e7829351efab86003a02cc09bcdcca169a14abe320c940934bc1c908fe0f0470

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Moed/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Megillah/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Megillah",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה מגילה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Preface": [],
+        "": [
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "<b>And to read [the] Hallel:</b> On the holidays and on the eight days of Chanukkah, and as it is said in the Tosefta Sukkah (3:2), \"On eighteen days in the year and one night do we read the Hallel. These are the eight days of the festival,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">451</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is the festival of Sukkot, as it is frequently referred to as simply the festival in Talmudic literature.</i>the eight days of Hanukkah, the first holiday of Passover and its night, and the holiday of Shavuot.\"<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">452</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Yerushalmi, Sukkah 54c (Chapter 4), the baraita is cited with minor differences in its order and wording. In the Bavli, Taanit 28b and Arakhin 10a, this [appears as] a statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak.</i>The origin of the Hallel was in the Temple on holidays, and it was accompanied by musical instruments used all the other days of the year, but with the addition of the flute, as the mishnah in Arakhin teaches, \"On twelve days in the year the flute plays before the altar.\" (Arakhin 2:3). And in the Gemara there, it explains the reason for this law: \"Since an individual<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">453</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the explanation of the Geonim, see Otzar HaGeonim on Taanit in the Responsa section, p. 39.</i>finishes the Hallel (Arakhin 10a). It is true that they recited the Hallel on Chanukkah in the Temple.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">454</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Chapter 4 of Taanit, it is said that there is no representation (<i>maamad</i>) for the morning service, and that is the gathering of Israelites that come up from their cities to the Temple, together with a delegation of local priests; and they gather for prayer and the reading of the Torah in the Temple. If it is a day that includes Hallel (i.e. Chanukkah), they do not conduct the representation during the morning service. If it includes an additional sacrifice (as on Rosh Chodesh), they do not conduct the representation's closing prayer service (<i>neilah</i>). If there is a sacrifice of wood, they do not conduct the representation's afternoon prayer service (<i>minchah</i>). In mishnah 5 there, it says that there was no representation on the first day of Tevet, meaning the representation of priests, Levites and Israelites that sojourned in the Temple as representatives of the people and were present at the offering of the communal sacrifices. And that is because there was Hallel on it (because of Chanukkah, for they did not say Hallel on Rosh Chodesh in the land of Israel), and an additional sacrifice (as it was Rosh Chodesh) and a sacrifice of wood (it was one of the times for the offering of wood enumerated by the mishnah).</i>However they did not play the flute. Perhaps that is because the festival of Chanukkah was only added at the time of the Second Temple, at which time the practices of the instruments were already set; or because they sought to distinguish between the earlier holidays, which are from the Torah, and the days of Chanukkah, which are not from the Torah. Hallel went from being the service of God in the Temple to the divine service in the synagogue, as is reflected in the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, \"The eighteen days that the individual completes the Hallel.\" For \"the individual,\" is as opposed to the Jewish people in the Temple. The reading of Hallel mentioned in the mishnah may have intended the reading of Hallel in the Temple as well as that in the synagogue."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Appendix 1": [],
+        "Appendix 2": [],
+        "Bibliography": []
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה מגילה",
+        "enTitle": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Megillah",
+        "key": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Megillah",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "מבוא",
+                "enTitle": "Preface"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "נספח א",
+                "enTitle": "Appendix 1"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "נספח ב",
+                "enTitle": "Appendix 2"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "ביבליוגרפיה",
+                "enTitle": "Bibliography"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Moed/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Megillah/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+    "title": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Megillah",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnat_Eretz_Yisrael_on_Mishnah_Megillah",
+    "text": {
+        "Preface": [],
+        "": [
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "<b>And to read [the] Hallel:</b> On the holidays and on the eight days of Chanukkah, and as it is said in the Tosefta Sukkah (3:2), \"On eighteen days in the year and one night do we read the Hallel. These are the eight days of the festival,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">451</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is the festival of Sukkot, as it is frequently referred to as simply the festival in Talmudic literature.</i>the eight days of Hanukkah, the first holiday of Passover and its night, and the holiday of Shavuot.\"<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">452</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Yerushalmi, Sukkah 54c (Chapter 4), the baraita is cited with minor differences in its order and wording. In the Bavli, Taanit 28b and Arakhin 10a, this [appears as] a statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak.</i>The origin of the Hallel was in the Temple on holidays, and it was accompanied by musical instruments used all the other days of the year, but with the addition of the flute, as the mishnah in Arakhin teaches, \"On twelve days in the year the flute plays before the altar.\" (Arakhin 2:3). And in the Gemara there, it explains the reason for this law: \"Since an individual<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">453</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the explanation of the Geonim, see Otzar HaGeonim on Taanit in the Responsa section, p. 39.</i>finishes the Hallel (Arakhin 10a). It is true that they recited the Hallel on Chanukkah in the Temple.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">454</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Chapter 4 of Taanit, it is said that there is no representation (<i>maamad</i>) for the morning service, and that is the gathering of Israelites that come up from their cities to the Temple, together with a delegation of local priests; and they gather for prayer and the reading of the Torah in the Temple. If it is a day that includes Hallel (i.e. Chanukkah), they do not conduct the representation during the morning service. If it includes an additional sacrifice (as on Rosh Chodesh), they do not conduct the representation's closing prayer service (<i>neilah</i>). If there is a sacrifice of wood, they do not conduct the representation's afternoon prayer service (<i>minchah</i>). In mishnah 5 there, it says that there was no representation on the first day of Tevet, meaning the representation of priests, Levites and Israelites that sojourned in the Temple as representatives of the people and were present at the offering of the communal sacrifices. And that is because there was Hallel on it (because of Chanukkah, for they did not say Hallel on Rosh Chodesh in the land of Israel), and an additional sacrifice (as it was Rosh Chodesh) and a sacrifice of wood (it was one of the times for the offering of wood enumerated by the mishnah).</i>However they did not play the flute. Perhaps that is because the festival of Chanukkah was only added at the time of the Second Temple, at which time the practices of the instruments were already set; or because they sought to distinguish between the earlier holidays, which are from the Torah, and the days of Chanukkah, which are not from the Torah. Hallel went from being the service of God in the Temple to the divine service in the synagogue, as is reflected in the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, \"The eighteen days that the individual completes the Hallel.\" For \"the individual,\" is as opposed to the Jewish people in the Temple. The reading of Hallel mentioned in the mishnah may have intended the reading of Hallel in the Temple as well as that in the synagogue."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Appendix 1": [],
+        "Appendix 2": [],
+        "Bibliography": []
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה מגילה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה מגילה",
+        "enTitle": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Megillah",
+        "key": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Megillah",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "מבוא",
+                "enTitle": "Preface"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "נספח א",
+                "enTitle": "Appendix 1"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "נספח ב",
+                "enTitle": "Appendix 2"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "ביבליוגרפיה",
+                "enTitle": "Bibliography"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Moed/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Rosh Hashanah/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה ראש השנה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Preface": [],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "<b>On the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai; [according to] Beit Hillel, on the fifteenth of it:</b> The fifteenth day of Shevat was not known as a day of any festive significance; and its appearance on the list of new years in the mishnah does not indicate its festive or special status on the Jewish calendar. It only appears in the mishnah as a technical date for the demarcation of tithes: A fruit that has formed before the fifteenth of Shevat is considered [to belong] to the previous year, and we separate the tithes that pertain to that year (the poor tithe or the second tithe). And in the sabbatical year, fruit that have formed before the fifteenth of Shevat are considered mundane fruit, whereas the laws of the sabbatical year apply to the fruit that have formed after the fifteenth of Shevat. The law concerning a citron <i>etrog</i>) is different, in that we go according to its plucking (as is the law with a vegetable); so if it was plucked before the fifteenth of Shevat, the laws of the previous year apply to it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Tosefta Rosh Hashanah 1:8; Tosefta Terumot 2:6 and the sources parallel to it. See the previous note.</i> In the Talmuds<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Tosefta Sheviit 4:20; Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 57a; Bavli Rosh Hashanah 14b. And there, there is someone who explains that Rabbi Akiva took this position in a different disagreement, the one taught in Bikkurim 2:6. And we will explain it when the time comes, if the One who grants man knowledge allows us to merit it.</i> a story is cited about Rabbi Akiva, who would act according to both the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and separated both tithes. This is an additional indication that the determination of the halakha according to Beit Hillel was not a comprehensive and uniform decision, but rather the outcome of a long process; whereas the results of each disagreement [were decided] individually.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Sifrai, \"The Decision is According to Beit Hillel.\" </i>",
+                    "The Talmuds explain why the month of Shevat was chosen: \"Most of the rain of the year as a whole have already gone out, and most of the season (i.e., winter) has already come\" (Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 57a).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Regarding the discussion of Tu Bishvat during the Talmudic period more generally, see Felix, <i>Tu Bishvat</i>.\"</i> It is true that the middle of the rainy season has already passed in Shevat - and even the middle of the winter season, according to the traditional division of the year into four seasons. Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why specifically the middle of the season was chosen, and not its beginning nor its end. This elucidation is repeated in the Bavli in a slightly different form: \"And most of the season  is yet to come\" (Rosh Hashanah 14b). The difference between the Talmuds  testifies to the difference in the division of the year in Babylonia as opposed to the Land of Israel. However, this does not explain the actual choice of this date as the new year for the trees. A different answer in the Yerushalmi is that, up until then, the fruit subsist from the rains of the previous year. This answer seems to only be poetic - the water in the ground dries up during the course of the summer, such that there is no significance at all to the month of Shevat [in this regard].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A responsum of a gaon (Otzar HaGaonim, Rosh Hashanah, p. 23) connects Tu Bishvat to the \"second coal\" of the water. According to this understanding, there are three groupings of rain showers during the season. The gaon testifies to such a phenomenon in Babylonia, and Felix testifies to the existence of its awareness among traditional Hebrew Arab peasants (Felix, <i>Tu Bishvat</i>, pp. 356-357).</i> ",
+                    "As we shall see later, the ancient division found in the Torah divided the year into six parts. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, enumerate the six different parts, such that Tu Bishvat is the end of the winter season.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Tosefta Taanit 1:7; Bavli Bava Metzia 106b; Bereishit Rabbah 34:11, p. 322.</i> Rabbi Shimon begins the count of the year from Tishrei, so then the end of the winter season is Rosh Chodesh (the first day of) Shevat. It is likely that the root of the difference between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai is to be found in this, such that we could denote the footprints here of the ancient division of the year. As we shall see later, Tu Bishvat lost its significance; and the division of the year into six parts likewise did not return. Instead, it was replaced by the year's division into four parts (see later). It is likely that these two processes were connected to one another: With the proliferation of the division of the year into four seasons, Tu Bishvat lost its status and, eventually, its halakhic significance as well.",
+                    "From an agricultural perspective, the month of Shevat is a 'dead' month. On account of the winter, most trees are still in a state of hibernation and only a few have begun to bloom. There is no realistic background to the modern folksong, \"Tu Bishvat has arrived, the holiday of the trees.\" The month of Shevat was not chosen because the blossoming [of trees] begins in it, but rather just the opposite - because it is the most distinct boundary between the years, the season of the yield has just ended and the season of blossoming has not yet begun. ",
+                    "In the Amoraic literature, there is also an opinion cited that the new year of the tree is [the same as] the general new year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Yerushalmi Sheviit 5:1 (35d); and see Felix, <i>Tu Bishvat</i>, pp. 377-378.</i> In the Yerushalmi, a late tradition is also brought down in the name of \"there they say,\" that designates the first of Tishrei as the new year for the trees. This expression (there they say) usually relates to the halakhah in Babylonia, however this law is not mentioned in the Bavli at all.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There is perhaps an echo of this opinion  in the Bavli, Rosh Hashanah 14b-15a, as Rabbah bar Rav Huna does indeed say that the new year of the <i>etrog</i> is in [Tishrei]. However the Gemara rejects this. See Felix, p. 103.</i> Moreover, from the discussion in the Yerushalmi, it appears that this law was known and practiced in the Land of Israel. [However,] it appears that, “there they say,” is only a term for the citation of a statement from the study hall of Caesarea (or from another study hall that was outside of the Galilee).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“There they say,” could also be the opening of passage from another discussion arranged [elsewhere].</i> Regardless, it stands to reason that the uniqueness of Tu Bishvat was lost with this.",
+                    "A series of lease contracts from the time of Bar Kokhva were found in the caves of the Judean Desert. In all of them, the timing of the lease was from the twentieth of Shevat until the sabbatical year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Letters of the Judean Desert</i> 24. This is a long document that includes copies of several contracts for the lease of grain fields which may have also had trees in them.</i> [Yet] the field worker finds himself in the middle of the season on the twentieth of Shevat. No one would plant a field, since the termination of his lease is on the nineteenth of Shevat. No one would lease a field on the twentieth of Shevat, since it is already too late to sow his field; whereas the management would take efforts not to lose a year of planting and would concern itself with leasing out the field before the planting season. [Hence] it is reasonable to assume that the contract signifies a long term lease, such that the twentieth of Shevat is the day of the lease contract’s renewal, something which was assumed by both sides from the start. The twentieth of Shevat was chosen because it was after Tu Bishvat. That being the case, both sides are giving notice that they are aware about the distribution of the tithes from the fruit, which is determined by the fruit being  picked before Tu Bishvat or after it.",
+                    "As mentioned, Tu Bishvat does not appear as a holiday during the Talmudic period; and even its uniqueness as a time for the designation of tithes was annulled. The first indication of this day's designation as a holiday is perhaps the Targum Sheni on Esther 2:7. According to the verse, Haman drew lots and chose the month of Adar. The midrash recounts that every month held a merit for the Jewish people; and the merit of the month of Shevat was its being the new year for the trees. The liturgical poets of the Land of Israel left us two poems for Tu Bishvat. However there is no evidence in them about holiday practices or any special commemoration of that day. The poet composed [his work] based upon the mishnah. The first hymn, \"Your utterance is truth in Your speaking,\" is attributed to Yehudah HaLevi [bar Hillel] (a liturgical poet of the Land of Israel whose time is uncertain), and is a hymn that enumerates the months and the constellations (starting, of course, from the month of Nissan). It is dedicated to the new year for the tree. But beyond that, there are no contents that are particular to this festive day. Even in the stanza that is dedicated to this month, no special note of the new year for the trees or of its significance is found.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Zulai, <i>The Liturgical Poems of the Land of Israel</i>, pp. 200-206.</i> The second liturgical poem, \"Adar, let flow the flows of salvation,\" written by the same poet, is also dedicated to the new year for the trees and includes prayers for the blossoming of various trees in alphabetical order. The choice of trees is based only upon the alphabet, such that it includes trees of secondary importance like the plane-tree (<i>dolev</i>) and the ricinus (<i>kikayon</i>). The whole thing appears to be a word game without any real agricultural grounding.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Zulai, pp. 206-212.</i> This being the case, the liturgical poems of the new year for the trees do not testify to festivities or special prayers on this day; and were supposed to develop exclusively from literary analysis of the mishnah.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So too should the liturgical poems about Tu BeAv be understood: They are not testimony to the continuation of the well known holiday from the Second Temple period, but rather a literary work based exclusively upon the mishnah; an incarnation of the literary tradition’s perpetuation and not a true holiday. And see our commentary on Mishnah Taanit 4 at the end.</i> In other liturgical poems enumerating the months of the year, the month of Shevat does not have any special character; and the new year for the trees does not appear as an event on the Jewish calendar. Accordingly, in one of the liturgical poems in the holiday prayer book (<i>machzor</i>) of the Land of Israel, for example, the months of Tevet and Shevat are mentioned without the designation of any significant event happening during those two months.<i class=\"footnote\">content</i> <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Yahalom, <i>The Holiday Prayer Book of the Land of Israel</i>, p. 48.</i> From here we see that in the days of the poet, Tu Bishvat had not yet turned into a festive day. The same is true of the liturgical poem made famous by Fleischer in which all of the events of each month are enumerated, and the month of Shevat is not mentioned at all.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Fleischer, <i>The Head of the New Months</i>, p. 54.</i> It can then be concluded that they did not commemorate Tu Bishvat in the Land of Israel at all, and that it only had minor significance in Babylonia.",
+                    "The oldest indication of Tu Bishvat’s designation as a festive day is a responsum of Rabbenu Gershom, light of the exile, who already mentions the day as one on which it is forbidden to fast.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Seder Troyes</i> 2. The attribution to Rabbenu Gershom is found in <i>Shu’t Maharam of Rothenburg</i> (Prague edition) 5, ff.</i> However its main importance today came about with the blossoming of the Kabbalah. As part of the renewal of their ties and attachment to the spiritual and actual Land of Israel, the Kabbalists turned it into a holiday.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Regarding this, see Halamish and Ravitsky, <i>The Land of Israel</i>.</i> From then on, this festive day is observed throughout Israel. In the communal consciousness, the holiday has become connected with the Land of Israel - as an expression of the longing for, and of the attachment to, the Land of Israel.",
+                    "In conclusion: The wording of our mishnah is a later one that tires to include all of the dates. The wording of the mishnah reads as if the law was agreed upon, even though almost all of its decisions are grounded in disagreements. It appears however, that what we have in front of us is a stylistically unique phenomenon reflecting a slightly different redaction than that which is common in the Mishnah. The first four mishnahs in the chapter deal with counts: Four new years, five time periods, six months, etc. For that reason, the Mishnah ignores the various disagreements, and even changes in the law like that which we saw with relation to Tu BiShevat. In any event, most of the laws are technical, and the possibility of two explanations only pertains to a few of them."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Appendix 1": [],
+        "Appendix 2": [],
+        "Bibliography": []
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה ראש השנה",
+        "enTitle": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+        "key": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "מבוא",
+                "enTitle": "Preface"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "נספח א",
+                "enTitle": "Appendix 1"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "נספח ב",
+                "enTitle": "Appendix 2"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "ביבליוגרפיה",
+                "enTitle": "Bibliography"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael/Seder Moed/Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Rosh Hashanah/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+{
+    "title": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnat_Eretz_Yisrael_on_Mishnah_Rosh_Hashanah",
+    "text": {
+        "Preface": [],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "<b>On the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai; [according to] Beit Hillel, on the fifteenth of it:</b> The fifteenth day of Shevat was not known as a day of any festive significance; and its appearance on the list of new years in the mishnah does not indicate its festive or special status on the Jewish calendar. It only appears in the mishnah as a technical date for the demarcation of tithes: A fruit that has formed before the fifteenth of Shevat is considered [to belong] to the previous year, and we separate the tithes that pertain to that year (the poor tithe or the second tithe). And in the sabbatical year, fruit that have formed before the fifteenth of Shevat are considered mundane fruit, whereas the laws of the sabbatical year apply to the fruit that have formed after the fifteenth of Shevat. The law concerning a citron <i>etrog</i>) is different, in that we go according to its plucking (as is the law with a vegetable); so if it was plucked before the fifteenth of Shevat, the laws of the previous year apply to it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Tosefta Rosh Hashanah 1:8; Tosefta Terumot 2:6 and the sources parallel to it. See the previous note.</i> In the Talmuds<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Tosefta Sheviit 4:20; Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 57a; Bavli Rosh Hashanah 14b. And there, there is someone who explains that Rabbi Akiva took this position in a different disagreement, the one taught in Bikkurim 2:6. And we will explain it when the time comes, if the One who grants man knowledge allows us to merit it.</i> a story is cited about Rabbi Akiva, who would act according to both the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and separated both tithes. This is an additional indication that the determination of the halakha according to Beit Hillel was not a comprehensive and uniform decision, but rather the outcome of a long process; whereas the results of each disagreement [were decided] individually.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Sifrai, \"The Decision is According to Beit Hillel.\" </i>",
+                    "The Talmuds explain why the month of Shevat was chosen: \"Most of the rain of the year as a whole have already gone out, and most of the season (i.e., winter) has already come\" (Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 57a).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Regarding the discussion of Tu Bishvat during the Talmudic period more generally, see Felix, <i>Tu Bishvat</i>.\"</i> It is true that the middle of the rainy season has already passed in Shevat - and even the middle of the winter season, according to the traditional division of the year into four seasons. Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why specifically the middle of the season was chosen, and not its beginning nor its end. This elucidation is repeated in the Bavli in a slightly different form: \"And most of the season  is yet to come\" (Rosh Hashanah 14b). The difference between the Talmuds  testifies to the difference in the division of the year in Babylonia as opposed to the Land of Israel. However, this does not explain the actual choice of this date as the new year for the trees. A different answer in the Yerushalmi is that, up until then, the fruit subsist from the rains of the previous year. This answer seems to only be poetic - the water in the ground dries up during the course of the summer, such that there is no significance at all to the month of Shevat [in this regard].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A responsum of a gaon (Otzar HaGaonim, Rosh Hashanah, p. 23) connects Tu Bishvat to the \"second coal\" of the water. According to this understanding, there are three groupings of rain showers during the season. The gaon testifies to such a phenomenon in Babylonia, and Felix testifies to the existence of its awareness among traditional Hebrew Arab peasants (Felix, <i>Tu Bishvat</i>, pp. 356-357).</i> ",
+                    "As we shall see later, the ancient division found in the Torah divided the year into six parts. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, enumerate the six different parts, such that Tu Bishvat is the end of the winter season.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Tosefta Taanit 1:7; Bavli Bava Metzia 106b; Bereishit Rabbah 34:11, p. 322.</i> Rabbi Shimon begins the count of the year from Tishrei, so then the end of the winter season is Rosh Chodesh (the first day of) Shevat. It is likely that the root of the difference between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai is to be found in this, such that we could denote the footprints here of the ancient division of the year. As we shall see later, Tu Bishvat lost its significance; and the division of the year into six parts likewise did not return. Instead, it was replaced by the year's division into four parts (see later). It is likely that these two processes were connected to one another: With the proliferation of the division of the year into four seasons, Tu Bishvat lost its status and, eventually, its halakhic significance as well.",
+                    "From an agricultural perspective, the month of Shevat is a 'dead' month. On account of the winter, most trees are still in a state of hibernation and only a few have begun to bloom. There is no realistic background to the modern folksong, \"Tu Bishvat has arrived, the holiday of the trees.\" The month of Shevat was not chosen because the blossoming [of trees] begins in it, but rather just the opposite - because it is the most distinct boundary between the years, the season of the yield has just ended and the season of blossoming has not yet begun. ",
+                    "In the Amoraic literature, there is also an opinion cited that the new year of the tree is [the same as] the general new year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Yerushalmi Sheviit 5:1 (35d); and see Felix, <i>Tu Bishvat</i>, pp. 377-378.</i> In the Yerushalmi, a late tradition is also brought down in the name of \"there they say,\" that designates the first of Tishrei as the new year for the trees. This expression (there they say) usually relates to the halakhah in Babylonia, however this law is not mentioned in the Bavli at all.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There is perhaps an echo of this opinion  in the Bavli, Rosh Hashanah 14b-15a, as Rabbah bar Rav Huna does indeed say that the new year of the <i>etrog</i> is in [Tishrei]. However the Gemara rejects this. See Felix, p. 103.</i> Moreover, from the discussion in the Yerushalmi, it appears that this law was known and practiced in the Land of Israel. [However,] it appears that, “there they say,” is only a term for the citation of a statement from the study hall of Caesarea (or from another study hall that was outside of the Galilee).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“There they say,” could also be the opening of passage from another discussion arranged [elsewhere].</i> Regardless, it stands to reason that the uniqueness of Tu Bishvat was lost with this.",
+                    "A series of lease contracts from the time of Bar Kokhva were found in the caves of the Judean Desert. In all of them, the timing of the lease was from the twentieth of Shevat until the sabbatical year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Letters of the Judean Desert</i> 24. This is a long document that includes copies of several contracts for the lease of grain fields which may have also had trees in them.</i> [Yet] the field worker finds himself in the middle of the season on the twentieth of Shevat. No one would plant a field, since the termination of his lease is on the nineteenth of Shevat. No one would lease a field on the twentieth of Shevat, since it is already too late to sow his field; whereas the management would take efforts not to lose a year of planting and would concern itself with leasing out the field before the planting season. [Hence] it is reasonable to assume that the contract signifies a long term lease, such that the twentieth of Shevat is the day of the lease contract’s renewal, something which was assumed by both sides from the start. The twentieth of Shevat was chosen because it was after Tu Bishvat. That being the case, both sides are giving notice that they are aware about the distribution of the tithes from the fruit, which is determined by the fruit being  picked before Tu Bishvat or after it.",
+                    "As mentioned, Tu Bishvat does not appear as a holiday during the Talmudic period; and even its uniqueness as a time for the designation of tithes was annulled. The first indication of this day's designation as a holiday is perhaps the Targum Sheni on Esther 2:7. According to the verse, Haman drew lots and chose the month of Adar. The midrash recounts that every month held a merit for the Jewish people; and the merit of the month of Shevat was its being the new year for the trees. The liturgical poets of the Land of Israel left us two poems for Tu Bishvat. However there is no evidence in them about holiday practices or any special commemoration of that day. The poet composed [his work] based upon the mishnah. The first hymn, \"Your utterance is truth in Your speaking,\" is attributed to Yehudah HaLevi [bar Hillel] (a liturgical poet of the Land of Israel whose time is uncertain), and is a hymn that enumerates the months and the constellations (starting, of course, from the month of Nissan). It is dedicated to the new year for the tree. But beyond that, there are no contents that are particular to this festive day. Even in the stanza that is dedicated to this month, no special note of the new year for the trees or of its significance is found.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Zulai, <i>The Liturgical Poems of the Land of Israel</i>, pp. 200-206.</i> The second liturgical poem, \"Adar, let flow the flows of salvation,\" written by the same poet, is also dedicated to the new year for the trees and includes prayers for the blossoming of various trees in alphabetical order. The choice of trees is based only upon the alphabet, such that it includes trees of secondary importance like the plane-tree (<i>dolev</i>) and the ricinus (<i>kikayon</i>). The whole thing appears to be a word game without any real agricultural grounding.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Zulai, pp. 206-212.</i> This being the case, the liturgical poems of the new year for the trees do not testify to festivities or special prayers on this day; and were supposed to develop exclusively from literary analysis of the mishnah.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So too should the liturgical poems about Tu BeAv be understood: They are not testimony to the continuation of the well known holiday from the Second Temple period, but rather a literary work based exclusively upon the mishnah; an incarnation of the literary tradition’s perpetuation and not a true holiday. And see our commentary on Mishnah Taanit 4 at the end.</i> In other liturgical poems enumerating the months of the year, the month of Shevat does not have any special character; and the new year for the trees does not appear as an event on the Jewish calendar. Accordingly, in one of the liturgical poems in the holiday prayer book (<i>machzor</i>) of the Land of Israel, for example, the months of Tevet and Shevat are mentioned without the designation of any significant event happening during those two months.<i class=\"footnote\">content</i> <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Yahalom, <i>The Holiday Prayer Book of the Land of Israel</i>, p. 48.</i> From here we see that in the days of the poet, Tu Bishvat had not yet turned into a festive day. The same is true of the liturgical poem made famous by Fleischer in which all of the events of each month are enumerated, and the month of Shevat is not mentioned at all.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Fleischer, <i>The Head of the New Months</i>, p. 54.</i> It can then be concluded that they did not commemorate Tu Bishvat in the Land of Israel at all, and that it only had minor significance in Babylonia.",
+                    "The oldest indication of Tu Bishvat’s designation as a festive day is a responsum of Rabbenu Gershom, light of the exile, who already mentions the day as one on which it is forbidden to fast.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Seder Troyes</i> 2. The attribution to Rabbenu Gershom is found in <i>Shu’t Maharam of Rothenburg</i> (Prague edition) 5, ff.</i> However its main importance today came about with the blossoming of the Kabbalah. As part of the renewal of their ties and attachment to the spiritual and actual Land of Israel, the Kabbalists turned it into a holiday.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Regarding this, see Halamish and Ravitsky, <i>The Land of Israel</i>.</i> From then on, this festive day is observed throughout Israel. In the communal consciousness, the holiday has become connected with the Land of Israel - as an expression of the longing for, and of the attachment to, the Land of Israel.",
+                    "In conclusion: The wording of our mishnah is a later one that tires to include all of the dates. The wording of the mishnah reads as if the law was agreed upon, even though almost all of its decisions are grounded in disagreements. It appears however, that what we have in front of us is a stylistically unique phenomenon reflecting a slightly different redaction than that which is common in the Mishnah. The first four mishnahs in the chapter deal with counts: Four new years, five time periods, six months, etc. For that reason, the Mishnah ignores the various disagreements, and even changes in the law like that which we saw with relation to Tu BiShevat. In any event, most of the laws are technical, and the possibility of two explanations only pertains to a few of them."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Appendix 1": [],
+        "Appendix 2": [],
+        "Bibliography": []
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה ראש השנה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "משנת ארץ ישראל על משנה ראש השנה",
+        "enTitle": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+        "key": "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "מבוא",
+                "enTitle": "Preface"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "נספח א",
+                "enTitle": "Appendix 1"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "נספח ב",
+                "enTitle": "Appendix 2"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "ביבליוגרפיה",
+                "enTitle": "Bibliography"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}