וממין על שאינו מינו (ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"ד, מ\"ח, מ\"ט; פ\"ב מ\"א; פ\"ד מ\"ד, מ\"ה). לעומת זאת בית הלל מקפידים על הרמת תרומות כתקנה לפי הכללים שנקבעו, ואם חרג מהם אין התרומה תופסת. בית הלל ובית שמאי חולקים גם בשיעור תרומה (פ\"ד מ\"ג). לפי שני הבתים אין השיעור קבוע ותלוי ברצונו של המפריש, ונקבעו שלוש רמות (אחד חלקי ארבעים, חמישים ושישים או אחד חלקי שלושים, ארבעים וחמישים). גם בכך יש חריגה ממצוות תרומה, שכן בדרך כלל אם נקבע שיעור, הרי הוא שיעור קבוע. סביר להניח שכל קביעת השיעורים היא מאוחרת ומבטאת שאיפה להחמרה ולהפיכת התרומה ממעשה סמלי למעשה שיש בו תמיכה כלכלית בכהונה. מהפך זה התחולל לפני ימי בית שמאי ובית הלל (סוף ימי בית שני)." + ], + [ + "תרומה ושימושיה", + "מצוות הפרשת תרומה זוכה, כבר במשנה, לפירוט מעבר למקובל. חכמים מבחינים בסדרת שלבים שכל אחד מהם חיוני וצריך להתאים לחבריו. המפריש צריך להתכוון (\"מחשבה\"), להצהיר בפועל (ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"א; פ\"ג מ\"ח), לקרוא שם, כלומר להקדיש חלק מהפֵרות, וחכמים נחלקים אם די בהצהרה כללית או שצריך לייחד מקום לפֵרות תרומה (בצפון הכרי או בדרומו, פ\"ג מ\"ה), להפריש, כלומר להוציא את התרומה מהערמה ולתתה לכהן או ללוי. כל אחד מהשלבים עומד בפני עצמו וניתן לבצעו ללא קשר לשלב הבא. דומה שאין עוד מצווה שזכתה ל\"פירוק\" לחלקים כה מורכבים. כך למשל, יש לשבת בסוכה, וחכמים קבעו אולי20בפירושנו לסוכה פ\"א מ\"א ראינו כי יש מחלוקת בדבר. שגם הבנייה היא מצווה וצריך לבנותה לשם מצווה (ראו פירושנו לסוכה פ\"א מ\"א). כך גם לגבי נטילת לולב (קניית הלולב והתקנת האגד היא מצווה), ואולי גם מצוות אכילת מצה (שהמצה צריכה להיאפות לשם מצה). בכל אלו נחלקים חכמים האם התקנת מכשיר המצווה היא מצווה כשלעצמה. במצוות אחרות ברור שמכשיר המצווה אין לו מעמד עצמי. כך, למשל, אין מצווה להתקין שופר או להטיל ציצית בבגד. במקביל אנו יודעים שמצוות צריכות כוונה (ראו פירושנו למגילה פ\"ב מ\"א). ", + "ברם, אפילו אם התקנת מכשיר המצווה היא מצווה כשלעצמה, הרי שאין פירוט כה מורכב ואין צורך בהצהרה בפה שהמבנה הוא לשם סוכה. אין הבחנה בין ההקדשה ומעשה המצווה ואבחנות כיוצא באלו. בהפרשת מעשרות חכמים מבחינים בין השלבים הללו, וההצהרה היא מצווה כשלעצמה כמו קריאת מגילה. ", + "התרומה היא בבחינת \"נכסי כהן\" (משנה, חלה פ\"א מ\"ט; ביכורים פ\"ב מ\"א), כלומר הוא רשאי להשתמש בה כרכושו לכל דבר, ובלבד שיאכל אותה בטהרה. מותר לו למכור אותה לכהן אחר, או לשלם בה חוב, ושוב התרומה נותרת בקדושתה לכל דבר. כאמור, גם בני הבית של הכהן התלויים בו אוכלים בתרומה (בנים, בנות לא נשואות, נשים). הלכות רבות עוסקות בזכותה של האישה לאכול בבית אביה הכהן או בבית בעלה הכהן. תרומה שנטמאת אסורה באכילה ומותרת בהנאה. ברוב הפֵרות לא הייתה אפשרות להשתמש בתרומה שנטמאת, שכן האכילה היא דרך ההנאה היחידה בפֵרות, אבל בשמן תרומה ניתן להשתמש להבערה, והכהן רשאי היה אף לאפשר לבני ביתו שאינם כוהנים להשתמש בתאורה של שמן שרפה, ובלבד שבעקיפין ייחשב הדבר כהנאתו (פי\"א מ\"י, וראו פירושנו לה).", + "במקורות מצויים תיאורים על הווי אכילת התרומה בבתי הכוהנים שבארץ ישראל. לפנות ערב טבלו הכוהנים. גם מי שהיה טהור טבל, ומכאן שהייתה זו טבילה לקדושה ולא טבילה הבאה להיטהר מטומאה. סעודת הכוהנים נחשבה למעין סעודת קודש, הקרבת קרבן בזעיר אנפין. המשנה הראשונה בברכות תולה את זמן קריאת שמע בזמן ש\"הכהנים נכנסים לאכול בתרומתן\". בפירושנו למשנה התחבטנו מדוע ראו חכמים לנקוב בתיאור זמן חריג זה ולא דיברו על הערב שמש, שקיעת החמה או הגדרות דומות, ומסקנתנו הייתה שכנראה נועדה הגדרת הזמן במשנה לבטא מסר רעיוני. הכוהנים טובלים כדי לאכול את סעודת הקודש של הקרבן. בעיירות ישראל, אחר החורבן, אכלו הכוהנים תרומה ולא קודש, אך הסעודה היא עדיין סעודת הקודש. הגדרת הזמן במשנה מבטאת תפיסה רעיונית שקריאת שמע היא כעבודת ה' במקדש. חכמים עמלו לקשר בין קריאת שמע (ותפילה) ובין עבודת המקדש. קריאת שמע של שחרית מתוארת כחלק מעבודת הכוהנים במקדש21תמיד פ\"ה מ\"א, וראו דיוננו עליה להלן פ\"ב מ\"א. , וזמנה נקבע בהתאם לעבודת המקדש. אם אכן הפירוש נכון הרי שזה מקרה מיוחד בו המשנה מתנסחת לפי קוד ספרותי-רעיוני סמוי. עריכת המשנה, והגדרות ההלכה שבה, מבטאות מסר רעיוני, ונועדו ליצור אצל הלומד תחושה, בלתי מודעת, של קִרבה בין עבודת המקדש לבין עבודת ה' הפרטית של כל אדם. על רעיון זה מעיד הסיפור הבא: \"מעשה ברבי טרפון שלא בא אמש לבית המדרש. לשחרית מצאו רבן גמליאל, אמר לו: מפני מה לא באת אמש לבית המדרש? אמר לו: עבודה עבדתי. אמר לו: כל דבריך אינן אלא דברי תימה, וכי עבודה בזמן הזה מנין? אמר לו: הרי הוא אומר: 'עבֹדת מתנה אתן את כהֻנתכם והזר הקרב יומת' (במדבר יח ז), עשו אכילת תרומה בגבולין כעבודת בית המקדש\" (בבלי, פסחים עב ע\"ב - עג ע\"א). אין לסיפור מקבילה ארץ-ישראלית, אך כאמור הרעיון נרמז כבר במשנה. ", + "התרומה הגיעה לכל כהן באשר הוא כהן. בעיירות ישראל פעלו בתי דין ליוחסי כהונה שבדקו מקרים שהתגלה בהם ערער על הייחוס המשפחתי. בספרות חז\"ל יש ביטוי לתביעה להעדיף כוהנים שהם חברים, או תלמידי חכמים22ראו בהרחבה בנספח למסכת שקלים. . זו תביעתם של חכמים להשתלב בין מקבלי התרומות, מבלי שפגעו, כמובן, בצד ההלכתי שרק כוהנים רשאים לאכול בתרומה. " + ], + [ + "הרמת תרומות ומעשרות בחוץ לארץ", + "נושא זה נדון בהרחבה בנספח למסכת שביעית. כפי שראינו מופיעות בספרות חז\"ל שתי עמדות עקרוניות. האחת שכל המצוות חלות רק בארץ, והאחרת שכולן חלות בכל העולם. ההלכה שבמשנה היא בבחינת פשרה בין שתי גישות. כדרכה של פשרה אין בה אחידות, אין בה היגיון משפטי ואין היא מוסכמת על הכול. אי ההסכמה בולט בעצם החלוקה, ובמיוחד בדיון בחריגים (ערלה וכלאיים, כפי שנראה במבואנו למסכתות אלו). זאת ועוד; ההלכה לא הייתה לכידה ושיטתית, והשאלה האם להחיל מצווה מסוימת גם בחוץ לארץ התבססה גם על שיקולים ייחודיים לכל מצווה, החל משיקולי כלכלה וכלה בשיקולי יוקרה לאומית. ", + "היחס לתרומה", + "מבחינה הלכתית התרומה נחשבת לקודש אף שמעמדה נחות משל קודשי המקדש, אפילו קודשים קלים, שכן ניתן לאכול את התרומה בכל מקום וגם נשים וקטנים אוכלים בתרומה ובתנאי שיהיו טהורים. בפועל ניתן להבחין ביחס מחמיר מאוד לתרומה. כוהנים נהגו לטבול לפני אכילת תרומה, אף אם ראו עצמם טהורים23ראו פירושנו לברכות פ\"א מ\"א. , כמו כן מצינו החמרות יתר חסידיות. הווה אומר, ההלכה פטרה ממעשרות ומתרומה או התירה לאכול תרומה במצבים מסוימים, והציבור נהג להחמיר. כך, למשל, לפי ההלכה בהמה רשאית לאכול מזון לא מעושר (משנה, דמאי פ\"א מ\"ג), אבל בירושלמי ובמדרשים מסופר על פרתו של אלעזר בן יאיר, שהיה חסיד ידוע, שלא אכלה אוכל שאינו מעושר. במקורות מובאים שני סיפורים, הראשון שלא אכלה אוכל שאינו מעושר והשני שאפילו דמאי לא אכלה, אף שפועליו של החסיד האכילוה דמאי (לפי משנת דמאי). הסיפור השני הוא פיתוח של הראשון, והוא שוב מעיד שהיו שהחמירו יותר מההלכה וחייבו מעשר ודאי. אלו סברו שאוכל בהמה פטור מדמאי, והיו גם גישות שהחמירו עוד יותר. הווה אומר, בציבור רווחו דעות מחמירות שההלכה דחתה אך נותרו להן בספרותנו שקיעין24ירו', כא ע\"ד - כב ע\"א; בבלי, חולין ז ע\"א; בראשית רבה, פס' ח, עמ' 650-648. .", + "לפי ההלכה יש גידולים הפטורים ממעשרות, אך היו שהחמירו והפרישו מהם מעשרות, ובעיקר תרומות25ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"א מ\"א. . חומרות דומות שאין להן בסיס משפטי העלינו בפירושנו למשניות אחרות. כך, מי ששתל שתילי תרומה החמירו וחייבוהו לקצוץ פעמיים את ראשית הצמיחה של העץ (ראו פירושנו לתרומות פ\"ט מ\"ז). היו שחייבו מעשר מזרעים (פאה פ\"א מ\"ו); במשנה אחרת (פ\"ה מ\"ב) מובאת מחלוקת רבי אליעזר (המחמיר) וחכמים, ואף שההלכה נקבעה כחכמים, בפועל מצינו שנוהגים כרבי אליעזר מתוך חומרה. דוגמה אחרת היא המדרש הידוע המתאר את עשו כמי שמפריש מעשר ממלח: \"ולא היה יודע שיצא לתרבות רעה, שהיה עשו בא ושואל את אביו מים ומלח צריכין מעשר או לאו, והיה יצחק אומר ומה מים ומלח הוא רוצה לעשר, שאר מעשרות על אחת וכמה\"26פסיקתא דרב כהנא, נספחים פ\"א, עמ' 447; תנח', תולדות ח. . המדרש מתאר את דמותו של מתחסד בן זמנו של המדרש. במקרה זה מדובר במעמיד פנים, אך הוא מתחזה לדמות קיימת של מתחסד שלדעת חז\"ל זו חסידות יתר.", + "עד מתי שמרו על מצוות תרומה?", + "לפי ההלכה אי אפשר לאכול תרומה אלא בטהרה. על כן, בעת שבטלה שמירת טהרה הפכה הרמת התרומה למעשה שאין בו נתינה לכהן. עדיין בעל הבית צריך להרים את תרומתו, אך עליו לשרפה ואין הוא יכול לתתה לכהן. באותם ימים הייתה הרמת תרומה בארץ דומה לזו שנהגה בבבל, כמו שאמרנו לעיל. העדות האחרונה לנתינת תרומה לכהן, וממילא גם לשמירת טהרה, היא בספרות המעשים27ניומן, מעשים, מעשה נב, עמ' 140; מעשה כט, עמ' 128. . ספרות זו נערכה אי שם בין המאות השישית והשמינית, ואי אפשר לדייק יותר ולקבוע עד מתי נהגה המצווה במלואה. בדוחק אפשר להסביר שהתרומה ניתנה לכהן על מנת שיאכיל את בהמתו (שלא בטהרה – משנה, תרומות פי\"א מ\"ט), זאת אף שהיו שהחמירו גם בזאת וסברו שאסור לתת תרומה לבהמה (תנא דבי אליהו, יד, עמ' 67). עם זאת, בהמה עשויה ליהנות רק מחלק מהתרומה (חיטה ודגנים, אך לא מזיתים או ענבים), ובכלל קשה לצמצם מימרה כללית למקרה כזה בלבד. יתר על כן, מההלכות בספרי המעשים אנו שומעים על כהן המוכר את תרומתו לשם חולין, ואם כן מדובר באוכל לאדם שאין לתתו לבהמה, אחרת אין בכך איסור. דומה, אפוא, שבארץ ישראל היו שהמשיכו לשמור על טהרה ועל מצוות תרומה גם לאחר הכיבוש הערבי." + ], + [ + "מבנה המסכת", + "המסכת כולה עוסקת בדיני תרומות, שהם חלק מדיני מעשרות באופן כללי, ממילא נושאים רבים בה חופפים לאלו שבמסכתות מעשרות ודמאי. ניכר מאמץ מה לתיאום בין המסכתות ולמניעת כפילויות. כך, למשל, אין במסכת שלנו דיונים מאילו פֵרות יש להרים תרומות, שכן נושא זה נדון במסכתות מעשרות ודמאי. עם זאת, יש נושאים החוזרים בשתי המסכתות ואף סותרים זה את זה, כגון הדיון בהגדרת גמר המלאכה המופיע במשנת מעשרות (פ\"א מ\"ז). אלו, אפוא, שתי עריכות שיש ביניהן מערכת קשרים והיכרות.", + "החטיבה הראשונה במסכת מתחילה בהכרזה על חמישה שאינם רשאים לתרום (מ\"א) וחמישה שאינם רשאים לתרום אבל אם תרמו תרומתם תרומה (מ\"ו). בין שתי המשניות הללו, הערוכות ביד אחת, פירוט של אלו שאינם רשאים לתרום. משנה ב מפרטת את דין חרש, משנה ג את דין קטן וכן הלאה. נושאים שאין בהם פירוט במשנה נידונים בתוספתא, ועסקנו בכך בפירושנו. מבנה החטיבה הזאת הוא של כלל שאחריו פירוט סעיפי הכלל.", + "היחידה השנייה מתחילה במשנה ז של פרק א, עד סוף פרק ב, והיא מפרטת את צורת התרומה, מה ואיך תורמים. גם לחטיבה זו בריח חיצוני, וכל עניין מתחיל במילים \"אין תורמין...\" (או \"אין תורמים\"). הסגנון השלילי נועד לחבר חטיבה זו לקודמתה הדנה באלו ש\"לא יתרומו\" (מ\"ו). הקשר בין היחידות בולט עוד יותר, שכן במשנה ו מדובר על אלו ש\"לא יתרומו ואם תרמו תרומתן תרומה\", וגם ביחידה השנייה עיקר המחלוקות והדיונים הם סביב שאלה זו, מה הדין במי שתרם שלא כהוגן. מבחינת התוכן המחלוקת העיקרית המבריחה את היחידה היא מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, מה מעמדה של תרומה שנתרמה שלא לפי כל כללי ההלכה. למעשה חולקים בית שמאי ובית הלל בשני נושאים: בנושא שבו נקבנו ובשאלה שנייה של תרומה מסוג אחד על השני; שתי המחלוקות אינן נאמרות במפורש במשנה, ואת פירושנו ביססנו על סמך המקבילות. ", + "היחידה השלישית (פ\"ג) עיקרה בתרומת טעות או בתרומה שלא הקפידו על פרטי ההרמה שלה, ושוב, הנושא הוא האם תרומתם תרומה או לא, כגון שותפים שתרמו זה אחר זה (מ\"ג) או המקדים תרומה לביכורים (מ\"ו). עריכת היחידה אינה \"מהודקת\" ונותרו בה דיונים בנושאי משנה, כגון סדרי קריאת השם (פ\"ג מ\"ה) או דין הפועלים שאין להם רשות לתרום (מ\"ד). נושא אחרון זה, למשל, נגרר מהדיון בראשית המשנה על עבד שתרם בטעות האם תרומתו תרומה. ", + "היחידה הבאה (פ\"ד מ\"א-מ\"ו) ממשיכה לדון בתרומת טעות, אלא שהסטיות מהנושא המרכזי גדולות עוד יותר. שתי המשניות הראשונות עוסקות בהרמת תרומה בחלקים נפרדים28ראו על כך בפירושנו בתחילת מ\"א בפרק ד. העלינו שם גם הצעות פירוש אחרות. ; ייתכן שנושא זה בא משום שאף זו תרומה בטעות, שהרי מן הראוי שלא לעשות כן. לאחר מכן נידונות טעויות בהרמת תרומה כשיעור. העורך צירף כאן יחידה עצמאית העוסקת בדין שיעור התרומה. משנה ג פותחת בדין העקרוני (מחלוקת מהו שיעור התרומה), משנה ד דנה במי שטעה והאם תרומתו תרומה, משנה ה דנה בתרומת יתר ומשנה ו בשאלה כיצד יש למדוד את שיעור התרומה. היחידה הובאה בגלל משנה ד המשתמשת במינוח המקובל \"אין תרומתו תרומה\", ואגבה הובאה יחידה לשמה שהייתה מגובשת וערוכה כמקור עצמאי. אנו רואים בארבע היחידות חטיבה אחת הכוללת את ארבעת הפרקים עד פרק ד מ\"ו. עם זאת, ניכר שפרק ג נערך בצורה חופשית יותר, והחצי הראשון של פרק ד הובא ממקור מגובש אחר. היחידה הרביעית היא גם חוליית הקישור לחטיבה הבאה.", + "החטיבה השנייה: בפ\"ד מ\"ז מתחילה סדרת משניות העוסקות בתערובת של תרומה. חטיבת התערובת היא עד סוף פרק ה. חוליית הקישור בין דיני תערובת לחטיבה הקודמת היא בעניין השיעור, וזו משנה ז בפרק ד. בעניין זה של שיעור נפתח גם דין התערובת (בכמה מתבטלת תרומה – מ\"ז). יש בחטיבה זו שני זוגות של משניות כפולות (פ\"ד מ\"ח/מ\"ט; מ\"י/מי\"א), שהם חזרה מוכפלת על אותו דין בדוגמאות שונות.", + "פרק ה הוא המשך אותה יחידה ומציג כמה מההלכות הבסיסיות של דיני תערובת, ביטול ו\"העלאה\", זאת בהמשך לפרק הקודם. עם זאת, ההלכות הראשוניות הן בפרק ה, ובסידור המקובל כיום היו שונים את פרק ה לפני הפרק הקודם, אבל למשנה עקרונות סדר אחרים. החטיבה מתחילה בדין שיעור תערובת, והדבר נובע בין השאר מהקשר לחטיבה הקודמת, וכפי שאמרנו. ברם יש בכך גם היגיון סידורי, והגיוני להתחיל את דיני תערובת בקביעה באיזו כמות של תערובת תרומה מתבטלת. בדין שיעור תערובת חולקים רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע, ואגב כך נמסרה סדרת מחלוקות של שני תנאים אלו. החלק הראשון של היחידה (פ\"ד) משקף מחלוקות של בני דור יבנה, ואילו החלק השני (פ\"ה) את המסירה של בני דור אושא.", + "החטיבה השלישית (פ\"ו-פ\"ח) עוסקת בתקלות שאירעו אגב אכילת תרומה. היחידה הראשונה (פ\"ו מ\"א - פ\"ז מ\"ד) עוסקת בדין זר האוכל תרומה. פ\"ו עוסק ב\"האוכל תרומה שוגג\" ורק פ\"ז ב\"האוכל תרומה מזיד\". שני הפרקים ערוכים, אפוא, כתקבולת ניגודית.", + "השוואת פרק ו לפרק ז", + "בפרק ו, אחרי ארבע המשניות הללו, המשנה עוברת לדון בדרכי התשלום (ממה מותר לשלם על אכילת תרומה), ואילו המשנה החמישית בפרק ז מנסחת את הכלל המסכם את שני הפרקים. שלוש המשניות האחרונות בפרק ז (מ\"ה-מ\"ז) חוזרות לדין תערובת שנדון בחטיבה הקודמת, אך הן מציגות גישה הלכתית אחרת (מקלה בהרבה), כפי שהראינו בפירושנו. ", + "נראה, אפוא, שהליבה של החטיבה כוללת את משניות א-ד בפרק ו ואת מקבילותיהן (א-ד) בפרק ז. משניות ה-ו בפרק ו נוספו אגב דין תשלומים, ומשנה ה בפרק ז היא חתימת החטיבה. העורך שיבץ יחידה אחרת של דיני תערובת, אך חש שהן מציגות עמדה שונה מזו של ההלכות בחטיבת התערובת שבפרקים הקודמים, ולכן הפריד ברצף דיני התערובת.", + "היחידה השנייה עוסקת בתקלות אחרות שאירעו בעת אכילת תרומה, בדין אישה שבעלה הכהן מת (פ\"ח מ\"א), בדין כל אדם שבאמצע האוכל התגלה לו שאינו זכאי להמשיך לאכול בתרומה (מ\"ב) או שבאמצע האוכל התחייב בהרמת תרומה (מ\"ג), ובדין תרומה שנפגעה (מ\"ד-מ\"ח). מכאן המשנה ממשיכה בדין תרומה העומדת להיטמא או ללכת לאיבוד (מ\"ט-מי\"א). המשנה האחרונה ביחידה זו (מי\"א) עוסקת בדין גויים הרוצים לטמא תרומה, ומכאן נגרר דין נערה שהגויים רוצים לטמאה. כפי שהערנו בראשית המבוא טומאת נערה אינה זהה לטומאת תרומה, אבל העורך מבטא בכך מסר משני של משמעות השמירה על טהרת התרומה.", + "היחידה השלישית כוללת את כל פ\"ט ועוסקת בדין גידולי תרומה. כאן אין מדובר במי שאכל תרומה בשוגג, או בתרומה שנפגעה, אלא במי שזרע תרומה (ואין הבדל בין שוגג למזיד). ", + "החטיבה הרביעית (פרקים י-יא) חוזרת לדיני תערובת ואיבוד תרומה. היחידה הראשונה (פרק י) דנה בדין תערובת, אך לא תערובת של אותו מין שבה אחד מבטל את השני אלא תערובת של מינים שונים שניתן לפרק אותה אך נותר בה טעם או טובת הנאה אחרת. היחידה נפתחת בדין תערובת בצל, וחוליית הקישור בינה לבין היחידה הקודמת היא העיסוק בבצל; חסיות בפרק ט ובצל בפרק י. חסיות הוא \"שם משפחה\" הכולל את הבצל, לפי החלוקה של חכמים. במסגרת היחידה נדונים דיני בצל ועדשים (מ\"א), תנור שהוסק בתרומה (מ\"ג-מ\"ד), דג טמא ודג טהור (מ\"ח) ושאלות דומות. המשנה הראשונה בפרק יא היא בבחינת המשך של אותו נושא, אך היא עוסקת במדיניות הלכתית יזומה: לא מה הדין אם אירע מקרה של תערובת אלא מה מותר לערב, והחשש הוא שמא יש בכך איבוד תרומה. בכל מצב, אם עירב הרי התערובת מקבלת את דין התרומה ואין לאכלה אלא בטהרה.", + "היחידה הבאה (פי\"א מ\"ג-מ\"י) עוסקת באיבוד תרומה, ולמה מותר להשתמש בתרומה. המשנה הראשונה עוסקת בהיתר להכין דבש מתמרים או יין מתפוחים, והחשש הוא שמא יש בכך איבוד תרומה. בכך הקשר ליחידה הקודמת שגם בה עלה נושא זה של איבוד תרומה. בגלל משנה זו גרר העורך את המשנה הקודמת (מ\"ב) המזכירה את דבש התמרים, יין התפוחים ושאר מיצי הפֵרות הנזכרים במשנה ג. מ\"ב היא אפוא חריג, עוסקת בשאלה מהו משקה המכשיר מזון לקבל טומאה ואין היא שייכת לנושא המשנה אלא נגררת משום שדנים בה באותם מוצרים הנזכרים במשנה הבאה. המשך משנה ג עוסק אף הוא במיצי פֵרות. נמצאנו למדים שהייתה זו יחידה עצמאית וערוכה של משנה קדומה שדנה במיצי פֵרות, והיא שולבה במשנתנו בזכות התחלת משנה ג הדנה באיבוד תרומה.", + "המשך היחידה עובר לדון בעצם דין איבוד תרומה, מה דינם של גרעינים או עצמות (מ\"ד). אגב הגרעינים הובא דין עוקצי התאנים של תרומה, שדינם כתרומה. ניתן היה לנסח את משנה ד במקום בעוקצים בגרעינים או בעצמות, כמו משנה ה: \"גרעיני תאנים... של תרומה אסורים לזרים\", כשם שמשנה ה עוסקת בגרעינים. אפשר היה גם לנסח את משנה ה ואת משנה ד בעוקצי תרומה. מן הסתם במשנה הקדומה כך היו הדברים כתובים, כלומר שתי המשניות עסקו באותו מקרה. לפי הסבר זה משנה ד יוצרת את התשתית ההלכתית להמשך. עוקצים (וגרעינים) הם תרומה ולכן בא הדיון באיבוד הגרעינים, שהרי בדרך כלל אין אדם אוכל גרעינים (ועוקצים). המשך היחידה עוסק בשאלות דומות של טיפול בתרומה שאגב הטיפול בה נוצר מצב של איבוד תרומה, כגון מגורה שהיו בה גרעיני תרומה ושיש לנקותה (מ\"ו) וחבית שנשפכה (מ\"ז). היחידה מסתיימת בדין שמן שרפה שהוא שמן שנטמא, ובודקת למה ניתן להשתמש בו. ", + "זמנה של מסכת תרומה", + "רוב המסכת מכילה חומרים מדור אושא; רבי יהודה נזכר בה 21 פעמים (כגון פ\"א מ\"ג; פ\"ב מ\"ב; פ\"ב מ\"ד), רבי יוסי 11 פעמים (כגון פ\"א מ\"ג; פ\"ג מ\"ג; פ\"ד מ\"ז) ורבי מאיר 6 פעמים (כגון פ\"ד מ\"א; פ\"ו מ\"ה; פ\"ז מ\"ז). בשמו של דור זה נמסרות רוב ההלכות של המשנה, והעריכה מבטאת את השפעתו ותורתו של הדור. אבל יסודות ההלכות לעתים קדומים בהרבה. היחידה השנייה בחטיבה הראשונה מפרטת סדרת מחלוקות שבבסיסן מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל (פ\"א מ\"ח - פ\"ב מ\"ו), אבל החולקים במשנה הם מבני דור אושא, אלא שבעזרת המקבילות ראינו שהם מהלכים בשיטת רבותיהם. כמו כן מופיעה בפרק ד סדרת מחלוקות של רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ויתר חכמי דור יבנה (פ\"ד מ\"ה). כפי שראינו לעיל החלק הראשון של החטיבה כולל מחלוקות של בני דור יבנה, והחלק השני משקף את תורתם של בני דור אושא. ", + "במהלך המסכת עוד הלכות של ראשוני דור יבנה רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע (כגון פ\"ו מ\"ו; פ\"ח מ\"ג; פ\"ח מ\"ה ועוד) ואחרים (כגון פ\"ט מ\"ב). לעתים אלו משניות בודדות, ולעתים סדרת משניות (פ\"ח מ\"ח-מי\"א), אבל רוב המסכת הוא מתורת דור אושא, ועריכתה מאוחרת לדור זה, ככל הנראה מדור רבי. " + ], + [ + "כתבי היד ועדי הנוסח", + "בכל סדר זרעים עומדת לרשותנו מהדורה עם חילופי נוסחאות מבית מדרשו של מכון \"התלמוד הישראלי השלם\". המהדורה כוללת חילופי נוסח מדפוסים, כתבי יד וקטעי גניזה. אמנם מצויים מעט קטעים נוספים, אך די במה שיש כדי להציג את המצוי כיום בידינו. העורך זיכנו בתוספת הערות מראשונים נבחרים, אם כי חלק זה פחות מלא מהחלק הקודם." + ], + [ + "רשימת קיצורי הדפוסים וכתבי היד", + "א – אוקספורד 366 ", + "ב – משנה זרעים עם פירוש הרמב\"ם, כתב יד ברלין 93", + "ג – קטעי גניזה, רשימה מצויה במהדורת התלמוד השלם", + "ו – דפוס ונציה רפ\"א", + "ז – כתב יד קמברידג' 470.1 (לאו)", + "ט – דפוס קושטא", + "י – קטעי ירושלמי מגניזת קהיר", + "כ – משנה זרעים עם פירוש הרמב\"ם, כתב יד פריז 329", + "ל – כתב יד ליידן לירושלמי", + "מ – מינכן 95", + "נ – דפוס נפולי", + "ס – פירוש ר\"ש סירליאו, כתב יד המוזאון הבריטי 403", + "ע – משנה זרעים עם פירוש הרמב\"ם, כתב יד ענלאו 270", + "פ – פרמא 138", + "פ1 – דפוס פארו", + "צ – כתב יד פלורנץ", + "ק – כתב יד קופמן המשמש בסיס לדיוננו, מובא בגוף הטקסט", + "קול – קולומביה T141 – X893", + "ר – כתב יד רומי של הירושלמי (וטיקן 133)", + "ש – כתב יד ששון 531", + "ת – כתב יד תימני (קפאח) למשנה ", + "ת2 – כתב יד תימני של הרב מימון", + "ת3 – כתב יד תימני סמינר ניו יורק 30/31" + ] + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "חמשה לא יתרומו – המשנה פותחת בפתיחה מספרית, כלל מספרי שאחריו יבוא הפירוט. גרעין המשנה המקורי ממשיך במשנה ו להלן. במשנתנו \"חמשה לא יתרומו\" ואם תרמו תרומתם פסולה, ובמשנה להלן \"חמשה לא יתרומו ואם תרמו תרומתן תרומה\". פרקים רבים מתחילים בפתיחות מספריות, וכן משניות רבות1מסכתות: שבת (ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"א שם), פאה, בבא קמא, שבועות, יבמות ועוד, וראו במבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות. . הפתיחה המספרית הייתה חשובה לקדמונינו, משום שהם זכרו את המשניות בעל פה והמספרים היו כלי עזר חשוב ביותר לזיכרון. ייתכן גם שהייתה פעם משנה קדומה שרבות ממשניותיה היו סדורות בצורה מספרית, או לחילופין שהייתה זו שיטת עריכה, אולי של בית מדרש מסוים, אך לאו דווקא שיטת עריכה קדומה. ואכן, למשניות המספריות אופי מסכם של כלל, ועל כן סביר יותר שזו שיטת מאוחרת. בירושלמי מיוחסת הגישה המספרית לתקופת הסופרים \"שעשו את התורה ספורות ספורות\" (שקלים פ\"ה ה\"א, מח ע\"ג). זו עדות לשיטת העריכה ולכך שאמוראים הכירו אותה והכירו בייחודה, עם זאת אין ללמוד מכאן על הכרונולוגיה של השיטה2אורבך, סופרים, פיתח שיטה שלמה על תקופת הסופרים כתקופת היסוד של תורה שבעל פה. לא כאן המקום לפתח את הנושא, אך להערכתנו המינוח \"סופרים\" בספרות חז\"ל כמתייחס לחכמי העבר רווי תפיסות סטראוטיפיות ואינו משקף זיכרון היסטורי רֵאלי. עסקנו בכך בהרחבה במבוא לפירוש המשניות, וראו גם פירושנו לערלה פ\"ג מ\"ט. פרק ג בנדרים פותח אף הוא פתיחה מספרית, ושתיים מהמשניות המפרשות את הפתיחה הן מחלוקות בית שמאי ובית הלל (מ\"ב ומ\"ד). אין אלו פירושים המאוחרים לפתיחה המספרית, אלא הפתיחה היא סיכום מאוחר של המחלוקות במשניות הקדומות. אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת נרחיב בכך בפירושנו לנדרים. . כפי שנראה בהמשך המשנה יש בה כפילויות וכנראה כלל גרעין המשנה רק את ההלכה עצמה, ללא הפתיחה המספרית. בשלב עריכה מאוחר יותר נוספה פתיחה מספרית, וכך נוספו בה כמה מילים מיותרות. גם משנת נדרים (פי\"א מ\"י) היא כזאת. המשנה פותחת \"תשע נערות נדריהן קיימין\", ומכילה מקרים ברורים שכבר התלמוד חש בייתורם ואומר שלמעשה שניים או שלושה כללים כאן: \"אמר רבי יוחנן שתים הן ולמה תנינן תשע בשביל לחדד את התלמידים, וכרבי יודה שלש\" (ירו', נדרים פי\"א ה\"י, מב ע\"ד). הכללים הם:", + "1. יתומה שאביה מת (ואין זה משנה מתי מת).", + "2. בוגרת, אף אם אביה חי.", + "3. יתומה בחיי אביה (קטנה או נערה שהתאלמנה או התגרשה). זהו המקרה התשיעי ", + " שבמשנה.", + "אין ספק שהמשנה מנוסחת בכבדות, שהרי ניסוח הכללים שהתלמוד מציע פשוט וברור יותר. אין זאת אלא שהרשימה לא נוצרה כיחידה אחת אלא להפך, כל מקרה נדון לגופו ובהקשר מקרי כלשהו (כאשר התרחש). רק בשלב מאוחר יותר נערכה המשנה. הכלל ההלכתי שאליו רומז התלמוד נוסח ונקבע מאוחר עוד יותר, לאחר עריכת המשנה, שכן כאשר הכלל קיים המשנה מנוסחת בכבדות ויש בה ייתורים. ", + "גם הפתיחה המספרית של משנת שבועות פ\"א מ\"א היא מאוחרת, שהרי היא מצטטת משניות אחרות. בעל המשנה הרחיב באותם מקרים שבהם אין משניות מפורשות העוסקות בפירוט המספרי. אם כן, מנסח הפתיחה כבר הכיר משניות קדומות ואף ידע אילו מהן שובצו במשנה שערך רבי. ודאי, אפוא, שניסוח המשנה הוא מאוחר, בשלבי הסיום של תהליך עריכת המשנה שלנו.", + "לעומת זאת, משנת נגעים גם היא פותחת בפתיחה מספרית: \"מראות נגעים שנים שהן ארבעה\" (פ\"א מ\"א). פתיחה זו אכן קדומה, שכן שנינו: \"אמר רבי יוסי, שאל יהשע בנו של רבי עקיבא את רבי עקיבא, אמר לו: מפני מה אמרו מראות נגעים שנים שהן ארבע? אמר לו: אם לאו מה יאמרו? אמר לו: יאמרו 'מקרום ביצה ולמעלה טמא'. אמר לו: ללמד שמצטרפין זה עם זה. אמר לו: יאמרו 'מקרום ביצה ולמעלה טמא ומצטרפין זה עם זה'. אמר לו: ללמדך שאם אינו בקי בהן ובשמותיהן לא יראה את הנגעים\"3תוס', נגעים פ\"א ה\"א, עמ' 617; ירו', לב ע\"ד; בבלי, ו ע\"א. . בנו של רבי עקיבא שאל את אביו למה המשנה מנוסחת בצורה מספרית, ואכן למעשה אין כאן חלוקה של שניים כפול שניים אלא ארבע רמות. ניכר שרבי עקיבא מתקשה בהבנת השאלה, ולבסוף מתרץ שהניסוח בא ללמד מסר צדדי נוסף, שכל הכתמים בצבעים השונים מצטרפים זה לזה, כפי שאכן קובעת המשנה שם (פ\"א מ\"ג). לא נעסוק כאן בשאלת ניסוח המשנה, ונסתפק בהערכה שהדיון בין רבי עקיבא ובנו הוא מעין \"דו שיח של חירשים\". רבי יהושע שואל שאלה ספרותית על סגנון, ורבי עקיבא מחפש תשובה של תוכן. ברור שאין לרבי עקיבא תשובה מוכנה, שכן שתי התשובות הראשונות שלו נדחות. רבי עקיבא אינו עונה את התשובה הסגנונית הפשוטה, זו המוצעת בראשית פירושנו למסכת שהעורך בחר בפתיחה סגנונית מטעמי זיכרון ומטעמי מבנה. הרי המשנה אומרת ארבע, וחכמים אחרים מציעים מספרים אחרים (12, 16, 36, 72)4משנה, נגעים פ\"א מ\"ד; תוס', שם פ\"א ה\"ו, עמ' 618 ומקבילות אמוראיות נוספות. דברי רבי חנניה שבמשנת הדפוס אינם בכתבי היד הטובים, אך הם בתוספתא, ונרחיב בכך בפירושנו למסכת נגעים ולמסכת שבועות פ\"א מ\"א. , על כן פתיחה מספרית מתבקשת במקרה זה. רבי עקיבא אינו מסתפק בהסבר פשוט זה, הוא גם אינו מוכן לשקול שינוי הסגנון; הוא מחפש הסבר \"עמוק\" יותר ומוצא אותו במעין דרשה למשנה המגלה רובד נוסף שאיננו פשט הכתוב. דרשות למשנה אינן תופעה תדירה, אך בהחלט ניתן למצוא בתלמודים הסברים דרשניים למשניות5ראו פירושנו לפאה פ\"ד מ\"א; פ\"ה מ\"ו; מנחות פ\"ה מ\"ח והדרשה עליה בויקרא רבה, ג ז, עמ' עב; תנא דבי אליהו, ו (ז), עמ' 38; מדרש תהילים, ה יא, עמ' 56. כן ראוי לפרש את הסבר הבבלי בבבא בתרא כה ע\"א, וראו עוד פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ז מ\"א; עירובין פ\"י מי\"ד; שקלים פ\"ז מ\"ו; ערכין פ\"ב מ\"ה ומ\"ו (ההסבר המדרשי בתוספתא שם פ\"ב ה\"א); כתובות פ\"ה מ\"ה וההסבר הדרשני בבראשית רבה, נב יב, עמ' 552; מעשרות פ\"ב מ\"א וכפי שנתבארה בתנחומא בובר בשלח יט, עמ' 84, וכפי שכבר המדרש שם מסתייג מהדרשה; מעשר שני פ\"ב מ\"א וכפי שנדרש בשיר השירים זוטא, א א, עמ' ג; פסחים פ\"ג מ\"ז כפי שנדרשה בירו', פסחים פ\"ג ה\"ז, ל ע\"ב; סוטה פ\"ג מ\"ד; פ\"ד מ\"ד, וראו פירושנו לה; קידושין פ\"א מ\"ז; פ\"ד מ\"א כפי שנדרשה בבבלי שם סט ע\"ב; שקלים פ\"ה מ\"א; שבת פ\"ו מ\"א; נדרים סוף פ\"א, ואולי גם פסחים פ\"ט מ\"ב (הסבר הבבלי בצד ע\"א, ראו פירושנו למשנה זו) ועוד. דרשה לפרק שלם כיחידה ספרותית יש לערכין פ\"ג מ\"ה (פסיקתא רבתי, י מ ע\"ב - מא ע\"א); ירו', יבמות פי\"ג ה\"א, יג ע\"ג, שם נדרשת המילה \"פקדון\" שבאבות דרבי נתן, נו\"ב פל\"ה, מג ע\"א; נגעים פי\"ד מ\"א והתוספתא עליה פ\"ח ה\"ג, עמ' 628; משנה, טהרות פ\"ח מ\"ז כפי שפורשה בויקרא רבה, מרגליות כה ב, עמ' תקע; משנה, כלים פ\"ה מ\"י כפי שפורשה בבבלי, ברכות יט ע\"א (תנורו של עכנאי); מנה, ערלה פ\"ג מ\"ז כפי שפורשה בשיר השירים רבה, פ\"ו יא; משנה, חגיגה פ\"א מ\"ב כפי שפורשה על ידי המדרש התנאי בספרי דברים, קמג, עמ' 181; משנה, סוטה פ\"ט מי\"ב, כי שפורשה על ידי רבי יהושע בן לוי בבבלי (סוטה מח ע\"ב). המשנה האחרונה במסכת סוטה, פ\"ט הט\"ו, איננה משנה אלא \"ברייתא\" המופיעה בספרות האמוראים ובמדרש תנאים לדברים (ראו בפירושנו למשנה זו). מדרש זה הוא ספק תנאי ספק מאוחר יותר, מכל מקום יש למשנה זו דרשה מפותחת (מדרש תנאים לדברים, כג טו, עמ' 148; ירו', שבת פ\"א ה\"ג, ג ע\"ג; שקלים פ\"ג ה\"ז, מז ע\"ג). \tפירוש דרשני למשנה היה מקובל בימי הביניים, ופירושים כאלה נכתבו במהלך הדורות. כזה הוא פירוש \"מעשה רוקח\" לר' אליעזר בן שמואל שמלקה לנדוי (מרגליות), רבה של אמשטרדם במאה השמונה עשרה, שכתב את פירושו למשנה על דרך הסוד, ויש בו גימטריות רבות ורמזים לעולם של מעלה. אלא שבעל \"מעשה רוקח\" מדגיש שפירושו שעל דרך האמת אינו שולל את הפשט, ואינו מחליף אותו. אין הוא בבחינת עומקו של הפשט, אלא עטיפה נוספת ונבדלת: \"כל הדינים אינם יוצאים מפשטן אבל מרמזים דברים גדולים\" (עמ' כב). . התוכן ההלכתי של המשנה (ומקבילותיה) נקבע כאמור בראשית דור יבנה, והיא סוגננה בצורתה הנוכחית עוד בדור יבנה. מצד שני שותפים למשנה בנגעים רבי מאיר מדור אושא וחכמים, שהם כנראה בני דורו, על כן יש לומר שהניסוח הקדום כלל רק את המשפט \"מראות נגעים שתים שהן ארבע\" (ואת הדעות המונות מספרים גבוהים יותר), ובדור אושא נוספה רשימת המקרים. אין בידינו רשימה דומה של החכמים החולקים (12 מראות נגעים, 16, 36 או 72 מראות נגעים). אם כן, חכמי דור אושא מוסרים את הניסוח הקדום ומוסיפים את מניין המראות לפי דעות החולקים. לעיל קבענו שהפתיחות המספריות מאוחרות; הדבר נכון לפתיחה של מסכת שבועות ולפתיחות אחרות (תרומות ונדרים), אך אינה נכונה לגבי מסכת נגעים. ", + "בפרק יג באותה מסכת (נגעים) יש שוב פתיחה מספרית: \"עשרה בתים...\". כפי שנעלה בפירוש המשנה הסיכום המספרי (עשרה) הוא מאוחר לרשימה, ובמידת מה מלאכותי. לפני התנא עמדה רשימת מקרים, והוא צירף פרטים שלא מעניין המשנה כדי להגיע למספר הספרותי שהיה חשוב לו. אם כן, גם פתיחה מספרית זו איננה קדומה. ", + "הוא הדין במשנת שקלים פרק ו הפותחת בשלושה נתונים מספריים (יג שופרות, יג שולחנות, יג השתחוויות שהיו במקדש). למעשה בנוי פרק זה בשקלים כמעין שלוש שכבות. במשנה א נקבע הכלל; במשניות הבאות (מהחצי השני של משנה א ועד אמצע משנה ה) מוסבר הכלל שבראש הפרק בסדר כיאסטי. בחצי השני של משנה ה ובמשנה ו מוסברים דברי המשנה שבחצי הראשון של משנה ה, והפעם לפי הסדר הישר. ", + "הדעת נותנת שהמשנה הקובעת את הכלל היא מאוחרת, שכן יש בה כבר סיכום של משניות קודמות. ייתכן אפילו שזו חתימת ידו של עורך המשנה האחרון. הוא הדין במקרה שלנו, אם כי ההלכות עצמן קדומות ועוסקות בחיי המקדש. עם זאת, ייתכן שהסיכום על יג דברים שהיו במקדש הוא סיכום ספרותי של הלכות קדומות. גם משנת מגילה כזאת. ההלכה בדבר קריאת מגילה במועדים שונים היא הלכה קדומה שבטלה בדור אושא6ראו פירושנו למגילה פ\"א מ\"א ומ\"ג. . את הניסוח הכוללני שבמשנה א יש להבין כסיכום ההלכות הקדומות, ולא כקביעה המשקפת את ההלכה בימי מחבר המשפט. ", + "עוד נוסיף שמבחינת ההיגיון הפנימי, הגדרה מספרית עשויה לנבוע מאחד משני קווי התפתחות. או שהיא מטיבה מאוחרת, רק לאחר שנקבעה ההלכה בכמה מקרים, או שהיא קדומה, פרי עיון מִקדמי ותאורטי בנושא. כאמור כזאת היא משנת נגעים, אבל ביתר המשניות הפתיחה המספרית מאוחרת, ואכן משנת נגעים היא מיוחדת ואיננה אופיינית לתורה שבעל פה. אין שם תורה שבעל פה שהתפתחה ברחוב שומר המצוות מתוך זיקה לבית המדרש, אלא במנותק מהציבור. כפי שנעלה בפירושנו למשנה, הציבור פנה לכוהנים בבקשת הדרכה ופסק הלכה, וחכמים עסקו בנושא במנותק ממנו, ולא בדרך הרגילה שבה התפתחה תורה שבעל פה7ראו במבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות. . ", + "ואם תרמו אין תרומתן תרומה החרש והשוטה והקטן – החירש, השוטה והקטן הם שלישייה המופיעה יחדיו בהלכות רבות. הקורא את המשנה מתרשם שיש כאן קבוצה מלוכדת שיש לה הלכות ברורות ואחידות. התמונה הכללית, אפשר לומר ה\"קנונית\", העולה מרוב המקורות, היא ששלישייה זו פטורה ממצוות. הם אינם חייבים בהן משום שאין בהם דעת. רוב הדוגמאות לכך הן מ\"מצוות עשה\". כך אין הם חייבים בקריאת מגילה (משנה, מגילה פ\"ב מ\"ד); אין הם חייבים במצוות ראייה, כלומר בהבאת קרבן ראייה למקדש (משנה, חגיגה פ\"א מ\"א)8כך פירשנו את משנת חגיגה פ\"א מ\"א. , בתקיעת שופר (תוס', ראש השנה פ\"ג ה\"ה) וכן הלאה. כתוצאה מכך אם עשו מעשה קודש אין הוא חל, לכן אין הם תורמים (משנתנו) ואין הם מוציאים את הרבים ידי חובת מגילה (משנה, מגילה פ\"ב מ\"א) או ידי חובת שופר, והנימוק המשפטי הוא: \"חרש, שוטה וקטן אין מוציאין את הרבים ידי חובתן. זה הכלל כל שאינו מחויב בדבר, אינו מוציא את הרבים ידי חובתן\" (משנה, ראש השנה פ\"ג מ\"ח).", + "לא רק ממצוות עשה הם פטורים אלא גם ממצוות לא תעשה, כדברי המדרש: \"לדעת כי אני ה' מקדשכם. למה נאמר? לפי שהוא אומר, 'ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת', שומע אני אפילו חרש שוטה וקטן במשמע, תלמוד לומר לדעת 'כי אני ה', לא אמרתי אלא במי שיש לו דעת\" (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, כי תשא, מסכתא דשבתא א, עמ' 341).", + "במסגרת דיני ממונות, אין להם זכות קניין; מה שקנו אינו שלהם ומה שהזיקו הם פטורים מלשלם: \"חרש, שוטה וקטן פגיעתן רעה. החובל בהן חייב, והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין\" (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ח מ\"ד). כמו כן: \"חרש, שוטה וקטן ששחטו ואחרים רואין אותם, חייב לכסות. בינן לבין עצמם, פטור מלכסות\" (משנה, חולין פ\"ו מ\"ג), וכן: \"חרש, שוטה וקטן נידרין ונערכין אבל לא נודרין ולא מעריכין, מפני שאין בהם דעת\" (משנה, ערכין פ\"א מ\"א).", + "מעמדו של החירש בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד שונה במידה רבה מזה של החירש בימינו. רוב החירשים הם חירשים מלידה, ואלו לא קלטו כלל את הדיבור וממילא היו גם אילמים. בודדים מהם הצליחו להשתלב בחברה, אך רובם נחשבו באופן טבעי כחסרי כישורים נפשיים ואינטלקטואליים. להלן נדון בחירש שאינו שומע אך מדבר, ובאילם שאינו מדבר אך שומע. כל אלו היו מקרים חריגים ורוב החירשים היו גם אילמים, וגם בלתי משתלבים בחברה. החברה הקדומה לא ידעה לטפל בבעיות של החירשים, ולא פיתחה דרכי למידה שיאפשרו להם להשתלב בחברה השומעת. כל זאת בניגוד לחברה בת זמננו. עם זאת, ודאי שהיו גם חירשים נבונים שהצליחו להתגבר על בעיותיהם. היו גם פיקחים שהתחרשו ואלו בוודאי היו משולבים בקהילה, במגבלות ברורות.", + "במסורות שהעלינו מדובר בסתם חירש, ואין אבחנה בין חירש שאינו שומע ובין מי שאינו מדבר, זאת משום שבדרך כלל מי שלא שמע גם לא דיבר. ברם היו מקרים חריגים של חירשים שדיברו, וממילא התפתחה אבחנה משפטית-מעשית בין חירש-אילם לבין מי שהוא רק חירש: \"חרש המדבר ואינו שומע לא יתרום אם תרם תרומתו תרומה, חרש שדיברו חכמים בכל מקום שאינו לא שומע ולא מדבר\" (להלן מ\"ב).", + "ההלכות שבמשנה, עוסקות בחירש ובשוטה באופן כללי, ואינן עוסקות באבחנות משנה. ודאי שבפועל תלויים היו הדברים באדם שעליו דיברו. יש חירש ויש חירש, יש שוטה ויש שוטה. אך הניסוח ההלכתי כללי. עם זאת אנו רשאים להעלות גם את הגוון האישי, כפי שנעלה להלן. ", + "כבר בספרות המשנה ניכרים בקיעים מעטים בעמדה ההלכתית ה\"קנונית\"9המקרים הפרטיים יידונו להלן. ראו משנה, גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ה; עדיות פ\"ז מ\"ט (רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא); שם מ\"ח (דברי רבי יוסי). , ובקיעים אלו מעמיקים תוך עיון במקורות המקבילים. נפתח את עיוננו בחירש ובשוטה, ואחר כך נדון בקטן. ", + "דין חירש ושוטה נדון אגב מצוות רבות. קבוצה מיוחדת היא דיני הנישואים שלו. לכאורה אם אין לו קניין אין הוא יכול לשאת אישה, אך בפועל אִפשרו לו חיי נישואים, כפי שנראה להלן. נושא הנישואים סבוך במיוחד ומעורר סדרת שאלות:", + "1. האם יש לו נישואין", + "2. כיצד הוא מבצע את הקידושין", + "3. כיצד הוא יכול לגרש את אשתו ", + "4. האם הוא חייב בכתובה", + "5. האם הוא חייב, רשאי, או אסור בחליצה", + "שאלות אלו מתעוררות גם לגבי החירשת, וממילא מתעוררת שאלה נוספת:", + "6. האם דין החירשת כדין החירש. האם הם זוכים לאותו יחס למוגבלות שלהם, מעבר לאי השוויון המגדרי הבסיסי (האיש מקדש ואין האישה מקדשת, הוא מגרש לרצונו והיא נגד רצונה, הוא מייבם לרצונו והיא לא לרצונה וכו'). בצורה פרדוקסלית, אם רצון האישה איננו משמעותי החירשת והשוטה מתקרבות לאישה רגילה. ", + "מבחינה משפטית אלו שאלות בתחומים אחרים, אבל בפועל הן כרוכות וסבוכות זו בזו.", + "מעתה עלינו לחזור לדיון במשנתנו.", + "לכאורה זו משנה רגילה, והחירש פטור מהמצווה וממילא איננו יכול לעשותה. אלא שיש כאן מצב מיוחד. חירש ושוטה פטורים ממצוות, אך אם עשו בוודאי המעשה קיים, על כן נדרש כאן הסבר מיוחד.", + "התפיסה העולה מהמשנה היא שהתרומה יש בה קדושה יתרה, ועל כן הרמת התרומה מחייבת קדושה וכוונה מיוחדת. כידוע \"מצוות צריכות כוונה\", כלומר מי שמבצע אותן צריך לעשותן לשם מצווה10ראו פירושנו למגילה פ\"ב מ\"א. , קל וחומר במצוות תרומה שהיא כולה מיוסדת על כוונה, שהרי המפריש מקדיש בכך חלק מהיבול כתרומה. מעשה סתם, כלומר הרמת התבואה כשלעצמה, הוא חסר משמעות. המעשה הוא ההצהרה והכוונה שחלק מוגדר מהיבול הוא תרומה. לפיכך, הכוונה היא מרכיב במעשה. הירושלמי משווה את הפרשת התרומות לשלוש מצוות אחרות שגם בהן יש מרכיב של כוונה: כתיבת גיטין, שהרי את הגט יש לכתוב לשמה של אישה מסוימת, הרטבת פֵרות המכשירה לקבל טומאה ועשיית טהרות (ירו', מ ע\"א-ע\"ג). בשלושתן חירש שעשה מעשה מעשהו נחשב. לגבי טהרות אנו אף שומעים על בניו של יוחנן בן גודגדא שהיו חירשים וכל טהרות ירושלים נעשו על ידיהם (\"על גבן\"). למעשה אחרון זה נחזור להלן. בכל המקרים הללו ה\"כוונה\" נתפסת כבסיס למעשה, אבל המעשה הוא המרכיב המרכזי, וניתן לברר את הכוונה על ידי בירור טיבו של המעשה. לא כן בהרמת תרומה שיש בה שני מרכיבים, מעשה ההפרשה וה\"קריאה בשם\" שהיא מרכיב עיקרי ומרכזי בפני עצמו. בדיוננו להלן (פ\"א מ\"ד) נראה כי בית שמאי, וממשיכם רבי אליעזר, חולקים על גישה זו. לדעתם מעשה קודש שנעשה תופס אפילו אם לא נעשה לפי כל כללי ההלכה. כפשוטו גם ברור שאם חירשים \"עושים\" טהרות הם גם מפרישים תרומות, ולפנינו מחלוקת, כפי שאומר הירושלמי במפורש. ", + "אם כן, על המשנה הסתמית חולקים שני תנאים. בית שמאי סבורים שאמנם לכתחילה אין זה ראוי שהחירש ירים תרומה, אבל כל מעשה הרמת תרומות תקף, ואילו רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא סבור שחירש נחשב לעניין זה כבעל דעת, ובכך עוד נרחיב.", + "סדרת משניות מבחינה בין מחשבת החירש (השוטה והקטן) לבין מעשיו: \"חשב עליו חרש שוטה וקטן טהור\" – שכן מחשבתו של החירש או השוטה אין לה מעמד משפטי; \"אם העלהו טמא, שיש להן מעשה ואין להן מחשבה\" (משנה, טהרות פ\"ח מ\"ו). המשפט חוזר גם במשנת מכשירין (פ\"ג מ\"ח), שם מדובר בהכשר לקבל טומאה. גמר המלאכה הוא המועד שבו החפץ גמור, מוכן למלאכה, ומאז הוא מקבל טומאה (ואם נגעה בו טומאה הוא טמא). גמר מלאכה מוגדר כשטיפת הכלי, ובתנאי שהשטיפה היא לרצונו של בעל הבית. חירש, שוטה וקטן ששטפו כלים אין מחשבתם מועילה, אבל המעשה תקף והכלים מוכשרים לקבל טומאה כדברי המשנה שם: \"המוריד בהמה לשתות: המים העולים בפיה בכי יותן11\"כי יותן\" הוא המינוח לשטיפה שהיא לרצונו של בעל הבית ומכשירה לקבל טומאה. , וברגליה אינן בכי יותן. אם חשב שיודחו רגליה, אף העולין ברגליה בכי יותן. בשעת היחף והדיש לעולם טמא12כי הבעל מעוניין שרגלי הבהמה תתנקנה, שכן היא דורכת ברגליה על החיטים ומסאבת אותן. . הוריד חרש, שוטה וקטן, אף על פי שחושב שיודחו רגליה אינן בכי יותן, שיש להן מעשה ואין להן מחשבה\" (מכשירין פ\"ג מ\"ח). כמו כן: \"הרימון, האלון והאגוז שחקקום התינוקות למוד בהם את העפר, או שהתקינום לכף מאזנים, טמא, שיש להם מעשה ואין להם מחשבה\" (משנה, כלים פי\"ז מט\"ו). הכלל מקובל גם בתלמודים (ירו', מ ע\"א; בבלי, חולין יב ע\"ב - יג ע\"א). הכלל הוא שתרומה חשובה לשאלת מעמדם ההלכתי (והחברתי) של החירש, השוטה והקטן. עם זאת, אין הכלל פשוט. חירש שתרם, האם נחשב הדבר למחשבה (ההקדשה היא המחייבת) או המעשה? השוטה שקידש אישה או נתן לה גט, זהו מעשה או מחשבה? ", + "אפשר שההלכה שחירש שתרם תרומתו תרומה היא משום שיש לו מעשה, ואפשר שזו עמדת ביניים של איסור מלכתחילה וכשרות בדיעבד, או ששני ההסברים משולבים. ", + "בהמשך הירושלמי (מ ע\"ב) מופיע מרכיב נוסף בהלכות תרומה, והוא שמיעת האוזן. בקריאת שמע יש צורך בכך שהמתפלל \"ישמיע לאוזנו\", כך לפי רבי יוסי, ורבי יהודה חולק (ראו פירושנו לברכות פ\"ב מ\"ד). הירושלמי מציע, אפוא, שגם משנתנו היא לרבי יוסי בלבד, והחירש פסול משום שאינו משמיע לאוזנו. הירושלמי אינו מגדיר מה צריך המפריש להשמיע לאוזנו. לפי פשוטם של דברים הכוונה לעצם \"קריאת השם\", ההצהרה שהפֵרות הללו הם תרומה. אבל הבבלי העלה אפשרות של פרשנות מעין זו בצורה משפטית עוד ", + "יותר והגדיר שהכוונה לשמיעת הברכה (ברכות טו ע\"א; מגילה יט ע\"ב13רוב המפרשים מהלכים, כמובן, אחר פירוש הגמרא. ראו, למשל, הרמב\"ם למשנתנו, הר\"ש, הרא\"ש ואחרים. ). הבבלי דחה את האפשרות, אך הירושלמי כאמור קיבל אותה. אלא שאין לפרש את הירושלמי כמו הבבלי. הבבלי הדגיש את שמיעת הברכה, והירושלמי אינו מזכיר כלל את הברכה אלא את עצם \"קריאת השם\". מן הראוי להדגיש שבכל מצב אין לפרש את המשנה בזיקה לברכה. ברכה על הפרשת תרומה היא חלק מהתפיסה בדבר הצורך ב\"ברכה על המצוות\", ומברכים אותה לפני עשייתה של כל מצווה. הרעיון של ברכת המצוות אינו מופיע במשנה, והוא פרי תהליך ארוך. ראשיתו בברכה על הזבח במקדש, ועליה אנו שומעים בסוף ימי בית שני (ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"י מ\"ט). ברכות הנהנין נזכרות כבר במשנה (ראו פירושנו לברכות פ\"ט מ\"ב), וברכה על המצוות כגון הפרשת תרומה מופיעה רק בתוספתא. קשה, על כן, לפרש את המשנה על בסיס ההנחה שחובת הברכה היא המכתיבה מי אינו יכול לתרום. מי שמפרש כך צריך למצוא ראיה ברורה לכך שברכת המצוות נתפסה כבר במשנה כחובה. לנושא זה של הברכה נחזור בפירושנו למשנה ו. ", + "מכל מקום, הסדרה שבמשנה מוכיחה כי המגבלות ההלכתיות נובעות מבעיה כללית הקיימת בכל הקבוצה, חירש, שוטה וקטן. אין ספק שהבעיה ההלכתית היא כדברי הבבלי, \"אף חרש – דלאו בר דעה הוא\" (חגיגה ב ע\"ב)14ראו פירושנו שם פ\"א מ\"א; בבלי, גיטין עא ע\"א. . מכל מקום, הירושלמי לא רצה לפרש את משנתנו כחלק מהמגבלות הכלליות של חירש ושוטה, וחיפש הסבר פרטני לאיסור שבמשנה.", + "החירש – הירושלמי (מ ע\"ג) מציע אפשרות ש\"לית כאן חרש\", והוא בא משגרת הלשון בלבד. אבל בהמשך הדיון מוברר שטענה זו לא נאמרה על משנתנו, וברור שאצלנו מוזכר החירש, שהרי אחרת אין במשנה חמישה, ואין מקום למשנה ב העוסקת בחירש. משפט דומה אומר התלמוד על המשנה הקובעת שחירש אינו קורא מגילה (ירו', מגילה פ\"ב ה\"ח, עג ע\"ב), וייתכן שהוא הועבר ממסכת מגילה לירושלמי תרומות. עד כאן מבחינה פרשנית, אך לגופו של עניין אכן דין חירש אינו כה פשוט, כפי שנראה להלן. ", + "השוטה והקטן – השוטה מבואר ומתואר בתוספתא: \"היוצא יחידי בלילה, והלן בבית הקברות, והמקרע את כסותו... פעמים שוטה, פעמים חלוּם, זה הכלל, כל זמן ששוטה הרי הוא כשוטה לכל דבר, וחלוּם, הרי הוא כפיקח לכל דבר\" (פ\"א ה\"ג). בדין קטן נרחיב במשנה ג להלן, ונפתח בדין חירש.", + "חירש - ", + "התוספתא חולקת על משנתנו, וזו לשונה במלואה: \"רבי יהודה אומר חרש שתרם תרומתו תרומה. אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בבניו של רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא שהיו חרשים והיו כל טהרות ירושלם נעשין על גבן. אמרו לו משם ראיה? שהטהרות אין צריכות מחשבה, ונעשות על גבי חירש שוטה וקטן. תרומה ומעשרות צריכין מחשבה. רבי יצחק אומר משום רבי אלעזר תרומת חרש לא תצא לחולין מפני שספק, ספק יש בו דעת ספק אין בו דעת\" (פ\"א ה\"א)15השוו בבלי, יבמות קיג ע\"א, וראו משנה, יבמות פי\"ד מ\"א וגיטין פ\"ה מ\"ה ומ\"ז. . רבי יהודה סבור, כנראה, שחירש יש בו דעת, או לכל הפחות כדברי רבו \"ספק יש בו דעת\". חכמים מסכימים שבטהרות אין צורך בדעת ולכן חירש רשאי לעשותן, אבל בתרומות יש צורך בדעת ולחירש אין כזו. כפי שנראה להלן במשנה ד דעת בית שמאי היא שגם מעשה שנעשה שלא בכוונה מלאה, או לא לפי הפרטים הנדרשים, תקף. הניסוח \"צריך דעת\" הוא ניסוח משפטי מאוחר יחסית. לדעת בית שמאי רק המעשה קובע, לכן החירשים נחשבים ראויים למצוות אלו, ואולי גם השוטה. רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא מסכים עם הלכת בית שמאי מתוך שהוא סבור שהחירש יש בו דעת; הוא סבור כך כנראה מתוקף ניסיונו, ומתוקף הרגישות המיוחדת של אב לשני חירשים. שלוש המחלוקות (מעמד החירש, הצורך בכוונה – דעת, ומשמעות מעשה הקודש) מתערבים זה בזה. ", + "במעמדו של החירש נחזור לדון בבוא העת במשנת גיטין (פ\"ה מ\"ה ומ\"ז) וביבמות (פי\"ד). ", + "אם כן, סדרת עמדות לפנינו:", + "1. חכמים: בתרומה יש צורך מיוחד בדעת, ולחירש ולשוטה אין כזו.", + "2. בית שמאי: המעשה קובע, ולפחות בדיעבד אין צורך בדעת.", + "3. רבי יהודה: לחירש ולשוטה יש מספיק דעת.", + "4. רבי אליעזר: ספק אם יש לחירש דעת.", + "אשר לרבי יוחנן בן גודגדא. לכאורה אפשר לפרש שהוא הולך בשיטת בית שמאי, והדבר יתאים למידע הכללי שלעתים רבי יהודה, שהיה תלמידו של רבי אליעזר, מהלך בשיטת בית שמאי. ברם, כפי שנראה מההמשך, עמדתו של רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא חוזרת גם ביחס לחירשת. לדעתו יש לה דעת, נישואיה תקפים ויש לגרשה בגט (ויש לה גם דעת לקבל גט)16לקבלת גט אין צורך בהסכמת האישה, אך יש צורך בדעתה שתבין שקיבלה גט. . אם כן, לדעת בית שמאי רק המעשה קובע, לכן החירשים נחשבים לראויים למצוות אלו, ואולי גם השוטה; רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא מסכים למעשה עם הלכת בית שמאי, אך לא מנימוקם. רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא מעיד גם על הדרך שניתן לגרש בה חירשת. במשנת יבמות הדבר מופיע כהלכה רגילה (פי\"ד מ\"ב), ובמשנה אחרת כתקנה מיוחדת מפני תיקון העולם (גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ח; עדיות פ\"ז מ\"ט). מעמדו של רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא בהלכה זו אינו מקרי. כאמור, שני בניו היו חירשים, אך כל טהרות ירושלים היו נעשות על גביהן (תוס', פ\"א ה\"א; בבלי, יבמות קיג ע\"א). רבי יוחנן עצמו היה מראשי הלוויים בירושלים (ראו פירושנו לשקלים פ\"ה מ\"א), ונחשב לצדיק השומר בהקפדת יתר על דיני טהרה (משנה, חגיגה פ\"ב מ\"ז). קל, אפוא, להבין כיצד זכו בניו למעמד נכבד בין חסידי ירושלים, וקל אף להבין מדוע הוא נזקק לעסוק בהלכות הדנות במעמדם של חירשים17ראו עוד את המעשה בנכדיו האילמים של חכם זה שהיו בימי רבי (ילקוט שמעוני, משפטים שנו). . ", + "אשר לדין שוטה – לפי התוספתא דינו של השוטה הנתון להתקפים תלוי במצבו באותו רגע, ואם הוא מתנהג בשפיות זמנית, הרי הוא כשפוי. משנת גיטין (פ\"ז מ\"א) קובעת שקורדייקוס שאמר לגרש את אשתו אין שומעים לו. לאחר שהגמרא מונה את סימני השוטה היא מסכמת: \"קורדייקוס אין בו אחד מכל אלו. מהו קורדייקוס? ... זהו קורדייקוס שאמרו חכמים, פעמים שוטה פעמים חלוּם, בשעה שהוא שוטה הרי הוא כשוטה לכל דבר, ובשעה שהוא חלוּם הרי הוא כפיקח לכל דבר\" (ירו', גיטין פ\"ז ה\"א, מח ע\"ג; תרומות כאן, מ ע\"ב). מדובר, אפוא, במחלת רוח הבאה בהתקפות, ובשעה שהוא \"חלוּם\" (בריא) הוא בריא לכל דבר, ושפוי ויכול לתת גט. הבבלי מפרש שזהו שיכור ששתה יין חדש, ספק שיכור ספק שוטה (גיטין סז ע\"ב). בצדק שואל הבבלי למה לא נמתין שיתפכח. ייתכן שהכוונה לא לסתם שוטה אלא למחלה דיכאונית חריפה, שלעתים החולה בה מתעורר ומראה סימני קשר עם הסביבה, אך אלו מזויפים.", + "הירושלמי בגיטין ממשיך ומקשה ממשנת יבמות פי\"ד מ\"א, שם נקבע ששוטה אינו מוציא עולמית, והתלמוד מסיק: \"רבי יעקב בר אחא רבי חייה בשם רבי יוחנן חלוקין על השוטה הוה אמרין והא מתניתא פליגא\" (מח ע\"ג). התלמוד איננו מתרץ ששם (ביבמות) מדובר בשוטה קבוע, שכן הוא יודע כנראה שמצבו של שוטה אינו קבוע, כמו שנקבע בתוספתא שציטטנו. אם כך, קורדייקוס הוא שוטה לכל דבר ונאמר עליו שאינו יכול לתת גט לעולם18אולי אם הבריא לחלוטין יכול לתת גט, אך לא אם הבריא זמנית. , ואכן בגיטין פ\"ו מ\"ו מבטלים חכמים גט של מי שהתאבד מתוך החשש שכבר אז לא היה שפוי, אף שאז עדיין התנהג כבריא. אם כן, לפנינו מחלוקת האם אנו מאפשרים לשוטה שאיננו בהתקף לכתוב גט. גם הבבלי מסיק שזו מחלוקת בין המשניות (עא ע\"ב). יש להניח שכמחלוקת בגיטין כך המחלוקת בכל הנושאים האחרים שבהם נזכר השוטה. ", + "כאמור, נושא הגט והייבום הוא אבן בוחן נוספת למעמד החירש והחירשת. הדיונים משתרעים על פני משניות רבות במסכתות יבמות וגיטין. לסיכום הבאנו את טבלת הסיכום שלנו ממסכת יבמות, והמקורות רבים ומורכבים. ההפניות הן או למקור או לפירושנו למשנה מסוימת.", + "סיכום הלכות נישואי חירש וחירשת", + "עסקנו בחירש, שוטה וקטן, וראינו שלפנינו קבוצה ספרותית, אך לגבי כל אחד מהם הלכות מיוחדות, והעמדה שכולם כאחד פטורים ממצוות היא סיכום חד צדדי של חלק מהגישות. עוד נציין שלגבי הקטן יש בספרות מגמה \"חינוכית\" ברורה לקרבו לעולמן של מצוות, לעזור לו לקיים מצוות כשאביו על ידו, או לבד, והבבלי מדבר במפורש על מצוות חינוך. אמפטיה ניכרת זו איננה קיימת, בדרך כלל, לגבי חירש ושוטה, וגם לא לגבי אישה, שהגישה ליכולתה דומה. ", + "והתורם את שאינו שלו – לפי ההמשך משמע שמדובר במי שתרם ללא רשות, אבל נכרי שתרם אפילו ברשות אין תרומתו תרומה. התורם את שאינו שלו הוא אפוא מעין גזלן. גזלן זה אינו מהסס לעבור על דבר תורה של איסור גזלה, אך אינו חשוד לאכול ללא הפרשת תרומות. עמדנו על כך במבוא וראינו עד כמה מקובל היה לתרום תרומה, ואפילו עוברי עברה הקפידו על מצווה זו.", + "במשנתנו יש חידוש גדול. לכאורה הגזלן התורם מעשרות, או סתם אדם התורם את של חברו שלא מדעתו, עשו מעשה. הם הרימו את הפֵרות והצהירו את ההצהרה הנדרשת. לכאורה אף אם המעשה נעשה שלא כהלכה הרי המעשה נעשה. אלא שהמשנה מחדשת שהפרשת תרומה אינה בבחינת מעשה. אם המעשה פגום מבחינה הלכתית, אין הוא מעשה כלל. זאת ועוד, המשנה אינה מתחבטת בשאלה האם הגזלן קנה את הפֵרות אלא קובעת קטגורית שאדם יכול לתרום רק משלו. לא ההצהרה עושה את הקודש, אלא המסגרת ההלכתית. ", + "להלן, בהמשך המשנה, מובאים הסברים לחירש, שוטה וקטן, ואין הרחבה של דין התורם את שאינו שלו. אבל בתוספתא יש הרחבה גם של דין זה: \"כיזה צד תורם את שאינו שלו? ירד לתוך שדה חבירו וליקט ותרם שלא ברשות. אם חושש משום גזל, אין תרומתו תרומה. ואם אינו חושש, תרומתו תרומה. כיצד יודע אם חושש משום גזל ואם לאו? הרי שבא בעל הבית, ומצאו ואמר לו כלך אצל יפות. אם היו יפות אינו חושש משום גזל, ואם לאו, הרי זה חושש משום גזל. אם היה בעל הבית מלקט ומוסיף עליהן, בין כך ובין כך אינו חושש משום גזל\" (פ\"א ה\"ה). התוספתא חושפת פרק מלבב ביחסי שכנים. השכנים (העניים) מלקטים בשדה השכן האמיד יותר. ייתכן שמדובר בליקוט האחרון אחרי הלקט הרשמי, שכן לקט, שכחה ופאה פטורים מתרומה. בעל הבית אינו כועס אלא להפך, לעתים מסייע למלקטים, ואז ודאי אין זה גזל, ולעתים מפנה אותם לחיטים טובות יותר. כל זאת מתוך טוב לב ויחסי אחווה. על מערכת זאת מלמדת גם משנת פאה (פ\"ח מ\"א) הקובעת מ\"מתי מותרים כל אדם בלקט\". אם כן, בשלב מסוים נגמרת חובת הלקט וכל אדם רשאי להיכנס לשדה ללקט מהשאריות, ברצון בעל הבית ובעידודו. לפי התוספתא שצוטטה התורם משאינו שלו אינו גזלן, אך גם לא קיבל רשות. ייתכן שמה שליקט יהפוך להיות שלו, אבל ייתכן שבעל הבית יחליף את התבואה שלוקטה. אם כן, \"שאינו שלו\" משמעו בלא ידיעת בעל הבית.", + "ההלכה הבאה בתוספתא דנה בגזלן של ממש (פ\"א ה\"ו): \"הגנב והאנס והגזלן תרומתן תרומה ומעשרותן מעשרות והקדישן הקדש. אם היו בעלים מרדפין אחריהם אין תרומתן תרומה ואין מעשרותן מעשרות ואין [הקדישן] הקדש. בעלי בתי סיקריקון19הכוונה לבעל בית שרכש את הקרקע בתוקף החוק הרומי של סיקריקון. לחוק ראו הנספח למסכת דמאי. בעל חסדי דוד פירש שאלו בעלי בתים שקנו מסיקריקון אבל לא שילמו לבעלים המקוריים את כל המגיע להם לפי משנת גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ו. תרומתן תרומה ומעשרותן מעשר והקדישן הקדש. הבן והשכיר, העבד והאשה תורמין על מה שהן אוכלין, אבל לא יתרומו על הכל, שאין אדם תורם את שאינו שלו. הבן בשל אביו והאשה בעיסתה הרי אילו תורמין, מפני שהן תורמין ברשות\". מהקטע משתמעות הלכות חשובות לנושא שאנו עוסקים בו. מתברר שגזלן וגנב רשאים לתרום, זאת מתוך ההנחה שבמעשה הגנבה הם קנו את הפֵרות והם מעתה שלהם. מובן שהגנב חייב לבעל הבית ממון, אך הפֵרות הם ברשותו. כל זאת לפי ההלכה הידועה שגנבה היא מבחינה פורמלית צורת קניין. החידוש הוא שאם היו הבעלים מביעים את התנגדותם או תקוותם שהגנבה תוחזר, הרי שיש בכך ביטוי לכך שבעלותם על החפץ לא פקעה. הפֵרות שייכים לבעליהם, ובעלותם פוקעת רק כאשר הם מוותרים עליה (מתייאשים מהפֵרות), בין אם הוויתור הוא מרצונם ובין אם לא. הלכה זו חוזרת במקורות מקבילים (תוס', כתובות פ\"ח ה\"ד; בבא קמא פ\"י הכ\"ד). בירושלמי מובאת מימרה חולקת בשם רבי יוחנן ולפיה לשניהם אין זכות לתרום. הכוונה כנראה למקרה שבו הבעלים מרדפים; הם אמנם טרם התייאשו, אבל בכל זאת בעלותם כבר נפגעה, אף שהגזלן טרם רכש את הפֵרות. מהלכה זו, ומהלכות אחרות, ברור שייאוש הבעלים הוא הגורם המעביר את הבעלות הפורמלית על החפץ, ורבי יוחנן דורש שאי הוויתור ילווה גם בבעלות ממשית. אבל בעלות ממשית (של הגזלן) ללא ויתור בעלות של הבעל המקורי, או אי ויתור ללא שליטה בפועל על החפץ, אין בהם די לבעלות מלאה. ", + "בתלמוד הבבלי פותחה גישה שונה שלפיה ייאוש הבעלים אינו הגורם היחיד. יש לגזלן אפשרות לקנות את החפץ (כלומר להשיג עליו בעלות חוקית) בשינוי שם או בשינוי מעשה (בבלי, בבא קמא סו ע\"ב - סז ע\"א; סוכה ל ע\"ב - לא ע\"א, ועוד). גישה זו אין לה הד במקורות תנאיים ולא בירושלמי. יתר על כן, גם בכמה מסוגיות הבבלי אין לה הד ברור (ראו פירושנו לסוכה פ\"ג מ\"א; בבלי, ל ע\"א), והיא אינה נזכרת שם במפורש. ", + "נראה שהתלמוד הבבלי התחבט בבעיות שהתעוררו מהצורך באחידות משפטית. ההגדרה שייאוש קונה אינה מספקת; עדיין יש לברר מה קורה במקרים שאין בהם ייאוש ממשי ומפורש. כך עולה השאלה האם \"יאוש שלא מדעת\" קונה, כלומר, האם ייאוש שאינו מפורש קונה (בבלי, בבא מציעא כא ע\"א-ע\"ב). שאלה זו תופסת מקום חשוב בתלמוד הבבלי, אך אינה מוכרת בספרות התנאית והאמוראית מארץ ישראל. הסוגיה שם מביאה סדרת מימרות שהיא מנסה לפשוט מהן את הדין, אך עיון בהן מראה בפשטות שבתקופת התנאים טרם זכה המונח לבירור. מצד שני התחבט התלמוד הבבלי בשאלה מה קורה אם הבעלים לא התייאשו אך בפועל שקע החפץ בידי הגזלן, והתביעה שהחפץ יישאר ברשות בעליו המקוריים נראית ארכאית. ברור שהגזלן הפך לבעלים, אך כיצד ומתי בוצעה העברת הבעלות? העיון המשפטי הביא, אפוא, לחידוד האבחנות ונקבע מתי הייאוש שהוא תחושה סובייקטיבית הופך ל\"ייאוש\" שהוא אבחנה משפטית אובייקטיבית; כיצד ניתן לקבוע שאדם התייאש אף מבלי לברר את הדבר עמו (בטלה דעתו אצל דעת כל אדם), ובמקביל גם כיצד ניתן להעביר בעלות באונס ובכפייה מבלי שהבעלים ויתרו על זכותם.", + "בהמשך התוספתא על משנתנו (פ\"א ה\"ז-ה\"י) מובאים מקרים נוספים של תורמים שאינם תורמים משלהם, והם אנס וסיקריקון שזכו באדמות לאחר שהופקעו על ידי השלטונות. חז\"ל לא הכירו בהפקעה, אך בפועל, ולפי החוק הרומי, האדמה כבר לא הייתה שייכת לבעלים. כמו כן אפיטרופין, אישה ועבד, וכמוהם מקרים נוספים. במבוא עסקנו במעמדה של האישה, שאינה רשאית לתרום אבל בפועל מותר לה לתרום את האוכל שהיא מכינה לאכילת המשפחה. זו הייתה דרכה של ההלכה, להעניק נימוק מעין משפטי למציאות שהחיים כפו.", + "נכרי שתרם את של ישראל אפילו ברשות אין תרומתו תרומה – נכרי גזלן נידון לעיל, אבל אפילו נכרי שהוא בבחינת שליח פסול. בתוספתא מובא סיפור מעשה ב\"פיגא\"20שם מקום, כנראה בעמק עכו. לזיהויו ראו ליברמן, עמ' 111, ואולי הוא בית פגי שליד ירושלים. , בישראל אחד שאמר לגוי לתרום בשבילו. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל פוסק שהתרומה אינה תרומה, ורבי יצחק חולק ואומר שתרומתו תרומה (תוס', פ\"א הט\"ו). הבעיה שם היא שהתרומה נפלה לגורן. ייתכן שרבן שמעון בן גמליאל פסק שאינה תרומה רק במקרה זה שהתרומה אבדה, דבר הגורר בעיות הלכתיות קשות, ברם מהמשנה משמע שבכל מקרה אין תרומתו תרומה, ומשנתנו כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבי יצחק חולק עליה. מהתוספתא משמע שמשנתנו עוסקת בגוי שנעשה שליח לישראל, או במצב ביניים שאינו שליח אבל גם אינו גזלן, מעין המקרים שנדונו במשנה הקודמת. אבל הגוי רשאי לתרום תרומה מפֵרותיו. כלומר, אם הקדיש מפֵרותיו חלים עליהם דיני קדושת תרומה או קדושת הקדש21ראו להלן פירושנו לפ\"ג מ\"ט; תוס', פ\"ד הי\"ב; תוס', מגילה פ\"ב הט\"ז, וראו ילקוט שמעוני בחוקותי, תרעו. . הבבלי מנסה להעמיד את משנתנו כעוסקת בנושא מצומצם של שליחות הגוי. אדם (יהודי) יכול להיות שליח של יהודי אחר. גם הגוי יכול להיות שליח לעניין רגיל, אך אין הוא יכול להיות שליח לקודש, להפוך חול לקודש (בבלי, בבא מציעא עא ע\"ב). הבבלי דוחה הסבר זה, המיוחס לרב אשי, בלשון בוטה (\"ברותא\")22ללשון זו ראו בבלי, בבא מציעא ט ע\"א; בבא בתרא קא ע\"ב, ועוד. . נראה, אפוא, שהנימוק העיקרי אינו טכני-הלכתי, חשש גזלה או טומאת התרומה, אלא עצם ההכרה שגוי אינו יכול ליצור את הקודש. גוי שהקדיש קרבן הקדשו הקדש ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה, אבל אין הוא רשאי להפוך חול לקודש בשביל ישראל. מקבלים את תרומתו ואת הקדשו משום שילוב של דרכי שלום ושל הרצון לקרבו לדרכי ה', אבל יצירת הקודש בשביל ישראל מתחוללת בתחום הרוחני, ואין היא מעשה פיזי בלבד. הגוי יכול לבצע פעולות בעולם המעשה (לקנות ולמכור), אך לא להפוך חול לקודש. טיעון זה מנוסח בירושלמי: \"הרי גוי שאין כתיב בו מחשבה\" (מ ע\"ג). בתחום הקודש חכמים מקפידים הקפדת יתר על הפרדה בין הגוי לישראל. אנו מציעים, אפוא, שילוב של נימוקים מהתחום החברתי ומהתחום הסמלי-רגשי. עם כל זאת, דומה שההלכה שלפנינו חריגה, ובדרך כלל אפשרו חכמים לגויים להתקרב לעולמם הדתי של ישראל ובלבד שינהגו כיאות, כלומר בדרכי מצווה.", + "בספרות האמוראית מופיעות דרשות שונות להצדקתו של הדין שבמשנה23ירו', מ ע\"ב; תנח', תרומה ג; תנח' בובר, תרומה ב, מה ע\"א-ע\"ב. . כל אלו כמובן דרשות בלבד, ולא הן יצרו את ההלכה. זאת ועוד; לפי הדרשות הללו, שניתן לסכמן בלשון \"דבר אל בני ישראל – ולא אל הנכרי\", ניתן היה להסיק שגוי שתרם את שלו תרומתו אינה תרומה. מסקנה זו לא הוסקה, והדבר רק מעיד עד כמה הדרשות רחוקות מפשט הכתוב ועד כמה ראתה ההלכה את עצמה כבלתי תלויה בפשט זה.", + "המילים \"אין תרומתו תרומה\" בעצם מיותרות, והן חזרה כמעט מדויקת על פתיחת המשנה. ההכפלה נובעת מהפתיחה המספרית. ההלכה הקדומה החלה במילים \"החירש...\" והסתיימה ב\"אין תרומתו תרומה\"; בשלב עריכה אחרון נוספה הפתיחה המספרית, וכך נוצרה הכפילות, וכן במשנה ו. כפילות דומה חוזרת גם במסכת יבמות (פ\"א מ\"א)." + ], + [ + "המשנה הקודמת מנתה חמישה פסולים, ועתה היא מסבירה אותם. משנה ב מסבירה את המונח \"חירש\", משנה ג את ה\"קטן\". בתוספתא יש הסברים נוספים לתורם את שאינו שלו ולנכרי, הסברים שהבאנו לעיל. ברור שהתוספתא תלויה במשנה א, וכל הפרק הראשון שבה מסביר את משנה א. יתר על כן, אין בתוספתא הסבר או הרחבה לחירש וקטן, זאת משום שבמשנה הם הוסברו, אך יש בה הרחבה של מה שאין במשנה. התוספתא והמשך הפרק במשנה (משניות ב-ג) הם, אפוא, חטיבה אחת של הרחבה והסבר למשנה א, וכאילו העורכים חילקו את הנושאים כך שחלק מהם יידון במשנה וחלק בתוספתא. יש להניח שהמשנה קדמה, והתוספתא בחרה לעסוק בנושאים שהמשנה לא עסקה בהם. אבל מסקנה זו מבוססת רק על הערכה כללית של היחסים בין שני החיבורים הללו. מבחינתו של החומר שלפנינו, ייתכן שעריכת התוספתא קדמה למשנה24את הוויכוח העקרוני סיכמנו במבוא לפירוש המשניות. . עם זאת, דומה שהחומרים במשניות ב-ג קודמים לאלו שבתוספתא. המשניות קצרות ויש בהן הגדרה מדויקת של הנושא, מהו חירש ומהו קטן. בניגוד לכך, בתוספתא יש דיון ארוך עם דוגמאות וסיפורי מעשה. על כן נראה שאכן הכיר עורך התוספתא את כל שלוש המשניות הראשונות וליקט בתוספתא חומרים שאינם במשניות, אך עריכת המשניות הייתה הבסיס שעמד לפניו, ואליו התייחס. עם זאת, בתוספתא תרומות לפרקים הראשונים, ובעיקר לפרק א, יש חומר רב שאין במשנה, ויש להתייחס לתוספתא כאל יצירה עצמאית שיש בה ביטוי לאסטרטגיה של עריכה. ", + "חרש המדבר ואינו שומע לא יתרום אם תרם תרומתו תרומה – המשנה הקודמת דיברה על חירש סתם, שאינו שומע ואינו מדבר, אבל חירש המדבר לא יתרום לכתחילה, ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה. דינו של חירש זה הוא כאילם, ויידון להלן במשנה ו.", + "חרש שדיברו חכמים בכל מקום שאינו לא שומע ולא מדבר – \"בכל מקום\" הכוונה גם בסוגיות (משניות או ברייתות) אחרות, וכמובן גם במשנה הקודמת. התלמוד הירושלמי מעיר שאין זה כלל מלא, \"דלית כללוי דרבי כללין\"25זאת אומרת שאין כלליו של רבי [עורך משנתנו] כללים; לעניין זה ראו עוד במבוא לפירושנו; ירו', מ ע\"ג; חגיגה פ\"א ה\"א, עה ע\"ד; יבמות פ\"ט ה\"ב, י ע\"א. , משום שיש עוד הלכות שנזכר בהן חירש והכוונה בהן לחירש המדבר ואינו שומע. למסקנה דומה מגיעות הסוגיות בתלמוד הבבלי והירושלמי למשנת חגיגה המזכירות גם הן שחירש פטור ממצוות ראייה (ראו פירושנו לחגיגה פ\"א מ\"א)." + ], + [ + "המשנה עוסקת בהגדרת הקטן שבמשנה א, והיא הסבר למשנה הראשונה של הפרק כדרך ששנתה המשנה הקודמת.", + "קטן שלא הביא שתי שערות רבי יהודה אומר תרומתו תרומה – לדעת רבי יהודה הגדרת הקטן לעניין תרומה תלויה בהבאת שתי שערות.", + "רבי יוסה אומר אם עד שלא בא לעונת נדרים אין תרומתו תרומה אם משבא לעונת נדרים תרומתו תרומה – לדעת רבי יוסי הגדרת הקטן היא \"עונת נדרים\", כלומר הזמן שבו לקטן זכות לנדור לעצמו. עד שלא בא לעונת נדרים רשאי האב לקבל נדרים עבורו ובשמו26משנה, נזיר פ\"ד מ\"ו; זו דעת בית הלל, ובית שמאי אומרים שאין אדם מדיר כלל את בנו בנזיר. ראו תוס', נזיר פ\"ג הי\"ז; עדיות פ\"ב ה\"ב. . מהמקבילות ברור שעונת נדרים תלויה בגיל: קטן בן שלוש עשרה וקטנה בת שתים עשרה, ולפי התלמוד הבאת שתי שערות קודמת לגיל זה (בבלי, יבמות קה ע\"ב; נזיר כט ע\"ב). בתלמוד הבבלי מופיעה אותה מחלוקת לגבי נדרים: \"עד מתי מדיר את בנו בנזיר? עד שיביא שתי שערות, דברי רבי (במקום רבי יהודה אצלנו, אך אצלנו רבי בכל עדי הנוסח27אפשטיין, עמ' 711, טוען שלבני בבל התחלף רבי יהודה ברבי מאיר, וכאמור לדעתנו שתי דעות חולקות הן. ראו דיונו שם, ואנו מהלכים בדרך שונה במקצת. ); רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר: עד שיגיע לעונת נדרים\" (נזיר כט ע\"ב). המעשים הקדומים לענייני נדרים מדברים בסתם על הבאת שתי שערות, ואולי זו הייתה ההלכה הקדומה, ורבי יוסי ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מביאים גישה שונה וסכמטית יותר, שהרי את הגיל אין צורך לבדוק, בניגוד להבאת שתי שערות28תוס', נידה פ\"ה הט\"ו; ירו', נזיר פ\"ד ה\"ב, נג ע\"ב; משנה, נזיר פ\"ד מ\"ו; תוס', נזיר פ\"ג הי\"ז; עדיות פ\"ב ה\"ב. .", + "קטן - ", + "בספרות התנאית הקדומה אין הגדרת גיל לנער או לנערה לחיוב או לקיום מצוות. משנת חגיגה פ\"א מ\"א קובעת שקטן פטור מחובת ראייה. בית שמאי ובית הלל נחלקים בהגדרתו של הקטן, וברור שלשניהם קטן הוא מי שאינו יכול לעלות, ולו עם סיוע, לרגל. בתוספתא למשנת חגיגה שנינו: \"יודע לנענע חייב בלולב, יודע להתעטף חייב בציצית, יודע לדבר אביו מלמדו שמע ותורה ולשון קודש... יודע לשמר תפליו אביו לוקח תפלין אליו\" (פ\"א ה\"ב). החיוב במצוות אינו כרוך בגיל מוגדר, אלא ביכולתו של הקטן לקיים את המצווה. בהמשך התוספתא: \"תינוק שהביא שתי שערות חייב בכל מצוות האמורות בתורה\"29תוס', חגיגה פ\"א ה\"ג; גילת, פרקים, עמ' 31-19. . התלמוד הבבלי המפרש את משנת חגיגה שהובאה (פ\"א מ\"א) בראיית פנים מקשה על משנתנו מן הברייתא הנמצאת גם בספרי: \"כל זכורך – לרבות את הקטנים\" (בבלי, חגיגה ד ע\"א; ספרי דברים, פיס' קמג, עמ' 196), והוא עונה: \"כאן בקטן שהגיע לחינוך כאן בקטן שלא הגיע לחינוך\"30או לעיל בפתח הפירוש. זה התירוץ הקבוע בתלמוד הבבלי, ראו חגיגה ד ע\"א; ברכות טו ע\"ב; ראש השנה לג ע\"ב; סוכה כח ע\"ב. . אלא שבספרי הברייתא ממשיכה מיד בדברי המשנה: \"מיכן אמרו איזהו קטן\" וכו'. כלומר, הספרי הבין שקטן הוא כמו זה שבמשנה, ולפי המינוח של הבבלי הוא זה שטרם הגיע לחינוך, והרי הדברים הם בניגוד להסבר הבבלי. המקורות התנאיים שלא הגדירו את הקטן בגיל מסוים מונים מצוות אשר קטנים חייבים בהן, ותוך כדי דיבור מסבירים איזהו קטן שפטור מאותה מצווה. ההבחנה הנקוטה בין קטן שהגיע לחינוך לבין קטן שלא הגיע לחינוך חוזרת פעמים רבות בתלמוד הבבלי, אך אינה נזכרת לעולם לא בספרות התנאית ולא בתלמוד הירושלמי. ההבחנה בין קטן שהגיע לחינוך לבין קטן שלא הגיע לחינוך יש בה כדי ליישב בין דעות ומקורות חלוקים, אך פשוטה של משנה הוא שאמנם קטן פטור מהבאת קרבן ראייה אלא שהקטן הפטור אינו אלא קטן ביותר. כך, למשל, במשנת תרומה ההסבר שקטן תרומתו תרומה מדין חינוך איננו מתאים. הרי דין כזה עשוי להסביר את חיוב הקטן, אך לא את חלות התרומה. גם במשנת חגיגה אין ההסבר מתאים. האם ילד שיכול לרכוב על כתפי אביו הוא כבר בן חינוך? וכן, \"קטן קורא בתורה ומתרגם אבל אינו פורס על שמע\" (מגילה פ\"ד מ\"ו), האם מדין חינוך יכול הוא להוציא רבים ידי חובה? ואם כן, מדוע לא יפרוס על שמע מאותו \"דין חינוך\"?! ", + "במסכת אבות שנינו: \"בן חמש שנים למקרא בן עשר למשנה בן שלש עשרה למצות\" (פ\"ה מכ\"א), אולם כבר עמדו חכמים ראשונים ואחרונים על כך כי אין זו משנה, ואין לדעת כיצד נשתרבבה למשנת אבות31במחזור ויטרי (עמ' 548) רשום אחר פ\"ה מ\"כ: \"חסלת מסכת אבות\". המאירי בפירושו למסכת אבות כותב: \"אפשר שהיה סיום המסכתא (משנה כ) אלא שניתוספו בה אחר כך דברים... וכן אין גורסין במשניות ישנות: הוא היה אומר בן חמש שנים...\" (עמ' 276-275). בעל מלאכת שלמה כותב: \"הרב רבי יהוסף ז\"ל מחקה לכולהו מתניתין, וכתב: בכל הספרים לא מצאתי משנה זו\". היא אינה בכ\"י קופמן, לו ופרמה. \tראו אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 978. .", + "ההגדרה הקבועה והאחידה היא אמוראית, ובמקורות התנאיים הגדירו את הקטן בהתאם לטיב המצווה. ההגדרה הקבועה צמחה במסגרת דיני נדרים והפרשת תרומה, בן סורר ומורה וכיוצא באלו32משנתנו להלן פ\"א מ\"ג; יבמות פ\"ז מ\"ד; פ\"י מ\"ט; סנהדרין פ\"ח מ\"א וכיוצא באלו. . בשני נושאים אלו נדרשת אבחנה מעמיקה יותר בין קודש לחול, בניגוד למצוות אחרות הדורשות הבנה פשוטה או שמירה על כללי התנהגות פשוטים. בשני תחומים אלו נחלקים כבר התנאים האם הזמן הקובע הוא הבאת שתי שערות או \"עונת נדרים\" (לעיל); נראה שההגדרה של שתי שערות היא הקדומה יותר, והיא נזכרת כבר בפי תנאים קדומים (שם). עוד יש לומר שהקביעה שקטן הוא מי שהביא שתי שערות נזכרת במקורות התנאיים ביחס לכמה תחומים נוספים כייבום, בן סורר ומורה ותחומים אחרים (משנה, סנהדרין פ\"ח מ\"א; יבמות פ\"י מ\"ט ועוד הרבה). ", + "הגדרת הקטן אופיינית לתהליך עיצוב ההלכה. התנאים הסתפקו בהגדרה כללית, ואמוראים שאפו להעניק לה הגדרה משפטית אחידה.", + "אצלנו הגרסה בדברי רבי יהודה היא תרומתו תרומה, וכך הגרסה בכל עדי הנוסח שבידינו. אבל בבבלי נידה מו ע\"ב: \"אין תרומתו תרומה\"33הר\"ש מעיר שכך בכל הספרים בבבלי נידה. , ומן הירושלמי נראה שגרס כמו אצלנו (להלן)34ראו דברי הר\"ש והרא\"ש המאמצים את גרסתנו; הגר\"א תיקן את הנוסח באופן קיצוני וגרס \"רבי מאיר\", ואין זו דרכנו להגיה נגד כל עדי הנוסח אלא במקרים מיוחדים. . כן יוצא מהתוספתא (פ\"א ה\"ה) שבה טוען רבי יהודה להצדקת עמדתו ומצטט הלכה, כנראה קדומה יותר, שקטן שהניחו אביו במקשה רשאי לתרום, ו\"חכמים\" אומרים לו שמדובר שם בקטן שאביו \"אומן אחריו\", כלומר הקטן שליח ואינו עצמאי. אם כן, לרבי יהודה קטן תורם. קל לפתור את נוסחת הבבלי כשיבוש, ברם הפרשה מורכבת יותר. במשנה א מופיעה רשימה של חמישה שלא יתרומו ואם תרמו אין תרומתם תרומה, והקטן הוא אחד מהם. אך במשנה ו רשימה של אלו שלא יתרומו ואם תרמו תרומתם תרומה, והקטן נמנה במפורש ברשימה הראשונה. קשה לבטל את גרסת כל עדי הנוסח של הירושלמי והתוספתא ועל כן יש להעדיף את גרסתנו35אפילו הראשונים, שבדרך כלל ראו בתלמוד הבבלי מתווה בטוח להבנת ההלכה, העדיפו את נוסח משנתנו. ראו ר\"ש, רא\"ש ומלאכת שלמה למשנתנו. , אבל ההשוואה עם משנה א מסבירה מדוע בא הבבלי לתקן, הרי אחרת אין למשנה ג עמידה. היא באה לפרש את משנה א, ונמצאת חולקת עליה. עד כאן באשר לגרסה, אבל עלינו לברר גם את שאלת הסתירה בין המשניות.", + "ניתן להעמיד את משנתנו (משנה א) כרבי יוסי, שאומר \"אין תרומתו תרומה\". למעשה זהו הסבר הירושלמי האומר שמשנה א אינה כרבי יהודה (מ ע\"ב), ולהבהרת עמדתו של רבי יהודה מביא התלמוד את הברייתא מהתוספתא ולא את משנה ג. יש מהראשונים השואלים למה לא הקשה התלמוד ממשנה ג שלנו, והתירוצים דחוקים36ראו הרא\"ש, מלאכת שלמה ומפרשים נוספים. . ברם, אי אפשר להסביר שהירושלמי גרס בדברי רבי יהודה במשנה ג \"אין תרומתו תרומה\", שהרי אם היה כך לא היה יכול לקבוע שמשנה א אינה כרבי יהודה אלא היה צריך להקשות מרבי יהודה על עצמו. ייתכן שהירושלמי העדיף להקשות מהברייתא כיוון שממנה ברור שלרבי יהודה מותר לתרום לכתחילה ולא רק בדיעבד, ואילו את משנה ג ניתן להעמיד בדיעבד בלבד. ", + "מכל מקום, לפי הירושלמי משנה א אינה כרבי יהודה אלא כרבי יוסי. הסבר זה מחייב הבהרה נוספת. אין זה רגיל שמשנה המסבירה את דברי קודמתה לא תפתח בדעה המתאימה למשנה. כאמור, בתוספתא מובאים חכמים הסבורים שקטן אינו תורם, ואולי משנתנו כמותם. בירושלמי מנוסחים דברי רבי מאיר \"לעולם אין תרומתו תרומה עד שיביא שני שערות\"; ניסוח זה של ההלכה מתאים למשנה ג ולמשנה א כאחת, אלא שעדיין קשה מדוע לא הביא העורך הסבר לדין קטן בצורה הרגילה, כגון זו של רבי מאיר. בדרך השערה קיצונית אפשר היה להציע שיש לגרוס בדברי רבי יהודה \"קטן שהביא שתי שערות\", ואז המחלוקת תתאים למקבילות, ברם שוב קשה להגיה נגד כל עדי הנוסח.", + "אין מנוס מהמסקנה שמשנה ג לא נוצרה כהסבר למשנה א אלא כדין בפני עצמו, שנשנה בהקשר אחר והובא על ידי העורך בהסבר משנה א. בדרך כלל משנה המתחילה במונח \"במה דברים אמורים\" או \"איזהו...\" באה להסביר את המשנה או ההלכה הקודמת, והיא פרי אותו קובץ הלכתי קדום. ברם, לעתים המשנה המסבירה מובאת ממקום אחר והועתקה להקשר שונה. תופעה דומה זוהתה במשניות אחרות, אם כי היא נדירה למדי37ראו פירושנו לשבת פי\"ז מ\"ח; תרומות פ\"ג מ\"ד. דוגמאות מובהקות פחות הן פאה פ\"ד מ\"י; פ\"ז מ\"ג; מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ה. . לכאורה אפשר לומר שהמחלוקת במשנה ג אינה בדין קטן שתרם אלא בהגדרה מהו קטן לעניין תרומות. רבי יהודה מודה שקטן ממש אין תרומתו תרומה, אלא שסבור שאם בא לגיל קרוב להבאת שתי שערות תרומתו תרומה; הרי לא ייתכן שיהיה מי שיסבור שקטן שאינו מבין דבר יתרום לכתחילה. ברם, כפי שנראה להלן, רבי יהודה חולק על דין קטן. מן הסתם גם הוא יסכים שתינוק חסר דעת אינו תורם, אך מי שכבר יכול לתרום, לדעתו תרומתו תרומה. ", + "מבחינה הלכתית, שלוש דעות לפנינו בשאלה ממתי רשאי הקטן לתרום, מהגיעו לעונת נדרים (רבי יוסי), משהביא שתי שערות (רבי מאיר ואולי גם רבי) ודעת רבי יהודה שתרומתו תרומה. ", + "לרבי יהודה דרך משלו בדין קטן. במסכת מגילה נאמר שחירש, שוטה וקטן אינם כשרים לקרוא מגילה, ו\"רבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן\" (משנה, מגילה פ\"ב מ\"ד). להגנת עמדתו מספר רבי יהודה כיצד קרא את המגילה לפני הזקנים: \"קטן הייתי וקריתיה לפני רבי טרפון בלוד וקבלני\", ורבי מעיד: \"קטן הייתי וקריתיה לפני רבי יהודה באושה\"38תוס', מגילה, פ\"ב ה\"ח; ירו', שם, פ\"ב ה\"ח, עג ע\"ב; בבלי, שם כ ע\"א. לפנינו חסר בבבלי שם המקום אושא, אבל הוא נמצא בכל כתבי היד של הגמרא. . בדיוננו במשנה זו עמדנו על כך שנהגו רבים שקטן קורא, אלא שאין מדובר על מצב שבו הוא קורא לבד, אלא על קריאה משותפת. זו גם טענתו של רבי יהודה בתוספתא שלנו, שקטן יכול לתרום אם אביו \"מדבר על ידיו\" או \"אומן אחריו\" (פ\"א ה\"ד). אם כן זו עמדתו של רבי יהודה, שקטן תורם אם אביו על ידו, וחכמים מסכימים רק אם הוא ממש עמו ובעצם הגדול מבצע את התרומה.", + "לדעתו של רבי יהודה הקטן כשר לא רק לקרוא מגילה אלא גם לתרום תרומה. כן הוא כשר לקדש פרה אדומה (משנה, פרה פ\"ה מ\"ד; תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ז, עמ' 634), ולהזות מי חטאת (תוס', פרה פי\"ב, ה\"ח, עמ' 640). הוא מטמא בזב (ספרא מצורע, זבים פרשה א ה\"א, עד ע\"ד). לדעת הכול קטן נמנה על קרבן פסח, אך רבי יהודה הוא שמעניק לקטן מעמד של מקיים מצווה ומגדיר קטן לא כמי שיכול לאכול (שזו הגדרת זמן מוקדמת ביותר) אלא כמי שיודע אוכל מהו (מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, יב ד, עמ' 10, וראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ח מ\"א). בכל המקרים הללו מדובר בזכותו של קטן בן דעת כלשהי להשתתף בעבודות הקודש, לבד או עם ציבור.", + "במסכת סוכה שנינו: \"מעשה וילדה כלתו של שמאי הזקן39את הקטן אי אפשר היה להוציא לסוכה, בגלל קוטנו. בעולם הקדום הייתה תמותת התינוקות גבוהה ביותר ונזהרו עד מאוד שלא לחשוף את התינוק לקור, על כן הבין שמאי שאין להוציא את התינוק. מן הסתם התינוק ינק, ואולי לא רצה החכם שכלתו תניק בפומבי שכן ראה בכך חוסר צניעות. בכפר הערבי המסורתי, שהקפידו בו על צניעות מרבית, מקובל היה שהנקת תינוק אין בה חוסר צניעות למרות חשיפת הגוף, ברם אין להקיש מחברה לחברה, ואולי חכמים ראו את הדבר באורח שונה. ופיחת את המעזיבה וסיכך על גבי המטה בשביל קטן\" (סוכה פ\"ב מ\"ח). הבבלי שואל כדרכו \"מעשה לסתור\", שכן מעשהו של שמאי סותר את הכלל שבמשנה, ועונה שחסר במשנה קטע (\"חיסורי מחסרא\") שנאמר בו ששמאי החמיר על עצמו40יש המפרשים ששמאי סיכך את הבית בשביל קטן מבוגר יותר, והיה עמם עוד קטן שזה עתה נולד, לכן לא הייתה האם יכולה לשבת בסוכה. הסבר מפותל זה מיותר, ואין לו הד במשנה. . שמאי החמיר בצורה קיצונית, אך כנראה לדעתו קטן חייב במצוות. מן הסתם אין הוא חייב במה שאינו יכול לקיים, אבל כאן יכולה המשפחה לקיים את המצווה ועליה לעשות כן. כאמור, בדרך כלל קטן פטור ממצוות, אבל רבי יהודה מחייב קטן בכל מצווה שהוא יכול41ראו פירושנו לחגיגה פ\"א מ\"א; תרומות פ\"א מ\"א; וראו גילת, קטן. . רבי יהודה היה תלמידו של רבי אליעזר, ממשיכם של בית שמאי. רבי יהודה הולך, אפוא, בדרכם, אם כי בצורה מלאה פחות וקיצונית פחות. ", + "מכל מקום, משנה ג אינה מסבירה את משנתנו אלא מביאה בעצם דעה שונה במקצת. משנה ג לא נוצרה, אפוא, בזיקה למשנה א אלא בהקשר אחר (אולי לעניין נדרים או לעניין מגילה), והובאה על ידי העורך לפרקנו.", + "הוא הדין במשנת שבועות פ\"ו מ\"ד. המשנה הסתמית קובעת שאין נשבעים על טענת קטן ואין משביעים קטן, אבל \"נשבעים לקטן\"; אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת נרחיב במשנה במקומה, ונצביע על ניסיונות של האמוראים לבאר את הסתירה הגלויה ולפרש את הסיפא ביורש שהוא גדול בגיל, אך \"קטן\" יחסית לאביו. דינו נשנה שם במשנה א שבפרק ו. אבל לפי פשוטה הסיפא היא בשיטת רבי יהודה, וחולקת על הרישא. ", + "מעבר לכל הטיעונים ההלכתיים יש להבין גם את נטיות הלב של היהודי המאמין. היתר שלא לקיים מצווה זו אחרת מבוסס אמנם מבחינה הלכתית, אך הציבור שומר המצוות וירא השמים משתדל שלא לנצל את ההיתר. טבעי הוא שיהיו אנשים שיחמירו על עצמם וינסו לשמור על קיום המצוות אף מעבר להלכה הפורמלית. אין טבעי מאב המורה לבנו להרים תרומה, או שהבן העובד בשדה עצמאי למחצה יעשה כן מרצונו העצמי. אין טבעי יותר מהורים המביאים את בנם עמם לעלייה לרגל ורוצים להביא קרבן על עלייתו. טבעי הוא שילדים ינסו לגרום לילדיהם לצום, וילדים בוגרים למחצה ינסו לצום כחלק מניסיונותיהם להתבגר או לחוש מבוגרים. לתופעה זו הד במקורות. בתרגום השני למגילת אסתר מובאים דברי השטנה שאמר, כביכול, המן לאחשורוש; בין השאר הוא טען שביום הכיפורים הם \"מעיקין אוף טפליהון\" (מציקים לילדיהם)42תרגום שני למגילת אסתר, ג ח. . במדרש באה לידי ביטוי התדמית העצמית של היהודים, כיצד הם סבורים שהם מצטיירים בעיני הנכרים. הם סבורים, אפוא, שהם נראים כמי שגורמים לילדיהם לצום ולהתענות. גם בסיפור התענית של בני ננוה (יונה ג ה) מסופר שהצום הקיף גדולים וקטנים, מאדם ועד בהמה, וחז\"ל אינם מסתייגים מכך. מדרש עממי כפרקי דרבי אליעזר מספר שביום מתן תורה צמו הכול \"מאיש ועד אשה מגדול ועד קטן\", ושוב אנו רואים את התגובה העממית המחילה את עקרונות העינוי אף על מי שלפי ההלכה הפורמלית פטור מהם (פרקי דרבי אליעזר, פמ\"א). הנכונות שלא לרפא בשבת ולצמצם את ההיתר להילחם בשבת היא פן אחר של אותה תופעה של צדיקות עממית. גם מאוחר יותר אנו שומעים על חוגים דומים. כך, למשל, בשאלת ר\"מ מפונטיזה לרבנו תם אנו שומעים על אנשים ישרי לב מעין אלו: \"רבו עובדי אלקים המתפרשים בטהרה ובפרישות בישראל ואינם רוצים להאכיל את בניהם הקטנים ביום הכיפורים...\"43ספר הישר לרבנו תם, סימן תרכו, עו ע\"ב. . ניתן לראות בַרצון שלא להאכיל ילדים תופעה טבעית בקרב שומרי מצוות הנזהרים לבל יעברו על מצווה קלה כחמורה. לא תמיד עמד לנגד עיניהם רק השיקול ההלכתי הפורמלי, ולנטיית הלב תפקיד דתי-חברתי חשוב לא פחות מפסק ההלכה. ", + "במקביל מחנכים אנשי ההלכה את הציבור שלא להפריז בצום (ירו', יומא פ\"ו ה\"ד, מג ע\"ד). כך, למשל, היה רבי עקיבא מפסיק את הלימוד ביום הכיפורים ושולח את ההורים להאכיל את בניהם (תוס', יומא פ\"ד [ה] ה\"ב). הרקע הרֵאלי לכך הוא שהתפילה הסתיימה מוקדם, ויתר היום הוקדש ללימוד. מעניין שהחכם אינו שולח את הנשים אלא את הגברים כדי שיקיימו את המצווה שלא לענות את ילדיהם. כן מסופר על אחד האמוראים שאחרי מוסף היה אומר \"מאן דאית ליה מיינוק ייזיל בגיניה\" (ירו', שם – מי שיש לו תינוק שילך בשבילו). זו תופעה של מתח דתי בין מנהיגות דתית לבין ציבור שומר מצוות שהרגש הדתי שלו אינו נופל מיראת השמים של רבותיו. מה שהרב מתיר מנימוקים הלכתיים אוסר הציבור על עצמו מתוך יראת שמים ויראת חטא, ללא התחשבות מספקת בשיקול ההלכתי. ", + "בתוספתא מוצגת עמדה נוספת: \"רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר חרש שוטה וקטן שקדשו ואחרים רואין קדושן כשר\" (פרה פ\"ה ה\"ז, עמ' 634). עמדתו של רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא היא עמדת ביניים מובהקת. מצינו אותה בסדרת מקבילות תנאיות. כך, למשל, במשנת תרומה היא מופיעה בתירוץ הירושלמי שהבאנו, ובמשנת מגילה היא מופיעה במפורש: \"ואם היה קטן אביו או רבו עוברין על ידו\" (פ\"ד מ\"ה). מתוספתא פרה ברור שזו עמדה שלישית, ואין להסביר בה את עמדת רבי יהודה או לצטטה כהגבלה המקובלת על רבי יהודה. " + ], + [ + "אין תורמין זיתין על שמן – את התרומה יש להפריש מהפרי כשהוא מוכן לאכילה (להלן מ\"ח); מותר להפריש תרומה מערמת פֵרות אחת על אחרת, אך בתנאים מגבילים שיבוררו להלן. הכלל הוא שמותר להפריש משתי ערמות המצויות באותו סטטוס הלכתי ומציאותי, מערמת תבואה על חברתה בגורן, כששתיהן מאותו סוג וזמן (ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ה מ\"א-מ\"י). כל מקרה אחר מעורר שאלות, וכמה מהן תידונה להלן. משנה ח היא המשך ישיר של משנתנו, ולפיכך נסתפק כאן בהסבר פשטני ובפירושנו למשנה ח ולמשנה י נעלה את כל התמונה המורכבת. להסברת האיסור הועלו בירושלמי ובספרות הפרשנית הצעות מספר:", + "א. \"גזל השבט\" (ירו', מ ע\"ד) – החשש שהכוהנים יפסידו, שכן עדיף להם לקבל שמן מוכן ולא זיתים מעטים שאותם הם צריכים לכבוש בעצמם. האמורא רבי חנניה מכנה זאת טורח הכהן.", + "ב. גדר מי חטאת, כלומר הרצון שלא לאפשר לציבור להפריש לפני שהמזון מקבל טומאה, וכך יוכלו \"לחסוך לעצמם\" את חובת שמירת הטהרה (ירו', שם). ", + "ג. אין תורמים מדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו על מה שלא נגמרה מלאכתו (להלן מ\"י). זו הלכה כללית העשויה לנבוע מהחשש ל\"גזל השבט\", או מאבחנה עקרונית שאלו מוצרים שונים, שכן האחד חייב במעשרות והאחר טרם התחייב (אבחנה זאת יוצאת במפורש מהירושלמי שם המקשה ממשנה י על משנתנו, וכן פירשו הרמב\"ם ואחרים).", + "ד. זיתים ושמן הם מינים שונים, ואין תורמים ממין על שאינו מינו (להלן פ\"ב מ\"ד).", + "ה. אין תורמים מהרע על היפה (להלן פ\"ב מ\"ד).", + "ו. יש צורך לתרום \"מן המוקף\", כלומר שכל התוצרת תהיה בכלי או בערמה אחת (להלן פ\"ד מ\"ג). כמובן ניתן לפתור את השאלה ולתרום מהמוקף גם במקרה זה, אך הדבר מחייב מאמץ, וגזרו חכמים שלא לתרום מזיתים על שמן שמא ישכח או יטעה.", + "ז. משנתנו היא כשאין כהן במקום ואז יש חשש לגזלת השבט, אבל אם יש שם כהן (\"לדעת כהן\" – בבלי, מנחות כד ע\"ב44המונח נקבע בהקשר אחר, והועבר על ידי הראשונים לסוגייתנו. ) מותר לתרום מזיתים על שמן (כך לפי הר\"ש והרא\"ש). זהו תירוץ בסגנון השכיח של התלמוד הבבלי (מעין \"הכא במאי עסקינן...\"). חולשתו היא בצמצום המשניות השונות למקרים חריגים מבלי שהאבחנות המרכזיות תבואנה לידי ביטוי במשנה. ", + "כל ההסברים אפשריים, אבל הבעיה היא שהם נידונים במשניות אחרות להלן. כפי שנראה בפירושנו בסוף משנה י הטרידה שאלה זו קשות את המפרשים, ואנו איננו רואים בה קושי מרכזי.", + "שאלה נוספת היא האם זיתים על שמן הם דוגמה, או שההלכה נאמרה רק על יין וזיתים. הירושלמי למשנתנו מתחבט בכך (מ ע\"ד; להלן ה\"ט, מא ע\"א). ", + "זיתים היו אחד הגידולים החשובים במשק הארץ. הם נועדו לכמה מטרות. השימוש העיקרי של הזיתים היה לתעשיית השמן, כמעט כל השמן בארץ ישראל נעשה מזיתים, ושמנים אחרים היו טובים פחות ונדירים (ראו פירושנו לשבת פ\"ב מ\"ב). בארצות אחרות היה המצב שונה, אך לא נרחיב בכך (ראו שם). עם זאת, במקביל היו גם שאכלו זיתים כבושים בשמן או בחומץ. היו זני זיתים מיוחדים לשמן והיו זנים מיוחדים למאכל, אך מרבית הזיתים עשויים היו לשמש לשתי המטרות. כיום זיתי שמן הם זנים עתירי שומן, שאינם מושקים, וזיתי מאכל מושקים, או שהם זנים דלי שומן. יש להניח כי זו הייתה גם האבחנה בעבר. הכלל במשנה הוא שאין לתרום מהזיתים על השמן, וטעמה של ההלכה יבורר בהמשך הדיון במשנה ח. ", + "ולא ענבים על יין – גם ענבים היו גידול מרכזי, וגם הם נועדו בעיקר לתעשיית היין. עם זאת היו גם שאכלו ענבים טריים, או שכבשו (ייבשו) אותם לצימוקים. אין לתרום מענבים על יין משום שאלו סוגים אחרים, ונרחיב בכך להלן. ", + "ואם תרם בית שמי אומרים תרומת עצמן בהן – לדעת בית שמאי מותר לתרום מענבים על עצמם, על כן אם תרם ענבים הרי שהתרומה על הענבים היא תרומה לכל דבר. ", + "[ו]בית הלל אומרים אין תרומתן תרומה – לדעת בית הלל אין לתרום כלל על ענבים וזיתים, שכן עדיין אין הם במצב של גמר מלאכה וממילא אין לתרום במצב זה כלל. הגדרות אלו תידונה להלן. לאור מחלוקת זו ניתן לפרש את משנתנו לא באיסור לתרום ממין אחד על אחר אלא באיסור לתרום מפרי שטרם נגמרה מלאכתו. ברם, במשנת עדיות שנויה המחלוקת שבמשנתנו בצורה שונה: \"רבי יוסי אומר ששה דברים מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל: ...תורמין זיתים על שמן וענבים על יין כדברי בית שמאי ובית הלל אומרים אין תורמין\" (פ\"ה מ\"ב). אם כן, המחלוקת היא על הדין לכתחילה. לפי פשוטם של דברים המסורת שמביא רבי יוסי שונה מזו של משנתנו. ברם, ניתן לפרש שגם במשנתנו מדובר על לכתחילה, והניסוח שממנו משתמע שבית שמאי מתירים רק בדיעבד בא בגלל ההמשך שבמשנה ח. אצלנו: \"אין תורמין\", ואם תרמו \"אין תרומתן תרומה\", ולהלן: \"אין תורמין, ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה\". ניסוח זה הוא לדעת בית הלל. לדעת בית שמאי במשנתו יש לשנות \"תורמין...\", אבל דבריהם הותאמו למבנה שנקבע בהתאם לדברי בית הלל. בירושלמי מובאת ברייתא בשם רבי יוסי כמשנתנו, אם כן, אם אכן קיימת סתירה בין משנת עדיות לבין משנתנו אין זו רק סתירה בין רבי יוסי בעדיות לבין התנא הסתמי במשנתנו, אלא גם בין שתי מסורות בשם רבי יוסי. על כן, דומה שיש בכך כדי לשכנע שאכן אין סתירה בין משנת עדיות ומשנתנו, ושתיהן דברי רבי יוסי, אלא שאותו משפט של רבי יוסי הותאם על ידי העורך לניסוח של הפרק. פירוש זה אפשרי, אך אין הוא אלא השערה. אם הוא נכון הרי זו עדות חשובה לשיטת עבודתו של העורך המאוחר (של משנתנו או של העריכה שקדמה לה). הוא מביא את דברי התנא בסתם, אך מתאים (משפר) את סגנונם כך שיתאימו למבנה הפרק ולמשניות הבאות, או ליתר דיוק שהדברים יהיו ערוכים בלשון זו כדי שהשוני בינם לבין המשניות הבאות יהיה ברור. ", + "בירושלמי למשנה ח להלן מובאים דברי רבי מנא שמשנת עדיות אינה מדברת על תרומת זיתים על שמן אלא של שמן על זיתים, וזו השאלה של משנה ח, ואכן יש סתירה בדברי רבי יוסי, ושני תנאים הם אליבא דרבי יוסי. בלשון הירושלמי: \"דעיון\", שתי דעות הן45אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 399. לדיון ראו ירו', יבמות פ\"א ה\"א, ב ע\"ג; כתובות פ\"ו ה\"א, ל ע\"ג. .", + "בתוספתא מובאים דברי רבי יצחק בשם רבי אליעזר: \"בית שמאי אומרים אין תורמין ובית הלל אומרים תורמים\" (פ\"ב ה\"ד). הניסוח כאן עקרוני, על תרומה לכתחילה, כמו במשנת עדויות. אבל הדעות מוחלפות, ובית שמאי מחמירים. חילוף דעות בין בית שמאי ובית הלל שכיח במקורותינו46ראו, למשל, פירושנו לביצה כל פרק א, ובעיקר מ\"א שם. . לפנינו, אפוא, שתיים או שלוש מסורות בדבר המחלוקת בין שני הבתים (משנתנו, משנת עדויות והתוספתא). מצב זה שיש בו מחלוקת תנאים מאוחרים על טיב המחלוקת הקדומה רגיל למדי, ורגיל במיוחד במחלוקות הקדומות של בית שמאי ובית הלל. ", + "במסכת מעשרות שנינו: \"פירות שתרמן עד שלא נגמרה מלאכתן, רבי אליעזר אוסר מלאכול מהם עראי, וחכמים מתירין חוץ מכלכלת תאנים...\" (פ\"ב מ\"ד). המשנה שם מתירה לתרום מפֵרות שלא נגמרה מלאכתם; לכאורה ניתן היה לתרץ שהמשנה שם אינה עוסקת בשמן וענבים שיש להם דין מיוחד, כפי שהסברנו. ברם, הירושלמי שם מפרש: \"מה נן קיימין? אם בכלכלה שלתאינים דברי הכל אסור, אם בזיתים על השמן, וענבים על היין, דברי הכל מותר. אלא כי נן קיימין בתמרים והוא עתיד לדורסן, בגרוגרות והוא עתיד לדושן. רבי ליעזר אומר תרומה טובלת בפירות שלא נגמרה מלאכתו, ורבנין אמרין אין תרומה טובלת בפירות שלא נגמרו מלאכתן\" (מעשרות פ\"ב ה\"ד, מט ע\"ד). אם כן, המחלוקת היא על הרמת תרומה מפֵרות שלא נגמרה מלאכתם, ועל כך אומר הירושלמי שלדעת הכול תורמים מזיתים על שמן ומענבים על יין. קשה להניח שהסוגיה לא הכירה את משנתנו והקשתה מ\"דברי הכל\" כאשר זו מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל. זאת ועוד, הרי מפשט משנתנו משמע שלדעת הכול אין לתרום, ורק בדיעבד התירו בית שמאי שתהא תרומתו תרומה. נראה, אפוא, שהירושלמי למסכת מעשרות הבין את משנתנו כמו משנת עדיות, ואף סבר שההלכה (\"דברי הכל\") היא כבית שמאי, ועדיין הדברים קשים. ייתכן שהסוגיה ראתה לפניה את משנה י להלן שאין תורמין מדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו על דבר שנגמרה מלאכתו, ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה, והבינה הסוגיה שמשנה י חולקת על משנתנו וסוברת שכך גם אם תרם מזיתים על שמן תרומתו תרומה לדעת הכול, כלומר לדעת המשנה הסתמית במשנה י. הקושי בהסבר זה ברור. ", + "המדובר בענבים שנועדו לעשיית יין, וזיתים שנועדו לשמן. אבל בוודאי מותר לתרום מזיתי מאכל וענבי מאכל על עצמם. כאמור, הסברנו את דברי בית שמאי כאילו הם מתירים לתרום אף שטרם נשלם עיבוד הפרי למאכל, ברם ממשנתנו ניתן גם לפרש שבית שמאי מתירים זאת רק בדיעבד. אין לתרום, ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה. המועד שבו התחייב פרי במעשרות נידון במשנת שביעית ובמשנת מעשרות; הכלל הוא שהפרי מתחייב במעשרות עם הבאתו ל\"גורן\", כלומר למקום הכינוס המקובל באותו זן, אם לבית ואם לגורן בשדה. תנאי נוסף הוא שהפרי יהיה ראוי למאכל מינימלי (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ד מ\"ז-מ\"י; מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ב ואילך). בזיתים וענבים דרשו חכמים שבעל הבית יעבד את הפרי לשמן או ליין. בירושלמי (מ ע\"ד) מובאים שני נימוקים. לדעת רבי יוחנן החשש הוא מפני \"גזל השבט\", כלומר החשש הוא כלכלי: בשיטה כזו של תרומה מזיתים על שמן עלול בעל הבית להקטין את חלקו של הכהן. בזית יש 20%-25% שמן, ואם יפריש כמות זיתים שהיא אחד חלקי חמישים של השמן נמצאו הכוהנים מפסידים. לדעת רבי יוחנן נאמרה הלכה זו בכל הפֵרות. לדעת רבי חנניה החשש הוא \"מפני הטורח\": לכהן אין כמעט אפשרות לעבד את השמן והיין בעצמו, הכמות קטנה מכדי להביאה לבית הבד, על כן גזרו חכמים שיביאו את התרומה משמן ויין. לפי רבי חנניה נאמרה הלכה זו על זיתים ושמן בלבד, שכן בפֵרות אחרים החשש של טורח העיבוד אינו משמעותי47הגמרא מקשה ממשנה י להלן, שבה שנינו \"אין תורמין מדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו על דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו\" – \"וכא (כאן, במשנתנו) את אמר הכין?\" (ירו', מ ע\"ד). יפה ביאר הרא\"ש שהשאלה היא מההמשך שם, \"ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה\", ואילו אצלנו לדעת הכול אין תרומתו תרומה, ואפילו לבית שמאי תרומתו תרומה רק על הזיתים ולא על השמן. ניתן גם לפרש את הירושלמי אחרת ולקרוא את המשפט בניחותא: שם אומרים כך, וגם במשנתנו אותו שיקול ואותו טיעון. .", + "בית הלל מביאים דעה שהיא יותר הלכתית ועקרונית ובית שמאי מעשיים יותר, ואולי אין בית שמאי שוקלים באותה חומרה את התקנה הנזכרת. לדעתם תקנה זו היא אולי לכתחילה, אך אינה עוקרת קדושת תרומה שכבר נתרמה. להלן נעמוד על ההסבר המהותי לעמדות שני הבתים.", + "בתוספתא שנינו: \"התורם זתים על זתים העתידין ליכתש, ענבים על ענבים העתידין לידרך, תרומה ויחזור ויתרום. הראשונה מדמעת, שנייה אין מדמעת. הראשונה חייבין עליה חומש, שנייה אין חייבין עליה חומש, [וצריך לקרות להם שם]48המשפט מנותק מהקשרו וראו דברי ליברמן, עמ' 332, ואפשר לפרש את המשפט כהוראה כללית לכל מקרה של \"יחזור ויתרום\". . חזר ועשה זתים הראשונה שמן, וענבים ראשונות יין, תרומה ואין צריך לתרום שנייה\" (פ\"ג הי\"ד). תרומה של זיתים על זיתים העתידים להיכבש היא בעצם תרומה של זיתים על שמן. אם כן, גם בתוספתא מובאת הדעה הפשוטה שמותר לתרום מזיתים על שמן, דעת בית שמאי. כפי שכבר אמרנו, הדעה הרווחת בספרות חז\"ל היא שדעת בית שמאי דחויה תמיד, להוציא חריגים מעטים. ואמנם, רוב ההלכות הן כדעת בית הלל, ברם לעתים מצינו הלכות סתמיות ומשניות סתמיות כדעת בית שמאי49ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. . אבל בירושלמי הובאה הלכה זו (מא ע\"א) ומשמע שחשבו שמדובר בתרומת שמן על זיתים העתידים להיכתש, וזו משנה ח להלן. ספק רב אם זה אכן פשט הברייתא, ודומה שהירושלמי חרג מעט מפשט הברייתא כדי ליצור יתר הרמוניזציה בין המקורות.", + "ההלכות הובאו בגלל חשיבותן העקרונית והמשפטית, אך היה לבירור זה גם פן מעשי ביותר. זמן החיוב במעשרות ותרומות הוא גמר הפרי, ובאותו מועד הפֵרות גם מוגדרים כאוכל ומקבלים טומאה (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ד מ\"ז-מ\"ח). בעל בית רגיל לא שמר על טהרות אך שאף לכך שהכהן יקבל את התרומה כשהיא טהורה, אחרת לא יוכל לאכול ממנה. הבעיה של טומאת השמן הייתה משמעותית פחות, שכן הכהן יכול להשתמש בשמן שנטמא לשרפה ולתאורה, אבל ליין טמא אין כל שימוש. גם בשמן העדיף מן הסתם הכהן שמן טהור. כפי שנראה להלן, גם בעלי בתים שלא שמרו בעצמם על דיני טהרה השתדלו שהכהן יוכל ליהנות מתרומתם, על כן גם הכהן וגם בעל הבית היו מעדיפים להפריש מעשרות מזיתים או מענבים ולא משמן ויין.", + "הגישה הקובעת ש\"אין תרומתן תרומה\" יש בה מרכיב של קנס או תגובה לחשש מיוחד. הירושלמי (מ ע\"ד) מסביר שהחשש הוא שמא יחשוב הצופה במעשה שהוא מותר לכתחילה. בסיום חלק זה של משנת תרומות נרכז את כל העדויות בנושא ונסכמן." + ], + [ + "המשנה ממשיכה בדינים על תרומה ממין על מין שונה במקצת. השוני הוא בסטטוס ההלכתי של הפֵרות. ", + "אין תורמין מן הלקט מן השכחה [ו]מן הפיאה – לקט, שכחה ופאה פטורים ממעשרות. בורא עולם ציווה לתתם לעניים, ואין הם בבחינת פרי רגיל שכן אינם חייבים במעשרות, ומן ההבקר – גם פרי הפקר פטור מתרומות (ראו פירושנו לפאה פ\"ד מ\"ט), ולפיכך גם פֵרות שביעית פטורים ממעשרות. על כן אי אפשר לתרום מפאה או מלקט על פֵרות רגילים משום שאין תורמים מן הפטור על החייב (להלן).", + "ולא ממעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו – שתי גרסאות לפנינו, ושלושה הסברים למשנה. בנוסח הראשון (זה שלפנינו) \"שלא ניטלה תרומתו\"; כך גם ב- ב, ג4, ז, ת3, כן גרס בעל מלאכת שלמה, כך הגיה הרב יהוסף אשכנזי ומשמע שלפניו עמד הנוסח השני, וכן גרסו מפרשים נוספים. ממעשר ראשון צריך להפריש תרומת מעשר, ואז הוא כפרי רגיל לכל דבר. אי אפשר להשתמש בפֵרות מעשר לפני שהורמה התרומה, אחרת יצא הכהן ניזוק, שהרי הוא יפסיד את חלקו בתרומת מעשר מאותם פֵרות מעשר שניתנו כתרומה. כך, למשל, אם ישתמש אדם בחצי מפֵרות המעשר לשם תרומה על פֵרות אחרים יפסיד הכהן הגדול חצי מתרומת המעשר שלו מאותם פֵרות. ניתן גם לבאר (הסבר שני לנוסח הראשון) שפֵרות מעשר אלו פטורים מתרומה גדולה, על כן הם נחשבים לתרומה מהפטור על החייב, וכך פירשו הראב\"ד ואחרים. נמצאנו למדים שלפי הפירוש הראשון מותר לתרום מפֵרות מעשר שהורמה תרומתו (תרומת המעשר שבו), ואילו לפי הפירוש השני אין לתרום מפֵרות מעשר אפילו אם לא ניטלה תרומתו, ועל אחת כמה וכמה אם ניטלה תרומתו. ", + "הנוסח השני, המצוי ביתר עדי הנוסח, הוא \"מעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו\". מעשר מעין זה פטור מתרומות, ואין תורמים מן הפטור על שאינו פטור. אבל אם לא ניטלה תרומתו אין הוא בחזקת פטור, וניתן לתרום ממנו על פֵרות אחרים שיש לאותו לוי. כן דורש בעל ספרי זוטא: \"יכול אף שניטלה תרומתו? תלמוד לומר...\" (ספרי זוטא לדברים, יח כד, עמ' 297). אם כן, גם הספרי דורש שאין הלוי רשאי להשתמש במעשר כתרומה לפֵרות אחרים50ראו פירושנו לחלה פ\"א מ\"ג. משנתנו כמשנת חלה, וחילופי הנוסח כאן חוזרים שם וכן להלן פ\"ו מ\"ה, ושם נסכם את דרכי הפירוש ונציע את דרכנו. . ", + "ולא ממעשר שיני – מעשר שני הם פֵרות שיש להעלותם לירושלים, אין לשלם מהם חובות והם בחזקת קודשים קלים, והקדש שלא ניפדו – גם כאן יש הגורסים \"שניפדו\", כמו קודם, והסבר ההלכה ומחלוקת הגרסאות זהה לאלו שלעיל. זה מקרה מיוחד שבו הבדל הגרסאות נובע ממחלוקת הלכתית, ולפנינו תיקון של מעתיק תלמיד חכם, אלא שאין בידינו לקבוע מה הנוסח המקורי. מכל מקום, יש להעדיף את הפירוש שלפיו הבעיה היא \"מן הפטור על החייב\" (הנוסח השני, והפירוש השני לנוסח הראשון דלעיל). זאת כיוון שבכך עוסקים כל יתר חלקי המשנה לעיל ולהלן.", + "ולא מן החיב על הפטור ולא מן הפטור על החיב – זהו הכלל המסכם את הנאמר לעיל. מן החייב על הפטור משמעו מן החייב בכמה הפרשות (תרומה ומעשר, למשל) על הפטור מאחת ההפרשות וחייב באחרת (כגון שחייב בתרומה בלבד), ולא מן התלוש על המחובר [ולא מן המחובר] על התלוש – אין להפריש ממה שטרם נקצר על מה שנקצר (ספרי זוטא, כז, עמ' 199 ועוד). אין חייבים בתרומה אלא לאחר שהפרי נקטף, על כן בעצם הכלל מיותר. אי אפשר להפריש תרומה ממה שטרם נקצר, ולא על מה שטרם נקצר. אלא שהכלל נכון לא רק לגבי תרומה אלא גם לגבי הפרשות אחרות, כגון פאה שמפרישים ממה שטרם נקצר. באופן כללי עדיין המשפט מיותר, שהרי מה שטרם נתלש הוא עדיין פטור ואין מפרישים ממנו על החייב. המשפט הוא, אפוא, כללי, ונועד לבטא כלל רחב ככל האפשר. בתוספתא מפורש המשפט כחל על תרומה ומעשרות, וכאמור למעשה הוא מיותר וניתן היה להסיקו מהמשפט הקודם (\"מן הפטור על החייב\" וכו')51נראה שסדר המשפטים בתוספתא שונה משל המשנה, שכן היא מפרשת קודם את חדש וישן (ה\"ו) ורק אחר כך את תלוש ומחובר (ה\"ז). התוספתא כאן ממשיכה לפרש את המשנה ולהיות תלויה בה, אך עמד לפניה סדר שונה של המשפטים. , ולא מן החדש על הישן ולא מן הישן על החדש – איסור חדש וישן חל רק על תבואה. עד הנפת העומר אין לאכול מהיבול של השנה החדשה. ברם, בהקשר שלנו נראה שאין הכוונה ל\"ישן\" ו\"חדש\" מבחינה הלכתית אלא ליבול משנה קודמת על יבול השנה הנוכחית (תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ו). לעתים הפרשה מעין זו היא מן החייב על הפטור, שהרי לכל שנה מעשרות משלה, אבל אין גם להפריש מפרי של השנה הראשונה במחזור השביעית על פרי של השנה השנייה. אמנם המעשרות הם אותם מעשרות, אך הפער בין היבולים גדול מדי. חכמים רצו שיפרישו תרומות ומעשרות מכל שדה ומכל גידול, והתנגדו להעברות משנה לחברתה. ", + "ולא מפירות הארץ על פירות חוצה לארץ ולא מפירות [חוצה] לארץ על פירות הארץ – פֵרות הארץ חייבים במעשרות ותרומות. לפי ההלכה רשאי אדם להפריש משדה זה על שדה אחר, ובלבד שהשדות כולם שלו (ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ה מ\"ז), ומן המשנה משמע כאילו פֵרות הארץ חייבים במעשר, וגם פֵרות חוץ לארץ חייבים, אלא שחיובם חלש יותר או מסופק. לכאורה פירוש זה בעייתי, שכן אין להפריש תרומה מפֵרות חוץ לארץ, אלא שהשאלה אינה שאלה. בהקדמתנו לפרק ו במסכת שביעית ראינו שהיו יהודים שהחמירו על עצמם והרימו תרומות או מעשרות. מעמדן ההלכתי של תרומות אלו לא היה ברור, היו שהתירו לעצמם לאכלן אפילו בטומאה והיו שהעלו אותן לארץ לאכלן בטהרה כתרומה לכל דבר, על כן המשנה מתבארת כפשוטה בפֵרות חוץ לארץ. עם זאת, קשה קצת מדוע אין המשנה מזכירה את סוריה. כידוע חז\"ל מחלקים את העולם כולו לשלושה: ארץ ישראל, סוריה וחוץ לארץ. בסוריה יש לשמור על המצוות התלויות בארץ, אבל נקבעו הקלות רבות. בסוריה רוב האדמות הן בידי לא יהודים, אין נוהגים להפריש מדמאי בסוריה וכו'52ראו על כך בהקדמתנו לשביעית פ\"ו. . קשה קצת, אפוא, שהמשנה אינה מזכירה את סוריה כלל. ", + "אבל התוספתא מבארת אחרת, ומפרשת את משנתנו בסוריה. היא קובעת שמעשרים ותורמים בסוריה והקונה שדה שם \"כקונה בפרוד שבירושלם\" (תוס', פ\"ב ה\"י), אך אין מעשרים משל סוריה על פֵרות הארץ. הדבר נאמר במפורש: \"כיצד אין תורמין מפירות הארץ על פירות חוצה לארץ? אין תורמין מפירות ארץ ישראל על פירות סוריא\" (שם ה\"ט). אם כן, התוספתא אינה מקפידה על המינוח ובהמשך מדברת שוב על חוץ לארץ ולא על סוריה53הרא\"ש גרס \"אפילו בסוריא\", וכך יש בתוספתא הקפדה על שלושת המונחים \"ארץ ישראל\", \"חוץ לארץ\" ו\"סוריה\", אך דבריו עומדים נגד עדי הנוסח האחרים ונראים כתיקון של תלמיד חכם. . דומה, אפוא, שבבסיס התוספתא משתמעת חלוקה אחרת, קדומה יותר ומשוכללת פחות, ולפיה קיימות רק שתי אבחנות בין ארץ ישראל וסוריה או ארץ ישראל וחוץ לארץ, ואילו האבחנה בין סוריה לחוץ לארץ אינה קיימת או שאינה משמעותית. אנו מניחים שזו חלוקה קדומה יותר וחלוקת העולם לשלוש מאוחרת יותר, שכן היא משוכללת יותר ואותה קיבלו האמוראים. מכל מקום, על סמך התוספתא יש לפרש את משנתנו בסוריה, וכך פירשו הר\"ש, הרא\"ש ואחרים. דומה שהתוספתא מנסה לרכך את החידוש שבמשנה. מהמשנה משמע שפֵרות חוץ לארץ חייבים בתרומה; חיובם פחוּת אך התרומה תרומה, ואילו התוספתא מפרשת שפֵרות חוץ לארץ פטורים (והתרומה אינה תרומה), ורק פֵרות סוריה חייבים בתרומה וחיובם פחוּת. ניסחנו \"חיובם פחוּת\", ואולי צריך היה לנסח בלשון הלכתית: \"חיובם מדרבנן\" או \"מדברי סופרים\", אלא שאנו מעדיפים ניסוח משפטי פחוּת, כפי שהצענו במבוא למסכת.", + "במשנה ובתוספתא לא נאמרה הסיבה לכך שאין תורמים מפֵרות הארץ על פֵרות סוריה. אולי התנא סבור שפֵרות סוריה חייבים במעשר רק מדרבנן, או שחיובם מובהק פחות מזה של פֵרות הארץ, על כן הם בבחינת פטור למחצה. במשנת דמאי שנינו שאין תורמים מהוודאי על הדמאי, אך מותר לתרום מדמאי על ודאי, לפחות בדיעבד, וגם אם תרם מהוודאי על הדמאי תרומתו תרומה, אלא שצריך לתרום פעם נוספת (משנה, דמאי פ\"ה מי\"א). ליברמן בפירושו לתוספתא שבה אנו עוסקים מקשה ממשנה זו על משנתנו, שהרי לכאורה אין הבדל בין תרומה מפֵרות חוץ לארץ על פֵרות הארץ לבין תרומה מוודאי על דמאי. על כן ליברמן מציע שפֵרות סוריה כאן הם פֵרות גוי, או סתם פֵרות שיש חשש שהם משדות של גוי, ופֵרות גויים בסוריה פטורים מתרומה וממעשרות. ", + "ההצעה חריפה ודיונו של ליברמן גדוש חידושים חריפים, אלא שאין לקבלה. ראשית, המשנה בדמאי מציגה עמדה אחת אבל בתוספתא שם מובאת גם דעה אחרת שלפיה אין להפריש מוודאי על דמאי, ואם עשה כן לא עשה ולא כלום54תוס', דמאי פ\"ד ה\"ה, וראו ניסיון התירוץ של ליברמן, עמ' 236, ופירושנו לדמאי פ\"ד מי\"א. . זאת ועוד; מבחינה הלכתית מפֵרות סוריה יש להפריש מדרבנן, וכן מפֵרות דמאי, אבל הדמיון הוא משפטי-טכני בלבד. פֵרות דמאי הם פֵרות שספק אם הפרישו מהם, ופֵרות סוריה הם פֵרות שהמצוות התלויות בארץ חלות עליהם בצורה חמורה פחות. כפי שראינו בדיוננו על מעמדה של סוריה, ההלכות העוסקות בה אינן אחידות. משנתנו מבטאת את אי האחידות הזאת.", + "כאמור, שדות ישראל בסוריה חייבים במעשרות ובתרומות, ובשביעית במידה פחותה מזו שבארץ ישראל55תוס', תרומה פ\"ב ה\"י; כלים בבא קמא פ\"א ה\"ה; משנה, חלה פ\"ד מי\"א; שביעית פ\"ט מ\"א ועוד. . ההגדרה שפֵרות סוריה חייבים במעשרות ובתרומות מדרבנן אינה נאמרת במפורש, ונרמזת רק לגבי ערלה (ראו פירושנו לערלה פ\"ג מ\"ט). האבחנה שסוריה היא בבחינת \"כיבוש יחיד\" בניגוד לארץ ישראל מופיעה אך ורק בתלמוד הבבלי. הנמקה זו באה מתוך הנטייה של התלמוד להציע אבחנות משפטיות כוללות. הקושי של התלמוד הבבלי היה שסוריה נמצאת בגבולות ההבטחה ונכבשה בידי דוד, ומדוע היא שונה מארץ ישראל? על כן הוצעה האבחנה בדבר כיבוש יחיד. ברם, כל זה הוא משפטיות יתר. אמנם גבולות ההבטחה כוללים את סוריה אבל בפועל זו לא נכבשה, לא בימי יהושע ולא בימי בית שני, ואין היא נכללת בגבולות הארץ שבבמדבר פל\"ד, על כן מעמדה שונה. אי האחידות בדבר החובות ההלכתיות המוטלות על שדות סוריה היא תוצאה של מעמדו המורכב של חבל ארץ זה. הבבלי ניסה להעניק כסות משפטית אחידה לכל ההופעות של סוריה בהלכה, אך כאמור אי אפשר להציע הגדרה משפטית אחידה. ", + "ואם תרמו אין תרומתן תרומה – כאמור, זה הבריח המבריח את כל ההלכות שבפרקנו עד להלכה זו." + ], + [ + "חמשה לא יתרומו ואם תרמו תרומתן תרומה – משפט זה מנוסח כמקביל לפתיחת הפרק שבה מדובר על חמישה שלא יתרומו, ואם תרמו איןתרומתם תרומה.", + "האילם – האילם הוא כמובן מי ששומע אך אינו מדבר. אילמות עשויה להתרחש או כתוצאה מחירשות או כתוצאה מפגם בדיבור או מפיגור שכלי עמוק. במקרה זה מדובר באילם שמבין ואינו שוטה. התוספתא מסבירה שהאילם לא יתרום כי אינו יכול לברך (תוס', פ\"ג ה\"א). כפי שאמרנו בפירושנו למשנה הראשונה, במשנה לא נזכר הנוהג של ברכה על המצווה, ובכלל קשה לתאר שחוסר האפשרות לברך ישפיע על עצם קיום המצווה. על כן נראה שהבעיה היא שהאילם אינו יכול להצהיר על הפרשת התרומה, שהרי הפרשת תרומה היא בראש ובראשונה הודעה-הצהרה שפֵרות אלו הם תרומה. כפי שנראה, נימוק זה מאחד כמה מהפרטים המנויים במשנה. בירושלמי מדגישים: \"יש מהן מפני ברכה ויש מהן שאין יכולין לתרום מן המובחר\" (ירו', מ ע\"ד). אם כן, בחלק מהם הגורם הוא אמירת ברכה, כמו שנאמר בתוספתא, ובחלק מהמקרים אין ברכה אך יש צורך במחשבה מיוחדת, ואין די בעשייה טכנית ופורמלית של המצווה.", + "בתוספתא שנינו: \"הפריש תרומה ומעשר ראשון ומעשר שיני ולא קרא להן שם, רבי יוסה אומר נתקדשו, רבי יהודה אומר לא נתקדשו, רבי אומר אם עתיד לקרות להן שם אין בהן קדושה עד שיקרא להן שם, אם אין עתיד לקרות שם נתקדשו\" (מעשר שני פ\"ד הי\"ד). המדובר במי שהפריש ולא קרא שם, כלומר הרים חלק מהיבול והניחו בצד, אך לא הכריז עליו שהוא תרומה. התוספתא מוסבת על משנה הדנה במי שפדה מעשר שני ולא קרא שם (מעשר שני פ\"ד מ\"ז, ראו פירושנו לה). לפי הברייתא והמשנה אין די במעשה אלא יש צורך בדיבור, וכך סבורים רבי יהודה ורבי, אך רבי יוסי אומר שגם לכתחילה תרומתו תרומה. הירושלמי הסביר שהכוונה למי שהרהר בלב אך לא גמר בלבו (ירו', פ\"ג ה\"ז, מ ע\"ב; נזיר פ\"ה ה\"א, נג ע\"ד). ליברמן56ליברמן, מעשר שני, עמ' 775. פירש שהכוונה למי שלא גמר בלבו, משום שלכל הדעות תרומה עולה במחשבה בלבד. ברם, דומה שמשנתנו מוכיחה כי אכן היה מי שתבע שהמפריש תרומה יגיד בפיו; נראה שאלו פשוטם של דברים, ומשנתנו אינה כרבי יהודה האומר שהתרומה אינה תרומה57בספרי קרח קכא, עמ' 147, נאמר שתרומה עולה לא רק במידה אלא גם באומד ובמחשבה. אין זו מחשבת תרומה כפי שפירש ליברמן, מעשר שני, עמ' 775 הע' 40, אלא מחשבה שהיא אומדן כללי עוד יותר מסתם אומד, ובניגוד לתרומה במידה מדויקת, ונדון בכך במשנה הבאה. . במשנה א דובר על חירש, אך כפי שפירשנו שם מדובר במי שאין לו דעה, ולא רק שאינו יכול לבטא בשפתיו אלא גם לא לגמור בלבו. ", + "עמדה זו חוזרת במשנה להלן (ראו פירושנו להלן פ\"ג מ\"ח). שם משמע לא רק שצריך לומר בפה, אלא שהאמירה צריכה להלום את כוונתו, כלומר האמירה היא מרכיב מרכזי במצווה. ניתן כמובן לפרש שאם גמר בלבו די בכך, אבל אם הצהיר צריכה ההצהרה להלום את המחשבה, אך דומה שפירוש זה דחוק, ואת המשנה יש לפרש כרבי יהודה ורבי שצריך לומר בגלוי שהפֵרות הם תרומה.", + "והשיכור – מי ששתה יין ואיבד זמנית חלק משפיותו. על כן לכתחילה לא יתרום, אך אם תרם תרומתו תרומה. התוספתא מגדירה \"מפני שאין בו דעת\" ומסבירה שיש לו זכות למכור ולקנות, אך לא לקיים מצווה שיש בה מחשבה וכוונה. הירושלמי (מ ע\"ד) מדגיש את ההבדל בין שיכור לבין שתוי, ששפיותו רבה יותר, והערום – ערום אינו רשאי לקיים מצוות עד שיתכסה, לפחות באופן מינימלי (ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"א מ\"ד; חלה פ\"ב מ\"ג), והסומה – העיוור הוא בעל דעת, אך מעמדו בקיום מצוות בעייתי.", + "מן הראוי לפתוח ולומר שחכמים משתמשים במונחים \"עיוור\" (\"עיור\") וסומא כאילו היו מקשה אחת58בדרך כלל המינוח הוא \"סומא\" או \"סומה\". \"עיור\" הוא המינוח המקראי, אך משמש מעט גם בספרות חכמים. . בפועל ברור שיש עיוורים המעורים עם הבריות ויש המנותקים כליל מעולם המעשה. אבחנות מעשיות אלו השפיעו, מן הסתם, על ההכרעות הלכה למעשה, אבל הן לעולם מצויות מאחורי הקלעים. הדיון של חז\"ל, ברוב המקרים, הוא כללי. רק פעם אחת מצינו את רבי יוחנן מבחין במצב אישי: \"אמר רבי יוחנן: סומא באחת מעיניו לא ישא את כפיו. והא ההוא דהוה בשיבבותיה (בשכנותו) דרבי יוחנן, דהוה פריס ידיה (שהיה פורש ידיו לברכת כוהנים) – ההוא דש בעירו הוה. תניא נמי הכי: סומא באחת מעיניו לא ישא את כפיו, ואם היה דש בעירו – מותר\" (בבלי, מגילה כד ע\"ב). הברייתא הכללית בדבר \"דש בעירו\" היא אכן הלכה כללית, ויש בכך הבחנה הנוגעת לא לעיוור באופן אישי אלא למצבו בחברה, ברם זהו ההסבר הבבלי; ייתכן שרבי יוחנן סבר שעיוור פלוני, באחת מעיניו, איננו מודר מהחברה. להלן נחזור לעניין זה. ", + "היחס הכללי לעיוור הוא כאל מסכן, חסר סיכוי, מנותק מהחברה. כך, למשל, \"הרואה את הכושי, ואת הבוריק, ואת הגיחור, ואת הלוקין, ואת הכיפיח, ואת הננס, (ואת החרש, ואת השוטה, ואת השכור) אומר ברוך משנה הבריות. את הקיטע, ואת החיגר, ואת הסומא, ואת מוכי שחין, אומר ברוך דיין האמת\" (תוס', ברכות פ\"ו ה\"ג ומקבילות). הסומא הוא מום קשה, כמוהו כמת, והוא חמור מהחירש. כמו כן: \"רבי עקיבא אומר כל הנוטל פרוטה מן הצדקה, בזמן שאינו צריך, אינו נפטר מן העולם עד שיצטרך לבריות. הוא היה אומר המכריך סמרטוטין על עיניו, ועל שוקיו, ואומר תנו לסומא, למוכה שחין זה, סוף שהוא אומר לאמתו\" (אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א פ\"ג, ח ע\"א, ומקבילות). הסומא מצטייר כמקבץ נדבות וכמוהו כמוכה השחין, כמו במקור הקודם וכן במקורות רבים נוספים59כגון \"אמר רבי שמואל ד' חשובים כמתים מצורע וסומא ומי שאין לו בנים ומי שירד מנכסיו\" (בראשית רבה, עא ו, עמ' 830), ועוד. . ביטוי הלכתי ישיר יש לכך בהלכה: \"סומא ואילונית יש להן טענת בתולים, סמכוס אמר משם רבי מאיר סומה אין לה טענת בתולים\" (תוס', כתובות פ\"א ה\"ג). הנושא נערה עיוורת אינו יכול לטעון שאין לה בתולים. ההנחה היא שהיא בוודאי אינה יכולה לשמור על כבודה, ומי שנשא אותה לקח זאת בחשבון. זו עמדתו של רבי מאיר, שבהלכות אחרות שנצטט הוא מגינם של העיוורים. אם לא התחלפה המסורת הרי שגם הוא אינו מעניק להם הערכה רבה. ", + "יש להניח שיחס עקרוני זה אל העיוור השפיע על רוב ההלכות המדירות את הסומא מכלל המצוות, כפי שנראה להלן. פירושי חכמים שעיוור פטור ממצווה מסוימת בגלל סיבה ספציפית נועדו, בין השאר, לעמעם את הפסילה הכללית של העיוור ולראות בה הדרה מצומצמת. פרשנות זו תודגם להלן.", + "לא זו בלבד שהעיוור נחשב לבעל מום חריף, אלא גם העיוור בעין אחת נחשב לבעל מום חמור, וכמובן הוא פסול מעבודה במקדש: \"עיור בין סומא בשתי עיניו בין סומא אפילו בעינו אחת\" (ספרא אמור, פרשה ג ה\"ו, עמ' ה\"ב), וכוהנים בעלי מומים אסורים היו בעבודת הקודש אך אכלו בקודשים וזכו בחלוקת לחם הפנים ושתי הלחם כשהם מחולקים בימי הרגל לכל המשמרות (תוס', סוכה פ\"ד הכ\"ג; בבלי, שם נו ע\"א). כמו כן נקבע שכהן כזה אסור לו לראות נגעים, ואסור לחכם כזה להיות דיין (משנה, נגעים פ\"ב מ\"ג; תוס', פ\"א ה\"ז, עמ' 618). לאיסור ראיית נגעים נסמך פסוק ונימוק, שהרי בנגעים צבע הגוון קובע וראייה תקינה היא תנאי הכרחי, אבל האיסור לשפוט נובע מתפיסה כללית שבעל מום כזה אינו ראוי למעמד ציבורי. מעבר לכך, חז\"ל תבעו זהות בין שיפוט לעבודת מקדש (ובין לימוד תורה להקרבת קרבנות), והאיסור על סומא באחת מעיניו לדון הוא חלק ממגמה זו. עם זאת, מובן שלא נאסר עליו ללמוד. כך גם נקבע שעיוורון חלקי הוא עילה לגט בבחינת \"מומין גדולים\" (תוס', כתובות פ\"ז ה\"י).", + "מעמדו של הסומא בהלכה ובחברה נדון בעשרות סוגיות. רוב הדיונים על העיוור עוסקים בשאלת מעמדו ביחס לקיום מצוות באופן כללי, או לקיום מצווה זו או אחרת. בדרך הטבע נשמעות במקורות עמדות שונות. ", + "בספרות התנאית שתי עמדות בסיסיות, ובחלק גדול מהעדויות זו מחלוקת רבי יהודה ורבי מאיר. רבי יהודה פוטרו ממצוות ורבי מאיר מחייבו במצוות. השאלה היא האם יש להסתפק בקביעה עקרונית זו ולומר שלפנינו מחלוקת כללית על מעמדו של העיוור, או שמא אלו התחומים שבהם הדירו את העיוור, ובכל הנושאים שאינם מוזכרים הוא חייב. יתר על כן, בסדרת עדויות נקבע בפשטות שעיוור חייב במצווה זו או אחרת, או שבפועל הוא מתואר כמי שמבצעה, והשאלה היא האם יש לראות בכך את עמדתו של רבי מאיר או עמדה כללית, והמחלוקת מצומצמת למקרים מסוימים. כפי שנראה להלן, שתי הפרשנויות מצויות בתלמודים (כגון בבלי, מגילה כד ע\"א ולהלן).", + "כך, למשל, המשנה קובעת שהמבייש את הסומא חייב (בבא קמא פ\"ח מ\"א). בתוספתא זו מחלוקת רבי יהודה ורבי מאיר (בבא קמא פ\"ט הי\"ג). לדעת רבי מאיר הוא ככל אדם, ולדעת רבי יהודה אין לו כבוד עצמי, וממילא אין לו גם בושה. כאמור, השאלה היא האם רבי יהודה סבור שאכן אין לו בושה, או שהוא אינו חייב במצוות כלל ועיקר. העובדה שיש לפצותו על שאר הנזקים שנעשו לו מוכיחה שהוא בן אדם אוטונומי, אבל חסר כבוד ומעמד. ", + "\"...והמעמר והסומא יש להם שכחה\" (משנה, פאה פ\"ו מי\"א). לכאורה היה מקום לפטרו משום שאינו רואה את עבודתו ואין זו שכחה. ההכרעה שהוא חייב בשכחה היא עדות ליחס של כבוד ולראייתו כחלק מעדת ישראל. קשה לדעת האם רבי יהודה יחלוק על הלכה זו. כך גם המחלוקת האם סומא שזרק אבן ופגע בטעות והרג חייב בגלות. במסכת מכות יש מחלוקת על כך (מכות פ\"ב מ\"ג), ובמדרש: \"או בכל אבן אשר ימות בה בלא ראות, להביא את הסומא ואת הזורק בלילה. רבי יהודה אומר בלא ראות להוציא את הסומא\" (ספרי במדבר, קס, עמ' 219 ומקבילות). כאן מובאת עמדתו החולקת של רבי יהודה. ", + "כן חולקים תנאים בשאלה האם הסומא רשאי לפרוס על שמע בציבור: \"קטן קורא בתורה ומתרגם, אבל אינו פורס על שמע, ואינו עובר לפני התיבה, ואינו נושא את כפיו. פוחח פורס את שמע ומתרגם, אבל אינו קורא בתורה, ואינו עובר לפני התיבה, ואינו נושא את כפיו. סומא פורס את שמע ומתרגם, רבי יהודה אומר כל שלא ראה מאורות מימיו אינו פורס על שמע\" (משנה, מגילה פ\"ד מ\"ו). לפי תנא קמא (רבי מאיר?) סומא בוודאי אינו קורא בתורה, אבל רשאי להוביל את העדה בקריאת שמע. רבי יהודה אינו חולק על זכותו לתרגם, ומכאן גם על האפשרות שיהא בעל ידע מספיק לכך. כמו כן משתמע מדבריו שהסומא חייב בקריאת שמע. רק הובלת הציבור שנויה במחלוקת. בהמשך המשנה מובא נימוק מיוחד של רבי יהודה: \"רבי יהודה אומר כל שלא ראה מאורות מימיו אינו פורס על שמע\". אחת מברכות קריאת שמע היא על המאורות, ועל כך אין הסומא יכול לברך. בתוספתא מובא המשך הוויכוח בין החכמים על הנושא האם המברך צריך לראות את נושא ברכתו60תוס', מגילה פ\"ג הכ\"ח; בבבלי מובא נימוק שהברכה היא על הנאה, והמחלוקת היא האם העיוור נהנה מהאור (בבלי, מגילה כד ע\"ב). . אילו הייתה משנה זו מבודדת אפשר היה להסיק שלשיטת רבי יהודה עיוור חייב בכל המצוות, ומנוע רק ממה שקשור ישירות בראייה. ברם, לאחר שראינו שהסומא נחשב לאדם ללא כבוד ובושה ספק רב אם אכן רבי יהודה מצמצם כך את עמדתו. ייתכן שהנימוק הוא לשיטת חכמים בלבד, ואילו לדעתו עיוור פטור מכל המצוות, או לחילופין שהוא איננו רשאי להוביל את הציבור מפני כבוד הציבור, כמו שמנומק דין פוחח61לעתים בוויכוחים בין תנאים נוקט תנא אחד בטיעון המתאים רק לשיטתו, ואילו החולק עליו חולק גם על הנימוק. במקרה כזה הטיעון לא בא לשכנע אלא לחדד את עמדתו של התנא. . ", + "דיון דומה קיים לגבי חובת הבאת קרבן ראייה62כך פירשנו את משנת חגיגה פ\"א מ\"א, והבבלי פירש שמדובר בחובת עלייה לרגל. : \"הכל חייבין בראיה, חוץ מחרש, שוטה, וקטן... החיגר, והסומא, והחולה, והזקן, ומי שאינו יכול לעלות ברגליו\" (משנה, חגיגה פ\"א מ\"א). לפי ההקשר העיוור פטור מהחובה משום שאיננו עצמאי בעלייה לרגל, ובתוספתא נאמרים הדברים במפורש, שכן בתורה כתוב \"יראה\" (תוס', חגיגה פ\"א ה\"א; בבלי, ד ע\"ב). אין זו רק דרשה, אלא קישור בין ראייה כמצווה וראייה כיכולת אישית.", + "על רקע זה נבין את דברי משנתנו. במשנה נקבע שסומא לא יתרום, ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה. גם כאן אין מחלוקת תנאית, אבל יש לזכור שהכרעת המשנה היא כבר עמדת ביניים, בין אלו שלא יתרמו ותרומתם אינה תרומה לבין אלו שאינם תורמים אך תרומתם תרומה. בתוספתא מובאת הנמקה המצמצמת את ההלכה: \"מפני מה אמרו אלם לא תורם, מפני שאין יכול [לברך. מפני מה אמרו סומא לא יתרום, מפני שאין יכול] לבור את היפה מן הרעה...\" (פ\"ג ה\"א). ההלכה מוצגת לא כהלכה עקרונית על מעמד העיוור במצוות בכלל, ובתרומה בפרט63תרומה היא מצווה המחייבת כוונה ודעת. ללא זה אין היבול מתקדש, וראו במבוא למסכת. , אלא כבעיה טכנית. מן הסתם אין זה פשט המשנה, אבל התוספתא מייצגת קול בעולמם של תנאים, קול המצמצם את הפגיעה במעמד העיוור.", + "קבוצה שנייה של מקורות מניחה בפשטות שהסומא מקיים מצוות, כגון \"השוחט בלילה וכן הסומא ששחט שחיטתו כשרה\" (משנה, חולין פ\"א מ\"א ומקבילות), וכן: \"סומה ומי שאינו יכול לכוין את הרוחות מכוונין את לבם כנגד אביהם שבשמים ומתפללין\" (תוס', ברכות פ\"ג הי\"ד; ירו', ברכות פ\"ד ה\"ה, ח ע\"ב). ברור שהסומא מתפלל, ואיש לא הטיל בכך ספק. כמו כן: \"אם היה רבו סומא אל יאמר לו רבי שקעה חמה, אלא יאמר לו סלק תפילך\" (כלה רבתי, פ\"ב הט\"ז, עמ' 211). ברור לבעל הלכה זו שהרב העיוור (מן הסתם התעוור בזקנותו) מתפלל ומניח תפילין, ונוהגים בו כבוד רב. כמו כן: \"הסומא והישן והמהלך בלילה ספיקן טהור מפני שיש בו דעת לשאול\" (תוס', טהרות פ\"ג הי\"א, עמ' 663). הסומה חולצת והסומא נחלץ (תוס', יבמות פי\"ב ה\"י), וכן הלכות נוספות, ואין צורך למנותן. על סיפור חי של שמירת מצוות מספר רבי יוסי: \"מעשה בסומא שירד לטבול במערה, וירד מושכו אחריו, ושהו כדי שתצא נפשם והשיאו נשותיהם\" (משנה, יבמות פט\"ז מ\"ד). העיוור טובל לטהרתו אף על פי שאין הוא עצמאי והוא נזקק למוביל.", + "קבוצה אחרת של מקורות מניחה שהסומא אינו מקיים מצוות מסוימות, וקשה להכריע האם זו עמדת רבי יהודה או עמדת כל החכמים. כך, למשל, \"הכל סומכין חוץ מחרש, שוטה וקטן, סומא ונכרי\" (משנה, מנחות פ\"ט מ\"ח). כך גם סומא פסול לעדות (תוס', שבועות פ\"ג ה\"ח, עמ' 450; סנהדרין פ\"ה ה\"ד, עמ' 423, ומקבילות). אין חולקים על הלכה זו, ומן הסתם הדבר מבטא את ההנחה שהעיוור מנותק מחיי היום יום, גם לדעת מי שאומר שהוא חייב במצוות. ", + "בספרות האמוראית מופיעות שתי המגמות. המגמה הראשונה מצמצמת ומוצאת הסבר ייחודי לכל מקרה ומקרה, בין אם זה נימוק הגיוני ובין אם זה נימוק דרשני מהפסוק64כגון ירו', מכות פ\"ב ה\"ה, לא ע\"ד; סוטה פ\"ב ה\"ה, יח ע\"ב; בבלי, בבא קמא פו ע\"ב; מכות ט ע\"ב; סוטה כז ע\"א; פסחים קטז ע\"א. . למעשה התלמודים מהלכים בנתיב פרשני שהותווה כבר במקורות התלמודיים. המגמה השנייה היא של האחדה משפטית, ולפיה קיימת מחלוקת עקרונית האם סומא פטור מן המצוות: \"דרבי יודן פוטרו מכל מצות האמורות בתורה\" (ירו', סוטה פ\"ב ה\"ה, יח ע\"ב), ובבבלי: \"וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטרו מכל דינים שבתורה... אמר רב יוסף, מריש הוה אמינא: מאן דאמר הלכה כרבי יהודה, דאמר: סומא פטור מן המצות, קא עבדינא יומא טבא לרבנן. והשתא דשמעית להא דר' חנינא, דאמר ר' חנינא: גדול המצווה ועושה ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה, מאן דאמר לי אין הלכה כרבי יהודה, עבדינא יומא טבא לרבנן\" (בבא קמא פז ע\"א; קידושין לא ע\"ב)65\"מלכתחילה הייתי אומר, מי שאומר הלכה כרבי יהודה, שאמר: \"סומא פטור מן המצוות\", אני עושה יום טוב לחכמים. עכשיו ששמעתי את דברי ר' חנינא... מי שיאמר לי שאין הלכה כר' יהודה אעשה יום טוב לחכמים\". . רב יוסף היה עיוור, ובפועל קיים את כל המצוות והפך למנהיג בדורו. הדיון בגמרא שם הוא האם קיימן מתוך חובה או מרצונו העצמי. ", + "מעתה עלינו לשחזר את התהליך ההיסטורי-חברתי-הלכתי. הלכות הסומא דומות מאוד למצבן של הלכות נשים. הכלל התנאי הוא שנשים פטורות ממצוות עשה שהזמן גרמן. בפועל אפשר למצוא שני סוגי חריגים מכלל זה: הראשון הוא מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמן אבל במקורות מוצגת סיבה מיוחדת לפטור הנשים מהן, והחריג השני הוא מצוות עשה שתלויות בזמן ונשים חייבות בהן, ובמקורות נימוקים שונים לכך, רובם אינם משכנעים. על כן הגיע ספראי למסקנה שבשלב ראשון התקבלה סדרת החלטות פרטניות, לעתים סותרות, ובשלב שני ניסו תנאים לקבוע כלל אחיד שהכיל את רוב המקרים, אִפשר לקבוע את ההלכה במקרים אחרים אך גם הותיר מחוץ לכלל סדרת חריגים. במבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות טענו שזה היה התהליך הכללי של גיבוש המערכת ההלכתית. דומה שלפנינו דוגמה נוספת לתהליך זה. בספרות התנאית נקבעו הלכות שונות. חלקן חייבו את הסומא במצוות, חלקן פטרו אותו וחלק גדול מהן היו שנויות במחלוקת (שרבי יהודה ורבי מאיר היו בה ראשי המדברים). רבי יהודה פטר את הסומא ממצוות שעוורונו הוא מרכיב בעשייתן, ברם מעבר לכך נבע הפטור גם מאי ההכרה בו כבן אנוש עצמאי, אוטונומי וראוי לכבוד. לו היו התנאים עסוקים בחשיבה משפטית שיטתית ייתכן שהייתה מתפתחת הלכה שיטתית שסומא פטור ממצוות. אבל הם לא הילכו בדרך זו, ואין לתמוה על כך, שכן לא בכל הנושאים נקבעה הלכה שיטתית. ", + "כבר בספרות התנאית פגשנו שתי מגמות, האחת מנסה לצמצם את פטור העיוור למקרים מיוחדים והאחרת מרחיבה יותר. כאמור, שתי המגמות מתחזקות בספרות האמוראים, ורק בה מוצעת שיטה משפטית אחידה ולפיה סומא פטור מכל המצוות. ", + "הדוגמה של סומא מאפשרת לעקוב אחר הכרונולוגיה של התהליך החברתי והמשפטי. ", + "ובעל קרי – גם כאן התוספתא מסבירה שבעל הקרי אינו יכול לברך. ברם, לשיטתנו אין הדבר תלוי בברכה אלא בעצם קיום המצווה, ואמירת ההצהרה של התרומה. קרי הוא טומאה קלה של מי שראה שכבת זרע או קיים יחסי אישות. עם זאת, מצווה זו זכתה למעמד מיוחד במסגרת דיני טומאה וטהרה. היא יוצאת דופן, שורשיה מיוחדים והלכותיה חריגות. טומאת קרי מופיעה, כידוע, בתורה: \"ואיש כי תצא ממנו שכבת זרע ורחץ במים את כל בשרו וטמא עד הערב. וכל בגד וכל עור אשר יהיה עליו שכבת זרע וכֻבס במים וטמא עד הערב\" (ויקרא טו טז). את טהרת בעל הקרי הכירו כנראה כבר בתקופת המקרא, עוד לפני התגבשות התורה שבעל פה הידועה לנו. במעמד קבלת התורה נאמר \"אל תגשו אל אשה\" (שמות יט טו), ולפי פשוטם של דברים התורה מניחה שהכול מבינים שקיום יחסי אישות מוביל לטומאה כלשהי. כן מסביר שאול לעצמו שדוד טמא ולכן אינו מגיע לסעודת החודש (שהייתה כנראה סעודת זבח): \"מקרה הוא בלתי טהור\" (שמואל א כ כו)66כך גם הבין את הפסוק יוספוס (קד', ו 235), אם כי אין הוא מסביר את טיב הטומאה. . הנחת הכתובים שם היא שזו סיבה רגילה ומספקת, ושהטומאה היא טומאה ליום אחד בלבד. כן מסביר דוד שנעריו טהורים משום ש\"אשה עצֻרה לנו כתמול שלשֹם\" (שם כא ו), ולפיכך רשאים הנערים לאכול מלחם קודש. העדויות על שמירת מצוות הלכה למעשה בתקופת המקרא מעטות ביותר, והעדויות על קיום מצוות הטהרה הנובעת מיחסי אישות מרובות יחסית. ", + "המסורת האמוראית מייחסת לעזרא הסופר שתיקן טבילה לבעלי קריין67כן יוצא מהבבלי כאן, כב ע\"ב, והתקנה נמצאת בסיכום הכללי בבבא קמא פ ע\"א, וכן נרמזת בירו', יומא פ\"ח ה\"א, מד ע\"ד; תענית פ\"ד ה\"ו, סד ע\"ג (מצוטט להלן). . תקנות מספר מיוחסות בספרות חז\"ל לעזרא; אנו רשאים להטיל ספק בדבר מעורבותו של עזרא בתקנה, אך ודאי שחז\"ל ראו בה תקנה קדומה ועטורת הוד קדומים. במקרה זה, כאמור, רמז לה בתנ\"ך עצמו.", + "כידוע, רוב עמי הארץ לא הקפידו על מצוות הטהרה, לפחות לא באותה מידה ובאותו פירוט שתבעו חז\"ל. אבל סדרת העדויות שתובא להלן מצביעה על כך שטומאת קרי נשמרה על ידי אנשים רבים מחוץ לחוגם של חכמים. בירושלמי ברכות אנו שונים: \"רבי יוסי בר חלפתא הוה אתי באיסמטא בליליא, והוה חמרא מהלך בתריה על חד בית שיח. אמר ליה ההוא גברא בעי מסחי, אמר ליה לא תסכן נפשך. אמר ליה מן נידה ומן אשת איש ההוא גברא בעי למיסחי, אפילו כן אמר ליה לא תסכן בנפשך. כיון דלא שמע ליה, אמר ליה ייחות ההוא גברא ולא יסוק, וכן הוות ליה\" (פ\"ג ה\"ד, ו ע\"ג – רבי יוסי בן חלפתא היה בא בסמטה בלילה, והיה חמר מהלך אחריו עד שוקת68שׁיח הוא אחד ממתקני המים המוכרים. אחת. אמר לו: אותו האיש [כלומר אני – החמר] רוצה לטבול. אמר לו: לא תסכן עצמך. אמר לו: מנידה ומאשת איש רוצה אותו אדם לטבול. אמר לו: אפילו כן לא תסכן עצמך. כיוון שלא שמע לו אמר לו [רבי יוסי לחמר]: ירד אותו האיש [לטבילה] ולא יעלה, וכן היה). כל המעשה אינו הלכתי. פלוני רצה לטבול לאחר קיום יחסי אישות. רבי יוסי אוסר עליו משום שטבילה בלילה באותו מקום נחשבה לסכנה. האיש, שהיה חמר, מסביר שהוא נטמא מאשת איש שהיא נידה. בכך הוא מסביר את רצונו העז לטבול. מבחינה הלכתית יש מקום לטבילה אחרי קיום יחסי אישות, אבל אין זה משנה אם האישה נשואה או לא. לחטא הניאוף אין טבילה מועילה69לכאורה אין גם טעם לטבול אחרי בעילת נידה, שהרי הוא טמא שבעת ימים, אבל ראו פירושנו לברכות פ\"ג מ\"ו. . רבי יוסי מקבל את נימוקו של ההלך. הוא אמנם אוסר עליו לטבול, אך אינו אומר לו שאין לטבילתו ערך מיוחד. מכל מקום, האיש טבל ונענש משמים.", + "יש לשער שהמעשה ספרותי, אך דווקא משום כך הוא מייצג את עולם האמונה העממי. החמר אינו תלמיד חכם או חבר; אלו אינם מתוארים כבועלי אשת איש ונידה. זהו עם הארץ שאינו מקפיד על חלק מהמצוות שעונשן כרת, אך מוכן להסתכן כדי שלא יפסיד טבילה. כן מסופר על פלוני שרצה להיזקק לאשת איש, אך היעדר מקווה לטבילה הרתיע אותו70ירו', ברכות פ\"ג ה\"ד, ו ע\"ג; בבלי, ברכות כב ע\"א. להלן נראה שדווקא בבבל לא הקפידו על החמרה זו של טומאת קרי, ולפיכך סביר שזהו סיפור ארץ-ישראלי. הסיפור מתחיל ב\"מעשה באחד\"; זו פתיחה של סוגה סיפורית הבאה לתאר, בדרך כלל, מעשה של אחד מפשוטי עם. .", + "אם כן, חז\"ל מתארים עולם שבו גם עמי הארץ שיש בהם מידה של חטא מקפידים על טהרת קרי, ואף מסתכנים למענה. ", + "מבחינה הלכתית אף שזו טומאה קלה יחסית, הרי שהטמא בה מנוע מלהתפלל ואולי אף מלקרוא בתורה (ראו פירושנו לברכות פ\"ג מ\"ד ומ\"ה), ואסור לו לעסוק בקודש בכלל. הוא אפילו מנוע מלגעת במעשר, אף שזה אינו דורש טהרה כלל (משנה, כלים פ\"א מ\"ה). כן שנינו שם: \"חזר להיות טבול יום אסור בקֹדש ובתרומה ומותר במעשר\", כלומר אם טבל אבל טרם הגיע הערב71ראו פירושנו לפרה פ\"ג מ\"ז; זבחים פי\"ב מ\"א. אי אפשר לפרש שטרם טבל, שכן אז הוא טמא לכל דבר. הביטוי \"חזר להיות\" בהקשר של משנת כלים הוא ייחודי, ונועד ליצור רושם כאילו השרשרת מלווה אותו אדם במעשיו. ; קשה לפרש שהכוונה למעשר שני, שהרי מעשר שני דורש טהרה ממש. קל יותר לפרש שהכוונה למעשר ראשון, ומשנתנו משקפת עמדה שגם מעשר ראשון איננו חולין לחלוטין. עם זאת, המפרשים מסבירים שהכוונה למעשר שני ומותר לו לגעת במעשר שני מכיוון שעליו לא נאמר \"הערב שמש\"; קשה להכריע, וראו להלן. בהמשך המשנה שם נאמר: \"חזר להיות בעל קרי אסור בשלשתן\". בעל קרי טמא טומאה קלה, וקל וחומר מי שטמא בטומאה חמורה. כאמור, על בעל קרי החמירו יותר אף שזו טומאה קלה. כנראה הקפידו על בעל קרי שלא ייגע במעשר, וכאן שוב סביר יותר שמדובר במעשר שני, שכן לא שמענו שאסור לו לגעת במעשר ראשון.", + "לא יתרומו ואם תרמו תרומתן תרומה – כל אלה מנועים מלתרום, אבל בדיעבד תרומתם תרומה. הסיומת \"ואם תרמו תרומתן תרומה\" מיותרת, וחוזרת על הרישא. הסברנו זאת בכך שהפתיחה המספרית היא תוספת מאוחרת, והוספתה גרמה למשפט הסיום שיהיה מיותר72ראו לעיל פירושנו למ\"א. . " + ], + [ + "המשנה הבאה כאילו מנותקת מזו שקדמה לה ומהמשנה הבאה. אמנם היא עוסקת ב\"אין תורמין\", אך נראה שהבריח המחבר את כל יתר המשניות הוא הסיום של משנה י: \"ואם תרמו תרומתן תרומה\", ואולי סיום זה חל גם על משנתנו.", + "אין תורמין לא במידה – אין לתרום לפי חשבון מדויק של נפח התרומה, ולא במשקל – אין לשקול את התרומה, ולא במיניין – אין לספור את כמות הפֵרות הנתרמת. כוונת המשנה שהתרומה צריכה להיעשות לא לפי חשבון מדויק אלא באומדן כללי. שלוש צורות מדידה אלו נזכרות בדרך כלל יחדיו. כך, למשל, אין למכור פֵרות שביעית באחד משלושה אופנים אלו אלא באומד, וכן בהלכות אחרות73משנה, שביעית פ\"ח מ\"ג וראו פירושנו לה; תוס', פ\"ד הי\"ח; משנה, ביצה פ\"ג הי\"ח. . ", + "אבל תורם הוא את המדוד – מותר לתרום אם היבול כולו מדוד כך שהוא יודע כמה בערך עליו לתת, ואת השקול ואת המנוי – המשנה מבטאת גישה קיצונית למדי שתרומה אינה עניין לכמות מדויקת. זאת בניגוד למעשר או לתרומת מעשר שהם קצובים ויש להפרישם בכמות מדויקת בדיוק נמרץ. לפנינו תפיסה הלכתית מיוחדת המעדיפה תרומה משוערת ולא ברורה. גם ביכורים אין להם שיעור, אך לא נאמר שאסור למדוד את כמות הביכורים (משנה, ביכורים פ\"ב מ\"ג). הווה אומר, משנתנו רואה פסול במדידה משום שיש בכך ביטוי לרצון לקמץ בתרומה, וכאילו להתחשבן עם בורא עולם. להלן נפרש משנה מרכזית אחרת שבה מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל על השיעור המדויק של התרומה (ראו פירושנו להלן פ\"ד מ\"ג; ביכורים פ\"ב מ\"ג). כפי שנראה שם התכוונו התנאים הקדומים שלתרומה יש שיעור, אך יש להפרישו באומד (ראו פירושנו שם וכן בפ\"ד מ\"ה). זאת אף שבדיעבד יוצאים ידי חובה בכל שהוא (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ד מ\"ג). משנתנו אינה מעדיפה תרומה מינימלית, שהרי פרי אחד אין צורך לא לשקול ולא למדוד; היא רוצה תרומה בעין יפה, אך באומד בלבד. לעומת זאת, משנה אחרת להלן קובעת במפורש שיש להפריש רק במדידה מדויקת: \"המונה משובח והמודד משובח ממנו והשוקל משובח משלשתן\" (להלן פ\"ד מ\"ו, וראו פירושנו לה). ההלכות הדורשות תרומה באומד הן קדומות (בית שמאי ובית הלל), והמשנה להלן מבטאת דרך אחרת, אולי מאוחרת יותר.", + "במשנתנו מותר למדוד מן המדוד, כלומר להשתמש בכלי המאפשר מדידה מדויקת למדי. כבר בנוסח זה משתמעת נסיגה מהכלל שהתרומה צריכה להיות באומד בלבד. בתוספתא מובאת ההלכה שבמשנתנו בשם רבי יהודה, ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מחמיר ואוסר אפילו לתרום מן המדוד, בניגוד למשנתנו (פ\"ג ה\"ד). אם כן משנתנו כרבי יהודה, ורבי יוסי בן רבי יהודה חולק. עוד אנו שומעים מהתוספתא על זקן אחד בערדסקוס שנהג כמשנה, אבל הוא היה שוקל את הכלכלה לפני התרומה ומדקדק ושוקל את הכלכלה הריקה כדי לדעת כמה בדיוק תרם, \"והיה רבי מאיר משבחו\". מהסיפור משמע שיש חובה למדוד או לשקול את הכלכלה שתורמים בה את הפֵרות. סיפור מעין זה מיוחס בתוספתא לרבי יהודה: \"מעשה שהינו מלקטים תאנים אחרי אביך74אביו של רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה, שהוא רבי יהודה עצמו. ואמר לנו היו מונין\" (שם). אם כן תרומה דווקא במניין, כשיטתו שמותר (או צריך) למדוד את הכול, \"ובלבד שלא יתרום במדה... שלא יתרום במניין\" (שם). המשנה שלנו, לעומת זאת, מסתפקת בהיתר לעשות כן. דומה שלפנינו שלוש גישות. האחת תבעה תרומה באומד בלבד, ואלו דברי המשנה, רבי יהודה, רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה ומקורות נוספים. גישה שנייה תבעה תרומה בדיוק ובמדידה. גישה שלישית היא גישת ביניים המשמרת את התביעה לתרום במדידה, אבל תובעת מדידת הכלי כך שהאומדן יהיה פורמלי בלבד, ובפועל תהיה המדידה מדויקת. ", + "לא נאמר מה השיקולים למעבר מתרומה באומד לתרומה במידה. ייתכן שאנו עדים לשינוי מחשבתי שיש לו ביטוי הלכתי75היו מפרשני הדורות שחשו בסתירה, והיו שהתעלמו ממנה. כך, למשל, הרמב\"ם בהלכות תרומות פ\"ג ה\"ד מצטט את משנתנו, ובפ\"ג ה\"ב את משנת תרומות פ\"ד הסותרת. אלבק ניסה לתרץ שיש לתת אחד משישים (או כל מידה אחרת) באומד, ותירוץ זה אינו אלא לרווחא דמילתא, וברור ששתי גישות לפנינו. . תרומה במידה מדגישה את הפן העקרוני של הרצון לתת לבורא עולם ללא חשבון והתחשבנות. תרומה במידה היא הדגשה של הפן ההלכתי-משפטי המאפיין את השתלשלות ההלכה לדורותיה. ", + "הירושלמי (מ ע\"ד) שואל גם הוא על הסתירה ומתרץ שמדידה מדויקת נדרשת בתרומת מעשר. ניתן בקושי לפרש כך את המשנה בפרק ד, אך לא את מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל. התירוץ הוא אפוא ספרותי בלבד, והסתירה במקומה עומדת. ", + "בירושלמי מובאת דרשה בשם אליעזר בן גימל המצדיקה את משנתנו. הדרשה מופיעה גם בתלמוד הבבלי (ביצה יג ע\"ב; גיטין ל ע\"ב), אבל במדרש תנאים היא באה לקבוע שצדקה אין נותנים מהמדוד או השקול, אלא בעין יפה (מדרש תנאים לדברים, טו י, עמ' 84). כמובן אין איסור ממש, אלא מגמה של נתינת צדקה בעין יפה. אותה דרשה באה במדרש להתיר נתינה באומד, אך לא לחייבה: \"בא הכתוב ללמדך שכשם שהתרומה עולה במדה כך עולה באומד ובמחשבה\" (ספרי במדבר, קכא, עמ' 147; בבלי, בכורות נח ע\"ב). אם כן, אין כל ביטחון שאכן רבי אלעזר (אליעזר) בן גימל (גמליאל) סבור כמשנתנו שיש חובה לתת באומד, אלא לאפשר זאת. כאמור, גם בית שמאי ובית הלל מתירים לתת תרומה כל כמות שהיא, וממילא אין הם אוסרים לתת כמות כלשהי באומד.", + "זמנו של אליעזר בן גימל אינו ידוע. ", + "אין תורמין בסל ובקופה שהן שלמידה – הסל והקופה עשויים מנצרים ולעתים הייתה להם מידה קבועה, כך שאם בעל הבית ממלא סל פֵרות הוא יודע בדיוק איזו כמות העניק. אפילו מדידה עקיפה כזאת אסורה.", + "אבל תורם הוא בהן חציין או שלישן – אם הסל אינו מלא הרי שאין זו מדידה מדויקת.", + "לא יתרום בסאה חצייה – אסור לתרום חצי מכלי שנפחו בדיוק סאה, שחצייה מידה – זו מידה מקובלת שבה משתמשים לעתים למכירה של חצי סאה (איור 3). " + ], + [ + "המשנה ממשיכה לעסוק בדינים של תרומה ממין על מין שונה במקצת. למעשה היא המשך ישיר ומנוגד של משנה ד לעיל. ", + "אין תורמין שמן על זיתים הניכתשים – במשנה ד דובר על תרומת זיתים על שמן, וכאן על תרומת שמן על זיתים הנכתשים. תהליך ייצור השמן ידוע לנו מעדויות ספרותיות, מן הממצא הארכאולוגי ובעיקר מהתבוננות בשיטות העבודה בכפר הערבי המסורתי. בשלב ראשון נכתשו הזיתים או נטחנו, ואז הפכו לעיסה לחה. בשלב זה עדיין אין השמן יוצא, אך אם העיסה תונח לזמן מה יתחיל השמן לזוב בכמויות קטנות. את העיסה הניחו בעקלים, הם סלי נצרים. את העקלים הניחו על משטח הכבישה בערמה וכבשו אותם בלחץ רב. כתוצאה מתהליך הכבישה נסחט השמן מהזיתים; בשלב זה כלל הנוזל מים (מוהל) ושמן מעורבים, כ- 80%-75% מים והשאר שמן. על סינון השמן איננו שומעים רבות, אך תהליך זה חייב היה להתבצע בשלב כלשהו לפני אגירת השמן. סביר להניח שהוציאו את נוזל הזיתים לכדים והמתינו מעט; השמן צף למעלה והמים, הכבדים יותר, נותרו בתחתית הכד. שיטות הלחיצה השונות הוזכרו בפירושנו לשביעית פ\"ה מ\"ו. זיתים הנכתשים הם זיתים באמצע תהליך כתישתם, או אולי מיד לאחריו. תהליך הטחינה/כתישה הוא קצר ביותר, על כן סביר שהכוונה לזיתים שכבר נכתשו. הסבר ההלכה להלן.", + "ולא יין על הענבים הנידרכות – גם תהליך עשיית היין ידוע היטב בזכות אותם מקורות. את הענבים הניחו על משטח הדריכה בגת ודרכו עליהם ברגלים (איור 4). בתהליך זה זב היין כולו וזרם לבור האיגום. בבור נאסף התירוש, ושם תסס במשך שלושה ימים. רק לאחר מכן הוצא לכדים ונשמר במקום קריר. במשך הזמן המשיך היין לתסוס וטעמו השתפר. בימים הראשונים היין צעיר מדי; הוא בבחינת מיץ ענבים ולא יין. לאחר הדריכה נותרו על משטח הגת הזגים ואותם ניתן היה לכבוש בשנית, במכבש עם התקן קורה או בצורה אחרת.", + "כאמור, הייעוד העיקרי של הזיתים היה לתעשיית שמן ושל הענבים לתעשיית יין (ראו פירושנו להלן פ\"ב מ\"ו והמשנה הבאה). ", + "תהליך הייצור של גרעינים, הנזכרים בתוספתא (להלן), גם הוא ידוע. את האלומות כינסו לגורן (איור 5), שהייתה משטח סלע, בדרך כלל עגול. את החיטים שיטחו בגורן ודשו אותן בעזרת בהמה שגררה את המורג, הוא לוח עץ שתקועים בו גרגרים (בדרך כלל של אבן צור או גושי מתכת משוננים), או מעין גליל משונן. בשלב זה נטחנו הגבעולים, ולמעשה הופרדו הגרעינים מהקש. בשלב הבא זרו את היבול מול הרוח המנשבת. הגרעינים הכבדים שקעו במקומם, והקש הקל יותר עף למרחק מה. הגרעינים הם התוצר הסופי, אך נהגו עוד לכברו כדי לסלק את גבעולי הקש הקטנים שדבקו בגרעינים. את הגרעינים ארזו בכדים והעבירו לבית הצרכן. הצרכן שמר את הגרעינים עד לטחינתם, סמוך לשלב האפייה. אמנם רק הקמח נחשב לאוכל, אבל הגרעינים הם סיום העבודה. ", + "באופן טבעי תרמו את הפֵרות לאחר \"גמר המלאכה\" (סיום תהליך הייצור); כך, למשל, תרמו את הזיתים רק לאחר שנגמר ייצור השמן. הנוזל היוצא מיד לאחר הכתישה מכיל כמובן גם הוא שמן, אך אין הוא שמן נקי, כפי שכבר הערנו. בספרותנו נזכרת התרומה בשלב הגורן, והכוהנים או העניים מתוארים כמחזרים על הגרנות (כגון תוס', פ\"א הט\"ו; פאה פ\"ב הי\"ח ועוד). היו גם רבים שתרמו רק משבאו לביתם, ולעתים גם מאוחר עוד יותר. היו גם שתרמו בשלב מוקדם יותר; מועד התרומה תלוי בטיב המוצר, ונעסוק בכך במקומו (פירושנו למעשרות פ\"א מ\"ה-מ\"ו). המשנה והתוספתא מדברות על הגדרות של שלב \"גמר המלאכה\" המוקדם ביותר. הרשימה המלאה היא בתוספתא (פ\"ג הי\"א הי\"ג) (איור 6).", + "1. תבואה – \"מאימתי תורמין את הגורן, משתעקר האלה. כבר מקצת, תורם מן הכבור על שאינו כבור\" (הי\"א). האלה היא המקל שתוקעים בבסיס ערמת החיטים לפני הדיש76פליקס, החקלאות, עמ' 224; פירושנו לשבת פ\"ו מ\"ד. , ומשתמשים בו בזמן הזרייה. עקירת האלה היא, אפוא, סיום הזרייה לרוח בערמה. השלב הבא הוא שלב הכבירה ומותר לתרום מן הכבור על שאינו כבור, משום שהכבירה איננה שלב הכרחי בעבודה, ואינה משנה באופן מהותי את כמות המעשרות. אם כן, בתבואה גמר המלאכה הוא סיום העבודה העיקרית בגורן, כאשר המוצר המוגמר קיים לפנינו. ייתכן ש\"תיעקר האלה\" הוא שלב מעט מוקדם יותר, עוד לפני סיום הזרייה, אבל ודאי שהזרייה החלה ויש כבר גרעינים בעין, אם כי אולי לא ברור כמה גרעינים בדיוק יהיו (איור 7). ", + "2. ענבים – \"מאימתי תורמין את הגת, משיהלכו בה שתי וערב. מאימתי מטמין (מטמאין) אותה, בית שמיי אומרים משיינטל מעשר ראשון, בית הלל אומרים משיינטל מעשר שני. אמר רבי יהודה הלכה כדברי בית שמיי77בדרך כלל ההלכה נקבעה כבית הלל, אבל הקביעה שהלכה היא כבית שמאי אינה נדירה. ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. , אלא שנהגו הרבים כדברי בית הלל, וחכמים אומרים מוציאין תרומה ומעשרות ומטמין78בכתיב הרגיל \"מטמאין\", אבל בארץ ישראל נטו להשמיט את האותיות הגרוניות. את הגת מיד\" (הי\"ב). בענבים ניתן לתרום ברגע שיש יין בעין, אף שהוא בשלב זה מיץ ענבים בלבד. הליכה שתי וערב גורמת לתחילת התירוש לזרום, אבל ודאי שרק מעט יין (מיץ) קיים בעין. מומחה יכול להעריך את כמות היין שאותה ערמה תפיק, אך שוב לא במדויק. המשך התוספתא עוסק בשאלה אחרת, ממתי \"מותר\" לטמא את הגת. חכמים התנגדו כמובן לכך שיטמאו את הגת, אבל גם הם ידעו שזו שאיפה בלתי מציאותית. קשה היה לבעל לשמור על היין בטהרה, שהרי בדרך כלל הוא עצמו לא הקפיד על שמירת טהרה. כל זמן שהענבים טרם נדרכו הם לא קיבלו ולא היו יכולים לקבל טומאה, שכן טרם נגמרה מלאכתם. רק ענבים שנרטבו נחשבים למוכנים לאכילה, ואף זאת רק בענבים שנועדו להיאכל כענבים טריים ולא בענבי יין. אבל משהחל התירוש לזרום הפכו הענבים לעשויים לקבל טומאה. חכמים \"מתירים\", אפוא, לבעל הבית לוותר על המאמצים לשמור על טהרה, אך אין זה היתר של ממש אלא השלמה עם מצב קיים. מכל מקום, בית הלל תובעים שבעל הבית יפריש תרומה ומעשר שני לפני שהיין ניטמא, כדי שניתן יהיה להשתמש בתרומה ובמעשר השני בטהרה. בית שמאי תובעים שמירה גם על טהרת המעשר הראשון, זאת אף שמותר לאכול מעשר ראשון בטומאה. אבל במעשר ראשון יש מרכיב של תרומת מעשר, ואותה יש לאכול בטהרה בלבד. בית שמאי ובית הלל שווים בתביעה מבעל הבית לסיים את דריכת הענבים כסדרה בטהרה. חכמים מקלים עוד יותר ומאפשרים להוציא את המעשרות (בלשון רבים, כלומר גם מעשר ראשון כדעת בית שמאי), ולהמשיך בדריכה בטומאה. ", + "עד כאן המשנה מניחה שטומאת ענבים מתחילה רק כאשר החל התירוש לזוב. אבל במשנת אהלות שנינו: \"כיצד בוצרים בית הפרס? מזים על האדם ועל הכלים, ושונים, ובוצרים ומוציאים חוץ לבית הפרס, ואחרים מקבלים מהם ומוליכים לגת. אם נגעו אלו באלו טמאים, כדברי בית הלל. בית שמאי אומרים: אוחז את המגל בסיב, או בוצר בצור, ונותן לתוך הכפישה ומוליך לגת\" (פי\"ח מ\"א). המשנה באהלות מניחה שענבים מקבלים טומאה כבר בשלב הבציר. הענבים גדלו בבית הפרס ולכן הבוצרים שנכנסו טמאים; בשלב הבציר טרם הוכשרו הענבים לקבל טומאה, אבל עם הוצאתם מהשדה, עוד לפני הבאתם לגת, הם מוכשרים לקבל טומאה, ולכן הובלתם לגת צריכה להיעשות על ידי צוות חדש וטהור. לכך מסכימים גם בית שמאי וגם בית הלל. אבל בית שמאי טוענים שגם הבציר עצמו צריך להיות בטהרה, והענבים מקבלים טומאה ברגע שנבצרו. זו אפוא גישה אחרת, מחמירה הרבה יותר.", + "3. זיתים – \"מאימתי תורמין את הזתים? משיטענו, ורבי שמעון אומר משייטחנו, רבי יוסה בי רבי יהודה אומר מביא זתים בקופה ונותן לתוך הממל, ומהלך בהן שתי וערב. אמרו לו אינו דומה ענבים לזתים, ענבים ריכות (רכות) ונותקות את יינן, זתים קשין ואין נותקין את שמנן\" (הי\"ג). לפי התנא הראשון מותר לתרום מהזיתים ברגע שהחל תהליך הכיבוש והנוזל החל לזוב, אף לפני שהופרד השמן מהמוהל. לפי רבי שמעון כבר עם סיום הטחינה ניתן לתרום מעיסת הזיתים, אף שהכהן יצטרך לכבוש את העיסה בעצמו. רק רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר שניתן לתרום כבר ברגע שהחל תהליך הטחינה. המינוח שבו נוקט רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מחייב הסבר. בדרך כלל סברו שממל הוא האבן העגולה ששימשה לטחינת הזיתים הנמצאים בשכב. לפי ההקשר בתוספתא הסבר זה אפשרי: מדובר בהבאת הזיתים השלמים בקופה, ואין להניח שמדובר בזיתים טחונים שאותם מביאים בעקלים. זאת ועוד, הביטוי \"מהלך בהן שתי וערב\" אינו מתאים לזיתים כלל, הוא לקוח מהמשפט המתאר את תהליך עשיית היין, אבל בהשאלה הכוונה לטחינה הראשונה. כך גם נבין את הוויכוח בין רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה וחכמים. רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה סבור שדין אחר לענבים ולזיתים, וחכמים חולקים משום שזיתים קשים יותר, והנוזל יוצא מהם רק בשלב מאוחר יותר של העיבוד. מכאן נלמד גם שאכן רבי שמעון מדבר על סוף הטחינה, שהרי אילו דיבר על תחילתה מה בינו לבין רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה. עם זאת המינוח \"נותן לתוך הממל\" קשה במקצת, שהרי את הזיתים נותנים בתוך השכב, וגם אבן הממל היא בתוך השכב ובתוך הזיתים, ואולי הכוונה שנותן את הזיתים לעבודה של הממל (איור 8).", + "מכל מקום, ממל היא אכן האבן הטוחנת, וכן משמעות הפועל למלול, כלומר למעוך. אמנם \"למלול\" הוא משורש מל\"ל, אבל ההיגוי דומה ביותר וייתכן שחל חילוף באותיות השורש. ממשנת מעשרות (פ\"א מ\"ז) משמע כאילו ממל הוא מתקן אחר, אך אין זה כך, ונבאר משנה זו במקומה.", + "נשוב למשנתנו.", + "אין תורמין שמן על זיתים הניכתשים היא דעתו של רבי שמעון, שמרימים תרומה מזיתים רק לאחר שנכבשו, ואכן במשנה הבאה מתירים לתרום שמן על זיתים נכבשים. כנגד זה מותר להפריש תרומה על ענבים נדרכים, שכן כבר בשלב זה מותר להרים תרומה מענבים. כללו של דבר, אין לתרום מענבים על יין אבל מותר לתרום מהם בשלב הראשון שבו הם כבר נחשבים ליין, וכן בזיתים.", + "אם כן ענבים אינם יין, וזיתים אינם שמן. כל הטעמים שנאמרו לעיל חלים במקרה זה. הם בבחינת \"מינים\" אחרים מפני שהם בשלב שונה של העיבוד, כפי שנראה להלן במשנה י. כל זאת אף שלא קיים הגורם של \"גזל השבט\" או \"טרחת הכהן\", וכן בתוספתא (פ\"א הי\"ד). ", + "ואם תרם תרומה יחזור ויתרום – שילוב זה יחזור גם להלן (כגון פ\"ג מ\"א). תרומתו תרומה משום שהכהן אינו מפסיד, אדרבה, תרומת שמן על זיתים יש בה צדיקות יתר של תרומה בערך כספי גבוה יותר. אין גם לטעון ולחשוש שלא יפריש מספיק תרומה (בגלל הקושי לחשב), שכן תרומה בכמות כלשהי פוטרת מחובת תרומה, וכניסוח הבבלי: \"חיטה אחת פוטרת את הכרי\" (קידושין נח ע\"ב), על כן התרומה תרומה. אבל יחזור ויתרום, וזהו ביטוי לקנס או למצב של ספק. נראה שכאן זהו ביטוי לספק, והא ראיה שאף אחת משתי התרומות אינה תרומה ודאי (להלן). הירושלמי מוסיף נימוק מיוחד: \"מפני גדר מי חטאת\", כלומר חכמים חששו שחברים ימצאו בכך דרך קלה להפריש תרומות בטהרה, וירשו לעצמם לוותר על ההתמודדות והמאמץ לשמור על טהרת היין או השמן (ירו', מ ע\"ד). הנימוק נראה קשה; לכאורה חכמים צריכים לשאוף לתקנת הכוהנים, ואלו יעדיפו לקבל את התרומה כשהיא טהורה. אם יש חשש שהתרומה תיטמא חכמים צריכים לשאוף לכך שהיא תינתן מוקדם ככל האפשר, אבל כאן חכמים מנסים לחנך את הציבור. הם מכירים את העובדה שכל הציבור שומר על דיני תרומה, ושכולם רוצים לתתה לכהן בטהרה, והם מנצלים עובדות אלו כדי לדחוף רבים לשמור על טהרת השמן והיין זמן רב ככל האפשר. מכל מקום, מהמשנה הבאה משמע שבעצם אין בעיה לתרום משמן על זיתי אכילה, ואם כך היה צריך להיות הדין שמותר לתרום שמן על זיתי שמן שעתידים במהרה להפוך לשמן. הווה אומר, אכן החשש העיקרי הוא \"גדר חטאת\", כלומר הרצון לגרום לציבור לשמור יותר על דיני טהרה. ", + "הראשונה מדמעת בפני עצמה וחייבין עליה חומש אבל לא שנייה – נפרש משפט זה להלן פ\"ג מ\"ב.", + "בתוספתא מובא הדין שבמשנה ואחריו נוסף: \"וצריך להוציא עליהן תרומות ומעשרות. רבי יוסה אומר בית שמיי אומרים תורמין, ובית הלל אומרים אין תורמין\"79ההמשך בתוספתא, \"מודים שאם תרם שצריך לתרום שנייה\", חוזר למשנתנו, ראו דברי ליברמן. (פ\"ג הי\"ד). המשפט הראשון מלמד שעל התרומה השנייה צריך להפריש תרומות ומעשרות. היא נתפסת אפוא כספק, על כן יש להפריש אותה מספק, אבל גם לתת ממנה מעשר ראשון ללוי (ומעשר שני או מעשר עני), שכן הם אינם אמורים להינזק מהטעות של בעל הבית ומהקנס שקנסוהו חכמים. ההמשך הוא דברי רבי יוסי, ומהם משתמע שמשנתנו כבית הלל, ולדעת בית שמאי תורמים שמן על זיתים נכתשים או יין על ענבים דרוכים80בכתב יד ערפורט דברי בית שמאי ובית הלל הפוכים. ראינו היפוך דומה בפירושנו למ\"ד. אבל גרסת כתב יד ערפורט נראית כתיקון, כדי להלום את הכלל הרגיל שבית שמאי מחמירים, וגרסה זו בטלה נגד כל עדי הנוסח. . הם אינם מכירים בגזרה של \"גדר מי חטאת\". לעיל (מ\"ד) ראינו כי לדעת רבי יוסי בית שמאי מתירים לתרום מזיתים על שמן, והצענו כי אולי גם משנתנו (מ\"ח) סבורה כך. מכל מקום, לדעת רבי יוסי אם התירו לתרום מזיתים על שמן קל וחומר שהתירו לתרום משמן על זיתים.", + "בירושלמי מובאת דעה שלישית בשם רבי מאיר, שלכל הדעות (הוא אינו מכיר את מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל) אין תורמים ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה ואין צריך לתרום (מ ע\"ד), אלא שנחלקו האמוראים. לפי גרסת האמורא האנונימי מדובר על תרומת זיתים על שמן, וזה הנושא של משנה ד לעיל, אבל לפי רבי מנא יש לשנות את הגרסה והברייתא דנה על תרומת שמן על זיתים, וזו משנתנו. באותה ברייתא מובאים גם דברי רבי יוסי, ואם כן סוגיית הירושלמי אינה מכירה את דברי רבי יוסי במשנת עדויות (ראו פירושנו למ\"ד), אבל הכירה את התוספתא למשנתנו. מכל מקום, הירושלמי מוצא סתירה בין עמדותיו של רבי יוסי לגבי תרומת זיתים על שמן (מ\"ד) ולגבי שמן על זיתים (משנתנו). אבל לפי מצב הגרסאות שבידינו (משנת עדויות והתוספתא שלנו) דברי רבי יוסי חד הם81אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 399. . ", + "מכל מקום, הירושלמי מביא את עמדת רבי מאיר שאין תורמים ואם תרם תרומתו כשרה. במהלך הדיון בירושלמי נעשה גם ניסיון להסביר שההלכה ש\"יחזור ויתרום\" היא רק כשהתרומה הראשונה כבר איננה, אחרת די בכך ש\"יקרא לה שם\", כלומר ימתין עד שהשמן ייעשה ויחזור ויצהיר שהתרומה היא על השמן. הסבר זה אפשרי במשנתנו, אך הוא דחוק ביותר. לעומת זאת, שלל הגרסאות שבידינו מאפשר לשחזר עמדה שיטתית ואחידה של בית שמאי.", + "עוד נעיר שהניסוחים \"גזל שבט\", \"מפני הטורח\" או \"גדר מי חטאת\" הם ניסוחים אמוראיים, ובדברי תנאים הדברים מוגדרים פחות. ראו במשנה הבאה. " + ], + [ + "ותורמין שמן על זיתים הנכבשין – זיתים נכבשים הם זיתים שכובשים אותם במי מלח או חומץ לעשותם זיתי אכילה. מותר לתרום שמן על זיתים משום שהשמן שווה יותר, והכהן מרוויח. אמנם אלו מינים שונים במקצת, אבל המקרה דומה יותר למי שתורם מהיפה על הרע. הרב יהוסף אשכנזי מדגיש שתורמים \"אף על פי שעדיין לא כבשן\", שהרי אם כבשם הם בבחינת מין אחר, אבל לפני הכבישה הם עדיין אותו מין כמו השמן, ויין על ענבים לעשותן צימוקין – ענבים שהותקנו לאכילה כצימוקים. יש להניח שהוא הדין בענבים שנועדו לאכילה כענבים טריים, אך ענבים טריים אכלו רק זמן קצר ביותר. ההלכה במשנה קשה, הרי בכל זאת זיתי אכילה ושמן אינם אותו מין. אמנם המרכיב של \"גדר מי חטאת\" אינו קיים, אך בכל זאת הם מין נפרד. מסתבר שזו הסיבה לכך שהירושלמי העמיד את משנה ד ב\"גזל השבט\" או ב\"טרחת כהן\" ואת משנה ח ב\"גדר מי חטאת\", ולא פירש ששתי המשניות הללו עוסקות בתרומה ממין על שאינו מינו, או מהרע על היפה, או ממה שנגמרה מלאכתו על מה שלא נגמרה מלאכתו. ", + "לכאורה ניתן גם לפרש שמשנתנו כבית שמאי. עד עתה הובאו הלכות כבית הלל שמחמירים ואומרים שאין תרומתו תרומה, ועתה מהלכת המשנה בשיטת בית שמאי המתירה. ברם פירוש זה דחוי לחלוטין, שכן מההמשך ברור שלדעת המשנה אין תורמים משמן על זיתים הנכתשים. ", + "מי שתרם שמן על זיתים לאכילה וזיתים על זיתים לאכילה ויין על ענבים לאכילה וענבים על ענבים לאכילה ונימלך לדורכן אינו צריך לתרום – כאשר הוא תרם הייתה התרומה כשרה, כפי שאמרה משנתנו, אך לאחר זמן החליט להפיק מהזיתים שמן, ואז זו תרומה של \"שמן על זיתים\". אמנם זיתים אלו גם הפכו לשמן, אך היה רגע מסוים שבו היה המצב שזו תרומה של שמן על זיתים, ובעיקר קיים כאן החשש של \"גדר מי חטאת\", שהרי הבעל יכול עתה לכבוש את זיתיו בטומאה מבלי להפסיד תרומה. ", + "בתוספתא שנינו: \"התורם זתים על זתים העתידין ליכתש, ענבים על ענבים העתידין לידרך, תרומה ויחזור ויתרום. הראשונה מדמעת, שנייה אין מדמעת. הראשונה חייבין עליה חומש, שנייה אין חייבין עליה חומש, וצריך לקרות להם שם. חזר ועשה זתים הראשונה שמן, וענבים ראשונות יין, תרומה ואין צריך לתרום שנייה\" (פ\"א הי\"ד). תרומה של זיתים על זיתים העתידים להיכבש היא בעצם תרומה של זיתים על שמן, ועסקנו בכך בפירושנו למ\"ד. הערנו שם שהירושלמי מפרש קטע זה כזהה למשנתנו (מא ע\"א). בהמשך מדובר על מקרה של חרטה, כמו במשנתנו, וגם כאן הדין הוא שהתרומה נשפטת לפי המצב שהיה בעת התרומה. ", + "בתוספתא מובאת הלכה נוספת: \"התורם זתים על זתים לאכילה82אין בסיס לתיקון \"התורם שמן על זיתים...\", שאם לא כן כיצד יתאפשר לתרום שמן על קלופסין, הרי משנה ד כבר דנה בשאלה. , הרי זה תורם על השמן הראויין לעשות, דברי רבי. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, תורמין על אוכלן חוץ מגלעניהן, מודים בקולפסין שתורמין על אוכלן חוץ מגלעניהן\" (פ\"א הט\"ו; ירו', מא ע\"א בחילוף השמות). כאן השאלה אינה האם מותר לתרום, אלא צורת החישוב. רבי דורש לחשב את כמות הזיתים לפי השמן הפוטנציאלי, אביו לפי החומר שבזית, לא כולל הגרעין, ושניהם מודים בקלופסין, שהם זיתי מאכל מעולים83ביוונית Κολύµβασ, ראו ליברמן, עמ' 333. , כלומר זן שאותו ייעדו לאכילה (ראו פירושנו להלן פ\"ב מ\"ו).", + "התוספתא מעלה בעיה נוספת והיא תרומה של ענבים טריות על צימוקים, או תאנים טריות על גרוגרות: \"תרומה ואין צריך לתרום שניה. רבי אליעזר אומר בית שמיי אומרים אין צריך לתרום שנייה, ובית הלל אומרים צריך לתרום שנייה. אמרו בית הלל לבית שמיי הרי הוא אומר וכמלאה מן היקב, לא תרם זה מן היקב. אמרו להם בית שמיי הרי הוא אומר וכל מעשר וגו'. אם אומר אתה צריך לתרום שנייה אף זה לא קיים קדש לה' \" (פ\"ג הט\"ז). אם כן, בית שמאי לשיטתם שמותר לתרום ממין על מין קרוב, ובית הלל מתנגדים לכך84אפשר גם לפרש שלדעת בית שמאי תורמים מהטהור על הטמא כמו בפ\"ב מ\"א, אבל מהתוספתא פ\"א הט\"ז שצוטטה עולה שהמחלוקת אינה על טמא וטהור אלא גם על ענבים וצימוקים, ששניהם טהורים. מכל מקום שתי המחלוקות קרובות, ונסכמן בפירושנו לפ\"ב. . ויכוח הדרשות, אם הוא מקורי, חושף מרכיב נוסף במחלוקת. בית הלל משתמשים רבות בפסיקה באפשרות של \"תרומה ויחזור ויתרום\", ואילו בית שמאי מתנגדים לכך באופן עקרוני. לדעתם מה שהוא קודש נשאר קודש, ואילו תרומה שנייה פוגמת בקדושה הראשונה. ואכן, לשיטת בית הלל הקדושה של התרומה השנייה נפגעת והתרומה אינה \"מדמעת\", כפי שאמרה משנה ח וכפי שנסביר להלן (פ\"ג מ\"ב). ההערה האחרונה שלנו מלמדת על גישתם העקרונית של בית שמאי לכל נושא התרומה. בית שמאי מקפידים פחות על הפרטים (תורם מזה על זה), ובעיקר לדעתם הרמת התרומה כמעט תמיד תופסת, גם אם הביצוע היה לקוי במקצת." + ], + [ + "משנתנו באה ממקור אחר, היא אינה דנה במקרה בודד כגון שמן על זיתים העתידים להיכתש, אלא נוקטת בלשון של כלל. הנחה זו צריכה להיות הבסיס לפירוש המשנה, זהו פירוש או סיכום השנוי במחלוקת, כפי שראינו וכפי שנראה להלן. ", + "אין תורמין מדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו על דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו – הכלל הוא שאין תורמים מדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו. אין זה משנה האם תורמים על פֵרות במצב דומה או על פֵרות במצב אחר, תמיד אין תורמים אלא מדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו. בעצם זאת הלכה פשוטה וברורה, וזה הכלל האמור במסכת מעשרות (פ\"א מ\"ה-מ\"ח). לפי הפירוט שם, גמר מלאכה הוא סוף שלב האיסוף והכנת היבול לשיווק: צימוקים משיעמיד ערמה, יין משיקפה, כלומר לאחר סיום התסיסה הראשונה בבור, השמן משירד לעוקה, כלומר סוף שלב הבדידה, או לפחות לאחר ששמן רב זב, וכיוצא באלו (שם מ\"ו-מ\"ז). [ו]לא מדבר שלא ניגמרה מלאכתו על דבר שניגמרה מלאכתו – משפט זה מיותר וניתן להסיקו בקל וחומר, אלא שהמשנה רוצה לפרט את כל המצבים, ולא מדבר שלא ניגמרה מלאכתו על דבר שלא ניגמרה מלאכתו – זה החידוש הגדול והברור מכולם, ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה.", + "עד כאן המשנה ברורה, אלא שהיחס בינה לבין המשניות הקודמות (מ\"ד, מ\"ח, מ\"ט) בעייתי ביותר. בכל המשניות הקודמות דובר על תרומה מדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו על דבר שנגמרה מלאכתו (זיתים על שמן, ענבים על יין) או ההפך (שמן על זיתים, יין על ענבים). הרושם שעלה מהמשניות הקודמות היה שהבעיה אינה עצם התרומה מדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו אלא בעיה או חשש אחר שגרר תגובה של קנס. ברור שרוח המשניות והנושא הנדון בהן שונה. השאלה היא, אפוא, מה היחס בין משנתנו למשניות הקודמות. נפתח ונאמר שהירושלמי מנסה לצמצם את משנתנו ליין ושמן בלבד (מא ע\"א). לא ברור האם כך הוא רוצה לצמצם את כל משנתנו, או רק את ההלכה השנייה (ולא מדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו על דבר שנגמרה מלאכתו). מכל מקום, בתוספתא נאמר \"תורמים מן הערימה על הכרי אבל לא מן הכרי על הערימה\" (פ\"ג הי\"ז). נסביר את ההלכה להלן, אך כבר בשלב זה ברור שהתוספתא מבינה את המשנה כעוסקת גם בתבואה. ", + "זאת ועוד, במשנת מעשרות נקבע שגורנם של פֵרות חל על כל הפֵרות, וניתנות שם דוגמאות רבות, על כן אי אפשר לקבל שהמשנה עוסקת רק ביין ובשמן. לצורך דיוננו אין זה חשוב אם אכן הירושלמי רצה לפרש בצורה מצמצמת או שיש להבינו מעט אחרת כמו שהצענו, חשוב רק שלא זה פירוש המשנה.", + "בשאלת היחס בין משנתנו למשניות הקודמות יש דיון בירושלמי, אלא שדבריו אינם ברורים. על משנה ד ומשנה ח הירושלמי שואל \"תמן תנינן...\", מצטט את משנתנו ומסכם \"וכא את אמר הכין\", ומתרץ או ממשיך שמשנה ד היא \"מפני גזל השבט\" או \"מפני הטורח\" ומשנה ח \"מפני גדר מי חטאת\", כפי שפירשנו85הר\"ש למשנה ד מקשה, ובצדק, מה זה משנה מה הסיבה לאיסור, מכל מקום במשנה ד יש מחלוקת אם התרומה מועילה בדיעבד ומשנה י פוסקת בפשטות כבית שמאי. הוא מסביר שדברי האמורא \"כאן בגזל שבט\" הם המשך השאלה, וזה הנימוק לאיסור במשנה ד, והתירוץ הוא שיש הבדל בין זיתים ויין מצד אחד לשאר הגידולים. . כפי שהזכרנו, הרא\"ש מסביר שבמשנתנו נאמר שבדיעבד זו תרומה, ואילו במשניות הקודמות ההלכה אחרת (אין תרומתן תרומה במשנה ד, או תרומה ויחזור ויתרום במשנה ח). פירוש זה אפשרי. אבל גם ניתן לפרש שהמשפט נאמר בניחותא, שם (במשנה י) נאמר כך ואצלנו נאמר כך, הסגנון אחר אך התוכן זהה, והתלמוד ממשיך ואומר את הסיבה להלכה. ואכן אם גדר מי חטאת, למשל, הוא נימוק טוב, הוא חל על כל הפֵרות ואין לתרום ממה שנגמרה מלאכתו על מה שלא נגמרה מלאכתו.", + "כפשוטה משנה י היא כבית שמאי במשנה ד. הירושלמי והפרשנים לא יכלו לקבל הסבר זה, שכן תמיד הלכה כבית הלל. יתר על כן, הם התקשו לקבל הסבר שמשמעו שמשנה י חוזרת על דברי משניות קודמות. לפי דרכנו שתי השאלות אינן קשות. מצינו משניות רבות שהן כבית שמאי86לרשימה חלקית ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל, ובמהלך פירושנו הצבענו על משניות רבות נוספות כבית שמאי. , ואף מצינו משניות רבות החוזרות על דברים שנאמרו במשניות אחרות, ואפילו במשניות סמוכות. משנה ד מנוסחת ניסוח \"קזואיסטי\" של מקרה ספציפי, ומשנה י בניסוח כללי. שתי המשניות הובאו על ידי העורך ממשניות קדומות, וצורפו משום שכל אחת מוסיפה מעט על האחרת. ", + "הדיון על משנה ט שונה. \"תנינן דבתרה\" (שנינו [במשנה] האחרונה), וכאן מצוטטת משנתנו: \"והכא לשעבר הא לכתחילה לא? אפילו כתחילה...\" (מא ע\"א). אפשר לפרש שהדברים נאמרים כשאלה: במשנה י נאמר שלכתחילה אין לתרום ממה שלא נגמרה מלאכתו, ואילו במשנה ט נאמר שתורמים שמן על זיתי מאכל. תירוץ התלמוד הוא שגם לפי משנה י מותר לעשות כן גם לכתחילה, הווה אומר רצוי לתרום ממה שנגמרה מלאכתו, אך התרומה תרומה גם לכתחילה. כך גם יש להבין את משנת מעשרות כפי שנבארה במקומה: מן הראוי להמתין עד שהיין יקפה, אך ניתן להפריש מעשרות כבר מענבים שהבאישו (ראו פירושנו למעשרות פ\"א מ\"ב). הירושלמי למשנתנו דוחה הסבר זה ומציע שההבדל הוא בסוג הפֵרות. ", + "אם כן, יש להבין שרצוי לתרום רק מפרי שעיבודו הושלם. הוא ראוי למאכל, ובשלב זה מורמות המתנות לכהן וללוי. בפועל התירו חכמים לאכול פֵרות אף לפני שהבשילו. במיוחד נאמרה הלכה זו בשביעית שבה היה מחסור במזון (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ד מ\"ז). הצורך לאכול לפני הזמן גרר היתר לכתחילה להרים מתנות בשלב שלפני גמר העיבוד. שלב זה הוגדר במשנתנו ובמקבילותיה. כך, למשל, בזיתי שמן נחלקו האם משיטענו או משיטחנו. על שלב זה דנו המשניות שאסרו להפריש מהטהור על הטמא, משלב עיבוד אחד על משנהו וכדומה. משנה י חוזרת, אפוא, על מה שנאמר במשנה ט, וכפי שאמרנו אין בכך קושי.", + "בתוספתא שציטטנו (פ\"א הי\"ז) נאמר שאין להפריש מכרי על ערמה. הכרי הוא ערמת הגבעולים, והערמה היא ערמת הגרעינים, על כן מדובר על הפרשה מפרי שנגמרה מלאכתו על פרי שלא נגמרה מלאכתו. דעה זו חולקת, אפוא, על משנתנו. לדעתה מותר להפריש במקרה זה ואסור להפריש במקרה ההפוך מפרי שמלאכתו טרם נגמרה. התוספתא ממשיכה את הקו של המשניות הקודמות, שאסור לתרום מפרי טוב פחות. זו הלכה שמנוסחת במין מצב ביניים בין הניסוח של משניות ד ו-ח לבין הניסוח של משנה י. ", + "לסיכום, לכתחילה יש להמתין שהפרי יבשיל לחלוטין ויעובד עד תומו, ואז יורמו מתנותיו. בפועל היו שאכלו את פֵרותיהם טרם ההבשלה, והתירו להם להפריש את מעשרותיהם בשלב שבו הפרי נאכל בדוחק והחל עיבודו הסופי. בית שמאי התירו להפריש מסוג אחד על משנהו, ובית הלל אסרו וגזרו קנסות על העושים כן בגלל \"גזל השבט\", \"טרחת הכהן\" ו\"גדר מי חטאת\". לכאורה, אם נימוקים אלו הם כה כבדי משקל צריך היה לאסור הפרשת תרומות ומעשרות מכל פרי שלא נגמרה מלאכתו. ברם, כפי שאמרנו, זו באמת ההלכה העקרונית, אלא שחכמים נסוגו מעט מדרישה זו. הם הבינו שאדם הרוצה לאכול את פֵרותיו מוקדם יותר עושה זאת מסיבות כבדות משקל, בדרך כלל מתוך מצוקה אמִתית. על כן התירו לאדם האוכל את פֵרותיו לפני הזמן להפריש תרומה לפני האוכל (אחרת לא יוכל לאכול מהפרי), אבל אם ממילא הוא אוכל חלק מהפֵרות בזמן, אין סיבה שנאפשר לו לתרום לפני הזמן. תרומה לפני הזמן היא פתח לצמצום חלקו של הכהן ול\"דילוג\" על חובות טהרה. הווה אומר, בית הלל לא גזרו שאין לתרום מפרי שלא נגמרה מלאכתו, אלא רק גזרו שלא לתרום ממנו על יתר היבול הנאכל בזמנו. על כן לא גזרו במקרה של משנה ט, אף שאלו מינים שונים. משנה י אינה חולקת בהכרח על המשניות הקודמות, אבל בהכרח היא מנוסחת במגמה שונה ומתוך נקודת מוצא שונה. עם זאת, האבחנה בין תרומה במצב רגיל לבין תרומה של אכילת מזון לא מעובד באופן סופי היא ברורה ורֵאלית. אין להבין את משנת מעשרות ללא אבחנה זו, והיא רֵאלית גם בפרקנו, ואינה רק תירוץ לסתירה בין מקורות שונים. ", + "בית שמאי כפרו בכל הגזרות הללו, וכדרכם הם בוחרים בהלכה הפשטנית והאחידה. אם הותר לתרום מפרי שטרם התבשל סופית, או טרם עובד, מותר לתרום ממנו על הכול. עמדתם של בית שמאי תוברר במשנה הבאה (שבפרק הבא). המסורת במסכת אהלות שהבאנו מציגה מערכת שונה המקדימה את ההכשרה לקבלת טומאה לשלב מוקדם יותר. ", + "שאלה אחרת היא כיצד בכלל ניתן לתרום מדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו, הרי רק גמר המלאכה טובל למעשרות ותרומה. בעל מלאכת שלמה תולה את הדבר בגזרת כתוב מיוחדת, והרש\"ס מסביר שהגזרה היא רק במקרים מיוחדים בגלל \"גזל השבט\"87הפסד הכהן, ראו הסברנו למ\"ד. . לפי פשוטם של דברים מדובר בערמה גדולה שבחלק ממנה נגמרה המלאכה ובחלק אחר טרם הסתיים העיבוד הראשוני. אולי בתאוריה אין להפריש ממה שטרם נגמרה מלאכתו, אבל בפועל היו שהפרישו לפני הזמן, וראו המבוא למסכת. כל ההסברים נכונים, אלא שכל השאלה אינה שאלה. בראשית מסכת מעשרות מופיעה סדרת משניות הקובעת מתי זמן המינימום להפרשת מעשרות. המדובר בקטיף לפני הזמן הרגיל, ודאי לפני גמר הבישול וגמר המלאכה. החובה נובעת מכך שהבעל אוכל מהפרי דרך קבע בבית או בשדה (משנה, מעשרות פ\"ד מ\"א). במצב כזה אלו פֵרות שלפני גמר מלאכה, אך חייבים כבר במעשרות.", + "עיקר הדיון היה הרמת תרומה ממה שנגמרה מלאכתו על מה שטרם נגמרה מלאכתו, ואגב כך מצינו שלל עמדות לגבי השאלה מתי יש להרים תרומות וממתי הפרי מקבל טומאה. ", + "1. הפרי נטמא מיד עם הוצאתו מהכרם, או כבר בשעת הבציר (הדוגמה הנדונה היא מכרם ענבים); זו עמדת משנת אהלות. לכך מסכימים גם בית שמאי וגם בית הלל. אבל בית שמאי טוענים שגם הבציר עצמו צריך להיות בטהרה, והענבים מקבלים טומאה ברגע שנבצרו. ", + "2. את התרומות יש להרים לאחר הטחינה, ולכן \"אין תורמין שמן על זיתים הניכתשים ולא יין על הענבים הנדרכות\" (לעיל מ\"ח). בשלב מאוחר יותר הפרי כבר חייב בתרומות, ואין כאן הפרשה מדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו (והתחייב בתרומה) על מה שטרם התחייב בתרומה. ", + " 3. את התרומה יש להרים באמצע תהליך העיבוד: \"מאימתי תורמין את הגת? משיהלכו בה שתי וערב...\" (תוס' פ\"ג הי\"ב), וכן: \"מאימתי תורמין את הזתים? משיטענו, ורבי שמעון אומר משייטחנו...\" (שם הי\"ג). רק בשלב זה התוצרת מקבלת טומאה.", + "4. את התרומה יש להרים בסוף האסיף: \"מאימתי תורמין את הגורן? משתעקר האלה. כבר מקצת, תורם מן הכבור על שאינו כבור\" (שם הי\"א). ברייתא זו מצויה ברצף אחד עם שתי הברייתות מהתוספתא שציטטנו, אלא שהן מדברות על תחילת העיבוד (הליכת שתי וערב, טחינה, טעינה) וברייתא זו על סוף האסיף, הצבת הגורן, לפני הדיש. אמנם בתוספתא מוצגות ההלכות ברצף אחד, אך הם שונות זו מזו. במקביל שנינו לגבי זיתים שיש להרים את המעשרות מהמעטן, כלומר ערמת הזיתים בבית לפני תחילת תהליך הבדידה. המקור הבולט ביותר הוא מכתבם של רבן גמליאל ורבן יוחנן בן זכאי, בשלהי ימי הבית שני, ליהודי התפוצות: \"מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו יושבין על גב מעלות בהר הבית ויוחנן סופר הלה88מדרש תנאים לדברים, כו יג, עמ' 176; ירו', מעשר שני פ\"ה ה\"ד, נו ע\"ג, ועוד גרסאות אחדות למינוח זה, וכנראה הכוונה ל\"חלה\", שהיא כינוי לסנהדרין, או לסופר רשמי אחר. למסורת זו מקבילות מספר, ובמחקר הוקדשו לה דיונים ממושכים שכולם חשובים אך לא לעניין שבשבילו הבאנו את המסורת. להערכתנו בכל המקבילות מדובר על מכתב אחד, והבבלי פירש ששני מכתבים לפנינו. לפניהם, אמרו לו כתוב: לאחנא בני גלילא עילאה ולבני גלילא תחתאה שלמכון יסגא. מהודענא לכון די מטא זמן ביעורא, לאפוקי מעשריא ממעוטני זיתייא. ולאחנא בני דרומא עילאה ובני דרומא תתאה שלמכון יסגא...\" (תוס', סנהדרין פ\"ב ה\"ו, עמ' 416 – לאחינו בני גליל עליון ולבני גליל תחתון שלומכם ירבה. מודיעים אנו לכם שהגיע זמן הביעור, להוציא המעשרות ממעטני הזיתים...\"). אם כן, את המעשרות מפרישים מן המעטן. הצבת הגורן היא כמו המעטן בזיתים. כן שנינו לגבי תאנים. בתאנים אין עיבוד של הפרי, ועל כן התרומות מורמות בעת הבאת הפֵרות אל הבית (מעשרות פ\"ב מ\"א).", + "5. לכתחילה יש לתרום בסיום העיבוד, אבל בדיעבד התירו לתרום קודם. ", + "הצעה זו מציע הירושלמי (מא ע\"א) כפתרון לסתירה בין ההצעה השלישית לבין ההצעה הרביעית ודוחה אותה, ובמקומה מבחין בסוגי פֵרות שונים. לפי דרכנו האבחנה בין מוצרים שונים מעידה על עמדת פשרה בין גישות מנוגדות (הראשונה והרביעית).", + "6. בסוף גמר המלאכה של כל עבודת האסיף. זו עמדת רבן גמליאל במשנת טהרות (פ\"ט מ\"א-ומ\"ב), וברור ששם גמר המלאכה הוא סיום העבודה של בעל הבית בכל התוצרת השנתית של אותו מין. ממילא לפי שיטתו אין כלל מצב של הרמת פֵרות שנגמרה מלאכתם על אלו שטרם נגמרה מלאכתם." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "המשנה ממשיכה בסדרת ההנחיות בסגנון \"אין לתרום מ-א על ב\", בהמשך ישיר למשניות בפרק הקודם, ובעיקר למשנה האחרונה שהציגה כלל דומה. במשנה הקודמת דובר על פרי שנגמרה מלאכתו, ועתה על טהרה. הקִרבה נובעת מכך שפרי שנגמרה מלאכתו עשוי לקבל טומאה, ופרי שלא נגמרה מלאכתו אינו מקבל טומאה ולעולם נאכל בטהרה. ", + "אין תורמין מן הטהור על הטמא – המשנה מעלה שאלה שיש לה גם חשיבות מעשית רבה. בפרק הקודם הסברנו שבעל בית העדיף לתרום מהטהור על הטמא כדי לאפשר לכהן לקבל תרומה בטהרה אף על פי שהוא (בעל הבית) אינו מקפיד על מצוות טהרה (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ח). חכמים מתנגדים לכך שבעל הבית יתרום מהטהור על הטמא, ושתי סיבות אפשריות לדבר. האחת הוגדרה בירושלמי כ\"גדר מי חטאת\" (ראו פירושנו לעיל מ\"ח), כלומר כדי שבעל הבית לא ירשה לעצמו לוותר ולא להקפיד על דיני טהרה, והסיבה האפשרית השנייה היא שהמוצר הטהור הוא בבחינת מין אחר ושונה. כל זאת אף שההלכה מקפחת את הכהן: אם יאשרו לתרום מהטהור על הטמא יקבל הכהן תרומה טהורה, ואם לא – יקבל תרומה טמאה שאין לאכלה1על דיני תרומה טמאה ראו במבוא למסכת. . המשנה עוסקת רק בתרומה גדולה, אבל בתרומת מעשר המצב הרגיל הוא של תרומה מהטהור על הטמא, שהרי חלק מהפרי כבר נטמא ועדיין טרם הפרישו ממנו את כל המעשרות (מלאכת שלמה), ואם תרמו תרומתן תרומה – ההלכה העקרונית היא אחת, אבל אם תרם אין קונסים אותו. משנתנו סותרת לכאורה את משנה ח שבפרק הקודם שבה שנינו: \"ואם תרם יחזור ויתרום\", אלא שהבדל גדול ומהותי בין שתי המשניות. שם דובר על הקדמת התרומה כדי \"לחסוך\" את הצורך בשמירת טהרה, ואילו במשנתנו מדובר על מוצר אחד שחלקו נטמא. אין כאן מקום לקנסות, שכן אין כאן ניסיון של בעל הבית להקדים את התרומה. אדרבה, כאן פועל רק הגורם של הרצון למנוע הפסד לכהן. כפי שנראה מן ההמשך אכן מדובר במקרה שבפועל חלק מהתוצרת נטמא. בעל מלאכת שלמה מעיר שבַהמשך המשנה חוזרת על הקביעה שהתרומה מועילה, והלשון כאן מיותרת, אלא שכל משנה עומדת בפני עצמה ועורך המשנה לא חשש להכפיל את דבריו. להערכתנו ההכפלה כשלעצמה פשוטה וזו דרכה של משנה, אלא שלפנינו תופעה מורכבת יותר. במשנה ב נעשית הבחנה בין התורם כך במזיד לתורם בשוגג. אפשר היה לפרש שמשנה א קדומה ומשנה ב מאוחרת ומפרטת, אך דומה שבמקרה זה אין ראיה לכרונולוגיה שונה של המשניות. משנה א מסתפקת בניסוח הכללי, ומשנה ב מפרטת. עורך המשנה הסתפק בהבאת משניות ממקורות שונים, ולא תמיד איחד אותן. לפיכך, איננו יודעים האם משנה א מקבלת את ההבחנה בין שוגג למזיד, או שבכל המקרים תרומתם תרומה.", + "באמת – במעט עדי נוסח מאוחרים נוסף [אמרו]2המילה חסרה ב- א, ב, ג1, ג3, ג4, ג7, ז, ט, ל, מ, ן, פ, ץ ובכתב יד קופמן. . הביטוי \"באמת\" או \"באמת אמרו\" מופיע עוד שבע פעמים במשניות3פ\"ב מ\"א; כלאים פ\"ב מ\"ב; שבת פ\"י מ\"ד; נזיר פ\"ז מ\"ג; בבא מציעא פ\"ד מי\"א; בבא בתרא פ\"ב מ\"ג. , ומעט במקורות אחרים4תוס', ברכות פ\"ה הי\"ז; בבלי, שם כ ע\"ב; תוס', כלאים פ\"א הט\"ו. . בנוסחאות ארץ ישראל כמעט תמיד הנוסח הוא \"באמת\" בלבד. בנוסחאות בבל ובדפוסים בדרך כלל \"באמת אמרו\", אך גם רק \"באמת\". ההבדל הטקסטואלי ברור למדי, אך חשוב יותר לברר האם יש הבדל במשמעותו של המונח. כך המצב גם במשנתנו. התוספת \"אמרו\" מצויה בכתבי היד הבבליים ובדפוסים5ראו לנדמן, באמת אמרו; הכהן, באמת אמרו. . בירושלמי: \"כל מקום ששנינו 'באמת' הלכה למשה מסיני\" (מא ע\"ב; שבת פ\"א ה\"ג, ג ע\"ב)6בנוסף לכך הוא משובץ בברייתות כגון בבלי, ברכות כ ע\"ב. לאיסוף המקורות ראו הכהן, באמת אמרו. . ברור, אפוא, שהירושלמי גרס רק \"באמת\" בלי התוספת \"אמרו\".", + "אשר למשמעות המונח \"באמת\", לפי הירושלמי הוא ביטוי להבאת עיקרון הלכתי מקובל על הכול. משפט זה שמציע האמורא רבי אליעזר (אלעזר)7במקבילות, ובחילופי הנוסח בכתבי היד, מתחלפים לעתים קרובות שני השמות הללו (רבי אליעזר ורבי אלעזר), ובחלק מהמקרים היה כתוב ר\"א והמעתיק פתח את ראשי התיבות כפי שפתח. בדרך כלל אי אפשר לברר מה היה הנוסח המקורי וכבר עמד על כך אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 1162. משובץ בכמה סוגיות בירושלמי, והיה כנראה ידוע ביותר8כגון ירו', כלאים פ\"ב ה\"א, כז ע\"ד; שבת פ\"י ה\"ד, יב ע\"ג; נזיר פ\"ז ה\"ג, נו ע\"ג. , או שהועבר מסוגיה לסוגיה. המשפט מופיע בקיצור בתלמוד הבבלי: \"כל באמת הלכה היא\" (שבת צב ע\"ב; בבא מציעא ס ע\"א). ברם, המשפט חסר בכתבי היד לתלמוד ואולי הועבר מהירושלמי9ראו דקדוקי סופרים לשבת שם; ספר הישר לרבנו תם, סימן ריג. . ", + "ההלכות המצוטטות במינוח \"באמת...\" אינן הלכות עקרוניות. בכל המקרים מדובר בפרט טכני שאינו בעל חשיבות מהותית, כמו במקרה שלפנינו. מסתבר כי מדובר בפריט הלכתי קדום המוכר לחכמים ומוסכם על כולם. בירושלמי מסביר, כאמור, רבי אליעזר: \"כל מקום ששנינו 'באמת' הלכה למשה מסיני\". הביטוי \"הלכה למשה מסיני\" בהקשר זה אינו בא ללמד אמת היסטורית. אין הכוונה שבאמת לפנינו מסורת עתיקה המיוחסת עד למשה מסיני, אלא זו הצהרה דתית שההלכה היא נכונה ומקובלת ויש לאמצה ללא היסוס. מבחינה מסוימת ניתן להגדיר את המונח כמטבע לשון ספרותי, כביטוי לאמת. בספרות האמוראית היו שהבינו מונח זה כמסורת היסטורית, כאילו הלכה למשה מסיני היא קבוצה של הלכות שאינן מדאורייתא ולא מדרבנן אלא ממסורת קדומה במסגרת תורה שבעל פה. אבל בספרות התנאית אין \"הלכה למשה מסיני\" אלא הצהרה כללית10ראו ספראי, הלכה למשה מסיני, וראו פירושנו לשבת פ\"א מ\"ג; כלאים פ\"ב מ\"ב; הכהן, באמת אמרו; לנדמן, באמת אמרו. .", + "העיגול של דבילה שניטמא מקצתו תורם מן הטהור שיש בו על הטמא שיש בו – זו דוגמה למקרה של צורך בתרומה מהטהור על הטמא. התלמוד הירושלמי למשנתנו (מא ע\"ב) מתקשה, שהרי אם נגעה טומאה בקצה של עיגול דבלה נטמא כל העיגול. על כן הוא מסביר שהעיגול אינו חיבור לטומאה, שכן הוא נילוש לא במים אלא במי פֵרות, ומי הפֵרות הם החומר המדבק. מי פֵרות אינם נחשבים לחיבור, והטומאה אינה עוברת מקצה הגוש ליתר חלקיו. הלכה עקרונית זו שנויה במקבילות (משנה, טבול יום פ\"ב מ\"ג; תוס', שם פ\"ב הי\"ג, עמ' 686), וברור שעיגול דבלה שנטמאה מקצתו לא נטמא כולו. עם זאת נחלקו חכמים מה גודל החלק שנטמא, ולא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך. ההיתר לתרום מהטהור על הטמא נובע מכך ששניהם בכלי אחד, והם בבחינת \"מן המוקף\". במקרה מעין זה הכול מודים שמותר לתרום מהאחד על חברו11ראו להלן פירושנו לחלה פ\"א מ\"ט, ושם פ\"ב מ\"ח. . ", + "בירושלמי במקום אחר שנינו: \"כל מקום ששנה רבי 'נראין' עדיין המחלוקת במקומה חוץ מעיגול שלדבילה, דדין מודי לדין ודין מודי לדין\" (יבמות פ\"ד הי\"א, ו ע\"א – שזה מודה לזה וזה מודה לזה). \"נראים\" הוא קיצור של המונח \"נראים הדברים\", ובדרך כלל הוא בא במחלוקת ובשם תנא שלישי הנוקט עמדת ביניים ומכריע כתנא אחד במקרה אחד, וכרעהו במקרה אחר. \"ששנה רבי\" רומז לכך שביטוי זה תדיר בפיו של רבי, בעיקר בתוספתא, אך גם ייתכן שזו משנה סתמית והיא נקראת על שם רבי, עורך המשנה. מכל מקום, התלמוד מכיר ברייתא או נוסח במשנה ששם הופיעה המחלוקת בעיגול של דבלה והופיע המינוח \"נראים הדברים\", וזו דעת הכול ששני הצדדים קיבלוה. איננו יודעים מה היה נושא מחלוקת זו. במקורות כמה מחלוקות אפשריות, ומשנתנו היא אחת מהן12המשנה להלן פ\"ד מי\"א היא מועמדת נוספת להיות המשנה שבה מדובר. . מכל מקום, בתלמוד יש נוסח של ברייתא שלא השתמר, ו\"חבל על דאבדין\".", + "וכן אגודה של ירק – שניטמא ירק אחד ויתר הירקות טהורים. גם כאן מדובר במקרה שהאגודה אינה נחשבת לחיבור לטומאה, כגון שאינה קשורה, וכן ערימה – של גרעיני חיטים, ושוב הערמה אינה חיבור לטומאה. אגודה וערמה הן חיבור פחות מעיגול של דבלה (רמב\"ם), וכמובן די היה בדוגמה הראשונה, אלא שהעורך ביקש להוסיף דוגמאות להבהרה, וזו דרכה של משנה.", + "היו שני עיגולין שתי אגודות שתי ערימות אחת טהורה ואחת טמאה לא יתרום מזה על זה – ההיתר לתרום מהטהור על הטמא הוא רק באותה אגודה או ערמה, אבל לא בערמות נפרדות. מותר לתרום מערמה על ערמה, וזאת במגבלות מסוימות שנדונו במקום אחר (משנה, דמאי פ\"ה מ\"ז). המדובר בתרומה של טהור על טמא בלבד, ורק המשנה הבאה תעסוק בתרומה מן הטמא על הטהור, זאת אף שפירוש המילים מאפשר לכאורה לפרש שמדובר בשני המקרים (מלאכת שלמה בשם רבי יהוסף אשכנזי).", + "המשנה מתירה, אפוא, לתרום מהטהור על הטמא, אך רק בדיעבד ובמגבלות מהותיות. לעומת זאת בתוספתא רבי אליעזר חולק ואומר: \"תורמין מן הטהור על הטמא\". לחיזוק דעתו מוסיף רבי אליעזר מעשה: \"אמר רבי אליעזר מעשה ונפלה דליקה בגרני כפר סגנא ותרמו מן הטהור על הטמא. אמרו לו משם ראיה, אלא שתרמו מהן עליהן? רבי אלעאיי אומר משם רבי אליעזר תורמין מן הטהור על הטמא אף בלח. כיצד, מי שכבש זתיו (בטיט) בטומאה, ומבקש לתורמן בטהרה, מביא משפיך שאין בפיו כביצה ומניחו על פי חבית ומביא זתים ונותן לתוכו ותורם, נמצא תורם מן הטהור על הטמא ומן המוקף. אמרו לו אין קרוי לח אלא יין ושמן בלבד\" (תוס', פ\"ג הי\"ח; ירו', מא ע\"ב)13ראו עוד פירושנו לחלה פ\"א מ\"ט, וגם שם אומר רבי אליעזר שתורמים ומפרישים חלה מהטהור על הטמא. . בכפר סגנא, שהוא כנראה סכנין שבגליל התחתון, נפלה דלקה בגרנות, וכדי לכבותה השתמשו במים. הגרעינים בגרנות נרטבו ובכך הוכשרו לקבל טומאה14זו הייתה שרפה קשה, ומן הסתם היא זו הנזכרת במשנה, כלים פ\"ה מ\"ד. , על כן תרמו מהטהור כדי שלא יפסידו הכוהנים. חכמים חולקים וסוברים שתרמו שם מהטהור על טהור ומהטמא על טמא. עוד אנו שומעים שרבי אליעזר מתיר אף לתרום ממוצרים לחים, וכידוע טומאת לח חמורה בהרבה מטומאת היבש. רבי אליעזר אף מציע דרך טכנית כיצד להפוך חביות שונות לחבית אחת מבלי שהטמא ייגע בטהור ויטמאו. הדרך היא ליצור חיבור דרך מרכיב שאינו מעביר טומאה. חיבור זה הוא משפך שבפיו חור קטן שאינו מעביר טומאה. נמצאנו למדים שחכמים חולקים ואומרים שבמקרה זה אין תורמים, ואולי אף בדיעבד אין תרומתו תרומה.", + "בתוספתא למשנת חלה שנינו: \"רבי ליעזר אומר חלה ניטלת מן הטהור על הטמא. אמרו לפני רבי ישמעאל והלא פלוני יש בדרום והיה מורה בהוראה הזאת. אמר להם לבוש שלבש בו אבא, וציץ שנתן בין עיניו15הברייתא מאמצת את המסורת שרבי ישמעאל היה מזרע כהונה גדולה. , אם לא אלמד בו לכל מורה הוראות. אמרו לו משם רבי ליעזר! אמר להם אף הוא יש לו במה יתלה\" (פ\"א ה\"י). הניסוח בתוספתא ממעיט בהיקפה של ההלכה, כאילו אמר רבי אליעזר את דבריו רק לעניין חלה, אך כאמור זו שיטתו ושיטת בית שמאי. רבי ישמעאל חולק. כאשר מספרים לו שיש פלוני זקן בדרום המורה הלכה כבית שמאי16תוספתא זו מצטרפת לרמזים בדבר הקשרים בין בית שמאי לבין אזור אדום, ואין \"דרום\" כאן אלא דרום יהודה, שהוא אדום. הקשר בין האדומיים ובית שמאי נזכר בהלכה אחת בספרי זוטא (ראו בן שלום, בית שמאי, עמ' 115 ואילך), והברייתא שלנו מצטרפת לתמונה זו. עם זאת, אין ללמוד מכאן אלא על כך שלבית שמאי נודעה השפעה על בני חבל אדום ואין להפריז במשמעותה של העדות, וקשה לראות בכך עיקרון מנחה בפעילותם של בית שמאי. הוא נשבע בתוקף שעליו לשרש דעה זו. אבל כאשר הוא שומע שזו דעת רבי אליעזר הוא נסוג מעט מתקיפותו, אך לא מעמדתו העקרונית. מעניין שרבי ישמעאל אינו מתייחס למחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, ומתנהג כאילו דעת בית שמאי אינה קיימת. רבי ישמעאל עצמו חי בדרום, בכפר עזיז (כלאים פ\"ו מ\"ז)17בכתבי היד נוסחאות שונות לשם. ראו זק\"ש, זרעים, למשנת כלאים פ\"ו מ\"ז. , ולא היה כה מרוחק מאותו זקן פלוני (איור 10).", + "רבי אליעזר הוא, כידוע, \"שמותי\". פעמים רבות הוא מהלך בשיטת בית שמאי. כפי שראינו בפרק הקודם בית שמאי מתירים לתרום מ\"מין\" על שאינו \"מינו\". הם אינם מקבלים את הגזרות של בית הלל \"גזל השבט\" או \"גדר מי חטאת\". יש להניח שהם חולקים גם על ההלכה שבמשנה הקודמת. את עמדתם של בית הלל פגשנו בפרק הקודם (ראו פירושנו למ\"ד, מ\"ח, מ\"ט, מ\"י), ומשנתנו חושפת פן נוסף של המחלוקת. עד עתה ניתן היה לצמצם את המחלוקת לשאלת הגזרות, האם גוזרים בשל \"גדר חטאת\" או בשל \"גזל השבט\", אבל במשנתנו אין כל חשש מעין זה. אף על פי כן בית הלל שוללים תרומה מפרי מסוג אחד על סוג אחר, ובית שמאי מתירים18בירושלמי יש דעות שהלכה כרבי אליעזר. עדות זו מצטרפת למקרים שבהם נפסקה הלכה כבית שמאי, או שחכמים מאוחרים מהלכים בשיטת בית שמאי. ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. . בדיוננו בפרק הקודם עמדנו על כך שהניסוחים \"גדר מי חטאת\" ו\"גזל השבט\" הם אמוראיים, מעתה מותר להעלות את האפשרות שכל הנימוקים הללו הם משניים בלבד. הנימוק העיקרי הוא שאין תורמים מסוג אחד על משנהו. השיקולים האחרים רק משפיעים על ההלכה במקרה שתרם. הם מסייעים לקבוע האם תרומתו תרומה, תרומה ויחזור ויתרום או אינה תרומה כלל, אבל השיקול העיקרי הוא האיסור לתרום מסוגים שונים זה על זה. בירושלמי ובמדרשים מובאות דרשות שונות להצדקת ההלכה, אך לדעתנו כל אלו הן בעלות חשיבות משנית, לאישוש ההלכה. ", + "המשנה הבאה דנה באפשרויות שונות של שוגג ומזיד. עד עתה לא עלו הבחנות משנה מסוג זה, ומן הסתם אלו אינן משמעותיות במקרה שלנו." + ], + [ + "המשנה ממשיכה בדין תרומה בין טהור לטמא, אך בניגוד למשנה הקודמת כאן מדובר בתרומה מן הטמא על הטהור. חכמים מתנגדים באופן תקיף לתרומה מעין זו, משום שיש בה פגיעה ישירה בלוי. תרומה טהורה ניתנת לאכילה ואילו תרומה טמאה אין לאכול; רק בשמן ניתן להשתמש לבעירה (תאורה), אך ביתר המוצרים אין כל הנאה. ", + "אין תורמין מן הטמא על הטהור – האיסור הוא מוחלט וחמור בהרבה ממצב של תרומה מטהור על טמא, ואם תרם שוגג תרומתו תרומה – משום שזו טעות, ומעיקר הדין הורמה תרומה.", + "מזיד לא עשה כלום – זהו קנס הקובע שהמעשה מעיקרו בטל. מבחינת השתלשלות ההלכה זו גזרה מיוחדת, שכן חכמים קונסים ומבטלים למעשה מעשה הלכתי שנעשה. לכאורה אם התרומה תרומה, אזי לכל היותר מותר לדרוש שיתרום עוד פעם. אבל כיצד אפשר לבטל מעשה שנעשה? הירושלמי (מא ע\"ג) מסב את תשומת הלב למרכיב זה של ההלכה. ", + "וכן – המשנה נותנת דוגמה נוספת, והיא זהה. אין צורך לחפש חידוש בדוגמה זו, דרכה של משנה להביא דוגמאות מספר לאותו עניין. לא מן הנמנע שריבוי הדוגמאות נובע לעתים מכך שאלו היו שאלות שונות שהתעוררו הלכה למעשה במקומות שונים, והעורך אסף את התשובות ממקורות שונים.", + "בן לוי שהיה לו מעשר טבל היה מפריש עליו והולך – לפי ההקשר המעשר טמא והוא מפריש ממנו על הטהור. הטהור אינו תרומה של יבול אחר אלא של אותו יבול, וכן עולה מהתוספתא המציגה את המקרה כ\"מפרישין תרומת המעשר מן הטמא על הטמא... אבל לא מן הטהור על הטמא\" (פ\"ג הי\"ט). אלבק פירש כך גם הוא, כמו מפרשים אחרים (מלאכת שלמה ואחרים), ותיקן \"מעשר טמא\" במקום \"טבל\". המשמעות מסתברת, אבל אין צורך בתיקון. עם זאת המילה \"טבל\" מיותרת, הרי \"מעשר\" כאן משמעו שטרם הורמה תרומה, ואין הוא \"טבל\" רגיל, שכן טבל הוא מה שטרם הופרשו ממנו מעשרות כלל. רבי יהוסף אשכנזי לא גרסה, אך היא מצויה בכל יתר עדי הנוסח. דומה שהחכם הגיה את הטקסט מדעתו, וקשה לקבל את ההצעה כנגד כל עדי הנוסח. בעל מלאכת שלמה מסכם: \"ואפשר לישב בדוחק לשון טבל\". להערכתנו אין המשמעות של המונח \"טבל\" במשנתנו המשמעות ההלכתית הרגילה אלא משמעות מושאלת, מעשר שטרם הורמה ממנו תרומת המעשר. המשנה התגבשה לפני שהמינוח ההלכתי עוצב סופית, ואין להקשות על המשנה מהמינוח שאחר זמנה. ", + "שוגג מה שעשה עשוי מזיד לא עשה כלום – כמו ברישא. למעשה אין במקרה זה חידוש, אבל בירושלמי יש גם מי שחולק או מצמצם את הדין במשנה: \"במה דברים אמורים בתרומה גדולה שהיא צריכה לתרום מן המוקף, אבל בתרומת מעשר אפילו שאר כל הדברים שלום הם\" (מא ע\"ג). אם כן, ההגבלה על תרומה מן הטמא היא בגלל הצורך שכל הפֵרות שתורמים מהם יהיו יחד, והחשש הוא שמא בכך יטמא את הטהור. אמנם בסוף הפרק הקודם הובאה דרך כיצד ניתן לבצע את הדבר מבלי לטמא את הטהור, אך זה הסדר מסובך והחשש המעשי גדול. אבל בתרומת מעשר שהפרי כבר נמצא יחדיו אין חשש של הגדלת הטומאה, ולכן מותר. על כן יש חידוש בדוגמה של בן לוי. גם בתוספתא (פ\"ג ה\"ט) דובר במפורש על \"מפרישין תרומת מעשר מן הטמא...\", תרומת מעשר ולא תרומה גדולה. ", + "רבי יהודה אומר אם היה יודע בו מתחילה אף על פי שוגג לא עשה כלום – רבי יהודה מחמיר מעט אבל מקבל את עיקר הדין. לדעתו שוגג הוא רק אם לא ידע שהפרי טמא, אבל אם ידע שהפרי טמא ושכח או שסבר שמותר לתרום מטמא על טהור, אין זה שוגג אלא דינו כמזיד. הירושלמי (מא ע\"ג) מוסיף שהבחנה זו היא רק לשיטת רבי יהודה. רבי יוסי המתיר לתרום מהאחד על האחר אינו מכיר בהבחנה זו. ", + "בתוספתא (פ\"ג הי\"ט) ובירושלמי (מא ע\"ג) מובאות דעות החולקים. רבי יוסי אומר שגם במזיד מה שעשה עשוי. רבי יוסי הוא שהביא לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ד, מ\"ח) את דעתם של בית שמאי ורבי אליעזר (ראו במשנה הקודמת) שמותר לתרום מסוג אחד על משנהו19בירו', לעיל פ\"א ה\"ד, מ ע\"ד, התלמוד מקשר בין דעת רבי יוסי שם ובין דעתו בתוספתא שלנו. , ואין להתחשב בשיקולים צדדיים כמו הפסד הכוהנים. לדעתו גם במזיד אם עשה מעשה התרומה תרומה, ונימוקו הוא \"מה נשתנה זה מן התורם מן הרעה על היפה\". עוד מחלוקת היא על הפרשה מן הטמא על הטמא, ובכך לא נרחיב (תוס', שם; ירו', שם).", + "השיקולים השונים המועלים על ידי התלמוד הירושלמי (פ\"א ה\"ד, מ ע\"ד) הם הפסד כוהנים או החשש שמצויים לִטעות, כלומר הרואה יחשוב שמותר לתרום גם לכתחילה מהאחד על האחר. דומה שמעבר לכך מצוי השיקול המופשט יותר, שיש בו שילוב של תחושת הקדושה והצד הטכני. אין זה מן הראוי שהקודש ייגע בטמא, ובכלל אין ראוי שיתרמו מסוג אחד על משנהו. שיקולים אלו עלו גם בפרק הקודם. הבבלי אף מצא סימוכין בתורה לשיקול של \"הפסד כהן\", \"תתן לו – ולא לאורו\" (פסחים ג ע\"א; שבת כה ע\"ב). זו דרשה מאוחרת המצויה רק בתלמוד הבבלי.", + "ההלכה בדבר תרם בשוגג ובמזיד תידון בפירושנו למשנה הבאה. " + ], + [ + "המטביל כלים בשבת – הטבלת כלים היא כתרומה. אסור להטביל כלים בשבת משום שיש בכך מעשה של טהרת הכלי, הפיכתו מטמא לטהור, מכלי נטול שימוש לבר שימוש. אנו מדגישים פן זה משום שמותר לטבול כלים סתם בבור מים (לא למטרת טהרה), שכן מותר לשאוב מים מבור, אך לא למטרת טהרה. ההלכה עצמה נידונה במשנת ביצה: \"חל (יום טוב) להיות לאחר שבת. בית שמאי אומרים מטבילין את הכל מלפני השבת ובית הלל אומרים כלים מלפני השבת ואדם בשבת\" (פ\"ב מ\"ב; שבת פ\"ב מ\"ז)20הבבלי (ביצה יז ע\"ב - יח ע\"א) מסביר את האיסור בגזרה שמא יטלטל. זו דרכו של הבבלי לנמק הלכות עקרוניות ב\"גזירה שמא\". ראו פירושנו למשנה זו. . אם כן, לדעת הכול אין לטבול כלים בשבת, והמחלוקת היא על טבילת אדם. טבילת כלים דומה להעלאת תרומה. בשני המקרים מדובר במעשה המורכב מפעולה פיזית וממשמעות בלתי מוחשית (רוחנית הלכתית). החפץ עצמו לא שוּנה במעשה, אבל מעמדו ההלכתי שונה והוא עבר ממצב של איסור שימוש למצב בר שימוש.", + "שוגג ישתמש בהן מזיד לא ישתמש בהן – כנוסחה של ההלכה במשנה הקודמת. בירושלמי מוצע היתר על ידי הערמה להטבלת כלים קטנים, כאילו אגב שאיבת מים (ירו', מא ע\"ג; שבת פ\"ב ה\"ז, ה ע\"ב). ", + "המעשר והמבשל21במשנת חולין פ\"א מ\"א מובא דינו של השוחט בשבת. בתלמוד הבבלי, חולין טו ע\"א, מתנהל דיון מדוע לא נכלל דינו במשנתנו, והרחיב בכך אלבק, עמ' 385-384. מן הראוי להעיר שכפשוטה משנתנו אינה מזכירה את השוחט שכן זה מקרה נדיר יותר. בכלל, שחיטה הייתה נדירה בציבור היהודי, ועל כן לא דנה בה המשנה. בתוספתא שציטטנו (שבת פ\"ב הי\"ז) השאלה נידונה. בתלמוד הבבלי יש גם ניסיונות להבחין בין בישול ושחיטה, וכפי שאמרנו הדינים בנושא תלויים לא רק בשיטה המשפטית אלא גם בתנאים שבכל מקרה ומקרה. לפרטים ראו אלבק, שם. בשבת שוגג יאכל מזיד לא יאכל הנוטע בשבת שוגג יקיים מזיד יעקר – כבמשנה הקודמת, ובשביעית בין שוגג בין מזיד יעקור – בשביעית החמרת יתר. בתוספתא ובתלמודים (תוס', שבת פ\"ב הכ\"א; ירו', מ ע\"ג; בבלי, גיטין נג ע\"ב) ניתנים לכך שני נימוקים, הראשון הוא שישראל נחשדו על שביעית. במבוא למסכת שביעית הרחבנו בטיעון זה. כמעט לא מצינו במקורות חז\"ל חשש שישראל חשוד על שבת. מי שלא שמר שבת הוציא את עצמו בפועל מכלל החברה היהודית. לעומת זאת מצינו אזכורים רבים לחשודים על שביעית. חז\"ל הגיבו למצב זה כשמצד אחד הקלו בהלכות ומצד שני החמירו ביחס לעבריינים. לפנינו אחד המרכיבים של החמרה זו.", + "נימוק שני שניתן בתוספתא ובתלמודים הוא שמונים לשביעית, כלומר הציבור יודע שעץ פלוני ניטע בשביעית וכך יישמר זכר העבֵרה. המינוח \"מונים\" מזכיר את כתובות צוער שבהן מצוי מניין שנים לפי שנות שביעית (איור 11ב - 11ג). המדובר ", + "בעשרות כתובות מהמאות החמישית והשישית22לריכוז הכתובות ראו שטרן, לוח, עמ' 153-146. . ברם, ", + "אצלנו אין מדובר על מניין שנים אלא על תיארוך חייו של עץ.", + "בתוספתא למשנתנו שנינו: \"התורם והמעשר בשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד מעשרותיו מעשרות. והמטביל כלים בשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד עלו לו ידי טבילה\" (פ\"ד ה\"א). ההלכה שבתוספתא חולקת לכאורה על משנתנו, והיא כדעת רבי יוסי שהובאה לעיל. במשנה הקודמת הסברנו שדעת רבי יוסי כבית שמאי האומרים שמותר לתרום מסוג אחד על משנהו, ואין מתחשבים בשיקול של הפסד כהן. ברם אין זה כך. התוספתא אינה עוסקת בשאלה האם מותר להשתמש בכלים או האם רצוי לטבול כלים בשבת, אלא האם הטבילה עלתה. גם בית שמאי מסכימים שאין לטבול כלים בשבת, כפי שעולה במפורש במשנה במסכת ביצה (פ\"ב מ\"ג), אם כן האיסור הוא לדעת הכול, והמחלוקת היא האם מעשה שנעשה באיסור מבוטל או לאו. במשנה לעיל נאמר, לדעת בית הלל, שמעשה עברה במזיד מתבטל, והתרומה אינה תרומה, ואילו בית שמאי אמרו שהמעשה אינו איסור. ברם, בתוספתא מדובר במעשה שהוא לכל הדעות איסור, והחולקים (בית שמאי?) טוענים שמעשה הלכתי שנעשה, גם באיסור, הוא מעשה שאין לבטלו. אין ביטחון בכך שהתוספתא מייצגת את דעת בית שמאי (רבי יוסי), ברם ברור שהיא נגד בית הלל שדבריו הובאו לעיל.", + "אין ספק שמשנה ב הובאה אגב משנה א, ואגב הדין המבדיל בין שימוש בשוגג לשימוש במזיד. עם זאת חוליית הקישור חסרה, שהרי משנה א אינה מדברת על שבת ומשנה ב אינה מדברת על תרומה. חוליית הקישור היא באמצע המשנה, \"והמעשר והמבשל בשבת\". מעשר הוא כתורם, וזה הקשר למשנה הקודמת ולמשנה הבאה. עם זאת, חוליית הקישור אינה מופיעה בתחילת המשנה, כפי שניתן היה לצפות, והתרומה אינה נזכרת במפורש, על כן סביר שעורך המשנה מצא את המשנה שלנו בקובץ משניות קדום ושיבצה אצלנו ללא שינוי. בתוספתא מופיעה חוליית הקישור במקומה, בראשית ההלכה: \"התורם והמעשר בשבת\"; לכאורה היה מקום לשער שעורך התוספתא הוסיף את המשפט כדי ליצור חוליית קישור. ברם, כפי שאמרנו, התוספתא עוסקת בהלכה אחרת. על כן נראה שעורך התוספתא הכיר את כל המשנה וערך את דבריו על בסיס המשנה, אבל הוא סגנן את הדברים בצורה טובה יותר. ייתכן גם שהוא הכיר נוסח אחר של המשנה שהיה ערוך בהתאם להצגת ההלכות במשנתנו. בנוסח זה החלה משנה ג בדין התורם בשבת, אבל אם היה נוסח כזה הוא אבד, וקיומו הוא בבחינת השערה בלתי מבוססת. לפיכך, יש לסכם שעורך התוספתא ערך את דבריו כתגובה וכהמשך למשנה שלפנינו, אבל ערך וסגנן את הדברים מחדש לפי עיקרון ספרותי עצמאי, ולפי תפיסות הלכתיות שחלקן מנוגד למשנה. ", + "המשנה שלנו אינה מבחינה בין היתר להשתמש בשבת לבין היתר להשתמש במוצאי שבת. דין הנוטע בשבת בוודאי מדבר גם על מוצאי שבת, אם כן למשנה ברור שהאיסור הוא לבל ייהנה מחילול שבת לעולם.", + "במסגרת דיני תרומה מצינו סדרה של קנסות. מי שתרם שלא כהלכה תרומתו פסולה, או שיחזור ויתרום. אילו היו הלכות אלו נשארות במסגרת דיני תרומה ניתן היה לראות בהן תופעה מקומית במגזר הלכתי מצומצם. ברם, המקבילות גוזרות מהלכה זו מסקנות מרחיקות לכת בדבר השימוש וההנאה במעשי עברה, כגון האפשרות לשימוש באוכל שבושל בשבת או בכלים שנטבלו בשבת, הנאה מעץ שניטע בשביעית ושאר עברות דומות. נקדים ונאמר שיש לכאורה הבדל בין אוכל שבושל בשבת לבין תרומה שנתרמה שלא כהלכה. באוכל שבושל נעשה מעשה שאי אפשר לתקנו. האוכל עתה מבושל. אי אפשר להחזיר את גלגל הזמן, או להתעלם מהמעשה. כל שניתן הוא לדון האם ניתן להשתמש באוכל או שיש להשמידו. אולם בהפרשת תרומה ה\"מעשה\" הוא בתחום הבלתי מוחשי. החפץ הפיזי נשאר כשהיה, ורק הסטטוס ההלכתי שלו שונה. מבחינתו של עולם החומר ניתן להתעלם מהמעשה שנעשה. ניתן לתרום מחדש או להגדיר את הפרי כחולין או כספק. אבחנה זו אינה משמשת בפועל בדיונים שלהלן. בתוספתא ובתלמודים מובאות הדוגמאות שהעלינו כאילו כולן מבטאות אותה בעיה, הנאה מעברה שנעשתה. ", + "ההלכה במשנה כללית ואין בה אבחנות משנה, להוציא את האבחנה בין שוגג ומזיד. ברם, במקבילות שנעלה יש סדרת אבחנות משנה, כל זאת בנוסף לבירור מהי שגגה שבו כבר עסקנו לעיל. אבחנות המשנה הן:", + "1. היתר שימוש מיד במוצאי שבת או לאחר זמן. בתלמודים נוסח כלל זה במינוח \"בכדי שיעשה\". \"בכדי שיעשה (ייעשו)\" הוא הזמן שבו ניתן לבצע את המעשה במוצאי שבת כך שאין הנאה ישירה מחילול שבת. מרכיב זה הוא בעל אופי סמלי. בפועל הרי יש הנאה ממעשה שנעשה בשבת באיסור, אך לאחר זמן ההנאה אינה שלמה, שכן ניתן היה לבצע אותו מעשה גם במוצאי שבת בהיתר. ברם, יש במרכיב זה כדי להמעיט את הצורך בקנס. אבחנה זו מצטרפת לאבחנה בין שוגג לבין מזיד ונוצרות ארבע אפשרויות, כפי שיובהר להלן.", + "2. חומרת העברה.", + "3. הבדל בין גוי לישראל.", + "4. הבדל בין שימוש לעושה העברה בעצמו לבין שימוש בה על ידי אחר. ", + "לכאורה מופיעה האבחנה בין שימוש מיד לשימוש לאחר זמן, ללא אבחנה בין שוגג ומזיד, במשנת שבת (פכ\"ג מ\"ד): \"נכרי שהביא חלילין בשבת לא יספוד בהן ישראל אלא אם כן באו ממקום קרוב\". בפירושנו למשנה זו ראינו כי היו מבין מפרשי הבבלי שפירשו את דברי התלמוד כאילו הבבלי הניח בפשטות ש\"מקום קרוב\" רומז לאבחנה זו של ב\"כדי שייעשה\". ברם, היו גם שפירשו אחרת והבינו את המגבלה באופן שונה. זאת ועוד, אין כל ביטחון שהבבלי מפרש את פשט המשנה, וייתכן שהוא תולה בה תפיסות הלכתיות שנוצרו רק מאוחר יותר. על כן אי אפשר להוכיח מהמשנה בשבת שהאבחנה בין שימוש מידי לשימוש לאחר זמן הייתה מוכרת. ", + "האבחנות הנזכרות אינן במשנה, אך הן מופיעות בברייתות בשם תנאים. המקורות הבולטים לכך הם סדרת ברייתות בתוספתא שבת פ\"ב. זו סדרה מגובשת שהושקעה מחשבה בעריכתה: ", + "הלכה טו – \"המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל דברי רבי מאיר23בנוסחת הרש\"ס בירושלמי חסר רבי מאיר. אבל עדותו בטלה נגד כל עדי הנוסח, ובעיקר, בכל הנושא שזורות מחלוקות בין שני תנאים אלו, ומן הסתם כך גם כאן. רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת במזיד לא יאכל. רבי יוחנן הסנדלר אומר בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לו במזיד לא יאכל לא לו ולא לאחרים\".", + "הלכה טז – \"כלל אמר רבי ישמעאל בי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה דבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת ועשאו בשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד אסור לו ולאחרים ודבר שאין חייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת ועשאו בשבת בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לו במזיד לא לו ולא לאחרים\". ", + "הלכה יז – \"השוחט בשבת בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת במזיד לא יאכל\". ", + "הלכה יח – \"פירות שלקטן בשבת בשוגג יאכלו למוצאי שבת במזיד לא יאכלו\". ", + "הלכה יט – \"התורם והמעשר בשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד מעשרותיו מעשר\". ", + "הלכה כ – \"המטביל כלים בשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד עלו ידי טבילה\". ", + "הלכה כא – \"הנוטע בשבת בשוגג יקיים במזיד יעקור, בשביעית בין בשוגג בין במזיד יעקור. מפני מה אמרו הנוטע בשבת בשוגג יקיים במזיד יעקור, ובשביעית בין בשוגג בין במזיד יעקור? מפני שמונין לשביעיות ואין מונין לשבתות. דבר אחר נחשדו ישראל על השביעיות ולא נחשדו על השבתות. רבי יהודה אומר חלוף הן דברים, בשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד יעקור. בשביעית בשוגג יקיים במזיד יעקור\". ", + "המחלוקת היסודית היא בהט\"ו, והיא חוזרת בתלמודים (כמובא בטבלה להלן)24ירו', מא ע\"ג; שבת פ\"ג ה\"א, ה ע\"ב; בבלי, גיטין נג ע\"ב - נד ע\"א; בבא קמא עא ע\"א; חולין טו ע\"א; כתובות לד ע\"א. . אם כן, הביטוי \"יֵאכל\" הוא סלע המחלוקת: רבי מאיר מפרשו כפשוטו, ללא כל אבחנות משנה. ייאכל משמעו גם בשבת עצמה, ורבי יהודה אומר שייאכל במוצאי שבת בלבד. התלמודים הבינו בדברי רבי יהודה שגם במוצאי שבת יש להמתין \"בכדי שיעשה\", ברם כפי שהעלינו אין לפרשנות זו בסיס במקורות התנאיים. דומה שזו אבחנה מאוחרת יותר שנבעה, מן הסתם, מחידוד האבחנה המשפטית.", + "המבשל בשבת", + "בהמשך מסופר ש\"רב כד הוה מורי בחבורתיה מורי כרבי מאיר, בציבורא כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר\" (ירו', מא ע\"ג), אם כן, בציבור פסק רב כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר המחמיר, אך לתלמידיו הורה להקל יותר. בסיפור זה ברור מרכיב הקנס, ועל חבורת התלמידים אין צריך לאיים בקנס. אם כן, בעברות חמורות לא ייאכל תמיד, ובעברות קלות יותר כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר. בבבלי מובא סיפור על תנא ששנה במשנתנו כרבי מאיר, ורב השתיקו בנזיפה קלה ותיקנו כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר (בבלי, חולין טו ע\"א). הגמרא תמהה כיצד ניתן להשתיק תנא המצטט את רבי מאיר; ברם, רב לא תיקן את הגרסה אלא את ההלכה, שכן הוא סבור שברבים יש לפסוק כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר. אם כן, התשובה לשאלת הגמרא היא כי אכן רב \"מצנזר\" כביכול את הברייתא. כך נהג רב גם במקרים אחרים25אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 208. .", + "במשנתנו שנויים הדברים בסתם, ב\"שוגג יאכל\". רוב הראשונים פירשו שמשנתנו כרבי מאיר. ברם, מן הראוי להעיר שבמשנתנו כל אבחנות המשנה חסרות, וכאילו כל אלו גובשו רק בשלב מתקדם יותר של ההיסטוריה ההלכתית, בדור אושא בלבד. ", + "בספרות הבתר-אמוראית עולה האבחנה בין עבודת ישראל לעבודת גוי. אבחנה זו יונקת במידת מה ממשנת שבת פכ\"ג מ\"ה שציטטנו, ובה מדובר על חליל שהובא בשבת על ידי גוי. ברם, יש להבין שהמשנה מדברת בהווה, שכן אין זה רגיל שיהודי יביא חליל בשבת, ואין בכך נפקא מינה הלכתית. מכל מקום, התפתחות זו מצויה מחוץ לתחום דיוננו26הנושא עולה במשנה, מעשר שני פ\"א מ\"ה; תרומות פ\"ט מ\"א; ערלה פ\"ג מ\"ז. .", + "הבעיה של האפשרות ליהנות מעבודה בשבת, מתרומה, מעשר או מעברות אחרות נידונה רבות בהלכה התנאית והאמוראית. בולט בה המרכיב של קנס, וממילא לא בכל המקרים קנסו באותה מידה. המחלוקת המשיכה בתקופת האמוראים. חלקו בה חכמי בבל, וכבר ראינו את עמדתו של רב, והגבלות (חומרות) נוספות. בארץ ישראל פסק רבי יוחנן כמשנה, ורב חסדא ועורכי הסוגיות התרעמו על כך: \"הותרו השבתות?!\" (ירו', שבת פ\"ג ה\"א, ה ע\"ד). מכל מקום התלמודים הוסיפו מגבלה עקרונית חשובה של המתנה במוצאי שבת, \"בכדי שייעשה\" (\"ייעשו\"). המשך השתלשלותה של הלכה זו כבר אינו נוגע לענייננו.", + "במשנת קידושין נשאלת שאלה דומה במי שקידש בקודשים, והשתמש אפוא בכסף שהשימוש בו אסור למטרות קידושין. \"המקדש בחלקו, בין קדשי קדשים בין קדשים קלים, אינה מקודשת. במעשר שני, בין שוגג בין מזיד לא קדש, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג לא קדש, במזיד קדש, ובהקדש במזיד קדש ובשוגג לא קדש, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג קדש במזיד לא קדש\" (משנה, קידושין פ\"ב מ\"ח). במשנה בולטת אי האחידות; ההלכה תלויה במהות העברה ובחומרתה, ברוח הדברים של רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה (תוס', פ\"ב הט\"ז). את המשנה במסכת קידושין נבאר במקומה, אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת, אך כבר עתה ברור שאין בין שני התנאים מחלוקת אחת אחידה אלא הדברים תלויים בחומרת העברה, בחשש שמא יהלכו בעקבות העבריין, וכנראה גם במרכיב נוסף. אם עשה זאת בשוגג – הרי המעשה הוא בבחינת מיקח טעות, ואם במזיד – המעשה מעשה, וכמובן גם העברה חמורה יותר. אך יש מי שלדעתו במזיד המעשה אינו מעשה. ", + "נושא אחר, קרוב לפרשתנו, הוא מי שטימא פֵרות של אחר, או ניסך יין של אחר. במשנה הכלל ברור: \"בשוגג פטור במזיד חייב\" (גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ד). לא נאמר האם המעשה קיים, כלומר האם היין הוא יין נסך. יש להניח שמי שאומר ש\"במזיד חייב\" אומר שהמעשה מעשה, והיין יין נסך, אחרת על מה הוא חייב, הרי לא גרם נזק. אבל מי שאומר \"בשוגג פטור\" – האם הדבר נובע מכך שאין היין נפסל, או שמא היין נפסל אך זה נזק בשגגה ופטור? הבבלי, למשל, מפרש שם (נג ע\"א) שזה \"נזק שאינו ניכר\", מונח שהוא אמוראי בלבד. מכל מקום לדעתו נזק יש שם, כלומר המעשה מעשה לכל הדעות, כמו בתוספתא שלנו (פ\"ד ה\"א). הדברים מקבילים והפוכים ממשנתנו, שכן שם מדובר במי שעשה נגד רצון הבעלים, ואצלנו ברצון הבעלים. המשנה והתוספתא שם מדגישות שהדבר נעשה משום תיקון העולם (משנה, שם; תוס', פ\"ד [ג] ה\"ד). לא ברור מה הייתה ההלכה שלפני \"תיקון העולם\", ובירושלמי יש מחלוקת על כך (גיטין שם, מז ע\"א, וכן בבלי, נג ע\"א). אבל בתלמוד הבבלי מובאת ברייתא שלפיה המשנה היא כרבי יהודה, ורבי מאיר אומר שבשניהם חייב (שם ע\"ב). ניתן להעמיד את המחלוקת סביב הנושא העקרוני האם מעשה בחטא הוא מעשה לכל דבר, או שהוא מתבטל. אך ניתן גם להעמיד את הדברים סביב שאלת היקף הקנס. מכל מקום, מהמשנה שם משמע שהפרי עצמו אסור או טמא, והמחלוקת היא רק בשאלת הפיצוי שצריך לתת לבעלים." + ], + [ + "אין תורמין מימין על שאינו מינו – העיקרון הוזכר ונידון לעיל. ברם, עד עתה עסקנו במקרים שאינם שני מינים ממש: טמא וטהור, שלבי עיבוד שונים וכיוצא באלו. במשנה נדון הדין המקורי, בשני מינים שהם שונים ממש, כגון תרומה מתירוש על יצהר27בירו', מא ע\"ד, מובאת דרשה; בנוסח הרש\"ס הדרשה טובה ומובנת יותר, אך ספק אם זה נוסח או תיקון. בספרי דברים, קסו, עמ' 215, יש דרשה שונה במקצת. ראו עוד בבלי, בכורות נג ע\"ב. , ואם תרם אין תרומתו תרומה – יש להניח שתרומתו אינה תרומה לא רק בגלל הקושי לחשב את כמות המעשרות, אלא בגלל העיקרון שמכל יבול יש לתרום ולעשר, ואין זו רק התחשבנות כספית אלא מעשה של קודש המתיר לאכילה פרי שתרמו ממנו.", + "כל מין חיטים אחד – אבל אם תרם משני זנים של חיטים זה על זה תרומתו תרומה. כך, על כל פנים, מפרש הירושלמי (מא ע\"ג-ע\"ד) המצטט לשם כך מדרשי הלכה. ", + "כל מין תאינים אחד – החידוש גדול יותר, משום שמשרעת המינים בתאנים גדולה יותר והשוני בפֵרות ובזמן האסיף גדול יותר מאשר במינים אחרים.", + "כל מין תאינים [ו]גרוגרות [ו]דבילה אחד – תאנים אכלו באחד משלושה מצבים: תאנים טריות, גרוגרות, שהן תאנים מיובשות, או דבלה, שהן תאנים מיובשות ודחוסות לאחר שרייה במי פֵרות. בחירת צורת העיבוד הייתה הכרעה של בעל הבית לפי צרכיו, ולא לפי סוג התאנים.", + " ותורם מזה על זה – משום שכל התאנים מין אחד. \"גמר המלאכה\" לצורך תרומות הוא האסיף, ולכן אין כאן בעיה של תרומה מפרי שטרם נגמרה מלאכתו. תאנים שונות בכך מזיתים או מענבים, ששם שמענו על הגבלות על תרומה של זיתי שמן על זיתי מאכל (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ח).", + "עם כל זאת נותרה בעיית החישוב, כיצד מעריכים מעשר מהיבול בתאנים מגדלים שונים. על כך עונה התוספתא המשלימה את המשנה: \"תורמין תאנים על הגרוגרות במדה וגרוגרות על תאנים במניין...\" (פ\"ד ה\"א; ירו', מא ע\"ד). לתאנים הטריות נפח גדול יותר מגרוגרות ולכן מעשר בתאנים טריות משמעו מעשר רב יותר, ולהפך אם מעשר מהגרוגרות, שכן גרוגרת יקרה יותר מתאנה. צריך, אפוא, לעשר מהיקר יותר. אבל רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: \"סלי תאנים וסלי גרוגרות כולן שוין\" (תוספתא וירושלמי שם ושם). בירושלמי מובאים כמה סיפורים על תנאים ואמוראים שנהגו כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל. משנתנו, כנראה, כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, או שאין היא עוסקת בשאלת המדידה. הסברנו את הדברים במעשר, שלכל הדעות צריך למדוד, אבל לגבי תרומה יש מחלוקת האם צריך לתרום במדויק או באומד, וודאי שגם באומד יוצאים ידי חובה (ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"ז). אבל המשך המשנה מדבר על תרומה (הניתנת לכהן), על כן קרוב לפרש שמשנתנו עוסקת בתרומה, והיא נוקטת בדעה שיש לתת תרומה בכמות מינימלית כמפורש להלן (פ\"ד מ\"ג), או שהיא עוסקת גם בתרומת מעשר שבוודאי יש לתת במדויק.", + "משנתנו סוברת שכל התאנים מין אחד, ברם היו כנראה גם גישות אחרות. להלן נראה שיש דעה שיש לתרום את כלכלת התאנים שלוש פעמים בשנה, כל פעם על עונת קטיף אחרת (להלן פ\"ד מ\"ו), וקשה לתאם בין המשניות. גם בספרי זוטא מובאת דרשה מדוע אין לתרום ממין אחר, שלא יתרום מן הרע על היפה (ספרי זוטא לבמדבר, יח כט, עמ' 299). אפשר להסביר שהספרי מקביל רק לרישא של המשנה, ויודה בתאנים, אך הנימוק של תרומה מהרע על היפה מטה את הדעת שהספרי אוסר על תרומה ממין אחר בכל מקרה, גם בתאנים, כמו המשנה להלן ובניגוד למשנתנו. הכלל של תרומה מהרע על היפה יידון להלן מ\"ו, ושם נראה כי גם הוא עצמו שנוי במחלוקת28ראו עוד משנה, מעשר שני פ\"ה הי\"א ופירושנו לה. גם שם האיסור ממין על שאינו מינו הוא כללי, ללא כל הסתייגות או הגבלה, אך שם אולי הדין רק מקוצר. .", + "כל מקום שיש כהן תורם מן היפה – אם הכהן נמצא קרוב והוא מקבל את התרומה מיד יש לתת לו פרי יפה.", + "כל מקום שאינו כהן תורם מן המתקיים – אם הכהן אינו קרוב יש להעניק לו פרי שיחזיק מעמד זמן רב. בכל מקרה מותר לתת כתרומה, כמעשר, או כתרומת מעשר כל פרי שהוא סביר וראוי לאכילה, אבל עדיף לתת פרי יפה. כך גם בדיני ברכות: על כל אוכל צריך לברך, אך נהגו לברך תחילה על האוכל המשובח יותר. ניתן לפרש את המשנה כהמשך הקטע הקודם. בבחירה בין תאנים וגרוגרות, אם הכהן נמצא עדיף לתת לו פרי יפה (תאנים משובחות), ואם אינו נמצא בכפר ושולחים לו את התאנים רחוק יותר, עדיף לתת לו פרי משתמר. אבל כפי שנראה במשנה הבאה הכלל חל גם על מצבים אחרים באותו המין עצמו.", + "רבי יהודה אומר לעולם הוא תורם מן היפה – התרומה צריכה להיות מהמיטב, והגדרת המיטב היא אובייקטיבית ואינה תלויה במצב המשתנה. ", + "הכוהנים היו פרוסים בכפרים השונים, ורבים מהם היו מרוכזים בכפרי המשמרות. כפרי המשמרות היו כפרים (\"עיירות\" בלשון התלמוד) שבהם התגוררו כוהנים רבים מאותה משמרת. בחלקם היו הכוהנים רוב גדול או מיעוט חשוב. עם זאת, רבים מהכוהנים התגוררו גם מחוץ לכפרי המשמרות, ובכתובות קבר ניתן למצוא כוהנים במקומות שונים ורבים. משנתנו משקפת מצב שבו יש כפרים שאין בהם כוהנים." + ], + [ + "תורמים בצל קטן שלם – על חצי בצל גדול, אבל לא חצי בצל גדול – על בצל אחר שלם. כפשוטה משנתנו מדגימה את הכלל של המשנה הקודמת שתורם מן המתקיים; משפט זה הולם את דברי תנא קמא, ורבי יהודה חולק עליו. הפרי היפה הוא הבצל הגדול שהמרקם שלו אוורירי יותר, אבל בעל הבית אינו חייב להפריש בצל גדול שלם אלא רק חצי. על כן קובעת המשנה שאם אין כהן הוא נותן מ\"המתקיים\", כלומר בצל קטן ושלם, שעמידותו גבוהה יותר.", + "רבי יהודה אומר לא כי אלא חצי בצל גדול – רבי יהודה אומר שנותן תמיד מן היפה ולכן מפריש בצל גדול, למרות החשש שעד שיגיע לידי הכהן יירקב. העמדנו את המחלוקת סביב השאלה מה עדיף, \"יפה או מתקיים\", והרמב\"ם פירש שהמחלוקת היא האם בצל קטן יפה מגדול או להפך, וכן פירש את המחלוקת הבאה, שבצלים הכופרים הם קטנים ובני מדינה גדולים. לפירוש זה אין סיוע. אדרבה, דומה שאצלנו המחלוקת קשורה לעובדה שמהבצל הגדול יפרישו חצי, וכמו שאמרנו. ", + "וכן היה רבי יהודה אומר תורמים בצלים בני מדינה על הכופרים אבל לא כופרים על בני מדינה – המדובר בשני סוגי בצלים, \"בני מדינה\" בניגוד לבצלי כפר, מן הסתם הכוונה לבצלי בר שהיו יפים פחות. לכן מותר לתרום מהיפה על הרע, אך לא להפך. הנימוק המסביר הוא: מפני שהוא מאכל פוליטיקים – הבצל המכונה \"בן מדינה\" הוא המאכל המקובל על בני הפוליס (\"פוליטיקים\"), הצורכים אוכל ברמה גבוהה יותר מהכפריים. מן הסתם המינוח \"בצל בני מדינה\" בא משום שאוכלים אותו בני מדינה, בניגוד לבצל כופרי שאוכלים אותו בני הכפר. בהקשר של משנתנו יש להבין שבצלי הכפר היו קטנים וקשים יותר, ולכן הם בבחינת פרי מתקיים, ורבי יהודה לשיטתו.", + "בלשון חכמים \"כפר\" הוא היישוב הכפרי הקטן, ו\"כפרי\" הוא שם נרדף לבור וחסר תרבות עירונית (ראו פירושנו למגילה פ\"א מ\"א). \"מדינה\" היא מונח שיש לו משמעויות מספר. בדרך כלל הוא מופיע בניגוד למקדש או לירושלים, כך למשל \"פירות בירושלם ומעות במדינה\" (משנה, מעשר שני פ\"ג מ\"ד ועוד הרבה). לעתים מדינה היא אזור או מחוז, אך במקורות מספר היא הפוליס היוונית. כך, למשל, מדובר על חנויות המעלות שכר למדינה, כלומר חנות השייכת לפוליס, ולפי ההקשר שם מדובר בפוליס הפגנית (תוס', עבודה זרה פ\"ו ה\"א). מהפסוק המזכיר את המדינה לומדים חכמים על קריאת מגילה ב\"כרך\", שהוא מונח אחר לפוליס הנכרית (תוס', מגילה פ\"א ה\"א, וראו פירושנו למגילה פ\"א מ\"א). ה\"מדינה\" בערבית וה\"מדינתא\" בארמית הן התרגום לפוליס. זו בדרך כלל הפוליס היוונית, ואולי גם סתם יישוב גדול ומפותח.", + "שני סוגי הבצלים הללו נזכרים במקורות. המשנה מזכירה את בצלי הסריסין (שביעית פ\"ב מ\"ט, וראו פירושנו לה). התלמוד מסביר שבצלים סריסים הם בצלים שאינם עושים זרע, והם בצלים כופריים (ירו', שם לד ע\"א). המדובר שם בבצלים שמשקים אותם, אך אין אלו בצלי בר אלא בצלים בני תרבות. בצל כופרי נחשב כטוב ל\"לב\" (משנה, נדרים פ\"ט מ\"ח ומקבילותיה). בצלים בני מדינה גם הם נזכרים. בכתובת רחוב ובירושלמי הם נזכרים כאחד המינים האסורים בבית שאן, שכן הם גדלים מחוץ לשטח שהותר ממצוות התלויות בארץ29זוסמן, כתובת, שורה 4; ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ג. ." + ], + [ + "ותורמין זיתי שמן על זיתי כבש – זיתי שמן הם זיתים המיועדים לעצירת שמן, וזיתי כבש מיועדים לכבישה כדי לשמש כזיתי אכילה. כפי שאמרנו, לעתים יועדו אותם זיתים לשמן או לכבישה, אבל בדרך כלל זיתי מאכל היו זן שונה של זיתים30ראו הרע\"ב ורבי יהוסף אשכנזי כפי שמצטטו בעל מלאכת שלמה. רבי יהוסף אשכנזי הגיע לפירושנו בדרך עיונו, אף שאין בדבריו הכרה של המציאות החקלאית. . המשנה מבוססת על ההנחה שזיתי כבש טובים פחות, על כן מותר לתרום מן היפה על הרע, אבל לא להפך, אבל לא זיתי כבש על זיתי שמן – שכן זיתי מאכל הם זן טוב פחות, והם בבחינת \"רע על יפה\". בתוספתא (פ\"ד ה\"ב) מוזכרים \"זיתי קלופסין\", והיא מילה יוונית (kolumbas – κολúµβασ) שמשמעה זית צף, והכוונה לזית כבוש הצף ברוטב שלו31ליברמן, עמ' 333, ופירושנו שונה במקצת משלו. , כדוגמה לזיתי כבש. עוד מובא בתוספתא שרבי יהודה חולק ואומר שתורמים גם מקלופסין על זיתי שמן, כלומר מהרע על היפה. כן מובא שם שאין לתרום מן הצלול (יין צלול) על יין שאינו צלול, ורבי יהודה שוב חולק: \"ובלבד שיתרום מן היפה\", כלומר מותר לתרום מן \"הרע\" על \"היפה\", אבל גם \"הרע\" צריך להיות יפה בפני עצמו. לעמדתו של רבי יהודה נחזור להלן. בירושלמי (מא ע\"ד) מובאת מחלוקת רבי ורבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי האם מותר לתרום מיין על החומץ. משנתנו קרובה לשיטת רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי האוסר, ואם כך לפנינו דוגמה נוספת למשנה שאינה כשיטת רבי, וחכם נוסף המתיר לתרום מן הרע על היפה ואולי גם ממין על שאינו מינו.", + "ויין שאינו מבושל על המבשל אבל לא מבשל על שאינו מבושל – יין מבושל הוא אותו סוג של תוצרת, אלא שבושל בחום נמוך יחסית. הבישול עוצר את תהליכי התסיסה וכאילו מקפיא את ההתפתחות הפנימית של תאי הפרי. יין חי ככל שהוא ישן יותר טעמו משתבח; יין מבושל אינו משתבח יותר, אך כמובן גם אינו מתקלקל. יין מבושל נחשב לטעים פחות וטוב פחות, וכך גם היום. הוא אינו נחשב ליין נסך מתוך הנחה שאין משתמשים בו לניסוך (תוס', פ\"ד הי\"ד), ויש להדגיש שהוא כשר לשתיית יין מצווה (בקידוש או בליל הסדר), וזו עדות לכך שטיבו מפוקפק (ירו', שבת פ\"ח ה\"א, יא ע\"א; פסחים פ\"י ה\"א, לז ע\"ג ומקבילות נוספות). להלן שנינו: \"אין מבשלים יין שלתרומה מפני שהוא ממעיטו, רבי יהודה מתיר מפני שהוא משביחו\" (פי\"א מ\"א). אם כן, המחלוקת היא האם בישול היין הוא השבחתו או קלקולו. פירשנו \"ממעיט\" כמוריד מערכו, אבל אפשר גם לפרש שהכוונה להפחתת הכמות עקב הבישול, ובכך נחלקים אמוראי ארץ ישראל (מא ע\"ד). ברם, כפי שנראה בפירושנו להלן32להלן פי\"א מ\"א. , נימוק זה נאמר רק כהסבר למשנה הראשונה בפרק יא (ירו', מז ע\"ג), והועבר לסוגייתנו אף שאצלנו אין כלל הפחתת כמות. ההגבלה על תרומת יין מבושל נובעת, אפוא, מכך שיין זה טוב פחות, והיא מעין האיסור להפריש מהיפה על שאינו יפה. מכל מקום, השבחת היין אינה אובייקטיבית; לא תמיד יין מבושל טוב יותר, אבל הוא טוב יותר עבור אותו אדם הרוצה בכך. בוודאי היו שהעדיפו את היין המבושל שהיה חריף פחות וחי פחות. מכל מקום, אולי יין חי טעים יותר למרבית האנשים, אבל ברור שהאדם המיוחד שמדובר בו כאן רוצה ביין מבושל, אחרת לא היה רוצה לבשלו. השאלה היא, אפוא, האם השחתת תרומה היא מושג מוחלט הנקבע לפי דעת רוב בני אדם (בבחינת \"בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם\"), או שמא נקבע הדבר לפי רצונו של בעל היין באותו זמן ובאותם תנאים מיוחדים.", + "בירושלמי אומר רבי יוחנן \"דרבי יודה היא\" (מא ע\"ד), ומצטט את משנת תרומות להלן. אנו מפרשים את דבריו כביטוי לכך שרבי יהודה חולק על משנתנו, או שהוא התייחס לעמדתו החולקת של רבן שמעון בן גמליאל שבתוספתא, ובהמשך דברי רבי אלעזר המנסה לתרץ את ההבדל. ", + "יין מבושל ושאינו מבושל הם בבחינת מין על שאינו מינו, אבל אלו מינים קרובים על כן מותר לתרום מזה על זה, ובלבד שלא יהא זה מן הרע על היפה. ", + "כאמור רבי יהודה חולק על ההנחה שיין מבושל טוב פחות, אך עדיין ניתן להעמיד את דעתו כמחלוקת מצומצמת על טיבו של יין מבושל. ברם, קשה להניח שהמחלוקת היא סביב שאלה מציאותית, מה טיבו של יין מבושל. נראה, אפוא, שרבי יהודה סבור שלכל אדם שיקולים פרטיים משלו. יש המעדיף יין מבושל ויש המעדיף יין אחר. זו כבר גישה עקרונית, שלמעשה אין כל \"רע\" ו\"יפה\" אלא לכל מין עדיפויות אחרות. עמדה זו קרובה לעמדת בית שמאי שמותר לתרום מסוג אחד על משנהו33לדעתנו אין קשר בין עמדה זו של רבי יהודה לבין העמדה התובעת להתעלם משאלת ה\"מתקיים\" (לעיל מ\"ד). הקשר היחיד הוא שבשתי המשניות רבי יהודה תובע שיתרום מן היפה, אך לא שיעדיף מן היפה על משהו אחר. זאת בניגוד מה לליברמן, עמ' 340. . להלן נראה שרבי אלעאי חולק על ההגבלה שאין לתרום מן הרע על היפה. רבי אלעאי היה אביו ומורו של רבי יהודה, ותלמידו של רבי אליעזר השמותי (המהלך בשיטת בית שמאי). על כן נראה שלפנינו שרשרת של חכמים המהלכים בשיטת בית שמאי: רבי אליעזר (לעיל מ\"א), רבי אלעאי (להלן) ורבי יהודה. בתוספתא (פ\"ד ה\"ד) מובאים גם דבריו של רבן שמעון בן גמליאל החולק על משנתנו ומתיר לתרום מיין שאינו מבושל על המבושל. לא ברור האם הוא חולק על הכלל ומהלך בשיטת בית שמאי, או שדבריו נאמרו רק לעניין היין, וכרבי יהודה שיין מבושל אינו בבחינת \"רע\"34ליברמן סבור שההלכה שאין תורמים יין מבושל על שאינו מבושל, המצויה גם במשנתנו, היא דברי רבי יהודה, אך אין הוא מנמק טיעון זה. .", + "בשני הפרקים האחרונים שזורה עמדת בית שמאי שנדחתה מהמשנה, אך נותרו ממנה שרידים. בדרכם מהלכים רבי אליעזר, רבי אלעאי, רבי יהודה ובמידת מה גם רבי יוסי, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ובנו רבי יהודה הנשיא. עמדתם של בית שמאי לא נדחתה, אפוא, לחלוטין, היו חכמים שדבקו בה, והיו שקלטו מרכיבים ממנה ושיבצו אותם בתפיסתם ההלכתית. בספרות חז\"ל מוצגת התמונה כאילו ההלכה נפסקה כמעט תמיד כבית הלל, ברם כבר הערנו שזו תמונה כוללת בלבד, ובפועל היו נושאים רבים שעמדתם של בית שמאי התקבלה בהם במידה מלאה או חלקית35ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. . במשנת בכורות (פ\"ט מ\"ח) מהלכת סתם המשנה בשיטת בית שמאי, והקדשת מעשר הבהמה שנעשתה בטעות ושלא לפי הכללים תופסת. ", + "זה הכלל – \"זה הכלל\" הוא בדרך כלל ניסוח מאוחר הכולל פרטים. הוא מופיע כמשפט עצמאי או כפתיחה, או כסיכום לסדרת פרטים. במקרה זה הכלל הוא סיכום של ההלכות הקודמות. ", + "כל שהוא כלאים בחבירו לא יתרום מזה על זה – המשנה באה להציע הגדרה בוטנית ל\"מין\" על שאינו \"מינו\", ומשתמשת בהגדרת המינים המקובלת בדיני כלאיים. כל זוג הנחשב לכלאיים הוא מין בשאינו מינו, ומין שאינו כלאיים זה בזה הוא בבחינת מין אחד. המשנה מפנה בזאת למשניות הראשונות של מסכת כלאים המונות את רשימת המינים השונים. כל הדוגמאות להלן הן מאותה רשימה בראש מסכת כלאים. עם זאת, אי אפשר להוכיח שימוש של משנת תרומות במשנת כלאים. בעל ההלכה שלנו הכיר את ההלכות של מסכת כלאים, אך ייתכן שהכיר אותן מקובץ הלכות קדומות ולא מהמשנה הערוכה שבידינו36להשוואה בין תרומות לכלאים וחלה ראו דברינו בפירושנו לכלאים פ\"א מ\"א, ובעיקר לחלה פ\"ד מ\"ב. .", + "אפילו מן היפה על הרע – לכאורה הכהן מרוויח מהתרומה של מין על שאינו מינו, אבל העיקרון של האיסור לערבב מינים כוחו יפה יותר, ועל שאינו כלאים בחבירו – בכל עדי הנוסח \"וכל\", כלומר שני המינים קרובים ביותר, תורם מן היפה על הרע אבל לא מן הרע על היפה ואם תרם מן הרע על היפה תרומתו תרומה – כפי שראינו לעיל נקטה עד עתה המשנה בעמדה שאין לתרום מן הרע על היפה, אלא שעתה היא מוסיפה שתרומתו תרומה, כמו מי שתרם מטמא על הטהור. במשנה א ראינו מחלוקת שפירשנוה כמחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל האם מותר לכתחילה לתרום מן הטהור על הטמא, שבית שמאי מתירים ובית הלל אוסרים, אם כי בדיעבד התרומה תרומה. משנתנו מנוסחת בלשון של לכתחילה, \"תורם\", והיא קרובה יותר לדעת בית שמאי. ברם, ייתכן שבית הלל מודים במקרה זה, שהרי ה\"רע\" אינו חסר ערך כמו \"טמא\". ", + "במקורות יש מחלוקת ברורה בנושא של התרומה מהרע על היפה. התלמוד הבבלי מצטט ברייתא בשם רבי אלעא (אלעאי): \"מיכן לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה\"37בבלי, יבמות פט ע\"ב; קידושין מו ע\"ב; בבא בתרא פד ע\"ב; קמג ע\"א; תמורה ה ע\"א. . הדרשות המובאות שם אינן מקור ההלכה, אבל עמדתו של רבי אלעאי ברורה. בירושלמי מובאת אותה עמדה, אך ללא קשר לרבי אלעאי (ירו', חלה פ\"ד ה\"ו, ס ע\"א38ראו עוד פירושנו למשנת דמאי פ\"ה מ\"ג. ). כפי שאמרנו, רבי אלעאי (אביו של רבי יהודה) היה תלמיד מובהק של רבי אליעזר הקרוב לבית שמאי; בית שמאי הם המתירים לתרום מסוג אחד על סוג אחר (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ד, מ\"ח, מ\"ט ומ\"י). בדרכם הולך רבי אליעזר (לעיל מ\"א), וסביר שרבי אלעאי ממשיך בדרך זו. אם כן משנתנו כבית הלל, ובית שמאי מתירים לתרום מן הרע על היפה אף לכתחילה. כפי שראינו, גם רבי יהודה שייך לרצף זה של חכמים המהלכים בשיטת בית שמאי. ", + "חוץ מן הזונים על החיטים שאינן אוכל – במסכת כלאים (פ\"א מ\"א) נקבע שזונים וחיטים אינם כלאיים זה בזה. הזונים הם צמח בר מזיק הדומה לחיטה אך טעמו רע, ובצק אשר התערבו בתוכו מזרעיו ניזוק. זונים וחיטים אינם כלאיים לא משום שהם קרובים אלא משום שזונים אינם אוכל אלא צמח מזיק, הגדל נגד רצון הבעלים, וכפי שפירשנו את המשנה בכלאים. משנתנו באה לומר שאף על פי שאין הם כלאיים אסור לתרום מזונים על חיטים, שהרי הסיבה לכך שאין הם כלאיים היא שזונים אינם אוכל. לפי פירושנו \"אינן אוכל\" הוא ההסבר לכלאיים, והמשנה מסיבה אותו בהשאלה גם על הנושא שאנו עוסקים בו. היו מפרשים שלמדו את משנתנו שלא בזיקה למשנת כלאים, ואלו התקשו בנימוק \"שאינן אוכל\", לשם מה יש צורך בנימוק זה, הרי זונים הם פשוט מין אחר מחיטים! הרמב\"ם, למשל, הסביר שזונים הוא מין ממיני החיטה, וכאמור פירוש זה קשה מבחינה רֵאלית, ואין בו צורך39פרשנים רבים (ר\"ש, רא\"ש, מלאכת שלמה ואחרים) לא חשו בבעייתיות של הנימוק \"שאינם אוכל\" במשנתנו. .", + "הקישות והמלפפונות מין אחד רבי יהודה אומר שני מינים – שוב זו מחלוקת במסכת כלאים (פ\"א מ\"ב). תנא קמא שם וכאן סבור שהם כלאיים זה בזה, ולכן אסור גם לתרום מזה על זה, ורבי יהודה חולק ואומר שמין אחד הם ותורמים מזה על זה (ירו', מא ע\"ד).", + "המחלוקת העקרונית בין בית שמאי ובית הלל היא בשאלה האם הדיבור או ההקדשה יוצרים מעשה, או שמשום שלא נעשו כהלכה המעשה בטל. בניסוחו של הבבלי: האם אדם מוציא את דבריו לבטלה (בית הלל – בבלי, כתובות נח ע\"ב; נזיר ט ע\"א ועוד), או שאין אדם עושה כן, ואם נדר או הקדיש שלא לפי כללי ההלכה עדיין התכוון שהקדשו יהיה תקף40ראו על כך במבוא למסכת קידושין. (איור 13)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "התורם קישות ונימצאת מרה – הקישות אינו הקישוא של ימינו. הקישוא הוא אחד הירקות שהגיעו לאירופה ולמזרח התיכון רק בשלהי המאה השש עשרה, מאמריקה, על כן ודאי אינו מתאים כזיהוי לקישות. היו שהציעו לזהות את הקישות עם קישוא הגינה, המכונה כיום מלפפון1ראו דיונו של פליקס, כלאים, עמ' 51-50. . בארמית שימש השם \"קתא\", וכך גם מתורגמת המילה \"קשואים\" בתרגום יונתן2תרגום יונתן לבמדבר יא ה. . הקתא הוא מסוגי המלון. זיהוי זה אינו מסביר את כל האזכורים והתיאורים של פרי זה בספרות חז\"ל3כך, למשל, נאמר שהקישוא (קישות) הוא פרי שנאכל ליום אחד והמלפפון נשמר שלושה ימים (תוס', תרומות פ\"ד ה\"ה). לכאורה בתחום זה של שימור הפרי אין הבדל בין המילון והקתא. גם המימרה שתצוטט להלן, שאוכלים את הפֵרות הללו מבושלים, אינו מתאים. במשנה מעשרות (פ\"א מ\"ה) נקבע שגמר המלאכה של קישות ומלפפון הוא פיקוס, ואילו של אבטיח שליקה. כפי שנראה בפירושנו שם הכוונה להסרת השערות שעל הפרי, או העוקץ הדק שלו באבטיח. . מכל מקום, מההקשר ברור שקישות מרה אינה ראויה למאכל.", + "אבטיח ונימצאת סרוח – האבטיח הוא האבטיח בן ימינו, וסרוח הוא רקוב. הירושלמי למקום אומר שקישות מרה הייתה תמיד פסולה למאכל, אבל אבטיח סרוח היה ראוי למאכל לפני שסרח, על כן נראה שסרוח הוא פשוט רקוב. כמובן אי אפשר לדעת האם האבטיח ראוי למאכל עד שייפתח, תרומה ויחזור ויתרום – כפי שנראה להלן בכל המקרים שבהם נקבע \"תרומה ויחזור ויתרום\" זו תרומה מספק (ירו', מב ע\"א; יבמות פט ע\"א)4הבבלי שם מדגיש שזו תרומת ספק רק אם זה בשוגג, אבל במזיד אין תרומתו תרומה. אבחנה זו שאובה מהמשנה לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ב). ברם, כבר הערנו (לעיל בפירושנו לפ\"א מ\"א) שלא כל המקורות עושים שימוש בהבחנה זאת, ואיננו יודעים אם זו הייתה מקובלת עליהם. .", + "התורם חבית של יין ונמצאת שלחומץ – היין החמיץ, ולא שנועד להיות חומץ מלכתחילה, אם ידוע שהיתה שלחומץ עד שלא תרמה אינה תרומה – אפשר היה להסביר את האיסור בכך שצריך לתרום מן היפה ואי אפשר לתרום חומץ על יין, שכן זו תרומה מן הרע על היפה5כך יוצא מסוגיית הבבלי, בבא בתרא פד ע\"ב, אם כי הדבר לא נאמר במפורש ורק משתמע מעריכת הסוגיה. זאת אף שהבבלי גם מזכיר את עניין שני המינים, וסוגיית הבבלי לא ראתה כנראה הבדל בין ההגדרות השונות. מכל מקום, הבבלי מנסה לקשר את משנתנו לשאלות בתחום קנייה ומכירה (מי שקנה יין ונמצא של חומץ וכו'). הבבלי דוחה בצדק את ההשוואה. . נושא זה נידון במשנה הקודמת, וראינו שהאיסור אינו חד-משמעי ויש החולקים עליו. מכל מקום, התוספתא מסבירה שהאיסור הוא משום שחומץ ויין הם שני מינים, וזו דעתו של רבי (תוס', פ\"ד ה\"ז). כידוע ערך רבי את המשנה, אבל דעותיו האישיות אינן נזכרות בדרך כלל במשנה. אדרבה, מצינו משניות רבות סתומות (ללא שם תנא) שאינן כדעתו של רבי המופיעה במקבילות, אבל במקרה שלפנינו משנתנו היא כרבי. בתוספתא לא נזכר מי החולק על רבי, והם מכונים סתם \"חכמים\". אין אלו בית שמאי המקלים בתרומה של מין על שאינו במינו (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"ב מ\"א), שכן כאן המחלוקת היא האם יין וחומץ הם שני מינים או מין אחד, ולכל הדעות אין תורמים ממין על משנהו. אבל דעתם של חכמים קרובה לבית שמאי המקלים באבחנות שבין המינים. בתוספתא הקודמת מנוסחת אותה הלכה באופן שונה: \"רבי ישמעאל בי רבי יוסה אומר משם אביו תורמין יין על חומץ, ואין תורמין חומץ על יין. אפילו תורמין, אין תורמין אלא לפי חשבון\" (פ\"ד ה\"ו)6\"לפי חשבון\" משמעו שאין להעריך את שווי החומץ ולתרום חומץ שערכו הכספי אחד חלקי שישים או ארבעים מערך היין. כמות התרומה תבורר להלן פ\"ד מ\"ג. . הניסוח של ההלכה קשה. אם נאמר שאין תורמין, מה פירוש אפילו תורמין? ייתכן שכוונתו היא שאם עבר ותרם תרומתו תרומה, וכן פירשו בירושלמי (כלאים פ\"א ה\"א, כה ע\"ד), ובניסוח אחר שההלכה היא לכתחילה, ובדיעבד תרומתו תרומה. אפשר גם שכוונת התוספתא היא להלכה שבמשנה, אם תרם ורק אחר כך התברר שהיין החמיץ ואין ידוע מתי החמיץ. מכל מקום חשוב להעיר שרבי יוסי מקבל את הדעה שאין תורמים מחומץ על יין, אף שבנושא זה הוא משקף גם מעט מהתפיסות של בית שמאי (ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"ד). לדעתנו סביר יותר שדברי רבי בתוספתא (ומשנתנו) הם לפי הדעה שאם תרם מחומץ על יין תרומתו תרומה ויחזור ויתרום, כדעת בית הלל והמשנה לעיל פ\"א מ\"ח.", + "מבחינת המשנה ההלכה שבתוספתא היא החוליה המקשרת בין שני חלקי המשנה. המשנה כמות שהיא לפנינו מניחה בפשטות שאין תורמים חומץ על יין, הנחה שהיא כאמור לדעת רבי ורבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי, ולא לדעת \"חכמים\". אבל ההלכה עצמה בדבר איסור תרומה מעין זו לא נאמרה אלא בתוספתא. במקרה זה בהחלט ייתכן שעורך התוספתא הביא ברייתא מוכרת כדי לגשר על הפער ולפרש את הנחת היסוד של המשנה, ברם ייתכן גם שעורך התוספתא מלקט ממשנה קדומה וערוכה כהלכה.", + "הדיון כאן הוא האם חומץ ויין הם מין אחד או לא. שאלה דומה מתעוררת גם בתחומים הלכתיים אחרים, כגון בדיני מכירה. למרות הדמיון במינוח אין להקיש מתחום המעשרות על תחומים אחרים (בבלי, בבא בתרא פד ע\"ב והר\"ש למשנתנו).", + "אם משתרמה החמיצה הרי זו תרומה – בשעת התרומה היין היה טוב, אם ספק – לא ידוע מתי בדיוק החמיץ היין, תרומה ויחזור ויתרום – מתוך ספק הוא תורם פעמיים, הראשונה אינה מדמעת בפני עצמה – פתרון זה נזכר פעמים מספר בפרק הקודם, אך עתה המשנה מגדירה ביתר דיוק את טיבו של הפתרון. תרומה בשנית נובעת מספק, ושתי התרומות הן ספק. הראשונה ספק אם התרומה כשרה, והשנייה ספק אם היא כשרה שכן היא תרומה אחר תרומה, ואף זה נאסר (להלן משנה ג). פירוש המונח \"מדמעת\" יוסבר להלן במשנה הבאה.", + "ואין חייבין עליה חומש וכן השנייה – אם אכל את התרומה בטעות חייב לשלם לכהן את מחיר התרומה וקנס נוסף בערך של חמישית מהפרי. אין משלמים חומש על ספק תרומה. " + ], + [ + "המשנה היא הסבר ישיר למשפט האחרון של המשנה הקודמת, כאילו היה כתוב \"כיצד הראשונה אינה מדמעת?\". נראה שההגדרות שבמשנה נכונות ומתאימות לכל המקרים שנאמר עליהם \"יתרום ויחזור ויתרום\".", + "נפלה אחת מהן בתוך החולין אינה מדמעתן – אם נפלה סאה תרומה לערמה של חולין כל החולין הם בחזקת תרומה, על כן צריך להתייחס לכל הערמה בקדושת תרומה, אלא שהקלו חכמים ואפשרו לבעל הבית למכור לכהן את כל הערמה חוץ מאותה סאה שניתנת לו כתרומה. הכהן ישלם לבעל הבית את דמי הערמה, אך התעריף יהיה כמובן זול יותר, שכן הביקוש לפֵרות תרומה קטן הרבה יותר.", + "נפלה שנייה למקום אחר – לערמה אחרת, אינה מדמעתן – הדימוע הוא מצב של ספק, והתרומה השנייה היא ספק תרומה ואין ספק עושה ספק נוסף.", + "נפלו שתיהן למקום אחד – לאותה ערמה, מדמעות ביקטנה שבישתיהם – בקטנה שבין שתיהן. ברור שבערמה מצויה סאה של תרומה, אך לא ברור אם זו התרומה הראשונה או השנייה, על כן הערמה כולה מדומעת, כלומר ספק תרומה, אבל אנו מניחים שהתרומה היא הכמות הקטנה מבין השתיים, כך שניתן למכור את כל הערמה חוץ מדמי כמות התרומה הקטנה יותר. דיני תערובת נלמדים במשניות אחרות (ראו פירושנו לערלה פ\"א מ\"ו ומכשירין סוף פרק ב). כמו בנושאים אחרים שעמדנו עליהם במבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות ננקטות גם בנושא זה סדרת אפשרויות (רוב ומיעוט, אחד לשישים, אחד למאה, אחד למאתיים, אחד לאלף, לפי תנאי המקרה ועוד אפשרויות כיוצא באלו). ניכר שכל נושא נקבע לחוד ולא הייתה מדיניות אחידה בנושא. כל נושא נקבע לגופו, ולא נעשה ניסיון לאחד את הכללים המקומיים השונים." + ], + [ + "השותפים שתרמו זה אחר זה – המשנה מעלה תמונה רֵאלית. לשדה או למטע שני שותפים. אלו יכולים להיות אחים שירשו מטע והחליטו לא להמשיך לחיות במסגרת בית אב אלא לשמור על עצמאותו הכלכלית של כל אחד. עם זאת לא חילקו את השדה, שכן כדאי להם לעבדו במשותף. כנראה שניהם תרמו, כל אחד את מלוא הכמות מכל היבול, מבלי לדעת זה על זה (מלאכת שלמה).", + "רבי עקיבה אומר תרומות שניהם תרומה – כל אחד מהם תרם כהלכה וברשות, ואין גבול לכמות התרומה שמותר לתרום, על כן תרומת שניהם היא תרומה. כל אחד מהם נתן כאילו תרומה כפולה על חלקו, וחכמים אומרים אין תרומת השני תרומה – כך גם ב- ג6, ובעל מלאכת שלמה מביא את הנוסחה בשם \"אית דגרסי\". ברוב כתבי היד: \"תרומת הראשון תרומה\". בכמה עדי נוסח נמצאים שני המשפטים (א, ב, ט, ן). כנראה אין הבדל בין הנוסחאות, ולדעת חכמים אין תרומה אחר תרומה. הכלל שאין תרומה אחר תרומה מופיע במשנת תמורה (פ\"א מ\"ה) ובמקבילות תנאיות נוספות, ומצטייר ככלל שאין עליו עוררים7תוס', דמאי פ\"ד ה\"ה; פ\"ד הכ\"א; ספרא צו, פרשה ז ה\"ב, לה ע\"ב. מקור אחרון זה אינו מביא את הכלל להלכה אלא כתיאור של המציאות. . הבבלי הבין שבמשנתנו יש מחלוקת על הכלל, ורבי עקיבא חולק על הכלל ואומר שיש תרומה אחר תרומה. אגב כך הוא מביא את משנתנו בנוסח שונה, ושמות החולקים מתחלפים. שינוי זה אולי נרמז גם בירושלמי למשנתנו, אך אין לו הד בחילופי הנוסח בעדי הנוסח שבידינו8ירו', מב ע\"א; בבלי, תמורה יג ע\"א; אפשטיין, נוסח, עמ' 711. על בעיית הפרשנות והגרסה שם העיר כבר הר\"ש למשנתנו. .", + "הירושלמי מצמצם את המחלוקת ורואה בה ביטוי להבנות שונות בדבר ההסכמים הבלתי כתובים שבין שני שותפים: \"מה נן קיימין? (במה אנו עומדים? באיזה מקרה?) אם בממחין9בעל מלאכת שלמה מציע שהר\"ש גרס \"מומחין\". אפשר לעייל הבנה זו בתוך דברי הר\"ש, אבל לא כך הבינם הרא\"ש, ולגופו של עניין זו פרשנות קשה ודחויה. אף רבי עקיבה מודי. ואם בשאינן ממחין אוף רבנן מודיין. אלא כי נן קיימין בסתם\" (מב ע\"א). אם השותפים מוחים זה על זה ורוצים שכל אחד יפריש את מעשרותיו לחוד לאחר שהתבואה חולקה ביניהם, גם רבי עקיבא יודה שאין תרומת השני ולא כלום, משום שאין תרומה אחר תרומה10אין בירושלמי ביטוי לכך שאם \"ממחין\" אולי גם תרומת הראשון אינה תרומה, שכן זה בבחינת התורם את שאינו שלו (לעיל פ\"א מ\"א). , ואם אינם ממחים, כלומר אין הם מקפידים זה על זה ולאחד לא אכפת שחברו יפריש תרומה ויאכל לפני החלוקה, אם כן ודאי שתרומת שניהם תרומה, שהרי כל אחד תרם את שלו. אלא המחלוקת היא מה מצב היחסים של סתם שני שותפים. אם כן, שני התנאים אינם חולקים על הכלל, ולדעת הכול \"אין תרומה אחר תרומה\", והמחלוקת היא על הערכת המציאות. פירוש הירושלמי שונה, אפוא, משל הבבלי11לגרסת הירושלמי מב ע\"א ראו הר\"ש למשנתנו שהגיה את הירושלמי מסברה. . ", + "רבי יוסה אומר – רבי יוסי מציב קריטריון אחר, אולי בניגוד לקריטריון שלפיו פירש הירושלמי את המשנה, אם תרם הראשון כשיעור – כמות תרומה כנדרש, לפי המפורש להלן פ\"ד מ\"ד, אין תרומת השני תרומה – אם התרומה הראשונה כשרה ואופטימלית מבחינה כמותית היא בוודאי תרומה, ואין תרומה אחר תרומה, ואם לא תרם הראשון כשיעור תרומת השיני תרומה – אמנם תרומה קטנה מהשיעור כשרה, אבל אינה מן המובחר, על כן במקרה כזה יש תרומה אחר תרומה. התרומה השנייה נתפסת כהשלמה של התרומה, ולא כתרומה חדשה. הירושלמי שואל באיזה שיעור מדובר, האם בשיעור שקבעו חז\"ל (אחד משישים, חמישים או ארבעים) או בשיעור של התורה. המשך הירושלמי בעייתי, ואינו נוגע לפירוש המשנה. מכל מקום, אי אפשר שלא להעיר שאם מדובר על השיעור של דבר תורה אזי חיטה אחת פוטרת כרי שלם, וכמעט אין מצב של תרומה פחות משיעור זה. על כן נראה שעצם הזכרת ה\"שיעור\" משמעו שרבי יוסי מקבל את שיעורי התרומה שקבעו חכמים.", + "משנתנו עולה בקנה אחד עם ברייתא בתוספתא, בבא בתרא פ\"ח הי\"ד, הקובעת שהאפיטרופין תורמים ומעשרים, ועם משנת גיטין הקובעת שאפיטרופוס של יתומים חייב לעשר (גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ד). שותפים אינם אפיטרופסים, אבל בהמשך נראה שלפחות התלמודים קשרו את שני הדינים הללו כמקשה אחת. בשני התלמודים מובאת הדעה ששותפים שתרמו אין תרומתם תרומה, שנאמר \"אתם ולא שותפין... אתם ולא אפיטרופין\"12ירו', מ ע\"ב; גיטין פ\"ה ה\"ד, מז ע\"א; בבלי, נב ע\"א; קידושין מא ע\"ב. , ודרשה זו סותרת לכאורה את משנת תרומות ואת משנת גיטין המדברת על תרומה של שותפים. הירושלמי מתרץ שמשנת תרומות עוסקת בתרומה גדולה, והדרשה בתרומת מעשר (מ ע\"ב). תירוץ זה מתאים למשנת תרומות, אך רק מחריף את הקושיה ממשנת גיטין. בעל מלאכת שלמה לתרומות תירץ מדעתו שתרומת שותפים אינה תרומה כשהם מקפידים זה על זה. ספק אם ניתן לצמצם את הדרשה למקרה מצומצם בלבד (המקרה של הירושלמי או של בעל מלאכת שלמה). בירושלמי למשנת גיטין מתורצת סדרת תירוצים, בין השאר שכאן אפיטרופוס לשעה וכאן אפיטרופוס עולם. בלשוננו, משנתנו עוסקת באפיטרופוס ליתומים, שהוא מטבעו זמני, והדרשה עוסקת באפיטרופוס קבוע של אחוזה. בבבלי מובא תירוץ אחר שמשנתנו עוסקת בפֵרות שצריך לאכלם, ואילו הדרשה עוסקת בפֵרות המאוחסנים לטווח ארוך. תירוץ זה מתאים למשנת גיטין, אך לא לתרומות. מכל מקום, ההלכה \"אתם ולא שותפים\" היא רק אמוראית, ואולי באמת מהווה שינוי בגישה ההלכתית. מכל התירוצים נראה לנו לקבל את ההסבר שהדרשה היא באפיטרופוס של אחוזה, כך גם הסברנו את הסתירה בין משנת גיטין פ\"ה מ\"ד ומשנת שבועות פ\"ז מ\"ח13אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת, נרחיב בכך בפירושנו לגיטין פ\"ה מ\"ד ולשבועות פ\"ז מ\"ח. .", + "הבבלי בתמורה (יב ע\"ב) מנסה להעמיד את המחלוקת סביב השאלה היש תרומה אחר תרומה. ברם, מרצף המשניות ברור שהנושא של המשניות הוא תרומה שלא הורמה על ידי בעל הבית, ובלשון הירושלמי: \"פרט לתורם שאינו שלו\" (גיטין פ\"ה ה\"ד, מז ע\"א)." + ], + [ + "במי דבר אמור – המשנה מפרשת את המשנה הקודמת; במקרה שלשדה שני שותפים ושניהם תרמו תרומתם תרומה, אבל אם אחד מהם הרשה לחברו לתרום – רק תרומתו של השני תרומה. זה הסבר מאולץ במקצת, ולהלן נציע הסבר אחר. במשנתנו ברור ש\"במה דברים אמורים\" הוא פרשנות, וכן הובאו פרשנויות בסגנון כזה מהתוספתא במשניות לעיל. הבבלי מציג את השאלה כשאלה סגנונית כללית, לפחות על מימרותיו של רבי יהודה: \"והאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: כל מקום שאמר רבי יהודה אימתי ובמה במשנתנו – אינו אלא לפרש דברי חכמים\" (עירובין פא ע\"ב; פב ע\"א). המקבילה בסנהדרין כה ע\"א מוסיפה: \"רבי יוחנן אמר: אימתי – לפרש, ובמה – לחלוק\". במהלך פירושנו עסקנו במונחים אלו במשניות השונות, וראינו כי יש שהם מתארים מחלוקת ויש שהם בוודאי פרשנות (כגון פאה פ\"ז מ\"א), או שינוי הלכתי מוסכם (כגון משנת מגילה פ\"א מ\"ג). כך, למשל, במשנת שבועות (פ\"ז מ\"ו) יש מחלוקת במשנה; בתוספתא שם (פ\"ו ה\"ד) מנוסחים דברי רבי יהודה בלשון \"במה דברים אמורים\", ובתלמודים בלשון \"אימתי\" (ירו', לח ע\"א; בבלי, מח ע\"א), וברור שזו מחלוקת לכל דבר. הוא הדין במשנת עירובין (פ\"ז מי\"א) ש\"במה דברים אמורים\" בא לציין מחלוקת. במקומות אחרים שהמשפטים משובצים בהם לעתים עדיף לפרשם כמחלוקת ולעתים הם באמת פירוש. לא מצינו הבדל שיטתי בין משמעות השימוש במונח בדברי רבי יהודה, לבין משמעות שימושו בפי חכמים אחרים. ", + "מכל מקום, הבבלי מדגיש את שימושו של רבי יהודה במונחים אלו, ואכן המונח \"אימתי\" מופיע במשנה כ-55 פעמים, שליש מהן קשור לרבי יהודה. הווה אומר, חכם זה הרבה להשתמש במונח, אם כי הוא לא ייחודי לו. לעומת זאת המונח \"במה (במי) דברים אמורים\" מופיע מספר פעמים קרוב, אך רק פעמיים בשמו של רבי יהודה, ודומה שאין זה מונח ייחודי לו.", + "בשלא דבר – \"דיבר\" משמעו הרשה או הסכים, כמו \"קטן... תורם ואביו מדבר על ידיו\" (תוס', פ\"א ה\"ד)14אלבק, עמ' 386. . מהמשנה ברור ש\"לא דבר\" הוא הניגוד ל\"הירשה\", אבל הירשה את בן ביתו או את עבדו או את שפחתו לתרום תרומתו תרומה – בכך הופכים הבן או השפחה לשליח של בעל הבית. במשנה הראשונה בפרק הראשון נאמר שגוי אינו יכול להיות שליח. עבד בהקשר זה הוא עבד נכרי, שהרי עבד יהודי הוא עצמאי כפועל לכל דבר, והשפחה היא בוודאי נכרית, שהרי אין שפחה ממוצא יהודי. שני אלו קיבלו עליהם מצוות והם כיהודי למצוות רבות, או נכון יותר כאישה. ", + "\"בן בית\" בהקשר של משנתנו עשוי להיות אחד משניים: או כינוי לאישה, או למשגיח על האחוזה. נפתח בפירוש השני. באחוזות גדולות היה אפיטרופוס שניהל את האחוזה בפועל15ראו הנספח למסכת דמאי. . במשנה נאמר שניתן להשביע את בן הבית שבועה שלא שלח יד ברכוש הבעל \"שבועה שלא בטענה\", כלומר ללא טענה ספציפית על גנבה. ברשימה שם מדובר על אישה או אפיטרופוס (של יתומים) או אריס או בן בית (משנה, שבועות פ\"ז מ\"ח), והתוספתא מסבירה: \"בן בית שאמרו לא זה שנכנס ויוצא אלא מכניס פירות ומוציא פירות, שוכר פועלין ופוטר פועלין\"16תוס', כתובות פ\"ט ה\"ג; ירו', שבועות שם, לז ע\"ג; בבלי, מח ע\"ב. . במשמעות זאת נזכר גם אליעזר שהיה בן ביתו של אברהם (בראשית טו ג), ובפסוק הקודם הוא מכונה \"בן משק ביתו\", והוא הוא (בראשית טו ב). לבן הבית יש פטרון, שהוא האדון (ירו', ברכות פ\"ט ה\"א, יג ע\"א), והמדרש מספר על מלך שהשליט את בן ביתו על כל רכושו (שמות רבה, מג ו). מכאן התגלגל המונח לסתם חבר קרוב (כגון ספרי מדבר, קלא, עמ' 171 ומקורות נוספים), ובחלק גדול מהמקורות אי אפשר להבחין האם מדובר בחבר קרוב או בידיד. המעתק ברור: האפיטרופוס שפעל בבית האדון בעיר היה גם מקורב אליו, נציגו האישי לכל עיסוק, ונכנס ויצא תכופות בבית. בן בית כידיד מופיע כבר במקורות תנאיים, אך נראה שזו הרחבה של המונח הקדום המופיע כבר במקרא. במקרא בן הבית היה העבד הראשי, מונח זו הועתק לחברה היהודית שהושפעה בעניין מהחברה הרומית, והותאם למסגרת חברתית חדשה. לאחר מכן הורחב המונח. בהקשר שלנו קשה לפרש שהכוונה לחבר קרוב, שהרי בכך אין כל ייחוד. המיוחד הוא דווקא בכך שהממונה על האחוזה אינו תורם דרך קבע, אלא אם כן קיבל רשות והנחיה מבעל הבית. זאת אף על פי שהוא מנהל את כל עבודות השדה. ", + "הפירוש האחר הוא שבן ביתו הוא אשתו. בהקשר זה מופיע המונח בצורה \"בן בתו\" (בכתב יד לונדון של התוספתא \"בן ביתו\") בדיני פסח שני. מסופר שם שיוסף הכהן העלה את בן ביתו לעשות פסח שני והחזירוהו, \"שאין האשה עושה פסח שני\"17תוס', פסחים פ\"ח ה\"י; כן נזכר אולי המונח בתוס', שם פ\"י הי\"א, לפי אחת הנוסחאות של המעשה. בתוספתא לא נזכר בן הבית, אך הוא מופיע בכתב יד ערפורט ובציטוט של הראבי\"ה, וראו ליברמן לפסחים, עמ' 655. ברם, בכתב יד ערפורט נאמר רק שחייב לעסוק בהלכות הפסח אפילו בינו לבין עצמו או בינו לבין ביתו, אם כן אין מדובר על \"בן בית\" אלא על \"ביתו\", וביתו זו כידוע אשתו. . נראה שלפנינו פיתוח לשוני. כידוע \"ביתו זו אשתו\" (משנה, יומא פ\"א מ\"א וראו פירושנו לה, ומקבילות), ומכאן התגלגלה הצורה \"בן ביתו\". בהקשר של משנתנו דומה שאין לפרש שבן הבית הוא האישה. ראשית, שימוש זה נדיר ביותר, יתר על כן, מתאים יותר לצרף את האפיטרופוס לרצף של עבד ושפחה. אבל הוא הדין באישה, כפי שנראה להלן בסוף פירושנו למשנה זו.", + "בתוספתא המקבילה למשנתנו18ראו על כך להלן. נקבע שבן ואישה אינם תורמים במקום הבעל, אך מותר להם לתרום את אשר הם אוכלים (תוס', פ\"א ה\"ו). לאישה מותר אף לתרום את מה שהיא מבשלת, \"מפני שהן תורמין ברשות\". הרשות היא הרשות לאכול, והיא כוללת גם הפרשת תרומות ומעשרות שהיא תנאי לאוכל. ", + "באופן ממשי האישה היא זו שניהלה את משק הבית ואת הבישול. באופן טבעי היא גם זו שמעשרת. ואכן, הבעל נדרש לבדוק לפני שבת אם אשתו התקינה מעשרות למזון המשפחתי (משנה, שבת פ\"ב מ\"ז, וראו פירושנו לה), אבל המשנה שם מניחה שהרמת המעשרות בפועל היא בתחום אחריותה של האישה. לא כן לגבי תרומה. תרומה הורמה בגורן, כלומר במקום העבודה, באופן פומבי במידה חלקית וצמוד לקציר. את הקציר ניהל הבעל, וממילא הייתה הרמת התרומה בתחום אחריותו הבלעדית. כל זאת ללא קשר לכך שאישה רשאית להרים תרומה, אלא שבמקרה זה היא בבחינת תורם משאינו שלו (לעיל פ\"א מ\"א).", + "ביטל – זו כותרת; אם ביטל, ובאה רשימה של אפשרויות מתי ביטל, אם עד שלא תרם ביטל אין תרומתו תרומה – השליחות בוטלה וההרשאה עמה, ואין לשליח אלא מה ששלחו אותו, כל זמן ששליחותו קיימת, ומשתרם ביטל – אם ביטל לאחר ששליח תרם, תרומתו [ביטל תרומתו] תרומה – המילים שבסוגריים אינן מנוקדות וכנראה רצה המעתיק למחקן, והן מיותרות. הביטול בא לאחר המעשה, ואי אפשר לבטל את המעשה. בתוספתא המקבילה במקום ביטל כתוב \"עיכב\" (תוס', פ\"א ה\"ז).", + "התלמודים מקשרים את משנתנו לשאלה של ביטול גט. שם מדובר בשליח שקיבל גט למסרו לאישה, ובוטלה שליחותו. ריש לקיש טוען שם: \"אין אדם מבטל שליחותו בדברים\" (ירו', מב ע\"א; בבלי, קידושין נט ע\"א), ברם אין נושא הגט עניין לכאן. שם השליחות לוותה במעשה, כתיבת הגט ונתינתו לשליח וכאילו גם לאישה, והשאלה היא האם ניתן לבטל שליחות זו ללא מעשה מקביל. השאלה שם גם קשורה למצב מיוחד העלול להתהוות שהשליח ביצע שליחותו והאישה אינה יודעת על הביטול. שאלה זו נדונה במקורות בהרחבה (משנה, גיטין פ\"ד מ\"א ומקבילותיה, ודיוני התלמודים עליה), ואילו אצלנו ההרשאה היא בעל פה, וברור שלבעל הבית אפשרות לבטל את השליחות. השאלה מה יקרה אם השליחות בוטלה בלי שהשליח ידע לא נדונה כאן. ", + "הפועלים אין להם רשות לתרום – הפועל אינו שליח, אלא אם כן מינוהו לכך. התוספתא מוסיפה שיש מקרה שבו תרומת הפועלים מועילה, כשאמר לפועל \"כנוס לי גרני\" (פ\"א ה\"ז), כלומר כשאמר לו להכניס את החיטים מהגורן לבית. בדרך כלל הפרישו תרומות בגורן, ועל כן מי שקיבל עליו להביא את התבואה לבית הוטל עליו גם לתרום מהתבואה, חוץ מן הדרוכות שהן מטמין את הגת מיד – הדרוכות הם דורכי הענבים בגת. בתוספתא לעיל נקבע שהענבים נטמאים ברגע שהדרוכות הילכו בגת שתי וערב (פ\"ג הי\"ב, ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"ח). בעל הבית מעוניין היה לתרום בטהרה, אף שהוא עצמו לא שמר על טהרה (ראו במבוא לפירושנו למסכת), אבל הדרוכות מטמאים את היין בעבודתם. על כן נקבע, כנראה בהסכמה חברתית, שלדרוכות מותר לתרום את הענבים על היין שיצא מהם. זה היתר מיוחד המסמיך את הדרוכות לתרום, והמתיר לתרום מענבים על יין כדי שהכוהנים לא יפסידו. קשה לדעת האם באמת דברי חכמים משקפים הסכמה חברתית, או שזו קונסטרוקציה הלכתית מלאכותית כדי להרבות בתרומה טהורה. התלמוד הירושלמי (מב ע\"א) מסביר שדין זה מיוחד לדורכי היין, ולא לבדדים הכובשים את הזיתים. זאת משום שהדרוכות הטמאים יטמאו את היין בוודאות ואילו הבדדים יכולים להיזהר ולא לטמא את השמן, שכן הם אינם אמורים לנגוע בו בגופם, וכך זו טומאה עקיפה שחומרתה פחותה. הם ייגעו בעץ או בכלי שבו שואבים את השמן, והכלי יהפוך בכך לשני לטומאה ושני לטומאה מטמא רק בטומאה קלה. הירושלמי מביא הסבר זה כתירוץ לסתירה בין משנתנו לברייתא האוסרת על פועלים לתרום את הבור (תוס', פ\"א ה\"ח).", + "דומה שניתן לתרץ את קושיית הירושלמי בדרך שונה. לדרוכות התירו לתרום, אך לא תמיד הם עשו זאת. כך, למשל, ודאי שבעל הבית יכול היה לאסור זאת עליהם. לאחר מכן באו פועלים אחרים לתרום את היין שבבור, ולהם הדבר אסור, שוב משום שאינם חייבים לגעת ביין בידם, שהרי את השמן שואבים בכלי. הווה אומר, יש להבחין בין \"דרוכות\" שבמשנה ובין סתם פועלים שבתוספתא. על כן יש להסביר שהירושלמי הציע את השאלה כדי להגיע לאבחנה בין דרוכות היין לבין בדדי השמן. אך אבחנה זו אינה תלויה בקושיה. את הקושיה ניתן היה לתרץ בדרך אחרת, והתירוץ עומד בפני עצמו.", + "עוד יש להבחין בין דרוכות, שהם פועלים אישיים ששכר בעל הבית, לבין הבדדים. הגת הייתה מתקן אישי, ואילו בית הבד היה מתקן המשרת ציבור בתשלום. לדרוכות קשר אישי לאדון, לא כן לפועלי בית הבד, וודאי שאין הם יכולים להיות שליחים שלו, אלא אם כן מינה אותם במפורש.", + "כפי שאמרנו, המשנה מוצגת כאילו הייתה פירוש למשנה הקודמת, אבל למעשה אין היא כזאת. דומה שהיא הועברה לפרקנו ממקור אחר. היא באה להסביר דברים אחרים הקרובים למשנתנו. תופעה זו זיהינו גם לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ג), משנה העוסקת בנושא מפן שונה שהועתקה ממקור אחר והועברה כאילו הייתה הרחבה של המשנה הקודמת. כך יש לפרש גם משניות אחרות19כגון שבת פי\"ז מ\"ח, וראו פירושנו לה. דוגמאות מובהקות פחות הן פאה פ\"ד מ\"י; פ\"ז מ\"ג; מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ה. . עם זאת, בדרך כלל \"במה דברים אמורים\" בא להסביר את המשנה או את ההלכה הקודמת.", + "במקרה שלפנינו דומה שאנו יכולים לזהות את מקורה של המשנה. בתוספתא פ\"א ה\"ו-ה\"ט רצף ברייתות המרחיבות את משנתנו, והן באות להסביר ולהרחיב את המשפט במשנה הראשונה במסכת, \"התורם את שאינו שלו\". רצף הנושאים מקביל למשנתנו במידת מה, כפי שאפשר לראות בטבלה.", + "התורם את שאינו שלו", + "סדר הנושאים", + "הקשר בין התוספתא שם למשנתנו ברור. בדיוננו במשנה שם (פ\"א מ\"א) עמדנו על כך שהמשנה מסבירה שניים מחמשת המונחים הנזכרים בה (חירש וקטן), והתוספתא את שלושת האחרים. מעתה יש מקום להשערה שמשנתנו היא הרחבה אחרת לאחד המונחים הנזכרים במשנה הראשונה של הפרק הראשון. עורכי התוספתא הכירו את משנתנו (לעיל פ\"א מ\"א-מ\"ב) בנוסחתה המקורית (ללא ההרחבות המסבירות שחלקן במשנה שלפנינו וחלקן בתוספתא), אולי כמשנה ד בפרק א. רק לאחר עריכת התוספתא הועברה המשנה (מ\"ד) לפרקנו כדי להסביר מונח הנזכר במשנה הקודמת. אם אכן נכונים הדברים, הרי שזה פרק מאלף במערכת היחסים בין שני החיבורים. עריכת התוספתא במקרה זה מאוחרת למשנה, אך היא מכילה גם חומרים קדומים למשנה. עם זאת, גם לאחר העריכה המקורית נמשכו תהליכי סידור ועריכה של שני החיבורים, ומשנתנו הועברה מפרק לפרק.", + "לפי פירושנו הדרוכות הם פועלים מיוחדים. יש מהמפרשים (הר\"ש) המדגישים שבעל הבית הוא עם הארץ, אבל הוא שוכר דרוכות חברים כדי למנוע טומאה מתרומתו. פירוש זה אינו הכרחי, שהרי ייתכן שהם גם אלו העלולים לטמא את היין, אבל עושה רושם שהם שומרים על טהרה, כלומר שהם חברים, בניגוד לפועלים אחרים ולבעל הבית עצמו. ", + "אם אנו מהלכים לפי פירוש זה הרי שזו דוגמה מאלפת לכלל \"אימת קודש עליו\", שעמי הארצות נשמרו להרים את התרומות בטהרה אף שלא שמרו על טהרה בעצמם20ראו על כך בנספח למסכת שקלים. (איור 14). " + ], + [ + "האומר תרומת הכרי זה בתוכו – סדר ההפרשה המובהק והרגיל הוא שהבעל מכריז על התרומה, \"קריאת שם\" בלשון חכמים, ואחר כך מרים את התרומה ונותן אותה לכהן. השלב השלישי והאחרון אינו מעכב; באופן תאורטי ניתן להרים תרומה ואז חלק זה אסור באכילה, אך נתינתו לכהן היא מצווה בפני עצמה. לפי ההלכה המשתמעת ממשנתנו \"קריאת השם\" מספיקה, ומותר להתחיל לאכול מערמת הפֵרות. אסור, כמובן, לאכול את החלק שהוקצה לתרומה או לסיים את אכילת כל הפֵרות. סדר הפרשה זה נדון במסכת דמאי (פ\"ז מ\"א-מ\"ה). המחלוקת במשנתנו היא מה כוללת אותה \"קריאת שם\". לפי רבי שמעון די בהצהרה שהתרומה היא בתוך כרי זה, ומעשרותיו בתוכו – ההכרזה כוללת הודעה שהמעשר בתוך הכרי, [ו]תרומת מעשר זה בתוכו רבי שמעון אומר קרא שם – מעשה זה ערכו זהה ל\"קריאת שם\".", + "וחכמים אומרים עד שיאמר בצפונו ובדרומו – חכמים דורשים שבעל הבית יגדיר היכן נמצא המעשר או התרומה, רבי לעזר חסמה אומר האומר21א, ב, ז, ט, ן – אף האומר, וכן הגיהו בעל מלאכת שלמה ור\"ש לירמה. המילית \"אף\" נוספה וירדה בידי מעתיקים, ובדרך כלל אין לכך משמעות מבחינת התוכן. תרומת כרי ממנו עליו קרא שם – הניסוחים של רבי אלעזר חסמא ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב אינם בניגוד לדברי התנאים הקודמים, אלא הם עומדים בפני עצמם. \"תרומת כרי ממנו\" היא מקבילה להכרזה \"תרומתו בתוכו\". אין צורך לחפש הבדל בין הניסוחים, אלו ניסוחים מקבילים שאמרו חכמים שונים בהזדמנויות אחרות22בכך אנו עונים על סדרת הצעות שהציעו ראשונים שביקשו לדקדק בלשון התנאים. כבר כתבנו במבוא לפירושנו שהמשנה נלקטה ממקורות שונים, ואינה ערוכה כמסמך משפטי אחד מלא ומדוקדק. התלמודים התייחסו כמובן למשנה כמסמך אחיד ומדויק, וכן מרבית הראשונים, ברם בפועל אי האחידות ניכרת, והמשנה האחרונה היא אחת הדוגמאות לכך. , והעורך כינסם למשנתנו.", + "רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר האומר עישור מעשר זה עשוי תרומת מעשר עליו קרא שם – זהו כאמור נוסח אחר; רבי אלעזר חסמא, רבי אליעזר בן יעקב ורבי שמעון שיטה אחת היא, שדי בהכרזה כללית ללא זיהוי מקום מדויק של המעשר והתרומה. בתוספתא מובאים דברי רבי שהאומר \"תרומת כרי זה בצפונו\", כלומר שהכריז לפי שיטת חכמים, מחציתו כלפי צפון מדומע (פ\"ד ה\"ט). כלומר, אסור לו לאכול את החלק הצפוני של הכרי עד שירים בפועל את התרומה23הבבלי בעירובין ל ע\"א צירף את משנתנו למקרים הקשורים לשאלה אם יש \"ברירה\" או לא, עיינו שם. . הניסוח של התוספתא הוא על בסיס המשנה, וללא המשנה הוא לקוי ובלתי שלם. חכמים חולקים על רבי ואומרים שעושה אותו \"כמין כי\". ליברמן מביא סדרת פירושים בשם ראשונים, אך ברור שהכוונה לאות כ ביוונית הנכתבת X, ואכן הירושלמי (מב ע\"ב) מסביר שבמקרה זה רבע מהכמות חשודה כתרומה ואסורה במאכל עד שירים את התרומה. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: \"נוטל את התרומה בצפון צפונו\" (תוס', שם). לפי פשוטם של דברים הכוונה שרשאי לאכול מהכרי עד שיגיע לפס הצפוני, ושם עליו להפריש מהתרומה. הירושלמי מסביר שהכוונה לאחד משמונה. נראה שהפירוש מבוסס רק על ניתוח קודמיו בתוספתא. רבי אומר שחצי מדומע, חכמים אומרים שרבע מדומע ומכאן נגזר שרבן שמעון בן גמליאל מדבר על שמינית. ברם, ייתכן גם שלדעת הירושלמי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מתכוון לחלוקה נוספת של ארבעת רבעי ה\"כי\", בצורה לא ברורה. ", + "הירושלמי מוסיף שדברי רבי שמעון הם כבית שמאי האומרים ש\"קדשו (קודשיו) מדומעין\" (שם). לא ברור לאיזו הלכה של בית שמאי הדברים רומזים. הרש\"ס מפרש שהכוונה לדבריהם \"תרומת עצמן בהן\" (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ד). דומה שהכוונה לא למשפט מסוים שאמרו, אלא לגישתם הכללית שאם אדם תרם תרומתו תרומה, ואין היא נפסלת משום שזו תרומה מהרע על היפה או ממין על שאינו מינו24לעיל פ\"א מ\"ד, מ\"ח, מ\"ט, פ\"ב מ\"א ובעיקר פ\"ד מ\"ה. . ייתכן גם שהתלמוד הכיר ברייתא נוספת ובה דברי בית שמאי שאמרו \"קודשיו מדומעים\" בהקשר כלשהו. ברייתא כזאת לא נשמרה בידינו. לאפשרות שיש לתלמוד מידע נוסף שאינו בידינו כיום השלכות נרחבות. מכל מקום, בדעה זו של רבי שמעון מהלך גם רבי אלעזר בן ערך ואולי גם רבי אליעזר (תוס', חלה פ\"ה הט\"ו, ראו פירושנו לחלה פ\"ג מ\"י). ", + "מכל מקום, לפי התלמוד לא נעלמה דעת בית שמאי מההלכה ונותרו לה תומכים. כבר הערנו כי העמדה שלפיה תמיד ההלכה כבית הלל ודעת בית שמאי אין לה עוד עמידה בהלכה לדורותיה היא מוגזמת25ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. . לעתים חכמים מאוחרים פוסקים כבית שמאי, משניות מהלכות בדרך זו, או שמרכיבים מדעת בית שמאי חדרו להלכה המאוחרת גם אם זו (דעת בית שמאי) לא התקבלה.", + "כמחלוקת במשנתנו המחלוקת בתוספתא: \"האומר מעשר שיני שבחפץ זה מחולל על איסר זה ולא קבע לו מקום. רבי שמעון אומר קרא שם. וחכמים אומרים עד שיאמר לצפונו או לדרומו\" (מעשר שני פ\"ג הי\"ז). בהלכה הבאה בתוספתא מובא סיפור הממחיש את המחלוקת: \"מעשה ברבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבי יהודה ורבי יוסי שנכנסו אצל בעל הבית לכזיב. אמרו לא נדע היאך בעל הבית זה מתקין את פירותיו. כיון שהרגיש בהן הלך והביא לפניהן דלוסקיס מלא דינרי זהב. אמרו לו היאך אתה מתקן את פירותיך? אמר להם כך וכך אני אומר, מעשר שני שבחפץ זה מחולל על איסר זה. אמרו לו צא ואכול את פירותיך (צריך להיות מעותיך כבכתב יד ערפורט) נשתכרת במעות איבדתה נפשות\". חטאו של בעל הבית הוא שעשה כרבי שמעון. הטענות נגדו מופרזות. אמנם הוא אולי לא פדה מעשר שני כהלכה, אבל לא משום שהשתכר במעות. דומה, אפוא, שחכמים נקטו כאן בלשון חריפה בהרבה ממה שמתבקש, ויש בכך ביטוי עד כמה נדחתה דעת רבי שמעון כבר בימיו. " + ], + [ + "המקדים תרומה לביכורים – או שהקדים מעשר ראשון לתרומה – או שהקדים ומעשר שיני לראשון אף על [פי] – נוסף בשוליים, שהוא עובר בלא תעשה מה שעשה עשוי – לפי ההלכה יש להפריש את כל המעשרות לפי הסדר. יש לכך השלכה גם על כמות המעשרות שעליו לתת. אם נתן תרומה אחד מחמישים (2%) עליו להפריד מעשר רק 9.8% מכלל הפֵרות (מעשר ממה שלפניו), ורק 9% מעשר שני או מעשר עני. אבל גישתם של חכמים אינה נובעת מבעיות חשבוניות של גודל התרומה, אלא מהרצון לתבוע הפרשה לפי סדר המצוות. במשנה מובאת סדרת דרשות, ודומה שהן הבסיס העיקרי להלכה. המשנה מנמקת את הקביעה שיש לפתוח בהפרשת ביכורים משום שנאמר בהם \"ראשית\". ההפרשה הראשונה היא הביכורים, ואותם מפרישים מהפרי בעודו מחובר (משנה, ביכורים פ\"ג מ\"א). הביכורים הם למעשה מצווה שהרוצה שלא לקיימה רשאי, ואין לה שיעור, על כן ברור שביכורים ניתנים לפני תרומה. תרומה ניתנת לפני מעשר, שוב, משום שנאמר בה \"ראשית\", שנאמר \"ראשית דגנך תירֹשך ויצהרך וראשית גז צאנך תתן לו\" (דברים יח ד, וראו במשנה הבאה). מעשר ראשון קודם למעשר שני, והנימוקים לכך יובאו במשנה הבאה.", + "שנאמר מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר – בעל המשנה מבין שהלאו הוא לא לשנות את סדר הנתינות. זו, כמובן, פרשנות שאינה מחויבת. ניתן גם להבין את הפסוק כאיסור להימנע מתשלום המעשרות או התרומות. כידוע, החובה ההלכתית היא רק להפריש את התרומה או המעשר. נתינתו לכהן או ללוי היא חובה כשלעצמה, ונקבע זמן מיוחד שבו חייבים להשלים את תשלום החובות הללו (\"ביעור מעשרות\")26דברים כו יב; ספרי דברים, קט, עמ' 169; תוס', סנהדרין פ\"ב ה\"ו ומקבילות רבות. . ניתן לפרש את הפסוק כחובה לא לעכב את התשלום, או לא לעכב אותו מעבר לתקופת ביעור המעשרות. דומה שפירוש זה קרוב יותר לפשט הכתוב. ", + "ההלכה שבמשנה חוזרת במקבילות, ואין החולק עליה בצורה גלויה27תוס', פ\"ד ה\"י; מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, משפטים פי\"ט, עמ' 318; מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, כב כח, עמ' 213; ירו', מב ע\"ב; בבלי, תמורה ד ע\"א, ועוד. ראו גם פירושנו לדמאי פ\"א מ\"ד; מעשר שני פ\"ה מי\"א. . יש אמנם המפרשים את הפסוק בביעור מעשרות, אך אין להוכיח מכאן שהם חולקים גם על ההלכה. בירושלמי יש מחלוקת האם גם לוקה על לאו זה (מב ע\"ב). התלמוד מבין שמי שאומר שאינו לוקה (רבי יוחנן) סבור שאין כאן לאו, והוא מסביר שלדעת רבי יוחנן יש להבין את הפסוק בביעור מעשרות, אבל לא נאמר שרבי יוחנן חולק על ההלכה. לפי פשוטו הניתוח של הירושלמי לוקה בגישה משפטית יתר על המידה. יכול להיות שיש לאו, אבל אין מלקות, אף שמבחינה משפטית כל לאו גורר מלקות. מכל מקום, המחלוקת אינה על עצם ההלכה. עוד מוסר הירושלמי שאבא פנימון, תנא עלום, סבור שניתן להפריש תרומה וביכורים כאחד (מב ע\"ב). ", + "מעבר לכך. במשנה מבטאים חכמים את דעתם על סדרי הפרשת המעשרות כתקנם. במקבילות אף הוסיפו את הפרשת החלה לסדרה זו (תוס', פ\"ד ה\"י; ירו', דמאי פ\"ה ה\"א, כד ע\"ג). אבל בפועל היו שהפרישו מעשרות ותרומות רק בעת האכילה ממש, וכל הסדרים הרצויים לא קוימו28ראו במבוא לפירושנו. . כך, למשל, אנו שומעים על מי שמפריש תרומה ותרומת מעשר כאחת (משנה, דמאי פ\"ב מ\"ב). אבל בכל המקומות שבהם מתוארת הפרשת מעשרות נשמר לפחות סדר המתנות שבמשנה. זאת ועוד. כאמור הכול הפרישו תרומה, עוד בשדה בשלב הגורן. את המעשרות עיכבו, ובפועל קראו שם למעשרות והפרישו תרומת מעשר, כך שבפועל בדרך כלל הפרישו מעשרות לפי הסדר שבמשנה. הערה זו מובילה לאפשרות שסדר ההפרשה הרצוי נבע לא רק מהפסוקים, כפי שהסברנו ועוד נסביר, אלא היה זה גם הסדר הנוח והרגיל בתנאים שבהם לא הכול מפרישים מעשרות.", + "הצירוף של עובר על לאו ו\"מה שעשה עשוי\" נראה לכאורה תמוה. הרי אם עבר עברה, כיצד זה ייתכן שהמצווה מתמלאת? ברם, הירושלמי (מב ע\"א) מעיר כי הצירוף הוא לא רק אפשרי, אלא גם הכרחי. אם מה שעשה בטל, לא נעשתה עברה! העברה מתחוללת רק מפני שהמעשה הוא בר תוקף. ", + "בכל האזכורים של סדרי ההפרשה (משנתנו, דמאי פ\"ב מ\"ב; פ\"ז מ\"ג-מ\"ו ועוד) מזכירים רק את המעשר הראשון והשני. מעדויות אלו ברור שמעשר עני הוא תחליף למעשר שני, ומתקבל הרושם שבפועל היו רבים שלא הפרישוהו, או שעל כל פנים אין הוא נזכר במקורות. אנו מדגישים זאת משום שבמשנה הבאה עולה שאלה זו של הפרשת מעשר עני בצורה אחרת. " + ], + [ + "המשנה מביאה את הנימוק המדרשי להלכות שבמשנה הקודמת. את המשנה עצמה הסברנו לעיל.", + "ומנין שיקדמו ביכורים לתרומה זה – ביכורים, קרוי תרומה [ו]ראשית – בביכורים נאמר \"ראשית בִכורי אדמתך תביא בית ה' אלהיך\" (שמות כג יט; לד טו), וגם נאמר \"הנה הבאתי את ראשית פרי האדמה\" (דברים כו י). ביכורים מכונים גם תרומה: \"והיה המקום אשר יבחר ה' אלהיכם בו לשכן שמו שם שמה תביאו את כל אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם, עולֹתיכם וזבחיכם מעשרֹתיכם ותרֻמת ידכם וכל מבחר נדריכם אשר תדרו לה' \" (דברים יב יא; השוו שם יב יז). חכמים הבינו שתרומה כאן היא הביכורים (ספרי דברים, סג, עמ' 130 ומקבילות). הדרשה באה משום שבשני הפסוקים מדובר על הבאת תרומה למקדש, ולפי ההלכה התנאית אין חובה להביא את התרומה למקדש. עבור המשנה דרשה זו מובנת מאליה וידועה; עם זאת, את הפסוק עצמו ניתן להבין גם כמתייחס לתרומה רגילה. במקרא, בספרות חז\"ל ובספרות בית שני באה לידי ביטוי דעה שיש להביא את התרומה למקדש, או שלפחות היה זה נוהג מקובל29אופנהיימר, מעשרות; אופנהיימר, הפרשת מעשרות. . יש מקום לשער שגם הצו המקראי ראה לפניו מציאות זו, על רקע ריבוי המקדשים בכל יישוב. מכל מקום, למשנה ברור שהבאת תרומה לבית ה' היא רק בביכורים, וזה קרוי תרומה [ו]ראשית – גם תרומה מכונה כך, תרומה כשמה, ו\"ראשית\" – \"ראשית דגנך תירֹשך ויצהרך וראשית גז צאנך תתן לו\" (דברים יח ד). אם כן, למה יש להפריש ביכורים לפני תרומה, אלא יקדמו הבכורים שהן בכורים לכל – כשמם \"ביכורים\". כאמור, בפירושנו למשנה הקודמת ראינו שביכורים מפרישים מפרי לפני שנקטף, וברור שהם הראשונים, אם כי כפי שהעלינו יש גם המתירים להפריש תרומה וביכורים כאחד.", + "ותרומה לראשון שהיא ראשית – תרומה תקדם למעשר ראשון משום שנאמר עליה \"ראשית\", ומעשר ראשון לשיני שיש בו ראשית – במעשר ראשון יש מרכיב של תרומה שהוא בבחינת \"ראשית\".", + "בדרך כלל אין במשנה דרשות והן מצויות בעיקר במדרשי ההלכה, ברם אין זו גם תופעה חריגה וייחודית30למדרשים נוספים ראו, למשל, פירושנו לשבת פ\"ט מ\"ב; כלאים פ\"ט מ\"ח; ברכות פ\"ט מ\"ה ומשניות נוספות. . בספרות חז\"ל ההבדל בין סגנון המשנה לסגנון מדרשי ההלכה היה רופף למדי, ומשנתנו מצטרפת לעדויות לכך. גם במשנה הקודמת יש דרשה מפסוק, אלא שיש הבדל גדול בין שתי הדרשות הללו. הדרשה במשנה הקודמת היא פשט אפשרי בפסוק, או שהיא לפחות קשורה לפשט הכתוב. אמנם הצענו גם אפשרות פרשנית אחרת שלדעתנו עדיפה, אבל הדרשה אינה מפליגה ואינה חורגת מהבנה רגילה של הפסוק. אין צורך לשנות את מבנה הפסוק או להעניק לו משמעות שלא בעניינו, אבל הדרשה במשנתנו כבר מפליגה יותר. הפירוש לפסוק בדברים יב יא אינו פשט הכרחי אלא פירוש קשה, והדרשה במשנה מתבססת עליו ומוציאה מהמילים מסקנות הלכתיות שאינן רמוזות בפסוק. חוקר חשוב אחד טען שאין במדרשי התנאים דרשות מפליגות, ודרשות הכתובים התנאיות הן פשט אפשרי של הכתובים31נאה, אם למסורת. . דומה שמשנתנו מצביעה על כך שמסקנה זו מופרזת. יש דרשות תנאיות שהן רחוקות מפשט הכתוב ושהן בנויות על דרשות נוספות. עם זאת, הוא צודק שרוב הדרשות התנאיות אינן מפליגות, ולא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך. " + ], + [ + "המשנה עוסקת במקרים שבהם התכוון לתת מתנה אחת וקרא את שמה של מתנה אחרת. אין לה קשר ישיר לקודמתה, הווה אומר, אין כאן בעיה של איחור או הקדמה, והא ראיה שביתר המקרים במשנה אין מדובר בהקדמה כלל. אין זאת אלא שהמשנה הזאת והמשנה הבאה מונות הלכות שונות המתקשרות לתרומה ולמעשרות, וקשה להצביע על קו המנחה את סידור המשניות.", + "המתכווין לומר תרומה אומר מעשר – זה שיבוש, וצריך להיות: ואמר מעשר – או שהתכוון לומר מעשר ואמר תרומה – או שרצה להקדיש עולה ואמר שלמים [שלמים] – המילה בסוגריים מצויה בשוליים ונוספה כנראה בידי המעתיק הראשון, ואמר עולה – או שהתכוון לנדור: שיני נכנס לבית הזה – איני נכנס לבית של פלוני, ואמר לזה – ובפועל אמר איני נכנס לבית של פלמוני, שני נהנה לזה – התכוון לנדור שאיני נהנה מפלוני, ואמר לזה – ואמר איני נהנה מפלמוני, לא אמר כלום עד שיהא פיו ולבו שווים – הקביעה המרכזית היא שבכל המצוות הללו יש צורך בהצהרה בפה. ההצהרה אמורה לבטא את המחשבה, ואין כנראה די במחשבה עצמה32ראו על כך בפירושנו לפ\"א מ\"א, ושם מובאים גם החולקים על כך. . המשנה קובעת שהמחשבה צריכה להיות תואמת את ההצהרה, ואם הצהיר בטעות משהו אחר – המעשה אינו מעשה. ", + "בתוספתא שנינו: \"הפריש תרומה, ומעשר ראשון ומעשר שיני ולא קרא להן שם. רבי יוסה אומר נתקדשו, רבי יהודה אומר לא נתקדשו. רבי אומר אם עתיד לקרות להן שם אין בהן קדושה, עד שיקרא להן שם. אם אין עתיד לקרות שם נתקדשו\" (מעשר שני פ\"ד הי\"ד). המדובר במי שהפריש ולא קרא שם, כלומר הרים חלק מהיבול והניחו בצד, אך לא הכריז עליו שהוא תרומה. התוספתא מוסבת על משנה הדנה במי שפדה מעשר שני ולא קרא שם (משנה, מעשר שני פ\"ד מ\"ז, וראו פירושנו לה). לפי הברייתא והמשנה אין די במעשה אלא יש צורך בדיבור, וכך סבורים רבי יהודה ורבי, אך רבי יוסי אומר שגם מלכתחילה תרומתו תרומה. פירשנו את התוספתא כקובעת שיש צורך באמירה-הצהרה בפה מלא, ודומה שגם משנתנו מניחה בפשטות שהפרשת תרומה היא מעשה ההצהרה. דומה לכך אמירת נדרים והקדשים הדורשים הצהרה בפה, ונעסוק בכך בפירושנו למשניות אלו, אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת.", + "לפי המשנה כל אי התאמה מבטלת את הפרשת התרומה או המעשר, אבל בתוספתא גישה הלכתית שונה: \"היה הולך להפריש תרומה. בשעת הפרשתו אמר 'הרי זה מעשר ראשון', הרי זה מעשר ראשון\" (פ\"ד הי\"א), וכן הלאה ביתר הדוגמאות33המשפט \"הרי... ראשון\" חסר בכתב יד ערפורט אבל מופיע ביתר עדי הנוסח, וברור מההמשך שזו ההלכה לפי התוספתא. . אם כן, במתח שבין מחשבה למעשה המעשה (ההצהרה המילולית) קובע. יש היגיון רב בדברים; אמנם יש צורך שפיו ולבו יהיו שווים, אך אין בכך כדי לעקור את קדושת המעשר. ", + "בירושלמי המחלוקת מורכבת יותר. כפי שראינו, בתוספתא נאמר שחובת ההצהרה היא גם בנדר וגם בהקדש לקרבן, ואכן בירושלמי (מב ע\"ב) מתנהל דיון בשני מרכיבים אלו. התלמוד מביא את דעת בית שמאי ש\"הקדש טעות הקדש\", כלומר אם הקדיש קרבן אבל טעה בהגדרתו ההקדש הקדש, ובית הלל אומרים שאינו הקדש. המחלוקת היא במסכת נזיר אך עוסקת בהקדשת קרבן, והמשנה מסבירה את המחלוקת: \"כיצד? אמר 'שור שחור שיצא מביתי ראשון הרי הוא הקדש' ויצא לבן\" (נזיר פ\"ה מ\"א), ובהמשך שם יש סדרת דוגמאות נוספת. היה מקום לחלק בין משנתנו לבין משנת נזיר. שם התנאי שננקט אינו מתקיים, והסתירה היא בין חלקי המשפט \"שור שחור\" ו\"שור ראשון\", ואילו אצלנו המשפט שלם והגיוני, אלא שאינו הולם את כוונת התורם. ", + "אלא שהתלמודים אינם מהלכים בדרך זו. בירושלמי רבי ירמיה מיסב את משנת נזיר גם למקרה ש\"בא לומר חולין [ו]אמר34וי\"ו החיבור חסרה ונחוצה להבנת המשפט. עולה קדשה\". אם כן בית שמאי יחלקו גם על משנתנו, והתוספתא היא כבית שמאי. בהמשך הירושלמי רבי יוסה מסביר את משנת נזיר באופן שונה, אולי כמו שהסברנו אותה לעיל, והתלמוד מסיק שאם כן משנתנו כדעת הכול. בתלמוד הבבלי הדברים מפורשים פחות, אך גם הבבלי מבין את דברי בית שמאי בהקשר רחב (ערכין כג ע\"א).", + "בהמשך הירושלמי שם מחלוקת אמוראים על הנודר האם צריך לבטא את דבריו במפורש, וראינו כבר שהתוספתא סוברת שצריך לבטא, וכנראה המשנה חולקת עליה. המשנה חולקת במפורש רק בדין תרומה, האם ההצהרה היא מרכיב הכרחי (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ג) אם לאו (תוס', מעשר שני פ\"ד הי\"ד), ואיננו יודעים מה סבורה משנת תרומות בנושא. במדרשי התנאים נאמר שלנדר אין די במחשבה וצריך \"לבטא בדבריו\" או \"לפרש בדברו\", אבל גם נאמר בהם שאם גמר בלבו הרי זה נדר35ספרי זוטא, לא, עמ' 239; ספרא ויקרא, דבורא דחובה, פרשה ט ה\"ב (מהדורת פינקלשטיין, עמ' 177); מדרש תנאים לדברים, כב כד, עמ' 152. . מהתוספתא משמע שצריך להצהיר בשפתיו (לעיל) ומהירושלמי משמע שהאמוראים חולקים גם בנדרים, אם כן זו מחלוקת תנאים שהמשיכה כמחלוקת אמוראים. ", + "אם כן, מצינו מחלוקות בכל שלושת מרכיבי הסדרה, בהקדש (במפורש מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל), בתרומה (משנה מול תוספתא) ובנדרים (תוספתא מול מדרשי הלכה, ובתלמוד). קרוב לוודאי שבכולם בית שמאי הם האומרים שהקדש טעות הקדש, אם כי כאמור ניתן לחלק ולהפריד בין הנושאים. מכל מקום, בית שמאי לשיטתם שההגבלות של חכמים אינן מבטלות את עשיית הקודש: \"תרומת עצמן בהם\" (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ד). עמדתם של בית שמאי אחידה, והשפיעה גם על עמדתם ביחס לאיסור לתרום מסוג אחד של פֵרות על סוג אחר (ראו לעיל פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"ח - פ\"ב מ\"ב)36משנתנו כבית הלל, אבל התוספתא מצטרפת למקרים שבהם ההלכה המאוחרת קיבלה את דברי בית שמאי. רשימת המקרים מעין אלו נרחבת למדי. לרשימה חלקית ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. ראו עוד משנה, מקוואות פ\"ד מ\"א ששם בית שמאי חוזרים על עמדתם, ולדעת רבי מאיר \"נמנו ורבו בית שמאי על בית הלל\", אבל לדעת רבי יוסי \"מחלוקת במקומה עומדת\". .", + "המחלוקת הבסיסית היא בין בית שמאי לבית הלל, והוא הדין במי שנדר שלא כהלכה, או הקדיש שלא במלוא הכוונה (משנה, נזיר פ\"ה מ\"א וראו פירושנו לה), או שנדר נזיר שלא בכוונה מלאה (תוס', נזיר פ\"ג הי\"ט), או מי שהוטל ספק בגט שכתב (משנה, גיטין פ\"ח מ\"ד), או מי שנראה כאילו שכח פאה בשדה אבל בעצם התכוון לחזור לקחתה (פאה פ\"ו מ\"א), וכן מי שנפל פגם של כוונה בהקדשת ערכו למקדש (משנה, ערכין פ\"א מ\"א לפי פירוש הבבלי, ה ע\"א). ", + "מחלוקת זו עומדת כנראה ביסוד מחלוקות תנאיות נוספות, ובמסגרת זו נסתפק בכמה מהדוגמאות הידועות פחות. כך, למשל, מחלוקת רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי במסכת תמורה: \"האומר ולדה של זו עולה והיא שלמים, דבריו קיימים. היא שלמים וולדה עולה, הרי זו ולד שלמים, דברי רבי מאיר. אמר רבי יוסי, אם לכן נתכוין מתחלה, הואיל ואי אפשר לקרות שני שמות כאחת, דבריו קיימים. ואם משאמר הרי זו שלמים נמלך ואמר ולדה עולה, הרי זו ולד שלמים\" (משנה, תמורה פ\"ה מ\"ג). כמו כן: \"הרי זו תמורת עולה ותמורת שלמים, הרי זו תמורת עולה, דברי רבי מאיר. אמר רבי יוסי, אם לכן נתכוין מתחלה, הואיל ואי אפשר לקרות שני שמות כאחת, דבריו קיימין. ואם משאמר תמורת עולה נמלך ואמר תמורת שלמים, הרי זו תמורת עולה\" (שם מ\"ד). ההקדשה הייתה בלשון שאינה נכונה מבחינה הלכתית, שכן אם הבהמה שלמים גם ולדה צריך להיות שלמים, ואינו יכול להיות קרבן פחוּת ערך כעולה. רבי מאיר אומר שדבריו קיימים למרות הפגם, ורבי יוסי אומר שדבריו קיימים רק אם התכוון לכך במפורש. ", + "חסרה כאן הדעה שדבריו אינם קיימים שכן משמעם שהוולד יצא לחולין, וזה בלתי אפשרי. בתוספתא יש דעה שלישית: \"בהמה זו תודה, מה שתלד עולה. בהמה זו שלמים, מה שתלד חטאת, הרי זו ולד תודה, ולד שלמים דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים דבריו קיימים. רבי יוסי אומר יבדק אם אמר לכך נתכוונתי, אלא שאין יכול להוציא שני שמות כאחד, דבריו קיימין. אם אמר מה שקריתי שם לראשון, וחזרתי וקריתי שם לשני, אין דבריו אחרונים כלום\" (תמורה פ\"ג ה\"ג, עמ' 554). על עמדות אלו חוזרת גם הברייתא הקודמת. רבי יוסי דבק בעמדתו, לחכמים מייחסת התוספתא את עמדתו של רבי מאיר במשנה, ורבי מאיר סבור שעל הוולד חלות ההלכות החמורות יותר (תודה או שלמים בהתאמה).", + "התלמוד הבבלי מייחס לרבי מאיר עמדה קרובה לזו של בית שמאי. לרבי מאיר מיוחס המשפט \"אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה\" והבבלי קושר זאת לעמדת בית שמאי37בבלי, נזיר ט ע\"א; גיטין לט ע\"א; ערכין כ ע\"א. לתנאים מאוחרים המהלכים בשיטת בית שמאי ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. , אם כי במקורות התנאיים עצמם (ובירושלמי) אין עמדה כזאת מוכרת, והקשר היחיד בין רבי מאיר לבין בית שמאי בנושא זה הוא במשנתנו. ", + "כפי שהגדרנו, בית שמאי סבורים שהמעשה קובע והכוונה היא משנית. \"מעשה\" הוא המשפט \"זה תרומה\" או \"אני נודר ש...\" וכיוצא באלו. בית הלל מתחשבים בכוונתו של התורם, ואם איננו מתכוון לאשר אמר או שאין בו דעת – דבריו בטלים. ", + "המשפט במשנה \"פיו ולבו שווים\" הוא בבחינת ססמה או כלל. מולו עומד כלל אחר, המיוחס לרבי מאיר, ש\"אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה\", כלומר לא ייתכן שדבר ההקדשה יישאר ללא משמעות, המשפט ההפוך מיוחס לרבי יוסי, \"בגמר דבריו אדם נתפס\", כלומר בגמירות הדעת. שני הניסוחים מתאימים למחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל (רבי מאיר כבית שמאי), ברם הם ניסוחים בבליים בלבד, והבבלי אף אומר במפורש שרבי מאיר כבית שמאי38בבלי, נזיר ט ע\"א; כתובות מ ע\"ב, והשוו נדרים כו ע\"א; תמורה כז ע\"ב. . המינוחים הם אמנם בבליים ומאוחרים, אך העיקרון האם נדר שאינו שלם חל או נגוז אכן חוזר במחלוקות אלו (משנה, תמורה פ\"ה מ\"ו; תוס', פ\"ג ה\"ג-ה\"ו). אפשר לראות בכל המחלוקות הללו מקשה אחת, אם כי ניתן גם להעמיד את המחלוקות סביב עיקרון אחר, והם דברי רבי שמעון שאם התנדב שלא כדרך המתנדבים נדרו בטל. עיקרון זה מופיע כבר במשנה, וחוזר בעדויות נוספות39משנה, מנחות פי\"ב מ\"ג; תוס', פי\"ב ה\"ד; תוס', נזיר פ\"ג ה\"ד, ועוד. . ", + "דומה שלפנינו שני קווי מחשבה. רבי מאיר מצטייר כמי שאומר שתמיד הנדר חל, וזו דעת בית שמאי, ובית הלל חולקים, ובדרכם הולכים רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון. עם זאת יש במקורות שינויים בעמדות התנאים, ולא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך40ראו עוד תוס', מנחות פי\"ב ה\"ד; זבחים ל ע\"א; בבלי, מנחות פא ע\"ב; קג ע\"א; ספרא, דבורא דנדבה, פרק י ה\"ב, ט ע\"ב. עיקרון נוסף שבו דוגל רבי יוסי הוא \"תפוס לשון ראשון\", כלומר, המשך המשפט הסותר את קודמו מתבטל. ראו בבלי, פסחים נט ע\"ב. . מכל מקום, אצלנו הסתירה אינה בין שני חלקי משפט אלא בין הכוונה להצהרה; יש דמיון מה בין הנושאים, אך אין זה זהה להקדש טעות או לנדר טעות. עם זאת, יש החולקים על משנתנו (תוספתא). יש מי שאומר שאין צורך כלל בהצהרה (לעיל פ\"ג מ\"ג), ואולי גם בית שמאי יחלקו על משנתנו מתוך גישתם שהרמת תרומה, גם אם היא לקויה, אינה מתבטלת, עיקרון שמאוחר יותר נוסח כ\"אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה\". במקורות התנאיים עצמם עמדתם של רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי אינה מופיעה, אך היא נרמזת במשנת מקוואות (פ\"ד מ\"א), שם רבי מאיר אומר ש\"נמנו ורבו בית שמאי על בית הלל\", ורבי יוסי אומר \"עדיין מחלוקת במקומה עומדת\". ", + "התוספתא (פ\"ד ה\"י) דנה בהלכות שבמשנה (וכאמור חולקת על המשנה) ומוסיפה מקרה שהתכוון להפריש מעשר שני ואמר \"מעשר עני\", או להפך. היו שרצו ללמוד מכאן שבעבר הפרישו באותה שנה גם מעשר עני וגם מעשר שני41גייגר, מעשרות, וראו המבוא למסכת מעשר שני. . יש בסיס לפרשנות זו של ההלכה הקדומה, ולא נרחיב בכך, אבל אין צורך לפרש כך את התוספתא. לא נאמר בתוספתא ששני המעשרות אמורים להיות מופרשים באותה שנה. יתר על כן, ההלכה באה רק בתוספתא המנסה להעמיד את כל המקרים האפשריים, גם אם אינם קשורים ישירות לנושא. כך נהגה גם התוספתא במשנה הקודמת. המשנה מנתה את סדר ההפרשות של תרומה, מעשר ראשון ומעשר שני (ולא מנתה מעשר עני), והתוספתא הוסיפה הפרשת חלה. יש לראות בהוספה מעשה של שגרה, ואין לתלות בה גדולות ונצורות. אולי ההלכה הקדומה החמירה, אך בזמן התוספתא כבר היה ברור שבשנים השלישית והשישית שבמחזור השמיטה מפרישים רק מעשר עני ולא מעשר שני. ", + "במסכת פסחים מופיע הכלל \"פיו ולבו שווים\" בהקשר שונה במקצת. שם מדובר במי שהתכוון לשחוט את הפסח למולים (יהודים) ולערלים, ושחיטה מעין זו כשרה, אף שהערלים אסור להם כמובן להשתתף בקרבן. השאלה היא מה קורה אם אמר לערלים ולא הספיק לומר למולים עד שנשחט הפסח. רבי מאיר מכשיר את הקרבן, והבבלי (פסחים סג ע\"א) אומר שרבי מאיר חולק על הכלל \"פיו ולבו שווים\". שוב אין המקרה דומה בדיוק לזה שלנו. שם אין צורך בהצהרה כלל, ודי במחשבה, ובלבד שזו תהיה כהוגן. אבל הבבלי מחבר את שני הנושאים, והדבר הוא חלק מאותה מערכת שהצגנו לעיל, של ניסיון לכנוס את כל המחלוקות תחת אותו גג רעיוני. כאמור לדעתנו המכנה המשותף, אם יש כזה, הוא כללי ביותר, האם הקפדה על טיב ההקדשה די בה כדי לבטל את הקדושה.", + "המשפט או הכלל \"פיו ולבו שווים\" משמעו במשנתנו שההצהרה תתאים לכוונת הלב. בהקשרים אחרים המשמעות שונה במקצת. התלמוד הירושלמי מספר מעשה בשמעון הצדיק שנמנע מלאכול מקרבן נזיר משום שחשד שלא נדרו לשם שמים, חוץ מנער אחד שנדר מתוך כוונת אמת ורק הוא בבחינת \"פיו ולבו שווים\". כך בירושלמי (נזיר פ\"א ה\"ו, כא ע\"ג; נדרים פ\"א ה\"א, לו ע\"ד). אבל במקורות התנאיים מופיע הסיפור ללא משפט סיום זה (תוס', נזיר פ\"ד ה\"ז; ספרי במדבר, כב, עמ' 26). נמצאנו למדים שהמשפט הוסב לנושאים קרובים אך לא זהים, שכן בסיפור האמוראי מבטא המשפט מחשבת אמת, כוונה טהורה, ולא סתם כוונה כמו במשנתנו. " + ], + [ + "הנכרי והכותי תרומתן תרומה מעשרותן מעשר – בתלמודים מובאת מחלוקת עקרונית האם פֵרות הגוי חייבים במעשרות (ושביעית), והאם יש לגוי קניין להפקיע פֵרות הארץ ממצוות מעשרות. אבל כפי שפירשנו במקום אחר, בספרות התנאית אין מי שחולק על כך שפֵרות הגוי חייבים במצוות התלויות בארץ (ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ה מ\"ט). בתקופת האמוראים חלו שינויים חברתיים, ואמוראים נאחזו במימרה תנאית שהיקפה המקורי מוגבל ותלו בה את המקור לעמדה הכללית שפֵרות הגוי פטורים ממעשרות. כך גם משנתנו מניחה בפשטות שפֵרות הגוי חייבים בתרומה. הגוי אינו מפריש, בדרך כלל, תרומה, אך אם עשה זאת תרומתו תרומה ומעשרותיו מעשרות. יש לאכול את התרומה בטהרה, כמו כל תרומה. דומה שהתמונה רֵאלית. אפשר להבין את הדבר על רקע הווי הקציר בכפר מעורב. היהודים, ביניהם עמי הארץ שאינם שומרים על טהרה, ממתינים לבוא הכהן שייקח את תרומתו, ואולי אף מעכבים את העבודה למענו. הכהן מברך, מן הסתם, את מטיביו, והגוי רואה עצמו חלק מהווי זה. כך גם ראינו את הגוי מפריש פאה, ומשתתף בליקוט הפאה42ראו במבוא לפירושנו למסכתות פאה ומעשרות, ופירושנו לפ\"ד מ\"ט. . ", + "והקדישן הקדש – בידוע הוא שהגוי אמנם פטור מקרבנות, שהרי אינו חייב במצוות. הוא גם אינו יכול לתת קרבן חובה או להשתתף בו, שכן אינו חייב, אבל הוא רשאי לתרום קרבן נדבה. במסכת שקלים נקבע הדבר במפורש ובמפורט (ראו פירושנו לשקלים פ\"א מ\"ה).", + "קבלת קרבנות נדבה מן הנכרים היא בבחינת הלכה מקובלת ונפוצה. המדרש קובע: \"אם כן למה נאמר איש להביא את הגויים שהם נודרים בנדרים ונדבות בישראל... מנין לרבות את השלמים תלמוד לומר נדריהם. מנין את התודה, תלמוד לומר נדבותם... פרט לנזירות, דברי רבי עקיבא. אמר לו רבי יוסי הגלילי אפילו אתה מרבה כל היום אין כאן אלא עולה בלבד\"43ספרא, אמור פרשתא ז ה\"ב, צח ע\"א. . אם כן, לרבי עקיבא רשאי הגוי להביא כל קרבן נדבה, ולרבי יוסי רק קרבן נדבה שהוא קרבן עולה. שניהם מסכימים שאינם מביאים קרבנות חובה מצד אחד, ומצד שני אינם משתתפים בקרבנות הציבור, ולכך מקבילות רבות44קנוהל, קבלת קרבנות. . בתקופה הרומית נהוג היה להקריב כל יום קרבן אשר נדב הקיסר, והפסקת הקרבת הקרבן הייתה האות והסמל למרד. בסוגיית חז\"ל העוסקת בנושא מחליטים הקנאים שלא להביא את הקרבן כיוון שנפל בו פסול, ולא משום שקרבן מהגוי פסול. הווה אומר, הסוגיה לא תלתה את ההימנעות מהקרבת הקרבן בהתנגדות לקבלת קרבן מהגוי. מכל מקום, ההחלטה שלא להביא את קרבן הקיסר הייתה החלטה פוליטית שאין לשקלה במאזני ההלכה. ", + "עם זאת, יש אולי רמזים גם לדעות שונות. בסדרת מקורות אנו שומעים על מלכי האומות הנותנים למקדש תרומה, וניתן להבין כי זו יועדה לקרבנות הציבור. בספר עזרא מדובר על תרומה של בני תורים וזכרים וכבשים לעולות לאלוהי השמים; חיטים, מלח ויין ושמן כדבר הכוהנים ניתן להם יום יום45על פי עזרא ו ח-י (בתרגום), והשווה שם ז כב. . ניתן להעמיד את הפסוק בקרבנות נדבה לעולות, כדעת רבי עקיבא ורבי יוסי. מלכים אחרים אף הם תרמו למקדש, כגון תלמי מלך מצרים,46איגרת אריסטיאס לג; קד', יב 50; יב 150; חשמ' ב, ג ג, ועוד. אם כי המקורות אינם מדגישים זאת. כל המקורות הללו קודמים להנהגת מחצית השקל.", + "בפסיקתא רבתי שנינו: \"ילמדנו רבינו גוי שהביא קורבן מהו לקבל ממנו? כך שנו רבותינו נדבות מקבלים מן הגוי וקורבנות אין מקבלים מהן למה מפני שקרבנותיהם פסולי לפני קב\"ה... שנאמר ומיד בו נכר לא תקריבו את לחם אלהיכם...\"47הוספה לפסיקתא רבתי, קצב ע\"א. . קנוהל פירש את המאמר בהיתר לקבל מהם צדקה, ובאיסור לקבלת כל קרבן. ברם, לשון הקטע ניתנת להתפרש שמקבלים מהם קרבנות נדבה אך לא קרבנות חובה, והמונח \"קרבנות\" משמעו רק קרבנות חובה. מכל מקום, במדרש התנאי הפסוק המצוטט מתבאר כאיסור לקבל מהם מחצית השקל48ספרא, אמור פרשתא ז פי\"ב, צט ע\"א. , שהוא נתפס כהשתתפות בקרבנות הציבור. כמה מקורות נוספים שמביא קנוהל הם מדרשיים ביותר49כגון פרקי דרבי אליעזר, פ\"י. יותר משיש ללמוד ממדרש כגון זה הלכה, יש ללמוד ממנו כי לעתים המדרש מתעלם גם מן הרקע ההלכתי, כפי שהוא מתעלם מפשט הכתובים, מתנאי הגאוגרפיה או מאילוצי הזמן. , ומכל מקום אין כל עדות תנאית כי קרבן נכרים פסול. ", + "יוספוס מספר כי הקנאים התנגדו להבאת קרבנות של הקיסר, ומנהיגם, אלעזר בן חנניה הכהן הגדול, הסית את ראשי העם \"לבל יקבלו זבחים מידי בני הנכר\", זאת אף שהיו רבים שטענו כי המנהג לקבל קרבנות מנכרים מקובל מאז ומעולם50מלח' ב, יז 409. . אלעזר זה היה כנראה מראשי בית שמאי, אבל ספק אם לדברים היה בסיס הלכתי. כפי שאמרנו, ההתנגדות להקרבת קרבן הקיסר הייתה פוליטית. יתר על כן, בנוסח היווני לא ברור האם הקרבן הוא מטעם הגוי, או לשמו של הגוי, כלומר לשלום הקיסר. מתאים היה לכתות מדבר יהודה לחלוק ולאסור קבלת קרבן מהנכרים. הדבר הולם את דרכם ההלכתית, ברם טרם נמצאה לכך ראיה כלשהי. ניתן לסכם ולומר שמשנתנו מייצגת את ההלכה המקובלת והנוהגת בסוף ימי בית שני. ", + "שאלת קבלת קרבנות מנכרים ומשומרונים אינה תאורטית בלבד. העולם הקדום היה סובלני מאוד, ואמונה באל או בדת אחת לא בלמה השתתפות בעבודתו של אל אחר, וודאי שלא הענקת תרומות לאל אחר. בתפיסה הפגנית ריבוי אלים הוא בבחינת הנחת יסוד. לכל אזור אלים שלו, ולכל אל תחומי שליטה מיוחדים. יש השולטים באזור, או ביישוב, יש השולטים בכוח זה או אחר (סערה, גשם, חום, גידול חיטה או זית), יש גם שכוחם רב להם בשעה מסוימת. מעבר לכך, כוחו של כל אל אינו מוחלט, ולכל גורם שמימי עצמה וכוח שלטון. עבודת האלוהים לא הייתה רק אמונה דתית, אלא גם דרך ביטוי תרבותית ופוליטית. שליט שכבש עיר או אזור הקריב, באופן טבעי, קרבן למקדש המקומי או למקדשים המקומיים. גם השליטים ההלניסטיים והרומיים ביטאו את יחסם האוהד לתושבי יהודה בהביאם קרבנות למקדש ירושלים. היה זה שילוב של מחווה פוליטית, ובו בזמן חשש מהאל המקומי וביטוי של הערצה לכוחו. ", + "בספרות מצויות עדויות רבות להשתתפות גויים בחיי היום-יום במקדש. דומה שספרות התקופה ציינה את הדבר בהנאה ובגאווה מיוחדת על כך שגם לא-יהודים מעריצים את אלוהי ישראל, אף שאינם עובדי ה' במובהק. כבר בספר תהילים נזכרים יראי ה' הבאים למקדש: \"יראי ה' ברכו את ה' \"51תהילים קלה כ; קיח ב-ד; קטו י-יג ועוד. . בתקופה זו יראי ה' עדיין אינם קבוצה מוגדרת, אלא סתם גויים המצויים בחצרות בית ה'. המקורות מספרים לפי תומם על נכרים המסתופפים בירושלים בזמן העלייה לרגל52מעשי השליחים ב 10; כא 29-28; יוחנן יב 20; מעשי השליחים ח 26; בבלי, פסחים ג ע\"ב ועוד. , ויוספוס מתגאה בכך ורואה בהם הוכחה לשמו המפורסם של המקדש בירושלים53קדמ', י 319-318, וראו עוד מלח', ו 427. . ברוח דומה מתאר המדרש חבורה של גויים המגיעים לעיר לצורכי מסחר, ובאים למקדש כדי לראות מה טיבו של המקדש ומה טיבה של עבודת ה'54ספרי דברים, פיסקא שנד יט, עמ' 416. . האדומים, שמהם נמנעה הכניסה לעיר, מתלוננים על שאפילו לנכרים ניתן לבוא בשערי העיר ללא הפרעה55מלח', ד 275. ה\"אדומים\" בהקשר זה הם יהודים לכל דבר, אוהבי ירושלים שבאו להגן עליה מפני זרים. הם מכונים כך משום שהתגוררו בחבל אדום, ואולי גם חלק מהם היו מצאצאי האדומים שהתגיירו (או גוירו) בעת כיבושי החשמונאים (180 שנה לפני המאורע המסופר). בינתיים השתקעו בישראל ונחשבו כיהודים מבחינה הלכתית, אך כחשודים מבחינה פוליטית, וזאת כחלק ממאבקי הכוחות הפוליטיים בתוך המחנה היהודי בימי המרד הגדול ברומאים. ואילו מהם נשללה זכות זו. יוספוס שם בפי חנן, ממנהיגי העיר, את הטענה שהקנאים מחללים את המקום שאפילו הגויים באים להתפלל בו56מלח', ד 262. . בחצר המקדש הוצבו סורגים התוחמים את השטח שעד אליו רשאים הנכרים להיכנס. על הסורגים ידוע מן המקורות, ושניים מהם אף נתגלו ועליהם כתוב (בתרגום מיוונית) \"איש נכרי לא ייכנס לפנים מן המחיצה המקיפה את המקדש ומי שייתפס יתחייב בנפשו ודינו מיתה\"57שובה, כתובות ירושלים, 361-358, וראו ספראי, העליה, עמ' 95-92. (איור 15). המחיצה מעידה כי כניסת נכרים הייתה שאלה אקטואלית.", + "לשומרונים היה מקדש משלהם שנועד להוות תשובה למקדש בירושלים, ובאופן טבעי הייתה תחרות בין שני המקדשים. עם זאת, בסוף ימי בית שני לא הייתה עדיין השומרוניות דת נפרדת, וניתן להגדירה ככת יהודית. בפועל היו מהשומרונים שהגיעו למקדש. כך, למשל, הואשמו השומרונים בכך שהם פיזרו עצמות במקדש כדי לטמאו. איננו יודעים אם זו האשמת אמת או השמצת שווא. קרוב לוודאי שהאשמים לא נתפסו ולא הודו, וממילא האשמת השומרונים לא הוכחה, ואולי בחרו יהודי התקופה את היריב השנוא, גם אם בפועל גורם אחר אחראי לתקלה. כך או כך, לולא היו שומרונים נוכחים במקדש שבירושלים לא היה אפשר להאשימם58קדמ', יח 30; ספראי, שם, עמ' 100-95. . יוספוס מסיים את הסיפור בכך שלאחר המקרה נאסר על הכול לבוא למקדש, כלומר להיכנס לפנים המקדש; הנוסח שם לא ברור, וייתכן שהכוונה שנאסרה כניסתם של השומרונים. בספר חיצוני אחר, מאוחר יותר, מסופר על שומרוני שנמצא נושא כבש לירושלים59ספראי, שם, עמ' 105 הערה 135. . ", + "כאמור, המקורות היהודיים ראו בהשתתפות הגויים בעבודת ה' משום הכרה בבורא עולם, והתפארו בהתפשטות האמונה באל האחד. ברם, כפי שהסברנו, מבחינתם של הגויים הייתה זו מחווה מחייבת הרבה פחות. מבחינת הנכרי הייתה זו מחווה פוליתאיסטית שגרתית, אך היהודים נתנו לכך משמעות מונותאיסטית מחייבת יותר. ", + "אשר לכותי, המשנה מהלכת בדעה שכותי כגוי, וזו מחלוקת רבי ואביו. רבי הוא כמשנתנו, ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שכותי אינו כגוי (תוס', פ\"ד הי\"ב). מחלוקת זו חוזרת בהקשרים הלכתיים שונים, ועסקנו בכך בהרחבה בנספח למסכת ברכות.", + "בראשית המסכת למדנו שהגוי אינו תורם, והסברנו שהכוונה שאינו רשאי לתרום בשביל ישראל, אפילו ברשותו (לעיל פ\"א מ\"א). הוסבר שם שהגוי אינו רשאי ואינו יכול ליצור קודש. והנה, במשנתנו הגוי תורם את שלו. אין זו בהכרח סתירה, אך עדיין יש צורך להגדיר מה כוחו של הגוי ובאילו תחומים הגבילו את כוחו.", + "בתוספתא חוזרת ההלכה, אלא שהיא מוגבלת: \"במי דברים אמורים על הגורן\"; אם הפריש על הגורן \"פירותיו מתוקנים\", אבל: \"המכניס פירותיו לתוך ביתו פירותיו מקולקלין\" (פ\"ד הי\"ב; ירו', מב ע\"ב). אם כן, כל הנאמר במשנה הוא שהפֵרות עדיין בגורן וטרם נטמאו, ואנו יכולים לראות מה מעשיו. אבל אם הפֵרות בתוך ביתו של הגוי הם נטמאו (או אולי נטמאו), ואי אפשר לדעת האם התרומה הופרשה כהלכה, על כן אין לקבל ממנו תרומה זו. בהמשך התוספתא מתנהלים דיונים על מצבי ביניים. אם \"הוציא תרומה מתוך ביתו נוהג בה טבל ותרומה, דברי רבי, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין נוהג בה אלא תרומה גדולה בלבד\" (פ\"ד הי\"ג). כלומר, לפי רבי התרומה היא במצב של ספק. מצד אחד היא תרומה וחייבים לאכלה בטהרה60ניתן לאכלה אם הפרי טרם נגמרה מלאכתו, כגון שהיו ירקות שנוהגים למכרם אגודים וטרם נאגדו, או שהיה זה שמן ונטמא וניתן להשתמש בו לבעירה. , ברם אולי אין התרומה אלא פרי רגיל ולכן יש להפריש ממנו את תרומותיו לפני השימוש בו. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שיש להפריש מהפרי שנתן הגוי רק תרומה גדולה. כמו כן, אם הוציא הגוי מעשר ראשון, לדברי רבי הוא מעשר ראשון וטבל, כלומר שצריך להפריש מהפֵרות תרומה ומעשר, ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שצריך להפריש רק מעשר ראשון וכן במעשר שני. מכל מקום, ההלכה בתוספתא מתייחסת למעשר שני, וברור לה שההלכה במשנה חלה גם על מעשר שני, ולכך חשיבות מיוחדת, כפי שיתבאר להלן. ", + "רבי יהודה אומר אין לנכרי כרם רבעי – מההקשר של המשנה משמע שרבי יהודה אומר את דבריו בכל מקום (בארץ ישראל ובסוריה), ולא ברור מה המיוחד בכרם רבעי, וחכמים אומרים יש לו – פֵרותיו הם אכן כרם רבעי. אין מדובר על פֵרות שקנה ישראל מהגוי, אלא רק על מעשה קדושה שהגוי עשה. באופן פשוט יש להבין שכרם רבעי נחשב כקרבן, ואין לגוי יכולת להביא קרבן חובה. ", + "בתוספתא שנינו במקום אחר לסיכום ההלכות החלות על סוריה: \"אבל ערלה וכלאי הכרם שוין לגוי בארץ ישראל, בסוריא, בחוצה לארץ. אלא שרבי יודן אומר אין לנכרי כרם רבעי בסוריא. אמר רבי יודה מעשה בשביון (שגביון) ראש הכנסת של כזיב שלקח מן הגוי כרם רבעי בסוריא, ונתן לו דמיו, ובא ושאל את רבן גמליאל שהיה עובר ממקום למקום, ואמר לו המתן עד שנהה בהלכה. אמר לו משם ראיה, אף הוא [שלח לו] ביד שליח חרש. מה שעשיתה עשיתה, אבל לא תשנה לעשות כן\" (תוס', פ\"ב הי\"ג). פירוש התוספתא ברור. באופן כללי ערלה וכלאיים חלים בחוץ לארץ, וממילא אין הבדל בין ארץ ישראל וסוריה. התוספתא מבליעה את המשפט שבכל יתר המצוות התלויות בארץ בארץ ישראל חייב, ובסוריה הדין שונה, כפי שסיכמנו אותו במסכת שביעית (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"ב ולתרומות פ\"א מ\"ה). אלא שיש לכלל זה חריג, שרבי יהודה אומר שאין לגוי כרם רבעי בסוריה. גם כאן ההלכה אינה מנומקת, ונבאר אותה להלן. נמצאנו למדים שהמשפט \"אין לגוי כרם רבעי\" לא נוצר בהקשר של משנתנו אלא בהקשר של התוספתא שם, או ליתר דיוק במשנה קדומה כלשהי שהתוספתא ליקטה ממנה את מרכיביה. המשפט הועתק למשנתנו, אף שאינו מתאים לה. בהקשר של משנתנו משמע ממנו שאין לגוי כרם רבעי כלל, ובמקורו נועד לומר שאין לו כרם רבעי רק בסוריה. הפירוש נראה קשה, אך הוא נאמר בירושלמי ואף מנומק שם61בדרך זו מפרש גם הר\"ש, שרבי יהודה דיבר רק על סוריה, אלא שאין הוא מסביר מדוע אין הדבר נאמר במפורש, וחלק זה של ההסבר הוא מדעתנו. . ", + "כדי להבין את הפירוש למשנה יש לחזור למשנת פאה פ\"ז מ\"ה. שם יש מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל האם יש לכרם רבעי חומש וביעור. בית שמאי אומרים שאין לו, ובית הלל שיש לו. בתלמוד מובאים שני הסברים, אחד מהם שמדובר רק בשנת שביעית. כלומר, אם השנה הרביעית חלה בשנת שביעית, והפרי כולו הפקר, אזי אין גם דין כרם רבעי. עדיין הפרי אסור באכילה, אך יתר החומרות אינן חלות עליו. התלמוד (ירו', פאה פ\"ז ה\"ו, כ ע\"ב; מעשר שני פ\"ה ה\"ג, נו ע\"ג) מנמק זאת בכך שכרם רבעי קשור למעשר שני (דינם שווה בכך שמעלים אותם לירושלים). כשם שאין מעשר שני בשביעית – כך אין כרם רבעי בשביעית. בתלמוד שם יש גם מי שחולק וטוען שבית שמאי אמרו את דבריהם בכל השנים. ", + "התלמוד ממשיך ומסביר שטיעון דומה חל על דברי רבי יהודה במשנתנו. רבי יהודה סובר כבית שמאי שלמדו כרם רבעי ממעשר שני, וכשם שאין מעשר שני בסוריה כך אין כרם רבעי בסוריה. לכאורה היה צריך לימוד זה להביא למסקנה שאין דין כרם רבעי בסוריה כל עיקר, לגוי כלישראל. זאת ועוד; למה אין מעשר שני בסוריה, הרי בסוריה חייבים במעשרות? הכוונה, אפוא, למעשר שני בשנת שביעית בסוריה. בסוריה אין חייבים בשביעית, כפי שקבעה המשנה (שביעית פ\"ו מ\"ב). ישראל חייב לשבות, אך הוא רשאי ליהנות מפֵרות גויים. במשנה אחרת מובאת מחלוקת אילו מעשרות יש להפריש מפֵרות אלו; אמנם משביעית הם פטורים, אך לא מיתר המעשרות. על כן ברור שיש להפריש תרומה ומעשר ראשון, והמחלוקת היא האם יש להפריש מעשר שני או מעשר עני. לאחר ויכוח ממושך קבעו חכמי דור יבנה שמפרישים מעשר עני (משנה, ידים פ\"ד מ\"ג62הדיון שם הוא על הרמת מעשרות מ\"עמון ומואב\"; אנו מפרשים שעמון ומואב דינם כסוריה. ). פירשנו, אפוא, שאין מעשר שני בשביעית בסוריה, ואין כרם רבעי לגוי בסוריה. לפי פירוש זה קשה במקצת מדוע יש חובת כרם רבעי ליהודי; הרי כרם רבעי צמוד למעשר שני, ומעשר שני, לפי פירושנו, אין ליהודי ולגוי כאחד. ", + "ניתן גם לפרש את ההלכות בצורה רחבה יותר: אין מעשר שני לגוי בסוריה כלל (בכל ימות השנה), ובצמוד לכך אין גם כרם רבעי לגוי בסוריה בכל השנים. הסיבה לכך עשויה להיות כפולה. אולי סברו חכמים שאין לחייב הבאת פֵרות לירושלים הרחוקה, ואולי ראו במעשר שני ובכרם רבעי מעין קרבנות חובה, ואין הגוי רשאי להביא קרבנות חובה, כפי שאמרנו לעיל.", + "התלמוד הירושלמי גם מציע אפשרות שדברי בית שמאי נאמרו על כרם רבעי בכל השנים, אבל לכך אין השפעה על פירוש משנתנו. בירושלמי שם עולה גם הצעה נוספת לפרש שדברי רבי יהודה חלים על הגוי בארץ ישראל ובסוריה: \"אמר רבי לעזר כיני מתניתא אין לנכרי כרם רבעי כל עיקר\" (פאה, שם; מעשר שני, שם). הירושלמי שם אינו נהיר, וניתן לפירושים שונים. האם המשך הירושלמי, שהבאנו לעיל, הוא אותה מסורת, ואזי יש להבין את המשפט \"כל עיקר\" כאילו נאמר \"בכל השנים\", לא רק בשביעית, כפירוש השני שהצענו לעיל, או שהכוונה שאין כרם רבעי לגוי גם בארץ? הקושי בפרשנות זו הוא שקשה למצוא סיבה מדוע דווקא כרם רבעי אין לגוי, בשונה מיתר המצוות התלויות בארץ.", + "תרומת הנכרי מדמעת – כפי שהוגדר בראש המשנה פֵרות הגוי חייבים במצוות התלויות בארץ, ועל כן התרומה היא תרומה לכל דבר. אם נפלה תרומה זו לערמה – הערמה כולה מדומעת, וחייבין עליה חומש – אם אכל אדם בטעות מהתרומה הוא חייב בקנס של חומש, כהלכה בכל תרומה, ורבי שמעון פוטר – רבי שמעון בר יוחאי הוא חכם בעל ייחוד פנים. הוא נוקט עמדות מיוחדות בתחום הרעיוני, עמדות שיש להן השלכות מרחיקות לכת על עמדותיו ההלכתיות. רבי שמעון אינו מחמיר במיוחד, אדרבה, בהלכות שבת ועירובין הוא בדרך כלל המקל והמתיר הבולט63ראו במבואנו למסכתות שבת ועירובין. , אבל בתחום הלאומי, כולל בשאלת היחס לגוי, הוא נוקט עמדות קיצוניות. בהגותו של רבי שמעון בר יוחאי תופס המקדש מקום מרכזי, והוא עוסק רבות במחשבות על שיקומו ובנייתו64בר, רשב\"י. . רבי שמעון הוא מהלוחמים הבולטים נגד ירידה מהארץ וההידבקות בה כמעט בכל מחיר65ראו בר, רשב\"י. , ויחסו לנכרים הוא מהבוטים ביותר. הוא זה הדורש שהגויים אינם קרויים \"אדם\" ועל כן קברי גויים אינם מטמאים. עמדה זו אמנם מובאת בשמו רק בתלמוד הבבלי (יבמות סא ע\"א; עבודה זרה לט ע\"א), אבל קשה לפקפק במקוריותה, משום שהיא גם מסבירה מעשה אחר שלו: בצאתו מהמערה טיהר רבי שמעון את טבריה. עד אז מקובל היה שטבריה נבנתה על קברות, וממילא אדמתה טמאה. לפי הסיפור עשה רבי שמעון מעשה נס ומצא היכן טמונות הגוויות, אלו הוצאו וכך טוהרה העיר. זה כמובן סיפור אגדה, ואף חכם לא היה מטהר \"שכונת קברים\" על סמך בדיקה מעין זאת. לפיכך, סביר שרבי שמעון טיהר את העיר בהחלטתו שגויים אינם מטמאים. פרשנות זו אינה כתובה בסיפור עצמו, אך היא אפשרית. סיפור טיהורה של טבריה מצוי במקורות ארץ ישראל66בראשית רבה, עט ו, עמ' 943; ירו', שביעית פ\"ט ה\"א, לח ע\"ד; תיאור הטיהור של טבריה חסר באחת מהמקבילות הארץ-ישראליות (מדרש תהילים, יז יג, עמ' 134). , והבבלי (שבת לג ע\"ב - לד ע\"א), שאף הוא חש אי נוחות מהדרך הנסית שבה נעשה המעשה, ריכך את מעשה הנס. ההסבר המוצע מעניק למעשה אופי הלכתי ומובן. הוא גם מסביר מדוע בחרו סופרים מאוחרים להוסיף את מעשה הנס. הרי ההלכה שהציע רבי שמעון בר יוחאי נדחתה, ואילו בטבריה נהגו כאילו היא טהורה. סיפור הנס מאפשר לגשר בין המעשה היום-יומי לבין ההלכה שנקבעה.", + "מכל מקום, הדרשה שגויים אינם קרויים \"אדם\" עומדת בניגוד בולט לדרשה אחרת שרבי מאיר מסיק הימנה שהמונח \"אדם\" כולל את הגוי67בבלי, בבא קמא לח ע\"א; עבודה זרה ג ע\"א; ספרי, אחרי מות, פרק יד הי\"ג, פו ע\"ב. . רבי שמעון פוטר את תרומת הגוי, כלומר סובר שאינה מדמעת ואין משלמים עליה חומש68אם נקבל את הפרשנות שיש בדברי תנאים דעה שפֵרות הגוי פטורים ממעשרות הרי שרבי שמעון הוא הסבור כן. ראו תוס', דמאי פ\"ה הכ\"א; ירו', דמאי פ\"ד ה\"ה, כד ע\"ד; גיטין פ\"ד ה\"ט, מו ע\"ב למ\"ט שם. אם כן, רבי שמעון של משנתנו חלוק על רבי שמעון בתוספתא שם. אלא שלפי דרכנו רבי שמעון שבתוספתא דמאי לא אמר שפֵרות הגוי פטורים ממעשר, אלא שהם ספק, כמו משנתנו, וראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ה מ\"ט. . הוא אינו אומר שהתרומה אינה תרומה, וודאי שאינו טוען שפֵרות הגוי פטורים מתרומה, אלא שהתרומה היא תרומה מספק, ולכן אינה מדמעת. ייתכן, אפוא, שעמדתו מושפעת מיחסו הנוקשה אל הגוי, שתרומתו היא לכל היותר ספק תרומה. ", + "דומים לתרומת הגוי הם קודשי גויים, כלומר קרבן שהגוי הקדיש. כאמור, את הקרבן יש להקריב כהלכה, ואפילו לממן את נסכיו מכספי הציבור (ראו פירושנו לשקלים פ\"א מ\"ה). עם זאת, אין זה קרבן רגיל. המשנה דנה האם מי שאכל את הקרבן שלא בזמנו חייב (משום פיגול או משום נותר). רבי מאיר פוטר בכול, רבי יוסי מחייב ורבי שמעון נוקט עמדת ביניים (משנה, זבחים פ\"ד מ\"ה), אבל במקבילות יש שינויים בשמות הדוברים. בירושלמי למשנתנו (מב ע\"ב) רבי שמעון רואה בהם קרבן רגיל, רבי יוסי מקל ורבי מאיר אינו נזכר; בתוספתא רבי שמעון מקל (קודשי הגוי אינם קודשים ממש), ואחרים מחמירים יותר. מבחינה טקסטואלית קשה להכריע מה הנוסח המקורי. אך אם אכן צדקנו בתיאור עמדתו של רבי שמעון, אזי יש להניח שהוא הטוען שקודשי הגוי אינם חייבים בנותר ופיגול וכיוצא באלו. ", + "מצאנו, אפוא, מקורות מספר המאפשרים לשחזר את שיטתו של רבי שמעון ביחס לגוי, ולשחזור זה לכידות פנימית. ברם, אף אחד מהמקורות אינו מובטח. לעתים מיוחסת הדעה לחכמים אחרים, או שהמסורת היא אמוראית בלבד, על כן אין זו אלא אפשרות שיש לבדקה בקפדנות.", + "כפי שאמרנו, אין בספרות התנאים ביטוי לעמדה שפֵרות הגוי אינם חייבים בתרומות ובמעשרות. בברייתות המצויות רק בתלמודים מיוחס הפטור לרבי שמעון יחד עם רבי יוסי, ואולי גם לרבי יהודה. משנתנו מצביעה על כך שלפחות רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון סבורים שפֵרות הגוי חייבים בתרומות, ותרומת הגוי תרומה. עם זאת, שניהם מתייחסים לחובה זו בצורה מחייבת פחות. רבי יהודה פוטר כרם רבעי, ורבי שמעון סבור שהתרומה היא רק מדרבנן, או מספק. על כן בחרה המסורת האמוראית בהם כדי להציג את העמדה הפוטרת, אף שעמדה זו התגבשה, כאמור, רק בתקופה מאוחרת יותר. " + ] + ], + [ + [ + "שתי המשניות הבאות קשורות זו לזו. מבחינת המסגרת החיצונית מדובר במי שהפריש חלקית את מעשרותיו או את תרומותיו, ובשתי המשניות חולקים רבי מאיר ורבנן. שתי המשניות זכו לפירושים שונים, אך נראה שיש להעדיף את הפירוש שיהיה בו הסבר לשתי המשניות. המצב הבסיסי הוא שאדם אינו יכול להפריש את כל התרומות והמעשרות בבת אחת. בעל הבית רוצה לחלק את מעשרותיו ללוויים רבים, או מעוניין להשהות את מתנותיו. המחלוקת הבסיסית היא בתוספתא: \"היה צריך להפריש בעשר ובחמש עשרה חביות של יין, מעלה את הראשונה ואומר הרי זו תרומה, ואת השנייה אומר הרי זו תרומה, דברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. רבי אומר: מעלה כולם לגב הבור ואומר הרי זו תרומה\" (פ\"ה ה\"א). התמונה היא שבעל הבית תורם בשעת הכנת היין, בשעה שהוא שואב את התירוש מבור האיגום של הגת. המדובר כנראה בגת גדולה שיש בה יותר מאלף חביות יין1לפי שיעור תרומה של אחד מחמישים, עשר חביות יין מפרישים על 500 חביות יבול גולמי. הכדים הממוצעים היו של 20-15 ליטר, והמדובר בבור המכיל 1500-1000 ליטר תירוש. אם התרומה נמוכה יותר – כמות היבול הגולמי גדולה יותר. מדובר, אפוא, בבעל בית אמיד, אך כמובן הדוגמה סתמית בלבד. אבל בירושלמי הדוגמה היא של ארבע-חמש חביות (חלה פ\"ג ה\"ח, נט ע\"ג). . דומה שהבעיה היא שאין תרומה אחר תרומה: בעל הבית יוצא ידי חובה בחבית התרומה הראשונה, ועל כן רבי חושש ממצב של תרומה אחר תרומה (לעיל פ\"ג מ\"ג). אבל הירושלמי (חלה פ\"ג ה\"ח, נט ע\"ג) הציע שני פירושים אחרים. לפי הפירוש הראשון המחלוקת היא האם טבל בטל (מבטל) ברוב. כאשר תרם חבית אחת הפכו 50 חביות להיות מתוקנות, שאר היין שבבור הוא טבל והרוב מבטל את המיעוט המתוקן, על כן דורש רבי להפריש את כל התרומה כאחת. אולם רבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבור שמחשבתו מצרפת את כל התרומה כאחת, שהרי תכנן לתרום חביות רבות של יין, ורק מסיבות טכניות לא ביצע את כל התרומה כאחת. לפי ההסבר השני הבעיה היא של תרומה מן המוקף. לפי הכלל צריך לתת את התרומה מתוך אותה ערמה, על כן צריך לבצע את הרמת התרומה כולה כאחת.", + "נעיר עוד ונאמר שבמעשר ודאי יש מושג של מעשר חלקי או מעשר לחלקים, זאת כשמפריש אחד חלקי עשרים או שלושים, אבל בתרומה מושג זה בעייתי, שהרי יוצא ידי חובה בכמות כלשהי, כפי שנראה במשנה ג. אלא שבמקרה שלנו הוא התכוון לתרום את התרומה בחלקים, ורצה מלכתחילה לתרום כמות גדולה.", + "המפריש מקצת תרומה ומעשרות – המדובר באדם שכנס את היבול לביתו והוא מתעתד לאכול ממנו קמעה קמעה, לשם כך הוא מפריש גם מקצת מהתרומה והמעשר. לשם דוגמה, הוא מפריש חבית אחת לתרומה ומעשר; הוא אינו נותן בבת אחת את מלוא התרומה, מסיבות אישיות שלו. המשנה רואה לפניה תמונה של חקלאי המגדל את תוצרתו וצורך אותה בבית במשך השנה. היו גם שמכרו את התוצרת לשוק, ולא באלה עוסקת המשנה. כפי שאמרנו, בדרך כלל הפרישו את התרומה \"על הגורן\", ואף חכמים הנחו לעשות כן, אלא שבפועל היו גם רבים שהרימו את התרומה מאוחר יותר, ועדיין אין בכך איסור.", + "מוציא ממנו תרומה עליו אבל לא למקום אחר – מותר לו להוציא מאותה ערמה כתרומה על יתר הערמה, אך לא לייעד אותה כתרומה על ערמה אחרת. ערמה זו היא בבחינת \"פטור\", אם כי באופן חלקי (שכן מקצת תרומתה הורמה), ואין לתרום מן הפטור על החייב. הווה אומר, מדובר רק לאחר שתרם מקצת תרומה, אבל בשלב ההפרשה הראשון ניתן לתרום גם על מקום אחר. כך מפרשים רוב מפרשים, והרש\"ס גרס במפורש \"על מקום אחר\". אבל הרמב\"ם פירש אחרת. הוא גרס \"ממקום אחר\", כשם שגורסים הרבה עדי נוסח נוספים2א, ב, ז, ט, כ, ל, מ, ן, פ, ץ. כתבי יד כ, ן, ץ הם עם פירוש הרמב\"ם, אבל יש לראות את עדותם כעדות עצמאית ולא כחלק ממסורת הרמב\"ם. ב- ז, כ, ל, פ, ץ נאמר גם בדברי רבי מאיר בהמשך \"ממקום אחר\". , ופירש באופן שונה לחלוטין. מי שהפריש רק מקצת תרומותיו אין הפרשתו מועילה כלל, והחבית שהפריש היא טבל. על כן הוא רשאי לאכול מאותה חבית, אבל צריך להפריש ממנה תרומות ומעשרות. אבל אסור לו לבצע את אותה הפרשה מפֵרות במקום אחר, כיוון שכשאשר הרים אותה חבית ייעד לפחות חלק ממנה למעשרות. הסבר זה קשה ביותר. החידוש העיקרי הוא שאם נתן רק מקצת התרומה אין ההרמה מועילה כלל והפֵרות הם טבל, וזה חידוש שלא שמענו עד כה. לו רצתה המשנה לומר זאת צריכה הייתה להדגיש זאת כעיקר החידוש. הסבר הרמב\"ם מושפע, אולי בעקיפין, מהתוספתא. בתוספתא שציטטנו יש מחלוקת האם ניתן לתרום את התרומה בחלקים, אם כן משנתנו היא כרבי האומר שאין תרומה בחלקים. אך הקושי בדברי הרמב\"ם במקומו עומד, והראב\"ד על הרמב\"ם ובעל מלאכת שלמה מסתייגים מפירוש זה3ראו דיונו של בעל מלאכת שלמה למשנתנו. .", + "הסברנו את החשש בכך שייווצר מצב של תרומה מהפטור על החייב. אפשרות אחרת לפירוש היא שהאיסור נובע מהחשש שבעל הבית יעשה לעצמו חשבונות ולפיהם ייחשבו התרומה והמעשר פעמיים: פעם על הערמה האחרת ופעם על הערמה הזו. כך יכול להיווצר מצב שבעל הבית ירצה לאכול כמות נוספת מהערמה הזאת ואז יאמר בלבו שהמעשר שהפריש הוא על ערמה זו ולא על האחרת. ", + "לפי שני הפירושים שהצענו משנתנו היא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל האומר שמותר להפריש תרומה ומעשר לשיעורים. לפי שני הפירושים אין הבדל בין \"תרומה ומעשר\" שבתחילת המשנה לבין \"תרומה\" בהמשך. ", + "הסברנו שמדובר בזמן שרוצה לתרום מהפֵרות שנשארו בערמה על מקום אחר, אבל אפשר גם לפרש שהוציא חבית כתרומה ומעשר, וחבית זאת היא רק חלק מתרומתו ומעשרותיו, ורוצה להשתמש בה כתרומה על פֵרות אחרים. המשנה אוסרת מצב זה, שכן טרם השלים את חובותיו על אותה ערמה, והרי הוא ייעד את החבית כמעשרות לערמה זו ואינו יכול להסיבה לערמה אחרת.", + "רבי מאיר אומר אף מוציא הוא ממקום אחר תרומה ומעשרות – ניתן לפרש שרבי מאיר חולק, וכפי שהסברנו לעיל כאילו צריך לגרוס \"מוציא הוא על מקום אחר\". כך פירשו הרע\"ב, בעל תוספות יום טוב ואחרים, והרמב\"ם הוסיף שאין הלכה כרבי מאיר, וסבר כמובן שרבי מאיר חולק על הרישא. לפי גרסה זו המילה \"אף\" מיותרת ולא צריך היה לגרוס אותה. רבי מאיר פשוט חולק, ואולי היה עדיף לנסח \"ורבי מאיר מתיר\". ייתכן לפרש שרבי מאיר לא רק מתיר לתרום על מקום אחר (בניגוד לחכמים) אלא גם מתיר לתרום מערמה אחרת על הערמה הזאת, אף על פי שהערמה השנייה היא טבל והערמה הזאת היא פטור באופן חלקי. כך פירש הרא\"ש, והסכים עמו בעל מלאכת שלמה. ", + "בתוספתא (פ\"ד הט\"ו) מובאת ברייתא סתמית כרבי מאיר, והמחלוקת אינה נזכרת כלל.", + "הסברנו את הרישא ברוצה לתרום על מקום אחר (\"למקום אחר\"), ואת דברי רבי מאיר בתרומה למקום אחר וממקום אחר על אותה ערמה. זאת בהסתמך על המילה \"אף\". בכתב יד לאו (מתניתא דבני מערבא, ז ברשימתנו), במקום \"אף\" – \"אבל\". כלומר, אין הוא יכול לתרום על מקום אחר כי הערמה הזאת היא מתוקנת באופן חלקי, אבל הוא יכול לתרום ממקום אחר על ערמה זו, על החלק של הטבל שבה. ההסבר מעניין, אך עדות זו בטלה כנגד עדות יתר עדי הנוסח. כאמור, בעדי הנוסח שלנו ברישא \"למקום אחר\" או \"על מקום אחר\", ובסיפא בדברי רבי מאיר \"ממקום אחר\". בעל מלאכת שלמה, בחושו הלשוני, הסיק שהרמב\"ם גרס גם ברישא \"ממקום אחר\", ובעל תוספות יום טוב מעיר שיש לגרוס או בשניהם \"למקום אחר\" או בשניהם \"ממקום אחר\". זאת לפי פירושו שרבי מאיר חולק על הרישא. ברם, כאמור, נראה שרבי מאיר מוסיף על הרישא בלשון \"אף\", וכמובן איננו יודעים מה חושבים חכמים על המקרה שרבי מאיר דן בו. חילוף לשון דומה מצוי במשנה ה להלן. אלא שהבדל גדול בין המשניות. כאן ניתן לתלות את חילוף הנוסח בחילוף תוכן, ברם במשנה ה ברור שמדובר בתרומה על מקום אחר. אף על פי כן חלק גדול מכתבי היד, ובעיקר מן הבבליים, גורס \"למקום אחר\". נמצאנו למדים שאין בין \"ממקום אחר\" ל\"למקום אחר\" אלא חילוף לשון וסגנון, ולשווא התקשו בכך בעל מלאכת שלמה, בעל תוספות יום טוב ואחרים. ", + "משנתנו מניחה שקיימת אפשרות לתרום על מקום אחר או ממקום אחר, אלא שבמקרה זה יש אולי מקום לאסור מסיבה מיוחדת. בפירושנו להלן (מ\"ד) נראה שיש החולקים על הנחה זו, וכל האפשרות לתרום על מקום אחר, שאינו מן המוקף, שנויה במחלוקת. " + ], + [ + "מי שהיו פירותיו במגורה – מגורה היא כמו ממגורה, מהשורש אג\"ר, ומשמעה מחסן; היא נזכרת פעמים רבות במקורות, וכבר במקרא (חגי ב יט). מכמה מקורות ניתן להבין שבמגורה שמרו את הפֵרות בצבר (תפזורת) ולא בכדים (איור 16). נעמוד על כך בשתי משניות להלן (פ\"ד מ\"ו; פי\"א מ\"ו). כן קובעת המשנה שאסור לברור גריסים על פי הממגורה משום שיש בכך הטעיה של הלקוחות. הוא נראה כנותן גריסים מנופים, אך למעשה הפסולת חוזרת לערמת הגריסים (משנה, בבא מציעא פ\"ד מי\"ב). חשש כזה הוא חמוּר כאשר במגורה נצברים הגריסים במפוזר ולא בכלים סגורים. כן נרמז בהלכה אחרת באותה משנה ובה המגורה עומדת בניגוד ליין הנשמר בפיטס. מכל מקום, המגורה גדולה הרבה יותר ובתוכה ניתן להניח גם קופות (כפי שפירשנו להלן מי\"ב), ונתן סאה לבן לוי וסאה לעני – כפי שראינו במסכת דמאי המשנה מדגימה לעתים את דבריה בערמה שיש בה מאה פֵרות (ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ג מ\"ז-מ\"ח). נראה שבסגנון זה כתובה גם משנתנו. אם כן, מדובר במי שהפריש כבר תרומה (בגורן, כרגיל), והפריש עשירית מהמעשרות שבהם הוא חייב. מן הסתם כבר אכל גם עשירית מהפֵרות בערמה. החשבון של המשנה אינו מדויק, שכן אם הפריש סאה מעשר ראשון נותרו בידו רק 90% מהפרי, והוא חייב רק ב-9% מעשר עני. אבל המשנה לא דייקה בפרטים אלו, וכך גם משניות אחרות, ולעתים המשנה מדייקת בחשבון (כגון דמאי פ\"ד מ\"ד). המשנה קובעת שאם ברצונו להמשיך ולאכול מהערמה יותר ממה שהפריש בהתחלה, ומפריש עוד שמונה סאים ואוכלן דברי רבי מאיר – משפט זה זכה לפירושים שונים, והתחבטו בו ראשונים. עד עתה הפריש הבעל את המעשרות מעשירית הערמה ומותר לו לאכול עוד שמונה סאים, שהם יתר ה-80% של מה שהפריש. אם ירצה לאכול כמות נוספת יצטרך להפריש עוד מעשרות ויאכל ללא כל בעיה, וחכמים אומרים אינו מפריש אלא לפי חשבון – אלבק, בעקבות רבי יהוסף אשכנזי, פירש שבעל הבית הפריש כבר עשירית מהמעשר, על כן כל סאה שהוא לוקח היא עדיין ברובה טבל, שכן הופרשו רק עשירית מהמעשרות שלה, ועליו להפריש עוד שמונה עשיריות מהכמות שהוא רוצה לאכול. לפי הסבר זה המחלוקת דומה מאוד למה שהבבלי מגדיר, בדרך כלל, כ\"יש ברירה\" או \"אין ברירה\": האם התברר למפרע שהמעשר הורם מאותו חלק שהבעל ייעד לאכול, או שהוא הורם מכל הערמה. יש קשר מסוים בין משנה זו לקודמתה, שהרי בשתיהן רבי מאיר אינו מתייחס אל הפֵרות שבערמה כאילו היו מקצת מתוקנים, אלא רואה בהם פֵרות רגילים שהופרשו מהם מעשרות ותרומות.", + "בירושלמי למשנתנו נאמר: \"עשו אותה כפועל שאינו מאמין לבעל הבית\" (מב ע\"ד). לפי פשוטם של דברים כוונת הירושלמי למשנה במסכת דמאי: \"פועל שאינו מאמין לבעל הבית נוטל גרוגרת אחת ואומר זו ותשע הבאות אחריה עשויות מעשר על תשעים שאני אוכל...\" (פ\"ז מ\"ג). הווה אומר, המשנה שם התירה לאדם להפריש חלק מהמעשר על מכלול פֵרות בלתי מוגדר. כך, למשל, היבול כולל אלף תאנים, והפועל אמור לאכול מאה בלבד והוא מפריש רק עשר תאנים כמעשר4ראו פירושנו שם להמשך המשנה (\"וחושך גרוגרת אחת\"). . אין אנו אומרים שעליו להפריש מעשר מכל התאנים, ואיננו אומרים שעל ידי הפרשת עשר תאנים הפריש רק עשירית מהמעשר, אלא רואים בכך הפרשה של מלוא המעשר על עשירית מהפֵרות והפועל פטור מלדאוג לכל יתר הפֵרות. זו למעשה שיטתו של רבי מאיר שהפרשת חלק מהמעשר מאפשרת לאכול חלק מהפֵרות כאילו הופרשו מהם המעשרות, אף על פי שיתר הפֵרות לא תוקנו, והחלק הפטור לא הוגדר. אם כן, משנת דמאי היא כרבי מאיר. ", + "ברם, ראשונים פירשו את הירושלמי בדרך שונה. הרא\"ש הסביר שמשנתנו עוסקת בפועל שראה את בעל הבית נותן שתי סאים, ואף שלא ראהו מפריש תרומה רשאי הוא לסמוך עליו שהפריש תרומה. רבי עובדיה מברטנורא הכיר כנראה את המשפט \"עשאוהו כפועל\" אך מכלי שני ולא מהירושלמי, והוא הסביר שוב את משנתנו בפועל שאינו מאמין לבעל הבית וראהו מפריש שתי סאים, אך אינו יודע לשם מה נתן, ורשאי הפועל להאמין ששתי סאים אלו ניתנו כמעשר אף על פי שאין לו על כך עדות אמינה. ניתן לראות כיצד הושפע פירושו מפירוש הרא\"ש, בשינוי מה. עוד מפרש הרא\"ש שמדובר במקרה שהלוי או העני גילו שהסאה שבידם אינה שלמה, והפועל מאמין שאכן הסאה שניתנה בשעתו הייתה שלמה.", + "בעל מלאכת שלמה חש בקושי של כל הפירושים הללו; משום כבוד אבות עולם לא הרחיב בכך אלא הביא כמה מפירושים אלו, ומיד הביא את פירושו של רבי יהוסף אשכנזי שהצענו לעיל5ייתכן שהראשונים לא הכירו את המשפט מהתלמוד הירושלמי אלא ציטוט שלו, וסברו שהוא פירוש עצמאי שאינו נובע ממשנת דמאי שהוזכרה. . ", + "בתוספתא יש תוספת חשובה שאותה כלל גם הרמב\"ם מדעתו בפירושו. לפי חכמים מותר לאכול לפי חשבון רק כשאותה סאה קיימת, אבל אם הסאה אינה קיימת אי אפשר לראות בה אפילו מילוי חלקי של חובת מעשרות. אבל רבי מאיר מתיר לאכול כנגד הפֵרות שהופרשו, בין אם הם קיימים ובין אם לאו (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ב). במשנה אחרת שנינו: \"המניח פירות להיות מפריש עליהן תרומה ומעשרות... מפריש עליהן בחזקת שהן קיימין. אם אבדו הרי זה חושש מעת לעת\" (גיטין פ\"ג מ\"ח; תוס', פ\"ג ה\"ב).", + "אם כן, מותר להניח פֵרות, לאכול פֵרות אחרים וכל הזמן להשתמש בפֵרות אלו כמאגר של תרומה. כל זאת בתנאי שפֵרות התרומה קיימים. ייתכן שמשנת גיטין היא רק כחכמים, ורבי מאיר יתיר לאכול כנגד המעשרות אף שהפֵרות אינם קיימים, ואולי המשנה בגיטין מתארת מצב שונה. שם הופרשו הפֵרות כדי לשמש כמעשר בעתיד; אין הם מעשר (או תרומה) עד שייקבע עבור מה הם מעשר, וכן בשעת ביצוע ההפרשה הפֵרות צריכים להיות קיימים. אבל במשנה שלנו מדובר באדם שהפריש פֵרות כמעשר עבור יבול קיים, אלא שלא הפריש את כל הפֵרות, על כן במקרה זה אין צורך, לדעת רבי מאיר, שהפֵרות יישארו קיימים. מקרה זה דומה למקרה רגיל שבו הפריש אדם מעשרות ואחר כך הם ניזוקו או נרקבו. אבל חכמים סבורים, לשיטתם, שההפרשה אינה שלמה, אלא היא הפרשה חלקית בלבד. רק כאשר תושלם הפרשת כל המעשר יחול שם מעשר עליו, ולכן צריך שהפֵרות יהיו קיימים בשעת סיום מתן המעשרות. ", + "אם כן, משנת גיטין היא לדעת הכול, ובמשנתנו יש מקרה מיוחד ומחלוקת עקרונית האם המעשר החלקי הוא מעשר שלם על חלק מהפֵרות או מעשר חלקי על כל הפֵרות. למחלוקת זו היבטים בשלושה נושאים הנידונים במשנה א, במשנה ב ובתוספתא. " + ], + [ + "שיעור תרומה – כמה תרומה צריך אדם לתת, עין יפה מארבעים – בדפוסים ובעדי נוסח בבליים נוסף אחת מארבעים, וכן להלן, כלומר 2.5% מהיבול, בית שמי אומרים משלשים – כלומר 3.3%, והבינונית מחמשים – 2% מהיבול. זו המידה לדעת בית הלל, והרעה מששים – קצת יותר מ- 1.5%. גם זו דעת בית הלל. משנתנו מתחילה בהצגת המחלוקת וממשיכה בדעת בית הלל (תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ג), וזה מבנה רגיל במשנה. במשנתנו לא נאמר מה סבורים בית שמאי לגבי עין בינונית ועין רעה, ואפשר להבין שבית שמאי תובעים שיעור אחיד. אבל מהתוספתא (פ\"ה ה\"ג) ברור שבית שמאי אומרים שעין יפה אחד משלושים, בינונית אחד מארבעים ועין רעה אחד מחמישים, כמבואר בטבלה. הדמיון בין הבתים בניסוח ובמינוח רב עד למאוד, אלא שמידותיהם של בית שמאי גבוהות בעשרה אחוז6וכן במקורות נוספים. ראו, למשל, ספרי זוטא לדברים, יד כג, עמ' 206-205. . בחיבור \"קדמוניות המקרא\"7\"קדמוניות המקרא\" הוא חיבור שהשתמר רק בספרות החיצונית, בלטינית בלבד. תוכנו קרוב מאוד לספרות חז\"ל, ונרמזים בו מדרשים רבים המוכרים מספרותנו. זמנו המאה הראשונה או השנייה לספירה, בערך. מדובר על הפרשת מעשרות ביחס של אחד לחמישים; נראה שהמתרגם מעברית השתבש והכוונה להפרשת תרומות, והחיבור נוקט בדרכו של בית הלל.", + "שיעור תרומה", + "בתורה לא נזכר שיעור תרומה, אך יש לכך רמזים שהתוספתא והירושלמי מביאים (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ח; ירו', מב ע\"ד). התורה מספרת שאחר הניצחון על בני מדין נצטוו המנצחים להביא את \"תרומת ה' \" לכוהנים, \"אחד אחֻז מן החמשים\" (במדבר לא ל). שני הצדדים רואים בפסוק זה מקור השראה: בית שמאי רואים בו מידה מינימלית, ובית הלל בינונית. אין זו דרשה רגילה, שהרי הפסוק בתורה אינו מדבר על תרומה רגילה אלא על הענקה מיוחדת של שלל מלחמה, זאת אף על פי שהמינוח \"תרומה\" נזכר במקרא שם. עם כל זאת, ניתן להתרשם שהפסוק משמש לתנאים סימן של ממש.", + "שתי המידות האחרות (אחד משלושים ואחד משישים) שאובות מספר יחזקאל, וגם כאן אין זו דרשה רגילה אלא מקור השראה ישיר ומשמעותי. כדי להבין את הדברים מן הראוי להביא את הפסוקים במלואם: \"מאזני צדק ואיפת צדק ובת צדק יהי לכם. האיפה והבת תכן אחד יהיה לשאת מעשר החמר הבת, ועשירת החמר האיפה אל החמר יהיה מתכנתו... זאת התרומה אשר תרימו ששית האיפה מחמר החטים, וששיתם האיפה מחמר השערים\" (יחזקאל מה י-יג). אם כן, \"איפה\" היא מידת היבש ו\"בת\" היא מידת הנוזל. איפה היא שלוש סאין (משנה, מנחות פ\"ח מ\"ז). האיפה או הבת הן עשירית החומר. תרומה היא שישית האיפה, כלומר אחד חלקי שישים. בית הלל נשענים, אפוא, על פסוק מפורש מספר יחזקאל, הרבה יותר מאשר דרשה8החומר הוא כור (שלושים סאה), וכך מפרש בעל תרגום יונתן. כן יוצא ממדרש בפסיקתא דרב כהנא, ה י, עמ' 99; פסיקתא רבתי, טז, עו ע\"א. בתרגום השבעים מתורגמת האיפה כ\"עשירית\". . אם כן, כיצד מפרשים בית שמאי את הפסוק המפורש לחלוטין? זאת ועוד; בהמשך התוספתא אומר רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי שאת המידה של אחד משישים לומדים מערי הלוויים. הירושלמי מסביר את הדרשה, והיא מפותלת ומסובכת. שבט מנשה ירש את 60 חוות יאיר בגלעד והפריש שתי ערי לוויים, והדרשן מבין שאחת הייתה בגלעד ואחת בבשן, מכאן שהופרשה עיר אחת משישים. אין ספק שזו דרשה רחוקה, ולכאורה קשה להבין מדוע עזב פסוק מפורש בספר יחזקאל. דומה שהפתרון נעוץ ביחס לספר יחזקאל. מעמדו של ספר יחזקאל היה מוטל בספק, ורק בסוף ימי בית שני הוכנס לאסופת המקרא. החכם שהעניק לו את הגושפנקה ופירשו בהתאם לנורמות הנדרשות על ידי חכמים הוא חנניה בן חזקיהו איש גרון (בבלי, שבת יד ע\"ב). חנניה בן חזקיה הוא חכם ידוע ביותר. הוא מופיע כתלמיד חכם חשוב9ראו הסיפורים בהמשך סוגיית הבבלי, שבת יג ע\"ב. וכאיש עשיר. לבנו אלעזר אבד ספר תורה יקר ביותר10שמחות פ\"ו הי\"א, עמ' 135. . אלעזר בנו, וכנראה גם חנניה עצמו, היו מראשי בית שמאי, ובביתו התקיימה אותה התכנסות חשובה שבה הוכרעו הלכות רבות כבית שמאי (ראו פירושנו לשבת פ\"א מ\"ד). שניהם היו גם מראשי הקנאים בירושלים, ונראה שאלעזר הוא האיש הנזכר אצל יוספוס כפקיד המקדש, מראשי הקנאים11בן שלום, בית שמאי, עמ' 94-93. . ", + "לא נרחיב בדבר הבעיות שעורר ספר יחזקאל, אך חלק מהן קשור להלכות המקדש שבו שאינן עולות בקנה אחד עם פסוקי התורה ועם מסורת חז\"ל. כך, למשל, בהמשך הקטע שלנו \"מעשר\" בהמה הוא אחד ממאתיים (יחזקאל מה טו), בניגוד לכל מסורת ההלכה. ", + "איש בית שמאי הוא ש\"פירש\" את ספר יחזקאל והכשירו לבוא בקהל. באותו סיפור ניתן להבין שהכרעתו של חנניה בן חזקיה הייתה הכרעה המקובלת על כלל החכמים. ההלכה שאנו עוסקים בה מאירה את הדברים באור שונה. מתברר שבית שמאי אינם מוכנים לקבל את ספר יחזקאל כהנחיה מחייבת, ודווקא בית הלל מקבלים אותו כפשוטו. אמנם את דעת בית הלל על היחס לספר יחזקאל איננו מכירים. המקורות התנאיים מקשרים בין דעתם במשנתנו ובין ספר יחזקאל, והקישור איתן וסביר, אך בהחלט יש מקום לטעון שבית הלל עצמם לא הציעו אותו ולא ראו בו אלא אסמכתא חלקית, בגלל היחס המפקפק כלפי חיבור זה שנתפס כמסמך שאינו מחייב. לפי הסבר זה רק מאוחר יותר, כאשר הספר התפשט, השתמשו בו תנאים כהסבר לשיטת בית הלל. רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי נזקק אכן לדרשה אחרת, רחוקה הרבה יותר, משום שלא רצה להשעין את ההלכה על פסוק מיחזקאל. ואולי אכן בית הלל מוכנים היו לקבל את ספר יחזקאל כספר מספרי המקרא בקלות רבה הרבה יותר, ורק בית שמאי פקפקו בספר, עד שזכה להכרה. כך או כך, בית שמאי אינם מבטלים את מסורת ההלכה שלהם מפני פסוק בספר יחזקאל.", + "על מנת לאשש את הצעת ההסבר המוצעת מן הראוי לבחון את כל הדרשות ההלכתיות המבוססות על ספר יחזקאל ולבחון כמה מהן הן רק אסמכתא רחוקה ואילו מהן אכן מהוות בסיס להלכה, וכמובן גם לבחון עד כמה הדרשות מיוחסות לתנאים קדומים. לא כאן המקום לבדיקה זו, אך מן הראוי לבצעה. ", + "אם כן, לכל הדעות שהעלינו חומר הוא כור. רק בדרשה בירושלמי יש אפשרות לפרשנות אחרת: \"כתיב ששית האיפה מחומר החיטים, וששיתם את האיפה מחומר השעורים. יכול תורם בחטים אחד משלשים ובשעורים אחד מששים? תלמוד לומר 'וכל תרומת כל', שיהו כל תרומות שוות. שמואל אמר, תן 'ששית' על 'ששיתם' ונמצא תורם אחד מארבעים, בינונית... בית שמי אומרים משלשים, וששית האיפה מחומר השעורים\" (מב ע\"ד). אנו הסברנו שבית שמאי מתירים לעצמם להתעלם מהדרשה הבנויה על ספר יחזקאל, אבל מהירושלמי משמע ש\"ששית האיפה מחומר החיטים\" היא אחד משלושים, ואילו \"ששיתם את האיפה מחומר השעורים\" היא אחד חלקי שישים, כאילו חומר חיטים הוא רק לתך וחומר שעורים הוא כור. איננו חושבים שזו פרשנות נכונה לדברי בית שמאי, ואת דברי התנאים הסברנו כאמור אחרת, אך קשה להתעלם מעמדתו של דרשן הירושלמי. הוא הכיר מצב שבו חומר חיטים הוא רק חצי כור (לתך), ואילו חומר שעורים הוא כור. מצב כזה שאותו מונח משמש לשתי כמויות איננו נדיר. בעולם הקדום הייתה אי אחידות בשימוש במינוח, ואפיפניוס בספרו \"על המשקלות ועל המידות\" מתאר כיצד אותו מונח משמש בפרובינציות שונות לכמויות שונות. כך המצב גם בערים סמוכות. כך, למשל, \"שפיתא\" בעזה היא 14 קססטאי, באשקלון 22 קססטאי ובאשדוד 18 קססטאי12אפיפניוס, על המשקלות ועל המידות, סעיף 41. . ", + "אפיפניוס, בספרו הנזכר, הכיר נוסחים אחרים מנוסח המסורה לפסוק בספר הושע \"וָאֶכְּרֶהָ לי בחמשה עשר כסף וחֹמר שעֹרים ולֶתֶך שעֹרים\" (ג ב). בנוסח אחד היה כתוב אצלו \"חמר\" ובאחר \"לתך\", ומכאן הסיק שהחומר הוא לתך (חצי כור, 15 סאה)13אפיפניוס, שם, סעיף 21. . כנראה אי שם בתקופת האמוראים נהג גם חומר שונה של חצי כור ששימש בעיקר לשעורים. אפיפניוס, שהיה יליד אזור בית גוברין, בן המאה הרביעית, הכיר גם הוא מידה זו. עוד מן הראוי להדגיש שאכן יחס הערך הכספי בין חיטים לשעורים היה אחד לשניים (חיטים פי שניים משעורים)14ראו שפרבר, כספים ומחירים, עמ' 113-112. , ונראה שיחס זה השפיע על המינוח של המידות; חומר חיטים שקל חצי מחומר שעורים והשתווה לו במחירו. ", + "כאמור, בתורה לא נזכר שיעור תרומה ואף לא נאמר אם יש לה שיעור, אבל יתר המעשרות יש להם שיעור מדויק. זו מצווה מיוחדת שיש לה שיעור, אבל השיעור אינו אחיד ונתון לשיקול דעתו של אדם. ברור שלפנינו הלכה קדומה, אבל בין השיטים אנו שומעים ששיעור זה אינו הלכה ממש אלא מעין המלצה. למצוות אחרות יש, בדרך כלל, שיעור, אבל משנת פאה מנתה את אלו שאין להם שיעור (פ\"א מ\"א), ובפירושנו למשנה ראינו כי אמנם אין לפאה שיעור אך חכמים נתנו לה שיעור, והוא אינו חובה אלא המלצה. עם זאת, כמעט אין דוגמה למערכת שיעורים כה גמישה. מעולם לא נקבע שהמחיר שצריך לשלם המקדיש את \"ערכי עלי\" תלוי ברצונו או \"בעין יפה\" שלו. אולי יש דמיון מסוים בין שיעורי התרומה לזמנים השונים של קריאת המגילה בפורים (ראו פירושנו למגילה פ\"א מ\"א), אך שני מקרים אלו הם חריגים. עם זאת אנו מוצאים שיעורים שונים בתחום האגדי. כך, למשל, מתארים חכמים את אברהם המביא לאורחיו חמאה וחלב: \"ויקח חמאה וחלב – א\"ר חנינא המעולה אחד ממאה, והבינוני אחד מארבעים, והקיבר אחד מעשרים, רבי יונה אמר המעולה אחד ממאה, בינוני אחד מששים, והקיבר אחד מעשרים\" (בראשית רבה, מח יד, עמ' 491-490). השיעורים הללו הם המלצות לטבח או למארח, ולא להלכה.", + "כפי שאמרנו לעיל, בספרות חכמים יש שתי מגמות. האחת לתרום באומדן כללי, והאחרת למדוד במידה ובמשקל מדויק (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"א מ\"ז ולהלן מ\"ו). בית שמאי ובית הלל נוקטים מידות מדויקות, אך מהמשך המשנה משמע שהם תובעים שהרמת התרומה תהיה באומדן, או שלפחות כך הבין העורך את הדברים. ייתכן גם שעצם קביעת שלושת השיעורים נובעת מכך שיש להרים תרומה בינונית באומדן, ושני השיעורים האחרים הם בבחינת סטיות אומדן. אחרי הרמת התרומה סופרים כמה פֵרות הורמו, ונדגים זאת להלן. ", + "מסורת ההלכה אימצה, כמובן, את דעת בית הלל, אך דעת בית שמאי לא נעלמה. כך, למשל, אומר המדרש המאוחר בפשטות: \"וכמה הוא שיעורה? אמרו חכמים אחד משלשים ויש אומרים אחד ממאה\" (מאן, מדרש, עמ' רסז). כפי שאמרנו, רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי מוצא לשיעור של אחד משישים סמך רחוק בכתובים. ליברמן שיער שלדעתו של חכם זה אחד משישים הוא בעין יפה, או לכתחילה, וסמך את טענתו על משפט בפיוט של ינאי \"זה עם בחרת מאומות שבעים ופאה ובכורים וראשית הגז ותרומה טהורה אחד משישים\"15זולאי, פיוטי ינאי, עמ' שפח. . ליברמן שיער שיש לתקן במקום \"מאומות שבעים\" \"ממלכות שישים\", וסבר שהפייטן הכיר הלכה שתרומה טהורה לכתחילה היא אחד משישים16ליברמן, עמ' 360. פרשנותנו למדרש מבוססת על תובנה שהפייטנים לא דייקו בהלכה והשתמשו בציטוטים כלליים, ובלבד שיתאימו לרעיון ולחרוז. . ברם, לדעתנו פירוש זה רחוק. הפייטן רשאי לומר שתרומה היא אחד משישים אף שיש לה שיעורים עדיפים יותר, שהרי שיעור זה מופיע במשנה ומתאים לרעיון של הפייטן. יתר על כן, הצירוף \"תרומה טהורה\" קשה, ואולי רמז הפייטן לתרומה טמאה ששיעורה לכתחילה אחד משישים (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ז). על אי הדיוק של הפייטן תעיד גם הקביעה שביכורים וראשית הגז הם אחד משישים, ולא היא, שהרי לאלו אין שיעור17אמנם בירו', ביכורים פ\"ג ה\"א, סה ע\"ג, מופיעה דעת מיעוט שביכורים אחד משישים, אך על שיעור דומה בגז לא שמענו. . אם כן, לשיעור של אחד משישים לכתחילה אין סעד במקורות. ", + "גישה שלישית היא ש\"חיטה אחת פוטרת את הכרי\". מימרה זו מיוחסת לשמואל הבבלי (בבלי, קידושין נח ע\"ב; עבודה זרה עג ע\"ב; חולין קלז ע\"ב). ייתכן שמימרה זו מושפעת מעמדתו העקרונית של שמואל שיש להפריש תרומה גם בחוץ לארץ, אבל התרומה טמאה ולכן הסתפק בחיטה אחת, שהרי ממילא אין הכהן מרוויח דבר מהתרומה. לפי פרשנות זו דיבר שמואל על תרומה בחוץ לארץ בלבד. בירושלמי מיוחסת גישה זו לסדרת אמוראים. הניסוח הוא: \"עד כמה אדם פוטר טיבלו דבר תורה? רבי יונתן18כך ברש\"ס ואצלנו רבי יוחנן, ומההמשך ברור שרבי יוחנן מקשה על דעה זו. אמר אחד למאה כתרומת מעשר, אמר ליה רבי יוחנן מאן שמעיתה. אמר ליה מפילפול חברייא שמעית הא. דרבי ינאי אמרו אפילו אחד מאלף. אמר רבי מנא לית כאן שיעורא...\" (מב ע\"ד – רבי יוחנן שואל על דברי רבי יונתן מהיכן שמעת, והוא אומר לו מפלפול החברים שמעתי זאת). נראה שרבי יוחנן מתנגד להקלה, וחזקיה מבסס אותה על לימוד החברים בבית המדרש, לימוד שטיבו נעלם מאתנו. רבי ינאי מקל עוד יותר, ורבי מנא סבור כנראה כשמואל הבבלי. שיעור זה של אחד ממאה נזכר גם במדרש שציטטנו לעיל19מאן, מדרש, עמ' רסז. . אם כן, אין זו הלכה המתאימה רק לחוץ לארץ אלא תפיסה הלכתית שהיא \"דבר תורה\" לפני תקנת חז\"ל. אבל גם היא אינה כתובה בתורה וכפשוטה זו גישה הלכתית אחרת, מקלה יותר. אין סתירה, או ניגוד מגמות קוטבי, בין משנתנו לדברי שמואל (ורבי מנא, רבי ינאי או דברי חזקיה). ניתן לקיים את כולם ולראות במשפט של שמואל את המינימום החיוני, ובדברי בית שמאי ובית הלל את הרצוי. ", + "גם בית הלל אינם מתכוונים שתרומה של פחות מאחד משישים אינה תרומה, אלא שאין היא רצויה. גם הירושלמי מגדיר את ההקלות כ\"דבר תורה\" ואת משנתנו כחומרה של חכמים. עם זאת, נראה שלפחות מגמות שונות יש כאן, גם אם לא מחלוקת ממש. במשנה א בפרק זה מדובר על מי שהפריש \"מקצת תרומה\". נראה שמי שניסח את המשנה ראה בתרומה שיעור חובה כמעט הלכתי, על כן קשה לפרש שכבר תנאים חשבו שבאמת בתרומה יוצא ידי חובה בחיטה אחת. הם העדיפו תרומה כשיעור, גם אם לא הציגו זאת כתביעה הלכתית לכל דבר. ", + "במשנה ג בפרק הקודם דובר על תרומה כפולה של שני שותפים. סתם המשנה (רבי עקיבא והחולקים עליו) מתייחסים לתרומה כאילו אין לה שיעור, וניתן לתרום תרומה כפולה. רבי יוסי מוסיף מרכיב זה, \"אם תרם הראשון כשיעור\", אך הוא גם מעלה אפשרות שתרם שלא כשיעור. משמע שרבי יוסי, ואולי גם יתר החכמים, אינם מחייבים תרומה כשיעור, ומניחים שייתכן מצב שבו הורמה תרומה כשרה אך פחות מהשיעורים שקבעו חכמים. מכל מקום, הירושלמי מגדיר זאת כשיעור מדברי חכמים ושיעור מהתורה. הכוונה כנראה לדברי האמוראים (אחד למאה), שהם בבחינת שיעור מהתורה. חלוקה זו היא ניסוח מכני או משפטי של הדברים. ", + "ממצב העדויות אנו מסיקים שההלכה הקדומה (בית שמאי ובית הלל) העדיפה והדגישה את השיעורים, וההלכה המאוחרת שינתה במעט את הדגש והעלתה את האפשרות של מתן תרומה מזערית. אי אפשר להתעלם מכך שאכן העדויות על השיעורים הן תנאיות, והעדויות על שיעור מזערי הן אמוראיות וכנראה כולן בבליות. נדמה שאין גם לטשטש את ניגודי המגמות, גם אם אין זו מחלוקת ממש. להלן נדגיש את הרכיבים שמהם משתמע שהשיעורים במשנה נתפסו כמעט כחובה, או אולי יש לנסח כ\"חובה לכתחילה\". עם כל זאת, קשה להניח שאמוראים חידשו מדעתם אפשרות של הפרשת תרומה בכמות כה זעירה. מסתבר שדעות מעין אלו מוכרות היו בעולמם של תנאים, אם כי עדות מפורשת לכך יש רק מימי האמוראים. אם כן, אין זה מצב רגיל של התפתחות הלכה אלא שינויי הדגשה בלבד. שינויים שנבעו, אולי, מצוק העתים והלחץ הכלכלי, ואולי גם מהתחושה שכוהנים שאינם משקיעים את כל ימיהם בעבודת הקודש אינם ראויים למלוא התרומה. ייתכן גם שריבוי תרומה טמאה השפיע על המגמה לצמצם את כמות התרומה שמרימים.", + "המשנה משקפת גישה דתית פשוטה, שכל המרבה לתת הרי זה משובח, וזו הנורמה ההלכתית הברורה והפשוטה. ", + "באופן עקרוני, בכל מקרה של התלבטות יש מקום לאחת משלוש עמדות. הלכה אחת ממסכת ערכין (פ\"ד מ\"א ומ\"ב) תשמש לנו כדוגמה. מדובר שם בעני שהעשיר ובעשיר שנעשה עני, והשאלה היא לפי איזה ערך עליו לשלם את נדרו (\"ערך\" העני קטן, כמובן, מ\"ערכו\" של העשיר). שלוש האפשרויות הן:", + "1. הגישה הפורמליסטית – החיוב צריך להיגזר לפי מעמדו (\"ערכו\") בעת ההתחייבות.", + "1א. גישה פורמליסטית – החיוב צריך להיקבע לפי שעת הבאת התרומה להקדש.", + "2. הגישה ה\"סוציאליסטית\" – המגמה היא להקל על העני, ולכן ייתן כערך עני, או לפחות שכך יהיה הדין אם היה עשיר ונעשה עני. ", + "3. המגמה המקדשית – הקודש אמור להרוויח, לכן ייתן ערך עשיר בשני המקרים.", + "התנא של המשנה נוקט בדרך הראשונה, אבל בעני והעשיר נוקט בדרך השלישית המעדיפה את צורכי המקדש. בתוספתא נאמר: \"עשיר והעני נותן על ידי כולן ערך עני. רבי יהודה אומר ערך עשיר הואיל ובא לכלל עושר שעה אחת\" (ערכין פ\"ב הי\"ד, עמ' 545). תנא קמא דוגל בגישה ה\"סוציאליסטית\" (2) ורבי יהודה בגישה השלישית שבה מהלכת משנת ערכין, ומוסיף נימוק: הואיל והיה עשיר לשעה אחת, וכאילו באותו רגע התחייב קרבן עשיר, והתחייבות כזאת יכולה רק להתייקר ולא להוריד מערכה20להתחבטות דומה ראו שקלים סוף פרק ד. . אבל במצורע המשנה מעדיפה את הגישה הפורמליסטית שמביא כערכו בזמן הקרבת הקרבן. תנאים רק נחלקים איזה קרבן קובע, וזו כבר שאלה משנית (נגעים פי\"ד מי\"א)21עוד אנו שומעים על דיון דומה לגבי קרבן יולדת (ספרא, מצורע פרשה ד הט\"ו, עב ע\"ד), שם נקבע שתביא קרבן עני כי מעמדה משתנה בכל רגע. . לעומת זאת במשנה הבאה שם, הדנה בקרבנות, הדין שונה ומועדפת הגישה הפורמליסטית, ורבי טוען שגם בערכין כן. ", + "אין לנו אלא לומר שההחלטות אינן לכידות, בכל מקרה נקבעה הלכה אחרת ואין כאן שיטה אחידה. על תופעה זו של אי אחידות משפטית עמדנו במבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות. ", + "במשנת נגעים מתנהל דיון עם מסקנות שונות במקצת: \"מצורע שהביא קרבנו עני והעשיר, או עשיר והעני, הכל הולך אחר חטאת, דברי רבי שמעון, רבי יהודה אומר: אחר האשם\" (פי\"ד מי\"א). משנת נגעים מציעה גישה אחרת. גובה הקרבן נקבע לפי הרמה הכלכלית של המקריב (הרמה הכלכלית מכונה בתורה \"הישג יד\") ונקבע לפי שעת הבאת הקרבן (גישה 1א לעיל), אלא שנחלקו חכמים מה נחשב לשעת הבאת הקרבן, הרי המצורע מביא סדרת קרבנות. סביר להניח שכל הקרבנות הובאו בצוותא, והמחלוקת היא תאורטית בעיקרה.", + "בתוספתא שם יש הסכמה עם משנת נגעים והסתייגות: \"מצורע שהביא קרבנו עני והעשיר, יגמור בעני. עשיר והעני, יגמור בעשיר. הכל הולך אחר חטאת, דברי רבי שמעון, רבי יהודה אומר אחר אשם. אבל יולדת שהביאה קרבנה ענייה והעשירה, תגמור בעשירה, שלא ממין שהיא מביאה חטאת היא מביאה עולתה\" (נגעים פ\"ט ה\"ח, עמ' 629). היולדת צריכה להשלים את הקרבנות לפי מצבה החדש. לפי ההנמקה בתוספתא זו עדיין הגישה הפורמליסטית, אלא שאלו שני קרבנות נפרדים, והיא משלמת לפי מעמדה בעת הקרבן (1א). אבל הדוגמה היא רק במקרה שהעשירה, וייתכן שזו גישה 3 שהמקדש תמיד מרוויח, אלא שהיא מנומקת לפי הגישה הפורמליסטית שברישא.", + "קבלתה של הגישה השלישית מדגישה את שאיפת המקדש לקרבנות דשנים ועשירים. לעומת זאת יש בספרות חז\"ל גם מגמה אחרת, של העדפת קרבנות עניים. אין זו העדפה של ממש, אדרבה, עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא, אלא מעין ניחומים לעני שקרבנו חשוב כמו קרבן העשיר. בתחום ההלכתי עדיין עדיף להביא קרבן עשיר, אבל מבחינה מוסרית אל לעני לחוש מבוכה על חלקו הדל. ממילא יש בדברים גם עידוד שלא להימנע מלהביא קרבן פעוט למקדש, והכוונה חשובה מגודל הקרבן. כן שנינו במשנת מנחות: \"נאמר בעולת הבהמה אשה ריח ניחוח22ברוב עדי הנוסח נוסף \"ובעולת העוף אשה ריח ניחוח\". ובמנחה אשה ריח ניחוח ללמד שאחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, ובלבד שיכוין אדם את דעתו לשמים\" (פי\"ג מי\"א). הכוונה חשובה מגודל הקרבן, או לפחות כמו גודל הקרבן, וכך אומר המדרש:", + "\"1. 'שסע אותו בכנפיו לא יבדיל', א\"ר יוחנן ההדיוט הזה אם מריח הוא ריח כנפים, נפשו קצה עליו, ואת אמרת 'והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה' וכל כך למה? אלא כדי שיהא המזבח מהודר בקרבנו של עני. 2. אגריפס המלך ביקש להקריב ביום אחד אלף עולות. שלח ואמר לכהן גדול אל יקריב אדם היום חוץ ממני. בא עני אחד ובידו שתי תורים, אמר לכהן הקרב את אלו. אמר לו המלך צוני ואמר לי אל יקריב אדם חוץ ממני היום. אמר לו (העני) אדוני כהן גדול ארבעה אני צד בכל יום, ואני מקריב שנים ומתפרנס משנים, אם אי אתה מקריבן אתה חותך פרנסתי. נטלן והקריבן. נראה לו לאגריפס בחלום קרבן של עני קדמך. שלח ואמר לכהן גדול לא כך צויתיך אל יקריב אדם חוץ ממני היום? אמר לו אדוני המלך בא עני אחד ובידו שתי תורים, אמר לי הקרב אלי את אלו. אמרתי לו המלך צוני ואמר לי אל יקריב אדם חוץ ממני היום. אמר ארבעה אני צד בכל יום ואני מקריב שנים, ומתפרנס משנים, אם אי אתה מקריב אתה חותך את פרנסתי, לא היה לי להקריבן? אמר לו (המלך לכהן) יפה עשית כל מה שעשית. 3. מעשה בשור אחד שהיו מושכין לקרבן ולא נמשך, בא עני ובידו אגודה אחת של טרוקסימא. והושיט לו ואכלה, וגעש השור, והוציא מחט, ונמשך לקרבן. נראה לבעל השור בחלומו קרבנו של עני קדמך. 4. מעשה באשה אחת שהביאה קומץ של סולת והיה כהן מבזה עליה, ואמר ראו מה הן מקריבות, מה בזה לאכול, מה בזה להקריב? נראה לכהן בחלום אל תבזה עליה כאלו נפשה הקריבה. והרי דברים קל וחומר ומה אם מי שאינו מקריב נפש כתיב בו נפש, מי שהוא מקריב נפש על אחת כמה וכמה כאלו נפש הקריב\" (ויקרא רבה, ג ה, עמ' סה-סח; מדרש תהילים, כב לא, עמ' 197-196). הדרשה הראשונה היא דרשה תאורטית. כנפיים אינן ראויות למאכל, אך ראויות להיות קרבן לעני. שלושת המעשים האחרים מדגישים את חשיבות קרבן העני. המעשה הרביעי גם מלמד שקרבן העני חשוב רק לפני שמים ובעיני חכמים, אך בציבור הרחב נחשב קרבנו לבזוי ועלוב. יתר על כן, דבריהם של חכמים יש בהם עידוד לעני לתת כפי יכולתו והם חלק ממאמציהם של חכמים להפוך את המקדש למקום עבודת ה' של העם כולו. כמו כן: \"מהדר הקב\"ה בקרבנו של עני, ואין ישועה אלא קרבנות דכתיב וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו\" (פסיקתא רבתי, הוספה א פרשה ד, רא ע\"ב), וכן: \"ונפש כי תקריב לא נאמר נפש בכל הקרבנות אלא במנחת עני, אמר הקב\"ה מעלה אני עליו כאלו הקריב נפשו\" (תנחומא ויקרא ה); \"אם רואה אדם שמזונותיו מצומצמין יעשה מהן צדקה, וכל שכן \"כשהן מרובין\" (בבלי, גיטין ז ע\"א). כן משמע ממדרשים אחרים שבהם חכמים משדרים מסר כפול. מחד גיסא הם מנסים למשוך את כל הציבור להקריב כמה שיותר, ומאידך גיסא מהדרים בקרבן העני ומדגישים שהכוונה קובעת ולא הוצאת הממון. רעיון זה מופיע גם בהגותן של קבוצות אחרות בעם ישראל23מרקוס יב 42; לוקס כא 4-1. . אין צריך לומר שההדגשה על חובת העני מכפילה את חובתו של העשיר, ברוח המדרש האחרון שציטטנו. ", + "על רקע זה של עידוד העניים יש להבין הלכה אחרת: \"עני שנתן פרוטה לקופה ופרוסה לתמחוי מקבלין אותן ממנו, אם לא נתן אין מחייבין אותו ליתן\" (תוס', פאה פ\"ד ה\"י). לכאורה החידוש ההלכתי הוא רק שאין כופים אותו, ברם בדברים מסתתר גם חידוש רעיוני: יש לקבל כל השתתפות של העני, אף על פי שהיא זעירה. לכאורה אין לו מה לתת, הרי כל מה שהוא נותן הוא רק מה שליקט קודם מהציבור, אף על פי כן מעודדים אותו חכמים להשתתף, ואת הציבור לקבל את מתנת העני ברצון.", + "ביטוי אחר לאותה גישה יש בהלכה אחרת: \"עני שהעריך את עצמו, אין אומרין לו לך לוי לך, עשה מלאכה והבא ערך עשיר, אלא מוטב שיביא ערך עני עכשיו, ואל יביא ערך עשיר אלא לאחר זמן\" (תוס', ערכין פ\"ב הט\"ז, עמ' 545). כמו כן: \"רבי אלעזר אומר היה חייב קרבן עולה ויורד, אין אומרים לו לך לוה לך, עשה מלאכה והבא קרבן עשיר, אלא מוטב שיביא קרבן עני עכשיו, ואל יבוא קרבן עשיר לאחר זמן\" (תוס', שם הי\"ח, עמ' 545), וכן: \"ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה אין אומרין לו ללות ולא לעסוק באומנותו יש לו שה ואין לו צרכיו מנין שיביא קרבן עני ת\"ל די שה והביא את אשמו אשר חטא שתי תורים או שני בני יונה שנים הוא מביא אינו מביא אחד\" (ספרא ויקרא, דבורא דחובה, פרק יח ה\"א). יש בתוספתא גישה פורמליסטית. עדיף להביא את הקרבן באופן מידי ולפי הערך הנוכחי, ולא בעתיד לפי ערך עשיר. אבל מאחורי הגישה הפורמליסטית יש כאן הצגת עמדה חיובית כלפי קרבן העני: אין הוא צריך להשתדל ולהתאמץ להביא קרבן עשיר, קרבנו כעני מקובל ולגיטימי, והכול לפי המאמץ ולא לפי התוצאה. עם כל זאת, במישור ההלכתי אין ההלכה מאפשרת לעשיר להסתפק בקרבן עני24המקורות בהערה הקודמת; בבלי, יומא מא ע\"א; כריתות כח ע\"ב ועוד. , ואפילו בדיעבד לא יצא ידי חובה. ", + "משנתנו גם היא מדגישה שערכו של קרבן העני איננו נופל מקרבן העשיר. עם זאת, מההדגשה במשנה ובמדרשים האחרים שהבאנו ברור שהחברה מניחה שלקרבן העשיר יתרון דתי. חכמים באים להדגיש את ההיבט של הרצון והאמונה, אך החברה וההלכה בכללה משקפים דרך שונה, כפי שעולה בפשטות ממשנתנו. קיצורו של דבר, את העני צריך לעודד, את העשיר לא צריך לעודד, הוא יודע כבר את ערכו.", + "תרם ועלה בידו אחד מששים תרומה אינו צריך לתרום – רצוי לתרום יותר מאחד חלקי שישים, אך אם לא תרם אין זו חובה. המשנה אינה אומרת אם מותר לו לתרום בשנית, ולכאורה יש מקום לאסור זאת שהרי אין תרומה אחר תרומה (לעיל פ\"ג מ\"ג). אבל במשנה נאמר רק שאינו חייב בתרומה נוספת, ולא שהדבר אסור. בתוספתא (פ\"ה ה\"ה-ה\"ו) מודגש שאם התכוון לתרום אחד משישים ועלתה בידו תרומה בכמות גדולה יותר אין תרומתו תרומה (ה\"ו), אך אם התכוון לתת תרומה בכמות גדולה ועלתה בידו כמות קטנה, אך עדיין זו אחת משישים, תרומתו תרומה (ה\"ה). כן נוספה שם דעתו של רבן שמעון בן גמליאל: תרומה שהיא בכמות יתר היא בבחינת מיקח טעות ובטלה. ההלכה מדגימה את ההלכות הללו במקרה של תרומה מאומד, מצב היוצר אפשרות של טעויות, ובכך נרחיב להלן.", + "חזר והוסיף חייב במעשרות – זו ההגבלה של \"אין תרומה אחר תרומה\". אם תרם התרומה אמנם תרומה, אך הפֵרות שהם תרומה חייבים בעצמם במעשרות ובתרומת מעשר, שהרי בעצם הם פֵרות רגילים ולא תרומה.", + "עלה ביד[ו] מששים ואחד – פחות מאחד לשישים, תרומה יחזור ויתרום – מה שתרם תרם, ועליו להשלים את השיעור למינימום שקבעו חכמים. כאן המשנה מתייחסת לשיעור של אחד משישים כחובה הלכתית לכל דבר, כמות שהוא לימוד – אם כבר הוא מוסיף, עליו להוסיף לשיעור הרגיל אצלו ולא לשיעור המזערי של אחד משישים, במידה [ו]במשקל ובמיניין – המשנה מניחה שהתרומה הראשונית הייתה באומדן, אבל את התוספת שהיא קטנה מותר לו למדוד או לשקול כדי שהתוספת תהיה מדויקת. המשנה כאן מניחה שתרומה רגילה חייבת להיות באומדן בלבד, כמו שקבעה המשנה לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ז). להלן במשנה ו תביע המשנה עמדה אחרת, ונעסוק שם בשאלה זו. מכל מקום, משנתנו מניחה שגם השיעורים שקבעו בית שמאי ובית הלל הם באומדן בלבד. עם זאת, אין ביטחון שגם בית שמאי ובית הלל עצמם התכוונו לכך, והם אינם מתייחסים במפורש לשאלת מדידת התרומה. לעיל הצענו ששלושת השיעורים נובעים מכך שהתרומה היא באומד, וכן נרמז אולי בירושלמי. אם אכן זו הסיבה לשלושת השיעורים אזי גם בית שמאי ובית הלל עצמם תבעו שהפרשת תרומה תהיה באומדן בלבד.", + "רבי יודה אומר שלוא מן המוקף – כך בכתב יד קופמן, אבל בכל יתר עדי הנוסח: \"אף שלא מן המוקף\". כלומר, את ההשלמה של הכמות ניתן להוסיף אף שלא מן המוקף ושלא מן הסמוך והקרוב, מה שאין כן בתחילת התרומה שאינה ניטלת אלא מן המוקף (חלה פ\"א מ\"ט). לפי נוסח כתב יד קופמן ייתכן שרבי יהודה מתנגד לתרומה במידה או במניין, וייתכן שהוא מוסיף על דברי קודמיו, אבל לפי כל יתר עדי הנוסח רבי יהודה מקבל את דברי קודמיו ומוסיף עליהם. נוסיף ונאמר שבמשנה לעתים קרובות חלו במילה \"אף\" שינויי נוסח. דומה שבמקרה שלנו יש להבין את דברי רבי יהודה כמוסיף על דברי קודמיו.", + "האיסור לתרום מן המוקף מחייב להפריש תרומה מכל חבית לחוד, או לפחות מכל צבר חביות, ומניח שאסור לתרום משדה על חברו או מגורן אחד על חברו. האיסור שנוי במחלוקת ונברר זאת להלן. ", + "אפשר להבין את דברי רבי יהודה בשתי צורות. הראשונה היא שבדרך כלל אסור לתרום שלא מן המוקף, אבל כדי להשלים את המכסה מותר (ר\"ש, רא\"ש, מלאכת שלמה ועוד), זאת משום ש\"תוספת תרומה ניטלת מן הטהור על הטמא ואינה מדמעת ואין חייבים עליה חומש\" (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ו). המונח \"תוספת תרומה\" מבהיר שזו אינה תרומה ממש, ולכן מעמדה חמור פחות. האיסור לתרום מן הטמא על הטהור נדון לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"א). בפירושנו שם ראינו שבית שמאי חולקים על האיסור הכללי, ושרשרת חכמים מהלכת בעקבותיהם וביניהם רבי אליעזר, תלמידו רבי אלעאי ובמידת מה גם רבי יהודה, בנו של רבי אלעאי. על כן מובן שרבי יהודה מהלך לשיטתו שתרומה מהטהור על הטמא אינה אסורה כל כך. ייתכן שחכמים האוסרים על כך יאסרו זאת גם במקרה של תוספת תרומה. ", + "אפשרות הסבר שנייה היא בעקבות משנה א בפרק זה. שם נקבע כי אם הופרש חלק מהתרומה אין לתרום משארית ערמת הפֵרות על מקום אחר, ולא ממקום אחר על השלמת התרומה כאן. על כך אומר רבי יהודה שבמקרה של תוספת תרומה הדבר מותר. מכל מקום, במשנה א מדובר במי שרוצה להפריש עשר חביות תרומה ובינתיים הפריש רק חבית אחת, ובמשנתנו מדובר במי שטעה ורוצה להוסיף תרומה כדי לעמוד בשיעור. כך מפרשים הרמב\"ם ואחרים.", + "הצענו שתי אפשרויות להבנת דברי רבי יהודה. התוספתא והירושלמי (להלן) תומכים למעשה בפירוש הראשון. יתרונו של הפירוש השני הוא בכך שהוא מסביר את רצף הנושאים במשנה. משנה ד חוזרת למשנה א, משנה ב ממשיכה את הדין במשנה א ומשנה ג מכינה את הרקע ההלכתי למשנה ד. עם זאת, אין בכך כדי להטות את הכף ולפרש את המשנה נגד המקבילה בתוספתא ודיוני האמוראים. ", + "האיסור לתרום מן המוקף שנוי, כאמור, במחלוקת. חלק מהעדויות קשורות גם לעניין שיעור תרומה, ונדון בשני הנושאים העקרוניים הללו יחד. המחלוקת עולה מעדויות מספר: \"רבי אלעאיי אומר משם רבי אליעזר תורמין מן הטהור על הטמא אף בלח. כיצד, מי שכבש זתיו בטומאה ומבקש לתורמן בטהרה, מביא משפיך שאין בפיו כביצה ומניחו על פי חבית, ומביא זתים ונותן לתוכו ותורם, נמצא תורם מן הטהור על הטמא ומן המוקף. אמרו לו...\" (תוס', פ\"ג הי\"ח, וראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"ב מ\"א). רבי אלעאי, אביו של רבי יהודה שבמשנתנו, מתיר לתרום מהטמא על הטהור, אבל בתנאי שיהא זה מן המוקף, ומציע אפשרות טכנית כיצד ליצור מצב שבו הטהור והטמא יהיו כביכול בכלי אחד, כדי שיהיו מן המוקף, ואף על פי כן לא יטמא הטמא את הטהור. חכמים בהקשר זה חולקים על האפשרות לתרום מטהור על טמא, ובכך עסקנו ארוכות בראשית הפרק השני. עם זאת, אין בדבריהם התייחסות לשאלת התרומה מן המוקף. מכל מקום, מתוספתא זאת משמע שבמשנתנו חכמים אולי יתנגדו לתרומה מטהור על הטמא, זאת אף שציטטנו תוספתא שמשמע ממנה שלרבי יהודה במקרה של תוספת תרומה שתי ההגבלות הללו (\"טהור על טמא\" ו\"מן המוקף\") בטלות. מאותה תוספתא משמע ששתי ההגבלות קרובות זו לזו, ומהתוספתא שציטטנו לאחרונה משמע שאין ביניהן קשר. ", + "בירושלמי למשנתנו מוצגים דברי רבי יהודה בצורה שונה: \"רבי יונה אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש בעא קומי רבי יוחנן תוספת תרומה מה היא? אמר ליה משום יחיד אני שונה אותה?! מה לחייוב מה לפטור, אין תימר לחייוב ניחא, אין תימר לפטור: ומה אין רבי יודה דאית ליה שלא מן המוקף פטיר, רבנין דלית להון שלא מן המוקף לא כל שכן?\" (מב ע\"ד).", + "אם כן, רבי יוחנן מסרב להסביר את דברי רבי יהודה כי זו דעת יחיד, ואכן המונח \"תוספת תרומה\" שבתוספתא ובסוגיה כאן אינו נזכר במקורות אחרים. אם כן, דעתו של רבי יהודה נדחתה מההלכה. ברם, התלמוד ממשיך ושואל האם דברי רבי יהודה באים לחייב תרומה שלא מן המוקף, כדי שהתרומה לא תיראה תרומה של ממש25בהמשך הירושלמי מתנהל דיון האם תוספת תרומה חייבת במעשרות. , ואז זו אכן דעת יחיד וחכמים חולקים עליה ודעתו דחויה, אבל ייתכן שהוא פוטר ומאפשר לתרום מן המוקף, כמו שפירשנו, ואם כן דעתו מקובלת, שהרי גם חכמים מסכימים עמה. יתר על כן, הירושלמי מניח שלדעת חכמים מותר תמיד לתרום שלא מן המוקף, ואם כן קל וחומר שמותר לתרום בדרך זו את תוספת התרומה. נמצאנו למדים שהירושלמי מניח שלדעת חכמים אין צורך בתרומה מן המוקף. ", + "מחלוקת מוגבלת בנושא שנויה במקום אחר: \"אמר לו צא ולקט לך תאנים מן התאנה, אוכל מהן עריי, ומעשרן ודיי. צא ומלא לך כלכלה זאת, אוכל מהן עריי ומעשרן דמיי. במי דברים אמורים בעם הארץ, אבל בחבר אוכל ואין צריך לעשר דברי רבי. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר במי דברים אמורים בעם הארץ, אבל בחבר לא יאכל עד שיעשר. שלא נחשדו חברין תורמין שלא מן המוקף. אמר רבי רואה אני את דברי מדברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. מוטב יתרמו חבירים שלא מן המוקף, ואל יאכילו את עמי הארץ טבלים\"26תוס', מעשרות פ\"ב ה\"ה; ירו', פ\"ב ה\"ו, מט ע\"ג; בבלי, גיטין ל ע\"ב. . המחלוקת היא על מקרה שבו נתן אדם לחברו פֵרות, והשאלה היא האם עישר עליהם בעזרת פֵרות ממקום אחר. רבי מניח שאם חבר נתן את הפֵרות הרי הם מעושרים והחבר עישר בעזרת פֵרות שלא מן המוקף, ובלבד שלא יאכיל את חברו טבלים. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבור שחבר אינו מעשר שלא מן המוקף, על כן הפֵרות הם טבל. נמצאנו למדים שלדעת הכול רצוי שלא לעשר משאינו מוקף, אך לדעת רבי ניתן להניח שבשעת הדחק נוהגים כן ואין בכך איסור, אבל אביו סבור שאין זה מן הראוי ואין נוהגים כן. ", + "בסדרת משניות אחרת מובאת בסתם ההלכה שאין תורמים תרומה גדולה שלא מן המוקף, בניגוד לתרומת מעשר שאותה תורמים שלא מן המוקף27משנה, חלה פ\"א מ\"ט; ביכורים פ\"ב מ\"ה; תוס', טבול יום פ\"ב הט\"ז, עמ' 686. . לעומת זאת בסדרת משניות במסכת דמאי מובאת האפשרות של מעשר ממקום אחר כפתרון רגיל ומקובל (ראו, למשל, פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ד מ\"ב). במפורש נאמר שבעל הבית מעשר מגינותיו מזו על זו (משנה, דמאי פ\"ה מ\"ז), ומותר לעשר מפֵרות נכרי על ישראל ולהפך (שם מ\"ט). במשנה א בפרקנו נידונה אפשרות של תרומה על מקום אחר, רבי מאיר מתיר וחכמים אוסרים משום שמדובר במצב מיוחד, משמע שבדרך כלל מותר לתרום על מקום אחר. בחלק מהמקרים ניתן לחלק בין מעשר (ותרומת מעשר) ובין תרומה גדולה, אבל אי אפשר להציע פרשנות זו למשנה א לעיל ולתוספתא מעשרות שציטטנו, שהרי אם בתרומת מעשר (ומעשר) אנו עוסקים ודאי שמותר לתרום מן שאינו מוקף.", + "אם כן, ניתן לסכם שגם רבי יהודה, השייך לשרשרת תלמידי בית שמאי המתירים לתרום מן הטהור על הטמא, וממין על שאינו מינו, מחייב תרומה מן המוקף בדרך כלל. אך יש הרואים בכך תרומה שלא מן המובחר, ואולי גם יש החולקים לחלוטין על חובה זו. ", + "כאמור, כל המשפטים במשנה מצביעים על כך שהשיעור של אחד חלקי שישים נתפס כחובה כמעט לכל דבר. לו לא היינו מכירים את מימרות האמוראים ניתן היה לפרש שהשיעורים במשנה הם הלכה ככל הלכה אחרת. " + ], + [ + "האומר לשלוחו צא ותרום – עצם האפשרות של תרומה על ידי שליח אינה מעוררת כל הסתייגות, שהרי כל מעשה, לרבות מעשים שבקדושה, ניתן לעשות על ידי שליח. אף לקדש אישה ניתן באמצעות שליח (משנה, קידושין פ\"ב מ\"א). רק מעשי מצווה אישיים צריך האדם לעשות בעצמו, כגון נטילת לולב או התעטרות בתפילין. האיסור לתרום את של חברו הוא רק כשלא נתן לו רשות (לעיל פ\"א מ\"א), תורם בדעתו שלבעל הבית – וכן בסדרת עדי נוסח28כ, מ, נ, ץ. , וביתר עדי הנוסח: \"כדעתו של בעל הבית\". \"בדעתו\" משמעו שדעתו של בעל הבית היא מקור הלגיטימציה של התרומה, ואילו הנוסח \"כדעתו\" הוא יותר טכני ומתייחס לשיעור התרומה בלבד. מכל מקום, הכוונה היא שהשליח יתרום בשיעור שאמר בעל הבית, ואם סטה ממנו פגע בשליחותו. התוספתא אומרת שאם אמר לו \"תרום בבינונית\" – חייב לתרום בבינונית, אבל אם אמר לו \"תרום אחד מחמישים\" וסטה כדי עשירית – תרומתו תרומה. אולם אם רצה השליח להוסיף, כלומר הסטייה היא מכוונת – אין תרומתו תרומה, ולכך נשוב להלן (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ד). עושה רושם שאם ביקש השליח לתרום פחות אין תרומתו תרומה, אם כי הדבר לא נאמר במפורש (ר\"ש), ואם אינו יודע דעתו שלבעל הבית תורם בבינונית אחד מחמשים פחות עשרה או הוסיף עשרה תרומתו תרומה – המשנה מניחה שהתרומה היא מאומד, ולכן סטייה של אחד מעשרה אפשרית. כאמור לעיל, התוספתא אמרה דין זה למקרה שהשליח ידע את רצונו של בעל הבית.", + "אם נתכוון – השליח, להוסיף אפילו אחד אין תרומתו תרומה – המשפט עשוי להתייחס לסיפא בלבד, כלומר אם השליח אינו יודע את רצונו של בעל הבית ורצה להוסיף ולתרום יותר מבינונית, או לרישא, כלומר הבעל אמר לו לתרום כך וכך והשליח רצה להוסיף על מה שאמר לו בעל הבית. במקביל, המילה \"להוסיף\" עשויה להתייחס להוראתו של בעל הבית, לכמות הרגילה שבעל הבית נוהג לתת, או להוסיף מעל לבינונית. בכך נחלקו ראשונים, ואלבק הקדיש לכך דיון ארוך29אלבק, עמ' 388-387. . ", + "גם הירושלמי (מב ע\"ד) מבהיר שאם רצה להוסיף אין תרומתו תרומה, ואם פחת תרומתו תרומה ובלבד שלא יפחות יותר מדי, פחות מעשירית ממה שצריך היה לתרום (לפי מידה בינונית), או פחות מהשיעור המזערי, אחד משישים. עוד אומר הירושלמי שכל זה רק אם אמר \"תרום כדעתי\", אבל אם לא הגדיר זאת רשאי התורם לתרום כרצונו.", + "מציאות זו שבה השליח רצה להוסיף נראית לכאורה בלתי רֵאלית. קשה עוד יותר הוא שהבעל צריך להדגיש \"תרום כדעתי\". הרי הוא מקור סמכותו של השליח, ולשליח לא אמור להיות רצון משלו. דומה שהמקורות מעלים לפנינו מציאות שונה משליחות רגילה. מסתבר שהיו אנשים שהיו מומחים להרמת תרומות ומעשרות. המתינו להם כדי שיתקנו את הפֵרות כהלכה. מן הסתם הם גם הרימו את התרומה בטהרה, בניגוד לבעל הבית שהוא עם הארץ, שאינו שומר על טהרה. אפילו אם הוא שומר על טהרה, הרי אין מאמינים לו בכך. מציאות זו עולה מעדויות מספר. \"בעל מקצוע\" כזה הוא גמליאל זוגא. הוא מתקן את התבשיל של בית אסי (ירו', פאה פ\"ח ה\"ד, כ ע\"ד, וראו פירושנו למשנה שם). אף על פי שלא היה חכם חשוב (אפילו לא נשא את התואר \"רבי\") שואלים אותו שאלות בתיקון פֵרות (ירו', ערלה פ\"ב ה\"א, סא ע\"ד), ופעם הוא מברר את דינו של מטען יבוא שהגיע לעיר (ירו', נדרים פ\"א ה\"ה, מא ע\"ד). מסתבר, אפוא, שתפקידו היה לתקן פֵרות לציבור וליחידים שרצו בכך, אם כי לא ברור האם הייתה זו מעין מומחיות במישור החברתי הבלתי-פורמלי או אולי הייתה לו משרה רשמית, כאגורנומוס מטעם הקהילה. יש להניח שלעתים היה זה הכהן שנחשב למומחה לתיקון הפֵרות. ", + "באופן כללי, הרמת התרומה הייתה לא רק חלוקה של פֵרות אלא גם מעמד מעין דתי. הכוהנים הסתובבו בין הגרנות וליקטו תרומות ומעשרות, ולעתים בירכו את נותני המעשרות. תמונה רֵאלית כזאת עולה מהמדרש: \"משל לכהן שיצא לגורן ליטול תרומה ומעשר, ובא בעל הגורן נתן לו תרומה, ולא החזיק לו טובה. נתן לו מעשר, ולא החזיק לו טובה. לאחר שנתן לו כל מה שהיה ראוי לכהן ליטול, עמד בעל הגורן והוסיף לו מדה אחת של חולין, החזיק לו טובה ונתפלל עליו. אמרו לו למה כשנתן לך בעל הגורן התרומה והמעשר לא החזקת לו טובה, ועכשיו על מעט מדה אחת של חולין החזקת לו טובה? אמר להן הראשונות התרומה והמעשר שלי הן, ושלי לקחתי. אבל אותה המדה שהוסיף לי משלו. לפיכך אני מחזיק לו טובה\" (תנחומא, ויצא ט). אם כן, הכהן מקבל תרומות ומעשרות, ודרכו של עולם היא שהוא מברך את בעלי הבתים ומתפלל עבורם, ואלו גומלים לו במתנות נוספות. במדרש זה הכהן אינו שליח להפרשת התרומה, אך יש במסורת זו כדי להצטרף לתמונת המעמד הדתי ולכן הבאנו מקור זה כאן. ", + "מכל מקום, שליח מעין זה אינו רק שליח אלא יש לו מגמה, והוא בבחינת מורה דרך לציבור. על כן מובן מדוע יש לשליח זה מה לומר לגבי שיעור התרומה, וחכמים הם המצמצמים את תפקידו לשליחות טכנית בלבד. יש להדגיש שרוב מקורות חז\"ל עוסקים במי שמפריש את מעשרותיו ואת תרומתו בעצמו. לחכמים חשוב להעמיד ולתאר את המציאות כאילו בעל הבית תורם, שכן עליו החובה לתרום. זאת משום שמבחינה הלכתית החובה מוטלת על בעל הבית, והוא המחליט האם לתרום ובאיזה שיעור. אין בכך כדי ללמד על מידת תפוצתם של השליחים הללו, וייתכן שבפועל הייתה תפוצתם של השליחים הללו רבה יותר מהמשתמע ממיעוט העדויות עליהם. " + ], + [ + "המרבה בתרומה – הרוצה לתרום הרבה מעבר לחובה של אחד מארבעים (או אחד משלושים כדעת בית שמאי), רבי ליעזר אומר אחד מעשרה כתרומת מעשר – מותר לו לתת תרומה עד עשירית ולא יותר מזה, יתר מיכן יעשנה תרומת מעשר – אם רצונו להפריש יותר, או שהפריש בטעות יותר, יכול הוא להסב את מה שהפריש לתרומת מעשר. כלומר, ייתן ללוי את עודף התרומה והוא יתנה כתרומת מעשר על שלו, שהרי הלוי חייב לתת עשירית מהמעשר כתרומת מעשר לכהן. הרקע הרֵאלי למצב זה של \"יתר על כן\" הוא שהפריש מאומד ויצאו לו כדי שתי עשיריות. כן מסביר הירושלמי שהיתרו של רבי אליעזר נובע מכך שכבר תרם, ואי אפשר שתרומתו לא תתפוס. הירושלמי מקשר זאת לעמדתם העקרונית של בית שמאי שבכל מקרה שתרם, אף אם חרג מעט מכללי התרומה, תרומתו תרומה (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"א מ\"ד ופ\"ג מ\"ח). רבי אליעזר הוא מתלמידי בית שמאי ומהלך, גם בנושא זה, בדרכם. זו עמדתם העקרונית של בית שמאי שהובילה לסדרת הקלות באפשרות לתרום מן הרע על היפה, מהטמא על הטהור וממין על שאינו מינו (ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"ד, מ\"ח, מ\"ט, פ\"ב מ\"א והמשנה הקודמת). ", + "הירושלמי (פ\"ג ה\"ה, מב ע\"ב) קושר את שיטתם זו של בית שמאי ש\"קדשיו (קודשיו) מדומעין\" גם לדברי רבי שמעון שדי לומר \"מעשר זה בתוכו\", ולא צריך להגדיר במדויק את מקום המעשר. זו גם שיטתו של רבי אלעזר בן ערך (תוס', תרומות פ\"ה הט\"ו, ראו פירושנו לחלה סוף פ\"ג).", + "הווה אומר, שיטת בית שמאי היא שקריאת תרומה בכל מקרה מועילה. אמנם רצוי להגדיר במדויק את מקום המעשר ועוד הגבלות נוספות, אך התרומה מועילה גם ללא תנאים אלו. הקביעה שהתרומה המיותרת נותרת קודש מיוחסת לרבי אליעזר, אך לא נאמר שחולקים עליו. לפיכך, יש לראות במשנתנו עוד משנה המושפעת מעמדתם של בית שמאי30לרשימה חלקית של משניות כאלו ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. .", + "רבי אלעזר בן ערך הנזכר היה מתלמידי רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ופרש מבית המדרש. הוא נזכר כחכם מופלא, אך גם מגנים את מעשהו שנטש את בית המדרש. באופן טבעי רק מעט מתורתו נותר, והמקורות שהעלינו משקפים מקרה נדיר שבו השתמר משהו מתורתו. חשוב לציין שהוא מקורב לבית שמאי, אך לא זהה להם. כך גם בכמה מקורות נוספים בנושאים אחרים31ירו', יבמות פ\"ב ה\"א, ג ע\"ב; פ\"ג ה\"ה, ד ע\"ד; בבלי, יבמות נח ע\"א; פירושנו לנדרים פ\"י מ\"ו. . הוא מפלס דרך לעצמו, מושפע מבית שמאי אך לא זהה להם. אולי קו זה אפיין את תורתו והוא תוצאה של עזיבת בית המדרש, או אולי גם אחת מסיבותיה? ", + "אבל לא ממקום אחר – \"ממקום\" כמו \"למקום\"32בעדי הנוסח ט, פ \"על מקום אחר\", ב- נ, ו, ש, ת כמו אצלנו, ובכל יתר עדי הנוסח \"למקום אחר\". , חילוף דומה מצוי לעיל במ\"א. עם זאת המשמעות אחת, שאסור לו לעשות את עודף התרומה שהרים כתרומת מעשר על פֵרות אחרים. כפי שאמרנו בפירושנו למשנה הקודמת מותר לתרום תרומת מעשר \"שלא מן המוקף\", אך לא במקרה זה שהרים את הפֵרות בתור תרומה על פֵרות אלו.", + "כך הנוסח בכמה עדי נוסח33ו, ז, ל, מ, נ, ש, ת. , אבל ביתר עדי הנוסח חסרה מילית השלילה, ויוצא שמותר לו לתרום מתרומה כאן על תרומת מעשר של מקום אחר. כן מעיר על נוסח זה רבי יהוסף אשכנזי, ומשאיר בצריך עיון. מכל מקום, אין לו לעשות את יתר התרומה כאן תרומה על מקום אחר, בגלל החשש שאין תורמים אלא מן המוקף, כלומר אין לתרום על פֵרות הנמצאים במקום אחר, ואפילו בכלי אחר בקרבת מקום (לעיל מ\"ד). זו שיטת רבי אליעזר, שהוא רבו של רבי יהודה. מי שמתיר לתרום משאינו מוקף יתיר אולי גם לתרום תרומה על מקום אחר. בירושלמי מובאת גם השיטה שדברי בית שמאי נאמרו רק על יין ושמן, ועסקנו בכך בפירושנו למ\"א שם. ", + "יתר התנאים אינם מתייחסים כלל לאפשרות של תרומה על מקום אחר. ", + "רבי ישמעאל אומר מחצה חולין ומחצה תרומה – מותר לו להרבות בתרומה עד כדי חמישים אחוז. בתוספתא נוסף: \"ובלבד שיהו החולין מרובין על התרומה\" (פ\"ה ה\"ג), כלומר אסור שהתרומה תגיע עד חמישים אחוז, אלא מעט פחות, רבי טרפון ורבי עקיבה אומרים עד שישיר שם חולין – ניתן לתרום את כל הפרי חוץ ממשהו. עמדה זו חוזרת גם ביחס לחלה (משנה, חלה פ\"א מ\"ט). גם במדרשים אחרים מופיעה הדרשה: \"רבי עקיבא אומר בא הכתוב ללמדך שאם בא לעשות כל גורנו תרומה רשאי ובלבד שישייר מקצת\"34ספרי במדבר, ה, עמ' 8; מדרש תנאים לדברים, יח ד, עמ' 108; הדרשה בספרי במדבר, קי, עמ' 114, היא לגבי חלה ולא נאמר שהיא דעת רבי עקיבא בדווקא. . בשני המקרים זו דרשתו של רבי עקיבא בלבד. רבי ישמעאל חולק ומציע דרשה אחרת, וכנראה לא רק משמעות דורשים ביניהם אלא גם הבדל הלכתי של ממש. ", + "המסקנה שאסור להרים את הכול כתרומה, או שיש לשייר רוב חולין, קרובה לדרשות שנקבע בהן שאין להפריש את כל העיסה כבצק: \"מראשית עריסותיכם מקצתה ולא כולה\" (ספרי, במדבר קי, עמ' 114). ברם, למרות הדמיון ההלכתי, הבדל גדול בין תרומה לבין הפרשת חלה. המפריש הרבה חלה מפסיד משלו, אבל הנותן הרבה תרומה מצמצם את חלקו של הלוי במעשר לוי, ואת שיעור המעשר השני (או מעשר עני). על כן אין להקיש בין שני המקרים. " + ], + [ + "בשלשה פרקים משערים את הכלכלה – דרך התרומה היא למלא את הכלכלה בפֵרות תרומה, או לתרום חלק מכלכלה שלמה. זאת לפי ההיתר במשנה: \"אין תורמין לא במידה ולא במשקל... אבל תורם הוא את המדוד ואת השקול ואת המנוי\" (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ז). על כן יש לספור כמה תאנים נכנסות לאותה כלכלה, ואת הספירה יש להתאים למצב התאנים ולמדוד שלוש פעמים בשנה.", + "בבכרות – תאנים בכורות שהבשילו לראשונה, ובסיפות – תאני סוף השנה, שהן קטנות יותר, ובאמצע הקיץ – תאנים של אמצע העונה. עד עתה לא שמענו שיש חיוב לבדוק כמה הכלכלה מכילה. נאמר שאסור לתרום מאומד, אך מותר לתרום בעזרת כלי מדוד. לעיל אף ראינו תנאים האוסרים להשתמש בכלי של מידה שיאפשר תרומה מדויקת. משנתנו מהלכת בדרך שונה. עדיין אסור לתרום בדיוק, אך מותר לו, ואפילו חובה, למדוד את הכלי. אי אפשר לפרש את משנתנו שמותר למדוד את הכלי שלוש פעמים; וכי מה חידוש יש בדבר? אם מותר למדוד את הכלי, מדוע אסור יהא לעשות זאת כל יום מחדש? אין זאת אלא שהמשנה מחייבת למדוד את הכלכלה כדי שהאומד יהיה קרוב למציאות. ", + "המונה משובח – הירושלמי מסביר שהמונה משובח מהמודד באומדן (מב ע\"ד), והמודד משובח ממנו והשוקל משובח משלשתן – כאן המשנה מחייבת הרמת תרומה במידה מדויקת. ניתן לפרש את משנתנו בשתי אפשרויות. או שמשפט זה במשנה חולק על כל שנאמר לפניו: עד עתה חייבה המשנה תרומה באומד, עתה היא מעדיפה תרומה בדיוק. כך פירש הירושלמי, שהמונה משובח מהאומד. ברם, ניתן גם לפרש שצריך לתרום באומד, אך צריך גם למדוד את הכלי שאומדים בו כדי שלא ייווצר מצב כמו במשנה הקודמת, של יתר תרומה. כך או כך, ברור שמשנתנו מבטאת גישה אחרת לתרומה. לא עוד אומדן, אלא מדידה קפדנית יותר. מכל מקום, הירושלמי סבור שמשנתנו חולקת על התביעה לתרום מאומד (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"א מ\"ז). תירוץ הירושלמי הוא כנראה ספרותי בלבד, אך השאלה מעידה כי אכן שתי המשניות נתפסו כסותרות. נראה שההלכה הקדומה העדיפה אומדן (בית שמאי ובית הלל, רבי אליעזר וחכמים נוספים). ברבות הזמן גרמה שיטה זו לסדרת בעיות מעשיות. ככל שנקבעו הכללים של תרומה של אחד מחמישים נתבעה גם תרומה במדידה קפדנית יותר, ולכך יש ביטוי במשנתנו. ", + "כפי שסיכמנו את דיוננו לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ז) מצאנו במקורות שלוש גישות עקרוניות. הגישה הקדומה תבעה תרומה באומד והתנגדה לכל מדידה; הגישה המאוחרת תבעה תרומה מדודה ושקולה, ככל מצווה אחרת, ובין שתי הגישות מצינו גישת ביניים שאסרה מדידה באופן פורמלי אך התירה, ואולי גם חייבה, מדידה מוקדמת, כך שבפועל הופרשה תרומה בכמות הראויה בדיוק רב למדי.", + "סדר המשניות עד למשנה זו ברור, אפוא. הפרק מתחיל בדין מי שהפריש מקצת תרומותיו (משניות א-ב) ואחר כך שיעור תרומה (ג), משנה שהיא בבחינת הסבר למושג של הפרשת \"מקצת התרומה\". המשנה הבאה דנה בשיעור התרומה שצריך השליח להפריש, ולאחר מכן דין המרבה בתרומה (מ\"ה) ודין צורת המדידה של התרומה. משניות א ו- ה סוגרות מעגל פנימי: דין המפריש מעט תרומה, דין המרבה בתרומה, ובאמצע (מ\"ג) מהו שיעור תרומה. כפי שאמרנו, חצייה השני של משנה ג חוזר לנושא הנדון במשנה א. ", + "הכלכלה ככלי שבו מביאים את התאנים נזכרת במקורות רבים נוספים: \"אמר לו צא ולקט לך תאנים מן התאנה, אוכל מהן עריי, ומעשרן ודיי. צא ומלא לך כלכלה זאת, אוכל מהן עריי ומעשרן דמיי...\"35תוס', מעשרות פ\"ב ה\"ה; ירו', פ\"ב ה\"ו, מט ע\"ג; בבלי, גיטין ל ע\"ב. . המחלוקת היא על מקרה שבו נתן אדם לחברו פֵרות, והשאלה היא האם עישר עליהם בעזרת פֵרות ממקום אחר. לענייננו, הנחת המשנה היא שההנחה בכלכלה היא גמר המלאכה של הפֵרות. כך מתואר גמר מלאכה של קטיף פֵרות: \"כלכלה עד שיחפה ואם אינו מחפה עד שימלא את הכלי ואם אינו ממלא את הכלי עד שילקט כל צרכו\" (משנה, מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ה), וכן יוצא ממקורות נוספים (כגון משנה, קידושין פ\"ב מ\"ז; נדרים פ\"ח מ\"ד ועוד)." + ], + [ + "במשנה זו מתחילה חטיבה נושאית חדשה של \"העלאת\" תרומה. העלאת תרומה היא פתרון למצב שבו נפלה מעט תרומה לתוך ערמה גדולה של פֵרות. אם הכמות מספיק גדולה התרומה מתבטלת; אם לאו, כל הערמה נחשבת ל\"מדומעת\" ואז יש להתייחס לכולה כאל תרומה. הבעל רשאי למכרה לכהן בתשלום, להוציא התשלום עבור התרומה המקורית, אבל בכל מצב יש לאכול את הערמה כולה בטהרה, שכן היא ספק תרומה. הכלל היסודי הוא שתרומה \"עולה\" באחד ממאה, אך נחלקו חכמי יבנה בשיעור המדויק. המשניות הקודמות עוסקות בשיעור תרומה ובשאלות הנגזרות מכך, והדיון בחטיבת התערובת מתחיל בשיעור המדויק של תערובת. בכך נחלקים רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע, על כן הפרק ממשיך בסדרת מחלוקות של רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע בנושא תערובת. חטיבת ה\"תערובת\" מסתיימת בסוף פרק ה. ", + "רבי אליעזר אומר תרומה עולה במאה ואחד – תרומה עולה כשהיא מעט פחות מאחד למאה. הגרסה \"במאה ואחד\" היא זו שבכתב יד קופמן ובכמה כתבי יד נוספים36ז, כ, מ, ץ. . ביתר כתבי היד: \"באחד ומאה\", ואפשר להבין שהתרומה היא אחד ממאה, או שהיא אחד ממאה ואחד. התחבטות זו חוזרת גם במשנה יא להלן, ושם כל הגרסאות הן \"באחד ומאה\". אבל נראה כי מי שגרס במשנתנו \"באחד ומאה\" גורס שם כך שברור שלרבי אליעזר עולה באחד חלקי מאה. אבל מי שגורס כאן \"מאה ואחד\" גורס שם \"באחד ומאה\", והכוונה באחד חלקי מאה ואחד כמו אצלנו, ונחזור לכך להלן.", + "רבי יהושע [אומר] במאה ועוד – יותר מאשר אחד חלקי מאה ואחד, אך פחות מאחד למאה. המחלוקת היא האם אחד למאה הוא מלגו, שבסך הכול בתערובת מאה חלקים, או מלבר, שיש בתערובת בסך הכול מאה ואחד חלקים, ועוד אין לו שיעור – כמות זו של \"ועוד\" שבדברי רבי יהושע אינה מוגדרת, רבי יוסה בן משולם אומר – רבי יוסי בן המשולם הוא בן דור אושא ונמנה עם קבוצה מיוחדת באופייה של חכמים חסידיים המכונים \"קהילא קדישא דבירושלם\"37ירו', מעשר שני פ\"ב ה\"י, נג ע\"ד; ספראי, קהלא קדישא. . אם כן הוא בן דור מאוחר המגיב על דברי רבי יהושע בן חנניה, ועוד – הוא קב למאה סאה שתות למדמע – העלאת תרומה היא קב למאה ועוד שתות (שישית) ממה שמדמע, כלומר אחד חלקי שש מאות. זו דרכה של ההלכה. ההלכה הקדומה הסתפקה בהגדרה כללית של \"ועוד\", וההלכה המאוחרת תבעה הגדרה מדויקת יותר. הוא הדין בהגדרה כמותית אחרת, \"שבעים אמה ושיריים\". גם כאן שיריים הם אורך קטן, פחות מאמה, אך בלתי מוגדר, ובשלב מאוחר יותר מתפרש כשני שליש אמה (משנה, עירובין פ\"ב מ\"ה, וראו פירושנו לה).", + "העלאת תרומה דומה להעלאת דמאי, ערלה ותערובות אחרות. בדרך כלל ננקט הכלל של אחד ממאה, אם כי ערלה וכלאי הכרם עולים באחד ממאתיים (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ט; משנה, ערלה פ\"ב מ\"א). במקבילות רבות חוזרת הקביעה שתרומה עולה באחד ממאה (משנה, ביכורים פ\"ב מ\"א; חלה פ\"א מ\"ט; ערלה פ\"ב מ\"א), וכן בנושאים קרובים כמעשר שני (משנה, מעשר שני פ\"ג מי\"ב) וחמץ (משנה, ערלה פ\"ב מ\"ו-מ\"ז). בדרך כלל נפסקות משניות כרבי יהושע, אך לא כן במקרה שלנו. כבר הרדב\"ז תמה על כך (פירושו למשנה תורה, הלכות תרומות פ\"ג ה\"א). פסיקה או סתימת משניות כרבי אליעזר אינה מפתיעה. היא מצטרפת לדוגמאות הרבות שבהן נקבעה הלכה כבית שמאי38ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. . הירושלמי אומר שהלכה כרבי יוסי בן המשולם, ומעמיד את דברי רבי יוסי זה כחולקים על רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע כאחד. ברור שלירושלמי מסורת אחרת במשנה, אך קשה במקצת מדוע זונחת ההלכה את דברי חכמים גדולים כרבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ופוסקת כחכם מאוחר. ", + "לפי נוסח עדי הנוסח הבבליים אכן רבי אליעזר אומר באחד חלקי מאה, ונסתמו המשניות כמותו. אבל לפי נוסחאות ארץ ישראל גם רבי אליעזר אומר אחד חלקי מאה ואחד39ורבי יהושע חולק ואינו דורש אלא \"ועוד\". . ממילא יש לשאול מי הוא האומר שתרומה עולה באחד למאה, לא רבי אליעזר ולא רבי יהושע. אפשר כמובן לפרש שזהו תנא שלישי, אך דומה שיש להלך בדרך שונה. הניסוח \"אחד ממאה\" או \"למאה\" הוא כללי ומוסכם על הכול. שני התנאים נחלקים בפרט משני, אך מסכימים לשיעור הבסיסי. המשניות הנוקטות בשיעור זה מנוסחות באופן כללי בלבד, ואינן מדייקות בפרט. כך גם נבין כיצד קובע התלמוד שהלכה כרבי יוסי בן המשולם, והלכה זו אינה מנוגדת לסתם המשניות אלא מפרטת אותן. מכל מקום, המשניות להלן מזכירות רק את השיעור הכללי אחד ממאה (להלן מ\"ט; מי\"א [לפי חלק מעדי הנוסח]; מי\"א; מי\"ג) ובפרק הבא (מ\"א; מ\"ב; מ\"ג ועוד), וכן במקבילות רבות, תנאיות ואמוראיות (כגון ספרי במדבר, קכא, עמ' 149 ועוד)40הבבלי בחולין צט ע\"ב מנסה להחדיר לתוך משנת ערלה פ\"ב מ\"ו אבחנה בין מה שעולה באחד למאה לבין מה שעולה באחד למאה ואחד, ואינו מזכיר בהקשר זה את משנתנו. ראו גישה שונה בפירושנו לשביעית פ\"ז מ\"ז, לחלה פ\"ג מ\"י ולערלה שם שם. .", + "דרך זו של קביעת שיעור כללי שאינו מדויק חוזרת במקרים אחרים. כך, למשל, חוזר המונח \"לוקה את הארבעים\" (\"לוקה ארבעים\") למי שאמור להיענש בשלושים ותשע מלקות (משנה, פסחים פ\"ז מי\"א; מכות פ\"א מ\"א ועוד); חמישים ימים בספירת העומר כשבפועל סופרים רק ארבעים ותשעה יום בין פסח לשבועות, וכן היובל שהוא שנת החמישים, ולפחות לפי חלק מהחכמים הוא שנת הארבעים ותשע, ודוגמאות נוספות." + ], + [ + "ר' יהושע אומר תאינים שחורות מעלות את הלבנות [וה]לבנות מעלות [את ה]שחורות – הנחת היסוד של המשנה היא שאם נפלה תאנה אחת של תרומה לתוך מאה תאנים של חולין הן \"מעלות\", כלומר התרומה מתבטלת. פירוש זה של המונח \"מעלות\" הוא כללי, ויבואר להלן (פ\"ה מ\"ג-מ\"ד). השאלה שהמשנה הזו וזו שאחריה דנות בה היא מה קורה אם יש בסל תאנים שונות, אם נפלה תאנה שחורה לתוך תאנים לבנות או להפך. נניח שתאנה לבנה נפלה לכלי שיש בו חמישים תאנים לבנות וחמישים שחורות, האם מניחים שכל התאנים הן מאותו סוג ויש כאן ביטול באחד למאה, או שהתאנים השחורות אינן נמנות. כפי שנראה במשנה הבאה הגדרת המקרה שעליו מדובר שנויה במחלוקת, וההסבר שהצענו הוא כללי בלבד. ", + "וכן, עיגולי דבילה הגדולים מעלים את הקטנים והקטנים מעלים את הגדולים – שוב מדובר בשני סוגים של עיגולי דבלה שההבדל ביניהם ברור, העיגולים מעלין את המלבנים והמלבנים מעלין את העיגולים – אחת הצורות לשמירת התאנים הייתה בקציעות. את התאנים קצצו לחלקים, וכבשו אותן במים או ברוטב אחר (לעיל פ\"ב מ\"א). לפי המשנה היו שכבשו את הקציעות בעיגול, והיו שכבשון במלבן. מלבן הוא צורה גאומטרית שיש לה ארבע זוויות ישרות, כמו מלבן המיטה או הכיסא (משנה, עדויות פ\"א מי\"א; כלים פי\"ח מ\"ג; תוס', שבת פי\"ח הט\"ו ועוד). ", + "ר' אליעזר אומר [נא אוסר] – כך נכתב בשוליים, כלומר: נוסח אחר – אוסר. לכאורה בפשטות שחורה לא תעלה לבנה, ולהפך, ורבי עקיבה אומר בידוע מה נפלה אין מעלות זו את זו – ההבנה הפשוטה היא שרבי עקיבא נוקט עמדת ביניים בין שני רבותיו. אם ידוע איזו תאנה נפלה הרי שהתאנים בצבע האחר אינן מעלות ואינן מתערבבות, אבל אם אין ידוע איזו תאנה נפלה הרי שהתאנים הן בחזקת תערובת, ועולות באחד ממאה. העיקרון שמנחה את רבי עקיבא הוא שתערובת היא רק אם באמת אי אפשר לבודד את התרומה מתוך הערמה, אבל אם נפלה תאנה לבנה לתוך שחורות אין כל קושי להוציאה מהערמה. ", + "ובשאינו ידוע מה נפלה אין מעלות זו את זו - משנה ט מדגימה את ההלכה שבמשנתנו, ולאחריה נשוב לפירוש המחלוקת שבמשנה ולדעות השונות." + ], + [ + "כיצד חמישים תאינים שחורות וחמישים לבנות נפלה [שחורה] – מהו המקרה שעליו מדבר רבי עקיבא, שהרי לרבי יהושע אין הבדל בין תאנים שחורות ולבנות (ר\"ש)? תאנה שחורה נפלה לערמה מעורבת זו, שחורות אסורות ולבנות מותרות – התאנים הלבנות ודאי שאינן תרומה, שהרי הן לבנות, והתאנים השחורות אסורות משום שנפלה תאנה אחת של תרומה לערמה של חמישים, ואלו אינן בטלות. במקרה זה כל התאנים הן ספק תרומה, ויש לאכלן בטהרה. אם כי, כפי שכבר נאמר, הבעל רשאי למכור את כולן לכהן חוץ מדמי תאנה אחת. המחיר שישלם הכהן יהיה זול יחסית, שהרי על כל מה שקנה חלים דיני תרומה.", + "נפלה לבנה לבנות אסורות ושחורות מותרות – וכן הדין במקרה ההפוך, כשנפלה תאנה לבנה, בשאינו ידוע מה נפלה – אם אינו יודע באיזו צבע הייתה התאנה של התרומה, מעלות זו את זו ובזו – בטלה התאנה האחת בחמישים תאנים אחרות. כאן ברור שהביטול הוא בתאנה אחת למאה (בסך הכול מאה ואחת תאנים בכל הערמה), ודנו בכך במשנה ז.", + "רבי אליעזר [אומר] – בכתב היד נמתח קו על המילה כדי לסמן מחיקה, מחמיר ורבי יהושע מקל – ההלכה במשנה היא דבריו של רבי עקיבא, וכאמור במשנה הקודמת רבי אליעזר מחמיר במקרה זה, וגם אם אין ידוע איזו תאנה נפלה כל הערמה אסורה, ולדעת רבי יהושע בכל המקרים הערמה מותרת. סיכום הדעות בטבלה להלן:", + "תאנים שחורות ולבנות", + "(נפלה תאנה לחמישים לבנות וחמישים שחורות)", + "מן הראוי להעיר שרבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע דנים בסדרת פרטים ואילו רבי עקיבא מנסח את הדברים ככלל, \"ידוע\" ו\"אינו ידוע\". דומה שזו דרכו של רבי עקיבא לנסח את דבריו בכללים, וזו דרכה של ההלכה להסיק מהדיון במקרה פרטי לכלל. עם זאת, גם את דבריו של רבי עקיבא ניתן היה להציג ככלל רחב עוד הרבה יותר, כפי שמנסחת זאת התוספתא. בתוספתא לא רק הניסוח אחר אלא גם שמות המוסרים אחרים: \"כשתמצא אומר כלל שרבי אליעזר אומר בידוע לא תעלה בשאין ידוע תעלה. רבי יהושע אומר בין בידוע בין בשאין ידוע תעלה41בכתב יד ערפורט: \"לא תעלה\", ואז רבי יהושע שבתוספתא הוא רבי אליעזר שבמשנה. [דברי רבי מאיר42נשמט בטעות מכתב יד וינה. ] רבי יהודה (ו)43וי\"ו החיבור חסרה בכתב יד ערפורט, ויש להעדיף נוסח זה שבו רבי יהודה מוסר את דברי רבי אליעזר. רבי אליעזר אומר בין בידוע בין בשאין ידוע [לא] תעלה רבי יהושע אומר בין בידוע בין שאין ידוע תעלה44כך בכתב יד ערפורט, רבי אליעזר מחמיר ורבי יהושע מקל, כמו במשנה. אבל אפשר גם לגרוס ההפך. מכל מקום, גרסת כתב יד וינה בשניהם \"לא תעלה\" היא בוודאי שיבוש, שהרי אם כן מה ההבדל בין שני התנאים. רבי עקיבא אומר בידוע לא תעלה שאין ידוע תעלה\" (פ\"ה ה\"י). מילות הפתיחה \"כשתמצא אומר\" הן כביכול סיכום של ההלכה הקודמת, או של דברים קודמים של רבי אליעזר45למילים אלו כסיכום ראו ליברמן למקום. ליברמן מנסה לרמז לקשר בין הכלל של רבי אליעזר וההלכה הקודמת בתוספתא. אבל הקישור מאולץ, ומכל מקום רבי אליעזר לא נזכר בראשית ההלכה בתוספתא. אין זאת אלא שהמשפט החל כסיכום של רבי אליעזר, או שדבריו המפורטים של רבי אליעזר נכללו בהלכה הקדומה שממנה נלקטה התוספתא. ייתכן מאוד שהתוספתא מבוססת על המשנה, שבה נאמרו דבריו של רבי אליעזר על סדרת מקרים פרטיים. עם זאת, התוספתא מציגה מסורת הלכה שונה מהמשנה. . שיטת רבי יהודה זהה למסורת שבמשנה ושסוכמה בטבלה. רבי מאיר מייחס לרבי אליעזר את עמדת רבי עקיבא, ורבי עקיבא אינו נזכר. לעתים קרובות מוסר רבי מאיר את עמדת רבי עקיבא רבו כמות שהיא, ואולי גם כאן הוא מוסר את דברי רבי עקיבא בשמו. אלא שרבי עקיבא אינו מופיע כחולק (מפשר בין עמדות רבותיו) אלא כפרשן של רבי אליעזר. הווה אומר, ניתן להבין את ההבדל במסורות באחת משתי צורות: או שרבי מאיר ורבי יהודה חולקים בשאלה על מה נחלקו אבות העולם שלפניהם, או שרבי יהודה מוסר את המחלוקת ואילו רבי מאיר מוסר אותה כפי שעובדה על ידי רבי עקיבא. ", + "בירושלמי (מג ע\"א) מתנהל דיון שלא נסכם את פרטיו; השיקולים השונים דומים, אלא שבקטע נפלו מעט חילופי נוסח, זאת בעקבות חילופי הנוסח בתוספתא בין \"תעלה\" ל\"לא תעלה\". בסך הכול מסקנת הירושלמי דומה לתוספתא, אלא שהירושלמי לא הכיר את התוספתא ואינו מביא אותה. רב כהנא מבין מדעתו את המשנה כמו התוספתא. זו דוגמה מרתקת במיוחד לדרכי המסירה של האמוראים. התלמוד מספר שרב כהנא עמד על הדבר כבר בבבל, והסתבר כי את אשר הכירה התוספתא כמסורת הכיר רב כהנא מדעתו, שאם אין ידוע מה נפל אין כל סיבה שלא יעלה. על כן פירש את רבי אליעזר כמו רבי עקיבא במשנה (או כרבי יהושע, אם יוחלפו שמות החולקים). ", + "משנה ח ומשנה ט חוזרות האחת על דברי חברתה. אפשר היה להסתפק במשנה ט, ומשנה ח מיותרת. נראה, אפוא, שלפני רבי היו שתי הלכות קדומות קרובות, והוא הביא את שתיהן אף על פי שבכך יצר כפילות. למזלנו הטוב השתמרו שתי המשניות, וכך ניתן לעקוב אחר שיקולי העריכה של רבי. שני הניסוחים קרובים, והם בבחינת שני עיבודים קדומים לאותה הלכה עוד יותר קדומה, הראשון סתום והשני מפורט. ייתכן שהניסוח הראשון (משנה ח) הוא הקדום יותר. בפרטיו נחלקו רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה. הניסוח השני הוא כרבי יהודה, והוא מוציא מכלל אפשרות את ניסוחו של רבי מאיר. מכל מקום, הניסוחים של משנתנו קדמו לרבי מאיר ורבי יהודה, שכן הם חולקים בדבר פרטיהם. נראה, אפוא, שסדר הדברים היה כך: ראשונה נשנתה משנה ח, על משמעותה חלקו חכמי דור אושא, אחר מכן תוקן הניסוח למשנה ט, ניסוח הקובע עמדה במחלוקת רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה. " + ], + [ + "ובזו רבי אליעזר מקל ורבי יהושע מחמיר – במשנה הקודמת רבי אליעזר החמיר, לפחות לפי מסורת המסירה של המשנה, במחלוקת הבאה רבי אליעזר מקל. המשנה מודעת לכך שרבי אליעזר בדרך כלל מחמיר, ואכן רבי אליעזר ממשיך את דרכם של בית שמאי, שגם הם בדרך כלל החמירו, אך נשתמרו מהם גם הקלות.", + "בדורס ליטרא קציעות על פי הכד – אדם דרס קציעות על פי הכד. הקציעות הן של תרומה והכד חולין (או להפך), ואין ידוע אי זו היא – באיזה כד נעשתה תערובת זו, רבי אליעזר אומר רואין אותן כילו הן פרודות התחתונות מעלות את העליונות – הספק כאן הוא כפול. ראשית, התאנים בכד שבו נעשתה התערובת הן בספק, ושנית, ספק באיזה כד נעשתה התערובת. רבי אליעזר לשיטתו מחמיר ב\"אין ידוע\", ומכיוון שלא ברור באיזה כד נפלה התרומה כל הכדים נחשבים לתערובת. אבל הוא מקל בכך שהתאנים בכד נחשבות כולן כפרודות. אמנם יש להניח שהקציעות של התרומה לא התערבו בחלק התחתון של הכד; הרי התאנים כבר עשויות בגוש, וכל אשר מצטרף אל הגוש מצטרף למעלה ואינו יורד למטה. לא ברור מדברי רבי אליעזר האם הוא רואה בכל כד תערובת בפני עצמה, כלומר שבכל אחד מהם צריכות להיות מאה תאנים כדי לבטל את תאנת התרומה שהוחדרה לכד, או שצריך שבכולם יחד תהיינה מאה תאנים כדי לבטל את תאנת התרומה.", + "רבי יהושע אומר לא תעלה עד שיהא שם מאה כד – לפי הנוסח במשנה התאנים מתחתית הכד אינן מבטלות את התאנה של התרומה שבפי הכד. זו חומרה מצד אחד וקולה מצד אחר, משום שכך התאנים שבתחתית הכד מותרות ללא עוררין. מכל מקום, כל פי כד נחשב כתרומה, ואם יש שם מאה כדים מועילה התערובת לבטל את הכד האסור. ", + "אמנם יש בספרות התנאים דעות שכד סתום אינו מתבטל, כלומר אם נפל כד סתום של תרומה לתוך מאה כדים סתומים של חולין אין הוא מתבטל (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"י), אבל כאן מאפשרים את הביטול, אולי משום שהכד אינו סתום. ", + "בתוספתא מובא ניסוח שונה המציג את המחלוקת בלשון אחרת: \"ליטרא קציעות שדרסה על פי חבית ואינו יודע באי זו חבית דרסה, על פי כוורת ואינו יודע באי זו כוורת דרסה, דרסה בעיגול של דבילה ואינו ידוע באי זה עיגול דרסה, רבי ליעזר אומר רואין את העליונות כאילו הן פרודות, אם יש שם מאה ואחד ליטרין תעלה ואם לאו לא תעלה. רבי יהושע אומר אם יש שם מאה פומין יעלו, ואם לאו הפומין אסורין והשולים מותרין, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר רבי ליעזר אומר אם יש שם מאה פומין תעלה, ואם לאו הפומין אסורין והשולים מותרין. רבי יהושע אומר אף על פי (שאין שם) שיש שם שלש מאות פומין לא תעלה. דרסה בעיגול ואינו יודע היכן דרסה הכל מודים שתעלה\" (פ\"ה הי\"א). ", + "התוספתא אינה פותחת במשפט \"בזו רבי אליעזר מקל\" משום שלפי התוספתא, לפחות לפי רבי מאיר, רבי אליעזר אינו מחמיר בהרבה. יתר על כן, ראינו כי יש אפשרות לגרוס בתוספתא ההפך, שרבי אליעזר מקל גם בהלכה (במחלוקת) הקודמת. התוספתא מוסיפה עוד דוגמאות דריסה על פי חבית (במקום כד במשנה), על פי כוורת ובעיגול. החילוף כד/חבית אינו משמעותי, היו אלו שני כלים זהים שהיה ביניהם הבדל קטן בגודל46משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ג מ\"א, וכפי שמסביר ומפרש התלמוד הבבלי שם כז ע\"א. . כוורת היא גם כד גדול ששימש ככוורת, אך ניתן היה להשתמש בו גם לשימושים אחרים. זאת ועוד, את הדבש היו מוציאים מהכוורת על ידי שבירת תחתית הכד, דבר שאִפשר את הוצאת הדבש בקלות, דרך פתח רחב ולא דרך פתח צר. כנראה גם את הקציעות הוציאו בדרך זו. הכד שימש לדחיסת התאנים, ולאחר שהפכו לגוש שברו את תחתית הכד והוציאו את הגוש כאחד47לכוורת ראו ספראי, דבש. . ", + "דברי רבי מאיר בתוספתא הם דברי המשנה, אלא שדבריו מבוארים יותר. התאנה של תרומה התערבה בתאנים בפה הכד, ולכן אם יש שם מאה פיות (\"פומין\") של כדים, או מאה תאנים בפי כל כד וכד לחוד, התרומה תתבטל, ואילו רבי יהודה שבתוספתא מחמיר. לרבי אליעזר הוא מייחס את עמדתו של רבי יהושע. לרבי יהושע הוא מייחס חומרה נוספת שכל כד נחשב לסתום, בבחינת \"דבר שבמניין\" שאינו מתערב, אבל עיגול הדבלה אינו בבחינת כד סתום ומתערב במאה אחרים.", + "הבבלי מנסח את הכלל כ\"דבר שבמנין אפילו בדרבנן לא בטיל\" (ביצה ג ע\"ב). המונח \"דבר שבמנין\" הוא בבלי בלבד, אבל יסודותיו בדברי תנאים בתוספתא כאן ובתוספתא לעיל הקובעת \"שלא אסרו אלא סתומה שבסתומות\" (פ\"ה ה\"י; ירו', ערלה פ\"ג ה\"ו, סג ע\"ב). בארץ ישראל המינוח הוא \"דבר שדרכו להימנות\"48ירו', מג ע\"א; משנה, ערלה פ\"ג מ\"ז; ירו', שם פ\"ב ה\"א, סא ע\"ד; פ\"ג ה\"ד, סב ע\"ג. . ", + "במשנה אין הבדל בין דעות רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע בשיעור העירוב. מדברי שניהם משמע שעירוב הוא באחד למאה, וכן במשנה הקודמת. זאת אף שבמשנה ז התברר ששני התנאים חולקים גם בשאלה האם יש צורך באחד למאה ואחד (רבי אליעזר), או באחד למאה ועוד (רבי יהושע). כבר במשנה ז הערנו כי המקורות אינם מדייקים ונוקטים בשיעור הכללי של אחד למאה, ושתי המשניות האחרונות הן הוכחה לכך. אבל בתוספתא שציטטנו רבי אליעזר מדגיש \"אם יש שם מאה ואחד\", ואילו רבי יהושע מצוטט בצורה הכללית \"אם יש שם מאה\"49ליברמן מעיר על ראשונים שגרסו גם בדברי רבי אליעזר בתוספתא \"מאה\" בלבד. . ", + "בתוספתא שלנו משנתנו כרבי מאיר, בניגוד לרבי יהודה, ובמשנה הקודמת משנתנו כרבי יהודה בניגוד לרבי מאיר. בירושלמי למשנתנו מצוטטת התוספתא בחילוף שמות, ומשנתנו כרבי יהודה. ראינו כי גם בתוספתא למשנה הקודמת יש חילופי נוסח המאפשרים לשנות את שמות הדוברים. קשה לחשוף את הנוסח המקורי, אבל סביר ששתי המשניות הן כאחד מהתנאים (או רבי מאיר או רבי יהודה), ולא שהאחת כאחד והאחרת כשני. עוד מן הראוי לומר שרבי מאיר הוא בעל הכלל שדבר שדרכו להימנות אינו מתבטל (ואינו מקדש – משנה, ערלה פ\"ג מ\"ז; בבלי, ביצה ג ע\"ב; זבחים עב ע\"ב). על כן יש עדויות לנוסח הירושלמי. בכלל עצמו נרחיב בפירושנו למשנת ערלה שם." + ], + [ + "סאה תרומה שנפלה על פי מגורה וקפיה – המגורה היא מחסן שבו שומרים את הפֵרות בתפזורת, כפי שפירשנו לעיל מ\"ב. הסאה נפלה על פי המגורה והבעל קיפה אותה, כלומר הסיר את החלק העליון שנפל. מן הסתם הסיר בכך את רוב התרומה, אך נותר ממנה קצת. פירשנו וקפָיָה (קפָאָה) כפועל בגוף שלישי עבר. כך פירשו הר\"ש ורבנו עובדיה מברטנורא, הרא\"ש ואחרים. אבל אפשר גם לפרש וקפְאָה, כלומר שהסאה קפאה ונשארה למעלה ולא התערבבה (רמב\"ם, אלבק). להלן נראה שהדרישה להקפיא היא רק לשיטת רבי יהושע. אמנם להלן יקפיאנה (יקפינה) משמעו להסיר את החלק העליון, אך כאן קשה לפרש כן.", + "רבי אליעזר אומר אם יש בקפוי תעלה באחד ומאה – כך בכתב יד קופמן ובכתבי יד נוספים50א, ב, ג10, ז, כ, ל, מ, ן, פ, ץ. . בדפוסים ובמעט עדי נוסח, רובם בעלי אופי משני: \"אם יש בקפוי מאה סאה\". נראה שהמשפט בא כתוספת הסבר ואינו משנה את התוכן51להוציא את העובדה שלרבי אלעזר יש צורך במאה ואחת סאה, אך גם במשניות אחרות משתמשים בשיעור הכללי של מאה סאה ולא דייקו בשיעור, ראו המשנה הקודמת ומשנה ז לעיל. . רבי אליעזר לשיטתו שהחלק התחתון מתערב בסאה שנפלה למעלה, \"התחתונות מעלות את העליונות\", ולכן אם יש במגורה פי מאה ממה שקפה (או ממה שנותר אחרי שהסיר את החלק העליון של המגורה), כלומר פי מאה מהסאה של התרומה, הסאה של התרומה בטלה, ואם לא אינה בטלה. כאן קפוי משמעו מה שנפל, ולא מה שהוסר.", + "קשה לפרש כאן שהבעל הסיר (הקפיא) את הסאה שנפלה, שכן ההקפאה (הסרת החלק העליון) אינה נזכרת במשנה הקודמת (\"בדורס ליטרא קציעות על פי הכד\"), אף שגם שם ניתן היה לדרוש דרישה זו. זאת ועוד; אם הבעל הסיר חלק ממה שנפל צריך היה לומר \"אם יש במה שנותר מן הקפוי\" ולא \"אם יש בקפוי\", הרי שקיפוי אינו הסרת החלק אלא השארתו, ורבי יהושע אומר לא תעלה – שכן התחתון אינו מעלה את העליון, כמות שנשנה במשנה הקודמת. ", + "לפי לשון המשנה ניתן היה אולי לפרש שלרבי אליעזר יש צורך בפי מאה באזור שבו קפאה הסאה. אבל אז לא ברור למה מתנגד רבי יהושע, ואף ניצור בכך סתירה בין דברי רבי אליעזר, המקל במשנה הקודמת, לבין משנתנו. זאת ועוד, להלן נראה שהדרישה להקפיא היא ממשנתו של רבי יהושע בלבד. להלן נראה שכך פירש הירושלמי, ונרחיב בכך. ", + "סאה תרומה שנפלה על פי מגורה יקפינה – כאן ברור שיקפיאנה הוא פועל אקטיבי, הבעל צריך להסיר את החלק העליון, והוא תרומה, שכן ודאי שאין במה שהסיר פי מאה מהתרומה שנפלה. זו דעתו של רבי יהושע, כפי שנראה בהמשך.", + "ואם כן למה אמרו תרומה עולה במאה ואחד [ואם] [בש]אינו ידוע – קו מחיקה מתוח על \"ואם\", והאותיות \"בש\" נוספו בידי מעתיק למעלה. המשפט המלא הוא: \"למה אמרו תרומה עולה במאה ואחד? בשאינו ידוע\". כלומר, לא ידוע לאיזה כד נפלה התרומה, כמו שהסברנו במשנה הקודמת, אם בלולות הן או לאין נפלה – כלומר לא ידוע אם הן בלולות, או שלא ידוע לאיזו מגורה נפלה התרומה. פירשנו את המשפט כאילו \"בשאינו יודע\" הוא משפט כללי ואחריו שני משפטי הסבר: אינו יודע אם בלולות הן, אינו יודע לאן נפלה.", + "החצי השני של סוף המשנה, \"ואם כן...\", הוא לשיטת רבי יהושע, שהרי לשיטת רבי אליעזר מעלות באחד ומאה גם במקרה נוסף, והוא המקרה התדיר יותר שאפשר \"להקפיא\", מכאן שרק רבי יהושע דורש להקפיא. ברם, ניתן גם לומר שהחלק הראשון של המשפט, \"סאה... שנפלה... יקפינה\", הוא לדעת הכול. כך הוא גם מוצג בתוספתא (להלן). ", + "גם משנה זו מיותרת, כמו משנה ט המכפילה את משנה י (לעיל). הדין הנאמר במשנתנו נאמר במפורש במשנה הקודמת. אפשר למצוא, כמובן, חידוש במשנתנו: משנה י מדברת על כלי ובו חומר דחוס שהערבוב בו כמעט בלתי אפשרי, ומשנתנו על חומר פזור יותר, ועל כן במשנתנו יש חידוש לרבי יהושע, ובמשנה הקודמת החידוש הוא לשיטת רבי אליעזר. ברם, אם כך היה צריך היה התנא לשנות סאה (או ליטרא) \"תרומה שנפלה על פי כד או על פי מגורה...\". אלא יש לומר שכמו צמד המשניות הקודם גם כאן שימר רבי שתי מסירות שיש ביניהן דמיון רב בתוכן, בהכפלת סגנון. על כן, כמו בצמד המשניות הקודם, המשנה השנייה מנסחת את הדברים בצורה מעט כללית יותר. בכל אחת מהמשניות מצא רבי משפט שיש בו חשיבות ושאינו בניסוח האחר: במשנה יא הנימוק \"תחתונות מעלות את העליונות\" ובמשנה ב כלל ותוספת, שניהם לשיטת רבי יהושע. על כן בחר שלא לערוך את שתי המשניות למכלול אחד אלא להביא את שתיהן וליצור בכך הכפלה. ", + "כפי שאמרנו במבוא לפירושנו, לא אחת מסתפק רבי בליקוט המשניות ללא עריכה. פרקנו הוא, אפוא, דוגמה לכך, אם כי גם אמרנו שלעתים היה העורך (רבי) מעורב עמוק יותר בתוך המשניות שליקט. ", + "פירשנו את שתי המשניות כאחת בצורה שהן משלימות זו את זו, אבל הירושלמי הילך בדרך שונה. הירושלמי שואל: \"מחלפא שיטתיה דרבי אליעזר\", הרי במשנה י הוא אומר שהתחתונות מעלות את העליונות וכאן \"אם יש בקפוי...\"! משמע שהירושלמי הבין אחרת ממה שהצענו לפרש. לדעתו במשנתנו דורש רבי אליעזר שפי מאה יהיו ב\"קפוי בלבד\", כלומר בפי המגורה, והתחתונות אינן מעלות את העליונות. ההסבר הוא שבמשנתנו נחשב הבעל מרבה במזיד. כלומר, הוא יכול להסיר את הקפוי, דהיינו להוריד את החלק העליון, ואם לא עשה כן קונסים אותו שהתחתונות לא תעלנה את העליונות. אבל כשדרס ליטרא קציעות של תרומה החדיר את הקציעות לתוך הגוש, וממילא אין כאן אפשרות להסיר את החלק העליון (הקפוי). מבחינה לשונית הסבר הירושלמי אפשרי, ברם לעיל דחינו אותו, שאם כן מהו נימוקו של רבי יהושע \"לא תעלה\"? אם יש בפי המגורה פי מאה – ודאי שהתרומה \"עולה\" (בטלה), ואם אין שם פי מאה – במה הוא חולק על רבי אליעזר? בירושלמי יש הסבר שני: \"כסאה עולה מתוך סאה\" (מג ע\"א), והוא ברור פחות. בעל מלאכת שלמה, בעקבות הרא\"ש, הסביר שמתחשבים בתחתונות כמו שאנו הסברנו52הרמב\"ם אומר שלפי התלמוד הסתירה בדברי רבי אליעזר נשארה, וכנראה לא העריך את התשובות כמספקות. . ייתכן שהסבר זה רומז לדעתו של רבי אליעזר כפי שתוסבר להלן (פ\"ה מ\"ב), ודעתו שם אכן סותרת את דעתו במשנה הקודמת. לפי דבריו שם עלינו להניח שאם יקפיא, כלומר יסיר את החלק העליון, אזי נניח שהסאה שנפלה היא זו שעלתה, ועל כן גם כאן כך. לפי רבי אליעזר צריך להסיר את החלק העליון, ואז גם התחתונות אינן מעלות את העליונות, ונבאר שיטה זו בפירושנו להלן. אם כן, לפי פירוש זה עדיין דברי רבי אליעזר במשנתנו שונים מדבריו במשנה הקודמת, אלא שמדובר במקרה מיוחד שבו ניתן להסיר את החלק שנפל בוודאות גדולה למדי. השאלה ששאלנו, מה עמדתו של רבי יהושע, במקומה עומדת. ", + "לדעתנו התלמוד כאן פירש את המשנה שלא כפשוטה דווקא מתוך הבעיה של הכפלת המשנה. לפי פירושנו משנה יא חוזרת על משנה י, והירושלמי כדרכו הבין את המשנה כטקסט משפטי ערוך במדויק, על כן רצה להציע פירוש שבו אין כפילות בין המשניות. ", + "משנתנו היא דוגמה כיצד הנחות היסוד בדבר הדרכים שבהן נקט רבי בעריכת המשנה משפיעות על פרשנותה. ", + "בתוספתא מנוסחת ההלכה שבמשנה אחרת: \"סאה תרומה שנפלה על פי המגורה, רואין אותה כאילו היא חטין על פי שעורין, יקלפנה. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במשתייר תעלה באחד ומאה\" (פ\"ה הי\"ב). במקום \"יקפינה\" שבמשנה \"יקלפנה\", וזה שינוי במינוח שיש בו פרשנות. אם כן, זו דעת רבי יהושע שיש לקלוף את הסאה שנפלה, ומה שנותר יעלה באחד ומאה, ואין בתוספתא התייחסות למחלוקת שבמשנה האם מתחשבים בתאנים התחתונות. הניסוח בתוספתא עוקף את כל השאלות שהמשנה מעלה, והוא כאילו סיכום הלכתי של האפשרויות השונות במשנה, סיכום שהוא מעין דעת הכול, ובפרטים עדיין נחלקים התנאים." + ], + [ + "שתי קופות שתי מגורות שנפלה סאה תרומה לתוך אחת מהן ואין ידוע לאי זו מהן נפלה מעלות זו את זו – זה מקרה מובהק של \"אין ידוע\", וכמעט לכל הדעות במקרה זה מעלות זו את זו (לעיל מ\"י). עם זאת, לעיל שנינו גם את דעת רבי יהושע (לפי רבי יהודה בתוספתא) שבכל מקרה כזה אין חבית אחת (או מגורה אחת) מעלה את האחרת. אם כן לפנינו מחלוקת רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע, ומשנתנו ממשיכה בשיטת רבי יהושע, או שהיא לדעת הכול (לפי משנתנו שהיא גם שיטת רבי מאיר בתוספתא, ראו לעיל פירושנו למ\"י).", + "רבי שמעון אומר אפילו הן בשתי עיירות מעלות זו את זו – גם אם המרחק בין המגורות גדול, והסיכוי שליטרה תרומה נפלה למגורה הרחוקה דחוק מעט. מכל מקום, אין המגורה או החבית נחשבת לדבר מן המניין כפי שפירשנו במשנה י. בתוספתא שנינו: \"שתי קופות בשתי מגורות, שתי מגורות בשתי עליות, שתי מגורות בעליה אחת, הרי אילו יעלו. רבי יהודה אומר לא יעלו. רבי שמעון אומר אפילו הן בשתי עיירות, מעלות [זו] את זו. בזו מאה ובזו [אין] מאה, הריני אומר לתוך מאה נפלה\" (פ\"ו הי\"ב). אם כן, תנא קמא בתוספתא הוא כמשנתנו, ורבי יהודה מהלך בשיטתו של רבי יהושע ששתי קופות אינן מעלות זו את זו אלא כל קופה תידון לחוד, כמו במשנה י. הירושלמי לא הכיר את התוספתא, ואומר מדעתו: \"שתי מגורות בעלייה אחת, אבל שתי מגורות בשתי עליות לא בדא\" (ירו', מג ע\"א – לא אמר). אם כן, ארבע שיטות הן: רבי יהושע ורבי יהודה אומרים שאין עירוב של קופות שלמות; רבי שמעון אומר אפילו שתי קופות בשני יישובים, ושני תנאים אנונימיים חולקים עליו, האחד אומר ששתי מגורות בשתי עליות מתערבות זו בזו והאחר אומר שרק בעלייה אחת מתערבות זו בזו. ", + "הירושלמי אף מסביר שקופות עשויות להתפנות, כלומר מעבירים מקופה לקופה ולכן הן מתערבות. אבל מגורות אינן מתפנות, ולכן אינן מתערבות. המגורה היא כאמור גדולה יותר, מכילה קופות או בדרך כלל פֵרות בתפזורת (פירושנו לעיל מ\"ב), ואינה מתרוקנת אלא כל פעם מחדשים בה את המלאי. ", + "\"עיירות\" שבמשנתנו הן יישובים, או בתי אחוזה, ושתי המשמעויות חוזרות הרבה במקורות. המונח \"למה אמרו\" מפנה את הלומד למשנה קדומה, ובמקרה זה למשנה הכללית לעיל (מ\"ד) ששם נשנה דין תערובת. " + ], + [ + "אמר רבי יוסה מעשה בא לפני רבי עקיבה בחמשים אגודות שלירק שנפלה אחת מהן לתוכן חצייה תרומה – לתוך חמישים אגודות של ירק חולין נפלה אגודה שחצייה תרומה וחצייה חולין, ואמרתי לפניו תעלה – יש להתייחס לחמישים ואחת האגודות כתערובת, לא שהתרומה עולה בחמשים ואחד אלא שהיו שם מאה ושני חציים – כלומר בערמה יש כעת חמישים ואחת אגודות ומהן חצי אגודה תרומה, שזה אותו יחס כמו מאה ואחד (חצאים) חול ואחד (חצי) קודש. רבי עקיבא אינו מתנגד, וזו דעת הכול. רבי יוסי מספר את המעשה ללמד על חלקו ועל רבו שהסכים עמו.", + "מעשים רבים מופיעים בספרות חז\"ל, אבל אין חכם שמסופרים עליו כל כך הרבה מעשים כמו רבי עקיבא. תלמידיו רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי הם גדולי המספרים את המעשים עליו, והדבר משקף את חלקו של רבי עקיבא בעיצוב ההלכה והתורה שבעל פה. " + ] + ], + [ + [ + "פרקנו מציג כמה מההלכות הבסיסיות של דיני תערובת, ביטול ו\"העלאה\", זאת בהמשך לפרק הקודם. עם זאת, ההלכות הראשוניות הן בפרק שלנו, ובסידור המקובל כיום היו שונים את פרקנו לפני הפרק הקודם, אבל למשנה עקרונות סדר אחרים. פרק ג סיים בדיני הפרשה של מקצת התרומה, ובכך המשיך פרק ד, מכאן התגלגל הדיון לקביעת השיעור. החיבור לדין תערובת הוא בעניין השיעור, וזו משנה ז בפרק הקודם, והיא החוליה שבה נפתח דין התערובת. בדין שיעור חולקים רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע, ואגב כך נמסרה סדרת מחלוקות של שני תנאים אלו. ", + "סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה לפחות [מ]מאה חולין – לפי ההלכה הקבועה תרומה עולה באחד למאה, ואם נפלה לערמה שבה פחות ממאה כל הערמה מקבלת את מעמד הקדושה שפרטיו יבוררו להלן. כפי שהערנו לעיל (פ\"ד מ\"ז) היחס של אחד למאה אינו מדויק, והוא צריך להיות מעט גדול יותר כדי להעלות את התרומה, [או] למעשר ראשון [או] למעשר שני [או] להקדש בין טמאים בין טהורים ירקבו – כל המוצרים הללו מקבלים את הדין של תרומה טמאה, ותרומה טמאה אין מה לעשות עמה. במקבילות למילה זו (להלן) מופיע לעתים \"ישרפו\" במקום \"ירקבו\". הגדרה זו גם היא אינה מדויקת. לכל התערובת דין של תרומה טמאה, תרומה טמאה אסור לאכול אבל מותר ליהנות ממנה. אם זה שמן מותר להשתמש בו לתאורה1לפי משנת תמורה (וכן הירושלמי כאן) גם פת מותר להדליק, והמחלוקת בירושלמי היא האם ההיתר הוא רק על יין ופת או על כל המוצרים. ברם הדיון תאורטי, שכן אין שימוש מעשי לפת כחומר בעירה, וכן לא לרוב המוצרים האחרים. . אבל דומה שהמשנה נקטה בלשון כללית, ואכן אם מדובר בכד שמן מותר להשתמש בו לתאורה, אך את יתר הפֵרות אי אפשר לנצל ויש לשרפם או להניחם שיירקבו. זהו הסבר אחד בירושלמי (מג ע\"ב-ע\"ג), אבל רבי שמואל בר נחמן אמר בשם רבי יוחנן שאסור לשרוף אפילו שמן, והמדליק \"ישרפו עצמותיו\"2\"ישרפו עצמותיו\" הוא ביטוי ספרותי, וודאי שגם רבי יוחנן לא נתכוון להוציא לפועל את העונש. . קשה להניח שרבי יוחנן חולק על האפשרות להשתמש לתאורה בשמן תרומה שנשרף. שמן זה מכונה \"שמן שריפה\", וההיתר לכהן להשתמש בו ידוע ונפוץ כבר במשנה (להלן פי\"א מ\"י; תמורה פ\"ז מ\"ה; שבת פ\"ב מ\"א), והירושלמי אף מצטט את דבריו של רבי יוחנן המאשרים היתר זה. על כן נראה שרבי יוחנן מתנגד לשימוש בו רק כאן, מסיבות מיוחדות שלא נאמרו. הירושלמי מנסה לשער את דבר קיומה של גזרה מיוחדת במקרה שלנו, משום שאין זו תערובת רגילה. מכל מקום, רבי יוחנן פירש שבמשנה מחייבים שהפֵרות דווקא יירקבו ולא יישרפו, וזה ההבדל בין משנתנו למשנה הבאה. ", + "להערכתנו נראה שההסבר לקושי מדוע לא נזכרת אפשרות של שימוש בשמן לתאורה או לשרפה הוא מעשי. המשך המשנה מעיד כי מדובר בעיקר בחיטים, ואותם לשים ועושים מהם לחם. את השמן ניתן אמנם לשרוף, אך אין תקנה לחיטים אלא אי אפשר להשתמש בהם ויש להניחם שיירקבו3הבבלי, פסחים לג ע\"ב, מצטט את משנת תמורה (פ\"ז מ\"ה) ומסיק שרק פת ושמן מותר לשרוף, אך לא חיטים בגלל \"תקלה\", כלומר גזרה שמא יבוא לאכלם. הירושלמי כאן (מג ע\"ב) אינו מכיר מגבלה זו, וכן יוצא גם מסיפור המובא בבבלי, שם לד ע\"א. כל זה להלכה, אך במציאות שרפת חיטים או פת אינה שימושית ואינה יעילה. . זהו, אפוא, מינוח כללי שאינו מדקדק ואינו מונה את כל האפשרויות ההלכתיות.", + "אם טהורה היתה אותה הסאה – אזי לכל התערובת דין של תרומה טהורה מספק, ימכרו לכהנים בדמי תרומה – ויאכלו בטהרה כתרומה, חוץ מדמי אותה סאה – זה ההסדר הקבוע. מן הסתם הכהן ישלם עבור הפֵרות מחיר נמוך ממחיר השוק, והנזק לבעל גדול למדי, אך אין הוא מפסיד את כל הערמה (איור 17). ", + "ואם למעשר ראשון נפלה – אם סאה תרומה טהורה נפלה לערמה של מעשר ראשון, יקרא שם לתרומת מעשר – לפֵרות דין תרומה, אבל מכיוון שהם גם מעשר צריך להפריש מהם תרומת מעשר. את התרומה יקבל הכהן, וכמובן יאכל את הכול בטהרה כמו במקרה הקודם, ואם למעשר שיני ולהקדש נפלה הרי אלו ייפדו – לפֵרות דין תרומה, אך אין לגרום הפסד להקדש או למעשר שני. על כן יש לפדות את הפֵרות, הכסף יהיה להקדש או למעשר שני והפֵרות עצמם ייאכלו בטהרה כתרומה, ואם טמאים היו אותן החולין – במקרה כזה אנו ניצבים לפני מלכוד. לפֵרות דין תרומה מספק, והחשש העיקרי הוא שהם יטמאו את סאת התרומה המקורית4אי אפשר גם להפוך את החולין לתרומה על מקום אחר, שכן אין להפריש תרומה טמאה על מקום אחר (רע\"ב, מלאכת שלמה). . הנחת המשנה היא שאותה סאת תרומה טרם הוכשרה לקבל טומאה, אבל לפני שתיאכל תוכשר לקבל טומאה ואין לגרום לתרומה טומאה. אין גם לשרוף תרומה טהורה, ויש לאכלה בצורה רגילה. כאמור, המשנה עוסקת בעיקר בחיטים.", + "ייאכלו ניקודים – לפירוש ראו להלן. רבי יהוסף אשכנזי גרס \"ברוב הספרים יעלו ויאכלו\", ואיננו מכירים גרסה זו בכתבי היד שבידינו, או קליות – את החיטים אפשר לקלות ואז הן לא תקבלנה טומאה, או יילוש ובמי פירות – מי פֵרות אינם מכשירים לקבל טומאה, על כן עיסה שנאפתה במי פֵרות אינה מוכשרת לקבל טומאה. הפֵרות שהיו חולין הם כמובן טמאים, אבל הם לא יטמאו את התרומה המקורית. הבעל שיאכל אותם ייטמא בטומאת הערב שמש. כלומר, אחרי כל מנה שהוא אוכל אין הוא יכול לאכול עוד כיוון שהוא טמא, ואסור לו לאכול תרומה במצב זה. ההלכה שמי פֵרות אינם מכשירים לקבל טומאה היא אמנם הלכה ידועה (משנה, חלה פ\"ב מ\"ב; כלים פ\"י מ\"ב), אך יש גם החולקים עליה: \"עסה שהוכשרה במשקה ונילושה במי פירות ונגע בהן טבול יום רבי אלעזר בן יהודה איש ברתותא אומר משום רבי יהושע פסל את כולה. רבי עקיבא אומר משמו לא פסל אלא מקום מגעו\" (משנה, טבול יום פ\"ג מ\"ד). משנתנו, אפוא, אינה בשיטת רבי יהושע, ולמעשה גם לא בשיטת רבי עקיבא5זו גם מסקנת התלמוד בירו', חלה פ\"ב ה\"ב, נח ע\"ג. . בירושלמי (חלה, פ\"ב ה\"ב, נח ע\"ג) מועלית גם הצעה דחוקה יותר שמשנתנו היא לדעת הכול, ואין דין חיבור לטומאה כדין הכשר לקבל טומאה. ", + "או יתחלקו לעיסות כדי שלא יהא במקום אחד כביצה – אוכל שהוא פחות מכביצה אינו טמא, על כן מותר לאכול ממנו מבלי להיטמא, והוא אף אינו מטמא את התרומה6לדיון ההלכתי ראו מלאכת שלמה. באופן כללי יש מחלוקת תנאים האם הגודל הקובע להלכה הוא כזית או כביצה (משנה, ברכות פ\"ז מ\"ב; פסחים פ\"ג מ\"ח; פרה פי\"ב מ\"ו; טהרות פ\"א מ\"א ופ\"ג מ\"ג ועוד). משנתנו היא כדעת חכמים ש\"כביצה\". העמדה הכיתתית שטומאה מטמאה בכלשהו היא מאוחרת, ואינה מדברי תנאים. עם זאת, ודאי שאין לגרום טומאה בידיים גם לפחות מכביצה, אלא במקרה דחוק כבמשנתנו. . להערכתנו כל אחד מההסדרים האחרונים פותר בעיה נפרדת, ושילובם פותר את כל הבעיות. לישה במי פֵרות מונעת הבאת טומאה על התרומה, אך אינה מונעת הבאת טומאה לכל החיטים שהרי הן כבר טמאות, כלומר הוכשרו כבר לקבל טומאה בעבר; לעומת זאת אכילה בכמות קטנה מאפשרת לאכול מהחיטים, אך בישול של כל האוכל יגרום להבאת טומאה על התרומה. על כן ניתן לאפות את הקמח בכמות קטנה (עיסות קטנות מכביצה), ולאכלן כך, או ללוש את כל הקמח בעיסה אחת במי פֵרות ולאכלן בכמות קטנה מכביצה. ", + "הבעיה העולה במשנה נידונה, בצורה שונה במקצת, במשנת מעשר שני (פ\"ב מ\"ג-מ\"ד), ושם נראה כי משנתנו היא בשיטת רבי טרפון ואילו חכמים סוברים שהפתרון של פדיון טוב גם במקרה זה. משנתנו אומרת שמידת המינימום לטומאה היא כביצה, ובמקורות אחרים המידה המינימלית היא כזית. זו מחלוקת תנאים קדומה, מחלוקתם של רבי אליעזר (כזית) ורבי יהושע (כביצה – תוס', זבים פ\"ה הי\"א, עמ' 680). עם זאת, המחלוקת אינה חייבת להיות עקבית ושיטתית, כלומר מי שאומר כזית לעניין אחד עשוי לומר כביצה לעניין אחר. מכל מקום, שתי הדעות מופיעות במקורות רבים7ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ג מ\"ח. .", + "הפתרון הראשון שהציעה המשנה הוא \"ניקודים\". במקרא המילה מופיעה פעמים מספר ומשמעה לחם יבש, מעין מציות של ימינו. לחם ניקודים מחזיק זמן רב ומשתמשים בו עוברי אורח (יהושע ט ה; מלכים א יד ג). ברם, בהקשר זה אין זה פתרון מספק. אולי לחם יבש אינו אוכל ולכן אינו טמא, אבל לחם יבש היה בעברו בצק רגיל וממילא קיבל טומאה. תרגום נביאים מתרגם בשני המקרים \"כיסני\", שהוא המונח בתלמודים לעוגה או עוגיות, כדברי בעל ספר המנהגות: \"ופת הבאה בכסנין פי' הבא בעבור כסיסה ולא לרעבון והוא הפת העשוי בבשמים מברך לפניו אבל לא לאחריו דברכת המזון פוטרתן, ותרגום 'נקודים' של אשת ירבעם הוא כיסני (מלכים א יד ג), ונראה בעיני כי לכך נקרא שמו נקודים שהבשמים נראין בו נקודות נקודות אבל 'יבש היה נקודים' (יהושע ט ה) אינו מתרגם כיסני8בנוסח שבידינו מתורגם לחם הנקודים כ\"כיסני\". , ונקרא נקודים שנראה בו העפוש נקודות נקודות\" (ספר המנהגות, לד ע\"ב, ועוד מפרשים)9כגון בעל מלאכת שלמה על אתר ועוד. . ", + "ברם, שוב, גם עוגיות מקבלות טומאה אלא אם כן לשים אותן במי פֵרות, ולחם יבש היה פעם לחם טרי וקיבל טומאה. אין זאת אלא ש\"ניקודים\" הוא באמת כיסני, והכוונה למאפה שנילוש במי פֵרות, או שנאפה בכמויות קטנות (עוגיות בלשוננו). כך או כך, יש במשנה כפילות והאפשרות של \"ניקודים\" מיותרת וכלולה באפשרויות הבאות. הרא\"ש מפרש \"ויכלום הכהנים נקודים\", ואולי הוא מתכוון למקרה שנפלה פת תרומה לערמה של פתי חולין, או כיכר שלמה לכיכרות חולין, ואז אם ימתין עד שהלחם יתעפש לא תיטמא כיכר התרומה, שהרי לחם יבש אינו נטמא ואף אינו מטמא. עדיין הפירוש קשה, אך אפשרי, שהרי הלחם הטמא נגע כבר בלחם הטהור לפני שזה נפסל לאכילה. ", + "התוספתא חוזרת על ההלכה בפירוט רב יותר (פ\"ו ה\"א-ה\"ב) ומוסיפה מקרים נוספים, כגון שנפלה התרומה לשביעית ולחדש. חידוש נוסף של התוספתא הוא האפשרות להשתמש בתערובת כדי לעשותה תרומה ותרומת מעשר על מקום אחר (אם נפלה התרומה לחולין טהורים). המשנה אינה מזכירה אפשרות זאת, אולי בגלל החולקים ומסתייגים מתרומה \"שלא מן המוקף\" (לעיל פ\"ד מ\"א ועוד). ברם, ייתכן גם שהמשנה לא מנתה את כל האפשרויות, שכן זו אפשרות מתוחכמת יותר. מכל מקום, תרומת מעשר מותר לדעת הכול לתרום שלא מן המוקף. " + ], + [ + "סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה למאה חולין טהורים – זה המקרה הרגיל שבו התרומה \"תעלה\", כלומר תתבטל. פרטים שונים של הלכה זו נדונו בפרק הקודם, ועתה דנה המשנה בדין הבסיסי, וכפי שאמרנו בהקדמתנו למשנה הקודמת. הערֵמה מותרת והתרומה מתבטלת, אך ביטול זה אינו מוחלט.", + "רבי ליעזר [אומר] תירום ותישרף שני – בעדי נוסח בבליים ומאוחרים \"שאני\", ובכתב יד קופמן נפלה האות אל\"ף שכמעט נבלעת ואינה נהגית10הירושלמי (מג ע\"ג) מדמה זאת לאברים של קרבנות שהתערבו בבשר שאינו של קרבן (של בעלי מומים). דין זה נדון במשנה, זבחים פ\"ח מ\"ה. גם שם מופעל העיקרון שהאבר שעלה הוא האבר שנפל, וגם שם זו תקנה מיוחדת כדי שבשר הקרבן לא יאבד כליל. אלא ששם אין מדובר על היתר או חובה להקריב את אחד האברים, אלא על מצב שאחד מהם כבר הוקרב (בטעות). חכמים שם חולקים וסבורים שהאבר שעלה הוא ספק, וכל האברים הם ספק, ולכן אין להקריבם ואין לאכלם. לא נאמר שם האם האבר של הקרבן נפל ליותר ממאה אברים, ומסתבר ששם האבר לא בטל, בניגוד לדין תערובת של משנתנו שהתרומה \"בטלה\". . אצלנו \"תישרף\", וכן בכל כתבי היד. אבל בציטוט המשנה בבבלי, בכורות כב ע\"ב: \"תירום ותרקב\", וכבר העיר על כך הר\"ש. ההבדל הוא בשאלה כיצד משמידים תרומה, והאריכו בכך המפרשים11ראו הר\"ש, הרא\"ש, מלאכת שלמה ועוד, והר\"ש העמיד מחלוקת בני ארץ ישראל ובבל בנושא. . כפי שאמרנו במשנה הקודמת, משנתנו אינה עוסקת בפרטי ההלכה של השמדת תרומה. עניינה רק בעצם הגדרת התוצרת כתרומה, ואין היא נכנסת לפרטי צורת ההשמדה.", + "אומר סאה שנפלה היא סאה שעלת – התרומה אמנם בטלה אבל רבי אליעזר מחייב להרים סאה כלשהי, זאת מתוך ההנחה שהסאה שעלתה בידו היא סאה שנפלה. אין זו הנחה ממשית. לוא כך היה הדין, הרי היה זה פתרון גם למקרה שנפלה סאה תרומה לפחות ממאה סאין. יתר על כן, בפרק הקודם נדונה השאלה האם צריך להרים את הסאה שנפלה במקום שבו היא \"קפאה\", וזאת כאשר יש סיכוי שרובה טרם התפזר וטרם הפך לבלול. דווקא רבי אליעזר שם הסתייג מהרמת התרומה (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ד מי\"א). אין זאת אלא שזהו קנס מיוחד כדי ששם תרומה לא ילך לאיבוד. ", + "חכמים אומרים תעלה ותיאכל ניקודים או קליות או תילוש במי פירות או תתחלק לעיסות כדי שלא יהי במקום אחד כביצה – הפתרונות הללו נידונו במשנה הקודמת, ומטרתם שהתרומה לא תקבל טומאה. אמנם החולין טהורים, אבל המשנה מחייבת להתייחס אל התרומה כאל תרומה טמאה, אולי משום ששמירת טהרת חולין פחותה משמירת טהרת תרומה והטובל לחולין אסור בתרומה (משנה, חגיגה פ\"ב מ\"ו). ואולי מציעים חכמים דרכים לאכול אותה סאה בטומאה, ואם יכול לאכלה בטהרה הדבר מותר ואף רצוי? הבבלי מסביר שזו גזרה שמא יביא חולין טמאים כדי להעלות את התרומה (להגיע לאחד ממאה על ידי תוספת חולין טמאים – בכורות כג ע\"א). הנימוק מוכיח כי התלמוד הבבלי התחבט בשאלה ובעצם לא מצא לה פתרון הלכתי אלא אותה גזרה. מצד שני יש להודות שהגזרה רחוקה ביותר. ", + "הרא\"ש מדגיש ש\"תעלה\" שבדברי חכמים שונה מ\"תרום\" שבדברי רבי אליעזר. רבי אליעזר מתכוון להרמת סאה כלשהי לשם תרומה, ואצל חכמים \"תעלה\" משמעו שהסאה של התרומה מתבטלת. אבל יש להתייחס לכל החיטים כאל חשש תרומה, ולכן יש לאכלן בטהרה. עוד יש לומר שמכיוון שמדובר בבעל בית רגיל שאינו שומר טהרה הוצעו הפתרונות כיצד למנוע טומאה מהעיסה כדי שהתרומה המקורית שנפלה לעיסה לא תיטמא, אבל אם יכול לאכלה בטהרה הדבר עדיף. לפי פירוש זה \"פחות מכביצה\" משמעו שבעיסה לא תהיה תרומה כביצה. לפי פירוש הרא\"ש כל המשפט הוא רק לדעת חכמים ורבי אליעזר מחמיר בכך בדרשו הרמת סאה אחת, ומקל ביחס לשארית הערמה. ", + "אבל רש\"י לבכורות כב ע\"ב פירש \"תעלה\" כמו ברישא12בעל מלאכת שלמה מצטט זאת בשם רש\"י כתיבת יד. , שגם רבנן תובעים להרים כתרומה סאה אחת, אלא שבמקום שזו תישרף הם מאפשרים לאכלה כך שלא תיטמא. לשיטתו קשה יותר מדוע אי אפשר פשוט לאכלה בטהרה, ואם היא כבר נטמאה במגע עם החולין מה יועיל לבשלה במי פֵרות? הרי היא כבר נטמאה, לפחות מתוך ספק! מן הסתם קיבל רש\"י את הסבר הבבלי משום \"גזרה\", הסבר שאינו נאמר במפורש ולכן נראה כרחוק.", + "עם כל זאת, הקושי קיים. לפי חכמים אין הבדל בין משנתנו, שבה נפלה התרומה לחולין טהורים, ובין המשנה הבאה שבה נפלה לחולין טמאים. אם כך, מדוע לא נשנו שתי המשניות כאחת? אמנם שאלה זו אינה מוכיחה דבר, שכן ייתכן שאלו משניות ממקורות שונים, אבל בכל זאת נותרה במקומה השאלה מה ההבדל בין המשניות. ניסינו להציע הסברים מספר, כולם בעייתיים, ואולי רק נגרר כל המשפט \"תיאכל נקודים\" מהמשנה הבאה. לפי השערה קיצונית זו משנתנו שנתה רק \"תיאכל\", ואגב גררה נוסף המשך המשפט מהמשנה הקודמת ומהמשנה הבאה. ", + "במשנתנו אומר רבי אליעזר \"תישרף\", אבל בתלמוד הבבלי מצוטטת משנתנו ושם נאמר \"תרקב\" (בכורות כב ע\"ב). מרבית הראשונים הסבירו ש\"תישרף\" היינו \"תרקב\". רבנו תם, למשל, מצוטט כמי שמסביר ש\"תרקב\" הוא פירוש ל\"תישרף\"13מצטטים אותו רבים, ראו הרא\"ש, מלאכת שלמה והרש\"ס. . אפשטיין14אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 709-708. התנגד לפרשנות מתאמת זו, ורואה בכך חילוף נוסח מהותי. \"תישרף\" משמעו שמותר להשתמש בשמן לתאורה (אסורה באכילה ומותרת בהנאה), ו\"תרקב\" משמעו שאי אפשר לנצל אותה סאה כלל, והיא אסורה בהנאה, ובכך ההבדל בין משנתנו למשנה הקודמת15ראו בהרחבה בעל מלאכת שלמה הרומז למחלוקות הראשונים ומעיר שמצא בכתבי יד של ראשונים הארכת יתר, הרבה מעבר לדפוס. . ", + "חילוף דומה מצינו גם במשנה הבאה. זאת ועוד, לעיל הסברנו ש\"תרקב\" שבמשנה הוא ניסוח כללי, ולפחות לפי חלק מאמוראי ארץ ישראל מותר להשתמש בפֵרות לתאורה. הסברנו ש\"תרקב\" שם ו\"תישרף\" במשנתנו הם מינוחים כלליים שאינם מזכירים את כל אפשרויות המִשנֶה הקיימות (איור 19-18)." + ], + [ + "סאה תרומה טהורה שנפלה למאה חולין טמאים תעלה16הרב יהוסף אשכנזי הכיר גרסה של מיעוט הספרים \"תעלה תרומה\", ואין היא מוכרת מכתבי היד שבידינו. ותאכל ניקודים או קליות או תילוש במי פירות או תתחלק לעיסות כדי שלא יהי תרומה טהורה במקום אחד כביצה – ייתכן שזו דעת חכמים, ולדעת רבי אליעזר צריך גם כאן להרים סאה אחת כתרומה וכמובן שזו תישרף. ברם, רוב הראשונים פירשו שכאן גם רבי אליעזר יודה לחכמים (רמב\"ם, הרא\"ש, תוספות יום טוב ואחרים). אין על כך עדות מפורשת לא לכאן ולא לכאן, ומכיוון שדעתו של רבי אליעזר היא גזרה מיוחדת קשה לדעת מה עמדתו במקרה של משנתנו. לפי חכמים, ואולי גם לפי רבי אליעזר, אין הבדל בין משנתנו למשנה הקודמת. מכל מקום משנתנו מובנת, החולין טמאים ויש להיזהר שלא יטמאו את החיטים של תרומה שנפלו בה." + ], + [ + "סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה למאה סאה תרומה טהורה – דין ביטול במאה מקובל על הכול, אבל לא בכל הנושאים הוא נאמר. עד עתה דובר על ביטול של תרומה שנפלה לקדושה פחותה (חולין, מעשר, מעשר שני), ואילו כאן מדובר על מקרה שבו נפלה התרומה הטמאה לתרומה טהורה. עד עתה דובר על העלאת התרומה והפיכתה לקדושה פחות, עתה מדובר על הפיכתה לטהורה וקדושה יותר, בית שמאי אוסרין ובית הלל מתירין – המשך המשנה כולל מעין \"פרוטוקול\" של הוויכוח בין התנאים הקדומים. קטעי ויכוח דומים פזורים במקורותינו17כגון משנה, ידים פ\"ד מ\"ג; מכשירין פ\"ו מ\"ח; תוס', כלאים פ\"ה ה\"ח; עדיות פ\"א מי\"ב-מי\"ד; פסחים פ\"א מ\"ז ועוד. . בדרך כלל הנימוקים שלהם הגיוניים ובנויים על ניסיון להקיש ממקרה אחד, שדינו מוסכם, על מקרה אחר. במבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות עמדנו על כך שההלכה התעצבה מהמקרה הפרטי לכללי. ההלכות הפרטיות הקדומות התגבשו בציבור, ועתה חכמים מתלבטים האם ניתן להרחיבם על מקרים נוספים, או האם ניתן ללמוד מה הדין במקרה החדש מתוך שלל התקדימים הקיימים.", + "אמרו בית הלל לבית שמי הואיל וטהורה אסורה לזרים ואף טמאה אסורה לכהנים מה טהורה עולה אף טמאה תעלה – העירוב יכול להעלות חפץ ממצבו הקודם. סאה חולין טמאים שנפלו למאה חולין טהורים עולים מטומאתם, וכן תרומה. הדין הקדום הוא שסאה תרומה עולה באחד ומאה, ולכאורה דין סאה של תרומה טהורה כדין סאה טמאה. ", + "אמרו להם בית שמי לא אם העלו החולים הקלים המותרים לזרים את הטהורה – במקרה כזה (של תרומה) אכן הטמא הופך לטהור, אך זו טומאה קלה וקדושה מעטה, ואין זה דומה למקרה שלנו. הם שואלים: תעלה חמורה אסורה לזרים את הטמאה – העלאת תרומה טמאה נתפסת כחמורה יותר מהפיכת תרומה טהורה לחולין. המשך הדיון נמצא בתוספתא. אין ביטחון שכל הדיון אכן מקורי, אך אין סיבה לפקפק בכך שהחלק שבמשנה הוא מקורי, וזו ה\"תשובה\", כלומר חלק הדיון הפתוח בין התנאים. חלק זה של ויכוח (דיון) מכונה בספרותנו \"תשובה\", וכן הוא מכונה בירושלמי למשנתנו18ל\"תשובה\" ראו במבוא לפירוש המשניות. .", + "לאחר שהודו – העיקר חסר מן הספר. מתברר שבסופו של הדיון הממושך הודו בית שמאי לבית הלל. כך על כל פנים מסתבר מההמשך, וכן במפורש בירושלמי (מג ע\"ג). מינוח זה מופיע במחלוקות נוספות בין הבתים. בדרך כלל המודים הם בית הלל19כדברי הרמב\"ם \"לא נמצא שום מקום לעולם שיחזרו בית שמאי לדברי בית הלל\". לפי פירושנו אין זה משום שלא הודו, אלא שהעורכים לא ראו לנכון לספק מידע כזה שכן הוא נחשב בעיניהם לבלתי רלוונטי, שכן ההלכה כבית הלל. , אך אין להסיק מכך שבית הלל הודו יותר לבית שמאי, אלא שבדרך כלל ההלכה היא כבית הלל ועורכי המשניות היו מודעים לכך, וממילא אין משמעות לכך שבית שמאי מודים לבית הלל, הרי ברור שדעתם של בית שמאי נדחתה. כל זאת אף שלעתים קרובות ההלכה היא כבית שמאי; תנאים מאוחרים, כמו גם סתם משניות, מהלכים בדרכם, או שמרכיבים מפסיקתם חדרו לדברי תנאים מאוחרים20חלק מהדוגמאות אסף ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. הירושלמי הוכיח שבית שמאי הם שהודו מתוך המשנה בטבול יום פ\"ב מ\"ז. . כאן ההודאה חשובה משום שרבי אליעזר אינו מקבל אותה במלואה.", + "רבי אליעזר – רבי אליעזר הוא מאחרוני בית שמאי, כפי שעולה ממקורות רבים, אומר תירום ותישרף – ה\"הודאה\" היא שאכן התרומה הטמאה הופכת לטהורה. אך בהתאם לדרכו של רבי אליעזר (לעיל מ\"ב) יש צורך לפחות להרים סאה אחת, שהיא תהיה כביכול תחליף לתרומה הטמאה. הנימוק שם הוא שהסאה שהורמה היא זו שנפלה, כפי שפירשנו במשנה ב. גם רבי אליעזר יודע שאין זה כך, אלא שזהו מעין מעשה סמלי לשמר את הסאה שנפלה כמות שהיא. רבי אליעזר מודה לבית הלל שתרומה עולה ואין הערמה כולה נחשבת לתרומה טמאה, אך עדיין יש לבצע את המעשה הסמלי הזה, וחכמים אומרים אבדה במעוטה – זו המשמעות המלאה של ביטול ברוב. ", + "במשנתנו הנוסח בדברי רבי אליעזר הוא \"ותישרף\", אבל בתוספתא (פ\"ו ה\"ד) \"תרקב\". חילוף דומה מצינו במשנה ב לעיל. קשה להבין מדוע במשנה ב צריכה התרומה להירקב וכאן להישרף, וקרוב לפרש ששני המונחים מתכוונים לאותו דבר, כפי שפירשנו שם." + ], + [ + "סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה – המדובר בסאה טהורה, וזאת לפי המשך המשנה שבו מדובר על כך שהיא מדמעת כתרומה. לפי ההלכה במשנה הקודמת סאה זו של תרומה נפלה ליותר ממאה ובטלה וכל הערמה נחשבת חולין, אלא שרבי אליעזר מחמיר ודורש להגביה סאה כלשהי ולהתייחס אליה כאילו הייתה סאת התרומה.", + "הגביהה – כאמור במשנה הקודמת לפי חכמים אין צורך להגביה סאה כלל, וכל הפֵרות שבערמה הם חולין, אבל לפי ההמשך משמע שהסאה שהורמה נחשבת תרומה. נברר זאת להלן.", + "ונפלה למקום אחר – השאלה היא האם סאה זו נחשבת תרומה שלמה, שהרי ניתן לבטלה רק באחד ממאה, כלומר אם תפול לערמה שיש בה פחות ממאה סאה כל הערמה תיחשב תרומה, או שמא יש להתייחס אליה כאל תערובת, שיש בה מעט תרומה והרבה חולין.", + "רבי ליעזר אומר מדמעת כתרומה וודי – הסאה נחשבת תרומה לכל דבר, וזאת לשיטתו ש\"סאה שנפלה היא סאה שעלתה\" (לעיל מ\"ב), ועל הסאה שהורמה חלות כל ההלכות של הסאה שנפלה. גישתו של רבי אליעזר משלבת חומרה יתרה שדנו בה לעיל (מ\"ב), וגישה משפטית יבשה. מתוך חומרה הוטל עליו להרים סאה, והיא תהפוך לתרומה, מעתה חלים עליה כל דיני תרומה, וחכמים אומרים אינה מדמעת אלא לפי חשבון – יש להתייחס לסאה כאל ספק, קבוצת פֵרות שיש בהם מעט תרומה (לפי משקלה היחסי בערמת התערובת), כלומר פחות מאחד ומאה. ", + "לכאורה עמדתם של חכמים תמוהה. הרי בערמה המקורית יש פחות מאחד חלקי מאה של תרומה, ממילא יחס זה של תרומה לחולין קיים גם בסאה שהוגבהה. על כן אם נפלה סאה זו לחולין ודאי שהיא בטלה, הרי עתה היחס בין תרומה לחולין הוא עוד יותר נמוך. שאלה שנייה חוזרת לשאלה שהצגנו בראש המשנה. רבי אליעזר לשיטתו ש\"סאה שנפלה היא סאה שעלתה\", ושבמקרה זה יש להגביה סאה, אבל חכמים חולקים עליו ולדעתם אין להגביה סאה, ואין לה דין תרומה, ומדוע אין הם אומרים שהסאה נחשבת חולין לכל דבר? הרי אין תרומה אחר תרומה (לעיל פ\"ג מ\"ג), וממילא אי אפשר לתרום עוד מאותה ערמת פֵרות, אם כן למה הגביה את הסאה, ולמה אין לה דין תרומה? ", + "בירושלמי אומר רבי אליעזר (אלעזר) \"שנפלו לתוך מדומע אחד21או \"אחר\", וקשה לזהות את האותיות שבמקור כתב יד ליידן לירושלמי. \" (מג ע\"ד). כלומר, הסאה שהוגבהה נפלה לתוך תערובת שיש בה, למשל, תשעים ותשע22גם אנו, כמו המשנה, מדגימים את דברינו כאילו ההלכה היא שתרומה בטלה באחד חלקי מאה, זאת אף שתרומה בטלה רק במעט יותר, כמו שפירשנו לעיל (פ\"ד מ\"ז). סאים של חולין וסאה של תרומה. בתערובת זו התרומה אינה בטלה. אם הסאה שהוגבהה נפלה לתערובת זו, היא עשויה לשנות את מעמדה ההלכתי. אם הסאה שהוגבהה היא חולין, הרי שבתערובת כולה פחות מאחד חלקי מאה של תרומה והתרומה בטלה. אם היא (הסאה שהוגבהה) תרומה הרי שהתערובת כולה נחשבת תרומה, וחכמים מחדשים ש\"מדמעת לפי חשבון\", כלומר הסאה שהוגבהה היא עצמה נחשבת תערובת שיש בה אחד חלקי מאה של תרומה, ובתערובת החדשה מעט יותר מאחד חלקי מאה של תרומה, והתרומה אינה בטלה (הערמה כולה נחשבת תרומה). \"לפי חשבון\" הוא, אפוא, לפי חשבון התרומה בערמה שאליה נפלה סאת התרומה23ראו ר\"ש ובעל מלאכת שלמה שהאריכו. . ", + "ספק אם רבי אליעזר אמר את דבריו בהקשר של משנתנו. ייתכן שהם נאמרו כפרשנות למשנה הבאה, ובתלמוד הם מובאים גם שם, אבל גם במשנה הבאה נאמרת אותה נוסחה \"למקום אחר\" ו\"לפי חשבון\". ברם, כפי שנראה בפירושנו להלן, סביר שדבריו נאמרו דווקא במשנתנו והועברו על ידי העורכים למשנה הבאה.", + "לחילופין ניתן להציע שהמטבע \"לפי חשבון\" נגרר מהמשנה הבאה. נראה שכך פירש רבי יוחנן בירושלמי: \"סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה חולין (ועלתה מתוך מאה24כך בנוסח הר\"ש סירליאו, ואינו בליידן ובכתב יד רומי. ) חולין כל שהן מבטלין אותו [אותן]25כתב יד ליידן משובש וקשה להכריע בנוסח. \" (מג ע\"ד). הירושלמי הסביר שדברי רבי יוחנן הם כמשנתנו, ולא דקדק בלשון, משום שבמשנתנו החשבון הוא שתמיד התרומה בטלה. המקרה של רבי אלעזר הוא מיוחד וחריג, וקשה להעמיד את המשנה כמותו.", + "מעתה עלינו לברר מדוע יש להגביה את הסאה, הרי במשנה הקודמת זו הייתה דעתו של רבי אליעזר בלבד. ניתן היה להעמיד את משנתנו כמחלוקת תנאים אליבא דרבי אליעזר ולומר שחכמים הם לא החכמים שבמשנה ב לעיל, אלא תנא אחר המהלך בשיטתו העקרונית של רבי אליעזר וחולק עליו בפרט. לפי הסבר זה מובן מדוע יש להגביה את הסאה, ומדוע יש על הסאה שהוגבהה דין תרומה, אלא שהמחלוקת היא האם זו תרומה שלמה או תרומה מספק ו\"לפי חשבון\". הקושי בהסבר זה הוא שכבר בימי רבי אליעזר יש מחלוקת אליבא דדעתו, ושיש מי שמקבל את דבריו, אך בצורה חלקית בלבד. יתרה מזו, בדרך דומה צריך יהיה לפרש גם את המשניות הבאות, ונמצאנו מפרשים את שתי המשניות כדעת תלמידי בית שמאי. ", + "ליברמן מפרש בפשטות שהרים את התרומה לחומרא26ליברמן לתוס', פ\"ו ה\"א. בתוספתא מופיע הדין הבסיסי לגבי מעמדה של אותה סאה שהורמה. . אם אכן פירוש זה נכון יש לו משמעות חשובה להבנת תולדות ההלכה בכלל. לפנינו מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל (לעיל מ\"ד). דעת בית שמאי נדחתה (כרגיל), אלא שאף על פי כן נותר בהלכה הד לדעתם בדמות דעתו של רבי אליעזר. רבי אליעזר אינו מהלך בדיוק בשיטת בית שמאי במקרה זה, אלא שנותרו משיטתם שקיעים המשפיעים על פסיקתו. הווה אומר, גם לאחר שנדחתה דעתם נותרו ממנה שרידים. גם דעתו של רבי אליעזר נדחתה (כדעת יחיד, אף על פי שהדבר לא נאמר במפורש במשנה27מערכת הפסיקה שההלכה כרבים, ושאר כללי הפסיקה, הם מלאחר עריכת המשנה, ראו הנספח למסכת ביצה. אמנם הכלל נזכר במשנה (עדיות פ\"א מ\"ה), אך הוא אינו עקיב ואין הוא מחייב את כל התנאים. ). אף על פי כן יש אנשים, וחכמים, המקבלים מעט מדעתו. דעתו לא נעלמת אלא נשארים ממנה הדים, אף שנדחתה. להלן יש משנה סתמית נוספת שגם היא לדעת רבי אליעזר (ערלה פ\"ב מ\"א). ", + "בתוספתא מופיעה ההלכה הבסיסית המוקדמת למשנה. כך שנינו: \"סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה והגביהה. אם היו של טבל, עושין אותן תרומה ומעשרות על מקום אחר, או קורא שם לתרומת מעשר שבהן. אם היו של מעשר טבל עושה אותן תרומה ומעשרות על מקום אחר, או קורא שם לתרומת מעשר שבהן. אם היו של מעשר שני, מחללן על המעות בדמי תרומה חוץ מדמי תרומה שבהן. אם היו של חדש, ימתין עד שיבא הפסח ויתננו לכהן\" (תוס', פ\"ו ה\"א). אם כן, לסאה שהוגבהה דין תרומה (כלומר יש לתת אותה לכהן שיאכלה בטהרה), אבל אין היא תרומה ממש. מותר לו להשתמש בה כתרומה על מקום אחר, ואם אין לו פֵרות טבל במקום אחר עליו להפריש ממנה מעשרות ותרומת מעשר, כלומר היא תרומה רק לחומרה, אך אין זה פוטר אותה מחובות אחרות. ליברמן צודק בפרשו שאין זו דעתו של רבי אליעזר. לדעתו הסאה היא תרומה לכל דבר, וממילא אי אפשר לעשותה תרומה על מקום אחר. נמצאנו למדים שהתוספתא פוסקת כחכמים, אך מרכיבים מדעתו של רבי אליעזר מתקבלים על דעת החולקים עליו. כידוע המשנה עצמה שואלת במסכת עדיות מדוע יש לשנות את דברי היחיד בין הרבים אף שדעתו נדחית ואינה מתקבלת להלכה: \"ולמה מזכירין דברי היחיד בין המרובין הואיל ואין הלכה אלא כדברי המרובין?\" ועונה: \"שאם יראה בית דין את דברי היחיד ויסמוך עליו\" (משנה, עדיות פ\"א מ\"ה). אם כן, בית דין עתידי רשאי \"לראות את דברי היחיד\". לפנינו היבט אחר של אותה תופעה. לעתים דעה נדחתה, אך מרכיבים ממנה חלחלו למנהג או לעיון ההלכתי. על תופעה זו עמדנו גם במקומות אחרים, כגון בהלכות של מלאכה שהחלה בערב שבת והמשיכה בשבת (פירושנו לשבת פ\"א מ\"י), ההסתייגות משאיבה בשבת (ראו המבוא למסכת שבת) ועוד. ", + "כפי שנראה במשנה ז אין זו חומרה אישית של אדם הרוצה להגביה סאה ולהפכה לתרומה, אלא הלכה לכל דבר. אמנם אין היא פוטרת ידי חובת מעשרות (התוספתא שציטטנו), אך היא הלכה לכל דבר שיש לה מגבלות ותחומים." + ], + [ + "סאה תרומה שנפלה לפחות ממאה – חולין, ונדמעו – עד כאן סיכום המעשה. סאה תרומה נפלה לפחות מאחד למאה וכך הערמה \"נדמעה\", כלומר נחשבת לתרומה מספק, ונפל מן המדומע למקום אחר רבי אליעזר אומר מדמעת כתרומה וודיי – התרומה המדומעת נחשבת לתרומה לכל דבר ובטלה רק באחד חלקי מאה של חולין לכל דבר, וחכמים אומרים אין מדומע מדמיע אלא לפי חשבון – אם הסאה היא ספק תרומה המכילה תערובת של תרומה וחולין. כך, למשל, אם בתערובת המקורית היה אחד חלקי עשר של תרומה (10%), וסאה כזאת נפלה לעשר סאים של חולין, רואים כאילו עשירית סאה של תרומה (10%) נפלו לעשר סאים של חולין והתרומה בטלה, ואין המחומץ מחמיץ אלא לפי חשבון – וכן הדין במקרה של תערובת חמץ. המקרה הוא ששאור של חמץ תרומה נפל לעיסת חולין; העיסה הופכת כמובן לחמץ ונחשבת תרומה. אך אם נפל מבצק זה לבצק אחר – משערים את כמות התרומה המקורית כדלעיל. אין להניח שמדובר בסתם תערובת של חמץ בבצק רגיל משום שתערובת כזאת אינה עולה באחד ממאה, שהרי החמץ אינו מתבטל, אדרבה, הוא מחמץ את כל העיסה, ואם מדובר בעיסה אפויה קל להבחין בחמץ ולהוציאו מהערמה.", + "ואין המים שאובין אלא לפי חשבון – מקווה צריך להכיל לפחות ארבעים סאה, ושלושה לוגים של מים שאובים פוסלים את המקווה28הלוג הוא אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה של סאה. . אם מי המקווה נפסלו בגלל 10% מים שאובים, ועשרה לוגים מהם התערבבו במי מקווה אחר, אין הם פוסלים את המקווה, שכן אין הם עשרה לוגים של מים שאובים אלא לוג אחד של מים שאובים בלבד. המשפט: \"אין המדומע מדמע אלא לפי חשבון\" הוא משנה במקום אחר (תמורה פ\"א מ\"ד), שם יש סדרת כללים המתחילים במילית \"אין\", ונראה שהסדרה נלקטה מהלכות קדומות אחרות. ייתכן שהיא נלקטה ממשנתנו, וייתכן שמשנתנו ומשנת תמורה השתמשו באותה משנה קדומה אחרת. ", + "בירושלמי למשנתנו (מג ע\"ד) חוזר רבי אלעזר האמורא על הנימוק שהובא במשנה הקודמת שהחולין שלמטה התערבבו בתרומה שלמעלה. כאמור, נימוק זה מופיע גם כפירוש למשנה הקודמת, אבל לא נאמר שגם כאן נפלה התרומה לתערובת, ואין צורך בהסבר זה במשנתנו. ייתכן שגם החלק השני, המדבר על חולין מלמטה שהתערבבו, נאמר על המשנה הקודמת, וכאן הוא מובן מאליו. עוד מובאת בירושלמי מחלוקת האם אמר רבי אליעזר את דבריו רק על סאה שנפלה לחמישה מקומות או גם על סאה שנפלה למקום אחד. אם נפלה למקום אחד הסיכוי גדול יותר שבסאה יש כמות ניכרת של חולין, אבל אם נפלה לחמישה מקומות ייתכן שבאחד מהם יש ריכוז של תרומה ואיננו יודעים היכן הוא. אין הבדל משפטי בין שני המקרים, אבל מכיוון שעמדתו הבסיסית של רבי אליעזר נובעת מחומרה ייתכן שהקל במקרה שבו הספק מוגדר ותחום יותר. ", + "התלמוד הבבלי מחפש מי הם החכמים הנזכרים, ומוצא את רבי אליעזר בן יעקב ויוסי בן חוני שהביעו עמדות קרובות לאלו של חכמים במשנתנו (בבלי, תמורה יב ע\"א-ע\"ב). רבי יוסי בן חוני החולק שם יחלוק גם במשנתנו (רמב\"ם ואחרים). דומה שהעמדה המיוחסת לחכמים במשנתנו נפוצה מאוד, ואין צורך להלמה לחכם מסוים. ", + "ממשנת מקוואות (פ\"ב מ\"ה) מתברר שרבי אליעזר חולק על ה\"חשבון\" של חכמים, אבל אין לכך השפעה על משנתנו שאיננה קובעת מהו ה\"חשבון\" לפסילת מקווה. ", + "הסברנו את משנתנו כך שלא תחלוק על הקביעה הידועה שכמות מים מסוימת פוסלת את המקווה, ויש מחלוקת על גודלה של כמות זאת. במשנת עדיות שנינו: \"הלל אומר מלא הין מים שאובין פוסלין המקוה אלא שאדם חייב לומר בלשון רבו, ושמאי אומר תשעה קבין, וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה, אלא עד שבאו שני גרדיים משער האשפות שבירושלים, והעידו משום שמעיה ואבטליון, שלשת לוגין מים שאובין פוסלין את המקוה וקיימו חכמים את דבריהם\" (פ\"א מ\"ג; והשוו מקוואות פ\"ב מ\"ד). ברם, לפי ההבנה הפשוטה חכמים אומרים שפסול מקווה איננו תלוי בכמות מוחלטת כזאת או אחרת, אלא באחוז המים השאובים שבמקווה. כך, למשל, אם במקווה של ארבעים סאה שלושה לוגים פוסלים את המקווה, הרי שזה אחד חלקי 320 של המים29בסאה 24 לוג, ושלושה לוגים הם שמינית סאה, שהם אחד חלקי 320 של ארבעים סאה. . לפיכך, אם המקווה מכיל 320 סאה, למשל, רק סאה של מים תפסול את המקווה. זאת ועוד; לא נאמר מהו ה\"חשבון\". הצענו שהוא מבוסס על שלושה לוגים הפוסלים מקווה מינימלי, אבל אפשר שתנא קמא של משנתנו מהלך בשיטת בית שמאי או בית הלל, או בדעה אחרת. ", + "בדרך זו הילך הבבלי: \"ואין המים שאובין פוסלין את המקוה. מאן תנא? אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן: רבי אליעזר בן יעקב היא; דתנן, רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר: מקוה שיש בו עשרים ואחת סאה מי גשמים, ממלא בכתף תשע עשרה סאה ופותקן למקוה, והן טהורין\" (תמורה יב ע\"א). כלומר, לא זו בלבד שהמקווה נפסל במים שאובים יחסית לכלל כמות המים שבמקווה (ולא במידה מוחלטת), אלא שהחישוב הוא של רוב ומיעוט, ואם המים השאובים הם פחות מהמים הטהורים המקווה טהור. בהמשך הגמרא שם עוד הצעות: \"...אלא אמר רבה: לפי חשבון כלים, ויוסף בן חוני היא; דתניא, שלשת לוגין מים שאובין שנפלו למים בשנים ושלשה כלים, ואפילו בארבעה וחמשה כלים – פוסלים את המקוה, יוסף בן חוני אומר: בשנים ושלשה כלים – פוסל את המקוה, בארבעה וחמשה – אין פוסלין את המקוה\" (בבלי, שם ע\"ב). אם כן, שלושה לוגים פוסלים את המקווה, אבל רק אם הם נופלים למקווה יחד ולא אחד אחר השני.", + "הכמות של שלושה לוגים שנויה במחלוקת (משנה, עדיות פ\"א מ\"א), אבל הקביעה של משנתנו איננה תלויה בכמות אלא בעיקרון שהחשבון קובע. אפשר שגם מקרה זה הוא במי מקווה שנפלו בו מעט מים שאובים ולא פסלוהו, ואם נפלו עוד מעט מים שאובים ובסך הכול יש בו כבר יותר משלושה לוגים מים שאובים אין המקווה נפסל.", + "יש להעיר שהבבלי מצטט מקור תנאי, אך לא את משנתנו, אלא ניסוח אחר שלה.", + "ופוסלין את המקוה אלא לפי חשבון - הוסבר לעיל." + ], + [ + "סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה היגביהה – כמו שתי המשניות הקודמות גם משנתנו עוסקת בחומרה בהשפעת רבי אליעזר, אף שאין הלכה כמותו, ונפלה אחרת היגביהה – עוד סאה תרומה נפלה לתוך אותה תערובת וגם אותה הרים, כלומר הרים סאה כלשהי, ואותה סאה נחשבת תרומה, ונפלה אחרת הרי זו מותרת – אם נפלה סאה שלישית לאותה תערובת אין צריך עוד להגביהה. המשנה מנוסחת באותו סגנון של המשניות הקודמות (\"נפלה סאה... והגביהה\"), על כן יש לפרש את משנתנו ואת המשניות הקודמות כיחידה אחת. את משנתנו אפשר לפרש שהיא כדעת רבי אליעזר, שיש להגביה סאה אחת והיא נחשבת כתרומה. לפי פירוש זה לדעת חכמים אין צריך להגביה סאה כלל, וייתכן שכתוצאה מכך כבר הסאה השנייה שנפלה מדמעת את כל הערמה. אבל המשניות הקודמות התפרשו כדעת חכמים, ולכן נראה שגם משנתנו היא כדעת חכמים. הגבהת הסאה מצטיירת לא כחומרה אישית אלא כהלכה שיש לה מגבלות. לפי המשנה שתי פעמים מגביהים את הסאה, ויותר מכן הכול מותר. לכאורה צריך היה הדין להיות הפוך: ככל שנפלו יותר סאות של תרומה כך אחוז התרומה בתערובת גדל. הרי ברור שהסאה שהורמה אינה הסאה המקורית; במקרה הטוב יש בה אחוז גבוה של תרומה, אך לא כל התרומה הוצאה מהתערובת. ככל שנופלת תרומה נוספת אחוז התרומה גדל והוא יותר מאחד למאה. אילו הייתה המשנה מייצגת הלכה צריכה הייתה לקבוע שבסאה השלישית (או הרביעית) הכול אסור, או הכול לפי חשבון; ברם, אין כאן תפיסה משפטית אלא תגובה \"רגשית\", וחכמים חשים שדי בחומרה של הגבהת הסאה פעמיים. ", + "עד שתרבה תרומה לחולין – אבל אם נפלה לערמה כמות רבה של תרומה כך שבחשבון הכולל יש בתערובת יותר תרומה מחולין, אזי תיחשב כל הערמה לתרומה. גם פִסקה זו אינה נובעת מתהליך הלכתי-משפטי. מבחינה הלכתית כל פעם הערמה היא חולין לכל דבר, והמרכיב של \"תרבה תרומה\" אין לו בסיס פורמלי. אבל שוב, מבחינה התחושה הדתית קשה לקבל מצב שבו ערמה שרובה תרומה תיחשב לחולין, גם אם מבחינה משפטית הדבר סביר. משנתנו מדגימה את גישתם של חכמים לנושא התרומה. כל הנושא היה טעון מבחינת התחושה הדתית, ואי אפשר היה להכיל עליו רק את השיקולים המשפטיים הפורמליים. דומה שמרכיב זה השפיע גם על עמדתם של בית שמאי ורבי אליעזר (לעיל מ\"ד). ", + "אבל התלמוד הירושלמי התקשה, כנראה, לקבל הסבר שאינו משפטי, על כן הוא מנסה למצוא מבנה משפטי כאילו אם נפלה סאה פעם שלישית הוא בבחינת \"מרבה במזיד\", ואסור להוסיף על תערובת כדי שהתרומה תעלה באחד ממאה. כלומר, אסור להפיל תרומה לחולין כך שהתרומה תתבטל. ברם, ההסבר המשפטי אינו מספק. אין בו הסבר מדוע \"משתרבה התרומה\" הכול אסור. יתר על כן, אין בו היגיון משפטי. הנימוק \"נעשה כמרבה במזיד\" אינו סביר. למה הוא \"נעשה כ...\"? הרי דבר לא היה בכוונה, ולא לעין כול, ואין כאן חשש של מראית עין או כל חשש דומה. אין זאת אלא ניסיון להעניק ניסוח הלכתי להכרעה הנובעת מתחושות של קודש, שאינן רק משפט. מבחינה חברתית זו דוגמה לתהליך ארוך ועקבי של התכנסות כל הנוהגים הדתיים תחת הגג ההלכתי. הנוהגים הדתיים נבעו מסיבות שונות: משפטיות, רגשיות, היסטוריות וכיוצא באלו. אך התהליך היה של כינוס כל התקדימים לתוך מערכת משפטית, ניסוחם כעקרונות משפטיים והכללתם במערכת המשפט הדתי. עמדנו על תהליך זה במרומז במבוא הכללי לפירושנו. " + ], + [ + "סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה ולא הספיק להגביהה – כאן המקרה הפוך: עוד לפני שהוגבהה סאה אחת כתרומה נפלה סאה אחרת. מעתה יש בתערובת שתי סאים של תרומה. אם היו שתיהן נופלות יחד הייתה כל הערמה תרומה, אבל מבחינה משפטית הערמה הפכה לחולין לפני שנפלה הסאה השנייה, עד שנפלה אחרת הרי זו אסורה ורבי שמעון מתיר – הירושלמי (מג ע\"ד) מגדיר את ההבדל בין התנאים. לרבי שמעון \"ידיעתה מקדשתה\". אם ידע שנפלה סאה של תרומה למאה סאה של חולין, עצם הידיעה \"מקדשת\" אותה, כלומר הופכת את כולה לחולין. \"מקדשת\" כאן משמעו מכילה על הערמה את ההלכה של תערובת. לחכמים \"הרמתה מקדשתה\", כלומר הגבהת הסאה לתרומה הופכת את הערמה לחולין. חכמים כאן מתנסחים כמו רבי אליעזר. ניתן היה לפרש את המשנה ש\"חכמים\" כאן הם רבי אליעזר, ברם, כאמור, כל גוש המשניות הוא אחיד ויש לפרש את כולו כחכמים החולקים על רבי אליעזר, אך מקבלים את מקצת דבריו כחומרה. קשה לשער מה היה רבי אליעזר אומר בכל המקרים, אבל קרוב להניח שבמשנתנו היה מקבל את דעת חכמים שעד שלא הגביה סאה לא הפכה הערמה לחולין, וממילא אם נפלה סאה נוספת של תרומה – הכול תרומה. ", + "בתוספתא מוסיף רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון: \"במי דברים אמורים בזמן שלא ידע בה ואחר כך נפלה, אבל אם ידע בה ואחר כך נפלה אחרת הרי זו מותרת, שכבר היה לה להעלות\" (פ\"ו ה\"ה). אם כן, אם ידע לכל הדעות הערמה מותרת, ורק אם לא ידע אומרים חכמים שאסור. בניגוד לירושלמי \"ידיעתה מקדשתה\" הוא לכל הדעות, ומחלוקת התנאים היא רק במקרה שבו לא ידע. לפיכך צריך לנסח את דעת רבי שמעון שכבר היה יכול להעלות את התרומה, וחכמים סבורים שרק הרמה או ידיעה בפועל מעלה את התרומה. " + ], + [ + "סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה וטחנן – תהליך הטחינה עשוי למעט את הכמות הכוללת, ופחתו כשם שפחתו החולין כך פחתה תרומה – יש להניח שהשינוי בנפח היה אחיד בתרומה כמו בחולין, והיחס בין התרומה לחולין לא השתנה, מותר – כך ברוב עדי הנוסח; בדפוסים ובכמה עדים: ומותר. אין הבדל בין הנוסחים, שכן וי\"ו החיבור נשמטה או הוספה תדירות. מכל מקום, הערמה של התערובת נחשבת למותרת כפי שהייתה לפני הטחינה. ", + "סאה תרומה שנפלה ל[פחות ממאה] (למאה) – בכתב היד כתוב שנפלה למאה, ובצד תוקן לפחות ממאה, כמו ביתר עדי הנוסח. אין צורך בתיקון, שהרי לביטול יש צורך במאה ועוד קצת (לעיל פ\"ד מ\"ז), אבל המשנה משתמשת תמיד בנוסחה \"אחד למאה\", וגם כאן סביר שהנוסח היה שנפלה לפחות מאחד ממאה, כלומר הערמה אסורה, וטחנן והותירו – נפח החומר הטחון רב יותר מאשר הערמה המקורית. הדבר קורה כאשר חודרת רטיבות לחומר הטחון (קמח) וגורמת להתנפחות הקמח.", + "כשם שהותירו החולין כך הותירה התרומה אסור – או: ואסור – כדלעיל, אם ידוע שחיטים שלחולין יפות משלתרומה מותר – אם ידוע שגרעיני החולין הם אלו שתפחו יותר מגרעיני התרומה הרי שבערמה עתה חלקה של התרומה קטן והערמה מותרת. אם כן, ההלכה היא שיש לקבוע את מצב הערמה לפי מצב התרומה שבה בזמן השימוש. אם כבר נטחנה – הרי שהמצב הקובע הוא ההערכה מה חלקה של התרומה בחומר הטחון. אותו עיקרון יחול גם על הרישא, אבל הפוך. כל זאת כחכמים החולקים על רבי אליעזר (לעיל מ\"ד), שהרי לפי רבי אליעזר יש להגביה סאה אחת עליונה והיא כתרומה, ממילא אחוז התרומה המקורית בערמה קטן, לכן אולי הטחינה לא תשנה הרבה. מכל מקום, המשנה מדברת רק על האפשרות של התנפחות החומר הטחון בערמה שהיא מדמעת (ואסורה), ולא על האפשרות השנייה שהיא אולי שנויה במחלוקת. ", + "סאה תרומה שנפלה לפחות ממאה ואחר כך נפלו שם חולין – ההנחה הסמויה היא שלאחר נפילת הפֵרות בפעם השנייה התרומה היא פחות מאחד למאה. אילו הייתה התערובת נוצרת מנפילה אחת – בוודאי הייתה בטלה, הבעיה היא שהיו שתי נפילות. ", + "אם שוגג מותר ואם מזיד אסור – אם הנפילה השנייה גם היא נבעה משגגה התרומה בטלה, ואם הרבה בכוונה התרומה לא בטלה, שכן הערמה אסורה. השאלה היא בעצם האם מותר להרבות על תערובת בכוונה, והמשנה מסיקה שריבוי זה אינו מועיל.", + "בירושלמי שנינו: \"רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוחנן כל האיסורין שריבה עליהן בשוגג מותר ובמזיד אסור. ולא מתניתא היא בשוגג מותר ובמזיד אסור? מתניתא בתרומה, אתה מימור לך אפילו שאר כל הדברים. רבי אחא בשם רבי יונתן כשם שמצוה לומר על דבר שהוא נעשה, כך מצוה שלא לומר על דבר שאינו נעשה\" (מג ע\"ד). אם כן, רבי יוחנן ניסח את ההלכה במשנה באופן גורף וכללי יותר. התלמוד שואל מה החידוש בדבריו ועונה שהמשנה מדברת על תרומה בלבד, ורבי יוחנן מרחיב את ההלכה לכל התחומים30דבריו של רבי יוחנן הובאו בתלמוד בדין ערלה (ירו', ערלה פ\"ג ה\"ז, סג ע\"ב; כלאים פ\"ב ה\"א, כז ע\"ג, ומקבילה לסוגייתנו בחגיגה פ\"א ה\"ח, עו ע\"ד). . התלמוד ממשיך באמירה כללית המרמזת שריבוי מכוון הוא דבר מגונה, ובמקרה זה מצווה שלא לומר את ההלכה בדבר ביטול על ידי ריבוי. כנראה הוא רומז לכך שרבים היו מבטלים תרומה על ידי הוספת חולין, אף שהדבר אסור. לכן מן הראוי לא לעסוק בכך, אף שמבחינה הלכתית ההלכה ברורה. ", + "ההלכה במשנתנו היא ההלכה המקובלת שאין להרבות, אבל כנראה יש גם החולקים עליה. במקום אחר שנינו את דברי רבי יהודה \"מעלין את המדומע\" (משנה, שבת פכ\"א מ\"א, ראו פירושנו לה). הכוונה היא שמותר לעשות כן לא רק ביום חול אלא אפילו בשבת. פירוש המשנה שנוי במחלוקת, אך אנו פירשנו אותה כעוסקת בהעלאת תרומה בידיים, ורבי יהודה מתיר זאת. הסתמכנו על ברייתא אחרת שהימנה משמע שיש המתירים להעלות בידיים, וכן שנינו: \"נפלו ואחר כך נתפצעו31המדובר בסוגי אגוזים שאינם עולים משום חשיבותם (\"דבר שבמנין\"), אלא אם נשברו (נתפצעו) שאז הם עולים באחד חלקי מאתיים (ראו שם משנה ז). ערלה עולה באופן רגיל באחד למאתיים (משנה, ערלה פ\"א מ\"ו). בין שוגג בין מזיד לא יעלו, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יודה אמר בין שוגג בין מזיד יעלו. רבי יוסי אומר שוגג יעלו מזיד לא יעלו. מה טעמא דרבי מאיר קנסו בשוגג מפני מזיד. מה טעמא דרבי יודה כבר קנסו בידו. מה טעמא דרבי יוסי כיי דאמר רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוחנן כל האיסורין שריבה עליהן שוגג מותר, מזיד אסור\" (ירו', ערלה פ\"ג ה\"ז, סג ע\"ב). ", + "אגוזים שנפלו ואחר כך נתפצעו", + "ההלכה הכללית של רבי יוחנן היא משנתנו, ואלו דברי רבי יוסי בלבד. רבי יהודה סובר שאפילו במזיד מותר להעלות. אמנם הוא אומר את דבריו רק בהקשר של העלאת \"דבר שבמנין\", אבל ממשנת שבת משמע שאכן זו דעתו הקבועה של רבי יהודה. הנימוק שהירושלמי נותן לרבי יהודה הוא \"שקנסו בידו\", כלומר שאין לקנוס שוגג מחשש מזיד שהרי גם במזיד מותר, ובכך הוא עונה לרבי מאיר בלבד ולא לרבי יוסי. הירושלמי במסכת כלאים מוסיף עוד אבחנה חשובה. שם נדון מקרה שבו התערבו זרעים שונים באותו כלי. רבי יוסי אומר שיש לברור את הזרעים, וסתם המשנה קובעת \"ימעט\", כלומר ישנה את היחסים כך שהמין השני יהיה מיעוט קטן ויבוטל. על כך מוסיף הירושלמי: \"ימעט – כאי זה צד הוא ממעט? או פוחת מן הרובע או מוסיף על הסאה, לא כן אמר רבי יוחנן רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוחנן כל האיסורין שריבה עליהן שוגג מותר מזיד אסור? תמן את מרבה לבטל איסור תורה, ברם הכא את מרבה לבטל מפני מראית העין\" (כלאים פ\"ב ה\"א, כז ע\"ג). באיסור תורה כמו ערלה ותרומה אין להרבות בידיים, אבל באיסור כלאיים הדבר מותר מפני שאין איסורו בא אלא משום מראית עין32איסור כלאי זרעים נתפס בעיקרו כאיסור לעורר את חשדם של אחרים שזרע בכוונה כלאים. מצב זה הוא המכונה \"מראית עין\". במבוא למסכת כלאים עסקנו במרכזיותו של שיקול זה בדיני כלאים. . לפי עיקרון זה אולי רבי יהודה סבור שאיסור תערובת תרומה חמור פחות. מכל מקום, רבי יהודה לשיטתו שמותר להרבות במזיד בערלה, ומן הסתם גם בכלאיים.", + "משנתנו היא, אפוא, כדברי רבי יוסי. רבי יהודה מקל להעלות תמיד, ורבי מאיר מחמיר ואוסר גם בשוגג, כלומר בכל מקרה שנפלה תוספת לתערובת הכול אסור. בתוספתא למשנתנו (פ\"ו ה\"ז) מפורטים עוד מקרים של נפילה, ומן הסתם זו נפילה בשוגג, והתרומה עולה, וכולם כרבי יוסי בניגוד לרבי מאיר. ", + "הניסוח של המשנה קשה. המשפט הקודם היה \"נפלו שם חולין\"; ביטוי זה הוא תיאור של מצב של שוגג. המונח \"נפלו\" משמש במשמעות זו בכל הפרק וההמשך (\"אם היה שוגג\" וכו') אינו עולה בקנה אחד עם ההתחלה, וכאילו יש \"נפילה\" בכוונה מודעת. ייתכן שהמשפט במשנה נוסח כך משום שכל ההלכה במשנה נועדה לשמש כגשר לתחילת הפרק הבא. בפרק הבא נדון עניין שוגג ומזיד בהקשרים רחבים הרבה יותר. לא מן הנמנע שהעורך רצה להשתמש בהלכה זו כחיבור לפרק הבא, ולכן ניסח אותה כך. בתוספתא יש כמה הלכות המקבילות למשנה, אבל דין שוגג ומזיד אינו מופיע שם. אדרבה, בכל ההלכות מדובר על \"נפלה\" סתם, כאילו לא הכירה התוספתא את ההבחנה בין שוגג למזיד (פ\"ו ה\"ז-הי\"א). ייתכן כי יד המקרה בדבר, אבל ייתכן גם שהתוספתא לא הכירה מרכיב זה של המשנה משום שהוא נוסף בשלב עריכה מאוחר יותר. לפי הסבר זה התוספתא ערוכה על בסיס המשנה, אך על בסיס עריכה קדומה מזו שבידינו, או אולי התוספתא אינה נסובה על משנתנו אלא על המשנה הקדומה שממנה נלקטה משנתנו. לדרכי הסבר אלו משמעות בהבנת מערכת היחסים שבין המשנה לתוספתא. נושא זה נדון בקצרה במבוא לפירוש המשניות, ונראה שאין בדבר כלל אחיד. לעתים התוספתא מסבירה ומרחיבה את המשנה שלנו (בין השאר בעזרת חומר הלכתי קדום למשנה), לעתים היא ערוכה כיצירה עצמאית, לעתים המשנה מכירה את העריכה של התוספתא (או של המשנה הקדומה שממנה הועברה) ולעתים היא נסובה על עריכה של המשנה אך לא על העריכה שבידינו אלא על עריכה מעט ארכאית יותר. ", + "עד כאן דיני תערובת. המעיין בדינים אלו מתרשם מהעיון המדוקדק ומפרטי השאלות. קשה למצוא בספרות נושא שנדון בצורה כל כך מפורטת ושכמעט בכל מקרה העולה בו קיימת מחלוקת. דומה שהנושא זכה לתשומת לב מיוחדת משום שיש בו עירוב של קודש וכלכלה כאחד. התרומה היא בראשיתה חול, ואדם מקדש אותה בקדושה שאי אפשר להמירה או לפדותה (בניגוד להקדש או למעשר שני). לחכמים היה חשוב להדגיש את קדושת התרומה, ואולי משום כך דנו בה בפרטי פרטים. " + ] + ], + [ + [ + "האוכל תרומה שוגג משלם קרן וחומש – דין זה כתוב במפורש בתורה: \"ואיש כי יאכל קֹדש בשגגה ויסף חמִשיתו עליו ונתן לכהן את הקֹדש\" (ויקרא כב יד). חכמים פירשו את הפסוק בגונב תרומה, משום שכל הקטע בספר ויקרא שם עוסק בתרומה. הפסוק הקודם עוסק בבת כהן ואף המשנה הבאה עוסקת בבת כהן, ונראה שהעורך הושפע מסדר הנושאים במקרא1על השפעת המקרא או מדרש ההלכה על סדר המשנה ראו במבוא, וכן במבואנו למשנת פאה. . לעניין זה תרומה היא כהקדש, זאת אף שיש הבדל גדול בין שני הנושאים. הקדש שייך לקודש, כלומר לה' (למקדש), ואילו התרומה שייכת לאדם פרטי, לכהן, אלא שעל אכילתה חלים דיני קדושה. חכמים רואים, אפוא, בתרומה מוצר משולב. הוא שייך מבחינה משפטית לכהן, ומבחינה דתית לה'. לכך תהיה השפעה על המשך ההלכות להלן. לדין עצמו מקבילה במסכת פסחים (פ\"ד מ\"ד), ומקבילה מנוגדת (האוכל מזיד) בפרק הבא.", + "אחד האוכל אחד השותה ואחד הסך – לכולם אותו דין. דינם של האוכל והשותה כמובן זהה, ואין ביניהם מאומה, והסך את גופו נתפס אף הוא כשותה. הסיכה היא מריחת הגוף בשמן, והיא נעשתה בכמה הזדמנויות. בבית המרחץ מרחו את הגוף לפני הטבילה במים החמים. לאחר מכן גירדו את השמן וכך ניקו את הגוף, כשהשמן משמש כסבון2סבון עשוי משמן זית היה מוצר נפוץ במזרח הקדום בתקופות רבות. . לאחר הרחצה סך אדם שנית את עצמו בשמן ריחני. הסיכה הייתה גם אפשרות לניקוי הגוף בין רחצה לרחצה. לפי ההלכה התנאית סיכה היא כשתייה3משנה, שבת פ\"ט מ\"ד; יומא פ\"ח מ\"א; מעשר שני פ\"ב מ\"א; שביעית פ\"ח מ\"ב; תוס', כריתות פ\"ב ה\"ב, עמ' 601 ועוד, ומקורות נוספים מאוחרים יותר. . עדויות לתפיסה הלכתית זו יש בפריווילגיות שהעניקו הערים היווניות למשתתפים היהודיים בפעולות הגימנסיון (קד', יב 120). המתאבקים בגימנסיון קיבלו מהעיר שמן בחינם. לפי ההלכה הקדומה נאסר לאכול שמן של גויים, ומתברר שהמתאבקים סירבו לקבל את השמן שסיפקה העיר. המשתתפים בהיאבקות בגימנסיון לא נמנו עם חוגי החכמים, אך גם הם סברו ששמן של גויים אסור אפילו בסיכה. הווה אומר, לדידם היה ברור שסיכה היא כאכילה, ומה שנאסר באכילה נאסר גם בסיכה. ואכן, סיכה היא כאכילה בכל הנושאים, בבחינת: \"לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך, תירושך – זה היין, ויצהרך – זו סיכה, והתורה קראה אותה אכילה\" (ירו', מעשר שני פ\"ב ה\"א, נג ע\"ב). עם כל זאת, התלמודים מעירים שלמעשה אין איסור סיכה זהה לאיסור אכילת תרומה. אכילה היא עברה על עצם חובת שמירת התרומה (והוא הדין באכילה ביום הכיפורים שהיא עברה על עצם חובת העינוי), וסיכה אסורה בצורה מובהקת פחות ודינה חמור פחות4ירו', יומא פ\"ח ה\"א, מד ע\"ד; בבלי, עד ע\"ב. הירושלמי מעיר גם על שוני הלכתי בין האוכל בתשעה באב והסך בו, ולא נרחיב בכך. (איור 20). ", + "אם כן, חומרת האיסור שונה. האוכל נתפס כעובר על עצם חובת שמירת התרומה ודינו כרת, ואילו הסך עונשו קל יותר. כמו משנת שבת כך גם משנתנו אינה מבחינה בין סיכה לאכילה, אבל אין בכך עדות ליחסה לעונש על הסך בשמן תרומה או על הסך ביום כיפור, ואין המשנה עוסקת אלא בעיקר ההלכה. ", + "בתוספתא מובאים דבריו של רבי שמעון: \"הסך יין של תרומה שוגג משלם את הקרן ואינו משלם את החומש\" (תוס', פ\"ז ה\"א). כך הנוסח בכתב יד וינה, ולפי זה מדובר במי שסך ביין ולא בשמן. סיכה ביין היא סיכה שלא כדרכה. אמנם היו שנהגו כך במקרים מיוחדים, ובעיקר לתרופה. להלן נאסר על כהן לסוך ביין תרומה משום שיש בכך השחתת תרומה (תוס', פ\"ט ה\"י), וכן אין לסוך ביין של שביעית (משנה, שביעית פ\"ח מ\"ב; מעשר שני פ\"ב ה\"א). כמו כן אנו שומעים על סיכה ביין ממקורות נוספים, בעיקר מטעמי בריאות5תוס', פ\"ט ה\"ז; הי\"ד; משנה, שבת פי\"ד מ\"ד ועוד. לסיכה ביין כנוהל רגיל ראו קצוף, הלכות. . נמצאנו למדים כי לעתים היה מי שעשה זאת אך הדבר לא נחשב לשימוש רגיל ותקני ביין, על כן מי שעשה כן אינו בבחינת אוכל תרומה ולכן אינו משלם את החומש. לפי הסבר זה רבי שמעון אינו חולק על המשנה אלא משלים אותה. אמנם המשנה אמרה שסיכה כאכילה, אך פירשנו שכך הוא עיקר הדין והמשנה לא עסקה בפרטים המשניים, כמו המשניות האחרות שקבעו שסיכה כאכילה ביום כיפור, אף שהדין שונה בפרטים המשניים. מן הראוי להעיר שבכתב יד ערפורט ובדפוס הנוסח הוא \"הסך בשמן\", ולפי נוסח זה רבי שמעון חולק על המשנה. לנוסח כתב יד וינה עדיפות טקסטואלית, כפי שהראה ליברמן על אתר. ", + "התשלום מורכב משני חלקים, קרן וחומש. הקרן היא החזר ההפסד, ויש בה מרכיב מובהק של דיני ממונות רגילים, ואילו תשלום החומש הוא קנס וכפרה על חילול הקודש. על כן הגונב במזיד פטור מחומש, שכן אין לו כפרה. דינו של האוכל תרומה במזיד יידון בפרק הבא.", + "אחד תרומה טהורה ואחד תרומה טמאה – דין האוכל את שתיהן שווה.", + "משלם חומשה וחומש חומשה – מתוך ההקשר נראה שבמשנה חסר כאילו משפט האומר שהוא הדין במי שאוכל את חומש התרומה שניתנה לאחר גנבה או אכילה. האוכל אותה משלם קרן וחומש כמקודם, וחמישית של החומש כקנס על החומש שאכל. הסבר זה דחוק, שהרי העיקר חסר מן הספר. בירושלמי: \"ויסף חמישיתו – שיהא הוא וחומשו חמשה\" (מד ע\"א; תורת כהנים, אמור פרק ו ה\"ד, צז ע\"ב). כלומר, החומש אינו חמישית מהקרן אלא חמישית מקרן וחמישית, כך שהחומש הוא חמישית מהתשלום הכולל. אם אכל מאה ק\"ג החומש הוא 25 ק\"ג, כך שהחומש (25 ק\"ג) הוא חמישית מהתשלום הכולל (125 ק\"ג), וכרבע מהקרן. ייתכן שדברי הירושלמי הם תוספת למשנה, וייתכן שהם פרשנות לה, וכך יש להבין את המשנה: משלם חומשה – משלם את הקרן והחומש, וחומש חומשה – החומש הזה הוא חומשו של התשלום הכולל. יהא פירוש המשנה אשר יהא, יש גם החולקים על הירושלמי, ובתלמוד הבבלי מובא שהחומש הוא חמישית מהקרן (מלבר) בלבד (בבלי, בבא מציעא נד ע\"ב). ", + "מבחינתו של האוכל אין לטומאה משמעות, בכל מקרה אסור לו ליהנות מהתרומה6אלא אם כן הוא כהן בעצמו, או שרוצה למסור אותה למכרו הכהן. . אבל מבחינתו של הכהן ההבדל גדול. האוכל תרומה טהורה הזיק לכהן וגרם לו הפסד כדמי התרומה, לעומת זאת האוכל תרומה טמאה הזיק נזק קטן למדי. אם אכל שמן הזיק דמי שמן תאורה, אבל אם אכל חיטים או יין הנזק מזערי, שכן הכהן אינו יכול להפיק מהתרומה אלא מעט. בהלכה מכונה ערך זה \"דמי עצים\", הכסף שהפֵרות שווים אם ישתמשו בהם להסקה. התוספתא חולקת על משנתנו ואומרת: \"האוכל תרומה טמיאה משלם דמי עצים לכהן\" (פ\"ז ה\"ב). אין בתוספתא התייחסות לחומש, ואולי עליו לשלם את החומש במלואו. ", + "אינו משלם תרומה אלא חולים מתוקנים – התשלום נעשה בחולין מתוקנים, כלומר לאחר הפרשת המעשרות והתרומות. בכך יש קנס נוסף לאוכל או לגנב. לכאורה די היה אם ישלם בפֵרות טבל, שהרי אם ניתן לטבל דין תרומה הוא פטור ממעשרות ותרומות. אבל הכוונה היא שהגנב האוכל (או האוכל ללא גנבה) יפסיד פעם נוספת. הוא יפריש מעשרות ותרומות כהלכה, ואת הפֵרות המתוקנים ייתן לכהן. ברם, בתוספתא שנינו: \"תשלומי תרומה וחומשה וחומש חומשה מותר העומר ושתי הלחם... ותוספת הביכורין, רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון בית שמיי מחייבין ובית הלל פוטרין\" (דמאי פ\"א הכ\"ח). לפי ההקשר המדובר הוא בחובת הפרשה מדמאי. בפירושנו למשנה שעליה מתבססת התוספתא (דמאי פ\"א מ\"ג) ראינו כי לעתים פטרו מדמאי משום ש\"אימת מעשרות עליו\", וודאי יפריש מעשרות מהקדש7כן מפרש הירושלמי לדמאי פ\"א ה\"ג, כב ע\"א. . לעתים נקבעה ההלכה שפטור מדמאי משום שהחיוב במעשרות אינו מובהק, ופטרו במקרה של ספק את מה שחיובו ספק בעצמו. זאת ועוד. בפירושנו למשניות שונות במסכת דמאי ראינו כי לעתים המשנה אומרת שדבר נפטר מדמאי והכוונה שפטור גם ממעשרות ודאי, \"לא שנייא בין דמאי בין ודאי פטורין\"8ירו', דמאי פ\"א ה\"א, כא ע\"ג, וראו פירושנו למשנה זו. . אם כן, גם התוספתא עשויה לרמז על אפשרות שמשנתנו קרובה לדעת בית שמאי9על סתם משניות כבית שמאי ראו ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל. , ולדעת בית הלל התשלום פטור ממעשרות, או שלפחות חיובו ספק בלבד. עם זאת, כאמור, ניתן גם לפרש את התוספתא שאימת קודשים עליו ולא ירצה להכשיל את הכהן, וגם בית הלל סבורים שתשלומי תרומה חייבים במעשרות לחלוטין, אלא שאם הם דמאי הם פטורים ממעשרות. ", + "והן נעשים תרומה והתשלומין10י, ט, נ – \"התשלומים\". תרומה – הקרן והתשלום של החומש הופכים לתרומה לכל דבר, וכן במקבילות (כגון תוס', טהרות פ\"א ה\"ו, עמ' 601). בירושלמי מתנהל דיון האם הם תרומה לגמרי או שגידוליהם חולין, ונדון בכך להלן (פ\"ט מ\"ד), שם נראה שהשימוש במינוח \"תרומה\" אף למה שאינו לחלוטין תרומה הנו רגיל.", + "אם רצה הכהן למחול אינו מוחל – אדם רגיל יכול למחול על נזק שנגרם לו. גם הכהן רשאי להחזיר כספים לישראל, אך אין הוא יכול למחול על אכילת תרומה שכן אכילת התרומה היא בבחינת גנבה מרכוש הקודש. בירושלמי מובאים דינים שונים בדבר תשלומי תרומה שקדושתם מעט קטנה יותר מתרומה רגילה. הדבר בא לידי ביטוי בדינם של \"גידולי תרומה\". אם גזל תרומה רגילה וזרעה אלו גידולי תרומה והם כתרומה, אבל גידולים של תשלומי תרומה מעמדם מעט נחות יותר. לא נפרט כאן דינים אלו, אך יש לציין שוב את הפירוט בשלל המקרים השונים.", + "מחילת הכהן משמעה גם אפשרות שהכהן נתן לישראל את התרומה. גם במקרה זה החטא של אכילת התרומה נותר במקומו, הכהן אינו רשאי למחול על קדושת הפֵרות והוא זכאי להחזר כפעולה הנעשית בקודש. התשלום במקרה זה הוא תרומה לכל דבר, כל זאת בניגוד לאוכל במזיד שדינו יידון בראשית הפרק הבא. " + ], + [ + "משנה ב היא עניין חדש ואינה קשורה למשנה א בצורה עניינית. הסדר הוא סדר הכתובים בספר ויקרא כב שבו מופיע דין גזל תרומה (פסוק יד), ולפניו דין בת כהן.", + "בת ישראל שאכלה תרומה ואחר כך נישאת לכהן – בת ישראל שנישאה לכהן אוכלת בתרומה ככהן. היא מופיעה כמי שמקבלת תרומה ואוכלת אותה באופן עצמאי. ברם, לפנינו מקרה נדיר שבו היא אכלה את התרומה בטרם הפכה לאשת כהן. המשנה אינה דנה בשאלה האם אותה בת ישראל צריכה להשיב את דמי התרומה לבעלים. באופן פשוט התרומה שלה, כלומר שהרימה אותה מיבולה (הר\"ש). בדוחק ניתן היה אולי גם לתרץ שאכלה מתרומה שהרים אביה, אבל אז היה צריך לשקול האם אין חובת התשלום על האב, כמו להלן (פ\"ז מ\"ג). בת בוגרת רשאית להחזיק ברכוש, ואין בכך כל קושי. עד כאן בתחום ההלכתי. מבחינה חברתית זו תופעה ראויה לציון שלבת לפני נישואיה יש רכוש, והתנאים אינם חשים בצורך להעיר על כך ואינם רואים בכך תופעה ייחודית.", + "אם תרומה שלא זכה בה כהן אכלה – האישה חייבת לשלם קרן וחומש. הבעל אינו חייב בתשלומים אלו, שכן מדובר בחוב שחל לפני נישואיו. אם אכלה תרומה שכהן אחר טרם קיבל, אזי: משלמת קרן וחומש לעצמה – היא רשאית לתת לעצמה את הקרן והקנס כאחד, אם תרומה שזכה בה כהן אכלה – אם כהן אחר זכה תרומה המקורית, אזי: משלמת קרן לבעלים וחומש לעצמה – קרן לבעלים שמהם גזלה וחומש לעצמה, כי הקנס שייך ל\"קודש\", כלומר לכלל הכוהנים, והיא רשאית לזכות בו לעצמה. הלכה זו מדברת במקרה חריג, אך מהווה הזדמנות להדגמת כללי הלכה ומחשבה. תשלום הקרן הוא תשלום נזק, ושייך לניזוק, אם יש ניזוק מוגדר. אם אין ניזוק מוגדר הוא שייך לכלל הכוהנים והבעל (הגנב) רשאי לתת אותו למי שירצה, כולל לעצמו אם הוא כהן. החומש, לעומת זאת, אינו שייך לכהן בעל התרומה, זהו קנס משמים והוא שייך לכלל, ושוב הבעל מחליט למי לתתו. עוד אנו שומעים שהאישה מקבלת את התרומה לעצמה; לא נאמר שהתרומה ניתנת לבעלה והיא רק זכאית לאכול עמו, אלא היא מופיעה כמקבלת תרומה לעצמה. ", + "מפני שאמרו האוכל תרומה שוגג משלם קרן לבעלים וחומש למי שירצה – זה הכלל, והמשנה מצטטת אותו מהלכה קדומה אחרת. הלשון \"מפני שאמרו\" או \"למה אמרו\" באה, בדרך כלל, לצטט מהלכה קדומה שהייתה לפני העורכים11ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ז מ\"ז; סוכה פ\"ג מי\"ג; פסחים פ\"א מ\"א; שביעית פ\"ט מ\"ג. . בדרך כלל איננו מכירים את המקור שממנו נלקט המשפט, ומה היה ההקשר המקורי שבו נאמר. ", + "נישואי בת ישראל וכהן מותרים מבחינה הלכתית (משנה, קידושין פ\"ד מ\"א ומשניות רבות נוספות), אם כי הכוהנים נטו יותר לנישואי פנים. ביכלר אסף לכך סדרת עדויות מימי הבית השני12ביכלר, טהרת משפחות, עמ' 66-64. . בספרות חז\"ל מונחת ההנחה הפשוטה שבת כהן נישאת לכהן. התורה מדברת על בת כהן המזנה תחת בעלה, והתנאים והאמוראים מניחים בפשטות שהתורה מדברת על נישואי כוהנת לכהן (ראו פירושנו להלן פ\"ז מ\"ב). כמו כן, המשנה בכתובות קובעת דין מסוים בדבר זכויות אשת הכהן לתרומה ושונה זאת בלשון סתמית (פ\"ה מ\"ב), והתוספתא והתלמודים מפרשים את המשנה באופן שסתם מקרה הוא בת כהן לכהן, ואילו הדין של בת ישראל בהקשר זה מחייב בירור נפרד, ודינה שונה (תוס', כתובות פ\"ה ה\"א; בבלי, כתובות נח ע\"א). יש להניח שהכוהנים נהגו סלסול בעצמם, כפי שאומרים חכמים. מתוך הסתייגות והתנגדות של חכמים13ירו', ביכורים פ\"א ה\"ה, סד ע\"א. בהמשך הירושלמי רבי אבהו מגבה את המנהג של הכוהנים ורואה בו סלסול הראוי להגנה שהעובר עליו חייב מלקות, וראו פירושנו לפ\"ח מ\"א. . ", + "רבי יוחנן אומר: \"בת כהן לישראל אין זווגן עולה יפה\" (בבלי, פסחים מט ע\"א)14ינקלביץ, ייחוס. . ניתן לראות בכך ראיה נוספת להסתייגות מנישואי ישראל ומשפחת כוהנים. כן אומר בעל סדר אליהו רבה: \"אבי שבשמים יהי שמך הגדול מבורך לעולם ולעולמי עולמים, ותהא לך קורת רוח מישראל עבדיך בכל מקומות מושבותיהן.15זו פתיחה לדרשה המקובלת בחיבור זה, ורמזים רבים לה בספרות חז\"ל, וראו המבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות. שאילמלי לא כתבת את הדבר הזה מי יכול לכותבו, ומי יכול לאמרו? כמה שאמרת, 'הנה לא ינום ולא יישן שומר ישראל' (תהלים קכא ד). משלו משל, למה הדבר דומה, למלך בשר ודם שהיה יושב על כסאו, וכלי של זהב מונחת לפניו. והיו עליה תאנים, וענבים, ורימונים, אגוזים, תמרים, וגרוגרות, ותפוחים, ואתרוגים. וישב עליהן וביררן והניחן תאנים בפני עצמן, גרוגרות בפני עצמן, אתרוגים בפני עצמן. ועד שנפנה לכאן ולכאן באתה הרוח ובללה אילו באילו, ושוב ישב עליהן ובררן והניחן תאנים בפני עצמן, ענבים בפני עצמן, רמונים בפני עצמן, אגוזים בפני עצמן, תמרים בפני עצמן, גרוגרות בפני עצמן, תפוחים בפני עצמן, ועד שנפנה לכן ולכן באתה הרוח ובללה אלו באלו. שנו חכמים במשנה: 'עשרה יוחסין עלו מבבל: כהנים, לוים, וישראלים, גירי, חללי, וחרורי, ממזירי, ונתיני, שתוקי, ואסופי' (קידושין ריש פ\"ד), (האם) [הא אם] הניח הקב\"ה ידו מישראל שנים שלשה דורות זה אחר זה, מתערבין במעשיהן והוין כשאר עממין. ואתם קפויי טובה בני קפויי טובה, מפני מה אין אתם מודים ומשבחים ומברכים (לאביהם) [לאביכם] שבשמים, שתפס אתכם בשתי ידיו על שני זרועותיו, והוא זהיר בכם שלא תבואו לידי פסול? שנאמר אני ה' הוא שמי וגו' (ישעיה מב ח), מפני מה אתם עושין דרכים מכוערין ודברים שאינן ראויים? ומבעטים אתם בייסורין הבאים עליכם. אבל מה אעשה כבר גזרתי עליכם שאתם בניי ועבדיי, שנאמר כי לי בני ישראל עבדים (ויקרא כה נה), ואומר כה אמר ה' הנני צורפם ובחנתים (ירמיה ט ו), ואומר וישב מצרף ומטהר כסף וגו' (מלאכי ג ג)\" (אליהו רבה, יח, עמ' 100). הדרשן מתנגד לכל תערובת, אפילו לזו של כוהנים עם אחרים. הוא רואה בנישואים כאלה פרי ה\"רוח\" הזרה.", + "מן הראוי להעיר שבני גולת בבל שמרו על הייחוס ביתר הקפדה וביתר קנאות, כפי שהראו כבר חוקרים16ינקלביץ, ייחוס. וראו המבוא למסכת קידושין. . שתי המימרות האחרונות הן מתורת בבל, ואין זה מקרה ששם רווחה גם יותר ההתנגדות לנישואי ישראל עם בת כהן17מקומו וזמנו של תנא דבי אליהו (תדב\"ר) שנויים במחלוקת. המאחרים מסיקים שהוא מהמאה השישית או מאוחר יותר, ומכיל פולמוס אנטי-קראי. המקדימים טוענים שהוא קדם לתלמוד הבבלי. בתלמוד הבבלי ציטוטים רבים בשם \"תנא דבי אליהו\", והשאלה היא האם אלו ציטוטים מהחיבור המוכר היום כ\"תנא דבי אליהו\" או שעורך תדב\"ר ליקט מהבבלי. כך או כך, עולם הרעיונות שבו קרוב לזה של יהדות בבל, ופרשת הייחוסין היא אחת הדוגמאות לכך. יש בחיבור זה גם כמה תיאורים אוהדים ליהדות בבל, ומן הראוי להרחיב בכך. אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת נייחד לכך נספח במסכת ידים. .", + "מן הראוי להדגיש שבאופן כללי הסתייגו חכמים מתחושת העליונות שרווחה בקרב הכוהנים, הם התאמצו להשוותם לכל אדם וליטול מהם את נכסי היוקרה החברתית שהיו מנת חלקם בימי הבית, מבלי לפגוע, כמובן, במצוות המוטלות עליהם ובזכויותיהם ההלכתיות. על כן, מן הסתם גם כאן הם היו צריכים להשתדל לעמעם את תחושת העיליתיות המשתקפת בתביעה לנישואי פנים. אם הם אלו המדווחים על מגמה כזאת, אין זאת אלא שזו הייתה המציאות, ולא יעד שאליו חתרו חכמים. על רקע כל זאת ניתן להבין את דברי רבי יוחנן גם כהסתייגות מהורים שאינם כוהנים השואפים לרומם את ייחוסו של בנם ולהשיאו דווקא לכוהנת. ", + "עם כל זאת, האפשרות של נישואי תערובת כאלה אפשריים לחלוטין. המקרה שבמשנתנו כולו רחוק ונדיר, אך משתמעת ממנו ההלכה העקרונית שעמדנו עליה. במצב העדויות שבידינו קשה לדעת מה היה הנוהג הנפוץ. ודאי שהיו מקרים כאלה וכאלה, אך אי אפשר להכריע אילו מקרים היו רבים יותר." + ], + [ + "המאכיל את פועליו – מקובל היה שבעל הבית דאג למזונם של העובדים. חלק משכר העבודה היה הסעודה שקיבלו ביום העבודה. על סעודה זו אנו שומעים גם ממקורות אחרים18משנה, בבא מציעא פ\"ז מ\"א; דמאי פ\"ו מ\"ג; ירו', שם פ\"ג ה\"א, כג ע\"א. ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ג מ\"א, שבה אין מדובר בארוחה זו אלא בתשלום שכר רגיל במזון. , וזהו גם \"מן האבוס\" הנזכר בירושלמי19ירו', דמאי פ\"ג ה\"א, כג ע\"א. ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ג מ\"א. . במקרה זה האכיל בעל הבית את פועליו בתרומה. מבחינתם זה מקרה של שוגג, שכן אכלו מבלי לדעת שהמזון אינו מתוקן, ואת אורחיו תרומה – זהו מקרה רגיל של אירוח. מצב זה שבו בעל הבית אינו מקפיד על הפרשת מעשרות, והאורחים והפועלים מקפידים, נזכר פעמים מספר בהקשרים אחרים. בדרך כלל הפריש בעל הבית לפחות תרומות, ואילו כאן מדובר במי שאמנם הפריש תרומה אך בשוגג האכילה לאורחיו. משנתנו אינה עוסקת במי שמאכיל את אורחיו במזיד טבל הכולל תרומה, שאז עונשו כאוכל מזיד. עונשו של האוכל במזיד נידון בפרק הבא (פ\"ז מ\"א). האוכל משלם את הקרן, פטור מהחומש וחייב בכרת. במקרה כזה של האכלת טבל ודאי בעל הבית חייב בקרן, אך ספק מה דינם של האורחים שאכלו בשוגג. מכל מקום, סביר ששאלה כזאת הייתה עולה בפרק הבא, ובפרקנו מדובר במאכיל בשוגג.", + "הוא משלם את הקרן והן משלמין את החומש [דברי] רבי מאיר – לדעת רבי מאיר הם אכלו את התרומה (בשוגג) ולכן עליהם לכפר על המעשה, ואילו הוא גזל את הכוהנים וחייב להשיב את הגזלה.", + "וחכמים אומרים הן משלמין קרן וחומש – הם אכלו תרומה בשוגג וחייבים בקרן וחומש, והוא משלם להן דמי סעודתן – הוא התחייב לספק מזון ועשה זאת בדרך לא כשרה, על כן הוא חייב להשיב להם את שלקח מהם. הדבר חל גם על המזמין אורחים, אף שאין הוא חייב ממש בסעודתם, אבל לשם סעודה הזמינם, והוא זה שגרם להם את הנזק. מבחינה מעשית ההבדל בין שתי הדעות זעיר. לפי כל התנאים הוא משלם את הקרן והם את החומש, ואכן הירושלמי שואל מה ההבדל ההלכתי ביניהם (מד ע\"ב). התלמוד מנסה למצוא הבדל הלכתי (\"נפקא מינה\" בלשון התלמוד הבבלי), ומוצא חילוק בגובה התשלום שעליו לתת. לפי רבי מאיר הוא משלם את כל מה שאכלו, ולפי חכמים רק את עיקר הסעודה ולא את ה\"טפילה\". הצורך של התלמוד הוא למצוא הבדל משפטי ברור. עבור התלמוד המשנה היא מסמך משפטי מדוקדק, ועל כן חייב להיות הבדל משפטי וכספי בין החולקים. ברם, להערכתנו ההבדל העיקרי בין התנאים הוא בתחום האידאי. חכמים סבורים שדין שוגג חל על המוזמנים, הם אשמים בכך שלא וידאו את מצב המזון, ואילו לרבי מאיר האשמה עליו והוא חייב בתשלום הנזק, ואילו חובת הכפרה מוטלת עליהם.", + "ניתן למצוא הבדלים משפטיים נוספים בין התנאים, כגון אם אין לבעל הבית ממה לשלם, אבל אין צורך לחפש הבדל משפטי. די בהבדל העקרוני, והוא אולי מהותי וחשוב יותר מההבדל הטכני-משפטי.", + "במשנתנו ניתנת הגדרה מפליגה למדי של המונח \"שוגג\". בדרך כלל שוגג הוא מי שלא ידע את הדין, ומי שלא הכיר את המציאות הוא מזיד או קרוב למזיד. כאן הסועדים ממש אינם אשמים, ובדוחק ניתן להאשימם ברשלנות על שלא ביררו את מצב הפֵרות עם בעל הבית. אף על פי כן הם אשמים." + ], + [ + "הגונב תרומה ולא אכלה – עד עתה עסקו המשניות בדין האוכל תרומה, ולא טיפלו בשאלת הגנבה עצמה. הדבר ייתכן כאשר הבעל אוכל את התרומה לפני שניתנה לכהן מסוים או שהכהן נתן לו רשות. אפשרות אחרת היא שהבעל אינו מודע לגנבה, הרי מדובר באוכל תרומה בשוגג, ואולי לא היה הבעל מודע לכך שאלו אינם פֵרותיו אלא פֵרות תרומה. אין צורך להעמיד את כל המשניות הקודמות באחד המצבים הללו. המשנה פירקה את השאלה לחלקיה ולא עסקה בנושא הגנבה אלא במרכיבים האחרים של המעשה, וכל שבאנו הוא להראות שאפשר לאכול תרומה, אפילו כזו שניתנה לכהן (כמו במשנה ב), מבלי לעבור על דין גנבה. עתה מדברת המשנה על גונב שלא אכל תרומה, כלומר שאין כאן מרכיב של פגיעה בקודש אלא רק גזל הכהן, משלם תשלומי כפל דמי תרומה – דין גנב ידוע מהמקרא, ועליו לשלם את כפל הגנבה למי שגנב הימנו. המיוחד כאן הוא בכך שעליו לשלם כפי \"דמי תרומה\" ולא את מחיר הפֵרות. הגנב נהנה מהפֵרות כאילו היו רגילים, אבל הכהן הפסיד פחות מדמי פֵרות רגילים. זאת בהנחה שדמי פֵרות של תרומה זולים יותר מפרי רגיל, שכן מוטלות על אכילתם מגבלות רבות (ר\"ש ופרשנים נוספים). על כן הגנב משלם כפל של מה שהזיק ולא כפל של מה שנהנה, או נכון יותר שעשוי היה ליהנות אילו אכל מהמזון הגנוב. ", + "אכלה – אם גם גנב את התרומה וגם אכל אותה חל עליו הדין המשלב את הרישא של המשנה (כפל לגנב) עם המשנה הקודמת (דין האוכל בשוגג שחייב בחומש), משלם שני קרנים – קרן אחת כתשלום רגיל ונוספת ככפל, וחומש וחומש – על המילה הראשונה מסומן קו מחיקה רופף, והמילה מיותרת. הוא משלם חומש אחד, ככפרה על אכילת התרומה, וכפי שברור מההמשך, קרן וחומש מן החולין – כמו כל אוכל תרומה בשוגג, וקרן מדמי תרומה – את הקרן הנוספת ישלם מהיכן שירצה, אפילו בכסף מזומן, אבל הערך הכספי צריך להיות \"דמי תרומה\", וברישא כבר הגדרנו סכום זה כסכום הנמוך מערך השוק הרגיל של פֵרות כאלה. בכל עדי הנוסח חוץ מכתב יד קופמן כתוב \"קרן דמי תרומה\", ונוסח כתב היד בהיר יותר.", + "גנב תרומה הקדש – תרומת הקדש (כך בכל עדי הנוסח \"תרומת הקדש\", או \"תרומ' הקדש\" בכתב יד מ) היא תרומה רגילה שהכהן החליט להקדישה למקדש. גזברי המקדש רשאים להשתמש בה או למכרה. הסבר זה חוזר אצל המפרשים, הם אומרים זאת משום שלפי התפיסה המקובלת בספרות חז\"ל לא היו למקדש אדמות, וממילא אין ההקדש צריך ויכול לתרום. ברם, ייתכן שלמונח \"תרומת הקדש\" משמעות נוספת. כן שנינו: \"אילו ניטלין אחד מששים גידולי תרומה ועירובי תרומה ותרומה שנטמאת בשגגה ובאונס ותרומת הקדש\" (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ז). אם כן, את תרומת ההקדש מפרישים מיבול כרגיל. ניתן להסביר שהמדובר במי שהקדיש את יבול שדהו ועתה הוא צריך להפריש מעשרות. עליו להפריש מעשרות בשיעור המינימלי, שכן חכמים סבורים שעדיף שהרכוש יגיע למקדש, ואולי גם חובת ההקדש במעשרות פחותה. מכיוון שהזכרנו זאת מן הראוי להעיר שהיו למקדש אדמות, אם כי אולי שלא ברצון חכמים20ראו המבוא למסכת שקלים. . ", + "ואכלה משלם שני חומשין וקרן שאין [בה]קדש תשלומי כפל – הגונב מההקדש אינו משלם כפל. זו הלכה כללית המוכרת ממקבילות21משנה, בבא מציעא פ\"ט מ\"ד; שבועות פ\"ו מ\"ה; תוס', בבא קמא פ\"ז הכ\"א ועוד. . המשנה מציגה את ההלכה כאילו זה החידוש שאותו יש לנמק, ברם החידוש השני הוא שמשלם שני חומשים. רוב המפרשים (רא\"ש ורבים אחרים) מסבירים שהדבר נובע מכך שמשלם חומש אחד כפרה (קנס) על אכילת תרומה, וחומש שני על אכילת הקדש. אין ספק שהאוכל הקדש, בין אם גנב בין אם לא גנב, משלם את הקרן וחומש (ויקרא ה טז). ברם, קשה כיצד זה ניתן לקנוס שני קנסות על אותה אכילה. ייתכן שיש לפרש באופן שונה. המקדש קיבל את התרומה, ואם לא התאימה לעלות על המזבח היה צריך למכרה והכסף נפל לקופה22על כך ראו שקלים פ\"ה מ\"ז-מ\"ח. . הקדש נפדה תמורת מחיר קרן וחומש, אבל פֵרות אלו הם תרומה ולפיכך רק כהן רשאי לפדותם. הגנב גנב כמות פֵרות, אבל ההקדש הפסיד את הפֵרות והחומש שהיה מקבל, ואם גנב אותם מהכהן עליו להשיב לו את מה ששילם למקדש, כלומר קרן וחומש, ועוד חומש. לפי פירושנו פירוש המשנה הוא קרן, חומש וחומש נוסף מהכול. אם אלו היו מאה תאנים, החומש הראשון הוא 25 תאנים23כמו ששנינו לעיל, פ\"ו מ\"א, שהחומש הוא מלבר, כלומר שיהיה חמישית מהסך הכולל. כך יוצא שהחומש הוא רבע מהקרן. , החומש השני עוד קצת יותר מ-31 תאנים ובסך הכול 156 תאנים. לפי פירוש הראשונים שני החומשים הם 50 תאנים בלבד. ", + "בתוספתא נוסף: \"קרן נותן לגזבר וחומש לבעלים, בקרן זה מועלין בחומש זה אין מועלין. חומש שני תרומה ודמיי תרומה...\"24תוס', פ\"ז ה\"ח, ובירו' מד ע\"ב בלשון אחרת. . אם כן, הקרן היא רכוש המקדש, והחומשים אחד לבעלים ואחד נחשב תרומה. כפי שפירש ליברמן ניתן חומש אחד למקדש והוא בדמי תרומה (כלומר במחיר מוזל), וחומש שני ניתן לכהן. דומה שפירוש זה קרוב יותר לפירוש הראשונים שאלו שני חומשים נפרדים. על כן אף שהפירוש שהצענו אפשרי, אין לחדש דבר כה מהותי בהלכה ללא סיוע נוסף. אשר לקושי הנובע מכך שעל אותו מעשה נקנס פעמיים, אולי הדבר נובע מכך שפגע במקדש ובכהן ולכל חומש דינים משלו, על כן נקנס בכפל חומש." + ], + [ + "אין משלמין מן הלקט מן השכחה [ו]מן הפיאה – המדובר כנראה במי שקיבל את הלקט, כלומר העני שליקט אכל בשוגג בתרומה, ואסור לו לשלם מהלקט משום שהלקט \"אינו בקודש\", לקט אינו חייב במעשרות (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ה). ייתכן שניתן לצרף הלכה זו לתפיסה שאין תורמים מן הפטור על החייב (שם שם). הלקט פטור ממעשרות ואי אפשר שישמש תרומה או תחליף תרומה למשהו אחר, ומן ההבקר – הבקר (או הפקר בכתיב הבבלי) פטור אף הוא מתרומה (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ה; פאה פ\"ד מ\"ט, וראו פירושנו לה). המילה חסרה אמנם בכתב יד אחד מהגניזה (ג2), אך קיימת ברוב כתבי היד הטובים. יתר על כן, הקבוצה המנויה במשנה היא קבוצה החוזרת במקורות לעניינים דומים, ומן הסתם גם כאן הקבוצה מופיעה בשלמותה25לעיל, פ\"א מ\"ה; פאה פ\"א מ\"ג; חלה פ\"א מ\"ג ועוד. .", + "ולא מעשר ראשון ש[לא] ניטלה תרומתו – לפי פשוטם של דברים מעשר ראשון שייך ללוי, ומדובר בלוי עצמו. תשלום שהוא של קודש, אי אפשר לשלם ממעשר שגם הוא קודש. להלן נחזור למשפט זה ולשאלות הנוסח וההלכה הקשות שבו.", + "ולא ממעשר שני והקדש ש[לא] ניפדו – שתי נוסחאות לפנינו. ברוב עדי הנוסח \"שנפדו\", והסיבה היא שהמעשר השני או ההקדש היו בקודש, ואין ראוי שישתמשו בהם כתשלום לקודש אחר. אמנם הם נפדו והם עתה כחולין, אך נותרה עדיין זיקת קודש עליהם. כן הנוסח בתורת כהנים (אמור, פרק ו ה\"ה, צז ע\"ב) בכל כתבי היד, וכן בפירוש המיוחס לר\"ש לתורת כהנים, בפירוש הרא\"ש למשנתנו ובראשונים נוספים26ראו זק\"ש, זרעים, למשנתנו, וראו להלן הדיון במעשר הראשון. . אבל בסדרת עדי נוסח טובים: \"שלא נפדו\". כך נכתב בכתב יד קופמן ותוקן בידי מעתיק מאוחר, וכך ב- נ, ש, ת3. לפי פירוש זה ברור שאי אפשר לשלם בפֵרות מעשר שני, שאין משלמים חוב בפֵרות מעשר שני או בהקדש שאינו שייך עוד לבעלים. יש לדחות הסבר זה משתי סיבות. קשה להניח שנצרכו חכמים להדגיש שאין לפדות מפֵרות הקדש, הרי אלו אינם שייכים לבעל אלא למקדש, ועוד, הרי זה דין ברור (בבחינת פשיטא), וכי כיצד אדם משלם את חובו מפֵרות הקדש ומפֵרות מעשר שני? קשה עוד יותר היא עמדת חכמים המתירים לפדות בהקדש שלא נפדה, הרי אין הוא רכוש הבעלים אלא רכוש המקדש! אין זאת אלא שנוסחה זו היא טעות ונגררה מהרישא (מעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו), ונחזור לכך להלן. מהירושלמי ניתן להבין שמעשר שני שנפדה \"יש עליו זיקת תרומות ומעשרות\", מכאן משמע שיש סיבה אחרת לכך שאין לשלם ממעשר שני והקדש שנפדו. פרי רגיל יכול היה להיות מורם כתרומה, ולכן ראוי לשלם בו פיצוי על חילול תרומה, אבל מעשר שני והקדש אינם יכולים להיות תרומה ולכן אין לשלם בהם, וחכמים אומרים שאמנם אין הם יכולים להיות תרומה אבל לפני שהורמו כמעשר שני או כהקדש ראויים היו להיעשות תרומה, ולכן מותר להשתמש בהם. ", + "כל אלו אינם פֵרות כשאר פֵרות שבעולם, והמקבל מוגבל בשימוש בהם, שאין הקודש פודה את הקודש דברי רבי מאיר – בספרא מובא פסוק לאישוש הלכה זו, שצריך לשלם מ\"דבר הראוי לעשות קדש\" (אמור פרק ו ה\"ה, צז ע\"ב). הנימוק מתאים יותר אם מעשר שני לא נפדה שאז הוא ממש קודש, וייתכן שזו הסיבה לשגיאת המעתיקים שהוסיפו \"שלא נפדו\". ", + "וחכמים מתירין באילו – חכמים חולקים על רבי מאיר אבל אינם מנמקים את דעתם, ובעיקר לא ברור על מה הם אומרים את דבריהם. בירושלמי יש מחלוקת האם חכמים חולקים רק על שני הפרטים האחרונים (רבי שמעון בן לקיש) או על כולם (רבי יוחנן). הירושלמי מנמק שמעשר שני והקדש \"יש בהן זיקת תרומה ומעשרות\" (מד ע\"ב), תירוץ שגם הירושלמי מתקשה בו. במיוחד קשה ההשוואה למעשר ראשון, הרי גם בו יש \"זיקת מעשרות\". קל יותר לקבל את דעתו של רבי יוחנן שחכמים מתנגדים לתפיסה שצריך דבר הראוי לתרומה. גם מדרש התנאים אומר במפורש \"וחכמים אומרים משלמים מכולם\" (ספרא, שם). ", + "מעתה עלינו לחזור למעשר הראשון הנזכר לעיל. שתי נוסחאות לפנינו ברוב עדי הנוסח, וכנראה גם ברוב הראשונים27כך הרא\"ש, ואחרים. : \"מעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו\", או \"מעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו\"28כך ב- ו, נ, ש, ת3, וכן בכתב יד קופמן וכתב יד ז (כתב יד ליידן), לפני התיקון, וכן \"כל הספרים\" שהכיר רבי יהוסף אשכנזי. . בתורת כוהנים שברשותנו, בכל כתבי היד כתוב \"שניטלה תרומתו\", אבל הר\"ש, בעל מלאכת שלמה וכנראה עוד פרשנים הכירו נוסח \"שלא ניטלה תרומתו\". הרא\"ש מסביר שמעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו הוא אמנם חולין, אבל לפני שניטלה תרומתו היה קודש, ולכן אין לשלם ממנו. בעל מלאכת שלמה מביא הסבר אחר ולפיו מדובר בשיבולים שהרים מהן מעשר לפני התרומה (ש\"הקדימו בשבלים\"), והפירוש קשה29בעל מלאכת שלמה מפנה עוד לקרבן אהרן לתורת כוהנים (מחברו של הפירוש הוא רבי אהרן ברבי חיים, והודפס על הסדר של המדרש). . ", + "המחלוקת על ההסבר ועל הנוסח היא כמחלוקת לעיל (פ\"א מ\"ה), אלא שכאן יש עדיפות לנוסחה \"שלא נפדו\".", + "למעשה, במשנה שתי קבוצות. האחת אלו שאינם קודש, כלקט, שכחה ופאה (שאינם חייבים במעשרות), והאחרת אלו שהיו קודש ממש כמעשר שני והקדש, ואמנם הם נפדו, אך מכיוון שהיו בקודש אין הם יכולים לשמש כתשלום על חילול קודש. השאלה היא לאיזו קבוצה שייך המעשר הראשון. לפי הנוסחה \"שניטלה תרומתו\" הרי שהוא כמעשר שני והקדש שנפדו. אין להשתמש בו לתשלום חוב שכן פעם היה קודש, שכן הייתה בו תרומה גדולה. כפי שראינו חכמים חולקים על כך, וממילא יש לשאול למה אומר הירושלמי שחכמים חולקים רק על השניים האחרונים (מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו) ולא על מעשר ראשון. אדרבה, היה מקום לחלוק ביתר שאת על מעשר ראשון שלא היה ממש קודש. ברור, אפוא, שהירושלמי לא הבין כך את המשנה30גם רבי יוחנן שאומר שחכמים חולקים על הכול אינו אומר שמעשר ראשון כמו מעשר שני, אלא שחכמים חולקים גם על לקט, שכחה ופאה. . מעבר לכך, בעל מלאכת שלמה מקשה, ובצדק, שאם כך אין לשלם גם מחולין רגילים מתוקנים. קושיות דומות הקשה רבי יהוסף אשכנזי31בעל מלאכת שלמה ורבי יהוסף אשכנזי מנהלים את הפולמוס כאילו עם רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, זאת כדי שלא להימצא חולקים על ראשונים אבות עולם כר\"ש וכרא\"ש. .", + "מכאן אנו באים לפירוש שהצענו בגוף הדיון. המעשר הראשון איננו \"קודש\" במובן ההלכתי של המונח (אבל ראו להלן); אין עליו הלכות מיוחדות או איסורים. יש להפריש ממנו תרומה, אך זאת כמו כל טבל שיש להרים ממנו תרומות ומעשרות. עם זאת, אין הוא גם חולין. זו המתנה שניתנה ללוי לפי החוק שקבע בורא עולם, והוא קרוב לקודש. החידוש של המשנה הוא שגם קודש כזה הוא בבחינת שאינו \"ראוי להיות קודש\" במובן הפורמלי, \"שאין הקודש פודה קודש\", הווה אומר שהקודש הראשון אינו \"קודש\" רגיל, אבל גם אינו חולין. מבחינה זו אין זה משנה אם ניטלה תרומתו של המעשר אם לאו. אם לא ניטלה תרומתו ניתן להשתמש בתשע עשיריות ממנו. אשר לעשירית שהיא תרומה ודאי שהלוי אינו יכול להשתמש בה לשום מטרה, היא אינה שלו. השאלה היא על שאר המעשר. המעשר שייך ללוי, אך עדיין כל השאר הוא קודש, על כן סביר שבמשנה המקורית נכתב רק \"מעשר ראשון\". בשלב שני רצו הפרשנים להבהיר במה מדובר והוסיפו שלא ניטלה תרומתו, וקל וחומר אם ניטלה תרומתו.", + "למסקנה: עדיף לגרוס \"מעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו\". ההלכה ברורה, המעשר יש בו קודש ולכן אי אפשר להשתמש בו, ואפילו לא באותו חלק (90%) שאינו תרומה גדולה. זאת ועוד. כפי שראינו לעיל היו שגרסו \"מעשר שני והקדש שלא ניפדו\"; הסיבה היחידה להיווצרות נוסחה זו היא שברישא היה כתוב \"מעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו\", וזו ראיה נוספת לכך שהיו עוד עדי נוסח שכך היה כתוב בהם32ראו עוד פירושנו לקידושין פ\"ב מ\"י, שם נאמר שאין לקדש אישה במעשרות ותרומות. . ", + "מבחינה הלכתית מעשר ראשון הוא \"קודש\" או \"חול\", אבל נראה ממשנתנו ומקבילותיה (לעיל פ\"א מ\"ה, חלה פ\"א מ\"ג) שקיים גם מעמד ביניים, בלתי מאובחן מבחינה הלכתית. ההלכה המאוחרת, בעלת האופי המשפטי, לא יכולה הייתה לקיים מעמד כזה, שכן מבחינה משפטית אין \"חצי קודש\", אבל בהלכה הקדומה האבחנה המשפטית הייתה חשובה פחות וניתן היה לקיים מעמד ביניים. אין צריך לומר שמבחינה חברתית ודאי שיש מקום לטיפוסי ביניים, בעלי מעמד בלתי פורמלי ובלתי אחיד. ", + "פרשנות זו מצטרפת לאבחנה נוספת. המשנה בקידושין (פ\"ב מ\"ח ומעשר שני פ\"א מ\"א ומ\"ב) דנות באפשרות למכור או להחליף מוצרי קודש כגון בשר קרבנות, מעשר שני ומעשר בהמה, ופוסקת שאסור לעשות כן. עת יחוננו החונן לאדם דעת נרחיב בפירוש משניות אלו ונראה שהסיבה העיקרית לאיסור אינה שאין הם רכושו של המוכר, אלא שהם \"קדושים\" ברמה זו או אחרת." + ], + [ + "רבי אליעזר אומר משלמין מימין על שאינו מינו – את תשלום התרומה ניתן לשלם ממין אחר, אבל התשלום הוא בפֵרות הראויים להיות תרומה. במדרש הדוגמה היא שמשלמים מגרוגרות על תמרים (ספרא, אמור פרק ו ה\"ו, צח ע\"א), אבל בתוספתא מדובר גם על תשלום חיטים במקום שעורים (פ\"ז ה\"ט) ובירושלמי אפילו על תשלום ירק במקום גרוגרות (מד ע\"ב). אם כן, דומה שרבי אליעזר מתיר לשלם ממין שונה ממש, ובלבד שישלם מן היפה על הרע – לשיטת בית שמאי (ורבי אלעאי תלמידו של רבי אליעזר) מותר לתרום מן הרע על היפה33פירושנו לפ\"ב מ\"ו. גם בספרי זוטא מובאת דרשה מדוע אין לתרום ממין אחר, שלא יתרום מן הרע על היפה (ספרי זוטא לבמדבר, יח כט, עמ' 299). , אבל בתשלומי תרומה יש מרכיב של פיצוי על הנזק ושל קנס ולכן מובן מדוע אוסר רבי אליעזר לעשות זאת. לא ייתכן שהמזיק ירוויח והבעל הניזוק יפסיד. ", + "רבי עקיבה אומר אין משלמין אלא מימין על [שאינו] מינו – על המצוי בסוגריים נמתח קו מחיקה והמילה נכתבה בטעות, שהרי רבי עקיבא חולק על רבי אליעזר. אי אפשר לנתק את המחלוקת במשנתנו ממחלוקת בסיסית ונרחבת הרבה יותר. בית הלל אוסרים לתרום מסוגים שונים זה על זה, מטהור על טמא, שמן על זיתים וכיוצא באלו. בית שמאי מתירים כל זאת, ובהקשר לכך נזכרים רבי אליעזר ותלמידו רבי אלעאי34ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"ה; מ\"ט; פ\"ב מ\"א; מ\"ח ועוד. . אמנם לא מצינו מי שחולק על הכלל שאין תורמים מין על שאינו מינו (לעיל פ\"ב מ\"ד), אך באופן כללי בית שמאי מתירים לתרום מסוגים שונים. הם מתירים, למשל, לתרום סוגים שונים של תאנים זה על זה35לולא התוספתא והירושלמי שהבאנו ניתן היה לפרש שגם רבי אליעזר מתיר לשלם רק ממינים קרובים, ואז היה דינו כאן כדין תרומה מזן אחד על אחר, שבית שמאי מתירים ובית הלל אוסרים (תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ו). ברם, קשה לפרש כנגד המקבילות במקום שאין לתלות אותם במגמות פרשניות אחרות. הווה אומר, לו מצאנו סיבה לכך שהתוספתא מרחיבה את דברי רבי אליעזר ניתן היה לפרש שבמקורו של דבר התכוון רבי אליעזר רק למינים קרובים, ברם ללא הסבר כזה יש להעדיף את פרשנות התוספתא שרבי אליעזר התיר לתרום גם מירק על תמרים. , על כן גם כאן הם (רבי אליעזר) מתירים לשלם ממין על מין אחר. לפי דברינו יוצא שנימוקו של רבי אליעזר הוא כללי, ונשוב לכך להלן בסוף המשנה. ", + "לפיכך אם יאכל קישאוים שלערב שביעית – ואין לו קישואין נוספים, ימתין לקישואים שלמוצאי שביעית וישלם מהן – לפי דברי חכמים אין הוא יכול לשלם ממין אחר, וממילא עליו להמתין לקישואים של השנה הבאה, זאת כמובן לפי הדעה שאי אפשר לייבא ירקות מחוץ לארץ. הירושלמי אומר שהמשנה נשנתה לפני תקנתו של רבי שמותר לייבא ירקות מחו\"ל בשביעית (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"ד). מבחינה כרונולוגית קרוב לוודאי שהמשנה היא מלפני תקנתו של רבי. עם זאת, יש להעיר שאין קשר אמִתי בין שתי המשניות. גם אם התיר רבי לייבא ירק, אין בכך כדי להעיד שבפועל היו בשוק קישואים מחוץ לארץ, ואם אלו לא רווחו בשוק אי אפשר היה לדרוש לשלם מהם את תשלומי התרומה. מכל מקום, אי אפשר לשלם מירקות שביעית עצמה, לא מספיחי שביעית, שהרי אלו נאסרו בשביעית, וודאי שלא מירקות גינה שגדלו באיסור36ראו על כך במפורט בפירושנו לשביעית פ\"ט מ\"א. . ההתנגדות לכך אינה רק מפני שאלו גדלו באיסור, אלא אף מפני שהם הפקר ואין לשלם מפֵרות הפקר, כמו שנאמר במשנה הקודמת. ", + "מקום – מאותו פסוק, [ש]רבי אליעזר מקל משם רבי עקיבה מחמיר – אותו פסוק משמש לשתי הדרשות, שנאמר ונתן לכהן את הקדש כל שהוא ראויי להיעשות קודש – ויקרא כב יד, דברי רבי אליעזר רבי עקיבה אומר ונתן לכהן את הקדש קדש שאכל – לעיל ראינו שנימוקו של רבי אליעזר אינו קשור לפסוק זה או אחר אלא לתפיסה עקרונית המקלה לתרום מסוג אחד על אחר. אם כן הפסוק אינו המקור להלכה, שהיא רחבה יותר, אלא משמש רק כאסמכתה ומקור השראה. המשנה מדגימה את הזיקה שבין מדרשי ההלכה והמשנה. בדרך כל המשנה אינה מביאה את מדרש ההלכה הקודם להלכות. אותו ניתן למצוא, בדרך כלל, במדרשי ההלכה או במקבילות אחרות, אך לעתים מובאת הדרשה בגוף המשנה, כמו כאן וכמו במשניות רבות אחרות.", + "בתוספתא יש תוספת: \"רבי לעזר אמר כשם שמשלמין מן החדש על הישן, כך משלמין ממין על שאינו מינו\" (פ\"ז ה\"ט). ההלכה של הקישואים היא תשלום מהחדש על ישן, על כן למעשה תוקף רבי אליעזר את רבי עקיבא מתוך דבריו. אם ניתן לתרום מהיבול של השנה הבאה למה אסור לתרום ממין אחר? טענתו של רבי אליעזר מוצקה עוד יותר משום שלפי שיטת בית הלל אין תורמים מחדש על ישן37ראו פירושנו לפ\"א מ\"ה; תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ו. לפי התוספתא הכוונה ליבול משנים שונות זו על זו. , אבל בתשלומי תרומה גם רבי עקיבא מודה שמשלמים מיבול שנה אחת על חברתה, אם כן עליו להקל גם בסעיפים האחרים שבית הלל ובית שמאי החמירו בהם שאין תורמין מזה על זה (ממין על שאינו מינו)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "חלקו הראשון של הפרק (משניות א-ג) מקביל לפרק הקודם. אמנם הנושאים שונים במקצת וכתוצאה מכך גם ההלכות שונות, אך ניכרת הקבלה במבנה. משנה ד מסכמת את ההלכות שבשני הפרקים, ומשניות ה-ז הן חטיבה נפרדת. הן חוזרות על הנושאים שבפרקים ה-ו, אך הגישה ההלכתית שונה. איננו עוסקים במבנה הספרותי של התוספתא, אך מן הראוי להעיר שאין בתוספתא חומר מקביל לכל פרק ה ולמשניות א-ד בפרק ו. הווה אומר, בתוספתא יש דיון רצוף בדיני תערובת ללא הפסקת הביניים בדין שוגג ומזיד. כפי שהערנו, כל החטיבה של שוגג ומזיד הושתלה לתוך המשנה בצורה מלאכותית במקצת, אגב הסיום של פרק ד. נראה, אפוא, שהתוספתא כאן מפרשת ומרחיבה את המשנה, אך לפניה עמדה עריכה שונה (קדומה) של המשנה, שכל חטיבת שוגג ומזיד לא נכללה בה. ", + "האוכל תרומה מזיד – במקביל למשנה א בפרק הקודם, שבה נדון דין האוכל בשוגג, נדון עתה דין האוכל במזיד, משלם [את] הקרן אינו – ברוב עדי הנוסח \"ואינו\", וזו דרכו של כתב היד לצמצם באותיות החיבור, ולעתים הוסיפו המעתיקים את וי\"ו החיבור. היעדרה או הוספתה אינם משנים את תוכן ההלכה.", + "משלם את החומש – מי שאכל במזיד פטור מחומש. זה כלל בכל הספרות התלמודית, שהחוטא במזיד אין לו כפרה ודינו מלקות או כרת, תלוי בחומרת המעשה. האוכל תרומה דינו בכרת. מבחינה משפטית הדבר נראה כאבסורד: החוטא בשגגה נענש יותר מהחוטא במזיד. ברם, המשנה אינה עוסקת בדיני נזיקין אלא בדיני שמים. החוטא אינו מובא לבית דין על ידי החברה או השלטונות, אלא בא לברר את מעמדו האישי מרצונו ומיראת החטא שבו. הדין האלוקי מנוסח כאילו היה משפט רגיל בדיני ממונות, ולעתים יש לו גם השלכה על דיני ממונות, אבל במקרים מיוחדים, כמו במשנתנו, בולט אופיו המקורי.", + "והתשלומין חולין – התשלום הוא רק פיצוי לכהן על הנגזל ואין לו כל היבט של \"קודש\", אם רצה הכהן למחול מוחל – הכהן רשאי למחול על החוב, או אף לתת \"רשות\" לישראל לאכול את התרומה. ב\"רשות\" זו החטא חמור, אבל הפעולה אינה גזלה ואין להשיב לכהן מאומה. ", + "המשנה מנוסחת כראי של המשנה הראשונה בפרק הקודם. שם נדון דין האוכל בשוגג. אין המשנה עוסקת בכלל דינו של האוכל תרומה, האם חייב בקרבן והאם דינו מלקות או מיתה. כמו כן מתדיין התלמוד בשאלה האם חייב במלקות (או במיתה) רק מי שהזהירו אותו (היתרו בו), או כל אחד. בכך דן הירושלמי (מד ע\"ג; כתובות פ\"ג ה\"א, כז ע\"ב). דין מלקות אינו מנותק מהתשלומין, שכן בדרך כלל מי שלוקה אינו משלם. ברם כל הדיון בנושא הוא אמוראי, אם כי בשם תנאים. לפי פשוטו התשלום כאן אינו קנס אלא פיצוי לניזוק. אין זה חלק מדין מחלל הקודש, אלא זהו הפן הממוני של המעשה. בפרקנו אין סעיף מיוחד העוסק בגנב. דינו של מי שאכל ללא גנבה הוא בבחינת \"רשאי הכהן למחול\", ואז אין הכהן זכאי לתשלום הפֵרות, כמו שהסברנו. המקרה שהמשנה מדברת עליו הוא במי שאכל את התרומה לפני שניתנה לכהן. במקרה זה האוכל אינו גנב, ואף אין כאן מצב של \"כהן מוחל\". דינו של גנב אינו נדון במפורש במשנתנו. סביר שדינו נופל למחלוקת התנאים האם \"לוקה ומשלם\" או אינו לוקה ומשלם, ואז אין הבעל זכאי לכפל משום שהגנב נענש בצורה חמורה יותר, ואין מענישים אותו בשני עונשים על אותו מעשה. מכל מקום המשנה אינה דנה בנושא, כשם שאינה דנה בשאלת האזהרה (התראה). ייתכן שהמשנה נמנעת מלנקוט עמדה בנושא משום שהחולקים בו הם רבי מאיר וחכמים1המחלוקת היא במשנה, מכות פ\"א מ\"ב; תוס', פ\"א ה\"ז, ונפרשה אם יזכנו החונן לאדם לדעת לפרש מסכת זו. הביטוי רמוז במשנה ומצוי במפורש בספרי דברים, רפו, עמ' 303 (מדרש תנאים לדברים, כה ב, עמ' 163, וספק אם מדרש התנאים כאן הוא מסורת עצמאית). התלמודים מצטטים את דברי רבי מאיר שאמר \"לוקה ומשלם\", ברם ניסוח כזה אינו מצוי בספרות התנאים, אלא הוא סיכום על דרך השלילה של דברי חכמים. הניסוח במשנה מכות הוא: \"מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שחייב לחברו מאתים זוז ונמצאו זוממין, לוקין ומשלמין, שלא השם המביאו לידי מכות מביאו לידי תשלומין, דברי רבי מאיר, וחכמים אומרים כל המשלם אינו לוקה\". אם כן, הציטוט \"רבי מאיר אומר לוקה ומשלם\" הוא פרפרזה על דבריו, ואינו מדויק (ירו', כאן מד ע\"ג; כתובות פ\"ג ה\"א, כז ע\"ב; בבלי, לב ע\"ב - לד ע\"א; בבא קמא עא ע\"א ועוד). סביר להניח שהוויכוח הוא רק על תשלום הכפל ולא על תשלום הקרן. הכפל הוא עונש ואין כפל עונשין, אבל התשלום על הקרן הוא החזר הנזק לבעל, ולא נדון בכך כאן במפורט. ראו להלן פ\"ט מ\"ג, ושם נברר את האפשרות שמסקנת התלמוד שלדעת רבי מאיר \"לוקה ומשלם\" אינה תוצאה ישירה של המשפט התנאי, ואת דברי התנאים ניתן גם להבין אולי בדרך אחרת. ראו פירושנו לכתובות פ\"ג מ\"א ושבועות פ\"ג מ\"ו. . במשנה הבאה מובאת מחלוקת אחרת של רבי מאיר וחכמים, ומשנה א מתנסחת כך שתהיה כדעת הכול. ", + "במשנת פסחים שנינו: \"האוכל תרומת חמץ בפסח בשוגג משלם קרן וחמש, במזיד פטור מתשלומים ומדמי עצים\" (פ\"ב מ\"ד). בתוספתא שם נאמר בפשטות: \"האוכל תרומה חמץ בפסח אין משלם דמי עצים לכהן\", ובהמשך שם מתברר שאלו דברי רבי עקיבא ורבי יוחנן בן נורי חולק (תוס', פסחים פ\"א ה\"י). בתוספתא פסחים הדין מנוסח באופן כללי, והאבחנה בין שוגג למזיד אינה נאמרת. אם התוספתא היא מקור עצמאי הרי שהיא חלוקה על משנת פסחים ועל משנתנו, אך אם היא הכירה את המשנה בפסחים, או את ההלכה שבמשנה, הרי שיש לפרש את התוספתא במזיד, את משנת פסחים כרבי עקיבא ואת משנתנו כרבי יוחנן בן נורי, והכול אתי שפיר. פרידמן2פרידמן, תוספתא. מפרש באופן שיטתי שהתוספתא קדמה למשנה, וממילא מפרש שלפנינו מחלוקת תנאים, ורק בשלב מתקדם של תקופת התנאים נוסחה האבחנה בין שוגג למזיד3לדיון הכללי על היחס בין המשנה לתוספתא, ולשיטתו של פרידמן, ראו במבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות. . להערכתנו ברוב המקרים התוספתא מנוסחת בעקבות המשנה, אך אין ספק שלעתים התוספתא משקפת את ההלכה הקדומה, זו שהמשנה השתמשה בה, ואולי גם לעתים מובא בתוספתא ציטוט מדויק של אותה משנה קדומה. מכל מקום, אי אפשר להשתמש בהגדרות הכלליות הללו כעדות לפירוש של התוספתא, שהרי שתי האפשרויות תדירות. עם זאת, במקרה שלנו יש להניח שגם התוספתא מקבלת את האבחנה שבין מזיד לשוגג, שהרי בהלכה הבאה בתוספתא (פסחים הי\"א) נדון דין האוכל קודש חמץ בפסח, ושם מופיעה אותה אבחנה בין שוגג למזיד. על כן יש לפרש את התוספתא כהשלמה של המשנה, וכולה עוסקת באוכל במזיד בלבד. על סמך פרשנות זו הצענו את הטבלה להלן. אם כן, משנתנו והמשנה בפרק הקודם (פ\"ו מ\"א) הן כמשנת רבי יוחנן בן נורי, שחייב על אכילת הקרן, כפי שהיא שווה לכהן, מה שמכונה אצלנו \"דמי עצים\"4אפשר גם לפרש שיש הבדל בין האוכל תרומה סתם לבין האוכל תרומת חמץ. האוכל תרומה סתם הזיק לכהן שהיה יכול ליהנות מהתרומה. האוכל תרומת חמץ לא הזיק לכהן שהרי הכהן כבר מנוע, בתוקף ההלכה, מליהנות מאותו חמץ. אבחנה כזאת מופיעה בבבלי פסחים לב ע\"א. על כן ייתכן שבמקרה של משנתנו גם רבי עקיבא יודה שחייב בדמי הקרן. . ", + "האוכל תרומת חמץ בפסח", + "בתוספתא נידונים הנימוקים להלכה זו5תוס', פסחים פ\"א ה\"י. סדר ההלכות בתוספתא שונה מזה שבמשנה. , וכנראה התוספתא משמרת שקלה וטריה קדומה של תנאי דור יבנה כמו שנאמרה בבית המדרש. מתברר שמשנתנו היא כדעת רבי עקיבא בניגוד לדעת רבי יוחנן בן נורי, ומדובר בתרומה טמאה. רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר שהאוכל תרומה חייב לשלם לפחות את דמי העצים, וזו ה\"קרן\" שעליה מדובר במשנת תרומות, שכן הכהן יכול להשתמש בתרומה הטמאה להסקה. ברם, רבי עקיבא אומר שבפסח החמץ אסור בהנאה וממילא הוא לא גרם לכהן שום נזק. מהתוספתא משמע שהאוכל משלם עבור מה שהזיק בלבד, והאוכל בשוגג משלם גם חומש משום שזו גזרת כתוב מיוחדת שהאוכל תרומה חייב בקרן וחומש. ניתן גם לפרש שהאוכל משלם את מה שנהנה, והאוכל במזיד פטור בגלל ההגבלה של כפל עונשין. הירושלמי מצביע על קשיי הפירוש, ולא נרחיב בכך6ירו', פסחים פ\"ב ה\"ג, כט ע\"א; בבלי, לב ע\"א. מסתבר שרבי יוסי הגלילי, המתיר הנאה מחמץ בפסח, סבור כרבי יוחנן בן נורי. בעל מלאכת שלמה גורס בבבלי בדברי רבי עקיבא \"בין בשוגג בין במזיד\", כלומר האוכל תרומת חמץ בפסח פטור בכל מקרה מכל תשלום, משום שלא הזיק. הסבר זה אפשרי בפני עצמו, אך כאמור, בהמשך התוספתא (הלכה יא) מוכח כי גם התוספתא מקבלת את ההבדל בין שוגג ומזיד, וראו פרידמן, תוספתא פסחים, עמ' 191-189. הבבלי מציע שמשנתנו כדעת רבי יוסי הגלילי שחמץ בפסח מותר בהנאה. דעה חריגה זו אמנם קיימת במקורות, אך בדרך כלל אין היא מקובלת, ודומה שגם התנאים למשנתנו שוללים אותה. ." + ], + [ + "גם בפרק הקודם בא דינה של הבת לאחר דינו של האוכל תרומה, ופרקנו ערוך על משקל הפרק הקודם. אלא שבפרק הקודם דובר בבת ישראל שנישאה לכהן וכאן במקרה ההפוך, והוא שונה לחלוטין.", + "בת כהן שנישאת לישראל ואחר כך אכלה תרומה – בת כהן זכאית לאכול בתרומה בעודה בבית אביה, וכנראה גם לאחר מכן7לא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך, אך המקורות ממעטים לדון במקרה שבת כהן כבר גדלה ואינה עוד נערה, וטרם נישאה. כך יוצרים חכמים את הרושם שתמיד נערה נישאת מיד בהגיעה לגיל יב שנה. גם אם זה היה גיל הנישואין הרגיל, ודאי היו מקרים שבהם נישאה בת רק בגיל מבוגר יותר. חכמים ממעטים לעסוק באפשרות זו, או משום שזו הייתה התבנית המשפחתית הרווחת או משום שכך ביטאו בעקיפין ובמרומז את הראוי לנהוג בחברה מתוקנת. הווה אומר, הם הטיפו לנישואים בגיל צעיר מבלי להדגיש זאת בכל הזדמנות במפורש. ייתכן גם שזו פשוט תבנית ספרותית. לגיל הנישואין הרגיל ראו שרמר, גיל הנישואין. , אך משנישאה לישראל אסורה לאכול בתרומה, משלמת את הקרן ואינה משלמת את החומש – גם בת כהן שאכלה בשוגג וגם זו שאכלה במזיד פטורות מחומש. הנימוק הניתן בתלמודים הוא שאותה בת היא עדיין במסגרת אכילת תרומה, ודינה בבחינת \"זר\" שעל אכילתו הזהירה התורה. אמנם כרגע היא מנועה מכך, אבל אם תתאלמן או תתגרש תחזור לאכילת תרומה. על כן היא בבחינת חלק מאוכלי תרומה בכוח, אם כי לא בפועל (ספרא, אמור פרק ו ה\"ב, צז ע\"ב; ירו', מד ע\"ג). ההבדל בין הירושלמי למדרש התנאים הוא בדרשה המבססת עיקרון זה. דין זה אינו כה פשוט. בפועל אם יש לאישה בן, מבעלה הישראלי, היא אינה חוזרת לאכול בתרומה גם אם התגרשה או התאלמנה8משנה, נידה פ\"ה מ\"ג; יבמות פ\"ט מ\"ו; ירו', ביכורים פ\"ב ה\"א, סד ע\"ד; יבמות פ\"ז ה\"ד, ח ע\"ב; בבלי, פג ע\"ב. הבבלי בכריתות ז ע\"א מקשר את משנתנו לנושא אחר ונוסף, ואין זו פשוטה של משנה, ועל כן לא נרחיב בכך. . מהבבלי ניתן להסיק שאם הבן מת שוב חוזרת לאכול בתרומה, אבל מסקנה זו אינה מובטחת (יבמות פז ע\"א). ", + "ומיתתה בשריפה – משפט זה אינו קשור לאכילת תרומה אלא למקרה שזינתה. בת כהן שזינתה תחת אביה דינה בשרפה, בניגוד לאישה בת ישראל שזינתה שדינה בחנק, שנאמר \"ובת איש כהן כי תחל לזנות את אביה היא מחללת באש תשרף\" (ויקרא כא ט). בת זו שנישאה לישראל לא איבדה את מעמדה העיליתני, והוא בא לידי ביטוי גם בדרך טרגית זו. הפסוק בתורה עוסק כפשוטו בבת טרם נישואיה, אבל חז\"ל פירשו את הפסוק במקרה שיש לה \"זיקת בעל\" (תוס', סנהדרין, פי\"ב ה\"א, עמ' 433-432; בבלי, נ ע\"ב ועוד), כלומר גם ארוסה או אלמנה העומדת לייבום, כמו תמר כלתו של יהודה (בראשית רבה, פרשה פה י, עמ' 1044), אם כי נחלקו תנאים מהי זיקת בעל, מאירוסין או מנישואין. ייתכן שחכמים פירשו כך משום שרצו לצמצם את המיוחד בבת כהן. לפי פשוטו של מקרא לא הובהר דינה של נערה שטרם נישאה ונבעלה ואילו בת הכהן מוצאת לשרפה וחכמים באו להשוות את דינה, שגם היא אינה מוצאת להורג אלא אם זינתה תחת בעלה. ההבדל בינה לבין בת ישראל הוא בצורת המיתה בלבד. ", + "לכאורה הדין פשוט. הרי המקרא לא הבדיל בין נישאה לישראל לבין נישאה לכהן. עם זאת, המדרשים מדגישים שהוא הדין אם נישאה לישראל9המדרשים יובאו להלן. . ייתכן שההדגשה באה להוציא את המקרה שנישאה לפסול (להלן), אך דומה שחכמים רואים לפניהם את המקרה התדיר של בת כהן שנישאה לכהן, ואז היא ממשיכה בכהונה וטבעי שיחולו עליה דיני קודש מיוחדים. אבל עבור חכמים נישואים לישראל הם חריג, ועל כן צריך לימוד מיוחד על כך. הסבר זה עולה בקנה אחד עם שאמרנו לעיל (פ\"ו מ\"ב) שחכמים מעדיפים נישואי כהן לכוהנת ומסתייגים מנישואים \"מעורבים\" בין ישראלים וכוהנים. הדרשות מעידות כי לא הייתה זו רק העדפה או הסתייגות אלא ביטוי למצב הרגיל הרווח ב\"שוק הנישואים\" ובחברה היהודית. ", + "נושאת – ברוב עדי הנוסח \"נישאת\", לאחד מכל הפסולין משלמת הקרן וחומש10בציטוט בבבלי כריתות ז ע\"א נוסף \"ואשם\". יש לשקול אם בימי המקדש הייתה חייבת באשם אם לאו, אבל משנתנו אינה עוסקת במרכיב זה שכבר לא היה מעשי. – הנישואין לאחד מהפסולים (נתין, ממזר וכיוצא באלו) פוסלים אותה סופית. גם אם תתגרש אין היא חוזרת לכהונתה, ומיתתה בחנק דברי רבי מאיר – היא כבת ישראל לכל דבר, וחכמים אומרים זו וזו משלמת את הקרן ואינה משלמת את החומש ומיתתן בשריפה – אין הבדל בין בת כהן שנישאה לישראל או לפסול, היא עדיין אינה בבחינת זרה לכהונה. אף שבפועל אינה יכולה לחזור לאכול אי פעם בתרומה, בזכות עברה נשמרת זיקתה לכהונה. בתורת כוהנים הדרשה המאששת את ההלכה שבמשנה מבוססת על המילה \"זר\", וזו אינה זרה. בתלמוד הבבלי ההלכה (של חכמים) נלמדת מהמילים \"בת איש כהן\" – \"אף על פי שאינה כהנת\" (סנהדרין נא ע\"א), ושוב זכותה מבוססת על עברה ככוהנת האוכלת בתרומה. בירושלמי הדרשה לרבי מאיר שונה: \"כי תחל לזנות בית אביה – את שאינה ראויה לחזור לבית אביה\" (מד ע\"ד). הדרשה ודאי אינה המקור להלכה, אך היא מעניינת כשלעצמה. היא מבוססת על הצירוף \"בית אביה\" שאינו במקרא שבידינו. בנוסח השבעים נאמר \"את שמו של אביה היא מחללת\". את תרגום השבעים ניתן לפרש כהרחבה או כפרשנות לטקסט המסורתי, אבל לאור הירושלמי נראה שאכן היה לתרגום השבעים נוסח כגון \"את בית אביה היא מחללת\", או נוסח קרוב, ונוסח זה תורגם כ\"את שמו של אביה היא מחללת\". בתרגום יונתן מתורגם כשעודה בבית אביה, ונראה שגם זו דרשה לנוסח \"בית אביה\". דרשה זו היא כדעת רבי ישמעאל, בניגוד להלכה של רבי עקיבא. גם תרגום יונתן מדגיש בתרגומו שמדובר רק בנערה מאורסה ולא בפנויה, אבל לפי התרגום משמע שאם נישאה (לכהן או לישראל) אינה נשרפת כלל, וזה דבר של תימה. כמו בחלק מהמקרים האחרים ניתן לתלות את הדרשה בניסוח לא מהוקצע של הדברים. כוונת התרגום הייתה רק כשהיא חוזרת לבית אביה, או שהיא באפשרות של חזרה לבית אביה (כרבי מאיר והירושלמי), ומחמת הקיצור, או הרמיזה, יצא נוסח שאין בו היגיון פנימי. לפנינו מקרה נוסף שבו דרשת חז\"ל מבוססת על נוסח שונה מהנוסח המסורתי. התופעה אינה מפתיעה, וכמותה מדרשים רבים. ", + "דין שרפה לא נהג בפועל מאז סוף ימי בית שני. אנו שומעים על עקירתם של דיני נפשות מישראל כשני דורות לפני החורבן, מן הסתם עם מלכות הורדוס, והדברים ידועים. עם זאת אנו שומעים שבסוף ימי בית שני הוציאו בת כהן לשרפה. בית הדין אז שרף אותה ממש, בניגוד להלכה של חז\"ל בדבר האופן שבו יש לבצע את דין השרפה. שכן חז\"ל אמרו שדין שרפה מתבצע על ידי שפיכת עופרת מותכת לפיו של הנידון למוות, ולא בשרפה ממש (משנה, סנהדרין פ\"ז מ\"ב)11במדרשים עדיין מתארים את השרפה כשרפה רגילה לכל דבר, ראו למשל בראשית רבה, סה כז, עמ' 743; בבלי, נדרים נ ע\"ב; מכות כד ע\"ב. שם מסופר על יקים איש צרורות שהיה עבריין מובהק וקיים בעצמו ארבע מיתות בית דין. השרפה שלו הייתה שרפה רגילה. האגדה אינה היסטורית, והמחבר ראה לפניו שרפה רגילה כביצוע של השרפה ההלכתית. אין בכך קושי, שהרי דין שרפה לא התבצע בפועל, ותוך כדי סיפור ניתן לעצבו בהתאם לצורכי הסיפור ולהם עדיפות על הפן ההלכתי המדוקדק. המעשה האגדי, גרעינו ההיסטורי החוזר לימי החשמונאים ועיצובו הספרותי מחייבים עיון מפורט שלא כאן מקומו. . המשנה מסבירה את מעשה בית הדין \"שלא היה בית דין של אותה שעה בקי\". רב יוסף הבבלי מסביר שזה היה בית דין של צדוקים (בבלי, סנהדרין נב ע\"ב). עוד מסופר שם על רב חמא בר טוביה שהוציא להורג בשרפה בת כהן, ונהג בכך שלא כהלכה. כל המעשה תמוה, וכי יכול היה חכם בבלי, בלתי ידוע, להנהיג דיני נפשות, ועוד לפעול בניגוד למשנה באשר לצורת ההוצאה להורג?! להערכתנו חמא בר טוביה לא היה חכם אלא בעל מעמד מיוחד. ", + "בימי בית שני פעלה משפחה מורחבת מיוחדת, מעין תת שבט, בשם בני טוביה. בני טוביה אלו ידועים מימי בית ראשון. זה היה שבט שהתגורר במערב עבר הירדן; נראה שמוצאו אינו מבני ישראל, אבל במשך השנים התקרב לעם ישראל והפך למעין שבט נספח12מזר, טוביה. . יפתח ברח לארץ טוב, והיא מצטיירת כאזור לא מיושב המתאים לכנופיות לסטים (שופטים יא ו). בראשית ימי בית שני נזכרת חמולת בני טוביה כאחת הקבוצות שעלו מהגולה אבל ייחוסם מפוקפק (עזרא ב ס; נחמיה ז סב), אבל המסורות העיקריות הן על שבט עצמאי השייך לעמון. טוביה הוא ה\"עבד העמוני\" שהשתתף בקואליציה נגד שבי הגולה ונגד הקמת החומה בירושלים (נחמיה ב י; ג לה; ו יב-יד). הרושם הוא שלטוביה זה היו קשרים מיוחדים עם האופוזיציה לנחמיה בתוך יהודה (נחמיה ו יז; ו יט). מאוחר יותר נקלט שבט טוביה בתוך יהודה, אחד מבניו הוא יוסף בן טוביה ובנו הורקנוס שמילאו תפקידים חשובים במנהל בסוריה וביהודה בימי השלטון התלמי בארץ (קד', יב 236-160). בתקופה זו בני טוביה פועלים כיהודים לכל דבר, הם מעורים בחברה היהודית ואף נמנים עם רובד מקורבי השלטון ומשתפי הפעולה עמו. מעט מאוחר יותר נזכרים בני טוביה כמנהיגי המתייוונים (קד', יב 239). בית טוביה בנו מבצר בארץ טוביה שבעבר הירדן, ממזרח לרבת עמון, וכפי שמספר יוספוס (קד', יב 236-235). מבצרם נהרס כאשר הסלבקים השתלטו על יהודה לאחר שנת 198 לפני ספירתם. מרכזם של בני טוביה נתגלה בעראק אל אמיר שבעבר הירדן (איור 21). פרשת בני טוביה כרוכה בפרשיות נוספות בימי בית שני13כשר, כנען, עמ' 74-72. , ונדונה רבות במחקר ההיסטורי והארכאולוגי. לא באנו אלא להציג את עיקרי הדברים, שכן אין הם קשורים ישירות לדיוננו. מכל מקום, לא שמענו על גורלם של בני טוביה לאחר ימי החשמונאים. מן הסתם התערו בקרב עם ישראל וניתן היה להסיק שייחודם אבד. עד כאן המקובל במחקר; הנושא עשוי לפרנס דיונים רבים, וקיצרנו בכך כדי שלא יאבד חוט הדיון העיקרי.", + "להערכתנו ניתן לעקוב אחר בני טוביה עד לחמא בר טוביה. התלמוד הירושלמי מציג בפשטות את \"ארץ טוב\" כאזור סוסיתא (שביעית פ\"ו ה\"א, לו ע\"ג). הדרשה שם היא אגדית וספרותית. ארץ טוב נקראת כך משום שפטורה ממעשרות, אבל דומה שהדרשן מעיר לתומו שארץ טוב היא בדרום הגולן. באזור הלג'ה, היא הטרכון, נמצאה בזמנו כתובת בנייה האומרת \"האל האחד העוזר לטוביה [ ], בבניה... ומי שעזר לבניה יעזור לנשואים\". בצד הכתובת חקוק שם של אישה, \"גדרות\"14ליטמן ואחרים, כתובות, א מס' 800/8, עמ' 439. הכתובת היא מהכפר דמית אל אליה בחורן. . המינוח \"האל האחד\" (Eis Teos) הוא יהודי, נוצרי או שומרוני15די סגני, האל אחד, עמ' 111. , אבל כנראה לא היה מקובל בחברה הפגנית. זמנה של הכתובת אינו ברור, אך רוב הכתובות שהמונח \"האל האחד\" (\"הטוב\") מופיע בהן הן מהמאות השנייה או השלישית. ייתכן שטוביה הנזכר הוא בנו של אותו שבט יהודי, או יהודי למחצה. מכל מקום תהא הפרשנות לכתובת זו אשר תהא, אנו משערים שחמא בר טוביה אינו \"רב חמא\" אלא חמא מנהיגם של בני טוביה. ייתכן שבנסיבות ההיסטוריות שנוצרו נדד השבט ממקומו בעבר הירדן צפונה דרך דרום הגולן לחורן, ומשם למדבריות בבל. שם קיים השבט משטר עצמאי למחצה, כשבט יהודי. מנהיגו של השבט, הוא חמא, פעל בתוקף מעמדו, וחכמים מסתייגים ממעשהו. המעשה המתואר בתלמוד הבבלי נראה כקדום לימי האמוראים, התלמוד מספר עליו בלשון עבר, והבת שנשרפה מכונה \"אימרתא בת טלי\". ייתכן שהמעשה אירע עוד בימי התנאים, אך על כל פנים לפני ימי רב יוסף (סוף המאה השלישית – ראשית המאה הרביעית) המגיב על המעשה." + ], + [ + "משנה זו מקבילה למשנה ג בפרק הקודם. שם מדובר במי שמאכיל את פועליו, וכאן במאכיל עבדים וילדים. ההלכה כמובן שונה, אך סידור הפרקים מקביל.", + "המאכיל את בניו קטנים – הבן הקטן אינו חייב במצוות ולכן אינו חייב בחומש. האב אשם בעוונם אך אין זו אשמה רגילה, שכן אין הם חייבים במצוות, ואת עבדיו בין גדלים בין גדלים – ההכפלה במקור והיא מיותרת, ובין קטנים – העבד חייב במצוות \"לא תעשה\", אבל האחריות היא על האדון. עבד שהזיק פטור מלשלם (בבא קמא פ\"ח מ\"ד). אמנם נעשתה עברה, אבל האדון לא אכל תרומה ולכן אין דין חומש במקרה זה.", + "האוכל תרומה חוצה לארץ – כפי שראינו במבוא, מדין תורה, כפי שפירשוהו חכמים, אין מפרישים תרומה בחוץ לארץ, ברם היו שהחמירו על עצמם. את התרומה אכלו בטהרה כאילו הייתה תרומה של ממש, ברם היו גם שאכלו את התרומה כאכילת חולין. מכל מקום, מהמשנה משמע שלתרומה זו דין של קודש, אך לא עד כדי חיוב בחומש.", + "האוכל פחות מכזיית תרומה – כלל ידוע הוא שכל אכילה היא כזית, ופחות מכאן הוא פחות מכשיעור. כמובן אסור לאכול פחות מכשיעור, אך העונש הוא על אכילה כשיעור בלבד (משנה, פסחים פ\"ב מ\"ד; בבלי, פסחים לב ע\"ב). לדעת אבא שאול צריך שני מרכיבים: גם שיעור כזית וגם שיעור כספי כפרוטה (בבלי, פסחים שם), כזית כדי להתחייב על אכילת תרומה וכפרוטה כדי שתהא זו גנבה של ממון משמעותי.", + "משלם את הקרן ואינו משלם את החומש והתשלומין חולין – תשלום הקרן אינו פיצוי לקדושה, שכן מי שפגע בקודש אינו חייב על כך אלא תשלום נזק בלבד. לכאורה עבד פטור על מה שהזיק (משנה, בבא קמא פ\"ח מ\"ד), אך האדון חייב על מה שהעבד נהנה, אם רצה הכהן למחול מוחל – כדלעיל. החיוב הוא ממוני בלבד, שכן אכילה של פחות מכזית אינה נחשבת לחילול הקודש. " + ], + [ + "זה הכלל – \"זה הכלל\" הוא ניסוח של סיכום. לדעתנו בדרך כלל בא הסיכום לאחר שעוצבה סדרת פרטים. כך גם במקרה שלנו, ואין בַכלל חידוש על מה ששמענו לעיל. מצב זה רגיל במשנה כדברי רבי שלמה עדני, שכל רז לא היה אניס ליה: \"ודכוותיהו איכא טובא במשנה\". בדרך כלל ניסו פרשנים למצוא בניסוח הכלל חידוש, ברם לפי דרכנו \"זה הכלל\" הוא העלאת הדיון לרמה המופשטת. כיום נחשבת רמה מעין זו מובנת מאליה, אבל במציאות אין זה כך, ויש בעצם ההכללה חשיבות. במקרה זה הר\"ש סירליאו מסביר: \"סימנא יהיב למלתיה\" (סימן נותן לדבריו). אנו רואים בכך יותר מסימן, אך לא חידוש הלכתי. במקרה שלנו \"זה הכלל\" מסכם את כל היחידה מראשית פ\"ו, וחותם בכך את דיני מי שאכל תרומה ללא היתר.", + "כל המשלם קרן וחומש – כגון האוכל בשוגג, התשלומין תרומה – חלה עליהם חובת טהרה, כמו שפירשנו, אם רצה הכהן למחול אינו מוחל – כמו שפירשנו לעיל (פ\"ו מ\"א), כל המשלם את הקרן ואינו משלם את החומש התשלומין חולין אם רצה הכהן למחול מוחל – כמו שפירשנו לעיל (פ\"ז מ\"א; מ\"ג ועוד).", + "סיכום דיני אכילת תרומה בשוגג ובמזיד" + ], + [ + "דיני תערובת נידונו בהרחבה לעיל בפרקים ד-ה, והמשנה חוזרת לדון בהם כאן. אין זאת אלא שלפנינו חטיבה (משניות ה-ז) הבאה ממקור אחר, לכן הציב העורך את כל שלוש המשניות שממקור זה לחוד. כך נבין לא רק את הכפילות, אלא את ההבדלים ההלכתיים בפרטים וברוח ההלכה שבין הפרקים הקודמים לבין החומר במשניות אלו. ", + "שתי קופות – הקופה היא סל מלא פֵרות (איור 3 לעיל), אחת שלתרומה ואחת שלחולין שנפלה סאה תרומה לתוך אחת מהן ואין ידוע לאי זו מהן נפלה הרי [הו] – נמחק בידי המעתיק בשני קווים, אני אומר לתוך שלתרומה נפלה – אם הסאה נפלה לתוך הקופה של התרומה הרי שהיא נותרה בתרומתה, והקופה השנייה חולין, אבל אם נפלה לתוך הקופה של החולין היא מדמעת את הקופה, וכל הפֵרות שבה ייחשבו לתרומה. אולם אם הקופה מכילה יותר ממאה סאה התרומה עולה ומתבטלת. בסתם קופה יש הרבה פחות ממאה סאים של תרומה, וממילא הקופה כולה אמורה להיות תרומה (לעיל פ\"ה מ\"א). לעיל שנינו מקרה דומה: \"שתי קופות... שנפלה סאה תרומה לתוך אחת מהן ואין ידוע לאי זו מהן נפלה מעלות זו את זו\" (פ\"ד מי\"ב). אם כן, שם שתי הקופות כאילו הופכות לקופה אחת, ואם יש בשתיהן יותר ממאה סאה הסאה של התרומה בטלה, ואילו במשנתנו ננקט צעד מקל בהרבה. אמנם אין אפשרות שהתרומה בטלה, אך גם אין מצב שבו כל הקופה של החולין מדמעת. מקרה אחר נדון לעיל (פ\"ד מ\"ט) ושם הקל רבי אליעזר ותבע שבכל כד יהיה רוב של פי מאה חולין, ורבי יהושע החמיר ותבע שבכל פי כד וכד יהיו פי מאה חולין, אבל אפשרות של הנחה שהסאה נפלה לתוך כד אחד שיבחר אינה עולה על הדעת. ", + "אמנם יש הבדל בין המקרים. בשני המקרים בפרקים ד, ה מדובר בשתי קופות שהן חול, וכאן בקופה אחת שהיא של תרומה. אבל אם נקבע העיקרון שהקופות כביכול מתערבות זו בזו הוא היה צריך לחול על משנתנו וכאילו נפלה הסאה לתוך שתי הקופות יחדיו. זאת בניגוד להלכה במשנה שאנו מתייחסים לתערובת כאילו סאה של חולין נפלה לקופה של תרומה (כאילו הייתה זו תערובת פשוטה ולא ספק תערובת). לכל הפחות צריך היה לקבוע שאם יש בקופת החול מאה סאים התרומה בטלה. רוח ההלכה בהחלט שונה, ומבחינה משפטית הסתירה ברורה. כפי שראינו רבות במהלך פירושנו לא תמיד המשנה שיטתית, ולעתים התקדימים השונים שנקבעו סתרו מעט זה את זה16ראו במבוא. . לכאורה ניתן היה להציע הסבר מצמצם לייחודה של משנתנו. לפי הסבר זה ההלכה במשנתנו שונה מזו שבפרק ה משום שלא רצו ליצור מצב שבו תרומה מובהקת תתבטל. לפי ההלכה בפרק ה, אם היו לו שתי קופות, אחת קטנה של תרומה ואחרת גדולה של חולין (שיש בה פי יותר ממאה מהקופה הקטנה), ונפלה סאה של תרומה לאחת מהן, תהפוך הקופה של התרומה לחולין, וזה מצב משונה שבו תרומה מובהקת הופכת לחולין. על כן נקבעה ההלכה החריגה במקצת במשנתנו. כפי שנראה להלן אין מקום לפירוש מצמצם זה, ומשנתנו מציגה קו הלכתי שונה מזה שהוצג בפרקים הקודמים. ", + "ואין – כך גם בחלק מעדי הנוסח17ב- א, ב, ג7, כ, ל, ן, פ. , וביתר עדי הנוסח ללא וי\"ו החיבור. וי\"ו החיבור נוספה או נשמטה במקרים רבים, ואין לכך משמעות מבחינת התוכן. במקרה זה ודאי מדובר במקרה אחר.", + "ידוע לאיזו היא שלתרומה ואיזו היא שלחולין – הבלבול הוא בין שתי הקופות, אכל אחת מהן פטור והשנייה נוהג בה כתרומה – גם כאן הדין במשנה מקל מאוד. הסאה שממנה אכל ראשונה נחשבת לחולין, והשנייה תרומה כמעט לכל דבר, וחייבת בחלה דברי רבי מאיר – תרומה פטורה מחלה. במקרה זה הקופה אמנם תרומה, אבל לא עד כדי לפטור אותה מחלה. גישה זו מתאימה להלכה הרווחת שגידולי תרומה חייבים במעשרות. כך בתרומה ודאי, ומן הסתם גם בתרומה מספק (ראו פירושנו להלן פ\"ט מ\"ג).", + "אם כן, קופה אחת היא חולין לכל דבר, והאחרת תרומה מספק. זו הלכה מקלה ביותר הסותרת את כל כללי העירוב שלמדנו לעיל. במשנה אין מקבילה מדויקת להלכה זו, אבל היא משתמעת בבירור ממשנת ערלה (פ\"ג מ\"ז, וראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"ד מ\"ט). שם היה מי שהחמיר שכד שלם סגור אינו מתבטל לעולם משום שהוא דבר שבמניין. גם המקל סובר רק שהכד בטל באחד ממאה, אבל לא שמענו מעולם על הסדר שבאופן שרירותי כד אחד חולין ודאי והאחר תרומה, ואפילו תרומה מספק. ", + "רבי יוסה פוטר – רבי יוסי פוטר מחובת חלה, כלומר רואה בקופה תרומה לכל דבר. ", + "מחלוקת דומה נפלה לגבי עיסה שנתדמעה או החמיצה. התוספתא קובעת שהיא חייבת בחלה (טבול יום פ\"ב ה\"ז, עמ' 685). נוסחת התוספתא מופיעה גם בבבלי (נדה מו ע\"א), אבל בירושלמי מבחינים בין גדיש שנדמע, שחייב בחלה, לבין עיסה שנדמעה, שפטורה (חלה פ\"א ה\"ג, נז ע\"ד). גדיש התחייב במעשרות מרגע הגדיש, והעובדה שהפך לתרומה מאוחר יותר אינה פוטרת אותו מההתחייבות הקודמת, אבל העיסה חייבת בחלה רק משלב הלישה או הקרימה בתנור18ראו על כך במבוא למסכת חלה, ובפירושנו לחלה פ\"ג מ\"א. . נמצאנו למדים שמחלוקת התלמודים היא מחלוקת התנאים שבמשנתנו.", + "אכל אחר את השנייה פטור – אמנם קופה אחת הוגדרה כתרומה, אך רק לקולה, ואם אכל מישהו את השנייה אנו מניחים שכביכול הראשונה הייתה תרומה. לא נאמר במשנה אם זו רק דעתו של רבי מאיר שרואה בקופה השנייה תרומה מספק, או שגם רבי יוסי יודה. הוא יטען שהתרומה אמנם תרומה ודאי, אך לא עד כדי לחייב את האחר בכך.", + "אכל אחד את שתיהן משלם בקטנה שבשתיהם – אם אדם אחד אכל את שתי הקופות אחת מהן היא ודאי תרומה וחייב כדין האוכל תרומה בשגגה או במזיד, תלוי במקרה. עם זאת, ההקלה מתבטאת בכך שאנו מניחים שהקופה הקטנה יותר היא התרומה.", + "בתוספתא: \"וכן היה רבי יוסי אומר: שתי קופות, אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה, ונפלה סאה של תרומה לתוך אחת מהן, ואין ידוע לאי זה מהן נפלה, שתיהן מותרות\" (פ\"ו הי\"א). זה ניסוח קיצוני יותר של משנתנו. במשנתנו במצב רגיל אחת מהן היא תרומה, ורק אם אכל אחר את הקופה השנייה נוצר מצב ששתיהן חולין. אך אין זה מצב של \"לכתחילה\" אלא מצב שנוצר עקב כך שכל אדם אכל קופה אחת, ואותה קופה היא בחזקת מותרת. נמצאנו למדים שבתוספתא יש הקלה מפליגה עוד יותר, והיא מיוחסת לרבי יוסי. לעיל התלבטנו האם רבי יוסי יקבל את המשפט \"אכל אחר את השנייה פטור\". אם התוספתא אינה סותרת לחלוטין את המשנה הרי שהתשובה היא חיובית, שהרי בתוספתא רבי יוסי אומר ששתיהן מותרות. ", + "עמדנו על גישתה המיוחדת של משנתנו השונה ממשניות הפרקים הקודמים. השאלה עמדה גם בפני האמוראים. רבי יוחנן מסביר שמשנתנו מדברת על מקרה מיוחד: \"שנייא היא הכא (שונה היא זו) שיש לו במה לתלות\" (ירו', מד ע\"ד)19תירוץ הירושלמי בא כתשובה לשאלה אחרת הכרוכה במחלוקת אמוראים האם יש צורך שבקופה השנייה יהיה רוב לביטול התרומה. . כלומר, מדובר במקרה שיש סיבה לחשוב שהסאה נפלה לקופת התרומה. ההסבר מצוי גם בתוספתא בצורה אחרת. אם נפלה סאה לקופה אחת וידוע לאן נפלה, ואחר כך נפלה סאה שנייה, \"הריני יכול לתלות ולומר למקום שנפלה ראשונה נפלה שנייה\" (תוס', פ\"ו הי\"ג). כאמור, רבי יוחנן מרחיב מאוד עיקרון זה. ההסבר מעיד עד כמה משנתנו חריגה, אך אינו תירוץ מספיק. ניכר שהאמורא שואף להרמוניזציה בין המשניות, גם על חשבון פשט המשנה. מכל מקום, אם יש רגליים לדבר שהתרומה נפלה לקופה השנייה, כיצד זה מי שאכל מהקופה השנייה פטור גם הוא? אין זאת אלא שמשנתנו חולקת על משניות קודמות. לפי דרכנו אין גם צורך ליישב את הסתירה, ואין להיכנס לשם כך לדוחק. לפנינו גישה הלכתית אחרת, ויש לבחון אותה לגופה ולא רק לאור משניות קודמות. ", + "מגמת ההרמוניזציה הכתיבה את כיוון הלימוד בתלמוד הירושלמי לעתים קרובות, אך בתלמוד הבבלי היא נפוצה עוד הרבה יותר. ואכן, הבבלי מתרץ שמשנתנו היא בתרומה דרבנן. בתחילה נעשה ניסיון לפרש שאמנם סתם תרומה היא מתורה, אבל המשנה שלנו עוסקת בתרומת תבלין שהיא מדרבנן. לאחר מכן חוזרת בה הגמרא ומציעה שכל חובת תרומה בזמן הזה היא מדרבנן (בבלי, פסחים מד ע\"ב). הרעיון הוא שכל המצוות התלויות בארץ בטלו לאחר הגלות, ובימי עזרא קיבלו אותן בני ישראל עליהם. מעמד קבלה זה מתואר ב\"אמנה\" שבספר עזרא. שיטה זו של הבבלי חוזרת בכמה מקורות (להלן). ראשיתה של התפיסה במדרש סדר עולם התנאי (פ\"ל, סט ע\"א-ע\"ב): \" 'ויעשו כל הקהל' – מקיש ביאתן בימי עזרא לביאתן בימי יהושע, מה ביאתן בימי יהושע נתחייבו במעשרות, בשמיטין וביובלות, וקדשו ערי חומה והיו ששין ושמחין לפני המקום, אף ביאתן בימי עזרא כן. וכן הוא אומר: 'ותהי שמחה גדולה מאד' (נחמיה ח יז)\". אלא שבמדרש התנאים לא נאמר שההחלטה הופכת את כל המצוות התלויות בארץ ל\"מדרבנן\", אדרבה, אין במדרש כל התייחסות לכך וניתן להעמידו רק על העיקרון ההלכתי שגבולות הארץ הם הגבולות של \"הירושה השנייה\" (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"א מ\"א). במפורש נאמר הדבר בירושלמי המסיק שהמצוות הללו הן מהתורה (שביעית פ\"ו ה\"א, לו ע\"ב). כלומר בני ישראל לא קיבלו על עצמם, אלא עם בואם התחייבו במה שנאמר בתורה. ", + "גם בתלמוד הירושלמי וגם בתלמוד הבבלי מתוארות המצוות הללו בפשטות כמצוות מהתורה. כך, למשל, נאמר שמעשר חרובים הוא מדרבנן משום שחרובים הם פרי נחות שערכו הכלכלי מועט (בבלי, ראש השנה יב ע\"א). מכאן משמע שסתם מעשר הוא מהתורה, וכן יוצא ממקורות נוספים20כגון בבלי, יבמות פט ע\"ב; קידושין מו ע\"ב; סט ע\"ב; יומא י ע\"א ואולי גם קידושין לח ע\"ב הקובע שאיסור חדש בחו\"ל הוא מהתורה, ערלה בחו\"ל מדרבנן וכלאיים שם מדברי סופרים, וכן יוצא ממקורות נוספים. . ברם, במקביל מצינו בתלמוד הבבלי, ורק בו, את הדעה שהמצוות התלויות בארץ הן מדרבנן: תרומה21בבלי, פסחים מד ע\"א; ט ע\"ב; יבמות פא ע\"א; נידה מו ע\"ב; כתובות כה ע\"א; נזיר לז ע\"א ועוד. , שביעית (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"י מ\"ד), מעשר (בבלי, ברכות לו ע\"ב; גיטין סה ע\"א) ומן הסתם כל המצוות האחרות התלויות בארץ. את המדרש בסדר עולם אמוראי בבל מבינים כראיה שלדעת רבי יוסי, הוא התנא של סדר עולם, המצוות הללו הן מדרבנן (בבלי, נידה מו ע\"ב).", + "כאמור, גישה זו היא בבלית בלבד, ובתלמוד הירושלמי אין לה הד22בירו', שקלים פ\"ח ה\"ו, נא ע\"ב: \"אין מקדישין ולא מעריכין ולא מחרימין ולא מגביהין תרומות ומעשרות בזמן הזה\". המשפט עשוי היה להיות קשור לשאלה האם תרומות ב\"זמן הזה\" מדרבנן, אבל ככלל המשפט קשה ובלתי מובן. נראה שאין לגרסו כלל, וראו אהבת ציון וירושלים, עמ' 53, וליתא במקבילות. . אשר לשביעית נאמר ששביעית היא \"מדרבן גמליאל וחביריו\" (ירו', שביעית פ\"ט ה\"ט, לט ע\"א), אבל כפי שפירשנו מימרה זו אלו דברי פולמוס של פשוטי עם ולא ביטוי לגישה הלכתית. הם מעידים על משקלן של החומרות מדור יבנה, ולא על עצם חובת שביעית (פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ט מ\"א). מכל מקום, ה\"דרבנן\" של התלמוד הבבלי אינם רבן גמליאל וחבריו, אלא חכמי ראשית ימי בית שני. זאת ועוד, כמעט בכל המקומות מופיעה הגישה שהמצוות התלויות בארץ הן מדרבנן כתירוץ דחוק לסתירה בין מגמות הקלה למגמות החמרה. דוגמה חריגה היא הסוגיה המניחה בצורה חיובית ובתור קביעה עצמאית שמעשר בזמן הזה הוא מדרבנן (בבלי, ברכות לו ע\"א). אם כן, דומה שרעיון זה צמח בישיבות בבל כפתרון לסתירות פנימיות, ואי אפשר לראות בו פירוש למשנה. מכל מקום, קשה מאוד לפרש שפרקים ה-ו מדברים על ימי התורה ופרק ז על תרומה מדרבנן.", + "ייתכן גם שפרשנות הבבלי שמצוות התלויות בארץ הן מדרבנן נובעת מהפולמוס הסמוי שבין שתי התפוצות, והצגנו טיעון זה במבוא. ", + "עמדנו על המיוחד שבגישה ההלכתית שבשלוש המשניות שלפנינו. עם זאת, אין הן בודדות בגישה זו. גם פ\"ה במסכת טהרות מבטא גישה דומה. גם שם בבחירה בין שניים מניחים שהראשון שנבחר הוא הטהור. המקרה שם הוא שהלך באחד משני שבילים, אחד מהם טמא והאחר טהור, ואינו יודע באיזה הלך (מ\"ג), או נגע באחד משני חפצים, האחד טמא והאחר טהור (מ\"ד) ומקרים דומים. גם שם מבואר במשניות שאנו מניחים שהבחירה הראשונה היא בטהור, אלא ששם המשניות מדגישות ש\"אם קיימות הראשונות אלו ואלו תלויות\", משום שאחת מהטהרות ודאי טמאה. כל אחת טהורה מספק, אבל שתיהן יחד טמאות מספק. מבחינה משפטית אין הבדל בין סוגי הספקות, אבל מבחינת התחושה אחת הכיכרות היא ודאי טמאה, ואי אפשר להתעלם מטומאתה. הדגשה זו חסרה אצלנו, אם כי הירושלמי (ראו להלן פירושנו למ\"ז) מנסה להחדיר הבחנה זו לגוף המשנה. במשניות שבמסכת טהרות רבי יוסי הוא המחמיר ורבי עקיבא מקל. גם בכך שונות המשניות שם מהמשניות בפרקנו שבהן רבי יוסי מקבל את עצם ההלכה וחולק רק בפרט משני23משנת טהרות ומקבילותיה גם היא חריגה במכלול דיני טהרה. בדרך כלל רואים במצב זה ספק, וספק טהרות לחומרא, אם כי ספק \"ידים\" (שאלות של טהרת ידיים) לקולא. ראו, למשל, תוס', טהרות פ\"ו ה\"ד, עמ' 666; משנה, מקואות פ\"ב מ\"א; תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ו-הי\"א, עמ' 654-653; משנה, ידים פ\"ב מ\"ד המתבארת בתוס', מקואות פ\"ב ה\"י, עמ' 653, ועוד. . ", + "בתוספתא (פ\"ו הי\"ז-י\"ט) ובירושלמי (מד ע\"ד) מתנהל דיון מפורט יותר המבחין בין מצב שבו התרומה טהורה לבין מצב שבו היא טמאה, ושנפלה לחולין טמאים או טהורים. כך, במקום מקרה אחד שבמשנה יש ארבעה מקרים. זו התפתחות אופיינית למקורות שלאחר המשנה המחפשים אחר אבחנות משנה נוספות. אגב הדיון במקרים אלו מצטמצמת מגמת ההקלה שבמשנה, ודומה שיש לראות בתוספתא מגמה לכנס את כל ההלכות הסותרות תחת גג משפטי אחד. עם זאת, עדיין הגישה ההלכתית שבתוספתא מקלה בהרבה ממשניות הפרק הקודם שהבאנו לעיל. ", + "כפי שרמזנו, בירושלמי למשנתנו (מד ע\"ד) יש מחלוקת אמוראים האם בשתי הקופות יחדיו יש רוב לחולין (כלומר פי מאה חולין) או לא. אם יש פי מאה חולין אזי החידוש וההקלה במשנה צנועים יותר, אך עדיין החידוש רב, שהרי אין המשנה קובעת ש\"מעלות זו את זו\" אלא שאנו מניחים שהקופה שהאדם משתמש בה היא חולין. אבל ההקלה מעטה יותר, ואולי יש אפילו במשנה החמרה. הרי לפי ההלכה בפרק ד הכול היה צריך להיחשב כחולין ואילו לפי משנתנו הקופה ה\"שנייה\" היא תרומה. להערכתנו כמעט אין ספק שרבי יוחנן צודק באמרו שהמשנה מדברת על מצב שבו אפילו אין חולין פי מאה. אילו היה הגורם של \"פי מאה\" חשוב הייתה המשנה אומרת אותו במפורש. הגורם הקובע כאן הוא אחר, ושאלת הרוב אינה עולה. הסברנו את מחלוקת האמוראים בשאלה האם יש בקופת החולין פי מאה. אבל ניסוח הגמרא הוא \"שיש בשנייה רוב\", ואולי הצעתו של ריש לקיש היא שיש רוב פשוט של חולין (51%) וההבדל בין האמוראים קטן יותר. מכל מקום, אותה מחלוקת עולה גם בשתי המשניות להלן. ", + "המשנה שבה אנו עוסקים שונה מעדויות אחרות לא רק ביחס לשאלת תערובת (דימוע) אלא גם ביחס לגידולי תרומה. לפי רבי מאיר אם זרע תרומה, הפֵרות פטורים מחלה. זו אכן ההלכה המקובלת, שגידולי תרומה פטורים ממעשרות אף שהם אסורים לאכילה לזר וחייבים בטהרה (להלן פ\"ט מ\"ג, מ\"ו), אבל שיטת רבי יוסי כאן שונה לחלוטין (ולחומרה) מכל המשניות האחרות. רבי יוסי קובע שפטור מחלה, כלומר שהגידולים הם תרומה לכל דבר, והרי זו גישה שונה לחלוטין. יתר על כן, אצלנו אין זו תרומה לכל דבר שהרי ספק קל עדיין נותר, והמשנה להלן (פ\"ט מ\"ו) מקלה עוד יותר בספק תרומה. אם כן, רבי יוסי כאן מחמיר יותר בספק תרומה מאשר המשנה בפרק ט בתרומה ודאי. ", + "בפירושנו למסכת חלה (פ\"ג מ\"י) נעמוד על הקשר בין משניות חריגות אלו לבין דברי רבי אלעזר בן ערך (תוס', פ\"ה הט\"ו), ואולי גם המשניות שלנו הן מבית מדרשו. המסורת מספרת שרבי אלעזר נטש את בית המדרש ביבנה ותורתו נשכחה, אך שריד ממנה נותר, אם כי שמו נשכח או הושכח. ייתכן, אפוא, ששלוש המשניות שאנו עוסקים בהן ראשיתן בבית מדרשו והן מייצגות מסורת הלכתית שונה מהמקובלת, מסורת ששילבה באופן שונה גם מסורות המיוחסות לחכמים מאוחרים כרבי מאיר ורבי יוסי. " + ], + [ + "משנה ו היא המשך ישיר של המשנה הקודמת ומדגימה אותן תפיסות הלכתיות (של רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי) במקרה שונה במקצת, אך זהה מבחינה הלכתית. ודאי היה ניתן לנסח את שתי המשניות כמשנה אחת (\"נפלה סאה תרומה לאחת מהן, או שנפלה אחת מהן לתוך חולין\"). אלא שלעתים קרובות המשנה מעדיפה את הסגנון הארוך יותר, שהוא יותר פשוט וקל להבנה. ", + "נפלה אחת מהן לתוך החולין ואינה – כמעט בכל יתר עדי הנוסח (חוץ מ- ו) \"אינה\", בלי וי\"ו החיבור. כפי שאמרנו, וי\"ו החיבור נוספה או הושמטה בכתבי היד, ובעיקר בכתב יד קופמן. הכוונה שאחת הקופות הללו נפלה לתוך חולין, אינה מדמעתן – אינה מדמעת משום שאנו מניחים שהקופה השנייה היא קופת התרומה, והשנייה נוהג בה כתרומה וחייבת בחלה דברי רבי מאיר – רבי מאיר בדרכו, כמו במשנה הקודמת. התרומה היא תרומת ספק ולכן אינה פטורה מחלה.", + "רבי יוסה פוטר – גם רבי יוסי מהלך בשיטתו שהתרומה תרומת ודאי.", + "נפלה שנייה למקום אחר אינה מדמעתה – אם הקופה השנייה נפלה אנו תולים שהראשונה תרומה, ושתי הערמות חולין מתוך אותו ספק. אבל: נפלו שתיהן למקום אחד24בדל\"ת. כך בכל כתבי היד, וכפי שמעיר בעל מלאכת שלמה. מדמעות כקטנה שבשתיהן – שהרי אחת מהן היא ודאי תרומה. ", + "הירושלמי מציע נסיגה מסוימת מההקלה שבמשנה. הדין של \"נפלה שנייה למקום אחר\" הוא רק לפני שנשאלה השאלה ונפסק שהראשונה הותרה, אבל אם נפסק שהראשונה הותרה נפסק בכך גם שהשנייה חייבת (מה ע\"א), וכן במשניות הבאות. אין לנסיגה זו הד במקור התנאי. יתר על כן, הסוגיה מניחה בפשטות שההתלבטות בדבר גורלה של הקופה מסתיים ב\"שאלה\", כלומר בפנייה לחכם שיכריע. כמעט בכל ספרות חז\"ל, ובעיקר בספרות התנאית, אין ממתינים לפסק ההלכה של החכם. המקורות קובעים את ההלכה ומניחים שכל אדם יודע אותה ומציית לה. אם אדם אינו יודע את ההלכה הוא פונה לשני ושואל, ולעתים הנשאל הוא החכם. אבל הפנייה לחכם אינה חובה, ואף אינה בבחינת מנהג רגיל. על כן, ברוב המקרים אין מעמד של \"שאלה\". כל זאת להוציא נושאים מספר. כך, למשל, בדיני נגעים אין הנגע מטמא או נטהר עד שהכהן יכריז על הנגע כטמא או כטהור. כאן ה\"שאלה\", כלומר הצגת המקרה הרפואי לפני הכהן וההכרזה של הכהן, הן מעמד הלכתי, טקסי בחלקו. ללא המעמד ונוכחות הכהן המצורע איננו טמא, גם אם נגעו ברור כלפי חוץ. זה הוא הרגע הקובע את חריצת הדין, ולא המצב האובייקטיבי של הנגע. המצב של הנגע הוא הגורם לתוכן ההכרזה של הכהן, אך ללא ההכרזה עצמה נשאר המנוגע במצבו, גם אם כל אחד רואה שנטמא או שנרפא. ההסבר המוצע כאן הוא אחת העדויות הראשונות לשינוי התפיסה, והפיכת שאלת החכם למעמד הלכתי בפני עצמו. נחזור לנושא זה במשנה הראשונה בפרק הבא. מכל מקום, ספק אם התלמוד מבטא גם שינוי בגישה לשאלת החכם, או שמא הוא מנסה למתן את ההיתר שבמשנה כדי לצמצם את השוני בינה לבין דרך ההלכה הרווחת במשניות, כפי שהראינו לעיל.", + "מכל מקום, יהא המניע של התלמוד אשר יהא, הפרשנות עצמה מופיעה במסכת טהרות. כפי שאמרנו לעיל (בפירושנו למ\"ה) המשניות במסכת טהרות פרק ה מהלכות בדרך קרובה למשנתנו, אבל מבחינות בין מצב שבו הילך בשני שבילים שאחד מהם טהור לבין מצב שהילך רק בשביל אחד. ברוב המקרים האבחנה היא אם עשה מעשה ממש, כגון שהילך בשני שבילים או שנגע בשני החפצים שאחד מהם טהור והאחר טמא. בכל המקרים הללו המשניות מבחינות בין מצב שהטהרות הראשונות קיימות לבין מצב שכבר אינן קיימות. אבל בשתי משניות האבחנה היא האם נשאל כבר על הראשונה או שטרם נשאל. כך: \"שני שבילין, אחד טמא ואחד טהור, הלך באחד מהן ועשה טהרות ובא חבירו והלך בשני ועשה טהרות, רבי יהודה אומר אם נשאלו זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו טהורין, ואם נשאלו שניהם כאחד טמאים. רבי יוסי אומר בין כך ובין כך טמאים\" (משנה, טהרות פ\"ה מ\"ה, וכן מ\"ו שם). אם כן, התיאור כאילו הרגע הקובע את ההלכה הוא תשובת החכם מופיע כבר אצל רבי יהודה.", + "במשניות שבפרקנו לא נעשה שימוש באבחנה אם שתי הקופות קיימות, ודומה שלפי פשוטה אין משנתנו מכירה באבחנה זו. עד כאן באשר לפירוש המשניות שלנו. כאמור, לאבחנה שמציע רבי יהודה חשיבות חברתית גדולה מאוד בכל הקשור למעמדו של החכם, ונחזור לכך בראשית המשנה הבאה." + ], + [ + "המשנה ממשיכה באותו קו מחשבתי. היא דנה בהשלכות של המקרה הקודם (היו לו שתי קופות, אחת תרומה וכו'), על מצב שבו זרע את הקופה. לפי ההלכה מכונה זריעה זו \"גידולי תרומה\". לפי ההלכה אסור, כמובן, לזרוע תרומה, ואם זרע אסור להשתמש בגידולים, והצומח הוא תרומה. בפרטי ההלכות נדון בפירושנו להלן (פ\"ט מ\"א).", + "זרע את אחת מהן פטור והשנייה נוהג בה כתרומה – הראשונה נחשבת חולין והשנייה שנזרעה באותו שדה נחשבת תרומה. כאמור, זה אותו קו הלכתי כמו במשניות הקודמות (ובניגוד למקובל בפרקים ד-ה), וחייבת בחלה דברי רבי מאיר – כמו במשנה הקודמת, רבי יוסה פוטר – התרומה היא תרומה ודאי, ולכן התוצרת תרומה ודאי ופטורה ממעשרות כמו במשנה הקודמת.", + "זרע אחר את השנייה פטור – אנו תולים שהראשונה הייתה תרומה, וכל אחד תולה את התרומה בשדה חברו. כל זאת כמו במשנה קודמת.", + "זרע אחד את שתיהן – כפי שאמרנו במשניות הקודמות אם נפלו שתי הקופות לאותה ערמה הרי עלינו להניח, בעל כורחנו, שקופה אחת של תרומה התערבה, על כן גם כאן יש להניח שקופה אחת של תרומה נזרעה בשדה. לפי ההלכה שלפנינו בפרקים הקודמים (פ\"ד מ\"ט) צריך היה לבדוק, אם בשתי הקופות יחדיו פי מאה חולין – הכול חולין, ואם לאו – שתיהן תרומה.", + "דבר שזרעו כלה – \"זרעו כלה\" משמעו שהזרע עצמו נרקב, כגון בחיטה שהזרע נבקע ומתוכו צומח גבעול, מותר – התרומה בטלה מפני שהחלק של התרומה נעלם, ודבר שאין זרעו כלה אסור – כגון בבצל שהזרע עצמו קיים, מכיוון שהזרע עצמו הוא תרומה אי אפשר לבטלו, ויש להתייחס לכל הגידול כתרומה. משנה זו כוללת הקלה נוספת בכך שבדבר שזרעו כלה אין גידולי תרומה אסורים. האבחנה בין סוגי הזרעים מופיעה גם בגישה ההלכתית ה\"רגילה\" (להלן פ\"ט מ\"ה), אבל במשנה להלן היא משפיעה במקרה הלכתי חמור וקשה יותר. אם זרעו כלה בטלה התרומה ברוב של פי מאה, אבל אם אין זרעו כלה אפילו ברוב של פי מאה אינה בטלה. אם כן, שוב במשנתנו גישה מקלה ביותר. דומה שהתרומה נתפסת כאילו הייתה ספק ספיקא של תרומה. אין במשנה ביטוי לאותה מחלוקת תנאים שראינו. ייתכן שרבי יוסי שהקל ואמר שהתרומה היא ודאית (ולכן פטורה מחלה) יחמיר כאן מתוך אותה ודאות ויאמר שהגידול אסור תמיד. ", + "בירושלמי (מה ע\"א) יש מחלוקת האם ניתן לצרף למשנה מרכיב נוסף, אם יש רוב לחדש או לא. הירושלמי מסביר שיש צורך בשני התנאים, גם זרעו כלה וגם רוב חדש, ואם קיים רק תנאי אחד הגידולים הם תרומה. זו אפוא נסיגה נוספת, קלה, מההיתר שבמשנה. החמרה נוספת היא שהמקרה של זריעת שתי הקופות הוא רק כשזרע את השנייה לאחר שקצר את הראשונה. להערכתנו התלמוד מנסה, באופן עקבי, למתן את החידוש וההקלה בשלוש המשניות הללו, על כן הוא מציע שמשנתנו היא רק כשיש רוב חולין (ראו לעיל הפירוש למשנה ה), או שהקופה השנייה נפלה לפני שנפסקה ההלכה לגבי הקופה הראשונה (שם). זו גם מטרתו של הפירוש שהמשנה עוסקת בכגון שיש רגליים לדבר שהתרומה נפלה לתרומה (ירו', לעיל מ\"ה), או שהמשניות עוסקות רק בתרומה דרבנן (בבלי, ראו פירושנו למשנה ה), וכן שתי ההחמרות במשנתנו. כולן באות מתוך אותה מגמה, כדי לנסות להגיע ליתר הרמוניזציה בין הגישות ההלכתיות השונות. ברור שמי שסבר שכל המשניות הן הלכה צריך היה לתאם ביניהן. אנו מעדיפים לראות בשלוש המשניות האחרונות תפיסה הלכתית שונה, מסורת חריגה שייחסה לרבי מאיר ורבי יוסי גישה הלכתית אחרת לשאלת תערובת תרומה. ", + "משנתנו עוסקת רק בחובת חלה, ואילו המשניות בפרק ט עוסקות במעשרות ואינן מזכירות חלה. לכאורה ניתן היה להבחין בין חיוב חלה לחיוב מעשרות, אבל מבחינה הלכתית ומשפטית הדין אותו דין. אם הפֵרות נחשבים לתרומה הם פטורים מהכול, ואם הם חולין הם חייבים בכול. ההבדל בין פרק ז לפרקנו הוא אפוא גם הלכתי וגם סגנוני. אלו מזכירות מעשרות וזו חלה, והדין ממש שונה. השוני בין משנתנו למשנה בפרק ט הוא אפוא בשני פרטים (פ\"ט מ\"ד ומ\"ו), וניתן לתרץ את השוני. ", + "ניתן, אפוא, לסכם שגוש המשניות בסוף פרק ז שונה מההלכה המקובלת בסדרת פרטים. יש בו גישה מקלה בהרבה, והתפיסה הבסיסית היא שמרים חלק מהתערובת ומחליט שהוא התרומה, ואז הוא האסור (הטמא) והשאר מותר. בתפיסה זו מהלך גם בעל פנקס הלכה ארץ-ישראלי משלהי התקופה הביזנטית, אם כי ההלכה שלו שונה: \"ואם היו ג' כורין ואינו יודע איזו היא תרומה, ואיזו היא חולין. יהי' אומר בשעה... תהי לי רשות להוציא פעם שניה\"25מרגליות, הלכות ארץ ישראל, עמ' פה. . נראה שכוונת המחבר היא שהוא יתנה בלבו שיפריש את התרומה בהזדמנות אחרת. לפני קטע זה המחבר פוסק כאלעזר בן ערך שאם אפשר יביא תרומה ממקום אחר (תוס', פ\"ה הט\"ו, ראו פירושנו לחלה פ\"ג מ\"ח). " + ] + ], + [ + [ + "האשה שאכלה בתרומה – בכתב היד נכתב בצד: \"שהיתה אוכלת\", והיא היא, באו ואמרו [ואמר לה] – ונמחקו שני מילים אלו, מת בעליך או גרשיך – יש להניח שהודעה מסוג זה עוררה אצל האישה סערת נפש, שאלות וקשיים רבים. אבל כדרכה של המשנה אין בה ביטוי לטרגדיה, ולא בשל כך נכתבה המשנה. עניינה של המשנה רק בשאלה ההלכתית. ברגע שהאישה כבר אינה אשת כהן היא פסולה מלאכול בתרומה. לפי ההקשר מדובר בבת ישראל שנישאה לכהן ואין לה בנים, שכן אם יש לה בנים היא ממשיכה בכהונתה. המשנה מניחה בפשטות שהכהן יכול לגרש על ידי שליח, כלומר שלאישה יש שליח לקבלת הגט, שכן היא אינה יודעת על הגירושין, אם כי אולי הם היו צפויים.", + "וכן העבד – של כהן, שהיה אוכל בתרומה באו ואמרו לו מת רבך – עבד כהן אוכל בתרומה. כבכל יתר הדוגמאות ברור שהעבד עבר לרשות ישראל. ברם, כאשר מת הכהן העבד עובר ליורשיו, ורק במקרים מיוחדים מאוד היורשים הללו אינם כוהנים (רמב\"ם ואחרים). המקרה הפשוט ביותר הוא שבניו של הכהן פסולים לכהונה משום שנשאו גרושה או חלוצה. מקרה אפשרי אחר הוא שהיורש אינו כהן, כגון שהכהן הוריש את רכושו לישראל. ניתן למצוא מקרים נוספים דומים, אבל המשנה אינה מתעניינת בבירור דיני ירושה אלא במעמדו של עבד שחדל להיות כהן, ותו לא.", + "או מכרך לישראל – הכהן מכר את העבד, או נתנך מתנה – לישראל, או עשאך בן חורין – שחרור העבד יכול להתבצע על ידי מתן גט שחרור לעבד או לשלוחו, וכן כהן שהיה אוכל בתרומה ונודע שהוא בן גרושה או בן חלוצה – לפתע התברר לו שהוא פסול לכהונה. כידוע לכהן אסור לשאת גרושה או חלוצה, ומי שעשה כן הוא חלל וזרעו פסול לכהונה. שוב אין המשנה מבררת כיצד ייתכן שלפתע נודע לכהן שהוא בן גרושה, ואין זה מעיקר המשנה. ברם, להלן נראה שהיו בתי דין שבדקו את הייחוסים, וייתכן שאחד מהם בדק את הכהן האמור ופסלו.", + "רבי אליעזר מחייב קרן וחומש – שהרי התרומה שאכל בעבר הייתה תרומה ואסור היה לו לאכלה, והרי זה ככל מקרה שאכל תרומה בשוגג. רבי אליעזר אינו אומר זאת במפורש, אבל מסתבר שאותו כהן יצטרך לשלם על כל התרומות שאכל, כמו בדין קרבנות (להלן), ואותה אישה תשלם על כל מה שאכלה מאז מות הבעל ועד שנודעה לה הבשורה.", + "רבי יהושע פוטר – ודאי שאסור לכל אלה לאכול תרומה להבא, אבל מה שנאכל בזמנו נאכל בהיתר, ואין זה בבחינת מעשה עברה בשוגג. מסתבר שהמחלוקת היא רק על החומש (ירו', פ\"ז מ\"ב, מד ע\"ד) ואת הקרן ודאי צריך להחזיר, שהרי אכל מה שהבעלים רצו לתת לכהן כשר. ", + "רבי יהושע ממשיך בדרכו שיש להתחשב בכוונת המעשה, ואילו רבי אליעזר בדרכו שהמעשה הוא הקובע ולכוונה משמעות שולית. זו מחלוקת עקרונית ורחבה שראשיתה במחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, ורבי אליעזר מהלך בדרכם של בית שמאי1עסק בכך בהרחבה גילת בכמה הזדמנויות. ראו גילת, רבי אליעזר, עמ' 31-21. . רבי יהושע פוטר מפני שהעברה נעשתה בשוגג משום שהיה עסוק במצווה, כלומר בשעה שעשה את המעשה היה זה מבחינתו דבר מצווה, וכן דעתם של שני התנאים במחלוקת דומה (משנה, פסחים פ\"ו מ\"ה).", + "פדיון בחומש הוא הלכה רגילה. גם פדיון מעשר שני נעשה במחיר הקרן והחומש, וגם שם רק בעל הבית מוסיף חומש (מעשר שני פ\"ד מ\"ג). המשנה מונה חמישה מקרים של חומש: \"חמשה חומשין הן, האוכל תרומה, ותרומת מעשר, ותרומת מעשר של דמאי, והחלה, והבכורים, מוסיף חומש. והפודה נטע רבעי, ומעשר שני שלו, מוסיף חומש. הפודה את הקדשו מוסיף חומש, הנהנה בשוה פרוטה מן ההקדש מוסיף חומש, והגוזל את חבירו שוה פרוטה ונשבע לו מוסיף חומש\" (משנה, בבא מציעא פ\"ד מ\"ח). הרשימה אינה מלאה, שכן גם הנשבע לשקר משלם קרן וחומש (שבועות פ\"ח מ\"ג; בבא קמא פ\"ט מ\"ז).", + "היה עומד ומקריב על גבי המזבח ונודע שהוא בן גרושה או בן חלוצה רבי אליעזר מחייב קרן וחומש – שהרי הוא כזר, וכמו שאמרנו לעיל, רבי יהושע פוטר – על כל מה שעשה בעבר, וכן כל קרבנות שהקריב על גבי המזבח פסולין – זו דעתו של רבי אליעזר, ורבי יהושע מכשיר – כפי שהסברנו לעיל.", + "נודע שהוא בעל מום עבודתו פסולה – כאן גם רבי יהושע יודה שהוא פסול לשעבר. לפי פשוטם של דברים זו אשמתו של הכהן, הרי הוא ידע על המום וצריך היה לברר את מצבו. אבל בכל יתר המקרים הפסול נובע ממעשה שנעשה על ידי אחר. אבחנה זו מחייבת בירור נוסף במכלול דרכי הטיפול בשאלת הייחוס בכלל, וטהרת הכוהנים בפרט.", + "בתוספתא2תוס', מקואות פ\"א הי\"ז-הי\"ח, עמ' 654-653; ירו', כאן מה ע\"א; בבלי, קידושין סו ע\"ב. מתנהל דיון לגבי מקווה שנמצא פסול, והשאלה היא ממתי נפסל. במהלך המחלוקת מתברר ששני החולקים (רבי טרפון ורבי עקיבא) מניחים בפשטות שאכן יש הבדל בין כהן שנודע לו שהוא בן גרושה ובין מקרה שנודע לו שהוא בעל מום, מכאן שלדעת שניהם יש לקבל את אבחנתו של רבי יהושע כאן. בהמשך התוספתא נאמר ש\"נמנו וגמרו\" כרבי עקיבא, וממילא גם נמנו בכך וגמרו כרבי אליעזר, נגד רבי יהושע. בתוספתא מובאת גם האבחנה בין שני המקרים (לשיטת רבי טרפון). בעל מום מומו מעצמו, ובן גרושה \"פסולו באחרים\". הבדל נוסף הוא שבעל מום \"פסולו ביחיד\" ובן גרושה \"פסולו מתירו\"3בתוספתא זכות הנימוק היא של רבי טרפון, ובתלמודים של רבי עקיבא. מסתבר שהתוספתא שימרה את הנוסח המקורי ובו ניתנה לרבי טרפון, שהיה הבכיר בין השניים, זכות הנימוק. בתלמודים הועברה זכות הנימוק למי שהתגלה כ\"צודק\", כלומר שנמנו כמותו. . בתלמוד הירושלמי הנימוק הוא (לשיטת רבי עקיבא): \"מקוה פסולו ביחיד ובעל מום פסולו ביחיד, ואל יוכיח בן גרושה שפסולו בבית דין\" (מה ע\"ב). בתלמוד הבבלי הניסוח (לשיטת רבי עקיבא) הוא: \"מקוה פסולו ביחיד, ובעל מום פסולו ביחיד, ואל יוכיח בן גרושה ובן חלוצה שפסולו בשנים; דבר אחר: מקוה פסולו בגופו, בעל מום פסולו בגופו, ואל יוכיח בן גרושה ובן חלוצה שפסולו מאחרים\" (קידושין סו ע\"ב). ההבדל בין המקורות מלמד על הנימוק למשנתנו ועל הרקע החברתי לו. רבי טרפון מדגיש שבעל מום נפסל \"מעצמו\" ובן גרושה נפסל בגלל מעשה של אחרים, ומן הסתם הכוונה לאביו שנשא גרושה. בעל מום הוא \"ביחיד\" בניגוד ל\"פסולו מתירו\", כלומר פסילת בעל מום היא הכרעה בודדת העוסקת רק במעמדו של הכהן, ואילו הקטגוריה של בן גרושה פוסלת אותו לכהונה בכלל. בתוספתא מקואות (פ\"א הי\"ח, עמ' 653) מופיעים שני הנימוקים. ", + "לפי התלמודים פסול מקווה דומה לפסול מום בשני מרכיבים. האחד ששניהם ביחיד, כלומר האדם המאמין שהבחין בפסול פוסל את עצמו, אבל פסול בן גרושה אינו הכרעה אישית אלא \"מעשה בית דין\". הירושלמי מסיק, ובצדק, שאין פסול המשפחה אלא לאחר הכרעת בית הדין. על משמעותה המרכזית של קביעה זהה עמדנו לעיל (פירושנו לפ\"ז מ\"ה). מה שקובע את הפסול הוא הכרזתו של בית הדין, ואילו בכל מקרה רגיל ההכרעה ההלכתית נובעת מהמצב ההלכתי האובייקטיבי של החפץ. כך למשל, אוכל הוא טרף כי זה מצבו ההלכתי. היחיד הוא שמחליט על כך, ועליו האחריות לקיים את המצווה. אם אין הוא יודע הוא רשאי להיעזר בייעוץ של כל אדם, גם של החכם, אבל האחריות מוטלת על היחיד, והגורם הקובע את ההלכה הוא המצב עצמו. בניגוד לכך בטהרת נגעים וטומאתם, אם הבחין היחיד בנגע עליו לפנות לכהן; הוא אינו טמא עד שהכהן יכריז על כך. גם אם היחיד יודע שהנגע פשה בעורו אין הוא טמא עד להכרזה. כך ההכרזה היא מעמד הלכתי, והיא קובעת את ההלכה כמו מעשה קניין במכירה, או כמו קידושי אישה. הוא הדין בהיתר בכורות, שאף אם הדין ברור אין הוא חל עד שיכריז על כך בית הדין4משנה, בכורות פ\"ד מ\"ג; פ\"ה מ\"ו; תוס', סנהדרין פ\"א ה\"ב, עמ' 415, וראו פירושנו לביצה פ\"ג מ\"ד. שם הובאו דברי הירושלמי שרבי יהודה חולק ואומר שהשתתפות המומחה אינה מהתורה, ואינה חלק הכרחי בתהליך ההיתר. , וכן בקידוש חודשים ועיבור שנים שבהם הוענקה הסמכות לבית הדין העליון, וזכותו אף לטעות בדברים הגלויים לעין5ראו המבוא למסכת ראש השנה. .", + "התוספתא והירושלמי כאן קובעים שגם פסול משפחה נקבע בבית דין: אדם שהוא בנה של גרושה עשוי להיחשב לכהן כשר עד לאותה הכרעה של בית הדין. כל זאת בניגוד לפסול בעל מום. עד כאן הירושלמי והתוספתא. בתלמוד הבבלי אין ביטוי לתפיסה זו. לאבחנה זו חשיבות חברתית רבה. היא מקבעת את מעמדו של החכם כיוצר ההלכה, ולא רק כפרשן של ההלכה ושל המציאות. היא הופכת את הפניית השאלה אל החכם למצווה ולמעשה דתי, וקובעת את כבודו ויוקרתו. משנתנו והמשנה בפרק הקודם מצטרפות, אפוא, לאותה תמונה דתית-חברתית. בשני המקרים הדגיש הירושלמי מרכיב זה, אלא שאצלנו אין הוא נובע מהמשנה, ואילו בפרק הקודם הופיעה התפיסה כבר במשנה, אם כי לא בכל המשניות. כמובן אין לגזור דמיון בין המשניות, וכל מקרה נידון לגופו. התפיסה שרק תשובת החכם היא בבחינת נתון מציאותי מופיעה בעוד מעט הלכות אחרות, ונעדרת מרוב התחומים ההלכתיים. בעידן המודרני, למשל, הורחבה שאלה זו, ולא נעקוב במסגרת זו אחר גלגוליה של התופעה6דומה לכך היא תביעת התלמוד הבבלי שהשוחט יראה את הסכין לרב (בבלי, חולין יז ע\"ב). תביעה זו היא מעבר לבירור טכני של טיב הסכין, והופכת את הבדיקה והאישור למעמד דתי כשלעצמו. . ", + "המדרשים קושרים את משנתנו לדרשה המפורסמת על \"הכהן אשר יהיה בימים ההם\"7מדרש תנאים לדברים, כו ג, עמ' 171. ספק אם קטע זה תנאי. . כהן הוא כשר עד שייטמא, ואי אפשר לערער על מעמדו לשעבר. דרשה אחרת היא זו הלומדת מהברכה שנאמרה ללוי \"ופֹעל ידיו תרצה\" (דברים לג יא) שכל מה שכהן עושה נרצה ומרצה עד שיתברר שהוא פסול (ירו', מה ע\"ב; בבלי, פסחים עב ע\"ב, השוו יבמות לד ע\"א). הדרשות הללו מציגות את המקרה בכהן כהלכה מיוחדת שיש לה תימוכין ייחודיים במקרא. ברם, לפי הסברנו ההלכה נובעת מתפיסה כללית שלפיה כל כהן כשר עד שייטמא, והוא טמא רק מכאן להבא, והוא הדין במקווה. אם כן, אין כאן הלכה מיוחדת בכהן אלא תפיסה כללית. הדרשות לפסוקים אינן יוצרות את ההלכה אלא רק מהוות סיוע לה, שכן אילו היו משמעותיות היה בכך כדי להפריך את הלימוד של רבי עקיבא ורבי טרפון שהבאנו. ", + "כפי שאמרנו, בירושלמי יש דעה שפסול משפחה נקבע רק בבית דין, מעתה עלינו לברר מעט את טיבה של הכרעה זו בבית דין. בדרך כלל אדם צריך להתלבט בעצמו ולקבוע לעצמו האם יצא ידי חובת מצווה או לא. שונה הוא פסול משפחה. אדם יכול לקבוע לעצמו שהוא כשר, אבל לשני, הנותן לו את התרומה, חשוב לדעת שנתנה לכהן כשר. אם כן, השאלה חורגת מהתחום הדתי העצמי והופכת למרכיב במערכת היחסים שבין שניים, כמעט כמו בדיני ממונות. מעבר לשאלה זו, שיש לה אופי משפטי, מסתבר שבחברה היהודית ייחסו לשאלות של פסול משפחה חשיבות רבה. פסול משפחה נוגע לישראלים, ובעיקר לכוהנים ולישראלים הרוצים להתחתן עם כוהנים. לפי העדויות שבידינו הקפידו בארץ ישראל על הייחוס, ולשם כך הופעלו בתי דין שבדקו ייחוסים ואישרו אותם. על כך אנו שומעים כבר בימי שיבת ציון, במשך ימי בית שני ובתקופת המשנה והתלמוד. חכמי בבל טענו שבארצם מקפידים על ייחוסים עוד יותר מאשר בארץ ישראל8הטענה נסמכת, כביכול, על כך שכל הבלתי מיוחסים עלו לארץ ישראל בימי שיבת ציון. ראו בבלי, כתובות קיא ע\"א; קידושין סט ע\"ב; עא ע\"א. ההתפארות של חכמי בבל היא חלק ממאבקם לאוטונומיה ואפילו למעמד שווה לזה של יהדות ארץ ישראל, ובכך לא נרחיב במסגרת זו. , ונראה שגם חכמי הארץ הודו בכך, ואם כך בארץ ישראל, קל וחומר בבבל9ביכלר, טהרת משפחות; ינקלביץ, ייחוס. .", + "המקורות הנוגעים לימי בית שני נאספו בידי ביכלר, והוא הראה שהכוהנים הקימו מנגנון להרחקת כוהנים בלתי מיוחסים. לפני שמשמרת חדשה הצטרפה לעבודת הקודש נבדקו היוחסין, וכהן שלא נמצא בו פסול עשה יום חג לעצמו (משנה, מידות פ\"ה מ\"ד). אף הונהגה ברכה מיוחדת: \"ברוך המקום ברוך הוא שלא נמצא פסול בזרעו של אהרן וברוך הוא שבחר באהרן ובבניו לעמוד לשרת לפני ה' בבית קדשי קדשים\". ברכה זו שובצה בברכות התורה וההבדלה, ורק במהלך התקופה האמוראית שונתה ונעקרה מסדר הברכות10ראו מבואנו למסכת ברכות. . הכללתה של הברכה במסורת הפרושית של ברכות התורה11ראו פירושנו ליומא פ\"ז מ\"א. מעידה על ההסכמה לתהליך בדיקת היוחסין, ועקירת הברכה מעידה על הסתייגות ממעמדם הבכיר של הכוהנים. לפי מסורת חז\"ל הייתה הסנהדרין הגדולה הגוף שבפניו בוררו שאלות היוחסין של ישראל (משנה, מידות שם). ברם, יש להניח שלפחות חלק מהפעילות התנהל על ידי הכוהנים (הצדוקים?). ", + "מכל מקום, אין ספק שבימי הבית היה מנגנון של בית דין שפסל ואישר את ייחוסם של כוהנים, ומבחינה זאת הדברים מתאימים למשנתנו המתארת מצב שבו מודיעים לכהן על היותו פסול לכהונה. השאלה היא מה קרה לאחר החורבן כאשר שאלת הייחוס איבדה ממשמעותה מצד אחד, ומצד אחר גבר המתח בין חכמים לכוהנים12על כך ראו בנספח למסכת שקלים. , והיה מקום לצפות לכך שחכמים יקפידו פחות על ייחוסם של כוהנים.", + "שתי משניות במסכת עדיות חושפות טפח מהמתיחות סביב שאלה זו: \"העיד רבי יהושע ורבי יהודה בן בתירא על אלמנת עיסה שהיא כשרה לכהונה, שהעיסה כשרה לטמא ולטהר, לרחק ולקרב. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל קבלנו עדותכם, אבל מה נעשה שגזר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שלא להושיב בתי דינין על כך, הכהנים שומעים לכם לרחק אבל לא לקרב\" (משנה, עדיות פ\"ח מ\"ג; בבלי, כתובות יד ע\"א). אם כן, הכוהנים החמירו באלמנת עיסה (אישה שבמשפחתה נפל פסול בלתי מוגדר ובלתי ברור). מלבד העדות על חשיבות הנושא אנו לומדים שההלכה לחוד והנוהג של הכוהנים לחוד, והכוהנים אינם מקבלים חלק מהקוּלות של חכמים. תגובתו של רבן יוחנן בן זכאי היא שלא להושיב בתי דינים, כלומר לא ליזום פעילות מסודרת של פסיקה בנושא. בתוספתא המסורת שונה במקצת: \"בית דין שלאחריהם אמרו נאמנת עיסה לטמא ולטהר, לאסר ולהתיר, לרחק ולקרב. אבל באלמנת עיסה לא נגעו\" (תוס', עדיות פ\"ג ה\"ב, עמ' 459). אם כן, ההתנגדות בוטה פחות אבל \"לא נגעו\", כלומר בית הדין סירב להכריע בעדות שהובאה לפניו13המעקב אחרי המשך השתלשלות ההלכה הוא פרק מעניין, אך לא כאן מקומו. .", + "משנה אחרת שונה: \"אמר רבי יהושע: מקובל אני מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי, ששמע מרבו, ורבו מרבו, הלכה למשה מסיני, שאין אליהו בא לטמא ולטהר, לרחק ולקרב, אלא לרחק המקורבין בזרוע ולקרב המרוחקין בזרוע. משפחת בית צריפה היתה בעבר הירדן ורחקה בן ציון בזרוע. ועוד אחרת היתה שם וקרבה בן ציון בזרוע. כגון אלו אליהו בא לטמא ולטהר לרחק ולקרב. רבי יהודה אומר לקרב אבל לא לרחק. רבי שמעון אומר להשוות המחלוקת. וחכמים אומרים לא לרחק ולא לקרב אלא לעשות שלום בעולם, שנאמר (מלאכי ג כג) 'הנה אנכי שלח לכם את אליה הנביא' וגומר 'והשיב לב אבות על בנים ולב בנים על אבותם' \" (משנה, עדיות פ\"ח מ\"ז)14בתוספתא נאמר: \"משפחת בית הצריפה היתה בעבר הירדן וריחקה בן ציון בזרוע. אחרת היתה שם וקירבה בן ציון בזרוע, ולא רצו חכמים לגלות עליהם. אבל מוסרין אותן לבניהם ולתלמידיהם פעם אחת בשבוע. כגון אילו אליהו בא לטמא ולטהר לקרב ולרחק, רבי מאיר אומר לקרב אבל לא לרחק ורבי יהודה אומר חילוף הדברים\" (עדיות פ\"ג ה\"ד, עמ' 459). . המשנה ומקבילותיה משקפות מתיחות. המעשים שעליהם מסופר הם מימי הבית, וחכמים מגיבים בהסתייגות מהפעולות שנעשו בזרוע. מן הסתם זו עדות לפעולתם של חוגים שאינם מקרב חכמים, אולי ראשי הכוהנים ואולי הצדוקים. הסיפורים הם מהעבר, אבל מימרתו של רבן יוחנן בן זכאי משקפת את ימי חכמים. הם מסתייגים מריחוק משפחות שטהרת המשפחה שלהם בעייתית. מובעת העמדה שאין \"להרחיק\", ודעה זו באה בעצמות שונות. עם זאת, במקבילה בתוספתא נאמר: \"ולא רצו חכמים לגלות עליהם. אבל מוסרין אותן לבניהם ולתלמידיהם פעם אחת בשבוע\" (תוס', עדיות פ\"ג ה\"ד, עמ' 459). בבבלי הנוסח בהיר יותר: \"תאנא: עוד אחרת היתה ולא רצו חכמים לגלותה, אבל חכמים מוסרים אותו לבניהם ולתלמידיהן פעם אחת בשבוע, ואמרי לה פעמים בשבוע\" (בבלי, קידושין עא ע\"א15דיון מעין זה שבו המקור התנאי אומר פעם בשבוע ואמוראי בבל אומרים פעמיים בשבוע חוזר בבבלי, פסחים פו ע\"ב. אבל מהמשך התלמוד ברור שאכן המימרה נאמרה על קירוב משפחות. ). החובה למסור את הסוד פעמיים בשבוע היא החמרה מסוימת, ודורשת עירנות יתר לחובת השמירה על הייחוס. ", + "במסכת סנהדרין מובאת רשימה ארוכה של תחומי פעילות של הסנהדרין ובתי הדין בישראל. הרשימה תאורטית וכוללת תחומים שבהם לא העניקו השלטונות לבתי הדין היהודיים סמכות לדון (משנה, סנהדרין פ\"א מ\"א-מ\"ד), אבל אין ברשימה ביטוי לדיון בדיני ייחוס משפחה.", + "לכאורה היה עלינו להסיק שבימי התנאים הפסיקו לברר יוחסין ולא העמידו בתי דין על כך. יתרה מזאת, רבי יהושע מתגלה כאחת הדמויות הפעילות בניסיון לסייג את תפקודם ההלכתי של דיני ייחוסים16ראו דיוננו במסכת יבמות פ\"ד מי\"ג; קידושין פ\"ד מ\"א. . זאת בניגוד למשתמע מהמשנה, ובניגוד בוטה לנאמר בירושלמי. אלא שמתברר שבהמשך ימי התנאים חזרו להושיב בתי דין. התלמוד הירושלמי מצטט ברייתא הדנה לתומה בעדים שבאו לרחק או לקרב (ירו', כתובות פ\"ב ה\"ג, כו ע\"ב). עדות מפורשת יש בהלכה הבאה: \"מעלין לכהונה לוים וישראל על פי עד אחד, אבל אין מורידין אלא על פי שנים. רבי יהודה אומר כשם שאין מורידין אלא על פי שנים כך אין מעלין אלא על פי שנים. אמר רבי לעזר אימתי, בזמן שיש עוררין, אבל בזמן שאין עוררין מעלין לכהונה על פי עד אחד. היאך ערער? אמרו היאך קפץ פלוני לכהונה שלא נשא כפיו מעולם, שלא נטל חלקו17בתרומה. מימיו, אין זה ערער. שהוא בן גרושה, או בן חלוצה, כותי, נתין וממזר, הרי זה ערער. רבי העלה לכהונה על פי עד אחד [רבי יוסי העלה לכהונה על פי עד אחד]. נפלה חלזון18\"חלזון\" הוא חלזה, הלעזה, ערעור בלתי מוגדר אלא כשמועה בלבד. בעיר, אמר רבי יוסה אין חלזון ראיה, אלא כל שיש לו ערער יבוא ויאמר. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר משם רבי שמעון בן הסגן, מעלין לכהונה על פי עד אחד, ולא על פי עד אחד אלא על פי אשה, לא כשתבא אשה לבית דין אלא כשתאמר יתנו לו\"19תוס', כתובות פ\"ב ה\"ג ומקבילות כגון בבלי, בבא בתרא לא ע\"ב - לב ע\"א; קידושין עג ע\"ב; עו ע\"ב ועוד. \"ערער\" הוא המינוח לכל ערעור על מצב משפטי, אך התייחד לערעור על ייחוס ומעמד משפחתי. אין האישה חייבת לבוא לבית הדין אלא דיינו שאומרת \"תנו לו תרומה\", וסומכין עליה כשם שסומכין עליה בשאר איסורים. . ", + "ההלכה מעידה על עיסוק משפטי וחברתי בנושא, הושבת בית דין וקביעת נהלים להפעלתו, הלכה למעשה. מצטרפת לכך סדרת הלכות על צורת הערעור ועל הסימנים שלפיהם מעלים מישהו לכהונה או מורידים אותו ממנה. ההלכות נושאות אופי רֵאלי לחלוטין, כגון הכלל שחלוקת תרומות ונשיאת כפיים היא חזקה לכהונה, אך רק בתחום הטריטוריאלי המוגדר שבו מחלקים תרומה20תוס', כתובות פ\"ג ה\"א ומקבילותיה; בבא בתרא פ\"ז ה\"ב, וכמותן הלכות נוספות. . ", + "במפורש אנו שומעים על הושבת בית דין במעשה אחר: \"מעשה במשפחה בדרום שהיו קורין עליה ערער, ושלח רבי את רומינוס לבדקן, ובדק ומצא שנתגיירה זקנתה פחותה מבת שלשה שנים ויום אחד והכשירה לכהונה\"21ירו', ביכורים פ\"א ה\"ד, סד ע\"א; בבלי, יבמות ס ע\"ב. רבי רומנוס נזכר כנציגו של רבי לבירורים נוספים. . אם כן, הערעור נשמע ורבי מושיב דיין לבדוק את הערעור ולקבוע את ההלכה על כך.", + "כזכור, הירושלמי הוא שקובע שפסול משפחה הוא בבית דין דווקא. ניתן, אפוא, לסכם שבימי הבית נהגו לברר את מעמד משפחות הכוהנים, ובירורים אלו נעשו לצורך עבודת המקדש ובחסותו. חכמים הסכימו עם עצם התהליך, אם כי לא תמיד הסכימו עם ההחלטות עצמן. יתר על כן, מסתבר שחלק מההכרעות לא נעשו בבתי הדין של חכמים אלא בבתי דין של כוהנים וצדוקים. לאחר החורבן בולטת התנגדות להמשך העיסוק בנושא בצד גילויי עצמאות, או המשך גילויי עצמאות, של כוהנים. נראה שבימים אלו הייתה הושבת בתי דין לעיסוק בנושא נדירה, ועדות לכך הבאנו ממשנת סנהדרין. בהמשך ימי התנאים, ובעיקר מימי רבי ואילך, חזרו להושיב בתי דין שעסקו בנושא. העילה לעיסוק לא הייתה פניית המשפחה לבירור הלכתי (כמו בסתם מקרה רגיל של בירור הלכה), אלא גם ערער ציבורי מוגדר או בלתי מוגדר. בתקופה זו נקבע שקירוב וריחוק נעשים רק על פי הכרעה של בית דין. לא נגענו כאן בשאלת היחס לממזרות, והוא פרשה בפני עצמה. במבוא למסכת קידושין נרחיב בשאלה זו." + ], + [ + "וכולם שהיתה תרומה לתוך22כך גם ב- ב, ז, ל, מ, ן, ס, פ, ץ, וכן גרס רבי יהוסף אשכנזי. ביתר עדי הנוסח: \"בתוך פיהם\". פיהם רבי אליעזר אומר יבלעו רבי יהושע אומר יפלוטו אמרו לו ניטמיתה [ו]ניטמאת תרומה – וי\"ו החיבור מצויה כמעט בכל עדי הנוסח, ואפשר להבינה כתוצאה. אמרו לאוכל שהוא טמא ולכן התרומה נטמאה, שכן אפילו אם הוא טמא טומאת ולד התרומה פסולה. במסכת טהרות (פ\"ב מ\"ו-מ\"ז) מובאת מחלוקת, לדעת רבי אליעזר התרומה רק פסולה ואיננה טמאה ולדעת החולק עליו, שהוא כנראה רבי יהושע, התרומה ממש טמאה. משנתנו כרבי יהושע, כלומר התוצאה של העובדה שהוא נטמא היא תרומה טמאה.", + "רבי אליעזר אומר יבלע רבי יהושע אומר יפלוט – המחלוקת כאן כמחלוקת ברישא, והיא כללית ואיננה נובעת דווקא מרמת הטומאה של התרומה. עם זאת, אי אפשר להתעלם מכך שלדעת רבי אליעזר הטומאה פסולה ואיננה טמאה ממש, אבל כאמור זו עמדתו גם ברישא שיש בה איסור טומאה ואיסורים אחרים. המחלוקת היא מה צריך לעשות מי שהגיעה אליו הבשורה שאינו כהן ויש לו אוכל בפיו. הבעיה הכפולה היא שהמשך האכילה הוא אכילת תרומה על ידי זר, ופליטה מהפה היא בבחינת השחתת אוכלין, [אם] טמא הייתה וטמאה היתה תרומה – אין כאן חילול תרומה, שהרי כבר הייתה טמאה, או נודע שהוא טבל או מעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו – והוא אסור לאכילה עד שירים ממנו את תרומת המעשר, או מעשר שיני והקדש שלא ניפדו – ואסור לאכלם לפני הפדיון. המשנה יכולה הייתה להכביר בדוגמאות נוספות, כגון מי שאכל אוכל לא כשר ועוד. מצד אחד דרכה של המשנה לתת דוגמאות רבות, אף שחלקן מיותרות, ומצד שני בדרך כלל אין היא מונה את כל המקרים האפשריים, או שטעם טעם פישפש לתוך פיהו – פשפש הוא בעל חיים, שרץ כלשהו. הבבלי (נידה נח ע\"ב) מתחבט כיצד יודע אדם את טעם הפשפש, אבל השאלה היא ספרותית בלבד. אדם חש בטעם הזר, או בעצם זר בתוך פיו. הפשפש במשמעות זו נזכר רק בעוד מקור אחד. המשנה קובעת שאישה רשאית \"לתלות\" עצמה בבעל חיים שהרגה. הווה אומר, אם מצאה כתם של דם היא רשאית להסביר לעצמה שמקורו אינו בדם הנידה אלא בשרץ שהרגה. בהקשר זה נזכרת המאכולת, שהיא סוג של כינה, והפשפש. על כך אומר התלמוד: \"עד כמה? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: תולה בפשפש – ועד כתורמוס. תנו רבנן: פשפש זה, ארכו כרחבו, וטעמו כריחו, ברית כרותה לו – שכל המוללו מריח בו. ארכו כרחבו – לעניין כתמים, טעמו כריחו – לעניין תרומה\" (בבלי, נידה נח ע\"ב). אם כן, לפשפש יש דם והוא בעל צורה ריבועית. המשפט \"טעמו כריחו\" אמור להסביר את המונח \"טעם פשפש\", כפי שהסברנו. על כן נראה שהפשפש הוא שרץ המצוי על גוף האדם, אולי הוא הפשפש של ימינו או שרץ דומה. מכל מקום מדובר בשרץ שלם, גדול למדי, המכיל דם בכמות שיכולה ליצור כתם של ממש, ומוללים אותו כדי להרגו. להלן נחזור לעניין זה של שרצים במזון.", + "הרי זה יפלוט – בכל המקרים הללו אין חשש של השחתת תרומה, ולכן לכל הדעות יש לפלוט את המאכל האסור. ", + "הירושלמי (מה ע\"ב) מסביר את טעמם של החולקים ומציע שני הסברים, הראשון שלרבי אליעזר אם התחיל בהיתר רשאי לסיים את שבפיו, והשני שלדעת רבי אליעזר לעוס כבלוע, ואם החל ללעוס כאילו כבר בלע. ההסבר הראשון קשה ביותר. הרי במשנה הקודמת השתמש רבי יהושע בנימוק שהתחיל בהיתר ורבי אליעזר חלק עליו; אמנם ייתכן שכאן הוא יקבל את הנימוק, אך קשה להניח שכך תתהפכנה הדעות. ראשונים, אבות עולם, מצאו אמנם נימוקים להבדל בין המשניות, אך קשה להניח היפוך כה מלא. ההסבר השני, ואותו מביא רבי נתן, מעביר את המחלוקת לנושא אחר מזה של משנה א, האם לעוס כבלוע. אמנם ההסבר נשמע כוללני ומקיף, והתלמוד אף אומר שכלל זה נכון גם בדיני שבת ובדיני פסח, אך איננו מכירים לו מקבילות. רבי יוחנן מסביר שרבי אליעזר חולק רק ברישא, כלומר בעבד ואישה הנזכרים במשנה א, אבל לא במקרים שבמשנה ב. הווה אומר, רבי אליעזר אומר \"לעוס כבלוע\" רק לעניין תרומה, כשיש חשש של השחתת תרומה (ריבמ\"ץ, ר\"ש ועוד), אבל אם אין חשש זה הרי הוא מצטרף לדעתו של רבי יהושע, כמו שאמרנו. ", + "המשנה קובעת בפשטות שהאוכל פשפש צריך לפלוט את האוכל מפיו, ורואה באכילת השרץ עברה לכל דבר23לפי המשנה בחולין ודאי שצריך לפלוט את הפשפש, ורק בתרומה התחבטו בשל השחתת תרומה. ראו ר\"ש, רא\"ש, מלאכת שלמה ואחרים. . אבל התמונה ההלכתית אינה שלמה ללא עיון במקבילות. מתברר שחכמים הקלו באכילת שרצים קטנים: \"האוכל את הדירה24ראו משנה, פרה פ\"ט מ\"ב. שם הדירה אינה פוסלת מי חטאת שנפלה אליהם מפני \"שאין בה לחה\". ואת הנמלה ואת הכינה שבתבואה חייב. את הזיז בעדשין ואת יתושין שבכליסין25סוג קטניות נחות ששימש למאכל אדם רק בשעת הדחק, ראו תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ו. ואת התולעין שבתמרים ושבגרוגרות – פטור. פרשו וחזרו – חייב. את התולעין שבעיקרי אילנות ואת הקפא שבירק – חייב. יבחושין שביין ושבחומץ – הרי אילו מותרין. אם סינן – הרי אילו אסורין. רבי יהודה אומר המפנין (המסנן26כך בכתב יד ערפורט. ) את היין ואת החומץ והמברך על החמה – הרי זה דרך אחרת\" (תוס', פ\"ז הי\"א). לא נעסוק כאן בפרטי ההלכות והמקבילות; מצינו במקבילות מחלוקות על כמה מהפרטים המנויים בתוספתא27ראו, למשל, הדיון על אכילת הקפא שבמרור בבבלי, פסחים קטו ע\"ב; קטז ע\"ב. . דומה שהעקרונות ההלכתיים ברורים. שני מרכיבים קבעו מתי אסור או מותר לאכול שרצים אלו; הראשון הוא הגודל והאם הוא ניכר לעין, והשני הוא האם השרץ בלוע באוכל. אין צורך לסנן יין שנפלו לתוכו שרצים, או שרצים קטנים שהתערבו בירקות, אך אם הם יצאו וחזרו יש להוציאם, שכן כבר אינם בלועים. ", + "הקביעה שמציע רבי יהודה היא חשובה. הוא רואה בסינון יין חשש של \"דרך אחרת\", ומשווה את המסנן למברך על החמה. המברכים על החמה עשויים להיות מינים גנוסטיים שפלחו לשמש; פולחן כזה היה רגיל במזרח הפגני. המדובר, אפוא, במינים לכל דבר. המסנן יין בסך הכול מחמיר על עצמו, ולכאורה אין בכך איסור, אף שאין חובה בדבר. רבי יהודה משווה את מסנן היין לפולח לשמש כדי לבטא בצורה עקיפה את התנגדותו לנוהג, ואת הערכתו השלילית לו. רבי יהודה רומז שהיו בחברה היהודית מי שבירכו את החמה ומי שסיננו יין, שניהם שלא ברצון חכמים, וחשוב לברר מי הם היו ומדוע הסתייגו חכמים מהברכה ומסינון היין. הרי עצם הברכה על המאורות איננה פסולה בהכרח, וגם בסדר התפילות של חז\"ל יש תפילה למאורות28ברכה זו נאמרת לפני קריאת שמע, אבל היא איננה קדומה ואינה מימי הבית כפי שעולה מדיוננו בתולדות קריאת שמע, ראו המבוא למסכת ברכות. . דומה שניתן לזהות קבוצה זו ביתר דיוק. ", + "בין התפילות השונות שנמצאו במערות קומראן יש תפילה: \"בצאת השמש להאיר על הארץ יברכו...\"29503 Q4, ראו מסמכי מדבר יהודה, ז, עמ' 136-105. . החוקרים קושרים בדרך כלל את התפילה לתפילת המאורות של חז\"ל, אך כנראה זו תפילה מיוחדת שנאמרה רק אחת לשנים מספר30נחמן, ברכה. . נראה שלאומרי ברכה זו התכוון רבי יהודה בדברי הגינוי שלו. ", + "מסתבר שהאיסיים הם גם אלו שסיננו את היין. חז\"ל פיתחו מערכת של \"שיעורים\" ולפיה כל דבר מטמא או פוסל רק כשהוא כשיעור. לעומת זאת בספרות הכיתתית טומאה היא בכל שהוא, על כן טוען כנראה בעל מגילת המקדש שעצם מטמאה בכל שהוא. אמנם הקטע קטוע ולא ברור איזו עמדה נקט, אך ודאי שעסק בכך31מקצת מעשה תורה, מגילות מדבר יהודה, כז, עמ' 54. . בקטע אחר בספרות קומראן יש דיון נוסף ובו נקבעים שיעורים שונים32וכהולדר, קטעים א, עמ' 14, 32, 38, כולם מברית דמשק או מחיבור דומה. יש גם עדויות נוספות לכך שייתכן שלחלק מהשיעורים התנגדו בני הכת. . אם כן הייתה בנושא מחלוקת כיתתית, ומכאן ההדגשה כי השיעורים השונים שחז\"ל קבעו הם אמת מוחלטת, בבחינת \"הלכה למשה מסיני\"33ראו פירושנו ליומא פ\"ח מ\"ב. .", + "על כן מתאים שהאיסיים הם אלו שבירכו על החמה וסיננו את היין. התנגדותם של חכמים לסינון יין נובעת מכך שהדבר נתפס לא כחומרה אלא כהלכה כיתתית." + ], + [ + "אגב הדיון בשאלה אם יש לגמור את האוכל שממנו החל לאכול ממשיכה המשנה לדון בשאלה של סיום האכילה בתנאים שונים. ", + "היה אוכל באשכל ונכנס מן הגנה לחצר – לפי ההקשר המדובר ביום חול. אשכול ענבים, כמו כל פרי אחר, חייב במעשרות רק משהובא לביתו של בעל הבית. הבאה הביתה היא אחד התנאים ל\"גמר מלאכה\", שהוא מועד החיוב במעשרות, על כן אכילת הפרי בגינה או בשדה אינה מחייבת במעשרות. כל זמן שהפרי בגינה הוא פטור ממעשרות; ברגע שנכנס הבעל לחצר הוא חייב במעשרות (מעשרות פ\"ג מ\"ה ומ\"ט)34בירו', מה ע\"ג, מובאת דעתו של רבי יוחנן שחצר פטורה ממעשרות, ודומה שהדבר תלוי בסוג החצר, כמו שנקבע במעשרות פ\"ג מ\"ה. סוגיית הירושלמי למשנתנו (מה ע\"ג) קושרת את דברי רבי אליעזר לדברי רבי טרפון במעשרות פ\"ג מ\"ט, ודומה שאין הכרח בקישור זה, ראו פירושנו למשנה שם. , אבל אין הוא יכול לאכול לפני שיפריש מעשרות, וגם אין הוא יכול להפריש את המעשר מהפרי בעת האכילה.", + "רבי אליעזר אומר יגמור – לפי העיקרון לעיל שלעוס כבלוע, מה שהחל באכילתו כאילו כבר נאכל. בהבנה הפשוטה \"יגמור\" הכוונה שיגמור בחצר. אבל ראשונים (הרמב\"ם, ר\"ש ואחרים) פירשו שיצא מהחצר ויגמור את הפרי. כל זאת כדי לתאם בין המשנה לבין עדותו של רבי נתן שנביא להלן. כמו כן בסיפא, \"יגמור\" משמעו יחכה למוצאי שבת ויגמור. פירוש זה קשה. אפשר להבין את התביעה שאדם האוכל פרי בשבת יפסיק וימתין עם סיום האכילה למוצאי שבת, אבל אי אפשר לקרוא לכך \"יגמור\". לדעתנו את המשנה יש להעמיד כפשוטה, שיגמור מיד, ורבי נתן החמיר ואמר שיחכה למוצאי שבת, כפי שנביא להלן, וכן פירש בעל מלאכת שלמה35בעל מלאכת שלמה שואל על מה חולק רבי יהושע, הרי למוצאי שבת ודאי שיכול לגמור. טיעון זה משכנע פחות, הרי לרבי אליעזר במוצאי שבת ובגינה יכול לגמור מבלי לעשר, ורבי יהושע דורש שיעשר. .", + "רבי יהושע אומר לא יגמור – רבי יהושע, כדרכו, סבור שלעוס אינו כבלוע, לכן יוציא את האוכל מפיו, יעשר (מפֵרות אחרים על פרי זה) ויאכל ללא הפרעה. במקרה זה אין כל סיבה לכך שלא יוציא את האוכל מפיו, בניגוד למקרה הקודם שהיה בו חשש של השחתת תרומה. ", + "הגינה היא בדרך כלל גינת הירקות, שטח מושקה. המשנה מדגימה את דבריה ברישא ובסיפא במקרה של גפן בגינה הצמודה לחצר, זאת משום שהגינה הייתה לעתים קרובות סמוכה לחצר36להגדרת המונח \"גינה\" ראו נספח א למסכת עירובין. . ", + "חשיכה לילי שבת רבי אליעזר לא יגמור37גם כאן מפרשים הרמב\"ם, הר\"ש ואחרים שיגמור במוצאי שבת, והפירוש קשה כפי שאמרנו ברישא. רבי יהושע אומר יגמור – בשבת אסור לעשר או להפריש תרומות, משום שיש בכך התקנת האוכל והכשרתו לאכילה (משנה, מעשרות פ\"ד מ\"ב). על כן הפתרון של הוצאת האוכל והפרשת תרומה מיד איננו מעשי. עם זאת, חילוף השמות והדעות קשה: וכי למה ישנה כאן רבי אליעזר את דעתו? וגם לדעת רבי יהושע, כפי שהיא ברישא, צריך להוציא את האוכל ולהמתין למוצאי שבת ואז יעשר כהלכה. פרשנים ראשונים העלו הצעות חריפות להיפוך העמדות, אך לפני שנפתחים שערי פירושים יש לברר את נוסח משנה. למשנתנו שלוש נוסחאות עיקריות:", + "1. הנוסח שצוטט לעיל38וכן ב- ב, ג7, ן (לפני התיקון), ת. . ", + "2. בדפוסים ובכמה עדי נוסח: \"רבי יהושע אומר יגמור ורבי אליעזר אומר לא יגמור\"39ורשה, ו, ר, ת2. . נוסח זה משנה את סדר התנאים אך מותיר על כנן את העמדות השונות. בכל המחלוקות בפרקנו רבי אליעזר בא לפני רבי יהושע, על כן יש מקום לטעון שגם במשנה שלנו הסדר אינו שונה. ", + "3. בכמה עדי נוסח אחרים: \"רבי אליעזר אומר יגמור ורבי יהושע אומר לא יגמור\"40כך, בשינויים קלים, ב- א, ז, ט, כ, ל, מ, נ, ן (לאחר התיקון), ס, פ, ץ, ש, ת3. . כן הנוסח אצל כמה ראשונים, אם כי ניכר שחלק מהם הכירו גם נוסחאות אחרות41זקש, זרעים, מביא כמה מהראשונים כגון רש\"י ורבנו חננאל לביצה ע\"א; ספר והזהיר ח\"א נה ע\"א; רבנו חננאל לפסחים קה ע\"א; ריבמ\"ץ ותוי\"ט למשנתנו. בעל מלאכת שלמה מצטט בשם \"רוב ספרים\" כנוסח הדפוס, ומכריע כנוסח השלישי המוצע כאן. עוד מובאים שם ראשונים שגרסו כל אחד גרסה אחרת משלוש הגרסאות המוצעות כאן. . ראשונים שתירצו כאן את חילופי העמדות גרסו כאחת הנוסחאות הראשונות.", + "ההכרעה בין הנוסחאות השונות אינה פשוטה. לכאורה יש עדיפות מכרעת לנוסח 3. הוא מותיר את עמדות הראשונים על כנן, ואת סדר התנאים במשנה כמו המשניות הקודמות בסדרה. ברם, דווקא \"פתרון קל\" זה חשוד, שהרי לכאורה אם כך היה מה ראו מעתיקים לשנות את הסדר ואת רצף ההלכות והטיעונים? נוסח 2 הוא הקשה ביותר, גם הסדר שונה וגם העמדות הפוכות, ולכאורה הקשיים מטים את הכף לחשוב כי זה הנוסח הנכון. נוסח 1 הוא בעל עדיפות נמוכה ביותר. יש בו תיקון מֵכני של סדר הדוברים אך העמדות ההלכתיות הפוכות, אם כי הוא נתמך על ידי כתב יד קופמן שבדרך כלל נוסחאותיו מקוריות ומבוססות. להערכתנו הנוסח השלישי הוא המקורי, והוא נתמך על ידי מספר גדול של עדי נוסח, כולל ראשונים. הנוסחאות האחרות הן תיקון של סופרים שתמהו מדוע חוזרת אותה עמדה שלוש פעמים. לכאורה אם ביום רגיל נחלקים רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע, והמשנה קובעת דין מיוחד לליל שבת, מכאן שבלילות שבת הדין שונה או הפוך. הנוסחה השנייה היא מעין תיקון של נוסחה זו על ידי סידור שמות הדוברים בסדר \"הנכון\". אם כן, הנוסחה השלישית היא המקורית, והאחרות הן תיקונים של מעתיקים שניסו ליצור מצב שבו לא תחזור המשנה על עצמה. אבל לפי דרכנו אין צורך בתיקון. המשנה אכן חוזרת על אותה עמדה שלוש פעמים. ההלכות השונות נשנו כל אחת במקומה, בהקשר אחר או בבית מדרש אחר. העורך (או אפילו העורך הקדום שלפני עורך המשנה שלנו) ליקט את ההלכות השונות ולא חש צורך לקצר או לאחד את המשניות. ", + "בתוספתא מוסר רבי נתן את דעתו של רבי אליעזר באופן שונה: \"ימתין עד שתצא שבת ויצא לחצר ויגמור\" (פ\"ז ה\"י)42רבי נתן עלה מבבל כחכם העומד ברשות עצמו, ואף שפעל בדור אושא כמעט אינו נזכר במשנה. אבל בתוספתא הוא נזכר רבות, ועוד יותר במדרשי ההלכה ובברייתות בתלמודים. בדרך כלל הוא עומד בפני עצמו וממעט למסור דברי אחרים, כנראה משום שלא למד בחבורות הלימוד בארץ. עם זאת, פעמים מספר הוא מוסר את תורתו של רבי אליעזר (כגון לעיל מ\"א, ראו פירושנו שם; תוס', פ\"ט ה\"ח; פסחים פ\"ג ה\"ח; כלים בבא בתרא פ\"ד ה\"ג), וכן מוסר בשם רבי טרפון (תוס', זבחים פ\"ב הי\"ג) שהיה מקורב לרבי אליעזר. רבי נתן לא פגש את שני החכמים הללו שכן הם מתו לפני עלייתו, אך פגש את תלמידיו, אולי את רבי אלעאי מאושא שבגליל, או תלמידים אחרים, ואולי הגיעו תלמידים כאלה לבבל ומהם למד. זיקתו להלכה הבבלית הקדומה עדיין מחייבת בירור. . אם כן, לרבי אליעזר לעוס אינו כבלוע לגמרי, ואם יש אפשרות נאותה אסור לו לגמור את הפרי לפני הפרשת מעשרות. עמדה זו חוזרת בירושלמי (מה ע\"ג), ושוב מדגיש רבי נתן שרבי אליעזר אינו סבור שאם התחיל בהיתר מותר לו לסיים. מכל מקום, הסברו של רבי נתן עומד בניגוד מה להסברו של רבי נתן את דעתו של רבי אליעזר במשנה א (לעוס כבלוע). דומה שיותר משמשקף רבי נתן את טעמו של רבי אליעזר הוא משקף את עמדתו שלו, עמדה המקבלת את דברי רבי אליעזר, בעיקרם, אך מערבת לתוך דבריו מרכיב מדברי רבי יהושע, שאם יכול להמתין ימתין. אבל בתלמוד הבבלי (ביצה לה ע\"א) מוסבר שרבי נתן כדרכו, וגם במשניות הקודמות רבי אליעזר מחייב להמתין, אם הדבר אפשרי, ולהשלים את האכילה בהיתר43בירו', מעשרות פ\"ג ה\"ח, נ ע\"ד, נעשה ניסיון לקשר בין שיטת רבי אליעזר לבין שיטת רבי טרפון. שני חכמים אלו אכן קרובים זה לזה, אבל ספק אם אכן כאן זו שיטה הלכתית אחת. . כפי שהבאנו בגוף המשנה כך מפרשים ראשונים (רמב\"ם, ר\"ש) את דברי רבי אליעזר במשנה. אך דומה שרבי נתן חולק על משנתנו ומחדש בדברי רבי אליעזר החמרה שאינה בדבריו כפי שהביאם עורך המשנה. " + ], + [ + "יין שלתרומה שניתגלה ישפך – משנתנו עוסקת ב\"גילוי\" נוזלים. קדמונינו האמינו שיש בגילוי סכנה של ממש, והחשש הוא שארס הנחש מרעיל את המים. הנימוק הוא \"מפני שהוא סכנת נפשות\" (רמב\"ם). לאחר שנפרש את ההלכה במשנה נרחיב בכך. כאמור אין להשחית תרומה, ואף על פי כן יש להשמיד יין של תרומה, או גם משקאות אחרים (להלן), משום שהם כבר מושחתים על ידי עצם הגילוי. ההלכה חורגת מהתחום ההלכתי הרגיל, שכן חכמים משתדלים בדרך כלל לצמצם את השחתת התרומה, ובכלל נמנעים מהשחתתה בידיים (להלן מ\"ט), וכאן נפסק שיש להשמיד את התרומה, בידיים, אף על פי שאולי לא נגע נחש ביין, והחשש אינו מוכח. זאת ועוד; כפי שנראה להלן חשש הנחש מעורב היה בחששות מיסטיים, ואולי היה מקום לצפות לכך שהחובה ההלכתית לשמור על התרומה תגבר על חששות אלו. המשנה מנוסחת כהלכה לכל דבר. אין כאן היתר לשפוך את היין, או עצה טובה, אלא חובה לכל דבר. הווה אומר, חשש הגילוי אינו רק סכנה פיזית אלא גם חשש דתי. [ו]אין צורך לומר שלחולים – בחולין אין מרכיב של איסור להשחית תרומה, ולכן יין של חולין שהתגלה יישפך מקל וחומר. ", + "שלשה משקין אסורין משם גילויי – אסורים אם נתגלו, ללא קשר לתרומה, שהרי ממים וחלב אין מפרישים תרומה ולא ייתכן שהם יהיו של תרומה, המים והיין והחלב ושאר כל משקין מותרין – מותר לשתותם, וכאן שוב ברור שחל איסור הלכתי על שתיית מים מגולים. בתוספתא ובתלמודים יש מסורת משלימה וחולקת על חמישה מיני משקים האסורים בגילוי: \"הציר והמורייס והחומץ והשמן והדבש, רבי שמעון אוסר בדבש, מודין חכמים לרבי שמעון בשראו אותו נוקר\"44ירו', מה ע\"ד; לנוסח התוס', פ\"ז הי\"ב, ראו להלן; בבלי, חולין י ע\"א. . יש להניח שהירושלמי יודה ביין ובמים והחמישה הם בנוסף להם, והרי זו כמעט רשימת שבעת המשקים הרגילה. במדרש תהילים מובאת סדרת דרשות להנמקת משנתנו (קלו, ד, עמ' רס). ", + "כמה [שיהו – ישהו] – \"שיהו\" נכתב ונמחק, ובצד תיקן המעתיק וניקד \"ישהו\", ויהו אסורין כדי שיצא הרחש ממקום קרוב וישתה – הרחש הוא כינוי לנחש או לבעל החיים המזיק. מכל מקום, ארס הנחש הוא האיום שממנו יש להיזהר. אם כן, זמן הגילוי תלוי באפשרות החדירה של הנחש, ומן הסתם גם בנסיבות. אם כוס היין עומדת על השולחן במשך כל הסעודה אין היא בחזקת יין מגולה. מן הסתם נוכחות אנשים בסביבת הכוס שוללת את הסיכוי שהנחש יגיח, וכיוצא באלו מצבים נוספים. הבבלי מסביר: \"וכמה מקום קרוב? אמר רב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה: כדי שיצא מתחת אוזן כלי וישתה. ישתה? הא קא חזי ליה! (הרי הוא רואה אותו) אלא ישתה ויחזור לחורו\" (בבלי, חולין י ע\"א). הסבר התלמוד מובן, ובכלל יש להבין את המשפט בצורה כללית ופחות \"משפטית\". ", + "בתוספתא ובירושלמי מתנהלים דיונים ארוכים על הגילוי (פ\"ז הי\"ב; הי\"ז; ירו', מה ע\"ג - מו ע\"א), ואי אפשר להתחמק מהרושם שהנושא היה חשוב לחכמים. גם במדרשי ארץ ישראל האיסור חוזר ונזכר כדבר רגיל הידוע לכול ואיש אינו מטיל בו ספק45תנח' בובר, ויחי יב, עמ' 218; אגדת בראשית, פג א, עמ' 159; בבלי, חולין מט ע\"ב (למשנה שם פ\"י מ\"א). בירושלמי, למשל, נקבע שחלב גוי אסור משום שאין הנכרים מקפידים על גילוי (ירו', מה ע\"ד; שבת פ\"א ה\"ד, ג ע\"ד; עבודה זרה פ\"ב ה\"ט, מא ע\"ד), אבל יש גם המציע שהאיסור נובע מחשש תערובת של חלב בהמה טמאה. בתלמוד הבבלי (עבודה זרה לה ע\"ב) מופיע רק הנימוק השני. . בתלמוד הבבלי נזכר כמובן עניין הגילוי, אבל המידע סביבו והעיסוק בו תופסים מקום חשוב פחות46הבבלי, שבת קכח ע\"ב, מדגיש את מרכיב הסכנה ומכחיש או מרחיק את הדמיון בין איסור זה לבין איסור רגיל כגון מום או טומאה, וראו עוד חולין ט ע\"ב; י ע\"א ועוד. . אין בתלמוד ביטוי להסתייגות מאיסור גילוי, אבל העיסוק בו אינטנסיבי פחות. רוב המקורות מזכירים את הגילוי כחשש ברור של סכנת נפשות. עם זאת, מבין השיטין מבצבץ חשש אחר המשתלב בחשש הראשון, ויש לו אופי מיסטי, מה שכיום היה מכונה \"אמונה עממית\" או \"אמונה תפלה\". נזכיר עוד שהמחקר המודרני משוכנע שארס נחש שנעקר מפיו של הנחש אינו מסוכן, ושהייתו באוויר מנטרלת אותו. לשם הדגמה נביא את ההלכות בתוספתא פ\"ז, שלרובן מקבילה בירושלמי. ", + "\"הציר, והחומץ, והמורייס, והשמן והדבש מותרין משום גלוי, ורבי שמעון אוסר. אמר רבי שמעון: אני ראיתיו ששתה ציר בצידן, אמרו לו אין ראיה מן השוטין\" (הי\"ב). אם כן, ה\"שוטים\" סבורים שנחש שותה גם ציר (שמן ורוטב של דגים). אמנם רבי שמעון מעיד כביכול על מה שראו עיניו, אך חכמים מתעלמים מעדות \"מדעית\" זו ואין היא משנה את הבנת המציאות שלהם. הדיון הקצר מרמז שהבעיה איננה רק בריאותית; המחמיר אינו זהיר יותר אלא שוטה, והאיסור מוצג כהתנהגות בעלת ערך, ולא רק כזהירות.", + "\"רבי נחמיה אומר: אפאה הרי זו מותרת, מפני שארס של נחש כלה באור. מי כבושין, מי שלקות, מי תרמוסין, אין בהן משום גלוי. מים ששרה בהן כבושין, שלקות ותורמסין, אם יש בהן נותן טעם מותרין, ואם לאו אסורין. מים שהדיח בהן עובטין ודרמסקניות לחולה, אין בהן משום גלוי. מים שנתגלו וחיממן, אסורין משום גלוי. מים חמין כל זמן שמעלין הבל אין בהן משום גלוי\" (תוס', פ\"ז הי\"ג). בניגוד לצפוי מתברר שהנחש שותה רק מים נקיים, ולא מים שכבשו או שבישלו בהם. פת שנאפתה במים מגולים מותרת משום שהארס כלה בחום, אבל חימום המים אינו מכלה את הארס. קשה לתאר הסבר פיזי אחיד להגדרות אלו. מכל מקום המינוח הוא \"מותר\" ו\"אסור\", כאילו היה זה איסור הלכתי רגיל, ולא זהירות מרעל. ", + "בירושלמי יש סדרה מקבילה של הלכות ותוספות רבות. גם בירושלמי עולה אותו רושם של איסור הנובע מחשש \"רֵאלי\" של הרעלה, בשילוב מרכיב מעין מיסטי של פחד מארס הנחש. בירושלמי נוסף פן נוסף של סיפורים על מי שאינו חושש ממים מגולים. מעשה בחסיד אחד שלגלג על החשש ממים גלויים ונענש בכך שהיה חולה ונאלץ לדרוש ביום הכיפורים ובידו כוס מים (ירו', יומא פ\"ח ה\"א, מה ע\"ג). החסיד מזלזל באיסור משום שחסידים מתירים לעצמם להסתכן בסכנת נפשות כיוון שהם סומכים על הנס. החסידים מצטיירים בספרות חז\"ל כקבוצה המצויה בשולי בית המדרש, ובעיקר בית המדרש התנאי. יש להם חומרות משלהם, והם אולי גם מקלים בכמה מההלכות. הם בולטים במעשי נס הנעשים להם בשביל עצמם ובשביל מי שהתפללו בעבורם. כך, למשל, הם מופיעים רבות כמתפללים על חולים ועל ירידת גשמים47ספראי, חסידים; ספראי, משנת חסידים; ספראי, חסידות; ספראי וספראי, חסידים וחכמים; ובקצרה פירושנו לברכות פ\"ה מ\"א. . להבנת הקטע בירושלמי חשוב לציין שהחסיד אינו מקבל את הטיעון שפיקוח נפש דוחה מצוות ומוכן להסתכן ולסמוך על הנס, ובלבד שלא לפגוע במשהו בקיום מצווה. סיפורי הנסים על רבי חנינא בן דוסא הם דוגמה לכך (ראו פירושנו לברכות פ\"ה ה\"א). עם זאת, כאן החסיד מצטייר כמי שלא רק סומך על הנס אלא \"מלגלג\" על נוהגים יהודיים שאמנם אינם בבחינת מצוות, אך הם נוהגים רצויים הזוכים לברכתם של חכמים, והסוגיה סוברת שעליו להיענש. זאת ועוד, האיסור מצטייר לא כאזהרה מפני רעל אלא כמצווה. כמו כן נאמר שאם ראה אנשים ששתו מים גלויים אסור לשתות אחריהם (מתוך הבנה שהם לא נפגעו ומכאן שהמים נקיים), שמא \"ארס שוקע\" הוא. האזהרה מעידה שוב על כך שהאיסור הוא יותר מהחשש מארס, וכאילו החשש והפחד מהרעל \"מגויס\" להפחדה מאיסור שורשי יותר שמים ללא כיסוי הם מים מופקרים וחסרי ברכה. יוספוס מצטט את הרמיפוס המצטט את פיתגורס; הלה כותב על מנהג יהודי שלא לשתות \"מי נחשים\"48נגד אפיון, א 164; שטרן, סופרים, עמ' 95; התרגום לפי ליברמן, ירושלמי, עמ' 49. . בכך יש מקבילה קדומה למשנה, אך בעיקר משתמע ממנה כי לפנינו מנהג דתי יהודי, ולא נוהג המבטא זהירות וחשש רפואי. גם המדרש מציג את האיסור באופן זה ומוצא סיוע (רחוק) מפסוקים ששלושת המשקים הללו אסורים בגילוי (מדרש תהילים, קלו ד, עמ' 520-519). בירושלמי (מו ע\"א) מוסיף רבי הושעיה שאיסור מים מגולים חל בחורף ובקיץ, בארץ ובחוץ לארץ. ושוב, לו היה זה איסור מחשש סכנה בלבד לא היה צריך להדגיש שהוא נוהג גם בחוץ לארץ, וכי שם אין צורך בכללי זהירות ראשוניים? ", + "היו גם חכמים שהסתייגו מהפן המיסטי הרמוז. בעל מלאכת שלמה למסכת סוכה (פ\"ד מ\"י), למשל, מסביר שאם יש ארס במים הרי שאין כאן מים כשיעור, ומן הסתם גם אסור להרבות במים, ולכן המים פסולים. הסבר זה ניתן בקושי להלמו למסכת סוכה, אך אין הוא מסביר את העדויות האחרות לסכנה שבמים מגולים. ", + "הלומד בן זמננו מוצא עצמו לעתים מחפש אחר הסבר לאיסור שיהלום את תפיסותיו המדעיות. ברם, מניע פרשני זה אינו מקדם את הבנת המשנה. את המשנה יש להבין מתוך עולמם של חכמים, והסכנה, כמו גם הפחד המיסטי, היו חלק בלתי נפרד ממנו. ", + "התוספתא קובעת שאסור אפילו לשפוך מים מגולים לרשות הרבים ולא להשקות מהם בהמה (הי\"ד). אמנם, לגבי השקאת בהמה מצאנו גם דעות אחרות ומחלוקת חכמים49תוס', שבת פי\"ד ה\"ט; ירו', מה ע\"ד; בבלי, בבא קמא טו ע\"ב; בבא בתרא צז ע\"ב. . כן נאסר להשתמש במים מגולים לניסוך המים (ראו פירושנו לסוכה פ\"ד מ\"י). לא נאמר האם גם איסור זה הוא מפני סכנה (לכהן או למזבח?) או שהמים נחשבים כבלתי ראויים לאדם ומשום כך אינם ראויים גם לגבוה. " + ], + [ + "שיעור המים המגולים כדי שתאבד בהן המידה – בכל יתר עדי הנוסח \"שתאבד בהם המרה\", כלומר ארס הנחש, ודומה שבכתב יד קופמן נפל שיבוש קל, ואולי \"תאבד המידה\" פירושו שזו כמות מים גדולה שאינה נמדדת. מכל מקום ההגדרה היא כללית, שהארס לא ייראה במים. הבעיה היא כמובן שאת הארס אי אפשר לראות כלל; הרי אילו ניתן היה לראותו היה גם ניתן לקבוע מתי המים נקיים. המשנה גם אינה מסבירה האם כוונתה למידה המזערית, שמכמות זו המים נחשבים למגולים, או לכמות המרבית. האם נחש אחד יכול להרעיל את כל אגם הכנרת? ואכן רבי יוסי מגדיר את כמות המים במדויק, כרגיל בהלכה.", + "רבי יוסה אומר בכלים כל שהן ובקרקעות ארבעים סאה – \"כל שהן\" היא בדרך כלל הגדרה לכמות המזערית, אבל בהקשר של משנתנו זו הגדרה לכמות המרבית. כל כלי מים מגולים אסור, ואפילו הוא גדול ביותר, אבל איגום קרקעי (בור מים, מקווה) שיש בו ארבעים סאה אינו בחזקת מים מגולים. ארבעים סאה הוא שיעור המינימום למקווה, ומעל מידה זו אין המים בחזקת סכנה. ואכן, חלק גדול מהבורות בארץ ומברכות המים היו מגולים, וקל וחומר מעיינות ומקוואות מים זורמים, וכל אלו אינם בחזקת סכנה. בתוספתא הגדרה מצמצמת בהרבה: \"וכמה הן, בקרקעות ארבעים סאה, אחרים אומרים סאתים, בין מכונסין בין מפוזרין. רבי נחמיה אומר כדי שתהא חבית של שועין מתמלא מהן. מעין כל זמן שהוא מושך אין בו משום גלוי. אמר רבי ישמעאל בי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה: מעשה שהלך רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אצל רבי יוחנן בן נורי לבית שערים, ומצא גבי שאין בו שלשת לוגין, ושחה ושתה ממנו. היין בין בכלים בין בקרקע אסור\" (תוס', פ\"ז הי\"ד; ירו', מו ע\"א). דבריהם של \"אחרים\" נאמרו על המשפט הקודם, \"בקרקעות ארבעים סאה...\", ועל כך חלקו ואמרו שבקרקעות סאתיים, כלומר כ- 20 ליטר. המידה של סאתיים נזכרת במקורות נוספים להלכות אחרות. בהקשר למידת הנוזל שיערנו כי זו נחשבה לכמות הרגילה של צריכת מים יומית50משנה, פאה פ\"ג מ\"ו; פ\"ו מ\"ו; שביעית פ\"ה מ\"ב; להלן פ\"י מ\"ח. לצריכה היומית ראו פירושנו לעירובין פ\"ח מ\"ט. . רבי נחמיה מציע כמות אחרת, בור או שלולית שניתן למלא מהם חבית של \"שועין\". ליברמן פירש שאין \"שועין\" אלא שיחין, והכוונה לכפר הגלילי שהיה מרכז חשוב לייצור כלי חרס בגליל התחתון. שיחין זו מצויה למרגלות ציפורי, ושימשה כספק העיקרי של סדרת כלים מוגדרים, ביניהם חבית. החבית הגלילית הרגילה היא כלי שמידתו 20-15 ליטר51לזיהוי שיחין ראו אדן, שיחין. . אם כן, מקווה מים שיש בו סאתיים הוא לערך גם מה שמכילה חבית של שיחין, וקרובות שתי המידות להיות שוות. מן הראוי להעיר שבמקרים רבים שבהם חכמים מוסרים שתי מידות \"קרובין דבריהן להיות שוין\" (תוס', בכורות פ\"ד ה\"א, עמ' 538; ירו', ברכות פ\"א ה\"א, ב ע\"א, ועוד).", + "לפי התוספתא המעשה ברבי יוחנן בן ברוקא מדגים את הדעה שמים המצויים בקרקע אפילו בכמות קטנה אין בהם משום גלוי, ותימה הוא שדעה זו לא נאמרה במפורש. אבל בירושלמי נשתמר נוסח מתוקן וטוב יותר, שהגשמים היו \"מטפטפים ויורדים\" ולכן התירום, כלומר זו דוגמה לכלל \"מעין כל זמן שהוא מושך אין בו משום גלוי\". לפי פירוש זה שימר הירושלמי את הנוסח המלא של הברייתא, ואין מי שסבור שכמות מים קטנה בקרקע אין בה גילוי (איור 23). " + ], + [ + "ניקורי תאינים וענבים הקישואים והדילועים [ו]האבטיחים והמלפפונות – כל אלו פֵרות או ירקות שיש בהם רטיבות רבה, ונוקרו על ידי מזיק כלשהו. החשש הוא שמא ניקר אותם נחש, ומההמשך ברור שהם נחשבים כמי שהנחש הטיל בהם את ארסו. אמנם לעיל שנינו שרק שלושה משקים אסורים, אך הרשימה שם לא כללה ירקות ופֵרות שאינם משקים.", + "אפילו הן בכד – שתי גרסאות עיקריות למשנה, \"ככר\" ו\"בכד\". הנוסחה הראשונה היא נוסחת הדפוסים ומעט עדי נוסח, רובם מטיב משני52דו, ו, כ, ש, ת, ת2, . , והשנייה בכתב יד קופמן ובעדים נוספים53א, ב, ג7, ל, ן, ס, פ; והזהיר, עמ' עח. , ובכתב יד אחד \"כבד\" (ז, הוא כתב יד לאו). מבחינת כתבי היד לנוסח השני עדיפות. בספרות הראשונים מצויות שתי הנוסחאות54ראו זק\"ש, זרעים. , וגם בעל מלאכת שלמה התחבט ביניהן. שני חכמים מדייקים אלה מעידים עדות מנוגדת על הגרסה שגרס רבי יהוסף אשכנזי. רמ\"ז (רבי משה זכותא) מעיד בשם רבי שלמה אשכנזי שרבי יהוסף גרס \"בכד\", ובעל מלאכת שלמה הביא כנראה את גרסתו \"ככר\". מי שגרס \"ככר\" הבין שמדובר בגוש פֵרות גדול ודחוס55בעל מלאכת שלמה מציע פרשנויות אחרות מלשון כרי (ערמה) או כר וכסת, ואלו פרשנויות קשות. , ומי שגרס \"בכד\" הבין שהפֵרות בכד והנחש נשך (ניקר) אחד מהם, ואולי הטיל את ארסו בכולם, על כן כל הפרי בכד אסור לאכילה. אין צריך לומר שזו חומרה גדולה ביותר.", + "אחד גדול [ו]אחד קטן – פרי גדול ביותר שנוקרה פינה קטנה ממנו, [אחד] תלוש [ו]אחד מחובר – פרי שניקר ממנו נחש בעודו בשדה, או לאחר שנקטף, כל שיש בו לחה אסור – כל פרי שיש בו רטיבות ונחש ניקר בו אסור לאכילה, אבל פרי יבש אין חשש שהארס חלחל בכל הפרי. כאמור, ההלכה במשנה מחמירה ביותר, מעבר לחומרות המקובלות במקרה שבו נגע חלב בתבשיל בשרי או שומן של קודש בבשר חול (ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ז מ\"ב-מ\"ג). ואכן, בתוספתא מובאת דעתו של רבי שמעון בן מנסיא \"זורק את הניקור ואוכל את השאר\" (תוס', פ\"ז הט\"ז). רבי שמעון זה היה איש ה\"קהלא קדישא דבירושלם\", חבורה שהתגוררה בירושלים וחיה חיי פרישות וצדקה. בני החבורה היו קרובים לעולמם של חסידים56ספראי, קהלא קדישא. . תופעת החסידים הסתיימה בדור אושא לערך. מאוחר יותר אנו פוגשים רק חכמים הקרובים לעולמם של חסידים, כמו רבי יהושע בן לוי (ראו פירושנו למשנה האחרונה בפרק). חסידים אלו כבר מהווים חלק מעולמו של בית המדרש. בין החסידים של התקופה המאוחרת ניתן למנות את אנשי הקהלא קדישא דבירושלם. כפי שאמרנו, החסידים הרשו לעצמם ללגלג על איסור גילוי; טבעי הוא שאישיות הקרובה לעולמם תקל בדיני גילוי. ", + "ונשיכת הנחש – כך ברוב עדי הנוסח ובמדרש והזהיר, אבל בדפוסים \"נשוכת נחש\". הכוונה לבהמה שנשך אותה נחש ואסרו על אכילת בשרה, אף אם הספיקו לשחטה בטרם מתה, אסורה מפני סכנת נפשות – המשנה בחולין מדגישה שהיא \"מותרת משום טרפה ואסורה משום סכנת נפשות\" (פ\"ג מ\"ה; תוס', שם פ\"ג הי\"ט)." + ], + [ + "[המשמרת של יין אסורה מישום גילוי רבי נחמיה מתיר] – כל המשנה נשמטה מכתב יד קופמן וכן מ-ג7, ומעתיק הוסיף את המשנה בצד. גם רבי יהוסף אשכנזי מעיד שאין לגרוס אותה. זו ברייתא המצויה בירושלמי (מה ע\"ד) שהוחדרה על ידי מעתיקים למשנה, כדלהלן. המשמרת היא מעין מסננת שבה השתמשו לסינון היין מהשמרים שנותרו בו, \"שמוציאה את היין וקולטת את השמרים\" (משנה, אבות פ\"ה מט\"ו ומקבילות)57במקבילה בתלמוד הבבלי \"מסננת\", והיא היא. . את המשמרת הניחו על פי הכד המקבל או על פי הכד שממנו שפכו את היין. לעתים הייתה המשמרת חלק מהכד, ולעתים כלי בפני עצמו. לעתים ה\"משמרת\" היא אריג המשמש לסינון (תוס', כלים בבא בתרא פ\"ה הי\"ב, עמ' 595, ואולי גם משנה, שם פכ\"ח מ\"ט). משנתנו עוסקת בכלי של יין שעליו משמרת, והשאלה היא האם הארס חודר לכד דרך המסננת (איור 24).", + "בתוספתא: \"משמרת אסורה משום גלוי. רבי נחמיה אומר אם היתה תחתונה מכוסה, אף על פי שעליונה מגולה הרי זו מותרת, מפני שארס של נחש דומה לספוג ועומד במקומו\" (פ\"ז הי\"ג). נראה להסביר את דבריו שהמשמרת מונחת על הכד התחתון, ונמצא הכד התחתון מכוסה (משום מה הכלי התחתון מכונה בלשון נקבה, אך אין הכוונה למשמרת אלא לחבית58חבית וכד הם אותו כלי, והמעבר ביניהם תדיר. ), והעליונה (המשמרת) פתוחה. לדעת רבי נחמיה הארס נשאר במשמרת ואינו חודר לכד, אבל אם מזרימים יין דרך אותה משמרת גם רבי נחמיה יודה שהיין אסור. הנוסח בירושלמי שונה במקצת: \"המשמרת של יין: רבי נחמיה אומר אם היתה פקוקה מלמעלה, אף על פי שהיא פתוחה מלמטן. רבי יודה אומר אם היתה התחתונה מכוסה, אף על פי שהעליון מגולה, מותר, מפני שאירס נחש עומד כסבכה ועומד מלמעלן\" (ירו', מה ע\"ד). דברי רבי יהודה בירושלמי הם דברי רבי נחמיה בתוספתא, ודברי רבי נחמיה בירושלמי הם חידוש, אם כי משמעותו אינה ברורה. ייתכן שהכוונה למשמרת שהיא כלי בפני עצמו, והיא פקוקה מלמעלה, אבל מונחת כך שניתן להגיע לקרקעיתה הפתוחה. הברייתא מתייחסת למשנה ואומרת שמותרת אם הייתה פקוקה מלמעלה, אף על פי שהנחש יכול לזחול מתחתיה59ראו אצל ליברמן, עמ' 411, המנסה להשוות את הנוסחאות השונות. . ", + "רבי יהוסף לא גרס את כל המשנה60ראו אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 950. . בכתב יד קופמן נוספה המשנה בידי המעתיק המקורי בצד עם ניקוד. ספק זה תיקון טעות וספק תוספת ממקור אחר. בכל כתבי היד האחרים שבידינו היא מופיעה, אבל חסרה בנוסח המשנה במדרש והזהיר כמו בכתב יד קופמן שלפני התיקון. בתוספתא מופיעה כאמור ההלכה, אבל לא על סדר המשניות אלא כאילו התייחסה למשנה לעיל. גם אצל הריבמ\"ץ מופיעה המשנה לעיל, והסדר שונה מזה שבמשנה שלפנינו. גם בירושלמי משובץ הדין, בנוסח הדומה לתוספתא, כפי שציטטנו לעיל. נמצאנו למדים שהירושלמי לא הכיר את המשפט כחלק מהמשנה, אך הכיר את הברייתא כעומדת בפני עצמה. ברם, כפי שפירשנו לעיל את הירושלמי, דבריו מתייחסים למשנה, וקשה במקצת להעמיד את הברייתא כמשפט בפני עצמו או כהרחבה של התוספתא. ", + "זאת ועוד. נוסח הדברים בתוספתא ובירושלמי אינו זהה למשנה. המשנה נשמעת כקיצור של הברייתא ולא כהעתקה או העברה שלה. אם כן, עדותם של התוספתא והירושלמי בנושא אינה חד משמעית. הבבלי מצטט את הדין בנוסח \"דתניא\"61בבלי, סוכה נ ע\"א; בבא קמא קטו ע\"ב; בבא בתרא צז ע\"ב. , שהוא המונח הרגיל לציטוט הברייתא, ומביא את התוספתא ולא את המשנה, מכאן שהבבלי לא הכיר את המשפט ככתוב במשנה. כפי שנראה להלן היה לבבלי נוח יותר לצטט את המשנה. הפירוש שהוא מציע אפשרי לנוסח המשנה, אך אינו אפשרי כפירוש לנוסח הברייתא שבתוספתא. אם כן, אולי אפשר לומר שלפחות הבבלי לא הכיר את משנתנו כמשנה, ומכאן ההסבר לנוסח מדרש והזהיר שהוא בבלי, ולכתבי היד של רבי יהוסף אשכנזי62לעתים מצינו שהבבלי מצטט משניות מסדר זרעים וטהרות כאילו היו ברייתות, או בנוסח שונה מהמשנה, ואולי נובע הדבר מהיכרותם הרופפת של חכמי בבל עם משניות סדרים אלו, או שהיה להם נוסח אחר של המשנה. השאלה רחבה ולא נוכל להרחיב בה כאן, וראו פירושנו למשנה הבאה. . ", + "מכל מקום, התופעה של ברייתות שחדרו למשנה מהתוספתא או מהתלמודים היא רגילה, אם כי ברוב המקרים שאנו עדים בהם לחדירה דומה שהברייתא הועברה מדברי התלמוד הבבלי, ובמקרה שלפנינו דווקא הירושלמי או התוספתא הם המקור האפשרי לברייתא. ", + "פירשנו את המשנה כפי שעולה מכלל הנוסחאות: משנה, תוספתא וברייתא. אבל בתלמוד הבבלי מובא הדין63בבלי, סוכה נ ע\"א; בבא קמא קטו ע\"ב; בבא בתרא צז ע\"ב. ומשמע שהבבלי הבין שמעביר את היין המגולה דרך המסננת, ובאים חכמים לקבוע שהסינון אינו מסייע, ורבי נחמיה מתיר. הסבר זה אינו הולם את הנוסח שבתוספתא64זאת אף שהבבלי מצטט פחות או יותר את נוסח התוספתא. לפי הסבר הבבלי לא מובן מה פירוש המשפט שהעליונה פקוקה או התחתונה מכוסה, הרי כדי להעביר את היין דרך המסננת צריכה זו להיות פתוחה מלמעלה ומלמטה, ואם אין היין זורם אין כל בעיה, הרי היין שהיה מגולה אסור ויין שלא היה מגולה מותר! . נראה שהבבלי סטה בכוונה מפירושה הפשוט של המשנה, ובחר בהסבר קשה (מוקשה). הבבלי, לשיטתו, מנסה לצמצם את דין גילוי, וכאן הוא מוצא דרך להתיר יין מגולה על ידי סינון, לפחות לפי דברי רבי נחמיה. " + ], + [ + "המשנה אינה ממשיכה לעסוק בדין תרומה שהתגלתה. לכאורה היה מקום לטעון שההלכה מובאת משום שבהמשך נזכר גילוי התרומה כדרך או כסיבה להשחתתה, ברם המונחים \"גילוי\" ו\"כיסוי\" בהקשר של משנתנו שונים מהמונח \"גילוי\" שבמשנה הקודמת. ההקשר הוא אפוא שונה. משנתנו עוסקת בדין ספק תרומה. הספק שנזכר במשנה הוא אחת ההתפתחויות האפשריות של תערובת תרומה שנידונה בראשית הפרק ובפרקים הקודמים, כך שהנושא אינו חדש. זאת ועוד; למעשה המשנה דנה באיסור לטמא תרומה בידיים, אף שסופה להיטמא והיא אבודה. בכך חוזרת המשנה לאיסור השחתת תרומה הנדון לעיל במשניות א-ב. לאחר משניות אלו סטתה המשנה מהנושא ועסקה בדין תרומה שנתגלתה, ועתה היא חוזרת לגוף הנושא הנדון בפרק. ", + "חבית שלתרומה שנולדה לה ספק טומאה – ספק טומאה יכול להיווצר שמא נפל בה משהו טמא או שיש חשש שנגע בה טמא. תרומה שנפל בה ספק היא ספק תרומה, אסור לטמאה בידיים ואסור לשרפה משום שהיא ספק תרומה כשרה, אבל כמובן אי אפשר לאכלה.", + "רבי אליעזר אומר אם היתה מונחת במקום התורפה יניחנה במקום המוצנע – מקום התורפה הוא בניגוד למקום מוצנע, כלומר מקום שבו החשש לטומאה נוספת גדול. תורפה באופן כללי היא חולשה (תוס', סנהדרין פ\"ד ה\"ד). כך, למשל, הדרך לגנוז דברי תורה שמן הראוי לצנזר אותם (במקרה זה מדובר בתרגום ארמי אסור) היא: \"מניחין אותן במקום התורפה והן נרקבין מאיליהן\"65תוס', שבת פי\"ג ה\"ג. ההלכה בדבר גניזת תרגום ארמי עוררה מחלוקת נרחבת בין פרשנים וחוקרים, ולא נרחיב בכך במסגרת זו. . מההקשר של מקבילה זו וממשנתנו ברור שהשארת המזון במקום התורפה תוביל לכך שהתרומה תיטמא מהר, ואז ניתן יהא לשרפה כדת וכדין. תרומה רגילה חייבים להניחה במקום מוצנע (תוס', דמאי פ\"ח ה\"ט), והשאלה היא האם חובה זו חלה על תרומה כזו שכבר פסולה לשימוש בגלל חשש טומאה. רבי אליעזר אוסר זאת.", + "אם היתה מגולה יכסנה – אם היא מגולה תיפסל התרומה, ואם תכוסה תישמר. הגילוי כאן אינו הגילוי של המשנה הקודמת. אם מדובר ביין הרי שעצם הגילוי, ולו לזמן קצר, כבר פוסל אותו בוודאי. המדובר, אפוא, בפרי יבש או בחיטה, שאם אינה מכוסה תיפגע. מכל מקום, רבי אליעזר תובע להימנע מלהוסיף טומאה על טומאה, ולהשתדל בשמירת התרומה אף שאי אפשר לנצלה במאומה.", + "רבי יהושע אומר אם היתה מונחת במקום המוצנע יניחנה במקום התורפה – כדי שתיטמא מהר ויוכל לשרפה. לא ברור אם זו רשות, שרשאי להניחה במקום תורפה, או שמא זאת חובה כדי שהתרומה תיטמא ותושמד.", + "אם היתה מכוסה יגלינה – ואז תיפסל מהר. לכאורה ניתן היה לפרש שאין זו חובה, הוא רשאי לעשות כן אבל אינו חייב בכך, אבל מההמשך ברור שזו דעתו של רבן גמליאל שאינו חייב לעשות דבר לתרומה, אבל רבי יהושע סבור שעליו להניחה במקום תורפה או לגלותה כדי שתיטמא ותיפסל מהר, והספק ייפתר. יש לזכור שמצב של ספק הוא בעייתי, הוא \"מזמין\" טעויות, ובעיקר כל דרך טיפול בו היא בעייתית.", + "רבן גמליאל אומר אל יחדש בה דבר – לפי פשוטם של דברים אסור לו לעשות דבר, לטוב או לרע. עמדה זו נובעת מהספק הנובע מעמדות שני הצדדים שנזכרו במשנה לעיל. אפשר גם לפרש שאין עליו חובה לשנות דבר (שלא כשני התנאים הקודמים), אך הוא רשאי לעשות מה שלבו חפץ. מלשון המשנה נראה שיש עדיפות לפירוש הראשון.", + "שני התלמודים מסיקים שלכל הדעות אסור לו לטמא בידיים66ירו', מו ע\"א; פסחים פ\"א ה\"ז, כח ע\"א; בבלי, טו ע\"א, וראו עוד בכורות ל ע\"ב. . במשנת פסחים שנינו מחלוקת קרובה בין אותם תנאים האם מותר להוסיף טומאה על טומאה (ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"א ה\"ז). העניין אינו זהה, שכן שם דובר על מצב שבו יש לשרוף את התרומה הטמאה משום שהיא חמצית והמדובר בערב פסח, והשאלה היא האם לפני השרפה מותר להוסיף טומאה ולטמא תרומה שנטמאה בוולד הטומאה עם תרומה שנטמאה בטומאה חמורה יותר. אמנם המקרים אינם זהים67התלמודים שציטטנו לעיל מתחבטים בכך. מכל מקום, בתוספתא למשנתנו (פ\"ח הי\"ח) מובא בהקשר של משנתנו דין שרפת תרומות שנטמאו בטומאות שונות, ללמדך שאמנם הדין אינו זהה אבל ההקשר קרוב. , אך דעות שני התנאים מתאימות למשנתנו, ונראה שהמחלוקת אינה רק על המקרה שלנו או על המקרה שם, אלא כללית יותר: עד כמה יש לשמור על טהרת תרומה במקום שבו למעשה היא בלתי אפשרית לניצול וכבר נטמאה להלכה. כפי שאמרנו לעיל, מסקנה זו, שאסור לטמא תרומה פסולה בידיים, אינה מסקנת לוואי המשתמעת מהמשנה אלא המשנה הובאה בפרקנו בגלל מסקנה זו. נמצאנו למדים שפרשנותנו לסדר המשניות חושף את מטרתה ההלכתית של המשנה. ", + "הירושלמי (פסחים פ\"א ה\"ז, כח ע\"א) קושר את המחלוקת לשאלה האם יש להחמיר בדברי חכמים יותר מאשר בדברי תורה או לא. טיעון זה חוזר בירושלמי כהסבר לעוד שתי משניות (ערלה פ\"ב ה\"א, סא ע\"ד; ביצה פ\"ה ה\"ה, סג ע\"ב). רעיון דומה בכסות מדרשית הוא שדברי סופרים \"חביבים מדברי תורה\". הרעיון מופיע פעמים מספר68ירו', ברכות פ\"א ה\"ד, ג ע\"ב; סנהדרין פי\"א ה\"ה, ל ע\"א; שיר שירים, א ב, והמקורות בהערה הבאה. . במדרש הוא במגמה מדרשית כללית, אבל בירושלמי ברכות הוא בא להצדיק עונש מיוחד על מי שנהג שלא כהלכה. ", + "במשנה עצמה מופיע פעם ש\"חומר בדברי סופרים מבדברי תורה\" (משנה, סנהדרין פי\"א מ\"ג; מדרש תנאים לדברים, יז יא, עמ' 103). עם זאת, אין להסיק מכך שבימי התנאים היה זה כלל אחיד וקבוע. בדברי רבי מאיר שבמשנת נידה משתמעת תפיסה זו, אבל לא ככלל קבוע ואחיד. לכלל האחיד אין מקור תנאי, ודומה שלפנינו כלל משפטי אמוראי בלבד. בתלמוד הבבלי הכלל מופיע יותר פעמים והוא מוצג גם כעיקרון רעיוני: דברי סופרים צריכים חיזוק ויש להחמיר בפרטי ההלכות, או שיש להיזהר בדברי סופרים יותר מבדברי תורה69בבלי, עירובין כא ע\"ב; במדבר רבה, יב ד, ואותו ניסוח בפסיקתא רבתי, ג, ח ע\"ב. ל\"חיזוק\" ראו בבלי, ראש השנה, יט ע\"א, וראו עוד בבלי, עירובין ג ע\"א; עז ע\"א; פה ע\"ב; יבמות לו ע\"ב; כתובות נו ע\"ב; פג ע\"ב; פד ע\"א; זבחים קא ע\"א. . ", + "התפיסה שבדברי סופרים יש להחמיר כדי שלא יבואו לזלזל בהם רומזת למתיחות מסוימת בחברה היהודית. חכמים גזרו והוסיפו הלכות רבות, ולענייננו אין זה משנה אם יש לתוספות בסיס בדברי תורה או שהם פיתוח אמוראי. אבל הציבור חש שאין אלו דברי קבלה אלא חידוש של חכמים בשבתם כפוסקים, כמחוקקים או כפרשנים. חכמים עצמם רואים עצמם כזכאים להחליט החלטות מחמירות מעין אלו, בתוקף המסורת, הקבלה וזכותם הפרשנית. אבל אך טבעי הוא שבציבור תישמע טרוניה על כך. מאוחר יותר, בימי הקראים, תהפוך טרוניה זו לתנועה רעיונית וחברתית. בספרות חז\"ל שלפנינו כמעט אין הד לטרוניה או לפקפוק בכוחם של חכמים, ובזכותם (חובתם) להוסיף ולגזור ולסייג. אבל ספרות זו משקפת את עולמם הרעיוני של החכמים עצמם. אין בה, באופן טבעי, ביטוי מלא להלכי הדעות בציבור הרחב. התפיסה שיש להחמיר בדברי סופרים יותר מאשר בדברי תורה חושפת, באופן נדיר, פן זה של טרוניה. היא נובעת מכך שהיו בציבור שחשו שגזרות חכמים מופרזות ותוקפן פחוּת. ביטוי אחר להלכי רוח אלו יש בביטוי שמשתמש בו אחד מההמון ששביעית היא \"מרבן גמליאל וחבריו\", וזו הנמקה לזלזול בה (ירו', שביעית פ\"ט ה\"ט, לט ע\"א). בתנא דבי אליהו מתוארת סדרת מפגשים עם אלו שיש בהם מקרא ואין בהם משנה70תנא דבי אליהו, פי\"ד (ט\"ו), עמ' 70 ואילך. . היו חוקרים שסברו שהחיבור משקף פולמוס עם הקראים, אך ייתכן, לאור דברינו, שזו עדות נדירה לאותם חוגים שפקפקו בחידושיהם של חכמים, או לפחות לרגישות של חכמים לטענה אפשרית זו. פרשנות זו לתנא דבי אליהו קשורה לפולמוס במחקר על זמנו של החיבור, ולא נרחיב בכך71ראו צוקר, רב סעדיה גאון. צוקר הרחיב ומצא עדויות משכנעות לטיעונים אנטי-קראיים בתנא דבי אליהו. אנו מצדדים בדעה שהחיבור הוא חיבור אמוראי קדום וממילא מתקשים לקבל את ההסבר האנטי-קראי, ולא כאן המקום להרחיב בכך. . ", + "מכל מקום, התפיסה שיש להחמיר בדברי סופרים משקפת התנגדות חברתית סמויה או גלויה לחידושי חכמים.", + "מהמשנה משמע שספק טומאה בתרומה נתון במחלוקת: לדעת רבי יהושע הספק מונע את ניצולה של התרומה, אך לא ברור שהיא טמאה, ולדעת רבי אליעזר היא בת שימוש (טהורה), וכנראה גם לדעת רבן גמליאל התרומה אמנם טהורה, אבל הוא מסכים שמעמדה בעייתי. זאת בניגוד למשתמע ממשנת פרה (פי\"א מ\"ב) ועדויות (פ\"ב מ\"ז) ששם נקבע שספק תרומה טהור. אמנם משנתנו אינה אומרת שאכן התרומה טמאה; לפחות משנת עדיות מיוחסת לרבי יהושע, והרי זו סתירה גם בדברי רבי יהושע עצמו. מעבר לכך, קיים הבדל בסגנון בין משנתנו למקבילות, שכן אצלנו שאלת הטהרה אינה נזכרת במפורש וניתן להתרשם שלדעת הכול התרומה אינה טהורה ממש, גם לדעת מי שמתיר לנצלה, שהרי אין כאן קביעה שספק תרומה טהור. בטהרות (פ\"ד מ\"ב) נקבע שספק תרומה טהור, ובהמשך שם מ\"ה שכך הדין רק בחלק מהמקרים, ובכמה מקרי ספק שורפים את התרומה. זו עמדת ביניים ואולי היא ממצעת את כל הדעות ואין כאן כלל אחיד אלא מקרים שונים. בפירושנו למשנת טהרות נעסוק בנושא ונוסיף עמדות נוספות. " + ], + [ + "המשנה ממשיכה באיסור לטמא תרומה בידיים שנידון במשנה הקודמת.", + "חבית – שלתרומה72כך מוסיף רבי שלמה עדני בשם \"אית דגרסי\", והיא תוספת הסבר של מעתיק תלמיד חכם, וראו הערתו של זק\"ש, זרעים, למשנתנו. , שנשברה בגת העליונה התחתונה טמאה – הרקע הרֵאלי של המשנה הוא הגת הגדולה. בגת רגילה שני מפלסים, מפלס דריכה ובור איגום (איור 25). מבחינה הלכתית ההלכה במשנה אפשרית גם בגת מעין זו, ברם הבור אינו מכונה \"גת תחתונה\". טיפוס משוכלל יותר היה של גת שבה שלושה מפלסים: משטח דריכה עליון שבו הונחו הענבים, ואולי נדרכו דריכה ראשונה להוצאת התירוש הטוב ביותר; מתחת למשטח העליון היה משטח דריכה תחתון, ומתחתיו בור איגום73בפירושי הראשונים עולה דמותה של גת אחרת שהייתה נהוגה באירופה, עד לעת האחרונה. מתקן זה כלל מתקן עץ לסחיטה. . המשנה מעלה בעיה הלכתית שהיא בבחינת מלכוד: הבעל טמא, וכד של יין תרומה טהור נשבר ונוזל לאטו לגת התחתונה. בגת התחתונה ענבים או יין טמאים. אם יניח ליין לזרום – תיטמא תרומה, ואסור לגרום לתרומה להיטמא, מצד שני אם יאסוף את התרומה – יטמא אותה בידיו. ", + "מודה רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע – שניהם מסכימים, והם חולקים במקרה דלהלן משנה ט, ואולי גם במקרה שבהמשך המשנה, שאם יכול להציל ממנה רביעית בטהרה יציל – ברור שאם הוא יכול להציל חלק מהנוזל שנשפך בטהרה עליו לעשות זאת. המשנה לא צריכה הייתה לומר שהבעל רשאי להציל את היין בטהרה, ודאי שזו זכותו והדבר מותר. מותר לו גם להציל כמות פחות גדולה, אם הוא רוצה בכך. אולי נוסח משפט זה בהשראת ההמשך (שאם אינו יכול לעשות זאת בטהרה אלא רק בטומאה לא יעשה), אבל באופן פשוט אין זה היתר אלא חובה. אם הבעל יכול להציל לפחות רביעית חובה עליו להציל את מה שניתן, גם אם הוא מתייאש ומוותר. אבל על פחות מרביעית לא הקפידו עליו חכמים ולא דרשו ממנו מאמץ. ודאי שהדבר מותר לו, אבל אין זו חובה.", + "ואם לאו – אם הוא טמא וכל נגיעה בתרומה תטמא אותה, רבי אליעזר אומר תרד ותיטמא ואל יטמאינה בידיו – הבעל רוצה למנוע את זרימת התרומה, שכן אם התרומה תיגע בחולין טמאים הכול ייהפך לתרומה טמאה והבעל יפסיד את כל מה שבגת התחתונה. עם זאת, אסור לו לטמא תרומה בידיים: \"אל ידמענה ביד\" (תוס', פ\"ז הי\"ט). כאן נוצר מצב שאם לא יעשה כלום תיטמא התרומה בוודאי וגם תלך לאיבוד, ולא רק זאת אלא שייגרם לו נזק נוסף. אף על פי כן אסור לו לטמא תרומה בידיים. ", + "לא נאמר במשנה מה דעת רבי יהושע. במשניות א-ב נקט רבי יהושע בעמדה שהתירה השחתת תרומה במקרים מיוחדים, אך לא נאמר מה עמדתו כאן. לכאורה, אם ברישא מודים שניהם סימן שבסיפא הם חולקים, אבל גם ניתן להסביר שהמחלוקת היא רק במשנה ט כפי שמסבירה אותה משנה י. כן משמע מהתוספתא שאינה מחלקת ואומרת \"הכל מודים שתרד ותדמע ואל ידמענה ביד\". אבל בתלמוד הבבלי מצוטט המשך של דברי רבי יהושע \"אף יטמאנה ביד\"74בבלי, פסחים טו ע\"א; כ ע\"א; כא ע\"א, והשוו מנחות מח ע\"ב. המילה \"אף\" אינה בחלק מעדי הנוסח, ורגיל הוא שהורדה ונוספה בידי המעתיקים. , והנימוק הוא שגורם להפסד חולין, אף שבדרך כלל אין לטמא בידיים. הבבלי (פסחים כא ע\"א) מעיר שאם רבי יהושע סובר שמותר במקרה זה לטמא בידיים הרי שהיה צריך לנסח את המשנה שרבי יהושע מודה לרבי אליעזר. הרי רבי יהושע אומר שמותר להציל את התרומה אפילו אם יטמאה, וכאן הוא מודה שמותר לעשות זאת רק בטהרה. הבבלי מציע בפשטות להפוך את לשון המשנה (מודה רבי יהושע לרבי אליעזר), ואין צריך לומר שתירוץ זה דחוק. מכל מקום, משמע שהבבלי הבין שבמשנתנו מודה רבי אליעזר לרבי יהושע, ברם במשנה, בנוסח שלפנינו, כתוב רק ששניהם מודים, וכן בתוספתא \"הכל מודים\"75הרש\"ס מצטט את משנתנו \"מודים רבי אליעזר...\", וזה נראה כתיקון של תלמיד חכם שהלשון הייתה קשה לו. אם שניהם מודים מדוע לא נאמר \"מודים רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע\"? אבל הלשון מצויה גם בתוס', אהלות פ\"י ה\"ו, עמ' 607: \"מודה רבי אליעזר ורבי שמעון\". צורה דומה בירו', להלן פי\"א ה\"ג, מז ע\"ד; יבמות פט\"ו ה\"ה, טו ע\"א, ותמיד הדבר קשור לרבי אליעזר ותנא נוסף. , אם כן לבבלי נוסח אחר במשנתנו, והסבר דחוק ושונה מהמשנה76לעיל הערנו על משניות מסדר זרעים שזכו בבבלי להסבר מוקשה, וראו במשנה הקודמת. .", + "הבבלי סותר את המשנה הבאה (ראה להלן), על כן דומה שגם במשנה זו הבבלי מסביר את המשנה שלא כפשוטה. בפירושנו למשנה זו עמדנו על כך שלעתים הבבלי מסביר משניות מסדר זרעים בצורה חריגה, כאילו היה לפניו נוסח שונה מזה שלפנינו, ואולי מצטרפת משנה זו לאותה סדרת מקרים. " + ], + [ + "וכן – הדין כמו במשנה הקודמת, וכפי שהוסברה לעיל, חבית שלשמן שנישפכה – השמן על הרצפה והוא עומד ללכת לאיבוד, מודה רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע שאם יכול להציל ממנה רביעית בטהרה יציל – כל זאת כלעיל, ואם לאו רבי אליעזר אומר תרד ותיבלע ואל יבלעינה77ב- מ יטמאנה, וראו ר\"ש סיריליאו ומלאכת שלמה על אתר. בידיו – כאן, כבמשנה הקודמת, התרומה אבודה. ההבדל הוא שבמשנה הקודמת היה חשש שהחולין בגת התחתונה ייפגעו וכאן מרכיב זה אינו. ואכן, בפירוש המשנה הקודמת ראינו שלפי הבבלי רבי יהושע חולק בגלל העובדה שהחולין עלולים להיפגע. במשנתנו הדין כמו במשנה הקודמת, והמבנה אותו מבנה. אם כן, לפי הבבלי רבי יהושע צריך היה לחלוק גם במשנתנו. כל זאת אף שכאן אין חשש של הפסד חולין. כבר הערנו על הקושי בפירוש של הבבלי שם, קושי שבגללו צריך הבבלי להפוך את נוסח המשנה כפי שהיה לפניו, וכבר הערנו שפירוש הבבלי הוא נגד המשתמע מהתוספתא, שהייתה לה מסורת אחרת. מעתה מתברר שהוא גם נגד משנתנו, שהרי בה אין הפסד חולין נוסף, והדבר אינו משפיע על עמדתו של רבי יהושע. כפי שנראה בפירושנו למשנה הבאה גם ממנה משמע שרבי יהושע אינו חולק. מכל מקום, נראה שרבי יהושע מודה גם במקרה זה, כמו גם במשנה הקודמת, וחולק רק במשנה הבאה. " + ], + [ + "על זו ועל זו – על שתי המשניות הקודמות, אמר רבי יהושע לא זו היא תרומה שני – האות אל\"ף במילה \"שאני\" נבלעה, כרגיל בכתבי יד בהיגוי הארץ-ישראלי. במסורת הכתיב הבבלית הבאה לידי ביטוי ברוב עדי הנוסח: שאני מוזהר עליה מלטמאה – רבי יהושע מודה שיש איסור כללי לטמא תרומה, וכידוע האיסור עצמו מוסכם על הכול, והשאלה מתעוררת רק במקרים מיוחדים מעין אלו שנידונו במשניות הקודמות. אפשר להבין מהמשנה שבשתי המשניות הקודמות מתיר רבי יהושע לטמא בידיים, אבל כפי שראינו לא בכך מדובר אלא בהיתר הכללי שלא להשתדל יתר על המידה למנוע את האפשרות שתרומה שכבר אבדה או שנשפכה תיטמא בעקיפין.", + "אלא – האיסור לטמא תרומה הוא במקרה שבו מלאכלה [ו]בל תיטמא[ה] – במקרה שהתרומה ניתנת לאכילה ואזי יש איסור לטמאה. אם כן, ברור מהמשנה שלרבי יהושע אין מדובר בגרימת טומאה בידיים, שהרי לטמא בידיים גם הוא מסכים שאסור. הוא מדבר על גרימת טומאה בעקיפין ובמחדל, וגם זה אסור רק בתרומה טהורה הראויה למאכל. [כיצד] – קו למחיקה סומן על מילה זו. המילה חסרה בסדרת כתבי יד טובים78א, ב, ג7, ז, כ, ל, ן, פ. אך נמצאת ביתר עדי הנוסח (במדרש והזהיר חסרות כל המשניות האחרונות בפרק), והרב יהוסף אשכנזי כתב: \"דכל הספרים לא גרסי כיצד\" (מלאכת שלמה). מה שכתוב להלן הוא דוגמה לכלל של רבי יהושע ועל כן בהחלט מתאים שתקדם לו הנוסחה \"כיצד...\", אך במקרים רבים מופיעה במשנה דוגמה ללא הקידומת \"כיצד...\". מצב כתבי היד מטה את הדעת לומר שהמילה נוספה בידי מעתיקים שהבינו את המשנה ורצו להקל על הבנתה.", + "היה עובר ממקום למקום וככרות שלתרומה בידו אמר לו נוכרי תן לי אחת מהן ואטמא ואם לאו הרי אני מטמא את כולם רבי אליעזר אומר יטמא את כולם ואל יתן לו [את] אחת מהן – התרומה טהורה וראויה לאכילה, ואסור לטמאה בידיים. רבי אליעזר אינו מתחשב במה שעלול לקרות, ולכן חייב האדם להסתכן בכך שהנכרי יקח מהתרומה ובכך יטמא את כל הערמה. הרקע הרֵאלי להלכה הוא איכר שגובה מכס או גובה האוכל של יחידת צבא העוברת ממקום למקום רוצה להחרים חלק מתוצרתו.", + "רבי יהושע אומר יניח לפניו אחת על הסלע – גם רבי יהושע מודה שאסור לטמא בידיים, אבל מותר להניח לפני הגוי כיכר אחת או חבילת פֵרות כדי שזה ייקחנה ויטמאנה. " + ], + [ + "וכן – הלכה מעינה של ההלכה במשנה הקודמת שבה חלוקים רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע, נשים שאמרו להן [של]גוים תנו לנו אחת מכם ונטמא – נבוא עליה, ואם לאו – אם אין אתן נותנות לנו מרצונכן אחת, הרי אנו מטמאין את כולכם – נבוא על כולכן (או בגוף שלישי, \"על כולן\"), יטמאו את כולם ואל ימסרו להם – לידי הגויים, נפש אחת מישראל – אף רבי יהושע (במשנה הקודמת), אשר באיום של נכרים לטמא את כל הכיכרות סבור שמניחים לפניהם כיכר אחת ויטמאוה, הרי בדיני עריות הוא מסכים לדברי רבי אליעזר שאין מוסרים לידי הנכרים אישה אחת לטמאה, אלא ייטמאו כולן בכוח בידי הגויים ואין למסור נפש אחת מישראל.", + "בתוספתא מועלית הלכה נוספת מעינן של שתי ההלכות שבמשנה: \"סיעה של בני אדם שאמרו להם גוים תנו לנו אחד מכם ונהרגהו ואם לאו הרי אנו הורגין את כולכם, יהרגו כולן ואל ימסרו להן נפש אחת מישראל, אבל אם ייחדוהו להם, כגון שייחדו לשבע בן בכרי, יתנו להן ואל יהרגו כולן\" (פ\"ז ה\"כ). לפי התוספתא ההלכה בעניינו של אדם שמבקשים להרגו שונה מן ההלכה לגבי טומאתה של האישה. בעניינה של האישה אין מוסרים לידי גויים אישה לטמאה, אך בהריגה אם הגויים נוקטים בשמו של איש מסוים שמבקשים להרגו יתנוהו להם ואל ייהרגו כולם, וכאותו מעשה בשבע בן בכרי אשר יואב ביקש להרגו ואיים להרוג את כל אנשי העיר, ככל המסופר בספר שמואל ב פרק כ. האישה החכמה בעיר יזמה את הריגתו של שבע בן בכרי כדי להציל מן ההרג את כל אנשי העיר. ", + "בהמשך אותה הלכה בתוספתא מוסיף רבי יהודה הגבלה נוספת: \"אמר רבי יהודה במי דברים אמורים בזמן שהוא מבפנים והן מבחוץ, אבל בזמן שהוא מבפנים והן מבפנים הואיל והוא נהרג והן נהרגין יתנו להן ואל יהרגו כולן\", כלומר אם הגויים צרים על העיר מבחוץ והאיש אשר מבקשים את נפשו נמצא בפנים, אין למסור לידיהם את האיש המבוקש, אם כי אין ודאות שהגויים ינסו לפרוץ את החומה ואין ביטחון כי יעלה הדבר בידם. בהמשך התוספתא: \"רבי שמעון אומר כך אמרה להם כל המורד במלכות בית דוד חייב מיתה\", כלומר ניתן להציל את כל העיר במותו של אדם רק כאשר האיש אמנם חייב מיתה, כלומר עשה מעשה שנתחייב בו מיתה, כמעשה שעשה שבע בן בכרי שמרד במלכות בית דוד.", + "בירושלמי (מו ע\"ב) מובא מעשה בעולא בר קושר79כך במקבילה בבראשית רבה, פצ\"ד עמ' 1184. בירושלמי לפנינו \"בר קוטב\". נראה כי יש להעדיף את הנוסח שבמדרש, כלומר עולא שעשה מעשה מרידה, מעשה קשר נגד המלכות. \"בר\" כאן הוא לשון המרמזת על תפקידו במעשה. שנרדף ביד המלכות והגיע ללוד, והמלכות הקיפה את העיר ואיימה להרוג את כל תושבי העיר אם לא ימסרו לידה את עולא בר קושר. רבי יהושע בן לוי שכנע את עולא בר קושר שימסור את עצמו לידי המלכות, ומספר התלמוד כי אליהו הנביא היה רגיל להתגלות לרבי יהושע בן לוי אך פסק מלהופיע. רק לאחר שהרבה לצום חזר אליהו הנביא והתגלה לפניו, והסביר את התרחקותו ממנו: \"ולמסורות80\"מסור\" הוא ממשקל בעלי מקצוע, כמו \"כרוז\" או \"לקוח\". כלומר, מי שמקצועו למסור אנשים לידי השלטונות. בחברה היהודית נחשב שיתוף הפעולה עם השלטונות הרומיים לעוון בל יכופר, ללא קשר לחומרת העברה המיוחסת לנאשם, ולא נרחיב בכך. אני נגלה?\". רבי יהושע בן לוי טוען לפניו \"ולא משנה עשיתי?\", ואליהו הנביא עונה לו: \"וזו משנת החסידים?\". יש אמנם שמשנת חסידים ערוכה וארוגה במשנתנו כמשנה, כמו בראש פרק חמישי בברכות (ראו פירושנו לברכות פ\"ה מ\"א), אך משנתנו אינה משנת חסידים.", + "ואכן, בברייתא הידועה ממקורות אמוראיים בעיקר81מדרש תנאים לדברים, כג טו, עמ' 148. מדרש זה מלוקט מתוך מדרש הגדול, וספק אם העריכה תנאית או אמוראית. כמו כן ירו', שבת פ\"א ה\"ג, ג ע\"ג; שקלים פ\"ג ה\"ג, מז ע\"ב; בבלי, עבודה זרה כב ע\"ב; שיר השירים, א ט, ועוד. , והמשובצת (בטעות) בסוף מסכת סוטה, שנינו שחסידות מביאה לידי רוח הקודש וגילוי אליהו, ומי שאינו עושה כמשנת חסידים אינו ראוי לגילוי אליהו. ", + "מתשובה של \"מר רב שלום גאון בבית דין הגדול שבירושלים\" אנו למדים על מעשה בשיירה שיצאה מירושלים והתגלגלו הדברים שגויים דרשו למסור ממנה לידם יהודי אחד. הם איימו שאם לא ימסרו לידם את היהודי שנאשם בעברה כלפי המלכות יאסרו את כולם, ואמנם החלו לתפוס יהודים ולאסרם. אחד היהודים הצביע על היהודי המבוקש, והגאון הצדיק את מעשיו שכן פסק לפי המשנה ולא לפי משנת חסידים82התשובה נתפרסמה על ידי איגוס, תשובות, וחזרה ונתפרסמה בידי ח\"צ טויבש באוצר הגאונים לסנהדרין, עמ' רכב-רכג. .", + "בעיה משפטית-דתית-מוסרית זו משתקפת גם במקור יהודי מחוץ לבית המדרש83יוחנן יא 50-47. . הכהן קיפא מנמק לפני הסנהדרין למה יש למסור את ישו לשלטונות הרומיים: \"כי טוב לנו מות איש אחד בעד העם מאבוד העם כולו\"84שם 56. .", + "ההלכה במשנתנו יוצאת מתוך ההנחה \"שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש\" (משנה, אהלות פ\"ז מ\"ו). הלכה זו נאמרה לעניין ולד המסכן את אמו. אם טרם נולד מותר להרגו כדי להציל את אמו, אך אם יצא ראשו ורובו אין להציל את האם על ידי הריגת הוולד. כאן מוביל העיקרון הרעיוני לידי שיתוק. אי אפשר לפגוע באחת הנפשות, ואין לעשות דבר. מצב זה עשוי לגרום לכך ששניהם ימותו, וההלכה מוצאת עצמה למעשה חסרת אונים נוכח דילמה מוסרית זו, ואין היא יודעת את מי להעדיף. ", + "התוספתא המקבילה למשנת אהלות שובצה במסכת יבמות סביב הדיון האם יבמה שיש לה עובר אוכלת בתרומה. כך מנסחת התוספתא את ההלכה: \"כהנת שמת עוברה בתוך מעיה הרי זו אוכלת בתרומה. האשה שמקשה לילד, מחתכין העובר במעיה ואפילו בשבת, ומוציאין אותו איברים איברים מפני שחייה קודמין לו. יצא ראשו אפילו ביום השיני, אין נוגעין בו שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש\" (יבמות פ\"ט ה\"ה). ההלכה הראשונה שייכת להלכות המכונות בפינו \"משניות מעריכה כוהנית\", אלו משניות המעדיפות לעסוק בהלכה עקרונית מנקודת מבטם של הכוהנים ומדגישות את הבעיות המיוחדות שלהם85ראו פירושנו ליבמות פ\"ז מ\"ד שעליה מוסבת תוספתא זו, ולעיל פ\"ח מ\"א ועוד. . העובר המת אינו נחשב לוולד, ואינו פוגם בזכותה של אמו לאכול תרומה. המשך הברייתא עוסק בכל אישה, וההבדל בין הברייתא למשנתנו הוא ההדגשה שמותר להרוג את הוולד אפילו בשבת. אבל אם יצא – גם ביום חול86\"אפילו ביום השיני\" הוא ביטוי מקביל ל\"אפילו ביום חול\", ראו ליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה יבמות, עמ' 88. אין לפגוע בו. ", + "ההלכה התנאית חוזרת במקורות אמוראיים והתקבלה ללא עוררין. אם כי התלמוד מדגיש את ההבדל בין דין ולד, המסכן את אמו ללא כוונת זדון, לבין \"רודף\" הרוצה להרוג את חברו בזדון ומצווה להציל את הנרדף גם בנפש הרודף87בבלי, סנהדרין עב ע\"ב; ירו', שבת פי\"ד ה\"ד, יד ע\"ד; עבודה זרה פ\"ב ה\"ב, מ ע\"ד. בעל המכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי (כא יד, עמ' 171) הכיר את הלכתנו במסגרת הלכות שבת, כלומר היה מודע כבר לניסוח של התוספתא. .", + "המקרה שבמשנתנו הוא מקרה ביניים בין דין רודף לדין ולד. הוא מצביע על כך שההלכה המאוחרת הצליחה להתנער ממצב השיתוק, ולעתים בנתה מנגנון של העדפת נפש מפני נפש, למרות הקוד המוסרי.", + "ההלכה בדבר טומאת נשים הובאה בגלל הסיטואציה הדומה לטומאת שמן או יין. אבל מבחינה מעשית אלו מקרים שונים, והבעיות ההלכתיות שונות לחלוטין. טומאת תרומה היא איסור חמור, אך טומאת נשים כבר קרובה יותר לדיני נפשות, כפי שמשתמע מהתוספתא הדנה במקרים השונים." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "הפרק כולו עוסק בדין גידולי תרומה וגידולי תוספת תרומה, כלומר בפֵרות שיש עליהם דין תרומה משום שהם תרומה רגילה או משום שהם תרומה מספק, כפי שנבאר. הדינים הקשורים לפֵרות אלו נידונו לעיל (פ\"ד מ\"ד - פ\"ה מ\"ו; פ\"ז מ\"ה-מ\"ז), אלא שעד עתה הייתה השאלה רק האם הם תרומה או לא, ועתה השאלה היא מה דינם של פֵרות אלו אם נזרעו. דין גידולי תרומה נשנה במפורש רק כאן, אבל רמזים לו במקורות נוספים. לא נאמר מה טעמו של האיסור. ברור שאין להשתמש בתבואה ולזרוע אותה, אך האם גם גידוליה נאסרו? מבחינה פורמלית קשה למשוך את האיסור לאחר שטוהרו הזרעים בקרקע, ומצד שני קשה להותיר מצב של חוטא נשכר ואיסור מבוטל. על כן נאסרו גידולי תרומה, אך האיסור מוגדר בירושלמי כ\"חומר גידולים\" (שביעית פ\"ו ה\"ג, לו ע\"ד). הבבלי מגדיר את האיסור כאחת מגזרות יח דבר שנגזרו בשלהי ימי הבית השני, במעמד שהפך לימים לבעל מעמד מיוחד בספרות חז\"ל1בבלי, שבת יז ע\"ב, וראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"א מ\"ד. . ספק אם הרשימה של הגזרות שהתלמוד הבבלי מייחס למעמד זה היא הרשימה המקורית, והתחבטנו בכך בפירושנו לשבת (פ\"א מ\"ד). מכל מקום, המינוח בשני התלמודים מעיד שהם ראו באיסור על גידולי תרומה משום חריגה במערכת ההלכתית, וגזרה מיוחדת שלא בהתאם לנורמות משפטיות שיטתיות. ", + "הזורע תרומה שוגג יופך – ההנחה במשנתנו ובכל הפרק היא כי אסור לזרוע את התרומה לא לישראל ולא לכהן. הלכה זו אינה אמורה במפורש לא במשנה ולא במקורות התנאיים האחרים. ההלכה המפורשת הקרובה ביותר לקביעת האיסור אמורה במסכת שביעית פ\"ח מ\"ב: \"שביעית ניתנה לאכילה ולשתיה ולסיכה... לא יסוך יין וחומץ אבל סך הוא את השמן. וכן בתרומה ובמעשר שני\". המשנה אינה מזכירה איסור זריעה, שהרי אין זריעה בשביעית, אך האיסור משתמע מן ההיתר של המשנה רק לאכילה, שתייה וסיכה.", + "הריבמ\"ץ והר\"ש מפרשים כי הזורע תרומה בשוגג יהפוך את הזרוע, כלומר חייב להפוך את הזרע כי קנס \"קנסוהו שתבטל שדהו\". אולם בהמשך המשנה נאמר כי במזיד יקיים את הגידול, ואין הצדקה להניח כי בשוגג החמירו יותר מבמזיד, וכפי ששואל הירושלמי בראש הסוגיה (מו ע\"ג) שמן הסברה יש לשנות את ההלכות בהיפוך. הרמב\"ם פירש ש\"יופך\" הוא רשות, הוא רשאי להפוך את הזרוע כדי לזרוע מחדש חולין, אולם במזיד קנסוהו לקיים את הזרע. הזרע הוא תרומה, כמות ששנינו להלן במשנה ד: \"גידולי תרומה תרומה\", ואם כופים עליו לקיים את התרומה שזרע הפסדו גדול יותר. הוא שעונה הירושלמי: \"קנסו בו שתיבטל שדהו על גב תרומה\" (מו ע\"ג), וכתב ר\"ש סיריליאו: \"והנכון כפירוש הרמב\"ם שכתב יופך מותר לו לאדם להפוך ויפסד הזרע שזרע. ואם הוא מזיד, יקיים – ענינו שחייב להניחן כדי שיצמחו ויהיו הגידולים הצומחין תרומה\". בעל מלאכת שלמה הסכים עם דבריו וציטטם בפירושו.", + "מזיד יקיים – כפי שפירשנו, במזיד קנסוהו שיקיים את הזרע. הוא לא יהנה מן הזרע, שהרי כולו תרומה, ואין הוא רשאי להפכו ולזרוע זרע חולין אחר.", + "אם הביאה שליש – אם גדלה התבואה כדי שליש מגודלה, בין שוגג בין מזיד יקיים – שאין להפוך ולעקור תבואת תרומה העומדת בגידולה. הגדרת קמת התבואה כשהביאה שליש חוזרת בתחומי הלכה רבים במשנה ובספרות התנאים2למשל בהלכות חלה: משנה, חלה פ\"א מ\"ג; קצירת התבואה מן החדש: מנחות פ\"י מ\"ב; הלכות פאה: ירו', פאה פ\"ב ה\"א, יז ע\"א, ועוד. .", + "ובפשתן – והזורע פשתן של תרומה, מזיד יופך – חייב להפוך את הזרע. גרעיני הפשתן חייבים בתרומה כדין כל מאכל, אולם הזורע פשתן עניין לו בעיקר בגבעולים לשם עיבודם לשזירת חוטי פשתן. גבעולי הפשתן הם חולין ודין תרומה אינו חל עליהם, שהרי אינם מאכל אדם3ראו מעשרות פ\"א מ\"א; תוס', פ\"ג מ\"ח, ובמבואנו למסכת מעשרות. . מלשון המשנה משתמע כי בשוגג אין הבדל בין פשתן לשאר זרעים; לפני שהזרע הביא שליש הוא רשאי להפוך, ולאחר שהזרע הביא שליש אסור לו להפוך ולאבד את גידולי התרומה. אך במזיד, בין שהביא שליש ובין שלא הביא שליש, קנסוהו ועליו להפוך את הזרוע כדי שלא ייהנה מן הגבעולים. הקביעה \"יופך\" בראש המשנה היא אפוא רשות, אך ה\"יופך\" שבסופה הוא חובה, כפי שהדבר למד מעניינו. כיוצא בו מצינו במשנת כלאים פ\"ב מ\"ג, שברישא אמור \"ויופך ואחר כך יזרע\" והוא רשות, ובהמשך אמור \"הופך ואחר כך זורע\" והוא חובה.", + "בתוספתא אנו שונים: \"הזורע פשתן של תרומה, עד שלא הביא שליש יופך, משהביא שליש יקיים, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג עד שלא הביא שליש יופך משהביא שליש יקיים, במזיד זה וזה יופך\" (פ\"ח ה\"א). משנתנו היא, אפוא, כרבי יהודה. בדברי התוספתא יש אף חיזוק לפירוש שבמזיד יופך בין שהביא הפשתן שליש ובין שלא הביא שליש.", + "מעבר לבעיה ההלכתית התנגדו חכמים לשימוש בתרומה לזריעה. פֵרות התרומה נחשבו לקודש, וכשם שאין לזרוע פֵרות שביעית אין לזרוע פֵרות תרומה. דברים אלו אמורים אף בכהן עצמו. ביטוי ציורי לכך יש במדרש: \"משל לכהן שהיה לו שדה, זרעה אריס ולא עשתה השדה. כיון שבקש בעל השדה זרעו, ולא מצא. מה עשה האריס, הלך וזרע תרומה, ועשתה השדה. בא להכניס לאוצר, אמר לו הכהן זרע לא היה לנו, ואלו מניין? אמר לו ראיתי שאין זרע לזרוע, ונטלתי תרומה וזרעתי וקצרתי. אמר לו הכהן מה עשית? מפני שראית שאין זרע עשית הדבר הזה? אלא לא תכניסם לאוצר\" (מדרש אגדת בראשית, כה א). לפי המשנה שלנו הזרוע מותר לשימוש בתנאים מסוימים, אבל המדרש שופט את המעשה מההיבט המוסרי ומפגין את סלידתו והתנגדותו למעשה. אין במדרש ביטוי להלכה המשפטית אלא לתגובה הרגשית של התנגדות למעשה חולין בקודש." + ], + [ + "בשתי המשניות נידון מעמדה של התבואה שלא נהפכה והגיעה לבישולה וקצירתה. חלה עליה חומרת התרומה, אך אין היא נידונת כתרומה ממש וחלים עליה חיובי מתנות עניים והפרשת מעשרות.", + "וחייבת – התבואה שנזרעה בתרומה, בלקט ובשכחה ובפיאה – בשלוש מתנות העניים. העניים זכאים ליהנות משלוש המתנות כדין כל שדה תבואה. משום כך: ועניי ישראל ועניי כהנים מלקטים – התבואה היא אמנם תרומה, אך העניים זכאים לקבל הימנה את מתנותיהם המגיעות להם מן הקציר, ומשום כך זכותם של עניי ישראל ללקט יחד עם עניי כוהנים, אולם אסור להם לאכול את שליקטו, ולכן: ועניי ישראל מוכרין את שלהן לכהנים בדמי תרומה – מוכרים את מה שליקטו לכוהנים במחיר זול יותר, בדמי תרומה, לפי המחיר של תרומה שיש לאכלה בטהרה ואם נטמאה אסור לאכול אותה.", + "והדמין שלהן – של עניי ישראל. המושג \"דמי תרומה\" נזכר במשנה ובמקורות התנאיים והאמוראיים בשעה שההלכה מבקשת לומר כי הפרי הוא אמנם תרומה אך ערכו הכספי אינו שייך לכהן אלא למי שהוא ברשותו (לעיל פ\"ה מ\"א; תוס', פ\"ו ה\"א).", + "אמר רבי טרפון לא ילקטו – בשדה זה שגידוליו תרומה, אלא עניי כהנים שמא ישכחו ויתנו לתוך פיהם.", + "אמר לו רבי עקיבה אם כן לא ילקטו אלא טהורין – אם אתה חושש שמא ישכחו המלקטים ויתנו לתוך פיהם יש לגזור שלא ילקטו הכוהנים אלא כשהם טהורים, והרי אין הכוהנים אוכלים בתרומה במשך היום אלא טובלים לעת ערב וכשהעריב השמש נכנסים לאכול את התרומה בטהרה, כמו ששנינו בראש מסכת ברכות (ראו פירושנו לברכות פ\"א מ\"א). הכוהנים טבלו גם אם לא נטמאו מתוך החשש שמא נטמאו בהיסח הדעת, ולפיכך למעשה אסור להם ללקט כלל, שהרי במהלך יום העבודה הם בחזקת טמאים. \"אם כן\" אינו אלא ציון למחלוקת. התנא החולק מסיק מתוך דברי קודמו שאין לקבל את דבריו, ש\"אם כן\", שאם דבריו נכונים, הרי יש להסיק מדבריו מסקנה שהיא בלתי אפשרית (ראו יומא פ\"א מ\"א; תענית פ\"א מ\"א ועוד)4בעל מלאכת שלמה דוחה את הגרסה והפרשנות שלפיהן רבי עקיבא חולק על ההלכה: \"ולא גרסינן אמר רבי עקיבא לא ילקטו אלא טהורים\". בעדי הנוסח שלנו אין הד לנוסח זה. .", + "ההלכות במשנה הקודמת ובמשנתנו במעמדם של גידולי תרומה מייצגות יפה את הגדרתם ומעמדם. גידולי תרומה הם תרומה, או מדויק יותר יש בהם החומרה של תרומה, אך לאידך גיסא הם חולין גמורים ואינם שייכים לכהן אלא למי שהתרומה גדלה בשדהו, כפי שאמרנו לעיל." + ], + [ + "המשנה ממשיכה בדין גידולי תרומה שעסקה בו בשתי המשניות הקודמות.", + "וחייבת במעשרות – כפי שאמרנו, גידולי תרומה הם חצי תרומה: רק כוהנים רשאים לאכלם ובטהרה, אך אין להם דין תרומה ממש, והם חייבים בכל המצוות התלויות בארץ. \"מעשרות\" כאן הם שלושת המעשרות, אלא שלמעשר עני דין מיוחד שיידון בהמשך. המשנה אינה מזכירה את חובת התרומה, והשאלה הטבעית היא האם פֵרות אלו פטורים מן התרומה. הירושלמי מפרש: \"כיני מתני' [כן היא מתניתין] חייבת בתרומה ובמעשרות ובמעשר עני\" (מו ע\"ג). המונח \"כיני מתניתין\" (כן היא המשנה) מופיע רבות בירושלמי; לעתים הוא פירוש למשנה ולעתים נוסח שונה או תיקון לנוסח, כמו במשנה הקודמת5אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 508-441. . במקרה זה דומה שהירושלמי מפרש את המשנה, או אולי מציע תיקון לנוסח, אך אינו משקף נוסח אחר מזה שלפנינו. לפי הסבר זה המונח \"מעשרות\" כולל גם תרומה. ואכן, במשניות רבות מדובר בחובת \"מעשרות\", והמינוח כולל גם את הפרשת התרומות6משנה, פאה פ\"א מ\"ו; פ\"ד מ\"ח, וכן מעשרות פ\"א מ\"א ומשניות רבות נוספות. . ברם, לעתים הכוונה באמת להפרשת מעשרות בלבד, לא רק משום שדין תרומה שונה אלא משום שבמציאות שאלת התרומה אינה חשובה באותו הקשר. כך, למשל, בדינים העוסקים בעם הארץ (כגון משנה, דמאי פ\"ד מ\"א-מ\"ב, פ\"ד מ\"ז ועוד), שכן עם הארץ נאמן על התרומה ולא על מעשר. לעתים המשנה גם מדגישה במפורש את התרומות והמעשרות (כגון משנה, דמאי פ\"ה מ\"י-מי\"א ועוד). אם כן, סגנון המשנה בשאלה זו אינו אחיד ופתוח לפרשנות. ", + "נראה שכשם שגידולי תרומה חייבים במעשרות כן הם חייבים בחלה, וכפי שהעלינו לעיל (פירושנו לפ\"ז מ\"ז), ורבי יוסי הפוטר שם מחובת הפרשת חלה פוטר בכל המעשרות האחרים וסבור שזו תרומה ממש. כל זאת בניגוד גמור למשנתנו ולמקבילותיה הרבות. המשנה בפרק ז שונה מהמשניות בפרקנו גם בפרט נוסף שיוזכר להלן מ\"ו. ", + "לכאורה יש סיבה לכך שתבואה זו אינה חייבת בתרומה. הפֵרות הללו נחשבים לחולין מבחינה ממונית ולתרומה רק במובן זה שרק כוהנים רשאים לאכלם (ובטהרה). בפועל יש לנהוג בהם כבתרומה, על כן אין טעם להפריש מהם תרומה שהרי זו תיאכל כמו כל יתר הפֵרות. עד כאן מבחינה מעשית ורֵאלית. אבל מבחינה משפטית יש כמובן משמעות להפרשת תרומה, ויש לכך גם תוצאות הלכתיות בעלות חשיבות משנית. כגון, האם יש להפריש מעשרות מאותה תרומה, האם גידולי הגידולים הם חולין או תרומה וכיוצא באלו שאלות דומות. ", + "התוספתא קובעת שמגידולי תרומה יש להפריש כתרומה רק אחד חלקי שישים (פ\"ה ה\"ז), הווה אומר שאכן הפֵרות חייבים בתרומה. אלא שדי להפריש את הכמות המינימלית ואין טעם לדרוש הפרשה כדי עין יפה (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ד מ\"ג), משמע שעל כל פנים צריך להפריש תרומה. ההבדל בין הפרשנויות הוא במשקלו של המרכיב המשפטי. האם תועדף הגישה המציאותית שלפיה להפרשת התרומה אין משמעות של ממש, או הגישה המשפטית. את המשנה ניתן לפרש בשתי הצורות, אבל מהתוספתא ומהירושלמי ברור שהגישה המשפטית הועדפה.", + "ובמעשר עני – מעשר עני נזכר בגלל ההמשך, שכן יש בו בעיה מיוחדת, ועניי ישראל ועניי כהנים נוטלים – את מעשר העני ניתן לתת לעניים ישראלים או כוהנים. המשנה מציגה בפשטות שיש גם כוהנים עניים. אמנם אלו נהנים מתרומות, אבל מידי עניות לעתים לא יצאו. בימי בית שני הייתה שכבת העשירים כוהנית ברובה, אף על פי כן ודאי שעדיין היו כוהנים שלא נמנו עם העילית הירושלמית והיו עניים. קל וחומר לאחר החורבן. כוהנים עניים נזכרים בעוד הלכות (תוס', טהרות פ\"ט ה\"ד; ירו', מו ע\"ג). כהן עני אחר הוא רבי אלעזר בן פדת (בבלי, תענית כה ע\"א; ירו', ברכות פ\"ה ה\"ד, ט ע\"ד). מספר האזכורים הקטן הוא מקרי, שהרי בדרך כלל אין לעני כהן כל חשיבות מיוחדת ודינו כעני רגיל. עם זאת, רוב הכוהנים המוכרים לנו ואשר אנו מכירים את מעמדם הכלכלי היו עשירים כרבי טרפון, רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, רבי אמי ואחרים, והמדרש אומר בפשטות: \"ברך ה' חילו – בנכסים, מכאן אמרו רוב כהנים עשירים. משום אבא הדרוס7\"דָרוס\" הוא ממשקל בעלי מקצוע, כמו כָרוז או מָסור (ראו פירושנו לסוף פ\"ח לעיל). כלומר, הוא דורס במקצועו, כנראה דורס תאנים. אמרו הרי הוא אומר 'נער הייתי גם זקנתי ולא ראיתי צדיק נעזב וזרעו מבקש לחם' – זה זרעו של אהרן\" (ספרי דברים, שנב, עמ' 409). בדרך כלל המינוח \"מכאן אמרו\" מלמד על הבאת הלכה ממקור תנאי קדום יותר, ובדרך כלל מהמשנה. במקרה זה המקור נעלם. מדרש זה מהווה ראיה חלקית בלבד, שכן ייתכן שהמדרש משקף את ימי הבית בלבד. זאת משום שאבא הדרוס הוא כנראה חכם קדום, ואולי דבריו משקפים את ימי הבית בלבד. מכל מקום, המדרש נערך מאוחר יותר ומצטט את ההערכות הקדומות שרוב הכוהנים עשירים, ועצם הבאת הרעיון מלמד שהתופעה לא נעקרה מהחברה היהודית.", + "ועניי ישראל מוכרין את שלהן לכהנים בדמי תרומה – אמנם העני הישראלי רשאי לקבל את חלקו אבל אסור לו לאכול את הפֵרות, שכן אכילתם היא כאכילת תרומה. על כן הפתרון הוא שהעני ימכור את הפֵרות לכהן (עני או עשיר) ב\"דמי תרומה\", כלומר במחיר שמוכרים בו תרומה, והוא כמובן נמוך יותר ממחיר רגיל, והדמים שלהן – של עניי ישראל. ", + "דין זה משלב בתוכו מרכיבים של תרומה ושל חול, וברור שהוא מיוחד. כבר הגדרנו את כל דין גידולי תרומה כגזרה מיוחדת (לעיל מ\"ב; ירו', שבת פ\"א ה\"ג, ג ע\"ג; בבלי, יז ע\"ב)ואכן יש בו מרכיבים שאינם שיטתיים מבחינה משפטית טהורה. ", + "החובט משובח – הירושלמי מסביר שהחובט גידולי תרומה משובח מהדש. הבעיה היא דיש התבואה. לפי ההלכה בזמן הדיש אסור לחסום את פי הפרה, מצד שני אסור לתת לפרה לאכול מפֵרות של תרומה. בדרך כלל היה הדיש נעשה לפני הפרשת תרומות, שכן תבואה מתחייבת בהפרשת תרומות רק לאחר הדיש (בשלב הגורן). אבל במקרה שלפנינו הפֵרות הם תרומה עוד לפני הדיש. פתרון חילופי לדיש, אך יעיל פחות, היה חביטת החיטים ביד, ואז אין שאלה של חסימת הפרה. עם זאת, החביטה היא פתרון יקר ואינה מתאימה לכמות גדולה של חיטים. על כן חכמים ממליצים לחבוט את החיטים, אך אינם מחייבים השקעה גדולה זו.", + "והדש כיצד יעשה – מותר לדוש, אבל צריך למצוא פתרון לבעיית האיסור של \"לא תחסום\" (דברים כה ד), תולה כפיפות – או \"קפיפות\"8כך ב- א, ב, ז, ן וכן בתוספתא. , הם סלים, בצוארי בהמה ונותן לתוכן מאותו המין נמצא לא זומם את הבהמה ולא מאכיל את התרומה – קושרים את הסלים לצוואר הבהמה ומניחים בהם חיטים, ואותם הבהמה אוכלת במקום את החיטים שהיא דשה. הפתרון המוצע פותר את בעיית \"לא תחסום\" מבלי לאפשר לבהמה לאכול בתרומה. במשנה ההדגשה היא שנותן לה מאותו המין כדי לא לפגוע בבהמה, אבל בתוספתא רבי שמעון מקל ומתיר לתת לה כרשינין, שהם חציר דל יותר מאשר חיטים, אך לבהמה די בכרשינים. ", + "הפתרון המוצע חוזר גם במקבילה כהלכה כללית: \"דש תרומה ומעשר שני עובר משום בל תחסום. כיצד הוא עושה? מביא קפיפות ותולה בצוארי בהמה, ונותן לתוכה חולין מאותו המין\" (תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ח הי\"א). שם מדובר במקרה כללי יותר, כשהפריש תרומה ומעשרות לפני הגורן. אשר למעשר שני המשנה הבאה מציעה פתרון פשוט יותר, וראו שם.", + "משנתנו ומקבילותיה אינן קובעות כמה תבואה יש להניח בכפיפה, ומשתמע ממנה שהפתרון המוצע הוא פתרון לגיטימי לשעת הדחק. מהמקבילות האמוראיות מתבררת גם שאלת הכמות, ואגב כך מוארת הלכתנו באור נוסף. ", + "בתלמודים מובא דין דומה לזה של משנתנו: \"והתני מודין חכמים לרבי מאיר בחוסם פרתו שלחבירו שהוא לוקה ומשלם ששת קבין לפרה וארבעת קבין לחמור, שכן החוסם פרתו לוקה\" (ירו', פ\"ז ה\"א, מד ע\"ג). אבל בשתי מקבילות המדובר בחוסם פרתו, ומשתמע בבירור שמי שעושה כן עובר על הלאו וחייב מעין תשלום קנס לפרה (ירו', כתובות פ\"ג ה\"א, כז ע\"ב; בבלי, בבא מציעא צא ע\"א). נמצאנו למדים שכמות התבואה שיש להניח בכפיפה היא שישה קבים שהם סאה, כלומר כעשרה ליטר. פרה בת זמננו מקבלת 40 ק\"ג חומר יבש ליום9אנו מודים לידידנו דני הרץ על המידע המבוסס על ניסיון עשיר של חקלאי בן זמננו. . ברור שהמזון שניתן לפרה בשעת הדיש אינו כל המזון היומי, שהרי היא אוכלת גם ברפת בערב לאחר העבודה, אבל זו כמות קטנה מהמקובל בימינו. ואכן, הפֵרות בימינו גדולות ובריאות יותר מהפֵרות בימי קדם ומניבות חלב רב יותר, בהתאם. בתלמוד הבבלי המידה היא ארבעה קבים בלבד. מידה זו חוזרת בהלכות רבות ונראית ספרותית; מצד שני, אולי דווקא יש להעדיפה משום שהיא חוזרת בהלכות אחרות. ", + "גם המימרות האמוראיות מדגישות שהחוסם את הפרה משלם כעין קנס, וודאי שהדבר אסור. עם זאת, הניסוח האמוראי הוא שההלכה מלמדת על מקרה שבו משלם ולוקה, ומימרה זו, המיוחסת בעיקר לרבי מאיר, מופיעה רק במקורות אמוראיים (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ז מ\"א). על דרך ההשערה ניתן להציע שבמקור התנאי לא קבעה הברייתא שהחוסם עובר על לאו, אלא דיברה על מקרה כמו במשנתנו שבו מותר לו לחסום את הפרה בדרך זו של הנחת כפיפה. רק העיצוב האמוראי הציב את ההלכה במקרה של עברה על הלאו של \"לא תחסום\". פרשנות אפשרית זו באה משום שאין ביטוי חד במקורות התנאיים לגישה של \"לוקה ומשלם\", ואף התלמודים מתחבטים כיצד ייתכן הדבר (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ז מ\"א). עם זאת, דומה שאין להציע תיקון כה עמוק למסורות התלמוד ללא סיוע נוסף." + ], + [ + "גידולי תרומה תרומה – כתרומה אך לא תרומה ממש, שזרים (שאינם כוהנים) אינם רשאים לאכלה (לעיל מ\"ג) ואין לאכלה ללא טהרה (לעיל מ\"ב). עם זאת, אין היא תרומה לגמרי. באותה מידה ניתן היה להגדירה כחולין, אלא שאינה נאכלת לזר ובטומאה. ואכן במקבילה: \"גידולי תרומה ומעשר שני הרי הן כחולין\" (תוס', טהרות פ\"א ה\"ו, עמ' 661; ירו', פ\"ו ה\"א, מד ע\"א). ייתכן שניסוח זה חולק על משנתנו, אך דומה שאין מחלוקת על ההלכות של גידולי תרומה אלא זו מחלוקת בניסוח בלבד. גידולי תרומה הם \"תרומה\" רק בהשוואה לגידולי גידולים הנזכרים להלן10כן פירשו הר\"ש ותוספות הרא\"ש, בניגוד לרבנו ניסים. .", + "גידולי גידולים – מה שגדל מגידולי תרומה שנזרעו, חולים – לחלוטין, ולא גזרו עליהם דבר. ", + "אבל [לא את] – המילים נמחקו בקו והן טעות סופר, הטבל – פרי שטרם הופרשו ממנו מעשרות ותרומות, ומעשר ראשון – מעשר ראשון מותר בשימוש, וכל שנותר ממנו הוא חוב כספי, מופשט למדי, ללוי. ברם, המדובר כאן במעשר ראשון שטרם הורמה ממנו תרומה. אמנם יש בו מרכיב של תרומה, אבל מכיוון שהוא טרם הוגדר אין לפֵרות דין של גידולי תרומה, וספחי שביעית – ספיחי שביעית הם ירקות או דגנים שגדלו מעצמם בשביעית מזרע מקרי שנותר בשדה. אלו נאסרו על ידי רבנן מתוך חומרה כדי שלא יוכלו אנשים לזרוע בשביעית ולומר שהם ספיחים; יש מקורות שניתן להבין מהם שספיחים הם גזרה מיוחדת של חכמים, ויש שמשתמע מהם כי זו חומרה של חכמים כדין לכל דבר11ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ט מ\"א; פליקס, ספיחים. . מכל מקום, לפי פשוטה המשנה מדברת על ספיחים בלבד. ספיחים אסורים באכילה בשביעית, וניתן להבין שאם זרע מהם הגידולים אסורים באכילה. ", + "ותרומת חוץ לארץ – מעמדה של תרומת חוץ לארץ נדון במקומות אחרים, וסוכם במבוא למסכת. ראינו כי היו שנהגו להפריש תרומה בחוץ לארץ כמעין חובת חסידות. התרומה עצמה נחשבה חולין, אבל היו שהחמירו לאכלה בטהרה. כאן במשנה היא נחשבת לפחות מתרומה רגילה שעליה נאמר ברישא שגידוליה תרומה, אך אינה חולין וחכמים מעניקים לה מעמד מיוחד. כפי שאמרנו במבוא, הירושלמי מסביר את המשנה: \"...ותרומת חוצה לארץ – שאינה מצויה\" (מו ע\"ד)12הסבר זה לתרומת חוץ לארץ חסר במקבילה בירו', נדרים פ\"ו ה\"ד, לט ע\"ד. . אם כן, את תרומת חוץ לארץ מביאים לארץ, אך היא קדושה פחות מתרומה רגילה, ולכן מה שצמח מזרע של תרומה הוא חולין. הנימוק של הירושלמי ממעיט עוד יותר במשמעות הקדושה של התרומה. לפי התלמוד אין במשנה ביטוי למיעוט קדושה אלא לכך שהתרומה מחוץ לארץ נדירה, ולכן לא גזרו חכמים על מצב כה נדיר. סביר לטעון שהסבר התלמוד הוא ברוח ההלכה הרשמית שאין להרים תרומות בחוץ לארץ ואין להביאן לארץ. לכאורה יש במשנה עדות להבאתן לארץ, ואולי גם לחובה לעשות כן, ועל כן בא התירוץ הממעט. ברם, לפי דרכנו המשנה משקפת מציאות, אולי לא ברצונם או בעידודם של חכמים אך זו הייתה מציאות קיימת. עם זאת, הסבר הירושלמי מעיד שלא הייתה זאת מציאות רווחת.", + "והמדמע – המדומע הוא פֵרות חולין שנפלו לתוכם פֵרות תרומה ולא \"עלו\", כלומר כמות פֵרות התרומה גדולה מכדי לבטלם. לפֵרות דין תרומה, אבל חכמים מקלים ואינם מחילים עליה את גזרת הגידולים. הירושלמי (להלן) מסביר שמדובר במקרה שהרוב חולין. כפי שראינו היו שהקלו מאוד בדימוע ולא דרשו שהתרומה תעלה רק באחד ליותר ממאה (פירושנו לפ\"ז מ\"ה). אבל לעניין גידולי תרומה כנראה הכול מקבלים את מגמת ההקלה. המשנה הבאה היא דוגמה מורחבת של דין זה, ומשמע שם שמדומע מותר גם אם הרוב המכריע תרומה. ", + "והביכורים – ביכורים דינם כתרומה ומובאים למקדש, ואסור להשתמש בהם שימוש של חולין. אף על פי כן לא גזרו חכמים על גידולי ביכורים, ובטעם נדון להלן13ראו פירושנו לביכורים פ\"ב מ\"ב שממנו משמע שהיו שחלקו על משנתנו. .", + "גידוליהם חולין – מהמשנה הבאה משמע שכל זה בדבר ש\"אין זרעו כלה\", כלומר פרי שהזרע שלו עצמו נרקב ונשחת, אבל אם הפרי של הביכורים או המעשר עצמו עדיין קיים (כגון בבצלים) אין ההטמנה בקרקע משנה את דינו של הפרי. פירוש זה מופיע גם בתלמודים14ירו', שביעית פ\"ו ה\"ג, לו ע\"ד; בבלי, פסחים לד ע\"א; נדרים ס ע\"א ומקבילות מספר. , אך עולה בוודאות מהמשנה הבאה15וכן משנה, נדרים פ\"ז מ\"ד, כפי שנפרשה עת יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת. .", + "גידולי הקדש ומעשר שיני חולים – ההקדש והמעשר השני שניהם קודש, אך ניתן לפדות אותם בכסף ואז הקדושה עוברת למעות. על כן גידולי הקדש, כלומר מה שנבט מזריעה של פֵרות הקדש או מעשר שני, הם חולין לכל דבר, ופודה אותם כזמן זרען – זו הנוסחה בכתב יד קופמן וב- פ. ב- מ ו- ר \"בדמיי זרעם\", והוא הוא. לנוסח זה עדים נוספים רבים בספרות הראשונים16ראו ההערות אצל זק\"ש, תרומות, על אתר. . בעל מלאכת שלמה מעיר לנוסח \"כזמן שזרעם\" ודוחה אותו, אבל ביתר עדי הנוסח \"כזמן זרעם\". הכוונה היא בוודאי לכך שפודה את הפֵרות לפני שנזרעו, ואם לא פדה אותם בזמן רשאי לפדות את הזרעים גם רטרואקטיבית. ייתכן שהנוסח \"כזמן זרעם\" בא להדגיש שלא זו בלבד שיכול לפדות את הזרעים לאחר זמן אלא שפודה אותם במחיר השוק (השער) שהיה בשעת הזריעה. בדרך כלל מחיר התבואה יורד בשעת הקציר, שאז הפֵרות מרובים וההיצע הרב גורם לירידת הביקוש והמחיר. בשעת הזריעה המחיר בדרך כלל מעט גבוה יותר, ואם פודה אותם בשער של שעת הזריעה יש בכך חומרת מה. בירושלמי (מו ע\"ד) מתנהל דיון בשאלה זו והירושלמי מבחין בין דבר שזרעו כלה, שנפדה כשעת קציר, לבין דבר שאין זרעו כלה ונפדה כשעת זריעה. אם אבחנה זו מתקבלת אי אפשר לפרש שהמשנה קבעה באופן כללי שהפדיון הוא במחיר של שעת הזריעה. ", + "מכל מקום, לנוסח \"כזמן זרעם\" עדיפות מכרעת, ודומה שהמשנה לא נכנסה כלל לשאלה באיזה שער פודה את ההקדש או המעשר השני. הירושלמי דן בשאלה ואין לראות בכך פרשנות אלא דין נוסף שאמוראים התחבטו בו.", + "בתוספתא ובירושלמי שנינו: \"ליטרא מעשר שיני שנטעה... חייבת בתרומה ובמעשר ראשון ובמעשר שיני וחוזר ופודה את מעשר שיני שנטע\" (תוס', פ\"ח ה\"ו; ירו' מו ע\"ג), משמע שפדיון מעשר שני מתבצע בשעת הקטיף של הגידולים ויש בכך חומרה נוספת ולא רק תנאי להפיכת הפֵרות לחולין. אבל מעבר לאבחנה דקה זו, כפי שנראה להלן את הברייתות ניתן לפרש גם בדבר שזרעו אינו כלה. ", + "ההלכה במשנה היא זו שבברייתות. ממשנתנו ומהברייתות ברור שגידולי מעשר שני הם חולין. אבל בתוספתא המקבילה למשנה הקודמת שנוי: \"דש תרומה ומעשר שני עובר משום בל תחסום. כיצד הוא עושה? מביא קפיפות ותולה בצוארי בהמה ונותן לתוכה חולין מאותו המין\" (בבא מציעא פ\"ח הי\"א). כפי שראינו בפירושנו למשנה הקודמת ניתן בדוחק להבין את המשנה בפֵרות מעשר שני שהופרש מהם המעשר לפני הדיש. ברם, לפי ההלכה רק לאחר הדיש התחייבו החיטים במעשרות, וקרוב לפרש שהתוספתא עוסקת בגידולי תרומה, ומשמע שגם גידולי מעשר שני הם תרומה, כלומר אין להאכילם לזרים ולבהמה ויש לאכלם בירושלים בטהרה. כפי שנראה להלן במסכת מעשר שני גם שם ניתן לפרש משנה אחת בגידולי מעשר שני שהם מעשר שני, ומדובר שם בתלתן שהוא דבר שזרעו כלה (ראו פירושנו למעשר שני פ\"ב מ\"ג).", + "כפי שראינו, ייתכן שיש גם החולקים על דין גידולי ביכורים17ראו פירושנו לביכורים פ\"ב מ\"ב ובירושלמי שם סה ע\"א, וראו דיון הבבלי בבבא מציעא צ ע\"א. הבבלי שואל על הסתירה ומתרץ שכאן מעשר ראשון וכאן מעשר שני, אבל אינו אומר שמשנתנו עוסקת בגידולי מעשר והתוספתא במעשר שני עצמו. . דומה ששתי גישות יש גם לגבי גידולי מעשר שני, ובדוחק ניתן לתרץ18ואולי התוספתא עוסקת במצב שבו לא פדה את הזרעים אפילו לאחר זמן, מתוך שרצה לעבור במזיד, או שהבעל לא פדה ואדם אחר רוצה להשתמש בפֵרות. .", + "במשנה חסרה ההנמקה לדין. למעשה אין בה צורך, הדין המשונה והמחודש הוא שגידולי תרומה הם תרומה, וזו כאמור גזרה מיוחדת. ביתר הדברים לא גזרו משום שדינם מסופק אלא מתוך אותה גזרה מיוחדת הבאה להרחיק אדם מהעברה. טבל ומעשר ראשון הם תערובת, וכמו מדומע; התערובת אסורה, אך חומרתה פחותה משל תרומה ממש. ספיחי שביעית אסורים רק מדרבנן, ותרומת חוץ לארץ היא ספק תרומה וחובת אכילתה בטהרה בעייתית ביותר. אדרבה, לפי רוב המקורות אין לאכלה בטהרה כלל19אי אפשר לפרש שהכוונה לתרומה בסוריה, שהרי בסוריה חייבים בתרומה כמו בארץ ישראל, וראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ב מ\"א. . החידוש הוא שיש צורך למנות את דין גידולי תרומה בחוץ לארץ כלל ועיקר. זאת ועוד, המדובר בגידולי תרומה מחוץ לארץ שנזרעו בארץ, שהרי ודאי אין חובה להביא תרומה מחוץ לארץ. אבל חכמים הסתייגו מהבאת תרומה מחוץ לארץ לארץ ישראל (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"ו מ\"ו; תוס', שביעית פ\"ה ה\"ב20ראו במפורט בנספח למסכת שביעית. עצם הדיון על גידולי תרומה בחוץ לארץ מצביע על אי אחידות, שכן הוא מעיד על שמירה מסוימת של דין תרומות בחוץ לארץ אך לא באותה מידה כמו בארץ. ). המשנה מחמירה אפוא מאוד בדין תרומת חוץ לארץ. ", + "אשר לביכורים אלו הם בכלל תרומה של התנדבות ומי שלא הפריש ביכורים פֵרותיו מותרים, לכן לא החמירו בגידוליהם.", + "בירושלמי הסבר שונה במקצת למשנה: \"אבל הטבל שרובו חולין, ומעשר ראשון שרובו חולין, וספיחי שביעית שאין מצויין, ותרומת חוצה לארץ שאינה מצויה, והמדומע שרובו חולין והביכורים שאין מצויין\" (מו ע\"ד). אם כן, גידולים של ספיחי שביעית לא נאסרו משום \"שאין מצויין\", כלומר זה מקרה נדיר, ולא גזרו על מקרים נדירים, והוא הדין תרומת חוץ לארץ וביכורים. הצענו לעיל הסברים אחרים שנראו להערכתנו מתאימים יותר21בירושלמי שביעית (פ\"ו ה\"ג, לו ע\"ד) מובאים דברי רבי זעירא הקובע שבצל של כלאיים ששתלו והוסיפו העלים הם אסורים. אבל מדבריו משמע שיש מקרים שבהם התוספת מותרת. כן משמע מהמשנה שיש אפשרות שהעלים החדשים ייחשבו כמותרים (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ו מ\"ג). הירושלמי מקשה ממשנתנו שמשמע ממנה שספיחי שביעית חולין, ומתרץ שדברי רבי זעירא הם בפֵרות שביעית המותרים באכילה אלא שמדובר לאחר זמן הביעור. אבל בפֵרות האסורים לאכילה ושהזרע לא כלה בהם הפרי עצמו אסור, אבל מה שנוסף בזריעה המחודשת מותר. אגב תירוץ זה אנו שומעים על הקלה נוספת שגם אם הפרי לא כלה, מה שגדל מותר. הסוגיה מעוררת שאלות רבות, ולא נרחיב בהן, שהרי לכאורה דברי המשנה (פ\"ו מ\"ו) אינם בספיחים אלא בפֵרות שביעית רגילים, ובכלל אין אלו בצלים אסורים אלא בצלים של שישית שהוסיפו תוספת גידול בשנת שביעית. על כן כל ההשוואה בין המשנה הזאת למשנתנו בעייתית. . " + ], + [ + "מאה ליגנה – ראשונים התחבטו בפירוש המילה. הם שיערו ש\"ליגנה\" היא ערוגה לפי ההקשר, אך התקשו בפירוש המילה. אלא שזו מילה שאולה מארמית, ומשמעה פשוט ערוגה22תוספתא כפשוטה, פ\"ח ה\"ד. נוסח המילה שובש מאוד בגלל נדירותה וראו ליברמן, שם. . בתוספתא הנוסח הוא \"מאה לגינין של תרומה\" (פ\"ח ה\"ד), שליתרומה ואחת שלחולים – ולא ידוע איזו ערוגה היא של חולין, כולם מותרים – המדובר בשדה העשוי ערוגות. מאה ערוגות נזרעו בתרומה ופֵרותיהם הם גידולי תרומה, וערוגה אחת נזרעה חולין ובעצם פֵרות גידוליה הם חולין לחלוטין, אלא שלא ידוע מהי ערוגת החולין. באופן רגיל הפֵרות הם תרומה, שכן התרומה עולה באחד ומאה ועוד קצת (ראו פירושנו לעיל פ\"ד מ\"ז), אבל מכיוון שבכל זאת יש במאה הערוגות מרכיב של חול הרי שהכול מותר. דין זה הוא פיתוח של הדין של \"מדומע\" שהוא מותר, כאמור במשנה הקודמת. במשנה לעיל הסביר הירושלמי שמדומע שם הוא רק מצב שבו הרוב חולין, וממשנתנו מתברר שלפחות במקרה זה מדומע שרובו תרומה גם הוא מותר.", + "בדבר שזרעו כלה – כל זה בדבר שהזרע עצמו, שהיה של תרומה, כלה.", + "אבל בדבר שאין זרעו כלה אפילו מאה שלחולין ואחת שליתרומה כולם אסורין – אם הזרע שהיה של תרומה נותר בעינו, אפילו בערוגה אחת של תרומה שאבדה במאה של חולין הכול אסור. תרומה עולה באחד ומאה ועוד (ראו פירושנו לפ\"ד מ\"ז). בתוספתא מוסברת המשנה: \"שאין קרקע עולה באחד ומאה. תלש יעלה ובלבד שלא יתכוין ויתלוש. רבי שמעון אומר אף יתכוין ויתלוש ויעלה באחד ומאה\" (פ\"ח ה\"ד). אם כן, מדובר במצב שבו בעצם התרומה צריכה הייתה להתבטל, ואכן במשניות רבות המינוח \"אחד למאה\" משמעו אחד למאה ואחד, והתרומה בטלה23ראו פירושנו לפ\"ד מ\"ט ומי\"א, ובהרחבה שם במ\"ז. . אלא שכאן אין התרומה בטלה כי דבר שבקרקע אינו בטל, ולכן אם נתלשה התרומה חלה עליה ההלכה של ביטול באחד ומאה. רבי שמעון, כדרכו, מתיר ומאפשר ביטול ברוב לכתחילה על ידי תלישה. לפי זה הוא חולק באופן עקרוני על המשנה. הוא מסכים שתרומה בקרקע אינה בטלה, אך סבור שהפתרון הפשוט הוא לקצור, או לתלוש, את הפֵרות, ואז לא תחול עליהם חומרה זו24כן פירש הרא\"ש אלא שגרס רבי יהודה במקום רבי שמעון, וזה חילוף תדיר בין עדי הנוסח למקורות התנאיים. .", + "האבחנה בין \"זרעו כלה\" ל\"זרעו אינו כלה\" נאמרה על המקרה האחרון של תרומה, אבל נכונה על כל המקרים במשניות הקודמות כפי שפירשנו, וכפי שקבעה גם המשנה לעיל (פ\"ז מ\"ז). המשנה שם מקלה מאוד בדין תערובת (דימוע), וכפי שהראינו היא מציגה גישה שונה מהמקובל בכל הנוגע לאיסור זה. שם נקבע: \"זרע אחד את שתיהן (סאה של תרומה וסאה של חולין שהתערבו) דבר שזרעו כלה מותר ודבר שאין זרעו כלה אסור\". למעשה זה המקרה שלנו, שנזרע חומר מעורב וודאי שחלקו תרומה, ונאמר שם שהזרע מותר ומשמע שהגידולים חולין, ורק אם הזרע אינו כלה הכול אסור. אם כן, המשנה שם מקלה בהרבה גם ממשנתנו. עוד נאמר שם שאם זרע תרומה (אם זרע את שתי הסאות, הראשונה נחשבת לחולין אבל השנייה נחשבת לתרומה), לדעת רבי מאיר חייב בחלה ולדעת רבי יוסי פטור מחלה. דעתו של רבי מאיר ברורה. אפילו אם הסאה השנייה נחשבת לוודאי תרומה היא חייבת בחלה כשם שחייבת במעשרות (לעיל מ\"ג), אבל לדעתו של רבי יוסי היא פטורה מחלה ומשמע שפטורה מכל המעשרות, וגידולי תרומה הם תרומה לכל דבר, ואף זאת בניגוד למשנתנו. כפי שאמרנו, אכן המשניות בסוף פרק ז מציגות גישה הלכתית שונה מהמקובל ביתר המשניות. על משנתנו חולקת משנה ז בשני פרטים, אלו הנזכרים כאן ובמשנה ג לעיל.", + "האבחנה בין \"זרעו כלה\" לבין \"אין זרעו כלה\" נכונה אפוא על גידולי תרומה, גידולי מעשר ראשון, טבל וכיוצא באלו, אבל לא על גידולי מעשר שני והקדש. אלו די להם בפדיון אפילו אם הזרע קיים. בתוספתא נאמר: \"ליטרא מעשר ראשון שנטעה והרי בה כעשר ליטרין: חייבת בתרומה, במעשר ראשון ובמעשר שני. ובמעשר ראשון שבה עושה אותה תרומה ומעשר על מעשר ראשון שנטע\" (פ\"ח ה\"ה, וכעין זה בירושלמי מו ע\"ג). אותה ברייתא מצויה גם בתלמוד הבבלי אך היא מנוסחת מעט אחרת: \"דתניא: ליטרא מעשר טבל שזרעה בקרקע, והשביחה והרי היא כעשר ליטרין – חייבת במעשר ובשביעית. ואותה ליטרא מעשר עליה (ממקום אחר25כנראה אין לגרוס צמד מילים זה כפי שהעיר הרא\"ש, וראו ליברמן לתוספתא עמ' 428. ) לפי חשבון\" (בבלי, נדרים נח ע\"ב). הברייתא מדברת על דבר שאין זרעו כלה, שהרי מדובר במפורש ב\"אותה ליטרה מעשר ראשון שבה\"26כך ליברמן, ושם גם בירור הנוסח. . ואכן, בירושלמי הנוסח הוא \"ליטרא בצלים...\", ובמשנה הבאה יוכח שבצלים הם הדוגמה המובהקת, והיחידה כמעט, לדבר שאין זרעו כלה. אם כן, גם מה שאין זרעו כלה הוא למעשה חולין, אלא שהזרע עצמו קדוש ואין לתתו באופן סתמי לכהן או ללוי אלא לעשות אותו תרומה על מקום אחר, כלומר לבעל נחסך התשלום של מקום אחר. לפי הבבלי \"לפי חשבון\" פירושו כנראה שלתשלום המעשרות הוא מוסיף את המעשר הראשון שבזמנו לא הפריש. " + ], + [ + "הטבל גידוליו מותרין בדבר שזרעו כלה אבל בדבר שאין זרעו כלה גידולי גידולין אסורין – הכלל ההלכתי הוא אותו כלל שהוסבר במשנה קודמת. אם הזרע לא כלה הרי שהקודש נשאר קודש, ואי אפשר לבטלו. אבל אם הזרע כלה הרי הקודש טושטש לפי העיקרון שנקבע במשנה הקודמת. הכלל נכון על טבל, על מעשר ראשון ועל כל ההלכות הקודמות שנזכרו במשנה. אם כן המשפט לכאורה מיותר, ונראה שהמשנה הובאה כיחידה שלמה והמשפט הובא בשביל ההמשך המבהיר מהו המונח \"זרעו כלה\". ", + "המינוח \"גידולי גידולים\" משמעו שכל היוצא מגידולים אלו אסור אפילו לעתיד לבוא. הירושלמי מסייג את הקביעה ופוסק שהפֵרות אסורים עד שלוש גרנות או עד ארבע גרנות. רבי מנא פוסק שהגורן הרביעית כראשונה, כלומר שתרומה עדיין אסורה (תרומה) וטבל מותר, כלומר הוא חולין (ירו', מו ע\"ד). אם כן, גם הכלל שגידולי גידולים של תרומה אסורים מוגבל לשלוש או ארבע גרנות. המספר שלוש חוזר בהקשרים דומים. כך למשל, חמצם של גויים לאחר הפסח מותר לאחר שלוש שבתות של אפייה27תוס', פסחים פ\"ב ה\"א (פ\"א הי\"ג), ראו פירושנו לפסחים פ\"ב מ\"א. . ", + "באופן כללי יש להפריש את המעשרות רק לאחר גמר מלאכה שהוא, בין השאר, הבאת הפֵרות לבית או המירוח בתבואה. הפרשת מעשרות לזרע היא שאלה הנידונה בהלכה, ועסקנו בכך בהרחבה בפירושנו לפאה (פ\"א מ\"ו) ודמאי (פ\"א מ\"ג). פירשנו שבאופן כללי יש מחלוקת בדבר. זרעים שאינם נאכלים ודאי פטורים (משנה, מעשרות פ\"ה מ\"ח), אך יש מחלוקת אם זרעים רגילים שנזרעו לפני גמר מלאכה חייבים במעשרות. משנתנו מהלכת בדעה שהם חייבים, כפי שיודגש גם להלן. משנת מעשרות קובעת בהקשר זה שמכל מקום יש להפריש לפני זריעה, והזריעה היא מעין גמר מלאכה בפני עצמה (פ\"ה מ\"ב; ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"א מ\"ג), ומשמע מהמשנה שאין לזרוע טבל.", + "בירושלמי (מו ע\"ד) מובאת גם ברייתא החולקת על משנתנו, שהמנכש עם הכותי פטור רק מדמאי ולא מוודאי. ניסוח זה ודאי חולק על משנת דמאי שזרעי דמאי פטורים ממעשר.", + "ואיזה הוא דבר ש[אין] זרעו כלה כגון הלוף השום והבצלים – ברור שיש לגרוס \"שאין זרעו כלה\", אך בכתב היד עצמו \"שזרעו כלה\" והמילה \"אין\" נוספה על השורה בידי מעתיק למדן. מחזור הזרעים של הבצל כך הוא: את זרע הבצל זורעים28אם משתמשים בזרע יגדלו עלים דקים, ואם זורעים בצלצל יתקבלו עלים רבים יותר. הירושלמי מתאר את התופעה בלשון זו: \"אמר רבי יוסי הדין קיצחה כד את זרע ליה הוא עביד בצל דקיק כד את שתל ליה הוא עביד בצל רב\" (ירו', פאה פ\"ג ה\"ג, יז ע\"ג – כאשר אתה זורע אותו הוא עושה בצל דק, כאשר אתה שותל אותו הוא עושה בצל גדול). ; ממנו יוצאים עלים ירוקים והם הבצל הירוק המוכר במטבח הקדום והמודרני כאחד; בשלב זה ניתן לקטוף את עלי הבצל, וזהו \"המחלק בצלים לחים\". אבל ניתן גם להשהות את הבצל בשדה, הבצלים נובלים ונוצרת פקעת גדולה. את הפקעות אוספים וניתן לאכלן כבצל יבש, או לשמרן לזריעה בשנה הבאה. בשנה השנייה זורעים את הפקעת, וצומח גבעול מרכזי ובראשו תפרחת זרעים. התפרחת שואבת את מזונותיה מהפקעת וזו הופכת לחסרת ערך. בסוף העונה יש לאסוף את שרידי הפקעות, ואלו כמעט חסרי ערך ולכל היותר ניתן לצרפם למזון אחר של בהמות. במקרה שבמשנתנו מדובר בסוף עונת הגידול הראשונה, הבצלים הלחים (הירוקים) נאגדים ומובלים לשוק למכירה כאגודות בצלים, והבצלים היבשים נשארים בקרקע וייאספו רק בהמשך העונה. הפקעת הנזרעת נשארת כמות שהיא, ועל כן היא בבחינת \"אין זרעו כלה\".", + "רבי יהודה אומר השום כשעורין – שום דינו כשעורים, כלומר זרעו כלה. בירושלמי (מו ע\"ד) מתנהל דיון האם שום כשעורים לכל דבר, או רק לעניין גידולי גידולים בשנה השלישית כדלעיל. הירושלמי מוסיף את הכלובסין שגם הם זרעם כלה, והם חייבים במעשרות: \"רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוסי בר חנינא בולכסין29כלובסין הם בולכסין, והאותיות ב-כ התחלפו. הנמכרין בקיסרין הרי אילו אסורין מפני שרובן באין מהר המלך. רבי חייא בר אדא אמר בלבנין ורבנין דקיסרין אמרין באדומין\" (ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ג).", + "המשניות שלמדנו מדגימות את יחסן של המשניות לחובת מעשר ראשון. כידוע, רוב העם לא הפריש מעשרות; אלו כונו \"עמי הארץ\" וסתם פֵרות הם דמאי, משום שחזקתם מהרוב שהיו עמי ארצות30ראו על כך במבוא למסכת דמאי. . מעשר ראשון אינו אסור באכילה, וכל שנותר הוא לשלם את החוב הכספי ללוי. עמי הארץ נחשדו למעשה באי תשלום של חוב זה, והלוי אינו יכול לתבוע אותו מאיש. המשניות שלנו אינן עומדות על כך שהחוב הכספי ישולם. גזל שבט הלוויים אינו נזכר כלל כבעיה שיש לפתרה. רק נוסח הברייתא שבבבלי מעלה שיקול זה בחשבון. חכמים כאילו מוותרים למעשה על התביעה לתשלום רֵאלי של מעשר ראשון. מבחינה דתית המצווה תקפה ונתבעת מכל אדם, אבל בפועל התייאשו כביכול חכמים מלתבוע את מימושה המעשי.", + "המינוח \"גידולי גידולים אסורין\" איננו בהיר. בתרומה משמעו שהפֵרות אסורים לזר ויש לאכלם בטהרה, אך לגבי טבל נשאלת השאלה האם הם אסורים באכילה כמו טבל, ואי אפשר עוד לתקנם, או שהם כטבל ויש להפריש מהם מעשרות. מסתבר שלכל היותר יש להפריש מהם מעשרות פעמיים, פעם בשביל השנה שעברה ופעם בשל היבול של השנה. מכל מקום, אם הפריש תיקן בכך את הפגם. " + ], + [ + "המנכש עם הנכרי בחסיות – חסיות היא צורת הריבוי של חסה. החסה היא ירק עלים גדול המכונה גם \"חזרת\" (ירו', פסחים פ\"ב ה\"ה, כט ע\"ג; בבלי, לט ע\"א) ובמקורות מוזכרים סוגים שונים של חזרת: \"חזרת\" סתם, \"חזרת גלים\" (משנה, כלאים פ\"א מ\"ב), \"חזרת יולין\" (בבלי, פסחים לט ע\"א) ועוד. אם כן, חסיות הן לכאורה סוגי חסה; לעתים מופיעה צורת הריבוי \"חסיות\" ולעתים \"חסין\"31להלן פ\"י מ\"י ופירושנו לה; ירו', פסחים שם שם; כלאים פ\"ב ה\"ח, כח ע\"א. . ברם, נראה שכל זה רק באשר למקור השם, אבל בספרות חכמים התגלגל השם \"חסיות\" ככינוי כללי לכל צמחי הפקעת כלוף, בצל ושום. ואכן, התוספתא להלן אומרת: \"אילו הן מיני חוסית הלוף והשום והבצלים והקפלוטות. רבי יהודה אומר אין לך מיני חוסית אלא קפלוט בלבד\" (פ\"ט ה\"ג; בבלי, נדרים נח ע\"ב). ", + "את כרישי השדה הירושלמי מזהה עם הקפלוטין. במשנת נדרים נקבע שמי שנודר \"מן הכרישין מותר בקפלוטות\" (פ\"ו מ\"ט). אם כן קפלוטות קרובות לכרישין, אך הן מין שונה במקצת. התוספתא שם מוסיפה שיש \"מקום שקורין לקפלוטות כרישין\" (פ\"ג ה\"ו). נמצאנו למדים שהשמות עברו בירקות קרובים מזה לזה. ממשנת שביעית משמע שהכרישין נמנים עם הירקות הנשמרים, כלומר שהם גידולי תרבות (וחייבים בשביעית – משנה, שביעית פ\"ז מ\"א). לעומת זאת נראה שהייתה מחלוקת באיזו מידה נחשבים כרישי השדה לירק נשמר (משנה, עוקצין פ\"ג מ\"ב). ", + "מהתוספתא משמע שקפלוטות הן צמח שיש לו שורש עבה וקיים (פ\"ט ה\"ג), ושיש לו בצל, בערך בגודל של הבצל הרגיל32ירו', פ\"ב ה\"ג, מא ע\"ג: \"אף ראשי לפתות וראשי קפלוטות עשו אותן כתבשיל שהוא מצטמק ויפה לו\", וכן שבת פ\"ג ה\"א, ה ע\"ד; ערלה פ\"ב ה\"ד, סב ע\"ב. . זמן ההבשלה הוא בקיץ, מעצרת ועד חנוכה33ירו', דמאי פ\"ב ה\"א, כב ע\"ג; השוו ירו', שביעית פ\"ו ה\"ד, לז ע\"ג. . ברם, כל זה אינו מאפשר לזהות את כרישי השדה או הקפלוטים במדויק.", + "בתוספתא שם אין מדובר בדבר שזרעו כלה או שאינו כלה, ויש לראות בברייתא הסבר כללי לחסיות הנזכרות במשנה להלן (פ\"י מ\"י) כדוגמה לנושא אחר. אבל הבבלי מפרש בפשטות שחסיות אין זרען כלה, אם כן המנכש עם הנכרי רשאי לאכול ירקות תוך כדי עבודה. פֵרות הגוי נחשבים בפשטות כמי שחייבים במעשרות34ראו פירושנו לדמאי פ\"ה מ\"ט. , על כן אין לאכלם ללא הפרשת מעשר. אבל במקרה שלנו מותר לאכלם טבל, אף על פי שפירותיו טבל אוכל מהן עריי – לפי ההלכה מותר לאכול פֵרות עראי, בשדה, לפני הפרשת מעשרות, וזו ההלכה במשנתנו. לפי ההקשר החסיות הללו נחשבות לגידולי טבל, ובדבר שאין זרעו כלה גידולי טבל הם טבל ואסורים. בכל פרי רגיל פֵרות בשדה טרם התחייבו במעשר ולכן מותר לאכלם, אבל גידולי טבל חייבים במעשרות לא כיבול רגיל אלא משום שהם גידולי טבל, והחובה אינה קשורה לגמר המלאכה אלא לזריעה עצמה. אף על פי כן הותר לאכלם עראי. ", + "המשנה מתפרשת כפשוטה לפי ההנחה שפֵרות גוי חייבים במצוות התלויות בארץ. כפי שראינו זו הדעה הרווחת בספרות תנאים. רק בספרות האמוראים התפרשו מקורות תנאיים כאילו יש חכמים הפוטרים את הגוי מהמצוות התלויות בארץ. גם בירושלמי כאן (מו ע\"ד) מעמידים את משנתנו גם35כך פירשנו שלדעת התלמוד משנתנו גם כרבי שמעון, אך מבחינה מילולית ניתן לפרש את הירושלמי שמשנתנו רק כרבי שמעון. כרבי שמעון. לרבי שמעון מיוחסת הדעה שהגוי פטור ממצוות התלויות בארץ, אלא שגם לדעתו הוא חייב בכך כהלכה שגזרו או שתיקנו חכמים. היתרון של הפירוש הוא שיש בכך הסבר מדוע יש צורך במשנה, הרי תמיד מותר לאכול טבל בשדה כאכילת עראי. אנו הסברנו קושי זה בצורה שונה. כאמור, לדעתנו הקביעה שיש תנאים הסבורים שפֵרות הגוי פטורים ממעשרות היא אמוראית, והמשנה מתפרשת בפשטות לפי הדעה שפֵרות הגוי חייבים במעשר. ", + "בתוספתא במקום \"גוי\" או \"נכרי\" כתוב \"כותי\" (פ\"ח ה\"ז), וכן גרס רבי משה פיזנטי בפירושו למשנתנו. בעל מלאכת שלמה הכיר את הגרסה בשם \"אית דגרסי\". מטרת הנוסח הזה להבהיר שכותי חייב במעשרות ודאי, ואולי הוא אף מושפע מהפחד בפני הצנזורה שבגללו החליפו את הגוי בכותי36יש מקום לברר אפשרות של השפעת צנזורה על כתבי יד של התוספתא, ועל לימודו של ר' משה פיזנטי שהיה מחכמי המזרח. . מכל מקום, אם מדובר בכותי ודאי שפֵרותיו חייבים במצוות התלויות בארץ. אין הבדל הלכתי בין הברייתות לבין המשנה, שכן בשני המקרים פֵרות של גוי וכותי הם דוגמאות לפֵרות החייבים במעשרות ודאי. ייתכן שהנוסח \"כותי\" כבר הושפע מהידיעה כאילו יש האומרים שפֵרות גוי פטורים ממעשרות, והעורכים רצו למצוא מקרה שידגים את הבעיה המקורית של המשנה. מכל מקום, בספרות תנאים פֵרות כותי הם \"ודאי\", שהכותים חייבים במעשרות ואינם מפרישים אותם37כידוע, מחלוקת תנאים היא האם כותים הם כגויים או כישראלים, וראו סיכום ההלכות בנספח למסכת ברכות. . ", + "מבחינה כלכלית דיון התלמוד חשוב. הוא מבטא תפיסה פשוטה שהגוי זורע בשדהו מפֵרותיו, ואין לתלות ולומר שקנה את הזרעים בשוק, ואולי אלו זרעים מפֵרות של ישראל. ואכן, בדרך כלל זרע אדם מיבולו. אמנם ניתן היה לקנות זרעים בשוק, ואולי אף רוב היבול הופנה לשוק, אבל בכל זאת סתם אדם זרע משדותיו.", + "שיתלי תרומה שניטמאו ישתלן – כך כתוב באותיות כתב יד קופמן, ומשמע שמותר לשתלם לכתחילה. אבל הניקוד הוא כאילו כתוב \"ושתלן\", אלא שהאות וי\"ו כתובה כיו\"ד. בכל יתר עדי הנוסח38כולל הנוסח בספר והזהיר לפרשת תרומה. \"ושתלן\" או \"שתלן\", כלומר שעשה כן בדיעבד. המדובר בכהן עצמו, ומשמע שלכתחילה עליו לשרוף את השתילים כדין תרומה שנטמאת.", + "טהרו מלטמא – החיבור לקרקע מטהר את התרומה, שהרי אין דבר המחובר מקבל טומאה, ואסורין מלאוכל עד שיגוס האוכל – אסור לאכול את הגידולים הללו בצורה רגילה, אלא יש \"לגוס\", כלומר לקצץ את הגבעול העולה כשהוא צעיר, ומותר לאכול רק את המשך הגידול. הפרשנים המסורתיים מסבירים שזו גזרה בעלמא, החמרת יתר שאין לה בסיס וממילא גם לא היגיון הלכתי39להלכות תרומה הנובעות מתחושת הקודש ולא מתפיסה משפטית ראו במבוא. . אנו מבינים הלכה כזאת כהחמרה חריגה, שלא באה מההיגיון ההלכתי אלא מנהג חסידות שחדר למציאות ההלכתית.", + "רבי יהודה אומר עד שיגוס וישנה – צריך לגוס פעמיים את הירק העולה. כאמור לעיל (מ\"ד) גידולי תרומה הם תרומה, וגם כאן המדובר כנראה ברשות כהן, וברור שהכול תרומה. באופן מעשי ההנחיה \"עד שיגום\" הופכת את הזריעה לבלתי כדאית; אם מדובר בזרע בודד הדבר אפשרי, אבל אי אפשר ליגוס שדה תבואה שלם. ", + "ההלכה במשנה מצטרפת למקרים של החמרה יתרה בדיני תרומה. מבחינה משפטית אין לה הצדקה, וההחלטה הושפעה ממגמות חסידיות של החמרה במצוות הקודש, ודנו בכך במבוא. ", + "בירושלמי נאמר: \"כיני מתניתין עד שיגום בעלים וישנה\" (מו ע\"ד). ייתכן שדברי רבי יהודה לא היו כלולים בנוסח שהיה לפני הירושלמי. אפשטיין פירש40אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 277. שהכוונה שיגום את העלים ולא את האוכל, ורבי יהודה חולק בשניים: גם ליגום את העלים וגם ליגום פעמיים. הסבר זה קשה ביותר. אם גוממים את העלים, כלומר חותכים אותם, פוגעים בצמח בצורה אנושה, ואם הכוונה לתלישת העלים – למה לא נאמר בפשטות שתולשים את העלים? " + ] + ], + [ + [ + "הפרק עוסק בדיני תערובות, וחוזר בכך לפרק ז שבו סדורים דינים אלו. אלא ששם דובר בתערובת של פֵרות שלמים וכאן בתערובת בתחום המטבח, בשלב הבישול. בתחום המטבח נכנס מרכיב הלכתי נוסף והוא \"נותן טעם\". גם אם בתערובת פחות מאחד למאה בנותן טעם – אסור, ומדובר בדרך כלל במין בשאינו מינו, שבו יש משום נתינת טעם. בתוספתא מקבילה לקובץ שבמשנה, אך החיבור הוא אחר. סוף הקובץ הקודם עוסק בתלתן (תלתן תרומה שנזרע), והקובץ החדש בתלתן תרומה שנפל לבור מים. במשנה מקרה זה הוא השני, בסיפא של משנה ב, ובתוספתא נפתח בו הדיון בקובץ דיני התערובת. נראה בעליל שלתוספתא כאן היה עורך עצמאי, והיו לו שיקולי עריכה משלו. הוא כנראה הכיר את המשניות, אך חש בנתק שבין פרק י לפרק הקודם ופתר את הבעיה בדרכו, על ידי שני שינויי עריכה. קשה יותר לפרש שהתוספתא היא עצמאית ומהווה מקור למשנה, שהרי אם כך היה למה שינה עורך המשנה את הסדר הטוב שבתוספתא. מכל מקום, הזיקה הספרותית שבין המשנה לתוספתא ברורה. בשאלה הכללית עסקנו במבוא לפירוש המשניות וראינו שבדרך כלל יש זיקה הדדית בין שני החיבורים, אך הקביעה מי מהם הוא המקור אינה אחידה. בדרך כלל התוספתא נערכה על בסיס המשנה, אך לעתים השתמשה המשנה במקור שהתוספתא מביאה אותו בצורה מלאה יותר או צמודה יותר. במקרים מעין אלו ניתן גם לפרש שהתוספתא שימשה כמקור למשנה. ", + " ", + "בצל שנתנו בתוך עדשים – הסוגיה בירושלמי בראש פרקנו הניחה כי המשנה מדברת על בצל של חולין שנתנוהו בתוך עדשים של תרומה. מסתבר כי הסוגיה למדה זאת מקביעת ההלכה בהמשך דברי המשנה \"אם שלם מותר\", כלומר הבצל הוא חולין ואם הוא שלם הוא מותר באכילה מפני שלא קלט מן העדשים של תרומה, וכפירושו של בעל מלאכת שלמה.", + "מן הסוגיה בירושלמי עולה כי הם הניחו שהוא הדין אם הבצל הוא של תרומה והעדשים הם חולין, שכן אמור בה: \"וכמה דאת אמר עדשים צופדות אותו שלא יבלע ודכוותה עדשים צופדות אותו שלא יתן\" (מז ע\"א). צופדות משמעו סופגות. הרמב\"ם בפירושו מסכם: \"בין שהיו עדשים של תרומה ובצל חולין, או שהיה בצל של תרומה ועדשים חולין\".", + "אם שלם – הבצל, מותר – לישראל לאכלו, שאין הבצל השלם קולט מן העדשים של תרומה. הסוגיה בירושלמי בראש הפרק מפרשת ומסייגת הלכה זו: \"מתניתין בשהוציאו עדשים מימיהן, שעדשים צופדות אותו שלא יבלע\" מן העדשים של תרומה. ועוד מוסיפה הסוגיה: \"ביבש אבל בלח אסור\", \"העביר פטומתו כמחותך הוא\", כלומר הבצל מותר רק כשנתנהו בעדשים יבשים כשהוא שלם וקליפתו שלמה, ואף אם הקליפה שלמה הסוגיה מוסיפה: \"הדא דתימר בשאין קליפתו החיצונה כדי ליתן טעם, אבל אם יש בקליפה החיצונה כדי ליתן טעם אסור\". לא כל ההחמרות עולות מפשוטה של המשנה, ומסתבר שבתלמוד ישנה החמרה על דברי המשנה.", + "אם חיתכו בנותן טעם – החיתוך גורם לכך שהבצל נותן טעם בתבשיל.", + "ושאר כל התבשילין – אם נתנו לתוכם בצל של תרומה, בין שלם בין מחותך – אינו אסור אלא בנותן טעם – אם הבצל נותן טעם בתבשיל אסור לישראל לאכלו. הכהן רשאי לשים את הבצל כדי לתת טעם בתבשיל של תרומה, ואף לשים בצל של תרומה בתבשיל של חולין ולאכלו.", + "רבי יהודה מתיר בצחנה – צחנה הוא תבשיל של דגים קטנים שהתבשלו בישול כבד והפכו למעין דיסה, כמו ששנינו: \"הנודר מן הצחנה אסור בטרית טרופה, ומותר בציר ובמורייס\" (משנה, נדרים פ\"ו מ\"ד). מסתבר שהיא נקראת בכינוי \"צחנה\" בגלל הריח הנודף ממנה. רבי יהודה מתיר לשים בצל של תרומה בתבשיל של דגים קטנים. דברי רבי יהודה מוסבים על בצל של תרומה, שהרי הדגים אין בהם תרומה. רבי יהודה מתיר לשים לתוך הצחנה בצל של תרומה משום שאינו אלא ליטול את הזהמה – שאין הבצל נותן טעם לתבשיל אלא נוטל עמו את הזוהמה העולה מבישול הדגים. היתרו של רבי יהודה הוא מפליג. הוא אמנם נוטל את הזוהמה, אך גם נותן טעם לתבשיל הדגים. ואמנם, הסוגיה בירושלמי מצרפת לענייננו משנה אחרת: \"דגים שנתבשלו עם הקפלוטות של מעשר שני והשביחו השבח לפי חשבון\" (משנה, מעשר שני פ\"ב מ\"א). מן המשנה עולה כי הקפלוטות, הדומות לבצל, אף משביחות את תבשיל הדגים, והסוגיה מסבירה: \"מתניתין דלא כרבי יודה, דתנינן, רבי יודה מתיר בצחנה שאינה אלא ליטול את הזוהמה\" (מז ע\"א). הסוגיה ממשיכה בדברי רבי יוחנן שאמר: \"כל האיסורין משערין אותן כילו בצל כילו קפלוט\", ואף הם \"דלא כרבי יודה\". הסוגיה מסיימת: \"מודי רבי יודה בבצל שלהקדש ומודה רבי יודה בבצל שלעבודה זרה\". בהקדש ובעבודה זרה רבי יהודה מחמיר יותר מאשר בתרומה, והנותן בצל של הקדש או של עבודה זרה בתבשיל, אוסר את התבשיל באכילה.", + "נתינת טעם היא מרכיב מרכזי בדיני תערובת. גם מה שבטל ברוב אינו בטל אם האיסור \"נותן טעם\". הטעם נחשב למהות פיזית, וממילא אם הוא קיים אי אפשר לבטלו. נתינת הטעם מופיעה בהלכות אחרות. כך, למשל, \"קדירה שבישל בה בשר לא יבשל בה חלב... ואם בשלן הרי זה בנותן טעם\"1תוס', פ\"ח הט\"ז; בבלי, זבחים צו ע\"ב; חולין צז ע\"א; קיא ע\"ב. . אם כן, רק בישול כזה שטעמו נותר בכלי פוסל (מטריף) את הכלי. אין צריך לומר שהמדובר בכלי חרס שקשה להגיע לניקויו המושלם. לא נעסוק כאן בהלכות בישול ולא נברר את התפתחותן, מכל מקום אי אפשר שלא להעיר שהלכה זו רחוקה מאוד מהמקובל בפסיקה ההלכתית בימי הביניים ובדורנו. דין נותן טעם מופיע באותה משמעות גם בדיני עבודה זרה, ולא נרחיב גם בכך. " + ], + [ + "תפוח – של תרומה, שריסקו ונתנו לתוך עיסה – של חולין, וחימצה הרי זו אסורה – המשנה אינה עוסקת באפשרות שטעם התפוח עצמו משפיע על העיסה (בצק), זאת אף על פי שכיום נחשבת תוספת זו כצורת בישול אפשרית. ייתכן שמדובר במקרה ספציפי שבו כמות התפוח לא הספיקה להשפיע על הטעם, או שמא תוספת הטעם של התפוח לא נחשבה למהותית. להלן נראה כי אכן המושג \"נותן טעם\" תלוי לא רק בשינוי הטעם אלא בצורה שבה הוא מתקבל ומוערך. מכל מקום, במקורות מתנהלים דיונים מספר על עיסה שנילושה במי פֵרות (משנה, חלה פ\"ב מ\"ב; תוס', עוקצין פ\"א ה\"ח, 687 ועוד), מכאן שקדמונינו היו ערים לטעמה המיוחד של עיסה כזאת. ", + "מי פֵרות נחשבים בדרך כלל לנוזל שאינו גורם להחמצה, אם כי רק בתלמוד הבבלי נאמר הדבר במפורש2בבלי, פסחים לה ע\"א-ע\"ב; מ ע\"א; מנחות נז ע\"ב, ושם ניתן להבין כי אולי זו מחלוקת תנאים. החולקים הם רבי יוסי הגלילי ורבי עקיבא, ובתלמוד שתי מסורות מי אומר מה. . במקום אחר מובא דיון, בשם תנאים, האם תפוח מחמיץ. התנאים (רבי חנינא בן גמליאל וחכמים) חולקים בכך, אם כי הבבלי מסביר שגם חכמים מודים שהנוזל גורם לנוקשות בעיסה, אם כי לא ממש להחמצה (בבלי, מנחות נג ע\"ב – נד ע\"א). במשנה נקבע בפשטות שמי פֵרות (תפוח) מחמיצים ולכן נחשבים לנותן טעם. לעומת זאת בתוספתא ובירושלמי3תוס', פ\"ח ה\"ט; ירו', מז ע\"א; חלה פ\"ב ה\"ב, נז ע\"א; פסחים פ\"ב ה\"ד, כט ע\"ב. מובאים גם דברי רבי יוסי המתיר. כפי שמסביר הירושלמי לדעתו של רבי יוסי החימוץ אינו משמעותי, כשם שעטיפת ביצה בבגדים חמים אינה ממש בישול4סוגיות הירושלמי בהערה הקודמת, וכן שבת פ\"ג ה\"ג, ה ע\"ד, וראו פירושנו לשבת שם. . דומה, אפוא, שהמחלוקת היא במידה מסוימת ברֵאליה של הבישול, האם מי תפוח מחמיצים בצק בצורה משמעותית. להלן נחזור להלכה זו ונציע אפשרות אחרת להבנתה. ", + "הירושלמי מוסיף שכל המחלוקת היא במחמץ במימיו, במי התפוח, אבל מחמץ בגופו מותר, כלומר אם תפוח יבש נפל לעיסה אין הוא מחמיץ, וחכמים מקבלים את דעתו של רבי יוסי שהחימוץ שולי ואינו בבחינת נותן טעם. ", + "שעורים – של חולין, שנפלו לתוך הבור שלמים – כאן ברור שהשעורים הם של תרומה, שהרי אין מים של תרומה, על כן פירשנו גם לעיל שהפרי הנזכר ראשון הוא פרי התרומה. השעורים נפלו לבור מים רגילים, והשאלה היא האם הפכו בכך את המים לקודש.", + "אפ על פי – ביתר עדי הנוסח: אף על פי שהבאישו מימיו מימיו מותרין – המים קיבלו את טעם השעורים ו\"הבאישו\", כלומר השותה חש בטעם של ריקבון השעורים. הבאשה כאן היא במשמעות של טעם לוואי למים. המונח \"מבאיש\" מכיל משמעויות רבות: אוכל מבאיש כדג הוא אוכל שהתקלקל, כן נזכרים מים מבאישים, והכוונה למים טובים שנפל בהם מלח (מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, טו כה, עמ' 104). במדרש מופיע המונח במשמעות הקרובה למשנתנו. המדרש מתאר מים השוהים זמן רב בקנקן והם \"מבאישים ומחמיצים\" (שיר השירים רבה, א ג), וזו כנראה המשמעות אצלנו, שכן השעורים אינם משחיתים באמת את טעם המים אלא מעניקים להם רק טעם לוואי. ", + "המשנה אומרת שהמים מותרים. התוספתא מבהירה את הדין ומוסיפה בו שני חולקים. התוספתא חשובה לדיוננו כאן וברישא, ולכן נביאה במלואה: \"תלתן שנפלה לתוך הבור של מים: רבי מאיר אוסר ורבי יהודה מתיר. אמר רבי שמעון במה דברים אמורים בזמן ששקעה, אבל לא שקעה הרי זו מותרת. תפוח שרסקו ונתנו לתוך העיסה וחמצה: רבי יוסה אומר אין חימוצו חמוץ. אחד נותן טעם לשבח ואחד נותן טעם לפגם, זה וזה אסור, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי שמעון אומר לשבח אסור לפגם מותר, כגון החומץ שנפל לגריסין\" (פ\"ח ה\"ט). אם כן משנתנו היא כדברי רבי יהודה, ולדעתו אם הטעם הוא לפגם אין הוא אוסר. נראה שלרבי יהודה נותן טעם הוא רק אם המאכל השני הונח לשם נתינת טעם ולרצונו של המבשל, אך אם הטעם פוגם הנחתו אינה לרצון הבעלים. המונח \"נותן טעם\" מופיע במשמעות זו גם לעניין נפילת יין עבודה זרה על פֵרות (משנה, עבודה זרה פ\"ה מ\"ב). הדמיון מתעצם משום שגם שם וגם בתוספתא הדוגמה היא \"כגון החומץ שנפל על גריסים\". במשמעות דומה מופיעה גם נתינת מים לעניין הכשרה לקבל טומאה. אם פרי נרטב לרצון הבעלים הוא הוכשר לקבל טומאה, אך אם נרטב שלא לרצון הבעלים אין הוא נחשב להכשרת טומאה. כך גם כאן. רבי מאיר סבור שרצונו של הבעל אינו משנה, ועירוב ונתינת טעם הם מונחים מוחלטים שאינם קשורים לרצון הבעלים. ", + "רבי שמעון קרוב לדעתו של רבי מאיר וסבור שהמים אסורים, אבל תנאי לכך הוא שהמים אכן יבאישו, והדבר תלוי בכך שהשעורים שקעו במים. אם השעורים לא שקעו המים מותרים. אבל בסיפא ברור שרבי שמעון סובר כרבי יהודה. על כן יש להבין את דבריו בתוספתא: \"במה דברים אמורים\", כלומר במה מחלוקת התנאים (באיזה מקרים אומר רבי מאיר את דבריו), בזמן שהשעורים שקעו, אבל אם לא שקעו, לדעת הכול המים מותרים, כלומר גם לדעת רבי מאיר, ולדעתו האישית של רבי שמעון בכל המקרים המים מותרים, שהרי זה טעם לפגם. מצב זה, שבו רבי שמעון מסביר את המחלוקת של שני עמיתיו מאותו דור, היא קשה במקצת. בדרך כלל תנא מאוחר מסביר ומסייג את דברי קודמיו מדורות עברו, ולא את דברי בני דורו. יש להבין, אפוא, שזו מחלוקת קדומה יותר, וחכמי דור אושא (רבי מאיר, רבי יהודה, רבי יוסי והוא עצמו) רק מצטטים מחלוקת קדומה, או על כל פנים דברי רבי מאיר הם הלכה קדומה, אולי של רבו רבי עקיבא5גולדברג, מבוא, מדגיש פעמים רבות שרבי מאיר מוסר את תורת רבו בדיוק נמרץ, ואם כן זו ראיה לדבריו. ראו עוד גולדברג, משנה. . אם כן, לדעת רבי שמעון נדרשים שני תנאים: שהטעם יהא לשבח, ושיהיה משמעותי. ", + "הסברנו את התוספתא כמות שהיא לפנינו, אבל להלן (מ\"ז) נשוב לשאלה זו ונראה שגם שם חוזרת התופעה שלרבי שמעון יוחסו שתי הדעות המנוגדות, וגם דעה שלישית שבמקרה של נותן טעם לשבח ופגם כאחד אסור. מי שאומר דעה זו סבור כנראה שנותן טעם לפגם מותר, ורק במקרה כזה אסור. אבל מי שסבור שנותן טעם לפגם אסור, הרי שבמקרה כזה (טעם לפגם ולשבח) בוודאי אסור, ואין בכך חידוש. ייתכן שמבחינה היסטורית זהו שורש המסורות השונות. רבי שמעון דיבר במפורש רק בנותן טעם לשבח ופגם כאחד, ותלמידים שונים ניסו לפרש, בדרכים שונות, מה הדין של נותן טעם לפגם בלבד. ", + "מעתה, ולאחר שהסיפא הובנה במחלוקת על נתינת טעם לפגם, יש לחזור לרישא. קריאה פשוטה בתוספתא מובילה למסקנה שגם הרישא (תפוח שנפל לעיסה) עוסקת באותו נושא. רבי יוסי סובר כרבי יהודה שטעם לפגם אינו בבחינת נותן טעם, ונראה שחימוץ העיסה הוא טעם לפגם. אם כן, המחלוקת ברישא (תפוח שריסקו) אינה על מידת החימוץ וכפי שהסברנו, אלא על דינו של נותן טעם לפגם. עם זאת, ניתן גם להבין שהמשפט בתוספתא \"אחד נותן טעם...\" חוזר לרישא ואינו מסביר את המחלוקת על התפוח אלא רק על השעורים. ", + "בירושלמי ברור שברישא סיבת המחלוקת היא הערכת המציאות, האם חימוצו חימוץ או לא. אשר לסיפא, מובן ששם הבעיה היא בנותן טעם לפגם, אך הירושלמי מטיל ספק אם בסיפא יש מחלוקת תנאים. נראה שהירושלמי הכיר את התכנים שבתוספתא, אך לא את הניסוח שלה. הדיון בירושלמי מתחיל במחלוקת רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש אליבא דרבי יהודה (ורבי שמעון): \"אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש מה פליגין בשהשביח ואחר כך פגם אבל פגם ואחר כך השביח אף רבי מאיר מודה\" (מז ע\"א). נראה שצריך לגרוס ההפך, ואם השביח ואחר כך פגם גם רבי מאיר מודה. כלומר, אם הפגימה סופית וברורה גם רבי מאיר מודה שאינו פוסל. אבל אם הפגימה חלקית לדעתו התרומה פוסלת, ורבי יהודה חולק. רבי יוחנן חולק וטוען שאין הבדל בין שני המקרים. לאחר מכן שואל הירושלמי מה הדין במקרה שהשעורים נפלו לבור. לפי רבי יוחנן רבי מאיר חולק על הדין שבמשנה, ולפי ריש לקיש גם רבי מאיר מודה במקרה של המשנה. אם כן, הירושלמי מכיר את המחלוקת בתוספתא, אבל אינו יודע האם היא חלה על המקרה של המשנה או שהמשנה היא לדעת הכול, כל זאת בניגוד לתוספתא שבה העמדת הדברים ברורה. " + ], + [ + "הרודה פת חמה ונתנה על פי חבית שליין שלתרומה רבי מאיר אוסר ורבי יהודה מתיר – החשש ההלכתי הוא שהפת שהיא חולין קולטת מטעם היין. המחלוקת היא האם הטעם במקרה זה הוא מהות עצמאית; לרבי מאיר הטעם הוא מהות ממשית ולכן הפת היא כולה תרומה, כדין תערובת של שני חומרים שהקדוש שבהם נותן טעם, ולדעת רבי יהודה הטעם, במקרה זה, אינו ממשי דיו. הלכה דומה, באותו ניסוח, מופיעה במשנת מכשירין (פ\"ג מ\"ג). שם המחלוקת היא האם הרטיבות העולה מחבית היין נחשבת כהרטבה של הפת. הסבר זה אינו מצוי במפורש במשנת מכשירין, אבל כל ההקשר בפרק הוא בהכשרה לקבל טומאה על ידי הרטבה. הרטבה ביין כמו במים מכשירה אוכל לקבל טומאה6כך פירש הר\"ש במכשירין, בניגוד לרמב\"ם. . ברור שההלכה נוסחה במקורה או אצלנו לעניין תרומה או במשנת מכשירין, שהרי אחרת קשה להאמין שהניסוח היה זהה. יש מקום לשער שהמקור הוא במשנתנו שכן בה הדין הוא משמעותי וברור, לעומת הקשרו בדיני הכשר טומאה שהוא מתאים פחות. הרי עיסה נחשבת כמוכשרת לקבל טומאה בזכות עצמה. תהליך האפייה דורש הרטבה במים, ורגע ההרטבה הוא הזמן שבו העיסה מקבלת טומאה (ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ה מ\"ט ומקבילות). אם כן, מה המשמעות של השאלה האם היין מכשיר את העיסה לקבלת טומאה? ניתן לתרץ את משנת מכשירין (בדוחק) בעיסה יבשה שנאפתה ללא מים, או בעיסה שנאפתה במי פֵרות (רמב\"ם). אבל הרטבת הלחם במקרה זה במים אינה גמר מלאכה אלא קלקול הלחם. מכל מקום, יהא ההסבר של משנת מכשירין אשר יהא, ברור שניסוח המשנה שם מאולץ. על כן סביר שההלכה נאמרה במקורה בהקשר של דיני תרומה והועברה מכאן למשנת מכשירין.", + "הבבלי (פסחים עו ע\"ב) אומר שהמחלוקת היא האם שאיבת הטעם היא כתערובת. זו שאלה אפשרית בתרומה, אך אין היא מתאימה למכשירין ששם עצם שאיבת המים נחשבת הרטבה לכל הדעות, גם אם לא הוסיפה טעם, ושאלת התערובת כלל איננה עולה (משנה, מכשירין פ\"ג מ\"א-מ\"ב). מאידך גיסא, אם עמדת רבי יהודה כאן קשורה לעמדתו במשנת מכשירין בהמשך (פ\"ג מ\"ה) הרי שההקשר הטבעי לדבריו הוא במכשירין, וצריך עיון. על כל פנים, תופעת ההעברה המושכלת של משניות ברורה, וכפי שראינו לעתים רחוקות ההעברה איננה מתאימה במאה אחוז מבחינה משפטית. ", + "רבי יוסה מתיר בשלחיטים ואוסר בשל שערים מפני שהשעורים שואבת – רבי יוסי נוקט עמדת ביניים. אגב דעתו אנו שומעים גם על הנימוק של רבי מאיר. לדעת רבי מאיר החיטים שואבות את ניחוח היין, ועל כן יש בכך נתינת טעם. רבי יוסי מסכים עם רבי מאיר רק בשעורים הנחשבות לשואבות יותר מחיטים. ", + "התלמוד הירושלמי מצמצם את המשנה ומבטא בכך מגמה עקבית של החמרה. לכאורה מסגנון המשנה ברור שהדין במשנה הוא רק ברודה פת חמה, אבל ברודה פת צוננת ברור שהפת אינה נחשבת למקבלת טעם ומותרת. כך גם משמע ממשנת מכשירין המקבילה. אבל הירושלמי מגיע למסקנה שהוא הדין בפת צוננת, ולמה נאמר במשנה \"הרודה פת חמה\" – \"שלא תאמר הואיל וההבל כובש יהא מותר\" (ירו', מז ע\"א). כלומר, היה מקום לחשוב שדווקא פת חמה תהא מותרת משום שההבל היוצא מהפת החמה ידחה את טעם היין; זו סברה קשה במידת מה, ורֵאלית פחות מההסבר שהצענו לעיל. ", + "שינוי נוסף בהעמדת האמוראים הוא בפרשנות שכל המחלוקת היא בפת חמה על מגופה (פקק) של חבית: \"אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ריש לקיש: בפת חמה וחבית פתוחה – דברי הכל אסור. בפת צוננת וחבית מגופה – דברי הכל מותר. לא נחלקו אלא בפת חמה וחבית חתומה, פת צוננת וחבית פתוחה\" (בבלי, פסחים עו ע\"ב). פרשנות זו מוצעת בתלמוד הבבלי אך אולי רמוזה גם בירושלמי (מז ע\"א), כמבואר בטבלה:", + "פת על חבית", + "גם זו פרשנות המצמצמת את המשנה, ונחזור על כך להלן.", + "בירושלמי מובא מעשה נוסף שלא כרבי יהודה המתיר, וממנו משמע שריח במקרה כזה יש בו ממש כדי לאסור. ", + "שני התלמודים (ירו', מז ע\"א-ע\"ב; בבלי, פסחים עו ע\"ב) מקשרים את ההלכה במשנתנו לברייתא המצויה גם בתוספתא (פסחים פ\"ה הי\"א) בדבר האיסור לצלות שני שיפודים של פסחים שונים יחדיו בתנור אחד \"מפני התערובת\". דרך הלימוד של שני התלמודים שונה, אך שניהם מגיעים למסקנה שהאיסור הוא מפני החשש ששומן מפסח אחד ייגע בשני, חשש שאינו קיים במקרה שלנו. " + ], + [ + "תנור שהיסיקו בכמן שלתרומה – הכמון הוא צמח תבלין. הריח של הכמון מצוי בזרעים, אך במקרה זה משתמשים בענפי השיח להסקה, ואפה בו את הפת הפת מותרת שאינו טעם כמן אלא ריח כמן – הפת סופגת אמנם מריח הכמון, אך אין זו תוספת טעם או שינוי הטעם. מסגנון המשנה משמע שכאן גם רבי מאיר יודה שמותר. המשנה אינה מעלה את בעיית השימוש בעצי תרומה. נראה שהכוונה לכהן עצמו האופה פת של חולין עם שיחים של תרומה. השיח עצמו אינו של תרומה, כמובן, שכן הלכות תרומה חלות רק על אוכל, כלומר על זרעי הכמון.", + "משנה ג עוסקת בשאיבה של טעמים ומשנה ד בריח העולה בשעת הבישול, ואלו עניינים שונים, אם כי קרובים. בשתי המשניות המחלוקת היא נקודתית, האם במקרה זה הטעם הוא דבר של ממש, ואין בהם מחלוקת עקרונית האם באופן כללי טעם הוא ממשי או לא. " + ], + [ + "תלתן שנפלה לתוך הבור שלמים [שליין] – ברוב עדי הנוסח \"של יין\", וכן בכתב יד קופמן אחרי ההגהה. אבל לפני ההגהה היה כתוב \"של מים\", וכן ב- ג2 ו- ל. אם כן, אין זו טעות מעתיק אלא נוסח של ממש שיש לו תמיכה משמעותית. כפי שנראה להלן המדובר בתלתן של תרומה ובטעם שסופגים הנוזלים שבבור, על כן אין זה משנה אם הנוזלים הם יין או מים. עם זאת, הגרסה \"של מים\" יש בה חידוש, שהרי בדרך כלל מים אינם חול או קודש ואין הם הופכים לתרומה או למעשר שני, אבל אם ספגו ריח תרומה דינם כתרומה. רבי יהוסף אשכנזי גרס במשנתו \"של יין\" ותיקן ל\"של מים\", כפי שמעיד בעל מלאכת שלמה למשנתנו. בסוף פירושנו למשנה נחזור לשאלת הנוסח. מכל מקום, בור המים הוא בור האגירה הרגיל. \"בור יין\" הוא הבור שליד הגת שבו התירוש תוסס בשלושת הימים הראשונים שלאחר דריכת היין.", + "בתרומה ובמעשר שיני – אם התלתן הוא של תרומה או של מעשר שני. מלשון המשנה ניתן היה להבין שהיין הוא של תרומה (לפי הגורסים יין), וההכרעה שהתלתן הוא של תרומה מוצעת על ידי כל המפרשים, והכרחית כפי שיוכח להלן.", + "אם יש בזרע כדי ליתן טעם אבל לא בעץ – המשפט קטוע וצריך להסתיים במילים \"המים תרומה\". התלתן הוא עשב המשמש כמאכל לבהמות, וממילא העשב עצמו פטור מתרומות ומעשרות. אבל זרע התלתן הוא כדגן ומשמש כאוכל, וממילא חייב בתרומות ומעשרות. על כן, אם יש בזרע התלתן כדי לתת טעם למים, המים הופכים תרומה. אבל טעם העץ אינו משנה דבר, שכן העץ אינו חייב בתרומה (תוס', שביעית פ\"ב ה\"ח). ", + "ובשביעית [ו]בכלאי הכרם ובהקדש אם יש [ב]זרע ובעץ כדי ליתן טעם – בשלושת אלו גם העץ קדוש. בשביעית הוא קדוש כספיחים, או שמא המדובר בתלתן לאחר זמן ביעור שביעית (ר\"ש סירליאון ואחרים), או שהדיון הוא לאחר זמן ביעור שביעית ויש ביעור לאוכלים של בהמה (רמב\"ם). אבל אם כך, הרי שכל ההלכה אינה רֵאלית. איסור ביעור אמנם מופיע במקורות, אבל ניתן היה לעקפו בדרכים רבות וקלות7ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ט מ\"ב. . עם זאת, חז\"ל דנים בו כאילו היה אכן איסור של ממש וכאילו באמת אין לשמור פרי לאחר הביעור, והדיון בכך תאורטי ועקרוני.", + "כלאים – אם התלתן גדל בכרם (כמו במשנה הבאה) או בשדה דגן אחר וכולו כלאיים, ובהקדש – אם הוקדש שדה התלתן כל הצמח הקדש, על כן אם טעם התלתן שהוא קודש הוטמע במים המים נאסרו.", + "המשנה אינה אומרת האם הטעם של התלתן הוא לפגם או לשבח. במשנה ב לעיל ובמקבילותיה יש מחלוקת בעניין הנותן טעם לפגם. יש להניח שטעם התלתן הוא לפגם, ומשנתנו כרבי מאיר הקובע שנותן טעם לפגם אסור. פירוש זה משתמע גם מהירושלמי האומר שבמשנתנו \"נותן טעם לשבח ולפגם כאחד\", כלומר שגם טעם לפגם אסור, כמו שפירשנו. עם זאת, בירושלמי מוצעת גם אפשרות שנייה שטעם התלתן משביח, וכן היו ראשונים שפירשו שטעם התלתן הוא לשבח (רע\"ב, תיו\"ט ואחרים), ואז משנתנו היא כדעת הכול. ברם, קשה לראות איזה שיפור יורגש במים ששקע בהם תלתן. זאת ועוד; לאלו הגורסים \"של יין\" בוודאי אין טעם התלתן משפר טעמו של יין. ", + "ממשנתנו משתמע שדין נותן טעם חל גם על שביעית, וכן עולה גם ממקורות נוספים (שביעית פ\"ט מ\"ה; ירו', לט ע\"א). " + ], + [ + "המשנה ממשיכה להציע את ההלכות הקשורות לתלתן אשר רובו \"עץ\" ואינו מיועד למאכל אך יש בו גם \"זרע\" הניתן לאכילה.", + "מי שהיו לו חבילי תלתין – צורה זו, \"מי שהיו לו\", במקום לפתוח ולשנות \"חבילי תלתן\", שכיחה למדי בכל סדרי המשנה8ראו דמאי פ\"ז מ\"ח; שביעית פ\"ט מ\"ח; שבת פי\"ט מ\"ד; מגילה פ\"ד מ\"ז; נזיר פ\"ג מ\"ז ועוד. . התלתן בא בחבילות, כמובא בתלמוד הירושלמי: \"וכמה היא חבילה עשרים וחמשה זירין\" (מז ע\"ב). משפט זה הוא ספק פירוש של התלמוד ספק ברייתא שהייתה לפני רבי יוחנן, של כלאי הכרם ידלקו – חבילי התלתן שהיו בידו הם של כלאיים ודינם בשרפה, כדין כלאיים שהם נשרפים, כאמור במשנת תמורה בסופה: \"ואלו הן הנשרפין חמץ בפסח... וכלאי הכרם\" (פ\"ז מ\"ה), ובמשנת כלאים שנינו: \"ואם הביאה דגן – תדלק\" (פ\"ה מ\"ז). נראים הדברים כי המשנה מלמדתנו כי כל החבילה של התלתן תישרף, \"שאף העץ ישרף\" (הר\"ש משנץ ואחרים), ולא הזרע בלבד, וכאותה ששנינו: \"תנו רבנן תנור שהסיקו בקליפי ערלה או בקשין של כלאי הכרם חדש יותץ\" (בבלי, פסחים כו ע\"ב). הכלאיים האסורים בהנאה הם גם הקשים, ולא רק הפרי. משנתנו שנויה אף במשנה אחרת תוך הלכה נוספת: \"מי שהיו לו חבילי תלתן של כלאי הכרם ידלקו. נתערבו באחרים – כלם ידלקו, דברי רבי מאיר, וחכמים אומרים יעלו באחד ומאתים\" (ערלה פ\"ג מ\"ו).", + "היו לו חבילי תלתן של טבל – בשעה שבא להפריש תרומה לכהן מן התלתן, כותש ומחשב כמה זרע בהם ומפריש את הזרע – מחשב רק כמה זרע בתלתן ומפריש תרומה רק מן הזרע, ואינו צריך להפריש את העץ – שכן רק הזרע ניתן למאכל אדם ואינו צריך להפריש תרומה מן העץ.", + "בתלמוד הבבלי בביצה יג ע\"א מפרשים אביי ורבא את משנתנו בלוי שהלך וקיבל את המעשר לפני הפרשת התרומה ובזה הפסיד לכהן את התרומה מן המעשר שקיבל, ולכן קנסוהו שיכתוש את חבילות התלתן ויתן לכהן את תרומת המעשר, את המעשר מן המעשר, לאחר שיכתוש את התלתן ויפריש את הזרע. הלוי אינו רשאי לתת לכהן כתרומה חלק מן החבילות. פירוש זה אינו סותר את דברי המשנה, אך אינו עולה מפשוטה של המשנה.", + "אם היפריש – תרומה אף מן העץ על העץ לפני שכתש, לא יאמר אכתוש ואטול את העץ – לעצמי, ואתן את הזרע – אתן לכהן את הזרע בלבד, אלא נותן העץ עם הזרע – כיוון שהפריש לתרומה את העץ, קרא שם תרומה לעץ, חייב הוא לתת לכהן את העץ אף על פי שאין קדושת התרומה חלה על העץ, כפי ששנינו במשנה הקודמת." + ], + [ + "זיתי חולין שכבשן עם זיתי תרומה – הזית שימש בעיקר לייצור שמן, ברם היו גם זיתים שנועדו לכבישה ואלו היו זנים מיוחדים. זנים אלו היו נחותים משל זיתי השמן, אך עדיין חשובים דיים כדי לתפוס מקום של כבוד בסל המזונות ובמגוון החקלאי של התקופה (לעיל פ\"ו מ\"ב). המשפט המצוטט הוא כותרת ואחריו באה סדרה של פרטים ואפשרויות. זה סגנון רגיל במשנה, אם כי אין זה הסגנון היחיד. ניתן היה גם לנסח את המשנה ללא משפט פותח זה, פצועי חולין עם פצועי תרומה – המשנה מבחינה בין זיתים פצועים לזיתים שלמים. תהליך הכבישה כולל שלבים מספר. בשלב הראשון פוצעים מעט את הזית כדי שיקבל את טעם התבלינים. בשלב שני כובשים את הזיתים בתוך מים שבהם תבלינים שונים. אחד התבלינים המרכזיים הוא המלח המסייע לעמידות הפרי. במעשה הכבישה שני סוגי זיתים (של חולין ושל תרומה) ושני מצבים של פרי, וממילא דנה המשנה בארבע אפשרויות. עם זאת אין המשנה מזכירה את המקרים הפשוטים (כבש זיתי חולין עם זיתי חולין, זיתי תרומה זה עם זה).", + "פצועי חולין עם שלימי תרומה או במי תרומה אסור – אם זיתי החולין פצועים והם נכבשו עם זיתי תרומה או במים של תרומה. מים של תרומה הם מים ששמו בהם תבלינים של תרומה, ודינם כמו מים שנפל בהם תלתן של תרומה כבמשנה הקודמת. ", + "אבל שלמי חולין עם פצועי תרומה מותר – אם זיתי החולין שלמים מותר לכבשם עם זית תרומה, אפילו כשזיתי התרומה פצועים. הנחת המשנה היא שהזית השלם אינו מקבל את טעם הפרי שעמו הוא נכבש. פירוט ההלכות מופיע בטבלה.", + "כבישת זיתי חולין עם זיתי תרומה", + "המשנה אינה אומרת מה הדין בזיתי חולין שלמים שכבשם במי תרומה (סומן בטבלה בסימן שאלה). מסתבר שזיתים אלו יהיו אסורים, כלומר ייחשבו כתרומה, שכן הכבישה במים היא בבחינת נותן טעם. מכל מקום, בימינו כובשים זיתים שלמים והם מקבלים את טעם המים שבהם הם כבושים (והמים מקבלים מטעם הזיתים). ", + "הירושלמי מוסיף פרק חשוב בדין נותן טעם, ובדרכי ההשתלשלות של מסורת ההלכה: \"הדא אמרה לא לשבח ולא לפגם אסור. מתניתין דרבי שמעון, דרבי שמעון אמר נותן טעם לפגם אסור. והא רבי שמעון אמר נותן טעם לפגם מותר? כהדא רבי שמעון אומר כרוב של שקיא ששלקו עם כרוב של בעל אסור מפני שהוא בולע\" (ירו', מז ע\"ב). המסקנה הראשונה היא שאם זית אחד נותן טעם שאינו לא לפגם ולא לשבח הזית אסור. ההלכה עצמה נדונה בפירושנו למשנה ב, וראינו כי יש בכך מחלוקת תנאים: רבי מאיר אוסר ורבי יהודה מתיר (את דעתו של רבי שמעון נברר להלן). מסקנת הגמרא כאן היא שמשנתנו היא כדעת הכול. גם רבי יהודה המתיר בנותן טעם לפגם מודה כאן כיוון שמדובר במקרה שהטעם אינו לא לפגם ולא לשבח. לזית של התרומה אותו טעם כמו לזית של החולין. שניהם מעשירים זה את זה ואין אחד מהם בבחינת נותן טעם לחברו, ובמקרה זה כולם יודו שהעירוב אסור. עד כאן הסבר המשנה, וההלכה מובררת. ", + "הירושלמי ממשיך בקביעה אלטרנטיבית שמשנתנו היא רק כמאן דאמר שנותן טעם לפגם אסור. דעה זו יוחסה לעיל לרבי מאיר, ברם הירושלמי כאן מייחסה לרבי שמעון. שאלת הגמרא היא: הרי רבי שמעון הוא המתיר במקרה זה! השאלה מבוססת על התוספתא שבה נאמר: \"רבי שמעון אומר לשבח אסור לפגם מותר כגון החומץ שנפל לגריסין\" (פ\"ח ה\"ט). אם כן, רבי שמעון הוא החולק ואומר שנותן טעם לפגם מותר. תירוץ הגמרא הוא שרבי שמעון הוא אכן האומר ששני צמחים שווים שבושלו יחד הרי הם כאילו נתנו טעם זה לזה. ", + "קריאת הירושלמי מעלה שתי שאלות. ראשית – כיצד הוכנס רבי שמעון לדיון? הרי העמדה האוסרת (נותן טעם לפגם) מיוחסת לרבי מאיר! אין זאת אלא שמי שאמר שמשנתנו כרבי שמעון הכיר את הברייתא על הכרוב. הוא אמר שמשנתנו כרבי שמעון (של הברייתא העוסקת בכרוב), הגמרא לא ירדה לסוף דעתו והקשתה מהתוספתא ותירצה שאין הכוונה למי שאומר נותן טעם לפגם אסור אלא למי שאומר שעירוב שני צמחים זהים אסור (לא לשבח ולא לפגם). ", + "בדברי רבי שמעון עסקנו לעיל (מ\"ב), ושם הראינו כי ניתן להסיק מדבריו את שתי המסקנות. מצד אחד הוא אומר במפורש שנותן טעם לפגם מותר (כמו שציטטנו לעיל), והוא גם האומר שאם השעורים שקעו במים המים אסורים. אם כן, הוא קרוב לרבי מאיר. הירושלמי כאן אינו מנסה לתאם בין הציטוטים השונים של דברי רבי שמעון. אין הוא חש במבוכה או בקושי בשל הסתירה הפנימית, וחשוב לו רק לברר את ההלכה או את הדעות השונות, ואין הוא קובע עמדה ביחס לאמִתותם של הייחוסים.", + "אם כן, גם שם (בתוספתא פ\"ח ה\"ט שבה דנו בפירושנו למשנה ב) חוזרת התופעה שלרבי שמעון יוחסו שתי הדעות המנוגדות. כך גם אצלנו, אלא שאצלנו מיוחסת לו גם דעה שלישית שבמקרה של נותן טעם לשבח ופגם כאחד אסור. מי שאומר כך סבור כנראה שנותן טעם לפגם מותר, ורק במקרה כזה (טעם לשבח ולפגם) אסור. אבל מי שסבור שנותן טעם לפגם אסור, הרי שבמקרה כזה (טעם לפגם ולשבח) בוודאי אסור ואין בכך חידוש. ייתכן שמבחינה היסטורית זהו שורש המסורות השונות. רבי שמעון דיבר במפורש רק על נותן טעם לשבח ופגם כאחד, ותלמידים שונים ניסו לפרש, בדרכים שונות, מה הדין של נותן טעם לפגם בלבד. מכל מקום, התלמוד אינו מקדיש מאמץ לבירור המסורת ה\"אמִתית\" של דברי רבי שמעון, ואינו מצטייר כמוטרד מהסתירה הפנימית או מהפרשנויות המנוגדות לדברי רבי שמעון. ", + "שאלה זו, של אמִתות הייחוסים של דברי תנאים ואמוראים, תופסת מקום חשוב במחקר בן זמננו. היו חוקרים שטענו שאין לסמוך על ייחוס המסורות כפי שהוא מופיע בספרות חז\"ל. מסורות מיוחסות לחכם זה או אחר, אבל ייחוסים אלו שובשו קשות והמערכת בכללותה פגומה ואינה משקפת זיכרון היסטורי. טיעונים אלו הם חלק מהטיעון מדוע מסורות חז\"ל משוללות ערך היסטורי9לסיכום הדיון המתודולוגי ראו גפני, מחקר, עמ' 219-218; גרין, ייחוסים; נויסנר, ייחוסים; ספראי, מקורות. . לא נעסוק כאן בשאלת אמינותם של מקורות חז\"ל בתחום זה, שכן השאלה רחבה מכדי לכללה במסגרת זו, ונסתפק בעולה מסוגיית הירושלמי וברקע שלה. חז\"ל מציגים את הייחוס הנכון של דברי חכמים כדרך המלך לשמירת שושלת ההלכה. עירוב בין דברי החולקים מוצג כתקלה תדירה, אך עדיין בגדר תקלה שבחטא יסודה, חטא של אי שינון שסופו פורענות, כפי שנצטט להלן מאבות דרבי נתן.", + "עם כל זאת, הם מציגים עצמם כמי ששומרים על ייחוסן של מסורות בקפדנות. רק מי שנכשל משתבש בייחוס השמות. כך מוצג אליעזר הכהן כמי שהיה אומר דבר בשם אומרו (ספרי במדבר, קנז, עמ' 213), ו\"האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם\" (משנה, אבות פ\"ו מ\"ו). כמו כן: \"מנין לעוקר תחומים של שבטים שעובר בלא תעשה? תלמוד לומר לא תסיג גבול רעך. מנין למחליף דברי רבי אליעזר בדברי רבי יהושע, ודברי רבי יהושע בדברי רבי אליעזר, ולאומר על טמא טהור ועל טהור טמא, שהוא עובר בלא תעשה? תלמוד לומר לא תסיג גבול רעך\" (ספרי דברים, קפח, עמ' 227; מדרש תנאים לדברים, יט יד, עמ' 115 ומקבילות). המדרש המאוחר מחבר חובה זו למימרה התנאית הקודמת, \"האומר דבר בשם אומרו...\": \"אמר רבי חזקיה ורבי ירמיה בר אבא בשם רבי יוחנן, כל שאינו אומר דבר בשם אומרו, עליו הכתוב אומר 'אל תגזול דל כי דל הוא'. וצריך אדם כשהוא שומע דבר לומר אותו בשם אומרו, אפילו משלישי של הלכה. ששנו רבותינו אמר רבי נחום הלבלר: מקובל אני מרבי מייאשא, שקיבל [מאבא שקיבלו מן הזוגות שקיבלו] מן הזקנים הלכה למשה מסיני. ומי שאינו אומר דבר בשם אומרו, עליו הכתוב אומר 'אל תגזל דל', וכל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם\"10תנח' בובר, במדבר כז, עמ' 22-21; תנח', במדבר כב; פרקי דרבי אליעזר, מח; מדרש משלי, ו טז ועוד. .", + "אם כן, הם הציגו את החובה לצטט מסורות בשם אומרן כדרך הלימוד הלגיטימית, ואכן משניות, ברייתות ודברי אמוראים רבים מובאים בשם אומרם. חכמים עצמם היו מודעים לאפשרות של פגיעה בשושלת המסירה והייחוס: \"הוא היה אומר: יכול אדם ללמוד תורה בעשר שנה, ולשכחה בשתי שנים. כיצד? יושב אדם ששה חדשים ואינו חוזר בה, נמצא אומר על טמא טהור ועל טהור טמא. י\"ב חודש ואינו חוזר בה, נמצא מחליף חכמים זה בזה. י\"ח חודש ואינו חוזר בה, נמצא משכח ראשי פרקים. כ\"ד חודש ואינו חוזר בה, נמצא משכח ראשי מסכתותיו. ומתוך שאומר על טמא טהור ועל טהור טמא, ומחליף חכמים זה בזה, ומשכח ראשי פרקים וראשי מסכתותיו, סוף שיושב ודומם. ועליו אמר שלמה 'על שדה איש עצל עברתי ועל כרם אדם חסר לב והנה עלה כללו קמשונים כסו פניו חרולים וגדר אבנים נהרסה' (משלי כד ל-לא)\" (אבות דרבי נתן, נו\"א כד, עמ' 78; אליהו זוטא טז - פרקי דרך ארץ א, עמ' 8)11בספרי דברים, מח, עמ' 109-108, מובאת מימרה דומה ודרשה על אותו פסוק, אבל אין בה אזכור להחלפת דברי חכמים. . ", + "עם זאת, בפועל נותרה לעתים קרובות מימרה סתמית, ושם אומרה אבד. יתר על כן, התופעה של מסורות מתחלפות היא רגילה ותדירה. כל לומד יודע שחילוף בשמות האומרים הוא תדיר ורגיל. אפשטיין הקדיש עמודים רבים למציאת החילופים התדירים, ואלו רבים ביותר12אפשטיין, מבוא, עמ' 1207-1162. כל המכיר את כתיבתו של חוקר דגול זה יבין כי במהלך 45 עמ' הוא מביא מאות דוגמאות. כאמור, אלו רק חילופים החוזרים במקורות רבים. . רשימותיו של אפשטיין מכסות רק מרכיב אחד בתופעה שהיא כוללת הרבה יותר. השאלה שהמחקר המדעי מתחבט בה היא האם חילופי מסורות בשם האומרים הם בבחינת כשל נקודתי של המערכת, או שמא הם מעידים על אבדן דרך כללי ועל כך שכל מסורת השמות מעורערת מכול וכול. זו שאלה נרחבת, וכאמור לא נעסוק בה במסגרת זו.", + "חכמים עצמם סברו שחילופי המסורות בשמות האומרים הם מקריים, בבחינת תקלות שיש לא רק למנען אלא גם לבררן. סוגיות רבות בשני התלמודים מבוססות על ניסיון לברר מי אמר מה, או לברר האם המסורת מוחלפת. סוגיית הירושלמי למשנתנו מציגה פן אחר של הבעיה. כאן האמוראים אינם מנסים לברר מה באמת אמר רבי שמעון, כאילו בעיה זו אינה מעסיקה את עולמם. הם משלימים עם המסורות המתחלפות כשם שהם מקבלים כל מחלוקת אחרת. חשוב להם לברר האם משנתנו כרבי שמעון, או כמו איזה רבי שמעון הועמדה משנתנו. ברם, השאלה מה באמת אמר רבי שמעון היא עבורם שולית. כאמור, זו גישה חריגה בנוף הרגיל בספרות חז\"ל.", + "משנתנו עוסקת בשאלה של תערובת שיש באיסור שבה כדי נותן טעם. מן הסתם כולם יסכימו שיש להוציא את הזיתים האסורים מהתערובת. הרי הבעל יודע שהזיתים הפצועים הם תרומה (או שהם החולין) וצריך להוציאם, אחרת קשה להניח שחכמים התירו לאכול זיתי תרומה שלא בטהרה. " + ], + [ + "דג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור – ענף הדיג היה מספקי המזון החשובים בארץ ישראל הקדומה. כידוע, קדמונינו מיעטו באכילת בשר שהיה יקר ובלתי יעיל מבחינה כלכלית13לשם האבסת כבשה יש צורך ב- 5 דונם עשב. באזורי החקלאות בארץ ישראל ב- 5 דונם ניתן היה לכלכל משפחה במשך כמה חודשים, על כן זריעת החיטה הייתה רווחית בהרבה מגידול בשר. כבשים גידלו רק בשטחי שוליים, בטרשים ובמדבריות. מקור נוסף לבשר היה פרת החריש שהזקינה, או העגל שנולד לה, אך אלו לא היוו מקור קבוע. , והדגים היוו מקור למזון מן החי, מקור מזון זול שלא בא על חשבון מקורות מחיה אחרים. מקורות הדיג העיקריים היו הכינרת וחופי הים התיכון. את הדג הטרי ניתן היה למכור רק ביום שבו נצוד, ועל כן פותחו שיטות לשימור הדג כך שניתן יהיה למכרו ולאכלו זמן רב לאחר הדיג. במסגרת זו פותחו שיטות להכנת טרית, שהיא עיסת דגים מעוכים, ציר, שהוא רוטב הדגים שבתוכו מיעכו חלקי דגים, ודגים כבושים, מעין סרדינים של ימינו. הדגים הכבושים נמעכו ואיבדו הרבה מצורתם. ", + "הדגים היוו מרכיב מרכזי בלוח המזון, והם מופיעים כדוגמה הרגילה למזון חגיגי ובעיקר בשבתות. הדבר היה נפוץ כל כך עד שהפך למעין מאכל יהודי מסורתי. על כך מוסר הסופר הנכרי פרסיוס14ראו פירושנו למסכת שבת, עמ' 8. . על הנוהג המקובל לאכול דגים בליל שבת מעידים גם מקורות אמוראיים בבליים וארץ-ישראליים, ואף התפתחו אגדות המדגישות את ההמלצה לאכול דווקא דג בלילה זה15בבלי, שבת קיט ע\"א; בראשית רבה, יא ד, עמ' 91; פסיקתא רבתי, כג, קיט ע\"א ועוד. . גם בית שמאי ובית הלל מדגימים את כללי הבישול בשבת בעזרת הדוגמה של דג (משנה, שבת פ\"א מ\"י), ואת עירוב התבשילים בעזרת הדוגמה של דג וביצה16ראו פירושנו לביצה פ\"ב מ\"ד. . מנהג זה של אכילת דגים קיים עד ימינו בתפוצות שונות, והוא נכלל בתפריט הלאומי היהודי של עדות שונות. יש עניין לעקוב אחר השתלשלות הנוהג עד ימינו, אך לא כאן המקום לכך.", + "הדייגים באגם הכינרת היו ברובם יהודים, ויש להניח ששמרו על דיני כשרות ולא סיפקו ללקוחותיהם אלא דגים כשרים. לא כן היה המצב אצל דייגי הים התיכון. מרבית התושבים במישור החוף במאות השנייה והשלישית היו לא יהודים, ומן הסתם גם מרבית הדייגים היו לא יהודים. יתר על כן, חלק גדול משלל הדיג הובא לארץ על ידי ספקים ממדינות הים, ואלו בוודאי לא שמרו על הלכות כשרות, ואף לא ידעו מה הן17נון, דיג; ספראי, כלכלה, עמ' 164-163. . על כן קבעה ההלכה האמוראית: \"תני אין לוקחין מעי דגים וקירבי דגים אלא על פי מומחה\" (ירו', עבודה זרה פ\"ב ה\"י, מב ע\"א). כפי שברור מהסוגיה, המומחה הוא מי שיודע לאשר שהיצרן היה יהודי. ממומחה כזה מותר לקנות בשר או גבינת יבוא. ", + "המשנה עוסקת בדגים כבושים שאיבדו את צורתם ואי אפשר לדעת מי מהם היה ממין הדגים הכשרים ומי מהדגים האסורים למאכל. במקרה רגיל תערובת זאת אסורה לאכילה. אבל אם ידוע כמה דגים שאינם כשרים יש בתערובת חל דין ביטול, והמשנה מבררת באיזו כמות מתבטל הדג האסור. למשנה כמה אפשרויות קריאה ופירוש. נפתח בפירוש פשוט שהמשפט המצוטט \"דג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור\" הוא מעין כותרת להמשך. ", + "כל גרב – גרב הוא כלי חרס רגיל, ללא צורה מיוחדת או גודל קבוע18בראנד, כלי חרס, עמ' צב-צו. , שהוא מחזיק סאתים – המשנה מדגימה את דבריה בגרב שהוא מחזיק סאתיים, כעשרים ליטר או מעט יותר, אם יש בו משקל עשרה [זוז] ביהודה שהן חמש סלעים בגליל – המשקלות ביהודה היו פי שניים מהמשקל המקובל בגליל, על כן עשרה זוז ביהודה הם עשרים זוז בגליל, שהם חמישה סלעים (בכל סלע ארבעה זוזים). על ההבדל במידות ומשקלות בין הגליל ויהודה אנו שומעים גם ממקורות אחרים, והרי זה רגיל שאותם מונחי משקל או אורך משמשים בעמים שונים אך המידה עצמה שונה מאזור לאזור. כך, למשל, אפיפניוס מספר על יחידת נפח בשם \"שפיתא\" שבעזה, באשקלון ובאזוטוס (אשדוד) יש לה מידות שונות19אפיפניוס, על המשקלות ועל המידות, סעיף 41. .", + "הירושלמי מסביר את החשבון: \" 'וכל גרב שמחזיק סאתים', כמה סאתה עבדא? עשרה וארבעה לוגין. וכמה לוגא עביד? תרתין ליטרין. וכמה ליטרא עבדא? מאה זונין. נמצא כל זין וזין אחת מתשע מאות וששים. הורי רבי יוסי ביר' בון בעכברא חד לאלף\" (מז ע\"ב). תרגום ופירוש הירושלמי כך הוא (בסוגריים מרובעים הסברנו): כמה סאה עושה? [כמה יש בסאה, מה מידתה?] עשרים וארבעה לוגים [בסאה 6 קבים ובכל קב 4 לוגים, אם כן בסאה 24 לוג]. כמה לוג עושה? שתי ליטראות. כמה ליטרה עושה? מאה זונין [משקל ששמו ביחיד זין, ראו להלן], נמצא כל זין אחד מתשע מאות ושישים [אחד חלקי 960 של סאה]. בסאה 24 לוג, כלומר 48 ליטראות, שהליטרה היא חצי לוג. בשתי סאין 96 ליטראות. בליטרה מאה זין, כלומר זין הוא אחד חלקי 9600 של סאתיים, ומשקל עשרה זינים הוא אחד חלקי 960 של סאתיים. על בסיס זה הורה רבי בון שהדג הטמא עולה באחד חלקי אלף. זו אותה תפיסה, אלא שהאמורא עיגל את החשבון. ", + "\"עכברה\" הוא כנראה היישוב בשם זה שמדרום לצפת. בדרך מקרה שם הורה רבי יוסי ברבי בון את אשר הורה. זה הפירוש הפשוט לירושלמי. אבל בפנקס הלכה השייך לספרות המעשים הארץ-ישראלית נרשם: \"ואם נפל עכבר או שרץ לתוך משקין אם יש במשקין אלף בעכבר מותר, ואם פחות אסור... דעו שכל עסק טמאות צריכין בדיקה ולא להורות פתאום אלא להלך ולדקדק על כל דבר ודבר. שרצים והנחש והדם והחלב משערין אותם אחד מאלף ומותרין. וכל שאר השרצים משערין אותן אחד לחמש מאות\"20לוין, מעשים, עמ' 325; פרידמן, מעשים, עמ' יז-יט. פנקסי הלכה אלו הם רשימות פרטיות של פסקים שהועתקו בידי לומדים או חכמים. הכתבים שבידינו עושים שימוש בסיכומי הלכה קדומים יותר שטיבם אינו ברור. ספרות המעשים גובשה בארץ ישראל במאות השישית עד השמינית לערך. לסיכומה ראו ניומן, מעשים; לקטע שלנו ראו שם, עמ' 151. . מחבר הקטע הבין כנראה את \"בעכברא\" בנפילת עכבר לנוזל. המחבר אינו מבחין בין שרץ שנפל ומוציאים אותו לבין חלב ודם שאי אפשר לסננם, וזו תערובת לכל דבר. קשה מאוד לקבל פירוש זה, ודומה שהמחבר לא היה תלמיד חכם של ממש. בהמשך הקטע מדובר בשרץ טמא שנפל לשמן, ובכך שאסור להדליק את השמן בבית הכנסת. ניתן להבין את הרגישות החברתית סביב הדלקת שמן טמא בבית כנסת, אך לאיסור אין בסיס הלכתי. תאורת בית הכנסת היא כתאורת כל מקום אחר, ואין איסור להשתמש לתאורה בשמן שנפל לתוכו שרץ. על כן דומה שלפנינו עדות לניוונם של בתי המדרש בארץ ישראל בשלהי התקופה הביזנטית, וכל ההלכה והאבחנה בין אחד משמונה השרצים (שבטלים באחד מאלף) לאלו שבטלים באחד חלקי חמש מאות אינה הלכתית. ", + "המשנה עוסקת בתערובת של דג טמא וטהור, כנראה במצב של נותן טעם. תערובת סתם בטלה ברוב או באחד למאה, כמו כל תערובת תרומה (לעיל פ\"ד מ\"ז), אך כאן מדובר בנותן טעם. לא נאמר במשנה האם הכוונה שהוא חייב להוציא את הדג הטמא, וכל הבעיה היא בטעם שקלטו יתר הדגים ממנו, או שמא הדג הטמא נעלם ואינו ניתן עוד לזיהוי. בהמשך מדובר בדג טמא בציר טהור, ומן הסתם מוציאים את חתיכות הדג הטמא מהציר, לפי זה גם ברישא מדובר במצב זה. גם את המשנה הקודמת העמדנו במקרה שבו ניתן למיין את הזיתים שהם תרומה. בעל פנקס ההלכה הארץ-ישראלי הבין אחרת, וכאמור ניכר שלא היה תלמיד חכם של ממש. ", + "הזין הנזכר במשנה הוא משקל נדיר, וכנראה הוא בסך הכול נוסח אחר למטבע הידוע \"זוז\". נפתח בשאלת הנוסח. בכתב יד קופמן נוספה המילה בידי מעתיק מאוחר שהעתיק \"זוז\", וכך בכמה עדי נוסח, אבל בעדים רבים21א, ז, ט, כ, נ, ן, ס, פ, ש. \"זין\", וכן גרס רבי יהוסף אשכנזי בשם \"כל הספרים\", וכן ראשונים אחרים22ראו זק\"ש, למשנתנו. . בתוספתא (פ\"ט ה\"א) \"זוז\", ורק בדפוס \"זין\". אין ספק ש\"זוז\" הוא מונח נפוץ יותר, ואכן הזוז, שהוא הדינר, היה רבע מסלע, כמו הזין במשנתנו. הזוז הוא בעיקרו מטבע ולא משקל. משקלו של הסלע היה בערך 14 גרם (לפי זה הזוז הוא כ- 3.5 גרם). בליטרא מאה זוזים, כלומר 350 גרם, ומשקל זה מקורב למדי. הליטרא הרומית היא 300 או 360 גרם, והמידות קרובות. כנראה השתמשו במונח \"זוז\" לציון מטבע ובמונח \"זין\" לציון משקל הזוז. המונח שימש בעיקר לציון משקלות קלים, וכן בסוגיה אחרת: \"בשתי סלעים ומחצה. אית דמפקין לישנה בעשרה זין\" (ירו', יומא פ\"ד ה\"ב, מא ע\"ג). ", + "עם כל זאת, ההלכה במשנה וסגנונה קשים. ראשית, לא ברור למה נתנה המשנה דוגמה במקרה כה מסובך ולא אמרה בפשטות אחד לאלף. ייתכן שגרב של סאתיים היה גרב רגיל של דגים, ואכן כדים של עשרים ליטר בערך הם כדים רגילים ביותר. ייתכן גם שבמקרה היה המעשה ששימש בסיס להלכה בכד כזה23לפי הירושלמי משקל סאה הוא 48 ליטרה, כלומר 17.2 ק\"ג לפי ליטרה של 60 גרם, 16.8 ק\"ג לפי ליטרה של 350 גרם (משקל 4800 זוזים) או 14.4 ק\"ג לפי ליטרה של 300 גרם. כל החישובים נראים מוטים כלפי מעלה, ראו הנספח למסכת פסחים. ייתכן שכאן בא לידי ביטוי המשקל הסגולי הגבוה של דגים עם הרוטב. . קשה גם מדוע עברה המשנה ממידות נפח (סאה) למידות משקל (ליטרא וזוזים-זינים)24הירושלמי מעיר שמשנתנו היא דוגמה לדיבור ב\"לשון כל אדם\", והכוונה כנראה למינוח שאינו רגיל בהלכה אך היה כנראה רגיל בשפת היום-יום. ראו ירו', ראש השנה פ\"א ה\"ט, נז ע\"ג. . ", + "הירושלמי דן במקרים הקרובים למשנה: \"תני רבי יודה בר פזי דבר דליה דג טהור טפל, שכבשו עם דג טמא מליח, אסור. והתני רבי חייה מדיחו ומותר, אמר רבי מנא מאן דאמר מותר בשכבשן שתיהן כאחת. מאן דאמר אסור בשכבשן זה אחר זה. תדע לך שהוא כן דתנינן או במי תרומה אסור, לא בשכבשן זה אחר זה\" (מז ע\"ב). ", + "בתוספתא חוזרת ההלכה אם כי הסגנון מעט קשה יותר, וסדר הדברים שונה מזה שבמשנה25לבירור הנוסח ראו ליברמן לתוספתא פ\"ט ה\"א, עמ' 440-439. . ההלכה של משנתנו חוזרת בשם רבי שמעון בן מנסיא, אבל המשפט ארוך יותר וניתן להבינו בשתי צורות התלויות בפיסוק התוספתא. את הדיון בתוספתא נערוך בסוף המשפט הבא במשנה. ", + "דג טמא צירו אסור – הדג טמא, וממילא הציר שהוא שרוי בו אסור. הציר עצמו עשוי ממים, חומרי טעם ואולי גם קמח או חומרי עיבוי אחרים. הציר אסור משום שהוא ספג מטעמו של הדג, ולמעשה הציר מקבל את טעם הדג.", + "רבי יהודה אומר רביעית בסאתים – אם יש בכלי רביעית של דג טמא בסאתיים ציר, הציר אסור, מעבר לכך הציר מותר. רביעית היא רביעית לוג, אחד חלקי 96 של סאה (לפי החשבון לעיל). רביעית בסאתיים היא אחד חלקי 192. הירושלמי מעגל את החשבון לאחד חלקי 200 (מז ע\"ב). מעבר לכך, כלומר אם כמות הדג הטמא קטנה יותר, הציר מותר, אך כמובן יש להוציא את הדג הטמא.", + "רבי יוסה אומר מששה עשר בו – אם הדג הטמא הוא פחות מאחד חלקי שישה עשר, הציר טהור. אחד חלקי שישה עשר הוא רביעית (לוג) לקב. המחלוקת התנאית נקבה במידות נפח, כך בסיפא וכך ברישא, והאמוראים פישטו את החשבון ונתנו אותו ככלל מספרי. מסתבר שגם רבי יוסי דיבר על רביעית בקב במקום רביעית בסאתיים, אבל כבר העורך של דבריו במשנה פישט את הדברים לאחד חלקי שישה עשר. ", + "מעתה עלינו לעבור למקבילה בתוספתא. בדרך כלל איננו באים לפרש את התוספתא בצורה שיטתית, אלא שבמקרה זה לפנינו דוגמה חריגה שניתן לעקוב בה אחר חלקו של העורך שבסידור שונה במקצת של הדברים מאפשר לשנות את כל הלימוד התנאי. אנו נציג את התוספתא פעמיים, בשני פיסוקים שונים. כן שנינו: \"דג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור: וכן גרב שמחזיק סאתים שבו משקל עשרה זוז ביהודה שהן חמש סלעים בגליל. דג טמא צירו אסור, רבי יהודה אומר רביעית בסאתים, רבי יוסה אומר אחד מששה עשר בו. אמר רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אין לך גרב שמחזיק סאתים, שאין בו משקל עשרה זין ביהודה שהן חמש סלעים בגליל דג טמא, שאין בו רביעית\" (תוס', פ\"ט ה\"א). בשיטת פיסוק זו התוספתא כמשנה. המילה \"וכן\" היא נוסח משובש של \"וכל\", וההלכה שבמשנה מופיעה פעמיים. זו עריכה מייתרת, אך ניתן לתרצה. ", + "קריאה שנייה היא: \"דג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור, וכן גרב שמחזיק סאתים שבו משקל עשרה זוז ביהודה שהן חמש סלעים בגליל דג טמא, צירו אסור. רבי יהודה אומר רביעית בסאתים, רבי יוסה אומר אחד מששה עשר בו. אמר רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אין לך גרב שמחזיק סאתים, שאין בו משקל עשרה זין ביהודה שהן חמש סלעים בגליל דג טמא, שאין בו רביעית\". הדין בגרב המחזיק סאתיים אינו הסבר לדג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור אלא דין בפני עצמו, רבי יהודה חולק עליו ומקל קצת ורבי יוסי מקל במידה רבה. במשנה נאמרה המחלוקת של רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי רק על הסיפא, ולפי התוספתא גם על הרישא. רבי שמעון בן מנסיה אינו משנה בהלכה אלא מספר שבגרב רגיל יש די דג טמא כדי לפסלו.", + "ניכר שבתוספתא אותם חומרים כמו במשנה, אך ארגון החומר שונה וכך אף משמעותו ההלכתית. במשנה דין דג טמא שכבשו עם טהור שונה מדין דג טמא בציר טהור, ובתוספתא הדין אחד. גם במדרש מופיעה מחלוקת אחת ובה שלוש הדעות הללו, כמו בקריאה השנייה בתוספתא: \"ושקץ יהיו לכם, לאסור את עירובם. כמה יהיה בו ויהא אסור? עשר זוז ביהודה שהן עשר (צ\"ל חמש) סלעים בגליל בגרב שמחזיק סאתים דג טמא, צירו אסור, רבי יהודה אומר רביעית בסאתים, רבי יוסי אומר אחד בששה עשר בו\" (ספרא, שמיני פרשה ג, ה\"ט). אפשר גם לפסק את הספרא כמו המשנה והקריאה הראשונה בתוספתא, אבל מכל מקום כל הדעות הן תשובה לאותה שאלה של עירוב, ורק שאלה אחת לפנינו, ודג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור דינו כמו דג טמא בציר טהור. גם בירושלמי יש כנראה ראיה לקריאה השנייה, ולא נרחיב בכך26ראו ליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה, עמ' 441-440, שהביא ראיות לכאן ולכאן. .", + "הסברנו שבמשנה שני דינים (דג טמא שכבשו ודג טמא שצירו אסור), ודומה שזו הקריאה הפשוטה במשנה. אבל הראינו שבתוספתא ניתן לקרוא כך או בקריאה שונה שממנה משתמע שיש כאן רק הלכה אחת (דג טהור שכבשו עם דג טמא בגרב צירו אסור וכו'). מכיוון שבאנו לכך ניתן לקרוא גם את המשנה כמו התוספתא, והכול תלוי בפיסוק. בין המפרשים מצינו שלוש קריאות שונות:", + "1. \"דג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור: כל גרב שהוא מחזיק סאתים, אם יש בו משקל עשרה זין/זוז ביהודה שהן חמש סלעים בגליל. דג טמא צירו אסור, רבי יהודה אומר\" וכו', ושני נושאים כאן, כמו שפירשנו. כן פירש ר\"ש סירליאו.", + "2. \"דג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור, כל גרב שהוא מחזיק סאתים אם יש בו משקל עשרה זין/זוז ביהודה שהן חמש סלעים בגליל דג טמא, צירו אסור. רבי יהודה אומר\" וכו'. לפי פירוש זה הכול הלכה אחת, וכאמור אין זו צורת הניסוח הרגילה של המשנה. כך פירש כנראה הרשב\"א בתשובותיו וראינו לעיל הצעת קריאה זו בתוספתא, אלא שבתוספתא נוספה המילה \"וכן\"27תשובות רשב\"א רפו, וראו מלאכת שלמה למשנה וליברמן, שם שם. .", + "3. \"דג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור. כל גרב שהוא מחזיק סאתים אם יש בו משקל עשרה זין/זוז ביהודה שהן חמש סלעים בגליל. דג טמא צירו אסור רבי יהודה אומר\" וכו'. לפי קריאה זו שלוש הלכות הן: ברישא דג טהור שכבשו עם דג טמא אסור תמיד (משום שהוא נותן טעם), במציעתא תערובת ציר בטלה באחד לאלף, ובסיפא דג טמא צירו אסור. כך הציע בעל מלאכת שלמה בחריפותו. ", + "עוד נוסף בתוספתא: \"אמר רבי יוסה בי רבי יהודה, במי דברים אמורים, בזמן ששולה ומניח לפניו ומצא בו כשיעור הזה, אבל אם היה נוטל וזורק ראשון ראשון אף על פי שמצא בו יתר מכשיעור הזה מותר, ואביו ואמו לא ידעו כי מה' הוא כי תאנה הוא מבקש מפלשתים\" (פ\"ט ה\"א). בסיום התוספתא נעסוק להלן.", + "ההלכה שבמשנה חוזרת באופן חלקי במקורות נוספים הדנים במקרים קרובים, כגון דג מלוח שכבשו עם דג טפל טמא ולהפך, ועוד (ירו', מז ע\"ב; בבלי, חולין צו ע\"ב; קיג ע\"א ועוד). ", + "מעבר לפרטים, ההלכה שבמשנה מקלה מאוד. עד עתה למדנו שנותן טעם פוסל בכל שהוא, ומעתה גם נותן טעם באחד לאלף פטור, לפי רבי יהודה באחד למאתיים ולפי רבי יוסי באחד חלקי שישה עשר. אפילו לפי משנתנו, שמספרים אלו נאמרו רק בסיפא שלה, עדיין ההקלה ברישא בולטת. הירושלמי שואל על הסיפא \"והלא אין ציר דג טמא מציר\" (מז ע\"ב), כלומר הרי הציר נעשה טמא כדג עצמו, שהרי כל טעמו הוא מהדג. לדעתנו אין לשאלה תשובה בירושלמי28אבל הרש\"ס ניסה לראות בהמשך הירושלמי תשובה דחוקה. . התשובה העקרונית נעוצה כנראה בהמשך הירושלמי לעניין אחר במקצת: \"...מותר על ידי עילה\" (שם). ה\"עילה\" נזכרת גם בתוספתא המונה את ההלכות שציטטנו ומסיימת: \"ואביו ואמו לא ידעו כי מה' הוא, כי תאנה הוא מבקש מפלשתים\" (פ\"ט ה\"א). הדין נקבע לא מסיבה משפטית אלא כתואנה. \"תואנה\" בתוספתא היא ה\"עילה\" בירושלמי. רעיון זה נאמר על פרט אחד שלא דנו בו, אך כנראה הוא המוטיב המניע את כל ההלכות שבמשנה. בעצם היו הדגים צריכים להיות אסורים באכילה, אך חכמים הקלו בגלל משקלו המכריע של ייבוא הדגים לארץ. קשה היה להמשיך ולהקפיד על כל ההחמרות, שכן בכך הייתה נמנעת האפשרות לקנות דגים מנכרים. על כן הקלו חכמים באיסורי התערובת שהם עצמם גזרו29ראו בבלי, חולין צט ע\"ב, שהסביר שציר זיעה בעלמא הוא, ועדיין אין בכך תשובה לתמיהה שהעלינו. . " + ], + [ + "חגבים טמאים שנכבשו עם חגבים טהורין לא פסלו את צירן – לפי רצף הנושאים של משנתנו הרי שטמא וטהור כאן הם במשמעות של כשר ואינו כשר לאכילה, כמו דג טמא ודג טהור. החגב הוא שם של מין שרץ שיש בו מינים טהורים ומינים טמאים (כגון משנה, חולין פ\"ג מ\"ז; תוס', עוקצין פ\"ג ה\"א, עמ' 688 ועוד). כיום אין מקובל לאכול מהחגב, אבל מבחינה הלכתית יש מיני חגבים כשרים, ובארצות המזרח התיכון נמנה החגב עם המרכיבים של המטבח המסורתי30עמר, חגב. . בהלכה שבמשנתנו נכבש חגב טהור עם טמא, ודינו כדין דג טמא שנכבש בטהור. אם היחס ביניהם הוא כמו במשנה הקודמת מוציאים את החגב הטמא והציר הטמא בטל. ציר החגב הטמא אסור באכילה בפני עצמו, ומן הסתם גם כאן דינו כמו במשנה הקודמת, \"דג טמא צירו אסור\", אלא אם כן בטל ברוב שנזכר במשנה הקודמת. ", + "העיד רבי צדוק על צר חגבים טמאים שהוא טהור – אין קשר בין הרישא לסיפא. בסיפא \"טהור\" משמעו שהנוזל (הרוטב שהחגב מושרה בו) אינו נחשב כאחד משבעת המשקים. אם רוטב זה נזל על פֵרות אין הוא מכשיר אותם לקבל טומאה. ציר החגבים הוא נוזל הגוף היוצא מהחגב שנכבש. \"העיד\" הוא מונח לדברי חכם שאינו מביע את עמדתו אלא מספר על מה שראה או שמע. מסכת עדיות מרכזת עדויות כאלו. ", + "הירושלמי אף הוא מסביר ש\"טהור\" משמעו שאינו מכשיר לקבל טומאה, אבל החגב עצמו טמא, כלומר אסור לאכילה. כל זאת כנגד המפרשים המסבירים שנוזל הגוף של החגב הטמא כשר לאכילה, שאיננו כדם (פירוש הרמב\"ם למשנתנו ולעדויות פ\"ז מ\"ב, ועוד)31הפירוש שציר החגב הטמא כשר לאכילה קשה מסיבות רבות, וכי כיצד זה היוצא מהטמא יהיה כשר לאכילה, האם ציר חגבים הוא כדבש? מכל מקום, הירושלמי כאן ומשנת עדויות שנביא מוכיחים שפירוש זה איננו אפשרי. ראו עוד מלאכת שלמה. . עד כאן פירוש משנתנו כפי שהיא מתבארת בפשטות בהקשר של פרקנו. אבל במסכת עדויות המשנה מצויה בהקשר אחר: \"העיד רבי צדוק על ציר חגבים טמאים שהוא טהור, שמשנה ראשונה חגבים טמאים שנכבשו עם חגבים טהורים לא פסלו צירן\" (פ\"ז מ\"ב). אם כן, הרי שהרישא של משנתנו היא המשנה הראשונה, ומן הסתם היא מדברת באותו מקרה ובאותו מינוח כמו עדותו של רבי צדוק. בתוספתא שם: \"העיד רבי צדוק על ציר חגבים טמאין שהוא טהור ומותר לאוכלי תרומה\" (פ\"ג ה\"א, עמ' 459). מהתוספתא משמע שעדותו של רבי צדוק היא על הכשר טומאה, אך אין בה ביטוי למשנה הראשונה או לרישא של משנתנו. נראה לנו שאין מקום לתרץ את המשניות אלא שמקור דברי רבי צדוק הוא במשנתנו, וכמו שפירשנו. משנת עדויות העבירה את דברי רבי צדוק, והעורך הציג את ראשית המשנה כמשנה ראשונה ולא שת את לבו לכך שמדובר בשני מקרים שונים שרק צירוף הלשון \"חגב טהור\" מחבר ביניהם, אך ה\"טהור\" של הרישא אינו כ\"טהור\" של הסיפא32כנראה כך מפרש גם בעל מלאכת שלמה במסכת עדויות. . ", + "רוב ה\"עדויות\" שבידינו הן מדור יבנה ומרוכזות במסכת עדויות. עת יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת נפרש את מסכת עדויות ונעמוד על טיבה, ונסתפק כאן בתורף הדברים. להערכתנו מסכת עדויות מכנסת את העדויות השונות אך אין היא עריכה קדומה או משנה קדומה אלא להפך, עריכה מאוחרת שרוב החומר שבה מלוקט מהלכות קדומות שעמדו לפניה, אולי גם ממשניות ערוכות שבמשנתנו. העדויות עצמן הובאו כל אחת בעניינה, חלקן התגלגלו למשנתנו וחלקן נותרו בברייתות השונות. בעל מסכת עדויות ליקט אותן ובמקרה שלנו יצר ארגון החומר ועריכתו כאילו פרשנות אחרת למשנה, אך \"משנה ראשונה\" כאן אינה הלכה קדומה אלא פשוט הרישא של המשנה. " + ], + [ + "כל הנכבשין זה עם זה – כל הירקות של חולין ושל תרומה שנכבשו זה עם זה, מותרים – שאין הירקות נותנים מטעמם זה לזה. אין ירק של תרומה נותן טעם בירק האחר ולכן מותר לכבשם יחד, אלא עם החיסית – עם החסית אין לכבוש, כי החסית נותנת טעם בירקות שנכבשים עמה. החסית של תרומה נותנת טעם בירקות האחרים, ולכן אין לכבוש ירקות של חולין עם חסית של תרומה. כך הנוסח ברוב הנוסחאות. כך אף בכ\"י קופמן לאחר התיקון. הלשון קשה במקצת, אך היא חוזרת אף במשנה הבאה. לפני התיקון היה: \"אבל לא עם\", והוא נוסח ברור יותר. כך בכ\"י ב לאחר התיקון.", + "בכתב יד קופמן יש סדרת תיקונים בשם \"נא\" (נוסח אחר). מהתיקונים מצטרף הנוסח \"ירק שלחולין עם חסית שלתרומה אסור. אבל חסית שלחולין, על ירק שלתרומה מותר\", והרי זה דין הפוך, ויש לדחות את הנוסח33נוסח אחר יש גם ב- ג6, ואף בכתב יד מינכן קטע של נוסח חריג. .", + "בתוספתא נתפרש טיבה של החסית: \"אילו הן מיני חוסית: הלוף והשום והבצלים והקפלוטות\", ובהמשך: \"רבי יהודה אומר אין לך מיני חוסית אלא קפלוט בלבד\" (פ\"ט ה\"ג). כבר תמה על כך בעל חסדי דוד: \"ומיהו טעמים דרבי יהודה לא אתפרש\", ויפה פירש ליברמן שאין רבי יהודה מצמצם את מיני החסית ודבריו אינם מוסבים אלא על ההלכה שאסרה חסית בחסית, והוא קבע שרק קפלוטות אסורות זו בזו34ליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה, עמ' 444, ועיינו שם. . ", + "המשך ההלכה במשנתנו הוא מסקנה מהלכה זו: חסית של חולין עם חסית של תרומה – או, ירק שלחולין – (כך לפי התיקון שבגיליון), עם חסית של תרומה אסור – שהחסית של התרומה נותנת מטעמה בירק של החולין, אבל חסית35כך לפי התיקון בגיליון. של חולין עם [ירק] (חסית) של תרומה מותר – שכן החסית של החולין רק נותנת טעם בירק ואין הירק של תרומה נותן טעם בחסית36ההגהה הכרחית וכך בכל הנוסחאות האחרות, ונראה שהמגיה לא הגיה עד הסוף. .", + "בראש הסוגיה בירושלמי למשנתנו (מז ע\"ב): \"אמר רבי יוחנן לית כאן נכבשין אלא נשלקין, כבוש ברותה (כרותה, וצריך להיות כרותח) הוא\". לפני רבי יוחנן היה הנוסח כבמשנתנו, אך הוא סבור, או שהייתה לו מסורת שונה, שאין לשנות \"כל הנכבשין\" אלא \"כל הנשלקין\". מסתבר כי לדעתו של רבי יוחנן ירקות נכבשים הם כרותח ואסורים, ואמנם כך משתמע משתי הלכות אחרות השנויות בפרקנו. המשנה הבאה פותחת בדברי רבי יוסי: \"כל הנשלקים עם התרדים אסורין\" וכו', ונראה שהוא חולק על הדברים שנאמרו במשנתנו שכל הנכבשים זה עם זה מותרים. אילו פתח בהלכה חדשה היה שונה: כל הנשלקים זה עם זה מותרים אלא עם התרדים מפני וכו'. לפי הנוסח שלפנינו משנתנו חולקת על משנה ז שבפרקנו: \"זיתי חולין שכבשן עם זיתי תרומה... אסור\".", + "על מנת להבין את דברי רבי יוחנן יש לחדד את משמעות המונח \"שלוק\". בשאלה זו עסקנו במסכת פסחים (פ\"י מ\"ד). מסקנתנו הייתה דומה שהשליקה דומה לבישול, אבל הבישול מטרתו לרכך את הפרי ולהכינו למאכל, והשליקה היא בישול שיש בו עיבוד ושינוי טעם. שינוי כזה מחייב, בדרך כלל, שרייה ממושכת במים. " + ], + [ + "ר' יוסה אומר כל הנישלקים עם התרדים אסורין – כפי שפירשנו במשנה הקודמת דברי רבי יוסי מוסבים על דברי המשנה הקודמת לפי הנוסח ששנה רבי יוחנן \"כל הנשלקין מותרין\", ורבי יוסי חולק וסובר שכל הירקות, או מאכלים אחרים, המתבשלים עם התרדים, ולו בישול קל, אסורים. דבריו מנומקים: מפני שהן נותנין את הטעם. התרדים אינם הצמח הידוע כיום בשם זה; צמח זה לא היה ידוע בימי המשנה. התרד הוא הירק הידוע בימינו בשם הסלק (Beet)37ראו לאו, פלורה, כ\"א, עמ' 347. (איור 32).", + "ר' שמעון אומר כרוב שלשיקי – כרוב הגדל בשדה מושקה, עם כרוב של בעל – כרוב של תרומה שגדל בשדה בעל, בשדה המושקה במי גשמים, אסור מפני שהוא בוליע – הכרוב של שיקי בולע מן הכרוב של בעל. אף רבי שמעון מצמצם את ההיתר הכללי במשנה הקודמת המתירה את כל הנשלקים זה עם זה.", + "ר' עקיבה אומר כל המתבשלין זה עם זה – אוכלים של איסור והיתר המתבשלים זה עם זה, מותרין – לבשלם כאחד, אלא עם הבשר – אלא אם כן מתבשלים עם בשר של איסור. הבשר פולט בבישול מטעמו והטעם נבלע באוכלים האחרים המתבשלים עמו. כך משתמע מדברי התוספתא: \"רבי עקיבה אומר כל המתבשלין זה עם זה מותרין אלא עם הבשר. בשר בבשר אסור\" (פ\"ט ה\"ד). רבי עקיבא הוא הדובר בכל נוסחאות המשנה והתוספתא, וכך אף בדיון שבירושלמי. בדפוסי הבבלי ובמעט עדי נוסח: רבי יהודה. גישתו של רבי עקיבא היא בבחינת קול שונה בהלכה, והוא מקל ביותר בדיני תערובות.", + "ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר הכבד אסרת ואינה נאסרת – הכבד של איסור שנתבשל עם ירקות של תרומה אוסר מכיוון שנותן מטעמו לירקות, ואין כבד של היתר נאסר מחמת ירקות של תרומה, מפני שהיא פולטת ואינה בולעת – כך לפי פירושו של רבינו נסים לחולין (סימן תתנד, מ ע\"א). בימיהם של תנאים בישלו את הכבד ולא הצריכו צלייה כנוהג המאוחר המקובל כיום38ראו הסוגיה בחולין קיא ע\"א, ואלפסי שם. . הלכה זו שנויה אף בתוספתא: \"רבי ליעזר אומר כבד אוסרת ואינה נאסרת\" (פ\"ט ה\"ה)39כך כנכון בכ\"י ערפורט ובסוגיה בחולין קיא ע\"א, וכן בספר יחוסי חכמים ואמוראים, ערך \"זריקא\", ב, עמ' רו. הדיון בפירושו של ליברמן משובש. , ובהמשך התוספתא: \"רבי ישמעאל בי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר שלוקה אוסרת ואינה נאסרת, מתובלת אוסרת ונאסרת\".", + "מחלוקת זו מובאת בתלמוד הבבלי (חולין קיא ע\"א). לפי נוסח בעל הלכות גדולות ד\"ו (קלג ע\"ד): \"רבי אליעזר אומר הכבד אוסרת ואינה נאסרת מפני שפולטת ואינה בולעת. רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אוסרת ונאסרת, שלוקה אוסרת ואינה נאסרת\". נוסח זה תואם את דברי הגמרא שמביאה את הברייתא \"כתנאי\" לעניין בישול של הכבד40והיא מעין הגהתו של הגר\"א בשנות אליהו למשנתנו ובביאורו ליורה דעה סימן עג סק\"ו, אות יב. . תנא אחרון, רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, החמיר על ההלכה שנשנתה בשם רבי יוחנן בן נורי ורבי אליעזר. רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה סבור שמבושלת אוסרת ונאסרת ורק שלוקה, שאינה מבושלת ממש, אינה נאסרת." + ], + [ + "ביצה שניתבשלה – בגיליון מתוקן: שניתבלה, וכך הנוסח במשניות מהטיפוס הארץ-ישראלי וכן בספרי ראשונים רבים41הר\"ש משנץ (כ\"י), הרמב\"ם בהלכותיו, הלכות תרומה פט\"ו ה\"ה, ספר והזהיר (ח\"א עה ע\"ב) ובעל מלאכת שלמה. . אם אנו מקבלים את הנוסח \"שנתבשלה\" הרי שמשנתנו עוסקת רק בביצה קלופה שהשרוה בתבלים אסורין – הביצה הייתה שרויה בתבלים אסורים כגון תרומה, כלאיים, ערלה או הקדש, אפילו הלמון שלה אסור – וכל שכן הלובן. המילה \"אפילו\" חסרה בכ\"י רומי וסיריליאו, וכך משתמע מן הסוגיה בירושלמי. \"הלמון\" הוא חלמון בכתיב המקובל היום. בכתב יד קופמן וב- ר בה\"א, וכן בערוך42כרך ג ערך \"הלמון\" (עמ' ריא). . הערוך מצטט את התרגום לאיוב (ו ו) \"בריר חלמות\": \"בחלבון ביעתא והלמונא\"; לפנינו: חלמונא. בעל מלאכת שלמה כותב: \"הלמון בה\"א גרסינן בקצת ספרים\", וברוב הספרים: חלמון.", + "מפני שהוא בוליע – אף החלמון הפנימי בולע. הלכה זו מאשרת את הנוסח \"שנתבלה\", שהרי אין להניח שביצה שלמה על קליפתה יהיה בחלמון שלה משום נותן טעם ובליעה של התבלים שהיו במים שבהם נתבשלה. בירושלמי (מז ע\"ב) מתנהלים דיונים על ביטול החלבון ברוב של אחד לשישים ואחד, או מעט יותר, או ברוב קטן יותר, וזו השתלשלות מאוחרת יותר של ההלכה. ", + "מי כבשים ומי שלקות שלתרומה – שנכבשה או נשלקה בהם תרומה. יש עדי נוסח שחסר בהם \"מי שלקות\", או שהסדר הפוך (\"מי שלקות ומי כבשים\"). מי שלקות הם מי השליקה שהיא כבישול (השריה עם טעם), כפי שפירשנו לעיל (מ\"י), אסורין לזרים – שהרי יש בהם במים מן טעמה של התרומה. הסדר \"מי כבשים ומי שלקות\" הוא בכל הנוסחאות העיקריות של המשנה, בספרי ראשונים רבים, בספר והזהיר (שם) וברמב\"ם (הלכות תרומה פט\"ו הי\"א). במלאכת שלמה: \"במשניות דוקניות גרסינן: מי כבשים, ומי שלקות אסורין. וכן בפירוש רבינו שמשון ורבינו עובדיה וכן הגיה ה\"ר יהוסף ז\"ל\". בדפוסים: \"מי שלקות ומי כבשים\"." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "הפרק ממשיך בדיני תערובות של תרומה וחולין, אך לא בתערובת של תרומה וחול אלא של שני סוגי תרומה. התערובת גורמת לאבדן אחד המרכיבים, ויש בכך חשש איבוד תרומה. מכאן ואילך הוא ממשיך בשמירת תרומה ומתי מותר לאבדה. המשניות בפרק אינן דנות אלא בחלק מהנושאים הקשורים לכך. הן מתחילות במאכלים שהם ספק תרומה בגלל ערכם הנמוך, וממשיכה בשמירה של אותן ידות אוכל (קליפות ושיריים). כרגיל במשנה הדין הבסיסי חסר, שכן אין בה קביעה שאסור לאבד תרומה (ראו להלן פירושנו למשנה א). כך גם נוצר מצב שהמשנה הראשונה קשורה בו באופן רופף לפרק הקודם העוסק בתערובות, אבל ההמשך מנותק. חוליית הקישור, שהיא גם ההלכה הבסיסית (איסור לאבד תרומה וחובה לאכלה בדרכה הרגילה), אינה במשנה והיא מופיעה בתוספתא. התוספתא כאן משמרת, אפוא, את העריכה הקדומה של המשנה, או את העריכה שממנה ליקט עורך המשנה את כל הפרק. עם זאת, אי אפשר לקבוע שכאן התוספתא היא בסיס למשנה, שכן גם בתוספתא הדברים אינם סדורים כתקנם. התוספתא מביאה מקבילה למשניות א-ג, ורק אז קובעת את דיני שמירת תרומה ואת האיסור לאבדה (פ\"ט ה\"י-הט\"ו). זאת ועוד. בתוספתא יש הרחבה ניכרת של המשנה שסגנונה מצומצם ומדויק יותר, וחוליית הקישור כתובה באותו סגנון ארכני ומפורט כמו יתר חלקי התוספתא. יש בתוספתא כלל ואחר כך הסבר הכלל בסגנון הרגיל בתוספתא (\"כיצד...\"), על כן נראה שעורך התוספתא חש בחוסר הסדר שבמשנה וחש להשלימו, אך ההשלמה לוקטה ממקור כלשהו או משני מקורות ושובצה שלא במקומה המדויק.", + " ", + "הכלל הבסיסי שהמשנה מרחיבה הוא החובה לאכול תרומה, וכן שנוי בתוספתא1לסדר התוספתא ראו לעיל בסמוך. : \"תרומה ניתנה לאכילה, ולשתייה, ולסיכה, לאכל דבר שדרכו לאכול, ולשתות דבר שדרכו לשתות, ולסוך דבר שדרכו לסוך. כיצד לאכל דבר שדרכו לאכל? אין מחייבין אותו לאכל קניבתו של ירק, ולא פת שעיפשה, ולא תבשיל שעיברה צורתו\" (פ\"ט ה\"י).", + "אין נותנין דבילה וגרוגרות לתוך המורייס מפני שהוא מאבדן – המורייס הוא רוטב הדגים, ונראה שנהגו להכניס לתוכו חומרים ממתקים. בכך יש חשש של איבוד של הדבלה או הגרוגרות, שכן אלו יתקלקלו במורייס. נשוב להסביר את ההלכה בהמשך המשנה.", + "אבל נותנין את היין למורייס – עירוב יין במורייס נזכר לעתים קרובות, ובירור הנסיבות והסיבות לכך הוא הרקע להלכה. במשנה יש מחלוקת האם מורייס של גויים מותר או אסור2משנה, עבודה זרה פ\"ב מ\"ד; תוס', שביעית פ\"ה ה\"ט. נרחיב בהלכה זו לכשנפרש את משנת עבודה זרה. . האיסור נובע מהחשש שהגוי הטיל יין למורייס, ויין גויים אסור משום יין נסך. בדרך כלל סתם מורייס נחשב כאסור, אם כי כאמור במשנה חולקים בכך תנאים. עם זאת, מורייס מאוּמן מותר (תוס', עבודה זרה פ\"ד הי\"ג), כנראה משום שלא הטילו יין בתוך מורייס שהוכן בבית מלאכה. מהתלמוד הבבלי עולה שהטלת היין לא נעשתה על מנת להשביח את המורייס אלא על מנת ליטול ממנו זוהמה (בבלי, עבודה זרה לח ע\"ב). היבט אחר עולה מסוגיה אחרת. הסוגיה עוסקת באותה הלכה הקובעת שמורייס אומן מותר, והתלמוד מסביר: \"פעם ראשון ושני – מותר, שלישי – אסור, מאי טעמא? פעם ראשון ושני דנפיש שומנייהו – לא צריך למירמי בהו חמרא, מכאן ואילך רמו בהו חמרא\" (בבלי, עבודה זרה לד ע\"ב). אם כן, בתחילת הייצור יש במורייס די שומן ולא צריך יין. אומן שמלאכתו בכך מסתפק בהכנת מורייס מובחר זה. בעל הבית משתמש במורייס, ואחר כך כובש את הדג ברוטב פעם נוספת ופעם שלישית. בשלב האחרון כבר אין בדג די נוזלים, ומוסיפים יין כדי שהרוטב יהיה נוזלי דיו. התלמוד ממשיך בסיפור מעשה שרקעו מארץ ישראל: \"ההוא ארבא דמורייסא דאתי לנמילא דעכו, אותיב רבי אבא דמן עכו נטורי בהדה. אמר ליה רבא: עד האידנא מאן נטרה? אמר ליה: עד האידנא למאן3יש נוסחאות \"למאי?\" (למה?), ונוסח זה עדיף. ניחוש לה? אי משום דמערבי ביה חמרא, קיסתא דמורייס בלומא, קיסתא דחמרא בד' לומי. אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא: דלמא איידי דצור אתו דשוי חמרא! אמר ליה: התם עיקולי ופשורי איכא\" (בבלי, שם). המדובר ב\"ארבה\", סירה שהגיעה לנמל עכו, והושיב רבי אבא שמעכו שומרים אצלה. אמר לו רבא: עד עתה מה שמר אותה (את הארבה או את היין)? (ענה לו) שמא משום שמערבים בה יין? [האם יש לחשוש לכך שעירבו יין במורייס? הרי] קססטס (מידת נפח4קססטס היא מידה יוונית שנפחה שתי ליברות באלכסנדריה, או שמונה ליברות בפונטוס. כמו מידות רבות אחרות בתוך המרחב היווני במזרח השתמשו באותו מונח לציון מידות שונות. הדוגמאות שהובאו הן מאפיפניוס, על המשקלות ועל המידות, סעיף 39. ) בארבע נומינה5לומי היא מטבע רומית, נומינה. וקססטס של מוריס בנומינה אחת. אמר לו רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא: שמא מצור באו שהיין בה שווה פחות. אמר לו: שם יש עקולים ופשורים\"6רש\"י פירש את המונחים על רקע מציאות חייו בצרפת או על פי מה ששחזר מההווי הבבלי, שם משכו את הסירות בחבלים מהחוף, וכאילו הנהר של צור אינו מאפשר את משיכת הסירה. אין צריך לומר שהדרך מצור לעכו אינה עוברת בנהר או בתעלת מים. הכוונה כנראה שהמים סוערים ואין צדים שם דגים מתאימים למורייס. , ועל כן הסירה בוודאי לא באה מצור.", + "הסיפור הוא דוגמה להרכבתה של סוגיה בבלית שיצרה מעין סיפור מעשה ממערכת דיונים. רבי אבא הוא ארץ-ישראלי, ורבא הטוען נגדו לא שוחח עמו באופן אישי, שכן לא נפגש עמו, ובוודאי לא בארץ ישראל. אלא רבא העלה שאלה עקרונית, והיא הוצגה כאילו עלתה בדו שיח חי. רבי ירמיה ורבי זירא אכן פעלו בארץ ישראל, והם התדיינו בה על המעשה (אולי עם רבי אבא עצמו). אבל התלמוד סידר את הדברים ברצף סיפורי אחד על ידי הוספת המינוח \"אמר ליה\". מכל מקום, מתברר שאת היין מוסיפים במקום ציר או מורייס עצמו, כדי להוסיף נוזלים למורייס. בחוץ לארץ היין יקר ממורייס ועל כן אין חשש להוספת יין. החשש הוא רק במזרח התיכון – בצור, בעכו ובארץ ישראל. רוב המורייס בא מהמזרח הקרוב, במיוחד נזכר המורייס מאספמיה, היא אפמיאה של סוריה7שמות רבה, ט ו, ומקבילות. , אך היו גם שהביאו מורייס מרחוק יותר, כמו במקרה זה. ", + "אם כן, היין במורייס אינו בא לשבח את טעמו של המזון אלא לזייפו. בפועל ייאכל היין בתור חלק מהמורייס, ולכן אין זו השחתת היין. אבל הדבלה והגרוגרות באים לשבח את טעם המורייס. המורייס אמנם ישתבח, אבל הדבלה עצמה תושחת.", + "בתוספתא מובאת הלכה שונה לגבי תרומה ושביעית שהלכותיה בנושא זה של השחתת הפרי דומות: \"נותן אדם דבילה וגרוגרות לתוך המורייס התבשיל8כך בכתב יד וינה ושתי נוסחאות הן, לתוך המורייס ולתוך התבשיל, וראו ליברמן, על אתר. כדרך שנותן את התבלין. לא יסחטם (יסחוט אותם) להוציא מהן משקין. בתבלין מותר מפני שהן מלאכתן\" (פ\"ט ה\"ז; שביעית פ\"ו ה\"ו). הנימוק \"מפני שהיא מלאכתן\" מסביר את כל ההלכה: מה שהוא תוספת רגילה מותר. נוסחה של הברייתא מאושש. כך הוא בכל הנוסחאות של התוספתא, וכך היא מועתקת בירושלמי בראש הפרק (מז ע\"ג) בד\"ו ובכ\"ר. ניתן לפרש בפשטות כי הברייתא חולקת על משנתנו, כפי שהעמידנו חכם אחד9הרמב\"ם בהלכות תרומה פי\"א ה\"ג פסק כמשנתנו, ורבינו יוסף קורקוס בפירושו כותב שייתכן שהרמב\"ם סבור שהברייתא חולקת על משנתנו ופוסק כמשנה. . אולם רבינו יצחק בן מלכי צדק והר\"ש משנץ פירשו שהברייתא אינה חולקת על משנתנו אלא מפרשתה, שאם לא סחט את הדבלה והגרוגרת אלא נתנן כדרך שנותנים את התבלין – מותר10גם רבי שלמה סיריליאו הילך בפירושו בדרך זו. ראו ליברמן, עמ' 454. . לפי פשוטה התוספתא חולקת על משנתנו.", + "מחלוקת דומה מצינו גם לגבי יין, ובירושלמי היא מצוטטת במפורש: \"רבי חייה בשם רבי יוחנן דרבי היא, דתני יין למורייס רבי מתיר, ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אוסר. לפיכך אם עבר ונותנו רבי אוסר לזרים, ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מתיר לזרים. רבי מנא ברבי תנחום בעי: כדברי מי שמתיר לזרים, מורייס שלגוים למה אסור? רבי ירמיה בשם רבי חייא בר ווא משום בישולי גוים הן אסורין\" (מז ע\"ג; עבודה זרה פ\"ב ה\"ו, מא ע\"ג). משנתנו כרבי, אך רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון חולק. הברייתא ממשיכה שלפי רבי היין הוא תוסף רגיל למורייס, ואם נתן יין תרומה למורייס המורייס מקבל דין תרומה (\"אסור לזרים\"). לפי רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון יין אינו תוסף רגיל לכן זו השחתת היין, ולכן אין לתת יין תרומה למורייס, ואם נתן המורייס אינו אסור לזרים (אין לו דין תרומה) משום שזה בבחינת נותן טעם לפגם. כל זאת לשיטת רבי יהודה ותנאים אחרים שנותן טעם לפגם אינו פוסל את המזון (לעיל פ\"י מ\"ב). על כן שואלת הגמרא למה מורייס של גוי אסור; אם היין אינו משביח את המורייס הרי גם כאן נותן טעם לפגם צריך להיות מותר, הרי התוספת היא למורת רוחו של הקונה. התשובה היא שהאיסור נובע משום בישולי גויים, ולא בגלל התוספת של היין. ", + "אין לגמרא ספק שמורייס הגוי אסור. זו אחת ההלכות המיוחסות לגזרות יח דבר, אותה סדרה של החלטות, בעלות אופי כמעט מיתולוגי, שהוכרעו בסוף ימי בית שני במעמד יוצא דופן בעליית ביתו של אחד ממנהיגי בית שמאי11ראו דיוננו במשנה שבת פ\"א מ\"ג. . עם זאת ההסבר כאן קשה, שכן שם נמנים בישולי גויים ומורייס של גויים כגזרות נפרדות, וקשה להסביר שמורייס אסור משום בישול בלבד. ברם, כל השאלה על מורייס הגוי אינה שאלה הלכתית של ממש. ניתן היה להסביר בפשטות כי זו החמרה מיוחדת החלה על יין נכרי, או אף להעמיד את רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כרבי מאיר האומר שנותן טעם לפגם אסור. זאת ועוד, מבחינת הקונה היין נותן טעם לפגם, אבל מבחינת המוכר הוא נותן בו טעם לשבח משום שמוסיף על כמות המורייס, וכפי שנראה להלן לדעה זו מקבילות תנאיות. על כן יש לראות בהסבר רעיון ספרותי בלבד, ואין לדקדק בו.", + "אם כן, קיימת מחלוקת תנאים (רבי ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון) על יין במורייס, ומחלוקת אחרת (משנה ותוספתא) על דבלה וגרוגרת במורייס. המשנה הקלה בדבלה והחמירה ביין. השאלה היא האם המשנה אכן הבחינה בין חומרים אלו כפי שהסברנו לעיל, בעקבות כל מפרשי המשנה, או שמא ליקטה את דברי החולקים, הרישא (דבלה) היא כרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון והסיפא (יין) כרבי. אך סביר יותר שהמשנה משקפת רק דעה אחת ויש בה לכידות פנימית, הווה אומר שהאבחנה שהוצעה בין יין לדבלה היא הרקע הרֵאלי להלכות במשנה. ", + "[ו]אין מפטמין את השמן – פיטום השמן הוא הוספת עשבי ריח שיהא ריחו נודף. בשמן השתמשו לסיכה, ולעתים גם לבישום הבית12ראו דברי ליברמן לתוס', דמאי פ\"א הכ\"ו. . במקרה של בישום הבית, השמן אינו אמור לשמש לסיכה אלא כריח טוב לבית. על כן השמן אינו מנוצל לסיכה המותרת אלא להרחה, וזהו שימוש שלא כדרכו. אין לפטם שמן של תרומה13ראו גם תוס', פ\"ט ה\"ז. , כשם שאין לפטם שמן של מעשר שני (משנה, מעשר שני פ\"ב מ\"א) ושמן של שביעית (תוס', שביעית פ\"ו הי\"ג). לטעמו של האיסור נשוב בסוף המשנה.", + "אבל עושין את היין ינמילין – אנומלין או יינומלין, או בכתיבים דומים, היא מילה יוונית, όνόμηλον, שמשמעה יין ודבש או יין בדבש. בתלמוד הירושלמי: \"רבי יסא בשם רבי יוחנן14כך בכ\"י לידן. בדפוסים: ר\"י. יין ודבש ופילפלין\" (שבת פ\"כ ה\"ב, יז ע\"ג), ובבבלי, כבמקרים רבים אחרים, הדברים שנויים בצורת ברייתא: \"תנו רבנן עושין אנומלין בשבת, ואין עושין אלונטית. ואיזו היא אנומלין ואיזו היא אלונטית? אנומלין יין ודבש ופלפלין, אלונטית יין ישן ומים צלולין ואפרסמון\" (בבלי, שבת קמ ע\"א)15כפי שהערנו במבוא הכללי לפירוש המשניות, דברי אמוראים שנויים לעתים בירושלמי בלשון ברייתא. יש מקום לשער שהמינוח הבבלי \"תני\" או \"תנו רבנן\" מציין לא רק ברייתא אלא גם דברי אמוראים ידועים. , והגמרא מסבירה את טעמה של הלכה זו שאלונטית היא לרפואה: \"דעבדי לבי מסותא למיקר\". אנומלין מותר להכין אפילו בשבת, והיא צורת שתייה רגילה (משנה, שבת פ\"כ מ\"ב). על כן מותר גם לערב באנומלין יין של תרומה או דבש פֵרות של תרומה.", + "אין מבשלים יין שלתרומה מפני שהוא ממעיטו – בירושלמי יש מחלוקת אמוראים: \"רבי אלעזר ורבי יוחנן חד אמר מפני שממעטו משותיו וחד אמר מפני שממעטו ממידתו ולא ידעין מאן אמר דא ומאן אמר דא\" (פ\"ב ה\"ח, מא ע\"ד, ואיננו יודעים מי אמר זה ומי אמר זה). המחלוקת היא כנראה על המונח \"ממעטו\". אחד מסביר שפחות אנשים ישתו את היין, כלומר אמנם אותו אדם מעוניין ביין מבושל ובשבילו זו השבחת היין, אבל באופן אובייקטיבי פחות אנשים מעוניינים ביין מבושל, והאמורא השני מסביר שבישול היין גורם להפחתת הכמות, כמו שהסברנו. לפי אמורא זה יש להסביר שאמנם היין משתבח (לפי תחושתו הסובייקטיבית של בעל היין), אבל כמותו נפגעת, ואם היה התהליך אחר וכמות היין הייתה נשארת קבועה לא היה תנא קמא מתנגד לעיבוד היין. הנימוקים הללו מופיעים בתלמוד פעמיים. פעם בסוגיה למשנתנו, ופעם כהסבר מדוע אין לתרום מיין מבושל על שאינו מבושל (שם). ברור שהנימוק \"ממעטו ממידתו\" מתאים רק למשנתנו, שכן אם תורמים יין מבושל באותה כמות שהיה צריך לתרום יין חי אין כל הפחתת כמות. אין זאת אלא שהנימוק אכן נאמר על משנתנו והועבר למשנה בפרק ב. ", + "רבי יהודה מתיר מפני שהוא משביחו – יין משובח טעים יותר. רבי יהודה נאמן לעמדתו שיין מבושל טוב יותר מיין חי. מעתה עלינו להבין את טעמם של חכמים בניגוד לרבי יהודה. אם רבי יהודה מסביר שהיין משתבח הרי שחכמים סבורים שהוא נופל בערכו מיין רגיל, אם כן ממעטו הוא כמו מפסידו, בניגוד למשבחו. ", + "את דינו המיוחד של היין המבושל הסברנו לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ו). יין מבושל הוא אותו סוג של תוצרת, אלא שבושל בחום נמוך יחסית. הבישול עוצר את תהליכי התסיסה, וכאילו מקפיא את ההתפתחות הפנימית של תאי הפרי. יין חי ככל שהוא ישן יותר טעמו משתבח; יין מבושל אינו משתבח יותר, אך כמובן גם אינו מתקלקל. יין מבושל נחשב לטעים פחות וטוב פחות, וכך גם היום. הוא אינו נחשב ליין נסך מתוך ההנחה שאין משתמשים בו לניסוך (תוס', פ\"ד הי\"ד), ויש צורך להדגיש שהוא כשר לשתיית יין מצווה (בקידוש או בליל הסדר), וזו עדות לכך שטיבו מפוקפק (ירו', שבת פ\"ח ה\"א, יא ע\"א; פסחים פ\"י ה\"א, לז ע\"ג ומקבילות נוספות). כאמור, היין המבושל מופיע בשני הקשרים: במשנתנו ובמשנה לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ו) שבה מדובר על איסור לתרום מיין מבושל על שאינו מבושל, ורבי יהודה מתיר. רבי יוחנן הסביר שעמדתו של רבי יהודה בשתי המשניות זהה, כלומר המחלוקת היא האם בישול היין הוא השבחתו או קלקולו. כבר הירושלמי (מא ע\"ד) מעיר כי הסבר זה הוא לפי הדעה ש\"ממעיטו\" הוא מוריד מערכו, ברם לפי ההסבר ש\"ממעיטו\" הוא \"ממעיטו ממדתו\" דברי רבי יהודה במשנה שם (תרומת יין מבושל על שאינו מבושל) מחייבים הסבר נפרד. כפי שהסברנו את המשנה שם אכן דברי רבי יהודה שם נובעים מסיבה שונה לחלוטין, מגישה הלכתית אחרת המתירה להפריש ממין אחד על האחר, ללא קשר לטיב התוצרת. אם כן, במשנתנו האיסור נובע מהפסדת הכמות של היין (הבישול גורם לאיוד). רבי יהודה ודאי מודה בעובדה זו, אך סבור שהשבחת הטיב חשובה יותר. אם הבעל מבשל יין סימן שהוא מעדיף את היין מבושל על פני מעט יותר יין חי, וחכמים חולקים על עצם השבחת היין או שסבורים שאין בה כדי לעמעם את האיסור להפסיד תרומה.", + "מכל מקום, השבחת היין אינה אובייקטיבית. לא תמיד יין מבושל טוב יותר, אבל הוא טוב יותר עבור אותו אדם הרוצה בכך. בוודאי היו שהעדיפו את היין המבושל שהיה חריף פחות וחי פחות. מכל מקום, אולי יין חי טעים יותר לרוב האנשים אבל ברור שהאדם המיוחד שבו מדובר כאן רוצה ביין מבושל, אחרת לא היה רוצה לבשלו. אם כן, המחלוקת במשנתנו היא האם השחתת תרומה היא מושג מוחלט, הנקבע לפי דעת רוב בני אדם (בבחינת בטלה דעתו אצל דעת כל אדם), או שמא נקבע הדבר לפי רצונו של בעל היין באותו זמן ובאותם תנאים מיוחדים.", + "מתוך פירושנו משמע שהמשנה לעיל (פ\"ב מ\"ו) חולקת על רבי יהודה והיא כתנא קמא כאן שיין מבושל הוא טוב כיין רגיל. עם זאת, בפירושנו שם הצענו גם אפשרות אחרת להבנת עמדתו החולקת של רבי יהודה שם, פרשנות שאינה קשורה לעמדתו בדבר ערכו של יין מבושל. מכל מקום, במשנתנו המחלוקת היא על טיבו של יין מבושל, כפי שפירשנו.", + "כאמור, משנתנו היא כרבי בניגוד לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר. כידוע רבי הוא עורך המשנה, והוא כמעט אינו נזכר במשנה עצמה. עם זאת, לעתים קרובות אנו מוצאים את דבריו במקבילות למשנה, ולעתים קרובות הוא חולק על סתם המשנה. נמצאנו למדים שרבי לא הקפיד לשקע במשנה את עמדתו האישית אלא הסתפק בליקוט ובעריכת הדברים. במקרה זה רבי סבור כסתם המשנה, ואי אפשר לדעת האם בכך באה לידי ביטוי עמדתו האישית או שמא כך מצא במקור שממנו לוקטה המשנה. ", + "המחלוקת במשנה היא רק על יין מבושל, ודומה שהתנאים אינם חולקים על פיטום יין ושמן. מעתה עלינו לברר מדוע אסור לפטם שמן. קבוצת ראשונים (ריבמ\"ץ, הר\"ש ואחרים) מפרשת שהפיטום ממעיט את השמן, שכן הצמחים שנותן לשמן בולעים ממנו מעט. במשנה עצמה מופיע הנימוק ש\"ממעיטו\". הסברנו שהוא חל על יין מבושל, ולפי פירוש הריבמ\"ץ והר\"ש (\"ממעיטו ממדתו\") נימוק זה חל גם על פיטום השמן. הווה אומר, הנימוק של רבי יהודה חל על כל חלקי המשנה. ברם, ברור שנימוק זה אינו חל על עשיית יין לאנומלין, על כן קשה להניח שאותו נימוק חל על שני מקרים (א ו- ג) ולא על המקרה שביניהם (יין אנומלין). כפי שראינו, ל\"ממעיטו\" יש גם פירוש נוסף שאינו חל על שמן מפוטם. הרמב\"ם פירש שעם נתינת צמחי הריח נפסל השמן לאכילה. מותר לסוך בשמן תרומה, אך לדעת הרמב\"ם אף על פי כן אסור לפסלו לאכילה. נימוקו של הרמב\"ם קשה. אם מותר לסוך בשמן מדוע אסור יהא להשביחו? אמנם נכון שעם השבחת השמן הוא נפסל לאכילה, אבל הוא הושבח לשימוש מותר אחר. ייתכן שהחשש הוא שישתמש בשמן לבישום הבית ולא לסיכה, ברם שוב אם זה החשש ניתן היה לומר במפורש שמותר לפטם שמן רק בשביל סיכה16בפירושנו למעשר שני פ\"ב מ\"א נצביע על קשיים נוספים בפירושי הראשונים הללו. .", + "ייתכן שהפתרון מצוי במקום אחר. בציבור הרחב נחשב כמובן שמן ערב כשמן טוב יותר משמן רגיל, אבל חכמים הסתייגו משימוש בשמן ערב. הם ראו בכך התהדרות שלא במקומה. כך יוצא מההלכה בתוספתא (ברכות פ\"ה הכ\"ט), וכהסבר התלמודים: \"שאין שבחו שלתלמיד חכם להיות יוצא מבושם\" (ירו', ברכות פ\"ח ה\"ה, יב ע\"ב; בבלי, מג ע\"ב)17מבחינה הלכתית בישום הוא כסיכה, אם כי אולי הבחינו חכמים בין סיכה רגילה לבישום של מותרות שאינו כאכילה. . חכמים לא יכלו להטיל את רצונם על כל הציבור, ואולי אפילו לא ניסו לעשות זאת, אך סברו שאין זה ראוי ששמן קודש ישמש לשימוש לא ראוי או אפילו מגונה." + ], + [ + "דבש תמרים – דבש תמרים נזכר פעמים רבות במקורותינו. הבנת ההלכה במשנה תלויה ביחס למוצר מזון זה. פרי התמר מכיל פרוקטוז בכמויות גדולות ולכן הוא מתוק יותר מפֵרות רבים. את התמר אכלו בדרך כלל חי או מיובש בגרוגרות. ניתן היה גם לרסק את הפרי ולהכין ממנו עיסה המכונה בערבית \"דיבס\". בהעדר סוכר שימש הדיבס כממתיק הרגיל והרווח. את הדיבס ניתן להכין גם מפֵרות מתוקים אחרים כענבים, תאנים או חרובים. עם זאת, הרושם העולה ממשנתנו הוא שדבש התמרים נחשב שימוש נחות וניצול לא יעיל של הפרי. בדיקה קפדנית של אזכורי דבש התמרים מצביעה על כך שהוא נחשב למוצר לוואי נחות של התמרים. מעמדו זה הוא הקובע את סדרת ההלכות במשנתנו ובמשנה הבאה. שלוש ההלכות משקפות את התפיסה שדבש תמרים, יין מתפוחים וחומץ מסתווניות אינם שימוש יעיל וראוי בפרי. כידוע, האוכל תרומה מזיד חייב בקרן וחומש (לעיל פ\"ז מ\"א), אך אכילת דבש תמרים אינה נחשבת לאכילה. הוא אמנם אוכל (להלן), אך לא אוכל רגיל. לדעת רבי אליעזר הם \"משקה\" הנחשב כנוזל שאם הוא נוגע בפרי הוא מכשירו לקבל טומאה, ולדעת רבי יהושע אין הוא \"משקה\" במובן זה. במשנה הבאה: \"אין עושין תמרים דבש ולא תפוחים [ולא תפוחי] יין ולא סיתווניות חומץ ושאר כל הפֵרות אין משנין אותן מיבירייתן בתרומה ובמעשר שני אלא זיתים וענבים בלבד\" (להלן מ\"ג). אסור להוריד פֵרות תרומה ומעשר שני מקדושתם ולהשתמש בהם שימוש נחות. יין הוא שימוש ראוי בענבים, אך לא דבש בתמרים או תפוחים ביין. איננו יודעים האם הלכה זו היא לשיטת הכול או לשיטת רבי יהושע בלבד.", + "לפי הסבר זה, שיוכח להלן, דבש התמרים במשנתנו אינו דבש, שכן דבש הוא אוכל טוב וראוי, ודבש התמרים לא רק שיש לו שם לוואי אלא שטיבו נחות. במשנת נדרים נקבע שמי שנודר לבל יאכל תמרים מותר בדבש תמרים, ביין תפוחים ובחומץ סתווניות (פ\"ו מ\"ח-מ\"ט ומקבילותיה). שם הנימוק הוא שדבש תמרים הוא שם לוואי ואינו דבש ממש, ולפי משנתנו יש להוסיף לפירוש שם את הטיעון ש\"דבש תמרים\" גם אינו אוכל ממש. רשימה זו, המופיעה גם במשנתנו, כוללת אפוא מוצרים משניים שאינם בבחינת הניצול הרגיל של הפרי. נמצאנו למדים שסתם דבש לא נעשה מתמרים אלא מפֵרות אחרים. ברייתא אחרת מבחינה בארבעה סוגי מוצרים נוזליים לפי רמת סמיכותם: \"1. דבש הזב מכוורת דבורים, מטמא טומאת משקין. חישב עליו לאוכלין, מטמא טומאת אוכלין. 2. שמן לא אוכל ולא משקה, חשב עליו לאוכלין ולא למשקין, בטלה דעתו. 3. הדם שקרש לא אוכל ולא משקה. חישב עליו לאוכלין, מטמא טומאת אוכלין ולמשקין, בטלה דעתו. 3א. דבש תמרים לא אוכל ולא משקה, חישב עליו לאוכלין מטמא טומאת אוכלין, ולמשקין בטלה דעתו. 4. ושאר כל מי פירות לא אוכל ולא משקה. חישב עליו בין למשקין בין לאוכלין, בטלה דעתו\" (תוס', טהרות פ\"ב ה\"ה, עמ' 662). הגורם הקובע בהגדרת מזון כאוכל או כמשקה הוא מידת סמיכותו. אוכל מוצק הוא תמיד מזון, גם אם אדם פלוני משתמש בו כמשקה (מכין ממנו עיסה נוזלית). מהדיון שם מסתבר שדבש התמרים סמיך יותר מדבש דבורים ומשמן וסמיך פחות ממי פֵרות. דבש התמרים סמיך כמו דם שנקרש. נראה, אפוא, שאין מדובר כאן בפרי התמר שנטחן או רוסק, אלא בנוזלים שזבו מן התמר. כל זאת בניגוד לדבש סתם שהוא אחד משבעת המשקים הידועים (משנה, מכשירין פ\"ו מ\"ד). כפי שנצטט להלן (המשך המשנה ותוס', פ\"ט ה\"ח), רבי אליעזר חולק וסובר שדבש תמרים הוא משקה לכל דבר, אך כפי שנראה דבריו מתייחסים לנושא אחר. ", + "גם הבבלי שנביא להלן מכיר את דבש התמרים כמה שיוצא מהפרי, ולא כפרי עצמו. את הפסוק \"ארץ זבת חלב ודבש\" מסביר התנא \"חלב זה חלב פירות, דבש זה דבש התמרים\" (מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, יג ה, עמ' 38). גם כאן הרושם הוא שאין הכוונה לפרי עצמו אלא למה שזב ממנו. לדרשה זו נשוב להלן.", + "על כן אין מברכים על דבש תמרים ברכת \"בורא פרי העץ\" אלא \"שהכל נהיה בדברו\", שכן אין הוא השימוש הרגיל של הפרי (תוס', ברכות פ\"ד ה\"ב; בבלי, שם לח ע\"א). כמו כן: \"דבש תמרים רבי ליעזר מחייב במעשרות. אמר רבי נתן מודה רבי ליעזר שפטור מן המעשרות אבל אומר היה רבי ליעזר שלא יאכל מן הדבש עד שיתקין את התמרים\" (תוס', פ\"ט ה\"ח). מהתוספתא משמע שלדעת חכמים ודאי שדבש תמרים אינו מאכל המתחייב במעשרות. גם רבי אליעזר מודה שדבש תמרים אינו נחשב למאכל של ממש, אבל הוא מחייב במעשרות כצעד של סייג וזהירות. עם כל זאת, דבש התמרים לא היה מוצר נדיר. התמר מוגדר כמזון: \"כל שדרכו לאכול ודרך היוצא ממנו לאכול כגון תמרים ודבש תמרים\" (בבלי, נדרים נג ע\"א). ייתכן שהגדרה חיובית זו משקפת רק את יהדות בבל שעבורה היה התמר מקור מזון חשוב יותר מאשר ברחבי ארץ ישראל, שכן בבבל היה התמר גידול נפוץ וזול במיוחד (בבלי, תענית ט ע\"ב), וכמובן גם מזין ועתיר קלוריות. כל זאת בניגוד לארץ ישראל שבה היה התמר נפוץ באזור קטן ומוגדר בלבד. אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת נראה בפירושנו למשנת נדרים שיש להבין את דברי הבבלי כטיעון אפשרי ודיאלקטי ולא כהערכה רֵאלית.", + "אם כן, מרוב המקורות (כל המקורות הארץ-ישראליים) שהבאנו מצטייר שדבש התמרים הוא שימוש משני של התמר. מעתה עלינו לחזור לפסוקי המקרא כפי שפורשו על ידי חכמים. כידוע נזכר הדבש כאחד המינים שבהם נשתבחה ארץ ישראל. הדבש מופיע בשני הקשרים שהם ביטויים ספרותיים רווחים. הראשון הוא \"ארץ זבת חלב ודבש\" (שמות ג ח, ועוד בסך הכול כעשרים פעם בתנ\"ך), והשני הוא ברשימת שבעת המינים: \"...ארץ זית שמן ודבש\" (דברים ח ח). הפסוק הראשון נדרש: \" 'ארץ זבת חלב ודבש', רבי אליעזר אומר 'חלב' זה חלב הפירות 'דבש' זה דבש תמרים. רבי עקיבה אומר 'חלב' זה חלב ודאי, וכן הוא אומר 'והיה ביום ההוא יטיפו ההרים עסיס והגבעות תלכנה חלב' (יואל ד יח). 'דבש' זה דבש היערות\" (מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, יג ה, עמ' 38). בימי התנאים היה \"דבש\" סתם דבש דבורים18לדבש הדבורים ראו ספראי, דבש. . חכמים ידעו כי הדבש המקראי איננו דבש הדבורים שכן בתקופת המקרא טרם היו גידול הדבורים וייצור הדבש נפוצים19אמנם ייצור דבש איננו במקרא, וסתם דבש בתנ\"ך הוא דבש פֵרות, עם זאת התגלה בית מלאכה גדול לייצור דבש דבורים מהמאה השביעית לפני הספירה בדרום עמק בית שאן, בחפירותיו של ע' מזר. ראו מזר, דבש. . במקביל, כל סוגי הדבש האחרים נזכרים כבר בין שבעת המינים (תאנה וגפן). מקור דבש אפשרי אחר היה החרוב, אך בתקופת חז\"ל היה זה גידול פחוּת בחשיבותו (להלן מ\"ד). על כן בא הזיהוי של הדבש עם דבש התמרים. רבי עקיבא מפרש שדבש הוא \"דבש היערות\", כלומר דבש הדבורים הגדלות בר בשדה, ובכך בא לציין את ההבדל בין ימי התנ\"ך לבין תקופתו שבה היה גידול דבורי הדבש ענף רווח. ", + "זאת ועוד. בספרות חז\"ל אין אזכור של דבש פֵרות אחר חוץ מדבש תמרים. דבש התאנים נזכר רק בהקשר מיץ התאנה הנוזל באקראי, ולא כמוצר תרבותי. נסתפק בשתי דוגמאות לאגדות ידועות שיש להן מקבילות נוספות. \"פעם אחת הלך רבי אליעזר לסכנין ומצא עז רבוצה תחת התאינה וחלב שותת ממנה, ודבש יוצא מן התאנה ומתערבין זה בזה\" (מדרש תנאים לדברים, כו ט, עמ' 174). כמו כן: \"מעשה ברבי יונתן בן אלעזר שהיה יושב תחת תאנה אחת, והיתה התאנה מלאה תאנים יפות, ירד טל והיו התאנים שואבים דבש, והיה הרוח מגבלן בעפר, באתה עז אחת והיתה מנטפת חלב בדבש\" (תנחומא בובר, תצוה י, עמ' 102). בכל המקרים אין דבש התאנים מוצר חקלאי של ממש אלא אקראי, על כן אין המשנה עוסקת בדבש אחר אלא בדבש תמרים בלבד.", + "אם כן, התמר עצמו היה ללא ספק גידול בולט וחשוב, גם אם מצומצם בהיקפו20פליקס, עצי פרי, עמ' 130-113. , אבל דבש התמרים מצטייר כניצול שולי של פרי חשוב זה. אין הוא בבחינת \"דרך הנאתו\" (או הנאתן). המחלוקת ההלכתית היא האם דבש תמרים נחשב בכל זאת כאוכל, או שאינו אוכל כלל. היבטים שונים של שאלה עקרונית זו יובאו להלן. בנוסף לכך קיימת מחלוקת דומה האם דבש תמרים יכול לשמש כביכורים. רבי יהושע מתנגד לכך ורבי אליעזר מאפשר זאת21בבלי, חולין קכ ע\"ב. לדברי רבי אליעזר ראו גם מכילתא דרבי שמעון בן יוחאי שציטטנו לעיל. ראו עוד ירו', חלה פ\"ד הי\"ב, ס ע\"ב שאין מביאים משקים כביכורים, זאת כרבי יהושע, וראו פירושנו לחלה פ\"ד מי\"א. .", + "בקומרן ובארמונות יריחו התגלו גתות מיוחדות המצטיינות במשטח דריכה גדול, מדרגות מארבעת הצדדים ובור איגום גדול. נצר שיער כי אלו שימשו לדישת תמרים, ואכן בקומראן נמצאו מאות גלעיני תמרים בקרקעית הברֵכה22אשל, קומראן. . באלו הכינו כנראה שכר תמרים או יין תמרים, ולא דבש תמרים23בברֵכות אלו השרו את התמרים במים כדי שיתססו, ואחר כך דשו אותם. לדיש התמרים ראו תוס', מעשרות פ\"ב ה\"ב וה\"ג. שם נאמר: \"התורם... תמרים ועתיד לדושן\", ובכתב יד ערפורט \"לדובשן\". פליקס, עצי פרי, עמ' 129, וליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה, עמ' 677, מעדיפים את הגרסה \"לדובשן\". לפי פירושנו עדיף לגרוס \"לדושן\", שכן שם מדובר על פעולה רגילה של עיבוד פרי, וראו פירושנו למעשרות פ\"ב מ\"ד. (איור 33). ", + "ויין תפוחים – יין התפוחים נזכר מספר מועט של פעמים והדבר מובן, שכן גידול התפוחים בארץ ישראל היה בעל חשיבות משנית בלבד, ורק בגליל העליון ניתן לגדלו. יין התפוחים איננו יין ממש, ולכן \"הנודר מן היין מותר ביין תפוחים\" (משנה, נדרים פ\"ו מ\"ט), אך אין בכך כדי להוכיח שהוא מוצר שולי; אין הוא יין, אבל הוא משקה מוכר. ביין תפוחים לא עירבבו יין, אך יין תפוחים של נכרי נאסר בגלל החשש שמא זויף, כלומר שערבבו בו יין רגיל. חשש זה היה קיים רק ביין פרטי, ולא ביין תפוחים שנוצר בבית מלאכה מסודר (תוס', עבודה זרה פ\"ד [ה] הי\"ב, עמ' 467). בתלמוד הבבלי מובא סיפור מעניין המעיד על טיבו של היין: \"תנו רבנן: פעם אחת חש רבי במעיו. אמר: כלום יש אדם שיודע, יין תפוחים של עובדי כוכבים אסור או מותר? אמר לפניו רבי ישמעאל בן רבי יוסי: פעם אחת חש אבא במעיו, והביאו לו יין תפוחים של עובדי כוכבים של שבעים שנה, ושתה ונתרפא. אמר לו: כל כך היה בידך ואתה מצערני! בדקו ומצאו עובד כוכבים אחד שהיה לו שלש מאות גרבי יין של תפוחים של שבעים שנה, ושתה ונתרפא. אמר: ברוך המקום שמסר עולמו לשומרים\" (בבלי, עבודה זרה מ ע\"ב). מהמעשה עולה שהיין שימש גם לרפואה24גם התפוח עצמו נחשב בעל סגולות מרפא, ראו תוס', בבא מציעא פ\"ז ה\"ד; ירו', פ\"ח ה\"ד, לח ע\"א. , ושהייתה התחבטות בדבר כשרותו. ההלכה בתוספתא מבטאת, אפוא, את סיומו של הבירור. זאת ועוד; מסתבר שיין התפוחים היה מוצר יבוא מקובל, ויין תפוחים שייצרו יהודים היה כנראה נדיר. משנתנו מעידה כי היה יין כזה שיוצר בידי יהודים.", + "וחומץ סיתווניות – הסתווניות נזכרות במשנת שביעית, ולפי ההקשר שם זהו יבול מאוחר של זן שונה מהיבול הרגיל של אותו עץ (פ\"ט מ\"ד). הווה אומר, אותו עץ מניב פרי רגיל, וכן פֵרות מאוחרים שהם הסתווניות. יתר הפֵרות ברשימה הם זני תאנים. אשר למקור השם, היו שפירשו שהכוונה לתאנה המניבה בסתיו, כלומר לאחר סוף עונת התאנים. המילה \"סתיו\" מופיעה, כידוע, במקרא: \"כי הנה הסתו עבר הגשם חלף הלך לו\" (שיר השירים ב יא). בספרות התנאית העברית המילה נזכרת רק בהקשר מקראי זה, ובארמית היא נזכרת רבות בצורה \"סיתווא\". פירוש המילה הוא חורף. עונת הסתיו במשמעותה היום כונתה \"עונת תשרי\", ולא \"סתיו\". סתווניות הן, אפוא, תאנים המניבות בחורף. בתוספתא (שביעית פ\"ז הט\"ו25וכן בבבלי, ברכות לח ע\"א המצטט את משנתנו ובקטע גניזה ג6 למשנתנו, וכן מצטט בעל מלאכת שלמה בשם \"יש גורסין\" ומעט ראשונים נוספים. אם כן, הגרסה קיימת והיא גרסת מיעוט בלבד. בעל ערוך השלם גרס \"סיתוניות\" ופירש בשם רבנו דניאל שהכוונה לסוף הקיץ, ראו ערוך השלם ו, עמ' קמו, ערך \"סתו\". ) הן מכונות \"סיפוניות\" של סוף הקיץ, והוא הוא.", + "ושאר כל מי פירות של תרומה – כל שמנינו הן דוגמאות. המאחד את כולן הוא שהמשקה אינו התוצר הרגיל, בניגוד ליין או שמן שהם התוצר הרגיל ולכן הם תרומה לכל דבר26ראו משנה, טהרות פי\"א מ\"ב ותוס', שם פ\"י ה\"ב, עמ' 671. שם מתנהל דיון האם המוהל (מוחל) הוא מי פֵרות או לא. אבל איש לא אמר ששמן הוא מי פֵרות. המוהל הוא המים שבפרי הזית. פרי הזית מכיל 25-20 אחוז שמן, והיתר מוהל. בתהליך הכבישה המוהל והשמן מעורבים, ואחר הכבישה יש צורך להפרידם. .", + "רבי אליעזר מחייב קרן וחומש – רבי אליעזר רואה במי הפֵרות פרי לכל דבר, ולכן מי שאכל מהם חייב קרן וחומש ככל האוכל תרומה (לעיל פ\"ו מ\"א).", + "רבי יהושע פוטר – רבי יהושע סובר שמי הפֵרות אינם פרי ממש. השאלה היא האם הוא פוטר מחומש או גם מהקרן, ומעבר לכך האם מי שפוטר מחייב בכלל להפריש תרומות ממי פֵרות אלו. הירושלמי (מז ע\"ד) משיב על כך בפשטות שרבי יהושע מודה בקרן ומודה ב\"לכתחילה\", כלומר חייב להפריש תרומות ופטור רק מהקרן, כמו בתוספת תרומה או בשאר תרומה הניתנת מספק (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ו; ראו פירושנו לפ\"ו מ\"ד). ", + "בתוספתא שנויה הלכה זו בצורה אחרת המבהירה את המחלוקת: \"דבש תמרים רבי ליעזר מחייב במעשרות. אמר רבי נתן מודה רבי ליעזר שפטור מן המעשרות, אבל אומר היה רבי ליעזר שלא יאכל מן הדבש עד שיתקין את התמרים. מודה רבי ליעזר שאם תיקן תמרים כן [כלומר כאן, בארץ ישראל] ודובשן באספמיא שמותר. דבש תמרים רבי ליעזר מטמא משם משקה. אמר רבי נתן מודה רבי ליעזר שאין זה מטמא משם משקה, על מה נחלקו על שנתן לתוכו מים, שרבי ליעזר מטמא משם משקה וחכמים אומרים הולכין אחר הרוב\" (תוס', פ\"ט ה\"ח). פרי פטור ממעשרות משום שאינו מוצר בעל ערך, וכל מוצר שאינו נשמר משום שאינו בעל ערך (גידול תרבות) פטור ממעשרות. היה מקום לחשוב שדבש תמרים אינו בעל ערך, שכן הוא מוצר שולי כפי שפירשנו, אבל הוא בכל זאת בעל ערך מסוים ולכן חייב במעשרות. דבש תמרים אף מטמא כמשקה, וציטטנו לעיל מהתוספתא הלכה דומה. אם המשנה והתוספתא הן יחידה אחת הרי שיש להסיק שלדעת רבי יהושע דבש הפֵרות פטור ממעשרות ופטור מתרומות, ולכן המשתמש בו אינו חייב בקרן שכן אין הוא תרומה. לפי הסבר זה יש להקשות למה אין רבי יהושע קובע בפשטות שדבש תמרים פטור מתרומה, וצריך לומר שאמנם הוא פטור מחובת מעשרות אבל מתוך חומרת יתר נהגו להפריש תרומות. אבל התרומה אינה תרומה ממש, כמו תשלומי תרומה ושאר תרומות מספק. ", + "לרבי נתן מסורת אחרת בדברי רבי אליעזר. לדעתו גם רבי אליעזר מודה שדבש תמרים פטור ממעשרות, אבל צריך לעשר את התמרים לפני ששותים את דבש התמרים, זאת אפילו אם התמרים רחוקים מאוד מהדבש. כל זאת לשיטת רבי אליעזר שמותר לתרום ממין אחד על משנהו, ומפֵרות שונים במקצת, זה על זה27ראו בהרחבה פירושנו לעיל פ\"א מ\"ד, מ\"ח, מ\"ט, מ\"י ופ\"ב מ\"א. . מסתבר שלפי המסורת של רבי נתן האוכל דבש תמרים של תרומה פטור מהחומש ואולי גם מהקרן, ומשנתנו היא כסתם התוספתא. בירושלמי מובא נוסח שונה של דברי רבי נתן. שם מסתבר שלדעת רבי אליעזר יש להפריש תרומה מהדבש רק אם התמרים עצמם הוטבלו, כלומר נגמרה מלאכתם ואז כל הזב מהם חייב גם הוא בתרומות ומעשרות. אבל הדבש כשלעצמו אינו נחשב מוצר בעל ערך ופטור ממעשרות ותרומות.", + "מן הראוי להעיר שרבי נתן מוסר את דברי רבי אליעזר פעמים מספר, ונראה שהייתה לו מסורת עצמאית שהגיעה אליו והייתה שונה ממסורת התנאים בארץ ישראל. עסקנו בכך בהרחבת מה במקום אחר28ראו הנספח למסכת עירובין. . ", + "השאלה הנדונה במשנה היא כמובן רק בכל הנוגע לדין תרומה, אם קיבל את התרומה מהכהן. אבל ברור שאם גזל את הכהן חייב בתשלום הקרן ככל גזלן. שכן גם אם הוא פטור מתרומה, משקיבל הכהן פֵרות הרי הם שלו וכל המשתמש בהם ללא רשותו הוא בבחינת גזלן.", + "כאמור, מדובר בשאלה האם מי פֵרות הם אוכלים או משקים, וכאן ננקטת עמדת ביניים29אם יזכנו החונן לאדם דעת נרחיב בכך בפירושנו לטהרות פ\"ג מ\"ב ופ\"ח מ\"ג. .", + "רבי אלעזר מטמא משם משקה אמר רבי יהושע לא מנו חכמים שבעה משקים במיני פטמים אלא אמרו שבעה משקין טמאין ושאר כל המשקין טהורין – המפתח להבנת הקטע הוא דברי רבי יהושע, ונפתח בהם. המשפט בניסוחו זה קשה, אבל תוכנו ברור. חכמים מנו שבעה משקים שהם \"מטמאים\", כלומר פֵרות שהורטבו במשקים אלו \"נגמרה מלאכתם\" והם \"מקבלים טומאה\", כלומר אם תיגע בהם טומאה הם ייטמאו. אבל פרי יבש או שהורטב על ידי נוזל אחר אינו מקבל טומאה. הרשימה של המשקים מנויה במקום אחר (משנה, מכשירין פ\"ו מ\"ד). אם כן, לפי הסבר זה רבי אליעזר חולק על הרשימה של שבעת המשקים ומוסיף לה דבש תמרים. אחד המשקים ברשימת המשקים הוא הדבש, ורבי אליעזר מבין שדבש כולל דבש תמרים. קושייתו של רבי יהושע תמוהה. לפנינו שלוש שאלות נפרדות: הראשונה היא אילו משקים מכשירים פֵרות לקבל טומאה, השנייה האם דבש טמא טומאת אוכלים או משקים וטומאת משקים חמורה משל טומאת אוכלים (משנה, טהרות פ\"ב מ\"ו)30בדרך כלל המקורות קובעים שמשקים הם \"תחילה לעולם\" (תוס', טבול יום פ\"א ה\"ג, עמ' 684; טהרות פ\"א מ\"ט; פ\"ג מ\"א). , והשלישית האם מי פֵרות הם בכלל הפרי ונחשבים אוכל או שהם נוזל חסר ערך. במשנה יש דיון מפורש בשאלה השלישית, ואולי גם בשאלה הראשונה או השנייה. רבי יהושע מקשר בין המשקים המכשירים לקבל טומאה לבין משנתנו, ברם אין למשנתנו קשר ישיר לשאלה האם מי פֵרות נכללים בשבעת המשקים, היא עוסקת בשאלה אחרת. התוספתא שציטטנו לעיל מתמודדת גם היא בשאלות אלו: \"דבש תמרים, 1. רבי ליעזר מחייב במעשרות. 2. אמר רבי נתן מודה רבי ליעזר שפטור מן המעשרות, אבל אומר היה רבי ליעזר שלא יאכל מן הדבש עד שיתקין את התמרים. מודה רבי ליעזר שאם תיקן תמרים כן [כאן] ודובשן באספמיא שמותר. 3. דבש תמרים, רבי ליעזר מטמא משם משקה. 4. אמר רבי נתן מודה רבי ליעזר שאין זה מטמא משם משקה, על מה נחלקו, על שנתן לתוכו מים, שרבי ליעזר מטמא משם משקה וחכמים אומרים הולכין אחר הרוב\" (תוס', פ\"ט ה\"ח). לפי המשפט הראשון המחלוקת היא האם דבש תמרים הוא אוכל, ורבי אליעזר סבור שהוא אוכל. לדעת רבי נתן (מס' 2) הוא נוקט עמדת ביניים בשאלה. המשפט השלישי סבור שרבי אליעזר סבור שמי תמרים הם משקה, ורבי יהושע רואה בהם \"מוצק\" או שאינם אוכל כלל, ורבי נתן סבור שגם לרבי אליעזר אין דבש תמרים נוזל והמחלוקת היא רק על המים שניתנו בו וזורמים ממנו. ", + "נמצאנו למדים שטענתו של רבי יהושע אין בה ממש מבחינה הלכתית, אבל מבחינה ספרותית ומציאותית יש קשר בין מה שהוא משקה לעניין הכשרת טומאה לבין מה שהוא משקה לעניין טומאת משקים (משנה, טהרות פ\"ג מ\"א-מ\"ב). ייתכן גם שרבי יהושע הבין שרבי אליעזר חולק על הרשימה של שבעת המשקים, וזאת בניגוד לפרשנותו של רבי נתן לנושא מחלוקת.", + "אשר למשפט במשנה. הנוסח של כתב יד קופמן חוזר, בשינוי קל, גם ב- ו, ל, נ, ץ, ת3. בדפוס נכתב: \"לא מנו חכמים שבעה משקים כמוני פטמים אלא אמרו...\", ובכמה עדי נוסח \"כמונה\"31א, ב, ז, ט, ת, ת2, ג6, ס. , כלומר הרשימה של שבעת המשקים אינה סתם רשימה מסחרית אלא היא דבר הלכה, וכל שאינו ברשימה אינו מטמא. ", + "יהא הנוסח אשר יהא, ברור שהרשימה של שבעת המשקים קדמה לרבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע, שניהם כבר מכירים אותה ורואים בה מסמך מחייב. ככל הלכה גם הלכה זו עוצבה בתהליך שאת אורכו איננו יודעים. קודם נקבע שלא כל המשקים מטמאים, אחר כך נקבעו המשקים המטמאים (יחד או בנפרד) ולבסוף גובשה רשימה של שבעה משקים וניתנה לה כותרת. רבי אליעזר חולק על הלכה זו, ויש להניח שסוף גיבוש הרשימה הוא מימיו. במשנת מכשירין (פ\"ו מ\"ה) יש רשימה של \"תולדות\"; מי חלב, למשל, הם תולדת חלב. לפי עיקרון זה גם הטל והמים הם מין אחד (כדברי רבי יוחנן בירושלמי, מז ע\"ד – להלן). אנו נוסיף שאם אין הם מין אחד הרי ודאי שהטל הוא לפחות תולדת המים, אם כן קביעת הרשימה היא במידה מסוימת ספרותית ואיננה משפטית. הטל נוסף כדי להגיע למניין ה\"מקודש\" שבעה, ואולי בראשיתו כלל המניין את מי הפֵרות והוציא את הטל?", + "המוחל עצמו איננו נדון במשנתנו כלל. אמנם במשנת טהרות יש דעה שהמוהל הוא דוגמה למי פֵרות (טהרות פ\"ח מ\"ג); כפי שנראה בפירושנו למשנה בטהרות העמדה שמוהל הוא מי פֵרות איננה דעת הכול. במשנת מכשירין המוחל הוא \"תולדה\" של השמן (פ\"ו מ\"ה). בירושלמי למשנתנו (מז ע\"ד) מתנהל דיון על המוהל כמי פֵרות וכמשקה מסריח, ולא נרחיב בכך, שכן משנתנו איננה מונה את המוחל כלל. " + ], + [ + "אין עושין תמרים דבש – כפי שאמרנו במבוא לפרק, המשנה מניחה כידועה את ההלכה שאסור להשחית תרומה, על כן אסור גם להפיק ממנה מזון שערכו פחות. אין ספק שמותר לעשות מזיתים שמן או מענבים יין, שכן זהו שימוש שאינו כדרך הנאתו. המונח עצמו הוא בבלי בלבד, אך העיקרון הוא קדום ומנחה את המשנה. יש להניח שההלכה היא גם לדעת רבי אליעזר. אמנם לדעתו דבש תמרים הוא משקה של ממש וחלים עליו דיני תרומה, אך כל זאת רק לחומרה, אבל לכתחילה אין לעשות מתמרים דבש. כפי שאמרנו לעיל, גם רבי יהושע מודה בכך.", + "ולא תפוחים [ולא תפוחי] יין – מאותה סיבה של השחתת תרומה, ולא סיתווניות חומץ – שכן אין זה השימוש הרגיל, ושאר כל הפירות אין משנין אותן מיבירייתן בתרומה ובמעשר שני – הסגנון מסורבל במקצת והכוונה שאין משנים מברייתם פֵרות תרומה או מעשר שני, אלא זיתים וענבים בלבד – אותם מותר לשנות מברייתם. כפי שהסברנו שינוי הבריאה אפשרי כאשר הנוזל הוא בעל ערך רב, אבל אם השינוי הוא למוצר נחות הדבר אסור. ", + "המשך המשנה מביא סדרת הלכות מעניינים שונים שמשובץ בהם המשפט \"אלא היוצא מן הזיתים ומן הענבים\". זה סגנון עריכה מקובל ללקט הלכות לא לפי תוכנן אלא לפי סימן חיצוני כלשהו. דומה לו הקובץ שהמשניות מתחילות בו במילים \"אין בין x לבין y אלא...\", וכמוהו חטיבות נוספות32ראו פירושנו למגילה פ\"א מ\"ד; שבועות פ\"א מ\"א ועוד. . הבחירה בשיטת עריכה זו נובעת, כנראה, מהרצון לצייד את הלומד באמצעי לזכירת המשניות. ההלכות עצמן לקוחות מקובצי הלכה קדומים אחרים, ולעתים אולי גם ממשניות ערוכות, אלא שקשה להכריע בכל מקרה מהו המקור ומהו הליקוט המאוחר. ", + "אין סופגים ארבעים משם עורלה אלא על היוצא מן הזיתים ומן הענבים – מי שאכל ערלה נענש בארבעים מלקות, אך ההלכה חלה רק על האוכל את הערלה עצמה ולא על האוכל מן הערלה מזון שאינו רגיל, שאינו דרך הנאתו הרגילה (בבלי, פסחים פד ע\"א). הביטוי \"סופג את הארבעים\" הוא בעיקרו ספרותי, על כן הביטוי אינו שלם וצריך להיות \"אינו סופג את ארבעים המלקות\" (הידועות לכול), או \"אינו סופג ארבעים מלקות\". הניסוח המקוצר מעיד על ביטוי ספרותי ידוע ומקובל. זאת ועוד. אפילו לפי ההלכה העקרונית אין סופגים ארבעים מלקות אלא שלושים ותשע מלקות בלבד. הביטוי מופיע עשרות פעמים במשניות ובמקבילות. הקורא עלול לקבל את הרושם שאכן על כל עברה לקו. בפועל היו המלקות עניין תאורטי למדי, ובדרך כלל לא השתמשה החברה היהודית במלקות כאמצעי כפייה לקיום מצוות. הניסוח \"סופג את הארבעים\" מבטא כי זו עברה על דין תורה עצמו. מי ש\"אינו סופג את הארבעים\" הוא מי שעבר על דין שאינו מהתורה, ואינו האיסור עצמו אלא סייג נוסף. ", + "אין מביאין ביכורים משקין אלא היוצא מן הזיתים ומן הענבים – לפי המשנה יש להביא ביכורים רק משבעת המינים: \"אין מביאין בכורים חוץ משבעת המינים... ולא מזיתי שמן שאינם מן המובחר\" (משנה, ביכורים פ\"א מ\"ג). עד כאן אין איסור להביא שמן אלא רק זיתי שמן, שכן אלו אינם מעולים. ", + "מבין שבעת המינים רק זיתים וענבים (שמן ויין) הם משקים של ממש. מתאנים ורימון ניתן להפיק נוזלים, אך אלו בעלי חשיבות משנית ביותר. זאת ועוד. המשנה שציטטנו מעידה שאין להביא זיתי שמן שכן אינם מובחרים, במקרה זה צריך להפיק מהם שמן ולהביאו למקדש. על כן מובנת ההלכה במשנתנו שרק שמן ויין מביאים כביכורים. אבל במדרש שנינו אחרת: \" 'ראשית בכורי אדמתך'. למה נאמרה פרשה זו? לפי שנאמר (דברים כו ב) 'ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה', אין לי אלא פֵרות דרך ביכורים. משקין מנין? תלמוד לומר 'תביא בית יי אלהיך' מכל מקום. ומה הפרש בין אלו לאלו? אלא אלו מביאין וקורין ואלו מביאין ואין קורין\" (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, מסכתא דכספא כ, עמ' 33533וכן ירו', מז ע\"ד. ). אם כן, מותר להביא משקים אלא שאין קוראים עליהם, כלומר הם מובאים למקדש ללא הקראת הפסוקים. אנו נעסוק בהלכות הקריאה בפירושנו למסכת ביכורים34ראו המבוא למסכת ביכורים. , ושם נראה שהביאו ביכורים ללא קריאה במקום של ספק, וגם ביכורי משקים הם מעין ספק. במדרש שנינו: \"פרי את מביא בכורים ואי אתה מביא יין ושמן בכורים\" (ספרי דברים, רצו, עמ' 317). בבבלי (חולין קכ ע\"ב; ערכין יא ע\"א) חוזרת ההלכה שאין להביא יין, אבל משמע שבדיעבד אם הביא הפֵרות עולים לשולחן גבוה.", + "דעה נוספת מצוטטת בירושלמי, שוב בשם ברייתא: \"תנינן תמן אין מביאין בכורים משקין. רבי הילא בשם רבי לעזר כיני מתניתא אין עושין בכורים משקין, אפילו משזכו בהן בעלים. והתני דרך ביכורים משקה להביאן. מניין שיביא? תלמוד לומר 'תביא'. תיפתר שלקטן משעה הראשונה על מנת כן וכאן לא לקטן משעה ראשונה על מנת כן\" (חלה פ\"ד הי\"ב, ס ע\"ב). אם כן, יש ברייתא שמותר להביא ביכורים משקים, והתלמוד אינו רואה בכך מחלוקת אלא מבחין בין פֵרות שנלקטו לשם פרי, שאסור לעשותם משקה, ובין פֵרות שנלקטו לשם משקים שמותר להביא מהם ביכורים. שתי הברייתות אינן מבחינות בין זיתים ויין לבין שאר משקים. ניתן בדוחק לפרש את הברייתא השנייה שפֵרות שלקטן לשם משקים הם זיתים וענבים, אך עדיין ההסבר דחוק. ", + "אותה ברייתא מובאת בבבלי בלשון שונה ומתנהל עליה דיון ארוך: \"דתני רבי יוסי: 'פרי' – פרי אתה מביא ואי אתה מביא משקה. הביא ענבים ודרכן, מנין? תלמוד לומר (דברים כו ב) 'תביא' \" (חולין קכ ע\"ב). אם כן הלימוד של הברייתא השנייה, המתירה להביא משקים בדיעבד, חל רק על ענבים ולא על זיתים. דיון התלמוד על הברייתא ארוך, ולא נביאו כאן. עולה ממנו שלדעת התלמוד זו עמדת רבי יהושע שמשקה (מי פֵרות) אינו כפרי עצמו, אבל רבי אליעזר חולק עליו. לפי הסבר זה יבואו כל המקורות בשלום, ולפנינו מחלוקת \"רגילה\" בין תנאים. העמדות שאין להביא לכתחילה ומותר בדיעבד, או שאין להביא משקים אלא אם תכנן זאת מראש, הם ניסיונות לפשרה ותיאום בין הדעות השונות. אפשר להגיע לפסיקה של פשרה, אך אין לעמעם את המחלוקת העקרונית. אנו נשוב לדיון זה בפירושנו למשנת חלה פ\"ד מי\"א.", + "במהלך דיוננו הבאנו דרשות שונות המנמקות את האיסור להביא יין ושמן כביכורים. הנימוק הוא משום שאינם \"פרי\", אך גם משום שהם \"משקים\" (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, בכספא ה, עמ' 335). אבל דרשה אחרת יש במדרש תנאי אחר: \"יכול יביא קמח ויביא פת? ויביא שמן ויביא יין? תלמוד לומר פרי. על הפרי מודים ואין מודים על שאינו פרי\" (ספרי זוטא לדברים, כו ב, עמ' 403). אם כן, האיסור נובע לא משום שאלו נוזלים אלא מההתנגדות להביא מה שאינו פרי במצבו הטבעי. בכל יתר המדרשים האיסור חל רק על יין ושמן, ומדרש זה מוסיף את הקמח. מן הראוי להעיר שהאיסור להביא מוצרים כקמח, יין ושמן מגביל גם את הבאת הביכורים מרחוק, שכן אי אפשר להביא פֵרות טריים במצב טוב ממרחקים (מחוץ לארץ). ", + "ואינו מטמא משם משקה אלא היוצא מן הזיתים ומן הענבים – זו מחלוקת שכבר הוסברה לעיל. נראה שמשפט זה במשנה הוא אכן כדעת רבי יהושע בלבד, ורבי אליעזר חולק עליו. לדעת הבבלי שהבאנו גם המשפט הקודם הוא רק לדעת רבי יהושע, על כן ייתכן שרבי אליעזר חולק גם על ההלכות האחרות במשנה. ", + "אין מקריבים על גבי המזבח אלא היוצא מן הזיתים ומן הענבים – לא מצינו מי שחולק על כלל זה, ואכן יין ושמן קרבים עם נסכים רגילים, ולא מצינו קרבן אחר המכיל פֵרות.", + "התנא ליקט כאן הלכות שונות הנוגעות ליין ושמן, ועל חלקן חולק רבי אליעזר. " + ], + [ + "עוקצי תאינים – עוקץ הוא החלק המחבר את הפרי לעץ. יש בו מעט לחלוחית של טעם, אבל אין הוא אוכל, וגרוגרות – עוקצי הגרוגרת. גרוגרת היא תאנה מיובשת, אם כי לעתים גם פרי התמר המיובש מכונה כך, והכליסים – בכמה עדי נוסח בליסין, בליסים (ג5, הריבמ\"ץ, הערוך, מלאכת שלמה ועוד) או והלובסין (ס ומלאכת שלמה)35לובסין הם סוג תאנים הנזכר במשנה, מעשרות פ\"ב מ\"י, ושם נפרש את המונח. . מההקשר ומהמקורות להלן ברור שכליסים או בליסים הם פרי. נראה שהכוונה לשם הנגזר מהפועל לבלוס, שהוא צורת טיפול בפרי השקמים. כיום אין השקמים משמשים כפרי מאכל, אבל בתקופת המקרא ניצלו גם פרי זה והטיפול בפרי נקרא \"לבלוס\". עמוס הנביא אומר \"כי בוקר אנכי ובולס שקמים\" (עמוס ז יד). כפי שהראה גלילי הבליסה היא פציעת התאנה על מנת שזו תפריש את הורמון ההבשלה36גלילי, שקמה; פליקס, עצי פרי, עמ' 161. . שני טיעונים מקשים על זיהוי הכליסים עם פרי בלוס. האחד הוא שאלת הנוסח: הנוסח \"בליסין\" הוא בעדות אחת במשנה, וביתר המקבילות בתוספתא (שתצוטטנה להלן) תמיד \"כליסין\". בהלכה אחרת מופיעה תרומת הכליסים עם פֵרות אחרים: \"אילו ניטלין אחד מששים גידולי תרומה ועירובי תרומה ותרומה שנטמאת בשגגה ובאונס ותרומת הקדש ותרומת חוצה לארץ הקצח והכליסין והחרובין וגמזיות\" (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ז). \"גמזיות\" הוא כינוי אחר לפרי השקמה, על כן קשה לפרש שכליסים הם הפרי הבלוס. לאו37לאו, פלורה, ב, עמ' 391. זיהה אותם עם Prosopis Stephaniana הדומה לחרוב.", + "והחרובין – החרוב עצמו היה עץ פרי מאיכות נמוכה, והעוקץ שלו מאיכות פחותה עוד יותר (איור 34), שלתרומה אסורין לזרים – אף על פי שהעוקץ אינו מזון בפני עצמו ואין לו ערך, הוא נחשב לחלק מהפרי לכל דבר. אבל במשנה אחרת: \"עוקצי תאנים וגרוגרות והכלוסים והחרובים הרי אלו מיטמאין ומטמאין ומצטרפין. רבי יוסי אומר אף עוקץ דלעת\" (עוקצין פ\"א מ\"ו). אם כן, המחלוקת היא רק על היקף ההלכה, אבל לכל הדעות עוקצי עצי הפרי החשובים הם כפרי.", + "תרומת התאנים הייתה כמובן תרומה חשובה, והמשנה באה לחדש שכך גם בתרומת העוקצים. אבל לתרומה של הבליסים והחרובים ייחסו חשיבות פחותה בהרבה: \"ורבי שמעון אומר כל תרומה שאין הכהנים מקפידין עליה, כגון תרומת הכליסין והחרובין, ניטלת אחד מששים\" (תוס', פ\"ה ה\"ו, והשוו שם ה\"ז). זו כמובן תרומה, אבל בגלל ערכה הכלכלי הנמוך אין חובה להרים אחד חלקי ארבעים אלא רק אחד חלקי שישים. החרובים מופיעים הרבה במקורות, אך בדרך כלל הם מאכל בהמה. אנשים אכלו חרובים רק בשעת הדחק. המדרש אומר: \"צריכין ישראל לחרובא עבדין תתובה\" (ויקרא רבה, לה ו, עמ' תתכד). כלומר, כשישראל כה עניים עד שצריכים לאכול חרובים הם עושים תשובה. צדיקים שהתענו אכלו רק חרובים, כסמל למאכל עוני, כאלה הם רבי שמעון בר יוחאי כשהסתתר במערה ורבי חנינה בן דוסא38ספרא בחוקותי, פרק יב ה\"ט ומקבילות; ירו', מעשרות פ\"א ה\"א, מח ע\"ג; בבלי, ברכות יז ע\"ב. . כן מופיע החרוב כמאכל בהמה או כמאכל עניים במקורות נוספים רבים39ספראי, הכלכלה, עמ' 143-141. .", + "למרות כל זאת, עוקצי כליסים וחרובים הם כפרי עצמו. הכוהנים אינם מקפידים עליהם, אך הם תרומה לכל דבר. " + ], + [ + "גלעני תרומה – כך בכתבי היד נוסח ארץ ישראל. בכתבי היד של מסורת בבל ובדפוסים: \"גרעיני\". גרעינים או גלעינים אינם אוכל ממש, אך שוב הם חלק מהפרי.", + "כל זמן שהוא מכנסן אסורות – אם הוא שומר על הגרעינים, סימן שהם אוכל ואז הם נחשבים לפרי תרומה ואסורים.", + "אם השליכן מותרות – אם זרק הבעל את הגרעינים סימן שאין הם אוכל ואז אינם נחשבים לתרומה, וכן עצמות הקדשים – עצמות של בשר קודש, קרבן שלמים שעלה למזבח ונאכל על ידי הבעלים, כל זמן שהוא [מכנסן] אסורין ואם השליכן מותרין – המבחן המוצע הוא פשטני ביותר, אין הוא תלוי בסוג העצמות (הגרעינים) או במה שרגילים הכול לעשות, אלא בהתנהגות של בעל הבית. הדבר לא נאמר, אבל בוודאי מדובר בעצמות קטנות שנהוג לזרקן. עצמות רגילות הן כבר עצמות לכל דבר ועניין40משנה, פסחים פ\"ז מ\"י; זבחים פ\"ג מ\"ד; תוס', שם פ\"ג ה\"ט, ובמיוחד בבלי, זבחים פו ע\"א. .", + "אותה הלכה מופיעה בתוספתא, אבל בהגבלה: \"גלעני זתים גלעני תמרים וגלעני חרובין כולם אף על פי שאין מכנסן אסורין. ושאר כל הגלענין, מכנסן אסורין שאין מכנסן מותרין\" (פ\"י ה\"א). גרעיני הפֵרות העיקריים הם תמיד פרי, גם אם החליט הבעל לא לנצלם. גרעיני זיתים ניתן להשרות במים חמים ולהפיק מהם עוד שמן, וכן מגרעיני התמרים, וההלכה במשנה חלה רק על יתר הגרעינים. לפי המשנה משמע שאין הדבר תלוי בדעת בעל הבית אלא בנוהג הכללי, ואף מהתוספתא משמע כן. אבל בברייתא אחרת: \"גרעיני זיתים וגרעיני תמרים ששלקן41שלק הוא בישול שיש בו הוספת טעם, וכנראה זו הייתה דרך הניצול של הגרעינים. , אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין. כנסן לאוכלן, מטמא טומאת אוכלין. גרעיני חרובין אף על פי שכינסן לאוכלן, אין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין. שלקן מטמאין טומאת אוכלין. החרצנים והזגין אף על פי שכנסן לאוכלין בטלה דעתו\" (תוס', עוקצין פ\"ב ה\"י, עמ' 688-687). ההלכה בתוספתא זו מורכבת הרבה יותר. העיקרון הוא שמה שהוא אוכל מטמא טומאת אוכלין, כמו בשנה הקודמת, והפרטים בטבלה. רבי יוחנן מפרש שמשנתנו עוסקת \"בגלעיני אגסין וקרוסטומלין\" (מז ע\"ד), כלומר משנתנו היא כתוספתא ובגרעיני זיתים וחרובים אסור תמיד. קשה להעמיד כך את משנתנו, אלא אם כן המשנה מתייחסת לתוספתא והיא המשך לה. נראה, אפוא, שאין זה פשט המשנה אלא ניסיון להרמוניזציה בין המקורות.", + " טהורים42נראה שכך יש להבין שבטלה דעתו, כלומר שהכינוס אינו הופך אותם לאוכל. ", + "ההבדלים בן ההלכות אינם רבים, אבל רמת הפירוט שונה ומעידה על גישות שונות לרמת הפירוט הנדרשת.", + "כאמור, משנתנו מקלה ותולה את ההלכה בהתנהגותם של הבעלים. זו גישה שאינה רגילה בהלכה, ובדרך כלל תולים את ההלכה בהתנהגות המקובלת ו\"בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם\"43ראו פירושנו לשביעית פ\"ח מ\"א; תוס', פ\"ב ה\"ז-ה\"ח ותוס', עוקצין פ\"ב ה\"י, עמ' 688-687 שציטטנו לעיל. הכלל \"בטלה דעתו\" אינו קבוע, ולא תמיד מחילים אותו. . ", + "המורסן – המורסן הוא קליפת גרעין החיטה, ובדרך כלל ניפו אותו מהקמח. ככל שהקמח היה מנופה טוב יותר כן הוא נחשב למעולה יותר, וזו הסולת44למורסן ראו להלן מ\"ו. . את הקליפה עצמה ניצלו רק למאכל בהמות ולמאפה לכלבים45ראו פירושנו לחלה פ\"א מ\"ח; שבת פכ\"ד מ\"ג; בבלי, שבת קנה ע\"ב ומקבילות; פסחים פ\"ב מ\"ז; תוס', שבת פ\"ח ה\"ח ועוד. . המורסן והסובין הם שני הכינויים לקליפות החיטים, אלא שהסובין הם קליפות דקות והמורסן הוא הקליפות העבות יותר. בתהליך הטחינה נשברת הקליפה ונטחנת מעט. ברוב העדויות מופיעים שני סוגי הקליפות יחד (משנה, שבת פ\"ח מ\"ב והמקורות להלן). אבל ההבדל ביניהם ברור. במשנתנו ברור שהמורסן אינו נחשב אוכל ולכן המורסן של גרעיני תרומה אינו תרומה, והסובין נחשבים לאוכל, חוץ מסובין ישנים. במקומות מספר הסובין נזכרים כתוצר הגרוע, אך התקני, של החיטים. הקמח הדק הוא הסולת וחלקו הגס הוא הסובין. פת סובין היא פת לכל דבר, אלא שטיבה נחות46תוס', מנחות פ\"ח הי\"ד, עמ' 524; בבלי, שם עו ע\"ב; ספרי, דברים מח, עמ' 110; מדרש תנאים לדברים, יא כב, עמ' 42. . לעומת זאת המורסן הוא מאכל בהמה בלבד47להלן. .", + "מותר – המורסן אינו נחשב אוכל ולכן אינו בכלל תרומה. לכאורה ההלכה קשה, שכן הגרעין ניתן לניצול הרבה פחות מהמורסן. במורסן הרי השתמשו דרך קבע, כמאכל בהמות וכמזון לעניים, והגרעין ניתן לניצול מועט יותר. אלא שהמשנה לשיטתה. המבחן איננו הנוהג המקובל, אלא כיצד נוהג אותו אדם. אם הוא זורק את המורסן הרי שהוא בבחינת \"אינו מכנסן\" ואינו תרומה. זאת בניגוד לשתי הברייתות מהתוספתא שציטטנו שמייצגות את ההלכה הרגילה יותר. ", + "סובים שלחדשות אסורות – הקליפות הדקות של החיטים, שאותן ניצלו, אסורות, שכן הן אוכל לכל דבר, ושלישנות מותרות – סובין ישנים כבר נחשבו למזון תקני פחות ואינם נחשבים אוכל, וזה חידוש גדול, שכן הם עדיין ניתנים לניצול. הדעת נותנת שסובין של חיטים חדשות ניתנים לאכילה יותר מסובין ישנים, ולא מובן למה קבעה המשנה שדווקא סובין של חיטים חדשות אסורים.", + "הסברנו את הדין בסובין ובמורסן כמו בראשית המשנה, ש\"אסור\" הוא \"אסורים לזרים\". אבל המשך המשנה עוסק גם בהשחתת תרומה. כידוע קיים איסור לאבד תרומה או להשחיתה, והמשנה קובעת אילו שימושים הם בבחינת השימוש הרגיל ומותרים ואילו שימושים הם בבחינת השחתה. לפי פירוש זה מותר לא להשתמש במורסן, ובסובין ישנים מותר לזרוק, אבל חדשים אסור לזרוק, וזו פרשנות סבירה יותר, שכן הסובין של חיטים ישנים שווים יותר. ", + "בתוספתא נאמר: \"סובין של חדשות אסורות של ישנות מותרות. עד מתי חדשות אסורות כל זמן שבני אדם רגילין לחבוט בין הגרנות\" (פ\"י ה\"ד). אם כן, \"חדש\" זו חיטה טרייה ביותר. בתוספתא ההלכה מצויה בין ברייתות העוסקות בהשחתת תרומה, ובכך יש סיוע מה לפירוש המוצע. ", + "בירושלמי דין קרוב של שימוש בקניבת הירק, הוא העלה שנקטף מהפרי, והירושלמי מוסיף שהדבר תלוי גם בשאלה אם זה \"בשני שובע\" (מח ע\"א), כלומר שעודף תוצרת גורם לניצול חלקי של חלקי הצמח השוליים ואז הם מותרים. פרשנות כזאת עשויה לשנות את ההלכה ולתלותה במצב הכלכלי בכל מקום ובכל שעה. ", + "נוהג בתרומה כדרך שהוא [נוהג בתרומה כדרך שהוא] – נמחק בקו בידי המעתיק המקורי ואף לא נוקד, וזו הכפלה מיותרת, נוהג בחולין – תהליך הסינון הוא כמו בחולין. מה שהוא נוהג לזרוק כשאריות הוא זורק גם בחולין, ואין בכך השחתת תרומה, או עירוב של תרומה בחול. משניות ו-ח מסבירות את משנתנו. העיקרון נובע מהרצון שלא להכביד על הציבור יתר על המידה. ההחלטה מתי להכביד בשם שמירת הקדושה ומתי להקל בשם נוחות הציבור היא מסודות האיזון שנקטו בהם חכמים.", + "המסלת קב או קבים – מסלת הוא מי שמכין סולת. הסולת היא קמח שסונן היטב כדי להוציא את הסובין או כל לכלוך אחר, לסאה (פאה) לא יאבד את השאר – הוא ניפה חלק מהכמות ואינו זקוק לשאריתה, ואף על פי כן אסור לו לאבד את השאר, אלא יניחנו במקום מוצנע – אמנם לעיל נקבע שמה שאינו מכנסו לאכילה אינו תרומה, אבל כל זה הוא רק בשאריות אוכל ולא באוכל ממש. אוכל ממש, גם אם אינו מעוניין בו, חייב להישמר עד שיירקב. " + ], + [ + "מגורה שפינה ממנה חיטי תרומה – המגורה היא מחסן ששמרו בו את החיטים, בדרך כלל בתפזורת (לעיל פ\"ד מי\"א), אין מחייבין אותו להיות יושב ומלקט אחת אחת אלא מלקט כדרכו ונותן לתוכה חולין – כדי לעבור משימוש של תרומה לשימוש של חולין יש לוודא שהמגורה ריקה לגמרי, אחרת ייווצר מצב שבו יישאר מעט מחיטי התרומה ואלו יתערבבו עם חיטי חולין. כאשר זה יקרה יתבטלו חיטי התרומה באחד למאה, אבל אסור לגרום לעירוב זה בידיים. עם זאת, הבעל לא נדרש לנקות את המגורה בצורה טובה ומלאה אלא \"נוהג בתרומה כדרך שנוהג בחולין\" (לעיל מ\"ה), כלומר מרוקן את המגורה בצורה רגילה, וכן במשנה הבאה. ", + "בכתב יד קופמן \"מלקט\" ובכל יתר עדי הנוסח \"מכבד\", שהוא המונח לניקוי בניגוב (משנה, ברכות פ\"ח מ\"ד ועוד)." + ], + [ + "וכן חבית שלשמן – של תרומה, שנישפכה – והוא רוצה להשתמש בה לשמן של חול, או גם אם החבית נשברה והוא צריך להציל כמה שמן שיוכל כדי למנוע השחתת תרומה. השמן נדבק לשולי החבית, מעט ממנו נספג בחבית עצמה ותמיד יישאר מעט שמן בחבית, אין מחייבין אותו להיות יושב ומטפיח – הוא אינו חייב לנגב את החבית כך שתהיה יבשה לחלוטין, אלא נוהג בה כדרך שהוא נוהג בחולין – הוא מרוקן את החבית כמו שמרוקן חבית של חול. " + ], + [ + "המערה מכד לכד – שמן של תרומה שהוא מעביר מכד לכד. השאלה היא עד כמה הוא צריך להתאמץ כדי שכל התרומה תזרום לכד השני, וניטף שלש טיפים נותן לתוכה חולין – צורת המכירה הרגילה כשחנווני מוכר כד שמן ללקוח. הוא נוטף שלוש פעמים, כלומר מטה את הכד ומניח שלוש פעמים לטיפות האחרונות לזרום, או שנותן לשלוש הטיפות האחרונות לטפטף. כל ההגדרות הללו הן לעניין תרומה בלבד. אין ללמוד מהן על כלי של בשר שרוצה להכניס בו חלב, או כלי טמא שרוצה להכניס בו מזון טהור. לאלו הגדרות כמותיות אחרות (ירו', מח ע\"א).", + "הירכינה ומצאת הרי זו תרומה – אם הרכין את הכד ומיצה, כלומר השלים את ניצול הכד. אחרי שהטיף שלוש טיפות כופף את הכד והצליח למצוא עוד מעט שמן. כל מה שיוצא מהכד הוא תרומה. כל אלו (הרכינה ושלוש הטיפות) הן דרכי המכירה הרגילות, שכן שנינו: \"המוכר יין ושמן לחבירו... וחייב להטיף לו שלש טפין, הרכינה ומיצה הרי הוא של מוכר, והחנוני אינו חייב להטיף שלש טפין\" (משנה, בבא בתרא פ\"ה מ\"ח). אם כן אלו הנוהגים של בעל בית המוכר מעט לשכנו, והסוחר אינו ממצה את מידותיו עד כדי כך.", + "כמה תהא בתרומה מעשר שלדמיי ויוליכנה לכהן – את התרומה יש לתת לכהן, אבל בעצם אין חובה להעביר אותה לכהן. רק אם הכמות היא משמעותית יש לטרוח ולתת אותה לכהן. כמות קטנה יותר רשאי הבעל להניח וכך למעשה לאבדה, אם כי אין לאבדה בידיים.", + "אחד [משמונה ל]שמינית – אחד חלקי 64 של משהו, אך לא נאמר של מה – של סאה, של קב או של לוג. בדרך כלל המידות של שמינית או רביעית הן רביעית הלוג48כגון תוס', בבא בתרא פ\"ה ה\"ח, שם ה\"י ועוד. . הלוג הוא אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה של סאה, ולמעשה מדובר באחד חלקי 1536 של סאה, בערך 6 מ\"ג (לפי חישוב שסאה היא עשרה ליטר), או מעט יותר בסאים גדולות יותר49לחישובים ראו בנספח למסכת פסחים, ולעיל פ\"י מ\"ח. . שמינית של שמינית הלוג היא קורטוב (תוס', בבא בתרא פ\"ב ה\"י). \"קורטוב\" הוא גם הכינוי למידה מינימלית. גם כמות כזאת הייתה חשובה מבחינה כלכלית ולא בזבזו אותה. המילה \"שמונה\" בשמינית חסרה בכתב יד קופמן ונוספה בידי מעתיק בשוליים, וכנראה נשמטה, שכן היא מצויה ביתר עדי הנוסח, ומטבע הלשון מצוי במקבילות שציטטנו.", + "התוספתא מצטטת את ההלכה של משנתנו ומוסיפה: \"במי דברים אמורים בשל דמיי, אבל בשל ודיי הרי זה אסור. במי דברים אמורים בטהורה, אבל בטמאה אפילו כל שהו. וכן אתה אומר בתרומת מעשר שבשאר כל הפירות. אם יש כשיעור הזה נותנה לכהן, ואם לאו משליכה לאור ושורפה\" (פ\"י ה\"ו). תרומת ודאי אין לאבד ויש להעבירה לכהן, אבל תרומת מעשר של דמאי היא בבחינת ספק, ועל כן אין צריך להתאמץ כל כך. עיקרון דומה שנינו לגבי חלה. חישוב החלה הוא כדי שהנתינה (אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה) תהיה משמעותית. חמישה רבעים קמח חייבים בחלה (משנה, חלה פ\"ב מ\"ד), ואחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה הוא בערך חמישית קב. כל זה בחיטים, ומשנתנו קובעת את כמות השמן שהיא המינימום הסביר. ", + "עוד אנו לומדים ממשנתנו שכמות קטנה יותר מותר וצריך לאבד בידיים (בשרפה). הסברנו את משנתנו כהנחיה כללית, אבל הרש\"ס מדגיש שההלכה במשנה היא המשך לדין \"הרכינה\": אם הרכינה ויצאה כמות גדולה יותר יש להובילה לכהן. הפירוש אינו נראה, שכן המדובר ב-6 גרם לערך, וזו כמות גדולה למיצוי אחרי הטפת שלוש טיפות. בשלב ההרכנה כל מה שיוצא אלו טיפות מעטות, והן מצטרפות לשמן התרומה שכבר היה בכד קודם, ואינן נמדדות בפני עצמן. " + ], + [ + "כרשני תרומה – כרשינים הם ירק הכריתה שערכו רק כמזון לבהמות, מאכילין אותן לבהמה ולחייה ולתרנגלים – מזון של בני אדם שהוא קודש (תרומה) אין להשתמש בו לשימוש נחות ואין לתתו לבהמה. כרשינים הם מאכל בהמה הראוי לבני אדם בדוחק ובשני רעבון, על כן היה מקום לחשש שמכיוון שהם ראויים למאכל אדם בדוחק אסור לתתם לבהמה, ומחדשת המשנה שמותר לתת מהם לבהמת כהן. מכל מקום, הנחת העבודה של המשנה היא שמותר לתת תרומה לבהמת כהן. דרשה מפורשת על כך מצויה בספרא (אמור, פרשה ה ה\"ו, צז ע\"ב).", + "ישראל שסכר פרה מכהן מאכילה כרשני תרומה – ישראל שכר פרה של כהן והוא רשאי לתת לה לאכול תרומה, ולא רק כרשינים אלא כל תרומה אחרת. הפרה נחשבת כרכוש הכהן, אף על פי שהשוכר חייב לזון את הפרה וכאילו עליו לעשות זאת מרכושו, וכהן ששכר פרה מישראל אפ על פי שמזונותיה עליו לא יאכילה כרשני תרומה – הפרה שייכת לישראל. אמנם הכהן חייב לזון אותה, אך היא פרת ישראל ולכן אסור להזינה מתרומה. המרכיב הקובע הוא למי שייכת הפרה, ולא על מי מוטלת החובה להאביסה50בירושלמי (מח ע\"א) יש דיון קצר האם גם תלתן הוא ככרשינים. תלתן הוא מאכל בהמה מובהק אך זרעיו ראויים למאכל אדם, לכן הוא חייב בתרומה (משנה, מעשרות פ\"א מ\"ג ועוד). . הרש\"ס הקשה שאם המשפט כאן אומר שמזונותיה עליו הרי שברישא מדובר גם כשאין מזונותיה עליו, והרי קשה לתאר שמותר לכהן להאכיל בתרומה חיה שאין מזונותיה עליו. לדעתנו המשפט מוסב על כל המשנה ומסביר מדוע מותר לכהן להאכיל בתרומה, ושמקרה זה חריג51וראו הרש\"ס ובעל מלאכת שלמה שתירצו אחרת. . להלן נראה שלמרות ההלכה הברורה במשנה אנו שומעים גם על עמדות מחמירות יותר. לעומת זאת: ישראל ששם פרה מכהן לא יאכילה כרשני תרומה – שומה משמעה הפקעה לצורכי משכון. תמורת ההלוואה נותן הלווה למלווה רכוש (פרה). הפרה שייכת למלווה, וללווה זכות להשיבה אליו תמורת תשלום. אבל הפרה היא כבר רכוש המלווה, וכהן ששם פרה מישראל מאכילה כרשני תרומה – כהן וישראל עושים עסקים וכל אחד מהם עשוי להיות מלווה או לווה. ", + "לאחר הבנת המשנה נשוב לדין כרשיני תרומה. מעמדם של כרשיני תרומה שנוי כבר במחלוקת בית הלל ובית שמאי: \"כרשינין של מעשר שני יאכלו צמחונין. של תרומה: בית שמיי אומרים שורין בטהרה ושפין ומאכילין בטומאה, ובית הלל אומרים שורין ושפין בטהרה ומאכילין בטומאה [דברי רבי יהודה. רבי מאיר אומר: בית שמאי אומר, שורין ושפין בטהרה, ומאכילין בטומאה]. ובית הלל אומרים כל מעשיהן בטומאה. אמר רבי יוסי זו משנת רבי עקיבא, לפיכך הוא אומר ינתנו לכל כהן וחכמים לא הודו לו\" (תוס', מעשר שני פ\"ב ה\"א – המשפט האחרון יבואר להלן). במשנת עדיות (פ\"א מ\"ח) חוזרת מחלוקת זו ללא ההקדמה על כרשיני מעשר שני. נוסח התוספתא משובש במקצת, ונראה שיש לתקנו בהתאם למשנה (מעשר שני פ\"ב מ\"ז). אם כן, שתי מסורות על המחלוקת הקדומה. משנת מעשר שני כרבי יהודה, המסורת המיוחסת לרבי מאיר היא המסורת של רבי עקיבא, ורבי יוסי מעיד כי רבי מאיר מוסר את דברי רבו. רבי עקיבא היה רבו המובהק של רבי מאיר, ולעתים קרובות הוא מוסר את תורת רבו מבלי לומר זאת במפורש. דברי רבי יוסי הם עדות לכך. ההנחה שרבי מאיר מוסר בסתם את תורת רבי עקיבא היא אבן הפינה במערכת של שושלת המסירה ועריכת המשנה כפי שמשחזר גולדברג52ראו על כך בדיון במבוא לפירוש המשניות. . משנת מעשר שני היא עדות מעניינת לשחזור זה. עם כל זאת, לדעתנו אין להרחיק לכת ולקבוע מסגרת אחידה לכל דברי רבי מאיר. הוא אכן מוסר (חוזר) לעתים קרובות במדויק את דברי רבו, אך לא תמיד כן. אי אפשר לקבוע כי כך הדבר בכל המקרים, וכל מקרה זקוק לראיות שלו. ", + "כאמור, הדין במשנתנו נשנה גם במסכת עדיות (פ\"א מ\"ח), אלא ששם מופיע רק הקטע מ\"כרשיני תרומה\" ואילך. נראה שזה היה הגרעין הראשון של המשנה כפי שנשנתה בדור יבנה, כולל דברי רבי עקיבא. במשנת עדיות היא מנויה בסדרה שבה מוסיף תנא מאוחר למחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, מכאן שאכן דברי רבי עקיבא נכללו כבר במשנה הראשונה53כמובן אי אפשר לקבוע אם הייתה עריכה קודמת למשנת עדיות, עריכה שממנה לא נותרה כל עדות. . משנה זו נלקטה למסכת מעשר שני, והעורך הוסיף לה משפט קישור למשנה הקודמת. במשפט זה נאמר שכרשינים הם כתלתן, ונוספו דברי רבי טרפון. המשפט הוא, אפוא, גם מדור יבנה, אבל אינו במשנת עדיות. בתוספתא שנצטט להלן יש ניסוח נוסף, מאוחר עוד יותר, והוא כולל מחלוקת של חכמי דור אושא בדבר המחלוקת הקדומה. ", + "אחת התוצאות של המחלוקת שלפנינו היא השאלה האם מותר לתת כרשיני תרומה לכהן עם הארץ. עם הארץ חשוד על טומאה, ולכן אסור לתת לו תרומה. אבל אם כל עיבודו של היבול נעשה בטומאה מותר יהא לתת את הכרשינים לעם הארץ כדי שיאכילם לבהמתו, ואכן במשנת חלה שנינו: \"ואלו נתנין לכל כהן... כרשיני תרומה רבי עקיבא מתיר וחכמים אוסרים\" (פ\"ד מ\"ט). רבי עקיבא לשיטתו, שכל מעשי העיבוד של היבול בטומאה. חכמים כאן הם רבי יהודה. סביר להניח שרבי עקיבא כאן הוא כבית הלל, ואף הוא מודה שבית שמאי חולקים, אך ההלכה היא כבית הלל, ולכן הוא אומר שכרשיני תרומה ניתנים לכל כהן. מכל מקום, אין טעם להעמיד מחלוקת בין התוספתא והמשנה שלנו (ומשנת חלה) כאילו רבי עקיבא שבמשנה אינו מכיר במחלוקת הקדומה, ורק מחווה את דעתו (פוסק) כשכל מעשי העיבוד בטומאה. לעתים קרובות מצינו מחלוקות בין המקורות, ואנו מהלכים בדעה שאין לעוות את לשון המקורות כדי ליצור הרמוניזציה מלאכותית, אבל במקביל גם אין ליצור מחלוקות במקום שניתן לפרש שכל המקורות עולים בקנה אחד. הראיה לפירושנו היא שבתוספתא אומר רבי יוסי במפורש שזו (מחלוקת בית הלל ובית שמאי לפי השיטה המיוחסת לרבי מאיר) שיטת רבי עקיבא, על כן הוא אומר שמותר לתת כרשיני תרומה לכל כהן. אם כן, הניסוח הכוללני שלפי רבי עקיבא \"כל מעשיהן בטומאה\" הוא אכן רק לשיטת בית הלל, ואף רבי עקיבא מוסר שבית שמאי חולקים. ", + "עד כאן המסקנה הברורה, שהכרשינים הם תרומה, אך מכיוון שהם מאכל בהמה גם כשהם טמאים ואסורים באכילה הם מותרים בהנאה, ונותנים אותם לבהמה. השאלה היא רק האם יש לראות בהם רק מאכל בהמה או גם מעט מאכל אדם, אבל ודאי שמותר לתת אותם לבהמה של כהן לאכילה. ", + "בירושלמי שנינו: \"אימתי גזרו על הכרשינין? רבי יוסי אומר בימי רעבון. רבי חנניה בשם רבי בימי דוד. אמרין היא הדא היא הדא\" (אמרו היא זו היא זו – חלה פ\"ד הי\"א, ס ע\"ב). אם כן, פעם היו כרשינים מאכל בהמה בלבד, אבל גזרו עליהם שיחולו עליהם דיני תרומה ב\"שנת רעבון\" או ברעב שבימי דוד. כלומר, מדין תורה הם רק מאכל בהמה אבל \"גזרו עליהם\" מכיוון שבשנת רעב אכלו מהם גם בני אדם. לא נאמר מהי אותה גזרה, ואולי היא זו שנשמע עליה להלן, או שמעשיה צריכים להיות בטהרה חלקית.", + "עד כאן ההלכה, אבל כמו בתחומים אחרים של תרומה אנו שומעים גם על נוהג (חסידי?) של החמרת יתר: \"מעשה בכהן אחד שנפלה עליו אש, ואכלה ממנו שלשים (זכרים) [כרים] וששים בגדים, ועשרים וארבעה כדים של יין, ועשרת כדים של שמן, ושאר ממון. בא וישב לפני חכמים, אמר להן: רבותיי נפלה עלי אש, ואכלה ממני שלשים (זכרים) [כרים], וששים בגדים, ועשרים וארבעה כדים של יין, ועשרת כדים של שמן ושאר ממון שהיה לי, היכניסו חכמים יגון ואנחה כנגדו. אמרו: לא זזו משם, עד שבא אדם שאינו בקי בהלכה כלום. אמר לו: המאכיל את בהמתו תרומה מהו? אמר [לו מותר] אמר לו שמא אסור? אמר לו לאו. אמר לו אני כהן, והאכלתי את בהמתי תרומה. וכששמעו חכמים בדבר ענו כולם כאחת ואמרו: ברוך המקום ברוך הוא, שאין לפניו משוא פנים. וכי תרומה שאין לה אוכלין, וקדשים שאין (לה) [להן] אוכלים, [כלום הולכים אלא לשריפה]? אלא [עשיתה שלא כדין]. אמר להן, הלא כרשיני תרומה מאכילין אותם לבהמה ולחיה ולתרנגולין (משנתנו). [אמרו לו]: לא אמרו אלא מפני שהן מאכל בהמה, ובשני רעבון בני אדם אוכלין אותם, לפיכך גזר עליהן דוד בשני רעבון, (והתירו) [והתירום] למאכל (אדם) [בהמה]. מיכן אמרו, כל המאכיל את בהמתו תרומה, בין תרומת הארץ ובין תרומת חוצה לארץ, עליו הכתוב אומר בוזה דרכיו יומת\" (תנא דבי אליהו, פי\"ג [יד], עמ' 67-66).", + "העמדה שמובאת בתנא דבי אליהו עומדת בניגוד למשנתנו ואיננה מקובלת להלכה. לפנינו נוהג מחמיר. הכהן מצטט את משנתנו, וחכמים טוענים שהעושה כן חייב בעונש חמור. עוד אנו שומעים שמשנתנו היא דין תורה אבל בשנת הרעבון גזרו החמרה, וכאילו משנתנו היא מלפני ימי דוד. ברור, אפוא, שיש כאן מגמת החמרה, אולי עקב שנות רעב שבהן הפכו הכרשינים למזון אדם. כן אנו שומעים שאותה הלכה חלה גם על עצמות הקודשים, שבמשנתנו גם הם מותרים ואילו במדרש שצוטט איסורם חמור ומובהק עוד יותר. כאן ודאי שאין השפעה של שני רעבון, שכן אין מדובר בהלכה שביצעו אותה הלכה למעשה, והשינוי הוא עקרוני ולא מעשי. במבוא עמדנו על כך שלעתים חלו בדיני תרומה החמרות שמקורן אינו משפטי-הלכתי אלא בתחושת הקודש.", + "זאת ועוד. יש כאן האשמה שהכהן המתלונן לא למד והסתמך על המשנה ולא על דיוני חכמים ולכן טעה, והתחייב בממונו. אפשר שיש בסיפור הד לוויכוח נגד כוהנים שאינם נמנים עם חובשי בית המדרש, אבל התרעומת על מי שלא שימש בבית המדרש מופנית באופן כללי ולא דווקא אל הכוהנים. " + ], + [ + "מדליקין שמן שריפה – שמן שרפה הוא שמן תרומה שנטמא. השמן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה. בניגוד למוצרי תרומה אחרים, שרפת התרומה היא דרך ניצול כלכלית רגילה של שמן. ההלכה העקרונית מצויה בתוספתא ובמקבילות (תוס', פ\"י ה\"ט-הי\"א). לישראל אסור ליהנות מהשמן, אבל מותר לכהן להדליק אותו בשביל עצמו או בשביל בהמתו. כמו כן מותר לו לאפשר לישראל ליהנות מהאור יחד עמו. הקלה גדולה היא שמותר לכהן להדליק את הנר בשביל ישראל העובד אצלו או שהוא נמצא בביתו. הכלל הבסיסי הוא שהכהן צריך להיות מעוניין, או אפילו חייב, בטיפול בישראל, על כן מותר לכהן לאפשר לשותפו להשתמש בשמן שרפה. לא נעסוק כאן בבירור הלכות שמן שרפה, אך דומה שיש בדברי חכמים הקלה רבה ומצאו דרכים לאפשר לישראלים ליהנות משמן שרפה ברשות כהן. אחת ההקלות מנומקת בכך שפעם התירו שימוש בשמן בשעת \"משלחת זאבים\", כלומר בשעת צרה שנגרמה עקב פשיטת חיות הבר, ולא החזירו את האיסור ליושנו. יש בתיאור זה הודאה בכך שההיתרים רבים ואין להם הצדקה פורמלית-הלכתית. למגמה הפוכה ראו להלן.", + "בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות – האור בבית הכנסת נחשב כפעילות של הקהילה, הקהילה נחשבת כשותפות54ספראי, הקהילה, עמ' 299-298. וממילא מותר להשתמש בשמן שרפה לתאורת בית הכנסת, אפילו אם הכהן אינו נמצא באותה שעה בבית הכנסת. בסוף המשנה נדון במשמעות עדות זו למבנה הקהילה בישראל ואופייה, ובבתי הכנסת ובית המדרש. ההיתר נראה יציב וברור, אבל בירושלמי שנינו: \"אין סכין... ולא שמן שריפה לא בבתי כניסיות ולא בבתי מדרשות מפני ביזיון קדשים\" (שביעית פ\"ח ה\"ב, לח ע\"א). פרשני הירושלמי התחבטו בשאלה והציעו תירוצים שונים שכולם יש בהם מרכיב כזה או אחר של תיקון נוסח55ראו פליקס, ספיחים, עמ' 173. . בעל מלאכת שלמה למשנתנו מהסס אף הוא ומציע שמא מסורות חלוקות הן, שהתלמוד חולק על משנתנו. עוד מצינו מסורת המיוחסת לרבי יוחנן: \"המדליק בפת ושמן שלתרומה ישרפו עצמותיו\" (ירו', לעיל פ\"ה ה\"א, מג ע\"ג, וראו פירושנו למשנה שם). המדובר שם בשמן טמא, כפי שברור מהשתלשלות הדיון. גם המינוח \"ישרפו עצמותיו\" הוא משחק מילים על המונח \"שמן שריפה\". באותה סוגיה מובאות מסורות אחרות שבהן מתיר רבי יוחנן שרפת שמן טמא. ", + "נראה, אפוא, שבתקופת האמוראים הייתה גם מגמה של החמרה בשימוש בשמן שרפה. במבוא למסכת תרומות ריכזנו עדויות על מנהגי החמרה, רובם ללא הצדקה הלכתית פורמלית, והסברנו זאת בתחושת הקודש שהייתה לעתים חזקה יותר מההיתר המשפטי.", + "ובמבואות אפלים – המבוי האפל הוא כמובן רכוש ציבורי, וכמו ברישא מותר להשתמש בשמן שרפה לתאורת רחובות, ועל גבי החולין – הטיפול בחולה היה בדרך כלל פרטי, אבל תאורת ביתו של החולה היא חלק ממצוות צדקה והעיר עסקה בצדקה, על כן מותר להשתמש ברכוש הכהן השותף לשם כך.", + "ברשות כהן – הירושלמי מעיר שרק הדלקת נרות לחולה היא ברשות כהן אך לכל השאר אין צורך ברשותו (מח ע\"א), וההסבר ההלכתי לכך יבורר להלן.", + "מעתה עלינו לעבור לבירור הפעילויות הנזכרות במשנה. ", + "למשנתנו מקבילה במסכת פסחים: \"מדליקין בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובמבואות האפלים ועל גבי החולים\" (פ\"ד מ\"ד). ההלכה מצויה בתוך סדרה של משניות בדבר מנהגים מקומיים, ומכאן שגם הנוהג הנזכר במשנתנו היה בבחינת מנהג מקומי וודאי שלא בכל מקום הוצא אל הפועל. ", + "הדלקת הנרות בבית הכנסת נועדה לאפשר לימוד בליל שבת. המשנה מספרת שבערב שבת החזן לומד עם ה\"תינוקות\" בבית הכנסת לאור הנר (משנה, שבת פ\"א מ\"ג), ובמקום אחר אנו שומעים על הסופר המלמד את הילדים בערב שבת בבית הכנסת, וקבוצת פועלים המתאכסנים בבית הכנסת ואוכלים בו מתגרים בחבורת הלומדים56בראשית רבה, סה טז, עמ' 782, וראו ספראי, מרכז קהילתי. . במקורות ארץ-ישראליים מאוחרים, מהמאה השישית, חוזר עניין השמן והדלקת הנרות בבית הכנסת, ומקורות רבים מזכירים את הדבר57ספראי, מקדש מעט. . גם חיבורים נוצריים מזכירים את הנוצרים התורמים שמן לבתי הכנסת של היהודים. צירוף עדויות אלו מעיד עד כמה היה זה שירות חשוב. נראה שהוא היה חשוב בעיקר לתלמידי החכמים שעבורם היה זה תנאי ללימוד בלילה, ולימוד בלילה היה תנאי להתקדמות בלימוד ומעלה גדולה בפני עצמו: \"אמר רבי יוחנן אלו תלמידי חכמים העוסקים בתורה בלילה מעלה אני עליהם כאלו עוסקים בעבודה\"58מדרש תהילים, קלד, עמ' 518; בבלי, עירובין יח ע\"ב; חגיגה יב ע\"ב; תמיד לב ע\"ב, ומקורות נוספים, לרוב בבליים. במקורות חז\"ל מוצג הלימוד בלילה כדרך המלך של העיסוק בתורה, ונוצר הרושם שייחסו ללימוד דווקא בלילה סגולות מיוחדות. . ", + "בתי מדרשות הם מקומו של הלימוד. בתקופת התנאים עדיין לא היה זה מבנה בנוי, וכל האזכורים התנאיים מתייחסים למקום הלימוד הבלתי פורמלי59ראו, למשל, פירושנו לשבת פט\"ז מ\"א ופי\"ח מ\"א; היטנמייסטר, בית מדרש; אופנהיימר, בית מדרש; אורמן, בית המדרש; ספראי, בית מדרש; שפירא, בית מדרש. . תאורת הרחובות הנזכרת כאן היא התופעה המפתיעה מכולן, ומעידה על רמת שירותים גבוהה ביותר שהייתה בעיירה היהודית.", + "בערים הרומיות לא הייתה כמעט תאורת רחובות, ואנו שומעים על כך רק באנטיוכיה שהייתה אחת משלוש הערים הגדולות במזרח. לעומת כל זאת, דווקא הקהילה היהודית הפעילה שירות זה. יש להניח כי לא בכל יישוב קטן הייתה תאורה ברחובות ובמבני הציבור, אך ביישובים רבים זו הייתה תופעה נפוצה60ספראי, הקהילה, עמ' 171-170. . ההלכה הברורה ביותר בנושא היא משנתנו. ממשנה זו אנו שומעים על נוהג קבוע של תאורה. יתר על כן, המשנה מסבירה גם את מקורות המימון של שירות נדיר ויקר זה. שמן שרפה הוא שמן תרומה שנטמא. אם מותר להשתמש בשמן שרפה לצרכים עירוניים, הרי שבכך עמד לרשות העיר מלאי רב של שמן שאי אפשר היה להשתמש בו אלא לשם תאורה. שמן השרפה סיפק, אפוא, בסיס כלכלי לתאורת הרחובות, ואִפשר את הנוהג הציבורי בעלות שולית. מכל מקום, ברור שתאורת הרחובות ומבני הציבור הייתה תופעה מקובלת, ולה עדויות נוספות. כך, למשל, אנו שומעים על מנורה הניצבת ברשות הרבים (תוס', שבת פ\"י [יא] ה\"ז), וכן יוצא מעדויות נוספות. יש להניח שלא כל עיר האירה את המבואות, וודאי שלא כל המבואות זכו לכך, אבל ביישובים גדולים הייתה תאורת רחובות מוגבלת וקשה לפקפק בכך. ", + "כפי שאמרנו, המשפט \"ברשות כהן\" חל רק על המילים הקודמות \"על גבי חולין\". הווה אומר, רק שימוש בשמן שרפה לטובת הטיפול בחולים נזקק להסכמת הכהן, אבל מותר היה לנצלו לתאורת הרחובות או לתאורת בתי הכנסת ומקומות הלימוד, אפילו ללא הסכמת הכהן. הווה אומר, בעלי הבתים העבירו לעיר את תרומת השמן שצריכים היו לתת לכוהנים, ולמעשה שילמו בכך תשלום לטובת העיר על חשבון הכוהנים. שמן היה מצרך יקר, אם כי היה ממנו שפע יחסי. יש להניח שחלק גדול מהתרומה ותרומת המעשר היה טמא ועל כן היה בעיר היצע רב של שמן שנטמא, והעיר יכולה הייתה להרשות לעצמה לנצלו גם לתאורת רחובות מוגבלת.", + "במשנתנו שלוש רמות של שירותים. הדלקה בבית הכנסת, שמותרת ללא רשות כהן, הדלקה על גבי חולים, ברשות כהן, ובבתי אבל ומשתה, שעליהם נחלקו חכמים (להלן). ההבדל בין ההלכות השונות נובע, לדעתנו, מההבדל ברמת העירוניות שלהן. תאורת בתי הכנסת ותאורת הרחובות היו פעולות עירוניות, לטובת כל השותפים, והכהן הוא שותף מלא והסכמתו אינה נדרשת לפעילות העירונית. אבל טיפול בחולים נתפס כצדקה פרטית ולכן צריך הכהן להסכים לשימוש זה ברכושו. כפי שנציע להלן בית האבל ובית המשתה לא היו פעולה עירונית, ואף לא פעילות קבועה של צדקה, אלא פעילות פרטית שמשתתפים בה כמעט כל בני העיר, ולכן נחלקו חכמים האם שם הכהן נתפס כשותף או כאורח שאינו חלק מהשותפות.", + "אצלנו הנוסח הוא \"מבואות אפלים\" ובמסכת פסחים (בכ\"י קופמן) \"מבואות אפולים\", והם כמובן מבואות אפלים כמו בנוסח הדפוס. הצורה \"אפולים\" היא צורה מקורית המבטאת מצב של חפצים כמו גנובים, שחוקים או אהובים, בניגוד לכך \"אפלים\" היא צורה המבטאת עשייה של רבים בגוף שלישי, כגון עמלים או שפלים. ", + "בתוספתא מוסיף רבי שמעון בן אלעזר: \"מדליקין בפונדקאות ובבית המים\" (פסחים פ\"ג [ב] הי\"ז). הפונדק היה מקום אכסון ציבורי למחצה. הוא שירת את הרבים, אך מבחינה הלכתית היו לו בדרך כלל בעלים פרטיים61ספראי, טיפול, עמ' 176-169. . הוא הדין בבתי המים, הם השירותים הפרטיים או הציבוריים. בארץ ישראל היו מתקנים אלו נדירים, עד עתה הם נמצאו רק בבתי עשירים, אך מהמקורות ברור שהיו גם מתקנים ציבוריים מעין אלו62ספראי, הקהילה, עמ' 169. (איור 35). הדעת נותנת שבערים היו בתי מים ציבוריים, בדרך כלל ליד בתי המרחץ, כמו בערים הרומיות.", + "ברוב המשפטים בפרק זה מוצגים מנהגים שונים, \"מקום שנהגו ומקום שלא נהגו\". בשורה זו אין חלוקה דומה. לא ברור האם זו תוספת המגבילה את ההלכה הקודמת ואומרת שגם במקום שלא נהגו להדליק נרות בערב יום כיפור מדליקים במבואות אפלים, על גבי חולים, בפונדקאות וכו', או שמא זו הערה כללית המצדדת במנהג להדליק נרות במקומות אלו בכל השבתות. ", + "כך או כך, ברור שהיה נוהג להדליק נרות במבואות אפלים וביתר המקומות הנזכרים. כאמור, ההדלקה הייתה על חשבון הציבור, חוץ מהדלקת נרות על גבי חולים שהייתה צדקה פרטית.", + "בת ישראל שנישאת לכהן והיא לימודת לבוא אצל אביה [אביה] מדליק ברשותה – אביה מדליק בשבילה אפילו אם אינה נמצאת, וזאת מתוך ההנחה שהיא תגיע בקרוב ותהנה מאור הנר. המשנה משקפת מצב של נישואין רגילים בין בת ישראל לכהן, ועסקנו בכך לעיל (פ\"ו מ\"ב). לעתים קרובות חייבו הנישואים נדידת האישה למקום רחוק, אך לעתים התגוררה משפחת הבת בסמוך והבת באה לעתים קרובות לבקר בבית אביה. ", + "מדליקין בבית המשתה אבל לא בבית האבל דברי רבי יהודה – בית האבל הנו מושב ה\"שבעה\", תקופת האבל הרגילה. בית המשתה הוא שבוע החתונה (של הבן או הבת). רבי יהודה מתיר להדליק נר של תרומה שם, גם אם אין בין בני המשפחה כוהנים. טעמה של הלכה זו יידון להלן.", + "רבי יוסה אומר בית האבל אבל לא [בבית] המשתה – חסר, ונוסף בידי מעתיק בצד. דעתו של רבי יוסי הפוכה מזו של רבי יהודה, רבי מאיר אוסר כן וכן – בשני המקומות אין מדליקין, רבי שמעון מתיר כאן וכן – בשני המקומות מדליקים. ", + "אין זה רגיל בספרות חז\"ל שהדעות שונות זו מזו לחלוטין. בדרך כלל יש הסכמה בשאלה איזה מקרה קל או חמור מהאחר, והמחלוקת היא רק בפרטי הדין, וממילא יש לברר מה טעמם של האיסור ושל ההיתר. ברור שאם יש שם כהן אפשר להדליק עליו את הנר, ברשותו או ללא רשותו. אבל מה הסיבה להדליק שם נר אם הכהן איננו? הירושלמי (מח ע\"ב) מסביר שבבית המשתה בגדיהם נקיים ולכן לא יתעסקו בנר, וזה טעמו של רבי יהודה או של רבי יוסי. השאלה היא טעמו של איזה דין זה, הרי רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי חולקים האם מותר להדליק בבית המשתה. כתבי היד חולקים בנוסחאותיהם. הוא הדין בהמשך. בבית האבל בגדיהם אינם נקיים, אבל הם \"כניעין\" (ירו', שם), כלומר מדוכאים ועצובים, ושוב לא ברור האם זה נימוקו של רבי מאיר או של רבי יוסי. הטעם של החולק הוא שבבית האב בגדיה מלוכלכים ובבית המשתה הם עליזים (עליזות יתר – \"פחיזין\"). נראה שהחשש הוא שהאורחים או בעלי הבית יתעסקו בנר. הדלקת הנר עצמה מותרת, אבל החשש הוא שבני הבית ישנו את גובה האור, אולי יכבו וישתמשו בו אחר כך לשימוש חול או שמא הם עלולים לכבות את הנר לפני שהכהן יבוא, או נימוק דומה. הרמב\"ם מפרש שהם עלולים להשתמש בו לאכילה, והר\"ש מפרש שמדובר בכגון שיש שם כהן, והחשש הוא שאחד משמשי הסעודה יקח מהנר לעצמו. אבחנה זו אינה תלויה בטיב הבגדים. הנימוק קשה, שכן אמנם בני משתה בגדיהם נאים אך עדיין הם עשויים לטפל בנר שכן הטיפול בו אינו מלכלך כל כך, ומצד שני הפחזות אינה בלתי מוגבלת והעצב בבית האבל אינו כה משתק. במקביל גם לא ברור מה יעשו בני הבית לנר. ", + "נראה שהשיקול במשנה הוא אחר. השאלה היא האם בית האבל ובית המשתה הם פעילות קהילתית. אם הם פעילות קהילתית הרי שמותר להשתמש לשם כך בשמן שרפה, ואם לא אזי הדבר אסור אלא אם יש שם כהן. שתי הפעילויות הללו היו פעילויות פרטיות מבחינה משפטית. העיר לא ארגנה את החתונה או את האבל, אלא אם כן הייתה זו משפחה נצרכת63לפעילויות הצדקה ראו בנספח למסכת פאה. . אבל בפעילות השתתפו כל בני הקהילה, ושני השיקולים הללו (השתתפות ציבורית וגוון קהילתי) השפיעו על ההחלטה.", + "כאמור, לדעתנו מדובר כשאין כהן בבית האבל ובבית המשתה, שכן אם יש כהן ודאי שהדבר מותר. הרא\"ש פירש שהאוסר אוסר גם אם יש שם כהן, שמא ישתמשו בנר לשימוש אחר, והרי זה חשש חדש שלא שמענו עליו במקרים אחרים. קיצורו של דבר, לדעתנו הנימוק בירושלמי הוא נימוק ספרותי ופורמלי בלבד, ושורש ההלכה תלוי באופי הפעילות הקהילתית.", + "רבי נתן, שפעל בדור אושא, אינו נזכר במשנה אלא רק בתוספתא. כמה וכמה פעמים הוא מוסר את תורת רבי אליעזר64תוס', כלים בבא מציעא פ\"ד הי\"ד, עמ' 583; כלים בבא בתרא פ\"ד ה\"ג, עמ' 593; בבלי, פסחים מח ע\"א; ביצה לה ע\"א ועוד. . קשה לדעת היכן ספג תורה זו. רבי נתן למד בבבל ועלה לארץ כתלמיד חכם בשל, על כן יש לשער שלמד את תורת רבי אליעזר מפי חכמי בבל. אם אכן הצעה זו סבירה, אזי יש מקום להשערה נוספת שתלמידים של רבי אליעזר ירדו לבבל, ואולי ברחו לשם אחרי מרד בר כוכבא. מכל מקום, רבי אליעזר היה חכם חשוב ובעל השפעה ניכרת, אבל איננו מכירים את תלמידיו המובהקים. אלו צריכים היו להיות חבריו הצעירים של רבי עקיבא, שאף הוא למד אצל רבי אליעזר (רבי עקיבא היה תלמידו המובהק של רבי יהושע, אך למד גם אצל רבי אליעזר). התלמיד המובהק היחיד של רבי אליעזר, המוכר לנו, הוא רבי אלעאי אביו של רבי יהודה, שהוריש מתורתו לבנו. אבל כאמור, יתר תלמידיו הם עלומי שם. ", + "יש אף להניח שרבי אליעזר השפיע על רבי טרפון שהיה שכנו בלוד, וצעיר היה ממנו בעשור או שניים65רבי אליעזר היה חכם צעיר בסוף ימי הבית ורבי טרפון נער או ילד. . שניהם היו ממשיכי דרכם של בית שמאי, ומן הסתם היו ביניהם קשרים. עם זאת איננו שומעים על קשרים הדוקים ביניהם, ובמקביל איננו מכירים גם את תלמידיו של רבי טרפון (להוציא את רבי עקיבא שלמד גם אצל רבי טרפון). ", + "עוד נעיר שדברי רבי נתן משובצים רבות בתלמוד הבבלי. אמנם בבבלי יותר מילים מאשר בירושלמי, ואכן קל לראות מהטבלה שכל התנאים מופיעים בבבלי יותר מאשר בירושלמי, כראוי לכמות החומר הרבה יותר, אך הגידול בדברי ר' נתן בבבלי (יחסית לירושלמי) גדול יותר. הדבר מלמד על המשך שינון תורתו בישיבות בבל, כיאות למי שגדל בבבל ולימד שם חלק מזמנו. הטבלה66הטבלה מבוססת על פרויקט השו\"ת של אוניברסיטת בר-אילן. יש צורך למיין את האזכורים, שכן לעתים סביב מימרה תנאית אחת נזכר שמו של התנא פעמים מספר. להלן מדגימה את הדבר. דברי רבי שמעון ורבי מאיר מצוטטים בבבלי בערך בשליש יותר מאשר בירושלמי. הדבר מבטא את הבדל הגודל שבין שני התלמודים. אבל דברי רבי נתן מצוטטים בבבלי כמעט פי שלושה מאשר בירושלמי. אנו רואים בכך אות למסירה ישירה של תורתו בישיבות בבל." + ] + ] + ], + "Bibliography": [ + "ביבליוגרפיה וקיצורים", + "מסכת תרומות ", + "אבות דרבי נתן, מהדורת שכטר, ש\"ז, וינה, 1887.", + "אבי-יונה, גיאוגרפיה היסטורית – אבי-יונה, מ', תשכ\"ג, גיאוגרפיה היסטורית, ירושלים.", + "אגדת בראשית, מהדורת ווארשה, תרל\"ו.", + "אגרת רב שרירא גאון, מהדורת לוין, ב\"מ, חיפה, תרפ\"א.", + "אדן, שיחין – אדן ביוביץ, ד', בהכנה, כלי החרס משיחין.", + "אהבת ציון וירושלים, ראטנער, ד', וילנא, תרס\"א-תרע\"ג. ", + "אופנהיימר, בית מדרש – אופנהיימר, א', 1982, \"בית-הכנסת ובית-המדרש והזיקה ביניהם\", קתדרה 18, עמ' 48-45.", + "אופנהיימר, הפרשת מעשרות – אופנהיימר, א', תשל\"ח, \"הפרשת מעשר ראשון במציאות שלאחר חורבן בית שני\", סיני פג, עמ' רסז-רפז.", + "אופנהיימר, מעשרות – אופנהיימר, א', תשכ\"ט, \"הפרשת מעשר ראשון הלכה למעשה בתקופת בית שני\", בתוך: מלמד, ע\"צ (עורך), ספר זכרון לדה-פריס, ירושלים, עמ' 83-70. ", + "אוצר הגאונים, מהדורת לוין, ב\"מ, חיפה וירושלים, תרפ\"ח-תש\"ג; מהדורת צילום, ירושלים, תשמ\"ד. ", + "אור זרוע, רבי יצחק ברבי משה נ\"ע מווינה, מהדורת זיטאמיר, תרכ\"ב.", + "אור שמח, רבי מאיר שמחה הכהן, ירושלים, תשמ\"ב.", + "אורבך, משמרות ומעמדות – אורבך, א\"א, תשל\"ג, \"משמרות ומעמדות\", תרביץ מב, עמ' 327-304.", + "אורבך, סופרים – אורבך, א\"א, תשי\"ח, \"הדרשה כיסוד ההלכה ובעית הסופרים\", ספר היובל לג' שלום, ירושלים, עמ' מ-נו.", + "אורמן, בית המדרש – אורמן, ד', תשמ\"ח, \"בית כנסת ובית מדרש – האחד הם?\", בתוך: אופנהיימר, א' ואחרים (עורכים), בתי-כנסת עתיקים, ירושלים, עמ' 76-53.", + "איגוס, תשובות – איגוס, א\"י, תשי\"ד, \"תשובת גאון ארצי ישראלי\", סורא 1, עמ' 25-17.", + "איגרת אריסטיאס – כהנא, א', תש\"ל, הספרים החיצוניים, ב, עמ' א-עא.", + "איכה רבה, מהדורת באבער, ש', וילנא, תרנ\"ט.", + "אלבק, מבוא – אלבק, ח', תשי\"ט, מבוא למשנה, ירושלים - תל אביב.", + "אלבק, מבוא לתלמודים – אלבק, ח', תשכ\"ט, מבוא לתלמודים, תל אביב. ", + "אלבק, עריכת המשנה – Albeck, Ch., 1936, Untersuchungen Ueber Die Redaction der Mischna, Berlin.", + "אלבק, פירוש – אלבק, ח', תשי\"ב, פירוש לשישה סדרי משנה, ירושלים - תל אביב.", + "אלון, מחקרים – אלון, ג', תשי\"ז-תשי\"ח, מחקרים בתולדות ישראל בימי בית שני ובתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, א-ב, ירושלים.", + "אסתר רבה, קושטא, רע\"ד או ר\"פ.", + "אפיפניוס, על המשקלות ועל המידות – Dean, J.E., 1937, Epiphanius Treatise on Weights and Measures, Chicago.", + "אפלבאום ואחרים, מגדלים – Applebaum, S., Dar, S. and Safrai, Z., 1978, “The Towers of Samaria”, PEF 91, pp. 91-100.", + "אפרון, בר כוכבא – אפרון, י', תשמ\"ד, \"מלחמת בר כוכבא לאור המסורת התלמודית-הארצישראלית כנגד הבבלית\", בתוך: אופנהיימר, א' ורפפורט, א' (עורכים), מרד בר כוכבא מחקרים חדשים, עמ' 105-47. ", + "אפשטיין, מבוא – אפשטיין, י\"נ, תש\"ח, מבוא לנוסח המשנה, ירושלים.", + "אפשטיין, מבואות – אפשטיין, י\"נ, 1957, מבואות לספרות התנאים, ירושלים - תל אביב.", + "אפשטיין, מחקרים – אפשטיין, י\"נ, תשמ\"ד-תשנ\"א, מחקרים בספרות התלמוד ובלשנות שמית, א-ד, ירושלים.", + "אפשטיין, פירוש הגאונים – אפשטיין, י\"נ, תשכ\"ב, פירוש הגאונים למסכת טהרות, ירושלים (תרפ\"א-תרפ\"ד, ברלין).", + "ארבעה טורים, רבי יעקב ברבי אשר, מהדורת וארשה, תרמ\"ב.", + "אשל, קומראן – אשל, ח', תשס\"ד, מגילות קומראן והמדינה החשמונאית, ירושלים.", + "באכר, אגדת אמוראי ארץ ישראל – באכר, ב\"ז, תרפ\"ז, אגדת אמוראי ארץ ישראל, תל אביב.", + "ביובסקי, בר כוכבא – Bijovsky, G., 2004, The Coins in: Magen, Y. et al. (eds.), The Land of Benjamin, Jerusalem, p. 252.", + "ביכלר, הדוסיתאים – Buechler, A., 1901-1902, “Les Dosithees dans le Midrasch”, REJ 42, pp. 220-231; 43, pp. 50-71.", + "ביכלר, טהרת משפחות – Buechler, A., 1956, “Family Purity anf Pamiliy Inputity in Jerusalem before the Year 70 C.E.”, Studies in Jewish History, London, pp. 64-98.", + "ביכלר, מחקרים – Buechler, A., 1956, Studies in Jewish History, London.", + "בן שלום, בית שמאי – בן שלום, י', תשנ\"ד, בית שמאי ומאבק הקנאים נגד רומי, ירושלים.", + "בעל המאור על הרי\"ף, הודפס בתלמוד ש\"ס וילנא.", + "בר, אמוראי בבל – בר, מ', תשל\"ה, אמוראי בבל, רמת גן.", + "בר, הסוס – בר, מ', תשנ\"א, \"רכיבה על סוסים בארץ-ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", קתדרה 60, עמ' 35-17.", + "בר, הר הבית – בר, מ', 1981, \"הר הבית ובית המקדש במשנתו של רשב\"י\", בתוך: אופנהיימר, א' ואחרים (עורכים), פרקים בתולדות ירושלים בימי בית שני, ירושלים, עמ' 375-361.", + "בר, הרובים – בר, מ', תשל\"א, \"מאן אינון הרובים\", סיני סח, עמ' קמד-קנב.", + "בראנד, כלי חרס – בראנד, י', תשי\"ג, כלי החרס בספרות התלמודית, ירושלים.", + "בראשית רבה, מהדורת טהעאדאר-אלבק, הוצאת צילום, ירושלים, 1965.", + "ברודי, רב נטרונאי – ראו תשובות רב נטרונאי בר הילאי גאון.", + "ברונזניק, פיוטי ינאי – ברונזניק, נ\"מ, תשס\"א, פיוטי יניי: ביאורים ופירושים עם הצעות מנומקות לתיקונים והשלמות, ירושלים. ", + "ברלין, כלי חרס – Berlin, A.M., 2002, “Romanization and anti-Romanization in preRevolt Galilee”, The First Jewish Revolt, London, pp. 57-73.", + "גולדברג, מבוא – גולדברג, א', תשכ\"ב-ג, מבוא למשנה ולתוספתא, ירושלים.", + "גולדברג, משנה – Goldberg, A., 1987, “The Mishna – A Study Book of Halakha”, in: Safrai, S. (ed.), The Literature of the Sages, Assen, pp. 211-262.", + "גולדברג, שבת – גולדברג, א', תשל\"ו, פירוש למשנה מסכת שבת, ירושלים.", + "גיאוניקה – (Ginzberg, L., 1968, Geonika, New york (Second Edition.", + "גייגר, מעשרות – גייגר, א', תר\"ט, המקרא ותרגומיו, ירושלים. ", + "גילת, בן שלוש עשרה – גילת, י\"ד, תש\"ן, \"בן שלוש עשרה למצוות\", מחקרי תלמוד א, עמ' 54-39.", + "גילת, גזירה שווה – גילת, י\"ד, תשמ\"ד, \"השתלשלותה של הגזירה השווה\", מלאת ב, עמ' 92-85 (= פרקים, עמ' 372-156).", + "גילת, פרקים – גילת, י\"ד, תשנ\"ב, פרקים בהשתלשלות ההלכה, רמת גן.", + "גילת, ר' אליעזר – גילת, א', תשכ\"ח, משנתנו של ר' אליעזר בן הורקנוס, תל אביב.", + "גינצבורג, ירושלמי – גינצבורג, א', תש\"א, פירושים וחידושים בירושלמי, א-ד, ניוארק.", + "גינצבורג, פירושים – גינצבורג, י\"ל, תשכ\"א, פירושים וחדושים בירושלמי, א-ד, ניוארק.", + "גינצבורג, שרידי ירושלמי – גינצבורג, י\"ל, תרס\"ט, שרידי הירושלמי, נויארק.", + "גליל, שקמה – גליל, י', תשכ\"ו, \"השקמה בתרבות ישראל\", טבע וארץ ח, עמ' 353-228.", + "גפני, ארץ – Gafni, I., 1997, Land, Center and Diaspora, Sheffield.", + "גפני, בבל – גפני, י', תשנ\"א, יהודי בבל בתקופת התלמוד, ירושלים.", + "גפני, מחקר – גפני, י', “תקופת המשנה והתלמוד חקר שנות דור – הישגים ותהיות”, קתדרה 100, עמ' 226-199.", + "גרין, ייחוסים – Green, W.S., 1978, “What is a Name – the Problematic of Rabbinic 'Biography'”, in: idem (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, Missoula, pp. 77-96.", + "די סגני, האל אחד – Di Segni, L., 1994, “Eis Teos in Palestinian Inscription”, Scripta Classica Israelica 13, pp. 94-115.", + "דין, אפיפניוס – Dean, J.E., 1935, Epiphanius' Treatise on Weights and Measures: The Syriac Version, Chicago.", + "דקדוקי סופרים – ראו רבינוביץ.", + "דר, התפרוסת – דר, ש', תשמ\"ב, התפרוסת היישובית של מערב השומרון בימי הבית השני, המשנה והתלמוד והתקופה הביזנטית, תל אביב.", + "דר ואחרים, אום ריחן – דר, ש’, טפר, י’ וספראי, ז’, תשמ”ו, אום ריחן, תל אביב.", + "היטנמייסטר, בית מדרש – היטנמייסטר, ג', 1982, \"בית-הכנסת ובית-המדרש\", קתדרה 18, עמ' 44-38.", + "הכהן, באמת אמרו – הכהן, מ', תשכ\"ג, \"אמרו ובאמת אמרו\", ספר היובל לרבי חנוך אלבק, ירושלים, עמ' 187-177.", + "הלכות גדולות, מהדורת הילדסהיימר, ע', ירושלים, תשל\"ב.", + "הלכות פסוקות מן הגאונים, מהדורת מילר, י', קראקא, תרנ\"ג.", + "הלכות קצובות, מהדורת מרגליות, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ך.", + "וילסון, תמונות - Wilson, W., Picturesque Palestine, Paris, 1890", + "וינר וספראי, מטמונים – וינר, מ' וספראי, ז', 2001, \"מטמונים ומרידות: התפלגות מועדי ההטמנה של מטמוני המטבעות בארץ ישראל בתקופה הרומית-ביזנטית\", קתדרה 101, עמ' 90-71.", + "וכהולדר ואבג, קטעים – Wacholder, B.Z. and Abegg, M.G., A Preliminary Edition of the unpubished Dead Sea Scrolls, Washington I-III, 1991-1992.", + "זולאי, פיוטי ינאי – זולאי, ח', תרצ\"ח, פיוטי יניי: מלוקטים מתוך כתבי הגניזה ומקורות אחרים, ברלין.", + "זוסמן, ברייתת התחומים – זוסמן, י', תשל\"ו, \"ברייתא דתחומי ארץ ישראל\", תרביץ מה, עמ' 257-213.", + "זוסמן, כתובת – זוסמן, י', תשל\"ד, \"כתובת הלכתית מעמק בית שאן – סקירה מוקדמת\", תרביץ מג, עמ' 158-88.", + "זיסו, הישוב – זיסו, ב', תשס\"ב, הישוב הכפרי בהרי ושפלת יהודה משלהי תקופת הבית השני עד לדיכוי מרד בר כוכבא, עבודת דוקטור, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים.", + "זק\"ש, משנה – זק\"ש, נ' (עורך), תשל\"ב, משנה זרעים (עם שינוי נוסחאות), ירושלים.", + "זרטל, סקר – זרטל, א', תש\"ס, סקר מנשה ג, תל אביב.", + "חדושי הר\"ן על מסכתות מגילה ומועד קטן, ירושלים, תשכ\"ו. ", + "חדושים המיוחסים לר\"ן – ראו חדושי הר\"ן.", + "חלופי מנהגים – מהדורת לוין, ב\"מ, אוצר חילוף מנהגים בין בני ארץ ישראל ובני בבל, בני ברק, תשמ\"ז; מהדורת מרגליות, מ', החילוקים שבין אנשי ארץ-ישראל ואנשי בבל, ירושלים, תרצ\"ח. ", + "חליל, כלי אבן – Cahill, J.M., 1996, “The Chalk Vessel Assemblages of the Persian/Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods”, in: De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T. (eds.), Excavations at the City of David, 1978-1985, vol. III (Qedem 33), pp. 190-274.", + "חמדה גנוזה, שניאורזאהן, ש\"ז, ירושלים, תרכ\"ג.", + "חסדי דוד, רבי דוד פארדו, ליוורנו, 1776.", + "טויבש, אוצר הגאונים – טויבש, ח\"צ, תשמ\"ד, אוצר הגאונים למסכת סנהדרין, ירושלים.", + "טור שלחן ערוך – ראו ארבעה טורים.", + "ידין ונוה, מצדה I – Naveh, J. and Yadin, Y., 1989, Masada I: the Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965: Final Reports, Jerusalem.", + "יוסף בן אפרים קארו – ראו ארבעה טורים.", + "יחוסי תנאים ואמוראים, רבי יהודה ברבי קלונימוס משפירא, מהדורת מימון, י\"ל, ירושלים, תשכ\"ג. ", + "ילקוט המכירי, ישעיהו משלי, מהדורת כהנא שפירא, י\"ז, ירושלים, תשכ\"ד.", + "ילקוט המכירי, תהילים, מהדורת בובר, ש', ירושלים, תשכ\"ד.", + "ילקוט המכירי, תרי עשר, מהדורת גראינוף, א', לונדון, 1909.", + "ילקוט שמעוני, מהדורת שילוני, י', ירושלים, תשל\"ג ואילך.", + "ינקלביץ, ייחוס – ינקלביץ, ר', תשמ\"ג, \"משקלו של הייחוס המשפחתי בחברה היהודית בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", בתוך: שטרן, מ' (עורך), אומה ותולדותיה א, עמ' 162-151.", + "יתרון האור, פערלמן, ר' יי\"ל, הודפס במשניות מהדורת וילנא.", + "כסלו, החרחבינא – כסלו, מ', תשנ\"ד-תשנ\"ה, \"לזיהוי החרחבינא והעקרבנים\", לשוננו נח, עמ' 117-105.", + "כסלו, זיזים – כסלו, מ', 1987, \"הזיזים שבעדשים היתושים שבכליסים ותולעת שבתמרים ובגרוגרת\", חלמיש 5, עמ' 95-90. ", + "כשר, כנען – כשר, א', 1988, כנען, פלשת, יוון וישראל, ירושלים.", + "לאו, פלורה – Loew, I., 1928, Die Flora der Juden, Hildesheim.", + "לוי, מילון – Levy, J., 1924, Woerterbuch ueber die Talmudim und Midrashim, Vienna.", + "לוין, מעשים – לוין, ב\"מ, תר\"ץ, “מעשים לבני ארץ ישראל”, תרביץ א א, עמ' 101-79.", + "לחם שמים, רבנו יעב\"ץ, ירושלים, תשי\"ח.", + "ליברמן, יוונים ויוונות – ליברמן, ש', תשכ\"ג (תשמ\"ד), יוונים ויוונות בארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "ליברמן, ירושלמי – ליברמן, ש', תשנ\"ה, ירושלמי כפשוטו, ניו יורק - ירושלים.", + "ליברמן, מחקרים – ליברמן, ש', תשנ\"א, מחקרים בתורת ארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "ליברמן, תוספת ראשונים – ליברמן, ש', תשנ\"ט, תוספת ראשונים, ירושלים - ניו יורק.", + "ליברמן, תוספתא כפשוטה – ליברמן, ש', תשט\"ו-תשמ\"ח, תוספתא כפשוטה, ניוארק.", + "ליטמן ואחרים, כתובות – Littmann, E. et al., 1921, Syria Publication of the Princeton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria, in 1904-1905 and 1909, Leyden.", + "לנדמן, באמת אמרו – לנדמן, ל’, 1975, \"In truth they said\", בתוך: הוניג, ש”ב ואחרים (עורכים), ספר פינקל, ניו יורק, עמ' 138-123.", + "לקוטי הרמב\"ן למסכת תענית לתלמיד מתלמידי הרמב\"ן, שאלוניקי, תק\"ל.", + "מגיד משנה, הודפס על גיליון משנה תורה לרמב\"ם, מהדורת תל אביב, 1959.", + "מגילות מדבר יהודה – Balliet, M. et al. (eds.), 1953-1995, DJD – Discoveries in the Judean Desert, Oxford. ", + "מגילת המקדש – ידין, י', תשל\"ז, מגילת המקדש, ירושלים.", + "מגילת תענית – ראו נעם, מגילת תענית. ", + "מגן, כלי אבן – Magen, Y., 2002, The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period, Jerusalem.", + "מדרש משלי, בתוך: מדרש שוחר טוב, מהדורת כהן, י', ירושלים, תשכ\"ח.", + "מדרש שמואל, בתוך: מדרש שוחר טוב, מהדורת כהן, י', ירושלים, תשכ\"ח.", + "מדרש תהילים (שוחר טוב), מהדורת בובר, ש', וילנא, תרנ\"א.", + "מדרש תנאים לדברים, מהדורת הופמן, ד\"צ, ברלין, 1909-1908. ", + "מדרש תנחומא, קושטא, רפ\"ב ומנטובה, שכ\"ג.", + "מדרש תנחומא-בובר, מהדורת בובר, ש', וילנא, תרמ\"ה.", + "מזר, דבש – מזר, ע', \"המכוורת מתקופת הברזל בתל רחוב: התגלית ומשמעותה\", קדמוניות 136, עמ'", + "90-83.", + "מזר, הרקם – מזר, ב', תשי\"א, \"הרקם והחגר\", תרביץ כ, עמ' 319-316.", + "מזר, טוביה – מזר, ב', תשל\"ד, \"בית טוביה\", בתוך: כנען וישראל, ירושלים, עמ' 389-371. ", + "מחזור ויטרי לרבנו שמחה, מהדורת הורביץ, ש', נירנברג, תרפ\"ג; ד\"צ, ניו יורק, תש\"ך.", + "מילון בן יהודה – בן יהודה, א', 1959, מילון הלשון העברית, ירושלים ותל אביב. ", + "מילר, פאול מסמוסטה – Millar, R., 1971, “Paul of Samosta, Zenobia and Aurelian”, JRS 61, pp. 1-13.", + "מילר, קהילה – Millar, R., 1987, “Community and Culture in the Roman Near East Empire, Greek Syrian, Jews and Arabs”, JJJ 38, pp. 164-193.", + "מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, מהדורת האראוויטץ, ח\"ש ורבין, י\"א, ד\"צ, ירושלים, תש\"ל.", + "מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, מהדורת אפשטיין-מלמד, ירושלים, תשט\"ו. ", + "מלאכת שלמה, פירוש למשנה לרבי שלמה עדני, הודפס בתוך משניות יכין ובועז, ירושלים, תשט\"ז ומהדורות נוספות.", + "מלחמות היהודים, יוספוס פלביוס, מהדורת שליט, א', ירושלים - תל אביב, 1967.", + "מסכת כלה, מהדורת היגער, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ל.", + "מסכת סופרים, מהדורת היגער, מ', ניו יורק, תרצ\"ד.", + "מסכתות זעירות, מהדורת היגער, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ל.", + "מקמילן, לשונות – MacMullen, R., 1990, “Provincial Languages in the Roman Empire”, Changes in the Roman Empire, Princeton, pp. 32-40.", + "מקצת מעשה תורה – (Qimron, E. and Strugnell, J., 1994, Miqsat maase ha-Torah, Oxford (DJD 10.", + "מרגליות, החילוקים – מרגליות, מ', תרצ\"ח, החילוקים שבין אנשי ארץ-ישראל ואנשי בבל, ירושלים. ", + "מרגליות, הלכות ארץ ישראל – מרגליות, מ', תשל\"ד, הלכות ארץ ישראל מן הגניזה, ירושלים.", + "משנה שלמה, ורטהימר, ש\"א, ירושלים, תשנ\"ב.", + "משנת זרעים – ראו זק\"ש, משנה.", + "נאה, אם למסורת – נאה, ש', תשנ\"ב, \"אין אם למסורת או: האם דרשו התנאים את כתיב התורה שלא כקריאתו המקובלת?\" תרביץ סא, עמ' 448-401. ", + "נאמן ואחרים, מפת מכמורת – נאמן, י', ואחרים, תש\"ס, סקר ארכיאולוגי של ארץ ישראל, מפת מכמורת (52), ירושלים.", + "נבו, פגעים – נבו, ד', תשנ\"ב, פגעים בגידולים חקלאיים והדברתם בארץ-ישראל בתקופת המקרא והמשנה, עבודת דוקטור בשכפול, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, רמת גן. ", + "נגד אפיון – כשר, א', תשנ\"ז, נגד אפיון א-ב, ירושלים.", + "נויסנר, ייחוסים – Neusner, J., 1995, “Evaluating the Attribution of Saying to Named Sages in Rabbinic Literature”, JSJ 26, pp. 93-111.", + "נון, דיג – נון, מ', תשכ\"ד, הדיג העברי הקדום, תל אביב.", + "נחמן, ברכה – נחמן, ד', 2002, \"מתי נאמרו ה'ברכות היומיות' בקומראן (Q5034)?\", שנתון לחקר המקרא והמזרח הקדום יג, עמ' 183-177.", + "ניומן, מעשים – ניומן, ה', תשמ\"ז, המעשים לבני ארץ ישראל ורקעם ההיסטורי, עבודה לתואר שני, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים. ", + "נעם, מגילת תענית – נעם, ו', תשס\"ד, מגילת תענית – הנוסחים, פשרם ותולדותיהם, ירושלים.", + "סדר עולם רבה, מהדורת רטנר, ב', ניו יורק, תשכ\"ו.", + "סדר רב עמרם גאון, מהדורת גולדשמידט, ד', ירושלים, תשל\"ב.", + "סירליאון (שירליאון, סיריליאו) רבינו שלמה, תלמוד ירושלמי סדר זרעים, מהדורת הלוי, ח\"י, ירושלים, תשי\"ד-תשכ\"ז.", + "ספר האשכול, מהדורת אלבק, ח', ירושלים, תשד\"ם; מהדורת אויערבך, צ\"ב, האלברשטאט, תרכ\"ו. ", + "ספר הישר, רבנו תם, מהדורת דן, י', ירושלים, תשמ\"ו, מבוססת על הדפוס הראשון, ונציה, שפ\"ה; מהדורת ראזענטהאל, ש\"פ, ד\"צ, ירושלים, תשנ\"ג.", + "ספר המקצועות, מהדורת אסף, ש', ירושלים, תש\"ז.", + "ספר העתים, יהודה בן ברזילי הברצלוני, מהדורת זלוטניק, י\"ל, ירושלים, תש\"ה.", + "ספר הפרדס, מהדורת עהרענרייך, ח\"י, ניו יורק, תשי\"ט.", + "ספר הרוקח, רבי אליעזר מגרמייזא, קרימונה, שי\"ז.", + "ספר יראים השלם, רבי אליעזר ממיץ, מהדורת גולדבלום-שיף, וילנא, תרנ\"ב-תרס\"ב; ד\"צ, ירושלים, תשנ\"ה. ", + "ספר ערוגת הבושם, רבי אברהם ב\"ר עזריאל, מהדורת אורבך, א\"א, ירושלים, תרצ\"ח ואילך.", + "ספר פתרון תורה, (המחבר אינו ידוע), מהדורת אורבך, א\"א, ירושלים, תשל\"ח.", + "ספר ראבי\"ה, רבי אליעזר ברבי יואל הלוי, מהדורת אפטוביצר, א', ירושלים, תשכ\"ד.", + "ספר שני לוחות הברית, רבי ישעיה הורוויץ, פיורדא, תקכ\"ד.", + "ספראי, בימי הבית – ספראי, ש', תשנ\"ד, בימי הבית ובימי המשנה, א-ב, ירושלים.", + "ספראי, בית מדרש – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ב, \"לענין מהותו של בית המדרש בארץ ישראל\", קתדרה 24, עמ' 185-183.", + "ספראי, דבש – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ח, \"גידול דבורים והפקת דבשן בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", ישראל עם וארץ ד, עמ' 224-211.", + "ספראי, הכלכלה – Safrai, Z., 1994, The Economy of Roman Palestine, London.", + "ספראי, הכרעה כבית הלל – ספראי, ש', תשנ\"ד, בימי הבית ובימי המשנה, א, עמ' 405-382.", + "ספראי, הלכה למשה מסיני – ספראי, ש', תש\"ן, \"הלכה למשה מסיני, היסטוריה או תיאולוגיה?\", בתוך: זוסמן, י' ורוזנטל, ד' (עורכים), מחקרי תלמוד, ירושלים, עמ' 38-11 (= בימי הבית, עמ' 578-548).", + "ספראי, העיר – ספראי, ש', תשכ\"ח, \"העיר היהודית בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, החברה ההיסטורית הישראלית\", העיר והקהילה, ירושלים.", + "ספראי, העליה – ספראי, ש', תשכ\"ה, העליה לרגל בימי הבית השני, תל אביב, מהדורה שנייה – ירושלים, תשמ\"ה.", + "ספראי, הקהילה – ספראי, ז', תשנ\"ה, הקהילה היהודית בארץ-ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים.", + "ספראי, חסידות – Safrai, S., 1977, \"The Pharisees and the Hasidim\", Sidic X, 2, pp.12-16.", + "ספראי, טיפול – ספראי, ז', 1990, \"טיפול במערכת הדרכים הכפריות בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", בתוך: קדר, ב\"ז ואחרים (עורכים), פרקים בתולדות המסחר בארץ-ישראל, ירושלים, עמ' 180-159.", + "ספראי, מחלוקת – Safrai, Z., 2010, “An Elusive Sadducean Dispute”, in: Maeir, A., Magness ", + "\tJ. and Schiffman, L. (eds.), Go Out and Study the Land, Leiden, pp. 147-174.", + "ספראי, מצב הישוב – ספראי, ז’, תשמ”ד, “מצב הישוב היהודי בארץ-ישראל לאחר מרד בר-כוכבא”, בתוך: אופנהיימר, א’ ורפפורט, א’ (עורכים), מרד בר-כוכבא מחקרים חדשים, ירושלים, עמ’ 214-182.", + "ספראי, מקדש מעט – ספראי, ז', 1990, \"מבית כנסת למקדש מעט\", ישראל עם וארץ, ז-ח, עמ' 158-149.", + "ספראי, מקורות – Safrai, Z., 1999, “Rabbinic Sources as Historical: A Responce to Professor Neusner”, in: Neusner, J. and Avery-Peck, A. (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity III, 1, pp. 143-167.", + "ספראי, מרכז קהילתי – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"א, \"התפקידים הקהילתיים של בית הכנסת בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד\", ספר זכרון למרדכי ויזר, יבנה, עמ' 248-230.", + "ספראי, משנת חסידים – ספראי, ש’, תשנ”ד, “חסידים ואנשי מעשה”, בימי הבית, כ”ב, עמ’ 539-518.", + "ספראי, פרקי גליל – ספראי, ז', תשמ\"ד, פרקי גליל, ירושלים.", + "ספראי, קהלא קדישא – ספראי, ש', תשי\"ז, \"קהלא קדישא דבירושלם\", ציון כב, עמ' 193-183 (= בימי הבית, עמ' 181-171).", + "ספראי, שביעית – ספראי, ש', תשכ\"ו-תשכ\"ז, \"מצוות שביעית במציאות שלאחר חורבן בית שני\", א-ב, תרביץ לה, עמ' 328-304; לו, עמ' 21-1 (= בימי הבית, עמ' 466-421).", + "ספראי וספראי, הגדת חז\"ל – ספראי, ש' וספראי, ז', תשנ\"ח, הגדת חז\"ל, ירושלים. ", + "ספראי וספראי, חסידים וחכמים – Safrai, Ch. And Safrai, Z., 2004, “Holy Men and Rabbis in Talmudic Antiquity”, in: Poorthuis, M. and Schwartz, J. (eds.), Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, Brill, pp. 45-58. ", + "ספרי במדבר, מהדורת האראוויטץ, ח\"ש, לייפציג, תרע\"ז.", + "ספרי דברים, מהדורת פינקלשטין, א\"א, ברלין, ת\"ש. ", + "ספרי זוטא, מהדורת האראוויטץ, ח\"ש, לייפציג, תרע\"ז.", + "ספרים חיצוניים, מהדורת כהנא, א', ירושלים, תש\"ל. ", + "עמית, מקוואות – עמית, ד', תשנ\"ז, מקוואות טהרה מימי בית שני בהר-חברון, עבודה לתואר שני, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים.", + "עמר, גידולים – עמר, ז', תש\"ס, גידולי ארץ ישראל בימי הביניים, ירושלים.", + "עמר, חגב – עמר, ז', תשס\"ד, “אכילת חגבים: שקיעי תרבות תלמודית בקרב יהודי תימן\", בתוך: טובי, י' (עורך), עטרת יצחק, קובץ מחקרים בתולדות יהודי תימן מוגשים ליצחק קרנר, רמת גן, עמ' 196-177.", + "ערוך השלם, רבי נתן ברבי יחיאל מרומי, מהדורת קאהוט, ח\"י, תל אביב, תש\"ל. ", + "פינקלשטיין, ג', כלי חרס – Finkielsztejn, G., 1999, “Hellenistic Jerusalem: the Evidence of the Rhodian Amphora Stamps”, New Studies on Jerusalem 5, pp. 21-36.", + "פיקירילו, ירדן - Piccirillo, M., 1993, The Mosaics of Jordan, Amman.", + "פירוש הגאונים למסכת טהרות – ראו אפשטיין, פירוש הגאונים.", + "פירוש רבינו עובדיה מברטנורא, נדפס במשניות דפוס וילנא, דפוס צילום, תשל\"ד ומהדורות רבות נוספות. ", + "פליישר, פיוט – פליישר, ע', תשמ”ו, “נוספות לענין משמרות הכוהנים”, תרביץ נה, עמ’ 60-47.", + "פליקס, האורז – פליקס, י', תשכ\"ג, \"האורז בספרות חז\"ל\", בר-אילן א, עמ' 189-177.", + "פליקס, החקלאות – פליקס, י', תש\"ן, החקלאות בארץ-ישראל בימי המקרא המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים.", + "פליקס, זרעים – פליקס, י', תשל\"ד, פרק זרעים, בתוך: מרגליות, מ' (עורך), הלכות ארץ ישראל, ירושלים, עמ' קצא-קצח.", + "פליקס, חזרת – פליקס, י', תשנ\"ה, \"לזיהוי חזרת ותמכה למצוות מרור\", בדד 1, עמ' 90-77.", + "פליקס, כלאים – פליקס, י’, תשכ”ז, כלאי זרעים והרכבה, מסכת כלאים, ירושלים. ", + "פליקס, ספיחים – פליקס, י', תשמ\"ז, ירושלמי שביעית ב, ירושלים, עמ' 416-385.", + "פליקס, עולם הצומח – פליקס, י', 1968, עולם הצומח המקראי, רמת גן - גבעתיים.", + "פליקס, עצי פרי – פליקס, י', תשנ\"ד, עצי פרי למיניהם, ירושלים.", + "פליקס, שבולת השועל – פליקס, י’, תשנ”ג, “לשאלת זיהויה של שבולת השועל”, ספר היובל מנחה לאי”ש (אברהם ישעיהו דולגין), ירושלים, עמ’ 178-171.", + "פליקס, שביעית – פליקס, י', תש\"מ-תשמ\"ז, ירושלמי שביעית א-ב, ירושלים.", + "פסיקתא דרב כהנא, מהדורת מנדלבוים, ד', ניו יורק, תשכ\"ב.", + "פסיקתא זוטרתי (לקח טוב), מהדורת בובר, ש', וילנא, תרמ\"ד. ", + "פסיקתא רבתי, מהדורת איש שלום, מ', וינה, תר\"מ.", + "פרידמן, מעשים – פרידמן, מ\"ע, תשל\"ד, \"שני קטעים מספר המעשים לבני ארץ ישראל\", סיני עד, עמ' יד-לו.", + "פרידמן, תוספתא פסחים – פרידמן, ש\"י, תשס\"ג, תוספתא עתיקתא, רמת גן.", + "פרנקל, יין ושמן – פרנקל, ר', 1984, תולדות יצור השמן והיין בגליל בתקופת התנ\"ך המשנה והתלמוד, עבודת דוקטור, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים.", + "צוקר, רב סעדיה גאון – צוקר, מ', תשי\"ט, על תרגום רס\"ג לתורה: פרשנות, הלכה ופולמיקה בתרגום התורה של ר’ סעדיה גאון, ניו יורק.", + "צפריר ואחרים, טבולה – Tsafrir, Y. et al., 1994, Tabula Imperii Romana, Iudea Palaestina, Jerusalem.", + "קדמוניות היהודים, יוספוס פלביוס, מהדורת שליט, א', ירושלים - תל אביב, 1967.", + "קדמוניות המקרא, הספרים החיצוניים, מהדורת הרטום, א\"ש, תל אביב, תשכ\"ט.", + "קול הרמ\"ז, פירוש הרמ\"ז על המשניות (ר' משה זכותא), ירושלים, תשנ\"ט. ", + "קליין, ארץ הגליל – קליין, ש', תשכ\"ו, ארץ הגליל, ירושלים.", + "קליין, ארץ יהודה – קליין, ש', תרצ\"ט, ארץ יהודה מימי העליה לארץ עד חתימת התלמוד, תל אביב. ", + "קליין, בית מסליס – קליין, ש', תר\"ץ, \"Βεµεσελισ−Βαιταµµισ, Βαιτοµµη”, תרביץ א א, עמ' 144-136. ", + "קנוהל, קבלת קרבנות – קנוהל, י', תשנ\"א, \"פולמוס הכיתות בימי בית שני והאסכולות הכהניות שבתורה: שאלת שיתוף העם בעבודת המקדש במועדים\", תרביץ ס, עמ' 146-139.", + "קצוף, הלכות – קצוף, ר', תשמ\"ה, “הלכות רבי אליעזר ברומא העתיקה”, בתוך: גולינקין, ד' ואחרים (עורכים), תורה לשמה – מחקרים במדעי היהדות לכבוד פרופסור שמא יהודה פרידמן, ירושלים, עמ' 357-344.", + "קרבן אהרן – מדרש ספרא עם פירוש קרבן אהרן, מהדורת נצ\"י, ברלין, ירושלים.", + "רבינוביץ, דקדוקי סופרים – רבינוביץ, רנ\"נ, תש\"כ, דקדוקי סופרים, ירושלים.", + "רבינוביץ, שערי תורת ארץ ישראל – רבינוביץ, ז\"ו, ת\"ש, שערי תורת ארץ ישראל, ירושלים.", + "רבינוביץ, שערי תורת בבל – רבינוביץ, ז\"ו, תשכ\"א, שערי תורת בבל, ירושלים.", + "רוולנדסון, בעלי קרקע – Rowlandson, J., 1996, Landowners and Tenants in the Roman Egypt, Oxford.", + "רות רבה, מהדורת לרנר, מ\"ב, עבודת דוקטור, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים, תשל\"א.", + "ריטב\"א, חדושים למסכת שבת, מהדורת גולדשטיין, מ', ירושלים, תש\"ן.", + "ר\"ן בפירושו לרי\"ף, הודפס בתלמוד ש\"ס וילנא.", + "רשב\"א, חדושים למסכת מגילה, מהדורת דימיטרובסקי, ח\"ז, נויארק, תשט\"ז.", + "שאגת אריה, שו\"ת אריה בן אשר ממץ, ירושלים, תש\"ך.", + "שאילתות דרב אחאי גאון, מהדורת מירסקי, א', ירושלים, תשכ\"א-תשל\"ז.", + "שבלי הלקט, מהדורת באבר, ש', וילנא, תרמ\"ו.", + "שובה, כתובות ירושלים – שובה, מ', תשט\"ז, \"כתובות ירושלים\", בתוך: אבי יונה, מ' (עורך), ספר ירושלים, ירושלים, עמ' 361-358.", + "שומן, כוהנים – Schuman, V.B., 1960, “A Second-Century Treatise on Egyprian Priests and Tempels”, Harvard Theokogical Review 53, pp. 159-170.", + "שטרן, לוח – Stern, S., 2001, Calendar and Community, Oxford.", + "שטרן, סופרים – Stern, M., 1974-1980, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Jerusalem.", + "שיאון, תפרוסת – שיאון, ע', תשס\"א, תפרוסת היישוב במרכז הרי שומרון בתקופה הביזאנטית, עבודת דוקטור, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים.", + "שכטר, קטעי גניזה – Schechter, S., 1898, “Genizah Fragments”, JQR X, p. 636.", + "שמש, מצוות – שמש, א', תש\"ס, \"עיון במצוות התלויות בארץ\", סידרא טז, עמ' 177-151.", + "שערי צדק, מהדורת מודעי, נ', שאלוניקי, תקנ\"ב.", + "שערי תשובה, מהדורת הירש, י\"מ, לייפציג, תרפ\"ח. ", + "שפירא, בית מדרש – שפירא, ח', תש\"ס, \"בית-המדרש בארץ-ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד – המושג והמוסד\", הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות 12, עמ' 60-45.", + "שפרבר, כספים ומחירים – Sperber, D., 1974, Roman Palestine I, Ramat Gan.", + "שרידי ירושלמי – ראו גינצבורג.", + "שרמר, גיל הנישואין – שרמר, ע', תשמ\"ו, \"גיל הנישואים של גברים יהודים בארץ ישראל בתקופת הבית השני, המשנה והתלמוד\", ציון נא, עמ' 66-45.", + "שרמר, נישואין – שרמר, ע', 2004, זכר ונקבה בראם: הנישואים בשלהי ימי הבית השני ובתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים.", + "ששון, אהל דוד – Sasson, D.S., 1932, Ohel David I-II, London. ", + "תוספות יום טוב, נדפס במשניות דפוס וילנא, ד\"צ תשל\"ד, ומהדורות רבות נוספות.", + "תוספות רי\"ד, מהדורת נאטנזאהן, יש\"ה, ירושלים, תשל\"ד.", + "תורתן של ראשונים, מהדורת הורוויץ, ח\"מ, פראנקפורט ע\"מ, תרמ\"ב.", + "תנא דבי אליהו, מהדורת איש שלום, מ', וינה, 1904.", + "תניא רבתי, מהדורת הורביץ, ש', וארשה, 1879.", + "תרגום השבעים – Rahlfs, H. (ed.), 1935, Septuaginta, Stuttgart.", + "תרגום יונתן לנביאים, מהדורת רידר, מ', ירושלים, תשמ\"ד; מהדורת גינזבורגר, מ', ברלין, תרס\"ב; מהדורת שפרבר, א', ליידן, 1959 ואילך; לנביאים וכתובים: כתבי הקדש בארמית, ליידן. ", + "תרגום ניאופיטי – Dies-Macho, A., 1968-1979, Targum Palestinese I-IV, Madrid.", + "תשובות אנשי ארץ-ישראל – בתוך: לוין, ב\"מ (עורך), תר\"צ, גנזי קדם, מאסף מדעי לתקופת הגאונים וספרותם, ד, חיפה, עמ' 50.", + "תשובות גאונים מזרח ומערב, מהדורת מילר, י', ברלין, תרמ\"ח.", + "תשובות גאונים קדמונים, מהדורת קאסעל, ד', ברלין, תר\"ח.", + "תשובות הגאונים אסף – אסף, ש', תרפ\"ט, תשובות הגאונים, ירושלים.", + "תשובות הגאונים החדשות – עמנואל, ש', תשנ\"ה, תשובות הגאונים החדשות, ירושלים.", + "תשובות הגאונים הקצרות – רבינוביץ, מ\"א, תש\"כ, שאלות ותשובות הגאונים, ירושלים.", + "תשובות הגאונים הרכבי – הרכבי, א\"א, תרמ\"ז, זכרון לראשונים וגם לאחרונים, ברלין.", + "תשובות הגאונים מוסאפיה – מוסאפיה, י', תרכ\"ד, תשובות הגאונים, ליק.", + "תשובות הגאונים קורונל – קורונל, נ\"נ, תרל\"א, תשובות הגאונים, וויען.", + "תשובות הגאונים שערי צדק – ראו שערי צדק.", + "תשובות הרמב\"ם, מהדורת בלאו, י', א-ד, ירושלים, תשי\"ח-תשמ\"ו.", + "תשובות מהרי\"ץ גיאת, הוצאת באמבערגער, פירטה, תרכ\"א-תרכ\"ה.", + "תשובות רב נטרונאי בר הילאי גאון, מהדורת ברודי, י', ירושלים, תשנ\"ד.", + "תשובות רב שר שלום, מהדורת וינברג, ר\"ש, ירושלים, תשל\"ו." + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Seder Zeraim, Tel Aviv, 2008-2016", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002609942/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה תרומות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael", + "Seder Zeraim" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה תרומות", + "enTitle": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Terumot", + "key": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Terumot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "מבוא", + "enTitle": "Preface" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + }, + { + "heTitle": "ביבליוגרפיה", + "enTitle": "Bibliography" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file