| { | |
| "title": "Mishnah Temurah", | |
| "language": "en", | |
| "versionTitle": "merged", | |
| "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Temurah", | |
| "text": [ | |
| [ | |
| "<b>Everyone substitutes</b> a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, <b>both men and women.</b> That is <b>not</b> to say <b>that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution; rather,</b> it means <b>that if one substituted</b> a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, <b>the substitution takes effect,</b> and the non-sacred animal becomes consecrated, and the consecrated animal remains sacred. <b>And</b> the one who substituted the non-sacred animal <b>incurs the forty [<i>sofeg et ha’arba’im</i>]</b> lashes. <b>The priests substitute for their</b> own offerings <b>and Israelites substitute for their</b> own offerings. <b>The priests substitute neither for a sin offering, nor for a guilt offering, nor for a firstborn</b> offering that they received from an Israelite, as those animals are not their property, and one does not substitute an animal that is not his. <b>Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: For what</b> reason can priests <b>not substitute for a firstborn</b> offering that they received from an Israelite? Does it not belong to them? <b>Rabbi Akiva said to him: A sin offering and a guilt offering</b> are <b>a gift to the priest, and the firstborn</b> offering is likewise <b>a gift to the priest. Just as</b> in the cases of <b>a sin offering and a guilt offering,</b> priests that receive one of them from an Israelite <b>cannot substitute for it, so too</b> with regard to <b>a firstborn</b> offering, priests that receive it from an Israelite <b>cannot substitute for it.</b> <b>Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: What</b> is this comparison <b>for him? If</b> a priest <b>does not substitute for a sin offering and a guilt offering, which</b> priests <b>do not acquire during</b> the animals’ <b>lifetimes, will you say</b> the same <b>with regard to a firstborn, which</b> priests <b>do acquire during</b> the animal’s <b>lifetime? Rabbi Akiva said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “Then both it and its substitute shall be sacred”</b> (Leviticus 27:10), which juxtaposes the consecration of the consecrated animal with that of its non-sacred substitute? <b>Where is</b> the consecrated animal <b>imbued with sanctity?</b> It is <b>in the house of the owner. So too,</b> the <b>substitute</b> animal is consecrated <b>in the house of the owner.</b> Therefore, the priest cannot substitute for the firstborn that he received because he is not the owner that initially consecrated it. It is written: “He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good; and if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10). The mishna enumerates the consecrated and non-sacred animals this verse applies to. ", | |
| "<b>One substitutes</b> for consecrated animals <b>from the flock</b> of sheep or goats, and the sanctity takes effect <b>upon</b> animals from <b>the herd</b> of cattle, <b>and</b> one substitutes <b>from the herd</b> and the sanctity takes effect <b>upon</b> animals from <b>the flock. And</b> one substitutes <b>from the sheep</b> and the sanctity takes effect <b>upon the goats, and from the goats upon the sheep;</b> and <b>from the males upon the females, and from the females upon the males;</b> and <b>from the unblemished</b> animals <b>upon the blemished</b> animals, and <b>from the blemished</b> animals <b>upon the unblemished</b> animals. The source for this is <b>as it is stated: “He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good”</b> (Leviticus 27:10). <b>And which is</b> the case of <b>good for bad</b> where the substitution takes effect? It is a case where one substitutes for <b>blemished</b> animals <b>whose consecration preceded their blemish.</b> But if an animal was consecrated after it was blemished, substitution for it does not take effect. <b>One substitutes one</b> non-sacred animal <b>for two</b> consecrated animals <b>and two</b> non-sacred animals <b>for one</b> consecrated animal, and one substitutes <b>one</b> non-sacred animal <b>for one hundred</b> consecrated animals <b>and one hundred</b> non-sacred animals <b>for one</b> consecrated animal. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: One substitutes only one</b> non-sacred animal <b>for one</b> consecrated animal, <b>as it is stated: “Then both it and its substitute shall be sacred”</b> (Leviticus 27:10). <b>Just as “it”</b> indicates one <b>specific</b> animal, <b>so too,</b> its substitute can be only one <b>specific</b> animal.", | |
| "<b>One does not substitute</b> non-sacred <b>limbs for</b> consecrated <b>fetuses,</b> i.e., if one says that a certain limb of a non-sacred animal is substituted for a fetus in the womb of a consecrated animal, it is not consecrated. <b>And</b> likewise, one does <b>not</b> substitute non-sacred <b>fetuses for</b> consecrated <b>limbs. And</b> one substitutes <b>neither</b> non-sacred <b>limbs nor fetuses for whole</b> consecrated animals <b>nor</b> non-sacred <b>whole</b> animals <b>for</b> consecrated limbs or fetuses. <b>Rabbi Yosei says: One substitutes</b> non-sacred <b>limbs for whole</b> consecrated animals, <b>but not whole</b> animals <b>for</b> consecrated limbs. <b>Rabbi Yosei said: But isn’t</b> it so <b>with regard to sacrificial</b> animals, that if <b>one says: The</b> hind <b>leg of this</b> animal is <b>a burnt offering, the entire</b> animal is <b>a burnt offering? So too, when he says: The</b> non-sacred hind <b>leg of this</b> animal is <b>in exchange for that</b> animal, <b>the entire</b> animal is <b>a substitute in exchange for it.</b>", | |
| "If <i>teruma</i>, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, was intermingled with non-sacred produce, and it is impossible to distinguish between them, if the ratio of non-sacred produce to <i>teruma</i> was less than one hundred to one, the <i>teruma</i> is not nullified and all the produce is forbidden to those for whom <i>teruma</i> is forbidden. If the mixture was then intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that <b>mixture renders</b> it <b>a mixture</b> of <i>teruma</i> <b>only according to</b> the <b>calculation</b> of the percentage of the original <i>teruma</i> produce in the entire mixture. <b>And</b> dough <b>that was leavened</b> with a <i>teruma</i> leavening agent is forbidden to those for whom <i>teruma</i> is forbidden even if the ratio between the non-sacred and the <i>teruma</i> is greater than one hundred to one. If a portion of that dough was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it <b>leavens only according to</b> the <b>calculation</b> of the percentage of the original leavening agent in the entire dough, and the second dough is forbidden only if the quantity of the original <i>teruma</i> leavening agent inside it is sufficient to leaven it. <b>And</b> if three <i>log</i> of drawn water were poured into a ritual bath with less than forty <i>se’a</i> to complete the requisite forty <i>se’a</i>, the ritual bath is invalidated. But <b>drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation,</b> as explained in the Gemara.", | |
| "<b>And the water of purification</b> of the red heifer <b>becomes water of purification only with</b> the <b>placement of</b> the <b>ashes</b> into the water, but not by placement of water onto the ashes. <b>And</b> one <b><i>beit haperas</i> does not create</b> another <b><i>beit haperas</i>.</b> The Sages decreed ritual impurity on a field in which a grave was plowed, scattering the bones throughout the field. This field is called a <i>beit haperas</i>. That impurity extends to the area of one hundred cubits surrounding the grave. Nevertheless, they did not decree impurity on the second field if one plowed from that field into another field. <b>And there is no <i>teruma</i> after <i>teruma</i>.</b> Once one designates produce from his crop as <i>teruma</i>, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as <i>teruma</i>, it is not <i>teruma</i>. <b>And a substitute</b> animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal <b>does not render</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute;</b> rather, it remains non-sacred. <b>And the offspring</b> born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself <b>does not render</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute. Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute.</b> The Sages <b>said to him: A consecrated</b> animal <b>renders</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute, but the offspring does not render</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute.</b>", | |
| "<b>The birds</b> sacrificed as offerings, i.e., doves and pigeons, <b>and the meal offerings do not render</b> non-sacred items exchanged for them <b>substitutes, as only</b> the term <b>“an animal” is stated</b> with regard to substitution, in the verse: “And if he substitutes an animal for an animal” (Leviticus 27:10). A consecrated animal belonging to <b>the community or</b> to <b>partners does not render</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute, as it is stated</b> in the same verse: <b>“He shall neither exchange it nor substitute</b> it.” One derives from the singular pronoun in the verse that <b>an individual renders</b> a non-sacred animal <b>a substitute, but the community and partners do not render</b> a non-sacred animal <b>a substitute.</b> Items <b>consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render</b> non-sacred items exchanged for them <b>substitutes.</b> <b>Rabbi Shimon said:</b> The fact that animals belonging to the community or partners do not render animals exchanged for them substitutes is derived as follows: The <b>animal tithe was</b> included <b>in</b> the <b>category</b> of all offerings, <b>and why was it</b> singled <b>out</b> in the verse: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred unto the Lord. He shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he substitute for it; and if he substitutes it, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:32–33)? Rabbi Shimon explains: It was singled out to juxtapose substitution to the animal tithe, <b>to tell you: Just as</b> the animal <b>tithe</b> is brought exclusively as <b>an individual offering,</b> so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are individual offerings, <b>excluding communal offerings</b> and the offerings of partners from the <i>halakha</i> of substitution. <b>And just as</b> the animal <b>tithe</b> is <b>an offering</b> sacrificed on the <b>altar,</b> so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are offerings sacrificed on the altar, <b>excluding</b> items <b>consecrated for Temple maintenance</b> from the <i>halakha</i> of substitution." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>There are</b> <i>halakhot</i> in effect <b>with regard to offerings of an individual that are not</b> in effect <b>with regard to communal offerings; and there are</b> <i>halakhot</i> in effect <b>with regard to communal offerings that are not</b> in effect <b>with regard to offerings of an individual.</b> The mishna elaborates: There are <i>halakhot</i> in effect with regard to offerings of an individual that are not in effect with regard to communal offerings, <b>as offerings of an individual render</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering <b>a substitute, and communal offerings do not render</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering <b>a substitute.</b> <b>Offerings of an individual apply to,</b> i.e., can be brought from, <b>both males and females, but communal offerings apply only to males.</b> If <b>offerings of an individual</b> were not brought at the appropriate time, one is <b>obligated to</b> bring <b>their compensation and compensation</b> for <b>their</b> accompanying meal offering and <b>libations</b> at a later date, <b>but</b> if <b>communal offerings</b> were not brought at the appropriate time, one is <b>obligated to</b> bring <b>neither their compensation nor compensation</b> for <b>their</b> accompanying meal offering and <b>libations</b> at a later date. <b>But</b> one is <b>obligated to</b> bring <b>compensation</b> for <b>their</b> accompanying meal offering and <b>libations once the offering is sacrificed.</b> <b>There are</b> <i>halakhot</i> in effect <b>with regard to communal offerings that are not</b> in effect <b>with regard to offerings of an individual, as communal offerings override Shabbat,</b> in that they are sacrificed on Shabbat, <b>and</b> they override <b>ritual impurity,</b> i.e., they are sacrificed even if the priests are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; <b>and offerings of an individual override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.</b> <b>Rabbi Meir said: But aren’t the High Priest’s griddle-cake</b> offerings <b>and the bull of Yom Kippur offerings of an individual, and</b> yet <b>they override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Rather,</b> this is the principle: Any offering, individual or communal, <b>whose time is fixed</b> overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, whereas any offering, individual or communal, whose time is not fixed overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.", | |
| "There is a <i>halakha</i> transmitted to Moses from Sinai that there are five sin offerings that are unfit for sacrifice on the altar and have no remedy and are therefore left to die. They are: The offspring of a sin offering; the substitute for a sin offering; a sin offering whose owner died; a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, when the original sin offering was lost or stolen and later recovered; and a sin offering whose year has passed. The mishna continues the discussion of the distinction between individual and communal offerings. <b>An individual sin offering whose owner achieved atonement</b> with another sin offering after it was lost is left to <b>die, but</b> in the case of <b>a communal</b> sin offering it <b>is not</b> left to <b>die.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> Even a communal sin offering <b>shall</b> be left to <b>die. Rabbi Shimon says: Just as we found with regard to the offspring of a sin offering, and with regard to the substitute for a sin offering, and with regard to a sin offering whose owner died,</b> that <b>these matters apply to an individual</b> sin offering <b>and not to a communal</b> sin offering, <b>so too,</b> in the cases of a sin offering <b>whose owner achieved atonement</b> with another sin offering, <b>and</b> a sin offering <b>whose</b> first <b>year has passed,</b> the <b>matters</b> are <b>stated with regard to an individual</b> sin offering, <b>and not with regard to a communal</b> sin offering.", | |
| "There is greater <b>stringency with regard to sacrificial</b> animals <b>than</b> there is <b>with regard to a substitute, and</b> greater <b>stringency with regard to a substitute than</b> there is <b>with regard to sacrificial</b> animals. The Mishna explains: There is greater <b>stringency with regard to sacrificial</b> animals <b>than</b> there is <b>with regard to a substitute, as sacrificial</b> animals <b>render</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for them <b>a substitute, but a substitute does not render</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute.</b> Furthermore, <b>the community and the partners consecrate</b> animals as offerings, <b>but they do not substitute</b> non-sacred animals for their offerings. <b>And one consecrates fetuses</b> in utero <b>and</b> one can consecrate an animal’s <b>limbs, but one cannot substitute</b> non-sacred animals for them. There is greater <b>stringency with regard to a substitute than</b> there is <b>with regard to sacrificial</b> animals, <b>as,</b> if one substituted a non-sacred blemished animal for an unblemished sacrificial animal, then the animal <b>with a permanent blemish is imbued with</b> inherent <b>sanctity,</b> which is not the case with regard to consecration. <b>And</b> in addition, those blemished animals consecrated through substitution <b>do not emerge</b> from their consecrated status <b>to</b> assume <b>non-sacred</b> status by means of redemption, in terms of it being permitted <b>to shear</b> its wool <b>and to perform labor</b> with it. <b>Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says</b> that there is an additional stringency that applies to substitution but not to consecration: The Torah <b>rendered</b> the status of one who acts <b>unwittingly like</b> that of one who acts <b>intentionally with regard to substitution,</b> as in both cases the substitute is consecrated. <b>But</b> it <b>did not render</b> the status of one who acts <b>unwittingly like</b> that of one who acts <b>intentionally with regard to consecrated</b> items, since unwitting consecration is ineffective. <b>Rabbi Elazar says:</b> An animal crossbred from <b>diverse kinds, and a <i>tereifa</i>, and</b> an animal <b>born by caesarean section, and a <i>tumtum</i></b> animal, <b>and a hermaphrodite</b> animal are <b>not sacred</b> through consecration, <b>and</b> if they were sacred beforehand, e.g., one consecrated an animal and it subsequently became a <i>tereifa</i>, <b>they do not sanctify</b> non-sacred animals by means of substitution." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>These are the sacrificial</b> animals for which the halakhic status of <b>their offspring and substitutes</b> is <b>like their own</b> halakhic status: <b>The offspring of peace offerings, and their substitute</b> animals, and even <b>the offspring</b> of their offspring or their substitute animals, <b>and</b> even <b>the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time [<i>ad sof kol ha’olam</i>]. They are</b> all endowed with the sanctity and halakhic status of <b>peace offerings, and</b> therefore <b>they require placing hands</b> on the head of the animal, <b>and libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh</b> in order to give them to the priest. Although the previous mishna stated plainly that the offspring of a peace offering is itself sacrificed as a peace offering, its status is actually subject to a dispute between the <i>tanna’im</i>. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed</b> on the altar as <b>a peace offering;</b> rather it is sequestered and left to die. <b>And the Rabbis say: It is sacrificed</b> as a peace offering. <b>Rabbi Shimon said:</b> Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis <b>do not disagree</b> with regard to the status <b>of the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering or</b> with regard to the status <b>of the offspring of the offspring of the substitute</b> of a peace offering. In those cases, they all agree <b>that</b> the animal <b>is not sacrificed</b> on the altar as a peace offering. <b>With regard to what</b> case <b>do they disagree?</b> They disagree about the case <b>of the offspring</b> of a peace offering itself. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: It is not sacrificed</b> as a peace offering, <b>whereas the Rabbis say: It is sacrificed.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappeyas testified about the offspring of a peace offering that it is sacrificed</b> as <b>a peace offering. Rabbi Pappeyas said: I testify that we</b> ourselves <b>had a cow</b> that was <b>a peace offering, and we ate it on Passover, and we ate its offspring</b> as <b>a peace offering on</b> a different <b>Festival.</b>", | |
| "<b>The offspring of a thanks offering and the substitute</b> of a thanks offering, and <b>the offspring</b> of the offspring and its substitute, <b>and the offspring of their offspring until the end of all time, they are</b> all <b>like thanks offerings,</b> with the <b>only</b> difference being <b>that they do not require</b> the accompanying <b>loaves,</b> unlike the thanks offering itself. With regard to <b>the substitute of a burnt offering, the offspring of the substitute,</b> e.g., if one substituted a female animal for a burnt offering, and it gave birth to a male, and <b>the offspring of the offspring of its offspring until the end of all time, they are</b> all <b>like burnt offerings and</b> therefore <b>they require flaying and cutting</b> into pieces <b>and</b> must be burned <b>completely in the fire.</b> ", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who designates a female</b> animal <b>as a burnt offering,</b> which may be brought only from males, <b>and</b> that female <b>gave birth to a male,</b> although it is a male, <b>it</b> is left to <b>graze until it becomes unfit [<i>sheyista’ev</i>] and</b> then <b>it is sold, and he brings a burnt offering with</b> the <b>money</b> received for <b>its</b> sale. <b>Rabbi Elazar says:</b> The male offspring <b>itself is sacrificed as a burnt offering.</b> In the case of <b>one who designates a female</b> animal <b>for a guilt offering,</b> which may be brought only from males, <b>it</b> is left to <b>graze until it becomes blemished and</b> then <b>it is sold, and he brings a guilt offering with</b> the <b>money</b> received for <b>its</b> sale. <b>And if</b> in the interim, he designated a male animal and <b>his guilt offering was</b> already <b>sacrificed,</b> so that a guilt offering is no longer needed, the <b>money</b> received for the sale of the blemished female <b>is allocated for</b> communal <b>gift offerings.</b> <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> Since a female is unfit to be sacrificed as a guilt offering, its halakhic status is like that of a blemished animal in the sense that it does not become inherently sacred; rather, its value alone becomes sacred. Therefore, <b>it may be sold without a blemish,</b> and a guilt offering is purchased with the money received for its sale. With regard to <b>the substitute of a guilt offering, the offspring of</b> that <b>substitute, their offspring</b> and <b>the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time,</b> they are all left to <b>graze until they become unfit, and</b> then <b>they are sold, and</b> the <b>money</b> received for the sale <b>is allocated for</b> communal <b>gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> These animals are not left to graze; rather <b>they</b> are left to <b>die. And Rabbi Elazar says:</b> Communal gift offerings are not purchased with the money from the sale; rather, the owner should <b>bring</b> an individual <b>burnt offering with the money</b> received for <b>its</b> sale. These <i>tanna’im</i> similarly disagree about the following case: <b>A guilt offering whose owner died, and</b> a guilt offering <b>that</b> was lost and <b>its owner gained atonement</b> with another animal, <b>graze until they become unfit, and</b> then <b>they are sold, and</b> the <b>money</b> received for the sale <b>is allocated</b> for communal <b>gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> These animals are left to <b>die. Rabbi Elazar says:</b> The owner must <b>bring</b> an individual <b>burnt offering with the money</b> received for <b>its</b> sale. ", | |
| "The mishna objects: <b>But</b> even according to the Rabbis, <b>isn’t a gift offering</b> also <b>a burnt offering? And what</b> then <b>is</b> the difference <b>between the statement of Rabbi Elazar and the statement of the Rabbis? Rather,</b> the Rabbis are referring to a communal burnt offering and Rabbi Elazar is referring to an individual burnt offering, and there are several differences between these two offerings: <b>When</b> the animal <b>comes</b> as an individual <b>burnt offering,</b> the owner <b>places</b> his <b>hands upon it and brings</b> the accompanying meal offering and <b>libations, and its libations</b> come <b>from his</b> own property. <b>If</b> the owner of the animal <b>was a priest,</b> the right to perform <b>its Temple service and</b> the right to <b>its hide are his.</b> <b>And when it is a</b> communal <b>gift offering,</b> the owner of the animal that was sold <b>does not place</b> his <b>hands upon it,</b> as there is no placing of hands for communal offerings, <b>and he does not bring its libations;</b> rather, <b>its libations</b> are brought <b>from</b> the property <b>of the community.</b> Furthermore, <b>although</b> the owner of the animal that was sold <b>is a priest,</b> the right to perform <b>its Temple service and</b> the right to <b>its hide</b> are divided <b>among the members of the priestly watch</b> serving in the Temple that week. ", | |
| "With regard to <b>the substitute of a firstborn</b> offering <b>and</b> the substitute of an animal <b>tithe</b> offering, and the <b>offspring</b> of those substitutes and <b>the offspring of their offspring until the end of time,</b> the halakhic status of <b>these</b> animals <b>is like</b> that of <b>a firstborn</b> offering <b>and like</b> that of an animal <b>tithe</b> offering in that they must be treated with sanctity: They graze until they become blemished, <b>and</b> at that point <b>they may be eaten in their blemished</b> state, the substitute of the firstborn by the priests and the substitute of the animal tithe <b>by</b> their <b>owners.</b> They are not sacrificed upon the altar like the original firstborn and animal tithe offerings. <b>What is</b> the practical difference <b>between a firstborn</b> offering <b>and</b> an animal <b>tithe</b> offering <b>and all the</b> other <b>sacrificial animals?</b> The difference is <b>that all the</b> other <b>sacrificial animals</b> that were blemished and redeemed <b>are sold in the butchers’ market [<i>ba’itliz</i>]</b>, <b>and slaughtered in the butchers’ market, and weighed</b> and sold <b>by the <i>litra</i>,</b> in the manner that non-sacred meat is slaughtered and sold. This is the case with regard to all consecrated animals <b>except for the firstborn and</b> animal <b>tithe</b> offerings, which are sold only from the home and not by the <i>litra</i>. <b>And</b> in addition, all sacrificial animals that became blemished <b>are subject to redemption</b> through sale, at which point the money becomes sacred and the animal becomes non-sacred, <b>and their substitutes</b> are also subject <b>to redemption</b> through sale.This is true for all consecrated animals, <b>except for the firstborn and</b> animal <b>tithe</b> offerings, which are not subject to redemption. <b>And</b> all sacrificial animals <b>come</b> to be sacrificed in the Temple even <b>from outside of Eretz</b> Yisrael, <b>except for the firstborn and</b> animal <b>tithe</b> offerings, <b>which</b> should not be brought from outside Eretz Yisrael <i>ab initio</i>. But <b>if they came unblemished, they are sacrificed</b> in the Temple like a regular firstborn or animal tithe offering coming from Eretz Yisrael; <b>and if they are blemished</b> animals, <b>they may be eaten in their blemished</b> state, the firstborns by the priests and the animal tithes <b>by</b> their <b>owners.</b> <b>Rabbi Shimon says: What</b> is the <b>reason</b> for this last difference between them? It is <b>that the firstborn and</b> animal <b>tithe</b> offerings <b>have a remedy in their place</b> outside Eretz Yisrael, as they can graze until they become blemished and then can be eaten there. It is not necessary to bring them to Eretz Yisrael in order to eat them. <b>But</b> with regard to <b>all other sacrificial animals, even if a blemish develops in them, these</b> animals remain <b>in their sanctity,</b> and one must redeem them and bring another offering with the money of their redemption. Therefore, when they are unblemished it is proper to bring these animals themselves to Eretz Yisrael." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>The offspring of a sin offering and the substitute for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner has died shall</b> be sequestered and left to <b>die. And</b> with regard to a sin offering that is unfit for sacrifice because <b>its</b> first <b>year</b> from birth <b>has passed, and</b> a sin offering <b>that was lost and</b> when it was <b>found,</b> it was <b>blemished, if</b> it was <b>after the owner achieved atonement</b> through sacrifice of another animal as a sin offering, the blemished animal <b>shall die, and it does not render</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute.</b> Furthermore, one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from any of these sin offerings <i>ab initio</i>, <b>but</b> if one derived benefit from them, after the fact, he is <b>not</b> liable to bring a sin offering for <b>misuse</b> of consecrated items. <b>And if</b> the lost animal was found and discovered to be unfit <b>before the owner achieved atonement</b> for his sin with a different animal, <b>it shall graze until it becomes blemished, and</b> then <b>it shall be sold. And he must bring another</b> sin offering <b>with the money</b> received from the sale. <b>And</b> this animal <b>renders</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute, and</b> one who derives benefit from this animal is liable for <b>misusing it.</b>", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who designates a sin offering, and</b> the animal <b>was lost, and he designated another in its stead</b> and sacrificed it, <b>and thereafter the first</b> animal <b>was found;</b> that is a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal, and <b>it shall</b> be left to <b>die.</b> In the case of <b>one who designates money for</b> purchase of <b>his sin offering, and</b> the money <b>was lost,and he designated</b> an animal as <b>a sin offering in its stead,</b> and he sacrificed it, <b>and thereafter, the money was found,</b> it is prohibited to derive benefit from the money, as the money attains the halakhic status of the sin offering that was to be purchased with it, and that sin offering would be left to die because the owner achieved atonement with another animal. Therefore, <b>he must take</b> the money and cast it <b>into the Dead Sea,</b> from where it cannot be recovered.", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who designates money for</b> purchase of his <b>sin offering, and</b> the money <b>was lost, and he designated other money in its stead, and he did not manage to purchase a sin offering with</b> that money <b>before the original</b> money <b>was found, he should bring a sin offering from</b> a combination of <b>this</b> original money <b>and that</b> money designated in its stead, <b>and the remainder shall be allocated for</b> communal <b>gift</b> offerings. In the case of <b>one who designates money for</b> purchase of <b>his sin offering, and</b> the money <b>was lost, and he designated</b> an animal as <b>a sin offering in its stead,</b> and <b>he did not manage to sacrifice</b> the animal <b>before the money was found, and</b> the animal that he designated as <b>a sin offering is blemished,</b> the animal <b>shall be sold; and he brings a sin offering from</b> a combination of <b>this</b> original money <b>and that</b> money received for the sale of the blemished animal, <b>and the remainder shall be allocated for</b> communal <b>gift</b> offerings. In the case of <b>one who designates a sin offering and</b> the animal <b>was lost, and he designated money in its stead, and he did not manage to purchase a sin offering with</b> that money <b>before his sin offering was found, and</b> the animal <b>is blemished,</b> the animal <b>shall be sold; and he brings a sin offering from</b> a combination of <b>this</b> money that he designated <b>and that</b> money received for the sale of the blemished animal, <b>and the remainder shall be allocated for</b> communal <b>gift</b> offerings. In the case of <b>one who designates his sin offering and</b> the animal <b>was lost, and he designated another</b> animal <b>in its stead,</b> and <b>he did not manage to sacrifice</b> the sin offering <b>before the first</b> sin offering <b>was found, and both of</b> the animals <b>are blemished,</b> the animals <b>shall be sold; and he brings a sin offering from</b> a third animal that he buys with a combination of the money from the sale of <b>this</b> animal <b>and</b> from the sale of <b>that</b> animal, <b>and the remainder shall be allocated for</b> communal <b>gift</b> offerings. In the case of <b>one who designates</b> his <b>sin offering and</b> the animal <b>was lost, and he designated another</b> animal <b>in its stead,</b> and <b>he did not manage to sacrifice</b> the sin offering <b>before the first</b> sin offering <b>was found,</b> and <b>both of</b> the animals <b>are unblemished</b> and fit for sacrifice, <b>one of them shall be sacrificed as a sin offering and the other shall</b> be left to <b>die;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi. <b>And the Rabbis say: A sin offering is not</b> left to <b>die unless it was found after</b> its <b>owner achieved atonement; and the money is not taken to the Dead Sea unless it was found after its owner achieved atonement.</b>", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who designates a sin offering and</b> the animal <b>is blemished, he sells</b> the animal <b>and</b> must <b>bring another</b> sin offering <b>with the money</b> received in <b>its</b> sale. <b>Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If the second</b> animal <b>is sacrificed before</b> the first <b>is slaughtered</b> for non-sacred consumption, the first animal <b>shall</b> be left to <b>die.</b> Although it was sold and rendered non-sacred, its status is now that of a sin offering <b>whose owner already achieved atonement</b> with another animal." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>How</b> may <b>one employ artifice to</b> circumvent the obligation to give <b>the firstborn</b> to the priest and utilize the animal for a different offering that he is obligated to bring? The owner approaches <b>an animal</b> that is going to <b>give birth to its firstborn</b> while <b>that</b> animal <b>was</b> still <b>pregnant,</b> and <b>says:</b> That <b>which is in the womb of this</b> animal, <b>if</b> it is <b>male,</b> is designated as a <b>burnt offering.</b> In that case, if the animal <b>gave birth to a male, it will be sacrificed as a burnt offering. And</b> in a case where he says: <b>If it is female,</b> it is designated as a <b>peace offering,</b> if the animal <b>gave birth to a female, it will be sacrificed as a peace offering.</b> In a case where the owner says: <b>If</b> it is <b>male</b> it is designated as a <b>burnt offering, and if it is female</b> it is designated as a <b>peace offering,</b> and the animal <b>gave birth to a male and a female, the male will be sacrificed as a burnt offering and the female will be sacrificed as a peace offering.</b> ", | |
| "If the animal <b>gave birth to two males, one of them will be sacrificed as a burnt offering and the second will be sold to</b> those <b>obligated</b> to bring <b>a burnt offering,</b> who will sacrifice it as a burnt offering; and the <b>money</b> received from <b>its</b> sale is <b>non-sacred.</b> If the animal <b>gave birth to two females, one of them will be sacrificed as a peace offering and the second will be sold to</b> those <b>obligated</b> to bring <b>a peace offering,</b> who will sacrifice it as a peace offering, and the <b>money</b> received from <b>its</b> sale is <b>non-sacred.</b> If the animal <b>gave birth to a <i>tumtum</i>,</b> whose gender is unknown, <b>or a hermaphrodite,</b> which has both male and female sexual organs, both of which are unfit for sacrifice, <b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They are not imbued with sanctity.</b> ", | |
| "<b>One who says: The offspring of this</b> non-sacred animal <b>is a burnt offering and</b> the animal <b>itself is a peace offering, his statement stands,</b> i.e., is effective. If he says: The animal <b>itself is a peace offering and its offspring is a burnt offering,</b> then since consecration of the mother preceded consecration of the offspring, it is <b>the offspring of a peace offering,</b> whose halakhic status is that of a peace offering; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> <b>Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset,</b> to designate the offspring as a burnt offering when he designated the mother as a peace offering, then <b>since it is impossible to call</b> it by <b>two designations simultaneously, his statement stands,</b> and the mother is a peace offering and the offspring a burnt offering. <b>And if</b> it was only <b>after he said: This</b> animal <b>is hereby a peace offering,</b> that <b>he reconsidered and said: Its offspring is a burnt offering, that offspring is a peace offering,</b> as before he reconsidered, the offspring had already assumed the status of the offspring of a peace offering. ", | |
| "If one had two animals standing before him, one a burnt offering and the other a peace offering, and he said with regard to a third, non-sacred animal: <b>This</b> animal <b>is hereby the substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering, that</b> animal <b>is the substitute of the burnt offering.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> Once he designated it as the substitute of the burnt offering, his initial statement takes effect and the animal assumes the sanctity of the burnt offering. <b>Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset,</b> when he said that the animal is the substitute of the burnt offering, to state that the animal is also the substitute of the peace offering, then <b>since it is impossible to call two designations simultaneously,</b> i.e., one must first say one designation and then the other, <b>his statement stands,</b> and the animal is half a burnt offering and half a peace offering. <b>And if</b> it was only <b>after he said:</b> This animal is hereby <b>the substitute of the burnt offering,</b> that <b>he reconsidered and said: The substitute of the peace offering, that</b> entire animal <b>is the substitute of the burnt offering.</b> ", | |
| "This mishna discusses the language that serves to effect substitution. If one said: <b>This</b> non-sacred animal <b>is hereby in place of that</b> consecrated animal, or if he said: It is <b>the substitute of that</b> consecrated animal, or if one said: It is <b>the exchange for that</b> consecrated animal, <b>that</b> non-sacred animal <b>is a substitute.</b> If he said: <b>This</b> consecrated animal <b>is desacralized,</b> with its sanctity transferred <b>to that</b> non-sacred animal, <b>that</b> non-sacred animal <b>is not a substitute.</b> <b>And if the consecrated</b> animal <b>was blemished,</b> and he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, the consecrated animal is desacralized <b>and assumes non-sacred</b> status, by Torah law. By rabbinic law, the owner <b>is required to conduct</b> an appraisal to ascertain the relative <b>value</b> of the two animals. If the consecrated animal was worth more than the non-sacred animal, he must pay the difference to the Temple treasury.", | |
| "If one said: <b>This</b> non-sacred animal <b>is hereby in place of a burnt offering,</b> or: It is <b>in place of a sin offering, he has said nothing,</b> as he did not say that it was in place of a specific offering. If he said: It is <b>in place of this sin offering, or:</b> It is <b>in place of this burnt offering,</b> or if he said: It is <b>in place of a sin offering</b> that I have in the house, <b>or:</b> It is <b>in place of a burnt offering that I have in the house,</b> and <b>he had</b> that offering in his house, <b>his statement stands,</b> i.e., is effective. If he <b>said with regard to a non-kosher animal and with regard to a blemished animal: These</b> animals <b>are hereby</b> designated as <b>a burnt offering, he has said nothing.</b> If he said: <b>These</b> animals <b>are hereby</b> designated <b>for a burnt offering,</b> the animals <b>should be sold, and he brings a burnt offering</b> purchased <b>with the money</b> received from <b>their</b> sale." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "With regard to <b>all</b> animals <b>whose</b> sacrifice <b>on the altar is prohibited,</b> if they are intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is permitted, <b>they prohibit</b> the entire mixture of animals <b>in any amount,</b> regardless of the ratio of permitted to prohibited animals. These are the animals whose sacrifice is prohibited: <b>An animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and the set-aside, and one</b> that <b>was worshipped, and</b> an animal that was given as <b>payment</b> to a prostitute <b>or</b> as the <b>price</b> of a dog, <b>or</b> an animal crossbred from a mixture of <b>diverse kinds, or an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [<i>tereifa</i>], or</b> an animal <b>born by caesarean section.</b> <b>Which is the</b> animal that is <b>set-aside?</b> It is an animal <b>that is set aside for idol worship.</b> The animal <b>itself is prohibited, but that which is upon it,</b> e.g., its jewelry and garments, <b>is permitted</b> to be sold in order to purchase an animal to be sacrificed. <b>And which is</b> the animal that <b>was worshipped?</b> It is <b>any</b> animal <b>that</b> a person <b>worships</b> as an object of idol worship. In this case, the sacrifice of both the animal <b>itself and</b> an animal purchased using the money from the sale of <b>that which is upon it is prohibited. And the consumption of both this,</b> the animal designated for idol worship, <b>and that,</b> the animal worshipped, <b>is permitted.</b>", | |
| "<b>And which</b> is the case of an animal used as <b>payment</b> to a prostitute, which is prohibited as a sacrifice? It is the case of <b>one who says to a prostitute: Here is this lamb as your fee. Even if they were one hundred</b> lambs that he gave her, <b>all of them are</b> considered as payment to a prostitute and are <b>prohibited. And likewise,</b> in the case of <b>one who says to another: Here is this lamb and</b> in return <b>your maidservant will lie with my slave</b> and engage in intercourse with him, <b>Rabbi Meir says:</b> Its halakhic status <b>is not</b> that of <b>payment</b> to a prostitute, <b>and the Rabbis say:</b> Its halakhic status is that of <b>payment</b> to a prostitute.", | |
| "<b>And which</b> is the case where an animal has the halakhic status of <b>the price of a dog,</b> and it is therefore prohibited to sacrifice the animal on the altar? It is the case of <b>one who says to another: Here is this lamb in place of a dog.</b> <b>And likewise,</b> this prohibition applies in the case of <b>two partners who divided</b> their common property, which included nineteen lambs and one dog, and <b>one took ten</b> lambs <b>and</b> the other <b>one took nine</b> lambs <b>and a dog.</b> Sacrifice of the ten lambs taken by the partner <b>in exchange for</b> the nine lambs and <b>the dog is prohibited, and</b> sacrifice of the nine lambs <b>that</b> were taken by the partner <b>with the dog is permitted.</b> With regard to lambs given as <b>payment</b> to another for engaging in intercourse with his <b>dog, or</b> as <b>the price of a prostitute</b> to purchase her as his maidservant, <b>their</b> sacrifice <b>is permitted, as it is stated:</b> “As both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19), from which it is inferred: <b>Two</b> are prohibited, payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, <b>and not four,</b> i.e., the additional two cases of payment for intercourse with a dog and the price of a prostitute, which are permitted. Furthermore, with regard to the two prohibited cases of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, sacrifice of <b>their offspring is permitted,</b> as it is stated <b>“them,” and not their offspring.</b>", | |
| "If one <b>gave money</b> to a prostitute as her payment, it is <b>permitted</b> to purchase an offering with <b>that</b> money, as the money itself is not sacrificed. If he paid her with <b>wine, or oil, or flour, or any</b> other <b>item the like of which is sacrificed on the altar,</b> sacrifice of those items <b>is prohibited.</b> If <b>he gave her consecrated</b> items for her services, <b>their</b> sacrifice <b>is permitted.</b> Since they were already consecrated, they do not belong to him, and one cannot prohibit an item that is not his. If he paid her with non-sacred <b>birds, their</b> sacrifice <b>is prohibited.</b> The mishna elaborates: <b>As, by right, it should be</b> inferred <i>a fortiori</i>: <b>If</b> in the case of <b>consecrated</b> items, <b>which a blemish disqualifies,</b> the prohibition of <b>payment</b> to a prostitute <b>and</b> the <b>price</b> of a dog <b>do not take effect with regard to them;</b> with regard to <b>a bird, which a blemish does not disqualify, is it not right that</b> the prohibition of <b>payment</b> to a prostitute <b>and</b> the <b>price</b> of a dog <b>should not take effect with regard to them?</b> Therefore, <b>the verse states:</b> “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God <b>for any vow”</b> (Deuteronomy 23:19). This serves <b>to include the bird</b> in the prohibition.", | |
| "The mishna adds a principle: With regard to <b>all</b> animals <b>whose</b> sacrifice <b>on the altar is prohibited,</b> sacrifice of <b>their offspring is permitted. Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [<i>tereifa</i>]shall not be sacrificed on the altar. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: A kosher</b> animal <b>that suckled from a <i>tereifa</i> is disqualified from</b> sacrifice <b>on the altar.</b> With regard to <b>all sacrificial</b> animals <b>that became <i>tereifot</i>, one may not redeem them</b> and render them non-sacred, <b>as</b> their consumption is forbidden and <b>one does not redeem sacrificial</b> animals <b>to feed them to dogs,</b> as this is considered a degradation of sacrificial animals." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>There are</b> elements that apply <b>to</b> animals <b>consecrated for the altar that do not</b> apply <b>to</b> items <b>consecrated for Temple maintenance, and there are</b> elements that apply <b>to</b> items <b>consecrated for Temple maintenance that do not</b> apply <b>to</b> animals <b>consecrated for the altar.</b> One element exclusive to animals consecrated for the altar is <b>that</b> animals <b>consecrated for the altar render</b> an animal exchanged for them <b>a substitute, and</b> items <b>consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render</b> an animal exchanged for them <b>a substitute.</b> In addition, if one slaughters an animal <b>consecrated for the altar</b> with the intention to eat it beyond its designated time, or if he ate the offering after its designated time, or if he ate the offering while ritually impure, <b>he is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for eating it due to</b> violation of the prohibitions of <b><i>piggul</i>, <i>notar</i>, and</b> eating while <b>ritually impure,</b> respectively. If animals consecrated for the altar became pregnant and then became blemished and gave birth after redemption, <b>their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside</b> the Temple courtyard is <b>liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i>. And the Temple treasurer <b>does not give compensation to craftsmen from</b> money designated for purchasing animals consecrated for the altar. And in all these instances, <b>that is not so with regard to</b> money <b>consecrated for Temple maintenance.</b>", | |
| "<b>There are</b> elements that apply <b>to</b> items <b>consecrated for Temple maintenance</b> that do not apply to animals consecrated for the altar, in <b>that unspecified consecrations are</b> designated <b>for Temple maintenance; consecration for Temple maintenance takes effect on all</b> items; <b>and one</b> is liable to bring a guilt offering and pay an additional payment of one-fifth for <b>misuse</b> of consecrated property, not only for the items themselves, but <b>for their by-products,</b> e.g., milk of a consecrated animal or eggs of a consecrated chicken; <b>and there is no benefit for the owner</b> from items consecrated for Temple maintenance, in contrast to some animals consecrated for the altar, e.g., a peace offering, from which there is benefit for the owner.", | |
| "While the previous mishna enumerated differences between consecration for the altar and consecration for Temple maintenance, this mishna enumerates <i>halakhot</i> that apply to both. With regard to <b>both</b> animals <b>consecrated for the altar and</b> items <b>consecrated for Temple maintenance, one may not alter their</b> designation <b>from</b> one form of <b>sanctity to</b> another form of <b>sanctity. But one may consecrate</b> animals already <b>consecrated</b> for the altar by <b>a consecration of</b> their <b>value,</b> and that value is donated to the Temple treasury for maintenance. <b>And one may dedicate them</b> for the purpose of giving their value to the priests. <b>And if</b> animals consecrated either for the altar or for Temple maintenance <b>died, they must be buried. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> Although that is the <i>halakha</i> with regard to animals consecrated for the altar, <b>if</b> animals <b>consecrated for Temple maintenance died, they can be redeemed.</b>", | |
| "<b>And these are the</b> items <b>that are buried</b> from which deriving benefit is forbidden: In the case of <b>a sacrificial</b> animal <b>that miscarried,</b> the fetus <b>shall be buried.</b> If the animal <b>miscarried a placenta,</b> the placenta <b>shall be buried. And</b> the same <i>halakha</i> applies to <b>an ox that is stoned</b> for killing a person; <b>and a heifer whose neck is broken</b> when a corpse is found between two cities and the killer is unknown; <b>and the birds</b> brought <b>by a leper</b> for purification; <b>and the hair of a nazirite</b> who became ritually impure, who shaves his head before beginning a new term of naziriteship. <b>And</b> the same <i>halakha</i> applies to <b>the firstborn of a donkey</b> that, if it is not redeemed with a sheep, has its neck broken; <b>and</b> a forbidden mixture <b>of meat</b> cooked <b>in milk; and non-sacred</b> animals <b>that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred</b> animals <b>that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned,</b> like sacrificial animals that were disqualified in the courtyard. <b>And likewise, an undomesticated animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard,</b> although it is not similar to the animals sacrificed in the Temple, shall be burned by rabbinic decree.", | |
| "<b>And these are the</b> items <b>that are burned: Leavened bread on Passover shall be burned. And</b> the same <i>halakha</i> applies to <b>ritually impure <i>teruma</i>. And</b> with regard to <b>the fruit that grows on a tree during the three years after it was planted [<i>orla</i>], and diverse kinds</b> of food crops sown <b>in a vineyard, those</b> items <b>whose</b> appropriate <b>manner</b> of destruction <b>is to be burned,</b> e.g., foods, <b>shall be burned; and those</b> items <b>whose</b> appropriate <b>manner</b> of destruction <b>is to be buried,</b> e.g., liquids, <b>shall be buried. And one</b> may <b>ignite</b> a fire <b>with bread and with oil of</b> impure <b><i>teruma</i>,</b> even though the priest derives benefit from that fire. ", | |
| "And with regard to <b>all sacrificial</b> animals <b>that were slaughtered</b> with the intent to sacrifice or consume them <b>beyond their</b> designated <b>time or outside their</b> designated <b>place, those</b> animals <b>shall be burned.</b> With regard to <b>a provisional guilt offering</b> brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that renders him liable to bring a sin offering, if he discovers that he did not sin, the offering <b>shall be burned,</b> as its legal status is like that of an unfit offering. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall be buried. A sin offering of the bird that comes due to an uncertainty,</b> e.g., in the case of a woman who miscarried and she is uncertain whether it was a fetus, <b>shall be burned,</b> as it may not be eaten due to the uncertainty and because the nape of its neck was pinched and it was not slaughtered. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: One should cast it into the</b> Temple courtyard <b>drain,</b> as the young bird will decompose and be drawn into the stream outside the Temple. The principle is: <b>All</b> items <b>that are buried shall not be burned, and all</b> items <b>that are burned shall not be buried. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one wished to impose a stringency upon himself</b> by <b>burning</b> items <b>that are</b> to be <b>buried,</b> he is <b>permitted</b> to burn them. The Rabbis <b>said to</b> Rabbi Yehuda: <b>One is not permitted to change</b> the method of destruction, as this could lead to a leniency, since it is permitted to derive benefit from the ashes of items that require burning, whereas it is not permitted to derive benefit from the ashes of items that require burial." | |
| ] | |
| ], | |
| "versions": [ | |
| [ | |
| "William Davidson Edition - English", | |
| "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1" | |
| ] | |
| ], | |
| "heTitle": "משנה תמורה", | |
| "categories": [ | |
| "Mishnah", | |
| "Seder Kodashim" | |
| ], | |
| "sectionNames": [ | |
| "Chapter", | |
| "Mishnah" | |
| ] | |
| } |